Fathoming the heights, ascending the depths - decoding the dogma within the enigma: the life, works, and speculative piety of Rabbi Moses Cordoeiro (Safed 1522-1570)

Citation preview

FATHOMING THE HEIGHTS, ASCENDING THE DEPTHS DECODING THE DOGMA WITHIN THE ENIGMA. THE LIFE, WORKS AND SPECULATIVE PIETY OF RABBI MOSES CORDOEIRO (SAFED 1522-1570) by Zohar Raviv A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Near Eastern Studies) in The University of Michigan 2007

Doctoral Committee: Associate Professor Elliot K. Ginsburg, Chair Professor Emeritus Joseph Ben-Shlomo (Deceased), Tel-Aviv University Professor Alexander Knysh Professor Ralph Williams

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

UMI N um ber: 3 2 7 9 2 0 7

INFORM ATION TO U S E R S

T h e quality o f th is reproduction is d e p e n d e n t upon th e quality o f th e cop y su b m itted . B roken or indistinct print, co lored or p oor quality illustrations and p h o to g ra p h s, print b leed -th rou gh , su b sta n d a rd m argins, and im proper a lig n m en t c a n a d v e r se ly a ffect reproduction. In th e unlikely e v e n t that th e author did not s e n d a c o m p le te m anuscript and th ere a re m issin g p a g e s , t h e s e will b e n oted . A lso , if unauthorized copyright m aterial had to b e re m o v e d , a n o te will in d icate th e deletion .

®

UMI UMI Microform 3 2 7 9 2 0 7 C opyright 2 0 0 7 by P r o Q u est Inform ation and Learning C om p an y. All rights r e se r v e d . T his m icroform edition is p ro tected a g a in st u nauthorized co p yin g u n d er Title 17, U nited S t a t e s C o d e.

P r o Q u e st Inform ation and L earning C o m p a n y 3 0 0 North Z e e b R oad P .O . B ox 1 3 4 6 A nn Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1 3 4 6

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

© Zohar Raviv All Rights Reserved 2007

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

ipm-miD nnm :r:n m ,omnia nin1? To my beloved parents, David Raviv and Dorit Moreh-Raviv

ii

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work would not have reached fruition without the support, assistance and guidance rendered by several people and departments, to whom I wish to express genuine gratitude. I am grateful to the department of Near Eastern Studies for its continued support and for its accommodation of my research needs. My sincere gratitude is also extended to the people of The Frankel Center for Judaic Studies, whose textual resources and financial aid proved indispensible. I wish to thank Dissertation Committee members Professors Alexander Knysh and Ralph Williams, who were willing to review this work prior to its completion and give instrumental guidance. Great appreciation is extended to committee member Professor Joseph ben-Shlomo of blessed memory, whose devoted tutelage during my research in Israel nurtured the initial backbone of this work. Professor ben-Shlomo regretfully passed away merely a week before the completion of this dissertation, and I pray that it reflects my deep respect to his scholarship and friendship. The librarians and archivists at the University of Michigan, Hebrew University (Jerusalem), the Jewish Theological Seminary (New York) and Trinity College (Dublin) were gracious and patient. I am in their debt for hours of helpful guidance, the preparation of manuscripts and the organization of research materials. I would like to extend special thanks to my dear friend and fellow graduate student Lindsay Ambridge, whose

encouragement,

editorial comments,

eloquence and

perseverance through numerous versions of this dissertation were truly inimitable. Last but definitely not least is my Committee Chair, mentor and dear friend, Professor Elliot. K. Ginsburg. Thank you, Elliot, for your inspiring scholarship, astute criticism and unwavering support. Thank you for the time you offered me and for your detailed comments on the earlier versions of this work. But most of all, thank you for opening a path of great learning, always graced with a smile. iii

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

PREFACE The study o f Jewish Mystical doctrines entices the intellectual imagination of laypersons and scholars alike and has evolved into an established scholarly discipline of complex correspondence with multiple academic arenas. Due to this broad spectrum of appeal and the initial uncertainty held by both popular and at times scholarly circles regarding its theoretical facade, the esoteric nature of mysticism often leads to preconceived notions of radical ambiguity. The subject matter thus demands a combination of rigorous intellectual treatment and contextualization along with pedagogical clarity to make such explorations accessible to broader audiences. The dissertation submitted here aims first and foremost to realize this objective. This work examines the manifold manners in which speculative and practical models inter-acted in the life, writings and thought of one of the most towering figures of pre-Modem Jewish Mysticism, Rabbi Moses ben Yaakov Cordoeiro (aka Cordovero [RaMaK], Safed, 1522-1570). RaMaK was not only a towering thinker and charismatic practitioner but also a figure whose life had unfolded at a dramatic spatiotemporal juncture. This historical ‘moment’ in the Safedian sphere had affected the Jewish mystical trajectory and reconfigured modem Jewish discourse in ways that cannot be denied. The 16th century post-Expulsion generations and the peak of Ottoman hegemony in the Near Eastern and Balkan spheres were only enhanced by the European Renaissance (especially its Italian form) and allowed in their wake demographical mutability and a splendidly multihued correspondence between classic philosophy and theistic theology; Christian Reformation and Muslim radical piety; ethical teleology and messianic eschatology; transnational universalism and national parochialism - many of which echo in RaMaK's deeply embroidered writings and result in an intriguing picture which may engage scholars across a wide range of research interests.

iv

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

This work has evolved with a few goals in mind: first, it offers a more precise biography of RaMaK, his family and overall community in order to both shed new light on certain biographical uncertainties and to correct some erroneous data that have infiltrated modem scholarship. Situating RaMaK within historical, geopolitical and social contexts and juxtaposing the extant documentation with the modem scholarly literature (especially since some of RaMaK's writings still remain either unpublished or understudied) afforded the opportunity to chart the multilayered evolution of RaMaK and his society during that transitory period of rapture and enthusiasm, known as the Safedian Renaissance. This dissertation therefore paves a supplementary path for scholarship interested not only in mystical speculation and devotion but also engaged with a variety of methodological fields, including anthropology, psychology, sociology, political theory, economics, feminist studies and gender relations, literary criticism and so forth. Second, this composition aims to broaden J. Ben-Shlomo’s important analysis of RaMaK's metaphysics (1965) and to deepen our appreciation of RaMaK's highly complex theoretical edifice - especially the relations between metaphysical and theosophical concerns. Our use of the term ‘metaphysics’ pertains to RaMaK's discussion of the divine nucleolus, the transcendent unified simplicity rendered EinSof in mystical discourse or Godhead in modem scholarship. The term ‘theosophy’ pertains to RaMaK's discussion of the Sefirot and their interactions with the Godhead, the cosmos and mankind. By investigating further the difficulties encountered in RaMaK's attempts to interweave Aristotelian metaphysics, Neoplatonic theosophy and Zoharic mythical renditions, this work explores and introduces two major elements in RaMaK's thought: the metatheosophical paradigm and the helix cosmological distortion. The metatheosophical paradigm pertains to RaMaK's abstract speculation and the necessary negotiation between the metaphysical properties of essence and essential attributes on the one hand and the theosophical Sefirotic domain on the other hand. As such, it features as the inconspicuously regulatory intermediary between metaphysics and theosophy - a view which arguably stands as the heart of RaMaK's efforts to constitute a theosophical dogma out of the metaphysical enigma. By extension, the helix coiling pertains to RaMaK’s cosmology, namely the existing realms below the theosophical edifice (y"’3 - from the lowest Sefirah Malkhut downward) and informs his devotional piety as the aspiration of v

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

their remedial uncoiling into harmonious and unperturbed utility. These constructions arguably feature a disciplined disambiguation without which RaMaK's oeuvre cannot be appreciated more fully. Last, by offering a broader phenomenological canvas as the backdrop to RaMaK's intellectual command, this monograph challenges the premature tendency to underplay the intricate affinities between RaMaK's theoretical aptitude and devotional slant. In that respect, this dissertation follows the lead of B. Sack’s stupendous articulation of RaMaK's devotional piety (1995 a) and attends to the intimate ethical and practical ramifications RaMaK's multifaceted theoretical system elicits. The fourth chapter, which is devoted to RaMaK's Sefer Gerushin, examines in depth a composition to which no serious attention had been hitherto given in scholarship and persuasively demonstrates the reciprocal codependence between conceptual acumen and practical competence in RaMaK's life and overall teaching. Woven into the dissertation as a whole is the desire to illuminate RaMaK's multiple, nuanced and often ingenious manipulations of the Hebrew language. This dissertation th|refore features numerous excerpts from RaMaK’s writings in their first English translation, and presents a sage who was wholly invested in Hebrew and indebted to its divine supremacy for epistemic clarity, hermeneutical fluidity and theurgic potency. RaMaK followed earlier Jewish mystical leads whose dramatic magnification of the traditional view of Hebrew as God’s Vernacular [WTTpn fltt’1?] had led to its use with staggering creativity. RaMaK adds his own keen philological sensitivity to the intense Abulafian, Zoharic and other mystical Hebrew manipulations, and the translations afforded here wish to expose this decisive element in his expressive ingenuity. Moreover, they aim to make his linguistic gymnastics vis-a-vis creative puns, philological rearrangements, etymological associations and phonetic affinities accessible to scholars not wholly conversant with its applications in pre-Modem Jewish traditional and mystical writings. Attempting to remain attentive to RaMaK's multifaceted depths of Hebrew connotation without resorting to cumbersome, even awkward, English was indeed vexing yet nonetheless worth the challenge. As D. Matt put it in the introduction to his new English annotated translation of the Zohar, “All translation is inherently inadequate, a vi

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

well-intentioned betrayal. In the words of the second century sage Rabbi Yehuda, ‘one who translates a verse literally is a liar; one who adds to it is a blasphemer’.” Indeed, the philological ingenuity and hermeneutical aerobics which dot RaMaK's writings prove time and again that one must remain alert in order to trail the mind of such an erudite scholar - especially when considering the multiple mediums which served mystics like him to negotiate the frequent disparity between experience and expression. RaMaK stands not only at the pinnacle of Jewish mystical speculation but is also the sort of complex personality whose intellectual, devotional, pedagogical and literary undertakings may cross scholastic boundaries and help to further illuminate a fascinating era in Near Eastern history as a whole. This dissertation therefore wishes to broaden the canvas of scholarly appreciation and to assist in raising some important questions for future scholarly discourse about this momentous Jewish figure. Considering the inverse relationship between RaMaK’s indispensability to systematic mystical inquiry and the contextualized attention given to his works in contemporary scholarship, this work - the first extensive monograph to see the light of day in English - truly aims to deepen our knowledge and appreciation of RaMaK, both as an individual and as part of a fascinating community, even region. Moreover, it hopes to elicit questions which may prove helpful to scholars from various disciplines and afford other venues to assess his contributions.

RaMaK in Scholarship: A Brief Overview E.R. Wolfson has noted that “The two most salient approaches to the academic study of Jewish Mysticism have been the scientific-historical and the theologicalphenomenological.”

The historical perspective, Wolfson adds, “Primarily concem[s]

itself with charting the evolution of Jewish Mysticism within a historical framework, [i.e.,] how Jewish mystics have had an impact on the intellectual, social and religious history of Jews over different periods of time” - and vice versa, one might add - whereas the phenomenological perspective “Seeks in the first instance to uncover the structures of

vii

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

religious experience that have informed the beliefs and practices enunciated in mystical texts”.1 RaMaK's enormous literary output combines theoretical depth, hermeneutical creativity and devotional ardor in a manner that mocks any attempt to investigate him from a single vantage point, be it historical or phenomenological. Despite the three substantive works on this man, to which we will attend shortly, RaMaK’s fuller colors are still shrouded by the relative obscurity enforced upon them since the emergence of Lurianic Kabbalah during the late 16th century. The noticeable Lurianic shift towards mythical configurations took a romantic hold in vast Jewish regions between the 17th-19th centuries and informed ever since a chiefly Lurianic trajectory of mystical speculation, literature and attention by later scholarship. It is ironic perhaps, yet the fact remains that much more has been written about the Lurianic giant who had hardly left any written legacy, whereas much less scholarly attention had been given to the Cordoeirian master whose prolific propensity is arguably unrivaled to this day. The evolution of scholarly occupation with RaMaK may be divided into a few approaches: first is the 19til century German cohort of Maskilim who pioneered the Wissenschaft des Judentums movement and for whom RaMaK had been a fascinating case study in negotiating their own admiration of rational thought with the dismissive predisposition to mysticism in all of its forms.2 This Jewish scholarship - led by such figures as Leopold Zunz, Abraham Geiger, Moritz Steinschneider, Heinrich Graetz and Ezriel Guentzig - viewed Jewish mysticism as ranging from a radically foreign expression to ‘mainstream’ Judaism to a phenomenon existing within the eccentric fringes of the Jewish experience:3 “[...] The enemy of Torah, [...] a futile belief which casts darkness upon the light of reason and common sense”.4 Such views contended that hardwired into the pre-Modem version of the Jewish mystical incident was a wide ranging post-traumatic response to the cataclysmic ruptures of the expulsions.5 It was a response which manifested in delusional mythical motifs and theosophical vocabularies which aimed to reconfigure traditional theistic discourse within a greater theological 1 Wolfson, E.R. in Frank, D.H and Leaman, O. (eds., 1997), pp.450-498. 2 See also in Tishbi, I. (1949), v o l.l, pp.28-29,43-51. 3 See Scholem, G. (1941), p .l; Schweid, E. (1983 - Eng. 1985), pp.6-7. 4 Guentzig, E. (1913), p. 16. 5 On this issue, see also Horwitz, R. in Grenville, J.A.S. (ed., 2000).

viii

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

design of redemption - one obviously rooted in political polemics and a much less romantic social strife. As E.R. Wolfson states, these scholars “Viewed the medieval philosophical sources as the apex of cultural creativity, whereas the mystical texts were derisively considered to be an affront to the reified ethical monotheism of Judaism”.6 As far as treating RaMaK, E. Guentzig arguably exemplifies such views in his 1913 melodramatic depiction,7 a sweeping narrative which has long since been shown to be based on erroneous foundations: groundless autobiographical statements regarding RaMaK's birth in Safed to a family who had long since lived in Israel; unsubstantiated claims about his alleged ordination by Rabbi Jacob Berav in 1538, or claims concerning RaMaK having been Isaac Luria’s student. Guentzig, in what may be rendered a typical ‘enlightened’ conceit, describes RaMaK as a man of “keen mind, sharp intellect and vast knowledge, who has nonetheless leaned towards delusions and daydreaming concerning lofty and concealed ‘wisdoms’ [.. .]”.8 Such views had taken a significant turn during the early 20

th

century: G.

Scholem’s path-breaking studies on Jewish mysticism not only ushered in the mystical phenomenon and offered it a sit within mainstream Jewish discourse, but also paved the road for later scholars by mapping a clearer picture of the expulsions and their impact on pre-Modem mystical doctrines.9 Scholem was also the first to organize, catalogue and briefly annotate some of RaMaK's manuscripts in Jerusalem.10 The earlier attention by Heinrich Graetz,11 H.E. Kaufman,12 and E. Guentzig13 was gradually complimented by scholars whose sympathy to RaMaK's system had been more genuine, albeit not always effective as far as depth of research and analytical rigor are concerned: S. Gelbhous,14 A. Ben-Yisrael,15 J. Becker,16 S. Schechter17 and S.A. Horodetzky are among the more visible. Horodetzky indeed furnished the first coherent scholarly attention to RaMaK’s 6 Wolfson, E.R. in ibid, pp.452-453. 7 Guentzig, ibid, p. 16. 8 Ibid, p. 17. 9 Schweid, E. (1983 - Eng. 1985). 10 See Scholem, G. (1930), No. 149, pp.295-301. 11 Divrei Yemei Yisrael (Heb. ed., 1976), Vol.7, p.219. 12 Kaufmann, H.E. (1898), vol. 5, pp.241-243, 273-277. 13 Guentzig, E. ibid, pp. 16-27. 14 Gelbhaus, S. (1917). 15 (1921), leaflets 32-34. 16 (1930), p p .141-149. 17 Schechter, S. (1908), pp.202-285. His attention to RaMaK spans four brief pages - 237-241.

ix

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

specific contributions to mystical speculation.18 His book is an anthology of RaMaK's accessible writings at the time, featuring a substantial introduction and a division into various thematic categories concerning by and large RaMaK's abstract metaphysics and theosophy. Albeit a commendable effort, it cannot count as a rigorous analysis of RaMaK's oeuvre since it avoids the considerable complexity of RaMaK's integration of speculation and devotion - elements which surfaces once RaMaK's unstudied works have also been investigated. Although Horodetzky laces his examination with sporadic quotes from such works as Or Ne ’erav, Seder Avodat Yom ha-Kippurim and Zivkhei Shelamim, his categorizations are almost exclusively based on three works, namely Pardes Rimonim, Shiur Qomah and the published parts of Eilima Rabbati. The second approach has evolved from G. Scholem’s towering scholarship and initiation of Kabbalistic doctrines into mainstream Jewish intellectual history. Regarding RaMaK, G. Scholem’s historical perspective, philosophical acumen and brief attendance to some of RaMaK's works19 resonated most tellingly in the seminal dissertation (and later book) of his student J. Ben-Shlomo, Torat ha-Elohut shel Rabbi Moshe Cordovero (1965). J. Ben-Shlomo furnished a succinct critique of the research leading to his time, all of which he deemed as either historically inaccurate or as lacking deeper understanding of RaMaK's unique system in Kabbalah. Guentzig’s work is rebuked as “Presenting the so-called ‘savant’ opinions regarding the value of Kabbalah, while practicing severely 90

erroneous judgments in the description of its evolution”,

whereas Ben-Yisrael’s work,

“Albeit demonstrating the author’s replacement of the scholarly dismissal of Kabbalah with a genuine enthusiasm for RaMaK's system, nevertheless lacks any attempt to chart 21 the originality of RaMaK's Kabbalah”. Ben-Shlomo continues to offer critique of Kaufmann, Becker,

99

Kahana and Gelbhous, especially regarding the latter two and their 9T oversimplified juxtapositions of RaMaK’s system with Spinoza’s natural Pantheism. As for Horodetzky, J. Ben-Shlomo criticized his book not only for avoiding RaMaK's unique

contributions to mystical speculation, but also for neglecting to tease apart the intricate

18 Horodetzky, S.A. (1924, Heb. 1951). 19 See (1924); (1930), No.149, pp.295-301 and Nos.34-40; (1932), pp.168-172; (1943), pp.251-255. 20 Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), p.14. 21 Ibid, p .15. 22 Becker, Y. (1930). 23 Ibid, p p .18-19. X

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

relationships between the works which Horodetzky had indeed investigated, especially Pardes Rimonim and the published parts of Eilima Rabbati,

24

J. Ben-Shlomo - who also contributed the entry Moses Cordovero to G. Scholem’s “Kabbalah” in Encyclopaedia Judaica25 - attended in his book primarily to RaMaK’s metaphysical and theosophical speculation. Although his work also suffers noticeably from little exposure to RaMaK's unpublished writings, Ben-Shlomo not only paved the way for any meaningful engagement with RaMaK's metaphysics but has also articulated some of its most arresting perplexities and inconsistencies. His work is the first substantial attempt to articulate RaMaK's system in conjunction with Aristotelian, Neoplatonic and Gnostic schools, as well as to establish its decisive role in the evolution of later kabbalistic doctrines. The third approach is Moshe Idel’s camp, whose main impetus has been the exposure of the more intimate aspects of mystical experiences and their direct impact on the practical meaning behind kabbalistic doctrines. This approach aimed to balance Scholem’s historical, philosophical and messianic slant by illuminating the roles individual aspirations and ascetic piety had had in the phenomenology of mystical life. It is also identifiable for its emphases on devotional mystical expressions and their relations with non-Jewish spheres of influence, such as Sufism, Christian mysticism, Gnosis etc. The past two decades have seen the evolution of a dialectic discourse between Scholem’s and Idel’s schools, both being instrumental to unpack intriguing subtleties found in the Jewish pre-Modem mystical sphere and in Safed as well. This scholarship has tackled RaMaK's works from multiple angles, and by doing so allowed his versatility and influence an appropriate additional depth.26

24 Ibid, pp. 19-21. 25 (1974), vol. 5, cols. 967-970, pp.401-404. 26 Such works - not including the two substantial works on RamaK; Ben-Shlomo, J. 1965 and Sack, B. 1995 a - include attention in Kahana, D. (1897); Wolfson, H.A. (1934),; Vajda G. (1962); Tishbi, I. (1964); ibid, (1993); Wienschtok, Y. (1971); Ben-Shlomo, J. (1976); David, A. (1991 b); Robinson, I. (1990); ibid, (1994), Goetschel R. in Ben-Ami, I. (ed., 1982); Schatz-Uffenheimer, R. (1983), Davidson, H. in Cooperman, B.D. (ed., 1983); Sed, N. (1984); Feinberg, C. (1986); Dan, J. (1986); ibid (ed., 2002); Sack, B. in Twersky, I., and Septimus, B. (eds., 1987), Fenton, P.B. (1984 b); ibid, (1995); ibid, in ibid and Goetschel, R. (eds., 2000); Elior, R. (1992); Frieman, Y. (1993 - M.A Thesis)-, Hacker, J. (2000); ibid, in Fine, L. (ed., 2001); Jacobson, Y. (1984); Fine, L. (trans., 1984); ibid, (2003); Idel, M. (1985 a); ibid, (1985 b); ibid, (1988 b); ibid, (1992 a); ibid, (2000); Garb, J. (1999); ibid, (2005); Werblowsky, R.J.Z. in Green, A. (ed., 1987); Bland, K.P. (1975); ibid, in Collins, J. and Fishbane, M. (eds., 1995); Tamar, D. (2002); Maier, J. (2001); Heller, M.J. (2001).

xi

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

That in mind, much of the scholarship around RaMaK still lacks the context needed to properly disambiguate his works. Werblowsky’s somewhat dogmatic dichotomy between the Cordoeirian and Lurianic systems in Kabbalah is a good example to why further subtlety is required in appreciating RaMaK's versatility: [...] There seems to be a difference between theological systems whose structure is essentially messianic [e.g., Lurianism], and those which, as philosophic-mystic systems, are outwardly and even structurally nonmessianic [e.g., Moses Cordovero and his school] - though from biographical and other sources, including our knowledge of their liturgical practices, we can deduce that the motivation and emotional driving force were thoroughly messianic. [...] The theoretical and systematic writings of Cordovero and Alkabetz betray little messianic tension. Yet the life of these brotherhoods was centered not only on the reception of heavenly graces, but also on ‘raising the Shekhinah from the dust’, that is, contributing to the redemptive union of the Sefirot and thereby to hastening the advent of the Messiah.27 Attending to RaMaK’s system arguably reveals neither clear divisions between speculation and mythical configuration nor his aim to exercise such divisions in the first place: RaMaK's works are neither simply “Philosophic-mystic systems, outwardly and even structurally non-messianic”,

nor does his speculative system “Aim first and

foremost to attenuate the mythical foundations of Kabbalah.”29 Such claims downplay his professed messianic fervor,30 reliance on Zoharic formulations, literal understanding of mythical imageries and acute adherence to corporeal vitality - all of which surface quite evidently in his compositions and integrate into his more abstract speculation. Moreover, attention should be given to fluctuations in RaMaK's own eloquence, therefore permitting his maneuvers between abstract metaphysics and mythical vocabularies greater fluidity, even inconsistency at times.

27 Werblowsky, R.J.Z. in Green, A. (ed., 1987), p .8. 28 Werblowsky, R.J.Z. ibid, p. 13; W erblowsky him self continues to state that “From biographical and other sources, including our knowledge o f their [i.e., Cordovero and Luria] liturgical practices, we can deduce that the motivation and emotional driving force were thoroughly messianic”. 29 Jacobson, Y. (1984), p.20. 30 See B. Sack’s important discussion on this matter in 1995 a, pp.230-248 and 269-278.

xii

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

L.E. Goodman’s words in Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought serve well in accentuating the arguably superfluous divisions imposed at times by scholarship in such areas that should defy dogmatic arrangements:

Modem historians of ideas, who write of medieval philosophy as though it were a battleground between reason and revelation, are projecting their own unease about the sacred and the secular, the ancient and the modem [...] onto domain where such a conflict does not enter the terms of reference. Scholars play this game [...] only by refusing to allow the philosophic texts to speak for themselves and define their own concerns. For the primary food for any philosophy is the corpus of texts bearing the critical thinking of past generations; and the primary test of the scholarship that profits from those texts is its willingness to allow them to thematize themselves.31 Although L.E. Goldman’s suggestion seems easier said than done, B. Sack’s biShe’arei ha-Kabbalah shel Rabbi Moshe Cordovero (1995 a) may indeed count as an attempt to allow RaMaK's works the greater nuance they deserve - albeit her studies also demonstrate a certain predisposition. Being the last substantial work on RaMaK, Sack’s studious work quite tellingly supplements Ben-Shlomo’s metaphysical slant and affords the necessary balance to understand RaMaK's devotional piety, messianic ardor and mythical imagery. Her impressive undertaking - an elaborated rendition of some fourteen previously published essays by this foremost Cordoeirian authority - features an extensive study of RaMaK's compositions, quite a few of which still in unpublished form. It is a momentous input to our knowledge of RaMaK's most voluminous work, Or Yaqar; an important exposure of two hitherto unpublished parts of Shiur Qomah; and a valuable contextualization of RaMaK's works within historical, rabbinic and phenomenological backdrops.32 In her brief criticism of Ben-Shlomo’s earlier book, Sack maintains that “By relying primarily on particular Cordoverian writings, [his work] does not reflect RaMaK's Kabbalah in its entirety and does not present it in its fuller colors and dimensions”.33 Although Ben-Shlomo’s own acknowledgement of the limited scope of his research

31 Goodman, L. E. (ed., 1992), pp.3-4. 32 For a good preliminary review o f this work, see Huss, B. (1998), pp.310-313. 33 (1995 a), p.30.

xiii

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

might have willingly expected such a critique,34 bi-She ’arei ha-Kabbalah is nevertheless a commendable work insofar as establishing the need to enter RaMaK's oeuvre from a broader standpoint and to disambiguate the deeper mythical tendencies which she rightfully renders lacking in previous scholarship. B. Sack does so by deciphering RaMaK's writings in conjunction with earlier mystical works, investigating unpublished documentation and demonstrating his vast influence on later kabbalists. Her conclusion maintains that

The study of all of Cordovero’s writings reveals that his mythical perception of Kabbalah is dominant. Even when the questions he poses are speculative, the answers he gives to them are of a realist mythical nature. The examination of the great questions of reality did not belittle the richness of his mystical experience nor reduce his visual perception. Cordovero experienced the intensive life of a kabbalist who is engaged in kabbalistic ritual, searching for ways to influence the upper realms and draw down their effluence, and seeking with all his might to identify with his spiritual protagonists in the framework of a strong messianic feeling. -5 c

B. Sack’s particular standpoint renders necessary its juxtaposition with BenShlomo’s for a serious understanding of RaMaK's impressive aptitude in both the mythical and the theoretical domains. Sack avoids RaMaK's speculative slant altogether, affording instead painstaking details to portray him as a kabbalist who leaned toward mythical configurations and was lured by both the practical-theurgic Kabbalah of the Zohar and the ecstatic Kabbalah of Abulafia.36 This is understandable, given that her professed approach to RaMaK has always aimed to counterbalance his depiction as “A speculative-kabbalist” or “A mystic-philosopher” by such scholars as Scholem or BenShlomo.37 The reality wherein some of RaMaK's compositions still remain unpublished and relatively understudied is only accentuated by the fact that neither J. Ben-Shlomo nor B. Sack saw their important works translated into English. This is obviously a further difficulty in introducing RaMaK to a larger milieu, be it scholarly or popular. This

34 See Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp.23-29, 31-36, 38-39. 35 (1995 a), p.30 - translation by B. Huss, 1998, p.312. 36 Ibid, p.31. See also Idel, M. (1985 a), p p .117-120. 37 1995 a, p.30, fc.126.

xiv

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

dissertation hopes to be the first to put a dent in this undesirable status by affording wider audiences with meaningful paths to RaMaK's thought and practice. As for RaMaK's compositions themselves, four English translations of his Tomer Devorah and Or Ne'erav do exist: Tomer Devorah by L. Jacobs,38 R. ben Zion39 and M. Miller,40 and an annotated translation of Or Ne'erav by I. Robinson’s, which also features a concise introduction, a bibliographical reference and a helpful index41 A quite visible addition to the religious treatment of RaMaK's works is the tenvolume anthology of Rabbi Nathan Koenig [V337p], titled Torat Natan, and the few anthologies edited by Rabbi Samuel Isaac Ha-Cohen Yudaikin. The latter include Or laYesharim, ve-Amkha Kulam Tzadikim, Havivah Oraita Kami de-Kaba”h, Shomer haPardes, D a ‘ et Elohei Avikha, Galut ha-Shekhinah, Mesilot Teshuvah and Shivhei Rashbi42 These works were all published in the past two decades and circulate quite visibly in religious and Judaica bookstores in Israel and abroad. As a whole, they testify to a resurgence of religious popular interest in this mystical giant and to a need for the organization, clarification and further accessibility to his enormous conceptual and devotional outpouring.

Note on Orthography

N- a , ’

*7-1

3-b,bbt

n-

3-V

]-n

*-g

o- s

7- d

V -'

n-h

9 -p

1- v

s-f

T— Z

X - tz

m

38 (trans., 1960), The Palm Tree o f Deborah, Vallentine, M itchell & Co., London. 39 (ed., 1981), Anthology of Jewish Mysticism, Judaica Press, New York. 40 (trans., 1993), Tomer Devorah - The Palm Tree of Deborah, Feldheim, New York. 41 (trans., 1994), M oses Cordovero’s Introduction to Kabbalah: an Annotated Translation of His Or Ne'erav, KTAV Publishing House, New Jersey. 42 Please refer to the bibliography for full citations. XV

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

n -h

p - k , q, c j

o -t

"i - r tt>-sh to - s

D- k h

n-t

f Certain Hebrew nouns frequently used in English are spelled in accord with common English usage, most notably, Kabbalah (nbap). J Whereas the letter p usually transliterates as k, a few variants occur in this dissertation in order to accommodate conventions in previous scholarship - as in ip ’ tin and n y ’to Hftlp which usually transliterate as Or Yaqar and Shiur Qomah. Similarly, the name r a m p usually features a C (Cordovero), whereas the acronym RaMaK ( 'r a m p r a a m p'P l / - Rabbi Moshe Cordovero) features a K in order to avoid an awkward C at the end. Although other spellings exist in scholarship, I have decided to maintain these conventions for consistency and fluidity.

Hebrew definite articles and conjunctions (nymn NH, TQ’nn n etc’) were transliterated with lower-case and distinguished by a dash prior to the word itself, e.g., ITOpn = haKabbalah; n r a m = veha-Shalom; vnrmpm = u-Mekorotav etc’.

Asterisks [*] were introduced in translated materials either to present certain modifications to an existing translation or to point to more than one way by which certain words or terms may be read. The Asterisks are complemented by a footnote for further clarification.

xvi

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

iii

PREFACE

iv

RaMaK in Scholarship: A Brief Overview Note on Orthography

vii xv

Chapter 1: IN SEARCH OF MOSES CORDOEIRO

1

From Historical Expulsion to Meta-Historical Exodus Safed: Life amidst Clouds R. Moses Cordoeiro (1522-1570): A Necessarily Incomplete Biography RaMaK’s Portuguese Affiliations Between Halakhic Convention and Mystical Insurrection RaMaK’s Alleged Ordination Concrete Anonymity is Spiritual Splendor: the Dialectics of Opposing Hierarchies

1 10 29 37 39 54

Chapter 2: THE CORDOEIRO FAMILY

83

M rs.

Cordoeiro (c. 1528 - c. 1589) Safedian Women RaMaK’s Wife: Another Necessarily Incomplete Biography The Cordoeiros: Marriage, Family and Conjugal Rights Gedaliah ben Moshe Cordoeiro Part I: From Safed to Italy Digression: Between RaMaK and Isaac Luria Part II: From Italy to Jerusalem

83 84 97 99 115 115 120 133

Chapter 3: RAMAK’S WRITINGS

138

“In the Name o f . RaMaK’s Conceptual Skeleton: A Preliminary Treatment Between System and Cohesion Between Metaphysical Freedom and Theosophical Compulsion God’s Revelatory Regulation: The Concealed is Revealed Only Through Concealment

138 149 149 156

xvii

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

64

161

The Fall of Man and God’s Regulatory Response Negative Actuality Arouses Potentiality (-A = P) Emet (Truth) is God’s DNA in Language Compositions Pardes Rimonim Or Yaqar Shiur Qomah Eilima Rabbati Thematic Layout The Unpublished Einot Tomer Devorah Or Ne 'erav A Hand Prematurely Blocked: Additional and Unfinished Works

166 172 179 199 199 206 213 217 221 224 227 237 240

Chapter 4: SEFER GERUSHIN

244

What Were the “Gerushin”? Mission: Search and Rescue. Target: The Shekhinah Sefer Gerushin: Introduction On Love and Responsibility From Diary to Composition RaMaK’s Evolving Prominence Sefer Gerushin: General Layout Digression: Lekhah Dodi and the Gerushin The Seven Steps of Gerushin Between Asceticism and Ecstasy Hitbodedut: The Symphony of Amplified Silences Intuitive Knowledge, Automatic Speech and Guided Writing Accessing the Axis Mundi: Prostration and Souls of Tannaitic Sages Axis Spiritualis: Geography as the Negotiator of Theosophy and Anthropography Conclusion

244 256 270 278 284 287 288 291 296 302 319 326 339

Chapter 5: THE TANGO OF THE TANGLED - RAMAK’S METAPHYSICAL COSMOLOGY Watch Your Head The Show of Nothing: Black Holes, Big Bang and the Unified Metaphysical Imperative RaMaK’s Black (W)hole and Big Bang The Godhead The Essential Attributes: A Ring of “Flickering Transparencies” The Ring and the Principles of Unfolding Reality Keter as Lord of the Ring: Negotiating Zero as One Ad Infinitum The Metatheosophical Paradigm and Keter asFirst Metatheosophy The Realizing Godhead and Metatheosophy xviii

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

358 364

366 369 399 409 414 424 426 433 440 448

Second Metatheosophy: Keter, Hokhmah and Binah Metatheosophy and the Theosophical Principles The Sefirot - Theosophy as Actual Actuality Princess Malkhut: Last Among the First - the First Who Must Last In Closing

453 457 464 472 476

BIBLIOGRAPHY

478

xix

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Chapter 1 IN SEARCH OF MOSES CORDOEIRO And in Bereshit Rabbah 7[d] the sages said ‘“and all the winged birds’” [Gen. 1:21] - that is the peacock’. This hints to the eminence of the saintly sage, our master and teacher Rabbi Moses Cordovero, may his memory be blessed, who lived in those days and was head to all sages of Kabbalah in Safed [...]. Just as the peacock is adorned with tall, crown­ like feathers on its head, so is this parable to point at his supremacy over all sages. Additionally, this bird’s tail feathers are exceptionally long, and once raised they form a complete circle full of eyes - one eye to each feather: this hints to his additional position as Head of Yeshiva, surrounded by many savant students of Talmud and Kabbalah, wherein he is head and eyes to all. And the Holy tongue renders this bird riD n [ = ’ D in ], reading ‘ivory, apes and peacocks’ [ □ ’ ’D in ] 1 and ‘they follow [ID n ] in your steps’,2 to point to the humility of this sagacious and saintly Kabbalist. [.,.]. He is a shepherd - since his name, Moses, points to this vocation, for it is known that Moshe Rabbeinu used to lead the flock of his father-in-law in the desert, [...]- so was Cordovero ‘a keeper of the holy flock’.3 Rabbi Mordechai Dato, Igeret ha-Levanon

From Historical Expulsions to Meta-Historical Exodus The Jewish annals have known quite a few mystics whose charismatic leadership and spirited teachings had informed, even transformed, its conceptual evolution and devotional trajectory. This reality was all the more true in the Palestinian theatre titled mid 16th century Safed - an era of rapture and zeal, and an arena whose luring geographical backdrop had sustained a fierce theological drama, congregating a substantial cohort of halakhic and mystical actors ranking among the boldest and most influential in the annals of Jewish religious history. This rarely seen amalgamation of spiritual radiance, erudition in the classics and innovation in the esoteric is a necessary step for any serious encounter with the Jewish mystical phenomenon to claim maturity. The turn of the 16th century was a transformative era in Christian Europe, the Muslim Balkans, the Near-East and North-Africa, affecting in turn the lives of the Jews occupying these theatres. The European sphere had been stirred by evolving theological raptures, humanistic tendencies, apocalyptic expectations and a cultural renaissance - the latter having predated the 16th century by some 150 years under the innovative reign of the Medici dynasty in Florence.4 The ensuing decades witnessed a Europe whose

1 2 Chronicles 9:21. 2 Deuteronomy 33:3. 3 See Ezekiel 36:38 and Z o h a r 2:21a. 4 See Strathem, P. (2003).

1

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Catholic dominion had been steadily eroding with the advance of Lutheran Protestantism and the stubborn separatism of Henry VIII Anglican Church on the one hand,5 and a culture which had experienced “A surge of interest in both mysticism and messianism”6 on the other hand.7 The culmination of Jewish predicaments toward the turn of the 16th century was indeed propelled by such inward tensions whose offshoots featured in certain 8

*

regions the subsoil for Christian exclusivism and outward intolerance. The persecutions, inquisitions and ultimate expulsions of Jews from the Iberian Peninsula in 1492 and 1497 thus corresponded with both a Christian millenarian thought in anticipation of an impending apocalypse in 15009 and the exposed nerves of the religious and sociopolitical climates in Europe.10 We shall attend to the 16th century Safedian giant Moses Cordoeiro (RaMaK, 15221570) shortly, for at this preliminary stage a broader view of the world to which he was bom proves apt. RaMaK's year of birth (1522, location unknown) had also witnessed Martin Luther’s initiatory introduction of the Holy Scriptures to the Christian masses as a means to shatter the dominion of the literate Catholic clergy and establish popular accessibility to these foundational writings: the revolutionary translation of the New Testament from Greek into idiomatic contemporary spoken German.11 In parallel, the European religious culture had witnessed ‘an invasion of the mystics’ not only within the Christian milieu but also within the Jewish sphere - a development wherein each doctrine had had its share of influence on the other.

19

As M. Idel noted, “We may quite rightly

evoke the contribution of the Jewish Kabbalah to the European intellectual culture, on the one hand, and the return of some conversos to Judaism and their possible influence on Jewish mysticism - for example, Solomon Molcho or rabbi Jacob Hayim Tzemah - on the other hand”.13 Indeed, the lives and works of such Jewish figures as Solomon Molcho

5 See Barzun, J. (2000). 6 Idel, M. (1998 b ),p .l5 4 . 7 See also Biale, D.J. in Szarmach, P.E. (ed., 1964). 8 See also David, A. (1980). 9 Idel, M. (1998 b), p.157. 10 See Baer, Y. (1949). 11 Published September 21st 1522 it has become to be known as the September Testament. See, e.g., Eliade, M. (1985), vol.3, pp.236-241; de Hamel, C. (2001). 12 Idel, M. (1998 b), p .154. On the role o f the Zohar in Judeo-Christian relations, see Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, pp.27, 33-38. 13 Idel, M. (1998 b), ibid.

2

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

(previously called Diego Pirres) or his teacher David Reuveni - men who not only emerged from the depths of Christian religious politics but also embodied eccentric, messianic and romantically charismatic leadership to many of their Jewish brethren - had a noticeable role in shaping Jewish theological imagination duing that turbulent era.14 The multiple gravitational pulls which reshaped the European Christian sphere were only enhanced by a much broader shift which engulfed the European Northeastern fringes, the Balkan sphere, the Near-East and North-Africa: the emergence of the Muslim Ottoman Empire whose gradual ascent to prominence peaked upon seizing vast lands from previous Mamluk control in 1517 and upon establishing a relatively efficient government while the Christian theatre was still attempting to reassess its rapidly changing religious and political climates. A juxtaposition of the Christian and Muslim arenas serves to address the evolving Jewish drama during this transformative era, especially when considering the theological Jewish narrative in which ‘gentile giants’ had always played a supporting role in history to further establish the exclusive relationship between God and His undersized yet specially beloved protagonist.15 The overwhelming predicament - continuously deteriorating relations between Jews and Christians in the Iberian-peninsula, and the 1391 mass persecutions which had culminated in the 1492 Spanish expulsion and the 1497 Portuguese forcible conversion into Christianity - had transformed both Jewish demography and religious ideology. They served as a catalyst to negotiate the affinities of Jews with both the Christian and Muslim worlds and reestablishing in the Jewish imagination the exclusive Israelite standing in a historical scheme governed by divinity.16 But relocation of entire Jewish centers to more hospitable Ottoman lands did not necessarily mean an end to Jewish presence and creativity under Christian rule, as seen e.g., in the continueous Jewish life in Italy or in Amsterdam.

In

Sixteenth century Italy had experienced an increase of Jewish activity18 alongside the

14 On these two figures and their roles in negotiating Christian theology and politics with messianic aspirations, see Marcus, J.R. (rev. ed., 1999), chapter 51, pp.283-288 and his references; Aescoli, A.Z. (ed., 1993); Benayahu, M. (1995 a). 15 See also inT ishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, pp.25, 27, 33-38; Schwartz, D. (1997). 16 See e.g., in Hacker, J. (1976). 17 On the Judeo-Christian relations in 16th century Italy, see Idel, M. (1998 b), chapter 5; ibid (1986); David, A. (1980). On Amsterdam, see e.g., Emmanuel, Y. (1962). 18 See, e.g., Stow, K.R. (1997); Idel, M. in Ruderman D.B. and Veltri, G. (eds., 2004).

3

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

revived settlements in North Africa and the Near East,19 whereas numerous new communities established and expended their impact in the relatively tolerant and vigorously spreading Ottoman Empire - all of which contributed to an intricate web of associations between different communities in Europe, the Balkans, Turkey, Palestine, Syria, the Arabian Peninsula and North-Africa.

9f)

Ideological motivations had led certain clusters of immigrants to settle in Safed, Tiberias, Jerusalem, Hebron and other areas in the Palestinian region even prior to the Ottoman’s ascent to power.21 Nevertheless, the Ottomans’ role in transforming Jewish historiosophy is well noted: the Empire’s expansion squeezed out a certain bitterness of these exilic predicaments and left a redemptive yoke in popular Jewish imagination. Many Jews now heard divinity speaking through history; a God who was now about to reify His covenant with the Israelites and steer the wheels of history toward a second rendezvous with His chosen people. The disillusionment in the wake of the expulsions and the overwhelming weakening of the Jewish milieu in form of mass-conversions and persecutions were met by a projected catharsis of perceptible intensity, “[...] The beginnings of the ‘travail of the Messiah’ - the beginning of those disasters and frightful •

•

') ')

afflictions which would terminate history and usher in the redemption”.

•

•

Withm a

historical context now seen as maneuvered by the premeditated and overarching authorship of theological teleology, the Jewish narrative was a “Strategy [which] enabled to salvage sense from suffering”23; a continuum fraught with banishments and afflictions whose chief backbone was the wavy dialectic negotiations between historical despair and meta-historical exultation. The favorable shifts in the geopolitical sphere vis-a-vis the Ottoman acceptance of Jews en mass were thus deemed another signpost in a Jewish theological teleology, events that mocked coincidence and whose depth of historical

19 See Gaon, M.D. (1927-1937, revs. 2000); Gerber, H. (1983 a); ibid (1983 b); Tamar, D. (1981); Beinart, H. (1964); Zion, Z. (ed., 2005). 20 Hacker, J. in Twersky, I. & Septimus, B. (eds., 1987); Dan, J. (ed. 2002), p.31; W erblowsky in Green, A. (ed., 1987), p p .10-13; Fine, L. (trans., 1984), introduction; Litman, M. (1981); Winter, M. (1997); Bentov, H. (1992); Korkos, D. (1966); Beinart, H. (1964); Hallamish, M. (2001); Benayahu, M. (1962 a); ibid (1995 c); Baruchson, Z. (1986); Gries, Z. (1992); ibid, (1994); Litman, M. (1981); Kopfher, A. (1976); Karpi, D. (1975); Shohat, A. (1971-1978). 21 See Benayahu, M. (1953); Hacker, J. (1974); Louis, B. (1956); Schur, N. (1981); Schechter, S.Z. (1908), pp.6-42, 196-200; Narkis, M. (1953). 22 Scholem, G. (1971), p.41. See also Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, pp.25-26. 23 Matt, D.C. (1996), p.30.

4

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

despondency was ipso facto a precursor towards a tremendous covenantal release in Jewish imaginative discourse - leading to what has been called “The triumph of the metaphysical over the political” by A.M.

Eisen24 and “A historico-spiritual

transformation” by I. Tishby.25 Starting with Sultan Bayazid II (1481-1512) and culminating after its 1517 acquisition of lands from the Mamluks to the East and the South, the nascent Ottoman Empire was gradually viewed by Jews as a decisive pawn in service of God’s redemptive plan. It became a foreign rule whose leaders were deemed ‘kings of grace’ [70n ’D'Ptt],26 those whose stretched arms not only allowed for the gathering of Jewish communities hitherto dispersed for over a millennium, but also orchestrated the geography of redemption by mobilizing Jews ever closer to the Homeland. “The majority of sages who 97 arrive in Egypt do so as a temporary means to reach the Land of Israel”, wrote the postexilic Rabbi David ben Zimra in his Responsa - a view which was realized in his life and the lives of such contemporary scholars as Jacob Birav I, Abraham ben Eliezer, Joseph Saragossi, Hayim Vital, Isaac Luria, RaMaK himself and many others throughout the Ottoman lands.28 The theological lens which informed the Jewish take on the Ottoman role had little to do with the pragmatic rationale behind the relative tolerance of the Ottoman regime itself towards Jews: “Can you call such a king wise and intelligent?” Sultan Bayazid II supposedly rebuked his Spanish contemporary King Ferdinand in the wake of the expulsions; “he is impoverishing his country and enriching my kingdom”.29 These alleged sentiments, whose calculated tone seems quite evident, were configured in Jewish discourse upon establishing prominent Jewish centers in regions within the Empire, such as Istanbul, Salonika, Adrianapolis, Nikopolis, Damascus, Cairo and the Palestinian vicinity. The Ottoman’s real politique continued to nurture the internal Jewish saga of a greater drama authored by God, as it steadily empowered the communal momentum 24 Eisen, A.M. (1986), p.52. 25 Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, p.25. 26 See in Winter, M. (1997) - quote taken from p.31. 27 Shu”t ha-RaDBaZ (W arsaw 1882), note 1165; cf: David, A. (1991 d), pp.1-37. 28 David, A. ibid, p.2 and fns. 7-13. 29 As already noted by L. Fine, this report is attributed to Bayazid’s courtiers by Elijah Caspali, as found in Shmuelevitz, A. (1975). Emmanuel Aboab ascribed it to Bayazid him self in his Nomologia a Discursos Legales Compuestos (Amsterdam 1965), p. 195 - see Fine, L. (trans., 1984), p .l and fn.l.

5

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

indispensable for Jewish emancipation and inadvertently pointed a nation to its geographical epicenter, Israel. The following words by the 16th century historian Rabbi Elijah Caspali serve to capture the mood these events had evoked in the Jewish mindset, as they echo the prophetic reassurance found in Jeremiah 32:37 and 42 respectively (“See, I will gather them from all the lands to which I have banished them in My anger and wrath, and in great rage; and I will bring them back to this place and let them dwell secure [...]. For thus said the Lord: As I have brought this terrible disaster upon this people, so I am going to bring upon them the vast good fortune which I have promised for them”):

□ n ’m D’nrrb n s o iba rmw nwx nvnn ba nx naann iba o T ’a icbw ytwn ban bip aasn Taaba dwjn nbun arrby try onm ,arrb;n nab rraa awpaa □hin’n nx ninth r,mniy ibtmaa tnx a w w n n’n1Tibnb -m b anaaa am imaba .[...] mab int nnx ,p rw y xb awxi .ms1 anD anon aibap1 abia pa ,a^mbt nwvb ib’Tun rx .amx p x n xbam a’Tin’n w n^ ia maam a^bx naamna ixinn a^n iattn amai^ p tsb [...] noan nx una apm nsoa pxb niptx nnamn mb’np .abia^b The Ottoman Sultan Bayazit heard of all the predicaments which had befallen the Jews by the Spanish King, and of their plight for safe haven. And he cast his compassionate eye upon them and sent forth both messengers and a written decree, commanding all his governors to cordially accept the Jews and forbidding further banishments under the pain of death.30 And thousands upon thousands of the exiled settled in the T1 Ottoman provinces and the land was filled with them, whereupon they took measures beyond measure to collect Tzedakot to redeem their imprisoned brethrens - and the children returned to their country32.33 •

Without overlooking the evident significance of 16th century Italian Jewry,34 the Ottoman sphere had become the new host for Jewish creativity and mass presence. The demographic center contoured around West Anatolia and the Balkan regions, which featured alongside tens o f smaller cities35 the two most prominent Jewish communities of

30 See Esther 4:11. 31 See Exodus 1:7. 32 See Jeremiah 31:16,17: “[...] They shall return from the enemy’s land [...]; the children will return to their country”. 33 Burstein, L. (1974 b), p.224; cf: Yohas, E. (ed. 1989), p.19. 34 See Tamar, D. (1970); David, A. (1986). 35 See Epstein, M.A. (1980); Bomstein, L. (1974 a).

6

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

the nascent Empire: Istanbul, whose position as the Empire’s political capital only added to its clout in the social, economic and religious Jewish spheres; and Salonika, best known for its highly suggestive titles ‘little Jerusalem’ or ‘Jerusalem of the Balkan’.36 These centers quite rapidly evolved into a conglomeration of native Jews and newcomers whose relationships had reshaped the sociopolitical and religious discourse of the Jewish milieu.37 The local residents gave way to the growing presence of Spanish and Portuguese exiles, as well as to returning Conversos or Ashkenazi Jews who ventured from Italy and other areas in Central and Northern Europe.

38

These qualities established these centers as paramount in the sustenance of Jewish life nationwide, featuring a hub for institutional learning, economic activities and political associations with the Ottoman governing bodies - all of which assisted in their aptitude to nurture a shaken Jewish milieu in need of spiritual guidance, religious leadership, political stability, social order and economic backing. Such characteristics posed in turn noticeable challenges to the greater Jewish world and its attempts to acclimatize not only to different gentile rulers but also to dramatically reconfigured demography, geography, communal associations and splintered Jewish leadership. Correspondingly, the hyper spiritual configurations of such profound transitions had also had their share in orchestrating inter-communal relations and mystical doctrines, as we find for example th that “When the Spanish Kabbalists reached Northern Italy at the end of the 15 century, clashes between their theosophical-theurgical Kabbalah and the Italian magicalphilosophical Kabbalah became inevitable”.39 But religious and mystical tensions were only part in a multifaceted web of conflicting pulls which had arguably informed any Jewish center for whom halakhic erudition, social savvy, political clout and mystical piety had now reached a momentous point. The redemptive Jewish scheme, which at least aimed to unite faith with fate and host a people under a grand theological canopy, paradoxically exposed the deep-seated versatility of the Jewish nation, amplifying its multiple expressions and the distinctive needs of its various constituencies.

36 See Ben-Naeh, Y. (1999 a); Hacker, J. (1973); (1979 - Dissertation); Avitzur, S. (1971-1978); Benayahu, M. (1971-1978 a); ibid, (1971-1978 b). 37 See Burstein, L. (1974 b); Shohat, A. (1971-1978). 38 On the impact o f Sephardic customs on Ashkenazi Jewry, see e.g., Alboim, Y. (1999); Burstein, L. (1974 a); David, A. (1973 a). 39 Idel, M. (1986), p.245. 7

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

The backbone of 16th century Jewish discourse was thus shaped by fluctuating relationships between different centers in which affinity and rivalry resided simultaneously and wherein each aimed to highlight its vitality in the unfolding era: a dialectic maneuver between the inclusive and the exclusive; between exchanges of religious, spiritual or economic commodities on the one hand and parochial tendencies toward self-preservation on the other hand; between national aspirations and regional considerations; between apocalyptic visions of meta-historical trajectories and more immediate assessments of communal pragmatism; between loyalty to a people and loyalty to the King. To these ends each center accentuated whatever advantage its particular condition may have had: political clout and close associations with the authorities; cultural diversity and scholastic infrastructure; halakhic authority and economic centrality; spiritual leadership and sacred geography; or even sheer Jewish household numbers - all of which perpetuated the dynamics between different centers and informed the fluctuations between partnership and disassociation, between reverence and denunciation. Indeed, once juxtaposed with other centers such as Cairo, Alexandria, Damascus, Venice, Jerusalem and even Safed, the self-proclaimed supremacy of the Anatolian and Balkan centers had been viewed as both a source of support and controversy, counsel and division. Such dynamics had arguably informed all Jewish centers and their relationships thereof, wherein each tried to adopt a national narrative to various degrees while adapting to the changing climates and pressing necessities in its more immediate vicinity.40 The important Jewish center in Egypt, for example, had a noticeable advantage until 1517 in form of closer ties to the Jewish communities in Israel under the Mamluk rule, whose center was Cairo.41 These ties had materialized in form of complex familial, economic and religious associations: the authority of the Nagid (appointed Head of the Jews in Egypt) affected the Palestinian Jews directly during the Mamluk reign and continued relatively uninterrupted until its abolition by the Ottomans shortly after their 1517 conquest.42 Likewise, the economic vitality of Gaza, Cairo and especially Alexandria

40 On this issue see Shmuelevitz, A. (1984). 41 See Hacker, J. in Cohen, A. and Baer, G. (eds., 1984). 42 The last N agid was Rabbi Isaac Shul’el whose involvement with the Palestinian Jewish communities was considerable. On this issue see David, A. (1972); ibid (1985); Hed, A. (1969).

8

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

further established their paramount role in Jewish political, social and religious discourse after the Ottoman occupation.43 Although Cairo lost much of its previous clout as a Mamluk capital after the Ottomans’ conquest and the establishment of their central government in Istanbul and Damascus, the Ottomans did not cease from exploiting the tremendous financial viability Cairo and other Egyptian centers had held with Europe, the Far-East and the vast lands of the nascent Empire itself. Coupled with the historically binding associations between Egyptian and Palestinian Jewries, the former continued to play an important role in both the global market and the Jewish world - especially through their philanthropic sustenance of numerous communities in the Palestinian vicinity, their part in generating an economic momentum which led to relative prosperity among Palestinian Jewish communities, and its aptitude to become a hub for cultural exchange, religious dialogue and demographic mobility between these societies.44 The Jewish community in Jerusalem had also experienced numerous challenges whose affects on its overall sway in the Jewish world were noticeable.45 Its uncontested centrality to theological discourse and Jewish religiosity notwithstanding, Jerusalem had faced economical, political and social obstacles which hindered its assuming a chief orchestrating status within the Jewish milieu at the time.46 Despite the continuous Jewish presence and activity in the city,47 Jerusalem had nonetheless been reliant, although reluctantly at times, on other affluent centers of the period48 One such center was undeniably the small yet noticeably evolving city of Safed.

43 See David, A. (1991 d); ibid (1992 b); Winter, M. (1997). 44 See also David, A. (1997). 45 See Cohen, A. (1976), (1979), (1983); Bamai, Y. (1980); Benayahu, M. (1985 b); David, A. (1987 a); Razhaby, Y. (1987); Wienstein, M. (2002). 46 See Avraham, H. (1976); Cohen, A. (1979); David, A. (1985). 47 See Hed, A. (1969); David, A. (1987 a); (1991 d); (1993); Idel, M. (1987); Dimitrowsky, H.Z. (1992); Fine, L. (2003), pp.24-27. 48 David, A. ibid; Fine, L. ibid, p.44.

9

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Safed: Life amidst Clouds A fte r n e a r ly fifte e n h u n d r e d y e a rs o f liv in g in e x ile a n d p e rs e c u tio n , G o d r e c a lle d u n to h is p e o p le h is c o v e n a n t w ith th e ir fa th e rs a n d b r o u g h t th e m b a c k fro m th e ir c a p tiv ity , o n e o f a c ity a n d tw o o f a fa m ily , 9 f ro m th e c o m e r s o f th e e a rth to th e la n d o f Isra e l

Joseph Karo

The years between 1520 and 1570 were the Ottoman Empire’s golden hour and marked historical distinction upon its minute Safedian district as well.50 From a pragmatic standpoint, Safed’s actual location on top of the Galilean mountain range had played a central role in its prominence, having been regarded as strategically vital to the nascent Empire whose desire was to regulate administration and dominion over newly acquired lands.51 In its will to thrive through the valuable expertise of Jewish exiles, the Empire’s heightened aspiration to maintain a striving presence in Safed had translated into political, social and economical leverages for the Jewish inhabitants. Relative social autonomy and superior religious freedom, as well as lower taxation rates and greater economic suppleness had all converged “To establish [Safed] as far and away the largest and most vibrant community in Palestine”52 till the last quarter of the 16th century. As L. Fine notes, “In fact, economic opportunities in Safed played a much greater role in the emergence of that city as a center of Jewish life than is usually appreciated. Along with Salonika and various other Ottoman cities [...], Safed became a leading textile manufacturer for the Empire and beyond.”

Although textile manufacturing started

flourishing in Palestine as early as the 7th century Muslim conquest,54 the considerable roles of this industry, its subsidiary branches and other agricultural undertakings in preModem Safed have been explored in scholarship55 and may further elucidate how relative

49 See Jeremiah 3:14. 50 See also Tamar, D. (1969). 51 See also Hed, A. (1955). 52 Fine, L. (2003), p.49; cf: Cohen, A. and Lewis, B. (1978), pp.28-29. 53 Fine, L. ibid, p.47. 54 See Amar, Z. (1998); Avitzur, S. (1962); ibid, (1971-1978). 55 Noteworthy on this note is RaM aK’s use o f the silk worm image [’©a nvinn] to clarify the emanation process - perhaps a conscious choice to make his ideas more accessible to people conversed with the textile industry - see Eilima Rabbati, Ein Kol Tamar, chapter 3 and Compare with Tola’at Y a’akov by Meir ibn Gabbai. On this industry and other economic ventures among Jews in the Ottoman Empire, Palestine and Safed, see Garber, H. (1983); Canaani, J. (1934); Ben-Zvi, I. (1953); ibid in Finkelstein, L. (ed., 1972); Avitzur, S. (1962); ibid (1971-1978). Other noteworthy works include Benayahu, M. (1962 a); ibid (1963); ibid (1994); David, A. (1987 b); Tamar, D. (1992); Ashkenazi, SH. (1992); Bentov, H. (1992); Amar, Z. and Buchman, Y. (1999); Buchman, Y. (2001); Ben-Naeh, Y. (2003). On Isaac Luria’s commercial undertakings, see Fine, L. (2003), pp.32-34.

10

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

material affluence, preferential treatment by the Empire and involvement in its economic life56 both fostered socio-religious prosperity and informed Safed’s inner-sense of centrality and mystical prominence. From a more prejudiced Jewish standpoint, which leads us closer to RaMaK, Safed had many other traits that had little to do with its standing in the Ottoman eye. Nestled in the majestic eastern Galilean mountains, Safed’s lure remains intact even to the contemporary visitor who may reach it from Tiberias in half an hour or from Jerusalem in less than four hours of comfortable driving. To the 16th century foreign traveler, on the other hand, Safed was in small scale like its contemporary Peruvian counterpart Machu Picchu - elusive unless one knew where to search. Hidden from view and relatively sheltered from the hustle and bustle of its neighboring centers in the Empire, Safed fashioned a cradle of mystique around many of its already mystically-aroused inhabitants. Indeed, it had all the tools to do so and all the elements to steer one’s mental landscape in correspondence with the actual surrounding scenery: the biblically acclaimed Mount Tavor57 towered to its west, whereas the equally celebrated Sea of Galilee (Kinneret)58 and the tannaitic center in Tiberias stood at its feet, rendering Safed’s vista much more than a pleasantry to the eye. Its air - crisp, clear and pristine - added to one’s physical vitality and further supported one’s sense of spiritual clarity as a gesture of divine sustenance from above. Its commanding height and geographical seclusion supported the authoritative aura which became associated with the Safedian scholarly and mystical elites. Last but positively not least was Safed’s association with the surrounding Galilean tFi vicinities, to which it was afforded nearly inimitable an access. To 16 century Safedian mystics, the upper Galilee was a landscape speaking to an idealizing heart. It was a region which had once hosted the tannaitic luminaries who formed the Mishnah and dotted the Talmud, but most importantly the cradle which nurtured these tannaitic giants and birthed to life the single most treasured magnum opus in Jewish mystical discourse the revered Zohar (book of Splendor).59 The Safedian mystics deemed the Zohar not only

56 For an elaborate discussion on this issue, see Shmuelevitz, A. (1984), especially p p .128-178. 57 See e.g., Judges 4:6,12,14; Psalms 89:13. 58 See Numbers 34:11; Joshua 13:27. 59 See also Green, A. in Fine, L. (ed., 1995).

11

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

the product of the Galilean-based cohort around Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai but also a creation of esoteric brilliance whose relationship with the Galilean landscape and its aesthetic serenity was profound. Having been the arena of such dramatic revelations of old, the Galilean vicinities became to 16th century Safedian mystics a poignant region within the geographical boundaries of Israel - a theographical canopy, as it were, which not only shared the heightened affinities between the Land and the God of Israel but specifically negotiated the intimate and multifaceted encounters between the 2nd century sages and their 16th century successors. The Safedian vicinity was also seen as a geography which negotiated anthropography and theography and an arena wherein divinity was willing to intensify its disclosure to those willing to partake in its welfare; a theatre which utilized a shared space as to curve the linear flow of time into a cyclical canopy which now joined the living mystics with their deceased forerunners, unearthing in turn echoes of ancient voices and unveiling the esoteric depths of the single most important text associated with the redemptive plot: the Zohar. The Galilee, in short, had transformed into an organic reality and a breathing edifice for edification and enlightenment; a land whose villages, trees, fruits, caves, water reservoirs, hills, trails and tannaitic grave-markers were all tangible corridors for the optimal trafficking of the intangible chambers on high. The 16th century mystics who had scouted this landscape thus armed themselves with numerous lenses for its proper appreciation and manipulation. After all, a landscape harboring residues of sanctity and whispering guidelines for spiritual ripeness had to be engaged creatively; its cryptographers and cryptoanalysts needed to master different epistemic and experiential rays towards its penetration and for the discharge of its hidden spiritual potencies: x-rays, gamma-rays or ultra-violet rays may well describe in modem terms the hierarchy o f inquisitive faculties and practical experiments that the Safedian mystics had employed. The grave-markers of mishnaic giants, just as their caves, ancient synagogues, rained villages or overall engaged region were to no small feat mental constructions whose idealized imposition on the physical landscape galvanized the spirited narrative o f Safed and played a momentous role in the fervent climate of that era. Sixteenth century Safed was thus an arena where God and men met on radical terms as to inform the organic lives of men and cosmos, of history and theology - pulsating 12

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

dialectically between distress and relief. To a dehydrating cosmological edifice, whose most acute manifestation was the gasping Shekhinah, Safed now embodied a kaleidoscope of rehydrating concoctions in a laboratory sanctioned by God Himself Natural elements and corporeal manipulations; intellectual rigor and exegetical ingenuity; solitary piety and communal accountability - all converged to produce the unprecedented theurgic thrust needed to align men with their envisioned teleological trajectory and in turn restore divinity back to harmonious utility. The hills around Safed incubated spiritual potencies and its streams afforded mental revival; its synagogues nurtured mind and body into optimum epistemic clarity and theurgic facility; its houses of study transformed into schools wherein God’s special endowments on Israel were to blossom into maturity and erupt in a cathartic response of a community willing to partake in the life of divinity. The Safedian region was inundated by divinity, as were many of the eyes who had scoped its slopes, mountains and ravines. It was a quiet bustle of various schools and devotional rites, all of which tried to harness God’s enigmatic lure and set human consciousness ablaze with renewed awe at the seemingly mundane, accessible or immediate - a perpetual movement towards the unfathomable unity which governed all through spiritual condensation, intellectual concentration, devotional intention, moral crystallization and communal obligation. Following the 1517 victory of the Ottoman Sultan Selim I over the Mamluks, Safed had experienced a steady growth in both numbers and prominence. Consequently, the Safed mystical elite had deemed itself in many ways a focal bastion in the anticipated Jewish trajectory, “A precursor who prepares an entire nation for an impending redemption”60 and an indispensable center for a dormant Zoharic prophecy of deliverance soon to be realized - “Israel will come to taste of the tree of life which is the book of Zohar. With it they will go out of exile with divine mercy”.61 Caspali’s aforementioned sentiments of deliverance were echoed later in 17th century Rabbi Joseph Tirani of Istanbul, whose Tzafnat Paane ’ah declares triumphantly “In the Galilee [= Safed] people

60 Jacobson, Y. (1984), p. 19. 61 Zohar 3:124b.

13

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

would say ‘let us be grateful to the kings of Spain for having expelled our sages and judges, so they could come here and reestablish the Torah in all its pristine glory’”.62 An aerial view of mid 16th century Safed indeed suggests that religious and mystical expressions had virtually been so much a part of the fabric of everyday life as to be nearly indistinguishable from popular culture. Notwithstanding the role of the mystical elites in spearheading the redemptive drama, the demands of mystical theurgy in RaMaK's Safed deemed imperative the voluntary participation of the community entire in realizing the redemptive plot. Scholarship has already pointed to what E. Gotleib called “A significant [ideological] change in the perception of human value and aptitude” in the kabbalistic doctrine,63 whereas B. Sack has convincingly charted RaMaK's own take on this issue and his views regarding communal theurgy in his day and age64 - as we shall witness with greater detail later. Indeed, RaMaK's writings -

especially those

premeditated for popular edification and use, such as Or Ne'erav or Tomer Devorah reveal his acute attention to, and reliance on, communal effort for the broader fruition of the mystical redemptive drama. Such a viewpoint seems to have corresponded well with the communal infrastructure in Safed, wherein the intimate collaborations between the various Jewish Safedian sub-divisions - despite their noticeable diversity and tensions a times - were maintained and sustained by the leading cohorts during the 16th century.65 Respectively, one needs to be more attentive to the nuanced fashion with which mystics used or alluded to such terms as ‘messianism’, ‘redemption’ and ‘eschatology’. This caution is accentuated when discussing RaMaK within the broader context of his oeuvre and communal associations, wherein such terms may have applied to the spiritual progress of individuals just as to that of a nation, a cosmos and even divinity as a whole. Indeed, B. Sack has convincingly shown that RaMaK’s writings not only feature specific calculations o f the End (fp

- c. 1570 and 1589) but also attend to the acutely

transformative quality of national redemption - charting momentous points in both theosophical unfolding and collective historical realization, such as rebuilding the

62 Cf: Hacker, J. in Twersky, I. & Septimus, B. (eds., 1987), p.95. 63 Gotleib, E. (Hacker J. ed., 1976), p.29. See his entire chapter, pp.29-37. Cf; Tishby, I.(1961), vol. 2, p.10. 64 Sack, B. (1995 a), pp.205-248. 65 See e.g., Ish-Shalom, M. (1963); Benayahu, M. (1953); ibid (1962 b); ibid, in ha-Aretz Newspaper (27.3.1964); ibid (1989 a); Meroz, R. (1967); Hallamish, M. (1987); Lamdan, R. (1997).

14

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Temple, resurrection of the dead, etc.66 On the other hand, one finds RaMaK disclosing a model that stands in conspicuous contrast to any eschatology: in Derishot ve-Hakirot beInyanei ha-Mal'akhim, for example, RaMaK states that the ‘“Resurrection of the dead’ [□’nan rrnn] is part of ‘the renewed world’”

abiyr; mTQ] in which “we shall be

able to subdue all that exists to our needs”.67 Such ambiguities notwithstanding, M. Idel’s /T O

claim that “Cordovero’s own moralistic works

hardly exhibit an interest in messiamsm,

[... whereupon] Cordovero and his school’s basic goal was to structure life in terms of mystical and religious meaning, without presenting a doctrine of acute or systematic eschatology”69 is overstated and potentially misleading: although M. Idel sets forth to balance the tendency to “Exaggerate the importance of the messianic elements for the formation of the Safedian center of Kabbalah”70 in favor of more personal and immediate configurations of mystical piety, his emphases as far as Cordoeirian thought is concerned lack accuracy and contextualization - a fact true as well in regard to R.J.Z Werblowsky’s claims that “The theoretical and systematic writings of Cordovero and Alkabetz betray little messianic tension”.71 True, it is quite taxing - arguably impossible - to penetrate the complex symbolism which permeates RaMaK's discourse and to pinpoint a distinctive and consistent ‘redemptive model’. Likewise, RaMaK’s terminology concerning redemption is ambiguous, as it neither accentuates the ‘Messiah’72 nor professes a methodical adherence to any particular eschatological scheme. Moreover, RaMaK's Safedian community was in fact a diverse and multicolored entity whose short-lived evolution featured a conglomerate of small societies with different backgrounds, customs, conceptual and practical affinities. The desire to gather such a society (let alone a nation) under a unified redemptive canopy was obviously met by the complex and versatile 66 Sack, B. (1995 a), chapter 11. 67 Derishah 1, Hakirah 3. 68 Idel’s designation o f RaMaK's ‘moralistic w orks’ is quite unclear. RaMaK has only one such composition — Tomer Devorah. Despite being the briefest and least edifying in terms o f cosmological speculation, even Tomer Devorah arguably challenges Idel’s contentions. 69 Idel, M. (1998 b), p. 163. 70 Ibid, p. 164. 71 In Green, A . (ed., 1987), p. 13. 72 RaMaK believed that “The main part o f redemption is at the hands o f neither Messiah ben David nor Messiah ben Yoseph, but rather at the hand o f M oses”. See Or Yaqar, volume 1, p p .163-164. In other instances RaMaK invokes this term in regard to the Sefirah Malkhut: see e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 11, p .12.

15

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

demands of a communal structure far from cohesive in and of itself.73 These elements had most evidently contributed to a tendency in RaMaK's moral and educational works "To structure life in terms of mystical and religious meaning", as Idel has put it. Indeed, there are a few instances that promote RaMaK's interest in personal piety and individual redemption, wherein RaMaK unpacks a controversy over a certain matter and gives his own opinion or custom without the demand that it should be followed by all. In his Tefilah le-Moshe, for example, RaMaK concludes his discussion regarding the Aleinu Leshabe'ah by stating "This is my custom in my prayer..." ( ’"ins ,n'?,9rQ m i

na D"u

mil/1? izrty).74 RaMaK's Sefer Gerushin - particularly entries 91-99 which were composed during 1551 - obviously point to solitary excursions in search of personal edification and enlightenment. Likewise, we know of the Safedian D,-an rmpn (fellowship's regulations of piety) whose composition was integral to the spiritual life of exclusive mystical cohorts and the result of intimate edifying adventures away from public eye - such as the Alkabetz fellowship in which RaMaK was a noticeable member.75 These testimonies surely suggest that at a time of such great redemptive urgency mystics were also actively seeking the spiritual fruition of their own individual potencies - at times alone, at others aided by their close associates. But one should not lose sight of the broader picture as well. Individual piety notwithstanding, RaMaK's so-called ‘moralistic works’ nonetheless intended to promote a wholesome active engagement with divinity rather than mystical or theological speculations concerning its trajectory. These texts cannot therefore be used as primary sources to assess RaMaK's take on theoretical issues concerning redemption. It is indeed in other works where RaMaK makes numerous claims that hint to both his messianic and eschatological affinities: Alkabetz is mentioned in Sefer Gerushin as discussing the esoteric innovations pertaining to “Our own redemption soon in our time” - here in the national, rather than individual sense - whereas RaMaK himself continues to disclose the months of Nisan and Tishrei as harboring exclusive redemptive potencies for the nation of Israel by way of association with Malkhut and Binah respectively.76 His treatment of

73 On this issue, see also Scholem, G. (1976), p p .191-216; Rosenberg, S. in Cooperman, B.D. (ed., 1983). 74 Tefilah le-Moshe, p.165b. For other instances, see Hallamish, M. (2001), pp.332-339. 75 See Hallamish, M., ibid, pp.332-335. 76 Sefer Gerushin, entry 4, pp.4-5.

16

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

the issue appears in Pardes Rimonim as well,77 whereas in Or Yaqar his view of redemption is not only a radical transformation of the existing world but also an eschatological plot78 - an ultimate nullification of spatiotemporal reality and a return to the metaphysical stage enjoyed by the Primordial Adam prior to sinning:

xinw run nvn nun luabnn crnpi ,ixon dtipd it fnyxm D7xn n r m ’D pjym pT mm mx mariD ib vn ’X7i ,-imnm nun ximy x a ra x'nn ms; ’’dt ,’X7t my mans nrpn xb xmn rmsra tnxn nvrrn .[...] mm mmoyi nvayn in prrnm marn mbyn ,[...] mminn m ansn nawm non rbx p in mmy ,nr nym trab bx nmmt nmnn .nn’-by *p7tnb ib nnayi nun ntyyna nmnn nunbm rabnn xnnty nvnm ib n:na ,n»u?:n p m n ynn i n ns’bpn bom h o t rpro m u 1 7y abiy ipnb mm mnnn m x mm .[...] m m i fproxm nsnna nun Hmran men isy n t o t dew ,nrp?an nm xn mrmm ,nwyn n w sm i □mnn at? m bm i mabnn nm or ppnn mm mx mans nmnn in x mmty 7y ,ypby p a n mb’xxn natwm n x n m mawum ■»axm xb *o mo inn nm anabrr nw tys moa ’ixm nmnn nbntyn mm txi nbnnaa [...].[...] nr may anaba m ln rn a nrtrnb m?sx m it nby» rtrmb m ,m i anx mon ntrabnn nyn nbynb niDm m mawm p xinn nsyn nioyn hote> inn mm ninm n bai rnman ban mbiba mnatan mmi» f n x i prniyn xmty yrbyn nsyn natrna nxbsan nbrnn nm x am nb nntaaa na mnn txi pna p a amma r m 1» in x s B7ip nm im oi nmna m aanpai m m no nrnb m am s mb nam ,nn nn .nTn abiyn The Primordial Adam was untainted prior to his Sin, prior to being enclothed in this thick body, which is obviously the ‘garment[s] of skin’79 - as ‘the polluted skin’ refers to body and matter, whereupon earlier he [Adam] had garments] of light, utterly pure and withdrawn from any corporeality and the murkiness of the flesh. And while in his primordial condition, the Torah [as well] had no need for her physical attire, as she was accessible to him from within her esoteric realm [...]. But due to his transgression, which caused him to be enclothed in a body, the Torah was enclothed as in a body as well, to assist him to find his path [back] towards purification. Now, death was henceforth regulated in order [to allow him] to mend the world, purify oneself from the contaminating properties of the body and nullify the shell and the evil inclination which cleaves to one’s soul - since there [i.e., in the grave] one’s body is refined and purified by the dirt, where its atonement and purification take place [...]. And after the resurrection, which marks the completion of the [regulated] repair, bodies and Nefashot will puify and be enclothed in [the realm of] Asiyah, whereas Ruhot [will purify and be enclothed in] Yetzirah, Neshamot in Bri ’ah and Neshamah o f Atzilut in the Higher-Belly [= Binah] - until they become 77 See e.g., Pardes Rimonim 27:1,2 and introduction to chapter 30. 78 See also Or Yaqar on Zohar, be-H a’alotkhah 4; on Tikkunei ha-Zohar 9:1; on Sava de-M ishpatim 2 and Derishot ve-Hakirot be-Inyanei ha-M al’akhim 1:3 . 79 Genesis 3:21.

17

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

garments of light as in their origin. At that point, proper knowledge of the Torah will ensue, devoid of any attire, which is the secret meaning behind ‘no man shall see Me and live’80 - for this level cannot be attained while living in this murky body [...]. [...] And just as the [dead] body is refined towards purification in the [lower] dirt, so are the Neshamot fused above by the ‘upper dirt’ which is Shekhinah, whereupon [each Neshamah\ needs to encompass all the measures [of the communal Neshamot], so each measure may yield its strength in order for the Neshamah to have the power to attain this wondrous knowledge of Torah. But [in order to prepare adequately for this event] the Neshamah must be pure and adorn itself with Torah and its secrets prior to leaving this [mortal] world.81 RaMaK's concluding statement indeed professes the need for individual redemption in this world as a prerequisite for an eschatological catharsis. However, it also demonstrates his understanding of the individual accountability each Jewish soul has for the redemptive welfare of the community as a whole in the world to come, “Whereupon [each Neshamah] needs to encompass all the measures [of the communal Neshamot], so each measure may yield its strength in order for the Neshamah to have the power to attain this wondrous knowledge of Torah”. Indeed, RaMaK's efforts to disseminate kabbalistic precepts in accessible forms to audiences of various levels in such works as Tomer Devorah, Or Ne'erav, Pardes Rimonim and Sefer Gerushin present a sage for whom communal engagement in the life of men and divinity alike was an existential necessity rather than social munificence or pedagogic liberalism. Without undermining the depths of human spiritual hierarchy and the personal gratification awaiting the pious in his system, RaMaK’s views nonetheless appreciate three definitive properties which inform his redemptive scheme and further illuminate the association between the theurgical act of fpTS (tzeruf - infusion, refinement, purfication) and the communal property indispensable for its realization mSTJXn (hitztarfut - assembling, gathering): first is the inherent codependence o f all Jews; second is the unique properties each Jew brings to religious discourse, social order and the theurgic drama; third is the exclusive contingency between divinity and the entire nation of Israel. In his Hanhagot, RaMaK clarifies that “One’s mindfulness should

80 Exodus 33:20. 81 Or Yaqar on Tikkunei ha-Zohar 2:12 and compare with Or Yaqar on Zohar 1:63b, vol.4. 18

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

always integrate with one’s fellowmen”82 [nm m uv mitra mm xm amy1?], a view that informs the backbone of communal associations en route to epistemic clarity and spiritual potency: “This is why ‘all [the people of Israel] are guarantors for one another’, since each individual Jew has a portion of all the others. When one individual sins, he not only blemishes his own soul but corrupts that portion of him which resides in every other Jew. It follows that his fellow Jew is a guarantor for that portion”.83 “In the same way”, he declares later, “a man should keep a watchful eye on the conduct of the nation of God in order to benefit it. [...] Just as the Divine Mind contemplates the benefit of all existence, he should contemplate the benefit of his fellows, taking counsel with God and His people regarding both individual and communal matters [Pmm m sa].”84 In Or Yaqar RaMaK highlights another existential Jewish property, namely individual sanctity as the cause behind individual responsibility for communal welfare: in a manner that brings to mind the Mishnaic dictum m Sanhedrin 485 and the Zoharic narrative wherein obscure individuals are exposed as bearers of profound knowledge, RaMaK celebrates the inherent uniqueness of each Jew and moves on to demand its realization in the communal effort to unlock esoteric wisdoms:

fr w t in t m x how ,m x m s t o m o a t n r x n o n noon a t not nm nn m nnsa o T rim nrVi m a n h>w ph>m ytf? "iwdx ’xw ,nr nm s m x nr nm sw nai ,n -n m phri m xi m nnot m m ,no m nnoon m x wna ,tn x ho» na^nn1? nmnn nrno m x

[...] nrn nxnao non nmn The keys of wisdom, let alone the esoteric wisdom, are not handed down to one individual, since each member [of Israel] has his portion in the Torah, and that which one opens cannot be opened by another - for he cannot access [lit. touch] it. Therefore, he who pursues the secrets of 8f\ Torah must yearn for knowledge from each person, literally chasing the keys in order to open [these portals] and by doing so add to the envisioned light of Torah [.. .].87

82 No. 3 - cf: Schechter, S. (1908), p.292. 83 Tomer Devorah, chapter 1:4; cf: Miller, M. (trans., 1993), p. 14. 84 Ibid, chapter 3; cf: Miller, M. ibid, p.71. 85 “To behold the glory o f the King o f all Kings, see how a man stamps many coins with one imprint and they all look alike, whereas the King o f all kings, God, blessed be He, stamped each man with the imprint o f the primordial Adam, yet each looks different. Each person must therefore declare ‘this world entire was created for m e’”. 86 Compare with Hosea 6:3. 87 Or Yaqar, vol.l 1, pp.259-260, on Zohar, Pekkudei, note 13.

19

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Likewise, RaMaK continues to develop the intrinsic communal property embedded within Torah study when he renders impossible for any single Jew to comprehend the Torah in its entirety - regardless of erudition or purity of soul. Respectively, “Mitzvot and the Torah consist of different layers, whereas each person is a soul onto himself. Therefore, even when two people fulfill the same mitzvah, each one nonetheless worships in his particular way, for each is a soul onto himself - they are not equal. [...] each person has his unique part in the Torah, a measure unlike anyone else”.88 This apparatus runs identical to RaMaK's discussion of the angelic service of God in Or Yaqar. demonstrating his acute sensibility to Hebrew etymological affinities - in this case through the words rP9l33 and psiDnn - RaMaK states that “The angels constitute a single organ divided into sections and joints [...], according to which each angel is simultaneously complete unto itself, and a part of the [unified] organ. Therefore, when they wish to arouse a song and become a throne [to divinity], each part combines with the others, becoming one assembly

[ITDH)

- knufiyah]. At that state they are perfected,

whereupon each merges into the realm of the other, fusing their wings in each other [I’SIDna - mitkanfinY,89 RaMaK therefore sees a mechanism which consecrates and interlaces the individual with the communal - a system wherein each Jew must accept his/her inherent uniqueness without losing sight of its dependence on communal sanctity. The tension between individual inimitability and imperfectability must therefore emphasize the communal effort to exhort optimal epistemic and theurgic clout. Such sentiments also offer another view insofar as individual piety and seclusion for private spiritual elevation are concerned: the individual condition is limited regardless of messianic or eschatological concerns, since each man needs portals of epistemic transparency which are decisively out of his personal reach! In Sefer Gerushin RaMaK clarifies that the Shekhinah is “The soul of Israel entire”,90 thus complimenting the communal effort required for its wholesome restoration and securing communal engagement as an agent which assists both in one’s own spiritual journey as well as the journey of the nation as a whole. In

O r Y a q a r on Leviticus, note 7. 89 O r Y aq ar, vol.7, p. 15. 90 Entry 57, p.70.

20

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

sum, RaMaK's model professes such acute contingency between all Jews as to make personal redemption almost inseparable from its communal counterpart! As such, RaMaK's approach - however subtle - affirms G. Scholem’s claim that “[Whereas] the teachings of the early Kabbalah continued without basic change, the important thing was propaganda - the dissemination of the apocalyptic message”.91 Borrowing from J.R.Z. Werblowsky’s view of messianism as a doctrine which “Presupposes a certain relationship to the time process, that is, a history as a goal-directed 09

sequence of changes ending in a social, political, moral, or even cosmic, fulfillment”, RaMaK's

writings

indeed

manifest the

redemptive

scheme

as

corresponding

simultaneously with personal, communal, national and cosmic levels in a web of reciprocal associations. This view is further corroborated once we acknowledge that RaMaK's system sees each element in the world a microcosmic embodiment of divine properties - a scheme which pertains to the redemptive enterprise as well: Redemption, therefore, is not necessarily a different mechanism that may, or may not, run parallel to individual redemption[s]; rather, it is profoundly contingent upon the sum of particular redemptive acts which may usher it in through a web of mutual associations - a system that does not position one scheme against the other, but rather within the other, as seen quite potently in Tomer Devorah itself. Regardless of particular messianic configurations, RaMaK and his cohort nevertheless presupposed redemption to be a radical transformation in spirit and in practice - contentions which must have precipitated as rearrangements in social discourse and practice in Safed. Indeed, S. Schechter already stated that the mystical atmosphere in Safed had been the subsoil for some innovative customs and practices whose later impact on Diaspora communities was quite felt.93 J. Dan rendered Kabbalah in 16th century Safed “The language of Jewish culture”,94 whereas J. Ben-Shlomo exclaimed that “Safed itself had featured a unique religious ambiance, one that included common folk as well; specific cohorts were established for Torah study and the composition of prayers and

91 Scholem, G. (1971), p.41. 92 Ibid, p. 11. 93 Schechter, S. (1908), pp.202-306. 94 Dan, J. (ed., 2002), p.32.

21

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

rituals concerning penitence - elevating the daily religious tension in Safed to unprecedented levels in comparison to any other community in Israel”.95 The Safedian halakhic and mystical elite aimed to have religious erudition and mystical piety permeate all strands of daily life - education, family, economy, civil law, society and politics. The Safedian spiritual leaders regarded themselves by and large as the epicenter of a theurgic drama and a cohort whose actual inhabitance in the Galilean landscape deemed its potencies unmatched by any other Jewish community. As mentioned, that is neither to say that Safed was a homogeneous community96 nor that its leadership underestimated the contributions of other communities to the ultimate spiritual transparency in the life of the Jewish nation as a whole. Safed was a crux of a bustling exchange of scholastic erudition and mystical guidelines throughout Jewish communities within the Ottoman lands and Europe, and the Safedian leaders acknowledged and relied upon such exchanges to a considerable degree. RaMaK, for example, acknowledges in Pardes Rimonim that “We hear of the existence of Sefer ha-Tzinorot [...] and due to our transgressions we did not merit to see it, although it is said to be found among our brethrens in Fez (Morocco)”.97 Likewise, he seems to be the first historical account to associate the reappearance of the Zohar with the Dar'a region in North Africa.98 Such associations were indeed a part of intricate scholastic, economic, political and social collaborations between Safed and various Jewish communities inside and outside the Palestinian vicinity.99 The above in mind, the 16th century Safedian leadership nonetheless viewed itself as an exclusively forceful combatant in the cosmic war for unity, and wished to extend its impact on behalf of the Jewish nation as a whole. The amalgamation of its aforementioned virtues indeed turned Safed into a locus sanctus whose vitality had been the potential realization of the fiercely felt redemptive utopia. From a city whose name

95 Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), p .8. 96 See e.g., Abraham G alante’s H anhagot, N o.8, disclosing the assembly o f “Each community in its own Synagogue” - cf: Schechter, S. (1908), p.295. 97 P ard es R im onim 7:5; cf: Hallamish, M. (2001), p .16. 98 See Elior, R. (1985), pp.36-73; Hallamish, M. Ibid, p.15-21. 99 See Shmuelevitz, A. (1984); Horowitz, E. (1993); Tamar, D. (1974); Pachter, M. (1987 b); Schreiber, A. and Benayahu, M. (1962); Benayahu, M. (1985 b); Hacker, J. (2002); ibid (1973); Emmanuel, Y. (1962); Shohat, A. (1971-1978); Ben-Naeh, Y. (1999 a); Grab, Y. (1999); Bentov, H. (1992); Beinart, H. (1964); Korkos, D. (1966).

22

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

does not appear even once in the Hebrew Bible; to whom scant references exist in Rabbinic literature100 and the home to small Jewish communities in the early medieval period,101 Safed had gradually grown during the 14th-15th centuries into a place somewhat noteworthy for its Jewish presence and mystical creativity - as seen in the 1481 testimony o f the Italian Rabbi Joseph de Montagna, or the 1488 documentation of the famous traveler Rabbi Obadiah de Bartinoro.102 The 16th century had already positioned Safed on an unprecedented pedestal. The redemptive scheme in the post-expulsion and post-Zoharic world viewed redemption as a dynamic contract between divinity and the people of Israel. Divinity itself was now perceived as yearning to disclose esoteric paths hitherto unknown as a means to reciprocally assist Jews in assisting it: “This redemption was the task of all humanity”, notes A.M. Eisen, “but particularly of the Jews. The work of tikkun, or restoration, accomplished through God’s commandments with full and proper intent, meant nothing less than putting the shards of God’s cosmos back together again. For He, too, was as it were in pieces, scattered, lacking unity. He, too, as the rabbis had taught (but in a different sense), was in exile”.

This reciprocal mechanism of

sympathy and empathy fostered the imitatio Dei principle, spirited study, asceticism and communal accountabilities to realize the theurgic potencies needed to achieve cosmic closure. Divinity, on its part, was now retrospectively seen as manipulating history and funneling its trajectory toward the anticipated catharsis. RaMaK's Safed, as its community in the eyes o f the spiritual elite, was now a chief negotiator in the realization of this drama. These realities now converged within other elements of internal Jewish dialogue, one of which being an evolving withdrawal in Spain and other Jewish centers from Jewish philosophical doctrines and their allegorical rigidity. Rational approaches to the Jewish foundational writings were seen as abandoning the traditional path and contributing further to the socio-religious malaise which had infected the European Jewish milieu. In their stead started appearing kabbalistic doctrines which combined asceticism, messianism and communal theurgic engagements as part of a solidified divine plan

100 See e.g., Palestinian Talmud, Rosh ha-Shanah 2:1, 58a. 101 See also Fine, L. (2003), pp.41-51. 102 Fine, L., ibid, p.42. 103 Eisen, A.M. (1986), p.52.

23

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

awaiting the response of the Jewish nation entire: “The revelation and spread of kabbalistic doctrines”, notes R.J.Z Werblowsky, “were regarded as an essential sign of, and factor in, the process of historic growth toward the messianic era”.104 Given that the redemptive narrative found in the historic volatile surge the fingerprints of a stable metahistorical covenantal teleology, a focal enterprise was now to revisit and unlock anew earlier mystical texts. This development not only nurtured from the spirit of European Renaissance but also had a number of myopically Jewish goals in mind: first, these texts held precious clues regarding the correct manner for men to negotiate their part in the covenant and contribute to the aspired catharsis. Second, a clear spiritual cartography of these esoteric wisdoms necessitated their reorganization and systematization. Third, such categorizations were vital to make Kabbalah accessible to novices and the lay public as a whole, given that all Jews had to participate in the redemptive drama. The mid 16th century indeed featured a resurgence of literature which aimed to address earlier mystical doctrines and make them more affordable to the wider public. Noteworthy among such works are Rabbi Avraham ben Eliezer ha-Levi’s Masoret haHokhmah;105 Rabbi Yehuda Hayyat’s Minkhat Yehuda, which includes an interpretation to the anonymous and most influential Ma ’arekhet ha-Elohut;m Rabbi Meir ibn Gabai’s classic Avodat ha-Kodesh, rendered by G. Scholem “Perhaps the finest account of Kabbalistic speculation before the resurgence of the Kabbalah in Safed”;107 and the anonymous interpretation to Psalms, K a f ha-Ktoret, whose author saw in National Redemption [nyn nbltu] the definitive exegetical foundation of the Torah entire in his particular generation.108 These works were supplemented by the spirited input of the

104 In Green, A. (ed„ 1987), p. 16. 105 Originally from Spain, and residing in Jerusalem, ha-Levi believed the messianic era had already started in 1492 and predicted its final fruition in 1531. G. Scholem found this work most important for shedding light on the evolution o f 16th century Safed Kabbalah - See 1978, pp.71-76. For a detailed treatment o f this kabbalist, see Robinson, I. (1980 - Dissertation). 106 This book was first published in Ferrera, 1558 - although written sometime during the 14th century. RaMaK believed it was written by Todros Abulafia [1220-1298], but as later shown by Neumark this was probably not the case (1921, v o l.l, chapter 4, p. 169). Neumark calls Ma ’arekhet ha-Elohut “A book which presents and structures the kabbalistic system in a lucid, open and widely accessible fashion” (ibid, p. 192). See also Ginsburg, E.K. (1989), p.21; Scholem, G. (1998 b), pp.171-188. 107 Scholem, G. (1974), p.69. 108 “According to the words o f the sages, the Torah has seventy aspects and there are seventy aspects to each and every verse; in truth, therefore, the aspects are infinite. In each generation one o f these aspects is revealed, and so in our generation the aspect which the Torah reveals to us concerns matters o f redemption.

24

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Safedian Kabbalists for whom “[...] The mystical ladder led via the moral and ascetic virtues to the gift of the Holy spirit”109: Rabbi Elijah di Vidash’s Reshit Hokhmah, Rabbi Elazar Azikri’s Sefer Haredim ,110 Rabbi Hayim Vital’s She’arei Kedushah and noticeably RaMaK's Tomer Devorah - one of the most prominent manifestations of this genre.111 The following anonymous kabbalistic excerpt may serve to assess the impact of such feelings on the sense of urgent exotericism and the need to promulgate the mystical texts112: “The decree [...] that one should not discuss kabbalistic teaching in public was meant to last only for a limited time - until 1490. We then entered the period called ‘the last generation’ and then the decree was rescinded, and permission given [...]. And from 1540 onward the most important mitzvah will be for all to study it in public, both old and young, since this and nothing else will usher in the Messiah”.113 Israel were distinguished from all others by being the collective child of God; being conceived as a People in the mind of God; concentrated as a Nation through the patriarchs and prepared as a Community for Revelation at Sinai. Redemption, therefore, was contingent upon joint responsibility and nationalized accountability: the prophetic words found in Raaya Meheimana, “Israel will come to taste of the tree of life which is this book of Zohar [and] through it they will come out of Exile with [divine] mercy”,114 had therefore transformed the hitherto essentially esoteric into the henceforth necessarily exoteric. Each Jew had an indistinguishably unique role and therefore carried both power and responsibility far greater than one’s individual, immediate existence: “Human[s] are not just sinners passively waiting for divine grace”, writes R.J. Z. Werblowsky, “they are not merely free agents working out their own salvation; they are decisive factors in the universe, beings whose activities are vitally related to the inner life of the Godhead”.115

Each and every verse can be understood and explained in reference to redemption”. See Scholem, G. (1971), p.42. 109 Werblowsky, R.J.Z, in Green, A. (ed., 1987), p. 17. 110 See Pachter, M. (1981). 111 Sack, B. (1995 a), pp.214-215; Scholem, G. (1946), p.252; Robinson, I. (1994), Introduction, p.xxxiii; Fine, L. (trans., 1984), p.31; Dan, J. (ed., 2002), p p .195-198; Pachter, M. (1976 - Dissertation). 112 On this issue see also Gries, Z. (1994). 113 Quoted in Abraham A zulai’s introduction to O r ha-H am m ah. Cf: Scholem, G. (1974), pp.68-69. See also Gries, Z. (1994). 114 Z o h ar 3:124b. 115 In Green, A. (ed., 1987), p.29.

25

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Safed’s inimitable standing in Jewish mystical discourse had therefore obvious repercussions, having incorporated multiple venues for the realization of this drama through its associations with Rashbi’s circle, sacred epistemic portals within the Galilean landscape and the staunch view of the Galilee as the birthplace of the Zohar. Having been a site of condensed sanctity, the Safedian vicinity had also possessed in mystical imagination the ability to condense the time needed for deliverance - a notion sporadically felt in RaMaK's writings, where one finds his sense of urgency and the communal accountability for redemption: “The amazing achievement of the Safed Revival”, continues Werblowsky, “was its explosive [...] combination of kabbalistic mysticism and messianism - and a short-term messianism to boot, that is, messianism not of the horizon of a distant future but as an immediate expectation”.116 One may offer the term tannaitic renaissance insofar as describing the mystics’ self-perception in RaMaK's Safed117: the ambiance of the Safedian vicinity had contributed greatly to that sensation of mystical renaissance, having been a spatial canopy which curved time itself to join the tki 16 century kabbalists with their tannaitic predecessors; a hosting landscape for a dramatically felt mystical exchange between Rashbi’s circle and the Safedian fellowships, wherein a chasm spanning 1400 years was over-passed by means of sacred cartography, consecration of earthly portals, spiritual symbiosis and a greater 118 accessibility to the Zohar. The relatively undisturbed layout of the Safedian region is one of its greatest properties even in the 21st century - an ambiance whose potency allows contemporary visitors a sense of unmediated attachment to times of old. This attribute still informs numerous rituals and events which aim to be nourished from a spirited past, to erase the intervening of history as a means to bridge times under the canopy of shared space and commemorative practices which sustain the present in turn.119 One can therefore ascertain with relative certainty that this quality propelled the sensations of a renaissance among 16th century mystics to a noticeable degree. Safed’s altitude and solitude were only 116 Ibid, p. 11. 117 On this issue see Sack, B. (1993). 118 On this issue see Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, especially pp.20-22. Among other things, Tishby notes that “We may conclude that the sections o f the Zohar had not been collected together before the expulsion from Spain, perhaps not even before the actual printing o f the Zohar”, which means during RaM aK’s lifetime. 119 See on this issue Ish-Shalom, M. (1945); Bilu, Y. in Gonen, R. (ed., 1998); Huss, B. (2002 a); ibid (2002 b), p .139.

26

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

enhanced by the unswerving serenity imbued in the natural arrangement of the Galilean natural elements - all of which contributed to their manifold manipulations by RaMaK's cohort in search of the fairly uninterrupted and dormant residual sanctity [xmiyn] left there by divinity, the Torah, the Zohar and Rashbi’s fellowship. Moreover, as will become evident in our exploration of RaMaK's Sefer Gerushin, his unyielding belief regarding the Galilean birthplace of the Zohar had led RaMaK not only to put tremendous weight on the natural symbolism that permeates the Zohar but also to see in natural elements quintessential requisites toward the attainment of intangible truths. As such, one can imagine the impact of having had the ability to traverse the ‘same’ landscape of Rashbi’s cohort; to sit in the shade of the ‘same’ trees and to explore their fruits which grew out of the ‘same’ seeds; to evoke the waters of the ‘same’ springs or to meditate within the ‘same’ caves. The ability to emulate the tannaitic sages and to trace their steps anew in acts of intense scholarship, ecstatic piety and ascetic devotion is felt throughout RaMaK's oeuvre and translates as the dialectical congress of privilege and accountability. More noticeably, its actual reification is well demonstrated in RaMaK's practical works, such as Or Ne'erav, Tomer Devorah and Sefer Gerushin - indispensable works insofar as exploring the phenomenology of RaMaK's piety, communal responsibility, pedagogical sensitivities and the overall envisioned realization of a spiritual renaissance which governed his approach. Although not all Safedian inhabitants were full fledged mystics - in fact many were not - Safed had nonetheless experienced considerable growth in the ensuing decades.120 From some 300 Jewish households of various descents reported in Moses Basola’s 1522 account,121 Safed had increased to host some 850 households in 1538, some 1175 in 1544-5 and an 1800 households peak around 1567-8.122 Although other centers within the Ottoman Empire had hosted Jewish communities vastly greater than Safed, one should not allow sheer numbers to interfere with prominence. In that span of half a century, after which the Ottoman Empire had experienced a gradual decline in political power and 120 See also Benayahu, M. (1958). 121 Fine, L. (2003), pp.45-46 and fn.9. Basola mentions Sepharadim, M ustarabim and Jews o f North African descent. A. David pointed to the existence o f other congregations: Ashkenazim, Italians, Hungarians, Conversos, M aghrabis and Provenfal [Frankish]. See 1999 (trans. Ordan, D.), chapter 10, p p .100-114. For the delineation o f individuals in the different Jewish communities in Safed during that period, see Cohen, A. and Lewis, B. (1978), pp.34-51, 155-161. 122 Fine, L. (2003), p.47. See also in Canaani, J. (1934).

27

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

bureaucratic efficiency,123 Safed became the home to some of Judaism’s most influential halakhic and mystical figures and the temporary abode to numerous scholars from the Jewish Diaspora - a city seriously aspiring to become the center of moral guidance, halakhic prominence, mystical erudition and redemptive leadership on behalf of the Jewish nation entire.124 What seems most conspicuous to our particular subject matter is that RaMaK’s lifespan had virtually corresponded with Safed’s golden era - as shortly lived as that might have been! The aforementioned characteristics coalesced to transform 16th century Safed into a stage for a formidable story; a drama in which a spirited vanguard launched a remedial warfare in a fragile world which, n turn, pointed to an agitated divinity calling for relief. Safed’s geographical idealization, academic power and mystical fervor thus turned it into a cradle of rarely matched creativity; a town whose small spatial parameters stood in inverse relationship to the spiritual influence it set forth to exhort. Safed nestled amidst clouds and indeed felt as on a seventh cloud - a community whose landscape could have whisked aside centuries of desolation; a land aiming to orchestrate anew the Zoharic symphony and whose original facilitators were waiting to be awakened. A fraction of a cosmic second below was for Safed its call to eternal glory on high, and its leadership deemed itself favorable to any other Jewish center worldwide, be it Salonika, Constantinople, Adrianople, Damascus, Cairo, Venice or Jerusalem. Between 1520 and 1570 Safed was “The fulcrum of the great mystical revival”;125 the hub of cosmic repair where mystics acted as plumbers and physicians, sorcerers and pharmacists, cryptographers and cryptanalysts, lovers and soldiers, naturalists and speculators, cartographers and poets, dancers and mourners, teachers and students. Towering above all, insofar as concerning systematization of earlier kabbalistic doctrines, metaphysical speculation, theosophical clarity and mystical pedagogy, was Rabbi Moses ben Ya’akov Cordoeiro.

123 Fine, L. (2003), pp.47-48; Bashan, E. (1973). 124 Hacker, J. (2002) and his references; Scheiber, A. and Benayahu, M. (1962); Tamar, D. (1970), especially pp.95-100. 125 Werblowsky, R.J.Z. in Green A. (ed., 1987), p .14.

28

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Rabbi Moses Cordoeiro (1522-1570): A Necessarily Incomplete Biography The year 1570 featured Safed as the final residence for a man whose name became the colloquial synonym to Jewish Mysticism - Rabbi Isaac Luria Ashkenazi (ha-Ari, 1534-1572).126 Isaac Luria had arrived in Safed on that year from his previous dwellings in Egypt and decided to settle in the city whose mystical clout had attracted some of the leading scholars of his era. The book Shivhei ha-Ari narrated Isaac Luria’s ordeals and obviously depicted this momentous landmark in his annals. Although an effusive, bias and exaggerated tone, Shivhei ha-Ari nonetheless serves us well in its acclaims of the Safedian scholars who greeted Luria in 1570: it praises them as “Sagacious and wise; mightier than lions in Torah

177

; each of them could have routed a thousand

178

170

”.

•

O f this

highly esteemed cohort only a few are further distinguished by direct reference, whereas alongside the revered halakhic authority Rabbi Joseph Karo (1488-1575) and Rabbi Joseph Ashkenazi, Shivhei ha-Ari discloses the name of the renowned kabbalist Moses Cordovero, whose fait was to pass away that very year. Cordoeiro was most likely a momentous force behind Isaac Luria’s initial arrival in Safed and a towering mystic 170 whose direct mentorship Luna was to enjoy only for a few months. Indeed, it may be •

•

that RaMaK had been ill for quite some time in 1570 and that this ailment triggered Luria’s arrival in Safed, to study with the master before it would be too late. Although it is unclear whether RaMaK was bom in Safed or had arrived there at an early age, by 1522 the small Galilean town had hosted some 300 Jewish households and was destined to experience a steady growth131 which would last approximately till RaMaK's death in 1570 - a time also associated with the initial decline of the Ottoman 126 On the chronicles o f Isaac Luria, see Fine, L. (2003). 127 See, e.g., Zohar 2:101b (Sava de-Mishpatim), featuring Sava ( ‘The old m an’) quoting king D avid’s homily in Psalms 131:1. In his remarks regarding King David, Sava states, “W hen he studied Torah he would become strong like a lion” (translation by E. Fishbane). Cf: Zohar 2:101b; Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 3b; Joseph Karo, Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayim 1:1. 128 D e u t e r o n o m y 3 2 : 3 0 .

129 Shivhei ha-Ari ha-Shalem veha-M evo’ar (Rabbi Moses Jacob Hillel ed., 1991), p.9. As noted by M. Benayahu, the Shevahim were originally the letters o f Rabbi Solomon [Shlimel] o f Moravia, three o f which incorporated into Rabbi Israel o f K andia’s Taalumot Hokhmah under the sub-title Kitvei Shevah Yaqar ve-Gdulat ha-Ari z ”l (Basilia 1629). The German Rabbi Naftali ben Y a’akov Bacharach was the first to ascribe this composition to Rabbi Hayim Vital in the introduction to his Em ek ha-Melekh. On the evolution o f this manuscript, see Benayahu, M. (1961 a). 130 See Fine, L. (2003), 55-64; Schechter, S. (1908), p.257 and fn.123. 131 See also landau, B. (1965).

29

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

rule and the Disenfranchisement of its political and admistrative efficiency.132 The last quarter of the 16th century had indeed experienced a continuous dwindling of Jewish presence in Safed as well, and by 1591 RaMaK's contemporary Moses Alsheikh reported that it had declined “To the extent that of the five thousand people who formally resided in the city, some four hundred alone remained”.133 The post-Cordoeirian era in Safed was indeed pale in comparison to the fifty preceding years due to internal reasons as well, one of which being the death of almost all the legendary figures from RaMaK's golden era. Between 1570 and 1585 Safed had lost Cordoeiro (1570), Israel di Curiel (d. after 1571), Isaac Luria (1572), Joseph Karo (1575), Moses di Trani (1580) and Solomon Alkabetz (1584) - a transformation noteably disconcerting to the followers who were now devoid of leadership. We shall return to this issue when discussing the relationship between Cordoeirian and Lurianic Kabbalah after the death of these two giants. RaMaK's time in Safed was therefore relatively secured economically, socially and politically. This reality had also translated into a notable surge of religious creativity, spiritual ardor, mystical enthusiasm and a sense of redemptive optimism galvanized by equally commanding a sense of theurgic urgency for its realization. Such coordinates are indispensable for mapping out RaMaK's life, for they had facilitated his prolific literary outpour, pedagogic sensitivity, devotional enthusiasm and overall eclectic scholarly temperament. RaMaK was indeed a figure whose life unfolded at a dramatic spatiotemporal ‘moment’ in the Safedian spacetime, one which both affected the progressive trajectory of Jewish mystical doctrines and reconfigured modem Jewish discourse in ways that cannot be denied. The post-Expulsion fervor, the peak of Ottoman hegemony and the enchanting currents of European Renaissance allowed demographical and intellectual mutability, paving a path for a splendidly multihued correspondence between classic philosophy and theistic theology; Christian Reformation and Muslim radical piety; ethical teleology and messianic eschatology; transnational universalism and national parochialism - most of which echo in RaMaK's deeply embroidered writings and profess an intriguing picture; indeed, one that may engage scholars across a wide range of disciplines. Should one accept the mystical image of Safed between 1520 and 1570 as 132 On the decline o f the Ottoman Empire by the last quarter o f the 16th century, see Avraham D. (1991 d); Bashan, E. (1973). 133 In Fine, L. (2003), p.47.

30

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

echoing the ticking o f a cosmic clock, RaMaK was arguably its chief tuner - the mystic of a cosmic hour. J. Ben Shlomo rightfully states that “No other kabbalist neared RaMaK’s ability to unify a speculative system out of its multiple previous expressions”.134 His following remarks, however - according to which “Lurianic Kabbalah offered Jews an innovative recipe whereas RaMaK's system was only a summary of old doctrines”

i -j c

- may

nevertheless be challenged. This claim not only depreciates the broader scope of RaMaK's system but underplays its novelty at certain important junctures of mystical speculation. RaMaK’s Kabbalah was not downplayed due to lack of originality, but arguably due to its complexity and reliance on abstract configurations which might have been inaccessible even to certain seasoned mystics - let alone the lay public. Luria and Vital’s visible evident contributions to mystical paradigms notwithstanding, these two charismatic men may hardly count as impressive theoreticians. The Lurianic system was obviously complex and demonstrated fantastic theosophical configurations which mostly went beyond the capabilities of laypeople; yet arguably it rooted itself within popular discourse precisely due to its key ideas and practices which spoke to people on a level of comfort and further accentuated their share in the exile-redemption narrative at times ♦

where it was sorely sought after.

1

RaMaK's system and particular expressive mode, on

the other hand, was far less accessible in that regard. Despite of his keen desire to edify the masses, RaMaK's writings tackled issues from a standpoint whose expanse and integrative rationale most likely deterred many. RaMaK tried to articulate the theosophical dogma embedded within the metaphysical enigma and to establish its regulatory mechanisms as pertaining to all strata of human discourse in general and to the Jewish politics of being in particular - a purpose to which he had devoted his entire adult life and a topic for which his literary output nears inimitability both in quantity and quality. Moses Cordoeiro (1522-1570) was therefore not only among the chief kabbalists of the pre-Modem era but arguably the most significant mystical thinker in Jewish history. His evolution was in many ways the outcome of being the right man in the right time and 134 Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), p. 13. 135 Ibid. 136 On this issue see Fine, L. (2003), especially chapters 4, 6 and 7.

31

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

place; a figure who had been nurtured by the unique historical, political and theological climates around him and who had contributed most tellingly to their continueous evolution in his lifetime. RaMaK’s goal was to prepare and intensify the spiritual potencies of all Jews as the decisive property for reunion with God, and to this end he had tackled most fronts of erudition and pedagogy. He was not only the first to systemize, organize and thematize kabbalistic doctrines, but also the most peruasive advocate for the use of intellect and rationalism en route to such spiritual climax. RaMaK was the Maimonides of mystical discourse, also aiming to harness conceptual bilingualism in order to systematically unpack biblical words or terms and to fashion a clearer skeleton for the mystical edifice. He was set to articulate the human and cosmic condition as part of a cohesive divine structure with well-defined plans and discemable routes for edification and manipulation. RaMaK had done what no mystic before him had and left a lasting mark on the trajectory of Jewish mysticism in the years to come. In short, he was a scholar without whom neither 16th century Safed nor the broader Jewish mystical phenomenon could have justified the prominence ascribed to them by later generations. Having been titled by G. Scholem “Undoubtedly the greatest theoretician of Jewish mysticism”

1 -5 yy> “iu?x mw ’b wpnb ■utpi it it i’O riovi bx ■’ix’m ,i"-u ’lbn ppbx nabtt? T’n conn ’mbxn bznpnn naann ’nb7 by Mirm ^ ’aan n m yatin "prx an ,1a1? nan ■pan’ ’in ’b nax’i an’yi’i ibxi va^xi nzma ’nbi by npwxi pinnb eqid ’sa ,n,i ,[...] mianm .[...] Tnyw m nsb m nnsai nmrn ’a n nabb Upon hearing the divine voice lamenting,278 my soul replied and said ‘I must rise and roam the town, through the streets and through the squares279 and seek a home where I may be happy’280; whereupon I heard a voice speaking281, angelic and holy which descended from the heavens, [the voice of] my teacher and master, the saintly, the sage Rabbi Solomon Alkabetz ha-Levi, may the compassionate One protect and reward him. He led me into the great halls282 of his bastion and he instructed ion f tme and said to me ‘my child, let your mind hold on to my words, incline your ear and listen to the words of the sages’ 284 And he placed me at the thresholds of Wisdom and Understanding285 [...] and it tasted as sweet as honey to my mouth 286 So I stood outside the doors of his study287 and held fast to his teachings, which, in turn, awakened me to study the ways of the Zohar 988 and [handed me] the keys to unlock its gates [...]. This sentiment suggests that RaMaK had already been an astute student of classical Judaica and renders him a young man now seasoned for deeper engagement with esoteric teachings. His retrospective lamentations over “The days [...] wherein I was pursuing all that is lustful” may therefore refer not to classical erudition but to other engagements, perhaps Jewish rational doctrines whose abstract lure resonated quite well with his exceptional intellect.289 RaMaK's fluctuating relationships with such ‘sciences’ would

278 nxnpn Vlp - a term designating a divine voice. See, for example, Rashi on Exodus 34:8 and on Leviticus 1:1; Ibn Ezra on Micah 6:10. 279 Song o f Songs 3:2. 280 Based on Ruth 3:1. 281 Ezekiel 1:28. 282 Ezekiel 41:1. 283 Proverbs 4:4. 284 Proverbs 22:17. 285 Perhaps based on Ezekiel 41:23-25, or Proverbs 8:1. The latter is more feasable, given RaMaK's c o n c l u d i n g s e n t e n c e w h i c h s e e m s t o c o r r e s p o n d w i t h P r o v e r b s 8 :3 .

286 Ezekiel 3:3. 287 Proverbs 8:34. 288 Alluding m ost probably to Proverbs 8:3, especially if taken alongside Proverbs 8:1: RaMaK writes “And He placed me at the thresholds o f W isdom and Understanding”, whereas Proverbs 8:1 reads “It is W isdom calling, Understanding raising her voice”. See also Zohar 2:14a. 289 M. Benayahu mentions this briefly: “It seems that during his teenage years he had not engaged in Torah but rather was interested in the [secular] wisdoms”. See in ibid (1991), p .190. A similar case is known as having happened to Rabbi Moses Hayim Luzzato.

59

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

inform his entire life and weave its way into most of his works, where one appreciates the tensions in RaMaK's world between the appreciation of rational epistemic advantages and their ultimate deficiencies in mystical inquiries. J. Ben-Shlomo’s first published essay on Cordoeiro (1962) solidly argues for RaMaK's knowledge and ambivalence towards Jewish philosophical discourse and other areas of the so-called secular sciences at a relatively young age.290 Although RaMaK's ostensible outlook on these doctrines usually empowered the mystical relegation of intellectual inquiry, his ability to span such doctrines and harness their abstract sway for his own metaphysical and theosophical speculations is nevertheless visible in considerable parts of his oeuvre - including Pardes Rimonim. The picture that seems to surface via his writings is therefore of a young man, solitary to a considerable degree and whose wanderings had evoked great wondering; a teenager whose intellectual aptitude and studies pointed to Kabbalah as the authoritative answer to life’s existential questions. RaMaK's ability to introduce Pardes Rimonim merely six years after having embarked on his Kabbalah studies is a remarkable achievement in itself, having been a composition which also demonstrates his vast mastery of rabbinic discourse and a further support to his designation as “Maran Karo’s greatest student”.291 But more than anything, Pardes Rimonim is a herald of mystical systematization and reorganization - a major tribute to RaMaK's keen interest in mystical, rather than halakhic discourse per se. Excluding RaMaK from ordination does not exclude his participation on occasion in judicial endeavors. RaMaK was not only invested in different communal affairs of religious nature but saw such engagements indispensable towards the wholesome theosophical repair expected in his day and age. Menahem Azariah de Fano recalls RaMaK as “Delivering delightful [Shabbat] sermons [...] with his mighty tone, gathering multitudes to hear this voice of the generation, a superb resonance upon the holy land”,292 continuing to hail him as “A great sage in Gemara [...] who resided in a Yeshiva all his life, sharpening [the minds of] students who are as olive saplings, teaching regularly and

290 Ben-Shlomo, J. (1962), pp. 185-196. 291 Hayim Joseph David Azulai, Shem ha-G edolim , under “Maran Joseph Caro”, Maarekhet Gedolim 10:165. Cf: Benayahu, M. (1991), p .190. 292 Pelach ha-R im on, Venice (1600), Introduction.

60

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

judging between a man and his fellow”.293 Such sentiments also appear in the words of de Fano’s contemporary, Mordechai Dato.294 In his instructive essay concerning the ordination controversy, M. Benayahu painstakingly charts the evolution of the Safed Council Chamber (7inn-rpn),295 an institution composed of the foremost halakhic leaders of the various communal denominations in Safed.296 Elsewhere Benayahu demonstrates RaMaK’s part in this prestigious cohort and depicts his appointment as halakhic Arbitrator (T”7) by Karo prior to turning forty years of age.297 M. Benayahu makes clear the fluctuating dynamics within the Council Chamber, wherein various periods had known varying cohorts based on communal needs and immediate necessities,298 all of which suggest that RaMaK may have on occasion presided over this institution in the wake of someone’s absence or in such matters that did not specifically require uppermost arbitration. RaMaK seems indeed to have presided periodically over a Safedian Court o f Law (H-.TH), leaving us four extant rulings: the first three appear in Joseph Karo’s Avkat Rokhel and Responsa Beit Yoseph respectively,299 one of which features Karo praising RaMaK's pronouncement as “Reaching the depths of the Law and supported by the words of heaven” and concluding in a demonstrative parental sanction, “[...] on students like him it has been said ‘my son, if your mind gets wisdom, my mind, too, will be gladdened’300”.301 Karo’s pride notwithstanding, this kind of supportive mentorship for a student would be quite improbable had RaMaK been already ordained by 1538 or 1541. The second ruling (in Responsa Beit Yoseph) is also mentioned in Rabbi Hayim David Azulai’s Shem ha-Gedolim:302 disclosing its existence in print, Azulai claims to having seen “Yet another ruling of the Rabbi in manuscript” [mna ,MD'mtz/n ’rpfci Tim] - alluding 293 Ibid. 294 Tishby, I. (1993), pp.132-135; Benayahu, M. (1991), pp.191-196; David, A. (1991 c), pp.197-199. 295 Benayahu, M. (1961 b); (1989 a = ibid, 1991, pp.9-98]. See also in ibid (1991), pp. 11-16. 296 Benayahu, M. (1961 b), pp.252-258. 297 S e e B e n a y a h u , M . (1991), p . 190 & f n . 5. H a d R a M a K b e e n i n d e e d o r d a i n e d i n 1541, i t w o u l d s e e m h i g h l y u n l i k e l y t h a t K a r o w h o o r d a i n e d h i m h a d w a i t e d s o m e t w e n t y m o r e y e a r s t o a p p o i n t h i m a s Dayan. 298 Benayahu, M. (1961 b), ibid. 299 Avkat Rokhel (Salonika 1791), 91:61c; also Jerusalem (1960), note 81. Sh”ut Beit Yoseph (Jerusalem 1987), Dinei Ketubot, note 2. See also Benayahu, M. (1991), p .190 and fn.5; David, A. (1991 b), p.441-442 and fns.1,8,14. 300 Proverbs 23:15. 301 See also Benayahu, M. (1991), p .190. 302 Under “M oses Cordovero”, Maarekhet Gedolim 164:180.

61

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

perhaps to the third edict by RaMaK, which indeed appears in Shu "t Maran le-Eben haEzer™ The last extant judicial document was published by A. David in 1991:304 written on a blank page in the beginning of a second volume from an ornamented 13th century Bible,305 it features a ruling enacted on Tuesday, the fifth day of Adar, 5322 (1562), concerning “The heritance of the deceased Jacob Nahmias” and signed by the arbitrators Moses Cordoeiro, Moses Sagis and David Navarro.306 RaMaK’s communal investment had periodically led him to partake in halakhic debates or to offer partisan support in certain power struggles which had shaped the somewhat turbulent evolution of 16th century Safedian leadership. Such was an episode from the perpetual controversy between two of Safed highest ranking leaders - Rabbi Moses di Trani and Rabbi Joseph Karo. Moses Trani was a strong headed leader of the Safed community and a scholar who did not hesitate to enforce his opinions even when refuting earlier views of prominent halakhic figures.307 One such controversy took place in the wake o f the severe epidemic of 1556, concerning the enforcement of marital monetary vows (ketubah and nedunya) in numerous cases wherein newly married individuals became prematurely widowed. Rabbi Karo’s fierce rebuke of di Trani’s verdict on this issue appeared later in M aran’s Responsa to Eben ha-Ezer,308 enlisting for its enforcement the written support of Moses Cordoeiro who was thirty six years old at the time.309 Our discussion thus far secures RaMaK's standing as a scholar whose commendable erudition rendered him a celebrated savant, although a man not enthusiastically keen to partake in partisan wrangling or leadership struggles. Given the dramatic unfolding and

303 Shu”t M a ra n le-Eben h a-E zer (Jerusalem 1960), Dinei Geviyat Ketuba, note 3, pp.34c-37b. Cf; Benayahu, M. (1991), p.28 and fn.l 11. 304 In David, A. (1991 b), pp.441-446. 305 Its photocopy marked the signature o f the M arseille M unicipal Library (No. 1626). The photocopy is featured in A. D avid’s article, ibid, pp.445-446. Cf: Sed-Rajna, G. (1975), p.8. Noteworthy is RaMaK's simple signature whose lack o f embellished adoration stands out in comparison to the others. 306 For further details regarding M oses Sagis and David Navarro, see David, A. ibid, p.442 and fns.9, 10, 11 , 12 .

307 On M oses di Trani biography and on his controversy with Joseph Karo, see Benayahu, M. (1991), pp.7152; Dimitrowsky, H.Z. (1962); ibid (1963); Horowitz, K. (1987); Bentov, H. (1974). 308 Shu”t Maran le-Even ha-Ezer (Jerusalem 1960), Dinei Geviyat Ketubah, note 3, pp.31a-34c. 309 In ibid, pp.34c-37b. Although the later editor (Rabbi Mordechai ben Rabbi Shlomo Kalai) mentions four other scholars who wrote their rulings in K aro’s support - Rabbis Abraham ben Asher, Barukh [of Tivolli], Moses Alsheikh and Moses Sa’adiah - he had opted to include only RaMaK's answer, “Since it encompasses all their answers” [ a m m Vim V?D3tZ?]. Cf; Benayahu, M. (1991), p.21 and fn.l 11.

62

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

the refutations concerning the ordination ordeal, RaMaK might have deemed it wise to stay clear of its path, or may have exercised ambivalence due to his respect for all parties involved in this controversy. Most importantly, RaMaK’s profound reliance on mystical erudition, speculation and practice did not seek to position the critical weight of his fine scholastic attributes on halakhic dialogue per se - an approach which in turn did not position him as a towering halakhic figure in mid 16th century Safed.310 RaMaK’s inclination towards metaphysics, theosophy and mystical practice seems to have informed the path leading to his twentieth year, as further demonstrated in his Shiur Qomah, where he claims to “Having successfully engaged with word combinations and permutations during my early adult years” [’rrnrn ’h’n].311 The mid 1540’s were the beginning of a surge of unmatched literary proliferation on RaMaK's part, one whose thrust would not dissipate until his very last days and bring to full light the broader span of his mystical ardor. No matter how brilliant, industrious or communally savvy, RaMaK must have sequestered himself days on end to quench his intellectual thirst and spirited hunger, let alone to allow his inquiries the literary articulation needed for their entrenchment in the mind and dissemination in the communal sphere. No less can be expected once we evaluate the sheer volume of his literary legacy, just as no less can be expected of a man who undertook to map out a comprehensively systematic traffic of earlier mystical works and do so while exploring the world within and around him. RaMaK was a spiritual luminary concerned with translating complex theosophical speculations as lucid foundations of moral living for the community; a man whose considerable credence had been consumed by his interest in divine cosmology and human microcosmology, theological history and ethical teleology. He was a scholar whose acute attention to Hebrew as God’s Vernacular resulted in ingenious manipulations of etymological associations, phonetic affinities and philological atomism; a savant engaged with personal catharsis and national redemption, ascetic piety and spiritual cartography, nightly excursions into the forests and deep fascination with the constituents of the natural world. He was a spiritualist who openly admits to having experienced angelic

310 J. Ben-Shlomo briefly alludes to this point: see ibid, (1965), pp.8-9. 311 S hiur Q om ah, p.93.

63

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

sightings, intuitive insights, automatic speech and guided writing; a mystic whose colleagues were not only those among the living but the myriad of deceased tannaitic souls with whom he had consorted for epistemic erudition and theurgic potency. In short, RaMaK was devoted to the disambiguation of divinity and left public matters of Halakhah for the most part in the capable hands of other Safedian leaders. Given that any scholarly study informed by fragmented documentation deems “Impossible [...] to prove a negative”,312 one might never conclusively dismiss RaMaK's viability for ordination. None of the extant evidence, however, suggests that he was ever ordained - whereas much seems to lend itself via negativa in rebut. Indeed, this kind of mystical entrenchment was in and of itself a part of RaMaK's cosmological piety - a contraction within the world as a means to expand beyond the world!

Concrete Anonymity is Spiritual Splendor: the Dialectics o f Opposing Hierarchies “W here you find the mightiness o f the Holy One, there you also find His humility” Babylonian Talmud, Megilah 31a

The study of autobiographical accounts generally yields two underpinning impetuses behind their conception: first is the public autobiography which primarily aims to validate the author’s importance and impress a certain audience, either immediate or envisioned. Second is the personal autobiography whose main reasoning is mostly the intimately introspective rather than the publicly instructive.313 The amalgamation of both elements features among some Safedian kabbalists who may have viewed the chronicled details of their intimate mystical ordeals mandatory to their prominence. This might have been the case in Joseph Karo’s Magid Meisharim,314 Elazar Azikri’s Sefer Haredim315 and more visibly in Hayim Vital’s mystical diary Sefer ha-Hezyonot - disclosing not only his mystical visions but also the dreams of others who envisioned his paramount trajectory as

312 Dan, J. (1980), p. 17. 313 See, e.g. Gusdorf, G. in Olney, J. (ed., 1980). A good discussion and additional bibliography is in Oron, M. (1992), pp.299-301 and fn.3. 314 See, e.g., Tamar, D. (2002), pp. 124-125. 315 See Pachter,M . (1981).

64

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Mashiah ben Yosef.n 6 Although the current visibility of such intimate autobiographical diaries does not necessarily imply their authors’ original objectives and cannot therefore argue conclusively for premeditated contingency between personal transparency and desired prominence, the visible scarcity of RaMaK’s autobiographical details does not even allow for such speculations on our part. One may consider RaMaK's relative anonymity a personal adherence to the Talmudic dictum “No praising memory is required for the righteous, since their words are their memory”.317 But there is also room to unearth here a particular character and a personal style of conduct, one which accommodates RaMaK’s less charismatic, perhaps even consciously introverted slant: RaMaK’s Sefer Gerushin - especially entries 91-99 which were composed during his solitary excursions in the Galilee during 1551 - demonstrates that RaMaK had spent considerable time alone, scouting the Galilean vicinities, meditating or prostrating on tannaitic grave-markers in order to stimulate esoteric exegesis. The praises afforded by a few of RaMaK's students in regard to his communal clout and public investment should therefore be taken with due prudence, especially given the sheer enormous volume of RaMaK's writings, which must have necessitated for their fruition significant periods of time spent sequestered.318 It is exclusively Sefer Gerushin which affords a glimpse into RaMaK's firsthand testimony regarding the intimate ties he had held with a close circle of spiritual associates, called □nnn (haverim). Although concerned with the communal realization of the redemptive scheme, RaMaK’s writings as a whole fail to present him as focused on popular affirmation or vast communal consent to his ideas. As M. Hallamish observes, "It seems that RaMaK worked among a small cohort of spiritual sages and was not necessarily a charismatic leader around whom many gathered".319 As we have noted earlier, it further seems that RaMaK was quite content with this reality and never tried to

316 See Tamar, D. (1963) and (2002), pp.81-95 and 96-120; Oron, M. (1992); Fierstein, M. (annot. And intro., 2006). I. Tishby asserts that “The notes composing Sefer ha-Hezyonot were never meant for public knowledge”. Despite the highly intimate formulation o f this diary, I am not convinced o f Tishby’s suggestion and tend to agree with M. Oron’s view, seeing certain parts o f his diary a tool for personal leverage and the advancement o f Lurianic Kabbalah. See Tishby, I. (1974), p.60 and Oron, M., ibid. 317 Palestinian Talmud, Shekalim 11a. M. Benayahu already uses this verse to describe RaMaK's autobiographical a n o n y m ity - see ibid (1991), p .189 and also Sack, B. (1995 a), p .11. 318 Please refer to the chapter R aM aK ’s Writings for further details. 319 Hallamish, M. (2001), pp.337-338.

65

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

secure his public domain in relation to that held by the perhaps more communally savvy leaders, be they Alkabetz, Karo, Trani or ha-Levi Beruchim. That being said, RaMaK's clout as a mystical genius was hardly contested in Safed and was held in high regards by leaders and lay public alike. Hallamish's conclusion in regard to RaMaK's hanhagot "Being merely

suggestive,

rather

than

instructive"

is

therefore

not

entirely

substantiated,320 and more inquiry is needed to appreciate the thrust and impact of RaMaK's particular decrees on later generations. The above nonetheless serve to amplify RaMaK’s obscurity, a fact that seems to have well been his original intention. RaMaK indeed endorsed anonymity in its extreme fashion, leading him at times to subtly disprove of the conduct or sayings of earlier, otherwise quite revered, sages. Although his approbation of Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai is undeniable, sporadic depictions of Rashbi in the Talmud and especially in the Zohar as a man of noticeable spiritual vanity321 point RaMaK's nuanced sympathy towards biblical Moses when issues of humility and its spiritual effectiveness are concerned - a reality sustained by RaMaK's desire at times to galvanize mystical discourse also from within a halakhic mindset. Although Rashbi is rendered “The master of secrets, on whom shone the esoteric lights of Torah and to whom permission was given to write them”,322 RaMaK nonetheless clarifies in numerous places that “One should not chase after those who boast in their knowledge”323 and that “no man had attained the Torah in its entirety save Moses our Rabbi, peace be upon him”.

Likewise, RaMaK believed that “The chief part of

redemption lies with neither Messiah ben David nor Messiah ben Yoseph, but rather in the hands of Moses”.325 Correspondingly, such associations resonated well with certain legends which emphasize his modesty and use the name affinity to link his character with that of biblical Moses - as is the case in Mordechai Dato’s imaginatively embellished narrative in the

320 Ibid, p .335, fn.35. 321 See e.g., Zohar Hadash 85:3, 4; Zohar 2:34b; 3:132b. See also in Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, pp.9-10; Liebes, Y. in Pedayah, H. and Meir, E. (eds., 2006). 322 Shiur Qomah, p .18 and see Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, p .10. 323 Or Ne'erav 3:3. 324 Or Ne'erav 1:6 and compare with Shiur Qomah, p.61. See e.g., Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 89a regarding M oses’ humility and compare with ibid 34a regarding Rashbi’s vanity. On this issue see also Huss, B. (1999). 325 Or Yaqar, v o l.l, pp.163-164.

66

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

aforementioned Igeret ha-Levanon326 RaMaK's reticence is also celebrated in the embellished hearsay testimony by Rabbi Judah Leib of Modena, describing the meeting between Rabbi Moses Bassola and RaMaK in Safed on a Sabbath day, 1560: the old Italian-based Moses ben Mordechai Bassola (1480-1560) - a venerated sage and Rabbi Mordechai Dato’s uncle327 - was greeted upon his arrival in Safed by an esteemed cohort of the Safedian leadership, among whom stood Rabbi Moses Cordoeiro who “Was a lad” [n m rrnif]328 at the time. Once asked his identity, to which RaMaK replied “Your humble servant Moses Cordovero”, Moses Bassola is reported to having said “[Behold], you are Moses Cordovero whose reputation precedes you, yet you have not even reached the age of a cattle keeper” [329~ij73 ns/Ti] - a praise to which Cordoeiro bows his head in silence.330 Such depictions and others - some embellished at best, others utterly legendary - seem to further suggest that whereas RaMaK's mystical caliber had been known among vast circles, RaMaK nonetheless had not deemed it necessary to cultivate a cult of followers around him. The above in mind, RaMaK’s professed endorsement of anonymity had also nurtured from a broader cosmological view which corresponded with his systematic speculation, and whose fuller details we will chart in the chapter RaMaK's Writings. At this juncture it shall suffice to say that RaMaK’s system professed a cosmic distortion which had occurred after Adam’s Primordial Sin: divine benevolence which in the pre-realized world had been flowing unperturbed from one Sefirah to another - in a circular ladder as it were - was henceforth superseded by the demotion of the Shekhinah as the last Sefirah and a twist which caused the worlds from the Shekhinah downward [y"’3] to coil into a helix configuration resembling a DNA strand. In turn, the Shekhinah had become the 326 Ig eret ha-L evanon, p.173a; cf: Tishby, I. (1993), p .154. 327 Mordechai Dato in fact joined him on this visit - see Tishby, I. ibid, p. 139 and fns. 43-47. 328 An obvious exaggeration, since RaMaK was 48 in 1560. 329 1 have found no equivalent to this term. The more common term INI' n s n [sheep herder] has been used in relation to RaM aK by Moses Bassola’s nephew, M ordechai Dato, who had in fact accompanied Bassola to Safed on the abovementioned 1560 event: in his Ig eret ha-L evanon Dato narrates a mentally induced meeting between the protagonist [himself] and “A shepherd - since his name, Moses, points to this vocation, as it is known that Moshe Rabbeinu used to lead the flock o f his father in law in the desert”. Elsewhere, Dato renders RaM aK “A herder o f the holy flock” [D’Wtp INS H l’V i - see Ezekiel 36:38 and Z o h a r 2:21a] and goes on to explicate the mystical derivation o f the Hebrew word INS [flock o f sheep] as the acronym o f m il pa nvniN qiTX - RaMaK's spiritual aptitude in the permutation o f words, letters and vowels: “[...] understand that the man Moses Cordovero had mastered this art o f permutation and had led others to succeed in it as well”. See ibid, pp,173a-b; cf: Tishby, I. (1993), p p .155-156. 330 See M odena’s A ri N ohem (1929), p.84; cf: Benayahu, M. (1991), p.193.

67

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

indispensible negotiator between divinity and the cosmic edifice, whereas a mechanism of dialectic hierarchy o f opposites had now outspread to regulate the three lower levels of divine realization [y",3] from potentiality to actuality: the characteristic twist of the helix thus rendered any actuality (= effect / below the point of each twist respectively) a mirror via negativa of its potentiality (= cause / above the point of each twist respectively). RaMaK's ‘cosmological DNA strand’ thus viewed the post-Edenic world as the myriad of actuated elements whose divine regulation mandates that they reflect via negativa their immediately superior causes. One’s path back to Eden necessitated - also by divine regulation - that men uncoil the world back into harmonious utility with the theosophical edifice. In such a manner the mystical activity in its many forms became an uncoiling from below upwards -actuality was utilized via negativa to arouse its potentiality; the effect was engaged via negativa in order to stimulate its cause: physical degradation was now the means to stimulate spiritual elevation; the poverty of matter stimulated richness of mind and soul; anonymity within the world stimulated prominence beyond the world. The above cosmic unfolding thus necessitated this responsive reversal, for it had been a divine regulation, a theosophical need and an operational desire - all of which are converged in RaMaK's works under the quintessential term mttt i n s gavohah].

[tzorech

Accessing any potentiality on high regulated its engagement below via

negativa - an idea whose seeds were already planted in RaMaK by his master Solomon Alkabetz, as we find its subtle employment in Sefer Gerushin which features Alkabetz “Teaching through innovation that during the summer days especially we should on occasion walk barefoot [= actual manipulation] in order to join the mystery of the Shekhinah [as disclosed in the verse] ‘withhold thy feet from being unshod,332 [potential property stimulated via negativa].333 Likewise, actual modesty would thus lead via negativa to its opposite potentiality in form of spiritual greatness, just as corporeal asceticism, material reduction and self­ contraction would via negativa unleash mental deliverance, epistemic illumination and

331 Please refer to the chapter RaMaK's Writings for more details. 332 Jeremiah 2:25. * L. Fine and R.J.Z. Werblowsky furnish different translations than mine. See Fine, L. (2003), p .60 and W erblowsky, R.J.Z. in Green, A. (ed., 1987), p .15. I maintain that the overall context o f Sefer Gerushin calls for a more subtle translation, namely reading the word ©in in both the passive [hudash] and the active [hidesh], 333 Entry 11, p. 12.

68

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

ecstatic freedom. Indeed, one of RaMaK's most utilized paradigms “Concealment is the cause o f revelation” [mbinnn riTO D^yri] also meant that personal tzimtzum (contraction) was a mandatory prerequisite for divine expansion: men’s conscious refolding simultaneously opened the door for divine unfolding - the final end for which even the greatest among men where no more than a means, albeit fused in great partnership with the divine and worthy of the eternal awards awaiting them in Eden. Since God created the world ex nihilo, men should reverse this mechanism en route to reunion with Him; illuminate the nihil by darkening the ex: “A man cannot acquire an elevated degree of 334

providence by the Shekhinah save through frequent torments as harsh as death”;

[through] “Those who seek poverty and anguish in honor of the Torah”,335 “Blacken336* themselves in its honor by poverty throughout their lives on this earth”

'i 'i n

or “Hold fast to

it and torment themselves”338 and by doing so are in fact rich, “For although they have no material provisions [nyitf ” n] they nonetheless thrive [ti] through this occupation”. Human eccentricity was therefore rendered in RaMaK's cosmological piety a considerable speck of dust on a lens aspiring for optimum polishing - a scrap of dirt obstructing the divine light from projecting uninterruptedly via the myriad of speculums afforded for its revelation: RaMaK's lenses of historiography and historiosophy all abided in divinity and wished to lead men toward the cathartic climax which undeniably had informed his worldview. His mystical enterprise aimed at self effacement in anticipation of the impending illumination of the ‘face’ of God: the radical halt of historical sequence, the exhaustion of intellectual inquiry, the cessation of spacetime manifestations and the eradication of progressive edification - the unification of God and His beloved Israel through the utilization of the map towards Eden now rendered the cosmic edifice in its entirety, and its cryptography now rendered the holy Jewish texts and the Zohar.34° In that respect, RaMaK's employment of the term nmiDnn (Hitbodedut - solitary

334 O r Yaqar on Raaya Meheimana 3:17. 335 Ibid on Tikkunei ha-Zohar 2:11. 336 n ’Vy 1DS37 - RaM aK may be referring here to the use o f ashes as gestures o f mourning and lamentations. 337 Ibid on Raaya Meheimana 3:13. 338 Ibid, on Tikkunei ha-Zohar 10:1. 339 Ibid. 340 RaMaK believed that a National Redemption will occur during his lifetime. See Sack, B. (1995 a), chapter 11; ibid (1980), pp.265-286.

69

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

confinement / seclusion / meditative obsorbtion) meant first and foremost to nullify the obstructing ‘self and its perceptory obstacles as the means to reveal ones’ role in the harmonious and simple life of God - to use the sum of human meridians as conduits to transcend beyond the spatiotemporal, to attain the sublime traffic and to mend what needs mending in accord with divine regulatory desire [mm TTIX].341 Such views are well noticed in later Hasidic literature and practices, such as that found in Rabbi Dov Baer’s (the Magid of Mezritch, Ukraine, 1773-1827) teachings from Magid Devarav le-Ya ’akov\ Think of yourself as ayin [nothing] and forget youself totally. Then you can transcend time, rising to the world of thought, where all is equal: life and death, ocean and dry land. This is not the case when you are attached to the material nature of this world. If you think of yourself as something, God cannot be clothed in you, for God is infinite and no vessel can contain 'XA.') God - unless you think of yourself as ayin. Such an ontic effacement indeed leads one of Dov Baer’s disciples - Issaschar Baer of Zlotshov - to clarify in his Mevaser Tzedek:

The essence of serving God and of all the mitzvot is to attain the state of humility: to understand that all your physical and mental powers and your essential being depend on the divine elements within. You are simply a channel for the divine attributes. You attain this humility through the awe of God’s vastness, through realizing that ‘there is no place devoid of Him’. Then you come to the state of ayin, the state of humility. You have no independent self and are contained in the Creator. This is the meaning of the verse ‘Moses hid his face, for he was in awe’. Through his experience of awe, Moses attained the hiding of his face: He perceived no independent self. Everything was part of divinity.344 'l A 'i

RaMaK's world was indeed that arena, one informed by the dialectic interplay of hierarchical opposites whose reverse manipulation by the astute mystic underlined the ontic vitality, epistemic transparency and theurgic potency needed for a theosophical closure. To misunderstand, and by extension to mishandle, this cosmic apparatus thus

341 Please refer to the chaper Sefer Gerushin for more detail. 342 In Schatz-Uffenheimer, R. (ed., 1976), p .186 - cf: Matt, D.C. (1996), p.75. 343 Exodus 3:6. 344 See in Matt, D.C. (1995), p.72; ibid (1996), pp.75-76. On this issue in general see also Elior, R. (1992), especially chapters 2 & 3.

70

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

caused great disharmony within the Shekhinah - a reality whose multihued repercussions for life on earth could not be overstressed in RaMaK's theosophy: in accord with the Zoharic stand on this issue RaMaK states that such verses as “Where modesty resides the Shekhinah dwells, as it is written ‘walk modestly with your God’,345 and ‘wisdom is with those who are unassuming’346 instruct us that the teachings of the immodest are forgotten”;347 that “He who prides himself through Torah causes the [corresponding Sefirah] Tif’eret to pride itself in turn and gaze upward [instead of the desired downward], God forbid”.348 RaMaK's humility as a treatment for “The disease of arrogance”349 therefore glorifies its aptitude in discharging by theosophical inertia the deepest chambers of divine concealment. Tomer Devorah, for example, succinctly articulates this notion by calling one to surrender one’s ‘self altogether as the ipso facto means to reveal divinity and allow its potencies the uninterrupted flow required for remedial theurgy. In his discussion of ni,3N nTQ] (prostration at the end of the Eighteen Benediction)350 and own ttHTp (sanctification of God’s name) RaMaK not only regards the physical sacrifice of certain past sages as an ultimate glorification of divinity,351 but also clarifies the association between the liturgical act of prostration and the ‘death of the individual’, which in turn unclogs divine channels in a finely tuned agreement with God’s regulated will: “[...] One should appear as if one literally passed away from this world [...], whereupon one is vanished to comply with the will of his Creator” [ .D^wn

“lUEtf 17X3 TOE niNUT? th x

.imp ru n 1? p^no] nyw xmm ^[dK"?) iriyn n m ’iz; pustn rmiDi].352 This quality is also associated with RaMaK's treatment of nocturnal services, sleeping and dreaming: on the one hand, RaMaK equates slumber with death in the negative sense,353 whereupon night is in and of itself an exclusive portal toward “The secret of the Shekhinah who is called

345 M icah 6:8. 346 Proverbs 11:2. 347 Tefflah le-M oshe 2:4. 348 Tomer Devorah, chapter 7. 349 Tomer Devorah, chapter 2. 350 On the Zoharic treatment o f these issues, see Zohar 2:138b and 3:120b-121a; cf: Tishby, I. (1949), vol.3, p p .1029-1030 and 1033-1036. 351 See e.g., Zohar 1:65a; Or Yaqar, vol.l 1, pp.26, 78, 291, Eilima Rabbati, Ein Adam 3:28, pp.149a150b [manuscript, JTS]. For a detailed discussion, see Sack, B. (1995 a), chapter 9. 352 On this issue see also Fishbane, M. (rpr. ed., 1996), especially chapter 1. 353 Based on Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 57b.

71

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

‘night’,354 and sleep prevents men from attaining and harnessing this property. Therefore, “When a man makes his nights into days, he truly turns darkness into light and thus mends the Judgment [...], and binds himself to the tree of life”.355 On the other hand, RaMaK describes the Malkhut herself as a dream ,356 whereupon he endorses sleep mainly vis-a-vis dreams whose powerful potency as conduits of esoteric insights he had cherished and harnessed for spiritual edification.357 RaMaK's conspicuous biographical shorthand is therefore the contraction of actual visibility and individual significance in the regulatory favor of expansive potentiality and divine illumination. Divulging information that might have shed light on him rather than divinity therefore stood in contradiction to RaMaK's view of God’s mandated appearance in the post-Edenic world, and an act obstructing divine directive by focusing on the effect rather than the cause - let alone the divine Ultimate Cause. That in mind, each of his compositions sporadically echoes personal accounts and experiences, instances that may teach a great deal about the phenomenology of RaMaK's devotional life once properly studied. Tomer Devorah, certain unpublished parts of Eilima Rabbati (especially Ein Adam 6), the Hanhagot (pietistic customs) and perhaps most tellingly Derishot ve-Hakirot be-Inyanei ha-Mal'akhim 358 and Sefer Gerushin afford a greater appreciation of the performative elements in RaMaK's piety. Whereas each composition undeniably nurtured from RaMaK's theoretical layout, these books are categorically binded together in elucidating concrete practices rather than mere abstract speculations, and further clarify the edifying role and the sway RaMaK had exhorted as a mystical educator.

These works unpack RaMaK's reliance

onspatiotemporal

configurations and spiritual cartography of landscapes; they demonstrate the use of physical and corporeal elements as portals to epistemic transparency and spiritual progress; they stress the Imitatio Dei principle via moral precepts, religious etiquette and theurgic accountabilities; they master the manipulation of letters, vowels, consonants and words by subtle relations between etymological, phonetic and visual affinities and their theurgic potencies thereof; they even show RaMaK's secretive reliance on magic, 354 Eilima Rabbati, Ein Adam 6:14 (manuscript, JTS); cf: Sack, B. (1995 b), p .177. 355 Eilima Rabbati, Ein Adam 6:11 (manuscript, JTS); cf: Sack, B. ibid, p .174. 356 Or Ne'erav 7:1. 357 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 66, p .80; Pardes Rimonim 23:8. 358 A section from RaMaK's Or Yaqar on Shir ha-Shirim.

72

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

demonic rituals, exorcism and nonsensical permutations - all of which deepen our knowledge of the manifold sources which not only fashioned his speculation but also translated into paradigms of practical piety.

”5 CQ

RaMaK's cosmology therefore recognized the gradually increasing circumferences of actualities downward whose meticulous engagement upward should reverse this mechanism and expose via negativa their potentialized causes: contracting the body expands the soul; taking certain measures of physical affliction releases spiritual endurance; reticence in regards to one’s own name opens the conduits of the holy name etc’. Given that RaMaK not only saw in his Safedian mystical elite a multifarious continuum to the Rashbi circle, but also the agents through whom the prophecies of the Zohar were to achieve dramatic closure, it is quite sensible that the Zoharic protagonists were for him indispensable role models! After all, the Zohar in RaMaK's world was not merely the single greatest expansion of mystical brilliance, but a composition conceived (according to tradition) via such reversed dialectics - first was “The profound concealment o f the light of the righteous in Rashbi’s generation [which] necessitated the appearance of this esoteric work [...] so they may repair the brunt of the exilic affliction”.360 Second, the view of the Zohar having been initiated while Rashbi and his son Eleazar lived within the contracting walls of a Galilean cave.361 One can only imagine to what extent RaMaK had regarded himself a spearhead in the conclusion of the magnificent cosmic ordeal aroused by Rashbi’s cohort some fourteen centuries earlier - and to what extent such pent up feelings of celestial grandeur unleashed in him even deeper tensions between individual concealment and scholastic sway. His inner world was indeed deeply indebted to the sensation of a tannaitic renaissance in his day and age, one which saw in Rashbi’s spiritual grandeur a quality now informing RaMaK’s own mystical piety and influence. Such views lead RaMaK at rare times to demonstrate in writing his self-perception as an authoritative luminary as well: “Take heed of my qualities, which are all from Rashbi on whom shone the light of

359 On this issue in general, see also Idel, M. in Cooperman, B.D. (eds., 1983); Ben-Naeh, Y. (2000); Garb, J. (2001); Bar-Levav, A. (2003). On RaMaK, see Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp. 29-31. 360 O r Y a q a r on T ikkunei h a-Z o h ar in Z o h a r H ad ash 94a. Cf; Sack, B. (1995 a), p.37. 361 See e.g., in Isaac o f A cre’s testimony - cf: Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, pp.13-14.

73

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Torah [ . . 362 “for we know that once the reader delves through our statements into the depths of Rashbi’s words, his soul shall bless him”.363 Deep inside, perhaps, and mostly away from public view or even collegial scrutiny, RaMaK may have found his true calling in the following verse from Tikkunei ha-Zohar, disclosing Rashbi’s contention “It is true that the Holy One, blessed be He, has agreed that the upper and the lower worlds should be with us in this book. Happy is the generation in which this is revealed; and all this will be renewed by the hands of Moses, at the end of days, in the final generation”.364 RaMaK not only rendered his Jewish kin “The children of the last generation - the generation o f redemption”,365 but also deemed their particular era “The preordained descent of the Shekhinah to utter darkness, which is our charge to her support”366 [as a sure sign of deliverance by the dialectic imperative]. Such sentiments obviously negotiated with the Zoharic narrative, which not only endorsed humility but affirmed its acute dialectic standing in the revelatory process itself. RaMaK’s writings affirm such views by vindicating the sense of lowliness as a revelatory perquisite, wherein one finds such self debasements as “The lowliest of my entire generation due to my innumerous transgressions” coexisting with “A man of evil deeds who nonetheless may adorn the sages by words of Torah”.367 An exemplary portion of a passage from Sava de-Mishpatim {Zohar 2:101b) narrates Sava (the old man) declaring, “And I, see how much I humble my heart and lower my eyes before the Holy King. Woe to me if my heart becomes proud through the holy words of the Torah”.368 As E. Fishbane states in his examination of this passage, [...] Despite the fact that he [Sava] affirms the imperative of revelation [...], he is still plagued by a sense of unworthiness and lack of readiness for the process. [...] Only in an ultimate state of humility is the mystic truly ready for the act of revelation and the act of spiritual preparation is a dynamic of self-humbling modeled on the paragon of religious humility. The exegetical-homiletical portrayal of King David [in Ps. 131:1] is in fact 362 Sh iu r Q om ah, p. 18 and compare with p.29, end o f chapter 15. 363 P ard es R im onim 5:5. See also in Horodetzky, S.A. (1924., Heb. ed. 1951), p.20. 364 T ikkunei h a-Z o h ar 69, p.110a; see also the end o f Tikkun 6. Cf; Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, p .19 and fn.82. 365 O r Y a q a r on T ikunei h a-Z o h ar, Bava Matziah 68b; cf: Sack, B. (1995 a), p.228. 366 O r Y a q a r on T ikunei h a -Z o h a r in Z o h ar H ad ash 94a; cf: Sack, B. (1995 a), p.40. 367 See e.g., Sefer G erushin, entry 18, p.20. 368 Translation by Fishbane, E. (2002), p.32.

74

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

the first stage of the Sava’s own act of self-humbling, and the paradigmatic rhetoric becomes the vehicle for his own spiritual transformation. He attempts to reach his own state of humility through the model of the biblical figure [...]. [Thus], the realization of humility is completely transformative for the mystic. -5 /TQ

RaMaK's preface to Pardes Rimonim may also serve us well here: featuring a preparatory blessing to usher in esoteric studies, it is an important document for the study of RaMaK's perception of men in the divine order. Although its terminology may be deemed somewhat routine, it nonetheless sheds light on the existential humility and ascetic disposition informing Cordoeiro’s speculation and devotion: 7 "nN 7 "m’fe 7 "’n'’

□"’1?xxan b "^7 in N pm nrm n m iy a i crai-ian nun** srv ’a .ntyya by n"iyiy ,isia ^ "i"rr ,xiaa *73 x" n a ^xxa Va V ’xxb "i"7x2 *?7P iy"a ,t'p w a ’“ino in on a n nbyn *777^ m aaa ’a n d’dVx ^ x b 7nx v v r h ’nxun bD ^y aaym rftoi ^lnai p rm n a mx^sa nu’axi ’j’y b i 'n p 1? [...] .n"’rnTX’ ,n n nvn 7y rrnxn by ’rrrn o v a ’nytyDtyi ’rmviyi ’nxoniy w a i ’maiyi ,’nxon xVi ’ax p’7X ’m ax ’rfrxi m^x 'n "I’jdV -\m b q*ny niypi a’as Ty ’ax rxiy p m y myam D’tytyi m xa ty^tyi m ax naatyi D’yaaxi B’nxB ^ai ’ax [...] ’nxan ^ax xV "ityx nx ta^p^pi li’yn ,n y n ’^a jxxa la^ia ’ay a ’l^an ’natyai ’n m ’tysai .’7’jn p n ’rmya yTi’n .mmasn 770 n^ya a n a jb v n b n xan a m yatya x1? nx ipn1? ^aia ' w i s maVxi ’aaaon nana mm m xntya ’aatym *pmn m xa *’aan ’nnrny "ityx nx .[...] rfto p x i p x ,nnyy*?i maiy^i ii N t ] 71a1?1? fpnm n ’n nyia ru’axi -p a n •

•

T*7fl

T”71

He who is enthroned on high and watches over the low; master to all372 that has been emanated; [the] Only, [the] Unique [and the] One; a T7T majestic King; emanating all the emanated, creating all the created, forming all the formed [and] doing all that has been done. Who can attain even one fraction of the thousands upon thousands and tens of thousands of the concealed mysteries which are Your deeds, nevertheless Your formations [...]. I therefore beseech You, my Lord, ‘open my eyes that I may perceive the wonders of Your teachings’;374 acquit, forgive and absolve all the transgressions, offenses and misdemeanors which I have committed in Your presence since my birth and till this very day - for I am not as impudent375 and stiff-necked376 as to say ‘My God and the God of my forefathers, I am a righteous person who has committed no •

•

•

*

369 Fishbane, E. ibid. 370 See Psalms 123:1; 148:1; Job 16:19. 371 See Song o f Songs 2:9. 372 See e.g. Rashi on 1 Chronicles 16:29. 373 See Exodus 15:11. 374 Psalms 119:18. 375 See Deuteronomy 28:50; Daniel 8:23. 376 See e.g., Exodus 32:9; 33:3-5; 34:9; Deuteronomy 9:6,13.

75

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

offense’.377 I have [indeed] transgressed [...] - me, my 248 organs and 365 arteries and ligaments, as well as my Nefesh (physical soul), Ruah (emotive soul) and Neshamah (transcendent soul) which are revealed within me - we are all like sheep without a herder. We erred and disfigured beyond our ability to mend save through the plentiful flow from above, from the high ranking order of the [divine] conduits. You who knows my distortions, [please] reinstate that which I have destroyed; make me be worthy of [* cleanse me through] the light of your Torah; withhold me from errors and let a vigorously willing spirit sustain me,378 so I may teach the wicked Your paths379 and understand the blissful secrets of Your teachings - to learn and to teach, to safeguard and to carry out, Amen and Amen Selah [...]. As mentioned earlier, RaMaK’s Eilima Rabbati and particularly Tomer Devorah further establish such humility as a premeditated gesture on his part. The abovementioned Zoharic passage - “[...] See how much I humble my heart and lower my eyes before the Holy King. Woe to me if my heart becomes proud through the holy words of the Torah” is echoed in RaMaK's Tomer Devorah, where he designates God’s humility as a primary moral attribute and charges men in turn to “Attain the secret of the Supernal Form (tzurah elyonah) in both image (tzelem) and likeness (r/emwt)”:381 to live in optimal accord with divinity’s regulated will,

It is proper for man to emulate his Creator [...]. Thus, it is proper that man’s actions imitate the Thirteen Supernal Attributes of Mercy (shloshesreh midot shel rahamim elyonot) which are the functions of the [sefirah] Keter and hinted at in these verses [Micha 7:18-20]: “Who is God like You, who pardons iniquity and forgives the transgression of the remnant of His Heritage? He does not maintain His anger forever, for He delights in kindness. He will again show us compassion, he will vanquish our iniquities, and You will cast all their sins into the depth of the sea. Show faithfulness to Ya’akov, kindness to Avraham, which you have sworn to our fathers from days of old” [...]. The first, “Who is God like You”, refers to Holy One, Blessed Be He, as a tolerant King Who bears insult in TR9 a manner beyond human understanding [...].

377 See 1 Samuel 24:11. 378 Psalms 51:14. 379 See Jeremiah 2:33; 12:16 and Psalms 119:73. 380 M ishnah, Avot 4:5. 381 T om er D evorah 1: introduction. All translations, unless noted otherwise, are by Miller, M. (trans., 1993). 382 T om er D evorah 1:1.

76

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

In chapter 2 RaMaK continues to instruct human ethical behavior by rendering humility the primary, all inclusive, most profound and most intimate response to God’s ethical model as seen in the Sefirah Keter. Moreover, we realize that the humbleness of the Keter - rendered “The banner of all qualities”383 - is not only an ethical attribute in response to God’s infinite inclination towards benevolence but also the result of inherent ontological, epistemological and functional properties that stem from the K eter’s inimitable proximity to the Godhead. In other words, humility is a divine directive which informs all strata of cosmic affairs and must be harnessed in order to affect change on the ailed post-Edenic world: For a person to emulate his Creator according to the secret attributes of the Keter, he must possess several qualities, which characterize the way God conducts His world. The first and all inclusive is the attribute of humility: it is the most sublime of all attributes, does not exalt or glorify itself [in an upward movement], but rather it always descends, gazing downwards. There are two reasons for this: first, the Keter is ashamed to gaze at its Cause; instead, He who emanated Keter perpetually watches over it as to bestow goodness upon it, whereas it [Keter] gazes at those below it. Similarly, a person should be ashamed to gaze upward and glorify himself, but rather should constantly gaze downward and diminish his worth as much as he can. This quality depends mainly on the head - for a person glorifies himself by raising his head upwards haughtily, whereas a poor person lowers his head. Now, there is none so patient and humble as our God in His attributes of Keter, for He is absolute compassion, and before Him no flaw or transgression, no severe judgment or other quality can prevent Him from watching over man and bestowing bounty and goodness upon him constantly.384 [...] The main quality he should acquire, the key to them all, is humanity - for this is the highest and foremost aspect of Keter, in which goal are contained. Now, the essence of humility is that a person does not see his value at all; rather, he considers himself nothing - as The Humble one [Moses] said, “what are we that you should complain against us?” (Exodus 16:7). [...] When a person strives to acquire this quality, all other 383 “[...] These are eight good qualities, all o f which fall under the banner o f humility” - Tomer Devorah 2, in Miller, ibid, p .56. RaMaK's designation o f the term m ’O [midah] be understood as quality in the human realm and attribute in the theosophical realm. My separation between the two stems from the human attribute o f fre e will which allows the person to ignore certain qualities (the impetus behind RaMaK's Tomer Devorah), whereas in the sefirotic realm a quality equals attribute - a governing law emanating from the godhead. 384 Tomer Devorah 2, in Miller, M. (trans., 1993), pp.49-50.1 have altered certain words from the original translation.

77

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

qualities are drawn after it, for the primary quality of Keter is to view itself as nothing before the One from Whom it emanates. Likewise, a person should consider himself nothing at all, thinking that it would have been better never to have been created [...]. I have found a remedy whereby a person can accustom himself to these things little by little, possibly curing himself of the disease of arrogance and allowing himself to enter the gates of humility. This cure is composed of three medications: first, a person should accustom himself to flee as far as possible from honor [...]. Second, a person should train himself to see his shameful side, saying to himself, “Although others are unaware of my lack of worth, what of it? Do I myself not know that I am despicable in such-and-such a way, whether in lack of knowledge or ability or in eating and excreting?” And so on, until he becomes despised in his eyes. Third, a person should constantly recall his sins and desire purification, rebuke, and suffering, asking himself, “Which type of suffering is the best in the world and will not distract me from Divine service. [...] Hence, a person should actually desire this form of suffering [... and] should rejoice in them.385 Accordingly, RaMaK regarded humility not merely an ethical property but a quality which informed man’s ontic, epistemic, structural and functional conditions: modesty was an important tool for one to appropriately situate oneself within the cosmic structure and harness one’s exclusive potencies in a fine alignment with the sefirot acknowledging that one’s spiritual placement is an imperative for the welfare of the entire cosmic structure. Physical meekness was thus not the degradation of individual worth in relation to the whole but the glorification of individual potential and its contribution to the whole - as long as that Whole (God) was given uncontested superiority. As depicted in another section of Sava de-Mishpatim {Zohar 2:102a), Sava declares “Yet it is revealed before the Holy One blessed be He that I have not done this [revealed divine secrets] for my own honor, and not for the honor of my father, but rather my desire is for the service of Him”. D. C. Matt’s words serve us well here, The Kabbalist knows that he is not the source of his teaching. His name is not essential. When a donkey driver on the road reveals mystical secrets to two of the (Mishnaic) Comrades, they dismount and kiss him and say: ‘All this was in your hand, and you were driving our donkeys?! Who are you?’

385 T om er D evorah 2, in ibid, pp.6 1 -6 3 .1 have altered certain words from the original translation.

78

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

He responds, ‘Do not ask who I am.386 Rather, let us walk on and engage • • 387 in Torah. Let each of us speak words of wisdom to light up the way’. • • • 388 [...] Anonymity is raised to a virtue. Indeed, the preparatory value of heightened humility as the spiritual conduit for mystical enlightenment is repeated time and again in the Zohar, which in turn finds such ideas permeating the spiritual resilience of biblical protagonists such as the Patriarchs, Moses or King David. The Zohar therefore points to the divine dialectic apparatus of opposites by rendering

radical humility imperativefor invoking

the divine permission

needed for mystical ascendance.389 Although such examples did not necessarily speak of radical asceticism per se, some of RaMaK's contemporaries had nonetheless many a time crossed the fine line distinguishing humility from humiliation: RaMaK's contemporary and highly eccentric zealot, Abraham ben Eliezer ha-Levi Berukhim (1515-1593),390 was merely a visible example to a larger phenomenon of self-affliction in 16th century Safed. Abraham Galante speaks of “Men, women and students [who] recite penitential prayers, petitionary devotion, confession of sins and practice flagellation. [...] Some among them place a large stone on their stomach in order to simulate the punishment of stoning. Others ‘strangle’ themselves with their own hands and perform other things of a like nature. Some place themselves into a sack while others drag them around the Synagogue.”

-5Q1

Abraham Berukhim himself discloses the existence of “A [Safedian]

fellowship of penitents whose members fast regularly and who pray the afternoon service each day in weeping and in tears. They practice flagellation and wear sackcloth and

386 The view o f great spiritual masters spreading their wisdom in cognito had also influenced M uslim and especially Sufi thought. See, e.g., A1 Farabi, Futuhat, 2:5 who discusses the possibility o f such Muslim spiritual sages “To disguise and appear in various forms, such as ‘a Mosque cleaner’ or ‘a market vendor’” . Cf; Fenton, P. (1997), p.9 and fn.20; Goldziher, I. (1971). 387 Zohar 1:6a; in Zohar Hadash, Bereshit 11c; Ruth 85b (Midrash ha-N e’elam). 388 Matt, D.C. (1983), p.30. Also see Wijnhoven, J. (1965): “[In mysticism] m an’s consciousness o f his sins and o f his own insignificance are part o f his relationship to God; thus, humility before God can legitimately be combined with a pride in his achievements and a sense o f his own value in relation to other men”. On depictions o f Divine Modesty, see also Amir, Y. (1996). 389 See, e.g., Zohar 1:122b; 2:101b-102a; cf; Tishby, I. (1949), vol.3, p .1337, and Fishbane, E. (2002), p.32, who writes, “The exegetical-homiletical portrayal o f King David [in Ps. 131:1 ] is in fact the first stage o f the Sava's own act o f self-humbling, and the paradigmatic rhetoric becomes the vehicle for his own spiritual transformation. He attempts to reach his own state o f humility through the model o f the biblical figure [...]. 39 See e.g., Y a’ari, A. (1971), p.205 and Fine, L. (trans., 1984), p.48. 391 See Galante’s Hanhagot, N o .l - cf: Schechter, S. (1908), p.294. See also in Fine, L. (2003), p.67.

79

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

ashes. Among them are those who fast two days and nights; others do so for three days and nights.”392 L. Fine suggests identifying this “Fellowship of penitents” as previous conversos ushering their path back to Judaism through acts of profound remorse and self affliction. The associations between flagellations and the tannaitic 39 stripes of scourging required for such absolution393 is quite visible, just as the presence of such rites in the Christian world from whence these conversos had arrived. In any event, RaMaK's standing in the general Safedian community and among its Portuguese constituents in particular renders quite decisive his frequent exposure to such radical acts of asceticism. RaMaK surely does not leave this issue afloat, but rather weaves it into his more calculated cosmology and demonstrates a cautious approach to asceticism, one which had been bothered by such individuals who might, as it were, lose the spiritual forest for its shattered corporeal trees. At the offset RaMaK indeed demonstrates in numerous places a visible affinity with physical affliction,394 praising the man who “Breaks his body for the honor of the Supreme One”395 or professing the spiritual purification awaiting those willing to degrade their corporeal state “In order to eradicate this flesh, to subjugate and break it for holy worship - to stamp out the body and the shell”.396 Such examples, however, must be viewed within his broader cosmology whose layout we have just recently outlined. He would endorse such rites only if understood and acted upon within the unique capabilities of each individual397 and in accord with the overarching divine regulatory mandate - namely to revitalize spiritual potency rather than break physical vitality per se! RaMaK's discussion of these issues should therefore be analyzed only within this mindset, since a random choice of excerpts from his writings might lead one to claim prematurely that he had unequivocally favored such ascetic practices. RaMaK's Tomer Devorah indeed clarifies his emphases and demonstrates his priorities well, as he

Cf; Fine, L. ibid. 393 Mishnah, M akkot 3:15; cf: Graetz, H. (1939), vol.4, 394 Please refer to the chapter Sefer Gerushin for more and their possible influence on RaMaK. 395 Tomer Devorah, chapter 9. 396 Sefer Gerushin, entry 17, p.18. 397 See e.g., RaM aK ’s Hanhagot, No.31, where he inflictions “According to one’s ability” - cf; Schechter,

p.535; Benayahu, M. (1961 b), p.248. detail regarding medieval approaches to asceticism

clarifies that one should subject oneself to such S. (1908), p.294.

80

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

responds to such customs whose intensified sense of physical dilapidation might actually draw men away from the divine desired regulation [ITQJI ynx]: I have found a remedy whereby a person can accustom himself to these things little by little, possibly curing himself of the disease of arrogance and allowing himself to enter the gates of humility. This cure is composed of three ‘medications’: first, a person should accustom himself to flee as far as possible from honor [as not to] acquire the habit of pride [...]. Second, a person should train himself to see his shameful side, saying to himself, ‘Although others are unaware of my lack of worth, what of it?’ [...]. Third, a person should constantly recall his sins and desire purification, rebuke and suffering, asking himself ‘Which type of suffering is the best in the world and will not distract me from divine service? Surely, there is none better than these - to be scorned and despised and insulted’, for these will not weaken his strength and vitality with illness, nor will they rob of his food and closing, his life, or his children’s life. Hence, a person should actually desire this form of suffering, saying to himself, ‘ Why should I fast and torment myself with sackcloth and self­ affliction, which weaken my strength fo r God’s service? Why should I desire these for myself? It is far better for me to be afflicted with contempt -1QO and shame while my strength does not depart or weaken RaMaK reiterates this view in Or Yaqar, whereupon he stipulates that physical afflictions and torments are only good as long as they do not become “An obstruction from the service of God”399 - namely, taken out of the context which enlists them as doorways towards spiritual revitalization, epistemic clarity, studious rigor and theurgic potency. Humility and asceticism did not therefore mean a complete degradation of one’s actual worth but rather aimed to elevate one’s potential worth: the corporeal, material and physical were signposts which saturated reality and whose manipulation via negativa exposed the spiritual meridians of the cosmic edifice - some of which were accessible exclusively to the Jewish nation by way of its unique relationship with divinity. To that end RaMaK states in his popular treatises that the Jewish magnificent standing in the eyes of God in fact forbids certain acts of radical asceticism: “In order to keep the word of God, I may not abase myself [...]. Rather, I declare that God is my portion; my soul has a portion from God above and I am as worthy of the word of God as one of the ministering

398 T om er D evorah 2 and compare with £ ilim a R ab b ati, Ein Adam 6:12, p.164b - italics by the author. 399 O r Y a q a r on T ikkunei h a -Z o h a r 6:6.

81

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

angels”.400 Such sentiments are reiterated in RaMaK's Tomer Devorahm and demonstrate his deep pedagogical uneasiness with ascetic rites whose negligence of due context might cripple men and set back their theurgic aptitude. Anonymity was therefore not equated with abasement but rather aimed to establish each Jew as an indispensable medium to illuminate divinity through the activation of one’s potentialities - this mechanism having been a blueprint of the mutually abiding covenant between God and Israel. In that respect, RaMaK's autobiographical shorthand narrates in silence a fantastic story of aspired spiritual enormity; a mechanism which requires sensitivity from the reader who wishes to hear RaMaK's intimate voice within otherwise ferocious teachings of speculation and devotion. This is also true when one searches for RaMaK's intimate relations with his apparently small family: Mrs. Cordoeiro and their seemingly only son, Gedaliah.

400 O r N e'erav 1:3; cf: Robinson, I. (1994), p.21 - italics by the author. 401 Please refer to the chapter RaMaK's Writings and its discussion regarding RaMaK's approach to asceticism.

82

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Chapter 2 THE CORDOEIRO FAMILY M rs.

Cordoeiro (c. 1528 - c. 1589)

Now, as long as a man has not married, the Shekhinah is not with him at all [...] - for a human is only whole as male and female.402 RaMaK, T o m e r D e v o r a h

In his discussion of male-female metaphors in traditional and mystical Judaism, A. Green states that “Marriage as a metaphor for the relationship between God and Israel depicts the relationship both as love and a covenant, one in which responsibilities are both mutual and binding”.403 Although a metaphor whose weight was noticeable among Safedian mystics in relation to their wives, the visibility and documentation of female spouces remained scarce and regretfully deficient. As indicated by the heading of this section - no name! - RaMaK's wife is also eternally submerged into her husband’s legacy. Undeniably a woman of social acumen and a devoted wife and mother, it was perhaps her own sense of spiritual modesty404 which adds to the obscurity surrounding her as well. Our knowledge of her indeed verges on almost nothing, much like the biography afforded for most wives, mothers, sisters and daughters of prominent mystics, to whom hardly any direct attention had been given in the male-governed documented sphere. Her maiden name is known by having been Rabbi Solomon Alkabetz’ sister,405 and it seems most plausible that she had arrived in Safed as part of her brother’s convoy from Salonika circa 1535-1536, only later to be betrothed to RaMaK in Safed. Alas, no information lends itself in regard to her daily occupations or even lifespan, although we shall cautiously offer it later as being c.1528 - c.1589. This forced ambiguity

402 Compare with Sefer Gerushin, entry 26, p.29 - “[...] For there is no King without a Queen” and entry 97, p. 131, “The truth in its entirety is only by male and female”. The Zohar deems a man without a wife “H alf a body”. 403 Green, A. (2003), pp.36-37. 404 On the Zoharic view regarding female modesty and virtues, see Zohar 2:125b-126a and 1:229a; cf; Tishby, I. (1949), vol.3, pp. 1337-1338 and 1386-1388. 405 See in Gedaliah Cordovero’s introduction to RaMaK's Or N e’erav - “The sage, the pious, my m other’s brother, Rabbi Solomon son o f Alkabetz ha-Levi”.

83

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

notwithstanding, a prudent scanning of RaMaK's works may yield important insights about this lady and shed more light on her decisive role in his mystical piety. Before trying to illuminate certain aspects of her story, some attention to Safedian women in general may prove apt.

Safedian Women No matter how lucid a document may be, it can never match the intricate complexity of the life it sets forth to address. This is all the more true when discussing elements which were not as easily integrated into the documented communal fabric in traditional Judaism - such as women, their erudition, daily occupations and overall effects on the community. One should therefore allow greater leeway between the actual and the narrated when exploring such testimonies - finding in certain documental deficiencies an untold validation of life’s multifaceted nature. Generally speaking, it was not until modem times that Jewish women were either associated with or indoctrinated as serious contributors to intellectual and religious discourse. This statement, however, should neither underplay beyond regretful necessity their roles in such spheres nor undermine their important effects on all strata of communal life. Women’s undeniable contributions to economic prosperity and input into business transactions are well noted in traditional texts as early as the Mishnah,406 whereas medieval and pre-Modem documentation even narrate female savants - women who not only assumed leading positions as scholars but were in fact acknowledged as such by their male contemporaries. Jewish chronicles praise powerful women - such as Donna Garcia of Portugal (1510-1569), Mrs. Aidel of Pozna (d. 1605), Mrs. Rachel Aberlin (a Safedian associate of Hayim Vital; d. circa 1596), Mrs. Shoshanah of Lebov (d. 1637) or Tamarl Zonnenberg of Warsaw (1764-1822) - whose emdition, political clout, philanthropic activities and even mystical sway either secured relationships with the authorities or sustained entire communities vis-a-vis revitalized economy, welfare or educational institutions.407 Mrs. Donna Garcia, for example, was a converso who had

406 See e.g., M ishnah, Shavuot 7:8; Baba Kama 10:9; Halah 2:7; Demai 3:5; Toseftah, Halah 1:8; Ketubot 4:7. On this issue, see Rosenfeld, B. (1992); Ashkenazi, S. (1992). 407 See Ashkenazi, S. ibid. On this issue see also Firestone, T. (2002); Chajes, J.H. (2003), especially chapter 4.

84

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

later returned to Judaism (c. 1545), moved to Constantinople and hoped to establish her final abode in Tiberias - a city which owes its 16th century Jewish economical renaissance in no small measure to her.408 Although no extant evidence suggests that she had ever visited Safed, it is more than likely that she had held certain ties with the notable Safedian Portuguese community at the time, and had perhaps even communicated with RaMaK in person. Be that as it may, her death in 1569 was met by great mourning in Jewish communities worldwide 409 Although such female visibility and affluence were scarce and far between, “Unusual numbers of [16th century] Jewish women were independently engaged in various kinds of commercial enterprises” around the Ottoman lands.410 This, however, was only one level of engagement in the spirited Safedian discourse. As Virginia Woolf once wrote, “Women have served all these centuries as looking-glasses possessing the magic and delicious power of reflecting the figure of a man at twice its natural size”411 - a statement whose amplified romanticism nonetheless portrays with certain accuracy the perception of females in RaMaK's mystical society. “There is reason to believe”, notes L. Fine, “that th the rules and rites that these [16 century Safedian mystical] group practices were intended, at least in part, to encourage members of the wider community in Safed and even beyond to engage in similar pietistic activities”.412 Indeed (as in most aspects of Safedian socio-religious discourse), certain modifications aimed to reassess some traditional belittling views of women and reconfigure those within a cosmology wherein female properties were given much greater a leverage in daily discourse as means towards more inclusive communal and theological goals. Such transformations were obviously neither Safedian production alone nor clearly seen on all social strata in Safed.413 The Jewish traditional hold in RaMaK's Safed had also informed dismissive views of women,414 wherein the perception of the female properties as intellectually deficient and spiritually inferior had obviously diminished 408 See also Ruth, B. (1958); Hed, A. (1966). 409 See also Emanuel, Y. (1938), p .8. 410 Fine, L. (2003), pp.22-24. For a more aerial view o f Jewish commercial life during that period, see Shmuelevitz, A. (1984). 411 InH em enw ay, P. (2005), p.6. 412 Fine, F. (2003), p.76. 413 See e.g., Green, A. in Heschel, S. (ed., 1983); Wolfson, E.R. in Neusner, J. et al (eds., 1992). 414 See, e.g., Wolfson, E.R. in Silberstein, L. and Cohen, R. (eds., 1994), pp. 166-204.

85

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

their ability to engage in Jewish scholarly discourse: “[Rabbi Eleazar] said, ‘words of Torah should better bum than be given to women’”.415 The Jewish literary legacy as a whole featured indeed some telling examples of derogatory attitudes towards females: the works of such men as Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE - 50 CE), Rabbi Solomon ibn Gabirol (c. 1021 - 1058), Maimonides (1138-1204), Rabbi Shem Tov ibn Falaquera (c. 1225 - c. 1290)416 or Rabbi Judah Abarbanel (c. 1460 - c. 1523) are but a few visible examples417 wherein female divine properties were denied ontological value and were regarded primarily as allegories 418 Another noteworthy persona was the astronomer, philosopher and mathematician Levi ben Gershom (RaLBaG, 1288-1344), who refused to ascribe to the erotica of Song o f Songs any exclusively female divine attributes. Such literary formulations, RaLBaG maintained, were merely philosophical allegories to assist investigation by men. RaLBaG’s sporadic depictions of women were influenced by Aristotelian doctrines and reflected an acceptable viewpoint in the medieval intellectual theatre, which rendered females inherently inferior to m ales419 RaLBaG contended that males were active animators who associated with form (intangible existence), whereas women were passively animated and associated with matter (tangible existence). Such contentions had led RaLBaG to view the role of men as innately surpassing that of women - views which affected his approach to marital relations and conception as well.420 An authoritative and disparaging depiction appears in RaLBaG’s elucidation of Genesis 3:

nnm a nrfry V'i ntt^ira ram ityxa [:]'mn' iniyx aw mxn xip rum rfr pm nim nnnranum mi m ,*7D^ n t e xm axi p i n^y crrm ’t o ixty ^y moh’tzz rh mriy pirn xm nrti .mxn mmy) nmmVi rtoty rm^m1? p^smn amrm □s xmun mxn prrray1? abim ana mam i n i xm nus Vd *?yty x^x .Vaum .m bD

Tosafot, Sotah 21b. 416 See e.g., Jospe, R. (1988). 417 On the perceptions o f women by Rabbinic leaders, see for example in Saperstein, M. (1980); Allen, P. (1987). 418 See also Allen, P. ibid. 419 See in Kelner, M. in Ravizki, A. (ed., 1998) and refer to his annotated footnotes. 420 Ibid, p .l 14 and especially fns. 5&10.

86

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

As seen, Man [D7S] called his wife ‘Eve’ [mn]: he had realized the feebleness of her mind, meaning that her [intellectual] rank did not surpass by much that of an animal. And whatever intellect she did possess had indeed been fashioned so she may attain the corporeal tangibles - for she is of a weak mind and was [created] for the service of Man. Therefore she is remote from [attaining] the perfection of the mind. However, she is superior to them [other creatures] and they are all for her service - the reason her [essential] attribute is ‘the mother of all living’.421 RaLBaG relates the female epistemic inferiority to her ontological subordination - a view which also associated negatively with female physicality as being a source for male obstruction. Although his attitude does not profess such vehement a dismissal at all times, 499 it nevertheless “Reflects [his] fundamental negative orientation towards [women]” - a visible orientation in mainstream pre-Modem Judaism423 and a reality which informed to a large degree the 16th century Safedian social backbone. RaMaK does not necessarily deviate from the traditional view which perceived women as intrinsically subordinate to male supremacy424 His system in its entirety associates female properties with the ‘lesser’ Malkhut who needs for her own edification the assistance of the male Tif’eret: “[...] The Tif’eret affects Malkhut and steers her according to the lesser capacity [lit. poverty] of her mind, for women are of a slighter [capacity of] mind425 [...]” [ inin ’D ,nnsn nvui? ’dd nrrruai rrabab srswa Kirw ,mNsnn mbp n’tw bi£>] 426 Likewise, the feminine image is often associated in his writings with malevolent agents whose sole purpose is to tempt the male protagonist, diverting his spiritual trajectory or reducing his corporeal vitality. It often happens in men’s dreams, RaMaK states, “That malevolent spirits appear to them as beautiful women and cause them to spill their semen in vain”427 [...], “and there are such [agents] who appear as women and possess nothing save lie and deceit, for they envy the humans and aim to cheat them into transgression” 428

421 Compare to his remarks on Ecclesiastes 7:26 and to Leviticus, Parashat Metzorah. 422 Kelner, M. in ibid, p .l 18. 423 Ibid. 424 O nN acm anides view o f female Jewish souls see Sha’aval, H.D. (1980). 425 See e.g., Babylonian, Shabbat 33b. 426 Tomer Devorah, chapter 7. 427 Pardes Rimonim 26:2. 428 Ibid, 26:8.

87

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Taking into account male superiority in spearheading the redemptive drama, we have nonetheless

disclosed

RaMaK's

imperative

demands

for

communal

voluntary

participation in realizing this scheme. Scholarship has already pointed to what E. Gotleib called “A significant [ideological] change in the perception of human value and aptitude” in the kabbalistic doctrine,429 whereas B. Sack has convincingly charted RaMaK's own take on this issue and his views regarding communal theurgy in his day and age.430 A broader view of RaMaK's world therefore warrants four additional points on this matter, since “Their [the philosophers’] ways are ultimately not ours”:431 First, cosmology was acutely associated with anthropography and therefore had a significant leverage in the anthropological realm: mankind possessed an intrinsic acquaintance with divinity by microcosmic reflection and embodiment. As L. Fine puts it, “Insofar as the lower world was created as a result of the emanation of divine life from above, it corresponds to and parallels that world in its essential structure. The morphology, or physiognomy, of the two are the same, even if they are qualitatively different”.432 Despite RaMaK’s strong affinity with the allegorical realms of biblical expression at times, he nevertheless allowed these terms far greater expressive electicity than mere metaphor. In his cosmology the divine intangibles manifested through earthly tangibles, a view that must have rendered also the female shape, form, temperament, behavior and mental makeup as important conduits for cosmic transparency on high. Second, mystical speculation did not deem human intellect the chief tool in attaining the sort of wisdom conducive to holistic appreciations of divine mysteries and their redemptive manipulations thereof. RaMaK's reverence of the intellect should not overshadow his greater veneration of intuitive knowledge, which ultimately surpassed the realm of rational inquiry and unlocked doorways inaccessible to the mind! J. Ben-Shlomo has already discussed RaMaK’s employment of the intellect in relation to other epistemological mediums:433 RaMaK indeed describes God as the supreme intellect throughout Eilima Rabbati - a faculty whose residence in humans is deemed at times the

429 Gotleib, E. (Hacker, J. ed., 1976), p.29. See his entire chapter, pp.29-37. Cf; Tishby, I. (1961), part 2, p. 10. On this issue see also Fishman, T. (1992); Weissler, H. in Green, A. (ed., 1987). 430 Sack, B. (1995 a), pp.205-248. 431 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 16. 432 Fine, L. (2003), p.56 - italics in the original. 433 Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp.31-36.

88

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

supreme component, given that “The intellect and the speech are a [human] potency pointing to the E in S o f.434 This potency, however, merely points to the divine higher echelons - a fact whose configuration in human microcosmism yields higher epistemic dimensions within mankind as well: “[...] The spiritual [elements] are void of spatial [manifestation] and transcend each other in a manner wherein the Neshama [n&tttt] is superior to the Ruah [mi], the Ruah is superior to the Nefesh [WM] and the Nefesh is superior to the intellect [Sekhel - brw]” 435 RaMaK's cosmology thus bestowed much greater an authority on the human condition by means of divine microcosmism - both corporeal and mental - and brings to mind Goethe’s words to Riemer (Biedermann 1601), “The god to whom a man proves devout, that is his own soul turned inside out”. Third, hierarchies did not exist only within humans but also among humans: the Jewish intrinsic condition a la RaMaK surpassed all other nations due to its exclusive relationship with divinity.436 Accordingly, the finest epistemic and theurgical potencies constituted the distinctive quality of Jews in relation to the world entire and paved the path towards an intimate reunion between God and His people - a form of m n1 HEW] (neshamah yeterah - existential supremacy) which affords a further thrust toward divinity437: “[...] The sacred Nefesh [nefesh kedosha -

tt>D3] does not dwell within

• the gentiles, yet intellect may be found among their sages”.438

RaMaK appreciated the multifarious nature of divine communication and saw its effects as saturating the world in elaborate associations. Given that “[...] The higher Hokhmah extends to all of creation - inanimate objects, plants, animals and humans”,439 the divine thrust was a perpetual pulsation whose echoes were seeking epistemic relief and experiential catharsis within the physical, corporeal, organic, intellectual and spiritual realms. RaMaK's view o f the human condition was not only far more intricate than the philosophical insignia employed in its depiction, but saw in every aspect of human life a potent actualization of its awesome divine cause. This reality had been tantamount to RaMaK's charge that all Jews see their entire being as the politics o f divine governance

434 Pardes Rimonim 21:2. 435 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 2:4. 436 See e.g., his discussion in Tomer Devorah 5:3. 437 See e.g., Ginsburg, E.K. (1989), p p .130-133. 438 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 1:5. 439 Tomer Devorah 3; see in Miller, M. (trans., 1993), p.74.

89

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

and aspired reunion. The locus behind Tomer Devorah as a whole was precisely that: each thought or act, anywhere and anytime - be it subliminal or conscientious, sacred or mundane, deliberate or accidental - affects community, world and divinity in profound manners. Respectively, the fourth point pertains to RaMaK's worldview of his era as an impending rendezvous between God and Israel - a reality which not only aroused exclusive Jewish potencies otherwise dormant, but in fact transformed the expulsions into a relived exodus. The spiritual and theurgic status of all Jews was elevated to match the rabbinic depictions of the Hebrews en route to Mt. Sinai: much like the amplified spiritual atmosphere in the biblical desert, which rendered even the “Lowliest of maidservants” more perceptive than “all later prophets combined”,440 RaMaK's world deemed each member of Israel a sanctified vessel whose exclusive access to divinity warranted urgent involvement in the redemptive scheme. Any Jewish woman thus entailed potencies to which even the most astute among the gentiles had no admission whatsoever. Whether women were aware of it or not, it had been their intrinsic endowment from above, one that RaMaK wished they realized and animated within the broader mechanisms of social Jewish discourse. As L. Fine observes, “Fasting and penitence on the eve of the New Moon (Rosh Hodesh) was apparently a widespread custom, important enough to be carried out by women, according to the report of Abraham Galante, a disciple of Cordovero”.441 Likewise, G. Scholem mentioned the Shabbat celebrations in mid 16th century Safed as original and highly impressive rituals which “Had come to symbolize the celestial consummation of marriage [...] and wherein the Shekhinah identified not only with the Shabbat but also with each married female receiving the Shabbat”.442 One can assume with relative confidence that effective participation in such rituals necessitated a certain level of textual and practical edification for women - especially considering the theurgic repercussions associated with such undertakings. RaMaK not only charged the community to seize this potency, but yielded his own expertise toward its fruition: through preaching, teaching, conversing and affording 440 See e.g., M ekhiltah, be-Shalah 15:2 and compare with Rashi on Exodus 15:2. 441 Fine, L. (2003), p.66. 442 Scholem, G. (1980), pp.134-135.

90

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

encouraging personal assurances, certain sections in RaMaK’s writings profess his desire for each member to assume his/her unique standing in the communal life of Israel before God. Issues revolving around gender, gender-relations and the legitimacy of women to tap into esoteric dimensions of epistemic edification therefore had significant ramifications on daily life in 16th century Safed, albeit not necessarily visible in conventional text studies or documented educational materials. Despite male dominance in virtually every conceivable documented sphere, the meditations offered by L. Fine regarding Isaac Luria’s wife and 16th century Safed women in general are quite apt when concerning RaMaK's world: [...] Women were clearly implicated in a variety of ways in Safed ritual in general and in Lurianic ritual in particular. Luria’s male disciples had mothers, wives, daughters and sisters. And, living among kabbalists, these women must be presumed to have adopted both kabbalistic views of the world and kabbalistic practices, just as women in non-kabbalistic rabbinic communities shared in their weltanschauungs and ritual lives. [...] If we do not limit ourselves to the question of authorship, however, but ask instead how women living in a kabbalistic culture were affected by their environment, we are confronted by a series of new possibilities.443 L. Fine continues to ponder over sexuality, particular kabbalistic restrictions regarding the timing444 and the form of sexual relations,445 certain spatial rearrangements of the bedroom and even anxieties about sex. He then meditates over the adherence to particular kabbalistic rituals affecting the daily household life and, perhaps most dramatic, women’s self perceptions within the kabbalistic context which had granted considerable weight to the female aspect of divinity: “Did the wives of Luria’s disciples regard themselves as representing and embodying the female divine presence, the Shekhinah [...]? Could this have elevated their status in the eyes of their husbands, or in

443 Fine, L. (2003), p. 15 and see also Jacobson, Y. in Schaefer P. and Dan, J. (eds., 1993). Although not published at the time this dissertation concluded, one should consult Anat G ueta’s “The Multifaceted Image o f W omen in the Kabbalistic Diaries o f Sixteenth Century Safed” (A JSReview 2007). 444 See for example in Maimonides, Hilkhot Ishut 14:1: “[...] Torah scholars are obligated to consummate their marital relations once on each Sabbath evening, since Torah study consumes their strength. It is therefore their share to consummate [their relations] from one Sabbath evening to the next”. 445 RaM aK attends to these issues in a number o f places: see e.g., Pardes Rimonim 31:9; Tomer Devorah, chapter 9, Miller, M. (trans., 1993), p p .127, 129-130; Eilima Rabbati, Ein Adam 6, pp.l63a-168a (manuscript JTS) concerning procreation. See also Sefer Gerushin, entries 5, 7, 17, 28, 30, 32 [!], 66 [!] and 78.

91

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

their own eyes? [...] We do not necessarily have clear answers - or even, in most cases, any answers at all .446 1199

Greater attention should be indeed given to the lenses informing mystics’ view of women, for the feminine had had a more noticeable voice within the cosmic dialogue as well. As we shall soon see, whereas phallic superiority had chiefly governed RaMaK's cosmology, the kabbalistic structure as a whole put considerable weight on feminine and maternal terminologies regarding divinity. Solomon Alkabetz’ simile of the breastfeeding mother in Berit ha-Levi, for example, not only follows Zoharic terminologies447 but also brings to mind the Greek Artemis o f Ephesus - the goddess of a hundred breasts:

,u/pyi bnDi am px T r n a m b m □uinnnn nyxy "i^xdi .nrb nr Ennui h p vi pbapa ,xn n n ibm i n .m anm buxi mb’xxm .x’bn xm xm pixn p ’b p b p m m - im m a p a i y D m w , p x m w a p n 1 p i r n n px T in y aw

x m yaw n

When the lower [creatures] follow a direct path448 whereupon none is perverse or crooked449 - the graceful flow is abundant and frequent,450 and emanation is constant.451 One generation goes, another comes,452 receiving Judgment from Judgment453 and sustaining one another.454 But when the infant does not suckle on his mother’s breasts,455 [her] breasts dwindle456 and the conduits457 [become] disjointed, for their effect is mutually contingent. RaMaK repeats this idea in a few places, pointing to the reciprocal codependence within the sefirot, between God and Israel and between Jews themselves: “A mother depends on her offspring to replenish her milk”, he writes in Eilima Rabbati, whereas in 446 Fine, L. (2003), p. 16. 447 See e.g., Zohar l:92a-b. 448 See Psalms 107:7; cf: Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot D e’ot 6:1. 449 Proverbs 8:8. 450 See also Pardes Rimonim 15:2. 451 Cf; M eir ibn Gabbai, Avodat ha-Kodesh, part 1, chapter 22. 452 Ecclesiastes 1:4. 453 Meaning a proper theosophical flow o f Judgment from Judgment and Grace from Grace. 454 Cf; Mishnah, M e’aser Sheni 3:1; Rabbi M enahem Azariah o f Fano, M a’amar Shabatot H ’, 3. 455 An early metaphor. See, e.g., Babylonian, Sotah 30b. RaMaK, in accordance with the Zohar which usually titles the Sefirah Binah ‘M other’, renders the ‘infant’ the Sefirah Tiferet which suckles on its breasts. See Pardes Rimonim 23:22. 456 See Genesis 49:25; Isaiah 32:12. 457 A central term in RaMaK's terminology as well. The conduits are the divine ‘pipes’ designed to transmit the flow o f grace. Cf; Pardes Rimonim 7. 458 Compare with RaMaK's similar sentiments in Pardes Rimonim 8:20; Or Yaqar on Zohar 1:88a; 2:203a. Cf; Sack, B. (1995 a), pp.85-90.

92

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Pardes Rimonim he declares that “Just as the milk of a female is abundant as long as her child suckles - whereas her breasts are depleted once the child matures - so it is with the sefirah Binah,459 whose reception of graceful flow [from the male] depends on her effecting effluence downwards”.460 These male-female alignments borrowed obviously from the Zoharic literature and informed both horizontal and vertical associations in the cosmic edifice.461 Although RaMaK employs the Aristotelian depictions of active masculinity vs. receptive femininity, he nonetheless does so within a mystical context which accentuates the male’s acute dependence on the female. In other words, cosmic governance mandated that in certain instances of theosophical trafficking the male property must rely on its lower female counterpart in order to arouse its own male potentiality and become worthy of benevolence from above:

’D mrom .'xnpin - o n "inta xbx p-nty xb ixrra’ ,a’2 "i niaipa m in w-raw na pi .irstran Vy nm-an ix p ’w •nxn bnpa ww nvrm nysuna mpi bDi "or bo .nxrn nvo nn nb m .rsra b urpw ’ixn px ,mpi xb3 -or xmw ,bapa pxura box

As mentioned numerous times in the Zohar, ‘bliss dwells only where male and female are joined [as one]’462 - and the meaning is that each male affects and each female is affected, whereupon it is suitable that once one is ready to receive [divine] blessings, those should come to he who affects [= male]. However, when one is not [in the position to] receive - meaning a male void of a female [counterpart] - it is not suitable that he who affects be given blessings [alone]. And these [words] shall suffice for the time being 463 RaMaK establishes at great length the indispensability of harmonious gender relations as a means to emulate the desired course of action above and affect the theosophical edifice from below. One may therefore argue that notwithstanding the maintenance of traditional male supremacy in the Safedian discourse and its documental domains, both

459 Associated in the Z o h a r with the term ‘m other’. 460 Pardes Rimonim 8:6; 8:20. 461 By ‘horizontal’ I mean within the human sphere and between sefirot aligned horizontally to each other, such as Hokhmah and Binah, H esed and Gevurah etc’. ‘V ertical’, on the other hand, pertains to the hierarchical interrelations between the E in S o f (Godhead) and the sefirot, the hierarchy among the sefirot themselves, in their relations to men and between men. 462 See Zohar 1:182a; 2:153b. The Zohar also uses the ‘empty table’ metaphor for the same purpose NUpn lnbw. See for example Zohar 1:88b; 2:153b. 463 Pardes Rimonim 8:6.

93

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

genders were nonetheless elevated a considerable notch in comparison to rabbinic Judaism and rational doctrines: men’s relation to divinity was given a momentous clout, whereas women were perceived as fundamental conduits to materialize such male potencies.464 Since intellectual potencies were not given the cosmological supremacy allotted to them in earlier rational thought - not even by RaMaK - the lingua franca in Safedian discourse was that of spiritual potencies exclusive to the Jewish nation. Parochial sanctity thus distinguished Jews not only from gentiles but even from the ministering angels on high - rendering the Jewish nation the created beings most intimately associated with divinity. This reality also informed such radical instances wherein certain women were indeed accepted as mystical channels; females who possessed the ability to yield spiritual instmctions, explicate dreams and affect demonic or angelic realms. Given that in RaMaK’s world such occurrences could not have materialized save by divine consent, the presence and legitimization of such female spiritualists teaches much about the view of women as having had access to divinity in principal. L. Fine’s important work on Luria’s Kabbalah has assembled a few accounts pertaining to women of spiritual clout in Safed or the nearby vicinities.465 Hayim Vital’s Sefer ha-Hezyonot (a.k.a. Shivkhei Hayim Vital)466 reports o f several women who experienced auditory revelations and were highly regarded by their male contemporaries467 - reports which are later reiterated in Rabbi Joseph Sambari’s Sefer Divrei Yosef46% A “Safedian wise woman named Franseza [Sarah]” was reputed to “having achieved great deeds through a magid. She had a mentor angel to speak to her and to inform her concerning what would take place in the world. And the sages of Safed tested her a few times in order to find out if there was substance to her words, and everything that she uttered came to pass”.469 Likewise, the unnamed daughter of one Raphael Anav of Damascus was said “To have had visions while awake, through the medium of souls and angels, as well as an auditory experience of Elijah at the

464 On this issue see also W olfson, E.R. (1997). 465 Fine, L. (2003), pp. 120-123. 466 See Tamar, D. (2002), pp.81-95 and 96-120. 467 On this issue in Hayim V ital’s Sefer ha-H ezyonot, see also Hayut, J. (2002). 468 P.364. 469 Cf; Fine, L. (2003), p. 121.

94

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

moment o f the Sabbath eve celebrations”.410 Ms. Anav was in fact advised by the more notable female mystic Rachel Aberlin, who seems also to have established her own court in either Safed or Jerusalem during the early 1590s.471 The 16th century eccentric Solomon Molcho also discloses in Hay at Kana an intriguing spiritual role that a mysterious woman had played in one of his ecstatic dreams: after having been mortally injured in that dream by “A metal ball which struck my chest”, Molcho mentions “a woman who was brought to cure me [...] and whose name I was forbidden to reveal. And she pleaded and beseeched God, blessed be He, to heal me [...]. And within472 that woman’s prayer [tcnn HBWn nV’Dn Tinm] I saw an image A'l'X of a man whose clothes were white as snow and his appearance as that of God”. As already mentioned, RaMaK's student Abraham Galante provided an account regarding the observance of the New Moon festival - one especially intriguing for its disclosure of women as active devotees in such rituals, which included "Penitential prayers, petitionary devotion, confession of sins and practice flagellation”.474 Such testimonies seem to point to particular time arrangements wherein amplified female potencies were especially appreciated due to proper alignment with feminine cosmic properties, such as Shabbat, the Moon etc’. E. K. Ginsburg has indeed noted that “The philosophical interpretations of the Sabbath were far less comprehensive than those fashioned by the classical Kabbalists and exerted far less historical influence [...]. The Kabbalists re-asserted and deepened the sacramental value o f Shabbat and its observance [...], generally adding distinctively sefirotic interpretations to the esoteric meaning”.475 Correspondingly, RaMaK's contemporary Avraham ha-Levi Berukhim was known as "The great patron of the Sabbath" due to his relentless efforts to harness the community entire for its observance,476 and his hanhagot mention the noticeable participation of women in penitential rites “On each new moon,” continuing to disclose the activities of 470 Fine, ibid, p .121. Cf; Vital, Sefer ha-Hezyonot, pp.27-28 - italics by the author. 471 On this issue and other Safedian women, see http://www.jewishpub.org/pdf/TaitzChap7.pdf. 472 Can also be translated as “During her prayer”. I opted for the former as it reminds M oses’ vision o f the angel within the burning bush. 473 Hayat Kana (1989), pp.9-10. 474 Cf: Fine, L. (trans., 1984), p.42; ibid, (2003), p .67. See also in Schechter, S. (1908), p.294, note 1; Hallamish, M. (2001), pp.339-343 and fns.58-63; Adelman, H.T. (1993); ibid in Fine, L. (ed., 2001). 475 Ginsburg, E.K. (1989), p.68. 476 See Benayahu, M. (1967), pp.225-226 and his references. Cf: Schechter, S. (1908), p.301, N o .10; Hallamish, M. (2001), p.339.

95

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

tutors

who scout the countryside and familiarize "[Jewish] women and children"

with prayers and benedictions.477 Women’s rituals (such as those involving Sabbath candles) associated directly with feminine cosmology at times o f feminine potency and therefore struck theosophical strings otherwise not partaking in the divine symphony pointing in turn to women and feminine attributes as indispensable embodiments of spiritual conduits otherwise hardly accessible to men. One can therefore appreciate the additional clout afforded to women when associated with Sefirah Malkhut (Shekhinah), the most accessible and eagerly desired cosmic femininity. As we shall later detail, RaMaK's dialectic cosmology deemed Malkhut the prime and most immediate conduit to divinity, one whose splendorous edifying sway was as direct as her agony and plea for harmonious utility. Although female properties were existent in males by way of microcosmic regulation, such views must have nevertheless afforded women much greater a role in the imitatio Dei discourse which manifested divinity through human corporeality as well.478 One may thus suggest a complex social apparatus in RaMaK's Safed; a world wherein gender was not corporeal divergence in search of harmonious union but also differing epistemic venues and unique theurgical aptitudes seeking union in agreement with cosmic regulations, spatiotemporal arrangements and so forth - all of which joined to afford Safedian women a greater role in realizing the cosmic drama. As L. Fine rightfully concludes,

Taken together, these stories about women are remarkable insofar as they suggest a picture quite different from what we might have expected to find. At least some women evidently gained reputations for heaving visionary dreams, visions of light, auditions of angels, departed souls, the prophet Elijah, and other unidentified voices, and were expert at certain types of divination. Almost always identified by name, and as the daughter, sister, or wife of so-and-so, these women were clearly part of the community, rather than alone, marginal individuals behaving in deviant

477 Schechter, S. ibid, p.297, No.2 and 298, N o .17; Hallamish, M. ibid. 478 See e.g., Schneider, S. (2001). 479 Fine, L. (2003), p. 122.

96

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

RaMaK's Wife: Another Necessarily Incomplete Biography Whereas the above meditations do not necessarily suggest a sweeping transformation in female roles within the general Safedian community, they do suggest a change nonetheless. This fact should also yield greater attention to female counterparts of leading mystical practitioners, such as RaMaK. Alas, the obscurity of such intriguing women within the documented spheres makes such inquiries quite taxing, a reality to which Mrs. Cordoeiro is no exception: only two accounts of RaMaK's wife are extant, of which one alone somewhat illuminates her personality directly and allows a peek into her parenting skills and overall communal leverage. The first account features in a 1607 letter written by Rabbi Solomon of Moravia (a.k.a Shlimel of Dresnitz) - a sage who had arrived in Safed circa 1602 and made it his temporary residence. His letter was incorporated into Rabbi Israel of Kandia’s Taalumot Hokhmah (1629):

tvi iTnn-np d"-™ mabxb

io’de cranx □’□lnr nbx bin bxuny T'ttod ninn cmsion mxnn 73ba ,-imrn ’’d n"y Tin " a w ip 1 n x ido p’nynb nb’xiynw □■amr'□ 7is? nbiy ,nnmn mnbxb nbuw qbxn izbm ’b 7nn nstt nsi .T im 17373 nrbm iyib T^bx □"inn1? mwyi mbitf "i"mBb □■niroi mxp ■ ’"ninn1? □’□nx .nin^xn 7^ mpnym The sagacious and honorable Rabbi Emanuel480 has handed one thousand gold coins out of his own pocket to Rabbi Cordovero’s widow for the right to borrow his manuscript Or Yaqar on the Zohar - and this excludes the expenses [he] has incurred for scribal fees and paper. And here [in] Safed I have been told that in addition to the thousand sent to the Rabbi’s widow, twenty more were sent to [...] Rabbi [Joseph] Karo, twenty to Rabbi Solomon [Alkabetz] and ten to Rabbi [Moses] Alsheikh, so they would intercede on his behalf and of the need to copy [it] to the Rabbi’s widow .481 This testimony is complimented twice more in Rabbi Hayim David Azulai’s Shem ha-Gedolim, 482 where he also discloses a negotiation of the original contract whose 480 ‘Em anuel’ was the Italian rendition o f Rabbi Azariah Menahem ’s name. 481 M itzraf la-Hokhmah 42a; Benayahu, M. (1945), p. 84 . On M itzraf la-Hokhmah, see under “Elim” in Rabbi Hayim Joseph David Azulai, Shem ha-Gedolim, M a’arekhet Sefarim 1:93. 482 Rabbi Hayim Joseph David Azulai, Shem ha-Gedolim, “Or Yaqar”, M a’arekhet Sefarim 1:57 and under “Rabbi Gedaliah Cordovero”, M a’arekhet Gedolim 3:7

97

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

conclusion featured “The consent given by the Rabbi’s wife” [rpmrm] to substitute part of the cash payment for books given by de Fano to her son, Gedaliah Cordoeiro.

483

Notwithstanding RaMaK's close associations with his male Safedian cohort, this excerpt suggests that his manuscripts were nonetheless entrusted in his wife’s safekeeping (perhaps as was the case of Moses de Leon and his wife regarding the Zohar?) and were considered substantial leverage for social, financial and even professional welfare.484 The need to get Mrs. Cordoeiro’s consent for this modification may have meant more than conventional social etiquette or judicial due process. It may in fact point to Mrs. Cordoeiro as having had a serious say in matters concerning her husband’s ordeals and a further tribute to her leverage in the Safedian community long after RaMaK's death. The second, and much more significant account, features in Gedaliah’s Colophon to RaMaK's Seder Avodat Yom ha-Kippurim (1587). Following his disclosure of RaMaK's death on Gedaliah’s eighth year, Gedaliah’s words in regard to his mother afford our desired sense o f intimacy and edification:

nnia cw i nasra pinnae x’n ’ax m m n npun Tyra raa x^x in tpdt x1?^ [...] n r nn x1? .ran erann wm'? rnrxm ^ m a w x’n .7-nrr ^x1? n^nn nn’n m in mxnpx miyn^i nmn1? ’np ’inrn ’unw nai ,’n n bv ’m a w i v ’T Tina ^ x’n a^iva ’a ,a” n nutm D’a’ in x ,Tam xnan 'ms1? vm1? narx^ "("n’ .’ax .’XTi xnratm x^pm [...] The portion allotted to me [to learn from my father’s wisdom] was less than minute, and it was only the sagacious righteousness of my mother which was my aid; [she] whose house was built on women’s wisdom, a praise to God, blessed be His name. It was she who has sustained me and has girded me with strength488 to serve diligently before the sages. Her hand never departed mine489 until I reached mature discernment, and [therefore] whatever has been conferred upon me or will be conferred upon me by my Maker for instruction and message490 I shall deem ‘the Torah of my mother’.491 May I be worthy to serve before her AQf\

AQ H

483 One o f the books was Joseph K aro’s K esef Mishnah (Venice 1574) - Joseph Karo in fact assigned Azariah de Fano to attend to its publication in Italy. 484 As will become evident concerning their offspring, Gedaliah Cordoeiro. 485 See Isaiah 63:5. 486 See Toseftah, Sanhedrin 8 on Proverbs 9:1. 487 See RaMaK's Pardes Rim onim 32, end o f chapter 3. 488 Psalms 18:40. 489 Mishnah, Ketubot 2:9. 490 Isaiah 8:20. 491 See Proverbs 1:8.

98

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

with admiration and respect492 for many days and long years,493 for she has always been to me the true image of the Shekhinah. This poignant excerpt demonstrates that RaMaK's wife had survived him by at least seventeen years, and most likely by more, judging by Gedaliah’s concluding entreaty. Having been quite reverential of her and indebted to her, it may be that her death served the impetus for Gedaliah’s return to Israel from Italy sometime circa 1589.494 What seems quite evident in his excerpt, however, is an unmediated impression of her considerable contributions to Gedaliah’s erudition and induction into adulthood ,495 one which by inference points to her having had certain leverage among the scholarly elite in Safed.496

The Cordoeiros: Marriage, Family and Conjugal Rites Gedaliah’s 1562 birth in Safed marked RaMaK’s 40th [!] year. Whereas we do not possess any conclusive knowledge of RaMaK's age at marriage, it was nonetheless evidently quite earlier than his late thirties: first, traditional Judaism has viewed marriage as a right of passage to be performed by the male at its proper time, namely at the age of eighteen.497 Second, as already noted in scholarship, both general kabbalistic perspectives and the unique mystical atmosphere in Safed rendered all Jews intimate microcosms whose physical and mental procedures ran parallel to the theosophical edifice and had profound effects on it. As such, the unifying redemptive acts indispensable for harmonious theosophical trafficking must have rendered the female an essential partner to the male vis-a-vis its direct affect on the sefirotic male-female relations on high498 - as already seen in the Zohar.499 RaMaK indeed reiterates these points in Tomer Devorah and Eilima Rabbati, wherein the former states,

492 See M ishnah, Kidushin 1:7. 493 S e e Mishnah, A v o t 6 :7 . 494 Please refer to the section dedicated to Gedaliah’s biography in this chapter. 495 On this issue in general, see also Hoffman, L.A. in Fine, L. (ed., 2001), pp. 185-223. 496 Gedaliah him self testifies in the conclusion o f the above paragraph that his master was the renowned Rabbi Solomon Sagis. 497 See M ishnah, Avot 5:21. On this issue in general, see also Schermer, A. (1998), pp.43-70. 498 See, e.g., Scholem, G. (1971), p.343; ibid (1987), p.142; Mopsik, C. (1986), pp.214-215. For a detailed discussion, see Wolfson, E.R. (1997). 499 Zohar 1:26a; 50a; 74a.

99

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

7"isn xft ra’y npnn nraw rrnrw ms/sft p a x ft anxn npft -p y nmn m-rnT my nraty npw ’D ftVa nraty lay pxw xtmtys - mrx xtw x*?iy myn m xn ,nim .maa u aa n*7!3i] x w ,n’a m nmnnn nap: - mnpjn tup pa naiy anxm napin mta anx1? lim a nipx1? in1! n tm in1^ ,aftaa lana1? ifty nnaiyn nraipm ,nmyi man ,nxip xzmxi ,pnxn ^a ft wa^n1? - nxfty xmx :mnpi tiip pa mny xintp mxsnn pnya ax nratp lftx lftx xian xft .a^ nn pn ,non paivi nioa ,nx&> uaa 'np1? - nxnn .fifty mx’sa ^x n a n 1 x1?

Furthermore, a man should take great care to behave in such a way that the Shekhinah will cleave to him and not depart from him. Now, as long as a man has not married, the Shekhinah is not with him at all,* since she relates to man mainly via the female aspect, wherein man stands amidst the two female aspects - the corporeal* female below [him*], who acquires* ‘sustenance, clothing and conjugal rights ’500 from him; and the [non-corporeal*] Shekhinah who stands over* him in blessing of all the above*, so he may in turn* give again and again to the wife he has chosen in the covenant [of marriage].* His position corresponds to Tif’eret501who also* stands between the two females: Imma Ilaah,502 who provides for all his needs*, and Imma Tataah,503 who receives from him [her] ‘sustenance, clothing and conjugal rights’, [that is]* hesed, din and rahamim. But [the higher] Shekhinah shall not come to him [man*] unless he emulates the pattern of the higher reality .504 In Eilima Rabbati RaMaK charts the desired evolution of men in correspondence with the theosophical edifice, whereupon “The fifth stage, whose age is eighteen, marks his entry to the realm of [Sefirah] Yesod. And therefore at this stage he is ripe for marriage [...] and enters Atzilut, drawing closer to receive the soul of Atzilut upon reaching his twentieth year” .505 These sentiments are complimented in Or Yaqar, where RaMaK's description may disclose his choice to marry a woman from the Alkabetz lineage:

•o n yu p n1? p x it mxatp n sa ,aan mzftn na xtpn ft u/w na *?a onx m aa 1 d'iw1? 'n nx m nx1? p x a ^aa f t a a t Tuny rfr px p f t .lftx anpnnft 'na p a r 1? ^an x t ft ip1^ na ftat m aa 1 p f t r a f t px1? in a pn ^a p ax ftarip na ^a inatpin panfti

[...] panna nnx in tpaa pain1 mi inn ,pmm aipa i3 xum

500 See Exodus 21:10. 501 Understood as a phallic Sefirah. See Nin [he] in the Hebrew. 502 “The higher M other” - corresponding with the third Sefirah, Binah. See Zohar 1:3b and 1:15b. 503 “The lower M other” - Corresponding with the tenth Sefirah, Malkhut, a.k.a Shekhinah. See Zohar 1:50a. 504 Tomer Devorah, chapter 9. See in Miller, M. (trans., 1993), p. 129. W hereas I have essentially given here M. M iller’s translation, the parts marked by were modified. 505 Eilima Rabbati, M a’ayan Ein Adam, Mic. 2147, p,102a-b, JTS.

100

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

A man should [even] sell all of his possessions in order to marry a daughter of a sagacious student, for this mitzvah is beyond measure and is all toward cleaving to God and drawing near Him. It is therefore beyond measure, as it falls under the pronouncement ‘with all your might’506 [that is] to love God and to cleave to His soul as much as one can. Accordingly, his entire wealth should mean nothing in comparison and he should thus sell all of his possessions [in order to] marry - for only through marriage he may really cleave to Him [.. .]507 Although such pronouncements support the essential part RaMaK's wife must have had for the fuller realization of his mystical piety, they should not be misconstrued as an egalitarian design in either the family or the social spheres. Phallic supremacy remained evident in Safedian discourse, as seen e.g., in the Safedian Hanhagot which state that “The pious take heed as not to shave off their armpit or pubic hair, [... whereas] he who transgresses is assured to reincarnate as a woman”.

CAO

This attitude is also evident m

RaMaK's metaphysics, which established male superiority on the ontic, epistemic and functional levels: in Eilima Rabbati RaMaK maintains that whereas “The secret of malefemale relations” []"*dt 710] permeates all strata of emanation by way of their respective affecting and affected qualities, it does not pertain to the initiatory step distinguishing the EinSof from the Keter. At this juncture of the metaphysical regulatory emanation into the theosophical RaMaK claims that “The Father (EinSof) did not require*509 a daughter [!] in order to create the first son {Keter). Therefore, the initially effected [pil/ta ‘llT’V = Keter] came forth devoid of a bi-gender [course of action] and is a vessel whose existence is from God’s essence alone” .510 One should attend to RaMaK's use of the word ro (daughter) instead of the naturally expected ri&'N (wife), pointing to a hierarchy which dismisses any female property as either equal or required by ‘God’s essence alone’. Elsewhere RaMaK carries this state of affairs to the creation of Adam and Eve, “Who came forth from the Divine devoid of a bi-gender procedure, albeit henceforth they

506 Deuteronomy 6:5. 507 O r Y a q a r on Z o h ar, Akev 6:1. See also on va-Yeshev 8:5. 508 Cf: Schechter, S. (1908), p.301, N o.8. These H an h ag o t are o f anonymous origin. 509 T"is* - meaning a regulated procedure. 510 E ilim a R ab b ati, Ein K ol 3:4 and compare with Ein ha-Bedolah 1:23. RaM aK clarifies that even the Hokhmah and Binah within the K eter do not fall under the “Secret o f male-female due to their profound unity within the Keter” - see Ein ha-Bedolah 1:21,22.

101

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

yielded to its necessity” .511 In Shiur Qomah RaMaK now continues this phallic construction by sticking to the biblical creation story and stating that “A woman is inferior to a man because she was conceived of him ” .512 The view of God as a metaphysical transgender whose initial standing nonetheless associates with the phallus thus creates an absolute male supremacy which leads RaMaK to render the female property “A part taken from the male and subordinate to him” on all levels513 - an inferiority to the perpetual masculinity which is not affected in any manner whatsoever, for the EinSof “Affects yet is not affected” ,514 “Awakes all others yet needs not be awakened” .515 These metaphysical meditations, whose mythical configurations are evident, inform RaMaK's theosophical speculation and social assessments of women, wherein he engineers the phallic Tiferet (reflected in men) as pivotal in the orchestration of the theosophical traffic and an essential conduit between the upper and lower female spheres. RaMaK correspondingly endorses this scheme and aligns it with the theosophical orientation; that the arrangement of male-female relationship below should run in reciprocal concert with the male-female relationship on high - especially between the commanding Tif’eret and the subordinate Malkhut: “[...] The T if’eret affects Malkhut and steers her according to the lesser capacity of her mind, for women are of a slighter mind 516 [ .,.] ” .517 RaMaK indeed articulates a hierarchy wherein the distinction between male and female ontic qualities resides in the former’s ability to create and the latter’s lesser, albeit indispensible ability to receive the seed of creation, to incubate it and to finally reveal it in shape and form through birth: “It is necessary for the created beings [nvnn] to remain in the female’s belly until their revelation, which is the boundary of the female condition” [mpin Tn mntf].518 This phallic supremacy echoes the mystical climate which had influenced RaMaK and is seen e.g., in Solomon Molcho’s claim “To man

511 E ilim a R ab b ati, Ein ha-Bedolah 1:22. 512 S hiur Q om ah, p .65. 513 Eilim a R ab b ati, Ein K ol 3:5. 514 I b i d 3 :4 .

Ein ha-Bedolah 1:23. S e e a l s o h i s d i s c u s s i o n i n Sefer G erushin, e n t r y 28, pp.30-31. B abylonian, S h a b b a t 3 3 b . 517 T om er D evorah, c h a p t e r 7 . 518Eilim a R ab b ati, Ein Ro ’i 6:16 a n d c o m p a r e w i t h P ard es R im onim 13:7.

515 I b i d ,

516 S e e e .g .,

102

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

alone was governance given whereas the woman [was created] to reproduce and multiply [the species].”519 E.R. Wolfson furnishes as prooftext another excerpt from RaMaK’s discussion of such mystical views and their potential ramifications on gender relations - one taken from RaMaK's Tefilah le-Moshe.520 Wolfson challenges here certain scholarly perceptions of the female as equal to the male in the theosophical procedures and their realizations in the mystical socio-religious theatres :521 RaMaK’s text establishes according to Wolfson a male centrality, as it identifies the phallic Sefirah Yesod as another theosophical nucleolus whose pivotal position unites the male and female spheres: “Cordovero captures an essential aspect of the kabbalistic idea of messianic redemption: the primary locus of the redeemer is Yesod, the attribute that corresponds to the divine phallus, for this gradation is the conduit that connects the masculine and the feminine. The moment of redemption thus entails the reunification of Tif’eret and Malkhut through the phallic Yesod”.522 There is obviously no doubt about the effects of such meditations on the marital relations in Safedian mystical households. S.A. Horodetzky assumed without any inquiry that RaMaK had been married prior to becoming Solomon Alkabetz’ Kabbalah student.523 Although his assumption proves correct, we wish to substantiate it in the following pages and shed a lasting light on this aspect of RaMaK's biography.

Marriage and marital relations had momentous

ramifications in RaMaK's world, and we have already witnessed RaMaK's take on marriage as indispensible a requisite for higher forms of divine erudition - “Now, as long as a man has not married, the Shekhinah is not with him at all.” The investigation of RaMaK's writings indeed circuitously points to him as having been married prior to embarking on his first composition, Pardes Rimonim (c. 1543): RaMaK confesses to divine assistance as a major impetus behind practically all his compositions - starting as early as the first chapter in Pardes Rimonim, wherein he discloses a divine mediation

519 Sefer ha-M efo’ar, p. 4. 520 Tefilah le-M oshe (Przemysl 1892), p.141a. See Wolfson, E.R. (1997), p.290. 521 Wolfson, E.R. (1997), pp.289-293. 522 Ibid, pp.289-290. On this issue see also ibid (1995 b). 523 See Horodetzky, S.A. (1924, Heb. ed. 1951), p.16.

103

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

titled “The mightily held hand” [TH nprm ].524 In Or Yaqar, whose composition had commenced most likely as early as Pardes Rimonim,525 RaMaK shares from experience that “Each work which harbors sacredness is assisted by the heavens [...] - the artistic laborer commences and [then] the Holy Spirit [wnpn m"l] is enclothed []TO3bJTO] in the work, leading to its self perpetuated fruition. The laborer learns one thing from another, whereas assistance and guidance are [rendered] according to the subject-matter, its essence and the holy task it requires” [13 “TON wnpn rmns?].526 Such evidence therefore suggests with strong plausibility that RaMaK must have been married prior to 1543, for otherwise he would have been unfit for such revelations. RaMaK's marriage by his twentieth year is also corroborated in other instances whose impressions on his texts are quite subtle. Indeed, trying to track the mind of an erudite 16th century Jewish scholar necessitates that one acknowledges the depth of language which informed his conceptual and expressive domains. This is all the more true in RaMaK's case, whereupon almost each sentence either contains or alludes to sources from the vast Jewish literary corpus. In that respect, RaMaK's particular choice of words in the introduction to Pardes Rimonim, “Wherein I was pursuing all that is lustful and nearing my end without hope”, strikingly resembles the Talmudic dictum “He who is twenty years of age and not married spends all of his days in sin [and] in sinful thoughts.”527 As the Talmud continues here to narrate God Himself as awaiting man to marry until he reaches his twentieth year, after which man’s unwillingness to comply is met by severe verbal retribution,528 one may suggest that RaMaK's choice of words referring directly to Job 7:6 and presumably alluding to this Talmudic passage - may infer to 1542 as his wedding year. Be that as it may, juxtaposing RaMaK's above Or Yaqar statement with his professed views on the indispensability of marriage in Tomer Devorah and Eilima Rabbati deems an unmarried RaMaK unfit for heavenly guidance

524 P ard es R im onim 1:1. This term was adopted from Isaiah 8:11 and RaM aK uses it numerous times, all o f which indicate an ecstatic writing process guided by heavenly mediators. For more details on this issue, please refer to the chapters RaMaK's Writings and Sefer Gerushin. 525 Please refer to the chapter RaMaK's Writings and to my references there. 526 Or Yaqar, volume 11, p .125, Parashat Pekkudei, note 2. 527 Babylonian, Kidushin 29b-30a. 528 avnaxs nsm naiN Kwa x b ib arantz; iivd .niffx m ' ’na dik1? nasai n"apn nun’ nau? '5 7V - “God awaits man to wed up until m an’s twentieth year. If he hasn’t after this time, God says ‘let his bones tremble with cry”. See ibid.

104

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

and unprepared to embark on such works by 1543. One may therefore suggest that his marriage to Solomon Alkabetz’ sister circa 1542 had been an important milestone in RaMaK's sense o f spiritual ripeness and eagerness to join his brother-in-law’s house of study. It is similarly reasonable that Mrs. Cordoeiro’s age at marriage followed the halakhic precept deeming the reach of puberty “The marriageable age.” The general application of this ruling in RaMaK's community is visible in the Safedian Hanhagot (moral precepts),529 whose list of praiseworthy people and deeds includes those “Who adopt orphaned boys and girls, and raise them into the holy state of matrimony upon approaching the marriageable age.”530 Assuming that the young Ms. Alkabetz was betrothed to the young Cordoeiro shortly after reaching puberty, at 14 years of age, may offer c. 1528 as her year of birth - a seasoned 34 years old woman at the birth of their son Gedaliah (1562)! One cannot therefore dismiss the possibility of the Cordoeiros having birthed other offspring prior to Gedaliah, of whom none seems to have survived. Not necessarily surprising, since notwithstanding the relatively liberal geographical mobility and economic prosperity usually associated with mid 16th century Safed, it had ben nonetheless a world quite fraught with trepidation and dangers: besides the more predictable perils associated with childbirth in the pre-Modem world, 16th century Safed had been an arena familiar with poverty pestilences, earthquakes, persecutions,

C-J 1

and informed by periodic famines, epidemics, financial deficits and numerous restrictions

enacted by the Muslim Ottoman governors.533 The 16th century Safedian contemporary Rabbi Judah Haleiwa laments in his Tzafnat Paane’ah “[...] In our transgressions we have known one epidemic after another, hunger following a hunger, earthquake following an earthquake, commencing in the year 5300 (1540) and enduring on the first, second and third years, up to this day, the year 5305 (1545) of creation - upheavals are but too

529 For details, see RaM aK ’s Writings. 530 Hanhagot Rabbi Avraham ha-Levi, note 23. The list was published by S. Schechter in ibid, (1908), appendix A. The quote is from page 298, note 23. (The editor has erroneously footnoted it # 27 - see ibid, p.277, fn.108 and p.323). 531 On this general issue, see Ben-Naeh, Y. (2003). 532 See, e.g., David, A. (1978), pp.190-194. 533 See, e.g., Harosh, M. (1984 b).

105

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

frequent” .534 So does Rabbi Samson Baeck, whose letter four decades later (1584)535 states that “[The Safedian residents] are immersed in grief whose magnitude has not been seen since its inauguration: hunger and thirst have left behind more than a thousand dead” .536 Gedaliah Cordoeiro’s birth had in fact merely preceded the severe 1563 epidemic one of many which had perpetually infected the region for roughly five decades, sending entire communities seeking refuge away from Safed and leaving behind a trail of ST7 decimation, death and a radical disturbance to daily life in the vicinity. These events •

•

•

were well documented in numerous texts from that era,538 mentioning notable and persisting famines during the better part of the 1540’s and severe epidemics in 1540, 1545, 1556,539 1563, 1566-7, 1573 and 1579, wherein contemporary halakhic rulings profess the centrality of such calamities in the struggles to maintain and regulate communal life in Safed and the nearby regions.540 Such testimonies are further corroborated by the chronicles of contemporary gentile visitors to the region, such as the Christian Portuguese Pantaleao de Aveiro who visited Safed sometime around 1565: one 534 MS Trinity College (Dublin), # B5 27, p.233a. Cf: Benayahu, M. (1991), p.121, fn. 119. 535 One o f the most severe hungers the Galilee had known in that century. The Hebrew designation o f that year is 5344, corresponding with the letters I'b'OT to form the Hebrew word “The annihilation”. The same derivation was used in the 1517 massacre o f Safed Jews by Muslims in wake o f the Ottoman-Mamluk war: the contemporary Rabbi Joseph ben M eir Gershon o f Damascus (earlier from Salonika) added a special appeal in his Ben Porat Yosef, pleading with the Jewish communities, “I, Joseph, son o f Rabbi Meir Gershon, have written [this appeal] here, in Damascus, in the year m rs [= Help / 5277 / 1517] to the poor residents o f Safed who have been robbed and defiled by the Muslims [...] and many o f them were killed, women tortured and children murdered [...]”. This source is still in manuscript - see its photocopy in the National Book Archive in Jerusalem, # 8041, pp,149b-150b. Cf: David, A. (1978), p p .191-192 and fn.9. 536 Yaari, A. (1943), p .189, and Benayahu, M. (1991), p.242. A dramatic letter concerning the various misfortunes and calamities faced by the Jews o f that era is Rabbi Moses Alsheikh’s Hazut Kashah, written in 1591-2 and addressed to the Jewish communities o f the Ottoman provinces, as well as Italy and the Ashkenazi communities (published in Venice 1593). M. Pachter published this letter - see ibid (1974), pp. 157-193. 537 The 1556 epidemic sent many to the nearby village o f Biriah in seek o f relief - including Rabbi Joseph Karo. Rabbi M oses ben Josef Trani had recorded this event and laments “A few grooms and brides have died in the midst o f their jo y [...]”. See Shu”t ha-MaBiT (Rabbi Moses ben Y osef Trani Responsa), Part 1, 27:10d; part 3, 9:106c and 56:125a; cf; Benayahu, M. (1991), p .121. 538 See Shu”t ha-MaBiT in numerous places, as well as his Beit Elohim (Venice 1576), chapter 16, pp.l7d-18a; Joseph K aro’s M agid Meisharim, part 2, 33d; Judah H aleiw a’s Tzafnat Paane’ah, MS Trinity College (Dublin), # B5 27, p.233a. Cf: Benayahu, M. (1991), ibid, p p .121-122 and his references. 539 Rabbi Joseph Karo completed that year the “Orah Hayim” part o f his magnum opus Shulhan Arukh. Due to the epidemic that year, this was done in the nearby village Biriah. 540 Shu”t ha-MaBiT (part 3, 211:190d) mentions a number o f occasions wherein people were encouraged even forced - to either evacuate or send relatives and loved ones away from Safed, as long as they don’t leave the premises o f the Holy Land - “[...] To Tiberias, or to Jenin, or Nablus if necessary - even to Gaza which marks the end o f the territorial Land o f Israel”. Cf; Benayahu, M. (1991), p .121 and fn.128.

106

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

of his notes depicts “A number of Jewish women of Portuguese descent who paid me a visit with tears in their eyes, lamenting over their transgressions which had resulted in the expulsion from Portugal, not to the promised land as they had assumed but rather to the land of despair - as they had witnessed with their very eyes and had experienced in their desolation” .541 Taken as a whole, and corroborated by Gedaliah’s birth to parents assumed to be of relatively advanced age, one may evidently deem reasonable Gedaliah having been preceded by siblings who had not survived. Gedaliah’s concluding praise of his mother as having been “The true image of the Shekhinah” may indeed point to this conclusion, albeit circumstantially at best, for it seems to echo a depiction in the Zohar concerning the biblical story of Isaac ushering Rebecca into his dead mother’s tent:542 “[...] As was taught by Rabbi Eleazar, ‘Isaac then brought her [Rebecca] into the tent of his mother Sarah’, [whereupon] Sarah’s image was made known to him and Isaac was consoled after this revelation, seizing her image each and every day”. This Zoharic passage, whose conclusion renders Sarah an associative embodiment of the Shekhinah, may have informed Gedaliah’s own remarks and may suggest that much like Isaac to Sarah, so was Gedaliah the only child in the Cordoeiro household. As for the Cordoeiros’ conjugal relations, our interest here means snooping for uncharted comers and entering chambers whose initial concealment often times had its own reasons. Whereas many such instances only further entice the imagination and persuade additional prying, others may call for reserved discretion. RaMaK's marital relations may fall under the latter category, although certain factors assist in our understanding of such behind-close-doors affairs - namely the intimate reciprocity between theosophical unifications above and marital affairs below. Although we should not overstate such correlations as reflecting all levels of intimacy, RaMaK’s cosmology of multiple speculums which reflect and affect each other sheds light on certain discrite practices as well. Moreover, RaMaK himself divulges such information precisely to demonstrate the profound associations between the lower and higher worlds; a

541 In te ra rio de T e rra S ancta E Suas P articu larid ad es (Revista E Prefaciada por Antonio Baiao, 1927), pp.482-483. Translation by the author - see also Ish-Shalom, M. (1963), pp.201-210. 542 Z o h ar 1:33a on Genesis 24:67.

107

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

cosmology which indeed sheds at times a precise light on the Cordoeiro’s intimate bedroom rites. RaMaK's reluctance to afford any direct information about his marital relations is quite understandable and does not deviate from traditional etiquette, let alone the desire to maintain the honor of God’s innermost female properties. Although most of his discussion about theosophical modes of unification infer to the intimate role RaMaK's wife must have had in his life, he treats certain theosophical female properties with great reverence and deems their publication “Disrespectful to the female” .543 One can therefore hardly wonder why such shorthand is espoused concerning his own marital relations. In Eilima Rabbati RaMaK mentions in general the significant role allotted to the female spouse in her husband’s life: “And you may learn how many men are greatly aided by their spouses [...]. For a worthy sage merits by his spouse who joins him and assists him [...], since [...] the female which is the Shekhinah - that is a spouse - stood by him [ ...] ” .544 Likewise, he compares the wife to the Shekhinah when discussing her standing

as “A woman of valor” by her husband ,545 and furnishes highly sensual descriptions regarding such intimate acts as kissing ,546 hugging547 and intercourse548 on theosophical levels. That in mind, RaMaK does speak at length about the consummation of marriage when associating it with the sensual unification of the sefirot - a reality whose fruition had to be initiated in the human realm and therefore reflects precise light on the Cordoeirian bedroom rituals, whose apex was “The corporeal intercourse, which cannot consummate save by carnal covenant [TOT JVQ].”549 Armed by a broader appreciation of RaMaK's acute associations between earth and heaven, readers may find in heavenly unifications ample reflections on the Cordoeirian marital rites as well.550 RaMaK forbade masturbation and lustful meditations, for those were not the proper means to utilize one’s evil inclination, as we shall soon see: “A man should not harden

543 Eilima Rabbati, Ein Shemesh 6:15. 544 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 5:37. 545 Ibid, Ein ha-Bedolah 2:18. 546 See e.g., Eilima Rabbati, Ein Shemesh 3:63. 547 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 33, p .36. 548 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 17, p .17; entry 30, p.32; end o f entry 32, p .35 and entry 33, p.36. 549 Or Ne'erav 6:3. 550 See also in Zohar l:49a-50a; l:154b-155b; 2:89a-89b and Zohar Hadash on Bereshit 1 la-1 lb (Midrash ha-N e’elam); cf; Tishby, I. (1949), vol.3, pp.1388-1403.

108

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

himself in any manner [*re

"my n^p 1 XPIT] save for the appropriate goal - his wife,

when her purity allows the consummation of marriage [...]. This requires great care, mainly in guarding himself from licentious thoughts” .551 The proper utilization of such urges was therefore regulated according to space, time, spiritual purity and corporeal ripeness. RaMaK’s cosmological apparatus of hierarchical dialectics o f opposites

552

rendered the inclination towards evil [yin IS’] a momentous assistant towards unification, once properly engaged and manipulated: “Prior to the primal Sin”, RaMaK states in Sefer Gerushin, “the inclination towards evil assisted in holy unification [and] the malevolent angel[s] answered Amen” [impn Tirmn

y ”0» T 'nr rrn xonn cmp].553 Tomer Devorah

continues now to offer regulated marital relations as such proper an engagement with the evil inclination, that is, male sexual desires. The cosmological rationale wherein “Any superior property needs to be aroused by its subordinate towards proper unification” deems a la RaMaK one’s (subordinate) wife the incubator of evil inclination and therefore the sole regulated conduit by which the male may “Rectify the judgments and redirect them toward the worship of God”554: “The evil inclination should be bound and tied so it cannot be aroused for any physical activity - neither in desiring intercourse nor in desiring money; nor for anger nor for honor in any way. However, a man should heed his wife’s regulated compulsion555 [inii-'X pmr?] and gently arouse his inclination towards the sweet necessities [mpina niTm] [...] which restore the [upper] Shekhinah in turn. [...] For the sake of this [unifying restoration] one should arouse the evil inclination towards loving her” .556

Tomer Devorah 8; in Miller, M. (trans., 1993), p.121. 552 Please refer to R aM aK ’s Writings and RaMaK's M etaphysical Cosmology for further details. 553 Sefer Gerushin, entry 7, pp.9-10. On the metaphysical view o f evil in early mystical discourse, see also Farber-Ginat, A. (1981). 554 Tomer Devorah 6 [see in Miller, M. (trans., 1993), p. 107] and compare with Sefer Gerushin, entry 66, p .90. 55 M. M iller’s translation “For the sake o f his wife” only scratches the surface o f RaMaK's intent here. RaMaK's use o f the word i n s refers not only to a need but primarily to a cosmological regulation, as is the case in niDl l*nx tn in n ru nPDW! The term ln ra i n s thus suggests a regulated compulsion which governs the entire theosophical realm and is embedded in the human condition as its microcosm. Heeding the i n s lnttfN thus means one’s acute attention to one’s wife as the reflection of the theosophical regulation entire. Please refer to RaM aK ’s Writings and RaMaK's Metaphysical Cosmology for more details. 556 Tomer Devorah 6. On this issue see also Sack, B. (1995 a), pp.92, 223 and Kimelman, R. (2003), p. 142.

109

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

RaMaK mentions in Pardes Rimonim the benefit of “The known and beloved prayer which precedes the act of intercourse” [nyiTn '7Dmn nrsnn mm bx lb tnp nx nm],557 whereas his ensuing instructions in Tomer Devorah shed direct light on the initial position which led to sexual unification. We learn that his wife must have occupied the left side of the bed, which was most likely shared exclusively for such occasions: drawing from the Zoharic view of the theosophical erotica expressed in the Song of Songs, RaMaK now writes, “Then he should concentrate on drawing the Shekhinah near through the aroused aspect of the left [side of the body], according to the esoteric meaning of the verse ‘[...] his left [arm] lies under my head ’558 [...] and later - as the verse continues - ‘and his right arm shall embrace me’. He should [now] concentrate on sweetening all those acts of restoring the Shekhinah via his good inclination, literally reinstating the Shekhinah and causing her to rejoice by performing this precept for the sake of the Supernal Union” .559 This kind of embracive foreplay was a prerequisite for the ensuing stages: kissing became a physical revitalization leading to spiritual resuscitation - the arousal of the male by the longing female as “The attachment of one soul to another, much like a man who kisses his desired spouse [inpl&Ti] with his mouth. By the mouth he unifies mouth to mouth and breath to breath, meaning soul to soul and spirit to spirit” .560 At this point, the spouse (rendered ‘Lower Shekhinah’’) would spread her arms and legs in a manner suggesting corporeal symmetry and harmonious utility - a la Heinrich C. Agrippa’s (1486-1535) rendition in Libri Tres de Occulta Philosophia or the better known Vitruvian Man by Leonardo da Vinci. Preparing six meridians in her body to support, sustain and receive her husband, she now reflected her heavenly counterpart “Whose limbs are stretched to all sides” [to bsb pt3t^sna m n x i]561 in anticipation of her husband T if’eret “Who has six dimensions”562: “Just as a wife relates to her husband through six meridians

557 Pardes Rimonim 31:9. 558 Song o f Songs 8:3. 559 Tomer Devorah 6; in Miller, M. (trans., 1993), pp. 105-107 with certain modifications. 560 Ibid, 8:21 and compare with Eilima Rabbati, Ein Shemesh 3:62-63. 561 Eilima Rabbati, Ein Adam 6:9, p.164a (manuscript, JTS); cf: Sack, B. (1995 b), p .173. Compare with Ein K ol 4:47. 562 See Pardes Rimonim 23:1 under nax.

110

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

during [sexual] unification, so it is in the higher unification - through the meridian of the entire body [nax],563 the spine, [both] arms and [both] shins - six aligned against six” .564 Pardes Rimonim discusses the hallakhic permission to engage in intercourse with a wife who is either pregnant or breastfeeding. Stipulating the chastity and moral virtue of such a wife, RaMaK describes visibly the act of intercourse itself: Concerning our sages’ teachings about ‘sanctification through the consummation of marriage ’,565 an intercourse with a pregnant or breastfeeding woman is not spilling one’s semen in vain, God forbid. Although it does not cause physical birth, it causes spiritual births by means of the [couple’s] virtuous unification [...]. Upon using his wife for such consummation [u/anu/n], a man injects [O’iDQ] a spark of his spirit, whereupon it stands [erect]566 in her body and trembles567 within her [ taiv m ntrn "pro]. We therefore deduce from this act about the unification of the higher realm [.. .].568 This apparatus viewed the female property a receptacle of sanctity from the male on all levels; a quality whose importance nevertheless accentuated her subordination to the male. However, the female property in and of itself was highly regarded by male mystics, since without it no male quality could have been aroused, let alone realized! This reality had also informed the distinction between female corporeality and female properties the latter having been the lot of male mystics as well when the arousal of other male properties within the theosophical domain had risen. Several scholars have already demonstrated the frequent designation of the term Shekhinah among the male fellowship in the Zohar569 - a view which RaMaK endorses time and again when stating “No dilemma should exist regarding the same apparatus when concerning male [spiritual] impregnation” .570 Such views had a notable effect on RaMaK’s devotional piety,

563 See RaMaK's explication o f this word in Pardes Rimonim 23:1 under nas and compare with ibid under

«1U. 564 Pardes Rimonim 8:23 and compare with Or Yaqar on Shir ha-Shirim, vol.17, p .158. 565 Babylonian Talmud, Shavuot 18a. 566 In Tomer Devorah 8 RaM aK states that “A man should not harden him self save for the appropriate goal - his wife, when her purity allows the consummation o f marriage” - naub fON ,~'i QlC-’n ia^V ,7EJ’p' Nblff nnrn r a sirro ,n m r m intttx x’rro ,m tn n moan. 567 Elsewhere RaM aK uses the Zoharic word tffUS (pounding) to suggest the male motion after penetration. See e.g. Or Yaqar on Shir ha-Shirim, Vol. 17, p .158. 568 Pardes Rimonim 31:9 and compare with Or Yaqar on Shir ha-Shirim, vol. 17, p.158. 569 See Liebes, Y. (1994), pp.99-112; Wolfson, E.R. (1994), pp.368-377. Cf; Fishbane, E. (2002), p.36. 570 Pardes Rimonim 1:9.

Ill

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

especially in relation to activating his own female properties to arouse male potencies imbued within deceased tannaitic sages in gravesites around the Galilean backdrop.

571

The above meditations lead one to reiterate L. Fine’s previously professed questions and wonder what marriage to a mystic of RaMaK's caliber felt like on a daily basis. Did the esteemed Alkabetz lineage deem the newlywed Mrs. Cordoeiro a suited companion and a spouse able to actively edify RaMaK's complex engagements with the female aspects of divinity? How aware, let alone involved, was she in his engagements, practices and compositions? Did RaMaK ever share his insights with her, or leapt to his feat in moments of epistemic exaltation to divulge an intimate thought? Was she attentive to her sexual role and aware of the acute associations between the physical manipulations of her sexual self and those of the cosmic edifice? Or did she merely follow the regulations set forth by her husband in fear of mistakes? Did she ever offer RaMaK insights about her own sexuality, sensuality and intimate feelings in order to deepen his knowledge of the upper Shekhinah and certain unification processes on high? And if so, were such insights factored into RaMaK's overall cosmology or did he forbid them altogether? Was intercourse truly a mystical union or in fact an intensified view of the female as a vessel in the hands of men? We cannot be certain whether women were truly elevated or mainly utilized with a deeper sense of intensity - as disconcerting as that term is for modem readers. It does seem, however, that RaMaK afforded his wife relative freedom of inquiry and participation in that regard: his pedagogic sensitivity and view of each member of Israel as harboring unique sacredness which affects all others must have raised RaMaK’s own spiritual stake tenfold when his own spouse was concerned. Similarly, his acute notice of human corporeality, crying, rejoicing or breathing as the actuated impressions of the sefirotic apparatus must have intensely orchestrated his bedroom practices, where such acute psychophysical infusions assumed a momentous role to affect theosophical remedies, unification and the discharge of orgasmic thrusts. It could be that RaMaK was in fact an attentive partner: whereas his wife’s pleasure in lovemaking was not necessarily the goal behind his actions, her existence as an actively reflective mirror of 571 Please refer to the chapter Sefer Gerushin. The negotiation o f female and male properties in regard to the Shekhinah is also echoed in rabbinic and kabbalistic views o f Shabbat - including RaM aK’s. See, e.g., Tefilah le-M oshe 193a; also in Kimelman, R. (2003), pp.2-5 and his references there.

112

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

the Shekhinah on high must have guided RaMaK's performance to a noticeable degree and viewed such pleasure as an affirmative means to a much greater end. Although Mrs. Cordoeiro was most likely buried in Safed, her burial place does not seem to have been adjacent to RaMaK’s. This should not be taken for granted, since there is evidence of Galilean coed burials associated with the tanaaic sages. The anonymous 1495 testimony by a disciple of the distinguished 15th century Italian Rabbi Obadiah of Bertinoro is a good example: in the colorful description of the various places he and his companions had visited, the author mentions, “[...] After this, we reached the village [of Meron] itself and saw the cave of Hillel and his disciples of saintly and blessed memory, who were buried with him there; and they number twenty four. We entered a certain cave nearby in which twenty-two scholars lie, and they said that these were the disciples of Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai of saintly and blessed memory; [...] but together with the disciples were buried their wives [.. ,].572 Given that Safedian mystics in RaMaK's era aspired to follow on multiple levels in the footsteps of tannaitic sages, the questions regarding coed burials should not be cast tki aside haphazardly: eschatology had played a decisive role in the 16 century Safedian spiritual climate, whereas throughout Jewish history mortuary customs had been indispensable to the ongoing mechanisms informing the living Jewish community. The burial ground was not a breach between life and death, but rather a bridge between two forms of life - a landscape which negotiates the two and affords meaning not only to the dead within its walls but to the living who communicate with it from without. Since certain Safedian circles seem to have afforded women an amplified share in stimulating the redemptive vision towards fruition, one may speculate whether issues concerning coed burials emerged in the Safedian discourse as a means to address such eschatological concerns - reuniting couples in the afterlife, for example - as well as burning in the living community’s imagination the indispensability of the male-female union. One can meditate further whether burial plots were allocated according to social, religious, economic or other criteria pertaining to the communal statues of the deceased, or were

572 See Wilhelm, K. (ed., 1948), p p .15-27 and Fine, L. (2003), pp.33-34. The translation is taken originally from K . W ilhelm, as mentioned in L. Fine, ibid, p .34, fh. 7.

113

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

obscurity and simplicity the eternal testimony to one’s greatness - as was the case in the lives such mystics had aspired to live. Did such parameters affect communal mortuary rituals for women as well as for men?573 Were deceased spouses of great scholars, such as Mrs. Cordoeiro, given official priority in terms of location in the mortuary landscape? Did grave-markers of such women play a role in the life of the community by and large, inspiring pilgrimage, certain ceremonies, liturgy or other forms of spiritual practices? Were such grave-markers perhaps considered by some men yet another channel for intimate communication with their deceased masters? Were they for living women a source of inspiration, comfort, counsel, reassurance or bliss? Did the living female members pay closer attention to such gravesites, perhaps emulating certain practices informing the male rituals around their masters’ graves, or fashioning rituals of their own? Were wives of esteemed sages viewed by their living female kin as conduits to accentuate the female aspects of divinity and communicate its exclusive properties on high? Could esteemed women form their own fellowships and further edify the female aspects of divinity for communal betterment, including rites which had involved ascetic and ecstatic visitations to female’s gravemarkers in Safed? Some of these questions surely warrant further attention in scholarship, whereas others might never be answered.574 RaMaK's wife, it seems, might have taken many such inquiries to her anonymous grave.

573 On mortuary rites in Medieval and early-M odem Judaism, see Horowitz, E. (1989 b). 574 An interesting discussion o f 18th century Ashkenazi women and their unique customs at burial grounds is Weissler, C. in Fine, L. (ed., 2001), pp.61-73.

114

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Gedaliah ben Moshe Cordoeiro (Safed 1562 - Jerusalem 1625) “ [T h e L o rd h a s n a m e d y o u ] ‘V e r d a n t o liv e tre e , fa ir w ith c h o ic e f r u it’”575 [ . . . ] - h in tin g to th e so n o f th e s a g a c io u s C o rd o v e ro w h o s e n a m e w a s G e d a lia h .576 H e w a s n a m e d th u s sin c e G o d h a s r a is e d h im a s o n e w h o s e n a tu ra l c o n d itio n w o u ld fo re v e r b e ‘v e r d a n t’. C o n c e rn in g ‘fa ir w ith c h o ic e f r u it’: ‘f a ir ’ p e rta in s to th e p h y sic a l, w h e re a s ‘c h o ic e f r u it’ p e rta in s to th e in te lle c tu a l a p titu d e ,577 w h e r e in h e w a s a d o rn e d b y h is f a th e r ’s c h a ra c te r to m a k e k n o w n h is b e in g a fru it fro m h im , [ . . . ] a n d th is la d tre a s u re d M o s e s ’ T e a c h in g 578 a n d s tu d ie d it. R a b b i M o rd e c h a i D a to ,

Igeret ha-Levanon

Part 1: From Safed to Italy We are fortunate to have a few extant sources which allow more leeway in trailing Gedaliah’s life, vocation, communal associations, scholarly achievements and efforts to disseminate his father’s compositions in Italy. This notwithstanding, the single academic treatment of Gedaliah Cordoeiro’s biography to date was M. Benayahu’s short essay leToldot Rabbi Gedaliah Cordovero, written over six decades ago (1945).579 His work sheds important light on Gedaliah’s life, and this section will utilize it with certain modifications in order to furnish a clearer representation of the post-Cordoeirian world informing Gedaliah’s life. That in mind, the following pages do not profess a meticulous study of Gedaliah’s chronicles per se but rather aim to elucidate RaMaK's legacy as seen through his son’s ordeals and give further tribute to the dialectical interplay of mystical discourse which informed the first few decades following RaMaK's death. Gedaliah was bom in Safed in 1562, seemingly an only child to parents of relatively advanced age. Residing most likely in the Safedian Portuguese district, Gedaliah underwent the somewhat conventional route in his induction into a strict Jewish lifestyle. He probably attended one of the few Safedian schools like most children but also studied in RaMaK’s Yeshivah for a year or so, until his eight year wherein he became prematurely orphaned of his father. Gedaliah’s colophon to RaMaK's Perush Seder Avodat Yom ha-Kippurim, written on the 17th anniversary of his father’s death (Venice 1587), narrates this last stage in his early childhood and tenderly reminisces over his mother’s henceforth commitment to his continued studies and overall welfare. Mrs. Cordoeiro, we leam, catered to all his needs and entrusted his education in the sagacious 575 Jeremiah 11:16. 576 Lit. raised by God. 577 n’bautn m isn - the intellectual form. In this context I have opted to use ‘aptitude’. 578 ntz/c n n n - referring here both to biblical Moses and RaMaK. 579 Benayahu, M. (1945), pp.82-90. D. Tam ar’s entry “Cordovero, Gedaliah” in the Encyclopedia Judaica (vol.5, p.967) is much more succinct in nature.

115

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

custody of Rabbi Solomon Sagis. It is most likely that Gedaliah’s overall education at that period benefited from his prestigious lineage, although the ensuing years must have taken their toll in form of the emerging controversy between Cordoeirian and Lurianic Kabbalah .580 Whereas no biographical documentation lends itself concerning the following decade of Gedaliah’s adolescence, there exists in Mordechai Dato’s Igeret ha-Levanon

581

a

fantastic retrospective mental vision 582 of Gedaliah as “A very young lad” [Npir]: Gedaliah features alongside his “Sheep handling” father at the backdrop of a well in the midst of a Galilean field and is depicted not only as a fine boy whose name points to divine providence and intimate intellectual associations with his legendary father, but also as a sharp mind in its own right, whose intuitive insights lead to profound elucidations of esoteric materials.583 Although the composition admits to featuring pseudo-surreal scenery and plot, it brings to mind the Zoharic story regarding Rav Hamuna’s son (‘the child ’)584 and is nonetheless based on Mordechai Dato’s real knowledge of both father and son. Dato had studied under RaMaK in Safed for one year (1560-1561)

ro c

and became a visible devotee of his teachings in Italy, where he was to

meet the grown Gedaliah some twenty three years later (c. 1583). It seems evident - as I. Tishby argues - that Mordechai Dato’s deep appreciation for Gedaliah must have developed after the latter’s arrival in Italy and only than reconfigured into the semifantastic depiction offered in Igeret ha-Levanon.586 A few reasons may have been the impetus for Gedaliah’s departure to Italy during the early 1580s, most noteworthy are the economical hardships of the era,587 the

580 Please refer to the following section titled Digression for more details. 581 MS Oxford # 2237, pp.170a - 194a. The manuscript appears in I. Tishby, I. (1993), p p .147-176. The texts is divided in two parts - a narrative part autobiographical part imaginary and a historiographic exegesis presented as if written by the narrator’s son. I. Tishby maintains that both parts o f the composition were in fact written by Mordechai Dato, whereas “D ato’s unprecedented use o f a pseudonym ‘the son o f the author’” may be ascribed to his “reluctance to divulge explicit autobiographical details under his own name” - see ibid, p. 144 and fn. 79. I believe this contention warrants further investigation. 582 717 1’jlp’K in - “A luminous representation o f the image” - mentioned in regard to RaMaK and Gedaliah. See p.173a; cf: Tishby, I. (1993), p .155. 583 Igeret ha-Levanon, pp,176b - 178a. Cf: Tishby, I. (1993), pp.157-158. 584 Zohar 3 :186a-192a. See also in Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, pp. 11, 197-223. 585 See M. Benayahu’s added remark in the conclusion to Tishby, I. (1993), p .146. 586 Tishby, I. (1993), pp. 131-173. 587 In the wake o f the early 1570’s Safed and the Palestinian region as a whole had started experiencing notable economical decline.

116

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

persistent downgrading of RaMaK's Kabbalah in face of its Lurianic successor in Safed588 and the instrumental role certain centers in Italy had played in book circulation, printing and publication industries. Gedaliah was perhaps in search of both financial security and of a world in which his father’s name still had carried considerable leverage,589 having been home to a few of RaMaK's most devout students and followers Rabbi Menahem Azariah de Fano, Rabbi Mordechai Dato and Rabbi Aaron Berakhiah of Modena.590 Gedaliah’s journey seems to have taken longer than he had initially anticipated. En route Gedaliah made temporary camp in Constantinople, where he was hosted by the affluent and politically savvy Rabbi Solomon di Shirish (a.k.a. Sharish), a benefactor who had come to his aid during some tumultuous times and to whom Gedaliah would later reminiscently and appreciatively devote the publication of Heshek Shlomo - a glossary of confounding biblical words translated into Ladino by an anonymous author591 (Venice 1588):

□Dm pm w x im p ,7am in x ion n m ,-itmxm - w ,-wn Vx -|mn .[...] nrrauonpD pram mmnm inm mm nm m .V'r u r w rr nnbw T'nn .[...] D’am ib irm "in; bx ix iban bx nnb tm b □,,nn bD vbx nrm ,pdj ’b nona rmn ,171dd rra mm ,irpn ]tt>7 nbna bim n’xnn "pm Tiren pm? ^xi bD xwx p m ’’na -p-ax .[...] pribnn’s xba1 ,i ’"inx npD7 ,nbo *pmd inoD .r r

n w p

To the minister, [the] honest and [the] joyous; showing kindness to the thousands;592 [the] precious treasure593 [and] sanctified [fruit of] jubilee;594 a man of discernment and wisdom ,595 the honorable Rabbi Solomon di Shirish, may his Rock and Redeemer protect him - [he] whose house is built by wisdom and is established by understanding596 in Constantinople. 588 1 address this issue in the following Digression to this chapter. 589 Tishby, I. (1974), p.9. 590 1 return to their fluctuating affinities between RaMaK and Luria’s Kabbalah later in this part. 591 A. Yaari (1943) has ascribed this book to Jacob Lombrozo - see note 36. M.D. Gaon has ascribed the book to Gedaliah Cordovero him self (1927-1937, new ed. 2000, vol.2, p.621). However, as M. Benayahu clarifies, Gedaliah him self notes in the preface that “The author’s modesty has prompted him to conceal his own name”. See ibid (1945), p .85, fn.14. According to I. Zanah [a.k.a Sonne], “Gedaliah Cordovero had brought the book to Italy either from Safed or Constantinople” - see ibid, p.499; cf: Benayahu, M., ibid. 592 Exodus 20:6; Deuteronomy 5:10; Jeremiah 32:18. 593 Proverbs 21:20. 594 Leviticus 19:24. 595 Genesis 41:33. 596 See Proverbs 24:3.

117

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

[...] your house has [always] been secure597 and people of all nations have flocked to it598 [so you may] intercede on their behalf to the King or to the Army Minister, so that he may show you compassion599 [...]. And I, your humble servant, was also among them, nourishing from the bounty600 and the rich fare o f your house,601 taking pleasure in your luminous glory.602 You have been my refuge603 under your protecting wings, Selah.604 My soul has cleaved to you;6 5 my mouth is full of praise to you606 [...]. I shall bless you all my life and through all my deeds shall invoke your name .607 Gedaliah mentions Solomon Shirish elsewhere in the book, this time paying homage both to him and his mother, Mrs. Kierra Sultana. As M. Benayahu has already noted, these effusive praises point to some hardships Gedaliah must have incurred during his travels, including imprisonment by the authorities or monetary fines - shedding light on the instrumental role his benefactors had played at such times .608 In honor of Rabbi Solomon Shirish and his mother, Gedaliah enlisted the poetic talents of the Italian “Sagacious and honorable Jacob Sigari [’""IPD] who composed this poem on my behalf’:

- mhw

rpn no mar w ’u n n an ’nrrp

P’hnm ho m irDB>n to h>to

mxi ton -pips

-ww

Take up the song, sound the timbrel609 for Solomon My soul610* and those who desire his peacefulness. And do not forget* all his bounties,611 Whereupon your* distress they sought you *612 - both he and his mother.613 597 See 2 Samuel 7:16. 598 Isaiah 2:2. 599 Deuteronomy 13:18. 600 See Isaiah 28:9. 601 Psalms 36:9. See also Psalms 63:6. 602 See Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 64a. 603 Psalms 61:4. 604 Psalms 61:5. See also Psalms 63:8. 605 Psalms 63:9. 606 Psalms 71:8. 607 See Psalms 63:5. 608 Benayahu, M. (1945), p .85. 609 Psalms 81:3. 610 ’n rm = my soul. See Psalms 22:21: ’m ’iT nho-ra * Referring to his soul. 611 Psalms 103:2. 612 See Isaiah 26:16. 613 See 2 Kings 24:12.

m no nh’sn.

118

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

It may be therefore that Gedaliah’s time in Constantinople had exceeded his original plans and delayed his arrival in Italy. Be that as it may, upon arrival Gedaliah seems to have settled in Venice and resumed communication with Rabbi Menahem Azariah de Fano, for whom the copy of RaMaK's Or Yaqar had just recently reached fruition (1582).614 M. Benayahu’s argument regarding Gedaliah’s “Arrival in Italy sometime around 1580” inaccurately assumes that Gedaliah was the one who carried from Safed to Azariah de Fano certain parts of Or Yaqar required for the fruition of the Italian copying processes.615 Given that the agreement between de Fano and RaMaK's widow regarding these copy rights must have taken place earlier than 1575 (as inferred by Yosef Karo’s involvement in the judicial proceedings),616 there is no reason to believe that more than five years had elapsed between the agreement and the manuscript’s actual arrival in Italy. The contract and the testimonies around its fruition demonstrate how eager Azariah de Fano was to get possession of the manuscript - a desire for which he could have easily commissioned one of the relatively frequent travelers between Italy and Safed at the time. Conversely, we learn from the testimony in Shem ha-Gedolim617 that the original contract had been retrospectively618 modified circa 1584 to substitute a substantial part of de Fano’s debt for books handed to Gedaliah. This not only suggests that Gedaliah’s vocation revolved around the thriving book industry in Italy and its associations with the emerging markets within the Ottoman Empire and in Europe,619 but also indicates that the modification was a direct business transaction between the two men in Italy - requiring the consent of Mrs. Cordoeiro and the judicial signature of the Safedian court of law .620 Gedaliah’s alleged residency in Italy by 1580 thus fails to explain why two years had to elapse between the copy’s conclusion in Italy (1582) and the Safedian final proceedings of payment (1584). 614 See Tishby, I. (1993), pp.142-143 and fn. 68. 615 See 1945, p .83 and fn. 5. This was already noted by I. Tishby (1993), p .136, fn.21. 616 See Rabbi Israel o f Kandia, T a’alumot Hokhmah and in Rabbi Hayim Y osef David Azulai, Shem haGedolim, under “Or Yaqar”. 617 Ibid. 618 Since the contract reached fruition some two years after Or Yaqar had already been copied. 619 On this broad topic, see Benayahu, M. (1954); (2003); Yaari, A. (1951); Hacker, J. (1972); Meizeles, Y. (1975); Haberman, A.M. (1978); Orman, G.Y. (1986-7); Bamchson, Z. (1982); (1986); (1990); Winograd, J. (1989); Yudlov, J. (1992-3); HaCohen, D. (1992-3); Gries, Z. (1992); (1994); Elboim, Y. (1999). 620 See also in Benayahu, M. (1945), p .84.

119

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Gedaliah’s first years in Italy had focused around establishing a rapport in the developing book and printing markets, as well as preparing some of RaMaK's 621 manuscripts for future publication - assisted especially by the younger Moses Bassola* who had also arrived from Safed to settle in Italy and joined his friend Gedaliah there. It also seems that Gedaliah’s motivation behind these measures was to further establish RaMaK's Kabbalah in relation to its Lurianic counterpart, whose impact had been gradually endorsed in Italy through the exegetical works of Menahem Azariah de Fano, Mordechai Dato and Aaron Berakhiah of Modena.622

Digression: Between RaMaK and Isaac Luria The mid 1570’s and early 1580’s had experienced a hesitant yet steady marginalization of RaMaK's system in face of its Lurianic counterpart both in Safed and in surrounding communities near and far.623 An instrumental example of this transition is a letter sent in 1582 to an Italian friend by Rabbi Solomon Baeck, a scholar who had emigrated from Italy to Safed in 1579 and became the disciple of a chief student of Luria - Rabbi Joseph ibn Tabbul: Solomon Baek expresses his awesome reverence of Lurianic

621 * Perhaps the grandson o f the esteemed Italian Rabbi Moses ben M ordechai Bassola (1480-1560). Moses Bassola lived in Safed and had emigrated [back?] to Italy at an unknown date. From his revered language when discussing Gedaliah, it seems evident that he was the younger o f the two, meaning less than 25 years old by 1587. In any event, it is evident that he had known Gedaliah from their time together in Safed, as seen in his colophon to RaMaK's Or Ne'erav. The distinction between him and the earlier Rabbi Moses ben M ordechai Bassola is noteworthy for it had led a number o f writers to erroneously identify the latter with the former - neglecting to consider that Rabbi Moses ben Mordechai Bassola had been already 27 years deceased at the time o f the Venice publications! See, for example, in Heller, M.J. whose otherwise reasonable short essay identifies the verso o f the title page in the 1587 Or Ne'erav as “The introduction o f Rabbi Moses ben M ordechai Bassola (1480-1560)”. Since Heller marks the correct years o f Moses ben M ordechai Bassola’s life, it is not clear how he had avoided this evident discrepancy. The same is applied to the publication o f RaM aK’s Tomer Devorah by Moses Bassola (Venice 1589), whose concluding remarks feature “Said the young Moses Bassola”, yet still identified by Heller as Rabbi Moses ben Mordechai Bassola. See Heller, M.J. “His Hand Did Not Leave Hers until He Was Grown”, in www.sefarad.org/publication/lm/044/8.htmL 622 Menahem Azariah de Fano hints at his dual affinities in his introduction to Pelah ha-Rimon, whereas G. Scholem claimed that the RaM a was introduced to Lurianic Kabbalah by Israel Sarug. See ibid, (1940 b), pp.213-243.1. Tishby had also referred to this important issue- 1974, pp.8-85 and see his references. For a detailed discussion o f the circulation o f Lurianic writings in Italy in that period and the roles Ezra and Azariah M enahem de Fano, as well as Israel Samg had in its dissemination, see Avivi, J. (1984); ibid (1989). 623 Tishby, I. (1974), ibid; Bonfil, R. in Twersky, I. and Septimus, B. (eds., 1987).

120

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Kabbalah and counsels his friend against studying RaMaK's books. The stark tone professed in his letter seems to leave little room for creative interpretation:

[...] Now, as I understand that you have received Sefer ha-Pardes, all the power to you .624 However, heed my advice as not to spend any [additional] money on Kabbalah books of the Cordover, peace be upon him - for you shall reach no knowledge of true essence. Even had I found all [his] books and manuscripts for [mere] ten Tzikinis, I would still not have purchased them for myself. Although I realize how stunned you must be by my words, the truth remains nonetheless the truth. And blessed be His mighty name who has merited me to know [enough] as not to know* [RaMaK’s works].625 Solomon Baeck was echoing an emerging trend which seems to have disapproved of RaMaK's Kabbalah and focused on the Lurianic system as the true wisdom. Rabbi Naftali Bacharach is another example, as his Emek ha-Melekh (Amsterdam 1648) features quite a few references to RaMaK's system with antagonism that leaves little room for interpretation. Such sentiments, however, were not merely amplifications of partisan affinities but evidently the symptoms of a course whose roots cannot be dismissed as f\0f\ popular loyalty to one sage vs. another. Rabbi Abraham Azulai (1560-1620), whose reverence of RaMaK and his teachings is uncontested, also acknowledges regretfully the reality expressed by Solomon Baeck. In his introduction to Or ha-Hamah (Jerusalem 1876) Azulai discloses the profound impact RaMaK's Pardes Rimonim had had on him, leading to his emigration from Fez to Safed “To study Or Yaqar which was composed by the Rabbi on the Zohar'"!'21 His introduction continues to speculate over the painful and visible inverse relationship between RaMaK's towering persona and the modest publication of his books: notwithstanding “The sheer volume and quantity of these 624 This could be understood as either a genuine empowerment aiming to congratulate his friend for commencing on Kabbalah studies and followed by a warning not to continue his studies based on RaM aK ’s system, or as a derogatory dismissal o f this purchase. Being a letter sent to a close friend, I lean toward the former and opt to translate the following word p x as “however”. 625 Published in Kaufmann, D. in Lunz, A..M. (1887), vol.2, p p .144-147. Cf: Tishby, I. (1974), p.8 and fh .l; ibid (1993), p.131. * M eaning “study”. 626 Rabbi Abraham Azulai was Rabbi Hayim David Joseph A zulai’s [Shem ha-Gedolim] great grandfather. For A zulai’s relationship with RaMaK, see Tishby, I. (1980), ibid, pp. 191-204. 627 All quotes from this introduction are taken from pp. Id - 2b. Abraham Azulai arrived to Israel c. 1613. In the introduction to his Hesed le-Avraham (Amsterdam 1685), he does not mention this reason, but rather discloses some economic and social predicaments in Fez as the cause. See Tishby, I. (1980), p .192, fn.7.

121

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

compositions,” which may have naturally rendered their publication at the time a herculean undertaking, Azulai adds with cautious dismay:

Since in his (RaMaK's) time sprouted and blossomed628 a true and upright branch,629* the saintly Rabbi Isaac Ashkenazi [...] whose [teachings] had overshadowed those who came before him in the eyes of all men - no one takes note and no one seeks630 RaMaK's books. These sentiments reiterated earlier tendencies in this direction, namely in the decade following RaMaK and Isaac Luria’s deaths and the gradual chasm unfolding between their teachings. The narrow beginnings of this chasm can be found in Luria’s own polemic against RaMaK's system631 and continued widening in the wake of the pivotal power shifts experienced by the Safedian scholarly leadership in the ensuing years. This notwithstanding, historiography and intellectual history are disciplines whose aim to substantiate past realities and articulate earlier ideas must yield to prudent and skeptical brushstrokes. Correspondingly, Baek’s aforementioned partisan comments should be taken in due context and brushed against the fuller intricacy of that turbulent era. One surely needs to bear in mind the dialectic patterns which typify polemic discourse and point via negativa to the reality and influence of their contrary. Respectively, it is precisely such stark polemics that may show how the Cordoeirian and Lurianic systems were not as readily separable from each other in the ensuing decades. Fierce argumentation, we learn, not only illuminates its own agenda but sheds precious light on

628 See Isaiah 27:6. 629 p’lS nas - Jeremiah 23:5; this verse speaks directly o f an apocalyptic future whose redemption will be enacted by a messianic figure “W hom God shall proclaim”. Compare with Shivhei ha-Ari, chapter 3, pp. 10-11, featuring RaM aK as saying in regard to Isaac Luria “He who is merited to see the pillar o f cloud walking before my [funeral] bed - he is the man o f whom God has proclaimed to be ‘a prince and commander to his people Israel’”. I return to this story later in this part. * I©1! p’7X - Deuteronomy 32:4 [compare with Psalms 119:137]; this verse concerns God directly. Azulai uses the word p’tx (= upright) as a bridge which demonstrates Luria’s radically intimate associations with divinity. We shall witness this literary technique in another context when investigating RaMaK's introduction to O r Y aqar. See RaMaK's Writings. 630 Ezekiel 34:6. The context o f this biblical verse suggests A zulai’s subtle discontent with this reality. 631 Especially as seen in Luria’s comments to RaMaK's commentaries to the Zohar’s Sava de-Mishpatim. See in Scholem, G. (1943), p p .192-193; Horodetzky, S.A. (1924, Heb. ed. 1951), p p .106 and 109; Meroz, R. (1988 - Dissertation), pp.79-80; Sack, B. (1992), pp.311-340; Schatz-Uffenheimer, R. (1982); Tishby, I. (1964), pp.23-30. I. Tishby has elsewhere contested G. Scholem’s tendency to downplay the polemic rhetoric in Luria’s approach to RaM aK’s system - see 1974, p.9 and fn.3, p.61 and fn.207, pp.81-82; cf: ibid (1993), pp.131-132.

122

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

the conceptual and phenomenological backdrops it henceforth sets to refute. Indeed, as G. Scholem had already noted in 1941, “It would be a fascinating task to compare and contrast the personalities and ideas of the two men, [...] for they differ from one another as they are intimately related to one another.”632 Years later and harnessing the important additional scholarship on the subject, B. Sack concluded that “Despite the fact that [RaMaK and Luria] were quite different personalities with different inclinations, and notwithstanding their conflicting views on certain fundamental issues, a comparison of their writings as a whole suggests fairly clearly that modem scholarship needs to allow a much greater affinity between the two than has been usually considered” .633 One may therefore leam much about RaMaK's hovering presence in the lives of those who often tried to marginalize his teachings and overall contributions. One must consider the sense of spiritual void, even existential anxiety, that must have been the lot of RaMaK's and Luria’s disciples in the early 1570’s: “[RaMaK's] death at the age of fortyeight left the kabbalists of Safed bereft of their most prominent authority and teacher”634 - a bewilderment whose amplification after Luria’s death merely two years later one can only imagine,635 especially once juxtaposed with the Idra Zuta which narrates Rashbi’s apotheosis upon departure from the world: “At his death the disciples are overcome by a feeling of bereavement and loneliness”, writes I Tishby, “and the despair that engulfs them at this time accompanies them for the rest of their lives. After Rashbi’s death the talk of the companions turns to the terrible loss that cannot be remedied, and to their deep sense of desolation. A few are fortunate enough to see their revered teacher in a dream, or to be linked in an ecstatic vision with his soul in Eden.”

It seems that such polemic

rhetoric had not been assured stances regarding one system vs. another. Rather, they paradoxically masked anxieties, even deep uncertainties, about spiritual leadership and the transparency of God’s will after the departure of the two giants. The most instructive example from this early and restless period is obviously the introduction ascribed to Luria’s protege, Hayim Vital, dating 1573: found in Etz Hayim

632 Scholem, G. (1946), p.252. 633 Sack, B. (1992), p.312. 634 Fine, L. (2003), p.82. 635 Hayim Vital lists thirty-eight Lurianic devotees, many o f whom studied under RaMaK. See Fine, L. ibid, pp.83-86 and fn.14. 636 Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, pp.9-10.

123

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

(Jerusalem 1910), it features Vital’s seemingly unequivocal dismissal of non-Lurianic Kabbalah and prohibits the study of such compositions written after Nachmanides (12th century) “For they are based on human intellect637 (’ttfUN *?DW) [...] and are as branches devoid of roots”. To ensure his audience of this assertion, Hayim Vital declares: And you may examine this for yourself and realize that a bright student may cover and fathom the majority of their introductions and conventions in [mere] four or five days, since they cloak identical sentiments with different words and their entire compositions [merely] point to the existence of the ten Sefirot. And they have written heaps upon heaps of books on matters whose essence may require no more than three or four undersized books .638 “Although RaMaK is not addressed directly by name”, notes I. Tishby, “it is evident that this criticism aimed first and foremost at him, having been regarded the prime representative of kabbalistic intellectual speculation” .639 More importantly, and contrary to the dismissive tone professed in his words above, a study of Vital’s unyielding loyalty to Luria’s system suggests that he had no broad grasp of RaMaK's metaphysical contentions and intellectual maneuvers - a reality most likely true in regard to his master Luria as well. Both men seem to have been untutored in the metaphysical abstracts and suspicious of the rational elements in mystical speculation - a fact that might have indeed nurtured the defensive dismissal and superficial antagonism unveiled in Vital’s abovementioned claims. In reality, Cordoeiro’s works never ceased to entice the intellectual imagination of individuals for whom its depth and complexity were a source of great intrigue - often complimentary to the Lurianic system. I. Tishby stood at the forefront of scholarship whose work has indeed challenged G. Scholem’s contention regarding Lurianic uncontested supremacy640 and set to unveil the nuanced fluctuations of affinities between RaMaK and Luria’s Kabbalah both within and without Safed.641 B. Sack’s thorough demonstration of the Cordoeirian underpinnings in Hayim Vital’s teachings - including some whose origin was fallaciously proclaimed to be 637 Based on Luria’s own comments on the matter; see Scholem, G. (1943), pp.192-193. 638 See E tz Hayim (Jerusalem 1910), following p.4. 639 Tishby, I. (1974), p.61 fn. 207. 640 See e.g., Scholem, G. (1946), p.259 and especially chapter 4. 641 In addition to the sources already mentioned, see Liebes, J. (1992 b); Idel, M. (1989), p p .115-173; (1990); (1995 b).

124

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Lurianic642 - indeed renders any attempt to undermine RaMaK's role in the mental backdrop o f his most ferocious opponents somewhat premature. The numerous depictions of RaMaK in Vital’s Sefer ha-Hezyonot643 are only enhanced by Luria’s own acknowledgement of RaMaK as his teacher and master, praising him in his eulogy “A man without sin” and demanding to be buried by his side when his day is proclaimed.644 Interestingly, the same year featuring Hayim Vital’s aforementioned onslaught on Kabbalistic intellectual speculation645 also marked his well-known vision concerning RaMaK's affirmation of Lurianic superiority: in his Sefer ha-Hezyonot Hayim Vital mentions having seen RaMaK in a dream three months after Luria’s death - on the first day of Heshvan 1573. In their brief ensuing dialogue, [...] I have sworn him to tell me the truth regarding the manner Kabbalah is studied in the spiritual world - whether it his according to him or according to my master [Luria] z ”l. He replied: both ways are truthful, although mine is the simple path for novices to this wisdom, whereas your master’s is the inner and essential path - and I, too, do not study in heaven save by your master’s way.646 Of the many meanings that may call for attention, it seems that RaMaK quite evidently carried significant leverage in Hayim Vital’s subconscious make-up. In a dialectic manner this text positions RaMaK as psychologically indispensable to secure Luria’s supremacy in Vital’s world. Such tensions between RaMaK's authority on the one hand and its miscomprehension by Vital on the other hand could have well played into the dialectical interplay of reverence and dismissal in Vital's life. Another such dialectic motif occurs in the known story in Shivhei ha-Ari, whose main impetus was to secure Luria’s incomparability as premeditated by divinity.647 Against the backdrop of 1570 Safed, and in a striking resemblance to Zohar 2:149a coupled with 3:132b (Idra Rabba), this excerpt reads: 642 Sack, B. (1995 a), p.31 and chapters 1 and 7; cf: Tishby, I. (1980), p p .191-203. 643 See in Jacob, L. (1996), pp. 152-166. 644 See Benayahu, M. (1991), p p .196-198; cf: Fine, L. (2003), pp.81-82. 645 With the exception o f two single works: Perush Sefer Yetzirah, ascribed to Rabbi Abraham ben David and Brit Menuhah, attributed to Abraham o f Granada, aka Abraham ben Yitzhak me-Rimon (Amsterdam 1648). See also Tishby, I. (1974), p.61, fn.207. 646 Sefer ha-Hezyonot (Jerusalem 1954), p.57; cf: Tishby, I. ibid, p.2 and fn.2; p.60. Hayim Joseph David Azulai mentions this dream as well under “Or Yaqar” in Shem ha-Gedolim, M aarekhet Sefarim 1:57. 647 Shivhei ha-Ari ha-Shalem veha-M evo’ar (1991), Chapter 3, pp. 10-11.

125

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

[...] And all this [divine wisdom] was known to Luria, yet he reserved his prophecy in honor of Rabbi Moses Cordovero who had made a stupendous effort [to attain] the wisdom of Kabbalah and whose own wisdom brought forth compositions such as Or Yaqar, Eilima and others. For had Luria made his own wisdom public, all would have abandoned RaMaK and follow Luria’s lead - which is disgraceful and prohibited, since RaMaK was a great Torah scholar. And when RaMaK neared his death, he [RaMaK] was visited by his students and the other sages. He said to them: ‘know, my colleagues, that one man shall rise after my departure648 and enlighten your eyes, and although you might understand his words as refuting my own, it is not so - for all is one. Rather, since in my time the conduits of holiness649 were clogged,650 so were my words written with great murkiness, reaching [no further than] the Sefirotic realm. But after my death the conduits shall be further revealed and this man shall explicate the realm of Partzuf.651 Since it might therefore appear to you that he refutes my words, I hereby caution you not to disapprove of him, for this was his lot from Mt. Sinai - let alone that the spark65 of his soul is of the Rashbi’. Upon hearing these words the students implored him to disclose the identity of that man, but he refused, saying ‘since he does not wish to reveal himself, I, too, shall not reveal him. However, I shall give you this single omen: he who is merited to see the pillar of cloud walking before my [funeral] bed is the man of whom God has proclaimed to be a prince and commander654 to his people Israel’655 [...]. / 'C T

This fantastic representation features a couple of noteworthy points for our discourse: on the one hand it had undisputedly aimed to institute Luria as a mystic whose spiritual

648 As P. Fenton mentions, “[...] The Tzadikim compose in traditional Jewish discourse an exclusive spiritual unit [whose] number remains fixed throughout history - when one departs the world, he is immediately replaced by another”. See ibid (1997), pp.5-22. See also Scholem, G. (1990), p p .199-204; Green, A. (1977), pp.327-347; Mach, R. (1957), p p .138-145. For Midrashic extrapolations o f this idea, see e.g., Babylonian, Kidushin 72b: “W hen Rabbi Akiva passed away, Rabbi was bom; when Rabbi passed away, Rav Judah was bom ; when Rav Judah passed away, Rabbah was bom; and when Rabbah passed away, Rav Ashi was bom - to teach you that no Tzadik departs this world unless replaced by a Tzadik o f his stature, as it is written (Ecclesiastes 1:5) ‘The sun rises and the sun sets’”; cf: Babylonian, Yoma 38b, Berakhot 17b, Hagigah 12b, Hulin 92a, Bereshit Rabbah 35b, and compare with Zohar 3:132b. 649 Tzinorot: the channels constituting the theosophical multifaceted flowing mechanism. See RaMaK's Pardes Rimonim, Shaar ha-Tzinorot. 650 Setumim: c l o g g e d — c o n c e a le d , i n t h e e p i s te m i c a n d e x p e r i e n t i a l s e n s e .

651 Partzuf. lit. “face” - a designation pertaining to the highest ranking Sefirah, Keter, and the main theosophical body - Sefirot Hesed to Yesod: Keter is rendered Erekh Anphin [long-faced / large-faced] see RaMaK, Eilima Rabbati, Ein ha-Bedolah and Ein R o ’i. Hesed to Yesod are rendered Z e ’ir Anphin [small-faced] - see ibid, Ein Shemesh. 652 Nitzotz: the essential spark. 653 See Exodus 13:21. 654 See Isaiah 55:4. 655 See 2 Samuel 5:12 for a similar idea concerning King David.

126

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

potency and supreme attunement to the theosophical edifice surpassed that of RaMaK and rendered his intuitive knowledge either altogether inimitable or otherwise attained with stupendous effort even by the Cordoeirian giant. On the other hand, however, it establishes RaMaK’s pivotal role in inducting Luria into Safed: it anchors RaMaK's status as the hitherto indisputable mystical leader whose profound charisma translated as prophetic knowledge which exceeds what may otherwise seem as discrepancies between the two respective teachings. Whereas brute schism between Cordoeirian and Lurianic Kabbalah may have informed certain advocates for whom decisive polarity on this matter had held profound theological repercussions, this was not necessarily the case for most scholars who may have opted to circumvent the controversy. This reality is also evident among the lay public whose so-called “Deficient knowledge of Kabbalah” had yielded affinities of greater elasticity and accommodation. As disclosed disapprovingly by the Lurianic advocate Rabbi Naftali Bacharach in his Emek ha-Melekh (Amsterdam 1648):656

[...] And in Israel as well, a few occupy themselves with this wisdom, now that the Ari and his disciples have already passed away and the world walks in darkness.657 They aspire in their blindness to grasp the teachings of the Zohar based on the wisdom of our master Rabbi Moses Cordoeiro, succeeding in neither that nor the other [...]. Upon seeing that those who had mastered the secrets of the Ari - his memory for the blessing - had since died, a few returned to resume [study] according the teachings658 of the world of chaos,659 whereas others mixed Cordoeiro’s words with the Ari’s words. Their transgression is too great to bear [.. .].660 RaMaK’s system was not simply cast aside but rather scanned by some within a greater context of mystical erudition. Rabbi Naftali Bacharach seems not to focus on

656 Page 4a-b; cf: 6b, 7a, 12d, 13a, 32d, 34a and 47c. See in Tishby, I. (1993), p.132 and fn.10. 657 See Isaiah 50:10. 658 innn tniy ’7 i a - p r o b a b l y m e a n i n g n o t o n l y b o o k s , b u t r a t h e r t e a c h e r s a n d h o u s e s o f l e a r n i n g ! 659 An essential element in the hierarchical presentation o f RaMaK's system in relation to Luria’s according to those following the latter: RaMaK's system had reached only as far as innn D 71V [the world o f chaos], whereas it was Lurianic Kabbalah in which Tin,,m pp’nn [the world o f repair and unification] was awaiting fmition. In m odern terminology, RaMaK's system is equal to a medical intern whose colors shine in establishing diagnosis, yet knows nothing regarding the desired treatment needed for healing. In that respect, L. Fine’s superb book on Luria “Physician o f the Soul, Healer o f the Cosmos” is truly apt. 660 See Genesis 4:13 regarding Cain. The Hebrew Bible [JPS] translates the verse xnzna uw 7H1 as “M y punishment is too heavy to bear”. This is obviously not the meaning in our case.

127

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

RaMaK’s deficiency pre se as much as rebuking the imprudent and premature manipulation of such complex systems by certain Kabbalah scholars whose influence on novices and laypeople he had deemed detrimental. Indeed, the textual evidence seems to suggest that rather than marginalized, RaMaK’s Kabbalah was downgraded as chiefly applicable to the “World of chaos” [661mnn aViy], although still viewed important for comprehensive Kabbalah studies. Given that studying the “World of chaos” had been a necessary preparatory stage for the “World of repair and reunification” [ pp’nn □‘7117 TirPTTi], RaMaK's system was now viewed as a preparatory necessity for Luria’s Kabbalah - an articulate diagnosis of the cosmic chaotic ailment which paved the way for Luria, the “Healer of the Cosmos,” as L. Fine titled him in his recent book. Respectively, J. Ben-Shlomo’s contention is noteworthy here for over-simplifying the subtleties that had informed the evolving relations between the Cordoverian and Lurianic systems: The historical reasons for Lurianic triumph over RaMaK’s Kabbalah are grounded in the vast differences between the two doctrines in both content and formulation. A main force behind the Lurianic appeal is its pivotal discourse around issues concerning exile and redemption, whereas RaMaK's Kabbalah does not render issues concerning redemption as significant a place. The post-exilic generations needed an instruction which may unearth the cause of their predicaments and point for them the path to redemption. The quite dissimilar treatment of the problem of evil had also contributed to this reality. Here as well [...], this doctrine does not occupy a central place in RaMaK's Kabbalah, since his system does not ascribe to evil an authoritative position in reality as does Lurianic Kabbalah. On this issue the Ari had more efficiently met the psychological and historical needs of the contemporary Jew.662 A similar conclusion is presented by J. Avivi, whose essay on Azariah de Fano’s Kabbalah asserts a clear division between RaMaK and Luria in de Fano’s world: “At first, [de Fano] was influenced by RaMaK's Kabbalah, whereas at the end it was Lurianic”.663 In fact, the complex and indecisive interplay between the two systems in

661 Also known as na’ban abltf - Olam ha-Belimah. See, for example, in Naftali Bacharach’s Em ek haMelekh (Amsterdam 1648), first introduction, p.6b: “[...] I am at odds with the interpretations given by Rabbi M oses Cordoeiro, peace be upon him, on the Zohar. More so, since ‘Moses is truth and his instruction is truth’ pertain to the ‘world o f chaos’ which corresponds with ‘Olam ha-Belimah’ but no more 662 Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), p.13. 663 Avivi, J. (1989).

128

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Azariah de Fano’s world - let alone the ongoing debates about mystical discourse in Italy and other communities in the ensuing decades - have been refuted in scholarship by M. Benayahu,664 I. Tishby,665 M. Hallamish666 and others. S.A. Horodetzky’s,667 J. BenShlomo’s and J. Avivi’s questionable designation of Lurianic triumphalism has indeed been rendered much greater caution. Moreover, Ben-Shlomo’s claim regarding “The vast differences between the two doctrines in both content and formulation” has also been proven premature, at least insofar as content is concerned. I. Tishby, e.g., states that “The thematic layout of [RaMaK's] Kabbalah renders quite significant issues concerning Israel and the gentiles, the Land of Israel and gentile lands, as well as exile and redemption”.668 B. Sack has demonstrated this influence669 and her important book on RaMaK has devoted an entire chapter to his treatment of these ideas (Sack having worked mainly through numerous sections of Or Yaqar hardly examined by Ben-Shlomo). Sack’s meticulous study o f RaMaK's various extant manuscripts has shown “How occupied RaMaK had been with issues concerning the exile of Israel and the exile of the Shekhinahn.610 The intricate and nuanced relationship between these systems has thus informed later scholars and generations concerned with their proper study and hierarchical sway within kabbalistic doctrines. Such subtle treatments, attempts to circumvent a conclusive verdict or the excruciating efforts to divert the debate and accentuate their harmonious layout were well felt in Italy through the works of Menahem Azariah de Fano, Mordechai Dato and Aaron Berakhia of Modena: whereas all three acknowledged to variable degrees the considerable weight of Lurianic doctrines on their thought and practices, none had ever claimed to lose sight of the Cordoverian teachings.

664 Benayahu, M. (1967), pp. 283-286. 665 Tishby, I. (1974), pp.10-14. 666 Hallamish, M. (1988 b). Hallam ish’s main contribution is in regard to North African 16th century Kabbalah - see ibid (2001), especially chapter 15. 667 See, e.g., Horodetzky’s claim “The people o f Safed had forgotten Moses Cordovero; [...] Rabbi Isaac Luria was the victor: whereas RaMaK remained within books, Luria had conquered life itse lf’ -ib id (1924, Heb., 1951), pp.59-62. 668 See Tishby, I. (1980), pp. 191-203. 669 See Sack, B. (1980). 670 Sack, B. (1995 a), chapter 10 and p.249. On Luria’s view, see also Tamar, D. (1994) and Fine, L. (2003), especially chapters 2 and 9.

129

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Menahem Azariah de Fano’s initial request to copy RaMaK's Or Yaqar sometime prior to 1575 could be perhaps partially attributed to this evolving reality. Pelah haRimon (Venice 1600)

in fact elucidates the dual affinities informing both his world and

the Italian overall backdrop, and demonstrates his cautious attempts to legitimize both systems within conceivable and progressive mystical mindset. Correspondingly, it further establishes RaMaK’s system as not having been marginalized per se but rather relegated in face o f the Lurianic system whose reign had become relatively secured. This reallocation notwithstanding, Azariah de Fano makes clear that RaMaK's system is nonetheless essentially “Part of the Wisdom entire” and without which no complete appreciation of esoteric teachings may reach maturity. His words regarding the two systems profess a divide and conquer rationale, wherein their separation is dialectically paramount for their ultimate realization as complimentary properties within the mystical edifice entire. The instrumentality of these meditations warrants a look at de Fano’s own words:

r n ’iy noon nupo n y n oyo oiyob ’n n n y n n x n: n p x i a w ’by n x r y m □’7omi n n n o ’om m po ,’"nxn m : bu> cn ro n m a n n o ,’"nxn n ’p a n’T ’tr m y ion xbi ’mb no: xb - [...] unpn p x n owx a n w n i nn’b ra o ’b i o : w o ’oonnon p x n ’oyo D’m n p ry mtx nnpb owxo ,m o 7 byi b"r nonn by nnonb ’by insrm ’nbowo a ’oonm n’uosno nom ,a7’o D p n : xb nn nr ’o noono xbi m ’ono ’ran ,oo bnpo m m anna m m ’a ’ boty ’ay ~im ba y*rp .p xbu? o ’oon mooi xm o ib ’:x n” m bxb nbnn m a o -pna ,’b xm pnma an noxi ,m anna mom P ry m w x .m ob wawbi mayb tan ’:aa ip7ua> 0 ’7’abnn oxty baa m abiy ’:a>o ,’pbn xn’ ipbna 7’an .n m o m b’b inui’b m o nn: nwyi i’n w ba nmnn ibay ’nan btp ima>o ’ab ,nax lnm m nax nwa ’a - n’pbx m oxa’ inaonoi io oxiam .[...] i:aa no:a> oa>x o n n a o a n x n p n x n p nn’n xb ,oibam om by o m x m nnrn b"u] ’anna b"m xn ’a m inn: p ,’napn p om en ’a m inn: oa>xo ’a m ax ur b" m xn m a ’bo o : ,n"y oannb nab’x naoa n: ’a m ann bxi .nrn neon [’a n a p u b y:a:i m ox xinu? n a o i [...] .x’banb ny ira it m piay m ooy ona nnx bab y:a:i m ox pa [...] ,nra o:i n n nnx: oa>x m o xbx ,om an oy ’napn ’o an aanybi it n:a> pao pxi [...] .nrn neon oy *'nupa xbi n:a xb b" m xn naan aanybi p u b naan bbaa x ’m oia na px ntyx *nnm na’an ,noa>’ p n [m io m oxan onnen] .[...] ii’bx on’nn7 iy’:na> ii’isba m oa>x o’bmpan mn na non ,naxn Heaven and earth shall vindicate my hereby oath,672 that [even] after having tasted a remnant673 with the tip of the stick from ha-Ari’s honey;674 671 His important annotated abridgement to RaMaK's Pardes Rimonim. For more details, see under “Pardes Rimonim” in RaMaK's Writings. 672 See Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 16a; Arakhin 16b.

130

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

from his [written] words and those of his disciples; from numerous and praiseworthy compositions sent to me by the most astute and sagacious among them in the holy land - my heart did not become proud, nor did my look become haughty675 as to reassess [the value of] the wise [RaMaK] z ”1 and his teachings as my ear caught a whisper of this [accusation] made by many of the folk whose schooling is not with wisdom,677 for they grasp neither the one nor the other.678 And such people maligned me with charges and words untrue. All the elders of my town know that all my days I have endeared his words in the presence of God’s worshipers, 6 80 in synagogues and halls of study; that indeed he had been my exemplary master; his books exuded praise of God and to him I am indebted admiration and respect681 in both worlds, much like all other students f&'y whose righteousness exceeded mine and have merited to serve and stand before him. Happy is he whose life work was the Torah and who gave delight to his Creator in nights as in days.684 His portion shall forever enlighten mine, whereas he who disdains him and his wisdom shall be disdained by God. For Moses is truth and his instruction is truth,685 as mentioned in the Zohar and the Geonim, for [indeed] no matter was too lofty for him.686 Indeed, as the ways of the Pardes are higher than the Kimhi [Radak], so are the ways o f ha-Ariz”l higher than this book [Pardes]. And do not confound [at my words], for the sage’s Eilima and the teachings of haAriz”l also possess ways wondrously dissimilar from each other [...]. And just as it is strictly forbidden to combine and muddle up the simple realms of the Kimhi with the Pardes, but rather [it is] commendable to hold each one separately - so is the rule concerning the wisdom of ha-Ariz”l and its mergence with this book, be it small or large. There is indeed no doubt that this [RaMaK's writings] is also a smooth journey,688 perfect* and f Z 'J Q

•

•

•

•

/ro -i

fan

673 See Isaiah 16:14. 674 1 Samuel 14:43. 675 Psalms 131:1. 676 Job 4:12. 677 Ibid, 4:21. 678 Referring here to those studying both doctrines together - an act he deems imprudent, as will become evident. 679 Ruth 3:11. 680 Psalms 22:26; 35:18; 40:10. 681 See Mishnah, Kidushin 1:7. 682 See Genesis 38:26. 683 Likely a derivation from Proverbs 16:26 —17 7707 b’OV cioi / “The appetite o f a laborer labors for him”. See, e.g., Babylonian, Sanhedrin 99b: “A man toils in the Torah in one place and his Torah toils for him in another.” 684 Seems to have been taken from Babylonian, M o’ed Katan 25b which renders Righteous ‘he who treats his nights as days [in Torah study].” 685 See Babylonian, Bava M atzi’a 75b and others. 686 See Deuteronomy 2:36. 687 See Isaiah 55:9. 688 See Ezra 8:21.

131

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

lucid,689 in which there is no defect;690 it is part of the Wisdom entire and a path walked by most earlier kabbalists whose words had reached us [...]. Igeret ha-Levanon by Mordechai Dato testifies to the same cautious treatment of both doctrines. Following I. Tishby’s suggestion regarding the time it was written (during the last decade of Dato’s life - 1590-1600), Igeret ha-Levanon shows that RaMaK's system had never been entirely downplayed by this Italian kabbalist. Here as well, one must identify the pseudo apologetic tone that permeates this composition and learn from the professed about its unspoken contrary reality: “[Igeret ha-Levanon] applauds Rabbi Moses Cordovero and his teachings from a prism informed by personal admiration. Yet it also reflects their gradual demotion within contemporary kabbalistic circles in Italy and Europe in light of Lurianic teachings”.691 Aaron Berakhiah di Modena’s writings (d.163 9)692 also demonstrate how both systems had continued not only to influence kabbalistic life in Italy but were also brushed against each other or combined in complimentary constructions. Aaron Berakhiah di Modena was a known di Fano disciple and had also studied under a Safedian emissary who was a vital propagator of Lurianic teachings in Italy - Rabbi Israel Sarug.

693

Whereas

in itself such an association may suggest a considerable leverage to shift di Modena’s affinities from RaMaK to Luria, his works nonetheless show “The existence and active dissemination of both doctrines side by side, rendering their relationship a perplexing dilemma”694 in contemporary Italian mystical circles. In conclusion, notwithstanding certain trends whose determined bipolarity aimed to establish Lurianic Kabbalah wholly clear of its Cordoeirian ancestor, RaMaK's persona, style, scholarly credentials and overall system never stopped occupying the mystical imagination and intellectual domain of scholars and laypeople alike. As I. Tishby concludes, “The process of amassing together Cordoverian and Lurianic kabbalistic doctrines had never ceased in the ensuing generations. Despite the continuous and

689 Combined from Psalms 19:8,9. * de Fano uses here the word rra’JOn as a bridge between Psalms and Deuteronomy to follow. 690 Deuteronomy 19:2. 691 Tishby, I. (1993), p.146. 692 His time o f birth remains unknown. See Tishby, I. (1974), p .16, fh.13 and p.83. 693 See in Scholem, G. (1940 b), p.224. Cf; Tishby, I. ibid, pp.9-10 and fh.4; pp. 15-16 and fh .ll. 694 Tishby, I. ibid, p. 13.

132

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

vociferous claims concerning the marginality of RaMaK's system, one cannot find many kabbalists who had indeed wholly forsaken it or were completely free of its grip”.695

Part 2: From Italy to Jerusalem Taken as a whole, it seems that Gedaliah’s desire to further cultivate the seeds of his father’s teachings in the early 1580’s nonetheless found favorable soil away from Safed and among the more accommodating Italian Jewish community.696 It is during those years that Gedaliah embarks on organizing, editing and preparing some of his father’s works for publication. The Archive of the National Library in Jerusalem features the earliest publication of RaMaK (excluding Or Yaqar which was copied for personal use) a photocopy of Seder Kri ’at Shema meha-Codoveiro [TY’TiTipnB]

f iQ l

which was published

in 1583 by the renowned Venetian publishing house of Giovanni di Gara.

Gedaliah had

already arrived in Italy by that year and there is evidence of him practicing Cordoeirian midnight devotional rites during the Italian phase of his life.699 Although the awkward spelling of RaMaK's name700 and the conspicuous lack of a colophon may deem questionable Gedaliah’s direct association with it, these may be attributed to later scribal errors and cannot rule out Gedaliah’s immediate initiation of this publication.701 If so, this manuscript further pinpoints Gedaliah’s appearance in Venice sometime during that year, rather than earlier. Be that as it may, in 1587 Gedaliah had launched three important di Gara publications: RaMaK's Seder Avodat Yom ha-Kippurim and Or Ne'erav, as well as Rabbi Elisha Gallico’s Perush Shir ha-Shirim.102 The first two also were aided by his father’s

695 Tishby, I. (1993), p.132. 696 See Tishby, I. ibid, p.9. 697 r r ir n p n a yaw r w ip n o : Bodleian Catalogue # 2095, pp.312-313; cf; Baruchson, Z. (1990), p.47, note 34. 698 See in Z. Baruchson, ibid, pp.37-57. 699 S u c h a s t h a t f o u n d i n A a r o n B e r a k h i a o f M o d e n a ’s

Ashm oret ha-Boker ( M a n t u a 1 6 2 4 ) , p p . 2 4 8 a - b . S e e

i n H o r o w i t z , E . ( 1 9 8 9 a ) , p . 3 1 a n d f n .4 0 .

700 The awkward spelling o f Cordoeiro’s name - albeit possibly a later copier’s error - might put to question G edaliah’s direct affiliation with it. All his known publications feature Cordoeiro [ITNHTip]. 701 Bamchson in fact credits I. Yudlov as the source behind this article and mentions his claim regarding its publication by Gedaliah Cordoeiro. See ibid, p.47, fn. 22. 702 As mentioned by the publisher, Gedaliah had intended to publish Elisha G allico’s remaining two Perushei ha-Megilot. Since out o f the five M egilot three had already been published in Venice by 1587 (Ecclesiastes 1578, Esther 1583 and Shir ha-Shirim by Gedaliah Cordovero, 1587), the remaining two were

133

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

devotee Menahem Azariah de Fano and by his friend of old Moses Bassola. Gedaliah’s concluding remarks to Or Ne'erav establish Azariah de Fano’s role in its fruition, whereas Moses Bassola’s colophon to Or Ne'erav demonstrates that he had already been intimately acquainted with Gedaliah Cordoeiro during their mutual residence in Safed:703

i m ’D jV'xr "anan m n p r r 'm n"naD n^nn ^x mipb ^ y pVion n r a -pyxn "iax ^y •’jr a y m m-nn n n ^x ^xn nu ; ny p 'P m p s n p x a n an p n ’m n x i D’nx m n [...] V in “7333n iDon p n a Vuwa c n n 1? ,,D»n'7i ’□no1? p r y 1? i r a ’ Said the young Moses Bassola: it is incumbent upon me to praise the sage, his honor, our teacher, Rabbi Gedaliah, son of the rabbi who authored [this work], may his righteous memory be a blessing. For he has kept the covenant o f brotherhood704 and his love* for me in the Land of the Hart,705 may it be speedily rebuilt and established. He has brought me into the chamber of his learning706 and has stood me at his right hand to help and support him in order to raise the stumbling block from the path707 of this important book.708 Gedaliah was also the impetus behind the previously mentioned 1588 publication of Heshek Shlomo, and may have had other publications which either got lost or are unknown to date. Gedaliah’s vocation in the book market, however, had not deterred him from pursuing other scholarly endeavors either as a preacher or as a practitioner wishing to introduce Safedian customs to the Italian Jewish communities both in and out of

Lamentations and Ruth. G edaliah’s intent for the remaining two had ever reached fruition. See Benayahu, M. (1945), p .84 and ibid (1990). 703 This point alone is enough to exclude Rabbi Moses ben Mordechai Bassola, for he had passed away some two years prior to Gedaliah Cordovero’s birth. 704 Amos 1:9. 705 Meaning “Land o f Israel”; see Daniel 11:16, 41. 706 w n n n n - a derivation from ’m m n n [the chamber o f my mother] in Song of Songs 3:4. The association between “M other” and “Torah” is made clear in the Z o h ar (3:40b), which explicates the above verse from Shir ha-Shirim and states “Their parent [wvnn] is Torah and Mitzvah”. Rabbi Joseph K aro’s M agid M eish arim also features this association, whereupon the Shekhinah that speaks to [and through] him renders Tinn n n “Talmud Torah”. See on Parashat be-Shalah, note 141. 707 Isaiah 57:14. 708 Whereas the English translation was taken from I. Robinson (1994), p.209, the annotations are mine. * I have changed the translation here: Robinson understands the words Vianx as pertaining to Gedaliah’s friendship with M oses Bassola, and therefore translates “And his old friendship [with me]. Given that this term is used mostly in regard to the divine’s ancient love to the patriarchs which merits later generations [e.g., MaLBiM, on Ezekiel 23:23 [Be’ur Inyari], note 23; ibid, on Malachi 1:2, note 2], I have opted to keep the word “love” in the translation rather than ‘friendship’. This also serves better consistency with Bassola’s later colophon to RaMaK's T om er D evorah (Venice 1589) conn Kin Nbn pWM mnNtz? nti’NQ ’nyaizn rrbix u m m n u m i uma TDD - “And I have heard from he whom I love so well, the honorable and sagacious Rabbi Gedaliah [...]”.

134

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Venice. Rabbi Aaron Berakhia di Modena’s Maavar Yabok (Mantua 1626 709 / Amsterdam 1732) mentions Gedaliah Cordoeiro as the source of such teachings. 710 Although there is no reason to doubt the idea itself, di Modena’s claims regarding Gedaliah’s prominence in such fields might be slightly exaggerated.711 It seems that Gedaliah had spent the better part of six years in Italy, striving to secure his status as a book merchant and to further disseminate his father’s doctrines around Italy. Failing to overly succeed in both, Gedaliah seems to have left Italy by 1589, as further corroborated by Moses Bassola single handedly launching the publication of RaMaK's Tomer Devorah on that year. Tomer Devorah was a concise composition whose ethical impetus, instructive character and lucid layout had all rendered it a favorite among kabbalistic novices and laypeople alike. Unlike the 1587 publication of Or Ne'erav, featuring both Gedaliah Cordoeiro and Moses Bassola’s remarks, Tomer Devorah strikingly lacks any comments by Gedaliah. Indeed, Moses Bassola’s colophon makes clear that he alone was left in charge of its preparation to print: after praising the book’s virtues, Bassola continues to pay homage to God “Who granted me to embark on this awesome book and see to its fruition” and furnishes what he had heard from Gedaliah about its origin: □x xbn ,nrn x im ioon n’bwnbi b’nnnb m w mp-nw ptzn nonb yox nbvm mmo in ,vmbiys bo ’3 mxn b’omi prr in ,xin bxim m i □•”vyb xm pp im a ’nyattn .nvrnn p’ynn ’vy ityxo pbyab nu n □,my ,mbm on psnb im p ,ibxin m s innom irbi: m i mn m n im o m o oonn xm xbn nonxu?

.xon obiyn m b ividt p m vox bntz? i m □non □iyno>o in x xmw p onon m n 71 7

I shall offer praise to Him who rides the heights of ancient heavens, who granted me to embark on this awesome book and see to its conclusion. It may appear small to the eyes but it is the head of the tribes of Israel,713 and through it a person may understand that one’s actions, either good or not, God forbid, are impressed on high - as the reader shall witness. And I have heard from he whom I love so well,714 the honorable 709 As I. Tishby mentions, this book is a revised edition for the original copy ready for publication already in 1623. See Tishby, I. (1974), p.20. 710 M a’a v a r Y abok (1732), Siftei Renanot, essay 3, chapter 1, p.112b; cf; Benayahu, M. (1945), pp.85-86; Tishby, I. ibid, pp.8-85; Horowitz, E. (1989 a), p.31. 711 Tishby, I. ibid; Bonfil, R. in Twersky, I. & Septimus, B. (eds., 1987), ibid. 712 Psalms 68:34. 713 1 Samuel 15:17. 714 Song o f Songs 1:7; 3:1, 2, 3 ,4 .

135

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

and sagacious Rabbi Gedaliah, may his Rock and Redeemer protect him, the son o f the author, that this [composition] is one of the seventy palm trees his father had planted, his memory for the world to come.715 Gedaliah Cordoeiro seems therefore to have left Italy en route to Israel sometime around 1589 - perhaps due to his unsuccessful ventures, a scholarly position offered to him in Jerusalem, the gradual decline of RaMaK's Kabbalah in Italy or due to his mother’s death. Although still circumstantial, such reasons may have prompted his decision to settle back in Jerusalem rather than in Safed - a place still murmuring with controversy and populated by leaders with whom Gedaliah had hardly had any familiarity or contact. It is during the ensuing decade that Gedaliah’s name, and perhaps lineage, precede him: he is appointed Chief Arbitrator (H

Win) and later assumes the

prominent position Sheik al Yahud [Head to the Jews] in Jerusalem. Taken as a whole, Gedaliah seems to have flourished as an arbitrator and a leader rather than a scholar per se, as his judicial and social status are visible in numerous rulings and agreement letters to various books.716 He was an unyielding personality of strong minded principles: his debates with Rabbi Yom-Tov Tzahalon717 regarding the territorial boundaries of Israel are well documented, as well as his deteriorating relationship with Rabbi Menahem di Lonzano in light of the latter's allegedly polemic attitude in relation to past sages and scholars.718 Gedaliah also seems to have been politically savvy and capable of enlisting the Muslim authorities’ to his support,719 yet without relinquishing his constituents and without fearing to confront the authorities in matters concerning immediate threat to members of the Jewish community: such was the case in the last known report regarding his activities as Sheikh al Yahud (Adar 1625), wherein Rabbi Samuel ibn’ Sid’s

715 Gedaliah’s premise regarding Tomer Devorah having been part o f RaMaK's Eilima Rabbati was erroneous and misled Moses Bassola as well, as already demonstrated by B. Sack, (1990-1991). On Tomer Devorah, please refer to the chapter RaMaK's Writings. 716 Benayahu, M. (1945), p .86. 717 This controversy is also mentioned in Rabbi Hayim Joseph David A zulai’s Shem ha-Gedolim under “Rabbi Gedaliah Cordovero”, Maarekhet Gedolim 3:7. 718 Such as Rabbi Joseph ibn Tabbul and Hayim Vital in Kabbalah, as well as Rabbi Israel Najara in poetry. He had also challenged such figures as Maimonides, Nachmanides, Solomon ben Edret, David Kimhi and others. See in Benayahu, (1945), p .86 and fins.21, 22. 719 Gedaliah’s connections to the Ottoman authorities had resulted in di Lonzano’s banishment to a “safe city”. Di Lonzano laments over this ordeal in his poem Tova Tokhehat (in Shtei Yadot, Venice 1618, p. 140).

136

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

extradition to the Ottomans had been disputed by Gedaliah and finally substituted for monetary compensation.720 Gedaliah passed away in 1625, at sixty three years of age, and was buried in Jerusalem. A letter written that year by an anonymous Jewish traveler from Corfu features Gedaliah as having “Sold the entire collection of the divinely sagacious [Moses] Cordoeiro, including Or Yaqar, to the honorable master Rabbi David Castro [...] for 100 Grush [...]”.721 It may be that Gedaliah’s feelings of an impending death had prompted him to part from these precious books, as the anonymous traveler’s concluding comment confirms Gedaliah’s death by the end of 1625: the traveler professes the desire to “Visit the grave-marker of the honorable Cordoeiro alongside other sages buried in the Mount of Olives”.722 Choosing the Jerusalemite Castro to be the recipient of the books might have meant that Gedaliah had cut most of his ties with Safed and deemed none of its residents worthy o f RaMaK's works. Likewise, perhaps little true demand to RaMaK's compositions had existed in 1625 Safed. Gedaliah was succeeded as Sheikh al Yahud by Rabbi Simeon ben Saul Cohen. Although social and religious contexts suggest that he should have been married, neither conclusive nor partial evidence avails itself on this issue. Correspondingly, given that we know of no offspring that he may have left behind, the Cordoeirian short-lived legacy seems to have exhausted itself in his death.723

720 See in Riblin, I. (1957), p.40. 721 Published by Kaufmann, D. in Lunz, A.M. (ed., 1898), Yerushalayim, vol.5, p .86. 722 Ibid. Since RaM aK is buried in Safed, the traveler must be referring to Gedaliah; cf; Benayahu, M. (1945), p.90. 723 M. Benayahu furnishes a few options and offers as a possible offspring Rabbi Judah Cordovero who is mentioned in Rabbi Abraham Levi’s Ginat Yradim (Constantinople 1680), p.5:4h. Given that neither he nor else furnish any corroboration, this matter warrants further investigation. See Benayahu, M. (1945), p.90 and fhs. 39,40.

137

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Chapter 3 RAMAK’S WRITINGS One must pursue the knowledge o f hidden things with great punctiliousness, wondrous investigation and tremendous analysis - the opposite o f so-called kabbalists in our generation who say that one need not be exact in this wisdom RaMaK, Or Ne'erav 4:2

‘In The Name Of . . .

’

RaMaK’s autobiographical shorthand has already been mentioned as part of a broader view wherein one’s actual concealment within the world dialectically afforded the spiritual expansion needed to fathom, articulate and manipulate the higher worlds. We shall further unpack this fascinating model shortly and present its fuller manifestations in RaMaK's cosmological piety. At this juncture it is the sheer volume, studious organization and notable consistency of RaMaK's writings which constitute in their own right a momentous biographical detail. This impression is only accentuated once one realizes RaMaK’s methodical approach to writing, namely his preparation of conceptual and thematic skeletons prior to rendering his compositions textual flesh, blood and spirit. HOA His literary industriousness in less than twenty eight years of scholarly engagement arguably nears inimitability in the annals of Jewish intellectual history, and clearly testifies to the time, devotion and focused intensity given to such formidable an undertaking. RaMaK was indeed a rigorous student of rare intellectual acumen and investigatory diligence, having “Revisited all the books discussing the subject matter”725 or “Having compared over ten versions of this text”726 in order to fashion a system, unearth certain inconsistencies or subjugate evil potencies which hinder one’s

724 Rabbi N.T. Koenig (1996, p. 12) claims that Cordovero had written all his books in 22 years (1548 to 1570) - a "fact" which allegedly corresponds with the 22 letters o f the Hebrew alphabet and further serves to anchor RaMaK's sanctity. Such erroneous reconfigurations are abundant in later religious texts regarding RaMaK. This particular statement obviously does not count the years RaMaK had spent composing Pardes Rimonim (commencing c. 1543-4). 725 Perush al Sefer Yetzirah 1:10. 726 Ibid 1:13.

138

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

unperturbed sight - “For by repeating one’s study and assiduously reexamining texts, the student breaks the shells”.727 RaMaK’s scholastic assiduousness had also periodically informed his considerable efforts to devaluate a certain text in order to refute what he believed to have been exaggerated appreciations of either its contentions or sanctity: such cases include his arguments with parts of Sefer ha-Temunah,728 or his blunt dismissal of Sefer ha-Qanah, attributed to the sage Nehunia ben ha-Qanah and on which RaMaK claims “It is rather a very late work [having nothing to do with that sage]. Not that I wish to point to people’s inadequacies, God forbid, but to keep you from going astray and show you that the author’s rendition of the sefirot is flawed and that his way is incorrect [...]. This author 77Q

and his books shall therefore count last on our list”.

RaMaK was indeed a prolific writer. As M. Benayahu comments, “One’s mind fails to comprehend how RaMaK had managed to produce such compositions throughout his short life, let alone once one considers their scope and import”.730 Such appreciations of his extraordinary outpour indeed appear in numerous religious texts, all hailing RaMaK's enormous contributions to kabbalistic doctrines and celebrate his effective elucidation of otherwise obscure mystical precepts. The following excerpt is taken from Rabbi Abraham Azulai’s

7T1

•

•

•

praise of RaMaK in Or ha-Hammah - a formula which was in fact copied •

•

•

•

•

verbatim from Rabbi Moses Calimam’s tribute to Rabbi Moses Alsheikh

I 'M

:

All hearts should marvel at this [man], from whence had he summoned the time to achieve all his deed, whose measure is longer than the earth and 7TT broader [...]. For even had he mastered both hands day and night to assiduously scribe the book[s], it would still not suffice734 and could not explain such a grand undertaking; quite inconceivable an endeavor for [a

727 Or Yaqar on R a’ayah Meheimanah, introduction, note 3. cf: Sack, B. (1995 a), p. 128. 728 On this issue, see Sack, B. (1995 b), chapter 12. 729 Shiur Qomah, p. 159. 730 Benayahu, M. (1991), p.213. 731 On Abraham A zulai’s reverence ofR aM aK and his system, see Tishby, I. (1980), p p .191-203. 732 As M. Benayahu clarifies, Azulai uses the same excerpt again, this time to praise Rabbi Hayim vital. See in T oldot ha-A ri (1967), pp.284-285; cf: Benayahu, M. (1991), p.213, fn.l and p.244. 733 Job 1 1 :9 - “Its measure is longer than the earth and broader than the sea”. 734 Compare with Rabbi Hayim V ital’s introduction to E ts Hayim, Sha’ar ha-Hakdamot: “[...] Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakai, Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Akiva would [each] say ‘even if all the heavens were scrolls and all the oceans ink; all the wickers pens and all men scribes - these will not suffice to put in writing all that I have received from my m asters’ [...]”. Cf: Hillel, J.M. (ed., 1991), p. 16.

139

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

mortal] who was made little less [than divinity]735 and on his own736 unless the All Powerful, blessed be He, commanded that he would be 737 given assistance [...]. Sefer Toldot ha-Ari also points to RaMaK's scholarly diligence, emphasizing this time the hardships he had endured by such spiritual agents hindering his studies: [...] For he had made a stupendous effort [to attain] the wisdom of Kabbalah [...]. A great Torah scholar, whose compositions matured with great toil, especially since he had to tirelessly fight off those obstructing his efforts. And he would rise each midnight and walk to the Synagogue to study the Z oharP 8 The somewhat recycled use of effusive praises in religious discourse (as seen in Azulai’s case above) might rightfully adulterate their validity in the mind of modem readers. That in mind, such depictions nonetheless point to a decisive element in RaMaK's spirited world, for we find a sage whose epistemic clarity and eloquence were not caused merely by genius in abstracts, organizational skills or devotional rigor. RaMaK's professed view regarded his capabilities the acute partnership between the above traits and the affirmative heavenly response which had become his regulated lot in their wake

- divine guidance

of various manifestations.

Such advantageous

accommodation ran in full accord in his world with the spirited atmosphere surrounding certain biblical figures, the Zoharic protagonists and other medieval mystics for whom heavenly interventions were common stance. Indeed, RaMaK demonstrates neither suspicion nor any other forms of critical approach to the Zohar.739 He accepted the Zoharic epos without reservation and held its publication in his lifetime740 a momentous divine preordination whose ramifications affected the very core of his spiritual teleology

735 See Psalms 8:6. 736 See Genesis 2:18. 737 Or ha-Hammah (Jerusalem 1876), introduction. 738 Toldot ha-Ari (Jerusalem 1967), p .158. Cf; Hillel, J.M. (ed., 1991), p.10; Benayahu, M. (1991), p .191; Rabbi Hayim Joseph David Azulai, Shem ha-Gedolim, under “Eilima” , M a’arekhet Sefarim 216-217:94. Compare with the depiction o f Rabbi Isaac Luria’s toil over the Zohar in Hayim V ital’s Toldot Yitzhak, chapter 2. Cf; Hillel, J.M. ibid, p.3. 739 On criticism o f the Zohar prior and during RaMaK's era, see Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, pp.30-38. 740 See Tishby, I., ibid, pp. 13-30. 14 0

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

both individually and as a member of the assembly o f Israel.741 He regarded Rashbi as the chief coauthor742 of the Zohar - the sage whose radical piety rendered him the suitable scribe and cryptographer of those realms of Torah still hidden within God’s interiorities. Similarly, the epistemic maneuvers of the Zoharic protagonists - just as the Galilean landscape which had incubated their esoteric ordeals - had become signposts for reengagement by the 16th century mystics; players in a drama whose reenactment was nothing short of vital for the realization of the redemptive closure embedded within the Zoharic leafs of old. RaMaK’s works indeed affirm in numerous places such later testimonies concerning divine assistance or demonic disturbance in his compositions. Divine assistance - be it via subliminal muse, spiritual transubstantiation, a heavenly mentor (magid), angelic apparition or hand animation - were critical in RaMaK’s world to perpetuate the envisioned trajectory of any mystical undertaking. In his magnum opus Or Yaqar RaMaK discusses King David, his son Solomon and the differences in their accessibility to such divine guidance. Here RaMaK carries forward the Zoharic attendance to this matter743 and distinguishes between two ways to attain esoteric wisdoms. Our particular discourse requires that we attend not only to the distinctive mechanisms informing the dissemination of such hitherto concealed insights but also to the indispensability of divine involvement to fulfill mystical quests in RaMaK’s world. Concerning the two kings, whereas the transparency of divine wisdom had unfolded progressively to King David - a process RaMaK sees as ‘an award’ [01S] - King Solomon had attained this wisdom in a more wholesome fashion, rendered ‘a gift’ [nmo], These epistemic realities obviously manifested, according to Cordoeiro, in the respective literary legacies of the two kings:

tjso pb n oio mn p’by h moo nty nrx ,nnn toot n w mo nrx boty pnyo [...] nmn htso ipxo ’ibn rrnw pay nrx bo -pi .nmnn nno ib mbab moon abioiy moo mono m pjyn [...] .noon m ib mbab m oon nm son boty moo pb nyotyo pnoon noo odd non1 -p -into nbio noonn ym>ty ’o m - [cppbnb tpbnn1] moonn .mom nso n o w ny nonoi ibim oyo oyo poo xmiy ’o

741 On this issue see Liebes, Y. (1982), p p .104-105. On RaMaK's take, see Sack, B. (1995 a), pp.38-40 and her references there. 742 Coauthor inasmuch as God being the chief impetus. 743 Z o h ar 2:149a on 1 Kings 5:9.

141

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

[...] For each given secret was handed down to [David] by a particular minister of the divine court above, whereas all [ministers] consented to reveal Torah secrets [to Solomon], It was the same concerning every [esoteric] aspect, wherein [David’s wisdom] depended upon the particular Sefirah affecting him, whereas all Sefirot consented to reveal Torah secrets [to Solomon], This point distinguishes between those authoring books of wisdom: one may attain the wisdom entire and only then proceed to compose one book after another, whereas another understands progressively and composes his book in a gradual manner, until it reaches fruition.744 Elsewhere, pointing to the Zohar and fashioning his words in a manner that brings to mind Proverbs 16:26 (‘The appetite of a laborer labors for him’745), RaMaK states:

mn tona imxn - [...] nama nn’bnws vpn sump irrtn xnviv t o pi [...] yvom "iran mm nrra im 7toi pawi n^ya mn v t o p n x to nutona irnpn .[...] k -iwn W7pn mmyi imnm p:yn t o [...] And therefore each work which harbors sacredness is concluded by the heavens746 [ . . . ] - the artistic laborer commences, whereupon the Holy Agent is enclothed in the work, leading to its self-perpetuated fruition; one thing unfolds from another, whereas assistance and guidance are rendered based on the subject-matter, its essence and the holy task it requires.747 In Or Ne'erav RaMaK repeats this formula of divine perpetuation when discussing liturgical intent and the regulated thrust embedded in its trajectory when properly manipulated. In accord with the Zohar, to which “The elucidation of the mysteries of prayer is [...] a central theme”,748 RaMaK asserts, “If one concentrates in prayer by the

744 Or Yaqar, vol.10, p.3 on Parashat Terumah, note 15. 745 See its Rabbinic derivations thereof: e.g., Babylonian, Sanhedrin 99b: “A man toils in the Torah in one place and his Torah toils for him in another.” 746 Zohar 2:222b. 747 Or Yaqar, volume 11, p. 125 on Parashat Pekkudei, note 2 and see also Or Yaqar on ha-Yenuka, Parashat Balak (I return to this issue later in this chapter and in the chapter Sefer Gerushin). Compare this issue with Pardes Rimonim 30:3, where RaMaK discusses the verse from 2 Samuel 23:2 “The spirit o f God spoke in me and His word was on my lips”. RaMaK mentions other compositions written in such a manner, such as Brit M enuhah on which he writes “I think that all the words in that book were entirely by the Holy Spirit, transmitted from mouth to mouth or by way o f a loyal magid to the righteous and saintly” see in his Derishot ve-Hakirot be-Inyanei ha-Mal'akliim, Derishah 1, Hakirah 6 (on Brit Menuhah, see Shem ha-Gedolim, p.229:113). The particular context o f this treatment points to RaMaK's affinity with Abulafian Ecstatic Kabbalah, as demonstrated in Idel, M. in Green, A. (ed., 1989) and especially pp.427435. 748 Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, p.73.

142

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

way o f truth, the matter will be accomplished by itself’.749 Such comments were common practice in RaMaK's spirited atmosphere, albeit their disclosure is at times subtle for obvious reasons. As we shall see, they point to many other instances which present RaMaK as a mystic rigorously seeking the progressive purity affording such sublime encounters. RaMaK was indeed deeply invested in divine guidance and deeply indebted to its epistemic and experiential fruits. In Pardes Rimonim RaMaK discloses the visibility of this reality in the lives of prophets and righteous men whose spiritual purity deemed such brilliant innovations inevitable: “The Hassid who cleaves to holiness by his deeds affects his own soul and causes the downpour of abundance from the higher source, [which in turn] grants him understanding and teaches him wisdom - as did the prophets whose speech was that of the Holy Spirit [.. .].”750 RaMaK makes various references to such procedures and deems them the crown of one’s epistemic potencies, one reliant on the foundations of intellectual rigor, staunch belief, devotional perseverance, spiritual limpidness and moral stature. Mentioning in Or Yaqar that “All has been illuminated in my mind by the hand of God”751 and continuing to disclose a heavenly mentor titled “The possessor of concealments” [□,“inon bin]752, RaMaK resumes the tannaitic method of “Relying on the true helper to inform me / attach to me [tJirnnb]753 [...] and coronate me with wisdom from above” [Toy1].754 In other instances RaMaK also points to the intuitive property and unpredictability of such heavenly eruptions, wherein certain innovations sustain a trajectory which eludes the receiving mystic himself, rendering him a scribe or a coauthor rather than an author: “Now, after having written all the rationales given by previous commentators [...] and after having been awakened to [comprehend] them as instructed by the heavens [□ia^n ia lanin "Wto Drrbx mmynn], we shall speak of this issue as allotted to our fate” [■obnua nby -wx ’dd].755 749 Or Ne'erav 5:2 and see Pardes Rimonim 32 in its entirety. On prayer in RaMaK's system, see Sack, B. (1995 a), chapter 6 [ = 1982 a, pp.5-12]. 750 Pardes Rimonim 31:9. 751 Or Yaqar, Parashat Yitro, vol.7. 752 See the preface to Shiur Qomah - yi’01 us? btwx nnnon Vs?3»l. 753 RaMaK uses the root I?.!.1 in its biblical sense as well and assigns it an epistemic property; an intimate relationship which results in spiritual impregnation and the birth o f innovative insights. Please refer to the chapter Sefer Gerushin for more detail. 754 Or Yaqar on Zohar, Parashat Yitro. 755 Pardes Rimonim 2:3 and compare with Sefer Gerushin, entry 82, p. 106.

143

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

In Shiur Qomah RaMaK adorns Rashbi with a name quite compatible with the enigmatic title “Possessor of concealments” [□’"inon bin]: Rashbi is “The possessor o f secrets [nmon Tvn] on whom shone the light of the esoteric parts of Torah and to whom permission was given to put them in writing”.756 This designation also points to their intimate spiritual associations in the wake of RaMaK's visitations of Rashbi’s gravesite a momentous impetus behind insights in Sefer Gerushin and sections within Or Yaqar. Likewise, in his discussion of prophecy within Derishot ve-Hakirot be-Inyanei haM al’akhim, RaMaK discloses such ecstatic occurrences which “I shall call ‘a sight of opened eyes’ [□’TS7

ntCiQ]”: a visual encounter “On various levels with an angel who

has transubstantiated in the actual air [...] and revealed himself to the righteous man”.757 As G. Scholem pointed out in this regard, “Visions of angels were explained in [such] a fashion: the angel’s form was imprinted in an invisible ether that differed from ordinary air and could be seen by a select few not due to their prophetic standing but since God 758

had opened their eyes as a reward for having purified their corporeal bodies”.

The

alliance of mystical purity and divine awards is visible in RaMaK's sensitive use of the phonetically associating Hebrew roots “f.D.T (purify) and n.D.T (award / reward), wherein the human achievement of the former

[TD ’T]

afforded the latter

[ITOT]

by divinity.759 These

awards were indeed part of a regulated procedure joining the mystic with divine potencies and which RaMaK seems to have fathomed, articulated and manipulated within a systematic structure760: the ability to intensify human spiritual awareness actuated in turn an angelic manifestation and allowed its “Imprint in the invisible ether”. RaMaK’s use of the term TUB [magid - heavenly mentor] accentuates further the symbiosis between the angel and the receiver and describes such occurrences wherein the heavenly mentor is no longer an outward apparition but rather a heavenly potency imbued within the mystic: “The secret of an angel who is enclothed in a man is that which people have rendered m agid',761 RaMaK states and continues to reiterate the popular belief concerning the 14th 756 Shiur Qomah, p. 18. 757 Ibid, p .63 and compare with p .89. See also Maimonides, Guide 2:33. 758 G. Scholem (1974), p. 188 - italics by the author. 759 Please refer to the chapter Sefer Gerushin for more details. 760 On this issue see also Scholem, G. (1955), pp.290-306. On its use in the Zohar, see Cohen -A lloro, D. (1987). 761 Or Yaqar, D erishot ve-Hakirot be-Inyanei ha-Mal'akhim, Derishah 5, Hakirah 7; cf: Scholem, G. (1930), p.96.

144

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

century Spanish work Brit Menuhah ,762 “Which I believe is all words of the Holy Spirit, transmitted from [a heavenly] mouth to [a mortal] mouth, or by way of a loyal magid to the righteous and saintly”.763 RaMaK’s acute associations with the Zoharic narrative, landscape and protagonists stood behind his staunch belief to having also experienced visions of past tannaitic sages who may have become impressed in thin air or even assumed corporeal form: the Zohar features such instances of mysterious men who meet Zoharic protagonists and seem to be “Not really alive but [rather men whose] souls have left the Garden of Eden and have donned corporeal form in order to reveal secrets of Torah.”764 And such furtive encounters were not scarce in RaMaK's mental landscape: in numerous places RaMaK uses the biblical term T>n nptra (be-hezkat ha-yad) in different renditions to suggest that guided writing affected him directly once he had taken the measures to be properly awakened. Aside from its conspicuous appearance in Isaiah’s prophecy (8:11), the word nprn (hozkat / hezkat) may be another example of RaMaK's attention to the manifold meaning afforded by the etymological correlations in the Hebrew language: the root p.T.n may mean a mighty hand [nptn - hazakah], a hand which is being held [nprma - muhzeket\ or the mediating property of the hand [nptra - be-hezkat].765 The following excerpts are from Pardes Rimonim and Or Yaqar, all of which demonstrate his reliance on intuitive transparency at certain junctures which transcended intellectual inquiry and conventional exposition. The opening quote, taken from RaMaK's first chapter in Pardes Rimonim, suggests that he may have had already practiced guided writing in the mid 1540’s, in his early twenties. This is further corroborated by RaMaK's own admission in Shiur Qomah to having “Successfully engaged in word combinations and permutations during my early adult years” [,m"im a a ] 766 - an important technique to achieve psychosomatic tranquility and become a channel assisting in divine remedial edification. One should also note in the following excerpts RaMaK's frequent designation of the plural we\ although often no

762 Attributed to Abraham o f Granada, aka Abraham ben Yitzhak me-Rimon (Amsterdam 1648). 763 Derishah 1, hakirah 6; cf: Scholem, G. (1930), p.95. See also Werblowsky, Z.R.J. (1961), pp.9-36. On Lurianic M agidic Revelations, see Fine, L. in Reinharz J. & Swetschinski, D. (eds., 1982), p p .141-157. 764 Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, p . l l . 765 1 return to this important topic later in this chapter. 766 Shiur Qomah, p.93.

145

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

more than conventional literary etiquette in his writings, it may perhaps hint at such junctures to his position as a coauthor of the imparted wisdoms: ’"ini upnyn n m nnx / r n nprra nn unw urby 'rcian mnn

bnx [...]

•ptrb pi7p73 - p n ^ xbtr ir x i / 7’n nprra nrrbx la-niynm 717 ’nn a""i nra Tm n nson m i p’nyrfr nr pnsn m in / 7Ti npma imx unDb xbx naxnn □nxm pin by 7iayb nysx ’xi ,nin ip’nynb tp x - i p h 'i / 7*>n npma nxnbi nrn non’ xbty ’73 ,7T7 nprna m nxm nr bD nyi .nson id non np’ynw ^so nxno nmsn ’7 im noonno o’pnnnon u-iznw nnx / ttp in non p ,nr p ip o nm .b’own ■>*?» 'n 7 ^ ‘ron [...] / irb s raitsn 'n 7’3 ansn ubo’m [...] Our obligation necessitates that we explicate it with a mightily held hand767 / After having copied the words of rabbi Moshe and rabbi David and being awakened to their [esoteric meaning] by the mightily held hand768 / We realized that no lengthy exposition is needed [here] but an explication through the mightily held hand769 / We wish to copy the words of Sefer ha-Bahir on this name and explicate it with the mightily held hand110 / 1 have opted to scribe and explicate it here, yet cannot do so in full since the main part is absent from the manuscript. We shall nonetheless explicate it with the mightily held hand, so no part shall miss from this piece - neither shortage nor addition771 / Having sufficiently discussed those who stand aloof from this science, and having refuted their 772 opinion as afforded by God’s good hand upon us / [ . . . ] All these 773 11A matters the Lord bestowed upon me by His hand . RaMaK's staunch belief that the Zohar had been produced by Rashbi’s cohort in the Galilee via regulatory divine assistance775 only accentuated his reliance on such mediums in his day and age. Guided writing was perceived as the impetus behind certain parts of Moses de Leon’s Zohar (as disclosed in the testimony of Isaac of Acre), as was the case

767 Pardes Rimonim 1:1. 768 Ibid 4:4. 769 Ibid 4:7; 11:6; 18:5. 770 Ibid 21:6. 771 Or Yaqar on ha-Yenuka, Parashat Balak; see also in Perush le-Sefer Yetzirah, chapter la-b. 772 Or Ne'erav 6:1. We have modified I. Robinson’s translation here. Compare ibid (1994), p.39. 773 See 2 Chronicles 28:19. 774 Or Yaqar on Exodus, Parashat Yitro, vol. 7. 775 See e.g., Zohar 3:79a and compare with Or Yaqar on Tikkunei ha-Zohar, Baba Matzia 17a. A similar idea is already mentioned in Rabbi Isaac o f A cre’s testimony concerning M ose’s de Leon’s alleged authorship o f the Zohar, wherein he discloses the possibility o f de Leon’s utilization o f divine assistance: “Some say that rabbi Simeon ben Yohai did not write the book at all, but that this Rabbi Moses [de Leon] knew the Holy Name and through its power wrote these wonderful words [...].” See in Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, p. 13. In and o f itself such an idea does not exclude the possibility o f the celestial assistance having been Rashbi’s own intervention.

146

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

of de Leon’s associate, Joseph ben Todros Abulafia, who was also reputed to having possessed the writing name [arran □!£-’] - “A holy name that focused meditation and placed one in a trance in which automatic writings were produced”.776 The writing name was a member whose invocative family included terms such as shem ha-Garsi (for text study and exegesis),777 shem ha-Doresh (for preaching), shem ha-Herev [?], shem haSheminiyut [?] and shem ha-Kanaf (for homilies and chants)778.779 As G. Scholem mentioned, “Such ‘names’ that facilitated the process of writing are referred to in a number of practical kabbalistic manuscripts. In describing a ‘revelation’ that was granted to him, Joseph Taitatzak speaks of ‘the mystic secret of writing with no hand’; [whereas] the anthology Shoshan Sodot (Oxford Ms., par. 147) mentions the practice of automatic writing [as] ‘making marks [np’pn - hakikah] by the pen’.”780 RaMaK had also attributed his prolific outpour to intuitive knowledge and ecstatic speech - elements which shaped most tellingly the evolution of Sefer Gerushin. In Sefer Gerushin RaMaK discloses the effects of such communicative mediums and renders them “The gift of the [Sefirah] Malkhut to those who go on exilic excursions and ceaselessly wander781 in her footsteps” [na’37 □’TT'onm □’’timma1? ma^an m/in].7*2 In Or Ne'erav, where RaMaK mentions his future intent to edit the notes taken on these exilic excursions (later to be titled Sefer Gerushin), he discloses both their impetus and outcome, “[...] To occupy ourselves with the verses of the Torah extemporaneously,

Matt, D.C (trans., 1983), p.27. See also in Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, pp.14-16 and fn.68. 777 See under o il and in Sokoloff, M. (2002), pp.303-304. 778 See Rabbi Moshe Hayim Luzzato, Sefer P inot ha-M erkava, note 2. 779 Scholem, G. (1974), p.189.1 was unable to find lucid explanations for the terms marked by “?”. 780 Ibid, p. 188. 781 D’Tmna - as I shall demonstrate, this word may have more than one meaning: whereas the more viable in this context is that which I offer here (derived from the JPS translation o f m M in Genesis 4:12,14), another option may refer to posture and liturgical ritual, wherein the mystics tremble [O’trn n a ] or move their lips [D’SUJna] in empathic prayer for the Shekhinah. RaMaK clearly states his views regarding liturgical movement o f the lips and its affect on the Sefirot [37U5U] in P ard es R im onim , 2:59: “Each letter has an awesome spiritual form emanating from the Sefirotic essence, wherein each letter becomes a shrine for the spiritual potency o f its respective Sefirah. And when a man mentions and moves [JP M ] either word, the breath o f his mouth configures its holy form, which in turn ascends and connects to the its root in the emanated realm [...]. By knocking the potencies [of letters] one against the other with the hammering soul [natznn tmBD ’71 by nrn nt an tom] [...] the breath o f one’s mouth is spiritually reified, as an angel who ascends and connects to his root [...]”. In O r N e'erav (chapter 5:2) RaMaK states that “One who says that there is a superfluous letter in the Torah should have his teeth taken out, if [he says it] deliberately”; see in Robinson, I. (1994), p .106. On this issue, see Sack, B. (1995 b), p p .162-163; Idel, M. (1998 a), p p .172-212; ibid, (2002), chapters 10-12; Dan, J. (2002), chapters 9, 11, 17. 782 Sefer G erushin, entry 13, p. 14.

147

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

without study in depth. [Then], many times innovations were made on issues which no one could understand unless he saw or experienced the matter. The gifts which I received in these exilic excursions and which came into my portion through God’s grace to me I will write in due time [...]”.783 Such statements assist in our understanding of RaMaK's mental landscape and serve to appreciate both the quality and quantity of his work. It is obvious that RaMaK staunchly believed in such phenomena and deemed himself a mystic who had established profound ties with multiple divine agents, all of which ignited the passion and the extraordinary endurance needed for his impressive literary output. That in mind, RaMaK recognized his limitations as well, reminding his readers of his ultimate inability to penetrate certain levels of epistemic or practical effectiveness: his commentary on Sefer Yetzirah (part of Or Yaqar) features for example the disclaimer “And the reader should not hope that we explicate this book on the level [or manner] of Yetzirah, for we have not received anything pertaining to that level” [

,nT2rn 117 13 1X3]^ p’tfan iiaa mp’ INI

137 13 llfa’p]- Be that as it may, RaMaK's outpour is astounding in its own right, whereas its fuller magnitude still remains obscure and warrants further investigation which surpasses the scope of this dissertation. Rabbi Menahem Azariah de Fano states admiringly in his introduction to Pelah ha-Rimon, “[...] I have already seen that the Pardes is only one of more than thirty such compositions, let alone that each has seen additions, versions and abbreviations - large and small books, beyond measure.” Azariah de Fano’s testimony is most likely exaggerated, as it probably counted as separate compositions certain components of single monographs, such as Or Yaqar whose colossal size and thematic vastness afforded independence to some of its sections. That notwithstanding, there is indeed supporting evidence to suggest that RaMaK's extant works do not necessarily reveal the fuller breadth of his literary undertakings. Certain Cordoeirian compositions are missing from the scholarly scanner, either since RaMaK's intent to write them never reached fruition or since they were lost and may still await rediscovery. We return to them at the end of this chapter.

783 O r N e'erav 5:2; in Robison, I. (1994), p p .107-108. I have made some minor modifications to the translation for consistency. Cf: Horodetzky, S.A. (1924, Heb. ed. 1951), p .17.

148

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

RaMaK's Conceptual Skeleton: A Preliminary Treatment Everything is made o f one hidden stuff R a lp h W a ld o E m e rs o n

Whereas RaMaK’s considerable literary outpour is enough a reason for attention, he surely deserves to be celebrated for the conceptual and thematic systemizations which govern his works by and large. Although further subtlety is required when discussing these issues as well, RaMaK's mindframe ultimately attempted to fathom and articulate the theosophical dogma embedded in the metaphysical unified enigma. To this end he not only follows the metaphysical rigor seen in the works of medieval Jewish rationalists such as Abraham ibn Daud or Maimonides, but tailors such ideas with the theosophical constructions of the Zohar and earlier mystical ‘classics’ whose backbone was more mythical in both concept and terminology. As a whole, however, RaMaK's works are a rich embroidery of influences, also weaving together Jewish theistic doctrines, moral teachings from such scholars as Bahya ibn Paquda, devotional rites of Ablafian Sufism and the Gnostic elitism which deemed mystics privy to certain wisdoms otherwise inaccessible to others.

Between System and Cohesion RaMaK's metaphysical and theosophical scheme is not only a herald of speculation but also an acute realm of tension, vagueness, hesitance, indistinctness and at times clear contradiction. These are not solely caused by the highly abstract nature of the subject matter but also echo the conflicting currents informing RaMaK's versatile aptitudes and reflect a genuine tension on multiple levels: RaMaK's metaphysics and theosophy alone nourish from Aristotelian, Neoplatonic and Gnostic doctrines whose problematic relations to each other highly challenge his own attempts for systemization. This reality is only accentuated by RaMaK’s maneuvers between rational and mystical configurations and by his attempts to intimately link abstract contentions with the Zoharic mythical fervor and the theurgic drama informing his day and age. The evolution of his works demonstrates these fluctuations and reveals a man whose metaphysical speculation aimed first and foremost to illuminate the theosophical arrangements of the Zohar, charting a highly complex intermediate level between metaphysics and theosophy and rendering

149

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

anything beyond the Sefirah Binah (the cosmic mother) impenetrable on any level.

784

This axis in his Kabbalah indeed blurs the lines between philosophical and mystical speculation and deems premature, or at least somewhat myopic, any scholarly tendency to entrench RaMaK’s views within either camp. Respectively, RaMaK is a pivotal thinker for whom the mind was a formidable tool but not the chief tool; a necessary property to attain divinity, yet not a sufficient one - all of which inform his attempts to harmozize human intellect, spirit and devotion en route to God.785 This task was easier said than done, and reading RaMaK's vast compositions exposes the disparity between the ideal and the achievable in his system - between RaMaK's professed desire to harmonize Kabbalah with other doctrines on the one hand and his actual ability to do so on the other hand. Indeed, despite his somewhat eclectic flavor, RaMaK seems to have been quite parochial in his view of Judaism and staunchly stood behind its exclusive status in the life of God. In RaMaK's world a Jewish simpleton would have had more spiritual potency than the greatest gentile philosopher, whereas a Jewish woman could have affected divinity far more greatly than any gentile man. RaMaK may have nourished from Aristotelianism or Sufism, but always within the Jewish filtering mechanism of scholars such as Maimonides, Abulafia or ibn Tzayah.786 He carried forward the rabbinic belief wherein Jews had existentially surpassed all other nations just as their Torah, land and tongue categorically surpassed all outward counterparts. Having believed that Jews and God are now experiencing the travails of a momentous reunion, RaMaK saw divinity saturating the world entire and evoking potential keys in all its elements. His system thus testified to the harmonious foundations of such a divine cosmology and aimed to articulate both map and legend for its deciphering - to become a cartographer for the inner life of God. In other words, RaMaK's works express from different vantage points the deep-seated aspiration to articulate the multilayered dogma which is mandated by the metaphysical enigma: longing to chart the regulated paths to meet God.

784 See, e.g., Or Yaqar, vol.21, on Zohar 2:99b - “For there is no comprehension beyond Binah”, and compare with Sefer Gerushin, entry 74, p.96, wherein RaMaK renders anything beyond Binah as “Happening by way o f miracle, above nature and above the law.” On this issue, see Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp.230-238; Scholem, G. (1930), pp.100-101; Tishby, I. (1964), pp.23-29. 5 Please see the last chapter for greater treatment o f this issue. 786 See the chapter Sefer Gerushin for more details. On this issue see also Lazzaros-Yaffe, H. (1983).

150

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

From a theistic Jewish standpoint this longing was not only acute but also mutual. The human condition was endowed by divinity with a perpetual quest for intellectual and spiritual conciliation, a teleology informing not only theistic belief but also classical philosophy beyond Aristotelianism. It viewed the human mind or soul much like a stretched rubber-band pointing back to divinity; a potency whose raison d ’etre was both God’s desire to be knows and men’s intuitive desire to fathom God via such attributes as intellect, unity, truth, virtue, eternity, meaning, order and sense. These properties inform the backbone of the teleological principle according to which men’s potential trajectory is a divine endowment awaiting its realization by men. This proper realization quenches men’s thirst in turn and releases the force embedded within the rubber-band towards catharsis, as eloquently demonstrated in the Yedid Nefesh poem by RaMaK's contemporary Elazar Azikri: “A soul’s Beloved, oh merciful Father, draw Thy servant to Thy will” [-pixi 7K liny

,p m n as ,WD3 t t ] - redemption in all of its variations.

Such forces are deemed the most refined endowments of divinity upon men - an ontological configuration which recognizes the everlasting magnificence of intellectual and spiritual irritation, that which compels men to wonder about the eternal as it wanders through the temporary. Such men, and RaMaK surely among them, saw a world in which no question could have ever risen save by a primary answer to whom it owed its birth in one’s mind. It was a cosmos wherein no absence could have daunted the hearts of men save by a primal sensation of utter presence for which they had always craved. This mindffame may arguably be seen in the Hebrew etymological affinity between nbNty (she’elah - inquiry) and

(sheol - perpetual agony), whereas nmtyn (teshuvah -

answer) associates with rQ’W (shivah - return) and ra ’tt” (yeshivah - sitting / relaxing). These teleological notions utilize the word fTiX [tzorech] in RaMaK's writings, meaning regulation, desire or intent. RaMaK adamantly refused to ascribe to the divine any form of need, and his use o f the word "piy never translates as such when concerning God Himself, as we shall soon demonstrate. The need was always the lot of the effected domains - never that of the supreme cause - and the desire to articulate the eternal through the temporary: blNtyb (lish ’ol - borrow) suggests a temporary deposit which awaits its return (m ’W / roiiyn) to eternity; a tie informing humanity via the perpetual longing which awaits its cathartic and pleasurable closure upon finding God. As the 151

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

German mystic Heinrich Suso (c. 1295-1366) once put it, “There is nothing pleasurable except what is in harmony with the utmost depths of our divine nature”.787 The Zohar called this level pmoa 737 xmozn xwn - “The longing which surpasses all longings”.788 These attributes therefore govern the utmost regions of the mind, the realm which attaches to divinity in such wholesome unity as to exclude any conceivable disharmony, let alone contradiction. They arouse a trajectory whose realization for men is one’s quest for such unison while still in one’s mortal form - the search for a unified truth whose meaning may be attained through order and speak to a sense which mocks the seemingly contradictory pulls o f spatiotemporal reality. Once such assertions are viewed from a theistic lens, humanity is crowned with potencies that acutely associate it with the divine and may fuse men and the divine once the illusionary mediums of discerned realities dissolve. Within the domains of mystical speculation, however, one finds that whereas such attributes are indeed essential to the human condition, they are not sufficient to reach the aspired cathartic fluidity. RaMaK the mystic would therefore disqualify the intellect as the chief chamber on which God bestowed epistemic clarity. The entire cosmic edifice constituted such a chamber, and all its properties pointed to the aspired catharsis corporeal as well as mental; tangible as well as intangible; intellectual as well as intuitive. The illusionary mediums of discemable reality, or even intellectual endeavors to a degree, were thus not viewed in RaMaK's spirited eyes as lies - for truth ultimately had no opposite. Rather, they were the minions o f truth whose perplexing plurality and deceptive appearance as ‘opposites’ may be unlocked and disarmed once appropriately apprehended. Indeed, RaMaK's contention was that any honest and rigorous treatment of divine unity must yield an indisputable conclusion: ‘God is one’ means ‘God is aW wholly beyond opposites and utterly transcending contradiction! RaMaK's ultimately charts a circular path which starts with divine emanation down to the most miniscule of cosmic elements and returns to the most enigmatic levels of Keter Elyon.

789

Although a

fuller treatment of his metaphysical cosmology must await our last chapter, we suggest five visible steps in RaMaK's conceptual skeleton within this discourse:

In Hemenway, P. (2005), p.9. 788 Z o h ar 2:176b. 789 In the last chapter I will try to show why a complete circle is not a proper image here. The Godhead is not part o f this mechanism, for He only furnishes, not being furnished.

152

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

1. Rationally necessitating the unified metaphysical imperative (EinSof or the Godhead) as a domain transcending all dichotomies and opposites: this idea appears already in RaMaK's first composition Pardes Rimonim yet begets its full thrust in Eilima Rabbati, which was his latest known work.790 2. Rationally necessitating the cosmic edifice (Sefirot) out of the unified metaphysical imperative (EinSof = Godhead): RaMaK tries to compel the numeric idea of the ten Sefirot and demonstrate its adherence to the highly subtle metaphysical relationship between 0 and 1 - Pardes Rimonim, Or Ne'erav and especially Eilima Rabbati. 3. Articulating and regulating the cosmic edifice from the first point of emanation down to the realized world while utilizing rational and mythical configurations: Pardes Rimonim, Or Yaqar and especially Eilima Rabbati. The aforementioned points will be addressed with greater detail in the last chapter, RaMaK's Metaphysical Cosmology. 4. Edifying self and fellow Jews of the acute associations between the cosmic edifice and the regulations that inform space, time, liturgy, as well as men’s physical, mental and moral conditions: Pardes Rimonim, Or Yaqar, Or Ne'erav and especially Tomer Devorah. 5. Harnessing the newly aroused souls toward affecting in turn the welfare of men, world, the cosmic edifice and ultimately God: Pardes Rimonim, Or Yaqar, Or Ne'erav, Tomer Devorah and Sefer Gerushin.

This configuration surely sounds pantheistic at first, and rightly so. RaMaK, however, was aware in most cases of this perilous conclusion, and his system also accentuated both the theistic and Aristotelian demand to establish in the Godhead the awesome transcendence which neither intellect nor intuition nor experience nor existence could ever penetrate. It is for that reason that RaMaK's metaphysics should be ultimately regarded panentheistic rather than pantheistic, although one might not find in his system a satisfactory answer to this confounding question. Indeed, the varieties of Jewish philosophical or mystical systems arguably shared that obscure juncture which negotiated 790 Contrary to what has been suggested thus far in scholarship, Eilima Rabbati was not composed during the late 1550’s but was embarked upon in 1567 and continued (unfinished!) till RaMaK's death in 1570. Please refer to the section Eilima Rabbati in this chapter for details.

153

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

the perplexing tension between divine apriori transcendence and posteriori immanence. The intriguing aspect of RaMaK's Kabbalah was its ability to further articulate divine metaphysics as the imperative behind an obligatory cosmological blueprint: God’s enigmatic essence may be credited various levels, yet always stand as the imperative behind the dogma which is the nucleus of philosophical or mystical speculation. In this abstruse realm amidst what M. Fishbane once called “The eerie otherness but explosive immediacy of the divine presence”791 lie the mystics efforts to coalesce the overwhelming multiplicity embedded in reality, trying to breach the gulfs amidst truth and perception and amidst perception and eloquence - the realm which in rabbinic discourse “The heart does not reveal to the mouth”792 and which A.J. Heschel once titled “The disparity between experience and expression”.793 A decisive amendment of the mystical path, however, was its transformation of the human standing in the life of God. Between rabbinic determinism wherein “Men cannot lift a finger below”794 and the Aristotelian path whose lofty God was wholly transcendent, it was the emanation processes of the Neoplatonic doctrine which might have recognized divine loftiness while further refining the ties connecting divinity with the entire cosmos in harmonious utility. It is therefore hardly surprising that the Neoplatonic path was embraced by RaMaK to a considerable degree. It was not merely his loyalty to its Zoharic rendition but also it having featured in his system a combination of many important worlds - theistic Judaism, Aristotelian rationalism and Zoharic theosophy. RaMaK’s paradigm relies on Aristotelian metaphysics when discussing the Godhead in and of itself; relinquishes it once the theistic creatio ex nihilo principle and the Zoharic rendition of Neoplatonic emanation are concerned; and continues to greatly amplify not only the reciprocated relations between men and divinity but also one’s abilities to affect God’s trajectory via the sum of one’s faculties - thought, intent, speech, liturgy, education, moral discourse and overall mundane and sacred conduct: theurgy! This

conceptual

platform

informs

the

seemingly

paradoxical

notion

that

circumscribes mystical discourse and fashions RaMaK's metaphysics as a mandatory step

791 Fishbane, M. in Green, A. (ed., 1986), p.63. 792 ’bj Kb xniDb N3’b - see, e.g., M idrash Kohelet Rabba 12:10. 793 H.J. Heschel (1955 / 19th pmt., 1997), pp. 122-124. 794 Mishna, Hu Iin 7b.

154

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

toward his cosmic theosophy: the simple enigma is that which dumbfounds every human facility yet paradoxically assures the dogma which is embedded in God’s revelatory mechanism. It is therefore the infinitely complex theosophical structure and its reciprocal associations with world and men which henceforth edify one’s existential teleology, intellectual speculation and devotional engagement. The simple remains utterly perplexing whereas the multifaceted becomes the alluring - not only by way of permissible accessibility but also by way of dogmatically testifying to the awesome unity at its root. As A. Green puts it, “In sharp contrast to the well-known ancient adage of Ben-Sira (“do not seek out what is too wondrous for you; do not inquire into that which lies above you”), the [kabbalistic] writings precisely seek to penetrate the inner divine world and to offer hints to the reader about the rich and complex life to be found there”.795 Indeed, such grand objectives of intimate penetration into the innermost chambers of divinity were also the impetus for fierce criticism against mystical literature in general and the Zohar in particular: Nineteenth century Rabbi Samuel David Luzzatto (aka SHaDaL), for example, wrote in his famous Vikuach

7Q/C

against Kabbalah and the Zohar

“[...] The second thing that the Zohar has done is to remove the yoke of the fear of Heaven from the necks of the sages of Israel, so that they no longer care for their Maker’s honor, but ask and answer questions, and write and print books about what is above and what is below, what was before, and what will be afterward. They speak haughtily, with pride and arrogance, against almighty God - how He created His world, how He conducts it, how He contracted Himself in order to create it, and how He caused worlds to emanate from His own essence [...] and similar matters. Anyone who believes in God”, Luzzatto concludes, “feels the hair on is skin bristle when he reads of such things”.797 Luzzatto, for better or worse, was absolutely correct as far as mystical aspiration and cosmology were concerned: as profoundly seated was the tension between God’s transcendence and immanence, it indeed became the drastic accentuation of the latter which arguably distinguished Jewish mystical discourse from rabbinic theism on the one hand and

795 Green, A. (2004), p.29. 796 An Argument Concerning the W isdom of the Kabbalah, the Antiquity of the Zohar, and the Antiquity of the Vowel-Points and Accents - written in 1827 and published in Gorizia, 1852. 797 In Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, p.45.

155

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Aristotelian rationalism on the other hand. As A. Altmann puts it, “Only Mysticism is 798

ultimately and radically serious about positioning God as actual”.

We shall attend to RaMaK's intriguing metaphysical scheme in the last chapter. At this juncture it shall suffice to say that RaMaK’s system was no exception as far as the above tension is concerned: although his systematic mind and aptitude in the abstracts situate him at the highest levels of mystical speculation, the fact remains that RaMaK was not a philosopher for whom mystical concerns and mythical terminologies served as a means to metaphysical ends. In truth, Jewish intellectual history has not yet seen such a figure and will most probably not produce one in the future either, for there seems to be no need to vindicate philosophical meditations by mystical contentions. The contrary, however, is quite acceptable and precisely what RaMaK had done, namely having been a staunch mystic who endorsed metaphysics as a means to vindicate mystical speculation whose main focus was theosophical, cosmological, moral and even anthropological. This facet has been underplayed in scholarship, albeit mitigated to a large degree in B. Sack’s substantial work

on RaMaK

(1995

a).799 His

eloquence

in the

intelligible

notwithstanding, RaMaK's commanding investment in God’s omnipresence undeniably triumphs once his works are afforded greater attention.

Between Metaphysical Freedom and Theosophical Compulsion Divine will pivoted the dialectical interplay in RaMaK's cosmology, wherein God’s metaphysical freedom necessitated an unwavering theosophical regulation once having been realized. This question obviously presents RaMaK's perplexing and fluctuating discourse at times, as will be discussed in the last chapter. Nevertheless, the intricate relationship between metaphysical freedom and theosophical compulsion warrants some explanation here. RaMaK’s uncompromising launch pad is that the Godhead transcends any imposition, including need or will: in accord with the midrashic statement “God creates worlds and destroys them”,800 the Godhead is a self-sufficient agency for whom emanation is the result of free love rather than compulsion. The following excerpts feature an instructive 798 Altmann, A. in Ivry, I. (ed., 1991), p.72. 799 One should also consult Maier, J. (2001). 800 M idrash Rabba, Bereshit 3:7.

156

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

formulation of this idea, where one may realize RaMaK's subtle use of the term mitt i n s (tzorech gavohah) as meaning ‘regulation’ rather than ‘compulsion’ or ‘a need’: ■pis an ’a ,anay mpibxn n m x^x ,V'n nrr’rx i5? rrntr yns*? p [...] /.[...] mnxi tix-o pi vVsxj tux 1? max pnh’ir1? -p-ix

mpibxn "pis nnvn a^v^yn amana x^D’ x1? p xb irfr’xxnw nax nm ax .a^stm n x m 1? mm m sw w xbi ln^ir *?x man1? im a laTM na73 pn irx tr ,i"n •dtix1? k*?i > sx an Vx a^a mmson ."vximi

Similarly, one should understand that the higher realms also attain their existence as part of divinity’s regulatory unification by them [mm "pis] for they are [now] a sublime regulation [m m TITS] to govern the lower realms. This, however, does not infer that they were emanated because He needed them [a n ,l7X 17 n w Tliy1? xh5], God forbid. [Rather], it was a strictly free act [nnm ], stirred by His virtuousness toward the other, not because He was compelled [m3WW X1?] - only by [free] will and love [.. .].801 /[ ...] The sefirot are vessels for God who emanated them, not for His need [lDmy'7 X1?], God forbid - for He needs no other. [They are] the regulatory operation ["pmf?] of His emanated and created realms.802 The word "pix must therefore be read from the particular angle which affords it contextualized clarity: it is not a need within the divine but rather a regulation which informs

its manifestation

from

emanation

downward.

The

highly perplexing

transformation in the quality of will thus lies not with the Godhead but with the initiatory stage of emanation (Keter) in whom will assumes a compulsory character. The Keter is therefore governed by God’s free will and henceforth transmits this governance downward according to the premeditated regulation that informs its ontic, epistemic, structural and practical endowments. Whereas RaMaK does not ultimately solve this acute question regarding the transformation from metaphysical freedom to theosophical compulsion, his entire system relies on it. God’s free decision to emanate does not undermine for RaMaK the stringent directives governing this realm once it had been emanated!

Q /\T

On the contrary, the entire

801 Pardes Rimonim 4:9. 802 Perush le-Sefer Yetzirah, chapter lb. 803 This is a chief metaphysical concern in RaMaK's speculation, which leads him on a rocky terrain and a profoundly complex view o f the first emanated Sefirah {Keter); let alone its role as the first animator o f G od’s will within the emanated world. The ontic position o f the Keter thus becomes highly ambiguous, for it is both emanated and emanating - an entity which RaMaK renders intermediate between the

157

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

affected domain [blby] is much like a clock of meticulous precision whose infinitely complex ontic, epistemic, structural and practical facilities faithfully testify to their single Cause [nb’y] - one whose existence is deduced only by necessity rather than by proof. Moreover,

RaMaK's

professed

distinction between metaphysical freedom

and

theosophical regulation has obvious repercussions on the theurgic interplay between humanity and divinity since here men have an inborn advantage over the cosmic edifice in its entirety: unlike the theosophical domain - be it the sefirot, angelic agents or demonic adversaries - humans are the bearers of free will!804 Correspondingly, the philosophical property of ‘will’ and its free execution by God and men qualifies the latter as intimate partners with divinity and fashions the backbone of RaMaK's mystical theurgy and moral accountability as well. In a hierarchical display of human potencies RaMaK now declares that God’s intimate investment in mankind via free will is only amplified in the nation of Israel and the mystics at its front. Consequently, it grants Israel and the mystics at its front a status which overpasses the theosophical edifice and surpasses all gentile nations - a status rendered “A portion of God above” [ byatt mbx ?bn □’an aa ''iw nbrai].805 Here are RaMaK's word’s on this issue, this time explicating the verses from Psalms 148:14 (lamp ay btaty) and 2 Kings 21:14 (Tibm rmwy)806: The Holy One, blessed be He, conducts Himself towards Israel in this way, saying ‘What shall I do with Israel, for they are my relatives and [to them I have the obligations of] My own flesh?’ For they are the spouse of the Holy One, blessed be He, and He calls them ‘my daughter’, ‘my sister’ and ‘my mother’ - as our sages explained the verse ‘Israel, the people close to Him’, ‘He truly has a blood relationship with them and they are His sons’. This, too, is the meaning of the words ‘the remnant of My own people’, meaning [that He and the people of Israel have] a blood • 807 relationship and [they are] His inheritance in final analysis [...].

metaphysical and theosophical realms, and which we shall refer to as theosophy. See the last chapter for details. 804 RaMaK's reliance on m an’s free will is a core aspect in his system. See also Sack, B. (1995 a), pp.207 and 239. 805 Job 31:2 and see Pardes Rimonim 32:1; Or Ne'erav, part 1, chapter 3. 806 In the larger context o f Tomer Devorah one can easily find a correlation w ithM icha 7:18 as well. 807 Tomer Devorah, chapter 1, note 4; in Miller, M. (trans., 1993), p .1 2 .1 made some minor modifications to the translation for consistency.

158

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

This grand standing substantiated in turn Israel’s dramatic responsibility for the welfare of God. The endowment of human free will and its association with the hierarchical distribution of epistemic and theurgic potencies among men was now met by an equally hierarchical distribution of moral expectations. Having had the unique ability to achieve what no sefirah above and no gentile below could have ever achieved, Israel’s free consent to this covenant [rp-Q] had now permeated every aspect of 16th century Safed. RaMaK's writings therefore not only speculate over metaphysical, theosophical and devotional issues. RaMaK’s Tomer Devorah, for example, amplified the moral repercussions of Israel's ability to choose and charged that they acknowledge and respond by making the right choices, for this is God’s desire. Here, the term rrQJ "ins indeed seeks to arouse the emotional rather than to articulate the rational - aiming to draw Israel towards compliance with God’s desire for reunion with those “He calls ‘my daughter’, ‘my sister’ and ‘my mother’”. Israel must therefore respond to this need by making the right choices, whereas the guiding blueprint in their aid is the theosophical rendition of mm “pnx - the regulations embedded within the cosmic edifice and with which each member of Israel should align and correspond: imitatio Dei. Neglecting to do so would affect in turn the sefirotic realms which depended on the free choice of Israel for their harmonious restoration, since these realms simply had no say in the matter - having had no free will whatsoever. This structure informs the theosophical edifice in its entirety, given that the sefirot are affected from below meaning that even the highest three realms (Binah, Hokmah and Keter) relied on the activities of men, for these affected the lower seven sefirot onward.808 RaMaK’s complex paradigm also presents divine regulation as the impetus behind each person, a premeditated stature with henceforth edifies one’s epistemic and theurgic aptitudes: “Each man is created according to the [divine] regulation permeating his existence”, RaMaK states, “neither more nor less”.809 The deterministic tone that seems to rise here is not wholly unbending, however. RaMaK’s aim to enlist the entire Jewish nation to the redemptive task he believed it was called to perform leads him not only to acknowledge voluntary mobility within the cosmic structure but to endorse it as a 808 Please refer to the last chapter for further discussion - especially regarding RaMaK's metatheosophical paradigm. 809 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 3:2.

159

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

reassuring reminder of each individual’s indispensability for communal effectiveness and cosmic repair: following the example of Rabbi Akiva “Who did not enjoy the merit of forefathers yet behold his achievements”,810 RaMaK now believed that any person of spiritual inclination, moral integrity, progressive erudition and willingness to partake in the life of divinity could have changed his initial association with a particular Sefirah and traverse with greater lucidity the fuller gamut of theosophical discourse. Although this mobility could not have surpassed the Sefirah from whence one’s soul was created, one could nonetheless enrich one’s spiritual potency and strengthen one’s theurgical aptitude. A man who voluntarily enlisted for that task was thus met by the benevolence embedded in the sefirotic edifice and could span the broader realms of exegesis. One could stretch the canvas of his spiritual appreciation, rejoice in depths of hitherto unknown insights, combat the malaise of complacence and ignite the spark of redemptive awareness in those around him. The theosophical edifice was therefore not only an object for intellectual speculation and/or devotional experience: the sefirot in RaMaK's world had become a living contract which had been negotiating the relationship between God and Israel both within and without historical contexts. In turn, Israel and God were also seen as negotiating the welfare of this edifice, men having been the God’s counterpart vis-a-vis the execution of free will. The theosophical structure was therefore an awesome entity whose harmonious utility had been crippled by Adam811 and whose compulsory governance prevented it from reclaiming itself back to health in the wake of the calamity. The mystics’ view regarding the role of the Jews in nourishing it back to harmonious utility had therefore reached unprecedented levels: accentuating the Zoharic view, RaMaK's cohort was now responding to a God who yearned to disclose His mysteries and was willing for that purpose to expand His part in this mutually abiding contract - opening hitherto concealed venues of esoteric concoctions for more invasive remedial relief. The alleged reemergence of the Zohar was seen as one such a divine gesture in and of itself, as were the expulsions, the rise of the Ottoman Empire and the reunion of Jews who had for generations lived under different rules. This had lead in turn to the dramatic 810 Eilima Rabbati, Ein Adam 6:16 (MS JTS). For details please refer to the section Eilima Rabbati in this chapter. 811 This topic will be dealt with in the following pages.

160

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

revitalization of the Galilean landscape in RaMaK's world, viewing certain earthly portals in its midst as mediums through which divinity and other celestial agents afforded further instructions and remedial blueprints. It had lead to the resurgence of maggidic revelations, ecstatic speech and automatic writings, nurturing a cosmos through the ascetic and the ecstatic, via corporeal manipulations and dramatic philological ingenuity - all in pursuit of realizing this intense partnership between God and Israel, and all elements that emerge in RaMaK's works and shape the greater mystical ambiance surrounding his community. To achieve such lofty a goal, RaMaK's mystical cosmology not only converged divinity and the Jews en route to reunion but also aimed to secure a path for those wishing to reify their potential as partners to divinity: the world entire now became divinity’s will for reunion cloaked in a meticulous blueprint awaiting those whose epistemic rigor, moral integrity, spiritual clarity and corporeal vitality had reached such a level as to tap into the unifying directives of the cosmos. RaMaK's works therefore aimed to establish the theosophical dogma embedded within the metaphysical imperative while assuring Israel of their exclusive standing in the life of God as part of this paradigm. For those who wished to discern the measures needed toward the restoration of the ailing cosmic edifice, RaMaK’s works now offer some important guidelines.

God’s Revelatory Regulation: The Concealed is Revealed Only Through Concealment In order to move beyond the metaphysical enigma and articulate the theosophical dogma embedded within it, RaMaK employs an arch directive “Concealment is the source of revelation and revelation is the source of concealment” [ rrtannn r a ’O D*?s;n

cfrynn r o ’o m 'n n m ].812 RaMaK's worldview found in divinity an inborn mechanism according to which revelation through actuation is in and of itself a further concealment of its ultimate potentiality. Since God’s essence is inherently concealed as a potentiality (RaMaK usually uses the word ro for ‘potentiality’),813 God can never be reached save by the revelatory intermediaries which constitute the actuated cosmic edifice in its entirety (RaMaK uses the word 7U1D for ‘actuality’) - the elements which now only conceal

812 See e.g., Pardes Rimonim 4:10; 5:4: 20:11. On this issue see also Sack, B. (1995 a), p.57 and fn.2. 813 See last chapter for fuller treatment.

161

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

further His enigmatic essence and fashion a cloak of actualities around it [ ass? bN ttniib mbtci].814 In RaMaK's language, the EinSof “Is recognized through His attire [...] which simultaneously conceals His utmost essence.”815 The cosmic edifice now succumbs to a revelatory regulation which informs its interaction with the observer (who is part of this regulation!),816 surrendering to a dialectical apparatus under which neither God nor the astute observers can consummate a relationship save by the concealment of God essence - revealing the concealed is concealment in itself. The cloak, one learns, is not merely a cosmic medium between the observer and the observed but rather a property which ultimately informs the observer and his faculties as well! As divinity regulates that men cannot know it save by the cloak around its essence, it allows its concealed potentiality the actualization it requires in form of intellect and the spatiotemporal elements. The cloak is therefore a perpetual tease for the inquisitive mind; a marvelous apparel which does not reveal God in essence but points to His enigmatic necessity by way of causal deduction. His cloak is both map and legend, a blueprint of interrelating associations whose sole animator is the concealed divinity. It is an intricate embroidery whose patterns celebrate splendid affinities which point the inquisitive observer to a single divine tailor and affirm in the human mind God’s desire to be revealed further - to be known beyond the cloak. It is an eruption of colors which entice the intellect and ensnare the senses only to lead toward the unperturbed sight of the colorless ‘shining speculum’. It wishes to raise curiosity and capture the intellect, to challenge men’s complacency and perpetuate infatuation; to raise the bar of mystery and apply it to the sensatory mundane, the experientially immediate and the epistemicly accessible. In short, this revealed garment is a meticulously crafted cursor toward the concealed, pointing by its actuated existence to the single hidden cause which birthed it. It is therefore not to be cast aside as an obstruction to truth but rather researched and diligently scrutinized as a channel towards higher forms of truth. Each Hebrew letter, for example, “Points in a

814 See e.g., Pardes Rimonim 20:1; 27:1: 32:3 and compare with Perush le-Sefer Yetzirah 1:2; 1:12. 815 E.g., Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 6:5. 816 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 17, p p .17-19: “I have further innovated that the body is not the main part in men, since the soul constitutes his essence whereas the body is attire and punishment [in wake o f the primal Edenic sin],

162

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

myriad of maimers to the spiritual realm residing within it - its shape, numeric value, context, vocalization and its entirety”.817 RaMaK’s cloak was thus bom of a unified and ultimate potentiality; a single divine tailor whose love for men and the desire to be known by men had unleashed an outburst of actualities whose strict governance pointed back to Him by way of cosmic teleology [nrion]. In this structure of cosmic teleology, RaMaK would state, the greater the

elaborated actuality of the cloak the superior the unified potentiality within it. Given His essential state as intangible potentiality, the only manner for God to be known is through reconciling His potential quintessence in favor of the mediating agency of the concrete. It is God’s event horizon, or an explosive outburst o f actualities whose emergence infers by causal necessity to His pre-actual existence. This dialectic apparatus thus renders God an essence whose concealment cannot be ultimately infringed on a metaphysical level, yet can be profoundly apprehended on a theosophical level once the metaphysical imperative had been substantiated by the mind. The cloak, from this point of view, is a regulation embedded in God’s desire to be known - the cosmos becoming a Trivia game, as it were, wherein the answers already exist and await the correct questions for their articulation as answers! Those who crave intimate knowledge of Him, one now realizes, are governed in turn by the quintessential ambivalence that informs their quest: on the one hand they affirm the attire as a mandatory paradigm whose actual complexity ipso facto affords eloquent engagements with the mystery of its unified mastery. On the other hand they realize that this explosion of actualities ultimately conceals this potentiality even further. RaMaK's answer is simple: the cloak’s details must be treated with rigor and properly studied, yet nonetheless be cast aside for the shells that they truly are after having been suitably penetrated. This procedure will reach its anticipated apex in the end of days, whereupon reality as a whole shall be illuminated devoid of attire - in its true spiritual form.818 Realizing this dialectic revelatory regulation, the observer may now fathom the relationship between the most visible elements on that cloak and the profoundly concealed truths embedded in them: “I have further explicated that concealed matters are

817 Perush le-sefer Yetzirah 1:12. 818 See in Sack, B. (1995 a), p.52 and fn.104, and chapters 4-5.

163

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

not attained save through the revealed; and the greater their inward concealment the greater their outward revelation [...]”.819 But more lies behind this statement, for this regulatory construction also meant a dialectical circularity wherein implosive potentiality manifested as explosive actuality - in other words, the most outwardly apparent (radical actuality) intimately reflected the most inwardly concealed (radical concealment). To explain this idea one should momentarily relinquish the cloak simile and harness the Tree o f Life imagery often used in rabbinic and mystical discourse, and which pertains not only to the Torah but to cosmic reality as a whole: RaMaK's tree, much like its rendition in the Zohar and earlier mystical texts, was not only a tree whose seed was in heaven and branches were earth, “A cluster of bubbles attached to each other, growing exponentially in time”820 and in space. It was rather a circular tree which intimately coalesced potentiality and actuality; a tree whose “End is infused in its beginning and whose beginning is infused in its end”821 [1D1CQ inb’nm inb’nra 1310 flSH]. As we shall see in the last chapter, RaMaK did not endorse the Neoplatonic version of gradual emanation

(10 =

1+1+1...) but saw in the number 10 the actual manifestation of the metaphysical relations between the potentiality

0

and its sublime actuality

1 (10 =

1= 0).

Respectively,

emanation was not merely the gradual downward amplification of actualities over potentialities but rather a circular mechanism under which the most apparent (= the end) reflected its concealed cause (= the beginning) in the most loyal fashion. If we imagine a tree curved into a circle, we find that the seed of the fruit at the tip of the branch (= outward actuality) now reflects most loyally the seed of potentiality from whence the entire tree sprung forth: “And that is how they all connect, head in tail and tail in head” [CT13 fyicn fpon tt>tci n m ’p:r^ nan nn],822 “For the beginning of thought is simultaneously the end of the action” [n^y^n qto am mwnan nb’nn ’D].823

819 Sefer G erushin, entry 52, p.62. 820 Matt, D.C. (1996), p.25. 821 See e.g., M eir ibn Gabbai, A vodat ha-K odesh 4:9 and compare with RaMaK's P eru sh le-Sefer Y etzirah 2:10; 3:4. The same idea can be seen in the phrase n+nn mwnM HOTa rpo which also appeared in A lkabetz’ Lekhah Dodi: the end o f actuality associates in a circular fusion with the beginning o f potentiality. Alkabetz discussed such issues wherein the esoteric depth cannot be separated from the visible attire - see in Pachter, M. (1982), especially pp.60-62 and in Kimelman, R. (2003), pp.34-36 and 135-136. 822 P eru sh le-Sefer Y etzirah 1:6. 823 P ard es R im onim 11:5. 164

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

RaMaK would therefore explicate time and again that in this tree “The branch forever cleaves to its root [...], since the lower requires for its realization the potentiality of the higher, branch and seed joint together”824 [

pnnnn ’D ... unitta pm qiyn nbiybi

umwn ay fpstn Tin’tm imiyyp ro]. It was yet another splendid guideline in one’s aspired spiritual cartography, and RaMaK would therefore charge his fellowmen to celebrate this marvelous cloak and scrutinize each of its details with great ardor - for the greater the discerned resolution of its patterns, the more diverse its channels of epistemic and experiential edification toward unification of the Cause. RaMaK would tell men to leave neither a thread raveled nor a button closed; to inspect the cloak’s most minute subtleties and detect its most nuanced patters: “One must pursue the knowledge of hidden things with great punctiliousness, wondrous investigation and tremendous analysis, the opposite o f so-called kabbalists in our generation who say that one need not be exact in this wisdom”.825 Indeed, penetrating the cloak meant uncovering gradually greater patterns of lesser details - an apparatus which continues progressively till one sees beyond the actuated cloak and necessitates with great clarity the unified potentialities from whence it sprung forth. This level was the attainment of as close as possible a view of divinity’s greatness o f measure [nftlp ny>tp], the point beyond which the mystic had compelled the sum of his activities into compliance with their causal potentiality, one’s share in the divine flow and the alignment of the self in complete accord with divine regulation. At this point of solitary absorption and serenity, corporeal immobility and mental tranquility (m77'nnn), inquiry became irrelevant, corporeality was rendered futile and silence engrossed all words in a splendid affirmation of men’s partnership with God. RaMaK renders this process mm piVi and his views indeed suggest the term divine regulation as most adequate.

89 ft

This term was not only visible in Talmudic and midrashic

literature but exhorted considerable weight in earlier medieval writings such as Sefer haPeliah, Sefer ha-Kannah, Bahya ben Asher’s commentary on the Torah and Meir ibn Gabai’s celebrated Avodat ha-Kodesh. Divine regulation meant a mandatory law governing one’s approach to divinity and under which every tangible element in the universe is a potential key to unlock divine mysteries, “Since the concealed realities are 824 Perush le-Sefer Yetzirah 1:1. 825 Or Ne'erav 4:2. 826 See e.g., Pardes Rimonim 4:9; 6:8; 7:3; 8:6,14,20; 16:4; 20:8,10; 23:1,18; 25:3.

165

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

the soul of the revealed ones, wherein the latter could not exist save by the former”.827 The manner to monitor such a spiritual cartography and chart the path back to God is arguably one of RaMaK's most intriguing notions - the via negativa interplay o f hierarchies. Unpacking this apparatus requires that we first scan RaMaK's view of the cosmic distortion in the wake of the Edenic sin.

The Fall o f Man and God’s Regulatory Response: from 7th to l(fh; from Ladder to Helix - the Demotion o f Malkhut and the Hierarchical Dialectics o f [Alleged] Opposites RaMaK’s cosmology rendered the universe in its current state a cataclysmic deformation caused by Adam’s primordial sin in Eden. This point pivots certain elements in RaMaK's mystical piety and informs both his envisioned reversed trail back to Eden and the responsibility he wishes men to take in its realization. Notwithstanding notable occupations with this idea in Italy at the time,

it seems that the seeds of this worldview

and its practical ramifications were instilled in RaMaK by Solomon Alkabetz, since its core precepts already surface in RaMaK's Pardes Rimonim and Sefer Gerushin - both having been written while still mentored by this master. The cosmic distortion may be best described in two stages: first was the demotion of Sefirah Malkhut and second was a helix-shaped twist from the Malkhut downward to the lower realms. This distortion was viewed in mystical discourse as a divine regulation whose very impetus was God’s love for Israel and His aim to assist them in cosmic restoration.

R9Q

In Pardes Rimonim, Or Yaqar and Eilima Rabbati RaMaK disclosed the

first part of the theosophical agitation as pertaining to the demotion of the Malkhut from her primordial state as the 7th Sefirah to her current lessening or banishment [ / OllPtt tt>m]830 and degradation as the 10th Sefirah:

Perush le-Sefer Yetzirah 2:1. 828 S e e S c h o l e m , G . ( 1 9 7 6 ) , p p .1 9 1 - 2 1 6 ; T a m a r , D . ( 1 9 9 4 ) , p p . 1 8 0 - 1 8 5 ; H a c k e r , J . ( 1 9 7 0 ) . S p e c i a l n o t e o n th is is s u e s h o u ld b e g iv e n to I d e l, M . ( 1 9 8 0 b ) a n d J a c o b s o n , Y . ( 1 9 8 3 ). 829 S e e e .g ., Pardes Rimonim 3 :4 . 830 Pardes Rimonim 9 :5 a n d Or Yaqar

on

Zohar

1 :7 7 b , v o l .4 , p . 1 2 5 .

166

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

n"nn nnn rpy’nty n m a n nrrn m ’wyn nninn noab rmmty mip nnrn myban nanpn mm / mo’m mnm mnn b>x nrro nmn trnty iv id by nmpm nnbyan bv nmmi rrvm by 70 m ion by nrm n m by rraym nnyn by -iron ir rrn nzr’pn .'ssn nio 7icn 71D1by 7im Tin by mui nxa by rnybai m sbs by m ssm d-indd Prior to its agitation and relegation831 to the tenth rung, Malkhut was the seventh under Tiferet - so pristine and delicate that it surpassed Netzah, Hod and YesodP2 / In the primordial state the Keter preceded the Hokhmah [and respectively] Hokhmah to Binah, Binah to Hesed, Hesed to Gevurah, Gevurah to Tiferet, Tiferet to Malkhut, Malkhut to Netzah, Netzah to Hod, Hod to Yesod and Yesod was the end of emanation.833 This reality was deemed part and parcel of God’s responsive regulation in the wake of Adam’s sin, to which we shall return momentarily. In rabbinic, and later on in mystical literature, the role of the Shekhinah was viewed in two manners which ultimately yielded the same result, namely the henceforth role of the Shekhinah as the mandated mediator between upper and lower worlds: one view deemed a theosophical demotion from above (as aforementioned by RaMaK) whereas the other viewed ‘a leap’ of the Shekhinah from Eden to find its place as the last in the emanated realm.834 Both views espoused the dictum rrm pmy tm n n m m’DW{Shekhinah among the lower realms is a divine mandate / regulation / need / desire) and henceforth conferred upon the Shekhinah highly intimate correspondence with the nation of Israel below and the theosophical edifice above - the Shekhinah having been the closest to Israel, the most edifying conduit of God’s theosophical structure and the agent mandated to assist Israel in their reunion with divinity.835 From the Shekhinah downward RaMaK’s system yields a reality coiled as a helix. Although a pivotal element in his thought, RaMaK never describes it as such and our suggestion here relies primarily on analysis of his systematic response to such a construction. His view regarded a reality whose primal state [= Eden] featured a consistent influx of benevolence from God to Adam and Eve. At this pre-realized state all Perush le-Sefer Yetzirah 1 :1 . 832 Pardes Rimonim 6:7; cf: 9:5. 833 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l 3:11. 834 S e e e .g ., Pesiktah d ’Rav Kahana 1:1; Yalkut Shim ’oni o n G e n e s i s 3:27. 835 S e e e .g ., M idrash Rabba o n G e n e s i s 19:7; o n N u m b e r s 12:6 a n d 13:2; M idrash Tankhumah o n P a r a s h a t P e k u d e i 6; M e i r i b n G a b b a i , Avodat ha-Kodesh 1:16, 1:28, 3:30, 3:52; J o s e p h K a r o , Magid M eisharim o n P r o v e r b s , c h a p t e r 27. F o r R a M a K 's t r e a t m e n t s e e e .g ., Pardes Rimonim 6:8, 7:3, 8:6, 8:14, 8 :20 . 831 C o m p a r e w i t h

167

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

faculties adhered to the divine unified imperative of benevolence and assisted in its sustenance. In other words, ‘evil’ - as long as left untouched - had not yet unleashed the property of actualization (a.k.a ‘shell’) and remained a potentiality in service of an ontologically superior benevolence. Evil was therefore a meaningless term in its potential condition, unable to either obstruct the unified flow or to be erroneously perceived as opposing it in any manner. RaMaK's view continues the Zoharic notion about the positive role of the shell in its potential state,836 that which he calls “A shell incorporated within the sacred” [nttmpa

ns'Tpn]837 and which stands opposite to the post-Edenic

condition wherein it is the sacred which is now surrounded by the shell.

010

Sefer Gerushin

reiterates this idea and states clearly that evil in its potential state [= inclination] was a regulated conduit assisting in divinity’s harmonious utility: “Prior to the primal sin the inclination towards evil assisted in Holy unification [...] and a malevolent angel was compelled to answer ‘Amen’” nbnn ixhai [...] umpn THT”n btf

"i"nr rrn Nttnn m ip

p x im s bya n ry]. 839 In other words, at that primal stage of free-flowing potentiality, benevolence was serving its divine purpose and so was evil in its service. Divinity’s benevolence had once stood above any conceivable opponent and the inner flow of potentialities within Eden had not yet been disrupted. It was Adam’s primal sin which actuated the evil inclination and reified the illusionary dichotomies henceforth inflicting the human domain by way of spacetime curvature and the intellectual divisions in its wake. The sin caused the grave misrepresentation of spatiotemporal reality and led to Adam and Eve’s manifestation in human form - the aforementioned garments of skin (Tiy rmrD) which now superseded their original “Garments of freedom and light” [ tin rmrD / ttDin ’"ran].840 This transformative relegation was nonetheless informed by the dialectic divine governance according to which casting off light (= concealment of potentiality) meant simultaneously

836 S e e R a M a K 's t r e a t m e n t o f t h i s i s s u e i n

Sefer Gerushin,

e n try 7 3 , p p .9 1 -9 2 .

837 Pardes Rimonim 25:3. 838 S u r r o u n d e d b u t n o t i n f u s e d i n it! S e e

839 Sefer Gerushin,

Pardes Rimonim

17, p re fa c e to c h a p te r 2.

e n t r y 7 , p p . 9 - 1 0 a n d c o m p a r e w i t h e n t r y 7 3 , p p .9 1 - 9 2 .

840 B a s e d o n G e n e s i s 3 : 2 1 . I t is a n o t h e r v i s i b l e e l e m e n t i n m i d r a s h i c a n d m y s t i c a l l i t e r a tu r e : s e e , e .g .,

Midrash Rabbah o n G e n e s i s 2 0 : 1 2 ; Yalkut Shim ’oni o n G e n e s i s 3 : 3 4 ; Zohar 1 :3 6 b ; 2 : 2 2 9 b ; Hashmatot ha-Zohar 2 6 3 a ; Tikkunei ha-Zohar 1 0 b ; 9 2 b ; 1 3 9 b a n d o t h e r s . F o r R a M a K 's t r e a t m e n t , s e e e .g ., Pardes Rimonim 1 3 :3 , 1 6 :1 , 2 2 : 1 , 3 1 : 6 ; Sefer Gerushin, e n t r y 1 7 , p p . 1 8 - 1 9 a n d c o m p a r e w i t h Or Yaqar o n Tikkunei ha-Zohar 2 : 1 2 . O n t h e m y s t i c a l i m a g e r y o f t h e p r i m o r d i a l A d a m , s e e a l s o I d e l , M . ( 1 9 8 0 b ) .

168

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

nakedness and clothing: the word mo'^snn (hitpashtut),Ml for example, beautifully amplifies the dialectic maneuver wherein concealment of potentiality is revelation of actuality, as it means both ‘contraction vis-a-vis taking clothes o ff and ‘mental, corporeal or physical expansion'. Correspondingly, Adam’s sinful corporeality {actual skin) is also rendered ‘nakedness842 [from potentiality]’ and is yet another decisive element to acutely fuse the sum of human conditions with the regulatory dialectic properties of the cosmos entire: during the Edenic period “Adam was truly enclothed by the light of Shekhinah [= naked of corporeality], standing and awaiting the light of [Sefirah] Tiferet to illuminate within him, so he [in turn] may assist in unifying God blessed be He and the Shekhinah through his own light - whereas now [...] we are banished naked [O’miv CTtt’TUft] from the Edenic light and the light of Shekhinah” [= of potentiality].843 Hitpashtut was the mystics’ attempts to nullify corporeality [= actuality] by actualizing potentiality, a goal possible only through Torah and Mitzvot, “For without observing them [men] are left without means to dress [tt^ n rn nan an1? pN]”.844 The demotion into corporeality and the anguish of a profoundly perplexing reality were therefore for the Zoharic RaMaK parts of a cosmic ailment which nonetheless constituted a divine regulation: “Adam’s sin necessitated that his [corporeal] birth and [spatiotemporal] life are henceforth informed by sturdy shells” [ nvn’7 m sin Nun "IWND rmTVin].845 At this juncture divinity had mandated that the Shekhinah is

npm1?

demoted from 7th to 10th and that from this point downwards a twist in form of a helix shaped reality as a whole. This helix commanded that the actualized may not relate to its potentiality in a straightforward manner (as a ladder) but rather via negativa. RaMaK’s uses visible Zoharic terms such as ‘An overturned light’846 [pDnnon UN] rather than ‘A straightforward light’ [~il£” TIN] or ‘A limp’ [mr'py]847 to point both to a cosmic distortion

841 S e e , e .g .,

Shiur Qomah,

p p .5 -6 .

842 B a s e d o n G e n e s i s 3 :7 .

843 Or Yaqar, v o l . 2 , p .2 0 0 a . 844 Pardes Rimonim 3 1 : 6 a n d c o m p a r e w i t h Or Yaqar, v o l . 2 , p .2 1 2 b . 845 Sefer Gerushin, e n t r y 1 7 , p . 1 8 . O n t h e m o t i f o f H E T p n p n s n s ’P p s e e S a c k , B . 846 Sefer Gerushin, e n t r y 6 5 , p p . 7 9 - 8 0 a n d c o m p a r e w i t h h i s d e s i g n a t i o n p D n n a

(1 9 9 5 a), p p .8 3 -1 0 2 . nm n

[an upw ard se a l / a

reversed seal] i n e n t r y 9 8 , p . 1 3 4 . 847 S e e

Or Yaqar

on

Zohar,

v a - Y e s h a l a h 7 :1 1 a n d r e f e r t o t h e c h a p t e r

Sefer Gerushin f o r m o r e d e t a i l .

169

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

that no longer affords a clear distribution of effluence and judgment and to the remedial actions needed for its aid by men.848 The devastation of the Edenic banishment notwithstanding, the backbone of any mystical speculation nurtured the staunch belief that all was reversible! In other words, mystical speculation found in the distortion itself the blueprint for its own rectification; an ailment whose very symptoms had a profound remedial insignia - including the appearance of the Torah in language,849 men’s corporeal condition, the demotion of the Shekhinah and the helix configuration of the lower worlds in its wake. Given that divine unity cannot be breached in any form (= the divine imperative), the initial step was to refute any dualistic appreciation of evil vs. good on ontological, epistemic, structural and practical levels: to assure men that the term ‘opposite’ [to good] meant neither ‘of equal potency’ nor ‘of autonomous existence and motivation’. RaMaK's discussion of the evil potencies which ail the world renders them powerful adversaries yet emphasizes the deceptive quality of their realistic fafade, or as J. ben-Shlomo puts it “A property devoid of true ontic standing”.850 RaMaK presents duality as an evil property in and of itself, one which attempts to convince men that God’s benevolence is henceforth met by a self­ motivated antagonist of equal effectiveness: the adversarial chief “Is called Vx’ftlNn [.Teomi’el = twin of El],”

or i

whose name demonstrates the desire to be regarded as a

sovereign enemy of divinity. The monotheistic imperative, RaMaK clarifies in turn, necessitates that notwithstanding the immensity of malevolence at times, it is nonetheless ontologically inferior, theosophically secondary and practically subordinate to divinity’s benevolent momentum: “The Garden o f Eden points to Binah”852 whereas “all commentators agree that Gehenom (hell) originates in [the lower] Gevurah”.

RaMaK

continues to stress that as formidable as evil domains or agents may seem, they are in fact inferior to divinity and only appear to autonomously oppose it: “[...] And they stand in opposition to Holiness just as the ape resembles a man 848 S e e e .g .,

Pardes Rimonim 1 7 :2 ,3 a n d c o m p a r e w i t h Or Yaqar Sefer Gerushin f o r d e t a i l s .

Ofj

on

[...], whereas Teomi’el is a

Zohar

1 :2 1 b .

849 P l e a s e r e f e r t o t h e c h a p t e r

850 B e n - S h l o m o , J . ( 1 9 6 5 ) , p . 13.

851 Pardes Rimonim 25:4. 852 Pardes Rimonim 2 3 : 3 u n d e r

p.

853 I b i d , u n d e r t u r n 854 O n t h e u s e o f t h i s t e r m b y R a M a K s e e a l s o S a c k , B . ( 1 9 9 5 a ) , p . 1 2 1 a n d c h a p t e r 2 i n g e n e r a l ; S c h o l e m , G . ( 1 9 8 0 ) , p . 2 0 1 ; T is h b y , I. ( 1 9 4 9 ) , v o l . l , p .2 9 2 .

170

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

property [...] which puts itself as if it is God’s twin - much like ‘a slave who becomes king and a slave-girl who supplants her mistress’855”.856 Evil in all of its forms can therefore be subdued and reoriented toward theurgic repair once its deceptive mask had been studied, manipulated and nullified.857 It is this world which now plays an important part in RaMaK's conceptual climate and informs certain precepts of his cosmological speculation and piety. In order to reverse the twist en route to Malkhut and onward to Eden one needed to understand four points: 1. Given that the Godhead “Regulates all yet cannot be regulated by another whatsoever” ["ins mwb i n s irto n p an s ‘nn],858 the reversed restoration is embedded within the unfolding regulation of the distortion itself! This meant that at the core of this seemingly chaotic plurality resided the blueprint for its ultimate reversibility into harmonious unity. Good was still good and evil could be subdued into compliance in service of the good once the correct measures were taken. Thus the redemptive return to Eden could be achieved. 2. Realize that the unified divine imperative was not affected whatsoever by the cosmic distortion and that the Shekhinah had been demoted in order to assist men in turning back to Eden. In other words, the Shekhinah is now the primary pathway towards the higher rungs - a pivotal negotiator between men and God. Her relief therefore becomes both an end and a means to a higher end! 3. Acknowledge the twist that had occurred, appreciate its complexity and articulate its regulation based on the unified divine imperative at its core: to fathom the uncontested superiority of cause over its effect and to perceive any stage in the cosmic edifice as affected by its superior and as causing its inferior without interruption. 4. Clarify that the divine reversed regulation mandates the arousal of any particular element by its affected minion below, as “No downward flow from a Sefirah above can OCA

occur save by stimulation from the Sefirah beneath”.

Given that the divine imperative

rendered benevolence ontologically superior to malevolence, malevolent elements in the current cosmic helix pointed to their superior benevolence via negativa! This idea meant 855 Proverbs 30:22-23. 856 Pardes Rimonim 25:4. 857 On RaMaK's view o f Evil see also Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp.290-291; Sack, B. (1995 a), chapter 2. 858 Sefer Gerushin, entry 79, p .103. 859 Pardes Rimonim 7:1.

171

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

that no matter the distortion, the higher realms of divinity were not ontologically affected by the shells - “Let the student realize that the shells did not enter the emanated realm at all, counter to what certain kabbalists say nowadays”.860 Rather, it was world and men which became discordant, whereas men were now to manipulate both self and world to reverse this distortion back to harmonious utility. The astute student would now realize that insofar as addressing the benevolent properties, one needed to exercise the imitatio Dei principle and continue affecting benevolence throughout one’s life and in accord with the precepts already articulated in classical Judaism. Insofar as affecting the malevolent agents, however, the astute student would now remember the divine imperative “The evil inclination [used to] stand in service of the good” and exercise one’s life in concert: evil in all of its forms was an eternal blessing in temporary disguise and should not be ignored. One should arouse any benevolent potentiality above (good) via the conscious manipulation of its seemingly opposite actuality below (evil / shell).

Negative Actuality Arouses Potentiality [-a

=

p]

“We necessitate divine wondrous presence from within the material elements, whose value pales in comparison to their potentiality above”861: the aforementioned procedure resembles gears in a car or wheels operating a clock, wherein the manipulation of the inferior wheel counter clockwise (= actuality manipulated via negativa / -a) motivates the superior wheel to move clockwise (= potentiality is aroused toward its aspired trajectory / p); “When man judges their cause in this lowly world [= - a], he changes them via negativa [IDHtt] to mercy in the upper world [= p]”;862 “For there is no doubt that a man’s soul will cleave in the upper world according to his occupations in the lowly world. From man’s unworthy actions [= -a in confronting the helix] we can learn concerning the worthy action [lit. “It27^rr binDn - the straight action = p]”.863 It is therefore imperative for RaMaK to assure his audience of this regulatory procedure in order to prevent the dissuasion that might surface should one not see it in proper context:

860 P ard es R im onim 17, preface to chapter 2. 861 Eilim a R ab b ati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:3. 862 O r N e'erav 2:1. 863 Ibid, 4:1.

172

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

It is therefore utterly necessary [Tiaa man] that there will exist certain subjects in which no man can succeed unless he fails in them. [When] the Torah speaks of ‘the rebuke that disciplines’, it does not mean, God forbid, that God abandons that person or thrusts him down. On the contrary, the rebuke that disciplines tries him with ‘rebuke’ in this world because of his sins. Now following [this line of reasoning] you [might say] that it would be worthwhile for a man to distance himself from a science through which he will bring ‘rebuke’ upon himself. However, [in refutation] to this it states that, on the contrary, such a person truly merits [nan]*864 the path o f life}65 Similarly, it is contracting the corporeal, breaking through the tangible and exhausting the intellectual which now mandates the expansion of the spiritual, the restoration of the intangible and the explosion of the intuitive. The terms

fbban or

nb’Dun TO (tachlit / so f nefilah) may indeed refer here both to the positive teleological imperative behind the distortion as well as to its ultimately finite condition. RaMaK had adopted such terms from Alkabetz concerning issues of exile and redemption

Q f.fi

and

seems to have carried them further. Although RaMaK addresses this notion as well, he allows it greater leeway within the more immediate vicinities which inform one’s life, seeing in all malevolent amenities chief conduits to personal enlightenment, communal edification and cosmic repair: rrbi/n mban HTDin rpo867 may therefore be explained as a circular cosmic teleology wherein malevolence succumbs by its own finite property to the categorically superior benevolence - that eternal pulse which had informed the Edenic state and awaits mankind upon restoration of all wheels towards the aspired trajectory.868 Within such a construction only benevolence is ultimate whereas malevolence is penultimate at best, having been finite regardless its enormity at times - it had an end whose necessity was part and parcel of God’s theosophical compulsion [nb’MH T 0]! It is 864 The designation rDIT arguably referred to both purification [niDT - zakkut\ o f the mystic as a means to merit and receive awards [ITOT] from divinity. Please refer to the section Sefer Gerushin for more details. 865 O r N e'erav 1:5. 866 Or Yaqar on Tikkunei Ha-Zohar, v o l.l, p.24 (on Tikkunei Ha-Zohar [in Zohar Hadash], 94a). RaMaK mentions A lkabetz’ ideas regarding the positive necessity o f the exilic state within a greater theological scheme: see Or Yaqar on Zohar 1:63b. These ideas, as Sack has already mentioned, were developed from earlier treatments such as Bereshit Rabbah 44:24 and Zohar 283b. For more details see Sack, B. (1980), pp.270-271; ibid (1995 a), p.249 and fns.3,4. 867 Or Yaqar, v o l.l, on Tikkunei ha-Zohar, p. 158, [Zohar Hadash 99a]. 868 On the transformation o f evil see also Matt, D.C. (1996), chapter 9. On its application in the theosophy o f HaBaD Hasidism, see Elior, R. (1992).

173

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

therefore that all shells are tools which must be addressed, scrutinized, understood and disarmed en route to their eventual demise as obstructions to such a quest. RaMaK, in turn, charges that men - surely the mystical elite - actively seek and subdue malevolent agents below (small wheel turned counter clockwise = -a) as sure means to realign the desired cosmic trajectory and compel benevolent eruption from above (larger wheel turned clockwise = p). The regulation “-a arouses p” now informed various measures taken for the Edenic reversal which was aspired by RaMaK and his mystical entourage. Moreover, it arguably features the deeper impetus behind the exilic excursions taken between 1548 and 1551 and titled Sefer Gerushin. The more conversant one had become with this regulation, the superior one’s ability became to wield sacredness and exert its potency from evil agencies all around: “It is mandatory for the shell to dissolve the greater its proximity to the sacred”.

To demonstrate the divine dialectic property wherein “The immortal and

eternal seeks* to be known by its opposite”, as A. Green once put it,

R7f)

RaMaK now dots

his writings with a myriad of principals whose sole purpose is to illuminate the seemingly paradoxical pulse emanating from divinity and awaiting its rediscovery, appreciation and engagement by men. In such a manner men should accept their predicaments on earth as sure channels pointing toward deliverance on high and aim to emulate the righteous sages who received their lot as “Pangs of love” [mnx vnor’].871 Profound perils in this world only mandated an impending and everlasting peace,

877

whereas nearing corporeal death

by way of nullifying the ‘self became the most triumphant revitalization of God’s living potency. Lameness in one’s studies, work or conduct, could open the path to greater erudition873 just as physical filthiness should be properly engaged to arouse spiritual

869 Sefer Gerushin, entry 17, p. 19. 870 Green, A. (2003), p .63. * Based on the aforementioned discussion, I will add “Can be known only by its opposite”. Green’s understands the word i n s to mean ‘desire’, whereas ‘regulation’ is arguably a more subtle interpretation. 871 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 5:32,33 and compare with Tomer Devorah 5. For the Zoharic treatment o f this issue, see e.g., Zohar l:180a-181a and 3:217b-218a; cf; Tishby, I. (1949), vol.3, p p .1489-1496. 872 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 5:34. 873 See Or Yaqar on R a’ayah Meheimanah, introduction, note 3: “W hen a man sees that the shells harden [his study of] Halakhah, let him realize them for the shells that separate between him and his creator. And he must realize that his transgressions had caused such hardenings. So he should resume his strength, repent, engage him self in Mitzvot and Tzdakah, and continue with diligent study - whereupon he will become more enlightened, for by doing so he has destroyed the separating shells”. Cf: Sack, B. (1995 a), p .128.

174

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

purity.874 All colors pointed to their translucent cause just as diversity pointed to an awesome governing simplicity. Dearth, poverty and humility were thus motivating via negativa spiritual affluence, splendor an enormity - an important guideline to understand RaMaK's extreme autobiographical shorthand, as we have already seen. Corporeal manipulations in the lower Eden [= earth], such as ecstatic trembling in the attempt to symbolically shake-off one’s skin [m"i*n»nn] or the contraction into a fetal position all yielded in turn mental enlightenment [UN]875 and spiritual expansive tranquility approximating the one experienced above by primordial Adam, “Whose quietude was infinite” [m f^n n^un

n n w ].876

The same dialectic reversal appears in RaMaK's endorsement of wearing phylacteries and a prayer shawl as means to cast off one’s diseased corporeality and “Have light supersede the skin” en route to the aspired Edenic state.877 In Or Ne'erav RaMaK acknowledges the “Ancient pedagogical practice” according to which “students were to sit on the ground [stplp] while studying this wisdom, so they may be subdued and intimidated”878 - a noteworthy comment once one realizes that yp"lp (ground) also meant Shekhinah879 and that manipulating its counterpart below alongside retrenching one’s corporeal state had afforded the release of her potentiality above - her ability to stand upright, as it were. Likewise, walking barefoot in the fields ensured that the Shekhinah above would not experience bare feet, “We should on occasion walk barefoot in the mystery of the Shekhinah [as disclosed in the verse] ‘withhold thy feet from being unshod’880 [...].881 Restoring the Shekhinah into its proper cosmic abode necessitated tackling malevolent agents outside one’s abode (gerushin - banishments), “Since by

874 See e.g., Or Yaqar on R a’ayah Meheimanah, introduction, note 4. cf: Sack, B. (1995 a), pp. 128-130. 875 Please refer to the chapter Sefer Gerushin for more details. 876 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 5:1. On Redemption and the primordial Adam see also Jacobson, Y. (1983). 877 See Sefer Gerushin, entries 17, p p .19-20; 18, pp.20-22; 28-31, pp.30-33; 81, pp.74-75; 85, pp. 113-116 and 99, p.135. On RaMaK's view o f the Tzitzit as the Shekhinah and the theurgic potency o f this practice, see Pardes Rim onim 23:18; 31:6 and compare with Eilima Rabbati, Ein Adam 6:13, p.164b concerning the renewal o f Earth (Malkhut) and Heaven (T if’eret). On the midrashic origins o f the ‘light vs. skin’ motif, see Midrash Bereishit Rabba 20:12; Thilim 104:4 and refer to Kimelman, R. (2003), p p .137-145. 878 Or Ne'erav 3:2. 879 See Or Ne'erav 7:1 and compare with Pardes Rimonim 23:19. 880 Jeremiah 2:25. * L. Fine and R.J.Z. Werblowsky furnish different translations than mine. See Fine, L. (2003), p .60 and W erblowsky, R.J.Z. in Green, A. (ed., 1987), p .15. I maintain that the overall context o f Sefer Gerushin calls for a more subtle translation, namely reading the word unn in both the passive [hudash] and the active [hidesh]. 881 Entry 11, p.12.

175

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

889

clothing herself with shells the Shekhinah is able to subdue them [...]”.

•

•

Exilic

excursions and corporeal afflictions mandate spiritual “Ascent above exile and enslavement” [TQiwm ni'^n p nbJiB1? nf?i/7].883 Respectively, men should consciously engage in ascetic practices [= to break one’s body] in order to subdue the infected corporeal shell [ns,l7pn Nino7^ i 884 or 885tyija TU] and actuate its spiritual potency: One should also impose an ‘expulsion order’ upon himself, always banishing himself from the comforts of home, just as Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai and his comrades banished themselves to toil in Torah. Better still, he should weary his legs by trudging from place to place without horse or wagon. Concerning such a person, it is stated, ‘[...] his hope is with the Lord his God’. And [the Zohar] explicated its derivation from the word "Ott7 - ‘breaking’ - for he breaks his body for the honor of the Supreme One.888 qoz

"

8 S '7

This worldview seems to have incubated in RaMaK’s thought and piety during the mid to late 1540s, while still having enjoyed Solomon Alkabetz’ direct mentorship. But he carries it further than his teacher, given that Alkabetz’ works do not profess a deliberate treatment of this reversal motif.889 Perhaps more importantly, we find the development of this idea some quarter of a century before Isaac Luria had appeared in the Safedian scene. We should therefore afford greater weight to RaMaK's meditations on this subject, especially when considering its evolution whose radical expression took place during the 17th and 18th centuries. Indeed, the amplified configuration of such ideas is noticeably evident in the annals of such figures and movements as the renowned Natan of Gaza (c. 1643-1680), Sabbatai Zvi (1623-1676), Sabbatianism in the wake of Zvi’s conversion to Islam, and conspicuously during the 18th century among followers of the

882 Pardes Rimonim 23:8 and see his Sha 'ar A b i”a for more details. 883 Or Yaqar, vol.2, on Tikkunei ha-Zohar, p. 114. Cf: Sack, B. (1995 a), pp.263-265. On the dialectic movement o f theurgic potency, see Ginsburg, E.K. (1989), especially pp. 199-200. 884 See P ard es R im onim 23:1 and compare with E ilim a R ab b ati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:22 — □’"m n a n n a nsim ddu m a;n\ 885 Or Yaqar on Raaya Meheimana 1:18. 886 Psalms 146:5. 887 Zohar 2:198a. 888 Tomer Devorah, chapter 9; in Miller, M. (trans., 1993), p. 124, with some minor modifications. Compare with Sefer Gerushin, entries 11, p. 12 and 96, p. 130 889 See on this issue Sack, B. (1995 a), p p .115-120 and especially fn.35. Also, see Kimelman, R. (2003), p p .137-138.

176

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Sabbatianist eccentric Jacob Frank (1726-1791).890 This latter movement, for example, attempted to validate the calculated engagement of evil in its most extreme manifestations by erroneously ascribing to the Zohar the dialectically-sounding verse ’D Njpms lxxan tan xbliiio tw a xrDTn ttpm (“It is precisely in the most dreadful place that deliverance shall be found”).891 Natan of Gaza also endorsed such contentions and in fact purposely explicated derogatory words numerically associating with the names ‘Shabtai’ and ‘Zvi’892 (propagated by adversaries to Sabbatianism)893 as means to demonstrate Shabtai’s predestined fusion within evil or vile agents - nxix (excrement) = ’32 (Zvi), etc.894 Natan of Gaza was knows for his radical ascetic practices and strict leadership,895 whereas scholarship has acknowledged his endorsement of Shabtai Zvi’s nihilistic and destructive slant as mandated by the regulatory properties of his messianic character.896 RaMaK’s contributions to this important mechanism have not yet been appropriately acknowledged in scholarship and more research should lend itself to this fascinating element in his cosmological piety. Neither J. Ben-Shlomo nor B. Sack attend to (or identify) this significant regulation in his thought, whereas G. Scholem’s earlier work on Shabtai Zvi (1957) pays very little attention to RaMaK on this particular front. Scholem offers Sefer ha-Kanna, Sefer ha-Peliah, the Zohar, Tikkunei ha-Zohar and Lurianic Kabbalah as effecting the development of dialectic interplay of opposites in Sabbatianism during that era.897 Whereas Luria’s Kabbalah was undeniably dominating the 17th century Jewish mystical sphere, it seems that such configurations should bear in no small measure the earlier fingerprints of Cordoeirian Kabbalah. Although an identified element in RaMaK's writings, one should not hasten to declare such ideas as fortified within a cohesive structure in his speculation. The dialectical interplay of hierarchical ‘opposites’ and the remedial -a arouses p formula arguably fall OQO

under the esoteric shorthand nnSTCDn 710 [the secret to their subjugation]

and are neither

890 See Schole, G. (1974). 891 On this issue and the mistaken identity o f the Zoharic source see Scholem, G. (1974), p. 164 and fn.129; Liebes, Y. in Elior, R. (ed., 2001), p. 10 and fn.57. 892 See Scholem, G. (1974), p.242. 893 See Liebes, Y. ibid, p .l 1 and fn.58. 894 Ibid, fn.60. On Rabbi Natan o f Gaza, see also Elyakim, A. (1994 - Dissertation). 895 See Scholem, G. (1957), pp.373-374. 896 See Elyakim, A. (1994 - Dissertation), pp.25-80; Liebes, Y. ibid, pp.13-16. 897 Scholem, G. (1957), chapter 1. 898 See e.g., O r Y a q a r on R a’ayah Meheimana, introduction, note 4. cf: Sack, B. (1995 a), p .127-128.

177

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

articulated nor openly integrated within the systematic though of RaMaK's oeuvre. Moreover, RaMaK does not ostensibly address the question regarding the proper use of such remedial tools and does not necessarily discern between so-called straightforward acts (a arouses p) and reversed acts (-a arouses p). That in mind, it seems that the aforementioned divine imperative leads RaMaK to prescribe this formula primarily in cases that engage malevolent properties and aim to subdue them: the main idea here seems not to have been redefining classical mitzvot but to identify in evil amenities the potential for additional manners by which men, cosmos and divinity could reach harmonious utility. RaMaK obviously mentions classical mitzvot as mandated tools to subdue and disarm evil agents: “And when the Holy, blessed be He, wished to merit [mm1?]* Israel, He gave them ‘a lovely object’ [man ^D]899 - a single mitzvah by which this skin could be subdued - phylacteries”.900 It is the amplification of the divine presence in the mystic’s condition which now invested God in the all and in the always, thus cultivating an atmosphere well captured by Meir ibn Gabbai, whose influence on RaMaK was quite felt: “Realize and learn that all blessings [...] and all matters are entirely to point one back toward the right path” [mittm1? dVd].901 RaMaK realizes this cosmic teleology in such practices which aim to subdue malevolent agencies, and he does so by subtle maneuvers within the boundaries of halakhic discourse: in Pardes Rimonim and Or Yaqar, for example, RaMaK addresses the rabbinic prohibition to contemplate over Torah matters in a defiled area, a bathhouse or a bathroom.902 RaMaK's stand works hand in hand with the aforementioned - a arouses p formula, as it encourages men to not merely refrain from thoughts of holiness but rather actively tackle its opposite, that is their contemptible corporeal condition, as a means to further break the shells en route to greater holiness. The reader should be attentive here to RaMaK's subtle use of the words ro and Vyis (potentiality vs. actuality):

899 See Hosea 13:15; N ahum 2:10; 2 Chronicles 32:27. 900 Sefer Gerushin, entry 18, p .19. RaMaK's use o f the word tilDT1? (to merit) should also be read “To purify” [-p.T]. Here the dialectically opposing play o f purifying through wearing is evidently visible. 901 Avodat ha-Kodesh 5:9. 902 See Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 24b; ibid, Shabbat 40b. An interesting rendition is that found in Rabbi Joseph K aro’s M agid M eisharim on Parashat Tetzaveh and endorses the rabbinic approach. See also Rashi on Sanhedrin 66a.

178

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

’3 innizma i n s ’ vbv hd ,rpiran mpan 7iw w D3n vzbrh n o s nfrn [...] n’33 -nmnn ns n n min nu>y»3 totd witbsi .miox dip m ira nn^nan H3D sinn qaitsjan nau&n bsisn irtoiyrn ^ u n ioiitei irrfrsti/ m i m rrrr mpa sin nsirton mp»3 ’3 ?7X’3 sm ^m^nV s n n s ht Vni .nnsn ay pm ivnno [...] onyasn 710 pn ,nump aw psi ms^pn xddh

It is therefore that a sagacious student is forbidden from standing in a defiled area, so he may not cease from contemplating over matters of Torah - as it is prohibited to do so in such a place. And it had been explicated that the [positive] potentiality [n3] of contemplation in a bathroom is by thinking of one’s dilapidation and lesser state, and by fathoming through that vile and deplorable activity [71/ID] the great dishonor which now cleaves to men. Yet one should nonetheless cleave [to this act] - why? For although no holiness is found in a place which is defiled and governed by shells, the secret o f their subjugation [requires that one acts in such a manner]”.903 Within such a complex structure comes to light one of RaMaK's most ingenious traits - his view and manipulation of the Hebrew language, that which was nothing short of God’s Vernacular.

TltiN [Emet - Truth] is God’s D.N.A in Language: RaMaK and the Hermeneutics o f Hebrew The words of men are like shadows, and shadows can never explain the light; for between them and light stands that muted body which caused their birth. Juje Saramagu, The Gospel According to Jesus Christ

R. Elior once noted that Hebrew stands in traditional Jewish discourse as “The diffusion of the divine quintessence through language; the perceptible revelation of divinity within creation”.904 In mystical discourse this observation was indeed already a third step in the annals o f God’s Vernacular, one realized once the Torah was introduced to history at Sinai. The primordial Torah, on the other hand, accommodated the primordial status of Adam to whom it was handed in two stages, the meta-lingual and the pre-lingual. The former was the gift of untainted wisdom to a being who possessed an unspoiled soul; keys of Torah whose meta-lingual condition featured “Simple letters who act independently” and a divine mechanism bearing “Nothing in common with the 903 O r Y a q a r on R a’ayah Meheimana, introduction, note 4. cf: Sack, B. (1995 a), p p .127-128. 904 Elior, R. (1999), p.60.

179

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

tongues of the gentiles”.905 The latter was the composition of these sovereign letters into Holy names: “When the primordial Adam was in his holy form [= light instead of skin] God handed him the secrets of wisdom and the keys of Torah. Once Adam had occupied himself with it, God handed him the Tongue of the Holy [ttfnpn yittf1?] - a superior tongue bearing holy letters to be permanent in his mouth.”906 RaMaK continues to explain that the letter X [= 1] which initiates the word TIN (light) stands for Adam’s “Comprehension of the unified essence of the world entire” - an epistemic transparency which matched with God’s ethereal blueprint of the higher cosmos and a superior expressive domain capable to harness God’s Vernacular in its meta and pre-lingual forms. RaMaK’s apocalyptic scheme indeed aims to turn full circle and achieve that level of inexpressible knowledge - the unity of Torah and the deserving among the nation of Israel in the resurrection to come. It was Adam’s Sin which now replaced his original light form [tin nuro] and fashioned skin around him [Tis rmro]. Previously a being unified with divinity and “Whose body of light made the sun seem dark in comparison”,907 Adam’s qualitative demotion now birthed the quantitative promotion of spatiotemporality, dichotomy, materiality and diversity - all of which were seen as expanding and thickening shells. He who was hitherto basking in the unifying glow of light was now doomed to be dimmed by the stupefying cover o f skin-, unfolding as seventy [TV / V = 70] perplexing expansions which henceforth constituted his corporeal and mental states like “Seventy branches expanding outward”.908 The Torah, in turn, maintained its loyalty due to God’s grace, whereupon her superior cohesive quintessence was equally superseded by the demoting attire of language and the exegetical perplexities in its wake, ‘The seventy faces of

905 Pardes Rimonim 27:1,2. 906 Pardes Rimonim 22:1. Noteworthy in this context is Rabbi Isaac o f A cre’s testimony regarding the origins o f the Zohar. The fragmented piece, whose single extant copy is found in Rabbi Abraham Zaccuto’s Sefer Yuhasin, mentions among other things that “He [Rabbi Isaac] had been taught that one should believe whatever was written in Aramaic, for those were the words o f Rabbi Simeon, but as to what was written in Hebrew, they were not his words, but the words o f a forger; for the real book was written entirely in Aramaic” [lit., “In the Jerusalemite tongue”] - see in Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, p .13. RaMaK, as far as I know, makes no reference to this issue, and his adherence to the holiness o f Hebrew is unconditional. 907 Ibid. 908 Ibid.

180

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Torah’ - a relegation necessary to avail herself to the diminished qualities of men in their spatiotemporal theatres, dissecting intellects and divisive communications.909 Hebrew was therefore God’s exclusive tongue. The Mishnaic axiom “The world was created by ten pronouncements”910 and all its derivations transformed the vitality, validity and innovative thrust of Hebrew: it was the cosmic blueprint fashioned by divinity; an expressive quality whose impression surpassed the linguistically communicative and affected the nominally conceptual, the creative, the motivationally animate or the physical - a potency which still echoes through the English distorted abracadabra whose origin lies in the Aramaic X"Q7D tCQN [Abra ke-Dabra - creation by speech].911 RaMaK devotes considerable attention to the ‘secret of the ten pronouncements’ in Eilima Rabbati and charts an exhaustive scheme of associations between the theosophical dimensions and man’s expressive realms and communicative facilities.

Q1 9

The unified essence of God’s meta-lingual vernacular has obviously informed its seemingly diverse expressions within the lingual realm. The essential meta-lingual entity now featured as divinity’s revelatory medium and the covenantal tongue which debuted the Torah within history at Sinai. As such, the [Hebrew] Word complemented the covenantal act of circumcision under the same terminological canopy ifrtt n’“Q (brit milah), referring therefore both to a covenant by word and a covenant by circumcision as reciprocl contingents for epistemic edification and spiritual elevation. The associative value of these covenantal measures is shown in the biblical word nbiy (foreskin / impediment / thickening) which features in Moses’ self depiction as “A man of impeded speech”,913 in his charge to the Israelites “Cut away the thickening about your hearts”914 or in Jeremiah’s prophecy which reprimands certain gentile nations and the Israelites alike “For all these nations are uncircumcised but all the House of Israel are uncircumcised of heart”.915 The property of circumcision as a defense against predicaments is shown in the somewhat ambiguous biblical story regarding Moses’ son, wherein Tzipora cuts off her son’s foreskin and by doing so saves Moses from death at 909 See e.g., Z o h a r 1:47b; 3:20a; R aay a M eheim ana on Leviticus 20a. 910 M ishnah, Avot 5:1. 911 On this issue, see Trachtenberg, J. (1939, rev. ed. 2004), pp.80-83 and fn.7a. 912 Ein Shemesh 61 ff. 913 Exodus 6:12,30. 914 Deuteronomy 10:16. 915 Jeremiah 9:25.

181

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

the hand of a divine emissary.916 The Zohar also addresses this association in a few instances,917 one of which states, “Come and see. It is not said of Abraham before he was circumcised that he observed the Torah. [...] And because he was circumcised and the holy mark was marked in him, and he maintained it in the proper manner, [Scripture] regards him as if he had kept the whole Torah.”918 More striking, however, are in fact the two biblical instances which demonstrate the profound association between the physical and lingual covenants: Abraham and Jacob instructing their minions “Put your hand under my thigh” [near the circumcised area?] as a mandatory gesture preceding “A verbal oath”.919 Indeed, what E. R. Wolfson describes as “The correlation between two apparently unrelated phenomena ,920 circumcision and the ability to see the divine presence”921 may be more apparent once the unifying properties of the term "Tft n’-Q are seen via the lens discussed above. In RaMaK's time such properties seem to have particularly informed the lives of conversos whose circumcision had taken place during maturity and demonstrated their professed desire to rejoin the covenantal trajectory (one can speculate with relative plausibility that some such men - as the case discussed to follow demonstrates - insisted on either circumcising themselves on their own or remaining fully alert during the painful procedure as a token of repentance and ascetic devotion to divinity). One visible example of the unifying properties of

n’-Q is of course that of the 16th century eccentric Solomon Molcho

(1501-1532) - a figure whose mythical prophetic asceticism was most visible in RaMaK's spiritual world and who describes in his Hayat Kana a dream he had had while in the court of the Portuguese King alongside his mentor David ha-Reuveni: I had seen awesome and confounding sights in my dream, which caused me great alarm and whose description might require considerable time once [divine] permission is given to do so. And the essence of my visions was [the command] to be circumcised. And ever since that dream, I had pleaded with my master David to explicate it for me, yet he claimed to have no knowledge of its true meaning, for he was unworthy of such

916 Exodus 4:24-26. See also Wolfson, E.R. (1987), pp. 189-215. 917 See, e.g., Z o h a r 1:93a and 3:13b-14a; cf; Tishby, I. (1949), vol.3, pp.1176-1182. 918 Z o h ar 3:13b; cf: Tishby, ibid, p .1179. 919 Genesis 24:2-3; 47:29-31. See also Rashi on Genesis 24:2. 920 Italics by the author. 921 See Wolfson, E.R. (1987), pp. 189-190.

182

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

visions. [...] So I departed from him, and during the night I circumcised myself on my own, with no one by my side. And the Holy and Blessed One aided and cured me for His name, despite the great pain that eventually caused me to faint. For the blood was pouring like a fountain, and the [Holy and] merciful healed me in such a short time to defy belief. [...] And from the moment I was sealed by the seal of my Creator, some tremendous and awesome things were revealed to me, and great secrets; and I was edified in the esoteric wisdoms of the holy Kabbalah, and of remarkable permutations [emanating] from the Sefirot; and I was shown treasures of wisdom and my heart was enlightened with the Torah of our God”.922 This ordeal is reiterated in Rabbi Josef ha-Cohen’s Emek ha-Bacha, clarifying that Molcho had been granted divine illumination instantaneously in the wake of having been circumcised: “And as he was circumcised, God has given Solomon wisdom and he became wiser than all men

almost instantly -

and many marveled at this

occurrence”.924 Moreover, the association between circumcision and innovation may also be seen in the mystical meditative gesture wherein one’s head would be tucked between one’s knees in a fetal position combining absorption and serenity. P. Fenton has already discussed this technique in his essay Rosh bein ha-Birkayim925 and offers a few important explanations for its execution. Indeed, Solomon Molcho’s Hayat Kana continues to mention yet another fantastic dream in which he is met by an image of a man “Who had stood atop a mountain and whose legs grew taller until my head was placed between his knees [to"Q pu TOX“] nvn 737]” - whereupon Molcho is permitted to engage him in revelatory discourse.926 It is indeed plausible, given the association made earlier in Molcho’s book, that this meditative gesture symbolized an association between the circumcised area and ecstatic edification via language.927 The esoteric sympathy between these two covenants informed Sefer Yetzirah and features as RaMaK's opening chapter in Pardes Rimonim: explicating the third section in Sefer Yetzirah “[...] And a single covenant coordinates in the middle, as the word of the

922 H ay at K a n a (1989), pp.5-7. 923 S e e l Kings 5:9-11. 924 See E m ek ha-B acha (1895), p. 14. Cf: Rabbi Judah Edri, in Solomon M olcho’s Sefer ha-M efo’a r (1989), introduction. 925 Fenton, P. (1994 b), pp. 19-29. 926 H ay at K an a (1989), p.16. 927 1 return to this issue in the chapter Sefer Gerushin.

183

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

tongue and the circumcision of the skin / covenantal unification / intercourse” [ 7TP m m "ny?j m a m pttfbn m a o V'imti nmD»], RaMaK goes on to state “It is not written ‘tongue’ but ‘word of the tongue’, which refers to the voice and the speech that come forth from the tongue, that is, by the tongue” [ Tiwbn ’"s? b"~i diwbna tram mmm h>ipn xmB>]928 In Eilima Rabbati RaMaK states that “The secret offoreskin [n'Tny 710] pertains to hindrance and obstruction, as [Moses] said ‘and I am a man of impeded speech’ [...]”,929 whereas elsewhere he clarifies the unified existence of all covenants when discussing the Sefirah Yesod which is titled in Tikkunei ha-Zohar m m m o (covenant o f peace)930 “And is also known as the covenant of the mouth; the covenant of the lips; the covenant of the skin; 931

the covenant of the flesh and the covenant of circumcision - which are all one”.

RaMaK's discussion of the demotion of Torah is based on the Zohar and charts four stages. By way of the dialectic interplay which constitutes his configuration of the entire theosophical design and the mystical desired theurgic response in turn, the enclothed layers of the Torah were ipso facto the signposts toward her potential undressing and the revelation of her primordial (i.e., concealed) state: “[.. .]The first is known as the outward attire [m y m 1?] and corresponds with her configuration into tales to be understood by mortals such as ourselves [...]. The second is called the body [NDT] and corresponds with the deeper meanings behind her words and decrees [...]. The third is like a soul and an inwardness [riTDTSl nattTi] which correspond with her esoteric pleasantries [...]. The fourth is already the soul o f the soul [naim rimi] and allows the one who attains it to create worlds, as it corresponds with the spiritual potency of letters, their interrelations and permutations thereof’.932 The downgrading of the Torah and the profound appreciation of its covenantal allegiance through language stood therefore at the heart of mystical discourse and informed RaMaK's urgent call for its ultimate restoration toward pre-lingual and metalingual utility. Indeed, the manifestation of Hebrew at Sinai was a thunderous echo from Eden and a fantastically complex expression whose chief purpose was to point men back to the inexpressible source, that which lies beyond expression altogether. The revealed 928 Pardes Rimonim 1:1. 929 Eilima Rabbati, Ein Shemesh 6:14. 930 Tikkunei ha-Zohar 8:132. 931 Pardes Rimonim 23:2. 932 Pardes Rimonim 27:1.

184

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Torah was therefore a momentous motivation in the dialectic mechanism of divinity and served to commemorate the everlasting covenant between Israel and God - another decisive sign of the multifaceted supremacy of the Jewish condition in relation to divinity: whereas God has dispersed the nations throughout the world and has given them seventy different languages, “He has chosen us and afforded us the speech of a tongue which is Holy [...]; a language conceived by divinity and unlike any other conceived by men; a tongue conceived alongside God’s conception of the world and therefore preceding the world”. The perception of Hebrew as the alliance of God’s creative, revelatory and covenantal mediums has thus led Jewish mystical discourse in pursuit of its unifying mechanisms, i.e., the multifaceted associations which may regroup its expressive varieties and assist in the fuller appreciation of their sole Constitutor. Indeed, for a narrative in which Revelation deemed the Torah a constitution, the covenantal acts deemed the Jewish people constituents. Correspondingly, engaging the Torah in its creative thrust, revelatory expression and covenantal charge now informed the lives of such constituents who sought to expose its unifying underpinnings by untangling its crooked web of perplexities - the constituents’ use of the constitution en route to fathoming and reuniting with the Constitutor - Redemption. RaMaK's explication on Zohar 1:145b in Or Yaqar demonstrates the intrinsic value of Hebrew as a divinity cloaked by language - a property of infinite depth whose meticulous unveiling illuminates the eternal truth rather than its seemingly tangible and transitory expressions:

,i"n nm’Buu by mnnb mriyn by mb naxb nnnn xn xb ,'idi xm nxn ’b’n bDi tab iDob nnnn nxnty laxyy nxn pxw [...] ,immbx n o by ora mb mmnb xbx no ix i1 xbiy nmno xny? nb’o mbi / '’did unmty mx: xbx ,i"n crnpn imn m so p sy nnrnxo m i ,[...] no a’lbnn mui’byn mnxom nbon ’Dims moo ,OTinx noo mmomo m x xnoon nb»i nbn booi [...] mxm: mbiyo mbyis mow is io r [...] ttityp7 xm m x xbx nvroo •mso irxi nvnbm ‘All the words of the Torah [are Holy]’934 etc: the Torah does not communicate its matters to be taken tangibly, God forbid. Rather, it points by them to God’s inner secret; [...] it is [therefore] disagreeable to state that the Torah aims to disclose stories of the [spatiotemporal] past, God 933 Pardes Rimonim 25:1. Cf: chapter 27. 934 See also Zohar 1:163a and compare with Pardes Rimonim 6:3.

185

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

QT C

forbid, but to understand it as I have explicated. / [...] ‘even a tiny word in the Torah contains countless paths’9 6 through its permutations and the higher luminaries associated with it; [...] even the letters coalesce into names which perform mighty and awesome deeds; [...]; ‘in every single word lies wisdom’937 pertains to its syllables and derivations - not to be n i o QTQ taken as descriptive tales but rather as ‘Torah o f Truth’ . Hebrew was thus a living entity whose primordial creative medium was embedded within the lingual keys of its revelatory medium: the Torah now held for men the blueprint toward their reunion with their sole author in Eden - a regulated path whose dialectic rationale held the keys to decipher creation and rejoin the Creator. The seed in whom the D.N.A of Hebrew was entrusted was the principal word

D 73 X

(emet - truth)

whose depth of pre-lingual meanings had nurtured both the theosophical edifice and the expressive branches of the conventional language entire: nQX was an essential divine attribute940; “The chief word, Creator of all”941; a meta-word whose initiation by the first alphabetic X symbolized via numeric affinity the metaphysical unified essence of divinity. The unified inertia from divinity informed the three letters nax which now demonstrated the profound metaphysical governance over the entire theosophical edifice and informed the realms of emanation, creation and doing: the acronym (notarikon) of the biblical verse sealing the creation story {T\W'S~} nyfrx tan )942 yielded the word T\m and rendered it a quality governing divine unfolding “Since X is in Keter, » is in Binah and n is in M alkhuf’.943 This quality also informed the expressive quality embedded in God’s vernacular, given that n»X spanned the full gamut of the Hebrew alphabet (first X through the middle vicinity » and last n)944 and therefore represented a circumference of ultimate

935 O r Y a q a r on Z o h ar, Toldot 5:5. 936 Translation by Matt, D.C. (2004), vol.2, p.313 and see his references in fn.404. 937 Translation by Matt, D.C. ibid, p.314. 938 It will be interesting to explore whether some kabbalists associated the Aramaic Biwp (truth) and the Hebrew Olttfp (adorning), especially under the view o f language as “A cloak to the essence o f divinity”. RaMaK's acute attentiveness to language may indeed suggest such a connection when one considers his treatment o f words (e.g., Amen), their adorning features and unifying roles on high —see Sefer G erushin, entries 22, p.26 and 27, pp.29-30. Compare with Solomon Molcho, H ay at K a n a (1989), p .12 - Tita nnsn" "n»x n n tump DDnbmb Tun1?. 939 O r Y a q a r on Z o h ar, Toldot 5:8. 940 See e.g., Jeremiah 10:10 and 2 Chronicles 15:3. 941 See Shabbat M u sa f service - notf "ptn liwi. 942 Genesis 943 P ard es R im onim 27:2. 944 See P a rd e s R im onim 23:1 under “Emet”.

186

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

expression: a seed, as it were, in whom existed as potencies all letters, vowels, consonants, syllables, words or sentences in their infinite permutations thereof (an accurate conceptual translation into English will thus yield the awkward word a m z to mean ‘truth’). The philological dissection of n m also demonstrated divinity as the life source of all reality - a letter without which all was as dead [ntt X—e met (met = dead)]. The practical rendition of this view may be seen among such Medieval Jewish magicians who attempted to emulate creation by animating creatures made of either soil or clay (= golem). As J. Trachtenberg notes, one of many such fantastic techniques “Was the incision upon the forehead of the name of God, or the word emet, [whereas] the destruction of this creature was effected by removing that name, by erasing the initial letter of emet, leaving met (dead)”.945

nax was thus a word in whom existed the ontic, epistemic and expressive potencies of reality as a whole; a canopy of worlds and a bridge enabling one to traverse between them; a quality whose creative force was only complimented by its covenantal thrust and revelatory clout - galvanizing God’s eternal status and presence with that of His communication - “My Lord God, You are God and your words shall be Truth”.946 By philological inertia the roots of Hebrew words now established the founding-blocks of the entire lingual body and informed the arteries from whence its branches had nourished and blossomed into full expressive intricacy.947 Each root had the ability to traverse dimensions of meanings and bind together the physical and mental theatres by way of etymological associations, phonetic similarities etc. RaMaK’s writings are a herald of such creative linguistic manipulations and a fantastic web of philological ingenuity whose role in coalescing the physical and mental landscapes is quite visible: it appears in such words as nntPpnn (connecting / contracting / communicating / uniting) and m ’Wp (tying)', nTtt (measurement / attribute / virtue) and nTTO (mental assessment or spatiotemporal measurement)', rPtt-’lp (investigation) and Httpn (knocking)', niMX (mastery), p x (liturgical exclamation) and miaxi (loyalty / fidelity

945 Trachtenberg, J. (1939, rev. ed. 2004), pp.85-86. On this issue see also Idel, M. (1990 c). 946 2 Samuel 7:28; cf: 2 Samuel 22:16; 1 Kings 17:24. 947 See e.g., Zohar 1:145b and 163a.

187

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

); mnbn (lingering / tolerance) and nuriB {gift / reward);948 "HSW {estimation / evaluation), ■W {gate) and "ly’ty {hair); 73'^ {mind / intellect) and VlVDiy {complexity / enhanced epistemic transparency)949; fjU {body) and vacancy) and

{obstacle / disease);

{absence /

{abomination)950; nan {wheat) and xon {sin)951; OHp {a wooden board)

and ~Wp {a knot)952; My {bliss) and yM (infliction);953 or my {skin), mvn {intercourse / covenantal unification), myn (a mental note or awakening) and ms?3 {stimulating toward awareness or physical shaking). We shall address some of these configurations in the chapter devoed to RaMaK's Sefer Gerushin, a palpable demonstration of RaMaK's interactions with physical and mental landscapes en route to spiritual enlightenment and theurgic efficacy. A solid example of this mechanism is the affinities between water in the physical landscape and wisdom in its mental counterpart: the biblical narrative, wherein a nation’s existential fiber had been galvanized in the desert - "Q7ft {midbar), which phonetically associates with ~QTO {medaber - speaks / communicates) - makes many allusions to water and its derivations as symbolizing wisdom and the pursuit of insights - both having been rare commodities without which life and meaning could not have been sustained. Respectively, the physical quest for water in a barren land was associated with the mental search for wisdom in a world fraught with futility and stricken by ambiguity. As Midrash states, the Torah was given in the desert since “One cannot acquire wisdom of Torah unless one makes oneself like an ownerless desert”.954 Working for example from the platonic-sounding verse in Proverbs, “Wisdom in the heart of a man is like deep waters and a man of understanding shall draw it out”,955 one may now chart the myriad of Hebrew words which bind together the physical properties associating with water and the mental properties associating with wisdom. The following are a few examples of the

948 Although this particular combination does not appear in Sefer Gerushin, its use is evident in O r Ne'erav which most likely hints to the gerushin. See Or Ne'erav 3:3, i? lbjuvw nm on runan (on dkt naan law ip ’sn pm - the esoteric secrets were called run a. 949 See e.g., Shiur Qomah, p .61. 950 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 89, p .l 19. 951 See e.g., Pardes Rim onim 23:8. 952 See e.g., Pardes Rim onim 19:4. 953 See e.g., Pardes Rimonim 23:14. 954 ba-M idbar Rabba 1:7; cf: Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 54a. See also in Matt, D.C. (1996), p .l 12. 955 Proverbs 20:5. See also 18:4.

188

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

imposition of mental qualities on natural symbolism - a realm of discourse which profoundly informed RaMaK's world as well: a. The root nntt? (sth) means both a drink and a foundation: the ‘Rock of Foundation’ whence the Temples once stood is called rrnttP p x (’even ha-Shtiyah’) and was viewed in mystical traditions (among other meanings) as the portal of spatiotemporal reality; the heavenly Eden “From whence a river issued forth and divided to become four branches” (Genesis 2:10). b. The root 1X3 (b’r) means both a water well (b e’er) and to expound ("1X37 leva'cr): “On the other side of the Jordan, in the land of Moab, Moses undertook to expound [1X3] this Torah” (Deut.l:5). c. The root ttHD (prs) means to extract water (!£•’■ ’“lan1? - lehafris) and to extract meaning (Bnsb - lefares) or a water / land / textual / mental crossroad or deviation ( ntlHD

rums / unis / np"i7 nuns / d’b). d. The root py (‘yn) means both a water fountain (pya - ma ‘ayan) and an eye / to scrutinize (P’yb / py - ‘y in / le ‘ayen). e. The root “iru (nhr) means both a riverbed ("im - nahar) and mentally clear (Tm nahir). f. The root “XJ, (g’h) means both rising water (mxi - ge ’ut) and a person o f profound erudition, genius or scholastic authority (pxj - ga ’on). The tannaitic Rabbi Yohanan ben Horkanus was like “A water cistern that does not lose a drop of water”, whereas his study companion Rabbi Elazar ben Arach was rendered “An overflowing fountain” - all of which amalgamate the physical with the mental.956 God’s Vernacular was therefore viewed also as a circular tree whose seed nttX was planted deep in heaven as the quintessential compression o f expressive actuality in whom existed the infinite expansion o f expressive potentiality — the D.N.A. This seed nurtured the roots and set in motion the progressively evolving expressions which now nurtured to maturity the expansively realized branches, twigs, leaves and fruits — all elements which henceforth constituted spatiotemporal reality, intellectual distribution and expressive diversity on earth. In a manner which runs parallel to the entire unfolding apparatus of divinity and which RaMaK calls “Revelation is the cause of concealment”, 956 Mishnah, A vot 2:8.

189

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

one witnesses here too the paradoxical dialectics between quantitative progression and qualitative regression: the downward evolution of the tree draws a canvas of multicolored references for the probing mind and its expressive utilities on the one hand, yet by doing so draws one evermore farther from the truth. One cannot but think here of H. N. Bialik’s classic Gilui ve-Kissui ba-Lashon, wherein he states that “Language does not steer man towards the essence of things but rather veils them”.957 This is indeed one of the esoteric meanings allotted to the term EP’nn pV (tree o f life) and which RaMaK also develops from the Zohar.958 RaMaK's Eilima Rabbati and Pardes Rimonim clarify: The roots of the sefirot are in the Binah whereas its roots are further concealed in the Hokhmah, and [similarly] those in the Hokhmah are further concealed in the Binah within Keter whereas the roots of these roots are concealed in the Hokhmah within Keter. And these roots suckle through their own concealed roots which ascend from one realm to another, since every concealed existence is the source of a revealed one: the flow pours to the roots and through them reaches the branches; like a tree whose branches cannot nourish save through the moisture in its roots, ‘well-rooted like a robust native tree’959 and becoming ‘a fruit-bearing tree’960 [.. .]961 / and these branches have yet branches of their own which expand from them [...] as the branches of a tree whose leaves cover its twigs, whose twigs cover its branches and whose branches cover its trunk [...]. [...] And the creation of a man’s limbs is through the configurations of the holy alphabets which are nurtured by the higher potencies that are the roots that unify within the root-of-roots.962 The mystics now aimed to retrace the philological web informing the branches, twigs and leaves of God’s Vernacular through a multilayered investigation of their inner associations - “To cling to the overgrowth with our mouths and tongues”963 or “To decipher the two branches that stem from the root”.964 By so doing “The Torah shall purify gradually, peeling off its tangible attire [...] until seen in its truth at the

957 Bialik, H.N. (1941), p.191. 958 See e.g., Pardes Rimonim 23:16 and Or Yaqar on Tikkunei ha-Zohar 7:16. 959 Psalms 37:35. 960 Genesis 1:11-12. 961 Eilima Rabbati, Ein Ro ’i 3:15. Cf: Ein Shemesh 4:20. 962 Pardes Rimonim 22:2. 963 Or Yaqar on Tikkunei ha-Zohar 7:16. 964 Pardes Rimonim 27:2.

190

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

resurrection to come”.965 RaMaK's view of this process bestows profound responsibilities on the leading mystical cohort for it is they who now need to assume their part of the revelatory covenant and achieve the mastery of Hebrew necessary for stimulating its higher potencies toward epistemic transparency, intuitive communication and theurgic clout. Borrowing from the detailed imagery of the craftsmanship put into building the tabernacle under God’s conspicuously meticulous instructions, RaMaK now states “The prophets, peace be upon them, could attain through great solitary meditations and purity of soul the spiritual essence of letters and the precise order by which each rung should be unified with the other; and the loops which are either in opposite to one another or joined to one another;966 and [the ways by which] each would cleave to its kin.967 And by them the prophets could obtain the associations of all worlds, adding knowledge to knowledge and mastering their potencies and utilizations”.968 The mystics in RaMaK's world equally aspired to transcend through language in order to harness its pre-lingual qualities and ultimately achieve as close as possible a comprehension of its meta-lingual realm. As the Zohar’s disclosure of philological atomism en route to epistemic transparency - “I shall dismember each and every word, chasing it from the moment it was conceived [xnrn sava n i s t i "prQN n’pft nba]”969 RaMaK speaks of the gradual ascendance in his discussion of the three levels of Torah study (excluding teaching): the initial level X"lpa [mikra - written Torah] is deemed “A virtue/measure which is not truly a virtue/measure since it does not measure the letters of the concealed Torah [...] whereas Torah must be measured by the secrets imbued in its letters”. The second level, rutPB [mishnah - oral Torah], is superior for having existed “Independent of letters” [nvnix ra nrs] whereas the third level,

[talmud], already

features expressive innovations caused by the mystic’s ability to “Strike [letters] against each other, break their shells and soar beyond all measure”.970 Such levels pointed the mystic precisely to the meta-lingual domain of Hebrew, a realm wherein intuition could

965 Or Yaqar on Raaya Meheimana 1:18. 966 See Exodus 26:4-6. 967 See Job 41:9. 968 Pardes Rimonim 21:1. 969 Zohar 3:168a. 970 Eilima Rabbati, Ein Adam. 6:4.

191

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

no longer rely on the conventional atanomy of God’s vernacular - as profound as it may be:

xmw nsa ,rmm w itd nrf? nn1? Vn x1? nbyrrn x1? ^ nrram p^nn mm -mu 103D3 $!7v ana “ityx p^n piy-1?:) ^ y r n mwna a w n p y Vy nma rhv m p’yan Vmrp ^x nr1?! .itzna x1?^ nrmxn i x t ^vmxn [...] nxa1? *?Dia x1? mx’an ^x xa: ntyxai uns1? irnyna Indeed, those realms which utterly transcend us defy any form of understanding and explication, for they point to matters which are concealed from the mind; all the more so their parts which do not fall under letters and cannot be defined through letters. The reader should therefore not be alarmed once we aim to explicate [certain realms] yet find Q71 it impossible an attempt. This aspired level of intuitive transparency used any hermeneutical procedure to gain fruition; any measure necessary to unify letters en route to their nullification as lingual actualities in favor of the meta-lingual potentiality: striking letters against each other - be it conceptually or through more tangible mediums - was therefore another form of rp“Q

n’TQ {covenant by word): letter permutations or word associations were thus the task appointed to the enlightened mystic who wished to master the expressive thicket and decipher its concealed traffic - just as etymological empathies, phonetic affinities or audible similarities were clues afforded for his journey to rejuvenate the pre-lingual covenant embedded in the lingual form and orchestrate its effective potencies towards the corresponding theosophical structure.

077

RaMaK not only titles such associations m a

(brit milah) when pertaining to letter relations between the sefirot973 but also ascribes it when discussing the Tzadik and the effective potencies imbued in his profound relationship with divinity.974 Overall, RaMaK's system which professes noticeable hierarchies within the unfolding divine processes remains intact when discussing God’s Vernacular. Complimentary to R. Elior’s statement regarding Hebrew being “The diffusion of the divine quintessence through language”, RaMaK discloses the fundamental hierarchy embedded in that diffusion: explicating the verse “The mouth of 971 Ibid, Ein ha-Bedolah 1:17. 972 See Or Ne'erav 3:5. 973 See e.g., Pardes Rim onim 20:9. 974 See e.g., Pardes Rimonim 20:13.

192

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

the righteous conceives of wisdom and his tongue speaks the right judgment” [ p’TX-’D ttDtra "irnn

naDn mm],975 RaMaK now clarifies that whereas “The Hokhmah is

concealed, its imports are revealed through Binah [...], much like Malkhut which is a chamber for Tif’eret. And that is ‘his tongue’ Yesod, ‘speaks’ Malkhut, ‘right judgment’ T if’eret, since the effect of Yesod in Malkhut reveals the Tif’eret. Whereas ‘conceives of Wisdom’ pertains to reason, i.e., conceptual revelation [976,,n^nio ’I1?} NirTCL.'iTUn], T if’eret and Malkhut pertain to ‘speaks’, which is reveled speech” [“7U “1137].977 Likewise, Pardes Rimonim features the arrangement of letters in five groups according to their hierarchical associations both within divinity and within the human vocal properties: the sefirot Gedulah (= Hesed), Gevurah, Tif’eret, Netzah and Hod now correspond with letter combinations whose vocal potency resides respectively “In the throat, in the pallet, on the Q7R

tongue, on the teeth and on the lips”.

•

•

•

These issues receive their most impressive

attention in RaMaK's last composition Eilima Rabbati, wherein over twenty-five temarim (36, 44-68) aim to chart an exhaustive association between the details of man’s communicative organs and the Sefirot. Engaging the revealed language was therefore another element in RaMaK's “Revelation is the cause of concealment” and an obligatory act to arouse its deeper potencies. Here, as well, RaMaK clarifies that the corporeal manipulation of letters is as important a stage as their conceptual engagement in other instances: “Man contributes nothing save through occupation with the Torah, and no advantage comes save through uttering it[s words] with his lips which are the only way to actualize its potency”979 since “Contemplation [nm n] alone shall not suffice”.980 Correspondingly, letter combinations, etymological affinities, visual or phonetic similarities etc’ were all means to have Hebrew itself assist in crystallizing their path back toward its single origin - the constitution n»X whose constitutor is sealed in confirmatory silence: “All voices originate in Tif’eref’, RaMaK clarifies, “whereas there also exists an unheard voice in the Binah, whose association with Hokhmah renders this voice utterly unattainable. However, one may

975 Psalms 37:30. 976 Compare with Pardes Rim onim 14:1. 977 Sefer Gerushin, entry 52, pp.62-63 and compare with Pardes Rimonim 27:2. 978 Pardes Rimonim 27:27. 979 Shiur Qomah 4:1. 980 Or Yaqar on Hakdamat ha-Zohar 1:16.

193

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

981

attain this voice only through the potency of Binah as revealed in the lower sefirot”.

In

the spatiotemporal realm the effort to retrace the single truth above through its expressive thicket below was a formidable task in its own right; one that may be rendered the attempt not to lose the tree fo r the forests. The benefits were equally formidable and testified to the existential growth in the wake of such a labor of love: he whose communion with divinity has reached radical intimacy reaped the imperative quality embedded in God’s Vernacular and could have joined such prophetic predecessors on whom it was told “A Torah of truth shall be on his tongue and no iniquity found on his lips”.982 RaMaK therefore renders the Torah in accordance with the Zohar “A cloak to the essence of divinity”983 [mbxn

tinn1?] and professes an acute attentiveness to

etymologies, phonetic associations and bold letter or word permutations as a means to chart the appropriate spiritual traffic imbued in Hebrew and to set truth apart from false. In Pardes Rimonim he amplifies the holistic nature of God’s Vernacular and its aptitude to be engaged on multiple levels; “Many paths point to the spiritual essence of letters, even if [one] only write them - let alone when reading them or grasping their intent / directing them” [* p m :a pw 7D].984 Elsewhere, Pardes Rimonim and Or Ne'erav feature the striking image of one’s mouth as a word grinder [tw “im xai37 mama] and continue to charge one to “Grind the words of Torah till chaff is set aside from untainted flower, so lucid tongue may be distinguishable from ambiguity”.985 Likewise, Or Yaqar renders one’s mouth a stonecutter whose aim is to maliciously build through letters and words a proper altar for God; “To slice words by one’s prayer and teachings and to point to the proper division between each and every letter, so they may become ‘unhewn stones’986”.987 RaMaK's mystical vanguard had indeed held itself an elite cohort of cosmic masons who would not leave one stone unturned and would not allow the smallest chip escape its 981 See Pardes Rimonim 23:19 under Pp. 982 M al’akhi 2:6. 983 See e.g., Pardes Rimonim 27:1. 984 Pardes Rimonim 27:2. * P3TD can mean both “directing” or “intention”. 985 Pardes Rimonim 25:6 and compare with Or N e’erav 3:3. 986 See Deuteronomy 27:6 and Joshua 8:31. For his use o f such metaphors in the exegetical process, see e.g., Pardes Rim onim 2:4 and 2:5. 987 Or Yaqar on Tikkunei ha-Zohar 5:12.

194

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

scrutiny and be properly posted in the divine edifice. In a cosmic structure wherein “Letters are the stones quarried from Binah”,988 the raucous of breaking, striking, grinding or hammering was after all the indispensable path toward the finest levels of quietude, the optimal silence which was the most important currency in mystical discourse: to join those past luminaries who had managed “Through great solitary meditations and purity of soul”989 to nullify the visual, mute the expressive, invalidate the conceptual and open themselves as conduits affording theurgic restoration once shells had been breached, words had been bridged and truth had been reached. To gain a vision “Of essence and through proper illumination; not a vision shaped by imagery and form but one of proper clarification”;990 to attain the “The secret of ‘seeing eye to eye’991”992 and to become as the “Wise who stands in silence”993 in face of the divine “Who keeps silent in His love”.994 The classic “Utter silence befits Your Glory”995 is reiterated as RaMaK professes in Eilima Rabbati the role of bustling to achieve cathartic stillness: “Let the wise man hear996 and keep silent;997 let him learn of the concealed from that which is explicated”.998 The seemingly brilliant unfolding of Hebrew from pre-lingual to lingual mode had obviously had its weight in assuring RaMaK's cohort of its unified metaphysical imperative. The delineation from the true source, however, did not restrict itself to the highly sensible but was also celebrated via its nonsensical manifestations. The mystical phenomena was after all a perpetual veneration of that which ultimately surpassed the restricted condition of men and as such afforded great potency to words or letter permutations whose nonsensical property in fact added to their potential clout on high and created around them a mystifying aura and a lore of secrecy. At this point one relinquished the facilities of reason and relied most tellingly on belief, esoteric traditions 988 Pardes Rimonim 29:1. 989 Pardes Rimonim 21:1. 990 Sefer Gerushin, note 36, pp.39-40. 991 S e e I s a i a h 5 2 : 8 .

992 Eilima Rabbati, Ein Shemesh 2:28. 993 Proverbs 11:12. 994 Zephaniah 3:17. 995 Psalms 65:2. 996 See Proverbs 1:5. 997 See Amos 5:13. 998 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:7 and compare to Ein ha-Bedolah 1:15. RaMaK also mentions the theurgic acts o f repair as aiming “To mute the mouths o f the adversaries”. See Ein Ro ’i 4:17.

195

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

and oral transmissions whose abilities to obscure the original formulations are quite clear. As J. Trachtenberg noted in his Jewish Magic and Superstition'. The very nature of magic demands a strict adherence to the original form of the magical name or word, for its potency lies hidden within its syllables, within its very consonants and vowels - the slightest alteration may empty the word o f all its magic content. Inevitably, however, in the process of oral transmission of so secret a lore, and in its later literary transmission by all too fallible scribes, the word undergoes changes. In fact, since in time these words become unintelligible to the heirs of the tradition, often ignorant of their original sense and tongue, a process of mutilation sets in, which makes them altogether exotic and meaningless. [...] The particular logic of magic makes a virtue of [the tendency to intentionally obscure formulas]: the more barbaric the word the more potent it is likely to be [.. .].999 RaMaK devotes complete sections of Pardes Rimonim to words whose structure and meaning lies beyond any sensible formulation. Having been aware of the perplexity that might engulf the novices studying them, RaMaK states in the beginning of Sha ’ar Pirtei ha-Shemot that “He who studies these names shall find nonsensical syllables, or words unrestricted by guttural conventions [nbn nxxirn D’bzPia ’nba ,m33ia ’riba mrrn] and therefore inconceivable”1000 -

,Tnrnz?9m ,ii*nnw7i; dinpao ,TnnrpboN ,]nnrsnK

N’Oimn .X’onoiu ,ytaapn etc.1001 RaMaK goes on to explicate certain words but never affords any analysis of the esoteric combinations themselves. This realm of covenantal affinities between letters was now deemed beyond human comprehension and therefore necessitated that one ultimately accepts and practically mobilizes their theurgical potency. This realm also demonstrates RaMaK's incorporation of magic and magic making into his otherwise more abstract system. The intensified esoteric aura of such words correlated with the risks involved in their theurgic realizations and most likely informed RaMaK's reluctance to divulge much information regarding such incantations. The absence of such testimonies does not therefore mean that we should neglect or downplay their presence in his devotional ardor. In his Derishot ve-Hakirot be-Inyanei ha-Mal’akhim RaMaK

999 Trachtenberg, J. (1939, rev. ed. 1994), p.81. 1000 P ard es R im onim 20:1. 1001 Ibid 20, the entire chapter.

196

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

acknowledged the profound potency of heavenly agents, either benevolent or malevolent, and discusses openly, albeit succinctly, the possibility for angelic or demonic transubstantiation [7tz/n is ,isban is ,in mattnan nntz/in]. He continues to discuss exorcism [sinn ^ ’sna iir-an1? ’TD-.sin p^n nrxa nyi1? ,sm nriDira n rsa w w th x

iwt\ t i w w

annm]

and endorses it if done by proper men.1002 There is little doubt that RaMaK deemed himself such a master and most probably enacted such rites in the spiritually potent community o f Safed. Moreover, some of RaMaK's mystical endeavors, such as the gerushin (exilic banishments) to the Galilean vicinities, involved intense associations with spirits and had purposely sought evil potencies in order to subdue them en route to cosmic repair. Given that RaMaK speaks openly of the dangers taken by the Tzadikim in their war against awesome heavenly adversaries, we can surely assume how such risks were associated with these excursions as one’s voluntary entrance into evil’s den might have resulted in numerous calamities to one’s soul.1003 RaMaK is indeed a mystic whose appreciation of the theosophical assurances embedded in metaphysical speculation was profound. His compositions feature thought processes which not only acknowledge the perplexities amidst metaphysical and theosophical configurations but rigorously negotiates them in search of systemization and coherence. They are a splendid window to the theoretical and devotional markets from whence he could have nourished; a herald of studious stamina, pedagogic aptitudes and moral integrity. They leave a legacy of the highly subtle spatiotemporal constructions, spiritual cartography and landscape ideations which had informed RaMaK's eyes and those of his fellowmen; and they are undeniably an ingenious use of God’s Vernacular the Hebrew language.

1002 Not to be confused with dibbuk [= dybbuk] - a term unknown to 16th century mystics, although RaMaK refers to “A n evil transubstantiation” [in n 3 ’J7] in Shemu’ah be-Inyan ha-Gilgul, end o f note 6. Ibur c o u l d e i t h e r r e f e r t o t h e s u b s t a n t i a t i o n o f a n a n g e l i c e n t i t y o r a l l u d e t o t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f o n e ’s s o u l b y a n

evil spirit, or a demon. RaM aK refers to these elements directly (using the term Ibur), discusses the ‘demonic fam ily’ and further distinguishes between an angel, an evil spirit and a demon - see Derishot veHakirot be-Inyanei ha-M al'akhim 5:7 and in Shemu’ah be-Inyan ha-Gilgul, end o f note 6 - cf: Scholem, G. (1930), No. 37, MS. Hebr. 8° 117, pp.99-100. On this issue see also Mark, Z. (2003); N ig’al, D. (1980); Bilu, Y. (1983); ibid (1996); Patai, R. (1978); Chajes, J.H. in Fine, L. (ed., 2001); ibid (2003); Garb, J. (1997); Scholem, G. (1980), pp.331-332. On RaMaK's take on this issue, see Sack, B. (1995 a), pp. 17-23, 218-220, 264-266. 1003 On this issue, see Trachtenberg, J. (1939 / rev. ed. 2004), pp. 80-90.

197

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

At the same time, RaMaK's writing also present perplexing difficulties and unresolved tensions, fluctuating discourse and even blunt contradictions. These, however, should not always be viewed from the lens of modem analytical skepticism, for RaMaK’s writings suggest that he might not have deemed it necessary to reconcile all tensions surfacing in his doctrine. On the contrary, RaMaK regarded acute epistemic perplexities the ipso facto properties of divinity. This fact leads many a time his expressive inadequacies, wherein asymptotically ascending ambiguity, hesitance and contradictions serve him to reestablish the peak of human-divine discourse as apriori belief ( rm»N rra’an) rather than posteriori investigation (nmpnn i n ) - man’s optimal relation to a realm that is as “A locked door to the inquiries of the intellect, about which it is said ‘that which is beyond you do not quest and that which is covered from you do not seek out’1004 [ ]” i°°5 Ra]y[aK ’s works fumish ample such instances to render certain ambiguities and paradoxes the accentuation of the awe and mystery with which he wished divinity to be both speculated upon and experienced in the world. Such contradictory terms as Inert Function [7ms?

or non-Essential Essence [t2?8B mass?

mass?]1006 are not tmly

inherent to the metaphysical aspect of divinity [Godhead] but are perceived as such by the lower realms due to their inherent deficiencies as effected beings [ n^npan nsproa □Tsai], RaMaK obviously did not see himself as capable of disambiguating divinity but rather as a mystic who can expand the canvas of wonder in the lives of men and apply it to all strata of human affairs on earth. Correspondingly, his ingenuity may be regarded as the ability to span the fuller extent of the speculative arsenal leading to his day and the subtlety of his maneuvers between metaphysics and theosophy - attempting to reconcile his deep reverence to earlier mystical teachings without compromising his incumbency on rational theory when needed. Although his success in doing so is surely open to debate, RaMaK should nonetheless be hailed for this formidable undertaking.

1004 Babylonian, Hagigah 13a. Cf: Ben-Sirah in M idrash Rabba, Bereshit 8:2. 1005 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 3:4 and compare with Maimonides, Guide 1:32. 1006 Please refer to the last chapter for fuller treatment.

198

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Compositions Pardes Rimonim (Britan 07"© - Orchard of Pomegranates / Krakow 1586)1007

RaMaK's first book is Pardes Rimonim, a considerable undertaking which reached fruition on the 29th of Av 1548.1008 It is marked by erudition of the first rank and an impressive control o f a welter of primary and secondary sources. This vast manuscript aimed to systematically chart the thematic traffic of the mystical doctrines preceding RaMaK's time and have them methodically organized within comprehensive and attainable categories. The RaMaK shown through this work is not only a young man of genius but an enormously industrious scholar who devotes to each topic a solid summary of much that had been written by his predecessors yet without avoiding entry of his own views when deemed necessary. This composition is a tribute to RaMaK's impressive erudition and intellectual abilities, having been an important insignia of his multiple vocabularies and attempts to reconcile speculative and mythical discourse within a harmoniously solidified system. Pardes Rimonim already established Cordoeiro’s transformation of mystical speculation and opened the door for him to match Karo’s rank in Halakhah: S. Schechter, e.g., rendered Pardes Rimonim “The clearest and most rational exposition of the [KJabbalah in existence, distinguished by the same qualities of methodical thought and logical argument which distinguished Karo’s works in the department of things legal”.1009 So does I. Robison in his introduction to Or Ne'erav. “Cordovero thought to do nothing less than synthesize a systematic kabbalistic theology from the exegetical teachings of the Zohar just as Karo had attempted to create a clear methodology for the determination of Jewish law out of the myriad works and opinions of his predecessors”.1010 S. Schechter’s above portrayal may have overstressed the rational backbone permeating this work and in fact may serve better in depicting the published parts of RaMaK's latest composition, Eilima Rabbati. That in mind, Pardes Rimonim secured 1007 Koretz 1780, 1786; Lvov 1863 (the first to my knowledge which includes Pelah ha-Rimon and Assis Rimonim). 1008 See Benayahu, M. (1991), pp.214-215; cf: Sack, B. (1995 a), p.23 and fn.89. 1009 Schechter, S. (1908), p.240. 1010 Robinson, I. (1994), introduction, p.xxiv.

199

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

RaMaK's reputation in later generations as a profoundly meticulous kabbalist whose teachings in both abstract and mythical configurations made him as a momentous signpost in the evolution of kabbalistic doctrines. Whereas Pardes Rimonim demonstrates RaMaK's associations with medieval rational thought, it nonetheless makes quite visible his use of such configurations as a means to higher ends, namely the esoteric teachings of the Zohar and other mystical classics.1011 In his introduction to Pardes Rimonim RaMaK offers his rationale behind this composition, the reasons for its chosen title and the process leading to its fruition: urn ,nm pinnxi ■’"nunn "nbxn n so bo uob moiy ,’ti : obwb Tito -m o i [...] npx mmxi ,o’n~in d^ it d bnbnnai -pm ,bon wx-q oowoi tr obn -|bmo ■anb □tixi? nn ioi rrruy by m n n b i.[...] □iun-nn by -p-iyxi u jtiq o owx id io h nop ,07-id inybn nmx duob ,nbopn noon ,nxrn naonnw nunb ,[...] amon oino □biym nrn nbiyo no pynnb ,u/ o:j o’irab ’b rrnn nxrn nbuarw nvnb ,nuw ,ym:o nrnb ,o’non bw tt’m ,io yu/ynwnb ’nyo]^ dtid xim prmty bo no bobobi xon xbi 7nx xb ,nr 7m nr □iumin □,-inoo not .rpns [on] m o m vm ym on v w w .□’non 07iD a^o muon1 pb - pono o^bo xbx

[...] And as I came to pay my vow , I assembled before me all the books of the saintly Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai and have studied them. And [as] my heart was like one walking* on high seas and like one lying on top of the rigging,1013 confused and bewildered by the various derushim, I decided to take the scribal inkpad at my waist and organize them all. And in order to point to its content and classification I called it Pardes Rimonim - since this wisdom, the wisdom of Kabbalah, is called ‘Pardes’ as is known. Second, since by this treatise I [wish to] revive my soul, delight in this world and in the world thereafter and be sustained all my years - it is [like] an Orchard that I planted to get pleasure from and it is of Pomegranates, for its gates are its plantations and its pomegranates are its chapters. In them [I] arranged numerous new interpretations side-by-side - neither one nor two, but many - the reason we rendered its title ‘Pardes Rimonim’.

1011 See in Ben-Shlomo, J. (1962), pp. 185-196. I treat this issue in more detail in the second part o f this work. RaMaK's views regarding Kabbalah studies in Pardes Rimonim are m uch more emphasized in his Or Ne'erav - a justification o f and insistence upon the importance o f Kabbalah study, and an introduction to the methods explored with more depth in Pardes Rimonim. 1012 M ay also mean “Repay the good fortune bestowed upon me by divine grace”. 1013 See Proverbs 23:34: “Y ou will be like one lying in bed on high seas [...]”. * I am not clear as to why RaMaK opted to deviate from the original.

200

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Pardes Rimonim is an attempted synthesis of all major Jewish mystical concerns divided into thirty two gates1014 and wherein “RaMaK had spelled out particularly important ideas revolving around his concept of God, evil, the world, man and man’s service of the divine”.1015 J. Ben-Shlomo also clarified the thematic subdivisions of this composition: the first 19 gates deal with issues concerning Theosophy - the relationship between the EinSof and the first sefirah {Keter), the process of emanation and the sefirotic inner mechanism. Gates 20-23 function as a mystical dictionary whose aim is to elucidate the abstract meanings behind mythical linguistic symbolism. Gate 24 is devoted to the theosophical higher chambers, whereas gates 25-26 deal with forces of impurity and the Sitra Ahra (lonN N"ID0 - the mythical abode of evil).1016 Gates 27-30 deal with the mystical meaning of letters, vowels and consonants, whereas the last two gates - 31-32 present RaMaK's views of the soul and the theurgical potential of worship, known as Kavanah (nuTD).1017 It is B. Sack’s impressive work on RaMaK's Kabbalah which has demonstrated the need to view each of his works “In comparison to his other compositions”1018 as a means to achieve greater appreciation of RaMaK's overall system. B. Sack continues to make clear that such an approach unveils other important motifs that appear somewhat succinctly in Pardes Rimonim, such as “The Fire and Orbs simile, whose greater meaning is disclosed only once we read Or Yaqar and realize that it first aims to explicate the myth of Tzimtzum1019 and than the relation between the EinSof in His non-contingent essence and [the level of] His expanding essence within the elements that were created as an orb within an orb”. Sack than continues to furnish examples from Pardes Rimonim in relation to RaMaK's Eilima Rabbati, Shiur Qomah and Shemu ’a be-Inyan ha-Gilgul - all of which lead her to argue that a greater appreciation of Pardes Rimonim establishes

1014 Corresponding with the 32 paths o f wisdom [naon n n ’iu Q’riun □1w'?tt?]. See Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965) p. 10. The overall subdivisions mount to 278, whose numeric value equals the words □urns'? im "ITD from the verse in Psalms 112:9. See P ard es R im onim , end o f the Glossary and Notes. 1015 Sack, B. (1995 a), p.23. 1016 See, e.g., Z o h a r 1:14a. This concept is mentioned in the Z o h a r more than 250 times. 1017 Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), p. 10. Rabbi Menahem Azariah de Fano divided the work into two parts which distinguish the first 22 chapters from the rest by “Discussing issues concerning the emanation”. See his introduction to P elah ha-R im on. 1018 Sack, B. (1995 a), p.23.cf; p.24. 1019 m sas - Divine metaphysical Contraction as a means to allow ‘room ’ for the theosophical and earthly dimensions.

201

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

RaMaK's various texts as “Indispensably important”.1020 Indeed, one element that seems as visible as it is striking revolves around RaMaK's conceptual ripeness already while composing Pardes Rimonim. Although certain categorical variants appear once we compare this work with his latest composition (Eilima Rabbati), RaMaK's main backbone remains relatively intact and suggests a young man who is relatively secured in his mastery of rational abstracts and mythical renditions within mystical discourse. Despite its considerable visibility and circulation shortly after having been concluded,1021 RaMaK did not live to see Pardes Rimonim or any other of his compositions officially published. Notwithstanding the permission to publish the Zohar in 1558

1o ' j ' j

and the lack

of evidence to suggest the prohibition of esoteric publications in the Diaspora after that period,1023 RaMaK's Pardes Rimonim (much like all other compositions from that era in Safed1024) was banned from publication by the Safed scholarly leadership until 1575.1025 One of RaMaK's closest students, Elijah di Vidash, points to this fact in his introduction to Reshit Hokhmah (Venice 1579), whose composition ended on the 18th of Adar, 1575: di Vidash asks permission to have his work published, noting among other reasons the “Permission [that] had been granted to publish my master’s Pardes”.1026 Rabbi Abraham ben David Previntzaal [bxtH’m s] of Manitoba, whose comments are found in di Vidash’s Reshit Hokhmah, assists in our knowledge as well: I wonder why we have not yet been privileged to see in print Sefer haPardes of the sagacious Kabbalist, our revered master and teacher Rabbi Moses Cordoeiro, his righteous memory for the blessing - a [composition] whose virtue we all seek and despite the great efforts toward its printing and publication by the honorable Rabbi Moses ibn Gabbai, may the compassionate One protect and reward him. And I say [...] it is since our

1020 Sack, B. (1995 a), pp.23-24. 1021 See Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp. 10-11; cf; Benayahu, M. (1991), pp.191-192, 214-215; Koenig, N.T. (1996), pp. 17-20. 1022 Benayahu, M. (1991), pp.191-192. On this issue see also Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, p p .13-30. 1023 Rabbi M eir ibn G abbai’s works were published in that time: Tola’at Y a’akov (Kushta 1560), Derekh Emunah (Padua 1563) and M ar’ot Elohim (Venice 1568 = Avodat ha-Kodesh, published a decade later, Krakow 1578); cf: Benayahu, M. (1991), p .192. 1024 Benayahu mentions that no works from Safed are known to have been published prior to 1575. See ibid, p. 192. 1025 See Benayahu, M. (1991), pp.191-192. 1026 Reshit Hokhmah, introduction, 7b. Cf; Benayahu, M. (1991), p .192.

202

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

generation is not worthy of it, for the righteous are exceedingly scarce, whereas the world is measured by the majority.1027 There is indeed evidence to suggest that mystical compositions were not handed down freely in Safed even for copying, let alone for official promulgation purposes. The aforementioned letter by Rabbi Solomon of Moravia to Rabbi Israel of Kandia demonstrates how the wheels of scholarly politics in Safed had to be lubricated at times: “[...] In addition to the thousand sent to [RaMaK's] widow, [de Fano] has sent twenty more to [...] Rabbi Karo, twenty to [...] Rabbi Solomon and ten to [...] Rabbi Alsheikh, so they would intercede on his behalf and of the need to copy [Or Yaqar] to the Rabbi’s widow”. This excerpt obviously renders de Fano’s request earlier than 1575

1028

- the year

that marks Karo’s death and had also featured the official rabbinic consent to publish Safedian mystical manuscripts. It is therefore plausible that Rabbi Joseph Karo’s towering headship had played a chief role in prohibiting the publication of such manuscripts - a predisposition that seems to have changed in the years immediately following his death. Moreover, Joseph Karo’s death had been part of a chain whose perpetual bite out of Safed’s highest ranking scholarly cohort was nothing short of mystifying: RaMaK (1570), Israel di Curiel (c. after 1571), Isaac Luria (1572), Joseph Karo (1575), Solomon Elkabets (1576) and finally Moses di Trani (1580). Indeed, this fact alone renders the 1570’s a pivotal transition in the distribution of scholarly authority and scholarly leadership within Safed - one that could have fostered the need to propagate such teachings. The question regarding the first publication of Pardes Rimonim is still unresolved. The earliest extant copy (Krakow 1586)1029 raises serious difficulties insofar as explaining the 11 elapsing years since the 1575 permission to publish Kabbalah works had allegedly been granted in Safed. M. Benayahu - also puzzled by this fact - cites two earlier publications that were mentioned: Rabbi Shabtai Bass’ [03] disclosure of a

1027 See Jerusalemite Talmud, T a’anit 15a. 1028 This point was observed by Rabbi Hayim Joseph David Azulai in Shem ha-Gedolim: see under “Or Yaqar”, pp.212-213:57 - “[...] And it seems that the money was sent towards the end o f M aran K aro’s days”. 1029 Z. Gries mentions Krakow 1592 as the first publication. I have not found any evidence to support this claim; see Gries, Z. (1994), p.206. For the evolution o f Pardes Rimonim, see Benayahu, M. (1991), pp.191-192, 214-215.

203

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Salonika 1552 publication [?7"tt?n] in his Siftei Yeshenim (Amsterdam 1680), and the bibliographer P. Perreau claim in 1880 to having seen a Venice 1586 publication in the Parma library.1030 No trace of these manuscripts has been found to date. If Gedaliah Cordoeiro had undertaken to publish Pardes Rimonim in Venice during 1586, we have no evidence of such an enterprise. However, given the visible circulation of Pardes Rimonim in the wake of its conclusion,1031 certain testimonies may affirm de Fano’s comments in Pelah ha-Rimon regarding “Numerous copies [of Pardes Rimonim] that have been spreading [...] across the ocean [...] and not devoid of mistakes.” There should be little doubt that de Fano himself had such an early copy, given that his copy of RaMaK's Or Yaqar had already concluded in 1582 and that its study relied on certain parts from Pardes Rimonim. Any attempt to attribute this reality to the growing prominence of Lurianic Kabbalah is also partial at best: as already demonstrated, the relationship between Cordoeirian and Lurianic doctrines in the wake of both masters’ death had been too complex to allow a partisan dismissal of RaMaK's works throughout the Jewish theatre. Moreover, Luria’s impact had not diminished during the 1580’s, where one finds some of RaMaK's works published for the first time in Italy. One can indeed assess the impact and visibility of Pardes Rimonim in Italy via testimonials of such men as Menahem Azariah de Fano, Mordechai Dato or Joseph ibn Tabbul.

10 9 9

Additional support is the 1587 Venice

publication of RaMaK's Or N e’erav, whose direct association with Pardes Rimonim suggests visible accessibility to the latter by that time. Be that as it may, one can enumerate some nine extant copies of this important work1033 and further learn of its noteworthy impact on the study of Kabbalah by quite a few abridged versions that appeared in its wake.1034 In addition to RaMaK's own composition Or Ne'erav, whose purpose was a preparatory study of the ideas explored at greater length and depth in

1030 Perreau, P. (1880), Catalogo dei Codici Ebraici della Biblioteca di Parma, MS # 83, p .181. Cf: Benayahu, M. (1991), p.214 and fn.6. 1031 M. Benayahu enumerates a few extant copies that were made as early as 1561. See ibid (1991), p.215. 1032 On de Fano’s and D ata’s testimonies, see Tishby, I. (1993), p p .121, 141 and fa.56, and p .153. 1033 In Benayahu, M. (1991), pp.214-215. On the manuscript from the M. Benayahu Collection, see Benayahu, M. (1984), pp.795-798. 1034 For a fall list, see Benayahu, M. ibid, pp.215-221.

204

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Pardes Rimonim ,1035 the most substantial abridgements are those made by his students: Rabbi Samuel Gallico’s Ass is Rimonim, published with annotations of Rabbi Mordechai Dato (Venice 1605), and another version of this book with comments by Rabbi Azariah de Fano (Manitoba 1623). Rabbi Azariah de Fano created yet one additional version of this abridgement and titled it Yeiyn ha-Roke ’ah,1036 The second important abridgment is Rabbi Azariah de Fano’s Pelah ha-Rimon (Venice 1600).1037 Other abridgments, less visible, never published or no longer extant feature a short composition by Rabbi Azariah de Fano’s student, Rabbi Aharon Brachia of Modena,1038 another book named Nahalat Ya’akov by the Venetian sage Rabbi Jacob ben Klonymus (written sometime before 1620)1039 and a short glossary for Pardes Rimonim by another Azariah de Fano student, Rabbi Samuel Elisha.1040 Rabbi Samuel ben rabbi Judah Leib mentions in his Taalumot Hokhmah that his master Rabbi Israel of Kalandia had produced short summaries of the esoteric wisdom [710“ noon] “To his students’ request”, including “An abridged version of the Pardes”.1041 This book as of yet has not been found. Additional is an interesting abridgment whose author remains anonymous - Henetzu ha-Rimonim. The author commenced his work on a Monday, the 6th of [...], 1603/4, which seems to have marked his 24th birthday, and concluded it on the 7th day of Shevat 1605.1042 We also know of abridgments made in North Africa: Rabbi Moses ibn Tzur discloses in his Tziltzelei Shama the intent to compose “An abbreviated version to the Pardes”,1043 and continues later (in the introduction to Shir la-Yedidot) to affirm its completion. This work, alas, seems to have been since lost.1044 1035 See in Gedaliah Cordovero’s colophon to Or Ne'erav. Cf: Rabbi Menahem Azariah de Fano, introduction to Pelah ha-Rimon: Q’Dni p’r ’P T p’ nto un ’"s 13D OD73W [DTisP] riw rrnxpn mmpnn n m p “As he had done in his introductory work [to the Pardes], already published by his son who is as a brother to me, young and wise”. 1036 See Benayahu, M. ibid, p.215. 1037 On this and other manuscripts by Rabbi Azariah de Fano, see Avivi, J. (1989), pp.347-376. 1038 M entioned in his introduction to M inhat ha-Kodesh (1629) and exists as manuscript in the British Library 833 (2a-l 10b). See Tishby, I. (1993), p .16, fii.l. Cf: Benayahu, M. ibid, p.216. i°39 -pkis WOrk seems to have never been published. For a detailed description o f the available manuscripts, see Hallamish, M. (1988 b), pp. 181-183. Cf: Benayahu, M. ibid, p.216. 1040 In form o f manuscript which was composed sometime prior to 1610. See JTS, * Rab. 1435 (105a136a). M. Benayahu describes the photocopy in his possession - (1991), p.216. 1041 Taalumot Hokhmah (Basel 1639), p.2b. 1042 The original manuscript is Oxford 359 / 17278 (pp.91-175). M. Benayahu furnishes a solid description in ibid, pp.216-221. 1043 Tziltzelei Shama (1712), p.48b. 1044 Cf: Hallamish, M. (2001), ha-Kabbalah bi-Tzfon Africa, p. 105 and fns.509-510.

205

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Or Yaqar

TIN—A Precious Light - first copy 1582 / modern publication Jerusalem 1962-2004)

RaMaK's Or Yaqar is a monumental undertaking in any standard, a magnum opus which offers his interpretation to the Torah, the book of Yetzirah and the Zoharic literature in its entirety. Its mere size and thematic vastness had led to the independent publication of a few of its components, which feature separate titles and prove to be impressive compositions in their own right.1045 As B. Sack mentions, “Or Yaqar is a composition of fundamental importance for the study of Zoharic Kabbalah and the Kabbalah of RaMaK - a work without which any study of Kabbalah cannot reach fruition”.1046 As is a possibility in regard to Tomer Devorah and Or Ne'erav (discussed later), RaMaK may have inconspicuously inserted his own name into the title

"ip 1 TIN,

given that its numeric value equals TiNlTp (= 517). Be that as it may, unlike Pardes Rimonim whose structure is thematic and systematic, Or Yaqar is a meticulous exegetical enterprise of the Zoharic texts, following line by line the teachings of the seminal mystic and tannaitic luminary Simeon bar Yohai and his cohort. It is undeniably a commanding composition which establishes RaMaK at the peak of pre-Modem mystical scholarship. B. Sack has done admirable job on this work, whereas both she and M. Benayahu furnish a solid depiction of its evolution after having been concluded.1047 Or Yaqar undoubtedly presents the profound and unyielding mystical slant of RaMaK, a man who acknowledged the deeply esoteric quality of divine wisdom and who saw in the elite among his contemporaries the embodiment of a unique connection and communication with the Tanaaic saints who had inducted the Zohar into history.1048

1045 1) Shiur Qomah on the Idrot, the Matnitin, Sifra de-Tzeniuta and Book o f Yetzirah - see e.g., Or Yaqar, vol. 14, p.224. 2) Simhat ha-Katzir on Raaya Meheimana - see in Or Yaqar, Paris M anuscript on Raaya Meheimana [Heb. 789] in the beginning. 3) Tefilah le-M oshe on Liturgy - see e.g., Or Yaqar, vol.9, p.41. Cf: Sack, B. (1995 a), p. 113; ibid (2 0 0 0 ), p .59.

4) Perush la-Zohar al Shir ha-Shirim, which also includes RaMaK's Derishot ve-Hakirot be-Inyanei ha-M al'ak him - see Scholem, G. (1930), No. 36, pp.94-99. 1046 Sack, B. (1995 a), p.25. 1047 Sack, B. (1995 a), pp.25-27. Also see her references to S. Yonah’s description o f the M odena Or Yaqar M anuscript, which featured the blueprint for the published version in Jerusalem (starting 1962): Yonah, S. (1879), pp.142-145; cf: Sack, B. ibid, p.25, fn. 99; Benayahu, M. (1991), pp.221-225. 1048 This impression is only accentuated once we look at his more practical works, Tomer Devorah, Or Ne'erav and Sefer Gerushin.

206

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

RaMaK's introduction to Or Yaqar is a creative prosaic formulation that states the revered mood permeating this work: xnto p x s -ina y’sm "pytra nm *xn ’3 ’3ns ’jsbta] pxn bam D’Bwn inaiy’ lay1? *ny pu n duo ib i r a cm pi rrnn n to n^i .p x n is visa on ,vip mama ,mn craw [i]noa rrn ias3i ia^ ’y n ’b'i via’1? 'n no nnoa vd -urn maty n s pna p n naby: nasn n m .m m 'n ibnn ns ns mtob tab ansan D’yuxb inb’xi ’sm’ -a pya^ 'a n n ’nbitn ,nn pwnp rnbx rm i m m s own myn ay ,i’jry i o:mi pby nmn 'n t i .may] nasn nm nbn robin maioa naann nnn aa?aiTaa n"y mnm aso aam .anaa it naan mbyb lmunm inb’sn mun i m n’»u/b nby’i i’3na Hiay hdd[d] m ana maas vmaas ,bibm maa an it pso ’bm ,amtn aso sapn - 'td ana iwsa' .pom minty nyn’ p n m o i nain ’aya vsm ’iba aaa pas'? b’byn .[...] mnbyj nobn bty mbn ’bn ,'d’bnbn' - am n n so ~ixty 'mnmpV - mnp’nn Let the heavens rejoice and the earth exalt1049 at the presence of the Lord, for He is coming1 50* and He shone upon His people from Seir, appeared from Mount Paran1051 and approached from Rivevot Kodesh;1052 silent before Him is the entire earth.1053 His brilliance is as a light that gives off rays from His hand, where His strength* is enveloped,1054 the Lord has granted strength* to His people,1055 His mouth opens and speaks through concealment. The counsel of the Lord is for those who fear Him1056 and who know His name,1057 His seat of reign* is established1058 [and] His majesty covers* the skies,1059 to be revealed [only] to the humble ones worthy of approaching and gazing at the face of the King, the Lord of Hosts. And the truth was hidden for a time without end, until the Lord had awakened a man whose God’s holy fortitude in him,1060 the saintly master Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai, may peace be upon him. And in his time the esoteric wisdom became perpetually depleted and the truth had vanquished. And the hand of the Lord came upon him and he summoned his resilience,1061 raised his plea and his praying cry to the heavens1062 and 1049 Psalms 96:11; 1 Chronicles 16:31. 1050 Psalms 96:13; 1 Chronicles 16:33. [*] RaMaK joins two verses by the word S3 which marks both the end o f Psalms 96:13 and the beginning o f Deuteronomy 33:2 [below], 1051 See also in Habakkuk 3:3. 1052 Deuteronomy 33:2. 1053 Habakkuk 2:20. 1054 Habakkuk 3:4. 1055 See Psalms 29:11. [*] RaM aK joins here the ending from Habakkuk 3:4 [ITS] with the beginning o f the verse from Psalms 29:11 [ns], 1056 Psalms 25:14. 1057 See Psalms 9:11. 1058 See 1 Chronicles 17:10-27. 1059 Habakkuk 3:3. [*] RaM aK joins here the idea o f the divine seat appointed to the M essiah in Chronicles 17:10-27 [NOS] and the word .TOO from Habakkuk 3:3 which can mean both ‘seat’ and ‘cover’. 1060 See Genesis 41:38; Deuteronomy 27:18; Isaiah 11:2. 1061 1 Kings 18:46. 1062 See Job 20:6.

207

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

was [thus] allowed to put this wisdom in writing. And he composed a book sealed by the name Zohar, which is undeniably a high and steep mountain,1063 whose words are pure words, [as] silver purged in an earthen crucible1064 and through which are revealed and explicated the hidden meanings of the Torah - knowledge of His divine names, may He be blessed. ‘His head is finest gold’ [means] the Tikkunim, whereas the remaining books of the Zohar [are] ‘curled locks’1065 - heaps upon heaps1066 of hidden instructions [.. .].1067 Having been RaMaK's first concluded work, Pardes Rimonim nevertheless demonstrates a layout whose progressive maturity not only ran parallel to certain components of Or Yaqar but indeed had Or Yaqar in continuous view throughout its realization. Whereas both J. ben-Shlomo and B. Sack mention this fact in brief, RaMaK makes quite a few references there to this vast oeuvre1068 - an observation also pointed out in Rabbi Azariah de Fano’s introduction to Pelah ha-Rimon. Although most references in Pardes Rimonim show RaMaK's intent to confront many issues at length in Or Yaqar, some indications clearly prove that he had already written certain sections of Or Yaqar while and perhaps even prior to composing Pardes Rimonim: RaMaK not only mentions Or Yaqar as early as the second chapter of Pardes Rimonim1069 but also points in numerous instances to exact volumes and chapters or hints that some extensive work had already been completed on these subjects in Or Yaqar: “And the secret of ‘soul to soul’ shall be clarified in Or Yaqar part one, where I have already explicated this matter at length in accordance with the Zohar”;1010 “And the

1063 A word game: "imr is broken in two - IT = it is / in = a mountain. 1064 Psalms 12:7. 1065 Song o f Songs 5:11. On RaMaK's use o f this term as the highest form o f the theurgic potency, known as “Curling the hair o f the King” (to'7m p u w 71070) see Eilima Rabbati, Ein Adam 6 [Mic. 2147, Jewish Theological Seminary], p.165a. B. Sack has published this part in ibid (1995 b), p p .171-188. See also in Liebes, Y. (1982), p. 189. 1066 Based on the Talmudic story o f Moses and Rabbi Akiva (Babylonian, Menahot 29b). This is another word game: □’bnbn [curls] is broken in two - ’Vn = heaps / D’bn = [upon] heaps. 1067 G. Scholem refers to RaMaK's use o f this narrative in his discussion o f Suliman ben Avraham ‘n M ajjirah’s Sefer ha-Gevul (Fez 1559), MS Hebr. 4° 80, pp.l5a-73b. See Scholem, G. (1930), No. 17, pp.48-49. 1068 Pardes Rimonim, 2:4; 3:7; 4:6,7,8; 5:2; 6:6; 7:2; 8:3,6,11,17,19,21; 10:5; 11:7; 13:3,5,6; 14:1; 15:4; 19:4; 20:2,8,10; 21:3,5,8,14,15; 22:1; 23:1,5,7. RaMaK also mentions Or Yaqar in his Or Ne'erav - see chapter 1, part 1. Although only once, RaMaK refers directly to Or Yaqar (2:5) in the last section o f Sefer Gerushin, further establishing the existence o f complete sections from Or Yaqar by 1551 - see Sefer Gerushin, entry 99, p. 135. 1069 Pardes Rimonim 2:4. 1070 Pardes Rimonim 8:21.

208

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

meaning here is Hesed within Hokhmah within Keter [...] as we shall demonstrate in Or Yaqar, gate 7, note 15”1071; “For although such matters cannot be attained save by Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai and his cohort [...] I have nevertheless divulged the meaning of this portion in its designated place in Or Yaqar”1072; “And on this matter we have furnished a broad elucidation in Or Yaqar, part two”1073; “And in Or Yaqar we interpreted this as Netzah and have assembled much evidence from the verses and from the Zohar"}014 Additionally, there are instances where RaMaK actually inserts short examples from Or Yaqar to Pardes Rimonim1075 or discloses his intent to compose a specific component within Or Yaqar.1016 Taken as a whole, one may point to RaMaK's multitasking capabilities and further suggest that certain parts of Or Yaqar not only ran parallel to Pardes Rimonim, but most likely constituted RaMaK's earliest work. The volume of this towering composition is divulged by the earlier-mentioned hearsay in Rabbi Hayim David Azulai’s Shem ha-Gedolim, stating to having seen a signed contract made by Rabbi Menahem Azariah de Fano and RaMaK's wife in 1584 “For the right to copy Or Yaqar - a manuscript written by the Rabbi on the Zohar in some sixteen 077 large volumes”. Juxtaposing this account with the earlier-mentioned letter from Rabbi Solomon [Shlimel] of Moravia, depicting Rabbi Joseph Karo as one of the scholars interceding on Azariah de Fano’s behalf to RaMaK's widow, shows that at least nine years had elapsed between Rabbi Azariah de Fano’s initial request (sometime before 1575) and the final judicial closure of this contract in 1584 by Rabbis Alsheikh, di Curiel

1071 Ibid, 3:7; cf: 20:2; 20:8. 1072 Ibid, 8:17; cf: 4:8; 15:4. 1073 Ibid, 21:15; cf: 8:6; 8:21; 10:5; 13:6; 14:1; 15:4; 20:2; 20:8; 21:3. 1074 Ibid, 23:5; cf: 21:5; 21:15; 22:1; 23:1. 1075 Ibid, 8:6; cf: 8:21. 1076 See Pardes Rim onim 32:3, where RaM aK discloses his intent to compose Tefilah le-Moshe. On this composition, see Sack, B. (1990), p .59, fn.5. 1077 This description corresponds with the manuscript found in the M odena Library and whose sign is Estenza L.I. 16-1, the Bem heim er Catalogue # 22. As aforementioned, it was described by Yonah, S. (1879): “The manuscript contains 16 volumes o f Polio paper which consist o f 5634 leafs which translate into 11268 pages [..]. See also in Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), p .10; Sack, B. (1995 a), p.25, fii.99 and Benayahu, M. (1991), p.221. Benayahu mentions Rabbi Daniel Pinzzi [’STD] - an Italian immigrant to Jerusalem - who had written (1625) that RaM aK’s son, Gedaliah, sold all o f his father’s manuscripts to a distinguished and affluent Rabbi in Jerusalem - Rabbi David n ’ Castro. Among other writings, Pinzzi mentions “Or Yaqar in twelve parts [...]”. See in Benayahu, M. (1991), p.221; ibid (1987 b), pp.223-224 and 238.

209

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

and Berav II. The copy made for Rabbi Azariah de Fano was concluded by the scribe David ben Ya’akov on Thursday, 6th day of Tevet 5342 [1582],1078 Although the voluminous extent of this work is relatively clear,1079 the duration needed for its fruition and the means of its propagation still warrant certain clarification. M. Benayahu neither consults Rabbi Menahem Azariah de Fano’s abovementioned comment on this issue in Pelah ha-Rimon nor attends to J. Ben-Shlomo’s and B. Sack’s statements in its regard.1080 M. Benayahu seems rather to have followed in the misleading footsteps of S.A. Horodetzky and states that Or Yaqar had been composed between the years 1561 and 15631081 - a mistake for a few visible reasons: first, as already mentioned, RaMaK made quite a few direct and detailed references to Or Yaqar while having composed Pardes Rimonim (1543-1548), and refers to a specific section of Or Yaqar in the last known entry of Sefer Gerushin, written in 1551.1082 Likewise, RaMaK testifies to having concluded a major component of Or Yaqar already in 1559. The conclusion of Or Yaqar on the book of Deuteronomy - the eights part of this voluminous work - features a signatory colophon by RaMaK:

,-ip1 t in “idob p^n to m , D n n n n h x id o i p r ip s i n m y ib n ’stib "imr .T 'o n t i n a r m t3"’u/n ra w i n a ^ n n r r m p T t o m p n ira T sren im m '? ’ m m

tn

This is the conclusion of the Zohar on Ra ’ayah Meheymana and Pekudin and the book o f Deuteronomy, which constitutes the eights part of Or Yaqar. I have birthed it today - the young Moses Cordoeiro - and it came to completion on the year 5319 [1559], the month of Adar, with God’s aid.1083 The year 1563 which M. Benayahu mentions as the conclusion of Or Yaqar is in fact a misreading of RaMaK's signatory remarks to another finished component, namely on 1078 See in Rabbi Hayim David Azulai, Shem ha-Gedolim, under “Or Yaqar”. For a detailed description of various copies made to Or Yaqar, see Benayahu, M. ibid, pp.221-222 and his references. See ibid, p.221 for details on another copy made at the same time by the Italian Kabbalist Rabbi Jacob ben Mordechai Poyto [tc" 1d] for self use. 1079 I shall soon discuss the two missing chapters from RaMaK's Shiur Qomah which constitute a component o f Or Yaqar and were published by B. Sack. See under Shiur Qomah to follow. 1080 See Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), p.9. 1081 1"5W - N"dc\ Benayahu, M. (1991), p.221 and see Horodetzky, S.A. who mentions 1563 as the completion year (1924, Heb. ed. 1951, p.22 and fn. 1). 1082 Sefer Gerushin, entry 99, p.135 - mentions Or Yaqar 2:5. 1083 For reasons not clear to me, Benayahu does not mention the Or Yaqar on Deuteronomy in his otherwise quite comprehensive list.

210

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

the book of Leviticus.1084 RaMaK’s remarks appear at the end of the fifth volume - his commentary on Leviticus, parashat be-Hukotai:

m s tznm ,v rw m p sp y -q ’ns ’ant* p ntra prim1?1 nvn ’as T3?xn ’is .n "m n n o n n s ,n"iis ,,7 V'dwh ru tra I, the young, have birthed [this manuscript] today - Moses, son to my master and father Rabbi Jacob Cordoeiro - on the first month of Adar in the 5323 year of Creation,1085 here in Safed, may it be built [and restored] in our time. It is quite evident that RaMaK had worked on this monumental manuscript in stages whose extent stretched much longer than the two years allotted by Benayahu. Indeed, J. Ben-Shlomo, I. Weinstock and B. Sack briefly mention that RaMaK had worked on Or Yaqar throughout the best part of his life as a scholar.1086 Correspondingly, it is not plausible that by 1561 RaMaK had already had a substantial draft, or a clear vision of Or Yaqar's completed layout: Rabbi Mordechai Dato’s Igeret ha-Levanon, which features his recollection of having brought back to Italy (in 1561)1087 “Numerous manuscripts [of Cordovero ...], such as Pardes Rimonim and Or N e’erav”, should not be confused with his retrospective testimony as to having seen “And read RaMaK's vast compendium titled Or Yaqar, the exegesis of the Zohar on the Torah, the Tikkunim, Raayah Meheimanah, Song o f Songs, Ruth, Sifrah de-Tzeniutah, Pekudin and other treatises pertaining to the Zohar - for it [Or Yaqar] is truly a voluminous composition”.

1n oo

Given that Igeret ha-

Levanon had been written sometime between 1590 and 1600,1089 Mordechai Dato’s recollection was retrospectively reformulated after having seen the completed version copied for Azariah de Fano in 1582. Although no conclusive evidence exists to date to determine RaMaK's actual completion of Or Yaqar, its mere astounding volume nevertheless suggests it had indeed taken the better part of his scholarly life.

1084 In Benayahu, M. (1991), p.221, MS # 775. 1085 Corresponding with any date between February 4th and M arch 5th, 1563. 1086 Weinstock, I. (1971), p.3; Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), p.9; Sack, B. (1995 a), p.25. 1087 The fact that M ordechai Dato remained in Safed only between the years 1560-1561 has already been discussed in the previous chapter. See M. Benayahu’s concluding remark to Tishby, I. (1993), p .146. 1088 Igeret ha-Levanon, p.172a; cf: Tishby, I. (1993), p .153. 1089 Tishby, I. (1993), p.143.

211

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

What seems to be quite clear, however, is that Or Yaqar was not only a laborious and slow progress, but also a composition whose unfolding did not necessarily follow the sequential flow of the Zohar. As seen, RaMaK had concluded his treatment of the fifth book in the Pentateuch (Deuteronomy) some four years prior to his conclusion of the third (Leviticus).1090 This fact may be attributed to the multitasking nature of his scholarly appetite, as disclosed in the numerous references he makes to Or Yaqar in Pardes Rimonim, Or Ne'erav or Sefer Gerushin: whereas Or Yaqar in its entirety professes a governing sequential layout that follows the Zohar, its progressive production - once juxtaposed with the thematic arrangement in Pardes Rimonim - indicates that RaMaK relied on the accessibility of materials already accumulated for Pardes Rimonim, rather than followed the orderly production of manuscripts parallel to the sequential flow of the Zohar. Furthermore, the magnitude of Or Yaqar and the intrinsic value held by each of its components had played a role in the evolution of its gradual dissemination: whereas the first complete Modena copy was concluded in 1582 per Rabbi Azariah de Fano’s request, other copies feature independent sections. Rabbi Abraham Azulai states in his introduction to Or ha-Hammah that the sheer magnitude of Or Yaqar had been one of the reasons preventing its full publication, and so does Rabbi Hayim Joseph David Azulai in Shem ha-Gedolim: “Know that the various books mentioned as Or Yaqar are not in complete form, excluding the one in Modena [...]”.1091 In truth, no visible evidence points to a completion year for this monumental work, although RaMaK's embarkation on Eilima Rabbati around 1567 may perhaps indicate that he had already put Or Yaqar aside by that time. The modem publication of Or Yaqar has been the undertaking of Ahuzat-Yisrael Society - a publication founded by Rabbi Meir ha-Levi Elboim in honor of his father and family perished in the Holocaust. Commencing in 1962 and producing some 16 volumes

1090 G. Scholem has noted this fact already in 1930. See ibid (1930), end o f N o.36, p. 99. 1091 See under “Or Yaqar”. M. Benayahu furnishes a detailed description o f the various manuscripts - see ibid (1991), pp.221-222.

212

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

by 1991, the publication of this magnum opus concluded in 2004 - featuring some 22 large volumes.1092 Much like Pardes Rimonim, Or Yaqar has also seen a few important abridgements: RaMaK's student, Rabbi Abraham Galante, had composed Yare’ah Yaqar,1093 whereas this version itself had seen its own abridgement in the form of Zoharei Hammah by Rabbi Abraham Azulai. Azulai’s abovementioned composition on the Zohar titled Or haHammah nourished directly from Or Yaqar.

Shiur Qomah (nap mytV -Assessm ent o f Greatness)1094 G. Scholem mentions that the mystical Shiur Qomah literature bears this name since kabbalists of the pre-Modem era saw in it “The repositories of divine mysteries” and therefore “an honor rather than an embarrassment to speak about the Shiur Qomah”} 095 RaMaK's Shiur Qomah is a section of Or Yaqar which addresses the most anthropomorphic, and therefore taxing, component of the Zohar - the Idrot}096 Although a component within RaMaK's most prominent mystical endeavor, Shiur Qomah nevertheless warrants a separate treatment due to its content, arrangement and overall approach: unlike other parts of RaMaK's Or Yaqar whose exegetical traffic runs parallel to the Zoharic literature, the Shiur Qomah is thematically organized and functions as a thesaurus for mystical abstract speculation - a piece that may be rendered the mystical equivalent to Maimonides’ Guide o f the Perplexed. Shiur Qomah was indeed compared to the Maimonidean classic by J. Ben-Shlomo and I. Weinstock who discuss its aim to explicate by way of allegory the corporeal elements in the biblical literature.1097 As RaMaK put it in his preface, his aim was “To cast away corporeality as much as possible [...] and organize the Idrot according to their [thematic] elements and associations”. 1092 The publisher is now commencing on a revised edition as to make this vast work more accessible for use. I thank Bracha Sack for informing me o f this development. 1093 This manuscript was described by G. Scholem (1930), No. 41, p p .102-104. 1094 This section o f Or Yaqar seems to have concluded circa 1567. RaMaK copies quite a few pieces from this section to his last book, Eilima Rabbati, whose composition commenced in 1567. Please refer to the section on Eilima Rabbati for details. 1095 See Scholem, G. (1967), pp. 138-139. 1096 Zohar 3:127b-145 (Idra Rabba); Zohar 3:287b-296b (Idra Zuta). On the Idrot, see Liebes, Y. (1982), pp .87-236 and especially pp.87-101; ibid, (1989), p p .1-71. 1097 Weinstock, I. (1971), p.4; Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), p .l l .

213

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Correspondingly, Shiur Qomah demonstrates RaMaK's hyper sensitivity to the epistemic perils awaiting men whose engagement with the mythical language of the Idrot is premature - leading him therefore to balance their anthropomorphic character with highly abstract speculation, contoured around philosophical thought and metaphysical formulations. Another visible element in Shiur Qomah is RaMaK's overall existence in quite a tension between strict loyalty to Rashbi’s words on the one hand and his own desire to clarify, organize and add insights on the other hand: in Shiur Qomah RaMaK warns readers and mystical practitioners lest they deviate from the writings of the Rashbi “Who is the possessor o f secrets [nmon Pyn] on whom shone the light of the esoteric parts of Torah and to whom permission was given to put them in writing”.1098 Likewise, Or Yaqar on Tikkunei ha-Zohar features his declaration that not a single iota of Rashbi’s words may be either added or omitted; “And once you join the community of the wise, do not add any preface of your own, for doing so destroys the world. Rather, adhere to the words transmitted to us by the Rashbi, peace be upon him, in his holy writings”.1099 On the other hand RaMaK had to confront a reality wherein some of the manuscripts in front of him were either in extremely poor condition or missing entire sections: in Or Yaqar on haYenuka RaMaK laments over “Certain sections in the Zohar [that] are missing leafs, disorganized and tom - one of which is the following tractate on ha-Yenuka.” 1100 RaMaK's ensuing reconfigurations of such sections should be appreciated on two levels, the first of which having been reformulations which RaMaK perceived as not only mandatory but actually endorsed by divinity itself - the gifts of intuitive knowledge and guided writing: ton np’yniy ■oso •nxno amiro pin by mnyb "iwsx ’xi pin pmynb ’rrtn pb p non p ,nt pnpo non non1 xbw ’no ,*T*»n nprrn 10 ntai nr bo oyi .noon p .nvp

I have opted to scribe and explicate it here, yet cannot do so in full since the main part is absent from the manuscript. We shall nonetheless

1098 Shiur Qomah, p. 18. 1099 Or Yaqar on Tikkunei ha-Zohar 8:12. 1100 Or Yaqar on ha-Yenuka, Parashat Balak.

214

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

explicate it with the mighty held hand, so no part shall miss from this piece - neither shortage nor addition.1101 We have already mentioned RaMaK's disclosure of divine guidance in his writings the above being another such an instance where he introduces the term TH nptm as the realizing conduit of divine revelations. Sefer Gerushin also features certain instances wherein RaMaK opts to either complement or deviate from Rashbi’s exegesis “And to explicate this verse according to our way”.1102 Such interventions with Rashbi’s scriptures did not pass, obviously, without RaMaK's deep sense of discomfort, even anxiety at certain junctures: in Or Yaqar RaMaK pleads with the reader “I have toiled diligently to explicate this report [by the Rashbi] and to complete it on the basis of his words and reports. Although I have taken a different path [than his], it was solely to unite them both as one. Let not the reader view my words as opposing his”.1103 In his preface to Shiur Qomah RaMaK offers his reasons for changing the original structure of the Idrot and for building his theosophical edifice by explicating each element based on all the Idrot combined - a reality which he deems necessary yet which nonetheless leads him to conclude that “None are allowed to rearrange the words of Rashbi, let alone a mosquito such as myself [’SiaD ttnrr ti-’"3l]. Nevertheless, I shall reorganize [them] and add important prefaces to each element in its proper place, so the reader may understand this wisdom. I ask the reader to be exceptionally alert, for I shall not repeat my explications and hereby withdraw my hands should he fail to fathom them [...], and may God absolve us for this transgression.”1104 Although these facts point to this work’s esoteric clout and overall abstract character, the abovementioned scholars had examined only the published parts of Shiur Qomah, namely from the third chapter forward. The two preceding chapters were published later by B. Sack and appear as appendices to her important book (1995 a), wherein she narrates the evolution of events leading to their discovery: the keen eye of Rachel Nissan has brought to light a discrepancy between the Shiur Qomah in the Modena

1101 Or Yaqar on ha-Yenuka, Parashat Balak. 1102 Sefer Gerushin, entry 84, p. 112. 1103 Or Yaqar on Shir ha-Shirim, vol.17, p .175. 1104 Shiur Qomah, preface.

215

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

manuscript1105 and another photocopy from the Moscow Ginsburg Collection - the latter having two chapters hitherto unknown to scholarship.1106 The two chapters correspond with two Matnitin chapters in the Zohar and revolve around the secret dimensions of letters and their relations to the sefirot respectively. As I. Gottlieb had mentioned in his essay on the Zoharic Matnitin and Toseftah literatures,1107 these are relatively short pieces informed by moral discourse, whose mystical ambiguous verbosity on matters of emotional ecstasy stands in contrast to their succinctly fashioned views on issues concerning the theosophical edifice.1108 RaMaK, in accordance with the Safed mystical view of Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai’s take on the issue,1109 found these texts as thematically preceding the Idrot and had therefore opted to treat them first.1110 However, his treatment of these texts not only fertilizes the subsoil for a fuller appreciation of the esoteric dimensions explored by Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai and his cohort, but further corroborates RaMaK's views on ontology, epistemology and practice within a theosophical hierarchy which is evident in his other speculative works and is nothing short of his systematic hallmark.1111 Although highly mythical in language, the first two chapters do sustain RaMaK's multiple affinities as a speculative mystic, wherein he speaks of metaphysical contentions regarding cause and affect; the intricate emanation process; epistemological hierarchies, and most importantly the highly ambiguous and perplexing rank of the first emanated sefirah, the Keter, whose arrangement is neither clearly within the theosophical nor within the metaphysical realms per se.

111o

Shiur Qomah therefore opens an important window not

only to RaMaK's metaphysics, but also to his views regarding the Zohar’s take on these issues - a significant contribution in and of itself.

1105 W hich was used for the m odem version in Jerusalem. 1106 As B. Sack mentions (1995 a, p.320), the publishers o f Or Yaqar noticed the missing parts o f Shiur Qomah in the M odena manuscript and noted it in their preface to volume 21. An interesting question for further investigation is whether Rabbi Azariah de Fano’s copy had ever had these two parts. 1107 E. Gottlieb has researched this part o f the Zohar - see ibid (Hacker, J. ed., 1976), p p .163-214. 1108 Ibid, pp.163-165. 1109 Ibid. Cf; Sack, B. (1995 a), p p .3 19-320. 1110 Ibid, p .170-172. Cf; Sack, B. ibid, pp.320-324. 1111 Ontological, epistemological and practical hierarchy are one o f RaMaK's fundamental principles. I discuss this important issue on the second part o f this work. 1112 A significant part o f this dissertation is dedicated to this issue in RaMaK's thought. Please refer to the second part.

216

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

The Shiur Qomah concluded circa 15671113 and was first published in Warsaw, 1885.1114

Eilima Rabbati (Tan nab’N- The Great Eilim - Lvov 1881 / Jerusalem 1966) Eilima Rabbati is a composition whose title points also to its envisioned layout: parallel to the biblical verse “They set out of Marah and came to Eilim; and in Eilim there were twelve springs and seventy palm trees”,1115 Eilima Rabbati supposedly aimed to feature twelve Einot (springs = sections) and seventy Temarim (palm trees = chapters). Eilima Rabbati is RaMaK's last substantial undertaking, having been embarked upon c. 1567 and most likely written continuously until his premature death some three years later. RaMaK’s direct disclosure there of the year 5327 (1567) being “The current year of creation”1116 conclusively disproves J. Ben-Shlomo’s uncorroborated claim regarding the conclusion o f this work “Some ten years after Pardes Rimonim” (c. 1558!).

1117

•

This

fallacy misled a few later scholars as well1118 and is especially peculiar given that S.A. Horodetzky had already disclosed the correct year in 1924, albeit without any prooftext.1119 Whereas RaMaK’s initial affinity to the title Eilima may be found already in Sefer Gerushin, wherein he affords a simile in form of “A man who has twelve springs of clean, cool and pure water, as well as seventy pristine palm trees”,1120 RaMaK most likely had not even conceived of this composition in 1558 and seems in fact to never having seen it to fruition either: a few components in the extant manuscripts of Eilima Rabbati are missing entire chapters,1121 as do certain parts in the unpublished Ein YHVH, Ein Hatzor and Ein Rogel, whose details follow shortly. Although B. Sack’s suggestion to ascribe this reality to potential scribal errors or later omissions is plausible in some 1113 See Scholem, G. (1930), No.37, p.99. 1114 See Benayahu, M.(1991), p.223. 1115 Numbers 33:9. 1116 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l 3:13. 1117 Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), p .l l . 1118 See e.g., Benayahu, M. (1991), p.224; Maier, J. (2001), p.7. 1119 Horodetzky, S.A. (1924, Heb. ed., 1951), p.25, fn.20. Rabbi Natan Koenig also points to the correct year - see ibid (1996), p.35. 1120 Sefer Gerushin, entry 90, p .121. 1121 Ein R o ’i 5 includes titles only. Ein Shemesh 2 is missing chapters 15-17; tamar 3 is missing chapters 9,10,11,18,19,23,38-43[!]; tamar 4 is missing chapters 6,7.

217

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

cases,1122 it may indeed be that in other cases RaMaK never got to complete this work as seems to be the case in Or Yaqar, Or Ne'erav and Sefer Gerushin as well. Whereas the unfinished sections in Eilima Rabbati render our understanding of RaMaK's fuller scheme deficient, they nonetheless point to RaMaK's style of scholarly work, namely his tendency to outline a conceptual skeleton prior to filling its various sections with the appropriate content. This style allowed him not only a clearer trajectory but also enabled a lucid system of cross-references while composing. Another enigma associated with Eilima Rabbati is RaMaK's disclosure of an abridged version which he had titled Eilima Zutarti (the abbreviated Eilima). RaMaK mentions this work only twice at the very early pages of Eilima Rabbati,

1123

where his language

suggests that he had already completed small sections of Eilima Zutarti and associated them directly with their broader counterparts in Eilima Rabbati.1124 Hayim Yosef David Azulai’s Shem ha-Gedolim also claims to having seen “An abbreviation to Eilima Rabbati in manuscript in [by?] Rabbi Hayim Vital” [ ISO mxj? V'mna Tin T-aTDB YPtm nbb’N].1125 Azulai’s language is ambiguous, making it difficult to discern whether he saw such an abbreviation mentioned in a manuscript by Hayim Vital, or an abbreviation composed by Hayim Vital. The latter is doubtful, given that Vital had certain objections to studying RaMaK’s works after 1572 - nevertheless a work whose speculative lure was as commanding as Eilima Rabbati. Be that as it may, the conspicuous negligence to mention Eilima Zutarti in the ensuing chapters of Eilima Rabbati raises serious questions about its final realization at all. It seems as a whole that Eilima Rabbati never reached fruition, whereas Eilima Zutarti had never even matured to be considered a full composition. Once we move away from such evolutionary ambiguities to inspect Eilima Rabbati as a composition, an impressive world opens: certain sections of Eilima Rabbati are undeniably RaMaK's tour de force as far as systematic speculation and mature attendance to metaphysics and theosophy are concerned - all of which seem to point to a reality wherein RaMaK still needed to establish the kabbalistic method as favorable to the 1122 Sack, B. (1990-1991), p.672. 1123 See Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:3; 1:8. 1124 An incomplete abridged version o f Eilima Rabbati exists in the Jewish Theological Seminary - JTS MS 1920/S H F 1421:22. 1125 Shem ha-Gedolim, M aarekhet Sefarim 94, pp.216-217.

218

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

philosophical path. Eilima Rabbati presents a ripe thinker who had devoted considerable energy and intellectual vigor to metaphysical questions and aimed to refute the reliance on philosophical inquiry alone on the one hand while reconciling its impressive stamina with the Zoharic literature on the other hand. Its overall thematic distribution and conceptual flow resemble that of RaMaK's Tomer Devorah - which has in fact been closely associated with it, albeit somewhat misleadingly:1126 although such an association may exist inasmuch as breaking down the abstract theosophical edifice into lucid arrangements vis-a-vis its relationship with the Jewish individual and the community entire, this is the extent to which the somewhat simplistic comparison between the two may be stretched. The relationship of Tomer Devorah to Eilima Rabbati arguably resembles that of the Ethics o f the Fathers to the Mishnah entire: although associatively connected, Tomer Devorah is a short composition1127 whose impetus is ethical and pedagogical guidelines for the community vis-a-vis their unique standing and profound affects on the sefirotic system. Eilima Rabbati, on the other hand, is far superior on intellectual and methodological levels. Seriously treating metaphysical concerns and using much more freely abstract vocabularies, Eilima Rabbati did not aim to instruct practical models to the lay public but to meticulously construct a metaphysical imperative without which no true understanding of theosophy, cosmology and the Jewish state of being could have reached maturity. As one may learn from B. Sack’s study of Tomer Devorah, this reason may have been precisely the momentum behind the independent appearance of Tomer Devorah, to be discussed later in this chapter. • Despite its revisit of certain issues already discussed m either Pardes Rimonim 1128 or Or Yaqar,1129 Eilima Rabbati is conspicuously almost free of external references - unlike the former two which feature hundreds (even thousands) of citations form earlier teachings and organize them in appropriate conceptualizations. Given that RaMaK had never lost his interest in either the capabilities of the intellect or the application of 1126 See Sack, B. (1995 b). As already mentioned, Moses Bassola testifies in his colophon to Tomer Devorah that Gedaliah Cordovero had specifically noted its direct association with Eilima Rabbati. I return to this issue when discussing Tomer Devorah to follow. 1127 Please refer to my treatment o f Tomer Devorah later in this chapter. 1128 RaMaK refers directly to Pardes Rimonim in Ein Shemesh 3:63. 1129 See Sack, B. (1995 a), p.27 and fn.115. Tefilah le-Moshe appears in Ein ha-Bedolah 2:4; Ein Shemesh 3:25. Complete sections are configured based on Shiur Qomah (see next footnote).

219

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

rational assessments on metaphysical issues, it is not surprising that Eilima Rabbati had been composed as an independent work. Nevertheless, certain parts of Eilima Rabbati feature entire sections that were taken from RaMaK's Shiur Qomah,1130 another visibly abstract composition which seems to have been concluded at the same year RaMaK embarked on Eilima Rabbati (1567).1131 Eilima Rabbati is indeed a highly systematic arrangement, aiming to unpack, discern and articulate the perpetually elusive and correlating properties of the human condition, the theosophical edifice and the divine nucleolus - the Godhead. Having the above in mind, one should nonetheless exercise caution when offering Eilima Rabbati as RaMaK's banner of abstract speculation and a distinctive hallmark of his theoretical affinities. Although one cannot deny such an impression once investigating the published parts (featuring around one third of the envisioned work!), one must consider the thematic arrangement of this work as a whole to realize that its beginning precisely aimed to confront metaphysical issues as a necessary springboard for the more concrete theosophical, theological and anthropographical issues addressed later. A more careful study of the remaining unpublished parts, as already suggested by B. Sack, reveals a gradual yet steady move from the conceptual to the mythical and from the speculative to the symbolic. Moreover, even sections within the published parts reveal RaMaK's great affinity of the tangibles as indispensable agents to attain the more abstract. Ein R o ’i, for example, features entire chapters whose aim is to ascertain the “Abstract secret from the tangible form”.1132 The envisioned layout o f Eilima Rabbati notwithstanding, its existing construction remains ambiguous for a number of reasons: first, only a fraction of the supposedly twelve Einot has been published as of yet. Additionally, it is not clear whether the published parts consist of three or four springs, as shall be detailed shortly. Second, a study of the extant manuscripts does not necessarily yield conclusive evidence to Eilima Rabbati’s alleged layout of twelve sections and is therefore still “A riddle calling for

1130 See e.g., Ein K ol 2:20; Ein Shemesh 2:3,4,5,6,7,9,10,11,12,31. 3:1,8. In other instances RaMaK writes briefly on an issue and refers the reader to his detailed discussion in Shiur Qomah - see e.g., Ein K ol 6:2,4-11. 1131 See Benayahu, M. (1991), p.223 and fn.47. 1132 Chapters 18-31.

220

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

solution”.1133 B. Sack has already tackled this challenge and furnished a detailed outline of this work.1134 She has since been studying one of the unpublished parts (Ein Ya ’akov) with a few colleagues1135 but has not yet made public her conclusions. The following pages therefore aim to both clarify our knowledge of this important composition and to elucidate some remaining ambiguities.

Thematic Layout The published sections of Eilima Rabbati consist of the following Einof.lu 6 1) Ein Kol ha-Aretzm i [ptx l i r a imrrw p m ,nxm nb’stn -|bna nsrw asp n"ipm ■Q’ttPai], up to this point whereupon He is raising us. However, if we mend our ways and repent, He shall [too] hasten the redemption.1283 This type of mystical gallantry was allotted to the utmost righteous among “The Shekhinah’s subordinate soldiers”1284; those whose epistemic clarity and spiritual ripeness not only afforded the ability to empathize with her agony but to see beyond any suffering [niyttm i m lm p nbiPl m’1177] and perceive with great lucidity its governing benevolence - the dialectically intrinsic union between sacrificing oneself [ p ip - korban] and drawing dramatically nearer to the divine, to God’s inferiority, as it were [ / i n p

i l l p i - karov / be-Kirbo]. Such tannaitic luminaries as Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai, his son and their companions were therefore able to accept their personal travails as the “Pangs of love”1285 [runs ’IIO11] and fathom the enormous advantages and the

1281 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l 5:34. 1282 See Sefer Gerushin, entry 63, p.77. 1283 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l 4:4. 1284 See Pardes Rimonim 23:3 under mini. 1285 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l 5:32, 33 and compare with Tomer Devorah 5. On Rabbi A kiva’s ascetic doctrine see also Hoshen, D. (1991).

248

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

imminent unifying catharsis in their wake. In the Zohar, as I. Tishby reminds us, Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai “Appears as a righteous and saintly man of unique caliber. The heavenly angels, and even God Himself, take heed of his words and obey him, and his all generation shelters under his protection. His life is a chain of miracles; signs and wonders accompany him wherever he goes; and the prophet Elijah, other holy spirits, and the souls o f the righteous reveal themselves to him in every step”.1286 Rashbi and the other knights o f Torah were held in the highest esteem by RaMaK's cohort for having unleashed their fierce loyalty to God and spearheading the battle against evil in its manifold faces, be it corporeality, materiality, scholastic inadequacy or spiritual complacence.1287 In RaMaK's world these tannaitic luminaries were men whose anguish only accentuated the effectiveness of their zealous antagonism to the many faces of malevolence; scholars who saw in the exilic condition the threshold of revelation; sages whose spiritual brilliance, textual erudition, charismatic leadership and eminence as •

those evoking the Zohar into existence made them saintly shields for their generation

1288

and formidable ghostly allies to RaMaK's generation in turn; agents who used their piety to purposefully sidetrack Satan’s devastating attention from both their fellowmen and the Shekhinah - offering themselves in turn, throwing themselves at its path as to bear its terrible grunt. “According to this mandatory regulation”, RaMaK claims, “the higher the spiritual aptitude of the Tzadik to draw down the potencies of holiness, the greater his attraction of the multiple forces of malevolence”.1289 The Satanic energy which hitherto nourished from the very ill actions of their fellowmen was henceforth absorbed by the tannaitic martyrs as they surrendered themselves on behalf of their kin and for the welfare o f divinity as a whole.1290 The fact that many of these earlier sages lived, worked and were buried in the Galilean vicinity had therefore a tremendous impression on RaMaK's fellowship and served as a locus behind the enactment of gerushin in that particular scenery.1291 1286 Tishby, I. (1949), vol.l, pp.9-10. 1287 On RaM aK ’s view o f Rashbi and his fellowship, see Sack, B. (1993). On the issue o f the 36 hidden sages in the Jewish tradition [□’pHX 1"b] see Scholem, G. (1990). 1288 See, e.g., Zohar Hadash on Bereshit 12c-12d {Midrash ha-N e’elam); cf: Tishby, I. (1949), vol.3, pp. 1496-1497. 1289 Pardes Rimonim 31:10. 1290 Eilima Rabbati, Ein Kol 5:32. 1291 About Zoharic teachings within the Galilean landscape see Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, pp.9-12.

249

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

RaMaK's explication of the word mym (hills) to mean according to the Zohar “Binah and M alkhuf’1292 turned the Galilean hills into an optimal theatre for the Tzadikim whose •

clout manifested through having had “One head in Binah and the other in Malkhut”.

1293

Armed now by body, soul, Torah and the Zohar in preparation for a battle in the Galilean exilic land, RaMaK's entourage followed the residual effects impressed on the landscape by the Shekhinah1294 and the tannaitic forefathers, and deemed these past war veterans pivotal arbitrators in a campaign of old - a renaissance of the Zoharic epos wherein any element could have become a mortar, sending a remedial projectile for the welfare of celestial agents. The tannaitic ruined synagogues and uninhabited villages were now doorways where strategic assistance could have been rendered; the trails they had once walked, the springs whence they had once drank or the trees whose shade they had once enjoyed and whose fruits they had once studied transformed into tutors which afforded spiritual coordinates, epistemic clarity and theurgic synchronization. Their grave-marks in the exilic Galilean landscape became nothing short of beacons from the spiritual homeland. The gerushin utilized this manifold assistance with profound care, sifting landscape and scouring texts. The scholarly depictions of these acts as a means to walk in the footsteps of the Shekhinah reveal therefore only part of this relationship: enacting the gerushin was not only a means to walk in the footsteps of past Tzadikim or the Shekhinah, but also a means to draw them towards RaMaK's cohort in turn. In Pardes Rimonim RaMaK demonstrates his keen eye for terminological associations by stating that one’s behavior attracts the Shekhinah to follow in one’s footsteps - the term Dm»D (Halakhah is according to them) should be read as Dm&D n"D2n (she walked in their footsteps): “Hillel and Shamai merited to have Halakhah according to them due to their humility and ability to cleave towards grace by acts of deprivation and modesty. The Shekhinah therefore walked in their footsteps since her [inherent] inclination is towards

1292 Pardes Rimonim 23:3 under num. 1293 Sefer Gerushin, entry 14, p. 15. 1294 Based on Babylonian, M egilah 28a. On RaMaK's take, see Sack, B. (1995 a), p .64. 1295 Pardes Rimonim 9:2.

250

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

RaMaK's cohort now perceived itself a renaissance of this tannaitic epos; a vanguard spearheading a second onslaught whose success necessitated that they listen attentively to cryptic messages of ancient origins and use a magnificent arsenal of faculties in their decoding - corporeal, spiritual, natural and textual. The gerushin were thus not a random choice o f landscape for its relative accessibility; rather, the Galilean vicinity was a pinpointed theatre for a cohort aiming to reenact the tannaitic saga and to transform the lower Garden o f Eden {Malkhut) into a clearer reflection of its higher counterpart {Binah) en route to a wholesome redemption.1296 It was an apparatus of mutual attraction and reunification which aimed to surpass the distortions of spatiotemporal tangibility and vomit, as it were, the fruit o f distinction between good and evil (ninn yv). It was an indispensable measure of reversing Adam’s primal sin and regaining access to the tree o f life\ that which the biblical accounts associate with both the Torah1297 and, more importantly in this context, the Tzadik: “The fruit of the righteous man is the tree of life”.1298 In Shiur Qomah RaMaK gives his view of esoteric revelations in the messianic era and insinuates through a typically ingenious word-game that optimal knowledge resides beyond the mind, solely by ceasing from intellectual inquiry and surrendering to intuitive discourse - a mechanism which not only informed the tannaitic spiritual saga below and the saintly assembly on high, but also permeated Sefer Gerushin under the bywords JTHTiann {hitbodedut - physical and meditational seclusion) and fPS {Tziyon / Tziyun - Zion or a tannaitic grave-marker), to be discussed in detail later: “Torah would not be enclothed by dimming metaphors at such a time”, RaMaK states, “but revealed as a princess who speaks with no mourning attire, [as written] ‘the honor of a King’s daughter lies within; her dress embroidered with golden mountings’.1299 [...] as the veil o f constraint is pulled off the minds [of saintly sages], they attain the glittering words from the source - which is the meaning behind rotr ibstr m1 (pun - ‘a day which is entirely Shabbat [she-Kulo Shabbat] ’ and ‘a day wherein the mind ceases from inquiry [sikhlo shavat]), for they cease [from inquiry] in Zion” [ □’mittf on nniz/ ibDtt? a'Tiy nfrn

1296 On the issue ofreflecive sanctity, see also Sargai, S. (1984). 1297 Proverbs 3:18. 1298 Proverbs 11:30. 1299 Psalms 45:14.

251

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

T P J H ] . 1300

We shall return later in this chapter to the seminal role and the multiple

meanings of the word fPS as well (fPS as tziyon vs. tziyun). As for the meditative state of epistemic rest which is mentioned above, it also appears in RaMaK's Eilima Rabbati and serves not only to identify the theosophical level associated with it but also to distinguish between the limited capabilities of philosophy when compared to the spiritual epistemic standing among Jews: The philosophers had managed to attain a fine realm of divinity [ mbN Oiu/sn], which is an intellect neither [found] in the body nor [produced] by the body. But we, God’s nation, were informed [through revelation] that we may ascend beyond the intellect to the fine angelic realm which is differentiated from matter; and higher [...] through the sefirot until we reach the finest realm and mount the throne of the EinSof - whereupon our grasp exhausts itself and simply remains fixed on that knowledge [ ntfr>m it n y r by ono mayi mwnn mxb irratzma aw].1301 The gerushin thus corresponded simultaneously with two realms: on a horizontal (historic) level they featured as a second wave of spiritual combat in the footsteps of the 2nd century tannaitic sages who lived, worked and [allegedly] composed the Zohar in the Galilee. On a vertical (theological) level their world was perceived as a dress-rehearsal for the higher Garden o f Eden, a necessary apparatus in its lower reflective landscape without which the taste of the world to come could neither be experienced nor manipulated toward redemption. RaMaK's perception of dramatic associations with the tannaitic giants obviously necessitated a level of secrecy not only as an esoteric lure but also as a means to avoid social scrutiny or communal chastisement. RaMaK attempts to reconcile such tensions in his popular Or Ne'erav, for example, where he states “I realize that the reader will question my exposition [and comparison to the Rashbi’s circle] and say, ‘Have you seen this madman who imagines that the people of our generation can attain this lofty eminence! This is only pride of heart’. I would answer him, ‘Brother, it is not our intention, God forbid, to liken [ourselves] to them [or] even to the hooves of Rabbi

Shiur Qomah, p. 170. 1301 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:17. On this issue in classical Judaism, see Bar-Ilan, M. (1985).

252

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Pinhas’ ass’1302”1303; [since] “Ultimately no mortal may attain this wisdom in full, neither you nor me”.1304 However, although such sentiments profess RaMaK’s adherence to tannaitic superiority within general discourse, Sefer Gerushin aimed at a wholly different level which unlike Or Ne'erav did not intend to circulate among kabbalistic novices or laypeople: here one finds the deeper felt associations between the 16th century Safedian cohort and the Rashbi circle played out in consciously configured terminologies which run parallel to the view of the deceased Tzadikim, their ordeals and spirited exhilaration in both the lower and upper Garden[s] o f Eden (.Malkhut and Binah respectively). Whereas Pardes Rimonim clarifies that these past Tzadikim “Sit and occupy themselves with the esoteric realms of Torah, rejoicing once its secrets and innovations are revealed to them”,1305 Sefer Gerushin now features the Galilean landscape as the theatre wherein identical ordeals transpire among RaMaK’s cohort: “We also occupied ourselves with the matter of the day

1306 whereupon “Some more innovative matters had transpired

there between [...] the fellowship1307 [...] and esoteric teachings of Torah illuminated within us

[...]; and praise to the Lord who has merited us, for these matters are all

from above, affecting us without any inquiry whatsoever;1309 sweeter than honey, the gift of the Malkhut to those who go on exilic excursions and ceaselessly wander in her footsteps”.1310 RaMaK makes a fascinating reference to gerushin already in Pardes Rimonim. Although incorporated into his theosophical speculation here, it nonetheless sheds light on the remedial role associated with the concept of banishments: “One should not wonder why there are two [letters] ‘vav’ [l"’n] in Gedulah [n'PVtt] and Gevurah [mixi], since in the previous chapters we have already explicated the three [letters] ‘vav’ [p"n] in yo’l [va-Yisa], NZTl \ya-Yavo\ and

[va-Yat\ which correspond with the three patriarchs.

[Likewise], the [two above letters] were called two gerishi”m since they had to undergo

1302 See Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 112b. 1303 Or Ne'erav 4:1; in Robinson, I. (1994), p.90. 1304 Ibid, 1:3. 1305 Pardes Rimonim 27:2. 1306 P. 10, cf: all entries. 1307 P.2, cf: pp. 17, 20, 2 6 ,6 1 ,8 0 , 90, 98, 111, 122. 1308 P.4; cf: p.6. 1309 Compare with Or Ne'erav 5:2. 1310 Sefer Gerushin, entry 13, p. 14.

253

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

two gerushin due to the transgressions of Israel - the banishments [gerushin] during the first and second Temples [...]. And the premise is that Tif’eret [i.e., the central Sefirah] banished them in order to draw them closer to the midpoint and lean toward [theosophical] grace”.1311 Most interesting, however, are RaMaK's words in Pardes Rimonim and Eilima Rabbati, disclosing the nature of theosophical agitation as pertaining to the demotion of the Malkhut from her primordial state as the 7th Sefirah to her current ‘lessening’ [aura]1312 as the 10th Sefirah: n"nn nnn rryaty n r ra n nrrn rpTitwn n m sn naah rrno]^ trnp nnrn nanpn rum / Timm 7inm mnn bit, nmo nmn tcrny 7y id h>D nmpn nrtom by nm:m minn by 70 m ion by nrm nra by naam nazin by iron it mn nm’pn .'xxn nio 7iori 710’ by Tim Tin by nsai by ma^ai msba by m sam mxan Prior to its agitation and relegation1313 to the tenth rung, Malkhut was the seventh under Tiferet - so pristine and delicate that it surpassed Netzah, Hod and Yesodm4 / In the primordial state the Keter preceded the Hokhmah [and respectively] Hokhmah to Binah, Binah to Hesed, Hesed to Gevurah, Gevurah to Tif’eret, Tif’eret to Malkhut, Malkhut to Netzah, Netzah to Hod, Hod to Yesod and Yesod was the end of emanation.1315 The excursions described in Sefer Gerushin aimed to rectify such theosophical disharmonies through curative engagements with the Shekhinah [Malkhut\. These gerushin, however, were neither for her exclusive sake nor for the mystics’ spiritual advancement alone: restoring the agitated Shekhinah was first necessary to attain understanding of esoteric dimensions of the Torah which were otherwise inaccessible yet 1^1f\ obligatory for epistemic transparency and theurgic potency. Second, the Shekhinah m •

its current state was the most viable conduit to the higher sefirotic realms and therefore a regulated route within the multi-storied theosophical edifice. In RaMaK's words, “It is mandatory for the lowest and closest [Sefirah] to contain all the paths leading to such

1311 P ard es R im onim 29:4. 1312 P ard es R im onim 9:5. 1313 In P ard es R im onim 9:5 RaM aK speaks o f maPn uura (lessening o f the moon). A juxtaposition with his 18th chapter in Pardes Rimonim (gate o f the Lessening o f the Moon) yields important clues in regard to nightly gerushin, 1314 P ard es R im onim 6:7; cf: 9:5. 1315 E ilim a R ab b ati, Ein K ol 3:11. 1316 See e.g., M ishnah, Avot 3:3.

254

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

[loftier] matters”.1317 RaMaK continues to state in Eilima Rabbati that “When the light of the higher providence is intensified upon a certain Sefirah due to actions taken by a lower minion [...], the Sefirah is elevated in turn by the providence of the EinSof and the 1-310

barriers between them diminish, and cause her wondrous ascent”.

t

The exilic

adventures calculated for the renovation of the Shekhinah were thus both an end in and of itself and a means toward a wholesome theosophical harmonization - featuring the blueprint for the deeper, more acute and often much more invasive remedial operations which were the ultimate purpose of mystical theurgy - Redemption. The successful employment of gerushin therefore gathered a multifaceted battery of spiritual potencies whose realization called for corporeal, physical and spatiotemporal facilities. Sefer Gerushin is a herald of spiritual strategic planning for which spatiotemporal cartography, textual decoding, responsive navigation and a complex theatre of interrelating corporeal and spiritual faculties all aimed for optimum convergence of cosmic synergy on a cosmic battleground, “As those who wage war and do not disperse, in order to [work as] a cohort”.1319 It was navigation between opposite forces and a quest of war among dialectic pulls in order to re-substantiate the peaceful equability of all cosmic elements. It may indeed be described as the intensification of wondering through wandering, or - perhaps more apt in light of its profound use of etymological associations - the amplification of revelation (hitgalut - mbunri) through exilic excursions (galut - mb}). Sefer Gerushin is a composition which employs the vernacular thrust of sacred texts within the foundational thrust of a topography and its spirited portals thereof; it explicates words creatively, using their etymological and phonic affinities as mediums towards theurgic reifications via corporeal manipulations and landscape arrangements; it harnesses the perpetual sanctity imbued in souls of tannaitic sages and harnesses their pivotal roles as axis mundi in intimate correlations with their 16th century spiritual heirs, their [now] shared landscape and the theosophical edifice as a whole. In their quest to consecrate anew an idealized countryside, now tainted by a myriad of malevolent potencies which had registered as a banished Shekhinah, RaMaK's cohort 1317 Sefer Gerushin, end o f entry 53, p.64. 1318 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 3, end o f chapter 11. 1319 Pardes Rimonim 8:21.

255

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

would treat the Galilean vicinity as a geographical palimpsest on which their own narrative was to carry on a saga launched fourteen centuries earlier by these pseudomythological tannaitic giants. RaMaK's fellowship would now take note of ruined synagogues or ancient villages wherein saintly tannaitic figures had once studied and lived; maneuver the spirited residues of their hidden caves or engage their grave-markers in erotic ecstasy; study their paths, recite their very teachings and explore the same riverbeds, hills, trees and rocks. In short, the gerushin were a potently felt execution of the theurgic drama in all its intricacy, wherein RaMaK's fellowship was the protagonist in a plot of mystical renaissance informed by a mission awaiting closure.

Mission: search and rescue .Target: the Shekhinah Outside, the storm clouds are gathering / Move silently along the dusty boulevard / Where flowers turn in their fragile necks / So they can in turn greet each other and kiss the sky / The procession moves on / The shouting is over / The fabulous freaks are leaving town / They’re driven by a strange desire / Unseen by the human eye / Someone’s calling... Dead Can Dance, The Carnival is Over

As R.J.Z Werblowsky has noted, “We can reconstruct the spiritual life of past sages by means o f literary documents only. We cannot study it by means of a living encounter with the living representatives of that spirituality. But texts have to be cross-examined for what they say no less for what they leave unsaid”.1320 It may therefore be apt to start by submitting a fuller narrative that may lend itself once Sefer Gerushin has been investigated contextually and elucidated by the knowledge of modem scholarship whose focus has been the phenomenology of mystical experiences. The following few pages disclose an envisioned bystander’s view upon following Alkabetz, RaMaK and their intimate fellowship on the excursions which birthed this succinct composition.

(A Bystander’s Plausible View) Safed, 1548 - a procession of mystics led by Solomon Alkabetz and his protege RaMaK would prepare to leave the city en route to nearby locations in the forested vicinity. Both the city [TV] and its woody surroundings [lir] demonstrated through their letter affinity the two aspects of the Sefirah Malkhut (Shekhinah) - each emitting specific

1320 Werblowsky, R.J.Z. in Green, A. (ed., 1987), p .12.

256

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

spiritual insights in accordance with its respective higher Sefirot.

1

1

The ordeal would

thus commence by reciting The Prayer o f Journey [ in n n^’Dn] which enlisted the ‘citydwelling Shekhinah’ for assistance in the forested vicinities.1322 The procession would pace watchfully once en route, using the myriad tools at its disposal to take note of the heavenly breath o f the Shekhinah whose residual echoes

were still pulsating

within the earth’s crust. They would perform a meticulous spatiotemporal cartography, for the landscape emitted one tongue by day and another by nightfall,1323 releasing particular sensations on weekdays and others on the Sabbath and particular festivals. By way of ascetic, inquisitive and ecstatic orientation they would measure distances between various locations and discern hidden trails [□‘’b’hltf] from more visible paths [mzpru] and roads [D’DTr] - the former symbolizing hidden insights whereas the latter two permitting inquiry which could in turn point to such concealed trails.1324 In other instances they would distinguish between ravines [cnbm] and rivers [mini] - the former featuring a remitting flow of water and therefore in need of repair whereas the latter would constitute the unremitting flow of water and benevolence, a constant source of spiritual assistance for these warriors of Torah. They would triangulate their own position in relation to sun, moon and earthly portals; search for the middle point between sites of spiritual potency and balance their gravitational pulls by using red, white or green garments to affect judgment, grace or mercy respectively.1325 They may write amulets with such colors, using the blood of a young goat [TW Q7] whose potency in fighting off evil agents they especially appreciated,

or perhaps use four red and white flags, holding them as to

precisely discern latitude from longitude on the vertical realm and align those with the horizontal realm in turn - thus stimulating vertical and horizontal flows in the heavenly spheres, discerning benevolence from malevolence or attracting male to female. 1321 See Sefer Gerushin, entry 63, p.77. 1322 See Tomer Devorah 9; Tefilah le-M oshe 4:12; Or Yaqar on Hakdamat ha-Zohar 1:19 and on Bereshit 6:7. 1323 See Sefer Gerushin, entry 3, p .3 on a nightfall excursion and entry 7, p.9 regarding “Nighttime redemption” as a means to restore the proper theosophical flow and achieve Daytime redemption. Compare with e.g., Tomer Devorah, chapter 10; Pardes Rimonim chapter 18 entirely, 5:6; 8:19; 23;8; 23:12; Tefilah le-M oshe 10:13; Or Yaqar on Zohar, ba-M idbar 3, on Tikkunei ha-Zohar 2:8, 5:3; Shiur Qomah 6:6 and his Introduction to R a’aya Meheimana, note 4 - cf: Sack, B. (1995 a), p .129. 1324 See e.g., Pardes Rimonim 12:1 and compare with Perush Sefer Yetzirah, chapter 1. 1325 See e.g., Pardes Rimonim 10:1. On the use o f white clothes as a means to associate with the Holy priesthood o f the Temples era, see Kimelman, R. (2003), p p .142-167. 1326 Pardes Rimonim, ibid.

257

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Driven by the plea of the Shekhinah whose exilic agitation had been intensified through these hills and the ghostly presence of tannaitic war veterans, they would attend to the communication reverberating via corporeal and mental gateways - their manifold compass following an ethereal trajectory that seems to have been perpetually orchestrating their quest. In a landscape that had radically transformed to become both map and legend, they would perchance change their trail in reply to the call of a Queen insubstantial yet intimately available - sensing her presence saturating everything around them. They may even halt abruptly midcourse for her immediate relief when such a need was felt - whereupon they may search for the source of a nearby spring and drink its 1T97 flowing water whose clarity aided a precision of mind and spirit; sprinkle water on the ground as a gesture of rejuvenation and better energetic flow; pour cold water on their bodies to shiver into alertness their own corporeal vitality;1328 caress the grass to symbolically motivate growth on high; rub their chests to stimulate the soul within; cast pebbles into a well to prevent evil agents from hindering their quest; knock stones against each other or shake branches in the wind to reawake the earth and motivate its communicational transparency; even permutating letters with great concentration to excite the vertical and horizontal flow amidst the higher heavenly rungs - so they, in turn, may blissfully affect the Shekhinah from above. Clapping their hands in songs of encouragement or practicing radical affliction in acts of dramatic empathy - casting away either comfort or complacency, be it day or night - the path of this vanguard was informed by compassion and urgency, their destiny sustained by asceticism and ecstasy. At a certain juncture they would wrap themselves with prayer shawls and phylacteries in silent murmur. Commencing the Eighteen Part Benediction they would raise their hands high in the air, up to three consecutive hours at times. Wishing to rejoin the human foundational condition before the primordial Sin, their phylacteries now stood for the garments o f light [TIN mtfD] which were Adam’s primal status prior to the sin which rapped around him as “Garments of skin’'’ [TV muro].1329 With acute attentiveness to keys of wisdom hidden within the Hebrew language, they would chart phonetic or etymological affinities between words and harness them for epistemic clarity and 1327 See E ilim a R ab b ati, Ein K ol 5:38. 1328 See Sefer G erushin, entry 55, pp.65-66. 1329 Genesis 3:21.

258

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

practical manipulation: now attempting to shake o ff the skin [7117 11717] and awaken the soul [mi7n“7] so ‘light may supersede skin’ [71177 n s H’innrn],1330 their bodies would start trembling, gradually turning into violent shuddering followed by ecstatic fluctuations between weeping and exultation. RaMaK would not endorse a literal understanding o f this idea, according to which men would actually stand naked and engage the nearby grounds in search o f further preparatory refinement - a practice he had deemed “Vile and impure”1331 and might have hinted to certain Sufi rites.

These liturgical ordeals would anxiously await the exclamation ‘Amen’ wherein a profound unification of the Shekhinah (Malkhut) with the Sefirah Tif’eret became the polishing mechanism toward both theosophical transparency and repair known as ‘A speculum that shines’ (ni’XZi NnipDOX). It was a process whose function had been simultaneously diagnostic and remedial, aiming to lucidly fathom the theosophical traffic and restore the Shekhinah back to its primordial state as the 7th Sefirah, above Netzah, Hod and Yesod, “Since the Tikkun (restoration) is [...] its true place above Netzah and Hod [...] and she is currently demoted”.1332 These liturgical ordeals would reach a crescendo with the ‘Shema’ prayer which would in turn end with an earsplitting, stirring and prolonged "Tnx" (Ehad / One) - a word which both affirmed unequivocally metaphysical unity and evoked the theurgic mechanisms needed for its theosophical restoration to harmonious unity1333; “The loyalty which is the secret of Amen, that is the unification of all ten sefirot” [0"’

ittfpl Tirr1 lirrn

non p to ].1334

The members would then kiss their prayer shawl and either slowly or abruptly fall to the ground [tr’DN n^Di]1335 as dead [np1^

nrra],1336 nurturing from the Talmudic

depiction of the tannaitic martyr Rabbi Akiva “Whose soul departed at ‘One’ (the end of 1 TT7

the Shema)”

and aspiring to achieve this level of devekut, “A great love of God

1330 Sefer Gerushin, entry 17, p p .18-19 and compare with Or Yaqar on Tikkunei ha-Zohar 2:12. 1331 See Derishot ve-Hakirot be-Inyanei ha-Mal'akhim 7:3. 1332 Eilima Rabbati, Ein Kol 3:11. 1333 See its treatment in Zohar 2:133b-134a; cf: Tishby, I. (1949), vol.3, p p .1023-1029. See also in RaM aK ’s Hanhagot, No. 26 - cf: Schechter, S. (1908), p.293. 1334 Shiur Qomah, p.61. On this issue see also Green, A. (2003), pp.3-7. 1335 See his notes in Sefer Gerushin, entry 74, pp.96-97 and see Sack, B. (1995 a), pp.234-236 and fns.15,16,17,18. 1336 See e.g., Or Ne'erav 4:1. On this issue see also Fishbane, M. (rpr. ed., 1996), especially chapter 1. 1337 Babylonian, Berakhot 61b. See e.g., Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 5:32.

259

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

[which] is added to [one’s] soul and [his] death in communion [with God]”.1338 In such moments o f solitude each would perhaps engage in intimate discourse with the Sefirah intrinsic to his soul and possibly continue to seclude himself from one and all en route to an optimal quieting o f the soul rendered ‘A point o f equanimity’ [nnnwn nnj?3]. This highly desired condition featured a momentous concurrence o f absorption and serenity, close to that achieved by the primordial Adam “Whose quietude was infinite” [ nrpritf nnbti/n tr a n mn’7t7]1339 and wherein corporeal stillness afforded the mental cleansing indispensable to eradicate the clogs disrupting optimal energetic flow within ones interrelating attributes, “[...] Since man’s ability to negate the obstructions o f the place activates his senses according to their divine nature until they reach true unification.”1340 “Should a man be able to purify a limb o f his limbs”, RaMaK would now declare, “it shall motivate its superior counterpart, that which is rendered the same name above, be it a hand, a leg, an eye etc’”.1341 Having deemed themselves microcosms o f the entire sefirotic structure, the mystics held such techniques in high regard - not only for their wholesome theurgic potency but also for them having been conduits leading back to the primordial Edenic state, that “Which may be apprehended by certain righteous men while still in this [lower] world”1342 “Should one take o ff and eradicate the vile attire and put on the clothes which correspond with that [higher] realm”.1343 Reawakening, their lips and limbs would coordinate utterance and movement, their eyes and fingers following letters vigilantly combined and carefully pronounced en route to assume their theurgic roles on high: through a nuanced employment o f the Hebrew language whose designation as God’s Vernacular rendered it an exclusive path to Truth [n .» .N], these words were not only conduits for spiritual ascendance and epistemic progress but also a blueprint for practical use, physical manipulation and theurgic competence. Evidently influenced by the Abulafian approach, the members would arrange letters in five groups according to their hierarchical associations both within divinity and within the human vocal properties: the sefirot Gedulah, Gevurah, Tif’eret, 1338 Or Ne'erav 2:2. 1339 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 5:1. 1340 Shiur Qomah, p. 84. 1341 Pardes Rimonim 22:1. 1342 Ibid, 31:4; 31:5. 1343 Ibid, 31:6 and compare with Zohar 2:147a, 3:169b; Zohar Hadash 90b. See also Cohen-Alro, D. (1987), pp.51 and 62; Kimelman, R. (2003), p p .161-164; Wolfson, E.R. (1990), pp.xxv-xlix.

260

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Netzah and Hod would now correspond with letter combinations whose vocal potency resided respectively “In the throat, in the pallet, on the tongue, on the teeth and on the lips”.1344 Our perplexed bystander might therefore find the members emitting different letters and nonsensical words1345 with acute attentiveness to their precise point o f vocal origin and practicing further their various combinations thereof: stretching their lips and exercising their throats; knocking their teeth, rolling their tongues or training their pallets. Had RaMaK noticed this bystander, he might have assured him that no sense may be made by such words, pointing him to his 21st chapter in Pardes Rimonim (Sha ’ar Pirtei

ha-Shemot) where he had already introduced many o f these dumbfounding combinations and explained that “He who studies these names shall find nonsensical syllables or words unrestricted by guttural conventions [nsn nxtnrn tr'lina T ta ,rm:m T ta mzrn] and therefore inconceivable.”1346 These rituals were part o f a greater scheme wherein etymological affinities o f words unlocked a divine key pertaining to their concrete manipulation below: investigation

(kushiyah - rPtthp) corresponded with knocking (hakashah - rra>pn); attribute (midah rrra) with measurement (medidah - m ’lft) and prostration in supplication (hitmodedut mi7iann); law (halakhah - nnbn) with walking (halikhah - riD’hn); wandering (na va-nad - 711 Vi) with shaking and trembling (ni ’anu ’a / nidnud - n r a / S77J17J); revelation (hitgalut

- nPxnn) with exile (galut - nra); drawing near [hitkarvut - mznpnn] with sacrifice [korban - pip ]; body [fpn] with asceticism [HIPO]; or imagination (dimui - 1B7) with land (adamah - nttTO). Having followed such dialectical principals as “The shell is a [divine] regulation to attain the sacred [core]” [niimpn ~\1)V HDppn], “Descent is regulated for ascent” [rrby pniP m ’T] or “Concealment is the cause o f revelation and revelation is the cause o f concealment” [nhynn ro’O rrtonm mbinnn ro’D nhyn], these members seriously attended to tangibles as decoding agents which binded the real and corporeal with the ethereal and the surreal - allowing the immediately accessible its role in deciphering the remotely reachable: “The vessel is a preparatory medium for the soul”.1347

1344 Pardes Rimonim 27:27 and compare with Perush le-Sefer Yetzirah 2:3 and 2:6. 1345 On this issue see also Tishby, I. (1949), v o .l, pp.66-68. 1346 Pardes Rimonim 21:1. 1347 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l 4:4.

261

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

As they lie, a few would gradually turn over to their right, stretching their left arm upward only to retrieve it in a tender gesture, as if embracing an invisible beloved spouse and effecting grace upon her.1348 Others would assemble twelve stones which symbolized the tribes o f Israel, the signs o f the Zodiac, the months o f the year and the potencies o f the soul, placing them under their heads as “Jacob who gathered twelve stones under his head and unified them”. Thereafter they may cast some twigs on the stones and set them ablaze in an act o f unification, “Whose secret is the word fifs; (smoke), an acronym for

127D3 ,rnu? ,Dbl» (world, year, soul) and which is hinted at in the verse ‘And Mt. Sinai was entirely in smoke”’1349.1350 Others may stand upright and extend their arms to become reflective conduits affecting a proper surge between specific sefirot on high - a flow for which their own hearts were rendered axis spiritualis in correspondence with Sefirah

Tiferet. A few may perchance locate an active water well [be ’er - 1X3] whose association with Malkhut rendered it yet another portal toward exegetical potency ["itab]. They would than utilize its clout in order to affect in turn a nearby dry pit (bor - 113] whose phonetic association with "liO now rendered it in need o f spiritual repair.1351 Some would remain embedded in the soil, clipping their nails and burning them in an open fire as an act of symbolic riddance of impurity. Others may dip their fingers in oil as a further sign o f spiritual cleansing or drop a bit o f oil on the water, harnessing its ability to scrutinize colors and reflect them as does the Hokhmah above.1352 Some may sit and assume a fetal position wherein their heads would deeply tuck between their knees1353 and their arms would cover their heads in a shielding gesture. Numbing the senses o f the body1354 and with eyes shunned to hindrance within and without, their bodies would emulate both Adam in his pre-realized state and the sefirot

1348 See e.g., Pardes Rim onim 8:21. 1349 Exodus 19:18. 1350 Pardes Rimonim 21:6. Compare with Sefer Gerushin, entries 61, pp.73-75; 82, p .106; 91, p .122 and Eilima Rabbati, Ein Shemesh 3:3. 1351 Pardes Rimonim 23:2 under and TO. 1352 See Eilima Rabbati, Ein Ro ’i 4:10. 1353 A fascinating m otif whose meaning should be further investigated. As I had already mentioned, it is plausible that such a gesture aimed to symbolically focus on the circumcised area in order to stimulate innovations through language - nb’a riTO. For other explorations o f this gestures, see Fenton, P. (1994 b), pp. 19-29. 1354 See e.g. ibn Tzayah, Even ha-Shoham, in Scholem, G. (1930), No. 33, p.90.

262

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

“Who are united head in tail and tail in head”.1355 Body and hosting landscape would now turn into a womb o f truth and a Garden o f Eden in whom they were the fetus whose blissful nourishment allows profound epistemic transparency - ‘to see from one end of 1i f r

the world to the other’ in the words of the Talmud:

1-5 c *7

the prophet Elijah did it

and so

did Rabbis Elazar ben Dordeya,1358 Hanina ben Dosa1359 and Akiva ben Yoseph.1360 Others may assume this gesture as to imagine themselves dissolving completely in sanctification of God’s name and the abolition of all idol elements, sacrificing themselves [p n p ]1361 through both a corporeal positioning which corresponds with “Head [over] legs and entrails” (Exodus 12:9)1362 and the liturgical union of the letters n 1 n ’ which is “‘A sacrifice to the Lord’1363 ['nb p ip ] meaning the unification and merger [lllpl 7irn] of the letters n'brr”1364 - and by doing so drawing dramatically nearer [lip] the divine, to God’s innermost inferiority [illp i].1365 Regrouping once a deeper layer had been aroused within self, body, text, earth and heaven, a member would pose a difficulty

[n ’ t t lp ]

which pertained to a particular verse -

all such difficulties having been associated with Malkhut and her agitation.1366 A lively communication would ensue, fortified by oral elucidations in form of great ecstatic momentum - usually from Alkabetz or RaMaK. RaMaK would harness the potency of cosmic dialectics here as well, insisting that all sit on the hard terrain [in order to dialectically relief spiritual provision], “For I have heard that such was the practice among the ancients, who used to sit upon the earth when teaching this wisdom to students in order to bring out their humbleness and awe”.1367 As the aroused landscape would now host and orchestrate a spirited back and fro discourse between the heavens and these mystics, the members would distinguish between awards and gifts: the former would

1355 Seer Sefer Yetzirah 1:6 and RaMaK's Perush le-Sefer Yetzirah 1:6. 1356 Babylonian, Nidah 30b. 1357 1 Kings 18:42. 1358 Babylonian, Avodah Zarah 17a. 1359 Babylonian, Berakhot 34b. 1360 Heikhalot Zutarti, in Elior, R. (2001), p.36; Fenton, P. (1994 b), pp.21-22. 1361 See e.g., Or Yaqar on Zohar, Kedoshim 1 and Pinhas 1. 1362 See Zohar 2:18a. 1363 See Leviticus 1:2; 17:4; 27:9,11. 1364 Tefilah le-M oshe 2:5. 1365 See e.g., Zohar 1:127b. 1366 See Pardes Rimonim 23:19 under N’Wlp. 1367 Or Ne'erav 3:2.

263

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

constitute insights which were gradually recovered via the fellowship’s spirited discourse; the latter - a flash of innovative epistemic brilliance [ttHTTi - hidush] handed down by the heavenly Princess in gratitude for their industrious love1368 and ‘Consecration anew of heaven an earth’ [pNl tratt7 ttHTn], allowing her presence the redemptive clarity it had yearned for. So bright would this light be and so powerful its multi-expressive effect, that words would gush forth through a mystic’s mouth ‘of their own volition’, turning his ears into an audience stunned by his own preaching words; a vessel whose knowledge no longer relied on progress but rather reached the domain of unmediated intuition - “Things so remarkable as to defy comprehension unless one has tried them time and again”; a realm impenetrable by mortals save through divine benevolence - a gift! During (or perhaps after) such moments, a member would write each forthcoming word with great zeal - his hand possibly guided by the Shekhinah as well. Upon reaching a primary destination, usually the grave-marker of a saintly sage, Alkabetz would order the fellowship to prepare for its arousal. This was the pinnacle of these ordeals, a theatre o f practices whose understanding would require our bystander to fathom the broader and complex associations between the theosophical edifice and the earthly landscape - one best articulated by the term opposing mirror, the most astute among the members would put on their prayer shawls and phylacteries in order to undress corporeality and extend spirituality - both measures dialectically fused within the word m w ann [hitpashtut].1369 Assuming now the female role in order to arouse the Malkhut above (so she may arouse the Tif’eret via Yesod), RaMaK would approach the tombstone from the right and lie initially so his head and body are to the left of the deceased Tzadik [who is laid on his back]: drawing from the Zoharic view of the theosophical erotica expressed in the Song of Songs, RaMaK would now assume the role which is usually ascribed to the female spouse and awaken the deceased Tzadik so he may in turn “Concentrate on drawing the Shekhinah near through the aroused aspect of the left [side of the body], according to the esoteric meaning of the verse ‘[...] his left

1368 On this issue, see Green, A. in Heschel, S. (ed., 1983). 1369 See e.g., Shiur Qomah, p.5.

264

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

[arm] lies under my head’1370 [...] and later - as the verse continues - ‘and his right arm shall embrace me’. He should [now] concentrate on sweetening all those acts of restoring the Shekhinah via his good inclination, literally reinstating the Shekhinah and causing her to rejoice by performing this precept for the sake of the Supernal Union”. 1371 RaMaK would probably repeat this technique three consecutive times; standing and lying down again, crying to the heavens in recitation of Elijah’s famous words “O Lord my God, let this soul return to its body”.1372 In their search for aroused response below, RaMaK's cohort would espouse acts connoting sensual stimulation; pressing their bodies against the grave-marker, whispering words of love and longing, pleading with the deceased to awake through tender kisses of spiritual resuscitation - maneuvering their bodies to match with the deceased Tzadik beneath in mirroring reflection of the Shekhinah who longs for her husband T if’eret and spreads herself in receptive submission. As arousal had been achieved, RaMaK [female] would supplicate on top of the grave-mark (Yesod), stretching his limbs a la da Vinci’s vitruvian man and pressing against the stone - thus mirroring the opposite apparatus on high wherein the Malkhut lies under the Yesod, spreading in six directions and lifting herself toward him. Yesod, in turn, would be aroused to reunite her with her husband Tif’eret, “Who has six dimensions”.1373 Such sensual appeasements meant also to stimulate the deceased sage’s lips - which ‘never truly ceased from uttering secrets of Torah’1374 - to intercede on their behalf on high and to assist in their quest for esoteric insights below. RaMaK would even exchange the name Yesod with Tzadik in some of his theosophical designs,1375 demonstrating his adherence to the great esteem given to such men. Having been deemed ‘a foundation of the world’, the deceased Tzadik was associated with Sefirah Yesod (foundation) and rendered ‘a man of the land’ or axis mundi - a major player in the perpetual consecration of heaven and earth; a further negotiator between vertical and horizontal spiritual exchanges whose grave-marker [tvs mipfr was nothing short of a small temple.

1370 Song o f Songs 8:3. 1371 Tomer Devorah 6; translation in Miller, M. (1993), pp. 105-107 with certain modifications. 1372 1 Chronicles 17:21 and see Shiur Qomah, p .5. 1373 See Pardes Rim onim 23:1 under nax. 1374 See Babylonian, Yavamot 97a; Sanhedrin 90b; Bekhorot 31b. 1375 See e.g., Pardes Rimonim 11:3.

265

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

The mystics’ ingenious employment o f the word fP'i ( Tziyon - Zion / tziyun = a

pointer / a landmark) - albeit grounded in earlier Jewish texts1376 - would lead them to deem these grave-markers pointers toward the potential unification o f Yesod with

Malkhut. Given that frx (Zion) referred to both sefirot,

1 T 77

the landmark (tziyun) now

became a portal o f intense intimacy between the living Tzadik (= Malkhut / female) and his deceased predecessor ( - Yesod / male) - symbolizing through the reunion o f the single word TPX the reunion o f their productive organs. Such gestures transformed the level o f discourse to such an erotic degree as to have it border on spiritual intercourse, whereupon a living mystic would aim to reach a radical infusion o f spirits with his deceased counterpart - to kiss the grave-marker with sensual intensity, “For the kiss is undeniably the cleaving o f one soul to another”;1378 to “Prostrate within his interiority” [umpn]; to cleave [pm] to his soul much like “A man [who] must cleave to his wife”;1379 “To know him / to become known through him” [ly’Tift] much like Adam who “Had known his wife Eve”1380 and “To take note o f him” [7ps] much like God who “Had taken note o f Sarah / Hannah”, thus effecting their impregnation.1381 These ordeals had transformed into highly intimate orchestration o f dialectic exchange - a mechanism wherein ‘pressing against the body’ o f the deceased Tzadik (who was lying on his back) affected his soul which “Is a mirror turned upward”1382 and produced a spirited light shooting upward to Yesod above. The Yesod in turn pressed against his superior Tiferet and orchestrated its reunion with Malkhut below him - a matrimony which translated also as splendidly innovative insights, both sources o f profound delight and further remedial formulas. While certain members were occupied with such intimate discourse, others may have leaped to their feet and jump passionately as an empowering gesture for the Shekhinah “Who jumps to consummate her love for her husband”.

Others may yet meditate, attempting to visualize the sage’s face and draw

near him, while some may beat olives into oil to arouse the deceased Tzadik and affect 1376 On this issue see Wofson, E.R. (1987), p p .189-215. 1377 See Pardes Rim onim 23:18 under p ’s. 1378 Or N e’erav 6:3. 1379 Genesis 2:24. 1380 Genesis 4:1 and compare with Or Ne'erav 2:1. 1381 Genesis 21:1; 1 Samuel 2:21. 1382 Ibid, entry 91, p .105. 1383 Pardes Rimonim 23:19 under nx’Dp.

266

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

the Sefirah Yesod “Who is called ‘a fresh olive tree’1384 [...] and beats its olives into oil to pour it gracefully on the Malkhut,”1385 Consorting with the deceased Tzadikim was by no means a rite free o f manifold perils. Having been such momentous portals for cosmic repair, the mishandling o f these grave-markers could have unleashed a tremendous blow from a malevolent heavenly agent and therefore had to be performed “At maximum haste, without prolonging”.1386 At such inauspicious instances o f demonic transubstantiation [7W miry], our distraught bystander might witness a member convulsing or shouting in a feat o f indignation and uncontrolled outrage, whereupon he might harm his own body to disarm its spiritual trajectory and decommission its corporeal vitality - collapsing thereafter exhausted on the ground, emitting growling sounds and foaming from the mouth in dissipating ripples o f an epileptic fit. The possibility for angelic or demonic transubstantiation [ mnynftn miz/jn 7!£>n IX ixVnn IX ,13] was very much a part o f RaMaK's life, one whose profound rewards also created for such mystics a spiritual path fraught with grave dangers. RaMaK would endorse exorcism only if done by proper men who are well versed with the complex demonic realms and can pinpoint with accuracy the nature o f the demon in order to invoke the precise incantation needed for its demise [ nrx» yTty "pm 72/n y’aw’ttt conm xmn urxna irr-an1? r73...xm p^n nrxa run1? ,xin nnswa].1387 The disorientated member would therefore be approached by Alkabetz, RaMaK or another member conversed in these mediums, whereupon they would invoke the required remedial agents in a stark voice, their mouths whispering commands and letters which would completely baffle not only our bewildered bystander but perhaps some o f the junior members as well. The mystics may then enter a cave o f another sage, whereupon they would consecrate it through prayer, meditation or by striking its walls to extract water buried under inaugurating anew its residual sacredness dormant for centuries and cleansing it from the shells hindering its rejuvenation. Elsewhere they would pray fervently amidst the ruins o f a synagogue, forming various clusters in order to affect particular sefirotic configurations - one, three, five, six, seven - or the my (edah) o f ten worshipers necessary to correspond 1384 See Jeremiah 11:16. 1385 Pardes Rimonim 23:21 under ptz?. 1386 Sefer Gerushin, entry 32, p.35. 1387 Derishot ve-Hakirot be-Inyanei ha-M al'akhim 5:7; cf: Shemu’ah be-Inyan ha-Gilgul, end o f note 6.

267

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

with the sefirotic scheme entire. Perhaps they would traverse the remains of an ancient Jewish village, retracing the footsteps of their saintly precursors and invoking their names with special incantations so they would join their mission - RaMaK’s cohort was after all nourishing to maturity the spiritual radiance birthed by Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai and his fellowship some thirteen centuries earlier. In such conjunctions wherein Man-LandSefirah triangulation had reached optimum accuracy, their discourse would often reach levels of drastic exultation, in which episodes of tremendous spiritual illumination would follow: their empathic pledge to divinity and stake in its welfare would now emancipate insights so overwhelming as to have the words on their lips drive noticeably enduring ripples through their bodies - an effect whose residual presence may remain and inform the mystic long after the ordeal had concluded. It would probably be difficult for our bystander to ascertain a particular moment upon which the fellowship determined the conclusion of such excursions: innovations may have been associated with specific times or places within the vicinity and conclude once these spatiotemporal boundaries either reached fruition or were breached. There might have been an abrupt cessation of innovations from above, followed by a profound silence which engulfed the group and hinted at the exhaustion of divine communications for that specific conjuncture. Perhaps it was not the exhaustion of the Shekhinah but rather that of the mystic’s which brought an ordeal to a halt - a fellow succumbing to the perpetual intensity of such insights and ‘breaking the communicative channel’ by a loss of concentration or perhaps even consciousness. Be that as it may, the fellowship would conclude its mission between bewilderment and euphoria, praising a successful excursion which had lead it one step closer to complete deliverance, and depart the Galilean theatre whose transformed scope allowed the Princess to communicate with them in thunderous whispers. En route back to Safed [TV], Alkabets and RaMaK may per chance extend their banishment for certain benedictions and rituals pertaining to the highest ranking kabbalists, their respective sefirot and theurgic responsibilities thereof. Upon return, the company entire would cherish these secrets, keeping them close to heart and mouth: aware of their leading role before Israel and God, the words revealed to them and the sensation of the Shekhinah further unified were not to be disseminated without severe 268

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

scrutiny. They would revisit and study them in Safed, extracting further insights which may lead to moral communal requisites, social discourse and pedagogic techniques. RaMaK would return home as well, either to write the ordeals himself or to look at notes taken by a fellow while he had been engaged in intuitive discourse. It seems that sometime between 1549 and 1551 - after already having embarked on composing Or Yaqar - RaMaK would revisit these notes, cross-referencing them with Pardes Rimonim and other teachings of his master Alkabetz as a short piece to circulate among the members, featuring some 90 entries. It seems quite evident, albeit for reasons which still elude us, that neither RaMaK nor his fellowship practiced gerushin between 1548 and 1551. RaMaK's direct disclosure of the year 1551 in entry 91 corroborates this assessment as it professes his desire to link the following gerushin with the ones enacted earlier. In any event, RaMaK would resume the practice of gerushin for a short while during 1551, albeit this time seemingly on his own. He would write these experiences and arrange them later in further entries of which 9 are extant today. Written and left this time in an intimate diary format, these entries are conspicuously free of references, excluding the last entry which cites the second part of Or Yaqar. Perhaps it was the continuous work on this magnum opus in 1551 which served as the chief impetus behind these solitary excursions, as RaMaK would later disclose in Or Yaqar the prostrations, innovations and celestial assistance rendered toward its fruition.1388 RaMaK's notes in these 9 entries end abruptly and the work as a whole furnishes neither a conclusion nor a heading - the latter would be given in Venice half a century later by Rabbi David ibn Hin, who compiled the 99 entries for publication and titled them Sefer Gerushin (1601-2).

1388 Please refer to the section “Or Yaqar” in RaMaK's Writings.

269

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Sefer Gerushin: Introduction Due to their intricate correlations and introductory value for the mystical devotion which permeates Sefer Gerushin, the prefaces to Eilima Rabbati [Ein Adam 6] and Tomer Devorah benefit from the following juxtaposition:

cm ’byn mabiyn w r a invm

in tin

□•’nv'py1?

erne nwyan

7tn iWNin din tnd mamam ama'Tpn *iaprit» na bm ,niTDon Vn m m a invm nunnnm in’ham innranni ,mNn i1? -nrrty in n / idio to inpm ,n^v [...] v m

Concerning the action[s] of man and his contribution / funneling* to the higher rungs - [be it through] either light or effect - and his competence to shake the higher worlds and his existence as a chariot for the sefirot - all that has been decreed / restored* by the ancient men and the chariots from Primordial Adam till all eternity, and his fits* ultimate restoration*1389 / The straight path for man to contemplate upon;1390 his solitary aptitude,* his essential purpose of being and insight into his deeds.1391 Sefer Gerushin is a potently felt actualization of the above ideas, incorporating the imitatio Dei and theurgic principals into a meticulously enacted mystical drama which was not shy of geopolitical aspirations as well. In Or Yaqar RaMaK views radical occupation with the Torah “An act of unification which stands in opposite to exile [and] prevents banishments from Israel”1392; a mystical configuration whose underpinning political assurance is quite visible, considering RaMaK's turbulent era. Although the subtle backdrop o f Sefer Gerushin sustains the major building blocks of RaMaK's speculation, its chief impetus was nonetheless the devotional reification whose fruition converged an impressive amalgamation of spiritual, corporeal and spatiotemporal arrangements. Correspondingly, the pivotal role allotted to the Galilean landscape and its 1389 Mic. 2174, Jewish Theological Seminary, p.163a. * These words are highly subtle and contain multiple meanings stemming from etymological associations: 1) nri’in - both contribution / input and funneling / channeling - the view o f theosophical trafficking in form o f conduits / pipes [miUX - see Pardes Rimonim, Shaar ha-Tzinorot ] which clearly demonstrates this subtle dual meaning. See also Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l 5, end o f chapter 38. 2) yipJi - both decree and restoration: pertaining to both intellectual and practical engagements with divine worship. 3) lilpn - in general can pertain to either man [his] or the sefirot [its]. The term ppn may thus pertain to both men and world. 1390 Compare with Or Yaqar on Zohar, Bereshit 6:41. 1391 JTS Mic. 2174, p.200a. * in rrrn n n - as shall be demonstrated, RaMaK's employment o f this term pertains to both contemplation and practical isolation. On the idea of the chariot in Rabbnic literature, see also Dan, J. (1983). 1392 Or Yaqar on Zohar, va-Yeshev 8:4.

270

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

transformation into axis spiritualis in the execution of these rites should arguably be given much more attention. RaMaK's engineering of the theosophical edifice in relation to the landscape itself suggests that he does not merely speculate on the different meanings behind the cosmic mechanisms and their relationships with the human microcosmic condition thereof, but rather charts the inner life of a theosophical edifice whose contingency on the sacred cartography of the Galilean vicinities was as profound as that upheld by the mystics. RaMaK's view of the Galilee was utterly mediated by the Zoharic lenses, the very speculums which he believed to have been polished amidst its hills, caves and water pits.1393 And indeed a spirited lens it had been, wherein the landscape had transcended its passive role as a receptacle of sacredness and transformed into a noticeable facilitator of the ensuing human-divine dialogue: a geography which corresponded simultaneously with God and men and whose role was a nucleus feature in this brief composition. Correspondingly, Sefer Gerushin followed the initiatory principle conveyed in the departing words of Moses to the Israelites, “Concealed acts concern the Lord our God; but with overt acts, it is for us and our children ever to apply all the provisions of this Torah”.1394 The gerushin aimed among other things to enact a process which in contrast to abstract speculation had accentuated the tangible properties of the landscape as a means to unpack the finer properties of the governing intangible realms. As RaMaK mentions in Pardes Rimonim in regard to the mystical utility of colors - and in full accord with the ‘concealment is the source of revelation’ principle - “It is from within the colors that appear to the eyes or to the physical mind [usum Vdwh] that the spiritual is aroused [..,]”.1395 The centrality of this view in RaMaK's system is visible in Or Yaqar, where he clarifies in a Platonic language that notwithstanding the ontological inferiority of the tangibles, they nevertheless reflect their intangible counterparts on high and therefore allow to fathom the heavenly by engaging the earthly - seeing ‘upward’ by gazing ‘downward’:

1393 Interesting here is I. Tishby’s section titled “The Topography o f the Zohar”, wherein he discusses the numerous topographical errors made by the Zoharic authors in regards to places in the Palestinian vicinity and the Galilean region in particular. See Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, pp.63-64. RaMaK never addressed such matters. 1394 Deuteronomy 29:28. 1395 P ard es R im onim 10:1.

271

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

to rr’ron to ‘roifi 7ds:i mn invn ixn inn: run nbisro nvn mw pirn [...] Tp'ron d^toh 7ioa d, 7 ” ouo o^io v tn s n r m n v x i irniu nr ‘to ny ,ma ‘row i w n im a 770 [...] nnnn im a ii’Vvn d^toh n’rouTn yirontyn1? nsnm ,’annn

[...] □,,w n □,737n ima □n'po^no yuronun rmvby [...] Notwithstanding the destitution of this world and its immeasurable deprivation, it is nonetheless a place whose form, shape and the outlines of its details correspond with their spiritual outlines on high. He who wishes to attain and to take delight in the higher realm through the Torah [...] therefore needs to engage the tangible elements and pleasingly enlighten himself through them [...].1396 At this juncture RaMaK's employment of physical elements, corporeal manipulations and natural objects should not be construed as mere abstract thought reconfigured by mythical symbolism. Quite the contrary, despite the tendency to establish RaMaK's abstract acumen and enlist his vocabularies to such ends, scholarship should allow RaMaK’s words to speak for themselves - a reality which will undeniably afford the greater depth of meanings to his works. Indeed, in Shiur Qomah RaMaK not only devotes a whole section to the politics of physical, natural and corporeal being,1397 but also states clearly that “Although the higher rungs utterly transcend shape or form, we find that one cannot dismiss their realized outlines as transmitted to us by previous sages. It is therefore indisputably mandatory [7133, n737] for one to imagine the sefirot as [positioned] above or beside each other and to realize one’s thoughts through physical movements and corporeal imitations [n,i:3i: CPrij?im nvn m riTOi:n] [...]. Given that the descent of all intangibles is their appearance as all the tangibles, the latter point to their higher origins - be it via corporeal movements, letter structures, vowels and consonants, speech, writing and so forth. I henceforth declare that such corporeal movements [as all other tangibles] point to divine intent and regulatory procedures [ "plTi 7:1137 7N y:i: p’TO 7to:]”.1398 As we have already demonstrated, this rationale informs RaMaK's entire edifice and appears in its most comprehensive detail in Eilima Rabbati,1399 from the initial point of

Or Yaqar on Zohar, Pekudei 1. 1397 Shiur Qomah, pp. 135-137. 1398 Ibid, pp. 176-177. 1399 Eilima Rabbati, Ein Shemesh, especially 3:68-71.

272

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

emanation down to the most miniscule cosmic elements. This fact should inform our reading of Sefer Gerushin as well: RaMaK's adherence to the Zoharic take on the verse “Through my flesh I witness the Lord”1400 leads him to accept quite literally Alkabetz’ suggestion in Sefer Gerushin, “We should on occasion walk barefoot in [order to join] the mystery of the Shekhinah [as divulged in the verse] ‘withhold thy feet from being unshod’”.1401 This view was not only part of the aforementioned regulatory apparatus, but also demonstrates the role assigned to corporeal management and discourse with nature en route to epistemic transparency, spiritual progress and theurgic potency. Moreover, RaMaK’s unyielding belief regarding the Galilean birthplace of the Zohar had undeniably informed the weight he had put on the natural symbolism that permeated the Zohar and pointed to its intangible truths. RaMaK speaks more than once about the spiritual and theurgic advantages awaiting those who visit the exact places, gravesites or texts occupied by tannaitic protagonists.1402 One can therefore only imagine the impact of having had the ability to traverse the landscape previously impressed by Rashbi’s footprints, or to engage the ‘same’ trees, caves, ravines and hills whose previous manipulation had birthed the text on which RaMaK had so profoundly relied for the fruition of the redemptive scheme. RaMaK, however, does not leave us to dwell in imaginative obscurities on this matter. For him, the natural world was not autonomously factual as it was logically suggestive', the most detailed appearance of divine harmonious utility from whence the intangible and sublime could be revealed:

Since the colors which are seen by the eye or [the elements which] are visualized by the physical mind [’3913a ^DEO] activate the spiritual [realms of men]. In turn, the Nefesh now awakens the Ruah and the Ruah awakens the Neshamah, and the Neshamah ascends from reality to reality until it reaches the point from whence it was conceived [nnp’P mpn] and is awakened to fathom the essence of that visualization [mi’Xm s’XB].1403

1400 Job 19:26. See E ilim a R ab b ati, Ein Shemesh 3:69. 1401 Entry 11, p .12. 1402 See e.g., O r Y a q a r on Z o h ar, va-Yakhel 5; Pinhas 7; on Yenuka 8:12. 1403 P ard es R im onim 10:1.

273

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

There is indeed no doubt that in many instances RaMaK uses the tangibles only as conceptual metaphors, such as “We should take off any corporality, cast away the shell of the simile and eat the core of the lesson”.1404 This use nevertheless fell within a broader hierarchy of practical measures whose invasiveness corresponded with the actuality of the shells around the intelligible core: the measures for affecting the abstracts were finer than those affecting language, whereas those were in turn finer than the measures needed to affect physical elements. RaMaK's theoretical treatise Eilima Rabbati states that although any visualization or materialization of the abstract theosophical edifice is “An absolute error and an awful transgression”

film TittJ, myu], it is nevertheless

“Permissible to intellectually fathom the Sefirot by visualizing the letters which constitute their names” [ nrt? ma^n nvmN mix natm nrpy nbswn

b’DU/n naax

"ima].1405 Correspondingly, the ability to champion theoretical contemplation was not the appropriate tool to affect the revelatory medium of the Torah: “Man contributes nothing save by occupation with the Torah, and no advantage comes save by uttering it[s words] with his lips which are the only way to actualize its potency”,1406 for “contemplation

[nmn] will not suffice”.1407 Likewise, RaMaK’s discussion of tangible objects, such as rocks or boulders, leads him to charge men to physically strike them instead of engaging them verbally, “Since speech will not be a sufficient conduit* in this matter”.1408 Sefer Gerushin should thus be scanned by such broader a radar, allowing corporeal and physical manipulations their seat of honor in his otherwise conceptual pantheon: RaMaK states e.g., that “Each stone hints at the divine presence”1409 and goes on to describe the Sefirah Malkhut “The tenth stone”;1410 he distinguishes between “Two types of rocks” in respect to two ontic realms,1411 continuing to stress that “No limb is free of

1404 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 4:7. 1405 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz, Tamar 1, chapter 5. ,406 Shiur Qomah 4:1. 1407 Or Yaqar on Hakdamat ha-Zohar 1:16. 1408 Sefer Gerushin, entry 20, pp.24-25: ’3 ncron pas nxsn T>1 S 7m;1? p b [...] 'l^o n bx n m rm Tim m m ' pum V’Slfl X7 "lim n - By way o f etymological association the word V’inn means ‘contribution through channeling”. Compare with Eilima Rabbati, Ein Adam 6: ni3T,1757l7 inbSJVn Q7XH ntflSBD. * See my treatment o f etymological associations - iro n - rte in . 1409 See e.g., Pardes Rimonim 1:6 and his treatment o f the term p x (stone) in Shaar Erkhei ha-Kinuyim. 1410 See e.g., Pardes Rimonim 11:4. 1411 See e.g., Pardes Rimonim 23:15.

274

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

God’s vitalizing force”1412 and that “The higher Hokhmah extends to all of creation inanimate object, plants, animals and humans”;1413 that Sefirah Binah is “Essentially governed by grace, joy and song”1414 and that “Grass stands for the essence of growth”;1415 that “Nowhere exists a plant without an angel* who strokes it and commands it to grow”1416 and that men should study divinity by studying physical objects, “To see their detailed organs, varied matters and lights”;1417 he claims that ‘“ Spread apples before me’1418 is Malkhut, being that she is red and white [...], like those apples whose colors are blended [...]”1419* and that “The Tiferet is seen by the Gevurah through scent, taste and color”,1420 - all of which call to attention his amalgamation of the intimately tangible as an indispensable roadmap towards the more transcendent, and request our sensitivity to his use of natural phenomena and objects as pivotal agents in the human-divine discourse: stones, grass, water reservoirs, trees, sky, stars and colors much like rejoicing, singing, shouting, shaking and trembling - were therefore not merely metaphors aiming to elucidate that which sometimes mocked human discourse. Rather, they were de facto rendered the reflecting objects o f abstract objectives and important contributors to human epistemic progress. Consequently, their practical value as conduits between the mystics and the higher rungs surpassed the level of symbolic gesture and was given concrete validation by means of actual manipulation of the landscape, as well as other corporeal maneuvers and spatiotemporal negotiations. Knocking rocks against each other, assuming a fetal position or forming a circle of devotees around a spirited earthly portal were all therefore acts whose value corresponded simultaneously with the epistemic and the practical in RaMaK’s theurgic arsenal. 1412 See e.g., Pardes Rimonim 4:10. 1413 Tomer Devorah, chapter 3; in Miller, M. (trans. 1993), p.75. 1414 See e.g., Pardes Rimonim 8:6. 1415 See e.g., ibid 8:26. 1416 See in Bereshit Rabba, Bereshit 10:6; Pardes Rimonim 24:10 and compare to RaMaK's Perush Sefer Yetzirah, chapter 2; Sefer Gerushin, entry 74, p.93; Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 3:2 and Or Yaqar on Tikkunei ha-Zohar 8:19. * Based on other works RaM aK correlates the term “angel” with either “star” [3D1D], “a heavenly sign” [Vr»], an “ethereal intelligence” [bsiff], “an officer” [~I0W] or “a spiritual potency” [nrrn m s]- see Pardes Rimonim, ibid, Sefer Gerushin, ibid, Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:5, Ein Kol 5:26 and Or Yaqar respectively. 1417 Or Yaqar, vol. 10, p.7 - translation by Idel, M. in Green, A. (ed., 1989), pp.430-431. 1418 Song o f Songs 2:5. 1419 Tomer Devorah 5 and compare with Pardes Rimonim 23:18. * See RaMaK's more abstract treatment in the Simile o f the Orbs - Pardes Rimonim 4:9 and Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 4:1. On this issue, see Idel, M. (1998 a), pp. 103-111. 1420 Sefer Gerushin, entry 63, p .77.

275

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

An excerpt from RaMaK's Or Yaqar is instrumental for establishing further the indispensability of the natural, the corporeal and the physical en route to spiritual enlightenment: If one wishes to take pleasure in the understanding of his Creator, let him concentrate according to the accepted premises which he has learned and let him look at a particular physical form, so he may learn from it that which is alluded to in the spiritual worlds, and he will see the detailed organs of it, and the varied matters and its lights. And from thereon he will gradually fathom the innermost secrets of the spirituality of that form, and he shall attain devekut. Such was the way of Adam in the Garden of Eden. Now, if the Cherubim were physical-spiritual beings, he may gaze at them and come to contemplate and to apprehend from what is pictured here, in terms of the visual, that which makes sense to the mind - [proceeding] from the physical to the spiritual.1421 The same process also informs epistemological flow from above downwards, namely a necessity of gradual actualization of the intangibles via the mystic’s mental and corporeal facilities. In Shiur Qomah RaMaK states: As soon as His providence - may He be praised! - arrives at his prophets who are worthy of this providence in that matter, the content of which nobody is able to know except him who is receiving it and thus knows its content. When this perception arrives at the neshamah of the prophet, it connects the neshamah to the body like all other subjects. For if you presuppose that perception arrives at the neshamah without coming in connection with the body at all, the neshamah would not be able to bring forth the subject which has been perceived by the neshamah. And if so, then how would the prophet be able to bring forth from his neshamah any perception perceived by the prophecy from the Lord? For we have never seen a man speaking to his neighbor from neshamah to neshamah or from intellect to intellect. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary that this perception and prophecy, which has emanated down onto him, proceeds from the neshamah to the spirit (ruah) and from the spirit to the soul and from the soul to the intellect. . . . And when this subject has been drawn to the body he will understand it as far as the subject has been emanated to him. If his imagination perceives the verbal message which he has to communicate to others, he will say: “And I heard the voice of the Lord speaking . . . “And if he receives a vision and has to transmit it to others,

1421 Or Yaqar, vol.10, p .7 - translation by Idel, M. in Green, A. (ed., 1989), pp.430-431.

276

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

the intellectual subject will be assimilated by the vision to the body, and he will say: “And I saw the Lord [. . ,].”1422 The first excerpt is of particular importance here since it also hints at the ideation of the Galilean backdrop - now seen as a version of the Garden of Eden. Once juxtaposed with a famous Talmudic tractate1423 which discloses the centrality of the fetal position as a means to return to the multifaceted purity enjoyed in the primordial Garden of Eden1424 - and compared with other instances wherein RaMaK discloses the wholesome ontic and epistemic nature of the Primordial Adam prior to sinning1425 - the ideation of the Galilean landscape in Sefer Gerushin indeed hints at certain practices which might have informed RaMaK's devotional slant, as we’ll discuss to follow. As mentioned earlier, the seemingly paradoxical conjuncture wherein the seed of divine mystery was inversely permeating the skin of tangible elements is an amalgamation of the rule “The shell is a [divine] regulation to attain the sacred [core]” [nttmpn -pis ns’bpn] and another directive adopted from the Talmud1426 and developed in Tikkunei ha-Zohar and Raaya Meheimana , 1427 “Concealment is the cause of revelation and revelation is the cause of concealment” [□bynn n:ro mbnnm mbnnnn nzro obyn]. Both regulations pointed to the inverse relationship between actuated superficialities and their depth of potentiality: the revealed shells - be it mundane conduct, corporeality, physical objects, landscape or even the primary levels of exegesis - are all conduits to finer realms. They are agents of a mysterious ad hoc principle, or ledges whose role was to sustain one’s spiritual ascent on the cosmic ladder and vanish under his feet once fulfilling their task.1428 In that respect, nampn ynx ns’bpn does not refer to God’s need for the shell but rather to its employment by men as an apparatus embedded in the reversed spiritual ascent toward a shell-free existence - as RaMaK puts it, “To ascend above exile and enslavement” [uny^m mbun p nby&b mbvb].1429 RaMaK encloses this idea in Sefer Gerushin, stating “I have further explicated that concealed matters are not 1422 Shiur Q om ah’ p.49. Translation taken from Maier, J. (2001), p. 14. 1423 Babylonian, Nidah 30b. 1424 See Fenton, P. (1994 b), p.20. 1425 See e.g., Or Yaqar on Tikkunei ha-Zohar 2:12. 1426 See e.g., Babylonian, Megilah 19b. Cf: Berkovitz, E. (2002), pp.216-218. 1427 Zohar 3:257b-258a. I shall discuss this with greater detail in the second part o f this work. 1428 See RaMaK's discussion in Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 6:5. 1429 Or Yaqar, volume 2, on Tikkunei ha-Zohar, p .l 14. Cf: Sack, B. (1995 a), pp.263-265.

277

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

attained save through the revealed; and the further their [inward] concealment the greater their [outward] revelation [...]”.1430 Although this term is usually associated with RaMaK's abstract treatment of the perplexing initiatory realm that distinguishes metaphysics from theosophy and orchestrates further the unfolding of descending realities,1431 its disclosure in Sefer Gerushin arguably accentuates his view of all tangible phenomena as portals for epistemic transparency, spiritual evolution and theurgic efficacy.

On Love and Responsibility The Zohar (3:220b-221b) narrates a dialogue between a gentile and the tannaitic sage Rabbi Elazar, provoked by the former’s scorning refutation of the superior affinities between God and the Israelite nation: ‘You say that you are closer to the Supreme King than all other nations. [However], one who is close to the King is always happy, free of pain, fear or oppression; but you are always in pain and grief, more oppressed than all other people in the world. As for us, no pain, oppression or grief even comes near. We are [therefore] closer to the Supreme King, [whereas] you are far from Him!’ Rabbi Elazar stared at this man and he turned into a heap of bones. Then the Rabbi said: ‘The words spoken by that wicked man I once asked the prophet Elijah. He told me that these words were once arranged before the Blessed Holy one in the Academy in Heaven, and this was the response. [...] Indeed we are closer to the Supreme King than all other nations; indeed it is so! For the Blessed Holy One has made Israel the heart of the whole world. Thus Israel lives among the nations as the heart among the limbs of the body. Just as the limbs cannot exist even for a moment without the heart, so all the nations cannot exist without Israel. [...] The heart is tender and weak; yet it is the life of all the limbs. Only the heart perceives pain and trouble and grief, for it contains life and intelligence. The other limbs are not close to the King. They have no life; they perceive nothing’.1432 This mythical configuration had indeed rendered hierarchical not only the distinction between Jews and gentiles, but also between mystics within the 16th century Palestinian 1430 Sefer Gerushin, entry 52, p.62. 1431 See e.g. Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:20. 1432 As mentioned by D. Matt, “The image o f Israel as the heart derives from Judah ha-Levis’ ha-Kuzari 2:36. See also in Bacher, W. (1891), pp.781-784; cf: Matt, D. (1983), p .195 and fn.38; translation by D. Matt, with minor modifications.

278

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

milieu: the mystical elite - the most astute and solitary wanderers among the generation1433 - now deemed itself the main artery of that heart, a pious cohort whose rigorous spiritual potencies had reinvigorated its beat and rekindled a cosmic momentum hitherto pulsating silently in the landscape since the 2nd century: “Since the Shekhinah cannot bestow her providence save through men who are worthy to banish themselves in her footsteps [...]; men who are like sons who grew their wings and follow their mother [bird]1434 wherever she goes”.1435 The dialectic view rendering the lowliest among men the potentially loftiest in spirit1436 had obviously been a pivotal imitatio Dei principal, as already seen in RaMaK's Tomer Devorah wherein God’s highest ranking manifests “As a tolerant King, who bears insult in a manner beyond human comprehension”.1437 This view is complimented in Sefer Gerushin which renders the Shekhinah “She who is called David, to allude to the secret meaning of poverty and dearth”.1438 The manifold theurgic accountabilities and compensations of this elevated mystical status were therefore correspondingly hierarchical,1439 and those assumed by the Alkabetz’ Safedian cohort are arguably the impetus behind Sefer Gerushin, Here one finds the acute infusion of the ascetic with the ecstatic', the practices of a selected fellowship who spearheaded a renaissance of the tannaitic period in form of a dramatic search-and-rescue mission of the Shekhinah in the Galilean backdrop. Renaissance indeed, for RaMaK’s entourage followed in the Zoharic footsteps wherein redemption was truly nearby, since “The sixth millennium will feature the end of it all, ‘at evening time’1440 which is the ultimate conclusion. [And] ‘the time when women come out to draw water’1441 pertains to 1433 See RaMaK's use o f this term [n rn w a’Tnanan im a ] when discussing Jacob the Patriarch - Pardes Rimonim 4:9. 1434 RaM aK explicates here on Proverbs 27:8 - “Like a bird wandering from its nest is a man wandering from his home”. 1435 Or Yaqar on Tikkunei ha-Zohar 5:2. Cf: Or Yaqar on Raaya Meheimana 3:17 and on Tikkunei ha-Zohar 6:6, 8:7. 1436 See e.g., RaMaK's statement regarding the Tzadikim (who correspond with Sefirah Yesod) that are adorned by the title “the poor” [uy] - Sefer Gerushin, entries 28, p.30 and 29, pp.31-32. 1437 T om er D evorah 1:1 [referring to the Keter. Virtually all thirteen measures in the 1st chapter continue this line o f thought]. Please refer to my discussion regarding mystical humility in the first chapter. 1438 Sefer Gerushin, entry 68, p .82. 1439 RaMaK makes clear distinctions between the various levels o f study (Mikra, Mishnah, Talmud, Teaching) and their respective theurgical affects in Eilima Rabbati, M aayan Ein Adam, tamar 6 [manuscript]. See also in Sack, B. (1995 b). For RaM aK’s hierarchical distinction between Israel and the Gentiles, see also in Sefer Gerushin, entry 80, p. 103. 1440 See Genesis 24:11. 1441 Ibid.

279

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

sagacious students who draw the waters of Torah, which is the time to come out, rise and shake off the dust” ["iDyn

linnn'T].1442 As I. Tishby describes, “The disciples [in the

Zohar\ are full of praise for their generation, in which ordinary poor old men and tender children at the very beginning of their studies are replete with knowledge and understanding of the mysteries of the world because of the greatness of Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai who dwelt among them. No other generation was like it, and none ever will be until the end of days”.1443 RaMaK evidently belonged to a cohort which saw itself as spearheading this cosmic closure, men who were living this ‘ultimate conclusion’ and therefore charged by the Zohar to ‘come out’, ‘draw the waters of Torah’ and ‘rise and shake off the dust’. Despite the understandable reluctance to divulge it, this was precisely what these men aimed to do - to utilize the manifold faculties afforded through Torah, Zohar, landscape, body and soul in order to fulfill the cosmic regulated pledge toward ultimate unification. RaMaK's explicit disclosure of these practices is enclosed in Or Ne'erav and is complimented in Pardes Rimonim as well as in Or Yaqar, wherein he makes various allusions to the overall indispensability of these endeavors, their hierarchical contingencies and immediate associations with the 2nd century tannaitic sages.1444 In Or Ne'erav RaMaK writes, The eighth virtue [of Kabbalah] concerns that which I myself have experienced, especially in the matter of ‘exilic excursions’. For we would ‘exile’ ourselves to the field with the divine Rabbi Solomon ben Alkabetz ha-Levi, may God preserve him, to occupy ourselves with the verses of the Torah extemporaneously without study in depth. [Then] many times innovations were made on matters which no one could understand unless he saw or experienced the matter. And gifts which I received in the exilic excursions and which came into my portion through God’s grace to me I will write down in a separate composition, dividing them into entries one by one with God’s help.1445

Z o h ar 1:128a (Midrash h a-N e’elam). 1443 Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, p . l l . 1444 P ard es R im onim 8:19; O r Y aq ar, Volume 1, p .58, on Hakdamat ha-Zohar 6a; Volume 6, p .58, on Z o h ar 1:181a; O r N e'erav, part 1, chapter 6:9a-b. On this issue, see Sack, B. (1995 a), chapter 5 and her references. 1445 O r N e'erav, chapter 5:2; in Robison, I. (1994), pp. 107-108.1 have made some minor modifications to the translation for consistency. Cf: Horodetzky, S.A. (1924, Heb. ed. 1951), p .17; Lichtenstein, Y.S. (2001), pp.82-83.

280

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Sefer Gerushin is indeed a fascinating short piece of ecstatic exegesis of biblical verses, the Zohar, certain halakhic concerns and even verses on specific festivals whose potencies had been extrapolated in the appropriate time, such as The New Year for Trees and the Passover Haggadah. Its conceptual momentum, however, lies far beyond hermeneutical realms and may arguably be described as the attempt to cure theosophical ailment by means of hightened ascetic empathy and theurgic facilitation - a multifold involvement with the disharmonized Shekhinah which in turn prompted theosophical reverberations and afforded the effluence of esoteric insights in form of intuitive knowledge, ecstatic discourse and automatic writing. For all intents and purposes, Sefer Gerushin is the elitist’s hyper-spiritual version of Tomer Devorah and its ‘earlier rendition’ in Eilima Rabbati, one orchestrated by the pivotal interplay between exilic banishment (irta) and radical exposure to the sublime (m^nn). The theosophical agitation and the humiliation associated with it - rendered e.g., cosmic exile1446 / exile o f the Shekhinah / the downtrodden Shekhinah1447/ the fallen booth o f David1448 - were now met by the Alkabetz circle who sought to emulate the biblical Patriarchs1449 and the tannaitic sages, and to exercise their own exilic excursions as to empathically sustain the Shekhinah and become its supporting chariot (nmttTi 'bN ramtt a chariot fo r the Shekhinah). RaMaK alludes to this point in Pardes Rimonim,1450 Shiur Qomah,1451 Or Yaqar1452 and Tomer Devorah, articulating in the latter an idea presented already in the Zohar. Another extremely important method is explained in the Zohar}453 A man should exile himself, wandering from place to place for the sake of 1446 icpkg wori(j entire is in exile” - see RaMaK, Or Yaqar, vol.7, p .52. Cf: Sack, B. (1995 a), p.270. 1447 Images o f the downtrodden Shekhinah lying in the dust can be found, e.g., in Zohar 1:4a and Zohar Hadash 4b. 1448 Based on Amos 9:11. See Pardes Rimonim 8:26, note 56a and compare with Sefer Gerushin, entry 78, p. 100. 1449 See Bereshit Rabbah 47:8 - “The Patriarchs are the Chariot” [m m an in in mnttn], and compare with Eilima Rabbati, Ein Adam 6:20, p. 166b. 1450 See e.g., 8:26 and 8:29, note 49b. 1451 Shiur Qomah, note 22, pp.38a-39a. 1452 See e.g., Or Yaqar, Volume 6, p.58, on Zohar 1:181a, where RaMaK describes the tannaitic sages “Who went on exilic excursions, carrying their feet from place to place and from site to site, banishing themselves and sleeping here at one time and there at another” - vm "inx'7 "jnb yina p n b n I’nnnm D’bu CISD1 ii o ni/’D mb).n crabm - the language in Tomer Devorah is sim ilar and com pare w ith Sefer Gerushin, e.g ., entry 9 6 , p. 130. 1453 Zohar 2:198b.

281

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Heaven, thereby becoming a chariot for the exiled Shekhinah. He should think to himself, ‘behold, I am in exile but I have all my implements with me. But what about the honor of the Supreme One, since the Shekhinah is exiled without any implements, for they were lost in the wake of the exile?’ For this reason he should manage with as little as possible - as the verse states ‘make yourself implements for exile’1454 - and let the exile humble his heart, while he binds himself to Torah. Then the Shekhinah will be with him. He should also impose an ‘expulsion order’ upon himself, always banishing himself from the comforts of home, just as Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai and his comrades banished themselves to toil in Torah. Better still, he should weary his legs by trudging from place to place without horse or wagon. Concerning such a person, it is stated, ‘[...] his hope is with the Lord his God’.1455 And [the Zohar]1456 explicated its derivation from the word - breaking - for he breaks his body for the honor of the Supreme One.1457 Although Sefer Gerushin does not articulate these objectives at length - as it focuses primarily on their devotional reification - one still finds their sporadic echo in a few short passages such as those found in the 11th, 55th, 78th, 89th, 90th, and 96th entries. The 55th and 78th entries discuss the view visible in the Talmud and considerably revolutionized in the Zohar 458 regarding “The Shekhinah who has been with us in exile”,1459 whereas the others point in turn to the mystics’ responsive accountability as informing the reciprocal relationship between Israel and the agonizing Shekhinah - part and parcel of the Zoharic theurgical drama:

triEn ’D ’tib u>7m pttOTn n m nxpn upoyru attn n"3b uoeoi n’th "isrib uiram □’bn n s [...].[...] nrra T ’b n ’ibb nrswn tiob psn1 mp row mu xbn rpn niB’3 .rr~no’ □’bmo n x i,[...] n m mb* tio bspb n bn pnroBi [...] And we reached the village of Biriah and entered the synagogue, wherein we occupied ourselves with a few words of the expulsion order. And my teacher [Alkabetz] has informed me through innovation* that during the summer days especially we should on occasion walk barefoot 1454 Ezekiel 12:3. 1455 Psalms 146:5. 1456 Zohar 2:198a. 1457 Tomer Devorah, chapter 9; in Miller, M. (trans., 1993), p. 124, with some minor modifications. Compare with Sefer Gerushin, entries 11, p .12 and 96, p .130 1458 Babylonian, M egilah 29a. Zohar, e.g., 1:120b, 134a, 184a, 21 la; 2:2b, 9:a; 3:61a, 75a. 1459 Pp.66 and 100. On this issue in RaM aK ’s thought, see Sack, B. (1995 a), chapter 10. On the particular treatment o f this issue in Sefer Gerushin, see Corinna, C. (1996).

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

in [order to join] the mystery of the Shekhinah [as disclosed in the verse] ‘withhold thy feet from being unshod’1460 [...]. [...] We banish ourselves and trudge our feet in order to receive the secret of her exile and judgment, and we share in her suffering”.1461 Later in Sefer Gerushin RaMaK explicates his master’s idea, wherein he not only demonstrates the mutual responsibility between divinity and Israel but also celebrates the dialectical vibrancy of the physical elements en route to theosophical repair: “When the lower tree governs the effluence by its agents, who are titled

*77301 *7373 (shoe

and sandal),

the Shekhinah wanders back and fro in search of a righteous man to assist her. [...] We therefore not only study Torah but [...] exile ourselves, and our feet trudge around to receive the secret of exile and its judgment [...], and we suffer in her agonies.1462 Although RaMaK does not state here the idea of walking barefooted, our previous discussion regarding the dialectics o f hierarchical opposites arguably establishes this meaning: in order to break the potentiality of *77301

*7373,

one must manipulate its physical

opposite: walking barefooted. One may therefore describe Sefer Gerushin as the empathic quest for ascetic affliction to achieve ecstatic insight and a harmonious theosophical traffic. As far as quest is concerned, one may indeed identify here the makings of a classic fairytale whose protagonists - much like the mythical depiction found in Zohar 2:99a - are the Shekhinah [princess], the citadel concealing her from view [distorted cosmic reality], the small portholes permitting some restricted communication [specific locations within the Galilean landscape], the sagacious and ascetic knights recruited for her rescue [Alkabetz’ circle], aided by special incantations [liturgical recitations and isolation] and the souls of past sagacious knights [tannaitic sages] en route to a cathartic and final1463 ending [messianic era]. The unfolding drama therefore did not merely feature asceticism as

1460 Jeremiah 2:25. * L. Fine and R.J.Z. Werblowsky furnish different translations than mine. See Fine, L. (2003), p.60 and Werblowsky, R.J.Z. in Green, A. (ed., 1987), p .15. I maintain that the overall context of Sefer Gerushin calls for a more subtle translation, namely reading the word Win in both the passive [hiulash] and the active [hidesh]. 1461 Entry 11, p. 12. 1462 Entry 96, p. 130. 1463 See RaMaK's view o f the ultimate redemption in Sefer Gerushin, entry 82, p p .107-109: “[...] Therefore this redemption will be complete, one after which no enslavement to foreign authorities TQTO] [JTHDba shall ever be experienced.” On this issue, see Sack, B. (1995 a), pp. 267-278; Jacobson, Y. (1983); Tamar, D. (1958), pp.61-88.

283

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

leading the empathic quest: given that RaMaK’s Or Yaqar makes clear that it is the mystical elite who may perceive the Shekhinah with finer clarity,1464 Sefer Gerushin presented the fuller span of such spiritual sway, demonstrating geographical ideation as well as meticulous spatiotemporal & spiritual cartography in pursuit of locations emitting hightened residual sanctity - such landmarks within which the presence of the exiled Shekhinah

could be sensed with greater potency and admitted with greater

accommodation. Galut (exile) was therefore not merely a spatiotemporal disconfiguration but a disharmonious potency within the theosophical system - “The banishments of the King and the Queen”1465 which hindered the uninterrupted divine flow on multiple levels.1466 In its quest to repair such ailments, the mystical fellowship sought first and foremost to provoke the residual presence of tannaitic sages in their hosting landscape and to recommence their subliminal sanctity in order to prepare the entire theatre for the needed redemptive procedures. As articulated by the renowned British historian S. Schama, “Although we are accustomed to separate nature and human perception into two realms, they are, in fact, indivisible. Before it can ever be a repose for the senses, landscape is the work of the mind. Its scenery is built as much from strata of memory as from layers of rocks”.1467 This view was not only highlighted by RaMaK's fellowship but carried out with specific goals which were perpetuated time and again in the gerushin: the ordeals of a fellowship who regarded itself the vanguard of a tannaitic renaissance.

From Diary to Composition Sefer Gerushin is usually described by scholarship as “A mystical diary”.1468 Although this small and chronologically evolving composition undeniably surrenders personal aspects of RaMaK’s mystical piety, hyper-spirituality and ranking in the

1464 See, e.g., Or Yaqar, vol.2, p p .l 12-13, on Tikkunei ha-Zohar. Compare with his discussion is Sefer G erushin regarding the ability to perceive the Shekhinah in a clear fashion [rrvxa N’lbpDON] —entry 36, pp.39-40. Cf: Tishby, I. (1961), M ishnat ha-Zohar, pp.371-385. 1465 Sefer Gerushin, entry 1, p .l. Compare with Tomer Devorah, chapter 9, “[...] Diverting the K ing’s love from the Queen”. 1466 For RaMaK's discussion o f the multiple properties affecting the exilic state o f the Shekhinah, see Sack, B. (1995 a), pp.254-256. 1467 Schama, S. (1995), pp.6-7. 1468 See e.g., Horodetzky, S.A. (1924, Heb. ed. 1951), p .17; Werblowsky, R.J.Z (1980), pp. 50-55; Sack, B. (1995 a), p p .12 & 17.

284

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

theurgical drama of his day, Sefer Gerushin nonetheless renders necessary a distinction between the 1548 and the 1551 excursions: 1548 [entries 1-90] - circuitously narrating the progression of RaMaK's edifying role as Alkabetz’ protege and the objectives he may have had for this work, this section progresses from the reflexive to the instructive, from notes spontaneously stirred in lure of the exilic excursions and toward a contextualized systemization that followed his overall scholarly affinities. As RaMaK had already conveyed in Or Ne'erav, the notes taken during the gerushin were not to remain in their somewhat crude form but were to be retrospectively subjected to classification and contextualization typifying his other works: “I will write [these experiences] down in a separate composition, dividing them into entries one by one with God’s help”.1469 Sefer Gerushin clearly demonstrates the retrospective reconfiguration of the entries corresponding with the 1548 excursions (1-90) as to adequately contour around RaMaK's evolving system and contextualized teachings: RaMaK makes here numerous crossreferences within the reorganized entries in Sefer Gerushin itself,1470 points to Solomon Alkabetz’ teachings and writings,1471 to Sefer ha-Bahir}412 to the Zohar1473 and most instructively, referring frequently to Pardes Rimonim}414 1551 [entries 91-99] - conversely, the entries corresponding with the 1551 excursions are much more intimate in both literary layout and practical execution, rendering more apt the term diary: RaMaK now explicates verses which he had engaged during his solitary gerushin1475 and mentions neither Alkabetz nor other members. Although his use of the Zohar remains frequent for obvious reasons, most striking are the complete lack of hermeneutical references to the 1548 excursions, as well as the single disclosure of Pardes Rimonim1476 and Or Yaqar [!].1477 It seems therefore quite evident that RaMaK's 1551 excursions were no longer executed as part of the cohort. One may attribute this fact 1469 Compare with RaMaK's similar language in the introduction to Pardes Rimonim. 1470 Numerous places, e.g., pp.31, 32, 33, 53, 55, 62, 71, 77, 78, 79, 83, 85, 86, 90, 92, 94, 97, 115. 1471 Pp. 9, 100. 1472 P.26. 1473 Virtually each entry. 1474 Pp. 16, 21, 22, 25, 30, 32, 35, 42, 46, 49, 51, 58, 61, 64, 68, 69, 72, 73, 76, 80, 83, 86, 87, 99, 110, 115, 116, 118, 134. 1475 See entries 91, p. 122 and 96, p. 129. 1476 P. 134. 1477 P .135.

285

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

to certain shifts in the social and mystical emphases informing the lives of fellow members or to RaMaK's own devotional aptitude that might have not found full release in the group setting. Given that he makes clear the essential roles solitary meditation and solitude within a sanctified landscape1478 have for epistemic and theurgic aptitude, RaMaK’s 1551 excursions may have been the enactment of such complimentary venues for personal advancement - including certain writings which did not aim to circulate but rather were intimate notes for self reflection. A comparative examination of both sections thus yields a few important insights: although personally informative in style, profoundly devotional in character, keenly intimate in presentation, magical in affinity1479 and orchestrated by intuitive rather than progressive intellectual inquiry, the 1548 excursions were nonetheless fashioned as a composition whose unmediated structure had been later fortified by methodical arrangements and literary references. Indeed, whereas intimate and even spiritually elitist to the hilt, its instructive properties and overall systematic layout render the 1548 section a composition whose objectives to circulate among RaMaK's fellowship and be associated with his other contemporary work are quite visible. By contrast, the 1551 section has indeed remained in form close to that of a diary: notwithstanding the single reference to Pardes Rimonim and Or Yaqar, this section not only accentuates the reflexive rather than the instructive but evidently lacks the level of systematic reorganization seen in its 1548 predecessor. That in mind, the direct reference to Or Yaqar may suggest that it was the initial work on this magnum opus in 1551 which served as an important impetus behind RaMaK's solitary excursions, as Or Yaqar discloses later the prostrations, innovations and celestial assistance rendered toward its fruition.1480 All o f the above remains nonetheless speculative. Given that one cannot point with exact certainty the time wherein RaMaK revisited his notes, it is quite plausible that he cast aside all entries after 1551, revisited them gradually and with varying levels of depth, and never got to conclude his editorial efforts in light of other works which now occupied his attention. RaMaK's simultaneous maneuvers between works and

1478 1 return to this important topic later in this section. 1479 On this issue and on RaMaK's contributions to magical doctrines, see Idel, M. (1991), pp.55-114. Cf; Sack, B. (1995 a), pp.30-31 and especially chapter 3. 1480 Please refer to the section “Or Yaqar” in RaMaK's Writings.

286

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

multitasking nature are quite evident,1481 given that he seems to have never fully concluded or edited numerous compositions - Or N e’erav, Eilima Rabbati and possibly even Or Yaqar - let alone the numerous works he had intended yet never got to actually compose. One can therefore suggest with the same level of plausibility that the 99 entries in their semi crude format indeed represent what RaMaK left behind. Taken as a whole, however, Sefer Gerushin nevertheless remains an inimitable contribution to the phenomenological study of RaMaK’s devotional slant and a valuable juxtaposition of the practical property in his otherwise highly theoretical system: a work which narrates a multifold theatre within which space, time, landscape, tombstones, past saintly souls, prostrations, meditations, body movements and liturgy all acted as indispensable agents between RaMaK, his fellowship, the Shekhinah and the theosophical edifice by and large.

RaMaK's Evolving Prominence Sefer Gerushin makes evident RaMaK’s gradual ascendance to prominence in the exilic ordeals, wherein his exceptional capabilities were met with particular attention and mentorship by his master Solomon Alkabetz: “We went on another exilic excursion, this time my master and myself alone” (p.3; cf: p.20), “[...] And my master has aided me on this particular matter” (p.3; cf: pp. 13, 14, 22) “And he continued explicating on this matter at length, and in my transgressions I have lost his written words” (p.3), “[...] And my master has agreed with my interpretation [on this matter]” (p.29). This gradually ascending prominence, fortified by RaMaK's own standing as the recognized author of Pardes Rimonim, is seen in Sefer Gerushin both in form of RaMaK's periodical disagreements with Alkabetz,1482 as well as the fellowship’s growing reliance on RaMaK for the fruition of these excursions: although contributing as a group to the process (e.g., pp. 20, 31, 36 and most entries featuring the word Upoyn] - “We became occupied with”), RaMaK's leadership is nonetheless visible: “[...] I have given my consent to the fellowship’s request and was innovatively inspired ['WTin]” (p.2; cf: pp.106, 109, 113). Given that RaMaK features as axis spiritualis in the majority of these innovative exegeses may point to him as having been chosen by the Shekhinah for intuitive

1481 Please refer to R aM aK ’s Writings. 1482 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 13, p. 14.

287

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

communication on behalf of the fellowship entire. Although such centrality my have been the result of authorship, Sefer Gerushin was nonetheless visible to Alkabetz’ and to the fellowship by and large. Since none amongst RaMaK's disciples seems to have neither contested nor produced an alternative to such revelations,1483 his self-chronicled centrality in these ordeals may have been a rendition recognized and accepted as representative by his peers. This reality had been nonetheless modified after his death as part of the emergence of Lurianic Kabbalah and Luria’s own reconfigurations of the spiritual cartography o f the Galilean landscape.1484

Sefer Gerushin: General Layout

The layout permeating Sefer Gerushin contours around four terms which are Talmudically rooted: poy (esek - to RaMaK it meant ‘preparatory occupation’), rrttHp (kushiyah - inquiry / knock),1485 flT n (terutz - human exegetical resolution = an award) and ttnrn (hidush - divine exegetical innovation = a gift / renewed consecration of heaven and earth).1486 The application of all four manifests the drama of theurgy and divine-human mutual contingency - the close relationships between the mystics and the Divine vis-a-vis the mediating agents invoked in their aid during these excursions, be it the Shekhinah, souls of tannaitic sages or other portals within the landscape itself. As already mentioned, this composition may render the term Theography more viable for a fuller appreciation of RaMaK's engineering of the theosophical edifice in relation to the landscape itself. Here he does not merely speculate on the different meanings behind the cosmic mechanisms and their relationships with the human microcosmic condition thereof, but rather charts the inner life of a theosophical construction whose contingency upon sacred cartography and human corporeality is as profound as that of RaMaK and his cohort - arguably establishing a pre-Modem mystical version of a Global-

1483 Rabbi Solomon A lkabetz’ accounts in Shoresh Yishai are much more succinct in detail and cannot count as an alternative to RaMaK's teachings. 1484 See Huss, B. (2 0 0 2 a), pp. 12 3 -1 3 4 and his references. Cf; Fenton, P. in ibid and Goetschel, R. (eds., 2 0 0 0 ), p p . 163-190. 1485 On etymological and theurgical affinities see to follow. 1486 On the double meaning o f this term see to follow.

288

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Positioning-System whose cosmic triangulation deemed the Galilean backdrop fundamental in facilitating these human-divine dialogues.1487 RaMaK's view of the human corporeal condition as reflecting the theosophical edifice - “And the true simile is that the ten sefirot are reflected through the human shape”

1488

- deemed the Galilean

geography a negotiator between theosophy and anthropography. Furthermore, Sefer Gerushin supports B. Sack’s call to counterbalance the somewhat myopic tendency in modem scholarship to secure RaMaK's standing as a speculator whose writings profess reliance on intellectual properties and systematic epistemological progress: here we find a mystic for whom intuitive knowledge is not only epistemologically indispensable, but also irrespective o f intellectual inquiry - an act of divine grace which hence opens a channel for knowledge otherwise ‘locked to the inquiries of the mind’. RaMaK’s works as a whole indeed present both venues as complimentary en route to a fuller appreciation of divinity and man’s role in its effect: notwithstanding man’s intellect which may indeed be a formidable tool at his disposal and an epistemic thrust that can (and should) ascertain God’s necessity by way of philosophical inference, the human mind nonetheless cannot penetrate but certain levels of divine mystery, let alone express or communicate them. The highest levels of epistemic transparency are therefore the result of a reciprocal relationship between the mystics and divinity, contingent on two rudiments encompassed in one word - mm - which pertains to the mystics’ successful attainment of the purity (zakkut) needed to receive privileged (zekhut) knowledge: “Whoever purifies himself receives the companionship of the Shekhinah”} m The same reciprocal interplay is also seen in the word ttntn (hidush) which refers to the mystics’ successful consecration anew of earth and heaven, now met by epistemic innovations flowing downward from divinity. Sefer Gerushin is a hallmark of philological ingenuity and a fascinating composition as far as the hermeneutics of God’s vernacular is concerned. Notwithstanding letter combinations and permutations which ultimately penetrated beyond the roots of Hebrew

1487 On this issue in RaMaK's and Luria’s Kabbalah, see Huss, B. (2002 a), especially pp. 125, 127; cf: Fenton, P. (2000); Lichtenstein, Y.S. (2001), especially pp.81-89. 1488 E ilim a R ab b ati, Ein K ol 3:2. 1489 Ibid 5:14.

289

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

words and occupied what may be called nano-philology,1490 words which exhibited etymological associations were de facto given theurgic affinities. Moreover, RaMaK's alert view of letters and words as pertaining to both the corporeal and the mental realms rendered them spiritual potencies whose philological structure also pointed to their physical arousal by the mystic. This process is quite visible in RaMaK's ingenious span of the Hebrew language, where his depth of reading allows words to associate on multiple levels through creative puns and sensitive juxtapositions. Sefer Gerushin features a nuanced treatment of etymologies or phonetic affinities and their theurgic sympathy, such as 1117 {skin), 11171 (a mental note or awakening) and 11173 {stimulating toward awareness or shaking)'. “An assembly of devotees should not consist of less than ten [congregants], for [only] there all the sefirot are shaken [niTSOl 13 triyinn]. Therefore, upon the awakening of the South and the North1491 [m in i ]1DU1 1111771173] they are all united”.1492 RaMaK’s overall writings use identical terminologies when speaking of human arousal1493 and link it with the epistemic transparencies in their wake: Sefer Gerushin features “All the members [who] were awakened in my master’s house” [ h>D 1311117713 ’110 Tran d i m ] , 1494 whereas Pardes Rimonim demonstrates the divine assistance rendered in such ordeals, “Having been awakened to the [esoteric meanings] by the mightily held hand”,1495 or “Now, after having written all the rationales given by previous commentators [...] and after having been awakened toward their comprehension as instructed by the heavens” [cm ^l p 131111 HtfTO Dl’bx 131111711] [...].1496 These intricate philological

constructions

thus

associated

mental

awakenings

with

corporeal

manipulation [1117], physical trembling and shaking [11173] or acts of intimate unification [111773 1’13] - all o f which constituted RaMaK's speculative and devotional realms in manners that must not be undermined. The revelatory dialectics o f opposite hierarchies

1490 Which is also visible throughout Sefer Gerushin. On RaM aK and letter permutations see Idel, M. (1985 a); ibid in Green, A. (ed., 1989). An important discussion o f Kabbalistic hermeneutics is found in Idel, M. (2002), especially chapter 3, section 9. 1491 Binah and Hokhmah respectively. 1492 Entry 2, p.3. 1493 See his section nm il?nn in Shiur Qomah, pp. 111-113. 1494 Entry 82, p. 106. 1495 Pardes Rimonim 4:4. 1496 Pardes Rimonim 2:3 and compare with Sefer Gerushin, entry 82, p. 106.

290

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

thus consisted o f man’s ability to symbolically ‘shake off one’s skin’ ["list nninnn] and have light supersede it [~nm “its rpnnft] by ipso facto putting on phylacteries1497 - the ability to overcome the subduing corporeal gravity [“yu],1498 seen as a shell and an obstacle [HD'Opn xmw ^IQ1499 or l500rP^

if not properly engaged via Torah study,

physical asceticism and entrenchment within the immediately accessible.1501 This kind of dialectics is also seen in RaMaK's use of the word mowann (hitpashtut), a term that meant simultaneously expansion (= divine revelation) and to stand naked (divine concealment): in Shiur Qomah RaMaK talks about the divine attributes which expand within the sefirot and animate their potencies. This apparatus - in and of itself a further concealment of divinity within the sefirot - now becomes “Ever-expanding cloaks around divinity.”1502 The word mott’Dnn thus meant standing naked through the cloak - a mechanism identically reflected through “Taking off one’s skin by wearing a prayer shawl and phylacteries” in Sefer Gerushin.

Digression - Lekhah Dodi and the Gerushin The above associative patterns are also found in Solomon Alkabetz’ renowned Lekhah Dodi. First published in 1584, this mystical homily may have indeed been composed as early as the mid 1560’s, whereas its conceptual origins may be traced back to even earlier decades.1503 Reuven Kimelman’s work Lekhah Dodi ve-Kabbalat Shabbat1504 not only refutes previous scholarship regarding its origins and dissemination, but also demonstrates Cordoeiro’s rendition of Shabbat practices whose terminological affinities with Lekha Dodi seem quite visible.1505 That in mind, RaMaK’s neglect to ever mention Lekhah Dodi directly suggests a later finalization of this work.

1497 Entry 17, p p .18-19 and compare with Or Yaqar on Tikkunei ha-Zohar 2:12. RaM aK refers to Genesis 3:21. 1498 See e.g. Tomer Devorah, chapter 9, in Miller, M. (trans., 1993), p. 124. 1499 See Pardes Rimonim 23:1 and compare with Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:22 - □maun □nm n n m m ids?’! nan nnyrp. 1500 Or Yaqar on Raaya Meheimana 1:18. 1501 nun Tiro m m to dPis? iprf? mm .nr-Vir panm1? ip main nun nuwaa m inn nuaPm ,ni:a wnPrm samp nm m nun mniD nn D’snian as [...] nauaa p m n snn nmi ns’Ppn Vam - Or Yaqar on Tikkunei ha-Zohar 2:12. 1502 Shiur Qomah, pp.5-6. 1503 See also inR atzabi, S. (1994), pp. 162-169. 1504 Kimelman, R. (2003); see also a preliminary version in ibid (1998), pp.393-454. Additional sources are found in Razhaby, Y. (1994). 1505 See Tefilah ie-M oshe 193a; cf: Kimelman, R., ibid, pp.20-25 and his references there.

291

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

A few examples which are relevant to our discourse support Kimelman’s argument regarding the earlier ideas behind this fantastic piece of mystical poetry: the fourth and fifth parts of Lekhah Dodi read “Arise, now, shake o ff the dust

["IDU10

1nnnn];1506 don your

robes of Glory - my people - you must. Through the son of Jess, the Bethelemite, draw near to my soul; set her free from her plight. Wake up, wake up [’"mynn],1507 your light

[■piN] has come, rise and shine [’TIN].1508 Awaken, awaken [m y], sing a melody,1509 the Glory of God is revealed upon thee”.1510 The relations between Lekhah Dodi and Cordoeiro’s exegetical ingenuity concerning “Light superseding skin” (Tita ~ny rfrnna) have already been recognized and lucidly discussed in Kimelman’s aforementioned work.1511 That in mind, two intriguing insights afford themselves aside of the arguably clear affinities between light, awakening and the corporeal act of shaking off impurity: first is the word m y which may be read as both ‘wake up’ ( ’uri) and ‘my skin’ ( ’on').1512 Given that “All material elements thicken in body and become like dust as they descend” [□DTQ “ISJPI DDll rayn1],1513 the latter reading corresponds with the oppositional dialectics of “Shaking off one’s dust” [isyft "Hytrin = shake off skin) by ipso facto “Donning [your] robes of Glory” - the phylacteries. Moreover, the midrashic identification of the word ‘dust’ in Isaiah 26:5 as pertaining to Tiberias1514 also serves to associate Alkabetz’ cohort with that of the Zoharic Rashbi who had allegedly resided in that city during the 2nd century.1515 The wordplay here seems to tie the redemptive manipulation of the landscape - from Tiberias to Jerusalem1516 - with the transformation of the human condition: from skin to light. The second suggestion pertains to Alkabetz’ choice to insert the word rfrjJ (revealed) from Isaiah 40:5 instead of the original mr {shone) in Isaiah 60:1. There could be more

1506 See Isaiah 26:5. On this idea see e.g., Babylonian Talmud, Rosh ha-Shannah 3 lb ; Zohar 1:128a (Midrash ha-N e’elam). 1507 See Isaiah 51:17. 1508 See Isaiah 60:1. 1509 See D eborah’s song in Judges 5:12. 1510 See Isaiah 60:1. 1511 Ibid, preface and especially chapter 5. 1512 Kimelman touched this subject, ibid, p. 165. 1513 See Pardes Rimonim 23:1 and compare with Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:22 □1i3 tn □m -o id jh d su m sm . 1514 Babylonian Talmud, Rosh ha-Shannah 31b. 1515 See Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, pp.7-9. 1516 The verse in Isaiah 26:5 refers to Jerusalem - D,'w iT ’niz/ vnp nsira nsunn.

292

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

here to enforce Kimelman’s suggestion regarding this maneuver “As a means to extract the kabbalistic redemptive narrative”.1517 Considering that Sefer Gerushin built its theurgic skeleton upon the etymological affinity of revelation (m^nn) and exile (m*?:), Alkabetz may have offered the word HT] as the outcome of the exilic excursions taken during 1548 [nmwn

tw it:]. Correspondingly, this poem may have not pertained

solely to the Sabbath day but also to the mental quieting and epistemic transparency associated with the word row: as previously mentioned, in Shiur Qomah RaMaK affords a glimpse into the revelatory properties of raw through a splendid pun which explicates the epistemic clarity awaiting the righteous in the redemptive era - “Torah would not be enclothed by dimming metaphors at such a time, but revealed as a princess who speaks with no mourning attire,1518 [as it is written] ‘the honor of a King’s daughter lies within; her dress embroidered with golden mountings’.1519 [...] As the veil of constraint is pulled off the minds [of men], they attain the glittering words from the source - which is the meaning behind row V?3W □?, for they cease from inquiry in Zion” [ on raw "tow u'7VJ ntbl ypxa D’raiw].1520 RaMaK’s reading here demonstrates the use of God’s vernacular as assimilating geography, corporeality and mentality in search of a wholesome cathartic closure. RaMaK in fact rebukes the custom which became associated later with Lekhah Dodi, namely outings to the fields in order to usher in the Sabbath. RaMaK's refutation, which appear already in the mid 1560’s, obviously rules out any Lurianic initiation of such outings.

1 C -} 1

In his Siddur Tefilah le-Moshe RaMaK mentions this rite and calls its patrons

“Odd rather than righteous” [frraran p N7K CPTOnn p irx], continuing to advocate for “Ushering in the Sabbath at the Synagogue”.1522 RaMaK obviously does not refer to Alkabetz as the one who had originated thes outings, for it is highly unlikely that he would call his master ‘odd rather than righteous’.1523 More importantly, RaMaK’s approach suggests that to him Shabbat was a unique property of time, a pulse of eternity which transcends spatial demands altogether and does not require modifications within 1517 Kimelman, R. (2003), p. 134 - translation by the author. 1518 Compare with Lekhah Dodi, “Arise, now, shake o ff the dust [TDim ’H’lnri]; don your robes o f Glory”. 1519 Psalms 45:14. 1520 Shiur Qomah, p. 170. 1521 Kimelman has already treated these issues; see ibid, pp. 17-23. 1522 Tefilah le-Moshe, p.193a; see also in Sack, B. (1995 a), pp.21-23. 1523 See also in Kimelman, ibid, p.22, especially fn.139 and his references there; cf: ibid (1998).

293

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

the landscape. Shabbat was therefore in no need for horizontal manipulations within the scenery - as would be the case during weekdays - but in fact a property bestowed directly from heaven and therefore affecting the mystics horizontally, or internally, in the synagogue itself.1524 Be that as it may, the subsoil for Lekhah Dodi may have perhaps been the very unearthed landscape of the gerushin during 1548 - a composition whose philological ingenuity nourished

from

such acute etymologies

and used the

indispensability between exile and revelation to simultaneously negotiate between the Malkhut and the mystics; between the Sabbath of time and that of space, the Sabbath of the body and that of the mind. RaMaK, it seems, had had a noteworthy role in the articulation of this highly visible piece of mystical liturgy - as suggested already in Rabbi Shneor Zalman of Ladi’s claim, noting that “The reception of Shabbat by Alkabetz had contoured around RaMaK’s teachings”.1525 *** This subtle process wherein the remedies prescribed for the distorted theosophical edifice

manifest

both

through

concoctions

of etymological

associations

and

corresponding practical measures is further clarified once Sefer Gerushin has been investigated alongside Pardes Rimonim (especially Shaar Erkhei ha-Kinuyim) and other writings. Eilima Rabbati illustrates the intricacy of this process well and discloses the hierarchical requisites informing mystical engagements: discussing the four stages of Holy study, the men associated with each stage and their respective theurgic potencies thereof, RaMaK states with an acute ear to philological maneuvers,

TD3 nrmx x’svrc '’Dxrc m-p ,m» nrxrc n7» ,x-ii?an poiyn nax mircx-in by rmnn ,-in^ ,nyom .minn non rma nnna orx ,nbyab mbiy nrrnxn nmxi imx xbx ,munn nna nia nrx rraab rrnrmx y:y:an nn .rmrmx non nma: ny?a tmnai mia lrxrc ■asa d'"d xb bax .tut’ 011:1 imx y]y:a ,iouy nnan min piyn .iDtzz n’by mbopoiy mo narco oaax .o’rcnn mnxi nbyob 1524 I thank Professor Elliot K. Ginsburg for bringing this important point to my attention. 1525 RaM aK briefly mentions “The poems composed by great men regarding the beloved standing o f the assembly o f Israel in the eyes o f God” - Or Yaqar, vol.21, p.121a. Although never mentioning Lekhah Dodi, there is other evidence to plausibly suggest that an early rendition o f this poem had indeed existed in Safed during the 1560’s: such poems written by RaM aK’s student, Mordechai Dato, or by Shimon EvenLavi demonstrate notable resemblance to Lekhah Dodi. On this issue see Kimelman, R. ibid, preface, pp.23-25 and his references there; cf: ibid (1998).

294

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

trn p 1? .na nmp *rww mraran nrm x m a poiyn nn ,nrmx na nrx ,ns bmw na nnix nunyi nratna pna xm xm labi .*w»i T7M nnti> ,x“p»rM navby □:ax .p-^yn mw1? ^ap ma xmtn irmn patn n^y ’npai nan n^y n-wnw □na’x □na tVmi ira nr nam anna Tifrmn ’"y^ r s a ,naam rfrya1? pxir m a Tiabn nxmnb y m axi .rv^sn -px 73? fr?iyi ma^p naiya iyaa ,n rtn p n Vx □rsiTn rnranp' u rm jXd'mt p iy ^ ^o^oa moa xim munn mna n ia tyaa ,nmai

.[...] 'n'brftn The first [stage] pertains to Mikrah [Torah study], a virtue [HTa] devoid of [deeper] measure [m’a nrxtt-’], for even as one invokes words with his mouth and they in turn ascend upwards, they still do not draw esoteric measures o f Torah - since Torah is measured by the secret imbued within its letters. He who shakes its words below does not therefore draw new measures but affects the same ones repeatedly and unifies them. It is, however, not sufficient a unification, since he neither draws nor renews measures on high. Indeed, Mishnah is a rewarded virtue since it is ‘a Torah by heart’ [lit. ‘a Torah beyond the mouth’ - HD-^ya] and therefore transcends [the grip of] letters [nvmx nn nrx]. He who engages on such a level both measures and assesses its greatness. It is therefore superior to Mikrah, for [now] he measures and assesses. By doing so one rectifies the Shekhinah and prepares the limbs by which she may accept her male companion [= Tif’eret] - and one is rewarded, for she is a vessel into which rewards from above are poured. Indeed, Talmud is the finest level, for it affords one the ability to innovate and strike [words] against each other in order to birth solutions to inquiries [also ‘hard surfaces’ - nrunp] - truly breaking shells and ascending beyond measure [nfran px 71?]. And should one reach such mastery as to assume the teaching of others, one truly draws new measures and joins the esoteric [meaning behind] ‘curling the hair [also ‘shaking the gates’] of the King’, as we read ‘His hair is curled’1526”.1527 The reification o f such theurgical properties within God’s Vernacular had therefore informed a plethora of devotional practices, rendering instructive sifting through Sefer Gerushin for words whose etymological structure may lead in two coexisting directions: a mental property or a physical object which usually appear as adjective or noun (e.g., mm - adj. midah: measurement / ,7Q7X - n. adamah: land / rfryn - n. te ’alah: canal, channel, conduit1528 or mMX3 - n. n e ’emanut: loyalty) and their practical equivalent (either physical or mental) in form of a verb (e.g., mma - medidah: measuring, assessing 1526 Song o f Songs 5:11. On RaMaK's use o f this term as the highest form o f the theurgic potency, known as “Curling the hair o f the King” (fOpST pit?© Piobo) see Eilima Rabbati, Ein Adam 6 [Mic. 2147, Jewish Theological Seminary], p.165a; cf: Sack, B. (1995 b), p p .171-188. See also in Liebes, Y. (1982), p .189. 1527 Ein Adam 6:4. 1528 See Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 5:38.

295

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

/ ,lBvr - dimui: imagining, visualizing / rtoin - toelet: contributing, funneling / p x amen: liturgical exclamation1529). Although all words possess mental qualities, their physical negotiation in the politics of being should not be downplayed. RaMaK's convergence of mental and physical properties may be further appreciated once juxtaposed with other schools of practical piety, such as Abulafian or Sufi methods, to which we shall attend shortly. Such contexts may indeed afford additional clues for corporeal manipulations and landscape rearrangements as a means for mental potency and spiritual progress: body postures and movements, radical expressions of asceticism and ecstasy, measurement of distances between portals in the scenery, group arrangements as to reflect sefirotic order and affect its proper utility, etc.

The Seven Steps o f Gerushin Sefer Gerushin suggests a comprehensive modus operandi which not only associates the landscape with the divine and human conditions but also infuses the corporeal with the spiritual, and the mental with the practical - using for that purpose the intricate properties of God’s Vernacular to reunite the mystics with the Shekhinah and toward a fuller cosmic reunification. The unfolding processes of this complex plot entail seven visible and correlating categories whose layout runs as follows: 1) Exilic excursion to the Galilean vicinity [ w a r n / pttP-U]: “The year 5308 (1548), Friday, the tenth day of Shevat - we banished ourselves according to the banishments of the King from the Queen, until we reached the ruins of the Synagogue in Nabartin [...]”. (p.l; cf: e.g., pp.3, 20, 22, 28, 34, 51, 57, 72, 73, 122). 2) Occupation with a particular verse or an idea conveyed in a verse [llpoym / pOl?]: “We also occupied ourselves with the matter of the day, being The New Year for Trees [...]” (p. 10; cf: virtually every entry). The term ‘occupation with the Torah’ [minn poy] is highly visible in rabbinic1530 and mystical discourse alike, and in Pardes Rimonim RaMaK renders it “Superior among all occupations” [ban bv nbw minn pOl?].1531 In Sefer Gerushin the term seems to suggest multiple techniques which aimed for preparatory spiritual purification and theosophical arousal. 1529 See e.g., Shiur Qomah, p .61. 1530 See e.g., Rashi on Ecclesiastes 1:3; Bahya ben Asher on Exodus 20:1 1531 Pardes Rimonim 27:1. Cf; Or Ne'erav 4:1 and 5:2.

296

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

3)

Inquiry o f the esoteric meaning behind a particular verse or an idea conveyed in

a verse ["m’pn / rPEHp]: “[•••] For I have inquired why Tif’eret and Malkhut which have always nourished from Hesed and Gevurah are at times affected from the North [.Hokhmah] and the South [Binah]T (p.l; cf: almost every entry). As mentioned, the root (k-sh-h - rough / hard) also espouses a dual meaning that points to both the intellectual and the practical properties (heksheti - I further scrutinized / hekashti - I knocked). Both properties aimed to penetrate beyond the “Hard shell[s]” [ntz/p ntbPp]1532 which stood between the mystics and the deeper divine realms. An exemplary activity which espoused the term hekashti (I knocked) was the movement of the lips, a practice also associated with such words as shaking or striking. The following excerpt from Pardes Rimonim is a solid example of RaMaK's view on words and their human manipulation in the theurgical drama: Each letter has an awesome spiritual form emanating from the sefirotic essence, wherein each [letter] becomes a shrine for the spiritual potency of its respective Sefirah. And when a man mentions and shakes [mtt] either word, the breath of his mouth configures its holy form, which in turn ascends and connects to its root in the emanated realm [...]. By striking the potencies [of letters] against each other with the hammering soul [!],1533 the breath of one’s mouth is spiritually reified, as an angel who ascends and connects to his root [...].15 4 This view had been part of a larger arsenal of closely associated words which were meticulously charted within etymological configurations and enlisted for the realization of their theurgic potencies: the first group is associated with the means to achieve cosmic harmonization - speaking (1137),

1

f

voicing (7lp),

i

1 CO^

assessing (71^),

measuring

1532 See e.g., Pardes Rimonim 25:7. 1533 Compare with Pardes Rimonim 21:1 where RaM aK uses the term Pstffn tff’DS “The hammering intellect”. 1534 Pardes Rimonim 27:2, note 59. See also in his Perush Sefer Yetzirah, chapter 2:3 and compare with P ard es R im onim 23:16 [under mar], where RaMaK uses this term to explicate the affecting mechanisms o f the sefirot. See also in Sefer Gerushin, entry 74, p.93: “[...] There is no single thing below which does not have a governing sign above who knocks on it [13 HDSIff] and orders it to grow [...].” For a general treatment o f this issue, see G. Scholem, (1974), p p .168-189. On RaMaK's view, see Sack, B. (1995 a), especially chapter 6; Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp.41-43. 1535 Both mundane and holy discourse whose manners affect the sefirot. The former is especially prevalent in RaMaK's moral instruction Tomer Devorah, whereas the latter appears in Eilima Rabbati, Ein Adam 6:11, 13, p.164a (MS JTS) - l ’TQ 71 ni7lp3 and n ’v iv in i ’ "V - “W ith sounds and discourse” and “It ascends by speech”.

297

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

(n7’7»),1538 division (piP’n),1539 mitigating (nrott?n),1540 sweetening (npnm),1541 watering down (ifPYia),1542 adorning (nox? / unyp),1543 clothing (mraPnn),1544 tying / fastening (m ’typ),1545 affecting (nyswn),1546 warming (m»’n),1547 diverting (rron),1548 hugging (pinn),1549 sprinkling (ms’O np’tr),1550 pouring (niTDtt?),1551 curling (71070),1552 anointing (nrroTo),1553 straightening (‘W ” / moyn),1554 knocking (rra>pn),1555 striking (nxon),1556 pounding (nov7n),1557 shaking (yiiy]),1558 trembling (71777),1559 shuddering (my]),1560 awakening / arousing (myn),1561 breaking (nTOtt?),1562 quaking (niyyin),1563 opening (n n ’riD),1564

crushing (no-’Y D ),1565 beating (m rp o ),1566 eradicating 0 7 itn ) ,1567 permutating /

1537 Compare with HntZ? [se’ar = hair; also referring to divine attributes]. 13” n7 ,N3)P»7 PH7B1Pop DO 7103 8171 'O’PnPn rmisii?’ - “One now enters the secret curling o f the K ing’s hair”. 1538 See e.g., Eilima Rabbati, Ein Adam 6:14. 1539 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 13, p. 14. 1540 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 7, p.9. 1541 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 9, p. 10. 1542 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 45, p.51. 1543 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entries 22, p.26 and 27, pp.29-30. 1544 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 17, p p .17-19. 1545 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 1, p.2 and 12, p .13. 1546 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 1, p .l. 1547 See e.g., Pardes Rim onim 8:11. 1548 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 33, p.36. 1549 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 5, p.5 and ibid. 1550 niD’D n pnr - see especially in Eilima Rabbati, manuscript Ein Adam, tamar 6, chapter 25. Cf: Sack, B. (1995 b), pp.186-188. 1551 Usually associated with weeping as disclosed in Psalms 42:5 “I shall pour out my soul” [’Pl7 TlDDlffNI ’WO]]: see Eilima Rabbati, Ein Adam 6:10, p.164a and compare with Or Yaqar, vo l.l, pp.15-16. 1552 On *il?lZ7n PloPo (curling the hair / curling the gate) according to the Idra; see Liebes, Y. (1982 Dissertation). On RaMaK's employment o f this term, see Sack, B. (1995 a), pp.265-266; ibid (1995 b), pp.164-169. See also the association with 7117127 - measurement. 1553 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 24, p.28. 1554 See, e.g., Tomer Devorah, chapter 7; in Miller, M. (trans., 1993), p .l 11 and Sefer Gerushin, entry 15, p .16. 1555 Sefer Gerushin, almost each entry within 1-90.1 discuss its dual epistemic vs. practical meaning later. 1556 See the following quote. 1557 See e.g., Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 3:14. 1558 See e.g., Eilima Rabbati, Ein Adam 6, preface and chapter 4. Compare with 131 S3 [na’ va-nad trudging on the earth / being exiled from a point o f origin] - Or Yaqar, V o l.l, p .58 on Zohar 1:6a: ’"371 nrrPi? m u? nrrn trm nP t n u rn nt un-run 7*073. 1559 S e e , e .g ., P ard es R im onim 2 0 : 1 0 a n d c o m p a r e w i t h O r Y aq ar, V o l . l , p . 5 8 o n Z o h a r 1 :6 a . S e e a l s o it s association with 731 173, ibid. 1560 Sefer Gerushin, e.g., entry 2, p.3. 1561 See e.g., ibid and entry 17, p.20. 1562 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 6, p.7. 1563 Noteworthy is the letter identity between the adjective *117117 (hair) and the verb *il7iff (assessing / combing?). The letter identity between *117127 and 12717*1 also warrants attention. 1564 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 20, p.25. 1565 See e.g., Pardes Rim onim 23:21.

298

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

infusing (T ra),1568 seeding (mmr),1569 birthing (mVin),1570 suckling (npT),1571 dressing (nwnbn)1572 and walking (nn^n).1573 The second, now associated with the successful fruition of these means, employs four terms highly associated with Jewish Mysticism in popular lingo - renewing (iz/nn),1574 repairing (ppn),1575 unifying (TUT1)1576 and cleaving (mptn).1577 This highly figurative language - contextualized within a hierarchical dissemination of responsibilities pending on one’s spiritual aptitude and corporeal vitality - indeed brings to mind a cosmic repair shop. It consisted of experts and apprentices whose tools fashioned around their respective mental clout, such as “The hammering soul”. Moreover, each term not only regulated a different procedure in the workshop but rather discerned between fine modifications (e.g., measuring, assessing, curling, sprinkling, straightening) and such theosophical necessities which called for a more invasive theurgic response (e.g., knocking, breaking, quaking, shaking, shuddering, striking, trembling, awakening, birthing). 4)

Human exegesis in resolution [")W3 / 12TP9 /

f lT T i] :

“[...] And I have explicated

that the perpetual affect is from Hesed and Gevurah [...]” (p.l; cf: virtually every entry). This term is used either before or after divine innovative intervention, albeit always in association with human exegetical discourse as dialectically evolving in form of question and answer.1578

1566 See e.g., Pardes Rim onim 23:21. 1567 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entries 5-6, pp.6-7. 1568 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 9, p .l 1. 1569 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 15, p.16 and compare with Pardes Rim onim 23:21. 1570 See e.g., Eilima Rabbati, Ein Adam 6:14. 1571 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 2, p.3. 1572 See, e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 6, p .8. 1573 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 73, p.91 - ’niznn '’m is njiti and compare with Tomer Devorah, chapter 9; Tefilah le-M oshe 4:12; Or Yaqar on Hakdamat ha-Zohar 1:19 and on Zohar, Bereshit 6:7; Shiur Qomah, p.31. The association o f this verb with the word Law [Halakhah ] is obvious. See also Wolfson, E.R. (1995 a), pp.89-110. 1574 Now bearing a practical meaning, rather than innovative insight. 1575 Another highly nuanced word: [1] To engage the foundational elements in preparation [2] To pass judgem ent as to the best action needed [3] To repair. The former would be rendered in m odem Hebrew ppnrb or lpnnb. See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 6, p.7. 1576 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 1, p .l. 1577 See e.g., Or Ne'erav 3:5. 1578 See RaMaK's explanation in Or Yaqar on Tikkunei ha-Zohar 7:10.

299

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

5) Travel, ascetic practices, liturgy, prostration on gravestones, cave visitations and isolation within the landscape in order to evoke divine exegetical assistance: “[...] Until we reached the ruins of the Synagogue in Nabartin” (p.l; cf: pp.4, 11, 12, 13, 20, 72), “After prostrating on the gravestone of Rabbi Yossei [ . . (p.8; cf: pp. 4, 10, 11, 15, 20, 22, 28, 34, 73), “And a few companions entered the cave and prayed for a short while, after which we went out to the rocky terrain and occupied ourselves.” (p.36; cf: pp.34, 51, 53, 57, 72), “[...] And I prayed shortly from within the walls of my heart” (p.20). 6) Divine innovative exegetical assistance [wmn:i / " w m / ’ruimn / ttHTn]: “Some more innovative matters had transpired there amongst my master (Alkabetz) and the fellowship, all of which were put in writing by my master [...].” (p.2; cf: pp.17, 20, 26, 61, 80, 90, 98, 111, 122), “[...] And teachings of Torah were illuminating within us, and words were uttered of their own volition” (p.4; cf: p.6), “[...] And praise to the Lord who has merited us, for these matters are all from above, affecting us without any inquiry whatsoever;1579 and they are sweeter than honey,1580 the gift of the [Sefirah] Malkhut to those who go on exilic excursions and ceaselessly wander in her footsteps” (p. 14). As G. Scholem has written in regard to RaMaK's Derishot ve-Hakirot be-Inyanei haM al’akhim, “Visions of angels were explained in [such] a fashion: the angel’s form was imprinted in an invisible ether that was not the same as ordinary air, and could be seen by a select few, not because they were prophets but because God had opened their eyes as a reward for having purified their corporeal bodies".1581 This reciprocal contingence appears also in Shiur Qomah1582 and had also informed the application of the word hidush in Sefer Gerushin, having addressed the sefirot, the mystics, the earth and the heavens alike. The mystics now transformed into a conduit to whom and through whom divine esoteric wisdom was revealed - rendering pivotal the fine alignments of one’s microcosmic properties with both earthly portals and the respective sefirotic mechanisms inspired to discharge such esoteric insights. The hidushim therefore registered simultaneously in the upper and lower worlds, as the mystical cleansing of the theosophical conduits opened epistemic clogs and allowed the effluence of insights

1579 Compare with Or Ne'erav 5:2. 1580 Compare with Pardes Rimonim 21:2 and 21:5. 1581 G. Scholem (1974), p .188 - italics by the author. 1582 Shiur Qomah, p.63.

300

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

hitherto unrealized. This fact leads RaMaK to declare in Or Yaqar that each hidush registers under the name of its human initiator both below and on high - a deposit of righteousness which merits him in this world and the hereafter.1583 Correspondingly, this epistemic divine effluence -rendered a gift [mna - matanah] and a merit [niDT - zekhut] could not have materialized save by the enduring patience [ninan - hamtanah] and purity [niDT - zakkut] of the human vessels to whom and through whom it poured. Adhering to the nuanced interplay of etymology and theurgy, RaMaK's abovementioned remark “[...] And praise to the Lord who has merited us [usnz;]” cyclically fuses the divine gift with the mystic’s purity: the word 133T thus features a reciprocal regulation whose parts exist in intimate codependence and articulate the bond between God and the Jewish mystic - zikka-nu [merited us] and zakh-nu [we became pure].1584 Similarly, the word hidush pertained not only to epistemic innovations rendered by divinity but also to the practical measures taken by the mystics in their initiatory invocation. 7)

Conclusion o f a particular ordeal [UN2P / posm yun

IV / m m / irmttf]: “This

was the conclusion of our occupation that day” (p.46; cf: pp.98, 113), “[...] And we departed the village” (p. 13; cf: pp.8, 11, 22, 28, 57, 73). Sefer Gerushin regretfully does not divulge any information regarding what deemed an excursion concluded. As disclosed in the above possible bystander’s view of the gerushin, one can only speculate whether it was the ‘silence’ of the Shekhinah or the cathartic exhaustion of its human conduit which indicated the termination of an ordeal. Likewise, one can only guess whether the members had an immediate sense of epistemic closure or in fact waited for more outbursts until convinced they are not to appear again at that specific time. Alas, given that Sefer Gerushin never aimed to accommodate the curiosity of bystanders, its succinct layout oftentimes covers more than it reveals.

1583 See e.g., Or Yaqar on Zohar, Aharei M ot 9; Shmot 1:11; be-Shalah 4:14; Ba 3:2. 1584 Compare with entry 10, p . l l , “As long as we are worthy / pure” [trtOT mmw nyom], and see Pardes Rimonim 1:5, “And when it is said ‘thou shall m erit’ [n? ’Dtl], meaning he whose actions merit him to acquire that holy soul” [N’nn ntimpn n a tra 7N I’E’saa nmm Kin] and 30:3, “To the worthy/pure righteous” [’torn p’ltth].

301

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Between Asceticism and Ecstasy

The discussion thus far warrants that one should be attentive to the intrinsic and reciprocal associations between spiritual potencies and their corporeal manipulations in Sefer Gerushin. This is especially visible once Sefer Gerushin is contextualized not only with RaMaK's own works but with other schools of ascetic piety whose circuitous presence in RaMaK's world has been established in scholarship - such as the Abulafian school or the teachings o f Sufism which may have led to certain modifications in ascetic expressions among Safed kabbalists. The contemporary scholar of religions Mircea Eliade discussed at length the existence of "The sacred" - that which he called Hierophany - as the object of worship by religious humanity. The following excerpt serves us well at this juncture: It is certain that human beings have the capacity to distinguish one thing from another and that this capacity is necessary for our continued survival. However, I want to begin [...] by taking up an issue which is related to the conceptual framework that has come to be associated with the process of distinguishing particular things from each other. Namely, that we have added a further nuance to this distinguishing capacity of ours: somewhere along the way we have also developed a conceptual schema that promotes the separation and arrangement of things in terms of a hierarchical dualism, a schema, moreover, which incidentally provides a circularity of sorts and functions to justify our valuation of them as necessary and appropriate, as having to do with their intrinsic nature, rather than as having to do with our own individual or collective whims, or our political or theological or philosophical biases. [...] With respect to body and spirit, we not only distinguish one from another, but we consider one so superior to the other that we conceive them as elements in an opposition; we dichotomize them. Depending on variations from one theory to another, this dichotomy will be expressed in different ways. Sometimes spirit is considered superior to the body, while the body is frequently thought of as mere dross, to be ignored, or even harmed as part of our quest for transcendence. It is spirit that is closest to the divine, which participates in the divine: it is spirit that is eternal. The body is thought to be an “Other” relative to spirit, our true self; the body is illusory, spirit is real.1585 M. Eliade’s notions were certainly amplified in the Jewish mystical discourse, albeit to various degrees which corresponded with social and individual climates. RaMaK’s 1585 Eliade, M. (1988), pp.22-23.

302

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

views of ascetic piety indeed dot his numerous compositions and present a favorable attitude toward voluntary afflictions and the glorification of dearth as a necessary means toward self purity and cosmic unity - the dialectics of revelation through the manipulation of the corporeal shell: “A man cannot acquire an elevated degree of providence by the Shekhinah save through frequent torments as harsh as death”;

1586

[through] “Those who seek poverty and anguish in honor of the Torah”,1587 “Blacken1588* themselves in its honor by poverty throughout their lives on this earth”,1589 or “Hold fast to it and torment themselves”1590 and by doing so are in fact rich, “For although they have no material provisions [nt/P ,,,n] they nonetheless thrive [Ti] through this occupation”.1591 RaMaK's thought, however, moves far beyond the somewhat romantic view of poverty and systemizes its chief value as a dialectic tool to combat the forces hindering men from purification and theurgic potency: in Pardes Rimonim RaMaK describes the cosmic domain of the shells as standing in formidable opposition to holiness and feeding malevolence to its own unfolding minions in parallel to the benevolent flow from divinity. This in mind, RaMaK obviously does not render the malevolent domain an autonomous agent whose power contradicts God’s sole sovereignty. Given that the Jewish monotheistic constitution cannot allow evil agents any independent animation or autonomous motivation, RaMaK views the question regarding the origin of impurity and shells “A seemingly perplexing and striking puzzle”1592 and sets to unpack it in two stages: First, RaMaK allows this domain considerable weight, as the shells “Have seventy orders and seven chambers just as the Holy edifice, and they stand in opposition to it [...].” Their chief executive “Is called V'tP/DINn [teomi’el - the twin of El]”1593 as it seemingly stands in autonomous contrast to the divine name El “Which authors divine

1586 Or Yaqar on Raaya M eheimana 3:17. 1587 Ibid on T ikkunei h a -Z o h a r 2:11. 1588 iTbsr Tnti/niy - RaM aK in all likelihood refers here to the use o f ashes or mud as gestures o f mourning, asceticism and lamentations. See, e.g., Solomon Molcho, Hayat Kana, p. 14 - D’i n n ’nrabl" "’b n *7S? p tio n’snoa c r m n n vnwpi nntffb us vr ’m m m . 1589 Ibid on Raaya M eheimana 3:13. 1590 Ibid, on Tikkunei ha-Zohar 10:1. 1591 Ibid. 1592 See Pardes Rimonim 25:1 and Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 2:16. 1593 Pardes Rimonim 25:4.

303

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

grace through the sefirah Hesed”.1594 This assessment demonstrates RaMaK's systematic appreciation of the commanding evil apparatus imbued in the exilic cosmic state. It also, however, manifests RaMaK keen attendance to pedagogic leadership and sensitivity to the obstructions faced by those who wish to maintain a worthy lifestyle yet lack his mastery of abstract speculation. RaMaK's second step - one already disclosed in the previous chapter - is the ultimate blow to evil vis-a-vis its ontic subordination to divine benevolence. As formidable as the evil domain may seem, the unity of the metaphysical imperative renders it ultimately inferior to God - a property which only appears to the untrained mind as autonomously opposing divine authoritative benevolence: “[...] And they [appear to] stand in opposition to holiness just as the ape appears like a man [...], and teomi’el is a property [...] which puts itself as if it is God’s twin, much like ‘a slave who becomes king and a slave-girl who supplants her mistress’1595”.1596 RaMaK thus wishes to rule out any dualistic appreciation of divinity by situating malevolence not only as subordinate to divine benevolence but also as a grand opportunity to expand the appreciation of that benevolence. The shells therefore do not constitute a domain to be avoided, overlooked or downplayed. On the contrary, they feature a realm whose knowledge and experience by the mystic is an existential regulation en route to uninterrupted benevolence - HD’bpn nti?17pn THIS \ha-Kelippah Tzorekh ha-Kedushah]! This conceptual configuration appears already in Pardes Rimonim1597 and had nourished from the rabbinic extrapolation on the biblical term “Very good” [7NE 3TO] which seals the Creation story (Genesis 1:31). Puzzled by the appearance of the word in [evil - Genesis 2:9] in a world previously portrayed as ‘very good’, the rabbis now broke this term in two, rendering the word 7NQ [very] “The inclination towards / potentiality of evil” [inn nr].1598 The byword here is "is1, which points to inclination or potency rather than to its reification - an ontic position which resembles RaMaK’s often-used term ro [potentiality /potency]. The potential existence of evil therefore did not stand in contrast

P ard es R im onim 20:5. 1595 Proverbs 30:22-23. 1596 P ard es R im onim 25:4. 1597 P ard es R im onim 25:3, where RaMaK explains the term rrni i n s HS’Vpn - “The shell is a divine regulation”. 1598 B ereshit R a b b a 9:7.

304

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

to the ontologically inherent benevolence behind Creation. Since it was the Primal Sin which had actualized the potential of evil, a reverse mechanism will subjugate the shell and re-expose its core - the potential which had always been in harmony with the divine. In other words, the ontic standing of evil does not challenge God at all; rather, it is its practical facility which should be at the core of mystical discourse. In Pardes Rimonim RaMaK refers to the term 7X» mo and distinguishes between mo “Who is the angel of life” and 7X0 “Who is the angel of death”.1599 Correspondingly, RaMaK states that shells permeate the cosmic and human arenas as premeditated tools to assist humanity in its quest for reunification with God, as was the case before Adam’s sin: as long as shells are seen in such a light, RaMaK would endorse their manipulation toward a ‘shell free’ end. In other words, the divine imperative must inform our approach to evil as an ultimate good which is artfully disguised - an agent whose manipulation back to harmonious utility is an equally commanding and artful a task - cosmic repair. More conducive, however, is his previously mentioned claim which continues the Zoharic notion regarding the positive role of the shell in its potential state,1600 that which he calls “A shell infused within the sacred” [nsmpn nh'PD] nm^pn].1601 Sefer Gerushin reiterates this idea and states clearly that evil in its potential state [= inclination] was an integral provider for divinity’s harmonious utility: “prior to the primal sin the inclination towards evil assisted in Holy unification [...] and a malevolent angel was compelled to answer ‘Amen’”. [ p x in“D hi/n nny nhnn -|x'm..ttTrpn 7irp\7 hx y^oa i " n r rrn xunn Q7ip ].1602 The ramifications of this claim are quite clear: Go[o]d stands above any conceivable evil just as cause, master, human and necessity surpass the effect, the slave,1603 the ape and possibility. God is the only ‘necessary being’ whose benevolence becomes a ‘necessary attribute’ which towers and orchestrates all the inferior ‘possible beings’ [mx’xan nwsx]. The property of evil, which came to represent any shell in mystical discourse, thus bears two distinct qualities which RaMaK wishes to engage: a constructive potentiality that assists in unification above, and a destructive actuality which hinders men and 1599 Pardes Rimonim 25:3. 1600 See RaMaK's treatment o f this issue in Sefer Gerushin, entry 73, pp.91-92. 1601 Pardes Rimonim 25:3. 1602 Sefer Gerushin, entry 7, pp.9-10. 1603 See e.g. Sefer Gerushin, entry 20, pp.24-25 where RaMaK renders shells ‘a slave’.

305

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

cosmos from its fruition below. Correspondingly, RaMaK wishes to tap into the positive quality embedded within the potency of the shell and to harness its realized manifestations toward their own eventual eradication as actualities - “And the man purifies the impure, since by subduing it and causing it to join in the fulfillment of a mitzvah he ushers it back toward sanctity, purifying through it and by doing so allowing it reentry into sacredness - as was in the primordial days, when the shell was infused within the sacred”.1604 RaMaK's subtle treatment of the term nttfVTpn "pix ns’bpn therefore encompasses two levels - ontic potency vs. practical actuality: the former may be translated as “The shell is a divine desire” in accord with RaMaK's above claim “Prior to the primal Sin the potency of evil / inclination toward evil assisted in Holy unification”. The latter derived from the first yet now pertained to the actual presence of shells and their manipulation thereof. It may therefore be translated as “The shell is a divine regulation to attain the sacred [core]”: all actual shells (i.e., elements that are superficially seen as hindering one’s path to harmonious utility with the divine) are in fa ct agents whose meticulous engagement back toward potentiality leads to the attainment of the sublime inner essence.1605 Similarly, punishment and suffering were also rendered blessings in disguise, whereas their severity had been ipso facto a sign of man’s standing and potential virtuousness in God’s eyes, as the spiritual standing of Rabbi Akiva which was so profound as to “Necessitate a grave punishment for a transgression thin as a hair”1606 - all of which are now rendered by RaMaK further evidence to divine providence and pledge to Israel. “For that reason”, RaMaK exclaims, “the creation of shells and the evil inclination in men is a divine regulation. Therefore ‘I shall praise you with all my heart’ (Psalms 138:1) means by both the good and evil inclinations” - since evil is not in opposite to good but rather existentially subordinate to it, “like the evil inclination which confesses reluctantly, answering ‘Amen’ and bowing to the good inclination”.1607

1604 Pardes Rimonim 25:3. 1605 See also Sack, B. (1995 a), chapter 2. 1606 Pardes Rimonim 31:5 and compare with Or Yaqar, vol.17, p .19 and Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 5:22. Noteworthy here is Isaac Luria’s alleged eulogy o f RaMaK wherein he states that RaMaK's “Utter piety and lack o f any sin whatsoever was itself considered a sin by God and therefore led to RaMaK's death”. 1607 Sefer Gerushin, entry 73, p.91-92 and compare with entries 2, p.2 and 79, p. 102.

306

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

In Or Yaqar RaMaK discloses the desired tactic to combat the shells and the theosophical dearth they affect. The creed of the cosmic warrior is the dialectics of discovery and recovery, understanding the reversed manipulation which informs the cosmic edifice - the necessity to penetrate the shells and subdue them in order to recover the benevolent core which unifies them with divinity! As seen, RaMaK associates this dialectic rationale with the primal Sin and states that currently one needs to ipso facto enter the ‘lion’s den’ in order to subjugate theosophical poverty and to reorient its immense forces toward individual and cosmic repair:

m a 7MD v iv a nibtsa*’ /ptytan D7N tram iv w a 'w a n rrnnn nx ib tw ]vd viv Tina nnnn VTa’rtr ’"D 'id’t fpn y n ' / mban i»r bn xpn nr pay i^ a ’i [...] mborr dn tan obiyn atyai nrn nbiyra my ’"y am *nynttm m b o w inana ibs'n [...] nxrn nsrbsn n o a yaiaty I’aya bay ipaxm npy’ -p ’ ypnV nrbi paiya Since the affluent souls [of Adam and Eve] abolished the affluence of the Torah by their primal Sin, its poverty shall be likewise abolished by [our] current poverty - measure for measure [...] which will last throughout the exilic era.1608 / ‘And he wrenched his hip at its socket’1609 suggests that they [= we] shall learn Torah from within poverty itself and succumb ourselves to its web in order to break its grip [on the Torah] and subdue it [in turn] through dearth in this world and hereafter in the world to come. Therefore ‘the socket of his hip was strained as he wrestled with him’1610 hints to the secret behind this limp [...].1611 RaMaK thus endorses asceticism as a decisive tool embedded in the dialectic cosmic mechanism: the limp below [nybu] is a desired/regulated measure toward walking above

[HD’bn] in the footsteps of Halakhah [robn]. As RaMaK puts it in Eilima Rabbati and in Or Yaqar respectively, “It is worthy and commendable to voluntarily enter the dangerous [domain], for it is a great trial and a [true] worship”.1612 Such an approach my lead one to harness the perils one has endured and emerge victorious, “[Like] ‘the lame who [now] leaps like a deer’1613 [...] in the esoteric playfulness of the Torah” [min ’n yiiyytyn].1614 Asceticism was indeed the highest form to realize men’s love for God and knowledge of 1608 Or Yaqar on Zohar, va-Yishlah 7:3. 1609 Genesis 32:26. 1610 Ibid. 1611 Or Yaqar on Zohar, va-Yeshalah 7:11. 1612 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 5:35. 1613 Isaiah 35:6. 1614 Or Yaqar, vol.3, pp.145-146 and compare with vol. 11, p .107.

307

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

God’s regulatory revelation, one allotted to those who had seen beyond any suffering and perceived with great clarity its ultimate governing benevolence. These were the luminaries who were able to accept all personal travails as the “Pangs of love”1615 [ ’■no11 mnx] and fathom with great lucidity the dialectically regulated catharsis in their wake. The malevolent surge, which hitherto nourished from the very ill actions of their fellowmen, was absorbed by such martyrs “Much like a sheep herder who [...] agonizes for the multitude, irritates Satan and prevents him from advocating against them. The Judgment thus affects him and causes him great suffering, at times even death proper, while the rest are salvaged. This is ‘the death of the righteous absolves [the rest]’1616 and the righteous man is benefited, as seen in the case of Rabbi Akiva

1617

1618

RaMaK's take on asceticism is therefore twofold: on the one hand, men must remember that their true aspiration is the garments o f light enjoyed by primordial Adam. At this juncture RaMaK demonstrates a certain affinity with physical infliction that may be found in Abulafian, Sufi and even Maimonidean doctrines.1619 He even espouses Gnostic views of physicality at certain points, deeming all tangibles “A punishment”,1620 1 /r > y 1

praising those who “Break [their] body for the honor of the Supreme One”

or

instructing contemporary transgressors to “Indulge in certain self afflicted predicaments and become abstinent”1622 in repentance. On the other hand, RaMaK refutes any understanding of such afflictions devoid of the broader aforementioned context. At this juncture we should indeed exercise caution when assessing RaMaK’s ascetic radicalism or the impact of external ascetic doctrines on his piety. As S.D. Fraade has noted, ‘Asceticism’, AS THE TERM is most commonly employed in the study of religion, is a modern construct identified with a set of diverse phenomena, which are thought collectively to constitute a coherent way of viewing the world and acting in it. How one defines ‘asceticism’ in determined by one’s choice of which of the constituent elements are essential to the encompassing construct and which are not. ‘Asceticism’, thus, is used to 16,5 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l 5:32. 1616 See e.g., Babylonian, M oed Katan 28a. 1617 Babylonian, Berakhot 61b. 16,8 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l 5:32. 1619 See M aimonides’ Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Talmud Torah 3:12; cf: Kreisel, H. (1988), p .16. 1620 Sefer Gerushin, entry 17, p. 17. 1621 Tomer Devorah, chapter 9. 1622 Tomer Devorah, chapter 1;7.

308

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

differentiate those religious systems and their components that satisfy the definition by including its essential elements from those that do not. Unfortunately, there is no scholarly consensus concerning how ‘asceticism’ (and its related terms) should be defined when employed in the study o f religion, nor are the ways in which it is defined, whether explicitly or implicitly, consistently applied in the comparison of religions and religious traditions.1623 RaMaK's take on ascetic piety demonstrates multiple meanings and accentuates S.D. Fraade’s call for caution on our part. As noted by R J.Z Werblowsky, “Asceticism can easily combine with philosophical and mystical piety [...] on the one hand, and with messianic fervor [...] on the other hand”.1624 As seen, RaMaK's approach is a meticulous combination of speculation and devotion whose chief arbitrator is the cosmic dialectic regulation. To this end RaMaK not only intensified the redemptive fervor in certain parts of his abstract scheme but also initiated a number of measures to augment the nature of the human mystical experience itself: a prime step in this direction was the incorporation of Rabbi Abraham Abulafia’s (1240 - c.1291) ecstatic techniques hitherto dismissed by Spanish kabbalistic doctrines (as seen e.g., in Rabbi Meir Ibn Gabbai’s Avodat haKodesh) and a further employment of letter combinations and permutations in addition to esoteric explications of Biblical words.1625 As M. Idel suggests, RaMaK’s Pardes Rimonim1626 seems to have been the initiatory occurrence in Safed to change the dismissive tendency of Abulafia’s ecstatic Kabbalah, as “We hear for the first time of an integration of Abulafia’s doctrines within an overall summary of Spanish Kabbalah [...]. As opposed to the comprehensive work of Rabbi Meir Ibn Gabbai, which is based almost entirely on Spanish Kabbalah, Cordovero includes themes and quotations from the

1623 Fraade, S.D. in Green, A. (ed., 1986), p.253 - uppercase words in the original text. 1624 S e e i n G r e e n , A . ( e d ., 1 9 8 7 ) , p .1 2 .

1625 See Sefer Gerushin, e.g., entries 6, pp.7-8; 13, p p .13-14; 18, p.21 [!]; 34, p.37 and compare with Pardes Rimonim 23. On this issue, see Idel, M. in Green, A. (ed., 1989), pp.427-435; ibid (1985 a), pp. 117-120. 1626 See e.g., Pardes Rimonim 21:1 and 30:3. Although RaMaK does not mention Abulafia by name, a comparison with the latter’s Hayei ha-OIam ha-Ba and Or ha-Sekhel makes clear the association. See Idel, M. in Green, A. (ed., 1989); Fenton, P. (1995), pp.287-288 and fn.39. In Or Yaqar RaMaK makes direct references to Abulafia and his Or ha-Sekhel - see e.g., Derishot ve-Hakirot be-Inyanei haM al’akhim, Derishah 7, Hakirah 2. Cf: Scholem, G. (1930), p.97.

309

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

writings of Abraham Abulafia, giving them a standing unknown among the Spanish exilic Kabbalists active outside of Israel”.1627 Complimentary to RaMaK's affinity toward Abulafian ecstatic piety and mystical techniques, P. Fenton has demonstrated the impact of Sufi devotional practices on 16th century Palestine - a contextualized approach whose importance was acknowledged, however briefly, by G. Scholem in the late 1970s1628 and given much greater attention by M. Idel’s school. G. Scholem was the first to initiate this inquiry by noting that “A great upsurge of mystical religion occurred in Palestine in the 16th century, accompanied by parallel developments in Egypt and Syria. It would therefore be logical to look for documents of kabbalistic thought coming from these parts which might enlighten us about a possible impact o f Sufi ideas and concepts on some Kabbalists [...].” However, Scholem concluded, “One wonders why the Kabbalists of Safed, Jerusalem, Damascus or Cairo, who lived all their lives in immediate proximity of great centers of Sufi circles and masters, never took any notice of them in their writings.”1629 P. Fenton called for “A revision of this observation”, whereas a study of his works1630 and others demonstrates that Sufi impact on Palestinian kabbalists (permanent or transient in Palestine) had been established in parallel to Abulafia’s life, namely during the 13th and 14th centuries. This impact is felt, e.g., in the writings of Rabbi Isaac ben Samuel (c. 1270-1350), Rabbi Isaac of Acre (late 13th - mid 14th centuries), Rabbi Avraham Maimonides (1186-1237), his son David ben Abraham Maimonides (12221292) or the anonymous Palestinian composer of She’arei Tzedek (written c. 1290-1295). “It must be borne in mind”, P. Fenton exclaims, “that shortly after the Mameluke conquest, Palestine played host to a certain number of centers of Sufi activity, and it is highly feasible that Jews had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with Sufi practices.”1631

1627 Idel, M. in Green, A. (ed., 1989), p.428 and generally in pp.427-435. For a detailed discussion o f Abraham A bulafia’s mystical techniques, see ibid (Chipman, J. trans., 1988 c), especially chapter 1. RaMaK makes direct reference to A bulafia’s Shaarei Tzedek in Or Yaqar on Zohar Sava de-Mishpatim - see Idel, M. in Green, A. (ed., 1989), p.428. 1628 See Scholem, G. (1977); cf: Fenton, P. (1995), p.271; Garb, J. (1999), p.264. 1629 Scholem, G. ibid, p .666. 1630 Fenton, P. (1994 a); (1994 b); (1995); (2000); ibid in Fine, L. (ed., 2001). 1631 Fenton, P. (1995), p.281.

310

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

A cautious examination of ascetic piety in 16th century Safed must take into account that some practices were most probably never chronicled but were rather transmitted orally and under severe scrutiny - a fact also pertaining to RaMaK who “Likely [...] had traditions that he did not put down in writing”.1632 Having that in mind, RaMaK’s adoption of such practices most probably nourished from earlier Jewish writings as well as direct and indirect encounters with Sufi practitioners and teachings in the Palestinian sphere. The works o f P. Fenton, M. Idel and J. Garb1633 show by persuasive inference that numerous Sufi centers in Jerusalem,1634 Damascus and the greater Ottoman vicinity were most likely known to RaMaK, whereas mediatory influence could be traced to his acquaintance with the teachings of Jewish ecstatic figures such as Rabbis David ibn Zimra (1479-1573), Judah Albotini (d.1519) and Joseph ibn Tzayah (1505-1573) - all of whom having been prominent halakhic leaders in Jerusalem or other centers; men whose mystical piety had been likely informed by ecstatic Sufi doctrines and trance techniques1635 and who held close ties with RaMaK's master Joseph Karo and with Moses di Trani in Safed.1636 Moreover, having been a leader to the prominent Mustarabim Jewish community in Jerusalem,1637 Moses ibn Tzayah most likely had some clout among its sister community in Safed, featuring an additional venue for the possible penetration of these practices into RaMaK's devotional life. These contentions should be treated cautiously as well, for G. Scholem’s observation regarding the conspicuous lack of direct reference to Sufism or Sufi figures among Safed kabbalists remains quite valid in RaMaK’s case. Scholarship leans often times towards monopolizing ideas or methods, ascribing them to particularschools andcoercing their sway wherever similar ideas or methods appear elsewhere. Thisapproach does not necessarily recognze the independent attainment of similar truths in the human arena; conceptual or devotional creativities which had led various groups to comparable conclusions about God, humanity, world and religiosity. Theological articulations throughout history demonstrate a fantastic fabric of correlating ideas, views and practices

1632 Idel, M. in Green, A. (ed., 1989), p.433. 1633 Garb, J. (1996), pp. 120-124; ibid (1997); (1999); (2001). 1634 See Fenton, P. (1994 a), p.171; cf: Garb, J. (1999), p.264. 1635 On this issue see Bilu, Y. (1996); Garb, J. (1997). 1636 See Idel, M. in Green, A. (ed., 1989), pp.424-427; Garb, J. (1999). 1637 See Benayahu, M. (1989 a), p.68.

311

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

between groups wholly unaware of each other. The awesome unity of the divine is an abstract which seems to exist irrespective of social dialogue and mutual influence, just as are sentiments associated with submission to divinity, the imitatio Dei principle, meditational

absorption

and

solitude,

repentance,

sacrificial

offerings

etc’.

Correspondingly, one’s acknowledgment of other schools with similar ideas does not necessarily suggest that one had not reached such ideas autonomously. Citing other schools or savants many a time serves to vindicate what had already been established rather than to fortify a frail edifice by new epistemic scaffolds. A more accurate picture should allow both structures their impact on the evolution of different schools within a given arena. We should therefore be attentive to the phenomenology of Safedian mystical life which may have converged different ideas either to vindicate its own rationale or to re­ examine its own articulation of certain methods and practices. That in mind, we should nonetheless distinguish between the phenomenological aspect and the Safedian professed view regarding such encounters: RaMaK's endorsement of Sufism is always indirect, relying not on its particular strength but on such Jewish scholars whose aptitude to absorb certain Sufi teachings within Jewish formulations RaMaK had appreciated for various reasons. RaMaK’s discussion of the “Permissible teachers” in Or Ne'erav cautions the prospective student from “Foreign magian priests [’ttnnaN]1638 or members of the ‘erring’ and ‘sinning’ groups, for I guarantee that no [true wisdom] can be found in their paths”.1639 Likewise, Eilima Rabbati rebukes men that “Study from foreign [teachers] who enter the esoteric realms through doubts and intellectual feebleness, [whereas] we have no need for such broken vessels [lit. pits] that cannot contain water [...] and no share in their perplexities”.1640 It is “The paths afforded to us by Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai”1641 which clearly distinguishes between Jews and gentiles in this journey of spiritual cartography, epistemic clarity and theurgic clout. Although such refutations only accentuate the influential presence of foreign doctrines in the Safedian scenery, one should nonetheless remember the parochial and 1638 See e.g., Babylonian, M o ’edK atan 17a; Shabbat 139a; Sanhedrin 98a. Cf: Sokoloff, M. (2002), p .138 and his references. 1639 Or Ne'erav 3:3. 1640 Eilima Rabbati, Ein Kol ha-Aretz 1:16. 1641 Ibid.

312

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

exclusive nature of the socio-religious scheme behind RaMaK's system, according to which Jews were qualitatively set apart from gentiles vis-a-vis their inimitable standing in, and responsibility for, divine welfare: “The world cannot be sustained save by Torah,” whereas the nation of Israel outranks all others, “For God sought their intimate proximity”.1642 Eilima Rabbati states that “[...] The Sacred Soul [nefesh kedosha - 1PM nump] does not dwell within the gentiles, yet the intellect may be found among their sages”,1643 whereas Sefer Gerushin and Shiur Qomah declare respectively that “The gentiles cannot access the innermost levels of sanctity as can [the nation of] Israel”,1644 since “Israel is nourished from the higher providence without mediation whatsoever [...], outranking even the angelic cohort itself’.1645 Attending to RaMaK's unequivocal belief in the Jewish hierarchical exclusivity corroborates G. Scholem’s earlier note regarding the conspicuous lack of direct reference to Sufism or Sufi figures among Safed kabbalists. It seems indeed instructive to distinguish between Sufi teachings and teachers when investigating the Cordoeirian approach; for RaMaK’s incorporation of certain ideas which may have originated in Sufi doctrines adheres to two caveats: first, certain ideas could obviously have been reached independently and therefore accentuated divine unity as negotiating the intellectual necessitation of God and even certain rites which allowed epistemic transparency to gentiles as well. Such teachings either complimented or enhanced the validity of the parochial Jewish discourse and further established for RaMaK the Jewish exclusivity in the theurgical drama - the ability to share practices only in order to soar to realms afforded to Jews alone. Second, such teachings were further fashioned by the mediating agency of Jewish scholars such as Abraham Abulafia and ibn Tzayah, rather than sustaining their ‘crude’ Sufi form - all of which accommodate the exclusive Jewish role in the Safedian drama.1646 1642 Or Ne'erav 3:5. 1643 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:5. 1644 Sefer Gerushin, entry 80, p. 103. 1645 Shiur Qomah, p. 121. 1646 I. Tishby’s discussion o f the Zoharic relationship with Christianity and Islam is quite apt here, albeit problematic insofar as trying to understand RaMaK's take on it. He obviously did not view it as a historical account - having been composed in his mind some three centuries prior to Islam - but rather as a prophetic account whose biblical origins point to these two hostile giants - Edom and Ishmael. See Tishby, I. (1949), vol.l, pp.68-69 and compare with RaMaK's theosophical analysis o f the Death o f the Edomite Kings in Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp.230-238.

313

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

The fact that Joseph Karo and Solomon Alkabets had both arrived from the Balkan sphere is another reason to suggest different cultural attachments they must have brought with them and incorporated into their teachings and devotional lives. Respectively, an important circumstantial influence on RaMaK must have been Rabbi Joseph Taitatzak of Salonika (c.1478 - c. 15 3 8)1647 - a prominent leader whose philosophical aptitude (seen in his Porat Yoseph)l64S had not deterred his piety from also contouring around the ascetic and hyper-messianic teachings of Solomon Molcho of Lisbon.1649 His ascetic piety informed in turn the cultural and devotional worlds of both Solomon Alkabetz and Joseph Karo who had known Taitatzak while residing in Salonika and Constantinople.1650 Taitatzak is mentioned with noticeable reverence in Karo’s writings,1651 where he also furnishes a succinct and instructive description of the mutual influence and close ties Safed had carried with its Jewish neighboring communities at the time: Karo’s Magid Meisharim features a divine voice approving the halakhic and mystical guidelines handed to Alkabets to deliver from Safed to Adrianapolis and Salonika - a narrative that serves the mindfJame under which such inter-communal ties had been met favorably with the divine intent as a decisive tool to usher in the messianic era: “The holy brethren [there] illuminate you and you illuminate them in turn; and both illuminate the holy brethren in the metropolis of Israel [i.e., Salonika], and they in turn illuminate you both”.1652 tVi

Another influential source were Bahya ibn Paquda (second half o f the 11 century) and Moses Maimonides (1138

-1204) whose vacillating approaches to asceticism had

also contributed to RaMaK’s own fluctuations: H. Kreisel’s Asceticism in the Thought o f R. Bahya ibn Paquda and Maimonides unpacks the indecisiveness found in their views, wherein “Although both voice negative attitudes to extreme forms of asceticism, [they 1647 See Scholem, G. (1971-1976), pp.69-70. Also see Sack, B. (1995 a), p.15; ibid (1988), pp.341-354 and her references there. 1648 A speculative composition influenced by Thomas Aquinas and Aegidius Romanus. 1649 Also known as Diego Pirres. Rabbi Solomon Molcho became acquainted with Kabbalah under the instmctorship o f Rabbi David ha-Reuveni, arrived in Salonika in 1526 and was reputed as having been a p r o p h e t i c m y s t i c w h o s e m e s s i a n i c v i s i o n s w e r e l a t e r c o m p i l e d i n a w o r k t i t l e d Sefer ha-M efo’ar. ' 65° On Joseph Taitatzak see Benayahu, M. (1976), pp.304-314; Sack, B. (1988), pp.341-354 ; ibid (1995 a), p .15; Scholem, G. (1971-1976), pp.69-112. On Joseph Taitatzak’s philosophical affinities and exegesis, see Shalem, S. (1971-8); Sarmoneta, B.J. (1971-8). 1651 Noteworthy is the fact that Karo had some reservations regarding the authority o f Taitatzak’s magid. See also in Rabbi Elijah de Vidash, R eshit H okhm ah, Shaar ha-Kedushah. 1652 See W erblowsky in Green, A. (ed., 1987), p. 14. 1653 On the year 1138 as having been M aimonides’ more plausible year o f birth, see Kraemer, J.L. in Fine, L. (ed., 2001), p.413 and his references.

314

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

nonetheless] view them not just as a temporary therapeutic measure to counter specific unhealthy influences o f the body upon the soul, but as being the path most conducive to the attainment of man’s ultimate spiritual perfection”.1654 RaMaK’s devotional narrative in Sefer Gerushin corresponds with the above: within a meticulous spatiotemporal structure1655 which also accentuates the human microcosmic condition,1656 Sefer Gerushin demonstrates the importance of the imitatio Dei principal and manifests its theurgical reifications through acute humility1657 and radical asceticism;1658 prayer;1659 various meditational postures and body manipulations within the landscape - including Nefilat Appayim (prostration in supplication);1660 symbolic

1654 Kreisel, H. (1988) and his references; see also Idel, M. (1988 b). 1655 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entries 8, p.10; 18, p.22; 19, pp.22-24; 30, p.32; 74, p.97; 85, p p.l 13-115; 89, p p .118-119 and refer to Tomer Devorah, chapter 10 “[...] A man should act in the proper time”; chapter 2, discussing the exact “Times wherein the Keter is needed” or “Festivals, Sabbath days, Days o f Atonement and times o f prayer and study [ . . . ] - times when the Supernal W ill is revealed”. See in Miller, M. (trans. 1993), p p .134, 56 & 58 respectively and compare with Eilima Rabbati, Ein Adam 6:14, p,165b - cf: Sack, B. (1995 b), p .179. On the particular potencies o f darkness and the night, see e.g., entry 7, p .9 [negative vs. positive redemption] and compare with Eilim a Rabbati, Ein Adam 6:11, p,164b - cf: Sack, B. (1995 b), pp. 174, 177. On the perpetual quality o f time, see Or Yaqar on Zohar, va-Yera 3:2, Pkudei 9, Aharei M ot 4, Kedoshim 4, Emor 3, Sava de-Mishpatim 7; introduction to Shiur Qomah 13:26; on Tikkunei ha-Zohar 9:14; on Raaya Meheimana 1:18. 1656 See Sefer Gerushin e.g., entry 96, p .131 and especially entry 93, p .126. 1657 In our context the Latin etymology o f the word humility as ‘being close to the ground’ is especially apt. 1658 See his professed humility in Sefer Gerushin, entry 18, p.20 - ’bbva s n USB ’3 v o m ttf ’1K1 U’N - “I am unworthy o f [the sefirot] to adorn themselves by me due to my evil transgressions”. See also entry 28, p.30 and especially 68, p.82 concerning King David and Sefirah Malkhut as “The secret o f poverty and dearth”; compare with Tomer Devorah, chapters 1, 2 (especially the eight acts o f self infliction). See also Tomer Devorah, chapter 9 and compare with Sefer Gerushin, entry 17, p. 18 and Eilima Rabbati, Ein Adam 6:12, p,164b [see in Sack, B. (1995 b), p.175]. On asceticism in the thought o f Maimonides and ibn Paquda - both having influences RaM aK - see Kreisel, H. (1988). 1659 Sefer Gerushin refers directly to muw fdiaiP nb’Dn (the Eighteen-Part Benediction) [entry 18, p.21], to the practice o f keeping one’s fingers up in prayer for as long as three hours [!] in accordance to Sefer haBahir [entry 21, p.26] and raising one’s voice upon saying “Amen” [entry 22, pp.26-27]; on Birkhot haNehenin, see entry 74, pp.92-97; on Netilat Lulav see entry 87, p. 118; on the theurgic potency o f bowing, see 49, p .58; on prayer in the Zohar see Tishby, I. “Prayer and Devotion in the Zohar”, in Fine, L. (ed., 1995), Essential Papers on Kabbalah, pp.341-399 and his references; Gottlieb, E. (Hacker, J. ed., 1976), pp.38-55; On prayer in RaMaK's Kabbalah see Sack, B. (2000), pp.59-84; ibid (1995 a), especially pp. 193-

202 . 1660 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entries 5, p .5 [ = lying down and stretching the arms for theurgic purposes]; 5, p.6 [= ascetic humiliation and degradation - bDWTi m :] ; entry 49, p .58 [= the theurgic potency o f bowing]; entry 7, p .9 [= retrieval o f hands - □D,T lOtf/a - compare with 11, p .12 - Ij’B1 n n x 3’!Z?n]; see also 33, p.36; 48, p .55; 61, p.73 [yaxxa nma]; entry 11, p .12 and especially entry 18, p.20 [= locating the epicenter o f theurgical potencies in the landscape- D’Smn l?xaxa p in rrn’IP / ’a t p ’xb U’B’l mtp D m ) UD UX1 m in n a i a nnma srnanb u r m [...] ’"aan put ’bratra prtrbx]; see also 19, p.23 [ lit; p be? mainn pa nnaism mainn pab m o m pirn mnaisrm auob m o m noa biff] 37, p.40 and 55, p.66 [wxaxn ip] and compare with 37, p.40 [nm ra I’xiaan Kin 'I p an] and especially entry 73, p.90!; a possible upward-downward movement m ay be seen in entry 13, p .14 [= “For this name ascends and descends simultaneously”]; 15, p .17 [= standing upright to allow energetic flow to the heart - p m np’ff ,mxDnn Kina' abn n’l ’ayai niHff1ia] and

315

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

rearrangements of land and landscape;1661 the use of senses1662 and acts of consumption, such as eating and drinking;1663 weeping;1664 rejoicing1665 and chanting with or without use of musical instruments,1666 as well as employing prayer shawls (tzitzit) & phylacteries

compare with crossing the hands over the thighs in Pardes Rimonim 1:3. Entry 17, p p .18-19 [= perhaps standing naked as a symbolic gesture o f spiritual purification wherein light supersedes flesh - n y HJ3 ©371 ns’bpm nun yusnbi nmbsbi ,n©npn m isya ns© bi ly^snbi t©sn mbs'? s©si which leads to ms nuns ©aa / m ss my qbnrw] - RaM aK m ay be referring to this practice in Derishot ve-Hakirot be-Inyanei haM al'akhim 7:3, wherein he condemns it as “An act harboring ugliness and impurity”. As already mentioned, RaMaK's interpretation o f ‘light superseding flesh’ is the wearing o f phylacteries - see ibid. Entry 93, p. 126 [= body postures and possible meditational techniques - □” Dnss nbyab a n rn a 'x mi?l"iT nrrby aavma qum msmn by am ^sna an© t r r n n rn s by [...] qnn by m ynn]. Entry 20, pp.24-25 [= knocking on rocks or boulders instead o f their engagement through verbal communication - bx am sm SIXS n’snV fays b’yin xb m aun ’a n©ya pay nxsn i n s nsyb pb [...] 'ybon]; entry 36, pp.39-40 [= ecstatic visions]; on the possible use o f fire, smoke and incense see entries 61, pp.73-75; 82, p .106; 91, p .122 and compare with Pardes Rimonim 21:6 and Eilima Rabbati, Ein Shemesh 3:3. On dropping oil on one’s right hand and the possible use o f candles see entry 70, p .86; on the possible use o f four flags (red and white) and their vertical vs. horizontal positioning see entry 62, pp.75-76; on clipping nails and their preferable burial or burning within a theurgic hierarchy see entry 67, pp.80-81 and compare with entry 86, p. 116; on the possible use o f strings see entry 72, p .88. Entry 44, pp.48-49 [= fetal positions or Head between the Legs [ p i t x 't by nasy nsBxai] - compare with entries 48, p.54 [imx a ’osai D,mD3sa D’ssio am] and 50, p.59 [ ax 1’b n ns©a 3’©n] and see also on sitting - entry 63, pp.77-78. On these issues, see Fenton, P. (1994 b) and his references. O n the theurgic potency o f bowing, see entry 49, p.58. On circular movement, employing the shade o f trees and other possible group arrangements within the landscape, see entries 68, p .83; 64, p.78 and 77, p.98. On special attire, spatial arrangements and movements o f the head in five directions see Pardes Rim onim 22:1. On Nefilat Appayim, see entry 18, p.20 which starts with the words “And I rose” [’napl] and his direct reference in entry 74, p.96. On this issue, see Hallamish, M. (1994). B. Sack has already thoroughly researched RaMaK's stand on this issue - see ibid (1995 a), pp.234-237. On the possible use o f cold water to rejuvenate the m ystics’ spiritual vitality, see entry 55, p.65. 1661 On possible rearrangements o f stones see entry 10, p. 11 - “[...] Two stones construct two houses; three construct six; four continue in the same manner and so forth ad infinitum”; on possible consecration o f water reservoirs and grass pastures see entry 68, pp.82-83. 1662 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 63, pp.77-78 and compare with Or Yaqar, vol. 10, p.7. On this issue, see Garb, J. (1996), pp.120-124; ibid (1997). 1663 On eating and asceticism, see e.g., Sefer Gerushin entry 74, pp.93-94. On this issue, see Hecker, J. in Fine, L. (2003), pp.65-66; ibid (ed., 2001), pp.353-363; ibid (2000), pp.125-152; Horowitz (1989 a), pp. 1746. 1664 RaM aK treats the theurgic potency o f weeping in Eilima Rabbati, Ein Adam 6:10, pp.l64a-b; compare with Pardes Rim onim 8:12. See in Sack, B. (1995 b), p .174 and her discussion in p p .165, 167; ibid, (1995 a), pp.29-30, 232. On theurgic weeping, see Idel, M. (1998 a), chapter 5, pp.74-88. On the Zoharic roots o f theurgic weeping, see e.g., Zohar Hadash on Ruth 79d-80 [cf: Tishby, I. (1949), vol.3, p p .1515-1519] and Fishbane, E. (2002), pp.25-47. On the practice o f weeping in 16th century Jewish Mysticism, see Wolfson, E.R. in Fishbane, M. and Collins, J.J. (eds., 1995), pp.209-247. 1665 On the theosophical and theurgic values o f singing and chanting see Sefer Gerushin, entries 9, p. 10; 10, p .11; 14, p .15; 68, p .81; 81, p .105 and especially entry 56, p .67; on the theurgic use o f loud chanting see e.g., entry 46, pp.51-52 [nrrbx omx D’T iisi amx □’©ys© sy armsi an©nps D’pyix] and compare with roaring and shouting, entries 72, p .89 and 28, p.31. On the teleological property in M aimonides’ treatment o f Joy, see Blidstein, J. (1980) and compare with Pardes Rimonim 8:12. Instrumental in this context is Fine, L. “Joy in the Service o f God”, in ibid (2003), pp.74-75 and his references there. 1666 Mainly from Perek Shirah. See Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 5:14, 26; Ein Adam 6:13 [MS. P.164a]. RaM aK refers to the Sefirah M alkhut (Shekhinah) as HT© and to Binah as nna©, pointing later to the inner association o f M alkhut and Hokhmah as HT© - see, e.g., Pardes Rimonim 23:21 and e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entries 10, p .11; 14, p .15; 68, p .81,84; 69, pp.85-86. See also his discussion on “The esoteric

316

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

(Tefilinf661 and the Keriat Shema1668 - the latter three having been respectively associated with man’s marital obligations toward the figurative ‘sustenance, clothing and conjugal rights’1669 of the Shekhinah. RaMaK's attendance to ascetic regimen seems to adhere to the conceptual stamina offered in his model as it accentuates symbolic gestures which counteract a more literal enactment of certain ideas: professing the spiritual advantages awaiting those willing to degrade their corporeal state, for example, RaMaK utilizes a creative world play between *T1X (light) and n y (skin) and states that comes a moment wherein a man should withdraw from the [corporeal = ny] ‘dirty shells’ which prevent [spiritual = T1X] purification: “[...] And he should wear garments of flesh and blood in order to eradicate this [corporeal] flesh, to subdue and break it with the holy worship - to stamp out the body and the shell”. However, RaMaK’s translation of this idea is not a literal undressing as a gesture of purification: rather, it is “The commandment to put on phylacteries, which hints to ‘garments of light’”,1670 aiming to nullify by way of a reverse act the predicament of the Malkhut who is “As a maiden enclothed by the skin of [evil] Metatron”1671 and corresponds with both “The Tzadikim who are enclothed by words of Torah”1672 and the unification of T if’eret and Malkhut “Which will be enclothed in garments of light” in the

realms o f Levite’s chants” [D’lb n m i no] in entries 41, p.46; 46, p.51 and musical instruments in entry 60, p.73. On Perek Shirah, see also Beit-Aryeh, M. (1967 - Dissertation). On singing and Nigunim in Safed and contemporary Diaspora communities, see also Tamar, D. (2002), p.157; Fenton, P. (1995); Pedaiah, H. (1995); Benayahu, M. (1987 a); Malakhi, Z. (1994); Hallamish, M. (2001), p .120 and especially section 3, chapter 18; Werblowsky, R.J.Z. in Green, A. (ed., 1987) and his references. On RaM aK ’s treatment o f this issue, see Idel, M. in Green, A. (ed., 1989), pp.429-430. An important address is found in Mark, Z. (2003), pp.203-209. On music as a venue for ecstatic elevation in Kabbalah and primarily in Abraham Abulafia’s technique, see Idel, M. (Chipman, J. trans., 1988 c), chapter 2. 1667 See Sefer Gerushin, entries 17, pp.19-20; 18, pp.20-22; 28-31, pp.30-33; 81, pp.74-75; 85, pp. 113-116 and 99, p. 135. On RaMaK's view o f the Tzitzit as the Shekhinah and the theurgic potency o f this practice, see Pardes Rimonim 23:18 and 31:6 respectively. Compare with Eilima Rabbati, Ein Adam 6:13, p. 164b, concerning the renewal o f Earth (Malkhut) and Heaven {Tif’eret). 1668 See Eilima Rabbati, Ein Adam 6:13, pp.l64b-165a which elaborates the necessity to perform this act twice a day; compare with Sefer Gerushin, entry 31, pp.33-34. Noteworthy in this context is a photocopy o f The Archive o f the National Library in Jerusalem features a photocopy o f Seder Kriat Shema mehaCodoveiro, published 1583-4 in Venice. See Bodleian Catalogue # 2095, pp.312-313; cf: Baruchson, Z. (1990), p.47, note 34. 1669 Based on Exodus 21:10. RaM aK discusses this issue in detail in the unpublished Ein Y a ’akov which is devoted to the Shekhinah. See RaMaK's discussion o f the three marital obligations and his reference to Ein Ya ’akov in Ein Adam 6:13, p.164a. See also Sack, B. (1990-1991). 1670 Sefer Gerushin, entry 17, p. 18. 1671 Eilima Rabbati, Ein Shemesh 6:12. On this issue see also Ginsburg, E. (1989), pp.231-242. 1672 Ibid, and see the entire entry.

317

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

redemptive era.1673 Indeed, in Derishot ve-Hakirot be-Inyanei ha-Mal’akhim RaMaK makes clear his disapproval of certain visible practices in his immediate scenery, rendering “Ugly and vile” such rites as “The use of incense [for magical purposes], nakedness, a place of filth” etc’.1674 The following are cases wherein RaMaK accentuates the mental quality of asceticism, seeing it the more appropriate form of divine service - as may also be found in Maimonides’ attitude:1675 RaMaK's moral discourse in Tomer Devorah indeed features a view already explicated in Maimonides’ Eight Chapters and under which there is a direct relationship between man’s activities and moral stamina. Tomer Devorah - in itself shedding important light on ascetic practices exercised in RaMaK's surroundings - not only offers a three step process to achieve the mental humility necessary for proper emulation of the divine, but also strikingly resembles Maimonides’ approach in Mishneh Torah

wherein a sound corporeal state is indispensable for a true knowledge of God.

The following are RaMaK's words: First, a person should accustom himself to flee as far as possible from honor [as not to] acquire the habit of pride [...]. Second, a person should train himself to see his shameful side, saying to himself, ‘Although others are unaware of my lack of worth, what of it?’ [...]. Third, a person should constantly recall his sins and desire purification, rebuke and suffering, asking himself ‘Which type of suffering is the best in the world and will not distract me from divine service? Surely, there is none better than these - to be scorned and despised and insulted’, for these will not weaken his strength and vitality with illness, nor will they rob of his food and closing, his life, or his children’s life. Hence, a person should actually desire this form of suffering, saying to himself, ‘Why should I fast and torment myself with sackcloth and self-affliction, which weaken my strength for God’s service? Why should I desire these for myself? It is far better for me to be afflicted with contempt and shame while my strength does not depart or weaken’.1677

1673 Ibid, entry 6, p .8. 1674 Derishot ve-Hakirot be-Inyanei ha-Mal'akhim 7:3. 1675 See Kreisel, H. (1988), especially pp. 13-22. 1676 Hilkhot D e’ot 3. 1677 Tomer Devorah, chapter 2 and compare with Eilima Rabbati, Ein Adam 6:12, p. 164b (Manuscript see RaMaK's Writings). 318

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Hitbodedut: the Symphony o f Amplified Silences

Mental quieting, corporeal stillness and physical seclusion were also three realms joint by one word in RaMaK's system - miTQnn [hitbodedut\. Hitbodedut was indeed a decisive tool in the mystics’ arsenal and has been explored by scholars interested in the contemplative and performative elements of mystical discourse.1678 Taken as a whole, hitbodedut “May signify [...] either spiritual retreat to a secluded place, most often a cave or a cell, or, by extension, the meditational technique practiced during such a retreat or else the psychological state resulting therefrom, i.e., oblivion to the sensual world”.1679 As noted by M. Idel, “The incorporation of the concept hitbodedut into Cordovero’s writings was an important step toward its dissemination among a far wider audience”.1680 RaMaK indeed speaks directly of this idea in different places1681 and points to it in Sefer Gerushin when disclosing his “Prayer from within the walls of my heart” or when mentioning “The secret o f [sefirah] Da ’at which fills all these chambers - down below as high above”.1682 Hitbodedut was a view of the human condition as an active monument to a primordial memory - a memory seeking reemergence through one’s proper alignment with the divine regulatory apparatus. The peak of such a coalition was arguably the successful attainment of a ‘point of equanimity’ [nnnttfn rmpJ] - a highly subtle term whose inauguration by the 12th century Gerona mystics1683 had evolved to inform both the metaphysical and theosophical merger of each realm with its immediate counterparts, as well as the devotional quieting of one’s mental and corporeal properties; scala mentis ad Deum through corporeal stillness and mental serenity: by way of being a microcosmic reflection of divine potency, this practice had led to epistemic transparency, spiritual elevation and theurgic distillation - a greater grasp of God’s finest attributes and the uninterrupted energetic flow needed for theurgic synchronization and harmonious utility. 1678 See Idel, M. in Green, A. (ed., 1989) and especially pp.427-432 [= ibid (1985 b), pp.35-82]; Pachter, M. (1981); ibid (1982); Goetschel, R. in Ben-Ami, I. (ed., 1982); Mittelman (Kiel), H. (2002); KleinBraslavi, S. (1987). A major contribution to Sufi influence on Jewish solitary meditational rites is Fenton, P. (1994 a); (1994 b); (1995). 1679 Fenton, P. (1995), p.271. 1680 Idel, M. in Green, A. ibid, p.434. 1681 See e.g., Pardes Rim onim 21:1, 30:3, Or Ne'erav 5:2, Shiur Qomah, p.84 and Or Yaqar, vol.13, p .64 - the latter mentioning this practice among earlier Spanish mystics, alongside grave prostration. 1682 Sefer Gerushin, entries 17, p.20 and 48, p.56 respectively. 1683 See Rabbi Azriel o f Gerona, Perush Eser Sefirot (Berlin 1850); Tishby, I. (1993), pp.3-35.

319

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Although no memory commands the same authority as the remembered essence in itself, it nonetheless points to it by inference: “Know and understand”, RaMaK instructs his reader, “that no resemblance whatsoever exists between us and [God] save through the inference that may be deduced through the form of our limbs. They are made as intimations to the inner issues whose concealment transcends one’s ability to comprehend save through [the] commemorative imagination

[1173T jra tD ],

Should a man be able to

purify a limb o f his limbs, it shall motivate its superior cause which is rendered the same name, be it a hand, a leg, an eye etc’”.1684 Likewise, in Shiur Qomah RaMaK devotes an entire section to the treatment of physicality and corporeality en route to epistemic transparency - deeming them an indispensable divine regulation in the wake of the primordial sin and therefore a loyal reflective map en route back to Eden. Cordoeiro’s endorsement of such ascetic practices had most likely contributed to their appearance in the works of such disciples as Elijah di Vidash, Joseph Sagis, Eliezer Azikri and Hayim Vital.1686 RaMaK's application of hitbodedut, however, surpasses the realms of performative devotion and amalgamates the sum of cosmic facilities in its negotiation of human intellectual effects and theurgical aptitudes. The corporeal and the intelligible, the speculative and the practical, the expressive and the natural all coexisted in RaMaK's edifice - wishing to bargain, to orchestrate, to synergize and to coalesce the human condition within a unified divine symphony. RaMaK not only accentuated to this end the messianic fervor in his speculation but had also taken a number of initiatory steps to augment the nature of the human mystical experience itself: the initiatory incorporation of Rabbi Abraham Abulafia’s ecstatic techniques, hitherto dismissed by Spanish kabbalistic doctrines (as seen e.g., in Rabbi Meir Ibn Gabbai’s Avodat ha-Kodesh) and a further employment of letter combinations and permutations in addition to esoteric •

•

1 ft 8 7

explications of Biblical words.

As M. Idel suggests, RaMaK’s Pardes Rimonim

1A 8 8

1684 Pardes Rimonim 22:1. 1685 Shiur Qomah, p p .135-137. 1686 See Fenton, P. (1995), pp.287-293 and Idel, M. in Green, A. (ed., 1989), ibid. 1687 See Sefer Gerushin, e.g., entries 6, pp.7-8; 13, p p .13-14; 18, p.21 [!]; 34, p.37 and compare with Pardes Rimonim 23 and Derishot ve-Hakirot be-Inyanei ha-Mal'akhim. On this issue, see Idel, M. in Green, A. (ed., 1989); ibid (1985 a). 1688 See e.g., Pardes Rimonim 21:1 and 30:3. Although RaM aK does not mention Abulafia by name, a comparison with the latter’s Hayei ha-Olam ha-Ba and Or ha-Sekhel makes clear the association. See Idel, M. in Green, A. (ed., 1989), ibid, pp. 427-432; cf; Fenton, P. (1995), pp.287-288 and fn.39. In Or

320

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

seems to have been the initiatory Safedian occurrence to change this tendency, as “We hear for the first time of an integration of Abulafia’s doctrines within an overall summary of Spanish Kabbalah [...]. As opposed to the comprehensive work of Rabbi Meir ibn Gabbai, which is based almost entirely on Spanish Kabbalah, Cordovero includes themes and quotations from the writings of Abraham Abulafia, giving them a standing unknown among the Spanish exilic Kabbalists active outside of Israel”.1689 As M. Idel correctly observes, RaMaK believed that “Concentrated thought enables one to uncover the hidden essence of the object of contemplation, through which one comes to understand the supernal source and the way in which the spiritual emanates down into the material world. According to Cordovero, the human intellect must cast off its physicality only in order to penetrate, by means of its concentration, beyond the physicality of other things; to uncover their spiritual nature and to arrive at final analysis at God him self’.1690 More, however, should be said here, for whereas RaMaK's utilization of hitbodedut professes its status as both a means and an end, the end nonetheless never ‘arrives at final analysis at God himself: “There is no comprehension beyond Binah”, RaMaK states in Or Yaqar,1691 whereas in Sefer Gerushin he describes anything beyond Binah as “Happening by way of miracle, above nature and above the law.”1692 Hitbodedut was therefore both a means to understand the ‘order of divine conduits’ [n n iis n n o ] 1693 and a catapulted thrust of contemplation whose theurgic trajectory was ultimately beyond the grasp of its human initiator. It was indeed a property both diagnostic and remedial, both a mortar and a projectile; a momentous dialectic concurrence of man’s expansion vis-a-vis contraction. It was the ability to focus on an attainable target - be it natural, physical, corporeal or abstract - and to penetrate its illusionary spatiotemporal mediums; to discern in turn its causal potentiality and finally

Yaqar RaM aK makes direct references to Abulafia and his Or ha-Sekhel - see e.g., Derishot ve-Hakirot be-Inyanei ha-M al’akhim, Derishah 7, Hakirah 2. Cf: Scholem, G. (1930), p.97. 1689 Idel, M. in Green, A. (ed., 1989), p.428 and refer to pp.427-435 in general. For a detailed discussion o f Abraham A bulafia’s mystical techniques, see ibid (Chipman, J. trans., 1988 c), especially chapter 1. RaM aK makes direct reference to A bulafia’s Shaarei Tzedek in Or Yaqar on Zohar Sava de-Mishpatim - see Idel, M. in Green, A. (ed., 1989), p.428. 1690 Idel, M. in Green, A., ibid, pp.431-432. 1691 See, e.g., Or Yaqar, vol.21, on Zohar 2:99b. 1692 Entry 74, p.96. On this issue, see Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp.230-238; Scholem, G. (1930), p p .100-101; Tishby, I. (1964), pp.23-29. Also consult Melamed, A. (1986). 1693 See Pardes Rimonim, Shaar ha-Tzinorot.

321

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

to fire a splendid missile of tranquility through the envisioned pipes and into the transcendent abyss. Once this missile had traversed beyond the ‘divine stratosphere’ [the 7 lower sefirot] it submerged within a symphony o f amplified silences - waving human comprehension off and igniting the rocket-boosters designed specifically for that part of its journey: the mystic’s belief

nnnx], prayer [nV’sn], and intent [rm"D]!

To achieve this goal, RaMaK postulated that cosmic physicality should not be merely overlooked by way of internal contemplation but rather carefully studied by way of external investigation - as it ipso facto contains clues that allow the mystic to eventually transcend above it and correctly map the anticipated trajectory of the projectile. At this juncture one finds a view that had informed virtually every aspect of RaMaK’s system, namely ‘Concealment is the source of revelation and revelation is the source of concealment’ - the dialectic manipulation of hierarchical opposites, which in this case means the awe with which the obvious should be engaged once one appreciates its leverage via negativa toward unlocking epistemic and experiential potencies: If one wishes to take pleasure in the understanding of his Creator, let him concentrate according to the accepted premises which he has learned, and let him look at a particular physical form, so he may learn from it that which is alluded to in the spiritual worlds, and he will see the detailed organs of it, and the varied matters and its lights. And from there he will come to understand the innermost secrets of the spirituality of that form, and he shall attain devekut.1694 RaMaK's system does not try to merely ascend above the material en route to epistemic transparency and experiential exultation. Given that each cosmic realm harbors profound keys to divinity, RaMaK has no affinity for shortcuts in its attainment: “One must pursue the knowledge of hidden things with great punctiliousness, wondrous investigation and tremendous analysis”, RaMaK states in Or Ne ’erav, “the opposite of so-called kabbalists in our generation who say that one need not be exact in this wisdom”.1695 Rather, he aims to consecrate anew the divinely regulated path of all ‘shells’ as disclosed in the rule “The shell is a [divine] regulation to attain the sacred 1694 O r Y aq ar, vol. 10, p.7 - translation by Idel, M. in Green, A. (ed., 1989), pp.430-431. On the attainment o f devekut in 16th century Safed, see Scholem, G. in Hundert, G.D. (ed., 1991) [= ibid (1976), pp.325-350]; Pachter, M. (1982). 1695 O r N e’erav 4:2.

322

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

[core]” [nttfHpn i n s ns’bpn]: to sanctify the most tangible and immediate elements surrounding men and present them as the necessary initial guides toward the intangibles to have men recognize that “The immortal and eternal”, as A. Green puts it, “seeks to be known by its opposite, the mortal and temporal”,1696 the spatial and physical, the transient and tangible. God’s omnipresence thus transubstantiates as the primary wonder permeating all levels of human discourse: just as Pardes Rimonim and Sefer Gerushin clarify that objects’ shape, form and color may point to their associations with higher attributes, so do Tomer Devorah, parts of Eilima Rabbati and the Hanhagot charge men to realize the deeper potencies embedded within their condition and conduct on the most mundane levels. Just as Derishot ve-Hakirot be-Inyanei ha-Mal'akhim declares that human encounters with divine agents [rendered angels] must appreciate the latter’s effects “Through both the tangibles [Qttun DiZ/1 rwasn] and elements more refined”,1697 so do Or Ne'erav, Shiur Qomah and Eilima Rabbati render the initiatory levels of exegesis indispensable for deeper engagements with sacred texts - “[...] Let [the wise man] learn of the concealed from that which is explicated”.1698 The following excerpt is from Shiur Qomah: You cannot accomplish appropriate grasp of this matter [i.e., Zoharic esoteric verses] unless you indulge yourself in attaining their simple meanings, and how [the Zohar] strips them from their materiality to expose their hidden parts. And from there you may gain wisdom and move towards subtle inferences, whereupon your mind may reach a step which adds to your perception of [such] wisdom and its preceding routs, all the wonder that is your lot and with the help of your soul in attaining the fine upper forms.1699 Although the Torah is deemed infinitely deep, one may indeed enjoy (and employ) its profound realms of exegetical mobility once having reached a multifaceted sympathy for God’s Vernacular. [...] Even the [most astute] sages cannot explicate the Torah in its entirety. Having that in mind, you can now come and rejoice with the 1696 Green, A. (2003), p.63. 1697 Derishah 2, Hakirah 3; cf: Scholem, G. (1930), p.95. 1698 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1, end o f chapter 7. 1699 Shiur Qomah, p.64 and see also p .54.

323

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

secrets of Torah all your earthly life and years thereafter; jump from simple meanings to permutations of vowels and explicate from them the secret meanings within each word, inflowing from one to another and vice versa - [like] the lame who [now] leaps like a deer and the tongue of the dumb [now] shouting aloud1700 with the esoteric playfulness of the Torah [min ’n sn tm a ].1701 In Pardes Rimonim, as well as in Shiur Qomah, RaMaK makes visible his adherence to Abulafian doctrines, endorsing both corporeal stillness and actual seclusion within a given landscape as a means to attain enlightenment: “When you desire meditating on this revered Name, adorn your body and retire to an isolated place where no one can hear your voice. Purify your heart and soul of all worldly thoughts and imagine that at this •

very moment your soul is about to leave your body and abandon this world”.

1709

Seclusion for liturgical or meditative purposes was not equated, however, with sectarianism or permanent withdrawal from the community: although social hierarchy and mystical elitism surely permeate RaMaK's views, the latter had always accentuated, rather than diminished, the mystics’ social accountability, moral leadership and pedagogic responsibility. As L. Fine mentions, “The traditionally social character of Jewish life, with its insistence on involvement with the larger community, prevented ascetically oriented kabbalists from going off on their own to form truly private communities along the lines of monastic sects”.1703 This observation is all the more true once we consider the great role bestowed upon the community entire in the Safedian drama of theurgy - a fact which most probably found in any dogmatic tendency toward ascetic seclusion quite a disservice. Indeed, although RaMaK must have sequestered himself days on end to achieve the clarity needed for his compositions - let alone the time needed to pen them down - there is little doubt regarding his stand on the issue: in Or Yaqar, for example, RaMaK illuminates the intricate symbiosis between individual uniqueness and communal dependence in the socio-religious strata. He starts by stating “If one carries out a Mitzvah and his fellow fulfills the exact same Mitzvah, each nonetheless enacts a deed unique to 1700 Isaiah 35:6. 1701 Or Yaqar, vol.3, p p .145-146 and compare with vol.l 1, p .107. 1702 Pardes Rimonim 21:1; translation by Fenton, P. (1995), p.288. As Fenton mentions, RaM aK’s source here is A bulafia’s Hayei ha-Olam ha-Ba. Compare with Shiur Qomah, pp.71 and 78. 1703 Fine, L. (2003), p.75.

324

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

his own self since each has a unique soul - a mental property which distinguishes them from each other”.1704 This uniqueness should not be celebrated devoid of the communal association o f Jewish souls and the theurgic web inherent to the nation of Israel in its relationship with divinity: just as God’s relationship with the people of Israel is profoundly acute, so are “All of Israel blood relatives, being that all [their] souls are united and each person has a part of and in all others. This is why an individual who carries out the commandments cannot compare to a multitude of people who do so, since they all compliment one another [and] each individual Jew has a portion of all others”.1705 RaMaK carries here the rabbinic view regarding the indispensability of Jewish communal life and transforms it into a systematic component within the existential and theurgic schemes which inform Israel's standing, relationship and responsibility for the harmonious life of divinity. Seclusion for the purpose of spiritual purification and epistemic transparency cannot therefore but be a means to a higher end, namely for the individual to become a better ring in the communal chain that works together toward redemption. Although personal piety and redemption undeniably have a seat of honor in RaMaK's Kabbalah, they had not been his primary goal. Whereas temporary seclusion has its own therapeutic merits - as seen it RaMaK's own solitary excursions - avoiding the communal context diminishes the potency of any individual soul and renders partial its theurgic effectiveness, “Since the keys to wisdom, let alone esoteric wisdom, are not handed to a single individual. Rather, each member has his share in the Torah, whereas one’s key does not open the [door of the] other and cannot touch [its exclusive share in this wisdom]. Therefore, he who pursues the secrets of Torah must yearn for knowledge from each person, literally chasing the keys in order to obtain [these unique portions] and by doing so add to the light of Torah [.. ,].1706 RaMaK's achievement of equanimity had to consider multiple associations and harnessed the entire cosmic theatre to its aid: the corporeal and the tangible; the sensual and the mental; the ethical1707 and the devotional; the individual and the communal; the

1704 Or Yaqar on va-Yikrah, note 7. Compare with ibid, on va-Yakhel, note 4. 1705 Tomer Devorah, 1:4; in Miller, M. (trans. 1993), pp. 13-14. Compare with RaMaK's discussion o f the apocalyptic resurrection in Sefer Gerushin, entry 10, p .l 1. 1706 Or Yaqar, volume 11, pp.259-260, on Zohar, Pekkudei, note 13. 1707 See RaMaK's preface to Tomer Devorah. On the indispensability o f moral conduct for spiritual transparency see Pachter, M. (1982), pp.51-121.

325

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

pragmatic and the ecstatic; the rational and the mythical. RaMaK’s pun in Shiur Qomah regarding iin a □youp an rats ibsttf

nfri (she-Kulo Shabbat and sikhlo shavat in

Zion)1708 demonstrates the theurgic aptitude of mental quieting. The messianic era, according to his view, is a cosmic state of quietude and a level wherein epistemic catharsis is achieved through intuitive insight, like the one experienced by the primordial Adam “Whose quietude was infinite” [nnbwn n,l73n innbw n n w ] .1709 We shall see shortly how RaMaK's use of the word p’Xteaches us about the practice of Hitbodedut during the prostrations on grave-markers of tannaitic sages.

Intuitive Knowledge, Automatic Speech & Guided Writing

RaMaK's disclosure of intuitive knowledge, automatic speech and guided writing has already been mentioned throughout this dissertation - his reliance on “The possessor of secrets” [D’"inon bin] and animation by “A mightily held hand” [T npiro]. Such phenomena were arguably among the most radical expressions of ecstatic Kabbalah, featuring not only as potent affirmations of divinity’s assistance to those willing to partake in its welfare,1710 but also as an edifying vindication for RaMaK's cohort who now saw itself leading to fruition the initial brilliant trajectory of the Rashbi circle. RaMaK’s employment of and reliance upon such techniques seems to have started near the beginning of his mystical engagements - a suggestion further corroborated by his claim to “Having successfully engaged with word combinations and permutations during my early adult years” [TiTira ’n’n].1711 One indeed finds his earliest disclosure of experiences involving divine animation in the opening chapter of Pardes Rimonim, where he confesses to “Having been awakened to these [esoteric meanings] by the mightily held hand”.1712 He continues later with a brief statement, “Now, after having written all the rationales given by previous commentators [...] and after having been awakened to 1708 Shiur Qomah, p. 170. 1709 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 5:1. 1710 RaM aK ’s student, Elijah de Vidash, mentions the following in his discussion o f penitential rites enacted by righteous m en in the Safedian community: “A ll this they were able to accomplish by special divine aid, for man does not live by bread alone” - cf: Schechter, S. (1908), p.245 and fn.104. 1711 Shiur Qomah 93. 1712 Pardes Rimonim 4:4.

326

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

[comprehend] them as instructed by the heavens [□,8Wn

i m n HtfiO □n,l7X l3TilSJrin],

we shall speak of this issue as allotted to our fate” [labnaa nt7S7*>

’DD].1713 In Or Yaqar

RaMaK speaks in more general terms about the regulatory unfolding of esoteric compositions, and wherein the aforementioned symbiosis within the word 1TDT(zakkut purity = zekhut - merit) may lend itself indirectly: “[...] And therefore each work which harbors sacredness is concluded by the heavens [...], whereupon the Holy Spirit is enclothed in the work, leading to its self-perpetuated fruition”.1714 The indispensable quality of mTnynn - now understood as awakening via ecstatic trembling - is reiterated time and again in RaMaK’s writings, and is given an entire I T I f

section in Shiur Qomah.

RaMaK mentions in Sefer Gerushin an episode on Passover

eve, where “All members were awakened in my master’s house”,1716 and in numerous places he speaks of instances “Which I myself have experienced, especially in the matter of Gerushin [...], to occupy ourselves with the verses of the Torah extemporaneously without study in depth, [whereupon] innovations were made on matters which no one could understand unless he saw or experienced the matter”;1717 “[...] And teachings of Torah were illuminating within us, and words were uttered of their own volition”;

1718

“[...] And praise to the Lord who has merited us, for these matters are all from above, affecting us without any inquiry whatsoever; and they are sweeter than honey, the gift of the Malkhut to those who go on exilic excursions and ceaselessly wander in her footsteps”.1719 •

•

This topic falls within RaMaK's multilayered scheme,

177f)

according to which one’s

pre-determined associations with particular sefirot do not exclude epistemic and theurgic 1713 Pardes Rimonim 2:3 and compare with Sefer Gerushin, entry 82, p .106. 1714 Or Yaqar, vol.11, p .125 on Parashat Pekkudei, note 2. Compare with Pardes Rimonim 30:3, where RaM aK discusses the verse from 2 Samuel 23:2 “The spirit o f God spoke in me and His word was on my lips”. As I mentioned, the particular context o f this treatment demonstrates RaMaK's affinity with Abulafian Ecstatic Kabbalah, as demonstrated in Idel, M. in Green, A. (ed., 1989), pp.405-438 and especially pp.427-435. 1715 Shiur Qomah, pp. 111-113. 1716 Sefer Gerushin, entry 82, p. 106. 1717 Or Ne'erav, chapter 5:2; in Robison, I. (1994), pp.107-108. 1718 Sefer Gerushin, entry 4, p.4 and compare with entry 5, p .6. Such experiences were visible in mystical discourse and affirmed a favorable response from divinity - see, e.g., Sefer Akedat Yitzhak by the mid 15th century Spanish philosophical homilist Rabbi Isaac ibn Arama, where his exposition o f a verse from Midrash ha-Ne ’elam features “And I was asked about it, and I was also perplexed for a time, and than a suitable explanation suddenly occurred to me.” [translation in Tishby, I (1949), v o l.l, pp.21-22. 1719 Sefer Gerushin, entry 13, p. 14. 1720 See his treatment o f m n is n n in Shiur Qomah, pp. 111-113.

327

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

mobility between them.1721 More importantly, RaMaK’s system repeatedly professes the attempt to articulate the regulatory mechanisms within the theosophical edifice (msa TV12J) and to demonstrate how such refined exposure to divinity is a regulated divine response to men’s particular condition - rigorous intellectual inquiry and mystical endurance, moral integrity and ascetic piety, individual contemplation and communal accountability. These virtues had yielded esoteric outbursts whose span indeed surpassed the immediate moment of ‘spiritual impact’ - a ripple effect of that hammering encounter. Here too, we find the tension between the professed divine freedom to confer such epistemic grace on the one hand and the regulated theosophical apparatus which stood at the very heart of the mystical rendition of the covenant between God and Israel! This acute relationship clearly bestowed profound authority on the enduring spiritual Jew in conceiving, realizing, manipulating and unleashing such divine outbursts. Indeed, notwithstanding RaMaK's effusive appraisals of God for affording such gifts, he was quite aware o f his own authority to stimulate divinity’s eruptive donations. God’s desire for man to unveil the mysterious theosophical world had indeed transformed into an acute theurgic thrust whereupon the capable mystic was not merely dependent upon unpredictable moments of divine flow, but could in fact harness these divine mediators according to specific techniques and with a momentous clout: RaMaK's Derishot veHakirot be-Inyanei ha-Mal'akhim is a solid example wherein he draws a clear distinction between “The ways man is affected by the angels” and “the ways man can ride [!] and subdue them to his will”.1722 Similarly, albeit with typical subtlety, Sefer Gerushin features RaMaK who has “Acquiesced to the fellows’ request and received innovations”1723 - now clearly understood as a regulated discourse whose initiator was RaMaK himself. RaMaK's views fall well within the multilayered employment of divine revelations in his immediate culture. The occurrence of divine messengers or celestial mentors manifesting through radical symbiosis and affecting one’s voice or hand was quite visible in the mystical climate within and without the Jewish milieu. Although more scholarly work is needed to trace back the origins of the term magid [heavenly mentor] in this 1721 On this particular issue see also Sack, B. (1995 a), pp.239-246. 1722 Introduction, Derishot 5,6,7 respectively; cf: Scholem, G. (1930), p.94. 1723 Entry 2, p.2.

328

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

th

particular context, it seems that the one revealed to the abovementioned 16

century

Joseph Taitatzak featured as its earliest rendition. Be that as it may, we have already seen RaMaK making direct references to this term and to its visible use in his time: in Derishot ve-Hakirot be-Inyanei ha-Mal'akhim he clarifies that “The secret of an angel who is enclothed in a man is that which people have rendered magid”,1124 and continues to reiterate the popular belief concerning the 14th century Spanish work Brit Menuhah, “Which I believe is all words of the Holy Spirit, transmitted from [a heavenly] mouth to [a mortal] mouth or by way of a loyal magid to the righteous and saintly”.

1725

Given RaMaK's views of the Zohar itself as having been produced through multiple channels of divine assistance,1726 Sefer Gerushin further establishes the meticulous reenactment of the processes initiated by the Rashbi circle in the now idealized Galilean landscape. As seen, RaMaK was highly indebted to guided writing, transubstantiations and angelic communications - all of which had taken an active part in his devotional and speculative domains. Such occurrences were potently felt in his surrounding spiritual •

landscape and visible among some of his contemporaries, such as Hayim Vital,

1727

Solomon Alkabetz’ famous communication to the Salonika community regarding the fantastic ordeals that had transpired on the eve of Shavuot in Nicopolis (1535) most importantly in the ecstatic ordeals of Joseph Karo.

17?Q

17 ^ 0

and

As for RaMaK's use of the

words Malkhut or Shekhinah as pointing to the source of intuitive knowledge in Sefer Gerushin, it remains unclear whether they match the designation the beloved Shekhinah in Joseph Karo’s composition MagidMeisharim.1730 1724 O r Y aq ar, D erishot ve-Hakirot be-Inyanei ha-Mal'akhim, Derishah 5, Hakirah 7; cf: Scholem, G. (1930), p.96. 1725 Derishah 1, Hakirah 6; cf: Scholem, G., ibid, p .95. 1726 See e.g., Z o h a r 3:79a. 1727 On V ital’s automatic speech see Sefer ha-H ezyonot, part 5:32. See also Jacobs, L. (1976 b), p p .152166; Tamar, D. (2002), pp.96-115; Oron, M. (1992), pp.299-309. 1728 See Werblowsky, R.J.Z. in Green A. (ed., 1987), pp. 13-14. 1729 On m agid revelations, automatic writing and automatic (guided) speech, see Werblowsky, R.J.Z. (1977), pp.287-288; Scholem, G. (1974), pp.188-189; ibid (1971-1978), pp.67-112; Fine, L. in Reinharz J. & Swetschinski, D. (eds., 1982), p p .141-157; Stevenson, I. (1978), pp.315-332; Matt, D.C. (1982), pp.2729; Benayahu, M. (1961 c), pp.299-336; Ginsburg, S. (1937), pp.30-46; Sack, B. (1995 a), pp. 18,20,21,221; Tamar, D. (2002), p p .121-132; Bilu, Y. (1996), pp.341-366; Patai, R. (1978), pp.823-833. The anonymous author o f She’arei T zedek mentions having experienced automatic speech in the wake o f letter combinations and permutations - see Idel, M. in Green, A. (ed., 1989), p.413. 1730 R.J.Z W erblowsky claims that K aro’s Shekhinah belonged to a lower realm than the Sefirah Malkhut see ibid (1977), pp.287-8, and in Tamar, D. (2002), p p .121-129 and 130-132 respectively; Jacobs, L. (1976 b), pp .122-151.

329

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

What remains clear, however, is RaMaK’s staunch view of such operations within a maliciously crafted divine regulation; one whose rewards may surely be harvested if properly handled. In Or Ne'erav RaMaK assures Kabbalah novices of this mechanism while offering a nuanced word-play between the words 13W [= rnntt] (sakhar = matanah reward) and mnan (hamtanah - lingering): Should any subject in the wisdom seem doubtful to the student, he should wait, for in the course o f time the matter will be revealed to him. The essential reward [for the study] of this wisdom is [derived from] waiting for the innovative appearance of these mysteries in the course of time. In several passages in the Zohar it is oftentimes proven that whatever had been doubtful for a long time would [finally] come to the [sages]. Their saying was ‘We have searched all day for this word [and this year it 1 7T1 became apparent to us*]’. This is also proven m [the Zoharic] portion Hayyei Sarah, [where it states that the verse ‘who works] for him waits for him’1732 was written in this [context] [...]. Moreover, often [the student’s] knowledge of the treatise he previously [studied] will increase with the passage of time, as can be seen in the Zohar. It occurs to those who succeed in this wisdom, that when they search these treatises many times, their knowledge will increase. In a similar context we say [that] there is no investigation without innovative insight”.1733 RaMaK's disclosure of such operations as “Experiences which I have undergone •

many times”

17 T 4

•

refers without a doubt to the gerushin and other instances of meditational

wanderings - although the notes taken in such excursions were not meant for communal discourse. Sefer Gerushin expresses not only the centrality of intuitive knowledge in RaMaK's own practice

1 ■71C

but also the unpredictability of certain innovations in the

aroused landscape: “This was innovated upon me later [en route], whereupon it declared [...]”;1736 “And in the midst of walking I was innovated [...]”1737 etc’.1738 Most striking,

1731 * I. Robinson mentions that he was not able to find this reference in the Zohar - see his translation to Or Ne'erav (1994), p.68, fn.10. RaMaK most likely refers to Zohar 3:168a, although his quotation is not precise - xbDT tn p ’sn xcnc? n a nba ’V xjnianwx xntsni x rim Kara x i d t i qm ax nba nba. Compare also with Idra Zuta 291b. 1732 Isaiah 64:3. 1733 Or Ne'erav 3:3 - translation with certain modifications from I. Robinson (1994), p.68. 1734 Ibid. 1735 Virtually each time he uses the term hudashti. 1736 Sefer Gerushin, entry 51, p.61. 1737 Ibid, entry 73, p.91.

330

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

however, are the awesome effects these epistemic illuminations had, for they came down in a thunderous quality which had sent ripples through the corporeal receiver and extended beyond the immediate spatiotemporal conjuncture of the innovations: RaMaK's lips “Continue whispering still”1739 in the wake of a certain ordeal, whereas arousals and innovations take shape long after the gerushin, either in his dreams1740 or in Alkabetz’ house in Safed.1741 In Tomer Devorah RaMaK discloses the radical association with such past sages and affirms their enduring presence not only in daytime rites but also at night: “The work begins at night, at the time of preparing for sleep. The ruling quality is then ‘night’, the Malkhuf, sleep is like death and ‘the Tree of Death’ rules. What should one do? First, one should prepare to bind himself [...] to the secret of Malkhut in its aspect of holiness. He should [therefore] concentrate his heart on completely accepting the yoke of heaven upon himself, [whereupon the Malkhut] shall bound to him and he shall bound to her. Then, his soul will rise to the Garden o f Eden alongside the Shekhinah, which enters there with the [deceased] righteous men. And Tif’eret also comes there to delight in the [deceased] righteous men and in him among them, for they all now listen to his voice |-

1742

The residual property of divine revelations was not solely its ability to mock spatiotemporal boundaries. It had been much like a brilliant flash of light in a hitherto utterly dark room; a burst not only engraving a residual lightspot in mind, body, memory, text and landscape, but apparently etching itself in extreme cases on the receiver’s body: Moses’ experience on Mount Sinai caused “His skin to radiate”;1743 King Solomon exclaimed “A man’s wisdom lights up his face”;1744 and - perhaps most relevant for our particular discourse - the Talmud and the Zohar both featured Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai and his son Elazar as having been impacted in such a manner:1745

1738 Compare with Or Yaqar on Zohar 3:97b-98a: p itn w n» m I’tzntffi u s p m ix 32N1 - “And while en route we explicate according to whatever is afforded to us at that time”. I have opted to translate the word P7TQ as intentionally derived from the Hebrew p r —time. 1739 Ibid, entry 17, p.20. 1740 Ibid, entry 66, p .80 and compare with Tomer Devorah 10. On dreams in ecstatic Kabbalah, see Idel, M. (1998 a), chapter 5 and his references; Trachtenberg, J. (1939, rev. ed. 2004), pp.230-248. 1741 Sefer Gerushin, entry, 82, p. 106. 1742 Tomer Devorah 10. 1743 Exodus 34:29, 35. 1744 Ecclesiastes 8:1. 1745 On this issue, see Wolfson, E.R. (1994); Huss, B. (1989) and his references. 3 31

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

ppm ’isix mm rammi xm ’ba trnsm crxp mm *in?bx ’3m prat? ’m mm ran x^n n» xmp ’an [’"nan] win / [...] jpp-a vokbi piana pbm xtraim) mirm pmt ’xmx xran mtn mm rarab ramn mm mra p^on rara iwq [...] xtra^7 Rabbi Simeon was sitting [while] his son Elazar stood and explicated words of concealed wisdom - whereupon his face shone like the sun and words were soaring and flying in the heavens [.. .]1746 / for I [Rashbi] now see what a human has not seen since Moses’ second ascent to Sinai, wherein I perceive my face shining as the sun [...].1747 Although in Or Yaqar RaMaK cautiously clarifies that Rashbi’s ranking is close, albeit not identical to Moses’,1748 this caution only served to establish his own cohort as a dramatic continuum of previous fantastic encounters with divinity. Juxtaposing the above sentiments with Sefer Gerushin wherein “[...] Teachings of Torah were illuminating within us [1]3 O’T ra] and words were uttered of their own volition [ ’33 D’"I3X3 □’“m m □BX57]” demonstrates not only the association between RaMaK's and Rashbi’s entourages but also the intimately felt continuation of the epistemic and experiential drama previously informing the tannaitic circle: the mechanisms and effects of divine revelations - now aroused anew by RaMaK's fellowship - reassumed ancient ways whose regulations never altered but were rather dormant; much like the engine of a superb machine left untouched for generations, awaiting the skilled mechanic to reawake the finely tuned thrust embedded in its own nature! The theosophical engine which was gradually being revealed to RaMaK's cohort was viewed as the identical machine experienced by the last skilled mechanics who had exercised its tuning - Rashbi’s fellowship. In this manner, the Galilean canopy which had hosted both cohorts became a living spatial organ orchestrated by divine mandate; a landscape whose eternal time never succumbed to the temporal time, but rather awaited those who could arouse it anew [pXI □,1»W ttPTn] and yield its effluence. This view is further demonstrated through the crucial issue of epistemic transparency, rendered in Rabbinic and Zoharic literatures the distinction between a vision “Through a

1746 Z o h ar 2 :15a and compare w ith B abylonian, Baba Batra 75a. 1747 Z o h ar 3:132b (Idra Rabba). 1748 O r Y aq ar, vol.12, p.132; cf: Sack, B. (1995 a), p.42 and fn.48.

332

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Speculum that shines and does not shine” [nmxa nrxtto nTtta tonbpDOX]. Here one also finds the chronological unfolding of elite spiritual potencies birthed by biblical Moses, continued by Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai and yearning their fruition in RaMaK's time. Although the famous tractate in the Talmud (Yevamot 49b)1749 featured Moses as exclusively having “Looked through a Speculum that shines”, tractate Sukkah (45b) in fact distinguishes Rashbi and his son as also having had such an acute epistemic transparency allotted by divinity.1750 This transition had been carried by the Zohar, whose treatment of Moses also fluctuates: in some places the Zohar endorses Moses as having had an inimitable knowledge of God,1751 whereas in others it claims that Rashbi, his son or at times even a protagonist named Rav Hemnuna Saba are superior to Moses.1752 RaMaK explicates the Speculum in its above dual property in Or Yaqar,1753 Pardes Rimonim1754 and Or Ne'erav,1755 wherein according to Tikkunei ha-Zohar (34b) the shining property associated with the Sefirah Tif’eret, the sun, the right shin and the divine name YHVA, in contrast to the non-shining property associated with Malkhut, the moon, the left shin and the divine name ADNI. It is Sefer Gerushin, however, which demonstrates not only the pragmatic manifestation of these views but more importantly clarifies RaMaK's use o f the Zoharic narrative to vindicate the ability in his time to achieve the epistemic transparency previously allotted to Moses and certain tannaitic sages. In a concise discussion which creatively dissects Hosea 12:11 (“And I have spoken through the prophets; and I have granted many a vision; and I deliver many a parable through the hands of the prophets” - nmx D’tozu m i ■’tram prn ’mto mtomn-by vnrni) RaMaK follows the Zoharic hermeneutical ingenuity and charts a fascinating route toward ‘a speculum that shines’. The subtlety of his ideas deems necessary to enclose both the full Hebrew text and additional in-text commentaries to the translation:

'■nbpsox rim 'in n tonbpsox ton mn -o ppva w""i natw nan p o p:um [...] [m xon] n" n ’d m m maipan p an ton Tntom irbxx 'oms&n isn inn - 'mu xbt 1749 Compare with M idrash Rabba, va-Yikra 1:14. 1750 See also in Huss, B. (1989), ibid. 1751 See Zohar l:170b-171a; 2:23a-b, 82b; 3:198a, 268b-269a; cf: Huss, B. (1989), p .l 14 and fn.45, and his references. 1752 See also Tikkunei ha-Zohar 34b; Zohar 3:15a and in Tishby (1971), v o l.l, p.20. 1753 On Sefer Yetzirah, chapter 1 note 5. 1754 P ard es R im onim 18:1; 20:12; 23:1,13; 24:2,9. 1755 Or Ne'erav 7:1.

333

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

p i ’ m [p-m] d": in n pay 7iyi .n-ran n a w x n ’pDox mrfrai rrpxa sn'jpsox npVrn un n’taan»n pa [pans1?] ’’sb .mabai rm sn a sin rmman a p a ’D ,nr pay paym ,7im mta an cptroaan nam .□’x-oan -ixn [ a i^ n v'iv iran n^a] n"yna pa pina nuan *7y p w n"n ’a nanam m s ap a a ppmo lunsw na ay p v i^a nrn ^s n[o]un mpan pma mnn bu naaity [ma^a *?"n] na^am ,a’amn ^s ntaian narn nrsip sn^psDsi ,inu> n"nn ’"y m ’san s’n^paos nxa ’a nT’d1? ssaai - p7n '7na irrpyin' moa n^ya ay [ma^a] ,l7an m^yna nam .law ma^an ,My mn nn’sa 7irr smty / ’mom' [nnxaty nn] w"n .'r s a s’n 'n’sa 'a w sn^paosiy ->sm rs n"n PaxY n^ai nran sin Pax'ty yn .'mam pm maxi' tsi /a ’S’ain W an 'P i n"n ayi - irn [nxnpa] 'pa xmiy P i n"n 7irr sin 'pm'i namn ay nni’a n"n [nna] 'ma s w P n ssan P a y w m na’ana par m xsn nr m1? syaai .'pm' msann -asi] a"si .nainnw V'sm ,My pin1? mPm mam - P a m pm maxi' iami mama [xnpaw na] u p p n n x Dmar[a] 'siaaa 'naitya smn pra nxiaan n P a sya: [pa "n t P nnm' laa ,noP napaa m aPn xnpa trxman ’"y :'nans n’X’aa raV nn irana pxa □mmn rsi mm mu ana; mxman p nP pa ’a '□’xman m1' nsnpi mm msa P /□■,my7 imno' 7sa pm7 nxnpa namum ’a ’"nunn P i .'na7s' sin 'm y lrana anann pVi ia □ m w a m arPn amyn pxw ,'mxa n a w xn'paox pxm 'na7s naa^ mxman T>ai' nas p^i ,rxna msa am’sa anann pxw maa .nsna mnmaa a m s’? p w a anann [...] This shall be clarified through R ’ Simeon’s words in the Tikkunim (34b) whereupon Netzah is rendered ‘a speculum that shines’ whereas Hod is rendered ‘a speculum that does not shine’ - for this contradicts what is well known to us, namely that Tif’eret is the speculum that shines and Malkhut is that which does not shine. Another issue which seems to contradict [Rashbi] and will [in fact] clarify [his words] is that the origin of prophecy comes from Tif’eret and Malkhut - which was an issue of debate between Moses and the other prophets. Now, the ‘prophets’ are Netzah and Hod - which may be wholly clarified through another passage in the Tikkunim (ibid) as follows: T if’eret inhabits the Netzah [from above] just as the male leans toward Compassion, whereas the Queen (= Malkhut) inhabits the Hod [from below] just as the female leans toward Judgment it is therefore that the Netzah now shines by the [promoting] quality of the Tif’eret within it, whereas the Hod does not shine due to the [demoting] quality of the Malkhut within it. However, once the Malkhut ascends and reunites with her husband [Tiferet] as one, as is the secret behind “Rejoined as one”1756 within Tif’eret - then surely a speculum that does not shine [.Malkhut alone] now becomes a speculum that shines! That is the [concealed] meaning behind “And I have spoken” (Hosea 12:11) referring to the unification of Tif’eret and Malkhut - “Through the prophets” (ibid) [= above Netzah and Hod which are the ‘prophets’]. Then [follows] “And I have granted many a vision” (ibid): know that “I” [max] refers to Binah, whereas “and I” [maxi] points to the Tiferet [= and / ?] unified with Binah [from above]. [Similarly], “vision” (ibid, pm - hazon) is the unification of Tiferet with Malkhut [from below] - since Malkhut is 1756 Ibid.

334

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

called hazan []tn] and with the Tiferet [= 1] - hazon [pin - vision]. Consequently, we find that Tiferet suckles from Binah [= ’DUNl = higher] and affects Malkhut [= pin = lower], whereas Malkhut now becomes greater, as written “And I have granted many a vision” (ibid). Therefore, the clarity of prophecy [= epistemic transparency rtoa] at such a time is superior than during other times, which are [esoterically] referred to in “And I deliver many a parable through the hands of the prophets” (ibid): “By the hands of the prophets” refers to the Malkhut from her position below [= without Tiferet], just as [in] “The hand of God was upon me” (Ezekiel 37:1 / 40:1) which was [also] rendered “The hand of the prophets” (2 Kings 17:13) - since it [Malkhut] receives from the prophets Netzah and Hod [= lower than Tiferet], whereupon issues of extreme refinement [fto] appear [only] through imagery - which is “A parable” [nznx = v. I shall create an image / n. land / earth / soil].1757 And Rashbi explicated {Zohar 2:223b) that the Shekhinah is called “Imagining” inasmuch as her eyes are clogged, that is a speculum that does not shine, since the higher eyes [= the affect of Binah on Malkhut through the mediation of Tiferet] do not affect it [at this stage] - leading to a vision shaped by imagery and form, not appropriately illuminated. This is the meaning behind “By the hands of the prophets below I deliver parables” for things are seen through imagining, not in their essence and [through] proper clarification”.1758 This view may be further clarified by the visible image of broken, or disjointed, mirrors: the divine light remains intact, whereas its harboring vessels are distorted therefore misrepresenting its appearance for human appreciation, and hindering its functional trajectory and distribution in their world. The recalibration and re-polishing of the mirrors is thus an attempt to realign them as to afford a proper flow of light between them and from them to earth. RaMaK’s view of the Malkhut as a shattered mirror, whose regulated role is nonetheless the initial doorway to the entire edifice, now uses various spiritual faculties for its repair: first were the deceased Galilean sages, whose association with Yesod allowed them to soar above Malkhut in the theosophical scaffold (after having been aroused to do so!) and assist from above with RaMaK's remedial work below.1759 Additionally, RaMaK's elucidation of the Zoharic passages aims to chart anew a hitherto 1757 On the connection between the verb a d a m e h [I shall imagine] and the noun a d a m a h [land] see e.g., Zohar 1:180a, speaking o f the E r e tz (earth / soil / land) as “The Speculum that does not shine”. On la n d becoming a Speculum that shines in the Messianic era, see e.g., Zohar 2:93a. This issue is pivotal for our later discussion o f Theography. 1758 Sefer Gerushin, entry 36, pp.39-40. Compare with his discussion on Prophecy in Shiur Qomah, pp.60-63. 1759 See discussion o f the deceased T za d ikim to follow.

335

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

concealed path for epistemic transparency; one which may be achieved through properly affecting the Malkhut (Shekhinah) to nourish from Tiferet - now rendered axis epistema: the transformative juncture in his rationale is “However, once the Malkhut ascends and reunites with her husband [Tiferet] as one, as is the secret behind ‘joined as one’ within T if’eret - then surely a speculum that does not shine [.Malkhut alone] now becomes a speculum that shines.” RaMaK not merely assures his audience of Rashbi’s deep esoteric knowledge, but mainly wishes to articulate God’s radical motivation to reveal theosophical regulations in this day and age - a momentous event toward inimitable epistemic transparency: whereas maintaining discourse by associating Malkhut and Hod indeed leads to “Prophecies”, those are nonetheless rendered “Speculum that does not shine” since the Malkhut demotes the potency of Hod. This reality results in epistemic experiences still shaped by dichotomizing mental properties that nourish from spatiotemporal reality (imagery) and constrained exegetical vocabularies (perush). Conversely, the mystics’ ability to reunite the Shekhinah (the lower mother) with her husband Tiferet (through the indispensable mediation of Yesod, albeit not mentioned here)1760 features an epistemic overpass', this quality transcends the speculum that does not shine, as it is now met with a blissful effect on Tiferet from Binah (the supreme mother and the supreme eye). This quality, in turn, polishes the epistemic clarity of Malkhut to such refinement (= speculum that shines) and allows mystics to treat light itself as the object of contemplation - rather than a means to view other objects - and to receive an unconstrained flow of exegetical fluency (hidush): “A vision of essence, properly illuminated and clarified”, “The secret of ‘seeing eye to 1 1'If*') eye’” ” and the transmission of “Words that utter on their own volition”. Human intellect thus becomes a device informed by the profound tension amidst vitality and irrelevance, as it attains the necessity of ultimate unity yet cannot conceive of its essence. The murkiness of a speculum that does not shine reflects the dichotomizing properties of the human mind in its profound contingency on spatiotemporal reality. The

1760 Sefer Gerushin makes numerous references to the pivotal role o f Y eso d , “Without whom no nourishment arrives to any o f the sefirot” [entry 6, p.7] - please refer to the following section regarding the Tzadik as a x is m u n d i. 1761 See Isaiah 52:8. 1762 Eilima Rabbati, E in S h e m e sh 2:28.

336

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

mind is part of “The energy of emanation [which] manifests through differentiation”,1763 whereupon “We look at the ineffable as if it were a thing or an aspect of things apart of our own selves”.1764 Given that “The human mind expresses the Divine as an intellect, as it continuously strives to simplify and negate materialism”,1765 the polishing act of the speculum aimed to abolish all illusionary dichotomies en route to intuitive epistemic transparency, that which transcends the intellect. Transforming light from an end to a means as well, the speculum that shines becomes an epistemic tunnel whose end is light itself, the infusion of the observer with the observed, whereupon “The spiritual explorer discovers that the One is beyond images and [therefore] his own image of a separate self also dissolves”.1766 In the words of Plotinus, this had been the domain wherein “The vision is not a light showing some other object; the light itself is the vision;” and in RaMaK's words, “A vision of essence, properly illuminated and clarified” - the essence of Devekut (cleaving to the divine)! The attempts to achieve such a level demonstrate RaMaK's multiple affinities with mythical and rational configurations, pulling from the Zohar and Sefer Yetzirah on the one hand and from Maimonides, ibn Gabbai or ibn Paquda on the other hand. RaMaK's claim, in broad strokes here, is that notwithstanding the intellect’s formidable role in man’s epistemic arsenal, it is nonetheless not sufficient a device to achieve optimum epistemic transparency. The following is an example of RaMaK's distinction between an actual property, in casu intellect, and the potentiality of intellect (*?3Wn nn) whose attainment allows the mystic to unify that which the actual mind separates via spatiotemporal configurations and imaginative processes: when discussing the epistemic rigor of Rabbi Elazar, RaMaK renders his sight “Neither a sight of corporeal eyes [ N*7 D’lTN rp’tn] nor an allegory - rather, it is a true sight achieved by solitary contemplation [ni77innn] and by which a man can grasp thing to come and things passed, and hear the matters through the finest potencies o f the m ind’ [DT’iyn

brwn mp7 ram ].1767

These hierarchical properties indeed support the abovementioned meditations from Sefer Gerushin. Moreover, once juxtaposed with RaMaK's disclosure in Or Yaqar, 1763 Matt, D.C. in Fine, L. (ed., 1995), p.69. 1764 Heschel, A.B. (1959), p.61. 1765 Green, A. (2003), p.63. 1766 Matt, D.C. in Fine, L. ibid, p.71. 1767 Pardes Rimonim 22:1.

337

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

according to which a proper remedy for the exiled Shekhinah necessitates that one ascends beyond the Shekhinah [“To ascend above exile and enslavement” -

nbyftb m'71/7

TQJWm mbun],1768 it seems evident that Sefer Gerushin not only permits theurgic practices which renewed ancient modes of theosophical trafficking, but indeed deems them mandatory and crucial in RaMaK’s day and age. In conclusion, the restoration of the Shekhinah was an act of recalibrating and polishing; an indispensible mirror whose henceforth refined properties deflected light upward only to reflect downward the purified light from Tiferet [empowered by Binah] above: explicating the verse “Truth shall spring forth from the earth” [rraxn p tw nftN]1769 and identifying “Truth” with Tiferet, RaMaK continues to say “And eretz (earth), which is Malkhut, springs forth and ascends as a light projected upward from below”

17 7 0

- a

property enhanced by past tannaitic sages buried within the Galilean vicinity, whose “Souls are a mirror turned upward”,1771 or by oil whose reflective properties were harnessed for such endeavors. Indeed, RaMaK's world had now seen the entire cosmos as harboring the residues of a hyper sanctity [NSWI - rishuma], the presiding light of divinity now impressed within intellect, sensation, shape, form, color, landscape and language. It was a scheme wherein God’s word “Is like fire [...] and like a hammer that shatters rock”,

17 7 7

whereas the mystics’ responsive discourse was “A hammering soul

which knocks words against each other”.1773 One should therefore expect to find complex affinities between RaMaK's cohort and such portals whose existence continued to echo and further vibrate the presiding light of God’s words - such as the past tannaitic sages on whom the Talmud exclaimed “Any word of wisdom by a [deceased] sagacious pupil which is repeated in this world causes his lips to murmur in the grave”.1774

Accessing the Axis Mundi: Prostration & Souls o f Tannaitic Sages 1768 Or Yaqar, vol.2, on Tikkunei ha-Zohar, p. 114. Cf: Sack, B. (1995 a), pp.263-265. On the dialectic movement o f theurgic potency, see Ginsburg, E.K. (1989), especially pp. 199-200. 1769 Psalms 85:12. 1770 Sefer Gerushin, entry 65, p.79. 1771 Ibid, entry 91, p .105. 1772 Jeremiah 23:29. 1773 Pardes Rimonim 27:2, note 59. See also in his Perush Sefer Yetzirah, chapter 2:3. 1774 Babylonian, Yevamot 97a. On this issue, see Huss, B. (2002 a).

338

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Or Yaqar depicts the tannaitic protagonists as having reached a spiritual level which allowed them to prostrate on the tombstones of earlier sages and beseech their intervention on high for divine effluence below.1775 RaMaK views the gravesites of past sages as such a locus sanctus whose main shield is the words of Torah uttered by their sagacious dwellers - therefore “Untouched by strangers and unclaimed by the soil, as we have seen with our own eyes regarding the Tzadikim.”

17 7 ( \

The theurgic indispensability

of the Tzadik as axis mundi was succinctly professed e.g., in Tikkunei ha-Zohar (34b) whose claim “With Tzadik you shall rejoin as one” had been translated as the deceased sage’s acute position in the theosophical edifice - a pivotal negotiator of the spiritual reorientation between divinity, the landscape and the mystics.1777 Sefer Gerushin accentuates the assistance rendered by the souls of tannaitic sages whose grave-markers, synagogues, villages and caves had been all visited and spiritually engaged as a means for mutual illumination and apprehension of esoteric insight:1778 Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai and his son Rabbi Elazar, Rabbis Yossei of Yukrat, Yehudah bar Ila’ah, Yanai, Dostai, Nehorai, Honi ha-Me’agel, Abba Hikiyah, Hanan ha-Nehba, or Shema’aya and Avtalyon. Or Yaqar discusses the ability to consort with the deceased Tzadikim at their gravesites in the wake of spiritual purification1779 and in fact makes a few direct references to this practice as having been enacted by RaMaK, e.g., “I shall now explicate that which has been gracefully given to me by God on this matter while prostrating on the grave markers of Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai and his son in [mount] Meron [...].1780 Moreover, RaMaK amalgamates through this practice certain Sufi doctrines1781 and rituals enacted in earlier Spanish Kabbalah: in Or Yaqar RaMaK depicts such practices as having been preformed by some earlier Spanish mystics,

1775 Or Yaqar, vol.13, p.64; cf: Sack, B. (1995 a), pp.20-21 and fn.71, p.42 and fn.52, pp.219-220. On this issue in general, see also Horowitz, E. (1989 b). 1776 Or Yaqar on Zohar, va-Yeshev 8:4. 1777 On this issue in Hassidism, see also Lichtenstein, Y.S. (2001). 1778 On this issue, see Fine, L. in Green, A. (ed., 1989), pp.86-92; Benayahu, M. (1962 b), pp.11-40. 1779 Derishot va-Hakirot be-Inyanei ha-M al’akhim, Derishah 2, Hakirah 2. 1780 Or Yaqar, vol.13, p. 175. 1781 See Fenton, P. (1994a); (1997); in ibid and Goetschel, R. (eds., 2000); Lichtenstein, Y.S. (2001); Huss, B. (2002 a).

339

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

rn nun rn’sn na ^

vmttwiB “apa anain i w

[ni2w» ’im ^

mrran]

[...] bra nrainnm tiran lira oy prra rrm bnpn bbon n’bbsna

[It has been the custom of some mystical practitioners] to dig a pit above the head of a deceased [sage], whereupon they would pray amidst the crowed and cleave [their] soul with the soul [of the sage] in great 17C2 concentration. The intimate involvement of the mystics with grave-markers was not taken lightly though: Jewish traditional discourse deemed impure any contact with the dead and went to great length to mark off mortuary landscapes and prevent them from polluting the Tived-landscapes’, either by their establishment at a safe distance or by the use of underground burial chambers - of which literally thousands still dot the Israeli landscape and numerous are found in the Galilee itself. Furthermore, as mentioned by P. Giller, “It is still hard to find justification for [exorcism and relic veneration] in the literature of classical exoteric Judaism. Relic veneration is not a natural outgrowth of Rabbinic Judaism, and it is not easily reconciled with the ritual status of the grave in Judaism’s legal structure. Moreover, the [talmudic] rabbis were ambivalent about the nature of death itself’.1783 This notwithstanding, Christian and Muslim influences had undeniably contributed to the medieval Jewish practice wherein gravesites associated with biblical, rabbinic or mystical figures became centers of worship and objects of veneration.1784 Similarly, the question regarding eschatology and the status of the deceased’s soul in the grave had led in two main directions: the first perceived souls as potential benefactors, or adversaries, to human affairs, whereas the second “Reflected and expended on the horror of the gravesite as the source of death and impurity”.1785 RaMaK’s views correspond with both levels in accord with the hierarchical layout informing his entire system and his subtle distinction between rituals open to the lay public and those allotted to the mystical elite in his dramatic day and age. Concerning the layperson, RaMaK does not generally deviate from rabbinic discourse about the imbued impurity permeating mortuary landscapes: his list of acts, or times and sites whose engagement in religious devotional rites deemed any ritual vile [“lyDft] indeed includes 1782 Or Yaqar, vol.13, p.64. Cf: Huss, B. (2002 b), p.239; Horowitz, E. (1989 b). 1783 Giller, P. (1994), p. 154. Cf: Chajes, J.H. in Fine, L. (ed., 2001), chapter 30. 1784 Giller, P. ibid, p. 148. 1785 Giller, P. ibid, p.155.

340

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

the cemetery.1786 This, however, does not infer by any means that the same applied to the spiritual elite - especially given its envisioned role as waging war in the most impure landscapes in order to subdue evil and restore it towards unification with divine benevolence. RaMaK was a figure well invested in magian practices and a mystic who acknowledged the possibility for transubstantiation or impregnation in mortuary landscapes - be they human,1787 angelic or demonic [7B?n IX ,*ixb»n IX ,13 mnvnftn nation]. He discussed exorcism openly and endorsed it once done by proper men and according to strict formulations - “And the sage who exorcises the demon must know to which family and to what category it belongs in order to effective banish it from the [inflicted] man”

[ w x n a irm nn1? ^ ...x i n pbn n rx a nm b ,xin nnsira n rxn r r w

t ix

conm

Xinn.1788 RaMaK mentions the potency of amulets to attract benevolence or to cast away evil agents - the latter having been especially effective should one use as red ink “The blood of a young goat [ t w m ]”.1789 His discussion of reincarnations (□’bubf) also corresponds with the broader framework of theosophical speculation,1790 yet is not devoid of the more popular discourse of the bizarre incidents associated with this phenomenon. Such is the case which RaMaK claims in Shiur Qomah to “Having seen with my own two eyes [...] an adulterer whose soul reincarnated in a dog and killed the adulteress, only to be killed later by her [bastard] son - who was finally struck by God himself for having been a bastard”.1791 Hayim Vital’s Sefer ha-Gilgulim argued that RaMaK's soul itself had been “A reincarnation derived from the root of Eliezer the servant of Abraham and the spirit of [the tannaitic] Shema‘aya, whereas the soul of his greatest student, Elijah di Vidash, also derived from that root yet harbored the spirit of [Shema‘aya’s tannaitic

1786 Derishot ve-Hakirot be-Inyanei ha-Mal'akhim, Derishah 7, Hakirah 3. 1787 See e.g., Pardes Rimonim 31:9. 1788 Not to be confused with d ib b u k - a term unknown to 16th century mystics, although RaMaK refers to “An evil transubstantiation” [in t i t s ] in Shemu’ah be-Inyan ha-Gilgul, end o f note 6. Ib u r could refer either to the substantiation o f an angelic entity, or the possession o f one’s soul by an evil spirit or a demon. RaMaK refers to these elements directly (using the term Ib u r ), discusses the ‘demonic family’ and further distinguishes between an angel, an evil spirit and a demon - see Derishot ve-Hakirot be-Inyanei haMal'akhim 5:7 and in Shem u’ah be-Inyan ha-Gilgul, end o f note 6. See Scholem, G. (1930), No. 37, MS. Hebr. 8° 117, pp.99-100. On this issue see also the important work of Mark, Z. (2003); N ig’al, D. (1980), pp.75-101; Bilu, Y. (1983); ibid (1996); Patai, R. (1978); Chajes, J.H. in Fine, L. (ed., 2001); Garb, J. (1997); Scholem, G. (1980), pp.331-332; Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, p.72. On RaMaK's take on this issue, see Sack, B. (1995 a), pp.17-23; 218-220; 264-266. 1789 Pardes Rimonim 10:1 and compare with Tomer Devorah 1:9. 1790 See e.g., Shiur Qomah, pp.166-168 under bubl. 1791 Shiur Qomah, p. 167.

341

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

counterpart] Avtalyon [...], and they both are a single individual”.1792 Although RaMaK himself never mentions it in his writings, Vital continues to credit this reason to RaMaK's alleged strong affections to di Vidash during their time in Safed. RaMaK recognizes the potential transubstantiation of angels or demons in humans and in fact credits sections in his writings to such unearthly entities. His treatment of such potencies fluctuates between deities per se and ethereal intelligences which appear both in his first and last compositions, Pardes Rimonim1793 and Eilima Rabbati,1794 and most importantly in the section from Or Yaqar titled Derishot ve-Hakirot be-Inyanei haM al’akhim. Be that as it may, RaMaK acknowledges transubstantiation between living mystics and the souls of past sages [(mnN ~ m i i m o ) mmynutz/ n n a n lV’DX i n n p] and deems such “Male impregnations” essential conduits toward epistemic transparency and divine communication “As mentioned in the Zohar in numerous places”.1795 In Shiur Qomah RaMaK clarifies that “Whereas it is difficult to understand in what manner two souls coexist within a single body, the secret of transubstantiation is the assemblage of a soul within a soul [wsu U’Dl pTDlB] through the partnership of their acts. By performing mitzvot, the [living] sage shall merit / purify [ror] to receive a favorable ibur [mu nmy], one that will prefect his condition and afford him the wisdom [of the deceased sage]”.1796 The favorable ibur was thus a renaissance in the fuller sense of the word; a spirited symbiosis which linked in mutual contingence two generations of sagacious warriors engaged in an epic warfare on behalf of God: Ibur was a rebirth of the past tannaitic sage within his living counterpart and a rebirth of the 2nd century tannaitic epos within the 16th century Safedian mystical elite. It was both the transubstantiation of past in the present and the transpiritualization of present in the past - a formidable campaign of transgenerational mystics who yielded to specific spaces and times to ultimately nullify all spatiotemporal boundaries and jointly support the ailing Shekhinah.

1792 Sefer ha-Gilgulim 65. 1793 Pardes Rimonim 6:6. 1794 See e.g., E in K o l h a -A re tz 1:5. 1795 Pardes Rimonim 31:9. 1796 Shiur Qomah, p .167. See also Sack, B. (1995 a), pp.17-18, 42, 213. On the souls o f T za d ik im see also HaCohen, D. (1994).

342

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

RaMaK states that “God yearns for the prayer of Tzadikim'’ - both living and deceased1797 - and that the way to arouse the soul of the deceased Tzadik is through sacred study, for his soul “Is enclothed within this world through words of Torah”.1798 Sefer Gerushin allows a glimpse at ordeals which seem to have surpassed that realm and involved such radical engagements as ibur - albeit the oblique manner in which they are conveyed here necessitates the above contextualization for their disambiguation. Upon engaging in exegesis near the tombstone of Rabbi Yehudah bar Ila’ah, and while extrapolating issues concerning the mutual contingency of souls so “that our souls illuminate the soul of the sage and his soul illuminates our in turn”, Alkabetz concludes by clarifying to his protege RaMaK, “It has all been given to us as a gift by Rabbi Yehudah and was explicated through his assistance” [urn: lyrcai rrnrr 'i runft]1799 - a description suggesting quite visibly that Alkabetz had just concluded an ibur with Rabbi Yehudah.1800 Alkabetz’ fellowship was therefore now the custodian with whom was entrusted the envisioned closure to the nascent spiritual brilliance of the 2nd century Rashbi circle, whereas the designated spiritual portals within the Galilean landscape now became the spatial theatre within which time had been curved as to rejoin the tannaitic sages with their 16th century successors. Although the spiritual potencies embedded within such portals were stimulated to discharge intuitive exegeses, the past saintly souls where depicted as coauthors rather than authors of the epistemic quest. As already noted by B. Sack, “Cordovero emphasizes that only men of flesh and blood - those who live in a world afflicted by evil, encounter it and subdue it - only they are able to affect harmonious utility within the sefirotic realm, while the deceased Tzadikim in the Garden of Eden can only pray for Israel and beseech mercy on their behalf.”1801 Indeed, whereas past sages illuminated the path for the living mystics and profoundly assisted in their search, nowhere do RaMaK, Alkabetz or other members relinquish the authority vested in them as the initiators of any cosmic unification above - this having been a violation of the cosmic regulation according to 1797 Sefer Gerushin, entry 74, p.95. 1798 Sefer Gerushin, entry 16, p.17. 1799 Entry 10, p .11; compare with Or Yaqar, vol. 6, p.91 and refer to Sack, B. (1995 a), p.45 and chapter 14, fiis.83-106. Compare also with Hayim Vital’s views in S h a ’a r R u ’a h h a -K o d e sh , Kol Kitvei ha-Ari (1988), pp. 109-111. Cf: Huss, B. (2002 a), especially pp.126-130 and Fenton P. (1994 a). i8°° g g ack ajso reacjs it in this manner. See Sack, B. (1995 a), p.20. 1801 Sack, B. ibid, p.38 and refer to fns.27-29 and chapter 10.

343

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

which any stimulation above must always initiate from below, “Since no unification is possible save through the living sages”.1802 RaMaK reiterates this idea in Pardes Rimonim and Or Ne'erav. explicating the biblical verse “And a flow would well up from the ground and water the whole surface”,1803 RaMaK now states that this mechanism informs the cosmic condition as a whole - “No downward flow from a Sefirah above can occur save by stimulation from the Sefirah beneath”1804 and therefore “Any unification in the higher realms prerequisites the spiritual awakening of the earthly Tzadikim”.1805 In Sefer Gerushin RaMaK discloses a teaching of his master Solomon Alkabetz during one of the excursions taken solely by the two, where Alkabetz emphasizes the spiritual co­ dependence informing the relations between the deceased Tzadikim and the living sages:

□’P’lxn nb’sm trm'iK mw no ,_no ’’D n"y rvnrr 'n ivxa ,dbo o"} rrrn liraxi nnbya m i ’iso amDS w oj vfrv w its ,m inowm non notwi iod irrra m an ram i; nivon ,m n w 1:)"n .amx urnx-a n a tm nbvn n rm n .□’tor r n w avam am ann D’ssn uio; Upon departing Rabbi Judah bar-‘ila’ah’s grave-marker, my master explicated the words from the prayer for the Tzadikim ‘We shall rejoice in you and you shall rejoice in us.’ It means that we should rejoice and not feel unworthy in their awesome presence, for our ability to see them points to our great spiritual state as well. And they too rejoice in usl, meaning that they desire our company as we theirs, for it [= our union] merits all.1806 These intimate ordeals were nevertheless highly demanding and profoundly intense unleashing a myriad of vocabularies whose sensual intimacy cannot be underplayed. In Eilima Rabbati RaMaK refers to the unification of the sefirot with EinSof as reaching “The known place in Him ["□ am pm l r ’m ,!□ srvpfT mpft]”,1807 whereas Or Yaqar uses this imagery to enforce the acute epistemic and theurgic roles RaMaK places on the precise alliance between past sages and their living successors through location, time, exegetical

1802 Sefer Gerushin, entry 79, p. 102. 1803 Genesis 2:6. 1804 Pardes Rimonim 7:1. 1805 Or Ne'erav 6:2. i8°6 gefer Qerushin, entry 10, p .ll. 1807 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l 1:4.

344

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

and devotional engagements. This tractate is loaded with sensual insinuations and depths of meanings whose elucidation calls for close attention to RaMaK's use of words:

nn ,[...] unpnai pso ’ha nwnp hapa xinn mpan ,rmn n m ia D’poiyiy mpa ha nrnxi n 1 hi? unpna mn mp» imx ,snr* mpaa miri n m poiy p’7un nvna Tips'* ^ s ir * n’lara inwnp n m pnxn nvnai .[...] vm nhiux nwnp xn xim ntz? inatyj r im mxrsa hia’aa ’a ,17’ hy m proty maipan i*?x ha inu?i7pa nwnp *xx» rxiy m n x m m pay arc? nvna an n m .[...] ]arh p r ’7’» m s trmh rwnpn “ins'* ihx ’7’ hy naonrmy nxrn niynprra? pm ’ xhi ,ira it rrvxm ntzmp1? nmx umn rrrr nxi .n-piw txi tp x n p’7yn natyj -nisr rmrnpn nmxi ,n»7ipn py-p p’7sm trump *?x nwnp i’iyn n’oi’ rx ,aty tznn xiniy ama7n nmxi sno’an ityiT’n aipa hx nim n m s n a inatyin aapa n m n vnaty ’a ]h xa” p xm ,nty [...] immiytt? nmx nniy ihx **x si»i Each place which is engaged by words of Torah receives holiness and is sanctified [...]; when a Tzadik engages in words of Torah in a known place, that place is sanctified by him and the holiness emanates from his very soul [...]. And when the holiness of the Tzadik is empowered at known times, he should take note o f [= visit] the places which were sanctified by him, since it is as if the spark of his soul resides there, awaiting him to come and relight it from time to time. And even should he engage there in other words of Torah [i.e., words not directly associated with either the deceased Tzadik or the specific time of visitation] he still 180S attaches [xxa] sanctity with sanctity and illuminates one with the other - leading his added sanctity to arouse the earlier one, which in turn arouses the soul of the deceased Tzadik and illuminates it. And should [the living Tzadik] engage the exact idiom or words that he [the deceased Tzadik] had once innovated in that [exact] place, he further ties holiness with holiness and the [soul of the deceased] Tzadik shall hasten to that place - for he is now rejuvenated since his lips [never ceased to] utter words [of Torah] in the grave,1809 and his soul arouses, hastening to the place of its/his* renewal1810 and attaching* [xn »] to those who have caused him to arouse [...].1811 In the first chapter of this dissertation we briefly looked into RaMaK's marital life and offered his views on sexual relations as a means for spiritual unification:

isos _ a fascjnating word which seems to mean a m uch more intimate association with the found subject. Compare with the last sentence 1717711?© nPs 7N XSISI. 1809 See Babylonian, Yavamot 97a; Sanhedrin 90b; Bekhorot 31b. 1810 Could both mean the place where his words o f Torah are renewed or the place where his soul was renewed. 1811 Or Yaqar on Zohar, Pinhas 7. Cf: Or Yaqar on Zohar, va-Yakhel 5; on Yenuka 8:12. See also Or Ne'erav 5:1.

345

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Concerning our sages’ teachings about ‘sanctification through the consummation of marriage’,1812 an intercourse with a pregnant or breastfeeding woman is not spilling one’s semen in vain, God forbid. Although it does not cause physical birth, it causes spiritual births by means of the [couple’s] virtuous unification [...]. Upon consummating [the marriage with] his wife a man injects [O'aaa] a spark of his spirit, whereupon it stands [erect] in her body and trembles within her [ "pra 7ftiy m ntm]. We therefore deduce from this act about the unification of the higher realm [.. .].1813 RaMaK now continues to state that “No dilemma should exist whatsoever in regard to the same apparatus taking place concerning male [spiritual] impregnation”.1814 His clear associations between the two - once coupled with his endorsement of corporeal manipulations en route to spiritual progress

101c

,

, ,

,

- points with strong plausibility at certain

devotional rites which ran parallel to the act of marital intimacy and its physical consummation, “For kissing is the attachment of one soul to the other much like a man who kisses his desired spouse [inplt^n] with his mouth. By the mouth he unifies mouth to mouth and breath to breath, meaning soul to soul and spirit to spirit”1816: supplication, kissing, movement of the body, whispered words and the ultimately desired ‘spiritual orgasm’ all lead to unifications and the cathartic outbursts in their wake, be they ‘newborn innovation’ [^17’n - hidush] or ‘spiritual impregnation’ of the living Tzadik whose role here was the female - n a ’17 (ibur).m i The deceased Tzadikim were absolutely indispensable for such rituals, having been the male counterparts to the living mystics who had now assumed a female role: the biblical verse “[...] The righteous is a foundation for the world” [ably 710’ p’72n]1818 meant in the symbolic realm of the sefirot that the Tzadik [= Sefirah Yesod] became “The mediator through which divine benevolence flows downward to the tenth and final

1812 Babylonian Talmud, Shavuot 18a. 1813 Pardes Rimonim 31:9. 1814 Ibid. 1815 On this issue in general, see Fine, L. in Eilberg-Schwartz, H. (ed., 1992). 1816 Ibid, 8:21 and compare with Eilima Rabbati, Ein Shemesh 3:62-63. 1817 See also Shiur Qomah, p p .166-167. 1818 “ve-Tzadik Yesod olam” - Proverbs 10:25. See also Babylonian, Hagigah 12b; Yoma 38b.

346

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Sefirah [= Malkhut / Shekhinah] and henceforth to the material world”.1819 RaMaK makes direct note of this visible issue1820 in Eilima Rabbati, referring to Noah “Who hints at the Sefirah Yesod, as written ‘the righteous is a foundation for the world’”.1821 Moreover, RaMaK asserts the value of the Tzadik as seen through landscape and language configurations as well: RaMaK's explication of the word msna {hills) as meaning according to the Zohar “Binah and Malkhut"n 22 turned the hilly Galilean landscape into an optimal theatre for the Tzadik whose “One head is in Binah and the other in Malkhut" ,1823 Likewise, his treatment in Perush le-Sefer Yetzirah of the word Yesod as meaning “The twenty two letters of the alphabet”1824 also confers on the Tzadik great edification potencies. Sefer Gerushin indeed makes numerous references to the Tzadikim 189S and their acute spiritual position as axis mundi: Biblical Joseph is associated with Yesod and therefore ‘“Do all that he tells you’1826 for there is no nourishment to any [theosophical]

1897

potency save through him”;

1898

the Tzadik's he is “Not only a ‘date-

palm’ which corresponds with Malkhut and Tiferet simultaneously but also ‘a cedar in Lebanon’

1 89Q

whose seeds are in Binah',

1 89 fl

“No unification in this world can be done save

through the Tzadik", 1831 whereas “His soul ascends to the higher Garden o f Eden immediately upon burial, aside of other virtues on this matter”.1832 This in mind, one may need to consider RaMaK's previously mentioned words in Pardes Rimonim and Eilima Rabbati, where he discloses the nature of theosophical agitation as pertaining to the demotion of the Malkhut to her current state as the 10

1819 Fenton, P. (1997), pp.7-9, 11-13. Fenton’s essay revolves mainly around the evolution o f this term in later Hassidic discourse during the 18th-19th centuries. On the impact o f RaM aK ’s system on Hassidic discourse, see Sack, B. (1986), p.229-246. 1820 On the Tzadikim in theosophical discourse, see Scholem, G. (1980), chapter 7;Gottlieb, E. (Hacker, J. ed., 1976), pp.29-37; Green, A. (1977); Rapoport-Albert, A. inH undert, G.D. (ed.,1991);Huss, B.(1999). 1821 Eilima Rabbati, E inA dam 6:21. Cf: Sack, B. (1995 b), p. 183. 1822 Pardes Rimonim 23:3 under m ini. 1823 Entry 14, p. 15. 1824 Perush le-Sefer Yetzirah 2:1. 1825 See also in P ard es R im onim , e.g., 8:19. 1826 Genesis 49:55. 1827 Up to Binah in her ‘face’ downward: the three highest sefirot - Keter, Hokhmah and Binah [in her face upward] are utterly beyond immediate human effect. 1828 Entry 6, p.7. 1829 Explicating on Psalms 92:13. 1830 Entry 26, p.29. 1831 Entry 79, p.102. 1832 Entry 18, p.22.

347

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Sefirah from her primordial state as the 7th Sefirah. Here we find the original standing of the Yesod as the closest to mankind in the theosophical edifice, having been the 10th Sefirah, “And Yesod was the end o f emanation”.1833 At this juncture one may add that the profound reliance on past Tzadikim had also to do with their ability to directly affect the Sefirah Yesod and to attract it downward to its proper position as part of the restorative operation. Correspondingly, the spiritual potency of the Tzadik was measured vis-a-vis its pivotal orchestration of both downward and upward flow, “For the Yesod is the best-man [pawn?] who ties and unites the husband [Tif’eret] and the wife \Malkhut]”,m34 the “Vessel, conduit and pipe for their unification”1835 and “The medium by which the 1R^fi 1RT7 champion lies with his wife”. This view is mentioned in the Talmud, and its biblical launch-pad (2 Samuel 23:3) was craftily reconfigured in the Zohar to establish the profound effect of the Tzadik on God Himself:

’Bi ,D7ta

xin j r a ttmpn rnvftK nxT 'puna pnx [* ,]tm a bmn' zrnrn ’nb .n'ptna p’txm m u "ira irrtn - P’tc ?xm f m umpm

Why is it written ‘[He] rules men[,*] Tzadik rules in awe of God’? The Holy One, blessed be He, rules men. And who rules the Holy One, blessed be He? The Tzadik - for [God] decrees a punishment and the Tzadik revokes it.1838 Respectively, RaMaK mentions that “The soul of the Tzadik is [like] a mirror turned upward and by which unification is beseeched”,1839 or that “The Holy One, blessed be He, craves for [msriD] the prayers of Tzadikim, for it is the true act of unification”.1840 At this juncture RaMaK discusses both past and present sages, a subtlety that further substantiates the indispensable partnership between the souls of tannaitic sages and their

ISJJ Eilima Rabbati, E in K o l 3:11. 1834 Pardes Rimonim 8:23 and compare with Or Yaqar, Vol. 9, p.46a. 1835 Ibid, 22:3. 1836 Ibid, 23:20. 1837 See B abylonian, Taanit 23a and Moecl Katan 16b. 1838 Zohar 2:15a and see Derishot ve-Kakirot be-Inyanei M al’akhim 6:6. The biblical verse reads bttna a’nbx TINT Vtfflb ,p’7S tn to , which is interpreted in the JPS translation as “He who rules men justly; he who rules with awe o f God” - the Zohar moves the comma one word backward as well as understands the word tiNT [awe] as pertaining to G od’s awe o f the Tzadik. On the use o f this idea in regard to Rashbi, see Zohar Hadash 85:4; Zohar 3:15a; Hashmatot ha-Zohar l:255a-b. See also Babylonian, Taanit 23a. 1839 Entry 81, p.105. 1840 Entry 74, p.95.

348

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

tin living 16 century successors - as well as both cohorts with divinity thereof: notwithstanding the astounding theurgical authority rendered here to the Tzadikim (and ascribed to Rashbi as well),1841 it is obviously a merit whose impetus was their profound adherence to divine regulations via corporeal and spiritual mediums. RaMaK’s discussion of Rabbi Akiva in Pardes Rimonim and Eilima Rabbati makes clear God’s exceptionally rigorous expectations from the Tzadik, 1842 hinting in his choice of words to the sentiments already conveyed in the Talmud1843 and furnishing by inference another venue to appreciate his expectations of himself and his cohort in his contemporary drama. Moreover, in Or Yaqar RaMaK clarifies that whereas the role of past sages is indeed pivotal in the higher realms, it is nonetheless the living sages that can arouse them and reify their potencies. It is ultimately at the hands of those fighting evil and impurity in this world, and by so doing ultimately affect the theosophical edifice and assist in its restoration.

1844

Taken as a whole, the profound sense of partnership and mutual accountability between God and those on par with His inner wisdom and laws (rp"Q) is a momentous theurgical motif within the mystical landscape of Sefer Gerushin. RaMaK demonstrates how the mystical forefront has to negotiate two spiritual fronts in order to cater to the remedial needs of the Shekhinah'. on the one hand we find a downward move which aims to achieve a better diagnosis of the ailment inflicting the Shekhinah - as seen in RaMaK’s call for the leading mystical cohort to descend in the footsteps of the Shekhinah as an indispensable stage for their mutual redemptive ascent [n’byn nfrnn nb’S^n HID].1845 This measure allowed in turn an upward move to achieve a glimpse at the primordial harmonious stage [a speculum that shines] and concoct the necessary prescriptions to remedy the Shekhinah by effecting flow from above - a stage RaMaK calls “The ascent above exile and enslavement” [Tnswm mban p nbirab mbyb].1846 The relationship between past and present sages had therefore been a complex mechanism, involving the landscape itself; liturgical rites; corporeal and spiritual 1841 On the Rashbi as such a Tzadik see e.g., Liebes (1992 a), pp. 107-109; Huss, B. (1999). 1842 See also Zohar 1:139b-140a; cf; Tishby, I. (1949), vol.3, pp.1483-1487. 1843 Pardes Rimonim 31:5b and compare with Tomer Devorah, 1:8. See Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kama 50a; Rashi on Babylonian, T a’anit 8a. Cf: Sack, B. (1995 a), pp.238-239. 1844 Or Yaqar, vol.2, p p .142-143; cf: Sack, B. ibid, p.38. 1845 Or Yaqar, v o l.l, on Tikkunei ha-Zohar, p .158. [Zohar Hadash] 99a. 1846 Or Yaqar, vol.2, on Tikkunei ha-Zohar, p .114. Cf: Sack, B. (1995 a), pp.263-265.

349

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

manipulations; as well as the creative use of God’s Vernacular through letter & word permutations, or sacred studies. Prostration and supplication [mnnown] on grave-markers within the landscape thus became an act of consorting with the vanguard of old via forms of intimate unification whose corporeal vitality was pivotal “Since the unification of Tif’eret and Malkhut is through body to body [plia pu]”.1847 The sites themselves had thus become awakened portals, barriers now dissolved to allow proper flow of insights and theurgic potencies between past and present sages. Nurturing from a Zoharic sentiment according to which spiritual residues of the Tzadik remain in the grave and can be harnessed for theurgic purposes by living sages,

RaMaK makes clear that only

those who attain esoteric wisdoms are capable to truly banish themselves with the Shekhinah and affect it in a wholesome manner1849 - a technique which leads to dramatically intimate associations between tannaitic sages and RaMaK's elite mystical cohort, as both are indispensable for the fruition of this goal1850:

in v m w s : m iypb b im n n abiyn mmyb xbN p o m xbi ^312 b>33 n y p m o in n a y -a n a l w s n i?37n?3i pm xn nop by f d : pony m v n n nn ,p’7yn ^ d jo o r a [...] nnysun ~ \m -m y worn

p m n tysj

And this is the secret of binding one soul with another - given only to he who is among the living in this world and is capable to bind his soul while still in its body with the soul of the [deceased] Tzadik. This is done as he pours his soul unto the grave of the Tzadik, cleaves to it and converses with the Tzadik’s soul and engages him in knowledge - and the soul thus 18S1 awakens the other souls [...]. Sefer Gerushin makes an important, albeit subtle, reference to the spiritual symbiosis which is the result of such acts: after having prostrated on R. Judah bar Ila’ah’s grave and receiving counsel from his residual soul, Solomon Alkabetz notifies RaMaK that “One finds that all the souls are binded in one another [iblO IPX mbbm] [...], so our souls

Pardes Rimonim 8:23. 1848 Zohar 3:70b. Noteworthy is Hayim V ital’s Shaar ha-Gilgulim (Jerusalem 1988, p .181), where he states as an accepted fact that “Saintly souls reside within their grave-markers” [ DKHtf ,Drr "Dp 75? ln i’tn

s m o n n m s nrrm ^D j], 1849 See e.g., Or Yaqar on Tikkunei ha-Zohar, Volume 2, p. 112; Pardes Rimonim 8:19, p.49b. 1850 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 79, p. 102. 1851 Or Yaqar, vol.13, p.64.

350

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

illuminate within the Tzadik and his soul illuminates within us”.1852 Unlike Hayim Vital who furnishes more details in regard to the Lurianic doctrine of supplication on grave­ sites with one’s limbs stretched,1853 Sefer Gerushin uses the term ‘supplications’

[mnnawn] in relation to all visited grave-markers without specifying the exact posture behind such acts. As P. Giller mentions, although “Talmudic, rabbinic and aggadic traditions all record the practice of prostration in supplication before the gravesite, these accounts may not imply that [this] act was anything more than reverential bowing before the deceased ZaddiE’.1854 Here, again, a rigorous reading of RaMaK yields numerous details which suggest that such supplications had informed his devotional world at least two decades prior to Luria’s appearance! Once we appreciate RaMaK's profound reliance on corporeal theurgy being an arousing enactment below of the faculties trafficking the theosophical apparatus above, many claims that dot his writings should be indeed read as pertaining to both levels: in Pardes Rimonim, for example, RaMaK states that “Just as a wife relates to her husband through six meridians during [sexual] unification, so it is in the higher unification - through the meridian of the entire body [nnx],1855 the spine, [both] arms and [both] shins - six aligned against six”.1856 In Shiur Qomah RaMaK speaks clearly of prostration and supplication in association with “The cleaving of bodies, a living soul and a dead one;1857 [...] head to head, arms to arms and body to body”[!]1858 In one of the unpublished parts of Eilima Rabbati RaMaK continues this line and describes the effecting potencies of the Shekhinah “Whose limbs are stretched to all sides” [7U bo1? f w s n a m nxi] in anticipation of her husband Tif’eret.1859 Since RaMaK ascribed profound importance on corporeal manipulation en route to epistemic transparency and theurgic clout, such descriptions undeniably suggest that he and his cohort had emulated such postures in order to mirror the Shekhinah and affect it in turn: “[...] The shoulders are on top and the arms are stretched alongside the body, whereas the 1852 Sefer Gerushin, entry 10, p .l 1. 1853 See e.g., Hayim V ital’s Shaar Ruah ha-Kodesh (Jerusalem 1988), p.75; cf: Huss, B. (2002 a); Lichtenstein, Y.S. (2001). 1854 See Giller, P. (1994), p.154. 1855 See RaMaK's explication o f this word in Pardes Rimonim 23:1 under n»K and compare with ibid under 71?. 1856 Pardes Rimonim 8:23. 1857 Shiur Qomah, p .5. 1858 Ibid, p.61. 1859 Eilima Rabbati, Ein Adam 6:9, p.164a; cf: Sack, B. (1995 b), ibid, p .173. Compare with Ein Kol 4:47.

351

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

hands extend to the thighs and the body raises above them”.1860 Fortified by past saintly souls whose corpses faced upward and thus sent their exclusive light-beam towards Yesod, the ordeal which had started with the living Tzadik triggered a reflective and deflective chain reaction which joined Malkhut and Tif’eret through the mediating 1R61 agency, the best-man Yesod. “Malkhut and Yesod combined” was therefore an act of dramatic intimacy between the living and the dead, an act below whose reflection above deemed necessary precise positions on the grave-markers. RaMaK's subtle use of language may further suggest physical supplication and a radically intimate symbiosis, as seen e.g. once entries 17 and 18 in Sefer Gerushin are juxtaposed with some of his previously-mentioned disclosures of Hitbodedut and Devekut. The bywords in entry 17 are the words pTD Itnpn which may pertain to either spatial proximity (be-Kirbo beTziyun)

i

O f . 'J

or corporeal / spiritual interiority (be-Korbo be-Tziyun):

1 Q C 'l

•n-ipn •nnnow:n p-ran n"y ’"nunn uninn firo tn i nbici nnnin n a b ’EYim rtiTp Tina nisp nb’Dn ’nbbsnn a n ppma r i y i n"y -irybx 'n w"i ppjn .[...] ’’si vbn by ma ap D”nxi pirb I concluded explicating these matters while in Rashbi’s House of Study in Meron, whereupon we prostrated in its proximity / within the interiority [1T2D impli] of the grave-markers of Rashbi and R. Elazar, peace be upon them. My lips were still murmuring and I continued to pray shortly from the walls of my heart. Thereafter my mentor got on his feet and explicated [...]. Juxtaposing RaMaK's discussion of Mt. Zion in Pardes Rimonim with the Rock of Foundation in Or Yaqar and the pedagogic employment in Or Ne'erav serves well to better untangle the ambiguity of the word ITS and its use in Sefer Gerushin: ITS evoked not only the name Tziyon but also the properties of “Mental note”,1864 “A resting place”1865 and tziyun (pointer / marker / axis of potency), which is a radical depth of •

•

•

intimacy with the Tzadik since both he and the word p’S refer to the Sefirah Yesod.

1%f\f\

1860 Sefer Gerushin, entry 93, p. 126. 1861 Sefer Gerushin, entry 18, p.21. 1862 See, e.g., Genesis 24:3. 1863 See, e.g., Exodus 23:21 and compare with Zohar 1:127b. 1864 Or Ne'erav 3:3. 1865 Pardes Rimonim 23:18. 1866 See Pardes Rimonim 23:5 under in.

352

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Moreover, given that IT’S also refers to Malkhut itself at times,1867 this word now stands as a profound union between the deceased Tzadik (Yesod) and his living counterpart {Malkhut)-. “Just as humans consummate their union through a specific organ [...] which either affects (penis) or is affected (vagina) [...], the Malkhut has a specific place to [be effected by] the unifying organ of the Yesod.,,n6s The living mystic had to cleave therefore to the grave-marker (p’S mips) of his deceased predecessor in order to transform into a momentous vessel on behalf of the Shekhinah and arouse the deceased emissary of Yesod toward the desired consummation of their union. fPS thus became a premeditated portal for spiritual intercourse and a decisive instrument for an eruption whose potency affected the Shekhinah as an orgasmic climax of theurgical repair: “Just as the point of IT’S (Tziyon / Tziyun) is the point whence the world entire gushed forth [...], it is also an axis point in alliance with the Shekhinah [Malkhut]”.1869 RaMaK's additional disclosures in Pardes Rimonim and Or Yaqar indeed point to a highly intimate configuration of prostration, this time by using the bywords yiN ( ’on)1870 pma {middabek - attaches, cleaves), 1DW (shofekh - pours, ejaculates), / HIT / lim a □’yiT {modi ’o / yadu ’a / yedu ’im - notify, known, engage in intercourse), 71pD’ {yifkod take note of, impregnate) and

/ Ki'n {matza / motz ’e - find, attach) - all of which

demonstrate visible meanings of spousal intimacy and sexual consummation in biblical and rabbinic discourse: It has been the custom of some mystical practitioners to dig a pit above the head of a deceased [sage], whereupon they would pray amidst the crowed and cleave [pDTO] [their] soul with the soul [of the sage] in great concentration. [...] And this is the secret of binding one soul with another - given only to he who is among the living in this world and is capable to bind his soul while still in its body with the soul of the [deceased] Tzadik. This is done as he pours [_[DH£?] his soul unto the grave of the Tzadik, cleaves [pm] to it and notifies the Tzadik’s soul [IVHTOI] - and the soul 1 871 thus awakens the other souls [...]. / Each place which is engaged by words of Torah receives holiness and is sanctified [...]; when a Tzadik engages in words o f Torah in a known [J7TP] place, that place is sanctified 1867 Ibid 23:18 under ]vs. 1868 Ibid. 1869 Or Yaqar on Zohar, Lekh Lekha 2:6. 1870 Usually associated with sexual potency; see RaMaK's discussion in Pardes Rimonim 23:1 (under lift), where he renders this word “The possible unification o f M alkhut and T if’eret. 1871 Or Yaqar, vol.13, p.64.

353

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

by him and the holiness emanates from his very soul [...]. And when the holiness of the Tzadik is empowered at known [n’yiT1] times, he should take note o f [Tips’] the places which were sanctified by him [...]. And even should he engage there in other words of Torah [i.e., words not directly associated with either the deceased Tzadik or the specific time of visitation] he still attaches [NSft]1872 sanctity with sanctity and illuminates one with the other - leading his added sanctity to arouse the earlier one, which in turn arouses the soul of the deceased Tzadik and illuminates it. And should [the living Tzadik] engage the exact idiom or words that he [the deceased Tzadik] had once innovated in that [exact] place [...], his 1 R7T soul arouses, hastening to the place of its/his* renewal and attaching* [KX18] to those who have caused him to arouse [...].1874 ♦

1 R7S

RaMaK refers m Sefer Gerushin to his previous treatment of the words pTS •anpn,

187 f t

and

wherein the terminology used to describe grave-markers’ visitations had

indeed transformed the level of discourse to such an erotic degree as to have it border on spiritual intercourse, whereupon a living mystic would aim to reach a radically intimate spiritual symbiosis with his deceased counterpart and to “Prostrate within his interiorities” [fPlD "QTipn]1877 as a means for mutual epistemic and theurgic arousal. RaMaK’s association of the Sefirah Hesed with intestines in Eilima Rabbati™ indeed clarifies the need for such invasive a procedure which reached a level of erotic attachment compared to that achieved between Adam and Eve, between God and certain biblical female protagonists or between males and females in intimacy: to cleave [pm] to his body and soul just as “A man must cleave to his wife”;1879 to find him / attach to him, or to be found / attached by him [N^»] as a means to affect the above divine flow just as “He who finds / attaches to a wife has found goodness and has won the favor of the Lord”;1880 to “Engage him in knowledge / intercourse” [ly’Tia] just as Adam “Knew his

1872 NXS - we have already dicussed its meaning as a more intimate association with the found subject. Compare with the last sentence in n HSU? nPx nx XXlbl. 1873 Could mean both the place where his words o f Torah are renewed and the place where his soul was renewed. 1874 Or Yaqar on Zohar, Pinhas 7. Cf: Or Yaqar on Zohar, va-Yakhel 5; on Yenuka 8:12. 1875 Entry 41, p.46. 1876 Entry 58, p.70. 1877 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entries 10, p .l l ; 14, p.15; 17, p.20; 24, p.28. 1878 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 4:47. 1879 Genesis 2:24. 1880 Proverbs 18:22.

354

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

wife Eve and she became pregnant”;1881 to “Take note of him / manipulate his productive potencies” [7ps] just as God “Took note of Sarah / Hannah” and thus effected their conception;1882 or to pour [“pittf] his soul unto the grave just as one “Ejaculates his semen”1883 - an impregnation [TQ’J/] of noticeable intensity between the deceased Tzadik [representing Yesod] and his living counterpart [representing Malkhut], and whose •

•

•

birthed infant [I3iy] came forth as innovative insight and theosophical reorientation.

1884

RaMaK's use of such words also points to hitbodedut as a prime means toward unification and renders the symbiotic association with past sages absolutely pivotal. RaMaK’s aforementioned pun “Ceasing from inquiry in Tziyon / Tziyun” [ frnti’

nfrl

ypxa D’rmiP an raw]1885 therefore joins multiple landscapes and goals: Jerusalem and its spirited axis in the Temple (tziyon) are now met by the Galillee and its spirited axis in the grave-marker (tziyun) and whose deceased dweller (the axis mundi) is aroused through symbolically erotic prostration and radical mental quieting - the ceasation of inquiry necessary for epistemic clarity,

exegetical edification and even impregnation.

Seeing the gerushin as a mandatory dress-rehearsal for the apocalyptic era demonstrates the indispensability o f such meditational quieting en route to a more wholesome catharsis - similar to the verse “Utter silence befits You O Lord in Zion” [fraa rfr’nn rp»l7 I 1?]1886 or to RaMaK's instruction for ordinary students “To take mental notes [□’3T,S E’S1?] [...] according to one’s aptitude at certain hours and in specific places, and by quieting the mind [7Dtt>n Cpli-Til] [...]”.

18 8 7

Coupled with the myriad of sensually configured practices

on the grave-markers, such ordeals would most likely strike an uninformed bystander with trepidation or dismay. It indeed seems that more than one reason existed to keep the lay public away from such practices, albeit the governing principals behind them remained the same on all levels of mystical studies - it was arguably the intensity of their practical enactment which distinguished between the mystical elite and the lay public. til

The 18 entry in Sefer Gerushin depicts a further noteworthy outcome of such intense ordeals. Upon the conclusion of intense meditation, RaMaK states: 1881 Genesis 4:1. 1882 Genesis 21:1; 1 Samuel 2:21. 1883 See e.g., Rashi on Deuteronomy 23 :2. 1884 See e.g. Zohar 1:127b and compare with Pardes Rimonim 23:17. 1885 Shiur Qomah, p. 170. 1886 Psalms 65:2. 1887 Or Ne'erav 3:3.

355

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

w”"i

tpx

» ,-in7bx’m ivs1? tepi nxp a m 1? ms ’txi prfonom nx ’napi .[...] n"y

[...] And I arose and looked, and behold, I was facing slightly to the south, my right pointing to R. Elazar’s grave-marker, and my left to Rashbi’s [•••]•

This short excerpt, to which we shall again return later, offers in its context an important glimpse at possible outcomes of such rituals: first, one can suggest with plausible certainty that the ritual itself included D^DX nb’M (supplication in prayer), for he had obviously been lying on the ground with his eyes shut prior to his above exclamation. In Or Yaqar RaMaK clarifies that “He who supplicates in prayer must cover his face as not to see anything, pretending to be dead”.1888 More striking, however, is the suggestion that the spiritual intervention of the deceased Tzadikim now allowed RaMaK to assess anew a hitherto unfathomed relationship between his corporeal situation and the portals within the landscape itself. Moreover, RaMaK may hint here to a spontaneous compulsion which had transpired during the meditation in form of physical movements on the ground; an ecstatic rearrangement which had physically relocated him while still in a subconscious state, and to which the hitherto unaware RaMaK responds with the astounded exclamation “I arose and looked, and behold [...].” It may indeed be that such ecstatic meditations had provoked celestial responses which prompted impulsive movements on the ground, aiming by way of various spiritual intercessions to further synchronize the mystic’s corporeal position with the various portals on the ground. Continuing our analogy of the gerushin as a pre-Modem Global-Positioning-System, the mystic’s body was transformed in such ordeals into a needle moving on a geographical compass in search for optimum alignment to inform theurgic synchronicity. Indeed, RaMaK’s ensuing remarks, “[...] I set forth to negotiate between them [Rashbi and his son] through words of Torah” [n"73 nrrrn ynsnb ’ri’Xi] suggest his self- perception as a medium whose careful positioning in the landscape - namely at the center point between their grave-markers - had featured yet another means to achieve epistemic fluency, exegetical proficiency and theurgic effectiveness. 1888 O r Y a q a r on Z o h a r 2:200b, vol.l 1, p.26. For more details see Sack, B. (1995 a), pp.235-238.

356

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

The pivotal subtlety which informs the transition from metaphysical freedom to theosophical regulations thus affects the theurgical drama governing Sefer Gerushin as well, and demonstrates the intricate dialectic interplay between divine volunteerism on the one hand and its deterministic conformity to human discourse on the other hand. Whereas at face value divine omnipotence and free will remained uncontested on a metaphysical level, the unfolding theurgic processes permeating Sefer Gerushin sustain the deterministic theosophical layout enhanced by the exclusively intimate relationship fostered by the mystics and the Deity. This relationship was not realized solely by the mystics’ desire to achieve superior knowledge and experience of divinity, but was counterbalanced by the midrashic

1 RRO

and especially the Zoharic exilic and redemptive

schemes which had deemed pivotal the desire of divinity to be revealed and affected by men in turn. Given that this concept had not only galvanized RaMaK's spiritual backdrop but was acutely amplified as the byword of any theurgic competence en route to redemptive catharsis, these exilic excursions were rendered the fruition of a mutually abiding contract between divinity and the mystical elite. As seen, RaMaK makes innumerous references to this idea by utilizing the notion “Divinity’s regulatory desire” [mm "pis].1890 The Galilean landscape did not remain therefore merely the stage hosting this drama, but had been transformed into a theatre orchestrating this interplay in adherence to stipulated conventions whose validity had been accepted by all parties involved - moving therefore both downwards and upwards, and reciprocally affecting all constituents en route to a synchronized unity.

1889 See, e.g., M id ra sh R a b b a h on Genesis 19:7, which renders the divinely constructed abode for the Shekhinah tm n n m - “Among humans”. It continues to deem A dam ’s primal Sin and ensuing human transgressions as the reasons behind the withdrawal o f the Shekhinah back into its divine origin, climbing through the sefirotic order further away from men. In that respect, the m ystics’ empathic assistance to the Shekhinah was governed by a desire to reunite with it as in the days preceding the primal Sin. Thus, the female Shekhinah was viewed as simultaneously harboring intimate relations with the male aspects o f d i v i n i t y a n d t h e m a l e b x n t f ’ n03D — t h e a s s e m b l y o f I s r a e l . T h i s v i e w is a c o n c e p t u a l a x i s p e r m e a t i n g T om er D evorah as well: when RaM aK speaks o f “This great evil o f diverting the K ing’s love from the Queen” (chapter 9), he refers to both realms, much like in his description o f “The banishments o f the King from the Queen” in Sefer G erushin, entry 1, p .l. 1890 See, e.g., P ard es R im onim 6:8; 7:3; 8:6,14,20; 16:4; 20:8,10; 23:1,18; 25:3. See especially chapter 8. Compare with Sefer G erushin, entries 73, p.91 and 79, p .102. This element had already been elaborated in Meir ibn G abai’s A vodat ha-K odesh, especially in his arguments with M aimonides’ understanding o f the M itzvot - an essential with ibn Gabbai deems n m i n s . See e.g., A vodat ha-K odesh, part 2, chapters 3 and 16. Cf: Gottlieb, E. (Hacker, J. ed., 1976), pp.29-55; Sack, B. (1995 a), especially pp. 193-229.

357

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Axis Spiritualis: Geography as the Negotiator o f Theosophy and Anthropography

The dramatic role allotted to the Galilean arena in the theurgic drama was also not a new idea per se but the intensification of earlier sentiments regarding the divine properties of particular landscapes.1891 The multilayered superiority of Eretz Yisrael to other lands was well established in the traditional and mystical Jewish psyches,

1 RQ9

as

were its smaller, more intensified circles of sacredness in Jerusalem, Mount Moriah, the Temple[s],1893 the Holy Chamber and the Rock of Foundation.1894 As already mentioned, RaMaK's discussion of the Rock of Foundation features a dual meaning to the word IT’S (Zion), as both the name Tziyon and the property tziyun (a pointer): “Just as the point of P’S (Tziyon / Tziyun) is the point from whence the world entire sprung forth as we know, it is also an axis point in alliance with the Shekhinah [Malkhut]”.m s The earth as a whole [Eretz] was seen as the immediate transition from the end point of Emanation (Malkhut) and the initiatory point of Creation - whereupon the created earth (= lower) was a projection of the emanated earth (= higher / within Malkhut).1896 Correspondingly, and within the qualitative hierarchies setting apart the people of Israel from gentiles and the Torah from their foundational writings, Eretz Yisrael was further •

•

•

•

distinguished from the earth entire as the clearest projection of the Shekhinah

1RQ7

- a

geography whose layout testified most loyally to the inner life of divinity through the mediating agency of the Shekhinah and through the exclusive relationship Eretz Yisrael had with the Torah and the nation of Israel: “It is known that Eretz Yisrael has an intimate association with the Torah just as the heart is intimately associated with [the

1891 See e.g., Babylonian, K id u sh in 69a; H a g ig a h 12b; Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 18; Heikhalot Zutarti (R. E lior’s ed. 1982), pp.29-30. On R. Judah ha-Levi’s attitude to E r e tz Y isra el, see e.g., Altmann, A. (1944), pp.1-17; Rosenberg, S. (1977); Schweid, E. (1970), pp.52-67. On Nachm anides’ approach, see e.g., Hanokh, H. (1978); Rosenberg, S. ibid, p p .158-161; Hoffman, L. A. (1986). 1892 See Sack, B. (1989). On RaM aK ’s take, see ibid (1995 a), especially pp. 199-218. 1893 See e.g., Or Yaqar, vol.5, p.221 and compare with Solomon A lkabetz’ Brit ha-Levi, Chapter 7, pp. 10b -lib . 1894 See M idrash Tankhumah, K e d o sh im 10 and its treatment o f Ezekiel 38:12; Babylonian, Y o m a 53b; Zohar 1:186a - cf: Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, p.362. See also ibid, (1978), pp.60 and 95; Talmon, S. (1976), pp.163-177. 1895 Or Yaqar on Zohar, Lekh Lekha 2:6. 1896 See e.g., Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, pp.269-282; Sack, B. (1989), pp.239-253. 1897 Sack, B. ibid, pp.240-241; Hoffman, L.A. (1986).

358

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

property of] life”, RaMaK states in Or Ne'eravim and establishes in Or Yaqar the premeditated union between Eretz Yisrael and the people of Israel, since “God has given to each nation the land which points to its essence [...] and therefore the land which is a Holy ground [was designated] to a sacred people whose soul, Torah and God are Holy”.1899 In such a manner Eretz Yisrael now became an impending speculum, whereupon the mystic who ‘gazed down’ on it was able to discern by way of ‘re­ projected light’ ("inn ms) the higher mechanisms within its originating Sefirah Malkhut}900 Equally, as B. Sack puts it, “The Zohar viewed divine service within the actual Land of Israel an emulation of God Himself and therefore an act that informs the inner life of divinity”.1901 The above structure had deepened the appreciation of the Galilean landscape in RaMaK's era. Although Jewish tradition may have highlighted what P. Giller calls “The resilient portability of text veneration”,1902 the admiration of a many locus sanctus (as those mentioned in Sefer Gerushin) never ceased to nurture the imaginations of individuals who had engaged them in divine service. Eretz Yisrael had become an arena whose general sanctity gave way to such doorways through which different aspects of God could have been accessed and manipulated - especially grave-markers and sites whose direct association with past sages had harmoniously amalgamated the three fundamental aspects in Jewish discourse: People, Torah and Land; [...] Relic-veneration has always been present in Jewish practice. Even as it declined in some Diaspora cultures, it flourished upon return to the Holy Land. This phenomenon reached its doctrinal peak in the teachings of the Zohar [...] and in the application and refinement of the Zohar’s ideas among the Galilean mystics in sixteenth century Safed.1903 Sefer Gerushin carries these views and practices to a noticeable degree, wherein geography became an indispensable agent between theosophy anthropography. In RaMaK’s world, the property of dust / dirt

[13V]

was synonymous with the property of

1898 Or N e'erav 3:5 1899 Or Yaqar on Zohar, Lekh Lekha 2:6. 1900 On this issue see Scholem, G. (1980), Chapter 8; Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, especially pp.371-388. 1901 Sack, B. (1989), pp.240-241. 1902 Giller, P. (1994), p.148. 1903 Giller, P. ibid.

359

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

shell;1904 a tangible obstacle whose manipulation nonetheless reflected its higher property according to the reversed theurgic apparatus: RaMaK follows the rabbinic views and clarifies that both past and present sages are “Men of the earth”.1905 Likewise, numerous allusions are made to Earth [pN] as Malkhut1906 and to “The Upper Dust which is the Shekhinah”.1907 This view is reiterated and enacted upon in Sefer Gerushin,1908 especially where RaMaK maintains that both the city [Ty] and its forested surroundings [ly1] demonstrate by way o f letter scrambling the two aspects of the Sefirah Malkhut (Shekhinah) - each emitting specific spiritual insights in accordance with its respective higher Sefirot.1909 Given that RaMaK often takes quite literally the mythical configurations of theosophical ailments (particularly those of the Shekhinah),1910 the Galilean backdrop received acute attention for having hosted past and present ‘men of the earth’; for having been the reflection below of “The mysterious Upper Earth which is Shekhinah,,l9U and for having incubated the birthplace of the Zohar. In Sefer Gerushin RaMaK associates the Shekhinah with this familial landscape by deeming it a forest,1912 and continues to explicate the esoteric advantages behind “Sitting in the shade of trees and studying their fruits”.1913 The Galilee had indeed transformed into an arena wherein residual sanctity bridged a breach some fourteen hundred years old. “Sanctity remains forever in any place the Shekhinah has ever dwelled in”, RaMaK states, “as it is written ‘Although they are barren, they still remain in sanctity’1914”1915. Correspondingly, present and past ‘men of the earth’ now became engaged with the hyper spiritual portals within the Galilean backdrop, stimulating the earth into responsive 1904 See e.g., Eilima Rabbati, E in K o l h a -A re tz 1:22 - anTD 7D3P1 DSU rasm D’W in a n m n - “The tangible elements are those whose bodies thickened and were engulfed in dirt upon ascending”. 1905 See e.g., Eilima Rabbati, E in A d a m 6:21; cf: Sack, B. (1995 b), p .183. 1906 See e.g., Eilima Rabbati, E in A d a m 6:13 (manuscript, Jewish Theological Seminary); Cf: Sack, B. (1995 b), p .175. 1907 See e.g., Or Yaqar on Tikkunei ha-Zohar 2:12. 1908 Entries 55, p.66; 65, p.79. 1909 See Sefer Gerushin, entry 63, p.77. Scrambled letters also demonstrated the negotiation o f good vs. evil potencies in the cosmic edifice. Thus, ll?1 demonstrated a distortion o f T l! m uch like m demonstrated a distortion o f w . see Pardes Rimonim 23:14. 1910 See B. Sack’s discussion on this issue, 1995 a, pp.254-258. 1911 See e.g., Or Yaqar on Tikkunei ha-Zohar 2:12. 1912 Sefer Gerushin, entry 63, p.77. 1913 Ibid, p.78. 1914 Babylonian, M e g ila h 28a. 1915 Or Yaqar, Vol.4, p .152. For RaMaK's fuller discussion on this issue, see Sack, B. (1995 b), p p .147160 and Sack, B. (1995 a), pp.258-266.

360

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

orchestration of their ordeals. This act, called “Renewing the earth” as a means to “Renew the heavens” [nratyi f ix ttH7’n]1916 is demonstrated in Rabbi Joseph Karo’s Magid Meisharim, wherein the magid condones Karo’s visit to the grave-markers of Rashbi and his son as an essential step for epistemic progress and spiritual empowerment.1917 This outcome is closely associated with the rejuvenation of the landscape itself; bDi [...] era ninu m ram m y] an ^ b a r a i a’p’tsn rnrab a v ’t^n nrrbrn [...] [...] m ran pp’n nr [...] When [the living] Tzadikim walk and pray in a cave of [deceased] Tzadikim, they are answered and the cave springs forth water [ . . . ] - all of which constitutes the restoration of the cave [...].1918 RaMaK seems to allude to such practices in Sefer Gerushin. His juxtaposition of the verses “Strike the rock and water will issue from it”1919 and “Speak to the rock so it may yield its water”1920 leads him to follow the Zoharic distinction between physical and verbal manipulations of the landscape en route to restoration of theosophical agitations: the former is a more intrusive measure mandatory to subdue the lower shells, for whom “Action is necessary since speech will not eradicate them” [ D17373 "o [...] traa ntPran mpB

73V ‘IDT’ xb]. Conversely, the latter is much more tender a procedure, aiming to appease the K ing’s daughter by “Speech, words and genuine intent, meaning words of appeasement” [’131 noved i r ’m nrai rrraxi 7127 xbx].1921 It seems quite evident therefore that certain rites included physical manipulations of such caves; searching for water beneath the visible surface and perhaps actively extracting it through burrowing or pounding. In Eilima Rabbati, for example, RaMaK speaks of the various ways of cosmic repair, one of which includes the banishment of

1916 See e.g., Eilima Rabbati, Ein Adam 6:14; cf: Sack, B. (1995 b), pp.178-179. 1917 M agid M eisharim (Vilna 1875), p.35b. 1918 These words do not appear in the printed version o f Magid Meisharim, but in Rabbi Gedilia’s colophon to N’run bxiaw m p A’ uruw mb’sn pp’n - see Werblowsky, R.J.Z. (1964), p.251. Cf: Huss, B. (2002 a), p. 128 and fn.27. 1919 Exodus 17:6. 1920 Numbers 20:8. 1921 Sefer Gerushin, entry 20, p.25. Compare with Pardes Rimonim 23:15.

361

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

judgments and shells “Into caverns in the rock and hollows in the ground”.

1922

Although

the use of such metaphors is more abstract there, one cannot dismiss their actual enactment in the more concrete theatre permeating the gerushin. RaMaK's ensuing distinction in Sefer Gerushin between pure and tainted water1923 indeed suggests that such landscape restorations prescribed different measures to elicit the envisioned eruption of fluid. Whereas Pardes Rimonim describes the seeping quality of shells and renders them “Water of bitterness”,1924 Sefer Gerushin complements our understanding by disclosing the esoteric meaning of the verse “He opened a rock so the water gushed forth; it flowed as a stream in the parched land”.1925 According to RaMaK, water extracted by physical measures was compared to HITT (seepage) [□’» "Din]: the emission of a polluted fluid extracted from the rocky orifices of a land in need of consecration, relieving its agony so it may assume its role as axis spiritualis. Conversely, water extracted through prayer and meditation was associated with JTP2J (Tziyot - ships),1926 “Which is spotlessness and cleanliness, corresponding with [the word] yellow” [ ornt> non nvx topn mrrc 'pwba mnsi nrx].1927 In such a manner the Galilean landscape become an essential conduit for epistemic transparency and theurgic aptitude through a myriad of mental and physical engagements - a geography whose relative seclusion and undisturbed character assisted in fostering a drama of tannaitic renaissance in the minds of RaMaK and his contemporaries. Indeed, the association between such past righteous men and RaMaK's immediate world rendered momentous his reliance on the Galilean landscape, for it hosted Rashbi’s circle and allowed brilliant wisdoms to be discovered in the past. Nurturing from the verse “Truth springs up from earth; justice looks down from heaven”,1928 RaMaK develops further the reciprocal mechanisms of light which inform the redeeming flow of theosophical rejuvenation. In order to expose these potencies one needs to perform a

1922 Eilima Rabbati, Ein Ro ’i 4:18, e x p l i c a t i n g I s a i a h 2:19. 1923 Perhaps even the purification o f tainted water by certain mystical measures in accord with the biblical story o f the polluted water which became miraculously drinkable - see Exodus 15:23-25. 1924 Pardes Rimonim 25:7, based on Numbers 5:18-19. 1925 Psalms 105:41. See also Isaiah 48:21. 1926 RaMaK Juxtaposes Psalms 105:41 with 104:25-26 and Proverbs 30:19. See also M idrash Rabba, Deuteronomy 19:26. 1927 Sefer Gerushin, entry 20, p.25. Compare with Pardes Rimonim 10:3. 1928 Psalms 85:12.

362

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

meticulous cartography and synchronize the lower earthly portals with their upper counterparts. Much like the Zohar which theosophically configured the geographical centrality of Israel and depicted Biblical Abraham as measuring the earth through a series of scales [n’^TXM

until pinpointing Eretz Yisrael as the geographical epicenter of

creation,1929 the kabbalists now employed this idea to expose finer epicenters within the Galilean landscape: “Rashbi and his son are delighted by your studying the Zohar in their cave or in a nearby village”, states Joseph Karo’s magid; “should you persist with this practice, profound secrets will be revealed to you - all of which are hinted to in the Zohar yet are not seen until they are illuminated. Then you will recognize the place they hinted to” [OH1?

nipion nx inDft'7 1177’ TNI].1930 These sentiments are demonstrated in RaMaK's

abovementioned striking depiction in Sefer Gerushin, where one sees the indispensability of theographical synchronicity for theurgic competence:

rt'v iv s ’bxatpa j-irjftx ’m tpx1? ’r a p nxp a m 1? p s n xi ’rfo n o m mx Yiapi yurt? v r x n ,[...] 7onn 7xa ’X7i3 x " n [...] m m a xin w""i nan ’3 ’m a x i ,[...] [...] y’-oan n"nn xmty (man nan) n"7a nrprn I arose to look and, behold, I was facing slightly to the south, my right pointing to R. Elazar’s grave-marker, whereas my left to Rashbi’s, peace be upon him [...]. And I said that Rabbi Simeon corresponds with Gevurah [ = theosophical left arm] and Rabbi Elazar surely corresponds with Hesed [ = theosophical right arm] - whereas I was to negotiate between them through words of Torah, which correspond with the negotiating Tif’eret.m i Renewing the earth was thus an act fulfilled through multiple agencies; an act through which its illumination facilities were polished; and an act whose fruition called for a profound engagement with its earthly qualities - the deeper one could dig in search of these qualities, the finer one could have turned its abilities to affect the rungs on high. In Or Yaqar's discussion of the Exodus from Egypt RaMaK clarifies the necessity to descend in order to ascend; “They descended further and further - Israel and the Shekhinah with them [...], until the Blessed One redeemed them and the Shekhinah came 1929 See Liebes, J. (1982 - Dissertation), p.330; Sack, B. (1989), pp.244-245; ibid (1995 a), chapter 14; Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, pp.63-64. On this issue in rabbinic literature see also Talmon, S. (1976). 1930 M agid M eisharim (Vilna 1875), p,108a. 1931 Entries 17 and 18, p.20.

363

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

out from the depths, the shells gave in and Israel merited by receiving the Torah”.

1932

Equally, with the aid of deceased Tzadikim whose qualities included their existence as ‘reflective mirrors’, the lower earth now transformed into the quintessential torch through which the reflective light affects heavenly realms - “It is the light which turns upward [1933"inn UK / -pnnttn

t in ]

and rejoins its [proper] place [...]”, wherein in turn the light

now “Illuminates from within the [upper] earth unto the Tiferet and [vice versa]”.1934 The unification of the lower Eretz Yisrael with its higher counterpart thus blurred the lines between physical and spiritual cartography; between geography, anthropography and theography: a landscape whose residual sanctity has bow been awakened as a cradle for the quintessential protagonists of the Zohar, the Galilean qualities played an essential role in orchestrating the dramatic exchange needed for the fruition of the gerushin.

Conclusion

Considering the noticeable role the gerushin have had for the perpetuation of advanced esoteric learning, intuitive discourse and theurgic competence among RaMaK's cohort, one cannot but wonder why Sefer Gerushin features excursions from 1548, lies silent for three years and surfaces again in 1551 only to completely vanish from view in the ensuing years. Given the awesome theosophical weight ascribed to these excursions and the obviously continuous longing for messianic advent long past 1551, one may ponder whether David ibn Hin’s arrangement which is visible to modem scholarship is fragmentary at best -

a possibility corroborated by its abrupt ending.1935 This

notwithstanding, it is nonetheless possible that RaMaK never saw his notes to conclusion, leaving them in the crude form which had ultimately arrived at the desk of ibn Hin in Venice some 50 years later. One may indeed hypothesize whether other obstructions had hindered the consecutive execution of the gerushin: diseases, epidemics and other natural calamities. These reasons seem, however, quite implausible, given that mystical and 1932 Or Yaqar, vol.7, p.49. 1933 Sefer Gerushin, entry 65, pp.79-80 and compare with his designation "|3nna nmn [an upward seal] in

entry 98, p. 134. 1934 Sefer Gerushin, entries 65, pp.79-80; 1935 The concluding word [ended and completed, praise be given to the Creator o f the Universe] is obviously by David ibn Hin. M. Benayahu has already pointed to the seemingly unfinished nature o f the gerushin in ibid (1991), p.225.

364

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

halakhic vitality did not cease in mid 16th century Safed even when earthquakes, epidemics, diseases and other predicaments went rampant. In any event, none of these calamities lasted as long as to explain either the three years gap in Sefer Gerushin itself or its puzzling hitherto discontinuation. Another possibility is socio-religious restrictions or even priority shifts of the fellowship itself, especially given that it discontinued its joint excursions after 1548. Perhaps RaMaK's own gradual ascendance to prominence and the stricter demands on his time in form o f broader compositions, greater communal commitments and expansive pedagogic requisites had set his focus on other venues of mystical advancement. Be that as it may, RaMaK's existing writings fail to mention even by inference any such excursions past 1551. Although the incomplete layout of Sefer Gerushin is not sufficient a reason to rule out the enactment of gerushin after 1551, it nonetheless presents a compelling view regarding the fluidity and the changing nature of mystical piety among the Safed kabbalists. In that respect, the subtle communication of this short piece may balance a tendency to look for consistency and clear techniques in the devotional execution of mystical teachings. For all intents and purposes it may be that the incomplete nature of Sefer Gerushin tells more of the experimental, transitory and temporary nature of certain devotional rites - a story of a community whose desire to pinpoint the ways toward epistemic transparency and theurgic competence had led it in various directions at different times. Such ambiguities, as many others which remain stored as of yet, surely warrant further inquiries into the evolution of this short, fascinating work.

365

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Chapter 5 THE TANGO OF THE TANGLED - RAMAK’S METAPHYSICAL COSMOLOGY Our age is proud o f the progress it has made in m an’s intellectual development. The search and striving for truth and knowledge is one o f the highest o f m an’s qualities - though often the pride is most loudly voiced by those who strive the least. And certainly we should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, o f course, powerful muscles, but no personality [...], it has a sharp eye for methods and tools, but is blind to ends and values. Albert Einstein, On Humanism

RaMaK's conceptual skeleton is indeed no small challenge to unpack, and his approach to metaphysics and theosophy warrants somewhat extensive contextualization. We shall therefore start this chapter with an exemplary text from RaMaK's Or Ne'erav, which aimed to edify Kabbalah novices and which is appropriate for audiences not necessarily conversant with philosophical or mystical speculative terminologies.

First of all, [the beginner] must know that the Creator, EinSof is one and has no second. He is the cause of Causes and the Prime Mover. He is not one in the numerical sense, for [the concept of] mutation and form and multiplicity do not apply to Him. [One] is rather a word utilized by way of parable and likeness, since the number one stands by itself and is the beginning of each number, [all numbers] being contained within it in potential, while it is a part of every number in actuality. When we call the Creator, may He be blessed, One, it is in this manner: that the Creator, may He be blessed, is in all things by actuality, while all things are in Him by potentiality. He is the beginning and cause of all things. In this way they [sages, philosophers and mystics] ascribed to the Creator, may He be blessed, unity, without change by addition or subtraction, similar to the [number] one. [They found] also that He is the necessary cause of being, just as [number] one is necessary for all numbers, for no number can exist save by it. He is not a number, [however], since the elimination of the number eliminates all other

366

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

numbers but cannot eliminate the oneness in itself - and that is the potentiality / potency o f One [7nxn ro nn].1936 Needless to say, this is quite a multilayered text whose associations with Aristotelianism, Neoplatonism and traditional Judaism are quite evident even at the outset. It points to RaMaK's view of cause and effect, or potentialities and actualities, as part of the divine revelatory mechanism; to his views regarding divine metaphysical unity vs. theosophical [seeming] plurality; to the geometrical and mathematical relations between all numbers and the meta-numerical property of ‘One’; and it raises questions regarding what seems to be RaMaK’s acceptance of certain truths devoid of inquiry such as divine existence. Indeed, this text nails many of the ideas that constitute RaMaK's theoretical edifice and we shall revisit it later, once the necessary broader discussion affords a better view of his investigatory rationale and a fuller engagement with his intellectual contentions. Any reader who takes the time and makes the effort to study RaMaK seriously is bound to be struck by his aptitude in abstract thought. O f the many contributions his writings had made to Jewish mystical discourse, few arguably rival his ability to address various metaphysical models and apply them en route to clarifying the highest realms of divinity. It is therefore quite natural to find arresting difficulties in his system as well; junctures wherein the spiritual yearning to believe and the theistic charge to act upon belief could neither rely on epistemic clarity nor adhere to lucid vocabularies and rational discourse. At the end of the day, as we shall see, RaMaK acknowledged and celebrated God precisely for the enigmatic being God had always been; Despite our inability to comprehend how the various forms of knowledge unify [in Him], we should neither let it disturb our thought nor bother our mind [...]; for this pertains as well to His wondrous unity and to His transcendence beyond any comprehension; and our feeble mind cannot fathom a mind so infinite at all - only that He exists as One!1937 Yet this form of belief was not to deter men from pursuing the divine domains to the degree humanly possible. And the stage upon which RaMaK wished to enact this 1936 Or Ne'erav 6:1; in I. Robinson (1994), p .l 11 with some modifications. 1937 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l ha-Aretz 1:6.

367

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

dramatic investigation was quite expansive. His diligence in confronting such perplexing axis points within divinity demonstrates, on the one hand, the mind’s perpetual desire to articulate and to organize the seemingly chaotic fafade of discernible reality - the blessed teleological irritation called ‘curiosity’, hardwired into the human condition and which affords no relief till nestled comfortably within intellectual grasp. On the other hand, such momentous occurrences were precisely the impetus for favoring the mystical path over intellectual inquiries in RaMaK's systematic approach - the divine realms for which our minds and modes of skeptical deduction were simply irrelevant and called for supplementary epistemic venues. The meeting and integration of such varying epistemic potencies was indeed RaMaK's favored road; the attempt to bridge rather than breach - to converge the sum of human faculties en route to God. J. Ben-Shlomo’s book (1965) is indispensible to anyone interested in further unpacking RaMaK's complex metaphysical cosmology, as it charted the initial path to enter RaMaK's conceptual ‘orchard’ and emerge unscathed. J. Ben-Shlomo has done admirable work in articulating both RaMaK's major theoretical building-blocks and the numerous difficulties he had faced in their attempted integration within a cohesive mystical speculative edifice. Ben-Shlomo’s own philosophical acumen has proven vital to effectively scope RaMaK's theoretical landscape and to contextualize its mystical configurations in junction with Aristotelian, Neoplatonic and Theistic doctrines. As this chapter aims to further unpack and carry forward our understanding of RaMaK's speculative slant, readers will surely find consulting Ben-Shlomo’s work instructive, either in full or at the very least via the footnotes afforded in this work.

368

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Watch Your Head The contradiction [that] permeates kabbalistic literature is the hidden tension between its most important topics and the inability to convey them in full G. Scholem, Zehn Unhistorische Satze uber K abbalah.1938

RaMaK rendered the world a complex scheme governed by a divinity waiting to be riddled out by men. The human condition, of course, was not only part and parcel of this regulatory governance, but a microcosm of intricately played-out properties waiting to be realized as a means for wholesome cosmic orchestration. That in mind, the negotiation of the human condition was the perpetual to and fro movement between grandeur and humility; between the intimately felt association with divinity on the one hand, and the deep-seated sense of insufficiency in its attainment on the other hand.1939 In other words, one’s dramatically-felt view of self as part of God above [bytift mbs p^n] was counteracted by the recognition of one’s equally arresting deficiency as being only part of God above [to ft n to pbn]. “What is man in nature?” Blaise Pascal asked, “Nothing in relation to the infinite, everything in relation to nothing, a mean between nothing and everything”.1940 RaMaK's adherence to the hierarchical scheme wherein Jews ranked exclusively high within divinity had obviously amplified the nature and repercussions of this tension, whereas his metaphysical approach to God yields an epistemic stance which articulates it quite clearly: the wisest among men are those whose properties lead to necessitate the absolutely unified existence of God and henceforth relinquish its attainment! This view had been woven into the annals of medieval Jewish rational doctrines from which RaMaK had nourished, and is visible for example in Maimonides’ Guide fo r the Perplexed and in Joseph Albo’s Sefer ha-Ikarim. “There is no manner to attain God’s true essence”, Maimonides claims, “for one can only realize that the essence necessarily exists, and that one cannot fathom save that He is1941 and that apprehension of Him is the exhaustion of our ability to apprehend Him” [ mftft nsiftm iftSV nn’ftN ruttTQ ntonn fW iraiz/n r r t o f t n t o n te n ira n/na n

,Nin Nbx Nin nft vvr Nbi , t o Nxftna/ ton ton la n ftn -in to ].1942

1938 (195 8), p.214. 1939 See on this issue Scholem, G. (1980), pp.87-88. 1940 Pascal, B. (1620), Penesees, chapter 3. 1941 See RaMaK's identical rendition is Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Artz 1:3. 1942 Guide 1:59 - translation by the author. See also Sefer ha-Yashar, gate 3, p.27.

369

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Joseph Albo sums it up quite succinctly - “The essence of knowing You is [to realize] we cannot know You” ["[in]

- *p I77]t£> nn nPDn].1943 This tension also regulates the

negotiations between attainment and expression, as seen in Maimonides’ introduction to the Guide: Know that whenever one of the perfect wishes to mention, either orally or in writing, something that he understands of these secrets, according to the degree of his perfections, he is unable to explain with complete clarity and coherence even the portion that he has apprehended, as he could do with other sciences whose teaching is generally recognized. Rather, there will befall him when teaching another that which he had undergone when learning himself. I mean to say that the subject matter will appear, flash, and then be hidden again, as though this were the nature of this subject matter.1944 RaMaK structures an identical epistemological skeleton which amalgamates the mythical and the rational; the book of Yetzirah,1945 the Zohar1946 and the Maimonidean path: “Let your mind attain the necessity of His existence and immediately retract; for contemplating any further means to think of God in essence, and [this is an impossible feat since] the mind confines and reifies. You should therefore unleash the mind only to harness it prudently henceforth, allowing it to necessitate His essence and forbidding it from trying to fathom Him”.1947 The Maimonidean stance also echoes in RaMaK's words regarding the attainment and propagation of esoteric wisdoms: such free divine gifts1948 were grasped solely “In a flash” [punn ntoab]1949 and one should therefore “Investigate

1943 Sefer ha-Ikarim 2:30. 1 Q44 Maimonides, G uide 1:57. See also Matt, D.C. (trans., 1983), pp.31-32, 37. 1945 Sefer Yetzirah 1:48. This work was rendered by D. Neumark (1921, v o l.l, p .168) “The book which features as the source o f [Jewish] Kabbalah and Philosophy alike”. G. Scholem rendered it “The earliest contemplative text left to us [...]; a semi-philosophical attempt to explain reality [...]; an authoritative source for both medieval rational philosophers and Kabbalists [...]” - see Schatz, R. (ed., 1962), p. 17; Scholem, G. (1980), pp.91-92 and for further discussion ibid, pp.38-39, 57-62. Y. Liebes has taken a different approach, according to which “The scientific- cosmologic system [...] is not the impetus behind the book but rather a necessary preface to illuminate its true spiritual nature” - see ibid (2000), pp.8-11 and for further discussion chapter 14, pp.94-104. 1946 See Zohar 1:1b. 1947 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:10. This work, which is RaMaK's conceptual tour deforce, starts from the metaphysical premises established by Maimonides. RaMaK's Shiur Qomah was also highly indebted in its layout to M aim onies’ Guide. See also Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp.23-24. 1948 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:16. 1949 Ezekiel 1:14 and see Sefer Yetzirah 1:6 and RaMaK's Perush le-Sefer Yetzirah.

370

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

these matters to and fro [mim Nimn] [...]; and he to whom such matters are revealed should not speak of them, for the heart does not disclose such wisdoms to the mouth”.1950 God’s enigmatic aseity is the metaphysical spine in RaMaK's system, unfolding as a dialectical implosive-explosion; the inward-outward interplay which informs the reciprocal circularity embedded in the divine apparatus as “Revelation is the cause of concealment and concealment is the cause of revelation”.1951 The epistemic property of men was thus also governed by the dialectic negotiation of human splendor and inadequacy - it attains God as “A wondrous necessity” [xbm urn],1952 the meta­ intellectual outcome of a mind so rigorous and honest as to lead men toward the threshold of God and henceforth relinquish its authority in His pursuit; “Carrying us into zones of speculation,” as R.L. Stevenson once put it, “where there is no habitable city for the mind of man”.1953 This realization is in itself a chief proponent of the modesty required for optimal spiritual ascent. “Modesty is superior to them all”, RaMaK instructs Kabbalah novices; “[The student] should say ‘Who am I? What is my life that I should pursue the mysteries of the divine Torah, which the Holy One, blessed be He, has hidden from flesh and blood?’”.1954 Hidden as they may be, RaMaK had devoted his entire life towards their attainment, articulation and accessibility to minds either as astute or less astute than his. To this end RaMaK regarded all the faculties allotted to him as vital players in the cosmic game, either by divine regulation [mm Tm ] or by divine grace [am mntt] which was afforded only to those most dramatically involved in its welfare: as a human, a man, a Jew and a mystic, RaMaK sought to enlist particular intellectual inquiries, specific masculine potencies, exclusive Jewish endowments and hyper spiritual meridians in order to meet God and assist in the aspired cosmic repair. His world was a web of correlating properties awaiting their correct assignment and adequate manipulation, not a world breached by scholastic partisanship and clear-cut dichotomies between schools of thought. It is therefore important to contextualize this world as a means to afford RaMaK greater leeway in the scholarly domain. As E. Wolfson observed, “Jewish mysticism is 1950 Shiur Qomah, pp.29-30; cf: Horodetzky, S.A. (1924, Heb., 1951), pp.28-29. 1951 See also Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), p.39. 1952 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l ha-Aretz 1:3. 1953 Although he speaks o f scientific inquiry; see Stevenson, R.L. (1892), chapter 11. 1954 Or Ne'erav 3:2.

371

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

not a monolith that can easily be defined or characterized. On the contrary, a plethora of different intellectual currents have converged to give shape to mystical trends within Judaism.”1955 I. Tishby also argued in favor of what one may call ‘scholarly multilingualism’ in our approach to mystical doctrines, criticizing scholarship that imposes certain dichotomies between the mythical and the speculative in mystical discourse: Although when compared to philosophy [...] Kabbalah may be rendered primarily mythical, the examination of its spiritual layout and evolutionary motives support the claim that both the [mythical-symbolic] corporeal as well as the [abstract-speculative] ethereal are legitimate and equally valid ways, and only their interplay and contradicting pulls may present the full spirit of Kabbalah in all its complexity and convolution. Indeed, the unity of Kabbalah as a doctrine and as a movement is not that of a unified and solidified entity, but rather that of a unified multilayered [attempt] to bond many aspects and contradictions.1956 Such contentions have already been attended to in scholarship to various degrees,1957 and further substantiate the need to stretch the canvas upon which RaMaK’s speculation should be appreciated. Cordoeiro was indeed the sort of versatile personality which refuses the disciplinary rubrics associated with his work by some scholars. His staunch adherence to the mystical path notwithstanding, RaMaK's profound appreciation of the rational property indeed leads him to ponder over the challenges faced by mythical configurations when metaphysical concerns are at stake. Indeed, RaMaK's writings especially Pardes Rimonim, Or Ne'erav, Shiur Qomah and Eilima Rabbati - feature in their overall layout the mystical rendition to Maimonides Guide fo r the Perplexed. Similarly, whereas RaMaK's treatment of certain abstracts aims to intimately coexist with the symbolic language of the Zoharic protagonists, he is nevertheless aware of the Zoharic general disinterest in metaphysics in favor of theosophy. It is therefore the theosophical which primarily presents RaMaK's deep reverence to the Zohar and its

1955 In Frank, D.H and Leaman, O. (eds., 1997), p.450. 1956 Tishby, I. (1964), p.25. 1957 See e.g., Guttman, J. (1951); Cohen, H. (1960); Vajda, G. (1962); Tishby, I. (1964), (1982); Schweid, E. (1970); Twersky, I. in Cooperman, B.D. (ed., 1983); Werblowsky, R.J.Z. in Green, A. (ed., 1987); Altmann, A. (Ivry, I. ed., 1991); Goodman, L.E. (ed., 1992); Arieli, N. (1995); Wolfson, E. in Frank, D.H and Leaman, O. (eds., 1997); Roth, L. (1999).

372

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

vocabularies, whereas the metaphysical leads him more tellingly toward rational speculation and semi-technical terminologies - albeit always for the vindication of the mystical path. RJ.Z. Werblowsky has meditated along these general lines, furnishing a good synopsis of potential difficulties that may surface from imposed scholarly dichotomies regarding the origins of Jewish mystical discourse: A further difficulty is introduced by the necessity of dividing, or rather chopping up, an integral subject (in casu Jewish spirituality) into more detailed topics. It is almost impossible to separate a discussion of the contemplative ideal from that of the ‘love of God’, or to detach a consideration of the techniques of spiritual attainment from a consideration of psychological issues. Every religious system has its “anthropology”, that is, its doctrines concerning the nature of humanity for example - the origin and essence of the soul [...], its relation to ‘reason’, namely the ‘rational faculty’ or ‘intellectual soul’ on the one hand, and to the body on the other, the location of the ‘lower’ passions and of the tendency to sin and evil etc. Many ethical and especially mystical systems, in keeping with their meditative and at time their introspective character, tend to elaborate the psychological aspects of their anthropology. Similarly, psychological and cosmological doctrines are closely interrelated, since traditional imagery often uses a spatial idiom, speaking, for example, of the ‘descent’ or even ‘fall’ of the soul [...], as well as of its subsequent ecstatic or meditative ascent. This holds true of Jewish, both kabbalistic and non-kabbalistic, as well as many non-Jewish systems in the East and in the West.1958 Although surely not devoid of perplexing difficulties, RaMaK's true genius arguably lies in his attempts to combine these doctrines into a cohesive system whose multiple terminologies sustain, rather than challenge each other. Despite his professed claims regarding mystical superiority and the distinction between “The philosophers’ ways and ours”,1959 his unswerving synthesis of the theosophical scheme within the metaphysical imperative not only allows both a seat of honor in his works but necessitates their reciprocal associations in order to unpack his system. RaMaK’s approach was far removed from such kabbalistic compositions as the 15th century Sefer ha-Peli’ah or Sefer

iy5S In Green, A. (ed., 1987), p.8. 1959 RaMaK's approach to philosophy has already been given considerable attention by J. Ben-Shlomo. See ibid 1962 and 1965, especially pp.23-25. RaMaK's Eilima Rabbati starts by maneuvering between the obvious contributions o f rational inquiry and their ultimate inadequacy in comparison to the mystical path, that which harnesses meta-rational venues for edification.

373

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

ha-Qanah which, as E.K. Ginsburg observed, “Left no room for either a literalist or a philosophical stance”1960; nor did he embrace the radical sort of mystical enthusiasm to whom philosophy was - as Shem Tov b. Shem Tov (ca. 1400) put it in his Sefer haEmunot - “A terrible misfortune for the people of Israel, [which] leads to apostasy and atheism”.1961 Shem Tov may have been for all intents and purposes a radical enthusiast, and G. Vajda’s work,1962 for example, has convincingly demonstrated the versatile integration of philosophical and mystical doctrines during the 13th- 14th centuries. Indeed, G. Scholem’s groundbreaking work on mysticism notwithstanding, his somewhat simplified dichotomies between mythical and philosophical doctrines in kabbalistic evolution has raised apt criticism by later scholarship. In E.R. Wolfson’s words,

Despite the fact that Scholem was keenly aware of the textual, philosophical and historical influence of philosophical authors on Jewish mystics in the Middle Ages, he dichotomized the intellectual currents of mysticism and philosophy in too simplistic a fashion. [...] The bifurcation of mysticism and philosophy led Scholem to such distinctions as symbol vs. allegory that break down under the weight of textual detail. Ironically, in his attempt to legitimate the mystical vitality of Judaism, Scholem reiterates the overly simplistic distinction between rationalistic philosophy and pietistic mysticism in the Jewish Middle Ages. As an alternative to Scholem a number of scholars, including, most significantly, George Vajda and Alexander Altman, presented a far more complex picture of the relationship of philosophy and mysticism by demonstrating in a number of motif studies that the philosophers and mystics utilized similar images and were influenced by the same sources. More recent scholarship has gone beyond the comparativist framework of Vajda and Altman by arguing that in the lived situation of the medieval philosophers the influence of mystical speculation is clearly discernible. [... Therefore] it is impossible to disentangle the threads of philosophy and mysticism when examining the texture of medieval Jewish mysticism in any of its major expressions. This entanglement is both historical and ideational.1963 Truth be told, G. Scholem had recognized Vajda’s contributions on this front and described his book as “A study [that] sheds a great deal of light upon many currents and 1960 Ginsburg, E.K. (1989), p.22. On Anti-Rationalist tendencies in 16th century Italy, see also Barzilay, I.E. (1968). 1961 Ibid, pp.22, 51 fn.66. RaM aK refers to him in a couple o f places; see e.g., Pardes Rimonim 6:6. 1962 Vajda, G. (1962). 1963 Wolfson, E. R. in Frank, D.H. and Leaman, O. (eds., 1997), pp.452-453. See also Schweid, E. (1983 Eng. 1985).

374

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

figures in whom the philosophic and kabbalistic tendencies meet, unite, or enter into controversy between 1270-1370”.1964 But G. Scholem’s approach was also criticized from the other side of the mythical-philosophical spectrum, namely in the later scholarly attempts to amplify the mythical and symbolic configurations permeating mystical doctrines. The following are Y. Liebes’ words: “I am a disciple of Scholem, but I have attempted to break further ground. Scholem did carve out a space for myth within Judaism, but restricted it to a specific, defined realm, opposed to ‘ordinary’ Judaism; whereas [...] I try to show that Jewish myth spans far beyond the ‘ghetto’ to which it has been confined. The chief uniqueness of Kabbalah is not in its mythologoumena, in and by themselves, but in the form and in the patterns of thought in which they were expressed”.1965 That in mind, we should also be careful when ascribing brute and uncompromising rationalism to the Jewish rendition of any so-called philosophical inquiry. Moreover, the designation ‘philosophy’ rings quite differently when viewed as an evolving discipline and when its various protagonists are measured in historical and intellectual contexts. As D.H. Frank rightfully observes, To ask, than, about the nature of Jewish philosophy is to position oneself in a certain historical framework, one n which there is the felt need to establish a boundary, a marker whereby the definiendum gains legitimacy. Again, to ask about the nature of Jewish philosophy is to accede to a certain characterization of thinkers, ideas and texts. And this may, of course, be a false characterization, false in the sense that it is insufficiently attentive to the historical context in which the grouped thinkers and their ideas were originally nested.1966 Can ‘philosophy’ therefore be used as a canopy for intellectual history and afford its title equally to all engaged in metaphysical questions? Can we truly call Sa’adia Gaon or Maimonides ‘Jewish Philosophers’ when scrutinized by the intellectual and religious climates shaping Spinoza’s approach? Sa’adia Gaon’s preface to Sefer Emunot ve-De’ot is a clearly theistic affirmation of a God “Who is the only absolute truth and who

1964 Scholem, G. (1987), p.10, fn.9. 1965 Liebes, Y. (1993 b), introduction, p.vii. 1966 Frank, D.H. in ibid and Leaman, O. (eds., 1997), pp.4-5.

375

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

demonstrates for men their existence in utter truth.”1967 Sa’adia Gaon was quite indebted to intellectual inquiry and {unlike RaMaK) regarded it a potential tool to achieve the highest divine realms allotted to humanity. Nevertheless, his work vindicates the supremacy of revelation over intellectual inquiry, the latter being viewed as a unique epistemic short-cut afforded to Israel by God. Revelation was a truth from heaven and therefore a property galvanized by divine infallibility rather than one reliant upon human intellectual fluctuations1968 - a theistic doctrine now integrating philosophical discourse in order to vindicate its own circular raison d’etre. As N. Arieli puts it, “Revelation allows [Sa’adia] to inquire philosophically over matters whose truth had already been established”1969; arguably the additional ‘proof for a known truth rather than the search for an unknown truth. This kind of “Double-Belief’1970 or “Philosophy of Integration”1971 has fashioned the attempts to fortify theistic Judaism by models of inquiry and terminology which not always existed in wholesome accord with its traditional tenets. Such approaches - rendered by D. Schwartz “Premeditated and biased”1972 understandably raise questions regarding intellectual applications over matters which in traditional discourse neither originated in the intellect nor were articulated in intellectual vocabularies, namely revelation via Torah. “Jewish philosophy not only remained loyal to tradition but viewed its tenets the foundation for its own postulations”, notes N. Arieli; “Only upon agreeing with tradition was this science afforded its articulation in rational means”.1973 Early and medieval Jewish philosophy had never been a free intellectual inspection of divinity derived from unassuming postulations. Rather, it was the attempt to rationally vindicate theological beliefs whose apriori stand had never been disputed.1974 In that regard J. Guttmann’s observation remains apt today, “The Jewish nation has not reached philosophical discourse from within itself. It received it from outside sources, wherein its

1967 Preface, 1:1. 1968 Ibid, 1:1; 1:6; 3:7. On this issue see also Guttmann, J. (1951), pp.63-64; Schwartz, D. (2001), pp.25-26; Arieli, N. (1995), p p .12-13. 1969 Ibid, p.26. 1970 Wolfson, H.A. (1978), pp. 196-203. 1971 Arieli, N. ibid, p p .12-13. 1972 Schwartz, D. ibid, pp.34-35. 1973 Arieli, N. ibid, p. 19. On this issue see also Samuelson, N.M. (2003). 1974 See also Ravitzki, A. (1981).

376

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Jewish historical rendition consists of such foreign paradigms and their assimilation into new perceptions of Judaism”.1975 L. Roth’s additional meditations in this vein are indeed far more valuable than those he had offered on Jewish Mysticism, as we shall soon witness: “[...] Even when we speak of the history of philosophy among the Jews, we are not really considering a series of attempts to rethink fundamentals in general and to give freely the results arrived at. We have, rather, the restricted interests commonly covered by religion and in particular by historical Judaism, as a series of attempts to work out, in the light of specific historical data, its basis and presuppositions [...]. [Maimonides’] originality consisted not in his philosophy, which was that of Aristotle (or rather, of the Arabized Aristotle), but in what resulted when he applied his Aristotelianism to Judaism”1976 - a Judaism whose theistic postulations, at least on the professed level, were ultimately vindicated to boot. Likewise, can we call Spinoza ‘a Jewish Philosopher’ when viewed from the particular climates, perspectives and intellectual objectives of medieval Jewish thinkers? Can we consider ‘Jewish’ the philosophical treatise Mekor Hayim by Solomon ibn Gabirol once compared to such medieval works?1977 J. Guttmann’s assessments of Spinoza’s system point to the challenges the term ‘philosophy’ might raise within the unique demands of Jewish contextualization: although his introduction views Spinoza’s worldview as “Influenced to a great degree by the Aristotelian and Neoplatonic foundation which had shaped Jewish philosophy”, his conclusion is nevertheless more poignant in maintaining that “Spinoza’s system has no room in the Jewish philosophical annals but rather should be seen as the product of neo-European thought; [Spinoza’s] influence [therefore] resides entirely beyond the Jewish spectrum and finds its seat only within modem philosophy”.1978 Such debates are obviously far from resolved and we find numerous scholars whose interest revolved around mitigating Guttmann’s conclusion and finding in Spinoza’s system some encrypted affinities to Judaism - even mystical

1975 Guttmann, J. (1951), p .9. on this issue see also Harvey, Z. (1988); Frank, D.H. in ibid and Leaman O. (eds., 1997), pp. 1-9. 1976 Roth, L. (1999), pp.5-6. 1977 See also Scholem, G. (1998 b), pp.39-66. 1978 Guttmann, J. ibid, pp.241-258.

377

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Judaism!1979 Although from a different vantage point, ibn Gabirol’s Mekor Hayim also raises serious questions inasmuch as being considered Jewish Philosophy, for in and of itself this work - whose tribulations within the medieval Muslim and Christian worlds until its final identification as the work of a Jew is a fascinating story in its own right1980 does not even attempt to reconcile intellectual inquiry with the particular questions of Jewish theistic discourse. J. Guttmann had postulated that this work vanished from the Jewish intellectual lens for having been both “A Neoplatonic work in an era that favored Aristotelianism [and a composition which] does not address at all the philosophicalreligious questions in their unique [= Jewish] meaning”.1981 Although one may argue with the view of Mekor Hayim as strictly Neoplatonic, Guttmann’s articulation of the reasons behind its long-lasting obscurity in the Jewish domain nevertheless remains apt.1982 The Jewish theistic view of communal revelation was another noteworthy theistic point which had differentiated Judaism from any other monotheistic constitution. Here, too, the individual teleology which stood at the base of Aristotelian philosophy could not have gone devoid of fierce scrutiny. “Sinai was an experience of the entire people”, notes A. Green; “a communal transformation, rather than that of an individual. [...] Our religious language is that of community; it is we who stand before You, we who have sinned and so forth. To live in faith with Sinai is to love and embrace the entire Jewish people. It is also to seek and build [a] community, a grouping of like-thinking and likeliving Jews, whose collectivity will serve as a bridge between the individual and klal

1979 See e.g., Amado-Levi-Valensi, E. (1962); Popkin, R. in Goodman, L.E (ed., 1992), pp.387-410; Brykman, G. (1994). A much more serious treatment - one which acknowledges the impact o f Hebrew texts on Spinoza without over-inflating his subsequent Jewish affinities - is Wolfson, H.A. (1934). Another solid contextualization, albeit short, is in Mason, R. (1997), p p .1-17. E.M. Curley, who is a world renowned authority on Spinoza, virtually does not address this aspect. 1980 The Latin copy (Fons Vitae) was written during the 12th century by Johannes Hispalenus and Dominicus Gundissalinus. Ibn Gabirol’s name had been distorted as Avicembron or Avicebrol and he was considered as either M uslim or Christian. Rabbi Shem-Tov Farlquera’s (1225-1290) Likkutim mi-Sefer Mekor Hayim assembled a few excerpts from the supposedly Hebrew original. Mekor Hayim is mentioned in Arugat ha-Bosem by Moshe Ibn Ezra and in Olam Katan by Joseph Ibn Tzadik. Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra was also influenced by it - see Scholem, G. (1998 b); Schwartz, D. (2002), pp.42-43. Makor Hayim seems to have also been a major influence on the speculative Kabbalist Rabbi Isaac Ibn Latif, especially in his works Sefer Turat ha-Olam and Ginzei ha-Melekh - see Heller-Wilensky, S.O in Altmann, A. (ed., 1967), pp.200-210. See also W ijnhoven, J. (1965). It was only in the 19th century that the French scholar L. M unk identified this piece as belonging to the Jewish poet [and ? philosopher] Solomon Ibn Gabirol. See also Scholem, G. (1998 b), pp.39-66. 1981 Guttmann, J. ibid, p .88. 1982 J. Ben-Shlomo had also addressed this important question in his courses on Jewish Philosophy.

378

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Yisra’el, the whole Jewish people.” 1983 Consequently, H.A. Wolfson maintains, “The Jewish philosophers had relied on national agreement, the outcome of a tradition which regarded the revelation at Sinai a national affaire”.1984 We have already discussed the role this particular element had played in RaMaK's own system and the intricate negotiation of individual uniqueness and communal accountability for the fruition of his cosmological objectives. His view ultimately differed from doctrines in which personal teleology played a chief impetus, be it Aristotelian or Sufi; radical elitism of the mind or obsessive seclusion from public view. The picture we tried to demonstrate thus far is one of multiple attractions and detractions in continuous negotiation; a manifold relationship between the pulls of intellect, tradition, spiritualism and the languages most suitable for their articulation thereof. To some, the rational path was the teleological imperative. To others - surely among speculative mystics with RaMaK at the front - it had been neither an organized discipline within a well-defined literary genre1985 nor the chief epistemological vernacular in the pursuit of divinity. Rather, it was a tool to either vindicate or to push forward elements otherwise doomed to obscurity. E.K. Ginsburg’s observations compliment these meditations There were also [during the fourteenth century] several notable attempts to combine philosophy, both Aristotelian and neo-Platonic, with Kabbalah. These systematic efforts took place over a rather wide intellectual spectrum; some thinkers tended more towards philosophy, whereas others concentrated more heavily on the Kabbalistic side. In sundry ways these philosopher-Kabbalists sought to correlate the doctrine of the ten sefirot with the neo-Platonic conception of the Cosmic Soul and the Aristotelian theory of Separate Intelligences; some were moved to reread Maimonidean philosophy in a mystical vein [...]. As the fourteenth century drew to a close, Kabbalah was exerting increasing influence upon exoteric Judaism, especially in Spain. [...] On another front, Kabbalistic symbolism was increasingly absorbed into the semi-rationalist philosophies of the

1983 Green, A. (2003), p. 136. 1984 Wolfson, H.A. (1978), p .l 19. 1985 As G. Scholem observed in regard to medieval Kabbalists, for example, “Thefir] use o f Ibn Gabirol is exclusively literary, betraying no trace o f conceptual influence; they made a similar use o f Judah ha-Levi, Maimonides, and the liturgical prayers” - see ibid (1998 b).

379

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

day, e.g., in the writings of Hasdai Crescas, Joseph Albo and Shimon [Tzemakh] Duran.1986 RaMaK had continued this tendency and impressively absorbed the potential thrust of intellectual inquiry into mystical discourse. Correspondingly, he was truly a figure whose writings, as B. Sack states, “profess an image of a Kabbalist who was attracted by both abstract thought and mythical configurations”.1987 Indeed, despite her inclination towards RaMaK's mythical ardor and reliance on Zoharic symbolism, B. Sack nevertheless acknowledges that “RaMaK had studied the writings of all preceding kabbalists and inspected them in his own way, [...] situating each idea in its due place and binding them together with his unique personal seal.”1988 This unique personal seal was indeed his momentous attempts to harmonize mind and soul en route to God, attempts that undeniably render RaMaK “The greatest mystical speculator of Kabbalah.”1989 The fascinating fact is that RaMaK’s cosmological epistemology was anything but original, as it carries forward the main arguments afforded by both classical philosophy and its medieval Jewish renditions. He continues the discernment between intellect which is based on senses

and that which runs

separate from them [Tist],1990 and likewise discusses the relationships between divine and human intellects while converging Aristotelian and Neoplatonic renditions, both within and without the Zohar.1991 But more importantly, he had gone to great length to secure the Jewish politics of epistemological being as part of its overall exclusivity in the life of God. The divine unified imperative would obviously include the intellect en route to epistemic clarity (for God creates nothing in vain!); but at the same time it mandated Jews as the recipients of additional properties to negotiate a far deeper relationship with self, world, cosmos and God. “It is therefore understood why philosophers could have attained certain truths concerning divinity and even reach conclusions in agreement 1986 Ginsburg, E.K. ibid, pp.21-22. On this issue, see also Scholem, G. (1974), pp.63-64; (1987), p p .10-11; Ravitzki, E. (1981); Harvey, Z. (1983); Regev, S. (1986), (1992), (1994); Ratzaby, S. (1995). 1987 Sack, B. (1995 a), p .54. 1988 Ibid, p.30 - italics by the author. 1989 Scholem, G. (1991), p.39. 1990 See e.g., Or Yaqar on Zohar 1:103a, vol.5, p.21 and compare with Maimonides, Guide, 1:5; cf: Sack. B. (1995a), p.70. See also Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:5,15 and Shiur Qomah, p p .186-187 and compare with Sa’adia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, introduction, p.2 and Maimonides, Guide, 1:32. On this issue in M aimonidean thought, see also Blumberg, Z. (1971). 1991 Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), especially pp.23-41; 62-64.

380

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

which Kabbalah;” notes J. Ben-Shlomo, “for the intellect is part of the universal human activity. However, among Jews it functions as a platform for the superior properties of the soul”.1992 Such sentiments had led to a systematic speculation which nonetheless had relied most heavilily on aptitudes other than the intellect. Cordoeiro was indeed a man who cherished reason yet did not succumb to it; a thinker sustained by the mind yet not reliant solely upon it. He was a theoretician for whom intellect was a necessary but not sufficient a cause towards edification in the sublime; a speculator for whom reason was an indispensible pre-cursor to truths beyond reason. To Maimonidean Aristotelianism the intellectual closure was the loftiest of human teleological aspirations - Aristotle’s eudaimonia.1993 To RaMaK, on the other hand, intellect was a powerful rocket whose ultimate teleology was nonetheless more modest: to boost the spiritual projectile afforded to Jews alone and to reach exhaustion after having initiated its trajectory to realms beyond the capabilities of rational assessment, intellectual configurations, even expressive eloquence - all of which would ultimately lead him to exclaim, “Although many affinities exist between our views and the philosophers’, their paths are not ours and ours are not theirs”.1994 Such claims seem to be supported by RaMaK's son, Gedaliah, whose colophon to his father’s Or Ne'erav emphasizes that students’ love for RaMaK's teachings “Continued until they merited and ceased from supporting the philosophical sciences, whose ways are darkness and sophistry”.1995 Such polemics, however, arguably echo Gedaliah’s own views rather than his father’s per se: first, RaMaK’s last work (Eilima Rabbati) is not only the most theoretical but also demonstrates at times brute logic and affinity for philosophical thought processes. Second, Gedaliah might have been responding here to the particular climate from whence he had arrived, namely the very dismissal of philosophical inquiry by his Safedian contemporaries after his father’s death, some of whom having charged RaMaK himself for being too intellectual.1996 J. Maier puts it quite well, although his short work on RaMaK does not necessarily expose the greate span of Cordoeirian

1992 Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), p.38. 1993 See Maimonides, Guide 1:1,2. 1994 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:5. On this issue, see also Arieli, N. (1978-1979); on its application in Bahya ibn Paquda’s thought, see Eisenberg, Y. (1981). 1995 In Robinson, I. (1994), p.213 with slight modifications. 1996 See Hayim V ital’s accusations in the section “Gedaliah Cordoeiro” in In Search o f RaMaK.

381

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

thought; “Cordovero never claimed to be a philosopher. Yet viewed against the background o f Lurianic symbolism and mythological imagery, he inevitably seemed an exceptionally lucid and rational kabbalistic writer”.1997 The epistemological rendition to Jewish spiritual supremacy was obviously not merely a refutation over predisposition to knowledge but also a concise argument in favor of the Jewish politics of being in RaMaK's turbulent era; the sort of theological - nay, existential - chauvinism which had served Jews to negotiate directly with God way above the baffled heads of the surrounding gentiles, those whose wisest nevertheless succumbed to intellect and whose political triumph manifested nonetheless only within the spatiotemporal. In RaMaK's words, Rabbi Hiyya said, ‘Worthy are Israel in this world and in the world to come’. This meant that they have a portion in this world, which is Malkhut, and in the world-to-come, which is Binah. This indicates [the greatness of] their level, [reaching up to] Binah. Regarding [the sefirot] which come between Binah and Malkhut, he also stated that ‘the Holy One, blessed be He, delights in them’. He [thus] gave a precondition to [Israel’s] coming nigh to holiness, stating that ‘the Holy One, blessed be He, delights in them’. That is similar to our saying ‘He has chosen us from among all nations’.1998 Previous to this [election], Israel was equal to the other nations. However, ‘the Holy One, blessed be He, delighted in them’ and preferred them and their portion to the other nations. Thus, ‘they cling’ [to Him], referring to Israel’s ‘cleaving’ to God. This is similar to the verse ‘I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine’1999. For the Holy One, blessed be He, loves Israel, and Israel loves Him.2000 The Zohar demonstrates this politics of Jewish being quite tellingly, as it narrates a gentile adversary rebuking Rabbi Elazar for the visible disparity between theological triumphalism and historical depredation;

‘You say that you are closer to the Supreme King than all other nations. One who is close to the King is always happy, with no pain, fear, or oppression. But you are always in pain and grief, more oppressed than all other people in the world. As for us, no pain, oppression or grief even comes near. We are closer to the Supreme King; you are far from Him’! 1997

Maier, J. (2001), p.7. 1998 From the Jewish liturgy in blessing the Torah. 1999 Song o f Songs 6:3. 2000 Or Ne'erav 3:5.

382

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Rabbi Elazar stared at this man and he turned into a heap of bones. Then the rabbi said: ‘The words spoken by that wicked man I once asked the prophet Elijah. He told me that these words were once arranged before the Blessed Holy one in the Academy in Heaven, and this was the response. [...] Indeed we are closer to the Supreme King than all other nations. Indeed it is so! For the Blessed Holy One has made Israel the heart of the whole world. Thus Israel lives among the nations as the heart among the limbs of the body. Just as the limbs cannot exist even for a moment without the heart, so all the nations cannot exist without Israel. [...] The heart is tender and weak; yet it the life of all the limbs. Only the heart perceives pain and trouble and grief, for it contains life and intelligence. The other limbs are not close to the King. They have no life; they perceive nothing’.2001 RaMaK continues the same stance: at the outset “There is no doubt that one of the things the Torah commands is for man to understand his creator according to his intellectual levels”.2002 This shall not suffice, however, “For intellect is not a holy nefesh [physical soul] and since the holy nefesh does not dwell within gentiles, whereas their wise men surely harbor intellect. As for us, the nefesh is finer than the intellect; the ru ’ah [emotive soul] is finer than the nefesh; and the neshamah [transcendent soul] is finer than the ru ’ah.”2003 The mystical view of one’s spiritual properties amalgamated Aristotelian and Neoplatonic views and reconfigured them to apply to a perfect spiritual Jewish state of being, “That is, one attained solely by those who had submitted themselves to the Torah and its esoteric dimensions.”2004 As B. Sack continues to clarify, RaMaK had regarded the attainment of esoteric wisdoms within the realm of emanation (atzilut theosophy) “a property achieved only by a few who had nefesh, ru ’ah, neshamah and neshamah above neshamah -

all of which corresponded with the systematic

arrangements to four hierarchies among humans, the cosmos [yM,nx] and the Torah [ 0 " 7 “ID]” .2005

RaMaK seems primarily interested in becoming a bridge builder among otherwise partisan forces, an intermediary who had stood in more than one way between staunch

2001 Zohar 3:220b-221b. As mentioned by D.C. Matt, “The image o f Israel as the heart derives from Judah Halevi, Kuzari 2:36; see Matt, D.C. (1983), p .195, fn.38. Refer also to Bacher, W. (1891), pp.781-784. 2002 Or Ne'erav 2:1; 3:1. 2003 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:5. See also Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), p.38. 2004 Scholem, G. (1980), pp.327-328. 2005 Sack, B. (1995 a), p. 117.

383

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

kabbalists for whom rationality equaled abomination, and their devout antagonists for whom mysticism equaled nonsensical discourse: he would confront certain mystics by stating that “One must pursue the knowledge of hidden things with great punctiliousness, wondrous investigation and tremendous analysis - the opposite of so-called kabbalists in our generation who say that one need not be exact in this wisdom”.2006 Similarly, he would assure his audience that the esoteric nature of his discourse shall never be abused and would never be the excuse from diligent inquiry when needed, “And may the reader study these matters studiously, for it is not our way to overdo secrecy” [ p’Bin in’ ’01 rmion n’unb i r o n

,nn r ^ n ] . 2007 RaMaK's respect to the Maimonidean intellect,

however,2008 - much like his undeniable exposure to legendary kabbalistic materials pertaining to his alleged mystical acumen2009 - did not deter him from equally refuting philosophers and other so-called rational skeptics. RaMaK would claim time and again that intellectual vigor notwithstanding, its skeptical foundation for the acquisition of knowledge is simply the wrong tool2010 to reach the superior gift of intuitive transparency, the attainment of matters that are bestowed upon the astute mystics “From 7 0

above, affecting us without any inquiry whatsoever”.

11

Such free divine gifts

7 0

17

were

attained solely “In a flash” [pnn ntn&D], infinitesimal glimpses whose mystical application from Ezekiel’s Vision o f the Chariot2013, afforded by divine grace a spontaneous intensity equaled only by its inimitable epistemic clarity.2014 Such instances ran in conjunction with the Q’lfflTn (hidushim - innovations) which we have already discussed in regard to Sefer Gerushin. Likewise, RaMaK tried to negotiate theistic and philosophical tensions through the theosophical contract afforded by mystical speculation, harnessing both views as legitimate cornerstones in the unified divine edifice and its harmonious regulatory

Or Ne'erav 4:2. 2007 Pardes Rimonim 11:6. 2008 On the intellectual approach o f kabbalists to Maimonides, see Dienstag, J.I. (1990); also in Hansel, J. (1998). 2009 See Scholem, G. (1998 a). 2010 RaMaK did not hesitate to strongly refute Maimonides on certain issues; see e.g., Shiur Qomah, pp.67-68. 2011 Sefer Gerushin, entry 13, p.14 and compare with Or Ne'erav 5:2. 2012 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:16. 2013 Ezekiel 1:14 and see Sefer Yetzirah 1:6. 2014 On this issue see also Scholem, G. (1980), p.328.

384

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

operation. The theistic view of “A Moral, Personal and Commanding God”, as J. Guttmann put it,2015 was also in many ways RaMaK's negotiating point with philosophy. As D.C. Matt observes in his general discussion of the Zohar, “The kabbalist worships the God of Moses, yet acknowledges the God of Maimonides.2016 Divinity is not only Father in Heaven but also Prime Mover. The Zohar strives to unite the two”.2017 In RaMaK's words, “We who believe in Divine providence, let alone its attendance to each individual [= theism], must say that God operates through the Sefirot [= mystical theosophy] since God Himself is devoid of any attributes whatsoever [= Aristotelianism], as scholars [- philosophers] have already maintained. In order to affirm God’s sublime transcendence while adhering to His providence, as also commanded by our Torah, we must therefore accept the Sefirot lest we situate our beliefs in contradiction to each other”.2018 Indeed, I. Robinson’s observation regarding RaMaK's Or Ne'erav should expand as to include his general aptitude and scholarship: “With regard to the [...] purpose of [Or N e ’erav], that of establishing Kabbalah’s legitimacy as an intellectual discipline, it might be said that Cordovero basically continued the genre of ‘defenses’ of true Kabbalah against its detractors and opponents both within and without the kabbalistic camp”.2019 As we have maintained, RaMaK not only defends but also appeases, trying to demonstrate how mystical speculation is the canopy under which all other disciplines may find a shore of comfort - alas, a shore that even RaMaK ultimately would not find. The Zohar was in fact not wholly free of philosophical elements either. As revealed by a manuscript of Maimonides’ Guide fo r the Perplexed “Copied for the sage Rabbi 9f)90

Moses de Leon”,

the Zoharic author had commenced studies of the revered

philosopher by 1264. D.C. Matt states that “Moses de Leon did not reject philosophy. Many of his kabbalistic comrades had also studied the Guide o f the Perplexed, and there were parallels and connections between Maimonides’ system and Kabbalah. Both 2015 Guttmann, J. (1951), pp. 13-22. 2016 On RaM aK and Maimonides, see Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp.297-301 and refer to his glossery on p.336. 2017 Matt, D.C. (trans., 1983), p.23. 2018 P ard es R im onim 1:8. 2019 Robinson, I. (1994), p.xxii. 2020 MS. No. 771, the Guenzberg collection, now in Moscow. See Scholem, G. (1946), p .194; Matt, D.C. (1983), pp.5, 193, fn. 5.

385

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

adopted the Neoplatonic scheme; both aimed at contemplative union with higher spheres; both were dissatisfied with the plain, literal meaning of Torah and sought to spiritualize its teaching”.2021 De Leon’s Midrash ha-Ne’elam also “Reveals that [he] is still under the influence of philosophy, [as] he employs philosophical terminology and the technique of allegory”.2022 Although here “Mystical symbols [gradually] replace philosophical allegories, the author [still] knows how to apply the philosophical method of spiritualizing the commandments to the ritual of sacrifice, which is thereby transformed into a ritual of meditation”.2023 Some aspects of philosophical vocabularies could therefore have infiltrated RaMaK's mind through their Zoharic renditions and further vindicate for him the necessity to integrate rational inquiry within the cohesive system he had believed to be hidden in the Zohar. Any attempt to situate RaMaK's works within a defined doctrine is therefore bound to undermine the multifarious nature of the essentials that govern his approach. RaMaK is perhaps a visible example to I. Twersky’s claim that “The overlapping [between different scholarly approaches] would be fruitful, and zeroing in on the same theme from different angles would produce vivid, revealing insights, a stereoscopic view not otherwise 0 0 ') A

available”.

Affording such coexisting investigatory doorways may also benefit from

further prudence

by

appreciating

the

difficulties

in

synchronizing

our

own

conceptualizations with those of RaMaK himself. L.E. Goodman’s following statement serves well in accentuating the arguably superfluous dichotomies imposed at times by scholarship not wholly attentive to the words of the author himself: Modem historians of ideas, who write of medieval philosophy as though it were a battleground between reason and revelation, are projecting their own unease about the sacred and the secular, the ancient and the modem [...] onto domain where such a conflict does not enter the terms of reference. Scholars play this game [...] only by refusing to allow the philosophic texts to speak for themselves and define their own concerns. For the primary food for any philosophy is the corpus of texts bearing the critical thinking of past generations; and the primary test of the

2021 Matt, D.C. (trans., 1983), p.5. 2022 Ibid, pp.8, 194, f n .ll. For more details on the philosophical renditions in the Zohar, see Tishby, (1949), v o l.l, pp.64-68. 2023 Matt, D.C. ibid, p.23. 2024 In Cooperman, B.D. (ed., 1983), p.xii.

I.

386

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

scholarship that profits from those texts is its willingness to allow them to 909 S thematize themselves. Such awareness may also assist in moderating the overstated tendency in some scholarly works to find theoretical uniformity, intellectual fluidity or rational consistency in RaMaK's system - a tendency aptly counterbalanced by B. Sack’s works. Y. Jacobson’s following claim about RaMaK, although understandable as a superficial first impression, serves to demonstrate why RaMaK's personality and works deserve greater and more nuanced appreciation: “RaMaK's speculative doctrine is characterized first and foremost by the consistent and systematic attempts to water down the mythical foundations o f Kabbalah and to present the kabbalistic world in philosophical concepts and terminologies”.2026 In fact, RaMaK had utilized the philosophical steps only to stimulate epistemic and experiential realms to which rational thought had no access whatsoever: “And at this juncture, as we try to apply the intellect in fathoming the matter, we find nothing, for this cannot be attained by the mind.”2027 Likewise, his approach amalgamates different models based on necessity, such as metaphysical Aristotelianism, theosophical Neoplatonism, Gnostic spiritual elitism and theistic traditionalism. They all converge and play a role in his attempts to ultimately track the footsteps of the Zoharic protagonists and further articulate their wisdoms as part of a greatly unified design - and a design whose contingency on mankind and especially Jews was profound to boot. As E.R. Wolfson suggests, “[...] It has become increasingly clear that the distinction between the speculative-theosophical and the ecstatic-experiential orientation in Jewish mystical sources is not adequate. Theosophy is not simply a matter of study or exegesis, but serves as a means for the communion, or perhaps even union, of the mystic with the Godhead”.2028 At such junctures RaMaK had entrenched himself in Zoharic mythology and submitted whole-heartedly to practices of which some would be correctly rendered utterly irrational, as already demonstrated in our discussion of Sefer Gerushin. L. Fine’s words about RaMaK are therefore more accommodating: “His genius consisted in his

2025 Goodman, L.E. (ed., 1992), pp.3-4. 2026 Jacobson, Y. (1984), p.20. The same approach is professed earlier in Horodetzky, S.A. (1924, Heb., 1951), introduction. 2027 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l 2:12. 2028 Wolfson, E.R. in Frank, D.H and Leaman, O. (eds., 1997), p.483.

387

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

ability to organize the vast corpus of earlier literature in a comprehensive and coherent fashion, [while] at the same time [seeking] to creatively address the theoretical problems raised by kabbalistic theology and speculation”.2029 RaMaK's works had unfolded in an era correctly described by I. Twersky as “A period of synthesis and innovation, expulsion and relocation, decline of old centers and burgeoning of new ones, intellectual turmoil and resourcefulness, cultural decline and transformation together with creativity and versatility, religious relentlessness and resurgence, spiritual challenge and response”.2030 Furthermore, RaMaK not only seems unperturbed by certain logical perplexities that appear in his system at times, but finds no need for their reconciliation in the first place! Such mind-boggling junctures were precisely the stage upon which RaMaK wished to celebrate the superiority of the mystical path in relation to its philosophical counterpart; the decisive boundaries that one’s mind “Should not strive to overpass”;2031 and the realms to which one should surrender ruiax n^ran [a wholesome belief] precisely due to their existence as “A locked door to the inquiries of the intellect, of which it is said ‘that which is beyond you do not quest and that which is covered from you do not seek out [...]2032.”2033 “Those who inspect the Torah in its simple form”, he would declare later, “need the service of foreign doctrines which enter divine discourse from skepticism and the limited potencies of the mind; whereas we who are Rashbi’s disciples have attained divinity through his books and teachings, and therefore neither need [such] broken vessels which cannot contain water nor bother ourselves with certain perplexities which had befallen the philosophers [...]; for we do not enter divine discourse from a skeptical premise but rather from the free gift [□an ron»] afforded to us by God”.2034 This form of na,an nnftN was not the product of devout simple-mindedness - as would be the case among the uneducated - but rather the achievement of intellectual exhaustion whose outcome is the attainment of truths to which the rational, let alone empirical, had no entry whatsoever.2035

2029 Fine, L. (trans., 1984), p.30. 2030 Robinson, I. (1994), p.ix. 2031 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:8. 2032 Babylonian, Hagigah 13a; Ben-Sirah in Midrash Rabba, Bereshit 8:2. 2033 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:15; compare with Maimonides, Guide 1:32. 2034 Ibid, 1:16 and compare with Bahya ibn Paquda, Duties of the Heart, introduction, pp.41-42, 97. 2035 See also Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp.26-29.

388

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

The ‘exhaustion’ of intellect did not mean the epistemological irrelevance of deduction or rational inquiry en route to God. On the contrary, the intellectual domain was an indispensible property within the cosmic teleology, yet not a sufficient property to attain the higher divine realms. As we shall see in greater detail later, RaMaK viewed the Jewish soul as a rocket to which the human mind was a rocket-booster. The inherent teleology of intellect - one shared by all men - was therefore to carry the exclusive Jewish soul beyond the intellectual stratosphere, where it may now assume its own exclusive teleology and converse with divinity in the language allotted to Israel alone via intuition and the ecstatic exegesis of Revelation. The ‘exhaustion’ of the intellect in RaMaK's system was therefore part of the wholesome edifying process, the ultimate consumption of its teleological momentum rather than its dismissal as irrelevant - for without it the soul could never have been lifted beyond the earth and reach the realms where it was to realize itself: belief. Draining the fuel of the intellect, so to speak, ignited the intuitive procedure whose dialogue with God surpassed the spatiotemporal and the rational, affording a more immediate knowledge of the inner life of God. This form of belief, RaMaK exclaimed, is the beginning and the end, the pillar of all wisdoms combined - for “It is entrenched in the E in S o f [0"N3 nnirpn]-2036 RaMaK's epistemological theatre was indeed a complex edifice which demonstrates well the maneuvers between rational assessments on the one hand and allegiance to theistic conventions and mythical terminologies on the other hand. “Philosophy insisted on divine perfection, on the unchanging, all-knowing, all-capable quality of God”, notes A. Green. “If perfect and unchanging, this God was necessarily self-sufficient and in no need of human actions of any sort. Why then would such a God care about performance of the commandments? How could a Torah centered on religious law, including so much 'jcwi

ritual performance, represent the embodiment of divine will?”

The need to negotiate

transcendence and immanence had led some earlier Spanish kabbalists to fiercely refute Aristotelianism in favor of the more theistically-accommodating Neoplatonic doctrine of emanations - as seen e.g., in the thought of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra, whose works had exerted considerable influence in the teachings of two important kabbalists: Rabbi Ezra

E ilim a R ab b ati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:1. 2037 Green, A. (2004), p.20.

389

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

ben Solomon and Rabbi Azriel of Gerona.2038 RaMaK afforded the Maimonidean divine otherworldliness its place inasmuch as aiming to release the Godhead from any constraints; yet the major thrust of his oeuvre revolves around Neoplatonic concepts of regulatory emanations, whose interface with Aristotelian metaphysics indeed presents the most complex and unresolved conjunctures in his system. But for RaMaK the mystic, unresolved paradoxes humbled the teleological aspirations of intellectual potency and illuminated the sense of awe with which he wished God to be speculated about and experienced in both this world and the hereafter. Much like earlier speculators, RaMaK declares that full knowledge of God “Is not afforded to souls even after death”,2039 for on such a realm of divine unity “Knowing the part means knowing the All”.2040 Such statements echo Rabbi Joseph Albo’s famous dictum ITN iTPTi - v n w {Had I known Him - I ’d be Him)2041 and are also found in Meir ibn Gabai’s celebrated Avodat ha-Kodesh. “None can fathom God or His deeds from beginning to end”, ibn Gabai declares and continues to say that even Moses, first among all prophets, “Had marveled at this and afforded clues as to pervade the mind from attempting its grasp”.2042 In RaMaK's mind, the highest realms of the divine initiatory enigma remained forever beyond men’s reach, regardless one’s intellectual and spiritual acumen; “Let no one who hears this surmise that we intend [to imply] by this that we have ourselves achieved these levels, God forbid2043 [...], for when all is said and done, this wisdom transcends us all, you and me equally”.2044 This human deficiency informed men’s ontic, epistemic and direct theurgic potencies as well: “Just as none can know His essence in truth, so are His actions, knowledge and will utterly beyond comprehension; for they are all unified within His essence in a manner that defies any comprehension”.2045 Indeed, in accord with the stringent disassociation of the Aristotelian Godhead from the universe, RaMaK professed that

2038 Ibid, p.22-27. 2039 Shiur Qomah, pp.7,11,30. 2040 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:3. 2041 Sefer ha-Ikarim 2:30. 2042 Avodat ha-Kodesh, introduction, note 3; and compare with note 7 and compare with Or Ne'erav 1:6. 2043 Or Ne'erav 1:6. 2044 Ibid, 1:3. 2045 Shiur Qomah, p. 105.

390

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

God’s enigmatic self was utterly detached from that of cosmos and men.2046 But at this juncture his theosophy entered the arena and flexed its mystical muscles quite effectively: whereas the Godhead remains transcendent and equally effluent regardless of one’s actions, our aptitude to properly manipulate the channels articulated in His regulatory apparatus - the Sefirot - refines their reception of divine benevolence and vibrates a greater theosophical symphony which now sustained the entire cosmic edifice from top to bottom. The philosophers simply lacked the tools to attain - let alone affect - the higher chambers needed for such fine tuning of the cosmic orchestra: “The philosophers had managed to attain a fine realm of divinity [Bitten m^N], which is an intellect neither in the body nor from the body. But we, God’s nation, were informed [through revelation] that we may ascend beyond the intellect to the fine angelic realm which is differentiated from matter; and higher [...] through the sefirot until we reach the finest realm and attain the throne of the E in S o f- whereupon our grasp exhausts itself and simply remains fixed on that knowledge”

[ it

ru n 1 Vv nno masn mipnn ms1? irm wna aw

2047 As B. Sack has

already noted, RaMaK elevates the Jewish epistemic potency by continuing here the stance of Tikkunei ha-Zohar, according to which “The unique standing of the Israelite nation affords its ascent beyond the sefirah Hokhmah”2048 - the theosophical abode whose epistemic equivalent manifests as inertia and whose similar rendition we have already seen in RaMaK's wonderful word-game nattf

m \2049 Indeed, this exalted

epistemic transparency precisely demonstrated for RaMaK the supremacy of mystical edification over intellectual inquiry, the distinction of which he articulates as ntP’TT (derishah - esoteric exegesis) vs. HTpn (hakirah - intellectual inquiry) and n rro (behinah - inspection based on empiricism).2050 It is evidently the former which opened doors hitherto shut to the intellect and afforded the epistemic innovations [□’tmTT! hidushim] needed for devotional acumen and theurgic potency - “It occurs to those who succeed in this wisdom, that when they search these derushim (treatises) many times, 2046 See e.g., Eilima Rabbati, Ein a-Bedolah 1:16. 2047 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l ha-Aretz 1:17. On this issue in classical Judaism, see Bar-Ilan, M. (1985). 2048 Sack, B. (1995 a), p.79 and compare with Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l ha-Aretz 1:15. 2049 Shiur Qomah, p. 170. 2050 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l ha-Aretz 1:15 and compare with Perush le-Sefer Yetzirah 1:2. This is also the impetus behind the title and layout o f RaMaK's Derishot ve-Hakirot be-Inyanei ha-M al’akhim, wherein the hakirah is always a sub-category within the superior Derishah. On the method o f midrashic inquiry during the 16th century see also Spiegel, J.S. (1992).

391

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

their knowledge will increase. In a similar context we say ‘There is no midrash without hidush,,\ 2051 Whereas the metaphysical imperative rendered necessary that the thoughts, speech and actions of men target the Godhead Himself [rnvptt1? !Ol TON],2052 they never do so directly but only through the intermediary stimulation of the theosophical edifice - that which negotiates in the Zohar and for RaMaK the disparity between divine transcendence and immanence: “It is a chief pillar of worship to comprehend the intermediaries [nr,17HE)N] between us and God”,2053 and here one should attend as well to the word which refers simultaneously to the sefirotic structural setting (V2JBN - middle) and functional operation

- a means). Indeed, the intermediaries between men and the

Godhead were simultaneously the regulated language for the union of men and God, and their manipulation towards yielding such unifying effluence depended on ontological, epistemological and practical effectiveness. Since God could never be reached directly, the mystical paths to God were the stimulations of different elements in the sefirotic structure, which, in turn, would carry it forward to God and bring down effluence from God. One manner may resemble a child’s attempt to steer back to the shore a toy boat which had drifted away, whereupon throwing small pebbles around it creates ripples which in turn alter its trajectory towards him. Another manner may resemble the attempt to squeeze the water out of a saturated sponge which is beyond one’s direct reach, whereupon managing to press an object against it by means of a complex apparatus of ropes, wheels and leverages affects its water retention and yields the desired result. As if this is not taxing enough, the most persuasive image is the use of the same intricate apparatus, only this time not in order to squeeze water out of a saturated sponge but rather to realign, repair and unclog an elaborate system of conduits - so they, in turn, may retain and adequately transport the ceaselessly gushing waters of a marvelous fountain: this was the Godhead “Whose effluence is constant”,2054 whereas the sefirot “Are garments and chairs for Him, and when we pray and unify the attributes by a mitzvah or a

2051 O r N e'erav 3:3. 2052 Eilim a R ab b ati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:2; 1:18. See also Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp.80-86. 2053 Ibid, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:17-18. 2054 Ibid, Ein K ol 2:7,8; Ein ha-Bedolah 1:23.

392

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

prayer we aim to align them so they become chairs for Him [...]; since God is not worshiped [= affected directly] by the prayer but by [its facility to] usher in His attributes closer to Him, so they may receive the effluence from Him in turn.”2055 An almost identical version appears in RaMaK's so-called ‘earlier rendition’ of Tomer Devorah, this time discussing the Keter and one’s inability to hinder its constant effluence either.2056 In fact, RaMaK's Sefer Gerushin had already professed a view which situates men’s direct affects on divinity even further away from the Godhead - a property •

•

•

•

which is in direct association with men’s ontic and epistemic limitations:

2057

corresponding with the Zoharic principal sanction against the contemplation of Binah [aka Mother] and anything beyond it - citing as proof text Deuteronomy 22:7 “Let the mother go; the children you may take”2058 - RaMaK deems anything beyond Binah as “Happening by way of a miracle, above nature and above the law”.2059 Elsewhere, his commentary to Job 28:12 (“But where [me-Ayin = Keter] can wisdom [Hokhmah] be found; where is the source of understanding [Binah]; no man can set a value on it; it cannot be found in the land of the living”) states that “The light and plentitude which reaches the three highest Sefirot [Keter, Hokhmah and Binah] are not directly [from] one’s actions, as is the case with the other [seven] Sefirot [...]; and the [significance of] Binah does not rely upon one’s deeds. This is the meaning behind ‘No man can set a value on it’: one cannot know the [theurgic] worth of one’s mitzvot in relation to these three [,..]”.2060 RaMaK discussed this issue at relative length yet does not give any epistemological assurance to men’s ability to affect the higher rungs. So how does one compose oneself and act on the existential predisposition allotted to Jews alone? Here one already enters the domains of na’an nmttN (untainted belief): propelled by intellectual boosters which carry forward one’s superior spiritual potencies, one traverses the theosophical space to eventually reach realms “Above nature and above the law”, 2055 Ibid, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:2. 2056 Ibid, Ein Adam 6:1; cf: Sack, B. (1995b), p .171. 2057 See also Or Yaqar, vol.21 on Zohar 2:99b: “There is no comprehension beyond Binah". 2058 See e.g., Zohar 2:93a; 3:254b. 2059 Sefer Gerushin, entry 74, p .96. See also Pardes Rimonim 3:7-8; 8:9, 17; 12:1; 13:7; 23:1. On this issue, see Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp.230-238; Scholem, G. (1930), p p .100-101; Tishby, I. (1964), pp.2329. This kind o f ontological supremacy which renders epistemology insufficient can be compared with the scientific “Uncertainty Principle’- “A principle [which] would be something external to our universe [and which] could not [be] deduced from within our universe” - see Hawking, S. (1993), p.94. 2060 Entry 53, pp.63-64.

393

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

whereupon one adheres to the divine regulatory imperative [mm *pnx] and believes that one’s remedial trajectory henceforth agrees with its demand and desire [also mm “plX]. RaMaK was a mystic to the hilt, but not a mystic for whom the intellectual path ran counterpart to epistemic transparency. Subsequently, and despite RaMaK's professed desire for systematic organization and epistemic cohesion, his works nonetheless echo the unrelenting tensions between devotional fervor and intellectual ardor. They aim to furnish a lucid exposition of the theosophical dogma which is embedded within the metaphysical enigma; but they are neither triumphant in its acquisition nor harmonious without fail in its articulation. RaMaK’s lenses were deeply indebted to the negotiation of human splendor and inadequacy in the life of God; lenses which penned themselves in terminologies as brilliant as they were apophatic at times. Mankind - and Jews at its apex - was indeed a marvelous microcosm whose unique standing in the divine edifice yielded the entire cosmic apparatus toward the fruition of its reunion with God. The earth, the heavens and the entire theosophical realm were the covenantal language, articulating the regulatory and reciprocally binding procedures by which such a reunion could have materialized. The Sefirot were a celestial rendition of Mt. Sinai (or better yet, Mt. Sinai was a manifestation of the sefirotic apparatus); a domain which was not merely a place to acutely sense divinity but a dynamic landscape wherein God and the nation of Israel had consented to a shared and eternal covenant. Better still, it was a finely regulated stepladder upon which man climbed only to find divinity descending favorably to greet him midway - “Ten steps on which He descends”, as the 17th century mystic Abraham Ferrera put it, “and ten on which one ascends to Him”.2061 And, perhaps most important in RaMaK's world, it was man’s choice to climb or remain at its footstep... In his novel Haroun and the Sea o f Stories, Salman Rushdie narrates the protagonist Haroun and his guide Rashid witnessing a fight between a man and an enigmatic adversary: The man was alone but turned and leapt and kicked and slashed his sword constantly, as though battling an invisible opponent. Then, as they drew 2061 D. M att writes, “The sefirot generate the ultimate confusion o f identities: human and divine. Such sublime confusion catalyzes the process o f enlightenment. From above to below, the sefirot enact the drama o f emanation, the transition from Ein S o f to creation. From below to above, they are a ladder to ascent back to the One” - see ibid (1983), p.34.

394

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

nearer, Haroun saw that the man was actually fighting against his own shadow, which, in turn, was fighting back with equal ferocity, attention and skill. ‘Look,’ whispered Haroun, ‘the shadow’s movements don’t match the man’s.’ Rashid silenced him with a glance, but what he had said was the truth: the shadow plainly possessed a will of its own. It dodged and ducked, it stretched itself out until it was as long as a shadow cast by the last rays of the setting sun, and then it bunched itself as tight as a shade at noon, when the sun is directly overhead. Its sword lengthened and shrank, its body twisted and altered constantly. ‘How could one ever hope to defeat such an opponent’, wondered Haroun. [...] It was an awesome sight.. ..and as they fought each other, standing toe to toe, Haroun began to think of their combat as a dance of great beauty and grace, a dance danced in perfect silence, because the music was playing inside the dancers’ heads.2062 RaMaK would have embraced this depiction, as it testified to man’s freedom to either follow or ignore the covenantal inspired trajectory towards reunion - abilities whose epistemic and ethical advantages, much like their ramifications in forms of divine aggravation, RaMaK charts at length throughout his writings. The Hebrew language indeed afforded an illustration of man’s dimmed reflection of God via the juxtaposition of the words bit (tzel - shadow) and ab'i (tzelem - image); this was another negotiation of the aforementioned correspondence between human grandeur and deficiency, expressing the pale yet nevertheless inimitable human affinity to the divine, one whose wake articulated enormous human autonomy and teleological accountability as disclosed in one’s shape, form, conduct, thought, moral and overall devotion: “Man is a shadow of the Supernal, who materialized in this world”, RaMaK states in Pardes Rimonim; “the image of the higher reflection which is now rendered visible”;2063 “The true parable”, he continues in Eilima Rabbati, “is that one’s form reflects the ten sefirot”;2064 “Therefore”, he goes on in Or Ne'erav, “if a person’s physical form reflects the Supernal Form, yet his actions do not, he falsifies his nature”2065 - an idea which served precisely as the impetus behind the educational treatise Tomer Devorah. As seen in B. Sack’s work, RaMaK makes quite visible his desire to understand human corporeality and anatomy as means to

2062 Rushdie, S. (1990), pp.123-125. 2063 Pardes Rimonim 6:2. RaM aK uses the words nbx and m m interchangeably in this context - see, e.g., Pardes Rimonim 31:4. 2064 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l 3:2. 2065 See Tomer Devorah 1.

395

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

address the theosophical edifice most efficiently2066 - a view whose partial relationship with humanistic renaissance in his era may be more significant than known as of yet and warrants more study. This mindset had even negotiated with the complimentary view, according to which divinity was a shadow of men - not in subordination but rather in . .• 2067 intimacy.

But for RaMaK, the body had obviously been the murkiest of epistemic conduits, albeit important; it therefore needed to be addressed within the greater context of its service, namely by pointing men beyond its own fa?ade en route to higher realms of divine emulation:

It is proper for man to imitate his Creator, resembling Him in both likeness and image according to the secret of the Supernal Form. Because the chief supernal image and likeness is in deeds, abases that Form. O f the man who resembles the Form in body alone it is said ‘A handsome form whose deeds are ugly’. For what value can there be in man’s resemblance to the Supernal Form in bodily limbs if his deeds have no resemblance to those of his Creator? Consequently, it is proper for man to imitate the acts of the Supernal Crown, which are the thirteen highest attributes of mercy.2068 As for human accountability before God, RaMaK indeed attends to the perplexing question regarding the negotiations of divine compulsory regulation vs. the human freedom to deviate from it - questions he renders “Profoundly difficult”: “Nevertheless”, he continues, “there are instances wherein man’s complete freedom to act compels the nature o f God’s response, such as one’s choice to kill which necessitates that God takes the [victim’s] soul, let alone that divine providence does not prevent one from acting so wrongfully”.2069 These meditations ring quite differently from RaMaK's discussion in Tomer Devorah, whose overall ethical tempo and goal to address people not as philosophically savvy bestows ultimate authority on God: “One cannot say, God forbid, the God cannot withhold His benevolence from a person, for it is within His power to

2U“ Sack, B. (1995 a), pp.205-229. 2067 See e.g., Nigal, D. (1994). 2068 Tomer Devorah, beginning o f chapter 1. 2069 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:7.

396

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

shrivel up a person’s arms or legs instantly, as He did to Jeroboam. [...] But He [chooses] to bear the insult and continues to bestow His power and benevolence on men”.2070 RaMaK's writings testify as a whole to this vacillating approach between intellectual regulation and theistic myth; they fashion its complex unfolding in ways whose ingenuity is only matched by their ambiguity and even contradictory nature at times. He is perhaps the mystical thinker whose writings articulate most persuasively the dynamics of human9071 divine negotiations in his era; the acute longing to get “As close as possible” to the divine and the equally acute sense of corporeal, intellectual, spiritual and moral inadequacy en route to its realization! RaMaK traverses this spectrum time and again: although his ostensible metaphysics yields effusively to God’s otherworldliness, RaMaK’s desire to establish divine immanence as equally commanding a principal becomes a chief departure from the stringent doctrine of the Maimonidean path in favor of Zoharic theosophical and anthropological configurations - albeit often presented in a gentle tone, as not to overdo his refutations.

9D 79

RaMaK wished to make God’s

omnipresence not only transparent to human intellect and responsive to human devotion, but also the only negotiator of the cosmic politics of being: God is “The secret behind all vitality and sustenance; within all and around all, without whom none shall stand and exist; He affords space to the world yet transcends space in Himself; [...] He is in all, everything exists through Him and nothing is devoid of His presence, God forbid [...]. Should one investigate these matters prudently, one shall realize how we all integrate within Him [...] and how our entire sustenance is derived from Him - be it through plants or animals; for it is all Him in utter unity and nothing exists in separation from Him. Although their [i.e., the tangibles] existence is considerably remote from His, everything cleaves to Him and is sutained by Him”.2073 RaMaK’s use of rational speculation must therefore be seen as the intellectual means to follow in the meta-intellectual footsteps of the Zoharic protagonists - quite literally, as seen in our discussion of Sefer Gerushin - and to chart a theosophical scheme whose acute associations with God above fashioned equally acute associations with world and

T om er D evorah 1:1. 2071 E ilim a R ab b ati, Ein K ol 2:19. 2072 See Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp.32-33. 2073 P ard es R im onim 6:3.

397

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

men below. RaMaK's works viewed the world and humanity at its core a heterogeneous cohort informed by manifold hierarchies who nonetheless acted in a unified drama written by a single author. The brute metaphysical unity was thus the very axis upon which theosophical, cosmic and anthropological dogma could have been crafted, and therefore a necessary launch pad for RaMaK. Intellectual metaphysics was an essential step to vindicate the spiritual yearnings; to expose the synergic narrative of this unified drama and to synchronize its various elements into a cohesive constitution of reciprocally interrelating

associations.

In

short,

whereas

RaMaK's

God

indeed

featured

uncompromising transcendence time and again, it nonetheless stood - time and again - in visible negotiation with RaMaK's equally stem view of God’s unequivocal omnipresence. God’s unattainable singularity above, as it were, was nevertheless the only impetus behind the most accessible and diverse plurality below. To RaMaK, this was an unbending divine regulation! A careful reading o f RaMaK's works yields this tension time and again, exposing the Tango o f the tangled which he rendered the ‘to and fro’ maneuvers in negotiation of divine transcendence and omnipresence: rendering his words in modem terms, one can hear RaMaK cautioning his reader ‘Watch your head’ - a useful pun which refers both to God and to men attempts to illuminate Him in the mind; attempts which ultimately lead one bowing in awe as not to get hurt: “For these matter rely on our ability to assemble all previous edifications [nninn] by means of to and fro, so nothing may elude scrutiny or remain baffling - all the while maintaining great modesty, and may God exonerate our actions”.2074 RaMaK relentlessly wrestles this disparity between experience and expression, trying to enlist numerous parables and similes in order to expose realms arguably not wholly clear to him either - a tactics which brings to mind G. Scholem’s sharp observation “The contradiction [that] permeates kabbalistic literature is the hidden tension between its most important topics and the inability to convey them in full”.2075 That in mind, N. Feam’s words somewhat mitigate this tension by reminding us that “The

2074 See e.g., Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 4:39 and compare with 1:10; 2:12. 2075 Scholem, G. (1958), p.214.

398

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

value of a good parable is not measured by its ability to prove any sought-after truth as much as by its ability to point to it in general.”2076 The expressive foundations of RaMaK's edifice are indeed a conglomerate of vocabularies which nonetheless aimed to regroup diverse actualities and peel off their deceptive fa?ade en route to a governing unified potentiality. In order to achieve such goals, RaMaK must firstly establish the unified imperative and only then articulate the order of realities which are necessitated by its brute command - the transformation from metaphysics (Godhead) to theosophy (Sefirot) which informs everything in a splendid dialectic discharge of potentiality and actuality pulsating in concealment and revelation. As we shall witness, this was indeed a treacherous journey of the mind, one whose paths coiled and often times led to hostile borders governed by Aristotelian or Neoplatonic monarchs. RaMaK had no choice but to zigzag at times, using intellect, tradition, the Zohar and great creativity as a lantern in a landscape not easily submissive to cartography. To this end RaMaK will also try to articulate a highly subtle intermediary between the metaphysical Godhead and the theosophical edifice; a realm wherein the mind indeed exhausts itself and vocabularies crash under their own irrelevance. This metatheosophical zone features RaMaK's most apophatic language, the most acute demonstration of his charge to study such wisdoms ‘to and fro’.

The Show o f Nothing: Black holes, Big Bang and the Unified Metaphysical Imperative “The painter’s mind”, Leonardo da Vinci once noted, “is a copy of the divine mind, since it operates freely in creating the many kinds of animals, plants, fruits, landscapes, countrysides, ruins and awe-inspiring places”.2077 Michael Ende’s children’s classic The NeverEnding Story appeared some four and a half centuries later (1979) and quickly enticed the imagination of millions by demonstrating da Vinci’s sentiments through the literary medium: in a fantastic feat of creativity Ende narrated Fantasia, a vast kingdom whose true monarch was not its fair princess but rather the dreams and aspirations of children from the ‘other side’ - the real world. Fantasia owed its very vitality to their 2076 Feam, N. (2001), p.37. 2077 In Hemenway, P. (2005), p .121.

399

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

innermost creative agents, the imaginary which now actualized extraordinary creatures and birthed epic tales in its enchanted landscapes. Alas, after eons of bliss and grandeur this land of magic started experiencing the imminent danger of the Nothing, a potency which had been consuming the kingdom to oblivion. The enigmatic predator appeared in the wake o f children’s lack of hope, fear to dream and indulgence in material pursuits; the withdrawal o f imagination thus nullified Fantasia’s actuality piecemeal, imploding into the devastative state of pure and wholesome potentiality - the Nothing. M. Ende’s Nothing corresponds on many levels with black hole theories, whose scientific fagade obviously does not render them less fantastic or enticing. His revolved around dreams which invented fairytales on the other side, while the scientific ‘rendition’ touches upon our innermost aspirations to peak at portals that may very well lead to that ‘other side’; to snoop around cosmic doorways whose attainment and conquest - if possible - may thrust human inquisitiveness and propel its epistemic longing to new heights. M. Ende’s Nothing also serves quite well in addressing the vacuous potentiality of black holes and the human attempts to comprehend realms of cosmic reality whose very essence seems to mock reality - let alone our epistemic, experiential, experimental and expressive capabilities in their pursuit. Figuratively speaking, a black hole is an event in the cosmic epos set on rewind. By scientific definition - presented here in painfully broad strokes - a black hole is a region where matter collapses to infinite density, and where in result the curvature of spacetime is mystifyingly extreme, preventing light or other electromagnetic radiation from ultimately escaping. Applying the Einstein Field Equations to collapsing stars, German astrophysicist Kurt Schwarzschild deduced the critical radius for a given mass at which matter would collapse into an infinitely dense state known as singularity. The ‘outer’ surface of what became to be known “A Schwarzschild black hole” was thus rendered the event horizon - the farthermost frontier of observable data and the exterior beyond which nestled the enigma; the vortex whose inward overwhelming immensity forbade emitting anything to the universe.2078 The event horizon is therefore the last bastion of conventional knowledge; a nuanced four-dimensional skin or sphere, as it were, which

2078 http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cvberia/NumRel/BlackHoleAnat.html. See also Hawking, S. (1993), p p .101-125. Gondhalekar, P. (2001), pp.311-320.

400

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

envelops the inward spiraling collapse into the arresting oblivion science calls singularity, and whose essence can no longer be fathomed by empirical data or preceptors of discemable reality. The spiraling collapse which informs the ‘distance’ between the black hole’s rim (event horizon) and its perplexingly absurd point of conclusion (,singularity) is therefore a gradual surrender of the tangibles to the intangibles; the absorption of actualities within an ‘infinitely condensed’ potentiality. The route from the rim to the base is thus an ‘ever-narrowing tunnel’ whose suction gradually fuses all actualities into a singular potentiality. “Here it is no longer meaningful to speak of space and time, much less spacetime. Jumbled up at the singularity, space and time cease to exist as we know them”.2079 The implosive mechanism of a black hole can therefore be described as the perpetual amplification of a necessarily deduced potentiality over the reduction of actuality; a realm whose aseity [= necessary existence] as a potentiality overpowers the actual reality which informs ontic assessment and epistemic transparency; a quality which derides our intellectual perceptions and lays to waste our empiric faculties and communicative eloquence. As such it remains a feature whose ontic aseity, epistemic necessity and operational regulation are upheld solely by way of deduction, through observing the behavior of the tangibles which constitute its surface {event horizon) and are affected by its inscrutable authority: space, time, light and conventional three-dimensional elements. By witnessing the implosive property of the black hole vis-a-vis its regulation of the discernible elements, one construes with great dismay or awe the inevitability of a pivot whose causal essence cannot be reached yet without which the affected (empiric) reality cannot be explained either. One problem with the singularity is obviously its ‘infinitely condensed’ state, a rendition which remains quite paradoxical as long as one surrenders to four-dimensional thought processes. In other words, regardless how condensed x may be, it is still a finite singularity if conceived within spacetime configurations. Since the very essence of the black hole’s singularity as conceived by men eliminates such four-dimensional terminologies, the term ‘infinitely condensed’ is arguably a scientific euphemism for “fused in an unknown way”. Correspondingly, one succumbs to deduce the necessity of a 2079 http:// ibid.

401

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

regression of singularities to a point of infinitely singular potentiality - that which lies even beyond the “infinitely condensed” singularity and utterly mocks our intellectual aptitude: “In this bizarre realm in which space and time are broken apart, cause and effect cannot be unraveled. Even today, there is no satisfactory theory for what happens at and beyond the singularity”.2080 The black hole thus becomes a phenomenon which unmercifully belittles the human facilities, demanding that which neither intellect nor eyes nor speech can provide. It commands attention yet mocks observation, let alone expression; it compels men to deduce its aseity yet defies reach, stirring in consequence the ambivalence any splendor warrants: its discovery evokes a great sense of intellectual triumph yet equally commands a sense of awe, insufficiency and humility. The black hole is a formidable tease, a masterful negotiator of our intellectual might and its defeated retreat; the threshold of an enigma whose orchestration of the empirical dogma can neither be noticed nor go unnoticed. It seems to suck in the light of intellect right alongside that of the cosmos, illuminating darkness tenfold brighter to the inspecting eye; it is a domain that mocks the very term and a singularity rendered as such due to our inexplicable dismay at the eternal zero which seems to lurk at its root. Being the regional caving o f discernable actualities into a singular potentiality, a black hole arguably runs in parallel reverse to the ultimate eruption o f discernable actualities from the singular potentiality - the Big Bang: whereas black holes doom us to sightlessness by way of nullified reality, the Big Bang renders enlightenment by way of a realized potentiality. Respectively, it is the tranquil abyss of the black hole - that enigmatic retirement of actualities to potentiality - which may enlighten our minds one day and teach us about the birth of all actualities. Be that as it may, the core of both seems to remain the same wondrous singular potentiality, whereas its trajectory remains the outcome of implosion vs. explosion, or, better yet, concealment vs. revelation: “The inflation [of the Big Bang]”, notes S. Hawking, “was a good thing in that it produced a universe that was smooth and uniform on a large scale and was expanding at just the critical rate to avoid collapse. The inflation was also a good thing in that it produced all

2080 Ibid. See also in Matt, D.C. (1996), pp.26-27.

402

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

9081

the contents of the universe quite literally out of nothing”.

Indeed, as W.B. Drees

points out, “The Big Bang theory, and scientific cosmology in general, is a theory about the subsequent evolution of the Universe rather than about its origination - the topic which has been picked up in many philosophical and religious responses”. RaMaK would have most likely been thrilled by black holes and Big Bang theories, •

•

•

albeit not perplexed or even surprised by their suggestions.

908^

He would deem them an

affirmation rather than a discovery; phenomena whose theoretical aseity not only vindicates what rational philosophers had already postulated but more so points via empiric necessity to the cosmic truth found in the Zoharic rendition of the creation story. This enigmatic realm was rendered “A wondrous supremacy” [ntOEi] nb’tp]2084 whose attainment was deduced by the equally “A Wondrous necessity” [N*7S3 nm] 2085 Had RaMaK spoken English, he might have employed his attentiveness to phonetic puns and deem the black hole merely a revelatory insignia of the ultimately superior Black Whole, known to him as EinSof In his highly figurative world, however, the regional black hole would translate as the Malkhut, the conduit to God’s higher chambers; a stairway to heaven or a vortex toward redemptive union. In his erotic use of corporeality and gender relations, the black hole above might run parallel to its female organ below, demonstrating a vulva {event horizon), a vagina, a cervix and a uterus - the cosmic incubator from whence reality had emerged and beyond which all collapses back into potentiality as fetus, sperm, spark and...nothing. He would have probably seen it as pointing towards the Supernal Womb, sefirah Binah; a momentous scaffold for cosmic repair; a leg to God’s throne or a ladder to attain Devekut. More than anything, the black hole would be signed off as a darkness o f the 10th order, a profound yet pale insignia of its governing cause whose 1st order o f darkness is the potentiality of all illumination: the EinSof, the ultimate and most positively known Nothing - the Black Whole. One should therefore not let four passing centuries and their terminological divergences to overshadow the interface that suggests itself between scientific 2081 Hawking, S. (1993), p.97. 2082 Drees, W.B. (1990), p.17 and see also Matt, D.C. (1996), p25. 2083 On the interface o f Big Bang theories and theology or m ysticsm see e.g., Drees, W.B., ibid, especially pp. 17-40; Matt, D.C. (1996). 2084 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:8. 2085 Ibid 1:3.

403

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

speculation and mystical cosmology - let alone when RaMaK’s thought processes are concerned. “Most scientists have a deep mistrust of mysticism”, writes P. Davies; “This is not surprising, as mystical thought lies at the opposite extreme to rational thought, which is the basis of the scientific method”.2086 Although P. Davies sets forth to challenge such doctrinal dichotomies, statements of this nature and quite a few equivalents which dot scientific literature2087 painfully demonstrate how the greater challenge to scholarship is not conceit but a myopic conceit. The same challenge exists also from the modem philosophical standpoint, as seen e.g., in the work by L. Roth on the possibility for Jewish Philosophy. To his credit, L. Roth admits to be ‘old-fashioned’ when it comes to Mysticism - let alone that his scholarship (1940-50) had evolved at a time where Jewish Mysticism was still an odd discipline in formation of self identity. These facts, however, do not exonerate him from the sweeping and dubious claims regarding the mystical conceptual backbone, or fundamental lack thereof. Unlike philosophy - Roth claims mysticism is devoid of any serious intellectual properties and should not be counted as the product of mind processes and rational discourse: “Whatever mysticism may be”, he states bluntly in the one and a half pages allotted to this phenomenon in his book, “it is not thinking and its way is not the philosophical way of discussion.” Elsewhere he cites C. Webb’s statement, according to which “A theory of the world may fairly be called Mysticism in which the ultimate truth and reality of things is held to be a unity the consciousness of which is attainable as a feeling inexpressible by thought”.2088 C. Webb is in fact correct inasmuch as describing an ultimate mystical trajectory whose attainment transcends the intellectual potencies allotted to mankind. Unlike Roth’s claim, it by no means implies that the intellect has no share in generating that trajectory in mystical discourse! Likewise superficialities and dubious claims feature in C. Feinberg’s essay Maimonides and Cordovero: the Rationalist and the Mystic:2089 Feinberg deems Mysticism “A vision whose starting point is imaginative rather than rational” and continues to state that RaMaK’s “Highly original directions in fact foreshadows the 2086 Davies, P. (1992), p.226. 2087 W.B. Drees gives a good sample o f such “Glib statements [which] express m uch too simple views o f how science and theology interact” - see ibid (1990), pp.2-3. 2088 Roth, L. (1999), p p .13 (italics in the original) and 144. 2089 Feinberg, C. (1986).

404

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

philosophical revolution of Kabbalah itself, [which] began by Isaac Luria”2m)[l\] - all of which demonstrate Feinberg’s little to no knowledge of both the medieval roots of mystical philosophy and the remotely philosophical structure of Lurianic Kabbalah in comparison to RaMaK's. Feinberg’s treatment of Maimonides and RaMaK also suggests little mastery of the tensions in Maimonides’ own theistic Aristotelianism;2091 it disregards Maimonides’ attendance to wonder as a cause of great joy2092 and betrays no serious understanding whatsoever of the Cordoeirian speculative system: his claim that Maimonides professed “A total chasm between Creator and His world” is an error which lacks in fully wrestling with Maimonides’ view of essential attributes and the unified aseity of the divine! Likewise, stating that “Cordovero is laying the groundwork for Kabbalah’s essential foundation: imagination, a faculty that Maimonides strongly distrusted,” acknowledges neither the imaginative terminologies which had nurtured mystical discourse hundreds of years prior to Cordoeiro, nor the Cordoeirian use of imaginative parables as mediums for rational assessments as well. “Like imagination”, Feinberg concludes, “faith asks for no corroboration, and is, for Kabbalah, the free ground supporting its imaginative myth. In attacking the rational approach to God, Cordovero is really laying the free and imaginative foundation for the world of emanation”.2093 Such claims of a Cordoeirian non-rational Psychological Theosophy are clarified once one realizes that Feinberg substantiates his claims by short excerpts from S.A. Horodetzky’s partial anthology of RaMaK - never bothering to examine RaMaK's works in the much greater context they deserve. As we strive to move beyond such glib statements in lofty disguise, we first need to acknowledge that the empirical does not always fence in the rational, whereas the most fascinating scientific theories and philosophical contentions revolve precisely around the tensions between the two. And even within the realm of the knowable, the words of the novelist Farley Mowat may afford some humility by reminding us to not always “Allow facts to interfere with the Truth”2094 - echoing in layman’s terms that which has been

2090 Ibid, p.331 - italics by the author. 2091 See on this issue Minkin, J.S. (1957); Kreisel, H. (1986); Nuriel, A. (1978-9); Ravitzky, E. (1978-9); Hartman, D. (1976). 2092 See on tis issue Wilman, P.H. (1983); Jacobs, L. (1976 b), pp.45-60; Yishpa, R. (1994). 2093 Ibid. 2094 Mowat, F. (1963), p.5.

405

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

advocated since the dawn of philosophy and mystical speculation alike. The mind’s greatest feat arguably lies in its ability to grasp laws which may transcend empirical reality or deride conventional discourse: “Though there never were a circle or triangle in nature”, noted the philosopher and historian David Hume, “the truths demonstrated by Euclid’s [geometry] would forever retain their certainty and evidence”.2095 Indeed, the 1937 statement by the eminent scientist J.B.S. Haldane is not only apt but would have resonated quite well with RaMaK as well: “My suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose”.2096 Viewing the entire mystical phenomenon as running opposite to rational thought is a rather deceptive speck on one’s scholastic lens; for to claim that mysticism revolves mainly around the occult and therefore cannot lend itself to rigorous rational discourse only means that one has no serious knowledge of the vast reaches and multiple vocabularies which inform mystical speculation. Without overstating this criticism, some scientific protagonists need to hold themselves to that which science itself has always venerated: hypotheses are important, but only research of the subject matter may yield noteworthy conclusions. One should therefore not restrict the idea of truth by avoiding its potentially multiple vocabularies, for the celebrated standing of science as such a vocabulary does not mean that it alone governs the epistemic echelon. Despite its visible acumen and charge “To explain things that had previously been the domain of myth or •

religion”,

9007

scientific inquiry arguably has not put a dent in some metaphysical,

theological or existential perplexities which have always plagued humanity. “And certainly we should take care not to make the intellect our god”, notes A. Einstein; “it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality [...]; it has a sharp eye for methods and tools, but is blind to ends and values”.2098 “And what does science provide in exchange for our belief?” continues D.C. Matt; “Progress in every field except for one: the ultimate meaning of life”.2099 True, the scientific language has greatly fortified such inquiries by broadening their scope of research, sharpening their lenses and enriching their expressive vocabularies; but 2095 In Hemenway, P. (2005), p. 16. 2096 In Singh, S. (2004), p.481. 2097 Ibid, p.469. 2098 Einstein, A. (rev. ed., 1993), p.58. 2099 Matt, D.C. (1996), p.30.

406

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

to this point science has proven itself neither the single legitimate shrine of rational thought nor its ultimate expression. Science at its current best touches upon the innermost regions which empiric exploration and discourse afford, henceforth engaging metaphysical concerns solely by means of speculation. Science at its current best cannot refute metaphysical assessments, for the tools to do so remain defiantly beyond its reach. One should therefore not misconstrue scientists interested in metaphysics to mean metaphysical science, for the latter does not and cannot exist. The former, on the other hand, is an outcome of some of our sharpest minds, whose inquiries persistently soared beyond the confinements of empiricism or reductionism; individuals whose scientific endeavors had led to metaphysical questions and henceforth carried them speculating about issues whose manifold interfaces with questions revolving divinity should not go unnoticed. Consequently, those scientists who reached the black hole in both spacetime and intellect are arguably as dumbfounded today as were RaMaK and some of his contemporaries over 5 centuries ago: “Why does the universe bother to exist?”, asks the eminent astrophysicist S. Hawking; “I do not know the answer to that”.2100 And much like RaMaK, they too harbor at times ambiguous terminologies which do not necessarily withstand clear-cut logic: as mentioned earlier, to claim that the singularity equals ‘infinite condensation’ is to replace metaphysical bafflement with a scientific fapade which yields more confusion than clarity. Regardless its intensity, ‘condensation’ remains a finite property which arguably remains a euphemism for the metaphysical conclusion “I neither know nor can explain, but nonetheless it must be a singularity beyond any conceivable singularity”. This claim, again, RaMaK would have endorsed all heartedly when discussing the black hole vis-a-vis

theosophical, metatheosophical

and

metaphysical discourse. The farthest regions of rational thought lie beyond the language of science, albeit the mastery of a scientific vernacular may greatly sharpen one’s facilities for such a journey. As philosopher Emil Fackenheim once put it, “We cannot fairly dismiss this absolute and fact-defying certainty of God as the mental habit of a religious civilization. How can we understand it? We shall be totally unable to do so unless we rid ourselves of the modem

2100 Hawking, S. (1993), p. 127.

407

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

prejudice that all religious life is an evolution of religious feelings and ideas”.2101 What Fackenheim continued to call “A leap in the dark” is a path taken by those capable to surpass the boundaries of intellectual bigotry and scholastic biases irrespective of the particular language crammed into their conceptual backpacks. It will be useful for all parties involved to follow in the footsteps of such astute rationalists and scientists as Einstein, Pauli, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Eddington or Jeans and to become conceptually multilingual; to acquaint the probing mind with other doctrines and compare terminologies which perhaps expose splendid interdisciplinary interfaces at times.2102 As W.B. Drees has put it, “In short: in order to improve the level of intellectual discussion a more critical reflection on possible relations between cosmological and theological thinking is required.”2103 It may therefore be apt to conclude this brief discussion with Y. Liebes’ important meditations: A myth is a sacred story about the gods expressing that which the abstract word, or Logos, cannot express. [...] Those who see the Logos as the central essence have turned myth into a derogatory term, denoting trivial and vain inventions whereas those, like myself, who do not believe that reality can be completely reduced to logical terms, recognize myth as its culmination. [...] Even Judaism’s monotheistic essence is not contradictory to myth, and monotheism itself has its own, far-reaching myth [...]. But Kabbalah makes more stringent demands that reach into the rational realm too; it may be for this reason that wide circles, which enjoy this complacent distinction between myth and mind, feel threatened by it. One need not be perplexed by the assumption that myths can be graded according to their ontological validity. A wide range of possibilities stretches between legends and parables, on the one hand, and an objective, inevitable reality, on the other. [...] Kabbalists ascribed to a specific sefira all mythical references to God’s attributes found in the Bible and in rabbinical literature, in line with the conceptual rigor favored by the medieval approach and under the influence of philosophy, despite the latter’s attempt to eradicate all mythical traces from Judaism. Philosophy failed in this attempt, but it did have a share in changing the shape of the myth. Philosophy affected kabbalists directly, through ideas such as unio mystica and the neo-Platonic emanation, which in Kabbalah fused in the mythical description of attachment (devekut) and emanation (atzilut). See in Sonsino, R. (ed., 2004), pp.72-90. 2102 See e.g., Gilson, E. (1941); Hick, J. (ed., 1964), (1980); Jastrow, R. (sec. ed., 1980); Adler, M.J. (1980); Drees, W.B. (1990); Davies, P. (1992); Hawking, S. (1993); Matt, D.C. (1996); Steinitz, Y. (1998); Kaplan, R. (1999); Agamben, G. (1999); Lobel, D. (2000); Seife, C. (2000), (2006); Naeim, F. (2005). 2103 Drees, W.B. (1990), p.3.

408

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

[Philosophy] also affected them indirectly, by evoking their need for selfdefense; to protect myth from attacks mounted from the philosophical flank, kabbalists adopted the ways of their adversaries and arrived at more conceptual formulations of God’s attributes”.2104

RaMaK's Black [WJhole and Big Bang nVrrj jw b v o iraio bnpjw to mnnpn n n ’cn pmnnm rbx rnmpnnn trnpm n’brron u s mm We long and aspire to draw near H im and to cleave to the affected realms which are close to Him - until we receive His benevolence in a grand emergence E ilim a R ab b ati, Bin K ol ha-Aretz 1:14

The black hole commands one’s eyes to remain wide shut in their attempt to fathom it without singeing one’s intellectual facilities and expressive faculties. At this juncture, as we move from the scientific rendition and chart its plausible conceptual equivalents in pre-Modem Jewish metaphysics, we should take note of D.C. Matt’s comments about the role o f myth in human discourse -

comments which compliment Y. Liebes’

aforementioned meditations: A myth is a story, imagined or true, that helps us make our experience comprehensible by offering a construction of reality. It is a narrative that wrests order from chaos. We are not content to see events as unconnected, as inexplicable. We crave to understand the underlying order in the world. A myth tells us why things are the way they are and where they came from. Such an account is not only comfortable, assuring and socially useful; it is essential. Without a myth, there is no meaning or purpose to life. Myths do more than explain. They guide mental processes, conditioning how we think, even how we perceive. Myths come to life by serving as models for human behavior.2105 The astute observers who yearned for a further knowledge of the perplexing abyss real or mythological - may be divided into two camps: the first would consist of those who remained bewildered or skeptic and state “I do not see anything” - a stance heard among the so-called simpletons in RaMaK's world. The second camp, now overcome by what they regarded as a supreme epiphany, would meditate over the dialectic nature that seems to emanate from the vacuous deep and profess a chief regulation according to

2104 Liebes, Y. (1993 b), pp.2-5. 2105 Matt, D.C. (1996), p.29.

409

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

which opposites do not exist at all. There is rather the hierarchical supremacy of potentiality over actuality, a mechanism whose manifestation can only be appreciated via negativa: the cause professes the effect as its opposite to the deficient human mind. Such observers would now experience an incredible feat of a reversed intellect, wherein the mind aligns with the black hole and sees it as the Chief Illumination that it is. S. Rushdie continues; Then he glimpsed at the warrior’s eyes, and a chill struck at his heart. What terrifying eyes they were! Instead of whites, they had blacks', and the irises were grey as twilight, and the pupils were white as milk. ‘No wonder the Chupwalas like the dark,’ Haroun understood; ‘they must be blind as bats in the sunlight, because their eyes are the wrong way round, like a film negative that somebody forgot to print’.2106 Armed indeed by such pupils white as milk, our speculators would view light as an eclipse o f the primordial dark at which they are now gazing! The nullification of actuality illuminates its governing unified potentiality, they would exclaim, just as this ultimate darkness does not negate light but rather causes light; “And despite our inability to comprehend how such opposites reside unified within Him, His unification of all renders them nonetheless one”.2107 Likewise, this inane void is not an absence but rather a supreme presence whose quality escalates the darker and deeper its potentiality becomes, until it reaches that wondrous point of potentially-singular aseity - “Removed from any absence in reality, for He is the utmost perfection” [ xbx

n y n 73 xnnna i]pmn

n’33n nbw xirutf].2108 Seeing this mechanism as the key to all realities emanating from the abyss, these individuals would fix their newly acquired eyes on that which can only be disclosed via negativa and quiet their thought from obstructing its appreciation. Marveling at that which points mind beyond reason, sight beyond light and truth beyond expression, they would sense a great feat of intellectual triumph and spiritual uplifting attaining potentiality as the harboring canopy of actuality, a property which pulsates ceaselessly as a heart whose paradoxical throb mutes the potential by articulating it as actual. In the words of Tikkunei ha-Zohar, “You are He that produced ten tikkunim,

2106 Rushdie, S. (1990), p.125. 2107 E ilim a R ab b ati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:19. 2108 Ibid, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 2:1.

410

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

which we call ten sefirot, so through them You might guide the secret worlds that are not revealed, and the worlds that are revealed. And through them you are concealed from mankind, and You bind them and unite them”.2109 For the Kabbalists of the 12th and 13th centuries, as G. Scholem notes, “The Sefirot are the potencies constituting the active Godhead, and through which (to use Kabbalistic language) it acquires its ‘face’. [It] is the aspect of the divine life turned toward us which, despite its concealment, seeks to take on shape. The divine life is expressed in ten steps or levels, which both conceal and reveal Him. It flows out and animates Creation; but at the same time it remains deep inside”.2110 In RaMaK's rendition, as we have already witnessed, this process was “Concealment is the source of revelation and revelation is the source of concealment” - a reality wherein “Expansion is contraction”2111 and “The entire world is God in myriad forms and disguises”.2112 Transformed into 'princes of darkness', these individuals would marvel anew at their existence as shadows to divinity, images whose sum of faculties may now point back to God and align with His regulatory apparatus. Looking at their fellowmen beneath, whose ‘unhinged’ black pupils doomed them blind to a truth concealed from ordinary view, our warriors would now exclaim “Do not say ‘I do not see anything’; rather, you should exclaim ‘Behold, I finally see Nothing - the greatest light of all, the Supreme over all things!” This threshold of epistemic eruption would nevertheless lead our men to realize that they are merely standing at the penultimate rim of the Nothing - God’s event horizon, as it were. Overpowered by an intellectual thrust whose employment only amplified its henceforth irrelevance, they would now succumb to deduce the necessity of a ‘distance’ between the penultimate rim and the ultimate singularity at its base, and continue to deduce the aseity of a singularity even more profound than the base itself the most exalted form of potentiality to whom even the term ‘singularity’ can no longer apply. Each ‘level’ of the ever-deepening abyss will therefore be construed by deduction as the seeming negation of its preceding level; the amplification of potentiality over actuality: RaMaK's ‘nothing’ (px), as we shall see, is now surpassed by a ‘nothing over

2109 T ikkunei h a-Z o h ar, second preface 17a-17b; cf: Tishby, I. (1949), v o l.l, p.260. 2110 Scholem, G. (1991), p.39. 2111 E ilim a R ab b ati, Ein ha-Bedolah 1:14. 2112 Matt, D.C. (1996), p.39.

411

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

nothing’ (pN bv px), whereas ‘actual actuality’ (7i;iS3

gives way to ‘potential

actuality’ (byisn rD), which gives way to ‘actual potentiality’ (rD3 byiD), which gives way to ‘potential potentiality’ (nD3 ro). This process, however, does not continue ad infinitum and does not suggest an asymptotic regression within the abyss. As we shall later unpack, RaMaK's construction leads towards an infinitely self-contained circularity which negotiates itself in a perfect equilibrium of essential attributes - the designation of the Godhead as engaging “in joyous playfulness from Self to Self in S elf’ ( iMlf?

11WVW

iMin). This singular potentiality also seems to be the most acute interface between the EinSof and the Keter, the profoundly subtle transformation from 0 to 1, from beginning to end; the accord of absolute spherical equability described by RaMaK as nnnttfn nT)p3 {a point o f equanimity). 2113 Those engaged in kabbalistic metaphysical speculation during the medieval and preModem Jewish world belonged therefore to the second camp of black hole observers; individuals who met the Nothing and rendered it not only the potentiality behind all existence but also the regulator of their innermost teleology: “The Kabbalist who was prepared to follow this path of inwardness”, continues G. Scholem, “would be liberated and redeemed by the fact that he himself in the depths of his soul would seek a way of return to God, to the source whence he was hewn”.2114 This stage, which was the third in Scholem’s “Phenomenon of religious experience” (consisting of the Mythical Epoch, the Creative Epoch and the Romantic Epoch, or Mysticism) featured as that hovering around God’s event horizon, “Where the individual is set on a quest to cross the abyss in search of personal experience of the divine. Here, the scene is neither nature nor the community of men, but the individual soul. The mystic finds the hidden path over the abyss to communion or union with God. But in this innermost experience the two previous stages of cosmic mythology and revelation merge”.2115 But many Jewish philosophers of the medieval period - let alone the mystical speculator RaMaK - were not necessarily focused on teleological closure or personal redemption alone. The divine regulation which had now enlightened them through primordial darkness had to be articulated as to inform the community as a whole - an 2113 See e.g., P ard es R im onim 11:5. 2114 Scholem, G. (1995), p.39. See also ibid (1976), p p .191-216; Fine, L. (trans., 1984), p .83. 2115 Scholem, G. (1946), pp.4-10.

412

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

especially palpable reality in RaMaK's world. Upon returning from their intellectual ventures and spiritual meditations, such figures as Sa’adia Gaon (882 C.E - 942 C.E), Abraham ibn Daud (12th century), Moses Maimonides (1138-1204) or RaMaK eventually professed to their readers a similar conclusion, albeit in modified terminologies which bore various metaphysical, theological or devotional ramifications: by witnessing the Nothing at the threshold of His event horizon, they would say, and by fathoming through deduction His necessity and commanding causal potentiality, we reached the wondrous and deeply humbling point wherein our intellectual faculties had proven themselves wholly irrelevant henceforth. Comprehending now our inability to comprehend further, we conclude that God’s essence unreservedly surpasses experience and articulation, and we therefore succumb to professing Him through the inadequate mediums allotted to us as humans. Such are Maimonides’ words in affirming negative theology: Know that the description of God by means of negations is the correct description, a description that is not affected by an indulgence in facile language. Negative attributes conduct the mind toward the mind toward the utmost reach that one may attain in the apprehension of God. You come nearer to the apprehension of God with every increase in negations.2116 Such men would therefore charge others to accept this entire cosmic edifice and any depictions of divinity thereof as merely pointing to Him through their own negation rather than positively describing His essence. Simultaneously, people such as RaMaK would continue, we charge you to realize that His singular potentiality causes everything to point back to Him and that all particulars exist and operate within a harmonious utility which must be known, explored and acted upon. For although He is ultimately beyond reach, everything is from Him and imbued by Him. He is transcendent and immanent, utterly other yet wholly within the most miniscule of dust specks as one! You should therefore wrestle and marvel as one, harness your intellect so it may reach the wondrous threshold of the Nothing and allow belief to supersede it henceforth. The apriori acceptance of God’s unified governance thus gave rise to the core of mystical speculation, namely the dogmatization of the metaphysical enigma by

2116 Maimonides, G uide 1:58-59.

413

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

transforming its unified property into theosophical compliance, epistemic lucidity and operational assurance: God’s simplicity - whose contemplation by men could have sent every intellect into the futile realms of vacuous infinity - now guaranteed by way of the dialectical interplay o f seeming opposites the imperative unity henceforth regulating the entire world. In RaMaK's words, Prior to any emanated element the EinSof was on His own, encompassing all reality alone. And even after having realized the existing elements, there is nothing save Him and nothing thrives save by Him, God forbid. For no element can exist devoid of God’s potency in it, whereas any claim to the contrary limits [God] and professes duality, God forbid. Rather, God is in all existence, whereas no existing element is God - meaning that the order of reality as a whole unfolds in such a manner [...], for God is in all reality [...].2117

The Godhead - A Self-Sufficient Potential Singularity Ad Infinitum: No-Symbol Zero = No Symbol One p’V nun Torn1? nVo on *mi ,odn -mi inv nun rran ’rota

mxi

’ :i O l a y

E in S o f has neither a partner nor a colleague nor a friend; rather, He realizes all out o f absolute zero RaMaK, Eilima Rabbati, Ein ha-Bedolah 1:22.

RaMaK’s ultimate metaphysical standpoint is a Maimonidean Aristotelianism2118 - a Godhead who is absolutely otherworldly “And whose essence bears neither will nor knowledge nor potentiality/potency whatsoever”.2119 This view, as we shall soon see, regarded divinity as an infinite potential potency rather than its negation in form of •

ultimate absence;

9 1 9fl

•

a Nothing “Neither empty nor barren”,

9191

whose transcendence is

the aseity of potential potency ad infinitum and who had been rendered as such by Medieval Christian mystics as well - nihil by John Scotus Eriugena (c. 800 - c. 877); nihts by Meister Eckhart (1260-1328) or nada by RaMaK's contemporary St. John of the 2117 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 4:1. 2118 See e.g., Eilima Rabbati, Ein ha-Bedolah 1:16; on this issue in general see Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp. 11, 23-26, 33-35, 39-40, 44-46, 51, 56, 64, 86-72, 182-188, 190-192, 214-220, 246-249, 297-300, 324330; Goetschel R. in Ben-Ami, I. (ed., 1982); Maier, J. (2001). 2119 See e.g., Shiur Qomah, p. 111. 2120 On this issue see also Matt, D.C. in Fine, L. (ed. 1995); ibid (1996), chapter 2. 2121 Matt, D.C. (1996), p.40.

414

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Cross (1542-1591).2122 In the words of a 14th century kabbalist, David ben Avraham haLavan, “Nothingness is more existent than all the being of of the word. But since it is simple, and all simple things are complex compared with its simplicity, in comparison it is called Ayin”.2123 RaMaK's use of the words FD (k o ’ah) and *71719 (po’al) is indeed a Neoplatonic rendition which aims on the one hand to refute the possibility of an unperturbed Aristotelian divinity, while wrestling on the other hand with the Neoplatonic concession to a compulsory creative force in divinity - obviously a problem from a theistic mystical standpoint. These terms must therefore be translated prudently and with regard to the nuance required on this level of esoteric discourse: on the ontological level FD refers to divine aseity as positive potentiality, whereas on the functional level FD means positive potency. Similarly, *71719 refers to an inferior ontological level of actuality, whereas its functional level means activity. As far as FO is concerned, divine potentiality equals potency since aseity and unity fuse all attributes in unified aseity, therefore, “He and His potency are unified as one” [7FiN 1FD1 Xim I7ri7 inui]2124 - a Neoplatonic idea whose reiteration we also find in the work of RaMaK's devout Italian student, Rabbi Menahem Azariah de Fano.2125 As for *71719, we shall demonstrate its inherent standing as a property of the Keter, namely that the ontic condition of the Keter is the activation itself. It is therefore that the relationship between the Godhead and the world - much like our black hole theorem - is the inverse relationship between condensed potentiality and expansive actuality. Identical to Maimonides’ claim regarding our greatest feat of intellect being our inability to fathom God’s essence, RaMaK maintains that knowing God “Is not knowing Him in essence but rather attaining the necessity of His existence (= aseity),”2126 and continues to caution men from penetrating beyond the singularity: “This [...] is to warn you lest you [attempt] to breach the gulf and enter the dangerous zone

2122 On this issue see Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp.45-48, 185 and especially pp. 204-210, 296-299; ibid (1976); Matt, D.C. (1996), especially pp.38-42 and his references there. 2123 See Scholem, G. (1974), p.95; Matt, D.C., in Fine, L. (ed. 1995); ibid (1996), p.40 and his references there. The ideas conveyed in these articles also appear in http://www.aynsof.info/Daniel_Matt.htm. 2124 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:14. Please refer to the following section, The Essential Attributes, for more details. 2125 See Pelah ha-Rimon, p .13. On RaM aK and Plotinus, see Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp.316-318. 2126 See e.g. Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:3.

415

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

prior to the Keter, for this is utter futility”.2127 It is therefore a necessary epistemic regulation to treat this realm as the juxtaposition of the awesome and the fearsome, and “Any contemplation of His unity must be by way of to and fro” [mttn to n ],

2128

a

perpetual sense of infatuation and retraction: “Let your mind attain the necessity of His existence and immediately retract”.2129 It is within such maneuvers that RaMaK discloses his view o f the Godhead (EinSof) and we may now return to the text from Or Ne'erav which we used as opening trigger for this chapter: First of all, [the beginner] must know that the Creator, EinSof, is one and has no second. He is the cause of Causes and the Prime Mover. He is not one in the numerical sense, for [the concept of] mutation and form and multiplicity do not apply to Him. [One] is rather a word utilized by way of parable and likeness, since the number one stands by itself and is the beginning o f each number, [all numbers] being contained within it in potential, while it is a part o f every number in actuality. When we call the Creator, may He be blessed, One, it is in this manner: that the Creator, may He be blessed, is in all things by actuality, while all things are in Him by potentiality. He is the beginning and cause of all things. In this way they ascribed to the Creator, may He be blessed, unity, without change by addition or subtraction, similar to the [number] one. [They found] also that He is the necessary cause of being, just as [number] one is necessary for all numbers, for no number can exist save by it. He is not a number, [however], since the elimination o f the number eliminates all other numbers but cannot eliminate the oneness in itse lf2130 and that is the potentiality / potency o f One* [inxn FDnn].

I.

Robinson translated the conclusion of RaMaK's above meditation 7nttn no inn as

“This is the power of [the divine] unity”. More subtlety is arguably required here, since RaMaK’s use of the term r?D refers also to the ontological and epistemological realms of the divine condition, not only the functional one. inxn no should therefore translate as both an infinitely unified singular potentiality and an infinitely unified singular potency [ = I. Robinson’s “The power of divine unity”]. The metaphysical Godhead was the black hole’s innermost potential singularity and outermost event horizon at once - “Since the beginning o f thought is simultaneously the end of the action” [ ‘110 ton not^nan nV’nn ’0

2127 Ibid 1:8. 2128 E ilim a R ab b ati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:11. 2129 E ilim a R ab b ati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:10. 2130 O r N e'erav 6:1; in I. Robinson (1994), p.111. 3.111.

416

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

n^yan]

9191

•

•

; He whose existence was necessary by deduction as the prime ontic

potentiality and functional potency, “Since His unification is unlike any of those found in the world”2132 and since without Him none could have existed, as “His unified potency sustains all, each hour and each second”.2133 EinSof transcends any singularity by way of “A wondrous supremacy” and “No point may describe Him”,2134 yet is nonetheless a singular potentiality ad infinitum without whom no actuality could ever manifest. RaMaK's Godhead was therefore a singularity beyond any conceivable unity and as such an awesome zero of enigmatic singular potentiality. Much like Sa’adia Gaon’s warnings regarding human epistemic and expressive impediments in attaining this level,2135 RaMaK also states that “No word can attain Him at once [...] since words are uttered in sequence, one after the other.”2136 Men should therefore “Prevent their mouths from speaking of Him”2137 and attain His aseity only via inference, since “Every cause surpasses its affects” and “we can attain the cause only via its affects”,2138 “from the revealed we attain the concealed as written ‘learn one thing from another’2139”.2140 The Godhead who is “The Cause of all causes”2141 “Must therefore be deduced by the affected elements in a wondrous necessity”

zrrn]2142 as “The only one who has

aseity” [mx’san Tina],2143 “He who all need yet needs none in turn”,2144 “A primary head [of governance] to whom no inquiry befits and is therefore titled by all that we cannot attain or grasp - EinSof \ 2145 This negative term is “Not to suggest a non-Being, but to suggest - as ibn Gaboril [!]2146 wrote - ‘You are one and the secret of your unity puzzles

Pardes Rimonim 11:5. 2132 Eilima Rabbati, i b i d , 1 :4 . 2133 Pardes Rimonim 6 :8 ; Eilim a Rabbati, 2134 Or Ne'erav 6:1.

ib i d .

2135 S e e t o f o l l o w i n o u r d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e e s s e n t i a l a t t r ib u t e s .

2136 Eilima Rabbati, ibid, 1:11. 2137 Shiur Qomah, p.5 a n d s e e Sefer Yetzirah 1 :8 . 2138 Eilima Rabbati, i b i d , 1 :2 0 . 2139 Babylonian, H a g i g a h 1 4 a a n d S a n h e d r i n 9 3 a . 2140 See e.g. Shiur Qomah, pp.179-180 and Or Ne'erav, chapter 1. I return to this issue in the second simile to follow.

2143 See e.g., Pardes Rimonim 3:1; 11:2 and Or Ne'erav 6:1. 2144 Sefer Gerushin, entry 79, p. 103. Expansive elaborations o f this idea are found in his more theoretical works, Pardes Rimonim, Eilima Rabbati and Shiur Qomah. Please refer to the second part o f this work. 2145 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 2:8. 2146 Referring to ibn Gabirol.

417

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

the hearts of all wise’ [...] for His oneness may indeed be described via negativa, not via positiva”.2147 He transcends all, being concealment within concealment [px *?y px] ad infinitum,2148 beyond the ontic, structural, epistemic and functional properties of His creation entire. His necessary unified potentiality [irmnx HD]2149 is the unifying imperative on all levels and may warrant the term singular zero - an absolutely exalted Nothing, whose unified presence is vehemently upheld;2150 “A vacuum devoid of matter, but not really empty,” as D.C. Matt narrates, “rather, it was in a state of minimum energy, 0 1 S1

pregnanat with potential, teeming with virtual particles”.

To the rhetorical question posed by Sefer Yetzirah, “What can men count prior to one?”2152 RaMaK now states, “That which removes the [actual] attribute of one”2153 and necessitates “The potentiality of one” [7nxn 173]; He whose singularity “Transcends numbers”2154 and whose elimination “Cannot eliminate the oneness in itself’2155 - the One “Whose arithmetic foundation is above” [rfryft1? m o1 fQETin].2156 Indeed, as noted by C. Seife, “One seems like the natural place to start counting, but doing so forces us to put zero in an unnatural place”.2157 RaMaK's application of the term zero [nO’SX / DDK] adheres on the one hand to its conventional use in medieval Aristotelianism as meaning either the lack o f or the negation of: RaMaK's description of “Zero potentiality / potency” 2158

[lit. nun no’DX]

in the highest emanated realms, for example, comes only to suggest

that they lack in potentiality / potency once compared to the Godhead Himself. On the other hand, RaMaK uses zero precisely as we understand it, namely an absolute potential aseity - “The Godhead has neither a partner nor a colleague nor a friend; rather He realizes all out of absolute zero” [hbmhn DDXft

X’Htttttl].2159 This stand should not be

overviewed, since the Hebrew Bible itself features an astonishing verse wherein the term

2147 See e.g., Pardes Rimonim 4:5 and compare with Or Yaqar on Zohar, va-Yikrah, note 7. 2148 See on this issue Matt, D.C. inF ine, L. (ed., 1995), pp.67-108; Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp.50-51. 2149 See e.g., Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:14. 2150 See e.g., Pardes Rim onim 3:1 and compare with Shiur Qomah, p .161. 2151 Matt, D.C. (1996), p. 19. 2152 See Sefer Yetzirah 1:7 and Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:4. 2153 Eilima Rabbati, ibid. 2154 See e.g., Or Yaqar on Zohar, va-Yikrah, note 7. 2155 Or Ne'erav 6:1. 2156 Ibid, 3:1. 2157 Seife, C. (2000), p l6 . 2158 Ibid. 2159 Eilima Rabbati, Ein ha-Bedolah 1:22.

418

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

03X [zero / nothing] is applied to YHWH - “I3N1 ,ODR"IQX1 1»5? 711717rrnn TOTH im b "I7DX1 m rr Dtya T3T!f? x b ’d on (“He asked the man in the house ‘Is there anyone besides you?’, to which the man replied ‘Efes’ [none]; and he rebuked him, ‘Silence, do not mention the name of YHWH’”). Although RaMaK never mentions this verse in our particular context, it was obviously known to him and most likely had drawn his attention regarding the application of zero en route to divine metaphysics. Likewise, our use of zero as a property whose aseity commands brute metaphysical compulsion corresponds with RaMaK's view of an essence whose singularity is as transcendent as it is uncompromising ad infinitum: it is a zero which remains one as a zero and is therefore not the philosophical idea of an absolute void2160 but rather a profound presence whose articulation commands a sensation of infinite absence of any actuality whatsoever; a singular potentiality ad infinitum, that whose condition is potential singular potentiality [1733 113]: “Indeed, this absence is not as often conceived by men as an absence and a zero, God forbid. Rather, it is the primordial Nothing, EinSof alone - no room for absence whatsoever”;2161 a singularity “Which lacks no potentiality / potency whatsoever, God forbid” [i"n ,H3~ pion 13 p7lTP xb mplbxn].2162 This singular potentiality is therefore a singular wondrous potentiality of equally wondrous a potency, “A ‘one’ unlike any other [and whose] unified potency [innnx ri3] unifies [Himself and] all else”.2163 If to Aristotelianism infinity and void were conceptually toxic,2164 to mystical speculation they were the indispensible foundation. Applying RaMaK's above rationalization of the meta-numeric ‘1’ in Or Ne'erav, our use of the term singular zero here equals his view of the potentiality o f one; “The elimination of the number which cannot eliminate the oneness in itself’. God’s supremacy over all else is that of potentiality over actuality and His unified essence fuses zero as one ad infinitum; although it is the property called singularity which is later viewed as the subtle actualization of zero toward the actual one {Keter). Yet in the EinSof the commanding potentiality of zero does not hinder its singularity as such, for even zero cannot be but single in and of itself, “Since His potentiality is not a deficiency, just as His 2160 See e.g., Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 2:14. 2161 Ibid, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:7; Ein K ol 2:17, 3:9. 2162 Pardes R im onim 2:1. On this issue, see Matt, D.C. in Fine, L. (ed., 1995), p.73. 2163 Ibid, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:4. 2164 See also Seife, C. (2000), especially pp.39-53.

419

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

actuality is not an efficiency [...], but are all equally in attendance”.2165 RaMaK's Godhead may therefore be described as the only necessity; a potential potentiality which is singular as such ad infinitum [0=1] and whose governance of all is potentially unified within His circular, self-sufficient, potent essence: as philosophers had already maintained, “The Godhead is utterly removed from any attribute, be it wisdom, will, righteousness and so forth”,2166 for “He is the Cause of Himself and no cause preceded Him.”2167 The inner-logic wherein God’s essence was fused as potential singularity therefore meant that it was neither God’s singularity nor potentiality that changed in Himself, but rather its gradual actualization as a singularity. The perplexing transition from potential to actual singularity (from singular zero to singular one) thus distinguished the Godhead from all else, starting at the Keter. In and of itself, however, God’s potentiality is fused as singularity just as His singularity is fused as potentiality, no-symbol zero which is utterly unified as a no-symbol 1 ad infinitum. The following is a fascinating excerpt from Pardes Rimonim: D’bxiona xmw , w * r a □1tan bsb twici xmw yurto n»ta tap1 iron ’’s ,'iDio nnx no nnx ii3b'i' inn p w ta ptpb t w xb o"x uoo nbvob box .noobi ,TQttmn bo bibo ioto m o sn iso» tonw piotonn nb^nn tonw 7ns tap: inon [...] nby»b mo*’ patrnni The Keter is called First since it is indeed the first to all the created [realms], meaning from the emanated [realm] downward. This does not apply to the Godhead above it, which is the meaning behind ‘What can you count prior to one’. This goes to say that the Keter is called One inasmuch as facilitating the beginning of sequential arithmetic, whose ultimate sum is ten and whose foundation is above,2168 As we shall later see, RaMaK's view of the Godhead as a no-symbol singular zero is seen in his application of the meta-numerical relationship between 1 and 0 and its mathematical compulsion as ten ( 1 = 0 = 10).2169 Returning to our subject matter, the

2165 Ibid 1:14. 2166 Pardes Rimonim 3:1; Shiur Qomah, pp.67, 105, 111. 2167 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:4 and see Zohar 1:22b. 2168 Ibid, 3:1. 2169 This idea also falls under the term 710 (the secret o f 1=10=100) in mystical discourse. Please refer to p.469 and fn. 2375 in this work for further detail.

420

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Godhead’s event horizon is therefore the most acute perplexity, for it suggests a movement in an inert essence; a subtle actualization of the unity within the no-symbol, a revelation, as it were, without breaching the absolutely self-sufficient circularity of a Godhead who is “Everything and therefore utterly unified, never bound to act, from Self to Self’;2170 a God who is “Utter essence, which neither changes nor reveals nor conceals, but is rather an inert existence in and of itself and does not emanate from reality to reality” [ ’nbn nw sab mK’X&B

7aiy Q’v inw xa xbx ,Dbj7rp ttbi rfrurr xbi ninttf1 Nbi tmnsy ton sinn^ 2171 RaMaK admits to this acute puzzle and renders God’s

supremacy over all else “An immeasurable primacy”2172 which had baffled many 9179 philosophers and kabbalists alike. However, lest one is led to believe that the cosmos is a regulatory compulsion within the Godhead, RaMaK accentuates the theistic creatio ex nihilo view by applying the ttnTTl (hidush) and UVNft m il (nedavah me-Ito) principals: “Regardless its proximity to the Godhead, any element [save the Godhead] is mehudash”,2174 i.e., emanated or created at a certain juncture [ = ex nihilo], and is “due to His [free] desire to bestow benevolence upon it”,2175 “for He needs nothing in turn and gets no [regulatory] pleasure from any emanated or created element whatsoever”.2176 The backbone o f RaMaK's mystical speculation was thus the perplexing maneuver between unwavering transcendence

and commanding immanence vis-a-vis the

articulation of the theosophical dogma mandated by the metaphysical enigma. To establish such a protocol, philosophers and mystics alike had no choice but to ascribe to the Godhead certain attributes without which His essence would have truly collapsed into the logically impossible realm of nonexistence ? 111 God at His professed best as utterly transcendent was therefore God at His unspoken worst to the probing mind - a reality which nevertheless forced their reluctant double-tongue in treating divinity, for without it they had quite literally nothing to work with! Such an approach to divinity is well felt in

2170 Ibid, Ein K ol 2:6. 2171 Ibid, Ein Shemesh 1:3. 2172 Ibid, Ein Kol ha-Aretz 1:8. 2173 Pardes Rimonim 3:1. 2174 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:13; Ein K ol 2:17 and compare with Maimonides, Guide 2:2 and Sa’adiah Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions 1:3. 2175 See e.g., Eilima Rabbati, Ein Kol ha-Aretz 1:11. 2176 Pardes Rimonim 4:9; Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:11. 2177 On this issue see also Schwartz, D. (1994).

421

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

the conceptual annals o f many influential theistic Jewish thinkers, be it Philo Judaeus, Sa’adia Gaon, Abraham ibn Daud, Maimonides, ibn Paquda or RaMaK: they must speak in double standard, professing God’s utter freedom from constraint on the one hand while on the other hand securing His existence and governance through properties known as essential attributes - the finest subtleties even God could not have done without. Aseity and unity, one already realizes, had a seat on that ‘list’ of attributes. Although different thinkers had emphasized various essentials, none could have survived metaphysical speculation save by such a list. RaMaK's professed use of the term ‘attribute’ [ixin] as pertaining only to the sefirot and never to the Godhead should not confuse our critique, for at this juncture it is arguably a semantic maneuver rather than a conceptual novelty. Much like Aristotelian and Neoplatonic philosophers, RaMaK compels the Godhead as one, infinite, eternal, simple etc’, often without using the term attribute per se.

Sa’adia Gaon, for example, listed as such essentials life, potency and

intellect [nasm rib'D’ ,Q” n], where he continues to reiterate that whereas the three seem separate and hierarchical to men, they are nonetheless all unified within God:

It is impossible for the mind to conceive of any action without [the prerequisites of] existence, potency or knowledge [...]. And although we have attained these three [attributes] as necessarily unified, our language cannot bind them in a single word, for such a word does not exist in our vocabulary. [...] However, lest one conceive of these three as separate or different qualities, I hereby explain that separation and varieties exist only in the tangible elements. Their Creator, however, is utterly beyond such differentiations [...], for He is one and His name is one”.2179 Although he surrenders the list as the property of human inadequacy to harness the Godhead in His unified and inexpressible essence, Gaon’s claim does not mitigate the brute fact wherein God was necessarily existent, potent, wise and obviously One. RaMaK states the same sentiment by telling men to necessitate God’s essential attributes into a fused potentiality “By negating their assembly in the [human] mind” [ tOQ nb’bttO pi bltto nD’OtCl].2180 Even Moses Maimonides accepted apriori God’s potentiality as existent, 2178 See e.g., Pardes Rim onim 2:1; 4:9; 8:3; 21:3; Or Yaqar on RaM aK’aya M eheimana 3:9; Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:14; Ein K ol 2:5. 2179 The Book o f Beliefs and Opinions, Second Essay, note 4. 2180 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:5.

422

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

unified and causal. Much like his predecessors Sa’adia Gaon and Abraham ibn Daud, Maimonides never refuted God’s aseity as an eternally unified intellect or a supreme motivator - as profoundly disassociated from the universe he wished that Prime Mover to be. Rather, he and all others obliterate reality as a medium to appreciate God’s essence and contest the human ability to positively harness divinity through concept, experience, observation or expression. They therefore maintained in various manners that the sole accessible medium to men is deduction via negativa: by employing all the epistemic and experiential mediums afforded by reality, and by simultaneously stating their necessary effect by God and utter unlikeness to God, men both deduce God’s potentiality as a supreme cause yet disengage from its assessment. God’s existence was therefore not the negation of actual existence but rather its cause by potential supremacy - a quality unreachable by men’s ontic, epistemic, experiential and expressive mediums. Men should therefore reach this epistemic peak and henceforth detach themselves from its alluring grip in favor o f belief in a God whose attainment is henceforth wholly beyond their scope, since “Apprehension of Him is the exhaustion of our ability to apprehend Him” [iruwn n^Dm niNbn k tt imwnun].2181

None of these thinkers can be deemed a ‘free thinker’ or a skeptic, notwithstanding the equally arrogant ambiguity these terms connote in and of themselves. Their proofs of God’s aseity are to a large extent the advanced scholasticism in their respective eras, an evolution of Greco-classical philosophies within the Judeo-Christian and Judeo-Muslim worlds - the commanding need to have the philosophical mind assure theological imperatives and religious repercussions. The via negativa process was indeed a formidable negotiator o f curiosity and retreat, an orchestrator of the desire to know and the fear of finding out, ‘To is to gaze and fro is due to fearful awe” [ mtzn O’anb Kim 9189 ntCPna]; approaching the black hole in reverse, the back leading the eyes as not to be •

blinded by its awesome darkness.2183 As such it should be examined prudently by listening to its unspoken subtexts and by realizing the impossibility that lurked at the threshold of its professed desire to elevate God beyond existence: Divine transcendence

2181 Maimonides, G uide 1:59. 2182 P eru sh le-Sefer Y etzirah 1:5. 2183 RaMaK uses this idea directly when speaking o f the manner by which each level perceives its preceding cause.

423

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

notwithstanding, it is nevertheless compelled by certain attributes whose necessity God cannot do without.2184 This need was amplified tenfold in mystical discourse, for which the theistic view of a personal deity had a momentous role.

The Essential Attributes: A Ring o f ‘Flickering Transparencies ’ - The 0 in Circular Infinity He is the One who forever is and never changes - prior to all reality and after all reality Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:13

The term ‘list of attributes’ might connote a sequence of elements which associate via cause and effect, or point to a layout whose elements do not necessarily correlate at all. Given that aseity and unity featured on God’s 'list' of essentials, one understands that either cause-effect relations or any disassociation between its constituents were obviously ruled out as logical impossibilities. Indeed, this conceptuality may yield the term '’ring' of essential attributes more apt, as we shall now demonstrate. The primary step in the philosophical deductive construction of this ring was to compel the existence of God as a potentiality, meaning that even God could not be nonexistent, regardless the level of His concealment. This statement should not be underappreciated: its ramification was that there is not at all such a thing as true nonexistence, for existence is in itself a selfsufficient cause whose supremacy over all else is absolute. As such, divine existence cannot be affected into oblivion, or erased as it were, since there always remains the superiority of any cause over its effect. Imagine, for example, a man whose touch of a finger can erase any point on his own body. Seeing him vanishing from view by the touch of his own finger, one can nonetheless realize that our man cannot erase his finger itself. In other words, whereas the affected [touched] parts can be erased, the cause (finger) cannot affect itself - one lacks the means to erase the eraser. Whereas the nuanced perplexities of this model are more than a few, it shall suffice to note at this juncture that RaMaK utilizes this model and harnesses its thrust to substantiate the metaphysical imperative which he seeks: “There is no being whose • 91RS existence is eternal save the Godhead [...] who is not a negation and a zero as some •

2184 See also Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp.69-80,92,141,143. 2185 Ibid, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:6.

424

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

men think, God forbid. Rather, He is the primordial Nothing which rules out any negation whatsoever, for He exists in essence whereas any negation requires an existing opposite in order to be conceived as a negation”.2186 This idea - in itself a form of the ontological argument - maintains that regardless the splendor of one’s implosive transformation from actuality to potentiality, a deeper level of potentiality remains ad infinitum. By turning negation on itself ad infinitum -

as did, for example, the Greek philosopher

• Parmenides 2187 - one realizes that existence has no equal opposite: existence exists

whereas “Any negation requires an existing [= preceding / superior] opposite in order to be conceived as a negation”. Nonexistence was therefore ruled out as a paradox whose existence nullifies its own ontological autonomy, for negation could be conceived only in relation to existence and be absolute only upon negating itself - a logical impossibility which leaves existence utterly necessary, unique, unified and unopposed: aseity. The absolute supremacy of aseity was therefore a momentous step to secure the metaphysical imperative which later articulates the theosophical dogma and dismisses the philosophical counterargument ex nihilo nihil fit2 m : “Those who believe in God”, RaMaK now maintains, “do not need to struggle with the question of creation ex nihilo

2189

[since] the utter Nothing is not a nonentity but [is rendered such] due to His

profound [necessarily existent] unity.”2190 God’s aseity thus triumphed, meaning that creatio ex nihilo was not the eruption of x out of -x (-x being an impossibility) but rather the actualization of x out of potential x. The potential x now demonstrated a remarkable ring of attributes fused in absolute equilibrium; and given that these attributes existed beyond both the logical realm of cause-effect and the spatiotemporal realm of any tangible, they obviously did not fall under such situations in and of themselves but informed them after the creation of the cosmos - they encircled, saturated and constituted its core simultaneously: “Given that each effect derives from its cause and is surrounded by it [...], the divine essence descends through the sefirot and between them; within the chariots and between the chariots; within the angels and between the angels;

2186 Ibid, Ein Kol 2:17. 2187 On this issue see Brown, A.Z. (ed., 1995), chapter 1. 2188 See also Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), p .87-92. For a more general discourse see e.g., Drees, W.B. (1990), pp.36-40; Matt, D.C. in Fine, L. (ed. 1995). 2189 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 2:17. 2190 Ibid 3:4.

425

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

within the wheels and between the wheels; within the foundations and between the foundations; within the earth and between the earth - down to the last, deepest point”.2191 From one angle these attributes were a sphere; from another - a seed. From one dimension they were an orb; from another - a nucleolus. From one direction they were the Crown; from another - the most sublime root of the cosmic Tree o f Life. From one viewpoint they were the event horizon', from another - a singularity. This highly subtle realm was fraught with paradox to the untrained intellect, for indeed it was a mechanism of flickering transparencies', a perpetual governance henceforth regulating a fantastic negotiation between concealment and revelation - an expansion which is in and of itself a contraction [•maxn1 non1?

“W toi]2192

The Ring and the Priciples o f Unfolding Reality At this point [quite the apt word] one finds the essential attributes unfold in a splendid display of logical aseity, wherein each attribute necessarily compels all others into cohesive circular equilibrium - a ring of essential fusion on the ontic, epistemic and functional levels. The persuasive command of potential aseity was therefore its instantaneous articulation as equally arresting potential aseities fused in unique co­ illumination: singularity, unity, uniqueness, aloneness, self-sufficiency, self-containment, perfection, purity, simplicity, intangibility, truth, indivisibility, eternity, infinity, wholesomeness, intelligibility, intellect and virtue. To say that God was eternal, for example, immediately illuminated existence, unity, singularity and all others in perfect equilibrium - as would happen with any essential attribute if put at the front of the descriptive sentence.

God’s singularity, simplicity and existence, for example,

simultaneously meant that His singularity is simple existence and existent simplicity ju st as His simplicity is singular existence and existent singularity and His existence is singular simplicity and simple singularity. Equally, given that “He and His potency are unified as one” [7ns mm xml imi? mm],2193 God’s ontic self as potentiality was

2191 Pardes Rimonim 6:8. 2192 Eilima Rabbati, Ein ha-Bedolah 1:14. 2193 Ibid, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:14. Please refer to the following section, The Essential Attributes, for more details.

426

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

simultaneously His epistemic and functional potencies: a perpetual circularity of indistinguishable flickering wherein God’s ontic inherency is existence as epistemic potency and potent epistema, ju st as His epistemic inherency knows His existent potency and potent existence and ju st as His functional inherency potentializes His existing knowledge and known existence... and so on and so forth ad infinitum within the Godhead. In other words, fathoming one immediately illuminates all as equally commanding necessities, “So by imagining that you are pointing with your finger at one of them you hint to all others, for they are all in it”.2194 This circularly paradoxical ‘flickering o f transparencies’ or ''glittering o f non-colors' may be found in the Zoharic highly obscure rendition of “A cluster of vapor forming in formlessness, thrust in a ring, not white, not black, not red, not green, no color at all” 2195 RaMaK renders it another illogical term, “An inert action” [7»1B bins],2196 or “A will that does not affect itself’ [iMin bins v t a pm ]2197 - the majestic inhaled exhalation, or a shuffling of essentials whose perpetual interchangeability sustains a singular potentiality as “God’s joyous engagement from Self to Self in Self’ [laxsn laxyb laxya yittw ].2198 To a mind untrained in the abstracts, RaMaK would state, this apparatus can be quite confounding, for it first suggests that God is the only essence that can wholly contain itself as an “Inert existence”2199, yet opens the door for a movement - as subtle as that movement might be. It is therefore better to accept the Godhead as such a circular unified potentiality “By negating their assembly in the [human] mind” [ ns’DNn bnb n'Tbra p"i bo^n]2200 - an existing truth which is true existence, an eternal absolute which is absolute eternity, a simple intellect which is intellectual simplicity, or a singular infinity which is infinite singularity and so forth ad infinitum - and by draining the intellect in its attainment. It is required to reach the loftiest realms afforded to men, wherein the mind, too, “Attains the thrown of the EinSof, exhaust itself and remains fixed [= inert] on that knowledge” [it

by ano rrctayi ruu/nn mxb irrau/na

nttbrn] 2201 The joyous

2194 Pardes Rimonim 11:4. 2195 Zohar 1:15a - translation by D.C. Matt, p. 108. 2196 Pardes Rimonim 4:7. 2197 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 2:6. 2198 See e.g., Shiur Qomah, p . 105 and refer to Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), p p . 60-62. 2199 Or Ne'erav 6:1. 2200 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:5. 2201 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:17.

427

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

metaphysical game of Self to Self in Self is a divine imperative, the fusion of potentialities ad infinitum without which God cannot be God and nothing can ever be conceived. The Godhead is the supreme triumphant of positive potentiality; an aseity of Nothing - a fantastic zero without which no thing and no one can be neither thought nor realized. The Godhead is the supreme triumphant of absolutely positive potentiality. The intellectual catharsis called essential attributes might have had the ability to fuse seeming pluralities and secure divine self-sufficiency; fashioning the innermost crown ( = 0) around a no-symbol who might otherwise collapse into the logical impossibility rendered absence. More so, by not succumbing to the governing dynamics of cause and effect, these attributes maintained brute autonomy and afforded the infinitely circular divine joyous engagement from Self to Self in Se/f irrespective of any emanated or created world - which, as we have witnessed, was a ‘free act’ on God’s part in RaMaK's theistic view. RaMaK's mystical speculation was thus sustained by multiple arenas and regarded reality as a theatre of [seeming] ambiguities whose chief disambiguating imperative was the singular potentiality whose free will to act ultimately compelled the mechanisms of the world ontologically, epistemologically and functionally. Moreover, the infinitely circular aseity of this ring meant than any trajectory from below to divinity above [TUT1 unification] was not an asymptotic ascent ad infinitum, as J. Ben-Shlomo has claimed, but rather an ascent which exhausted itself at that point and joined the infinitely cyclical flickering of non-colors - an orbit of potential aseity whose circular inertia was absolutely commanding. The indefinable potentiality therefore became the galvanizing frontage of all definable actualities, ensuring by way of authoring derivation the unifying backbone that permeates what would otherwise become cosmic anarchy in conspicuous contrast both to God’s quintessence and to men’s intellectual aptitude to find order in chaos. How does one fathom and tap into this mechanism? RaMaK indeed wonders and fashions a cosmic structure whose reliance on the metaphysical attributes is absolute. Emanation is thus governed by ten principles which inform all reality in turn -

ontologically,

epistemologically, structurally and practically:

428

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

1.

Divine transcendence: the Godhead is wholly beyond the cosmos. He is unlike

anything and nothing can describe Him. He is a positively felt essence whose selfsufficiency is utterly arresting as an inert potentiality - no movement, knowledge, will or desire can apply to Him in essence. As J. Ben-Shlomo has already noticed, RaMaK's treatment of divine transcendence becomes even more radical in Eilima Rabbati once compared with Pardes Rimonim?202 2.

Hidush: everything but the Godhead was created ex nihilo - “All the sefirot were

created as utterly new by Him” [71E>3 Kn7’n]2203 - including the lofty Keter?2:M God is therefore the only Necessary Being [niN’X&n Tina] whereas all else is a Possibility o f Being [ms’san ’7L7DK].2205 Although the Godhead in Himself harbors no movement whatsoever [# 1], He nevertheless initiated the emanation process somehow [# 2]. This theistic model within the metaphysical imperative is the first major hurdle RaMaK needs to attend - one which is only amplified by the following third principle. 3.

Nedavah: everything but the Godhead is the result of His free desire to bestow

benevolence upon others — “His desire to benefit them”,2206 since “The sefirot did not compel Him to create them, God forbid - it was all His [free] will as [an act] of loving­ kindness” [,73731 ]im3 iT’sa byiD xbx ,i"n imbyy'W nyu px o"*ra> ’isa].2207 RaMaK wishes here to confront any Neoplatonic conclusion that might lead to what may be rendered Pantheism in modem terms. In other words, the theosophical edifice is not necessitated from the metaphysical imperative. One already sees the tension such a view elicits once juxtaposed with principle # 1, for God’s “Free desire to bestow benevolence” obviously suggests a movement prior to emanation itself. Principles # 2 and # 3 now lead to the major tenant of RaMaK's mystical slant, namely the view of divine potency (rather than essence) as permeating all existence: 4.

Divine immanence: the Godhead’s potency permeates the entire cosmos while His

essence remains concealed - “His light [= essence] governs them [i.e., the sefirot and the 2202 We have already discussed this element at length. See Pardes Rimonim 3; Or Ne'erav 6; Shiur Qomah; Eilima Rabbati, especially Ein K ol ha-Aretz and Ein Kol. On this issue see Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), chapter 1, section 2. 2203 E.g., Ibid, 1:4,6,8, 13. 2204 E.g., Ibid, 1:6. 2205 See Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), especially pp.45-48. 2206 E.g., Ibid, 1:2 2207 E.g., Ibid, 1:12,13 and see Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp.87-92.

429

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

subsequent worlds] but is not revealed in them [p3 nVan?i tp r i inn bans].2208 This point nevertheless remains a momentous difficulty once juxtaposed with principle # 1; and as seen, it is not necessarily mitigated intellectually by the mediating # 2 and # 3 agencies. 5.

Concealment is the source o f revelation and revelation is the source o f

concealment as we have already discussed this concept at length, it shall suffice to summarize that the metaphysical imperative renders any revelation (= effect) the concealment of its cause. Thus any affected realm incubates its concealed cause and may be necessitated by deduction 2209 6.

Divine downward trajectory Ad Infinitum', the Godhead neither needs the cosmos

nor reaches perfection by it. The Godhead yields effluence yet does not require it in turn. Much like the Zoharic rendition “EinSof is [affected by] neither will nor light” [ pminb N1? THirn1? xVl],2210 RaMaK states “All need Him yet He needs none in turn; He is the source for all and all draw sustenance from Him [...] for He cannot be compelled in any manner”.2211 This concept not only refutes what may be rendered Pantheism (see # 3 as well) but also points to a theosophical reciprocal circularity that starts only at the Keterl The Godhead Himself is a constant flow of effluence ‘downward’ and is not affected whatsoever by the negotiation of spiritual trafficking within the theosophical edifice. This principle obviously raises the question regarding the theurgic aptitude of men as well: if it is the Keter who governs the theosophical traffic, we should pray to him and direct our devotion to affect him. RaMaK's answer is an unwavering No, for the metaphysical imperative necessitates that whatever potency exists in the world, its origin must come from the Godhead. Thus articulates the following principle, one already mentioned briefly earlier in this chapter. 7.

Eilav ve-Lo le-Midotav\ the metaphysical imperative renders necessary that the

thoughts, speech and actions of men target the Godhead Himself rather than the Keter or any other sefirah [T’mT’Bb sbl rbx].2212 Such actions, however, do not affect the Godhead Himself but rather refine and crystallize the Sefirotic aptitude to receive His effluence: 2208 E.g., Pardes Rimonim 4;4,5. On this issue see Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), chapter 1, section 3 and chapter 2,section 2. 2209 See also Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp.95-100. 2210 Zohar 2:239a and see e.g., Pardes Rimonim 2:1,2. 2211 E.g., Pardes Rimonim 3:1; Eilima Rabbati, Ein Kol ha-Aretz 1:2-8, 12. 2212 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:2; 1:18. See also Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp.80-86.

430

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

“[...] For the attributes are attires and chairs for Him, and when we pray and unify the attributes by a mitzvah or a prayer we aim to align them so they become chairs for Him [...]; since God is not worshiped [= affected directly] by the prayer but by [its facility to] usher in His attributes closer to Him, so they may receive the effluence from Him in turn.”2213 Thus the constant flow of divine benevolence does not change in the Godhead; rather, it is the ability of the Sefirotic vessels to harbor that flow which needs refinement and therefore calls for theurgic intervention. This structure runs parallel to the following principle as well: 8.

Mi-Behinat ha-Mekablim umi-Tzidam: any change, transformation or negotiation

is only perceived as such from the receiving end, namely by anyone or anything save the Godhead Himself. Divine potency remains unwaveringly constant, whereas it derivations thereof depend on the receiver’s aptitude to align oneself with i t 2214 This principle also stands in conspicuous tension with principle # 1, for it suggests that the initial appearance of such vessels cannot be initiated in the Godhead. 9.

Causal continuum: “No effected realm can survive devoid of its cause”:2215

Divinity unfolds from cause to effect in logical continuum and even the highest realms of metaphysical procedures surpass each other as the cause surpasses its effect. The event horizon of each potentiality is the singularity of its effected realm - a revelation which is concealment in and of itself. 10.

Structural continuum: there is no absence whatsoever between the Godhead and

the lowest point of reality save the gradual unfolding articulated in principle # 9 above “Neither absence nor a single step of void exists in the [unfolding] reality”.2216 These directives - which obviously corresponded with the epistemic properties of the universe and of men - therefore demonstrate a hierarchy of qualities whose potentiality gives way to actualities the ‘farther’ their location is from the EinSof Correspondingly, these qualities which defiantly remained essential attributes - the ambiguous negotiators of principles # 1 and # 4 in RaMaK's edifice - become a momentous metaphysical puzzle: they seem to belong to the divine essence itself yet challenge the brute circular

2213 Ibid, 1:2. 2214 See e.g., Pardes Rimonim 4:2-4; 8:11; 24:11; Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:14. 2215 E.g., Pardes Rimonim 3:1-4; Eilima Rabbati, Ein Kol ha-Aretz 1:1-13. 2216 E.g., Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 2:17 and see its discussion in Sack, B. (1995 a), p.72. 431

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

transcendence within which the Godhead professedly nestles, He who is “Utterly removed from any attribute, be it wisdom, will, righteousness and so forth”.2217 Correspondingly, this potential enclosure raises the seminal question regarding the initiation of emanation, for if there is no activity whatsoever within the EinSof, how does the transition from potency to activity commence? In whom are we to invest the will to emanate and the subsequent authority for reality as a whole? Is it the Godhead Himself or in fact an orb somehow differentiated from the EinSof, a singularity called 0 which is the no-symbol’s event horizon and wherein the finest subtleties are birthed? In other words, is Keter indeed separable from EinSof! And if so, how does a Godhead who bears neither •

•

9918

will, nor desire, nor wisdom nor any activity whatsoever

*

•

emanate the Keter to begin

with? We shall return to this question momentarily, for this chasm between Aristotelian metaphysics and Neoplatonic theosophy becomes a crucial axis and a notable perplexity to boot. God’s “Point of equanimity” [nnnwn mip]]2219 with the first emanated realm {Keter) and wherein God’s event horizon manifests as the singularity of the Keter is a pivotal hurdle which functions as the initiatory breach of metaphysical self-sufficiency. This is the most nuanced transition from potential potentiality to actual potentiality, a feat of enigmatic compulsion which henceforth edifies the entire theosophical realm - the ten sefirot. Although its treatment in RaMaK's works is arguably ingenious and affords exciting

insights

regarding

the

transition

from

the

metaphysical

0

to

the

metatheosophical2220 1 and the eventual theosophical 10, RaMaK's discourse here is understandably quite indefinite and presents a challenge to which he ultimately gives no answer. At this juncture RaMaK's language becomes apophatic, vague, hesitant and at times even contradictory2221 - the very axis wherein he wishes not only to humble intellect and glorify the soul, but also to negotiate brute philosophical transcendence and make God much more accessible to men vis-a-vis the theosophical edifice!

Pardes Rimonim 3:1; Shiur Qomah, pp.67, 105, 111. 2218 E.g., Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:4,5,6; Ein Kol 2:5 and the instructive discussion in BenShlomo, J. (1965), pp.64-67. 2219 Pardes Rimonim 11:5; see also Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), especially pp. 112-113. 2220 An intermediary stage between metaphysics and theosophy - please see discussion to follow. 2221 See also Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), especially pp.46-54.

432

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Keter as Lord o f the Ring: Negotiating 0 as 1 Ad Infinitum But surely, those o f us who understand life - we mock numbers! Antoine de Saint-Exupery, The Little Prince

The question regarding the standing of the Keter occupies RaMaK from the very beginning of his scholarly engagements, and he devotes an entire chapter to it in Pardes Rimonim (chapter 3). Here RaMaK enumerates the solutions rendered by previous scholars, especially the so-called ‘inclusivists’ vs. ‘exclusivists’ - those who include the • • O'}')') Keter withm the EinSof vs. those who see it as a Sefirah regardless its lofty standing. RaMaK's professed view is that the Keter is a Sefirah inasmuch as being utterly emanated by God’s free will, an ambiguity which is already felt in Moses de Leon’s Shekel ha-Kodesh (13th century), whose words may assist in further unpacking RaMaK's stand and the acute problem of the initiatory divine w ilt The beginning of existence is the secret concealed point. This is the beginning of all the hidden things, which spread out from there and emanate, according to their species. From a single point you can extend the dimensions of all things. Similarly, when the concealed arouses itself to exist, at first it brings into being something the size of the point of a needle; from there it generates everything.2223 In RaMaK's Orbs Simile, which is his theory of Tzimtzum (contraction of the Godhead in order to afford reality existence), RaMaK employs the “Concealment as Revelation” principle and states;

Let men imagine an ultimate fire whose intensity instantly vanquishes anything which forms within it. This fire - in its willful potency [ IFD 3113 131^13] - therefore brought into being at its center an orb which blocked it from all sides [inward], so it may be utterly concealed. Now, although this orb does not constitute the essence of that fire, the light and heat of the fire nonetheless shine in it and govern it. Similarly, having known that reality would still be unable to withstand the light and heat within the orb, the divine wisdom regulated ["pxin] an orb within and orb [...] until they reached ten in number [...] and ten within ten [...] - so all these orbs within Him are in actuality the external fa9ade [of reality...], affording the created beings to endure the potentiality of His divinity.2224 2222

See in Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), especially pp.54-67; Matt, D.C. (1996), p.40. Cf: Matt, D.C. (1996), p.41 and see his references there. Italics by the author. 2224 Pardes Rimonim 4:9.

433

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

As far as the Keter is concerned - that first orb within the Godhead - RaMaK's rendition of Tzimztum is the initiatory actualization of the zero’s singularity; the Godhead’s event horizon initiates the singularity of the Keter. Returning to our 0 = 1 formula, we may now imagine the zero as a sphere devoid of any boundaries [no symbol], whereas the singularity of the Keter is the circular cord o f measure which circumscribes it and renders it 0; the “Orb which blocked this [ultimate] fire from all sides”. The Keter thus amplifies the singularity of the no-symbol by actualizing its event horizon as 0 and henceforth negotiates the perpetual pulse 01 to 01, as it were. In other words, that which is potential to the Godhead is actual to the Keter, the latter being the initial actualization of the potential potentiality as an actuated singular potentiality. We return here to RaMaK's words in Pardes Rimonim, discussing the difference between 1 as the first in the numeric sequence [emanation downward] and 1 as an intrinsic negotiator of the meta-numerical unified property;

□’buNina tonw ,rrtt>N-Q crann W paw i xinu> nsa Titwn n ata tap1 -iron '•>3 .'“1310 nrm na inx inn ,iw *a pw1? T ’w d"n ehvti? bax .notfn piatynn *75 ’ribs is® m ow n nso» xmif ,paumn n'rnn torw in x tapa "iron

[...] rtmxh iiio’ natrnm The Keter is called First since it is indeed the first to all the created [realms], meaning from the emanated [realm] downward. This does not apply to the Godhead above it, which is the meaning behind ‘What can you count prior to one’. This goes to say that the Keter is called One inasmuch as facilitating the beginning of sequential arithmetic, whose • ultimate sum is ten and whose foundation is above. 2225 The Keter thus stands between the no-symbol and the 10 sefirot as a perpetual negotiator of potential and actual unity, the 01 which activates the potentiality of zero by amplifying its singularity as one. In a binary system one may render the Keter 01, the splendidly subtle amplification of singularity over potentiality; the pulsating crown around the Godhead which is simultaneously a point within the Godhead! One may therefore imagine the Godhead as a perfect sphere devoid of any surface whatsoever and whose circular fusion is in perfect equilibrium between gravity and inflation - a faultless circularity {singular potentiality) of self-sufficiency. Any transition from potentiality to 2225 Ibid, 3:1.

434

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

actuality will agitate [or excite] that perfect equilibrium and yield a response opposite to the agitating [or exciting] act: if we look at the Keter as a crown around the Godhead [W in rniow

-irD],2226 the inward confinement of the perfect divine equilibrium [= 0]

yields an outward explosion of unity [= 1]. If we look at the Keter as a point within the Godhead [iron Nim nnx rmpj],2227 the concealment of the divine light yields its revelation as 1 - an implosive explosion, or a closure which affords the release of the unimaginable splendor: “As a cord surveyed, it yielded radiant colors”,2228 states the Zohar as each precious stones upon the ring of flickering transparencies begins assuming its respective color. RaMaK will refer to this initial cord as “The line of measure” [n7’on ip]

9 9 9Q

- a

term initiated by the medieval Gerona kabbalists and used to address that line which distinguishes event horizon from singularity.2230 All the above in mind, the question regarding the initiatory stage of emanation remains defiantly persistent, and RaMaK needs to address it with greater rigor - albeit not necessarily with greater success. This was a chief issue in Pardes Rimonim and remains looming throughout his life, as we see his occupation with it in Shiur Qomah and visibly in the first chapters of Eilima Rabbati - both having been composed during his final years (1567-1570). Applying the infinitely paradoxical supremacy of potentiality over actuality, Keter becomes by way of deductive necessity the first amplification of singular actuality over singular potentiality - accentuating the 1 in the 0=1 formula. Keter is 01, the potential actuality which is both equal to and different from the Godhead - a mystical rendition to the perplexities that the famous Schrodinger’s Cat theorem elicits by being simultaneously dead and alive.

99T1

As such the Keter’s position is profoundly

paradoxical and demonstrates (understandably) RaMaK's most hesitant and fluctuating discourse, where he indeed navigates to and fro between attempted explanations and the epistemic retreat which is mandated by such realms of divine reality. The following short excerpts are but a few of the numerous which dot RaMaK's writings and demonstrate this Tango o f the tangled quite visibly. Although they show RaMaK's inability to penetrate 2226 Introduction to Shiur Qomah, note 7. 2227 Or Ne'erav 6:1; Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:6. 2228 Zohar 1:15a - translation by D.C M att (2004), v o l.l, p. 108 and refer to fn.9. 2229 See Jeremiah 31:38; Or Yaqar on Ra'ayah M eheimanah 3:9. On this issue, see Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), chapter 2, section 2. 2230 See in Tishby, I. (1983), pp.89-90 and Matt. D.C. ibid. 2231 On this issue and the application o f 0=1 see Seife, C. (2006), p p .173-179.

435

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

the enigma between EinSof and Keter, one needs to remember that RaMaK never aimed to fashion an answer in the first place - surely not one that can be expressed;

Should we regard the Keter primordial [as the Godhead], we will equate it to Him who emanates. But the Keter is as close [to the Godhead] as possible for an emanated being, albeit separated from Him for it is affected by His Cause2232 / Indeed, the beginning of emanation was the head of the Keter, that is the realm whose unified simplicity defies discourse as it does concerning the EinSof [...]. Despite its being emanated, [Keter] is utterly unified with the EinSof, and neither the essence o f the EinSof nor the initiatory actions are accessible to us [.. .]2233 / The Keter is utterly emanated as new by EinSof, yet it is still wondrous [in relation to all other sefirot]2234 / It is evident that the Keter is the first emanation and surely has a point of origin; even so, it is wondrous in two ways: first, its origin is not wholly a starting point [...] for it is within the EinSof and we cannot not explore it at all. Second, its appearance [as an emanated realm] is in and of itself wondrous and shrouded in deep mystery2235 / Regulation therefore necessitates that the Keter is not truly revealed in the other sefirot, much like the EinSof'2236 Despite his admirable attempts to unpack this question, RaMaK ultimately does not, cannot and is not necessarily interested to answer it in full. As mentioned, this crux of metaphysical ambiguity was precisely the benchmark of mystical superiority over intellectual inquiry. Yet he obviously does not leave it unattended either: RaMaK starts off by distinguishing between active potency / revealed potency [2237ron nTOnn / 1133 T171D] and active actuality [*717133 *75713], and continues to say that “The Godhead’s active potency is supreme and unattainable, setting Him apart from all others to whom only active actuality applies” [ imaxi? ton r a n *7i7iDlnvn iman ,TTn*7i573 i x a

n*7X *717133 *71713 lnvn iipx

im ^

lrttfrfr □’*713'’ UK ]W ].2238 RaMaK’s professed desire to situate the origin of all in the Godhead while maintaining His brute transcendence is a tension that leads him on a path dangerously bordering Neoplatonism - one from which he ultimately cannot avoid save by resorting to mystical terminologies which are eventually devoid of intellectual 2232 O r Y a q a r on Z o h ar, parashat va-Yeshalah 7:4. 2233 E ilim a R ab b ati, Ein K ol 2:11,12. 2234Ibid, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:6,8. 2235 O r Y a q a r on Sh iu r Q om ah 7:2. 2236 P ard es R im onim 3:7. 2237 See e.g., P ard es R im onim 8:10. 2238 E ilim a R ab b ati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:6.

436

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

substantiation. The term active potency [nm bins], for example, equals RaMaK's aforementioned application willful potency [131X13 iro h td ] yet does not clarify the impetus behind its initiation within the Godhead and obviously contradicts previous statements regarding God’s self-sufficient and supposedly inert circularity. RaMaK continues to wrestle and states “He afforded potency to all actions, and they all stem from Him. So even when we remove the [actual] activities from Him vis-a-vis numerous intermediaries [D’xm D,,yyaNn] [...], it is not duality, for He in whom activity resides is the foremost beginning” [ n ^ t n nbnnn ton nbu/sn b in ].2239 But who is “He in whom activity resides”, given that the Godhead harbors no activity whatsoever, as subtle as it may be, since “The most important thing is to deny the Godhead of any activity that splinters from Him” [

nblVD

pbm xbt£> ton "ip’i/n ntbl

bbD]? Is it the Godhead or the Keterl RaMaK’s epistemic dance fluctuates; “Indeed, the beginning of emanation was the head of the Keter, which is the realm whose unified simplicity defies discourse as it does concerning the EinSof [...]. Despite its rank as emanated, [Keter] is utterly unified with the EinSof’.2240 So what is the nature of Keter in relation to God’s superiority? “The Keter is called ‘cause of cause’ [and not cause of all causes] merely since there is a Cause superior to it. However, he is the cause of all the effected causes, such as the sefirot whose existence causes Creation etc’” [ nb’y ton □tfttt nOTm nm] ,tooth m b’s? nnw mooon p o ,m b o nnw non ay D’bibyn bbb].2241 And epistemic retreat once more, as he now concludes “Neither the essence of the EinSof nor the initiatory actions are accessible to us”,2242 and “One should necessitate many regulatory intermediaries”

to enforce this enigmatic transition - a maneuver that does not put a

dent in the question as much as pushing it further into the concealed chambers of the black hole and away from human comprehension. This to and fro negotiation now becomes splendidly apparent in RaMaK's writing, as he tries to orchestrate the nature of such intermediaries - properties that in themselves seem to throb to and fro between the Godhead and the theosophical structure: in some instances RaMaK insists that even the highest level of the Keter - the Zohar’s “Primordial 2239 Ibid, 1:7. 2240 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol 2:11,12. 2241 Ibid, Ein R o ’i 6:1. 2242 Ibid, Ein K ol 2:11. 2243 Ibid, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:7. 437

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Nothing”2244 [nsmp px] and RaMaK’s “Keter within Keter” - is “Wholly different than the E inSof’-,2245 in other instances RaMaK succumbs to the Keter’s unique status, rendering it “Wondrous nonetheless”,2246 devoting special (seemingly unfinished!) sections to it in Ein Ro 72247 and continuing to distinguish between “The nine sefirot from Hokhmah to Malkhut” and “The one, the Keter, which transcends them all due to its closeness to the emanating [Godhead] - for he is the intermediary [’sraax] between their existence and the Godhead, whereupon their proximity to Him is only through the Keter”,2248 Again, resorting to the mystical rendition of human epistemic deficiency in explaining the enigmatic willful potency [131X73 iro 3173] which necessarily had initiated the Keter, “It does not infer that God had experienced a change of will, God forbid, for His will remains forever unchanging; rather, His will is the secret affect [inyDBTl 7103] and appearance within the Keter - the Will of wills - wherein the import of His benevolence to all is vested [bob n’U’B in rn rnbon oon]”.2249 The question regarding the initiation of the will obviously remains looming and RaMaK addresses it further: “Indeed, how does the Godhead - in whom no change occurs whatsoever - initiate the first emanation? Moreover, one might conclude that He was compelled to emanate the Sefirot [...]. This is indeed a profoundly dangerous path to take, and the Rashbi had already demonstrated the necessity to find the active will in the Keter [7733 •psnn nbiys nbunti’], where the change from none-wanting to wanting occurs”.2250 As already demonstrated, RaMaK's use of negative terms does not mean “-x vs. x” but “potentiality x” vs. “actuality x” - the distinction between the Godhead’s willful potency [131X73 iro 3173] and its activation in the Keter [11x77 nbiys]. This nuance, alas, does not mitigate the validity of the puzzle and obviously raises the question regarding the association of the Keter with the property of will, in other words, how are we to conceptually translate RaMaK's 7733 11X77 nblVS nbyrw? Does ‘will’ appear from the Keter, in the Keter, or as the K etefl How does change - as subtle and as 2244 See e.g., Zohar 2:239a. 2245 Pardes Rimonim 11:5. 2246 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:8 2247 Ibid, Ein Ro ’i 5:1-20; 6 (the entire Tamar). 2248 Shiur Qomah on the Idrot; see also Sack, B. (1995 a), p.327. Compare with Eilima Rabbati, Ein Kol 2 : 12 .

2249 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:14. 2250 Ibid.

438

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

embedded within divinity’s most nuanced potentiality as it might be - occur in the Godhead? Is it part of Him or an emanated realm which falls under the hidush and nedavah principles [# 2 & 3]? Whereas RaMaK's professed reiteration declares that “The Godhead’s active potency is supreme and unattainable, setting Him apart from all others to whom only active actuality [Vinsn bins] applies”,2251 he nonetheless acknowledges in a splendidly to and fro movement that “The Will of all wills is profoundly intimate with the EinSof, so its unity with the Godhead suggests the minutest o f all changes [BJ7B Nevertheless, we must say that it is not as primordial as the Godhead but rather new in comparison to Him [winnn im na NbN iniftipo yiftip irx nt b3 am]. However, its proximity renders it a mediator between potential and actual activity [ *717191 1133 *71719 lnvn p3 yuan1 *7yi93]”.2252 Indeed, the perplexing necessity of a point of equanimity between the Keter and the EinSof is one which RaMaK ultimately avoids, for such a level of unity might suck in the light of intellect and compel the Keter into primordial unison with the Godhead - a Neoplatonic rendition which RaMaK the Jewish mystic simply cannot accept. This Tango of the tangled is rendered full colors in Eilima Rabbati, where we shall soon witness RaMaK’s somewhat reluctant submission to the Keter’s towering standing in the life of God, the zone which is dangerously close to the center of the dance arena. That in mind, RaMaK's swirl o f intellect and spirit never loses sight of the exit sign which flickers at the comer of this treacherous dance-floor: ultimately, he shall state, such questions are “A gate that shall not open”, for in the end one cannot fathom “How the transformation from potential will to actual will [nm"i*7 nm~i N*7ft] occurs [...]. Just as we do not know [the Godhead], we do not know how His decision to [emanate] does not constitute a change within Him, for this door is closed to mind and soul alike!”2253 Still no answer, although RaMaK brings us ever closer to the center of the arena, that which necessitates an intermediary between God and the emanated realm, and whose ontic condition is in and of itself a unified activity.

2251 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:6. 2252 Ibid. 2253 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:15. RaMaK points that both intellectual inquiry [nTpn] and mystical investigation [a’lPm ] are irrelevant at this juncture.

439

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

This ambiguous intermediary stage points to RaMaK's highly nuanced submission to a realm between the Godhead and emanation itself! This level is the deep interiority of the black hole, the neck from singularity to event horizon', it is both essence and attribute, both emanating and emanated; it is neither the Godhead per se nor the sefirot in their identified structure. It is a realm whose aseity is as compulsory as it is disturbing, professedly below metaphysics and compellingly above conventional theosophy as well. It is neither metaphysics nor theosophy, or perhaps both in a wondrous unity - it is RaMaK's Metatheosophical paradigm.

The Metatheosophical Paradigm and Keter as First Metatheosophy: from No-Symbol to Zero RaMaK's discussion of the initiatory transition from Godhead to emanation starts off by clearly discerning between the two: the Godhead prior to emanation and after the emanation on all levels - ontic, epistemic and structural. In his explication of Ra ’ayah Meheimana,2254 RaMaK's Pardes Rimonim states;

Tnxna tnu/Dn impibx nwxa mn ,nnum tm>sn imb’xta nbim n"n o"Nnti> mip p rnawn ’sb ,mip:i mw Nbi ms sbi nw xb ib mn xbi 73b impibx nxm mpibsn sbs [...] nrs sbi nu> mn sb ,mb’ss mn sb^ mxa p nsi ,mb’ssa tm n"a o"sn w its n’na a7p mb rnnanwtn pm .,riB>7’D73 impibs nura 7nsna trow ,[uaa mb’ssn b"n] imb’ss D7ip impibs Tiyn imnmw ns :m rra'm ib n’busin bs inrna mmy ,mt^i»n inrna is - inbirb sbi imasy bs mb:un inrna [...]

Prior to His initiatory revelation, the EinSof, blessed be He, was utterly unified in His essentially simple existence, therefore bearing neither a name nor a letter nor a point - given that these belong to the emanated realm, which had not occurred yet. ‘Prior to emanation’ thus means that the EinSof has two aspects: either we examine Him prior to emanation which is a realm revealed to His essential Self alone [and therefore ineffable to us] - or the attained realm, which is the aspect revealed through the emanated.2255

2254 Z o h ar 2:42b. 2255 P ard es R im onim 4:8. 440

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

However, despite his desire to affirm an unwavering difference between the Godhead and the first emanation, RaMaK's system must succumb to certain intermediaries whose necessity is equaled by their ambiguity yet nevertheless demonstrates a clear goal: on the one hand RaMaK wishes to maintain Maimonidean divine disassociation from the world [# 1] without compromising the theistic doctrines of classical Judaism [# 2, 3, 4]. On the other hand, he aims to profess mystical radical immanence [# 4] without resorting to the Neoplatonic conclusions that might lurk at its feet - a desire for which he also harnesses theistic Judaism vis-a-vis principles # 2 and 3. RaMaK therefore has no choice but to entrench himself even deeper within the divine interiorities in an attempt to vindicate emanation without resorting to the hazardous pits of what can be rendered Maimonidean Deism2256 on the one hand or Neoplatonic Pantheism on the other. Thus appears the metatheosophical paradigm in his system: the most nuanced realm which defiantly stands between God and emanation. J. Ben-Shlomo has indeed identified this realm and opted to call it “An intermediary essence which somehow is not identical with the Godhead Himself’2257 or “The essence of the EinSof already enclothed in the Keter”, continuing to discuss the commanding difficulties that RaMaK had faced in its negotiation throughout his conceptual edifice.2258 The first and finest metatheosophical level is the aforementioned Ring o f Flickering Transparencies, the enigmatic essential attributes. Contrary to RaMaK's staunch desire to remove any attribute from the Godhead, this ‘removal’ is nevertheless understood within the divine imperative which is called aseity, existing potential potency ad infinitum. RaMaK now acknowledges the ring as an essential measure that nonetheless stands between the Godhead and emanation

rmbiyoi xmu> ,ioyy bx ioyyo bysno mba lnnnxa ton ,bon ximy m x ,[...] o"x ioyyo ioyya ton xbx niton1 mbiyo nrxty ,nnx bon mom wrm muni inooim nrn pmn -p ,[...] mbysio xbx itsxya bins viba yis-o nsnw into .nnx ioyyb nnyty noxi ,0 0 0 nr yinpbi.[...] mbyoin mwo pm xbx ,i"n i»xy narco pun ir x mbiysnrc iaoo [...] iyoiy ysiiy T’on now xbx ,byio xb ny byio ny o"Kh> onm xb cmoix xbty 1001 Tin1?! iioo mbyio xbx imoxyn mbyis irx mniT’orc pinbi itoo .pin1?! nos mbiys i3”m pin mm 2256 On M aim onides’ view o f the will, see also Nuriel, A. (1970). 2257 Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), p. 159. 2258 Ibid, p .138; see also p .130.

441

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Being everything in utter unity, the EinSof cannot be affected by His Self, for He and His actions, wisdom, will, understanding and benevolence [is*] all one - not actions from Him outward but Him from Self to Self in Self one. And as He willed [emanation] by a will that does not affect Him but only the affected [realms], this will is not a change in itself, God forbid, but a will that changes the affected [realms]. To further establish this point, we now say that the EinSof does not succumb to action or inaction; rather, we say that His effluence is forever flowing [...], since actions are always from Him outwards - as we have already reiterated that His attributes do not affect Him but only from Him - so when we say 77SQ ‘merciful and exonerating’ we mean actions from Him outwards. •

•

•

This metatheosophical realm obviously raises the aforementioned question concerning the Will o f all wills. In Pardes Rimonim RaMaK demonstrates this treacherous landscape quite clearly, and his writing demonstrates the enormous difficulties to emerge unscathed in negotiating divine transcendence and immanence through the property of will - all of which leads him to entrench himself deeper in metatheosophical discourse:

□xty ’jdb ,n y s x ’x [o"x =] xmm firm "o mTDn — [pmmb xbi] pmyib xb, o"x m w nitbsan rnnna o"xn pirn y:a3 nn ,p n b p n » mnw» xxm mm ximy nato xinn pmn ,Myi /uaa bwbntynn ptyxm mb’yxn xin pxm ppy max .rn’irty byn □mr^n byis masym ’irum ’bya mbsmy - mbsm masyn pm is pmm byis xin ,nbyj nrn pmn max .b’yxnb p n n xin mb’xxn mowsnn nbmn pbi .ar-by p n n mm ^bnrxnb mmn» ir-byty pm xin max ,u?aa nb^na mb^sx irxtr p n n ’"y mm xnp: xim ,mmn xin o"xn masy max ,mmn irx [nnnan =] nrn ^ib^xx irxa? ts b’sxarr bx a-ipn p n n mm xxm nr i n byi [...] [mrman] m ,p n x’n n b p n mm am nr mb mm [...] .traa m a ss xbi m a ss xin aaax [...] b’sxan bx mintsa nnp: mmw ny p n x’sanb p n nby ‘EinSof has neither wills [nor lights]’2260- meaning that it is impossible for the Godhead to have wills, for this implies change which stands in contrast to the divine imperative. The will is rather the first emanation from Him, and by it He actualizes His [potential] will, as the relation of essence to vessels2261 - the vessels harbor change whereas the [unchanging] essence affects change [only] through them. The beginning of emanation is therefore the will to emanate in and o f itself This will is indeed concealed, not being a revealed will per se but rather a will by which [the first 2259

Eilim a R ab b ati, Ein K ol 2:6. 2260 Z o h ar 2:239a; 3:26b. betwe< the animating and the animated properties. On this issue, see Ben-Shlomo, J. 2261 The distinction between (1965), especially chapter 2, section 2; also see Schatz-Oppenheimer, R. (1982).

442

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

emanation] is willed to emanate* This [willed] will, however, is indeed not the one which wills; it is the essence of the EinSof which wills, although it is rendered as will [only] by the [emanated] will who is [now] willed [...]. In such a manner we find that there is a will which stands in such proximity to the EinSof as not to be rendered [merely] ‘emanated’, for it is indeed essence and not entirely essence. Accordingly, we must necessitate even a higher will, which ultimately reaches a point of equanimity with the Godhead.2262 This is indeed an awesome conundrum, one “Which naturally had risen among kabbalists just as among philosophers”.2263 At this juncture ambiguity reigns supreme and the to and fro maneuvers of which RaMaK talks so often manifest most fiercely. The distinctions RaMaK makes between willing-will and willed-will, just as discerning between the sefirot as essence and as vessels - do not clarify as much as they point to the inability of rational solution and expressive elocution. Emanation is an action, and if action resides within the emanated realms [vessels] we are at a paradoxical circularity: an action is needed regardless the fine properties of the vessel or the intricacy establishing its existence. The excerpt above presents this tension quite well when RaMaK states “This will is indeed concealed, not being a revealed will per se but rather a will by which [the first emanation] is willed to emanate” [TiTNnb nsintt TP-byty pm Kin WON]. Again, the authority for emanation remains obscure. RaMaK would not and could not solve this issue, and its perplexing layout remains intact throughout his writings. The different mythical configurations RaMaK utilizes to explicate this domain are fascinating yet lead to the same unfulfilled end, namely to “Ultimately having no answer” [mutm anb pxw "iftNb 311pi],2264 He tackles the same front from various outlooks yet yields the same ambiguity: this intermediary apparatus is identified as the highly nuanced “Supernal Lights” [mnmy];2265 the gentlest pulse from divinity, which he renders “A fine emanation” [p7 mb’SX],2266 “A vessel which is within the EinSof,2267 or “Intermediary vessels”;2268 the “Extended life” which somehow unifies

2262 Pardes Rimonim 11:5; see also Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp.112-113; 178-179; 213-223. 2263 Scholem, G. (1998 b), pp.40-41; see also Wijnhoven, J. (1965), p .147. 2264 Pardes Rimonim 8:10. 2265 See e.g., Shiur Qomah, p .27. RaMaK's discussion o f the flinxnx is more elaborate in Pardes Rimonim and in Eilima Rabbati - see Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), p p .174-178, 221-222. 2266 See e.g., Pardes Rimonim, chapters 4 and 5. 2267 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l 4:40.

443

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

essence and vessel

□,in]2269; or the distinction between “The soul and its

potencies” in relation to the animated body [rrnuTOl tt>D]n]2270 - all of which lead the reader to the same persisting question: how did it all begin and could it at all have begun devoid o f Keter? This is potently felt in RaMaK's last work as well: “The Will of all wills is so profoundly intimate with the EinSof, that its unity with the Godhead suggests the minutest o f all changes [pya ’iru?]. Nevertheless, we must say that it is not as primordial as the Godhead but rather new in comparison to Him” [ tON "imftipo

irx m 73 Din

iznnmi wnna]. RaMaK's palpable antagonism to the looming Neoplatonic view regarding the primordial unison of the Keter - one which he could neither accept nor refute - leads him therefore to confess to the Keter as truly being such a metatheosophical hybrid: the closer one gets to this realm, the “Finer and finer”2271 the properties in the Keter become, reaching a stage wherein they are “EinSof as well, utterly concealed and beyond any grasp whatsoever.”2272 The Keter’s loftiest realm feature “A level of infinite proximity to the Godhead which renders it not entirely emanated [!]; it is indeed an essence yet not intrinsically an essence”

maxi; Nbl many mn Dias

13W IV b’Xttan Vx 3ip],

ultimately fused within the Godhead at the point of equanimity [rmnwn rmpi] 2273 Similarly, RaMaK's Shiur Qomah distinguishes the Keter from all others by rendering it “A mediator between the emanating [Godhead] and the emanated [sefirot]” [ ’l/xax mntt>

□’bxmm b’xsan pa ammxa1?],2274 a necessary metatheosophical realm without which metaphysics and theosophy cannot negotiate. RaMaK tries time and again to articulate divine self-sufficient transcendence, yet is pulled - time and again - to discuss it in an arresting unison with the Keter, and in a manner that seriously borders Neoplatonism inasmuch as refuting the theistic creatio ex nihilo principles of hidush and nedavah (# 2,

2269 RaMaK argued with the Zohar on this front, as he ultimately refused to see the sefirot as a divine essence. He therefore uses on this topic the rationale given by Tikkunei ha-Zohar and R a’ayah M eheimana, especially 2:257b - 258a. See on this issue G. Scholem (1946), p.215; Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), p .128. 2270 RaMaK uses his “The Parable o f the Soul” to demonstrate that “There are a few steps between the soul and the body” - intermediaries that negotiate the two sides. See e.g., Pardes Rim onim 4:4; 6:5 and refer to Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), p p .127-135. 2271 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l 2:21. 2272 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l 2:17. 2273 Pardes Rimonim 11:5. 2274 Shiur Qomah on the Idrot; cf: Sack, B. (1995 a), p .327.

444

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

3). The term mn: "pis thus vacillates between the theistic view of freely motivated action and the more stringently rational view of a regulatory compulsion; One should understand that the higher realms also attain their existence as part of divinity’s regulatory unification by them [T im in s ] - for they are [now] a sublime regulation [m n: im s ] to govern the lower realms. This, however, does not infer that they were emanated because He needed them [□m bs lb mmz/ "jnxb Nb], God forbid. [Rather], it was a strictly free act [n m :], stirred by His virtuousness toward the other, not because He was compelled [m m nw xb] - only by [free] will and love [...].2275 / [...] The sefirot are vessels for God who emanated them, not for His need [ xb izm xb], God forbid - for He needs no other. [They are] the regulatory need [im sb ] of His emanated and created realms.2276 A closer inspection of RaMaK's terminologies thus reveals an uneasy proximity to a regulatory compulsion that seems to govern divinity in a circular cohesion:

bxn in x * m rrab ayts nn ,ny nbirn ny xxanb m n:n nnnn m bysm m y [...] ayts n n ,’ntR b a a’’ xb b’xxm mnn> i n s coax .im x’xa u n m b’sxnb ynby l i x i .iniirxTa a n m b^xsnb ir b y *pxi bnn in x T tr nab The coercion into action is in the Keter who is willed to exist ex nihilo,* which is the reason* for God’s superior desire* to emanate it ex nihilo. Indeed, once emanated by His desire*, the emanated [Keter] shall not be obliterated,* for God’s superior desire willed it ex nihilo.2277 What is RaMaK trying to convey here - what is the exact relationship between God’s superior desire and the reason which leads Him to emanate the Keterl How can God will the Keter ex nihilo if the Keter is already a reason [oyo] for this superior will? And what is the nature of RaMaK's statement regarding the Keter who shall not be obliterated once conceived - a view that seems to seriously ruffle the feathers of theistic Judaism, according to which “God creates worlds and destroys them” as He pleases.2278 RaMaK’s esoteric discussion of “The death of the Edomite kings” [m ix "Oba nrra] acknowledges indeed God’s ability to nullify realities that are as lofty as the Hokhmah within Keter, but never mentions such divine freedom in the two loftiest realm of the Keter - the Keter 2275 Pardes Rimonim 4:9. 2276 Perush le-Sefer Yetzirah 1:2. 2277 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l ha-Aretz 1:6. 2278 M idrash Rabba, Bereshit 3:7.

445

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

within Keter and the point of equanimity.2279 RaMaK's cartography here is understandably tenuous and leads to a metatheosophical realm whose nuance notwithstanding still brings us closer to the Neoplatonic shores; a domain which identifies a compulsion within divinity as long as it is inspected from the logical lens;

rrn rasb y sn n r iron 7191 im bux nrty u m ,in in rnb’xxn i n b i n i pxw xintr xb .ir m p m pan ib o m v [...] p m Nip] xmw in r a xbx yon pxw ,[...] p n m psnm .psm n n n ib x] [!] nV’nn a p » lnrnn xbx ,[!] nbrab yixi bra m n n nxi [...] / ysnm p n n itr»a ncm in sna xbx [!] V'n in an y a i ir a xb o^n abii bibD]^ n i ibxn m n n n p i r p’ran m tr in xi .noBbi inrna ,p n n ab*o aa»x bba p s r b m T sa atra aon^a xb ,in a a n u n s xin dubx - m an [...] '•’ana V’xxan bx bsxan aipb iv p n b p n xbx , y s i in am yixi It is reprehensible to speak about the emanation of the Keter, for the moment of his emanation was a moment of a desired will before Him. [...] But all desire is in the Keter who is called ‘will’, to him alone desire and will apply. And the desired will is not between him and the Godhead, God forbid, but is drawn from the Keter downwards / If will changes, it is only from the Keter downward. And once our diligent reader fathoms the issues concerning these wills, he shall realize that we bind them all within the Keter. Indeed, these are steps n the Keter which do not fall under the category o f sefirot at all [!] Indeed, they are all wills and we rendered Keter ‘Will’; only that there is a will to will and so forth until the emanated realm draws [as] near [as possible to] the Godhead, as I have 9981 already explicated [ = point of equanimity]. Almost needless to say, even the most diligent reader cannot make sense of this mechanism; surely not from RaMaK's treatment which aims to secure divine transcendent freedom while holding steadfast to His immanence, which, in result, accentuates the need for a metatheosophical design which nonetheless shakes under the vibrations of metaphysical compulsion! If the will changes only from the Keter downward, and “The desired will is not between him and the Godhead, God forbid”, how does change occur between the Godhead and the Keter, and what do hidush and nedavah mean at all? If there is no change between the Godhead and the Keter, what stops the mind from conceding to the equanimity of the Keter with the EinSofl And if so - the circular ballet 2279 See a detailed discussion o f RaMaK's rendition o f “The death o f the Edomite kings” in Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp. 230-238. 2280 Shiur Qomah, pp. 19-20. 2281 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l ha-A retz 1:6,7.

446

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

continues - is the Keter indeed EinSof, and if persistently not, how can the point o f equanimity reside alongside creatio ex nihilo? We are now back at the starting point, RaMaK's third chapter in Pardes Rimonim (titled precisely that - "iron Kin 0"xn as); and after having inspected the fuller span of his oeuvre to the very end of Eilima Rabbati, we are as bewildered as we were in the beginning. RaMaK might smile and say ‘I told you so - it is ntran rmftN and not the mind which affords catharsis on such matters’. Yet one cannot be satisfied at that, for RaMaK himself tried to unpack this inquiry time and again - hence Eilima Rabbatil - and at certain points even argued that the metatheosophical enigma can be laid to rest. But his sporadic attempts to suggest that he had already explicated this issue - “As I have already demonstrated / explicated” etc’ - do not withstand the critique of readers who truly pay attention to his words and treat them with due scrutiny. The Keter’s intimacy with the Godhead also renders it a mediator between potential and actual activity [byiD3 byiDi n33 byid tnrn pn y ^ n ’]”.2282 As we have already witnessed, RaMaK does not clearly pinpoint this realm - and wisely so, for any dogmatic positioning will jeopardize a few principles in his edifice: if in the Godhead, the Maimonidean paradigm [# 1] is challenged; if in the Keter, the theistic tenets and their mystical renditions are seriously hindered [# 2, 3, 4], leading to a Neoplatonic outcome of a Primordial First Emanation that RaMaK had no desire to acknowledge. This discourse takes us back to the Orbs Simile in Pardes Rimonim and to RaMaK's discussion of the meta-numerical properties of the EinSof in Or Ne'erav - both of which afford even more nuanced a view of the Keter itself: it is not only the 01, but the highly subtle transition from no-symbol to 0 itself. Starting with Or Ne'erav and continuing to Pardes Rimonim, we read The Godhead is not a number, since the elimination of the number eliminates all other numbers but cannot eliminate the oneness in itself and that is the potentiality / potency of One [Tnxn m nn].2283 / Let men imagine an ultimate fire whose intensity instantly vanquishes anything which forms within it. This fire - in its willful potency inn 3113] therefore brought into being at its center an orb which blocked it from all sides [inward], so it may be utterly concealed. Now, although this orb 2282 Eilima Rabbati, E in K ol ha-Aretz 1:6. 2283 Or Ne'erav 6:1; in i. Robinson (1994), p . l l l .

447

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

does not constitute the essence of that fire, its light and heat nonetheless shine in it and govern it.2284 The Keter thus becomes a meta-numerical unity whose concealed essence is the nuanced revelation of the no-symbol zero as 0 - from the ultimate fire to the primary orb which now fenced in and allowed it more accessible a definition. Yet we are still in the dark inasmuch as understanding what precisely negotiates the distance between the no­ symbol zero and the 0. Although no answer yields itself, RaMaK's treatment of the philosophical supremacy of aseity over action is quite compelling and affords another metatheosophical venue to address this question.

The Realizing Godhead and Metatheosophy —Negotiating the Ontic and the Functional: 2285a«,’X73?a lmtrxa row The qualitative supremacy of existence over action may indeed be another venue to track RaMaK's metatheosophical dance; once we necessitate aseity in the Godhead and compel the flickering transparency o f His essential attributes, we find that God’s potentiality is unified in potency - “He and His potency are unified as one” [iriN inoi Nim ift’y inoi].2286 Although such meditations do not resolve the metaphysical perplexity regarding the initial movement, a careful scanning of RaMaK's choice of words may prove useful here as well. We first need to assemble the main stages on which RaMaK performs his metatheosophical dance: •

“It is the minutest of all changes [0570 ’iritf] as a mediator between potential and

actual activity [binon ^visi noo •

lnvn pn yxorp]”.2287

“His will is the secret influence [lnsiown 7103] and appearance within the Keter -

the Will of wills - wherein the import of His existing benevolence to all is vested [ Dttn

3’cpb in rn rrban]”.2288 2284 Pardes Rimonim 4:9. 2285 Shiur Qomah, p .115; c f : Eilima Rabbati, E in ha-Bedolah 1:22. 2286 Eilima Rabbati, E in K o l ha-Aretz 1:14. 2287 Ibid, 1:6. 2288 Ibid, 1:14.

448

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

•

“This will is indeed concealed, not being a revealed will per se but rather a will by

which [the first emanation] is willed to emanate. This [willed] will, however, is indeed not the one which wills; it is the essence of the EinSof which wills, although it is rendered as will [only] by the [emanated] will who is [now] willed [...]. In such a manner we find that there is a will which stands in such proximity to the EinSof as not to be rendered [merely] ‘emanated’, for it is indeed essence and not entirely essence. Accordingly, we must necessitate even a higher will, which ultimately reaches a point of equanimity with the Godhead.2289 •

“Prior to emanation, all measures [sefirot] were hidden in Him in utter

concealment and unification, ruling out any image or point [in the mind] [...]. Afterward, a single point was emanated, the Keter which is rendered

[nothing] since its

immeasurable proximity to its Source rules out its [actual] being [tir]”.2290 •

This [willed] will, however, is indeed not the one which wills; it is the essence of

the EinSof which wills, although it is rendered as will [only] by the [emanated] will who is [now] willed [...]. In such a manner we find that there is a will which stands in such proximity to the EinSof as not to be rendered [merely] ‘emanated’, for it is indeed essence and not entirely essence. Accordingly, we must necessitate even a higher will, which ultimately reaches a point of equanimity with the Godhead.2291 •

The coercion into action is in the Keter who is willed to exist ex nihilo,* which is

the reason* for God’s superior desire* to emanate it ex nihilo. Indeed, once emanated by His desire*, the emanated [Keter] shall not be obliterated,* for God’s superior desire willed it ex nihilo.2292 •

If will changes, it is only from the Keter downward* And once our diligent reader

fathoms the issues concerning these wills, he shall realize that we bind them all within the Keter* Indeed, these are steps n the Keter which do not fall under the category o f sefirot at all [!*] Indeed, they are all wills and we rendered Keter ‘Will’, just that there is a will

2289 Pardes Rimonim 11:5; see also Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp.112-113. 2290 Pardes Rimonim 5:4; Or Ne'erav 6:1; Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l ha-Aretz 1:6. 2291 Pardes Rimonim 11:5; see also Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp.112-113. 2292 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l ha-Aretz 1:6.

449

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

to will and so forth until the emanated realm draws [as] near [as possible to] the • 2293 Godhead, as I have already explicated [ = point of equanimity].

The common denominator here is obviously the supremacy of potentiality over actuality until the perplexing point of equanimity. Yet is there a more precise nature to this supremacy? Shiur Qomah may be an opening for this front of inquiry, as RaMaK speaks of the Godhead “Whose potential existence realizes all” [DiTX?3?a imiOXTa nyj/].2294 His terminology raises the question regarding the use of miX’Xtt ro rather than inVoD ro (potential action). After all, RaMaK had already postulated over the superiority of potential action in the Godhead, “Whose supremacy is His ability to potentially act, which is his essence” [imaxy xin ,rm *7S?is lnvn imww].2295 RaMaK's use of the word □XOM in Shiur Qomah - which I have opted to translate as realizes - may be a deliberate attention to the Godhead and the ring of flickering transparencies; the exclusive aseity whose potentiality is in perfect equilibrium with intellect and potency - “Whose knowledge is unified with His S elf’;2296 “He and His potency are unified as one”; “Whose supremacy is His ability to potentially act, which is his essence”. This realm belongs indeed to the crystal ring of flickering transparencies. But from here on the term minii-’n mi pi {point o f equanimity) may demand that we avoid misconstruing equanimity for equality! The property of action is a wondrous demotion which is somehow viewed as the outcome of necessarily superior existence [= aseity], a rationale we have already witnessed in Sa’adia Gaon’s discussion of the essential attributes and their perception in the human intellect. In other words, the Godhead is the most exalted aseity whose enigmatic ontic pulse realizes the Keter rot£>] [Dfcrxtttt imx,x» as a functional being - a realized property [pEWi RX?i2] whose ontic condition is that of action. RaMaK therefore renders even this realm {intermediary vessels)2291 in the desire to maintain divine brute transcendence and not to fall into the Neoplatonic pit.

Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l ha-Aretz 1:6,7. 2294 Shiur Qomah, p .l 15. 2295 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l ha-Aretz 1:6. 2296 Ibid, Ein K o l 2:1-4; Ein Shemesh 1:3; on this issue, see also Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp.62-64; Scholem, G. (1980), p.90. 2297 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l 3:9.

450

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

This point is the Godhead’s event horizon which features as the K eter’s singularity. One may therefore conceive of the Keter as a quality whose singularity means an enigmatic actuation of the unified potentiality; a singularity whose innermost quality is somehow the actualization in itself and whose highest realm is in equilibrium with the Godhead. This subtle mechanism may be compared with the scientific First Law o f Thermodynamics, according to which “A small change in the anthropy of a system is accompanied by a propotional change in the energy of the system, [called] the temperature of a system”.

. “If one accepts that the area of the event horizon is

analogous to enthropy”, S. Hawking continues, “then it would seem that the surface gravity is analogous to temperature. The resemblance is strengthened by the fact that the surface gravity turns out to be the same at all points on the event horizon, just as the 99QQ

temperature is the same everywhere in a body at thermal equilibrium”.

The necessity

“To find the active will in the Keter [trm pmn nbiys rtontf], where the change from none-wanting to wanting occurs”2300 leads RaMaK to declare “Indeed, His will is the secret of His affect and appearance within the Keter - the will of wills - wherein the import of His benevolence to all is vested”.2301 The Keter is an entity whose raison d’etre is action', he in whom “The light of the EinSof expends to all the sefirot”

and “The

chair whose potency affords to act upon the drawn [potential] actions from the Creator and to actualize them” [ rrbrin

vftn x t m Dnvn

,x*nnno n m m mb'iysn bu Viysb

Neon "tan1].2303 The Keter thus becomes a 0 whose existence is the substantiation of 1. Its furthest reaches from the Godhead are the greatest amplification of 1, whereas its acutest equanimity with Him draws back the unified force to its potentiality as 0, and eventually to the no-symbol whose puzzlingly unified circular aseity we have already discussed. These meditations obviously aggravate even further the highly sensitive nerves negotiating the Godhead and the Keter, for they only amplify the latter’s role in the initiation of the emanation process. Although RaMaK cannot solve this persisting conundrum without resorting to Neoplatonic conclusions, he nonetheless wishes to 2298 See Hawking, S. (1993), p.105. 2299 Ibid. 2300 Eilima Rabbati, E in K o l ha-Aretz 1:6. 2301 Ibid. 2302 Eilima Rabbati, E in ha-Bedolah 3:15. This chapter is unfinished and its location may confuse the reader. The quote is taken from page 69a in the book (1966). 2303 Or Yaqar, vol. 17, p .8. See also discussion in Sack, B. (1995 a), p.61.

451

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

distinguish between the Godhead and the Keter inasmuch as postulating the supremacy o f existence over action'. God is a potential-Being ad infinitum whereas the Keter is a functioning-Being ad infinitum; God is a no-symbol zero whereas the Keter is already a 0!

In other words, RaMaK wishes to enforce the philosophical supremacy of Being over Action yet do so without removing potency [= potential action -

ro] from the

Godhead Himself - a dire philosophical comer. RaMaK cannot resolve it, but he does invest the actual potency in the Keter. “It does not infer that God had experienced a change of will, God forbid, for His will remains forever unchanging; rather, His will is the secret affect [ins?307! 1103] and appearance within the Keter - the Will of wills wherein the import o f His existing benevolence to all is vested [ O’D’O invn rpbsn □tt’l h’Dh’]”.2304 This “Import of God’s existing benevolence” is arguably the outcome of the subtle transition from the Godhead as rm n,,p (Potential-Being) to the Keter as *7^133 Nraii (Active-Existing) and whose realization requires the ontic and functional intermediaries (Being-Existing) and ^ID-rD (Potential-Action). Here, too, RaMaK cannot reach a resolution without offending core principles in his system, a fact that leads him - as we have already witnessed - to paradoxically invest such intermediaries in the loftiest realms of the Keter itself - “A mediator between potential and actual activity [ bins lnvn pn yran1 bmsi nm]”,2305 which obviously means a mediator between ontic states as well: “Prior to emanation, all measures [sefirot] were hidden in Him in utter concealment and unification, ruling out any image or point [in the mind] [...]. Afterward, a single point was emanated, the Keter which is rendered

[nothing] since its immeasurable

proximity to its Source rules out its [actual] being [ttf’’].”2306 The Keter’s raison d ’etre thus becomes this “Minutest of all changes” [ora nro>],2307 wherein the transition is that of an ontic descent from potentiality to actuality which informs the very ontic status of the Keter as a functional property - the nuanced and asymptotically unresolved distinction RaMaK makes between null and nrano, the potential will “Which is indeed

2304 Ibid, 1:14. 2305 Ibid, 1:6. 2306 Pardes Rimonim 5:4; Or Ne'erav 6:1; Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l ha-A retz 1:6. 2307 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l ha-Aretz 1:6.

452

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

concealed, not being a revealed will per se” and the activated will which pulsates as “The first emanation [which] is willed to emanate”.

Second Metatheosophy: Keter, Hokhmah and Binah RaMaK's metatheosophical ballet does not exhaust itself with the Keter. in the attempt to chart the unfolding processes from the metaphysical singularity to the theosophical event horizon (which can simultaneously be seen as the transition from the metaphysical event horizon to the theosophical singularity, given that we investigate a non-spatiotemporal realm) RaMaK enlists the two immediate partners of the Keter as well: Hokhmah and Binah. He now fashions all three as intermediaries between the Godhead’s potential singularity [0=1 / b171371 nn2308 / 771X71 FID - potentiality o f one / potential action]2209 and the theosophical actuated apparatus [1=10 - 7177371 75770 - actual action].2310 It is a complex process of concealment-revelation and wherein each event horizon is not only simultaneously the singularity of its successor but also a concealment of the initiating singularity in and of itself. Let us revisit his words on these highly obscure intermediary realms;

□nn p a r xbty ,7im obyn n’biin in niaby: nnan i’7i ,nnnnn mran mb’xx m ip ,7nnn aim nnx mipi iinn b’sxii *p-*inxi .in nnnxna nn xbx ,V?n nmpm nrs Tibyx: ninm .Bi’n in usw’ xbiy ,mipnn 7inip’7Xi nmpm mnb y^x nxnp: x’m X’tii ,mty’7i nb’nn ,’ib:n nb’nn x’niy bp nxnpn ,nnnnn x’m nnw nnip: ’ibn ,n’iy’bty mip: bx firm , n m izp xb ,niiy’n nb’nn x’niy ’ism .y^x» nxnp: .mxx»:n ’ib: x’m ,ni’nn x’m mxsnan ’ib: bx

Prior to emanation, all measures [sefirot] were hidden in Him in utter concealment and unification, ruling out any image or point [in the mind] [...]. Afterward, a single point was emanated, the Keter which is rendered y»« [nothing] since its immeasurable proximity to its Source rules out its [actual] being [BP]. Through a second revelation was emanated, a second point which is Hokhmah. It is called BP [being] for it is the launch of a revelatory being, thus rendered V ’XTS BP [ex nihilo - ‘Being out of noneBeing’ = further actuality out of potentiality]. However, since [Hokhmah] is the launch of being and not an existing being, regulation deemed a third point - Binah - which is the Being revealed in Existence.2311 2308 Ibid. 2309 Ibid, 1:6, 14. 2310 Ibid, 1:6. 2311 Pardes Rimonim 5:4; Or Ne'erav 6:1; Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l ha-Aretz 1:6.

453

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Emanation thus became a regulatory accentuation of the 1 in the 0 and needed for its fruition profoundly subtle progressions on ontological, epistemological, structural and operational levels. RaMaK indeed tries to articulate here a metatheosophical compulsion from the metaphysical imperative; a unique hierarchical standing of the three highest sefirot which informs the subsequent theosophical edifice as well: the sefirot are not simply ten but also consist of the intermediary 10 = 1+9

9 T 19

and 3+7,

9 T 1^

much like the

intermediary 3 themselves which are further splintered as 1+2.2314 Just as the Keter’s singularity is already the Godhead’s event horizon, so does the entire emanated apparatus unfold downward / outward / inward in a blast of actualized potentialities wherein the event horizon of a superior constitutes the singularity of its inferior - “[X] constitutes the [y] prior to its expansion” [mo^'snnn ’3D7 n rm ]2315 as the imperative mandated by by the unified and mysterious initiation of the Godhead, “Since from above downward the beginning of [y] is the end [of x]” [qio Nm 137 nb’nn nra1? nbliaB ’D]2316: the event horizon of Keter [px] now pulsates as the singularity of Hokhmah [!£•”] and their ‘point of equanimity’ is ex nihilo [pXB W1] - a further actualization of the nonentity [Keter] to being [Hokhmah] but not as existence yet. The event horizon of Hokhmah therefore pulsates as the singularity of Binah and fashions the being [Hokhmah] into existence —an event horizon that RaMaK calls “The Being revealed in Existence”. . .and so forth. In such a manner each ontological stage surpasses, causes and includes its successor as necessary potentiality: the supremacy of Being over Existing therefore means ‘everything that exists must already be, whereas everything that is [= being] does not necessarily require existence’! The dialectic interplay of seeming opposites - that is, a mechanism wherein potentialty is rendered the negative of actuality and meets it at a point of equanimity - is also visible in scientific discourse which tries to articulate such bizarre realms; Where did all these particles come from? The answer is that relativity and quantum mechanics allow matter to be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. And where did the energy come from to create

See e.g., Shiur Qomah in Sack, B. (1995 a), p.327; Eilima Rabbati, Ein Ro ’i 6:1-4. See e.g., Pardes Rimonim 11:2; Perush le-Sefer Yetzirah 1:2; 2:1; Eilima Rabbati, Ein ha-Bedolah 1:19. 2314 See e.g., Shiur Qomah on the Idrot, in Sack, B. (1995 a), p.327; Eilima Rabbati, Ein Ro ’i 6:1-4. 2315 See e.g., Pardes Rim onim 8:25. 2316 Ibid 11:5. 7313

454

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

this matter? The answer is that it was borrowed from the gravitational energy of the universe. The universe has an enormous debt of negative gravitational energy, which exactly balances the positive energy of the matter. During the inflationary period the universe borrowed heavily from its gravitational energy to finance the creation of more matter. The result was a triumph for Keynesian economics: a vigorous and expanding universe, filled with material objects. The debt of gravitational energy will not have to be paid until the end of the universe.2317 Indeed Metatheosophy it is: RaMaK calls this intermediary threefold apparatus from the Big Bang’s ultimate interiority “The expansion of emanation prior [!] to its ultimate expansion” [rnctt^nnn im

tr n p

mb’xxn m tW D n n ] 2318 It is a realm “Which is neither

nothing nor something”2319 [bby mn rr’no to pxn bbino] and which leads RaMaK to yield to the necessity of “A mediator [yix’b] between the emanating and the emanated” - using the term o m it to mean both a structural quality [ymx - middle] and a functional amenity [om x - a means], as we have already discussed.

9990

This intermediary stage is thus a

further mandatory display of evolving actualities without which God’s immanence could not be ascertained from His brute transcendent Self. How does this threefold apparatus work in a domain which wholly transcends cause and effect? Much like our previous brief scientific discourse wherein the black hole is “A bizarre realm in which space and time are broken apart [so] cause and effect cannot be unraveled”, RaMaK's three heads o f governance “Exist and function wondrously, beyond nature and above the law”

[p H

m ira nbyab ,ynm p nbynb Ninitf cm].2321 Indeed, any

theosophical contemplation is difficult and requires progressive refinement of one’s aptitudes on multiple levels: “The Malkhut is called HQ [What] and the Tif’eret is the concealed N"in [He]; the Binah is ’ft [Who] - which is a question devoid of an answer and the Hokhmah is W>n rPWfcn [The beginning o f Being]', the Keter is pN [Nothing] and the EinSof is the necessary px by pN [Nothing o f Nothing] to whom even the word Ayin does not befit”.2322

2317 Hawking, S. (1993), p.97. RaMaK would have most probably given H aw king’s last sentence the title “Redemption”. 2318 Eilima Rabbati, Ein Ro ’i 6:1-4. 2319 Pardes Rimonim 5:4. 2320 Eilima R a b b a ti, Ein K o l 2:12. 2321 See e.g., Sefer Gerushin, entry 74, p.96. 2322 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l ha-Aretz 1:20.

455

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

To the novice who might find it difficult to obtain, RaMaK now states “You should therefore gaze upon the permissible realms alone, that is from Binah downward”2323 and realize that “These three cannot be directly affected by the mystics save by the theurgic manipulation of the lower seven”.2324 To the question ‘How are the higher three affected then?’ RaMaK would ultimately reply with the “Unadulterated belief’ [HEran nnax] formula: studying the metaphysical imperative and reversing its apparatus from below by way of deduction enables one to chart an effective theurgic trajectory despite one’s inability to outline the highest realms which surpass one’s intellectual articulation and spiritual aptitude: “Just as the Keter is in Hokhmah and Hokhmah in Binah and Binah in Hesed until the tenth Sefirah Malkhut, so is Malkhut in Yesod and Yesod in Hod and Hod 999

in Netzah until the first Sefirah K eter”

Although one cannot know what exactly

happens on this metatheosophical edifice, the seven lower floors may furnish a relatively clear view of the higher echelons vis-a-vis the commanding regulations of the metaphysical imperative - “For the upper echelons need the lower ones and vice versa”.2326 This metatheosophical intermediary - albeit intriguing - obviously does not resolve the persistent question regarding the initiation of divine animation from within the divine inert essence (that inert action which RaMaK also renders “An uncoerced activity” - m^yD’rn

^yiD).2327 One can surely understand why RaMaK does not

divulge this mechanism at length: it is not merely due to man’s inability to fully fathom let alone articulate - but also due to its radical intimation with the Godhead and the philosophical ramifications that lurk at it feet. How does one negotiate Aristotelian brute transcendence with the theistic view of creatio ex nihilo, the Neoplatonic doctrine of emanations and the Zoharic radical rendition of immanence without falling into such traps as Deism or Pantheism? It was indeed a dangerous domain if improperly explored by the feeble human mind en route to epistemic transparency and theurgic effectiveness one which even RaMaK would ultimately leave unresolved.

2323 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l ha-Aretz 1:15. 2324 Sefer Gerushin, entry 53, pp.63-64. 2325 Or Ne'erav 6:2. 2326 Ibid. 2327 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K o l 2:11-12.

456

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Metatheosophy and the Theosophical Principles The Keter was indeed a metatheosophical Chief Executive Officer making a very strong case for the metaphysical presidency. RaMaK refused this claim with theistic and mystical passion, wishing that the CEO remained a distinguished liason between the Godhead and the Sefirot; yet he never ceased to remain intellectually baffled by the stmog arguments this enigmatic CEO made for leadership - let alone that the Keter had such persuasive campain managers, Hokhmah and Binah. In turn, RaMaK afforded the metatheosophical branch an exclusive package of benefits, allowing it to negotiate divine transcendence and immanence with greater proximity to the Godhead. The divine directive galvanizing the theosophical realm as a whole [no-symbol = 0 = 1 = 10] therefore afforded the executive metatheosophical branch greater enigmatic leeway. By being “Above nature and above the law”,2328 Keter, Hokhmah and Binah stood on qualitatively superior pedestals, enjoying respectively a hierarchical rapport with the Godhead and afforded special properties which distinguished them from their minions on ontic, epistemic and functional levels. At this juncture one should relinquish any hope to find intellectual vindication in RaMaK's statements; for he had already succumbed to men’s inability to comprehend such realms either philosophically or by the more creative agencies of mythical terminologies. RaMaK's inability to articulate the meathesophical realm was for him precisely the moment wherein the deepest black holes sucked the human condition into pure potentiality; where mind exhausted itself, spirit ceased to differentiate itself and words broke away from their communicative aptitude. Reassembling words in the attempt to express such realms to men would therefore yield more confusion than clarity. The outstanding Jewish soul to which RaMaK devotes his life and writings should therefore be overpowered at this juncture by a belief whose purity of conviction [milD - kavana] is the only means to sustain a trajectory [pTO - kivun] to arouse such realms. These realms absorbed the triumphant call of the mystic, he who managed to enlist belief for the great enigma which exists merely an inch after intellect had been exhausted and spirit turned mute - the vortex of God’s own black hole.

2328 Sefer Gerushin, entry 74, p.96. See also Pardes Rimonim 3:7-8; 8:9, 17; 12:1; 13:7; 23:1.

457

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Within this vortex the rales of the game indeed changed, much like the scientific arena which tries to reassess its conceptual vocabularies as it inspects that which ridicules its tools of inquiry. The concealment-revelation principle, for example, was one whose employment in RaMaK's system exerted considerable momentum to explain reality. The divine imperative had necessitated that each cause reveals itself through its effect and by doing so conceal itself even further! The innermost chamber of the Keter, however, does not necessarily yield to this directive: its loftiest rank - that which RaMaK renders “Keter in potentiality” [ton "iro] - “Does not reveal anything, even after its emanation downward and subsequent revelation.”

999Q

Similarly, we have already seen the perplexity in locating

the property of will, for the claim that God wills only ‘outwards’ cannot explain the appearance of that ‘outward’ realm without compelling change on the EinSof2330 At certain junctures RaMaK's discussion of the Keter is not merely parallel but in fact identical to the EinSof: regarding the EinSof, RaMaK states that “All need Him yet He needs none in turn; He is the source for all and all draw sustenance from Him [...] for He cannot be compelled in any manner”.2331 The exact terminology appears in RaMaK's socalled ‘earlier rendition’ of Tomer Devorah, wherein he states in accord with the Zohar

that “The Keter is not affected by any deed, be it good or evil, for his

benevolence is always fluent”. Likewise, just as “The attributes are attires and chairs for the Godhead, and when we pray and unify the attributes by a mitzvah or a prayer we aim to align them so they become chairs for Him [...]; since God is not worshiped [= affected directly] by the prayer but by [its facility to] usher in His attributes closer to Him, so they may receive the effluence from Him in turn”,2333 so is the Keter “Worshiped [= effected] by our ability to prepare the sefirot to receive his benevolence - not that his flow diminishes in itself. When the sefirot themselves are not prepared to receive his light [through men’s devotion], it is their condition which translates as dimmed light; but when they are ready, his light is always there to nurture them”.2334

2329 Shiur Qomah on the Idrot; cf: Sack, B. (1995 a), p.327. 2330 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:3-8. 2331 E.g., Pardes Rimonim 3:1; Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:2-8, 12. 2332 Zohar 1:163b. 2333 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:2. 2334 Tamar 6:1; cf: Sack, B. (1995 b), p. 171.

458

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

In a similar fashion, RaMaK's professed contention is that there is causal and structural fusion of each level with both its preceding and succeeding realms (# 9 & 10). In Shiur Qomah,2335 however, RaMaK nevertheless demonstrates not only great ambiguity in regard to the causal relationship between EinSof and Keter (# 9) but continues to apply principle # 1 0 only from the Keter downward! RaMaK starts by adhering to these principles yet continues to assert divine transcendence by withdrawing from them when considering the enigmatic relationship between EinSof and Keter. “EinSof is the cause above all causes who emanated the first sefirah Keter, and there is no breach between them whatsoever [p’DDQ ib’SXft pm irn pto].” Whereas we are still confounded by the disparity between principle # 1 and principles # 2, 3, 4, at this point principles # 9 and 10 are still maintained. “Nevertheless”, RaMaK continues and shakes the conceptual cohesion of these principles as well, “the Keter is removed from the Godhead by a few steps, as not to be equal to Him, God forbid.” If so, the reader may ask, what constitutes such steps which seem to reside above Keter and below EinSof despite RaMaK's first claim “There is no breach between them whatsoever,” and his ensuing reiteration “There is no mediator between them”? The Tango of the tangled resumes; “The Keter is the closest to the Godhead that is possible for a [new] being to be”

[ 73 xbx

mpru ywto trsaa bx xsa:i xm mpnb -wsxtf no] [...] and there is no real breach between them, save the superiority of the Emanating over the emanated”. RaMaK obviously does not answer the question as much as perhaps articulating the impossibility for any answer by reminding us of the disparity between Truth and knowledge in the human sphere.2336 As for principles # 6, 9 and 10 (.Divine Downward Trajectory, Causal continuum and Structural continuum), our need to situate the intermediaries between EinSof and the Keter remains fraught by paradox, and RaMaK cautions in Eilima Rabbati “This issue is highly remote and even the holy Zohar had not touched this realm save briefly in two places, where it focuses in fact on the relationship between Keter and Hokhmah.2337 RaMaK's treatment cannot but feature visible contradictions on this front as well. On the one hand RaMaK speaks of a theosophical edifice whose creation now renders it a reciprocal mechanism which ultimately reaches the EinSof, “The light which returns 2335 Shiur Qomah, pp.103-104. 2336 On this issue, see Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), chapter 1, section 1. 2337 Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:12.

459

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

upwards from Hokhmah and Keter, meaning the return of the elements to their root after they had been revealed” [am’?1:; "inx umwn Vx D’u n n m m ]. Such words seem to seriously contradict principles # 1 and 6 by suggesting that the Hokhmah and the Keter do send light upwards somehow ["irom n»Dnn

my a1?]. RaMaK therefore continues to

immediately clarify that “The essence of the root is already in the emanated realm, since the divine essence is utterly unified and needs neither root nor source”.

This rationale

therefore bestows the most concealed roots already within the Keter and therefore strongly suggests that the EinSof is indeed an entity whose removal from the theosophical arena resembles Maimonidean Aristotelianism - seriously challenging principle # 4 (Divine immanence). Either way, the towering authority that is bestowed upon Keter may indeed crown him as Lord o f the Ring - not only the ring of flickering transparencies but also the sefirotic ring in its entirety. Whereas RaMaK's steppingstone is the unwavering governance of the EinSof and the need to usher in the sefirot closer to Him [principals # 6 and 7], Pardes Rimonim already clarifies that it is nevertheless the Keter who is the prime negotiator of the reciprocal illumination which henceforth edifies the cosmic edifice.2339 This stance remains intact throughout RaMaK's speculative evolution, as the following excerpt from his Perush le-Sefer Yetzirah demonstrates;

mxi nmpn mipi .pyxm isicn isioa pyxi ,niTson nyp xa it muma ■in^nm pyxn pyxm pro ■ftx i m ’"inty hid an1? px nr am ,"ityy imm n x ’a piym .a”Doa w p e m in n t i x mon nn ."iron ma'mi rm'ma ana - mra mm impra bx in n nan ma'mn mm mm mbyan a n a Txa nnmon m xsn ,mxsna m m: ,nma ion Tim n ra ,Tio,a naan ^nfm a "iro m^ya1? naaa nuny lrx n^ya1? mxn rxi .man ma'm ,nm m mo1 ,nrm Tin ,7orn nm ,mm:a naam "irmty mrfmn nna ^tm1? n^ya^a mm imn m n , t i o * pxty ,i"n nsa naaa mm irmi nnm imn ny nr pm ^yi [...] mmaty Tinn nrai naaraw mom .nr pm Vy pio an1? pxi iwv anty pnya pro an1? px a^iy^r nVya1? This tractate comes to teach us how the sefirot unite head in tail and tail in head. And he [= Rashbi] had already taught us that they are ten yet infinite, since they fuse together tail in head and head in tail. How so? Keter in Malkhut and Malkhut in Keter, which is the secret of the returning light already explicated upon in Pardes Rimonim. It means that the light of the sefirot commences in the upmost echelons and strikes the

2338 Pardes Rimonim 11:6. 2339 Pardes Rimonim 15.

460

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

Malkhut, whereupon it returns and stirs a cord2340 upward to the Keter. Keter [stirs] the Malkhut, Hokhmah the Yesod, Binah the Hod, Hesed the Netzah, Gevurah the T if’eret; Tif’eret the Gevurah, Netzah the Hesed, Hod the Binah, Yesod the Hokhmah [and] Malkhut the Keter. Yet this [vibrating] light does not cease here, God forbid, for it is infinite; it turns again and strikes another cord [inward], Keter strikes the Malkhut within the Keter, Hokhmah strikes the Yesod within the Hokhmah, Binah strikes the Hod within Binah [...] and so on, back and fro ad infinitum, for they are an infinite ten in that manner.2341 This is quite a beautiful image of cyclical designs in a pulsation of geometrical harmonies, wherein perpetual vibrations of spherical strings fuse potentiality with actuality and join concealment with revelation in a dialectic inward-outward move. There is music here, a one-movement orchestral piece whose choreography brings to mind the known Bolero by Maurice Ravel. It is a resonance of harmonic precision and choral reciprocity, allowing the listener to hear the entire vision while also focusing on the amplified nuance of a specific Sefirah. The reader should revisit here the parable of the Circular Tree which we gave in the third chapter: each potentiality fuses with its actuality in a precise order within the ten; the ultimate with the last, the penultimate with the ninth, the third with the eight, the fourth with the seventh and the sixth with the fifth (Tif’eret) whereupon the point of equanimity between T if’eret and Gevurah - the precise middle of ten as it were - now pulsates expanding ripples back.. .ad infinitum in cyclical continuum. This process of vibrating ripples is non-exhaustive, a reciprocal negotiation between and within the sefirot, wherein each completed cycle also arouses a deeper corresponding circularity: the Keter stirs the Malkhut and initiates a complete sefirotic cycle which runs ad infinitum yet also stirs the inner string called Malkhut within Keter, and so forth, Malkhut within Keter in the Keter, Malkhut within Keter in the Keter in the Keter, ad infinitum. The geometrical, even musical beauty of this devise notwithstanding, we should take not of the fact that the Keter orchestrates this apparatus, not the EinSof. The EinSof is cyclical only unto Himself, in the realm wherein He “Joyously engages from Self to Self in S elf’ [laxsn

laxya ytz/ynira] in that paradoxical “Inert action”. To the

emanated realm, on the other hand, the EinSof is a transcendent effluence which 2340 m’» - the image o f a cord is quite apt here. See also Matt, D.C. (2004) on Zohar 1:15a and his application o f this word for HTa Ip. 2341 Perush le-Sefer Yetzirah 1:6. 461

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

“Requires neither lights nor wills”, a quality that cannot be affected or stimulated by the ‘returning lights’ of the sefirotic geometrical pulses. The EinSof is cordless, so to speak, a constant gushing downward and downward only ( principles # 1 and 6) - a fact which obviously renders quite difficult our adherence to principles # 4 and 7. Returning to Shiur Qomah, the unfolding four realities from Keter downward [sf'SK] indeed discharge as the splendid display of event horizon which becomes the singularity of its successor. The exhaustion of potentiality x [nan no’DX]2342 is the point of equanimity [yet somehow not equality!] with the further actualized singularity. “From the Keter downward there is no breach for any reason whatsoever”, RaMaK clarifies with greater assurance; “The end to Keter is beginning to Hokhmah', the end to Hokhmah is beginning to Binah and so forth to Malkhut', and the end to emanation is beginning to creation and so forth.” One can almost hear RaMaK's relieved assertion at this point, for this structure is relatively easy to maintain once the divine imperative had been established. Yet establishing it, RaMaK reminds us, is through belief rather than intellect. It is therefore that Eilima Rabbati commences by stating “First and foremost one should believe in all matters of the Torah”. Identical perplexities confront the reader upon investigating the epistemological status ascribed by RaMaK to the metatheosophical realm. Since the ontic is fused with the functional and the epistemological, demotion in one immediately means in all others -the emanated realms are inferior to God in potentiality, potency and knowledge. This is indeed the backbone which informs RaMaK's ethical composition Tomer Devorah as well: first, the Keter cannot gaze upwards but fathoms God only as a necessary supremacy which stems from the knowledge of itself - called in RaMaK's other writings “Knowledge of the attire” [unaba ra^n / iflDb ratt-Ti] or “Knowledge of the chair” [ mwn NOD]

2343 Second, the imitation Dei formula corresponds with the Keter who is the

necessary mediator between the Godhead and all else: “For a person to emulate his Creator according to the secrets of the attribute Keter, he [firstly] needs to gaze downwards in humbleness, like the Keter who is ashamed to gaze at its Cause”.2344 RaMaK's ‘shameful’ Keter is obviously an accommodating parable in laymen’s terms to 2342 See RaM aK’s fascinating discussion in Perush le-Sefer Yetzirah 1:4. 2343 See e.g., Pardes Rim onim 2, 3, 5; Eilima Rabbati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:2-6. 2344 Tomer Devorah 2:1.

462

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

suggest the far more commanding “Incapable” in the speculative domain, one based on the divine imperative of downward trajectory: “The mind compels us to deduce that any affected realm cannot grasp its cause - regardless its proximity to it”.2345 This regulation obviously raises a question concerning the Keter’s epistemic standing. RaMaK theosophical epistemology - one he had adopted from his master Solomon Alkabetz2346 -views each realm as informed by three degrees of knowledge: the limited knowledge of the cause by deduction, the greater knowledge of the self by experience and the superior knowledge of the effect by governance.2347 How does this mechanism apply to the highest rung of the Keter, which is “Within the EinSof and is devoid o f any measure or assessment by the E in S o f [ n ra i n ir ^ mw 13

vb

Xlprm n ^ro

0"X3 Kin nn if]?2348 The question regarding their point o f equanimity has therefore considerable epistemological bearings as well: existing on a level somehow ‘devoid of any measure or assessment by the EinSof suggests such brute simplicity as to rule out any difference between cause and effect. Knowledge of Cause by the Keter therefore equals knowledge o f Self in the EinSof for on such extreme fusion “Knowing the part means knowing the All”.2349 The rationalist in RaMaK cannot refute it, nor can the Jewish mystic in him accept it. The only measure to save theistic and mystical face is the staunch belief in that “Wondrous supremacy” of equality over equanimity, meaning that such terms as n ^ n rp^nn (utmost ascent) or 'rxxan

rmnwan mip3 (a point o f

equanimity with the Godhead) always bear the suffix ‘as possible’. This is the way of the mystical speculator; one seminal reason to look back and state “Although many affinities exist between our views and the philosophers’, their paths are not ours and ours are not theirs”.2350 Eilima Rabbati bestows even greater authority on the Keter than Pardes Rimonim insofar as seeing it the realm wherein such subtle animations occur, a reality that only

2345 E ilim a R ab b ati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:8; Ein K ol 3:9. 2346 On this issue see also Sack, B. (1976). 2347 See e.g., P a rd e s R im onim 6:6; Eilim a R ab b ati, Ein K ol 3:9. Please refer to the detailed in BenShlomo, J. (1965), pp.251-255. 2348 E ilim a R ab b ati, Ein K ol 4:40. 2349 E ilim a R ab b ati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:3. 2350 E ilim a R ab b ati, Ein K ol ha-Aretz 1:5. On this issue, see also Arieli, N. (1978-1979); on its application in Bahya ibn Paquda’s thought, see Eisenberg, Y. (1981).

463

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

amplifies RaMaK's need for the metatheosophical paradigm.2351 Although it is not able to rid itself from the persistent nagging of Aristotelianism on the one end and Neoplatonism on the other, Eilima Rabbati allows to further unpack the divine theosophical regulation of ten sefirot - neither nine nor eleven. The observer is now ejected from the metatheosophical vortex and rests upon orbiting its event horizon; that which is at a point of equanimity with the theosophical singularity - the infinitely tenfold compulsion which is based on the dance between metaphysics and Metatheosophy; the 1 = 0 ad infinitum ballet.

The Sefirot - Theosophy as Actual Actuality 'yyisj: No-Symbol = 0 = 1 = 1 0 = 1 = 0 = No Symbol A d Infinitum RaMaK’s metaphysics elevated God beyond the point of actual singularity and aimed to secure His place within the perplexing domain of utterly self-sufficient singular potentiality. Henceforth RaMaK’s investigation of the black hole deduces by necessity an unfolding mechanism which is governed by the supremacy of potentiality [ro] over actuality [^VID] ad infinitum 2352 Although the divine attire is splendidly elaborate and demonstrates via negativa the unified enormity of its tailor, RaMaK is quite aware of the perplexity that might confront his readers as they try to grasp how empiric multiplicity points to singular potentiality, “As the transition from one to many is indeed profound and difficult”.2353 The question which had occupied many mystics regarding the necessity of the sefirot “To be ten, neither nine nor eleven”2354 occupied RaMaK and features as the very beginning o f his first composition, Pardes Rimonim - where he refutes with earlier mathematical or geometrical attempts to explain the necessity of ten.2355 Although RaMaK starts off by affirming that “All those who practice this wisdom [Kabbalah] have agreed on the necessity for the sefirot to be ten”,

J. Ben-Shlomo’s claim that “RaMaK

2351 See Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), chapter 3. 2352 Ibid, 1:6. 2353 Ibid, Ein K ol 2:16. 2354 As stated in Sefer Y etzirah 2:1. 2355 See Ben-Shlomo, J. (1965), pp.92-95. 2356 P ard es R im onim 1:1. 464

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.

ultimately does not offer a principal conclusion to this question and accepts the ten as a given not to be disputed”2357 should however be challenged. Contrary to J. Ben-Shlomo’s ensuing statement that “Eilima Rabbati does not afford new insights regarding the rationale behind the ten sefirot”,

it is arguably Eilima

Rabbati which may indeed afford a fuller understanding of this matter in RaMaK's thought - especially once juxtaposed with certain fascinating excerpts from Pardes Rimonim,

97