Aaron Zev Aescoly-Weintraub: Jewish Kabbalah, A Historical & Ethnosophical Survey

A 1947 picture of Professor Aaron Zev Aescoly-Weintraub,

(Lodz 1901- Jerusalem 1948). Source: Wikipedia.

*

With today’s sharing from the Blue House of Via-HYGEIA, we have chosen to honor the memory of a forgotten figure in Jewish scholarship, who deserves to be better known beyond modern research circles.  His work needs to be re-evaluated, so to bring him out of this public limbo and place him in a more prominent manner where he deserves to be: within the lineage of modern Jewish scholars, such as Gersom Sholem, Moshe Idel & Charles Mopsik-to name a few luminaries-who took the relay-baton from professor Aescoly-Weintraub and brought it into our modern times, each in his own and indelible mark.

We have to keep in mind the publication date of  this work: 1928. It reflects the state of the research professor Aescoli-Weintraub had to his disposition at the time, so it is also like a time capsule and tells us a lot about the ideas and context of the society he was living in.

Here below you will find the whole chapter devoted to Kabbalah, excerpted from ‘Introduction to the Study of the religious heresies among the Jews: Kabbalah & Hassidism-A Critical Essay.‘ Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, Paris 1928.

This critical essay provided an in-depth analysis of Kabbalistic and Hasidic movements, challenging prevailing perceptions by distinguishing between the poetic, legendary, and historical aspects of these traditions.

For its time, the work offered a more scientific approach to understanding these complex religious phenomena, contributing to a nuanced appreciation of Jewish mystical and spiritual practices.

The excerpt runs from page 1 to 22. A Via-HYGEIA English translation from the original French. Notes by the author are specified as such. This post is dedicated to Michael Sebban, for his kindness, generosity & encouragement during our preparation work.

**

Contextual Introduction

Aaron Ze’ev Aescoly-Weintraub (1901–1948) was a distinguished Jewish writer, historian & ethnologist whose scholarly contributions have left a lasting impact on Jewish studies. Born in Łódź, Poland, into a well-to-do Hasidic family, he received both traditional yeshiva & secular education. During World War I, he resided in Berlin, returning to Łódź in 1918, and later pursued higher education in Berlin, Liège & Paris. In Paris, he briefly taught at the École Nationale des Langues Orientales Vivantes.

In 1925, Aaron Zev Aescoly -Weintraub immigrated to Palestine but continued his scholarly research in Paris between 1925–1930 & 1937–1939.

He founded and directed the ‘Isidore Epstein Training College for Kindergarten Teachers‘ in 1939. The training college for kindergarten teachers was named in honor of Isidore Epstein, an English rabbi and scholar. (Note: Born in 1894 in Kovno, Lithuania, Rabbi Isidore Epstein immigrated to England and made significant contributions to Jewish education and scholarship. He served as the principal of the Jewish College in London and was instrumental in expanding its activities, including the introduction of a department for training teachers. His scholarly works include editing the first complete English translation of the Babylonian Talmud.)

During World War II, Aaron Zev Aescoly-Weintraub served as a chaplain in the British Army’s Jewish Brigade. Aaron Zev Aescoly-Weintraub passed away on December 3, 1948, in Tel Aviv.

Professor Aescoly-Weintraub’s research encompassed Jewish messianic movements, ethnology, and history. Notable works include a critical edition of ‘Sippur David Reuveni‘ (1940) and some of his works were published posthumously such as the first edition of Ḥaim ben Joseph Vital’s ‘Sefer ha-ḥezyonot‘ in 1954 and in 1956 ‘Ha-Tenuot ha-Meshiḥiyyot be-Yisrael‘ (“Messianic Movements in Israel,’). He also conducted significant studies on the Beta Israel community, publishing ‘Sefer ha-Falashim‘ (1943) and ‘Ḥabash‘ (1936). For more, see links below. ( Source: Encyclopedia dot com & Yiddish Leksikon).

**

Aaron Zev Aescoly-Weintraub

‘A Historical and Ethnosopical Survey of Kabbalah’

(started in 1924- published in 1928)

*

Part I

Kabbalah is the generic name for anything ‘esoteric‘ within Judaism. The word means ‘tradition‘.

The history of these doctrines is not engraved in stone. While the Jewish critics of the XIXth century, members of the rationalist school of Abraham Geiger, Leopold Zunz & Moritz Steinschneider, had the tendency to place the birth of Kabbalah to a very late date, Christian scientists had recognized for centuries that the origins of these doctrines go way-back to an ancient epoch. There are even some scientists that have thought to ‘re-discover’ traces of it in the esoteric doctrines of the Bible, system actually practiced by the Jewish exegetes from the Kabbalistic schools. (Note by the author: See Johan Horn, ‘Über die Bibliesche Gnosis‘, Hanover, 1805).

What makes the study of Kabbalah very difficult for the discipline of scientific criticism, is on one hand, the out-most discretion with which the kabbalists treat their science, and on the other hand, the absolute lack of  coordinated systems among the mass of published kabbalistic literature. For instance, there are no dates given for the major kabbalistic treatises; they are all anonymous or apocryphal; alike many authors of works composed between the second and thirteenth century, names like ‘Adam‘ for the ‘Razi’el ham-Mal’akh‘, ‘Abraham’ for the ‘Sepher Yeşirah‘, ‘Moses‘ for the ‘Ma’yan ha-Hokhmah‘, the Tannaim (note: the early generations of compilers of the Mishnah, the first written collection of Jewish oral laws; while the Talmud is a comprehensive commentary on the Mishnah that includes rabbinic discussions and interpretations), here in its third generation, such as Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha, Rabbi Elisha ben Abuyah, etc…

The different schools have corrupted the texts, each in its own manner, by confusing their commentaries from the primitive text, which implies that further on, there were no two similar manuscripts of a same source because the differences between the two texts would be considerable. Also, Kabbalah is known only from the twelfth century, date when the magnus opus of Kabbalah was found, the Zohar, ‘The book of the Light’. (Note: also called, ‘The Book of Splendor’, or ‘The Book of Radiance’). And  precisely, this book, the whole Kabbalah is based upon, was THE stumbling block, and still is up to today. The person who ‘discovered’ it, Rabbi Moses of Leon (Moshe ben Shem-Tov), a Spanish Jew, has given as the author of the work Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, a Tanna (note: singular for Tannaim, see above note) from the second century C.E. But, many scholars do not agree and suspect Moses of Leon to be himself the author of the book, and to have attributed it to an illustrious doctor of the Law, in order to increase its authority. Later, the suspicion move to Rabbi Abraham Abulafia, another kabbalist from Spain, a contemporary of Rabbi Moses of Leon. Comparisons were made between the works of those two kabbalists; but the lack of a systemic order allowed for one author to promulgate contradictory opinions; they are plentiful, and also in the Zohar.

As for the modern scientific scholarship, its criticism was divided between to biased opinions: between the Catholic and the Jewish scholarship. The Catholic opinion consisted in believing to have found in Kabbalah a spirituality very similar to its own. For instance, the eschatological apocalypses and the belief in the tendency to admit a divine trinity completely echoed to the Catholic faith. This is why the ecclesiastical scholars believed in the antiquity of Kabbalah. There are even some kabbalistic treatises that have been attributed to men of the Catholic Church, such as the ‘Galia Razaya‘ authored by a Pablo de Heredia. (note by the author: See Aron Freimann, ‘Paulus de Heredia als Verfasser der kabbalistischen Schriften Igeret ha-Sodot und Galie Raze‘ , in ‘Festschrift zum siebzigsten Geburtstage Jakob Guttmanns‘ / hrsg. vom Vorstande d. Gesellschaft zur Förderung d. Wissenschaft d. Judentums. Leipzig : Fock, 1915).

Also, Jewish rationalism saw in Kabbalah but a borrowing from a foreign civilization, let it be India, Persia or the Neo-Platonists. The first that took upon himself to fight against the authority of the Zohar is the Italian Rabbi Leon of Modena (Yəhud̲ā Aryē miModenā), who lead a famous polemic in the XVIIth century. He was followed by Jacob Emden, the rabbinic ‘Savonarole‘ in the XVIIIth century. But the suspicion against Kabbalah-because it was nothing else-truly begins in the Nineteenth century. The recent ‘science of Judaism’ originating from the German religious liberalism, finds itself under the influence of the theological rationalism of the protestant circle of the century, and went even to the extreme to deny to Judaism any religiosity, considering its historical religion having been nothing else but a moral system.

Even a conservative and religious mind such as the theologian Samuel David Luzzato fought vehemently against Spinoza’s atheism, against Maimonide’s paganism and against Kabbalah’s idolatry; he was eager to demonstrate that Kabbalah was but a late work, foreign to Judaism. (Note by the author: See his ‘Vikuach ‘al ha-Kabbalah‘. Göritz. 1852. ‘Dialogues on Kabbalah and on the antiquity of punctuation.’). The only one who makes an exception is a rabbi from Livorno, Elijah Benamozegh, who was the first to frame Kabbalah within the normal history of Israel. (Note by the author: See his ‘Ta’am Leshad‘, a refutation of Samuel David Luzzatto’s dialogue on the Kabbalah, Livorno, 1863). Scientific scholarship did not separate enough the question of the origins of Kabbalah from that of the origin of the Zohar.

As for the study of the Zohar, despite the great number of studies about it, the preliminary works, the lexicon and the grammar of the Aramean idiom in which it is written, also the critical analysis of its literary composition, still need to be undertaken. And until this necessary work is done, the Zohar will remain an enigma and a fallow field. (note by the author: The very name of these doctrines is ambiguous. In the ancient post-biblical literature the word ‘kabbalah‘ designate the oral tradition of a particular school of thought. During the Moorish era, the word designated a philosophical school. As for the secret doctrines, they were called sometimes ‘secrets‘ or sometimes ‘secret science‘. Yet, the name was already known by the western kabbalists who did not know by then the Zohar. This name was generally in usage at the time when esotericism was hesitating between two different schools of thought: Practical Kabbalah, followed by Isaac Luria’s school, and the theorical Kabbalah, followed by Moses Cordovero’s school. But this was not Kabbalah as a doctrine anymore during this new phase, as it took a rather theological aspect, and its ‘tradition’ was only concerned with religious practices).

*

Part II

We are eager therefore, to note down below the facts that seem to us relevant to scientific scholarship, so that we can use them afterwards to define the historical importance of some movements & events that were born out of an influence from Kabbalah.

Hypothesis Number 1

Hypothesis: There were esoteric doctrines at the time of the Second Temple.

Proof: The Talmud alludes to these doctrines through occasional stories. They refer to to different subjects that were not to be taught publicly, but only to an elite, to a narrow groups or even to a single individual. To these subjects, the ‘History of Genesis‘ and the ‘History of the Merkabah‘ belong.

It is also spoken of the four persons who entered into the Pardes which seem to be known and that only one of them came out fine and unharmed: Rabbi Akiva, the same person Jewish esotericism attributes a great involvement in the formation of these doctrines. (Author’s notes: Adolph Jellineck, ‘Beth ham-Midrash‘, 6 volume, Leipzig-Vienna, 1853-1878-See volume 3, the introduction).

In another story, the possibility to create living beings with the help of ‘creation formulas‘ was stipulated. (Author’s note: Many scholars have identified the ‘creation formulas’, ‘Halakhoth-Yeşirah‘, with the ‘Book of Creation‘, the ‘Sepher Yeşirah‘. In fact, there are texts that have ‘Sepher’ instead of ‘Halakhoth’. These two quotes (the first one, Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin, folio 37) a Halakhoth in the oldest manuscript (Munich, codex 95), and the other one (Jerusalmi, chapter 7-14) completely lack from the princeps edition (Venice, 1523). Probably, a reader or a student inscribed in the margin the words, ‘Sepher Yeşirah‘, as a commentary of the nearby passage that recalls the artificial creation produced by a wise man. Hence, these words were introduced within the text). A wise man,  Rabba, re-animated in the morning (with the help of a sacred name?) the body of his friend Rabbi Zaira he had accidently cut the throat while intoxicated the night before. (Author’s note: For this specific story, see Talmud Bavli, Megilah, folio 7b-it happened during Purim, when drunkenness is considered a virtue). There are in the Talmud a crowd of stories in favor of sacred magic, not to be confused with the ‘diabolical’ magic: the ‘Ma’ase Kesaphim‘. This sacred magic is always mentioned in relation with esoteric doctrines, of which the details are unknown to us.

*

Hypothesis Number 2

Hypothesis: These doctrines, of which we find traces in the Talmud, are anterior to its time.

Proof: The manner which the Talmud speaks of these esoteric doctrines give the impression that they were well know to the period. The combination of letters, that play a great role in Kabbalah, appear in this literature like a well known system which did not need to be explained. Even more, there are biblical passages that seem to only be explained through an understanding of gematria and its letter combinations. (Author’s note: The Aramaic paraphrast of Jeremiah, Jonathan ben Uzziel and Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus were known to use this very system in their works-See Adolphe Franck, in ‘La Kabbale, ou la philosophie religieuse des Hebreux’. Second edition, Paris, 1889).

*

Hypothesis Number 3

Hypothesis: There were reciprocal influences between numerical doctrines of the Pythagoreans & Kabbalah.

Proof: The two Alexandrian Jewish philosophers, Aristobulus the Peripatetic & Philo are considered the tutelar figures of the gnostic doctrines. Kabbalah and Gnosis have common points and both start from the same foundation: the theory of emanation. The whole Zoharic Kabbalah is based upon the ‘Sepher Yeşirah’, a book of Gnostic and Pythagorean ideology. There are other Midrashim displaying the same tendencies.

*

Hypothesis Number 4

Hypothesis: The esoteric doctrines of Judaism, even though their making as a system was influenced by foreign doctrines, were fundamentally Jewish doctrines.

Proof: The Talmud-which was struggling against the pagan philosophies of the Greeks, together with the religious philosophies of the nations of the East-echoed with a certain respect or consideration these esoteric Judaic doctrines. Later, rabbinic scholarship, unwilling to bend under the authority of Kabbalah, never really formally tried to contest their sacred character. The very same rabbinic scholarship, un-sympathetic to kabbalah’s tutelar figures who were trying to introduce within Judaism the peripatetic doctrines, were however eager to avoid disagreements with Kabbalah, to such a point it finally submitted to its influence!

The struggles of rabbinic scholarship against the authority of Kabbalah, which took place in the XVIIth century, were more of a reaction against the abuses the followers of Sabbatai Zevi (and the many sects that followed) were making of Kabbalah. Moreover, this reaction was never understood but as a precautionary measure, without preventing the study of Kabbalah per-se.

*

Part III

Yet, these hypotheses do not resolve the problem. The biased censorship of the Jewish groups at the time of the Second Temple did in fact provoke the loss of a great part of the available ancient & contemporary literature, as it is reported by the Talmud, and as certain discoveries in the Cairo Genizah do prove. Also, the  official development of Judaism did not know of these doctrines. Neither Eastern Geonim, nor the philosophers of the Moorish era, nor the representatives of the exegetical and halachic schools in Germany and Italy knew of them.

If we would want to avoid any floating hypothesis and stick to the undeniable facts, we would have to describe the development of Kabbalah in three  decisive periods:

1. The existence of esoteric doctrines during the period of the Eastern Geonim, witnessed in diverse Midrashim and Piyyutim (note: A piyyut is a Jewish liturgical poem, usually designated to be sung, chanted, or recited during religious services), being understood that these doctrines do not appear to be innovations, and have more or less the aspect of traditions carefully preserved. Also, a great part of these works go back probably to the time of the Savoraim and even to the Amoraim rabbis, if not to the period of the Tannaim. Only, the biased criticism of the German scholars we spoke of earlier chose a late date because it cannot be contested as doubtful!

2. The origin of Kabbalah strictly speaking-the tradition of the Zohar-is to be found in Spain-outside of the problem of its oriental or western origin-and this question is duly resolved by this thesis.

3. The great period of Kabbalah, it systemization and its influence upon religious life, happened in Safed, Palestine, starting from the end of the XVth century; a period when the Jews originating from Spain emigrated there. The period ended with Sabbathai-Zevi’s movement, already a mark of Kabbalah’s decadence.

According to what we know, it would be right to think along the Jewish historians that some events of the history of Judaism did provoke a renaissance of esoteric doctrines, and that the tragic fate of the Spanish Jews, for instance, did contribute to develop them and foster again the messianic idea.

However, the circumstances in which this renaissance happened do not fit with such an hypothesis. The center of rabbinical casuistry was at the time in Germany & France. Germany, which remained for centuries the center of rabbinical studies was never a breading-ground for Kabbalah. France also did not play a great role in the history of this movement. Yet, it was especially in the north that rabbinical influence was strong, while the few kabbalists who lived there did, but in the south.

Spain’s Judaism, even though having a few Talmudic schools, did produce but a few famous rabbis and did not shine by the strict observance of religious obligations. The moralists of the time that preceded the emigration of the Jews, criticized their co-religionists about their lack of piety and of being more busy absorbing the fruits of foreign civilizations, than honoring their very own. (Note from the Author: See, Solomon Alami’s ‘Iggeret Musar‘. Alami considered the severe trials inflicted upon the Spanish Jews as the effect of, and a punishment for, the moral and religious decadence into which his coreligionists had fallen; and he held before his brethren a mirror of the moral degeneration extending through all circles of Jewish society. The best edition now extant of Alami’s work is that issued by Jellinek (Vienna, 1872). Also, see Shlomo ibn Aderet: In his many pastoral letters to his colleagues in various parts of the world, Rabbi Solomon Ben Abraham Adret, a.k.a. the ‘RaSHBA’ urged them to stand guard, and to take great care of the education and training of the Jewish children and youths, he also helped to combat the heretic tendencies which began to make inroads into the Jewish homes and houses of learning of his time.)

In fact, the Moorish period of Spanish Judaism-so glorified in Jewish history-had been a period when a foreign culture had been ‘Judaized‘: The Peripatetic Philosophy & Arabic poetry. A similar development happened with the Alexandrine Jewish civilization. In an environment where the rabbinic influence played such a small role, it is certain that the renaissance of esoterism could not be just a spontaneous reaction against rabbinical authority. Further more, Spanish Judaism became important also for the rabbinical authorities exactly at the time when Kabbalah started to develop. The great rabbinical figures of this Judaism were kabbalists, such as Moses Nachmanides of Barcelona, the famous rabbi Shlomo ibn Aderet we just mentioned above and others. This movement continued to ‘critically face’ Kabbalah at the time of Safed. The most important figure that had the most influence upon Kabbalah during his life was rabbi Joseph Caro, the modern Maimonides of rabbinical authority. We will see that the same phenomenon will repeat itself in Poland: Hasidism was first against rabbinical authority and, ultimately, it is this very movement that accelerated the further development of its rabbinical life and activities.

Also, we just have to look at the impact of Kabbalah upon religious life: Never-the Sabbateans apart-did Kabbalah weakened rabbinical authority; on the contrary, the scrupulous observers of the Jewish Law are the kabbalists, who gave the greatest examples of piety.

Of course, the esoteric reaction had also other causes than rabbinical authority, that had but a weak influence in Spain. Circumstances displayed lean towards the Judeo-Arabic Peripatetic Philosophy, which was predominant in Spanish Judaism.

The religious philosophy of the Spanish Jews did not bother much with Jewish tradition. The exegesis originating from this philosophy deprived Judaism of all transcendence, explaining the Commandments as hygienic precepts, like moral rules, like national memories and even like the remnants of a Pagan civilization! (Author’s note: See Maimonides, ‘Moreh HaNevukhim‘ ( ‘The Guide for the Perplexed’), volumes II & III. It seeks to reconcile Aristotelianism with Rabbinical Jewish theology by finding rational explanations for many events in the text. And Levi Gersonides, his ‘Commentary upon the Pentateuch‘. Gersonides is known for his unorthodox views and rigid Aristotelianism, which eventually led him to rationalize many of the miracles in the Bible. His ‘commentary upon the Bible‘ was sharply criticized by the most prominent scholars, such as Abarbanel, Chisdai Crescas, and Rivash, the latter accusing him of heresy and almost banning his works.)

These theories seek a conciliation between peripatetic opinions and the Judaic religious beliefs-Again, a similar case with Jewish Alexandria-and were endangering religion itself. Religion deprived of sainthood and reduced to a moral and historical system cease to be a faith and leads to dis-belief. This philosophy, more Greek than Jewish, also considered that the practices of religion are but compromises with public opinions and do not oblige the  elevated spirits. (Author’s note: again, see Maimonides, ‘Moreh HaNevukhim’, volume III)

These more elevated spirits from this school of thoughts did perceive themselves the dangers such doctrines were implying. Maimonides, the most eminent representative of this philosophy, did not use them when writing his halachic works, such as the ‘Yad ha-Hazaqah‘, or his Commentary upon the Mishna, the ‘Kitab as-Sirag‘. Other philosophers sought a nearness with Platonic Philosophy, with Al-Ghazali, with Tradition, alike Rabbi Judah hal-Levi, the famous author of the ‘dialogs between the king of the Kazars and a Jewish doctor‘; the philosopher Bahya ben Joseph ibn Pakuda and others. But, among the cultivated, the rich & the nobles, all were prone to hide behind Moses Maimonides’ & Levi Gerson’s philosophies, as they denied any supernatural to the religious practices.

Such a spiritual current had to awake reactions. In fact, without speaking of the opinion fighting this philosophy, we find energic rabbinical protestations in Spain, and elsewhere. In the countries where  Judaism was not fancying esoterism & philosophy, such as France, Italy & Germany, Maimonides’ opinions provoked serious troubles. (Author’s note: See Meir ben Todros HaLevi Abulafia, ‘Iggroth‘, ed. Bril, Paris, 1872. Rabbi Meir Abulafia is well known for beginning the first Maimonidean Controversy over the Mishneh Torah while Maimonides was still alive.) In Paris, the ‘Moreh Nebukhim‘ and other works of Maimonides were burned at the pyre. A whole polemical literature came to life against his heresy. Another event came to provide to this opposition a positive aspect: the renaissance of esoterism. Indirectly, it is Torquemada who did the most for the development of the esoteric doctrines of Judaism. Kabbalah did not participate into polemics: It embraced all in its creative womb… A few generations later, Maimonides’ ‘Moreh HaNevukhim‘ (the ‘Guide for the Perplexed’) even found its kabbalistic commentary, penned by Shem-Tov ben Joseph ibn Falaquera!

*

Part IV

The foundation of Kabbalah, according to the Zohar is a theodicy (note: theodicy, théodicée, in French, is a branch of theology and philosophy that seeks to justify the goodness and justice of God in the face of the existence of evil in the world), a doctrine of God, through which the creation of the world is explained. Of course, cosmogony does not play a key role as in religious philosophy. Because, according to Kabbalah, there are countless universes whose creation only depends upon the speculative mechanism of the divine system. The universe is then but a creature that is used as an example for the sake of our intelligence. Yet, the question of the relationship of the creation of the universe considered as a accomplished fact, with unceasing creation is but a muddled problem in the Zohar. It prompted countless diverging commentaries in the later generations of kabbalists. Anyway, the cosmogonical problem only plays a secondary role, because it is framed within theodicy.

The primitive tendency of Kabbalah in the theodicy was the same as for philosophy: which was to detach God from any anthropomorphism. Yet, the oriental subtlety in the exposition of the Void of forms and of the substances led to a renaissance of anthropomorphism. In the manner of the Gnostics, the Zohar deals with God under two opposite aspects: 1. an external aspect: God is animating beings through the emanation of his sephirotic mechanism. 2. an internal aspect: We speak of God without taking into account His relationship with His creatures. Consequently, this nature of God would remain unfathomable. Here is below a brief exposition of the doctrinal system of Kabbalah. We will find there three main ideas:

1. The Ten Sephirot. The Zoharic Sephirot are based upon the ten Sephirot found in the ‘Sepher Yeşirah‘. The insistence upon the number ten in this book make us think that its author is alluding to a symbolic number (the ‘Decalogue‘, also known as the Ten Commandments, the ten word through which the world was created according to the Mishnah as  the ‘Pirqe Aboth‘, VI, I.) but also as the decimal system in mathematics. The symbolical meaning given to numbers in the ‘Book of Creation‘ is attested through the given value to numbers such three, seven and twelve; the treatise insist essentially upon the two firsts.

The ‘Book of Creation’ is a cosmogonical treatise and it would have the tendency, according to a good number of commentators and modern critics, to demonstrate the abstract unity of God, against the gnostic idea of the Demiurge. This tendency is in harmony with the Zohar.

What follows, is what the ‘Sepher Yeşirah‘ teaches:

‘Through 32 marvelous paths God founded……and created His world.’ (Chapter 1, first paragraph).

‘Ten absolute (beli-mah) Sephirot and 22 basic letters: 3 Mothers, 7 Double and 12 ordinary.’ (Chapter 1, second paragraph).

‘Ten absolute Sephirot-10 and not 9, 10 and not 11; understand them with intelligence…Prove them…and place the Creator on its foundation.’ (Chapter 1, paragraph 4).

‘Ten absolute Sephirot-their measure is of ten infinites…and their end is without limit.’ (Chapter 1, paragraph 5 and 6).

Ten absolute Sephirot-their beginning is mingled with their end and their end is mingled with their beginning, alike the flame is connected to the burning coal, because God is one and there are no others besides Him-and before ‘ONE’ what do you want to count?’ (Chapter 1, paragraph 7) (Author’s note:  I quote as it is customary from version I of the princeps edition of the ‘Sepher Yeşirah‘, Mantua, 1562, even though i hold the order that Rabbi Saʿadia ben Yosef Gaon followed in his Arabic commentary as the original order. I will avoid saying more about this treatise than generalities. Soon, i will publish a proper study upon it on the basis of a reconstructed text i have worked out. In this study, there are many ideas that differ greatly with those that are generally admitted up to now on this subject).

In the ‘Book of Creation’, there are diverse elements. If we consider that they were part of the primitive text of this book, we ought to represent it as a breviary of symbols for those who were initiated into this system. What was the primitive meaning of the Sephirot, the way they are described in the first paragraph of the book?

Let’s ignore the diverse speculations of the commentators (and we should also as such the apocryphal parts of the text) and then only two hypotheses remain: The Sephira was the Sphere in the Greek Cosmology or it was the number in the Pythagorean spirit.

Even though the text of the ‘Sepher Yeşirah’ is rather obscure, all the exposed systems in the book speaks in favor of the second hypothesis, as it is shown in the second paragraph: ‘and He created it by the mean of the Number (or the word, or the thought), the Numerical (or Intelligible) and by the one who counts (or the subject).’ We have here a doctrine of emanation in the manner of the gnostic Mani.

We will not quote the many passages in the ‘Sepher Yeşirah‘ that are explaining the nature of the Sephirot, because we keep in mind that there are countless interpolations in the text introduced by the commentators. We will also abstain of looking into the problematic history of this treatise. Just, for literary history & criticism, it is in all cases deemed anterior to the Zohar.

In the ‘Sepher Yeşirah‘, we meet the Sephirot taken as metaphysical categories of the cosmogony. The Zohar admits only the metaphysical part and makes it the foundational system of its theodicy.

There are ten categories through which God reveals Himself to the world: Crown, Wisdom, Intelligence, Mercy, Strength, Splendor, Eternity, Beauty, Foundation & Kingdom.

Under Crown the light of the Infinite is found entering in the two Sephirot, Wisdom & Intelligence. As ‘seven channels‘ open, the seven inferior channels that are not penetrated by the Infinite, but by the intermediary of the upper three superior Sephirot.

Does the Infinite find Itself in the Sephirot or are they outside of It? This was the most discussed question within the doctrinal part of Kabbalah.

In order to solve this problem, we need to take care of another: what are the Sephirot and for what reason do they exist? The Sephirot are first verbal symbols, because they correspond to divine designation in the Bible. As such, they become ideas. In the development of the kabbalistic metaphysic, parallel symbols to the existing ones were created, in order not to exceed the number 10. Therefore, according to these speculations, the symbolic idea of Mercy comprehends Greatness, Strength comprehends Justice, etc…Later all the kabbalistic ideas were introduced in the sephirotic system.

As God’s nature is only fathomable through the Sephirot- because ‘before the world was created, God only expressed Himself through questioning‘ (Zohar, Bereshit section) being the infinite Void, the lack-the Sephirot are the ‘Vases‘ and their content is penetrated by divine nature. Later, the creation of the universe was in that way explained; there was a ‘breaking of the Vases‘, then divine light from its own concentration. We very well see here that the Sephirot are understood in a double aspect: as composed of ‘vases‘ and of a ‘content’.

After all this, the kabbalists asked another question: ‘what is the relationship between God and the Sephirot?‘ or in a purely philosophical language: ‘If God remains unfathomable, because the Sephirot do not define Him, then the Sephirot are not something real; and God Himself, because He does not dominate the Sephirot-which are not real-does not a priori exist: without His Modes, He is deprived of divine attributes; He could not act without Will and Strength, or found the universe without having a foundation, nor understand Himself without Intelligence’. There we go: A pre-spinozist philosophy!

For these reasons, Menahem ben Benjamin Recanati and other kabbalists after him declared that the Sephirot were some sort of superior being, creatures bound to laws and that they were distinct from God. More critical spirits such as David ben Solomon ibn (Abi) Zimra, Luria’s teacher, have opposed to this opinion the doctrines of the Greek philosophy and completely identified the Sephirot with the pure divine Being.

A third theory occupies an intermediate position in the question of the relationship between the divine Being and the Sephirot: a ‘panentheist’ doctrine. Here how it is described: the Sephirot are penetrated by the divine Being, even though It is not limited by them. This doctrine seem to be the closest to the primitive meaning of the Zoharic doctrine. Two schools that have adopted this theory, the school of Moses Cordovero and that of Isaac Luria, yet, they differ regarding the Infinite, the Source from which the Light came out to penetrate the inferior Sephiroth. Either the Infinite is God, then He is outside of the number of the Sephiroth, or Light of ‘Eyn-Soph‘ is but a part of a Sephira-that of the Crown. The primitive conception seem to have considered the light of the Infinite as distinct from the substance of the Crown.

A definitive and radical solution of this problem was given by Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, the theorist of Hasidism, who put Crown outside of the fixed Sephirot. But this problem belongs to the next paragraph.

2. Trinity. The symbolic value attributed also to the number three is partly borrowed from the ‘Book of Creation’. In the ‘Sepher Yeşirah‘, this number is repeated many times, in connection to distinctive ideas. First: When God created the world by the mean of the thirty-two marvelous paths, He accomplished his work through the assistance of three active functions: the object, the subject and the maker (note: in French, le facteur, from old French ‘factor’, faitor: doer, author, creator). Then, all creation consists in three distinct worlds that are submitted to the same regime: nature, Man and Time. These three worlds, as a whole, are composed of three elements: air, water and fire. Finally, the Sephirot are separated in two parts, of which one is composed of 3 ‘Mothers’. The trinitarian system of the Zohar is connected to this last field of speculation.

In the group of the ten Sephirot, the first three are deemed superior Sephirot: Crown, Wisdom and Intelligence. The light of the Infinite gushed out of Crown, which is superior to all the other Sephiroth and journeys through Wisdom & Intelligence, before penetrating in the ‘seven channels‘ that are the other Sephiroth, known as the ‘construction’ Sephiroth. Therefore, Crown is excluded from the three superior Sephiroth due to the position if occupies. Now, that is a problem that made the relationship between the Crown and the light of the Infinite an even more complex one…Before, managing to resolve this aporia, it is necessary to create another trinity, leaving aside Crown. This solution was given only by Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, the theorist of Hasidism. But before treating this other trinity, we need invoke now the third idea we need for our exposition: Dualism.

The number three is met in the Zohar in connection with some other ideas: 1. The three categories of God, connected with the different worlds or to the ideas we have of Him, and that are expressed by these designations: ‘Ze’er Anoin (of a limited view), ‘Haqal Tapuhim‘ (the apple orchard) and ‘Atiq Iomin‘ (the Ancient, in French: ‘Le Vieux’) or ‘Atiqa qadisha‘ (the holy ancient). 2. The three superior worlds, above the world of Action: the worlds of Emanation (‘Aşiluth), of Creation (Yeşirah) and of Formation (Bri’ah). 3. The sephiric trinity regarding the human kind, applied to the three patriarchs: Abraham, Grace; Isaac, Justice (Strength); Jacob, Splendor (Truth). 4. The trinity of the soul: Nephes, Ruah and Neshamah-the living soul, spirit and the superior soul make a different degree of trinity.

There are a whole cycle of ideas connected with number three.

3. Dualism. In the Zohar, the problem of dualism is a very complex one. The ‘Other Side’ (Sitra Ahra) is an evil force that struggles against holiness (Note: This is the concept of qlippoth, the opposites of the Sephiroth). ‘God made one to face the other’-Purity against impurity. When the sparkles of Holiness-the primitive grains of the souls originating from the throne of God-fall, the impurity renders them captive. Satan (Samael), ‘the bad adviser’ (yetzer hara) and the angel of death: here is a popular personification of the trinity of Impurity, comprising diverse groups. Yet, the evil force does not have an existence per-se. Besides the fact that is is God who created it, it power is but a negative tool, alike void: it is the negation of light: obscurity; the negation of life: death; the negation of Good: Evil-etc…But, zoharic dualism carries in itself the markers of a primitive belief into the importance of Evil, designated by some early kabbalists as the ‘emanation from the left‘, opposed to the ‘emanation from the right‘ (the divine sublimity). A great part of the Zohar is devoted to the measures of precaution Man has to take in order to free himself from the influence of Evil, that has taken over the universe and is threatening to destroy the divine work. This dualism, of which we find traces in the Bible, has been weakening alongside the centuries, being in contradiction with the Jewish people’s late monotheism.

The idea of dualism is also presented in such a manner that it brought the sexual dimension into it. Because Crown has been elevated higher than the other Sephiroth, there are only two higher Sephiroth left: Wisdom and Intelligence. It is through them that the light of the Infinite passes through before arriving to the seven channels of the lower Sephiroth.

We knew very well about the creative force of the beings embodying the number three, but we could not fathom with ‘two’. How to recreate a trinity? Also, Wisdom and Intelligence, ‘even though they are at the same level, are not completely similar: one is male and the other female‘. It if from their mating that Knowledge comes out, as the fruit of their union. It is through this creative trinity, comprising the father, the mother and the son (atavism of an Egyptian idea?) that the divine Being passes through before penetrating  into the ‘channels of Creation.

Therefore, the order of the Sephiroth would present itself in this manner:

Other would place Splendor at Beauty‘s place & vice-versa.

Seen from outside, the Sephiroth would be presented as shown below:

The little point in form of a ‘iod’ (י) is the Eyn-Soph, the Infinite, Itself.

The problem of the Sephiroth (of the Crown, the role of the light of the Infinite, etc…) kept the kabbalists busy arguing for centuries. A definitive solution was given by Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, the theorist of Hasidism: Crown was to be ‘elevated‘ above all Sephiroth and ‘put out‘ of them. The three supreme Sephiroth are, according to him, Wisdom, Intelligence & Knowledge. Yet, this system can only be applied in popular Hasidic Kabbalah and in part to Lurianic Kabbalah, from which such an idea originated. The Zoharic doctrine does not let itself put easily in these frames!

The sexual idea does not only appear in the sephirotic system, but also in the rest of the kabbalistic system with the concept of the Father & Mother, which are playing an important role. There, they become an abstract notion: The Male & the Female, who play the role of God’s attributes, alike how they were attributed with the Sephiroth.

We still have a few ideas to delineate:

-The four universes: Emanation, Creation, Formation & Action.

-The original sin: the stain the snake left in Eva remains with the human kind.

-The superior primitive Man who resembles to the lower man. (Author’s note: This idea is quite ancient. It was known to the apocalyptic authors. Philo also talks about it in his ‘De Opificio Mundi‘, from paragraph 134 to 144 and separates him from the first Man. We find him, sometime identical to Henoch, sometime anonymous. See Wilhelm Bousset’s ‘Hauptprobleme Der Gnosis‘, Gottingen, 1907; Look page 201). I consider this concept as originating from Parsiism.

-And finally all the angiology & the demonology.

I consider all these ideas as accessory, even though they are met in the kabbalistic doctrine. All we have done, so far, are but sketches of the tenets of Kabbalah, as a doctrine.

*

Part V

The Jews who escaped the Spanish Inquisition took with them the Zohar, and a rather developed kabbalistic doctrine. In Palestine also, they presented themselves as kabbalists. Most of them settled in Safed, Galilee. At the beginning of the XVIth century, Palestine was the stage of messianic trouble: some Joseph della Reina tried to hasten the coming of the Messiah by dint of steeping and kabbalistic practices. But, ‘Samael‘ fought against him and he eventually recanted Judaism. Rabbi Hayyim ben Joseph Vital mentions him in his ‘Sha’arei Kedusha‘ (Gates of Holiness) as a cautionary tale. It was not the first time that Kabbalah manifested itself in a practical manner. This episode was soon  followed by similar movements, such as Diogo Pirez’s, a Portuguese convert, also known as Shelomo Molkho. (note: Molkho was a Portuguese Jewish mystic and messiah claimant. When he met with Holy Roman Emperor Charles V to urge the creation of a Jewish army, the emperor turned him over to the Inquisition and he was burned at the stake). After these, various episodes kept happening and they found their apex in Sabbathai-Zevi’s movement; he tells us himself that he was not alone. Kabbalistic messianic movements were everywhere, especially in the Middle East and they thrived long after Sabbathai-Zevi discredited himself.

Kabbalah spread. From Palestine, it was exported to Italy, where there were already some kabbalists among the Spanish Jews. It was flourishing in Holland; then it reached France. Either by emigrants or by the circulation of books, it occurred in Germany and beyond, Poland.

Doctrinal Kabbalah is often presented as such:  Moses Cordovero’s as Sephardic and Isaac Luria’s as Ashkenasic. But, Luria, even though being an Ashkenasic Jew, was from Jerusalem. He was raised in Egypt in the house of his uncle, Mordechai Frances and all of his teachers were middle-eastern. We know too many things upon his life. He barely left books. It is his disciple, Haim Vital, an eccentrical character tainted with a delusion of grandeur, who composed the many books containing the doctrine of his teacher. This very doctrine, which found itself opposed to Moses Cordovero’s kabbalistic exposition, is mostly distinct from it by its method. While Cordovero’s treatises are clear and are sound expositions of his doctrine, those of Haim Vital (though exposing Luria) are oriental in their embroidered patterns.

Luria was no theorist: he was a master kabbalist. Practices were for him the essential. His students were not seeking to understand his doctrine, but rather to practice and experience it; it is in Luria’s teaching that we find the most materials, macerations, kabbalistic speculations with Hebraic names, incarnation of the souls, and finally, messianism. Here, there are no theorems, just formulas.

Such is Isaac Luria’s doctrine. It spread quickly and gave birth to a host of kabbalistic schools. It was brought to Poland. There, the misery of the Jewish inhabitants, their political situation and the romanticism proper to this country, predisposed these populations to  mysticism. Kabbalah served as a counter-weight to a gloomy and tragic reality. Poland was the theater of diverse messianic episodes. The tragic events of the 1648 farmers’ uprising in Ukraine increased the strength of such mysticism that was building there, creating a hot-bed that did long endure.

*

Part VI &

Conclusion

However, there is one doctrine that characterizes Lurianic Kabbalah as a whole in its practices, its literary works, and even in its religious poetry that was created under its influence: ancient Kabbalah is a metaphysical system in which Man plays strictly no role. The zoharic legends concerning diverse figures do not have any necessary link them to the doctrine. The Zoharic doctrine allows to leave aside practices, even the ones it has admitted. For Isaac Luria, Man plays an important role and is not just a product of divine mechanisms, but is fully integrated within them. There is a direct relationship between the supreme mechanism and the ‘microcosm’, a.k.a Man. This is why Isaac Luria prescribes the practices. This is why he developed the theory of the ‘Kavanoth‘, a.k.a. ‘intentions’. They are meant to be ‘intercessions‘ between the supreme action and human deeds. Man is also subject to a system similar to what is ‘above‘. The different worlds are not created in the ‘heavens‘, but are created below by Man, or at least ‘supported’ by him. Naturally, Man ought to stay clean of the Impurity, that strives to deceive him in order to get back its power to continue its destruction work. But, the universal center remained ‘above‘. Man is an important creature, a tiny ‘universe‘-equal, according to the ‘Sepher Yeşirah‘, to the ‘universe of Nature‘. It was necessary to make Man the universal center. The Polish kabbalists admire a Kabbalah that is strong in its compromise between doctrine and practice.

Human thoughts have a homogenous pattern. Jewish Kabbalah, carefully developed in the ghetto, shows an evolution similar to that of Philosophy: from the Ancients to Malebranche, Descartes & Spinoza; then from Spinoza to Kant. However different the method, the evolution of these two movements is analogous. Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, the theorist of Hasidism, was the kabbalist of the ‘categorical Imperative’.

The current ideas among the Polish kabbalists found their expression in a movement born out of the circumstances. It is exactly the doctrinal part of Kabbalah that the Hasidic movement took a strong hold upon, but, being a popular movement, it found Kabbalah too complex, despite its popularization among the Polish Kabbalists. The Hasidic movement, which at first glance had not understood Kabbalah in its core, brought back its primitive character: a symbolist system.

All metaphysics are but a system of moral philosophy, because Man is the sole creator of the universes. The Sephiroth are but modes of the human soul, because Man dominates everything in his fantasy, outside of which nothing is deemed important.

Kabbalah entered life, and was desecrated.

*
Source

*

*

***