This paper traces the arguments in an 1834 philosophical debate between R. Moritz Freystadt (1810-1870) and the Maimonides scholar Simon B. Scheyer (1804-1854) on the question of whether Judaism possesses dogmas. While Freystadt proposed the re-introduction of Maimonides’ articles of faith into the Jewish religion after the Kantian abolition of all secure belief in the absolute as a form of “reasonable faith,” Scheyer argued that the only Jewish dogma was the divinity of the Pentateuch. For Freystadt, Kant had for all eternity refuted the possibility of religious metaphysics and Judaism had thus to rely on postulates of practical, that is, moral reason for its theological survival. Scheyer, in contrast, upheld the belief in a philosophical Messiah who would eventually contradict Kant and return objectivity to faith. In the meantime, according to Scheyer, the revealed nature of Torah dogmatically authorized both its ceremonial and its philosophical messages. In this sense, the debate anticipated much of the later scientific analysis of the leading scholars of the Wissenschaft des Judentums regarding the emergence and function of dogma and religious authority in Judaism.
Copyright (c) 2019 Jewish Thought https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Over the years, scholars have offered various explanations for Maimonides' decision to compose his thirteen principles of Jewish belief and to treat them as incumbent upon every Jew to accept in order to be considered part of the Jewish community and to earn a portion in the World to Come. In this article, I lend further support to Lawrence Berman's suggestion that political-pedagogical considerations were the dominant factor in Maimonides' thought and that he was influenced primarily by the political philosophy of Alfarabi. After showing why the other explanations—metaphysical, polemical and legal—were at best secondary considerations for Maimonides, I analyze a passage in Alfarabi’s Aphorisms ofthe Statesman, a treatise well known by Maimonides at the time of his formulation of the principles, which I argue holds the key to understanding Maimonides' decision. I also discuss the question of the extent of Maimonides' philosophic knowledge in this earlier period of his life. I conclude the article with some observations about the relevance of Maimonides' list ofprinciples in the contemporary period.
In his writings, Maimonides appears to go out of his way to emphasize that a number of central figures among the talmudic rabbis were either proselytes or descended from proselytes. Why? The tradition seems to offer two possible understandings of the essential element in Jewish identity: either there is something inherent in one’s very nature that makes one a Jew, or being Jewish is primarily a matter of commitment. According to the latter view, Jews in the fullest sense are those who have made a particular intellectual commitment, while Gentiles are those who have not (yet) done so. Since the nature of being Jewish in this sense is predicated upon the acceptance of certain views, and since Maimonides expected that in the Messianic Era all human beings would come to accept these views as true, Maimonides could not but view conversion in a positive light. It turns out that, for Maimonides, one cannot really be born Jewish in the fullest sense of the term. Ideally, Judaism is not something that can be inherited passively; it must be achieved. This pattern was established by Abraham and then again by his descendants and those who joined them at Sinai. The most Jewish Jews, therefore, are not those whose biological “yichus” is impeccable, but those who choose to be Jews: converts.
How should we translate the term min(.im) in the Babylonian Talmud? The current scholarly trend is to avoid translating it altogether, using the transliteration instead. This article demonstrates that this practice hinders our ability to understand the intended meaning ofthe term in these stories, within the context of late antique heresy-making discourses. The article surveys the scholarly debate concerning the correct way to understand stories involving minim in rabbinic literature, and it claims that, at least with regard to several of these stories in the Babylonian Talmud, it is necessary to translate the Hebrew term as “heretics.”
The Rejection of Radical Foundationalism and Skepticism
Faith has many aspects. One of them is whether absolute logical proof of God s existence is a strict prerequisite for the proper establishment of a religious system and for individual acceptance of that system. The treatment of this question, examined here in the Jewish context of the thought of Rabbi Prof. Eliezer Berkovits, has been strongly influenced in the modern era by the radical foundationalism and radical skepticism of Descartes, who rooted in the Western mind the notion that religion and religious issues “all or nothing” questions. Cartesianism, which surprisingly became the basis of modern secularism, was criticized by the classical American pragmatists. Peirce, James and Dewey all rejected the attempt to achieve absolute, infallible knowledge, as well as the presumptuousness of establishing such knowledge by means of casting Cartesian hyperbolic doubt. They advocated an alternative approach which was more holistic and humane. This paper lays out Descartes’s approach and the pragmatists’ critique. Despite the place that pragmatic considerations hold in |ewish tradition, some thinkers reject the relevance ofthese ideas. Yet Berkovits’s thought suggest a different path. He rejected Descartes’ radical skepticism and his radical foundationalism in favor ofa moderate foundationalism, which allows for a belief in God alongside constructive doubts. Similar to Peirce’s conception of the fixation of belief, Berkovits views local doubts (distinct from hyperbolic doubt) as necessary for thought. Berkovits’s understanding ofthe biblical human divine encounter ־ following Rosenzweig, Buber, and Heschel - is conceptualized here as “encounter theology.” Berkovits criticizes the propositionalist attempts to prove God’s existence logically, as well as the presumptousness ofbasing religious belief on the teleological world-order. However, Berkovits’s conception of the “caring God” is not logically provable and thus is defined here as a pragmatic “postulate.” The article concludes by considering Berkovits’s “encounter theology.” In contrast to Haym Soloveitchik, who has pointed out the connection between halakhic stringency and a lack of subjective experience of God’s face, Berkovits’s approach is dialogic through and through.
Halakhic Decision Making in Matters of 169Belief and Outlook in the Late Modern Period
This article explores whether, and to what extent, theological and philosophical disagreements in Jewish tradition have definitive resolutions. The work surveys the main directions set forth by earlier thinkers and commentators and described in the scholarly literature, indicating the difficulties in each. The article examines the inner dynamic of disagreements and discussions of this type, and offers another position that, in my opinion, underlies the discourse of many thinkers on such matters. I maintain that a decision is reached on some topics, but the nature of the decision is not dogmatic and refers to the external framework but not to its contents or details.
Sefer Ḥalomei Qets Pela’ot (Meora'ot Tzvi 1814) and the Image of Sabbatianism in the 18th and 19th Centuries
In 1814 in Kopust, White Russia, R. Israel Jaffe, an adherent of Habad Hasidism, published a particularly interesting book by the name of Sippur Halomot Ketz Hapela’ot, alternately titled Meora’ot Tzvi. He also published late in that same year the first edition of Shivhei haBesht. While the title page of Meora ’ot Tzvi modestly claims that the book is based on the writings of Moses Hagiz, Jacob Sasportas and the Hakham Tzvi, it was in fact of far greater significance. This book was the first Hebrew portrayal ofthe Sabbatean episode as a narrative, not just as a polemic; some scholars have described it as the first Hebrew novel about Sabbateanism. The author remains anonymous, but it is clear that he was learned in the secrets of the Sabbatean movement as well as in the history of other religions. The book was published in multiple editions throughout the nineteenth century, and it was the primary source of knowledge about Sabbeteanism for many. Despite scholarly interest in this work, particularly in the question of its trustworthiness (or lack thereof) as a historical source, no attempt has yet been made to understand its nature, sources or influence. A manuscript of the book was recently discovered—presented here for the first time—which dramatically changes our understanding ofthe book and also raises new questions. The manuscript, composed in the last decades of the eighteenth century, is dedicated primarily to convincing Sabbateans who had converted to Islam to return to Judaism. The anonymous author made use of internal Sabbatean traditions (primarily those connected to the Dönme) and presented his own alternative history, in which he reveals an understanding of the secret magic of Sabbateanism. The manuscript was edited repeatedly, with notes and addenda from multiple hands, each with its own focus, until it found its way to Israel Jaffe, who altered it significantly, removing multiple passages and inserting his own polemics (as on the title page), thereby presenting an entirely new creation befitting his own goals, as he would also do with Shivhei haBesht. By investigating the differences between the manuscript and the printed version, we can ascertain the methods by which the image ofSabbateanism was manufactured in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, along with multiple methods for combating it. In the appendix I bring selected passages from the manuscript.
Judah Halevi and Maharal on Belief, Factuality and the Divine Presence
This article explores the term “divine presence” or “thing” (al-amr al-ilahi, cinyan elohi) in the thought ofJudah Loew b. Bezalel, known commonly as Maharal. Both Judah Halevi and Maharal rejected metaphysics, and, as a consequence, in their thought, religious truth is based on facts alone, specifically on revelation. Yet, whereas Halevi was entirely indifferent toward the spiritual world, Maharal took an interest in the involvement ofthe transcendental in the material world. In fact, his thought focused on that involvement, which affected not only a person’s religious activity (observing the commandments) but also other aspects of earthly existence, such as aesthetics. The term “divine presence” denoted for Maharal the fact that both the laws of nature and miracles result from the involvement of the transcendental in the material world. Thus while Halevi rejected the discussion on the transcendental totally, Maharal was less radical. He showed interest in its involvement in the material world.
In this article I will analyze the views of three Jewish philosophers of the fourteenth century regarding the Jewish “philosophists” (mitpalsefim). We will see that according to these philosophers, there was a rising movement of Jews who did not observe Jewish law (halakhah) for ideological reasons. These philosophists studied Aristotelian philosophy and concluded that both the traditional explanations of the commandments and the Aristotelian-Maimonidean ones were incorrect. They did not believe that the commandments had any political or social value, due to the Jewish philosophers' lack of proof for the contention that the practice of Jewish law led to social rewards. We will see that the Jewish philosophers were the only ones to mention this trend of non-religious Jewish philosophers because Jewish traditionalists did not distinguish between the Jewish philosopher and the philosophist. We will also suggest that the philosophists likely chose to convert to Christianity by the end of the fourteenth century, which explains why we no longer hear of them by the fifteenth century.
In 1281, the Castilian Jewish scribe Isaac Ibn Sahula, wrote an illuminated book of Hebrew fables called Meshal Haqadmoni. The fables, largely featuring animal characters, are divided into five main chapters and accompanied by illuminations captioned by Ibn Sahula. The author writes that his purpose is to attract the mind of the audience and direct its attention to the book’s message by artistic means. Ibn Sahula declares that he is combatting the tendency to follow foreign literature and calls upon his nation to repent. The earliest existing manuscripts of this work are from fifteenth-century Germany and Italy. At the time that Meshal HaQadmoni was written, King Alfonso X of Castile also wrote a book of stories and songs, accompanied by illuminations, entitled the Cantigas de Santa Maria. Alfonso’s book portrayed the miracles of the Virgin Mary and was dedicated to her. Such a book, written by (or under the supervision of) the king, may have been familiar to Ibn Sahula. Two of the main characters in Ibn Sahula’s fables are a lion and an eagle, which scholars have thought to be allegorical figures of King Alfonso X. therefore we find a direct connection between Meshal HaQadmoni and Alfonso's book. This paper examines these two collections of fables and the possible connection between them against the background of contemporary textual and artistic evidence, and within the context of the contemporary discourse around heresy.
The Question of Dualism on the Issue 23 of the ‘Scapegoat’
This paper focuses on the development of the midrashic traditions revolving around the Scapegoat on Yom Kippur, beginning with the text’s resurfacing in Pirqe DeRabbi Eliezer, through early kabbalistic sources up to the Zohar. The midrashic treatment of the biblical material raises theological questions regarding the existence of a dualistic view in late-midrash and medieval Kabbalah. Through a comparative reading of these texts, I will attempt to examine how the midrashim of the Zohar—including the main zoharic text, the Piqqudin, and the Ra ay a Mehemna—deal with the appeasing of Samael on Yom Kippur. I will argue that the dualistic tendency is generally more moderate in the Zohar compared to the narrative in Pirqe DeRabbi Eliezer. In addition, 1 attempt to show that the later texts of the Zohar distance themselves from dualism in a manner that is especially marked, in comparison to both later midrashic sources and the main zoharic text. Underlying my readings of these texts is the general assumption that the mode in which myths are interpreted can shed light on the interpreter’s religious views. This article seeks to deepen our understanding of the internal relations among the component texts of the Zohar, as well as their connection to ancient traditions.
The One Bringing the Sacrifice Must Think Only about the Divine Name
Kabbalah has included directives on the proper forms of prayer intentions (kavvanot) since the earliest appearance of the historical Kabbalah in the Middle Ages. For example, we know very little about the world of Kabbalists in twelfth-century Provence, but the little we do know is related to the kavvanot. In the same period that these discussions were occurring in Provence, we find fierce opposition there to the use of such techniques, at times as part of a broader reaction against the Kabbalah as a whole. The best-known critique of the Kabbalah in Provence was leveled by R. Meir ben Shimon of Narbonne, reflecting the viewpoint of an outsider. In this study, I will discuss a critique similar to Meir ben Shimon’s, but originating from within the Kabbalistic community itself. Such a critical stance can be found—surprisingly—in the teachings of the most famous Kabbalist of the thirteenth century: Moses Nahmanides. This article uncovers Nahmanides’ attitude as it was reflected in his writings and focuses specifically on his well-known Kabbalistic explanation of the reason for the sacrifices (Lev. 1:9). I claim that while Nahmanides agreed with his colleagues that by utilizing the power of the commandments it is possible to affect the realm of the sefirot and harness it for one's own benefit, it is forbidden to turn to the sefirot themselves. Therefore, while performing the act of sacrifice, the priest is required to ignore this power and focus his intention solely on the one and only God, who stands above everything. Through t this approach, Nahmanides was able to lay the foundation for a traditional Kabbalistic consciousness that was nonetheless moderate and humble, and which could be defined as “orthodox Kabbalah.”
It is with great pride that we present the first issue of the new annual journal, Jewish Thought, sponsored by the Goldstein-Goren International Center for Jewish Thought at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. As opposed to existent journals in Jewish thought, we have decided to make this one open access and hence easily available to readers the world over (paper copies will also be available for purchase for those interested). Each issue is to be devoted to a different topic and contain articles both in English and Hebrew. The topics we have chosen allow for contributions from all areas of Jewish thought. We hope in this way to combine the advantages ofvolumes of collected articles on a given theme with those of a journal that invites contributions from all scholars. The twelve articles that comprise this issue reflect a diversity of topics and approaches to faith and heresy in Jewish thought, beginning from the rabbinic period and culminating in modern Jewish thought. Most were written by established scholars, while some were written by young scholars who are at the beginning of their scholarly career. All articles that were submitted underwent a rigorous selection process involving at least two reviewers. We hope our readers will find much interest not only in individual articles but also in the different perspectives, when taken together, they bring to the subject. A list of the topics for coming issues and information to where to submit articles for consideration can be found in the opening pages of the journal. We are dedicating this inaugural issue to our colleague Prof. J. Daniel Lasker on the occasion of his seventieth birthday. Prof. Lasker has taught Jewish thought at Ben-Gurion University for close to forty years and held the Norbert Blechner chair in Jewish Values. He is a world renown authority in medieval Jewish philosophy, Jewish-Christian polemics, and Karaite thought; a dedicated teacher and an excellent mentor to his graduate students; and an exceptionally generous colleague who has contributed so much to the development ofour department. We are happy to honor him in this manner.
The Claim to "Hidden Truths" as the Reason for the Rejection of Kabbalah by the Wissenschaft des Judentums
The essay analyses several reasons for the well-known rejection of the theological "worth" of kabbalah by two of the leading scholars of the 19th century German-Jewish movement of Wissenschaft des Judentums: Heinrich Graetz and Abraham Geiger. Kabbalistic esotericism, resting on fraudulent claims to authorship and masking the irrationality of its doctrines, was among the major objections of these historians. Dealing in mysticism was understood to ruin the morality of human relations by leading to a secretive, elitist individualism instead of creating a healthy human society —- kabbalah focused on the capturing of imaginary worlds instead of improving the existing world. Particularly disturbing was that kabbalah often blurred the boundary between the bodily and the spiritual, specifically by formulating a new, hallowed dialectic relation between human limbs and the human intellect that was purportedly superior to common morality. Eventually, both scholars agreed that kabbalah could therefore not promote the modern Judaism that nineteenth-century German Jews wished to see as a viable, ethical alternative to traditional religion, a Judaism that is capable of survival in the modern age. We may define science as the analysis and explanation of the laws of nature, as well as the rules that govern human society and history, with results that lay open this research’s methodology and allow the scientific outcome to be reproduced. Given this definition, science in essence becomes the ultimate disclosure of all secrets. Esotericism anchored in revelation or a purported authoritative tradition that can be known only by the initiate thus stands in contradiction to scientific research. The kabbalist, who speaks of “hidden truths” which he believes to be universally true but not in need of or even open to rational proof, is not only being irrational from a scientific perspective but also falsely pretentious. The present study will look into the exciting question of what happened when these two methods of knowledge, the scientific and the kabbalistic, came for the first time in close contact within the realm of Judaism.
Copyright (c) 2020 Jewish Thought https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
The Open Secret of Sabbatean Communal Leadership After 1666
Popular works of Jewish history have often portrayed the Sabbatean movement as all but disappearing after the apostasy of Sabbatai Zevi in 1666. The impression given by such works suggests that the few remaining believers went deep underground and were aggressively pursued by the rabbis. This paper marshals evidence that there were many believers remaining, including communal leaders; and that the pursuit of Sabbateans was generally lackluster.
The “Secret of the Creation of the Demons”
This article questions the view that R. Moses Zacuto (ReMeZ) focused his kabbalistic efforts strictly on adapting Hayyim Vital’s version of Lurianic kabbalah. In doing so, an unknown Lurianic treatise found in an autograph of Zacuto will be specifically taken into account. The concepts of this treatise are affiliated with the school of Israel Saruq, and some of them resound in Zacuto’s work, in particular Em la Binah. The first part analyzes a chapter on the creation of demons, and addresses the issue of possible sources, which leads to the identification of an Ashkenazi tradition that was also incorporated in Vital’s Sefer ha-Liqqutim. The second part discusses one of Zacuto’s glosses on this treatise and the connection to his dictionary of magic names, Shorshei ha-Shemot.
Yohanan ben Isaac Alemanno (1435-1505?) was an Italian kabbalist, philosopher and physician. In his less known autograph, Paris, BnF héb. 849, he incorporated contemporary Christian magic sources with kabbalah, providing a practical method to ascend to the upper worlds for gaining prophecy. This article brings together Alemanno’s autograph and contemporary magical works, in order to demonstrate a radical change in Alemanno’s approach towards demonic magic, and the way he interpreted it using a cosmology he developed. Then, Alemanno’s cosmology will be used for reconsidering a concept of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494): The Triplex Merkabah.
Abraham Ibn Ezra's "Secrets" in the Early and Later Torah Commentaries
In this article, I compare Ibn Ezra's treatment of two esoteric doctrines in his early commentary to Genesis and Exodus, written in Lucca, and his later commentary on these books, written in Rouen. The first doctrine is the nature of the biblical angels, and the second is the rational soul and its ultimate end. The article opens with a brief account of Ibn Ezra's composition of the commentary on the Torah and the approach he adopts, and moves on to describe the changes in his approach in his later commentary on the books of Genesis and Exodus. It then presents an outline of the topics on which Ibn Ezra alludes to secret doctrines and the philosophical background of some of his secrets, before turning to a detailed analysis of the two topics under consideration. I argue that while Ibn Ezra expands upon some of these secrets in his later commentaries, only readers adept in the sciences and philosophy can truly appreciate them. This is even more true regarding the readers of his earlier commentaries. Yet Ibn Ezra elaborated on some of the secrets in his later commentaries not because the Jewish intellectual elite of Northern France were more familiar with the scientific and philosophical background of the secrets than the Italian Jewish intellectual elite, enabling them to better appreciate his exposition. Rather, he did so because he wished to prod his readers in the Christian world to study the sciences and philosophy, and he saw that the succinct hints he had provided in his first commentary were not sufficient to accomplish this goal.
During the twelfth century, Jewish thinkers began using an esoteric technique in their writing, concealing their views under a textual cover. In fact, they created two meanings for the text: one overt and one covert. The article argues that they did so unreflectively at first, without signs of awareness. A consciousness of esoteric writing took shape during the twelfth century and the article shows how, with this growing awareness, concealment techniques became richer. Should a theological or philosophical text written within a religious context necessarily be consistent? Should it be free of contradictions? Certainly not, and especially when it deals with issues the thinker considers abstract, loaded, touching on the most delicate questions of true faith and transcending easily understandable matters. The contradictions of authors who have produced outstanding works may be assumed to be deliberate rather than due to negligence since, from these writers’ perspective, they are directly concerned with immortality or, God forbid, with annihilation and disappearance. These are issues that determine whether humans will reach communion with God or be rejected and estranged. Tensions and sensitivities prevalent in the religious world only further ambiguous writing. In this article, I examine strains and inconsistencies deliberately used by considering several techniques of inconsistencies and intentional contradictions in twelfth-century Jewish thought, particularly in the writings of Judah Halevi and Maimonides. I intend to show how esoteric writing moved from the reality of a work based on contradictions to one that explicitly details its own contradictory nature. In other words, I want to show how esoteric writing shifted from practice to consciousness. I will first remark briefly on the characteristics of esoteric writing in the Middle Ages.
This paper explores the appropriation of the idea of ‘the secret’ by contemporary Jewish spirituality and the way this idea acquired the meaning of a spiritual-therapeutic technique. I trace the roots of the notion of ‘the secret’, beginning with the Western Esoteric movements of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and up to the development of New Age spirituality at the end of the twentieth century. While it is possible to claim that the origins of the idea of the secret of Jewish spirituality are to be found in the historical forms of Jewish esotericism, i.e., Kabbalah, I argue that they are to be located in the later, non-Jewish esoteric movements and especially in Theosophy and the New Thought. The article posits that under the influence of late capitalism, neoliberalism and the therapeutic culture, contemporary spiritualities in general and Jewish spirituality in particular came to be understood as a self-centered therapeutic technique and the notion of ‘a secret’ obtained the meaning of a therapeutic technique for spiritual development.
What is Religious Philosophy? Shestov’s Possible Answer to Camus
Albert Camus, despite presenting Lev Shestov in his book ‘The Myth of Sisyphus’ as a herald who made a significant contribution to the existential project of the absurd, criticized him for ‘eluding’ the absurd due to the religious nature of his philosophy. As Camus sees it, Shestov betrayed his initial insight by seeking to appeal to something beyond the limits of reason. He deifies what crushes him and finds reason to hope in what impoverishes him. Even though Shestov’s philosophy lies at the foundation of Camus’s entire project, it seems that Camus failed to understand the final and possibly most misleading step of his philosophy. As we will see, not only does the criticism Camus directs at Shestov not do the philosopher justice but, according to the categories which Shestov outlined when he redefined the limits of religious thought, this criticism should be directed at Camus himself .
Revelation, Concealment and Censorship in Bratslav Hasidic Literature
The reader of Bratslav hasidic literature is confounded by the recurring appearance of the word “etc.,” a word which breaks up the continuity or conclusion of a sentence on nearly every page. It generally indicates the omission of a word or larger fragment which appears in manuscript but is censored in print for various reasons. Indeed, Bratslav books are subject to continuous internal censorship. As long as Bratslav remained a small group, the hasidic reader knew to fill in the lacunae, whether on the basis of oral tradition or manuscripts in their possession. The increase of “new initiates,” however, shifted the balance between concealment and revelation. Until now it has been commonly thought that every later edition is more complete (as they include earlier “omissions”) with the understanding that publishers now reveal that which was previously concealed; the case in recent years, however, is the complete opposite. The very editions “with omissions,” or “with new omissions” – to use the paradoxical expression of the Hasidim (meaning, editions without omissions) – indeed contain many additions scattered throughout various manuscripts, yet they oftentimes excise passages that had previously been printed. The upshot is that each and every edition stands alone, each subject to its own unique censorship. This assortment of editions of Bratslav literature published in the past twenty years has led to a situation in which there are no authoritative editions, as each printer manipulates the text as he or she sees fit. This assessment is germane to all Bratslav publications, yet it is particularly so in regard to the central hagiographic Bratslav text: Hayyei Moharan (The Life of R. Nahman), written by R. Natan of Nemirov during R. Nahman’s lifetime, up to the latter’s death. This work, part of a larger corpus of hagiographic literature authored by R. Natan, was first published with significant omissions in 1874. The complex web of Bratslav hagiographic writings lies at the heart of this article. We address several classic examples of internal censorship, most notably concerning R. Nahman’s dispute with R. Aryeh Leib, the “Shpole Zeide,” as well as the importance of the “omissions” in understanding the teachings found in R. Nahman’s magnum opus Likutei Moharan.
Esoteric Embeddings from R. Eleazar of Worms in the Book of Tanya to R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi
The book known as Tanya or Sefer Shel Benonim (The Book of Intermediates) is the major and most comprehensive work of the Chabad Hasidic movement. The book was written and brought to print by R. Schneur Zalmaz of Liadi (Rashaz), the founder of this Hasidic movement. Tanya deals with the human soul, according to the Kabbalistic tradition, as a tool to achieve devotion to God. It introduces one to the techniques and the options to overcome the obstacles that stand in the way of this goal. Rashaz named his work Likkutei Amarim (Collection of Statements) and, in his introduction, he clarifies that 'Part one is entitled Sefer shel Benonim and is compiled from books and authors'. In this study, I wish to refer to the clarification of Rashaz and to bring to readers’ attention the ideological connections and the comparisons to be found between Tanya and Hokhmat ha-Nefesh, composed by R. Eleazar of Worms. R. Eleazar was a German Pietist and his book is, in fact, the first monographic work dedicated to the understanding of the soul in Hebrew esoteric literature. The study charts the main ideas in both works and offers a comprehensive comparison between them.
One of the large Erfurt Bibles, “Erfurt 2”, Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz Or. fol. 1212, produced in the late thirteenth century is extensively decorated with micrographic masoretic notes. Annette Weber discusses the meaning of the early word micrography decorations in Ashkenazi Bibles, mostly in the Erfurt Bible 1 and Erfurt Bible 2, in relation to concepts found in the writings of Rabbi Judah the Pious and Rabbi Eleazar of Worms. However, I suggest that beyond the important insights brought by Weber, there is also a connection to the esoteric ideas of Rabbi Neḥemiah ben Shlomo Troestlin, the Prophet from Erfurt, active in the first third of the thirteenth century. In this article, I focus on two scenes, the first from the opening of the Book of Ezekiel and the second from the Book of Proverbs, and relate them to the writings of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz and Rabbi Neḥemiah.
Major parts of thirteenth-century Sefirotic literature show evident enhancement and development of the female aspect of the Godhead, an earlier Jewish theme known to us from rabbinic literature. Thus, as part of the developing Sefirotic discourse in this period, rabbinic notions such as God’s presence (Shekhina), Wisdom (Hokhma), mother of Israel, and the Torah crystallized as female Sefirot. A question arises, therefore, as to the reasons for this growing Jewish preoccupation with female aspects of the Godhead, in this specific historical context. Some twenty years ago, Arthur Green and Peter Schäfer suggested, based on an earlier remark made by Rafael Patai, that this Jewish phenomenon was a reaction to the surge in Marian devotion in the twelfth century. This suggestion aroused scholarly debates, including two main points of critique: first, that this notion is of Jewish provenance and therefore is in no need of external explications, and second, that the sexual profile of these two figures, Mary and the Shekhina, is clearly opposed in nature. In the current study and elsewhere, I propose regarding these two phenomena – the enhancement of Christian Marian devotion and the Jewish preoccupation with female aspects of the Sefirotic Godhead, as two independent expressions of a wider, much richer, cultural trend. As has been shown by medievalists at length, the High Middle Ages saw a dramatic surge in the extent of women’s actual and symbolic presence in public spheres, religious and secular alike. In this article I focus on Christian religious and devout women, and show how these far-reaching changes in these women’s presence in public spheres was experienced at the time, whether positively or negatively, in particular by Christian religious men. Alongside the well known expansion in Marian devotion in the Christian world, these historical vicissitudes are related to the evolution of flexible gender approaches to sainthood, to holiness and to the figure of Jesus Christ, all increasingly perceived as effeminate or womanish in this period. I propose viewing the growing preoccupation of thirteenth-century Jewish men with earlier Jewish concepts regarding female aspects of the Godhead, the latter now perceived Sefirotically, as part of this cultural and theological discourse.
This study consists of two intertwined themes. The first is an inquiry into the views of R. Shelomo Ibn Adreth (Rashba) on the rationale of the commandments. The second argues that Rashba was the first author to develop the view that the reasons behind the commandments – all the commandments – are sitrei torah (secrets of the Torah) that are beyond human comprehension. Rashba formed and developed what I labeled in a separate study: ‘Halakhic Religiosity of Mystery and Transcendence.’ The first theme – Rashba’s approach to the rationale of the commandments – has barely been studied. Its importance stems from Rashba’s stature as an eminent posek (decisor) and interpreter of the Talmud, and the greatest meshiv (responsa writer) in the Middle Ages, in addition to being the most important kabbalist of his generation. The second theme magnifies the first, since Halakhic Religiosity of Mystery and Transcendence, from the late Middle Ages onwards, became central among Jews of all stripes. This religiosity had a dramatic impact on the halakhic discourse and on the study of Torah. The center of this study is a close reading of three responsa of Rashba, in which he offers his principal views on the rationale of the commandments. The view that is developed in these responsa is as follows: Divine wisdom is hidden in all the commandments. This wisdom, which is the theosophy of Kabbalah, is the reason of the commandment. Yet the wisdom is beyond human comprehension. Flashes of this sublime wisdom are perceived by a few initiated sages (kabbalists) in each generation, yet Rashba says that none exist in his generation. Besides portraying the profound kabbalistic reasons as above the intellectual ability of blood and flesh, these responsa undermine the simple, "rational," reasons of the commandments: compared to the profound, transcendent reasons, the mundane, moral reasons are like "a drop in the sea." It is as if these known reasons are "not their purpose" at all. In Rashba’s view, these two elements – the elevation of the kabbalistic reasons to transcendence and the undermining of the simple reasons – are two sides of the same coin. Rashba developed his views on the reasons of the commandments in the context of Kabbalah. Consequently, his outlook should be compared to views of early kabbalists, especially to those who developed kabbalistic reasons for the commandments, whom Rashba seemed to succeed: R. Ezra (of Girona) and Rashba’s eminent teacher, Nahmanides. The results of this comparison are twofold: first, in contrast to all the kabbalists before him, Rashba rejected the simple reasons of the commandments; second, unlike them, he portrayed the commandments’ profound kabbalistic reasons as esoteric not only in the political-educational sense but especially in the essential sense. Formulations of Rashba’s view that the “deep,” “true” rationale of the commandments are beyond human apprehension are prevalent in the writings of his students, including among his most prominent and influential disciples: R. Yomtov ben Abraham Al-Ashvili (Ritva), R. Bahye ben Asher (ibn Haliwah), and R. Yehoshu’a Ibn Shuayeb. They attest to the centrality of Halakhic Religiosity of Mystery and Transcendence in their teacher’s worldview, and that it was embraced wholeheartedly by his students. This outlook would become prevalent in later generations
Research on Sefer HaBahir has been a source of disagreement and debate amongst scholars. One focus of the dispute is the issue of where the book was written (or collated). No doubt part of it was created in Provence, but was it all written there, or perhaps also in Germany, Babylon, or the Land of Israel? Another focus of the dispute is when the book was written. Some researchers maintain that the writing began in the 9th century; others argue that the entire book was produced in the 13th century. Entwined in these first two disputes are two additional questions. The first is whether the book was written by only one author, or whether many hands may have contributed to its current form by writing, editing, collating, adding glosses, or even by loss and censorship. The second question is how the book’s unusual language, replete with contradictions, should be interpreted and explained. Is the phrasing an indication of the author’s lack of education, as some have claimed since as early as the 13th century, or have we simply not yet identified its cultural background? This article, one of a series, argues for the importance of the fact that the book’s text is very fragmentary and displays a great variety of styles and inner contradictions. This has led me to prefer the longer term ‘multi-authored thesis’. Careful literary and textual analysis reveals that the Sefer HaBahir incorporates a variety of very different theologies. One of these is undoubtedly the well-known Kabbalistic theosophy, which first appeared at the turn of the 12th century in Provence and described the ten divine Sefirot. In this article I show that some of the paragraphs of the book reflect a binatarian theology, which speaks about a harmonious division of power and functions between God and another being; unlike dualism, this relationship is not antagonistic. In other articles I will try to show that other theologies, angelological in nature, are included in Sefer HaBahir. An analysis of paragraphs 4, 8, and 14 (and perhaps also 15) discloses various nuances of the idea that Wisdom was God's means to create the world. Paragraph 14 describes an extreme binatarian position, whereas paragraph 4 describes a milder one. According to paragraph 14, Wisdom, which is also the Torah, created the world and will redeem humankind at the end of times; it is the object of prophecy and vision and maybe even prayer and worship. Thus it seems that once God created Wisdom, He recoiled into himself and was not active in this world anymore. Wisdom had taken His place in every aspect. These short paragraphs elucidate Wisdom (Torah) in an abundance of direct and indirect descriptions. Some of them have become very famous in the history of Kabbalah: a pool and a blessing, a tree or a grove of trees, a hewn spring, "The All" (ha-Kol) or the Fullness (ha-maleh), "Who" (mi), and also – a gigantic angel, with whom God shares the secrets of Creation. Paragraph 4 describes Wisdom using a parable about an invisible spring. Once it is hewn out of the rock and revealed, it brings affluence to a somewhat arid place. In this article, I suggest that this parable emerged in the Land of Israel or Syria, where this system of hewn springs had an immense importance for agriculture for thousands of years. In Provence, on the other hand, irrigation has always depended on the river Rhône, its tributaries, and a system of aqueducts which lead water further away, or, since the 12th century, on the use of canals as well. For different reasons, the phenomenon of hewn springs is not relevant to Germany or Babylon. Might this parable about hewn springs reflect the geographical and hydrological situation of the author's habitat? If it does, these paragraphs would have to have been written earlier than the Provencal ones. I will return to this question in my next articles, focusing here on the binatarian theology expressed in these paragraphs, on the literary features of the text, and especially on the poetics of concealment.
The "Right" Interpretation and Esoteric Methods in the Commentaries of R. David Messer Leon to The Guide of the Perplexed
This article depicts R. David Messer Leon’s (~ 1470–1535) exegetical methods to interpreting Maimonides' The Guide for the Perplexed. One of Italian Jewry’s spiritual leaders at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries, Messer Leon's great work, 'Ein HaQoreh, ignited controversy among other commentators. His work includes theoretical discussions alongside interpretive examples. He dealt with The Guide in other essays as well, and offered a unique interpretive direction. Maimonides’ treatise has been interpreted numerous times, in various and varied ways. One of the main directions that has developed since the 13th Century claims that Maimonides hid his radical views from the public, and that his writing is esoteric. Other commentators, especially since the Renaissance, offered a more conservative interpretation to The Guide, usually accepting the simple meaning of Maimonides' words. Later, many traditional and rabbinical thinkers tried to dull the radical dimension that might be implied by Maimonides' words. This hermeneutic discussion continued in modern research, by proposing new methodologies for understanding Maimonides’ inner meanings. In my study I claim that Leon’s message is double faceted: on the one hand, against extreme rational commentators, and on the other hand, against conservative thinkers who read The Guide through a narrow rabbinic prism. According to Leon, without a comprehensive and profound philosophical knowledge The Guide cannot be interpreted. One of the major innovations in his method is the introduction of an esoteric reading method that supports a conservative interpretation to The Guide for the Perplexed.
‘With Clarification Concealment is Also Necessary’
This paper is devoted to analyzing Shem Tov ben Joseph Ibn Shem Tov’s understanding of the esoteric character of Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed, as well as to the esoteric techniques Shem Tov himself employed in his commentary on the book. His commentary, written shortly prior to the Spanish expulsion, is characterized by a thorough rationalistic reading of Maimonides’ views on different key theological and philosophical issues. His basic stance is to identify Maimonides’ views with those of earlier Aristotelian philosophers, especially Alfarabi and Avicenna. In his magnum opus, Maimonides employed a host of esoteric techniques with the aim of revealing the truth only to the few true intellectuals, and we will describe how Shem Tov understood these techniques. As we will see, Shem Tov was a careful reader of the Guide and he paid special attention to the terms Maimonides employed. Moreover, just as Maimonides employed an esoteric style when discussing the secrets of the Torah, so too does the commentator when discussing the secrets of the. The adoption of an esoteric style of writing is, in my view, what most defines the uniqueness of this commentator and it is, ironically, this very aspect that has not received adequate scholarly attention.
The Question of the Existence of Radical Philosophical Secrets Emerging from The Light of the Darkness (Nur al Dalam)
This article provides a first look at the philosophical views of Rabbi Netanel son of Isaiah (Yemen 1329), author of the Torah commentary Light of the Darkness. We begin with the fact in the introduction to his book, R. Netanel affirms an esoteric method of writing. We proceed to analyze two subjects that show the possibility of interpreting R. Netanel as a radical philosopher. First, we examine his position on creation. On this subject, R. Netanel’s writing is highly ambiguous and raises the possibility that he endorses the view of eternity. Later in the article, we analyze his views on miracles. On this subject, we see that he explains Moses’ 40 days of fasting as a parable. This interpretation may indicate that he classifies all miracles in the Torah as parables.