I would like to thank Elliot Wolfson, Elliot Ginsburg, and David Myers for their close reading of a draft of this article.

1. Biale, David, Kabbalah and Counter History, 2nd ed. (Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press, 1982).Google Scholar

2. Scholem, Gershom, “Mi-tokh Hirhurim 'al Hokhmat Yisra'el, ” in Explications and Implications: Writings on Jewish Heritage and Renaissance(in Hebrew), ed. Abraham, Shapira (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1982), vol. 2, p. 396.Google Scholar

3. “With Gershom Scholem: An Interview, ” in On Jews and Judaism in Crisis, ed.Werner J. Dannhauser (New York: Schocken Books, 1976), p. 35.

4. See Schweid, Eliezer, Judaism and Mysticism According to Gershom Scholem: A Critical Analysis and Programmatic Discussion, trans. David Abraham Weiner (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), p. 37.Google Scholar

5. Scholem, Gershom, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism(New York: Schocken Books, 1967), pp. 7–8.Google Scholar

6. Ibid, p. 8.

7. Ibid, p. 6. Scholem patently contradicted himself when he stated that mystical experience is “fundamentally amorphous” and “formless.” See Scholem, Gershom G., On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism, trans. Ralph Manheim (New York: Schocken Books, 1970), p. 8. Schweid already took Scholem to task for lack of consistency in his definition of mysticism; see Judaism and Mysticism, pp. 21–27.Google Scholar

8. Alter, Robert, “Jewish Mysticism in Dispute, ” Commentary, September 1989, p. 59.Google Scholar

9. Tishbi, Isaiah, in an interview with Michael Sheshar, Yediot Aharonot, 22 December 1989, p. 22.Google Scholar

10. Katzman, Avi, “Almost a Rebellion” (in Hebrew), Ha'aretz, 20 October 1989.Google Scholar

11. On Buber's Erlebnismystikand his debate with Scholem concerning Hasidism, see Biale, Kabbalah and Counter History, pp. 114–119.

12. Scholem did not ignore the importance of live encounter with practicing kabbalists. In 1927 he established contacts with the kabbalists of Beth El to whom he referred in his scholarly works. Still, Idel is correct to note that Scholem did not encourage other scholars of Kabbalah to cultivate such contacts.

13. The analogy is probably derived from Gadamer, Hans-Georg, “Hermeneutics as Practical Philosophy, ” in Reason in the Age of Science, trans. Frederick Lawrence (Cambridge Mass: MIT Press, 1981), p. 110.Google Scholar

14. Ong, Walter, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word(London: Methuen, 1982), p. 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. For a partial bibliography of the pertinent literature and a methodological discussion of the problems that confront medieval historians, consult Green, D. H., “Orality and Reading: The State of Research in Medieval Studies, ” Speculum 65 (1990): 267–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Wolfson, Elliot, “By Way of Truth: Aspects of Nahmanides′ Kabbalistic Hermeneutic, ” AJS Review 14, no. 2 (1989): 158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17. Kurzweil, Edith, The Age of Structuralism: Levi-Strauss to Foucault(New York: Columbia University Press, 1980), p. 1. Obviously, this definition does not do justice to the complexity of structuralism. Even though structuralism means different things in literary theory, anthropology, and the history of religions, I maintain that the term accurately describes Idel's enterprise. Unfortunately, Idel does not make clear the hidden assumptions which structuralism brings to the study of religion in general and to his own analysis of Kabbalah in particular.Google Scholar

18. Schweid noted that Scholem intentionally cultivated the public persona of the empiricist scholar; see Schweid, Judaism and Mysticism, p. 10. Indeed, some scholars defend this selfportrayal as the exclusive way of understanding Scholem's oeuvre. See Dan, Joseph, Gershom Scholem and the Mystical Dimension of Jewish History(New York: New York University Press, 1987), pp. 1–37.Google Scholar

19. See Odenheimer, Micha, “A Tale of Two Kabbalists, ” Jerusalem Post Magazine, 19 May 1989, p. 9.Google Scholar

20. Scholem, Major Trends, p. 124.

21. In other studies, Idel distinguishes between a “northern” route (Spain-Italy-the Balkans-Greece) and a “southern” route (Spain-North Africa-Egypt) in the dissemination of Kabbalah. See Idel, Moshe, “Major Currents in Italian Kabbalah between 1560–1660, ” Italia JudaicaII (Rome, 1987), pp. 243–262Google Scholar; idem, , “R. Judah Haliwah and His Work Sefer Zafnat Pa'neah”(in Hebrew), Shalem 4 (1984): 119–148. The relationship between the geography of Kabbalah and the phenomenology of Kabbalah is not entirely clear. It seems to me that Idel does suggest some correlation between the two routes for the dissemination of Kabbalah and the two trends in the phenomenology of Kabbalah, but he does not fully clarify it. To assume otherwise would imply that the phenomenology of Kabbalah is not manifested in its history, a position that Idel could not possibly hold.Google Scholar

22. See Weiss, Joseph, Studies in Eastern European Jewish Mysticism, ed. David, Goldstein (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 104.Google Scholar

23. Katz, Steven T., “Language, Epistemology, and Mysticism, ” in Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis, ed. Steven, Katz (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), pp. 22–74Google Scholar; idem, , “The ‘Conservative’ Character of Mystical Experience, ” in Mysticism and Religious Traditions(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), pp. 3–60Google Scholar. For a recent critique of Katz's position, see Forgie, J. William, “Hyper-Kantianism in Recent Discussions of Mystical Experience, ” Religious Studies 2 1 (1985): 205–218. To some extent, Idel attempted to present an alternative to Katz's position in a volume he edited with Bernard McGinn, Mystical Union and Monotheistic Faith: An Ecumenical Dialogue(New York: Macmillan, 1989), but the methodological difficulties discussed below remain intact.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24. I owe this point to Elliot Wolfson in a private conversation.

25. See Scholem, Explications and Implications, pp. 396–397.

26. Liebes, Yehudah, “The Messiah of Sefer ha-Zohar”(in Hebrew), in Ha-Ra'ayon ha-Meshihi be-Yisra'el(Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1982), pp. 87–236.Google Scholar

27. See Huizinga, J., The Waning of the Middle Ages(Garden City: Doubleday, 1954), p. 191Google Scholar; Ernesto de Martino, Morte epianto riluale nel mondo antico: Dal lamentopagano alpianto di Maria(Turin: Edizioni Scientifiche Einaudi, 1958). For more recent discussions of ritual weeping by ethnographists, see Christian, William A., “Provoked Religious Weeping in Early Modern Spain, ” in Religious Organization and Religious Experience, ed. J., Davis (London: Academic Press, 1982), pp. 97–114Google Scholar; Laura Graham, “Three Modes of Shavante Vocal Expression: Wailing, Collective Singing, and Political Oratory, ” in Native South American Discourse d. Joel Scherzer and Greg Urban (Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter, 1986), pp. 83–118; Wagley, Charles, Welcome of Tears(London: Oxford University Press, 1978)Google Scholar. Idel's emphasis on the performative dimension of mystical techniques should be viewed in the broader context of current attempts to deprivilize texts in the interpretation of religious systems. For a methodological analysis of this enterprise, see Sullivan, Lawrence E., “Sound and Senses: Toward a Hermeneutics of Performance, ” History of Religions 26, no. 1 (1986): 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28. Scholem, Major Trends, p. 37.

29. Scholem, Gershom, Elements of the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism(in Hebrew), trans. Joseph Ben Shlomo (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1976), pp. 259–307, esp. p. 277, where Scholem cites the symbol of the Great Mother without direct reference to Erich Neumann's study. In an interview Scholem expressly distinguished Erich Neumann the man, whom he “greatly esteemed, ” from Erich Neumann the psychoanalyst, claiming he “often did not understand” what the latter was saying. See On Jews and Judaism, p. 30. I remain skeptical about Scholem's alleged inability to understand Jungian psychoanalysis.Google Scholar

30. Scholem, GershomReshit ha-Qabbalah ve-Sefer ha-Bahir(Jerusalem: Akademon, 1962), p. 152.Google Scholar

31. The complex relationship of Zionism to psychoanalysis has been explored recently in several articles by Yael Feldman. For example, see “Back to Vienna: Zionism on the Literary Couch, ” in Vision Confronts Reality: Historical Perspectives on the Contemporary Jewish Agenda, edited by R. Kozodoy, D. Sidorsky and K. Sultanik (Associated University Presses. London and Toronto, 1989), 310–337.Google Scholar

32. See Scholem, Gershom, Origins of the Kabbalah, ed. Werblowsky, R. J. Zwi, trans. Allan Arkush (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1987), p. 79.Google Scholar

33. On Scholem's position concerning the relationship between Kabbalah and Gnosticism, consult Isaiah Tishby, “Upheaval in the Research of Kabbalah (On: M. Idel, Kabbalah: New-Perspectives)”(in Hebrew), Zion54 (1989): 209–222, and Idel's response, “What Is New Is Forbidden, ” pp. 223–240.Google Scholar

34. Scholem, Gershom, Reshit ha-Qabbalah(Jerusalem: Schocken, 1948), p. 26: Origins of the Kabbalah, p. 66.Google Scholar

35. Scholem, Elements of the Kabbalah, pp. 92–93.

36. Ibid, p. 97.

37. Smith, Jonathan Z., Map Is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978).Google ScholarPubMed

38. A partial list of these commentaries was published by Scholem, “Index to Commentaries on Ten Sefirot” (in Hebrew), Kiryat Sefer10 (1934): 498–515.1 understand from Idel that he has compiled a much larger list for private use as a research tool.Google Scholar