This paper is in loving memory of my father, Gershon Hayyim ben Schmuel, who left this world the 28th of Tishrei, 5756. May he rest in peace in the upper Garden of Eden.

1. The messianism of Lurianic kabbala, according to Scholem, is what may be called a temperate messianic utopianism against the apocalyptic messianism of Solomon Molkho (ca. 1500–1532) and David Reuveni (d. 1538?). Scholem devoted numerous studies to the typlogies of Jewish messianism and their centrality to Judaism, particularly through the study of Lurianic texts. See Scholem, G., “Toward an Understanding of the Messianic idea in Judaism,” in The Messianic Idea in Judaism(New York, 1971), pp.1–37; idem, “The Messianic Idea in Kabbalism,” pp. 37–48, and “Redemption Through Sin,” pp. 78–141. For a general evaluation of these typologies, see J. Dan, “Gershom Scholem and Jewish Messianism,” in Gershom Scholem: The Man and His Work,ed. P. Mendes-Flohr (Albany, N.Y., 1994), pp. 73–86, esp. 82–86.Google Scholar

2. See I. Tishby Torat Ha-Ra ve Ha-Kelippah b 'Kabbalat Ha-Ari(reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1991); Ronit Meroz, “Redemption in the Lurianic Teaching” (diss., Hebrew University, 1991). This focus would also include the effect of Lurianic kabbalism in Europe. On this see J. Avivi, “The Writings of the Ari in Italy Before 1620” [Hebrew], Aley Sefer11 (1984): 134–191, and M. Idel, “Perspectives of Kabbala in the Second Half of the 18th Century,” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy1 (1991): 55–114.Google Scholar

3. This field of inquiry has been the major focus of Joseph Avivi's work Binyan Ariel: Introduction to the Homilies of R. Isaac Luria[Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1987) and the first part of Ronit Meroz's dissertation. See also M. Pachter, “Katnutand Gadlutin Lurianic Kabbala” [Hebrew], Mehkarei Yerushalayim10(1992): 171–210.Google Scholar

4. Scholem argues in “Tradition and New Creation in the Ritual of the Kabbalists,” On Kabbala and Its Symbolism(New York, 1965), p. 135, that Lurianic kabbala changed the face of Judaism in all its aspects, theoretical as well as practical. Even in light of Moshe Idel's critique of Scholem's emphasis on the overarching influence of Luria's teachings, I think this asssertion still stands. Cf. Idel in Hasidim: Between Magic and Ecstasy(New York, 1995), chap. 2.Google Scholar

5. The Etz Hayyimhas a complex and somewhat dubious history. Although it consists of R. Hayyim Vital's writings, it was collected and edited by his son R. Shmuel Vital in Damascus after R. Hayyim's death. There are two editions to this work, “the early edition,” called Etz Hayyim madurah kama,and the later edition, called madurah batra.For a comprehensive study of the bibliographical history of Vital's writings, see Avivi, op. cit, and R. Moshe Ya'akov Hillel's preface to R. Ya'akov Hayyim Zemah's Kehillat Ya 'akov(Jerusalem, 1992), pp. 11–60. Cf. Yizhak Isaac ben Ya'akov, 'Ozar Seforim(Vilna, 1880), p. 446, 514.Google Scholar

6. I refer specifically to theosophic kabbala to exclude the ecstatic school of Abraham Abulafia and Joseph ibn Gikitillia, whose writings are not founded on Scripture or framed midrashically. Moshe Idel addresses this issue in his study of kabbalistic hermeneutics. Cf. Kabbala: New Perspectives(New Haven, 1988), pp. 215 ff. This is not to say that both Abulafia and Gikitillia were not interested in exegesis. This is surely not the case. Abulafia's more popular work, Shevah Netivot Ha-Torah,published by Adolf Jellinek in Philosophie und Kabbala(Leipzig, 1854) is devoted almost entirely to the elucidation of Abulafia's seven methods of interpretation. See the analysis in M. Idel, Language, Torah, and Hermeneutics in Abraham Abulafia(Albany, N.Y., 1989), pp. 82–125. On the lack of hermeneutic studies in kabbala, see Y. Liebes, “New Directions in the Study of Kabbala” [Hebrew], Pe 'amim50 (1992): 159–161.Google Scholar

7. In particular, see Vital'sSAa 'arMamareiRashbi(Jerusalem, 1898) and Zohar Ha-Rakiyah(Koretz, 1785), which is a much later collection of Lurianic material on zoharic passages. Recent scholarship has divided Luria's creative output into two periods. The early period (while he still lived in Egypt) was comprised largely of interpretations of zoharic passages. The later period (his final two years in Safed) produced another element of his teaching consisting of the development of his overarching theosophic system and its relationship to the human realm. Cf. Y. Liebes, “Myth vs. Symbol in the Zohar and in Lurianic Kabbala,” in Essential Papers in Kabbala,ed. L. Fine (New York, 1995), p. 228. Various pupils of R. Moses Cordovero who were influenced by Luria did compose commentaries to the Zohar. See, for example, the commentaries of R. Abraham Azulia and R. Abraham Galante, collected in the four-volume 'Or Ha-Hama(Parmishlan, 1896–98), and R. Shalom Buzalgo's Mikdash Melekh,5 vols. (Amsterdam, 1750).Google Scholar

8. David Weiss-HaLivni theorizes that “Midrash represents distance from God, a clinging to words of the past at a time when the living present word is not forthcoming any longer. It substitutes divine intervention, through either revelation or prophecy.” See Midrash, Mishnah, and Gemara(Cambridge, Mass., 1986), p. 16. If this is so, what are we to do with the Lurianic tradition, which, according to our working hypothesis, may indeed be “post-midrashic” in that it no longer feels obligated to justify its understanding through midrashic means? Can we posit that the Lurianists, at least some of whom believed they were standing on the cusp of the messianic era, viewed their activity as a return to the “pre-midrashic,” prophetic mode of discourse? A more definitive conclusion to this query would require a more in-depth analysis of the material than I have undertaken at this juncture.Google Scholar

9. The Lurianic system itself emerges largely out of the Lurianic reading of Zohar, which itself is often based on Scripture. Y. Liebes notes, “The Ari's procedure is to juxtapose myths that are to be found scattered throughout the Zohar and to combine them into a complete and complex system.... he [the Ari] incorporates all of them [the Zohar's myths] in one overarching structure, through a mutiplicity of fine detail and a succession of stages.” See, Liebes, “Myth vs. Symbol,” pp. 225, 226.Google Scholar

10. See Yehudah, Liebes, “The Kabbalistic Myth as Told by Orpheus,” in his Studies in Jewish Myth and Jewish Messianism(Albany, N.Y., 1993), pp. 65–92, esp. pp. 84–87.Google Scholar

11. Talmud Torah (Torah study) as a redemptive act is a central part of the Lurianic discussion. In this sense, a distinction may be drawn between earlier kabbalistic hermeneutics (e.g., Sefer Ha-Bahir,Nahmanides, Abulafia and perhaps the Zohar) and the Lurianists. For the Lurianists, kabbalistic exegesis (according to the principles set up by Lura via his disciples) is a messianic act, the final act of redeeming Scripture from its concealed state.Google Scholar

12. This idea has been recently developed by E. R. Wolfson in “Beautiful Maiden Without Eyes: Pesahand Sodin Zoharic Hermeneutics,” in The Midrashic Imagination,ed. M. Fishbane (Albany, N.Y., 1993), pp. 155–204 idem, “The Hermeneutics of Visionary Experience: Revelation and Interpretation in the Zohar,” Religion18 (1988) and E. Segal, “The Exegetical Craft of the Zohar,” AJS Review(1992): 31–48. “The Zohar is, of course, structured not as a treatise on mysticism or the theory of the sephirot,but as a talmudic midrash, distinguished by its use of the classical petihastructures” (p. 33). Although this may be an overstatement, I think that, particularly as compared to Lurianic kabbala, the Zohar still resides in the frame of midrashic thinking. A more nuanced approach may be that of Scholem when he says, “Here again the Zohar strikes a different note: throughout it reflects the homiletic viewpoint and remains closely bound to the Scriptural text. Often an idea is not so much extrapolated and projected into the Biblical word but rather conceived in the process of mystical reflection upon the latter.” See Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism(New York, 1961), p. 205. Wolfson makes a more radical claim that the Zohar is actually far more concerned with peshatthan classical midrash. See Wolfson “Beautiful Maiden Without Eyes,” pp. 185–190. On the midrashists relation to peshat,see W, Braude, “Midrash as Deep Peshat,” in Studies in Judaica, Karaitica and Islamica Presented to Leon Nemoy on his Eightieth Birthday,ed. S. R. Brunswick (Ramat Gan: 1982), pp. 31–38, Menahem Haran, “Midrashic Exegesis and the Peshat, and the Critical Approach to Bible Research” [Hebrew], in Studies in Judaicaed. M. Bar-Asher (Jerusalem, 1986), pp. 75 ff.Google Scholar

13. Joseph Dan recently argued that Kabbala in general is far less systematic in its hermeneutics than rabbinic (midrashic) exegesis. Cf. Dan, “The Language of Creation and Its Grammar,” in Tradition und Translation: Zum Problem der interkulturellen Ubersetzbarkeit religioser Phanomene,ed. C. Elias (Berlin and New York, 1994), p. 56, “Even the mystics picked and chose; common misconception notwithstanding, some of the most important kabbalistic schools and works did not use many of the midrashic exegetical methodologies, including that of gematria.The identification of Jewish esotericism and mysticism with midrashic hermeneutics is a partial one, and the Sefer Yezeriais the earliest expression of the selectivity employed by Jewish thinkers in their adoption of their own traditions concerning language.” Although Dan is correct vis-à-vis Sefer Yezeriaand the Hekhalot literature, the kabbalists in Gerona and the Zohar do indeed employ many of the exegetical tools of the Talmud and Midrash. Dan's point is important in that the kabbalists did not feel bound by those rules even when they adopted them. In Lurianic kabbala, we see a more severe abandonment of those exegetcial tools which I believe is partially due to the fact that the true Torah (the Torah of the Tree of Life) is not embedded in the Garments of Torah but exists outside it.Google Scholar

14. Wolfson's argument is even further nuanced in the following statement concerning earlier mystical literature: “While Scholem's observation that the Hekhalot texts are not midrashic expositions of biblical passages is basically correct, his further claim that these texts are descriptions of a religious experience for which no sanction is sought in the Bible is questionable.” Cf. Wolfson, Through a Speculum That Shines(Princeton, 1995), p. 123. For Scholem's position, see Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism,p. 46Google Scholar

15. See Wolfson, op. cit., p. 167 and Zohar 2.257b, “[Mishna is the] secret which is within, for one learns there the essence of everything,” quoted in Wolfson, “Beautiful Maiden Without Eyes,” p. 197, n. 105. This is, of course, opposed to the later strata of the Zohar, Tikkunei Zoharand Ra 'ayah Mehemna,where the sodinterpretation and the peshatare indeed adversarial. On this see P. Giller, The Enlightened Will Shine(Albany, N.Y., 1993), pp. 59–81. Although the Lurianists rarely take a position on these purely ideological issues, R. Hayyim Vital, in his Introduction to Sha 'ar Ha-Hakdamot,seems to adopt an adversarial stance closer to the Tikkunei Zoharthan the one suggested by Wolfson in the Zohar itself. Vital's Introduction is printed in the Etz Hayyim,Mekor Hayyim edition (Jerusalem). As we will see in the body of this paper, Vital's stance on the relationship between peshatand drashmay indeed be a window into the attitude of Lurianists toward reading Scripture in general.Google Scholar

16. Perhaps the most classic example of this is found in Zohar 3.152a, where the “stories of the Torah” are the garments, the precepts (mitzvot) are the “body of Torah,” and the “soul of Torah” or the “real Torah” is the esoteric teachings of the Zohar. Contemporaries of Luria in sixteenth-century Safed often take a more sober view of the relationship between peshatand sod,similar to the view espoused by Wolfson vis-a-vis the body of the Zohar. See, for example, R. Shlomo Alkabez, Ayelet Ahavim(Venice, 1522), p. 8b, “There is nothing in the allegorical level of meaning which denies the literal or the secret or the homiletical. All are one, as illustrated by the image of the tree employed by Rashbi.” Alkabez is referring to Zohar 3.202a, where the author of the Zohar uses the image of a tree to describe the four levels of meaning in the Torah. “...one who busies himself [with Torah] continuously is likened to the verse in Psalms 1:2, Rather the teaching of the Lord is his delight, and he studies that teaching day and night.Not like dry wood but like a tree planted beside a stream of water.(Psalm 1:3). Just as a tree has roots, bark, pulp, branches, leaves, flowers and fruit... all the words of Torah have peshat, drash,hints [remez]of the heights of wisdom, gematria,hidden secrets and secrets that are more hidden. Non-kosher and kosher, impure and pure, forbidden and permitted. From here and outward the branches spread out to all sides like [the branches] of a tree. If it were not [like this], the Torah would not be the Wisdom of Wisdom.” The image of the tree in this passage unifies the various methods of interpretation as well as the muti-layered message in the Torah. It appears from here that peshatand sodare complementary rather than contradictory, reflecting an integrative relationship rather than the adversarial one we see in the Tikkunimand in R. Hayyim Vital's Introduction to Sha 'ar Hakdamot.For more on this among sixteenth-century Safed kabbalists other than Vital and Luria, see M. Pachter, “The Concept of Devekutin the Homiletical Ethical Writings of 16th Century Safed,” Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature II,ed. I. Twersky (Cambridge, Mass., 1984), pp. 171–230, esp. 177–185. For a more comprehensive discussion on Alkabez, see B. Sack, “The Mystical Teaching of Shlomo Alkabez” (diss., Brandeis University, 1977).Google Scholar

17. I am referring to Daniel Boyarin's Intertextuality and Midrash(Bloomington, 1991), Susan Handelman's The Slayers of Moses(Albany, N.Y., 1982), pp. 51–83, and Steven Fraade's From Tradition to Commentary(Albany, N.Y., 1989). I do not intend to take a stance on the viability of such an enterprise, only to point out that Lurianic material cannot, in my view, be read using these methods as they are now. As to other important sources for the rabbinic (midrashic) reading of Scripture, see S. Lieberman, “Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture,” in Hellenism in Jewish Palestine(New York, 1950), pp. 47–82, reprinted in Essential Papers on the Talmud,ed. M. Chernick (New York, 1994), pp. 429–459; Jonah Frankel, “Hermeneutical Questions in Aggadic Stories” [Hebrew], Tarbiz47 (1978): 139–172; and idem, “Bible Verses Quoted in the Tales of the Sages,” Scripta Hierosolymitana22 (Jerusalem, 1971).Google Scholar

18. Boyarin, , Intertextuality and Midrash,p. 40.Google Scholar

19. By this I mean that the backbone of Lurianic kabbala, i.e., the creation of the world through zimzumand its rectification through the gathering of the divine sparks which are embeded in the kelipot,has no scriptural base, nor do the Lurianists appear interested in justifying this process through Scripture.Google Scholar

20. It is interesting to note that even as the mythic models in Lurianic kabbala largely emerge from the Zohar, the Lurianic authors do not frequently refer to the zoharic discussion where they are rooted.Google Scholar

21. See, Betty, Roitman, “Sacred Language and Open Text,” in Midrash and Literature,ed. Hartman, G.H. and Budick, S. (New Haven, 1986), p. 75, “This [the kabbalistic] reading presents itself then as radically severed from any context; it is autonomous and invariable, chosen from among what the kabbalah considers the values founding the world” (pp. 166–167). Roitman's idea of kabbala as “autonomous exegesis” is well taken, although I think in this presentation she is not sensitized enough to the differences in kabbalistic approaches to Scripture. Her notion of taking the vertical framework of emanation from the Infinite to the finite and applying it horizontally to the textual discourse of Scripture is true both in the Zohar and the Lurianists in varying degrees. For more on this type of approach, see R. Schatz, “Kabbala: Tradition or Innovation” [Hebrew], in Masu 'uot: Studies in Kabbala and Jewish Thought in Memory of Professor Ephrayim Gottlieb(Jerusalem, 1994).Google Scholar

22. The composition and authorship of these texts are difficult to determine. The texts authored by the circle of R. Isaac Luria can be largely divided into two main categories. The Etz Hayyimand the “Eight Gates” are collected teachings of R. Hayyim Vital which were edited and compiled by his son, R. Shmuel Vital, in Damascus after his father's death. These comprise most of the texts whose title bears the word Sha 'ar(gate). The other category of early Lurianic material are texts composed and/or compiled by a variety of students, R. Ya'akov Hayyim Zemah, R. Meir Poppers, R. Joseph Ibn Tabul, R. Israel Saruk, R. Nathan Shapira, R. Benjamin Ha-Levi, R. Moshe Zakuto and R. Moshe Yonah (among others). Many of these texts begin with the term Sefer(book) in their title rather than Sha 'ar.This is a general rule, although there are exceptions. The text Sha 'ar Ha-Pesukimis thus seen as part of the Vitalian “Eight Gates.” The origin of Sefer Ha-Likkutimis a bit more complex. R. Meir Poppers, in Derekh Etz Hayyim(Karetz, 1782), p. 69, calls Sefer Ha-Likkutimand Sefer Derushimpart of the “early edition” of the Lurianic corpus. We know that the first edition of Sefer Ha-Likkutim(published under that title) was edited by R. Benjamin Ha-Levi, a student of R. Hayyim Vital and R. Elisha Gavashtala. See R. Meir Poppers, “Introduction” to Derekh Etz Hayyim,p. lb. Likkutei Torah,first printed in Zalkawa in 1775, consists largely of the second section of R. Meir Poppers' NofEtz Hayyimin combination with portions of Poppers' Derekh Etz Hayyim,which itself includes parts of R. Ya'akov Hayyim Zemah's Ozrot Hayyim, Adam Yasharand Sefer Derushim.In sum, the three texts which will serve as the basis of our analysis emerge from three different sources in the Lurianic circle. Sha 'ar Ha-Pesukimis from R. Hayyim Vital viahis son R. Shmuel. Sefer Ha-Likkutimis a collection of Palestinian material edited by R. Benjamin Ha-Levi, and Likkutei Torahis the product of R. Meir Poppers. Each text exhibits a slightly different personality. Sha 'ar Ha-Pesukimis very detailed and is largely caught up in the endless minutiae which are characteristic of Vital's Etz Hayyimand the “Eight Gates.” Sefer Ha-Likkutimis clearly a collection of various authors in that the drashotare not consistent in either style and/or content. Likkutei Torahis the most ordered, systematic and exegetical. It does not dwell on the details of the system itself as much as the verse it seeks to interpret. In a sense, it is the most accessible to a non-initiate into the system, very characteristic of R. Meir Poppers' other writings (excluding perhaps his editing work in Pri Etz Hayyim).Google Scholar

23. Isaiah Tishby seems to have been aware of this move when he says, “ In Lurianic kabbala, on the other hand, the tendency is to accommodate the Biblical story to the myth of the breaking of the vessels and the fall of the sparks.” I. Tishby, “Gnostic Doctrines in Sixteenth Century Jewish Mysticism,” Journal of Jewish Studies6–3 (1955): 151.Google Scholar

24. See M. Idel, Kabbala: New Perspectives New Haven, 1988, p. 217,“ Moses Cordovero and Isaac Luria, the two great experts on zoharic literature, succeeded in combining these disparate symbols into relatively comprehensive and coherent conceptual systems, whose influence on Jewish theosophy was tremendous.”Google Scholar

25. Alfred, North Whitehead, Symbolism and Its Meaning(Virginia, 1927), p. 11.Google Scholar

26. This is close to the definition offered by I. Tishby. See his “Ha-Semal ve Ha-Dat b'Kabbala” in Netivei Emunah u 'Minut(Ramat-Gan, 1964), p. 13.Google Scholar

27. To a large degree, this is the position on metaphor which Moshe Idel adopts in his study of kabbalistic hermeneutics in Kabbala: New Perspectives,pp. 200–249. See, for example, p. 203, “As we know, symbols are intended to help one perceive that which is difficult to comprehend.” Idel contends that symbolic interpretation, i.e., theosophic Kabbala, uses symbols to attain a “gnosis of higher dynamics,” while “ecstatic kabbala strives to attain an experience of the Divine.” To a large degree, Idel draws his position on symbol from Ernst Cassirer's four-volume magnum opus, The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms(New Haven, 1955). Using such a formulation, Idel is correct in asserting symbolic rendering as non-unitive and the ecstatic non-symbolic rendering as unitive experience or unio mystica.Idel argues that symbolic interpretation prevents the individual from moving beyond the symbolic framework he creates. However, I think this limits considerably the experiential component in Lurianic kabbala and the access to the transcendent one receives through the theosophic approach. An alternative model for the use and place of symbolism appears in the work of Karl Jaspers, whose study of “ciphers” has not received as large an audience in the English-speaking world as Cassirer. See his Philosophy III(Chicago, 1971), especially from p. 113. For example, “In cipher script the symbol is inseparable from that which it symbolizes.Ciphers bring transcendence to mind...I would compare a cipher with transcendence, but transcendence only appears to me in a cipher script; it is not the cipher script” (p. 124) Using Jaspers' model, the symbol becomes the cipher when it contains and transmits the transcendence it symbolizes. Without that, it is just a symbol. This differs from Idel (and Cassirer) in that (1) symbols (when properly read as ciphers) are not tools of communication–they are carriers of transcendence, and (2) as Jaspers notes, “It takes reality to reveal transcendence.” Fundamentally, Jaspers would probably disagree with Idel that any unitive experience is possible without ciphers. I think that we should consider whether Jaspers' model better represents the theosophic world of the Zohar and Luria than the Cassirer model suggested by Idel. For a reading of Scholem's approach to this issue, see N. Rotenstreich, “Symbolism and Transcendence: On Some Philosophical Aspects of Gershom Scholem's Opus” Review of Metaphysics124 (1978): 604–614.Google Scholar

28. On this see Frank, Talmage, “Apples of Gold: The Inner Meaning of Sacred Texts in Medieval Judaism,” in Jewish Spirituality I,ed. Arthur, Green (London, 1986), pp. 313–355, and Michael Fishbane, “The Teacher and the Hermeneutical Task: A Reinterpretation of Medieval Exegesis,” Garments ofTorah(Indiana, 1989), pp. 112–120.Google Scholar

29. Yehudah Liebes has recently countered Scholem and Tishby's description of Lurianic “symbolic language” and argued that Lurianic kabbala is largely mythic rather than symbolic. His defintion of myth is as follows, “[mythic language is] the direct reference to the divine entity itself, which is available on the same plane of awareness and meaning as are all other observable phenomena.” Cf. Liebes, “Myth and Symbol” p. 213. I agree in principle with Liebes that Lurainic cosmology is not symbolic in the way it is defined by Scholem, Tishby and recently by Idel (in a critical vein). I believe that the Lurianic system is presented in a way in which it becomes accessible to human experience and invites human participation. In this essay, I have retained the word “symbolic” rather than “mythic” yet I view the symbol in light of Jaspers cipher model as opposed to Cassier's more conventional understanding. That is, the symbol is not divorced from human experience but is the conduit for that very realm which the symbol represents.Google Scholar

30. Whitehead, Symbolism and Its Meaning,p. 8.Google Scholar

31. This is what Scholem implies in Major Trends.See above, n. 14.Google Scholar

32. Vital, R.Hayyim, Introduction to Sha 'ar Ha-Hakdamot, Etz Hayyim,Mekor Hayyim ed., p. 4.Google Scholar

33. p. 3a, “Behold, it is impossible to rise to the highest realm without the study of the Zohar, according to one's capability and limitations.” Cf. Tikkunei Zohar,p. 13aGoogle Scholar

34. See Daniel, Matt, Zohar: Book of Enlightenment(New York, 1983), Introduction.Google Scholar

35. This seems to be implicit in Scholem's assertion that “The Torah is conceived [by the Zohar] as a vast corpus symbolicumrepresentative of that hidden life in God which the theory of the Sephirot attempts to describe.” See Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism,p. 209.Google Scholar

36. This is largely based on Elliot Wolfson's thesis concerning the relationship between peshatand sodin the Zohar. I believe that the discussion in Vital's Introduction to Sha'ar Hakdamotin light of the position presented by Wolfson vis-a-vis the Zohar draws an important parallel between the two bodies of literature. That is, Lurianic kabbala is a new phase in kabbalistic hermeneutics based on the principles of the Zohar but moving beyond them. This is also the position of Liebes in his, “Myth and Symbol,” pp. 223–226.Google Scholar

37. See Zohar 2.99a and the discussion on the term “garment” in the Zohar in D. Cohen-Alloro, The Secret of the Garment in the Zohar[Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1987), pp. 69 ff.Google Scholar

38. See Hayyim, R. Vital's Introduction to Sha 'ar Hakdamotprinted in Etz Hayyim,p. 4d, “When [the Torah] is in the World of Emanation it is called Kabbala, for there it is removed from all the garments which are calledpeshat.This [is the meaning of] the verse (Cant. 5:3) / have taken off my robe.”See also E. Wolfson, “Maiden Without Eyes,” p. 198 n. 116.Google Scholar

39. For a comprehensive treatment of this issue, see Y. Liebes, “The Messiah of the Zohar: On R. Shimon bar Yohai as a Messianic Figure,” in Y. Liebes, Studies in the Zohar(Albany, N.Y., 1993), pp. 1–85, esp. pp. 43–63.Google Scholar

40. R. Hayyim Vital states explicitly that one should refrain from all kabbalistic literature after Luria and only study his writings, which are “a full and complete transmission,” as opposed to kabbalistic literature from Nahmanides onward, which are only “partial transmissions.” See Vital's Introduction to Sha 'ar Hakdamot,pp. 4a-b.Google Scholar

41. On this see R. Schatz, “Kabbala: Tradition or Innovation” [Hebrew] and A. Altmann, “Maimonides' Attitude Toward Jewish Mysticism,” in Studies in Jewish Thought: An Anthology of German Jewish Scholarship(Detroit, 1981).Google Scholar

42. This question originates in rabbinic literature. See, for example, in Genesis Rabba 1:10, “R. Yona states in the name of R. Levi, 'Why was the world created with a beitand not an alephiJust as a beitis closed on the side and open in the front, so too we have no permission to search after that which is above, that which is below, that which is in the front [or, inside], and that which is behind.” While the midrash uses the form of the letter beitto argue against esotericism, the Lurianic text cited uses the numerical value of beit(2) to argue for the authenticity of esotericism, suggesting that another “hidden” Torah was also given at Sinai.Google Scholar

43. The use of this term in the Zohar and Lurianic kabbala is highly ambiguous. The initial treatment of the word ignored the apparent sexual implications. Cf. Scholem, Kabbala(New York, 1974), p. 132 and idem, “The Name of God and Linguistic Theory of the Kabbala,” Diogenes80 (1973): 181. Yehudah Liebes suggested the possibly erotic imagery of the term in Sarugian kabbala. Cf. “Zaddik Yesod 'Olam–A Sabbatean Myth” [Hebrew], Da'at1 (1978): 105 n. 167. This was further substantiated by Ronit Meroz in her “Redemption in the Lurianic Teaching,” p. 93. A recent reappraisal of the term in Lurianic kabbala has been posed by E. R. Wolfson in Circle in the Square(New York, 1995), pp. 69–70 and n. 173, 175.1 would like to thank Prof. Wolfson for making me aware of the breadth of this discussion. This term also plays an inportant role in Cordeverian kabbala. See B. Sack, Sha 'arei Ha-Kabbala shel Ha-Ramak(Jerusalem, 1995), pp. 73–77 and n. 82.Google Scholar

44. This is a reference to the verse “This is the Torah [Zot Ha-Torah]which Moses placed before the Jewish people.” By the word zot,this text implies that another Torah exists beside the one mentioned in the verse. The word zotand its derivations also refer to God Himself in kabbalistic literature. See R. Ze'ev Wolf of Zhitomir, 'Or Ha-Meir(Karetz, 1798 reprint Jerusalem, n.d), vol. 1, p. 119a, “God [Ha-Kodesh Barukh Hu]is named zeh(lit. this), as it is written, There zeh (He) stands behind our waW(Song of Songs 2:9) and the discussion in Betty Roitman, “Sacred Language and Open Text,” pp. 159–178.Google Scholar

45. Likkutei Torah(Vilna, 1880), p. 4b. There are many rabbinic parallels to the use of the letters alephand beit.Cf. Genesis Rabba 1:4, where the second letter, beit,is used to create this world and the letter yod(the tenth letter) is used to create the World to Come. For an alternative kabbalistic reading which may be based on the above passage, see R. Yizhak Isaac Haver, “Drush le Shabbat Teshuva”in 'Ozrot R. Yizhav Isaac Haver(Jerusalem, 1990), p. 1, “Therefore the verse begins, Bereshit[two beginnings] God created...The verse begins with [the letter] beitto hint that the creation was divided into two realms; that God created two beginnings. These [two] are the two roots, one the root of goodness and the other the root of evil. They are the heaven and the earth. They also light and darkness, the good inclination and the evil inclination.”Google Scholar

46. The two-Torah theory is rabbinic in origin, although it is radically reformulated by the mystics. Cf. Avot d'Rebbe Natan a 15, b 29, B. Talmud Shabbat 31a and Sifrei Deuteronomy 351, “Thus Agnitus the hegemon asked Rabban Gamliel and said to him: How many Torot were given to Israel? He answered: Two, one in the mouth (b 'al peh)and one in writing (b 'chtav).For a later version which adds a midrashic element to this discussion, see Midrash Ha-Gadol, (Jerusalem, 1972), Deuteronomy, p. 764.Google Scholar

47. For a discussion on this, see G. Scholem, “Good and Evil in the Kabbala,” The Mystical Shape of the Godhead(New York, 1991), pp. 56–88; idem, “The Crisis of Tradition in Jewish Messianism,” The Messianic Idea in Judaism(New York, 1971), pp. 68 ff., and P. Giller, The Enlightened Will Shine(Albany, N.Y., 1991), pp. 59–81. Scholem's discussion focuses particularly on the way the pristine Torah of the Tree of Life is interpreted by the Sabbatean school.Google Scholar

48. Of course, it makes a significant difference whether the esoteric Torah was revealed at Sinai or before. In either case, however, for the Lurianists the biblical narrative serves as the symbolic manifestation of the esoteric theosophic teaching.Google Scholar

49. Although the sexual character of the cosmic world is central in the Zohar, Lurianic kabbala develops this notion much further. The parzufimare sephiroticconstructs which form the backbone of the Lurianic system. Each world contains various parzufim,most having male and female counterparts which facilitate tikkunthrough erotic intercourse (yihudim)and subsequently filter divine effluence into the supernal world below it. For a more comprehensive definition, cf. G. Scholem, Kabbala(New York, 1974), pp. 140–144, and L. Fine, “The Contemplative Practice of Yihudimin Lurianic Kabbala,” in Jewish Spirituality II( New York, 1989), pp. 64–98. See also Mevo Shearim,Gate II, Part 3, chap. 4, pp. 13a-d, and R. Joseph Hayyim of Baghdad's Da'at Tevunot(Jerusalem, 1965), pp. 46a ff. On the development of yihudimin Kabbala before Luria, see Mark Verman, “The Development of Yihudimin Spanish Kabbala,” Mehkarei Yerushalayim8 (1989): 25–41.Google Scholar

50. The parzufimof Atik Yomin(or Atika Kadishd)and Arikh Anpinare the most nuanced and complex as they are enveloped in Abbaand Emmafrom Aziluton down. The most concise introduction to these parzufimcan be found in Ozrot Hayyim(Makor Hayyim ed. Jerusalem), Sha'arAtik,pp. 18c–22b. Cf. Etz HayyimII Gate 12, chap. 5, pp. 51d ff. The two lower portions on Abbaand Immaare viewed as separate components called Israel Sabaand Tevunah.See Ozrot Hayyim,pp. 23c-24d, and Etz HayyimI Gate 14, chap. 1. Cf. Sha'ar Ha-Kavannot,p. 23d, where R. Hayyim Vital views the split of Abbaand Emmain the context of the split of Zeir Anpinto two parzufim(Israel and Jacob) and Nukvaas Rachael and Leah. Apparently, all of the pazufimwhich are solidly in Azilut(excluding Atikand Arikhhave two components, an upper half and a lower half. This is largely due to the fact that the upper half serves to carry the everflow shefafrom what is above it, and the lower half filters that shefainto what is below itGoogle Scholar

51. According to the Lurianic model, the three higher sephirot {Keter, Hokhmaand Binah)are the components which receive mohinfrom the reahn above and inject that higher consciousness into the rest of the cosmic body. The place of the sephirah Da 'at,for example, is complex in that it is the catalyst where the mohinflow from the higher three to the lower seven. Thus, in a proper transference, the five hasadimfirst flow through Da 'atand leave a remnant of their light in Da 'at,which then serves to sweeten the five gevurotwhen they descend. The result of the sin is viewed in this context as causing the gevurotto descend through Da 'atfirst, thus serving as a destructive force nullifying the possibility of completing the tikkun.Cf. Etz HayyimII Gate 25, Drush 2, pp. 2c-6b, and Sha 'ar Ha-Kavannot,Drush 7 of Passover (which is Drush1 ofSephirat Ha-Omer),pp. 83d-84a, “The days of the Omer are the days of judgment (dinim).Therefore, the dinim/gevurot(in the state of smallness) descend into the body of Zeir Anpinduring the seven weeks of the Omer. Afterward, on Shavuot, which is the day oiMatan Torah,the hasadim(which were still in Da 'atof Zeir Anpin)finally descend into the body of Zeir Anpin[and thus sweeten the gevurot–my addition].” According to this reading, the reahn of judgment only exists when the gevurotdescend without first being affected by the hasadim.Google Scholar

52. The reahn of Azilutremains above the power of the kelipot.Thus any light which remains there or ascends to Azilutis considered safe. Cf. Mevo Shearim,p. 12b, “However, there is also a birrur(clarification) in the lights of the 288 sparks which descend into the world of Beriahwith their vessels...But this is not the case of light which remained in Azilut.Understand this well and always remember it, for it is a fundamental principle in all of Azilutl”Google Scholar

53. The light and/or sparks are in need of mayyim dehurinfrom above which can only be activated by mayyim nukvin(from below) resulting from human action.Google Scholar

54. For an interesting rendering of the notion of ha 'arotand reshimu(remnant of light), see R. Moshe Hayyim Luzatto, “Klah” (138) Pitkhei Hokhma(Bnei Brak, 1992), pp. 16–17 and 69.Google Scholar

55. The status of these trans-Azilut parzufimis complex. Some Lurianic texts suggest that the rupture of shvirat ha-kelimcaused damage even in these higher parzufim.However, most texts suggest that, even if they were affected, the damage was minimal.Google Scholar

56. Sefer Ha-Likkutim,p. 2a. For a similar formulation, cf. Tikkunei Zohar, tikkun5, p. 19aGoogle Scholar

57. There are three terms in Lurianic kabbala to determine damage in the cosmos, blemish (p 'gam),nullification (bitul),and death (mitah).Blemish and nullification usually refer to the downward movement of a part of a parzuf whichnonetheless remains in its indigenous world, usually in Azilut.Death occurs when an element descends into a lower world. It is thus unable to be retrieved without the process of human action. For example, the term used for the effect of the rising kelipotin Keteris blemish (p 'gam),in Abbaand Emmait is nullification (bitul)and in Zeir Anpinand Nukvait is death (mitah).Cf. Mevo Shearim,Gate II, Part I, chap. 4, p. 7a-b.Google Scholar

58. See Scholem, G., Devarim beGo,vol. 1 (Tel Aviv, 1976), “After the Exile From Spain” [Hebrew], pp. 262–270; E. R. Wolfson, “From Sealed Book to Open Text: Time, Memory and Narrative in Kabbalistic Hermeneutics,” in Interpreting Judaim for a Postmodern Age,ed. Steven Kepnes (New York, 1996), pp. 145–178; and Moshe Idel, “Kabbalah on History: A Variety of Approaches,” presented at the conference “Jewish Attitudes Toward and Conceptions of History,” Harvard University Center for Jewish Studies, October 4 and 5, 1994. But see Tishby, “Gnostic Doctrines,” pp. 151–152, where he suggests that Lurianic kabbala is, in many respects, more pessimistic than the ancient gnostic doctrines it resembles.Google Scholar

59. See Sha 'ar Ha-Pesukim, p.4b-c.Google Scholar

60. See above, n. 27.Google Scholar

61. For more on this, see Tishby, Torat Ha-Ra ve Ha-Kelipah,p. 91, “The starting point of the changes which occurred in the first sin must be understood under the assumption that the first damage in the Life of God was not caused by man but before it and even before he was created.” I agree with Tishby's contention here and only want to elaborate that Lurianists want to draw a strong connection between the zimzumto which Tishby refers and the sin, a connection which Tishby implies but never fully develops.Google Scholar

62. See Etz HayyimI, Gate 36, chap. 1, p. 45d.Google Scholar

63. Sefer Ha-Likkutim4a.Google Scholar

64. Schblem alludes to this important connection when he says, “According to Lurianic Kabbalah, it is true, the breach did not originate with man, but was inherent in the structure of divine being (and hence to an immeasurably greater degree in the structure of created being).” Cf. “Tradition and Creation in the Ritual of the Kabbalists,” p. 127. Buber also understood the significance of this point in Lurianic kabbala when he said, “In the history of man the history of the world repeats itself. That which has become free overreaches itself. The 'Fall into Sin' corresponds to the 'Breaking of the Vessels.' Both are signs of the necessary way.” See his “Spirit and Body of the Hasidic Movement,” The Origin and Meaning ofHasidism(Princeton, N.J., 1988), p. 123. Although both Scholem and Buber never fully developed this point, it is pivotal in understanding how the zimzumand shevirahare the groundwork for Adam and Eve's sin.Google Scholar

65. This phenomenon in Lurianic kabbala was noted by Martin Buber when he said, “Late kabbalistic teaching, within the framework of which hasidism developed, removes the penetration of evil back into the event of creation itself. The fire-stream of creative grace pours itself out in its fullness over the first primal shapes, the 'vessels'; but they do not withstand it, they 'break in pieces'–the stream showers an infinity of 'sparks', the 'shells' grow around them, the lack, the uncleanness, the evil has come into the world.” Buber uses this image to suggest that for the kabbalists and the hasidim, it was not man alone who needed redemption but the world as well. Cf. M. Buber, “Spinoza, Sabbatai Zvi, and the Baal-Shem,” in The Origin and Meaning ofHasidism(Princeton, N.J., 1960) p. 101.Google Scholar

66. She is protected by being attached to her male partner. Thus, before the Sin, the world of Asiahis called Nukvaof Yesirah.Her independence is the sign of her vulnerability. It is interesting to note that the tikkunserves as the reversal of this independence. After the tikkunshe is called ateret ba 'alah.The word crown (ateret)is not used here to imply the head but rather the final adornment. Thus the sephirah malkhutis often called ateret yesod.What is implied is that she becomes subsumed in her male partner, losing her status as a separate component.Google Scholar

67. See Etz HayyimII, Gate 34, chap. 2, Principle 17, p. 47a.Google Scholar

68. What is implied here is that the union (yihud)of Adam and Eve (which was, in essence, the sin itself) was necessary to empower the dinim,which remained inactive as long as they were not in contact with human beings. However, whereas Eve ingested the dinim,or as the Lurianic exegetes would have it, was inseminated by the serpent, she alone did not have the creative force to empower them. This only occurred as the result of her sexual union with Adam.Google Scholar

69. See, for example, in R. Meir Ibn Gabbai's Avodat Ha-Kodesh(Jerusalem, 1973), p. 77, and R. Abraham Isaac of Granada (?), Brit Meukha(Jerusalem, 1958/59), pp. 2a-b. Vital argues in his Introduction to Sha 'ar Ha-Hakdamotthat Luria received a direct revelation from Elijah which had not beeen transmitted in full since Nahmanides. Hence, he warns against studying from previous kabbalistic sources (excluding Nahmanides) to avoid confusion. The Zohar is, of course, considered the product of R. Shimon bar Yohai.Google Scholar

70. The notion of zimzumas the distancing of God from creation is viewed by many kabbalists as the foundation of free will. Cf. R. Yizhak Isaac Haver's Pithei Shearim(Tel Aviv, 1989), pp. 4a-b. Haver, a student of the Gaon of Vilna and the kabbalistic school of R. Menahem Mendel of Sklov, appears to read the zimzumas literal rather than metaphorical. Haver's position on zimzumis largely an adaptation of R. Moses Hayyim Luzatto. See his Kelah (138) Pithei Hokhma(Bnei Brak, 1992), especially nos. 24, 25, 26, pp. 59–72. The early Hasidic rendering, which sought to stress the immanence of God rather than His transcendence, opts for a more metaphorical reading of zimzum.This would exclude R. Nahman of Bratzlav, who also renders zimzumin a literal fashion. See his Likkutei MoHaRan(Jerusalem, 1976) 1:64 and 11:12. For more on this, see Tamar Ross, “Two Interpretations of Zimzum:R. Hayyim of Volozhin and R. Schneur Zalman of Liady” [Hebrew], Mehkarei Yerushalayim2 (1982): 153–169.Google Scholar

71. On this, see Moshe Idel, “On the Concept of Zimzumin Kabbala and Research” [Hebrew], Mekharei Yerushalayim10 (1992): 59–103.Google Scholar

72. It is not at all clear whether we are speaking of Keterof Nukvaor Zeir Anpinof Yesirahof the entire Nukvaof Zeir Anpin.In Sha'ar Mamrei Rashbi(Jerusalem, 1991, parshat kedoshim,p. 36b, we have the following description, “You already know that Nukvaof Azilutis called the Garden of Eden and only his [Adam's] throat [garon]was in the Garden. Below that [i.e., the rest of his body] was outside the Garden in this way. His entire body was in the lower sephirotof Yesirahand the first four sephirot of Asiah.”However, as we will see later, the world of Asiahbefore the sin was called Malkhut Nukvaof Yesirah.which separated from Yesirah its male partner as the result of the sin. The importance of Adam's already being in Asiah,even though it had yet to descend into the kelipot,is that he had to be rooted in that world in order to be able to function there after the sin. See also the different descriptions of this realm in Sha 'ar Ha-Pesukim,p. Id [middle] and Sha 'ar Ha-Likkutim,p. 9a.Google Scholar

73. Sefer Ha-Likkutim,p. 51 bottom. In this text I intentionally translated the term ibirrur)in a number of ways. I used either “purified,” “cleansed,” “sifted” or “elevated.” In truth the term encompasses all four meanings. I used them interchangeably depending on what I determined best represented the meaning of its usage in that particular context. For Scholem's understanding of birrurin Lurianic kabbala, cf. “Tradition and New Creation in the Ritual of the Kabbalists,” On the Kabbala and Its Symbolism(New York, 1965), p. 129.Google Scholar

74. The reason that Abbacould not integrate into the consciousness of Zeir Anpinwas that it needed to enter the middle channel of Zeir,through Da 'at, Jiferet, Yesod.This could not be done because Imma(who carried Abbawithin her) was only embodied by the first third of Tiferetof Zeir.Below that she would be exposed and thus be vulnerable to the Dinimwhich resulted from the shevirah.Thus Abbaremained inside Immauntil the sin that resulted in the artifical and ill-timed exposure of Abbato the Dinim,which caused the descent of Asiahfrom its place as Nukvaof Yesirahto the depths of the kelipot.Google Scholar

75. In Likkutei Torah,p. 13b, it is called Nukvaof Azilut.Google Scholar

76. Note in the text from Sha 'ar Mamrei Rashbi,p. 36d, quoted above that they were created in Yezeriahand Asiah,although the text in question does not mention Asiahuntil after the sin. This is probably due to the fact mentioned above that Asiahwas Nukvaof Yezeriah(or, in some texts, Azilut)and thus not independent until after the sin.Google Scholar

77. It is also significant that the serpent (called in Etz Hayyim, Shadai)was also rooted in this realm and thus served to house the Dinim.Cf. Etz HayyimII, p. 47a.Google Scholar

78. The notion here that Asiah (malkhut,the feminine) is independent onlyas a result of the sin and that the feminine will be subsumed in the male after the tikkunreflects a trend in earlier kabbala. This has recently been argued by Wolfson in his study, “Women–Feminine as Other in Theosophical Kabbala: Some Philosophical Observations on the Divine Androgyne,” in The Other in Jewish History and Thought,ed. L. J. Silberstein and R. L. Cohn (New York, 1994), pp. 166–204. Wolfson argues that in medieval theosophic kabbala, the ideal state is when the female is integrated into the male, and “in the moment of union, [the female] is turned around so that she stands face to face with the masculine attribute of mercy. In this regard, however, her otherness is effaced as she becomes reintegrated into the male” (p. 190). The Lurianists have a slighly different locution in that both male and female are equally “back to back” and simultaneously turn toward each other in union. However, I think Wolfson's theory holds up in the Lurianic rendering in the case that Nukvaof Yesirahis an appendage of the male Yesirahand only independent as the result of sin. Thus, the independence of the feminine in this case is not desired nor is it permanent. For a further discussion of this in medieval theosophic kabbala, see Wolfson, “Erasing the Erasure: Gender and the Writing of God's Body in Kabbalistic Symbolism,” in idem Circle in the Square: Studies in the Use of Gender in Kabbalistic Symbolism(Albany, N.Y., 1995), pp. 49–78. I would like to thank Prof. Wolfson for providing me with the manuscript before its publication.Google Scholar

79. See Likkutei Torah,p. 13b, where Adam's body parts are decribed as encompassing Eretz Yisrael (Yesirah),Babylonia and “faraway lands.” Cf. Sha 'ar Mamrei Rashbi,p. 37b, on the talmudic statement in Sanhedrin 38b that most of Adam was bom in Eretz Yisraelbut his buttocks were from outside (Hutz I 'Aretz).Google Scholar

80. This somewhat reflects the stance of the Bahir,where the female is a part of the male body of Adam. Cf. Sefer Ha-Bahir,ed. R. Margaliot (Jerusalem, 1978), pars 168 and 172.Google Scholar

81. The biblical Garden of Eden is divided into two theosophical realms, the upper garden and the lower garden. The upper garden embodies the world of Beriah(more specifically yesodof Beriah)and the lower garden is malkhutof Asiah.These two realms are central in the Lurianic nocturnal ritual of tikkun hazot.Cf. Pri Etz Hayyim,pp. 81d-82b, R. Ya'akov Hayyim Zemah, Nagid u Mitzvah(Parmeshlan ed.), p. 12, and R. Emmanuel Hai Rikki, Mishnat Hasidism(Jerusalem, 1985), pp. 67b-70a. Cf. my “Conjugal Union, Mourning and Talmud Torah in R. Isaac Luna's Tikkun Hazot,” Da 'at36 (1995): xvii-xlv.Google Scholar

82. This is touched upon by Yoram, Jakobson in “The Aspect of the Feminine in Lurianic Kabbala,” in Gershom Scholem's “Major Trends”: 50 Years After(Tubingen, 1994), pp. 239–255. However, I think that Jakobson did not adequately address the fact that, from our texts, the independent staus of the female only emerges as the result of the sin, even though Eve was created before the sin.Google Scholar

83. See also Sha'ar Ha-Pesukim,p. 4a; Sha'ar Ha-Kavannot, Drush Rosh Ha-Shana1, p. 91; and 'Olat Tamid(Jerusalem, n.d.), “Drush Rosh Ha-Shana.”This verse is also used to. describe the need for sexual union and the recitation of tikkun hazotonly after midnight. Adam's sleep is understood as the elevation of his consciousness to the parzuf'of Arikh Anpinin order to create Eve. Cf. Pri Etz Hayyim,p. 81 c, and Sha 'ar Ha-Kavannot.p. 52a. For another interpretation of this verse which introduces the two wives of Adam (Lilith and Eve), the first representing ezem(bone–Lilith and Leah) and the second representing basar(flesh–Eve and Rachel), see Etz Hayyim,Gate 39, chap. 2, p. 61a. The correlation between the two wives of Adam and the two wives of Jacob is an important motif in Lurianic reading. Cf. 60d and Etz Hayyim, Sha'ar Ha-Kelallim,chap. 13. For earlier conceptions of Lillith, see Joseph Dan, “Samael, Lilith, and the Concept of Evil in Early Kabbala,” reprinted in Essential Papers on Kabbala,ed. L. Fine (New York, 1995), pp. 154–178.Google Scholar

84. The sleep which Adam experienced (Genesis 2:21) is read by the Lurianists to mean that Adam was, in a sense, re-created in the palace of Abbaand Immaconcomitant with Eve.Google Scholar

85. For other readings similar to this, cf. Etz HayyimII Gate 36, chap. 4, Gate 39, chap. 1, Sha 'ar Mamrei Hazal, Sha 'ar Ha-Kelipot,chap. 3, and the important discussion in Sha 'ar Ha-Kavannot,pp. 57b-58a. The distinction between the temporal union of Zeirand Nukvaand the continuous union of Abbaand Imma(in that they are above the power of the kelipot)is highly nuanced. Cf. Sha 'ar Ha-Kavannot, “Drush Layla3,” pp. 53a-b, where this distinction is seen through the evening prayer service (ma 'ariv).“When the Temple existed, the upper union {Abbaand Imma]was ”face to face“ in order to bring forth new souls. After its destruction, our prayers can only [reinstate that union] temporarily to bring forth new souls 'back to back.' Therefore, we say the Shema prayer during the evening prayer to unify Abbaand Immaand through that union unify Zeir Anpinand Nukva.Afterward, during the Eighteen Benedictions, their children [i.e., Zeir Anpinand Nukva]are unified, as is known.”Google Scholar

86. The nature of male and female cosmic intercourse is far more complex than stated in the body of the present study. For more comprehensive treatments, see G. Scholem, “The Feminine Element in Divinity,” in The Mystical Shape of the Godhead(New York, 1991), pp. 140–196; E. R. Wolfson, “Female Imaging of the Torah: From Literary Metaphor to Religious Symbol,” in From Ancient Judaism to Modern Intellect in Quest of Understanding: Essays in Honor of Marvin Fox(Atlanta, 1989), vol. 2, pp. 295–305; and Yoram Jacobson, “The Aspect of the Feminine in the Lurianic Kabbala.” Directly relevant to our concerns, see Sha 'ar Ha-Pesukim,p. 5a.Google Scholar

87. See above, p. 63.Google Scholar

88. The nature of evil and sin is a highly complex network of ideas in Lurianic kabbala. For a comprehensive treatment, see Tishby, ToratHa-Ra ve Ha-Kelipah.As is well known, the Sabbatean heretics based their stance of the necessity of sin to facilitate tikkunon Lurianic texts, and indeed a precedent for such readings does exist. The need to descend in order to repair is a fundamental principle in the Lurianic understanding of the creation (birth) of Adam and Eve and the fulfillment of mankind. Cf. Mevo Shearim,pp. ISc-d. Obviously the Sabbateans read it quite literally and thus may have fallen victim to the dangers of kabbalistic literalism which so many warned about. See Scholem, “Redemption Through Sin,” in The Messianic Idea in Judaism(New York, 1971), pp. 78–141. The notion of descent for the sake of ascent is also quite common in Hasidic readings of Lurianic material, although the Hasidic rendering does not practically take the individual out of the halakhic context as it did in radical Sabbateanism. On this see Yehuda Leibes, “Ha-Jikkun Ha-Kelaliof R. Nahman of Bratslav and Its Sabbatean Links,” in Studies in Jewish Myth and Jewish Messianism(Albany, N.Y., 1993), pp. 115–150, esp. pp. 128–150Google Scholar

89. The use of the term birth in medieval kabbala vis-à-vis cosmogony may be founded on Sefer Yezera3:2, “Three Mothers: Aleph, Mem, Shin,A great secret covered and sealed with six rings. And from them emanated air, water, fire. And from them bornfathers, and from the fathers descendants.” Compare with Sefer Yezera6:1. This image may be rooted in Exodus Rabba 15:22, “The waters conceived and gave birth to darkness; fire conceived and gave birth to light; spirit (ruah)conceived and gave birth to Wisdom.” For an explanation of the midrashic image of birth, see Azriel, R. of Gerona, Perush Ha-Aggadot le-Rav Azriel,ed. Tishby, I. (Jerusalem, 1943), pp. 86–91.Google Scholar

90. See Tikkunei Zohar,pp. 99a, 106c and 107a/b. Cf. P. Giller, The Enlightened Will Shine: Symbolization and Theurgy in the Later Strata of the Zohar(Albany, N.Y., 1993), pp. 59–80. On the two trees as symbolic of the unredeemed world and the redeemed world, see Scholem, “Toward an Understanding of the Messianic Idea in Judaism,” in The Messianic Idea in Judaism,pp. 22–23.Google Scholar

91. See Vital's Introduction to Sha 'ar Hakamot,p. Id, “To those hokhmei ha-peshatwho are not interested in the 'true wisdom' which is called Etz Hayyimand Eternal Life and busy themselves only with peshat,saying that the Torah deals only with peshat,God forbid, which is called Etz Ha-Da 'at Tov ve Ra.On them the sages say that they know neither good nor evil. Because they are not interested in Etz Hayyim,God does not help them. They study the simple Etz Ha-Da 'at Tov ve Ra,turn it into evil, making the impure pure, forbid the permissible and make that which is not kosher, kosher. Many mistakes come from them.” See., p. 4d, “Thus I have called this work according to my name the book of Etz Hayyimand also on this awesome wisdom, the wisdom of the Zohar, which is called Etz Hayyimand not Etz Ha-Da 'at.”This startling reformulation of the anti-peshattradition of Tikkunei Zoharis striking in that R. Hayyim Vital was not living in a polemical age vis-a-vis the status of Kabbalah. It is also worth noting that Vital, before meeting Luria, composed a book entitled Etz Ha-Da 'at,although its title may have come only after his “conversion” to kabbala. Also, as Elliot Wolfson has pointed out in “Maiden Without Eyes,” the position of the main body of the Zohar is far more integrative vis-a-vis peshatand sod.Therefore, such a severe position was not necessary to be a devoted follower of the Zohar. In light of my contention regarding the way Lurianic texts read Scripture, I think the more radical Tikkunei Zoharposition makes more sense for Vital. For other Lurianic sources which work according to this assumption, see Sha 'ar Ha-Mitzvot(Jerusalem, 1980), p. 83, and R. Meir Poppers ed., Pri Etz Hayyim(Jerusalem, 1980), p. 356. For the more synthetic position of R. Moshe Cordovero, see 'Or Yakarto Ra 'aya Mehemna(Jerusalem, 1987), p. 5:87, and Wolfson “Maiden Without Eyes,” p. 172.Google Scholar

92. It is not unusual for the sephiroticterminology of Hokhmaand Binahto be used to represent the parzufim Abbaand Imma.Google Scholar

93. Likkutei Torah,p. 4d.Google Scholar

94. As stated earlier, the vulnerability is the result of its being exposed to the kelipotby not being embodied by the sephirot of Zeir Anpin.The paradoxical nature of the entire system is that the shefafrom above must enter into that which is below it, but must do so in a manner in which it is protected. However, if it is protected it cannot fully faciliate tikkun.Thus the light must eventually venture out but do so when the kelipothave been adequately weakened and/or the light becomes strong enough to remain untainted. This entire process would have been completed through time but, after the sin, must be aided by human action.Google Scholar

95. Cf. Zohar 1.27a. In this regard the Zohar differs fundamentally from our Lurianic texts in that the Zohar understands the middle channel (Da 'at–Tiferet–Yesod)as the Tree of Life. Moreover, in Tikkunei Zohar,the middle channel is represented by the Patriarch Jacob, who is deemed “shalem”(complete).Google Scholar

96. Luria's positive view of death reflects and deepens the rabbinic view. See R. Meir's drashon me'odand mavetin Genesis Rabba 9:5. Cf. a similar reading in Exodus Rabba 31:10.Google Scholar

97. Thus, the notion of 8multiple pregnancies and rebirth in the form of gilgulimare so important in Lurianic kabbala. For an analysis of iburin Lurianic kabbala, see M. Pachter, “Katnutand Gadlutin Lurianic Kabbala” [Hebrew], pp. 172–184.

98. The image of death is viewed according to Lurianic kabbala as the central motif for the prayer of supplication (tahanun)which follows the Eighteen Benedictions in the morning and afternoon prayers. Cf. Sha'ar Ha-Kavannot,p. 47a. The Zohar speaks of the “Tree of Death” which the Zaddikmust surrender to in the moment of supreme ecstasy in order to complete a particular tikkun.Cf. Zohar 3.120b. See also Y. Liebes, Studies in the Zohar,pp. 63–74, and M. Fishbane, The Kiss of God: Spiritual and Mystical Death in Judaism(Seattle 1994), pp. 106–120.