¹ The scholarly literature on this issue is vast. As a representative philosophical treatment of the problem, see McCloskey, H. J., “God and Evil,” in Pike, Nelson, ed., God and Evil (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1964) 61–84.Google Scholar

² The classical formulation of evil as the privation of the good are to be found in Plotinus Enn. 1.8 (the following citations are taken from the Loeb edition of Plotinus translated by A. H. Armstrong). Cf. Enn. 1.8.1: “evil … appears in the absence of every sort of good”; “the better [i.e., the good] is Form, and the worse [i.e., evil] is nothing but privation (στέρησις) of form.” See Enn. 1.8.3: “evil cannot be included in what really exists [i.e., Intellect or Soul] or in what is beyond existence [the One], for these are good. So it remains that if evil exists, it must be among non-existent things, as a sort of form of non-existence (εἶδός τι το μ ντος).” Plotinus further identifies matter as the principle of absolute evil insofar as the quality of formlessness or privation essentially characterizes matter; all bodies, on the other hand, which participate in matter are said to be “secondary” evil. See Enn. 1.8.6: “But when something is absolutely deficient—and this is matter—this is essential evil without any share in good.” See, however, Enn. 5.8.7: “Then matter too is a sort of ultimate form (εἶδός τι ἔσχατον).” A key Platonic text for the Plotinian conception is Theaetetus 176a: “Evils … can never be done away, for the good must always have its contrary, nor have they any place in the divine world; but they must needs haunt this region of our moral nature. … In the divine there is no shadow of unrighteousness, only the perfection of righteousness.” On the view that only good can be attributed to God, see further below, n. 6. The Plotinian position became the most widely accepted view in subsequent Christian writers. See Ps-Dionysius the Areopagite, The Divine Names and Mystical Theology (trans. John Jones; Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1980) 73–88Google Scholar, 148–62 = Divine Names 4.18–35; Russell, J. B., Satan: The Early Christian Tradition (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981) 109–12Google Scholar, 128–29, 202–3; Jolivet, Régis, Le problème du mal d'après Saint Augustin (Paris: Beauchesne, 1936) 28–43Google Scholar, 131–62; Maritain, Jacques, Saint Thomas and the Problem of Evil (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1942)Google Scholar. For a parallel to this line of reasoning in the medieval Jewish tradition, cf. Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed (trans. S. Pines; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963) III. 10. 438–40.Google Scholar

³ Perhaps the best known form of this dualism is that of Iranian Zoroastrianism, which sets a good and evil at the beginning of world history. Yet, as scholars have argued, even the dualism of Sassanian and Gathic Zoroastrianism was qualified inasmuch as the “Wise Lord” is both ontologically superior and chronologically prior to the evil spirit. See Shaked, S., “Some Notes on Ahreman, the Evil Spirit, and His Creation,” in Urbach, E. E., Werblowsky, R. J. Zwi, and Wirszubski, Ch., eds., Studies in Mysticism and Religion presented to Gershom Scholem (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967) 227–34Google Scholar. And see the comprehensive study by Zaehner, R. C., Zurvan, A Zoroastrian Dilemma (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955)Google Scholar. A species of this type of dualism, in one form or another, characterizes the syncretistic phenomenon of Gnosticism which flourished in the first centuries of the Common Era. Various explanations for the origin of Gnostic dualism have been given by scholars, most notably Hans Jonas, who distinguished between two kinds of Gnostic dualism: (1) the “Iranian,” represented by the Mandaean and Manichaean writings, which affirmed an eternal opposition between the forces of good and evil; and (2) the “Syro-Egyptian” strand, represented by the Nag Hammadi texts and the systems described by the Church Fathers, in which evil—the material world—derives from a “tragic split” in the godhead, a fall within the divine realm. Cf. Jonas, Hans, Gnosis und spätantiker Geist (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1939) 1Google Scholar. 256–67, 328–31. For a succinct summary of the different Gnostic views, see Rudolph, Kurt, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism (trans. R. McL. Wilson; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983) 59–67Google Scholar. And see also Stroumsa, G. G., Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology (NHS 24; Leiden: Brill, 1984) 17–34Google Scholar, who traces the basis of the “Gnostic mythological consciousness of evil” to a “radical transformation” of the Jewish apocalyptic myth of the Fallen Angels.

⁴ See the description of evil in Russell, J. B., The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977) 17–35.Google Scholar

⁵ The view that God is the author only of the good can likewise be traced to Plato; cf. Republic 379c: “for the good we must assume no other cause than God, but the cause of evil we must look for in other things and not God.” See also the citation from Theaetetus given above, n. 2. According to Philo Quod omnis probus liber 12.84, the Essenes maintained “the belief that the deity is the cause of all good, but of no evil.” On several occasions Philo himself maintains that God is the cause only of the good, and evil is caused by the powers or subordinates to God; see Wolfson, Harry Austryn, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1947) 1. 272–73.Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. Licht, J., “An Analysis of the Treatise of the Two Spirits in DSD,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 4 (1958) 88–99Google Scholar; Leaney, A. R. C., The Rule of Qumran and Its Meaning (Phildaelphia: Westminster, 1966) 37–56Google Scholar; P. Wemberg-Moller, “A Reconsideration of the Two Spirits in the Rule of the Community (1QS III, 13-IV, 26),” RevQ 3 (1961–62) 413–41. See also Gammie, J., “Spatial and Ethical Dualism in Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic Literature,” JBL 93 (1974) 356–85Google Scholar. Some scholars have argued that even Zoroastrian dualism is not absolute “metaphysical dualism” inasmuch as the evil spirit, as the good spirit, derives from the one “Wise Lord”; see above, n. 3. In a certain respect there is a fundamental inconsistency in the Qumran doctrine for, on the one hand, God is said to be the creator of both spirits, evil and good, yet, on the other hand, the eschatological culmination of history is envisioned as a time when the sons of light would rise up and conquer—indeed destroy—the sons of darkness. (For a similar tension in Zoroastrianism, see Zaehner, R. C., The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism [New York: Putnam's, 1961] 308–16.)Google Scholar If one begins from the monotheistic premise that God creates both good and evil, then the rabbinic ideal that one must worship God with both the good and evil inclinations (cf. m. Ber. 9.5; Sifre Deut. pisqa 32, p. 55) must be seen as a more logically consistent doctrine. For the rabbinic affirmation of God as creating the good and evil inclinations, a form of ethical dualism not unrelated to the Qumran doctrine, cf. Bereshit Rah. I, 14.4, p. 128; Tg. Ps-Jonathan on Gen 2:7; Sifre Deut. pisqa 45, p. 103; Schechter, S., Aspects of Rabbinic Theology (New York: Schocken, 1961) 290 n. 3Google Scholar; Urbach, E. E., The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1978) 416–17Google Scholar n. 2. And cf. the interpretation of Eccl 7:14, “God has made one even as the other,” attributed to R. Akiba in b. Hag. 15a: “He created the righteous and he created the wicked, he created the Garden of Eden and he created Gehinnom.” For an analysis of this text, see Segal, A., Two Powers in Heaven (Leiden: Brill, 1977) 22Google Scholar. See also the interesting parallel to this passage in Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana, pisqa 28, p. 426: “‘God has made the one even as the other,’ God has made the righteous and the wicked, as it is written ‘Then his brother emerged, holding on to the heel of Esau’ (Gen 25:26). R. Pinhas [in the name of] R. Hilkiah in the name of R. Simon said: not even a rib was between them, and the one emerged righteous and the other wicked.” In this case the wicked created by God has been subsumed typologically under the figure of Esau and the righteous under the figure of Jacob; see below, n. 34. On the appellation “wicked” for Esau in rabbinic sources, see I. Aminoff, “The Figures of Esau and the Kingdom of Edom in Palestinian Midrashic-Talmudic Literature in the Tannaitic and Amoraic Periods” (Ph.D. diss., Melbourne University, 1981) 15–17, 27–28, and passim. It must be pointed out, however, that certain rabbinic statements reflect the apocalyptic view that posited an abrogation of the evil inclination at the end of time; see below, n. 11. Cf. also the following interpretation of Ps 5:5, “evil cannot abide in You,” in Midrash Tehilim 5.7: “For You do not dwell by evil nor evil by You.” Though the fuller context of this passage is not clear, it would seem that the midrashist wants to reove evil from God in a way that would be analogous to the Platonic tradition.

⁷ On the author of the Zohar, assumed by scholars to be Moses ben Shem Tov de León (ca. 1240–1305), see Scholem, Gershom, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken, 1961) 156–204Google Scholar; idem, Kabbalah (Jerusalem: Keter, 1972) 213–42; Tishby, I., Mishnat ha-Zohar (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1971) 1Google Scholar. 103–8; Matt, D., Zohar: The Book of Enlightenment (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1983) 3–10Google Scholar; and my dissertation, ”Sefer ha-Rimmon: Critical Edition and Introductory Study” (Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 1986) 1–43.

⁸ For the purposes of this study I am limiting my analysis to the main body of the Zohar. On the various literary strata which make up the Zohar, see Scholem, Major Trends, 159–62. The editions used in preparation of this article were Sefer ha-Zohar, (ed. Margaliot, R.; Jerusalem: ha-Rav Kook, 1984)Google Scholar; Zohar Hadash (ed. Margaliot, R.; Jerusalem: ha-Rav Kook, 1978)Google Scholar; Tiqqunei Zohar (ed. Margaliot, R.; Jerusalem: ha-Rav Kook, 1978). Citations refer to volume and page number.Google Scholar

⁹ Tishby, Mishnat ha-Zohar, 1. 294–95. The problem of evil in the Zohar was also discussed briefly by Scholem in Major Trends, 235–39, and more fully in idem, “Sitra achra: Gut und Böse in der Kabbala,” in idem, Von der mystischen Gestalt der Gottheit (Zürich: Rhein, 1962) 49–82. Like Tishby, Scholem also tended to emphasize the “gnostic” or dualistic dimension of the Zohar's treatment, though he too noted that at times the author of the Zohar affirmed a more monistic, even pantheistic, approach, stressing that there is only one continuous reality in existence.Google Scholar

¹⁰ This theme is especially emphasized in connection with certain commandments whose purpose is to separate the divine and demonic realms. Furthermore, the position of Israel vis-à-vis the other nations is viewed in terms of this separation of demonic and divine realms. Cf. Baer, Yitzhak, A History of the Jews in Christian Spain (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1961) 1. 246–47Google Scholar; Tishby, Mishnat ha-Zohar, 1. 290–92; Morris Faierstein, “’God's Need for the Commandments’ in Medieval Kabbalah,” Conservative Judaism 36 (1982) 50–51; Katz., Jacob “Halakhic Discussions in the Zohar,” in idem, Halakha and Kabbalah: Studies in the History of Jewish Religion, its Various Faces and Social Relevance (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984) 44Google Scholar. In my dissertation on ”Sefer ha-Rimmon,” 1. 118–23, I have discussed this motif specifically as it appears in that work; see my article, “Mystical Rationalization of the Commandments in Sefer ha-Rimmon,” HUCA 59 (1988).Google Scholar

¹¹ See Tishby, Mishnat ha-Zohar, 1. 298–301; idem, The Doctrine of Evil and the ‘Kelippah’ in Lurianic Kabbalism (in Hebrew, ; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984)Google Scholar. For a discussion of the possible literary sources for this imagery, see Alexander Altmann, “The Motif of the ‘Shells’ in Azriel of Gerona,” in idem, Studies in Religious Philosophy and Mysticism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1969) 172–79.Google Scholar

¹² Cf. e.g., Zohar 2.41a, 108b [see below, n. 63], 199b, 258a; 3.54a. The Zoharic view is based on the rabbinic legend, itself based on earlier apocalyptic sources, mentioned in b. Sukk. 52a concerning the complete obliteration of the evil inclination in the messianic era. Cf. Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, 290 n. 3; Urbach, The Sages, 416–17 n. 2. It should be noted, however, that it is possible to interpret the Zoharic idea concerning the annihilation of the demonic in the messianic future as an affirmation of the reintegration of the demonic into the divine rather than an affirmation of the dualistic stance. See in particular the interpretation of Deut 32:39 in Zohar 2.108b: “In that [messianic] time it is written, ‘See, then, that I, I am He, there is no God beside Me’ … The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Then you will see that which you could not see beforehand. ‘That I, I,’ why is [the pronoun repeated] two times? To emphasize that at that time there will be no God but Him … the Other Side [the demonic realm] will be removed … for nothing of the pollution [with which, according to rabbinic tradition, the serpent inseminated Eve; cf. b. Šabbat 16a and parallels] will be left in the world and the world will be one.” In this regard it is interesting to further note that in his Hebrew theosophic writings de Léon sometimes stresses the pantheistic view, particularly in contexts where the demonic realm is discussed; see Wolfson, ”Sefer ha-Rimmon,” 2. 268:7–14. 301:6–10, 313:11–13.

¹³ See Scholem, Gershom, “The Kabbalah of R. Jacob and R. Isaac Kohen,” Maddaʿei ha-Yahadut 2 (1927) 193–97 (in Hebrew); idem, Les origines de la Kabbale (Paris: Aubier-Montaigne, 1966) 310–16; idem, Kabbalah. 55–57.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Cf. the following remark of the late thirteenth-century kabbalist, Isaac of Acre: “‘For aliens entered the sacred areas of the Lord's House’ (Jer 51:51)—‘Aliens’ alludes to the outer gradations [sc. the demonic realm] … This is the way of the kabbalists of Sefarad [i.e., Castile] who merited to receive the kabbalah of the outer gradations. However, the kabbalists of Catalonia [i.e., Gerona] received a proper kabbalah concerning the ten sefirot belimah [the holy emanations] but did not receive anything with respect to the outer gradations.” The passage is cited by Ephraim Gottlieb, Studies In the Kabbala Literature (in Hebrew; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1976) 341–42. See also Liebes, Yehuda, “The Messiah of the Zohar” in The Messianic Idea in Jewish Thought: A Study Conference in Honour of the Eightieth Birthday of Gershom Scholem (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1982) 124–25. Yet, as Scholem noted (Les origines, 306–16), already in the writings of Isaac the Blind of Provence, one can discern a doctrine of dual forces, the holy and the unholy, albeit in a very rudimentary form. This accords with the testimony of Isaac ha-Kohen that he found in Aries ancient documents espousing the Gnostic doctrine.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Cf. Scholem, Les origines, 59–211; idem, Kabbalah, 42–44. According to Scholem, the work, pseudepigraphically attributed to R. Nehuniah ben ha-Qanah of second-century Palestine, actually appeared in Provence sometime in the second half of the twelfth century. Scholem did not, however, rule out the possibility of earlier sources for the Bahir originating in the East, such as the Raza Rabba (“Great Mystery”) dating from the ninth or tenth century and preserved in the writings of the thirteenth-century German pietists. See Scholem, Reshit ha-Qabbalah (Tel Aviv: Schocken, 1948) 41–49, 195–238; idem, Les origines, 194–201. Other scholars have substantiated Scholem's claim that the Bahir appeared in Provence by drawing attention to similarities between it and certain Catharic doctrines that surfaced in that area during that time. See Lehmann, O. H., “The Theology of the Mystical Book Bahir and its Sources,” StPatr 1 (1957) 477–83Google Scholar; Shulamit Shahar, “Catharism and the Beginnings of the Kabbalah in Languedoc: Elements Common to Catharic Scriptures and the Book Bahir,” Tarbiz 40 (1971) 483–509 (in Hebrew). Cf. also Dan, Joseph, “Midrash and the Dawn of Kabbalah,” in Hartmann, G. and Budick, S., eds., Midrash and Literature (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986) 127–40Google Scholar. When evaluating Scholem's hypothesis one should keep in mind that the other major school of mystical speculation in Provence during this time, the school of Abraham ben David and his son, Isaac the Blind, developed a kabbalistic terminology that is almost entirely independent of the theosophy of the Bahir. If the latter work did emerge at this time and place, one would expect to find some influence of it upon these other mystics. Scholem argued (Les origines, 224 n. 17, 225), however, that in several cases the influence of the Bahir on Provencal kabbalists, such as Jacob the Nazir, was evident. In addition, Scholem noted that some of the fragments attributed to the Hasid, i.e., Isaac the Blind, in the supercommentary on Nahmanides' commentary on the Pentateuch attributed to Meir ibn Sahula contain citations from the Bahir; see Les origines, 53. The first to make extensive use of the Bahir, as far as I am aware, are Isaac's disciples, the Spanish kabbalists who wrote in Gerona in the first part of the thirteenth century. See the comments of Moshe Idel, “The Sefirot above the Sefirot,” Tarbiz 51 (1981) 239 (in Hebrew); and Dan, Joseph, “Mysticism in Jewish History, Religion and Literature,” in idem and Talmage, Frank, eds., Studies in Jewish Mysticism (Cambridge: Association for Jewish Studies, 1982) 11–12Google Scholar. Cf. also the following remark of Isaac of Acre in his Ozrot Hayyim (MS Jewish Theological Seminary Mic. 1674 [ENA 1589] fol. 133b: “The sages of Catalonia [sc. Gerona] rely on a strong foundation which is the Sefer Bahir, and the sages of Sefarad [sc. Castile] rely on a firm foundation which is the Sefer ha-Zohar.” The specific distinction which Isaac of Acre draws between the two schools centers around the tradition concerning demonic forces: whereas the kabbalists of Castile received such a tradition, the kabbalists of Gerona did not; see preceding note. What is of interest to emphasize for our purposes is the particular connection made between the Geronese kabbalists and the Bahir.

¹⁶ See Sefer ha-Bahir (ed. Reuven Margaliot; Jerusalem: ha-Rav Kook, 1978) §§ 162–63. According to one fragment attributed to Isaac the Blind by ibn Sahula (see n. 15), the former likewise identified the forces of impurity as emanating from the left side of God, the sefirah of pahad or gevurah; see Scholem, Les origines, 310.

¹⁷ Moses, of Burgos, “The Left Pillar,” ed. Scholem, , Tarbiz 4 (1933) 209.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ozar ha-Kavod ha-Shalem (Jerusalem: Maqor, 1970) 3a.

¹⁹ “The Left Pillar,” 209; Oẓar ha-Kavod ha-Shalem, 24a.

²⁰ According to some kabbalists, e.g., R. Isaac ha-Kohen, the left emanations derived from the third divine gradation, Binah, whereas according to other kabbalists, e.g., R. Moses of Burgos, the demonic powers derived from the fifth emanation, Din or Gevurah. Cf. Scholem, “Sitra achra,” 54–57.

²¹ Cf. Tishby, Mishnat ha-Zohar, 1. 292, 295–98.

²² “The Left Pillar,” 211.

²³ Ibid., 208–9.

²⁴ Cf. Scholem, “The Kabbalah of R. Jacob and R. Isaac Kohen,” 263.

²⁵ Ibid., 264.

²⁶ Cf. Tishby, Mishnat ha-Zohar, 1. 288–89. I have discussed the various nuances of the structural parallelism between the holy and satanic realms in the Zohar in my essay, “Left Contained in the Right: A Study in Zoharic Hermeneutics,” AJS Review 11 (1986) 29–30.Google Scholar

²⁷ Wolfson, “Left Contained in the Right,” 31–32.

²⁸ Cf. Gottlieb, Kabbala Literature, 178–82; Liebes, Y., Sections of the Zohar Lexicon (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1976) 147; M. Idel, “The Evil Thought of the Deity,” Tarbiz 49 (1980) 356–64 (in Hebrew). Idel compares the Zoharic notion of the emergence of the demonic powers as a result of the purgation of evil from the divine thought to the Zervanite myth of the birth of the evil Ahriman from the evil thought of Zurvan.Google Scholar

²⁹ See Zohar 3.292b (Idra Zuta); 2.254b; and cf. 3.48b, where the primordial forces of judgment. the 325 sparks that emerge from the “flame of darkness” (boẓina de-qardinuta), are identified as the hairs which are on the head of supernal Man; when the hairs are removed, then the forces of judgment are ameliorated and the Man is purified. As a result the “man of war” (Exod 15:3) becomes the “perfect and upright man” (Job 1:1), the “righteous one” (Gen 6:9). It is significant that in this context it is one being—and not two—who is transformed from a state of impurity to purity, an idea substantiated by Job 14:4; see below, n. 46, where the relevant portion of the text is translated. From the further description of the head of this Man as being “red like a rose” and of the hair likewise being red, it is clear that the proto-demonic force is being portrayed in accordance with the scriptural account of Esau (see Gen 25:25). Cf. Zohar 1.153a where Esau is described in almost the exact terms as the primal Man is in this context. Similarly, the Bible (Gen 27:11) describes Jacob as being “smooth-skinned” in comparison to Esau who is hairy. Hence, just as Esau emerges before Jacob, the hairy one before the smooth-skinned one, so the forces of judgment, whence come the lower forces of impurity, emerge before the forces of mercy. On Esau as a symbol for the demonic, see further below, n. 35. On the Zoharic conception, boẓina de-qardinuta, see Liebes, Zohar Lexicon, 145–51, 161–64; Matt,Zohar, 207–8.

³⁰ See Zohar 2.108b, 176b (Sifra di-Ẓeniʿuta); 3.128b (Idra Rabba); 142a (Idra Rabba); 292a (Idra Zuṭa). Cf. Tishby, Mishnat ha-Zohar, 1. 138, 150; Liebes, “Messiah of the Zohar,” 219–21. As Liebes points out (219), the kabbalistic conception was probably influenced by the midrashic idea (cf. Bereshit Rab. 12.15) that initially God wanted to create the world with judgment but then combined mercy and judgment together. See following note.

³¹ Cf. Bereshit Rab. 9.2, 68; see Zohar 2.34b. The source for this mythical image is R. Isaac ha-Kohen, according to whom the ten emanations of the left comprise “three worlds which were created and destroyed,” corresponding to the three upper divine gradations and seven archons which do battle against the seven lower divine gradations. See Scholem, “The Kabbalah of R. Jacob and R. Isaac Kohen,” 194–95, 248–51. Cf. additional texts cited by Idel, “Evil Thought,” 359–60. R. Eleazar of Worms likewise connects this midrashic image of “worlds created and destroyed” with God's attempt to create the world exclusively by means of the evil inclination; see Dan, Joseph, The Esoteric Theology of Ashkhenazi Hasidim (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Bialik, 1978) 210–11; idem, “Samael, Lilith, and the Concept of Evil in Early Kabbalah,” AJS Review 5 (1980) 32–37.Google Scholar

³² Cf. Zohar 2.254b-55a; 3.292a. See Wolfson, ”Sefer ha-Rimmon,” 2. 268:20, where the worship of idolatry or the belief in other gods (i.e., the demonic realm of the Other Side) is said to derive from the “refuse of Thought.” It is clear, moreover, from that context (Ibid., 269) that the belief in the other gods is identical with philosophical reasoning. Cf. Zohar 2.124a: “R. Hiyya said, ‘[Make no mention of the] names of other gods’ (Exod 23:13). This refers to one who is occupied with other books which are not from the side of Torah.” It seems to me that “other books” here is a reference to books of philosophy. Yet, see Zohar 2.237a, and Zohar Ḥadash, 38a, where Greece is identified as that kingdom which is in closest proximity to the way of faith, i.e., Judaism. I assume that in these contexts there is a positive evaluation of philosophy. On the Zohar's complicated relationship to philosophy, see the remarks of Twersky, Isadore, Rabad of Posquières: A Twelfth-Century Talmudist (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962) 300 n. 65. See also Scholem, Major Trends, 173, 183, 194, 203, and the text from Sefer ha-Rimmon cited on 397–98 n. 154; Matt, Zohar, 22–23.Google Scholar

³³ Cf. Tishby, Mishnat ha-Zohar, 1. 296; Liebes, Zohar Lexicon, 320.

³⁴ It should be pointed out that in one passage the Zohar (2.108b) tries to uphold the ontological priority of Israel as against the chronological priority of Esau: “Israel is the upper kernel [literally, brain] of the world. Israel arose in the [divine] Thought first [cf. Bereshit Rab. 1.4, 6]. The idolatrous nations, which are the shell, preceded [Israel], as it is written, ‘And there are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the Israelites.’ “It is quite possible that the Zoharic interpretation of Gen 36:3Iff. is a symbolic depiction of the historical relationship between the Church and the Synagogue, i.e., Christianity, which is symbolically Edom or the demonic power, reigns before Judaism. Cf. Baer, Jews in Christian Spain, 1. 246–47; Liebes, “Messiah of the Zohar,” 196–97. On the symbolic correlation of Edom and Christianity, cf. Ginzberg, Louis, Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1968) 5Google Scholar. 272 n. 19; Cohen, G., “Esau as a Symbol in Early Medieval Thought,” in Altmann, A., ed., Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967) 27–30Google Scholar. On Esau (= Edom) as a symbol for the demonic power, see Zohar 1.137b-38a, 138b, 139a, 142b, 143a, 171b, 177a; 2.163b, 167a, 188b; 3.48b (see n. 29), 124a (Raʿaya Meheimna), 185a, 197a, 246b; Tiqqunei Zohar, § 59 (93a). Cf. the following text from MS Paris 859, fol. 16a, cited by Idel, “Evil Thought,” 358: “The forces of impurity emanate before the forces of purity, for at first the refuse is purified, and afterwards the forces of purity emerge. Thus it says, ‘The dross having been separated from the silver, a vessel emerged for the smith’ (Prov 25:4). So it is by Cain and Abel, Cain came out first from the refuse which is on the left side, and afterwards Abel who is from the side of mercy. And similarly by Esau and Jacob. And [it] says: Esau emerged from the dross of the gold. Therefore, Isaac loved Esau for he came from his dregs.“As Idel pointed out (Ibid., n. 8), the expression “dross of gold” betrays a Zoharic influence; cf. Zohar 3.50b. On the statement “Isaac loved Esau etc., “cf. Zohar 1.137b, 139a. The temporal precedence of the demonic over the holy is reflected as well in the Zoharic interpretation of the rite of circumcision whereby the unholy foreskin is removed and the holy corona disclosed; see Zohar 1.13a, 32a-b, 95a-b; 2.40a, 255b; 3.72b-73a; Tiqqunei Zohar, “Introduction” (1 la) and § 37 (78a). In this context, finally, it is of interest to consider the following fragment of the Ebionite Kerygmata Petrou that is extant in the Jewish-Christian Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, cited in NTApoc, 2. 121: “As in the beginning the one God, being as it were a right hand and a left, created first the heavens and then the earth, so also he assembled in pairs everything that follows. In the case of man, however, he no longer proceeded in this way, but he reversed every pair. For whereas he created what was stronger as the first and what was weaker as the second, in the case of man we find the opposite. … Thus from Adam … there sprang as the first the unrighteous Cain, as the second the righteous Abel. … And from Abraham … there issued two first, Ishmael first and then Isaac, who was blessed of God. From Isaac again there originated two, the godless Esau and the pious Jacob.” In the fuller version of the text (Ibid., 545–46) it is clear that the firstborn is identified as the feminine which derives from the “feeble left hand of God,” i.e., the evil one. The chain of associations is very close to the later kabbalistic model. On the possible Jewish influence on the Pseudo-Clementine literture, see the references cited in Stroumsa, Another Seed, 30 n. 51, and Segal, Two Powers, 256–57. The correlation between the left hand of God and weakness and the right hand and strength is made in the following midrashic comment on Exod 15:6: “Thy right hand, O Lord, glorious in power, Thy right hand, O Lord, shatters the foe,” in Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, 2. 41: “When the Israelites do the will of God, they make His left hand to be like the right, as it is said, ‘Thy right hand, O Lord … Thy right hand, O Lord'—two times. And when the Israelites fail to do the will of God, they make His right hand to be like the left, as it is said, ‘He has drawn back His right hand’ (Lam 2:3).” See Goldin, Judah, The Song at the Sea (New Haven:Yale University Press, 1971) 149.Google Scholar

³⁵ Zohar 1.19b-20a; See Scholem, Major Trends, 239, and references given on 406 n. 114.

³⁶ Cf. Altmann, “Motif of the ‘Shells,’ “117.

³⁷ There are basically three opinions in the Zohar as to the exact source of evil in the divine: Binah, Gevurah, or Malkhut. For references, see my “Left Contained in the Right,” 32 and nn. 22–24.

³⁸ See Scholem, “Sitra achra,” 69–72.

³⁹ See my article cited above, n. 26.

⁴⁰ Cf. Zohar 1.83a.

⁴¹ Mishnat ha-Zohar, 1. 295.

⁴² On the Lurianic and Sabbatian roots of this idea, cf. Tishby, Doctrine of Evil, 88; Weiss, Joseph, “Reshit Zemihatah shel ha-Derekh ha-Hasidit,” Zion 16 (1951) 73–75Google Scholar; Scholem, Gershom, The Messianic Idea in Judaism (New York: Schocken, 1971) 78–141Google Scholar. For the development of this idea particularly in the school of Habad Hasidism, see Elior, Rachel, The Theory of Divinity of Hasidut Habad: Second Generation (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982) 262–64Google Scholar. For Rabbi Naḥman of Bratslav's particular use of this notion, see Green, Arthur, Tormented Master: A Life of Rabbi Naḥman of Bratslav (University, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1979) 67, 264, 308.Google Scholar

⁴³ I have used the translation of Daniel Matt in his Zohar, 63–64. The Zohar's identification of Egypt with the earthly representation of the demonic is based ultimately on the scriptural and rabbinic conception of Egypt as the seat of magical power (cf., e.g., Exod 7:12; 8:3, 14, 18–19; 9:11); b. Sanh. 67b; b. Qidd. 49b; b. Menaḥ. 85a; for other references see Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, s.v. “Egyptians, masters of astrology and magic”) understood in the Zohar to be the force of the demonic. Cf. Zohar 1.81b, 83a, 249a; 2.30b, 35b, 38a, 191a, 192b; 3.50b, 69a, 70a, 207a. See my “Left Contained in the Right,” 33–37, where I have worked this out in detail.

⁴⁴ Cited by Matt, Zohar, 220.

⁴⁵ Cf. Tishby, Mishnat ha-Zohar, 223–26. A striking description of this is given in Zohar Ḥadash, lc (Sitrei Otiyot): “In the mystery of Enoch [it is said]: There is another heh below [the demonic] which is bound to this heh [i.e., Shekhinah symbolized by the last letter of the Tetragrammaton, the letter heh; in this context the Shekhinah is said to be symbolized by a heh for She is a point that is surrounded by four camps of angels, and the letter heh numerically equals five], and they correspond one to the other. Then it is time to cry [cf. Eccl 3:4]. The sign for this is [i.e., an expression of grief; cf. Jer 1:6, and note that there is a dot in the second heh ], for all the surrounding evil encloses [them] below in the form of a dalet [i.e., on all four sides, dalet = four]. It surrounds these four and the point [i.e., Shekhinah]. And the point stands within a hard shell which encloses it [symbolized by the dot in the second heh of the word ]. Then the Moon [Shekhinah] is eclipsed and its light is covered, and permission is given to judge the world with evil judgments.”

⁴⁶ Zohar 2.69b. Cf. Zohar 3.48b: “From the ‘flame of darkness’ [see above, n. 29] there emerged three hundred and twenty-five inscribed sparks, and they were united in the side of Strength [the left side of Judgment] … and when they entered in a body they were called Man … the ‘Man of War’ [Exod 15:3]. … Since the lower judgments are united and joined to the hair of this one, it is called the severe Judgment. And when the hair on his head is removed, [the judgment] is ameliorated [literally, sweetened] and the judgments below are not summoned. And then he is called pure, as it is written, ‘Who can bring a pure thing from what is impure’ (Job 14:4). From the impure certainly!” Concerning this text, see n. 29. Whereas in Zohar 2.69b, the unity of the divine and the demonic is perceived from the perspective of the lowest divine gradation and its proximity to the unholy realm, in Zohar 3.48b, this unity is perceived from the perspective of the very first stages of emanation. It is noteworthy that the same text is cited as a scriptural locus in both cases.

⁴⁷ Zohar 2.184a.

⁴⁸ Mishnat ha-Zohar, 1.295.

⁴⁹ Zohar 2.34a.

⁵⁰ Cf. Faierstein, “‘God's Need for the Commandments,’ “50–51; Matt, Daniel, “The Mystic and the Mizwot,” in Green, Arthur, ed., Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible through the Middle Ages (New York: Crossroad, 1986) 387–88. See above, n. 10.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Cf. Zohar 2.181b-82a; 3.101b; Tishby, Mishnat ha-Zohar, 1.291.

⁵² See Liebes, “Messiah of the Zohar,” 125–26.

⁵³ See above, n. 29 and below, n. 73.

⁵⁴ Zohar 3.80b.

⁵⁵ This is based on the rabbinic interpretation of Deut 6:5, “And love the Lord with all your heart,” , which they read in the plural, i.e., “hearts,“and as a reference to the two inclinations, the good and the evil; see references above, n. 6.

⁵⁶ Zohar 2.26b-27a. Moses de León refers to this Zoharic interpretation in his Sefer ha-Rimmon. See my ”Sefer ha-Rimmon,” 2. 100. It is interesting to note that de León gives two interpretations to the verse: according to the former the unity implied by Deut 4:39 involves the attributes of judgment and mercy, whereas according to the latter it involves the evil and good inclinations. In the Zohar both interpretations are combined. See my ”Sefer ha-Rimmon,” 1.45.

⁵⁷ See, e.g., Sifrei Deut. pisqa 26; Bereshit Rab. 12.14. For a summary of the rabbinic doctrine, see Urbach, The Sages, 396–407. For a comparison of the Philonic and rabbinic views, see N. A. Dahl and A. Segal, “Philo and the Rabbis on the Names of God,” JSJ 9 (1978) 1–28, and references to other scholarly literature cited there, 2 nn. 5–6.

⁵⁸ See references to studies by Schechter and Urbach cited above, n. 6. It should be pointed out that in some rabbinic statements, most notably that of the Resh Lakish (third-century Palestine), the evil inclination seems to be more than merely a psychological impulse. Indeed, in the case of the aforementioned rabbi, the evil inclination is identified with Satan or the Angel of Death; see b. Baba Batra 16a, and cf. Urbach, The Sages, 149, 416.

⁵⁹ Cf. Tishby, Mishnat ha-Zohar, 2. 88–90.

⁶⁰ See, e.g., Zohar 1.12a.

⁶¹ Zohar 2.26b.

⁶² Zohar 2.108a-b.

⁶³ Yet, it must be pointed out that in the continuation of the text the Zohar contrasts the original process of emanation in which the shell, the kings of Edom, preceded the kernel, Israel, and the future restoration when the Holy One, blessed be He, “will put first the kernel without any shell.” For the background of this passage, see above, n. 34. For other contexts wherein the Zohar affirms the annihilation of the demonic in the future, see above, n. 12.

⁶⁴ Zohar 2.183a-b.

⁶⁵ For a variation of this parable, see Wolfson, ”Sefer ha-Rimmon,” 2. 133.

⁶⁶ Leaven was used allegorically as a symbol for that which is evil or impure in Jewish and Christian sources dating from the Greco-Roman period; see sources cited in Bokser, Baruch, The Origins of the Seder (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984) 120 n. 13.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ See, e.g.. Cant. Rab. 1.2.

⁶⁸ See above, n. 43.

⁶⁹ Cf. Zohar 1.226b; 2.40a, 182a; 3.95b; Wolfson, ”Sefer ha-Rimmon,” 1. 121 and 2. 136, 328–29.

⁷⁰ The symbolic correlation of bread and Wisdom is an ancient haggadic tradition. See in particular the comparative study of the concept of manna in the Gospel of John and the Philonic corpus in Borgen, Peder, Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo (NovTSupp 10; Leiden: Brill, 1965).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Cf. Zohar 2.40a, 61b, 183a; Tishby, Mishnat ha-Zohar, 2. 391; Matt, Zohar, 113–16, 245–47.

⁷² On the notion of Torah as a medicine or drug, especially against the malady of the evil inclination, see Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, 273–75.

⁷³ See in particular Moses de León, Sefer ha-Mishqal, ed. J. Wijnhoven (Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 1964) 148–49: “Good and evil are two causes, separate and distinct one from another. Yet the mystery of the Tree is one. … Thus it is a religious duty and obligation to know and seek out that very matter [sc. the forces of the demonic] to distinguish between good and evil but not to cleave to i t. “

⁷⁴ Cf. Tishby, I., “Gnostic Doctrines in Sixteenth Century Jewish Mysticism,” JJS 6 (1955) 152. For a later kabbalistic development which, like the Zohar, emphasizes the incorporation of evil within the good, see B. Zak, “Ha-Qelippah Zorekh ha-Qedushah,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 3 (1983/84) 191–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar