Hugh Nibley and the Wisdom of the Zohar

Hugh Nibley. One the one hand, a brilliant, erudite man. On the other hand, well, let's just say I am far from being uncritical of Hugh Nibley's work. His methodology tends to be outdated now and has been for a while. His greatest weakness to me is what amounts almost to a disregard for historical developement and different cultural significances when choosing his parrallels. He seemed to presuppose an unchanging, universal perspective. The kind of approach heavily indebted to James Frazer's Golden Bough. Carl Jung and Mircea Eliade were probably the best known proponents of that school.
Not that such a universal approach can't yield valuable insights, but a nuanced approach which takes into account the differences as well as historical developments is going to yield far more valuable insights. Sure, one could use Lurianic texts to elucidate Ptolemaic hypocephali,  but unless care is taken with the differences, the results would be skewed.
This being said, Nibley's work was pioneering and important. Much of Mormon scholarship would not exist today if it weren't for his efforts. Nibley's greatest strength was not taking scriptures at face value. Perhaps I should say he looked beyond a Mormon point of view and tried reading them from an Ancient Near Eastern one. He also went into great depth, though not always in the right direction. Lehi as a Bedouin is a classic example. There is and was more to the Middle East than just Bedouins, indeed, there has always been a sharp distinction between them and the settled populations until just recently. I grew up near a Bedouin village in northern Israel and in my childhood the last of the great marauders had just begun dying off. Bedouins raids were a fact of life for farmers until the 1930s and 40s.
There are quite a few passages in 1 Nephi, such as the divine instruction to light no fires, or the panic surrounding the broken bow incident, that make little sense if Lehi were a desert adept.

It is nice to see Nibley referenced by non-LDS scholars.
In the introduction to part V, section I of the third volume of his "The Wisdom of the Zohar", Isaiah Tishby wrote, "These two tendencies: the positing of a Temple in the upper world, and interpretation of the Tabernacle, the Temple, and all their related equipment as symbols of cosmic and supernatural phenomena, are developed and expanded much further in rabbinic aggadah[3] and Christian theology[4]."
Footnote number four references H. Nibley, "Christian Envy of the Temple." Nibley's article is available online in its entirety. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CGMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmaxwellinstitute.byu.edu%2Fpublications%2Ftranscripts%2F%3Fid%3D61&ei=coSkT6yBGMitiQL3grzBAg&usg=AFQjCNED0PWcR0eQhsDWDVPNsmUQkzY_2g&sig2=dwxsxZe0IS4EHloDfhuvXw Definitely one of his better efforts.
"The Wisdom of the Zohar" is an important work in the study of Jewish mysticism, and won Tishby the Bialik and Nordau Prizes. It made available in accessible, Modern Hebrew important passages from the Zohar. The Zohar was originally written in arcane, obscure Aramaic, making it hard for the lay reader to understand. Even traditionally, many Jewish communities ritually recited the Zohar without an understanding of the text being considered necessary.
While there were other Hebrew translations with commentaries, such as R. Yehudah Ashlag's edition, Tishby's anthology provided scholarly introductions and notes. The essay on the development of Zohar criticism is particularly valuable. If you are looking for a way into the Zohar and Kabbalah in general, I would highly recommend Tishby's three volumes.
Appearing in a footnote like that is not bad for a complete hack and laughing stock of the academic world like Nibley, as some would have it.

Amos in Later Jewish Tradition

What follows is a selection of texts and traditions, by no means exhaustive, relating to Amos and the book of Amos, in the Judaism of late classical and medieval eras, as well as in Qumran.

All the selections from the Zohar I’ve included are to be found in Isaiah Tishby’s “The Wisdom of the Zohar”. When his footnotes are included, I’ve indicated so by his initials in square brackets.
The Damascus Document is from Wise, Abegg, and Cook’s “The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation”.

*Amos and the Dead Sea Scrolls*

The book of Amos played a small but crucial role in the formulation of Essene thought and teachings. The very first Dead Sea scroll discovered was the Damascus Document, or Zadokite Fragments. In 1896 Solomon Shechter discovered two medieval manuscripts in the genizah, or repository, of a Cairo synagogue. Schechter considered them a work of the first century B.C., but it wasn’t until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls that his position was proved correct.
The Damascus Document seems to have been one of the fundamental texts of the Dead Sea sect, outlining their history and position as God’s true covenantal people.
The Dead Sea Scrolls often use symbolic pseudonyms for members of the sect, for its enemies, and for the world surrounding it. Thus it is doubtful that the Damascus of the text is the actual city, but rather a code word for either Babylon[1] or Qumran[2].
Damscus is drawn from Amos 5:26-27 “So shall ye take up Siccuth your king and Chiun[3] your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves; Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith He, whose name is the LORD God of hosts.”
The group dramatically recast these verses in allegorical terms of their own sacred history.

…All who backslid were handed over to the sword, but all who held fast escaped to the land of the north, as it says, “I will exile the tents of your king and the foundation[3] of your images beyond the tents of Damascus” (Amos 5:27. The books of Law are the tents of the king, as it says, “I will re-erect the fallen tent of David” (Amos 9:11). The “king” is the congregation and the “foundation of your images” is the book of the prophets whose words Israel despised. The star is the Interpreter of the Law[4] who comes to Damascus, as it is written, “A star has left Jacob, a staff has risen from Israel” (Num 24:17). The latter is the Leader of the whole nation; when he appears, “he will shatter all the sons of Sheth” (Num. 24:17). They escaped in the first period of God’s judgement, but those who held back were handed over to the sword. And such is the verdict on all members of the covenant who do not hold firm to these laws: they are condemned to destruction by Belial…

-4Q266, 7:13-8:2.
Damascus is where the new covenant was set up after the period of exile. The history of Israel’s rebellion against God and the subsequent destruction and exile is made personally relevant to those of the sect, for their lives run according to the pattern set in scripture.

In 4Q174, a text known as “The Last Days: A Commentary on Selected Verses”, Amos 9:11 is again used, but the “fallen tent of David” is here a reference to “the fallen Branch of David, [w]hom He shall raise up to deliver Israel”. That is, the Davidic Messiah.

The Jeremiah Apocryphon (4Q387) describes the last days, in which Israel will suffer under a false priesthood and will be “fighting against one another because of the law and because of the covenant.” In other words, false interpretations of the law and covenant will lead to strife and bloodshed, which, according to the author of this text, is the meaning of Amos 8:11: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD”.

*Amos in Early Rabbinic Judaism*

The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (ARNA) is a very early commentary on a mishnaic tractate, Sayings of the Fathers (Pirkei Avot). The latter is a collection of teachings and maxims of the early sages. ARNA expands on those themes and ideals, particularly on the study of Torah.
Pirkei Avot 1:1, perhaps one of the best known statements in the work, quotes the members of the great assembly[5] as saying, “Make a hedge about the Torah.”
ARNA 2 poses the question, “What the hedge which the prophets made about their words?” One of the examples provided is from Amos.
“The lion hath roared, who will not fear? The Lord God hath spoken, who can but prophecy? (Am. 3:8): [yet God is] not merely like one lion but like all the lions in the world.” Judah Goldin, on pg. 180-181 of his translation of ARNA, explains the hedge of the prophets as their having employed “some metaphor in the description of God who, strictly speaking, is beyond description and comparison.”

The Babylonian Talmud (t. Yoma, 86b) quotes rabbi Yose bar Yehudah as saying that, “A man transgresses once, and he is forgiven; twice, and he is forgiven; thrice, and he is forgiven; [but if he transgresses] a fourth time, he is not forgiven, as it says: “Thus saith the LORD: For three transgressions of Israel, yea, for four, I will not reverse it” (Amos 2:6).”

When our rabbis entered the orchard of Yavneh they said that Torah is destined to be forgotten in Israel, as it is said: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD” (Amos 8:11). And it is written: “And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east; they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it” (Amos 8:12).
The word of the LORD- This is Halakhah.
The word of the LORD- This is the end time.
The word of the LORD- This is prophecy.
And from where will they roam seeking the word of the LORD? They said a woman is destined to take a portion of terumah and go to synagogues and study houses to know if it be impure or pure, but none shall know if it be impure or pure…
Shimeon ben Yohai says heaven forbid that Torah should be forgotten by Israel[6], as it is said: “For it shall never be lost from the mouth of their offspring” (Deut. 31:21). It is to fulfill, “they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it”, that is, they will not find a clear doctrine and a clear halakha in one place.

–Babylonian Talmud, t. Shabbat 138b.

The prophetical activity of Amos commenced after Hosea's had closed, and before Isaiah's began. Though he had an impediment in his speech[7], he obeyed the call of God, and betook himself to Beth-el to proclaim to the sinful inhabitants thereof the Divine message with which he had been charged. The denunciation of the priest Amaziah, of Beth-el, who informed against the prophet before King Jeroboam of Israel, did him no harm, for the king, idolater though he was, entertained profound respect for Amos. He said to himself: "God forbid I should think the prophet guilty of cherishing traitorous plans, and if he were, it would surely be at the bidding of God." For this pious disposition Jeroboam was rewarded; never had the northern kingdom attained to such power as under him. However, the fearlessness of Amos finally caused his death. King Uzziah inflicted a mortal blow upon his forehead with a red-hot iron. Two years after Amos ceased to prophesy, Isaiah was favored with his first Divine communication.

-Louis Ginzberg, “The Legends of the Jews” vol. IV, part IX.

S. Y. Agnon, a preeminent Israeli writer of the 20th century and Nobel laureate, was asked by a relative of the Archbishop of Canterbury if there was anything in Judaism comparable to the power and drama of Easter. Agnon in response drew upon his vast storehouse of knowledge of traditional Jewish texts and rituals to compose “Days of Awe”, which although technically is an anthology of texts dealing with then period from Rosh Ha-Shanah to Yom Kippur, is far more than that. It is a journey through the days leading up to Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, the day of judgment, the time when people remember and reflect on their sins, their follies, mistakes and shortcomings, a time for reparation and restitution, of drawing nearer to God and man. Yom Kippur is perhaps the day of the Jewish calendar. Agnon wrote “The liturgical poem beginning “These I do Remember,” which is recited after the description of the Temple service, is in memory of the ten who were martyred by Rome, who were killed for the sake of the unification of the Name of God. For when the temple still stood and the altar stood in its habitation, sacrifices were offered upon the altar every day. But now what is offered are the souls of the righteous.
It is cited in the Midrash: Why were the ten martyrs, the sages of Israel, given over to be slaughtered at the hands of the wicked kingdom of Rome? Because his brothers sold Joseph into slavery. For the quality of divine justice brings charges every day before the throne of glory, and says, “Is there any superfluous letter in your Torah? You have said, ‘And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death’ (Exod. 21:16). The ten brothers sold Joseph, and yet You have not punished them or their seed” [Ele Ezkerah][8]. Therefore the decree against the ten sages of Israel was passed, in punishment for the sake of Joseph.”
The book of Amos lies at the heart of this tradition.
As a different recension of the midrash about the ten martyrs explains it, “Israel would not have come to this[9] had they not taught the emperor Torah, as once when he was sitting and studied Torah he found it written: “And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death” (Exod. 21:16). And he went and plastered all his walls with shoes, sticking them to the walls and sent for Rabbi Shimeon ben Gamliel and his friends, and said unto them: Whosoever kidnapped a man from Israel and sold him, what is his penalty? They replied that he must be put to death, and he said unto them: If that be so, then you must be put to death, accept the judgement of heaven. They asked him what for, and he replied for the brothers of Joseph who sold him, as it is written: “And sold Joseph” (Gen. 37:28). It is further written: “Because they sold the righteous for silver, and the poor for a pair of shoes” (Amos 2:6). That is why that evildoer plastered his home with footwear, so that they would know for what Joseph was sold, for when it says for shoes it means for the price of shoes… They said if Joseph’s brothers sold him, what is our crime and why will you execute us? He replied unto them that if Joseph’s brothers were alive today then I would catch them and execute judgment upon them, but since they are not alive I will do so upon you…”
Joseph quite probably is a veiled reference to Jesus, a popular accusation in anti-Jewish polemics was that the Jews sold and betrayed him. See the section below for a later example.

*Amos in Medieval Commentaries*

Saadia Gaon (882-942)
Saadia was born in Egypt but moved to Iraq, where he became the head of the academy in Sura, and was one of the most prominent and influential leaders in the Jewish world. He polemicised greatly against the Karaites, and introduced philosophical, rational interpretations into his defence of rabbinic Judaism.
"Amos 1:3.
I have forgiven him three sins, but this, the fourth one, I will not forgive."

Abraham ibn Ezra (1089-1164)
One of the premier Spanish commentators, grammarians, and poets.
He wrote extensively on the scriptures, particularly from the standpoint of grammar plain, unallegorical or homiletical interpretation.
"Amos 3:3.
Before I [the Lord] shall afflict you I will inform you of it by my prophets, perhaps you shall return unto me. Had I not appeared to my prophet and revealed to him my secret with which to reprove you, he would not have prophecied of himself, for how should he know what I am going to do, and thus are his words not by chance. See this, is it possible for two men to go simultaneously to the same place for the same thing if they did not agree to do so beforehand? And so, when you see that the words of the prophet are true, know that I have sent him, how then can he disobey me and not prophecy just because you said unto him prophecy not?"
"Amos 3:4.
If even the lion does not roar except over his prey, have I [the Lord] roared in vain?"
"Have you seen prey able to escape from a lion when he rises from his thicket and roars? How then do you think to escape my [the Lord’s] decrees?"

David Kimhi
Kimhi perhaps exerted more influence over non-Jewish translations of the Bible than any other Jewish exegete. When the Bible known as the King James Version was prepared, the translators frequently consulted Mikraot Gedolot (the Rabbinic Bible), an Old Testament printed with several commentaries, including Kimhi’s ones on the prophets.
"Amos 2:1.
This is about what is said in the book of Kings: “Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was a great indignation against Israel.” The indignation was from the king of Edom against Israel from that day forth, because the king of Moab burnt the son of the king of Edom during the war, for he was with Israel, as we have interpreted there, for this God, may he be blessed, punished him [the king of Moab]. And the interpretation of la-sid – burnt them completely, until the ashes were like lime… And Jonathan[10] translated it as, “for burning the bones of the king of Edom and using them to whitewash his house.” This means that he used those ashes to whitewash his house out of spite and vengeance. "
"Amos 3:6.
As the targum[10] states: “Shall a trumpet be blown in the city outside its proper time”, because a trumpet is sounded many times in the city without the panicking, during celebrations or for singing, or to assemble the people for the establishment of municipal ordinances, that is why this was translated as “outside its proper time”, since it is known that when none of these are taking place, [the trumpet] is to warn the people of an enemy, so how shall the people not be terrified when they hear it. So shall you not be terrified by the words of the prophet which I [the Lord] send unto you?"
"Amos 3:6.
Why do you suppose that a calamity should overtake your city which has not been done by God, may he be blessed, after the prophet has said unto you [that it would happen] before it occurred, and since you will see the prophet’s words coming true, how is it that you will not return unto me [the Lord]?"

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508)
Abravanel was a member of the most renowned Jewish family in Portugal. He served as treasurer to Afonso V, but his successor, Joao II, implicated Abravanel in a plot, as a result of which Abravanel fled to Spain and served as a minister under Ferdinand and Isabella. Despite his great influence he was unable to prevent the expulsion of the Spanish Jews, and went into exile with them.

“The Christian sages thought to use this verse as proof of their faith, and interpreted the three sins of Israel the same as I did, idolatry, bloodshed, and incest, but with the fourth being “they sold the righteous for silver”, that is Jesu the Nazarene.
The refutal of their proof is made up of two parts: The first is that this section was said of none other than the kingdom of Israel, and they know very well that the matter of Jesu the Nazarene was not in the First Temple period when the kingdoms were divided, but took place during the Second Temple period, and Israel had been exiled for over X years.
The second refutal is that Amos himself repeated his prophecy, and said: “Hear this, O ye that would swallow the needy… making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances of deceit; That we may buy the poor for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes…” (Amos 8:6). Here it is made clear that he was not speaking of any particular person, but of many poor, whose judgment was perverted for bribes of silver or of shoes, which is why Amos used the plural.”
-Commentary on the Prophets and Writings.

*Amos in the Kabbalah*

The book of Amos is used in two main ways by the Zohar, the premier book of the Kabbalah, which appeared during the 13th century.
The first way is to ground a unique doctrine in the biblical framework, or perhaps it was even suggested by the verse in the first place.
The second way is to enhance the prestige, authority, and reputation of Simeon bar Yohai, and, by extension, the teachings of the Zohar itself.

Zohar I, 183b.

Rabbi Hiyya and Rabbi Jose were in the presence of Rabbi Simeon. Rabbi Hiyya said: We have learned that an uninterpreted dream is like an unread letter[11]. Does this mean that it will be fulfilled without [the dreamer] knowing, or that it will not be fulfilled at all?
He said to him: It will be fulfilled without being disclosed, because the dream has its own power[12], and [the dreamer] need not know whether it will be fulfilled or not. Everything that happens in the world is first of all intimated by a dream or a herald, for it has been made clear that everything that happens in the world is first of all announced in the firmament, and from there it spreads out into the world and is transmitted by a herald. And this because it is written “For the Lord God will do nothing without revealing His secret to His servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7). This is the case when there are prophets in the world. But, if not- even if prophecy does not exist[13]- the sages are the next best to the prophets. And if not, it is intimated in a dream. And if not, the matter may be found in the birds in the sky[14].

Zohar I, 191a.

Rabbi Judah began by quoting “Will a lion roar in the forest when he has no prey? Will a young lion utter a sound from his den if he has captured nothing?” (Amos 3:4). Come and see how attentive men must be to the worship of the Holy One, blessed be He, for whoever occupies himself with the study of the Torah and the worship of the Holy One, blessed be He, instills in everything awe and fear of him. When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world, He made every creature in the world in the likeness that was suited to it, and afterward He created man in the most exalted likeness[15], and gave him dominion over all the others because of this likeness; for as long as man remains in the world, all the creatures in the world will raise their heads and gaze upon man’s exalted likeness, and then they will be in fear and awe of him, as it is said “And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the air…” (Genesis 9:2). In what circumstances?[16] –When they look up and see that he has this likeness with the neshamah within him.
Rabbi Eleazar said: Even if the neshamah is not within him, the righteous do not change from their original state when they had the likeness. But if man does not follow the ways of the Torah the holy likeness vanishes from him[17], and the beasts of the field and the birds in the air can then rule over him. Once the holy likeness disappears, man’s likeness also disappears.

Zohar III, 15a.

One day [Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai] was sitting at the gateway to Lydda. He raised his eyes and saw the sun shining, but its light was blotted out three times. As the light grew dark, black and green colors appeared in the sun.
He said to his son, Rabbi Eliezer: Follow me, my son, and let us see, for a decree has certainly been proclaimed in the world above, and the Holy One, blessed be He, does not act before informing the righteous, as it is said, “For the Lord God does nothing without revealing His secret to His servants, the prophets” (Amos 3:7).

Zohar II, 15a, Midrash ha-Ne’elam.

When Rabbi Hiyya came and related all this to Rabbi [Judah ha-Nasi], he was amazed, and his father, Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel, said to him; My son, Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai is a lion, and Rabbi Eleazar, his son, is a lion. But Rabbi Simeon is not like other lions. Of him it is written, “The lion has roared. Who will not fear?” (Amos 3:8). And since the worlds above tremble before him, how much more should we? He is a man who has never had to ordain a fast for something that he really desired. But he makes a decision, and the Holy One, blessed be He, supports it. The Holy One, blessed be He, makes a decision, and he annuls it.

*Amos in Early Modern Jewish Preaching*

Saul ha-Levi Morteira (1596-1660)
A Venetian Jew by birth, Morteira moved to Amsterdam in 1616 and served as one of the rabbinic leaders there until his death. He was part of the court which excommunicated the philosopher Spinoza. Morteira preached a sermon every year on a verse from the weekly Torah lesson, his main concern being the proper ethical conduct of his congregation, both towards the gentiles and among themselves. Although this is a common theme for preachers of all times and persuasions, in affluent 17th c. Amsterdam, Morteira's focus was particularly relevant. Marc Saperstein[18] notes that Morteira emphasised that "arrogant behavior, ostentatious apparel, and high living by Jews angers both God and their Gentile neighbours", something which would have resonated with people who were 3rd or 4th generation exile from Iberia. The trauma of the Spanish expulsion had not yet gone away completely.Saperstein further notes that the Dutch Calvinist preachers vigorously denounced a life of luxury, indeed "were certain that such behaviour would arouse God's wrathful punishement".
A few words more from Saperstein before delving into the sermon itself:
"The art of the sermon is expressed in the way the preacher derives his thesis from the traditional sources. In this case, Morteira argues that his contemporaries were courting disaster by making precisely the same mistake their ancestors had made in Egypt... Despite the extensive use of biblical and rabbinic material, this is not a sermon intended primarily to elucidate the classical sources for their own sake. Here we see a preacher marshalling the ancient texts in order to address what he considers to be a pressing problem of his time."

R. Isaac said, Whoever takes pleasure in an optional banquet will eventually be exiled, for the Bible states, Who feasts on lambs from the flock, and soon after Now they shall head the column of exiles (Amos 6:4, 7).
"Our rabbis taught, Whoever feasts excessively anywhere will eventually destroy his household, make his wife a widow and his fledglings orphans, and forget what he has learned. He will be the center of many conflicts, and his words will not be heeded.
He profanes the Name of Heaven and the names of his father and his teacher; he gives a bad name to himself, his children, and his children's children to the end of time. Abbaye said, They call him 'oven heater.'
Raba said, 'tavern dancer.'
R. Papa said, 'dish licker.'
R. Shemaiah said, 'one who folds and lies down' (Bab. Talmud, t. Pes 49a)...
The prophet Amos Amos denounced such behavior when he said, They lie on ivory beds, stretched upon their couches (Amos 6:4), reproaching them for their splendid beds, costing fortunes. Stretched upon their couches refers to the large cloths that overhang the couch on every side, serving absolutely no function except in their appearance, not to mention the other costly accoutrements of the bed.
Then he said, Feasting on lambs from the flock, and on calves from the stall (Amos 6:4). Here he was referring to the various kinds of food with which they contrive to fill their bellies. They drink from the wine bowls (Amos 6:6), calling out to each other until they empty the barrels, hurting both those who provide the wine and their own health...
While all of this is bad in itself, it is doubly bad when they are not concerned about the ruin of Joseph (Amos 6:6), meaning that they forget they are in exile, forget that some of their brothers have no bread at all for themselves or their children. It would be better for them to spend their money inviting the poor and providing them with food and other necessities. But they curse the poor and spend their money on trivial luxuries that can do them no good, giving money again and again to men who mock them as soon as they leave their homes. They do no good to themselves, and they do great harm to their children.
As parents discipline their children, so did the sages not hesitate to give all manner of ethical instruction that would discipline us, for our own benefit. They touched upon this subject directly in the passage cited at the beginning of the sermon, as is clear to all who understand their words. First, they prohibited all feasts and banquets unconnected with the performance of a commandment, saying, "Whoever takes pleasure in an optional banquet will eventually be exiled, for the Bible states, Who feasts on lambs from the flock, and soon after Now they shall head the column of exiles." A religious banquet is one for a circumcision, a wedding, completion of study of a talmudic tractate, Rejoicing in the Law (Simhat OTrah, redemption of a first-born sonPurim, Hanukkah, and other ordained festivals. All others are optional banquets.

-The People's Envy: Sermon on Shemot (Ca. 1622, Amsterdam).

Jonathan Eybeschuetz (Ca. 1690-1764)
Eybeschuetz was a noted scholar and rabbi of the 18th century, who became embroiled in a bitter controversy with Jacob Emden, who accused him of being a secret follower of Sabbetai Tzvi, the false messiah. Eybeschuetz was still recognised as a brilliant halakhist and preacher. Here is a small portion of a sermon preached in Metz.

Woe unto those who desire the day of the Lord... that day is darkness (cf. Amos 5:18). Many also do no discern the true nature of the New Year's Day. They look forward to it because they enjoy the sound of the singer, who chants melodious hymns with his beautiful voice. Woe unto those who do not know what occurs on the day of reckoning: that day is darkness! You know that fire is pitch dark, giving forth no light. Though the elemental fire is near the sphere of the moon, it bestows no light upon the world. And hell is all fire; it is darkness and gloom.

-Sermon of Ethical Rebuke Preached... during the Penitential Period Preceding the New Year's Day, 5505 [1744], to the Congregation of Metz.

[1] Thus Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, pg. 434. They argue for Damascus being a reference to the Babylonian captivity on the strength of Stephen’s speech in Acts 7:43, in which Damascus is replaced by Babylon.

[2] Thus L. Schiffman, “Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls”, pg. 93-94.

[3] Chiun here is read not as a name of a deity, but as a variant of the Hebrew for a foundation or stand.

[4] According to Schifmann (pg. 93), the Interpreter of the Law is “the sectarian official who interprets Torah for the sect with divine inspiration.”

[5] An institution which according to Jewish tradition existed from the days of Ezra until Alexander the Great.

[6] There appears to have been some confusion as to whether or not the Torah reffered to by the sages in Yabneh meant their oral teachings or the Law of Moses. The consensus that was reached was that Torah meant halakhic rules, IE, the oral Torah.

[7] Leviticus Rabbah 10:2 employs a pun on the name Amos, which if read as amus would mean ‘laden’, or ‘burdened’.
The rest of the references employed by L. Ginzberg are Pesikta de-Rabbi Kahana 16, 125b, Pesikta Rabbati 33, 150b, and Shalshelet ha-Kabbalah, 97.

[8] The date of composition for this midrash is uncertain, and there are at least four recensions.

[9] That is, the ten sages would not have been martyred.

[10] Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to the Prophets, an Aramaic paraphrase of portions of the Bible

[11] B.Talmud, t. Berakhot 55a. [IS]

[12] The dream has been linked to a supernal power that has decreed that it shall be fulfilled. [IS]

[13] Even now that prophecy has ceased. [IS]

[14] Birds can give information to initiates by their movements and chirping. [IS]

[15] In the image of God, which is the configuration of the sefirot, depicted as primordial man. [IS]

[16] According to the explanation that follows, the verse quoted from Amos is taken to mean that the beasts attack and seize man when the image of God is removed from him. [IS]

[17] In outward appearance even the sinner has a human form, but the sacred radiance of the sefirot that surrounds the human image has been taken away from him, and the other creatures see him merely as an animal. [IS]

[18] Saperstein, "Jewish Preaching, 1200-1800: An Anthology", pg.270-271.

Creatio Ex Nihilo in the Zohar

I'm currently reading Isaiah Tishby's The Wisdom of the Zohar (Mishnat ha-Zohar), an excellent anthology of material on different subjects from the Zohar, that key book of the Kabbalah, the predominant form of Jewish mysticism.
For beginners I would probably even recommend this over Daniel Matt's translation. This has the advantage of being organized thematically. Both of course are superb.
The following is a passage dealing with creatio ex nihilo, or creation from nothing. This conception is not quite as straightforward as standard Christian teaching has it. According to this passage there are two forms of creation, beriyah (creation), which is creation from nothing, and asiyah (making), or creation from something substantive. The body comes from nothing, the form from something substantive, i.e. light from above.

Rabbi Tanhum began by quoting: "Thus says God, the Lord who created the heavens, and stretched them forth..." (Isaiah 42:5). When the Holy One, blessed be He, created His worlds, He created them from nothing, and brought them into actuality, and made substance out of them; and you find the word bara (He created) used always of something that He created from nothing, and brought into actuality.
Rav Hisda said: Were the heavens really created from nothing? Were they not created from the light above?*
Rabbi Tanhum said: It is so. The body of the heavens** was created from nothing, but their form from something substantive.*** And so it was with man.**** So you find "creation" used of the heavens, and subsequently "making": "To Him that made the heavens" (Psalm 136:5) - from something substantive, from the light above.
Rabbi Tanhum also said: "Making" is the provision of something with the size, stature, and quantity that it has, as it is said, "And David made a name for himself" (2 Samuel 8:13).

* From the light of the angels.
** The basic matter of the heavens.
*** From the supernal light.
**** Man's body is made from hylic matter, which is brought from potentiality into actuality, but his soul is derived from the light of the Throne of Glory.

-Zohar Hadash, Bereshit 17b, Midrash ha-Ne'elam.

Joseph Smith and the Beginning

I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of the creation in the Bible—Berosheit. I want to analyze the word. Baith—in, by, through, and everything else. Rosh—the head. Sheit—grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. An old Jew without any authority added the word; he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head! It read first, "The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods." That is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. Learned men can teach you no more than what I have told you. Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council.

I will transpose and simplify it in the English language. Oh, ye lawyers, ye doctors, and ye priests, who have persecuted me, I want to let you know that the Holy Ghost knows something as well as you do. The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at the time.*

Jospeh Smith, in what has become known as the King Follett Discourse, was not the first to wrestle with the first three Hebrew words of Genesis- Bereishit bara Elohim. בראשית ברא אלהים

The usual translation is in the begining God created, but if rendered in a strict linear sequence the phrase reads in the begining created God (or gods). It is no longer clear that God is the subject rather than the object.
The rest of the verse should have cleared it up.
את השמים ואת הארץ
Et hashamayim ve'et haaretz (the heavens and the earth).
When a definite noun (here indicated by the prefix 'hey') is put into accusative, the particle 'et' is used to denote that. The rest of the sentence would be nonsensical if Elohim was the direct object and not the subject.
The fact that not much attention was paid to the rest of the verse surprises me, considering that Rabbi Akiva stressed the importance of each and every word and letter in the Torah, especially 'et', but more on that later.


The Babylonian Talmud (t. Megilah 9a) preserves a tradition about the 72 elders commisioned by Ptolemy of Egypt to translate the Torah (or Pentateuch) into Greek.
Each was placed in a separate house (or compartment, or room) and instructed separately to produce a translation. By a miracle from the Lord every translator translated certain difficult and controversial passages exactly as the others did.
The first passage was Genesis 1:1 which was rendered as God created in the begining.
That the Septuagint actually preserves the same order as the Hebrew is neither here nor there. This talmudic statement was a means of reinforcing a certain reading of the scriptures. In the case of Genesis 1:1 the reading was that God was the creator, not the created.

Purely speculative on my part, but I suspect that the story in the Babylonian Talmud was directed in part towards those who might be influenced by the creation accounts of the Mandaeans, a major 'gnostic' religion (though that term is not entirely accurate) in the western part of the Sassanian Empire. The Mandaeans were apparently often at odds with the large Jewish communities in the empire. The sages probably feared that improper readings of Genesis 1:1 would lead to dualism, or to a belief in something other than god being the source of creation.

Back to Genesis. The Masoretes, early medieval scholars who compiled grammatical rules for reading the text of the Hebrew Bible seem to have dealt with the problem presented by the opening sentence of Genesis through their system of cantillation marks. In an age where few people were more than semi-literate and even fewer had access to books, one would listen to the scriptures as they were read aloud in the synagogue. The scriptures weren't merely read from, but rather, were chanted, primarily as an aide to memorising the text. The Masoretes sought to systemise this chant, by creating set systems of what are known as cantillation marks. They are those little marks and signs which appear to clutter up the pages of the Hebrew Bible. They show the proper intonation, when to pause, when to lengthen the word, what to emphasise, and so on. They are an elaborate system of audible punctuation, which allows for ideas to be highlighted musically.
By a proper marking of the verses, problems like that of Genesis 1:1, ideally, would have no occasion to arise.

I said earlier that I was bewildered by the lack of serious attention given to 'et' in the context of Genesis 1:1, particularly because it formed an important part of r. Akiva's system for interpreting the scriptures. I should say though that it was used, bot not in connection with who created whom. Akiva's teacher, r. Nahum of Gamzo was apparently the chief proponent of this system, and even when Akivah innovated it, he always gave credit to his teacher.
The way the verse was used makes its absence in the aforementioned debate all the more intriguing.
In the Babylonian Talmud (m. Hagigah 12a) we find r. Akiva and r. Ishmael on a journey together. R. Ishmael was Akiva's contemporary, and in a certain sense, rival. He favoured the system whereby the Torah was given in the language of men, and thus one should focus on the plain meaning rather than spend too much time on what may be merely grammatical usage or literary forms.

[Said r. Ishmael to r. Akivah] you that attended Nahum of Gamzo for twenty and two years, the one who would expound every 'et' in the Torah, how would he interpret [et] the heavens and [et] the earth?
Replied he to him: were it the heavens and the earth I would have said the heavens- a title of the Holy One, blessed be he.
Since it says [et] the heavens and [et] the earth I would say that the heavens means indeed the heavens and the earth means indeed the earth.

But I digress. In Judaism, the predominant system became that of r. Akiva. Combined with his mystic inclinations (it is his interpretation of the Song of Songs which influenced Origen) it gave a legitimacy and impetus to later Jewish mystics, in their attempts to arrive at the hidden meaning of the scriptures.

In leaps and bounds from Akiva's generation (the middle of the 2nd century) we turn to the kabbalists of medieval Spain.

In brief, kabbalah was a Jewish mystical system originating in 12th century Provence, and heavily influenced by eastern gnosticism, but claiming far earlier origins.
It spread to Spain where it was further developed and spurred on by the mysterious appearance in the middle of 13th century Castile of a text called Sefer haZohar- the Book of the Radiance. It purports to be the mystical teachings of Rashbi (rabbi Shimeon bar-Yochai), a celebrated disciple of r. Akiva. It takes the form of an Aramaic commentary on the hidden meaning of the Torah, indeed, it is a mystical exploration of it and much more.
The Zohar became the central text of the kabbalah and a springboard for further speculation on the deeper mysteries of God.

For the kabbalists too, like for the earlier disciples of r. Akiva, each word, each letter, each sequence of the scriptures had a meaning. They appear to have taken that principle to lengths more radical than Nahum or Akiva appear to have attempted. Words not only became allusions to a mystical reality, but in some sense were that reality. In a way, the layout of the verse was a blueprint to the universe. As the late, great Gershom Scholem, the first scholar to tackle Jewish mysticism on its own terms, put it, "Kabbalists who differ in almost everything else are at one regarding language as something more precious than an inadequate instrument for contact between human beings...
Language in its purest form, that is, Hebrew, according to the Kabbalists, reflects the fundamental spiritual nature of the world; in other words, it has a mystical value. Speech reaches God because it comes from God.**"
Of particular significane to my topic is their belief that "man's common language... reflects the creative language of God. All creation- and this is an important principle of most Kabbalists- is, from the point of view of God, nothing but an expression of His hidden self that begins and ends by giving itself a name, the holy name of God, the perpetual act of creation. All that lives is an expression of God's language...
What I would like to emphasize is this peculiar interpretation, this enthusiastic appreciation of the faculty of speech which sees in it, and in its mystical analysis, a key to thee deepest secrets of the Creator and his creation.***"
Mysticism takes reality and seeks to transcend it to something deeper, to see beyond the mundane into the hidden and epic.
Elsewhere, Scholem has the following to say about the kabbalists and their relationship with the scriptures. "Mystics are men who by their own inner experience and their speculation concerning this experience discover new layers of meaning in their traditional religion... How cold their view of the world be brought into harmony with the view accepted by their own tradition? It is generally known that allegorical interpretations arise spontaneously whenever a conflict between new ideas and those expressed in a sacred book necessitates some form of compromise. What is true of allegorical interpretation is still more applicable to the specifically mystical interpretation of such texts...
Many productive minds among the Kabbalists found this [commentaries on the Bible] a congenial way of expressing their own ideas, while making them seem to flow from the words of the Bible. It is not always easy, in a given case, to determine whether the Biblical text inspired the exegesis or whether the exegesis was a deliberate device, calculated to bridge the gap between the old and the new vision by reading completely new ideas into the text. But this perhaps is to take too rationalistic a view of what goes on in the mind of a mystic. Actually the thought processes of mystics are largely unconscious, and they may be quite unaware of the clash between old and new which is of such passionate interest to the historian. They are thoroughly steeped in the religious tradition in which they have grown up, and many notions which strike a modern reader as fantastic distortions of a text spring from a conception of Scripture which to the mystic seems perfectly natural. For one thing that can be said with certainty about Kabbalists is this: they are, and do their best, to remain traditionalist.****"

What this has all been leading up to is the Zohar's interpretation of Genesis 1:1.
I'll follow Daniel Matt's excellent english translation of the strange and mysterious text.

Deep within the spark gushed a flow, splaying colors below, concealed within the concealed of the mystery of Ein Sof. It split and did not split its aura, was not known at all, until under the impact of splitting, a single, concealed, supernal point shone. Beyond that point, nothing is known, so it is called (Reshit), Beginning, first command of all.

The enlightened will shine like the (zohar), radiance, of the sky, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever. (Daniel 12:3).

(Zohar), Radiance! Concealed of concealed struck its aura, which touched and did not touch this point. Then this beginning expanded, building itself a palace worthy of glorious praise. There it sowed seed to give birth, availing worlds. The secret is: Her stock is seed of holiness (Isaiah 6:13).

(Zohar), Radiance! Sowing seed for its glory, like the seed of fine purple silk wrapping itself within, weaving itself a palace, constituting its praise, availing all.

With this beginning, the unknown concealed one created the palace. This palace is called (Elohim), God. The secret is: (Bereshit bara Elohim), With beginning, ________ created God. (Genesis 1:1)

(Zohar), Radiance! From here all commands were created through the mysterious expansion of this point of concealed radiance. If created is written here, no wonder it is written: God created the human being in His image (Genesis 1:27).

HaZohar, parashat bereishit, 1:15a.
The Zohar, Pritzker edition, vol. 1, pp. 108-111.

The Zohar goes on to give many additional layers of meaning and interpretation to the verse, but interesting as they are, in order not to get bogged down, I won't provde them here, but refer all those interest to Daniel Matt's translation.

In brief, what is being described here is the process of creation through emanations, or as termed by the kabbalists- sefiroth.
The subject is one too vast to explain here in any detail or render it due justice, yet it is one of the most fundamental aspects of the kabbalah that at least something must be said of it.
A sefirah is one of the emanations of God. There are ten of them, all revealing a different aspect and all flowing into each other. They are usually structured as a tree or as Adam Hakadmon- the primeval man.





They are God's active power and attributes, they emanate from within him and seek to take on shape. They take on a different shape or attirbute at each level. Thow they flow out, they remain hidden deep inside and are the unity of God. They are how he reveals himself.
The kabbalist Abraham Herrera, in Shaar haShamayim (ca. 1620) gives a long description of the sefiroth. Here is an excerpt.

The sefiroth are emanations from the primal simple unity; making known His good which is without end; mirrors of His truth, which share in his nature and essence, which is above all, and that He is Himself the necesary being; structures of His wisdom and representations of His will and desire; receptacles of His strength and instruments of His activity; treasuries of His bliss and distributors of His grace and goodness; judges of His kingdom, bringig His judgement to light; and simultaneously the designations, attributes, and names of He who is highest of all and who encompasses all. These ten names are inextinguishable: ten attributes of His sublime glory and greatness;
And these are the ten utterances containg All.

Ein Sof (without end, infinite) is the concealed form of God. He sends out the emanations who create everything. Creation is not ex nihilo, it begins with a spark that sets out from Ein Sof that then reveals the rest of the sefiroth one after another.
The concealed of the concealed (or thhe hidden of hidden) is the first sefirah- Keter (crown).
From this is the first command IE the beginning.
The spark flashes to Hochma (wisdom) which flashes to Binah (understanding).
Hochma is the father, Binah is the mother, the rest of the sefiroth are their children.
By means of this beginning, Ein Sof creates Elohim, or the palace of Binah.
This is where Genesis 1:1 comes into play.
The prefix beith, which usually means 'in' can also mean 'with' or 'by means of'. So by means of beginning (reishit) Infinite created God.

This is a very different concept to that of Joseph's, though both use an eccentric interpretation of the text.

Joseph drops the 'beit' and the 'ith' leaving him with rosh- the head [of the gods]. The head creates the other gods and forms a divine council of gods, who are all separate beings.

The 'beit' and 'ith', on the other hand, are essential to the Zohar's concept of Ein Sof using an event termed the beginning in order to create a palace for one of his sefiroth and bring forth others, which are all manifestations of himself, not actual beings.

While it is entirely possible that Joseph somehow read or had been taught that portion of the Zohar which then led him to ponder the subject, due to the vast, fundamental difference, I find the notion highly unlikely. Far likelier in my opinion is that when reading the Hebrew it struck him as an evidence of a truth he already knew, so he used that verse to teach the concept of the council of the gods.

In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it. When we begin to learn this way, we begin to learn the only true God, and what kind of a being we have got to worship. Having a knowledge of God, we begin to know how to approach him, and how to ask so as to receive an answer. When we understand the character of God, and know how to come to him, he begins to unfold the heavens to us, and to tell us all about it. When we are ready to come to him, he is ready to come to us.*****

Joseph had a difficult time trying to teach people truths they could not see with their understanding of the Bible.
In his own words:

The doctors (I mean doctors of law, not physic) say, "If you preach anything not according to the Bible, we will cry treason." How can we escape the damnation of hell, except God be with us and reveal to us? Men bind us with chains******

I find that the following quote supports my notion that this was something Joseph already had revealed him from above, yet in order to teach it he had to teach it from the Bible.

I thank God that I have got this old book; but I thank him more for the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have got the oldest book in the world; but I [also] have the oldest book in my heart, even the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have all the four Testaments. Come here, ye learned men, and read, if you can. I should not have introduced this testimony [James being Jacobus in the German Bible], were it not to back up the word rosh—the head, the Father of the Gods. I should not have brought it up, only to show that I am right.*******

NOTES

*Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, ed. by Joseph Fielding Smith, pp. 348-349.
**Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, by Gershom Scholem, pp. 17.
***ibid, pp. 17-18.
****On the Kabbalah and its Symbolism, by Gershom Scholem, pp. 32-33.
***** Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, ed. by Joseph Fielding Smith, pp. 349-350.
******ibid, pp. 349.
*******ibid.