Moshe Idel and Joseph Smith

I'm always interested when references to LDS history appear in unrelated studies.
Moshe Idel's 2008, The Angelic World: Apotheosis and Theophany, has several references to Joseph Smith. Since the book has yet to appear in English, I'll quote the relevant bits.
After a short paragraph on Emanuel Swedenborg and his Jewish sources, Idel says the following on Joseph Smith.

I should remark that it is possible that angelologies from a Jewish source also influenced the founder of the Mormon faith, Joseph Smith. Hence, the founders of two new forms of Christianity, both with a clear revelatory form having to do with angels, religions in which the concrete dimension is obvious- needed this Jewish concept. If Jarl Fossum is correct in his conclusion that this ancient concept of the great angel, creator of the world and giver of the Torah, influenced the emergence of the gnostic movement, then here again there lies before us an example of the formative role of Jewish angelology in the developement of religious developements outside the world of Judaism. (Pg. 73)

See for now the controversial article by Owens, Joseph Smith and Kabbalah, pg. 117-194, which also contains a list of Kabbalistic sources which supposedly were in the library of Joseph Smith's teacher. The connection between Enoch-Metatron in Jewish tradition and Mormonism was first noted by Harold Bloom, in his book The American Religion, pg. 99, 105. I can't go into the details of the controversies created by Owens' article and the doubts about Smith's relationship to the Kabbalah. It seems that the matter of kabbalistic connections is more complicated and interesting than what can be learned from the currently published documents. (Pg. 156)

See the above, in the introduction, for Joseph Smith's studies with Alexander Neibaur, a figure of Jewish extraction who seemed to have known Kabbalah. See also the end of chapter 4. (Pg. 194)

Idel's source was Lance S. Owens' Joseph Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult Connection, published in Dialogue, Fall 1994. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V27N03_131.pdf  
I confess a certain fondness for Owens' article, despite disagree with much of its conclusions, particularly the portrayal of Neibaur as a kabbalist.
More on that later. 
Owens did attempt to fit Joseph Smith into the larger patterns of Western esotericism by utilising lesser-used sources. That in itself is an interesting, commendable venture, even when the degree of success is questionable. As Idel said, "the matter of kabbalistic connections is more complicated and interesting than what can be learned from the currently published documents."
William Hamblin's rebuttal of Owens is, I think, ultimately succesful, some minor points notwithstanding.
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=8&num=2&id=229
Also, one of my older blogposts deals with the supposed similarities between the Zohar and the King Follet Discourse. http://calba-savua.blogspot.com/2010/01/joseph-smith-and-beginning.html
I will post further mentions of LDS history in other works as I come across them. If you know of any, feel free to post them in the comments section.

A Response to Rob Bowman: Early Jewish Mysticism Pt. 1

Rob Bowman wrote a blogpost critiquing an installment of Daniel Petersen's column in the Deseret News.[1]
My previous post details why one of Bowman's assumptions is untenable, mainly, the position that the word midrash generally means a specific Tannaitic body of literature. I've shown that there is no reason for that to be considered the default definition. He used that assumption in an attempt to show that Petersen misrepresented his source.
In this post I'll examine another statement of his on which much of Bowman's argument hangs.
Before doing so it is worth explaining my use of the word "mysticism." I use it here in a general sense, the imperfect equivalent of the Hebrew term "torat ha-sod," similar to how Gershom Scholem used it in his book "Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism." I will be using it interchangeably with "esotericism."

We need look no further than Patai’s book, from which all of the Mormons derive the quotation, to discover that the text dates from at least six centuries later than Aqiva. In Patai’s “Chronological List of Sources” at the back of the book, the “Midrash Alpha Beta di R. Akiba” is listed as originating from the “8th-9th” centuries. In another book, Patai explains the religious context of the work:
“The foundations of medieval Kabbalism were laid in Babylonia and Byzantium in the 7th and 8th centuries, when a number of Midrashim with marked Kabbalistic tendencies made their appearance. Several of these (e.g,, the Alpha Beta of Rabbi Akiba and the Midrash Konen) deal with the mysteries of Creation and the structure of the universe.”
That’s right, the quotation comes from a foundational work in the development of the medieval mystical Jewish tradition known as Kabbalah. This isn’t just Patai’s opinion. It is the scholarly, academic consensus.

Rob Bowman goes on to say that,

The fact that Peterson and several other Mormon apologists resort to utilizing such a quotation while failing to describe its source accurately is especially troubling. This is the only quotation in Peterson’s article that he does not identify specifically. Clearly, had he done so, it would have weakened his argument. Each of the Mormon apologists cited here had the wherewithal to track down the source of the quotation and to state accurately the period of history and religious perspective from which it originated. I make no judgment as to why they all failed to do so.

Unfortunately, beyond stating a range of dates for the composition of the Ottiyot de-Rabbi Akiva (ORA), Rob Bowman has not accurately stated the religious perspective from which it originated. A glaring example is that none of the other references provided by Bowman state that the ORA is markedly Kabbalistic.
Aside from inaccurately describing the religious perspective and not discussing what kind of text the ORA is, Bowman has failed to address important issues affecting the dating of the concepts presented in the work. He has not discussed a single primary source beyond providing the full quote as it appears in "The Messiah Texts", nor said which part he considers late.
Looking at the quote from Patai's "The Hebrew Goddess," I am at a loss to find exactly which tendencies in the ORA Patai saw as markedly Kabbalistic.
Try as I might, I just can't find any. There is no mention of such key Kabbalistic concepts as Ein-Sof or Ayin, no emanations (Sefirot) of the Godhead and their role in the universe, no feminine aspect of God which must be reunited with God, nothing which is specific to the Kabbalah.
If Bowman would assert that there is something explicit or implicit in the text which could be considered specifically Kabbalistic then he must make a case for it.
Kabbalah is often used to refer to all forms of Jewish mysticism, but this usage is sloppy. Though the Kabbalah shares strong affinities with earlier mystical trends, such as the Merkabah mystics or the German Pietists (Hasidei Ashkenaz), as a distinctive movement it mainly stems from 12th century Provence.
Rob's "Proto-Kabbalistic" is not a very useful term generally. I don't know of a single Jewish esoteric text or tradition which couldn't with some justification be called proto-Kabbalistic. It is possible to write many entries on this alone, but a few examples should suffice.[2]
My highschool was not far from Or Haganuz, a Jewish community formed on Kabbalistic ethics and ideals as formulated by a disciple of R. Yehudah Leib Ashlag. Ashlag was a pivotal 20th century Kabbalist who translated the Zohar into Modern Hebrew and attempted to popularise its teachings. His goal was to create an altruistic community based on living the Torah (or rather, the true meaning as revealed by Kabbalah) for Torah's sake. By accepting the life of "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" they would be fulfilling the purpose of creation and would ascend as it were on a ladder to God and cleave to him completely.[3]
Or Haganuz takes its name from a Jewish tradition regarding the light of creation, and literally means the hidden, or concealed light.
Howard Schwartz provides a brief explanation.

Everyone is familiar with the words of Genesis 1:3, And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. But the ancient rabbis, who scrutinized the words of the Bible for every hidden mystery, wondered what light this was. After all, God did not create the sun, the moon, and the stars till the fourth day. So what was the light of the first day?...
The rabbis conclude that the two lights—that of the first day and that of the fourth—are different. The light of the first day is a primordial light, what is called the or ha-ganuz, or hidden light. This resolves the problem. But it also raises a whole series of new questions—What was the nature of that sacred light? Where did it come from, and where did it go? These questions have been debated among the rabbis for many centuries, and they arrive at a variety of explanations.[4]

The concept of this light is important to many, if not most, kabbalistic systems, and in its hasidic form exemplifies the philosophy of Or Haganuz's settlers.
This is seen in the teachings of the Rav Kook, who was a seminal figure in modern Judaism and Israeli history. He served as chief rabbi in British Mandate Palestine and did much to bring the gap between the secular Zionist movement and the reactionary orthodox community. For him they both had that part of the truth which the other lacked. The middle path, combining the zealous activism of the former with the deep religiosity of the latter, would help bring salvation to the world.

When I lived in London I used to visit the National Gallery, and my favourite pictures were those of Rembrandt. I really think that Rembrandt was a Tzadik. Do you know that when I first saw Rembrandt's works, they reminded me of the legend about the creation of light? We are told that when God created light, it was so strong and pellucid, that one could see from one and of the world to the other, but God was afraid that the wicked might abuse it. What did He do? He reserved that light for the righteous when the Messiah should come. But now and then there are great men who are blessed and privilaged to see it. I think that Rembrandt was one of them, and the light in his pictures is the very light that was originally created by God Almighty[5]

This light is what sustains and rejuvenates the world, and is expressly manifest through ethical behaviour.

The enlightenment of holy men is the basis for the spiritual illumination that arises in the world, in all human hearts. The holy men, those of pure thought and contemplation, join themselves, in their inner sensibilities, with the spiritual that pervades all. Everything that is revealed to them is an emergence of light, a disclosure of the divine, which adds life and firmness, abiding life and spiritual firmness, which gives stability to the whole world with the diffusion of its beneficience.
A life-giving illumination flows always from the source of the Torah, which brings to the world light from the highest realm of the divine. It embraces the values of the spiritual and the material, the temporal and the eternal, the moral and the practical, the individual and the social. These spell life to all who come in contact with them, and guard them in their purity.
Meditation on the inner life and moral conformity must always go together with those qualified for this. They absorb the light pervading the world, which abides in all souls, and they present it as one whole. Through the influences radiating from their life and their fellowship with others, through the impact of their will and the greatness of their spirirtual being, through their humility and love for all creatures, they then disseminate the treasure of life and of good to all.
These men of upright heart are channels through which light and life reach to all creatures. They are vessels for radiating the light of eternal life. They are the servants of God, who heed His word, the messengers who do His will to revive those near death, to strengthen the weak, to awaken those who slumber.[6]

The Rav Kook's view here is drawn from a core Hasidic concept- the Tzadik.
This is not the place to discuss Tzadikism in depth, but a few words by way of explanation are necessary.
Tzadik is Hebrew for righteous. In Hasidism though it came to represent a special class of leader, a holy man who is the intermediary between the world of God and the world of man. He is the pipeline which draws the holy downwards and the profane upwards. Since he cleaves whole-heartedly to God, his disciples cleave to him. He can intercede for them and raise them up, transforming everything into holiness.[7]
There is a famous Hasidic tradition from the circle of R. Elimelech of Lizhensk, adapted by Martin Buber for the opening portion of "Or Haganuz," his collection of Hasidic stories.

R. Eleazar said: "The light that the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day- Adam could see with it from one end of the world to the next. Since the Holy One, blessed be He, looked at the generation of the Deluge and the generation of the Division and saw that their deeds were wicked, He concealed the light from them. And for whom did he conceal it? For the righteous in the future to come."[8]
Hasidim asked: "Where did he conceal it?"
They were answered: "In the Torah."
They asked: "If so, will the Tsadikim not find some of the light as they study Torah?"
They answered: "They certainly will find some."
They asked: "If so, what will the Tsadikim do when they find some of the concealed light in the Torah?"
They answered: "They will reveal it in the way they live."[9]

Apart from the ethical interpretation, there is another aspect of the hidden light which played an even greater role in Kabbalah.
In that classic of Hasidic hagiography, "In Praise of the Baal Shem Tov," a story is told of how R. Baruch was having his oxen sold in a distant town, but worried that they might have been stolen. He sent R. Yosef Kaminker to the Baal Shem Tob (Besht) who then opened the Zohar and read from it.

"I see that R. Baruch's oxen have not been stolen."
R. Yosef asked the Besht, "Is that really written in the Zohar?"
The Besht replied. "This is what our sages said about the verse 'And God saw that the light was good.' They said that it is good to hide it, since with the light of the six days of Creation, one could see from one end of the world to the other. Where did the Holy One, Blessed be He, hide it? He hid it in the Torah. And when they said 'for the righteous in the future to come,' this means for the righteous who will come into the world. Whoever attains the light hidden in the Torah can see with it from one end of the world to the other. Do you suppose that I only saw the oxen? I also saw something which happened in the Jewish community of Amsterdam."[10]

We aren't told what the Besht saw in Amsterdam, but this use of the hidden light is also characteristic of R. Isaac Luria (the Ari) in the hagiography which grew around him.

The hidden light was in him, reaching from one end of this world to the next. He was able to illumine and explain the words of R. Shimon bar Yohai. As it is written in Shivhei Ha-Ari, everything the Ari achieved came from the Zohar.[11]

R. Azriel of Gerona, a leading Kabbalist of the generation before the Zohar had the following to say about the hidden light.

This first light is like the light of thought in which a man sees all that he wishes to look at... and this is the light of wisdom which would rest upon the prophets and crown them with its light, and they would see visions by power, visions of whatever could be, from one end of the world to the next. As long as the soul is pure it shows in her its power and increases, shining brighter and brighter. This light is set apart for the righteous, as they posess a clean and pure spirit, and this light is called the light of life.[12]

Other Kabbalists focused on the implications of the hidden light for creation. R. Shimon ibn Lavi was born in Spain but during his childhood his family was forced to move to Morocco due to the Spanish Expulsion. He was active during the early 16th c. and composed "Ketem Paz," a very important commentary on the Zohar. In it he expresses an idea very similar to the slightly later one found in Lurianic Kabbalah- Tzimtzum, or contraction. The "mystery of expansion" where light is emanated and fills the universe, thus bringing everything into existence, is considered exile, since the light leaves God. The light is then retracted and concealed, since it is too powerful for anything to continue existing in its glare.[13]
This concept of a primeval, hidden light appears both in the talmuds and in various midrashim. One of these quotes has already been mentioned in connection with Buber's anthology.

R. Eleazar said: "The light that the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day- Adam could see with it from one end of the world to the next.

Fourth Ezra, a work from around the late 1st c. CE, also knows of such a light.

Then You commanded that a ray of light be brought forth from your treasuries, so that your works might then appear.

This goes back as far as the Hellenistic Jewish writer Aristobolus.

The first [day], the one in which the light was born by which all things are seen together.[14]

Should we consider these as proto-Kabbalistic? That designation quickly becomes meaningless. These texts are not proto-Kabbalistic, even though many of the Kabbalists are often closer to those texts in their thoughts on the nature of this light than the Amoraic statements are.
I doubt that Rob Bowman would consider 1 Corinthians 15:29 proto-Mormon just because LDS use it as a prooftext for the doctrine of proxy baptism.[15]
It is also highly doubtful that he would consider Ezekiel 1 proto-Kabbalistic, even though terminology drawn from it forms an important part of Kabbalistic teachings and modes of expression. Shaul Magid explains how Ezekiel's vision played a role in the way certain Hasidic movements perceived God's interaction with the universe.

R. Gershon Henokh suggests that the telos of Ezekiel’s vision was to reveal the place where divine concealment (koah ha-hester) begins to reveal itself, resulting in the realization that divine absence is itself divine.
"At that time it was God’s will to show Ezekiel how God fills the entire creation. Therefore, he showed Ezekiel the first [highest] place where He could be apprehended until the place that was necessary, i.e., the place of His concealment.
That is, until the world of formation [‘olam ha-yezerah].
As it is explained . . . in the world of emanation, holiness and goodness are
dominant.
This is also true in the world of creation. In the world of formation, however, good and evil are balanced. Therefore, it is only in the world of formation that the power of divine concealment begins. God wanted to show Ezekiel that the power of concealment is itself from God."
R. Gershon Henokh utilizes the Lurianic notion that the chariot is housed in the world of formation (yezerah)—the first world where good and evil appear as distinct—as a support for the Maimonidean claim that the chariot represents metaphysics.
That is, metaphysics is the highest realm of speculation of the divine because it is the first place where God is hidden. Divine absence becomes the first stage of our apprehension of God. The first human apprehension of God is His absence.
For R. Gershon Henokh, the purpose of the vision is for Ezekiel to see and communicate that God’s absence (evil) is the result of divine will.
The Lurianic interpretation of the chariot of Ezekiel lowers the status of the prophetic vision to a place that is accessible to the human intellect and experience, that is, the angelic world where good and evil are already distinct.[16]

There is a Zohar section discussing the elements of Ezekiel's vision.

From these two sparkling spirits the wheels (Ofannim) are created, and they are holy, their nature being like that of the creatures... "It flashed up and down among the creatures" (Ezekiel 1:13). What does "it" refer to? This is the holy spirit... When spirit was composed within spirit, there emerged from them the illumination of one creature, which lies above the four wheels.[17]

Another example that has a little more bearing on the ORA is gematria. Like everyone else in Israel of the days of a single TV station, I grew up watching the comedy program "Zehu Zeh." Every Friday during the Gulf War, it hardly seems an exaggeration to say that it kept the country sane. One of the best-loved characters was the Baba Bubah, a parody of a senile old Moroccan Kabbalist who interpreted contemporary events by exaggerated and implausible use of gematria.
There are and were several radio shows featuring experts in gematria who use it to resolve issues in the callers' lives, and even many internet sites with gematria calculators. In the popular imagination, Kabbalah and gematria are practically synonymous.
The Sabbateans used gematria heavily in their attempts to prove that Sabbetai Tzvi was the Messiah. A generation earlier in what was then part of the Polish Commonwealth, R. Shimshon of Ostropol devoted his life to nullifying the power of the demonic agents of evil- kelipot, that is, shells. For him these kelipot were manifested in Christianity. There are numerous instances of fierce anti-Christian mystical polemic in his writings. He used gematria to show that King David provided a key to nullifying the power of Christ. If the numerical values for two of the names of Christ in R. Shimshon's teachings are combined- beam (korah) and hunger (raav, consisting of the same letters as raven, which is the antithesis of the dove)- they result in sar pah (Prince Snare). Psalm 124:7 reads,

Our soul is escaped as a bird out of the snare of the fowlers; the snare is broken, and we are escaped.[18]

Gematria has very ancient roots, and was used in the talmuds as well.

Satan has no permission to act as accuser on the Day of Atonement. Whence [is that derived]? — Rama b. Hama said: "The numerical value of Ha-Satan in gematria is three hundred and sixty-four, that means: on three hundred and sixty-four days he has permission to act as accuser, but on the Day of Atonement he has no permission to act as accuser.[19]

The ORA was important to the developement of the Kabbalah because instead of statements scattered here and there, it presented an extensive treatise on the inner meaning of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and, by extension, the possibilities inherent in those letters. There are few concepts in the ORA which can't be found in earlier writings, and this is partiularly true of the quote in question.
Joseph Dan has this to say on what sort of text the ORA is.

This midrash, usually regarded as one collected in the seventh century, is actually an anthology that is distinguished from other similar ones by its keen interest in both cosmogony and mystical literature, but first and foremost by its structure as a commentary on the shape and meaning of the letters of the alphabet. It includes among other things, a brief description of the ascent of Enoch and his transformation to Metatron.[20]

Gershom Scholem, father of the modern study of Jewish mysticism and Joseph Dan's teacher, briefly discussed the ORA as it relates to the textual history of the "Shiur Komah."

Two manuscripts of Shiur Komah versions partially survived on parchment pages in the Cairo Genizah... Further fragments are extant in Hekhaloth Rabbati and Hekhaloth Zutarti... Another fragment is preserved in the so-called Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba, which, to be sure, was edited later than the above-mentioned pieces but nevertheless preserved a great deal of the old Merkavah material.[21]

In other words, according to Scholem and Dan both, the ORA was an anthology of older material. Bowman's emphasis on the late date of the ORA implies that anything in it must be regarded as having a 7th-9th c. provenance. This does not take into account the nature of the ORA. Bowman would need to show that the quote in question is late, since there is sufficient evidence for the continuity from earlier times of the concepts in said quote. Bowman's argument can be illustrated by an admittedly imperfect analogy. If I had written a newspaper editorial on Elizabethan and Jacobean dramaturgy and quoted the following from Charles and Mary Lamb's "Tales from Shakespear" without mentioning the source, would it mean that this scene was from 1806?

Iago knitted his brow, as if he had got fresh light on some terrible matter, and cried: 'Indeed!' This brought into Othello's mind the words which Iago had let fall upon entering the room, and seeing Cassio with Desdemona; and he began to think there was some meaning in all this: for he deemed Iago to be a just man, and full of love and honesty, and 'what in a false knave would be tricks, in him seemed to be the natural workings of an honest mind, big with something too great for utterance: and Othello prayed Iago to speak what he knew, and to give his worst thoughts words. 'And what,' said Iago, 'if some thoughts very vile should have intruded into my breast, as where is the palace into which foul things do not enter?' Then Iago went on to say, what a pity it were, if any trouble should arise to Othello out of his imperfect observations; that it would not be for Othello's peace to know his thoughts; that people's good names were not to be taken away for slight suspicions; and when Othello's curiosity was raised almost to distraction with these hints and scattered words, Iago, as if in earnest care for Othello's peace of mind, besought him to beware of jealousy: with such art did this villain raise suspicions in the unguarded Othello, by the very caution which he pretended to give him against suspicion. 'I know,' said Othello, 'that my wife is fair, loves company and feasting, is free of speech, sings, plays, and dances well: but where virtue is, these qualities are virtuous. I must have proof before I think her dishonest.'

In Hardin Craig's edition of Shakespeare's plays this takes up 91 lines!
Joseph Dan brings up another issue which has bearing on this discussion.

It is sometimes difficult to decide when a text serves as an influential source for further creativity, and when its message is simply reproduced, so that the individuality of both the source and the medieval follower is completely negated.[22]

Rob Bowman hasn't even attempted to show that the ORA quote falls into the former category, he merely asserts that it is.
Lawrence Schiffman discusses Enochian and Hekhalot material in particular, but his observations hold true for Jewish mystical works in general.

The notion of a developing literature of “booklets” that he has explored so carefully regarding 1 Enoch (VanderKam 1984, 17-101) is clearly the correct method with which to understand the eventual emergence of 2 and 3 Enoch as well. These works are composites of documents that were themselves put together from other minor protodocuments, a phenomenon clearly emerging from the results of VanderKam’s detailed research… The close relationship of our official Enoch literature- or better, the various booklets- with other texts (not just traditions) highlights the value of this literary-historical model. Had I sought to work on 2 Enoch and its relation to 1 Enoch, this approach would have been enough to provide a model to understand the development of 2 Enoch… It turns out that “booklets,” or better, short treatises, are the building blocks of all the hekhalot-type texts, as shown by Peter Schafer (1983).
In fact, texts as we know them, independent compositions, are a misnomer for these “texts,” since different manuscripts have different mixes of common, but not always present, building blocks. With this model in mind we can grasp that, like 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch, 3 Enoch is such a composite.
However, 3 Enoch is not just a composite of text traditions such as those found in 1 and 2 Enoch. The circle that produced, exported, composed, redacted, copied, and studied traditions like those in 1 Enoch and 3 Enoch produced various booklets which still circulated in different forms and in different languages after the so-called 1 and 2 Enoch came into being as redacted texts. Some of the original documents circulated in translation. These traditions somehow mixed with those of the hekhalot trend and were redomesticated as part of the emerging textual tradition of late rabbinic/early medieval Jewish esotericism.[23]

Aside from these matters of text, Joseph Dan explains another aspect of Jewish mysticism which Bowman has ignored.

These three subjects- homiletical interpretations of Ezekiel 1, of the first chapters of Genesis, and magic- constitute by far the majority of the parallels found between talmudic and midrashic literature and the esoteric literature. It is true that it is nearly impossible to describe the beginnings of these phenomena, which are so closely integrated with all other aspects of Jewish religious expression from biblical times to the period of the Talmud and Midrash, including the Apocrypha, the Dead Sea scrolls, and early Christian works. One may try to show the beginning of a specific idea or concept in this vast panorama, but the subjects as a whole seem to have been of continuous interest to all trends and tendencies within Jewish culture.[24]

Bowman has asked, or, rather, presented his readers the wrong question.
The kind of questions that should be asked relate to how was the text composed; is it a single composition or is it an anthology; how were traditions transmitted; what in the text is genuinely new or otherwise marks a departure from older texts and traditions; does the designation "medieval" imply a new historical era at this point in Jewish history or is there a continuum in ideas. Bowman declares that the quotation has a medieval theology yet he doesn't show that it is so. His analysis of the quote is just as inadequate.

Continued in the next post...

[1]Rob Bowman's post can be found at http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/08/did-joseph-smith-restore-theosis-part-four-esoteric-jewish-theology-and-joseph-smith%E2%80%99s-doctrine-of-exaltation/ and Daniel Petersen's article at http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700168175/Joseph-Smiths-restoration-of-theosis-was-miracle-not-scandal.html

[2]Other examples include the heavenly Jerusalem, Enoch-Metatron, Shiur Komah, the golem, heavenly ascents, and the Sepher Yetsirah. On the origins of the Kabbalah as a distinct movement see Gershom Scholem, "The Origins of the Kabbalah", Isaiah Tishby "Wisdom of the Zohar" vol. 1, Joseph Dan "Early Kabbalah", and Moshe Idel "Kabbalah: New Perspectives". For an example of a genuinely proto-Kabbalistic text, see Ronit Meroz "The Middle Eastern Origins of Kabbalah."

[3]Boaz Huss, "Altruistic Communism," pp. 125-126.

[4]Howard Schwartz "Tree of Souls," p. Lxxii.

[5]From the "London Jewish Chronicle," September 13, 1935, p. 21. http://asimplejew.blogspot.com/2007/10/rembrandt-rav-kook.html

[6]Abraham Isaac Kook, Ben Zion Bokser (ed.) "Abraham Isaac Kook: The Lights of Penitence, The Moral Principles, Lights of Holiness, Essays, Letters, and Poems," p. 208-209. Bokser's introduction provides an excellent sketch of the Rav Kook and his outlook.

[7]Chapter 3 of Gershom Scholem's "On The Mystical Shape of the Godhead: Basic Concepts in the Kabbalah" discusses the developement of Tsadikism, as does Arthur Green's "Typologies of Leadership and the Hasidic Zaddiq" in "Jewish Spirituality: From the Sixteenth-Century Revival to the Present."

[8]Babylonian Talmud, t. Haggigah 12a.

[9]http://www.schocken.co.il/?CategoryID=165&ArticleID=447 see also Oded Israeli's 2010 lecture http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwGOSWLREJM&feature=youtu.be

[10]"Shivhei Ha-Besht" 5:13.

[11]Shaul Magid "Hasidism on the Margin: Reconciliation, Antinomianism, and Messianism" p. 69.

[12]Isaiah Tishby, "Commentarius in Aggadot, auctores R. Azriel Geronensi" p. 111.

[13]Haviva Pedaya "Or Ke-Tavech Ve-Or Ke-Maatefet" http://havivapedaya.com/drupal/node/22 . The existence in North Africa of Kabbalah independent of and predating the Safed center should suffice to illustrate the inaccuracies in the "Hebrew Goddess"'s overview of the Kabbalah. "An important new development took place following the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, which brought about a powerful upsurge of Messianic longings for redemption, and resulted in the migration of several leading Spanish Kabbalists to the town of Safed in the Galilee. Within a few years thereafter, Safed became the new center of the Kabbala, and held this position for a short but remarkable period in the 16th century. From Safed, the Kabbala spread rapidly to all the Asian, African and European centers of the Jewish diaspora."

[14]4 Ezra 6:40 and Aristobulus, fragment 3. Translation is from James L. Kugel "The Bible as it Was" p. 57.

[15]See J. Trumbower, "Rescue for the Dead: The Posthumous Salvation of Non-Christians in Early Christianity," pp. 55-57.
"I agree with Rissi and Hans Conzelmann (and, for that matter, with Mormon prophet Joseph Smith), that the grammar and logic of the passage point to a practice of vicarious baptism of a living person for the benefit of a dead person." Trumbower's endorsement, however, is far from unqualified. For him, the main difference is one of scale, the ancient texts painting a more limited picture of those eligible for such baptism.

[16]Magid, "Hasidism on the Margin" p. 57.

[17]Isaiah Tishby, "Wisdom of the Zohar" vol. 2, p. 598.

[18]Yehuda Liebes, ""Jonah as the Messiah ben Joseph." For a general overview of gematria, as well as examples of Sabbatean gematria, see Gershom Scholem "Kabbalah" pp. 337-343.

[19]Babylonian Talmud, t. Yoma 20a. The same Parchment and Pen blog has a post discussing Christian gematria. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/12/walid-shoebat-youtube-video-on-the-mark-of-the-beast/

[20]Joseph Dan, "Jewish Mysticism," 1, p. 156. In a different book, Dan points out the difficulty of deciding what came first in what work. "The schools of the gaonim, the leaders of the great academies in Babylonia, preserved the tradition of Hekhalot mysticism. Rav Hai Gaon, in the beginning of the eleventh century, mentioned in his writings many of the Hekhalot texts. It is difficult to know, whether this intrrest was only literary, or whether there was creative, mystical activity in these schools. The work of editing and preserving many of the Hekhalot texts was undertaken in Babylonia in this period, but how much of the material which has reached us was traditional, and how much was the result of the creativity of these editors we cannot ascertain. Thus, for example, the great anthology of esoteric speculation concerning the alphabet, cosmology, the heavenly realm,the angels and the divine name, known as the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba or The Letters of Rabbi Akiba, was most probably edited in Gaonic Babylonia. But what parts of this vast collection were ancient, and what were added by the editors, cannot be stated with any certainty. For, the work contains a brief description of the story of Enoch and his rhetamorphosis intoo the Prince of the Countenance, Metatron, along with a list of the secret names of Metaron. The problem is: Did the brief version, included in the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba, precede the long, detailed version in 3rd Enoch, or vice versa? That is, did some late editor compare the abridged version and add it to an alrteady extant anthology attributed to the ancient sage? There are several philological elements which support each of these possibilites, and a decision either way is impossible at this time."
"Gershom Scholem and the mystical dimension of Jewish history," ch. 3.

[21]Scholem, "Mystical Shape of the Godhead" p. 276-277.

[22]Dan, "Jewish Mysticism," 1, p. 248.

[23]Lawrence H. Schiffman, "3 Enoch and the Enoch Tradition," in Boccaccini (ed.) "Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection" p. 160.

[24]Dan, "Jewish Mysticism," 1, pp. 85-86.

The Power of Names

The Maaseh Buch is a sixteenth-century collection of Yiddish legends revolving around Rabbi Judah ha-Hasid (the pious), a leader of the mystic movement known as the German Pietists (Hasidei Ashkenaz). This movement was started by members of the Kalonymide family- Samuel ha-Hasid, his son the aforementioned Judah ha-Hassid, and his cousin, Eleazar Rokeah of Worms. The Kalonymides had arrived in the Jewish communities of the Rhineland after leaving Italy during the 9th century. They brought with them the teachings, writings, and traditions of the Merkabah mystics. Some of these have been preserved only in the writings of the Pietists and those influenced by them[2].
The Italian families in the Rhineland also brought with them many piyyutim (hymns) originating in Byzantine Palestine, such as El Adon, and Untaneh Tokef[3].
Merkabah mysticism was spread throughout Italy thanks to men like Aharon of Baghdad, but its roots are in Palestinian synagogues of the first few centuries CE, among priestly circles. This point will be discussed more fully in a later post.
In the Maaseh Buch is a tale of how R. Eliezer, son of R. Amnon of Mayence, wishes to study with R. Judah, despite instructions from his father never to leave Mayence. R. Judah reluctantly takes R. Eliezer in, yet refuses to teach him mystical knowledge until R. Eliezer decides to return to Mayence for the Passover Seder. He would not be able to make it back from Regensburg in time, so R. Judah intervenes.

"Then R. Judah took his staff and wrote holy names in the sand. He told R. Eliezer to read those words, and when he did, R. Eliezer found that he knew as much as R. Judah himself. But a moment later R. Judah covered the words with sand, and at that instant R. Eliezer forgot everything. R. Judah the Pious did this three times, and three times R. Eliezer was filled with great knowledge, and three times he grieved when it was gone. The fourth time R. Judah wrote the words in the sand, he told R. Eliezer to eat the words of sand. And when R. Eliezer swallowed the sand on which those words were written, the knowledge remained with him, and he never forgot it again. Then R. Judah pronounced the priestly blessing, followed by a pair of holy names. And a moment later, R. Eliezer found himself at the door of his home in Mayence."[4]

R. Judah uses holy names- the various names of angels and God- in order to impart knowledge to R. Eliezer. R. Eliezer is in possession of this knowledge only as long as he is in possession of those holy names[5].
After using the names to impart knowledge, R. Judah says the priestly blessing,[6] and a pair of holy names, enabling R. Eliezer to travel great distances in no time at all.
Part of the use of holy names of holy names in earlier Merkabah mysticism was to enable the mystic to ascend into the heavens[7].
In Jewish lore the ability to cover long distances almost instantaneously by the use of holy names is fairly widespread, attributed among others to R. Shimon ben Tzemah Duran[8] and the Baal Shem Tov[9].
A name was considered to carry with it power.
Gershom Scholem wrote that, “the magic quality of the name relies on the fact that a close and substantial relation exists between the name and the name's bearer.
The name is a real, non-fictitious quantity. It contains a declaration about the nature of its bearer or at least something of the potency attaching to it; it is, further, identified with the nature and essence of what is named by it.”[10]
Ephraim E. Urbach went as far as to say that the name and the power were synonyms.[11]
It could be used either to wield power on its own, or to compel the bearer of the name to accomplish some task.
A classic example is that of the Sar Torah, or prince of the Torah. This was an angel who, when summoned, would reveal the secret of how to master the Torah and its secrets, as well as make it that the student would never forget the things he was taught.
The Chapter of R. Nehuniah b. ha-Qanah relates how R. Ishmael at thirteen years of age was unable to commit to memory any of the teachings of R. Nehuniah, his teacher.
R. Nehuniah took R. Ishmael to the chamber of hewn stone (lishkat ha-gazit) in the temple grounds, and there instructs him on how to summon the Sar Torah.

"He adjured me by the great seal, by the great oath, in the name of Yad Naqof Yad Nakuy Yad Heras Yad Suqas; by his great seal, by Zebudiel Yah, by Akhtariel Yah, by heaven and by earth. As soon as I heard this great secret, my eyes became enlightened. Whatever I heard- Scripture, Mishnah, anything else- I forgot no more. The world was made new for me in purity, and it was as if I had come from a new world. Now: any student (talmid) who knows what he learns does not stay with him should stand and say a blessing, rise and speak an adjuration, in the name of Margobiel Giwat’el Ziwat’el Tanariel Hozhayah Sin Sagan Sobir’hu , all of whom are Metatron. Marg[obiel] is Metatron; Giw[at’el] is Metatron; Tanariel is Metatron; Hozhayah is Metatron; Sin is Metatron; Sagan is Metatron; Sobir’uhu is Metatron. Because they love him so much in heaven, they call him Ziwat’el servant of Zebudiel Yah, Akhatriel Yahweh God of Israel, Yahweh, Yahweh, merciful and gracious God, slow to anger and full of faithfulness and truth (Exodus 34:6). Blessed be the wise one who knows secrets, the master of mysteries…
R. Ishamel said: When I was thirteen years old, I pondered this matter, and went back to my teacher, R. Nehuniah b. ha-Qanah. I said to him, “What is the name of the prince of Torah (sarah shel torah)?” He said to me, “His name is Yofiel.” I then arose and afflicted myself for forty days, and spoke the great name until I brought him down. He came down in a flame, his face like the appearance of lightning (cf. Daniel 10:6)."[12]

The Sar Torah is extremely belligerent, threatening and insulting Rabbi Ishmael.
Without the ability to control an angel summoned from above (again, by use of holy names and through personal preparation and purity) the results are potentially devastating.
An early 19th century folktale from Holland relates how a certain scholar was a master of Kabbalah, particularly the Zohar. If he did not know the answer to a question, he would pronounce a holy name, summoning a spirit who would reveal the mystery. One night the scholar fell asleep, and four of his best students decided to pronounce the name themselves. The spirit teaches them what they wanted to know, but not one of them remembers the name which would release the increasingly furious spirit, who threatens to destroy them if he is not released.[13]
Another danger arises from a careless pronounciation of a name, which, as in the case of the story about the Baal Shem Tov and R. Adam’s son, where the prince of fire is summoned instead of the Sar Torah.[14]
Maayan Hochma is a midrash relating how Moses ascended into heaven in order to receive the Torah. The angelic sentinels initially oppose him, until God himself defends and protects Moses and reveals to him the Torah and the proper way of reading it. The angels then become the friends of Moses rather than his enemies. Mayan Hochma serves as an introduction to a text known as Shimushei Torah (theurgic uses of the Torah), which, when read in the proper order, is actually the secret name of God himself.[15]
The Mishnah (t. Sukkah 4:5) relates how, “Each day they [the priests] made one circuit around the altar and they would say: "Please O Lord, save; Please O Lord, save us!" (Ps. 118:25). R. Yehudah states: [they would say] Ani wa-Ho, save us! Ani wa-Ho, save us!” Urbach surmised that this is a mumbled version of ana (please) and the Tetragammaton.[16] It was mumbled so that the unrighteous would not hear it because of the power inherent in it. As seen above, careless pronounciation of a name was dangerous, deliberate, malicious use was far worse. Cursing someone (always done by invoking a divine name) was punished severely, no matter what name was used. In the Qumran community it resulted in permanent expulsion from the group. When the curse used the ineffable name the results were considered deadly. Literally so.[17]
Using a name to wield power over its bearer is an essential feature of many sorts of amulets.
Hayyim David Yosef Azulai, in his Yosef ba-Seder 6, relates a tradition about the origin of amulets protecting against the demoness Lilith, who seeks to harm women and children.
“Lilith said, “O lord, release me from your curse and I swear by God’s Name to forsake my evil ways. As long as I hear or see my own names I will retreat and not come near that person.
I shall have no power to injure him or do evil. I swear to disclose my true names to you.”
Elijah said, “Tell me what your names are.”
Lilith said, “These are my names: Lilith, Abiti, Abizu, Amrusu, Hakash, Ode, Ayil, Matruta, Avgu, Katah, Kali, Batub, and Paritasha.”
Let them be written and hung about the house of women who are bearing a child, or around the child after it has been born.
And when I see those names, I shall run away at once. Neither the child nor the mother will ever be injured by me.”
And Elijah said, “So be it. Amen.”[18]
These beliefs are nothing new, but are rooted deep in biblical times.
The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible has this to say in its entry on names. “The name of a person or deity is especially closely associated with that person or deity, so that knowledge of the name is connected with access to and influence with even magical control of-the named… Certain deities in the Ancient Near East are celebrated for the multiplicity of their names or titles. e.g. the 50 names of Marduk in Enuma Elish, the 74 names of Re in the tomb of Thutmosis III and the 100-142 names of Osiris in Spell 142 of the Book of the Dead. The deities may also have hidden or secret names so as to emphasize their otherness and to guard against improper invocation by devotees. (Note the story about how Isis persuaded Re to divulge his secret name, thereby lending great power to her magic; ANET 12-14.).[19]







[1]More on the Pietists can be found in Gershom Scholem’s Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism.

[2]See for instance my earlier post on Enoch the shoemaker.

[3]Untaneh Tokef is one of those rare instances in which a text is dated later than it really is, rather than earlier. Popular legend ascribes it to R. Amnon of Mayence, martyred in the 12th century. The piyyut though has been found in old manuscripts of the Cairo Genizah.

[4]Howard Schwartz, Gabriel’s Palace, The Words in the Sand, pg. 171-172. See also the note on pg. 322.

[5]In practice, holy names were only imparted after preparation, involving fasting, ritual purification by water, and prayer. See Scholem, On the Kabbalah and its Symbolism, pg. 135-137.

[6]Numbers 6:23-27. Gersonides, in his commentary on this verse, sees the priestly blessing as another form of God’s name. “It should be said, the priests will place the mystery of My name on My people in such a way that all will know it, and then I will bless them…”

[7]Rachel Elior, The Priestly Nature of the Mystical Heritage in Heykalot Literature, in Experience et Écriture Mystiques dans les Religions du Livre, edited by Paul Fenton and Roland Goetschel.
“The knowledge and command of arcane divine names (shemot) was perceived as a prerequisite for mystical ascent, for conjuring the angels and for gazing upon the divine chariot.”

[8]Schwartz, Gabriel’s Palace, Rabbi Shimon’s Escape, pg. 126-127.

[9]Ibid, The Tree of Life, pg. 192-193.

[10]Scholem, The Name of God and the Linguistic Theory of the Kabbala, Eranos lecture, 1970.

[11]E. E. Urbach, The Sages, pg. 124. In Acts 4:7 the question the high priest and his circle asked the apostles was “By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?”

[12]David J. Halperin, The Faces of the Chariot, pg. 378-379. A work dealing solely with Sar Torah traditions is Michael D. Swartz’s Scholastic Magic.

[13]Schwartz, Gabriels Palace, The Secrets of Kabbalah, pg. 155-156.

[14]Ibid, The Prince of Fire, pg. 187-189.

[15]Yehudah David Eisenstein, Otzar Midrashim, pg. 306-307.

[16]Urbach, Sages, pg. 127-28.

[17]Ibid, pg. 131-33. Several traditions are mentioned where a Persian cursed his child by the ineffable name, resulting in the child’s death.

[18]Howard Schwartz, The Tree of Souls, Lilith and Elijah, pg. 224-225.

[19] For more on Isis and Re, see David Tayman’s superb blog post at http://visionsofthekingdom.com/?p=393

Enoch the Shoemaker or Why God Took Up Enoch

And I asked my teacher Rabbi Yehudah the Preacher Ashkenazi, of blessed memory, what the matter of Enoch was, by virtue of which he had merited all this[1], for the matter of Elijah was known, but why Enoch?
He said that he recieved[2] that Enoch was an ushkaf, that is, he sewed together shoes, and with every incision and incision that he would make using the stitching awl, he would bless with a whole heart and perfect intent the Name, be blessed[3], and extended the blessing to Metatron the exalted, and never did he forget during even a single incision to bless, but would always do so, until because of so much love he was not, for God took him and he merited being called Metatron and his virtue is very great indeed.

ושאלתי את פי מורי הר׳יהודה הדרשן אשכגזי ז״ל מה היה עניין חגוך שעל ידו זכה לכל זה, כי עניין אליהו ז״ל ידוע, אבל חנוך למה, ואמר שקבל שחנוך היה אישכף כלומר תופר מנעלים, ובכל נקיבה ונקיבה שהיה נוקב במרצע בעור, היה מברך בלב שלם ובכוונה שלימה לשם ית׳, וממשיך הברכה למטטרון הנאצל, ומעולם לא שכח אפי׳ בנקיבה אחת מלברך אלא תמיד היה עושה כן, עד שמרוב אהבה איננו כי לקח אותו אלהים (בראשית ה׳) וזכה להקראות מטטרון ומעלתו גדולה עד מאד.

Rabbi Isaac of Acre, in Meirat Einaim, pg. 47

Rabbi Isaac ben Samuel of Acre was an early kabbalist who lived between 1250-1340, and lived in the port city of Acre until it was captured by the Mameluk sultan al-Ashraf Khalil in 1291. R. Isaac himself was taken prisoner. After his release he moved to Italy and Spain. He is perhaps best known through the controversy over the origins and antiquity of the Zohar, the central book of the Kabbalah. His testimony amounts to the only contemporary historical evidence on the publication of the Zohar, so its importance cannot be overrated. For more on that, see I. Tishby's The Wisdom of the Zohar, pg. 13-18.
R. Isaac belonged to the main branch of Kabbalah, the theosophical-theurgical one. In other words, the contemplation of the upper reaches and also of how man affected them. The above quote from R. Isaac is a clear theurgical statement. God in kabbalistic thought is represented by a series of emanations, the ten sephirot, each with its unique names and attributes. Metatron the exalted was considered to be malchut, the tenth and lowest sephirah. This Metatron is distinct from the created Metatron, Enoch, who is merely given that title.
Enoch, who lived before the commandments were given to Moses, loved God and served him whole heartedly, focusing his love and intents on God during such a mundane and menial act as sewing together shoes. This blessing caused power to flow downwards to the lowest sephirah. Because of this great love of Enoch for God, he was taken up and exalted. Abstract emotion and devotion, without accompanying acts, do not suffice to cause a change in the world. The opposite also holds true.
Moshe Idel surmises that although it is filtered through R. Isaac's kabbalistic leanings, this story reflects a rich but lost Enochic tradition in the possesion of the German Pietists (Hasidei Ashkenaz) of the 12th century, which itself preserves older material. He points out that the German R. Yehudah recieved this traditions from an anonymous master, presumabely also a German. Idel further points out that in some Muslim legends Idris (Enoch) is a tailor.[4]

[1]His ascent. Unlike Elijah, where we are given his story before his ascent, the Bible records of Enoch merely that he walked with God, and he was not, for God took him. This brevity puzzled R. Isaac.

[2]Heb. kibel, which implies a teaching or saying given to one by one's teacher or master.

[3]A common term for God in medieval Jewish literature.

[4]See chapter 4 of Moshe Idel's The Angelic World- Apotheosis and Theophany, Miskal, 2008, from where I have drawn most of the material for this post.

From Sadness to Joy

In recent years, the tradition of Breslov Hasidim to celebrate Rosh ha-Shanah at the tomb of Rebbe Nachman in the central Ukrainian town of Uman has become increasingly popular. Thousands make the pilgrimage each year. This recent Rosh ha-Shanah, however, culminated in disgraceful, riotous behavior on the part of some of the younger pilgrims. Football hooliganism should have no place in the conduct of any believer of any religion. Happily, the majority do live their lives in a way that honours God and respects their fellow man. Because of the international scandal, it is to be expected that more and more people are wondering who these Hasidim are, and what the pilgrimage is about. This is why I thought I would share a little on the founder of Breslov Hasidism, including excerpts from his teachings.

Rabbi Nachman of Breslov was the great grandson of the Baal Shem-Tov (or Besht), considered the founder of Hasidism. He blazed a new path in the world of Hasidism, at the same time a path he paradoxically considered to be old as well. "It is impossible for there not to be controversy over me, for I am walking along a new path that man has never ever walked in before, even though it is a very old path, but nevertheless it is entirely new."[1]
R. Nachman revelled in the paradoxical. He alternated between saintly behaviour and foolish pranks. Perhaps more than any other Hasid, R. Nachman found in stories and music a path to God. His stories are elaborate, mysterious, Kafka-esque constructions of stories within stories, so much that one loses sight of where he started and where he was going. The point, one might with some justice say, is in the world created by the story, more than anything else.
R. Nachman's path brought him into conflict with everyone. He attacked the Haskalah, or Enlightenment, despite being influenced by them and agreeing somewhat with their programme. What he considered dangerous was not the particulars, but their outlook on life, and what their path would lead to in the spiritual life of Jews. Indeed, he set up his residence in Uman, which was a centre for the Haskalah movement. This is also where, three weeks before his death, he instructed his followers to celebrate Rosh ha-Shanah each year.
The other Hasidic masters R. Nachman accused of complacency and spiritual stagnation. They in turn considered him and his followers dangerous heretics, persecuting them both during and after his lifetime. Many are the accounts of bans, beatings, and being informed on to Tsarist and Soviet authorities.
R. Nachman apointed no succesor, and his followers are often known as the Dead Hasidim, for having no living tsaddik to lead them.

"A great mitzvah[2] is to be ever joyful."[3]
One of R. Nachman's main preoccupations was with finding joy, or, rather, that sorrow gets in the way of worshipping and drawing closer to God. One of his better known statements is one in which he compared life with crossing a narrow bridge. "And know, that a man must pass over a narrow, narrow bridge, and the point and principle is that he fear not at all."[4]
The following is a further example of his philosophy, of how he sought to find the joy in even what appeared to be hopeless situations.

"And you have withheld some of God from him, and have crowned him with honour and splendour."
(Psalm 8)

It is known that whatever is missing in man, be it spiritual or be it temporal, is because of the lack of the Shechinah,[5] which is as God. And this is [the meaning of] 'And you have withheld', certainly, some of God, that is, the lack is certainly on God's part, that is, the Shechinah. But when a man knows that the lack is from above and from below, he will definitely have great sorrow and sadness, and wont be able to worship Ha-Shem Yitbarach[6] with joy. Because of this he must answer to himself what am I and what is my life, for the King himself is telling me his shortcoming, and can there be a greater honour than that? From that he comes to a great joy, and his mochin[7] are become new again. And this is [the meaning of]: 'and have crowned him with honour and splendour.' That is, by the honour and splendour which he has, that the King himself tells him of the lack, you have crowned him with new mochin.

-Likuttey Moharan, 89.

[1]Shivchey Moharan, Inyan ha-Machloket 1, 17a.

[2]Lit. a commandment, but also with the added meaning of an act of piety.

[3]Likuttey Moharan Tanina, 24.

[4]Likuttey Moharan Tanina, 48.

[5]Or Divine Presence. In the Kabbalah the Shechinah is personified as God's wife, who, as a result of going into exile when the temple was destroyed, became separated from her husband. The world will not return to a perfect state until the two are reunited.

[6]The Name, may He be blessed. Another term for God, used so as to avoid profaning God by too frequent a repetition of his name.

[7]Lit. brains. In Hasidism the term refers to states of consciousness.

Cast All Their Sins into the Depth of the Sea

As a result of an interesting online correspondence with David Larsen (well, I commented on his blogpost and he replied), I felt like posting a little something on the custom of tashlich.

In Hatzor, the town I grew up in, there was a small mountain spring in which every Rosh ha-Shanah tashlich was done. I went there a few times myself as a child. Standing at the edge of the water, after saying a prayer that includes Micah 7:19, pockets and hems are shaken of crumbs (or just shaken, the custom varies), which symbolises sins being cast into the depths of the ocean. Hayyim Vital, Isaac kabbalist Isaac Luria’s disciple, mentioned an additional, mystical significance, that the Accuser would be cast into the depths.

The Ashkenazi custom of going on the first day of Rosh ha-Shanah, after the minhah prayer just prior to the setting of the sun, to the big sea, or to the spring, or to a well of living water, a custom termed tashlich, is a fine custom, though it is best to hold it outside the city. And a man stands on the shore, or at the edge of a well, or at a fountain and exclaims three times 'Who is a God like unto thee, &c. (Micah 7:18), Thou wilt give truth to Jacob, &c. (Micah 7:20)' which are at the end of Micah the Morashtite... And when you say 'And cast all of their sins into the sea (Micah 7:19)', focus your intentions on having all your sins and transgressions cast [into the depths] and on the Accuser on High being cast into the depths of the sea on high*, for this cause it must be said at the sea or at living waters.

"עניין המנהג שנהגו האשכנזים לילך ביום ראשון דר"ה אחר תפלת המנחה מעט קודם שקיעת החמה אצל הים הגדול, או אצל המעיין, או באר מים חיים וקורים אותו תשליך, הנה הוא מנהג יפה ויותר טוב הוא אם יהיה חוץ לעיר.
ויעמוד על שפת הים, או על שפת הבאר, או המעיין ויקרא שם ג' פעמים מי א-ל כמוך כו' תתן אמת ליעקב כו' שבסוף מיכה המורשתי... וכשתאמר ותשליך במצולות ים כל חטאתם תכוון שיושלכו כל חטאתיך ועונותיך וגם המקטרג העליון יושלך במצולות הים העליון, כי לסבה זו הוצרך לאמרו על הים או על המים החיים"... (שער הכוונות עניין ר"ה).

-Shaar ha-Kavvanot, Inyan Rosh ha-Shanah.

Although entering the water is frowned upon generally, but as reported by the 19th c. Jewish traveler, Israel ben Joseph Binyamin, the Jews living in remote mountain villages of Kurdistan used to be in the habit of swimming in the water, but this died out after they emigrated to Israel.
Nobody knows when tashlich first appeared. The first literary mentions are relatively late, going back only to the late 14th century, but on the other hand, the custom is found in practically all Jewish communities, and seems to hearken back to older days. There are intriguing links with a hypothetical enthronement festival that Sigmund Mowinckel proposed took place every year between Rosh ha-Shanah and Yom Kippur. An example is the tradition in the Babylonian Talmud that kings were anointed only at a river, drawing upon David's instructions on how his son Solomon was to be made king. David Larsen mentioned a theory that the king was immersed in the Gihon at Jerusalem, which represented a death and resurrection. Another link with days gone by and the tashlich is baptism, or ritual immersion, extremely popular since at least the Second Temple period. Josephus in Antiquities 14.10 cites a decree by the city of Halicarnasus allowing Jews to build synagogues by the sea. This is not direct evidence for tashlich existing as far back as that, but the reason synagogues were built by the sea is for reasons of ritual purity. This is at the heart of the tashlich. The Mekhilta contains several references to prophets recieving prophecies only by bodies of water when the land was impure or they were in exile.
Tashlich was originally a folk tradition, invoking the ire of scholars, because the people considered that they were casting their actual sins into the water.

It is best to avoid the people who are as light-minded as women and say, Ich vil geyn mayn aveyres shiteln [I will shake off my transgressions], and, taking hold of the folds of their clothing, shake them, thinking to themselves that by so doing a mman can shake off the transgressions that he commited all the year before. And he ought not to to think so, for it really is a desecration of the great Name of God before the nations that know of the custom. For when they see Jews going to the river, they say laughingly, The Jews are going shiteln ire zind in vasser [to shake their sins into the water]. But if a person wants to observe the custom, let him say, Ich vil geyn tashlikh makhen [I will perform the Casting]. For the principal purpose of the custom is to pray to God, to cast out our iniquities into the depths of the sea, because in sayings these verses we are contemplating Teshuvah [repentance]... And the custom of shaking the hems of our clothing is symbolic, too; we do it to shake off the shells of the evil spirits that cling to us because of the filth of our iniquities...

-Abraham ben Sabbatai Sheftel ha-Levi Horovitz of Prague, Emek Berakhah, Cracow 1597, as included in S. Y. Agnon's Days of Awe.

*Or the sea of the upper realms.

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.