THE KABBALAH

               Its Doctrines, Development, and Literature


                                   By
                      CHRISTIAN D. GINSBURG Ll.D.


                           Second Impression


                                 London
                    GEORGE ROUTLEDGE & SONS LIMITED
                 Broadway House: 68–74 Carter Lane E.C.

                                  1920









                                   TO

               PERCY M. DOVE, ESQ., F.I.A., F.S.S., &c.,

                 I AFFECTIONATELY INSCRIBE THIS ESSAY,

              AS AN EXPRESSION OF MY HIGH REGARD FOR HIM,
              BOTH AS A FRIEND AND A CHRISTIAN GENTLEMAN.


                         CHRISTIAN D. GINSBURG.









THE KABBALAH.


I.


A system of religious philosophy, or more properly of theosophy, which
has not only exercised for hundreds of years an extraordinary influence
on the mental development of so shrewd a people as the Jews, but has
captivated the minds of some of the greatest thinkers of Christendom in
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, claims the greatest attention
of both the philosopher and the theologian. When it is added that among
its captives were Raymond Lully, the celebrated scholastic,
metaphysician and chemist (died 1315); John Reuchlin, the renowned
scholar and reviver of oriental literature in Europe (born 1455, died
1522); John Picus di Mirandola, the famous philosopher and classical
scholar (1463–1494); Cornelius Henry Agrippa, the distinguished
philosopher, divine and physician (1486–1535); John Baptist von
Helmont, a remarkable chemist and physician (1577–1644); as well as our
own countrymen Robert Fludd, the famous physician and philosopher
(1574–1637), and Dr. Henry More (1614–1687); and that these men, after
restlessly searching for a scientific system which should disclose to
them “the deepest depths” of the Divine nature, and show them the real
tie which binds all things together, found the cravings of their minds
satisfied by this theosophy, the claims of the Kabbalah on the
attention of students in literature and philosophy will readily be
admitted. The claims of the Kabbalah, however, are not restricted to
the literary man and the philosopher: the poet too will find in it
ample materials for the exercise of his lofty genius. How can it be
otherwise with a theosophy which, we are assured, was born of God in
Paradise, was nursed and reared by the choicest of the angelic hosts in
heaven, and only held converse with the holiest of man’s children upon
earth. Listen to the story of its birth, growth and maturity, as told
by its followers.

The Kabbalah was first taught by God himself to a select company of
angels, who formed a theosophic school in Paradise. After the fall the
angels most graciously communicated this heavenly doctrine to the
disobedient child of earth, to furnish the protoplasts with the means
of returning to their pristine nobility and felicity. From Adam it
passed over to Noah, and then to Abraham, the friend of God, who
emigrated with it to Egypt, where the patriarch allowed a portion of
this mysterious doctrine to ooze out. It was in this way that the
Egyptians obtained some knowledge of it, and the other Eastern nations
could introduce it into their philosophical systems. Moses, who was
learned in all the wisdom of Egypt, was first initiated into it in the
land of his birth, but became most proficient in it during his
wanderings in the wilderness, when he not only devoted to it the
leisure hours of the whole forty years, but received lessons in it from
one of the angels. By the aid of this mysterious science the lawgiver
was enabled to solve the difficulties which arose during his management
of the Israelites, in spite of the pilgrimages, wars and the frequent
miseries of the nation. He covertly laid down the principles of this
secret doctrine in the first four books of the Pentateuch, but withheld
them from Deuteronomy. This constitutes the former the man, and the
latter the woman. Moses also initiated the seventy elders into the
secrets of this doctrine, and they again transmitted them from hand to
hand. Of all who formed the unbroken line of tradition, David and
Solomon were most initiated into the Kabbalah. No one, however, dared
to write it down, till Simon ben Jochai, who lived at the time of the
destruction of the second Temple. Having been condemned to death by
Titus, Rabbi Simon managed to escape with his son and concealed himself
in a cavern where he remained for twelve years. Here, in this
subterranean abode, he occupied himself entirely with the contemplation
of the sublime Kabbalah, and was constantly visited by the Prophet
Elias, who disclosed to him some of its secrets which were still
concealed from the theosophical Rabbi. Here, too, his disciples
resorted to be initiated by their master into these divine mysteries;
and here, Simon ben Jochai expired with this heavenly doctrine in his
mouth, whilst discoursing on it to his disciples. Scarcely had his
spirit departed, when a dazzling light filled the cavern, so that no
one could look at the Rabbi; whilst a burning fire appeared outside,
forming as it were a sentinel at the entrance of the cave, and denying
admittance to the neighbours. It was not till the light inside, and the
fire outside, had disappeared, that the disciples perceived that the
lamp of Israel was extinguished. As they were preparing for his
obsequies, a voice was heard from heaven, saying, “Come ye to the
marriage of Simon b. Jochai, he is entering into peace, and shall rest
in his chamber!” A flame preceded the coffin, which seemed enveloped
by, and burning like fire. And when the remains were deposited in the
tomb, another voice was heard from heaven, saying, “This is he who
caused the earth to quake, and the kingdoms to shake!” His son, R.
Eliezer, and his secretary, R. Abba, as well as his disciples, then
collated R. Simon b. Jochai’s treatises, and out of these composed the
celebrated work called Sohar (‏זהר‎) i.e., Splendour, which is the
grand storehouse of Kabbalism.

From what has been said, it will be seen that the followers of this
secret doctrine claim for it a pre-Adamite existence, and maintain
that, ever since the creation of the first man, it has been received
uninterruptedly from the hands of the patriarchs, the prophets, &c. It
is for this reason that it is called Kabbalah (‏קבלה‎ from ‏קבל‎ to
receive) which primarily denotes reception, and then a doctrine
received by oral tradition. The Kabbalah is also called by some Secret
Wisdom. (‏חכמה נסתרה‎), because it was only handed down by tradition
through the initiated, and is indicated in the Hebrew Scriptures by
signs which are hidden and unintelligible to those who have not been
instructed in its mysteries. From the initial letters of this name,
this theosophic system is also denominated Grace (‏ח״ן‎ = ‏חכמה
נסתרה‎). Vague and indefinite as this name may seem to the uninitiated,
inasmuch as it conveys no idea whatever of the peculiar doctrines of
the system, but simply indicates the manner in which they have been
transmitted, it is nevertheless the classical and acknowledged
appellation of this theosophy. The difference between the word Kabbalah
(‏קבלה‎ receptio) and the cognate term Massorah (‏מסורה‎ traditio, from
‏מסר‎ to transmit)—which denotes the traditionally transmitted various
readings of the Hebrew Scriptures—is, that the former expresses the act
of receiving, which in this technical sense could only be on the part
of one who has reached a certain period of life, as well as a certain
state of sanctity, implying also a degree of secrecy; whilst the latter
signifies the act of giving over, surrendering, without premising any
peculiar age, stage of holiness, or degree of secrecy. The name,
therefore, tells us no more than that this theosophy has been received
traditionally. To ascertain its tenets we must analyze the system
itself or the books which propound it; and to this task we now betake
ourselves.

The cardinal doctrines of the Kabbalah are mainly designed to solve the
grand problems about (I) The nature of the Supreme Being, (II) The
cosmogony, (III) The creation of angels and man, (IV) The destiny of
man and the universe, and (V) To point out the import of the Revealed
Law. Assenting and consenting to the declarations of the Hebrew
Scriptures about the unity of God (Exod. xx, 3; Deut. iv, 35, 39; vi,
4; xxxii, 39), his incorporeity (Exod. xx, 4; Deut. iv, 15; Ps. xiv,
18), eternity (Exod. iii, 14; Deut. xxxii, 40; Isa. xli, 4; xliii, 10;
xliv, 6; xlviii, 12), immutability (Mal. iii, 6), perfection (Deut.
xxxii, 4; 2 Sam. xxii, 31; Job xxxviii, 16; Ps. xviii, 31), infinite
goodness (Exod. xxxiv, 6; Ps. xxv, 10; xxxiii, 5; c, 5; cxlv, 9), the
creation of the world in time according to God’s free will (Gen. i, 1),
the moral government of the universe and special providence, and to the
creation of man in the image of God (Gen. i. 27), the Kabbalah seeks to
explain the transition from the infinite to the finite; the procedure
of multifariousness from an absolute unity, and of matter from a pure
intelligence; the operation of pure intelligence upon matter, in spite
of the infinite gulf between them; the relationship of the Creator to
the creature, so as to be able to exercise supervision and providence.
It, moreover, endeavours to show how it is that the Bible gives names
and assigns attributes and a form to so spiritual a Being; how the
existence of evil is compatible with the infinite goodness of God, and
what is the Divine intention about this creation.

In our analysis of the Kabbalistic doctrines on these grand problems,
we shall follow the order in which they have been enumerated, and
accordingly begin with the lucubrations on the Supreme Being and the
Emanations.

I. The Supreme Being and the doctrine and classification of the
Emanations, or Sephiroth.

Being boundless in his nature—which necessarily implies that he is an
absolute unity and inscrutable, and that there is nothing without him,
or that the τὸ πᾶν is in him, [1]—God is called En Soph (‏אין סוף‎) =
ἄπειρος Endless, Boundless. [2] In this boundlessness, or as the En
Soph, he cannot be comprehended by the intellect, nor described in
words, for there is nothing which can grasp and depict him to us, and
as such he is, in a certain sense, not existent (‏אַיִן‎), because, as
far as our minds are concerned, that which is perfectly
incomprehensible does not exist. [3] To make his existence perceptible,
and to render himself comprehensible, the En Soph, or the Boundless,
had to become active and creative. But the En Soph cannot be the direct
creator, for he has neither will, intention, desire, thought, language,
nor action, as these properties imply limit and belong to finite
beings, whereas the En Soph is boundless. Besides, the imperfect and
circumscribed nature of the creation precludes the idea that the world
was created or even designed by him, who can have no will nor produce
anything but what is like himself, boundless and perfect. On the other
hand, again, the beautiful design displayed in the mechanism, the
regular order manifested in the preservation, destruction, and renewal
of things, forbid us to regard this world as the offspring of chance,
and constrain us to recognize therein an intelligent design. [4] We
are, therefore, compelled to view the En Soph as the creator of the
world in an indirect manner.

Now, the medium by which the En Soph made his existence known in the
creation of the world are ten Sephiroth [5] (‏ספירות‎) or
intelligences, which emanated from the Boundless One (‏אין סוף‎) in the
following manner:—At first the En Soph, or the Aged of the Aged (‏עתיקא
דעתיקין‎) or the Holy Aged (‏עתיקא קדישא‎), as he is alternately
called, sent forth from his infinite light one spiritual substance or
intelligence. This first Sephira, which existed in the En Soph from all
eternity, and became a reality by a mere act, has no less than seven
appellations. It is called—I, the Crown (‏כתר‎), because it occupies
the highest position; II, the Aged (‏עתיקא‎), because it is the oldest
or the first emanation—and this name must not be confounded with the
Aged of the Aged, which, as we have seen, is the appellation of the En
Soph; III, the Primordial Point (‏נקודה ראשונה‎), or the Smooth Point
(‏נקודה פשוטה‎), because, as the Sohar tells us, “When the Concealed of
the Concealed wished to reveal himself, he first made a single point:
the Infinite was entirely unknown, and diffused no light before this
luminous point violently broke through into vision;” (Sohar, i, 15 a).
IV, the White Head (‏רישא הוורה‎); V, the Long Face, Macroprosopon
(‏אריך אנפין‎), because the whole ten Sephiroth represent the
Primordial or the Heavenly Man (‏אדם עילאה‎), of which the first
Sephira is the head; VI, The Inscrutable Height (‏רום מעלה‎), because
it is the highest of all the Sephiroth proceeding immediately from the
En Soph. Hence, on the passage “Go forth, O ye daughters of Zion, and
behold the King of Peace [6] with the Crown!” (Song of Solomon iii, 2)
the Sohar remarks, “But who can behold the King of Peace, seeing that
He is incomprehensible, even to the heavenly hosts? But he who sees the
Crown sees the glory of the King of Peace.” (Sohar ii. 100 b.) And,
VII, it is expressed in the Bible by the Divine name Ehejeh, or I Am
(‏אהיה‎ Exod. iii, 4), because it is absolute being, representing the
Infinite as distinguished from the finite, and in the angelic order, by
the celestial beasts of Ezekiel, called Chajoth (‏חיות‎). The first
Sephira contained the other nine Sephiroth, and gave rise to them in
the following order:—At first a masculine or active potency, designated
Wisdom (‏חכמה‎), proceeded from it. This Sephira, which among the
divine names is represented by Jah (‏יה‎ Isa. xxvi, 4), and among the
angelic hosts by Oplianim (‏אפנים‎ Wheels), sent forth an opposite,
i.e. a feminine or passive, potency, denominated Intelligence (‏בינה‎),
which is represented by the divine name Jehovah (‏יהוה‎), and angelic
name Arelim (‏אראלים‎), and it is from a union of these two Sephiroth,
which are also called Father (‏אבא‎) and Mother (‏אמא‎), that the
remaining seven Sephiroth proceeded. Or, as the Sohar (iii, 290 a)
expresses it, “When the Holy Aged, the Concealed of all Concealed,
assumed a form, he produced everything in the form of male and female,
as the things could not continue in any other form. Hence Wisdom, which
is the beginning of development, when it proceeded from the Holy Aged,
emanated in male and female, for Wisdom expanded, and Intelligence
proceeded from it, and thus obtained male and female—viz., Wisdom, the
father, and Intelligence, the mother, from whose union the other pairs
of Sephiroth successively emanated.” These two opposite potencies—viz.,
Wisdom (‏חכמה‎) and Intelligence (‏בינה‎)—are joined together by the
first potency, the Crown (‏כתר‎); thus yielding the first triad of the
Sephiroth.

From the junction of the foregoing opposites emanated again the
masculine or active potency, denominated Mercy or Love, (‏חסד‎), also
called Greatness (‏גדולה‎), the fourth Sephira, which among the divine
names is represented by El (‏אל‎), and among the angelic hosts by
Chashmalim (‏חשמלים‎, Comp. Ezek. i, 4). From this again emanated the
feminine or passive potency, Justice (‏דין‎), also called Judicial
Power (‏גבורה‎), the fifth Sephira, which is represented by the divine
name Eloha (‏אלה‎), and among the angels by Seraphim (‏שרפים‎, Isa. vi,
6); and from this again the uniting potency, Beauty or Mildness
(‏תפארת‎), the sixth Sephira, represented by the divine name Elohim
(‏אלהים‎), and among the angels by Shinanim (‏שנאנים‎, Ps. lxviii, 18).
Since without this union the existence of things would not be possible,
inasmuch as mercy not tempered with justice, and justice not tempered
with mercy would be unendurable: and thus the second trinity of the
Sephiroth is obtained.

The medium of union of the second trinity, i.e. Beauty (‏תפארת‎), the
sixth Sephira, beamed forth the masculine or active potency, Firmness
(‏נצח‎), the seventh Sephira, corresponding to the divine name Jehovah
Sabaoth (‏יהוה צבאות‎), and among the angels to Tarshishim (‏תרשישים‎,
Dan. x, 6); this again gave rise to the feminine or passive potency,
Splendour (‏הוד‎), the eighth Sephira, to which answer the divine name
Elohim Sabaoth (‏אלהים צבאות‎), and among the angels Benei Elohim (‏בני
אלהים‎, Gen. vi, 4); and from it again, emanated Foundation or the
Basis (‏יסוד‎), the ninth Sephira, represented by the divine name El
Chai (‏אל חי‎), and among the angelic hosts by Ishim (‏אישים‎, Ps. civ,
4), which is the uniting point between these two opposites—thus
yielding the third trinity of Sephiroth. From the ninth Sephira, the
Basis (‏יסוד‎) of all, emanated the tenth, called Kingdom (‏מלכות‎),
and Shechinah (‏שכינה‎), which is represented by the divine name Adonai
(‏אדוני‎), and among the angelic hosts by Cherubim (‏כרובים‎). The
table on the opposite page exhibits the different names of the
Sephiroth, together with the several names of God and the angels, which
correspond to them.

From this representation of each triad, as consisting of a threefold
principle, viz., the two opposites, masculine and feminine, and the
uniting principle, the development of the Sephiroth, and of life
generally, is symbolically called the Balance (‏מתקלא‎), because the
two opposite sexes, are compared with the two opposite scales, and the
uniting Sephira is compared with the beam which joins the scales, and
indicates its equipoise.

Before we enter into further particulars about the nature, operation,
and classification of these Sephiroth, we shall give the Sohar’s
speculations about the Supreme Being, and its account of the origin of
the Sephiroth, and their relationship to the Deity.


         THE TEN               THE TEN          THE TEN           THE TEN
         SEPHIROTH.            CORRESPONDING    CORRESPONDING     CORRESPONDING
                               NAMES OF THE     CLASSES OF        MEMBERS OF THE
                               OF THE DEITY.    ANGELS.           HUMAN BODY.

   /  1. כתר‎, Crown.         \
   |  2. ‏עתיקא‎, the Aged.    |
   |  3. ‏נקודה ראשונה‎,       |
   |     Primordial Point.   |
   |  4. ‏נקודה פשוטה‎,        |
   |     Smooth Point.       |
i. <  5. ‏רישא הוורה‎, White   > ‏אהיה‎, I am       ‏חיות‎, ζῶον.       Head.
   |     Head.               | (Exod. iii. 4).
   |  6. ‏אריך אנפין‎,         |
   |     Macroprosopon.      |
   |  7. ‏אדם עילאה‎,          |
   |     Heavenly Man.       |
   |  8. ‏רום מעלה‎,           |
   \     Inscrutable Height. /
ii.      ‏חכמה‎, σοφία,          ‏יה‎, Jah (Isa.    ‏אופנים‎, κίνησις.  Brains.
         Wisdom.               xxvi. 4).
iii.     ‏בינה‎, νοῦς,           ‏יהוה‎, Jehovah.   ‏אראלים‎, Arelim    Heart.
         Intelligence.                          (Isa. xxiii. 7).
   /  1. ‏חסד‎, χάρις,         \ ‏אל‎, the Mighty   ‏חשמלים‎,           Right Arm.
iv.<     Love.               > One.             Chasheralim
   \  2. ‏גדולה‎, Greatness.   /                  (Ezek. i. 4).
   /  1. ‏דין‎, Judgment.      \ ‏אלה‎, the         ‏שרפים‎, Seraphim   Left Arm.
v. <  2. ‏פחד‎, Justice.       > Almighty.        (Isa. vi. 7).
   \  3. ‏גבורה‎, Strength.    /
vi.      ‏תפארת‎, Beauty.        ‏אלהים‎, God.      ‏שנאנים‎, Shinanim  Chest.
                                                (Ps. lxviii. 18).
vii.     ‏נצח‎, Firmness.        ‏יהוה צבאות‎,      ‏תרשישים‎           Right Leg.
                               Jehovah Sabaoth. Tarshishim
                                                (Dan. x. 6).
viii.    ‏הוד‎, Splendour.       ‏אלהים צבאות‎,     ‏בני אלהים‎, the    Left Leg.
                               God Sabaoth.     Sons of God (Gen.
                                                vi. 4).
ix.      ‏יסוד‎,                 ‏אל חי‎, Mighty    ‏אשים‎, Ishim (Ps.  Genital
         Foundation.           Living One.      civ. 4).          Organs.
   /  1. βασιλεία sc. τῶν    \
x. <     οὐρανῶν, Kingdom.   > ‏אדני‎, the Lord.  ‏כרובים‎, Cherubim. Union of the
   \  2. ‏שכינה‎, Shechinah.   /                                    Whole Body.


The prophet Elias having learned in the heavenly college the profound
mystery and true import of the words in Isa. xl, 25, 26, “To whom will
ye liken me, and shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. Lift up your
eyes on high, and behold who (‏מי‎) hath created these things (‏אלה‎),”
revealed to R. Simon b. Jochai that God in his absolute nature is
unknown and incomprehensible, and hence, in a certain sense,
non-existent; that this Who (‏אלה‎ unknown subject) had to become
active and creative, to demonstrate his existence, and that it is only
by these (‏אלה‎) works of creation that he made himself known to us. It
is therefore the combination of the unknown Who (‏מי‎) with these
visible (‏אלה‎) works that showed him to be God (‏אלהים‎ which is
produced by ‏מי‎ transposed, i.e. ‏יﬦ‎, and united with ‏אלה‎). Or, as
it is in the language of the Kabbalah;—

“Before he gave any shape to this world, before he produced any form,
he was alone, without a form and resemblance to anything else. Who then
can comprehend him how he was before the creation, since he was
formless? Hence it is forbidden to represent him by any form,
similitude, or even by his sacred name, by a single letter or a single
point; and to this the words ‘Ye saw no manner of similitude on the day
that the Lord spake unto you’ (Deut. iv, 15)—i.e. ye have not seen
anything which you could represent by any form or likeness—refer. But
after he created the form of the Heavenly Man (‏אדם עלאה‎), he used it
as a chariot (‏מרכבה‎) wherein to descend, and wishes to be called by
this form, which is the sacred name Jehovah. He wishes to be known by
his attributes, and each attribute separately; and therefore had
himself called the God of Mercy, the God of Justice, Almighty, God of
Sabaoth, and the Being. He wishes thereby to make known his nature, and
that we should see how his mercy and compassion extend both to the
world and to all operations. For if he had not poured out his light
upon all his creatures, how could we ever have known him? How could the
words be fulfilled, ‘The whole earth is full of his glory’ (Isa. vi,
3)? Woe be to him who compares him with his own attributes! or still
worse with the son of man whose foundation is in the dust, who vanishes
and is no more! Hence, the form in which we delineate him simply
describes each time his dominion over a certain attribute, or over the
creatures generally. We cannot understand more of his nature than the
attribute expresses. Hence, when he is divested of all these things, he
has neither any attribute nor any similitude or form. The form in which
he is generally depicted is to be compared to a very expansive sea; for
the waters of the sea are in themselves without a limit or form, and it
is only when they spread themselves upon the earth that they assume a
form (‏דמיון‎). We can now make the following calculation: the source
of the sea’s water and the water stream proceeding therefrom to spread
itself are two. A great reservoir is then formed, just as if a huge
hollow had been dug; this reservoir is called sea, and is the third.
The unfathomable deep divides itself into seven streams, resembling
seven long vessels. The source, the water stream, the sea and the seven
streams make together ten. And when the master breaks the vessels which
he has made, the waters return to the source, and then only remain the
pieces of these vessels, dried up and without any water. It is in this
way that the Cause of Causes gave rise to the ten Sephiroth. The Crown
is the source from which streams forth an infinite light: hence the
name En Soph (‏אין סוף‎) = infinite, by which the highest cause is
designated: for it then had neither form nor shape, and there is
neither any means whereby to comprehend it, nor a way by which to know
it. Hence it is written, ‘Seek not out the things that are too hard for
thee, neither search the things that are above thy strength.’ (Ecclus.
iii, 21.) He then made a vessel, as small as a point, like the letter
‏י‎, which is filled from this source (i.e. the En Soph). This is the
source of wisdom, wisdom itself (‏חכמה‎), after which the Supreme Cause
is called ‘wise God.’ Upon this he made a large vessel like a sea,
which is called Intelligence (‏בינה‎): hence the name ‘intelligent
God.’ It must, however, be remarked that God is wise, and through
himself, for wisdom does not derive its name through itself, but
through the wise one who fills it with the light which flows from him,
just as intelligence is not comprehended through itself, but through
him who is intelligent and fills it with his own substance. God needs
only to withdraw himself and it would be dried up. This is also the
meaning of the words, ‘the waters have disappeared from the sea, and
the bed is dry and parched up.’ (Job xiv, 11.) The sea is finally
divided into seven streams, and the seven costly vessels are produced,
which are called Greatness (‏גדולה‎), Judicial Strength (‏גבורה‎),
Beauty (‏תפארת‎), Firmness (‏נצח‎), Splendour (‏הוד‎), Foundation
(‏יסוד‎), and Kingdom (‏מלכות‎). Therefore is he called the Great or
the Merciful, the Mighty, the Glorious, the God of victory, the
Creator, to whom all praise is due, and the Foundation of all things.
Upon the last attribute all the others are based as well as the world.
Finally, he is also the King of the universe, for everything is in his
power; he can diminish the number of the vessels, and increase in them
the light which streams from them, or reduce it, just as it pleases
him.” (Sohar, i, 42 b, 43 a, section ‏בא‎.)

In another place again the same authority gives the following
description of the Deity and the emanation of the Sephiroth. “The Aged
of the Aged, the Unknown of the Unknown, has a form and yet has no
form. He has a form whereby the universe is preserved, and yet has no
form, because he cannot be comprehended. When he first assumed the form
[of the first Sephira], he caused nine splendid lights to emanate from
it, which, shining through it, diffused a bright light in all
directions. Imagine an elevated light sending forth its rays in all
directions. Now if we approach it to examine the rays, we understand no
more than that they emanate from the said light. So is the Holy Aged an
absolute light, but in himself concealed and incomprehensible. We can
only comprehend him through those luminous emanations (‏ספירות‎) which
again are partly visible and partly concealed. These constitute the
sacred name of God.” (Idra Suta, Sohar, iii, 288 a.)

Four things must be borne in mind with regard to the Sephiroth. I. That
they were not created by, but emanated (‏נאצל‎) from, the En Soph; the
difference between creation and emanation being, that in the former a
diminution of strength takes place, whilst in the latter this is not
the case. [7] II. That they form among themselves, and with the En
Soph, a strict unity, and simply represent different aspects of one and
the same being, just as the different rays which proceed from the
light, and which appear different things to the eye, form only
different manifestations of one and the same light. III. That since
they simply differ from each other as the different colours of the same
light, all the ten emanations alike partake of the perfections of the
En Soph; and IV, that, as emanations from the Infinite, the Sephiroth
are infinite and perfect like the En Soph, and yet constitute the first
finite things. [8] They are infinite and perfect when the En Soph
imparts his fulness to them, and finite and imperfect when the fulness
is withdrawn from them, so that in this respect these ten Sephiroth
exactly correspond to the double nature of Christ,—his finite and
imperfect human nature and his infinite and perfect divine nature.

In their totality and unity these ten Sephiroth are not only
denominated the world of Sephiroth (‏עולﬦ הספירות‎) and the world of
Emanations (‏עולﬦ אצילות‎), but represent and are called the Primordial
or Archetypal Man (‏אדﬦ קדמון‎ = πρωτόγονος), and the Heavenly Man
(‏אדם עילאה‎). In the figure, the Crown (‏כתר‎) is the head; Wisdom
(‏חכמה‎), the brains; and Intelligence (‏בינה‎), which unites the two
and produces the first triad, is the heart or the understanding—thus
forming the head. The fourth and fifth Sephiroth, i.e., Mercy (‏חסד‎)
and Justice (‏פחד‎), are the two arms of the Lord, the former the right
arm and the latter the left, one distributing life and the other death.
And the sixth Sephira, Beauty (‏תפארת‎), which unites these two
opposites and produces the second triad, is the chest; whilst the
seventh and eighth Sephiroth,—i.e., Firmness (‏נצח‎) and Splendour
(‏הוד‎), of the third triad,—are the two legs; and Foundation (‏יסוד‎),
the ninth Sephira, represents the genital organs, since it denotes the
basis and source of all things. Thus it is said “Every thing will
return to its origin just as it proceeded from it. All marrow, all sap,
and all power are congregated in this spot. Hence all powers which
exist originate through the genital organs.” (Sohar, iii, 296 a.)
Kingdom (‏מלכות‎), the tenth Sephira, represents the harmony of the
whole Archetypal Man. The following is the archetypal figure of the ten
Sephiroth.

It is this form which the prophet Ezekiel saw in the mysterious
chariot, and of which the earthly man is a faint copy. Moreover, these
Sephiroth, as we have already remarked, created the world and all
things therein according to their own archetype or in the likeness and
similitude of the Heavenly Man or the World of Emanations. But, before
we propound the Kabbalistic doctrine of the creation of the world, it
is necessary to describe a second mode in which the trinity of triads
in the Sephiroth is represented, and to mention the appellations and
offices of the respective triads.


                          ‏כתר‎ CROWN

             ‏חכמה‎ WISDOM
                                            ‏בינה‎ INTELLIGENCE
                         ‏תפארת‎ BEAUTY
     ‏חסד‎ LOVE                                     ‏פחד JUSTICE
                         ‏יסוד‎ FOUNDATION
             ‏הוד‎ SPLENDOUR                ‏נצח‎ FIRMNESS

                         ‏מלכות‎ KINGDOM


Now in looking at the Sephiroth which constitute the first triad, it
will be seen that they represent the intellect; hence this triad is
called the Intellectual World (‏עולם מושכל‎). The second triad, again,
represents moral qualities; hence it is designated the moral or
Sensuous World (‏עולﬦ מורגש‎): whilst the third triad represents power
and stability, and hence is designated the Material World (‏עולﬦ
המוטבע‎). These three aspects in which the En Soph manifested himself
are called the Faces (‏אנפין‎ and ‏פרצופין‎ = πρόσωπον, the two words
are identical, the former being pure Aramaic, and the latter from the
Greek). In the arrangement of this trinity of triads, so as to produce
what is called the Kabbalistic tree, denominated the Tree of Life (‏עץ
חיים‎), or simply the Tree (‏אילן‎), the first triad is placed above,
the second and third are placed below, in such a manner that the three
masculine Sephiroth are on the right, the three feminine on the left,
whilst the four uniting Sephiroth occupy the centre, as shown in the
following diagrams:—


I.

                             ‏כתר‎ 1 Crown
     3 ‏בינה‎ Intelligence                         ‏חכמה‎ 2 Wisdom
     5 ‏פחד‎ Justice                                  ‏חסד‎ 4 Love
                             ‏תפארת‎ 6 Beauty
     8 ‏הוד‎ Splendour                            ‏נצח‎ 7 Firmness
                            ‏יסוד‎ 9 Foundation
                            ‏מלכות‎ 10 Kingdom


II.

                         ‏און סוף‎ The Endless.

                             ‏כתר‎ Crown 1
     ‏בינח‎ Intelligence 3                         ‏חכמה‎ Wisdom 2
     ‏פחד‎ Justice 5                                  ‏חסד‎ Love 4
                             ‏תפארת‎ Beauty 6
     ‏הוד‎ Splendour 8                            ‏נצח‎ Firmness 7
                             ‏יסוד‎ Foundation 9
                             ‏מלכות‎ Kingdom 10


The three Sephiroth on the right, representing the principle of mercy
(‏חסד‎), are called the Pillar of Mercy (‏סטרא ימינא עמודא דחסד‎); the
three on the left, representing the principle of rigour (‏דין‎), are
denominated the Pillar of Judgment (‏סטרא דשמאלא עמודא דדינה‎); whilst
the four Sephiroth in the centre, representing mildness (‏רחמיﬦ‎), are
called the Middle Pillar (‏עמודא דאמצעיתא‎). Each Sephira composing
this trinity of triads is, as it were, a trinity in itself. I, It has
its own absolute character; II, It receives from above; and III, It
communicates to what is below it. Hence the remark, “Just as the Sacred
Aged is represented by the number three, so are all the other lights
(Sephiroth) of a threefold nature.” (Sohar, iii, 288 b.) Within this
trinity in each unit and trinity of triads there is a trinity of units,
which must be explained before we can propound the Kabbalistic view of
the cosmogony.

We have seen that three of the Sephiroth constitute uniting links
between three pairs of opposites, and by this means produce three
triads, respectively denominated the Intellectual World, the Sensuous
or Moral World, and the Material World, and that these three uniting
Sephiroth, together with the one which unites the whole into a common
unity, form what is called the Middle Pillar of the Kabbalistic tree.
Now from the important position they thus occupy, these Sephiroth are
synecdochically used to represent the worlds which by their uniting
potency they respectively yield. Hence the Sephira, Crown (‏כתר‎), from
which the Sephiroth, Wisdom (‏חכמה‎) and Intelligence (‏בינה‎),
emanated, and by which they are also united, thus yielding the
Intellectual World, is by itself used to designate the Intellectual
World (‏עולﬦ המושכל‎). Its own names, however, are not changed in this
capacity, and it still continues to be designated by the several
appellations mentioned in the description of the first Sephira. The
sixth Sephira, called Beauty (‏תפארת‎), which unites Sephiroth IV
(‏הסד‎, Love) and V (‏פחד‎, Justice), thus yielding the Sensuous World,
is by itself used to denote the Sensuous World, and in this capacity is
called the Sacred King (‏מלכא קדישא‎), or simply the King (‏מלכא‎);
whilst the Sephira called Kingdom (‏מלכות‎), which unites the whole
Sephiroth, is here used to represent the Material World, instead of the
ninth Sephira, called Foundation (‏יסוד‎), and is in this capacity
denominated the Queen (‏מלכתא‎) or the Matron (‏מטרוניתא‎). Thus we
obtain within the trinity of triads a higher trinity of units,—viz.,
the Crown (‏כתר‎), Beauty (‏תפארת‎), and Kingdom (‏מלכות‎),—which
represents the potencies of all the Sephiroth.



II. The Creation or the Kabbalistic Cosmogony.

Having arrived at the highest trinity which comprises all the
Sephiroth, and which consists of the Crown, the King, and the Queen, we
shall be able to enter into the cosmogony of the Kabbalah. Now, it is
not the En Soph who created the world, but this trinity, as represented
in the combination of the Sephiroth; or rather the creation has arisen
from the conjunction of the emanations. The world was born from the
union of the crowned King and Queen; or, according to the language of
the Kabbalah, these opposite sexes of royalty, who emanated from the En
Soph, produced the universe in their own image. Worlds, we are told,
were indeed created before ever the King and Queen or the Sephiroth
gave birth to the present state of things, but they could not continue,
and necessarily perished, because the En Soph had not yet assumed this
human form in its completeness, which not only implies a moral and
intellectual nature, but, as conditions of development, procreation,
and continuance, also comprises sexual opposites. This creation, which
aborted and which has been succeeded by the present order of things, is
indicated in Gen. xxxvi, 31–40. The kings of Edom, or the old kings as
they are also denominated, who are here said to have reigned before the
monarchs of Israel, and are mentioned as having died one after the
other, are those primordial worlds which were successively convulsed
and destroyed; whilst the sovereigns of Israel denote the King and
Queen who emanated from the En Soph, and who have given birth to and
perpetuate the present world. Thus we are told:—

“Before the Aged of the Aged, the Concealed of the Concealed, expanded
into the form of King, the Crown of Crowns [i.e. the first Sephira],
there was neither beginning nor end. He hewed and incised forms and
figures into it [i.e. the crown] in the following manner:—He spread
before him a cover, and carved therein kings [i.e. worlds], and marked
out their limits and forms, but they could not preserve themselves.
Therefore it is written, ‘These are the kings that reigned in the land
of Edom before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.’
(Gen. xxxvi, 31.) This refers to the primordial kings and primordial
Israel. All these were imperfect: he therefore removed them and let
them vanish, till he finally descended himself to this cover and
assumed a form.” (Idra Rabba, Sohar, iii, 148 a.)

This important fact that worlds were created and destroyed prior to the
present creation is again and again reiterated in the Sohar. [9] These
worlds are compared with sparks which fly out from a red hot iron
beaten by a hammer, and which are extinguished according to the
distance they are removed from the burning mass. “There were old
worlds,” the Sohar tells us, “which perished as soon as they came into
existence: were formless, and they were called sparks. Thus the smith
when hammering the iron, lets the sparks fly in all directions. These
sparks are the primordial worlds, which could not continue, because the
Sacred Aged had not as yet assumed his form [of opposite sexes—the King
and Queen], and the master was not yet at his work.” (Idra Suta, Sohar,
iii, 292 b.) But since nothing can be annihilated—“Nothing perisheth in
this world, not even the breath which issues from the mouth, for this,
like everything else, has its place and destination, and the Holy One,
blessed be his name! turns it into his service;” (Sohar, ii, 110
b.)—these worlds could not be absolutely destroyed. Hence when the
question is asked—‘Why were these primordial worlds destroyed?’ the
reply is given—“Because the Man, represented by the ten Sephiroth, was
not as yet. The human form contains every thing, and as it did not as
yet exist, the worlds were destroyed.” It is added, “Still when it is
said that they perished, it is only meant thereby that they lacked the
true form, till the human form came into being, in which all things are
comprised, and which also contains all those forms. Hence, though the
Scripture ascribes death (‏וימות‎) to the kings of Edom, it only
denotes a sinking down from their dignity, i.e., the worlds up to that
time did not answer to the Divine idea, since they had not as yet the
perfect form of which they were capable.” (Idra Rabba, Sohar, iii, 135
b.)

It was therefore after the destruction of previous worlds, and after
the En Soph or the Boundless assumed the Sephiric form, that the
present world was created. “The Holy One, blessed be he, created and
destroyed several worlds before the present one was made, and when this
last work was nigh completion, all the things of this world, all the
creatures of the universe, in whatever age they were to exist, before
ever they entered into this world, were present before God in their
true form. Thus are the words of Ecclesiastes to be understood ‘What
was, shall be, and what has been done, shall be done.’” (Sohar, iii, 61
b.) “The lower world is made after the pattern of the upper world;
every thing which exists in the upper world is to be found as it were
in a copy upon earth; still the whole is one.” (Ibid., ii, 20 a.)

This world, however, is not a creation ex nihilo, but is simply an
immanent offspring and the image of the King and Queen, or, in other
words, a farther expansion or evolution of the Sephiroth which are the
emanations of the En Soph. This is expressed in the Sohar in the
following passage—“The indivisible point [the Absolute], who has no
limit, and who cannot be comprehended because of his purity and
brightness, expanded from without, and formed a brightness which served
as a covering to the indivisible point, yet it too could not be viewed
in consequence of its immeasurable light. It too expanded from without,
and this expansion was its garment. Thus everything originated through
a constant upheaving agitation, and thus finally the world originated.”
(Sohar, i, 20 a.) The universe therefore is an immanent emanation from
the Sephiroth, and reveals and makes visible the Boundless and the
Concealed of the Concealed. And though it exhibits the Deity in less
splendour than its parents the Sephiroth, because it is further removed
from the primordial source of light, yet, as it is God manifested, all
the multifarious forms in the world point out the unity which they
represent; and nothing in it can be destroyed, but everything must
return to the source whence it emanated. Hence it is said that “all
things of which this world consists, spirit as well as body, will
return to their principal, and the root from which they proceeded.”
(Sohar, ii, 218 b.) “He is the beginning and end of all the degrees in
the creation. All these degrees are stamped with his seal, and he
cannot be otherwise described than by the unity. He is one,
notwithstanding the innumerable forms which are in him.” (Ibid., i, 21
a.)

Now these Sephiroth, or the World of Emanation (‏עולם אצילות‎), or the
Atzilatic World, gave birth to three worlds in the following
order:—From the conjunction of the King and Queen (i.e., the ten
Sephiroth) proceeded—I. The World of Creation, or the Briatic World
(‏עולם הבריאה‎), also called The Throne (‏כורסיא‎), which is the abode
of pure spirits, and which, like its parents, consists of ten
Sephiroth, or Emanations. The Briatic World, again, gave rise to, II.
The World of Formation, or the Jetziratic World (‏עולﬦ היצירה‎), which
is the habitation of the angels, and also consists of ten Sephiroth;
whilst the Jetziratic World, again, sent forth, III. The World of
Action, or the Assiatic World (‏עולﬦ העשיה‎), also called the World of
Keliphoth (‏עולﬦ הקליפות‎), which contains the Spheres (‏גלגלים‎) and
matter, and is the residence of the Prince of Darkness and his legions.
Or, as the Sohar describes it—“After the Sephiroth, and for their use,
God made the Throne (i.e., the World of Creation), with four legs and
six steps, thus making ten (i.e., the decade of Sephiroth which each
world has).... For this Throne and its service he formed the ten
Angelic hosts (i.e., the World of Formation), Malachim, Arelim,
Chajoth, Ophanim, Chashmalim, Elim, Elohim, Benei Elohim, Ishim, and
Seraphim (‏מלאכיﬦ אראליﬦ חיות אופניﬦ חשמליﬦ אליﬦ אלהיﬦ בני אלהים אישים
שרפים‎), and for their service, again, he made Samaël and his legions
(i.e., the World of Action), who are, as it were, the clouds upon which
the angels ride in their descent on the earth, and serve, as it were,
for their horses. Hence it is written—‘Behold the Lord rideth upon a
swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt.’” (Isa. xix, 1.) (Sohar ii, 43
a.) There are, therefore, four worlds, each of which has a separate
Sephiric system, consisting of a decade of emanations. I. The Atzilatic
World, called alternately the World of Emanations (‏עולם אצילות‎), the
Image (‏דיוקנא‎ = εἰκών with ‏ד‎ prefixed), and the Heavenly Man (‏אדם
עלאה‎), which, by virtue of its being a direct emanation from God and
most intimately allied with the Deity, is perfect and immutable. II.
The Briatic World, called the World of Creation (‏עולם הבריאה‎) and the
Throne (‏כורסיא‎), which is the immediate emanation of the former, and
whose ten Sephiroth, being further removed from the En Soph, are of a
more limited and circumscribed potency, though the substances they
comprise are of the purest nature and without any admixture of matter.
III. The Jetziratic World, called the World of Formation (‏עולם
היצירה‎) and the World of Angels (‏מלאכיא‎), which proceeded from the
former world, and whose ten Sephiroth, though of a still less refined
substance than the former, because further removed from the primordial
source, are still without matter. It is in this angelic world where
those intelligent and uncorporeal beings reside, who are wrapped in a
luminous garment, and who assume a sensuous form when they appear to
man. And IV. The Assiatic World, called the World of Action (‏עולם
העשיה‎) and the World of Matter (‏עולם הקליפות‎) which emanated from
the preceding world, the ten Sephiroth of which are made up of the
grosser elements of all the former three worlds, and which has sunk
down in consequence of its materiality and heaviness. Its substances
consist of matter limited by space and perceptible to the senses in a
multiplicity of forms. It is subject to constant changes, generations,
and corruptions, and is the abode of the Evil Spirit.

Before leaving this doctrine about the creation and the relationship of
the Supreme Being to the universe, we must reiterate two things. I.
Though the trinity of the Sephiroth gave birth to the universe, or, in
other words, is an evolution of the emanations, and is thus a further
expansion of the Deity itself, it must not be supposed that the
Kabbalists believe in a Trinity in our sense of the word. Their view on
this subject will best be understood from the following remark in the
Sohar—“Whoso wishes to have an insight into the sacred unity, let him
consider a flame rising from a burning coal or a burning lamp. He will
see first a twofold light, a bright white and a black or blue light;
the white light is above, and ascends in a direct light, whilst the
blue or dark light is below, and seems as the chair of the former, yet
both are so intimately connected together that they constitute only one
flame. The seat, however, formed by the blue or dark light, is again
connected with the burning matter which is under it again. The white
light never changes its colour, it always remains white; but various
shades are observed in the lower light, whilst the lowest light,
moreover, takes two directions—above it is connected with the white
light, and below with the burning matter. Now this is constantly
consuming itself, and perpetually ascends to the upper light, and thus
everything merges into a single unity (‏וכולא אתקשר ביחודא חד‎ Sohar,
i, 51 a). [10] And II. The creation, or the universe, is simply the
garment of God woven from the Deity’s own substance; or, as Spinoza
expresses it, God is the immanent basis of the universe. For although,
to reveal himself to us, the Concealed of all the Concealed sent forth
the ten emanations called the Form of God, Form of the Heavenly Man,
yet since even this luminous form was too dazzling for our vision, it
had to assume another form, or had to put on another garment which
consists of the universe. The universe, therefore, or the visible
world, is a further expansion of the Divine Substance, and is called in
the Kabbalah “the Garment of God.” Thus we are told, “when the
Concealed of all the Concealed wanted to reveal himself, he first made
a point [i.e. the first Sephira], shaped it into a sacred form [i.e.
the totality of the Sephiroth], and covered it with a rich and splendid
garment that is the world.” (Sohar, i, 2 a).



III. The Creation of Angels and Men.

The different worlds which successively emanated from the En Soph and
from each other, and which sustain the relationship to the Deity of
first, second, third, and fourth generations, are, with the exception
of the first (i.e., the World of Emanations), inhabited by spiritual
beings of various grades. “God animated every part of the firmament
with a separate spirit, and forthwith all the heavenly hosts were
before him. This is meant by the Psalmist, when he says (Ps. xxxiii, 6)
‘By the breath of his mouth were made all their hosts.’ (Sohar, iii, 68
a.) These angels consist of two kinds—good and bad; they have their
respective princes, and occupy the three habitable worlds in the
following order. As has already been remarked, the first world, or the
Archetypal Man, in whose image everything is formed, is occupied by no
one else. The angel Metatron (‏מטטרון‎) occupies the second or the
Briatic World (‏ עולם בריאה‎), which is the first habitable world; he
alone constitutes the world of pure spirits. He is the garment of ‏שדי‎
i.e., the visible manifestation of the Deity; his name is numerically
equivalent to that of the Lord. (Sohar, iii, 231 a.) He governs the
visible world, preserves the unity, harmony, and the revolutions of all
the spheres, planets and heavenly bodies, and is the Captain of the
myriads of the angelic hosts [11] who people the second habitable or
the Jetziratic World (‏עולם היצירה‎), and who are divided into ten
ranks, answering to the ten Sephiroth. Each of these angels is set over
a different part of the universe. One has the control of one sphere,
another of another heavenly body; one angel has charge of the sun,
another of the moon, another of the earth, another of the sea, another
of the fire, another of the wind, another of the light, another of the
seasons, &c. &c.; and these angels derive their names from the heavenly
bodies they respectively guard. Hence one is called Venus (‏נגה‎), one
Mars (‏מאדמים‎), one the substance of Heaven (‏עצם השמים‎), one the
angel of light (‏אוריאל‎), and another the angel of fire (‏נוריאל‎.)
(Comp. Sohar i, 42, &c.) The demons, constituting the second class of
angels, which are the grossest and most deficient of all forms, and are
the shells (‏קליפות‎) of being, inhabit the third habitable or Assiatic
World (‏עולם עשיה‎). They, too, form ten degrees, answering to the
decade of Sephiroth, in which darkness and impurity increase with the
descent of each degree. Thus the two first degrees are nothing more
than the absence of all visible form and organisation, which the Mosaic
cosmology describes in the words ‏תהו ובהו‎ before the hexahemeron, and
which the Septuagint renders by ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος. The third
degree is the abode of the darkness which the book of Genesis describes
as having in the beginning covered the face of the earth. Whereupon
follow seven infernal halls (‏שבע היכלות‎) = Hells, occupied by the
demons, which are the incarnation of all human vices, and which torture
those poor deluded beings who suffered themselves to be led astray in
this world. These seven infernal halls are subdivided into endless
compartments, so as to afford a separate chamber of torture for every
species of sin. The prince of this region of darkness, who is called
Satan in the Bible, is denominated by the Kabbalah, Samaël (‏סמאל‎) =
angel of poison or of death. He is the same evil spirit, Satan, the
serpent, who seduced Eve. [12] He has a wife, called the Harlot or the
Woman of Whoredom (‏אשת זנוניﬦ‎), but they are both generally
represented as united in the one name of the Beast (‏חיוא‎. Comp.
Sohar, ii, 255–259, with i, 35 b.)

The whole universe, however, was incomplete, and did not receive its
finishing stroke till man was formed, who is the acme of the creation,
and the microcosm uniting in himself the totality of beings. “The
Heavenly Adam (i.e., the ten Sephiroth), who emanated from the highest
primordial obscurity (i.e., the En Soph), created the Earthly Adam.”
(Sohar, ii, 70 b.) “Man is both the import and the highest degree of
creation, for which reason he was formed on the sixth day. As soon as
man was created, everything was complete, including the upper and
nether worlds, for everything is comprised in man. He unites in himself
all forms.” (Sohar, iii, 48 a.) [13] Man was created with faculties and
features far transcending those of the angels. The bodies of the
protoplasts were not of that gross matter which constitutes our bodies.
Adam and Eve, before the fall, were wrapped in that luminous ethereal
substance in which the celestial spirits are clad, and which is neither
subject to want nor to sensual desires. They were envied by the angels
of the highest rank. The fall, however, changed it all, as we are told
in the following passage—“When Adam dwelled in the garden of Eden, he
was dressed in the celestial garment, which is a garment of heavenly
light. But when he was expelled from the garden of Eden, and became
subject to the wants of this world, what is written? ‘The Lord God made
coats of skins unto Adam and to his wife, and clothed them’ (Gen. iii,
21); for prior to this they had garments of light—light of that light
which was used in the garden of Eden.” (Sohar, ii, 229 b.) The garments
of skin, therefore, mean our present body, which was given to our first
parents in order to adapt them to the changes which the fall
introduced.

But even in the present form, the righteous are above the angels, [14]
and every man is still the microcosm, and every member of his body
corresponds to a constituent part of the visible universe. “What is
man? Is he simply skin, flesh, bones, and veins? No! That which
constitutes the real man is the soul, and those things which are called
the skin, the flesh, the bones, and the veins, all these are merely a
garment, they are simply the clothes of the man, but not the man
himself. When man departs, he puts off these garments wherewith the son
of man is clothed. Yet are all these bones and sinews formed in the
secret of the highest wisdom, after the heavenly image. The skin
represents the firmament, which extends everywhere, and covers
everything like a garment—as it is written, ‘Who stretchest out the
heavens like a curtain.’ (Ps. clv, 2) ... The flesh represents the
deteriorated part of the world;... the bones and the veins represent
the heavenly chariot, the inner powers, the servants of God.... But
these are the outer garments, for in the inward part is the deep
mystery of the heavenly man. Everything here below, as above, is
mysterious. Therefore it is written—‘God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him’ (Gen. i, 27); repeating the word
God twice, one for the man and the other for the woman. The mystery of
the earthly man is after the mystery of the Heavenly Man. And just as
we see in the firmament above, covering all things, different signs
which are formed of the stars and planets, and which contain secret
things and profound mysteries, studied by those who are wise and expert
in these signs; so there are in the skin, which is the cover of the
body of the son of man, and which is like the sky that covers all
things, signs and features which are the stars and planets of the skin,
indicating secret things and profound mysteries, whereby the wise are
attracted, who understand to read the mysteries in the human face.”
(Sohar, ii, 76 a.) He is still the presence of God upon earth (‏שכינתא
תתאה‎), and the very form of the body depicts the Tetragrammaton, the
most sacred name Jehovah (‏יהוה‎). Thus the head is the form of the
‏י‎, the arms and the shoulders are like the ‏ה‎, the breast represents
the form of the ‏ו‎, whilst the two legs with the back represent the
form of the second ‏ה‎. (Sohar, ii, 42 a.) [15]

The souls of all these epitomes of the universe are pre-existent in the
World of Emanations, [16] and are without exception destined to inhabit
human bodies, and pursue their course upon earth for a certain number
of years. Hence we are told that, “When the Holy One, blessed be his
name, wished to create the world, the universe was before him in idea.
He then formed all the souls which are destined for the whole human
race. All were minutely before him in the same form which they were to
assume in the human body. He looked at each one of them; and there were
some among them which would corrupt their way upon the earth.” (Sohar,
i, 96 b). Like the Sephiroth from which it emanates, every soul has ten
potencies, which are subdivided into a trinity of triads, and are
respectively represented by (I) The Spirit, (‏נשמה‎), which is the
highest degree of being, and which both corresponds to and is operated
upon by The Crown (‏כתר‎), representing the highest triad in the
Sephiroth, called the Intellectual World; (II) The Soul (‏רוח‎), which
is the seat of good and evil, as well as the moral qualities, and which
both corresponds to and is operated upon by Beauty (‏תפארת‎),
representing the second triad in the Sephiroth, called the Moral World;
and (III) The Cruder Spirit (‏נפש‎), which is immediately connected
with the body, is the direct cause of its lower functions, instincts,
and animal life, and which both corresponds to and is operated upon by
Foundation (‏יסוד‎), representing the third triad in the Sephiroth,
called the Material World.

In its original state each soul is androgynous, and is separated into
male and female when it descends on earth to be borne in a human body.
We have seen that the souls of the righteous, in the world of spirits,
are superior in dignity to the heavenly powers and the ministering
angels. It might, therefore, be asked why do these souls leave such an
abode of bliss, and come into this vale of tears to dwell in
tabernacles of clay? The only reply to be given is that these happy
souls have no choice in the matter. Indeed we are told that the soul,
before assuming a human body, addresses God—“Lord of the Universe! I am
happy in this world, and do not wish to go into another world, where I
shall be a bond-maid, and be exposed to all kinds of pollutions.”
(Sohar, ii, 96.) [17] And can you wonder at this pitiful ejaculation?
Should your philanthropic feelings and your convictions that our
heavenly Father ordains all things for the good of his children, impel
you to ask that an explanation of this mystery might graciously be
vouchsafed to you in order to temper your compassion and calm your
faith, then take this parable. “A son was born to a King; he sends him
to the country, there to be nursed and brought up till he is grown up,
and instructed in the ceremonies and usages of the royal palace. When
the King hears that the education of his son is finished, what does his
fatherly love impel him to do? For his son’s sake he sends for the
Queen his mother, conducts him into the palace and makes merry with him
all day. Thus the Holy One, blessed be he, has a son with the Queen:
this is the heavenly and sacred soul. He sends him into the country,
that is into this world, therein to grow up and to learn the customs of
the court. When the King hears that this his son has grown up in the
country, and that it is time to bring him into the palace, what does
his love for his son impel him to do? He sends, for his sake, for the
Queen and conducts him to the palace.” (Sohar, i, 245 b.)

As has already been remarked, the human soul, before it descends into
the world, is androgynous, or in other words, consists of two component
parts, each of which comprises all the elements of our spiritual
nature. Thus the Sohar tells us—“Each soul and spirit, prior to its
entering into this world, consists of a male and female united into one
being. When it descends on this earth the two parts separate and
animate two different bodies. At the time of marriage, the Holy One,
blessed be he, who knows all souls and spirits, unites them again as
they were before, and they again constitute one body and one soul,
forming as it were the right and left of one individual; therefore
‘There is nothing new under the sun.’ (Eccl. i, 9.)... This union,
however, is influenced by the deeds of the man and by the ways in which
he walks. If the man is pure and his conduct is pleasing in the sight
of God, he is united with that female part of his soul which was his
component part prior to his birth.” (Sohar, i, 91 b.) [18] The soul
carries her knowledge with her to the earth, so that “every thing which
she learns here below she knew already, before she entered into this
world.” (Ibid., iii, 61 b.)

Since the form of the body as well as the soul, is made after the image
of the Heavenly Man, a figure of the forthcoming body which is to
clothe the newly descending soul, is sent down from the celestial
regions, to hover over the couch of the husband and wife when they
copulate, in order that the conception may be formed according to this
model. “At connubial intercourse on earth, the Holy One, blessed be he,
sends a human form which bears the impress of the divine stamp. This
form is present at intercourse, and if we were permitted to see it we
should perceive over our heads an image resembling a human face; and it
is in this image that we are formed. As long as this image is not sent
by God and does not descend and hover over our heads, there can be no
conception, for it is written—‘And God created man in his own image.’
(Gen. i, 27.) This image receives us when we enter the world, it
develops itself with us when we grow, and accompanies us when we depart
this life; as it is written—‘Surely, man walked in an image’ (Ps.
xxxvii, 5): and this image is from heaven. When the souls are to leave
their heavenly abode, each soul separately appears before the Holy
King, dressed in a sublime form, with the features in which it is to
appear in this world. It is from this sublime form that the image
proceeds. It is the third after the soul, and precedes it on the earth;
it is present at the conception, and there is no conception in the
world where this image is not present.” (Sohar, iii, 104 a b.) [19]

All human countenances are divisible into the four primordial types of
faces, which appeared at the mysterious chariot throne in the vision of
the prophet Ezekiel, viz., the face of man, of the lion, the ox and the
eagle. Our faces resemble these more or less according to the rank
which our souls occupy in the intellectual or moral dominion. “And
physiognomy does not consist in the external lineaments, but in the
features which are mysteriously drawn in us. The features in the face
change according to the form which is peculiar to the inward face of
the spirit. It is the spirit which produces all those physiognomical
peculiarities known to the wise; and it is only through the spirit that
the features have any meaning. All those spirits and souls which
proceed from Eden (i.e., the highest wisdom) have a peculiar form,
which is reflected in the face.” (Sohar, ii, 73 b.) The face thus
lighted up by the peculiar spirit inhabiting the body, is the mirror of
the soul; and the formation of the head indicates the character and
temper of the man. An arched forehead is a sign of a cheerful and
profound spirit, as well as of a distinguished intellect; a broad but
flat forehead indicates foolishness and silliness; whilst a forehead
which is flat, compressed on the sides and spiral, betokens narrowness
of mind and vanity. (Comp. Sohar, ii, 71 b, 75 a.)

As a necessary condition of free existence and of moral being, the
souls are endowed by the Deity, from the very beginning, with the power
of adhering in close proximity to the primordial source of infinite
light from which they emanated, and of alienating themselves from that
source and pursuing an independent and opposite course. Hence, Simon
ben Jochai said, “If the Holy One, blessed be he, had not put within us
both the good and the evil desire, which are denominated light and
darkness, the created man would have neither virtue nor vice. For this
reason it is written—‘Behold, I have set before thee this day life and
good, and death and evil.’ (Deut. xxx, 15.) To this the disciples
replied, Wherefore is all this? Would it not be better if reward and
punishment had not existed at all, since in that case man would have
been incapable of sinning and of doing evil. He rejoined, It was meet
and right that he should be created as he was created, because the Law
was created for him, wherein are written punishments for the wicked and
rewards for the righteous; and there would not have been any reward for
the righteous and punishment for the wicked but for created man.”
(Sohar, i, 23 a.) So complete is their independence, that souls, even
in their pre-existent state, can and do choose which way they intend to
pursue. “All souls which are not guiltless in this world, have already
alienated themselves in heaven from the Holy One, blessed be he; they
have thrown themselves into an abyss at their very existence, and have
anticipated the time when they are to descend on earth.... Thus were
the souls before they came into this world.” (Ibid., iii, 61 b.)



IV. The Destiny of Man and the Universe.

As the En Soph constituted man the microcosm, and as the Deity is
reflected in this epitome of the universe more than in any component
part of the creation, all things visible and invisible are designed to
aid him in passing through his probationary state here below, in
gathering that experience for which his soul has been sent down, and in
returning in a pure state to that source of light from which his soul
emanated. This destiny of man—i.e., the reunion with the Deity from
which he emanated—is the constant desire both of God and man, and is an
essential principle of the soul, underlying its very essence.
Discarding that blind power from our nature, which governs our animal
life, which never quits this earth, and which therefore plays no part
in our spiritual being, the soul possesses two kinds of powers and two
sorts of feelings. It has the faculty for that extraordinary
prophetical knowledge, which was vouchsafed to Moses in an exceptional
manner, called the Luminous Mirror (‏אספקלריא נהרא‎ = specularia), and
the ordinary knowledge termed the Non-Luminous Mirror (‏אספקלריא דלא
נהרא‎), respectively represented in the earthly Paradise by the Tree of
Life and the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil; and it possesses the
higher feeling of love and the lower feeling of fear. [20] Now the full
fruition of that higher knowledge and of that loftier feeling of love
can only be reaped when the soul returns to the Infinite Source of
Light, and is wrapped in that luminous garment which the protoplasts
forfeited through the fall. Thus we are told, “Come and see when the
soul reaches that place which is called the Treasury of Life (‏צרורא
דחיי‎), she enjoys a bright and luminous mirror (‏אספקלריאה דנהרא‎),
which receives its light from the highest heaven. The soul could not
bear this light but for the luminous mantle which she puts on. For just
as the soul, when sent to this earth, puts on an earthly garment to
preserve herself here, so she receives above a shining garment, in
order to be able to look without injury into the mirror whose light
proceeds from the Lord of Light. Moses too could not approach to look
into that higher light which he saw, without putting on such an
ethereal garment; as it is written—‘And Moses went into the midst of
the cloud’ (Exod. xxiv, 18), which is to be translated by means of the
cloud wherewith he wrapped himself as if dressed in a garment. At that
time Moses almost discarded the whole of his earthly nature; as it is
written,—‘And Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights’
(ibid.); and he thus approached that dark cloud where God is enthroned.
In this wise the departed spirits of the righteous dress themselves in
the upper regions in luminous garments, to be able to endure that light
which streams from the Lord of Light.” (Sohar, i, 65 b, 66 a.)

The two feelings of love and fear are designed to aid the soul in
achieving her high destiny, when she shall no more look through the
dark glass, but see face to face in the presence of the Luminous
Mirror, by permeating all acts of obedience and divine worship. And
though perfect love, which is serving God purely out of love, like that
higher knowledge, is to be man’s destiny in heaven, yet the soul may
attain some of it on earth, and endeavour to serve God out of love and
not from fear, as thereby she will have an antepast on earth of its
union with the Deity, which is to be so rapturous and indissoluble in
heaven. “Yet is the service which arises from fear not to be
depreciated, for fear leads to love. It is true that he who obeys God
out of love has attained to the highest degree, and already belongs to
the saints of the world to come, but it must not be supposed that to
worship God out of fear is no worship. Such a service has also its
merit, though in this case the union of the soul with the Deity is
slight. There is only one degree which is higher than fear: it is love.
In love is the mystery of the divine unity. It is love which unites the
higher and lower degrees together; it elevates everything to that
position where everything must be one. This is also the mystery of the
words, ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one God.’” (Sohar, ii, 216
a.)

Hence it is that these two principles play so important a part in the
devotions and contemplations of the Kabbalists; Love is made to
correspond to Mercy, the fourth Sephira, whilst Fear is made to answer
to Rigour, the fifth Sephira; and it is asserted that when these two
principles are thoroughly combined by the righteous in their divine
worship and acts of obedience, the name Jehovah, which comprises these
two principles, and which is now rent in twain by the preponderance of
sin and disobedience, will be re-united. Then, and then only, will all
the souls return to the bosom of the Father of our spirits; then will
the restitution of all things take place, and the earth shall be
covered with the knowledge of God even as the waters cover the sea.
This is the reason why the Kabbalists utter the following prayer prior
to the performance of any of the commandments: “For the re-union of the
Holy One, blessed be his name, and his Shechinah, I do this in love and
fear, in fear and love, for the union of the name ‏יה‎ with ‏וה‎ into a
perfect harmony! I pronounce this in the name of all Israel!” [21] In
order to represent this union to the senses the words Fear ‏יראה‎ and
Love ‏אהבה‎, are divided, and so placed above each other that they may
be read either across or down, as follows:—


                              ‏יר‎   ‏אה‎
                              ‏אה‎   ‏בה‎


When thus fulfilling the commandments the pious not only enjoy a
prelibation of that sublime light which shines in heaven, and which
will serve them as a garment when they enter into the other world and
appear before the Holy One (Sohar, ii, 299 b), but become on earth
already the habitation of the Sephiroth, and each saint has that
Sephira incarnate in him which corresponds to the virtue he most
cultivates, or to the feature most predominant in his character. Among
the patriarchs, therefore, who were the most exalted in piety, we find
that Love, the fourth Sephira, was incarnate in Abraham; Rigour, the
fifth Sephira, in Isaac; Mildness, the sixth Sephira, in Jacob;
Firmness, the seventh Sephira, in Moses; Splendour, the eighth Sephira,
in Aaron; Foundation, the ninth Sephira, in Joseph; and Kingdom, the
tenth Sephira, was incarnate in David. Hence all the righteous who
constitute the emanations, of the ten Sephiroth are divided into three
classes corresponding to the three principles or Pillars exhibited in
the Kabbalistic Tree, viz.:—I. The Pillar of Mercy (‏חסד‎), represented
by the Patriarch Abraham (comp. ‏חסד לאברהם‎ Micah, vii, 20;) II. The
Pillar of Justice (‏פחד‎), represented by Isaac (comp. ‏פחד יצחק‎ Gen.
xxxi, 42); and III. The Middle Pillar, represented by Jacob (comp. ‏אמת
ליעקב‎ Micah vii, 20), which is the connecting or uniting principle.
(Sohar, i, 146 a; 148 b.) It is for this reason that the patriarchs are
denominated the Chariot-throne of the Lord.

Following the paths of righteousness, the saints on earth enjoy the
protection of heaven in an especial manner, by virtue of the divine
wisdom inherent in them, for they are able to decipher the signs which
God has put in the firmament to shield them from accidents. “In heaven
above, that surrounds the universe, are signs in which the deepest
mysteries are concealed. These signs are constellations and stars,
which are studied and deciphered by the wise.” (Sohar, ii, 76 a.) Hence
the admonition—“He who has to start on a journey very early, should
rise at daybreak, look carefully towards the east, and he will perceive
certain signs resembling letters which pierce through the sky and
appear above the horizon. These shining forms are those of the letters
wherewith God created heaven and earth. Now, if man knows the secret
meaning of the sacred name, consisting of forty-two letters, and
meditates on it with becoming devotion and enthusiasm, he will perceive
six Jods (‏יוד״ין‎) in the pure sky, three to the right and three to
the left, as well as three Vavs (‏וו״ין‎), which hover about in the
heavenly arch. These are the letters of the priestly benediction (‏ברכת
כהנים‎).... In the bright morning he will perceive a pillar towards the
west, hanging perpendicularly over the earthly paradise, and another
pillar hanging over the centre of paradise. This luminous pillar has
the three colours of a purple web: three birds stand on it, singing in
the following manner. The first sings, ‘Hallelujah! Praise, O ye
servants of the Lord, praise the name of the Lord’ (Ps. cxiii, 1); the
second, ‘Blessed be the name of the Lord from this time forth and for
evermore’ (ibid., v. 2); and the third, ‘From the rising of the sun
unto the going down of the same, the Lord’s name is to be praised’
(ibid., v. 3). This is the time when the pious traveller is to offer up
his morning prayer, in order that he may secure heaven’s blessings and
the sublime and divine mercy as his sure guide.” (Sohar, ii, 130 b.)

Now since it is an absolute condition of the soul to return to the
Infinite Source from which it emanated, after developing all those
perfections, the germs of which are eternally implanted in it; and
since some souls do not at once develope these fruits of righteousness,
which precludes their immediate reunion with their Primordial Source,
another term of life is vouchsafed to them, so that they may be able to
cultivate those virtues which they stifled in their former bodily life,
and without which it is impossible for them to return to their heavenly
home. Hence, if the soul, in its first assuming a human body and
sojourn on earth, fails to acquire that experience for which it
descends from heaven, and becomes contaminated by that which is
polluting, it must re-inhabit a body again and again till it is able to
ascend in a purified state through repeated trials. Thus we are told
that [22] “All souls are subject to transmigration (‏עאין בגלגולא‎),
and men do not know the ways of the Holy One, blessed be he; they do
not know that they are brought before the tribunal, both before they
enter into this world and after they quit it, they are ignorant of the
many transmigrations and secret probations which they have to undergo,
and of the number of souls and spirits which enter into this world, and
do not return to the palace of the Heavenly King. Men do not know how
the souls revolve like a stone which is thrown from a sling; as it is
written—‘And the souls of thine enemies them shall he sling out, as out
of the middle of a sling.’ (1 Sam., xxv, 29.) But the time is at hand
when these mysteries will be disclosed.” (Sohar, ii, 99 b.)

The transmigration of the soul into another body, however, is
restricted to three times; and if two souls in their third residence in
human bodies are still too weak to resist all earthly trammels and to
acquire the necessary experience, they are both united and sent into
one body, so that they may be able conjointly to learn that which they
were too feeble to do separately. It sometimes, however, happens that
it is the singleness and isolation of the soul which is the source of
her weakness, and she requires help to pass through her probation. In
that case she chooses for a companion a soul which has more strength
and better fortune. The stronger of the two then becomes as it were the
mother; she carries the sickly one in her bosom, and nurses her from
her own substance, just as a woman nurses her child. Such an
association is therefore called pregnancy (‏עיבור‎), because the
stronger soul gives as it were life and substance to the weaker
companion. [23]

As the world, like all other living beings, is a further expansion of
the Deity’s own substance, it too must ultimately share that
blessedness which it enjoyed in its first evolution. This is indicated
in the letter ‏ב‎ with which the history of the creation begins (i.e.
‏ב״ראשית‎), and which is also the first letter in the word blessing
(‏ב״רכה‎). [24] Even the archangel of wickedness, or the venomous beast
(‏חוייא בישא‎), or Samäel (‏סמאל‎), as he is called, will be restored
to his angelic nature and name, inasmuch as he too, like all other
beings, proceeded from the same infinite source of all things. The
first part of his name (‏סﬦ‎), which signifies venom, will then be
dropped, and he will retain the second part (‏אל‎), which is the common
name of all the angels. This, however, will only take place at the
advent of Messiah. But his coming is retarded by the very few new souls
which enter into the world; as many of the old souls which have already
inhabited bodies have to reenter those bodies which are now born, in
consequence of having polluted themselves in their previous bodily
existence, and the soul of the Messiah, which, like other souls, has
its pre-existence in the world of the Sephiroth, cannot be born till
all human souls have passed through their period of probation on this
earth, because it is to be the last born one at the end of days. Then
the great Jubilee year will commence, when the whole pleroma of souls
(‏אוצר הנשמות‎), cleaned and purified shall return into the bosom of
the Infinite Source; and they shall be in “the Palace which is situate
in the secret and most elevated part of heaven, and which is called the
Palace of Love (‏היכל אהבה‎). There the profoundest mysteries are;
there dwells the Heavenly King, blessed be he, with the holy souls, and
is united with them by a loving kiss. (Sohar, ii, 97 a.) “This kiss is
the union of the soul with the substance from which it emanated.”
(Ibid., i, 168 a.) Then hell shall disappear; there shall be no more
punishment, nor temptation, nor sin: life will be an everlasting feast,
a Sabbath without end. Then all souls will be united with the Highest
Soul, and supplement each other in the Holy of Holies of the Seven
Halls (‏שבע היכלות‎). Everything will then return to unity and
perfection—everything will be united into one idea, which shall be
over, and fill the whole universe. The basis of this idea, however
(i.e., the light which is concealed in it), will never be fathomed or
comprehended; only the idea itself which emanates from it shall be
comprehended. In that state the creature will not be distinguished from
the Creator, the same idea will illuminate both. Then the soul will
rule the universe like God, and what she shall command he will execute.
(Sohar, i, 45 a and b.)



V. The Kabbalistic view of the Old Testament, and its relation to
   Christianity.

We have already seen that the Kabbalah claims a pre-Adamite existence,
and asserts that its mysteries are covertly conveyed in the first four
books of the Pentateuch. Those of us who read the Books of Moses, and
cannot discover in them any of the above-mentioned doctrines, will
naturally ask for the principles of exegesis whereby these secrets are
deduced from or rather introduced into the text. These principles are
laid down in the following declaration:—“If the Law simply consisted of
ordinary expressions and narratives, e. gr., the words of Esau, Hagar,
Laban, the ass of Balaam, or of Balaam himself, why should it be called
the Law of truth, the perfect Law, the true witness of God? Each word
contains a sublime source, each narrative points not only to the single
instance in question, but also to generals.” (Sohar, iii, 149 b.) “Woe
be to the son of man who says that the Tora (Pentateuch) contains
common sayings and ordinary narratives. [25] For, if this were the
case, we might in the present day compose a code of doctrines from
profane writings which should excite greater respect. If the Law
contains ordinary matter, then there are nobler sentiments in profane
codes. Let us go and make a selection from them, and we shall be able
to compile a far superior code. [26] But every word of the Law has a
sublime sense and a heavenly mystery.... Now the spiritual angels had
to put on an earthly garment when they descended to this earth; and if
they had not put on such a garment, they could neither have remained
nor be understood on the earth. And just as it was with the angels so
it is with the Law. When it descended on earth, the Law had to put on
an earthly garment to be understood by us, and the narratives are its
garment. There are some who think that this garment is the real Law,
and not the spirit which it clothed, but these have no portion in the
world to come; and it is for this reason that David prayed, ‘Open thou
mine eyes that I may behold the wondrous things out of the Law.’ (Ps.
cxix, 18.) What is under the garment of the Law? There is the garment
which every one can see; and there are foolish people who, when they
see a well-dressed man, think of nothing more worthy than this
beautiful garment, and take it for the body, whilst the worth of the
body itself consists in the soul. The Law too has a body: this is the
commandments, which are called the body of the Law. This body is
clothed in garments, which are the ordinary narratives. The fools of
this world look at nothing else but this garment, which consists of the
narratives in the Law; they do not know any more, and do not understand
what is beneath this garment. But those who have more understanding do
not look at the garment but at the body beneath it (i.e., the moral);
whilst the wisest, the servants of the Heavenly King, those who dwell
at Mount Sinai, look at nothing else but the soul (i.e., the secret
doctrine), which is the root of all the real Law, and these are
destined in the world to come to behold the Soul of this Soul (i.e.,
the Deity), which breathes in the Law.” (Sohar, iii, 152 a.)


The opinion that the mysteries of the Kabbalah are to be found in the
garment of the Pentateuch is still more systematically propounded in
the following parable. “Like a beautiful woman, concealed in the
interior of her palace, who when her friend and beloved passes by,
opens for a moment a secret window and is seen by him alone, and then
withdraws herself immediately and disappears for a long time, so the
doctrine only shows herself to the chosen (i.e., to him who is devoted
to her with body and soul); and even to him not always in the same
manner. At first she simply beckons at the passer-by with her hand, and
it generally depends upon his understanding this gentle hint. This is
the interpretation known by the name ‏רמז‎. Afterwards she approaches
him a little closer, lisps him a few words, but her form is still
covered with a thick veil, which his looks cannot penetrate. This is
the so called ‏דרוש‎. She then converses with him with her face covered
by a thin veil; this is the enigmatic language of the ‏הגדה‎. After
having thus become accustomed to her society, she at last shows herself
face to face and entrusts him with the innermost secrets of her heart.
This is the secret of the Law, ‏סוד‎. [27] He who is thus far initiated
in the mysteries of the Tora will understand that all those profound
secrets are based upon the simply literal sense, and are in harmony
with it; and from this literal sense not a single iota is to be taken
and nothing to be added to it.” (Sohar, ii, 99.)

This fourfold sense is gradually disclosed to the initiated in the
mysteries of the Kabbalah by the application of definite hermeneutical
rules, which chiefly affect the letters composing the words. The most
prominent of these canons are—

I. Every letter of a word is reduced to its numerical value, and the
word is explained by another of the same quantity. Thus from the words
“Lo! three men stood by him” (Gen. xviii, 2), it is deduced that these
three angels were Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael, because ‏והנה שלשה‎
and lo! three men, and ‏אלו מיכאל גבריאל ורפאל‎ these are Michael,
Gabriel, and Raphael, are of the same numerical value, as will be seen
from the following reduction to their numerical value of both these
phrases.


             ‏ה‎   ‏ש‎     ‏ל‎    ‏ש‎     ‏ה‎   ‏נ‎    ‏ה‎   ‏ו‎
             5 + 300 + 30 + 300 + 5 + 50 + 5 + 6 = 701
             ‏ל‎    ‏א‎   ‏כ‎    ‏י‎    ‏מ‎    ‏ו‎   ‏ל‎    ‏א‎
           + 30 + 1 + 20 + 10 + 40 + 6 + 30 + 1
                      ‏ל‎    ‏א‎   ‏י‎    ‏ר‎     ‏ב‎   ‏ג‎
                    + 30 + 1 + 10 + 200 + 2 + 3
                          ‏ל‎    ‏א‎   ‏פ‎    ‏ר‎     ‏ו‎
                          30 + 1 + 80 + 200 + 6 = 701


This rule in called ‏גמטריא‎ = ‏גרמטיא‎ which is a metathesis of the
Greek word γράμμα, γραμμεία, or γραμματεία in the sense of numbers as
represented by letters.

2. Every letter of a word is taken as an initial or abbreviation of a
word. Thus every letter of the word ‏בראשית‎, the first word in
Genesis, is made the initial of a word, and we obtain ‏בראשית ראה אלהים
שיקבלו ישראל תורה‎ in the beginning God saw that Israel would accept
the Law. This rule is denominated ‏נוטריקון‎ = notaricun, from
notarius, a shorthand writer, one who among the Romans belonged to that
class of writers who abbreviated and used single letters to signify
whole words.

3. The initial and final letters of several words are respectively
formed into separate words. Thus from the beginnings and ends of the
words ‏מי יעלה לנו השמימה‎ who shall go up for us to heaven? (Deut.
xxx, 12) are obtained ‏מילה‎ circumcision and ‏יהוה‎ Jehovah, and
inferred that God ordained circumcision as the way to heaven.

4. Two words occurring in the same verse are joined together and made
into one. Thus ‏מי‎ who and ‏אלה‎ these are made into ‏אלהיﬦ‎ God by
transposing the ‏י‎ and ‏מ‎. Vide supra, p. 94. [28]

5. The words of those verses which are regarded as containing a
peculiar recondite meaning are ranged in squares in such a manner as to
be read either vertically or boustrophedonally, beginning at the right
or left hand. Again the words of several verses are placed over each
other, and the letters which stand under each other are formed into new
words. This is especially seen in the treatment of three verses in
Exod. xiv, (viz., 19–21), which are believed to contain the three
Pillars of the Sephiroth, and the Divine Name of seventy-two words. The
following tables will illustrate this principle of interpretation. The
first of these three verses ‏ויסע מלאך האלהים ההלך לפני מחנה ישראל וילך
מאחריהם ויסע עמוד הענן מפניהם ויעמד מאחריהם‎, and the angel of God,
which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and
the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind
them (Exod. xiv, 19), is read boustrophedonally, as follows:—


                           I.

             ‏ו‎   ‏א‎   ‏ל‎   ‏ש‎   ‏א‎   ‏ע‎   ‏מ‎   ‏מ‎
             ‏י‎   ‏ל‎   ‏פ‎   ‏ר‎   ‏ח‎   ‏ע‎   ‏פ‎   ‏ד‎
             ‏ס‎   ‏ח‎   ‏נ‎   ‏א‎   ‏ר‎   ‏מ‎   ‏נ‎   ‏מ‎
             ‏ע‎   ‏י‎   ‏י‎   ‏ל‎   ‏י‎   ‏ו‎   ‏י‎   ‏א‎
             ‏מ‎   ‏ם‎   ‏מ‎   ‏י‎   ‏ח‎   ‏ד‎   ‏ח‎   ‏ח‎
             ‏ל‎   ‏ח‎   ‏ח‎   ‏י‎   ‏ם‎   ‏ח‎   ‏ם‎   ‏ר‎
             ‏א‎   ‏ח‎   ‏נ‎   ‏ל‎   ‏ו‎   ‏ע‎   ‏ו‎   ‏י‎
             ‏ך‎   ‏ל‎   ‏ח‎   ‏ך‎   ‏י‎   ‏נ‎       ‏ח‎
             ‏ה‎   ‏ך‎   ‏י‎   ‏מ‎   ‏ס‎   ‏י‎   ‏ע‎   ‏ם‎


The second of these three verses ‏ויבא בין מחנה מצרים נבין מהנה ישראל
ויהי העגן והחשך ויאר את הלילה ולא קרב זה אל זה כל הלילה‎, and it came
between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a
cloud and darkness to them, but gave light by night to these, so that
the one came not near the other all the night (Exod. xiv, 20), is in
the first place divided, and read from right to left, beginning at the
top, as exhibited in the following diagram.


                          II.

          ‏ו‎   ‏י‎   ‏ב‎   ‏א‎   ‏ב‎   ‏י‎   ‏ן‎   ‏מ‎   ‏ח‎
          ‏נ‎   ‏ה‎   ‏מ‎   ‏צ‎   ‏ר‎   ‏י‎   ‏ם‎   ‏ו‎   ‏ב‎*
          ‏י‎   ‏ן‎   ‏מ‎   ‏ח‎   ‏נ‎   ‏ה‎   ‏י‎   ‏ש‎   ‏ר‎
          ‏א‎   ‏ל‎   ‏ו‎   ‏י‎   ‏ה‎   ‏י‎   ‏ה‎   ‏ע‎   ‏נ‎
          ‏ן‎   ‏ו‎   ‏ה‎   ‏ח‎   ‏ש‎   ‏ך‎   ‏ו‎   ‏י‎   ‏א‎
          ‏ר‎   ‏א‎   ‏ת‎   ‏ה‎   ‏ל‎   ‏י‎   ‏ל‎   ‏ה‎   ‏ו‎
          ‏ל‎   ‏א‎   ‏ק‎   ‏ר‎   ‏ב‎   ‏ז‎   ‏ה‎   ‏א‎   ‏ל‎
          ‏ז‎   ‏ה‎   ‏כ‎   ‏ל‎   ‏ה‎   ‏ל‎   ‏י‎   ‏ל‎   ‏ה‎


It is then divided in the following manner, and read from left to
right, beginning at the bottom.


                         III.

             ‏ה‎   ‏ל‎    ‏י‎   ‏ל‎   ‏ה‎   ‏ל‎   ‏כ‎   ‏ה‎
             ‏ז‎   ‏ל‎*   ‏א‎   ‏ה‎   ‏ז‎   ‏ב‎   ‏ר‎   ‏ק‎
             ‏א‎   ‏ל‎    ‏ו‎   ‏ה‎   ‏ל‎   ‏י‎   ‏ל‎   ‏ה‎
             ‏ת‎   ‏א‎    ‏ר‎   ‏א‎   ‏י‎   ‏ו‎   ‏ך‎   ‏ש‎
             ‏ח‎   ‏ה‎    ‏ו‎   ‏ן‎   ‏נ‎   ‏ע‎   ‏ה‎   ‏י‎
             ‏ה‎   ‏י‎    ‏ו‎   ‏ל‎   ‏א‎   ‏ר‎   ‏ש‎   ‏י‎
             ‏ה‎   ‏נ‎    ‏ח‎   ‏מ‎   ‏ן‎   ‏י‎   ‏ב‎   ‏ו‎
             ‏ם‎   ‏י‎    ‏ר‎   ‏צ‎   ‏מ‎   ‏ה‎   ‏נ‎   ‏ח‎
             ‏מ‎   ‏ן‎    ‏י‎   ‏ב‎   ‏א‎   ‏ב‎   ‏י‎   ‏ו‎


Whilst the third of these three verses ‏ויט משה את ידו על הים ויולך
יהוה את הים ברוח קדים עזה כל הלילה וישם את הים לחרבה ויבקעו המים‎, and
Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea
to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry
land, and the waters were divided (Exod. xiv. 21), is divided as
follows, and read from the right, beginning at the bottom.


                          IV.

          ‏י‎   ‏ב‎   ‏ק‎   ‏ע‎   ‏ו‎   ‏ה‎   ‏מ‎   ‏י‎   ‏ם‎
          ‏ה‎   ‏י‎   ‏ם‎   ‏ל‎   ‏ח‎   ‏ר‎   ‏ב‎   ‏ה‎   ‏ו‎
          ‏י‎   ‏ל‎   ‏ה‎   ‏ו‎   ‏י‎   ‏ש‎   ‏ם‎   ‏א‎   ‏ת‎
          ‏י‎   ‏ם‎   ‏ע‎   ‏ז‎   ‏ה‎   ‏כ‎   ‏ל‎   ‏ה‎   ‏ל‎
          ‏ה‎   ‏י‎   ‏ם‎   ‏ב‎   ‏ר‎   ‏ו‎   ‏ח‎   ‏ק‎   ‏ד‎
          ‏ו‎   ‏ל‎   ‏ך‎   ‏י‎   ‏ה‎   ‏ו‎   ‏ה‎   ‏א‎   ‏ת‎
          ‏ד‎   ‏ו‎   ‏ע‎   ‏ל‎   ‏ה‎   ‏י‎   ‏ם‎   ‏ו‎   ‏י‎
          ‏ו‎   ‏י‎   ‏ט‎   ‏מ‎   ‏ש‎   ‏ה‎   ‏א‎   ‏ת‎   ‏י‎


The three verses which have thus yielded the three Pillars of the
Sephiroth, are then joined together in groups of three letters in the
order in which they are read in diagrams ii, iii, and iv, and they then
yield the seventy-two divine names which the Kabbalah assigns to the
Deity, [29] as follows:—


 ‏כהת‎           ‏אכא‎          ‏ללה‎            ‏מהש‎          ‏עלם‎          ‏סיט‎            ‏ילי‎          ‏והו‎
 Adorandus.    Longanimis.  Annunciatus.   Quæsitus.    Salus.      ‏‎ Spes.         ‏‎ Auxiliator.  Exaltator.
 ‏הקם‎           ‏הרי‎          ‏מבה‎            ‏יזל‎          ‏ההע‎          ‏לאו‎            ‏אלד‎          ‏הוי‎
 Advocatus.    Ens.         Sublevator.    Decantatus.  Opportunus. ‏‎ Exultabundus. ‏‎              Recordabilis.
 ‏חהו‎           ‏מלה‎          ‏ייי‎            ‏נלך‎          ‏פהל‎          ‏לוו‎            ‏כלי‎          ‏לאו‎
 Expetendus.   Custos.      Dexter.        Fortis.      Ervens.     ‏‎ Exauditor.    ‏‎ Justitin.    Dominator.
 ‏ושר‎           ‏לכב‎          ‏אום‎            ‏ריי‎          ‏שאה‎          ‏ירת‎            ‏האא‎          ‏נתה‎
 Rector.       Solus.       Adolescentia.  Sanator.     Festinus.   ‏‎ Salvator.     ‏‎ Invocandus.  Mirabilis.
 ‏ייז‎           ‏רהע‎          ‏חעם‎            ‏אני‎          ‏מנד‎          ‏כוק‎            ‏להח‎          ‏יחו‎
 Propulsator.  Adivtor.     Refugium.      Facies.      Gloria.     ‏‎ Deprecatio.   ‏‎ Expectatio.  Cogitabundus.
 ‏מיה‎           ‏עשל‎          ‏ערי‎            ‏סאל‎          ‏ילה‎          ‏וול‎            ‏מיך‎          ‏ההה‎
 Revelator.    Magnificus.  Operator.      Compatiens.  Doctor.     ‏‎ Matutinus.    ‏‎ Custos.      Liberator.
 ‏פוי‎           ‏מבח‎          ‏נית‎            ‏ננא‎          ‏עמם‎          ‏החש‎            ‏דני‎          ‏והו‎
 Erector.      Aeternum.    Regnator.      Verus.       Altissimus. ‏‎ Lætabundus.   ‏‎ Clemens.     Maximus.
 ‏מחי‎           ‏ענו‎          ‏יהה‎            ‏ומב‎          ‏מצר‎          ‏הרח‎            ‏ייל‎          ‏נמם‎
 Mercator.     Laudabilis.  Amabilis.      Benedictus.  Justus.     ‏‎ Oriens.       ‏‎ Animus.      Protector.
 ‏מום‎           ‏חיי‎          ‏יבם‎            ‏ראה‎          ‏חבו‎          ‏איע‎            ‏מנק‎          ‏דמב‎
 Requies.      Multus.      Deus.          Præmium.     Bonus.      ‏‎ Dator.        ‏‎ Assisteus.   Deprecabilis.


6. The letters of words are changed by way of anagram and new words are
obtained. This canon is called ‏תמורה‎ or ‏חילוף אותיות‎, permutation,
and the commutation is effected according to fixed rules. Thus the
alphabet is bent exactly in the middle, and one half is put over the
other, and by changing alternately the first letter or the first two
letters at the beginning of the second line, twenty-two commutations
are produced ex. gr.:—


          11  10  9   8   7   6   5   4   3   2   1
        [ ‏כ‎   ‏י‎   ‏ט‎   ‏ח‎   ‏ז‎   ‏ו‎   ‏ה‎   ‏ד‎   ‏ג‎   ‏ב‎   ‏א‎ ]
        [ ‏מ‎   ‏נ‎   ‏ס‎   ‏ע‎   ‏פ‎   ‏צ‎   ‏ק‎   ‏ר‎   ‏ש‎   ‏ת‎   ‏ל‎ ]

        [ ‏ל‎   ‏כ‎   ‏י‎   ‏ט‎   ‏ח‎   ‏ז‎   ‏ו‎   ‏ה‎   ‏ד‎   ‏ג‎   ‏א‎ ] or
        [ ‏מ‎   ‏נ‎   ‏ס‎   ‏ע‎   ‏פ‎   ‏צ‎   ‏ק‎   ‏ר‎   ‏ש‎   ‏ת‎   ‏ב‎ ]


These anagramic alphabets obtain their respective names from the first
two specimen pairs of letter which indicate the interchange. Thus, for
instance, the first is called Albath ‏אל״בת‎ from the first words, the
second Abgath ‏אב״גת‎, and so on. The following table exhibits the
established rules of the alphabetical permutations.


          ‏כם‎ ינ‎ ‏טס‎ ‏חע‎ ‏זפ‎ ‏וצ‎ ‏הק‎ ‏דר‎ ‏גש‎ ‏בת‎ ‏אל‎ 1.  Albath.
          ‏לם‎ כנ‎ ‏יס‎ ‏טע‎ ‏חפ‎ ‏זצ‎ ‏וק‎ ‏הר‎ ‏דש‎ ‏גת‎ ‏אב‎ 2.  Abgath.
          ‏במ‎ לנ‎ ‏כס‎ ‏יע‎ ‏טפ‎ ‏חצ‎ ‏זק‎ ‏ור‎ ‏הש‎ ‏דת‎ ‏אג‎ 3.  Agdath.
          ‏נמ‎ לס‎ ‏כע‎ ‏יפ‎ ‏טצ‎ ‏חק‎ ‏זר‎ ‏וש‎ ‏הת‎ ‏בג‎ ‏אד‎ 4.  Adbag.
          ‏גנ‎ מס‎ ‏לע‎ ‏כפ‎ ‏יצ‎ ‏טק‎ ‏חר‎ ‏זש‎ ‏ות‎ ‏בד‎ ‏אה‎ 5.  Ahbad.
          ‏נס‎ מע‎ ‏לפ‎ ‏כצ‎ ‏יק‎ ‏טר‎ ‏חש‎ ‏זת‎ ‏גד‎ ‏בה‎ ‏או‎ 6.  Avba.
          ‏דס‎ נע‎ ‏מפ‎ ‏לצ‎ ‏כק‎ ‏יר‎ ‏טש‎ ‏חת‎ ‏גה‎ ‏בו‎ ‏אז‎ 7.  Azbav.
          ‏סע‎ נפ‎ ‏מצ‎ ‏לק‎ ‏כר‎ ‏יש‎ ‏טת‎ ‏דה‎ ‏גו‎ ‏בז‎ ‏אח‎ 8.  Achbaz.
          ‏הע‎ ספ‎ ‏נצ‎ ‏מק‎ ‏לר‎ ‏כש‎ ‏ית‎ ‏דו‎ ‏גז‎ ‏בח‎ ‏אט‎ 9.  Atbach.
          ‏עפ‎ סצ‎ ‏נק‎ ‏מר‎ ‏לש‎ ‏כת‎ ‏הו‎ ‏דז‎ ‏גח‎ ‏בט‎ ‏אי‎ 10. Aibat.
          ‏ופ‎ עצ‎ ‏סק‎ ‏נר‎ ‏מש‎ ‏לת‎ ‏הז‎ ‏דח‎ ‏גט‎ ‏בי‎ ‏אכ‎ 11. Achbi.
          ‏פצ‎ עק‎ ‏סר‎ ‏נש‎ ‏מת‎ ‏וז‎ ‏הח‎ ‏דט‎ ‏גי‎ ‏בכ‎ ‏אל‎ 12. Albach.
          ‏וצ‎ פק‎ ‏ער‎ ‏סש‎ ‏נת‎ ‏וח‎ ‏הט‎ ‏די‎ ‏גכ‎ ‏בל‎ ‏אמ‎ 13. Ambal.
          ‏צק‎ פר‎ ‏עש‎ ‏סת‎ ‏זח‎ ‏וט‎ ‏הי‎ ‏דכ‎ ‏גל‎ ‏במ‎ ‏אנ‎ 14. Anbam.
          ‏חק‎ צר‎ ‏פש‎ ‏עת‎ ‏זט‎ ‏וי‎ ‏הכ‎ ‏דל‎ ‏גם‎ ‏בנ‎ ‏אס‎ 15. Asban.
          ‏קר‎ צש‎ ‏פת‎ ‏חט‎ ‏זי‎ ‏וכ‎ ‏הל‎ ‏דמ‎ ‏גנ‎ ‏בס‎ ‏אע‎ 16. Aabas.
          ‏טר‎ קש‎ ‏טת‎ ‏חי‎ ‏זכ‎ ‏ול‎ ‏המ‎ ‏דנ‎ ‏גס‎ ‏בע‎ ‏אפ‎ 17. Afba.
          ‏רש‎ קת‎ ‏טי‎ ‏חכ‎ ‏זל‎ ‏ומ‎ ‏הנ‎ ‏דס‎ ‏גע‎ ‏בפ‎ ‏אצ‎ 18. Azbaf.
          ‏יש‎ רת‎ ‏טכ‎ ‏חל‎ ‏זמ‎ ‏ונ‎ ‏הס‎ ‏דע‎ ‏גפ‎ ‏בצ‎ ‏אק‎ 19. Akbaz.
          ‏שת‎ יכ‎ ‏טל‎ ‏חמ‎ ‏זנ‎ ‏וס‎ ‏הע‎ ‏דפ‎ ‏גצ‎ ‏בק‎ ‏אר‎ 20. Arbak.
          ‏כת‎ יל‎ ‏טמ‎ ‏חנ‎ ‏זס‎ ‏וע‎ ‏הפ‎ ‏דצ‎ ‏גכ‎ ‏בר‎ ‏אש‎ 21. Ashbar.
          ‏כל‎ ימ‎ ‏טנ‎ ‏חס‎ ‏זע‎ ‏ופ‎ ‏הצ‎ ‏דק‎ ‏גר‎ ‏בש‎ ‏את‎ 22. Athbash.

              To this list is to be added—

          ‏שת‎ ‏קר‎ ‏פצ‎ ‏סע‎ ‏מנ‎ ‏כל‎ ‏טי‎ ‏זח‎ ‏הו‎ ‏גד‎ ‏אב‎ 23. Abgad.
          ‏כת‎ ‏יש‎ ‏טר‎ ‏חק‎ ‏זצ‎ ‏ופ‎ ‏הע‎ ‏דס‎ ‏גנ‎ ‏בם‎ ‏אל‎ 24. Albam.


Besides these canons the Kabbalah also sees a recondite sense in the
form of the letters, as well as in the ornaments which adorn them.


As to the relation of the Kabbalah to Christianity, it is maintained
that this theosophy propounds the doctrine of the trinity and the
sufferings of Messiah. How far this is true may be ascertained from the
following passages. [30] “We have already remarked in several places
that the daily liturgical declaration about the divine unity is that
which is indicated in the Bible (Deut. vi, 43), where Jehovah occurs
first, then Elohenu, and then again Jehovah, which three together
constitute a unity, and for this reason he [i.e., Jehovah] is in the
said place called one (‏אחד‎), But there are three names, and how can
they be one? And although we read one (‏אחד‎), are they really one? Now
this is revealed by the vision of the Holy Ghost, and when the eyes are
closed we get to know that the three are only one. This is also the
mystery of the voice. The voice is only one, find yet it consists of
three elements, fire [i.e., warmth], air [i.e., breath], and water
[i.e., humidity], yet are all these one in the mystery of the voice,
and can only be one. Thus also Jehovah, Elohenu, and Jehovah constitute
one—three forms which are one. And this is indicated by the voice which
man raises [i.e., at prayer], thereby to comprehend spiritually the
most perfect unity of the En Soph for the finite, since all the three
[i.e., Jehovah, Elohenu, Jehovah] are rend with the same loud voice,
which comprises in itself a trinity. And this is the daily confession
of the divine unity which, as a mystery, is revealed by the Holy Ghost.
This unity has been explained in different ways, yet he who understands
it in this way is right, and he who understands it in another way is
also right. The idea of unity, however formed by us here below, from
the mystery of the audible voice which is one, explains the thing.”
(Sohar, ii, 43 b.)

On another occasion we are informed that R. Eleazar, whilst sitting
with his father R. Simeon, was anxious to know how the two names,
Jehovah and Elohim, can be interchanged, seeing that the one denotes
mercy and the other judgment. Before giving the discussion between the
father and the son, it is necessary to remark that whenever the two
divine names, Adonai (‏אדוני‎) and Jehovah (‏יהוה‎), immediately follow
each other, Jehovah is pointed and read (‏יְהֹוִה‎) Elohim. The reason of
this, as it is generally supposed, is to avoid the repetition of
Adonai, Adonai, since the Tetragrammaton is otherwise always pointed
and read (‏יְהֹוָה‎). The Kabbalah, however, as we shall see, discovers in
it a recondite meaning, [31] “R. Eleazar, when sitting before his
father R. Simeon, said to him, we have been taught that whenever Elohim
(‏אלהיﬦ‎) occurs, it denotes Justice. Now how can Elohim sometimes be
put for Jehovah, as is the case in those passages wherein Adonai
(‏אדוני‎) and Jehovah (‏יהוה‎) stand together (Comp. Gen. xv, 8; Ezek.
ii, 4, &c.), seeing that the latter denotes mercy in all the passages
in which it occurs? To which he replied, Thus it is said in the
Scripture, ‘Know therefore this day and consider it in thine heart,
that Jehovah is Elohim’ (Deut. iv, 19); and again it is written
‘Jehovah is Elohim.’ (Ibid., ver. 35.) Whereupon he [i.e., the son]
said, I know this forsooth, that justice is sometimes tempered with
mercy and mercy with justice. Quoth he [i.e., the father], Come and see
that it is so; Jehovah indeed does signify mercy whenever it occurs,
but when through sin mercy is changed into justice, then it is written
Jehovah (‏יהוה‎), but read Elohim (‏אלהיﬦ‎). Now come and see the
mystery of the word [i.e., Jehovah]. There are three degrees, and each
degree exists by itself [i.e., in the Deity], although the three
together constitute one, they are closely united into one and are
inseparable from each other.” (Sohar, iii, 65 a.)

We shall only give one more passage bearing on the subject of the
Trinity. [32] “He who reads the word (‏אחד‎) One [i.e., in the
declaration of the divine unity ‏שמע‎] must pronounce the Aleph (‏א‎)
quickly, shorten its sound a little, and not pause at all by this
letter, and he who obeys this, his life will be lengthened. Whereupon
they [i.e., the disciples] said to him [i.e., to R. Ilai], he [i.e., R.
Simeon] has said, There are two, and one is connected with them, and
they are three; but in being three they are one. He said to them, those
two names, Jehovah Jehovah, are in the declaration ‘Hear O Israel’
(Deut. vi, 4), and Elohenu (‏אלהנו‎), between them, is united with them
as the third, and this is the conclusion which is sealed with the
impression of Truth (‏אמת‎). But when these three are combined into a
unity, they are one in a single unity.” (Sohar, iii, 262 a.) Indeed one
Codex of the Sohar had the following remark on the words “Holy, holy,
holy is the Lord of hosts” (Isa. iv, 3); ‏קדוש זה אב קדוש זה בן קדוש זה
רוח הקדש‎, the first holy refers to the Holy Father; the second to the
Holy Son; and the third to the Holy Ghost. [33] This passage, however,
is omitted from the present recensions of the Sohar. Some Jewish
writers have felt these passages to be so favourable to the doctrine of
the Trinity, that they insist upon their being interpolations into the
Sohar, whilst others have tried to explain them as referring to the
Sephiroth. [34]

As to the atonement of the Messiah for the sins of the people, this is
not only propounded in the Sohar, but is given as the explanation of
the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. [35] “When the righteous are visited
with sufferings and afflictions to atone for the sins of the world, it
is that they might atone for all the sins of this generation. How is
this proved? By all the members of the body. When all members suffer,
one member is afflicted in order that all may recover. And which of
them? The arm. The arm is beaten, the blood is taken from it, and then
the recovery of all the members of the body is secured. So it is with
the children of the world: they are members one of another. When the
Holy One; blessed be he, wishes the recovery of the world, he afflicts
one righteous from their midst, and for his sake all are healed. How is
this shown? It is written—‘He was wounded for our transgressions, he
was bruised for our iniquities, ... and with his stripes we are
healed.’ (Isa. liii, 5.) ‘With his stripes,’ i.e., healed, as by the
wound of bleeding an arm, and with this wound we are healed, i.e., it
was a healing to each one of us as members of the body.” (Sohar, iii,
218 a.) To the same effect is the following passage. [36] “Those souls
which tarry in the nether garden of Eden hover about the world, and
when they see suffering or patient martyrs and those who suffer for the
unity of God, they return and mention it to the Messiah. When they tell
the Messiah of the afflictions of Israel in exile, and that the sinners
among them do not reflect in order to know their Lord, he raises his
voice and weeps because of those sinners, as it is written, ‘he is
wounded for our transgressions.’ (Isa. liii, 5.) Whereupon those souls
return and take their place. In the garden of Eden there is one palace
which is called the palace of the sick. The Messiah goes into this
palace and invokes all the sufferings, pain, and afflictions of Israel
to come upon him, and they all come upon him. Now if he did not remove
them thus and take them upon himself, no man could endure the
sufferings of Israel, due as punishment for transgressing the Law; as
it is written—‘Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our
sorrows,’ &c. (Isa. liii, 4, with Rom. xii, 3, 4.) When the children of
Israel were in the Holy Land they removed all those sufferings and
afflictions from the world by their prayers and sacrifices, but now the
Messiah removes them from the world.” (Sohar, ii, 212 b.)

That these opinions favour, to a certain extent, the doctrines of the
Trinity and the Atonement, though not in the orthodox sense, is not
only admitted by many of the Jewish literati who are adverse to the
Kabbalah, but by some of its friends. Indeed, the very fact that so
large a number of Kabbalists have from time to time embraced the
Christian faith would of itself show that there must be some sort of
affinity between the tenets of the respective systems. Some of these
converts occupied the highest position in the Synagogue, both as pious
Jews and literary men. We need only specify Paul Ricci, physician to
the Emperor Maximilian I; Julius Conrad Otto, author of The Unveiled
Secrets (‏גלא רזיא‎), consisting of extracts from the Talmud and the
Sohar, to prove the validity of the Christian doctrine (Nürenberg,
1805); John Stephen Rittengal, grandson of the celebrated Don Isaac
Abravanel, and translator of The Book Jetzira, or of Creation (‏ספר
יצירה‎), into Latin (Amsterdam, 1642); and Jacob Frank, the great
apostle of the Kabbalah in the eighteenth century, whose example in
professing Christianity was followed by several thousands of his
disciples. [37] The testimony of these distinguished Kabbalists, which
they give in their elaborate works, about the affinity of some of the
doctrines of this theosophy with those of Christianity, is by no means
to be slighted; and this is fully corroborated by the celebrated Leo di
Modena, who, as an orthodox Jew, went so far as to question whether God
will ever forgive those who printed the Kabbalistic works. [38]

The use made by some well-meaning Christians of the above-named
Kabbalistic canons of interpretation, in controversies with Jews, to
prove that the doctrines of Christianity are concealed under the letter
of the Old Testament, will now be deprecated by every one who has any
regard for the laws of language. As a literary curiosity, however, we
shall give one or two specimens. No less a person than the celebrated
Reuchlin would have it that the doctrine of the Trinity is to be found
in the first verse of Genesis. He submits, if the Hebrew word ‏ברא‎,
which is translated created, be examined, and if each of the three
letters composing this word be taken as the initial of a separate word,
we obtain the expressions ‏בן רוח אב‎ Son, Spirit, Father, according to
Rule 2 (p. 131). Upon the same principle this erudite scholar deduces
the first two persons in the Trinity from the words—“the stone which
the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner” (Ps.
cxviii, 22), by dividing the three letters composing the word ‏אבן‎
stone, into ‏אב בן‎ Father, Son (Comp. De Verbo Mirifico, Basel, 1494).
In more recent times we find it maintained that the ‘righteousness’
spoken of in Daniel ix, 24, means the Anointed of Jehovah, because the
original phrase, ‏צדק עלמים‎ is by Gematria, = numerical value, (which
is Rule 1, given above, p. 131), the same as ‏משיח יהוה‎. So pleased is
the author with this discovery, that he takes great care to remark—“It
is a proof which I believe has hitherto escaped the notice of
interpreters.” Such proofs, however, of the Messiaship of Christ bring
no honour to our religion; and in the present day argue badly both
against him who adduces them and against him who is convinced by them.









II.


We now proceed to trace the date and origin of the Kabbalah. Taking the
ex parte statement for what it is worth, viz., that this secret
doctrine is of a pre-Adamite date, and that God himself propounded it
to the angels in Paradise, we shall have to examine the age of the
oldest documents which embody its tenets, and compare these doctrines
with other systems, in order to ascertain the real date and origin of
this theosophy. But before this is done, it will be necessary to
summarize, as briefly as possible, those doctrines which are peculiar
to the Kabbalah, or which it expounds and elaborates in an especial
manner, and which constitute it a separate system within the precincts
of Judaism. The doctrines are as follow:—

1. God is boundless in his nature. He has neither will, intention,
desire, thought, language, nor action. He cannot be grasped and
depicted; and, for this reason, is called En Soph, and as such he is in
a certain sense not existent.

2. He is not the direct creator of the universe, since he could not
will the creation; and since a creation proceeding directly from him
would have to be as boundless and as perfect as he is himself.

3. He at first sent forth ten emanations, or Sephiroth, which are
begotten, not made, and which are both infinite and finite.

4. From these Sephiroth, which are the Archetypal Man, the different
worlds gradually and successively evolved. These evolutionary worlds
are the brightness and the express image of their progenitors, the
Sephiroth, which uphold all things.

5. These emanations, or Sephiroth, gave rise to or created in their own
image all human souls. These souls are pre-existent, they occupy a
special hall in the upper world of spirits, and there already decide
whether they will pursue a good or bad course in their temporary
sojourn in the human body, which is also fashioned according to the
Archetypal image.

6. No one has seen the En Soph at any time. It is the Sephiroth, in
whom the En Soph is incarnate, who have revealed themselves to us, and
to whom the anthropomorphisms of Scripture and the Hagada refer. Thus
when it is said, “God spake, descended upon earth, ascended into
heaven, smelled the sweet smell of sacrifices, repented in his heart,
was angry,” &c, &c, or when the Hagadic works describe the body and the
mansions of the Deity, &c., all this does not refer to the En Soph, but
to these intermediate beings.

7. It is an absolute condition of the soul to return to the Infinite
Source whence it emanated, after developing all those perfections the
germs of which are indelibly inherent in it. If it fails to develope
these germs, it must migrate into another body, and in case it is still
too weak to acquire the virtues for which it is sent to this earth, it
is united to another and a stronger soul, which, occupying the same
human body with it, aids its weaker companion in obtaining the object
for which it came down from the world of spirits.

8. When all the pre-existent souls shall have passed their probationary
period here below, the restitution of all things will take place; Satan
will be restored to an angel of light, hell will disappear, and all
souls will return into the bosom of the Deity whence they emanated. The
creature shall not then be distinguished from the Creator. Like God,
the soul will rule the universe: she shall command, and God obey.

With these cardinal doctrines before us we shall now be able to examine
the validity of the Kabbalists’ claims to the books which, according to
them, propound their doctrines and determine the origin of this
theosophy. Their works are I. The Book of Creation; II. The Sohar; and
III. The Commentary of the Ten Sephiroth. As the Book of Creation is
acknowledged by all parties to be the Oldest, we shall examine it
first.



I. The Book of Creation or Jetzira.

This marvellous and famous document pretends to be a monologue of the
patriarch Abraham, and premises that the contemplations it contains are
those which led the father of the Hebrews to abandon the worship of the
stars and to embrace the faith of the true God. Hence the remark of the
celebrated philosopher, R. Jehudah Ha-Levi (born about 1086)—“The Book
of the Creation, which belongs to our father Abraham, ... demonstrates
the existence of the Deity and the Divine Unity, by things which are on
the one hand manifold and multifarious, whilst on the other hand they
converge and harmonize; and this harmony can only proceed from One who
originated it.” [39] (Khozari, iv. 25.) The whole Treatise consists of
six Perakim (‏פרקיﬦ‎) or chapters, subdivided into thirty-three very
brief Mishnas (‏משנות‎) or sections, as follows. The first chapter has
twelve sections, the second has five, the third five, the fourth four,
the fifth three, and the sixth four sections. The doctrines which it
propounds are delivered in the style of aphorisms or theorems, and,
pretending to be the dicta of Abraham, are laid down very dogmatically,
in a manner becoming the authority of this patriarch.

As has already been intimated, the design of this treatise is to
exhibit a system whereby the universe may be viewed methodically in
connection with the truths given in the Bible, thus shewing, from the
gradual and systematic development of the creation, and from the
harmony which prevails in all its multitudinous component parts, that
One God produced it all, and that He is over all. The order in which
God gave rise to this creation out of nothing (‏יצר ממש מתוהו‎), and
the harmony which pervades all the constituent parts of the universe
are shown by the analogy which subsists between the visible things and
the signs of thought, or the means whereby wisdom is expressed and
perpetuated among men. Since the letters have no absolute value, nor
can they be used as mere forms, but serve as the medium between essence
and form, and like words, assume the relation of form to the real
essence, and of essence to the embryo and unexpressed thought, great
value is attached to these letters, and to the combinations and
analogies of which they are capable. The patriarch Abraham, therefore,
employs the double value of the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew
alphabet; [40] he uses them, both in their phonetic nature and in their
sacred character, as expressing the divine truths of the Scriptures.
But, since the Hebrew alphabet is also used as numerals, which are
represented by the fundamental number ten, and since the vowels of the
language are also ten in number, this decade is added to the twenty-two
letters, and these two kinds of signs—i.e., the twenty-two letters of
the alphabet and the ten fundamental numbers—are designated the
thirty-two ways of secret wisdom; and the treatise opens with the
declaration [41]—“By thirty-two paths of secret wisdom, the Eternal,
the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, the living God, the King of the
Universe, the Merciful and Gracious, the High and Exalted God, He who
inhabiteth eternity, Glorious and Holy is His name, hath created the
world by means of (‏ספר‎) numbers, (‏ספור‎) phonetic language, and
writing (‏ספר‎).” (Sepher Jetzira, chapter i; Mishna i.)

First of all comes the fundamental number ten. This decade is divided
into a tetrade and hexade, and thereby is shown the gradual development
of the world out of nothing. At first there existed nothing except the
Divine Substance, with the creative idea and the articulate creative
word as the Spirit or the Holy Spirit, which is one with the Divine
Substance and indivisible. Hence, the Spirit of the living God (‏רוח
אלהים חיים‎) stands at the head of all things and is represented by the
number one. “One is the spirit of the living God, blessed be His name,
who liveth for ever! voice, spirit, and word, this is the Holy Ghost.”
[42] (Chapter i, Mishna ix). From this Spirit the whole universe
proceeded in gradual and successive emanations, in the following order.
The creative air, represented by number two, emanated from the Spirit
(‏רוח מרוח‎). “In it He engraved the twenty-two letters.” The water
again, represented by the number three, proceeded from the air (‏מים
מרוח‎). “In it He engraved darkness and emptiness, slime and dung.”
Whilst the ether or fire, represented by the number four, emanated from
the water (‏אש ממים‎). “In it He engraved the throne of His glory, the
Ophanim, the Seraphim, the sacred animals, and the ministering angels,
and from these three he formed His habitation; as it is written—‘He
maketh the wind his messengers, flaming fire his servants’” [43] (Cap.
i. Mish. ix, x.) These intermediate members between the Creator and the
created world sustain a passive and created relationship to God, and an
acting and creating relationship to the world; so that God is neither
in immediate connection with the created and material universe, nor is
His creative fiat hindered by matter.

Then comes the hexade, each unit of which represents space in the six
directions (‏שש קצוות‎), or the four corners of the world, east, west,
north, and south, as well as height and depth which emanated from the
ether, and in the centre of which is the Holy Temple supporting the
whole (‏והיכל הקודש מכוון באמצע‎). The position of the decade is
therefore as follows—


                               1
                             Spirit.
                      3                 2
                    Water.             Air.
                               4
                         Ether or Fire.

                               5
                             Height.
                      7                 6
                    West.             North.
                            +-------+
                            | HOLY  |
                            |TEMPLE.|
                            +-------+
                      9                  8
                    South.             East.
                               10
                             Depth.


These constitute the primordial ten, from which the whole universe
proceeded.

And lastly follow “the twenty-two letters, by means of which God,
having drawn, hewn, and weighed them, and having variously changed and
put them together, formed the souls of everything that has been made,
and that shall be made.” [44] (Chapter ii, Mishna ii.) These twenty-two
letters of the alphabet are then divided into three groups, consisting
respectively of, 1, the three mothers, or fundamental letters (‏שלש
אמות‎), 2, seven double (‏שבע כפולות‎) and 3, twelve simple consonants
(‏שניﬦ עשר פשוטות‎), to deduce therefrom a triad of elements, a heptade
of opposites, and a duodecimo of simple things, in the following
manner.

1. Three Mothers, Aleph, Mem, Shin. ‏שלש אמות אמ״ש‎

The above-named three primordial elements, viz., ether, water and air,
which were as yet partially ideal and ethereal, became more concrete
and palpable in the course of emanation. Thus the fire developed itself
into the visible heaven, the elementary water thickened into the earth,
embracing sea and land, whilst the elementary air became the
atmospheric air. These constitute the three fundamental types of the
universe (‏שלש אמות בעולם‎). The three primordial elements also
thickened still more in another direction, and gave birth to a new
order of creatures, which constitute the course of the year and the
temperatures. From the ether developed itself heat, from the water
emanated cold, and from the air proceeded the mild temperature which
shows itself in the rain or wet. These constitute the fundamental
points of the year (‏שלש אמות בשנה‎). Whereupon the three primordial
elements developed themselves in another direction again, and gave rise
to the human organism. The ether sent forth the human head, which is
the seat of intelligence; the water gave rise to the body, or the
abdominal system; whilst the air, which is the central element,
developed itself into the genital organ. These three domains, viz., the
macrocosm, the revolution of time, and the microcosm, which proceeded
from the three primordial elements, are exhibited by the three letters
Aleph (‏א‎), Mem (‏מ‎) and Shin (‏ש‎.) Hence it is said that by means
of these three letters—which, both in their phonetic and sacred
character, represent the elements, inasmuch as ‏א‎, as a gentle
aspirate, and as the initial of ‏אויר‎ air, symbolises THE AIR; ‏מ‎, as
a labial or mute, and as the initial of ‏מיﬦ‎ water, represents THE
WATER; whilst ‏ש‎, as a sibilant, and as the last letter of ‏אש‎ fire,
typifies THE FIRE (Chapter iii, Mishna iii)—God created


    In the World—The Fire, Water, Air.
    In Man—The Head, Body, Breast.
    In the Year—Heat, Cold, Wet.


2. Seven double consonants—Beth, Gimel, Daleth, Caph, Pe, Resh, Tav
‏שבע כפולות בגדכפרת‎

The three dominions proceeding from the triad of the primordial
elements which emanated from the unity continued to develope themselves
still further. In the macrocosm were developed the seven planets, in
time the seven days, and in the microcosm the seven sensuous faculties.
These are represented by the seven double consonants of the alphabet.
Hence it is said that by means of these seven letters, which are called
double because they have a double pronunciation, being sometimes
aspirated and sometimes not, according to their being with or without
the Dagesh, God created—


    In the World—Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon.
    In Man—Wisdom, Riches, Dominion, Life, Favour, Progeny, Peace.
    In the Year—Sabbath, Thursday, Tuesday, Sunday, Friday, Wednesday,
    Monday.


Owing to the opposite = double pronunciation of these seven letters,
being hard and soft, they are also the symbols of the seven opposites
(‏תמורות‎) in which human life moves, viz., wisdom and ignorance,
riches and poverty, fruitfulness and barrenness, life and death,
liberty and bondage, peace and war, beauty and deformity. Moreover,
they correspond to the seven ends (‏שבע קצוות‎), above and below, east
and west, north and south, and the Holy Place in the centre, which
supports them; and with them God formed the seven heavens, the seven
earths or countries, the seven weeks from the feast of Passover to
Pentecost. (Chapter iii, Mishna, i–v; cap. iv, Mishna, i–iii.)



3. Twelve simple consonants ‏שתיﬦ עשר פשוטות.‎

The three dominions then respectively developed themselves into twelve
parts, the macrocosm into the twelve signs of the Zodiac, time into
twelve months, and the microcosm into twelve active organs. This is
shown by the twelve simple consonants of the alphabet. Thus it is
declared, that by means of the twelve letters, which are ‏הוז חטי לן
סעצק‎, God created the twelve signs of the Zodiac, viz.:—


    In the World—Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra,
    Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricornus, Aquarius, Pisces.
    In Man—The organs of Sight, Hearing, Smelling, Talking, Taste,
    Copulating, Dealing, Walking, Thinking, Anger, Laughter, Sleeping.
    In the Year—The twelve months, viz., Nisan, Jiar, Sivan, Tamus, Ab,
    Elul, Tishri, Cheshvan, Kislev, Tebet, Shebat, Adar. (Comp. chapter
    v, Mishna i.)


The three dominions continued gradually to develope into that infinite
variety of objects which is perceptible in each. This infinite variety,
proceeding from the combination of a few, is propounded by means of the
great diversity of combinations and permutations of which the whole
alphabet is capable. These letters, small in number, being only
twenty-two, by their power of combination and transposition, yield an
endless number of words and figures, and thus become the types of all
the varied phenomena in the creation. [45] “Just as the twenty-two
letters yield two hundred and thirty-one types by combining Aleph (‏א‎)
with all the letters, and all the letters with Aleph; Beth (‏ב‎), with
all the letters, and all the letters with Beth, so all the formations
and all that is spoken proceed from one name.” (Chapter ii, Mishna,
iv.). The table on the opposite page will shew how the two hundred and
thirty-one types are obtained by the combination of the twenty-two
letters.

The infinite variety in creation is still more strikingly exhibited by
permutations, of which the Hebrew alphabet is capable, and through
which an infinite variety of types is obtained. Hence the remark
[46]—“Two letters form two houses, three letters build six houses, four
build twenty-four, five build a hundred and twenty houses, six build
seven hundred and twenty houses; and from thenceforward go out and
think what the mouth cannot utter and the ear cannot hear.” (Chapter
iv, Mishna iv.) The following table will show how the letters, by
permutation, will yield an infinite variety.


  a. Two letters b. Three letters c. Four letters
  
  ‏אב‎ 1.          ‏אבג‎ 1.           ‏דאבג‎ 19. גאבד‎ 13. באגד‎ 7.  אבגד‎ 1.
  ‏בא‎ 2.          ‏אגב‎ 2.           ‏דאגב‎ 20. גאדב‎ 14. באדג‎ 8.  אבדג‎ 2.
                 ‏באג‎ 3.           ‏דבאג‎ 21. גבאד‎ 15. בגאד‎ 9.  אגבד‎ 3.
                 ‏בגא‎ 4.           ‏דבגא‎ 22. גבדא‎ 16. בגדא‎ 10. אגדב‎ 4.
                 ‏גאב‎ 5.           ‏דגאב‎ 23. גדאב‎ 17. בדאג‎ 11. אדבג‎ 5.
                 ‏גבא‎ 6.           ‏דגבא‎ 24. גדבא‎ 18. בדגא‎ 12. אדגב‎ 6.
                   
  form two.      build six.       build twenty-four.


  ‏שת‎   ‏רש‎   ‏קר‎   ‏צק‎   ‏פצ‎   ‏עפ‎   ‏סע‎   ‏נס‎   ‏מנ‎   ‏למ‎   ‏כל‎   ‏יכ‎   ‏טי‎   ‏חט‎   ‏זח‎   ‏וז‎   ‏הו‎   ‏דה‎   ‏גד‎   ‏בג‎   ‏אב‎
  ..   ‏רת‎   ‏קש‎   ‏צר‎   ‏פק‎   ‏עצ‎   ‏ספ‎   ‏נע‎   ‏מס‎   ‏לנ‎   ‏כמ‎   ‏יל‎   ‏טכ‎   ‏חי‎   ‏זט‎   ‏וח‎   ‏הז‎   ‏דו‎   ‏גה‎   ‏בד‎   ‏אג‎
  ..   ..   ‏קת‎   ‏צש‎   ‏פר‎   ‏עק‎   ‏סצ‎   ‏נפ‎   ‏מע‎   ‏לס‎   ‏כנ‎   ‏ימ‎   ‏טל‎   ‏חכ‎   ‏זי‎   ‏וט‎   ‏הח‎   ‏דז‎   ‏גו‎   ‏בה‎   ‏אד‎
  ..   ..   ..   ‏צת‎   ‏פש‎   ‏ער‎   ‏סק‎   ‏נצ‎   ‏מפ‎   ‏לע‎   ‏כס‎   ‏ינ‎   ‏טמ‎   ‏חל‎   ‏זכ‎   ‏וי‎   ‏הט‎   ‏דח‎   ‏גז‎   ‏בו‎   ‏אה‎
  ..   ..   ..   ..   ‏פת‎   ‏עש‎   ‏סר‎   ‏נק‎   ‏מצ‎   ‏לפ‎   ‏כע‎   ‏יס‎   ‏טנ‎   ‏חמ‎   ‏זל‎   ‏וכ‎   ‏הי‎   ‏דט‎   ‏גח‎   ‏בז‎   ‏או‎
  ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ‏עת‎   ‏סש‎   ‏נר‎   ‏מק‎   ‏לצ‎   ‏כפ‎   ‏יע‎   ‏טס‎   ‏חנ‎   ‏זמ‎   ‏ול‎   ‏הכ‎   ‏די‎   ‏גט‎   ‏בח‎   ‏אז‎
  ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ‏סת‎   ‏נש‎   ‏מר‎   ‏לק‎   ‏כצ‎   ‏יפ‎   ‏טע‎   ‏חס‎   ‏זנ‎   ‏ומ‎   ‏הל‎   ‏דכ‎   ‏גי‎   ‏בט‎   ‏אח‎
  ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ‏נת‎   ‏מש‎   ‏לר‎   ‏כק‎   ‏יצ‎   ‏טפ‎   ‏חע‎   ‏זס‎   ‏ונ‎   ‏המ‎   ‏דל‎   ‏גכ‎   ‏בי‎   ‏אט‎
  ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ‏מת‎   ‏לש‎   ‏כר‎   ‏יק‎   ‏טצ‎   ‏חפ‎   ‏זע‎   ‏וס‎   ‏הנ‎   ‏דמ‎   ‏גל‎   ‏בכ‎   ‏אי‎
  ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ‏לת‎   ‏כש‎   ‏יר‎   ‏טק‎   ‏חצ‎   ‏זפ‎   ‏וע‎   ‏הס‎   ‏דנ‎   ‏גמ‎   ‏בל‎   ‏אכ‎
  ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ‏כת‎   ‏יש‎   ‏טר‎   ‏חק‎   ‏זצ‎   ‏ופ‎   ‏הע‎   ‏דס‎   ‏גנ‎   ‏במ‎   ‏אל‎
  ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ‏ית‎   ‏טש‎   ‏חר‎   ‏זק‎   ‏וצ‎   ‏הפ‎   ‏דע‎   ‏גס‎   ‏בנ‎   ‏אמ‎
  ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ‏טת‎   ‏חש‎   ‏זר‎   ‏וק‎   ‏הצ‎   ‏דפ‎   ‏גע‎   ‏בס‎   ‏אנ‎
  ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ‏חת‎   ‏זש‎   ‏ור‎   ‏הק‎   ‏דצ‎   ‏גפ‎   ‏בע‎   ‏אס‎
  ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ‏זת‎   ‏וש‎   ‏הר‎   ‏דק‎   ‏גצ‎   ‏בפ‎   ‏אע‎
  ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ‏ות‎   ‏הש‎   ‏דר‎   ‏גק‎   ‏בצ‎   ‏אפ‎
  ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ‏הת‎   ‏דש‎   ‏גר‎   ‏בק‎   ‏אצ‎
  ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ‏דת‎   ‏גש‎   ‏בר‎   ‏אק‎
  ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ‏גת‎   ‏בש‎   ‏אר‎
  ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ‏בת‎   ‏אש‎
  ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ‏את‎
  --   --   --   --   --   --   --   --   --   --   --   --   --   --   --   --   --   --   --   --   --
   1 +  2 +  3 +  4 +  5 +  6 +  7 +  8 +  9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18 + 19 + 20 + 21 = 231


In order to ascertain how often a certain number of letters can be
transposed, the product of the preceding number must be multiplied with
it. Thus—


                Letter 2 ×   1 =    2
                       3 ×   2 =    6
                       4 ×   6 =   24
                       5 ×  24 =  120
                       6 × 120 =  720
                       7 × 720 = 5040 and so on.


Accordingly, the material form of the spirit, represented by the
twenty-two letters of the alphabet, is the form of all existing beings.
Apart from the three dominions, the macrocosm, time, and microcosm, it
is only the Infinite who can be perceived, and of whom this triad
testifies; for which reason it is denominated “the three true
witnesses.” [47] Each of this triad, notwithstanding its
multifariousness, constitutes a system, having its own centre and
dominion. [48] Just as God is the centre of the universe, the heavenly
dragon is the centre of the macrocosm; the foundation of the year is
the revolution of the Zodiac; whilst the centre of the microcosm is the
heart. [49] The first is like a king on his throne, the second is like
a king living among his subjects, and the third is like a king in war.
The reason why the heart of man is like a monarch in the midst of war
is, that the twelve principal organs of the human body [50] “are
arrayed against each other in battle array; three serve love, three
hatred, three engender life, and three death. The three engendering
love are the heart, the ears and the mouth; the three for enmity are
the liver, the gall and the tongue; but God, the faithful King, rules
over all the three systems. One [i.e., God] is over the three, the
three are over the seven, the seven over the twelve, and all are
internally connected with each other.” (Chapter vi, Mishna iii.) Thus
the whole creation is one connected whole; it is like a pyramid pointed
at the top, which was its beginning, and exceedingly broad in its
basis, which is its fullest development in all its multitudinous
component parts. Throughout the whole are perceptible two opposites,
with a reconciling medium. Thus, in the macrocosm, “the ethereal fire
is above, the water below, and the air is between these hostile
elements to reconcile them.” (Chapter vi, Mishna i.) The same is the
case in the heaven, earth and the atmosphere, as well as in the
microcosm. But all the opposites in the cosmic, telluric and organic
spheres, as well as in the moral world, are designed to balance each
other. “God has placed in all things one to oppose the other; good to
oppose evil, good proceeding from good, and evil from evil; good
purifies evil, and evil purifies good; good is in store for the good,
and evil is reserved for the evil.” (Chapter vi, Mishna ii.)

From this analysis of its contents it will be seen that the Book
Jetzira, which the Kabbalists claim as their oldest document, has
really nothing in common with the cardinal doctrines of the Kabbalah.
There is not a single word in it bearing on the En Soph, the Archetypal
Man, the speculations about the being and nature of the Deity, and the
Sephiroth, which constitute the essence of the Kabbalah. Even its
treatment of the ten digits, as part of the thirty-two ways of wisdom
whereby God created the universe, which has undoubtedly suggested to
the authors of the Kabbalah the idea of the ten Sephiroth, is quite
different from the mode in which the Kabbalistic Sephiroth are
depicted, as may be seen from a most cursory comparison of the
respective diagrams which we have given to illustrate the plans of the
two systems.

Besides the language of the Book Jetzira and the train of ideas therein
enunciated, as the erudite Zunz rightly remarks, shew that this
treatise belongs to the Geonim period, i.e., about the ninth century of
the Christian era, when it first became known. [51] The fabrication of
this pseudograph was evidently suggested by the fact that the Talmud
mentions some treatises on the Creation, denominated ‏הלכות יצריה‎ and
‏ספר יצירה‎ (Sanhedrim 65 b; 67 b) which “R. Chanina and R. Oshaja
studied every Friday, whereby they produced a calf three years old and
ate it;” [52] and whereby R. Joshua ben Chananja declared he could take
fruit and instantly produce the trees which belong to them. (Jerusalem
Sanhedrim, cap. vii. ad finem. [53]) Indeed Dr. Chwolson of Petersburg
has shown in his treatise “on the Remnants of the ancient Babylonian
Literature in Arabic translations,” that the ancient Babylonians laid
it down as a maxim that if a man were minutely and carefully to observe
the process of nature, he would be able to imitate nature and produce
sundry creatures. He would not only be able to create plants and
metals, but even living beings. These artificial productions the
Babylonians call ‏תולידאת‎ productions or ‏אבונאת‎ formations. Gutami,
the author of the Agricultura Nabat, who lived about 1400 B.C., devoted
a long chapter to the doctrine of artificial productions. The ancient
sorcerer Ankebuta declares, in his work on artificial productions, that
he created a man, and shows how he did it; but he confesses that the
human being was without language and reason, that he could not eat, but
simply opened and closed his eyes. This and many other fragments adds
R—, from whose communication we quote, show that there were many works
in Babylon which treated on the artificial productions of plants,
metals, and living beings, and that the Book Jetzira, mentioned in the
Talmud, was most probably such a Babylonian document. [54]

As the document on creation, mentioned in the Talmud, was lost in the
course of time, the author of the Treatise which we have analysed tried
to supply the loss, and hence not only called his production by the
ancient name ‏ספר יצירה‎ the Book of Creation, but ascribed it to the
patriarch Abraham. The perusal, however, of a single page of this book
will convince any impartial reader that it has as little in common with
the magic work mentioned in the Talmud or with the ancient Babylonian
works which treat of human creations, as with the speculations about
the being and nature of the Deity, the En Soph and the Sephiroth, which
are the essence of the Kabbalah. [55]

Having shown that the Book Jetzira, claimed by the Kabbalists as their
first and oldest code of doctrines, has no affinity with the real
tenets of the Kabbalah, we have now to examine:—



II. The Book Sohar.

Before we enter into an examination concerning the date and authorship
of this renowned code of the Kabbalistic doctrines, it will be
necessary to describe the component parts of the Sohar. It seems that
the proper Sohar, which is a commentary on the five Books of Moses,
according to the division into Sabbatic sections, was originally called
‏מדרש יהי אור‎ the Midrash or Exposition, Let there be Light, from the
words in Gen. i, 4; because the real Midrash begins with the exposition
of this verse. The name Sohar (‏זוהר‎), i.e. Light, Splendour, was
given to it afterwards, either because this document begins with the
theme light, or because the word Sohar frequently occurs on the first
page. It is referred to by the name of the Book Sohar (‏ספר הזוהר‎) in
the component parts of the treatise itself. (Comp. The Faithful
Shepherd, Sohar, iii, 153 b.) The Sohar is also called Midrash of R.
Simon b. Jochai (‏מדרש של ר׳ שמעון בן יוחאי‎), because this Rabbi is
its reputed author. [56] Interspersed throughout the Sohar, either as
parts of the text with special titles, or in separate columns with
distinct superscriptions, are the following dissertations, which we
detail according to the order of the pages on which they respectively
commence.

1. Tosephta and Mathanithan (‏מתניתן‎ and ‏תוספתא‎), or Small
Additional Pieces which are given in vol. i, 31 b; 32 b; 37 a; 54 b; 59
a; 60 b; 62; 98 b; 121 a; 122; 128 b; 147; 151 a; 152 a; 232; 233 b;
234 a; vol. ii, 4, 27 b; 28 a; 68 b; 135 b; vol. iii, 29 b; 30 a; 54 b;
55. They briefly discuss, by way of supplement, the various topics of
the Kabbalah, such as the Sephiroth, the emanation of the primordial
light, &c., &c., and address themselves in apostrophes to the initiated
in these mysteries, calling their attention to some doctrine or
explanation.

2. Hechaloth (‏היכלות‎) or The Mansions and Abodes forming part of the
text, vol. i, 38 a–45 b; vol. ii, 245 a–269 a. This portion of the
Sohar describes the topographical structure of Paradise and Hell. The
mansions or palaces, which are seven in number, were at first the
habitation of the earthly Adam, but, after the fall of the protoplasts,
were rearranged to be the abode of the beatified saints, who for this
reason have the enjoyment both of this world and the world to come. The
seven words in Gen. i, 2 are explained to describe these seven
mansions. Sohar, i, 45 a, describes the seven Hells. In some Codices,
however, this description of the Infernal Regions is given vol. ii, 202
b.

3. Sithre Tora (‏סתרי תורה‎), or The Mysteries of the Pentateuch, given
in separate columns, and at the bottom of pages as follows. Vol. i, 74
b; 75 a; 76 b–77 a; 78 a–81 b; 97 a–102 a; 107 b–111 a; 146 b–149 b;
151 a; 152 b; 154 b–157 b; 161 b–162 b; 165; vol. ii, 146 a. It
discusses the divers topics of the Kabbalah, such as the evolution of
the Sephiroth, the emanation of the primordial light, &c., &c.

4. Midrash Ha-Neelam (‏מדרש הנעלם‎), or The Hidden Midrash, occupies
parallel columns with the text in vol. i, 97 a–140 a, and endeavours
more to explain passages of Scripture mystically, by way of Remasim
(‏רמזים‎) and Gematrias (‏גמטריאות‎), and allegorically, than to
propound the doctrines of the Kabbalah. Thus Abraham’s prayer for Sodom
and Gomorrah is explained as an intercession by the congregated souls
of the saints in behalf of the sinners about to be punished. (Sohar, i,
104 b.) Lot’s two daughters are the two proclivities in man, good and
evil. (Ibid. 110.) Besides this mystical interpretation wherein the
Kabbalistic rules of exegesis are largely applied, the distinguishing
feature of this portion of the Sohar is its discussion on the
properties and destiny of the soul, which constitute an essential
doctrine of the Kabbalah.

5. Raja Mehemna (‏רעיא מהמנא‎), or the Faithful Shepherd. This portion
of the Sohar is given in the second and third volumes, in parallel
columns with the text; and when it is too disproportioned for columns,
is given at the bottom or in separate pages, as follows. Vol. ii, 25,
40, 59 b; 91 b–93 a; 134 b, 157 b–159 a; 187 b–188 a; vol. iii, 3 a–4
b; 20 a, 24 b, 27, 28 a–29 a; 33 a–34 a; 42 a, 44 a; 63; 67 b–68 a; 81
b–83 b; 85 b–86 a; 88 b–90 a; 92 b–93 a; 97 a–101 a; 103 b–104 a; 108
b–111 b; 121 b–126 a; 145 a–146 b; 152 b–153 b; 174 a–175 a; 178 b–179
b; 180 a, 215 a–239 a; 242 a–258 a; 263 a–264 a; 270 b–283 a. It
derives its name from the fact that it records the discussions which
Moses the Faithful Shepherd held in conference with the prophet Elias,
and with R. Simon b. Jochai, the celebrated master of the Kabbalistic
school, who is called the Sacred Light (‏בוצינא קדישא‎). The chief
object of this portion is to show the profound and allegorical import
of the Mosaic commandments and prohibitions, as well as of the Rabbinic
injunctions and religious practices which obtained in the course of
time. At the dialogue which Moses the lawgiver holds with R. Simon b.
Jochai the Kabbalistic lawgiver, not only is the prophet Elias present,
but Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Aaron, David, Solomon, and God himself make
their appearance; the disciples of R. Simon are frequently in ecstacies
when they hold converse with these illustrious patriarchs and kings of
bygone days.

6. Raze Derazin (‏רזי דרזין‎), or the Secret of Secrets, Original
Secrets, is given in vol. ii, 70 a–75 a, and is especially devoted to
the physiognomy of the Kabbalah, and the connection of the soul with
the body, based upon the advice of Jethro to his son-in-law Moses
(‏ואתה תחזה‎) and thou shalt look into the face. (Exod. xviii, 21.)

7. Saba Demishpatim (‏סבא דמשפטים‎), or the Discourse of the Aged in
Mishpatim, given in vol. ii, 94 a–114 a. The Aged is the prophet Elias,
who holds converse with R. Simon b. Jochai about the doctrine of
metempsychosis, and the discussion is attached to the Sabbatic section
called ‏משפטים‎, i.e., Exod. xxi, 1–xxiv, 18, because the Kabbalah
takes this word to signify punishments of souls (‏דינין‎), and finds
its psychology in this section. So enraptured were the disciples when
their master, the Sacred Light, discoursed with Moses on this subject,
that they knew not whether it was day or night, or whether they were in
the body or out of the body. (Sohar, ii, 105 b.)

8. Siphra Detzniutha (‏ספרא דצניעותא‎), or the Book of Secrets or
Mysteries, given in vol. ii, 176 b–178 b. It is divided into five
sections (‏פרקים‎), and is chiefly occupied with discussing the
questions involved in the creation, e. gr. the transition from the
infinite to the finite, from absolute unity to multifariousness, from
pure intelligence to matter, the double principle of masculine and
feminine (‏אבא ואמא‎), expressed in the Tetragrammaton, the androgynous
protoplast, the Demonology concealed in the letters of Scripture, as
seen in Gen. vi, 2; Josh. ii, 1; 1 Kings, viii, 3, 16; the mysteries
contained in Isa. i, 4, and the doctrine of the Sephiroth concealed in
Gen. i; &c., as well as with showing the import of the letters ‏יהו״ה‎
composing the Tetragrammaton which were the principal agents in the
creation. This portion of the Sohar has been translated into Latin by
Rosenroth in the second volume of his Kabbala Denudata,
Frankfort-on-the-Maine, 1684.

9. Idra Rabba (‏אדרא רבא‎), or the Great Assembly is given in vol. iii,
127 b–145 a, and derives its name from the fact that it purports to
give the discourses which R. Simon b. Jochai delivered to his disciples
who congregated around him in large numbers. Upon the summons of the
Sacred Light, his disciples assembled to listen to the secrets and
enigmas contained in the Book of Mysteries. Hence it is chiefly
occupied with a description of the form and various members of the
Deity, a disquisition on the relation of the Deity, in his two aspects
of the Aged (‏עתיק‎) and the Young (‏זעיר‎), to the creation and the
universe, as well as on the diverse gigantic members of the Deity, such
as the head, the beard, the eyes, the nose, &c., &c.; a dissertation on
pneumatology, demonology, &c., &c. It concludes with telling us that
three of the disciples died during these discussions. This portion too
is given in a Latin translation in the second volume of Rosenroth’s
Kabbala Denudata.

10. Januka (‏ינוקא‎), or the Discourse of the Young Man, is given in
vol. iii, 186 a–192 a, and forms part of the text of the Sohar on the
Sabbatic section called Balak, i.e. Numb. xxii, 2–xxv, 9. It derives
its name from the fact that the discourses therein recorded were
delivered by a young man, under the following circumstances:—R. Isaac
and R. Jehudah, two of R. Simon b. Jochai’s disciples, when on a
journey, and passing through the village where the widow of R. Hamnuna
Saba resided, visited this venerable woman. She asked her son, the
young hero of this discourse, who had just returned from school, to go
to these two Rabbins to receive their benediction; but the youth would
not approach them because he recognised, from the smell of their
garments, that they had omitted reciting on that day the prescribed
declaration about the unity of the Deity (‏שמע‎). When at meals this
wonderful Januka gave them sundry discourses on the mysterious import
of the washing of hands, based on Exod. xxx, 20, on the grace recited
at meals, on the Shechinah, on the angel who redeemed Jacob (Gen.
xlviii, 16), &c., &c., which elicited the declaration from the Rabbins
that “this youth is not the child of human parents” (‏האי ינוקא לאו ב״נ
הוא‎); and when hearing all this, R. Simon b. Jochai coincided in the
opinion, that “this youth is of superhuman origin.”

11. Idra Suta (‏אדרא זוטא‎) or the Small Assembly, is given in vol.
iii, 287 b–296 b, and derives its name from the fact that many of the
disciples of R. Simon b. Jochai had died during the course of these
Kabbalistic revelations, and that this portion of the Sohar contains
the discourses which the Sacred Light delivered before his death to the
small assembly of six pupils, who still survived and congregated to
listen to the profound mysteries. It is to a great extent a
recapitulation of the Idra Rabba, occupying itself with speculations
about the Sephiroth, the Deity in his three aspects (‏שלת רישין‎), or
principles which successively developed themselves from each other,
viz.—the En Soph (‏אין סוף‎), or the Boundless in his absolute nature,
the Macroprosopon (‏אריך אנפין‎), or the Boundless as manifested in the
first emanation, and the Microprosopon (‏זעיר אנפין‎), the other nine
emanations; the abortive creations, &c., and concludes with recording
the death of Simon b. Jochai, the Sacred Light and the medium through
whom God revealed the contents of the Sohar. The Idra Suta has been
translated into Latin by Rosenroth in the second volume of his Kabbala
Denudata.

From this brief analysis of its component parts and contents, it will
be seen that the Sohar does not propound a regular Kabbalistic system,
but promiscuously and reiteratedly dilates upon the diverse doctrines
of this theosophy, as indicated in the forms and ornaments of the
Hebrew alphabet, in the vowel points and accents, in the Divine names
and the letters of which they are composed, in the narratives of the
Bible, and in the traditional and national stories. Hence the Sohar is
more a collection of homilies or rhapsodies on Kabbalistic subjects
than treatises on the Kabbalah. It is for this very reason that it
became the treasury of the Kabbalah to the followers of this theosophy.
Its diversity became its charm. The long conversations between its
reputed author, R. Simon b. Jochai, and Moses, the great lawgiver and
true shepherd, which it records; the short and pathetic prayers
inserted therein; the religious anecdotes; the attractive spiritual
explanations of scripture passages, appealing to the hearts and wants
of men; the description of the Deity and of the Sephiroth under tender
forms of human relationships, comprehensible to the finite, mind, such
as father, mother, primeval man, matron, bride, white head, the great
and small face, the luminous mirror, the higher heaven, the higher
earth, &c, which it gives on every page, made the Sohar a welcome
text-book for the students of the Kabbalah, who, by its vivid
descriptions of divine love, could lose themselves in rapturous
embraces with the Deity.

Now, the Sohar pretends to be a revelation from God, communicated
through R. Simon b. Jochai, who flourished about A.D. 70–110, to his
select disciples. We are told that “when they assembled to compose the
Sohar, permission was granted to the prophet Elias, to all the members
of the celestial college, to all angels, spirits, and superior souls,
to assist them; and the ten spiritual substances [i.e., Sephiroth] were
charged to disclose to them their profound mysteries, which were
reserved for the days of the Messiah.” On the approach of death, R.
Simon b. Jochai assembled the small number of his disciples and
friends, amongst whom was his son, R. Eleazar, to communicate to them
his last doctrines, [57] “when he ordered as follows—R. Aba shall
write, R. Eleazar, my son, propound, and let my other associates
quietly think about it.” (Idra Suta, Sohar, iii, 287 b.) It is upon the
strength of these declarations, as well as upon the repeated
representation of R. Simon b. Jochai as speaking and teaching
throughout this production, that the Sohar is ascribed to this Rabbi on
its very title-page, and that not only Jews, for centuries, but such
distinguished Christian scholars as Lightfoot, Gill, Bartolocci,
Pfeifer, Knorr von Rosenroth, Molitor, &c., have maintained this
opinion. A careful examination, however, of the following internal and
external evidence will show that this Thesaurus of the Kabbalah is the
production of the thirteenth century.

1. The Sohar most fulsomely praises its own author, calls him the
Sacred Light (‏בוצניא קדישא‎), and exalts him above Moses, “the true
Shepherd.” [58] “I testify by the sacred heavens and the sacred earth,”
declares R. Simon b. Jochai, “that I now see what no son of man has
seen since Moses ascended the second time on Mount Sinai, for I see my
face shining as brilliantly as the light of the sun when it descends as
a healing for the world; as it is written, ‘to you who fear my name
shall shine the Sun of Righteousness with a healing in his wings.’
(Malachi, [iii, 20] iv, 2.) Yea, more, I know that my face is shining,
but Moses did not know it nor understand it; for it is written (Exod.
xxxiv, 29), ‘Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone.’” (Sohar,
iii, 132 b; 144 a.) The disciples deify R. Simon in the Sohar,
declaring that the verse, “all thy males shall appear before the Lord
God” (Exod. xxiii, 17), refers to R. Simon b. Jochai, who is the Lord,
and before whom all men must appear. (Sohar, ii, 38 a.) [59]

2. The Sohar quotes and mystically explains the Hebrew vowel points (i,
16 b; 24 b; ii, 116 a; iii, 65 a), which were introduced for the first
time by R. Mocha of Palestine, A.D. 570, to facilitate the reading of
the Scriptures for his students. [60]

3. The Sohar (‏רעיא מהימנה‎ Faithful Shepherd, on section ‏קדושים‎ iii,
82 b), has literally borrowed two verses from the celebrated Hymn of
Ibn Gebirol, who was born about A.D. 1021 and died in 1070. This Hymn
which is entitled ‏כתר מלכות‎ the Royal Diadem, is a beautiful and
pathetic composition, embodying the cosmic views of Aristotle, and
forms part of the Jewish service for the evening preceding the Great
Day of Atonement to the present day. The quotation in the Sohar from
this Hymn is beyond the shadow of a doubt, as will be seen from the
following comparison—


     Sohar.                                  Ibn Gebirol.

     ‏ואשתארו [סיהרא ושמשא] כגופא בלא נשמתא‎   ‏אבל יש אדון עליהם‎
     ‏דאית אדון עליהם מחשיך מאוריהם‎           ‏מחשיך מאוריהם‎


It must be borne in mind that, though the Sohar is written in Aramaic,
yet this quotation is in Hebrew, and in the rhyme of Ibn Gebirol. [61]

4. The Sohar (i, 18 b; 23 a) quotes and explains the interchange, on
the outside of the Mezuza, [62] of the words (‏יהוה אלהינו יהוה‎)
Jehovah our God is Jehovah for (‏כוזו במוכסז כוזו‎) Kuzu Bemuchzaz
Kuzu, by substituting for each letter its immediate predecessor in the
alphabet, which was transplanted from France into Spain in the
thirteenth century. [63]

5. The Sohar (iii, 232 b) uses the expression Esnoga, which is a
Portuguese corruption of synagogue, and explains it in a Kabbalistic
manner as a compound of two Hebrew words, i.e., Es = ‏אש‎ and Noga =
‏נוגה‎ brilliant light. [64]

6. The Sohar (ii, 32 a) mentions the Crusades, the momentary taking of
Jerusalem by the Crusaders from the Infidels, and the retaking of it by
the Saracens. [65] “Woe to the time,” it says, “wherein Ishmael saw the
world, and received the sign of circumcision! What did the Holy One,
blessed be his name? He excluded the descendants of Ishmael, i.e., the
Mahommedans, from the congregation in heaven, but gave them a portion
on earth in the Holy Land, because of the sign of the covenant which
they possess. The Mahommedans are, therefore, destined to rule for a
time over the Holy Land; and they will prevent the Israelites from
returning to it, till the merit of the Mahommedans is accomplished. At
that time the descendants of Ishmael will be the occasion of terrible
wars in the world, and the children of Edom, i.e., the Christians, will
gather together against them and do battle with them, some at sea and
some on land, and some in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, and the
victory will now be on the one side and then on the other, but the Holy
Land will not remain in the hands of the Christians.”

7. The Sohar records events which transpired A.D. 1264. Thus on Numb.
xxiv, 17, which the Sohar explains as referring to the time preceding
the advent of Messiah, it remarks, [66] “the Holy One, blessed be he,
is prepared to rebuild Jerusalem. Previous to the rebuilding thereof he
will cause to appear, a wonderful and splendid star, which will shine
seventy days. It will first be seen on Friday, Elul = July 25th, and
disappear on Saturday or Friday evening at the end of seventy days. On
the day preceding [its disappearance, i.e. October 2nd] when it will
still be seen in the city of Rome, on that self-same day three high
walls of that city of Rome and the great palace will fall, and the
pontiff ruler of the city will die.” (Sohar iii, 212 b.) Now the comet
here spoken of appeared in Rome, July 25th, 1264, and was visible till
October 2nd, which are literally the seventy days mentioned in the
Sohar. Moreover, July 25th, when the comet first appeared, actually
happened on a Friday; on the day of its disappearance, October 2nd, the
sovereign pontiff of Rome, Urban IV, died at Perugia, when it was
believed that the appearance of the comet was the omen of his death,
and the great and strong palace (‏היכלא רברבא‎) Vincimento, fell on the
self-same day, October 2nd, into the hands of the insurrectionists.
[67]

8. The Sohar, in assigning a reason why its contents were not revealed
before, says that the “time in which R. Simon ben Jochai lived was
peculiarly worthy and glorious, and that it is near the advent of the
Messiah,” for which cause this revelation was reserved till the days of
R. Simon, to be communicated through him. Yet, speaking elsewhere of
the advent of the Messiah, the Sohar, instead of placing it in the
second century when this Rabbi lived, forgets itself and says
[68]—“When the sixtieth or the sixty-sixth year shall have passed over
the threshold of the sixth millenium [A.M. 5060–66 = A.D. 1300–1306]
the Messiah will appear” (Sohar i, 116 a, 117 b, Comp. also iii, 252
a); thus showing that the author lived in the thirteenth century of the
Christian era. In perfect harmony with this is the fact that:—

9. The doctrine of the En Soph, and the Sephiroth, as well as the
metempsychosisian retribution were not known before the thirteenth
century.

10. The very existence of the Sohar, according to the confession of the
staunch Kabbalist, Jehudah Chajoth (flourished 1500), was unknown to
such distinguished Kabbalists as Nachmanides (1195–1270) and
Ben-Adereth (1235–1310); the first who mentions it is Todros Abulafia
(1234–1306).

11. Isaac of Akko (flourished 1290) fully confirms all that we have
hitherto adduced from the import of this book, by his testimony that
“the Sohar was put into the world from the head of a Spaniard.” To the
same effect is the testimony of Joseph Ibn Wakkar, who in speaking of
later books which may be relied upon, recommends only those of Moses
Nachmanides and Todros Abulafia; “but,” he adds, “the Sohar is full of
errors, and one must take care not to be misled by them.” Upon which,
the erudite Steinschneider rightly remarks, [69] “this is an impartial
and indirect testimony that the Sohar was recognised scarcely fifty
years after its appearing as one of the later works, and was not
attributed to Simon ben Jochai.”

12. That Moses de Leon, who first published and sold the Sohar, as the
production of R. Simon b. Jochai, was himself the author of it, was
admitted by his own wife and daughter, as will be seen from the
following account in the Book Juchassin, (p.p. 88, 89, 95, ed.
Filipowski, London, 1857), which we give in an abridged form. [70] When
Isaac of Akko, who escaped the massacre after the capture of this city
(A.D. 1291), came to Spain and there saw the Sohar, he was anxious to
ascertain whether it was genuine, since it pretended to be a Palestine
production, and he, though born and brought up in the Holy Land, in
constant intercourse with the disciples of the celebrated Kabbalist,
Nachmanides, had never heard a syllable about this marvellous work.
Now, Moses de Leon, whom he met in Valladolid, declared to him on a
most solemn oath that he had at Avila an ancient exemplar, which was
the very autograph of R. Simon ben Jochai, and offered to submit it to
him to be tested. In the meantime, however, Moses de Leon was taken ill
on his journey home, and died at Arevolo, A.D. 1305. But two
distinguished men of Avila, David Rafen and Joseph de Avila, who were
determined to sift the matter, ascertained the falsehood of this story
from the widow and daughter of Moses de Leon. Being a rich man and
knowing that Moses de Leon left his family without means, Joseph de
Avila promised, that if she would give him the original MS. of the
Sohar from which her husband made the copies, his son should marry her
daughter, and that he would give them a handsome dowry. Whereupon the
widow and daughter declared, that they did not possess any such MS.,
that Moses de Leon never had it, but that he composed the Sohar from
his own head, and wrote it with his own hand. Moreover, the widow
candidly confessed that she had frequently asked her husband why he
published the production of his own intellect under another man’s name,
and that he told her that if he were to publish it under his own name
nobody would buy it, whereas under the name of R. Simon b. Jochai it
yielded him a large revenue. This account is confirmed in a most
remarkable manner by the fact that—

13. The Sohar contains whole passages which Moses de Leon translated
into Aramaic, from his other works, as the learned Jellinek has
demonstratively proved. To transfer these passages here would occupy
too much of our space. We must, therefore, refer the reader to the
monograph itself, [71] and shall only give one example, which the
erudite historian, Dr. Graetz, [72] has pointed out. In his Sephar
Ha-Rimon (‏ספר הרימון‎), which he composed A.D. 1827, and which is a
Kabbalistic explanation of the Mosaic precepts, Moses de Leon
endeavours to account for the non-occurrence of the Tetragrammaton in
the history of the hexahemeron, whilst it does occur immediately
afterwards, by submitting that as the earthly world is finite and
perishable, this divine name, which denotes eternity, could not be used
at the creation thereof; for if it had been created under its
influence, the world would have been as imperishable as this name. In
corroboration of this, Moses de Leon quotes the passage (‏לכו חזו
מפעלות אלהים אשר שם שמות בארץ‎) Come, behold the works of Elohim, what
perishableness he made in the earth (Ps. xlvi, 8), showing that ‏שמות‎
destruction, perishableness, is consonant with the name ‏אלהים‎. In
looking at the original, it will be seen that the text has ‏יהוה‎ and
not ‏אלהים‎, and that Moses de Leon, by a slip of memory, confounded
this passage with ‏לכו וראו מפעלות אלהים‎ Come and see the works of
Elohim (Ps. xlvi, 5). Now, the whole explanation and the same blunder
are transferred into the Sohar. The commentators on this treasury of
the Kabbalah, not knowing the cause of this blunder, express their
great surprise that the Sohar should explain a mis-quotation. We
subjoin the two passages in parallel columns.


Sohar, i, 58 a.
ר׳ יהודה פתח לכו חזו מפעלות אלהים אשר שם שמות וגו׳ האי קרא אוקמוה 
ואתמרּּּּ שמות ודאי והא שמא גרים לכלא (לשון שמשון) דאלו הוו מפעלות. י׳ ה
׳ ו׳ ה׳ שם קיום בארץ אבל בגין דהוון מפעלות שמא דאלהים שם שמות בארץ: 
אמר ליה ר׳ חייא וגו׳

Moses de Leon, ii, No. 133, p. 25.
אמנם כי יש פירוש אחר כהיות שם המיוחד נזכר כאחוזנה לקיים על ההויות אמרו 
חז״ל לכו ראו מפעלות וכו׳ מפני שהיו מפעלות אלהים שם שמותּּּּ שאלמלא ה
יו מפעלות י׳ ה׳ ו׳ ה׳ שם קיום בארץ: והענין בזה על כל המפעלות זה העולם
 השפל כלם נפסדים מפני שכל הוויותי בשם זה שאלמלא יהיו בשם המיוחד כלם יה
 יו קימים בקיומם וכו׳


It is for these and many other reasons that the Sohar is now regarded
by Steinschneider, Beer, Jellinek, Graetz, &c., as a pseudograph of the
thirteenth century. That Moses de Leon should have palmed the Sohar
upon Simon b. Jochai was nothing remarkable, since this Rabbi is
regarded by tradition as the embodiment of mysticism. No better hero
could be selected for the Sohar than R. Simon, of whom the Talmud gives
us the following account: “Once upon a time, R. Jehudah, R. Jose, and
R. Simon sat together, and R. Jehudah b. Gerim sat by them. R. Jehudah
then began and said—How beautiful are the works of this nation (i.e.,
the Romans)! they have erected market-places, they have erected
bridges, and they have erected baths! R. Jose was quiet, but R. Simon
b. Jochai answered and said: what they have built they have built for
no one except for their own use, they made markets to allure
prostitutes, they made baths to gratify themselves therein, and bridges
to get tolls by them. Jehudah b. Gerim repeated this, and the emperor’s
government got to hear it, who passed the following decree: Jehudah,
who exalted, is to be exalted; Jose, who was silent, is to be banished
to Zipporis; and Simon, who spoke evil, is to be killed. He (i.e., R.
Simon) at once concealed himself with his son, in the place of study,
whither his wife daily brought them a loaf and a flask of water; but as
the rigour of the decree increased, he said to his son: women are
weak-minded—if she is tortured she may betray us. Hence, they left, and
betook themselves into a deep cavern, where by a miracle a crab-tree
and a well were created for their subsistence. He and his son sat in
the sand up to their necks all the day studying the Law. They spent
twelve long years in this cavern; when Elias the prophet came and stood
at the entrance of the cavern, and called out—Who will inform the son
of Jochai that the emperor is dead, and that the decree is commuted?
They came out and saw the people tilling and sowing.” (Sabbath, 33 a.
Comp. also, Jerusalem Shebiith, ix, 1; Bereshith Rabba, cap. lxxix;
Midrash Koheleth, x, 8; Midrash Esther, i, 9.) This is the secret why
the story that R. Simon b. Jochai composed the Sohar during his twelve
years’ residence in the cavern obtained credence among the followers of
the Kabbalah.



III. The Commentary on the Ten Sephiroth.

It is this commentary to which we must look, as the most ancient
document embodying the doctrines of the Kabbalah. The author of this
commentary, R. Azariel b. Menachem, was born in Valladolid, about 1160.
He distinguished himself as a philosopher, Kabbalist, Talmudist, and
commentator, as his works indicate; he was a pupil of Isaac the Blind,
who is regarded as the originator of the Kabbalah, and master of the
celebrated R. Moses Nachmanides, who is also a distinguished pillar of
Kabbalism. R. Azariel died A.D. 1238, at the advanced age of
seventy-eight years. “The Commentary on the Ten Sephiroth” is in
questions and answers, [73] and the following is the lucid analysis of
it as given by the erudite Jellinek, according to Spinoza’s form of
Ethics.

1. Definition.—By the Being who is the cause and governor of all
things, I understand the En Soph, i.e., a Being infinite, boundless,
absolutely identical with itself, united in itself, without attributes,
will, intention, desire, thought, word or deed. (Answers 2 and 4.)

2. Definition.—By Sephiroth I understand the potencies which emanated
from the absolute En Soph, all entities limited by quantity, which like
the will, without changing its nature, wills diverse objects that are
the possibilities of multifarious things. (Answers 3 and 9.)

i. Proposition.—The primary cause and governor of the world is the En
Soph, who is both immanent and transcendent. (Answer 1.)

(a) Proof.—Each effect has a cause, and every thing which has order and
design has a governor. (Answer 1.)

(b) Proof.—Every thing visible has a limit, what is limited is finite,
what is finite is not absolutely identical; the primary cause of the
world is invisible, therefore unlimited, infinite, absolutely
identical, i.e., he is the En Soph. (Answer 2.)

(c) Proof.—As the primary cause of the world is infinite, nothing can
exist without (EXTRA) him; hence he is immanent. (Ibid.)

Scholion.—As the En Soph is invisible and exalted, it is the root of
both faith and unbelief. (Ibid.)

ii. Proposition.—The Sephiroth are the medium between the absolute En
Soph and the real world.

Proof.—As the real world is limited and not perfect, it cannot directly
proceed from the En Soph, still the En Soph must exercise his influence
over it, or his perfection would cease. Hence the Sephiroth, which, in
their intimate connection with the En Soph, are perfect, and in their
severance are imperfect, must be the medium. (Answer 3.)

Scholion.—Since all existing things originated by means of the
Sephiroth, there are a higher, a middle, and a lower degree of the real
world. (Vide infra, Proposition 6.)

iii. Proposition.—There are ten intermediate Sephiroth.

Proof.—All bodies have three dimensions, each of which repeats the
other (3 × 3); and by adding thereunto space generally, we obtain the
number ten. As the Sephiroth are the potencies of all that is limited
they must be ten. (Answer 4).

(a) Scholion.—The number ten does not contradict the absolute unity of
the En Soph, as one is the basis of all numbers, plurality proceeds
from unity, the germs contain the development, just as fire, flame,
sparks and colour have one basis, though they differ from one another.
(Answer 6.)

(b) Scholion.—Just as cogitation or thought, and even the mind as a
cogitated object, is limited, becomes concrete and has a measure,
although pure thought proceeds from the En Soph; so limit, measure, and
concretion are the attributes of the Sephiroth. (Answer 7.)

4. Proposition.—The Sephiroth are emanations and not creations.

1. Proof.—As the absolute En Soph is perfect, the Sephiroth proceeding
therefrom must also be perfect; hence they are not created. (Answer 5.)

2. Proof.—All created objects diminish by abstraction; the Sephiroth do
not lessen, as their activity never ceases; hence they cannot be
created. (Ibid.)

Scholion.—The first Sephira was in the En Soph as a power before it
became a reality; then the second Sephira emanated as a potency for the
intellectual world, and afterwards the other Sephiroth emanated for the
sensuous and material world. This, however, does not imply a prius and
posterius or a gradation in the En Soph, but just as a light whose
kindled lights which shine sooner and later and variously, so it
embraces all in a unity. (Answer 8.)

5. Proposition.—The Sephiroth are both active and passive (‏מקביל
ומתקבל‎).

Proof.—As the Sephiroth do not set aside the unity of the En Soph, each
one of them must receive from its predecessor, and impart to its
successor—i.e., be receptive and imparting. (Answer 9.)

6. Proposition.—The first Sephira is called Inscrutable Height (‏רום
מעלה‎); the second, Wisdom (‏חכמה‎); the third, Intelligence (‏בינה‎);
the fourth, Love (‏חסד‎); the fifth, Justice (‏פחד‎); the sixth, Beauty
(‏תפארת‎); the seventh, Firmness (‏נצח‎); the eighth, Splendour
(‏הוד‎); the ninth, the Righteous is the Foundation of the World (‏צדיק
יסוד עולם‎); and the tenth, Righteousness (‏צדק‎).

(a) Scholion.—The first three Sephiroth form the world of thought; the
second three the world of soul; and the four last the world of
body—thus corresponding to the intellectual, moral, and material
worlds. (Answer 10.)

(b) Scholion.—The first Sephira stands in relation to the soul,
inasmuch as it is called a unity (‏יחידה‎); the second, inasmuch as it
is denominated living (‏חיה‎); the third, inasmuch as it is termed
spirit (‏רוח‎); the fourth, inasmuch as it is called vital principle
(‏גפש‎); the fifth, inasmuch as it is denominated soul (‏נשמה‎); the
sixth operates on the blood, the seventh on the bones, the eighth on
the veins, the ninth on the flesh, and the tenth on the skin. (Ibid.)

(c) Scholion.—The first Sephira is like the concealed light, the second
like sky-blue, the third like yellow, the fourth like white, the fifth
like red, the sixth like white-red, the seventh like whitish-red, the
eighth like reddish-white, the ninth like
white-red-whitish-red-reddish-white, and the tenth is like the light
reflecting all colours. [74]

The gradation of the Sephiroth is as follows—


                             i
                         ‏רום מעלה‎
                        /        \
                       /          \
                    iii            ii
                   ‏בינה‎             ‏חכמה‎
                    |                  |
                    |                  |
                    v         vi      iv
                ‏פחד‎  ‏תפארת‎    ‏חסד‎
                    |          |       |
                    |          |       |
                  viii        ix      vii
               ‏הוד‎ ‏יסוד עולם‎  ‏נצח‎
                               |
                               |
                               x
                              ‏צדק‎


For this date of the Kabbalah (i.e., 1150–1190) we have the testimony
of some of the earliest and most intelligent Kabbalists themselves.
Thus R. Joseph b. Abraham Gikatilla (born about 1247, and died 1307)
most distinctly tells us that R. Isaac the Blind, of Posquiers (flour.
circa 1190–1210), the teacher of R. Azariel, was the first who taught
the doctrines of this theosophy. [75] R. Bechja b. Asher, another
Kabbalist who lived soon after this system was made known, in his
commentary on the Pentateuch, which he composed A.D. 1291, styles R.
Isaac the Blind, as the Father of the Kabbalah. [76] Shem Tob b.
Abraham Ibn Gaon (born 1283), another ancient Kabbalist, in attempting
to trace a Kabbalistic explanation of a passage in the Bible to its
fountain head, goes back to R. Isaac as the primary source, and
connects him immediately with the prophet Elias, who is said to have
revealed the mysteries of this theosophy to this corypheus of the
Kabbalah. [77] Whilst the author of the Kabbalistic work entitled
‏מערכת אלהות‎ the contemporary of R. Solomon b. Abraham b. Adereth
(flour. A.D. 1260), frankly declares that “the doctrine of the En Soph
and the ten Sephiroth is neither to be found in the Law, Prophets, or
Hagiographa, nor in the writings of the Rabbins of blessed memory, but
rests solely upon signs which are scarcely perceptible.” [78]

It has indeed been supposed that covert allusions to the Sephiroth are
to be found in the Talmud. If this could be proved, the date of the
Kabbalah would have to be altered from the twelfth to the second or
third century after Christ. An examination, however, of the passage in
question, upon which this opinion is based, will show how thoroughly
fanciful it is. The passage is as follows—“The Rabbins propound, at
first the name of twelve letters was communicated to every one, but
when the profane multiplied, it was only communicated to the most pious
of the priests, and these pre-eminently pious priests absorbed it from
their fellow priests in the chant. It is recorded that R. Tarphon said,
I once went up the orchestra in the Temple after my maternal uncle,
and, bending forward my ear to a priest, I heard how he absorbed it
from his fellow priests in the chant. R. Jehudah said in the name of
Rab, the divine name of forty-two letters is only communicated to such
as are pious, not easily provoked, not given to drinking, and are not
self opinionated. He who knows this name and preserves it in purity, is
beloved above, cherished below, respected by every creature, and is
heir of both worlds—the world that now is, and the world to come.”
(Babylon Kiddushin, 71 a.) Upon this the celebrated Maimonides (born
1135, died 1204) remarks—“Now everyone who has any intelligence knows
that the forty-two letters cannot possibly make one word, and that they
must therefore have composed several words. There is no doubt that
these words conveyed certain ideas, which were designed to bring man
nearer to the true conception of the Divine essence, through the
process we have already described. These words, composed of numerous
letters, have been designated as a single name, because like all
accidental proper names they indicate one single object; and to make
the object more intelligible several words are employed, as many words
are sometimes used to express one single thing. This must be well
understood, that they taught the ideas indicated by these names, and
not the simple pronunciation of the meaningless letters. Neither the
divine name composed of twelve letters, nor the one of forty-two
letters, ever obtained the title of Shem Ha-Mephorash—this being the
designation of the particular name, or the Tetragrammaton, as we have
already propounded. As to the two former names, they assuredly convey a
certain metaphysical lesson, and there is proof that one of them
contained a lesson of this kind; for the Rabbins say in the Talmud with
regard to it: ‘The name of forty-two letters is very holy, and is only
communicated to such as are pious, &c., &c., &c.’ Thus far the Talmud.
But how remote from the meaning of their author is the sense attached
to these words! Forsooth most people believe that it is simply by the
pronunciation of the mere letters, without any idea being attached to
them, that the sublime things are to be obtained, and that it is for
them that those moral qualifications and that great preparation are
requisite. But it is evident that the design of all this is to convey
certain metaphysical ideas which constitute the mysteries of the divine
Law as we have already explained. It is shewn in the metaphysical
Treatises that it is impossible to forget science—I speak of the
perception of the active intellect—and this is the meaning of the
remark in the Talmud, ‘he [to whom the divine name of forty-two letters
is communicated] retains what he learns.’” [79]

It is this passage, as well as Maimonides’ comment upon it, which led
the erudite Franck to the conclusion that the mysteries of the Kabbalah
were known to the doctors of the Talmud, and that the forty-two letters
composing the divine name are the ten Sephiroth, which, by supplying
the Vav conjunctive before the last Sephira, consist exactly of
forty-two letters, as follows:—


   5   +   5   +  3  +  3  +   5   +   5   +   5   +  4   +  4   +  3 = 42
 ‏ויסוד‎   ‏מלכות‎   ‏הוד‎   ‏נצח‎   ‏תפארת‎   ‏גבורה‎   ‏נדולה‎   ‏בינה‎   ‏חכמה‎   ‏כתר‎


But Franck, like many other writers, confounds mysticism with Kabbalah.
That the Jews had an extensive mysticism, embracing theosophy with its
collateral angelology and uranology, as well as christology and magic,
long before the development of the Kabbalah, and that there were a
certain class of people who specially devoted themselves to the study
of this mysticism, and who styled themselves “Men of Faith” (‏בעלי
אמונות‎), is evident from a most cursory glance at the Jewish
literature. Based upon the remark—“The secret of the Lord is with them
that fear him, and he will show them his covenant,” (Ps. xxv, 14,) some
of the most distinguished Jewish doctors in the days of Christ, and
afterwards, claimed an attainment of superhuman knowledge, communicated
to them either by a voice from heaven (‏בת קול‎) or by Elias the
prophet (Baba Mezia, 59 b; Sabbath, 77 b; Chagiga, 3 b, 10 a;
Sanhedrin, 48 b; Nidda, 20 b; Joma, 9 b). The sages had also secret
doctrines about the hexahemeron (‏מעשה בראשית‎) and the Vision of
Ezekiel = Theosophy (‏מעשה מרכבה‎), “which were only communicated to
presidents of courts of justice and those who were of a careful heart”
(Chagiga, 12 a–16 a). Coeven with this are the mysteries connected with
the different letters of the several divine names (Kiddushin, 71 a).
Those who were deemed worthy to be admitted into these secrets could at
any moment call into existence new creations either in the animal or
vegetable kingdom (Sanhedrin, 65 b, 67 b; Jerusalem Sanhedrin, vii);
they could fly in the air, heal the sick, drive out evil spirits, and
suspend the laws of nature, by sundry mystical transpositions and
commutations of the letters composing the divine names, which they
wrote down on slips of vellum or pieces of paper and called “amulets”
(‏קמיעות‎). This mysticism and the literature embodying it began to
develop themselves more fully and to spread more extensively from the
end of the eighth and the commencement of the ninth centuries. Towards
the close of the eighth century came into existence

1. The celebrated mystical work entitled the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba,
which alternately treats each letter of the Hebrew Alphabet as
representing an idea as an abbreviation for a word (‏נוטריקון‎), and as
the symbol of some sentiment, according to its peculiar form, in order
to attach to those letters moral, theoanthropic, angelogical and
mystical notions. This work has recently been reprinted in two
recensions in Jellinek’s Beth Ha-Midrash, vol. iii, p. 12–64, Leipzig,
1855.

2. The Book of Enoch which describes the glorification of Enoch and his
transformation into the angel Metatron, regarding him as ‏ידו״ד הקטון‎
the Minor Deity, in contradistinction to ‏ידו״ד הגדול‎ the Great God
and which was originally a constituent part of the Alphabet of R.
Akiba. It is reprinted in Jellinek’s Beth Ha-Midrash, vol. ii, pp.
114–117. Leipzig, 1853.

3. Shiur Koma (‏שיעור קומה‎), or the Dimensions of the Deity, which
claims to be a revelation from the angel Metatron to R. Ishmael, and
describes the size of the body and the sundry members of the Deity. It
is given in the Book Raziel (‏ספר רזיאל‎) of Eleazer b. Jehudah of
Worms, printed at Amsterdam, 1701, and at Warsaw, 1812.

4. The Palaces (‏היכלות‎). This mystical document opens with an
exaltation of those who are worthy to see the chariot throne (‏צפיית
המרכבה‎), declaring that they know whatever happens and whatever is
about to happen in the world; that he who offends them will be severely
punished; and that they are so highly distinguished as not to be
required to rise before any one except a king, a high priest, and the
Sanhedrim. It then celebrates the praises of Almighty God and his
chariot throne; describes the dangers connected with seeing this
chariot throne (‏מרכבה‎); gives an episode from the history of the
martyrs and the Roman emperor Lupinus, a description of the angels, and
of the sundry formulæ wherewith they are adjured. Whereupon follows a
description of the seven heavenly palaces, each of which is guarded by
eight angels, and into which the student of the mysterious chariot
throne may transpose himself in order to learn all mysteries, a
description of the formulæ by virtue of which these angelic guards are
obliged to grant admission into the celestial palaces, and of the
peculiar qualifications of those who desire to enter into them. The
document then concludes with detailing some hymns of praise, a
conversation between God, Israel, and the angels about those mysteries,
a knowledge of which makes man suddenly learned without any trouble,
and with a description of this mystery, which consists in certain
prayers and charms. This mystical production has also been reprinted in
Jellinek’s valuable Beth Ha-Midrash, vol. iii, pp. 83–108.

These mystical treatises constitute the centre around which cluster all
the productions of this school, which gradually came into existence in
the course of time. So numerous became the disciples of mysticism in
the twelfth century, and so general became the belief in their power of
performing miraculous cures, driving out evil spirits, &c., &c., by
virtue of charms consisting of the letters composing the divers divine
names transposed and commuted in mystical forms, that the celebrated
Maimonides found it necessary to denounce the system. “We have one
divine name only,” says he, “which is not derived from His attributes,
viz., the Tetragrammaton, for which reason it is called Shem
Ha-Mephorash (‏שם המפורש‎). Believe nothing else, and give no credence
to the nonsense of the writers of charms and amulets (‏כותבי הקמיעות‎),
to what they tell you or to what you find in their foolish writings
about the divine names, which they invent without any sense, calling
them appellations of the Deity (‏שמות‎), and affirming that they
require holiness and purity and perform miracles. All these things are
fables: a sensible man will not listen to them, much less believe in
them.” (More Nebuchim, i, 61.)

But this mysticism, with its thaumaturgy, though espoused by later
Kabbalists and incorporated into their writings, is perfectly distinct
from the Kabbalah in its first and pure form, and is to be
distinguished by the fact that it has no system, knows nothing of the
speculations of the En Soph, the ten Sephiroth, the doctrine of
emanations, and the four worlds, which are the essential and peculiar
elements of the Kabbalah. As to Franck’s ingenious hypothesis, based
upon the same number of letters constituting a divine name, mentioned
in the Talmud, and the ten Sephiroth, we can only say that the
Kabbalists themselves never claimed this far-fetched identity, and that
Ignatz Stern has shown (Ben Chananja, iii, p. 261), that the Sohar
itself takes the ten divine names mentioned in the Bible, which it
enumerated in vol. iii, 11 a, and which it makes to correspond to the
ten Sephiroth, to be the sacred name composed of forty-two letters,
viz.:—


  4   + 2  + 2  +   5   +  4   +   5   + 2  +   5   + 2  +  4   +  3  +  4   = 42
 ‏אדני‎   ‏חי‎   ‏אל‎   ‏צבאות‎   ‏ידוד‎   ‏אלדים‎   ‏אל‎   ‏ידויד‎   ‏יה‎   ‏אהיה‎   ‏אשר‎   ‏אהיה‎


Having ascertained its date, we now come to the origin of the Kabbalah.
Nothing can be more evident than that the cardinal and distinctive
tenets of the Kabbalah in its original form, as stated at the beginning
of the second part of this Essay, are derived from Neo-Platonism. Any
doubt upon this subject must be relinquished when the two systems are
compared. The very expression En Soph (‏אין סוף‎) which the Kabbalah
uses to designate the Incomprehensible One, is foreign, and is
evidently an imitation of the Greek ἄπειρος. The speculations about the
En Soph, that he is superior to actual being, thinking and knowing, are
thoroughly Neo-Platonic (ἐπέκεινα οὐσίας, ἐνεργίας, νοῦ καὶ νοήσεως);
and R. Azariel, whose work, as we have seen, is the first Kabbalistic
production, candidly tells us that in viewing the Deity as purely
negative, and divesting him of all attributes, he followed the opinion
of the philosophers. [80] When R. Azariel moreover tells us that “the
En Soph can neither be comprehended by the intellect, nor described in
words; for there is no letter or word which can grasp him,” we have
here almost the very words of Proclus, who tells us that, “although he
is generally called the unity (τὸ ἕν) or the first, it would be better
if no name were given him; for there is no word which can depict his
nature—he is (ἄῤῥητος, ἄγνωστος), the inexpressible, the unknown.”
(Theol. Plat. ii, 6.)

The Kabbalah propounds that the En Soph, not being an object of
cognition, made his existence known in the creation of the world by the
Sephiroth, or Emanations, or Intelligences. So Neo-Platonism. The
Sephiroth are divided in the Kabbalah into a trinity of triads
respectively denominated ‏עולם השכל‎ the Intellectual World, ‏עולם
הנפש‎ the Sensuous World, and ‏עולם הטבע‎ the Material World, which
exactly corresponds to the three triads of Neo-Platonism νοῦς, ψύχη,
and φύσις. The Kabbalah teaches that these Sephiroth are both infinite
and perfect, and finite and imperfect, in so far as the source from
which they emanate imparts or withholds his fulness from them.
Neo-Platonism also teaches that “every emanation, though less perfect
than that from which it emanates, has yet a similarity with it, and, so
far as this similarity goes, remains in it, departing from it so far as
it is unlike, but as far as possible being one with it and remaining in
it.” [81] Even the comparison between the emanation of the Sephiroth
from the En Soph, and the rays proceeding from light to describe the
immanency and perfect unity of the two, is the same as the Neo-Platonic
figure employed to illustrate the emanations from one principium (οἷον
ἐκ φωτὸς τὴν ἐξ αὐτοῦ περίλαμψιν).









III.


It now remains for us to describe the development of the Kabbalah, to
point out the different schools into which its followers are divided,
and to detail the literature which this theosophy called into existence
in the course of time. The limits of this Essay demand that this should
be done as briefly as possible.

The great land mark in the development of the Kabbalah is the birth of
the Sohar, which divides the history of this theosophy into two
periods, viz., the pre-Sohar period and the post-Sohar period. During
these two periods different schools developed themselves, which are
classified by the erudite historian, Dr. Graetz, as follows:— [82]

I.—THE SCHOOL OF GERONA, so called from the fact that the founders of
it were born in this place and established the school in it. To this
school, which is the cradle of the Kabbalah, belong

1. Isaac the Blind (flour. 1190–1210), denominated the Father of the
Kabbalah. His productions have become a prey to time, and only a few
fragments have survived as quotations in other theosophic works. From
these we learn that he espoused the despised doctrine of metempsychosis
as an article of creed, and that from looking into a man’s face, he
could tell whether the individual possessed a new soul from the
celestial world of spirits, or whether he had an old soul which has
been migrating from body to body and has still to accomplish its purity
before its return to rest in its heavenly home.

2. Azariel and Ezra, disciples of Isaac the Blind. The former of these
is the author of the celebrated Commentary on the Ten Sephiroth, which
is the first Kabbalistic production, and of which we have given an
analysis in the second part of this Essay (vide supra, p. 176). Of Ezra
next to nothing is known beyond the fact that his great intimacy with
Azariel led some writers to identify the two names.

3. Jehudah b. Jakar, a contemporary of the foregoing Kabbalists. No
works of his have survived, and he is only known as the teacher of the
celebrated Nachmanides and from being quoted as a Kabbalistic
authority.

4. Moses Nachmanides, born in Gerona about 1195, the pupil of Azariel,
Ezra, and Jehudah Ibn Jakar. It was the conversion of this remarkable
and famous Talmudist to this newly-born Kabbalah which gave to it an
extraordinary importance and rapid spread amongst the numerous
followers of Nachmanides. It is related that, notwithstanding all the
efforts of his teachers, Nachmanides at first was decidedly adverse to
this system; and that one day the Kabbalist who most exerted himself to
convert him was caught in a house of ill fame and condemned to death.
He requested Nachmanides to visit him on the Sabbath, being the day
fixed for his execution; and when Nachmanides reproved him for his
sins, the Kabbalist declared that he was innocent, and that he would
appear at his house on this very day, after the execution, and partake
with him the Sabbath meal. He proved true to his promise, as by means
of the Kabbalistic mysteries he effected that, and an ass was executed
in his stead, and he himself was suddenly transposed into Nachmanides’
house. From that time Nachmanides avowed himself a disciple of the
Kabbalah, and was initiated into its mysteries. [83] His numerous
writings, an account of which will be found in Alexander’s edition of
Kitto’s Cyclopædia, under Nachmanides, are pervaded with the tenets of
this system. In the Introduction to his Commentary on the Pentateuch he
remarks—“We possess a faithful tradition that the whole Pentateuch
consists of names of the Holy One, blessed be he; for the words may be
divided into sacred names in another sense, so that it is to be taken
as an allegory. Thus the words—‏בראשית ברא אלהים‎ in Gen. i, 1, may be
redivided into other words, ex. gr. ‏בראש יתברא אלהים‎. In like manner
is the whole Pentateuch, which consists of nothing but transpositions
and numerals of divine names.” [84]

5. The Treatise on the Emanations (‏מסכת אצילות‎), supposed to have
been written by R. Isaac Nasir in the first half of the twelfth
century. The following is an analysis of this production. Based upon
the passage—“Jaresiah and Eliah and Zichri, the sons of Jeroham” (1
Chron. viii, 27), which names the Midrash assigns to the prophet Eliah
(Shemoth Rabba, cap. xl), this prophet is introduced as speaking and
teaching under the four names of Eliah b. Josep, Jaresiah b. Joseph,
Zechariah b. Joseph and Jeroham b. Joseph. Having stated that the
secret and profounder views of the Deity are only to be communicated to
the God-fearing, and that none but the pre-eminently pious can enter
into the temple of this higher gnosis, the prophet Elias propounds the
system of this secret doctrine, which consists in the following
maxims—“I. God at first created light and darkness, the one for the
pious and the other for the wicked, darkness having come to pass by the
divine limitation of light. II. God produced and destroyed sundry
worlds, which, like ten trees planted upon a narrow space, contend
about the sap of the soil, and finally perish altogether. III. God
manifested himself in four worlds, viz.—Atzilah, Beriah, Jetzira and
Asiah, corresponding to the Tetragrammaton ‏יהוה‎. In the Atzilatic
luminous world is the divine majesty, the Shechinah. In the Briatic
world are the souls of the saints, all the blessings, the throne of the
Deity, he who sits on it in the form of Achtenal (the crown of God, the
first Sephira), and the seven different luminous and splendid regions.
In the Jetziratic world are the sacred animals from the vision of
Ezekiel, the ten classes of angels with their princes, who are presided
over by the fiery Metatron, the spirits of men, and the accessory work
of the divine chariot. In the Assiatic world are the Ophanim, the
angels who receive the prayers, who are appointed over the will of man,
who control the action of mortals, who carry on the struggle against
evil, and who are presided over by the angelic prince Synandelphon. IV.
The world was founded in wisdom and understanding (Prov. iii, 19), and
God in his knowledge originated fifty gates of understanding. V. God
created the world by means of the ten Sephiroth, which are both the
agencies and qualities of the Deity. The ten Sephiroth are called
Crown, Wisdom, Intelligence, Mercy, Fear, Beauty, Victory, Majesty and
Kingdom: they are ideal and stand above the concrete world.” [85]

6. Jacob ben Sheshet of Gerona (flour. 1243). He wrote a Kabbalistic
Treatise in rhymed prose, entitled ‏שער השמים‎ the Gate of Heaven,
after Gen. xxviii, 17. It was first published by Gabriel Warshawer in
his collection of eight Kabbalistic Essays, called ‏ספר לקוטימ בקבלה‎.
Warsaw, 1798. It forms the third Essay in this collection, and is
erroneously entitled ‏לקוטי שם טוב‎ the Collection of Shem Tob. It has
now been published under its proper title, from a codex by Mordecai
Mortera, in the Hebrew Essays and Reviews, entitled Ozar Nechmad (‏אוצר
נחמד‎) vol. iii, p. 153, &c. Vienna, 1860.

The characteristic feature of this school, which is the creative
school, is that it for the first time established and developed the
doctrine of the En Soph (‏אין סוף‎), the Sephiroth (‏ספירות‎) or
Emanations, metempsychosis (‏סוד העבור‎) with the doctrine of
retribution (‏סוד הגמול‎) belonging thereto, and a peculiar
christology, whilst the Kabbalistic mode of exegesis is still
subordinate in it.

II.—THE SCHOOL OF SEGOVIA, so called because it was founded by Jacob of
Segovia, and its disciples were either natives of this place or lived
in it. The chief representatives of this school are—

1, Isaac, and 2, Jacob, junior, the two sons of Jacob Segovia, and 3,
Moses b. Simon of Burgos, who are only known by sundry fragments
preserved in Kabbalistic writings.

4. Todras b. Joseph Ha-Levi Abulafia, born 1234, died circa 1305. This
celebrated Kabbalist occupied a distinguished position as physician and
financier in the court of Sancho IV, King of Castile, and was a great
favourite of Queen Maria de Moline; he formed one of the cortége when
this royal pair met Philip IV, the Fair, King of France in Bayonne
(1290), and his advocacy of this theosophy secured for the doctrines of
the Kabbalah a kindly reception. His works on the Kabbalah are—(a) An
Exposition of the Talmudic Hagadoth, entitled ‏אוצר הכבוד‎, (b) A
Commentary on Ps. xix, and (c) A Commentary on the Pentateuch, in which
he propounds the tenets of the Kabbalah. These works, however, have not
as yet been printed. [86]

5. Shem Tob b. Abraham Ibn Gaon, born 1283, died circa 1332, who wrote
many Kabbalistic works.

6. Isaac of Akko (flour. 1290) author of the Kabbalistic Commentary on
the Pentateuch, entitled ‏מאירת עינים‎ not yet printed, with the
exception of an extract published by Jellinek. [87]

The characteristic of this school is that it is devoted to exegesis,
and its disciples endeavoured to interpret the Bible and the Hagada in
accordance with the doctrines of the Kabbalah.

III.—THE QUASI-PHILOSOPHIC SCHOOL of Isaac b. Abraham Ibn-Latif, or
Allatif. He was born about 1270 and died about 1390. Believing that to
view Judaism from an exclusively philosophical stand-point does not
shew “the right way to the sanctuary,” he endeavoured to combine
philosophy with Kabbalah. “He laid greater stress than his predecessors
on the close connection and intimate union between the spiritual and
material world, between the Creator and the creation—God is in all and
everything is in him. The human soul rises to the world-soul in earnest
prayer, and unites itself therewith ‘in a kiss,’ operates upon the
Deity and brings down a divine blessing upon the nether world. But as
every mortal is not able to offer such a spiritual and divinely
operative prayer, the prophets, who were the most perfect men, had to
pray for the people, for they alone knew the power of prayer. Isaac
Allatif illustrated the unfolding and self-revelation of the Deity in
the world of spirits by mathematical forms. The mutual relation thereof
is the same as that of the point extending and thickening into a line,
the line into the flat, the flat into the expanded body. Henceforth the
Kabbalists used points and lines in their mystical diagrams as much as
they employed the numerals and letters of the alphabet. [88]



IV. THE SCHOOL OF ABULAFIA, founded by Abraham ben Samuel Abulafia, is
represented by—

1. Abulafia, the founder of it, who was born at Saragossa in 1240, and
died circa 1292. For thirty years he devoted himself to the study of
the Bible, the Talmud, philology, philosophy, and medicine, making
himself master of the philosophical writings of Saadia, Bachja b.
Joseph, Maimonides, and Antoli, as well as of the Kabbalistic works
which were then in existence. Finding no comfort in philosophy, he gave
himself entirely to the mysteries of the Kabbalah in their most
fantastic extremes, as the ordinary doctrine of the Sephiroth did not
satisfy him. The ordinary doctrine of the Sephiroth he simply regarded
as a ten unity instead of the Christian three unity. Through divine
inspiration, he discovered a higher Kabbalah, by means of which the
soul can not only hold the most intimate communion with the world-soul,
but obtain the prophetic faculty. The simple intercourse with the world
of spirits, which is effected by separating the words of Holy Writ, and
especially those of the divine name, into letters, and by regarding
each letter as a distinct word (‏נוטריקון‎), or by transposing the
component parts of words in every possible way to obtain thereby
peculiar expressions (‏צירוף‎), or by taking the letters of each word
as numerals (‏גמטריא‎), is not sufficient. To have the prophetic
faculty and to see visions ought to be the chief aim, and these are
secured by leading an ascetic life, by banishing all worldly feelings,
by retiring into a quiet closet, by dressing oneself in white apparel,
by putting on the fringed garment and the phylacteries; by sanctifying
the soul so as to be fit to hold converse with the Deity; by
pronouncing the letters composing the divine name with certain
modulations of the voice and divine pauses; by exhibiting the divine
names in various diagrams under divers energetic movements, turnings,
and bendings of the body, till the voice gets confused and the heart is
filled with fervour. When one has gone through these practices and is
in such a condition, the fulness of the Godhead is shed abroad in the
human soul: the soul then unites itself with the divine soul in a kiss,
and prophetic revelations follow as a matter of course.

He went to Italy, published, in Urbino (1279), a prophecy, in which he
records his conversations with the Deity, calling himself Raziel and
Zechariah, because these names are numerically the same as his own
name, Abraham, [89] and preached the doctrines of the Kabbalah. In 1281
he had a call from God to convert the Pope, Martin IV, to Judaism, for
which he was thrown into prison, and narrowly escaped a martyr’s death
by fire. Seeing that his Holiness refused to embrace the Jewish
religion, Abulafia went to Sicily, accompanied by several of his
disciples. In Messina another revelation from God was vouchsafed to
him, announcing to him that he was the Messiah, which he published
1284. This apocalypse also announced that the restoration of Israel
would take place in 1296; and so great was the faith which the people
reposed in it, that thousands prepared themselves for returning to
Palestine. Those, however, who did not believe in the Messiahship and
in the Kabbalah of Abulafia, raised such a violent storm of opposition
against him, that he had to escape to the island of Comino, near Malta
(circa 1288), where he remained for some time, and wrote sundry
Kabbalistic works.

His Kabbalistic system may be gathered from the following analysis of
his Rejoinder to R. Solomon ben Abraham ben Adereth, who attacked his
doctrines and Messianic as well as prophetic pretensions. “There are,”
says Abulafia, “four sources of knowledge—I, The five senses, or
experimental maxims; II, Abstract numbers or à priori maxims; III, The
generally acknowledged maxims, or consensus communis; and IV,
Transmitted doctrines or traditional maxims. The Kabbalistic tradition,
which goes back to Moses, is divisible into two parts, the first of
which is superior to the second in value, but subordinate to it in the
order of study. The first part is occupied with the knowledge of the
Deity, obtained by means of the doctrine of the Sephiroth, as
propounded in the Book Jetzira. The followers of this part are related
to those philosophers who strive to know God from his works, and the
Deity stands before them objectively as a light beaming into their
understanding. These, moreover, give to the Sephiroth sundry names to
serve as signs for recognition; and some of this class differ but
little from Christians, inasmuch as they substitute a decade for the
triad, which they identify with God, and which they learned in the
school of Isaac the Blind.

“The second and more important part strives to know God by means of the
twenty-two letters of the alphabet, from which, together with the vowel
points and accents, those sundry divine names are combined, which
elevate the Kabbalists to the degree of prophecy, drawing out their
spirit, and causing it to be united with God and to become one with the
Deity. This is gradually effected in the following manner. The ten
Sephiroth sublimate gradually to the upper Sephira, called thought,
crown, or primordial air, which is the root of all the other Sephiroth,
and reposes in the creative En Soph. In the same manner all the
numerals are to be traced back to one, and all the trees, together with
their roots and branches, are converted into their original earth as
soon as they are thrown into the fire. To the ten Sephiroth, consisting
of upper, middle and lower, correspond the letters of the alphabet,
which are divided into three rows of ten letters each, the final
letters inclusive, beginning and ending with Aleph; as well as the
human body, with its head, the two arms, loins, testicles, liver,
heart, brain, all of which unite into a higher unity and become one in
the active νοῦς, which in its turn again unites itself with God, as the
unity to which everything must return.

“The ten Sephiroth are after a higher conception, to be traced to a
higher triad, which correspond to the letters Aleph, Beth, Gimmel, and
the three principles combined in man, the vital in the heart, the
vegetable in the liver, and the pleasurable in the brain, and also form
themselves in a higher unity. It is in this way that the Kabbalist who
is initiated into the prophetic Kabbalah may gradually concentrate all
his powers direct to one point to God, and unite himself with the
Deity, for which purpose the ideas developed in unbroken sequence, from
the permutations of numbers and letters, will serve him as steps upon
which to ascend to God.” [90]

Abulafia wrote no less than twenty-six grammatical, exegetical,
mystical and Kabbalistic works, and twenty-two prophetic treatises. And
though these productions are of great importance to the history of the
literature and development of the Kabbalah, yet only two of them, viz.,
the above-named Epistle to R. Solomon and the Epistle to R. Abraham,
entitled the Seven Paths of the Law (‏סוע נתיבות התורה‎), have as yet
been published.

2. Joseph Gikatilla b. Abraham (flour. 1260), disciple of Abulafia. He
wrote in the interests and defence of this school the following
works:—i. A Kabbalistic work entitled the Garden of Nuts (‏גנת אגוז‎),
consisting of three parts, and treating respectively on the import of
the divine names, on the mysteries of the Hebrew letters, and on the
vowel points. It was published at Hanau, 1615. ii. The import of the
vowel points entitled the Book on Vowels (‏ספר הניקוד‎), or the Gate to
the Points (‏שער הניקוד‎), published in the collection of seven
treatises, called the Cedars of Lebanon (‏ארזי לבנון‎), Venice, 1601,
and Cracow, 1648, of which it is the third treatise. iii. The Mystery
of the Shining Metal (‏סוד החשמל‎), being a Kabbalistic exposition of
the first chapter of Ezekiel, also published in the preceding seven
treatises, of which it is the fourth. iv. The Gate of Light (‏שער
אורה‎), being a treatise on the names of the Deity and the ten
Sephiroth, first published in Mantua, 1561; then Riva de Trento, 1561;
Cracow, 1600. A Latin version of it by Knorr von Rosenroth is given in
the first part of the Kabbala Denudata, Sulzbach, 1677–78. v. The Gates
of Righteousness (‏שערי צדק‎), on the ten divine names answering to the
ten Sephiroth, published at Riva de Trento, 1561. vi. Mysteries
(‏סודות‎) connected with sundry Pentateuchal ordinances, published by
Jechiel Ashkenazi in his Temple of the Lord (‏היכל יהוה‎), Venice and
Dantzic, 1596–1606. [91]

From the above description it will be seen that the characteristic
features of this school are the stress which its followers lay on the
extensive use of the exegetical rules called Gematria (‏גמטריא‎),
Notaricon (‏נוטריקון‎), and Ziruph (‏צירוף‎), in the exposition of the
divine names and Holy Writ, as well as in the claim to prophetic gifts.
It must, however, be remarked that in this employment of commutations,
permutations and reduction of each letter in every word to its
numerical value, Abulafia and his followers are not original.

V. THE SOHAR SCHOOL, which is a combination and absorption of the
different features and doctrines of all the previous schools, without
any plan or method.

1236–1315. Less than a century after its birth the Kabbalah became
known among Christians through the restless efforts of Raymond Lully,
the celebrated scholastic metaphysician and experimental chemist. This
Doctor illuminatus, as he was styled, in consequence of his great
learning and piety, was born about 1236 at Palma, in the island of
Majorca. He relinquished the military service and writing erotic poetry
when about thirty, and devoted himself to the study of theology. Being
inspired with an ardent zeal for the conversion of the Mohammedans and
the Jews to Christianity, he acquired a knowledge of Arabic and Hebrew
for this purpose. In pursuing his Hebrew studies Lully became
acquainted with the mysteries of the Kabbalah, and, instead of
converting his Kabbalistic teachers, he embraced the doctrine of “the
identity of the Deity and nature;” [92] and there is very little doubt
that the Kabbalistic method of palming their notions on the text of
Scripture, by means of the Gematria, Notaricon and Ziruph, suggested to
him the invention of the Great Art (Ars Magna). It is therefore not to
be wondered at that he had the loftiest conception of the Kabbalah,
that he regarded it as a divine science and as a genuine revelation
whose light is revealed to a rational soul. [93] It cannot be said that
Lully derived as much benefit from the Mohammedans, for after making
three perilous journeys to Africa to bring the sons of Ishmael to the
truth of Christianity, he was stoned to death by them, June 30, 1315.

The new era in the development of the Kabbalah, created by the
appearance of the Sohar, has continued to the present day, for nearly
all those who have since espoused the doctrines of this theosophy have
made the Sohar their text-book, and the principal writers have
contented themselves more or less with writing commentaries on this
gigantic pseudonym.

1290–1350. Foremost among these is Menahem di Recanti, who was born in
Recanti (Latin Recinetum) about 1290. He wrote, when about forty years
of age (1330), a commentary on the Pentateuch, which is little else
than a commentary on the Sohar. This commentary—which was first
published by Jacob b. Chajim in Bomberg’s celebrated printing
establishment, Venice, 1523, then again, ibid., 1545, and in Lublin,
1595—has been translated into Latin by the famous Pico della Mirandola.
[94]

1320. At the beginning of the fourteenth century Joseph b. Abraham Ibn
Wakkar (flour. 1290–1340) endeavoured to reconcile this theosophy with
philosophy, and to this end wrote a Treatise on the cardinal doctrines
of the Kabbalah, which is regarded as one of the best if not the best
introductory compendium. This production, which is unpublished, and a
MS. of which exists in the Bodleian Library (Codex Land. 119; described
by Uri No. 384), consists of four parts or Gates, subdivided into
chapters, as follows:—

Gate I, which is entitled, On the views of the Kabbalists respecting
the Primary Cause, blessed be he, and the Sephiroth, as well as their
names and order, consists of eight chapters, treating respectively on
the fundamental doctrines of the emanations of the Sephiroth from the
First Cause, as transmitted from Abraham and indicated in the Bible and
the Rabbinic writings in Gematrias (cap. i); on the unity of the
Sephiroth (cap. ii); the relation of the Sephiroth to each other, the
First Cause itself being a trinity consisting of a threefold light, the
number of the Sephiroth being from 10, 20, 30 and so on up to 310,
stating that there is a difference of opinion amongst the Kabbalists
whether the Primary Cause is within or without the Sephiroth (cap.
iii); on the three worlds of the Sephiroth (cap. iv); on the
beginninglessness of the first and necessary first Emanation,
investigating the question as to how many Sephiroth this property
extends (cap. v); on the subordination and order of the Sephiroth and
the diagrams, mentioning, in addition to the three known ones, the
figure of bridegroom and bride under the nuptial canopy (cap. vi); on
the names of the Deity and the angels derived from the Sephiroth (cap.
vii); on the unclean (demon) Sephiroth or Hells (‏קליפות‎) and their
relation to the pure ones (cap. viii).

Gate II, which is entitled, On the influence of the Sephiroth on the
government of the world (Providence), consists of six chapters,
treating respectively on the relation of the Sephiroth to the
fundamental characteristics of Providence, such as mercy, justice, &c.
(cap. i); on the corresponding relations of the unclean Sephiroth (cap.
ii); on the influence of the Sephiroth on men, especially on the Hebrew
race, and their vicissitudes (caps. iii and iv); on the possibility of
the Sephiroth withholding this influence (cap. v); and on the relation
of the Sephiroth to the days of the week (cap. vi).

Gate III, which is entitled, On the names of the Sephiroth among the
Kabbalists, and which is the most extensive part of the work, consists
of seven chapters, treating respectively on the names of the Deity,
giving the sundry explanations of ‏אהיה אשר אהיה‎ current among the
Jewish philosophers (cap. i); on the names of the Sephiroth, stating
that there is no uniform principle among the Kabbalists; that the
appellations are derived from the Bible, the Talmud and later literati;
that the greatest difference of opinion prevails among the Kabbalists
as to the mode in which these ancient sources are to be interpreted,
recommending the following works as reliable guides: the Talmud,
Midrash Rabboth, Siphra, Siphri, Bahir, Perakim of R. Eliezer, the
opinions of Nachmanides and Todros Ha-Levi Abulafia of honoured memory,
but guarding against the Sohar, because “many blunders occur therein”
(cap. ii); on the import of the names of the Sephiroth, with examples
of interpretation of the Bible and Talmud to serve as aids for the
student who is to prosecute the work according to these examples,
mentioning three explanations of the word Sephira (cap. iii); on the
divine names occurring in the Pentateuch (cap. iv); on the masculine
and feminine nature of the Sephiroth (cap. v); this is followed (cap.
vi) by an alphabetical dictionary of the names of the Sephiroth, giving
under each letter the Biblical and the corresponding Talmudic
appellation appropriated by the Kabbalists to the Sephiroth; and (cap.
vii) by an index of the names of each Sephira in alphabetical order
without any explanation.

Gate IV, which is entitled On the positive proofs of the existence of
the Kabbalah, describes the author’s own views of the Kabbalistic
system, and submits that the Kabbalist has a preference over the
philosopher and astronomer by virtue of the acknowledged maxim that he
has a thorough knowledge of a thing who knows most details about it.
Now the Kabbalists build their system upon the distinction of words,
letters, &c., &c., in the sacred writings; and they also explain
certain formularies among the Rabbins, which have undoubtedly a
recondite sense. [95]

1370–1500. During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the Kabbalah
took deep root in Spain. Its followers, who were chiefly occupied with
the study of the Sohar, with editing some older works, and with writing
Kabbalistic commentaries on the Bible, became more and more aggressive,
denouncing in unmeasured terms their co-religionists who could not see
the advantages of this secret doctrine. Thus Abraham b. Isaac of
Granada—who wrote (1391–1409) a Kabbalistic work entitled The Covenant
of Peace, discussing the mysteries of the names of God and the angels,
of permutations, commutations, the vowel points and accents—declares
that he who does not acknowledge God in the manner of the Kabbalah sins
unwittingly, is not regarded by God, has not his special providence,
and, like the abandoned and the wicked, is left to fate. [96]

Similar in import and tone are the writings of Shem Tob Ibn Shem Tob
(died 1430). In his Treatise, entitled the Book of Faithfulness, which
is an attack on the Jewish philosophers Ibn Ezra, Maimonides, Levi b.
Gershon, &c., and a defence of the Kabbalah, Shem Tob denounces the
students of philosophy as heretics, and maintains that the salvation of
Israel depends upon the Kabbalah. He also wrote Homilies on the
Pentateuch, the Feasts and Fasts, &c., in which the Kabbalistic
doctrines are fully propounded. [97]

Moses Botarel or Botarelo, also a Spaniard, wrote at this time (1409)
his commentary on the famous Book Jetzira, an analysis of which is
given in the foregoing part of this Essay (vide supra, p. 147, &c.)
Unlike Abraham of Granada and Shem Tob, his two contemporary champions
of the Kabbalah, he praises philosophy, speaks of Aristotle as of a
prophet, and maintains that philosophy and the Kabbalah propound
exactly the some doctrines, and that they only differ in language and
in technical terms. In this commentary, which he wrote to instruct the
Christian scholar Maestro Juan in the Kabbalah, Botarel shows how, by
fasting, ablutions, prayer, invocation of divine and angelic names, a
man may have such dreams as shall disclose to him the secrets of the
future. In confirmation of his opinions he quotes such ancient
authorities as Rab Ashi, Saadia Gaon, Hai Gaon, &c., whom the Kabbalah
claims as its great pillars. [98] It is almost needless to remark that
these men lived long before the birth of the Kabbalah, and that this
mode of palming comparatively modern opinions upon great men of remote
ages, has also been adopted by advocates of other systems who were
anxious to invest their views with the halo of antiquity.

As countrymen of the foregoing writers, and as exponents of the
opinions of older Kabbalists, are to be mentioned—(i) Jehudah Chajath
who was among the large number of Jews expelled from Spain in 1493, and
who wrote a commentary on the Kabbalistic work, entitled The Divine
Order; [99] and (ii) Abraham Ibn Sabba, who was banished with thousands
of his brethren from Lisbon, 1499, and who is the author of a very
extensive commentary on the Pentateuch, entitled The Bundle of Myrrh,
in which he largely avails himself of the Sohar and other earlier
Kabbalistic works. [100]

1463–1494. The Kabbalah, which soon after its birth became partially
known to Christians through Raymond Lully, was now accessible to
Christian scholars through the exertions and influence of the famous
Count John Pico di Mirandola (born in 1463). This celebrated
philosopher determined to fathom the mysteries of the Kabbalah, and for
this purpose put himself under the tuition of a Jew, R. Jochanan
Aleman, who came to Italy from Constantinople. His extraordinary
intellectual powers soon enabled Mirandola to overcome the difficulties
and to unravel the secrets of this theosophy. His labours were greatly
rewarded; for, according to his shewing, he found that [101] there is
more Christianity in the Kabbalah than Judaism; he discovered in it
proof for the doctrine of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the divinity of
Christ, original sin, the expiation thereof by Christ, the heavenly
Jerusalem, the fall of the angels, the order of the angels, purgatory
and hell-fire; in fact the same Gospel which we find in St. Paul,
Dionysius, St. Jerome and St. Augustine. As the result of his
Kabbalistic studies Mirandola published, in 1486, when only twenty-four
years of age, nine hundred Theses, which were placarded in Rome, and
which he undertook to defend in the presence of all European scholars,
whom he invited to the eternal city, promising to defray their
travelling expenses. Among these Theses was the following, “No science
yields greater proof of the divinity of Christ than magic and the
Kabbalah.” [102] Pope Sixtus IV (1471–1484) was so delighted with it
that he greatly exerted himself to have Kabbalistic writings translated
into Latin for the use of divinity students. [103] Mirandola
accordingly translated the following three works: 1, Menahem di
Recanti’s Commentary on the Pentateuch, erroneously called R. Levi de
Recineto (Wolf, ibid., p. 10); 2, Eliezer of Worms’ ‏חכמת הנפש‎ de
Scientia animae; and 3, Shem Tob Falaquera’s ‏ספר המעלות‎

1455–1522. Not only did Mirandola make the Kabbalah known to the
Christians in Italy, but he was the means of introducing it into
Germany through John Reuchlin, the father of the German Reformation.
This eminent scholar,—who is also called by the Greek name Capnion
(καπνίον), or Capnio, which is a translation of his German name
Reuchlin, i.e. smoke, in accordance with the fashion of the time; just
as Gerard, signifying amiable, assumed the name of Desiderius Erasmus,
and Schwartzerth, denoting black earth, took the name of
Melanchthon,—was born at Phorzheim December 28, 1455. At the age of
seventeen he was called to the court of Baden, and received among the
court singers in consequence of his beautiful voice. His brilliant
attainments soon attracted notice, and he was sent (1473) with the
young Margrave Frederick, eldest son of Charles II, afterwards bishop
of Utrecht, to the celebrated high school of Paris. Here he acquired,
from Hermonymus of Sparta and other fugitive Greek literati, who went
to Paris after the taking of Constantinople (1453), that remarkable
knowledge of Greek which enabled him so largely to amass the Attic lore
and rendered him so famous through Europe. He went to Basle in 1474,
delivered lectures on the Latin language and the classics, and had
among his hearers nobles of high rank both from France and Germany. He
went to Tübingen in 1481, where his fame secured for him the friendship
of Eberhard the Bearded, who made him his private secretary and privy
councillor, and as such this prince took Reuchlin with him to Rome in
1482, where he made that splendid Latin oration before the Pope and the
cardinals, which elicited from his Holiness the declaration that
Reuchlin deserved to be placed among the best orators of France and
Italy. From Rome Eberhard took him to Florence, and it was here that
Reuchlin became acquainted with the celebrated Mirandola and with the
Kabbalah. But as he was appointed licentiate and assessor of the
supreme court in Stuttgard, the new residence of Eberhard, on his
return in 1484, and as the order of Dominicans elected him as their
proctor in the whole of Germany, Reuchlin had not time to enter at once
upon the study of Hebrew and Aramaic, which are the key to the
Kabbalah, and he had reluctantly to wait till 1492, when he accompanied
Eberhard to the imperial court at Ling. Here he became acquainted with
R. Jacob b. Jechiel Loanz, a learned Hebrew, and court physician of
Frederick III, from whom he learned Hebrew. [104] Whereupon Reuchlin at
once betook himself to the study of the Kabbalah, and within two years
of his beginning to learn the language in which it is written, his
first Kabbalistic treatise, entitled De Verbo Mirifico (Basle, 1494),
appeared. This treatise is of the greatest rarity, and the following
analysis of it is given by Franck. It is in the form of a dialogue
between an Epicurean philosopher named Sidonius, a Jew named Baruch,
and the author, who is introduced by his Greek name Capnio, and
consists of three books, according to the number of speakers.

Book I, the exponent of which is Baruch the Jewish Kabbalist, is
occupied with a refutation of the Epicurean doctrines; and simply
reproduces the arguments generally urged against this system, for which
reason we omit any further description of it.

Book II endeavours to shew that all wisdom and true philosophy are
derived from the Hebrews, that Plato, Pythagoras and Zoroaster borrowed
their ideas from the Bible, and that traces of the Hebrew language are
to be found in the liturgies and sacred books of all nations. Then
follows an explanation of the four divine names, which are shown to
have been transplanted into the systems of Greek philosophy. The first
and most distinguished of them ‏אהיה אשר אהיה‎ ego sum qui sum (Exod.
iii, 12), is translated in the Platonic philosophy by τὸ ὄντως ὢν. The
second divine name, which we translate by ‏הוא‎ He, i.e., the sign of
unchangeableness and of the eternal idea of the Deity, is also to be
found among the Greek philosophers in the term ταυτὸν, which is opposed
to θατερὸν. The third name of God used in Holy Writ is ‏אש‎ Fire. In
this form God appeared in the burning bush when he first manifested
himself to Moses. The prophets describe him as a burning fire, and John
the Baptist depicts him as such when he says, “I baptize you with
water, but he who cometh after me shall baptize you with fire.” (Matt.
iii, 11.) The fire of the Hebrew prophets is the same as the ether
(αἰθὴρ) mentioned in the hymns of Orpheus. But these three names are in
reality only one, showing to us the divine nature in three different
aspects. Thus God calls himself the Being, because every existence
emanates from him; he calls himself Fire, because it is he who
illuminates and animates all things and he is always He, because he
always remains like himself amidst the infinite variety of his works.
Now just as there are names which express the nature of the Deity, so
there are names which refer to his attributes, and these are the ten
Sephiroth. If we look away from every attribute and every definite
point of view in which the divine subsistence may be contemplated, if
we endeavour to depict the absolute Being as concentrating himself
within himself, and not affording us any explicable relation to our
intellect, he is then described by a name which it is forbidden to
pronounce, by the thrice holy Tetragrammaton, the name Jehovah (‏יהוה‎)
the Shem Ha-Mephorash (‏שם המפורש‎).

There is no doubt that the tetrad (τετρακτύς) of Pythagoras is an
imitation of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, and that the worship of the
decade has simply been invented in honour of the ten Sephiroth. The
four letters composing this name represent the four fundamental
constituents of the body (i.e., heat, cold, dryness and humidity), the
four geometrical principal points (i.e., the point, the line, flat and
body), the four notes of the musical scale, the four rivers in the
earthly paradise, the four symbolical figures in the vision of Ezekiel,
&c., &c., &c. Moreover if we look at these four letters separately we
shall find that each of them has equally a recondite meaning. The first
letter ‏י‎, which also stands for the number ten, and which by its form
reminds us of the mathematical point, teaches us that God is the
beginning and end of all things. The number five, expressed by ‏ה‎ the
second letter, shows us the union of God with nature—of God inasmuch as
he is depicted by the number three, i.e., the Trinity; and of visible
nature, inasmuch as it is represented by Plato and Pythagoras under the
dual. The number six, expressed by ‏ו‎, the third letter, which is
likewise revered in the Pythagorean school, is formed by the
combination of one, two, and three, the symbol of all perfection.
Moreover the number six is the symbol of the cube, the bodies (solida),
or the world. Hence it is evident that the world has in it the imprint
of divine perfection. The fourth and last letter of this divine name
(‏ה‎) is like the second, represents the number five, and here
symbolizes the human and rational soul, which is the medium between
heaven and earth, just as five is the centre of the decade, the
symbolic expression of the totality of things.

Book III, the exponent of which is Capnio, endeavours to shew that the
most essential doctrines of Christianity are to be found by the same
method. Let a few instances of this method suffice. Thus the doctrine
of the Trinity is to be found in the first verse of Genesis. If the
Hebrew word ‏ברא‎ which is translated created, be examined, and if each
of the three letters composing this word be taken as the initial of a
separate word, we obtain the expressions ‏בן רוח אב‎ Son, Spirit,
Father. Upon the same principle we find the two persons of the Trinity
in the words, “the stone which the builders refused is become the heed
stone of the corner” (Ps. cxviii, 22), inasmuch as the three letters
composing the word ‏אבן‎ stone, are to be divided into ‏אב בן‎ Father,
Son. Orpheus, in his hymn on the night, described the Trinity of the
New Testament in the words, νὺξ, οὐρανὸς, αἰθὴρ, for night which begets
everything can only designate the Father; heaven, that olyphus which in
its boundlessness embraces all things, and which proceeded from the
night, signifies the Son; whilst ether, which the ancient poet also
designates fiery breath, is the Holy Ghost. The name Jesus in Hebrew
‏י״ה״ש״ו״ה‎ the πενταγράμματον yields the name ‏יהוה‎ Jehovah; and the
‏ש‎ which in the language of the Kabbalah is the symbol of fire or
light, which St. Jerome, in his mystical exposition of the alphabet,
has made the sign of the Λόγος. This mysterious name therefore contains
a whole revelation, inasmuch as it shows us that Jesus is God himself,
the Light or the Logos. Even the cross, which is the symbol of
Christianity, is plainly indicated in the Old Testament, by the tree of
life which God planted in the midst of the garden; by the praying
attitude of Moses, when he raised his hands towards heaven in his
intercession for Israel during the combat with Amalek; and by the tree
which converted the bitter waters into sweet in the wilderness of
Marah. [105]

The Treatise de Verbo Mirifico is, however, only an introduction to
another work on the same subject which Reuchlin published twenty-two
years later, entitled De Arte Cabalistica. Hagenau, 1516. This
Treatise, like the first, is in the form of a dialogue between a
Mohammedan named Marrianus, a Pythagorean Philosopher named Philolaus,
and a Jewish doctor named Simon. The dialogue is held in Frankfort,
where the Jew resides, to whom the Mohammedan and Pythagorean resort to
be initiated into the mysteries of the Kabbalah. The whole is a more
matured exposition and elaboration of the ideas hinted at in his first
work.

The Kabbalah, according to Reuchlin, is a symbolical reception of
Divine revelation; and a distinction is to be made between Cabalici, to
whom belongs heavenly inspiration, their disciples Cabalaai, and their
imitators Cabalistae. The design of the Kabbalah is to propound the
relations of the absolute Creator to the creature. God is the Creator
of all beings which emanated from him, and he implanted aspirations in
them to attain actual communion with him. In order that feeble man
might attain this communion, God revealed himself to mankind in various
ways, but especially to Moses. This Divine revelation to Moses contains
far more than appears on the surface of the Pentateuch. There is a
recondite wisdom concealed in it which distinguishes it from other
codes of morals and precepts. There are in the Pentateuch many
pleonasms and repetitions of the same things and words, and as we
cannot charge God with having inserted useless and superfluous words in
the Holy Scriptures, we must believe that something more profound is
contained in them, to which the Kabbalah gives the key.

This key consists in permutations, commutations, &c., &c. But this act
of exchanging and arranging letters, and of interpreting for the
edification of the soul the Holy Scriptures, which we have received
from God as a divine thing not to be understood by the multitude, was
not communicated by Moses to everybody, but to the elect, such as
Joshua, and so by tradition it came to the seventy interpreters. This
gift is called Kabbalah. God, out of love to his people, has revealed
hidden mysteries to some of them, and these have found the living
spirit in the dead letter; that is to say, the Scriptures consist of
separate letters, visible signs which stand in a certain relation to
the angels as celestial and spiritual emanations from God; and by
pronouncing them, the latter also are affected. To a true Kabbalist,
who has an insight into the whole connection of the terrestrial with
the celestial, these signs thus put together are the means of placing
him in close union with spirits, who are thereby bound to fulfil his
wishes. [106]

The extraordinary influence which Reuchlin’s Kabbalistic Treatises
exercised upon the greatest thinkers of the time and upon the early
reformers may be judged of from the unmeasured terms of praise which
they bestowed upon their author. The Treatises were regarded as
heavenly communications, revealing new divine wisdom. Conrad
Leontarius, writing to Wimpheling on the subject, says—“I never saw
anything more beautiful or admirable than this work (i.e., De Verbo
Mirifico), which easily convinces him who reads it that no philosopher,
whether Jew or Christian, is superior to Reuchlin.” Aegidius, general
of the Eremites, wrote to the holy Augustine “that Reuchlin had
rendered him, as well as the rest of mankind, happy by his works, which
had made known to all a thing hitherto unheard of.” Philip Beroaldus,
the younger, sent him word “that Pope Leo X had read his Pythagorean
book greedily, as he did all good books; afterwards the Cardinal de
Medici had done so, and he himself should soon enjoy it.” [107] Such
was the interest which this newly-revealed Kabbalah created among
Christians, that not only learned men but statesmen and warriors began
to study the oriental languages, in order to be able to fathom the
mysteries of this theosophy.

1450–1498. Whilst the Kabbalah was gaining such high favour amongst
Christians both in Italy and Germany, through the exertions of
Mirandola and Reuchlin, a powerful voice was raised among the Jews
against the Sohar, the very Bible of this theosophy. Elia del Medigo,
born at Candia, then in Venetia, 1450, of a German literary family,
professor of philosophy in the University of Padua, teacher of Pico de
Mirandola, and a scholar of the highest reputation both among his
Jewish brethren and among Christians, impugned the authority of the
Sohar. In his philosophical Treatise on the nature of Judaism as a
harmonizer between religion and philosophy, entitled An Examination of
the Law (‏בחינת הדת‎), which he wrote December 29, 1491, he puts into
the mouth of an antagonist to the Kabbalah the following three
arguments against the genuineness of the Sohar: 1, Neither the Talmud,
nor the Gaonim and Rabbins knew anything of the Sohar or of its
doctrines; 2, The Sohar was published at a very late period; and 3,
Many anachronisms occur in it, inasmuch as it describes later Amoraic
authorities as having direct intercourse with the Tanaite R. Simon b.
Jochai who belongs to an earlier period. [108]

1522–1570. The voice of Elia del Medigo and others, however, had no
power to check the rapid progress of the Kabbalah, which had now found
its way from Spain and Italy into Palestine and Poland, and penetrated
all branches of life and literature. Passing over the host of minor
advocates and teachers, we shall mention the two great masters in
Palestine, who formed two distinct schools, distinguished by the
prominence which they respectively gave to certain doctrines of the
Kabbalah. The first of these is Moses Cordovero, also called Remak =
‏רמ׳ק‎ from the acrostic of his name ‏קורדואירו‎ R. Moses Cordovero. He
was born in Cordova, 1522, studied the Kabbalah under his learned
brother-in-law, Solomon Aleavez, and very soon became so distinguished
as a Kabbalist and author that his fame travelled to Italy, where his
works were greedily bought. His principal works are: 1, An Introduction
to the Kabbalah, entitled A Sombre or Sweet Light (‏אור נערב‎) first
published in Venice, 1587, then in Cracow, 1647, and in Fürth, 1701; 2,
Kabbalistic reflections and comments on ninety-nine passages of the
Bible, entitled The Book of Retirement (‏ספר נרושין‎), published in
Venice, 1543; and 3, A large Kabbalistic work entitled The Garden of
Pomegranates (‏פרדס רמונים‎), which consists of thirteen sections or
gates (‏שערים‎) subdivided into chapters, and discusses the Sephiroth,
the Divine names, the import and significance of the letters, &c., &c.
It was first published in Cracow, 1591. Excerpts of it have been
translated into Latin by Bartolocci, Bibliotheca Magna Rabbinica, vol.
iv, p. 231, &c., and Knorr von Rosenroth, Tractatus de Anima ex libro
Pardes Rimmonim in his Kabbala Denudata, Sulzbach, 1677. [109]

The peculiar feature of Cordovero is that he is chiefly occupied with
the scientific speculations of the Kabbalah, or the speculative
Kabbalah (‏קבלה עיונית‎), as it is called in the modern terminology of
this esoteric doctrine, in contra-distinction to the wonder-working
Kabbalah (‏קבלה מעשית‎), keeping aloof to a great extent from the
extravagances which we shall soon have to notice. In this respect
therefore he represents the Kabbalah in its primitive state, as may be
seen from the following specimen of his lucubrations on the nature of
the Deity. “The knowledge of the Creator is different from that of the
creature, since in the case of the latter, knowledge and the thing
known are distinct, thus leading to subjects which are again separate
from him. This is described by the three expressions—cogitation, the
cogitator and the cogitated object. Now the Creator is himself
knowledge, knowing and the known object. His knowledge does not consist
in the fact that he directs his thoughts to things without him, since
in comprehending and knowing himself, he comprehends and knows
everything which exists. There is nothing which is not united with him,
and which he does not find in his own substance. He is the archetype of
all things existing, and all things are in him in their purest and most
perfect form; so that the perfection of the creatures consists in the
support whereby they are united to the primary source of his existence,
and they sink down and fall from that perfect and lofty position in
proportion to their separation from him.” [110]

1534–1572. The opposite to this school is the one founded by Isaac
Luria or Loria, also called Ari = ‏אר״י‎ from the initials of his name
‏האשכנזי ר׳ יצחק‎ R. Isaac Ashkanazi. He was born at Jerusalem 1534,
and, having lost his father when very young, was taken by his mother to
Kahira, where he was put by his rich uncle under the tuition of the
best Jewish master. Up to his twenty-second year he was a diligent
student of the Talmud and the Rabbinic lore, and distinguished himself
in these departments of learning in a most remarkable manner. He then
lived in retirement for about seven years to give free scope to his
thoughts and meditations, but he soon found that simple retirement from
collegiate studies did not satisfy him. He therefore removed to the
banks of the Nile, where he lived in a sequestered cottage for several
years, giving himself up entirely to meditations and reveries. Here he
had constant interviews with the prophet Elias, who communicated to him
sublime doctrines. Here, too, his soul ascended to heaven whenever he
was asleep, and in the celestial regions held converse with the souls
of the great teachers of bygone days. When thirty-six years of age
(1570) the Prophet Elias appeared to him again and told him to go to
Palestine, where his successor was awaiting him. Obedient to the
command, he went to Safet, where he gathered round him ten disciples,
visited the sepulchres of ancient teachers, and there, by prostrations
and prayers, obtained from their spirits all manner of revelations, so
much so that he was convinced he was the Messiah b. Joseph and that he
was able to perform all sorts of miracles. It was this part of the
Kabbalah, i.e., the ascetic and miraculous (‏כבלה מעשית‎), which Loria
taught. His sentiments he delivered orally, as he himself did not write
anything, except perhaps some marginal notes of a critical import in
older books and MSS. His disciples treasured up his marvellous sayings,
whereby they performed miracles and converted thousands to the
doctrines of this theosophy.

1543–1620. The real exponent of Loria’s Kabbalistic system is his
celebrated disciple Chajim Vital, a descendant of a Calabrian family,
who died in 1620 at the age of seventy-seven. After the demise of his
teacher, Chajim Vital diligently collected all the MS. notes of the
lectures which Loria’s disciples had written down, from which, together
with his own jottings, he produced the gigantic and famous system of
the Kabbalah, entitled the Tree of Life (‏עץ החיים‎). This work, over
which Vital laboured thirty years, was at first circulated in MS.
copies, and every one of the Kabbalistic disciples had to pledge
himself, under pain of excommunication, not to allow a copy to be made
for a foreign land; so that for a time all the Codd. remained in
Palestine. At last, however, this Thesaurus of the Kabbalah, which
properly consists of six works, was published by J. Satanow at Zolkiev,
1772. New editions of it appeared in Korez, 1785; Sklow, 1800;
Dobrowne, 1804; Stilikow, 1818; and Knorr von Rosenroth has translated
into Latin a portion of that part of the great work which treats on the
doctrine of the metempsychosis (‏הגלגולים‎). [111]

1558–1560. The circulation of Loria’s work which gave an extraordinary
impetus to the Kabbalah, and which gave rise to the new school and a
separate congregation in Palestine, was not the only favourable
circumstance which had arisen to advance and promulgate the esoteric
doctrine. The Sohar, which since its birth had been circulated in MS.,
was now for the first time printed in Mantua, and thousands of people
who had hitherto been unable to procure the MS. were thus enabled to
possess themselves of copies. [112] It is, however, evident that with
the increased circulation of these two Bibles of the Kabbalah, as the
Sohar and Loria’s Etz Chajim are called, there was an increased cry on
the part of learned Jews against the doctrines propounded in them.
Isaac b. Immanuel de Lates, the Rabbi of Pesaro, and the great champion
for the Kabbalah, who prefixed a commendatory epistle to the Sohar,
tells us most distinctly that some Rabbins wanted to prevent the
publication of the Sohar, urging that it ought to be kept secret or be
burned, because it tends to heretical doctrines. [113]

1571–1648. Of the numerous opponents to the Kabbalah which the Sohar
and Loria’s work called forth, Leo de Modena was by far the most
daring, the most outspoken and the most powerful. This eminent scholar
who is known to the Christian world by his celebrated History of the
Rites, Customs and Manners of the Jews, which was originally written in
Italian, published in Padua, 1640, and which has been translated into
Latin, English, French, Dutch, &c., attacked the Kabbalah in two of his
works. His first onslaught is on the doctrine of metempsychosis in his
Treatise entitled Ben David. He composed this Treatise in 1635–36, at
the request of David Finzi, of Egypt, and he demonstrates therein that
this doctrine is of Gentile origin, and was rejected by the great men
of the Jewish faith in bygone days, refuting at the same time the
philosophico-theological arguments advanced in its favour. [114] It is,
however, his second attack on this esoteric doctrine, in his work
entitled The Roaring Lion (‏ארי נוהם‎), which is so damaging to the
Kabbalah. In this Treatise—which Leo de Modena composed in 1639, at the
advanced age of sixty-eight, to reclaim Joseph Chamiz, a beloved
disciple of his, who was an ardent follower of the Kabbalah—he shows
that the books which propound this esoteric doctrine, and which are
palmed upon ancient authorities, are pseudonymous; that the doctrines
themselves are mischievous; and that the followers of this system are
inflated with proud notions, pretending to know the nature of God
better than anyone else, and to possess the nearest and best way of
approaching the Deity. [115]

1623. The celebrated Hebraist, Joseph Solomon del Medigo (born 1591,
died 1637), a contemporary of the preceding writer, also employed his
vast stores of erudition to expose this system. Having been asked by R.
Serach for his views of the Kabbalah, del Medigo, in a masterly letter,
written in 1623, shows up the folly of this esoteric doctrine, and the
unreasonableness of the exegetical rules, whereby the followers of this
system pretend to deduce it from the Bible. [116]

1635. We have seen that the information about the Kabbalah, which
Mirandola and Reuchlin imparted to Christians, was chiefly derived from
the writings of Recanti and Gikatilla. Now that the Sohar had been
published, Joseph de Voisin determined to be the first to make some
portions of it accessible to those Christian readers who did not
understand the Aramaic in which this Thesaurus is written. Accordingly
he translated some extracts of the Sohar which treat of the nature of
the human soul. [117]

1652–1654. Just at the very time when some of the most distinguished
Jews exposed the pretensions of the Kabbalah, and denounced the
fanciful and unjustifiable rules of interpretation whereby its
advocates tried to evolve it from the letters of the revealed law, the
celebrated Athanasius Kircher, in a most learned and elaborate treatise
on this subject, maintained that the Kabbalah was introduced into Egypt
by no less a person than the patriarch Abraham; and that from Egypt it
gradually issued all over the East, and intermixed with all religions
and systems of philosophy. What is still more extraordinary is that
this learned Jesuit, in thus exalting the Kabbalah, lays the greatest
stress on that part of it which developed itself afterwards, viz., the
combinations, transpositions and permutations of the letters, and does
not discriminate between it and the speculations about the En Soph, the
Sephiroth, &c., which were the original characteristics of this
theosophy. [118] The amount of Eastern lore, however, which Kircher has
amassed in his work will always remain a noble monument to the
extensive learning of this Jesuit.

1645–1676. The wonder-working or practical branch of the Kabbalah
(‏קבלה מעשית‎), as it is called, so elaborately propounded and defended
by Kircher, which consists in the transpositions of the letters of the
sundry divine names, &c., and which as we have seen constituted no part
of the original Kabbalah, had now largely laid hold on the minds and
fancies of both Jews and Christians, and was producing among the former
the most mournful and calamitous effects. The famous Kabbalist,
Sabbatai Zevi, who was born in Smyrna, July, 1641, was the chief actor
in this tragedy. When a child he was sent to a Rabbinic school, and
instructed in the Law, the Mishna, the Talmud, the Midrashim, and the
whole cycle of Rabbinic lore. So great were his intellectual powers,
and so vast the knowledge he acquired, that when fifteen he betook
himself to the study of the Kabbalah, rapidly mastered its mysteries,
became peerless in his knowledge of “those things which were revealed
and those things which were hidden;” and at the age of eighteen
obtained the honourable appellation sage (‏חכם‎), and delivered public
lectures, expounding the divine law and the esoteric doctrine before
crowded audiences. At the age of twenty-four he gave himself out as the
Messiah, the Son of David, and the Redeemer of Israel, pronouncing
publicly the Tetragrammaton, which was only allowed to the high priests
during the existence of the second Temple. Though the Jewish sages of
Smyrna excommunicated him for it, he travelled to Salonica, Athens,
Morea and Jerusalem, teaching the Kabbalah, proclaiming himself as the
Messiah, anointing prophets and converting thousands upon thousands. So
numerous were the believers in him, that in many places trade was
entirely stopped; the Jews wound up their affairs, disposed of their
chattels and made themselves ready to be redeemed from their captivity
and led by Sabbatai Zevi back to Jerusalem. The consuls of Europe were
ordered to enquire into this extraordinary movement, and the governors
of the East reported to the Sultan the cessation of commerce. Sabbatai
Zevi was then arrested by order of the Sultan, Mohammed IV, and taken
before him at Adrianople. The Sultan spoke to him as follows—“I am
going to test thy Messiahship. Three poisoned arrows shall be shot into
thee, and if they do not kill thee, I too will believe that thou art
the Messiah.” He saved himself by embracing Islamism in the presence of
the Sultan, who gave him the name Effendi, and appointed him Kapidgi
Bashi. Thus ended the career of the Kabbalist Sabbatai Zevi, after
having ruined thousands upon thousands of Jewish families. [119]

1677–1684. Whether the learned Knorr Baron von Rosenroth knew of the
extravagances of Sabbatai Zevi or not is difficult to say. At all
events this accomplished Christian scholar believed that Simon b.
Jochai was the author of the Sohar, that he wrote it under divine
inspiration, and that it is most essential to the elucidation of the
doctrines of Christianity. With this conviction he determined to master
the difficulties connected with the Kabbalistic writings, in order to
render the principal works of this esoteric doctrine accessible to his
Christian brethren. For, although Lully, Mirandola, Reuchlin and
Kircher had already done much to acquaint the Christian world with the
secrets of the Kabbalah, none of these scholars had given translations
of any portions of the Sohar.

Knorr Baron von Rosenroth, therefore put himself under the tuition of
R. Meier Stern, a learned Jew, and with his assistance was enabled to
publish the celebrated work entitled the Unveiled Kabbalah (Kabbala
Denudata), in two large volumes, the first of which was printed at
Sulzbach, 1677–78, and the second at Frankfort-on-the-Maine, 1684,
giving a Latin translation of the Introduction to and the following
portion of the Sohar—the Book of Mysteries (‏ספר דצניעותא‎); the Great
Assembly (‏אדרא רבא‎); the Small Assembly (‏אדרא זוטא‎); Joseph
Gikatilla’s Gate of Light (‏שער אורה‎); the Doctrine of Metempsychosis
(‏הגלגולים‎), and the Tree of Life (‏עץ חיים‎), of Chajim Vital; the
Garden of Pomegranates (‏פרדס רימונים‎), of Moses Cordovero; the House
of the Lord (‏בית אלהים‎), and the Gate of Heaven (‏שער השמים‎), of
Abraham Herera; the Valley of the King (‏עמק המלך‎), of Naphtah b.
Jacob; the Vision of the Priest (‏מראה כהן‎), of Issachar Beer b.
Naphtali Cohen, &c., &c., with elaborate annotations, glossaries and
indices. The only drawback to this gigantic work is that it is without
any system, and that it mixes up in one all the earlier developments of
the Kabbalah with the later productions. Still the criticism passed
upon it by Buddeus, that it is a “confused and obscure work, in which
the necessary and the unnecessary, the useful and the useless are mixed
up and thrown together as it were into one chaos,” [120] is rather too
severe; and it must be remembered that if the Kabbala Denudata does not
exhibit a regular system of this esoteric doctrine, it furnishes much
material for it. Baron von Rosenroth has also collected all the
passages of the New Testament which contain similar doctrines to those
propounded by the Kabbalah.

1758–1763. Amongst the Jews, however, the pretensions and consequences
of the Kabbalistic Pseudo-Messiah, Sabbatai Zevi, and his followers,
produced a new era in the criticism of the Sohar. Even such a scholar
and thorough Kabbalist as Jacob b. Zevi of Emden, or Jabez (‏יעב״ץ‎),
as he is called from the acrostic of his name (‏יעקב בן צבי‎),
maintains in his work, which he wrote in 1758–1763, and which he
entitled The Wrapper of Books, that with the exception of the kernel of
the Sohar all the rest is of a late origin. [121] He shows that (1) The
Sohar misquotes passages of Scripture, misunderstands the Talmud, and
contains some rituals which were ordained by later Rabbinic authorities
(‏פוסקים‎). (2) Mentions the crusades against the Mohammedans. (3) Uses
the philosophical terminology of Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew Translation of
Maimonides’ More Nebuchim, and borrows the figure of Jehudah Ha-Levi’s
Khosari, that “Israel is the heart in the organism of the human race,
and therefore feels its sufferings more acutely” (Khosari, ii, 36, with
Sohar, iii, 221 b, 161 a); and (4) Knows the Portuguese and North
Spanish expression Esnoga.

1767. Whilst the Jews were thus shaken in their opinion about the
antiquity of the Sohar, learned Christians both on the Continent and in
England maintained that Simon b. Jochai was the author of the Bible of
the Kabbalah, and quoted its sentiments in corroboration of their
peculiar views. Thus Dr. Gill, the famous Hebraist and commentator, in
his work on the Antiquity of the Hebrew Language, adduces passages from
the Sohar to shew that the Hebrew vowel points were known A.D. 120, at
which time he tells us “lived Simon ben Jochai, a disciple of R. Akiba,
author of the Zohar.” [122]

1830. Allen, in the account of the Kabbalah in his Modern Judaism, also
premises the antiquity of the Sohar. Taking this pseudonym as the
primary source of the primitive Kabbalah, Allen, like all his
predecessors, mixes up the early mysticism and magic, as well as the
later abuse of the Hagadic rules of interpretation, denominated
Gematria, Notaricon, Ziruph, &c., which the Kabbalists afterwards
appropriated, with the original doctrines of this theosophy. [123]

1843. Even the erudite Professor Franck, in his excellent work La
Kabbale (Paris, 1843), makes no distinction between the Book Jetzira
and the Sohar, but regards the esoteric doctrines of the latter as a
development and continuation of the tenets propounded in the former. He
moreover maintains that the Sohar consists of ancient and modern
fragments, that the ancient portions are the Book of Mysteries (‏ספרא
דצניעותא‎), the Great Assembly or Idra Rabba (‏אדרא רבא‎), and the
Small Assembly or Idra Suta (‏אדרא זוטא‎), and actually proceeds from
the school of R. Simon b. Jochai, while several of the other parts
belong to a subsequent period, but not later than the seventh century;
that the fatherland of the Sohar is Palestine; that the fundamental
principles of the Kabbalah, which were communicated by R. Simon b.
Jochai to a small number of his disciples, were at first propagated
orally; that they were then from the first to the seventh century
gradually edited and enlarged through additions and commentaries, and
that the whole of this compilation, completed in the seventh century,
owing to its many attacks on the Asiatic religions, was kept secret
till the thirteenth century, when it was brought to Europe. To fortify
his opinions about the antiquity of the Kabbalah, Franck is obliged to
palm the doctrine of the Sephiroth upon passages in the Talmud in a
most unnatural manner. As this point, however has been discussed in the
second part of this Essay, (vide supra, p. 183, etc.) there is no
necessity for repeating the arguments here. [124] Still Franck’s
valuable contribution to the elucidation of the Sohar will always be a
welcome aid to the student of this difficult book.

1845. A new era in the study of the Kabbalah was created by the
researches of M. H. Landauer, who died February 3rd, 1841, when
scarcely thirty-three years of age. This learned Rabbi, whose premature
death is an irreparable loss to literature, in spite of constitutional
infirmities, which occasioned him permanent sufferings during the short
period of his earthly career, devoted himself from his youth to the
study of Hebrew, the Mishna, the Talmud, and the rich stores of Jewish
learning. He afterwards visited the universities of Munich and
Tübingen, and in addition to his other researches in the department of
Biblical criticism, determined to fathom the depths of the Kabbalah. It
was this scholar who, after a careful study of this esoteric doctrine,
for the first time distinguished between the ancient mysticism of the
Gaonim period and the real Kabbalah, and shewed that “the former, as
contained in the Alphabet of R. Akiba (‏אותיות בר׳ עקיבא‎), the
Dimensions of the Deity (‏שיעור קומה‎), the Heavenly Mansions
(‏היכלות‎), and even the Book of Jetzira (‏ספר יצירה‎) and similar
documents, essentially differ from the later Kabbalah, inasmuch as it
knows nothing about the so-called Sephiroth and about the speculations
respecting the nature of the Deity, and that, according to the proper
notions of the Kabbalah, its contents ought to be described as Hagada
and not as Kabbalah.” [125] As to the Sohar, Landauer maintains that it
was written by Abraham b. Samuel Abulafia towards the end of the second
half of the thirteenth century. Landauer’s views on the Kabbalah and on
the authorship of the Sohar, as Steinschneider rightly remarks, are all
the more weighty and instructive because he originally started with
opinions of an exactly opposite character. (Jewish Literature, p. 299.)

1849. D. H. Joel, Rabbi of Sheversenz, published in 1849 a very
elaborate critique on Franck’s Religious Philosophy of the Sohar, which
is an exceedingly good supplement to Franck’s work, though Joel’s
treatise is of a negative character, and endeavours to demolish
Franck’s theory without propounding another in its stead. Thus much,
however, Joel positively states, that though the Sohar in its present
form could not have been written by R. Simon b. Jochai, and though the
author of it may not have lived before the thirteenth century, yet its
fundamental doctrines to a great extent are not the invention of the
author, but are derived from ancient Jewish sources, either documentary
or oral. [126]

1851. After a lapse of seven years Jellinek fulfilled the promise which
he made in the preface to his German translation of Franck’s la Kabbale
ou la philosophie religieuse des Hébreux, by publishing an Essay on the
authorship of the Sohar. And in 1851 this industrious scholar published
a historico-critical Treatise, in which he proves, almost to
demonstration, that Moses b. Shem Tob de Leon is the author of the
Sohar. [127] Several of his arguments are given in the second part of
this Essay (vide supra, p. 174, &c.), in our examination of the age and
authorship of the Sohar.

1852. Whilst busily engaged in his researches on the authorship and
composition of the Sohar, Jellinek was at the same time extending his
labours to the history of the Kabbalah generally, the results of which
he communicated in two parts (Leipzig, 1852), entitled Contributions to
the History of the Kabbalah. The first of these parts embraces (1) the
study and history of the Book Jetzira, (2) diverse topics connected
with the Sohar, and (3) Kabbalistic doctrines and writings prior to the
Sohar; whilst the second part (1) continues the investigation on the
Kabbalistic doctrines and writings prior to the Sohar, as well as (2)
discusses additional points connected with the Sohar, and (3) gives the
original text to the history of the Kabbalah. [128]

1853. Supplementary to the above works, Jellinek published, twelve
months afterwards, the first part of a Selection of Kabbalistic
Mysticism, which comprises the Hebrew texts of (1) The Treatise on the
Emanations (‏מסכת אצילות‎), (2) The Book of Institutions (‏ספר העיון‎),
by R. Chamai Gaon, (3) The Rejoinder of R. Abraham b. Samuel Abulafia
to R. Solomon b. Adereth, and (4) The Treatise entitled Kether Shem Tob
(‏כתר שם טוב‎), by R. Abraham of Cologne. These Treatises, which are
chiefly taken from MSS. at the public Libraries in Paris and Hamburg,
are preceded by learned Introductions discussing the characteristics,
the age, the authorship and the sources of each document, written by
the erudite editor. [129] May Dr. Jellinek soon fulfil his promise, and
continue to edit these invaluable contributions to the Kabbalah, as
well as publish his own work on the import of this esoteric doctrine.

1856. Dr. Etheridge, in his Manual on Hebrew Literature, entitled
Jerusalem and Tiberias, devotes seventy pages to a description of the
Kabbalah. It might have been expected that this industrious writer, who
draws upon Jewish sources, would give us the result of the researches
of the above-named Hebraists. But Dr. Etheridge has done no such
thing;—he confuses the import of the Book Jetzira, the Maase Bereshith
(‏מעשה בראשית‎) and the Maase Merkaba (‏מעשה מרכבה‎), with the
doctrines of the Kabbalah; and assigns both to the Book Jetzira and to
the Sohar an antiquity which is contrary to all the results of modern
criticism. The following extract from his work will suffice to shew the
correctness of our remarks:—

“To the authenticity of the Zohar, as a work of the early Kabbalistic
school, objections have indeed been made, but they are not of
sufficient gravity to merit an extended investigation. The opinion that
ascribes it as a pseudo fabrication to Moses de Leon in the thirteenth
century, has, I imagine, but few believers among the learned in this
subject in our own day. The references to Shemun ben Yochai and the
Kabala in the Talmud, and abundant internal evidence found in the book
itself, exhibit the strongest probability, not that Shemun himself was
the author of it, but that it is the fruit and result of his personal
instructions, and of the studies of his immediate disciples.” [130]


Now the bold assertion that there are few believers among the learned
of our own time in the pseudo fabrication of the Sohar by Moses de Leon
in the thirteenth century, when such learned men as Zunz, [131] Geiger,
[132] Sachs, [133] Jellinek [134] and a host of other most
distinguished Jewish scholars, regard it almost as an established fact;
as well as the statement that there are references to the Kabbalah in
the Talmud, can only be accounted for from the fact that Dr. Etheridge
has not rightly comprehended the import of the Kabbalah, and that he is
entirely unacquainted with the modern researches in this department of
literature.

1857. The elaborate essay on Jewish literature by the learned
Steinschneider, which appeared in Ersch and Gruber’s Encyclopædia, and
which has been translated into English, contains a most thorough review
of this esoteric doctrine. It is, however, to be remarked that the
pages devoted to this subject give not so much an analysis of the
subject, as a detailed account of its literature; and, like all the
writings of this excellent scholar, are replete with most useful
information. [135]

1858–1861. A most instructive and thorough analysis of the Sohar
appeared in a Jewish periodical, entitled Ben Chananja, volumes i, ii,
iii, and iv. [136] This analysis was made by Ignatz Stern, who has also
translated into German those portions of the Sohar which are called the
Book of Mysteries, the Great Assembly, and the Small Assembly, and has
written a vocabulary to the Sohar. The recent death of this great
student in the Kabbalah is greatly to be lamented. With the exception
of the analysis of the Sohar, all his works are in MS.; and it is to be
hoped that the accomplished Leopold Löw, chief Rabbi of Szegedin, and
editor of the Ben Chananja, who was the means of bringing the retiring
Ignatz Stern into public, will publish his literary remains.

1859. As the Kabbalah has played so important a part in the mental and
religious development, and in the history of the Jewish people, the
modern historians of the Jews, in depicting the vicissitudes of the
nation, felt it to be an essential element of their narrative, to trace
the rise and progress of this esoteric doctrine. Thus the learned and
amiable Dr. Jost devotes seventeen pages, in his history of the Jews,
to this theosophy. [137]

1863. No one, however, has prosecuted with more thoroughness, learning
and impartiality the doctrines, origin and development of this esoteric
system than the historian Dr. Graetz. He, more than any of his
predecessors since the publication of Landauer’s literary remains, has
in a most masterly manner carried out the principle laid down by this
deceased scholar, and has distinguished between mysticism and the
Kabbalah. Graetz has not only given a most lucid description of the
doctrines and import of the Kabbalah in its original form, but has
proved to demonstration, in a very elaborate treatise, that Moses de
Leon is the author of the Sohar. [138] Whatever may be the shortcomings
of this portion of Graetz’s history, no one who studies it will fail to
learn from it the true nature of this esoteric doctrine.

1863. Leopold Löw, the chief Rabbi of Szegedin, whose name has already
been mentioned in connection with Ignatz Stern, published a very
lengthy review of Graetz’s description of the Kabbalah. Though the
Rabbi laboured hard to shake Dr. Graetz’s position, yet, with the
exception perhaps of showing that the Kabbalah was not invented in
opposition to Maimonides’ system of philosophy, the learned historian’s
results remain unassailed. Moreover, there is a confusion of mysticism
with the Kabbalah through many parts of Dr. Löw’s critique. [139]

We are not aware that anything has appeared upon this subject since the
publication of Graetz’s researches on the Kabbalah and Löw’s lengthy
critique on these researches. Of course it is not to be supposed that
we have given a complete history of the Literature on this theosophy;
since the design of this Essay and the limits of the volume of “the
Literary and Philosophical Society’s Transactions,” in which it
appears, alike preclude such a history. This much, however, we may
confidently say, that nothing has been omitted which essentially bears
upon the real progress or development of this esoteric doctrine.

Several works, in which lengthy accounts of the Kabbalah are given,
have been omitted, because these descriptions do not contribute
anything very striking in their treatment of the Kabbalah, nor have
they been the occasion of any remarkable incidents among the followers
of this system.

Among the works thus omitted are Buddeus’ Introduction to the History
of Hebrew Philosophy; [140] Basnage’s History of the Jews, [141] where
a very lengthy account is given of the Kabbalah, without any system
whatever, chiefly derived from the work of Kircher; Wolfs account of
the Jewish Kabbalah, given in his elaborate Bibliographical Thesaurus
of Hebrew Literature, where a very extensive catalogue is given of
Kabbalistic authors; [142] and Molitor’s Philosophy of History. [143]

We sincerely regret to have omitted noticing Munk’s description of the
Kabbalah. [144] For, although he does not attempt to separate the
gnostic from the mystical elements, which were afterwards mixed up with
the original doctrines of this esoteric system, yet no one can peruse
the interesting portion treating on the Kabbalah and the Sohar without
deriving from it information not to be found elsewhere.









NOTES


[1] ‏דע כי אין סוף לא יכנס בהרהור וכל שכן בדבור אף על פי שיש לו רמז בכל
דבר שאין חוץ ממנו ולכך אין אות ואין שם ואין דבר אשר יגבלנו‎, Commentary
of the ten Sephiroth, ed. Berlin, p. 4 a. This doctrine, however, that
everything is in the Deity is not peculiar to the Kabbalah, it has been
propounded by the Jews from time immemorial, before the Kabbalah came
into existence, as may be seen from the following passage in the
Midrash. “The Holy One, blessed be he, is the space of the universe,
but the universe is not his space (‏הקב״ה מקומו של עולם ואין העולם
מקומו‎). R. Isaac submitted: from the passage ‏מעונה אלהי קדם‎ (Deut.
xxxiii, 27), we do not know whether the Holy One, blessed be he, is the
habitation of the universe or the universe his habitation; but from the
remark ‏אדני מעון אתה‎ Lord thou art the dwelling place (Ps. xc, 1), it
is evident that the Holy One, blessed be he, is the dwelling place of
the universe, and not the universe his dwelling place.” (Bereshith
Rabba, § lxviii.) To the same effect is the remark of Philo, “God
himself is the space of the universe, for it is he who contains all
things.” (De Somniis, i.) It is for this reason that God is called
‏מקום‎ or ‏המקום‎ = ὁ τόπος, locus, and that the Septuagint renders
‏ויראו את אלהי ישראל וגו׳‎ (Exod. xxiv, 10), by καὶ εἶδον τὸν τόπον, οὗ
εἱστήκει ὁ θεὸς, which has occasioned so much difficulty to
interpreters.

[2] ‏לא ידע ולא אתידע מה דהוי בראישא דא דלא׳ אתדבק בחכמתא ולא כסוכלתנו
ובגן כן אקרי אין‎ (Sohar iii, 283 b.) To the same effect is the ancient
expository work on the doctrine of the Emanations which we quoted in
the preceding note, comp. ‏מה שאינו מוגבל קרוי אין סוף והוא ההשואה
גמורה באחדות השלמח שאין בה שנוי ואם הוא מבלי גבול אין חוץ ממנו‎,
Commentary on the ten Sephiroth, ed. Berlin, p. 2 a.

[3] ‏דע כי אין סוף אין לומר כי יש לו רצון ולא כונה ולא חפץ ולא מחשבה
ולא דבור ומעשה‎ ibid., 4 a.

[4] ‏אם האמר כי הוא בלבד כיון בבריאח עולמו יש להשיב על זה כי הכונה מורה
על הסרון המכון‎, Commentary on the ten Sephiroth, p. 2 b. Again, says
the same authority, ‏ואם תאמר שהגבול הגמצא ממנו תחלה היה העולם הזה שהוא
(העולם) חסר מהשלמותו חסרת חכוח שהוא ממנו .... ואם תאמר שלא כיון בבריאחו
אם כן היתה הבריאה במקרה, וכל דבר הבא במקרה אין לו סדר, ואנו רואים כי
הנבראים יש לחם סדר, ועל סדר הם מתקימים, ועל סדר הם מתכטלים, ועל סדר הם
מתחדשים‎, ibid., p. 2.

[5] Both the etymology and the exact meaning of the word ‏ספירה‎
(plural ‏ספירות‎) are matters of dispute. R. Azariel, the first
Kabbalist, derives it from ‏ספר‎ to number, whilst the later Kabbalists
derive it alternately from ‏ספיר‎ Saphir, from ‏השמים מספרים כבוד אל‎
(Ps. xix, 1), and from the Greek σφαῖραι, and are not at all certain
whether to regard the Sephiroth as principles (ἀρχαὶ), or as substances
(ὑποστάσεις), or as potencies, powers (δυνάμεις), or as intelligent
worlds (κόσμοι νοητικοί), or as attributes, or as entities (‏עצמות‎),
or as organs of the Deity (‏כלים‎).

[6] The Sohar, like the Talmud, generally renders the words ‏מלך שלמה‎
King Solomon; while verses in the Song of Songs, by ‏מלכא די שלמא
דיליה‎ the King to whom peace belongs.

[7] ‏כי כל בריאה כשנוטלין ממנה תתמעט ותתחסר .... כח האצילות שנוטלין
ממנו ואינו חסר‎, Commentary on the ten Sephiroth, 2 b; 4 a.

[8] ‏הספירות שהם כח השלם וכח החסר כשהם מקבלים מהשפע הבא מהשלמתו הם כח
שלם ובהמנע השפע מהם יש בחם כח חסר לכך יש בהם כח לפעול בהשלמה ובחסרון‎.

[9] The notion, however, that worlds were created and destroyed prior
to the present creation, was propounded in the Midrash long before the
existence of the Kabbalah. Thus on the verse, “And God saw everything
that he had made, and behold it was very good” (Gen. i, 31), R. Abahu
submits ‏א״ר אבהו מכאן שהקב״ה היה בורא עולמות ומחריבן ובורא עולמות
ומחריבן עד שברא את אלו אמר דין הניין לי יתהון לא הניין לי‎ from this we
see that the Holy One, blessed be he, had successively created and
destroyed sundry worlds before he created the present world, and when
he created the present world he said, this pleases me, the previous
ones did not please me. (Bereshith Rabba, section or Parsha ix.)

[10] The question, however, about the doctrine of the Trinity in other
passages of the Sohar will be discussed more amply in the sequel, where
we shall point out the relation of the Kabbalah to Christianity.

[11] The Kabbalistic description of Metatron is taken from the Jewish
angelology of a much older date than this theosophy. Thus Ben Asai and
Ben Soma already regard the divine voice, the λόγος (‏קול אלהים‎) as
Metatron. (Beresh. Rab., Parsha v.) He is called the Great Teacher, the
Teacher of Teachers (‏ספרא רבא‎), and it is for this reason that Enoch,
who walked in close communion with God, and taught mankind by his holy
example, is said by the Chaldee paraphrase of Jonathan b. Uzziel, to
‘have received the name Metatron, the Great Teacher’ after he was
transplanted. (Gen. v, 24.) Metatron, moreover, is the Presence Angel
(‏שר הפנים‎), the Angel of the Lord that was sent to go before Israel
(Exod. xxiii, 21); he is the visible manifestation of the Deity, for in
him is the name of the Lord, i.e., his name and that of the Deity are
identical, inasmuch as they are of the same numerical value
(viz.:—‏שדי‎ and ‏מטטרון‎ are the same according to the exegetical rule
called Gematria, ‏י‎ 10 + ‏ד‎ 4 + ‏ש‎ 300 = 314; ‏ן‎ 50 + ‏ו‎ 6 + ‏ר‎
200 + ‏ט‎ 9 + ‏ט‎ 9 + ‏מ‎ 40 = 314. See Rashi on Exod. xxiii, 21,
‏רבותינו אמרו זה מטטרון ששמו כשם רבו מטטרון בגמטריא שדי‎ and Sanhedrim
38 b). So exalted is Metatron’s position in the ancient Jewish
angelology, that we are told that when Elisha b. Abaja, also called
Acher, saw this angel who occupies the first position after the Deity,
he exclaimed, ‘Peradventure, but far be it, there are two Supreme
Powers’ (‏שמא חס ושלום שתי רשויות הן‎ Talmud, Chagiga, 15 a). The
etymology of ‏מטטרון‎ is greatly disputed; but there is no doubt that
it is to be derived from Metator, messenger, outrider, way maker, as
has been shown by Elias Levita, and is maintained by Cassel (Ersch und
Gruber’s Encyklopädie, section ii, vol. xxvii, s.v.; Juden, p. 40, note
84). Sachs (Beiträge zur Sprach- und Alterthumsforschung, vol. i,
Berlin 1852, p. 108) rightly remarks that this etymology is fixed by
the passage from Siphra, quoted in Kaphter-Va-Pherach, c. x, p. 34 b
‏אצבעו של הקב״ה נעשה מטטרון למשה והראהו כל ארץ ישראל‎ the finger of God
was the messenger or guide to Moses, and showed him all the land of
Israel. The termination ‏ון‎ has been appended to ‏מטטר‎ to obtain the
same numerical value, as ‏שדי‎. The derivation of it from μετὰ θρόνος,
because this angel is immediately under the divine throne (‏כורסייא‎),
which is maintained by Frank (Kabbala, p. 43), Graetz (Gnosticismus, p.
44) and others, has been shown by Frankel (Zeitschrift, 1846. vol. iii,
p. 113), and Cassel (Ersch und Gruber’s Encyklop. section ii, vol.
xxvii, p. 41), to be both contrary to the form of the word and to the
description of Metatron.

[12] The view that the serpent which seduced the protoplasts is
identical with Satan is not peculiar to the Kabbalah. It is stated in
the Talmud in almost the same words ‏הוא יצר הרע הוא השטן הוא מלאך המות
כמתניחא תנא יורד ומטע עולה ומשטין יורד וממים‎ the evil spirit, Satan,
and the angel of death, are the same. It is propounded in the Boraitha
that he descends and seduces; he then ascends and accuses, and then
comes down again and kills. Baba Bathra, 16 a.

[13] ‏כיון דנברא אדם אתתקן כלא וכל מה דלעילא ותתא וסלא אתכליל באדם ...
איהו שלימותא דכלא. זוחר חלק ג׳ דף מ״ח א׳‎

[14] That the righteous are greater than the angels is already
propounded in the Talmud (‏גדולים צדיקים יותר ממלאכי השרת‎ Sanhedrim 93
a); and it is asserted that no one angel can do two things (‏אין מלאך
אחד עושה שתי שליחות‎ Bereshith Rabba, section 1), for which reason
three angels had to be sent, one to announce to Sarai the birth of
Isaac, the other to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, and the third to save
Lot and his family; whilst a man can perform several duties. The
superiority of man over angels is also asserted in the New Testament.
(1 Cor. vi, 3.)

[15] The Karmarthi, who interpreted the precepts of Islamism
allegorically, also maintained that the human body represents the
letters in the name of God. When standing the human body represents an
Elif, when kneeling a Lâm, and when prostrated on the ground a Hê, so
that the body is like a book in which may be read the name Allah. De
Sacy, Introduction à l’Exposé de la Religion des Druzes, pp. 86, 87.
Comp. Frank, Die Kabbala, p. 32.

[16] The pre-existence of the human souls in the celestial regions was
believed by the Jews before the Kabbalah came into vogue. We find this
doctrine in the Book of Wisdom (viii, 20); in Josephus, where we are
told that the Essenes believed ‘that souls were immortal, and that they
descended from the pure air, συμπλέκεσθαι ὥσπερ εἰρκταῖς τοῖς σώμασι,
to be chained to bodies’ (de Bell. Jud. ii, 12); by Philo, who says
‘the air was full of them, and that those which were nearest the earth
κατίασιν ἐκδεθησομέναι σώμασι θνητοῖς, descending to be tied to mortal
bodies, παλινδρομοῦσι αὖθις, return back to bodies, being desirous to
live in them.’ (De Gignat. p. 222, C.; De Somniis, p. 455, D. Comp.
Arnald on the Book of Wisdom, viii, 20, and Whitby on John ix, 2.,
where these quotations and others are given); and in the Talmud where
it is declared that the human souls which are to be born (‏רוחות ונשמות
שעתידין להבראות‎), have their abode in the seventh heaven (Chagiga, 12
b); that they leave gradually the storehouse of souls to people this
earth (‏עד שיכלו כל הנשמוה שבגוף‎ Jebamoth, 62; Aboda Sara, 5; Nidda,
13); and that the Holy One, blessed be he, took counsel with them when
he was about to create the world ‏כנפשתן של צריקין נמלך הקב״ה וברא את
העולם‎ (Bereshith Rabba, section viii).

[17] The notion about the reluctance of the soul to enter into this
world is also not peculiar to the Kabbalah. The most ancient tract of
the Mishna thus speaks of the soul: “Against thy will thou becomest an
embryo, and against thy will thou art born” (‏על כרחך אתה נוצר ועל כרחך
אתה נולד‎ Aboth, iv. 29); on which Bartenora, in his commentary,
remarks: “The soul does not wish to quit the pure abode of the curtain
which encloses the Holy of Holies.”

[18] ‏כל אינון רוחין ונשמתין כלהו כלילן דכר ונוקבא דמתחברן כחדא ואתמסרן
בידא דההוא ממנא שליהא דאתפקר על עדואיהן [עיבוריהן] דבני נשא ולילה שמיה
ובשעהא דנחתין ואתמסרן בידוי מתפדשין ילזמנין דא אקרים מן דא ואחית להו
בבני נשא וכד מטא [מחא] עידן דזווגא דלהון קב״ה דידע אינון רוהין ונשמהין
מחבר לון כדבקדמיתא ומכרזא עלייהו וכד אתחברן אתעגידו חד גופא חד נשמתא
ימינא ישמאלא כדקא חזי ובגין כך אין כל חדש תחת השמש. ואי תימא הא תנינן
לית זווגא אלא לפום עוגדוי ואורהוי דבר נש הכי הוא ודאי. דאי זכי ועובדוי
אתכשרן זכי לההוא דיליה לאתחברא ביד כמה דנפיק. זוהר חלק א דף צא ב‎

[19] ‏בספרא דשלמה מלכא אשכחנא דבשעתא דזווגא אשתכח לתתא שדר קב״ה חד
דיוקנא בפרצופא ד״נ רשימה חקיקה בצולמא וקיימא על ההוא זווגא ואלמלי
אתיהיב רשו לעינא למחמי חמי ב״נ על רישיה חד צולמא רשימא כפרצופא דבר נש
ובההוא צילמא אתברי ב״נ ועד דלא קיימא [ס״א ועד לא קיימא] ההוא צולמא דשדר
ליה מאריה על רישיה וישתכח תמן לא אתברי ב״נ הה״ד ויברא אלקים את האדם
בצלמו. ההוא צלם אזדמן לקבליה עד דנפיק לעלמא כד נפק בההוא צלם אתרבי
בההוא צלם אזיל הה״ד אך בצלם יתהלך איש להאי צלם הוא מלעילא בשעתא דאינון
רוחין נפקין מאתרייהו כל רוחא ורוחא אתתקן קמי מלכא קדישא בתקוני יקר
בפרצופא דקאי׳ בהאי עלמא. ומההוא דיוקנא תקונא יקר נפיק האי צלם. ודא
תליתאה לרוחא ואקדימת בהאי עלמא בשעתא דזווגא אשתכח ולית לך זווגא בעלמא
דלא עלם בגווייהו. זוהר חלק ג דף קד א ,ב‎

[20] The two kinds of faculties, as well as the two sorts of feelings,
are also mentioned in the Talmud. Thus it is said—“All the prophets
looked into the Non-Luminous Mirror, whilst our teacher, Moses, looked
into the Luminous Mirror.” (‏כל הנביאים נסהכלו באספקלריא שאינה מאירה
משה רבינו נסתכל באספקלריא המאידה‎ Jebamoth, 49 b). And again—“Also the
divine service which is engendered by fear and not by love, has its
merit.” (Jerusalem Berachoth, 44; Babylon Sota, 22 a.)

[21] ‏לשם יחוד קב״ה ושכינתה ברחימו ודחילו וברחילו ורחימו ליחרא שם י״ה
בו״ה ביחודא שלים בשם כל ישראל‎

[22] ‏כל נשמתין עאלין בגלגולא ולא ידעין בני נשא אורחוי דקודשא בריך הוא
והיך קיימא טיקלא והיך אתדנו בני נשא בכל יומא ובכל עידן והיך נשמתין
עאלין בדינא עד לא ייתון להאי עלמא והיך עאלין בדינא לבתר דנפקי מהאי
עלמא. כמה גלגולין וכמה עובדין סתימין עבידן קודשא בריך הוא בהדי כמה
נשמתין ערטילאין וכמה רוחין ערטילאין אזלין בההוא עלמא דלא עאלין לפרגודא
דמלכא. וכמה עלמין אתהפך בהו ועלמא דאתהפך בכמה פליאן סתימין ובני נשא לא
ידעין ולא משגיחין וחיך מתגלגלן נשמתין כאבנא בקוספתא כמה דאת אמר ואת נפש
אויביך יקלענה בתוך כף הקלע השתא אית לגלאה דהא כל. זוהר חלק ב׳ דף צט ב׳‎

[23] According to Josephus, the doctrine of the transmigration of souls
into other bodies (μετεμψύχωσις), was also held by the Pharisees (comp.
Antiq. xviii, 1, 3: de Bell. Jud. ii, 8, 14), restricting, however, the
metempsychosis to the righteous. And though the Midrashim and the
Talmud are silent about it, yet from Saadia’s vituperations against it
(‏אבל אומר שמצאתי אנשים ממי שנקראים יהודים אומרים בהשנות וקוראים אותו
ההעתקח‎ Emunoth ve-Deoth, vi, 7; viii, 3) there is no doubt that this
doctrine was held among some Jews in the ninth century of the present
era. At all events it is perfectly certain that the Karaite Jews firmly
believed in it ever since the seventh century. (Comp. Frankel,
Monatschrift, x, 177, &c.) St. Jerome assures us that it was also
propounded among the early Christians as an esoteric and traditional
doctrine which was entrusted to the select few, (abscondite quasi in
foveis viperarum versari et quasi haereditario malo serpere in paucis.
Comp. epist. ad Demedriadem); and Origen was convinced that it was only
by means of this doctrine that certain Scriptural narratives, such as
the struggle of Jacob with Esau before their birth, the reference about
Jeremiah when still in his mother’s womb, and many others, can possibly
be explained. (περὶ ἀρχῶν i, 1, cap. vii; Adver. Celsum, i, 3.)

[24] The notion that the creation is a blessing, and that this is
indicated in the first letter, is already propounded in the Midrash, as
may be seen from the following remark. The reason why the Law begins
with Beth, the second letter of the Alphabet, and not with Aleph, the
first letter, is that the former is the first letter in the word
blessing, while the latter is the first letter in the word accursed,
‏למה בבית מפני שהוא לשון ברכה ולא בא״לף שהוא לשון ארירה‎ (Midrash
Rabba, sec. i).

[25] This view that the mere literal narrative is unworthy of
inspiration, and that it must contain a spiritual meaning concealed
under the garment of the letter, is not peculiar to the Kabbalah. Both
the Synagogue and the Church have maintained the same from time
immemorial. Thus the Talmud already describes the impious Manasseh,
King of Israel, as making himself merry over the narratives of the
Pentateuch and ironically asking (‏מנשוה בן חזקיה שהיה יושב ודורש
בהגדות של דופי אמר וכי לא היה לו למשה לכתוב אלא אחות לוטן תמנע והמנע
היתה פלגש לאליפז וילך ראובן בימי קציר חטים וימצא דודאים בשדה‎), whether
Moses could not find anything better to relate than that “Loton’s
sister was Timna” (Gen. xxxvi, 22); “Timna was the concubine of
Eliphaz” (ibid., v. 12); that “Reuben went in the days of the wheat
harvest, and found mandrakes in the field” (ibid., xxx, 14), &c, &c.
And it is replied that these narratives contain another sense besides
the literal one. (Sanhedrim, 99 b.) Hence the rule (‏כל מה שאירע לאבות
סימן לבנים‎), what happened to the fathers is typical of the children.

[26] Origen’s words are almost literally the same—“Si adsideamus
litterae et secundum hoc vel quod Judaeis, vel quod vulgo videtur,
accipiamus quæ in lege scripta sunt, erubesco dicere et confiteri quia
tales leges dederit Deus: videbuntur enim magis elegantes et
rationabiles hominum leges, verbi gratia vel Romanorum vel
Atheniensium, vel Lacedaemoniorum.” Homil. vii, in Levit. Again, the
same erudite father says, “What person in his senses will imagine that
the first, second, and third day, in connection with which morning and
evening are mentioned, were without sun, moon and stars, nay that there
was no sky on the first day? Who is there so foolish and without common
sense as to believe that God planted trees in the garden eastward of
Eden like a husbandman, and planted therein the tree of life,
perceptible to the eyes and senses, which gave life to the eater
thereof; and another tree which gave to the eater thereof a knowledge
of good and evil? I believe that everybody must regard these as
figures, under which a recondite sense is concealed.” Lib. iv, cap. ii,
περὶ ἀρχῶν. Huet, Origeniana, p. 167. Comp. Davidson, Sacred
Hermeneutics, Edinburgh, 1843, p. 99, &c. It must, however, not be
supposed that this sort of interpretation, which defies all rules of
sound exegesis and common sense, is confined to the ancient Jewish
Rabbins or the Christian fathers. The Commentary on Genesis and Exodus
by Chr. Wordsworth, D.D., Canon of Westminster, may fairly compete in
this respect with any production of bygone days. Will it be believed
that Dr. Wordsworth actually sees it “suggested by the Holy Spirit
Himself,” that Noah drunk, exposing his nakedness, and mocked by his
own child, Ham, is typical of Christ who drank the cup of God’s wrath,
stripped Himself of His heavenly glory, and was mocked by his own
children the Jews? But we must give the Canon’s own words. “Noah drank
the wine of his vineyard; Christ drank the cup of God’s wrath, which
was the fruit of the sin of the cultivators of the vineyard, which he
had planted in the world. Noah was made naked to his shame; Christ
consented for our sake to strip Himself of His heavenly glory, and took
on him the form of a servant. (Phil. ii, 7.) He laid aside his
garments, and washed his disciples’ feet (John, xiii, 4.) He hid not
his face from shame and spitting. (Isa. 1, 6.) When he was on the
Cross, they that passed by reviled Him. (Matt. xxvii, 39.) He was
mocked by His own children, the Jews. He deigned to be exposed to
insult for our sakes, in shame and nakedness on the Cross (Heb. xii,
2), in order that we might receive eternal glory from His shame, and be
clothed through His weakness with garments of heavenly beauty.”
(Commentary on Genesis and Exodus, London, 1864, p. 52.)

[27] The notion that the Bible is to be explained in this fourfold
manner was also propounded by the Jewish doctors generally, long before
the existence of the Kabbalah (Comp. Ginsburg, Historical and Critical
Commentary on Ecclesiastes, Longman, 1861, p. 30), and has been adopted
by some of the fathers and schoolmen. Origen, although only advocating
a threefold sense, viz.:—σωματικὸς, ψυχικὸς, πνευματικὸς, to correspond
to the Platonic notion of the component parts of man, viz.:—σῶμα, ψυχὴ,
πνεῦμα, almost uses the same words as the Kabbalah. “The sentiments of
Holy Scriptures must be imprinted upon each one’s soul in a threefold
manner, that the more simple may be built up by the flesh (or body) of
Scripture, so to speak, by which we mean the obvious explanation; that
he who has advanced to a higher state may be edified by the soul of
Scripture as it were; but he that is perfect, and like to the
individuals spoken of by the Apostle (1 Cor. ii, 6, 7), must be edified
by the spiritual law, having a shadow of good things to come. περὶ
ἀρχῶν, lib. iv, cap. ii. Comp. Davidson, Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 97.
Whilst Nicholas de Lyra, the celebrated commentator and forerunner of
the Reformation (born about 1270, died October 23, 1340), distinctly
espouses the Jewish four modes of interpretation, which he describes in
the following couplet—

       “Littera gesta docet, quid credas Allegoria,
        Moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia.”

Comp. Alexander’s edition of Kitto’s Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature,
s. v. Lyra.

[28] The above-mentioned exegetical canons, however, are not peculiar
to the Kabbalah. They have been in vogue among the Jews from time
immemorial. Thus the difficult passage in Isa. xxi, 8, ‏ויקרא אריה‎
which is rendered in the Authorised Version, and he cried, A lion! or
‘as a lion,’ as the margin has it, is explained by the ancient Jewish
tradition as a prophecy respecting Habakkuk, who, as Isaiah foresaw,
would in coming days use the very words here predicted. (Comp. Isa.
xxi, 8, 9, with Hab. ii, 1); and this interpretation is obtained by
rule i; inasmuch as ‏אריה‎ lion and ‏חבקוק‎ Habakkuk are numerically
the same, viz.:—

	  ‏ה‎   ‏י‎    ‏ר‎     ‏א‎       and ‏ק‎     ‏ו‎   ‏ק‎     ‏ב‎   ‏ח‎
	  5 + 10 + 200 + 1 = 216 and 100 + 6 + 100 + 2 + 8 = 216

(See the Commentaries of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Kimchi on Isa. xxi, 8.)
Again, in the fact that Jacob made Joseph ‘a coat of many colours’
(Gen. xxxvii, 3), as the Authorised Version has it, or ‘pieces,’ as it
is in the margin, the Midrash or the ancient Jewish exposition, sees
the sufferings of Joseph indicated; inasmuch as ‏פסים‎ according to
rule ii, is composed of the initials of ‏פוטיפר‎ Potiphar, who
imprisoned Joseph; ‏סוחרים‎ merchants ‏ישמעאלים‎ Ishmaelites and
‏מדינים‎ Midianites, who bought him and sold him again as a slave.
(Gen. xxxvii, 25–28; xxxix, 1; comp. Rashi on Gen. xxxvii, 3.) For more
extensive information on this subject, we must refer to Ginsburg’s
Historical and Critical Commentary on Ecclesiastes, Longman, 1861, p.
30, &c.

[29] The limits of this Essay preclude the possibility of entering into
a disquisition on the seventy-two Divine names. Those who wish to
examine the subject more extensively we must refer to the Commentaries
on the Sohar (Exod. xiv. 19–31), mentioned in the third part of this
Essay; and to Bartolocci, Bibliotheca Magna Rabbinica, Pars iv, p. 230
seq., where ample information is given on this and kindred subjects.

[30] ‏יחודא רכל יוכמא איחו יחודא למנרע ולשואח רעותא. יחודא דא חא אמרן
בכמח דוכתי יחודא דכל יומא איחו יחיד דקרא ידו״ד קימאה אלחינו ידו״ד חא
כלחו חד וע״ד קרי אחד. חא תלת שמחן חיך אינון חד ואף על גנ דקרינן אחד חיך
אינון חד אלא בחויונא דרוח קרשא אתידע ואינון בחיזו דעינא סתימא למנדע
דתלתא אלין אחד. ודא איחו רזא דקול, דאשתמע קול איחו וזר ואייחו תלתא
גוונין, אשא ורוחא ומיא וכלחו חז ברזא רקול ולאו אינון אלא חד. אוף הכא
י״י אכהינו י״י אונון חד, תלתא גוונין ואינון חד. ורא איהו קיל דעביד בר
נש ביחודא ולשואח רעותיה ביהודא דכלא מאין טות עד סופא. דכלא באאי קול דקא
עביד בחני תלתא דאינון חד, ודא איהו יחודא דכל יומא דאתגלי ברזא דרוח
קדשא. וכמה גוונין דיחודא אתערו וכלהו קשוט מאן דעביד האי עביד ומאן דעביד
האי עביד, אבל האי יחודא דקא אנן מתערי מתתא ברזא דקול דאיהו הד, דא הוא
ברירא דמלה. זוהר הלצ ב׳ דף מ״ג ב׳‎

[31] ‏רבי אלעזר הוה יתיב קמיה דר״ש אבוי אמר ליה הא תנינן אלהים בכל אתר
דינא הוא, יו״ד ה״א וא״ו ה״א אית אתר דאקרי אלהים כגון אדני יהוה, אמאי
אקרי אלהים והא אתוון רחמי אינון בכל אתר אמר ליה הכי הוא כתיב בקרא,
דכתיב וידעת היום והשבות אל לבבך כי י״י הוא האלהים, וכתיב י״י הוא
האלהים. אמר ליה מלה דא ידענא דבאתר דאית דינא אית רחמי, ולזמנא באתר דאית
רחמי אית דינא אמר ִיה תא חזי דהכי הוא ידו״ד בכל אתר רחמי ובשעתא דמהפכי
חייביא רחמי לדינא כדין כתיב יהוה וכרינן ליה אלהים, אבל תא חזי רזא דמלה
ג׳ דרגין אינון וכל דרגא ודרגא בלחודוי ואענ׳ דכלא חד ומתכשרי בחד ולא
מתפרשי דא מן דא: זוהר חלק ג׳ דף ס׳ה א׳‎

[32] ‏מאן דאמר אחד אצטריך לחיפא אל״ף ולקצרא קריאה דילה ולא יעכב בהאי
אות כלל. ומאן דעביד דא יתארכון חייו אמרו ליה תו אמר תרינאינון וחדא
אשתתף בהו ואינון תלתא וכד הוו תלתא אינון חד. אמר לון אלין תרין שמהן
דשמע ישראל דאינון יהוה יהוה אלהינו אשתתף בהו ואיהו חותמא דגושפנכא אמת,
וכד מתחברן כחדא אינון חד ביחודא חדא: זוהר חלק ג׳ דף קס״ב א׳‎

[33] Comp. Galatinus, De Arcanis Cathol. lib. ii, c. 3, p. 31; who says
that some Codices of the Chaldee paraphrase in Isa. vi, 3, had also
‏קדיש אבא קדיש בריא קדיש‎ ‏רוחא קדישא‎ the Holy Father, the Holy Son,
and the Holy Ghost; see also Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebreca i, 1136; Graetz,
Geschichte der Juden vii, 249.

[34] Comp. Joel, Die Religionsphilosophie des Sohar. Leipzig, 1849, p.
240 ff.

[35] ‏בשעתא דיתפסין צדיקייא במרעין או במכתשין בגין לכפרא על עלמא היו,
כדין יתכפרון כל חובי דרא. מנלן מכל שייפי גופא. בשעתא דכל שייפין בעקאו
ומרע סגי שרייא עלייהו שייפא חדא אצטריך לאלקאה בגין דיתסון כלהו. ומנו
דרועה. דרועא אלקי ואפיקו מניה דמא כדין הא אסוותא לכל שייפי גופא. אוף
הכי בני עלמא אינון שייפין דא עם דא. בשעתא דבעי קב.״ה למיהב אסוותא לעלמא
אלקי לחד צדיקא בינייהו במרעין ובמכתשין ובגיניה יהיב אסוותא לכלא מנלן
דכתיב והוא מחולל מפשעינו מדוכא מעוונותיינו וגו׳ ובחברתי נרפא לנו
ובחברתו אקזותא דדמא מכאן דאקיז דרועא, ובההוא חבורה נרפא לנו אסוותא הוא
לנו לכל שייפין דגופא: זוהר חלק ג׳ דף רי״ח א׳‎

[36] ‏אנון נשמתין דבגנתא דעדן לתתא .... משטטי ומסתכלן באינון מאריהון
דכאבין ובני מרעין ואנון דסבלין על יחודא דמאריהון ותאבין ואמרין ליה
למשיהא בשעתא דאמרין ליה למשיחא צערא דישראל בגלותהון ואינון חייביא די
בהון דלא מסתכלי למנדע למאריהון׳ ארים קלא ובכי על אינון חייבין דבהו הה״ד
והוא מחולל מפשעינו מדוכא מעונותינו. תייבין אינון נשמתין וקיימין
באתרייהו. בגנתא דעדן אית היכלא חדא דאקרי היכלא דבני מרעין׳ כדין משיח
עאל בההו היכלא וקארי לכל מרעין וכל כאבין כל יסוריהון דישראל דייתון עליה
וכלהו אתיין עליה ואלמלא דאיהו אקיל מעלייהו דישראל ונטיל עליה׳ לא הוי בר
נש דיכיל למסבל יסוריהון דישראל על עונשי דאוריתא. הה״ד אכן חליינו הוא
נשא וגו׳ ... כד הוו ישראל בארעא קדישא באינון פולחנין וקרבנין דהוו עבדי
הוו מסלקין כל אינין מרעין ויסורין מעלמא. השתא משיח מסלק לון מבני עלמא:
זוהר חלק ב׳ דף ריב א׳‎

[37] Comp. Peter Beer, Geschichte der religiösen Secten der Juden.
Berlin, 1822–23, vol. ii, p. 309, &c.

[38] ‏ולא ידעתי אם ימחול יי לאשר הדפיסם אותם הספרים‎ Comp. ‏ארי נוהם‎
ed. Fürst, Leipzig, 1840, p. 7.

[39] ‏ספר יצירה והוא לאברהם .... הורה על אלהותו ואחדותו בדברים מתחלפים
מתרבים מצד אבל הם מתאחדים נסכמים מצד אחר והסכמתם מצד האחד אשר יסדרם
מהם: כוזרי מאמר רביעי כ״ה‎

[40] It is for this reason that the Book Jetzira is also called ‏אותיות
באברהם אבינו‎ The Letters or Alphabet of the Patriarch Abraham.

[41] ‏בשלשים ושתים פליאות חכמח חקק יה יהוה צבאות אלהי ישראל אלהים חיים
ומלך עולם אל רחום וחנון רם ונשא שוכן עד מרום וקדוש שמו בשלשה ספרים בספר
וספר וסיפור: ספר יצירה פרקי א׳ משנה א׳‎

[42] ‏אחת רוח אלהים חיים ברוך ומבורך שמו של חי העולמים קול ורוח ודיבור
וזח רוח חקדוש: פרץ א׳ משנה ט׳‎

[43] ‏שתים רוח מרוח חקק וחצב בה עשרים רשתים אותיות יסוד שלש אמות ושבעה
כפולות ושנים עשר פשוטות ורוח אחת מהן: שלש מים מרוח חקק וחצב בהן תהו
ובהו רפש וטיט חקקן כמין ערוגה חציבן כמין חומה סככן כמין מעזיבה: ארבע אש
ממים חקק וחצב בה כסא הכבוד ואופנים ושרפים וחיות הקדש ומלאכי השרת
ומשלשתן יסד מעונו שנאמר עשה מלאכיו רוחות משרתיו אש לוהט: פרק א׳ משנה ט׳
וי׳‎

[44] ‏עשרים ושתים אותיות יסוד חקקן חצבן שקלן והמירן צרפן צר בהם נפש כל
היצור ונפש כל העתיר לצור: פרק שני שנה ב׳‎

[45] ‏כיצד שקלן והמירן אלף עם כולם וכולם עם אלף, בית עם כולם וכולם עם
בית וחוזרת חלילה נמצא כל היצור וכל הדבור יוצא בשם אחד: פרק שני משנה ד׳‎

[46] ‏שתי אותיות בונות שתי בתים שלושה בונות ששה בתים ארבעה בונות ארבע
ועשרים בתים חמש בונות מאה ועשרים בתים שש בונות שבע מאות ועשרים בתים
מכאן ואילך צא וחשוב מה שאין הפה יכולה לדבר ואץ האוזן יכולה לשמוע: פרק
ד׳ משנה ד׳‎

[47] ‏עדים נאמנים עולם שנה נפש: פרק ו׳ משנה א׳‎

[48] ‏אחד על גבי שלשה שלשה על גבי שבעה שבעה על גבי שנים עשר וכולן
אדוקין זה בזה: פרק ו׳ משנה ג׳‎

[49] ‏תלי בעולם כמלך על כסאו גלגל בשנה כמלך במדינה לב בנפש כמלך במלחמה‎

[50] ‏שנים עשר עומדים במלחמה שלשה אוהבים שלשה שנאים שלשה מחיים שלשה
ממיתים שלשה אוהבים הלב והאזנים והפה שלשה שונאים הכבד המרה והלשון ואל
מלך נאמן מושל בכולן אחד על גבי שלשה שלשה על גבי שבעה שבעה על גבי שנים
עשר וכולן אדוקין זה בזה: פרק ו׳ משנה ג׳‎

[51] Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden. Berlin, 1832, p. 165,
&c.

[52] ‏רב חנינה ורב אושעיא דכל מעלי שבתא הוו עסקי בהלכות יצירה ומיברי
להו עיגלא תילתא ואכלי לי: סנהדרין ס״ו ב׳‎

[53] ‏אמר ר׳ יהושוע בן חנניא יכיל אנא על ידי ספר יצירה נסיב קתיין
ואבטיחין ועבידלון איילין טבין והידנון עבידין איילין וטבין:‎

[54] Der Israelitische Volkslehrer, vol. ix. Frankfort-on-the-Maine,
1859, p. 364, &c.

[55] For those who should wish to prosecute the study of the
metaphysical Book Jetzira, we must mention that this Treatise was first
published in a Latin translation by Postellus, Paris, 1552. It was then
published in the original with five commentaries, viz., the spurious
one of Saadia Gaon, one by Moses Nachmanides, one by Eleazer Worms, one
by Abraham b. David, and one by Moses Botarel. Mantua, 1565. Another
Latin version is given in Jo. Pistorii artis cabalisticae scriptorum,
1587, Tom. l, p. 869 seq. which is ascribed to Reuchlin and Paul Ricci;
and a third Latin translation, with notes and the Hebrew text, was
published by Rittangel, Amsterdam, 1662. The Book is also published
with a German translation and notes, by John Friedrich v. Meyer,
Leipzig, 1830. As useful helps to the understanding of this difficult
Book we may mention The Kusari of R. Jehudah Ha-Levi, with Cassel’s
German version and learned annotations, Part iv. chap 25, p. 344. &c.,
Leipzig, 1853; Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden (Berlin,
1832), p. 165, &c.; Graetz, Gnosticismus und Judenthum (Krotoshin,
1846), p. 102, &c.; Jellinek, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kabbala, Part
i (Leipzig, 1852). p. 3, &c. Comp. also Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, vol
i., p. 23, &c., vol. ii., p. 1196, vol. iii, p. 17, vol. iv. p. 753,
&c.; Philosophie der Geschichte, vol. i, 2nd ed. (Münster, 1857), p.
63. &c.; Steinschneider, Jewish Literature (London, 1857), pp. 107,
302, &c.; and by the same author, Catalogus Libr. Hebr. in Bibliotheca
Bodleiana, col. 552.

[56] The Sohar was first published by Da Padova and Jacob b. Naphtali,
3 vols. 4to, Mantua, 1558–1560, with an Introduction by Is. de Lattes;
then again in Cremona, 1560, fol.; Lublin, 1623, fol.; then again
edited by Rosenroth, with the variations from the works Derech Emeth,
and with the explanation of the difficult words by Issachar Bär, an
Index of all the passages of Scripture explained in the Sohar, and with
an Introduction by Moses b. Uri Sheraga Bloch, Sulzbach, 1684, fol.;
with an additional Index of matters, Amsterdam, 1714, 3 vols. 8vo;
ibid. 1728; 1772, and 1805. The references in this Essay are to the
last mentioned edition. It must, however, be remarked that most of the
editions have the same paging. Comp. Steinschneider, Catalogus Libr.
Hebr. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, Col., 537–545; Fürst, Bibliotheca
Judaica, iii, 329–385.

[57] ‏וכך אטררנא לכו רבי אבא יכתוב ורבי אלעזר ברי ילעי ושאר חברייה
ירחשון בלבייהו: זוהר חלק ג׳ דף רפ ז ב׳:‎
[58] ‏אסהדנה עלי שמייא עלאין דעלאין וארעה קדישה עלאה דעלאה דאנא חמי
השתא מה דלא חמא בר נש מיומה דסליק משה זמנה תניינא לטורא דסיני דאנא
חמינא אנפאי נהירין כנהורא דשמשא תקיפא דזמין למיפק באסוותא לעלמא דכתיב
וזרחה לכם יראי שמי שמש צדקה ומרפה בכנפיה: ועוד דאנא ידענא דאנפאי נהירין
ומשה לא ידע ולא אסתכל הה״ד ומשה לא ידע כי קרן עור פניו: זוהר חלק ג״ דף
קל׳ב ב׳:‎

[59] ‏כתיב יראה כל זכורך אל פני האדון ה׳ מאן פני האדון ה׳ דא רשב״י דמאן
דאיהו דכורא מן דכרניא בעי לאתחזאה קמיה: זוהר חלק ב׳ דף לח א׳:‎

[60] Comp. Alexander’s edition of Kitto’s Cyclopædia of Biblical
Literature, s.v. Mocha.

[61] Comp. Sachs, Die religiöse Poesie der Juden in Spanien, Berlin,
1845, p. 229, note 2.

[62] For a description of the Mezuza, which consists of a piece of
parchment, whereon is written Deut. vi, 4–9; xi, 13–21, put into a reed
or hollow cylinder, and affixed to the right hand door-post of every
door in the houses of the Jews, see Alexander’s edition of Kitto’s
Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature, s.v. Mezuza.

[63] Comp. Nissen, in the collection of various Hebrew Dissertations,
entitled ‏ציון‎, edited by Jost and Creizenach, vol. ii,
Frankfort-on-the-Maine, 1842–43, p. 161, &c.

[64] ‏ושכינתא נוגה ונוגה לאש ומהכא קרי לבי כנישתא אש נוגה: זוהר חלק ג׳
דף רפ׳א א׳‎

[65] ‏ווי על ההוא זמנא דאתיליד ישמעאל בעלמא ואתגזר. מה עבר קב״ה ארחיק
להו לבני ישמעאל מדבקותא דלעילא ויהב להו חולקא לתתא בארעא קדישא בגין
ההוא גזירו דבהון וזמינין בן ישמעאל למישלט בארעא קדישא כד איהי ריקניא
מכלא זמנ׳ סגי כמה דגזירו דלהון בריקניא בלא שלימו: ואינון יעכבון להון
לבנ׳י לאתבא לדוכתייהו עד דישתלים ההוא זכותא דבני ישמעאל: וזמינין בני
ישמעאל לאתערה קרבין תקיפין בעלמא ולאתכנשא בני אדום עלייהו ויתערון קרבא
בהו חד על ימא וחד על יבשא וחד סמוך לירושלים וישלטון אלין באלין וארעא
קדישא לא יתמסר לבני אדום: זוהר חלק ב׳ דף לב א׳‎

[66] ‏תנן זמין קב״ה למבני ירושלים ולאחזאה חד ככבא קביעא מנצצא בע׳ רהטין
ובע׳ זקין נהרין מניה באמצעות רקיעא וישתאבון ביה ע׳ ככבין אחרנין ויהא
נהיר ולהיט ע׳ יומין וביומא שתיתאה יתחזי בכ״ה יומין לירחא שתיתאה
[שביעאה] ויתכניש ביומה שביעאה לסוף ע׳ יומין יומא קדמאה יתחזי בקרתא
דרומי וההוא יומא ינפלון ג׳ שורין עלאין מההיא קרתא דרומי והיכלא רברבא
ינפול ושליטא דההוא קרתא ימות: זוהר חלק ג׳ דף רי׳ב ב׳:‎

[67] Comp. Beer, in Frankel’s Monatschrift für Geschichte und
Wissenschaft des Judenthums, vol. v, Leipzig, 1856, p. 158–160.

[68] ‏וכד ייתי אלף שתיתאה דאיהו רזא דוא״ו כדין וא״ו יוקים לה״א, בזמנא
שית זמנין עשר שיתין נפש כדין שלימו וא״ו עשר זמנין וא״ו שית זמנין עשר.
(דוא״ו) וא״ו סלקא (בעשר) בי׳ וא״ ונחתא בה״א אשתלים וא״ו גו עשר שית
זמנין כדין הוו שיתין לאקמא מעפרא: זוהר הלק א׳ דף קי׳ו ב׳ קי׳ז ב׳‎

[69] Steinschneider, in Ersch und Gruber’s Encyklopädie, section II,
vol. xxxi, p. 101; and Jewish Literature, Longman, 1857, p. 113.

[70] ‏בחדש אדר כתב ר׳ יצחק דמן עכו כי עכו נחרבה בשנת חמשים לפרט ושנהרגו
חסידי ישראל שם בד׳ מיתות ב״ד׳ ובשנת ס״ה היה זה ר׳ יצחק דמן עכו בנבארה
באיטאליה וניצל מעכו ובשנת ס״ה עצמה בא לטוליטולה, ומצאתי בספר דברי הימים
שלו ר״ל מר׳ יצחק דמן עכו הוא שעשה ספר קבלה בשנת חמלאך ונחרבה בזמנו עכו
ונשבו כולם בזמן בן בנו של הרמב״ן ובזמן בן ר׳ דוד בן אברהם בן הרמב״ם
ז״לי והוא הלך לספרד לחקור כיצד נמצא בזמנו ספר הזוהר אשר עשה ר׳ שומעון
ור׳ אלעזר בנו במערה אשרי הזוכים לאמתתו׳ באורו יראו אור: ואמרי לאמתתו,
מפני שזייף מקצת אשר זייף.  ואמר שקבל כי מה שנמצא בלשון ירושלמי האמין כי
הם דברי ר׳ שמעון. ואם תראה בלשון קדש האמן כי אינם דבריו רק דברי המזייף
מפני שהספר האמתי הוא בלשון ירושילמי כלו וז״ל: ומפני שראיתי כי דבריו
מופלאים ישאבו ממקור העליון המעיין המשפיע בלתי מקבלת בשכמל״ו, רדפתי
אחריו ואשאלה את התלכמידים הנמצאים בידם דברים גדולים ממנו מאין בא להם
סודות מופלאים מקובלים מפה אל פה אשר לא נתנו ליכתב ונמצאו שם מבוארים לכל
קורא ספר. ולא מצאתי תשובותיהם על שאלתי זאת מכוונות׳ זה אומר בכה וזה
אומר בכה: שמעתי אומרים לי על שאלתי כי הרב הנאמן הרמב״ן ז״ל שלח אותו
מארץ ישראל לקטלוניא לבנו והביאו הרוח לארץ ארגון וי״א לאלקנטי ונפל ביד
החכם ר׳ משה די ליאון הוא שאומרים עליו ר׳ משה דיודאל חגארה. וי״א שמעולם
לא חבר רשב״י ספר זה, אבל ר׳ משה זה היה יודע שם הכותב ובכחו יכתוב ר׳ משה
זה דברים נפלאים אלה, ולמען יקח בהם מחיר גדול כסף וזהב רב תולה דבריו
באשלי רברבי ואמר מתוך הספר אשר חבר רשב״י ור׳ אלעזר בנו וחבריו אני מעתיק
להם דברים אלו. ואני בבואי ספרדה ואבא אל עיר ואלדוליד אשר המלך (שם)
ואמיצא שם לר׳ משה זה ואמצא חן בעיניו וידבר עמי וידר לי וישבע לאמר: כה
יעשה לי אלקים וכה יוסיף אם לא הספר הקדמון אשר חבר רשב״י אשר הוא היום
בביתי במדינת ישבילי היא אוילה בבואך אלי שם אראך. ויהי אחר הדברים האלה
נפרד ממני וילך ר׳ משה זח אל עיר ארבלא לשוב אל ביתו לאוילא ויחלה בארבלא
וימת שם, וכשמעי הבשורה היטב חרה לי עד מות ואצא ואשים לדרך פעמי ואבא אל
אוילא ומצאתי שם חכם גדול וזקן ושמו ר׳ דוד דאפן קורפו ואמצאה חן בעיניו
ואשביעהו לאמר: הנתבררו לו סודות ספר הזוהר שבני אדם נחלקים זה אומר בכה
וזה אומר בכה ור׳ משה עצמו נדר לי (לתת) אלי ולא הספיק עד שמת ואיני יודע
על מי אסמוך ולדברי מי אאמין. ויאמר דע באמת כי נתברר לי בלא ספק שמעולם
לא בא לידו של ר׳ משה זה, ואין בעולם ספר זוהר זה רק היה ר׳ משה בעל שם
הכותב ובכחו כתב כל מה שכתב בספר הזה. ועתה שמע נא באיזה דרך נתברר לי: דע
כי ר׳ משה זה היה מפזר גדול ומוציא בעין יפה ממונו עד שהיום הזה ביתו מלא
כסף וזהב שנתנו לו העשירים המבינים בסודות גדולים אלא (אלו) אשר יתן להם
כתובים בשם הכותב ומחר נתרוקן כלו עד שעזב אשתו ובתו הנה ערומות שרויות
ברעב ובצמא ובחוסר כל. וכששמענו שמת בעיר ארבולו ואקום ואלך אל העשיר
הגדול אשר בעיר הזאת הנקרא ר׳ יוסף די אוילה ואומר לו: עתה הגיע העת אשר
תזכה לספר הזוהר אשר לא יערכנו זהב וזכוכית אם תעשה את אשר איעצך. ועצתי
היא זאת: שיקרא ר׳ יוסף זה לאשתו ויאמר לה קחי נא מנחה נאה ביד שפחתך
ושלחי אותה לאשת ר׳ משה ותעש כן: ויהי ממחרת ויאמר עוד לה לכי נא ביתה אשת
ר׳ משה ואמרי לה דעי כי רצוני הוא להשיא את בתך לבני ואליך לא יחסר לחם
לאכל ובגד ללבוש כל ימיך ואין אני מבקשת ממך דבד בעולם רק ספר הזוהר אשר
היה אישך מעתיק ממנו ונותן לבני אדם דברים אלה תאמרי לה לבד ולבתה לבד
ותשמיעי את דבריהם אשר יענוכה ונראה היהיו מכוונים אם לא. ותלך ותעש כן.
ותען אשת ר׳ משה ותשבע לאשת ר׳ יוסף לאמר כה יעשה לי אלקים וכה יוסיף אם
מעולם ספר זה היה עם אישי אבל מראשו ולבו מדעתו ושכלו כתב כל מה שכתב.
ואומרה לו בראותי אותו כותב מבלעדי דבר לפניו: מדוע תאמר שאתה מעתיק מספר
ואתה אין לך ספר רק מראשך אתה כותב הלא נאה לך לאמר כי משכלך אתה כותב
ויותר יהיה כבוד לך, ויען אלי ויאמר: אלו אודיע להם סודי זה שמשכלי אני
כותב לא ישגיחו בדברי ולא יתנו בעבורם פרוטה כי יאמרו כי מלבו הוא בודה
אותם, אבל עתה כאשר ישמעו שמתוך ספר הזוהר אשר חבר רשב״י ברוח הקדש אני
מעתיקם יקנו אותם בדמים יקרים כאשר עיניך רואות:‎

[71] Moses ben Schem-Tob de Leon, und sein Verhältniss zum Sohar, von
Adolph Jellinek, Leipzig, 1851, p. 21–36. Jellinek also gives
additional information on this subject in his other contributions to
the Kabbalah which will be found mentioned in the third part of this
Essay.

[72] Comp. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, vol. vii, Leipzig, 1863, p.
498, where other facts are given, proving that Moses de Leon is the
author of the Sohar.

[73] ‏פירוש עשר ספירות על דרך שאלח ותשובח‎ Commentary on the Ten
Sephiroth, by way of Questions and Answers. This commentary was first
known through the Kabbalistic works of Meier Ibn Gabbai, entitled ‏דרך
אמונה‎, The Path of Faith, printed in Padua, 1563, and ‏עבדת הקדש‎, The
Service of Holiness, also called ‏מראות אלהים‎, The Vision of the Lord,
first printed in Mantua, 1545; then Venice, 1567, and Cracow, 1578. It
was then published in Gabriel Warschawer’s volume entitled A Collection
of Kabbalistic Treatises (‏ספר לקוטים בקבלה‎), Warsaw, 1798; and has
recently been published in Berlin, 1850. It is to this Berlin edition
that the references in this Essay are made.

[74] The above analysis is taken from Dr. Jellinek’s Beiträge zur
Geschichte der Kabbalah. Erstes Heft. Leipzig, 1852. This erudite
scholar also gives some additional information on R. Azariel in the
second part of his Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kabbalah, p. 32, &c.
Leipzig, 1852.

[75] ‏וקבלה שבידינו על היות אלו החכמים משלשלת קבלה מעשה מרכבה מסיני עד
עמוד הימיני החסיד ר יצחק סגי נהור בן הקדוש ר׳ אברהם שבבקרש [שבפושקירש]‎
This passage from Gikatilla’s ‏פירוש ההגדה‎ which is contained in Moses
de Leon’s ‏ספר הנפש החכמה‎ is quoted by Graetz, Geschichte der Juden,
vol. vii, p. 444.

[76] ‏ר׳ יצחק סגא נהור אבי הקבלה‎ Comp. Commentary on Pericope ‏וישלח‎
ed. Lemberg, 1811.

[77] In his Super-Commentary on Nachmanides’ Treatise on Secrets,
(‏סודות הר״מבן‎) entitled ‏כתר שם טוב‎ or ‏ספר שם טוב‎ Shem Tob Ibn
Gaon on Pericope ‏וישלח‎ remarks as follows ‏כי פירוש פסוק זה הוא איש
מפי איש עד ר׳ יצחק בן הרב [ראב״ד] עד אליהו הנביא‎ In another
Kabbalistic work, entitled ‏בדי הארון ומגדל חננאל‎ which he completed
at Tafet in 1355, he says—‏ורבי עזרא ורבי עזריאל מגירונה חברו פירוש
ההגדות על פי קבלה והוסיף עזרא לחבר פירוש התפילות.... כמו שקבלו מרבי
יצחק סגי נהור‎ These two works are still in MS, and the quotations are
given in Cormoly’s Itinéraris, p. 276, and in Graetz’s Geschichte der
Juden, vol. vii, p. 445.

[78] ‏ודע כי האין סוף אשר זכרנו איננו רמוז לא בתורה ולא בנביאים ולא
בכתובים ולא בדברי ר״זל אך קבלו בו בעלי העבודה קצת רמז‎ Comp. ‏מערכת
אלהות‎ cap. vii, 32 b, ed. Mantua, 1558.

[79] Comp. More Nebuchim, part 1, cap. lxii.

[80] ‏רחכמי הסחקר מודים בדבר ואומרים כי אין השנתנו כי אם על דרך לא‎
Commentary on the ten Sephiroth, 2 a.

[81] Proclus, Inst. Theol. 7, 31; Smith, Dictionary of Roman and Greek
Biography and Mythology, s.v. Proclus.

[82] Comp. Geschichte der Juden, vol. vii, p. 110, &c.

[83] Vide Ibn Jachja, Shalsheleth Ha-Kabbalah; Graetz, Geschichte der
Juden, vii, 88, &c.

[84] ‏עוד יש בידינו קבלה של אמת כי כל התורה כולה שמותיו של הקב״ה
שהתיבו׳ מתחלקות לשמות בענין אחר כאלו תחשוב על דרך משל כי פסוק בראשית
יתחלק לתיבות אחרות כגון בראש יתברא אלהים וכל התורה כי מלבד צירופיהן
וגימטריותיהן של שמות.‎

[85] This remarkable Treatise was first published by R. Abraham, Vilna,
1802; it was then reprinted with all its faults in Lemberg, 1850. The
erudite and indefatigable Dr. Jellinek has now reprinted it in his
Auswahl kabbalistischer Mystik, part i, Leipzig, 1853, and the above
analysis is from the Introduction to this excellent edition.

[86] Steinschneider, Catalogus Libr. Hebr. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana,
2677–2680. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, vii, 218, &c.

[87] Comp. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kabbala, von Adolph Jellinek,
part ii, Leipzig, 1852, p. xiii, &c.

[88] Comp. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, vol. vii, p. 221, &c.

[89] This will be seen from the reduction of the respective names to
their numerical value by the rule Gematria, viz.:—

       ‏ל‎ 30 + ‏א‎ 1 + ‏י‎ 10 + ‏ז‎ 7 + ‏ר‎ 200       = 248;
       ‏ו‎ 6 + ‏ה‎ 5 + ‏י‎ 10 + ‏ר‎ 200 + ‏כ‎ 20 + ‏ז‎ 7 = 248;
       and ‏ם‎ 40 + ‏ה‎ 5 + ‏ר‎ 200 + ‏ב‎ 2 + ‏א‎ 1    = 248.

[90] This Epistle of Abulafia has been published by Jellinek in his
Auswahl kabbalistischer Mystik, part i. p. 13, &c., Leipzig, 1853, who
also gives the above analysis, which we have translated as literally as
possible.

[91] Comp. Jellinek, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kabbala, part ii, p.
60, &c.; Steinschneider, Catalogus Libr. Hebr. in Bibliotheca
Bodleiana, Col. 1461–1470.

[92] Comp. Tennemann, Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. viii. p. 837.

[93] Dicitur haec doctrina Kabbala quod idem est secundum Hebraeos ut
receptio veritatis cujuslibet rei divinitus revelatae animae
rationali.... Est igitur Kabbala habitus anima rationalis ex rectâ
ratione divinarum rerum cognitivus; propter quod est de maximo etiam
divino consequutive divina scientia vocari debet. Comp. De Auditu
Kabbalistico, sive ad omnes scientias introductorium. Strasburg, 1651.

[94] For the other works of Recanti, both published and unpublished, as
well as for the exact date of his literary labours, we must refer to
Steinschneider, Catalogus Libr. Hebr. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, Col.
1733–1737; and to Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, vol. iii, pp. 135, 136.

[95] The MS. of Ibn Wakkar’s Treatise is minutely described by Uri (No
384). It is written in a character resembling the later German Hebrew,
is furnished with references to the passages in the Bible and verbal
translations in Latin, and contains such clerical blunders as no Hebrew
copyist would commit. The above analysis of it is taken from the
article in Ersch und Gruber’s Allgemeine Encyklopädie, section ii, vol.
xxxi, p. 100, &c., written by the erudite Steinschneider. For the other
Kabbalistic works of Ibn Wakkar we must refer to the same elaborate
article.

[96] This ‏ברית מנוחה‎ has been published in Amsterdam, 1648.

[97] The ‏ספר אמונות‎ consists of eleven parts, subdivided into
chapters; and was published in Ferrara, 1557; the Homilies, entitled
‏דרשות על התורה‎ were first published in Venice, 1547, and then in
Padua, 1567.

[98] Botarel’s Commentary on the Book Jetzira was first published with
the text of this book and other commentaries, Mantua, 1562; then
Zolkiev, 1745; and in Grodno, 1806, 1820.

[99] The ‏מנחת יהודה‎ which is a Commentary on the ‏מערכת האלהו‎ was
published together with it in Ferrara, 1558.

[100] The Commentary ‏צרור המור‎ was first published at Constantinople,
1514; then in Venice, 1523, 1546, 1566; and in Cracow 1595. Pellican
has translated this Commentary into Latin, and the MS. of this version
is in the Zurich Library.

[101] Vidi in illis (testis est Deus) religionem non tam Mosaicam quam
Christianam; ibi Trinitatis mysterium; ibi verbi Incarnatio, ibi
Messiae divinitates; ibi de pecato originali, de illius per Christum
expiatione, de cælesti Hierusalem, de casu dæmonum, de ordinibus
Angelorum, de Purgatoriis, de Inferorum poenis; Eadem legi, quae apud
Paulum et Dionysium, apud Hieronymum et Augustinum quotidie legimus.
Comp. Index a Jacobo Gaffarello, published by Wolf, Bibliotheca
Hebraea, vol. i, p. 9 at the end of the volume.

[102] Nulla est scientia, quae nos magis certificet de divinitate
Christi, quam magia et Cabbala, vide Apologia, p. 42, opp. vol. 1.
Basil, 1601.

[103] Hic libri (Cabbalistorum) Sixtus IV, Pontifex maximus, qui hunc,
sub quo vivimus feliciter, Innocentium VIII, proxime antecessit, maxima
cura studioque curavit, ut in publicam fidei nostrae utilitarem,
Latinis literis mandarentur, jamque cum ille decessit, tres ex illis
pervenerant ad Latinos. Vide Gaffarelli in Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea,
appendix to vol. i, p. 9.

[104] “Is (Jekiel Loanz) me, supra quam dici queat, fideliter literos
Hebraicos primus edocuit.” Comp. Rudim. Hebr. p. 3.

[105] Comp. Franck, Die Kabbalah oder die Religion Philosophie der
Hebräer übersetzt von Jellinek. Leipzig, 1844, p. 8, &c.

[106] Comp. The Life and Times of John Reuchlin, by Francis Besham, p.
102, &c.

[107] Vide Life of John Reuchlin, p, 108.

[108] The ‏בחינת הדת‎ was first published in a collection of diverse
Treatises, in Basle, 1629–31; and then in Vienna, 1833, with an
elaborate philosophical commentary by T. S. Reggio. The arguments
against the Sohar are in this edition, p. 43.

[109] For the other works of Cordovero, both published and unpublished,
we must refer to Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, vol. i, p. 187, &c.; and
Steinschneider, Catalogus Libr. Hebr. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, col.
1793, &c.

[110] Pardes Rimmonim = The Garden of Pomegranates, 65 a.

[111] For a description of the component parts of the ‏ספר עץ החיים‎ as
well as for an account of the sundry editions of the several parts,
published at different times, we must refer to Fürst, Bibliotheca
Judaica, vol. iii, pp. 479–481.

[112] An analysis of the Sohar, as well as a description of the
different editions of it, are given in the second part of this Essay,
p. 160, &c.

[113] Comp. his Resp., ed. Vienna, 1860, p. 24, &c., ‏פסק נגד הרבנים
אשר בקשו לעכב הדפסת הזוהר מטעם גזרות המלכות על שריפה התלמוד‎; and
again, ibid. p. 26, ‏עוד יש מהם שהוסיפו סרה ואמרו כי העיון בזוהר יביא
למינות ולפיכך טעון גניזה או שריפה לבער הקדש.‎

[114] This Treatise is published in the collection entitled ‏טעם זקנים‎
by Eliezar Ashkanazi, Frankfort-on-the-Maine, 1854.

[115] The ‏ארי נוהם‎ was published by Dr. Julius Fürst, Leipzig, 1840.
Leo de Modena’s relation to the Kabbalah, the Talmud and Christianity
is shown in an elaborate Introduction by Geiger in the ‏מאמר מגן וצנה‎
Berlin, 1856. See also the article Leo de Modena, in Alexander’s
edition of Kitto’s Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature, vol. ii, p. 811.

[116] This Epistle, together with a German translation and learned
notes, has been published by Geiger in his collection of sundry
treatises, entitled Melo Chofnajim. Berlin, 1840.

[117] Comp. Disputatio Cabalistica R. Israel filii Mosis de animâ, &c.,
adjectis commentariis ex Zohar. Paris, 1635.

[118] Kircher’s Treatise on the Kabbalah is contained in his stupendous
work, entitled Œdipus Ægyptiacus, vol. ii, pp. 209–360. Rome, 1635.

[119] Comp. Jost, Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Secten, vol.
iii, p. 153, &c. Leipzig, 1859.

[120] Confusam et obscuram opus, in quo necessaria cum non necessariis,
utilia cum inutilibus, confusa sunt, et in unam velut chaos conjecta.
Introductio in Historiam Philosophiae Hebraeorum. Halle, 1702. Buddeus
gives in this Introduction (p. 232, &c.), a detailed description of the
Kabbala Denudata.

[121] The ‏מטפחת הספרים‎ of Jabez was published at Altona, 1763. A
thorough critique of it is given by Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, vol.
vii, p. 494, &c.

[122] Comp. A Dissertation concerning the Antiquity of the Hebrew
Language, Letters, Vowel-points and Accents. By John Gill, D.D. London,
1767.

[123] Modern Judaism, by John Allen, p. 67–96, 2nd edition. London,
1830.

[124] Franck’s La Kabbale has been translated into German, with notes
and corrections by the learned and indefatigable Adolph Jellinek; Die
Kabbala oder die Religions-Philosophie der Hebräer. Leipzig, 1844.

[125] The Literary Remains of Landauer, comprising his researches on
the Kabbalah, have been published in the Literaturblatt des Orients,
vol. vi, p. 178, &c.

[126] Die Religions-philosophie des Sohar, Von D. H. Joel. Leipzig,
1849, p. 72, &c.

[127] Moses Ben Schem-Tob de Leon und sein Verhältniss zum Sohar, Von
Adolph Jellinek. Leipzig, 1851.

[128] Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kabbala, Von Adolph Jellinek, first
and second parts. Leipzig, 1852.

[129] Auswahl Kabbalistischer Mystik, part 1. Leipzig, 1853.

[130] Jerusalem and Tiberias; Sora and Cordova, by J. W. Etheridge,
M.A., Doctor in Philosophy. London, 1856, p. 314.

[131] Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden. Berlin, 1831, p. 405.

[132] Melo Chafnajim. Berlin, 1840. Introduction, p. xvii.

[133] Die Religiöse Poesie der Juden in Spanien. Berlin, 1845, p. 327.

[134] Moses Ben Schem Tob de Leon. Leipzig, 1851.

[135] Jewish Literature, from the German of M. Steinschneider. London,
1857, pp. 104–122; 240–309.

[136] Versuch einer umständlichen Analyse des Sohar, von Schuldirektor
Ignatz Stern, in Ben Chananja, Monatschrift für jüdische Theologie,
vol. iv. Szegedin, 1858–1861.

[137] Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Secten, Von Dr. J. M. Jost,
vol. iii, p. 66–81. Leipzig, 1859.

[138] Geschichte der Juden, Von Dr. H. Graetz, vol. vii, pp. 73–87;
442–459; 487–507. Leipzig, 1863.

[139] Comp. Ben Chananja, Monatschrift für jüdische Theologie, vol. vi,
pp. 725–733; 741–747; 785–791; 805–809; 821–828; 933–942. Szegedin,
1863.

[140] Introductio ad Hist. Philosoph. Ebraeorum. Halle, 1702.

[141] Histoire des Juifs, English translation, pp. 184–256. London,
1708.

[142] De Cabbala Judeorum, in his Bibliotheca Hebraea, vol. ii, pp.
1191–1247. Hamburg, 1728.

[143] Philosophie der Geschichte oder über die Tradition, vol. iii.
Münster, 1839.

[144] Mélanges de Philosophie Juive et Arabe, p. 275, &c. Paris, 1859.