First edition of R. Menachem Recanati's commentary on the Torah (Venice, 1523)
INTRODUCTION:
We have
previously looked at the origins of the Zohar, one of (modern[1])
Kabbalah’s foundational works, which first emerged around 1290. The traditional view is that it was authored
by R. Shimon bar Yochai, a second-century Tannaic sage; whereas
historical evidence, as well as some rabbinic sources, point to its author being
R. Moshe de León (1240-1305). The latter
claimed to have found the writings of R. Shimon bar Yochai from a thousand
years earlier and simply published[2]
them in the Zohar. Either way, the Zohar only surfaced at
around 1290.
This
article, based extensively on the research of Professor Oded Yisraeli[3]
explores how three of the earliest mystics explained the origins of the Kabbalah
in general.
Yisraeli
takes an interesting tack because instead of relying on later scholarship, he
focuses on early contemporaneous mystical sources which attempt to explain the
origins of Kabbalah to other mystics. His research led him to uncover
three primary yet divergent views on when and where Kabbalah originated.
THE THREE EARLIEST VIEWS ON THE ORIGINS OF KABBALAH:
These three independent views on the origins of Kabbalah, are taken from the early kabbalists
who lived around the period of the appearance of the Zohar. These
mystics were from Castile (central Christian Spain)
Catalonia (north-eastern Christian Spain) and Provence (southern France).
13th century Spain |
1) The first (and probably the earliest) position claims that Kabbalah was given to the Children of Israel at Sinai as part of the Revelation and the Oral Tradition.
2) The
second approach claims that Kabbalah stemmed from an original revelation
of mysticism by the prophet Eliyahu haNavi, beginning only around the 12th
century, and then held exclusively within the first Kabbalistic groups particularly
in Provence.
3) The
third school maintains that Kabbalah was revealed to the first man, Adam,
and hence has not just Jewish but universal relevance and significance.
Understanding these three views on the origins of Kabbalah
is important because, as Yisraeli writes:
[A] study of a movement’s own
self-etiology[4]
reveals the ways in which fundamental questions relating to the nature and
essence of the young movement were addressed and dealt with.
VIEW 1)
KABBALAH
FROM SINAI (-R. EZRA OF GERONA AND RAMBAN):
The view
that Kabbalah originated from Sinai is expressed by both R. Ezra of Gerona[5]
(d. c. 1245) and Ramban (Nachmanides, 1194-1270). Both were instrumental in
founding the Kabbalistic tradition in Catalonia, and although their
versions differ, they concur that the origins of Kabbalah stem from
Sinai.
a) R. EZRA
OF GERONA:
R. Ezra of
Gerona’s view is expressed in his commentary on the Song of Songs[6]:
[At Sinai] Moses and Aaron and…seventy
of Israel’s elders and all of Israel attained an illumination concerning God’s
reality and the essence of God’s glory . . .
From that period until now, there never ceased
to be a generation of Israel to which the heritage of wisdom, that is the
knowledge of the divine Name, was transmitted through the tradition of Oral
Torah.[7]
b) RAMBAN (NACHMANIDES):
Ramban, in his introduction to his commentary on the Torah,
similarly claims that mysteries such as the transmigration of souls, astrology,
angelology and magic were conveyed to the Jewish people at Sinai.
VIEW 2)
KABBALAH FROM A REVELATION OF ELIYAHU HANAVI (-RA’AVAD
AND HIS SON, R. YITZCHAK SAGI NEHOR):
A second and very different view is put forward by R. Avraham
ben David of Posquieres[8]
known as Ra’avad (1125-1198) and his son R. Yitzchak Sagi Nehor[9]
known as Isaac the Blind. They maintained that Kabbalah was revealed by
Elijah the Prophet to a specific group of their own ancestors who were kabbalists
in southern France. This family group was headed by the Ra’avad’s father-in-law,
R. Abraham b. Yitzchak of Narbonne[10]
(southern France). Until that time, the mystical secrets remained hidden within
the text of the Torah and were inaccessible.
There are slightly different versions of this story with
some suggesting that Eliyahu haNavi revealed the secrets to the Ra’avad’s
father and not to his father-in-law (see the Recanati source later).
Nevertheless, this view is family-specific in that Eliyahu haNavi was said to
have revealed the secrets of Kabbalah, for the first time, essentially to
generations of one chosen family!
In fact, the revelation of Eliyahu haNavi is momentously
marked by the subsequent Kabbalistic generations referring to themselves
as “first/second/third and forth to Eliyahu”.
This unusual theory of connecting Eliyahu haNavi to one
family of kabbalists is recorded by the Italian Kabbalist, R. Menahem
Recanati (1223–1290) in his commentary on the Torah and is most often cited by the
later generations kabbalists. According to Yisraeli, the Recanati source
is the first to record this particular tradition.
Later, R. Chaim Vital (1543-1620) reflects this idea in his
introduction to his Eitz Chaim:
“[R. Yitzchak Luria, through his practices, was brought to the level of] Elijah the Prophet, who constantly revealed himself and talked with him face to face, teaching him this wisdom.
Likewise with R. Abraham b. David [the Ra’avad][11],
of blessed memory, as noted above in the name of the Recanati.’’
THE RECANATI SOURCE:
Yisraeli is meticulous in his choice of manuscript for the
Recanati text, and refers to the London MS Montefiore 354, as it “seems[12]
to be the detailed, authentic source of the version in Recanati’s commentary on
the Torah.”
This is the source:
Elijah the Prophet…revealed
himself to our master David [the Ra’avad’s father], head of the court, opening
for him a prayer opening in the wisdom of the Kabbalah. He passed this
knowledge down to his son, R. Abraham, who passed it down to his son, our
master Isaac Sagi Nahor, who never saw light in the world [because he was
blind][13].
Our master Isaac Sagi Nahor had
two disciples, one by the name of R. Ezra [of Gerona], who wrote a commentary
on Canticles [the Song of Songs][14]
and all the obscure legends in the Talmud on the basis of the wisdom of the
Kabbalah, and his colleague the pious R. Azriel, who also wrote many
commentaries informed by this wisdom.
From these two, this wisdom
spread because it was taught to many. The mainspring of this wisdom was in the
city of Gerona, where Nahmanides, of blessed memory, was and became wise in
this doctrine, covering these things in his commentary on the Torah and
alluding to them in his secrets.
This is a very interesting text because although he mentions them, Recanati goes
against the views of R. Ezra of Gerona and Ramban that Kabbalah came through
Sinai and was given in public to all of Israel. Instead, he claims it was given
in private, through a new “Sinai” which is the Giluy Eliyahu, or
Eliyahu haNavi’s revelation to the Ra’avad family. This view of Recanati is
most perhaps the most innovative theory as to the origins of Kabbalah.
Yisraeli points out that not only is this an innovation, but
it also becomes a determining factor deciding “who possesses the authentic
Kabbalah and who is authorized to teach it.” Thus, the only ones who received the
mystical tradition were the family of the Ra’avad, and only they or their
appointees were permitted to teach it for the first few generations before it
became widespread in Gerona.
THE DATE AND CONTEXT OF THE RECANATI SOURCE:
The context - both in terms of timing and geography - of
this innovative and unusual Recanati source is most revealing. The Recanati text
was produced around the time the Zohar was published in Castile.
We know the text originated from that time because (among
other indications) Ramban is mentioned as zichrono livracha (of blessed
memory) and he passed away in 1270. The text, therefore, would have been
produced around the end of the 13th century, just when the Zohar
was being popularised in 1290.
It appears that the Recanati innovation was an attempt to
draw the new mystical authority away from Castile and the Zohar, and
focus on the ‘true’ Kabbalah of Eliyahu haNavi which was emanating from (initially
southern France and by then particularly) Gerona, situated just to the east of
Castile.
Yisraeli points out that Recanati unabashedly stresses that:
[T]he mainspring of this [new
mystical][15]
wisdom is in the city of Gerona.
One of the chief differences between the Kabbalah of
Castile and the Kabbalah of Catalonia (Gerona) was that the Catalonian
Kabbalah was considered more conventional than the creative and daring Castilian
Kabbalah as exemplified in the Zohar.[16]
VIEW 3)
KABBALAH FROM ADAM (-R. MOSHE DE LEON AND THE ZOHAR):
The third early source describing the origins of Kabbalah
is found in the writings of R. Moshe de León (1240-1305) and the Zohar itself. Yisraeli writes that:
[T]he Castilian zoharic climate
produced another revolutionary narrative of origins.
According to the Zohar [17],
Kabbalah was first revealed to Adam, making it a universal and never
mind not just an exclusive family tradition but not even an exclusively
Jewish tradition. Kabbalah belonged to the world. (There is also the idea that it later split into good and bad Kabbalah at the time of Avraham.)
According to R. Moshe de León, in
one of his other works Shekel haKodesh:
[T]he essence and foundation of
all wisdoms…Kabbalah…was given to Moses at Sinai and passed down to Joshua and
the elders to the prophets, who passed it down to the men of the Great Assembly
like the receiving of the Torah, and they bequeathed its contents one to
another.
But this path of wisdom was
given to Adam when God placed him in the Garden of Eden and gave him the secret
of this wisdom, which was with him until he sinned and was expelled from the
Garden. Then, when he died, his son…inherited it, and this wisdom subsequently
passed down to Noah…until the last generations stood on Mount Sinai and
bequeathed it to Moses…and from there every person received it from another,
through all the other generations.[18]
Being part of the Castilian mystical fraternity, R. Moshe de León ignored the particularistic Catalonian notion of Eliyahu’s revelation to the Ra’avad’s family and makes no mention of it.
However, on reading his text, one
is immediately struck by a paradox. R. Moshe de León starts by bringing the
conventional view (of R. Ezra
of Gerona and Ramban) that Kabbalah was revealed at Sinai, and
then throws in the broad universalistic concept of the mystical teachings having
been given foremostly to all of mankind through Adam.
This creates a great conundrum in that we are now not sure
if Moshe received the Kabbalah at Sinai together with the Torah, or if
he received it as a spiritual inheritance from Adam through Avraham? And if he
did receive the mystical tradition from previous generations, then what
mysticism did he receive at Sinai?
According to Yisraeli, R. Moshe de León “deliberately
obscures this point at the seam of the two traditions”[19]
- leaving us with perhaps more questions than answers as to how the early
mystics understood and described the origins of Kabbalah.
Add to that the apparent battle for control of the emerging 13th century Kabbalah between Castille and Catalonia and the picture is obfuscated even more, making it extremely difficult for future generations of kabbalists to explain the origins of early mysticism.
See next article for an expansion on the view of the Zohar and R. Moshe de León.
Additional reading: Who Owned the Early Kabbalah?
[1]
The term ‘modern’ is used in this context so as to distinguish between the more
recent Zohar and the older Heichalot and Merkavah mystical
literature. [See A
Window into pre-Zoharic Literature.]
[2]
The Zohar pre-dated the invention of printing, so the term ‘publication’
obviously refers to its manuscript copies.
[3] Jewish
Medieval Traditions concerning the Origins of the Kabbalah, by Oded Yisraeli.
[4] Defined as the study of causes,
reasons and origins.
[5] R. Ezra of Gerona was a student of R. Yitzchak Sagi Nehor (known as Isaac
the Blind or רַבִּי יִצְחַק סַגִּי
נְהוֹר), the blind son of the
Ra’avad (Avraham ben David of Posquieres, in Provence). Bear in mind that Ezra
ben Shlomo of Gerona and Azriel ben Menachem al-Taras are often confused.
However, based the poems of a contemporary rabbi, Meshulam ben Shlomo da
Piera who also lived in Gerona it is evident that Ezra and Azriel were two
different individuals who lived in Gerona at the same time. According to Graetz
they were two brothers. According to Recanati (see later), Ezra and Azriel were
colleagues and both were students of Isaac the Blind. The Ezra referenced in
this article is the Ezra ben Shlomo who wrote his commentary on the Shir
haShirim.
[6]
This commentary is often ascribed to Ramban. The Altona edition of 1764 was
published under Ramban’s name.
[7] Rabbi
Ezra Ben Solomon, Commentary on the Song of Songs and Other Kabbalistic
Commentaries, ed. and trans. S. Brody (Kalamazoo, Mich., 1999), 18–24.
[9]
Sagi Nehor literally means of much light which could be a euphemism for
being blind, or it might mean that although could not see, his world was filled
with enough light from his teachings.
[10] Technically, R. Abraham b. Yitzchak of Narbonne (c. 1080-85 – 1158) is known as Ra’avad II,
and his student and son-in-law is known as Ra’avad III (the famous critic of
Rambam’s Mishneh Torah). [If you are wondering, as I was, why, R. Abraham b. Yitzchak of Narbonne would be referred to as Ra’avad,
it appears to be an acronym for R. Avraham Av bet Din.]
R. Avraham ibn Daud (d. 1180), ironically a predecessor of Maimonides’
rationalism, is known as Ra’avad I. Generally, in usage, Ra’avad refers to
Ra’avad III.
[11] Parentheses mine.
[12] Yisraeli points out that we are not
entirely sure who authored this document.
[13] Parenthesis mine.
[14] Parentheses mine.
[15] Parenthesis mine.
[16] Yisraeli reminds us that, as
Liebes notes, the Zohar is woven out of many voices; thus this characteristic
is not necessarily valid with respect to some of its layers: Yehuda Liebes,
‘‘How the Zohar Was Written’’ (Hebrew), Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 8,
ed. J. Dan (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1989): 1–71.
[17] The
Zohar continues along this same universalistic line by commentating on
the verse “[T]his is the book of the generations of Adam’’ (Gen 5.1):
This is the book—an actual book, as we have
established. When Adam was in the Garden of Eden, the blessed Holy One brought
down a book for him by the hand of Raziel, the holy angel appointed over
supernal, sacred mysteries…
[T]he holy angel Hadraniel encountered him and
exclaimed: Adam, Adam, treasure away the precious glory of your Lord, for
permission has not been granted to supernal beings to know it, only to you.
So he kept it hidden until he left the Garden of
Eden, daily wielding treasures of his Lord, discovering supernal mysteries of
which supernal ministers are unaware.
As soon as he sinned, violating his Lord’s command,
that book flew away from him. Adam slapped himself on the head and wept. He
entered the waters of Gihon up to his nape, till the water moldered his skin
and his luster faded. At that moment the blessed Holy One signaled to Raphael,
who returned the book to him. Adam engaged in it and left it to his son Seth,
and so to all those generations until it reached Abraham. (Zohar 1, 55b,
Pritzker ed., 311-13.)
Thus, according to this innovative Zohar, we
have the notion of Kabbalah being originally given to Adam as part of a
universal and cultural heritage for all mankind, not just for Jews. Until this
point, it was generally assumed that Kabbalah was a special inheritance
of the Jewish people alone. It was always understood to be the inner-face which
revealed the deepest secrets of the external system of mitzvot and
prayer, which, by definition are peculiar to the Jewish people.
[18] Shekel
haKodesh, ed. Mopsik (Los Angeles, 1996), 17– 18.
[19] I.e., the tradition that the Kabbalah
came from Sinai and the tradition that Kabbalah came from Adam.
Judaism did not develop in a vacuum. The Neo-Platonist, Plotinus (c. 204/5-270), is recorded as having developed the idea of emanations from the Divine One that resulted in three levels of reality: 1) the highest is intelligence and Divine mind (nous); 2) next comes the world of nature (world soul); and 3) lowest is the physical body and spirit (soul).The schools of Plato and Aristotle are not traditional Jewish bodies, but many of their concepts are incorporated in the talmud and in Jewish thought.
ReplyDeleteMy original commentaries and copies of Shimon bar Yochai's work are very faded and therefore illegible, but I don't recall him being widely quoted on the Zohar by his contemporaries.
Maybe Plotinius and the neo-Platonists can be considered as a fourth school of thought for the origin of the Zohar. After all, many regard the Zohar as blasphemous anyway. Blasphemous Hellenistic concepts are not unheard of in Judaism.
There is also the account given by Rabbi El’azar of Worms, ha-Rokeaḥ in MS Paris BN 772, 60a. There he describes how the authentic nusaḥ, including secrets, was transmitted by a certain exiled Baghdadi named Abu Aharon. See here: https://thenutgarden.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/decline-of-the-generations/comment-page-1/#comment-5266
ReplyDelete