 |
The first printed edition, the "editio princeps",
of the Zohar published in Mantua, Italy in 1558. |
Introduction
This article ꟷ based extensively on the research by Avraham Oriah Kelman[1] ꟷ examines the little-known crisis in Kabbalistic transmission that became evident between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries.
The earlier Sefaradic Kabbalistic tradition, which had peaked in Spain in the thirteenth century (with the Zohar first published around 1290) had now spread to central Europe. The expulsion from Spain in 1492 can be seen as precipitating this spread of Kabbalistic influence to Europe. This was coupled with the simultaneous spread of Kabbalah from the various mystical schools of Safed, including Lurianic Kabbalah from the Ari Zal (1534-1572). By the sixteenth century, Central European Ashkenazi Jewry was well-exposed to, and keenly influenced by, Kabbalah from both its eastern and western co-religionists. But Kabbalah, although now widely disseminated and popularised, was in an internal state of crisis. This created a tension between the leadership of the mystical movement and those who were publishing mystical works, and it is to that tension and theological strain that we shall now turn.
The unbroken mystical chain breaks down around the
thirteenth century
The Kabbalists maintain that there was an unbroken chain of mystical tradition dating all the way back to Sinai. The very term “Kabbalah” denotes a received tradition which was generally handed down orally from master to student. Although Kabbalah had spread to Ashkenaz from its eastern and western flanks around the sixteenth century, according to Kelman (2014:252), three centuries earlier, from around the thirteenth century, the direct mystical chain of transmission had already broken down. This was when multiple mystical schools of Kabbalah with conflicting traditions, began to emerge in written form, in Spain:
“In this process [during the thirteenth century], oral traditions declined, and kabbalah transformed from a tradition passed by word-of-mouth (or a tradition combining orality with textuality) to knowledge absorbed primarily from texts or revealed in spiritual experiences to a few gifted mystics” (Kelman 2024:252).
We know that the line of oral transmission of Kabbalah had broken down by the thirteenth century because a characteristic of the new thirteenth-century emergent written genre of Kabbalah was the common expression of lament for the previous era that had boasted what was conceptualised as an unbroken mystical tradition up to that point. Kabbalah was then considered to have been in a state of crisis due to its lost line of oral transmission of the mystical teachings. This crisis over lost mystical traditions was not a secret but something frequently acknowledged and spoken about. The later expulsions from Spain in 1492 only cemented the lamenting over lost traditions.
But with this conceived loss of authentic ancient traditions, came a new era of intense preservation and reconstruction of whatever was left of the old traditions. These were committed to writing and later to printing, after the invention of the printing press in 1440. Now any reader could study Kabbalah, even without a teacher and without belonging to an accredited mystical group. This created a concerning state of tension, as mentioned, and it resulted in different responses in attempts at alleviating the crisis of a perceived loss of authentic Kabbalistic oral traditions passed down to small elitist and closed mystical circles.
Various responses to the crisis of lost authentic Kabbalistic
traditions
The printing and dissemination of Kabbalistic literature at this time sparked huge controversy between rabbis and printers. The storm raised questions like:
“What is the relationship between books, traditions, and esoteric knowledge? How is one to verify the authenticity of knowledge that [is] supposed to be esoteric? And is it possible to maintain hidden mystical traditions in the age of printed books?” (Kelman 2024:255).
We shall now turn to some responses to the crisis of lost mystical traditions and the questions it raised:
1) Not permissible to print Kabbalah
During the late sixteenth century, in the midst of the explosion of printed Kabbalistic works, there were debates over whether it was even permitted to print Kabbalistic literature. Some argued forcefully that it was not permitted to print and publish books of a Kabbalistic nature, specifically because they acknowledged that mystical traditions had been lost and that there were no longer teachers who could offer guidance on these matters. The proponents of this school maintained that one may only be taught Kabbalah by teachers who themselves were taught orally by their teachers. This is known as: “מפי סופרים ולא מפי ספרים איש מפי איש, From scholars and not from books [and] orally from one to another.” On this view, the popular printed texts violated this important principle.
2) Counter-argument
that printing cannot do harm
The counter-argument to the abovementioned claim that printing violates the line of Kabbalistic transmission, is simply that printing ꟷ while indeed is not the preferred method of mystical transmission ꟷ can do no harm. It might not be the best method, but at least partial Kabbalistic concepts can still be transferred to students keen to study this wisdom.
R. Moshe Basola (1480-1560) adopted such an approach. Writing in the Introduction to the Mantua edition of the Tikkunei haZohar, he alludes to this by stating that, anyway, the printed version is only meant to be a partial encounter with the actual deep and sublime mystical concepts:
“[I]n truth, when the Zohar speaks about the Divine and about emanation, it does so in an opaque language that is comprehensible only to an individual who is wise and knowledgeable in the ways of kabbalah“ (Moshe Basola, Introduction to the 1558 Mantua edition of Tikkunei haZohar).
This way, the Zohar is immune to, and can never be damaged by, textual and printed representations; and in any case, it speaks in “opaque language.” In other words, the great Kabbalists were always aware of the dangers of the written medium, but built in protection to the Zoharic concepts by their specialised literary methodology and techniques. These coded safeguards would prevail even when confronted by unworthy readers.
3) Kabbalah through revelation
While essentially acknowledging that the traditions had been lost, others argued that they could be regained through a form of mystical revelation to certain mystically privileged or charismatic individuals.
4) No option other than publishing
a) Another response was the pragmatic acknowledgement
that Kabbalistic knowledge had indeed been irretrievably lost to us ꟷ but
specifically since this is the case, the least they can do is to print and
publish Kabbalistic texts so that something will remain of this lost
tradition. This sentiment was well-expressed by R. Moshe ben Abraham Provençal:
“In this era … because of our many sins, the oral transmission of kabbalah, a person from a person (ish mi-pi ish), has ceased. These days, we are studying only a little from scholars (sofrim), and mostly from books, and from their mouths we live” (Moshe ben Abraham Provençal, Introduction to the 1558 Mantua edition of Tikkunei haZohar).
On this view, Kabbalah should be printed, published, preserved and disseminated to make it available to whoever wishes to pursue this area of study.
b) Another expression of a similar sentiment is made by R. Emmanuel of Benevento who edited the Kabbalistic work, Maarechet haElokut. In the Introduction, he wrote:
“One might argue that, since this wisdom is called kabbalah [transmission], a man should learn these matters orally from a teacher (mi-peh el peh). But who is this person, and who is his father, who will walk in the orchard of apples [an expression for acquiring mystical wisdom] toward us and say: ‘I am a child of the sages, I am well-versed in this wisdom’, such that we might rely on his dreams and words … and that we can know that it is truly God’s Torah in his mouth…” (R. Emmanuel of Benevento, Introduction to the 1558 Mantua edition of Maarechet haElokut).
Unlike Provençal, who claimed that the mystical wisdom had been irretrievably lost, Benevento allows the possibility for these traditions to still exist somewhere, in theory, except that it is not possible to recognise them and confirm their authenticity. The best we can do under the circumstances is to rely on the canonical Kabbalah as printed in our editions of the Zohar:
“Benevento cultivates here a certain relationship between books and oral tradition, one that is perhaps easier to advocate in a world of printed kabbalistic books: we should no longer verify the authenticity of texts and their interpretations by consulting living kabbalists…. [F]or Benevento, printed books, not living scholars, should be regarded as the authoritative sources of kabbalah” (Kelman 2024:258).
5) The radical approach of R. Chaim Vital (1542-1620)
R. Chaim Vital had a radical approach which, on the one hand, declared that no Kabbalistic works should be consulted if they were produced after Nachmanides (Ramban, 1194-1270). The last authentic Kabbalist was therefore Nachmanides. (This raises all sorts of interesting questions because, whoever the author of the Zohar was, the Zohar was only first published in around 1290, which was twenty years after Nachmanides’ passing.) On the other hand, R. Chaim Vital ascribed revelationary status to his teacher, R. Yitzchak Luria (Arizal, 1534-1572), who he described as divinely ordained as the new authentic Kabbalistic master for future generations. This ‘new’ Kabbalah was not handed down through the classical mode of transmission, but rather through (the claim of) Revelation from G-d above.
R. Chaim Vital, thus, effectively sidesteps the notion of
lost transmission and introduces charismatic Revelation as the new means
of attaining Kabbalistic knowledge.
6) The unique approach of R. Moshe Isserles (1530-1572)
R. Isserles of Cracow adopted a unique response to the crises of the lost mystical tradition. He unquestionably agreed that the interpretive traditions of Kabbalah had been lost, but instead of giving up on them, he maintained that a new approach had to be developed under the circumstances.
R. Moshe Isserles, also known as the Ramah, witnessed the expansion of Kabbalah in the printed medium but raised his concerns about it. R. Isserless lived at the same time as the Arizal, but he still felt that without a Kabbalistic master instructing on a one-on-one basis, lay readers, by simply reading the printed word, could err in their understanding of Kabbalah. He also did not subscribe to charismatic or revelatory means of Kabbalistic transmission where lost traditions are said to be revealed through supernatural means to worthy people.
R. Isserles himself admitted that he too did not have access to the oral mystical tradition and that he also had to rely on the many Kabbalistic books that proliferated at that time. R. Isserles developed an approach to deal with this crisis of the lost authentic mystical traditions.
To understand his approach, we need to first distinguish between two important terms, esoteric and exoteric. Esoteric is where a form of knowledge is private, exclusive and obscure. Exoteric is the exact opposite, where a form of knowledge is accessible, understandable, common, and available to general society.
R. Isserles insisted that for Kabbalah ꟷ which is a form of esoteric knowledge ꟷ to survive into the future, it must adopt some aspects of common and human rationality as well. For R. Isserles, the face of future Kabbalah was one of compromise and synthesis ꟷ incorporating both esoteric and exoteric knowledge. A full grasp of traditional Kabbalah was simply no longer possible as the traditions were no longer accessible. Because of this compromise between esoteric (hidden) and exoteric (revealed) forms of knowledge, we can understand why some did not technically classify R. Isserles as a Kabbalist in the truest sense of the term; and he certainly was not a revelatory or charismatic Kabbalist either.
R. Isserles’ synthesis between esoteric Kabbalah
and exoteric Philosophy
One of the pitfalls of learning Kabbalah from books instead of from real teachers was that misguided readings may result. R. Yosef Ahkenazi, known as the Tanna of Safed, was accused by a member of R. Isserles’ circle (either Abraham Horowitz or Yisrael ben Shalom Shachna) of developing anthropomorphic characterisations of G-d (where G-d takes on human attributes). Reading Kabbalah alone without oral explanations often ends up unnuanced and leads to literal interpretations.
Those in Isserles’ circle maintained that if R. Yosef Ahkenazi had been exposed to a line of oral transmission of Kabbalistic ideas and not just read books, he would have understood that anthropomorphisms are not meant to be interpreted literally and they may, instead, have had some philosophical nuances. Kabbalah can tend to get quite technically graphic with its numerous and detailed anthropomorphisms which could be mitigated by a more philosophical interpretation.
R. Isserles and his circle, therefore, believed that since they lived at a time when the authentic mystical traditions had been lost, the only alternative was to adopt a significant component of philosophical interpretation (in the Maimonidean and rationalist sense) to supplement the printed texts. Adopting Philosophy as a key interpretive tool and applying it to difficult Kabbalistic written texts, would prevent the student from being led astray by the literal readings of those printed texts.
To this end, R. Isserles dedicated a lengthy section of his Torat haOlah to reconciling Kabbalah with Philosophy:
“This generation has declined such that…I have never in my life seen a master kabbalist (‘ish mekubal) who knows this matter clearly from the genuine tradition (ha-kabalah ha-‘amitit). Indeed, many of the common people rush to learn about kabbalah because it is seductive, especially from those authors of recent generations who revealed its secrets explicitly in their books… Never mind that their words cannot be truly understood since we have no kabbalist who received this tradition from a master kabbalist! (she’ein mekubal mi-pi mekubal). Not only do those with book-learning look into them, but even ordinary householders who don’t know their right hand from their left, who are in the dark when it comes to explaining the weekly Torah portion with Rashi, are jumping on the bandwagon to learn kabbalah. The end result is that this generation, orphaned in sin, is in such decline that a coin clattering in a jug makes the biggest noise—whoever knows a little bit shows off and preaches in public, but someday will have to give an accounting” (R. Moshe Isserles, Torat haOlah, 1570:72b).
R. Isserles was most concerned about how laymen and even rabbis were interpreting the rich anthropomorphisms in Kabbalistic literature in a literal manner. To him, this seemed to contradict the extreme anti-anthropomorphic writings of Maimonides in his Guide For the Perplexed. This made it very difficult for R. Isserles to maintain the literal readings of concepts like the Ten Sefirot (or Spheres) which constitute the ‘body’ of G-d. It is no accident that R. Moshe Isserles is referred to as the “Maimonides (Moshe ben Maimon) of Poland.” Inscribed on R. Isserles’ gravestone is the epitaph: "From Moses [Maimonides] to Moses [Isserles] there was none like Moses."
“Not only was Isserles well versed in Talmud, he also studied Kabbalah and Jewish mystical writings, as well as history, astronomy and Greek philosophy. Isserles is considered one of the forerunners of the Jewish enlightenment” (Jewish Virtual Library, entry on Moses ben Israel Isserles).
R. Isserles said that he studied Aristotle through the writings of Maimonides’ Guide For the Perplexed which he studied on Shabbat. He also follows Maimonides in a belief in the active intelligence, and does not regard angels not as actual beings, but rather the powers of nature are called "angels" (or messengers) because these forces of nature act as intermediaries between the First Cause and the thing caused or created. R. Isserles maintained that it was better to occupy oneself with Maimonidean Philosophy than to err through Kabbalah (Isserles, Responsa, No. 7). Although he studied Kabbalah, he rejected the Kabbalists when their opinions did not agree with Philosophy, and he ruled against the Zohar in Halachic matters.[2]
It is interesting to note that Kelman comes to a similar conclusion as does the following encyclopaedic entry:
“In general, Isserles endeavored to prove that the teaching of true cabalists is the same as that of the philosophers, the only difference being in the language employed” (The 1901 Jewish Encyclopedia, entry on Isserles, Moses ben Israel (Rema).
R. Isserles was later to pay a price for his synthesis of Kabbalah and Philosophy when the seventeenth-century R. Shmuel Ashkenazi attacked him in his writings on Novlot Chochmah. R. Ashkenazi criticises R. Isserles for his mixing of spiritual and physical interpretations and claims he:
“covered them with filthy and material clothing and darkened their light” (R. Yosef Shlomo Delmedigo, Novlot Chochmah, Hanau 1639:129a-b).
R. Isserles and his synthesis of Kabbalah and Philosophy would have also upset the Medieval rationalist philosophers as well because he locates the divine presence too acutely within the physical realm. To the rationalist philosophers, G-d was always somewhat removed and not integral to physicality. Thus, R. Isserles’ methodology of synthesis between Kabbalah and Philosophy upset both traditional Kabbalists and traditional Philosophers at the same time. However, for him, this was the only way to deal with a mystical oral tradition that had dissipated over time, and to prevent literal readings and anthropomorphic interpretations.
R. Isserles felt that he needed to create this novel synthesis between Kabbalah and Philosophy to prevent the literal leanings by readers of published Kabbalistic texts. He believed they had gone astray in their sole reliance on printed Kabbalah, unmitigated by authentic teachers with their ancient interpretive, nuanced and definitive wisdom.
“Isserles’ theology is one of a humble mysticism, that is aware of its own epistemological limits, but does not give up on the metaphysical tensity and vibrancy of the mystical texts he interprets” (Kelman 2024:270).
By blending esoteric thought with exoteric thought, R. Isserles unseated both the esoterics and exoterics, Kabbalists and rationalist philosophers. However, he believed there were no better options in an age that witnessed the explosion of Kabbalistic publications and the simultaneous demise of stable Kabbalistic interpretive solutions.
Analysis
We have noted that R. Isserles offered but one of many
different responses to the devastating crisis of a lost mystical tradition.
This loss was masked and shielded by a proliferation of printed Kabbalistic
works that gave the appearance that all was well. However, the popularisation
of Kabbalah disguised and papered over fundamental theological fault
lines because it was generally acknowledged that the authentic mystical
transmission had indeed been lost. By contributing to a popular and intense
interest in mysticism, the writers, printers and distributors of Kabbalistic
works had established a paradoxical culture that on the one hand had lost its
roots, yet somehow still managed to perpetuate its growth.
[1]
Kelman, A.O, 2024, ‘Tradition of Crisis: Kabbalistic Transmission in Early
Modern Kraków’, Aschkenas 34, vol. 2, 251–270.
