419) Priestly politics, Calendar wars and early Jewish mysticism

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls from around the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE

Introduction

The Hebrew Calendar that we use today has undergone some dramatic transformation over time. What is most interesting is it seems that control over the calendars was often directly related to control over mysticism. In this article, based extensively on the research by Professor Rachel Lior,[1] we examine some of the fascinating developments of the Hebrew Calendar. Much of this information has only come to light in relatively recent times. It must be emphasised that these are Elior's views and not everyone necessarily agrees with the position she takes. Nonetheless, her observations are of great interest.

373) Kabbalah – a product of the East or West?

 

Jews and Sufis shared music traditions

Introduction

Kabbalah, until just a few decades ago, was generally understood in as originating within a Eurocentric context. It was believed to have emerged essentially from centres like Italy, Provence (southern France), Germany and Spain. In scholarly circles, this was the result particularly of the work by Gershom Scholem,[1] who was convinced of Gnostic origins to Kabbalah: He writes that it is:

“surprising that the [Kabbalistic][2] doctrine…was deeply related to Gnosticism, but such are the dialectics of history” (Scholem 1941:286).

290) WAS RASHI A MYSTIC?

Rashi's synagogue in Worms.reconstructed after Nazi desecration on Kristallnacht in 1938.

INTRODUCTION:

Rashi (1040-1105), the foremost Biblical and Talmudic commentator, is a fascinating if not an elusive personality. Much is known about him and much has been written about him, but the deeper one goes attempting to uncover the man behind the writings, the more he emerges as an enigma.

In this article, based extensively the research[1] of Rabbi Professor Ephraim Kanarfogel of Yeshiva University, we will explore whether or not Rashi would have been aware of early mystical literature and traditions.

A distinction must be made between early and late mystical traditions as the Zohar was first published around 1290 - almost two hundred years after Rashi’s passing - so the mystical literature in question could only have been the earlier Heichalot and Merkava literature.

Much of the Heichalot and Merkava literature is the collection of mystical texts from the late Talmudic (200-450) and early Gaonic (589-1038) periods. Rabbinic sages from the earlier Mishnaic period (0-200 CE) and Amoraic (Talmudic) period (200-450) are referenced in this mystical literature.

This early mysticism was anything but a mere theoretical form of Kabbalah. Kanarfogel defines this early mystical literature as a practical and theurgic guide to the mystic who:

“...sought to enter into a sequence of Divine palaces (hekhalot) and realms by invoking specific (and often unusual) names, formulae and rituals.”

Before we delve into our question of Rashi’s involvement in early mysticism, there are two other general issues to take into consideration:

1) THE ISSUE OF THE PRINTED RASHI TEXTS:

Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, there is the issue of the accuracy of some of the printed Rashi texts we use today. The first printing of Rashi’s commentaries took place more than 350 years after his death.

Rabbi Dr Shnayer Leiman illustrates just how diverse the early printed versions of Rashi were, by comparing nine editions of the first printings of Rashi. In many instances, even on the same verse, the differences are astounding with some editions printing nothing, some waxing literal, and others saying something else entirely.

[See And What Does Rashi Say?]

2) WAS RASHI A CORPOREALIST?

Then there is the matter of whether Rashi was a corporealist who believed that G-d had some form of a body or physicality. It is generally accepted, as Rabbi Shmuel ben Mordechai of Marseilles wrote, that most of the rabbis of northern France believed G-d comprised some form of corporeality “rov chachmei tzorfat magshimim”. The question remains open as to whether Rashi was a corporealist or not.

[See The Notion that G-d has a Body.]

WAS RASHI A MYSTIC?

Our interest here is the question of whether or not Rashi was a mystic.

Rashi’s timeline placed him not only two centuries before the publication of the Zohar, but also thirty years before the birth of Maimonides, the great rationalist. Thus, from the outset, we need to remember that Rashi predated the paradigms of mysticism and rationalism that we are familiar with today.

But was Rashi aware of, and did he subscribe to, the early mysticism of Heichalot and Merkavah literature?

This question is addressed and answered very differently by two scholars, Professors Joseph Dan and Ephraim Kanarfogel. Dan claims that Rashi was not aware of Heichalot and Merkavah literature while Kanarfogel believes he was.

PART I:

RASHI WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY MYSTICAL TRADITIONS:

According to Joseph Dan, Rashi was not at all familiar with Heichalot and Merkava mysticism.[2] 

Although this literature would have been known in some circles within northern France and Germany – including the later Chassidei Ashkenaz and even Rashi’s descendants and students, the Tosafists – nevertheless, according to Dan,  Rashi was not aware of this literature.

Dan brings two supports for his view:

a)  In the book of Ezekiel, where the Merkavah or Divine Chariot is described, Rashi’s commentary refuses to engage in mystical speculation. He mentions twice that we may not deal with such matters:

“We do not have permission to contemplate on this verse.”[3]

“It is forbidden to contemplate on this verse.”[4]

From these comments, it seems that Rashi either did not know (or did not want to divulge) the esoteric meaning behind Ezekiel’s mystical language.

b) Dan’s second support is from Rashi’s Talmudic commentary on Chagiga 14b, where R. Akiva and three colleagues entered the mystical state of Pardes. The Talmud records that R. Akiva issued a stark warning not to confuse the polished marble floor of the heavenly realm for water:

“When (upon your arrival in the upper worlds) you reach pure marble stones, do not say: Water, water (although they appear to be water).”[5]

The Talmud does not elaborate further on the significance of seeing water during the mystical experience.

However, in the Heichalot literature[6], the appearance of water in a vision is a sign of spiritual failure to reach the intended lofty goal of entering the ‘sixth palace’. When one sees water, the mystic’s journey is over.

But Rashi does not seem to know (or agree with) this basic Heichalot principle. According to Rashi, when the mystic sees the illusion of shimmering water, he should not think that the journey is over. As long as he does not admit defeat, he may continue with the journey.

This seems to imply that Rashi was not aware of the apparent mystical prohibition against continuing the spiritual journey as per the Heichalot texts.

Kanarfogel writes:

“On the basis of this passage, Dan maintains that Rashi was clearly unfamiliar with an essential point of Hekhalot literature, that water is an absolute sign that a mystical journey has ended.”

Hense we have Dan's view that Rashi was not familiar with Heichalot mysticism.

Not everyone agrees with Joseph Dan’s interpretation and we will now look at an opposing view that reinforces the exact opposite notion – that Rashi was well aware of Heichalot literature and that he was a mystic:

PART II:

RASHI WAS AWARE OF HEICHALOT MYSTICISM:

Kanarfogel shows, however, that there exists a variant reading[7] of the previously referenced Heichalot text (prohibiting mystical travel after visualizing the appearance of water) which is strikingly similar to the way Rashi interprets the Talmudic text above: Yes, the appearance of water does generally represent the end of a spiritual quest – but, just like the Israelites were not deterred by the waters of the Red Sea and chose to push on regardless, so too the appearance of water in a vision is an obstacle that can and must be overcome with persistence.

On this variant reading, Rashi could have been well-versed in Heichalot literature and his above mentioned Talmudic comment - that the mystic traveller should continue the journey - would be in keeping with this version of the Heichalot text.

Kanarfogel brings other examples where Rashi is similarly able to produce commentary that is in accordance with Heichalot texts:

RASHI REFERENCES MYSTICAL LITERATURE:

In another Talmudic commentary[8], Rashi makes mention of three other mystical books; Ma’aseh haMerkava, Sefer Yetzira, and Ma’aseh Bereishit:

Furthermore, in Rashi’s commentary on the book of Isaiah, he also mentions the mystical book of Midrash Agada Ma’aseh Merkava. According to Gershom Scholem, this was a version of Heihalot Rabbati.

Scholem further points out that Rashi was familiar with the mystical work known as Shiur Komah which describes G-d as having some form of body or corporeality.

These examples indicate that Rashi was aware of numerous forms of mystical literature.

We will now look at some mystical influences which may have shaped Rashi’s mystical worldview:

MYSTICAL INFLUENCES ON RASHI:

R. SHIMON HAGADOL:

Some of Rashi’s predecessors from Mainz, where he studied, were known mystical practitioners. One of these was the Kabbalist R. Shimon ben Yitzchak Abun Kalonymous haGadol (c.970-1020). According to the Tosefta[9], he was Rashi’s teacher (although the dates do not support this view). According to Rashi himself, R. Shimon haGadol was his mother’s brother.[10] Either way, R. Shimon haGadol was likely to have had some influence on Rashi.

R. Shimon haGadol maintained, in a manuscript[11], how he ascended to heaven using certain mystical techniques, and that he found the name of G-d which was used in the creation of the world. 

In another of his mystical journeys, he claimed to have received the special liturgical tunes used by the angels. 

He also practised a mystical ritual of she’elat chalom, or dream requests.

In R. Shimon haGadol’s view, prayer was not so much addressed to G-d as it was to the angels in charge of prayers who transport them to the throne of glory. Like R. Shimon haGadol, Rashi supports the idea that prayers, in Kanarfogel’s words:

 “should be directed to the angelic beings or beings who oversee it.”[12]

Surprisingly, this approach to prayer was to become quite a common mystical perception with later mystics referring to prayer being directed to the entity known as Zeir Anpin or the Lesser Countenance.

[See How are we supposed to pray?] and [ Praying to Angels?]

The Machzor Vitry, written by a student[13] of Rashi, describes R. Shimon haGadol as “schooled in miracles” which leaves no doubt that we are dealing with an extremely mystical personality. He is also known for his practice of mystical rituals and reciting of adjurations which indicate that he was a practitioner of Heichalot literature. R. Shimon haGadol was also active in the mystical chain of tradition that was to become the Chassidei Ashkenaz[14].

R. ELIEZER HAGADOL:

R. Shimon haGadol’s student, R. Eliezer haGadol (d. 1060) followed in his teacher’s footsteps and was evidently an associate of Rashi. According to Kanarfogel, he too was involved in “a number of white magic techniques.”  

He instituted the custom of spilling sixteen drops of wine during the Pesach Seder. This was to represent the sixteen drops of blood from what is said to be the sixteen-sided sword of G-d. He claimed it would prevent pestilence from harming the practitioner as the word dever, or pestilence, is mentioned sixteen times in the book of Jeremiah. This notion has its roots in Sefer Heichalot. The sword is called yuhach which means sixteen strikes, and is also the name of the angel whose mission is said to be the exacting of vengeance.

Both R. Shimon and R. Eliezer spoke of the Kaddish, which, from around that time became an Ashkenazic esoteric tradition, allegedly completing the name of G-d which had been diminished by the forces of Amalek.

[See Why did the Mourner’s Kaddish Suddenly Emerge during the 12^th Century?]

R. YAAKOV BEN YAKAR:

Rashi’s main teacher, R. Yaakov ben Yakar, authored an esoteric commentary on Sefer Yetzirah, again pointing to the strong possibility that Rashi was influenced by such mystical teachings.

RASHI’S OWN MYSTICAL REFERENCES:

According to Kanarfogel:

“Rashi was himself familiar with a number of esoteric traditions related to Divine Names, and with magical and theurgic techniques as well.”

In his Talmudic commentary[15], Rashi connects G-d’s name of seventy-two letters to scriptural verses. This same derivation is found in the mystical classic, the Bahir[16]. This technique was later expounded upon by the father of modern Jewish mysticism, Nachmanides (1194-1270)[17] to show the Kabbalistic doctrine of permutations of the Divine names within every verse and letter of the Torah.

Rashi also writes that the Amoraim[18] were able to create calves and other beings by combing and permuting  Hebrew letters and Divine names which they got from Hilchot Yetzirah (probably Sefer Yetzirah).[19]

Rashi mentions[20] that the four who entered the Pardes, did so utilizing permutations of the Divine names. He also writes[21] that R. Yishmael ascended to the heavens by means of similar permutation techniques. And that the kefitzat haderech or supernatural shortening of the way discussed by Rava, was undertaken by such uses of the Divine name[22].

A further attestation that Rashi was mystically inclined may be the fact that he is frequently quoted by subsequent mystical works such as Sefer haMaskil,  the Zohar, and Ma’arechet ha Elokut. And later Kabbalists such as the Chida (1724-1806) wrote that Rashi was conversant and inspired by mysticism even as he wrote his various commentaries.

There are at least two segulot or magical devices that are attributed to Rashi[23].

Kanarfogel concludes:

“Thus, Rashi’s commentaries on these matters do not simply reflect talmudic or rabbinic material that he had at his disposal. Rather they indicate that Rashi was aware of esoteric materials and teachings, and perhaps even developed or extended some of these on his own.”

If Kanarfogel is correct, this would make Rashi not only a consumer of esoteric material but also a contributor to the mystical corpus.

SIFRUT DE’VEI RASHI:

In the writings that emerged from Rashi’s school, known as Sifrut deVei Rashi, such as Machzor Vitry, the Shabbat is compared to the marriage of Knesset Yisrael to G-d - a well-known idea capitalized upon by the later Kabbalists. 

Furthermore, Shabbat is described as a power to combat negative spiritual forces, also something later seized upon by the Zohar. 

Sme writings form Rashi's school suggest that magical names be written on the parchment of Mezuzot to further aid with spiritual protection.

There are also magical adjurations to prevent forgetfulness which correspond to those found in the Heichalot writings.

All these mystical ideas were vehemently challenged by the father of Jewish rationalism, Maimonides, who suggested to his son that the commentary of Ibn Ezra rather be substituted for that of Rashi[24]. Ironically, Maimonides' son became the leader of generations of Judeao-Sufi mystics in Egypt.

ANALYSIS:

By comparison to Joseph Dan’s argument that Rashi was not familiar with mystical teachings, Ephraim Kanarfogal’s argument is most convincing.

Overall it does seem that Rashi was indeed a mystic, well-versed in Heichalot and Merkava literature and probably an important link in the chain of mystical transition that was later to culminate in the publication of the Zohar.




FURTHER READING:

[A Window into pre-Zoharic Mystical Literature.]

[How Rashi and Rambam  Part Ways on the Deepest of Issues.]

[Rambam's Only Son - Another Sufi Connection?]

---

[1] Ephraim Kanarfogel, Rashi’s Awareness of Jewish Mystical Literature and Traditions.

[2] Joseph Dan, Rashi and the Merkava.

[3] Ezekiel 1:27.

[4] Ezekiel 8:2.

[5] b. Chagiga 14b. Translation (Seraria): The Sages taught: Four entered the orchard [pardes], i.e., dealt with the loftiest secrets of Torah, and they are as follows: Ben Azzai; and ben Zoma; Aḥer, the other, a name for Elisha ben Avuya; and Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva, the senior among them, said to them: When, upon your arrival in the upper worlds, you reach pure marble stones, do not say: Water, water, although they appear to be water, because it is stated: “He who speaks falsehood shall not be established before My eyes” (Psalms 101:7).

[6] In both Heichalot Rabbati and Heichalot Zutarti.

[7] See David Halperin, The Faces of the Chariot, Tubingen 1988, p. 210, 534.

[8] b. Chagiga 13a.

[9] Tosefta to Shabbat 54b.

[10] b. Shabbat 85b.

[11] Ms Bodl. 1960, fol. 102r.

[12] Sanhedrin 44b.

[13] R. Simcha ben Shmuel Vitry (d. 1105, the same year as Rashi’s passing).

[14] See Perush Siddur ha-Tefillah la- Roqeah, ed. Moshe Hershler, Jerusalem 1992, vol. 1, pp. 225-29.

[15] b. Sukkah 45a.

[16] Sefer ha-Bahir, ed. Daniel Abrams, Los Angeles 1994, secs, 76,79.

[17] See the Introduction to his Torah commentary.

[18] Sages from the Talmudic period, 200-450.

[19] Moshe Idel has shown, however, that these techniques do not match the extant version of Sefer Yetzirah. See Moshe Idel, Golem (Heb.), Tel Aviv 1996, pp. 66-67, 77-78.

[20] b. Chagiga 14b.

[21] b. Berachot 51a.

[22] b. Yevamot 116a.

[23] Avraham Grossman, Rashi u-Massoret Limmud ha-Torah she-Bikhtav bi-Sefarad, pp. 50-53.

[24] Isadore Twersky, "Ha-Hishpia' R. Avraham ben Ezra `al ha-Rambam?" Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra: Studies in the Writings of a Twelęh-Century Jewish Polymath, ed. Twersky.

261) A WINDOW INTO PRE-ZOHARIC MYSTICAL LITERATURE:

The 1921 collection of R. Shlomo Moussaiff's Merkavah texts not meant for public consumption.

HEICHALOT AND MERKAVAH MYSTICISM:

INTRODUCTION:

This purpose of this article is to present a brief overview of the dominant mystical literature that existed prior to the publication of the Zohar in around 1280 - with specific focus on how certain early books were regarded as being ‘dangerous’ if not approached correctly.

[See Mysteries behind the Origins of the Zohar.]

I have drawn extensively from the research of Professor Gideon Bohak,[1] a specialist in Jewish magic in Antiquity and the Middle ages, as well as in the textual fragments from the Cairo Geniza.

Many are somewhat familiar with the Kabbalah of the Zohar (and its system of Sefirot or spheres and Kelipot or unclean husks) but not much is known of the earlier mystical literature which falls into the category of Heichalot (-where one ‘ascends’ to the Heavenly Palaces) and Merkavah (-where one ‘descends’ into the Chariot).

Today, the modern student of mysticism or Chassidut is often presented with a model of Kabbalah that is almost clinical and made to resemble a version of religious ‘quantum physics’ – but the origins of this literature present as a very different style entirely.

NOTE: Some Readers may find certain references from quoted texts to be sexist and possibly offensive. No offence is meant.

ORIGINS OF HEICHALOT AND MERKAVAH MYSTICISM:

There is much scholarly debate as to whether this form of Heichalot and Merkavah mysticism originated in Palestine or Babylonia, let alone as to when it started - but there is concrete evidence it was in existence from around the 5^th or 6^th-century CE.[2]

For the next few centuries the Heichalot and Merkavah mysticism most likely circulated as an oral tradition - but certainly around the 9^th or 10^th-century it became available in manuscript form.

Bohak points out that reports from various Jewish communities at that time show that:

“...the manuscripts in which this literature was transmitted were not seen as standard manuscripts of Hebrew literature, but as special manuscripts, which may only be approached in a state of purity. Failing to observe this rule could lead to great danger...”

The 12^th and 13^th-century Chassidei Ashkenaz were also interested in this Heichalot and Merkavah literature. [See These Are Not Superstitions.]

THE SCROLL OF ACHIMA’ATZ:

An early text which gives some insight into the style and content of Heilchalot and Merkavah literature is the Scroll of Achima’atz, written by Achima’atz ben Paltiel (1017-1060).

The Scroll of Achima’atz, also known as Megillat Yuchasin, was written in rhymed Hebrew prose with extensive vocabulary and takes the form of a chronicle. This thousand-year-old work was discovered by accident in a Spanish library and published in 1895.

According to Achima’atz, his family descended from the captives taken by Titus to Rome after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE.

Achima’atz was a chronicler from southern Italy and his writing, often drawing from earlier accounts going back to the 9^th-century, gives one a window into the beliefs and practices of that the time when this particular mystical literature was popular.

Bohak writes that the strange and incredulous events portrayed in the Scroll of Achima’atz:

“...often stretch the modern reader’s credulity far beyond the breaking point.”

Achima’atz describes an ancestor of his, R. Amittai and his three sons who are:

 “...learned persons and poets, educators and teachers to decent pupils...who understand secrets...[and are] adept in the mysteries...well versed in Sefer ha-Yashar [a book on angelology and magic], [and] gazers onto the secret of the Merkavah.”[3]

The Scroll of Achima’atz also informs us that the family had a spiritual heirloom which was preserved for at least four generations, and that was the Sefer haMerkavah.

But a strange fate awaited that book. The fourth-generation custodian of the Sefer haMerkavah was Baruch who was no longer pious or observant. The following event is related in the Scroll and Baruch, due to his negligence, is held to be responsible:

“[I]t happened one day on the eve of the Sabbath... when the day grew dark, and the daylight darkened, and the one who had to light the candle was not there, to light it before the Book of the Chariot [Sefer haMerkavah].”

Apparently, a candle was kindled in the presence of this holy book every Shabbat. On one occasion, it seems that the regular person tasked with kindling the candle was not present, perhaps due to Baruch’s negligence and lack of observance.

“And a certain woman stood there, and she was menstruant, this cursed woman ‒ may she be erased from the book of life, and may she be wiped out from the world to come ‒ and she lit the candle before the Torah [which is what Sefer haMerkavah is referred to[4]] and the wrath of God was upon the family, and many died in that plague, only a few survived out of the many they were.

And there was there an understanding Jew, who realized and understood the event that had happened. He took the book and placed it in a vessel of lead, to sink it in the depths of the sea; and the sea retreated [in fear], for about a mile it receded; and the Jew [walked that mile out to sea and] cast the vessel into the sea, and the sea returned to its place; at once the terrible ordainment was voided and the plague came to an end. 

And the memory of Baruch ceased to exist, his candle faded and was extinguished, for he left behind him none to engage in the One who reanimates, as he had no son, only one daughter.”[5]

The placing of an object, possessed by something perceived to be unclean or evil, also occurs in another section of the Scroll of Achima’atz. One of Achima’atz’s ancestors, R. Shefatiah was said to have exorcised a demon from the king’s daughter. He placed the demon in a vessel and sealed it with lead and also cast it into the ocean.[6]

THE RESPONSUM OF RAV HAI GAON:

Bohak writes:

“The Scroll of Ahimaaz is not the most sober of historical chronicles, and its story about a Hekhalot manuscript that ended up in the Mediterranean Sea may be taken with more than a grain of sea-salt. 

In fact, it would have been easy to dismiss this story as utterly farfetched, were it not for the fact that the main assumptions that lie behind it are reflected in a much more sober text, written at about the same time in a very different Jewish community.”

Bohak is referring to a Teshuva or Responsum from Rav Hai Gaon (939-1038) who was the head of the Academy in Pumbedita (Fallujah) in answer to questions from the rabbis Kairouan (Tunisia), about the use of the Divine Name for practical (magical) benefit.

The original questions and the Responsum have been lost but evidently, the Kairouan rabbis weren’t satisfied with Rav Hai Gaon’s original answer so they wrote to him again. This second letter is extant. The questions and the answers give us a parallel and corroborating insight into the spirituality at that time.

The Kairouan rabbis claimed to have many books containing literature dealing with Divine and other powerful names.

They wrote:

“And we have several books among us, in which are written some of the Names, and some names of angels, and form(s) of seals, and they (i.e.,these books) say, Whoever wants to perform so and so, or to succeed in so and so, should write so and so like this (i.e., as shown in the book), on (material) so and so and should do thus, and the deed will come true for him.

And the elders and the pious people, when they would see these books they would fear them and would not approach them, and say that a certain man performed a deed so and so like that which is written in the books, and the deed did come true, but his own eyes were blinded, and some did not live through the year, and some did not live through the week, since they were not in a state of purity when they recited that Name.”[7]

The letter is pages long and goes on to quote relevant sections of the Babylonian Talmud which deal with similar matters. For some reason, the Heichalot and Merkavah texts are not specifically mentioned by the rabbis of Kairouan.

Rav Hai Gaon’s correspondingly lengthy response informs his questioners that he is well aware of the circulation of these popular magical books advocating such practices but in his view, it is all nonsense. 

However, on his own accord, he proceeds to distinguish between those popular magic books and a second category of what he regards as genuine mystical literature – the books of the Heichalot and Merkavah:

a) In the first category of what he considers to be magical (theurgical) and nonsensical works, he includes Sefer haYashar (on angelology), the Sword of Moshe and Razza Rabba (The Great Secret), including other:

“...fragments and individual passages, which are endless and without number...

many have spent much effort and wasted many years and found no truth in the matter.”

b) In the second category, however, it is clear that Rav Hai Gaon has great regard for what he considers to be genuine mystical (theosophical) Heichalot and Merkavah literature. He even refers to these mystical writings as Mishnayot (Mishnaic literature)[8]:

“[T]here are books and Names and seals and  Hekhalot Rabbata  and  Hekhalot Zeirata, and Sar Torah and other mishnayot, that whoever sees them becomes frightened, and so were our forefathers, and so are we, that we only approach them in purity and fear and trembling.

And we also heard persistent claims that some who have dealt with them perished quickly, and all this because of the sanctity of the Name and the sanctity of the Shekhinot  and of the angels who are around them, and the sanctity of the Merkabah, and that whoever deals with this deed, the angels swarm all around him...”

Thus Rav Hai Gaon disregards the folk magic but has high regard, if not awe, for Heichalot and Merkavah mysticism.

Rav Hai Gaon’s interesting reference to Heichalot literature as Mishnayot is paralleled in the Heichalot texts themselves which often refer to its own teachings as Mishnayot. And since Rav Hai Gaon says ‘whoever sees them’ it is clear that by that stage they were written texts and not oral transmissions.

Bohak points out that essentially Rav Hai Gaon maintains the same position as that portrayed in the Scroll of Achima’atz:

“[W]hat we saw should suffice to convince us that his attitude towards the Hekhalot / Merkabah literature was not that different from that of Ahima’atz and his ancestors.”

THE WARNINGS IN THE HEICHALOT TEXTS THEMSELVES:

Having established that both Achima’atz and Rav Hai Gaon believed that Heichalot and Merkavah texts are dangerous and can only be approached in purity, Bohak shows how these warnings are also prevalent in the actual texts themselves:

According to a Heichalot text fragment found in the Cairo Geniza, dated around the 11^th-century, which would be contemporaneous to both Achima’atz and Rav Hai Gaon, the following practice is prescribed:

 “How does he use it (i.e., one of God’s powerful Names)? He goes and sits in a house by himself, and keeps fasting the whole day, and does not eat the bread of (i.e., made by) a woman, and looks neither at a man nor at a woman, and when he walks in the market he hides his eyes from all creatures, and does not look even at a day-old baby. And he immerses himself (in water) from evening to evening[9], and recites this thing after the evening Shema prayer, each and every day...”

And the text proceeds with a warning that a certain mystical incantation must be recited precisely 111 times otherwise:

 “...his blood is upon his head.”

MORE EVIDENCE FROM THE CAIRO GENIZA:

[See The Cairo Geniza - 1000 Years of Torah on African Soil.]

TORAH SCROLLS:

The textual fragments found in the Cairo Geniza reveal some fascinating clues as to the structure and status of the original Heichalot manuscripts. On inspection, some fragments reveal how they were written in columns of uniform width.

Bohak explains:

“This is an extremely unusual find, since by the ninth and tenth centuries, which is when these manuscripts probably were copied, only Torah-scrolls were written in this archaic format.

Using such a format for Hekhalot literature clearly implied the great sanctity of these texts in the eyes of their copyists and users.” 

MISHNAYOT:

Another unusual characteristic of some of these fragments is how they are neatly divided into chapters and paragraphs. This corroborates Rav Hai Gaon’s reference to Heichalot literature as Mishnayot. Apparently they were also considered to have similar status to Mishnaic texts.

DOWNGRADING TO A ROTULUS AND A NOTEBOOK:

A much later fragment from the Cairo Geniza was discovered, which reveals something of great interest. It is a fragment of Heichalot writing, but this time not resembling a horizontal Torah text.

Rather, it is in the form of a vertical scroll known as a Rotulus and written on paper, not parchment. A Rotulus was cheaper to make and easier to transport because it was rolled from top to bottom.

A Heichalot text appearing in a Rotulus format would indicate a downgrading of its status at that time.

This Rotulus fragment is dated from the 13^th-century and was significantly produced in Cairo.

A PUSH-BACK AGAINST RAMBAM?

Bohak does not suggest this but perhaps this was a result of more rational influences from Rambam (d. 1204) who lived in Cairo at around that time. Rambam had no time for magic and mysticism and did not believe in forces of good and evil (in keeping with the idea that G-d prohibited the eating of the fruit of the tree of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ – so that humans would not create categories of ‘good’ and ‘evil’  – yet the first thing they did was create such realms).

[See The ‘Lost Religion’ of Maimonides.]

Furthermore - and perhaps in keeping with this hypothesis - is the listing of a Heichalot codex in a 12^th-century (inventory) booklist (the latter being common finds in the Cairo Geniza).

In this particular listing, now for the first time, a Heichalot work is simply referred to as a diftar which means a common book!

This again indicates a possible downgrade in Rambam’s Cairo in the status of Heichalot literature from what we saw started out as a Torah, then a Mishna and now just a common diftar.

THE MERKAVAH SHLEIMAH OF 1921:

In 1921, a Bukharan (today the area around Uzbekistan) Jew and collector of manuscripts, by the name of Shlomo Moussaieff, published a series of Heichalot texts from his own collection under the title Merkavah Shleima.

In his introduction, he writes at length about the dangers of this literature if not approached respectfully. But he adds another very interesting stipulation - not to sell the book to people who would use the work to show Jews in a bad light.

He writes:

“[O]ne should sell this book only to Torah disciples and God-fearing persons, and one should guard it and study it in purity, and not approach the holy at all times[10].”

Ironically, the book is now available online here.

---

[1] Gideon Bohak, Dangerous Books; The Hekhalot Texts as Physical Objects.

[2] This is based on the emergence, in Babylonia, of Aramaic incantation bowls which represent the ethos of this literature at that time.

[3] Klar, Megillat Ahimaaz, p. 12.

[4] It is interesting that to this day, some Chassidim do not hesitate to place their signature mystical works on top of a Chumash. And kindling a light before the Torah is also observed today by the ner tamid or eternal light which burns in synagogues in front of the Ark which houses the Torah scrolls.

[5] Klar, Megillat Ahimaaz, p. 30.

[6] This may have been based on an idea in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 64a and Yoma 69b) where the evil inclination, in the time of Zecharia, was described as a fiery lion cub which was caught and also sealed in a lead vessel to prevent its voice being heard when it roared.

[7] S. Emanuel, Newly Discovered Geonic Responsa (Jerusalem and Cleveland: Ofeq Institute, Friedberg Library, 1995), p. 125. 

[8] Rav Hai Gaon writes: “[T]here are two mishnayot which the Tannaim (the rabbis of the Mishnaic period (0-200CE) recite about this, and they are called Hekhalot Rabbati and Hekhalot Zutarti, and this thing is widely known.” 

[9] Literally ‘between the suns’ which is the time between sunset and nightfall.

[10] A play on Lev. 16:2.