463) The discovery of R. Nachman’s Secret Scroll

Megilat Setarim - The Secret Scroll of R. Nachman of Breslov

Introduction

This article – based extensively on the research by Professor Zvi Mark[1] − examines the relatively recent emergence of a work by R. Nachman of Breslov, Megilat Setarim, that was thought to have either been lost or hidden away. 

A cloud of secrecy has always hung over this enigmatic work, particularly concerning the reasons for it to have remained a secret document, but as we shall see, many elements of secrecy surrounded the personality of R. Nachman of Breslov in general. For some reason, secrecy seemed to often go hand in hand with R. Nachman and his teachings:

“We know of one book which R. Nachman hid away, another which he burnt, as well as tales he forbade to reveal to outsiders. So it was that Breslav Chasidim, as a group, enshrouded themselves within a certain air of mystery and kept up a continual discourse concerning hidden works and hidden meanings in their Rebbe’s teaching” (Mark 2010:23). 

371) ‘Tikla’ and the zoharic concept that sin can bring redemption

 

The potter's wheel gives shape to a lump of clay.

Introduction

This article, based extensively on the research by Dr Ruth Kara-Ivanov Kaniel[1] as well as Rabbi Moshe Miller[2], deals with the fascinating yet paradoxical notion in the Zohar of sin as a harbinger or precursor of redemption. The discussion revolves around the Aramaic word Tikla, which appears on two occasions in the Zohar.[3]

355) R. Moshe Ibn Gigatila: The Psalms are just prayers

Introduction

 

In the previous post, The Psalms are not prayers, we saw how Rav Saadia Gaon held the unusual view that psalms may not be used as prayers and that, like the Torah itself they are meant only to be studied but not prayed. Psalms are not liturgy. According to Rav Saadia, the psalms were used as a strictly controlled and regulated ritual during Temple times, but never as liturgy (supplications or prayers). On this view, the psalms were never an ‘early prayer book’ as was claimed by the Karaite Jews. It is believed that Rav Saadia formulated his unusual and limited view on the function of the psalms, in reaction to the Karaites, who had rejected the Rabbanite siddur and used the psalms as their prayer book instead.

In this article, however, based extensively on the work by Professor Uriel Simon[1], we explore another unusual view of the psalms. This is the view held by R. Moshe Ibn Gigatila, who believed that that the psalms are indeed prayers - but nothing more than prayers. And because they are just prayers, they are not profoundly holy nor do they carry any prophetic or spiritually subliminal innuendo.

271) R. YITZCHAK NISSENBAUM - THE THEOLOGY OF WORK:

Rabbi Yitzchak Nissenbaum 1868-1943.

INTRODUCTION:

There is almost no literature in English on Rabbi Yitzchak Nissenbaum (1868-1943) who was one of the early ideologues of religious Zionism. R. Yitzchak Nisenbaum was a leader of the Mizrachi movement in Warsaw and he died in the Ghetto during the Holocaust.

Not wishing to dwell on politics, I shall ignore any political overtones (remembering that R. Nissenbaum passed away five years before the establishment of the State of Israel) and focus primarily on his theology and Hashkafa (world view) which is rich, refreshing and very relevant.

I have drawn from the research of Rabbi Dr Amir Mashiach of Bar Ilan University who presents us with probably the first academic study of R. Nissenbaum in the English language.[1]

R. YITZCHAK NISSENBAUM’S STORY:

R. Yitzchak Nissenbaum was born into a Chassidic family. His father passed away when he was still young and Yitzchak was raised by his uncle who was a mitnaged, an opponent of the Chassidic movement. With time R. Yitzchak also adopted his uncle’s worldview, although he continued to study Chassidic literature. Notwithstanding his connection to Chassidism, his writings reflect no elements of Chassidic thought, and he never quotes any Chassidic masters. In fact, his writings are void of any mysticism whatsoever.

He studied at Volozhin Yeshiva and when the government forced the closure of the yeshiva, he joined the yeshiva’s secret nationalistic association called ‘Netzach Yisrael’. The society demanded that all its members declare their allegiance to Eretz Yisrael.

HIS MENTOR, R. SHMUEL MOHILEWER:

R. Nissenbaum regarded R. Shmuel Mohilewer as his mentor, and he called him Admor (a term usually reserved for a Chassidic rebbe). R. Mohilewer, who received his ordination at Volozhin Yeshiva in 1842, is regarded as one of the founders of the religious Zionist movement.  R. Mohilewer tried to persuade the rabbis to "combine the Torah and [secular] wisdom as the time is appropriate."

R. Mohilewer was once refused funding - for creating settlements in the Holy Land - from a philanthropist, because the donor suggested that he would be creating “12^th-century Jews” and not Jews who were capable of building a new country.

He responded:

“You are mistaken... we want to create...Jews who, on the one hand, will belong to the 30th century, but on the other, will hail from periods preceding the counting of centuries. Jews from the period of the Prophets and the Hasmoneans…”

Thus we see how R. Mohilewer was already thinking of a nascent model of Jewry looking towards the future but with precedent firmly rooted in the ancient - but not immediate - past.

ANOTHER MENTOR, R. SHIMSHON REFAEL HIRSCH:

R. Nissenbaum was also familiar with the writings and philosophy of another spiritual mentor, R. Shimshon Refael Hirsch (1808-1888), the founder of Modern Orthodoxy, who taught the principle of Torah Im Derech Eretz, and quoted from him with great respect. However, he felt that R. Hirsch had downplayed the notion of Jewish nationality.

REDEFINING REDEMPTION:

The ultra-Orthodox camps especially during R. Nissenbaum’s time were averse to interfering with the anticipated redemptive process of the Messiah. R. Nissenbaum, however, was of the opinion that the redemption of the Jewish people lay within their willingness to create a redemptive era by their own actions. This was one of the reasons why he felt that creative work and labour was so important. The Jewish people must no sit by idly waiting for some miraculous event to take place but must do whatever is within their physical power to create the change they want to see.

Dr Mashiach writes very poignantly about how, as an overriding rule, passivity had actually become a 'Torah virtue' in post-Temple times:

“After nearly 2,000 years of exile and inaction, which had largely been dictated by contemporary realities, passivity had become part of the Jewish way of thinking, to the point where it was accorded a theological standing by Orthodox leaders.”

R. SHALOM DOV-BER SCHNEERSON’S VIEW OF REDEMPTION:

To best way to understand just how radical R. Nissenbaum’s view on taking Jewish redemptive destiny into individual hands, is to contrast his thinking with the views of another contemporary rabbinic leader, R. Shalom Dov-Ber Schneerson of Lubavitch. He was the fifth Rebbe of the dynasty and (surprisingly) an outspoken promoter of theological passivity!

R. Shalom Dov-Ber believed that any attempt at interfering in the redemptive process was certain to be futile if not have an adverse effect. He argued that any human interference could only be temporary as even Moshe and Aharon could not bring about a permanent state of redemption other than the partial process of the Exodus from Egypt. And even when the kings and prophets built Temples but they did not last forever.

Therefore the Jews should do nothing other than wait for the total Redemption which will be brought about through “the Holy One, Blessed Is He, Himself” without human interference. Only then will “our Redemption be complete” and everlasting.[2]

Dr Mashiach writes:

“The Rebbe not only argued against taking practical measures; he even placed a vehement ban on spiritual activism. He said that a believer is not permitted to pray earnestly for the coming of the Messiah, for in earnest prayer for Redemption, one infringes upon the prohibition against ‘urging the end.’ One is ‘not permitted to urge the end, to engage in extensive supplication about this, especially with bodily powers and stratagems.’”

These teachings of R. Shalom Dov-Ber were published in 1900 and many rabbis began to view Zionism as a threat and a theological problem.

By contrast, R. Nissenbaum writes:

“Elijah, awaiting the day of Redemption together with the Messiah, is busy, according to aggadic midrash, writing Israelite history. But this is not the writing of our passive history: our troubles and our suffering, our affliction and our ordeals; our Redemption will not come of these. This is rather the writing of our active history, the deeds and actions performed so as to strengthen the spirit of the people and to bring closer its Redemption … all is as per the deed of the nation as a whole moving toward its Redemption and the ransom of its soul – so will the Holy Spirit descend upon it.”

Thus R. Nissenbaum extends his notion of the importance of work in general to the importance of work to end the exilic slumber which had taken hold of the Jewish people and to replace it with a pre-emptive approach. This was, in his view, the only way to escape the curse of the exile which was the belief in the necessity of Jewish passivity.

R. NISSENBAUM’S THEOLOGY OF WORK:

On the notion of work in general and its elevation to a noble and theological status, R. Nissenbaum believed it was a Halachic obligation for a Jew to work.[3] By work, he meant not just to make a living but even work for its own sake. Work was, as Dr Mashiach puts it: “[an] independent religious Torah value”.

R. Nissenbaum wrote:

“The Torah of Israel detests idleness and loves work. In accord with this was Adam brought to the Garden in Eden, not to enjoy its choice fruit … but “to work and to guard it” [Gen 2:15]. The it is emphasized by the grammatical addition of the special dot in the letter heh at the end of each of these two verbs. The work is literal work, and the guarding is literal guarding.”[4]

Interestingly, R. Nissenbaum admits that work is not one of the 613 commandments. However, that fact does not deter him from maintaining that, nevertheless, by incorporating work into the first story of the humankind, it was clear that it was the basic vision of the Torah. Thus work, like breathing and walking, did not require a specific command. Humans had to perfect the world and bring it to a state of technological advancement.

R. Nissenbaum believes that, over time, we had lost the Torah’s original vision of work - to the extent that our Judaism as presented today is unbalanced and not reflective of the totality of Torah thought.

Although it was not a specific commandment, R. Nissenbaum argued that work still has a Halachic imperative because when the Torah mentions ceasing from work on the Sabbath, it writes:

 “Six days will you work and do all your special tasks, and on the seventh day is the Sabbath.”[5]

As Dr Mashiach puts it:

“Thus, in his view, according to the Torah and halakhah, work during the six days of the week is no less a positive value than refraining from work on the Sabbath.”

THE ‘IDLENESS WIDESPREAD AMONG OUR PEOPLE’:

R. Nissenbaum does not mince his words when writing sharply about his coreligionists in his day:

“[T]he idleness widespread among our People, a large part of whom earn their keep

by the spirit alone, without any labor, is utterly in opposition to our Torah, for “just as the Torah was given in covenant, so was skilled work given in covenant” (Avot

de-Rabbi Natan 11).”[6]

Thus, according to R. Nissenbaum, it is the person who works and contributes to society, not the person who just ‘sits in learning’ who is closer to the original ideal of the archetypal Torah human being.

‘RELIGION OF LABOUR’, ‘LABOUR OF RELIGION’ OR ‘LABOUR AND RELIGION’:

R. Nissenbaum positions himself somewhere between the secular left and the ultra-Orthodox right.

His theology obviously created waves within the traditional community of which he too was a part. He was openly critical of anyone who tried to separate the then secular Zionism from ultra-Orthodoxy – to the extent that he referred to both extremes as “assimilationists.” :

“The Left proclaims a religion of labor and sees work as the forefront of everything.

The Right proclaims a labor of religion and treats practical physical labor with contempt.”[7]

Dr Mashiach encapsulates this ideal as follows:

“[R. Nissenbaum] endorsed an approach of ’religion and labor,’ not ‘religion of labor.’

Bodily practical work, then, was required as part of the national religious identity, the original Judaism:

[H]e promoted not another uni-dimensional notion of Judaism as ‘either … or,’ but one of ‘both.’

R. NISSENBAUM BREAKS FROM HIS MENTOR:

It is on this point that R. Nissenbaum parts theological ways with his mentor R. Mohilewer.

Dr Mashiach explains:

“Nissenbaum and Mohilewer’s views differ in essence: Mohilewer saw work as a means of sustenance, while Nissenbaum treated labor as a part of theology; in his view, making a living, however important, was marginal by comparison.”

JUDAISM LOSES A VITAL COMPONENT:

R. Nissenbaum points out that in biblical times, Judaism incorporated both a component of physical and practical enterprise as well as a corresponding component of religious and spiritual endeavours. Jews were primarily traders and farmers who did not shy away from extreme physical activity.

However, as a result of the exile following the destruction of the Temple, that primary physical component was lost. With time, it was as if Judaism’s integral affinity and connection to the physical world had never even existed.

THE ‘NAIVE JUDAISM’:

According to Dr Mashiach:

“As Nissenbaum saw it, exilic Judaism proceeded to develop with nothing but spiritual concerns.”

 R. Nissenbaum writes in his own forthright words in Masoret veCherut:[8]

“Little by little did the exile eat up not only the Jews … but also Judaism … instead of the complete, historical Judaism, a naïve religious Judaism arose before us, one which had nothing in its universe except for the God of Israel and His Torah.”[9]

THE ‘NEGLECT OF THE BODY’:

And in his Ketavim Nivharim he writes:

“[In the exile, Jews] began to look on simple labor with disdain … and so it was that we came to neglect concern with the body.”[10]

In other words, as Dr Mashiach puts it, we have transformed from a Judaism which had a “bi-dimensional, physical-and-spiritual character” to a “uni-dimensional, or exclusively spiritual, exilic Judaism.”

‘CLIPPING THE REACH OF THE SPIRIT’:

R. Nissenbaum wrote:

“[T]he nature of the body is now taking its revenge upon us for having abandoned it, and clipping the reach of our spirit.”

‘TRADITION IS NOT JUST THE SPIRITUAL LIFE OF THE FATHERS’:

In R. Nissenbaum’s words, the original Judaism taught a “holistic worldview” with a “spiritual-material outlook”[11] where work and spirit were two sides of the same coin. When R. Nissenbaum observed the Judaism of his day, he felt that it was missing a vital component – a positive attitude towards labour. Therefore Judaism was incomplete and no longer in balance because concern for the spirit had become the sole and dominant purpose of Judaism. For Nissenbaum, the attitude towards and involvement in the material world for its own sake, was just as important.

R. Nissenbaum writes:

 “’Jewry’ is a people living in the tradition of its fathers. But this tradition is not only in

the spiritual life of the fathers, but also in their bodily life … This we must remember

well. The first principle of this life was work: manual labor producing simple bodily

values. They tilled the land, raised sheep and cattle, worked in every trade and dealt

in commerce … and airiness was foreign to them...

Therefore the Jews committed to Jewry need first of all to arrange their personal

lives and raise their children on the basis of labor, constructive and productive work,

              like our fathers … as was the reality in olden times.”[12]

R. NISSENBAUM’S PASSING:

During the Nazi occupation of Warsaw, he refused to leave the city because he wanted to share the fate of Warsaw Jewry.  Apparently the Germans shot him on January 1, 1943, when he refused to stand in the wagons transporting the Warsaw Jews to Treblinka. He is said to have yelled out to the other Jews just before he died: “Do not go to Treblinka!”

[For further exploration of this fascinating topic of religious passivity, see How Reality on the Ground Informs Perceptions of Heaven.]

---

[1] Amir Mashiach, Work in the Teaching of Rabbi Yitzchak Nissenbaum.

[2] Holy Letters (Hebrew; New York: Kehat, 5742 1982]), Part 1, Para. 122.

[3] Imrei Derush (Homilies) 55-124.

[4] Imrei Derush 223.

[5] Shemot 20:15.

[6]Ketavim Nivharim 225.

[7] From an address to the Second Congress of Mizrahi Youth in Poland (1922), cited in Nehemiah

Aminoach, ed., The Religious Labor Movement (Hebrew; Jerusalem: Hahanhala Harashit

Shel Tnuat Torah Veʾavoda, 5691 [1931]) 89.

[8] Translations by Dr. Mashiach.

[9] R. Yitzchak Nissenbaum, Masoret veCherut (Tradition and Freedom), 17.

[10] R. Yitzchak Nissenbaum, Ketavim Nivharim (Selected Writings) 22.

[11] Ketavim Nivharim 19.

[12] Ketavim Nivharim 113.

187) THE CENSORSHIP OF ABULAFIA AND HIS ATTEMPT TO CONVERT THE POPE:

INTRODUCTION:

Avraham ben Shmuel Abulafia (1240-1291) was born in Zaragosa, Spain, in the Hebrew year 5000. He is regarded as one of the ‘neglected mystics’, known alternately as a ‘prophetic’, ‘linguistic’ and ‘ecstatic’ Kabbalist[1]. 

He was a fascinating and enigmatic personality because not only did he try to convert the Pope to Judaism, but he also claimed to have been the Messiah.

HIS PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL JOURNEYS:

R. Avraham Abulafia’s teacher was his own father, R. Shmuel, who ensured that his son was well educated in Talmud.

From the age of eighteen, when his father died, he began to travel, seemingly aimlessly, and he arrived in Acco, Israel, in search of the famous river known as Sambation. According to tradition, this river flowed so strongly during the week that it was impossible to cross, and then ceased to flow on Shabbat, when it was forbidden to cross.  Additionally, he tried to search for some of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, who had according to legend, crossed over that river - and rumours abounded that, at that time, they had begun to return to Israel.

He also wanted to visit Biblical places and ‘re-experience’ some of the ancient events.

However, upon arrival in the Land of Israel, he found it in turmoil as a result of the Crusades and was forced to return to Europe.

He found himself in Capua, southern Italy, where he began a relentless study of Rambam’s Guide for the Perplexed, under R. Hillel of Verona. He later taught the Guide to students in Greece.

Mainstream Kabbalah was not deep enough for him and when he returned to Spain, he began experiencing ‘visions’ while studying under Baruch Togarmi who specialised in Tzeruf, or letter combinations involving linguistic manipulations and permutations known as Gematria, Notrikon and Temurah. 

He additionally studied Ramban’s (Nachmanides’) mystical teachings, which, at that time was only studied in small secret groups.

INFLUENCE FROM CHASSIDEI ASHKENAZ:

Abulafia drew also from some of the earlier mysticism of Chassidei Ashkenaz, which was founded by R. Yehuda HeChassid and flourished in Germany and France during the 12th and 13th centuries. That movement was influenced by some of the earlier Merkava techniques and included some local Germanic superstitions.[2] 

During this time the famous Raziel haMalach was most likely written by R. Elazar of Worms (although some parts of the book are much older) who also gave ‘instruction’ on how to create a Golem.

At one stage, Abulafia claimed that he felt the messianic ‘anointing oil’ being poured over him and: “When I reached to the Names and untied the seal bands, the Lord of all revealed Himself to me and made known to me His Secret, and informed me concerning the end of the exile and the beginning of the Redemption.”

Abulafia began attracting a number of students, most notably Moshe Gikatilla (whom Rambam called ‘one of the most intelligent of the commentators’, see here.) Interestingly though, for some reason (which may become apparent later) Gikatilla does not mention Abulafia in any of his writings.

THE SYNTHESIS:

According to Professor Moshe Idel, Abulafia started his scholarly career with a strong influence from the rationalist Rambam, who had died just thirty-six years earlier. He then moved on to the mysticism of Kabbalah. Abulafia then, at the age of 31 created a surprising synthesis between Rambam’s rational philosophy and the mysticism of Kabbalah, particularly that of R. Elazar of Worms which is somewhat magical and places emphasis on linguistics, letters and the power of language.

This he did because he believed he was a Prophet and he also believed that he was the Messiah.[3] Thus he developed a powerful synthesis between two dominant forms of Jewish culture which had flourished during the generation preceding him.

(Ironically, there is some speculation that Rambam may have been inadvertently responsible for the popularity of mysticism during the 1200’s, which arose as a protest against his extreme rationalism.)

ABULAFIA’S GUIDING PRINCIPLES:

In creating this unusual synthesis between Chassidei Ashkenaz and Rambam, Abulafia developed a rather unique model of Kabbalah:

The Chassidei Ashkenaz - although mystical - were relatively conservative, while Abulafia was far more explorative and innovative.

Rambam, on the other hand, particularly in his philosophical writings, was quite open to allow for some allegorical interpretations of various aspects of the Torah narrative. (For example, he wrote that the sacrifices were granted to the early Israelites as a ‘concession’ for having come out of an idolatrous culture where sacrifices were the spiritual norm – but it was not to be the preferred Torah model. See here).

Abulafia then ‘borrowed’ this license to use allegorical interpretation but in a very different way to Rambam. He completely broke down and reconstructed the letters of the biblical text until they no longer related to the plain meaning and then rebuilt them in a different manner entirely to create a new ‘text’ – which he then used as a basis for the mystical interpretation and experience. By deconstructing the letters of the Torah to such an extent that they were no longer cohesive, he showed the mystical practitioner how to deconstruct his own inherent worldview and then to reconstruct a new spiritual worldview.[4]

Perhaps one could say, therefore, that Abulafia took and expanded upon the mysticism of Chassidei Ashkenaz while neglecting their conservatism – and at the same time he took precedent from Rambam for radical allegorical and ‘deconstructive’ interpretation of the Torah text, while neglecting his rationalism.

MANUSCRIPTS ONLY PUBLISHED IN THE 1990’S:

According to Professor Joseph Dan, most of Abulafia’s teachings remained available only in manuscript form and were not published until the 1990’s and even later. This means that until relatively recently not much of his approach was widely known to those who did not have access to his manuscripts. [5]

Many Kabbalistic manuscripts are housed in the Vatican Library and interestingly, Professor Idel was granted easy access to them. He even thanks them by writing:

“I take this opportunity to thank the Vatican Library, late as these thanks may be, for the generosity that contributed not only to my modest studies of the Kabbalistic material, but also of many other scholars, who also benefited from the liberal approach of the directors of that Library.”[6]

SEFIROT:

Abulafia used combinations of letters, pronunciations, head and hand movements, concentration and breathing exercises. Abulafia was particularly interested in the Hebrew language although he did use Italian, Latin, Greek, Tatar, Arabic and Basque in order to ascertain Gematrias, or numerical values.

According to some[7], the authorship of the Zohar is even attributed to Abulafia (as Abulafia was the same age as Moshe de León. See here.)

While his Kabbalistic colleagues were exploring the Ten Sefirot, or Spheres, Abulafia felt this approach was worse than Christianity with their emphasis on the Trinity.

We see that Abulafia opposed and even ridiculed the Kabbalistic system of the Sefirot and substituted it with a system based on letters of the Hebrew alphabet. It is also possible that he was influenced by the Sufis.[8] (For more on Sufi influence, see Chovot haLevavot and Avraham ben haRambam.)

R. Ariel Bar Tzadok points out that the Spanish and Zoharic Ten Sefirot system, which we are familiar with today, is completely different from the earlier System of Sefirot as described originally in Sefer Yetzirah. In the earlier model, there was no concept of the Tree of Life where the Sefirot are divided into a middle, a left and a right side, and they did not have names like Chachma Bina etc.

THE POPE:

In 1280, just before Rosh haShana, Abulafia arrived in Rome in an attempt to convert Pope Nicholas III to Judaism. This was based on a spiritual experience he was said to have had, and the Pope’s conversion would have been a prerequisite for the imminent messianic age he envisioned.

The Pope, however, happened to be in his summer palace in Soriano at that time, which was not far from Rome, and Abulafia followed him there. But when he heard of Abulafia’s arrival, the Pope issued an order to have the ‘fanatic’ burned at the stake. On arrival in Soriano, Abulafia walked boldly past the pyre which had been set up for him, and then discovered that the Pope had suddenly died the previous night, August 22 1280, from a stroke!

Here is an interesting Zohar:

“And on the sixth day [Friday] on the twenty-fifth day of the sixth month [Elul - i.e.: just before Rosh haShana]... three high walls of the city of Rome will fall, and the great palace there will collapse and the ruler of that city will die.” [9]

In his Sefer haOt, Abulafia wrote: “His [G-d’s] adversary died, unrepentant, in Rome by the power of the Name of...G-d...His Name fashioned my tongue into a spear with which I killed them that deny Him, and I killed His enemies by a righteous judgement.”

Abulafia was thrown into jail by the Franciscans as they suspected he had something to do with the Pope’s death. He was held for 28 days and then released.

Pope Nicolas III was a friend of St Francis of Assisi who was the founder of the Franciscan order.

It is also possible that Abulafia was interested in meeting the Pope as he was aware that in Franciscan circles, meditation on the names of Jesus was becoming a popular technique at that time. [10]

After the incident with the Pope, he made his way to Sicily proclaiming himself as not just a Prophet but as the Messiah as well.

RASHBA EXCOMMUNICATES ABULAFIA:

When word reached R. Shlomo ben Aderet - known as Rashba (1235-1310) - about some of Abulafia’s messianic enterprises, he immediately excommunicated Abulafia.  Rashba happened to be a (Spanish) Kabbalist himself but Abulafia was considered far too radical for the mainstream Kabbalists.

Nevertheless, many of Abulafia’s works were translated into Latin by Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and were taught during the Italian Renaissance.

R. CHAIM VITAL GETS CENSORED FOR QUOTING ABULAFIA:

Four centuries later, one of the Ari Zal’s foremost students, R. Chaim Vital (1543-1620) quoted Abulafia in his Sha’arei Kedusha. The work was composed in four parts. Part Four included meditative techniques from Abulafia. Interestingly, this Part Four remained unpublished for four hundred years and was published for the first time in the 1990’s!

CHIDA ENDORSES ABULAFIA:

Five centuries later, the Chida (R. Chaim Yosef David Azulai 1724-1807) supported and endorsed Abulafia. He writes regarding one of Abulafia’s books entitled Chayeh Olam haBa:

“This is a book written by R. Abraham Abulafia, concerning the circle of the seventy-two letter [Divine] Name, which I saw on the parchment manuscript. And I know that Rashba...in his Responsa, sec. 548, and R. Yashar [R. Joseph Solomon del Medigo of Candia], in his Sefer Metzaref leChachma, expressed contempt towards him, as one of the worthless people, or worse.

However, I say in truth I see him as a great rabbi, among the master of secrets, and his name is great in Israel, and none may alter his words...”[11]

However, for the most part, Abulafia was always regarded as somewhat askance.

ABULAFIA TURNS UNIVERSAL:

As a result of being excommunicated by Rashba, who has little patience for messianic claimants, Abulafia’s Kabbalah was excluded from official Spanish schools of Kabbalah.

When Abulafia realised that he had so much Jewish opposition, he decided to turn to the Christians and teach them his mysticism.

He wrote in Sefer haOt:

“And G-d commanded that he speak to the Gentiles of uncircumcised heart and flesh, and so he did. He spoke to them, and they believed in the message of G-d. However, they did not return to G-d, because they trusted in their swords and bows and G-d hardened their impure, uncircumcised hearts.”[12]

Abulafia didn’t try tried to cosy up to non-Jews. He believed that neither Christianity nor Islam were even vague copies of Judaism but that they bore no resemblance to it whatsoever.

COMPARISON TO JESUS:

Amazingly, in his Sefer Mafteach haShemot, Abulafia points out the differences between himself and Jesus:

“The Greek Christians call him Messiah...[The Jewish Messiah] shall stand up against him [Jesus]. He will inform everyone that what Jesus said to the Christians, that he is G-d, and the son of G-d, is completely false, for he did not receive power from the Unified Name. Rather, all his power depends upon an image, hung upon the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, while the matter of the Messiah depends upon the Tree of Life. It is the pillar which upholds all. Jesus, however, was hung bodily because he relied upon a material tree, while a spiritual matter, which is divine intellect, gave the Messiah eighteen years of life [referring to Abulafia himself who had been the ‘Messiah’ for the past eighteen years since his vision of the anointing oil]...”

Accordingly, Jesus represented the Tree of Knowledge which was less spiritual than the Tree of Life which was a metaphor for the deep mysticism which Abulafia was expounding.

In Sefer Sitrei Torah he continues:

“The Torah called him [Jesus] an ‘alien god.’ Understand this well for it is a great secret.” -The numerical value of Yeshu [Jesus] is 316 which is the same as ‘elohei neichar’ or alien gods.

All this may explain in some way why Abulafia was obsessed with the notion of converting the Pope (the contemporary representative of Jesus) to Judaism.

HIS LATTER YEARS:

Abulafia then settled on the tiny island of Comino (in the archipelago of Malta) and no one is sure what happened to him from there on. Comino was a common place of exile for Knights and other leaders who had fallen out of favour. 

A NOTE ON ABULAFIA’S MESSIANISM:

On the issue of Abulafia’s messianic enterprises, it should be stressed that his focus was not on national redemption, but rather on the personal redemption of each individual - Jew and non-Jew -from their physical materialism and corporealism.

WORKS:

He wrote three commentaries on Rambam’s Guide for the Perplexed[13], three commentaries on Sefer Yetzira[14] as well as a commentary on the Torah[15].

Additionally, he wrote practical manuals on prophetic experiences[16].

AN EXAMPLE OF ABULAFIA’S KABBALAH:

Abulafia describes the sensing of another ‘spirit’ within one’s body. In his Otzar Eden Ganuz he writes:

“And you shall feel another spirit awakening within yourself and strengthening you and passing over your entire body...”[17]

Then one perceives the vision of a human form, which is closely linked to his own physical appearance as if one was standing in front of one’s mystical ‘double’.

This being then begins to talk and to teach.”

Abulafia expands on this in his Sefer haCheshek:

“[A]nd sit as though a man is standing before you and waiting for you to speak with him; and he is ready to answer you concerning whatever you may ask him, and you say "speak" and he answers […] and begin then to pronounce [the name] and recite first "the head of the head" [i.e. the first combination of letters], drawing out the breath and at great ease; and afterwards go back as if the one standing opposite you is answering you; and you yourself answer, changing your voice[.]”[18]    

BIBLIOGRAPHY and SOURCES:

The Heart and the Fountain, by Joseph Dan.

The Prophetic Kabbalah of Avraham Abulafia, Lecture by R. Ariel Bar Tzadok.

Ascensions on High in Jewish Mysticism, by Moshe Idel.

Language, Torah and Hermeneutics in Abraham Abulafia, by Moshe Idel.

The Mystical Experience in Abraham Abulafia, by Moshe Idel.

Kabbalistic Manuscripts in the Vatican Library, by Moshe Idel.

Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, by Moshe Idel.

---

[1] In Hebrew: Kabbalah Nevu’it and Kabbalat haShemot.

[2] This is according to R. Ariel Bar Tzadok in his lecture entitled The Prophetic Kabbalah of Avraham Abulafia.

[3] From a talk Prof. Moshe Idel on Abraham Abulafia.

[4]Professor Idel describes this method as follows:

 “If the allegorical method of the medieval Jewish philosophers [such as Rambam] reinterpreted Scripture in novel ways, this was done on the implicit or explicit assumption that the novelty had no impact on the structure of the text whose integrity was safeguarded from the structural point of view. This is also the case in the symbolical interpretation of the theosophical Kabbalists...these Kabbalists were anxious to indicate repeatedly that the plain meaning of the text is to be preserved, as they leave intact the order of the letters in the text...

With Abulafia,...from the moment he applies the advanced methods, which literally destroy the regular order of the text, the biblical texture is conceived only as a starting point which cannot impose its peculiar structure upon the strong interpreter... The phenomenon of deestablishing the biblical text is to be understood as part of a feeling that the divine spirit is present and active again... Basic for the understanding of the deconstructive action of Abulafia's advanced stages of interpretation is the conception that each and every letter can be considered a divine name in itself.”

[5] See The Heart and the Fountain, by Joseph Dan, Ch 10, p. 121.

[6] See Kabbalistic Manuscripts in the Vatican Library, by Moshe Idel.

[7] M. H. Landauer in Orient, Lit. 1845-46.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Zohar vol. 3 fol. 212b. According to those who believe the Zohar was authored by Moshe de León, it is interesting to note that he lived between 1240 and 1305. This would coincide with our date of 1280 when Abulafia journeyed to the Pope.

[10] Moshe Idel questions the notion of Abulafia wanting to convert the Pope. Instead, he suggests that he may have wanted to discuss matters of authentic religion with the Pope. See Moshe Idel -- Kabbalistic Manuscripts in the Vatican Library.

[11] See the introduction to The Mystical Experience in Abraham Abulafia, by Moshe Idel.

[12] See Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, by Moshe Idel, p. 47.

[13] Sefer haGeulah, Sefer Chayei haNefesh and Sefer Sitrei Torah,

[14] Otzar Eden Ganuz, Gan Na’ul and a third which is untitled.

[15] Sefer Maftechot haTorah.

[16] Chayei haOlam haBah, Or haSechel, Sefer haCheshek and Imrei Shefer.

[17] Oxford Ms. 1580 fols. 163b-164a.

[18] New York Ms. JTS 1801, fol. 9a; British Library Ms. 749, fols. 12a-12b.