Chapter 10

Letter2×1=23×2=64×6=245×24=1206×120=7207×720=5040and so on.Accordingly, the material form of the spirit, represented by the twenty-two letters of the alphabet, is the form of all existing beings. Apart from the three dominions, the macrocosm, time, and microcosm, it is only the Infinite who can be perceived, and of whom this triad testifies; for which reason it is denominated “the three true witnesses.”9Each of this triad, notwithstanding its multifariousness, constitutes a system, having its own centre and dominion.10Just as God is the centre of the universe, the heavenly dragon is the centre of the macrocosm; the foundation of the year is the revolution of the Zodiac; whilst the centre of the microcosm is the heart.11The first is like a king on his throne, the second is like a king living among his subjects, and the third is like a king in war. The reason why the heart of man is like a monarch in the midst of war is, that the twelve principal organs of the human body12“are arrayed against each other in battle array; three serve love, three hatred, three engender life, and three death. The three engendering love are the heart, the ears and the mouth; the three for enmity are the[157]liver, the gall and the tongue; but God, the faithful King, rules over all the three systems. One [i.e., God] is over the three, the three are over the seven, the seven over the twelve, and all are internally connected with each other.” (Chapter vi,Mishnaiii.) Thus the whole creation is one connected whole; it is like a pyramid pointed at the top, which was its beginning, and exceedingly broad in its basis, which is its fullest development in all its multitudinous component parts. Throughout the whole are perceptible two opposites, with a reconciling medium. Thus, in the macrocosm, “the ethereal fire is above, the water below, and the air is between these hostile elements to reconcile them.” (Chapter vi,Mishnai.) The same is the case in the heaven, earth and the atmosphere, as well as in the microcosm. But all the opposites in the cosmic, telluric and organic spheres, as well as in the moral world, are designed to balance each other. “God has placed in all things one to oppose the other; good to oppose evil, good proceeding from good, and evil from evil; good purifies evil, and evil purifies good; good is in store for the good, and evil is reserved for the evil.” (Chapter vi,Mishnaii.)From this analysis of its contents it will be seen thatthe Book Jetzira, which the Kabbalists claim as their oldest document, has really nothing in common with the cardinal doctrines of the Kabbalah. There is not a single word in it bearing onthe En Soph, the Archetypal Man, the speculations about the being and nature of the Deity, andthe Sephiroth, which constitute the essence of the Kabbalah. Even its treatment of the ten digits, as part of the thirty-two ways of wisdom whereby God created the universe, which has undoubtedly suggested to the authors of the Kabbalah the idea of theten Sephiroth, is quite different from the mode in which the KabbalisticSephirothare depicted, as may be seen from a most cursory comparison of the respective diagrams which we have given to illustrate the plans of the two systems.[158]Besides the language ofthe Book Jetziraand the train of ideas therein enunciated, as the erudite Zunz rightly remarks, shew that this treatise belongs tothe Geonimperiod,i.e., about the ninth century of the Christian era, when it first became known.13The fabrication of this pseudograph was evidently suggested by the fact that the Talmud mentions sometreatises on the Creation, denominated‏הלכות יצריה‎and‏ספר יצירה‎(Sanhedrim65b; 67b) which “R. Chanina and R. Oshaja studied every Friday, whereby they produced a calf three years old and ate it;”14and whereby R. Joshua ben Chananja declared he could take fruit and instantly produce the trees which belong to them. (Jerusalem Sanhedrim, cap. vii.ad finem.15) Indeed Dr. Chwolson of Petersburg has shown in his treatise “on the Remnants of the ancient Babylonian Literature in Arabic translations,” that the ancient Babylonians laid it down as a maxim that if a man were minutely and carefully to observe the process of nature, he would be able to imitate nature and produce sundry creatures. He would not only be able to create plants and metals, but even living beings. These artificial productions the Babylonians call‏תולידאת‎productionsor‏אבונאת‎formations. Gutami, the author of theAgricultura Nabat, who lived about 1400 B.C., devoted a long chapter to the doctrine of artificial productions. The ancient sorcerer Ankebuta declares, in his work on artificial productions, that he created a man, and shows how he did it; but he confesses that the human being was without language and reason, that he could not eat, but simply opened and closed his eyes. This and many other fragments adds R—, from whose communication we quote, show that there were many works in Babylon which[159]treated on the artificial productions of plants, metals, and living beings, and that theBook Jetzira, mentioned in the Talmud, was most probably such a Babylonian document.16As the document on creation, mentioned in the Talmud, was lost in the course of time, the author of the Treatise which we have analysed tried to supply the loss, and hence not only called his production by the ancient name‏ספר יצירה‎the Book of Creation, but ascribed it to the patriarch Abraham. The perusal, however, of a single page of this book will convince any impartial reader that it has as little in common with the magic work mentioned in the Talmud or with the ancient Babylonian works which treat of human creations, as with the speculations about the being and nature of the Deity,the En Sophandthe Sephiroth, which are the essence of the Kabbalah.17Having shown that theBook Jetzira, claimed by the Kabbalists as their first and oldest code of doctrines, has no affinity with the real tenets of the Kabbalah, we have now to examine:—[160]II.The Book Sohar.Before we enter into an examination concerning the date and authorship of this renowned code of the Kabbalistic doctrines, it will be necessary to describe the component parts of theSohar. It seems that the properSohar, which is a commentary on the five Books of Moses, according to the division into Sabbatic sections, was originally called‏מדרש יהי אור‎the MidrashorExposition,Let there be Light, from the words in Gen. i, 4 ; because the real Midrash begins with the exposition of this verse. The nameSohar(‏זוהר‎),i.e.Light,Splendour, was given to it afterwards, either because this document begins with the theme light, or because the wordSoharfrequently occurs on the first page. It is referred to by the name of theBook Sohar(‏ספר הזוהר‎) in the component parts of the treatise itself. (Comp.The Faithful Shepherd,Sohar, iii, 153b.) TheSoharis also calledMidrash of R. Simon b. Jochai(‏מדרש של ר׳ שמעון בן יוחאי‎), because this Rabbi is its reputed author.18Interspersed throughout theSohar, either as parts of the text with special titles, or in separate columns with distinct superscriptions, are the following dissertations, which we detail according to the order of the pages on which they respectively commence.1.TosephtaandMathanithan(‏מתניתן‎and‏תוספתא‎), orSmall Additional Pieceswhich are given in vol. i, 31b; 32b; 37a; 54b; 59a; 60b; 62; 98b; 121a; 122;128b; 147; 151a; 152a; 232;233b; 234a; vol. ii, 4, 27b;[161]28a; 68b; 135b; vol. iii, 29b; 30a; 54b; 55. They briefly discuss, by way of supplement, the various topics of the Kabbalah, such as theSephiroth, the emanation of the primordial light, &c., &c., and address themselves in apostrophes to the initiated in these mysteries, calling their attention to some doctrine or explanation.2.Hechaloth(‏היכלות‎) orThe Mansions and Abodesforming part of the text, vol. i, 38a–45b; vol. ii, 245a–269a. This portion of theSohardescribes the topographical structure of Paradise and Hell. The mansions or palaces, which are seven in number, were at first the habitation of the earthly Adam, but, after the fall of the protoplasts, were rearranged to be the abode of the beatified saints, who for this reason have the enjoyment both of this world and the world to come. The seven words in Gen. i, 2 are explained to describe these seven mansions.Sohar, i, 45a, describes the seven Hells. In some Codices, however, this description of the Infernal Regions is given vol. ii, 202b.3.Sithre Tora(‏סתרי תורה‎), orThe Mysteries of the Pentateuch, given in separate columns, and at the bottom of pages as follows. Vol. i, 74b; 75a; 76b–77a; 78a–81b; 97a–102a; 107b–111a; 146b–149b; 151a; 152b; 154b–157b; 161b–162b; 165; vol. ii, 146a. It discusses the divers topics of the Kabbalah, such as the evolution of theSephiroth, the emanation of the primordial light, &c., &c.4.Midrash Ha-Neelam(‏מדרש הנעלם‎), orThe Hidden Midrash, occupies parallel columns with the text in vol. i, 97a–140a, and endeavours more to explain passages of Scripture mystically, by way ofRemasim(‏רמזים‎) andGematrias(‏גמטריאות‎), and allegorically, than to propound the doctrines of the Kabbalah. Thus Abraham’s prayer for Sodom and Gomorrah is explained as an intercession by the congregated souls of the saints in behalf of the sinners about to be[162]punished. (Sohar, i, 104b.) Lot’s two daughters are the two proclivities in man, good and evil. (Ibid.110.) Besides this mystical interpretation wherein the Kabbalistic rules of exegesis are largely applied, the distinguishing feature of this portion of theSoharis its discussion on the properties and destiny of the soul, which constitute an essential doctrine of the Kabbalah.5.Raja Mehemna(‏רעיא מהמנא‎), or theFaithful Shepherd. This portion of theSoharis given in the second and third volumes, in parallel columns with the text; and when it is too disproportioned for columns, is given at the bottom or in separate pages, as follows. Vol. ii, 25, 40, 59b; 91b–93a; 134b, 157b–159a; 187b–188a; vol. iii, 3a–4b; 20a, 24b, 27, 28a–29a; 33a–34a; 42a, 44a; 63; 67b–68a; 81b–83b; 85b–86a; 88b–90a; 92b–93a; 97a–101a; 103b–104a; 108b–111b; 121b–126a; 145a–146b; 152b–153b; 174a–175a; 178b–179b; 180a, 215a–239a; 242a–258a; 263a–264a; 270b–283a. It derives its name from the fact that it records the discussions which Moses the Faithful Shepherd held in conference with the prophet Elias, and with R. Simon b. Jochai, the celebrated master of the Kabbalistic school, who is calledthe Sacred Light(‏בוצינא קדישא‎). The chief object of this portion is to show the profound and allegorical import of the Mosaic commandments and prohibitions, as well as of the Rabbinic injunctions and religious practices which obtained in the course of time. At the dialogue which Moses the lawgiver holds with R. Simon b. Jochai the Kabbalistic lawgiver, not only is the prophet Elias present, but Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Aaron, David, Solomon, and God himself make their appearance; the disciples of R. Simon are frequently in ecstacies when they hold converse with these illustrious patriarchs and kings of bygone days.6.Raze Derazin(‏רזי דרזין‎), orthe Secret of Secrets,[163]Original Secrets, is given in vol. ii, 70a–75a, and is especially devoted to the physiognomy of the Kabbalah, and the connection of the soul with the body, based upon the advice of Jethro to his son-in-law Moses (‏ואתה תחזה‎)and thou shalt look into the face. ( Exod. xviii, 21 .)7.Saba Demishpatim(‏סבא דמשפטים‎), orthe Discourse of the Aged in Mishpatim, given in vol. ii, 94a–114a. The Aged is the prophet Elias, who holds converse with R. Simon b. Jochai about the doctrine of metempsychosis, and the discussion is attached to the Sabbatic section called‏משפטים‎,i.e., Exod. xxi, 1 – xxiv, 18 , because the Kabbalah takes this word to signifypunishments of souls(‏דינין‎), and finds its psychology in this section. So enraptured were the disciples when their master, the Sacred Light, discoursed with Moses on this subject, that they knew not whether it was day or night, or whether they were in the body or out of the body. (Sohar, ii, 105b.)8.Siphra Detzniutha(‏ספרא דצניעותא‎), orthe Book of SecretsorMysteries, given in vol. ii, 176b–178b. It is divided into five sections (‏פרקים‎), and is chiefly occupied with discussing the questions involved in the creation,e. gr.the transition from the infinite to the finite, from absolute unity to multifariousness, from pure intelligence to matter, the double principle of masculine and feminine (‏אבא ואמא‎), expressed in the Tetragrammaton, the androgynous protoplast, the Demonology concealed in the letters of Scripture, as seen in Gen. vi, 2 ; Josh. ii, 1 ; 1 Kings, viii, 3 , 16 ; the mysteries contained in Isa. i, 4 , and the doctrine of theSephirothconcealed in Gen. i ; &c., as well as with showing the import of the letters‏יהו״ה‎composing the Tetragrammaton which were the principal agents in the creation. This portion of theSoharhas been translated into Latin by Rosenroth in the second volume of hisKabbala Denudata, Frankfort-on-the-Maine, 1684.[164]9.Idra Rabba(‏אדרא רבא‎), orthe Great Assemblyis given in vol. iii, 127b–145a, and derives its name from the fact that it purports to give the discourses which R. Simon b. Jochai delivered to his disciples who congregated around him in large numbers. Upon the summons of the Sacred Light, his disciples assembled to listen to the secrets and enigmas contained in theBook of Mysteries. Hence it is chiefly occupied with a description of the form and various members of the Deity, a disquisition on the relation of the Deity, in his two aspects of theAged(‏עתיק‎) and theYoung(‏זעיר‎), to the creation and the universe, as well as on the diverse gigantic members of the Deity, such as the head, the beard, the eyes, the nose, &c., &c.; a dissertation on pneumatology, demonology, &c., &c. It concludes with telling us that three of the disciples died during these discussions. This portion too is given in a Latin translation in the second volume of Rosenroth’sKabbala Denudata.10.Januka(‏ינוקא‎), orthe Discourse of the Young Man, is given in vol. iii, 186a–192a, and forms part of the text of theSoharon the Sabbatic section calledBalak,i.e.Numb. xxii, 2 – xxv, 9 . It derives its name from the fact that the discourses therein recorded were delivered by a young man, under the following circumstances:—R. Isaac and R. Jehudah, two of R. Simon b. Jochai’s disciples, when on a journey, and passing through the village where the widow of R. Hamnuna Saba resided, visited this venerable woman. She asked her son, theyoung heroof this discourse, who had just returned from school, to go to these two Rabbins to receive their benediction; but the youth would not approach them because he recognised, from the smell of their garments, that they had omitted reciting on that day the prescribed declaration about the unity of the Deity (‏שמע‎). When at meals this wonderfulJanukagave them sundry discourses on the mysterious import of the washing of hands, based on[165]Exod. xxx, 20 , on the grace recited at meals, on theShechinah, on the angel who redeemed Jacob ( Gen. xlviii, 16 ), &c., &c., which elicited the declaration from the Rabbins that “this youth is not the child of human parents” (‏האי ינוקא לאו ב״נ הוא‎); and when hearing all this, R. Simon b. Jochai coincided in the opinion, that “this youth is of superhuman origin.”11.Idra Suta(‏אדרא זוטא‎) orthe Small Assembly, is given in vol. iii, 287b–296b, and derives its name from the fact that many of the disciples of R. Simon b. Jochai had died during the course of these Kabbalistic revelations, and that this portion of theSoharcontains the discourses which the Sacred Light delivered before his death to the small assembly of six pupils, who still survived and congregated to listen to the profound mysteries. It is to a great extent a recapitulation of theIdra Rabba, occupying itself with speculations about theSephiroth, the Deity in his three aspects (‏שלת רישין‎), or principles which successively developed themselves from each other, viz.—theEn Soph(‏אין סוף‎), or the Boundless in his absolute nature, theMacroprosopon(‏אריך אנפין‎), or the Boundless as manifested in the first emanation, and theMicroprosopon(‏זעיר אנפין‎), the other nine emanations; the abortive creations, &c., and concludes with recording the death of Simon b. Jochai, the Sacred Light and the medium through whom God revealed the contents of theSohar. TheIdra Sutahas been translated into Latin by Rosenroth in the second volume of hisKabbala Denudata.From this brief analysis of its component parts and contents, it will be seen that theSohardoes not propound a regular Kabbalistic system, but promiscuously and reiteratedly dilates upon the diverse doctrines of this theosophy, as indicated in the forms and ornaments of the Hebrew alphabet, in the vowel points and accents, in the Divine names and the letters of which they are composed, in the narratives of the[166]Bible, and in the traditional and national stories. Hence theSoharis more a collection of homilies or rhapsodies on Kabbalistic subjects than treatises on the Kabbalah. It is for this very reason that it became the treasury of the Kabbalah to the followers of this theosophy. Its diversity became its charm. The long conversations between its reputed author, R. Simon b. Jochai, and Moses, the great lawgiver and true shepherd, which it records; the short and pathetic prayers inserted therein; the religious anecdotes; the attractive spiritual explanations of scripture passages, appealing to the hearts and wants of men; the description of the Deity and of theSephirothunder tender forms of human relationships, comprehensible to the finite, mind, such as father, mother, primeval man, matron, bride, white head, the great and small face, the luminous mirror, the higher heaven, the higher earth, &c, which it gives on every page, made theSohara welcome text-book for the students of the Kabbalah, who, by its vivid descriptions of divine love, could lose themselves in rapturous embraces with the Deity.Now, theSoharpretends to be a revelation from God, communicated through R. Simon b. Jochai, who flourished aboutA.D.70–110, to his select disciples. We are told that “when they assembled to compose theSohar, permission was granted to the prophet Elias, to all the members of the celestial college, to all angels, spirits, and superior souls, to assist them; and the ten spiritual substances [i.e.,Sephiroth] were charged to disclose to them their profound mysteries, which were reserved for the days of the Messiah.” On the approach of death, R. Simon b. Jochai assembled the small number of his disciples and friends, amongst whom was his son, R. Eleazar, to communicate to them his last doctrines,19“when[167]he ordered as follows—R. Aba shall write, R. Eleazar, my son, propound, and let my other associates quietly think about it.” (Idra Suta,Sohar, iii, 287b.) It is upon the strength of these declarations, as well as upon the repeated representation of R. Simon b. Jochai as speaking and teaching throughout this production, that theSoharis ascribed to this Rabbi on its very title-page, and that not only Jews, for centuries, but such distinguished Christian scholars as Lightfoot, Gill, Bartolocci, Pfeifer, Knorr von Rosenroth, Molitor, &c., have maintained this opinion. A careful examination, however, of the following internal and external evidence will show that this Thesaurus of the Kabbalah is the production of the thirteenth century.1. TheSoharmost fulsomely praises its own author, calls him theSacred Light(‏בוצניא קדישא‎), and exalts him above Moses, “the true Shepherd.”20“I testify by the sacred heavens and the sacred earth,” declares R. Simon b. Jochai, “that I now see what no son of man has seen since Moses ascended the second time on Mount Sinai, for I see my face shining as brilliantly as the light of the sun when it descends as a healing for the world; as it is written, ‘to you who fear my name shall shine the Sun of Righteousness with a healing in his wings.’ (Malachi, [ iii, 20 ] iv, 2 .) Yea, more, I know that my face is shining, but Moses did not know it nor understand it; for it is written ( Exod. xxxiv, 29 ), ‘Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone.’ ” (Sohar, iii, 132b; 144a.) The disciples deify R. Simon in theSohar, declaring that the verse, “all thy males shall appear before the Lord God” ( Exod. xxiii, 17 ), refers to R. Simon b. Jochai,[168]who is the Lord, and before whom all men must appear. (Sohar, ii, 38a.)212. TheSoharquotes and mystically explains the Hebrew vowel points (i, 16b; 24b; ii, 116a; iii, 65a), which were introduced for the first time by R. Mocha of Palestine,A.D.570, to facilitate the reading of the Scriptures for his students.223. TheSohar(‏רעיא מהימנה‎Faithful Shepherd, on section‏קדושים‎iii, 82b), has literally borrowed two verses from the celebrated Hymn of Ibn Gebirol, who was born aboutA.D.1021 and died in 1070. This Hymn which is entitled‏כתר מלכות‎the Royal Diadem, is a beautiful and pathetic composition, embodying the cosmic views of Aristotle, and forms part of the Jewish service for the evening preceding the Great Day of Atonement to the present day. The quotation in theSoharfrom this Hymn is beyond the shadow of a doubt, as will be seen from the following comparison—Sohar.Ibn Gebirol.‏ואשתארו [סיהרא ושמשא] כגופא בלא נשמתא‎‏אבל יש אדון עליהם‎‏דאית אדון עליהם מחשיך מאוריהם‎‏מחשיך מאוריהם‎It must be borne in mind that, though theSoharis written in Aramaic, yet this quotation is in Hebrew, and in therhymeof Ibn Gebirol.234. TheSohar(i, 18b; 23a) quotes and explains the interchange, on the outside of theMezuza,24of the words[169](‏יהוה אלהינו יהוה‎)Jehovah our God is Jehovahfor (‏כוזו במוכסז כוזו‎)Kuzu Bemuchzaz Kuzu, by substituting for each letter its immediate predecessor in the alphabet, which was transplanted from France into Spain in the thirteenth century.255. TheSohar(iii, 232b) uses the expressionEsnoga, which is a Portuguese corruption of synagogue, and explains it in a Kabbalistic manner as a compound of two Hebrew words,i.e.,Es=‏אש‎andNoga=‏נוגה‎brilliant light.266. TheSohar(ii, 32a) mentions the Crusades, the momentary taking of Jerusalem by the Crusaders from the Infidels, and the retaking of it by the Saracens.27“Woe to the time,” it says, “wherein Ishmael saw the world, and received the sign of circumcision! What did the Holy One, blessed be his name? He excluded the descendants of Ishmael,i.e., the Mahommedans, from the congregation in heaven, but gave them a portion on earth in the Holy Land, because of the sign of the covenant which they possess. The Mahommedans are, therefore, destined to rule for a time over the Holy Land; and they will prevent the Israelites from returning to it, till the merit of the Mahommedans is accomplished. At that time the descendants of Ishmael will be the occasion of terrible wars in the world, and the children of Edom,i.e., the Christians, will gather together against them and do battle with them, some at sea and some on land, and some in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, and the victory will now[170]be on the one side and then on the other, but the Holy Land will not remain in the hands of the Christians.”7. TheSoharrecords events which transpiredA.D.1264. Thus on Numb. xxiv, 17 , which theSoharexplains as referring to the time preceding the advent of Messiah, it remarks,28“the Holy One, blessed be he, is prepared to rebuild Jerusalem. Previous to the rebuilding thereof he will cause to appear, a wonderful and splendid star, which will shine seventy days. It will first be seen on Friday, Elul = July 25th, and disappear on Saturday or Friday evening at the end of seventy days. On the day preceding [its disappearance,i.e.October 2nd] when it will still be seen in the city of Rome, on that self-same day three high walls of that city of Rome and the great palace will fall, and the pontiff ruler of the city will die.” (Sohariii, 212b.) Now the comet here spoken of appeared in Rome, July 25th, 1264, and was visible till October 2nd, which are literally the seventy days mentioned in theSohar. Moreover, July 25th, when the comet first appeared, actually happened on a Friday; on the day of its disappearance, October 2nd, the sovereign pontiff of Rome, Urban IV, died at Perugia, when it was believed that the appearance of the comet was the omen of his death, and the great and strong palace (‏היכלא רברבא‎) Vincimento, fell on the self-same day, October 2nd, into the hands of the insurrectionists.298. TheSohar, in assigning a reason why its contents were not revealed before, says that the “time in which R. Simon ben Jochai lived was peculiarly worthy and glorious, and that it is near the advent of the Messiah,” for which cause this[171]revelation was reserved till the days of R. Simon, to be communicated through him. Yet, speaking elsewhere of the advent of the Messiah, theSohar, instead of placing it in the second century when this Rabbi lived, forgets itself and says30—“When the sixtieth or the sixty-sixth year shall have passed over the threshold of the sixth millenium [A.M.5060–66 =A.D.1300–1306] the Messiah will appear” (Sohari, 116a, 117b, Comp. also iii, 252a); thus showing that the author lived in the thirteenth century of the Christian era. In perfect harmony with this is the fact that:—9. The doctrine of theEn Soph, and theSephiroth, as well as the metempsychosisian retribution were not known before the thirteenth century.10. The very existence of theSohar, according to the confession of the staunch Kabbalist, Jehudah Chajoth (flourished 1500), was unknown to such distinguished Kabbalists as Nachmanides (1195–1270) and Ben-Adereth (1235–1310); the first who mentions it is Todros Abulafia (1234–1306).11. Isaac of Akko (flourished 1290) fully confirms all that we have hitherto adduced from the import of this book, by his testimony that “theSoharwas put into the world from the head of a Spaniard.” To the same effect is the testimony of Joseph Ibn Wakkar, who in speaking of later books which may be relied upon, recommends only those of Moses Nachmanides and Todros Abulafia; “but,” he adds, “theSoharis full of errors, and one must take care not to be misled by them.” Upon which, the erudite Steinschneider rightly remarks,31“this is an impartial and indirect testimony that theSoharwas recognised scarcely fifty years after its[172]appearing as one of the later works, and was not attributed to Simon ben Jochai.”12. That Moses de Leon, who first published and sold theSohar, as the production of R. Simon b. Jochai, was himself the author of it, was admitted by his own wife and daughter, as will be seen from the following account in theBook Juchassin, (p.p. 88, 89, 95, ed. Filipowski, London, 1857), which we give in an abridged form.32When Isaac of Akko, who escaped the massacre after the capture of this city (A.D.1291), came to Spain and there saw theSohar, he was anxious to ascertain whether it was genuine, since it pretended to be a Palestine production, and he, though born and brought up in the Holy Land, in constant intercourse with the disciples of the celebrated Kabbalist, Nachmanides, had never heard a syllable about this marvellous work. Now, Moses de Leon, whom he met in Valladolid, declared to him on a most solemn oath that he had at Avila an ancient exemplar, which was the very autograph of R. Simon ben Jochai, and offered to submit it to him to be tested. In the meantime, however, Moses de Leon was taken ill on his journey home, and died at Arevolo,A.D.1305. But two[173]distinguished men of Avila, David Rafen and Joseph de Avila, who were determined to sift the matter, ascertained the falsehood of this story from the widow and daughter of Moses de Leon. Being a rich man and knowing that Moses de Leon left his family without means, Joseph de Avila promised, that if she would give him the original MS. of theSoharfrom which her husband made the copies, his son should marry her daughter, and that he would give them a handsome dowry. Whereupon the widow and daughter declared, that they did not possess any such MS., that Moses de Leon never had it, but that he composed theSoharfrom his own head, and wrote it with his own hand. Moreover, the widow candidly confessed that she had frequently asked her husband why he published the production of his own intellect under another man’s name, and that he told her that if he were to publish it under his own name nobody would buy it, whereas under the name of R. Simon b. Jochai it yielded him a large revenue. This account is confirmed in a most remarkable manner by the fact that—[174]13. TheSoharcontains whole passages which Moses de Leon translated into Aramaic, from his other works, as the learned Jellinek has demonstratively proved. To transfer these passages here would occupy too much of our space. We must, therefore, refer the reader to the monograph itself,33and shall only give one example, which the erudite historian, Dr. Graetz,34has pointed out. In hisSephar Ha-Rimon(‏ספר הרימון‎), which he composedA.D.1827, and which is a Kabbalistic explanation of the Mosaic precepts, Moses de Leon endeavours to account for the non-occurrence of the Tetragrammaton in the history of the hexahemeron, whilst it does occur immediately afterwards, by submitting that as the earthly world is finite and perishable, this divine name, which denotes eternity, could not be used at the creation thereof; for if it had been created under its influence, the world would have been as imperishable as this name. In corroboration of this, Moses de Leon quotes the passage (‏לכו חזו מפעלות אלהים אשר שם שמות בארץ‎)Come, behold the works of Elohim, what perishableness he made in the earth( Ps. xlvi, 8 ), showing that‏שמות‎destruction,perishableness, is consonant with the name‏אלהים‎. In looking at the original, it will be seen that the text has‏יהוה‎and not‏אלהים‎, and that Moses de Leon, by a slip of memory, confounded this passage with‏לכו וראו מפעלות אלהים‎Come and see the works of Elohim( Ps. xlvi, 5 ). Now, the whole explanation and thesame blunderare transferred into theSohar. The commentators on this treasury of the Kabbalah, not knowing the cause of this blunder, express their great surprise that theSoharshould explain a mis-quotation. We subjoin the two passages in parallel columns.[175]Sohar, i, 58a.Moses de Leon, ii, No. 133, p. 25.‏ר׳ יהודה פתח לכו חזו מפעלות אלהים אשר שם שמות וגו׳ האי קרא אוקמוה ואתמרּּּּ שמות ודאי והא שמא גרים לכלא (לשון שמשון) דאלו הוו מפעלות. י׳ ה׳ ו׳ ה׳ שם קיום בארץ אבל בגין דהוון מפעלות שמא דאלהים שם שמות בארץ: אמר ליה ר׳ חייא וגו׳‎‏אמנם כי יש פירוש אחר כהיות שם המיוחד נזכר כאחוזנה לקיים על ההויות אמרו חז״ל לכו ראו מפעלות וכו׳ מפני שהיו מפעלות אלהים שם שמותּּּּ שאלמלא היו מפעלות י׳ ה׳ ו׳ה׳ שם קיום בארץ: והענין בזה על כל המפעלות זה העולם השפל כלם נפסדים מפני שכל הוויותי בשם זה שאלמלא יהיו בשם המיוחד כלם יהיו קימים בקיומם וכו׳‎It is for these and many other reasons that theSoharis now regarded by Steinschneider, Beer, Jellinek, Graetz, &c., as a pseudograph of the thirteenth century. That Moses de Leon should have palmed theSoharupon Simon b. Jochai was nothing remarkable, since this Rabbi is regarded by tradition as the embodiment of mysticism. No better hero could be selected for theSoharthan R. Simon, of whom the Talmud gives us the following account: “Once upon a time, R. Jehudah, R. Jose, and R. Simon sat together, and R. Jehudah b. Gerim sat by them. R. Jehudah then began and said—How beautiful are the works of this nation (i.e., the Romans)! they have erected market-places, they have erected bridges, and they have erected baths! R. Jose was quiet, but R. Simon b. Jochai answered and said: what they have built they have built for no one except for their own use, they made markets to allure prostitutes, they made baths to gratify themselves therein, and bridges to get tolls by them. Jehudah b. Gerim repeated this, and the emperor’s government got to hear it, who passed the following decree: Jehudah, who exalted, is to be exalted; Jose, who was silent, is to be banished to Zipporis; and Simon, who spoke evil, is to be killed. He (i.e., R. Simon) at once concealed himself with his son, in the place of study, whither his wife daily brought them a loaf and a flask of water; but as the rigour of the decree increased, he said to his son: women are weak-minded—if she is tortured she may betray us. Hence, they left, and betook themselves into a deep cavern, where by a miracle[176]a crab-tree and a well were created for their subsistence. He and his son sat in the sand up to their necks all the day studying the Law. They spent twelve long years in this cavern; when Elias the prophet came and stood at the entrance of the cavern, and called out—Who will inform the son of Jochai that the emperor is dead, and that the decree is commuted? They came out and saw the people tilling and sowing.” (Sabbath, 33a. Comp. also,Jerusalem Shebiith, ix, 1;Bereshith Rabba, cap. lxxix;Midrash Koheleth, x, 8;Midrash Esther, i, 9.) This is the secret why the story that R. Simon b. Jochai composed theSoharduring his twelve years’ residence in the cavern obtained credence among the followers of the Kabbalah.III.The Commentary on the Ten Sephiroth.It is this commentary to which we must look, as the most ancient document embodying the doctrines of the Kabbalah. The author of this commentary, R. Azariel b. Menachem, was born in Valladolid, about 1160. He distinguished himself as a philosopher, Kabbalist, Talmudist, and commentator, as his works indicate; he was a pupil of Isaac the Blind, who is regarded as the originator of the Kabbalah, and master of the celebrated R. Moses Nachmanides, who is also a distinguished pillar of Kabbalism. R. Azariel diedA.D.1238, at the advanced age of seventy-eight years. “The Commentary on the TenSephiroth” is in questions and answers,35and the following is the lucid analysis of it as given by the erudite Jellinek, according to Spinoza’s form of Ethics.[177]1.Definition.—By the Being who is the cause and governor of all things, I understand theEn Soph,i.e., a Being infinite, boundless, absolutely identical with itself, united in itself, without attributes, will, intention, desire, thought, word or deed. (Answers 2 and 4.)2.Definition.—BySephirothI understand the potencies which emanated from the absoluteEn Soph, all entities limited by quantity, which like the will, without changing its nature, wills diverse objects that are the possibilities of multifarious things. (Answers 3 and 9.)i.Proposition.—The primary cause and governor of the world is theEn Soph, who is both immanent and transcendent. (Answer 1.)(a)Proof.—Each effect has a cause, and every thing which has order and design has a governor. (Answer 1.)(b)Proof.—Every thing visible has a limit, what is limited is finite, what is finite is not absolutely identical; the primary cause of the world is invisible, therefore unlimited, infinite, absolutely identical,i.e., he is theEn Soph. (Answer 2.)(c)Proof.—As the primary cause of the world is infinite, nothing can existwithout(EXTRA) him; hence he is immanent. (Ibid.)Scholion.—As theEn Sophis invisible and exalted, it is the root of both faith and unbelief. (Ibid.)ii.Proposition.—TheSephirothare the medium between the absoluteEn Sophand the real world.Proof.—As the real world is limited and not perfect, it cannot directly proceed from theEn Soph, still theEn Sophmust exercise his influence over it, or his perfection would cease. Hence theSephiroth, which, in their intimate connection with theEn Soph, are perfect, and in their severance are imperfect, must be the medium. (Answer 3.)Scholion.—Since all existing things originated by means of[178]theSephiroth, there are a higher, a middle, and a lower degree of the real world. (Vide infra, Proposition 6.)iii.Proposition.—There are ten intermediateSephiroth.Proof.—All bodies have three dimensions, each of which repeats the other (3 × 3); and by adding thereunto space generally, we obtain thenumber ten. As theSephirothare the potencies of all that is limited they must beten. (Answer 4).(a)Scholion.—The number ten does not contradict the absolute unity of theEn Soph, asoneis the basis of all numbers, plurality proceeds from unity, the germs contain the development, just as fire, flame, sparks and colour haveonebasis, though they differ from one another. (Answer 6.)(b)Scholion.—Just as cogitation or thought, and even the mind as a cogitated object, is limited, becomes concrete and has a measure, althoughpure thoughtproceeds from theEn Soph; so limit, measure, and concretion are the attributes of theSephiroth. (Answer 7.)4.Proposition.—TheSephirothare emanations and not creations.1.Proof.—As the absoluteEn Sophis perfect, theSephirothproceeding therefrom must also be perfect; hence they are not created. (Answer 5.)2.Proof.—All created objects diminish by abstraction; theSephirothdo not lessen, as their activity never ceases; hence they cannot be created. (Ibid.)Scholion.—The firstSephirawas in theEn Sophas a power before it became a reality; then the secondSephiraemanated as a potency for the intellectual world, and afterwards the otherSephirothemanated for the sensuous and material world. This, however, does not imply apriusandposteriusor a gradation in theEn Soph, but just as a light whose kindled lights which shine sooner and later and variously, so it embraces all in a unity. (Answer 8.)[179]5.Proposition.—TheSephirothare both active and passive (‏מקביל ומתקבל‎).Proof.—As theSephirothdo not set aside the unity of theEn Soph, each one of them must receive from its predecessor, and impart to its successor—i.e., be receptive and imparting. (Answer 9.)6.Proposition.—The firstSephirais calledInscrutable Height(‏רום מעלה‎); the second,Wisdom(‏חכמה‎); the third,Intelligence(‏בינה‎); the fourth,Love(‏חסד‎); the fifth,Justice(‏פחד‎); the sixth,Beauty(‏תפארת‎); the seventh,Firmness(‏נצח‎); the eighth,Splendour(‏הוד‎); the ninth,the Righteous is the Foundation of the World(‏צדיק יסוד עולם‎); and the tenth,Righteousness(‏צדק‎).(a)Scholion.—The first threeSephirothform the world of thought; the second three the world of soul; and the four last the world of body—thus corresponding to the intellectual, moral, and material worlds. (Answer 10.)(b)Scholion.—The firstSephirastands in relation to the soul, inasmuch as it is called aunity(‏יחידה‎); the second, inasmuch as it is denominatedliving(‏חיה‎); the third, inasmuch as it is termedspirit(‏רוח‎); the fourth, inasmuch as it is calledvital principle(‏גפש‎); the fifth, inasmuch as it is denominatedsoul(‏נשמה‎); the sixth operates on the blood, the seventh on the bones, the eighth on the veins, the ninth on the flesh, and the tenth on the skin. (Ibid.)(c)Scholion.—The firstSephirais like the concealed light, the second like sky-blue, the third like yellow, the fourth like white, the fifth like red, the sixth like white-red, the seventh like whitish-red, the eighth like reddish-white, the ninth like white-red-whitish-red-reddish-white, and the tenth is like the light reflecting all colours.36[180]The gradation of theSephirothis as follows—

Letter2×1=23×2=64×6=245×24=1206×120=7207×720=5040and so on.

Accordingly, the material form of the spirit, represented by the twenty-two letters of the alphabet, is the form of all existing beings. Apart from the three dominions, the macrocosm, time, and microcosm, it is only the Infinite who can be perceived, and of whom this triad testifies; for which reason it is denominated “the three true witnesses.”9Each of this triad, notwithstanding its multifariousness, constitutes a system, having its own centre and dominion.10Just as God is the centre of the universe, the heavenly dragon is the centre of the macrocosm; the foundation of the year is the revolution of the Zodiac; whilst the centre of the microcosm is the heart.11The first is like a king on his throne, the second is like a king living among his subjects, and the third is like a king in war. The reason why the heart of man is like a monarch in the midst of war is, that the twelve principal organs of the human body12“are arrayed against each other in battle array; three serve love, three hatred, three engender life, and three death. The three engendering love are the heart, the ears and the mouth; the three for enmity are the[157]liver, the gall and the tongue; but God, the faithful King, rules over all the three systems. One [i.e., God] is over the three, the three are over the seven, the seven over the twelve, and all are internally connected with each other.” (Chapter vi,Mishnaiii.) Thus the whole creation is one connected whole; it is like a pyramid pointed at the top, which was its beginning, and exceedingly broad in its basis, which is its fullest development in all its multitudinous component parts. Throughout the whole are perceptible two opposites, with a reconciling medium. Thus, in the macrocosm, “the ethereal fire is above, the water below, and the air is between these hostile elements to reconcile them.” (Chapter vi,Mishnai.) The same is the case in the heaven, earth and the atmosphere, as well as in the microcosm. But all the opposites in the cosmic, telluric and organic spheres, as well as in the moral world, are designed to balance each other. “God has placed in all things one to oppose the other; good to oppose evil, good proceeding from good, and evil from evil; good purifies evil, and evil purifies good; good is in store for the good, and evil is reserved for the evil.” (Chapter vi,Mishnaii.)

From this analysis of its contents it will be seen thatthe Book Jetzira, which the Kabbalists claim as their oldest document, has really nothing in common with the cardinal doctrines of the Kabbalah. There is not a single word in it bearing onthe En Soph, the Archetypal Man, the speculations about the being and nature of the Deity, andthe Sephiroth, which constitute the essence of the Kabbalah. Even its treatment of the ten digits, as part of the thirty-two ways of wisdom whereby God created the universe, which has undoubtedly suggested to the authors of the Kabbalah the idea of theten Sephiroth, is quite different from the mode in which the KabbalisticSephirothare depicted, as may be seen from a most cursory comparison of the respective diagrams which we have given to illustrate the plans of the two systems.[158]

Besides the language ofthe Book Jetziraand the train of ideas therein enunciated, as the erudite Zunz rightly remarks, shew that this treatise belongs tothe Geonimperiod,i.e., about the ninth century of the Christian era, when it first became known.13The fabrication of this pseudograph was evidently suggested by the fact that the Talmud mentions sometreatises on the Creation, denominated‏הלכות יצריה‎and‏ספר יצירה‎(Sanhedrim65b; 67b) which “R. Chanina and R. Oshaja studied every Friday, whereby they produced a calf three years old and ate it;”14and whereby R. Joshua ben Chananja declared he could take fruit and instantly produce the trees which belong to them. (Jerusalem Sanhedrim, cap. vii.ad finem.15) Indeed Dr. Chwolson of Petersburg has shown in his treatise “on the Remnants of the ancient Babylonian Literature in Arabic translations,” that the ancient Babylonians laid it down as a maxim that if a man were minutely and carefully to observe the process of nature, he would be able to imitate nature and produce sundry creatures. He would not only be able to create plants and metals, but even living beings. These artificial productions the Babylonians call‏תולידאת‎productionsor‏אבונאת‎formations. Gutami, the author of theAgricultura Nabat, who lived about 1400 B.C., devoted a long chapter to the doctrine of artificial productions. The ancient sorcerer Ankebuta declares, in his work on artificial productions, that he created a man, and shows how he did it; but he confesses that the human being was without language and reason, that he could not eat, but simply opened and closed his eyes. This and many other fragments adds R—, from whose communication we quote, show that there were many works in Babylon which[159]treated on the artificial productions of plants, metals, and living beings, and that theBook Jetzira, mentioned in the Talmud, was most probably such a Babylonian document.16

As the document on creation, mentioned in the Talmud, was lost in the course of time, the author of the Treatise which we have analysed tried to supply the loss, and hence not only called his production by the ancient name‏ספר יצירה‎the Book of Creation, but ascribed it to the patriarch Abraham. The perusal, however, of a single page of this book will convince any impartial reader that it has as little in common with the magic work mentioned in the Talmud or with the ancient Babylonian works which treat of human creations, as with the speculations about the being and nature of the Deity,the En Sophandthe Sephiroth, which are the essence of the Kabbalah.17

Having shown that theBook Jetzira, claimed by the Kabbalists as their first and oldest code of doctrines, has no affinity with the real tenets of the Kabbalah, we have now to examine:—[160]

II.The Book Sohar.

Before we enter into an examination concerning the date and authorship of this renowned code of the Kabbalistic doctrines, it will be necessary to describe the component parts of theSohar. It seems that the properSohar, which is a commentary on the five Books of Moses, according to the division into Sabbatic sections, was originally called‏מדרש יהי אור‎the MidrashorExposition,Let there be Light, from the words in Gen. i, 4 ; because the real Midrash begins with the exposition of this verse. The nameSohar(‏זוהר‎),i.e.Light,Splendour, was given to it afterwards, either because this document begins with the theme light, or because the wordSoharfrequently occurs on the first page. It is referred to by the name of theBook Sohar(‏ספר הזוהר‎) in the component parts of the treatise itself. (Comp.The Faithful Shepherd,Sohar, iii, 153b.) TheSoharis also calledMidrash of R. Simon b. Jochai(‏מדרש של ר׳ שמעון בן יוחאי‎), because this Rabbi is its reputed author.18Interspersed throughout theSohar, either as parts of the text with special titles, or in separate columns with distinct superscriptions, are the following dissertations, which we detail according to the order of the pages on which they respectively commence.

1.TosephtaandMathanithan(‏מתניתן‎and‏תוספתא‎), orSmall Additional Pieceswhich are given in vol. i, 31b; 32b; 37a; 54b; 59a; 60b; 62; 98b; 121a; 122;128b; 147; 151a; 152a; 232;233b; 234a; vol. ii, 4, 27b;[161]28a; 68b; 135b; vol. iii, 29b; 30a; 54b; 55. They briefly discuss, by way of supplement, the various topics of the Kabbalah, such as theSephiroth, the emanation of the primordial light, &c., &c., and address themselves in apostrophes to the initiated in these mysteries, calling their attention to some doctrine or explanation.

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

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

4.Midrash Ha-Neelam(‏מדרש הנעלם‎), orThe Hidden Midrash, occupies parallel columns with the text in vol. i, 97a–140a, and endeavours more to explain passages of Scripture mystically, by way ofRemasim(‏רמזים‎) andGematrias(‏גמטריאות‎), and allegorically, than to propound the doctrines of the Kabbalah. Thus Abraham’s prayer for Sodom and Gomorrah is explained as an intercession by the congregated souls of the saints in behalf of the sinners about to be[162]punished. (Sohar, i, 104b.) Lot’s two daughters are the two proclivities in man, good and evil. (Ibid.110.) Besides this mystical interpretation wherein the Kabbalistic rules of exegesis are largely applied, the distinguishing feature of this portion of theSoharis its discussion on the properties and destiny of the soul, which constitute an essential doctrine of the Kabbalah.

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

6.Raze Derazin(‏רזי דרזין‎), orthe Secret of Secrets,[163]Original Secrets, is given in vol. ii, 70a–75a, and is especially devoted to the physiognomy of the Kabbalah, and the connection of the soul with the body, based upon the advice of Jethro to his son-in-law Moses (‏ואתה תחזה‎)and thou shalt look into the face. ( Exod. xviii, 21 .)

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

8.Siphra Detzniutha(‏ספרא דצניעותא‎), orthe Book of SecretsorMysteries, given in vol. ii, 176b–178b. It is divided into five sections (‏פרקים‎), and is chiefly occupied with discussing the questions involved in the creation,e. gr.the transition from the infinite to the finite, from absolute unity to multifariousness, from pure intelligence to matter, the double principle of masculine and feminine (‏אבא ואמא‎), expressed in the Tetragrammaton, the androgynous protoplast, the Demonology concealed in the letters of Scripture, as seen in Gen. vi, 2 ; Josh. ii, 1 ; 1 Kings, viii, 3 , 16 ; the mysteries contained in Isa. i, 4 , and the doctrine of theSephirothconcealed in Gen. i ; &c., as well as with showing the import of the letters‏יהו״ה‎composing the Tetragrammaton which were the principal agents in the creation. This portion of theSoharhas been translated into Latin by Rosenroth in the second volume of hisKabbala Denudata, Frankfort-on-the-Maine, 1684.[164]

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

10.Januka(‏ינוקא‎), orthe Discourse of the Young Man, is given in vol. iii, 186a–192a, and forms part of the text of theSoharon the Sabbatic section calledBalak,i.e.Numb. xxii, 2 – xxv, 9 . It derives its name from the fact that the discourses therein recorded were delivered by a young man, under the following circumstances:—R. Isaac and R. Jehudah, two of R. Simon b. Jochai’s disciples, when on a journey, and passing through the village where the widow of R. Hamnuna Saba resided, visited this venerable woman. She asked her son, theyoung heroof this discourse, who had just returned from school, to go to these two Rabbins to receive their benediction; but the youth would not approach them because he recognised, from the smell of their garments, that they had omitted reciting on that day the prescribed declaration about the unity of the Deity (‏שמע‎). When at meals this wonderfulJanukagave them sundry discourses on the mysterious import of the washing of hands, based on[165]Exod. xxx, 20 , on the grace recited at meals, on theShechinah, on the angel who redeemed Jacob ( Gen. xlviii, 16 ), &c., &c., which elicited the declaration from the Rabbins that “this youth is not the child of human parents” (‏האי ינוקא לאו ב״נ הוא‎); and when hearing all this, R. Simon b. Jochai coincided in the opinion, that “this youth is of superhuman origin.”

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

From this brief analysis of its component parts and contents, it will be seen that theSohardoes not propound a regular Kabbalistic system, but promiscuously and reiteratedly dilates upon the diverse doctrines of this theosophy, as indicated in the forms and ornaments of the Hebrew alphabet, in the vowel points and accents, in the Divine names and the letters of which they are composed, in the narratives of the[166]Bible, and in the traditional and national stories. Hence theSoharis more a collection of homilies or rhapsodies on Kabbalistic subjects than treatises on the Kabbalah. It is for this very reason that it became the treasury of the Kabbalah to the followers of this theosophy. Its diversity became its charm. The long conversations between its reputed author, R. Simon b. Jochai, and Moses, the great lawgiver and true shepherd, which it records; the short and pathetic prayers inserted therein; the religious anecdotes; the attractive spiritual explanations of scripture passages, appealing to the hearts and wants of men; the description of the Deity and of theSephirothunder tender forms of human relationships, comprehensible to the finite, mind, such as father, mother, primeval man, matron, bride, white head, the great and small face, the luminous mirror, the higher heaven, the higher earth, &c, which it gives on every page, made theSohara welcome text-book for the students of the Kabbalah, who, by its vivid descriptions of divine love, could lose themselves in rapturous embraces with the Deity.

Now, theSoharpretends to be a revelation from God, communicated through R. Simon b. Jochai, who flourished aboutA.D.70–110, to his select disciples. We are told that “when they assembled to compose theSohar, permission was granted to the prophet Elias, to all the members of the celestial college, to all angels, spirits, and superior souls, to assist them; and the ten spiritual substances [i.e.,Sephiroth] were charged to disclose to them their profound mysteries, which were reserved for the days of the Messiah.” On the approach of death, R. Simon b. Jochai assembled the small number of his disciples and friends, amongst whom was his son, R. Eleazar, to communicate to them his last doctrines,19“when[167]he ordered as follows—R. Aba shall write, R. Eleazar, my son, propound, and let my other associates quietly think about it.” (Idra Suta,Sohar, iii, 287b.) It is upon the strength of these declarations, as well as upon the repeated representation of R. Simon b. Jochai as speaking and teaching throughout this production, that theSoharis ascribed to this Rabbi on its very title-page, and that not only Jews, for centuries, but such distinguished Christian scholars as Lightfoot, Gill, Bartolocci, Pfeifer, Knorr von Rosenroth, Molitor, &c., have maintained this opinion. A careful examination, however, of the following internal and external evidence will show that this Thesaurus of the Kabbalah is the production of the thirteenth century.

1. TheSoharmost fulsomely praises its own author, calls him theSacred Light(‏בוצניא קדישא‎), and exalts him above Moses, “the true Shepherd.”20“I testify by the sacred heavens and the sacred earth,” declares R. Simon b. Jochai, “that I now see what no son of man has seen since Moses ascended the second time on Mount Sinai, for I see my face shining as brilliantly as the light of the sun when it descends as a healing for the world; as it is written, ‘to you who fear my name shall shine the Sun of Righteousness with a healing in his wings.’ (Malachi, [ iii, 20 ] iv, 2 .) Yea, more, I know that my face is shining, but Moses did not know it nor understand it; for it is written ( Exod. xxxiv, 29 ), ‘Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone.’ ” (Sohar, iii, 132b; 144a.) The disciples deify R. Simon in theSohar, declaring that the verse, “all thy males shall appear before the Lord God” ( Exod. xxiii, 17 ), refers to R. Simon b. Jochai,[168]who is the Lord, and before whom all men must appear. (Sohar, ii, 38a.)21

2. TheSoharquotes and mystically explains the Hebrew vowel points (i, 16b; 24b; ii, 116a; iii, 65a), which were introduced for the first time by R. Mocha of Palestine,A.D.570, to facilitate the reading of the Scriptures for his students.22

3. TheSohar(‏רעיא מהימנה‎Faithful Shepherd, on section‏קדושים‎iii, 82b), has literally borrowed two verses from the celebrated Hymn of Ibn Gebirol, who was born aboutA.D.1021 and died in 1070. This Hymn which is entitled‏כתר מלכות‎the Royal Diadem, is a beautiful and pathetic composition, embodying the cosmic views of Aristotle, and forms part of the Jewish service for the evening preceding the Great Day of Atonement to the present day. The quotation in theSoharfrom this Hymn is beyond the shadow of a doubt, as will be seen from the following comparison—

Sohar.Ibn Gebirol.‏ואשתארו [סיהרא ושמשא] כגופא בלא נשמתא‎‏אבל יש אדון עליהם‎‏דאית אדון עליהם מחשיך מאוריהם‎‏מחשיך מאוריהם‎

It must be borne in mind that, though theSoharis written in Aramaic, yet this quotation is in Hebrew, and in therhymeof Ibn Gebirol.23

4. TheSohar(i, 18b; 23a) quotes and explains the interchange, on the outside of theMezuza,24of the words[169](‏יהוה אלהינו יהוה‎)Jehovah our God is Jehovahfor (‏כוזו במוכסז כוזו‎)Kuzu Bemuchzaz Kuzu, by substituting for each letter its immediate predecessor in the alphabet, which was transplanted from France into Spain in the thirteenth century.25

5. TheSohar(iii, 232b) uses the expressionEsnoga, which is a Portuguese corruption of synagogue, and explains it in a Kabbalistic manner as a compound of two Hebrew words,i.e.,Es=‏אש‎andNoga=‏נוגה‎brilliant light.26

6. TheSohar(ii, 32a) mentions the Crusades, the momentary taking of Jerusalem by the Crusaders from the Infidels, and the retaking of it by the Saracens.27“Woe to the time,” it says, “wherein Ishmael saw the world, and received the sign of circumcision! What did the Holy One, blessed be his name? He excluded the descendants of Ishmael,i.e., the Mahommedans, from the congregation in heaven, but gave them a portion on earth in the Holy Land, because of the sign of the covenant which they possess. The Mahommedans are, therefore, destined to rule for a time over the Holy Land; and they will prevent the Israelites from returning to it, till the merit of the Mahommedans is accomplished. At that time the descendants of Ishmael will be the occasion of terrible wars in the world, and the children of Edom,i.e., the Christians, will gather together against them and do battle with them, some at sea and some on land, and some in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, and the victory will now[170]be on the one side and then on the other, but the Holy Land will not remain in the hands of the Christians.”

7. TheSoharrecords events which transpiredA.D.1264. Thus on Numb. xxiv, 17 , which theSoharexplains as referring to the time preceding the advent of Messiah, it remarks,28“the Holy One, blessed be he, is prepared to rebuild Jerusalem. Previous to the rebuilding thereof he will cause to appear, a wonderful and splendid star, which will shine seventy days. It will first be seen on Friday, Elul = July 25th, and disappear on Saturday or Friday evening at the end of seventy days. On the day preceding [its disappearance,i.e.October 2nd] when it will still be seen in the city of Rome, on that self-same day three high walls of that city of Rome and the great palace will fall, and the pontiff ruler of the city will die.” (Sohariii, 212b.) Now the comet here spoken of appeared in Rome, July 25th, 1264, and was visible till October 2nd, which are literally the seventy days mentioned in theSohar. Moreover, July 25th, when the comet first appeared, actually happened on a Friday; on the day of its disappearance, October 2nd, the sovereign pontiff of Rome, Urban IV, died at Perugia, when it was believed that the appearance of the comet was the omen of his death, and the great and strong palace (‏היכלא רברבא‎) Vincimento, fell on the self-same day, October 2nd, into the hands of the insurrectionists.29

8. TheSohar, in assigning a reason why its contents were not revealed before, says that the “time in which R. Simon ben Jochai lived was peculiarly worthy and glorious, and that it is near the advent of the Messiah,” for which cause this[171]revelation was reserved till the days of R. Simon, to be communicated through him. Yet, speaking elsewhere of the advent of the Messiah, theSohar, instead of placing it in the second century when this Rabbi lived, forgets itself and says30—“When the sixtieth or the sixty-sixth year shall have passed over the threshold of the sixth millenium [A.M.5060–66 =A.D.1300–1306] the Messiah will appear” (Sohari, 116a, 117b, Comp. also iii, 252a); thus showing that the author lived in the thirteenth century of the Christian era. In perfect harmony with this is the fact that:—

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

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

11. Isaac of Akko (flourished 1290) fully confirms all that we have hitherto adduced from the import of this book, by his testimony that “theSoharwas put into the world from the head of a Spaniard.” To the same effect is the testimony of Joseph Ibn Wakkar, who in speaking of later books which may be relied upon, recommends only those of Moses Nachmanides and Todros Abulafia; “but,” he adds, “theSoharis full of errors, and one must take care not to be misled by them.” Upon which, the erudite Steinschneider rightly remarks,31“this is an impartial and indirect testimony that theSoharwas recognised scarcely fifty years after its[172]appearing as one of the later works, and was not attributed to Simon ben Jochai.”

12. That Moses de Leon, who first published and sold theSohar, as the production of R. Simon b. Jochai, was himself the author of it, was admitted by his own wife and daughter, as will be seen from the following account in theBook Juchassin, (p.p. 88, 89, 95, ed. Filipowski, London, 1857), which we give in an abridged form.32When Isaac of Akko, who escaped the massacre after the capture of this city (A.D.1291), came to Spain and there saw theSohar, he was anxious to ascertain whether it was genuine, since it pretended to be a Palestine production, and he, though born and brought up in the Holy Land, in constant intercourse with the disciples of the celebrated Kabbalist, Nachmanides, had never heard a syllable about this marvellous work. Now, Moses de Leon, whom he met in Valladolid, declared to him on a most solemn oath that he had at Avila an ancient exemplar, which was the very autograph of R. Simon ben Jochai, and offered to submit it to him to be tested. In the meantime, however, Moses de Leon was taken ill on his journey home, and died at Arevolo,A.D.1305. But two[173]distinguished men of Avila, David Rafen and Joseph de Avila, who were determined to sift the matter, ascertained the falsehood of this story from the widow and daughter of Moses de Leon. Being a rich man and knowing that Moses de Leon left his family without means, Joseph de Avila promised, that if she would give him the original MS. of theSoharfrom which her husband made the copies, his son should marry her daughter, and that he would give them a handsome dowry. Whereupon the widow and daughter declared, that they did not possess any such MS., that Moses de Leon never had it, but that he composed theSoharfrom his own head, and wrote it with his own hand. Moreover, the widow candidly confessed that she had frequently asked her husband why he published the production of his own intellect under another man’s name, and that he told her that if he were to publish it under his own name nobody would buy it, whereas under the name of R. Simon b. Jochai it yielded him a large revenue. This account is confirmed in a most remarkable manner by the fact that—[174]

13. TheSoharcontains whole passages which Moses de Leon translated into Aramaic, from his other works, as the learned Jellinek has demonstratively proved. To transfer these passages here would occupy too much of our space. We must, therefore, refer the reader to the monograph itself,33and shall only give one example, which the erudite historian, Dr. Graetz,34has pointed out. In hisSephar Ha-Rimon(‏ספר הרימון‎), which he composedA.D.1827, and which is a Kabbalistic explanation of the Mosaic precepts, Moses de Leon endeavours to account for the non-occurrence of the Tetragrammaton in the history of the hexahemeron, whilst it does occur immediately afterwards, by submitting that as the earthly world is finite and perishable, this divine name, which denotes eternity, could not be used at the creation thereof; for if it had been created under its influence, the world would have been as imperishable as this name. In corroboration of this, Moses de Leon quotes the passage (‏לכו חזו מפעלות אלהים אשר שם שמות בארץ‎)Come, behold the works of Elohim, what perishableness he made in the earth( Ps. xlvi, 8 ), showing that‏שמות‎destruction,perishableness, is consonant with the name‏אלהים‎. In looking at the original, it will be seen that the text has‏יהוה‎and not‏אלהים‎, and that Moses de Leon, by a slip of memory, confounded this passage with‏לכו וראו מפעלות אלהים‎Come and see the works of Elohim( Ps. xlvi, 5 ). Now, the whole explanation and thesame blunderare transferred into theSohar. The commentators on this treasury of the Kabbalah, not knowing the cause of this blunder, express their great surprise that theSoharshould explain a mis-quotation. We subjoin the two passages in parallel columns.[175]

Sohar, i, 58a.Moses de Leon, ii, No. 133, p. 25.‏ר׳ יהודה פתח לכו חזו מפעלות אלהים אשר שם שמות וגו׳ האי קרא אוקמוה ואתמרּּּּ שמות ודאי והא שמא גרים לכלא (לשון שמשון) דאלו הוו מפעלות. י׳ ה׳ ו׳ ה׳ שם קיום בארץ אבל בגין דהוון מפעלות שמא דאלהים שם שמות בארץ: אמר ליה ר׳ חייא וגו׳‎‏אמנם כי יש פירוש אחר כהיות שם המיוחד נזכר כאחוזנה לקיים על ההויות אמרו חז״ל לכו ראו מפעלות וכו׳ מפני שהיו מפעלות אלהים שם שמותּּּּ שאלמלא היו מפעלות י׳ ה׳ ו׳ה׳ שם קיום בארץ: והענין בזה על כל המפעלות זה העולם השפל כלם נפסדים מפני שכל הוויותי בשם זה שאלמלא יהיו בשם המיוחד כלם יהיו קימים בקיומם וכו׳‎

It is for these and many other reasons that theSoharis now regarded by Steinschneider, Beer, Jellinek, Graetz, &c., as a pseudograph of the thirteenth century. That Moses de Leon should have palmed theSoharupon Simon b. Jochai was nothing remarkable, since this Rabbi is regarded by tradition as the embodiment of mysticism. No better hero could be selected for theSoharthan R. Simon, of whom the Talmud gives us the following account: “Once upon a time, R. Jehudah, R. Jose, and R. Simon sat together, and R. Jehudah b. Gerim sat by them. R. Jehudah then began and said—How beautiful are the works of this nation (i.e., the Romans)! they have erected market-places, they have erected bridges, and they have erected baths! R. Jose was quiet, but R. Simon b. Jochai answered and said: what they have built they have built for no one except for their own use, they made markets to allure prostitutes, they made baths to gratify themselves therein, and bridges to get tolls by them. Jehudah b. Gerim repeated this, and the emperor’s government got to hear it, who passed the following decree: Jehudah, who exalted, is to be exalted; Jose, who was silent, is to be banished to Zipporis; and Simon, who spoke evil, is to be killed. He (i.e., R. Simon) at once concealed himself with his son, in the place of study, whither his wife daily brought them a loaf and a flask of water; but as the rigour of the decree increased, he said to his son: women are weak-minded—if she is tortured she may betray us. Hence, they left, and betook themselves into a deep cavern, where by a miracle[176]a crab-tree and a well were created for their subsistence. He and his son sat in the sand up to their necks all the day studying the Law. They spent twelve long years in this cavern; when Elias the prophet came and stood at the entrance of the cavern, and called out—Who will inform the son of Jochai that the emperor is dead, and that the decree is commuted? They came out and saw the people tilling and sowing.” (Sabbath, 33a. Comp. also,Jerusalem Shebiith, ix, 1;Bereshith Rabba, cap. lxxix;Midrash Koheleth, x, 8;Midrash Esther, i, 9.) This is the secret why the story that R. Simon b. Jochai composed theSoharduring his twelve years’ residence in the cavern obtained credence among the followers of the Kabbalah.

III.The Commentary on the Ten Sephiroth.

It is this commentary to which we must look, as the most ancient document embodying the doctrines of the Kabbalah. The author of this commentary, R. Azariel b. Menachem, was born in Valladolid, about 1160. He distinguished himself as a philosopher, Kabbalist, Talmudist, and commentator, as his works indicate; he was a pupil of Isaac the Blind, who is regarded as the originator of the Kabbalah, and master of the celebrated R. Moses Nachmanides, who is also a distinguished pillar of Kabbalism. R. Azariel diedA.D.1238, at the advanced age of seventy-eight years. “The Commentary on the TenSephiroth” is in questions and answers,35and the following is the lucid analysis of it as given by the erudite Jellinek, according to Spinoza’s form of Ethics.[177]

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

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

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

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

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

(c)Proof.—As the primary cause of the world is infinite, nothing can existwithout(EXTRA) him; hence he is immanent. (Ibid.)

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

ii.Proposition.—TheSephirothare the medium between the absoluteEn Sophand the real world.

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

Scholion.—Since all existing things originated by means of[178]theSephiroth, there are a higher, a middle, and a lower degree of the real world. (Vide infra, Proposition 6.)

iii.Proposition.—There are ten intermediateSephiroth.

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

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

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

4.Proposition.—TheSephirothare emanations and not creations.

1.Proof.—As the absoluteEn Sophis perfect, theSephirothproceeding therefrom must also be perfect; hence they are not created. (Answer 5.)

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

Scholion.—The firstSephirawas in theEn Sophas a power before it became a reality; then the secondSephiraemanated as a potency for the intellectual world, and afterwards the otherSephirothemanated for the sensuous and material world. This, however, does not imply apriusandposteriusor a gradation in theEn Soph, but just as a light whose kindled lights which shine sooner and later and variously, so it embraces all in a unity. (Answer 8.)[179]

5.Proposition.—TheSephirothare both active and passive (‏מקביל ומתקבל‎).

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

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

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

(b)Scholion.—The firstSephirastands in relation to the soul, inasmuch as it is called aunity(‏יחידה‎); the second, inasmuch as it is denominatedliving(‏חיה‎); the third, inasmuch as it is termedspirit(‏רוח‎); the fourth, inasmuch as it is calledvital principle(‏גפש‎); the fifth, inasmuch as it is denominatedsoul(‏נשמה‎); the sixth operates on the blood, the seventh on the bones, the eighth on the veins, the ninth on the flesh, and the tenth on the skin. (Ibid.)

(c)Scholion.—The firstSephirais like the concealed light, the second like sky-blue, the third like yellow, the fourth like white, the fifth like red, the sixth like white-red, the seventh like whitish-red, the eighth like reddish-white, the ninth like white-red-whitish-red-reddish-white, and the tenth is like the light reflecting all colours.36[180]

The gradation of theSephirothis as follows—

Back to Index Next