Moshe Idel - The Divine Female and The Mystique of The Moon - Three-Phases Gender-Theory in Theosophical Kabbalah [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

CEEOL copyright 2016

Eugen CIURTIN (ed.),

STVDIA

Twenty Years of History of Religions in Bucharest, 1996-2016 ARCHÆVS XIX–XX (2015–2016), p. 151–182

THE DIVINE FEMALE AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON: THREE-PHASES GENDER-THEORY IN THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAH Moshe IDEL Hebrew University of Jerusalem Matanel Professor of Kabbalah at the Safed Academic College 1. Gender and Kabbalah: Some Introductory Remarks The emergence of articulated discussions of feminine aspects of divinity in Kabbalah had provoked a long series of studies and different explanations for such an emergence have been offered by scholars.1 The preconceptions as to the pure monotheistic Israelite God, accepted in many circles, theological and academic, was instrumental in most of the scholars’ postponing the emergence of those aspects in medieval period. The more recent explanations offered to this sudden emergence are either under the impact of Gnostic elements, according to Gershom Scholem 2, or under the impact of the cult of Mary in the Middle Ages, in accordance to the theory of Arthur I. Green3 and Peter Schaefer.4 Different as they are 1

For recent surveys of some of the scholarship discussed below see Hava TIROSH-SAMUELSON, “Gender in Jewish Mysticism,” in ed. F. E. GREENSPAHN, Jewish Mysticism and Kabbalah: New Insights and Scholarship, (New York University Press, New York, London, 2011), pp. 191-230, Daniel ABRAMS, The Female Body of God in Kabbalistic Literature (Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 2005) (Hebrew), and Biti ROI, Love of the Shekhina: Mysticism and Poetics in Tiqqunei ha-Zohar, (Bar Ilan University Press, Ramat Gan, 2017), pp. 30-33 (Hebrew). 2 Gershom SCHOLEM, On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead, tr. J. Neugroschel, ed. J. Chipman, (Schocken Books, New York, 1991), pp. 150151, 165, 167-168. 3 Arthur I. GREEN, “Shekhinah, the Virgin Mary, and the Song of Songs: Reflections on a Kabbalistic Symbol in its Christian Context,” Association of Jewish Studies Review [AJSR] 26 (2002), no. 1, pp. 1–52.

Romanian Association for the History of Religions member of EASR & IAHR www.ihr-acad.ro

CEEOL copyright 2016

Institute for the History of Religions Romanian Academy, Bucharest

CEEOL copyright 2016

152

MOSHE IDEL

these two explanations assume, therefore, an alien and quite decisive influence of material on the emerging Kabbalah in order to explain a major shift in Judaism. The two latter scholars capitalized on the decline of the dominant role of Gnostic elements in Kabbalistic theosophy as proposed in my studies, which opened for them the possibility for an alternative, without however referring to them, but succumbing again to a medieval explanation of the emergence of the feminine aspects of divinity in Kabbalah. 5 This Christotropic theory has been criticized in a series of studies, more eminently one of Yehuda Liebes’s seminal studies 6, and also some of my studies 7, and more recently in a study of Tzahi Weiss. 8 However, while in these studies the scholars’ accent was on establishing the feminine gender of the Shekhinah, the present study is concerned with the broader framework of the texts under consideration, namely expanding on the flux of the Feminine hypostasis in its three different phases, and its adoption and theosophical interpretation in Kabbalah. Attempts to find some earlier Jewish sources for the medieval developments on this topic were not taken too much in account, 9 since 4

Peter SCHAEFER, Mirror of His Beauty – Feminine Images of God .from the Bible to the Early Kabbalah (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2002). 5 See, e.g., Kabbalah: New Perspectives, (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1988), pp. 30-32, “Kabbalism and Rabbinism; on G. SCHOLEM’s Phenomenology of Judaism,” Modern Judaism 11 (1991), pp. 281–296. 6 Yehuda LIEBES, Studies in Jewish Myth and Jewish Messianism, tr. B. Stein, (SUNY Press, Albany, 1993), pp. 42-54, and for a reprinted Hebrew original in God’s Story, Collected Essays on the Jewish Myth, (Carmel, Jerusalem, 2008), pp. 90-107 and his The Cult of the Dawn: The Attitude of the Zohar Toward Idolatry, (Carmel, Jerusalem, 2011), pp. 25-26 (Hebrew). 7 Ben, Sonship and Jewish Mysticism, (Continuum, London, New York, 2008), pp. 383-388, and the related footnotes on pp. 474-475. 8 Tzahi WEISS, Cutting the Shoots: The Perception of the Shekhinah in the World of Early Kabbalah, (Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 2015) (Hebrew). 9 See IDEL, “Kabbalism and Rabbinism,” pp. 281–296, ID., “Jerusalem in Thirteenth-Century Jewish Thought,” in eds., J. PRAWER and H. Ben SHAMMAI, The History of Jerusalem: Crusaders and Ayyubids (1099–1250) (Yad Izhak ben-Zvi Publications, Jerusalem, 1991), pp. 265–276 (Hebrew), a part of which was printed in a much more expanded manner in an English version “On Jerusalem as a Feminine and Sexual Hypostasis: from Late Antiquity Sources to Medieval Kabbalah,” in eds. M. NEAMȚU and B. TĂTARU-CAZABAN, Memory, Humanity, and Meaning: Selected Essays in Honor of Andrei Pleşu’s Sixtieth Anniversary, (Zeta, Cluj, 2009), pp. 65-110, “The Triple Family: Sources for the Feminine Perception of Deity in Early Kabbalah,” in eds., E. BAUMGARTEN, A. RAZ-KRAKOTZKIN, R. WEINSTEIN, Tov Elem, Memory, Community & Gender in Medieval & Early Modern

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

THE DIVINE FEMALE AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON: 153 THREE-PHASES GENDER-THEORY IN THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAH

the theory of Christian influence was regarded as self-evident provided the concomitance of the alleged emergence and the ascent of the cult of Mary, in areas close to the emerging Kabbalistic literature in Western Europe. A stumbling block for such an approach is the fact that the Book of Bahir, conceived to be the first Kabbalistic treatise, was believed by Scholem and other scholars as being of an Oriental origin, and hardly a good candidate for mediating Mary’s cult in the West.10 Moreover, as pointed out by Daniel Abrams, some discussions of the feminine nature of the Shekhinah in this book are later accretions to the earlier versions of this book done by Kabbalists. 11 Another stumbling block is the scholars’ focusing their discussions on the feminine divine power as if a separated entity, not part of a couple, and unrelated to sexual relationship with the divine masculine counterpart.12 A Christian-like reading of Kabbalistic material triggered this scholarly narrow approach that ignores crucial aspects of Kabbalistic worldview regarding the feminine. However, what is even more astonishing, is the scholars’ neglect of a series of Jewish texts, and others close to Judaism, where a feminine divine power was nevertheless alluded, sometimes together with a male counterpart, since late antiquity. 13 In some of those sources, a Jewish Societies: Essays in Honor of Robert Bonfil, (Mossad Bialik, Jerusalem, 2011), pp. 91-110 (Hebrew). Especially annoying is the neglect or the ignorance of Liebes’s seminal study, the first one referred in n. 6 above, that was printed in English long before the more recent emergence of Christotropic move. The refusal to engage or even to mention those studies is characteristic of the Christotrophic tendency. 10 See, more recently, Ronit MEROZ, “The Middle Eastern Origins of Kabbalah,” Journal for the Study of Sephardic and Mizrahi Jewry, Feb. 2007 (http://sephardic.fiu.edu/journal/RonitMeroz.pdf), pp. 39–56, EADEM, “A Journey of Initiation in the Babylonian Layer of Sefer ha-Bahir,” Studia Hebraica 7 (2007), pp. 17-33, EADEM, “On the Time and Place of Some Paragraphs of Sefer Ha-Bahir”, Da‘at 49 (2002), pp. 137–180, and see now Israel KNOHL’s forthcoming study in a volume on Heikhalot literature (World Union of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, 2017) (Hebrew). 11 “The Condensation of the Symbol ‘Shekhinah’ in the Manuscripts of the Book Bahir,” Kabbalah 16 (2007), pp. 7–82. 12 See the cogent critique of Yehuda LIEBES, “Was the Shekhinah a Virgin?” Pe‘amin 101-102 (2005), pp. 303-313 (Hebrew). 13 See, e.g., Mark S. SMITH, “God Male and Female in the Old Testament: Yahveh and His ‘Asherah’,” Theological Studies 48 (1987), pp. 333-340, Moshe WEINFELD, “Feminine Features in the Imagery of God in Israel; the Sacred Marriage and the Sacred Tree,” Vetus Testamentum 46 (1996), pp. 515–529, James A. EMERTON, “‘Yahweh and his Asherah’: The Goddess or Her Symbol? Vetus Testamentum 49 (1999), pp. 315-337, Mayer I. GRUBER,

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

154

MOSHE IDEL

feminine power, called Knesset Yisrael, and more rarely Shekhinah,14 has been conceived of as the mother of the Jewish nation, which God was considered to be the father, as for example the Talmudic discussion in BT. Berakhot, fol. 35b.15 In some of those Hebrew texts, which were indubitably known to the early Kabbalists, the discussion is of a family, and only by seeing the threefold structure in preKabbalistic and Kabbalistic sources, one can met justice to what is old and what is new in the Middle Ages. Writings in the vein of history of ideas, the wider conceptual and cultural content of the divine feminine power in specific texts and theories has been dramatically marginalized, by tearing one element out of its conceptual context, and focusing only on some few of its features, losing the sight of the wider role and meaning of this element in the pertinent texts and culture. So, for example, it is most striking the neglect of one of the major roles of the divine feminine as giving birth to the souls as part of the intercourse with the divine male, an approach conspicuously related to the primacy of procreation in Jewish culture, hardly a pertinent value in the various cults of the Virgin Mary. The scholars’ separation between certain ideas or themes, and their immediate context and the culture in which they flourished is evident also in another recent development in the study of Kabbalah, and of Judaism in general, that regards those literatures as phallocentric, which means an inferior role of the divine and human feminine entities, which were regarded as dominated, as subservient, The Motherhood of God and Other Studies (Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia, 1992), pp. 3–16. See also GREEN, “The Virgin Mary,” p. 15 n. 66. 14 See SCHOLEM, On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead, pp. 140-197, and Isaiah Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, An Anthology of Texts, tr. D. Goldstein, (Littmann Library, London, Washington, 1991), vol. I, pp. 371387. See also Franz CUMONT, Lux Perpetua, (Geuthner, Paris, 1949), pp. 436438. For more recent surveys of Jewish and non-Jewish usages of Shekhinah see Nicolas SED, “La Shekhinta et les amis ‘Araméens,” in ed. R.-G. COQUIN, Mélanges Antoine Guillaumont (Patrick Cramer, Genève, 1988), pp. 233-242, Dominique CERBELAUD, “Aspects de la Shekinah chez les auteurs Chrétiens Syriens,” Le Muséon 123 (2010), pp. 91-125. Especially intriguing is the fact that scholars did not consult dictionaries related to ancient languages, where the root SKhN, is related to a goddess. See IDEL, Kabbalah & Eros, (Yale University Press, New Haven, 2005), p. 266 n. 117, referring to The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, (Chicago, Ill. 1989), pp. 165-166. See also IDEL, ibid., the bibliography and texts mentioned on pp. 256-257 nn. 23-27, which I shall not repeat here. 15 IDEL, “The Triple Family.”

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

THE DIVINE FEMALE AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON: 155 THREE-PHASES GENDER-THEORY IN THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAH

and often times masculinized or alternatively absorbed by the Male. This is indubitably the most interesting contribution of Elliot R. Wolfson to the phenomenology of the study of Kabbalah, and he reiterated it in a long series of studies. 16 His approach has been criticized by a series of scholars from different angles, 17 but no sustained alternative of a gender-theory to his proposals have been suggested, and this is the main purpose of the present study. Different as this approach is from the two explanations of the history of the emergence of the feminine mentioned earlier, it too is losing sight of a 16

See, e.g., Elliot R. WOLFSON, Through a Speculum that Shines: Vision and Imagination in Medieval Jewish Mysticism (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1994), Circle in the Square: Studies in the Use of Gender in Kabbalistic Symbolism (SUNY Press, Albany, 1995), Language, Eros, Being, Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and Poetic Imagination, (Fordham University Press, New York, 2005), “Coronation of the Sabbath Bride: Kabbalistic Myth and the Ritual of Androgynisation,” The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 6 (1997), pp. 301-343, “Patriarchy and the Motherhood of God in Zoharic Kabbalah and Meister Eckhart,” in Envisioning Judaism: Studies in Honor of Peter Schaefer, eds. R. BOUSTAN et al., (Mohr/Siebeck, Tübingen, 2013), vol. 2, pp. 1049-1088, “Tiqqun Ha-Shekhinah: Redemption and the Overcoming of Gender Dimorphism in the Messianic Kabbalah of Moses Hayyim Luzatto,” HR 36 (1997), pp. 289–332, “Woman: The Feminine as Other in Theosophic Kabbalah: Some Philosophical Observations on the Divine Androgyne,” in eds., L. SILBERSTEIN and R. COHN, The Other in Jewish Thought and Identity, (New York, 1994), pp. 166-204, "Gender and Heresy in the Study of Kabbalah,” Kabbalah 6 (2001), pp. 231-262 (Hebrew), “Occultation of the Feminine and the Body of Secrecy in Medieval Kabbalah,” Rendering the Veil: Concealment and Secrecy in the History of Religions, ed., E.R. WOLFSON, (Seven Bridges Press, New York, London, 1999), pp. 113-154. See also his “The Face of Jacob in the Moon: Mystical Transformations of an Aggadic Myth,” in The Seductiveness of Jewish Myth: Challenge or Response?, ed. S. Daniel BRESLAUER, (SUNY Press, Albany 1997), pp. 235-270. 17 See, e.g., Arthur GREEN, “Kabbalistic Re-Vision: A Review Article of Elliot Wolfson’s Through a Speculum that Shines,” HR 36 (1997), pp. 265-274, ID., Keter: The Crown of God in Early Jewish Mysticism, (PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton, 1997), pp. 122-123, Mark VERMAN, “Kabbalah Refracted,” Shofar 14 (1996), pp. 123-130, and the exchange between Wolfson and Verman, printed in ibid., pp. 154-163, and pp. 163-167 respectively, MOPSIK, Sex of the Soul, p. 27, ABRAMS, The Female Body of God, p. 7, Abraham ELQAYAM, “To Know Messiah,” Tarbiz 65 (1996), p. 665 n. 107 (Hebrew), WEISS, Cutting the Shots, passim, especially pp. 18-20 and n. 49, Biti ROI, “Women and Femininity: Images from the Kabbalistic Literature,” in To be a Jewish Woman, ed. M. SHILO, (Urim, Jerusalem, 2001), pp. 131-155, especially pp. 145-146 (Hebrew).

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

156

MOSHE IDEL

long series of Kabbalistic discussions that portray the feminine divine power in quite positive terms, often times equal to or even higher than the divine male. This means that phallocentric discussions – I would prefer the term androcentric, which is more anthropologically oriented than the psychoanalytic phallocentric - are indeed to be found in Kabbalistic literature, but on the one hand they do not constitute the only important voice, and in some cases, that will constitute the gist of the present study, they may be better understood as part of a much wider framework, which I would like to call the three-phases gendertheory, which significantly changes the meaning attributed to a certain phase in scholarship, when seeing it as part of a much broader model.18 In principle, I am not inclined to subscribe to theories that regard Kabbalah as a whole, as if having one basic answer to a certain topic, including gender. 2. A Three-Phases Gender-Theory in Theosophical Kabbalah The gist of the model that I shall describe in detail here 19, is that the divine Female had a high source within the divine world, equal two or sometimes even higher than the Male - a theme that constitutes the first, or the primordial phase. Then She descended, or fell, or is diminished, acquiring an inferior status, represented in the common representation of the Malkhut as the last and lower of the sefirotic system, and sometimes subservient, part of the androcentric worldview, which is the second phase dealing with the present. Finally, which is the third, restorative phase, the divine Female returns 18

See my initial remarks in R. Menahem Recanati, the Kabbalist, (Schocken, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv 1998), I pp. 228-229 (Hebrew), “Androgyny and Equality in Theosophico-Theurgical Kabbalah,” Diogenes 208 (2005), pp. 3334, and in a French translation in Diogène, (2004), ID., Kabbalah & Eros, pp. 63-64, 248, 272-273, n. 33. 19 On the diversity of models of gender in Kabbalah see IDEL, Kabbalah & Eros, passim, and some earlier discussions of this topic in my “The Bride of God,” Local Goddesses, ed. D. Hershman, (Jerusalem, 1994), pp. 44-46 (Hebrew), ID., R. Menachem Recanati the Kabbalist, p. 223, ID., “The Spouse and the Concubine, the Woman in Jewish Mysticism,” in eds. D.Y. ARIEL et al., Barukh she-‘Asani ’Ishah? The Woman in Judaism from the Bible to the Present Days, (Yediyot Sefarim, Tel Aviv, 1999), pp. 141-157 (Hebrew), and “Eros in der Kabbalah: Zwischen Gegenwaertiger Physischer Realitaet und Idealen Metaphysischen Konstrukten,” in eds. D. CLEMENS – T. SCHABERT, Kulturen des Eros (Fink, Munich, 2001), pp. 59-102, and “Ascensions, Gender and Pillars in Safedian Kabbalah,” Kabbalah 25 (2011), pp. 55-108.

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

THE DIVINE FEMALE AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON: 157 THREE-PHASES GENDER-THEORY IN THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAH

to Her supernal source, or even higher, as part of the eschaton, or in privileged moments of time in the present, like the days of Sabbath or other Jewish holidays. The first phase assumes an initial state of equality of the Female to the Male, or even higher than Him. Some instances that can be viewed as belonging to the third phase has been discussed separately from this model by Arthur Green, as if they constitute the leading theory in Kabbalah, as a response to Wolfson’s phallocentric claim.20 The model to be discussed here attempts to overcome the simplistic presentations of the different phases as if standing by themselves and thus discussed separately as if alone representative, without being aware of the broader framework, namely the potential relevance of other stages of the divine Female. It offers a more coherent organization of the Kabbalistic material that has been seen even by scholars as if competitive, as the Wolfson/Green dichotomy, for example. The existence of such a model may help a better understanding of the second phase, the androcentric one, than by isolating it and discussing its details as if this phase stands alone. In other words, there is nothing like one single and simple vision of the Shekhinah in this type of Kabbalah, but a complex process in which this entity is occupying different roles. The term “model” may assume a scholarly fabricated construct, imposed on a variety of texts, which strives to offer a better interpretation of material that is less reflective. It may become an artificial effort to interrogate diverse texts by means of broader considerations, which is only rarely explicated by the Kabbalists, as it is the case of the phallocentric theory that has been inserted within various discussions of traditional authors. In my opinion, the threephase model is resonating with the general perception of Jewish history by traditional Jews, as constituted of the grandeur of the ancient times, the exile in the present, and the eschatological future understood as restorative. Strongly inclined to what can be call ethnocentrism21, in many discussions in the theosophical Kabbalah this model reflects, if I am correct, the shifting relationship of between the nation of Israel and God, including the view of the Jewish nation as the wife of God, a theme alluded already in the biblical prophets. 22 20

GREEN, "Kabbalistic Re-Vision,” pp. 265-274, and WEISS, Cutting the Shots, pp. 125-129. See also my remarks in Kabbalah & Eros, pp. 212-213. 21 See IDEL, Kabbalah & Eros, pp. 12, 18, 104, 148. See also LIEBES, God’s Story, p. 335, Haviva PEDAYA, Nahmanides: Cyclical Time and Holy Text (‘Am ‘Oved, Tel Aviv, 2003), p. 426 (Hebrew), WEISS, Cutting the Shots, p. 83. 22 See D. BUZY, “L’allégorie matrimoniale de Jahve et d’Israël et la Cantique des Cantiques,” Vivre et Penser 3 (1945), pp. 79–90, and N. STIENSTRA,

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

158

MOSHE IDEL

Needless to say that some forms of a cult of the moon in Rabbinic Judaism, related to the lunar Calendar, facilitated the association between the fate of the Jewish nation, the phases of the moon, and the divine Female in Kabbalistic theosophies. 23 In the following pages I would like to translate a series of Kabbalistic texts since an early period of Kabbalah in mid-13th century, up to early Kabbalistic literature in 16th century.24 I hope that most of those quotes explicate the three-phases model independently, and my assumption is that I do not reconstruct or reveal a “hidden” agenda of Kabbalists. The aim of this study is to identify and bring together a series of discussions that inspired some of the leading figures in the history of Kabbalah as to this model, which is not just a matter of the existence of a series of discussions where it is explicit, but that it may organize some other discussions in the writings of those Kabbalists who are explicating this model, helping, hopefully, to better understand their approach. However, this second claim, as to the radiation of this model in other discussions of Kabbalists, important as it is, cannot be addressed in this limited context, since I am content here to elaborate on meaning of the series of passages where the proposed model is presented in a more direct manner. All this said I do not claim that this model is the single understanding of gender in Kabbalah, as it is absent in writings of some important Kabbalists as, for example, R. Abraham Abulafia and his school of Kabbalah25, R. Isaac ibn Latif, R. David ben Abraham YHWH is the Husband of His People (Kok Pharos, 1993), IDEL, ibid., pp. 104152, and ID., “The Triple Family.” 23 Julius LEWY, “The Late Assyro-Babylonian Cult of the Moon and its Culmination at the Time of Nabonidus”, Hebrew Union College Annual, 19 (1946), pp. 405-489, Israel KNOHL, The Holy Name, (Devir, Jerusalem, 2012), pp. 85-94 (Hebrew), and especially the passages in BT., Sanhedrin, fol. 42a, Pirqei de-Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 53. For visual representations of the performance of the rite of blessing the moon see Daniel SPERBER, Minhagei Yisrael, (Mossad ha-Rav Kook, Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 179, 394-399, 409-410 (Hebrew). 24 For later reverberations of this Kabbalistic model in both Kabbalah and Hasidism see my “On Gender Theories in R. Moshe Hayyim Luzzatto,” forthcoming in Joseph Kaplan Festschrift, eds. A. Bar-Levav, (Merkaz Shazar, Jerusalem, 2017) and “Some Observations on Gender Theories in Hasidism,” forthcoming in Tamar Ross Festschrift, ed. R. IRSHAI, (Bar Ilan University Press, Ramat Gan, 2017). For Safedian Kabbalah see my “Male and Female”: Equality, Female’s Theurgy and Eros, R. Moshe Cordovero’s Dual Ontology (forthcoming). 25 It is interesting to point out that Abulafia is not concerned with the mystique of the moon that is so evident in many of the theosophical Kabbalah, and he

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

THE DIVINE FEMALE AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON: 159 THREE-PHASES GENDER-THEORY IN THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAH

ha-Lavan, or R. Yohanan Alemanno. Those Kabbalists, most influenced by a variety of philosophical concepts, do not however, subscribe to the phallocentric model, too. Neither is the view as to the supremacy of the moon over the sun, found in an oral tradition adduced by R. Jacob ben Jacob ha-Kohen that was also copied by R. Isaac of Acre, representative.26 Nevertheless, my claim is that the three-phase model is one of the most explicit and widespread models of gender. In my earlier studies I advocated a need to highlight the diversity of thought not just in Kabbalah as a whole but also in the case of individual Kabbalists, whose thought was less systemic, and they could adopt or develop of variety of different explanations regarding the same topic, in the vein of the Midrashic literature, an approach that can be described as a grape-fruit approach.27 The assumption of some form of initial equality between the Sun and the Moon, are found in an explicit manner in pre-Kabbalistic and non-Kabbalistic sources, in the context of the Rabbinic myth of

does not comment on the verse from Isaiah 30:26. His view of the phases of the moon is related to recurrent moments of national redemption and destruction rather than to a divine Female entity. See M. IDEL, Messianic Mystics, (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1998), p. 80. For his discussions of the blessing of the moon – though not the issue of its diminution - see his Sefer ha-Yashar, printed in Matzref la-Sekhel, ed. A. GROSS, (Jerusalem, 2001), p. 100, Sitrei Torah, ed. A. GROSS (Jerusalem, 2002) pp. 45, 136, ’Otzar ‘Eden Ganuz, ed. A. GROSS, (Jerusalem, 2000), p. 216, or ’Imrei Shefer, ed. A. GROSS, (Jerusalem, 1999), p. 195. 26 See Daniel ABRAMS, “The Book of Illumination” of R. Jacob ben Jacob HaKohen, A Synoptic edition, (Ph. D. Thesis, New York University, 1993), pp. 330-338, and R. Isaac of Acre reference to it in ’Otzar Hayyim, Ms. Moscow-Guensburg 775, fols. 95b-96a, ABRAMS, ibid., p. 339. The passage has been printed in part and discussed in Michal KUSHNIR-ORON, ed., Sha‘ar Ha-Razim, Todros ben Joseph Abulafia, (Bialik Institute, Jerusalem, 1989), pp. 49 n. 19, Haviva PEDAYA, Vision and Speech, Models of Revelatory Experience in Jewish Mysticism (Cherub Press, Los Angeles, 2002), p. 223 (Hebrew), WEISS, Cutting the Shots, pp. 83-87, Shifra ASULIN, “The Flaw and its Correction: Impurity, the Moon and the Shekhinah: A Broad Inquiry into Zohar 3:79 (Aharei Mot),” Kabbalah 22 (2011), pp. 195-196 n. 12 (Hebrew). Her discussion, as well as Weiss’s one, of the myth of the moon in the Zoharic literature is the reason why I do not address it here. The two discussions of the myth found in R. Moshe de Leon, are worth of a separate discussion. See WEISS, ibid., pp. 71, 100. For R. Joseph ben Shalom Ashkenazi’s view of equality of the luminaries see WEISS, ibid., pp. 75-76. 27 See IDEL, Ben, pp. 616-618.

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

160

MOSHE IDEL

the diminution of the moon. 28 This view has been combined with discussions about and Adam and Eve, the divine Male and Female, already at the beginning of the Kabbalistic literature in Europe. 29 With the time the texts on this issue become numerous and only a few of them can be discussed here.30 However, they constitute solid evidence as to the existence of the first phase of the model in Kabbalistic thought. In the same texts, the diminution of the feminine power in the present is also evident, in the vein of phase two in the model described above. Provided the short format of those texts, it is hard to know whether also the third phase was found or not in Kabbalistic writings before mid-13th century. Indubitably, the Kabbalists capitalized on a well-known Rabbinic myth dealing with the diminution of the Moon, which has been mentioned in Genesis 1:16 as one of the “two great luminaries” while in the later part of the verse it is described as the “small luminary”. This is as etiological myth that tries also to solve the quandary of the smaller size of the moon despite what is written in the biblical verse. It deals with the moon’s will to use or wear the crown alone, without the sun, and a result of her audacious plea to God, she is said to diminish herself, namely her light. As a result of this diminution God says “bring an atoning sacrifice for Me since I have diminished the moon.” As a compensation for this diminution the count of the holidays in the calendar of the Jews was related to the lunar phases.31 This myth includes the two first stages of the model 28

See, e.g., Rashi’s commentary to Genesis 1:16, the commentary to a liturgical poem found in R. Abraham ben Azriel’s ‘Arugat ha-Bosem, ed. E. E. URBACH, (Mekize Nirdamim, Jerusalem, 1963), vol. III, pp. 42-43 (Hebrew), the anonymous Ashkenazi “Commentary on the Silluq of Eleazar Kalir for the Thorah-Portion Shekalim “Then Didst see and count,” published by E.E. URBACH, in ed. Sh. ABRAMSON– A. Mirsky, Hayyim (Jefim) Schirmann Jubilee Volume (Schocken Institute, Jerusalem, 1970), p. 3 (Hebrew). Those and some other similar texts have been overlooked in the scholarship dealing with concepts of equality in Kabbalah. My assumption is that there are common sources for both the Ashkenazi discussions and the Kabbalistic ones. See my monograph Middot: On the Emergence of Kabbalistic Theosophies, in preparation. Compare also to ABRAMS, The Female Body, p. 5 and n. 10. 29 See my Kabbalah & Eros, pp. 59-73. 30 IDEL, ibid. 31 See, especially, BT., Hulin, fol. 60b, Genesis Rabba, VI:3, and Pirqei deRabbi Eliezer, ch. 53. On the background of the Rabbinic myth of the diminution of the moon see Louis GINSBERG, Legends of the Jews, (JPS, Philadelphia, 2003), vol. I, p. 24, 25-26, n. 100, Amit ASSIS, “Two Kings, One Crown, and Raban Gamliel’s Court: Between Strategies of Justifying

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

THE DIVINE FEMALE AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON: 161 THREE-PHASES GENDER-THEORY IN THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAH

mentioned above, but not the third phase, which is apparently missing from the classical Rabbinic variants of the myth. However, following a late Midrash, in Kabbalistic discussions, it has been coupled with the verse from Isaiah 30:26: “Moreover, the light of the moon will be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun will be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day when the Lord binds up the brokenness of his people, and heals the wounds inflicted by his blow.” Apparently unrelated to the above myth this biblical verse deals with an augmentation of the moon’s light, to that of the sun, which is itself augmented sevenfold. This is part of the eschatological scenario, which includes the redemption of the people of Israel. When those two distinct treatments were brought together, the Isaiah verse is conceived of as part of a wider drama that repairs the blemish of the moon in the beginning, in the eschaton. Such a reading is facilitated by the mentioning of the seven days of creation in the verse. This fusion between the two elements is found in a Authority and Signification of Time”, Jerusalem Studies in Hebrew Literature 23 (2010), pp. 545-575, and for some of its metamorphoses, see especially, Gershom SCHOLEM, On the Kabbalah and its Symbolism, tr. Ralph Manheim, (Schocken Books, New York, 1969), pp. 151-153, Efraim GOTTLIEB, Studies in Kabbalah Literature , ed. J. Hacker, (Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, 1976), pp. 324-328 (Hebrew), LIEBES, Studies in Jewish Myth, pp. 42-54, ID., The Cult of the Dawn, pp. 25-26, KUSHNIR-ORON, ed., Sha‘ar Ha-Razim, Todros ben Joseph Abulafia, p. 49 n. 19, 51, 63-64, Charles MOPSIK, Le secret du marriage de David et Betsabée, (Éditions de l’Éclat, Paris-Tel Aviv, 1994), pp. 68, 78-79, ID., Sex of the Soul: The Vicissitudes of Sexual Difference in Kabbalah, ed. D. ABRAMS, (Cherub Press, Los Angeles, 2005), pp. 100-102, 106-108, 118, 189-190 n. 69, WEISS, Cutting the Shoots, pp. 60-90, especially pp. 63-65 n. 4, and 66-74, Haviva PEDAYA, "Sabbath, Sabbatai, and the Diminution of Moon, - The Holy Conjunction, Sign and Image," in ed. H. PEDAYA, Myth in Judaism, = Eshel Beer-Sheva 4 (1996), pp. 143-191 (Hebrew), EADEM, Nahmanides, pp. 359-364, EADEM, Vision and Speech, pp. 234-236, Melila Hellner-Eshed, ˝Of What Use is a Candle in Broad Daylight?” The Reinvention of a Myth’ https://hartman.org.il/Fck_Uploads/file/havrutavol3LR.55-62.pdf, IDEL, Kabbalah & Eros, pp. 69, 91, 261 n. 72. See also WOLFSON, Language, Eros, Being, pp. 177, 144-148, Moshe HALBERTAL, By Way of Truth, Nahmanides and the Creation of Tradition, (Shalom Hartman Institute, Jerusalem, 2006), pp. 144-146 (Hebrew), Bracha Sack, The Kabbalah of R. Moshe Cordovero, (Ben Gurion University Press, Beer Sheva, 1995), pp. 232, 246, 284 n. 27, 346, 357, 359, 365 (Hebrew), and more recently Asulin, “The Flaw and its Correction,” pp. 193-251. See also Daniel ABRAMS, “The Virgin Mary as the Moon that Lacks the Sun: A Zoharic Polemic against the Veneration of Mary,” Kabbalah 21 (2010), pp. 7-52.

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

162

MOSHE IDEL

relatively late Midrash, Pirqei de-Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 53, and this Midrash, though not mentioned in the Kabbalistic texts dealing with this myth, was indubitably known to Kabbalists in many other instances. Moreover, the ritual of the blessing the new moon every month, is an important vehicle for spreading this myth. This blessing contains the following statement: “True Worker, whose work is true, and God said to the moon: ‘Renew yourself! a diadem of glory [‘Ateret Tiferet] to the womb-laden [‘amusei baten]32, who are destined to renew themselves like her, and to glorify the One who formed them.” The entire blessing of the moon is replete with eschatological references, which includes the renewal of the kingdom of David and of the Jewish nation. Therefore, we have here both a description of the present and the aspirations or the ideals for a future. Thus, we may safely say that it is in this last Midrash and cognate later Midrashim33, that Kabbalists found the narrative basis for their symbolic interpretations. However, let me emphasize that the Rabbinic starting point of the model has nothing to do with the question of gender, but deals solely with exegetical, cultic, national, and eschatological issues, which should be recognized before adding other types of concerns. Early Kabbalists, since the Book of Bahir, and especially in a text of R. Abraham ben David, resorted to the symbolism of Moon and Sun as referring to divine powers, transforming the cosmogonic myth into a theosophical one, which can be called also theo-cosmic that deals with the dynamics of the sefirot.34 This is also the case with another Rabbinic statement as to the feminine figures and their relations to king Solomon. The earliest Kabbalistic treatment of the multiple positions and functions of the feminine divine power is found in a text which I propose to attribute to the 12 th century R. Jacob the Nazirite and its affinity to the anonymous Sefer ha-Bahir,35 This is just one of the several examples in which early Kabbalah reflects the 32

Interpreted by many as a reference to the people of Israel. See GINSBERG, Legends of the Jews, I, pp. 25-26 n. 100, where he claims that there are earlier traditions for the more complex model as found in the late Midrashim. 34 See my Kabbalah & Eros, pp. 61-73. For the ditheistic or binitarian structure of aspects in early Kabbalah see my “Prayer in Provencal Kabbalah,” Tarbiz 62 (1993), pp. 265-286 (Hebrew), ID., Ben, pp. 642-662, and WEISS, Cutting the Shots, passim, especially pp. 24-32, 125-129. 35 Printed from a manuscript in IDEL, ibid., pp. 285-286. See already Arthur GREEN, “Bride, Spouse, Daughter: Image of the Feminine in Classical Jewish Sources,” in On Being a Jewish Feminist, ed. S. Heschel, (New York 1983), pp. 248–260. 33

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

THE DIVINE FEMALE AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON: 163 THREE-PHASES GENDER-THEORY IN THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAH

impact of earlier views found in traditional Judaism related to femininity, a fact that has been neglected in modern research in the above-mentioned attempts to portray the emergence of the feminine divine power. 3. Nahmanides’ Hints and Their Later Reverberations We shall be concerned below with a specific Kabbalistic school, that of Nahmanides, which differs from other Kabbalistic schools that emerged concomitantly. The Rabbinic myth of the moon did not play a significant role in the Provencal Kabbalah and its reverberations in Catalunia, in the school of Kabbalists that followed R. Isaac the Blind, with whom Nahmanides was certainly acquainted, or the somewhat later ecstatic Kabbalah, that was mentioned above. This is the reason why I prefer not to speak about the view of Kabbalah or Kabbalists in the singular, or about the archetype of the moon in Kabbalah as a whole. An authoritative figure in the history of medieval Judaism, R. Moshe ben Nahman, known as Nahmanides [1194-1270], contributed in a more substantial manner to the discussions related to the Rabbinic myth about the diminution of the moon than any early Kabbalist.36 In his Commentary to the Pentateuch he wrote “And if you will be able to know their intention by saying in the blessing of the moon ‘the ‘Ateret Tiferet to the womb-laden’ you will know the secret of the primordial light [ha-’or ha-rishon], the storage [genizah]37 and the distinction [havdalah], since he said38 ‘He 36

On this towering figure there is an entire secondary literature. For our purpose here see especially the two monographs of PEDAYA, Nahmanides, Halbertal, By Way of Truth, as well as my “Nahmanides: Kabbalah, Halakhah, and Spiritual Leadership,” in eds. M. IDEL and M. Ostow, Jewish Mystical Leaders and Leadership in the 13th Century, (Northvale, N.J., 1998), pp. 15– 96, Elliot R. WOLFSON, “By Way of Truth: Aspects of Nahmanides' Kabbalistic Hermeneutic,” AJSR 14 (1989), no. 2, pp. 103-178 and below n. 41. 37 The storage of the primordial light is part of another Rabbinic myth, found, e.g., BT, Hagigah, fol. 12a. For its development in Kabbalah see GOTTLIEB, Studies in Kabbalah Literature, pp. 326-328, M. IDEL, “From the “Stored Light” to the “Light of the Torah” a Chapter in the Phenomenology of Jewish Mysticism,” On Light, ed. A. ZION, (Rehovot, 2002), pp. 26-36 (Hebrew). See also PEDAYA, Nahmanides, pp. 367-370. 38 R. Yehudah in the name of R. Shimeon, in the Midrash Genesis Rabbah 3:6. This is part of a dispute whether the primeval light was stored for the future

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

164

MOSHE IDEL

distinguished it for Himself’, and the secret of two kings that wear the same crown, and at the end [Isaiah 30:26] ‘the light of the moon like the light of the sun after the light of the sun will be seven time greater’.”39

Of outmost importance are Nahmanides’ references to secrets found in his opinion in the Rabbinic materials he quotes. The phrase ‘Ateret Tiferet understood as a unified entity of two entities, stands for some kind of primordial light, which afterwards there was a differentiation between ‘Ateret and Tiferet, that parallels moon and sun respectively, then the diminution of the former takes place, and finally the return to a state of equal light is mentioned. 40 Therefore, the three stages mentioned above are evident in a text that is exoteric: the cosmogonic, (basically interpreted as later on theogonic, as we shall see immediately below), the diminution, and then the renewal. What exactly are the secrets of Nahmanides related to these topics he does not disclose just as he does not divulge other secrets he alludes in his commentary. However, his secrets have been hinted at by his disciples and their followers.41 So, for example, in a collection of Nahmanides’ Kabbalistic traditions preserved by R. Isaac of Acre, - a Kabbalist righteous persons or for God. It should be pointed out that of distinction, or differentiation, plays a major role in the manner the divine acts are imagined in the creationalist narrative of Genesis 1. See M. IDEL, “Eros: Path of Unity and Polarity in Kabbalah,” eds. L. SULLIVAN, F. MERLINI, L. E. SULLIVAN, R. BERNARDINI, and K. OLSON (eds.), Love on a Fragile Thread | L’amore sul filo della fragilità – Presentations of the 2011 Eranos Conference 2008-2011 = Eranos Yearbook | Annale 70 (2009-2010-2011), (Eranos Foundation | Daimon Verlag, Ascona | Einsiedeln Daimon Verlag, 2012), pp. 296-322. 39 Commentary to the Pentateuch, on Genesis 1:14. See also PEDAYA, Nahmanides, pp. 362-366, and WEISS, Cutting the Shots, pp. 78-81, where the discussions of the Nahmanidean background of treating sun and moon, in the book of Bahir is found, though not the myth of diminution. 40 See also Nahmanides on Genesis 38:29, discussed in WEISS, ibid., p. 81, where moon is depicted as mut’emet, to the sun. Compare to the secret of dupartzufin as twins [te’omim] in ibn Gaon, Keter Shem Tov, ed. ‘Amudei haQabbalah, (Jerusalem, 2001), p. 74. Compare also ibid., p. 21 and below n. 51. See also a similar view quoted by the 14th century R. Menahem Zioni, Sefer Zioni, (Jerusalem, 1964), fol. 75d. See also ibid., fol. 39d, and the passage in fol. 66d, influenced by Ma‘arekhet ha-’Elohut. 41 For the problems related to decoding Nahmanides’ secrets see, e.g., M. IDEL, “Commentaries on the Secret of Impregnation in the Kabbalas of Catalunia and their Significance for Understanding of the Beginning of Kabbalah and its Development,” Da‘at 72 (2012), pp. 5-49, ibid., 73 (2012), pp. 5-44 (Hebrew), and PEDAYA, Nahmanides, pp. 106-110.

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

THE DIVINE FEMALE AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON: 165 THREE-PHASES GENDER-THEORY IN THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAH

whose views on the topic will be discussed later on in this essay - we learn: “[a] The Kabbalistic tradition of Saporta: ‘Know that they were dupartzufin, and when they were operating equally there was a fear that provided that their rule was equal42, lest the people will err and say that ‘there are two powers [in heaven], God forbid.’43 End of quote. [b] But the opinion of the sage was that it is possible to say that dupartzufin is from the perspective that in the sun the power of the moon was comprised [kelulah], and also that this power of the moon has been then consonant [mute’met] to the sun, and was not mixed to the power of the sun, but was distinguishable44…[c] in any case it is possible to say that the power of the moon is consonant in the sun at that moment, and was exercising also the act of mercy, as it seems to be from the Kabbalah of Saporta.”45

This is quite a composite passage. The Kabbalistic theory of Saportas [a], most probably to be identified with Nahmanides as scholars assume46, differs from the view of the anonymous Sage cited in [b], a figure whose ideas are known in the circle of Nahmanides’ followers, 42

On equality see also the gloss inserted in R. Shem Tov ibn Gaon, Ma’or vaShemesh, ed. Y. KORIAT, (Leghorn, 1839), fol. 28b, cited in the name of a sage, as well as the supercommentary on Nahmanides of R. Meir ibn Avi Sahulah – (or R. Yehoshu‘a ibn Shu‘aib), to Nahmanides’ secrets, (Warsau, 1875), fols. 3d, 4ab, where the luminaries are depicted as both du-partzufin and as operating in an equal manner, as part of the moon-myth. On dupartzufin in this super-commentary see also ibid., fols. 5d, 10c, 19a, 24a. Though the basic conceptual unit of du-partzufin and equality is adumbrated already in the passage attributed, correctly in my opinion, to the late 12 th century R. Abraham ben David, there the myth of the moon has not been mentioned in an explicit manner. This passage has been analyzed by many scholars, without referring to the role of the element of equality. See, however, my Kabbalah & Eros, pp. 59-73. 43 BT., Hagigah, fol. 15a. 44 In Hebrew hayah nikkar. See also below in the next citation. 45 R. Isaac of Acre, Me’irat ‘Einayyim, ed. A. GOLDREICH, (Ph. D. Thesis, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1982), pp. 8–9. For an interesting discussion where both equality and twins in the context of du-partzufin and the myth of the moon see R. Yehoshu‘a ben Shmuel Nahmias, Migdol Yeshu‘ot, ed. R. COHEN, (Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 71-76 (Hebrew), which summarizes some of the discussions in the above passages and some to be discussed below. See also ibid., pp. 78, 102. 46 See Efraim GOTTLIEB, The Kabbalah in the Writings of R. Bahya ben Asher ibn Halawa, (Kiriat Sepher, Jerusalem, 1970), pp. 216-221 (Hebrew), and GOLDREICH’s introduction, ibid., pp. 76-89.

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

166

MOSHE IDEL

who were Kabbalists but cannot be identified for the time being with certainty.47 His view is presented as different, opening as it is by the word “but”. In [b] and [c], which is the view of R. Isaac himself, there are two different explanations, which have nevertheless something in common: the two factors designated as du-partzufin are conceived of as equal and different but nevertheless acted in some form of consonance or cooperation. In my opinion, there are here hints at some form of inner bisexuality, namely the inherent presence of the feminine within the masculine, and vice-versa, a view found in the book of the Zohar, and a development that influenced dramatically Safedian Kabbalah.48 This means that there is no need to adopt a phallocentric vision in order to account for the presence of the feminine within the Male, neither of the fluidity theory of changing functions of the same entity. If we adopt this view as a clue for understanding Nahmanides, as it is found in traditions attributed to him and from his circle, then an understanding of this Kabbalist is predicated on understanding not just of the cooperation between two distinct sefirot, but also on the various factors that are found within the same sefirah. These passages are of special importance for the Kabbalistic theory of gender as I present it here, for a variety of reasons. First and 47

See in PEDAYA, Nahmanides, pp. 371-372. See my “Male and Female”. For the assumption that each sefirah comprises both the attribute of grace and that of judgment, and that each also comprises all the other sefirot see ibn Gaon’s Keter Shem Tov, ed. ‘Amudei ha-Qabbalah, p. 8. It seems that the first occurrence of this theory is found in R. Isaac Todros in his Commentary to the Mahzor, Ms. Paris BN 839, fol. 215b, written sometime in later decades of the 13th century in Barcelona. Following him it can be discerned also in Keter Shem Tov by R. Shem Tov as printed in Ma’or va-Shemesh, ed. Koriat, fols. 26b and 45a, or in the parallel discussions in Ms. Paris BN 774, fols. 76b, 104a of this work, and in traditions from Nahmanides’ school as found, anonymously, in e.g., Ms. Oxford-Bodleiana 1610, fol. 86b or in R. Menahem Recanati’s quotation of some Kabbalists in his Commentary to the Pentateuch, fol. 25ab and R. Meir ibn Gabbai, Derekh ’Emunah, ed. M. SHATZ, (Jerusalem, 1997), p. 82. The term for comprised is kelulah which is quintessential for understanding the way of thought in Nahmanides’ school. See, e.g., R. Isaac Todros, Commentary on the Mahzor, Ms. Paris BN 839, fol. 211b, Keter Shem Tov, ed. ‘Amudei ha-Qabbalah, pp. 29, 34, 35, 40, 55, 34, 61, R. Isaac of Acre, Me’irat ‘Einayyim, ed. GOLDREICH, p. 152, and in Nahmanides himself in his Commentary to the Pentateuch, Genesis 1:26. The term stems from Sefer ha-Bahir, ed. D. ABRAMS, (Cherub Press, Los Angeles, 1994), p. 223. See also Maurizio MOTTOLESE, Analogy in Midrash and Kabbalah, Interpretive Projections of the Sanctuary and Ritual (Cherub Press, Los Angeles, 2006), p. 215. 48

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

THE DIVINE FEMALE AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON: 167 THREE-PHASES GENDER-THEORY IN THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAH

foremost, in [a] it is evident that already in the primordial state, the Male and Female were imagined to be distinguishable, as it is mentioned explicitly, and implicitly in the fear that there is going to be a theological misunderstanding as to the existence of two independent powers on high. Provided this distinction and the equality of the members of the couple, it is hard to assume that the Female was considered just a part of the Male structure. Third, and also pertinent to my understanding of the threefold model, is the primordial equality between Male and Female. Nowhere in this passage is the Female understood as being subservient. Last but not least: the existence of all the sefirot in each of them, mean the existence of masculine factors within the Female and vice-versa, as a given, not an event by means of which one of the sefirot attains some form of perfection. Let turn to an anonymous piece, found in a collection of Kabbalistic traditions stemming from Nahmanides’ school, where it is written that “God, blessed be he, created a subtle creature in [the manner of] dupartzufin, an equal power [be-koah shaweh] and they are ‘Ateret Tiferet and they served the [first] three days until the fourth. And when God has seen that the world is not worthy of such a great light49 He did, by the light of du partzufin50, the lights of the spheres, which are sun and moon, and they are the similitude of the lights of the first ones. And those sun and moon served until the sixth day when Adam and Eve were created also [as] du-partzufin, after the creation of the world. And since she did accuse, namely the ‘Atarah in that legend, that the moon said: ‘is it possible that two kings will use the same crown’, namely the equal power, Her Creator, namely the Blessed be He – that is the Teshuvah – answered her: “Go and diminish yourself!” Immediately the twins separated themselves a little bit.51 And this was in the eve of Sabbath, in the twilight, and also the sun and the moon separated themselves, and Adam and Eve, which are the emanation of the first ones.52 You should understand from this the legend according to which Sabbath said to the Holy one blessed be He, namely the Tzaddiq53 said about this: “You have given to all a partner and to me you did not give one.” Then the Holy One blessed be he, said:

49

Probably the primordial light mentioned by Nahmanides. Namely the two sefirot mentioned earlier. 51 Compare above in the previous text, n. 44 above, the phrase “was distinguishable”. On twins see n. 40 above. 52 Namely Tiferet and Malkhut. 53 Namely the ninth sefirah or the sefirah of Yesod. This is also the view of R. Yehudah ben Yaqar, cf. n. 77 below. 50

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

168

MOSHE IDEL

“Knesset Yisrael will be your partner”.54 Immediately the two unite to each other and became both Sabbath.55 And you should rejoice and be glad like the joy of bridegroom and bride. And to this issue the Rabbi 56 intended when he spoke about division, as it is written in the case of R. Simon57: they divided to Him, namely the Teshuvah. And this is the reason why [it is written] ‘you should bring a ransom for me’, namely to me58…Know the secret of the primordial light namely for it ‘Ateret Tiferet said, in order to show how that they were du-partzufin and in one union.59 And when they said to ‘amusei baten, it refers to [the secret of] storage. And there are some people60 who say that the influx was separated by Teshuvah [going only] to Tiferet.61”62

The “subtle creature” mentioned at the beginning of the translated passage is not the human Adam but a divine entity that incorporated two entities that had an equal power, namely two sefirot as symbolized by the two luminaries. The syntagm “equal power” in the singular occurs again in the same collectanea in order to refer to the zone of Tiferet.63 It should be pointed out that the storage of the primordial light, or a part of it, by some form of its ascent on high, is reminiscent of the constellation of ideas that culminated in a version of the theory of withdrawal that became evident in the 16 th century.64 54

Genesis Rabbah XI:8. Sabbath is a symbolic reference in early Kabbalah for both the ninth and tenth sefirah. This view is found also in R. Yehoshu‘a ben Shmuel Nahmias, ed. COHEN, Migdol Yeshu‘ot, pp. 73-74. 56 Namely Nahmanides. 57 Cf., BT., Hullin, fol. 60b. 58 This is a demythization of the Midrashic stance: It is not God that should be forgiven because a mistake He made, but the sacrifice should be intended to Him, referred here by the sefirah of Binah, symbolized by Teshuvah. 59 See also ibn Gaon, Keter Shem Tov, in ed., ‘Amudei ha-Qabbalah, p. 22. 60 This is also part of views found in Nahmanides’ school. 61 Which means that power is no more given to ‘Atarah, which receives now from Tiferet. 62 Ms. Oxford-Bodeliana 1610, fols. 90a-90b, Ms. Cambridge Or. 2116.8, Ms. Parma-Palatina (1285) 2270, fol. 113b, or Ms. New York, JTS 191, p. 94, part of which has been printed now from the last manuscript in WEISS, Cutting the Shoots, pp. 82-83. For cognate material see also Ms. Oxford-Bodleiana 1610, fol. 91a. 63 Ibid., fol. 91a. 64 See Boaz HUSS, Sockets of Fine God: The Kabbalah of Rabbi Shim‘on ibn Lavi, (Magnes, Ben Tzvi, Jerusalem, 2000), pp. 132-146 (Hebrew). Interestingly enough one of the first traces of the theory of Tzimtzum, the divine withdrawal, is found in one of Nahmanides’ Kabbalistic texts. See M. IDEL, “On the Concept of Tzimtzum in Kabbalah and Its Research,” in eds. R. 55

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

THE DIVINE FEMALE AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON: 169 THREE-PHASES GENDER-THEORY IN THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAH

Let me emphasize that the Rabbinic drama is depicted in terms of a discussion taking place between two feminine powers in the theosophical system, the lower one, that complains and the higher one, Teshuvah, the third sefirah. A more detailed, technical interpretation of the Rabbinic myth in theosophical terms is preserved again in R. Isaac of Acre: ‘This is the reason that Tiferet and ‘Atarah are called du-partzufin since at the beginning they were emanate from Teshuvah [as] dupartzufin, and they receive [from there] in an equal manner [beshawweh], but the sins of Israel caused that they are in exile, and this is the reason that it is necessary to bring atonement, and this is the meaning of the Prosecution.65 This is the secret meaning I received:66 Know that the Teshuvah is the king of the kings of kings. How it is: Teshuvah is king, kings are the arms of the world [namely Hesed and Gevurah], [second] kings are du-partzufin that is two kings that serve and use one crown, which is the Teshuvah that is the Holy One, blessed be He. When the ‘Atarah stood and accused and said to Teshuvah: ‘it is impossible that two kings will use the same crown’, because you know that the du-partzufin were equal, since during the six days of creation the light of one was like the light of another, since Tiferet was the first day and ‘Atarah is the second one.’67

This is just another version that emphasizes however and element less prominent in other variants: the strong connection between diminution and the sins of the people of Israel, an interesting insertion of the national motif in the theosophical interpretation. 4. R. Shem Tov ibn Gaon R. Shem Tov ben Abraham ibn Gaon is a common student of Nahmanides’ disciples in matters of Kabbalah, R. Shlomo ibn Adret

Elior, Y. LIEBES, Lurianic Kabbalah (Jerusalem, 1992), pp. 60-68 (Hebrew). This issue deserves a more detailed analysis. 65 Qitrug. The verb qitregah, namely slandered, which is the source of the noun qitrug, is found in many sources dealing with the complaint of the moon. 66 Compare to a similar view in ibn Gaon’s Keter Shem Tov, ed. ‘Amudei haQabbalah, p. 28. 67 Me’irat ‘Einayyim, ed. GOLDREICH, pp. 7–8. See also below for another text of R. Isaac dealing with the first two days, analyzed in detail. The two texts have been quoted and discussed in R. Moshe Cordovero’s Pardes Rimmonim, Gate XVIII, ch.1, (Jerusalem, 1962), part I, fols. 83c-84a.

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

170

MOSHE IDEL

and R. Isaac Todros.68 He claims to be in the possession of the secrets of Nahmanides, as transmitted orally by his two teachers.69 In his influential supercommentary on Nahmanides’ secrets that were hinted at in his commentary on the Pentateuch, the widespread Keter Shem Tov, he writes: “that the secret of the primordial light refers to Tiferet, that is du-partzufin that are equal, until the moon was diminished.” 70 This identification of the primordial light with Tiferet recurs in his book.71 This means that originally within the realm of Tiferet there were two equal powers, which were a distinction in union, one of which has been then diminished. Du partzufin is a code that recurs frequently in his book, for the sixth and tenth sefirot, which are identified explicitly with the two luminaries. 72 The nature of diminution is that the last sefirah does not suck its power from the third sefirah, Teshuvah or Binah, but from the sixth sefirah, Tiferet, conceived of as the Male. 73 However, in the future, the luminaries will become again equal, as they were at the beginning, and he resorts to the Isaiah 30:26 verse.74 “the correspondence of the days is so in our true Kabbalah,75 and if you will understand the emanation and the secret of the two luminaries 68

This treatise had a lasting impact on a series of younger contemporary Kabbalists, like R. Isaac of Acre, the anonymous Kabbalist that authored the influential Ma‘arekhet ha-’Elohut, and R. Menahem Recanati’s writings, including the topics to be discussed below. We shall deal in this framework only with some of those reverberations, ignoring here the lengthy discussions in Ma‘arekhet ha-’Elohut on the topic that have been analyzed already by GOTTLIEB, Studies in Kabbalah Literature, pp. 324-328, 331, MOPSIK, Sex of the Soul, pp. 103-108, and PEDAYA, Nahmanides, pp. 359-364. Some treatments in this book attenuated the mythical aspects of the diminution. 69 It should be pointed out that in a quote in the name of ibn Adret, found in his student’s Commentary to the Pentateuch, he is attributed a different explanation than ibn Gaon’s, much closer to the view of R. Abraham ben David, but this is not reported as a secret. See the original Hebrew text, an English translation and analysis in MOPSIK, Sex of the Soul, pp. 100-102, 118119. 70 ‘Amudei ha-‘Qabbalah, p. 12. For equality in a similar context see ibn Gaon’s later Kabbalistic treatise Baddei ’Aron, quoted in IDEL, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, pp. 131. 71 ‘Amudei ha-Qabbalah, p. 11, several times. I quote ibn Gaon’s book from different editions since all of them include different forms of accretions. 72 Ibid., pp. 3, 8, 10, 11, 22, 23, 25, 29, 31, 33, 63. 73 Ibid., p. 12. 74 Ibid. See also ibid., p. 27. 75 On this topic see PEDAYA, Nahmanides, pp. 217-221.

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

THE DIVINE FEMALE AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON: 171 THREE-PHASES GENDER-THEORY IN THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAH

that was told to you concerning the two kings that wear one crown you should know that this is very occult secret and I was not permitted to hint at more. And as to the correspondence of this seventh day our sages, blessed be their memory, said in the ’Aggadah 76: ‘Sabbath said to the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Lord of the World to all you gave a partner and to me you did not give one etc., Behold, He gave to him His Name’.”77

Here, two Rabbinic myths have been juxtaposed, creating a larger narrative, that I called a macro-myth. However, those obscure hints are somehow more explicated elsewhere in the same treatise in greater detail. When dealing with the erasure of the memory of Amaleq and the completion of the name of God and His throne in the eschatological epoch78, R. Shem Tov writes: “and in the days of the Messiah, the Shekhinah will ascend and the womb-laden will be renewed and Her light was like the role of the sun at the beginning in79 the primordial light,80 and the name of Esau and ‘Amaleq will be erased because of the power of Israel, which will have the kingdom [ha-Malkhut] … as it was at the beginning…and God and His Name will be one, in an explicit and adequate manner, if you will merit despite the fact that the connection of du-partzufin is not absolute as it was in the primordial days, and even if this connection will be, what was [in the past] will not repaired.”81

76

Genesis Rabbah XI:8. Ms. Paris BN 774, fol. 74a, ‘Amudei ha-Qabbalah, p. 3. See also below beside n. 87. Compare also to Nahmanides’ teacher in matters of Kabbalah R. Yehudah ben Yaqar, The Commentary to Prayers and Blessings, ed. Sh. ASHKENAZI, (Jerusalem, 1979), II p. 42, and see the English translation of this text in IDEL, Ben, p. 391. I shall elaborate more on this topic and parallels found in early Kabbalah elsewhere. See above n. 53 and R. Menahem Recanati, Commentary to the Pentateuch, (Jerusalem, 1961), fol. 8b, and R. Yehoshu‘a ben Shmuel Nahmias, ed. COHEN, Migdol Yeshu‘ot, pp. 73-74. These Kabbalists read the Rabbinic legend as dealing with a sexually distinct couple, identifying Sabbath with Yesod, and Kenesset Yisrael with Malkhut. 78 On this topic in early Kabbalah see Haviva PEDAYA, Name and Sanctuary in the Teaching of R. Isaac the Blind (Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 2001) (Hebrew). 79 Or, according to another reading “as”. 80 In several instances, the primordial light is identified with the sefirah of Tiferet. See Keter Shev Tov, in ‘Amudei ha-Qabbalah, p. 11, twice, 27. 81 Ms. Paris BN 774, fol. 91a, ed. ‘Amudei ha-‘Qabbalah, p. 33. This passage in found in a paraphrastic version in R. Menahem Recanati’s Commentary to the Pentateuch, fol. 44c. On this Kabbalist see below, section 6. 77

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

172

MOSHE IDEL

This statement contradicts what we have seen above about the return to the ancient equality in another passage of this Kabbalist. The model is found here the state of initial equality between Sun and Moon in the past is evident and has been disrupted by sin and exile, reflecting the present, while the third phase is reflected in the possibility of atonement. In any case, according to ibn Gaon, it is possible to elevate the Shekhinah to Tiferet,82 and according to another text even to the Infinite83, a view that is not concerned with eschatological situations. Thus, the third phase is well represented in ibn Gaon’s treatise, either when dealing with messianism or with theurgical activity that causes the ascent of the Shekhinah. 5. R. Isaac ben Shmuel of Acre As seen above, several statements where the three-phases model occurs, where found in the writings of R. Isaac of Acre. 84 Active at the end of the 13th and early 14th century this Kabbalist preserved a variety of traditions from earlier forms of Kabbalah. In one more of them we read: “and Knesset Yisrael slandered and demanded good for herself, and so too the moon in relation to the sun, and Eve in relation to Adam, and all is the same matter, but one is the holy and consecrated spirit of God, blessed be He, and the other have been created in a corporeal manner.”85

Elsewhere, R. Isaac insists on the initial equality, writing that ‘at the beginning they [the two luminaries] were equal [shawwim] . . . as they were created du-partzufin, back to back, no one has any priority to the other, this being the reason why Adam and Eve were equal [shawwim]’.86 This primal equality of the two couples is developed in a much longer passage that has been already discussed in scholarship in order to exemplify the phallocentric model. I use Elliot Wolfson’s English translation with some minor changes: 82

See ed. ‘Amudei ha-‘Qabbalah, pp. 27, 63. Ibid., p. 71. 84 The only monograph dedicated to this Kabbalist is Eitan P. FISHBANE, As Light before Dawn: The Inner World of a Medieval Kabbalist, (Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2009). 85 Quoted by R. Isaac of Acre, Meirat ‘Einayyim, ed. GOLDREICH, p. 22. 86 R. Isaac of Acre, ‘Otzar Hayyim, Ms. Moscow-Ginsburg 775, fol. 95b, IDEL, “Androgyny and Equality,” p. 30. 83

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

THE DIVINE FEMALE AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON: 173 THREE-PHASES GENDER-THEORY IN THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAH

“You already know, as I have written, that the two countenances were equal, the light of the one as the light of the other, in the six days of creation. Thus, Tif'eret and ‘Atarah correspond to the first and second days, Hesed and Pahad to the third and fourth days . . . Netzah and Hod to the fifth and sixth days, Yesod ‘Olam is the Sabbath, and he has no counterpart, but Kenesset Yisra'el is his counterpart.87 She complained and sought benefit for herself, and similarly the moon with respect to the sun, and Eve with respect to Adam, for it is all one matter, but this is the spirit of God, sanctified and blessed, and the others were created corporeally. The intention of Eve vis-à-vis Adam her husband when she ate the fruit was to rise above Adam and to rule over him so that he would be in need of her power. When she saw that the eating harmed her and that she was punished on account of it, she said, "I will also feed my husband so that he, too, will be punished, and his stature will not be greater than my stature." On account of this intention she was punished and the matter was reversed, and she was in need of the power of her husband, and her desire'"' was directed to him all day to receive the overflow and the progression from him. Thus, when ‘Atarah complained that two kings could not make use of one crown, she was demanding on behalf of herself, and her light was diminished, and she became the speculum that does not shine . . . . See how primal Adam was created two-faced, neck opposite neck, equal in power and one in actuality. Afterwards "he took one of his ribs" [Gen. 2:21] from his side, that is, one of his parts . . . and from one two were made, and even though they are two, they are one, as it says, "and they will be one flesh" (ibid., 24). His attention is constantly directed to her and her attention is constantly directed to him, and his wife is as himself, “for this one was taken from the man” (ibid., 23), understand this.’88

Equality is well-represented here in at least two occasions, which is the starting point which should not be ignored in discussions about Kabbalah and gender. It is relevant for the initial stage of three levels of discussions: divine, astral and human and should be seen as meaningful for the manner in which the reciprocity of the husbandwife relation is reported, as it may reflect some reverberation of the Platonic explanation of the attraction of the two halves of the original androgyne.89 Three different Rabbinic myths are intertwined here: the complaint of the moon, the two-faced creation of the primeval human, and the complaint that Sabbath does not have a counterpart and 87

Genesis Rabbah XI:8. See also above n. 77. Sefer Me'irat ‘Einayim, ed. GOLDREICH, p. 8, translated and discussed by WOLFSON, Language, Eros, Being, pp. 61-62. 89 See my Kabbalah & Eros, pp. 73-77. 88

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

174

MOSHE IDEL

Knesset Yisra’el will be that counterpart. Sometimes, the addition of the storage of the primordial light is added. Their mixture is intended to account for the various cosmic levels of male/female relationship: divine, astral, and human, thus creating a macro-myth informed by theosophical processes.90 Part of a much larger development in Jewish thought91 and especially in Kabbalah, this propensity to macro-myths will culminate in the theosophies that constitute Lurianic Kabbalah. However, consistency is hardly attained by those comprehensive conceptual structures. So, for example, in the last passage, the sefirot Tiferet and ‘Atarah are depicted as equal and correspond to the first and second day of creation, which means that they are preceding, and perhaps even higher than the sefirot of Hesed and Pahad. This is certainly not an innovation of R. Isaac’s as we have seen it also elsewhere, where indeed there are some few Kabbalistic diagrams that depict such an unusual structure.92 This means that the ‘diadem’ - the ‘Atarah, – is considered to be higher in the theosophical hierarchy than the sefirah of Yesod, or the phallus, and subsequently it cannot be considered as belonging to it. According to such a view the first six sefirot include the ‘Atarah as higher, and paralleling the second day of creation, while Yesod is depicted as the lowest sefirah, seventh day corresponding to Sabbath. On the other hand, later on in this passage, this masculine sefirah has another feminine counterpart, referred as Kenesset Yisra’el, which stands for the last or the tenth feminine sefirah. Thus there are two couples of divine powers, which are understood as occupying different places in the lower sefirotic realm. A result of adopting two different Rabbinic myths, one of the moon and the ‘Ateret Tiferet, and another one of the Knesset Yisrael, the Kabbalists 90

On macro-myth see M. IDEL, ‘Gazing at the Head in Ashkenazi Hasidism’, Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 6 (1997), pp. 265-300. 91 For this propensity in later Rabbinic literature see Jeffrey Rubenstein, “From Mythic Motifs to Sustained Myth: The Revision of Rabbinic Traditions in Medieval Midrashim,” HThR 89 (1996), pp. 131-159. 92 “Wedding Canopies for the Divine Couple in R. Moshe Cordovero’s Kabbalah,” forthcoming in Avidov Lipsker Festschrift, ed. Y. Schwartz et al., (Bar Ilan University Press, Ramat Gan, 2017). See, e.g., the following passage from Cordovero’s ’Or Yaqar, (Jerusalem, 1967), vol. 4, p. 101: “The secret of Malkhut is Her being on high together with Tiferet, during the Sabbath, over Netzah and Hod, since this is Her place.” Compare to the much earlier view, perhaps in the 13th century, in a text printed by Daniel ABRAMS, “A Commentary to the Ten Sefirot from Early Thirteenth-Century Catalonia: Synoptic Edition, Translation and Detailed Commentary,” Kabbalah 30 (2013), pp. 40-41, 47.

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

THE DIVINE FEMALE AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON: 175 THREE-PHASES GENDER-THEORY IN THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAH

attempted to make sense of the different sexual dualities in the same manner. This is not surprising when perusing some forms of later Kabbalistic literatures, the belated ones like R. Isaac’s which practiced different organizing games, based on earlier different material. This practice precludes a strong systemic presentation, as to the existence of one model, shared by all Kabbalists. This holds in the case of an analysis of a single passage, and even more so when we take in consideration the writings of a Kabbalist like R. Isaac of Acre, who was enthusiastic about a passage of R. Jacob ben Jacob ha-Kohen, where the moon is given clear primacy over the sun. 93 R. Isaac belongs to what can be called the “mosaic” group of Kabbalists, which includes also R. Menahem Recanati, to be discussed immediately below, and R. Joseph Angelet, all contemporaries. 94 They were relatively eclectic thinkers, whose views reflect a variety of earlier Kabbalistic traditions. 6. R. Menahem Recanati R. Menahem Recanati is an Italian Kabbalist active at the beginning of the 14th century, which was well-acquainted with Catalonian and Castilian Kabbalah, especially the Zoharic literature. 95 In his commentary on prayers, one of his earlier Kabbalistic writings, he writes as follows: “”And God will be the King’96- the Teshuvah, which is the king, ‘upon [all] the world’. And you know the secret of “all” and secret of ‘the earth”.97 This will be in the days of the Messiah that absolute perfection will be, unlike what ever was. And this is [the meaning of 93

See above n. 26, and also the quite different discussion of another view of the Female drawn from ultimately Platonic sources, extant in another book of R. Isaac, discussed in IDEL, Kabbalah & Eros, pp. 153-178. Let me mention also the fascinating discussion of R. Isaac of Acre, who claims that the ‘Atarah was the first emanation in the thought of the Infinite and the last to the process of emanation, and She is first related to deed and last related to thought. See his Me'irat ‘Einayim, ed. Goldreich, p. 118. 94 R. Menahem Recanati, the Kabbalist, vol. I, (Schocken, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, 1998), pp. 24-32 (Hebrew). See also Ronit MEROZ, “R. Joseph Angelet and his “Zoharic Writings”,” in ed. R. MEROZ, New Developments in Zohar Studies, [ = Te‘uda, vol. XXI-XXII] (Tel Aviv University Press, Tel Aviv, 2007), pp. 303-404 (Hebrew). 95 See my R. Menahem Recanati, the Kabbalist, I, pp. 85-109. 96 Zekhariah 14:9. 97 ‘All’ refers to Yesod and ‘earth’ to Malkhut.

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

176

MOSHE IDEL

the verse] ‘and the light of the moon will be like the light of the sun’, and two kings will wear the same crown.”98

Later on in the same commentary Recanati writes: “’and He shall install his reign’99, refers to the return of the ‘Atarah to your older days, [‘Atarah le-Yoshnah] which will be in the days of perfection.” 100 What is the nature of this perfection? According to a passage from his Commentary on the Pentateuch, strongly influenced by R. Shem Tov ibn Gaon’s Keter Shem Tov mentioned above, the two luminaries were originally equal, before the light of the moon has been diminished.101 This is also the case elsewhere in this book: “since in the days of the Messiah, the ‘Ataret Tiferet of womb-laden102 will ascend and renew and Her light will be like the light of the sun ‘and in that days the Lord will be one and his name one.”103 Recanati’s texts demonstrate the strong nexus between the model we discuss here, as expounded by Nahmanides’ followers, and the nation of Israel and its fate. On the other side, the phallocentric gender-theory can hardly be applicable here. This is also the case in another passage of this Kabbalist, which reflects another version of this myth: “The Male and the Female are references to the luminaries, that refer to the attribute of day and the attribute of night, and the sun is always in its perfection104…but the moon, which corresponds to the supernal Female, receives addition, want and renewal and sometimes She clothes others garments. And the blemish that is found in Her, that is never removed, is the impurity that the primordial serpent injected in the supernal moon. And in the future this impurity will be removed…and the woman that adheres to her spouse and does not

98

Perush ha-Tefillot, Ms. New York, JTS 1989, fol. 29b, as well as his widespread Commentary to the Pentateuch, fol. 83a. See also the discussion in IDEL, R. Menahem Recanati, I, p. 228. 99 This Aramaic phrase is part of the Qaddish prayer. 100 Perush ha-Tefillot, Ms. New York, JTS 1989, fol. 30a. It should be mentioned that Recanati was very fond of the term perfection, sheleimut, probably influenced by the Aramaic form ’Asheleimuta’/sheleimuta’ found many times in the Zoharic literature. 101 Commentary to the Pentateuch, fol. 6c, WEISS, Cutting the Shots, p. 77. 102 This is part of the Rabbinic blessing over the moon. 103 Commentary to the Pentateuch, fol. 43c. 104 This is the same term as in the other cases discussed above.

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

THE DIVINE FEMALE AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON: 177 THREE-PHASES GENDER-THEORY IN THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAH

receive from any other does give power to the Shekhinah, since she is 105 in the paradigm of what is found the high”.

Here it is the serpent that is conceived of as the responsible factor for the diminution, and the decrease is changed for impurity, perhaps under the impact of the Zoharic literature. 7. Sefer ha-Peliy’ah An anonymous Kabbalist writing at the end of the 14th or early 15th century in the Byzantine Empire 106 elaborated upon what I propose to call the theo-cosmic interpretation of two-faced entity, adding details as part of his presentation of the equality-theme. In Sefer ha-Peliy’ah, a pseudo-epigraphy attributed to revelations received by a leading second-century figure, a compilation from a great variety of Kabbalistic sources, including Recanati, which had a considerable impact on Kabbalah, a view adumbrated earlier refers to the creation of the two great luminaries: “At the beginning of their emanation the light of the moon was like to the light of the sun because they were equal and were sucking in an identical manner . . . and afterwards the light of the moon has been called ‘small’ . . . because the moon, which was like the sun, said to the [sefirah of] Binah: ‘It is sufficient that one will operate, why should two kings wear the same crown.’ The Binah said: ‘Go and diminish yourself.’ What is the meaning of diminution? That she does not come to the king107 as it was at the beginning108, but by means of the equal line [ha-qav ha-shaweh].109 You should understand that she does not have a light of her own but one that comes by means of the equal line that is Tiferet. Is there a greater diminution than that? But in

105

Commentary to the Pentateuch, fol. 61c. See IDEL, “The Spouse and the Concubine,” p. 147, ID., Kabbalah & Eros, p. 123, Asulin, “The Flaw and its Correction,” p. 203, and compare to WOLFSON, “"Gender and Heresy,” pp. 242-243. 106 For the time and place of this anonymous book see Michal KUSHNIR-ORON, The Sefer Ha-Peli'ah and the Sefer Ha-Kanah: Their Kabbalistic Principles, Social and Religious Criticism and Literary Composition, (Ph. D. Dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1980) (Hebrew). 107 Cf. Esther 4:1. 108 Namely directly. 109 The term recurs in ibn Gaon’s Keter Shem Tov, ed. ‘Amudei ha-Qabbalah, pp. 4, 6, 27, 28, 32, 61 and in Recanati, Commentary to the Pentateuch, fol. 6c.

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

178

MOSHE IDEL

the future the light of the moon will be like the light of the sun, and two kings will use one crown, and God and the divine name will become one because and the sun and moon will conjoin in a perfect union.”110

The three stages of the moon/Female are evident here. Inferior as the moon is in the present she was equal to the sun in the primordium, and will return to her state in the future. This future state should be understood not just as union in which the female or the male loss their identity, but an event that retrieves the lost equality. 111 8. R. Meir ibn Gabbai One of the most influential Kabbalists among those who were expelled from Spain was R. Meir ibn Gabbai, active in the Ottoman Empire in at the end of the first third of the 16th century. 112 He provided a comprehensive summary of the Spanish Kabbalah, while incorporating only marginally the types of Kabbalistic thought written outside Spain. From this point of view he indeed reflects major views of Spanish Kabbalists as articulated in the book of the Zohar and the Nahmanides’ school. Through his systematic and lucid presentation of the theosophico-theurgical Kabbalah, he became immediately one of the most printed and read Kabbalists, and his views should be seen as shaping the attitudes of many later Kabbalists. It seems that he is the first Kabbalist to dedicate to the topic of the diminution of the moon in its specific theosophical interpretation analyzed here, an entire chapter, as it is going to be the case a generation later, in the writings of Safedian Kabbalists. In the vein of views found in Nahmanides’ school and in Sefer ha-Peliy’ah, he too emphasizes the equality of the du-partzufin in the theo-cosmic context: ‘And the Lord made the two great luminaries’, at the beginning of their emanation they were equal, du-partzufin, together, and this is the reason they were called ‘great’, 110

Sefer ha-Peliy’ah (Premizlany, 1884), fol. 69a. See also Talya Fishman, “A Kabbalistic Perspective on Gender-Specific Commandments: On the Interplay of Symbols and Society,” Association of Jewish Studies Review [AJSR] 17 (1992), no. 2, pp. 199-245. 111 Interesting enough the Kabbalistic interpretation of the blessing of the moon, as found in Sefer ha-Qanah, a book authored by the Kabbalist that wrote Sefer ha-Peliy’ah, does not follow the Nahmanidean pattern. See ed. (Crakow, 1894), fols. 55b-56a. 112 On this Kabbalist see Roland GOETSCHEL, R. Meir Ibn Gabbay: le discours de la Kabbale espagnole, (Peeters, Leuven 1981).

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

THE DIVINE FEMALE AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON: 179 THREE-PHASES GENDER-THEORY IN THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAH

the light of the moon was equal to the light of the sun, but only afterwards it has been called the small light.”113 However, much more important is a discussion that occurs later on in his masterpiece, following the quote of the views found in the above passage in Sefer ha-Peliy’ah: “They were du-partzufin united together [and] illumining equally according to one pattern. And this is the reason why both were called great, because they were in one conjunction114 and the light was arriving to them from the source [Binah] in an equal manner. And the fact that they both were wearing the same crown [points to] the supernal luminary [again Binah]. Then She said to the Holy One blessed be He, ‘Is it possible that two kings [etc.]’ . . . The secret of du-partzufin will wear the same crown, behold it is sufficient that only one will reign and operate.’ She was asking for herself as she said ‘I shall reign over the six extremities.’115 God said then: ‘Go and diminish yourself’ . . . and since then [Genesis 3:16] ‘Your desire will be to your husband and he will rule over you.’ And the great luminary is [referred by] the Tetragrammaton116, and the small luminary is [referred by the name] ’Elohim, the end of the supernal thought. 117 At the beginning when they were balanced [shequlim]118 she was part of the great name, its last He’ that is inscribed in it as the fourth letter, in order to point to the union with it, in an equal manner [be-shaweh], afterwards She diminished Herself, [and] was called ’Elohim. Nevertheless, She ascends on high in all the directions, by means of the last letter He’ of the Tetragrammaton, and then She is like greatness and [then] there is abundance below. Because of the rule over the inferior entities She is called ’Elohim, and Her kingship rules over all.”119

113

‘Avodat ha-Qodesh (Jerusalem, 1973), part IV, ch. 8, fol. 119b. See also ibid., fol. 118d, where the equality of du-partzufin is mentioned several times. 114 Perhaps the influence of the Zoharic Commentary to the Song of Songs, printed in Zohar Hadash, ed. R. MARGOLIOTH (Jerusalem, 1978), fol. 70d-71a. 115 In Kabbalistic symbolism, those six extremities are lower six sefirot. This formulation is found also in his other book Tola‘at Ya‘aqov (Warsau, 1890), fols. 30d-31a. 116 Namely Tiferet corresponding to the sun. 117 Namely the tenth sefirah, which is the last one and the entire sefirotic pleroma is designated as the divine thought. 118 This term may reflect the Zoharic view of the necessity of the balance between the Male and female components within the divine realm. See note 114 above. This term occurs in the context of the luminaries also in ibn Gabbai’s other book Tola‘at Ya‘aqov, fol. 30d. 119 ‘Avodat ha-Qodesh, part IV, ch. 8, fol. 119b.

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

180

MOSHE IDEL

This passage presents three different moments in the relationship between the two aspects of du-partzufin: the initial one, when they were equal from both the ontological and functional points of view, the second one after the diminution of the Feminine power, in the later part of creation and afterwards, and finally the third one, the ascent of the Feminine hypostasis within the theosophical system to a place higher than Her Male counterpart. Therefore, the initial state of equality is replaced by a more dynamic situation, in which the feminine power acquires two different types of relationship with the masculine sefirotic hypostasis: She is sometimes inferior to Him and sometimes superior. It is the latter case that ensures the abundance here below. Her transition from the inferior phase to the superior one is quite explicit, and emphasized by the word ‘nevertheless’. By this ascent, the feminine power retrieves Her lost greatness, and it is quite plausible that she is described as reaching the rank of the fourth sefirah of Greatness, Gedullah, namely a status higher than that of the male power, Tiferet, and highest in the structure of seven lower sefirot. This may also mean that the Female ascends to a place that She received directly from the Binah, as in the older days.120 It seems that what has been the request of the moon, to rule over the six extremities, which caused the diminution, is nevertheless fulfilled, though perhaps temporarily. Interestingly enough this ascent is restorative, but it is not depicted in clear eschatological terms, which means that it may happen also in the present. In any case, at the end of the discussion as found in his commentary to prayers, ibn Gabbai claims that it was the intention of the moon/Female to be dominant in the act of procreation that caused Her complaint.121 This is certainly a non-eschatological understanding of the myth. 9. Concluding Remarks We have surveyed below a series of discussions of some leading Kabbalists since early Kabbalah to early 16th century, as to 120

See ibid., fol. 119a. See also ibid., fol. 119c. Tola‘at Ya‘aqov, fol. 31a. Compare also to the view of the late 16thearly17th century Italian Kabbalist, R. Menahem Azaryah of Fano, in his interesting discussion of the diminution of the moon, as analyzed in Yehuda LIEBES’s excursus, forthcoming in Ruth Kara-Ivanov Kaniel’s book Human Ropes - Birth in Kabbalah and Psychoanalysis (Bar Ilan University and Shalom Hartman, Ramat Gan, 2017) (Hebrew). In both cases, the Female is depicted in the context of the moon-myth, as concerned with giving birth, which is a new element in the history of this myth. 121

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

THE DIVINE FEMALE AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON: 181 THREE-PHASES GENDER-THEORY IN THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAH

their complex and dynamic understanding of the nature of the feminine divine power. Those discussions are rather explicit and they gravitate around the changing size of an astral body, the fate of the people of Israel, and the divine Female, especially their renewal and redemption as found in a certain specific Kabbalistic school. And the constellation of ideas that emanated from this school in later Kabbalists. Concerned as these Kabbalists were mainly with the national, rather than the individual, they preclude an understanding of the intentions of those authors with a simple phallocentric approach. Though such a reading can be inserted as an imposition that attempts to decode the implicit meaning of those texts, such an approach does not take in consideration the fuller context of one stage in a broader context, which has been neglected. Stemming from an approach that emphasizes the modern worldview concerned with the individual, trans-ethnical vision, the phallocentric approach is one-dimensional, failing to address what the above discussions, and many others treated in studies to be printed elsewhere,122 have conceived of as the ideal of the Kabbalists as discussed above: to retrieve the primordial state of equality of the Male and Female divine hypostases, as a symbol for national redemption. The mystique of the moon is also a mystique of the divine Female and of the people of Israel, envisioned as fluctuating, not a frozen entity invariably found in a simple, inferior type of situation. The modern concerns with gender in their different forms can be helpful in decoding the implicit - if such an implicit theory is found in Kabbalistic thinkers - only after the explicit concepts found in the text are first recognized and then duly analyzed. In any case, the adding of the theosophical-theurgical level to the text of the ritual of the blessing of the moon, enhanced the significance of the ancient rite, intensifying the valence of the performance in the religious life of Jews and of Kabbalists. 123 It includes not just “rites of exile”, as Scholem put it, 124 but also an important component of 122

See above n. 24. See SCHOLEM, On the Kabbalah and its Symbolism, pp. 151-153, M. IDEL, “Performance, Intensification and Experience in Jewish Mysticism,” Archaeus XIII (2009), pp. 93-134, and Maurizio MOTTOLESE, Bodily Rituals in Jewish Mysticism: The Intensification of Cultic Hand Gestures by Medieval Kabbalists, (Cherub Press, Los Angeles, 2016). 124 SCHOLEM, ibid., p. 149, and see also ibid., pp. 141, 146, 151. On the earlier history of the exile of the Shekhinah see Norman J. COHEN, “Shekhinta baGaluta: A Midrashic Response to Destruction and Persecution,” Journal for the Study of Judaism XIII (1982), pp. 147-159, Michael FISHBANE, Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003), pp. 134-136, 144ff. 123

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

182

MOSHE IDEL

renewal and those two components should be understood as conjugated in an indissoluble manner.125 This is one of the reasons for the reverberation of Nahmanides’ interpretation of the ritual during centuries,126 despite its divergence with other Kabbalistic interpretations, including the Zoharic one.

125

To a certain extent the phallocentric interpretation of Kabbalah is another version of its exilic interpretation since both are gravitating around one specific stage in one of the wider imaginary construct of the Feminine in Judaism. 126 See above nn. 24, 67.

CEEOL copyright 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016

ARCHÆVS Études d’Histoire des Religions | Studies in the History of Religions

XIX-XX (2015-2016) Eugen CIURTIN (editor)

TWENTY YEARS of HISTORY OF RELIGIONS in BUCHAREST

Volume published on the occasion of the Sesquicentennial Anniversary of the Romanian Academy and of the 20th Anniversary of the Romanian Association for the History of Religions

co-funded by The Administration of the National Cultural Fund

&

Fondul Recurent al Donatorilor – Academia Română INSTITUTE FOR THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS ROMANIAN ACADEMY BUCHAREST 2016

CEEOL copyright 2016