Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis? Part Four: Esoteric Jewish Theology

[volgadon]

Catherine Aurelia has some lovely remarks at a different board. "Why attribute antiquity to a midrash when it was, in fact, probably an 8th or 9th century invention, and related to the Kabalah?" "an 8th or 9th century Kabalah-related "midrash."

This one, though, is my favourite. "So, why aren't these amazing super-human-gods-to-be addressing the issue? - that Peterson and McClellan, both Mormon apologists, misrepresented (either by design or ignorance, I don't know) a midrash of the Jews (and of the Kabalah period) as being ancient rather than of 8th or 9th century origin? Is RON Bowman wrong, and if so, where is the evidence that he is?"

This would show that Rob emphasis on Patai's opinion tends to cloud the issue of the text's provenance.

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

I don't understand the point of your post. You have yet to provide any evidence that the information I presented about the date of the work in question was inaccurate. Instead you are finding fault in nit-picky fashion with posts on another forum by persons who had nothing to do with the writing of my article and who are not participating here. Your comment about my "emphasis" on Patai's dating of the work is puzzling, as I documented several other academic studies and reference works that all agreed on the period in which it originated. Giving special notice to Patai's dating is certainly relevant, though, as all of the LDS scholars who cite the work derive the quote directly or indirectly from Patai.

So, please save the hit-and-run comments and we can wait patiently for any substantive critique you may have forthcoming.

[Ares]

Vance,

Do you have anything of substance to contribute to this thread?

If you have issues with posts report them. Accusing others of "nit-picking" then complaining about how you are treated is not helpful.

[volgadon]

volgadon,

I don't understand the point of your post. You have yet to provide any evidence that the information I presented about the date of the work in question was inaccurate. Instead you are finding fault in nit-picky fashion with posts on another forum by persons who had nothing to do with the writing of my article and who are not participating here. Your comment about my "emphasis" on Patai's dating of the work is puzzling, as I documented several other academic studies and reference works that all agreed on the period in which it originated. Giving special notice to Patai's dating is certainly relevant, though, as all of the LDS scholars who cite the work derive the quote directly or indirectly from Patai.

So, please save the hit-and-run comments and we can wait patiently for any substantive critique you may have forthcoming.

Actually, you've provided no support for the position that the ORA contains "markedly Kabbalistic tendencies" or that it could be meaningfully termed proto-Kabbalistic. You also haven't indicated which elements in the quoted portion of ORA you consider to be late.

I also don't see why Patai's unsubstantiated opinion in a different work has much bearing on a selection from a different work, an anthology of primary sources.

Edited September 17, 2011 by volgadon

[Rob Bowman]

Ares,

You wrote:

If you have issues with posts report them.

I have been doing so, especially recently. The post about which you are commenting was from three weeks ago.

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

You wrote:

Actually, you've provided no support for the position that the ORA contains "markedly Kabbalistic tendencies" or that it could be meaningfully termed proto-Kabbalistic. You also haven't indicated which elements in the quoted portion of ORA you consider to be late.

I also don't see why Patai's unsubstantiated opinion in a different work has much bearing on a selection from a different work, an anthology of primary sources.

I thought you were talking primarily about the date. Apparently you do not dispute the dates given by Patai and the other scholars I cited.

I'm not too particular about whether one describes the work as "proto-Kabbalistic." I used that term to mean that it contained some distinctive motifs of what would later become what is formally known as Kabbalah; or put from another perspective, that it is not full-blown Kabbalah but is a text that is part of the "run up" to Kabbalah. If you want to dispute this claim, go ahead. The core of my criticism of the LDS use of the quotation will not be touched, which is that a Jewish text dating from the late first millennium cannot provide good evidence for a Christian doctrine supposedly lost in a second-century apostasy.

[volgadon]

volgadon,

You wrote:

I thought you were talking primarily about the date. Apparently you do not dispute the dates given by Patai and the other scholars I cited.

Actually, you were asking the wrong question. I dispute the implications you have drawn from the date that the work first appears as a separate work. Although I don't have access to Joseph Dan's article in Daat 55, I do have plenty of his other works. When I present some of his conclusions I hope you'll modify your whole stance on the work.

I'm not too particular about whether one describes the work as "proto-Kabbalistic." I used that term to mean that it contained some distinctive motifs of what would later become what is formally known as Kabbalah; or put from another perspective, that it is not full-blown Kabbalah but is a text that is part of the "run up" to Kabbalah. If you want to dispute this claim, go ahead.

Again, what distinctive kabbalistic motifs does it contain?

The core of my criticism of the LDS use of the quotation will not be touched, which is that a Jewish text dating from the late first millennium cannot provide good evidence for a Christian doctrine supposedly lost in a second-century apostasy.

You have yet to indicate what you find to be late. There are very good reasons to locate the concepts earlier, and I will be presenting a good ammount of source material, as well as a full translation of the entire passage in ORA version A.

Edited September 17, 2011 by volgadon

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

All other considerations aside, if there is, as you claim, source material showing that the ideas that Mormon scholars have claimed are pertinent to Joseph Smith's doctrine of exaltation dated from before the second century, then such source material ought to have been the basis of the argument, not a later work. This is no better than quoting Swedenborg to prove that an idea is medieval and then, when it is pointed out that Swedenborg was a modern, retorting that his ideas can be documented from earlier periods.

[Robert F. Smith]

Thank you. I figured you had meant that but thought I would ask since I actually have Jellineck's Beit Hamidrasch and the two Wertheimer editions based on the manuscripts.

John Tvedtnes translates and quotes directly from Jellinek's Beit ha-Midrasch in his sections of Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham (FARMS, 2001). Often scholars will cite a translated source for the convenience of the reader.

Midrash is an important concept since the Book of Mormon participates in that very process, as I show at http://www.scribd.com/doc/44328710/Peshat-Plainness .

[Rob Bowman]

maklelan,

In another thread, I had asked you:

"I wondered if this topic would get your interest. Say, have you seen my thread on the Mormon use of the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva? You might want to take a look at it, since I specifically critique a statement you made about it."

You replied:

I saw someone mention it on CARM, but I am banned, so I could not comment. I didn't get the quote from Patai, I got it from an article by Barry Bickmore and used it in an article I wrote as a sophomore at BYU (which you can find here).

In that article, you cited Patai (see n. 30), of course deriving the quotation from Bickmore, as you said. Your use of the quotation which I critiqued was two years later than your sophomore article, here on this very forum (17 July 2009).

You wrote:

At that point I didn't bother to look very closely at the text's provenance and just assumed it was part of the early talmud. I acknowledge I should have been more thorough, but I had only been doing that kind of research for about six months, so I was still pretty bad at it.

As noted above, my critique pertained to an online comment you made two years later.

You wrote:

I do still think the text in question comes from a much earlier ideology, though. The fact that it is found in a late text does not mean it originates in that late text.

That may be, but my article was a critique of the use of this particular text to establish that the theology was ancient. As I have explained several times, it is fallacious to defend the use of a too-late source to establish an early origin for an idea by appealing to earlier sources. You must use the earlier sources to establish the early origin for the idea, and then you can note that it continued to circulate centuries later. Imagine if I quoted Thomas Aquinas as evidence that the doctrine of the Trinity was ancient (without identifying Thomas and getting wrong when the quotation originated!) and then, when confronted with the facts about the quotation, defended my argument by pointing to similar statements by Augustine. Fine, you might retort, but the quote from Thomas does nothing to establish that the doctrine is ancient. That is the nature of my argument.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[maklelan]

maklelan,

In another thread, I had asked you:

"I wondered if this topic would get your interest. Say, have you seen my thread on the Mormon use of the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva? You might want to take a look at it, since I specifically critique a statement you made about it."

You replied:

In that article, you cited Patai (see n. 30), of course deriving the quotation from Bickmore, as you said. Your use of the quotation which I critiqued was two years later than your sophomore article, here on this very forum (17 July 2009).

Yes, but I drew the quote from my article. I hadn't done any further research between writing the article and posting the quote. The more closely I look into the the text now, though, the more I see the date of the text is debated and is widely acknowledged to be a patchwork of different sources. This rather weakens your position, as well as your criticisms regarding our lack of thoroughness.

You wrote:

As noted above, my critique pertained to an online comment you made two years later.

You wrote:

That may be, but my article was a critique of the use of this particular text to establish that the theology was ancient.

And I've granted that my use of the text was irresponsible. Now I'm interested in dealing with the way your article contributes to the series as a whole. Pointing out that Patai's text dates to the late first millennium CE doesn't really do much to mitigate the conclusion that Smith restored something ancient if you just acknowledge that the idea found in that text can still be found in other texts that date to the early first millennium CE.

As I have explained several times, it is fallacious to defend the use of a too-late source to establish an early origin for an idea by appealing to earlier sources.

I'm not defending the use of the text at this point, I'm just defending the antiquity of the concept found in the text.

You must use the earlier sources to establish the early origin for the idea, and then you can note that it continued to circulate centuries later. Imagine if I quoted Thomas Aquinas as evidence that the doctrine of the Trinity was ancient (without identifying Thomas and getting wrong when the quotation originated!) and then, when confronted with the facts about the quotation, defended my argument by pointing to similar statements by Augustine. Fine, you might retort, but the quote from Thomas does nothing to establish that the doctrine is ancient. That is the nature of my argument.

This doesn't make much sense to me. Why would anyone get hung up on the Aquinas quote if quotes from Augustine were introduced and the larger point is the date of the ideology? The following debate seems nonsensical to me:

Participant A: They believed X about the Trinity in the early first millennium. Aquinas shows this in text A.

Participant B: Yeah, but he's really late. That's not really evidence for that early time period.

Participant A: Ok, well Augustine says the same thing, and he is evidence for the ideologies of that time period.

Participant B: Hold up. We're talking about Aquinas here.

This sounds more like an evasion of the actual point. Plug in the details of our conversation:

Latter-day Saints: Smith restored a view of theosis held by the earliest Jews and Christians. This quote from Akiva shows this.

Rob: But that text is a mystical text from the late first millennium. It's way too late to attest to the earliest Jewish and Christian ideologies.

Latter-day Saints: You're right. We should have looked a little closer. Irrespective, we find the same ideologies elsewhere in these other texts that demonstrably date to the early first millennium.

Rob: Hold up. We're talking about the Akiva quote. Let's not get off track, here.

Edited September 19, 2011 by maklelan

[maklelan]

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Edited September 19, 2011 by maklelan

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

Yes, but I drew the quote from my article. I hadn't done any further research between writing the article and posting the quote.... And I've granted that my use of the text was irresponsible.

Okay. So far, you're the only one. No one else in this thread or the earlier (locked) thread on my article has acknowledged that the text is too late for it to contribute significantly to the LDS case for the doctrine being ancient (pre-apostasy).

You wrote:

Now I'm interested in dealing with the way your article contributes to the series as a whole. Pointing out that Patai's text dates to the late first millennium CE doesn't really do much to mitigate the conclusion that Smith restored something ancient if you just acknowledge that the idea found in that text can still be found in other texts that date to the early first millennium CE.... I'm not defending the use of the text at this point, I'm just defending the antiquity of the concept found in the text.

My article was intended only to show that the text that was actually cited does not contribute evidence for that conclusion. Again, so far you are the only one who has acknowledged this simple point.

You wrote:

This doesn't make much sense to me. Why would anyone get hung up on the Aquinas quote if quotes from Augustine were introduced and the larger point is the date of the ideology? ...This sounds more like an evasion of the actual point.

First things first. If Dan Peterson or any of the others who have posted here had acknowledged that the quotation from the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva was itself too late to establish the antiquity of the doctrine in question, and then gone on to cite earlier sources, that would have been fine. Instead, prior to your post every Mormon who has posted here and in the previous thread has tried to argue that there was something wrong with my critique of the use of the Alphabet text.

Here's the bottom line, Dan: except for two quotations from the New Testament, all of Dan Peterson's quotations in his article date from after the supposed great apostasy took place! This is a strange way to argue that Joseph Smith restored a doctrine that had been lost in the great apostasy.

[Zakuska]

Catherine Aurelia has some lovely remarks at a different board. "Why attribute antiquity to a midrash when it was, in fact, probably an 8th or 9th century invention, and related to the Kabalah?" "an 8th or 9th century Kabalah-related "midrash."

This one, though, is my favourite. "So, why aren't these amazing super-human-gods-to-be addressing the issue? - that Peterson and McClellan, both Mormon apologists, misrepresented (either by design or ignorance, I don't know) a midrash of the Jews (and of the Kabalah period) as being ancient rather than of 8th or 9th century origin? Is RON Bowman wrong, and if so, where is the evidence that he is?"

This would show that Rob emphasis on Patai's opinion tends to cloud the issue of the text's provenance.

The funniest is that she keeps refering to Mr. Bowman as 'Ron'.

[maklelan]

Dan,

You wrote:

Okay. So far, you're the only one. No one else in this thread or the earlier (locked) thread on my article has acknowledged that the text is too late for it to contribute significantly to the LDS case for the doctrine being ancient (pre-apostasy).

I think the text is probably based on an oral tradition that dates to much earlier, but I very obviously didn't look close enough when I stated when it was redacted. I have no problem admitting when I'm in error, although I do think the situations quite a bit fuzzier than your post makes it out to be.

You wrote:

My article was intended only to show that the text that was actually cited does not contribute evidence for that conclusion. Again, so far you are the only one who has acknowledged this simple point.

You wrote:

First things first. If Dan Peterson or any of the others who have posted here had acknowledged that the quotation from the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva was itself too late to establish the antiquity of the doctrine in question, and then gone on to cite earlier sources, that would have been fine. Instead, prior to your post every Mormon who has posted here and in the previous thread has tried to argue that there was something wrong with my critique of the use of the Alphabet text.

Here's the bottom line, Dan: except for two quotations from the New Testament, all of Dan Peterson's quotations in his article date from after the supposed great apostasy took place! This is a strange way to argue that Joseph Smith restored a doctrine that had been lost in the great apostasy.

Well, I can't speak for the other Dan (although I will be critiquing an article of his at SBL!), but I would argue that the concept of a genetic relationship between humanity and divinity goes back as far as the Israelite ethnos (and farther).

Edited September 19, 2011 by maklelan

[wenglund]

The monumental issue, as I see it, is whether The Alphabet of Rabbi Akib, or specified portions of its content, can vaguely and in an off-hand way, be described by Dr. Peterson, in a brief newspaper article, as “an early Jewish midrash or scriptural commentary.” Yes, folks, this, ironically, is the nit that Rob has chosen to pick.

I suspect that no one will argue that The Alphabet of Rabbi Akib, or rather specified content of that book, can reasonably be described as a "scriptural commentary." So, that leaves the question whether the book, itself, or the specified content/notion in the book, can reasonably be described as "early Jewish midrash." Correct?

If Rabbi Akba is elucidating a "commentary" that didn't originate with him, but echoes the perspective of his predecessors, then even if his book may be dated to something other than "early midrash," the notion he is purporting in the quoted passage may be "early Jewish midrash," and thus it would not be incorrect for Dr. Peterson, in a vague and off-hand way in his brief newspaper article to describe the content/notion as "early Jewish midrash." Correct?

Sounds reasonable to me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

This sounds more like an evasion of the actual point.

Which, at best, would be an excersize in nit-picking.

[volgadon]

I am almost done. There are a few more quotes which need to be typed, do my notes, and tidy it up. The arguments are substantial, and they go to the sources for the main. It will show that the text does teach theosis in its fullest sense, and that the majority (both in verbiage and ideas) precedes the dating you champion for it.

[Bill Hamblin]

I am almost done. There are a few more quotes which need to be typed, do my notes, and tidy it up. The arguments are substantial, and they go to the sources for the main. It will show that the text does teach theosis in its fullest sense, and that the majority (both in verbiage and ideas) precedes the dating you champion for it.

I look forward to reading it!

[volgadon]

The post was getting to be unweildly so I had to split it up.

http://calba-savua.blogspot.com/2011/08/response-to-rob-bowman-early-jewish.html

Rob Bowman wrote a blogpost critiquing an installment of Daniel Petersen's column in the Deseret News.[1]

My previous post details why one of Bowman's assumptions is untenable, mainly, the position that the word midrash generally means a specific Tannaitic body of literature. I've shown that there is no reason for that to be considered the default definition. He used that assumption in an attempt to show that Petersen misrepresented his source.

In this post I'll examine another statement of his on which much of Bowman's argument hangs.

Before doing so it is worth explaining my use of the word "mysticism." I use it here in a general sense, the imperfect equivalent of the Hebrew term "torat ha-sod," similar to how Gershom Scholem used it in his book "Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism." I will be using it interchangeably with "esotericism."

We need look no further than Patai’s book, from which all of the Mormons derive the quotation, to discover that the text dates from at least six centuries later than Aqiva. In Patai’s “Chronological List of Sources” at the back of the book, the “Midrash Alpha Beta di R. Akiba” is listed as originating from the “8th-9th” centuries. In another book, Patai explains the religious context of the work:

“The foundations of medieval Kabbalism were laid in Babylonia and Byzantium in the 7th and 8th centuries, when a number of Midrashim with marked Kabbalistic tendencies made their appearance. Several of these (e.g,, the Alpha Beta of Rabbi Akiba and the Midrash Konen) deal with the mysteries of Creation and the structure of the universe.”

That’s right, the quotation comes from a foundational work in the development of the medieval mystical Jewish tradition known as Kabbalah. This isn’t just Patai’s opinion. It is the scholarly, academic consensus.

Rob Bowman goes on to say that,

The fact that Peterson and several other Mormon apologists resort to utilizing such a quotation while failing to describe its source accurately is especially troubling. This is the only quotation in Peterson’s article that he does not identify specifically. Clearly, had he done so, it would have weakened his argument. Each of the Mormon apologists cited here had the wherewithal to track down the source of the quotation and to state accurately the period of history and religious perspective from which it originated. I make no judgment as to why they all failed to do so.

Unfortunately, beyond stating a range of dates for the composition of the Ottiyot de-Rabbi Akiva (ORA), Rob Bowman has not accurately stated the religious perspective from which it originated. A glaring example is that none of the other references provided by Bowman state that the ORA is markedly Kabbalistic.

Aside from inaccurately describing the religious perspective and not discussing what kind of text the ORA is, Bowman has failed to address important issues affecting the dating of the concepts presented in the work. He has not discussed a single primary source beyond providing the full quote as it appears in "The Messiah Texts", nor said which part he considers late.

Looking at the quote from Patai's "The Hebrew Goddess," I am at a loss to find exactly which tendencies in the ORA Patai saw as markedly Kabbalistic.

Try as I might, I just can't find any. There is no mention of such key Kabbalistic concepts as Ein-Sof or Ayin, no emanations (Sefirot) of the Godhead and their role in the universe, no feminine aspect of God which must be reunited with God, nothing which is specific to the Kabbalah.

If Bowman would assert that there is something explicit or implicit in the text which could be considered specifically Kabbalistic then he must make a case for it.

Kabbalah is often used to refer to all forms of Jewish mysticism, but this usage is sloppy. Though the Kabbalah shares strong affinities with earlier mystical trends, such as the Merkabah mystics or the German Pietists (Hasidei Ashkenaz), as a distinctive movement it mainly stems from 12th century Provence.

Rob's "Proto-Kabbalistic" is not a very useful term generally. I don't know of a single Jewish esoteric text or tradition which couldn't with some justification be called proto-Kabbalistic. It is possible to write many entries on this alone, but a few examples should suffice.[2]

My highschool was not far from Or Haganuz, a Jewish community formed on Kabbalistic ethics and ideals as formulated by a disciple of R. Yehudah Leib Ashlag. Ashlag was a pivotal 20th century Kabbalist who translated the Zohar into Modern Hebrew and attempted to popularise its teachings. His goal was to create an altruistic community based on living the Torah (or rather, the true meaning as revealed by Kabbalah) for Torah's sake. By accepting the life of "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" they would be fulfilling the purpose of creation and would ascend as it were on a ladder to God and cleave to him completely.[3]

Or Haganuz takes its name from a Jewish tradition regarding the light of creation, and literally means the hidden, or concealed light.

Howard Schwartz provides a brief explanation.

Everyone is familiar with the words of Genesis 1:3,

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light

. But the ancient rabbis, who scrutinized the words of the Bible for every hidden mystery, wondered what light this was. After all, God did not create the sun, the moon, and the stars till the fourth day. So what was the light of the first day?...

The rabbis conclude that the two lights—that of the first day and that of the fourth—are different. The light of the first day is a primordial light, what is called the or ha-ganuz, or hidden light. This resolves the problem. But it also raises a whole series of new questions—What was the nature of that sacred light? Where did it come from, and where did it go? These questions have been debated among the rabbis for many centuries, and they arrive at a variety of explanations.[4]

The concept of this light is important to many, if not most, kabbalistic systems, and in its hasidic form exemplifies the philosophy of Or Haganuz's settlers.

This is seen in the teachings of the Rav Kook, who was a seminal figure in modern Judaism and Israeli history. He served as chief rabbi in British Mandate Palestine and did much to bring the gap between the secular Zionist movement and the reactionary orthodox community. For him they both had that part of the truth which the other lacked. The middle path, combining the zealous activism of the former with the deep religiosity of the latter, would help bring salvation to the world.

When I lived in London I used to visit the National Gallery, and my favourite pictures were those of Rembrandt. I really think that Rembrandt was a Tzadik. Do you know that when I first saw Rembrandt's works, they reminded me of the legend about the creation of light? We are told that when God created light, it was so strong and pellucid, that one could see from one and of the world to the other, but God was afraid that the wicked might abuse it. What did He do? He reserved that light for the righteous when the Messiah should come. But now and then there are great men who are blessed and privilaged to see it. I think that Rembrandt was one of them, and the light in his pictures is the very light that was originally created by God Almighty[5]

This light is what sustains and rejuvenates the world, and is expressly manifest through ethical behaviour.

The enlightenment of holy men is the basis for the spiritual illumination that arises in the world, in all human hearts. The holy men, those of pure thought and contemplation, join themselves, in their inner sensibilities, with the spiritual that pervades all. Everything that is revealed to them is an emergence of light, a disclosure of the divine, which adds life and firmness, abiding life and spiritual firmness, which gives stability to the whole world with the diffusion of its beneficience.

A life-giving illumination flows always from the source of the Torah, which brings to the world light from the highest realm of the divine. It embraces the values of the spiritual and the material, the temporal and the eternal, the moral and the practical, the individual and the social. These spell life to all who come in contact with them, and guard them in their purity.

Meditation on the inner life and moral conformity must always go together with those qualified for this. They absorb the light pervading the world, which abides in all souls, and they present it as one whole. Through the influences radiating from their life and their fellowship with others, through the impact of their will and the greatness of their spirirtual being, through their humility and love for all creatures, they then disseminate the treasure of life and of good to all.

These men of upright heart are channels through which light and life reach to all creatures. They are vessels for radiating the light of eternal life. They are the servants of God, who heed His word, the messengers who do His will to revive those near death, to strengthen the weak, to awaken those who slumber.[6]

The Rav Kook's view here is drawn from a core Hasidic concept- the Tzadik.

This is not the place to discuss Tzadikism in depth, but a few words by way of explanation are necessary.

Tzadik is Hebrew for righteous. In Hasidism though it came to represent a special class of leader, a holy man who is the intermediary between the world of God and the world of man. He is the pipeline which draws the holy downwards and the profane upwards. Since he cleaves whole-heartedly to God, his disciples cleave to him. He can intercede for them and raise them up, transforming everything into holiness.[7]

There is a famous Hasidic tradition from the circle of R. Elimelech of Lizhensk, adapted by Martin Buber for the opening portion of "Or Haganuz," his collection of Hasidic stories.

R. Eleazar said: "The light that the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day- Adam could see with it from one end of the world to the next. Since the Holy One, blessed be He, looked at the generation of the Deluge and the generation of the Division and saw that their deeds were wicked, He concealed the light from them. And for whom did he conceal it? For the righteous in the future to come."[8]

Hasidim asked: "Where did he conceal it?"

They were answered: "In the Torah."

They asked: "If so, will the Tsadikim not find some of the light as they study Torah?"

They answered: "They certainly will find some."

They asked: "If so, what will the Tsadikim do when they find some of the concealed light in the Torah?"

They answered: "They will reveal it in the way they live."[9]

Apart from the ethical interpretation, there is another aspect of the hidden light which played an even greater role in Kabbalah.

In that classic of Hasidic hagiography, "In Praise of the Baal Shem Tov," a story is told of how R. Baruch was having his oxen sold in a distant town, but worried that they might have been stolen. He sent R. Yosef Kaminker to the Baal Shem Tob (Besht) who then opened the Zohar and read from it.

"I see that R. Baruch's oxen have not been stolen."

R. Yosef asked the Besht, "Is that really written in the Zohar?"

The Besht replied. "This is what our sages said about the verse 'And God saw that the light was good.' They said that it is good to hide it, since with the light of the six days of Creation, one could see from one end of the world to the other. Where did the Holy One, Blessed be He, hide it? He hid it in the Torah. And when they said 'for the righteous in the future to come,' this means for the righteous who will come into the world. Whoever attains the light hidden in the Torah can see with it from one end of the world to the other. Do you suppose that I only saw the oxen? I also saw something which happened in the Jewish community of Amsterdam."[10]

We aren't told what the Besht saw in Amsterdam, but this use of the hidden light is also characteristic of R. Isaac Luria (the Ari) in the hagiography which grew around him.

The hidden light was in him, reaching from one end of this world to the next. He was able to illumine and explain the words of R. Shimon bar Yohai. As it is written in Shivhei Ha-Ari, everything the Ari achieved came from the Zohar.[11]

R. Azriel of Gerona, a leading Kabbalist of the generation before the Zohar had the following to say about the hidden light.

This first light is like the light of thought in which a man sees all that he wishes to look at... and this is the light of wisdom which would rest upon the prophets and crown them with its light, and they would see visions by power, visions of whatever could be, from one end of the world to the next. As long as the soul is pure it shows in her its power and increases, shining brighter and brighter. This light is set apart for the righteous, as they posess a clean and pure spirit, and this light is called the light of life.[12]

Other Kabbalists focused on the implications of the hidden light for creation. R. Shimon ibn Lavi was born in Spain but during his childhood his family was forced to move to Morocco due to the Spanish Expulsion. He was active during the early 16th c. and composed "Ketem Paz," a very important commentary on the Zohar. In it he expresses an idea very similar to the slightly later one found in Lurianic Kabbalah- Tzimtzum, or contraction. The "mystery of expansion" where light is emanated and fills the universe, thus bringing everything into existence, is considered exile, since the light leaves God. The light is then retracted and concealed, since it is too powerful for anything to continue existing in its glare.[13]

This concept of a primeval, hidden light appears both in the talmuds and in various midrashim. One of these quotes has already been mentioned in connection with Buber's anthology.

R. Eleazar said: "The light that the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day- Adam could see with it from one end of the world to the next.

Fourth Ezra, a work from around the late 1st c. CE, also knows of such a light.

Then You commanded that a ray of light be brought forth from your treasuries, so that your works might then appear.

This goes back as far as the Hellenistic Jewish writer Aristobolus.

The first [day], the one in which the light was born by which all things are seen together.[14]

Should we consider these as proto-Kabbalistic? That designation quickly becomes meaningless. These texts are not proto-Kabbalistic, even though many of the Kabbalists are often closer to those texts in their thoughts on the nature of this light than the Amoraic statements are.

I doubt that Rob Bowman would consider 1 Corinthians 15:29 proto-Mormon just because LDS use it as a prooftext for the doctrine of proxy baptism.[15]

It is also highly doubtful that he would consider Ezekiel 1 proto-Kabbalistic, even though terminology drawn from it forms an important part of Kabbalistic teachings and modes of expression. Shaul Magid explains how Ezekiel's vision played a role in the way certain Hasidic movements perceived God's interaction with the universe.

R. Gershon Henokh suggests that the telos of Ezekiel’s vision was to reveal the place where divine concealment (koah ha-hester) begins to reveal itself, resulting in the realization that divine absence is itself divine.

"At that time it was God’s will to show Ezekiel how God fills the entire creation. Therefore, he showed Ezekiel the first [highest] place where He could be apprehended until the place that was necessary, i.e., the place of His concealment.

That is, until the world of formation [‘olam ha-yezerah].

As it is explained . . . in the world of emanation, holiness and goodness are

dominant.

This is also true in the world of creation. In the world of formation, however, good and evil are balanced. Therefore, it is only in the world of formation that the power of divine concealment begins. God wanted to show Ezekiel that the power of concealment is itself from God."

R. Gershon Henokh utilizes the Lurianic notion that the chariot is housed in the world of formation (yezerah)—the first world where good and evil appear as distinct—as a support for the Maimonidean claim that the chariot represents metaphysics.

That is, metaphysics is the highest realm of speculation of the divine because it is the first place where God is hidden. Divine absence becomes the first stage of our apprehension of God. The first human apprehension of God is His absence.

For R. Gershon Henokh, the purpose of the vision is for Ezekiel to see and communicate that God’s absence (evil) is the result of divine will.

The Lurianic interpretation of the chariot of Ezekiel lowers the status of the prophetic vision to a place that is accessible to the human intellect and experience, that is, the angelic world where good and evil are already distinct.[16]

There is a Zohar section discussing the elements of Ezekiel's vision.

From these two sparkling spirits the wheels (

Ofannim

) are created, and they are holy, their nature being like that of the creatures... "It flashed up and down among the creatures" (Ezekiel 1:13). What does "it" refer to? This is the holy spirit... When spirit was composed within spirit, there emerged from them the illumination of one creature, which lies above the four wheels.[17]

Another example that has a little more bearing on the ORA is gematria. Like everyone else in Israel of the days of a single TV station, I grew up watching the comedy program "Zehu Zeh." Every Friday during the Gulf War, it hardly seems an exaggeration to say that it kept the country sane. One of the best-loved characters was the Baba Bubah, a parody of a senile old Moroccan Kabbalist who interpreted contemporary events by exaggerated and implausible use of gematria.

There are and were several radio shows featuring experts in gematria who use it to resolve issues in the callers' lives, and even many internet sites with gematria calculators. In the popular imagination, Kabbalah and gematria are practically synonymous.

The Sabbateans used gematria heavily in their attempts to prove that Sabbetai Tzvi was the Messiah. A generation earlier in what was then part of the Polish Commonwealth, R. Shimshon of Ostropol devoted his life to nullifying the power of the demonic agents of evil- kelipot, that is, shells. For him these kelipot were manifested in Christianity. There are numerous instances of fierce anti-Christian mystical polemic in his writings. He used gematria to show that King David provided a key to nullifying the power of Christ. If the numerical values for two of the names of Christ in R. Shimshon's teachings are combined- beam (korah) and hunger (raav, consisting of the same letters as raven, which is the antithesis of the dove)- they result in sar pah (Prince Snare). Psalm 124:7 reads,

Our soul is escaped as a bird out of the snare of the fowlers; the snare is broken, and we are escaped.[18]

Gematria has very ancient roots, and was used in the talmuds as well.

Satan has no permission to act as accuser on the Day of Atonement. Whence [is that derived]? — Rama b. Hama said: "The numerical value of Ha-Satan in gematria is three hundred and sixty-four, that means: on three hundred and sixty-four days he has permission to act as accuser, but on the Day of Atonement he has no permission to act as accuser.[19]

The ORA was important to the developement of the Kabbalah because instead of statements scattered here and there, it presented an extensive treatise on the inner meaning of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and, by extension, the possibilities inherent in those letters. There are few concepts in the ORA which can't be found in earlier writings, and this is partiularly true of the quote in question.

Joseph Dan has this to say on what sort of text the ORA is.

This

midrash

, usually regarded as one collected in the seventh century, is actually an anthology that is distinguished from other similar ones by its keen interest in both cosmogony and mystical literature, but first and foremost by its structure as a commentary on the shape and meaning of the letters of the alphabet. It includes among other things, a brief description of the ascent of Enoch and his transformation to Metatron.[20]

Gershom Scholem, father of the modern study of Jewish mysticism and Joseph Dan's teacher, briefly discussed the ORA as it relates to the textual history of the "Shiur Komah."

Two manuscripts of

Shiur Komah

versions partially survived on parchment pages in the Cairo Genizah... Further fragments are extant in

Hekhaloth Rabbati

and

Hekhaloth Zutarti

... Another fragment is preserved in the so-called

Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba

, which, to be sure, was edited later than the above-mentioned pieces but nevertheless preserved a great deal of the old

Merkavah

material.[21]

In other words, according to Scholem and Dan both, the ORA was an anthology of older material. Bowman's emphasis on the late date of the ORA implies that anything in it must be regarded as having a 7th-9th c. provenance. This does not take into account the nature of the ORA. Bowman would need to show that the quote in question is late, since there is sufficient evidence for the continuity from earlier times of the concepts in said quote. Bowman's argument can be illustrated by an admittedly imperfect analogy. If I had written a newspaper editorial on Elizabethan and Jacobean dramaturgy and quoted the following from Charles and Mary Lamb's "Tales from Shakespear" without mentioning the source, would it mean that this scene was from 1806?

Iago knitted his brow, as if he had got fresh light on some terrible matter, and cried: 'Indeed!' This brought into Othello's mind the words which Iago had let fall upon entering the room, and seeing Cassio with Desdemona; and he began to think there was some meaning in all this: for he deemed Iago to be a just man, and full of love and honesty, and 'what in a false knave would be tricks, in him seemed to be the natural workings of an honest mind, big with something too great for utterance: and Othello prayed Iago to speak what he knew, and to give his worst thoughts words. 'And what,' said Iago, 'if some thoughts very vile should have intruded into my breast, as where is the palace into which foul things do not enter?' Then Iago went on to say, what a pity it were, if any trouble should arise to Othello out of his imperfect observations; that it would not be for Othello's peace to know his thoughts; that people's good names were not to be taken away for slight suspicions; and when Othello's curiosity was raised almost to distraction with these hints and scattered words, Iago, as if in earnest care for Othello's peace of mind, besought him to beware of jealousy: with such art did this villain raise suspicions in the unguarded Othello, by the very caution which he pretended to give him against suspicion. 'I know,' said Othello, 'that my wife is fair, loves company and feasting, is free of speech, sings, plays, and dances well: but where virtue is, these qualities are virtuous. I must have proof before I think her dishonest.'

In Hardin Craig's edition of Shakespeare's plays this takes up 91 lines!

Joseph Dan brings up another issue which has bearing on this discussion.

It is sometimes difficult to decide when a text serves as an influential source for further creativity, and when its message is simply reproduced, so that the individuality of both the source and the medieval follower is completely negated.[22]

Rob Bowman hasn't even attempted to show that the ORA quote falls into the former category, he merely asserts that it is.

Lawrence Schiffman discusses Enochian and Hekhalot material in particular, but his observations hold true for Jewish mystical works in general.

The notion of a developing literature of “booklets” that he has explored so carefully regarding 1 Enoch (VanderKam 1984, 17-101) is clearly the correct method with which to understand the eventual emergence of 2 and 3 Enoch as well. These works are composites of documents that were themselves put together from other minor protodocuments, a phenomenon clearly emerging from the results of VanderKam’s detailed research… The close relationship of our official Enoch literature- or better, the various booklets- with other texts (not just traditions) highlights the value of this literary-historical model. Had I sought to work on 2 Enoch and its relation to 1 Enoch, this approach would have been enough to provide a model to understand the development of 2 Enoch… It turns out that “booklets,” or better, short treatises, are the building blocks of all the hekhalot-type texts, as shown by Peter Schafer (1983).

In fact, texts as we know them, independent compositions, are a misnomer for these “texts,” since different manuscripts have different mixes of common, but not always present, building blocks. With this model in mind we can grasp that, like 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch, 3 Enoch is such a composite.

However, 3 Enoch is not just a composite of text traditions such as those found in 1 and 2 Enoch. The circle that produced, exported, composed, redacted, copied, and studied traditions like those in 1 Enoch and 3 Enoch produced various booklets which still circulated in different forms and in different languages after the so-called 1 and 2 Enoch came into being as redacted texts. Some of the original documents circulated in translation. These traditions somehow mixed with those of the hekhalot trend and were redomesticated as part of the emerging textual tradition of late rabbinic/early medieval Jewish esotericism.[23]

Aside from these matters of text, Joseph Dan explains another aspect of Jewish mysticism which Bowman has ignored.

These three subjects- homiletical interpretations of Ezekiel 1, of the first chapters of Genesis, and magic- constitute by far the majority of the parallels found between talmudic and midrashic literature and the esoteric literature. It is true that it is nearly impossible to describe the beginnings of these phenomena, which are so closely integrated with all other aspects of Jewish religious expression from biblical times to the period of the Talmud and Midrash, including the Apocrypha, the Dead Sea scrolls, and early Christian works. One may try to show the beginning of a specific idea or concept in this vast panorama, but the subjects as a whole seem to have been of continuous interest to all trends and tendencies within Jewish culture.[24]

Bowman has asked, or, rather, presented his readers the wrong question.

The kind of questions that should be asked relate to how was the text composed; is it a single composition or is it an anthology; how were traditions transmitted; what in the text is genuinely new or otherwise marks a departure from older texts and traditions; does the designation "medieval" imply a new historical era at this point in Jewish history or is there a continuum in ideas. Bowman declares that the quotation has a medieval theology yet he doesn't show that it is so. His analysis of the quote is just as inadequate.

Continued in the next post...

[1]Rob Bowman's post can be found at http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/08/did-joseph-smith-restore-theosis-part-four-esoteric-jewish-theology-and-joseph-smith%E2%80%99s-doctrine-of-exaltation/ and Daniel Petersen's article at http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700168175/Joseph-Smiths-restoration-of-theosis-was-miracle-not-scandal.html

[2]Other examples include the heavenly Jerusalem, Enoch-Metatron, Shiur Komah, the golem, heavenly ascents, and the Sepher Yetsirah. On the origins of the Kabbalah as a distinct movement see Gershom Scholem, "The Origins of the Kabbalah", Isaiah Tishby "Wisdom of the Zohar" vol. 1, Joseph Dan "Early Kabbalah", and Moshe Idel "Kabbalah: New Perspectives". For an example of a genuinely proto-Kabbalistic text, see Ronit Meroz "The Middle Eastern Origins of Kabbalah."

[3]Boaz Huss, "Altruistic Communism," pp. 125-126.

[4]Howard Schwartz "Tree of Souls," p. Lxxii.

[5]From the "London Jewish Chronicle," September 13, 1935, p. 21. http://asimplejew.blogspot.com/2007/10/rembrandt-rav-kook.html

[6]Abraham Isaac Kook, Ben Zion Bokser (ed.) "Abraham Isaac Kook: The Lights of Penitence, The Moral Principles, Lights of Holiness, Essays, Letters, and Poems," p. 208-209. Bokser's introduction provides an excellent sketch of the Rav Kook and his outlook.

[7]Chapter 3 of Gershom Scholem's "On The Mystical Shape of the Godhead: Basic Concepts in the Kabbalah" discusses the developement of Tsadikism, as does Arthur Green's "Typologies of Leadership and the Hasidic Zaddiq" in "Jewish Spirituality: From the Sixteenth-Century Revival to the Present."

[8]Babylonian Talmud, t. Haggigah 12a.

[9]http://www.schocken.co.il/?CategoryID=165&ArticleID=447 see also Oded Israeli's 2010 lecture

[10]"Shivhei Ha-Besht" 5:13.

[11]Shaul Magid "Hasidism on the Margin: Reconciliation, Antinomianism, and Messianism" p. 69.

[12]Isaiah Tishby, "Commentarius in Aggadot, auctores R. Azriel Geronensi" p. 111.

[13]Haviva Pedaya "Or Ke-Tavech Ve-Or Ke-Maatefet" http://havivapedaya.com/drupal/node/22 . The existence in North Africa of Kabbalah independent of and predating the Safed center should suffice to illustrate the inaccuracies in the "Hebrew Goddess"'s overview of the Kabbalah. "An important new development took place following the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, which brought about a powerful upsurge of Messianic longings for redemption, and resulted in the migration of several leading Spanish Kabbalists to the town of Safed in the Galilee. Within a few years thereafter, Safed became the new center of the Kabbala, and held this position for a short but remarkable period in the 16th century. From Safed, the Kabbala spread rapidly to all the Asian, African and European centers of the Jewish diaspora."

[14]4 Ezra 6:40 and Aristobulus, fragment 3. Translation is from James L. Kugel "The Bible as it Was" p. 57.

[15]See J. Trumbower, "Rescue for the Dead: The Posthumous Salvation of Non-Christians in Early Christianity," pp. 55-57.

"I agree with Rissi and Hans Conzelmann (and, for that matter, with Mormon prophet Joseph Smith), that the grammar and logic of the passage point to a practice of vicarious baptism of a living person for the benefit of a dead person." Trumbower's endorsement, however, is far from unqualified. For him, the main difference is one of scale, the ancient texts painting a more limited picture of those eligible for such baptism.

[16]Magid, "Hasidism on the Margin" p. 57.

[17]Isaiah Tishby, "Wisdom of the Zohar" vol. 2, p. 598.

[18]Yehuda Liebes, ""Jonah as the Messiah ben Joseph." For a general overview of gematria, as well as examples of Sabbatean gematria, see Gershom Scholem "Kabbalah" pp. 337-343.

[19]Babylonian Talmud, t. Yoma 20a. The same Parchment and Pen blog has a post discussing Christian gematria. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/12/walid-shoebat-youtube-video-on-the-mark-of-the-beast/

[20]Joseph Dan, "Jewish Mysticism," 1, p. 156. In a different book, Dan points out the difficulty of deciding what came first in what work. "The schools of the gaonim, the leaders of the great academies in Babylonia, preserved the tradition of Hekhalot mysticism. Rav Hai Gaon, in the beginning of the eleventh century, mentioned in his writings many of the Hekhalot texts. It is difficult to know, whether this intrrest was only literary, or whether there was creative, mystical activity in these schools. The work of editing and preserving many of the Hekhalot texts was undertaken in Babylonia in this period, but how much of the material which has reached us was traditional, and how much was the result of the creativity of these editors we cannot ascertain. Thus, for example, the great anthology of esoteric speculation concerning the alphabet, cosmology, the heavenly realm,the angels and the divine name, known as the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba or The Letters of Rabbi Akiba, was most probably edited in Gaonic Babylonia. But what parts of this vast collection were ancient, and what were added by the editors, cannot be stated with any certainty. For, the work contains a brief description of the story of Enoch and his rhetamorphosis intoo the Prince of the Countenance, Metatron, along with a list of the secret names of Metaron. The problem is: Did the brief version, included in the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba, precede the long, detailed version in 3rd Enoch, or vice versa? That is, did some late editor compare the abridged version and add it to an alrteady extant anthology attributed to the ancient sage? There are several philological elements which support each of these possibilites, and a decision either way is impossible at this time."

"Gershom Scholem and the mystical dimension of Jewish history," ch. 3.

[21]Scholem, "Mystical Shape of the Godhead" p. 276-277.

[22]Dan, "Jewish Mysticism," 1, p. 248.

[23]Lawrence H. Schiffman, "3 Enoch and the Enoch Tradition," in Boccaccini (ed.) "Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection" p. 160.

[24]Dan, "Jewish Mysticism," 1, pp. 85-86.

[volgadon]

Let us take a look at the elements in the ORA quote to see if they are "medieval" as well as seeing if the quote in fact teach theosis.

I will be using the text found in Wertheimer's "Batei Midrashot.[25]

God giving the righteous an elixir of life (sam hayyim) is hardly a new or novel element. The promise of life is a key concept of Judeo-Christian hopes for the afterlife. It also characterises the state that the righteous exist in.

The righteous are called "living" even in their death, as it is said (2 Sam. 23:20): "Benayahu, son of Yehoyada, son of a living man from Kabzeel, who had done mighty deeds, he smote the two altar-hearths of Moab; he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit in a time of snow."

Do you mean to say that all other people are sons of dead men? Rather, "son of a living man," for even in his death he was called living... "but the dead know not any thing (Ecc. 9:5)" these are the wicked who during their lives are called dead, as it is said (Ezek. 21:30): "And thou, O wicked one, that art to be slain." Also (): "At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall the dead be put to death." He is still alive! What it means is, he is already counted as dead.[26]

The promise of life in Judaism is traditionally viewed as adherence to the covenantal obligations as formulated in the Torah.

Hananel b. Papa said: "What is meant by (Prov. 8:6) Hear, for I will speak princely things'? Why are the words of the Torah compared to a prince? To tell you that just as a prince has power of life and death, so have the words of the Torah life and death. Thus Raba said: "To those who go to the right hand thereof it is an elixir of life; to those who go to the left hand thereof it is a deadly poison (elixir of death)."[27]

The roots of letter esotericism, which is what the ORA is mainly concerned with, go back as far as the book of Genesis itself. God commands, things obey. This is accomplished by the medium of speech. As speech consists of sounds represented by letters, it is logical to conclude that letters have power and intrinsic meaning. Letters have individual sounds and in different combinations yield different words. Ayin-Nun-Gimel is oneg- delight. Change the sequence and you get nega- blight or disease. God didn't say "kartina maslom" and there was light. He said "wa-yehi or."

As indicated above by Joseph Dan, letter esotericism has always been of interest to Jewish mysticism, and, indeeed, to most aspects of Judaism. Benjamin Gross notes that the later Kabbalistic fascination with language was not a new developement, even though the directions they took might have been.

There is no doubt that the Kabbalistic movement inaugurates a new era in Jewish thought, particularly in the doctrine of language and categories of dialogue in the holy tongue. That being said, it is worth emphasizing that the roots of this movement are to be found in the earliest days of Heichalot literature, the Kabbalah merely intensifying and systematically organizing an existing tendency which had been developing uninterruptedly since the process of analyzing the experiences found in the biblical accounts began.[28]

[28]

[25]A. J. Wertheimer, "Batei Midrashot," vol. 2, 1980.

[26]Babylonian Talmud, t. Berachot 18a-b.

[27]Babylonian Talmud, t. Shabbat 88b.

[28]Benjamin Gross, "The Covenant of the Language: The Adventure of Speech in Jewish Thought," (Heb.) Rubin Mass Ltd., Jerusalem, 2004, p. 79.

Edited September 26, 2011 by volgadon

[Bill Hamblin]

Good stuff, Volgadon.

[volgadon]

In Pirkei Avot 5:1, one of the earliest rabbinic texts, we read that God created the world by ten utterances. At the risk of repeating myself, utterances consist of words.

The mystical aspect is described by Rachel Elior.

In mystical thought the basic assumption for understanding reality is that the upper and lower worlds are joined and related.

The hidden world is implied in the revealed world and is seen in its unity despite its various contrasts, whereas the revealed world reflects in its variety the hidden world and draws its life and essence from it.

Everything is included in everything else, and every aspect has depths of reflections and endless reciprocal interrelations.

This reciprocity is based on language, which according to the mystical point of view has a divine source whose existence is multifaceted.

Speech is the unfolding of the divine being in language, and reality, as we know it, is simply the unfolding and revelation of the divine word.

Divine language is thus a revelation in perceptible concepts of the infinite power of God within creation...[29]

The Tabernacle in the wilderness was modelled after the cosmos. Bezalel the architect and craftsman who constructed it knew, according to a certain tradition,

how to combine the letters by which the heavens and earth were created. It is written here (Exo. 35:31): "And He hath filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom and in understanding, and in knowledge." It is written elsewhere (Prov. 3:19): "The Lord by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding He established the heavens."

It is also written (Prov. 3:20): "By His knowledge the depths were broken up."[30]

That is to say, he knew which letters were used in which combinations in order to bring about the desired results.

The first word of the Hebrew Bible is "bereshit (in the beginning)." Genesis Rabbah doesn't see this as mere narration of the creation account, but as the main instrument used in the creation.

IN THE BEGINNING (BE-RESHITH) GOD CREATED.

R. Jonah said in R. Levi's name: Why was the world created with a beth? Just as the beth is closed at the sides but open in front, so you are not permitted to investigate what is above and what is below, what is before and what is behind.

Bar Kappara quoted: For ask now of the days past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth (Deut. iv, 32): you may speculate from the day that days were created, but you may not speculate on what was before that. And from one end of heaven unto the other (ib.) you may investigate, but you may not investigate what was before this.

R. Judah b. Pazzi lectured on the Creation story, in accordance with this interpretation of Bar Kappara. Why was it created with a beth? To teach you that there are two worlds.

Another interpretation: why with a beth?

Because it connotes blessing (

berakah

). And why not with an alef? Because it connotes cursing.

Another interpretation: Why not with an alef? In order not to provide a justification for heretics to plead, 'How can the world endure, seeing that it was created with the language of cursing?'

Hence the Holy One, blessed be He, said, 'Lo, I will create it with the language of blessing, and would that it may stand!'

Another interpretation: why with a beth? Just as a beth has two projecting points, one pointing upward and the other backward, so when we ask it, 'Who created thee?' it intimates with its upward point,'He who is above created me.'

And if we ask further, 'What is His name?' it intimates to us with its back point: 'The Lord is His name.'

R. Leazar b. Abinah said in R. Aha's name: For twenty-six generations the alef complained before the Holy One, blessed be He, pleading before Him: 'Sovereign of the Universe! I am the first of the letters, yet Thou didst not create Thy world with me!' God answered : 'The world and its fullness were created for the sake of the

Torah alone. To-morrow, when I come to reveal My Torah at Sinai, I will commence with none but thee: "I (anoki) am the Lord your God" (Ex. xx,2).

Bar Hutah said: Why is it called alef? Because it denotes the sum of a thousand, viz. The word which He commanded for a thousand (elef) generations (Ps. cv,

.[31]

Similar discussions are found in the Palestinian Talmud, a Shavuot piyyut by the Kalir, and the ORA.[32]

In 3rd Enoch the theme of mystical creation by letters is continued, this time with a discussion of their celestial form.

Rabbi Ishmael said: ‘Metatron said to me: “Let me show you letters out of which heaven and earth were created. Letters out of which oceans and rivers were created. Letters out of which mountains and hills were created. Letters out of which trees and grass were created. Letters out of which the stars and constellations, the moon and the sun, Orion and the Pleiades and all kinds of lights of the firmament were created. Letters out of which the ministering angels were created, each letter flashed time after time like bolts of lightning, time after time like torches, time after time like flames, time after time like the rising of the sun, moon, and stars.” I approached him, and he seized me with his hand, lifted me with his wings, and showed me all those letters that were engraved with a pen of fire on God’s throne, and fiery sparks and lightning were coming out of them and covering all the chambers of the seventh heaven.’[33]

A prominent feature of the midrashic collections attributed to the school of R. Akiva is their focus on letters and grammatical features of Hebrew. This characterises R. Akiva in general as he appears in the sources.

In the Babylonian Talmud we find R. Akiva and R. Ishmael on a journey together. R. Ishmael was Akiva's contemporary, and in a certain sense, rival. He favoured the system whereby the Torah was given in the language of men, subject to and thus one should focus on the plain meaning rather than force an interpretation on what may be merely grammatical usage or literary forms.

[said R. Ishmael to R. Akivah] "You that attended Nahum of Gimzo for twenty and two years, the one who would expound every '

et

' in the Torah, how did he interpret '

et

the heavens and

et

the earth'?"

Akiva replied to him: "Were it 'the heavens and the earth' I would have said that the heavens are a title of the Holy One, blessed be He.

Since it says '

et

the heavens' and '

et

the earth' I would say that 'the heavens' means the actual heavens and 'the earth' means the actual earth."[34]

[29]Rachel Elior, "Jewish Mysticism: The Infinite Expression of Freedom," Oxford: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization 2007, pp. 104-105

[30]Babylonian Talmud, t. Berachot 55a.

[31]Genesis Rabbah 1:10. The translation is from the Soncino edition.

[32]The Palestinian Talmud, t. Haggigah 10a, and the piyyut "Az Biktav Ashurit" as mentioned in Wertheimer, p. 333.

[33]Rachel Elior, "Jewish Mysticism," p. 108.

[34]Babylonian Talmud, t. Hagigah 12a.

[volgadon]

Rav Yehudah cited a teaching in the name of Rav,

When Moses ascended on high he found the Holy One, blessed be He, engaged in affixing crowns to the letters.

Said Moses: "Master of the Universe, who detains Thy hand?"

He answered: "There will arise a man at the end of many generations, Akiba ben

Joseph by name, who will expound upon each tittle mounds and mounds of halachot."

He said: "Master of the Universe, permit me to see him."

He replied: "Turn thee round."

Moses went and sat down behind the eighth row. Not knowing what they said, he became weary.

When Akiva came to a certain matter his disciples said: "Whence do you know this?" He said to them: "It is halachah given unto Moses at Sinai."

[upon hearing this Moses's] mind became settled.

Thereupon he returned to the Holy One, blessed be He, and said: Master of the Universe, Thou hast such a man and Thou givest the Torah by me!"

He replied, "Be silent, for such has come before me in thought."[35]

In this midrash, God himself takes the time to decorate the letters of the Torah in order for R. Akiba to bring to light truth hidden even in the shape of the letters. Moses, the man who received the Torah at Sinai, is himself unable to recognise what R. Akiba is talking about, even though the topic is Torah.

The fascination, then, with letters and their power and meaning is not a medieval novelty. As we shall see below, this fascination was intertwined with the concept of names as power.

[35]Babylonian Talmud, t. Menahot 29b.

[volgadon]

**Chirp, chirp**