23 April 2024: We are investigating problems with ecommerce on Cambridge Core. We apologise for any inconvenience and hope to have full functionality restored shortly.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 April 2016
The role philosophy played in the rise of new Jewish esoteric traditions in the Middle Ages has always been a critical question for kabbalah scholarship. Many scholars have contributed to our understanding of kabbalah's relationship to Greek, Christian, and Jewish philosophy, Neoplatonic and Neo-Aristotelian traditions alike. In this article I wish to contribute to this vast scholarly discussion by enlightening some aspects of theosophical kabbalah's innovation in light of its dialogue with philosophical ideas. This dialogue is complex, and the extent of kabbalah's interaction with philosophy is difficult to evaluate. My assumption in the following is that such a dialogue is best apprehended where conflict can be detected. Consequently I will study different cases of theological conflict between theosophical and philosophical conceptions—cases of heresy, where a theological tension can be identified. These tensions will help us to evaluate the nature of the theosophical innovation in question. The framework of this article rests on the assumption that theosophical kabbalah shares with different philosophical traditions some important theological structures but also that it maintains important conceptual differences. In order to evaluate the theological tensions involved I will analyze different cases of theological heresies, both philosophical and theosophical. I hope with this analysis to clarify theosophical kabbalah in light of its theological renewal, a renewal that was not merely the result of the acceptance of or resistance to philosophical ideas but also of the emerging of what I propose to call counter-theology.
1 In the following I will consider theology as a rational and/or esoteric knowledge of the divine. Consequently, theosophy in kabbalah and metaphysics in philosophy will both be considered as theological systems.
2 Mélanges Georges Vajda. Études de pensée, de philosophie et de littérature juives et arabes (ed. Gérard E. Weil; Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1982) 561–62; Vajda, Georges, Introduction à la pensée juive du Moyen Âge (Paris: Vrin, 1947) 199–201Google Scholar; and Huss, Boaz, “Mysticism versus Philosophy in Kabbalistic Literature,” Micrologus 9 (2001) 125–35Google Scholar.
3 For example, in spite of Azriel of Gerona's philosophical inclinations, he nonetheless adopts a critical view (Sandra Valabregue-Perry, Concealed and Revealed: The Concept of Eyn-Sof in Theosophic Kabbalah [Los Angeles: Cherub, 2010] 66–71). In contrast, Joseph ben Shalom Ashkenazi, who overtly expresses his opposition to philosophy, nevertheless borrows important philosophical ideas (Mélanges Georges Vajda, 615, 617). R. Issac ibn Sahula presents a similar case: in his commentary he criticizes the philosophy of Ibn Aknin but evinces nevertheless identical views (Green, Arthur, “R. Issac ibn Sahula's Song of the Songs Commentary,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 6 [1997] 393–491, at 396Google Scholar [Hebrew]). As a final example, Abraham Abulafia, being a disciple of Maimonides, nonetheless holds kabbalah to be a higher level of interpretation (Abulafia, Abraham, ’Imrē šefer [Jerusalem: Barazani, 1999] 12–13Google Scholar; Idel, Moshe, Language, Torah and Hermeneutics in Abraham Abulafia [Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989] 91–95)Google Scholar.
4 On the influence of Neoplatonic philosophy on kabbalah, see Scholem, Gershom, Origins of Kabbalah (ed. Werblowsky, Raphael J. Z.; trans. Arkush, Allan; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1987) 363Google Scholar; idem, Studies in Kabbalah (ed. Joseph ben Shalom and Moshe Idel; Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1998) 39–66 [Hebrew]; Sed-Rajna, Gabrielle, “L'influence de Jean Scot sur la doctrine du kabbaliste Azriel de Gérone,” in Jean Scot Erigène et l'histoire de la philosophie (ed. Roques, René; Colloques internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 561; Paris: CNRS, 1977) 453–63Google Scholar; Piemonte, Gustavo A., “Jean Scot et un opuscule hébreu pseudépigraphique du XIIIème siècle,” in Eriugena redivivus. Zur Wirkungsgeschichte seines Denkens im Mittelalter und im Übergang zur Neuzeit (ed. Werner, Beierwalters; Vorträge des V. internationalen Eriugena-Colloquiums, Werner-Reimers-Stiftung Bad Homburg, 26–30 August 1985; Heidelberg: 1987) 279–310Google Scholar; Vajda, Georges, Sages et penseurs sépharades de Bagdad à Cordoue (Paris: Cerf, 1989) 141–78Google Scholar; Idel, Moshe, “Jewish Kabbalah and Platonism in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance,” in Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought (ed. Goodman, Lenn E.; Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992) 319–51Google Scholar; Sendor, Mark Brian, The Emergence of Provençal Kabbalah: Rabbi Isaac the Blind's “Commentary on Sefer Yeẓirah” (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Sviri, Sarah, “Spiritual Trends in Pre-Kabbalistic Judeo-Spanish Literature: The Cases of Bahya ibn Paquda and Judah Halevi,” Donaire 6 (1996) 73–84Google Scholar; Tirosh-Samuelson, Hava, “Philosophy and Kabbalah,” in The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy (ed. Frank, Daniel H. and Leaman, Oliver; Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003) 218–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Dauber, Jonathan, “Pure Thought in R. Abraham bar Hiyya and Early Kabbalah,” JJS 60 (2009) 185–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Neumark, David, Geschichte der jüdischen Philosophie des Mittelalters (2 vols.; Berlin: Reimer, 1907) 2:179–209Google Scholar.
6 Scholem, Gershom, Kabbalah (2nd ed.; New York: Dorset, 1987) 44–45; idem, Origins, 68–97, 221–22Google Scholar.
7 Idel, “Jewish Kabbalah and Platonism,” 319–51; idem, “Maimonides and Kabbalah,” in Studies in Maimonides (ed. Isadore Twersky; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990) 31–54; idem, “Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed and the Kabbalah,” Jewish History 18 (2004) 197–226; idem, “Mystiques et philosophes. Échanges entre centres du monde juif,” in La société juive à travers l'histoire (ed. Shmuel Trigano; 4 vols.; Paris: Fayard, 1992–1993) 4:291–309; idem, “Abulafia's Secrets of the Guide: A Linguistic Turn,” in Perspectives on Jewish Thought and Mysticism (ed. Alfred L. Ivry, Elliot R. Wolfson, and Allan Arkush; Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1998) 289–92; and idem, Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism (London: Continuum, 2007).
8 Liebes, Yehudah, “Myth vs. Symbol in the Zohar and in Lurianic Kabbalah,” in Essential Papers on Kabbalah (ed. Lawrence Fine; New York: New York University Press, 1995) 212–42, at 213Google Scholar; idem, “The Influence of Christianity on the Book of the Zohar,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 2 (1983) 43–74 (Hebrew); idem, “A Greek Contribution to the Faith of Abraham: A Response to B. Bar-Kochva [Tarbiṣ 70 [2001] 327–52],” Tarbiṣ 71 (2002) 249–64 (Hebrew); idem, “Zohar and Iamblichus,” Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 6 (2007) 95–100; and idem, Studies in Jewish Myth and Jewish Messianism (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993) 4.
9 Wolfson, Elliot R., “Beneath the Wings of the Great Eagle: Maimonides and Thirteenth-Century Kabbalah,” in Moses Maimonides (1138–1204) (ed. Hasselhoff, Görge K. and Fraisse, Otfried; Würzburg: Ergon, 2004) 209–37Google Scholar; idem, “Via Negativa in Maimonides and Its Impact on Thirteenth-Century Kabbalah,” Maimonidean Studies 5 (2008) 293–342; and idem, “Hebraic and Hellenic Conceptions of Wisdom in Sefer ha-Bahir,” Poetics Today 19 (1998) 147–76.
10 Lorberbaum, Menachem, Dazzled by Beauty: Theology as Poetics in Hispanic Jewish Culture (Jerusalem: Ben Zvi, 2011)Google Scholar (Hebrew); idem, “Mystique mythique et mystique rationnelle,” Critique 728–29 (2008) 109–17; Afterman, Adam, Dĕvēqut: Mystical Intimacy in Medieval Jewish Thought (Los Angeles: Cherub, 2011) (Hebrew)Google Scholar; Dauber, Jonathan, Knowledge of God and the Development of Early Kabbalah (Boston: Brill, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and see also my work: Valabregue-Perry, Concealed and Revealed.
11 Sheshet, Jacob ben, Ša‘ar haššāmayim (ed. Gabay, Neora; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1989) 115–17Google Scholar. See the longer version in Amos Goldreich, “Sēfer mĕ’irat ‘ēnayim of R. Isaac of Acre: A Critical Edition” (2 vols.; PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1984) 1:408–10, 2:59 (Hebrew); Vajda, Georges, Recherches sur la philosophie et la kabbale dans la pensée juive du Moyen Âge (Paris: Mouton, 1962) 356–84Google Scholar. Wolfson understands the theurgic dimension of prayer in kabbalah to be in opposition to its rational formulation in philosophy (Elliot Wolfson, “Mystical-Theurgical Dimensions of Prayers in Sefer ha-Rimmon,” in Approaches to Judaism in Medieval Times (ed. David B. Blumenthal; 3 vols.; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984–1988) 3:41–79, at 41–42 and 45–46.
12 Nachmanides, Moses, Commentary on the Torah (trans. Charles B. Chavel; 2 vols.; New York: Shilo, 1971–1976)Google Scholar at Exod 13:15.
13 Gikatilla, Joseph, Ginnat ’egoz (Jerusalem: Yeshivat Hachaim Vehashalom, 1989) 10, 371Google Scholar.
14 Sēfer yĕṣirāh hammĕyuḥās lĕ’Avrāhām ’āvinu (Warsaw, 1884; repr., Jerusalem: Yeshivat Qol Yehudah, 1990) 12.
15 Latif, Isaac ibn, Sēfer rav pĕ‘ālim (ed. Hana Kasher; Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1974) 55–56Google Scholar.
16 Sēfer ma‘arekhet hā’elohut (Mantova, 1558; repr., Jerusalem: Makor Chaim, 1963) ch. 9.
17 For Jacob ben Sheshet's setting up an opposition between Maimonides and Aristotle, as well as for Shmuel ibn Tibbon on questions of providence and creation, see Sēfer mēšiv dĕvārim nĕkhoḥim (ed. Efraim Gottlieb; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1968) 159–62, 167–68, 183–84; Scholem, Origins, 378 (Ben Sheshet against Ibn Tibbon); idem, Studies in Kabbalah, 1:191; and Vajda, Recherches sur la philosophie et la kabbale, 105–9. See also Meshulam da Piera's apology at the end of his letter, accusing the translators rather than Maimonides himself: Haim Brody, “Poems of Mesullam ben Selomo da Piera,” in Studies of the Research Institute for Hebrew Poetry in Jerusalem (7 vols.; Berlin: Schocken, 1933–1958) 4:1–118, at 100 (Hebrew); Silver, Daniel J., Maimonidean Criticism and the Maimonidean Controversy: 1180–1240 (Leiden: Brill, 1965) 11–114, 186Google Scholar.
18 On the question of the relationship between kabbalah and Maimonides's philosophy, see Scholem, Origins, 393–414. For a survey of the influence of Maimonides on kabbalah, see Dienstag, Jacob I., “Maimonides and the Kabbalists, Bibliography,” Da‘at 26 (1991) 61–96Google Scholar (Hebrew); Heller-Willensky, Sarah, “Isaac ibn Latif, Philosopher or Kabbalist?,” in Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies (ed. Altmann, Alexander; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967) 185–223Google Scholar; and eadem, “The Guide and the Gate: The Dialectical Influence of Maimonides on Isaac ibn Latif and Early Spanish Kabbalah,” in A Straight Path: Studies in Medieval Philosophy and Culture; Essays in Honor of Arthur Hyman (ed. Ruth Link-Salinger; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1988) 266–78. According to Idel, kabbalists resisted Maimonides's eradication of esoteric tradition (ma‘aśēh merkāvāh and ma‘aśēh bĕrēšit): see above, n. 7; Trigano, Shmuel, “La controverse maimonidienne. Deux figures de l'intellectuel juif,” in La Société juive à travers l'histoire (ed. idem; 4 vols.; Paris: Fayard, 1992–1993) 1:225–38Google Scholar. For another aspect of kabbalah's “reaction” to Maimonidean philosophy, in which kabbalah was set forth as an alternative for a wider audience, see Hames, Harvey J., The Art of Conversion: Christianity and Kabbalah in the Thirteenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 2000) 31–82Google Scholar. For structural affinities between Maimonides and theosophical kabbalah, see Elliot R. Wolfson's work (above, n. 9); Dauber, Jonathan, “Competitive Approaches to Maimonides in Early Kabbalah,” in The Cultures of Maimonideanism: New Approaches to the History of Jewish Thought (ed. Robinson, James T.; Supplements to the Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 9; Leiden: Brill, 2009) 57–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
19 Jacob ben Sheshet, Ša‘ar haššāmayim, 184. See also Schwartz, Dov, “The Debate over the Maimonidean Theory of Providence in Thirteenth-Century Philosophy,” JSQ 2 (1995) 188–96Google Scholar; Freudenthal, Gad, “The Kabbalist R. Jacob ben Sheshet of Girona: The Ambivalences of a Moderate Critique of Science,” in Temps i espais de la Girona jueva. Actes del simposi internacional celebrat a Girona 23, 24 i 25 de març de 2009 (ed. Marcé, Silvia P.; Girona Judaica 5; Girona: Patronat del Call de Girona, 2011) 287–301Google Scholar.
20 For the various changes that the category of idolatry underwent in the Middle Ages, see Halbertal, Moshe and Margalit, Avishai, Idolatry (trans. Goldblum, Naomi; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Halbertal, Moshe, By Way of Truth: Nachmanides and the Creation of Tradition (Jerusalem: Shalom Hartman, 2006) 302Google Scholar (Hebrew).
21 Scholem, Gershom, “The Meaning of the Torah in Jewish Mysticism,” Diogenes 14 (1956) 36–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 15 (1956) 65–69; idem, On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism (New York: Schocken, 1965) 32–86; Idel, Moshe, “Infinities of Torah in Kabbalah,” in Midrash and Literature (ed. Hartman, Geoffrey H. and Budick, Sanford; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986) 141–57Google Scholar; idem, “Torah: Between Presence and Representation of the Divine in Jewish Mysticism,” in Representation in Religion: Studies in Honor of Moshe Barasch (ed. Jan Assmann and Albert I. Baumgarten; Leiden: Brill, 2001) 197–235; and idem, Absorbing Perfections—Kabbalah and Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002) 50–74.
22 Scholem, Gershom, “The Name of God and the Linguistic Theory of Kabbalah,” Diogenes 79 (1972) 59–80; 80 (1972) 164–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also the preceding note.
23 For the place of the mystical symbol as an alternative to the philosophical allegory see Scholem, Gershom, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (3rd rev. ed.; New York: Schocken, 1995) 25–26Google Scholar; idem, Origins, 407–8; idem, On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism, 88–89; Tishby, Isaiah, The Wisdom of the Zohar (trans. David Goldstein; 3 vols.; Oxford: Littman, 1989) 1:283–90Google Scholar; Wasserstrom, Steven, Religion after Religion: Gershom Scholem, Mircea Eliade and Henri Corbin at Eranos (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999) 112–22Google Scholar; Goetschel, Roland, “Interprétation rationaliste et interprétation mystique du combat de Jacob avec l'ange dans l'exégèse juive du Moyen Âge,” in Lectures bibliques (ed. Heintz, Jean G.; Brussels: Institutum Iudaicum, 1981) 41–54Google Scholar; and Idel, Absorbing Perfections, 272–351.
24 See discussion below.
25 For an overall account of different aspects of faith in Jewish traditions, see On Faith: Studies in the Concept of Faith and Its History in the Jewish Tradition (ed. Moshe Halbertal, Avi Sagi, and David Kurzweil; Jerusalem: Keter, 2005) (Hebrew).
26 ben-Shammai, Hagai, “The Ten Principles of Faith of Saadia Gaon,” Da‘at 37 (1996) 11–26Google Scholar (Hebrew); Wolfson, Harry A., “The Double Faith Theory in Clement, Saadia, Averroes and St. Thomas,” JQR 33 (1942) 213–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
27 On the differences between biblical and medieval conceptions of faith, see Kellner, Menachem, “Religious Faith in the Middle Ages and Today,” in On Faith (ed. Halbertal, Sagi, and Kurzweil), 312–27Google Scholar (Hebrew); idem, “Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles and the Structure of the Guide of the Perplexed,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 20 (1982) 76–84; and Davis, Joseph, “Drawing the Line: Views of Jewish Heresy and Belief among Medieval and Early Modern Ashkenazic Jews,” in Rabbinic Culture and Its Critics: Jewish Authority, Dissent and Heresy in Medieval and Early Modern Times (ed. Frank, Daniel and Goldish, Matt; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2008) 161–94Google Scholar.
28 For Maimonides's translating idolatry into the category of error, see Halbertal and Margalit, Idolatry, 108–11.
29 This is not to be confused with Funkenstein's and Biale's notions of counter-history: see Funkenstein, Amos, “History, Counter-History and Narrative,” in Probing the Limits of Representation: Nazism and the “Final Solution” (ed. Friedlander, Saul; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992) 66–81Google Scholar; Biale, David, “Counter-History and Jewish Polemics against Christianity: The Sefer Toldot Yeshu and the Sefer Zerubavel,” Jewish Social Studies 6 (1999) 130–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
30 On the relationship between faith and reason in Jewish-Christian dialogue see Hames, Harvey J., “Reason and Faith: Inter-Religious Polemic and Christian Identity in the Thirteenth Century,” in Religious Apologetics—Philosophic Argumentation (ed. Schwartz, Yossef and Krech, Volkhard; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 267–84Google Scholar.
31 Azriel of Gerona, Pēruš ha'aggādot (ed. Isaiah Tishby; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982) 24–25, 54 n. 1 (for association also with malkhut); Wolfson, Elliot R., “Megillat ’Emet we-’Emunah: Contemplative Visualization and Mystical Unknowing,” Kabbalah 5 (2000) 55–110, at 82Google Scholar; and Verman, Mark Warren, The Book of Contemplation: Medieval Jewish Mystical Sources (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992) 213Google Scholar.
32 Abulafia, Todros ben Joseph, Ša‘ar hārāzim (ed. Kushner-Oron, Michal; Jerusalem: Bialik, 1989) 57Google Scholar; Moses Nachmanides, Commentary on the Torah, at Exod 17:12; Zohar 3.23a, 178b; Cordovero, Pardēs rimmonim 23.1; Recanati, Menachem, Commentary on the Torah (2 vols.; Rehovot: Gross, 2003) 1:244Google Scholar; and Sēfer ma-arekhet hā’elohut, ch. 13.
33 Yonathan Garb, “The Principle of Faith in the Zohar,” in On Faith (ed. Halbertal, Sagi, and Kurzweil), 294–311 (Hebrew).
34 See below, n. 36.
35 See the early anonymous commentary on the Sēfer yĕṣirāh in Scholem, Gershom, Kitvē yād bĕqabbālāh [Kabbalistic manuscripts] (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press, 1930) 220Google Scholar.
36 Wolfson, “Megillat ’Emet we-’Emunah,” 80.
37 Ibid., 83.
38 For example, Gen. Rab. 1:1.
39 Verman, Book of Contemplation, 39.
40 For a discussion of their mutual influences see ibid., 194–99; Porat, Oded, The Works of Iyyun: Critical Editions (Los Angeles: Cherub, 2013) 29–31Google Scholar.
41 For a discussion of the two sets of tĕmurot based on the word amen see Grözinger, Karl, “The Superior Puissances of Amen and their Permutation in R. Azriel's Thought,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 6 (1997) 299–308Google Scholar (Hebrew).
42 Yehuda Halevi, Kuzari 1.77 (translation is the author's).
43 Halevi's definition of faith truly differs from the formulation of Maimonides's principle of faith. While for Halevi, suggesting humanity is the root of faith is meant to emphasize the necessity of a religious commitment, for Maimonides principles of faith are meant to outline the epistemological/legalistic ground.
44 On this subject see Mordechai Pachter's important article: “The Root of Faith is the Root of Heresy in R. Azriel's writings,” Kabbalah 4 (1999) 315–41 (Hebrew). For an analysis of Azriel's epistle “Ways of Faith and Heresy,” see Dan, Joseph, “Faith and Heresy in Rabbi Azriel's Writings,” in idem, History of Jewish Mysticism and Esotericism (10 vols.; Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 2008–2014) 8:141–59Google Scholar (Hebrew); Valabregue-Perry, Concealed and Revealed, 66–82.
45 For a parallel passage see Scholem, Gershom, “New Fragments from the Writing of R. Azriel of Gerona,” in Studies in Memory of Asher Gulak and Samuel Klein (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press, 1942) 201–20Google Scholar, at 207 (Hebrew). See also Meshulam da Piera's poem: “Faith is the root and the principle of every philosophy. The tradition is to be followed in all essentials” (Silver, Maimonidean Criticism, 194–95; for the Hebrew edition, see Brody, “Poems of Mesullam ben Selomo da Piera,” 91 n. 210).
46 The Early Kabbalah (ed. Joseph Dan; trans. Ronald C. Kiener; New York: Paulist, 1986) 89–90.
47 For a similar view that connects ne‘lām and ’emunāh, probably influenced by Azriel of Gerona, see Wolfson, “Megillat ’Emet we-’Emunah,” 79–81, 60–62 (for apophatic and kataphatic aspects of faith).
48 Krinis, Ehud, “The Arabic Background of the ‘Kuzari,’” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 21 (2013) 1–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
49 Azriel does not reject the “way of negation” (derekh hallo’) but sees it as inferior to the kabbalistic positive ontology. See Valabregue-Perry, Concealed and Revealed, 66–71.
50 This important point has been outlined in Pachter, “Root of Faith,” 335–36. For Halevi's critical view of philosophy, see Wolfson, Harry A., Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion (ed. Twersky, Isadore and Williams, George Harry; 2 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973–1977) 2:140Google Scholar.
51 Idel, “Jewish Kabbalah and Platonism,” 319–21; Sarah Sviri, “Spiritual Trends,” 78–84.
52 For the philosophical traditions I will mainly focus on Maimonides's position. As for the theosophical conceptions of creation I will focus on creatio ex nihilo only, while acknowledging that there are different accounts of ma‘aśēh bĕrēšit in early theosophical kabbalah, on which see Abrams, Daniel, “Some Phenomenological Considerations on the Account of Creation in Jewish Mystical Literature,” Kabbalah 10 (2004) 7–19Google Scholar. For an overview of the different philosophical positions, see Goodman, Lenn E., “Creation and Emanation,” in Cambridge History of Jewish Philosophy (ed. Nadler, Steven M. and Rudavsky, Tamar; Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008) 599–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
53 Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed 2.13, 30, and 32; for a detailed analysis of the ex nihilo argument, see Gluck, Andrew L., “Maimonides’ Arguments for Creation ‘Ex Nihilo’ in the ‘Guide of the Perplexed,’” Medieval Philosophy and Theology 7 (1998) 221–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Seeskin, Kenneth, Maimonides on the Origin of the World (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and idem, “Maimonides on Creation,” in Jewish Philosophy, Perspectives and Retrospectives (ed. Raphael Jospe and Dov Schwartz; Boston: Academic Studies, 2012) 185–99. For an analysis of the different positions on creation in Maimonides's philosophy see Klein-Braslavy, Sarah, Maimonides's Interpretation of the Story of Creation (Jerusalem: Reuven Moss, 1987)Google Scholar (Hebrew). For an analysis of the creation argument in light of prophecy (The Guide of the Perplexed 2.33) see Kaplan, Lawrence, “Maimonides on the Miraculous Element in Prophecy,” HTR 70 (1977) 233–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Davidson, Herbert Alan, “Maimonides’ Secret Position on Creation,” in Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature (ed. Twersky, Isadore and Harris, Jay M.; 3 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979–2000) 1:16–40Google Scholar; idem, Moshe Maimonides: The Man and His Works (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005) 387–407; Harvey, Zeev, “A Third Approach to Maimonides’ Cosmogony-Prophetology Puzzle,” HTR 74 (1981) 16–27Google Scholar; Howard Kreisel, “Maimonides and the Eternity of the World,” in Jewish Philosophy (ed. Jospe and Schwartz), 158–84; and Goodman, Micah, The Secret of “The Guide of the Perplexed” (Or Yehuda: Devir, 2010) 253–69Google Scholar.
54 For example, anthropomorphic attributes of deity are very common in the Torah and nevertheless cannot be accepted for theological reasons. Therefore the creation argument cannot be adopted simply out of coherence with the biblical narrative.
55 Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed 2.22. See also Arthur Hyman, “From What is One and Simple Only What is One and Simple Can Come to Be,” in Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought (ed. Goodman), 111–35. Hyman understands Maimonides's theory of creation as twofold—a creatio ex nihilo followed by emanation (Alexander Hyman, “Maimonides on Creation and Emanation,” Studies in Medieval Philosophy [1987] 45–61).
56 Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed 2.24 (translation is the author's).
57 Klein-Braslavy, Sarah, “The Creation of the World and Maimonides’ Interpretation of Gen. i-v,” in Maimonides and Philosophy (ed. Pines, Shlomo and Yovel, Yirmiyahu; Dordrecht: Nijhoff, 1986) 65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; eadem, “Maimonides’ Esoteric and Exoteric Biblical Interpretations,” in Study and Knowledge in Jewish Thought (ed. Howard Kriesel; Beersheba: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2006) 159–63; Hyman, “Maimonides on Creation”; Ivry, Alfred, “Maimonides on Creation,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 9 (1999) 115–37Google Scholar (Hebrew); and see also n. 53 above.
58 For an Aristotelian esoteric reading of Maimonides among early commentators, see Freudenthal, Gad, “Samuel ibn Tibbon's Avicennian Theory of an Eternal World,” Aleph: Historical Studies in Science and Judaism 8 (2008) 41–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This is also Jacob ben Sheshet's reading in Sēfer mēšiv dĕvārim nĕkhoḥim, 134. For similar ideas in Joseph ben Shalom Ashkenazi's writings, see Mélanges Georges Vajda (ed. Weil), 563.
59 Stitskin, Leon, Judaism as Philosophy: The Philosophy of Abraham bar Hiyya, 1065–1143 (Brooklyn: Yeshiva University Press, 1960) 93–107Google Scholar; Töyrylä, Hannu, Abraham bar Hiyya on Time, History, Exile and Redemption (Leiden: Brill, 2014) 80–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
60 Altmann, Alexander and Stern, Samuel M., Isaac Israeli: A Neo-platonic Philosopher of the Early Tenth Century (London: Oxford University Press, 1958) 171–80Google Scholar; Alexander Altmann, “Creation and Emanation in Isaac Israeli: A Reappraisal,” in Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature (ed. Twersky), 1:1–15; Wolfson, Harry A., “The Meaning of Ex Nihilo in Isaac Israeli,” JQR 50 (1959) 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Sarah Pessin, “Jewish Neoplatonism: Being above Being and Divine Emanation in Solomon ibn Gabirol and Isaac Israeli,” in Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy (ed. Frank and Leaman), 91–110.
61 Shlomo ibn Gabirol, Fons vitae 3.3, 25; Schlanger, Jacques, La philosophie de Salomon ibn Gabirol. Étude d'un néoplatonisme (Leiden: Brill, 1968) 193–94Google Scholar; Heschel, Abraham J., “The Concept of ‘Beings’ in the Philosophy of Ibn Gabirol,” Conservative Judaism 28 (1974) 89–95, at 94–95Google Scholar; Laumakis, John A., “Avicebron (Solomon ibn Gabirol) on Creation ex nihilo,” The Modern Schoolman 79 (2001) 41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pessin, Sarah, Ibn Gabirol's Theology of Desire (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013) 119–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and eadem, “Jewish Neoplatonism.”
62 On this notion in early Christianity and its polemics with Gnosticism, see May, Gerhard, Creatio ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of “Creation out of Nothing” in Early Christian Thought (trans. Worrall, A. S.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994)Google Scholar; Torchia, Joseph N., Creatio ex Nihilo and the Theology of St. Augustine: The Anti-Manichaean Polemic and Beyond (New York: Lang, 1999)Google Scholar; and Creation and the God of Abraham (ed. David B. Burrell et al.; Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010). On the mutual ambivalence between creation and emanation already in Plotinus's works, see Gerson, Lloyd P., “Plotinus's Metaphysics: Emanation or Creation?,” The Review of Metaphysics 46 (1993) 559–74Google Scholar.
63 The three monotheistic traditions share parallel developments. David Winston sees, for example, creatio ex nihilo as a medieval Christian and Islamic theological renewal: “The Book of Wisdom's Theory of Cosmogony,” History of Religion 11 (1971) 185–202; for a conception native to Judaism see Goldstein, Jonathan, “The Origins of the Doctrine of Creation Ex-Nihilo,” JJS 35 (1984) 127–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Replay, Winston: “Creation Ex Nihilo Revisited: A Reply to Jonathan Goldstein,” JJS 37 (1986) 88–91Google Scholar.
64 According to some scholars, some Neoplatonic thinkers distinguish between creation and emanation as two different phases; these include Isaac Israeli and Ibn Gabirol. Others identify a distinction between creation and emanation, including Plotinus and al-Farabi. However, scholars such as Harry H. Wolfson, Arthur Altmann, and Sarah Pessin have argued whether or not Isaac Israeli's conception of creation should be understood as an ex nihilo conception or as emanation: see above, nn. 60–61.
65 Altmann, Alexander, Studies in Religious Philosophy and Mysticism (Ithaca, NY: Routledge, 1969) 138Google Scholar. For the Hebrew version, see “Letter to Abraham,” in Scholem, Studies in Kabbalah, 1:28–29; see also Ezra ben Solomon of Gerona, “Pēruš Šir hašširim,” in Ramban (Nachmanides): Writings and Discourses (ed. Charles B. Chavel; 2 vols.; Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1963–1970) 2:476–518, at 482–83; Azriel of Gerona, Pēruš ha'aggādot (ed. Isaiah Tishby; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982) 110–11.
66 Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed 2.26. For an understanding of Maimonides's Aristotelian noesis in terms of Platonic essences, i.e., creation as the process of the auto-contemplation of God, see “Sēfer hā’emunāh wĕhabbiṭṭāḥon,” in Ramban (Nachmanides): Writings and Discourses (ed. Chavel), 2:351–447, at 409.
67 Pirqē Rabbi Eliezer 3.
68 See on this topic Altmann, Studies in Philosophy and Mysticism, 128–39.
69 On the notion of creation in kabbalah, see Scholem, Gershom, Über einige Grundbegriffe des Judentums (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1970) 53–89Google Scholar; Tishby, Wisdom of the Zohar, 1:279–81; Gottlieb, Ephraim, Researches in Kabbalistic Literature (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1976) 11–28Google Scholar, 263–65, 271–72 (Hebrew); Matt, Daniel C., “Ayin: The Concept of Nothingness in Jewish Mysticism,” in The Problem of Pure Consciousness: Mysticism and Philosophy (ed. Forman, Robert K. C.; New York: Oxford University Press, 1990) 67–108Google Scholar; Hayman, Arthur P., “The Doctrine of Creation in Sefer Yesira: Some Critical Problems,” in Rashi, 1040–1990. Homages à Ephraim E. Urbach (ed. Sed-Rajna, Gabrielle; Paris: Cerf, 1996) 219–27Google Scholar; and Heller-Willensky, Sarah, “The ‘First Created Being’ in Early Kabbalah and Its Philosophical Sources,” Bināh (1989) 65–77Google Scholar.
70 One method is to integrate the creatio ex nihilo at the very beginning of the emanative process; another is to see emanation and creation as different steps, as for example in Zohar 1.240b.
71 The fusion and integration of philosophical notions into the kabbalistic emanative system is a large phenomenon, so I will give only one more example: matter and form are usually identified with ḥokhmāh and bināh.
72 Azriel of Gerona, in Sēfer yĕṣirāh 2.6 (Warsaw, 1884) ad loc.; Bahya, R. Asher, Commentary on the Torah (ed. Chavel, Charles B.; 3 vols.; Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1982) 1:15Google Scholar; Sefer ha-Shem attributed to R. Moses de Leon (ed. Michal Oron; Los Angeles: Cherub, 2010) 68; Joseph Gikatilla in Gottlieb, Researches in Kabbalistic Literature, 140–41. Yēš mē’ayin appeared first in the 11th cent.: see Matt, “Ayin: The Concept of Nothingness,” 70 n. 17; Scholem, Origins, 62–63.
73 This appellation of the first sĕfirāh shows the reliance of the kabbalistic emanative system on the Neoplatonic tradition as known in such authors as Shlomo ibn Gabirol. On his influence on kabbalah, see Scholem, Studies in Kabbalah, 1:39–64; Shlomo Pines, “‘He Called Forth to the Nothing and It Split’: Research on the Keter Malkhut of Solomon ibn Gabirol,” Tarbiṣ 50 (1982) 339–47 (Hebrew); Idel, “On the Conception of the Divine in Early Kabbalah,” in Šefa‘ ṭal: Studies in Jewish Thought and Culture Presented to Bracha Sack (ed. Zeev Gries, Chaim Kriesel, and Boaz Huss; Beersheba: Ben-Gurion University, 2004) 141–44 (Hebrew); and Yehuda Liebes, “Rabbi Solomon ibn Gabirol's Use of the Sēfer Yĕṣirāh and a Commentary on the Poem ‘I Love Thee,’” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 6 (1987) 73–123 (Hebrew).
74 Moses Nachmanides, Commentary on the Torah, at Gen 1:8.
75 “For the Being is in the Naught after the manner of the Naught, and the Naught is in the Being after the manner [according to the modality] of the Being” (Scholem, “New Fragments from Azriel,” 207). Azriel relies here on a paraphrase of the Liber de causis §107: see The Book of Causes (ed. and trans. D. J. Brand; Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 1984) 30; Scholem, Origins, 423–24; Pachter, “Root of Faith,” 323–28; and Mélanges Georges Vajda (ed. Weil), 574–81. On the primordial matter, see Azriel of Gerona, Pēruš ha'aggādot, 81–85; Mélanges Georges Vajda (ed. Weil), 652–60. For an unequivocal position in favor of emanation against the philosophical ex nihilo position, see Joseph Gikatilla (above, n. 72).
76 I am not dealing here with the anti-Christian polemic, which also had a vital role in the kabbalist formulation of divine unity, though apparently later in the 13th cent. See on this subject: Hames, Art of Conversion, 246–83; idem, “It Takes Three to Tango: Ramon Lull, Solomon ibn Adret and Alfonso of Valladolid Debate the Trinity,” Medieval Encounters 15 (2009) 199–224.
77 I hope to dedicate an independent study to the different model of unity/unification presented by theosophical kabbalah in light of its argument with the model of simple and inseparable unity.
78 In the Neoplatonic tradition, see Plotinus, Enneades 5.4; Liber de causis 4.39–40 and 20.163. And in the Neo-Aristotelian tradition, see Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed 1.50. For the relationship between the conception of divine unity and negative theology in Maimonides, see Lorberbaum, Dazzled by Beauty, 75. It is interesting, however, to compare the theosophical organic unity with the Maimonidean world unity. For, when it concerns world unity, Maimonides is willing to consider a unity made of parts on the model of the body. See on this important question the difference between Maimonides and Saadia Gaon in Norman Lamm, “The Unity of God and the Unity of the World: Saadia and Maimonides,” in Torah and Wisdom: Studies in Jewish Philosophy, Kabbalah, and Halacha; Essays in Honor of Arthur Hyman (ed. Ruth Link-Salinger; New York: Shengold, 1992) 113–20.
79 For an analysis in the work of R. Abraham bar Hiyya of a similar philosophical conception presenting a unity of multiple divine attributes in contradistinction to a simple divine unity, see Dauber, “Pure Thought,” 185–201; idem, “Standing on the Heads of Philosophers: Myth and Philosophy in Early Kabbalah” (PhD diss., New York University, 2004) 47–81.
80 Scholem, Studies in Kabbalah, 1:16–18; the English translation is from idem, Origins, 399.
81 Scholem, Origins, 400. This view of complementary unity is echoed in R. Ezra of Gerona's writings: “The [divine] name was not complete until man was created in the image of God, and [then] the seal [ḥotām] was complete” (in Ramban [Nachmanides]: Writings and Discourses [ed. Chavel], 2:510).
82 Abulafia, Abraham, “’Iggeret wĕzot Lihudāh,” in Jellinek, Aharon, Gĕnizē ḥokhmat haqqabbālāh [Treasures of kabbalah's wisdom] (Jerusalem: Maqor, 1969) 13–28Google Scholar, at 19 (translation is the author's).
83 In an apologetic letter answering a critical letter written at this time by other kabbalists, Isaac the Blind writes: “And they (people from Burgos) cause devastations of the plants, whereas these things are united as the flame is bound to the coal, for the Lord is unique and has no second” (Scholem, Origins, 394). For the danger inherent in the esoteric lore kept secret by the fear of heresy see the famous words of R. Shlomo ben Meshulam da Piera: “They (R. Ezra and R. Azriel) know the Shiur, but they keep private the teaching out of fear of causing heresy” (Silver, Maimonidean Criticism, 194).
84 Scholem, Studies in Kabbalah, 1:16–18; for the English translation see idem, Origins, 400.
85 “Kabbalah . . . is divided into two trends. Some gain knowledge of the Name by way of the ten sĕfirot, called plants: whoever separates them (the sĕfirot) destroys them. They discover the secret of unification. Others (gain) knowledge about the Name by way of letters” (Abulafia, “’Iggeret wĕzot Lihudāh,” 15) (translation is the author's).
86 Weiss, Tzahi, Cutting the Shoots: the Worship of Shekhinah in the World of Early Kabbalistic Literature (Jerusalem: Magness, 2005)Google Scholar. On the heretical behavior of Elisha ben Abuya, see Liebes, Yehuda, Elisha's Sin: Four Who Entered the Pardēs and the Nature of Talmudic Mysticism (Jerusalem: Akademon, 1990) 11–50Google Scholar (Hebrew).
87 Jacob ben Sheshet, “Sēfer ha'emunāh wĕhabbiṭṭāḥon,” in Ramban (Nachmanides): Writings and Discourses (ed. Chavel), 2:233–447, at 362 (translation is the author's). See also R. Azriel of Gerona: “The seventh way (of the second group) does agree on the order of the dimension (middot) of the Creator but set his mind on the power of one dimension and withdrew his will from the rest of the dimensions. He is called cutter, following what is said: ‘cutting the plants’” (Scholem, “New Fragments from Azriel,” 207). See also Todros ben Joseph Abulafia, Ša‘ar hārāzim, 139. For an understanding of “cutting the plants” as destruction, see Sēfer ma‘arekhet hā’elohut, ch. 8.
88 There is a general theosophical scheme that sees separation/limitation as belonging to creation and unification/infinity as belonging to emanation. This can be seen in R. Asher ben David as well: see R. Asher ben David, His Complete Works and Studies in His Kabbalistic Thought (ed. Daniel Abrams; Los Angeles: Cherub, 1996) 118; Ibn Gabbay, ‘Avodat haqqodeš 1.12; and Valabregue-Perry, Concealed and Revealed, 144–48.
