Cultic and further orders : semiotics of a Kabbalistic culture 2021055367, 2021055368, 9789004498976, 9789004499003, 9004498974

Citation preview

Cultic and Further Orders

Studies in Jewish History and Culture Edited by Giuseppe Veltri Editorial Board Gad Freudenthal Alessandro Guetta Hanna Liss Ronit Meroz Reimund Leicht Judith Olszowy- Schlanger David Ruderman Marion Aptroot

volume 71

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/sjhc

Cultic and Further Orders Semiotics of a Kabbalistic Culture By

Maurizio Mottolese

leiden | boston

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Mottolese, Maurizio, author. Title: Cultic and further orders: semiotics of a Kabbalistic culture / by Maurizio Mottolese. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2022] | Series: Studies in Jewish history and culture, 15685004 ; volume 71 | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “This book starts from the assumption that semiotics of culture and social-anthropological studies can offer useful tools to understand large segments and lasting aspects of the kabbalistic tradition. It attempts to study from this perspective the late Sephardi Kabbalah, by examining 16th-century emblematic commentaries that collect and carry on the earlier kabbalistic interpretation of the rabbinic ritual system. In this unusual light, much kabbalistic culture appears as an ongoing semiotic intensification of deep structures governing the discourse and practice of the Jews - so that, for instance, institutional cultic orders are integrated by other forms of order in imagination, thought, and experience”-- Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2021055367 (print) | LCCN 2021055368 (ebook) | ISBN 9789004498976 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004499003 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Cabala–History. | Mysticism–Judaism–History. | Gabbai, Meir ben Ezekiel ibn, 1480-approximately 1540. Tolaʻat Yaʻaḳov. | Albaz, Moses ben Maimon, active 16th century. Hekhal ha-ḳodesh. | Luria, Isaac ben Solomon, 1534-1572–Influence. | Order–Religious aspects–Judaism. | Culture–Semiotic models. Classification: LCC BM526 .M68 2022 (print) | LCC BM526 (ebook) | DDC 296.1/609–dc23/eng/20211223 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021055367 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021055368 Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 1568-5004 isbn 978-90-04-49897-6 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-49900-3 (e-book) Copyright 2022 by Maurizio Mottolese. Published by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau Verlag and V&R Unipress. Koninklijke Brill NV reserves the right to protect this publication against unauthorized use. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Culture is never a universal set, but always a subset organized in a specific manner J.M. Lotman – B.A. Uspenskij

…

To look at the life of culture as a texture of codes and as an ongoing call from code to code, has meant to look somehow for the rules of the semiosis activity […]. Cultural life has been no longer seen as free creation, product and object of mystical intuitions, locus of the ineffable […]. It is life of texts governed by intertextual rules U. Eco

…

[…] the rational is merely a system among the others. […] It suffices that there be a system, even if this system is apparently illogical, uselessly complicated, curiously disparate R. Barthes

…

Liturgical orders bind together disparate entities, processes, and phenomenal domains, and it is this bringing together […] that is peculiar to them. They are meta-orders, or orders of orders R.A. Rappaport

…

Kabbalists have woven broader nets that concatenated human activities and experiences into wider speculative constructs M. Idel

∵

Contents Acknowledgments ix Introduction 1 1

The Disclosure of Sense and Order Rhetoric and Hermeneutic Modes of Kabbalistic Semiotics 10 1 Rhetorical Patterns. The Quest for an Organization of Knowledge 11 1.1 Collecting and Rearranging Stances in Two 16th-Century Kabbalistic Commentaries 13 1.2 A Kabbalistic Cultural Subset and Its Strategies for Cultural Memory 23 1.3 Some Emblematic Discussions on Morning Rituals 32 2 Hermeneutic Perspectives. Proliferation and Articulation of Meanings 38 2.1 Unfolding Layers of Meaning and Reality 39 2.2 Constructing Patterns of Order 46 2.3 Binary Oppositions and Vertical Connections 52

2

The Imagery of Cosmic and Human Orders Semantic Dimensions of Kabbalistic Semiotics 59 1 Cosmological Assumptions. Establishment and Maintenance of Orders 60 1.1 A Mixture of Imaginative Patterns of Different Origin 61 1.2 Forms of Mediation and Supernal Structures 65 1.3 Anthropomorphic Orders and Ritual Orders 73 1.4 The Impact of Human Action on the Cosmic Architectonics 80 2 Lexical and Narrative Semantics. Reviving Cosmic Orders through Ritual Orders 85 2.1 Mythical Accounts on the Restoring Power of Human Action 87 2.2 The Use of s-d-r and the Related Narrative Elaboration 93

viii

Contents

3

The Focus on Ritual Sequences Syntactic Aspects of Kabbalistic Semiotics 101 1 Dwelling on the Formal Structures of Cultic Life 102 1.1 The Engagement of all Ritual Dimensions, and the Triadic Pattern Thought-Speech-Act 103 1.2 The Attention to all Ritual Items, Including Formal Units and Sequences 107 2 Re-Organizing the Ritual Syntax 110 2.1 Narrow Sequels 111 2.2 Broader Structures 116 2.3 Temporal Patterns 120 3 Generating Mythical and Mystical Accounts from Ritual Syntax 125 3.1 The Disclosure of Deep Syntactic Orders 126 3.2 The Elaboration of Dense Narrative Sequences and Ascending Experiential Routes 130

4

The Construction of a Liturgical-Mystical Discipline Pragmatic Effects of Kabbalistic Semiotics 141 1 Remolding, Extending and Intensifying Institutional Halakhic Orders 142 1.1 Conservative Reinforcement through Renewal 144 1.2 Variation and Change in Social Pragmatics 150 1.3 The Production of Directional Mystical Techniques 155 2 Shaping Kabbalistically-Oriented Community Conduct and Experience 161 2.1 Elements of Distinction and Cohesion 162 2.2 Towards a Communal Mystical Discipline? 171 2.3 Hypotheses on Psychosocial Effects 174 2.4 Reflections on Socio-Cultural Functions 181



Final Remarks: Kabbalistic Orders from the Perspective of Cultural Semiotics 189 1 The Search for Methodologies Moving between Structure and History 189 2 On Semiotics of Culture and Its Fecundity for Kabbalah Studies 196 3 On Ordering and Disordering Vectors in Kabbalistic Literature 202

Bibliography 211 Index 228

Acknowledgments I am grateful to the Publishing House Brill and Prof. Giuseppe Veltri, director of the series Studies in Jewish History and Culture, for accepting this volume for publication. I wish also to express my thanks to the anonymous reviewers that have recommended the work for publication, proposing at the same time important remarks and useful suggestions. Let me also record my gratitude to Dr. Emma Catherine Gainsforth, who has contributed to improve the form of the original English text. Of course, I am only responsible for any inaccuracies or errors of perspective that may still remain. The book is dedicated to Valentina and Irene.

Introduction A main assumption of this study is that the Jewish tradition called qabbalah can be viewed as a cultural system that contains a strong inclination toward ‘making order’ and ‘setting to rights’. These organizing vectors are not the unique component, nor do they always stand out with the same force. However, they play a pivotal role in some major subsets of the kabbalistic culture, and are especially activated under specific socio-historical conditions. An emblematic example is constituted by the vast literary corpus written by Sephardi kabbalists during the 16th century, which shall be the main object of the present inquiry.1 These sources share many features, first of all the effort to preserve, rearrange and transmit the fragmented collective memory received from the previous creative generations. They are mostly “commentaries”, aimed at reviewing canonical texts through the materials and interpretations stemming from the classical Kabbalah – the allegedly authentic, secret lore developed in the Iberian peninsula during the 13th century, which is here collected, reorganized and somehow ‘canonized’ on its own. Such striving for organization of knowledge concerns, at the same time, the main canonical texts of the people of Israel (including cultic codes) and the Jewish ritual activity system. However, making order in tradition (the sacred textuality in its various strata) and in experience (the sacred practice), means for those interpreters to make order also in reality itself (the sacred cosmos). It is no coincidence that the formula employed by one of the commentaries – lesadder ha-maʿaseh – seems to refer to an operative “rearranging of the work” that applies at different layers.2 Along this inquiry, we shall observe major kabbalists engaged in a cultural labor producing sense and order at various levels. In chap. 1, we shall see how their interpretive and discursive posture was oriented at ensuring the cultural 1 Well aware of the immense and variegated panorama of the kabbalistic tradition – for extensive and classical introductions to it, see Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken Books, 1961); Moshe Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives (New Haven – London: Yale University Press, 1988) – I have no pretension to offer an overall reconstruction. I have chosen rather to explore from a specific viewpoint the literary production of one kabbalistic culture – the Kabbalah usually defined as “theosophical-theurgical” – as it was gathered, abridged, revisited and disseminated by some Sephardi intellectuals in the aftermath of the Expulsion from Spain. It is however true that this kabbalistic lore constituted a major centuries-long trend in Jewish history, a mainstream cultural formation that had the widest reverberations in Jewish literacy and life. 2 A closer inquiry into the Hebrew root sdr – “to arrange” – in its various uses, shall represent a necessary and crucial step of the present study. © Maurizio Mottolese, 2022 | DOI:10.1163/9789004499003_002

2

Introduction

memory of the Spanish Kabbalah through strategies of recollection and reorganization of traditional knowledge. In chap. 2, we shall dwell on their cosmological imageries, which strove to map the universe and its supernal domains in particular, illuminating the connections between the earthly human orders and the heavenly architectonics. Chap. 3 will deal with their focus on the formal structures of ritual praxis, particularly its syntactic aspects, and with their tendency to remold behavioral sequences in the light of mythical-narrative patterns of discourse. Chap. 4, finally, will explore some social-pragmatic implications of the kabbalistic approach, shifting ordinary ritual acts into more structured and refined (mystically-oriented) conducts, and reshaping the rabbinic form of life in a new (disciplined) garb. As pointed out by the subtitle, this book is concerned with the semiotics of the Kabbalah. The latter expression is in fact equivocal. On the one hand, it means that that Jewish tradition is here considered as a fabric of sense, unceasingly intent in producing webs of meaning; we shall therefore examine the semiotics ‘of the Kabbalah’ (subjective genitive), namely the tremendous increase of sense brought about by Jewish mystical interpreters. On the other hand, the same expression refers to the fact that grids and devices from contemporary semiotic studies are here summoned and employed to investigate the kabbalistic literature, attempting thus to outline a semiotics ‘of the Kabbalah’ (objective genitive). We shall try to present both these perspectives below – somehow, the ‘emic’ semiotic work, and the ‘etic’ semiotic inquiry upon it. Despite being obviously interconnected, the two are distinct, and in my opinion must remain clearly separated. The essential difference is that the kabbalistic view starts from the assumption that traditional signs and codes have a divine or super-human origin, possess a sacred nature, are non-­arbitrary and correlate to objectively given perfect orders; the qabbalah is nothing less than the “way of truth” (or, the “hidden wisdom”) capable of deciphering and re-establishing those signs of the Sacred. The scholarly view, on the other hand, considers the Jews’ sign systems as historical-literary products and their inner interpreting machine as a human construct, and therefore explores those materials through historical, linguistic, semiotic, anthropological, or sociological lens. This essay hopefully represents a contribution to the study of Kabbalah, or at least of one relevant segment of this tradition, from the viewpoint of a semiotics of culture.3 In this methodological perspective, the kabbalistic culture 3 I have made use of classical semiotic studies, especially devoted to semiotics of culture, such as those by J.M. Lotman, B.A. Uspenskij, M. Bachtin, A. Greimas, U. Eco. At the same time, I have given great attention to classical anthropological studies, particularly devoted to ­religious rituals, such as those by V. Turner, M. Douglas, C. Geertz, S.J. Tambiah, R.A.

Introduction

3

cannot but appear as a huge semiotic work on the entire semiosis of the people of Israel, its literary canon (biblical and rabbinic writings) and its behavioral pattern (biblical and rabbinic conducts). While seeking to decipher ‘sense’ within the traditional legacy, the kabbalists strive at once to decode its hidden ‘order’.4 Employing the lexicon of the Tartu-Moscow Semiotic School, one may argue that the kabbalistic culture functions in general as a “secondary modeling system”, actively interpreting and restructuring the whole collective semiotic space (“semiosphere”) that constitutes the Jewish lore, with its “primary systems of signification”.5 It therefore seems to operate as a higher-­degree ordering language, mapping the ‘correlations’ found in the former codes, or between the former codes, of that cultural universe. “Generator of structuredness” as any culture,6 the kabbalistic culture reshapes the (already widely articulated) discourse and practice of the Jews. Although semiotics of culture shares some basic principles and views with structuralist approaches, it also takes greatly into account historical shifts and variations, illuminating thus both continuity and change in culture.7 In this perspective, a statement by Jurij Lotman appears particularly instructive in our concern: “The introduction of new forms of behavior and the semiotic intensification of old forms can testify to a specific change in the type of culture”.8 Throughout the following inquiry, I shall try to clarify in which way

4

5

6

7

8

­ appaport. I have also examined the various attempts that in recent years have tried to comR bine semiotic and socio-anthropological approaches (see e.g. below, Final Remarks, n. 22). My own adoption of scholarly grids and patterns will be clarified in more details in the Final Remarks. A basic assumption of linguistics is that any string of signs must have an order (and syntax) for it to make sense. Semiotics attempts precisely to understand how language works in this production of sense. Semiotics of culture shall seek to discern the mechanisms that generate meaning and efficacy within comprehensive ordered sign systems. Of course, these primary networks of signs already are multilayered, multimedial, integrated and interlinked, mixing together textuality and exegesis, normativity and narrativity, outer praxis and inner experience – as any rabbinic piece (be it of halakhic or aggadic genre) might well demonstrate. “The fundamental ‘task’ of culture […] is in structurally organizing the world around man. Culture is the generator of structuredness, and in this way it creates a social sphere around man which, like the biosphere, makes life possible; that is, not organic life, but social life”: Jurij M. Lotman – Boris A. Uspenskij, “On the Semiotic Mechanism of Culture”, New Literary History 9,2 (1978): 213. Lotman himself, who adopted structural analysis of long-term phenomena as the main methodological approach, was sensitive to the diachronic and mutable dimension of systems and codes (see below, Final Remarks, n. 29). See also my remarks below, chap. 4, around n. 156. For the full quote, see below, chap. 4, n. 134.

4

Introduction

1­ 6th-­century Sephardi sages ‘translated’ a specific kind of medieval ­Kabbalah in the early modern age – not only reacting to abrupt dramatic historical events, but also (perhaps principally) bringing forth earlier long-lasting processes, such as the codification of paths of life and worship customs, the recollection, canonization and spreading of the Zohar, the propagation of Kabbalah among Jewish communities, the merging of Kabbalah and Halakhah.9 One may argue that the commentaries investigated below are a good case study on how cultural change sometimes occurs – namely, by a “semiotic intensification of old forms” of behavior. One of their main functions, as I shall claim below, was to revive orderliness and sense, identity and integration, by proposing the (Zoharic) Kabbalah as the hidden fulcrum of the rabbinic religious system. Let me briefly recount how I matured this (quite unusual) approach. In previous studies, I have dealt with the kabbalistic elaboration on bodily cultic acts, investigating in particular the mystical interpretation of hand-gestures performed during daily liturgies or at festive ceremonies.10 My intention was to show how medieval authors re-signified, in the light of new imaginative maps and conceptual patterns, somatic and material procedures that were an integral part of the traditional form of life. While carrying out this research, I became more sensitive to the relevance of ‘orders’ within the religious culture of Israel and, more specifically, in some kabbalistic contexts.11 It appeared to me that the encounter between ritualism and mysticism that so deeply characterizes the latter, was largely based on a shared organizational propensity. The reading of some early modern commentaries on liturgy (widespread and classical, yet scarcely investigated) brought me to believe that those traits had indeed been strengthened in the epoch of the Expulsion. At the same time, I 9

10

11

In this sense, I share the position of those scholars who have rejected Scholem’s claim that 16th-century Kabbalah should be seen altogether as a response to the “historical rupture” of the Expulsion in 1492. The latter critical event rather appears as one of the manifold factors shaping that culture, evidently reinforcing and sharpening structural vectors already developed in Spain. See respectively, Maurizio Mottolese, Bodily Rituals Rituals in Jewish Mysticism. The Intensification of Cultic Hand Gestures by Medieval Kabbalists (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2016); idem, “Between Somatics and Semiotics. The Lulav Ritual Gesture and its Kabbalistic Re-signification”, Kabbalah 42 (2018): 7–61. Below I shall at times relate to these studies (somehow the background of the present one) for more in-depth inquiries on some aspects. Here, the focus will shift to other topics and later literary contexts. Of course some contemporary essays in Jewish studies have been illuminating and stimulating. In particular I owe much to Moshe Idel, “On Some Forms of Order in Kabbalah”, Da‘at 50–52 (2003): XXXI–LVIII, which distinguishes several kinds of constructs in kabbalistic literature (such as the anthropomorphic order, the linguistic order, the ­astrological order).

Introduction

5

realized that tools and grids from anthropology of ritual and semiotics of culture could become useful for studying the cultural mechanisms, the ideological elaboration, or the social-pragmatic impact of the kabbalists.12 It is a fact that many Jewish sources usually defined as “mystical” express a strong passion for order, and disclose elaborated hierarchical patterns in knowledge and imagery, interpretation and action. Thus, they assimilate structured elements from former codes and work on them constructing broader constellations, organic or mechanic architectonics, entire worlds of similarities and connections – in a formula, they produce ‘orders upon orders’. Moreover, they do not only reflect on forms and sequences governing the cultic practice, or speculate on articulated clusters governing the cosmic realm – they intend to exploit them in practice, in order to put the world to rights. This picture might seem extravagant, since mysticism has been usually perceived as leaning toward a destructuration of social rules and constructs (somehow close to anomianism and anarchy), or inclined to a removal of cultural borders and constrains (somehow contrary to particularism and ritualism). Mysticism has also been long opposed to ordered or logical patterns of thought, being rather accosted to terms such as “irrationality”, “indeterminacy”, “amorphous experience”, “coincidence of the opposites”.13 In recent years, however, academic research has acquired more complex attitudes. It has shown greater attention to the various facets of each mystical lore, and to the striking divergences between different forms of mysticism. Last but not least, it has become cognizant of the pivotal role of orders in some mystical trends (as well as in magical streams). The working hypothesis of this investigation has been that – while the existence of ‘disordering stances’ in kabbalistic culture cannot be ignored (and must be carefully examined) – ‘ordering drives’ are notably at work within it. Far from removing, weakening or overcoming traditional social codes, cultural boundaries, ideological patterns, most kabbalists appear to endorse them, producing an overall enhancement of order. Such tendency is expressed in modes of thought and classification that are quite distant 12

13

I was especially interested in the tendency of religious culture to project human orders and meanings into the totality of being, an aspect illuminated not only by philosophers, but also by anthropologists of religion (M. Douglas), semioticians of culture (J.M. Lotman), sociologists of knowledge (P. Berger). See the words by William Everson quoted by Elliot R. Wolfson in the opening of one of his major works: “Mysticism is the anarchism of religion. Mystics don’t rely on structures”: Venturing Beyond: Law and Morality in Kabbalistic Mysticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 1; regarding the more nuanced posture of Wolfson himself, see below, chap. 4, n. 36.

6

Introduction

from classical rationalism (as well as from the grids of current Western readers). The ­kabbalistic organizational propensity has its roots in a specific culture/religion of the law – where, since ancient times, cultic orders and cosmic orders were of pivotal importance. It became characteristic of some medieval and late medieval contexts advancing a “theosophical Kabbalah”. If the latter literature can be loosely defined as “mystical” – since, broadly speaking, its discourse concerns an experience of contact or interlink with the divine realm –, such form of mysticism seems to be inclined to heighten earlier forms of order. The contiguity of theosophical Kabbalah to traditional rabbinic culture – with its network of textual and ritual codes – is a phenomenon that cannot be overlooked nor overemphasized. The “enlightened” devoted much attention to the strict way of life commanded to Israel (halakhah), its vast liturgical-cultic sphere (ʿavodah), its pedagogical, moral and behavioral aspects (musar, ʾoraḥ ḥayyim), including regional variants and practical customs (minhag, hanhagot). One of the main literary genres practiced by them was the commentary on the secret rationales of the precepts (miṣwot), or of the prayers (tefillot). These types of commentary, already widely cultivated in the “creative age” of Kabbalah (second half of the 13th century), continued to be composed massively in later epochs.14 They displayed the various organizational functions mentioned before: from rearranging the multilayered meaning of the cult to remodelling the performance of sacred acts to finally re-establishing the order of the world. Some general remarks by Roy Rappaport may help to start addressing this cultural phenomenon. In his arguments against the classical analogy between language and ritual (proposed by E. Leach and others), he claimed first of all that “language is a code, but liturgies are orders”.15 Contrary to the flexibility of ordinary verbal discourse, ritual acts are rigid and invariant, and convey a highly restricted range of messages.16 Indeed, they “do not argue”, but “assert”, often bringing into being whatever it is that they assert (“performative 14

15 16

For an overview, see Gershom Scholem, Kabbalah (Jerusalem: Keter, 1974), 177–180; Idel, Kabbalah, XIV–XV. Scholem’s synthesis portrays that corpus with the following words: “A wide kabbalistic literature was devoted to the path of prayer and to mystical interpretations of the traditional liturgy. Such interpretations were less commentaries in the ordinary sense than systematic manuals for mystical meditation in prayer” (Kabbalah, 179). See Roy A. Rappaport, Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 251–252. Describing rituals, scholars have spoken of repetition, redundancy, traditionalism, formalism (see e.g. the works by C. Bell). Some of them have even come to the drastic conclusion that “they have no inherent meaning”: see my discussion in Bodily Rituals, 9ff.

Introduction

7

q­ uality”). On the other hand, contrary to linguistic communication, rituality displays a combination of various sensory modalities, including sounds, gestures and objects.17 Liturgies do not say one thing clearly, but point to multiple significata simultaneously, integrating them all into an intricate procedural system. In sum, prescriptivity and performativity on one side, thickness and opacity on the other. The kabbalists may appear as sensitive to both these poles in liturgy. They consider the ritual activities as a primary mediation system stemming from the divine realm and the sacred tradition: arcane and fixed, normative and powerful; hence, they take the strict rules and boundaries as well as the myriad details characterizing the halakhic formal domain very seriously. At the same time, they perceive a plurality of semantic layers in the various dimensions and media involved by ritual practice (physical aspects, verbal formulas, imaginative, cognitive, emotive facets, syntactic orders, etc.): thus, they intend to bring to light all the meanings, rationales and goals that would be hidden in each of the folds of that multimedia production. While strongly traditionalistic, the kabbalistic culture proposes a continuous expansion and renewal of the standard ritual language, both horizontally and vertically, extensively and intensively, in formal structures and in semantic strata – entailing an overall review of the collective memory, imagery and praxis. We shall attempt to highlight basic mechanisms and trajectories of this semiotization process. We shall see, for instance, that the re-signification of liturgies occurred primarily by connecting practical units and sequences to entities and dynamics in the cosmic or intra-divine realm – on the basis of the assumption that the nomian-cultic orders “below” correspond to further orders “above”. Thus, the semiotic work on embodied ritual schemas was instrumental to the construction of mythical narratives, joining the elements (found below and above) within meaningful stories about concrete correlations. Or, it led to reshape and reinforce the syntactic architecture of the ritual acts. At last, the kabbalistic interpretation transformed the ordinary ritual sequels into ‘oriented’ (usually ascending) mystical paths, enabling trained practitioners to adhere to the structures of holiness. It is logical that such an effort to thicken sense and increase order, also entailed an empowerment of the intensity and efficacy of the ritual process. The semiotic intensification could not but have 17

Students have often underlined such “multimodality” of ritual language, whose complex compositional form usually integrates different modes of communication and sensory registers. See e.g. Bruce Kapferer, “Performance and the Structuring of Meaning and Experience”, in The Anthropology of Experience, eds. V.W. Turner – E.M. Bruner (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986), 188–203.

8

Introduction

pragmatic, social and psycho-social effects. It seems indeed that the kabbalistic fabric of sense (and order) was able to generate a disciplined and focused mystical-liturgical praxis. The effective realization of a synchronized collective mystical liturgy is under discussion. It shall result however evident that not only the Jewish ritualistic semiosphere had to give birth to specific nomian-ritual forms of mysticism, whose imageries and experiences were strictly anchored to the traditional codes and modes of social praxis; the latter cultural formations then reverberated on the underlying semiosphere, and reshaped the standard cognitive-emotional-behavioral patterns. As it starts to become clear, my proposal – differing from other approaches – is to consider the classical theosophical Kabbalah as a culture inscribed in a strictly determined horizon – eventually as a particularistic and ritualistic culture, which especially in specific circumstances gave rise to a disciplined mystical piety. I suspect that precisely the lack of a ‘contextualist approach’ has often prevented readers from giving due weight to the ordering and architectonic inclinations that characterize that kabbalistic culture.18 Clearly, a contextualist stance shall have to further explore the (changing) relationship for example between theosophy and law, esotericism and divulgation, elites and community, in the various socio-cultural conditions where the kabbalists lived and operated. However, our main purpose here is to discern common traits and lasting schemes in that vast cultural-linguistic setting. Although the method is not historical-philological, the present inquiry preliminarily focuses on a restricted range of materials – two popular 16th-century commentaries on prayer: Meir ibn Gabbay’s Tolaʿat Yaʿaqov and Moshe Elbaz’ Hekhal ha-qodesh. They interpret the standard rabbinic daily service according to the theosophical-theurgical Kabbalah arisen more than two centuries before, particularly in the light of the secrets contained in the Sefer ha-Zohar. While humbly collecting and anthologizing earlier traditions, they wish to become main guides for the community – ‘mystical-behavioral handbooks’ that might drive the congregation to a liturgical experience charged with powerful attainments. In fact, these writings are interesting for us precisely because they are typical and emblematic much more than original and creative, and may be in fact taken as representative of a major cultural configuration. Their analysis might allow to detect and highlight some long-term or recurrent structures characterizing Jewish culture in general, and kabbalistic culture in particular.19 18 19

For a reasoned discussion on this point, see below, Final Remarks. This does not mean to deny, or to ignore, the evidences of variants and shifts within this broader setting, either on the diachronic level or on the synchronic level, often due to the existence of intra- and inter-cultural dynamics in the diasporic Jewish world.

Introduction

9

The following investigations shall deal only marginally with the theosophical contents and the metaphysical issues of the kabbalistic thought – in the wake of a turn that in recent years has partially interested the Jewish studies too.20 We shall approach the textual sources from a semiotic (or ethno-semiotic) stance mainly, examining the postures assumed by Jewish intellectuals as social interpreters and actors. In this perspective, the semiotic enterprise of the kabbalists shall appear as an integral part of Jewish life since the Middle Ages, namely a social activity able to manage and negotiate meaning, and to carry meaning in action. And also much of their speculative or mythical discourses shall be traced back to the process of re-signification, reorganization and revitalization of common practice. At this joint, as is evident, semiotics of culture might profitably collaborate with anthropological and sociological studies (e.g. sociology of knowledge and studies on memory). 20

See below, chap. 4, notes 4ff.

Chapter 1

The Disclosure of Sense and Order

Rhetoric and Hermeneutic Modes of Kabbalistic Semiotics

Kabbalistic works appear as machines for the production of sense within the Jewish tradition. Yet, it is not easy to shed light on their devices and goals. This is also due to the peculiarity of the kabbalistic discourse, which rarely presents its own assumptions and objectives in the form of self-conscious ideological manifestos.1 Rather, it operates upon its own semiosphere from within – as is characteristic of traditionalistic cultures. A primary feature of the kabbalistic sources is indeed their exegetical nature, typical of Jewish traditional writing in general. A good deal of these sources belong to the literary genre of the “commentary” (perush), in many other cases the interpretive approach to former linguistic codes is an implicit but prominent trait. On the one hand, kabbalistic authors certainly build a sort of ‘meta-texts’, whose secondary language re-describes the primary systems of signification found in the Jewish culture (biblical and rabbinic), giving a new interpretation and a new shape to canonical textual codes and sacralized behavioral modes. On the other hand, their literary production can hardly be seen as constituting a distinct ‘meta-language’, since it is immersed in the Jewish flux of tradition, and does not bring about a systematic theoretical review of the previous lore. The activity of ­re-signification is strong and well recognizable, however subtle, elusive, complicated and sometimes intentionally concealed.2 In this first chapter, I intend to explore some discursive and hermeneutic strategies in the textual sources here at stake (the specific contents of the texts 1 One of the main difficulties (but also motivations) for the semiotics of culture is that its objects usually are not self-conscious, and even tend to hide or mask the processes of their production of sense – so that there arises the need of a painstaking structural analysis and reconstruction of their complex mechanisms. 2 It is important to underline that the kabbalistic discussions analyzed below, also when it will not be explicitly stated, are an integral part of an exegetical effort, namely ingredients of a running commentary on the Jewish liturgical life – and should be therefore considered as strictly interlinked with both the hermeneutic attitudes and the practical concerns of their authors, by no means as the outcome of a pure speculative meditation. The interweaving of thought/imagination, exegetical/cultic discourse, and ritual action, is a basic characteristic of the kabbalists’ semiotics, and – as we shall see – a crucial motif of their own reflection.

© Maurizio Mottolese, 2022 | DOI:10.1163/9789004499003_003

The Disclosure of Sense and Order

11

shall occupy only a secondary role). Both the surface rhetoric of the kabbalistic writing and the underlying structures of thought, seem to show that the ­re-signifying posture – seeking for sense – coincides here with a rearranging posture – seeking for order. As to the first dimension, we shall see that a fundamental purpose of our kabbalistic meta-texts is a new ‘organization of knowledge’, which would gather, uphold and restage the traditional materials, in particular employing a portion of that same lore (the most authoritative kabbalistic legacy found in the Zohar) to illuminate the secret patterns and the inner meanings of the canonic ritual language. 1

Rhetorical Patterns. The Quest for an Organization of Knowledge

In order to introduce the documents under examination, it is worth briefly recalling their historical-cultural background. Towards the end of the 14th century, the situation of the Jews in Spain rapidly deteriorated (a most shocking event was the massacre of 1391). Before and especially after the Expulsion of 1492, thousands of Jews left the Iberian Peninsula in multiple directions. Among them, there were sages and intellectuals, many of whom were renowned kabbalists, who brought with themselves large libraries – and of course, oral traditions – containing the rich Sephardi mystical lore (indeed, during the 14th-15th centuries, the theosophical-theurgical Kabbalah that had flourished in the 13th century, had already gained quite a large diffusion especially in some Spanish areas, starting to move from esoteric circles of initiated to the general public and beginning to inform the mainstream halakhic and ethical elaboration3). Their dramatic wandering generated a rapid transition and circulation of materials, and had a gradual but major impact on the plural Jewries of the Mediterranean basin. Migrating to North Africa, Italy, or the Ottoman Empire, and sometimes moving from one place to another, those individuals contributed to fertilizing (and unifying) the intellectual centers of the Jewish culture, becoming successful masters of many followers, divulging and sometimes printing the texts of the kabbalistic manuscript tradition, and creating the conditions for the rise 3 See Scholem, Kabbalah, 66–67; idem, “The Kabbalah in Spain in the Age of the Expulsion”, Tarbiz 24 (1955): 167–206 (Hebrew); Moshe Idel, “Spanish Kabbalah after the Expulsion”, in Moreshet Sepharad – The Sephardi Legacy, ed. H. Beinart (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1997), vol. 2, 166–178; Yoel Marciano, “The Status and Dissemination of the Kabbalah in Jewish Society of the Iberian Peninsula in the Late Middle Ages”, Sefunot 26 (2019): 137–173 (Hebrew); Boaz Huss, The Zohar: Reception and Impact (Oxford – Portland: The Littman Library, 2016), chap. 3. For further observations on this historical-cultural setting, see below, chap. 4.

12

Chapter 1

of consolidated communities inspired by that wisdom.4 Among these sages, it is worth mentioning Abraham Sabba, Abraham Adrutiel, Yosef Alashqar, Yehudah Hallewah, Shimon ibn Lavi (migrated to North Africa); Yiṣḥaq Mar Ḥayyim, Yosef ibn Shraga, Yehudah Ḥayyat (arrived in Italy); Meir ibn Gabbay, Dawid ibn Zimra (wandering to Eastern regions). The spread of the Kabbalah in new areas was a momentous passage in the history of Judaism, as it produced significant cultural changes and innovative syntheses.5 The Sephardi kabbalists often began to compose commentaries whose main purpose was to preserve the former legacy, saving it from the tragic vicissitudes of the Iberian Jewry, and to divulge its bulk of knowledge among the congregations found in the places of immigration, usually considered by the refugees to be uneducated or misguided. In the course of this essay, we shall especially refer to two major examples, the kabbalistic commentaries on prayerbook written by Meir ibn Gabbay (Tolaʿat Yaʿaqov, Turkey, beginning of the 16th century)6 and Moshe Elbaz (Hekhal ha-qodesh, Morocco, last quarter of the 16th century).7 It is worthwhile to dwell first of all on the rhetoric surface of their discourse, observing how the authors perceive and present themselves, and offering a sample of their own language. 4 Idel has spoken about different “trajectories” of the Spanish exiled (one of them towards European and Byzantine areas, another one directed to North Africa and Palestine), which gave birth to different variants of the kabbalistic lore also due to intercultural interactions: see his “R. Yehudah Hallewah and his Book Ṣafenat Paʿaneaḥ”, Shalem 4 (1984): 119–148 (Hebrew); “On Mobility, Individuals and Groups: Prolegomena for a Sociological Approach to Sixteenth-Century Kabbalah”, Kabbalah 3 (1998): 145–173. 5 For an overview, see Lawrence Fine, “Dimensions of Kabbalah from the Spanish Expulsion to the Dawn of Hasidism”, in The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. VII, eds. J. Karp – A. Sutcliffe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 437–474 (with the pertinent bibliography), and the studies quoted below. 6 Composed in 1507, Tolaʿat Yaʿaqov (“Thou Worm Jacob”) was published for the first time in Constantinople (1560); I shall mainly quote from this edition, here referred as TY. With regard to the prominent figure of Ibn Gabbay, born in Spain around 1480, see Roland Goetschel, Meir ibn Gabbay. Le discours de la Kabbale espagnole (Leuven: Peeters 1981) (for a brief presentation of TY, see ibid., 36–37) and the preface of Elliott K. Ginsburg to Sod ha-Shabbat (The Mystery of the Sabbath) (Albany NY: State University of New York Press, 1989), translation and edition of the portion of TY devoted to the Sabbath rituals. 7 Started in 1575 and completed in 1599, Hekhal ha-qodesh (“The Palace of the Holy”) was published in Amsterdam (1653). I shall quote from the recent edition, Jerusalem 2005, here referred as HQ. There are no extensive investigations on this author, native of South Morocco (see below, n. 17). For a short portrait, see the entry by Moshe Hallamish, “Elbaz, Moses ben Maimon”, in Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World, 2010. For some important information on sources and features of his work, see also Moshe Hallamish, Studies in Kabbalah and Prayer (Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University, 2002) (Hebrew), 360–363. A French translation of the beginning of HQ is found in Haim Zafrani, Kabbale, vie mystique et magie (Paris: Editions Maisonneuve et Larose, 1986), 249–264. (Regrettably, only after finishing the present study, I learned about a large article by D. Manor on Elbaz’s kabbalistic exegesis).

The Disclosure of Sense and Order

13

1.1 Collecting and Rearranging Stances in Two 16th-Century Kabbalistic Commentaries The two writings were composed in very distant geographical areas (having their authors taken different paths of migration) and in quite different times (respectively at the beginning and toward the end of the 16th century – a span of time marked by many profound transformations in the history and culture of the Jewish people). Nevertheless, the similarities between them are c­ ertainly more striking than the differences. First of all, akin are the formal framework and the table of contents. After a general introduction, which clarifies the major principles in thought and interpretation, the first part of the works consists in a running commentary on the daily liturgical office, from morning to night; the second part deals instead with the secrets concerning the Sabbath liturgical service and, finally, the festive rituals (only in Ibn Gabbay’s commentary, a last section is devoted to the rationales of the blessings recited at some particular moments: meal, circumcision, wedding, etc.). Also analogous are the motivations and intentions of the authors, as they are expressed in the early pages. In his introduction to Tolaʿat Yaʿaqov, extremely important from many viewpoints, Meir ibn Gabbay declares that his book deals with “the issues of prayers, their sublime secrets and their very powerful effects”.8 More precisely, it intends to explain “the issues of prayers in general, together with the precepts that are required in the time of prayer, such as ṣiṣit, tefillin, birkat kohanim, lulav, and similar things”.9 Ibn Gabbay sets out the reasons that have led him to the determination to write such a book. First, as is taught by rabbinic sages, if the people of Israel pray without authentic knowledge and correct intention, their requests are not granted by God.10 The “supernal wisdom” flows exclusively from the kabbalistic tradition – mainly orally, from teacher to student – and cannot be gained with an autonomous “rational meditation”.11 Yet, in the actual situation, the kabbalistic secrets are to be found scattered in fragmented written sources hardly available to everyone. Hence, the author has taken charge of gathering, reordering and clarifying the hidden interpretations of the prayer service, by passing “from one book

8 9 10 11

TY, f. 3d. Ibid., f. 5a. Ibid., ff. 3a, 3d. We shall return on the issue of intention and concentration (kawwanah) in chap. 4. Ibid., ff. 3a-3d. This is one of the critical remarks against the philosophical approach of The Guide of the Perplexed. The controversy on Maimonides and the rationalistic current inspired by him, appears here (after more than two centuries) still living, strong and charged with harsh overtones: see below, n. 20; chap. 2, around n. 181.

14

Chapter 1

or scroll to another”, as a modest “copyist” (“I am nothing but a copyist!”).12 In particular, he shall draw on the wisdom found in the Zohar, which “discloses the secrets of the Torah” in a unique way – although not all the “gems” of that concealed sacred tradition will be revealed, but only a small portion of it.13 Moshe Elbaz’s preface to Hekhal ha-qodesh is rather different, but it contains similar rhetorical formulations, which hint at an akin historical-cultural framework and an analogous self-perception of the author within it. The author claims to be a “young poor ordinary man” that has “seen the duty of man to know the secret of the intention of the prayers (sod ha-kawwanat ha-­tefillot)”.14 Thus, having also grasped the tremendous responsibility of that duty, he has gathered the strength to compose this holy book that goes through the path of the King, explaining the secrets of the prayers, and also the secret of the precepts that are implied by prayers, such as ṣiṣit, tefillin, shofar, the secret of Pesach and of the other festivals, and sukkah and lulav, […], and I have composed this book in order to reveal a little part of what is concealed of the intentions of the prayers.15 The same excerpt clarifies both the major source (“I have based [my text] on the holy famous book Sefer ha-Zohar”) and the essential reason of his writing, nothing but an attempt to assemble materials from that source and relate them “on a new page” (“I am nothing but a copyist!”).16 The point is that in the Zohar the issues are dispersed […] here and there […]. And this is a cause of the decrease of knowledge that concerns the intention of the prayers.17 12 13

14 15 16 17

Ibid., f. 4d. With regard to the “mosaic feature of his writing” and the vast spectrum of his sources, see Jonathan Garb, Manifestations of Power in Jewish Mysticism: From Rabbinic Literature to Safedian Kabbalah (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2004) (Hebrew), 233. Ibid., f. 4c-d. In the epilogue, Ibn Gabbay claims that all the right words contained in his book are closer to the Zohar, and presents himself as a young (26-years-old), limited and inexpert student trying to address a profound wisdom who, what is more, has been compelled to write in a difficult and stressful situation: see ibid., f. 47c-d. HQ, 60. Ibid., 61. Ibid. Ibid., 62. This decline of the secret tradition is said to have become even more effective and dangerous in the last period, because of the dramatic vicissitudes involving the author himself and his Moroccan community. Elbaz concludes his introduction with an unusual autobiographical account, which depicts in detail the context of epidemics, economic troubles, persecutions and migrations that affected the Jewish community of Taroudant (Sous Valley, south eastern Morocco) during those years. On this vivid account,

The Disclosure of Sense and Order

15

Although several of the formulations mentioned above had to be fixed rhetorical tropes featuring that literary tradition, this does not exclude that they were also genuine expressions of the feeling and intentionality of the authors.18 Distant as they were in space and time, Ibn Gabbay and Elbaz were faithful exponents of the Sephardi Kabbalah, in particular of the Castilian creative thought that imbued the Zoharic texts in the second half of the 13th century.19 They perceived themselves as heirs of a true secret lore, and considered their work as an anthological compilation and a (partial) disclosure of that tradition. Their mission was all the more necessary in a historical context characterized by a serious “decrease of knowledge”, partly because of the loss of the oral transmission about kabbalistic secrets, and partly because of the confuse situation of the written sources containing them. What they sincerely offered was not an original or novel interpretation, but a reorganization of a previous body of textual materials and a clear faithful transmission of an earlier knowledge. Such self-awareness and posture appear at the same time humble and heroic (an ambivalence typical of many other kabbalistic authors): they present their own literary activity as that of “copyists”, who seek merely to select and rearrange an authoritative, ancient and perfect wisdom; on the other hand, they claim that their compilatory work is of paramount importance, being able to awaken the people of Israel and to restate their full active role in history and reality. One may point out other similarities between our authors. For instance, just like most Castilian Kabbalah, they share an attitude towards philosophy that tends to minimize the latter’s role – although Ibn Gabbay, as already seen, takes an explicit strong position against it, while Elbaz rather ignores its speculative and hermeneutic stances.20 Beyond some superficial divergences, their interpretations and the related theosophical contents are quite close, being in both cases largely derived from the Zoharic literature. The point that I wish to

18 19 20

of great relevance also from a ­historical viewpoint, see Yehoshua Frenkel, “Jewish Sources for the History of Morocco”, in Medieval and Modern Perspectives on Muslim-Jewish Relations, ed. R.L. Nettler (­London – New York: Routledge, 1995), 59–71. As has emerged, they are woven with references to subjective experiences that are rather rare in kabbalistic literature – usually very reticent as concerns historical events, personal conditions, or existential aspects. With regard to the origin, nature, status and role of the Sefer ha-Zohar (“The Book of Splendor”), see below. Despite the fact we have evidence of his acquaintance with Yiṣḥaq Arama’s work: see HQ, 91. It must be recalled that the pre-Expulsion Spanish Kabbalah is mainly non-philosophical and often anti-philosophical (as in the case of Shem Tov ibn Shem Tov, who is in fact quoted in TY, f. 3c) – in contrast to the kabbalistic current developed for instance in Renaissance Italy. On this issue, see Moshe Idel, “Particularism and Universalism in Kabbalah, 1480–1650”, in Essential Papers on Jewish Culture in Renaissance and Baroque Italy, ed. D.B. Ruderman (New York – London: New York University Press, 1992), 324–344.

16

Chapter 1

emphasize here, however, concerns the rhetoric of their works, which – as we have started to see – gravitates around a fundamental task of collecting and rearranging. As compilers devoted to an utterly conservative and formative activity, they both aimed at explaining the traditional prayer service by means of a systematization of earlier exegeses. Elbaz’s crucial statement is that he found that the most important matters – the Zoharic discussions on the cultic issues – were “not ordered (ʾeynam mesuddarim)”, “fragmented in many different parts, one here and the other there”, so that my part in this duty was to arrange (lesadder) them in a good and beautiful order (seder ṭov we-yafeh), according to the order (seder) of the prayers for the year.21 Such subjective aspiration responded to an objective need for order, for a new accessible organization of knowledge – as is well illustrated by a “parable”. It speaks of a guy who, in front of “a heap of precious stones mixing different kinds”, strove to separate the crystal stones, “gathered (liqeṭ) them and ordered (sidder) them and made with them a necklace”. His merit consisted not in a creation to be rewarded, but in the very effort to identify the most precious pearls and to place them in a new, beautiful and useful arrangement. The same kind of work, Elbaz comments modestly, is what he did: I collected (ḥibarti) all the secrets of the prayers that were already explained (hayu kevar meforashim) in the Sefer ha-Zohar and I arranged them (we-siddarti ʾotam) in this book.22

21

22

HQ, 61. It has been noted that, in a few points, the order of prayer commented by Elbaz diverges from the one used in his sources, because of the reference to ritual customs developed in Safed, like liturgies for the Sabbath eve or for the night of Shavuot (see ­Hallamish, “Elbaz, Moses ben Maimon”). In spite of the assimilation of these cultic innovations arriving from Eretz Yisrael, his book bears no trace of a reception of the theosophical doctrines developed in the Safedian centre (the Lurianic notes found in the edited book were added by Aharon Siboni some decades later). This is not surprising, given the fact that “the practices of the Ari became known in widespread Jewish communities, long before the teachings of the Ari reached there”: Mordechai Pachter, “Kabbalistic Ethical Literature in Sixteenth-Century Safed”, in Binah. Studies in Jewish History, Thought, and Culture, ed. J. Dan (Westport: Praeger, 1994), vol. 3, 163. HQ, 62.

The Disclosure of Sense and Order

17

Neither the metaphors of ‘collecting’, nor the linguistic usages of verbal forms such as lelaqeṭ, leḥaber, or lesadder, were new.23 They had been long diffused in the kabbalistic literature, especially in the writings on liturgy and cult.24 Thus, Dawid ben Yehudah he-Ḥasid, a Castilian kabbalist probably belonging to the Zoharic circle, wrote at the beginning of his broader commentary on prayer (ʾOr zaruʿa, ca. 1300) that he had decided to compose this work after having seen that numerous mistaken procedures were executed in liturgy, that there was no application of the secrets of prayer handed down orally through the generations, and that many people were uncertain about them.25 We therefore learn that, already during the creative age of Kabbalah, a main impulse in writing was the need to establish a collection and arrangement of the esoteric readings on ritual life: For this reason I came to order to you the secrets of prayer (lesadder lekha sodot ha-tefillah) just as they have been ordered by the men of the Great Assembly, and with respect to them there is no need of augmenting or diminishing […], and I just came to collect (lelaqeṭ) their holy words […], and I came to render more efficacious the actions of my friends that have implored and compelled myself to enter [into this holy field]…26 Already at this earlier stage, the kabbalistic discourse points to different types and levels of order. The ancient sources of the rabbinic religion (i.e., the oral Torah elaborated by the Great Assembly) had established the post-temple 23

24

25 26

In “The Art of Memory: Constructions of Memory and Patterns of Text in Rabbinic Literature”, Meḥqere Talmud III, eds. Y. Sussman – D. Rosenthal (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2005) (Hebrew), 543–589, Shlomo Naeh has examined metaphors, and spatial structures, that illustrate the reflection on memory in classical rabbinic traditions – among which the metaphor of “collecting coins” (see ibid., n. 24). On the primary role of prayer in the kabbalistic lore, since its very inception, see Moshe Idel, “The Liturgical Turn: from Sephardic Kabbalah to Safedian Kabbalah, until the Beginnings of Ḥasidism”, in Jewish Prayer. New Perspectives, ed. U. Ehrlich (Beer Sheva: University Ben Gurion, 2016), 9–50 (Hebrew). On the importance of liturgies and precepts in the kabbalistic corpus here at stake, see below. See Dawid ben Yehudah he-Ḥasid, ʾOr zaruʿa, ed. B.B. Levi Ha-Cohen (Jerusalem – New York: Urim Publications, 2009), f. 8a. Ibid., f. 8b. In several occurrences, in this and in other works, Dawid ben Yehudah he-Ḥasid explains that he has been led to write down the secrets by the requests of friends and followers – a clue that indeed “he was at the centre of a kabbalistic circle”: Moshe Idel, “Kabbalistic Material from the School of R. Dawid ben Yehudah he-Ḥasid”, Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 2 (1983) (Hebrew), 169.

18

Chapter 1

liturgical system on the basis of a supernal wisdom,27 and in accordance with the temple sacrificial system exposed by the Bible (the written Torah).28 These ritual patterns regarded, on the one hand, the procedural aspects of the “prayer order” (called siddur or seder),29 on the other, the inner rationales of the cultic deeds and of their sequences.30 Unfortunately, the pristine knowledge about those primary systems of ritual practices, with their ordered dimensions, had undergone dispersion, fragmentation and loss over the course of generations. Hence, a further but necessary activity had become urgent, an activity able to contrast that decline in memory and knowledge. Such activity was now incumbent on the actual kabbalists, who had to submit the ancient divine-halakhic constructs to their reorganizing and remolding effort. Although this ordering activity might appear to be mainly focused on the hidden layers of sense, it could not but involve the literal-formal facets too. Two centuries later, the most famous work of Meir ibn Gabbay (ʿAvodat ha-qodesh, written between 1523–1531), reproduces the same articulated rhetorical scheme in an important section on prayer that opens with the following words: one should know the content and the correct order of prayer, and the will lying behind that order (siddur). Since it is without doubt that the order in (the prayer’s) inner content (ha-siddur be-ʿinyanah) was (made) through marvelous wisdom and providence, for the ones who arranged 27 28

29

30

As we shall see below, the kabbalists insist repeatedly on the celestial origin of the prayer service, mediated by a divine entity or by prophetic intercessors, as well as on the necessity of a verbatim accuracy in its transmission and recitation. The kabbalists unceasingly retrieve the famous Talmudic formula, according to which the sages fixed “the prayers in correspondence to the offerings” (tefillot ke-neged temidin): Talmud Bavli (later abbreviated as TB), Berakhot 26b. In other words, the sophisticated cultic order of ancient Israel, codified in the Bible, has been replicated and replaced by the rabbinic cultic order – somehow corresponding to the former both in ritual syntax and in meaning. Thus, Meir ibn Gabbay argues that “the prayer order is like the order of the sacrifice” (seder ha-tefillah ke-seder ha-qorban) (TY, f. 21a; see also ibid., f. 19b), and that the sages arranged the liturgies as in “the secret of the sacrifices” (sod ha-qorbanot), collocating them in a circumscribed space and in a special time (see ibid., f. 4a). The kabbalistic mythical account assumes that the formal structure of Jewish liturgy was already completed by the ancient rabbinic heroes, the men of the Great Assembly. Needless to say, modern scholarship has demonstrated that the formation of the rabbinic prayerbook was a much longer, stratified and complicated historical-cultural process. As we shall see below, the semantics disclosed by the kabbalistic exegesis developed to a large extent during the Middle Ages, whereas for the kabbalists themselves those inner meanings were no less ancient than the formal procedures. Indeed, a common kabbalistic notion is that the early sages were already cognizant of the concealed contents, i.e. the very kabbalistic “secrets” (see e.g. HQ, 145).

The Disclosure of Sense and Order

19

it (ha-mesadderim) were the men of the Great Assembly […]. And this holy Assembly established the prayers and blessings by means of the holy spirit (be-ruaḥ ha-qodesh) in a really marvelous order (be-seder niflaʾ meʾod).31 Ibn Gabbay elaborates on the earlier kabbalistic repertoire, especially from Castile, including the voluminous books by Dawid ben Yehudah.32 He too refers to a mythical origin of the ritual order: it had supposedly been instituted at the very foundation of the rabbinic world, by the divine spirit inspiring the human heroes, the men of the Great Assembly.33 A heavenly wisdom hence governs Jewish worship, both in its outer units and architectures and in its inner aspects (for the semantic content is inextricably bound to the formal and sequential structure). In this same section, which underlines the relevance of such arrangements in liturgy (especially as regards the Eighteen Benedictions), Ibn Gabbay refers to his former writing, Tolaʿat Yaʿaqov. Here, indeed, he developed the following discursive pattern: if the ancient sages established halakhic and liturgical life on the basis of divine inspiration, the contemporary students must retrace the “intentionality” (kawwanah) of “the one who arranged the prayer order” (mesadder seder).34 This is the reason why “study” (talmud) should always precede and accompany “action” (maʿaseh).35 The actual capacity to salvage 31

32

33

34 35

ʿAvodat ha-qodesh, Jerusalem 2004, II, § 9, 103. In a later passage, the supernatural source of the rabbinic ritual system is emphasized again: “being the order of prayers (seder ha-tefillot) (made) through the holy spirit, and its inner content established through a supernal wisdom” (ibid., 105). On the vast influence exerted by Dawid ben Yehudah on later Kabbalah, see Idel, “Kabbalistic Material”, 170–173; idem, “Visualization of Colors, II: Implications of David ben Yehudah he-Hasid’s Diagram for the History of Kabbalah”, Ars Judaica 12 (2016): 39–51. According to this scholar, ʾOr zaruʿa was likely the most influential kabbalistic commentary on liturgy until the flourishing of the Safedian Kabbalah: “The Liturgical Turn”, 20, n. 26. Another interesting mythical foundation of ritual orders is contained in the passage, based on Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer, according to which “God dressed like a precentor (sheliaḥ ṣibbur) and revealed to Moses the order of the penitential prayer (seder ha-seliḥah)”: TY, f. 20b. See e.g. TY, ff. 20a, 21a. See also ibid., f. 13c. Interestingly, in TY, f. 11d, Ibn Gabbay argues that that order is perfect and unquestionable, even when the reader might expect a different, and apparently more logical, syntax. Ibid., f. 21c. On the ancient co-presence (and competition) of learning (Torah) and acting (righteous works), see e.g. Ephraim Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1979), 608ff. The kabbalists repeatedly return to the dialectic relationship between study and praxis. See e.g. Eliyah De Vidas, Reshit ḥokhmah, Jerusalem 2005, 3, 15.

20

Chapter 1

the pristine orders have formidable effects: it would allow the worshippers the same mystical achievements gained by the ancient Israelites through their cultic system. Thus, in the comment on the morning service, one reads that [by knowing the divine names and fulfilling the divine precepts] the ancient Israelite sages were able to elevate themselves to the supernal Chariot (merkavah) and to see the King […]. And if because of our sins we have lost these means, nonetheless a tradition about these things has however remained in our hands, and it is incumbent upon us to do what is in our hands, that is to order the things in our prayers (lesadder ha-devarim be-tefillotenu) and to direct our intention upon them (we-lekawwin bahem).36 In line with all the kabbalists of the Sephardi diaspora, our authors maintained that the body of written materials constituting the Zohar represented the major authoritative source to be consulted – also in the effort to disclose the secret layers of the halakhic life. They regarded the Sefer ha-Zohar (usually called the “Midrash of Rabbi Shimon”) as a “sacred book” of divine origin, and labeled Shimon bar Yoḥai, the ancient rabbi considered its author, the “holy lamp” (meʾor ha-qadosh). Indeed, as has been shown in detail by B. Huss, the ascension of the Zohar as a supreme normative and formative text, was a gradual and progressive phenomenon, which spread “amongst elite ­Sephardi circles, prior to, and especially after, the expulsion from Spain”.37 It then characterized the communities led by the Iberian Jewish refugees during the 16th

36

37

Ibid., f. 13a. This crucial notion – that pious Jews still have the faculty “to order the things” in prayer, directing their focused concentration upon them, and thus obtaining tremendous goals – is declined in various occurrences and in various manners along TY. See below, chap. 2, around notes 186ff. See Boaz Huss, “Sefer ha-Zohar as a Canonical, Sacred, Holy Text: Changing Perspectives of the Book of Splendor between the Thirteenth and Eighteenth Centuries”, The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 7 (1998): 274ff. This study has highlighted the “process of canonization” of the Zohar (made “authoritative” in both religious doctrine and practice), and its final “transformation” into a “sacred” and “holy” book: at last, “the knowledge, study, and interpretation of the Zohar as a sacred text were perceived as a central religious duty, carrying messianic, theurgic and mystical import” (ibid., 290). On the reception and impact of Zoharic literature, see the later extensive inquiry by Huss, The Zohar. Compare also the synthetic overview by Fine, “Dimensions of Kabbalah”, 441–444. It is no coincidence that, since the 16th century, an entire literary genre started to be devoted to the commentary on the Zohar, and that at that same time the process of gradual intermingling of the Zoharic Kabbalah with the Halakhah reached an apex (see below).

The Disclosure of Sense and Order

21

century.38 In almost all pages of their commentaries, Meir ibn Gabbay and Moshe Elbaz rely heavily on Zoharic interpretations, practically discussing any point of the Jewish liturgy in the light of one or more quotes from the Castilian masterpiece, or from writings deeply influenced by it (in particular, Dawid ben Yehudah’s and Menaḥem Recanati’s commentaries functioned as main mediation channels).39 It is well known that, at least until the printing of the Zohar in Italy in the mid-16th century, the Zoharic materials were extremely fragmented and diverse.40 They were far from being a single unified book – constituting rather a magmatic mass of manuscript materials, made of various strata and often containing diverging versions or variants.41 Those texts were composed in an enthusiastic style, included creative and often conflicting interpretations as much as wild narrative digressions, and were assembled in a cumulative and (at least apparently) disorganized way. Processes of formation and circulation of Zoharic collections took place in Spain starting in the first half of the 14th-century and intensified during the 15th century, until the practice of gathering, copying and quoting scattered Zoharic texts became one of the “principal kabbalistic activities after the expulsion from Spain, when kabbalah started to play a more important role in Jewish culture”.42 The kabbalists also 38

See Moshe Hallamish, The Kabbalah in North Africa (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2001) (Hebrew), 97–123; about the commentaries on the Zohar, see ibid., 134–135. In North Africa, the Zohar was largely perceived as a “holy” book, whose non-semantic aspects had healing powers or eschatological goals (the study and recitation of it could “hasten the redemption”). The reading of the Zohar as a ritualistic activity was spread among popular segments of North-African Jewries until recent times: see Abraham Stahl, “Ritual Reading of the Zohar”, Peʿamim 5 (1980): 77–86 (Hebrew); Harvey E. Goldberg, “The Zohar in Southern Morocco: A Study in the Ethnography of Texts”, History of Religions 29 (1990): 233–258. On Jewish mystics in Islamic Maghreb, see the works by H. Zafrani. On “Zoharic communities” in Palestine, see below, chap. 4. 39 Thus, in TY one finds numerous references to ʾOr zaruʿa, and some quotations from Recanati’s books, from Livnat ha-sappir by Yosef Angelet, from Sefer ha-qanah – all works strictly tied to the Zoharic corpus –, although, as said, the principal source is by far Zoharic literature itself, in most of its various layers. Needless to say, there is reference also to other sources and traditions (see e.g. below, chap. 3, n. 57), but to a much lesser extent. 40 On the “invention of the Zohar as a book”, see Daniel Abrams, Kabbalistic Manuscripts and Textual Theory: Methodologies of Textual Scholarship and Editorial Practice in the Study of Jewish Mysticism (Jerusalem – Los Angeles: Magnes, Cherub Press, 2010), chap. 4. On “the Zohar as an imagined book”, see Huss, The Zohar, chap. 2. 41 See e.g. Ronit Meroz, “Zoharic Narratives and Their Adaptations”, Hispania Judaica Bulletin 3 (2000): 3–63. 42 Huss, The Zohar, 83–84.

22

Chapter 1

felt the urgency to make order in that sacred yet huge and confused manuscript lore, and to finally extract a sort of cogent manual for their communities, especially as concerns the practical realm. This selective and organizative disposition appears as a main feature of works such as those by Ibn Gabbay and Elbaz – which present themselves as compact ‘anthologies’ of the vast Zoharic corpus.43 They, indeed, tend to limit the theosophical or theological digressions, and operate a sharper selection of the interpretations and traditions found in that corpus. A last important aspect emerges from the very rhetoric of our commentaries: they have an explicit and marked social-pragmatic function. They intend to be either ‘enlightening compilations’, offering a clear synthesis of a broader tradition, or ‘behavioral handbooks’, namely texts that support ritual observance. Written in a rather perspicuous language and in a rather condensed form, they contributed to the increase in the propagation of the Kabbalah that occurred between the 15th and the 17th centuries.44 They also offered themselves as guides for the congregational service, especially apt for the leaders of the community.45 With those manuals at hand, the Jewish people would therefore have the faculty to re-appreciate the prayer order and its hidden palimpsest, made available in a concise and quite organic manner. Illuminated 43

44

45

According to another classical simile – employed also by Ibn Gabbay (TY, f. 4c) – the later commentators follow the “reapers” in the “field of apples” (the companions of the Zohar) in order to glean the fruits of their work. See Abraham Gross, Iberian Jewry from Twilight to Dawn: the World of Rabbi Abraham Saba (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 88. The latter inquiry is devoted to another Sephardi sage wandering in Arab lands, whose works gather midrashic interpretations and allusions at kabbalistic secrets (mainly from the Zohar). In effect, both of them were vastly successful. To appreciate the historical importance of TY, it shall be enough to mention De Vidas’ introductory words to his capital kabbalistic ethical work, where he claims that he has not devoted a specific chapter to prayer because of the existence of TY (Reshit ḥokhmah, 19). The publication of TY in Constantinople in 1560 precedes the major impact of the Kabbalah in Byzantium, starting with the last quarter of the 16th century: see Joseph Hacker, “The Intellectual Activity of the Jews of the Ottoman Empire during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries”, in Jewish Thought in the Seventeenth Century, eds. I. Twersky – B. Septimus (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), 120–121. However, TY spread also beyond the Ottoman Empire (see below, n. 56). Composed by Elbaz in Southern Morocco for his specific community, HQ did not only constitute one of the most influential commentaries on liturgy in Maghreb, but “was widely disseminated and could be found in numerous communities outside North Africa – even in Yemen” (Hallamish, “Elbaz, Moses ben Maimon”). As we shall see better in chap. 4, they strictly link the figure of the kabbalist to that of the service leader (sheliaḥ ṣibbur): the former is deemed to be responsible for transmitting the secrets of the liturgy to the latter, who can then acquire the capacity of “arranging the prayer” (mesadder ha-tefillah).

The Disclosure of Sense and Order

23

practitioners could thus reach a more aware, organized, refined and powerful performance of the traditional cult. 1.2 A Kabbalistic Cultural Subset and Its Strategies for Cultural Memory Many of the aforementioned features – the recollecting and rearranging posture, the conservative and divulging style, the urgency to retrieve structure and sense of the canonic tradition by assembling, commenting and linking together its major codes, the anthologization of Zoharic passages, the social-practical orientation – seem to characterize the discourse of numerous kabbalistic writings of the time. In fact, they might be seen as typifying a major portion of the kabbalistic culture in general, the theosophical-theurgical stream, since earlier times.46 They appear however more acutely in some phases, and can be found especially in the cultural subset of 16th-century Kabbalah (needless to say, its vast textual corpus – originating in very distant places – is not at all a uniform whole, as it includes distinct currents, specific styles of writing, diverging ways of thought and conduct). Let me offer a rough description of the main literary bodies cultivated in that period, pointing to some general common traits – before considering them from the viewpoint of cultural semiotics, which focuses on basic structural lines and long-term shifts. I refer first of all to the kabbalistic literature produced by the so-called “generation of the Expulsion” (to be sure, more than one generation is ­usually included 46

Let me recall that encyclopedic or anthological styles of writing characterize kabbalistic texts by the end of the 13th century. I refer to authors such as Yiṣḥaq of Akko or Menaḥem Recanati: on the latter’s “mosaic writing”, and his usual resort to the Zohar as the supreme authoritative source, see M. Idel, R. Menaḥem Recanati, The Kabbalist, I (Jerusalem – Tel Aviv: Schocken, 1999) (Hebrew), 24ff. The few extant kabbalistic works from the 14th-century Iberian Peninsula seem to share the tendency to assemble former texts, by collecting and compiling in particular kabbalistic sources that supposedly contain the highest knowledge, the inner truth of Judaism, and the secrets of Jewish life: see e.g. Sefer ha-ʾemunot by Shem Tov ibn Shem Tov, or the anonymous Sefer Poqeaḥ ʿiverim: on the latter work, see Boaz Huss, “Sefer Poqeaḥ ʿiverim. New Information about the History of Kabbalistic Literature”, Tarbiz 61 (1992) (Hebrew): 489–504. Let me also mention the broader collection named Menorat ha-maʾor, written in Spain at the end of the 14th century by Yisrael Al-Naqawa, which combines Halakhah, Aggadah and moral reflection with instances from the Zoharic Kabbalah: see Scholem, Kabbalah, 66; Joseph Dan, Hebrew Ethical and Homiletic Literature: the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period (Jerusalem: Keter, 1975) (Hebrew), 165. For an interesting reappraisal of “the special place of mosaic works and collectanea in kabbalistic literature”, which focuses on the writings of the 14th-century Ashkenazi kabbalist Menaḥem Tziyyoni, see Heidi Laura, “Collected Traditions and Scattered Secrets. Eclecticism and Esotericism in the Works of the 14th Century Ashkenazi Kabbalist Menahem Ziyyoni of Cologne”, Scandinavian Jewish Studies 20 (1999): 19–44.

24

Chapter 1

in this definition). Let us recall the works written in North Africa (Morocco and Algeria) by intellectuals inspired by Sephardi Kabbalah who immigrated here around 1492 – works such as ʾAvne zikkaron by Abraham Adrutiel, whose very title (“Milestones of Remembrance”) expresses the will to react to the decline of the memory characterizing those times, by providing a recollection of the theosophical doctrines “dispersed one here and one there”;47 Ṣafenat paʿaneaḥ by Yosef Alashqar, which rereads the “orders” of the Mishnah in the light of the Castilian Kabbalah;48 Ketem paz by Shimon ibn Lavi, a broader commentary on the Zohar (Bereshit), which often reports Zoharic passages conveyed in the Maghreb that had been not available to the Italian editors.49 Moshe Elbaz was apparently the master of a small kabbalistic circle in the Southern-Morocco city of Taroudant, about a century after the arrival of the “expelled” (megorashim) from Spain and Portugal. This school gave light to works such as ʿEṣ ha-ḥayyim by Yehudah ben Ḥunain, a commentary on the 613 precepts which selects interpretations “according to the literal sense” 47

48

49

See the introduction of the book, quoted and commented in Gershom Scholem, “On Sefer ʾAvne Zikkaron”, Qiryat Sefer 7 (1931) (Hebrew): 460. Here, Scholem underlines the goal of the author “to set up a collection” of all the kabbalistic materials that he considered important on a certain topic, his tendency “to copy verbatim” more or less extensive passages, and his habit “to quote the source with accuracy”; no really original intervention of the author could be found “except for the order of the extracts and their selection”; on the other hand, this vast anthology reported textual sources that had otherwise gone lost in the course of time: see ibid., Qiryat Sefer 6 (1930) (Hebrew): 260. See the facsimile edition, and the comprehensive introduction by M. Idel. The latter discusses a further important work emerging from the same circle: Sefer ha-musar by Yehudah (and Moshe) Kaletz (Constantinople, 1537), which integrated (at a later stage) Zoharic secrets within classical ethical-pragmatic discussions. On Abraham Sabba, another influential figure in this literary scene, see above, n. 43. See the monograph by Boaz Huss, Sockets of Fine Gold: The Kabbalah of R. Shimon ibn Lavi (Jerusalem: Magnes – Ben-Zvi Institute, 2000) (Hebrew). It is worth noting that, in that epoch, the “commentary to the Zohar” became one of the main genres of the kabbalistic literature. It was particularly cultivated by 16th-century Safedian kabbalists – Alqabetz, Luria, Cordovero and their disciples, which all composed more or less extensive running commentaries on the Zohar: see idem, “The Zoharic Communities of Safed”, in Shefa Tal: On Jewish Thought and Culture, eds. Z. Gries – H. Kreisel – B. Huss (Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University Press, 2004) (Hebrew), 149–169. Later on, “anthologies of Zoharic commentaries” began to be compiled, together with manuals, indexes, glossaries that could help readers in the understanding of that “canonic” work: see idem, “The Anthological Interpretation: The Emergence of Anthologies of Zohar Commentaries in the Seventeenth Century”, Prooftexts 19 (1999): 1–19; compare also below, n. 56. All these types of writing assumed that the Zohar, as a “sacred text”, included multilayered and multifarious meanings, and that – consequently – a re-ordering work by the interpreters was of primary importance. Here emerges a common trajectory in the semiotics of the Kabbalah, somehow alternating fluid cumulative discursivity and ordering instances – a theme that shall be addressed thoroughly below.

The Disclosure of Sense and Order

25

and “according to the way of truth” (especially drawing from the Castilian ­Kabbalah);50 or, Minḥah ḥadashah by Yaʿaqov Ifargan, a commentary on the Torah where the author presents himself as one who “copies” and “assembles” the hidden wisdom from a large amount of sources directly or indirectly received by him (in particular, through the quotes in ʾAvne zikkaron).51 In the same period of these developments in North Africa, textual bodies sharing similar traits flourished in the Ottoman Empire. Some of them, like Ibn Gabbay’s works, were redacted in Turkish cities. The most important ones – as is well known – were composed in the province of Palestine, and particularly in the Galilean city of Safed. Despite the presence of other cultural factors and original directions, one can see in this production a massive influence of the Sephardi kabbalistic culture (also directly imported by Spanish refugees such as Dawid ibn Zimra). I refer first of all to the so-called musar (ethical) literature of kabbalistic orientation, which started with writings such as Tomer Devorah by Moshe Cordovero and Reshit ḥokhmah by his pupil, Eliyah De Vidas.52 These pivotal works expressed (and directed) the partially novel ways of thought and 50 51

52

On this work, see Charles Mopsik, Les grands textes de la cabale. Les rites qui font Dieu (Paris: Verdier, 1993), 442–455. See the recent edition by Moshe Hallamish and his article “Yaʿaqov Ifargan and His Writings”, Peʿamim 43 (1990): 85–110 (Hebrew), in part. 88. Interestingly, Ifargan does not only widely refer to the work of his master Moshe Elbaz; he also quotes the writings of Meir ibn Gabbay, treating them with honour and respect (see ibid., 87) – a further confirmation of the ongoing interactions (and exchange of materials) that took place between the various centres of the Sephardi diaspora, even when extremely distant from each other. It must be noted that some of the Iberian émigrés wandered between different shores of the Mediterranean. Suffice it to mention Yehudah Ḥayyat and Yosef ibn Shraga, who finally settled in Italy and here composed mystical commentaries strongly oriented to ensuring the memory of the Castilian Kabbalah. In his introduction to Minḥat Yehudah, Yehudah Ḥayyat talked about the “revelation” of the Zohar “in the last generation” and his own strenuous effort, already in Spain, “to collect anything that could be found from that book […] some here and some there” (see ʿAmude ha-qabbalah II, Jerusalem 2001, Introduction). On the implications of these statements for a theory of the formation of the Zohar as a book, see Abrams, Kabbalistic Manuscripts, 256ff. Further on we shall return to these books, which reached enormous popularity and had a huge impact on the Jewish culture. Reshit ḥokhmah (Venice, 1579), the first large and unified synthesis of Jewish ethics with Kabbalah, illustrates the various classical topics in Hebrew ethical literature in the light of the Zoharic lore as re-read by Cordovero (see the detailed studies by M. Pachter and P. Koch). Presenting his work, De Vidas refers to the need of an anthological work that would “gather together the practical instructions dispersed in the Midrash, in the Gemara and in the Zohar”, so that “a person will remember the action (maʿaseh)” (Reshit ḥokhmah, Jerusalem 2005, 15). Again, a recollecting form of writing becomes a crucial tool for the proper practical path, employing the Zohar as the principal guidebook for mystical existence: see e.g. De Vidas’ assertion that he is going to copy pieces on the donning of tefillin found “in scattered places (meqomot mefuzarim)” in Zoharic materials (ibid., II, 80).

26

Chapter 1

life, which developed around the mid-16th century among kabbalistic confraternities that have been defined “Zoharic communities”.53 The same contexts produced the so-called hanhagot (conduct) literature of kabbalistic orientation – a literary genre that re-organizes the daily life, and its minimal customs, in accordance with the Zoharic lore, but also in the light of specific innovative rules that were in line with Cordovero’s or Luria’s systems of thought.54 These literary corpora had a striking force of penetration in the Jewish world in its entirety, contributing to an unprecedented circulation of the kabbalistic views in the public domain (the Safedian works, but not only, became immensely popular in the course of a few decades among very distant J­ ewish communities – for instance, in Italy or in Eastern European towns –, and reshaped major aspects of Jewish religion and life55). Here I wish to underline the overall conservative nature of their discourse. In fact, besides some important innovations, they convey beliefs and images that to a larger extent draw from the Zoharic Kabbalah, woven with the halakhic form of life during a centuries-long protracted process. Thus, several works printed in the Ashkenazi world by the end of the 16th century, not only exhibit a wide reception of the Sephardi mystical lore, but seem to have deliberately employed strategies of writing to promote esoteric knowledge and practice of Castilian origin for popular consumption.56 53 54 55 56

For an introduction, see Pachter, “Kabbalistic Ethical Literature”; Huss, “The Zoharic Communities”. See also below, chap. 4, n. 170. See the “rules of mystical piety” collected by Lawrence Fine (ed.), Safed Spirituality (New York: Paulist Press, 1984), 27–80. See also Moshe ben Makhir, Seder ha-yom (Venice, 1599), which presents in detail “the order that one has to follow in his days and nights”. See Jacob Katz, “Halakhah and Kabbalah as Competing Disciplines”, in Jewish Spirituality, ed. A. Green (New York: Crossroad, 1987), vol. 2, 53ff., and more recently, Roni Weinstein, Kabbalah and Jewish Modernity (Oxford – Portland: The Littman Library, 2016). See Andrea Gondos, Kabbalah in Print: The Study and Popularization of Jewish Mysticism in Early Modernity (Albany NY: State University of New York Press, 2020). Compare Huss, The Zohar, chap. 5. Among the first books of conduct based on the Zohar, one finds Marʾeh kohen by Yissakhar Baer of Shebershin (Krakow, 1589), which interprets musar and minhagim on the ground of the Zohar, and Yesh Sakhar by Yissakhar Baer of Kremnitz (Prague, 1609), which gathers Zoharic decrees and customs following the pattern of the halakhic code ʾArbaʿah ṭurim. Similar traits pertain the narrative-homiletic genre, as is demonstrated by Mattenot kehunah (Krakow, 1587), an edition of the Midrash rabbah accompanied by a commentary relating to the Zohar, also authored by Yissakhar Baer of Shebershin. On these books, see Zeev Gries, Conduct Literature: Its History and Place in the Life of Beshtian Ḥasidism (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1989) (Hebrew), 41, 57, 71–80. As emerges in the beginning of Marʾeh kohen, the intention of this book was to provide an anthology of Jewish practical conducts for a larger audience, by “collecting” (lelaqeṭ) ­scattered Zoharic instances and “organizing” (lesadder) them according to cultic topics

The Disclosure of Sense and Order

27

A principal common denominator of those textual bodies (earlier in manuscript form, later on also in printed form) is the effort to ‘recollect’ and ‘reorganize’ knowledge. Two main formal directions can be discerned: some texts are more inclined to ‘anthologization’, other ones to ‘encyclopedism’. TY and HQ – given also their literary genre – seem to proceed through an anthological selection, while other texts (and among them, the same ʿAvodat ha-qodesh by Meir ibn Gabbay) appear to be more encyclopedic.57 In both cases, their authors hardly pretended to produce a creative or original work, rather, they aimed at establishing ‘collections of traditions’, carrying forward the authoritative legacy contained in earlier codes.58 Their contribution was precisely to create a new assemblage of former textual materials and corpora, a work that evidently contemplated also active operations (like selection, integration, reordering according to thematic patterns, etc.).59 Arguably, the Sephardi refugees and their pupils participated (more or less consciously) in a giant cultural operation addressed to preserve and transmit the “collective memory” of the Iberian Jewry – through their own mobility, their transfer of materials or entire libraries, their forms of writing (commentaries, anthologies, encyclopedias, etc.), their semiotic work, their social-cultic activity, etc. In many ways they contributed to the ‘translation’ of medieval kabbalistic wisdom to the early modern world. On the one hand, they strengthened cultural processes already featuring the Sephardi legacy (the ‘canonization’ of the Zohar, the reading of the ‘other canons’ through this

57 58 59

(see ibid., 73). The diffusion of Sephardic literature in the Ashkenazi world is well documented by the publishing activity in the latter area. TY, for example, was reedited in Krakow in 1581. On the “encyclopedism” of the Safedian literature, see Weinstein, Kabbalah and Jewish Modernity, 31–35. On the alleged “decline” in those epochs of Kabbalah, see below, chap. 4, n. 166. While obviously characterized by conservative tendencies, this literary activity does not at all exclude innovative traits – just like, although it yearns to contribute to a collective cultural work, it does not annul the role of single individuals. The same way to copy or abridge, to select or collect, to revisit or reshape earlier texts, always bears the mark of the author (or his circle), so that – for instance – the mode of citing the Zohar in a certain work is different from usages of the Zohar in other works (not to mention that, given the fluid nature of the Zoharic manuscripts, the interpreters often possessed diverging textual traditions). A “mosaic” kind of writing (see above, notes 12, 46) – even when assembling from a few sources – cannot but imply a somehow creative intellectual effort, a peculiar mode of drawing on the flux of tradition, a peculiar style of thinking and writing, a predilection for specific contents or linguistic forms, and so forth. Cultural persistence is gained through personal contributions and unavoidably encompasses slight but significant changes.

28

Chapter 1

sacred book, the divulgation of the esoteric theosophical lore, etc.); on the other hand, they spread these vectors to all the Jewish communities of the Mediterranean basin. I cannot here deal with the phenomenon of “cultural memory” in general, widely explored in recent research,60 nor can I discuss the multiple and refined strategies developed by Judaism for maintaining and passing down its collective memory.61 I wish however to reject as too drastic the distinction proposed in Jan Assmann’s important studies between physical means like rituals and objects (a “material memory” based on “repetition”), and textual means like commentaries and narratives (a “cultural memory” based on “interpretation”), considered as representing “two phases” in the production of cultural coherence.62 In fact, these modes of recollection and transmission of ­memory 60

61

62

Originating with the pioneering observations by E. Durkheim, M. Halbwachs and A. Warburg, the scholarly concern with “collective memory”, “social memory”, or “cultural memory”, has exploded in the last decades of the XX century: see the overview by Jeffrey Olick – Joyce Robbins, “Social Memory Studies: From ‘Collective Memory’ to the Historical Sociology of Mnemonic Practices”, Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1998): 105–140. Semiotics of culture has logically dealt with this aspect too, emphasizing the effort of any cultural organism to uphold and reinforce the collective memory, while struggling against the phenomenon of oblivion: see Lotman – Uspenskij, “On the Semiotic Mechanism of Culture”. For more circumstantiated inquiries on strategies of remembering, see e.g. the studies by J. Assmann (regarding ancient cultures); M. Carruthers and P.J. Geary (on medieval culture); L. Bolzoni, (on the Renaissance period); P. Rossi (ed.), La memoria del sapere (Roma – Bari: Laterza, 1990), taking into account different epochs. All these studies have stressed the concern with memory featuring traditional cultures (developing techniques for memorization, commemoration and recollection), but also the selective nature of such memory. In a famous booklet, Yosef H. Yerushalmi has contrasted the traditional Jewish “memory” to modern “historiography”, showing that the former is rooted within “the common network of belief and praxis” and is “drastically selective”: Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory (Seattle – London: University of Washington Press, 1982), 94–95. On “fear of forgetting” and “duty of memory” in ancient Israel (with special reference to Deuteronomy), see the inquiries by Assmann discussed below. On organizing memory schemes and tools in rabbinic literature, see Yerushalmi, Zakhor; Naeh, “The Art of Memory”; Moshe Idel, “Memento Dei – Remarks on Remembering in Judaism”, in Il senso della memoria (Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 2003), 143–192. Evidently, enhancing memory of the remote “mythical past” and of the permanent “ritual sphere” was for the rabbinic sages more important than remembering closer historical events: the sin of Adam, the exit from Egypt (“remembered fifty times in the Torah”, as noted in TY, f. 31d), or the Jerusalem Temple, were to be cultivated over and over in their most minute details, as archetypal and unforgettable patterns. See Jan Assmann, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 123–124; idem, Religion and Cultural Memory (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2006), 39ff., 122ff. Assmann goes so far as to state that – unlike in Egypt – in Israel the divine “retreated from the world, its images and its rites”, being

The Disclosure of Sense and Order

29

should be seen as largely coexisting and overlapping in Jewish culture.63 ­Earlier strategies – such as “poetic form, ritual performance, and collective participation [in ceremonies, festivals, etc.]” – remain fundamental also when they are coupled with new textual-exegetical forms of mediation of knowledge. It is no coincidence that the “normative” and “formative” texts typical of an interpretive culture, are also “sacred texts” to be read, repeated, enacted and commented on during liturgies and festivals;64 furthermore, these texts are to a large extent devoted to the same “sacred acts”, i.e. ritual behavior. A pivotal role is certainly played by the “embodied memory”, inscribed or incorporated in human limbs, in social objects, in collective habits.65 In sum, it is a multifaceted and multimedia production, mixing material and textual means, that is employed to ensure the memory and to shape the identity of the Jewish people through the generations – preserving a basic core of shared beliefs and practices beyond geographical dispersion and historical change. The kabbalists had always been deeply concerned with the reception and systematization of traditional bodies of knowledge (written and oral, of diverse origin and nature), and with the need to transmit a long-range sacred memory through specific techniques (partly esoteric).66 Most of their works

63

64 65

66

embedded only “in writing” (see Religion and Cultural Memory, 78–79, 127–138). Various dichotomies of this scholarly approach (cult religions versus book-based religions, cultural texts versus canonical texts, principle of secrecy versus principle of revelation) appear to me highly questionable (see also below, chap. 2, n. 124). Assmann himself sometimes hints at the profound merging of ritual and textual poles in culture, and at the fashioning of more complex and ambivalent cultural patterns (which seem to defy formulations such as “the scriptures do not give permanence to the ritual, they replace it”: ibid., 136). This seems to be the case for most cultures, including modern ones. See Paul Connerton, How Societies Remember (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), on the essential function that “commemorative ceremonies” and “bodily practices” have in “social ­memory”. On these categories, see ibid., 104, 109. Anthropologists such as B. Kapferer have dwelled at length on the general link between textuality and performance. About the ritualistic use of the Zohar itself, see above, n. 38. Such “mnemonics of the body” deeply shapes individual remembering and ensures a broader and almost automatic persistence of the past. Suffice it to recall the importance of ṣiṣit, tefillin and mezuzot in Jewish culture since the Bible (on the tefillin as “a special form of memorizing”, see Idel, “Memento Dei”), or the pivotal function of “circumcision”, which would concretely embed the covenant with God in the male organ (on the link between memory/zekher and masculinity/zakhar, see Elliot R. Wolfson, “Re/membering the Covenant: Memory, Forgetfulness, and the Construction of History in the Zohar”, in Jewish History and Jewish Memory, Essays in Honor of Y.H. Yerushalmi, ed. E. Carlebach (Hanover NH: Brandeis University Press, 1998), 214–246). With regard to modalities of transmission in Kabbalah, see below, chap. 4, around n. 84; on esotericism, see below, n. 105.

30

Chapter 1

were “commentaries” to formative and normative canons, bringing forth a vast opera of recollection through writing. The 16th-century Sephardi exiles express this (inherently conservative) attitude in an acute manner. At that time, the kabbalistic lore was passed down through written texts more than through an oral transmission from teacher to disciple (a change that had already taken shape in Spain).67 The scattered Zoharic materials constituted the supreme authoritative source for the experts in Kabbalah, whose principal labor was to gather, abridge, revise, copy and print that literary whole. Evidently, at that dramatic historical turning point, the Sephardi intellectuals were obsessed with the urgent need to uphold collective memory, and summoned manifold tools for remembering68 – in the awareness that primary languages or interpretive patterns risked to becoming lost, or that they could be overcome by other (and competing) cultural stances. Within a large spectrum of strategies and techniques for the conservation (and transmission) of knowledge, organizational modes of writings played a major role. The work of the kabbalistic refugees consisted primarily in mosaic collections of the earlier Castilian wisdom, with the goal of rearranging the major canonic codes according to the secret maps of the Kabbalah. Their literary production was sometimes solicited by the pre-existing community of a specific area, which demanded from the immigrated sage a synthesis of the Spanish cultural legacy. At the same time, it could arise from the impulse to afford the theosophical Kabbalah a cultural hegemony in contexts marked by other intellectual orientations.69 Historical-sociological inquiries have shown that the Sephardi exiles possessed a strong group identity, that they cherished “a sense of destiny and mission to revive their heritage”, and that they often reached a primary rank in the Jewish societies of the Ottoman 67 68

69

In our texts, there is no reference to a third source of information of secret truths, a vocal heavenly revelation, which instead was considered to be crucial in other kabbalistic contexts (also in the course of the16th century). In that very historical-cultural setting the rise of a new literary genre – ‘historiography’ – took place, a further technique for ‘making memory’ in the exilic situation. To be sure, as has been remarked, those first “genuinely historiographical” works in Jewish culture, largely resorted to traditional schemes (see Yerushalmi, Zakhor, 57ff.). This situation of intra-cultural conflict and competition, and the consequent endeavor for acquiring intellectual hegemony, is extremely evident in the case of the Iberian kabbalists migrated to Italy. See Moshe Idel, “Encounters between Spanish and Italian Kabbalists in the Generation of the Expulsion”, in Crisis and Creativity in the Sephardic world, 1391–1648, ed. B.R. Gampel (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), 189–222; idem, La Cabbalà in Italia (1280–1510) (Firenze: Giuntina, 2007). The Maghreb region too offers interesting examples. In a valley of South Morocco close to that of Elbaz’s circle, the “­kabbalists of Dera’a” produced a rather different kabbalistic literature.

The Disclosure of Sense and Order

31

Empire or North Africa.70 As has been noted, “the Zohar was an important item in the cultural cargo that these elite circles brought with them: access to the zoharic texts, the ability to quote from them, and deference to the Zohar regarding doctrines and religious practices all contributed to the strengthening of the exiles’ cultural power”.71 It is clear, on the other hand, that – as had already happened among the major kabbalistic currents in Spain – the intense activity around cultural (sacred) texts, was deeply and inextricably linked to the ceaseless observance of the cultic (sacred) practice.72 The organization of knowledge established by the Sephardi kabbalists for creating a “textual coherence”, concerned to a large degree the religious life – in its procedural external level and its internal ­layers –, and invested “ritual coherence”. In their post-Expulsion wandering, those intellectuals strove to build ‘new’ kabbalistically-oriented congregations, and destined their literary activity to shape a coherent identity and a fitting conduct. The purpose was to mold textual and interpretive communities, but also communities fully engaged in cultic praxis.73 Not surprisingly, there flourished behavioral texts devoted to either liturgical or ethical issues, which would lead the Jewish practitioners toward a full and correct fulfillment of the precepts. Through exegetical devices, not only earlier texts were cited and interpreted, canonized and sacralized (the Sephardi prayerbook as well as the Zohar itself), but the same ritual life was remolded and enhanced – a further evidence of the permanent interweaving of embodied and textual memory. Looking at these phenomena from the viewpoint of cultural semiotics, one can surmise that the critical vicissitudes of the Iberian Jewry (from the end of the 14th century to the beginning of the 16th century) constituted a socio-historical situation that, while creating flaw and instability in the cultural system, functioned as trigger for cultural reactions directed at retrieving collective memory and preserving collective identity. What ultimately starts to appear is that the kabbalistic subset here at stake heightened long-term or 70

See Joseph Hacker, “The Sephardi Diaspora in Muslim Lands from the 16th to 18th Century”, in Odyssey of the Exiles. The Sephardi Jews 1492–1992, eds. R. Porter – Sarah Harel-Hoshen (Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defence Publishing House, 1992), 95, 117. 71 Huss, The Zohar, 134. 72 Later on, we shall deal in detail with the interaction between Kabbalah and Halakhah. Let me anticipate here that propagation of the kabbalistic lore and the penetration of it into the halakhic domain, were two concurrent and ascending phenomena already detected in the 14th and 15th centuries, although a massive reception of kabbalistic instances by normative codes and Responsa occurred since the 16th century. 73 These topics shall be discussed below, chap. 4.

32

Chapter 1

medium-term socio-cultural processes – such as the tendency of Jewish intellectuals to extend and intensify, clarify and systematize the ritual dromenon, as well as the tendency of the kabbalistic sages to collect and rearrange, canonize and divulge the esoteric wisdom, especially in its concern with the law, revisiting thus the entire orthopraxis in the light of this sacred lore. It is now time to observe more closely in which ways our main sources operated a reinterpretation of the cultic codes that might lead Jewish people to perform the ritual deeds in a cogent kabbalistic manner. 1.3 Some Emblematic Discussions on Morning Rituals I shall concisely trace the initial sections of the two commentaries, in order to have a first contact with discursive modes to be explored further on with closer inquiries. After a short introduction, these texts follow step by step the palimpsest of the “order of prayer”, hence the rhythm of the liturgical life fixed in the prayerbook, interpreting each stage of worship. They start with the wake of man on a common weekday,74 and examine first of all the subsequent ritual procedures: putting clothes on; wearing shoes; washing oneself; donning ṣiṣit; donning tefillin. These activities are considered as crucial passages out of the night (in modern terms, they may be labeled “liminal stages”). Although they precede and prepare the reciting of the main individual prayers and the performance of the communal synagogal liturgy, they have higher religious and mystical significance per se.75 In fact, as we shall see further on, these sources do not only decode deep layers of meaning in the ordinary prayer service, but fill with tremendous significance all units of ritual action. Moshe Elbaz’s Hekhal ha-qodesh underlines how it is necessary “to wake up early in the morning” in order to soon gather in the synagogue.76 This prescription is immediately explained by recurring to a major kabbalistic secret 74

75

76

To be sure, the first lines deal with nocturnal life, exploring a Talmudic instruction that had acquired much importance in mystical contexts: the obligation to get up at night to study the Torah, following the necessary ablution of the hands (compare TY, f. 5a-c; HQ, 63; Moshe Cordovero, Tomer Devorah, New York 1970, chap. 10); on this topic, see Moshe Hallamish, Kabbalistic Ritual (Tel Aviv: Idra Publishing, 2016) (Hebrew), 50–51. Recovering an Ashkenazi tradition, the Castilian kabbalists had already insisted on the requirement to place a vessel with water close to the bed, a tradition ascribed to the archetypal figures of the “early pious men” (compare TY, f. 5d; HQ, 76; see Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, 54, n. 31; 74). Thus, introducing the congregational service, Elbaz states: “As man dons the ṣiṣit and adorns himself by the tefillin and he [already] is a chariot for his Creator […]” (HQ, 75). Ibn Gabbay sees the pious Jew on the way to the synagogue as already “crowned by the Shekhinah” (TY, 9a). See below, chap. 3, n. 94.

The Disclosure of Sense and Order

33

contained in a Zoharic text (the latter, as often is the case, is quoted verbatim in Aramaic language, with reference to the pertinent pericope and folio as they were available to the commentator77). According to it, the pious Jews who behave like this, reach the “layer of the secret of the righteous, foundation of the world, and join the Shekhinah” – that is to say, they are able to accomplish the coupling of the male side with the feminine side in the upper divine realm. Immediately after, Elbaz talks about the very first ritual act to be e­ xecuted: Getting out of bed, he shall take his garment (ḥaluqo) and shall put his head into the neck of his garment and the two arms into the sleeves, as he still lies in bed, so that he shall get up when he is covered. The reason for this is the fear of the Shekhinah, because “all the earth is full of His glory”, including the glory of human limbs, which are in the image of the High and a supernal model, so that he should not neglect them and be strict about the garment, wearing it the proper way, being careful not to invert the inside with the outside: the outside shall be outside and the inside – close to holiness – shall always be inside.78 This is a typical example of the texture of ritualism and mysticism characterizing these works. Elbaz describes an ideal pattern of cultic behavior, giving precise instructions about gestures and motions of the human body at dawn, and hinting at the same time to a corresponding theosophical order (of anthropomorphic nature). The kabbalists had always devoted much attention to the physical requirements for prayer established by the halakhic codes, such as “covering of the nudities” (kissui ha-ʿarayot), “adjustment of the body” (tiqqun ha-guf), “adjustment of the dress” (tiqqun ha-malbush).79 Dawid ben Yehudah he-Hasid, for instance, had already argued that “the one who prays must be very careful about the adjustment of the clothes”.80 In many cases, as we shall see in chap. 2, the rationale of the precepts was explained in the light of a theosophical imagery – according to which God himself possesses articulated limbs, is adorned with garments, etc. – and apotheotic and theurgic 77

78 79 80

In the standard pagination (set by the Mantua edition), the passage is found in Zohar II, 131a. About the importance to arrive at the synagogue early in order to form a quorum of ten, see also Zohar III, 126a – a passage that is cited at length for example in Yehudah (and Moshe) Kaletz, Sefer ha-musar (Jerusalem 2019), 195ff. HQ, 64. These prescriptive conditions, already mentioned in several Talmudic places, had been systematized and encoded by Maimonides in his Mishneh Torah (Book of Adoration, chap. V). Dawid ben Yehudah he-Hasid, ʾOr zaruʿa, f. 6b.

34

Chapter 1

narratives – ­assuming that human beings can both assimilate themselves to super-human beings, and adorn the latter through their cultic acts. Our interpreters restate these classical perspectives, especially those contained in Castilian Kabbalah, with no significant innovation. Also the parallel passage in Tolaʿat Yaʿaqov commands man “not to get up naked, because he is a supernal model (dugma ʿelyonah)”.81 It too insists on the rule that, in dressing himself, man “should not invert the inside with the outside”, because the latter is the “covering of the body” and “receives the impurity”, while “the inside is pure and clean”. What we find here is a discursive pattern, to be closely analyzed further on, that return relentlessly in these sources: basic polarities – usually constituted of a negative and a positive pole – are focused on and often combined together. Thus, the turn from night to day is marked by the covering of the body, as opposed to nudity; clothing himself, man must not confuse the inside, which is pure, with the outside, which is impure.82 The second set of instructions concerns the act of putting on shoes. Our texts repropose the intricate procedure formalized in the halakhic tradition: one should wear the right shoe first; then one should wear the left shoe and fasten it; finally, one can tie the right shoe.83 This sequence is compared to the one that governs the donning of tefillin (where the donning of the arm-­ tefillin on the left comes before the donning of the head-tefillin) – based on 81

TY, f. 5d. The use of masculine forms along the present inquiry, is intentional: the kabbalistic texts refer almost automatically to ‘androcentric’ cultic life and mystical experience (see below, chap. 4, n. 139). 82 Nudity in Judaism is mainly bound to sexual transgressions, and rebuke of nudity abounds in kabbalistic literature (‘ritual nudity’ – rather widespread in other religious cultures, as demonstrated by Eliade – appears to be quite restricted in Jewish religious culture). Beside the comments on “covering the body” as one of the prerequisites for prayer (see e.g. Dawid ben Yehudah he-Hasid,ʾOr zaruʿa, f. 5a), I should also mention the discussions on the blessing upon God “covering the naked”, one of the early blessings pronounced in the synagogue, which would allude to eschatological time, as the righteous men will be clothed, while the wicked one will remain naked like the serpent (see ibid., f. 11a; compare TY f. 9d). In this vocabulary, the adjective “nude” (ʿarum) recalls first of all the condition of the “serpent”. The 16th-century halakhic codes by Yosef Qaro, which frequently encompass kabbalistic stances, specify the procedures required to avoid exposing the naked body before God: see Jeffrey R. Woolf, “Laʿavodat borʾo: The Body in the Shulḥan Arukh of R. Joseph Karo”, in The Jewish Body. Corporeality, Society and Identity in the Renaissance and Early Modern Period, eds. M. Diemling – G. Veltri (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2009), 163– 164. Evidently, within this framework, the body is viewed as “sacred” and “pure” only inasmuch it is textualized, culturalized and ritually handled. 83 See TY, f. 5d; HQ, 64–65.

The Disclosure of Sense and Order

35

a Talmudic statement, which argues that putting shoes on is equivalent to donning the tefillin.84 Here emerges a further typical strategy of interpretation, to be especially examined in chap. 3. The kabbalists’ focus on syntactic ritual patterns also matches different sequences of action, producing a connection between more or less distant practical spheres. At the same time, the behavioral sequences are revisited in the light of theosophical maps, which in turn include stark distinctions (e.g. between right and left), hierarchical scales, complex correlations, and are strictly linked to those earthly ritual orders. More space is devoted to the ablution of the hands and the washing of the body – the main purifying procedure in rabbinic tradition, which attracted much attention on the part of medieval mystics.85 The commentaries here under investigation thoroughly examine the complex ritual setting that enables the pious Jew to purify himself from the “spirit of impurity” invading the human body during the night, and thus allows him to access the divine service in “purity and holiness”.86 In his long digression, Meir ibn Gabbay dwells for instance on the two vessels employed during the ceremony, clarifying their formal dynamics and their secret meanings, as well as the movement of the hands during the ablution, explaining how the ten fingers should be raised up in relation to the ten intra-divine dimensions.87 Beside these nonverbal aspects, the kabbalist explores at length the verbal aspects of the ritual, analyzing the various terms of the blessing to be pronounced during the ablution. He also takes into account the mental dimensions, claiming for instance that as one recites the name Adonay, he must intend YH, this way accomplishing “the secret of unification”. Further on we shall focus on such a threefold dimension of ritual discussed by the kabbalists. Let us note here, again, how an ordinary and preparatory ritual gesture executed in private – with great attention to all dimensions (thought-speech-action), to the plethora of formal aspects (ramified procedures, precise timing, etc.) and to the stratified inner contents 84 See TB Shabbat 61a. 85 For a closer investigation, see Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, chap. 2. 86 Compare also the beginning of Perush ha-tefillot by Yosef ibn Shraga (the Spanish kabbalist that became a leading authority in Northern Italy), as it is reported in the glosses to Dawid ben Yehudah he-Hasid, ʾOr zaruʿa, 290. 87 See TY, ff. 5d-6b. This section also recovers innovative prescriptions from Zoharic literature, stating that one must not touch his eyes before having washed the hands, or that it is forbidden to reuse the impure waters used for the ablution (on these topics, see Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, 62–63). Compare HQ, 66, citing (and endorsing) the Zoharic reflections and instructions concerning the movement of the two hands (Zohar II, 154b), or the need to throw away the polluted water (Zohar I, 184b).

36

Chapter 1

(also involving the upper realms) – was viewed as something that allowed the highest attainments.88 Both commentators discuss in depth the blessing ʾAsher yaṣar, already sketched in the Talmud (TB Berakhot 60b), which – according to medieval codes – was to be recited upon leaving the toilet (as an oral rite reaffirming the motifs of the manual rite, the washing act). Earlier sources had already submitted the prayer, whose wording was evidently very attractive for the kabbalists, to a detailed treatment89 – and our authors do nothing but recover their views. If the praise exalts the marvelous wisdom of the Creator in shaping the human body, the interpreters rather underscore the role of the latter. Its “construction” (binyan) resembles the entire cosmos and the same “supernal Man”. Its functioning immediately affects the specular upper forces. For instance, the “holes” mentioned by the prayer are correlated to the “pipes” that channel the divine flux to the universe, therefore they must be cared for with the greatest caution.90 Here we find a typical development of the pivotal kabbalistic principle according to which the physiological structure of the human beings in its intricacies is mirrored in the cosmic order, and “in accordance with the actions accomplished below, the supernal entities are aroused”.91 The fourth and fifth stages have to do with a further covering of the body with the principal cultic garments: ṣiṣit and tefillin. The basic kabbalistic reasoning is that the standard dressing at morning must be completed by wearing special holy clothes – where, however, the manual rite (the adjustment with sacred garments) is integrated with an oral rite (the pertinent blessing) and with specific cognitive activities (deeper semantics, focused concentration, complete intentionality). Dozens of formal aspects and occult contents linked to these ritual objects, were examined in detail already in the creative age of Kabbalah, and provided with an enormous importance.92 The interpreters 88

“The one who raises up his hands in the ablution, opens up the [upper] source, and the flux blows up upon the upper beings, and brings wealth and blessing and vitality into them”: TY, f. 6b. In the same context, Ibn Gabbay describes the opposite, catastrophic impact on the whole reality that would be caused by the violation of the precept. He also reprises the Zoharic harsh threat of those who neglect the washing of the hands (see Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, 67–68). 89 See e.g. Dawid ben Yehudah he-Ḥasid, ʾOr zaruʿa, ff. 9a-10a; Menaḥem Recanati, Perush ha-tefillot, Commentary on the Daily Prayers, ed. G. Corazzol (Torino: Aragno, 2008), 49*-50*. 90 Compare TY, f. 6c-d; HQ, 68–69. According to the latter, a wrong treatment of the human body could not only harm the holy pipes, but also activate “external pipes” of evil kind. 91 TY, f. 6d. On all these topics, we shall return below in chap. 2. 92 See the extensive inquiries in Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, chaps. 3–6, which discuss from several perspectives the approaches to the tefillin found in 13th-century ­theosophical

The Disclosure of Sense and Order

37

took into account minimal units of the performative ceremonies, including a few specific customs apparently established by the kabbalists themselves, no less than the structured sequences partly encoded by the halakhic literature and then refined by the kabbalists.93 Citing and interlacing earlier sources, our authors continue to elaborate theosophical speculations and mythical narratives on those ritual spheres. They employ the typical devices of the kabbalistic exegetical imagination, such as the ones based on numbers – numerical values that connect different domains of textuality and reality (thus, the 32 threads in the tallit are bound to the 32 “paths of wisdom” mentioned by the Sefer yeṣirah;94 its four corners correspond to the four camps of the Shekhinah or the four supernal Beasts).95 Through these analogical interpretations, they explain that the ritual vestment enables human beings to imitate the shape and action of the Godhead.96 Covering himself with the ṣiṣit, the pious Jew would become “a body for the divine presence”, “a chariot for his Creator”: “we cloth ourselves with the cloth of the Reign, and enter into the camps of the Shekhinah”.97 The phylacteries ritual setting would contain a further “sublime concealed secret”, because “as man wears the tefillin on his arm and on his head, his form resembles the form of his Creator”, and attains a mighty “unification”.98 These brief accounts had the only function of providing a sample of the kind of discourse and style featuring our commentaries. It can be noted that – rather than for their content or vocabulary, which bear little trace of originality – they are interesting because of the forms and strategies adopted for organizing knowledge. They further constitute emblematic examples of quite a vast cultural subset, which sought to supply literary devices capable of collecting and selecting, rearranging and divulging a vast earlier repertoire. In the following sections, we shall try to better understand which hermeneutic processes these kabbalists employed, and how their semiotic activity functioned. writings. Both our authors mainly rely on Zoharic texts. HQ also draws from Reʾaya meheimna, a separate work lately inserted into the Zoharic corpus (see HQ, 71), while Ibn Gabbay seems to have had no acquaintance with that work in his youth. 93 In chap. 3, we shall see how the syntactic organization of the ritual was progressively fixed under the influence of the Kabbalah. 94 See TY, f. 6d. 95 See HQ, 70. On the number four, see also TY, f. 7a, quoting from the section of the Zohar called Sifraʾ de-Ṣeniyʿuta (II, 179a). 96 Regarding the hypostatization of ritual clothes, perceived as supernal garments, see below, chap. 2. 97 HQ, 69, 71; compare TY, f. 7b-c, which also refers to the “secret of the garment” (sod ha-malbush), a significant motif in kabbalistic literature. 98 See HQ, 71; compare TY 8d.

38

Chapter 1

2 Hermeneutic Perspectives. Proliferation and Articulation of Meanings Not only the rhetoric construction, but also the interpretive approach of many kabbalists seems to be marked by a strenuous effort to reorganize traditional knowledge – in current terms, one may speak of a ‘reconstructive hermeneutics’. Their exegetical activity flows into a secondary language (hence, a metatext) that tirelessly revisits the network of primary sign systems, with the aim of retrieving memory of the past contents and meanings, and finally renegotiating sense. In effect, their commentaries do not only a) collect former materials (both codes and their earlier interpretations), but b) put the different contents and exegetical devices in new structured forms, c) generate correlations among the various codes and layers, d) re-signify the earlier sign systems, explaining and reshaping them in the light of new maps. Logically, within this semiotic activity, a strong conservative attitude is matched by vectors of cultural transformation.99 The post-Expulsion kabbalists, as said, employed strategies and techniques for upholding and reinforcing the Sephardi legacy, reacting to destructive phenomena and risks of oblivion; at the same time, they rearranged the cultural memory, submitting former information to operations of selection, adaptation, re-articulation, etc.100 In this section, we shall first of all argue that the interpretive posture of the kabbalists can be described as the result of a clash between two opposite tendencies: on the one hand, ‘proliferation of sense’, related to the endeavor of decoding infinite layers of meaning, on the other hand, ‘articulation of sense’, through the effort of arranging and stratifying these meanings by means of patterns of order. This opposition between ‘disorganizing’ and ‘organizing’ instances generates, of course, also forms of compromise.101 The point of equilibrium between the two poles can change according to historical conditions, socio-cultural frames, literary genres, and even single personalities and texts. Some kabbalistic works tend indeed to unceasingly multiply signs and significata, while others – our sources among them – seem to be inclined to control and limit the dissemination of sense. 99 100

101

In the last sections of this book, we shall return to this complex oscillation between continuity and renewal. Semioticians of culture – also of different orientation, such as Lotman, Eco, or Foucault – share a sensitivity to the “continuous game of reassignment of values, translations, reuses, transformations to which meaning is submitted”: Anna Maria Lorusso, Cultural Semiotics. For a Cultural Perspective in Semiotics (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 167. On ordering and disordering drives, characterizing religious cultures in general, see below, Final Remarks.

The Disclosure of Sense and Order

39

2.1 Unfolding Layers of Meaning and Reality In Jewish culture, more than in other cultures, textuality and literacy play a crucial role. Classically labeled “people of the Book”, Israel might be better called – at least since late antiquity – “people of the texts”. Not only did they live in a world dominated by sacred writings and canonized codes, in a semiosphere made up essentially by manuscripts, scrolls, parchments, amulets, inscriptions, etc. They also lived in a ‘textualized universe’, for their very perception of reality was strongly determined by letters, names, graphic signs, written formulas, etc. This is certainly true for what concerns the kabbalists. Their complex semiosphere appears primarily as a patchwork of earlier and later written materials, considered more or less sacred, which had to be continuously studied, recited, discussed, copied, interpreted. Those interpreters are called to develop that huge semiosis and, simultaneously, they tend to project linguistic or textual elements onto all layers of the cosmic realm.102 In a way, they do not address reality or history directly, but explore them through an earlier literary world, with its primary communication and signification systems.103 Not surprisingly, their first and major task is a hermeneutic one. As already seen, kabbalistic authors appear in fact as been engaged in a fabric of sense employing exegetical devices. They produce commentaries on the canonical writings of the Jewish tradition (the Torah, the Talmud), commentaries on the pivots of the Jewish cult (the prayer, the precepts), commentaries on other basic linguistic or textual elements of the Jewish culture (alphabetic letters, divine names, Sefer yeṣirah, and so forth).104 A major impulse of the kabbalistic semiotics is that of revisiting the entire web of signs and texts available to the people of Israel, in order to review it through new lens, and thus shed light on the most obscure and inner depths of reality. Like all ‘hermeneutics of secrets’, the kabbalistic one is also rich in ambiguities and paradoxes. Some of them have to do with the subtle alternation between concealment and revelation. The authors are called upon to disclose and divulge meanings that are inherently hidden, have been transmitted esoterically (partly in a written allusive form, partly in an oral more complete 102 103 104

In various essays, M. Idel has spoken of a “linguovert” or “linguocentric” form of ­mysticism. See Elliot R. Wolfson, “Mirror of Nature Reflected in the Symbolism of Medieval ­Kabbalah”, in Judaism and Ecology, ed. H. Tirosh-Samuelson (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), 305–331. See also below, chap. 2, n. 52. This essential fact renders the comprehension of the kabbalistic literature quite complicated for readers who lack an adequate knowledge of the entire Jewish lore, and makes it very difficult to translate those writings in another language. On the substantial ‘untranslatability’ of these kinds of discourse, see Final Remarks, around n. 32.

40

Chapter 1

form), and still constitute a secret legacy to be guarded and preserved.105 The ­kabbalists examined in this study take evidently part in a process of diffusion and popularization of the kabbalistic wisdom that had already initiated in Spain, yet was to become more marked between the 16th and the 17th centuries. One should also note that, in general, the kabbalistic approach to moral and cultic matters was more ‘open’ than the views on other contents (concerning the innermost layers of theosophy or cosmogony, the supreme divine faces, etc.), which were to be reserved to a more esoteric discourse and a more restricted cultural ­transmission. However, as shall emerge further on, also these latter issues are discussed in our sources, which assume the primary codes (including the Zohar) as accessible texts, and tend to a divulging style of writing. A related constant dialectics featuring the kabbalistic hermeneutics is the following one: the meanings deciphered by the interpreters are assumed to be ‘old’, since they are supposedly contained in the ancient sacred texts, although they might have not yet been decoded and exposed fully (therefore, renewal of sense coincides with retrieval of sense). One may discuss to what extent such ideological assumption corresponds to the historical reality. At least some of the meanings that the kabbalists ‘found’ in the canonical writings, were obvious innovations – due to the adoption of philosophical patterns or theosophical systems in medieval times. In other cases, it is clear that the kabbalists employed sophisticated exegetical devices, reusing and translating ancient elements into new patterns.106 Here I wish to highlight another pivotal, and parallel, dialectics – that between the multiplication of the levels in textuality (and reality), and the adoption of forms of order that arrange and systematize them. Let us start with the first aspect. In their exploration of sense within the Jewish semiosphere, the kabbalists carry out an extensive and intensive ‘semiotization’.107 Being 105

106

107

See e.g. Moshe Halbertal, Concealment and Revelation: Esotericism in Jewish Thought and Its Philosophical Implications (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007). Here too, one has to register internal differentiations: some kabbalistic currents were more esoteric, others more exoterically-oriented. Some, as the one at stake here, are characterized by a significant move from esotericism to exotericism. In his capital work on kabbalistic hermeneutics, Moshe Idel has acutely described the latter as a two-stages process, where “arcanizing the text” is propaedeutic to “deciphering the arcane”: see Absorbing Perfections, Kabbalah and Interpretation (New Haven – London: Yale University Press, 2002), 4ff. Again, it is important to make proper differentiation. Idel has analyzed in detail the various inner models of kabbalistic interpretation, also comparing them to other kinds of Jewish hermeneutics (see ibid., in part. 221–234). He argues that, despite its force, the interpretive stance of the theosophical-theurgical Kabbalah – which focused on, and maintained, the solid linguistic units, semantic layers, and syntactic structures of the

The Disclosure of Sense and Order

41

the previous codes of sacred nature and divine origin, each aspect must be ‘semiophoric’, loaded with meaning. In the light of such ‘omni-significance’, or ‘infinite semiosis’, any element of the canonic textual lore (even the most minimal, like a letter, a number, or a grapheme) should be considered meaningful; any element of the encoded behavioral language (even ritual minutiae like a little gesture, a numerical value of the recited words, a local custom) should be envisioned as significant.108 Analogously, formal dimensions such as broader syntactic or architectonic patterns, are charged with dense and relevant meanings.109 That any item of the canonic lore is a semiotic item that contains a plethora of significata, or an infinite signified, is an obvious assumption when referred to the Bible (“containing the entire world”), whose signs and verses are therefore open to a pluralistic, apparently endless, interpretation.110 Yet, this stance was applied by the kabbalists also to the rabbinic codes. Units or structures of the halakhic law, even though apparently devoid of meaning (parasemantic) or poor of meaning (hyposemantic), were perceived as dense of sense and as conveying inner information (semantic), or even as prismatic elements referring to multiple profound realities (hypersemantic).111

108 109

110

111

interpreted codes – was more moderate than the “radical hermeneutics” featuring the Ashkenazi esoteric circles or the ecstatic-linguistic Kabbalah, which dealt with parasemantic elements and inclined to disintegrate the former languages. On the other hand, the symbolism of the theosophical kabbalists functioned as a powerful “exegetical code” that the interpreters used to “impress”, or “super-impose”, on the biblical and rabbinic writings (see ibid., 280ff.). In my opinion, their purpose was only in part “to make sense of the quandaries of the canonical texts” (see ibid., 283): primarily, they wished to revive the primary Jewish codes by infusing a new cartography of meanings and orders. See ibid., chap. 1. About “infinite semiosis”, see also ibid., chaps. 2 and 3. The hermeneutic “lens” of the kabbalists, as has been argued, can be “macroscopic” as well as “microscopic”: see Moshe Idel, “Midrashic versus Other Forms of Jewish Hermeneutics”, in The Midrashic Imagination. Jewish Exegesis, Thought, and History, ed. M. Fishbane (Albany NY: State University of New York Press, 1993), 45–58. Interestingly, Scholem’s famous philosophical reflections on this issue – see Gershom Scholem, “Revelation and Tradition as Religious Categories in Judaism”, in idem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (New York: Schocken Books, 1971), 282–303 – are largely based on Ibn Gabbay’s own remarks on the multiple interpretations that descend from the same unique divine Voice (see ʿAvodat ha-qodesh III, § 23, 345ff.). This disposition, partly characteristic of the same rabbinic literature, was incremented by the kabbalistic semiotics. It brought many kabbalists (and the Zohar in primis) to a “maximalistic position”, according to which any aspect of the law encompasses an esoteric and supernal layer: see Elliott R. Wolfson, “Mystical Rationalization of the Commandments in Sefer ha-Rimmon”, Hebrew Union College Annual 59 (1988): 219. On the tendency “to provide a metaphysical meaning to minimal units of precepts”, independently of the value assigned to them by the halakhic tradition, see Jacob Katz, Halakhah and Kabbalah:

42

Chapter 1

Such assumptions set in motion processes of hypertrophic semiotization of reality itself, which was largely ‘inscribed’, ‘textualized’, made ‘legible’ and ‘embedded’ with meaning. On the horizontal axis, those assumptions led to a potentially infinite extension of the semiotic fields submitted to signification (also the minutiae in cosmos, life and behavior are significant!); on the vertical axis, to a potentially infinite intension of the semantic depth decipherable at any point of semiosis (also the minutiae are “essential things” of the holiest kind!). Ultimately, each item or segment of reality was so imbued with sense it ‘reflected’ in endless directions. As occurs in numerous traditional cultures, the kabbalists devote much energy to the ‘search for correspondences’. They clearly live in a ‘world of resemblance’, where everything has meaning, since everything is ordered and connected with everything else by relations of similarity. A good deal of sense indeed derives from such an explosion of ‘connectiveness’.112 A major goal of the interpreter is to disclose the ‘meaningful correlations’ characterizing the literary realm as well as ontic reality. These correlations link, first of all, different domains of the semiotic space – different textual codes (the written Torah and the rabbinic lore, the priestly cultic instructions and the halakhic law) or different exegetical languages (midrashic, philosophic, early mystical, kabbalistic, etc.). Yet, since there is no clear border between language and reality, the links are also between different cosmic layers or existential spheres. As is often the case in mythical, magical and mystical contexts, the kabbalists perceive analogies and bonds, mirrors and chains at all junctures of reality.113 Like

112

113

Studies in the History of Jewish Religion (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984) (Hebrew), 15–16; idem, “Post-Zoharic Relations Between Halakhah and Kabbalah”, in Jewish Thought in the Sixteenth Century, ed. B.D. Cooperman (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1983), 285–286. On the notion that apparently marginal prescriptions or obscure commandments are in fact filled with the deepest rationales, linked to supreme dimensions, or even “engraved on high”, see also Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, 16–18. With regard to the notion of “connectiveness”, see Idel, “On Some Forms of Order”, 36ff. I myself have extensively worked on analogical correspondences involving dynamic correlations: see Maurizio Mottolese, Analogy in Midrash and Kabbalah: Interpretive Projections of the Sanctuary and Ritual (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2007). Notions such as “world of similarity” or “universal sympathy” have been used in relation to archaic or traditionalistic cultures (from Frazer to Tambiah), but also with regard to Renaissance Western thought: see e.g. M. Foucault, The Order of Things: An Archeology of the Human Sciences (New York: Pantheon Books, 1970), or the studies by B. Vickers. On the “surplus of signification” in the magical mentality, viewing reality as a network of occult correspondences, see the remarks of C. Lévi-Strauss on Marcel Mauss’ Esquisse d’une théorie générale de la magie.

The Disclosure of Sense and Order

43

sacred textuality, also the created world appears to them as “texture”.114 In particular, they look at the ‘vertical connections’ between textual (or terrestrial) items and supernal forces: moreover, they incline to consider any lower entity as a sign alluding to an upper reality, a mirror of a specular counterpart, an earthly aspect interacting with a heavenly agency. This view clearly coalesces with a ‘semiotics of the secret’. The kabbalists believe that endless correlations are in fact concealed in textuality and reality; at the same time they trust that the esoteric wisdom handed down to them enables to penetrate the aura of secrecy and to decode those arcane correspondences (at least to a certain point).115 Hence, they gather the various webs of similarities already detected by non-kabbalistic interpreters, and add to them the analogical maps provided by the qabbalah, which allow to fathom the most hidden realms. Their writings usually present entire series of occult homologies and conjunctions in a kind of ‘cumulative semiotization’ – where, for instance, an item does not refer to one single signified, but rather to a list of associations and multiple significata;116 likewise, various items can refer to one signified, in a sort of ‘efflorescence of symbols’. The result is that only an array of interpretations can attempt to exhaust the richness of sense and interconnectedness found everywhere in the sacred codes.117 Vertiginous correlations are detected by focusing on ‘numerical semiosis’. Numbers, often associated to the sacred, have long played an important role in Jewish culture, as much as numerological devices like the attention to the numerical values of the letters.118 Among esoteric circles, they become the 114 115 116 117

118

About the kabbalists’ perception of the Torah as a “woven texture”, which reflects “the ontic structure of reality in its entirety”, see Elke Morlok, Rabbi Joseph Gikatilla’s Hermeneutics (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 139ff.; Idel, Absorbing Perfections, 360–361. See below, chap. 2, n. 31. The earlier technical expression ke-neged (“in correspondence to”) was often employed as a key rhetoric device for collecting manifold associations in a cumulative hermeneutics (see Mottolese, Analogy in Midrash and Kabbalah). The resort to “another interpretation” (davar ʾaḥer) characterizes the kabbalistic literature as much as the midrashic discourse. In a passage, Elbaz reports different Zoharic interpretations about the theosophical reference of the Shavuot festival, and they ­typically appear as being all true (see HQ, 271; similarly on Kippur, ibid., 309ff.). On the theological background of these hermeneutic perspectives in Ibn Gabbay’s work, see above, n. 110. Interpretive schemes based on numerical aspects, already found in classical rabbinic exegesis, were largely deployed in late midrashic literature and in Ashkenazi contexts, and finally reached the Iberian peninsula: see Daniel Abrams, “From Germany to Spain: Numerology as a Mystical Technique”, Journal of Jewish Studies 47 (1996): 85–101; Idel, Absorbing Perfections, 255ff.; Mottolese, Analogy in Midrash and Kabbalah, chap. 5.

44

Chapter 1

engine of an inexhaustible semantic fabric.119 Kabbalistic exegetes list triads, quaternities, sevenfold clusters, decades, dozens, etc., and connect the related contents (again, semantic webs based on numbers can be ‘deciphered’ in textuality as well as in reality120). Numbers also allow to ‘discover’ correlations between different areas of the textual tradition: thus, the “four species” of ­Sukkot examined in the halakhic codes are seen as corresponding to the four divine powers of the kabbalistic theosophy;121 or, the ten biblical commandments are linked to the “ten creative sayings” emphasized by the rabbinic ­midrash as well as to the tenfold pleroma of the kabbalistic theosophy.122 This kind of semiotics, based on numerical values, discloses connections not only between distinct literary bodies, but also between distant ontological regions. To bring just a few examples: Elbaz’s commentary argues that the prayer order of the seven days of the week relates to seven divine forces, or that the six steps leading to the ark of the law in the synagogue reflect six divine forces.123 Dealing with the Eighteen Benedictions of daily worship, Ibn ­Gabbay’s masterpiece recovers earlier associations to cosmic elements or heavenly forces marked by the same number: the 18 vertebrae of the spinal column (see TB Berakhot 28b), the numerical value of the Name of God Ḥay (=18), the 18.000 worlds constituting the universe, the 18.000 water pools found in the heavenly spheres, etc.124 In several occurrences, the number of words counted in a liturgical segment (a blessing, a verse, etc.), is related to an equivalent numerical setting found in another domain.125 119

The late-ancient booklet Sefer yeṣirah provided a treasure of numerical (and linguistic) structures, from which the kabbalists continued to draw: see below, chap. 2, around n. 16. 120 For some examples, see below, chap. 2, notes 59, 74. Many numerical associations between different layers of reality characterize the ‘system of the three worlds’: see below, chap. 2, n. 55. 121 On these and other quaternities, see Mottolese, “Between Somatics”, 46, n. 136 (the association is also with the four patriarchs, the four standards of Israel, and the four directions of the world). 122 On these and other decades, see Idel, Kabbalah, 112–122; idem, Absorbing Perfections, 239– 249, also tracing their ancient parallels and eventual sources. 123 See HQ, respectively, 125, 131. The latter appears to be a justification for a practical innovation in the cultic sphere originating from the Zoharic literature: see Katz, Halakhah and Kabbalah, 44. 124 See ʿAvodat ha-qodesh II, § 12, 113–114. On this passage and its sources, see Goetschel, Meir ibn Gabbay, 327–329. 125 This is one of the reasons behind the tendency, already found among the Ḥaside ­Ashkenaz, to count words and letters in prayer, and to reject any modification of the liturgy fixed by tradition: see Joseph Dan, “The Language of Mystical Prayer”, Studies in Spirituality 5 (1995): 40–60; Simha Emanuel, “The Polemics of the German Pietists on the Language of Prayer”, Meḥqere Talmud III, eds. Y. Sussman – D. Rosenthal (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2005), 591–625 (Hebrew); Idel, “The Liturgical Turn”, 12–14.

The Disclosure of Sense and Order

45

Further common interpretive devices could lead to multiply the semantic dimensions of former sign codes. I am referring to the hyper-attention to linguistic aspects usually considered insignificant or of little importance: the graphic sign of letters or vowels, the combination of the letters, the position of the words in a textual passage, etc. Equally relevant is the effort to load with sense para-linguistic aspects, such as the way to recite words, names or entire prayers, looking at the rhythm, the sound, the volume of the voice, the prescription or interdiction of pauses, etc. Finally, there is a remarkable tendency to give deeper meaning to physical aspects such as the measure or appearance of a ritual object or the way of preparing it properly, the way of moving the hands in a ritual gesture, the spatial or temporal dimensions of a ritual act. Many of the traits mentioned above (the belief in the infinite semiosis of the traditional lore; a pluralistic perception of the ways of interpretation and of the layers of content to be interpreted; the impulse to generate associative links between textual bodies or ontic layers, etc.) constituted triggers for an extensive and intensive semiotization, giving birth to a caleidoscopic ‘refraction of the sense’.126 They were arguably enhanced by kabbalistic hermeneutics. Although the theosophical-theurgical kabbalists were less radical than other Jewish interpreters,127 their approach implied a certain ‘deconstruction’ of the basic grammar of tradition, of its primary codes and languages. The common (plain) meaning of biblical verses or liturgical passages, had to be completely revised in the light of secret references and occult correspondences. Also the canonic ritual language relating to halakhic rules had to be somehow ‘de-automatized’ along the process of analysis and re-signified in its inner units. Could such semiotization of the Jewish semiosphere generate a proliferation of meanings verging on indeterminacy or even disintegration of sense? To what extent did this process effectively occur, and what effects did it eventually have on cultic life? In order to answer these questions, one should consider that what we have discussed here is arguably only one side of the coin, for the kabbalistic semiotics and hermeneutics exhibit other fundamental drives – especially relevant in the literary corpus analyzed in our inquiry.

126

127

Scholars have debated the presence of ‘interminable interpretation’, ‘indeterminacy’, and even ‘deconstruction’ in the same rabbinic texts. See Susan A. Handelman, The Slayers of Moses: The Emergence of Rabbinic Interpretation in Modern Literary Theory (Albany NY: State University of New York Press, 1982); David Stern, “Midrash and Indeterminacy”, Critical Inquiry 15 (1988): 132–161. As already said (see above, n. 107), other forms of medieval Jewish exegesis pursued the very atomization of the language of canonical texts, thus generating an extremely creative dissemination of signs and meanings. See Idel, Absorbing Perfections, chap. 9.

46

Chapter 1

2.2 Constructing Patterns of Order Let us then come to the other pole – the evident presence of ‘organizing instances’. First of all, as is known, several kabbalistic authors resorted to explicitly stratified hermeneutic patterns to articulate different interpretive approaches, and to arrange the various significata stemming from them according to a more or less definite hierarchy. The best-known example is the fourfold method of interpretation employed from the end of the 13th century: it distinguished the literal reading (derekh ha-peshaṭ), the narrative-homiletic explanation (derekh ha-midrash, or darash), the philosophical or typological approach (derekh ha-sekhel, or remez), and the mystical or secret interpretation (derekh ha-qabbalah, or sod).128 This or similar multifold interpretive systems constituted a good device for carrying out the purpose of an inclusive semiotic work, which would take into account all the previous approaches, but would simultaneously provide an ordered anthological (or encyclopedic) collection, giving a major role to mystical readings. In later times, the main distinction was that between the way of the peshaṭ and the way of the sod (i.e., the reading “according to the Kabbalah”).129 Also the kabbalistic works that, like our materials, did not resort organically to the twofold or the fourfold hierarchical systems, and concentrated upon the kabbalistic stance, often organized their discourse distinguishing two or more layers of meaning. To be sure, the application of hermeneutic patterns hardly appears to be cogent, constant and organic. The interpreters do not always respect their own distinctions, and avoid meta-linguistic frames and terms; rather, they closely follow the texts to be interpreted, somehow merging into their primal language (be it halakhic, aggadic, liturgical, etc.), so that theosophical or mystical views are fragmented and dispersed in the flux of the exegetical discourse. Notwithstanding, some constructive effort usually stands out: the kabbalistic commentator seeks to build an integrated discourse, selecting and citing the most significant interpretations found in older materials, introducing some kind of hierarchical order, emphasizing the mystical readings that are more congenial to him, and so forth.130 128

129 130

It is also called the PaRDeS system. See Frank E. Talmage, “Apples of Gold: The Inner Meaning of Sacred Texts in Medieval Judaism”, in Jewish Spirituality, ed. A. Green (New York: Crossroad, 1986), vol. 1, 313–355; Albert Van der Heyde, “PARDES: Methodological Reflections on the Theory of the Four Senses”, Journal of Jewish Studies 34 (1983): 147–159; Idel, Absorbing Perfection, Appendix 1. Sometimes, the formal framework would separate also graphically the two modes of interpretation, as is evident in ʿEṣ ha-ḥayyim by Yehudah ben Ḥunain, or Sefer ha-musar by Yehudah (and Moshe) Kaletz. In many cases, the same titles of the inner sections – referring to “gates” (shaʿarim), “levels” (maʿalot), “orders” (sedarim), “palaces” (hekhalot), etc. – express a will for ordered and

The Disclosure of Sense and Order

47

It seems that the ‘organizational quality’ of the interpretive discourse varies widely according to the ‘style’ of each kabbalist. Some authors clearly tend to a well patterned composition, while others incline to an obscure and garbled discourse.131 Yet, I am convinced that the organizational disposition depends very much on historical, social and cultural conditions, somehow preceding individual propensity. At certain times, c­ ultural areas experience the need to address the basic fluidity of textual tradition, and the related tendency to semantic indeterminacy, somehow halting or shaping the magmatic stream of signs and meanings – by articulating the various readings contained in the earlier corpora, by giving an order to the multifarious meanings, etc. Such alternation seems to have characterized the history of kabbalistic semiotics. In determined circumstances, textual forms sought to work out the earlier sign network in an attempt to achieve clarity and synthesis. Thus, late Sephardi kabbalists mainly produced structured compilations of the Spanish kabbalistic legacy, which might serve as useful compendia for their own communities. This phenomenon is likely more evident in the literary texts devoted to cultic matters. Jewish mysticism, as already said, is inextricably intermingled with Jewish ritualism. A large portion of kabbalistic literature might be viewed as an ongoing comment on the halakhic way of life, clarifying its practical rules in the light of theosophical or mystical patterns. Likewise, the ramified procedures of the rabbinic ritual language could be used as tools for a ‘mapping’ of the supernal realms (the precepts, in all their articulations and intricacies, being projected on the higher dimension).132 My impression, at any rate, is that the vectors discussed above – unlimited semiosis and proliferation of sense – were somehow to clash with the organizational drive of the halakhic cultic hierarchical architectures. Certain writings – like the numerous “commentaries on the ten sefirot” – recollect and reorganize biblical terms and topics in a discursive order that is structured according to the hierarchical order of the divine dimensions (on these lists or catalogues of symbols, which function as “organizing structures” of the entire semiotic world, see Idel, Kabbalah, 213). 131 See the distance between the style of Yosef Giqatilla (the prototype of the first trend) and that of Yosef of Hamadan (representative of the second trend), as outlined by Alexander Altmann, “About the Authorship of Sefer Taʿame ha-miṣwot Attributed to R. Yiṣḥaq ibn Parḥi”, Qiryat Sefer 40 (1965): 256–276, 405–412 (Hebrew). One may compare also the way to present the upper orders: dizzy and cumulative in the caleidoscopic language of the Zohar, more structured in later works that elaborate the same Castilian Kabbalah (see below, chap. 2, n. 169). For a general reflection on this double aspect of writing, see below, Final Remarks, n. 51. 132 See below, chap. 2. As has already emerged, along this inquiry we often resort to a (­partially) metaphoric lexicon gravitating around terms such as “mapping”, “cartography”, “topography”, “architecture”, etc. – in a heuristic attempt to describe the kabbalistic endeavor aimed at making order.

48

Chapter 1

system: they encountered a limit and a counterforce in the strict boundaries and orders established by normative tradition, which had to be scrupulously respected in practice. Although this quandary is not discussed by the kabbalists in an organic way, it seems that they were sensitive to it. In fact, in the works that are more focused on legal-ritual codes, the dissemination of sense, the explosion of interconnectedness and indeterminacy, appear more controlled than in other literary genres – probably because the same structures and frames of the interpreted texts impose some “limits of interpretation”.133 Again, different attitudes among authors and epochs can be detected. It appears that, during the creative age of Kabbalah, the impulse to generate meanings in an endless process of semiotization prevailed. This is especially true for the Zoharic literature, characterized by a ‘wild’ cumulative display of mythical imageries and mystical interpretations on all aspects of Jewish tradition, including the rabbinic orthopraxis. Also commentaries on prayers and precepts were scarcely organic and compact at that time, inclining rather to amass readings, correspondences, and theosophical accounts. Thus, Dawid ben Yehudah’s voluminous and intricate commentary, ʾOr zaruʿa, reports many different exegeses of prayer formulas or cultic gestures, s­ ometimes ­providing three or four theosophical interpretations for each unit, without making any selective choices or providing meta-linguistic frames. On the other hand, authors such as Ibn Gabbay and Elbaz avoid an unrestrained exploration of meanings and correlations, and proceed to a more focused and (quasi) organic assembly of interpretations. Their commentaries follow the prayer service in an orderly fashion, supplying a condensed anthology of the secret wisdom that might function as a guidebook for the cultic activity. They indeed build up architectonic textual sections that host selected sources – above all, pertinent Zoharic materials that, scattered in the original form, are here gathered in accordance with the sequence of topics in the liturgical pattern. They emphasize the links between the liturgical orders established by the Halakah and the theosophical orders mapped in the Castilian lore, while minimizing the use of other cultural corpora (philological, philosophical, astrological, scientific, etc.). In comparison to the strongly polysemous stance that typifies the creative golden age of Kabbalah, here we find a more moderate and properly structured approach.134 133 134

On the latter issue in general, see Umberto Eco, The Limits of Interpretation (Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press, 1990). Discussing the hermeneutics of the theosophical-theurgical Kabbalah, Idel has reached the conclusion that the kabbalists, whose initial attempt was “to counteract the allegorical monosemic code” of the philosophers through their open ways of interpretation,

The Disclosure of Sense and Order

49

Let us consider the section devoted to the prayer Barekhu in Hekhal ha-qodesh. It is finely organized. It firstly inserts the prayer in the broader sequence of the morning liturgy. Then, it distinguishes the role of the prayer guide (sheliaḥ ṣibbur) from that of the congregation (qahal), assigning to them different intentions as to the theosophical hypostases to be addressed (a different vocalization of the divine names is indeed required). In this regard, two diverging interpretations are quoted. Finally, Elbaz suggests performing on Sabbath the second (Zoharic) stance, with its specific intentionality, while “in the other days it is fitting to stage the first intentionality”.135 This selective and organizational attitude characterizes Tolaʿat Yaʿaqov too. While largely influenced by Dawid ben Yehudah’s ʾOr zaruʿa, it diverges from the latter in several aspects. It is more concise and usually proposes compact exegetical sections (also when longer digressions in a rather prolix style emerge, little space is given to free original speculations). Ibn Gabbay picks up only few of the interpretations found in the earlier commentary (or in the Zohar), or gives a preference to one of them.136 In some cases, he explicitly alludes to the existence of other secret significations, which have been deliberately set aside.137 Also, the use of the comprehensive rhetoric based on the formula “another interpretation” (davar ʾaḥer), is much more sporadic in TY. Finally, this work overlooks Dawid ben Yehudah’s allusions to a very secret layer, indicated by the title “heads of the chapters” (roʾshe peraqim), presumably concerning visualization of diagrams and colors as tools for the theosophical understanding.138

“returned to much more monosemic forms of symbolism with the canonization of the Zohar” (Absorbing Perfections, resp. 282, 296). The last qualification must be understood in its comparative form. 135 See HQ, 96–98. Elsewhere, Elbaz states that he “has chosen” one of the available interpretations: see below, chap. 4, n. 122. 136 For example, Ibn Gabbay presents two different theosophical interpretations of the three festive meals on Sabbath (whose symbolism constituted a very controversial issue within the Spanish Kabbalah), and he clearly expresses his predilection for one of them, which is in accordance with a specific custom (see TY, f. 29b-c; compare Ginsburg’s remarks in Sod ha-Shabbat, 202–204). 137 See e.g. TY, ff. 32d, 39d, 41a. Both Ibn Gabbay and Elbaz, when dealing with the secrets of the order of Pesach, acknowledge that the inner meaning of the Passover Haggadah cannot be investigated in that context and would deserve a separate study (see TY, f. 32b; HQ, 253). 138 See Moshe Idel, “Kabbalistic Prayer and Colors”, in Approaches to Judaism in Medieval Times, ed. D. Blumenthal (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), vol. 3, 17–27; idem, “Visualization of Colors, I: David ben Yehudah he-Hasid’s Kabbalistic Diagram”, Ars Judaica 11 (2015): 31–54. On these graphical types of ordering, see below, chap. 2, n. 57.

50

Chapter 1

Talking about the organizing principles in kabbalistic semiotics, it is worth anticipating a topic that will be examined at length in chap. 2. In their approach to canonical texts, the theosophical kabbalists employed a “constellated hermeneutics”, made of theological constructs and theosophical maps.139 Rather than disintegrating the linguistic, semantic and syntactic clusters of the primary codes, they inclined to assume and remold those aspects in the light of the structured orders featuring their own imagery, producing at last elaborate syntheses of different languages. Although the outcome may appear “illogical, uselessly complicated, curiously disparate” to an ‘etic’ (from the outside) view,140 the kabbalists were confident in their ability to establish systematic patterns of discourse, capable of reflecting the articulated and hierarchical cosmic architectonics.141 In this context, also the strong hermeneutic devices mentioned above, which focus on numerical semiosis or literalist semiosis, could acquire another, more organizational, function – used to decode new types of order (both in textuality and in reality) and architectonic links between the various orders. Thus, in many cases, fanciful exegeses of numerological kind or based on some associative link in the signifier, were functional to articulate imaginal constellations. In a special way, the connection of cosmic orders (perceived as ‘semiotic structures’) to practical cultic spheres (the ‘concrete things’) was supported by the assumption that numerical, alphabetical or material arrangements within the ritual system mirrored similar articulations in the upper domains. Thus, for instance, much of the theosophical approach to the ritual washing of the hands, or to the priestly raising of the palms, gravitated upon the correspondence between the 10 fingers and the 10 divine dimensions.142 As a further exemplary passage, I shall quote the following excerpt, where – commenting on the opening praises to be recited on the Sabbath morning service – Ibn Gabbay observes: each [of the six] phrases [in verses 8–10] contains five words. One may find six citations [of God’s Name therein] which correspond to the Six Points that constitute the mystery of the Great Name; 139 140

141 142

See below, chap. 2, n. 26. I am quoting Roland Barthes’ observation on the Japanese modes of semiotizing their cities: “Tokyo reminds us that the rational is merely a system among the others. […] It suffices that there be a system, even if this system is apparently illogical, uselessly complicated, curiously disparate”: Empire of Signs (New York: Hill and Wang, 1982), 30. It has been stated that “for a medieval man, to make order means also to hierarchize”: Maria Corti, Il viaggio testuale. Le ideologie e le strutture semiotiche (Torino: Einaudi, 1978), 219. We shall return to this crucial topic below. See e.g. HQ, 139; on this matter, see the broader inquiries in Mottolese, Bodily Rituals.

The Disclosure of Sense and Order

51

this song of praise is arranged [alphabetically], composed of the ­twenty-two letters that the Sun emanated into the Moon.143 Here we touch on an intriguing and complex issue. The same interpretive predilection for analogies and links that we have described above as one of the main tools in the dissemination of sense, now appears as related to an organizational imagery and hermeneutics. The paradox might depend, at least in part, on our (‘etic’) perspective. We have the impression that surplus in polysemy flows at last into vertiginous indeterminacy. Rather than reducing complexity, multiplication of the orders seems to us to culminate into disorder, confusion and dizziness. However, Jewish medieval and early modern interpreters presumably perceived those clusters of constellations and correlations in a different manner – as reflecting the immense texture of divine creation, a “world of similarity” made of multilayered, hyper-organized and interrelated domains.144 This situation appears all the more pertinent with regard to the approach to the cultic life. We started from the assumption that the semiosphere of Judaism – a nomistic and ritualistic religion – was further elaborated by the kabbalistic culture, prone to a semiotic intensification of the law. Some kabbalistic interpreters went as far as mapping the entire world through rituality. Exploring the semiopraxis of the Halakhah, they were able to disclose hidden orderly articulations, or could decipher the web of correlations tying distinct domains. In a sense, the halakhic search for order in ritual practice fully translated into a theosophical-mystical search for further order. These organizing vectors stand out emblematically in the works examined here. As already said, major 16th-century kabbalistic sages attempted to bring 143 See TY, f. 25d (I quote from the translation of Ginsburg, Sod ha-Shabbat, 36–37); compare also Ginsburg’s notes ibid., 126–127, explaining in detail the commentary of Ibn Gabbay and his reuse of the Zohar (in part. II, 137b). In the next folio, it is argued that on the Sabbath “we bless her [the Shekhinah] with MaH”, that is with the 45 words that constitute the first paragraph of another song of praise. According to the numerological device called ʾat bash, this MaH is transformed in Ye-Ṣ, whose numerical value is 100, “the [number] that represents the entirety of the [supernal] rungs” (see TY, f. 26c; Ginsburg, Sod ha-Shabbat, 43–44). See also Ginsburg’s notes ibid., 138–39, explaining in detail the commentary of Ibn Gabbay and his reuse of the Zohar (in part. II, 138a). 144 On the “world of similarity”, see above, n. 113. In Infinity of Lists (London: Random House Inc., 2009), Umberto Eco has reflected precisely on the tendency of many cultures to “create lists” in order to render infinity ordered and comprehensible – a way that, at least in part, diverges from the rationalistic thought more typical of Western culture (see also my Bodily Rituals, in part. 228–230). With regard to the modes of constructing order in ‘other’ cultures, see the remarks by Barthes quoted above n. 140.

52

Chapter 1

forth the discourse and practice of the Sephardi Jewry in an age of dispersion and painful vicissitudes – by resorting to the literary genres of commentary and anthology (secondary systems of signification). Their powerful semiotization, tirelessly looking for arcane significata and correspondences, could push towards deconstruction of language and dispersion of sense, disordered accumulation and ultimate indeterminacy. Nevertheless, their works exhibit a profound ‘­passion for order’, and strive for making, preserving or enhancing order at all levels. In particular, as they aim at decoding the meanings contained in the cultic activity system, they operate at once a disclosure of the deeper orders governing the latter, in its forms and contents. 2.3 Binary Oppositions and Vertical Connections Having discerned reorganizing instances in the rhetoric of our texts and in their hermeneutic approach, I wish to turn to the inner processes of their semiotic work, and start to look into some basic modes of making sense and order. Developing an ideological-interpretive posture widespread in earlier Judaism (as well as in numerous religious, mystical and magical traditions), theosophical kabbalists establish a closer analogy between earthly entities and specular beings in the cosmic or heavenly realm.145 On the basis of midrashic passages, they state for instance that “everything that lies below has its counterpart above”, or that “as one does below, so it is done above”.146 In particular, they claim that all precepts or ritual acts “below” relate to their reflection “above”.147 Also the smallest ritual unit – e.g. one strap or knot of the tefillin – appears as being part of a chain that links it to a supernal dimension. It is important to observe some characteristics of this semiotic stance. A secondary modeling language, the Kabbalah often outlines a correspondence between items drawn from different primary sign systems. Analogous entities pertain to different codes or cultural traditions: therefore, the correlation – involving for instance Halakhah and theosophical Kabbalah (or astrology) 145 146

147

See above, around notes 112ff. On this ‘paradigmatic’ view, which represents a main tool in the hermeneutics of the theosophical kabbalists and is reiterated many times in our sources, see Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, 119ff. Such perspective enables them to search for the celestial archetypes of the earthly sacred matters (inversely, from our ‘etic’ perspective, they appear to be projecting the most relevant items of their semiosphere into an imagined heavenly realm). In the terms of an earlier kabbalist, “there is no act carried out in the world that does not have a force in the supernal spheres, which represents a sort of model and image”: Yaʿaqov ben Sheshet, Sefer Ha-ʾemunah we-ha-biṭṭaḥon, in Nahmanides, Kitve Ramban II, ed. Ch. Chavel (Jerusalem: Mossad Ha-Rav Kook, 1963), 379.

The Disclosure of Sense and Order

53

– can be defined as ‘intercorporal’.148 Furthermore, it appears that the earthly elements do not only resemble heavenly realities, they are also linked to them by a strong, concrete, dynamic, mutual relationship.149 Employing the lexicon of an important scholarly trend, one may say that the terrestrial beings or acts are here perceived as ‘indexical icons’, for they maintain a structural similarity with their counterparts (as an ‘icon’ does in Peircean terms) and at the same time they are in a contiguous, contagious or causal relationship with the latter (as an ‘index’ in Peircean terms).150 I intend to focus here on a specific version of this analogical semiotics, which became a major trigger in kabbalistic hermeneutics, although it had much earlier origins. Rather than with single items, the kabbalistic interpreter often deals with earthly orders or settings, especially ‘binary oppositions’, imagining them as corresponding to similar clusters in the heavenly realm. More precisely, the emphasis is on complementary or antagonistic forces, distinguished by stark boundaries, that thus constitute a dual structure below; this polarity is then connected to the specular dual structure above. It seems that mapping and classifying reality this way, through the typical ‘binary logic’ of traditional cultures, was crucial in the kabbalists’ activity of making sense and order. Much of their semiotic work consisted in a process of (horizontal) polarization and (vertical) correlation, which had to generate complex imageries, with sharp contrasts and conflicts placed on one axis, and sympathetic affinities and mutual links on the other. One may even argue that the kabbalistic episteme is marked by a mode of thinking and ordering reality that employs a ‘binary logic of classification’ working at different levels.151 148 149

150 151

On “intercorporal hermeneutics”, see Idel, Absorbing Perfections, 251–252. Usually, the kabbalists confer a chronological and ontological primacy to supernal entities (they are the “model” of terrestrial elements). Yet, the relationship can appear to be reversed, and the upper dimensions become an “image” or a “shade” of the lower elements. See Idel, Kabbalah, 173–181; Haviva Pedaya, “Figure and Image in the Kabbalistic Exegesis of Ramban”, Maḥanayim 6 (1994): 114–123 (Hebrew); Mottolese, Analogy in Midrash and Kabbalah. In chap. 2, we shall see that this hermeneutic stance relates to a cosmological view that assumes the continuum of reality, where the divine and human spheres – albeit distinct – mirror each other, share features, are bound by multiple media and conduits, and interact strongly. A similar elaboration on Peirce’s (and Jakobson’s) linguistic theories, blended with the earlier categories of Frazer (“law of similarity” – “law of contagion”), can be found in S.J. Tambiah, M. Silverstein, R. Yelle. As it shall emerge in chap. 2, doubling in the upper spheres the basic structures found on earth, leads to envision hierarchical forms and boundaries also within the divine, and to see the latter as strictly anchored to earthly patterns.

54

Chapter 1

It must be noted that the two types of relationship – the one between the horizontal opposites and the one between the vertical homologous – are both connoted by a mutable nature. Not surprisingly, as we shall see later on, the kabbalistic semantics is highly dynamic and prone to narrativity. I indeed surmise that the primary structures function as a sort of ‘mythemes’ for the mythopoetic discourse of the exegete, who narratively unfolds the connection between the clusters lying at the various levels.152 Let me now give a rapid sketch of some of these primal binary orders, from a perspective that inclines to detect long-term shared structures rather than singular creations, and to emphasize forms of continuity over total ruptures.153 As in all cultures, the structures that oppose “right” versus “left” and “masculine” versus “feminine” are of primary importance. These archaic polarities, so crucial in body as well as in embodied practices, played a pivotal role in the imagery of medieval Jews, becoming the trigger for innumerable attempts to grasp the hidden sense contained in Jewish codes.154 The kabbalistic comments on precepts continuously return to the spatial differentiation between right and left in the earthly cult, claiming that it is paralleled in the supernal realm – so that, for example, the right hand links the upper right (clement) side, while the left hand relates to the upper left (punitive) side.155 This spatial 152

153

154

155

I am obviously referring to the lexicon produced by the intersection of linguistics and anthropology, since Lévi-Strauss and Greimas. I share their view that elementary structures of signification, mainly of binary kind, constitute the ‘deeper grammar’ that ‘generates’ the semiotic-narrative discourses (for, as known, meaning is organized in a narrative way). However, I shall not take the analysis as far as the inner abstract layers detected by structuralist linguistics (see below, chap. 3, around n. 112). Evidently, they could be analyzed from other viewpoints: for instance, viewing them as anthropological universals of the human mind, or – on the contrary – retrieving their specifics and historical developments in the various Jewish contexts. As I shall make clear in the Final Remarks, our inquiry collocates in a somehow intermediate point. The present section shall offer nothing but a rough picture, while in fact each of the dualities discussed below deserves much broader investigations. Although we shall deal here with cultic items, it is evident that the same semiotic process was also applied to non-cultic matters, for instance to biblical figures or names. Thus, for example, “Jerusalem” became the feminine side of the godhead, “Mount Zion” the male side (see Idel, Absorbing Perfections, 284–287). See Mottolese, Bodily Rituals,146–147 (for the inverse specular reflection, see ibid., 225). Another main spatial pattern obviously concerns the opposition North-South, which also dictates and explains many ritual prescriptions (see e.g., HQ, 142). Semiotics and ethnology of culture have extensively dealt with the tendency of human communities to organize space (topology), constructing the world in accordance to basic (usually binary) structures, such as above-below, right-left, internal-external, etc. See e.g. Jurij M. Lotman, “On the Metalanguage of a Typological Description of Culture”, Semiotica 14,2 (1975): 97–123.

The Disclosure of Sense and Order

55

dichotomy tends to overlap with the gender distinction (“right” being associated to “male”, “left” to “female”).156 Here, as well as in many other cases, one observes the kabbalistic inclination to integrate different dyadic patterns, thus generating broader and intricate webs of meanings.157 Tracing the kabbalistic approach to the earliest steps of Jewish daily service, we have mentioned extensive discussions about ritual garments and dressing procedures. They are based upon another salient opposition: “nakedness” versus “vestment”. Within Jewish culture, the condition of nakedness usually has negative connotations, the clothing process positive values.158 Jewish mystics even considered the latter as a necessary step and tool to come into contact with the supernal realm.159 Our sources underline the two ritualized stages of covering the body – wearing ordinary dresses at wake, donning holy garments before going to the synagogue –, and interpret both of them as a deeper transformation of man, who puts on the signs of divine origin that correlate to upper forces, thus rendering his own body a supernal form. They devote particular attention to the halakhic requirement of covering the head, and the related prohibition to pray bare-headed.160 Leaving apart the contents of the theosophical speculation as well as the polemical overtones related to historical intra-cultural conflicts,161 I wish to underscore the role of the polarity “head-nakedness” versus “head-covering” as a basic trigger of the semiotics 156

157

158 159 160

161

On the engendered imagery in Kabbalah, see below, chap. 4, n. 105. On the widespread equation “female is to left as male is to right”, through which institutions in general reinforce “the social principle with a physical analogy”, see M. Douglas, How Institutions Think, 49. A further crucial opposition, constantly related to the ones mentioned above, is that between the two major “divine measures” (middot) – the “attribute of mercy” versus the “attribute of judgment”. Idel has examined its developments from Midrash to Kabbalah, taking into account the interpretation that (since Philo) associates the two biblical cherubim to two conflicting names, powers or faces within the supernal realm: see Absorbing Perfections, 226–230, 235–239. On the “two faces” (du-parṣufim), see TY f. 22c, where this binary structure is tied to numerous other ones: masculine form versus feminine form, positive precepts versus negative precepts, “secret of Remember” versus “secret of Keep”. See above, n. 82. See above, around notes 78ff. Dawid ben Yehudah’s discussion on this matter had considerable influence. See ʾOr zaruʿa, f. 7a: “whoever stands before His Lord in the synagogues […] with a naked head, he [is regarded] as if he would reject the supernal Arrangement (tiqqun ʿelyon) and deny the supernal Form (ṣurah ʿelyonah) […]. Indeed, man has been created in the supernal Form and must appear complete in his very perfection, according to the supernal model”. Dawid ben Yehudah’s predilection for the Ashkenazi customs and their stricter observance, is complemented by a harsh rebuke of the negligent path of his Spanish coreligionists (see Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, 278–279).

56

Chapter 1

in this field – hence the ritual clothing means a “completion” of the (human and divine) body, whereas bare-headedness relates to a “disarticulation” of the (human and divine) realm. It is obvious that the projection of the binary structure in the celestial realm had practical consequences, functional to a reinforcement of the traditional behavioral conduct oriented to proper décor.162 A further dichotomy surfaces in the same procedural-cultic context – the one contrasting “internal” versus “external”.163 When clothing himself, man must be careful not to “invert” the “internal side” (penimi) of a garment with its “external side” (ḥiṣoni).164 This polarity, already commented on by earlier kabbalists,165 is connected to another crucial duality in Jewish law – the one that opposes “pure” versus “impure”. Obviously enough, the “inner” is bound to the “pure” (tahor) or the “holy” (qadosh), while the “outer” is connected to the “impure” (ṭame’) or the “profane” (ḥol).166 In their search for the reasons of the commandments, the kabbalists did not only relate to the major distinctions established by the halakhic codes and already worked on by the aggadic lore and the early mystical literature – rightleft, male-female, covered-naked, internal-external, pure-impure, holy-profane, good-evil, day-night, and so forth –, but elaborated those primary orders and borders in the light of new maps. Countless mythical-theosophical speculations and narratives were then developed on the ground of the ‘deep structures’ that oppose right and left, pure and impure, mercy and judgment, luminous and dark, good and evil, etc.167 Thus, for example, many kabbalistic 162 163 164 165

166 167

For these psycho-social and pragmatic effects, see below, chap. 4. Semiotic studies have shed light on the common distinction between “internal”/“organized” versus “external”/“disorganized” (hence, “chaotic” and “impure”) – a distinction that could be applied to the world as well as to the human body. See the text quoted above, n. 78. The “Secrets” attributed to Yosef Giqatilla argue, for instance, that the human body contains impure external drives, which must be controlled and contained in their boundaries, yet not entirely suppressed or removed (see Sod ḥag ha-maṣot, Ms Vatican 214, ff. 68b, 70a). Tahor and qadosh often overlap in kabbalistic literature, although the issue of the relationship between the four terms is extremely complex in Jewish tradition (as has been demonstrated by P. Sacchi). The whole elaboration on the Havdalah of the Sabbath, was predicated with regard to the separation between holy and profane (see TY, f. 30b; on the importance of temporal boundaries, see below, chap. 3). Vast symbolic and mythopoetic accounts revolved around the basic halakhic contrasts marking the Pesach festival – such as “leaven” (ḥameṣ) versus “unleavened bread” (maṣah) (see HQ, 237ff.; the maṣah is then in turn divided into a right and a left part: see ibid., 252–253). As to the pivotal ceremony separating and uniting the “four species” during the Sukkot festival, the first binary opposition – lulav versus ʾetrog

The Disclosure of Sense and Order

57

accounts refer to the propensity of impure forces to invade the holy space or the holy body, tell about events of this sort in the history of Israel or in everyday Jewish life, and instruct the pious men to actively counteract those forces, by controlling and limiting them, or by enhancing the power of the Holy.168 In chap. 3 we shall observe in great detail that the primary structures driving the semiotic work, were often taken up as forming a graded pattern (where hierarchy and dynamics prevailed over polar opposition and rigid dualism). Thus, revisiting former Jewish sources, theosophical commentaries present a hierarchical ladder of degrees of holiness, where some cultic items are defined as “mild holiness” and others as “hard holiness”, and outline an ascending path from the former to the latter.169 We shall also look at another relevant phenomenon: instead of focusing on dualities, the kabbalists sometimes relate to more complex multilayered structures, which are similarly pictured as the ground for (usually upwards) experiential routes. Whereas in the case of single isolated units the lower elements lie in a specular connection with the paradigmatic upper entities, in the case of primary structures composed by two or more elements, the situation is more complicated and varied. Articulated in a dynamic hierarchical order, the earthly items appear as steps of ascending (or descending) paths – which reflect and intersect an equally diversified sequential pattern in the supernal realm. Here, the underlying patterns generate complex interactions on the semantic level, expressed through narratively-oriented accounts about graded procedures or architectonics that are correlated with analogous constellated clusters. At any rate, the interpretive discourse proposed by the kabbalists – at least, those belonging to the kabbalistic culture under consideration here – seems often to strengthen the orderly structures, cultic borders and cultural constrains featuring the traditional Jewish codes over the centuries, rather than mitigating them, removing them or venturing beyond them. The disclosure and increase of sense largely coincides with an organization of sense, in textuality as much as in reality – with the consequent production of an even more – was worked on to produce the following and more complex one: lulav/right/day/Ḥesed versus ʾetrog/left/night/Malkhut (see Mottolese, “Between Somatics”, 23). 168 See e.g. HQ, 65–66; compare Dawid ibn Zimra (Radbaz), Meṣudat Dawid (Jerusalem 2002), 428, 520. As has often been noticed, kabbalistic theosophies rarely propose stark dualisms in general, and envision rather the world as made of complementary (or graded) conflicting forces, which can be brought into balance and integrated (see below, chap. 2, around n. 134). 169 See below, chap. 3, around n. 47. Similarly, employing other dual structures, they focus on a “passage” from night to day, from left to right, from sitting to standing posture, etc.

58

Chapter 1

organic network of meaningful correlations. In particular, primary binary oppositions were treated as semiotic segments of paramount importance, to be correlated to specular articulations in the cosmic realm. While this semiotic process generated a complex semantics, made of multiple layers, connections and dynamics, the basic organizing vectors of the rabbinic semiosphere were ultimately enforced.

Chapter 2

The Imagery of Cosmic and Human Orders Semantic Dimensions of Kabbalistic Semiotics

We have seen that the kabbalistic machine for the production (and conservation) of sense was oriented to disclose not only secret meanings, but also deeper ordered structures in the Jewish canon. Not surprisingly, it had to find what it was seeking for. The exegetical work of the theosophical kabbalists brought to light what these interpreters already had in mind: theosophical maps, cosmic architectures, ontic correlations, etc. In other terms, while these orders appear as being the result of the kabbalists’ semiotic elaboration on former textuality, they actually constitute to a great extent the grids driving their interpretive discourse. In the present chapter, I shall try to clarify some of the semantic patterns that constitute their cosmology and govern their hermeneutics. These patterns of thought and imagery concern the main aspects of reality: the Godhead in its multifold aspects, the world in its plural layers, the human being in its various activities. We shall therefore deal with the “symbolic order”, which – here as in any other culture – produces a unitary “matrix of meanings” for individuals, on the one hand, while it legitimates the “institutional order”, with its game rules for the social conducts, on the other hand.1 The methodological stance adopted here does not provide for closer inquiries into the inner detailed contents of the kabbalistic speculation (on theological, cosmological, or anthropological domains), but has rather the ambition to discern underlying structures and functions. We shall try to observe below how the kabbalists – especially those belonging to the cultural stream analyzed here – imagine a complex articulated order governing reality, its multiple spheres and its interrelated levels. We shall see that this imagined cosmos, precisely because it is grounded on a very complex and delicate system of relations, appears to them as mutable and fragile, exposed to flaws and faults at all layers, so that its very existence or functioning must be actively maintained and sustained, mended and restored. A major pattern of the kabbalists’ semantics, and the ultimate aim of their semiotic enterprise, seems to concern precisely this need for (re-)establishing order.

1 I draw these terms from classical sociological inquiries, such as those of Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, but similar categories have been also used in anthropological studies. © Maurizio Mottolese, 2022 | DOI:10.1163/9789004499003_004

60

Chapter 2

1 Cosmological Assumptions. Establishment and Maintenance of Orders According to the famous formulations by P. Berger, “religion is the human enterprise by which a sacred cosmos is established”: “[it] implies that human order is projected into the totality of being”; ultimately, it constitutes “the audacious attempt to conceive of the entire universe as being humanly significant”.2 In effect, religions usually propose a cosmology.3 It would be here impossible to even mention the basic cosmological notions characterizing the Jewish religion in its various developments. Let me just remark that both ­biblical and rabbinic Judaism perceived reality as graduated, composed of hierarchical levels, separated areas, and sharp boundaries between them (although some entities or actions could partially cross the borders by observing specific rules). This cosmic Order, or Code, could be decoded (especially by experts) and had to be preserved (by all creatures). How was it possible to maintain it? In particular through the practical fulfillment of an entire system of ritual activities (­sacrificial offerings, oral prayers, purity rules, alimentary prescriptions, etc.) – composing a system that was strictly connected to the system of the ontic realities and, like the latter, contemplated ‘orders upon orders’.4 Since the beginning, the kabbalists developed a peculiarly articulated version of this conception. As has already emerged, they brought to the extreme the idea that a) the world is meaningful because it is ordered, and b) the world is ordered for it is made up of fundamental oppositions, occult correspondences, latent symmetries and deep correlations. Their main theosophical doctrine, which flourished in Provence around the XII century, gravitated – as known – around a supernal pleroma composed by ten dimensions or forces 2 Peter L. Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967), 25, 28–29. 3 I use the term in its broader sense, as in the work of the anthropologist Tambiah, meaning a framework that “treats the universe or cosmos as an ordered system”: Stanley J. Tambiah, Culture, Thought, and Social Action: An Anthropological Perspective (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), 3. 4 I refer first of all to the Priestly lore of ancient Israel, gravitating around the Temple (the latter being understood as axis mundi, microcosm and meso-cosmos). According to this tradition, a “graded holiness” governed all the major spheres of life – space, time, action, society. The human ritual deeds in the sanctuary were functional to the foundation, conservation and restoration of the divinely “created order”, which articulated itself in cosmos as well as in society and cult. See e.g. Frank H. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual. Space, Time, and Status in the Priestly Theology (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990); Philip P. Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992).

The Imagery of Cosmic and Human Orders

61

(the sefirot) – an intra-divine Decad interacting with the extra-divine layers of reality in an organic way. Many other architectonics, however, characterized that imagined order – not only other divine forms, but also angelic forms, demonic forms, cosmic forms, etc., all hierarchically and sophisticatedly organized, based on precise connections and regulated by intricate mechanisms. It would be very difficult to provide a general picture of this cosmology, which was rather fluid and changing, and was not exposed in a systematic and cogent manner. This is all the more true for our commentaries on prayer. In the following section I shall limit myself to highlighting some phenomenological threads of that semantic world, as it emerges from the exegetical discussions in our sources, and I shall focus on one major topic: the imagery of the interlinks between cultic orders and further orders. 1.1 A Mixture of Imaginative Patterns of Different Origin One main feature of kabbalistic literature is that it blends together many ­different modes of mapping reality, some of them very archaic, others relatively more recent. At the same time – more than earlier Jewish corpora, and in line with other medieval trends – it resorts to “comprehensive forms of order”, “speculative constructs”, “ontological concatenations”, which tend to superimpose on the earlier maps, revisiting, reshaping and (partially) unifying them.5 One must therefore acknowledge that it is hard to determine the historical origins or the development stages of those constructs, or to evaluate their novelty.6 In many cases, the medieval sages recovered architectonics already a­ vailable in the Jewish tradition, transformed them into overarching structures, and subtly combined them with new sophisticated topographies.7 What interests us here is how these diverse (ordered and organizing) imaginative patterns functioned as decisive tools in the production of sense. Yet it may be worthwhile to preliminarily mention some of their contents, and to briefly point to their historical-cultural roots. Suggestive studies have surmised that the kabbalistic notion of a divine pleroma made of sacred numbers, attributes or forces, might be related to 5 See Idel, “On Some Forms of Order”, XXXVI–XXXVII. Idel views the kabbalists as “confronting a variety of forms of order”, and developing upon the latter different “models”. In his vocabulary, “orders” organize signs, symbols or events into a broader logical structure, while “models” are more comprehensive patterns, combining forms of order in a peculiar way (ibid., XXXIII–XXXIV). 6 For vast and still valuable reconstructive attempts, see Gershom Scholem, Origins of the ­Kabbalah (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987); Idel, Kabbalah, in part. chap. 6. 7 See above, chap. 1, around n. 106, and further on.

62

Chapter 2

archaic beliefs to be found in ancient Mesopotamia.8 Other scholars have shown the rather precise parallelism with late-ancient Gnostic speculations about a primeval Anthropos made of ten entities.9 It seems to be undeniable that some patterns in medieval Jewish theosophy have remote origins in Oriental regions, and were the result of quite an obscure transition of knowledge and materials from East to West at certain historical turns.10 Angelological beliefs about a number of celestial “holy forms” acting as intermediaries between God and the created world, had been widespread since antiquity in Jewish culture.11 Mystical and magical trends within it displayed broader imageries about angelic ranks, hierarchically organized, spatially disposed in the cosmic realm, and having specific roles and powers.12 The boundaries between them and the divine world were rather blurred and permeable; on the other hand, they replicated in the upper spheres liturgies and activities carried out in the human sphere. Equally important was the concern with astral constellations. Astrological and astro-magical traditions spread in Eastern as well in Mediterranean areas were widely assimilated by the Jewish lore – often times combined with theosophical or angelological beliefs.13 This entanglement resurfaced at later stages, articulated in manifold variants in accordance with the broader cultural context adopting it (whether magical or mystical, medical or philosophical, etc.).14 8

9 10 11

12 13

14

See Simo Parpola, “The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 52,3 (1993): 161–208, comparing the kabbalistic sefirotic tree with images and terms found in ancient Near Eastern literatures (ibid., 171). About this imagery, see also below, n. 52. See Idel, Kabbalah, 112–122, also referring to G. Stroumsa’s studies. On these “translations” of ancient traditions and mythologoumena, see Moshe Idel, Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism (London – New York: Continuum, 2007), 51ff.; idem, “The Liturgical Turn”. Leaving aside the long debate about Judaism and Gnosticism, let me just recall that several cultural segments in Late Antiquity, somehow closer to rabbinic Judaism, considered the divine sphere as composed of “two powers in heaven”, either complementary entities (ditheistic views) or conflicting forces (dualistic views). Other contexts pointed to articulated hosts of archangels or heavenly faces (marked by sacred numbers such as 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 72). See Idel, Kabbalah, 122–128. A widespread notion was that every planet is presided over by an angel. The treatise Sefer ha-razim – mixing ancient Jewish mysticism and ancient Jewish magic – illustrates the seven heavens and the angelic ranks hosted by each of them. Zoharic materials often refer to the celestial ministers ruling over the constellations, and the entire world. Kabbalistic traditions usually interweave celestial bodies with divine attributes, despite the obvious divergences between the two orders (first of all, in the numerical structure: seven planets or twelve zodiacal signs versus ten sefirot). On the variegated

The Imagery of Cosmic and Human Orders

63

It led in any case to perceive the heavenly realm as perfectly organized and synchronized.15 A tremendous influence on Jewish tradition was exerted by the imagined order found in the obscure Sefer yeṣirah: a cosmic architecture based on numerical and alphabetic structures, whose encoded signs govern the astral forces of the universe, the parts of the human body, and the temporal rhythm of creation, according to complex mechanisms.16 No less influential were the imageries of the Hekhalot writings, describing the supernal world as a definite series of clustered ranks, and detailing the ascent and entrance of some human beings into those heavenly architectonics, similar to royal palaces.17 The aforementioned imageries of supernal structures appear to have been already integrated in rabbinic literature (especially in some midrashic-aggadic texts), and intertwined with inner speculations. Here too, one can find striking accounts of the cosmic building18 and the heavenly existence of hypostatic constellations, like creative primordial words, numerical angelic orders, plural divine faces, anthropomorphic supernal limbs, celestial living architectures (the Throne of Glory, the supernal Chariot, the upper Sanctuary, etc.).19

15 16

17 18 19

i­ nterpenetration of astral views and theosophical ontologies, see Moshe Idel, Saturn’s Jews. On the Witches’ Sabbath and Sabbateanism (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011); idem, “On Some Forms of Order”, LV–LVII. Compare also Ronald C. Kiener, “The Status of Astrology in the Early Kabbalah: From the Sefer Yesirah to the Zohar”, Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 6 (1987): 1–24; Dov Schwartz, Studies on Astral Magic in Medieval Jewish Thought (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2004). Logically enough, conflicts (and forms of compromise) had to arise between the belief in the power of astral bodies and that in the (absolute) power of divine forces, or that in the very power of human works and prayers. See the reflections of Aby Warburg on the astral orders as forms of human imagination (according to a Zoharic section, they correspond to the lines of a face). See Yehuda Liebes, Ars Poetica in Sefer yeṣirah (Jerusalem – Tel Aviv: Schocken, 2000) (Hebrew), and the studies by P. Hayman. For the impact of Sefer yeṣirah on the medieval diagrams of the universe, see Marla Segol, Word and Image in Medieval Kabbalah (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012). See Giulio Busi, Città di luce. La mistica ebraica dei Palazzi celesti (Torino: Einaudi, 2019), and the studies by P. Schaefer. See the long-lasting rabbinic view of the cosmos as an architectural project brought about by the supreme Architect through his wisdom. See the rabbinic elaboration on the two middot (“Measures”) mentioned before (chap. 1, n. 157), or that on the thirteen middot of biblical origin. Terms like middot (or ṣurot, “Forms”) can be seen as critical points of juncture between rabbinic language, ancient Jewish mysticism and early Kabbalah: see Michael Fishbane, “Some Forms of Divine Appearance in Ancient Jewish Thought”, in From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism, eds. J. Neusner – E. Frerichs – N. Sarna (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 261–270; Guy Stroumsa, “Form(s) of God: Some Notes on Metatron and Christ”, Harvard Theological Review 76 (1983): 269–288. These hypostasizing pictures were usually accompanied by cautious

64

Chapter 2

Finally, it is important to recall that, since the 10th century, Jewish intellectual environments encountered traditions of philosophical origin (mostly Neoplatonic), whence they absorbed many linguistic and conceptual grids.20 In these contexts, the aforementioned archaic imageries based on supernal constructs were revisited and reinterpreted in the light of the onto-theological speculation stemming from philosophical discourse (which referred, for example, to a graded emanative process from the One God).21 This is not the place to retrace the developments of these imaginative components, or to evaluate their respective impact on Jewish medieval cosmologies.22 I only wish to point to a general process that may have catalyzed various theosophical structures in the long run. Evidently, despite its monotheistic turn, Judaism also maintained within itself opposite drives, leading somehow to imagine a plural articulation of the supernal realm, and to figure a condescendence of the divine through (or into) multiple devices.23 While insisting on the gap between God and the world, most Jewish traditions sought to fill it through ‘mediatory structures’, which – albeit diverging in forms and contents – were all perceived as ‘celestial architectures’ and ‘holy channels of communication’.24 The medieval intellectual elites somehow drew on all of them, blending the various ingredients in rather different ways, thus ­ building more complex theosophical orders. The kabbalists in particular – which, as has emerged in chap. 1, resorted to a largely intercorporal ­hermeneutics

20 21 22

23 24

f­ormulations or somehow mitigated by a very fluid discourse: see Maurizio Mottolese, Dio nel giudaismo rabbinico. Immagini e mito (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2010). See G. Scholem’s Conference at Eranos (1964), entitled “The Struggle between Plotinus’ God and the God of the Bible in the Early Kabbalah”. On the conflict and confluence of archaic imageries and grids drawn from medieval sources, see various discussions by M. Idel. Compare below, n. 54. I can only mention the writings of the Ashkenazi (French-German) Jewry of the 12th-13th centuries, which contain lengthy discussions on supernal articulations like the Throne of Glory, the supernal Chariot, the “hierarchy of faces” (see Moshe Idel, “Gazing at the Head in Ashkenazi Hasidism”, The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 6,2 (1997): 265–300), or “geometrical forms” (see idem, “R. Nehemia ben Shlomo the Prophet’s Commentary on Elʿazar ha-Qalir’s Hymn And the Beasts who are found at the Corners of the Throne”, Kabbalah 41 (2018) (Hebrew): 59–192, showing that, within this literary body, the divine space was not only perceived as composed of different units, but also envisioned in the form of a circle or a square). Against a simplistic view of Jewish monotheism, see e.g. Peter Hayman, “Monotheism – A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?”, Journal of Jewish Studies 42 (1991): 1–15. On the “open circuit between the divine and the human worlds” characterizing religious mentality in general, and the specific “open channels” characterizing Judaism, see Idel, Ben, 1–2. While the latter book focuses on personal modes of revelation and mediation, like the hypostatic Son of God, we shall deal with more impersonal plural channels.

The Imagery of Cosmic and Human Orders

65

– ­constructed i­magined orders, joining together and overlapping structures from different bodies of knowledge. 1.2 Forms of Mediation and Supernal Structures Kabbalistic literature presents numerous types of theosophy, marked by significant divergences. All of them, however, are based on the idea that the godhead manifests itself in multiple modes, and conceive such manifestation as a continuous and differentiated process from the deus absconditus to the deus revelatus. This theological core is essentially in line with the biblical myth according to which the God of Israel reveals himself in many ways to the human beings, and with the midrashic mythopoesis, which stresses the similarity and contiguity between human and divine, and the multiformity and flexibility of their encounters.25 Notwithstanding, the kabbalists go further in the speculation on God’s articulated manifestation (either as emanation or creation or revelation), and in the imagination of the interactions between the heavenly pleroma and earthly reality. In a word, kabbalistic literature complicates, details and ‘hardens’ the forms of mediation, which turn into intricate supernal structures, usually perceived as articulations of the divine itself.26 Nouns such as middot (“measures”), ṣurot (“forms”), sefirot (“spheres”), panim (“faces”), kelim (“vessels”), parṣufim (“­configurations”), hawwayot (“essences”), poʿalim (“agents”), are employed as major technical terms for the celestial hypostases. Kabbalistic works also resort to key words such as madregot (“degrees”), maʿalot (“rungs”), meʾorot (“lights”), hekhalot (“palaces”), ṣinnorot (“channels”). Sometimes, the supernal entities are indicated by nouns with a linguistic connotation, such as shemot (“names”), ʾotiyyiot (“vowels”), or qolot (“voices”). It must be noted that all these terms, some of them investigated below, usually appear in a plural form.27 25 26

27

See Michael Fishbane, Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythopoesis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003); Mottolese, Dio nel giudaismo rabbinico. Idel has talked of a “constellated approach”, contrasting the “non-constellated discourse” typical of rabbinic culture: see “On Some Forms of Order”, XXXVI–XXXIX. Similarly, Liebes has described the passage from a more personal myth and a more flexible discourse on the divine found in the midrashic lore, to more complex mechanics and more structured discursive forms, distinguishing the kabbalistic literature: see Yehuda Liebes, “De Natura Dei. On the Development of the Jewish Myth”, in idem, Studies in Jewish Myth and Jewish Messianism (Albany NY: State University of New York Press, 1993), 1–64. Various kabbalistic circles even referred to different systems of sefirot, which were imagined as “parallel decadic orders” placed one upon the other, where the “hidden” decades functioned as the source of the “emanated” ones. See Moshe Idel, “The Image of Man above the Sefirot”, Da‘at 4 (1980): 41–55 (Hebrew), and his introduction to Natan ben Saʿadyah Harʾar, Le porte della giustizia, ed. M. Idel (Milano: Adelphi, 2001), 313–320.

66

Chapter 2

In an attempt to define kabbalistic views, scholars have already used expressions like “semiotic materialization of spirituality”, or “linguistic imaginaire”.28 I find it is interesting to directly apply the lexicon of semiotics and information theories. The aforementioned terms employed by the kabbalists all refer to a supernal Addresser, whose multiple dimensions convey sacred signification and communication through an entire spectrum of signs, codes and channels. Plural and articulated, those revelatory structures are necessarily ‘ordered’, for only ordered signs, codes and channels can convey sense and establish interaction (we shall focus below on the employment of the root sdr for expressing the semantics of “order”). Hence, in the principal narrative scheme proposed by the kabbalists, the supreme Actor – rather than remaining separated or “wholly other” (as the “sacred” and the “holy” are usually considered29) – activates ongoing strategies of contact with his Partners, both the world and the human being. These semiotic modes are usually similar to the earthly ones and involve the same channels, mostly visual or auditory, but engage also other senses.30 In particular, the ontologically-Other communicates itself in sacred spaces, objects, words, activities that make up the orderly life of the community of Israel, being actually embodied in the canonic sign systems of the ­Jewish semiosis and semiopraxis. A logical consequence is that those mediatory structures, albeit divine or quasi-divine, are oriented towards human comprehension and are quite open to it. The ‘semiotization of the sacred’ enables the ‘hermeneutics of the sacred’, also in its secret layers. Indeed, the kabbalistic circles were quite confident in their faculty to decode and grasp the supernal messages, and to finally produce full maps of reality. Also the ones that adopted types of negative theology, especially under the influence of philosophic views, usually maintained a kataphatic stance, a largely positive and active perception of language, and claimed that their mastery of esoteric wisdom rendered them capable of deciphering the divine transmission, more or less allusively found in sacred

28 29 30

See respectively, Mopsik, Les grands textes, 424; Moshe Idel, Enchanted Chains. Techniques and Rituals in Jewish Mysticism (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2005), 25–26. See Moshe Idel, “Ganz Andere: on Rudolph Otto and Concepts of Holiness in Jewish Mysticism”, Da‘at 57–59 (2006): V–XLIV. Recent studies have brought attention to visual aspects in Jewish mysticism, contesting the classical unilateral emphasis on oral linguistic dimensions: see Elliot R. Wolfson, Through a Speculum that Shines: Vision and Imagination in Medieval Jewish Mysticism (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994); Giulio Busi, Qabbalah visiva (Torino: Einaudi, 2005). In Ibn Gabbay’s works, a recurrent motif is that of the revelation as “Glory” (Kavod), which involves at once linguistic and visual emanative facets.

The Imagery of Cosmic and Human Orders

67

textuality, and penetrating the innermost truths in reality.31 We shall see below that a pivot of the kabbalistic narration is that the semiotization of the sacred is still in order, in spite of crises, difficulties, or temporary failures: divine agencies communicate with human agents through various media, granting a good level of comprehension and mutual exchange. Sacred writings obviously are major forms of mediation. The Torah, first of all, is envisioned as a texture of divine names, a print and an intermediary of the godhead, an infinite perfect organism that ultimately coincides with the entire cosmos (as a “world-absorbing text”) and even incorporates the divine itself (as a “God-absorbing text”).32 Sometimes, it is also described as an anthropomorphic structure, a macro-anthropos existing on high, but having reflections and parallels below.33 At any rate, it represents a major conduit that connects the divine and the human realms, bringing the Infinite into finite forms (or, to employ a relevant kabbalistic metaphor, embedding the “white fire” into the “black fire” of the letters), and so allowing the ascent of those who study and recite the book up to the higher spheres. As already said, also other writings could be deemed by the kabbalists as having a sacred and revelatory nature (including the Zohar itself34) – a further expression of their “linguocentric” and “bibliocentric” view.35 And even those media of the divine, to be explored 31

32

33 34 35

According to recent views, the kabbalistic discourse tends to emphasize the ‘intelligibility’ and ‘effability’ of the supernal spheres, as much as the capacity of man to ‘cling to’ those ‘holy forms’. This perception rather diverges from some statements by Gershom Scholem, according to whom the ultimate reality was for the kabbalists “unformed, amorphous”, so that traditional symbols would have been ‘paradoxical expressions’ of that ‘inexpressible’ – see his On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism (New York: Schocken Books, 1965), 8ff., 22ff. – a scholarly paradigm that seems to draw from negative theology on one side, Romantic symbolism on the other side. On this crucial debate, compare Elliot R. Wolfson, “Negative Theology and Positive Assertion in the Early Kabbalah”, Da‘at 33–34 (1994), V–XXII; idem, Through a Speculum, 56–58; Idel, Absorbing Perfections, 423–427; Sandra Valabregue, “The Limits of Negative Theology in Medieval Kabbalah and Jewish Philosophy”, in Negative Theology as Jewish Modernity, ed. M. Fagenblat (Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press, 2017), 30–47. See Scholem, On the Kabbalah, chap. 2; Idel, Absorbing Perfections, chaps. 1–2 (the expressions in quotation marks are taken from this work). In Antropologia della scrittura (Novara: De Agostini, 2009), chap. 6, Giorgio R. Cardona has shown how different human cultures (including the Kabbalah) seem to share grounding metaphors where the scriptures become “textures of signs” that cross the entire universe, filling the immense distance between God and humanity, and making the world “readable” by human beings. On the architecture of the holy writings, often appearing with an anthropomorphic shape very similar and closely bound to the human one, see below, chap. 3, n. 39. See above, chap. 1, n. 37. See above, chap. 1, around n. 102. Compare Idel, Absorbing Perfections, 410ff.

68

Chapter 2

below, that were not precisely of a textual nature, were somehow marked by, or bound to, linguistic elements. It is worth noting that each communication system coincides with an emanative system. In effect, the mediatory structures do not only transmit information, order and sense, but pour force and vitality upon the extra-divine spheres. According to a major cosmogonical account, the flux emanating from the higher divine point has generated and established limited and distinct forms into the primordial chaotic space;36 from that moment on, the effusion of the divine energy from above allows to feed and sustain all of reality, including the lowest material layers. A classical cosmological discourse in theosophical kabbalistic literature pictures the universe through the image of a “chain” (shalshelet) or a “ladder” (sullam), and argues that “everything is enchained” and that “nothing is vain”:37 in effect, a complex “concatenation” ties all the various “links” and “rungs”, and enables the “emanation”, the “flux” or the “blessing” from above (of course, also the inverse process, from below to above, is made possible).38 What I wish to remark here is that various verbal-figurative patterns were summoned to express such semiotics of the sacred.39 Moreover, speaking of supernal structures and media, each kabbalistic circle privileged specific terms, possibly more congenial to its peculiar kind of imagery. The term ṣurot (“forms”) played a crucial role in the first kabbalistic document (the Sefer ha-bahir), dwelling on celestial “holy forms” (ṣurot qedoshot),40 whereas the writings from the Nahmanidean school largely referred to the “figures of the supernal 36

37

38 39 40

On cosmogony as a progressive limitation of the infinite and arrangement of the formless, see Moshe Idel, Il male primordiale nella Qabbalah (Milano: Adelphi, 2016), chap. 3. According to this perspective, the forces of chaos and evil have a chronological and ontological primate. This view coexists, not without tensions, with the widespread notion of a primordial good arrangement. On the imageries of the continuum between the upper and lower spheres, especially involving “chains” and “chords”, see Idel, Enchanted Chains (in part. 45–48, 138). We shall see below some expressions of this vision. Interesting in this regard is the formula “between the earth and the firmament, everything is full (ha-kol maleʾ) and there is no vacuum (ʾeyn maqom panui)”, surfacing in the introduction of Moshe Kaletz to Yehudah Kaletz, Sefer ha-musar, 26. As Idel has shown, the double dynamics described by the kabbalists could partly overlap with the Neoplatonic “procession” (the emanative materializing descent) and “reversion” (the ascent back to the spiritual source). One may also say that, in their account of celestial architectonics, the kabbalists drew on many metaphoric fields. It should be clear, however, that for them these metaphors were much more than mere figurative expressions, or tropes: see below, around notes 157–158. Later theosophical kabbalists (such as Yosef of Hamadan) focalizes on the syntagm “supernal Form” (ṣurah ʿelyonah).

The Imagery of Cosmic and Human Orders

69

things” (ṣiyyure devarim) composing the heavenly realm.41 Frequently, however, the various vocabularies were combined together. An emblematic passage can be found in the Commentary to the Prayers by Menahem Recanati, the Italian kabbalist whose eclectic works, reflecting the theosophical views that circulated in Spain, were highly influential on later kabbalistic authors, including the ones examined here.42 It reports that the incommensurable God has acquired finite tangible forms – the middot (“measures”) – in order to create a bridge with the world and human being.43 It then resorts to another expression from the midrashic tradition – levushim (“garments”): “Accordingly, our sages called them [the upper spheres, the sefirot] garments, stating that ‘When the Lord created the world, he put on ten garments’”.44 A few lines later, a further crucial term is used to define the divine articulations – peʿulot (“actions”) –, together with a complex similitude that became a topos: God is compared to the soul, and his revelatory active dimensions to limbs.45 Evidently, each lexicon describes with specific nuances how the celestial realm internally articulates and externally connects to mundane realities. And although the terms can be sometimes interchangeable, they relate to quite diverse theosophical patterns and theological views.46 The point is that, as said before, distinct “forms of order” were available in Jewish tradition and were deployed by the kabbalists, giving light to plural 41

See Haviva Pedaya, Vision and Speech: Models of Revelatory Experience in Jewish Mysticism (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2001) (Hebrew), chap. 2. 42 See above, chap. 1, n. 39; for some examples of Recanati’s influence, see below, chap. 3, notes 18, 135. 43 Recanati, Perush ha-tefillot, 28*. 44 Ibid. (the reference is to Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana XXII, 5). Remarkably, these textile components of the divine pleroma were sometimes described as having different colors – visual elements par excellence, linked to the faculty of imagination. See above, chap. 1, around n. 138. On emanation as a process of gradual embellishment, see Busi, Qabbalah visiva, 67. 45 “Just as the specific (human) soul is in the body and cannot appear if not by means of the actions (peʿulot) made by the limbs of the body, so the Holy one, blessed be He, unites with his measures (middot), and a creature can grasp him only through the actions of his measures (peʿulot middotaw). Just as the soul is clothed (mitlabbeshet) with the limbs of its body and rules over the whole body, so the Holy one, blessed be he, ‘clothes himself with majesty and honor’ (Ps 104:1) and rules over his measures” (ibid.). The same topos appears for instance in TY, ff. 5a, 8d, 19c. 46 Lotman and Uspenskij have described the tendency of mythological cultures to elaborate complex cosmological models, without a clear distinction of levels and concepts, but rather recurring to the production of cumulative analogies between different spheres (universe, society, human body, etc.), and the assumption of primary linguistic elements (proper names, concrete objects, etc.) as isomorphic unities. See e.g. the conclusion of their “Myth – Name – Culture”, Semiotica 22,3–4 (1978): 211–233.

70

Chapter 2

“models” of thought and imagery.47 In many cases, these concern the supreme intra-divine realm directly, yet sometimes they refer to infra-divine or extra-­ divine mediating agencies (angelic beings, cosmic forces, etc.).48 Somewhere the supernal constructs are of spiritual or intellectual nature, elsewhere they seem to involve more tangible aspects. Kabbalistic sources often relate to higher linguistic entities: special names (divine Names), special letters (sacred Hebrew letters), but also portions of texts, sounds, voices.49 Some texts deal with architectonic spatial structures,50 or mechanic systems of water or light,51 whereas other texts speak of organic wholes, such as the Tree of Life.52 In many cases, the imagined supernal realm presents anthropomorphic traits, having to do with human-like divine limbs or activities; in other cases, it resembles cultic 47 48

49

50

51

52

See above, n. 5. On various conceptions of the sefirot, see Idel, Kabbalah, 136–153. As known, the kabbalists themselves debated the status of those supernal entities, discussing whether they constitute the essence of God or are His vessels or vehicles (what was at stake, evidently, was nothing less than the confrontation between the monotheistic faith of Israel and the plural appearance of the mystical pleroma). I shall leave aside the views of our authors on these speculative matters: on Ibn Gabbay’s conception, see the inquiries by Goetschel, Meir ibn Gabbay, 123ff.; Ephraim Gottlieb, Studies in Kabbalistic Literature (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1976) (Hebrew), 16–17, 402–403, 412–417. Other writings refer to mathematic orders, like sacred ciphers, hidden numerical values, or special geometrical figures (see above, n. 22). On “geometrical images” of points and circles, rather widespread in the linguistic Kabbalah of Abraham Abulafia, see Idel’s introduction to Natan ben Saʿadyah, Le porte della giustizia, 307–313. On “geometrical structures” for expressing the sefirotic system, employed by different but interconnected 16th-century kabbalistic schools, see Jonathan Garb, “Magic and Mysticism: Between North Africa and Eretz Yisrael”, Peʿamim 85 (2000) (Hebrew), 113–115. The term “building” (binyan) especially denotes the seven lower sefirot, which are also called “stones” or “palaces”. On “architectural structures” (spatial elements like “shrines”, “mansions”, “houses”, or chambers”) for describing the supernal world, see again Garb, “Magic and Mysticism”, 115–118. See also below, n. 55. On the hydraulic model, see Garb, Manifestations, chap. 4. Emblematic here is the translation of scattered archaic elements having to do with water (and water rituals), in an overall mythical imagery (see my forthcoming “Hydraulic Imageries in the Kabbalistic Discourse”). On this last image, see Elliott R. Wolfson, “The Tree that is All: Jewish-Christian Roots of a Kabbalistic Symbol in Sefer ha-Bahir”, The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 3 (1993): 31–76. As has been noted, organic symbols are culturally-connoted rather than purely natural (see Garb, Manifestations, 282; compare above, chap. 1, around n. 103). Indeed, the kabbalists exhibit scarce concern for natural or historical realities: they preferably relocate signifiers found in the canonic codes in a “symbolical universe” (see Idel, Absorbing Perfections, 284–287), and reread all events in the light of these same old “familiar archetypes” (see Yerushalmi, Zakhor, 36ff.).

The Imagery of Cosmic and Human Orders

71

orders, such as the Torah and its inner portions, the Temple and its furniture, the prayers or the precepts.53 Far from being employed in an exclusive way or separately, these (and other) types of order were continually mixed and interwoven in a complex symbolical universe. Usually, they operated simultaneously within the same kabbalistic currents, authors or even texts. Not only, as already said, kabbalistic interpreters embraced different traditions in their inclusive works, but used a flexible exegetical discourse that allowed to play with a wide spectrum of verbal patterns and to alternate different (or even conflicting) views. Thus, for instance, elements from an archaic hydraulic pattern – made of “sources”, “pipes”, “streams”, “pools”, etc. – frequently coexist with elements pertaining to the sphere of illumination, more typical of a later emanative ontology.54 Or, the same text that develops a theosophical imagery grounded on (impersonal) spatial structures, immediately after can shift to a (personal) anthropomorphic pattern.55 The clash of different orderly schemes could certainly provoke inner conflicts or tensions; these could be, however, readily resolved through a hierarchical systematization – as it appears when astral constellations are said to be inferior to divine constructs (e.g. the system of divine names).56 More usually, there appears a very high level of integration of distant patterns: linguistic orders – angelic orders – astral orders  53 54

55

56

On these latter imageries, see the more in-depth analyses in the next section. Needless to say, such overlapping of water and light can be found in many religious and mystical literatures. Evidently, also the imaginaire based on luminosity is archaic, yet coalesces with technical terms and readapting schemes drawn from the philosophic tradition. This phenomenon particularly distinguishes some trends influenced by the Neoplatonic lexicon, where earlier structured maps are somehow reinforced by hypostasizing conceptual grids of philosophic origin. Of great importance is the kabbalistic elaboration on the ‘system of the three worlds’ – the “upper world” (the Universe or the Heavenly Realm), the “median world” (the Sanctuary with its vessels), the “lower world” (the Human Being with its limbs) –, viewed as an integrated threefold reality to be explored in its manifold correspondences (I have examined the developments of this complex imagery in the early Spanish Kabbalah, combining Rabbinic analogical modes with Neoplatonic ontological structures, in Analogy in Midrash and Kabbalah, esp. 297ff.). Interestingly, the same terminology concerning spatial structures (like “houses” or “chambers”) could apply also to linguistic structures (pointing to combinations of letters, vocalizations of names, etc.) – probably the outcome of an earlier encounter between the imagery of the Hekhalot literature and that of the Sefer yeṣirah. The kabbalistic complex theosophies “were sometimes capable of accommodating the diverging symbols by applying them to different layers in the divine worlds” (Idel, Absorbing Perfections, 311).

72

Chapter 2

– sefirotic orders, etc.57 Commenting on the “order of the table” on the eve of Shabbat, Moshe Elbaz takes into account first the angelic ranks that preside over it, which correspond to the “order of the astral constellations” (seder ha-mazalot), then the articulation of the sefirotic potencies.58 In conclusion, one of the decisive semiotic mechanisms of the kabbalistic culture in general seems to be the assimilation from primary linguistic codes of earlier instances of organization and classification, which are submitted to a process of hypostatization and interlaced into a broader intricate network. Along this process, the kabbalists obviously tend to ‘superimpose’ their wider sophisticated orders on the former maps. Thus, plural orderly structures stemming from different cultural segments and regarding various layers of reality, are remolded in a rather integrated cosmological view (though still far from a systematic ontology or metaphysics). In fact, the various kabbalistic subsets make different use of the earlier forms of order, privileging one or the other among them, proposing specific hierarchical organizations, etc. Zoharic literature, in accordance with its kaleidoscopic imaginative language, outlined a peculiarly wild cumulation of orders (divine, cosmic, angelic, linguistic, numerical, etc.).59 The situation in our commentaries is quite different, as these aim – as we have observed in chap. 1 – at collecting, selecting and resetting the Zoharic authoritative interpretations in a somewhat scholastic manner. It is no coincidence that in these works one may see an emphasis on some forms of order (like the ones analyzed in the next section) and a marginalization of other patterns (like the astral ones); the same way it is possible to find a codification and crystallization of the theosophical-cosmological system, and a rather cogent application of it to the canonic codes.60 57

58 59

60

This is extremely evident in the graphic schemes (diagrams, visual drafts, etc.) employed by kabbalistic authors or redactors to ‘visualize’ the supernal orders (see the work by M. Segol quoted above, n. 16). These graphic elaborations usually outline “sefirotic trees” (­ʾilanot), which embrace astral items, angelic names, divine names, human or cultic ­figures, etc., in a sort of topography of the occult realm in all its facets (see Busi, Qabbalah visiva, and the current research by J.H. Chajes, D. Abrams, E. Abate). HQ, 162. On astral motifs in TY, see below, chap. 3, around n. 102. To give just an example: Zoharic passages offer long visionary accounts of 3 (in fact, 9) “orders” (sedarim) of angels, which stand according to 3 “directions of the world”, and thus correspond to the 27 Hebrew “letters” – the hypostatic holy letters that are “engraved on high”, which are in turn divided into 3 “orders” and relate to the two main divine faces (masculine and female, mercy and judgment). See Zohar I, 159a; compare also II, 228a-b, referring also to the 45 “colors of light” crossing the supernal world, the 75 “abyssal channels” found within it, etc. See above, chap. 1, around n. 134.

The Imagery of Cosmic and Human Orders

73

1.3 Anthropomorphic Orders and Ritual Orders Although the kabbalistic imagination of the supernal structures was vast and fertile, the anthropomorphic pattern played a most salient role within it. Since the beginning, kabbalistic circles unfolded anthropomorphic and anthropopathic views of the divine dimension, seen as a human-like agent with physical and emotional aspects, strictly correlated to those of the human beings.61 The Castilian circles especially produced bold human-like portraits of heavenly entities, and our commentaries do nothing but reaffirm those earlier views. Meir ibn Gabbay’s classical assumption is that man is ordered and arranged (mesuddar u-metuqqan) in his limbs and articulations according to a marvelous wisdom.62 The human being appears in fact as both the fundamental map of the universe and the main model of the upper realm.63 On the one hand, it is conceived as a microcosm, reflecting the world in its manifold articulations, and as meso-cosmos, being the intermediate entity that, by linking in itself all realities, connects at best God and the created world.64 On the other hand, it is seen as a “supernal model” (dugma ʿelyonah) or a “holy form” (ṣurah qedoshah), isomorphic to the divine Being, the “supernal Man” (ʾadam ʿelyon).65 Such isomorphism concerns not only the human soul, but also the human body – and not only the latter’s anatomical structures, but also its physiological processes and behavioral modes. Indeed, the essential homology between human and divine

61

62 63 64 65

See e.g. Moshe Idel, Representing God, eds. H. Tirosh-Samuelson – A.W. Hughes (Leiden: Brill, 2014); idem, “The Image of Man”. Logically, this implied heated discussions and subtle dialectics with the anti-anthropomorphic stance of philosophers (Maimonides in primis). In numerous essays, E.R. Wolfson has analyzed the “iconic visualization of God” in kabbalistic literature through refined philosophical grids. TY, f. 6c-d. On the centrality of human being in Jewish mysticism, contrary to the medieval stances perceiving it as a “peripheral creature”, see Idel’s essays quoted earlier, and idem, Enchanted Chains, 225; “On Some Forms of Order”, XXXVI. On man as “small universe” (ʿolam qatan), see e.g. TY, ff. 6c, 15b (in fact, the same equipment of phylacteries donned by man is defined as ʿolam qatan: see ibid., 8c-d). See above, n. 55. Obviously enough, the ‘anthropomorphic’ imagery of the divine is complemented by the ‘theomorphic’ imagery of the human being, which shares qualities and powers with the former, and can be even seen as an extension of the divine (see the studies by Y. Lorberbaum on this topic).

74

Chapter 2

is brought to completion insofar as man fulfills the righteous deeds, namely as he activates his limbs in accordance with the divine modes of action.66 At this point, it is consequential that the anthropomorphic order coalesces with a ritualistic order, which equally has its roots in the supernal realm.67 Recovering earlier traditions, Ibn Gabbay writes: All the precepts are dependent on the godhead, and therefore the positive precepts amounted to number 248, which is the number of the spiritual limbs […]. All the precepts are tied to the secret of the shiʿur qomah, and therefore all the 613 precepts were included in the 10 commandments that hint at the 10 sefirot. And the ten were corresponding to the roots, and the precepts were corresponding to the branches, and descended (nishtalshelim) from the former.68 In other words, the nomian obligations stemming from the Mosaic law and constituting the Jewish cult, are an orderly supernal setting, linked to the supernal (anthropomorphic) structure. They are themselves heavenly beings – not only heavenly decrees.69 Furthermore, they are sacred channels that mediate

66

67

68

69

According to Cordovero’s capital synthesis at the beginning of Tomer Devorah, man has to “imitate his Creator” not only “in bodily appearance”, but also “in deeds”; thus, “he should resemble the actions of the Crown, that are the thirteen supernal middot of Mercy”; otherwise, he might disfigure not only the lower form, but also the supernal one. About imitatio Dei through action, as invoked by this work, see P. Koch, Human Self-Perfection: A Re-Assessment of Kabbalistic Musar-Literature of Sixteenth-Century Safed (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2015), 83ff. The recent cognitive anthropology of religion (e.g. P. Boyer or S. Guthrie) has further explored the projection into heaven of sacred elements that is typical of religious cultures, describing it as part of the analogical disposition described in chap. 1, which tends to see the divine realm as made of agents and faces, orders and institutions, similar to the human-social ones, though endowed with extraordinary powers. TY, f. 7b. See Mopsik, Les grands textes, 600, which retrieves the sources of these motifs, showing in particular that the ancient homology 613 precepts – 10 commandments – 10 sefirot – 10 primordial sayings – 10 fingers, goes back to the early Kabbalah (see ibid., 110–111, with reference to Sefer ha-bahir, Ezra of Gerone, Recanati). On the coincidence of precepts and supernal middot, see also Idel, Enchanted Chains, 217. A central assumption of the kabbalistic ideology is that the normative “pillars” of rabbinic Judaism – study of the Torah, prayer, righteous acts – all have divine properties and function as major intermediaries between divine and human spheres. About the Torah, see above, around n. 32ff. Similarly, the 10 commandments or the 613 precepts, the prayer service or the Sabbath – all are “engraved on high”, related to the supreme decadic order, and envisioned as branches or limbs of the Supernal Form. On this process of “hypostatization” of cultic rules and acts, which is both an “ontologization of precepts” and a

The Imagery of Cosmic and Human Orders

75

the divine for human beings and allow the latter to attain the supreme layers.70 Significantly, as the kabbalists discussed the order of the precepts, they often referred to key syntagms of the ancient Jewish mysticism: maʿaseh bereshit (“the work of creation”, the primordial organization of the cosmos described in Genesis); maʿaseh merkavah (“the work of the chariot”, the celestial structures envisioned by Ezekiel); or – as it appears in the quotation before – shiʿur qomah (“the measure of the stature”, the bodily articulation of the gigantic Supernal Man gained by the early mystics).71 On this ground it was claimed that by keeping with the precepts (the “branches”), human beings connect their own earthly corporeal orders to the uppermost divine orders (the “roots”). Moreover, since “the supernal dimensions are dependent on the human limbs (ha-middot teluyyot be-ʾeyvarim)”, as man observes the cultic rules and purifies one of his lower limb, he affects and sustains a corresponding supernal limb.72 Here we come to the core of the theosophical Kabbalah. As Idel has shown, its main innovation may lie precisely in this proposal of active and dynamic “affinities between the commandments and the human and divine limbs”.73 Revising this point from our perspective, we may say that the theosophical kabbalists did not only consider the human being, in its physical and behavioral structures, as a map of the

70 71

72

73

“ritualization of theosophy”, see Idel, Absorbing Perfections, 70–73; idem, “On Some Forms of Order”, XLII–XLIII; idem, Enchanted Chains, 216–219; Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, chap. 4. If the precepts are the image of the Godhead, the performance of the precepts constitutes the way to obtain access to the divine: see Pedaya, Vision and Speech, 27–29. The review of these expressions in kabbalistic terms, was (more or less explicitly) a reaction against their philosophic transposition accomplished by Maimonides (see Idel, “Maimonides and Kabbalah”, 34ff.). The kabbalists claimed for instance that the precepts allude to, or even constitute, the maʿaseh merkavah, that they “come from a supernal dimension”, or “depend on one side of the supernal chariot (merkavah)” (see ibid., 43–44). On the orders of merkavah and bereshit in TY, as related to the orders of the commandments, see below, around notes 177ff. On the nexus of a precept with “the secret of shiʿur qomah”, see TY, f. 40a. See Yosef Giqatilla, Shaʿare ʾorah, ed. Y. Ben Shlomo (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1970), vol. I, 49–51 – a long and most influential passage on the nexus between bodily limbs, cultic actions and sefirotic pleroma (maʿaseh merkavah). For other crucial formulations, see below, notes 100ff. See Idel, “On Some Forms of Order”, XL–XLIII, and his final assessment that “the combination of the anthropomorphic and the ritual orders produced the most important forms of the Kabbalistic theosophical-theurgical model” (ibid., XLV). Elsewhere Idel has even suggested that this combination should be viewed as a major trigger for the developments of the Kabbalah: in fact, “a hypothetical affinity between some ritualistic aspects of Judaism and the ten divine powers predated the emergence of the symbolic systems as we know them, which may be described as an expansion of the affinities between these powers and some commandments” (Absorbing Perfections, 290–291).

76

Chapter 2

divine, but assumed the embodied ritualistic system of the people of Israel as the crucial means of communication with the divine.74 As said, the formal correspondence between human and super-human layers was for the kabbalists only the basis for a higher dynamic correlation: man’s active performance of divine law afforded the full encounter and interaction between worldly and divine lives.75 Evidently, these aspects of the kabbalistic imagery had important ideological functions.76 They display first of all an anthropocentric cosmology, which expresses a very high regard for the human being in all its aspects (including the most material ones77), and underlines the central place and role of human action in the universe. Likewise, it is undeniable that ethnocentric connotations mark this kabbalistic cosmology. The latter appears to strengthen the earlier tendencies to ‘humanize’, more precisely to ‘judaify’, the natural order (with its cosmic forces, its life cycles, etc.).78 On the other hand, it sharpens the already existing inclination to ‘naturalize’, and sanctify and enchant, the Jewish semiosphere (with its particular rules, practices, institutions, etc.).79 Already 74

75 76

77

78 79

In Bodily Rituals (150ff.), I have explored several clusters that the kabbalists associated to the human limbs engaged in ritual activity. Thus, for instance, Moshe de León built analogical chains, where the name of each sefirah was tied to an astral body, to one of the ten primordial sayings, to one of the ten commandments, to some human limbs, to some of the 613 precepts: see Sefer ha-Shem, ed. M. Oron (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2010), 21ff. In turn, Yosef of Hamadan constructed an intricate isomorphism between the five fingers of the human hand, the five books of the Pentateuch and the five lower sefirot, examining in detail the links between their innermost articulations: see Sefer ha-malkhut, Casablanca 1930, f. 93a-b. See above, n. 66. Here we understand ‘ideology’, without any bias, as that broader and sophisticated system of thought that gives sense to social reality. For a (quite vague) general discussion on imagery and ideology, see the introduction by Jacques Le Goff to his The Medieval Imagination (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988). For more circumstantiated inquiries, see Bernhard Jussen (ed.), Ordering Medieval Society: Perspectives on Intellectual and Practical Modes of Shaping Social Relations (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001) (see e.g. 101). While I share Wolfson’s opinion that kabbalistic standings claim a “semiotic transmutation of the corporeal” (which has to be textualized, inscribed, etc.), I believe that only in sporadic contexts they demand “an ascetic negation of the physical body”, since the latter is mostly viewed as a sign of the sacred in itself, though available to and requiring further semiotization: see Wolfson, Mirror of Nature, 314, 323. On this issue, cf. also below, around notes 95–96; chap. 3, notes 21ff.; chap. 4, n. 127. Peter Berger has defined this phenomenon a “nomization” of reality, that is the establishment of a meaningful coded order into it: see above, n. 2. Berger has talked about the “sacralization” and “cosmization” of the social norms, the “merging of socially established meanings with fundamental meanings inherent in the

The Imagery of Cosmic and Human Orders

77

submitted to de-historization and projection into heaven by earlier Judaisms, the specific ritual matters, procedures and sequences of the Jewish form of life, acquired a cosmic role in the mythopoesis of the theosophical kabbalists.80 The imaginative patterns sketched above, already crucial in the classical Spanish Kabbalah, were further developed by 16th-century kabbalists.81 Many of them seem to share a rather compact semantic and symbolic horizon, albeit not a systematic one. Moshe Elbaz’s work begins with a theogonic-cosmogonic account explaining how “the Primordial One” (ha-yaḥid ha-qadmon), a pure simple incorporeal essence, has generated multiple manifestations.82 These primary appearances are described as luminous entities (meʾorot), giving birth to architectonic structures (hekhalot).83 They are also defined as “measures” (middot) or as a “garment” (levush) (to note, this apparently unique aspect is immediately pluralized and engendered, appearing as male or female84). Among the semiotic articulations of the sacred, the normative moral obligations are of paramount importance: When the Primordial One clothed himself (nitlabbesh) with the holy measures (middot qedoshot), and his will aroused to increment the force of holiness, that is the force of Tiferet, then Tiferet ordered us to follow his precepts, his statutes and his decrees, the ones that the Primordial One, who dwells in him, ordered upon him […]. Indeed, it has been stated by the sages that ‘the Holy One, blessed be He, dons the tefillin’; and they also say that he fulfills acts of lovingkindness and buries the dead….85

80 81 82

83 84 85

universe”: The Sacred Canopy, 25. Mary Douglas has spoken of the “naturalization of social classifications”: How Institutions Think (Syracuse NY: Syracuse University Press, 1986), 48. Philosophers, sociologists and anthropologists of religion have often emphasized these powerful vectors of religion – nomization of reality, cosmization of culture –, which evidently corroborate each other. On theosophical Kabbalah as a particularistic and ethnocentric tradition, see below, chap. 4. We shall not take into account the even more complex structures imagined by the Lurianic Kabbalah, which viewed divine and cosmic reality as a vast magnificent machinery (see Weinstein, Kabbalah and Jewish Modernity, chap. 1). The epithet ha-yaḥid ha-qadmon, characteristic of Elbaz’s lexicon, resembles similar syntagms in the writings of Baḥya ben Asher: see his Kad ha-qemaḥ, in Kitve Rabbenu Baḥya, ed. Ch. Chavel (Jerusalem: Mossad Ha-Rav Kook, 1970), 239; idem, Beʾur ʿal ha-Torah, ed. Ch. Chavel (Jerusalem: Mossad Ha-Rav Kook, 1966–1968), I, 185. They might all stem from Neoplatonic sources (see the hypostasis called “the Primordial One” in Plotinus, Enneads, V, 1, 8). Compare also the formula quoted and analyzed below, n. 86. HQ, 54–55. Ibid., 57. Ibid., 59–60. About the supernal tefillin, see below.

78

Chapter 2

Not only at the beginning of the world, but at all times the deity would become incorporated in plural forces of mediation. A recurrent expression in Elbaz’s work is that “the Primordial One dwells in Binah [the third sefirah]”, or “inhabits Tiferet [the sixth sefirah]”.86 These divine agencies are often described as semiotic channels of a ritual kind. Thus, the cultic and social customs of the people of Israel are somehow kept by God Himself, who is also embedded in specific codes of dress and behavior (this concerns especially the divine appearance called Tiferet, the male magnificent aspect of the divine). It is no coincidence that heavenly forms and activities vary according to the timings that regulate Jewish ritual life: Just as the human being has precious important clothes (kelim) and has less precious clothes for profane time, so it is said that the Cause of the cause wears a sabbatical dress on Shabbat […] and a profane dress for profane time.87 Elbaz’s discussion of the phylacteries is exemplary. It recovers the Talmudic imagery of God himself wearing the signs of the covenant,88 and states, developing views of the Castilian Kabbalah, that on festive days “the world is conducted (mitnaheg) by the above tefillin”.89 Hypostasized as heavenly beings, the cultic garments are also sacred media that allow dynamic interactions between above and below. Equally interesting is the commentary on the Eighteen Benedictions. At this liturgical stage, the force of the One is “poured down”, “covered” into the various divine dimensions (first Binah, then Tiferet, until the last sefirotic power), becoming finally available to human worshippers.90 That 86

See e.g. ibid., 59, 108–109, 144–146. The first phrase – a sort of linguistic marker of Elbaz’s work – even serves as an epithet of God: see e.g. ibid., 234, 253, 282. Compare also the following formulation, emphasizing the active role of man in the emanation process: at the ʿAmidah (the crucial Eighteen Benedictions of the daily service), the worshipper shall be able to “draw the power of the primordial One that dwells in Binah until the latter shall put His glory within the sefirah Tiferet” (ibid., 108). 87 Ibid., 98. Also in TY ff. 23d, 30b, it is said that on Sabbath God wears special “garments of holiness” (malbushim, bigde qodesh), which are the same “supernal lights”. About cyclical time and ritual activity, see below, chap. 3. 88 HQ, 61, with reference to TB Berakhot 6a. Compare Ibn Gabbay’s lengthy discussion in TY, f. 8c.The kabbalists much expand the midrashic topoi according to which the godhead prays and fulfills religious obligations like wearing ṣiṣit and tefillin. See Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, 126–126; Idel, “Memento Dei”. 89 HQ, 75. Evidently, the theosophical system “directs” the natural order as much as the earthly ritual order. On similar uses of the term hanhagah, see Idel, “On Some Forms of Order”, LVI. 90 See HQ, 108–109.

The Imagery of Cosmic and Human Orders

79

the condescendence process coincides with a semiosis process within the ritual framework, is further demonstrated by the fact that, during the prayer, the illuminated practitioners must enact a progressive linguistic clothing of the divine Name by vocal points.91 Similar patterns can be found in Ibn Gabbay’s commentary, although it resorts to a slightly different lexicon. The latter often revolves around the image of the “chain” – meaning that an emanative network bridges the divine and the human worlds, allowing the descent of the flux as well as its return upwards. In a section on ritual garments, it is stated that all proceeds according to “the secret of the concatenation” (sod ha-hishtalshelut), “everything is a chain” (ha-kol shalshelet), “everything is enchained” (ha-kol mishtalshel).92 The nomian-linguistic items represent the main links connecting the higher and the lower rungs. In a passage quoted above, the precepts of the law are described as “descending” (nishtalshelim) from the upper spheres.93 The Torah appears as a “model” (dugma) of the Creator, which reveals while concealing at the same time: in fact, “it is covered by several dresses” (malboshet be-kama malbushim); and this is logical: “if it had descended as it is among the supernal entities, they [the human beings] could not stand before it”.94 Elsewhere, Ibn Gabbay claims that it is only through “image” (ṣiyyur) that it is possible to grasp something of the divine, and it is only through the divine “names” (shemot) that it is possible to pray God.95 Above all, it is through “cultic acts” (ʿavodot) that is possible to induce the flux from above to below and to experience a contact with the upper spheres.96 In sum, the supreme being and the earthly creatures can communicate only through “limited things” (devarim mugbalim), namely “forms of order” (sidre), which are “necessary” 91 See ibid., 111ff. Compare also below, around notes 117–118. 92 See TY, ff.7d, 8d, 12a. On the phrase shalshelet ha-yiḥud (“the chain of unity”) in Ibn Gabbay’s ʿAvodat ha-qodesh, see Idel, Enchanted Chains, 47. On his chord-imagery in general, see above, n. 37. 93 See above, around n. 68. 94 TY, f. 3d. 95 “There is no faith without image (ṣiyyur)”: see ibid., f. 5a-b. Already the early kabbalists spoke of the necessity to resort to “image” in human thought – alluding to the fact that the godhead makes itself accessible to human beings through the anthropomorphic visages and maps envisioned by imagination. The need for mediation and materiality in the human striving for an experience of God, was later underscored by Moshe Cordovero: see e.g. Pardes rimmonim, Jerusalem 1962, Gate 32, f. 78c. That 16th-century Safedian leader dwelled at length on the divine “vestment” by linguistic items (names, letters, etc.), that is to say the descent of the supernal force, flux or spirituality, along a hierarchy of material vessels: see Garb, Manifestations, 211–212; Idel, Enchanted Chains, 58–59. 96 Thus, we read that “the Sages enjoined us to partake of three festive meals each Sabbath”, since then “the Great Light descends from the head of the Holy One”: TY, f. 29b.

80

Chapter 2

only ­insomuch as they possess a quantum of multiplicity and materiality. The forms of the Jewish cult are the most sacred and efficient among them. 1.4 The Impact of Human Action on the Cosmic Architectonics As we have seen, the kabbalistic cosmogony and cosmology are predicated on the idea of a patterned cosmic order emanating from God, made of intermediary structures that ensure the existence and harmony of reality by means of a fluid communication and interaction between the various layers. It must be underlined that, in this imagery, human actors play an active and fundamental role, conditioning that very order with their deeds. Resorting to our lexicon, one may say that the supernal Addresser has brought into being apt settings and channels to convey a flux of energy and information through semiotic codes; it is then up to the terrestrial Addressees not only to access them, but also to preserve, arrange, reinforce or amend them. The theosophical Kabbalah perceives this communication process as sharply circular or biunivocal, thus going much beyond the theological views more typical in the West for what concerns the status and power of human action. A main belief in this context is that the human body has been created in correspondence to the supernal Form,97 while the human soul stems from a supreme source.98 Man can then complete the analogy with the divine, and also complement the divine intervention on reality. This occurs through human action (peʿulah), and above all through religious service (ʿavodah), namely the system of cultic activities commanded to the people of Israel (ʿavodat Yisraʾel). In fact, if all human behaviors have cosmic repercussions, this is all the more true for the works of the male Israelites, who have the duty and the privilege to fulfill the divine law entirely, in all its parts (written Torah – oral Torah), in all its moral and ritual aspects.99 Being cultic orders major settings of mediation, worshippers engaged in them – by performing the precepts with punctiliousness and intentionality, in accordance with the supernal modes of behavior – can “open the channels” and gain tremendous “power in their hands”.100 97 98 99 100

See above, around n. 61. See Moshe Idel, “Nishmat ʾEloha: On the Divinity of the Soul in Nahmanides and His School”, in Life as a Midrash, Perspectives in Jewish Psychology, eds. S. Arzi – M. Fachler – B. Kahana (Tel Aviv: Yediot Ahronot, 2004), 338–381 (Hebrew). Although our kabbalists argue that “any nation can augment its force by its acts”, they adopt a particularistic view about the unique and superior role of Israel (see also below, chap. 4.). The latter are usual expressions in the kabbalistic vocabulary. Thus, in the late 13th century, Yosef Giqatilla already argued: “How great is the strength of prayer! […] Through the

The Imagery of Cosmic and Human Orders

81

On the one hand, we find a vast array of ‘apotheotic instances’. Man can achieve sanctification, self-elevation, self-perfection and even self-deification, by assimilating himself to the upper orders and conducts (through imitatio Dei he fully accomplishes his own imago Dei). The pious Israelite is able to enter the domain of the King, and to stand in front of the divine Presence, at the feet of the Throne;101 he even has the faculty to cleave to the divine in a unitive experience.102 Furthermore, through his cultic acts, he makes each organ of his body a dwelling place – “throne” or “chariot” – for a specific heavenly force.103 In other terms, the ritual performance could induce the transformation of man into a supernal form, either through his ascension to the supernal layers or by means of an embodiment of the latter (the two movements often coincide). In any case, the construction of the self through ritual (‘anthropopoiesis’) means at once the attainment of a sort of divinization (‘theomorphosis’).104 These instances can be found in the kabbalistic tradition of all ages. In a classical kabbalistic commentary we read that the ancient (but also the actual) hand-washing ritual brings man into the same holy patterns established by God: “the priest who performs his service [by washing and rising the hands] clothes himself (mitlabbesh) and sanctifies himself (mitqaddesh) in the holiness (qedushah) of the ten sefirot”.105 In a similar manner, about three

101 102

103 104

105

prayer that man performs below, he arouses the upper chariots and opens the channels from the Crown… [until] the power of the blessing flows upon the suppliant” (Shaʿare ṣedeq, Cracow 1881, f. 7b). Compare also further on. For a broader inquiry into the reasons/ meanings/goals/effects of the ritual practices, see Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, chap. 5. Basileomorphic figurations and court language are vastly employed (see e.g. the passage quoted above, chap. 1, around n. 36). Elsewhere, righteous men are described as attaining an angelic shape (see e.g. TY, f. 28d). See below. On the capacity of the oration mystique to attain the supreme adhesion or conjunction with the divine (devequt), see Goetschel, Meir ibn Gabbay, 305. On devequt in general, see Ephraim Gottlieb, “The Meaning of Prayer in the Spanish Kabbalah”, in Prayer in Judaism: Continuity and Change, eds. G.H. Cohn – H. Fish (Northvale NJ: Jason Aronson, 1996), 146–150; cf. also the more recent studies by A. Afterman. See chap. 1, around notes 75, 97; cf. the next notes. On the notion of “anthropopoiesis”, see below, chap. 4, around n. 135. Especially within the 16th-century kabbalistic musar literature, one finds an emphasis on human self-formation and self-perfection, understood as an aware process of transformation of man into an earthly vessel for the divine: see Eitan P. Fishbane, “A Chariot for the Shekhinah: Identity and the Ideal Life in Sixteenth-Century Kabbalah”, Journal of Religious Ethics 37, 3 (2009): 385–418; Koch, Human Self-Perfection. Baḥya ben Asher, Beʾur ʿal ha-Torah II, 317. On the nexus between precept, purity and holiness in Baḥya’s work, see Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, 73.

82

Chapter 2

centuries later, Elbaz claims that the ritual ablution makes the human fingers “a chariot for the Holiness (merkavah la-qedushah)”.106 On the other hand, we observe a wide range of ‘theurgic instances’. He who fulfills his religious obligations is capable of affecting all the layers of reality, including the highest ones. His ritual performances activate processes and changes that involve the universe (‘cosmopoiesis’) and the divine realm itself (‘theopoiesis’), ultimately determining their ontic structures.107 Such attribution of formidable powers and portentous effects to human performance is by no means surprising in the light of the relationship – based either on isomorphism or continuum – established between the supreme orders and the human-ritual orders. By keeping to the latter, the Jewish righteous man can shape the former, having a feedback impact on the grade and quality of the semiotization process of the sacred. Also these motifs characterize kabbalistic literature in its classical expressions.108 What interests us is that theurgical views based on the imaginaire of an occult cosmic network, surface repeatedly in our commentaries.109 Let me 106

107

108

109

HQ, 67. Cordovero largely deals with the capacity of man to “assimilate to the godhead literally”, by imitating the supernal middot, and finally “to become a chariot for the supreme rungs”, therefore a dwelling place for the Shekhinah or even higher sefirot. Compare Bracha Sack, In the Gates of the Kabbalah of R. Moshe Cordovero (Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University, 1995) (Hebrew), 214–216, 228. Scholars have distinguished various forms of theurgy. In his broader inquiry (Les grands textes, 40–41), Mopsik discerned five different typologies: action instauratrice (the worship generates existence and relationship at any layer); action restauratrice (the worship repairs the supernal flaws); action amplificatrice (the worship increases the supernal power); action conservatrice (the worship maintains the mundane and divine order); action attractrice (the worship makes the divine flux descend downwards). Useful as they might be, these constructs are artificial and should not be distinguished rigidly; as we shall observe below, the kabbalistic discourse often mixes various forms of theurgy. Other insightful analyses have been proposed by Idel (Kabbalah, chaps. 7–8), Wolfson (“Mystical Rationalization”), Garb (Manifestations, chaps. 4-5-6), Huss (Sockets, chap. 13). These studies have also dealt with the frequent combination of theurgy and magic, especially when considering the so-called action attractrice (Mopsik) or “talismanic magic” (Idel), therefore the faculty of man to draw down the supernal beneficent flux. Let me just recall the famous bold dictum “the limb [below] strengthens the limb [above]” (ʾeyver maḥziq ʾeyver), which reassumes the kabbalistic theurgy of Castilian works, such as Yosef of Hamadan’s writings and the anonymous Sefer ha-yiḥud. See Idel, Kabbalah, 185; idem, Enchanted Chains, 139. Especially Ibn Gabbay’s theurgic views, deeply anchored in the Castilian tradition, have received some attention by scholarship. See Gottlieb, “The Meaning of Prayer”, 157–159; Goetschel, Meir ibn Gabbay, 276ff.; Idel, Kabbalah, 175–178, 189; idem, Il male primordiale, 236–242; Absorbing Perfections, 74, 525–526; Mopsik, Les grands textes, 364–383; Garb, Manifestations, 232–246. They have underlined to what extent, according to Ibn Gabbay,

The Imagery of Cosmic and Human Orders

83

just recall Ibn Gabbay’s recurrent image of a cosmic “bond”, or “chain”, whose “links” and “rungs” are shaken and affected from below.110 This occurs by virtue of cultic physical acts like the gesture of bowing, able to shake all the “links” (ḥuliot) that are in the “ordered series”.111 In fact, all liturgy is oriented to the middot (or the lower hekhalot), driven by the intention to “move” the highest levels of the Godhead, and to “connect” the whole of reality: prayers contain mighty secrets, as regards the bond (qesher) of the worlds, and the unification of the holy forms, and the drawing of the (divine) will on the (lower) entities.112 Drawing from Zoharic scattered sources, Elbaz states that creation itself has taken place so that the cult of the servants may perfect the plan of the King. Lower beings have received such a “power” that they act on the supernal spheres and “complete” them.113 God has indeed established a “unique link” (called with several terms, such as ḥaruz, derekh, shalshelet, yaḥas) – a “chain” of holiness and force that goes from above to below.114 Human beings can (and must) sustain this sacred pillar and regulate the intensity of the dynamic flux flowing through it.115 In particular, the people of Israel “can help the force of holiness from below” through their observance of the law.116 Such an action “from below” is able to propel the divine flux “from above”, and to make it enter the semiotic settings of mediation. The activation of the process described as a “vestment” of the divine is in this sense emblematic. As already seen, the correct execution of material human actions can have repercussions on the supernal structure, especially insofar as man is engaged with the Torah and the Jewish worship (see also below). 110 See above, around n. 92. 111 See TY, f. 17b. On the capacity of human action “to make impression” on the supreme layers, see Huss, Sockets, 195–196. 112 TY, 3d-4a. On the capacity of earthly liturgies to exert an influence on the dynamic interactions between the upper forces, even unifying the same divine realm, see Goetschel, Meir ibn Gabbay, 313–315. On the same motif in Cordovero’s writings, see Sack, In the Gates, 200ff. 113 HQ, 59–60 (commenting a long crucial passage from Zohar I, 34b, reported in its entirety at 58). Compare TY, f. 4a, 40b. 114 HQ, 61. 115 On cosmic pillars, and the power of the righteous upon them, see Moshe Idel, Ascensions on High in Jewish Mysticism: Pillars, Lines, Ladders (Budapest – New York: Central European University Press, 2005). On the human impact on the cosmic architectonics, with reference to Giqatilla and Cordovero, see Garb, Manifestations, 196. 116 HQ, 60.

84

Chapter 2

practices determines the clothing of the godhead with garments and adornments. Similarly, the “secret” of the blessings to be recited daily is to let the supreme force descend and be embodied, or “dressed”, by the various ranks of the divine pleroma. To pronounce the first word barukh “intends”, in effect, “to wear (lehalbish) the Primordial One and to attract (lehamshikh) Him until he dwells in the Crown (Keter, the first sefirah)”.117 The Eighteen Benedictions, in particular, activate a movement from below, which induces the Primordial One to accommodate himself progressively into all the divine measures, until the supreme divine Name (the Tetragrammaton YHWH) is vocalized, that is dressed, by variously-patterned vocal points.118 In sum, as can be expected, our authors work on essential contents from the semantics of the classical Spanish Kabbalah, i.e. imaginative schemes that lay bare the complementariness and intertwining of the divine and human actors, perceived as similar, strictly bound and both necessary for the welfare of the universe. According to such a theological and cosmological account, God’s “work of creation” has ordained a “good” world, made of structured, intricate, harmonic articulations; yet, man’s contribution is a “supernal need”, since the “rearranging” of that primordial architectonics largely lies “in the hands” of God’s lower partner. Man’s role is described in extremely activistic and energetic terms, for the interaction between the supernal pole and the human pole appears strikingly mutual, and ultimately incumbent on the earthly agent – to the point that, in this context, rather than absolute and omnipotent, God appears to be in need of human help, both in order to be “awake” and to keep the universe in existence and in order. Ibn Gabbay’s works contain some of the most celebrated formulations of the “cult” (ʿavodah) as a “supernal need” (ṣorekh gavoha), where the “upper beings are aroused by the lower ones”.119 Less known is the wording in Elbaz’s Hekhal ha-qodesh, as in the following emblematic excerpt: For this reason the Holy One, blessed be He, created man as the form (ṣurah) of the ten sefirot: in accordance to how man shall act below, it shall be acted above […]. For the whole creation from the sefirot to 117

Ibid., 68. This is the reason why the worshipper’s intention must be always addressed to the ʾEyn Sof (Infinite), although his prayers are directed from time to time to different sefirot. 118 See HQ, 108sgg. 119 See TY, f. 7b (discussed below, n. 183); ʿAvodat ha-qodesh, in part. Introduction, 9; II, § 1, 80; II, § 3, 87. Cf. Gottlieb, Studies in Kabbalistic Literature, 32–33; Joseph Avivi, “The History of the Supernal Need”, in Essays in Honor of Rav Mordekhai Breuer (Jerusalem 1992) (Hebrew), 711; Morris Faierstein, “God’s Need for the Commandments in Medieval Kabbalah”, Conservative Judaism 36 (1982): 53–55.

The Imagery of Cosmic and Human Orders

85

the lower world follows one only conduct (hanhagah) and everything depends on the hands of man and his choice.120 Here we find many of the semantic guidelines discussed before. First of all, a deeper homology connects the superior and inferior realms (appearing both as anthropomorphic/anatomic orders and ritual/performative orders). They proceed according to “one only conduct”, and each of them is ultimately anchored to the condition and activity of the other. In this context, man is provided with a tremendous power. His action generates at once apotheotic and theurgic effects. By fulfilling the mandatory cultic service, therefore sharing and manipulating the channels of mediation set forth by God, the Jewish worshippers cling to the supernal rungs and modify the entire reality, either simultaneously or in succession.121 On the one hand, they ascend “from measure to measure” to the upper spheres; on the other hand, they induce a descent of the divine along the conduits, “from degree to degree”.122 In this perspective, ritual orders seem effectively to assume ‘mystical’ functions, goals and achievements.123 2 Lexical and Narrative Semantics. Reviving Cosmic Orders through Ritual Orders We have presented basic cosmological assumptions of the kabbalists, related to their belief in a marvelous, hierarchical and interlinked created world, whose harmony is granted by the efficiency of sacred mediatory structures, particularly the pillars of the Jewish cult. In this archetypal horizon, the ultimate goal of man is to help the sacred cosmic architectonics to persist, to be preserved and put to rights at all levels.124 And indeed, the ideal condition is that 120 121

122 123 124

HQ, 61. According to Ibn Gabbay, man can act upon the divine pleroma insofar as he makes himself akin and closer to it. See e.g. TY, f. 4b: “As man purifies himself […] and fulfills the precepts, he becomes a holy vessel, apt to receive the divine illumination, and by means of the holy soul, the power to open up the channels of the supernal holiness, purity and wisdom, lies in his hand”. See also ibid., f. 18b, claiming that the main intentionality of prayer is to “open the Place by adhering to it”. Compare on this point Goetschel, Meir ibn Gabbay, 342. On these formulations, see below, chap. 3. See below, chap. 3, n. 132. As already seen (above, n. 107), Mopsik’s typology labels this model, where the human performances uphold or feed the orders of creation, an action conservatrice; Idel has talked about a “universe-maintenance activity”, and a “theurgy of the status quo”. On reli-

86

Chapter 2

in which the regular halakhic worship plays such an essential ‘maintaining’ function in the economy of the world, with the Jewish ritual orders prolonging and enforcing the cosmic orders. Yet, it appears that the same assumptions mentioned above – the complex arrangement of creation with its multiple articulations, the major role entrusted to humanity, the powerful deeds and events enacted by the latter – generate another and quite different picture, much more dynamic and dramatic. Far from being steady and unchangeable, the architectonics of reality is viewed by theosophical kabbalists as extremely precarious and mutable, exposed to vectors of disorder and chaos, and dramatically depending on human action.125 In fact, the theosophy and cosmology of the kabbalists lay the way for a turbulent ‘historiosophical plot’, in which the whole of reality is continually subjected to flaws and conflicts, fractures and transformations. A crucial role in this plot is played by the ‘reviving’ halakhic conduct: when damaged, the cosmic orders can be amended and restructured through cultic orders. Beside ‘maintaining rituals’, human beings have the faculty and the duty to perform ‘restoring rituals’.126 Not surprisingly, this dynamic view of reality, and of the

125

126

gion and world-maintenance in general, see Berger, The Sacred Canopy, chap. 2. Assmann has rightly noted that in ancient cultures “the principle of ritual coherence is combined with the idea of the need to maintain the world” (Religion and Cultural Memory, 126); yet, his rigid distinctions would have excluded the presence of this pattern in a culture based on textual coherence and interpretation such as the kabbalistic one is (see my remarks in chap. 1, n. 62). See Idel, “On Some Forms of Order”, XXXVI, emphasizing the contrast between the dynamic views of the kabbalists and the static cosmic orders imagined in Greek thought, and idem, Kabbalah, 176, comparing the kabbalistic orientation to theurgy with the metaphysical contemplation of supernal entities. Indeed, as Berger noted, the social construction of reality through religion – establishing order from chaos, making sure that the “cosmos” (or “sacred canopy”) would not descend again into the abyss of anomie and meaninglessness – is “inherently precarious”, just as it inserts human orders and meanings into the totality of being (The Sacred Canopy, 26–29). If we take the celebrated dichotomy between “locative” and “utopian” religious systems proposed by Jonathan Z. Smith, Judaism seems certainly to favor a “locative” vision of the world – where a well-ordered centered universe is maintained through a highly-structured ritual behavior; on the other hand, the cosmic order is perceived as highly fragile and often devastated by chaotic forces, so that transformative acts and events are continuously required. We shall especially dwell on this ‘mending’ function of the cult, namely the action restauratrice (Mopsik) or “active-repairing” (Gottlieb), which plays a leading role in the writings of Ibn Gabbay (see Gottlieb, “The Meaning of Prayer”, 157). Other typologies of theurgy shall be left aside here. The passage from Elbaz quoted before (n. 120) concludes with the following words: “For this reason it says ‘In our image, after our likeness’ (Gen 1,26), that is, in the hands of man lies the power (yesh be-yade ha-ʾadam koaḥ) to emend (letaqqen) the world, to build it up and to destroy it”. Passages of this kind refer to different modes

The Imagery of Cosmic and Human Orders

87

activity of man within it, is often expressed through mythical accounts and narratives, resorting in many cases to the famous verbal root t-q-n (“to repair”), as well as to the – less studied – form s-d-r (“to arrange”). Following the lexical semantics gravitating around this latter root, we shall try to better understand the ‘narrative elaboration’ generated by the ‘deep grammar’ of ‘ordering’ (to order – to break the order – to restore the order, etc.). 2.1 Mythical Accounts on the Restoring Power of Human Action The kabbalistic sources hint to a vast re-narration of biblical history, based upon the idea that the created cosmos, since the very beginning, suffered episodes of rupture and destruction. This mythical-historiosophical pattern usually remains an underlying palimpsest, it surfaces in scattered glimpses rather than in a systematic manner (perhaps the clearest, albeit fragmentary, accounts are found in Giqatilla’s theosophical masterpieces, which had an immense fortune127). Let me present briefly its crucial stages, as they are partially revealed in our commentaries as well. – The primordial cosmos already suffered serious damage because of the Adamitic sin. The above-described median structures, which ensured the interplay and communication between above and below, were disrupted. According to Ibn Gabbay (and the lexical choices are here significant), as Adam “was stripped of the holy clothes”, “worlds were confused and orders were damaged (nitqalqelu ha-sedarim)”.128 – Yet, with the erection of the sanctuary and the establishment of the ­sacrificial cultic system, the ancient Israelites could re-establish the primal arrangement and restore regular interaction with the godhead: the pipes were repaired, the blessing from above returned to flow ­downwards, the Shekhinah came back to dwell among the earthly inhabitants, etc.129

127 128 129

of theurgic efficacy at the same time. In many cases, our kabbalists relate to the capacity of the ritual orders to ‘support’ the work of God, enhancing and perfecting the orders of creation: what has been called an action amplificatrice (Mopsik) or an “augmentation theurgy” (Idel). More rarely, they focus on the power of pious actions to ‘institute’ or ‘awaken’ the cosmic orders: what has been called an action instauratrice (Mopsik) or “formative” (Idel) – an extreme form of theurgy that has a place in Ibn Gabbay’s work (see below, n. 142). On Giqatilla’s ‘organizational style’, see above, chap. 1, n. 131. TY, f. 2c. Hundreds of kabbalistic texts deal with the “order of the sacrifices” (seder ha-qorbanot) and explain its powerful efficacy, taking it as a perennial paradigm of the Jewish service. According to the well-known pun of the Bahir (§§ 108–109), the first function of the “sacrifice” (qorban) is to re-establish sacra commercia between below and above, and to “draw

88

Chapter 2

– The destruction of the temple by the Romans caused a new dramatic crisis of cosmic proportions, since it implied the end of the exchange with God through offerings and sacrifices, the exile of Israel and of the divine presence simultaneously, and a deep disarticulation of the supernal orders (the divine Name and Throne were fractured).130 – Nonetheless, Jewish sages (the men of the Great Assembly, the authors of the Mishnah and the Talmud) were able to make a new breakthrough, by establishing a de-centered Jewish cult based on a fixed order of prayers and acts. This corresponded to the sacrificial service and was (more or less) equivalent to it131 – and could therefore allow return to harmony and unity at all levels. – Since then, however, the situation appears very fragile. The cosmic organization is weakened by stages of decay and death, disorder and contamination. Human sins – especially Israel’s negligence of the law – constantly damage the well-balanced patterns of the world, below as well as above, so that demonic, impure, destructive forces are able to prevail over the holy, pure, merciful powers. I cannot dwell here on the issue of evil in the kabbalistic cosmogony and cosmology.132 Let me just recall that, in line with their analogical thought, the ­kabbalists argue that all the items found below – including those more charged with negative connotations – are also found above, and the binary oppositions on earth replicate those in the heaven.133 In the pristine cosmos (as in the m ­ essianic world-to-come), the potentially destructive and punitive powers are an integral part of the whole and participate in the general harmony, as they are limited within their original boundaries.134 Yet, this optimal near” (leqarev) the holy forms and forces. See the elaboration on this topic in TY, ff. 2c, 4a, 10b. See also further on, n. 174. 130 For a detailed discussion of these motifs in early kabbalistic sources, see Haviva Pedaya, Name and Sanctuary in the Early Kabbalah: A Comparative Study in the Writings of the Earliest Kabbalists (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2001) (Hebrew). 131 See above, chap. 1, n. 28. 132 See Idel, Il male primordiale. For earlier Jewish mythical accounts, see Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: the Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998). 133 Therefore, the superhuman realm encompasses demonic structures too: an impure “Other side”, a “feminine” aspect, a “left” dimension, “external” facets like the “shells” or the “outer channels”, etc. On Ibn Gabbay’s conception of evil as part of the sefirotic realm, see Goetschel, Meir ibn Gabbay, 156–164. 134 In some accounts, the aspects of evil and chaos seem to have preceded the same act of creation, and to have been counterbalanced and put in order by the divine action: see above, n. 36.

The Imagery of Cosmic and Human Orders

89

arrangement continuously risks collapsing under the pressure of those chaotic forces, whether of supernal origin or linked to human behavior. The kabbalistic treatises do not present only fragments of mythical accounts about cosmic struggles and breaks occurred in the past, but also allude to a permanent scenario of mighty dynamics and disruptions.135 These are caused primarily by human acts. Bad deeds are able to enhance the negative and disorganizing forces, so that evil and impurity take over and upset the entire cosmic arrangement. These tremendous breaches are ascribed first of all to the “nations of the world” or the “enemies of Israel” (like the archetypal negative heroes Edom or Amalek); yet, they are also bound to the Israelites themselves. Anyone who does not respect the divine law and morality, “makes himself impure” by straying from the “holy forms”, provokes serious damage in the supernal building, interrupts the “flux” from the upper “sources” through the orderly “conduits”, and so forth.136 Also a negligent or inaccurate attitude towards Jewish ritual orders similarly threatens the cosmic orders and can disintegrate them.137 The kabbalists display again and again mythical accounts that associate the most catastrophic events to Israel’s negligence of religious obligations – employing technical terms such as leqalqel (“to damage”), lebalbel (“to confuse”), lahafokh (“to reverse”), lesaleq (“to break”), leqaṣeṣ (“to cut off”).138 Thus, Meir ibn Gabbay describes the terrible impact of the one who arrives late for the synagogal prayer: he upsets the supernal order (mehapekh ha-seder ha-ʿelyon) in respect to which all our prayers have been ordered (sudru).139

135 136

137 138 139

In this perspective, the kabbalistic mythopoesis of history may be seen as combining linear time and circular time. Its narratives present a cyclical perennial meta-history, whose events are to be preserved and memorized because they unceasingly recur in history. See e.g. Giqatilla, Shaʿare ʾorah, vol. I, 61; TY, f. 4b. An Italian kabbalistic work from the end of the 15th century, argues that “when Israel commits sins, necessarily that [supernal] order is broken (ha-seder ha-zeh mistaleq)”: both infraction of the positive precepts and disregard of the negative precepts, provoke the “confusion of the pipes” that connect the various layers, and inflict a terrible “damage” in the “orders” (sedarim) themselves: see Eliyyah Ḥayyim ben Binyamin da Genazzano, La lettera preziosa, ed. F. Lelli (Firenze: Giuntina, 2002), 201. See the quote in the previous note. About violation of negative precepts (interdictions, taboos), see below, chap. 3. An earliest and widespread formula is qiṣuṣ ha-netiyyot, the “cutting off of the supernal shoots” that would be caused by arrogant, wicked or incorrect human acts. TY, f. 11c. We shall return later on to this passage and to this topic (see chap. 3, around n. 121).

90

Chapter 2

On the other hand, while these dramas occur, good deeds have the power to re-establish unity and holiness, prosperity and mercy in the whole universe. As much as the divine creation consisted in setting to rights the chaotic forces, human action (especially cultic action) is able to restore the primal arrangement (in fact, it is usually argued, the aspects of negativity, impurity or severity should not be entirely suppressed, but rather controlled and taken back to their original limited place140). This kind of theurgy – which has to do with the ‘reordering’ function and the ‘repairing’ or ‘reviving’ efficacy of human action141 – is expressed by linguistic forms such as lesadder (“to put in order”, “to arrange”), letaqqen (“to mend”, “to perfect”), or leʿorer (“to awaken”, “to arouse”).142 The kabbalists often resort to these verbal forms within their mythical counter-narratives, which tell about counter-acts that human beings have accomplished, allowing the restoration of the primal harmony. First and foremost, it is the regular performance of the ritual acts commanded to Israel that can set the worlds to rights.143 This theurgic view of the 140

See above chap. 1, around n. 165. Another passage by Giqatilla explains that righteous men are those who “place all the inner things in their inner place, and the outer things outside, and nothing leaves its set bounds” (Shaʿare ṣedeq, f. 12b). In this regard, it has been rightly observed that Giqatilla “sees the order of all the worlds as a stable hierarchy […]. All of existence is good, as long as it stands in its proper place” (Gottlieb, “The Meaning of Prayer”, 156). 141 About this typology, see above, n. 126. 142 On lesadder, see our closer investigations below. On letaqqen, see TY, f. 20d, which argues that righteous and pious men have the capacity to “amend” the same Glory, the divine manifestation, extending its force downwards (on this tiqqun ha-kavod, see Garb, Manifestations, 243). On leʿorer, consider the following statement in another work by Ibn Gabbay: “the lower beings have the power to awaken (leʿorer) the supernal things according to their acts and words, either the good or the evil, for there is no good or evil, holy or profane, impure or pure, that has not its root and principle above” (ʿAvodat ha-qodesh II, § 4, 91, discussed in Garb, Manifestations, 235ff). Again it is evident that the various models of theurgy largely overlap and intersect in the kabbalistic discourse. As much as letaqqen can also point to an action amplificatrice, leʿorer sometimes refers an action instauratrice, able to “activate” or even “make” the supernal orders. Earlier Castilian sources largely dwell on the “awakening” (hitʿorerut) of the supernal realm. On this extreme form of theurgy (an art théopoïétique, of “making God”) in Ibn Gabbay’s works, compare Mopsik, Les grands textes, 599–603, and Idel, Kabbalah, 175–178, 189 (examining passages where the Supernal form even appears “as a shadow” that reflects, and is dependent upon, human appearance: see e.g. TY, f. 4a). On the blending of different kinds of theurgy, note this further passage by Ibn Gabbay: “Any human act made below activates (meʿorer) its counterpart above […]. In the completion of all the precepts we shall complete (neshalem) the lower man, and shall arrange (netaqqen) the supernal man” (ʿAvodat ha-qodesh III, § 69, 467). 143 Anthropologists have described rituals in general as tools for restoring the order (in society or nature), namely as ways for repairing the fractures and crises faced by a community,

The Imagery of Cosmic and Human Orders

91

halakhic worship reverberates in infinite variants throughout kabbalistic literature, including our sources. It concerns acts carried out separately (e.g., by donning the four boxes of the tefillin, the pious man unifies four divine powers144) as much as collective performances (e.g., by forming the quorum for the synagogue prayer, the ten men reflect and affect the ten sefirot145). It pertains to the daily service (e.g., the recitation of the Shemaʿ enacts a complete unification of the holy forms146) as much as to festive liturgies (e.g., the blowing of the shofar arouses sound in the upper spheres147). It involves the verbal aspects of prayer as much as non-verbal aspects.148 A theurgic force is also ascribed to the same interpretive activity of the kabbalistic commentator.149 Much might be said about the kabbalistic myth, and its relationship with the Jewish ritual.150 I will limit myself to noting that, most of the time, some link surfaces between a kabbalistic myth and the legalistic-ritualistic arena, so that the former ends up somehow endorsing and strengthening the traditional normative-practical lore151 – or, to a lesser extent, the innovations introduced into the standard ritual field by the kabbalists themselves.152 In effect, the semiotization work investigated above has often appeared as a ‘mythmaking of rite’, a process of inserting myth into ritual, or submitting ritual practice to a powerful mythopoesis. Exploring the kabbalistic semantics, one notes the

144 145 146 147

148 149 150

151

152

re-establishing the original situation. About this ‘mending’ or ‘healing’ function, see the works by A. Van Gennep, V. Turner, E. De Martino. See Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, 104–105. See e.g. TY, f. 9a. See e.g. TY, f. 14b. See e.g. TY, ff. 35b-36a. On the joining of lulav and ʾetrog at Sukkot, provoking a supreme unification, see Mottolese, “Between Somatics”, 35ff. (that ritual act represents an exemplary counter-act, for it reverses the catastrophic effects of the sin of Adam, which provoked the first “cutting off of the supernal shoots”). See below, chap. 3. I shall return to this issue at the end of the chapter. For an introduction, see Gershom Scholem’s essays Kabbalah and Myth and Tradition and New Creation, in idem, On the Kabbalah. Cf. also Yehuda Liebes, God’s Story: Collected Essays on Jewish Myth (Jerusalem: Carmel, 2008) (Hebrew); Moshe Idel, “Leviathan and Its Consort: From Talmudic to Kabbalistic Myth”, in Myths in Judaism, eds. I. Gruenwald – M. Idel (Jerusalem: Shazar Center, 2004) (Hebrew), 145–186; Mottolese, Bodily Rituals. The old “ritualistic school” considered myth as a way to preserve memory and explain the fulfillment of ritual action: see Robert A. Segal, The Myth and Ritual Theory (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998). Leaving aside the long general debate on the chronological priority of ritual or myth, let me just mention the balanced convincing stance that “myths and rituals successfully combine as forms of cultural tradition”: Walter Burkert, Homo Necans. The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth (Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983), 32. See below, chap. 4.

92

Chapter 2

t­ypical ongoing elaboration of mythical stories that intensify the meaning, order and effectiveness of cultic acts – by demonstrating that the observance of the precepts can keep the world in order, or set the world to rights. Somehow, the same predilection of theosophical discourse to build ‘orders upon orders’ was nothing but another way to work out myth upon ritual. In the works under examination here, as in many other kabbalistic writings, brief and sporadic allusions refer to the underlying historiosophical plots. More rarely, slightly longer narrative accounts surface – although they remain interspersed within the fragmented exegetical discourse, and are eventually exposed in a parabolic garb. Such accounts seem to be well suited to being addressed through a structuralist semiotic analysis. In fact, in several occurrences they narratively display the semiotic schemes described in chap. 1: polarization of binary oppositions and analogization with upper dual structures.153 Thus, in some sections of Tolaʿat Yaʿaqov, the “righteous man” fulfilling the precepts is evidently the main Actor, who fights with the Antagonist, an evil force also called qaṭegor, “prosecutor”.154 Elsewhere, the devotee appears in the role of the Assistant, who offers decisive help to the supernal main Actor, often identified with the female hero (the Shekhinah or the “spouse”), who may escape or combat the impure forces (the Antagonist) and finally achieve redemption and union (the Goal). Frequently enough, the duality of the Partners (main Actor – Assistant) is made up of a male and a female pole, for which reason the mythical dramas that unfold have erotic or sexual overtones.155 Many narrative accounts depict the collaborative intimate interaction of the lower and higher Partners in the effort to sustain or emend the primordial cosmic arrangement. This fundamental grammar is however declined in manifold versions, sometimes combining different variants of the same mythical plot. For instance, in some cases the righteous man is described as crowning the Shekhinah from below, while in other occurrences (even in the same context)

153

154 155

See above, chap. 1, around n. 151; below, chap. 3, around notes 111ff. ‘Narrativity’ is described by semioticians as a major intermediary between discourse and life, textuality and experience, inserting order into both of them. In a closer dialogue between philosophy and semiotic-anthropological inquiries, Paul Ricoeur has shown how the narrative poiesis locates single elements into a complex, concrete, unitary texture of relationships, namely the ‘order of the story’. Here, and in chap. 3, we may catch a glimpse of the vast research that might be done from this viewpoint into the kabbalistic literature. See e.g. TY, f. 20a. This is most evident in the mythopoetic discourse of the Castilian Kabbalah. On “sexual polarization as a Zoharic exegetical device”, see Idel, Absorbing Perfections, 307–311. See also above, chap. 1, n. 156; below, chap. 4, n. 105.

The Imagery of Cosmic and Human Orders

93

it is the supernal Righteous, the sefirah Yesod, that crowns the divine spouse from above.156 Such narrative modes give us the opportunity for a final brief consideration on the language of theosophical kabbalists. This appears to oscillate between metaphor and myth, yet the mythical connotations seem in fact to prevail, especially as the figurative items are involved in a narrative account.157 One might conclude that the semiotic and interpretive schemes of the kabbalists – rather than being oriented towards constructing a theoretical, conceptual, systemic discourse – were inclined to stage a fragmentary but vivid mythical narrativity, oftentimes concerning the formidable performativity of human action.158 In many cases, in fact, theosophical topographies, cosmological ­cartographies, and also historiosophical narratives were bound to the set of cultic activities. Evidently, a focal point of the kabbalistic ideology consisted in a mythical enhancement of the ritual orthopraxis (frequently conveying a mystical review of it). As it will emerge more clearly later on, the imagined order and the imaginative language of the kabbalists were functional to sustain and promote the traditional rabbinic form of life, filling it with new layers of sense and making plausible the power of transformation ascribed to it. 2.2 The Use of s-d-r and the Related Narrative Elaboration It may be useful to integrate the former discussion with an inquiry into the lexical semantics that gravitates around the linguistic root sdr. Since ancient 156 See TY, f. 20a. 157 In other studies (Bodily Rituals, chap. 6; “Between Somatics”, 55ff.; “Hydraulic Imageries in the Kabbalistic Discourse”, forthcoming), I have tried to clarify the intricate linguistic game of the kabbalists, whose ‘metaphorical figurations’ (often concerning tangible objects, sensory gestures or family dynamics, or directly stemming from legal-ritual contexts) usually produce ‘metonymical links’ and engender ‘mythical narratives’. Emblematic are the complex metaphoric images surfacing for the first time in the Sefer ha-bahir as ingredients of obscure fragmented mythopoetic sections (concerning “water”, “pipelines”, “garden”; or “king”, “royal insignia”, “sons”, etc.), and then continuously retrieved by later kabbalists. 158 A recent study has argued that every culture has its own “semiotic ideology” (a “cosmology of the sign”), which “informs, mediates, and structures its practices of communication”: Robert A. Yelle, Semiotics of Religion: Signs of the Sacred History (New York: Bloomsbury, 2013), 3. Evidently, the theosophical kabbalistic culture bases itself on a notion of the components of the Hebrew language as “indexical icons”, which map and reflect ontic, even supernal, realities (as icons), and at the same time are able to exert a strong influence on those contiguous realities (as indices) (see ibid., 28–29; cf. also above, chap. 1, around notes 149–150). Thus, the major signs of the Jewish semiosphere – and especially of the Jewish ritual language – appear simultaneously as an “icon” and as an “index”, having a certain degree of grip on reality.

94

Chapter 2

times, a set of Hebrew words and verbal forms stemming from this root, played an important role in the cultic area. Both the sacrificial worship and the prayer service were thought of as ‘arranged in a proper sequence’: they therefore had to be enacted “according to their order” (‘al ha-seder159). In fact, structured patterns governed not only sacred behavior, but also – and primarily – the textuality driving the cultic activity. The rabbinic sages employed formulary syntagms based on s-d-r to indicate the orderly succession of the Pentateuch sections (seder parashot), or that of the portions from the Hagiographa (seder haftarot), which were to be read during the liturgical cycle. Furthermore, they redacted the Mishnah in six orders (sedarim). Over the centuries, with the dispersion of the people of Israel, the need arose for a progressive codification of the whole Jewish liturgy, able to fix the “order of prayers” (seder ha-tefillot)160 and collect them into a prayer book (Siddur, literally “order”) to be used for regular daily services (while an equally organized “cycle”, the Maḥzor, was elaborated for festival prayers).161 The stringent ritual sequences of festive days were also labeled “orders” (seder Pesaḥ, seder Rosh ha-shanah, seder ha-shofar, seder ha-ʿavodah on Yom Kippur, etc.). Already in earlier periods, Jewish authors resorted to s-d-r also to indicate extra-textual and extra-cultic dimensions, namely “rows”, “lines” or “laws” found in reality itself. Ancient sources referred for example to an “order of creation” (seder bereshit) governing the natural world,162 or to an “upper order” (sidra de-layl), pointing to angelic or cosmic higher ranks.163 Consequently, a close and articulated relationship between the cultic patterns and the ontic patterns was likely to be developed in later times.164 Medieval literature 159

On the temple activity, see e.g. TB Yoma 45b. On the extra-temple liturgical system, see e.g. TB Megillah 17b, stating that “120 elders, and among them some prophets, instituted (tiqqenu) the Eighteen Benedictions in their order (ʿal ha-seder)” – where noteworthy is the early connection between the forms t-q-n (“to institute”, “to establish”) and s-d-r (“to arrange”, “to establish the succession”) – a connection to be developed in kabbalistic literature (see below, n. 173). Recurring in the halakhic and kabbalistic elaboration are also the passages in TB Berakhot 28a, 34a, and especially the one ibid., 32a: “Based on Moses’ prayers, Rabbi Simlai taught: One should always set forth (yesader) praise of the Holy One, blessed be He, and then pray for his own needs” – whence the diffuse syntagm yesader ha-berakhot (“man shall arrange/set forth the blessings”), mentioned below, n. 164. 160 Medieval codifications of the prayer service were called seder: for example, Seder Rav Amram (“the Seder authored by Rav Amram Gaon”). 161 See the comprehensive research on this process by N. Wieder and L. Hoffman. 162 See TB Shabbat 53b. 163 See Targum Yerushalmi to Deut 5:28. 164 See the formulation found in various halakhic codes: “man shall arrange the blessings (yesader ha-berakhot) that were established (she-tiqqenu) according to the order of the

The Imagery of Cosmic and Human Orders

95

employed the root sdr massively with regard to both experienced structures (in textual, social, legal spheres) and imagined structures (in the cosmic and supernal realm), often claiming that the encoded practical articulations were part of the inner sacred order of the universe.165 Interestingly, early Provençal and Ashkenazi writings labeled the order of prayer an “order of holiness” (seder ha-qedushah).166 Within the kabbalistic tradition, we have detected a celestial hypostatization of the law and commandments, envisioned as supernal entities, and an ongoing combination between the precepts and the archetypal orders of ­creation. On the one hand, the heavenly realm is perceived as being made up of coordinated clusters and architectures, as is demonstrated by the use of syntagms such as “the structure of the building” (seder ha-binyan), “the system of the rungs” (seder ha-maʿalot), “the order of the measures” (siddur ha-­middot),167 “the disposition of the godhead” (maʿarekhet ha-ʾelohut),168 or similar expressions.169 On the other hand, the upper articulations are considered as inextricably tied to the social-normative arrangement of the Jewish cult, with its ramified procedural patterns. Thus, Baḥya ben Asher argued that the four species in the lulav count seven, in correspondence to seven superhuman agents

165 166 167 168

169

world and its conduct (ʿal siddur ha-ʿolam we-hanhagato)” (Tur and Bet Yosef, on ʾOraḥ ḥayyim 46:1). Compare Yisrael Al-Naqawa, Menorat ha-maʾor, ed. H.G. Enelow (Jerusalem: Makor Publishers, 1972), II, 76–77. On sacralization and cosmization of social norms, see above, around n. 79. See Asher ben Shaul of Luniel, Sefer ha-minhagot, ed. S. Assaf (Jerusalem, 1935), 142–143. For the first expression, see first of all Ezra of Gerona, Perush Shir ha-shirim, in Nahmanides, Kitve Ramban II, ed. Ch. Chavel (Jerusalem: Mossad Ha-Rav Kook, 1963); for the last syntagm, see e.g. Baḥya ben Asher, Kad ha-qemaḥ, in Kitve Rabbenu Baḥya, 350. The term maʿarakhah (sometimes joined with seder) had been employed in rabbinic texts with regard to the arrangement of the sacrificial offerings. In medieval Hebrew it was also used to point to astronomical constellations (see Idel, “On Some Forms of Order”, LVI–LVII; idem, Absorbing Perfections, 484–485). The kabbalists resorted to it speaking about the supernal realm. The syntagm maʿarekhet ha-ʾelohut even became the title of a major (anonymous) kabbalistic treatise of the end of the 13th century (the seventh chapter, devoted to the hierarchical organization of the sefirot, is called maʿarekhet ha-seder). To be sure, beyond the appearance of a systematic text, this work is highly multifaceted and fluid in its textual tradition, to the point that Avraham Elkayam has hypothesized a ­stratified composition: see his “On the Architectonic Structure of Sefer Maʿarekhet ha-ʾElohut”, Qiryat Sefer 64 (1993): 289–304 (Hebrew). Cordovero’s masterpiece, Pardes rimmonim, is organized according to the architectonics of the supernal realm, and widely resorts to the term seder: thus, the fifth gate is devoted to the seder ʾaṣilut (“the order of emanation”), the sixth gate to the seder ʿamidatam (the various representations of the sefirotic pleroma), the seventh gate to the seder ha-­ṣinnorot (the multiple channels that link each of the ten sefirot to the others).

96

Chapter 2

that are set in an ascending “order” (siddur).170 And much later Elbaz stated that “the order (seder) of the seven days in a week corresponds to the order (seder) of the [lower] sefirot”.171 Not surprisingly, the root sdr plays a pivotal role in the mythical-historiosophical accounts discussed before. Of paramount importance are, as said, Giqatilla’s narratives, which constituted a paradigm for later kabbalistic literature. They start by picturing the primordial arrangement – when all the things were “according to the order of the authentic system” (ʿal ha-seder ha-maʿarekhet ha-ʾamitit) – and the damage provoked by Adam, who destroyed all the lines. They then relate how Abraham and Jacob were already prone to amend “the flaw of the order (qilqul ha-sedarim)” and started “to rearrange the pipes (lesadder ha-ṣinnorot) from the right side”, in order to restore the Shekhinah in her proper place and “to bring back all the ten sefirot to their own order”.172 At last the ancient Israelites led by Moses could fully re-establish the original mechanics through their righteous acts: they repaired the damage of the pipes (tiqqenu qilqul ha-ṣinnorot), put the ranks to rights (sidderu ʾet ha-shurot), fixed the pools (hitqenu ʾet ha-berekhot) […].173 The same result was achieved by the ancient temple service: [the high priest] put in order the pipes (hayah mesadder ha-ṣinnorot) and spread the blessing flux upon all creatures.174 Within this storytelling, the current rabbinic cult presented similar aims and effects. Already the earliest Provencal kabbalists viewed “the order of the phylacteries” (seder ha-tefillin) as tied to the cosmic orientation of supernal forces, 170 Baḥya ben Asher, Beʾur ʿal ha-Torah II, 555. See my “Between Somatics”, 23–24. 171 HQ, 125; see also 158, quoted below in chap. 3, n. 100. 172 Giqatilla, Shaʿare ṣedeq, f. 8a. 173 Giqatilla, Shaʿare ʾorah, 66. The verbal forms s-d-r and t-q-n are employed together to express the human capacity to restore, emend and perfect the primordial cosmic orders. This significance of the term tiqqun, as well known, became vital later on – especially in the vast historiosophical account of the Lurianic Kabbalah, which gave rise to a renewed set of ritual acts (called tiqqunim, “amendments”), capable of ­ameliorating the human being as well as the cosmic reality (see below, chap. 4, around n. 40). 174 Ibid., 195. For another perspective on the “disposition of the (sacrificial) order” (tiqqun ha-seder) and its hidden rationales, see Yehudah ha-Lewy, Sefer ha-Kuzari, II, 26.

The Imagery of Cosmic and Human Orders

97

and having a profound impact upon it.175 The Spanish kabbalists returned in innumerable occurrences on the proper order of the Jewish liturgy, whose sequences were supposedly related to changing times and to supernal patterns shifting in alignment with them (e.g. the passage from the “measure of the night” to the “measure of the day”).176 I wish here to highlight some developments of these lexical-semantic motifs in the works of Meir ibn Gabbay, where the form s-d-r appears with unusual frequency, somehow indicating an enduring predilection. His later book – Derekh ʾemunah, an explanation of the sefirotic realm – establishes a correspondence between the overarching orders of the divine pleroma, the cosmic orders, and the ritual orders: all the orders of creation (sidre bereshit) and all the orders of the commandments (sidre ha-miṣwot) are in accordance with the order of the sefirot (ʿal seder ha-sefirot).177 Ibn Gabbay’s opus magnum, ʿAvodat ha-qodesh, argues that the men of the Great Assembly “instituted prayers and blessings in a wonderful order (be-seder niflaʾ meʾod)”178 – all interrelated with concealed supernal constructs – and that the precepts must be therefore fulfilled “according to their rules and orders”, because only by doing this can cultic deeds be of the utmost efficacy.179 Ibn Gabbay had already addressed these issues in his earlier commentary Tolaʿat Yaʿaqov, starting from the preface. Here some stages of the historiosophical account illustrated above stand out particularly. Adam’s sin caused a rupture in the mediation structures that linked above and below, so that “the worlds were confused (nitbalbelu ha-ʿolamot) and the orders were damaged (nitqalqelu ha-sedarim)”.180 The institution of the sacrificial worship functioned as a provisional restoration, but only the system of ritual activities established by the sages could finally restore the pristine and perfect cos175

See Yiṣḥaq the Blind’s Perush Sefer yeṣirah, in Gershom Scholem, The Kabbalah in Provence, Jerusalem 1963 (Hebrew), 6. 176 See e.g. Zohar II, 202b, 215b; III, 183b-184a, 260b. Compare HQ, 149. See also Elbaz’s closer analysis of the seder ha-ʿavodah on Yom Kippur, in its well arranged and progressive sequences: ibid., 316ff. We shall return on these temporal and sequential aspects in chap. 3. 177 Meir ibn Gabbay, Derekh ʾemunah, Warsaw 1890, 6. A similar view appears in TY, f. 5a. Compare also Mopsik, Les grands textes, 111. 178 Meir ibn Gabbay, ʿAvodat ha-qodesh II, § 9, 103. 179 Ibid., II, 606. 180 TY, f. 2c.

98

Chapter 2

mos. At this point, the author exposes a discussion of the secrets of the liturgy which contains an unusually vehement polemics against the rationalistic (Maimonidean) approach, seen as misleading and opposed to the “authentic” stance of the kabbalistic tradition. The cornerstone of his condensed doctrine of the cult is that the latter should be seen neither as a testimony of faith (“remembering God”), nor as a rational field (“teaching useful opinions”). Both the expressive view (focusing on subjective needs) and the instrumental view (focusing on moral-social entailments), can in fact degrade Israel’s worship.181 Its practical obligations (where also prayer is a “precept”) are valid in themselves, having immediate cosmic repercussions. Their essential objective consists in nothing less than the ability “to bring forth the existence of the world”.182 Moreover, as already said, their strong performative nature involves the supernal realm itself: “the cult of Israel is a necessity for the Highest” (ʿavodah ṣorekh gavoha).183 According to Ibn Gabbay, the inner significance of the ritual acts is beyond literal sense and also beyond human comprehension; nevertheless, it has been partially conveyed to a small elite of the people of Israel through the esoteric transmission (the qabbalah) that began with the prophets and passed down to the authors of the Talmud. Only the few who have received this hidden lore, are sensitive to the “arrangements of the prayers” (tiqqune ha-tefillot), which possess the marvelous faculties of setting the chariots to rights (lesadder ha-merkavot) and drawing the (divine) will upon (all) entities.184

181

The explicit reference is to the Third Part of the Guide of the Perplexed, particularly to III. 54, a chapter that postulates the “manifest significance” of the precepts, beyond which there would be nothing to search for. According to the harsh remarks of Ibn Gabbay, this stance would derive from the fact that Maimonides “lacked of the authentic kabbalistic tradition”, and “followed external wisdoms” (TY, f. 3a-b). Arguably, Meir ibn Gabbay closely follows the anti-philosophical positions of Shem Tov ibn Shem Tov (cf. above, chap. 1, n. 20; Gottlieb, Studies in Kabbalistic Literature, 355) – positions that are however shared by several kabbalistic authors of the 15th and 16tth centuries. On this ongoing heated controversy in Ibn Gabbay’s work, see Goetschel, Meir ibn Gabbay, 59–65, 273–275; Katz, “Halakhah and Kabbalah as Competing Disciplines”, 42; Mopsik, Les grands textes, 380–382; Moshe Idel, “Maimonides and Kabbalah”, in Studies in Maimonides, ed. I. Twersky (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), 40–42. 182 TY, f. 3a-b. About this theurgic model, oriented to “universe-maintenance”, see above, around n. 124. 183 See TY, f. 7b: “the precepts are not only a lower need, but also a need for the Most High”; ʿAvodat ha-qodesh II, § 4, 89. On this motif in general, see above, n. 119. On its presence in our author, see Goetschel, Meir ibn Gabbay, 276–283. 184 TY, f. 3a.

The Imagery of Cosmic and Human Orders

99

As emerges in the course of the whole work, a major ideological assumption is that – although much has been lost of the wisdom of the ancient – a restricted group of Israelites can still grasp the concealed nucleus of the cult. In fact, “a tradition regarding these issues has remained in our hands”, and it commands us “to order the things (lesadder ha-devarim) in our prayers and to direct our intention upon them”.185 A further crucial assumption is that such mastery of the order of prayer allows to exert an exceptional influence on the orderly texture of reality. This follows from the elaboration of a Zoharic passage of the greatest importance: the one who knows how to rearrange the work (lesadder ha-maʿaseh) and to direct his intention (leqawwin) on what is fitting that intention, he is the one that arouses the supernal entities to pour down the light on all the worlds […].186 Ultimately, Ibn Gabbay intends to demonstrate that the qabbalah enables Jewish pious men to have access at the same time to the sitre Torah (the “secrets of the Torah”), the tiqqune tefillot (the “arrangements of prayers”), the maʿaseh bereshit (the “work of creation”), the maʿaseh merkavah (“the work of the chariot”), the shiʿur qomah (the “measure of the stature”).187 These are all articulated “orders”, which continuously overlap and interact in the kabbalistic discourse. All are embodied and reflected in the orders of the human body. All are connected to the order of prayer, and affected by its enactment. Fulfilling the Jewish precepts in accordance with kabbalistic wisdom, therefore means “rearranging the work” on three main different layers: – the layer of sacred tradition, textual codes, collective memory; – the layer of sacred action, cultic conducts, collective praxis; – the layer of sacred creation, ontic spheres, cosmic arrangement. In this perspective, the interpretive kabbalistic activity is in turn a rearranging activity of the greatest relevance. The work of reorganization of the prayer carried out by the commentary on liturgy makes possible the restoration of the order on all other levels as well. Consider the following passage on the gesture of kneeling/bowing during the morning liturgy: 185 186

187

Ibid., f. 13a. See the entire passage quoted above in chap. 1, around n. 36. Ibid., f. 4b (for further remarks, see below, chap. 4, notes 65ff.). On the happiness of “the one who arranges (mesadder) the praise of God in the fitting way”, and the condemnation of the one who does not, see TY, f. 19d (for further remarks, see below, chap. 4, around n. 151). The latter syntagms refer to the anthropomorphic architecture of the sefirotic pleroma, considered in its gigantic size and manifold limbs: see above, around n. 71.

100

Chapter 2

After that we have arranged (siddarnu) the connection between things (qesher ha-devarim) and their union from below to above, and the way the prayer should behave (yitnaheg) as regards to them, we shall arrange (nesadder) their connection and their union from above to below, and to what he should direct his intention (leqawwin) as regards to them.188 Syntagms such as lesadder ha-devarim, lesadder ha-merkavot, lesadder ha-maʿaseh play a special role in Ibn Gabbay’s discourse on worship, and clearly point to major pivots in his semantics. The reference is altogether to an ordered activity ordained “above”, which must be performed below, and to an ordered reality, also ordained in the heavenly realm, which has to be maintained, rectified and perfected through the earthly activity. Righteous are those who, especially by means of their engagement in the precepts and prayers of the Jewish form of life, invest the deepest cosmic structures, therefore establishing the correct seder at all levels. In chap. 3, we will explore precisely this motif: a structured first-level arrangement had to be permanently put in connection with higher-level architectonic orders, if one wished to achieve the utmost effectiveness of cultic praxis. The semantic stance of the kabbalists called for a multilayered syntactic consideration. 188

TY, f. 17b.

Chapter 3

The Focus on Ritual Sequences Syntactic Aspects of Kabbalistic Semiotics

We have examined above the meaning-making device of the theosophical ­kabbalists, taking particularly into account their interpretive and imaginative attitude to ‘mapping orders’ – both in the canonic lore and in the universe –, and thus to ‘imbuing sense’ into the rabbinic semiosphere. Indeed, as has emerged, the increase of meaning produced by their inexhaustible semiotic work, was matched by a simultaneous increase of orderliness and interconnectedness. In particular, the kabbalistic search for the rationales of traditional prayers and precepts, resulted in an ongoing effort to disclose the links between rituality and theosophy/cosmology. The interpreters multiplied the levels of textuality and reality through vertical analogization, and perceived all the upper layers as made of articulated structures, tied to the lower human structures by many kinds of affinities and correlations – so that the cosmic orders were especially viewed as resembling the social-cultic orders and being affected by them. Scholars have been tempted to adopt a descriptive approach, which would allow to trace in detail the specific contents of the kabbalistic interpretation, shedding so light on inner theological notions, concealed secrets, detailed sefirotic references, etc. (such approach has been put in practice by theologically-oriented studies as well as by inquiries on philological issues or history of ideas1). Instead, after having dwelled on the structural guidelines of the kabbalistic semantics, what I wish to do is to direct attention to other ingredients of the semiotic construction, usually rather neglected, and to focus on formal layers rather than symbols and significata.2 Many kabbalistic sources – and in a particular way those at the center of our study – tirelessly explore the ‘formal orders’ of the cultic sphere, highlighting its multiple aspects, and also considering its syntactic structures (such as the sequences of ritual acts). While moving between praxis and meaning, plain sense and occult sense, the sensory 1 See below, at the beginning of Final Remarks. 2 In fact, as Moshe Hallamish has recognized, “a consistent part of kabbalistic instructions concerns the form, not only the content”: Kabbalah in Liturgy, Halakhah, and Customs (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan Press, 2000) (Hebrew), 32. For a (partially) similar perspective as regards early Judaism, see Ithamar Gruenwald, Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel (Leiden – B ­ oston: Brill, 2003). © Maurizio Mottolese, 2022 | DOI:10.1163/9789004499003_005

102

Chapter 3

side and the ideological side, they seem to willingly rest on the ‘organizational dimension’ that mediates between these poles.3 In my opinion, this syntactic or organizational concern has to be taken seriously into account, for it played an important role in the work of mystical re-signification. We shall see below that – by joining lower social structures and upper articulations – the kabbalists constructed a ‘double syntactic concatenation’, and produced a ‘deep liturgical syntax’, finally transforming the ritual pattern into a multi-stage mystical route. 1

Dwelling on the Formal Structures of Cultic Life

At the very moment when kabbalistic interpreters investigate the traditional codes in search of their meaning, they extend and chart their formal structures. This is true, primarily, as concerns their handling the Jewish behavioral codes. On one hand, they deal with all the dimensions of the ritual dromenon, discussing the corporeal sides, the linguistic aspects as well as the mental layers; on the other hand, they examine all the units of the ritual field, viewing also the more minimal or unapparent as sacred, meaningful and effective. Looking at the historical process, I shall suggest that the semiotic work on the ‘extension’ of the cultic system, gradually gained strength in kabbalistic literature: late theosophical commentaries exhibit an increment of the ritual forms subjected to mythical or mystical readings. The ‘extensive’ perspective – which meticulously inspects the formal grammar of cultic life, either in its isolated segments or in its coordinated sequences – of course mixes with the ‘intensive’ one, and certainly contributes with the latter to the general semantic insight. Two vectors appear then to operate together: a work on the axis of selection, generating paradigmatic correspondences, and a work on the axis of combination, producing syntagmatic clusters. The syntagmatic approach is by no means an innovation of the kabbalists, being already largely cultivated in halakhic literature for example. Yet, the kabbalists brought forth and refined this mode of semiotic activity, generating further semiotization of earlier patterns. Thus, they elaborated more cogently upon the integration of verbal, nonverbal, and cognitive dimensions; or, they pushed further the halakhic punctiliousness about legal minutiae and practical procedures, wider connections and syntactic sequels. Indeed, they remolded (or shaped) syntactic chains to such an extent that the halakhic ritual setting had to be then affected and incisively modified by the kabbalistic discussions. 3 See Rappaport, Ritual and Religion, 258.

The Focus on Ritual Sequences

103

1.1 The Engagement of all Ritual Dimensions, and the Triadic Pattern Thought-Speech-Act As has emerged in the previous chapter, the kabbalists maintain that man can actually imitate God, come into contact with the divine, and even become a supernal Form, only insofar as he keeps the precepts in a complete and perfect way.4 But what does it mean to carry out a complete and perfect sacred service? One notes, first of all, that those Jewish sages had a clear perception of the multifaceted configuration of ritual, with its blending of different ingredients (manual rite, oral rite, and so on).5 They underscored that a ritual performance should engage all three essential dimensions of human activity, i.e. bodily aspects, linguistic aspects, and mental-emotional aspects. Already earlier kabbalists made explicit resort to the triad “thought”, “speech”, and “act” (in Hebrew: maḥshavah, dibbur, maʿaseh), which had in fact very remote origins,6 and had been mentioned by Jewish philosophers.7 That triadic articulation was to play an important role in the whole kabbalistic tradition.8 While in more speculative trends, like the Geronese ones, it was mainly associated to the process of manifestation occurring in the divine dimension (from the secret sphere of Thought to the revelatory paths of ­Language and Action),9 in Castile it referred primarily to the plural human dimensions involved in cultic life. It would be excessive to speak of a ‘ritual theory’ ­making use of a meta-linguistic conceptualization. It rather appears that, in accordance with their organizational style of thought, Sephardi authors identified 4 On the theosophical Kabbalah as a nomian and performative kind of mysticism, see chap. 4, around n. 20. 5 From their own perspectives, anthropologists have often underlined the multiple modes that are deployed in rituality and concur to produce meaning: see above, Introduction, n. 17. 6 A threefold pattern of this kind – thought/sight, language/voice, action/body – dates to ancient Indo-Iranian cultures. Formulas and instructions about it are particularly present in Zoroastrian literature. Besides the bibliography quoted by Idel, Il male primordiale, 366, see Jean Kellens, “Les précautions rituelles et la triade du comportament”, in Zoroastrian Rituals in Context, ed. M. Stausberg (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 283–289; Jean Haudry, La triade pensée, parole, action, dans la tradition indo-européen (Milano: Archè, 2009). The Jewish versions of the threefold pattern would deserve a separated study. They sometimes contain a connection with the distinctive functions of three social groups, however not in line with the “trifunctional hypothesis” of Georges Dumézil. 7 See also other threefold patterns of philosophical origin (e.g. Intellect – Soul – Body). 8 Another ancient philosophical dictum – “the first in thought is the last in action” – is widely cited and reimagined by the kabbalists: see Moshe Idel, The Privileged Divine Feminine in Kabbalah (Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2019). 9 See Azriel of Gerona, Perush ha-ʾaggadot, ed. I. Tishby (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982), 82, 93. Nahmanides, on the other hand, mentioned the triadic pattern in the context of his exegesis on the sacrificial cult: Perush ha-Torah, ed. Ch. Chavel (Jerusalem: Mossad Ha-Rav Kook, 1959), II, 12.

104

Chapter 3

an apt categorical pattern in the distinction deed/word/thought,10 which allowed to revisit the halakhic observance in its entirety, to make order in this broader field, and to construct an articulated liturgical-mystical praxis. As such, the triadic scheme emerges from textual sections in Zoharic literature,11 in Moshe de León’s writings,12 and in Yosef Giqatilla’s works – especially in the scattered “Secrets” usually ascribed to Giqatilla.13 One of these Sodot argues that the Shemaʿ prayer encompasses a profound interaction between speech, body and mind. The worshipper must recite the single words of “Hear, O Israel”, emitting special sounds and concentrating his attention on the corresponding sefirot. Thus, he shall achieve “a unification of the divine Name […] through speech and action (be-dibbur u-be-maʿaseh)”, while they are filled with the utmost “intentionality” (kawwanah).14 In later writings, the same pattern is widely reiterated.15 It seems to have been liked by the 16th-century Sephardi kabbalistic subset. The commentary on prayers by Yosef ibn Shraga, begins with the following sentence: “As a man arises from his bed at morning, he has to purify himself in thought and deed (be-maḥshavah u-be-maʿaseh)”.16 Indeed, the need to remove from his 10 11 12

13

14

15 16

Sometimes the latter is labelled “will” or “desire” (raṣon, reʾuta), or “intentionality” (­kawwanah). See e.g. Zohar I, 99b; 161a; III, 105a; 255b. Here, the threefold pattern in ritual – thought (maḥshavah), speech (dibbur), action (maʿaseh) – corresponds to three layers of reality – the world of Creation (Beriyʾah), the world of Formation (Yeṣirah), the world of Action (Maʿaseh) –, which man can unify by acting within and upon the latter. The two paralleled articulations are pivotal in Moshe de León’s commentary on the daily prayers: see Sefer Mashkyiot kesef, ed. J.H.A. Wijnhoven (Brandeis University, 1961), 9–11, 14. In the writings of this author, a predilection for threefold structures stands out: see below, notes 67, 90. Most of these Secrets (sodot) can be found in Yeḥiel Ashkenazi, Sefer Hekhal ha-Shem, Venice 1601 (I shall refer to this edition, unless otherwise indicated). Sometimes, these same literary bodies present a dual scheme composed of “material deed” (ʿovadah) and “linguistic act” (millula): see below, notes 49–50. Sod ha-Shemaʿ, f. 39a. In Sod ha-shabbat, among the eleven practical-theosophical instructions for the holy day, the ninth states that “on Shabbat man should rest integrally, in speech, in action and in thought (be-dibbur u-be-maʿaseh u-be-hirur)” (ibid., f. 40). That is to say, human profane activity must be removed from the holy time in all its three dimensions (correspondingly, the ritual arena on the Sabbath day should include not only a holy mental activity, but also holy discourses and gestures): compare Elliott K. Ginsburg, The Sabbath in the Classical Kabbalah (Albany NY: State University of New York Press, 1989), 215. On other representative passages from Giqatilla, see below, notes 21, 50. See e.g. Yiṣḥaq of Akko, Sefer Meʾirat ʿenayyim, ed. A. Goldreich (Ph.D. diss. Jerusalem University, 1984), 233; Recanati, Perush ha-tefillot, 124–125*. See the gloss to Dawid ben Yehudah he-Ḥasid’s work, published in ʾOr zaruʿa, 290. Compare Huss, Sockets, 201–202, on the commentary to the Zohar by Shimon ibn Lavi, with references to Cordovero and Luria.

The Focus on Ritual Sequences

105

mind all the extraneous thoughts that hinder prayer, must be accompanied by the act of washing his limbs in water “in order to be clean in his body and soul”. In his own commentary, Moshe Elbaz claims that in the morning liturgy man has accomplished the unification of the Holy One, blessed be He, in speech, in action and in intentionality (be-dibbur u-be-maʿaseh u-be-kawwanah).17 The need to perform the threefold activity to achieve powerful effectiveness is underlined by Ibn Gabbay. Recovering motifs widespread in the Zohar and in Recanati, he insists on the need to move the lips in prayer and to externalize the vocal sounds.18 Indeed, against the view of several philosophers, “thought alone is not sufficient”. Only a multidimensional and multimedial rituality can ensure cosmic and theurgic reverberations: “the lower beings have the power to awaken the supernal things on the basis of their acts and words (kefi maʿasehem we-dibburam)”.19 The integral articulation of ritual later received peculiar attention by the Safedian kabbalists, first and foremost Cordovero.20 A common denominator of this centuries-long cultural milieu is that in halakhic life, also when revisited by the kabbalists, the intellectual aspect is certainly involved, but it does not play an exclusive (or even privileged) role. Not only pure meditation, but also verbal language and bodily praxis are required. 17

HQ, 121. For other usages of the triad maʿaseh – dibbur - maḥshavah, see ibid., 252, and below, around notes 55, 62–63. In another passage (ibid., 105), Elbaz considers this stance as the “secret” of the biblical verse “All my bones will say: Lord, who is like you” (Ps 35:40), which had been already pivotal in rabbinic literature: see Uri Ehrlich, The Nonverbal Language of Prayer: a New Approach to Jewish Liturgy (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). 18 See TY, f. 33a. On the importance of “voice” and “sound” in Jewish mysticism, emphasizing the need to move the lips and emit a physical sonorous utterance from the mouth that would be audible, see Idel, Enchanted Chains, 58–59, 205ff.; Maurizio Mottolese, “Preghie­ra vocale e voci divine. La dimensione sonora del culto rabbinico alla luce della prima Qabbalah”, in Ascoltare gli Dèi, ed. I. Baglioni (Roma: Quasar, 2005), 175–191. 19 See the quote above, chap. 2, n. 142. About the duty to infuse “intention into action”, into the very performance of the precepts, see TY, f. 41a. 20 His writings stress the importance of all dimensions (including the more material acts), especially as common ritual life is concerned. About “thought, speech and action” in the morning synagogal rituals, see e.g. Cordovero, Tomer Devorah, chap. 10. Compare Garb, Manifestations, 223–224, and Sack, In the Gates, 225. In “The Sources of Perfection: Thought, Speech and Action”, Da‘at 50–52 (2003): 221–241 (Hebrew), Bracha Sack has charted the development of late-Zoharic instances in Cordovero and other 16th-century kabbalists – though, as most scholarly inquiries, privileging the analysis of theosophical and exegetical motifs.

106

Chapter 3

Worship needs the sonority of speech-acts as well as the physicality of ritual gestures.21 While it was debated whether the noetic dimension could be absent, the need for the halakhic praxis in its corporeal dimension was beyond dispute.22 Against this background, it is logical that these kabbalists devoted more and more attention to the entirety of bodily motions (the ‘kinesics’ or ‘mimicry’) regulated by cultic prescriptions.23 The entire material culture had to be submitted to normativity, even beyond the precincts of former Jewish legal codes, as well as having to become part of a mystical path. Kabbalistic texts can insist from time to time on the linguistic aspects of prayer, on the non-verbal aspects of ritual praxis, or on the inner dimensions 21

22

23

On the importance of “the worship of the hands” or “action” (ʿavodat ha-yadaim, maʿaseh), besides the “worship of the heart” or “testimony” (ʿavodat ha-lev, ʿedut), see the discussion in Yosef Giqatilla’s earlier kabbalistic work Ginnat ʾegoz, Amsterdam 1773, ff. 28a-d. See also Giqatilla’s earlier halakhic work Kelale ha-miṣwot, entry ʾeyver (“Limb”). Compare the texts (by the Zohar, Moshe de León, Recanati, etc.) quoted in Mottolese, Bodily Rituals (e.g. 34ff., 99–100), showing the irreducible centrality of the sensorial dimension in the kabbalistic horizon, expressed for instance by the late Zoharic statement that “the perfect service [is accomplished] by all limbs of man” (see ibid., 29ff.). As is explicit in Ibn Gabbay (and some of his sources, like Recanati), this stance developed, at least in part, as a reaction against the tendency of philosophically-oriented streams to undervalue fleshliness. Obviously enough, the retrieval of the somatic aspect in rituality corresponded to a re-evaluation of the literal aspect in textuality (the peshaṭ). The kabbalists often claimed – against philosophers – that it would be a dramatic mistake to overlook the manifest side of the precept, as well as to neglect the concrete fulfilment of it. On the primacy of action over intellection, see also Goetschel, Meir ibn Gabbay, 289–290. On the positive attitude of the kabbalists in general to materiality and the peshaṭ dimension, see Idel, Absorbing Perfections, 290–292; Hallamish, Kabbalah in Liturgy, 72–73. An example of the scholarly emphasis on these aspects in later decades is the collective volume Howard Eilberg-Schwartz (ed.), People of the Body: Jews and Judaism from an Embodied Perspective (Albany NY: State University of New York Press, 1992); compare also the overview by Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, “The Corporeal Turn” , The Jewish Quarterly Review 95 (2005): 447–461. For an assessment of the issue as concerns the kabbalistic tradition, see Moshe Idel, “From Structure to Action: On the Divine Body and the Human Activity according to the Kabbalah”, Mishqafayim 32 (1998): 3–6 (Hebrew); idem, “On the Performing Body in Theosophical-Theurgical Kabbalah: Some Preliminary Remarks”, in The Jewish Body: Corporeality, Society, and Identity in the Renaissance and Early Modern Period, eds. M. Diemling – G. Veltri (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2009), 251–271. See Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, with reference to a vaster bibliography (e.g. the works by E. Zimmer, M. Hallamish, D. Sperber). On the importance of the outer tangible layers of ritual life, and the ultimate ‘return to somatics’ by the Jewish mystics, see also idem, “Between Somatics”. I surmise that the same anchoring of the kabbalists to the sensory social habits of the rabbinic world, explains why their approach had such a broad success – being able (as we shall see in chap. 4) both to penetrate the mainstream halakhic Judaism and to remold the Jewish lifestyle.

The Focus on Ritual Sequences

107

of knowledge and intentionality – privileging on each occasion one of the “pillars” of rabbinic Judaism: prayer, keeping of the precepts, study of the Torah. Usually, however, the multidimensional nature of Jewish rituality is emphasized. Each of the three facets of the ritual dromenon has a peculiar function, refers to different layers of cosmic life, and activates a specific interaction with these. Cultic bodies, postures, gestures, objects, textual sections are all linked to corresponding divine limbs or matters, as much as vocal sounds connect to supreme linguistic chains, and intellective activities entail some repercussion on the noetic supernal spheres (often coinciding with the upper orders of the sefirotic pleroma). Nonetheless, the divine realm – the anthropomorphically and ritualistically-imagined shape of the godhead – is reached and aroused most efficaciously by the full engagement of human beings in ritual life.24 1.2 The Attention to all Ritual Items, Including Formal Units and Sequences The kabbalists’ extensive look at the entire ritual setting, had a further decisive facet. We have seen in chap. 1 that any aspect of the biblical-rabbinic semiosphere, either textual or behavioral, was for them ‘semiophoric’ (there could be no insignificant detail in divine law and service) – and even more, it had to contain a “secret”, if not multiple secret meanings.25 This view led to navigate the whole extension of the cultic area, giving much importance to any little item or procedure, and produced warnings against a neglecting attitude towards any minimal aspect of rituality. In fact, the history of Kabbalah seems to show a progressive increase of the cultic prescriptions submitted to mystical re-signification26 (just as, as said in chap. 1, there was a decrease in the accumulation of polysemic stances and multiple interpretations). In this sense, the 16th century – as we shall see in chap. 4 – marks a peak in the interweaving of Halakhah and Kabbalah, in the mystical elaboration of customs and practices, in the kabbalistic expansion of ritualization. The idea that inner meanings, deeper rationales and powerful effects should be decoded even in the most minute aspects of the t­ extual-behavioral codes, coincided again with a major polemical reaction against the philosophic attitude. The Spanish kabbalists often raised a sharp criticism on this 24 25 26

In chap. 4, we shall see that this multidimensional pattern reverberates from the same linguistic use of kawwanah. See above, chap. 1, around notes 108ff. On the notion that the greatest part of the precepts has a rationale (taʿam) that can be grasped only by “the way of the secret” (derekh ha-sod), see Dawid ibn Zimra, Meṣudat Dawid, 23. See Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, chaps. 1 and 8. On the kabbalistic inclination to “totality” and “stringency”, we shall return below, chap. 4, notes 45ff.

108

Chapter 3

point towards the rationalistic stance of Maimonides and his followers, who disregarded the surface structure of the precepts (seen as irrelevant or only instrumental) and privileged a (rationalistically-oriented) general meaning – a position that, according to many kabbalists, could seriously undermine the sacredness of the Torah in its plain layer, and finally drive to laxism in practice.27 Against it, they attached importance to both the ‘letter’ of the law – the literal aspects of textual codes – and the ‘carnality’ of the law – the manifest sides of legal conducts, including bodily items, physical artifacts, the performative details of the procedures, or the patterned organization of the ceremonies. They claimed that “nothing is for naught” or “has no taste”, and might be eventually neglected: on the contrary, each element was part and parcel of a sacred practice of divine origin to be meticulously respected in all its steps and minutiae.28 As already noted, the kabbalists went so far as to state that the greatest holiness and effectiveness lies in the most obscure decrees or in the most unexpected folds of human action.29 This ideological-hermeneutic posture led to fill with broader significance apparently superficial or peripheral items, in particular nonverbal aspects (such as paraphernalia, postures and gestures), para-linguistic elements (such as vocal tones and inflexion, pauses and rhythm of liturgy, etc.), or propaedeutic units (such as the prerequisites to prayer, etc.). Thus, one finds innumerable discussions on how to bow or hold one’s hands during liturgy; on the capsules, the straps, the knots, the hairs of the tefillin; on the mode of emitting sounds while reciting the Shemaʿ or blowing the shofar; on the gesture of paring one’s nails on Sabbath;30 on how to handle the “four species” on Sukkot, and so forth.31

27

See Ibn Gabbay’s discussion on Maimonides summarized above, chap. 2, around n. 181. On earlier polemics against philosophy, see Isaiah Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar. An Anthology of Texts, 3 vols. (London – Washington: Littman Library, 1991), 1156ff.; Daniel Matt, “The Mystics and the Miẓwot”, in Jewish Spirituality, ed. A. Green (New York: Crossroad, 1986), vol. 1, 367–404; Idel, “Maimonides and Kabbalah”; Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, 271–274. 28 On the importance attached by the mystics to fixed numerical aspects in prayer and cult, see above, chap. 1, around notes 120ff.; below, n. 32. Such approach sharply diverges from the Maimonidean attitude, which inclined to believe that the numerical aspects in cultic matters (e.g. concerning temple and offerings in the biblical account) were “devoid of sense”. 29 See above, chap. 1, around n. 111. 30 See TY, f. 23c-d. The issue has been investigated in detail by Ginsburg, The Sabbath, 224ff. 31 See HQ, 328–329. See below, chap. 4, notes 52, 54.

The Focus on Ritual Sequences

109

A logical implication was the heightening of local customs (minhagim): perceived as pivots of an esoteric authoritative legacy stemming from supernal origins, those cultural variants of ritual behavior were circumfused with an aura of sanctity and deeper signification, and became the subject of heated interpretative debates. Thus, for instance, the kabbalists insisted on the exactness (and the exact number) of the words of prayer recited in some areas, consequently rejecting the liturgical variants of other Jewish communities.32 Or, they struggled for the correct application of a certain physical procedure, condemning at once other ways of performing the same precept.33 Finally, practical elements that might appear to the normal lens of the traditional practitioner (or the philosopher) as being scarcely relevant or even optional, acquired an exceptional status and a cosmic function in the eyes of the theosophical kabbalists, and were increasingly filled with formidable specific goals in the developments of the kabbalistic lore.34 Not only marginal or preparatory units were now transformed into essential aspects of the cult. As we shall see below, also the connection of two liturgical units in a sequence, or the disjunction between them, could appear as extremely meaningful and potent. In this context, any actual hierarchy between apical ritual stages and propaedeutic actions, larger clusters and punctual units, halakhic/standard procedures and regional/specific customs, ultimately became blurred. Summarizing, our kabbalists were not only looking at the ritual dromenon intensively, trying to immediately decode specific semantic references of theosophical kind (the ‘ideological pole’). They readily dwelled on the ritual 32

33 34

For example, Dawid ben Yehudah he-Ḥasid’s commentary stated that “the prayer Barukh she-ʾamar has 87 words”, and justified this number in light of secret traditions, defending this conduct (just like other customs) found in France and Germany against the different ritual forms spread in Spain (ʾOr zaruʿa, f. 15b; see also f. 21a-b). The passage is quoted in TY, f. 11b. Similarly, Zoharic literature (arguably drawing on Ashkenazi traditions) proposed an innovative way of reciting the Shemaʿ, fixing the number of words at 248 on the ground of the classical analogical web around 248 (the 248 limbs of the human body, the 248 positive precepts, etc.). Both Ibn Gabbay and Elbaz validate the Zoharic stance (found in the layer called “Midrash Ruth”): see TY, ff. 15a-b; HQ, 105. On this issue, see Israel Ta-Shma, “ʾEl melekh neʾeman: the Development of a Custom”, Tarbiz 39 (1970): 184–194 (Hebrew); Katz, Halakhah and Kabbalah, 39–40; Meir Kadosh, Kabbalistic Jewish Laws in Responsa from the 13th Century to the Early Years of the 17th Century (Ph.D. diss. Bar Ilan University, 2004) (Hebrew), 126–128, 133, 239. With regard to these ‘cultural markers’, usually functional to external and internal ‘differentiation’, see Mottolese, “Between Somatics”, 47ff., and below, chap. 4, around n. 101. This is a further major difference between the theosophical-theurgical Kabbalah and the prophetic-ecstatic trend of Abulafia, who considered certain ritual techniques as being “optional” (see Idel’s introduction to Natan ben Saʿadyah, Le porte della giustizia, 147–151).

110

Chapter 3

pragmatics extensively, paying also much attention to its manifest and material aspects (the ‘sensory pole’).35 When dealing with the formal procedures, they explored both their inner operative units and their broader structures or sequels. I shall argue below that precisely this ‘long way’ in interpretation constituted a main trigger for the mystical elaboration on ritual orders. Later on, in the last chapter, I shall attempt to demonstrate that this attitude also had social pragmatic effects: for instance, it made the kabbalistic interpreter a ‘liturgist’ who had to pursue an esoteric mastery on all the dimensions of worship, and then had to share this knowledge with the prayer leader of the congregation.36 2

Re-Organizing the Ritual Syntax

In this context, I wish to examine more carefully one facet of the kabbalists’ concern for the formal grammar of the ritual practice: i.e., their interest in the ‘syntactic framework’ of the liturgy. Liturgy is by definition a well-organized series of ritual acts, performed within the space and time of the community.37 Needless to say, rabbinic tradition had already devoted much energy to the formal organization of the divine service: many halakhic discussions dealt with the correct collocation of a certain prayer, the proper procedure of a certain gesture, the precise timing of a certain custom, and so forth. The kabbalists were evidently much attracted by these quandaries (in effect, this was a further point of divergence from the philosophical approach, which gave little weight to those aspects of tradition and action38). They did not only pay attention to the syntagmatic structure of the sacred behavior, but shaped ways of conduct extremely sensitive to it. In the previous chapters, we have seen that an ‘organizational mentality’ characterizes the kabbalists’ hermeneutics, their theosophical speculations, their cosmic views, their historiosophical accounts. The same attitude drives their consideration of the Torah,39 and – of course – their treatment of the 35 36 37 38 39

On the interaction of sensory facets and ideological facets, see Victor Turner, The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 1967). For an application of these terms to the kabbalistic exegesis, see Idel, Absorbing Perfections, 292. On the relationship between the mequbbal and the sheliaḥ ṣibbur, see below, chap. 4, around note 95. See below, chap. 4, n. 133. See below, around n. 58. Kabbalistic authors willingly dwell on the ‘architecture’ of the written law, examining the formal disposition of its inner sections (pericopes, etc.), and perceiving the latter as correspondent to the limbs of the supernal Form. Indeed, a complex interconnectedness often

The Focus on Ritual Sequences

111

observance of the precepts. As shall emerge below, the kabbalistic approach to the ‘ritual syntax’ is very broad and eclectic, since it copes with rather different levels and aspects. In some cases, the interpreter focuses on contiguous units or narrow segments of ritual life, while in other occurrences he looks at broader overarching articulations, or connects more distant activities (or clusters of activities); often times, he dwells on the timing and time patterns of the sequels. At any rate, he seeks to disclose the ‘hidden palimpsest’ found in coordinated sequences or temporal structures. He is indeed convinced that the one who knows the syntactic orders that underlie, or are concatenated to, the ordinary procedural “earthly order” (sedura be-ʿolama), can attain greater achievements.40 2.1 Narrow Sequels Let me start by recalling the discussion on one of the first deeds to be accomplished at morning – putting on shoes. This little gesture assumed much relevance in the kabbalistic view, and was punctiliously explored in its inner sequential pattern. As often occurs, the question concerns what comes before and what later, whether the left or the right shoe. The structured sequence promoted by the kabbalists establishes that, after having put on the right shoe, the pious Jew should wear and fasten the left shoe, and then finally he can fasten the right shoe.41 As is typical, the mystical commentator here discusses a specific procedure calling into question another segment of ritual life, and illuminating the two inner structures reciprocally. The sequential wearing of the shoes is compared to the sequential wearing of the phylacteries – where the phylactery on the left arm is to be put on before the head-phylactery. Elsewhere, I have analyzed the great concern of the kabbalists for the ritual vestment of cultic garments, noting that many of their reflections and interpretations focused in fact on the syntactic aspects of the performance.42 Here I wish to underscore the fact that not only the kabbalists were interested in the narrow sequels of that

40 41 42

emerges between the written law (and the commandments), the human body and the cosmic-divine Body: the Torah does not only have an anthropomorphic form, but constitutes an intermediary between the earthly and the heavenly human-like architectonics. See in particular the views of Yosef of Hamadan discussed in Idel, Enchanted Chains, 137ff. See my closer analysis further on, chap. 4, around notes 65ff. See above chap. 1, n. 83. Another sequence, which concerns the “order of the washing of the hands” (seder ha-neṭillah), specifies the motion of the two hands during the ritual ablution: see TY, f. 42d. See Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, passim. In the following I will only summarize some results of this inquiry.

112

Chapter 3

ritual setting, but liked to parallel those sequels to other sequels found in other ritual settings – somehow building a larger network of syntactic articulations.43 A broader order, they claimed, regulates the sequence ṣiṣit – tefillin.44 A further internal articulation is said to govern the relationship between the arm-­ tefillin and the head-tefillin. Under the influence of these kabbalistic discussions, a corporeal sequencing of three stages – a ‘threefold ladder of sanctity’ – was progressively established in this ritual setting: the tallit had to be worn at first; then the arm-tefillin had to be clothed, while sitting; finally, the head-tefillin had to be donned, while standing.45 In the wake of Zoharic instances,46 Meir ibn Gabbay and Moshe Elbaz insisted on the attention to be paid to the “secret of their donning” (sod hanaḥtan), viz. to the “order of their donning” (seder hanaḥtan), relating the earlier notion that “the order is from below to above”.47 More openly than earlier interpreters, they supported the operative sequel with a theosophical reasoning – associating the first step to the last sefirah, the feminine side of the Spouse (sitting is a female posture), the second step to a higher sefirah, the masculine side of the King, which requires a standing posture.48 Before analyzing further examples, it might be useful to reflect on the last remark. In the kabbalistic discourse, a symbolical, mythical or theosophical account usually appears as the ground for a ritual behavior. The real process, however, had to be different. I assume that a semiotic work based on general underlying patterns – binary oppositions and vertical correlations (such as those between legal matters and heavenly forces) – gradually invested the 43

A further interesting case study is represented by the comparison between wearing the tefillin and holding the lulav on Sukkot. Already found in rabbinic literature, the association was further developed by the kabbalists (see e.g. Baḥya ben Asher, Beʾur ʿal ha-Torah, II, 104–105). 44 The explanation of this graded procedure was usually based on the Talmudic expression “one may only raise in sanctity and never degrade”: see Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, 91–93. 45 This is a major example of the phenomenon of halakhic decrees and customs decided according to the Kabbalah. For closer inquiries into the kabbalistic elaboration of that fixed sequence and its gradual reception by halakhic literature, see Kadosh, Kabbalistic Jewish Laws, chap. 4; Hallamish, Kabbalah in Liturgy, chap. 6; Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, 93–102. 46 See e.g. Zohar I, 132b. By embracing the Zoharic views and the subsequent elaboration by “Sephardi kabbalists”, Yosef Qaro established the “proper conduct”: one must first put on the small tallit, then don the arm-tefillin and the head-tefillin, and finally leave the house to go to the synagogue dressed this way (see Bet Yosef, Venezia 1550, ʾOraḥ ḥayyim 25). 47 See respectively, TY, ff. 7c-8a; HQ, 74. Meir ibn Gabbay claims “the precedence of the ṣiṣit over the tefillin”, arguing that “before man dons the ṣiṣit, and after he elevates himself to the upper spheres in the secret of the tefillin”: TY, f. 7c. 48 See TY, f. 8a; HQ, 74, 107. Compare also Dawid ibn Zimra, Meṣudat Dawid, 122–125, 420–422.

The Focus on Ritual Sequences

113

entire cultic field, and led to review the encoded ritual behavior in detail, charging the minimal folds of the procedures and the same syntactic ramifications with symbols and narratives. Thus, also the various sequences in the sensory practice came to be increasingly revisited, reinforced, and more rarely remolded, in the light of the ideological imagery. Typical is the effort of the kabbalistic semiotics to strengthen the ‘rhythm’ of the ritual performances instituted by the social normative codes – for e­ xample, specifying the ‘kinesic syntax’ that must regulate the physical postures in liturgy. The shifts in bodily behavior (e.g. the alternation of standing and sitting) are re-signified or reshaped from the viewpoint of a graded semantics, assuming a hierarchical order above/below or masculine/feminine. Thus, the emphasis on the upright posture, already found in rabbinic tradition especially in connection to the ʿAmidah (the Eighteen Benedictions to be recited while standing), is expanded by the kabbalists, filled with new theosophical references, and applied to the recitation of other prayers (like Barukh she-ʾamar49). An early landmark of the kabbalistic tendency to coordinate ritual clusters, disclosing an inner rhythmic pattern, can be found in Yosef Giqatilla’s Shaʿare ʾorah. A section of this work revisits the daily cultic sequel, emphasizing first of all the link between the nonverbal order of the ritual clothing and the verbal order of the Shemaʿ Yisraʾel – a link that relates to the necessity of tying the “lower measure” (the Shekhinah) to the “upper grades” of the divine (the other sefirot). Hence, the one who recites the Shemaʿ at morning must be covered by the tefillin, since the prayer of mouth (tefillat ha-peh) depends on the prayer of hand (­tefillah shel yad).50 49

According to Dawid ben Yehudah he-Ḥasid, the German and French Jewries recited this blessing hymn while standing, following a custom dictated by “a secret authentic tradition” that had been transmitted by “the early pious men and men of action” (ʾOr zaruʿa, f. 15b). This passage is quoted verbatim by Meir ibn Gabbay, explaining that the kabbalists have received the command to recite this praise in an erected posture, in order to allude to the fact that each worshipper lies before the divine presence (TY, f. 11b). Also the polarity “sounding of the shofar while seating” – “sounding of the shofar while standing”, was explored in detail by the kabbalists. 50 Giqatilla, Shaʿare ʾorah, 76–77. One of the “Secrets” attributed to Giqatilla (Sod ha-ṣiṣit), explains why the donning of ritual garments is tantamount to, though diverging from, the recitation of the Shemaʿ: “Know that Keriyʾat Shemaʿ is the secret of unification (sod ha-yiḥud), whereby a man unites the crown of God (ʿatarat Y) through the speech from his mouth (be-dibbur be-piw), while the unification by tefillin and ṣiṣit is [accomplished] through action (be-maʿaseh)” (f. 38b; slightly diverging variants of this passage are found in Ms Vatican 214, f. 77a, and in other manuscripts). On this text, see also Morlok, Rabbi

114

Chapter 3

Giqatilla intends to establish an ascending ritual syntax, where the manual gesture “opens the gates” for the day-long oral liturgy (on turn, the recitation of the Shemaʿ “must precede” the other prayers, particularly the ʿAmidah, the Prayer par excellence). On one side, the bodily act is propaedeutic, on the other side cultic speech (and mental activity) are “dependent” on it – a notion, already alluded to in the Zohar, that had deeper reverberations in subsequent kabbalistic literature.51 What is interesting here, however, is the effort to connect different sequential stages in worship. In another section of the same work, Giqatilla revises in kabbalistic terms a ritual syntax within the oral prayer, paving the way to what will become a topos in later kabbalistic commentaries. The rabbis had already focused on the “link” (semikhah) between the ʾEmet we-yaṣiv (the blessing that follows the Shemaʿ, and is called geʾullah, “Redemption”) and the ʿAmidah (the Eighteen Benedictions, also called tefillah, “Prayer”).52 The kabbalist expands and legitimates this link between the two prayers in the light of the secret lore, arguing that they refer respectively to the male force of the Godhead (Yesod, expressed by the divine name ʾEl ḥay) and the female force (Malkhut, expressed by ʾAdonay).53 The correct syntactic conjunction of the two liturgical stages is then deemed to be able to accomplish the hieros gamos, the “sacred perfect coupling”, in the supernal dimension: therefore, the people of Israel should address their effort (lehitkawwen), everyday and with great intentionality (kawwanah gedolah), to draw near (lismokh) the geʾullah to the tefillah, so that those two divine names shall be joined and united.54 In sum, the “secret” (sod) of this ritual “construct” (semikhut or semikhah) is that it entails unification within the divine pleroma and maximal effusion Joseph Giqatilla’s Hermeneutics, 197; Hartley Lachter, Kabbalistic Revolution: Reimagining Judaism in Medieval Spain (New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2014), 153. Let us recall that the sequence “after having donned the tefillin, one shall arrange the one hundreds blessings”, was established in normative literature and attributed to ancient supernatural sources (see above, chap. 2, around notes 159ff.). 51 See e.g. Zohar III, 120b, commented in Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, 99–100. 52 See TB Berakhot 4b, 9b, 10b. For an earlier mystical elaboration on this issue, see Midrash Konen, and the pertinent discussion by Israel Ta-Shma, The Early Ashkenazi Prayer (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2003) (Hebrew), 101–109. 53 See Shaʿare ʾorah, 109–110. The same view appears more concisely in Zohar I, 132b, quoted in HQ, 107. 54 Shaʿare ʾorah, 109. For other viewpoints on this passage, see Garb, Manifestations, 96–99.

The Focus on Ritual Sequences

115

from the supernal “channels”.55 Theurgic efficacy means cosmic amendment. By “arranging the divine forces [in the right order]” (lesadder ha-sefirot), that liturgical syntagm can redeem the entire world. This is why any counteraction, any “interruption” of the ritual continuum, is severely prohibited.56 This Castilian view – stylized by Giqatilla in its typical organic garb – had great influence on the later kabbalists, who reprised and reworked it in detail. An important elaboration is contained in one of the Responsa (teshuvot) by Yosef Alqastiel, written at the end of the 15th century.57 In his prologue to Tolaʿat Yaʿaqov, Ibn Gabbay takes the two ritual syntagms illustrated above – the junction of geʾullah and tefillah and that of ṣiṣit and tefillin – as exemplary topics that denote the inadequacy of Maimonides’ approach to the precepts, caused by his ignorance of the kabbalistic tradition.58 Only the latter – it is argued in the pertinent section – allows to understand why any pause between the two liturgical sections of geʾullah and tefillah must be rejected (against the opinion of non-kabbalistic authorities, it is even forbidden to say “Amen”).59 In a further passage, Ibn Gabbay returns on the same uninterrupted sequence as part of the hidden intention “to bring order” (lesadder seder) above, specifically by “arousing the supernal mercy”.60 Let us briefly consider, at last, the discussion on the apical stage of the liturgical service, the ʿAmidah itself. Dealing with its inner articulation, Moshe Elbaz states that the opening verse of the Eighteen Benedictions (“Oh Lord, open my lips”) marks the end of the “preparations of the bride” (tiqqune ­ha-kalah) accomplished by the former liturgies, and the beginning of “the arrangement of the bridegroom” (tiqqun ha-ḥatan).61 Accordingly, the worshipper shall stand and move his head (bodily posture/gesture), and he “shall draw the power of 55

In order to have these powerful effects, a continuous collective manifestation of Israel’s “strength” is required, encompassing all the dimensions of ritual. In the same place, Giqatilla explains how this “construct” (semikhah) must apply both “in speech” (be-dibbur) and “in action” (be-maʿaseh), accompanied by “intentionality” (kawwanah). Meir ibn Gabbay similarly refers to “action”, “speech” and “thought”: see TY, f. 15d. 56 The same applies to other segments of Jewish liturgy perceived as closer and continuous. The kabbalists interdict, for instance, any interruption between the zemirot, or between the latter and the Song at the Sea: see TY, f. 11c-d. 57 Ibn Gabbay widely copied from this source, without mentioning it. The point has been elucidated by Scholem, “The Kabbalah in Spain”, 171–172, 201–203. On other aspects of this influence, see Yitzhak Baer, A History of the Jews in Christian Spain (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society 1961–1966), vol. 2, 427–430. 58 See TY, f. 3b. See above, chap. 2, around n. 181. 59 See ibid., f. 15d. Compare HQ, 107. 60 See TY, f. 20a. 61 See HQ, 107, quoting the passage in Zohar I, 132b.

116

Chapter 3

the primordial One […] within the sefirah Tiferet” by means of his blessings (verbal language) and his kawwanah (mental activity). Elbaz deals, simultaneously, with the multidimensionality of the ritual setting and its order (or syntax), which contemplates at each step a mix of physical motions, fixed words and noetic images.62 The same combination of ingredients characterizes in his opinion the conclusion of the Eighteen Benedictions, which encompasses its own rhythm of bows, formulas and mystical intentions.63 Ibn Gabbay explicitly describes the orderly structure of the prayer par excellence as an ascensional route: “Behold, the appropriate prayer is the one that elevates 18 paths until the head of the righteous man is crowned”.64 Later on, we shall see that indeed, quite often, the syntactic scheme coincides with an elevation, bringing the devotee up to the uppermost levels of reality. 2.2 Broader Structures Kabbalistic commentators were not only content with focusing on narrow procedures or consecutive sequels, illuminating the links between them, but also used to associate and coordinate more distant or numerous ritual stages. We have seen before how they compared the way of wearing shoes to the pattern that governs the donning of the double tefillin.65 In the same vein, they linked the hand washing at home (both in the morning and at mealtimes) with the synagogal ablution of the priests – and all of them with the archetypal priestly ritual in the ancient sanctuary.66 I shall here turn to some broader structures that our kabbalists discern (or construct) within the Jewish ritual – structures that syntactically tie together a cluster of liturgies around one organizational principle. Many of these patterns date to the Castilian Kabbalah, and especially to the Zoharic materials, which elaborated such architectural or categorical schemes, somehow combining practical-ritual and theoretical-mythical aspects.67 62 63 64

65 66 67

See ibid., 108–109. See ibid., 115–117. TY, f. 18d; see already ibid., 16c. About the “marvellous order” of the Eighteen Benedictions, see also ʿAvodat ha-qodesh II, § 9, 103–105 (and the quote above, chap. 1, around n. 31). For a closer inquiry into this section, see Goetschel, Meir ibn Gabbay, 315–331 (in my opinion, however, the latter’s definition of kabbalistic prayer as a “spiritual pilgrimage” risks to be rather misleading and does not account for the multidimensionality described above). See above, around n. 42. See Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, chap. 1. More generally, about these “cross-over structures”, see ibid., chap. 3. In his Hebrew works, Moshe de León usually employed threefold patterns in his interpretation of liturgy (see above, n. 12). It has been noted that, in Sefer ha-rimmon, “the

The Focus on Ritual Sequences

117

The overall articulation dominating the first part of Hekhal ha-qodesh is emblematic, as it employs a Zoharic typology for combining and rearranging various liturgical moments. The Zohar distinguished four different kinds of tiqqunim in the Jewish prayer:68 a. those concerning the body (lit. the “bone”); b. those concerning the soul; c. those concerning the upper soul; d. those concerning the holy Name.69 Elbaz reviews the initial parts of the daily worship in the light of this fourfold pattern, so coordinating numerous and also distant segments by means of a unique coherent pattern. The first category corresponds to the earliest steps, as man “restores and sanctifies his body” by means of the precepts of ṣiṣit and tefillin (complementarily, the very first morning prayers are mainly intended to sanctify the motions of the body).70 The second category refers to the recite of Barukh she-ʾamar, which accomplishes a “reparation of the soul”.71 The third tiqqun, achieved by the various Pesuqe de-zimraʾ, concerns the “upper soul”, therefore “the world of the celestial spheres” (indeed, the order of ten “hallelujah” corresponds to the building of ten sefirot).72 Finally, since the Qaddish prayer, the focus shifts on the names of God, and the “rectification” applies precisely to this supreme sphere (as well as to the “world of the angels”).73 Some pages later, the pattern is summarized in the following way: at each tiqqun of the four tiqqunim man shall concentrate to elevate his soul. In the first tiqqun, he shall concentrate to repair his body, so that a structure of the morning prayer, shaḥarit, is basically threefold”: Elliott R. Wolfson, “Mystical-Theurgical Dimensions in Sefer ha-Rimmon”, in Approaches to Judaism in Medieval Times, ed. D. Blumenthal (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), vol. 3, 43. The singing of the Psalmodic verses (Pesuqe de-Zimraʾ) supposedly corresponds to the preparation of the Shekhinah for her supernal coupling, the Shemaʿ accomplishes such unification of feminine and masculine dimensions, and the ʿAmidah allows the rising of these forces to their superior source, i.e. Binah. A threefold pattern is detected at the beginning of the Siddur by Moshe de León’s Mashkiyot kesef (see my Bodily Rituals, 80, n. 154). On the morning rituals as an orderly preparation to the ʿAmidah, see Zohar II, 200b. 68 On the term tiqqun, which mixes together various semantic connotations (“preparation”, “emendation”, “reparation”, etc.), see above, chap. 2, n. 173. 69 See Zohar II, 215b. On this architectonics of daily ritual, seen as a fourfold ascending and restoring process, see Scholem, Kabbalah, 178–179. Another Zoharic passage (II, 202b) had discerned six stages in liturgy, corresponding to six different commandments. 70 See HQ, 77–80. 71 See ibid., 80–81. 72 See ibid., 81–85. 73 See ibid., 92ff.

118

Chapter 3

pure soul might enter it, and in the tiqqun of the world he shall include himself into it, and in the tiqqun of the world of the spheres he shall participate to them, and in the tiqqun of the world of angels he shall participate by elevating his soul among them […].74 Elbaz’ commentary discloses other syntagmatic structures of this kind in Jewish ritual life, and assigns to these formal orders a secret higher significance.75 Moreover, the entire work refers, more or less explicitly, to a syntactic organization. It usually introduces a new liturgical section with expressions like “after that”, “and now”, “after having…”, “we have seen before that…”.76 The same role of the prayer guide (sheliaḥ ṣibbur) is tied to a special knowledge of these aspects.77 With his expertise in the hidden ritual syntax, the precentor can lead a liturgical performance that respects the deeper forms and rhythm of the service, enabling the community to connect effectively to the upper articulations, the divine names, etc. See the following exemplary excerpt: And after the Qaddish, he [the person who is called to the Torah] says: “Bless the Lord who is blessed (barekhu ʾet H’ ha-mevorakh)”. The interpretation is to draw the blessing from Keter to Ḥokhmah […] to Binah […]. For the sheliaḥ ṣibbur concentrates himself to draw the soul down, until Binah, and there he shall focus his thought. And the community answers: […].78 An analogous attitude connotes Meir ibn Gabbay’s commentary. It sketches a three-stage syntactic pattern, which comprehends the donning of ritual 74

75

76 77 78

Ibid., 100. This view of “four tiqqunim in prayer” surfaces also in the work of Elbaz’s pupil Yaʿaqov Ifargan: see Hallamish, Kabbalistic Ritual, 333, n. 29. Also among Safedian ­kabbalists, such as Ḥayyim Vital, we find the idea of the morning service as a fourfold pattern, associated to the conception of four graded worlds (Action, Formation, Creation, ­Emanation). See e.g. HQ, 83ff., which states in the wake of the Zohar that “ten Hallelujah correspond to the Building, and this is their order”. See also the claim that the blessings of the ʿAmidah are arranged “according to the order of the six supernal extremities” (ibid., 111). Later on, a triadic scheme of the Qedushah is articulated on the basis of a Zoharic instance (ibid., 124–125). Elsewhere, one reads that “the prayer is arranged according to the order of the sefirot, from above to below” (ibid., 130). “Three orders” are also detected in the secret approach to the blowing of the shofar (ibid., 291–294). Similar expressions hinting to a strong formal framework, characterize the tractate by Moshe ben Makhir entitled, interestingly, Seder ha-yom (see above, chap. 1, n. 54). On this topic, see below, chap. 4, notes 86ff. HQ, 96.

The Focus on Ritual Sequences

119

garments, the hymns and blessings around the Shemaʿ, and the Eighteen Benedictions, which are related to the cosmic orders: Know that in our daily prayers, we include the three worlds. At the beginning, we wrap ourselves in the ṣiṣit and don the tefillin, which are the factual precepts (miṣwot maʿasiyot), in a correspondence with this inferior world that is the world of action (ʿolam ha-maʿaseh). Then, we recite the hymns and bless upon the Shemaʿ, in a correspondence with the world of the spheres (ʿolam ha-galgalim) […]. After that, we pray the standing prayer […], in a correspondence with the world of the angels (ʿolam ha-malakhim) […]. And while we order the prayer (mesadderim ­ha-tefillah) this way, we tie the worlds together (meqasherim ha-ʿolamot) and we demonstrate that we are involved in the holy forms (meʿoravim be-ṣurot qedoshot) […]. And after the completion of the prayer, it is incumbent to make three steps to return to one’s place […].79 Even more comprehensive is a syntagmatic articulation that reorganizes various liturgical sections as a sevenfold ascensional path, each section representing a “palace” (hekhal) to be reached and crossed. The blessing Yoṣer ʾOr is said to constitute the first hekhal, the “palace of the sapphire stone” that corresponds to the lower sefirot (Yesod and Malkhut).80 At last, it emerges that the pivotal passage from the ʾEmet we-yaṣiv to the ʿAmidah (namely, the semikhah analyzed above) represents the seventh hekhal, “the palace of the Holy of Holies”, which corresponds to the three highest sefirot.81 Such disclosure of an occult palimpsest governing the Jewish liturgy, is not surprising in an author whose main ideological assumption, as we know, concerns “the order of our prayer” (seder tefillatenu) organized by the “supreme arranger” (mesadder ʿelyon).82 One may note in conclusion that while the semantics of the prayer book is deeply renewed and modified by the kabbalistic interpretations, its syntax is altogether respected and even enhanced. To be sure, the associative links between more or less distant sequels can sometimes create a broader 79 80 81 82

TY, f. 18c. On a similar pattern in Moshe de León’s work, see above, n. 67. Ibid., f. 13b. Ibid., f. 15c. Ibid., f. 13b. See above, chap. 1, around n. 34. See also the passage quoted above, n. 60 (TY, ff. 20a-b), where the faculty of the worshipper “to arouse the divine mercy” is bound to the “order (seder) pertinent to the awakening of mercy” during the morning ritual. In TY, f. 19d, various prayers and gestures enacted at home in the early morning are dealt with together and linked to one another in a broader picture.

120

Chapter 3

network of connections, but the overall order and rhythm of the cult remain substantially the same. This seems to represent a significant divergence from the hermeneutic attitude to the Torah, which tends not only to innovate the semantics, but also to deconstruct or weaken the narrative order of the Bible.83 Our commentaries, as we shall better observe later on, aim at the disclosure of deeper layers of the same syntax rather than at the creation of a new syntax in the practical lore. 2.3 Temporal Patterns As might be expected, the syntactic focus of the kabbalists invests also the temporal dimension of the prayer service. Already in ancient Judaism (like in all ritualistic cultures), cultic activities were subjected to meticulous attention as to their calendrical, temporal and sequential collocation. In the kabbalistic tradition, one notes a further effort to discern hidden temporal orders, and to trace with extreme precision the timing and succession of the acts. Numerous negative rules and harsh warnings are thus intended to prevent any eventual negligence of the (time-structured) procedures. Many positive prescriptions concern the fact that ritual performances must be carried out scrupulously as to their temporal constrains and concatenations. I cannot deal here with the complex intersection of linear time and cyclical time that characterizes Judaism in general, just as many other religious cultures, nor with the intricate inner articulation of Jewish liturgical time.84 Let me just say that such multidimensional temporality had a greater impact both on the cultic organization of the Jewish world in its various epochs, and on the imageries and discourses concerning ritual praxis.85 The latter was articulated in major cycles (daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, etc.), internally composed of a plurality of stages (three prayers in a day, etc.); each segment could be perceived as a temporal line, although it reappeared circularly and had to be repeated also some hours later. Through the ages of Jewish culture, the times of ritual were revisited by the interpreters in the light of further temporal orders,

83 84 85

See Idel, Absorbing Perfections, 223. The same might be said of the orders of the Mishnah as revisited in Yosef Alashqar’s Ṣafenat paʿaneaḥ, but the issue would deserve an extensive inquiry. Lotman’s semiotics of culture often refers to the various speeds, rhythms and temporalities found in the semiosphere – to be envisioned as a ‘multichronic space’. On this complicated ‘temporal syntax’, see Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, 110ff., and the bibliography quoted therein.

The Focus on Ritual Sequences

121

which could be in turn narrower or more extended, more linearly- or more cyclically-oriented.86 The attitude of the kabbalists toward ritualistic time – as has already emerged – led to reset the traditional units, whether consecutive or not, according to broader clusters and sequences, looking at the various performances as stages of wider processes, and charging them, accordingly, with specific meanings. Their implicit assumption was that Jewish ritual life is based on a ‘polycentric syntax’ made of a series of (usually ascending) sequels, rather than on a unique path directed to a unique climax. Different segments could be discerned and focused on from time to time, having each a pivotal center.87 In this regard, the semantics (and relative importance) of each unit depends on the range of the segment under consideration – so that, for instance, ritual procedures usually perceived as preparatory or secondary, when changing the perspective on the syntax at stake, are transformed into apical stages and critical performances.88 This flexibility in the syntactic view concurs to the general flexibility of the kabbalistic semantics. In fact, even as the semantic grids appear quite stable in general, their application remains fluid, also because the interpreter tends to take into exam from time to time different clusters of units, attributing to the latter changing values on each occasion. A further decisive facet of the kabbalists’ posture is that they consider each unit or segment of cultic time as tied to an astral or celestial temporal pattern, or, more precisely, as having a degree of holiness and power corresponding to the specular layer in the supernal realm which it mirrors or to which it is correlated.89 Ritualistic orders reflect cosmic orders also, or primarily, in their 86

87

88

89

In numerous essays, Moshe Idel has examined these differing forms and perceptions of time with special reference to kabbalistic trends, recurring to terms such as microchronoi and macrochronoi: see e.g. “Some Concepts of Time and History in Kabbalah”, in Jewish History and Jewish Memory, Essays in Honor of Y.H. Yerushalmi, ed. E. Carlebach (Hanover NH: Brandeis University Press, 1998), 153–188; Saturn’s Jews. Thus, for example, the ʿAmidah is considered as an apical stage in the synagogal morning service, although within it the Birkat kohanim (Priestly Blessing) can assume a major role, and even some preparatory steps – such as the flow of words from the ʾEmet we-yaṣiv to the recite of the phrase “Oh Lord, open my lips…” – can be understood as being pivotal. Elsewhere I surmised that “the Jewish interpreters unwittingly shared the principle of current semiotics that a semiotic unit (e.g. a rite or a word) can change its meaning according to the semiotic whole or chain being considered (e.g. a ritual or a phrase)”: “Between Somatics”, 35, n. 95. I have to set aside the frequent references to broader temporal orders (macrochronoi), marked both by a cyclical nature and an eschatological orientation. According to an emblematic passage by Ibn Gabbay, “the days of the Sukkah allude to the cosmic days and

122

Chapter 3

timing. Such a stance leads to review the ritual syntax in connection to higher formal structures and significata.90 Hence, the temporal aspect constituted a major pivot in the kabbalistic translation of the halakhic ritual into a mythical (and mystical) ritual. Below we shall see how the hyper-signification of time structures could become the trigger for mythopoetic accounts. Among the temporal boundaries that govern liturgical life, many have to do with the cycle day/night. Specific rules and interdictions characterize the evening and nocturnal hours. The turn from day to night is reinforced by the correlation to theosophical orders, as it is perceived as a “temporal passage” (shinnui ha-zeman) from the domain of Clemency (Ḥesed) to the ruling of Judgment (Din) upon the world.91 Consequently, as our commentators state recollecting earlier opinions, the performance of standard daily practices in nocturnal hours is prohibited, since it is in danger of feeding the negative supernal sides and of provoking a disarticulation within the divine pleroma. Thus, they forbid to wear ṣiṣit and tefillin (or to join geʾullah and tefillah in prayer) after dawn,92 and insist on similar time-related prohibitions in the cultic apparatus.93 In chap. 1 we have sketched the kabbalistic discussion on early morning ritual activity, which is considered to lead away from night (with its defilements and dangers) especially through the purification rites of washing and dressing. The theosophical Kabbalah also insists repeatedly on the need to prepare oneself to pray and to arrive at the synagogue on time, together with the other practitioners.94

each day within it corresponds to a shemiṭṭah”; the whole process culminates with the eight day (Shemini ʿAṣeret), when “we elevate with everything to the great jubilee” (TY, f. 42b). 90 According to Moshe de León, there is higher reason behind the fact that the statutory prayer – just like the ancient temple service – is constructed following a threefold articulation in day time, and requires a threefold articulation as concerns the p ­ ersonnel (priests, Levites, Israel): see Sefer ha-rimmon, The Book of the Pomegranate, ed. E.R. Wolfson (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 34–35, 52ff. 91 See e.g. HQ, 149ff. This is further evidence of the fact that, in kabbalistic literature, natural facts and symbols are immediately culturally-shaped (see above, chap. 2, n. 52). 92 See TY, f. 7a. See also Dawid ibn Zimra, Meṣudat Dawid, 112: “The precepts of the phylacteries shall not apply in the night, because they allude to the descent of Mercy (Raḥamim) upon the world, and at night Judgment (Din) rules”. 93 See HQ, 149–151. The comments on “the secret of the evening prayer (sod tefillat ʿaravit)” continuously refer to temporal determinations, and include mythical and magical accounts of night-time events. 94 See above, chap. 1, around notes 76ff. On the kabbalistic call to collective prayer, recited in the quorum of ten adults at the propitious time for prayer, see Hallamish, Kabbalah in Liturgy, 315; Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, 270. On the strict timing that the communities of

The Focus on Ritual Sequences

123

It is once again evident that, in their inquiry into the grammar of daily liturgy, our kabbalists reactivated patterns from the Spanish kabbalistic legacy. A similar cultural enterprise was carried on in the same period by the Safedian master Moshe Cordovero.95 His brief ethical-practical guide entitled Tomer Devorah, rearranges the esoteric theosophical traditions concerning the conduct of the Jewish pious man, who has to imitate the divine measures in all stages of his daily life.96 In the last summarizing chapter, the work explicitly refers to the “great and magnificent counsel” of the Zohar – in fact drawing from different sections of the Zoharic corpus, and assembling and reshaping those earlier instances. This advice intends to teach the people of Israel “how to behave” during the day-cycle “according to the right timing”, “in accordance with the cycle of the sefirot”.97 Through meticulous observance of the temporal and sequential procedures, the enlightened Jewish worshippers can remain constantly attached to the holy articulated orders found above, and also achieve the unification of the supernal forces. Cordovero’s assumption is that the kabbalistic secret tradition instructs about the sefirah that is dominant at any phase of the day, and about the ritual act that must be performed at that time in order to generate the tiqqun associated to that supernal force. The first instruction concerns the coming of the night, and the duty to prepare oneself to sleep by addressing a prayer to the last sefirah (Malkhut) with a full kawwanah. Further instructions concern the importance of getting up at midnight to study the Torah (after having washed one’s hands, etc.98). Then, the Jewish ­devotees educated in the hidden wisdom are informed about the morning hours, the arrival and the entrance to the synagogue, and so forth. Obviously enough, the triadic division of daily rituality (morning – afternoon – evening) is the object of much attention.99 However, the kabbalists take

95 96

97

98 99

Israel must respect in their prayer, as a condition for the latter’s acceptance in heaven, see Cordovero, Pardes rimmonim, Gate 32, 79b; compare Sack, In the Gates, 198. See above, chap. 1, around n. 52. On this work, which disseminated in a compact and popular way the speculations found in Cordovero’s major works, see Charles Mopsik’s introduction to Moshe Cordovero, Le palmier de Débora (Paris: Verdier 1986); Sack, In the Gates, 214ff.; Koch, Human Self-Perfection, chap. 3. See Cordovero, Tomer Devorah, chap. 10 (about the Zoharic references, see the pertinent notes by Mopsik in Cordovero, Le palmier de Débora, 116–119). Similarly, according to Ḥayyim Vital, the disciple of Luria, “the divine machinery actually follows the annual cycle of Jewish festivals” (Weinstein, Kabbalah and Jewish Modernity, 69). See above, chap. 1, n. 74. See Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, 963–964. An example is the kabbalistic prohibition of nefilat ʾappayim (“prostration”) in the evening, about which see Hallamish, Kabbalah in Liturgy, chap. 22.

124

Chapter 3

into account all the temporal constrains that structure liturgical life. A major importance is attached to the weekly cycle. Before going into details about the Sabbath liturgy, Elbaz states that the weekly days should be understood in the order of the [lower] supernal forces (be-seder ha-sefirot) […]: the first day [Sunday] Gedolah, the second day Gevurah, the third day Tiferet, the fourth day Neṣaḥ, the fifth day Hod, the sixth day Yesod, the seventh day [Shabbat] Malkhut.100 The Sabbatical sphere and its extensive regulatory apparatus are closely examined by the kabbalists,101 who often highlight the peculiar time-structure governing the holy day (which, as is especially underlined by Ibn Gabbay, is linked to the constellation of Saturn102). Thus, our exegetes explain through theosophical reasoning why some liturgies that are statutory on the other days are forbidden on Sabbath,103 while other customs are obligatory only at that time.104 Elbaz underlines, in particular, the need “to set (lesadder) the table” (with the bread on it) on the eve of Shabbat, following extremely strict rules, as well as the obligation to arrange the entire house.105 As is often stressed by kabbalistic texts, the boundaries distinguishing the Shabbat from the other days, are very sharp but also permeable: pious Jews should endeavor to draw some of the “holiness” of the festive day into the “profane” sphere of the week. Finally, the kabbalists deal at length with the time-structures and boundaries pertaining to the year – therefore with the festivals, and the cultic procedures that characterize these special times or the days contiguous to them.106 100

HQ, 158 (see also ibid., 265). This pattern allows to set the Taḥnunim (“prayers of supplication”) in their precise temporal framework: see ibid., 125. Behind these views lies the Zoharic belief that “each day below is appointed a Day above” (see e.g. Zohar III, 92a-b). 101 On the Shabbat motifs, see Ginsburg’s closer commentary on the sections of TY devoted to the holy day (Sod ha-shabbat), and the comprehensive inquiry of the same scholar into the same themes (The Sabbath). More in general, see G. Blidstein (ed.), Sabbath: Idea, History, Reality (Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University Press, 2004). 102 It is in fact Saturn’s day, “although it [the constellation] has no influence on the holy ­people” (TY, f. 28a). 103 See e.g. TY, f. 24b, on the prayer We-hu-raḥum: “On the Shabbat, when Judgment (Din) departs from the world, it is forbidden to recite this prayer”. About the tefillin, see below, n. 107. 104 See e.g. TY, f. 28d ff., on the special prayers for Shabbat afternoon; TY, f. 28a, providing kabbalistic rationales to the rabbinic custom of donning fine raiment on the Shabbat day. See also HQ, 212, on the specific procedures of reciting the Qaddish on Shabbat. 105 See HQ, 162–165. On the order of the table on weekdays, see TY, ff. 43a ff. 106 We shall return later to the connection between the patterns of festive periods and supernal constellations. Dealing with specific halakhic prescriptions concerning festive

The Focus on Ritual Sequences

125

Already classical kabbalistic sources state, for instance, that it is forbidden to don the tefillin during the festivals, given the already strong sign codes and the exceptionally-articulated communication links that tie human and divine beings in these festive times.107 More controversial and much debated is the custom of wearing tefillin during pre-festive days (ḥol ha-moʿed).108 3

Generating Mythical and Mystical Accounts from Ritual Syntax

I wish now to look at the consequences of such hyper-attention to the formal structures of cultic life, and particularly to the syntagmatic arrangement of the prayer service. A major implication, in my opinion, was the development of a ‘deeper syntax’, multilayered as much as integrated, which expanded the orderly dimensions involved by ordinary worship, both horizontally and vertically. Through their semiotic work, our kabbalistic commentators did not only review the standard ritual units as composing broader sequels, but disclosed further syntactic orders and clusters, and came to perceive all ritual segments as dense powerful performances having reverberations on multiple interconnected layers. In turn, such disclosure (or construction) of an underlying grammar of sense and order could not but generate wider and more complex narratives. The deep ritual syntax became the trigger for producing narrative accounts about the impact of ritual activity. On the one hand, extensive (albeit fragmentary and scattered) mythical stories were elaborated. On the other hand, segments and sequels of ritual life were reinterpreted as precisely-oriented

107

108

l­ iturgies, the kabbalists usually provide mythical and theosophical explanations to support them. To offer only one example: unlike the rest of the year, on Yom Kippur “we recite aloud the sentence Barukh Shem kevod malkhuto le-ʿolam wa-‘ed, because on Yom Kippur the Shekhinah raises up and becomes the crown of Tiferet” (HQ, 313). “On the Shabbat and on festive days there is no need for tefillin, since other great things are found in those days and all the gates are open. To what can this be compared? As the king is present, there is no need for his seal…”: Giqatilla, Shaʿare ʾorah, 77. On the same prohibition, see HQ, 75, 204. As in other kabbalistic texts, there is an obligation to remove the tefillin also before the Musaf prayer on Rosh Ḥodesh (the New Moon): see ibid., 231. On further interdictions of daily practices in festive periods, see ibid., 121. On the reason for reciting the Hallel fully or partially on the festive days of Pesach, according to different temporal segments, see ibid., 241–242. See Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, 114, and the studies mentioned therein. Following the Zohar, both Ibn Gabbay and Elbaz prohibit donning tefillin on the intermediate day of a festival (see also Hallamish, Kabbalah in Liturgy, 308–309, mentioning precisely Elbaz’s view as exemplary).

126

Chapter 3

mystical routes. The kabbalists could thus remold the liturgical experience both in a mythical and in a mystical vein. It shall be interesting to analyze how this semiotic and literary activity was carried out in general, and how kabbalists of different trends and generations deployed it in specific manners (taken for granted that later authors, as the ones investigated here, were to rework and readapt earlier textual pieces). 3.1 The Disclosure of Deep Syntactic Orders According to Roy Rappaport, “liturgical orders are realized in three dimensions”: the “sequential dimension”, having to do with organization and time construction; the “synchronic dimension”, encompassing an array of meanings represented by the same ritual object or act simultaneously; the “hierarchical dimension”, encoding multiple understandings in an ascending pattern.109 I surmise that the Kabbalah was prone to empower all these aspects, already found in the rabbinic semiosphere, through its semiotic machine. It revisited the “sequential dimension” of the traditional service, developing at once the “synchronic dimension” of each of its procedures. In so doing, it enforced the “hierarchical dimension”, since the ritual practices – rearranged as ramified hyper-connected sequences – were definitely upwards-directed. Let us try to analyze this complex process in its various stages and components. According to the fundamental ‘paradigmatic perspective’ of the kabbalists, any element of the earthly reality should be seen as correlated to a dimension of the heavenly realm. As has emerged, a supernal counterpart would resemble and reflect primarily the main pivots of the human sphere (soul, body, single limbs) and of the cultic sphere (temple, precepts, ritual acts).110 However, throughout this inquiry we have noted that, within this broader analogical or isomorphic imagery, a significant role is played not only by the units of the former codes, but also by segments, clusters and sequels. The work on ‘parataxis’ (the paradigmatic view) somehow intersects with the work on ‘syntax’ (a ‘syntagmatic perspective’), so that clustered structures are found both above and below, and are combined strictly and reciprocally. In particular, ritual sequential orders are perceived as strictly correlated to supreme, cosmic and divine, orders.111 109 110 111

I attempt to summarize in these few lines Rappaport’s broader analysis found in Ritual and Religion, respectively 170ff., 236ff., 263ff. See above, chap. 1. As I have tried to demonstrate elsewhere (see Bodily Rituals, 149–152), such interaction of the syntactic and paratactic views, appears as a decisive factor in the kabbalistic elaboration on ritual since the very beginning.

The Focus on Ritual Sequences

127

What we have here may be called a multilayered and interactive syntax – namely, a twofold syntax, where the (lower) procedural sequences immediately engage (upper) articulated dimensions in the heavenly sphere. In an attempt to display this semiotic work graphically, we might represent a first typical pattern as a squared diagram, where a binary opposition below is connected to a dual structure above:112

Figure 1 

To provide an example: an earthly item on the left (e.g. the human left hand) (s1) correlates to a left entity in the heavenly realm (S1), while an earthly item on the right (e.g. the human right hand) (s2) corresponds to a supernal right entity (S2).113 It should be noted, however, that a slightly different pattern is often worked out by the kabbalists, especially when liturgical life is being discussed. Dichotomous syntactic schemes and analogical paratactic projections compose a more

112

113

I shall indicate with s the binary semic category that pertains to the earthly sphere, with S the (analogous) binary semic category that pertains to the heavenly sphere. Thus, if s1 and s2 compose the horizontal polarity, S1 and S2 represent their vertical counterparts. This diagram clearly differs from the “semiotic square” conceived by Algirdas J. Greimas as the elementary structure of signification. It lies at a lower level of abstraction or depth. It is composed not by semic categories in a differential relationship (e.g. male, female, not-male, not-female), but by binary structures “below” (e.g. earthly male-earthly female) and “above” (e.g. heavenly male-heavenly female). Nonetheless, it shares with the basic scheme of the structuralist semiotics some crucial aspects. The semiotic pattern relates to semantic oppositions and allows at once syntactic operations; such operations are embryonic conditions for a narrative construction (indeed, series of differential relationships constitute the basic grammar for developing narratives). In our case, the analogies and correlations among the four terms are at the basis of the narrative discourse of the kabbalists, expressing dynamic experiential sequences. See Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, chap. 4. To be sure, also the inverse correlation was ­suggested by some interpreters (see ibid., 147, n. 141; 225).

128

Chapter 3

oblique and dynamic figure, constituting a sort of parallelepiped involved in a (mainly, ascending) movement:

Figure 2 

Thus, for instance, the ritual syntax specified, innovated and fixed by the kabbalists contemplated the donning of the arm-tefillin (s1) before that of the head-tefillin (s2), since an ascending movement was here at play, reflecting a parallel dynamics from Malkhut (S1) to Tiferet (S2) in the sefirotic realm.114 The same might be said of all the liturgies where a sitting posture “before” was followed by a standing posture “after”.115 It is important to underline that the two semic lines (of s and S) should not be seen as separated and parallel, but as strictly interwoven. They constitute more than a double syntax – one below, the other above, one more apparent, the other more hidden. Rather, a unique integrated process involves the two levels, so that a liturgical ascending sequence engages superhuman entities and embeds dynamics at the supreme layers. In Rappaport’s terms, the “sequential dimension” includes in itself the “synchronic” and the “hierarchical” dimensions. Such a review of the ritual syntax evidently tends to render the ritual set of discrete performances a dense and continuous activity, which entangles multilayered forms of order simultaneously. The kabbalists’ semiotic elaboration on ritual life also presents a third configuration. In some cases, as has emerged before, they detect in liturgy broader 114 115

See above, n. 47. More rarely, the movement can be oriented downwards. Elbaz dwelled on the exact procedure of the two hands during the ablution (“and this is the order”!), instructing that “one shall take the pure vessel in the right hand, for there is the power of Ḥesed, and he shall pour out it on the left hand, in order to make the power of the right prevail on the left” (HQ, 66). In any case, the binary poles are not on the same layer (neither below nor above), and a sequential process leads from one pole to the other.

The Focus on Ritual Sequences

129

structures composed of several units and linked to patterned cosmic orders. The corresponding diagram is that of a longer parallelepiped (made of three, four, or eventually more units), where an earthly ascending sequel is correlated to a paradigmatic ascending pattern in heaven:

Figure 3 

This recalls, for example, the fourfold path of different tiqqunim proposed by Elbaz’s commentary, following a Zoharic scheme. Here, various ritual stages (s1-s2-s3-s4) engage multiple clusters in the supernal spheres (S1-S2-S3-S4). Hence, the Jewish morning liturgy appears as a whole related to an overall architectonics, and as a sequential process involving the entire cosmic reality.116 What emerges here is arguably a crucial device of the kabbalistic semiotics. The latter does not only highlight discrete ritual units (namely, all the single distinct rites of a cultic dromenon), expanding their semantics in a paradigmatic view through all kinds of analogical tools. It also dwells on the larger grammar of ritual, charting the syntagmatic concatenations of the ritual units, and disclosing the secret significata of the latter in the light of closer or broader structures.117 Such complex work generates a peculiar increase of meaning, often in the shape of a narrative construction. Since the underlying

116

117

See above, notes 67ff. The examples of a three-stage sequence are numerous (for instance, putting on the ṣiṣit before the arm-tefillin and the head-tefillin: see above, around n. 45). We have also observed a sevenfold ascensional liturgical sequel, corresponding to seven upper palaces (see above, around notes 80ff.). Such emphasis on a stratified syntactic structure is, in fact, an important ingredient of the kabbalistic tendency to “charting” – which we have tried to illuminate in this inquiry by resorting to the metaphorics of architectonics and maps, networks and webs.

130

Chapter 3

syntax is a multilayered, sequential, dynamic one, narratively-oriented discursive accounts germinate on the surface semantic layer. 3.2 The Elaboration of Dense Narrative Sequences and Ascending Experiential Routes In the following, I wish to show how the kabbalistic semiotics exploited ritual syntax to produce ‘narrativity’ – in other terms, how our authors unfolded a narrative discourse by reviewing the pragmatic sequential patterns and their links to superhuman articulations. This way, I suggest, they imbued liturgical structures and sequels with a further sense – either of a ‘mythical’ or of a ‘mystical’ kind. In fact, I shall distinguish – albeit artificially and heuristically – two basic typologies of that semiotic construction. 1. First, kabbalistic texts tend to weave dense narrative sequences upon the procedural sequences of cultic praxis. These accounts, which usually allude to the plots of traditional sacred stories, draw from metaphorical figurations of diverse and often remote origins.118 They are mostly short – and even when they are broader than in the rabbinic corpora, they are rarely expanded as full-fledged myths.119 The reasons for this are manifold. ‘Mythical narrativity’ appears here somehow hindered or overshadowed by a complicated literary style – which combines exegetical explanations, theosophical speculations, halakhic discussions, practical instructions – and partly contrasted by theological resistances. The same literary genre of the commentary (on the Torah, on the precepts, or on prayers) contributes to render the inner narratives necessarily brief, scattered, elusive – so to say, fragments of wide but ‘broken’ myths. This literary phenomenon is already evident in classical kabbalistic literature – including Giqatilla’s texts, as observed before,120 and even the Zoharic materials, undoubtedly the textual corpus where kabbalistic mythopoesis unfolds in the most luxuriant manner. Here, fictitious stories about legendary rabbis, or mythical accounts about Jewish heroes, are reported through intricate literary pieces, which encompass plural interpretations and exegetical discussions; they frequently include references to earlier approaches contained in the Zohar itself (in a sort of “internal commentary”), or display a variant of a story that is found in other versions in another stratum of that composite 118 119 120

See above, chap. 2. The term ‘metaphor’ should be here understood cum grano salis, as I have tried to argue in that chapter (n. 157). See the studies quoted above in chap. 2, in part. notes 25, 150. See chap. 2, around n. 127.

The Focus on Ritual Sequences

131

­textual body.121 In many cases, these accounts touch or dwell on practical matters, turning their attention to topics of the nomian lore like halakhic minutiae or specific customs. In many cases, they insert in this magmatic plot forms of order of different kind (including syntactic patterns). I suggest that these features stand out even more clearly in later commentaries. In their attempt to employ Zoharic materials to illuminate cultic items, procedures and orders, they incline to ‘select’ the accounts more fitting to their intention, to ‘cut’ them out in accordance with their practical interest, and to ‘reuse’ or ‘readapt’ them for their semiotic concern – so that the mythical narratives usually result even more condensed, and interwoven with other literary forms. As already seen in chap. 2, especially when addressing the hidden rationales of the precepts, the kabbalistic exegetes hint at mythical stories that deal with the power of human action within a dynamic cosmic background, and depict the astonishing impact of a correct (or a wrong) attitude to the divine rules. In these narrative accounts, syntactic or temporal structures are frequently at stake. The semantic core remains the same: those who safeguard the prescribed orders, times and sequels in their ritual activity, achieve formidable positive effects (they maintain or repair the cosmic architectonics), whereas those who violate or neglect those aspects cause catastrophic consequences (they bring flaws and fractures into the cosmic articulations). Let us start with the latter, ‘negative’, imaginative-narrative pieces. It is by no means surprising at this point that the kabbalistic culture not only repulsed antinomian postures starkly, but resorted to mythical language to emphasize the dramatic effects of any instance of disrespect of the law. The turbulent historiosophical plot outlined by the kabbalists explains the most tragic events as caused by evil human deeds, first and foremost by infringements of cultic rules.122 Both moral and ritual violations are pictured as overthrowing the traditional orders based on structures and distinctions, with the consequent collapse of the cosmic harmony ensured by the regular observance of the law. Neglecting halakhic positive precepts (such as washing one’s hands or donning sacred garments123), or breaching halakhic negative precepts (such as 121

122 123

On these aspects, see e.g. Meroz, Zoharic Narratives, which demonstrates how many Zoharic excerpts (and especially narrative accounts) underwent several reworkings. Recent scholarship has aptly developed literary and narratological approaches to kabbalistic texts, especially the Zohar and related literature. See above chap. 2, around notes 136ff. Ritualistic cultures in general exhibit a ‘threatening attitude’, where the gravity of transgressing legal-ritual norms is also emphasized through mythical elaborations on the effects of the sin. On these motifs, see Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, 67–70.

132

Chapter 3

i­ nterdictions concerning purity and holiness like the one about the “mixed species”124), have tremendous cosmic repercussions. Now, also failure to perform the encoded ritual acts in their correct sequence, violating the right timing or concatenation, represents an extremely serious lack and provokes consequences of dramatic proportions.125 Thus, after having underlined that one should wear the ṣiṣit first, while sitting, and then the tefillin, while standing, Ibn Gabbay proclaims that the one who changes [the procedure], inverts the worlds and damages the orders (mehapekh ha-ʿolamot u-meqalqel ha-sedarim).126 Some folios later, while claiming that the pious man must start the synagogal service at a precise time, and activate his “intentionality” “at its own time” (lefi shaʿah), Ibn Gabbay warns the one who arrives late and even disregards the eventual reparative procedures: he upsets the supernal order (mehapekh ha-seder ha-ʿelyon) in respect to which all our prayers have been ordered. 127 Evidently, the kabbalistic discourse enhances the traditional organization of reality and form of life, reinforcing socially-shared distinctions and ancient taboos: any individual violation is perceived as a threat to the whole, a “confusion” or “destruction” of the “orders” (qilqul ha-sedarim). The negative action is charged with the primary fault of misleading a binary structure below (disjoining its poles, creating a clash or a wrong relationship between them, inverting their correct sequence, etc.); consequently, also the 124

125 126 127

See already Nahmanides’ Perush ha-Torah (on Lev 19:19), according to which disregarding the prohibition of intermingled staff (kilʾayim) would entail a violation of the orders of creation (maʿaseh bereshit) and the consequent annulment of the celestial laws (ḥuqqot shamayim). As is known, the same occurs in magical literature. TY, f. 8a. Let me note that these syntagms (mehapekh ha-ʿolamot, mehapekh ha-seder) are quite distinctive of Ibn Gabbay’s language. TY, f. 11c, which also adds that “this secret has been overlooked by some halakhic authorities”. In an earlier passage, the negative scenario is illustrated with a parable (mashal): the King gets angry with his sons who do not complete the prescribed quorum for prayer at the right time (ibid., f. 9b). For a similar threatening discourse, see the quotations below, chap. 4, notes 151–153.

The Focus on Ritual Sequences

133

configuration on the correspondent upper realms will result disharmonic and impious. Let us now turn to the ‘positive’ imaginative-narrative accounts. They relate mythical stories about a pietistic attitude to ritual life – involving, rather frequently, the respect of the ritual syntax. All this is done briefly and fragmentarily: in many occurrences, within an exegetical or normative digression, a few words or sentences encapsulate an entire mythical narrative. It is the case of the innumerable allusive references to the Shekhinah plot: they attest that the one who observes the cultic orders is able to support the feminine side of the divinity, allowing her to reject the evil forces, and helping her to join the masculine side.128 Other accounts refer to the custom of going to the synagogue after having ritually prepared oneself at home: they hint to mythical events entangled by daily behavior, arguing for instance that the pious man who walks to the synagogue wrapped in tallit and donned with tefillin, is accompanied by four angels that join him and proclaim him “icon” and “son” of the King.129 Evidently, even a few words were sufficient for a Jewish educated reader to connect a practical sequence to a whole imaginative scenario. As an emblematic example, we may take two close excerpts from Hekhal ha-qodesh, where – having reset the daily prayer service (particularly, the sequel between the Shemaʿ and the ʿAmidah liturgies) in the light of hidden syntactic structures – Moshe Elbaz seems to merge ritual patterns with mythical constructs basically derived from Zoharic literature. Introducing “the secret of ʾEmet we-yaṣiv”, he argues: After intentionality [in the Shemaʿ] has awaken the bridegroom [Tiferet] and the bride [Malkhut] to couple together […], it is fitting to direct the

128

See above, chap. 2, around n. 155. Let me just recall the various hints at myths concerning the Shekhinah in the comments on the liturgy for the New Moon (the beginning of the month, Rosh Ḥodesh), which refer to the theosophical notion of the “diminution of the moon”, and develop narratives about evil antagonists like Samael or other impure forces: see HQ, 226–227, 230, 232; compare TY, f. 30d-31d. 129 See TY, f. 8d, recovering the famous passage in Zohar III, 265a. On the habit of leaving the house in the morning dressed in the ritual garments, in accordance with kabbalistic reasoning, see above, n. 46, and Kadosh, Kabbalistic Jewish Laws, 312ff. A similar piece, also based on Talmudic and Zoharic mythical instances, describes the return home from the synagogue on the Shabbat eve: see TY, f. 25a.

134

Chapter 3

intention to adorn the bridegroom and the bride with the jewels that are adequate to each of them.130 As a premise to the secret interpretation of the ʿAmidah, he states: We have already said before that man should arrange the bridegroom and draw upon him the power of the primordial One that dwells in Binah […] by means of the first three words. And this is their order (sidduran): man shall stand up and direct his intention to draw the flux of the soul and the will of the Cause of causes upon the bridegroom through the king. And as he will say ‘Blessed’, he will bow his head to prostrate himself in front of the king and to draw it from the crown through the word ‘Blessed’. And as he will say ‘You’, […].131 To sum up, the kabbalistic discourse often transformed the liturgical procedures, taken as cogent sequels, into ingredients of (condensed) mythical constructions. Analyzed in their inner syntactic layers and recombined in a narrative order, the stages of Israel’s prayer could appear as articulated patterns capable of fully realizing the cosmic and intra-divine harmony. 2. A second typology of narrative semiotics begins with a work on the ritual syntax. This occurs as the latter is turned into an ‘oriented’ movement – so that the liturgical moments (either as units or sequences) become components of a ‘directional’ (usually ‘ascending’) experiential path. Here, ritualism tends to flow into “mysticism”.132 More precisely, the semiotic review of ritual practice in the light of an intersection of polarity and analogy, syntagmatic and paradigmatic axes, produces narrative segments of mystical kind – where not only all aspects of ritual appear to be well-ordered, meaningful and charged with mythical overtones, but they represent a necessary step in the dynamic

130 131 132

HQ, 106. The interpreter explains the “order” of these “jewels”, correlating them to “secret” combinations of letters or divine names. Ibid., 108. I am well aware of the critical remarks of recent scholarship on the use of this term, and of the need to carefully distinguish between different forms of mysticism (see Final Remarks, n. 4). It seems to me that one may call “mystical” the Jewish tradition named “theosophical Kabbalah”, insofar as it insists on the (ontic and social) orders that allegedly regulate and allow an experience of contact with supernatural spheres. On the other hand, I share the quest for emphasizing the peculiarity of this kind of mysticism, which for example appears more ‘performative-experiential’ then ‘contemplative-theological’, more bound to a communal institutional life than confined to a private spirituality, and so forth.

The Focus on Ritual Sequences

135

of elevation that would bring human beings to cleave to and interlink with the divine beings.133 Our commentaries return on the pivotal assumption that in liturgy “one rises from below to above”. This applies first of all to the standard daily service. It is true, as already said, for the sequence ṣiṣit – tefillin, as well as for the sequence arm-tefillin – head-tefillin.134 Dealing with the Pesuqe de-zimraʾ, Ibn Gabbay notes that a deeper rationale lies behind the command to recite these hymns before the major liturgies: they have to “sweep out the clouds”, so that “the prayer might raise up from grade to grade through its paths”.135 The same ascension process is indicated by the fact that the (rabbinic) zemirot precede the (biblical) Song at the Sea – just as the “secret of the spouse” precedes “the supernal lights”.136 Other directional experiential trajectories are evidently governed by the aforementioned patterns articulating a threefold (or fourfold, or sevenfold) liturgical sequel.137 As to the latter pattern, made up of seven steps corresponding to seven heavenly palaces (hekhalot),138 the ritual syntax clearly points not only to a mythical narrative but also to a mystical path – a path that coincides with the elevation of the bride, finally adorned with all her jewels, to the bridegroom, “up to the highest layers”.139 Not surprisingly, ascensional patterns come to the foreground as special days (or temporal segments) of the liturgical yearly cycle are submitted to inquiry, for instance the days that precede major festivals. Thus, commenting on the “secret of the counting of the ʿomer” (during the forty-nine days separating Pesach from Shavuot), both Ibn Gabbay and Elbaz observe that this liturgy marks an elevation of the Shekhinah to the degree of perfection and to the sacred intercourse, as well as a progression of the capacity of Israel to enter the supernal realm – in the prototypical events (in the desert) such as in the present time:

133 134 135

136 137 138 139

For this minimal definition of mysticism, see above, chap. 2, around notes 121ff. See above, notes 44ff. TY, f. 11b. The motif of the sounds of prayer cutting the air and penetrating into the heavenly spheres, draws from Zoharic literature (see e.g. Zohar III, 294a-b, which appears in TY, f. 17a, also referring to its quotation by Recanati). Elsewhere, the ascension of prayer is mythically described as involving the participation of the angels that rule over the various heavens (ibid., f. 19a-b). Ibid., f. 11d. See also the ascending scheme sketched ibid., f. 16c, or f. 44c-d (about the “grace after meals”). See above, notes 80ff. See also the seven “wedding blessings”, commented on ibid., ff. 46d-47a. TY, f. 15d. See also the elevation along 18 paths, discussed above, around n. 64.

136

Chapter 3

After they have achieved the secret of the Shekhinah in the first seven days, they are driven from measure to measure (mi-middah le-middah), seven days for each measure, according to the order from below to above (ʿal ha-seder mi-maṭah le-maʿlah) for seven weeks, in correspondence to (ke-neged) seven sefirot, considering seven days for each sefirah, until they grasp the fiftieth day that is the secret of the Jubilee and the day when they received the Torah.140 Orderly oriented patterns become likewise visible in the palimpsest of festive days. The kabbalists’ general assumption is that, while during the profane weekly days the world is governed by heavenly agents that influence the impure “husks” (qelippot), during the festive days the supreme forces rule over the world through the lower divine dimension (the Shekhinah) – so that there is a direct connection between “holiness”, “time” and “government” of the world, and each day is directed by one prominent sefirah. Thus, the interpretation of the three great pilgrimage festivals (shalosh regalim) shows that that ritual setting allows the heavenly realm to progressively take possession of the terrestrial reality, and simultaneously renders Israel able to fathom the inner domains of holiness.141 Here again, one can note en passant that the spectrum of patterns (of time and order) addressed by the kabbalists is highly pluralistic: they refer to manifold schemes, which organize the ritual stages in different ways and therefore provide different meanings to each of them (e.g., the Shavuot festival is associated to Tiferet, but also to Binah; it is combined with Pesach in multiple modes, etc.142). Particularly remarkable from our perspective is the kabbalistic review of the New Year festival. Elbaz’ painstaking commentary approaches the liturgy of Rosh ha-Shanah as an extremely articulated process, and relates its structured meticulous procedures to an array of symbols and myths (which, it goes without saying, are usually inspired or supported by Zoharic passages143). The entire setting of ritual acts is supposed to revive the force of the divine Mercy 140

HQ, 256–257 (the Jubilee usually refers to the sefirah Binah, the supernal Mother). The underlying idea is that God gave ancient Israel a “period of time” to achieve such a mystical attainment, and that since then “they must, in all epochs, to elevate their knowledge and understanding in order to look into the divine measures and unify them and draw the flux from them” (ibid., 257–258). In his own commentary, Ibn Gabbay argues, citing a Zoharic source, that the sanctification of the “lower days” is linked to the fact that “we have to rise up on high to be unified in the upper days” (TY, f. 32d). 141 See HQ, 265–271. 142 See ibid., 271. See Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, 1239. 143 For the Zoharic approach to the festival, see ibid., 1238–1240, 1243–1248.

The Focus on Ritual Sequences

137

(Raḥamim), so that the “strict Judgment” dominating on this day is tempered by clemency and transformed into a “lenient Judgment”. At last, the Throne of Mercy is restored and completed with its “four legs” in their own place, so that God “rises” from the Throne of Judgment and “sits” on the former.144 In order to reach such an achievement, the congregation must fulfill all the obligations in the correct sequence and direction. Each ritual portion contributes indeed to the shaping of the whole, gradually putting the various parts of the Throne (or, Chariot) to the rights.145 The sequential order culminates with the ritual apex of the festival, the “blowing of the shofar”. Already the verses to be recited before it, are connected each to a different sefirah, and enable human thought to raise up in an ascending way.146 This occurs to a greater extent with the blasting of the shofar, structured in a complex setting of “three orders”,147 whose triple sounding definitively subjugates the punitive force of the prosecutor. The syntactic patterns of this festival are elaborated through mythical theurgic imageries, which articulate in variegated (and often intermingled) forms the basic goal of the ritual, that is, “to banish evil from the world” (or, to place evil back in its original boundaries). So, narrative fragments illustrate human striving for a restoration of the divine Name (or Throne), the endeavor to mitigate or contrast accusatory supernal potencies, the attempt to remove the impurity that covers the moon,148 and so forth.149 The emphasis on a structured directional grammar equally characterizes the mystical comment on “the order of prayer for Yom Kippur and its secret” – an

144 See HQ, 281. The four legs are Ṣedeq – Mishpaṭ – Ḥesed – ʾEmet, or David – Isaac – Abraham – Jacob, symbolizing respectively the sefirot Malkhut – Gevurah – Ḥesed – Tiferet. At last, once the four legs of the chariot have been “ordered in a good order (mesuddarim siddur tov), we join David with the [three] Patriarchs” (ibid., 284). 145 See ibid., 282–287. Ibn Gabbay’s commentary relates to readings found in the Zohar, but also in Moshe de León’s Sefer ha-rimmon (see TY, f. 33d). Like HQ and other writings, it dwells at length on the recitation of the word u-wekhen, inserted in the third benediction of the ʿAmidah for Rosh ha-Shanah – a word that, in the kabbalistic intricate interpretation, is equivalent (numerically) to the divine Name of 72 letters (see TY, f. 34a). 146 See HQ, 289. 147 The “order of blowing” (seder teqiyʿot) is indeed made of three different “orders”: see ibid., 292–293. 148 One finds frequent references to the myth of the “moon’s waning”, and its potential rectification (especially in TY: see e.g. ibid., ff. 33c-d; 36c). Cf. above, n. 128. 149 Our sources pay much attention also to the Musaf service for Rosh ha-Shanah, with its addition of three blessings in the ʿAmidah (malkhuyot, zikhronot, shofarot), which are interspersed with a rhythmic blowing of the shofar. The commentary on them, and the corresponding “three degrees that we awaken in our prayer on this day”, covers several folios both in HQ (294–306) and in TY (ff. 35b-38a).

138

Chapter 3

ascending ritual pattern that is said to gradually lead to a removal of the punishment during the Day of Atonement. Elbaz states: you shall have to elevate in mercy from measure to measure (mi-middah le-middah) on each of the ten days of repentance: everyday you shall raise up the measure to Yom Kippur, as you shall arrive to the measure of Keter […] and there you shall request forgiveness […]. [Then] a descent shall be in the seven days of the festival, every day one measure: on the first day of the festival, from the measure of Binah to the measure of Ḥesed […].150 Later on, in the same section, one reads: On Rosh ha-Shanah, after the blasts [of the shofar], the Holy One, blessed be He, raises up from the Throne of Judgment and sits on the Throne of Mercy. As the Shekhinah sees that the merciful forces have raised up because of Israel, because of the power of prayer and blasts, then She elevates before the supreme King that has the faculty to give the grace to Her people on Yom Kippur. And this is the order of their elevation: on Rosh ha-Shanah you shall go from Jerusalem to Sion […]”.151 It appears that, by focusing on the syntactic aspects of halakhic worship, the kabbalists were prone to highlight ascending sequences in the experiential dimension.152 They clearly revisited, and accorded to their own h ­ ierarchical grids, the classical theological notion of prayer as an elevation process, as a “ladder” upwards, reaching the supreme layers.153 As I started to argue elsewhere, they might have sought to transform the punctuated ordinary liturgy of the rabbinic prayer service into an articulated extraordinary mystagogy, 150 151 152 153

HQ, 307. Ibid., 308. Immediately after, a further interesting overlapping of the ritual temporal order with an imaginary spatial order displays the geographical-theosophical transfer from Jerusalem to Mount Lebanon caused by Israel’s ritual acts. This occurs also as concerns the sacrificial orders and the ritual ceremonies performed in the ancient temple, which are constantly compared and linked to the actual cultic deeds (see above, chap. 1, n. 28). A “nuanced theory” on “the ladder of prayer” characterizes the writings of the Safedian kabbalists: see Bracha Sack, “Some Remarks on Prayer in the Kabbalah of 16th-Century Safed”, in Prière, mystique et judaïsme, ed. R. Goetschel (Paris: Presses Universitaire de France, 1987), 178. On the architectural images of the ascent in a good deal of Jewish mystical literature, see Idel, Ascensions on High.

The Focus on Ritual Sequences

139

thus turning common halakhic acts into esoteric anagogical techniques and experiences.154 It must be noted that some ritual settings were perceived by them as being ordered inversely, in a ‘descending’ direction. Thus, for instance, after having traced an “order of ascent” (seder ʿaliyyah) characterizing the ten Days of repentance, Elbaz points to the downwards order that is supposedly concealed in the “order of prayers (seder ha-tefillot) for the Sukkot festival”: in those seven days of the Booths, the Shekhinah comes down from the place of her Mother [Binah], descending from one measure to another (mi-middah le-middah), from one journey to another, […] and this is the order of the journeys (seder ha-masaʿot): on the first day of the festival, she [the Shekhinah] lies into the measure of Ḥesed […]; on the second day, into the measure of Gevurah […].155 In other cases, the same ritual performance was interpreted as activating a twoway process.156 This is by no means surprising: the kabbalistic liturgist outlined an experiential path that was usually dual and biunivocal, made of ‘ascending’ and ‘descending’ vectors at once. Emblematic and of paramount importance for us, is the following overview by Ibn Gabbay, connoted by a (quasi meta-­ linguistic) reordering style: After we have arranged the connection of the things (siddarnu qesher ha-devarim), and their unification from below to above (yiḥudan mi-maṭah le-maʿlah), and the way the prayer must behave in these matters, we shall arrange their bond and their unification from above to below (nesadder qishuran we-yiḥudan mi-maʿlah le-maṭah), and what should be addressed to them […].157 This view, as has emerged in chap. 2, distinguishes the kabbalistic discourse from more typical theologies of prayer. The former tends to greatly reinforce the Jewish prayer as a mystical prayer – in the sense that the latter is supposedly able to enter the divine channels of communication. Thus, not only does the liturgical service elevate the Jewish worshipper to the divine realm, but it 154 155 156

See Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, chap. 8. HQ, 327. On the blending of ascending and descending processes, see the passage quoted above, n. 150.

140

Chapter 3

makes him embed the upper forces on earth, allows him to attract the supernal flux from above to below, enables him to affect the supreme cosmic layers, etc. Summarizing, the kabbalistic semiotic work on the ritual syntax seems to have generated new forms of narrative discourse, particularly two distinct but often overlapping linguistic modes: brief dense narrative accounts concerning the mythical power of cultic acts that respect the “orders” (or, inversely, concerning the dramatic effects of disregarding the latter); brief dense narrative accounts about the mystical achievement that is obtained with a complete observance of the ritual sequences. In both cases, a complex discursive construction – interlacing the paradigmatic and the syntagmatic axes – ­narratively reorients the inner structures of the ritual grammar, thus transforming the ordinary cultic praxis into a dense and focused existential path. Below we shall attempt to understand to what extent, and in which ways, this translation of liturgical sequences into mystical journeys, could reverberate on the traditional cultic conduct. 157

TY, f. 17b. The reference is to the order of the Eighteen Benedictions, discussed immediately after. One should add that the very same liturgy could be seen by some kabbalistic schools as an ascending ritual sequel, by other traditions as a descending one. It is precisely the case of the ʿAmidah, as emerges from early discussions (by Shem Tov ibn Gaon, Recanati, etc.) that already collect plural and conflicting views of the dynamics entailed by that prayer: see Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, 226.

Chapter 4

The Construction of a Liturgical-Mystical Discipline Pragmatic Effects of Kabbalistic Semiotics

Different specialists, among which anthropologists and semioticians, have insisted on the close and mutual relationship between textuality and experience, particularly between structuring codes or discourses and perceptions or behaviors (both social and individual).1 Religious cultures amply demonstrate such a link. Their ritual ceremonies can be described as multisensory performances enacted on the bases of codified scripts, and addressed to a specific audience, upon which they exert a strong influence.2 Also mystical conducts and mystical experiences – contrary to common opinion – appear as largely determined, or constructed, by contextual religious discourses (sacred writings, legal-moral codes, liturgical patterns, etc.).3 Meanwhile, mystical stances have an impact on traditional language, and are able to reshape the broader cultural horizons to which they belong. In this chapter the attempt will be to discuss issues such as functions, addressees, effects of the kabbalistic subset under consideration. The assumption is that both the ‘production of sense’ and the ‘enhancement of order’ brought about by its semiotic work, especially with regard to the vast domain of ritual behavior, were to reverberate on the general context of Jewish culture. I shall try to highlight in particular their repercussions on the pragmatics of Jewish communities, at various levels, more tangible or more elusive (especially at the level which I shall define ‘psychosocial’). Again, our Sephardi authors might appear as unfolding and sharpening longue durée phenomena, along a complex dialectics of continuity and change. On the one hand, they seem to have 1 See below, Final Remarks. Cultural semiotics, in particular, intersects the work of social sciences – about behavioral codes, institutional systems, social groups and interactions, cultural encounters and appropriations – and is specially interested in the ‘effects of meaning’ of the discursive strategies on the social layer. 2 See e.g. Kapferer, “Performance”, 191–192. 3 Mysticism, from the perspective here adopted, is by no means a matter of ‘pure consciousness’, beyond culture and language, somehow ‘disembodied’: it is rather ‘situated’ in precise socio-cultural frames, which govern and constrain its psychosomatic, imaginative and verbal productions. See below, Final Remarks, notes 32–33.

© Maurizio Mottolese, 2022 | DOI:10.1163/9789004499003_006

142

Chapter 4

carried out a ‘conservative reinforcement’ of the traditional system of activities (as it had been already reviewed by Spanish kabbalistic circles), with its organization, directionality and intensity. On the other hand, I shall argue, their interpretation did not only renew and revive traditional orders, but also contributed to the building of liturgical-mystical ‘disciplined communities’. The productive confluence of semiotic approaches with anthropological and social studies, stands out here clearly: viewing the kabbalistic work as a ‘semiotic machinery’ means also to look at it as a device for constructing social practices and capturing meaning in action – and this raises the need for more accurate sociological and socio-psychological descriptions. 1 Remolding, Extending and Intensifying Institutional Halakhic Orders The approach adopted in this inquiry can be related to a methodological shift, a sort of ‘turn to practice’, that in recent years has also invested the research on Kabbalah. If classical scholars (and common readers) mainly sought to trace the speculative patterns of the kabbalistic theosophy (sometimes erroneously considering the latter as a systemic metaphysics or theology),4 in the last decades other academic views have emerged. Students have more seriously taken into account the importance of transmission of knowledge, social interactions, hermeneutic stances, legal debates, liturgical issues, regional customs, practical, technical and experiential dimensions.5 This change of perspective has expressed itself in different (yet often interlaced) types of

4 See Yehuda Liebes, “New Directions in the Study of Kabbalah”, Peʿamim 50 (1992): 150–153 (Hebrew); Moshe Idel, “On the Theologization of Kabbalah in Modern Scholarship”, in Religious Apologetics – Philosophical Argumentation, eds. Y. Schwartz – V. Krech (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 123–173; Boaz Huss, Mystifying Kabbalah: Academic Scholarship, National Theology, and New Age Spirituality (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2020). 5 Idel, for example, has suggested to “start from the bottom” – pointing to research paths that should better explore the concrete contexts and practices of the kabbalists before coming to their theosophical beliefs, theological notions, mystical terms (see his Enchanted Chains, in part. 31–41). Recurring to Turner’s categories, he has argued that the “sensory” pole should be studied at least as much as the “ideological” one (see above, chap. 3, n. 35). In the present work, I intended to pursue this research on ‘practical’ aspects, although I do not underestimate at all the importance of other major tendencies or themes found in kabbalistic tradition (more bound to intellectual or mental perspectives) and the merit of the scholarly approaches that have attempted to investigate them.

The Construction of a Liturgical-Mystical Discipline

143

investigation.6 Much however is still to be done to clarify, for instance, the ‘modeling power’ that the kabbalistic discourse about worship had on social pragmatics.7 As has been noted, kabbalistic writings generally exhibit a steady anchoring to practical spheres.8 They move between semantic-symbolic-ideological layers and formal-literal-sensorial layers. Also when exposing long speculative meditations or mythical-narrative accounts, they return most often on somatic, pragmatic and institutional aspects, dealing with moral-pedagogical topoi, social habits, normative rules commanding the execution of certain deeds or customs, and so forth.9 Much kabbalistic literature, including the one analyzed here, is both ‘descriptive’ and ‘prescriptive’, for it does not only represent but also calls for an ideal cultic life (resorting frequently to an imperative language, as we shall see below).10 We have often to do with ‘performative’ texts, which stage liturgical acts and simultaneously prefigure the mystical experiences linked to them. It is logical that they could have an impact on social behaviors and psychosomatic dimensions. In the next pages, we shall try to reassess the kind of transformation that the kabbalistic semiotics might have determined on these levels of the ritual dromenon (also by revisiting, from our viewpoint, the now classical issue of the relationship between Kabbalah and Halakhah). 6

7

8 9 10

Thus, some inquiries have focused on the mystical (and magical) handling with letters, names, images, colors, objects, etc., while other (still too few) studies have started to consider the weight of social roles and authority, cultural conflicts and interactions, strategies and means of transmitting memory, etc. (see the next note). In fact, until now, sociological views and grids have been adopted in a limited way in research on Kabbalah, and most usually they have been applied to late-modern or contemporary social phenomena (see e.g. the inquiries of Y. Bilu and P. Wexler). Instead, their employment appears to be necessary as much as promising for the entire history of ­Kabbalah (see the important results of some inquiries by R. Bonfil, M. Idel, E. Horowitz, R. Weinstein, J. Garb). Various topics of the present research would deserve comprehensive sociological studies, especially in the track of sociology of knowledge (according to P. Berger, sociology of religion is nothing but “a subsection of the sociology of knowledge”). I refer, for example, to the impact of exile and dispersion on collective memory and the need for a reordering of tradition; the link between literary devices (or technologies of writing) and shifts in the modes of transmission; the interaction among competing groups and leaders struggling for power and cultural authoritativeness; the availability of mystical paths to closed circles or broader audience. See above, chap. 3; Mottolese, Bodily Rituals; idem, “Between Somatics”. Various scholars have correctly insisted on the impossibility to separate therein between theory and practice, speculation and action, mysticism and law, myth and ritual. In rare cases, there seems to be a clear distinction between kabbalistic sources of prescriptive kind, and other ones that describe an actual situation. Compare the rules for cultic conduct flourished in 16th-century Safed environments, as have been typified by Pachter, “Kabbalistic Ethical Literature”.

144

Chapter 4

1.1 Conservative Reinforcement through Renewal Scholars have long posed the question whether the kabbalistic approach exhibits a conservative propensity or, inversely, a tendency to renewal.11 In effect, there can be no easy or univocal answer to this question, and any statement on this matter will also very much depend on which kabbalistic authors, texts or contexts are chosen as a case study.12 The issue logically and primarily involves the perception of the link between Halakhah and Kabbalah. On the one hand, it must be acknowledged that much kabbalistic discourse gravitates around the rabbinic legal practice, and much kabbalistic ritual substantially coincides with the rabbinic ritual. On the other hand, not only is the stance of the kabbalistic interpreters undoubtedly peculiar, distinct by proper linguistic and conceptual markers, it also brings more or less evident innovations at a pragmatic level. Let me offer some brief remarks on the first side of the coin before coming to the latter aspects. A positive attitude of the major kabbalistic streams to the normative institutions of rabbinic Judaism, is confirmed by some simple data – albeit sometimes ignored or neglected. Most kabbalists had grown up in the community educational system, within rabbinic schools or under the guidance of masters, studying the esoteric lore as a part of their (much broader) ‘course of study’ (including the Bible, the Talmud, and other traditional bodies of knowledge). They knew by heart traditional codes and interpretations, and behaved as pious Jewish men, observing the rules of the orthopraxis meticulously. Moreover, they often became rabbinic leaders, halakhic authorities, “legalistic figures”.13 The largest part of their libraries, and of their own books, was dedicated to the Torah, to prayer, or keeping of the precepts; and also the other literary 11 12

13

On the dialectics between tradition and change, conservativeness and innovativeness, see the classical remarks by Scholem in On the Kabbalah, and by Katz in Halakhah and Kabbalah. Such variety emerges from closer historical or sociological inquiries. A crucial distinction introduced by Idel is the one between the “primary elites” in Kabbalah – groups of experts with a leading role in the rabbinic hierarchy, usually taking a conservative stance and privileging a restricted transmission of the hidden wisdom – and the “secondary elites” – including intellectuals in a marginal social position, more leaning to innovation and divulgation of the secrets. Further important differentiations and fluctuations should be taken into account. For instance, one can discern phases (or places) of cultural openness and intercultural exchange pushing to deeper renewal, from phases (or places) dominated by closing postures and conservative postures (see for instance the landscape of the Jewish Italian culture before and after 1570, as described by Bonfil and Idel himself). Let us just think of the kabbalistic school of Ramban and Rashba in 13th-century Catalonia. See Idel, “On Some Forms of Order”, XXXIII (for this reason, Idel argues, any understanding of the Kabbalah “as struggling against the allegedly stifled Halakhic thought, may easily become a caricature”). On the formation of the stark opposition between Talmudic (dry) reasoning and kabbalistic (refreshing) spirituality, and its reverberations still

The Construction of a Liturgical-Mystical Discipline

145

genres cultivated by them dealt massively with the normative corpus and were intended to explain and support it. A significant portion of their cultural activity was in effect devoted to explain how and why the stringent observance of traditional ritual orders would have portentous effects. It ultimately proposed an overall confirmation and endorsement of the Halakhah, although it could bring some slight innovations. It is no coincidence that these intellectuals unceasingly called the Israelite congregation to fulfill the standard cultic acts in a correct and complete manner, rebuking both a neglecting attitude and automatic performance.14 Furthermore, in order to obtain a full adherence to the law, they often resorted to an imperative language, or an ‘appealing’ kind of discourse.15 As J. Katz demonstrated long ago, the history of the kabbalistic literature shows an increasingly extensive endeavor to discover secret rationales in the Jewish law and cult, progressively enlarging the number of commandments submitted to mystical re-signification, and bringing about at last an overall “reinforcement” of them all.16 The Zoharic corpus, in particular, accomplished a potent interpenetration of legal matters and rulings (of different origins, both Sephardi and Ashkenazi) with mythical accounts and mystical attitudes.17 The kabbalists usually perceived the hidden prescriptions and arcane significata disclosed through their approach, as they would belong to the same ancient legacy. Their hermeneutic “way” in fact had to uphold, clarify and faithfully convey a “hidden wisdom” received orally or by written allusions from the past.18 In substance, the Kabbalah liked to present itself at once as an ancient

14

15 16

17 18

in recent times, see Boaz Huss, “For the Letter Kills, but the Spirit Gives Life: Halakha Versus Kabbalah in the Study of Jewish Mysticism”, Modern Judaism 41 (2021): 47–70. Compare Scholem, On the Kabbalah, 126; Gottlieb, “The Meaning of Prayer”, 144 (“For the kabbalists the established communal prayer was normative […]; there is no tendency to break up the existing, traditional framework of prayer”); Matt, “The Mystic and the Miẓwot”, 385, 396–397; Mopsik, Les grands textes, 64; Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, in part. 14–21, 314ff. For the latter ‘attractive’ and ‘exhortative’ rhetoric, see below, around notes 150ff. See Katz, Halakhah and Kabbalah, chap. 1. About this “reinforcing effect”, see also idem, “Post-Zoharic Relations”, 286. Yet, in my opinion, Hallamish’s thesis according to which “at the beginning of the Kabbalah there is almost no contact between Halakhah and Kabbalah”, is hardly plausible (Kabbalah in Liturgy, 119; see also my “Between Somatics”, 41–42). See Katz, Halakhah and Kabbalah, chap. 2; Hallamish, Kabbalah in Liturgy, 121ff.; see also Israel Ta-Shma, The Revealed in the Concealed: About the Halakhah in the Zohar (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1995) (Hebrew). Even creative or allegedly ‘revolutionary’ authors (such as those redacting the Castilian kabbalistic literature) considered themselves as intent on re-establishing a much earlier lore. The “Book of Splendor”, as already seen, is a pseudoepigraphic work ascribed to Shimon bar Yoḥai (a second-century sage among the authors of the Mishnah), at least regarding some of its major layers – and is consequently written in an artificial Aramaic.

146

Chapter 4

tradition and an earlier interpretation of tradition (in fact, the “authentic” one), an interpretation that was substantially in harmony with the rabbinic canonic language, and had to accompany and enrich the rabbinic form of life. Employing our terms, we might say that the kabbalistic semiotic work strives to give sense and coherence not only to the shared beliefs and narratives of the Jewish semiosphere, but also to its institutional frames and its social conducts. It then serves to reinforce the ritual language fixed in the halakhic codes – its basic boundaries and constrains (in space, time, action, etc.), its binary oppositions, its rigid sequences of procedural minutiae, its multidimensional strictures (in thought, word, body) – consecrating at last the rabbinic paths of life. In a word, the mainstream kabbalistic culture – ‘situated’ in a nomistic and ritualistic religion19 – had to develop a ‘mystics of the law and of the (normative) action’, or a ‘nomocentric performative mysticism’.20 Such conservative leanings are particularly evident in the kabbalistic segment investigated in this book – a ‘recollecting’ cultural subset. As has emerged in chap. 1, our authors present themselves as being responsible for preserving, reorganizing and divulging earlier bodies of knowledge. Their works – offering a comprehensive and perspicuous synthesis of the Sephardi kabbalistic elaboration on the rabbinic daily liturgy – primarily fulfill a task of conservation and memorization. Their same decision to write is said to be dictated by the urgency to provide dispersed Jewish communities with a selected collection of the kabbalistic legacy, and with a clear guidebook to the practical conduct as filtered by such wisdom. At the end of his youthful commentary, Ibn Gabbay writes that three reasons have rendered his work hard: the difficulty in understanding the most profound subjects in his young age, the need to sustain his family, and his constant engagement in the study of Halakhah: I did not cease studying, even in the middle of the night, the debates of Abbaye and Rava.21

19 20 21

See Daniel Matt, “New-Ancient Words: The Aura of Secrecy in the Zohar”, in Gershom Scholem’s Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism – 50 Years After, eds. P. Schaefer – Y. Dan (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 181–207; Yehuda Liebes, “The Zohar as Renaissance”, Da‘at 46 (2001): 5–11 (Hebrew). On this “situatedness”, see below, Further Remarks, around notes 32–33. For similar views, see the essays by Idel: “From Structure to Action”; “On the Performing Body”; “Performance, Intensification, and Experience in Jewish Mysticism”, Archaeus XIII (2009): 93–134. TY, f. 47d. This statement demonstrates that the work on the exoteric lore (first of all, the Talmudic Halakhah) was perceived by him being laborious as much as it was indispensable to reach the depths of the esoteric lore and to employ the latter to illuminate the

The Construction of a Liturgical-Mystical Discipline

147

Just as the classical theosophical-theurgical Kabbalah that they bring forward, these commentaries imbue with mystical concerns the ordinary nomian behavior. They bear no trace of ‘antinomian’ views (which are, in fact, very rare and circumscribed in kabbalistic literature22), nor of ‘anomian’ stances (more typical of the ecstatic Kabbalah23). Rather, they incline towards ‘hypernomian’ postures, which expand and strengthen the ritualism of the Jewish form of life, correlating all its units and patterns to supernal entities and maps.24 Here we do not find the emphasis of some religious cultures on extraordinary rituals, provoking drastic interruptions of time and the production of a new identity in the practitioners25 – since they rather insist on the rabbinic regular rituals, performed at certain times with scheduled periodicity. Neither do we find the “techniques of the escape from time”, typical of other religious and mystical trends.26 While other types of mysticism incline to some disarticulation of the cultural-normative identity and of the traditional imagined order, these sources express a strong disapproval of any attempt to “confuse the orders”, smoothing the institutional and ideological ordinary borders.27 As mentioned before, recent scholarship has changelled, and deconstructed, the classical tendency to introduce a stark distinction, or even an antagonism, between Kabbalah and Halakhah (a paradigm that still frequently surfaces in contemporary non-­academic discourse). Emblematic of that tendency was J. Soloveitchik’s famous dichotomy “halakhic man” versus “mystical man”, where the latter category clearly includes the kabbalist too.28 The former allegedly seeks to bring the divine into the created reality by means of a strenuous

22

23 24 25

26 27 28

former. For a thorough analysis, and a slightly different evaluation, see Katz, “Halakhah and Kabbalah as Competing Disciplines”, 42–45. On them, see Yehuda Liebes, “The Zohar and the Tiqqunim, from Renaissance to Revolution”, in New Developments in Zohar Studies, ed. R. Meroz (Ramat Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 2007), 251–301 (Hebrew); Hagai Pely, “Sefer ha-qanah and Sefer ha-peliyʾah: Literal and Esoteric Meaning of the Halakhah”, Tarbiz 77 (2008): 271–293 (Hebrew). See below, around n. 124. The prologue of Tolaʿat Yaʿaqov perfectly develops such a classical perspective, with all its traditionalistic and particularistic implications. These latter features are usually associated by the anthropologists to ‘founding rituals’, ‘rites of passage’, ‘rites of re-birth’, ‘extraordinary feasts’. Interestingly, in Judaism, the festive days – far from proposing subversive patterns of action – are mostly characterized by an increased observance of stringent duties and detailed ceremonies. See Mircea Eliade, Images and Symbols: Studies in Religious Symbolism (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1961), 85ff. See above, chap. 3, around notes 122ff. This is evidently true also for the kabbalistic musar literature, mentioned before chap. 1, notes 48, 52ff. See Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1983), in part. 49ff., 107–108. His observations are taken for good and discussed by Rappaport, Ritual and Religion, 203–204.

148

Chapter 4

o­ bservance of the community law with joyful participation, while the mystic is said to (solitarily) escape the world, perceived as negative, in order to reach the supernal realm.29 This picture seems particularly inadequate to kabbalistic texts where the “mystical man” shares the rabbinic ideological aims (to bring holiness into the mundane spheres, etc.), and pursues them through a full participation to the halakhic life path. Instead of searching for an exit from the standard cultic orders and temporal frames, they make the latter the major means for attaining the highest mystical achievements. Especially the synagogal congregational service thus constitutes the gate to superior dimensions, the very locus of theurgic experiences (among them, a descent of divine efflux “from above to below”), and the ultimate ‘point of returning’.30 The kabbalistic current examined here seems to develop the intermingling of Kabbalah and Halakhah started centuries before – a long-term cultural process where the kabbalists did not cease to explore the precepts in all their folds and to promote halakhic observance, while, on the other hand, the kabbalistic interpretations and innovations were gradually embraced in the legal discourse and practice of mainstream Judaism. If, as said, an earlier blending of ritualism and mysticism can be already detected among the first kabbalistic circles, the actual penetration of mystical stances into the normative field dates to the 15th century – when Castilian kabbalistic passages, particularly from the Zoharic corpus, were used to reshape law (halakhah) and custom (minhag).31 Thus, the production of kabbalistic legal rulings, or Responsa (teshuvot), based on secret interpretations of the law, developed in the generations of the Expulsion, and reached its peak in the 16th-century Sephardi diaspora.32 One can conjecture 29 30

31 32

“The desire of mystical doctrines is to free both man and the Shekhinah, the Divine Presence, from the world”: Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man, 51. Even when dealing with mystical adhesion, the kabbalists assume that, having gained the highest level and the “negation of individuality”, the worshipper has to return to the “world of differentiation”, to rule over it, and even to “strengthen the separateness of things” (Gottlieb, “The Meaning of Prayer”, 153). The same appears to be true of the Ḥasidic world, where an exalted account of the elitist experience of mystical union, is followed by the call to return to the regular cultic life of the group (see Idel, Enchanted Chains, 71). On the gradual transformation of the Zohar into a canonical, sacred, normative book, see above, chap. 1, notes 37, 71, and the many references mentioned below. See the inquiries by Y. Katz, M. Hallamish, I. Ta-Shma, M. Kadosh, D. Sperber, B. Huss. A major example reported earlier is the syntactic sequence ṣiṣit – tefillin – walk to the synagogue, a staged path that seems to have been elaborated progressively by the kabbalists on the basis of Zoharic instances, being then fixed during the 15th century, and divulged among the Mediterranean Jewish areas around the half of the 16th century. For an overview of the growing “halakhic authority of the Zohar”, and the increasing public reliance on it as regards legal and practical matters, see in part. Hallamish, Kabbalah in Liturgy, 122ff.; Huss, The Zohar, 123ff.

The Construction of a Liturgical-Mystical Discipline

149

that at that time a consistent process of dissemination of the qabbalah had already occurred, especially among rabbinic students.33 It is logical to suppose a simultaneity and complementarity of the two processes – the increasing circulation of the Kabbalah among a larger audience (with a progressive passage from esotericism to exotericism), and the gradual acknowledgment of it as an authoritative lore in institutional contexts (with a progressive adoption of kabbalistic stances in practical codes and manuals).34 No doubt, a substantial effect of the kabbalistic semiotics was a growing interplay of halakhah, minhag and qabbalah – therefore, of normative injunctions, ritual customs, theosophical-theurgical views. It should be also noted that there is no stark demarcation between Halakhah and ethics in the kabbalistic Judaism anthologized in our texts. Here, mythical and mystical concerns are not only combined with legal obligations (nomos) and ritual habits (etos), but also with traditional moral issues (ethos). The interpreters support the social ethics shaped and encoded by tradition, as emerges from their discussions on the duties to help the poor (ṣeddaqah), to invite poor guests to the meal in the sukkah, to promote love between people, to visit the sick, and so forth. The ideal of pious or righteous man as reassessed in this kabbalistic culture, embraces these aspects too. It appears, in conclusion, that the semiotic fabric of the kabbalists, undergoing an acceleration in the aftermath of the Expulsion, eventually converged towards a conservatory enhancement of the traditional conduct – better, of the halakhic existence remolded in the light of the Sephardi Kabbalah. Rather than creating new forms of life, it validated and fostered the older one, ‘sanctifying’ and ‘enchanting’ it. Also the important shifts regarding various layers, which shall be better explored below, remained within the halakhic framework, and were at most oriented to subtly refine its standard mandatory acts. Even with respect to the linguistic posture, a hidden strong “order of discourse” governed the production of those texts, so that innovations and deviations, original peculiarities and free creations were quite limited (the same few references to individual autobiographical accounts were usually reserved to the opening or the closing lines of the books35). This is not surprising, given the 33

34 35

It has been argued that the rabbinic academy of R. Yiṣḥaq Canpanton in Castile played a pivotal role in this process (see Scholem, “The Kabbalah in Spain”), although we lack clear evidences (see Marciano, The Status and Dissemination, 146ff.). Similar dynamics might have taken place within the Yeshivot of R. Yiṣḥaq Abuhav and R. Yiṣḥaq de León. About the process of transformation of minhagim (practical customs) of esoteric origins in dinim (prescriptive norms) of exoteric nature, and hanhagot (obligatory conducts) for the entire people of Israel, see Gries, Conduct Literature, in part. 12–14, 34–35. See above, chap. 1, notes 13, 17.

150

Chapter 4

historical background of such literature and its socio-cultural functions (to be better clarified below): all these writings were part of a cultural enterprise intrinsically characterized by conservative discursive strategies. For all these reasons, I believe that it would be quite inappropriate to term our cultural moment a “kabbalistic revolution”, as if it were an aware comprehensive project of groundbreaking subversion.36 That same definition has been recently applied to the great movement arisen in Galilee during the 16th century – whose effects on Jewish modernity would have been “nothing short than revolutionary”.37 If the latter view is correct, we would have quite diverging kabbalistic subsets in the same epoch – one oriented to preserve the Sephardi medieval legacy, illuminating and implementing the traditional orders through the maps contained in the Zoharic corpus; another one, with its epicenter in Safed, pushed with the ambition to reform Judaism in all its aspects.38 Presumably, the distance between these streams should not be overemphasized, although it is true that the historical-social background – marked by the breakdown of the previous socio-cultural contexts, migration of the intellectual elite, mobility of the congregations, transition of traditions, interaction with other and changing societies, rising of new technologies of writing – could favor fractures and irregularities, and the consequent flourishing of different centers and diverging routes. 1.2 Variation and Change in Social Pragmatics The former considerations do not intend to deny the innovative force of the kabbalistic culture in general, which revisited the entire Jewish lore in a new garb and certainly introduced some changes in the cultic behavior too. It is hard to provide an overview of this renewal process, which – as already 36

Statements about the ‘revolutionary’ or ‘subversive’ posture of the Kabbalah, or at least of some trends within it, usually draw on some Scholemian passages. They have been reproposed by Lachter, The Kabbalistic Revolution (although the author in fact recognizes that the classical Kabbalah accomplished “a forceful discursive assertion of the legitimacy and relevance of Jewish ritual observance”: 129). In Venturing Beyond, Wolfson has assumed that in Kabbalah “mystical impulses” and “ethical drives” tended to collapse the former rabbinic context and to overcome the typical halakhic dichotomies (although he too has noticed the “essentially nomian” nature of that tradition); about his complex and ambivalent position, see in part. 195ff., 262ff., and my pertinent discussion in Bodily Rituals, 25–26. 37 Weinstein, Kabbalah and Jewish Modernity, 4. 38 Interestingly, however, Weinstein himself acknowledges that “[Luria’s] nonconformist practices […] did not extend to constructing an alternative to the rabbinic establishment” and his “legal conservatism” stands out in various ways (ibid., 74).

The Construction of a Liturgical-Mystical Discipline

151

seen – was deeply ambivalent on the phenomenological level, and extremely variegated in its historical expressions. I suggest, however, that an inquiry into the semiotics of the kabbalists – also of the ‘conservative semiotics’ inherent to our sources – can help us shed light on the shifts investing the concrete performative contexts of Jewish communities, to start with some aspects of the social cultic pragmatics. Two major trajectories have been discerned by scholars.39 In most cases, the kabbalistic semiotic intensification charged the traditional Jewish miṣwot with new reasons and meanings, therefore maintaining the old standard rituals, yet subtly expanding the ritual dromenon submitted to interpretation and adding slight pragmatic variations. In particular and rare circumstances, the semiotic work went as far as at dictating completely innovative ritual customs, unknown to the traditional Halakhah (a phenomenon spread especially among the 16th-century Safedian confraternities40). The first direction is particularly evident in the Zoharic corpus, which dwells on peculiar precepts and practical minutiae (sometimes already found in specific traditions, sometimes unprecedented and even contradicting common halakhic teachings), as they were of the highest authoritative rank.41 The same direction is obviously pursued by the kabbalistic stream that scrutinizes any statement of the Zoharic literature dealing with religious praxis, and measures it by halakhic standards.42 Most remarkable and emblematic in this sense is the growing phenomenon that led (already in Spain, and especially after the Expulsion) to consider the Zohar as a major source of law and custom – even superior to prominent halakhic poseqim. During the 16th century, among kabbalistic sages of Sephardi origins, a sort of “golden rule” spread according to which the Zohar ought to be followed in practice as long as it did not contradict

39 40

41 42

See e.g. Morris Faierstein, Jewish Customs of Kabbalistic Origins (Brighton MA: Academic Studies Press, 2013). On these “rules of mystical piety” (hanhagot), see Fine (ed.), Safed Spirituality; Dan, Hebrew Ethical and Homiletic Literature, chap. 11; Pachter, “Kabbalistic Ethical Literature”; Weinstein, Kabbalah and Jewish Modernity. For the influence of kabbalistic stances on custom (minhag), especially in the wake of Luria, see Hallamish, Kabbalah in Liturgy, chap. 14, which also offers a perusal of the Safedian special amendments (tiqqunim). See above, n. 17. See Katz, “Post-Zoharic Relations”, 287. Obviously enough, the more the Kabbalah spread and became part of the institutional rabbinic discourse, the more it could remold the traditional form of life. Let us just mention the inclusion of kabbalistic (especially Zoharic) decrees and customs in the great halakhic code Bet Yosef by Yosef Qaro. See also above, chap. 1, notes 54ff.

152

Chapter 4

the Talmudic statements in halakhic matters.43 Ibn Gabbay’s Tolaʿat Yaʿaqov was one of the earliest sources containing that rule (in one of its variants): And in questions such as these, which are not mentioned explicitly in our Talmud [the Babylonian Talmud], one should rely on the qabbalah of the holy light, R. Shimon, may he rest in peace.44 Generally said, the attitude adopted by the Sephardi theosophical kabbalists, and typified in our works, called for full adherence to the traditional ritualistic system of activities, but undertook at the same time a refined re-articulation of the latter, inspired to a sort of ‘devotional piety’. This renewal, which substantially touched upon all dimensions of the halakhic praxis and liturgy, particularly concerned the ordinary rites and prayers of the Jewish path of life (ʾoraḥ ḥayyim). I shall try here to discern some phenomenological traits of the way in which kabbalistic semiotics produced an extended and intensified version of the rabbinic pragmatics. In chap. 3 we have observed the tendency of the theosophical kabbalists to navigate the entire extension of the cultic system, taking into account, in principle, the ‘totality’ of its elements.45 We have seen how they investigated the ritual apparatus in its multimodality (approaching it frequently through the triadic categorical pattern Action-Speech-Thought) as well as in its completeness (considering the whole spectrum of the ritual dromenon – physical objects, manual gestures, speech-acts, cognitive processes, etc. –, and examining units or sequences of every scale). At least ideally, they were eager to provide all items of the ritual surface with deeper significata.46 Close to this aspiration to totality is the emphasis on ‘stringency’, the yearning for a stricter observance of the law in all its folds and ramifications. It is by no means surprising that the kabbalists commanded to perform all cultic acts with punctiliousness and attentiveness to all aspects. Concluding the section on the ablution in Hekhal ha-qodesh, Moshe Elbaz claims: “It is good to be 43 44

45 46

See Katz, “Post-Zoharic Relations”, 289ff. (notable is the conclusion that the “Spanish exiles transmitted this rule of compromise as a part of their redoubtable scholarly legacy”); Huss, “Sefer ha-Zohar as a Canonical”, 279; idem, The Zohar, 126–127, 131–132. TY, f. 16d. See also ibid., f. 20a. Accordingly, as Katz remarked, the Zoharic authority in normative and practical matters was perceived as superior to the Jerusalem Talmud and the halakhic treatises based on it. About those passages of Ibn Gabbay and their influence, see Hallamish, Kabbalah in Liturgy, 126. On this aspect, see also Hallamish, Kabbalistic Ritual, 87ff. On the maximalistic position according to which minutiae of the law are “essential things”, replete with supreme meanings, see above, chap. 1, n. 111.

The Construction of a Liturgical-Mystical Discipline

153

careful in the washing of the hands in the morning, proceeding meticulously with regard to all the items [related to it] (we-lehaqpid be-kol ha-devarim)”.47 As known, when the rabbinic tradition oscillated between two options in legal matters, the kabbalists typically kept to the stricter mode of action.48 We have particularly stressed the kabbalists’ focus on the ‘syntactic structure’ and ‘multilayered synchronicity’ that secretly presided over the ritual activity. As has emerged, they filled with deeper rationales and tried to normatively establish certain sequels of the service that had been quite neglected until then.49 Such emphasis on the grammar of ritual could logically reshape the practical conduct itself. This required sustained concentration and extreme attention to the sequencing of the procedures, the rhythm of the action, etc. The enlightened worshipper had to perform the standard liturgies more precisely and emphatically, giving a new weight to sequels, pauses and connections.50 As a further significant effect of these attitudes, we can note the ‘centralization’ of previously secondary aspects. The kabbalists called to pay heed also to apparently marginal deeds, transforming units or clusters of action that in former contexts were propaedeutic or automatic, into performances of primary importance. Thus, while rereading the Priestly blessing as an apical ritual-mystical stage, they focused not only on the crucial gesture (the raising of the palms), but also on the preparatory procedures (e.g. the purification of the priestly hands by the Levites51). Similarly, the innovative concern with the “four species” on Sukkot, led the kabbalists to translate an early mechanic stage – the act of cutting the branches – into a sacred and potent ceremony.52 Another type of centralization derived from the kabbalistic tendency to attach much importance to “local customs” (minhagim) that had been peripheral or little relevant up to then. Often times, the kabbalists adopted specific habits from some Jewish areas or groups, including procedural minutiae, and 47 48 49

HQ, 67. See Hallamish, Kabbalistic Ritual, 126ff. Let me recall their review of the gestures involving the right and the left hand; or, their approach to the ritual clothing, insisting on syntactic aspects (what come before, what comes later) and on changing physical postures (sitting position, standing position). 50 See e.g. our analysis of the semikhah topic, in chap. 3, notes 52ff. 51 See HQ, 118; see also Dawid ibn Zimra, Meṣudat Dawid, 102. In this way, they rendered also the relationships among the cultic personnel much more focused and stringent: see below. 52 In “Between Somatics”, I have analyzed the novel kabbalistic stress on apparently secondary aspects of the ritual setting around the lulav (the proper cutting of the branches, the proper rotation of the festive bouquet, etc.).

154

Chapter 4

treated them as essential portions of the halakhic path, possessing a higher rank of holiness and an exceptional density of meaning. Let me recall the reception and exaltation of linguistic or vocal aspects (concerning the number of words to be recited in a prayer, or the way to utter letters and vowels), which would have been transmitted esoterically and practiced exclusively in some local traditions (above all, among Ashkenazi Jewish communities).53 Analogously, the kabbalists assimilated some regional mores about the timing of the procedures (e.g. the interdiction to wear tefillin on ḥol ha-moʿed, or to recite the birkat ha-levanah before the end of Yom Kippur), filling them with outstanding significations, and making them prevail on alternative social habits.54 Such a strategy, as we shall see below, was surely functional to a differentiation of the kabbalistic groups in a context of intra-cultural and inter-cultural dynamics. All these elements – attention to totality and stringency, emphasis on structuring and sequencing, centralization of secondary aspects and local customs – seem to have concurred to an overall endeavor for charting, encoding and controlling broader fields of human behavior, in a sort of further ‘ritualization’ of Jewish life. Evidently, the kabbalistic semiotics led to increase the patterns of order in social pragmatics. It determined an extension of the existential domains submitted to ruling and ritualism, even beyond the range regulated and standardized by the halakhic tradition.55 Processes of this kind occurred in various phases of Jewish history.56 At any rate, a major wave of ritualization can be observed in the 16th-century Jewish society – as significant structures were imparted to life settings that were previously not ritualized (or less ritualized).57 While previous research unilaterally linked such 53

54

55 56

57

See above, chap. 1, around n. 125; chap. 3, around n. 32. From Ashkenazi pietistic contexts, this approach arrived to the Sephardi circles, and was finally elaborated by the kabbalists of Safed (see Sack, In the Gates, 196). All these environments obviously called for a strict observance of traditional prayer. For further examples, see Hallamish, Kabbalistic Ritual, 350. In “Between Somatics”, I have shown how the kabbalists came to privilege the rotation of the lulav branch in ordered directions for a precise number of times; or, the joining of the lulav on the right hand with the lulav on the left hand at prescribed temporal stages. On this ‘increase of scriptedness’ we shall return below. For instance, an explosion of purity rituals in pietistic garb took place in 13th-century Ashkenazi contexts prior to the flourishing of the Kabbalah, or was concomitant with it. About this form of heightened devotion, see Elisheva Baumgarten, Practicing Piety in Medieval Ashkenaz: Men, Women, and Everyday Religious Observance (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014). Compare Fine, “Dimensions of Kabbalah”; Elliott Horowitz, “Coffee, Coffeehouses, and the Nocturnal Rituals of Early Modern Jewry”, AJS Review 14,1 (1989): 17–46; Avriel Bar-­ Levav, “Ritualisation of Jewish Life and Death in the Early Modern Period”, The Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 47,1 (2002): 69–82 (summing up at 69: “among the many new customs

The Construction of a Liturgical-Mystical Discipline

155

phenomenon to the emergence of Lurianic Kabbalah, it now rather appears as the result of multiple factors.58 Among them, one should count the final merging of Kabbalah and Halakhah, the definitive assumption of the Zohar as an authoritative normative source, the large diffusion of kabbalistic printed books (also concerning ritual conduct),59 the remodeling of the cultic behavior of dispersed communities after the Expulsion, the multiplication of groups engaged in a devotional-mystical lifestyle. Our commentaries might be seen as part of this ritualization process flourished during the 16th century, although they represent just one facet of them – and certainly not the most innovative. 1.3 The Production of Directional Mystical Techniques I wish to suggest now a further possible reverberation of the kabbalistic semiotics, by taking into exam inner layers in perception and experience. Phenomena of renewal and change on this level are subtle and elusive, and elude an easy description. Undeniably, however, the kabbalistic re-signification must have had a significant impact on the inner dimensions of the Jewish practitioners, contributing to the general transformation of ritual into mystical ritual, of prayer into mystical prayer.60 In this context, particularly important is the linguistic use of the root kwn, including the noun kawwanah, which since the very beginning became a key

58 59

60

created during this period, we can note, for example, the midnight vigil, fresh ways to celebrate the new moon, and new rituals for the sick and the dying”). Particularly interesting, in our context, is the development of the “Shavuot night service” (tiqqun leyl Shavuʿot), and its spreading from Sefarad to Maghreb apparently before its elaboration in Safed (see Hallamish, Kabbalah in Liturgy, 596–597, referring also to Moshe Elbaz). Equally notable is the development of ritualistic reading, recitation, and study of the Zohar, starting from North Africa (see above, chap. 1, n. 38). A further process of ritualization that occurred in the same 16th-century (and later spread in Ḥasidic contexts) related to the notion of ʿavodah be-gashmiyyut (“worship through materiality”) – transforming mundane somatic activities, formerly independent from religious law, into a part or an extension of the divine service. On the causes of these processes, see also the (questionable) suggestion by David Malkiel, “Realism and the Rise of Kabbalah in the Sixteenth Century”, in Caminos de leche y miel, eds. H. de Boer et al. (Barcelona: Tirocinio, 2018), 313–327. The advent and development of printing certainly played a decisive role in the process of canonization and popularization of the Jewish written lore (including its kabbalistic side) in the aftermath of the Expulsion (cf. Gries, “Print as an Agent of Communication”; Gondos, Kabbalah in Print). On the “intensification of the inner activities”, see Idel, “Performance, Intensification”. I assume the general view that no stark separation (or dualism) exists in ritual between form and meaning, body and spirit, so that the shifts at inner layers have also outer tangible dimensions (and vice versa): see Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, passim.

156

Chapter 4

word in kabbalistic vocabulary.61 One may say that much of the kabbalistic innovation in ritual gravitates around the insertion or enhancement of kawwanah processes into the halakhic procedures – processes that have to do with different kinds of inner dimensions engaged in ritual activity.62 Kawwanah concerns, first of all, a wide spectrum of ‘cognitive’ dimensions, such as awareness, intentionality, concentration, which should be put in field during the concrete observance of the law, but also before and after it (the recital of prayer, for example, required a long mental preparation, consisting in a removal of disturbing “external thoughts” about mundane matters, an increment of self-consciousness and attentiveness, etc.). Logically, ‘epistemic’ layers are also involved, such as the knowledge of the meanings, rationales and goals of ritual deeds: the mystical worshipper had to master the theosophic-theurgic values of each stage of the liturgy, and refer to all of them during its performance (in particular, addressing any recited formula to the pertinent sefirah, or series of sefirot). Other inner dimensions may be rather defined as ‘emotional’. Especially when dealing with apical or festive liturgies, the kabbalists relate to feelings like awe, fear, joy, willingness, sincerity, intimate desire – and evoke passions and emotions that should match the pious ritual acts.63 A typical reasoning of the kabbalists, largely found in our sources, is that the perfect enactment of the ritual obligation, which is supposed to allow the achievement of the highest purposes, requires kawwanah, that is, an integral engagement of the devotee, including states of consciousness like intentionality and focused attention. The following exemplary statements stem from Elbaz’s commentary on the eve of Rosh ha-Shanah: 61

62

63

See the early anonymous work Shaʿar ha-kawwanah, edited and analyzed by Gershom Scholem, “The Concept of Kavvanah in the Early Kabbalah”, in Studies in Jewish Thought, ed. A. Jospe (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1981), 162–180, and re-examined most recently in Moshe Idel, The Gate of Intention: R. Isaac ben Shmuel of Acre and Its Reception (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2020). On the kabbalists’ confrontation with the duty of kawwanah, compare Hallamish, Kabbalah in Liturgy, chap. 3. See the following description by Scholem (marked by typical metaphysical overtones): “The traditional ritual was thus transformed by means of a mystical instrument, which operates in a cosmic area and penetrates through world upon world to the depths of the Godhead – the Kabbalists found such an instrument in what they called kavvanah, that is, the mystical ‘intention’ or meditation which accompanies the ritual act” (On the Kabbalah, 126). Thus, the emphasis on para-linguistic aspects in prayer, like vocal tones, clearly parallels emotive dynamics. The kabbalists underline the importance of joy on the Shabbat or on Sukkot, as much as the feelings of awe and guilt on Rosh ha-Shanah and Yom Kippur. For further remarks on the psychosocial effects of the kabbalistic posture, see below.

The Construction of a Liturgical-Mystical Discipline

157

As man stands up, the worshipper shall intend in his thought (yekawwin be-maḥshavto) that he is standing before the Unique Lord that dwells in the Third [sefirah, namely Binah]; indeed, in the whole formulation of the blessing, the focus (ha-kawwanah) shall be that of drawing the soul onto all the divine measures; therefore, since in these two blessings two legs of the chariot have been awakened, he shall also be concentrated (yitkawwin) to set up the third leg, which is the secret of Tiferet Yisraʾel.64 On the ground of the inquiries carried out before, I wish to underscore a further facet (so far quite neglected) linked to the lexicon of k-w-n – namely, the reference to a ‘directional’ setting of the liturgy. The kabbalistic interpreters, as has emerged, willingly dwelled on the syntax of cultic orders, detecting its interactions with the syntax of cosmic orders. Such attitude evidently inspired a remodeling of the practical conduct both in its outer and in its inner sides. In effect, an important connotation of kawwanah is bound to the need, for the illuminated worshippers, to wisely ‘orient’ their performative and experiential paths (this connotation somehow unfolds the primary physical reference of the root kwn – which relates to a precisely-oriented posture and directionality of the body). Those trained in the esoteric wisdom about ritual, having in mind the inner maps of the cultic sequels, are called to enact all the liturgies with sustained attention in accordance with a strong target-orientation, well aware of their directional patterns and their links with the structures above. Emblematic in this perspective is an excerpt from Ibn Gabbay’s prologue that has been already mentioned (it has attracted scholarly attention from other viewpoints). It reads: everyone who knows (kol ha-yodeʿa) how to order the action (lesadder ha-maʿaseh) and to direct his intention (lekawwin) on what is fitting to that intention, is able to arouse the supernal entities to pour down the light on all the worlds.65 64

65

HQ, 282–284. Consider also the following passage in the commentary to the Shemaʿ Yisraʾel: “and as man shall direct his intention (hitkawwen) to the unification in a full intentionality (be-kawwanah shlemah), then surely his soul shall be bound in the love of the Creator”: HQ, 105. TY, f. 4b. The knowledge of the hidden orders, is argued here, ensures the strongest efficacy of the ritual action – the capacity of “the pious men, by performing their deeds, to transform the natural things and even to bind the supernal entities according to their will” (ibid.).

158

Chapter 4

This passage clearly draws from a Zoharic source, where Rabbi Shimon himself – the hero of the book – “reveals” the secret truth about worship: the one who knows how to order the action (lesadra ʿovada) in the fitting manner and how to order the words (lesadra milin) in the fitting manner, can arouse with certainty the Holy One, blessed be He, to pour down supernal things.66 Ibn Gabbay revisits and expands the Zoharic discussion through a rhetoric trope that attributes to a “son” the key issue raised in the Zohar: Here however the son asks: since everyone knows (ha-kol yodʿim) the order of the action (seder ha-maʿaseh), what is the importance of the righteous men (ṣaddiqim) who know the inner core of the action (ʿiyqqar ha-maʿaseh) and how to direct the intentionality (lekawwin) in the fitting way? The answer is that those who only know that this is the order of the world (seder ha-ʿolam) and nothing more, bring forth the effusion from the place behind [the shoulders of the Holy One], while those who know (ʾaval ha-yodʿin) the inner core of the action (ʿiyqqar ha-maʿaseh) and address to it (mekawwenim bo), attract the emanation of the blessings from the place of the supernal thought on the supernal heads in an immediate and fitting way.67 An intricate constellation seems here to tie “knowledge” (y-d-ʿ) and “focused attention” (k-w-n) to the ritual “orders” (s-d-r). Differently from the common Israelites, who know only the superficial “order of the action” in the halakhic prayer service, the “righteous men” possess a secret wisdom of the syntactic patterns constituting “the inner core of the action”, and are able to proceed in liturgy in accordance with those supernal orders.68 Here, kawwanah primarily denotes the faculty of (some) human beings who organize and orient the ritual sequels in such a way as to intersect and affect the fitting divine forces, 66

67 68

Zohar III, 183b-184a (on the “order found in word” besides the “order found in will”, see also Zohar II, 244b). Apparently, Ibn Gabbay ignores the explicit reference to the verbal orders contained in the Zoharic passage: most likely, however, he considers the liturgical “order of action” as including verbal and non-verbal procedures at once. On the Zoharic text, compare Garb, Manifestations, 128–129. TY, ff. 4b-c. On this motif, see also Cordovero, Pardes rimmonim, Shaʿar 32, f. 78b. Applying his own categories to this text, Garb has detected the traces of an “isomorphic model” that converges with a “personal model” (for it is bound to the activity of “single individuals”): see Manifestations, 238–242. We shall return below on the relationship between individual and collective paths in kabbalistic liturgy.

The Construction of a Liturgical-Mystical Discipline

159

thus causing the widest cosmic repercussions – while a one-sided or mechanic sequencing of words and deeds could achieve only limited efficacy and also risk activating negative forces (as is alluded to by the formula: “an effusion from the place behind”). In effect, the practitioners should pay the greatest attention to both the ordered surface and the occult architectonics of cultic life – acknowledging that the observance of the former is a necessary condition for the respect of the latter, and vice versa. It must be recalled that in kabbalistic texts one finds different views, and open debates too, about the importance or necessity of kawwanah.69 The emphasis on the respect of the syntactic order appears sometimes so strong that other dimensions seem to be secondary. A Zoharic passage even claims that the one who “shall set forth (yesadder) the praises to his Master”, will be rewarded “even if he is not able to concentrate [on them] (ʾeyno yakhol lekawwen)”.70 Usually, however, both in classical writings and in later sources, what is required is an entire range of activities, including noetic activities: in fact, only a conscious and attentive devotional piety would allow the ritual performer to fathom the hidden patterns of worship.71 According to Ibn Gabbay, for instance, the practitioner should have a full knowledge of the cosmic “chains” that govern the entire reality,72 should master the various dimensions of the ritual performance,73 and should be aware of the perfectly structured and oriented ritual sequences, in order to cling to the supernal orders through his cultic deeds. In conclusion, among the pragmatic entailments of the kabbalistic semiotics, one must also consider the ‘empowered’ intimate and active participation to Jewish ritual practice, which encompasses various cognitive, psychological 69 70 71 72 73

As known, conflicting stances about kawwanah already cross the rabbinic literature. According to some sages, it was required at some liturgical stages (i.e. Shemaʿ and ʿAmidah) much more than in other segments of worship. Zohar I, 243b-244a (on the Talmudic reference, see above, chap. 2, n. 159). As to whether the “correct order” was a necessary and sufficient condition for mystical devotion, see Garb, Manifestations, 124–126. See e.g. the passage from Giqatilla quoted above, chap. 3, around n. 54, where this mastery is apparently shared by the whole community of Israel. See above, chap. 2, around notes 37, 92. As Garb has acutely noted, in various passages “the emphasis of Ibn Gabbay is not on the mental component found in the kawwanah, but on its being part of a more ­comprehensive system that includes performative and vocal aspects” (Manifestations, 236; see also 267, shedding light on the concern of kabbalistic anthropology for all the psychosomatic components of man, which are said to activate the human power as a whole). About Ibn Gabbay’s call to fulfil the “whole worship” with kawwanah, see Hallamish, Kabbalah in Liturgy, 76–77 (the same duty was then evoked by Cordoverian and Lurianic kabbalists at once: see ibid., 77, 81).

160

Chapter 4

and emotional layers.74 We have here underlined ‘sustained concentration along a directional path’. The disclosing of secret syntactic patterns did not only inspire mythical narrative accounts; it also fostered a (partly) novel staging of cultic praxis, perceived as a mystical graded ascension. The directionality was in fact twofold, so-to-say synchronic and diachronic: for it included the ‘addressing’ of the various ritual units to corresponding supernal forces (the different sefirot, etc.) and the ‘structuring’ of those very liturgies as stages of an articulated organic focused route. Kabbalistically-educated Jews viewed their ordinary worship as an oriented mystical experience – both graded and continuous,75 composed of a series of apical events and having a circular timing. Summing up this section, and going to the very core of this inquiry, the kabbalistic segment under consideration appears to exhibit a deep ambivalence, given its ongoing fluctuation between continuity and change, conservation and innovation. This is quite typical of the cultural processes as viewed by semiotics of culture. Resorting to Lotman’s grids, we may say that our interpreters, on the one hand, tend to systematize and specify the earlier semiosphere, with its network of encoded signs and behaviors; on the other, they call for a revivifying refinement of cultural memory and social praxis. Hence, they accommodate themselves within the stream of tradition, while at the same time they reshape the traditional ‘form of life’ establishing a new devotional or pietistic ‘style’.76 The latter is by no means a mechanic repetition of the ­institutional religious praxis, since any action is submitted to de-automatization and re-signification through a powerful semiotic activity. What emerges at last is a multilayered and multimodal remolding of the former conduct, where rabbinic law and liturgy completely merge with the Zoharic Kabbalah. We have seen, for instance, that the theosophical commentaries worked out the traditional prayer service both in ‘extension’ and in ‘intension’, broadening, punctuating and thickening the former ritual orders, namely adding to them a surplus of ‘organization’ and ‘density’ at once. They recast that social pragmatics – by illuminating the totality of the ritual arena, charging it with stringency, focusing on structures and sequences, favoring centralization of secondary 74 75 76

For a discussion of the notion of “empowerment” as employed in Jess B. Hollenback’s Mysticism: Experience, Response, and Empowerment (University Park PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996), see Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, 234ff. Looking at ritual in general through the grids of theories of communication, Rappaport has distinguished a “digital aspect”, made of discrete units, and an “analogical aspect”, made of continuity and gradation: see Ritual and Religion, 86ff. On “forms” and “styles” of life in general semiotics of culture, see below, Final Remarks, n. 26. However, I do not use the terms in that technical manner.

The Construction of a Liturgical-Mystical Discipline

161

habits and ritualization of non-ritual spheres. They also empowered the inner activities of the worshippers – by an increase in exegetical effort, meaning analysis, mental investment, emotional and psychological engagement, directional reassessment of the procedures. All these shifts concurred to a broader transformation of ritual acts into ‘mystical techniques’.77 If, as said, the kabbalistic ritual was essentially the old ritual fixed by Halakhah and Siddur, the review of it in the light of qabbalah provided subtle modifications of the cultic language, and generated at last a fine-tuned mystical-liturgical path. In particular, we have observed that the same standard units of the traditional service now turn into stages of a ‘new’ structured and target-oriented process, whose character was overtly ‘mystical’, because gestures, words and thoughts were perceived as means (and loci) of an experience of confluence between human and divine. By making earthly behavioral orders interact with heavenly cosmic orders, the theosophical Kabbalah translated the Jewish form of life – and its regular liturgical sequels – into a patterned setting of mystical achievements. If redundancy and theatrical exaggeration are typical features of ritual action in general,78 they seem to especially mark this mystical translation of rituality effected by the Kabbalah. In its light, common halakhic procedures become dense and dramatic mystical ceremonies, also charged with solemn and sublime overtones. One may argue that our specific authors did nothing but prolong features found in earlier theosophical Kabbalah. Yet, their work of recollection had also innovative aspects and functions (bound to a novel historical-cultural context), as appears from the same literary composition of compact manuals anthologizing and popularizing Kabbalah. It is hard, and scarcely useful after all, to attempt to give an overall and definite answer as to whether the innovative traits or the conservative propensities prevailed. What is certain is that that semiotic activity had significant pragmatic effects and generated a renewed version of traditional social behavior. 2 Shaping Kabbalistically-Oriented Community Conduct and Experience We have tried to demonstrate before that the kabbalistic innovations – albeit fine and addressed to support the halakhic form of life in general – were strong 77 78

On this transformation and the same notion of ‘mystical technique’, see Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, 255ff. See Burkert, Homo Necans, 23.

162

Chapter 4

enough to modify the liturgical and experiential path of the adepts, and to characterize their pietistic lifestyle. In effect, it is plausible that the renewal brought about by those interpreters continued to activate a process of ‘differentiation’ – leading the practical conducts of kabbalistic circles, or kabbalistically-educated communities, to somehow diverge from the common ritual habits of the Jewish society. The performance of the cult by groups trained in Kabbalah, was arguably recognizable to an emic eye, as both traditional in form and distinct in style. It would be worth understanding to what extent our cultural subset contributed to such a process of ‘social distinction’. On the other hand, it would be important to discern whether, in that context, the new ritual language had to be reserved to a few specialists or if it was thought of as open to (and mandatory for) the entire Jewish congregation. Besides pragmatic variations and social differentiation, the kabbalistic semiotics could likely generate psychological effects. If the reorganization of the ritualistic orders put forward by the kabbalists implemented a kind of social praxis made of stringent procedures, directional paths to be lived synchronically, mystical techniques to be enacted within a hyper-structured communal frame, one may surmise that all this strengthened a cohesive social identity. The community group not only was engaged in a liturgical-mystical discipline, but also lived a collective experience, sharing a special emotional tone. To verify such assumptions, scholars have to cope simultaneously with social interactions, cultural dynamics, psychological phenomena – and, I believe, only a refined mix of semiotics of culture, social history and social psychology may help to shed light on this complex interplay.79 2.1 Elements of Distinction and Cohesion Along the history of Judaism, one observes a constant oscillation between ‘openness’ and ‘closeness’. A strong ethnocentric drive generally leads to consider the “people of Israel”, or the “assembly of Israel”, as a whole, distinguishing it sharply from the “nations of the world” (‘external exclusivism’), while treating its components in egalitarian terms (‘internal inclusivism’). On the other side, some sort of inner differentiation surfaces in all epochs of Jewish tradition, bestowing special roles to some social categories: prophets, priests, sages, pious and righteous men, and so forth (‘internal exclusivism’).80

79 80

In the following, I shall offer only a few prolegomena to such an inquiry, by focusing on our specific cultural scene. Such inner differentiation primarily concerns cultic ceremonies. As has been underlined by anthropologists, distinctions among people that exist in ordinary time are somehow

The Construction of a Liturgical-Mystical Discipline

163

It appears that the kabbalists developed in their own terms both these trajectories.81 Is their exegesis for the many or for the few? Should their review of the canonic texts be received, interiorized and applied by the people of Israel in its entirety, or only by a small elite of (male) enlightened people, effectively adequate to receive it and to put it in practice? In fact, no systemic and univocal answer can be found in kabbalistic literature, which seems rather to embrace changing, plural, dialectic and even conflicting stances. As to the classical theosophical kabbalists, the first element to be considered is the following ambivalence: they reinforced differentiated, or elitist, existential conducts, which were nonetheless largely integrated within the halakhic congregational worship. Thus, a complex coexistence of vectors of ‘distinctiveness’ and vectors of ‘cohesiveness’ continued to characterize this cultural stream (both in its thought and praxis), giving birth to a variety of attitudes or forms of compromise. 1. Doubtlessly, kabbalistic writings often stress factors of inner distinction, which tend to consolidate the hierarchical social patterns already found in biblical and rabbinic institutional contexts. They underline the primacy of ancient and more recent leading groups – such as the few endowed with prophetic faculties (neviʾim), the priests (kohanim), the sages (ḥakhamim), those who have been educated to the deeper wisdom (maskilim, mequbbalim), those who know how to behave ­perfectly (­ḥasidim, ʾanashe ha-maʿaseh).82 The kabbalists

81 82

annulled in sacred time, yet other types of marked differentiation emerge: the ritual activity is often played, or lead, by ‘specialists of the sacred’. On these issues among Ḥaside Ashkenaz, see Ivan Marcus, “Exegesis for the Few and for the Many: Judah he-Hasid’s Biblical Commentary”, Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 8 (1989): 1–24. One should note that, in accordance with the common medieval mentality, the theosophical kabbalistic texts usually refer to groups and roles within a social hierarchy, dealing with the social functions (first of all, cultic functions) attributed to those various classes or social categories (e.g. the priests, the Levites, the community of Israel, etc.). As it often occurs in pre-modern cultures, any activity (and the same literary activity) appears more as a collective enterprise than as the creation of a single individual (hence, as scholars speak of an “individual” or “personal” model” – see above, n. 68 – the term should be understood cum grano salis). The specificity of single literary authors, for example, is not negligible (see above, chap. 1, n. 59), yet it typically remains much less important than their belonging to an authoritative tradition, and their conveying pieces of a super-individual body of knowledge (this is obviously true for anonymous or pseudoepigraphic works such as the Zohar, but also for the textual works of recognized authorities like our interpreters). One may argue that, in the cultural setting under investigation as in most pre-modern Jewish segments, both texts and actions are perceived as prints of a collective body (or at best, of a social category), bearing long-standing structures and values, rather than as the expression of one original personality.

164

Chapter 4

are particularly attracted by the exceptional status and role of the priests in the old temple-centered cult,83 and continue to look at elitist functions and sacred personnel in the present time. They clearly privilege social segments which, having received an ancient concealed legacy, are faithful to that occult knowledge in study, practice and teaching. They relate to modalities of secret transmission, elaborate a style of writing adhering to esotericism (at least formally), tend in general to circumscribe the divulgation of Kabbalah to a few reliable disciples (especially as concerns some topics).84 Kabbalistic ritual gives a major role to some special categories. The illuminated worshippers must introduce into the ordinary service specific procedures (i.e., special techniques of recitation, visualization, bodily motions, etc.) and further layers of involvement (a multidimensional kawwanah, etc.). At the same time, they have to impart their hidden knowledge to other elites. It is the case of the priests, who – while fulfilling their proper activities (first of all, the Birkat ha-kohanim) – should follow the instructions of the kabbalists (about addressing to sefirotic powers, the recitation of divine names in secret vocalized forms, etc.).85 Elsewhere, as we shall see now, a relevant function is attributed to the service leader, namely the “emissary of the community” (sheliaḥ ṣibbur), who should equally be trained in mystical wisdom. Earlier kabbalists, especially from Castile, had already underscored the role of the prayer leader, as a substitute of the ancient high priest.86 Particularly, Dawid ben Yehudah he-Ḥasid had explained how fundamental it is for a community to rely on a “congregational guide” that knows “what the core of prayer is”, and “how to interpret it in relation to the supernal, hidden, marvelous secrets”, and “to what side all the utterances that come from his mouth allude”.87 According to Dawid ben Yehudah, his own book was born as a reaction to the 83 84

85 86 87

See chap. 2, n. 129. Compare Pedaya, Name and Sanctuary. On these themes, see the collections of essays: Yaakov Elman – Israel Gershoni (eds.), Transmitting Jewish Traditions: Orality, Textuality, and Cultural Diffusion (New Haven – London: Yale University Press, 2000); Angela Guidi (ed.), Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 47, 3 (2011) (“Il mantello di Elia: trasmissione e innovazione della cabala”). See also above chap. 1, around notes 66ff. See Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, 302ff. There I studied in some detail the interactions between kabbalists and priests, and the kabbalistic proposal of ‘priest-like’ patterns of behavior that might replace the older priesthood. See ibid., 301–302. On this figure in general, see Gerald J. Blidstein, “Sheliach Tzibbur: Historical and Phenomenological Observations”, Tradition 12 (1971): 69–77. Dawid ben Yehudah he-Ḥasid, ʾOr zaruʿa, f. 3b. Inversely, the “precentors” lacking those intellectual and practical qualities, were described therein as provoking immense damages, first of all the destruction of the community, just as it occurred with the unfitting or impure priests in the temple epoch.

The Construction of a Liturgical-Mystical Discipline

165

fact that the service leaders of his time were unfit to carry out their higher function: “for this reason, I came to order the secrets of prayer for you (lesadder lekhah sodot ha-tefillah)”.88 Our 16th-century writings recover the same pattern, when dealing with the “secret of the emissary of the community” (sod sheliaḥ ṣibbur) and explaining his major tasks. By elaborating on those passages from ʾOr zaruʿa, Tolaʿat Yaʿaqov finally states: how much the sheliaḥ ṣibbur must be precise (ledaqdeq) in his prayer in order for it to be accepted!89 Such accuracy should concern all the aspects of ritual performance. In particular, the syntactic orders of prayer require extreme attention. According to Ibn Gabbay, as already mentioned, only the few who know how “to order action”, can respect the deeper ritual syntax.90 Consequently, only the congregation guided by adequate prayer leaders will be able to reach the highest achievements, comparable to those of the ancient priestly service, while unfit “emissaries” are likely to generate either vain prayers or catastrophic consequences.91 In Hekhal ha-qodesh too, the primacy of the prayer guide surfaces in several occurrences. The recital of the Barekhu blessing contemplates a syntactic structure where “precentor” (sheliaḥ) and “assembly” (qahal) occupy a symmetric role and complement each other: the former is called to draw the blessing from Keter to Binah, “and his thought would dwell upon it”; the latter should be concentrated in attracting the flux from Binah down to the last sefirah.92 In another section, the kabbalist shows how the sheliaḥ recites the Eighteen Benedictions word by word, “re-arranging the prayer” (mesadder ha-tefillah) with focused attention, while the congregators listen to the blessings in silence and mentally address them all.93 A further passage explains how the sheliaḥ ṣibbur 88 Ibid., f. 8b. 89 TY, f. 12a. 90 See above, notes 65ff. 91 The account follows closely the one by Dawid ben Yehudah he-Ḥasid mentioned before. 92 See HQ, 96–97 (immediately after, an alternative syntactic model drawn from the Zohar, is offered). On the peculiar kawwanah activated by the sheliaḥ, see also ibid., 117. For another example of coordinated activities between the “congregation” (qahal) and the “service leader” (sheliaḥ), see ibid., 167. For the key role of the latter in the recitation of the Shemaʿ, bringing its words to the number of 248 through a special repetition, see above, chap. 3, n. 32. 93 See ibid., 117. On the sheliaḥ ṣibbur as the one who “organizes (mesadder) the prayer”, see also ibid., 275–276.

166

Chapter 4

should behave in the elevation of the Torah scrolls along the six steps of the altar, a ceremonial path linked to the secret of the six sefirot.94 Our authors clearly suggest that the role of the service leader is closely connected to their own role as kabbalistic commentators. Ultimately, their interpretive work is thought of as a tool for the education and training of the service leader, who must borrow from the kabbalists the secret knowledge required by his onerous status. Thus, if the textual body discussed here undoubtedly has a disseminating connotation and orientation, it cannot be really considered as ‘popular literature’ available to everyone – neither from the point of view of the authors (who principally turned to leading social groups), nor in reality (as the texts could be understood only by people who had a rather advanced education in Jewish thought). Emblematic of this ambivalence is a further passage of Hekhal ha-qodesh, where it is argued that the ritual donning of sacred garments (like the ṣiṣit), with all their “secrets”, is “available to all Israel, even to the multitude of the people”, although a most “sublime secret” has been reserved to the “wise student” (talmid ḥakham).95 While remarking on the collective nature of the cultic activity, the kabbalist emphasizes the distinctiveness of special operators with regard to knowledge and practice.96 We touch here on the situation of a society crossed by internal groups and differentiated roles, rather egalitarian yet also characterized by a somewhat hierarchical order. Although the interaction between the various types of elites and the relationship between their institutional functions were somehow regulated, they remained rather fluid and brought about intrinsic elements of competition.97 An important contribution of cultural semiotics may lie precisely in such an investigation of the communicative interactions between different social groups (as they emerge from textual sources, though

94 95 96 97

See ibid., 131. On this issue, see Hallamish, Kabbalah in Liturgy, 314. HQ, 70–71. For another example of a secret that “the sages concealed and remained hidden for the multitude, while it is open to the enlightened ones (maskilim)”, see ibid., 252. On the special customs of the “few” who carry out penitential rites, see ibid., 278. On ambivalences and tensions around the special activity of a few Israelites, see Garb, Manifestations, 93–97. I believe that sociologists of religion may fruitfully employ some grids by Pierre Bourdieu – such as his notion of “distinction”, or the idea of a “field” made by the dynamic interactions and the struggle for power of the various social groups (about Huss’ application of the Bourdieusian concept of “cultural capital” to the history of the Zohar reception, see below, n. 163). For historical inquiries into the social orders of the Middle Ages in general, emphasizing their multiplicity, flexibility and competitiveness, see Jussen (ed.), Ordering Medieval Society.

The Construction of a Liturgical-Mystical Discipline

167

not only98). Elsewhere, I claimed that dialectic or even competing interactions could arise between kabbalists and priests, insofar as the kabbalistic group assumed priest-like connotations (closed knowledge, special performativity, etc.).99 Here, a similar complex link seems to arise between the kabbalist and the sheliaḥ ṣibbur – or, other protagonists of the rabbinic ritual scene, such as “the shofar blower”, who also had to be educated by the kabbalistic leader.100 Paradoxically, the conservative trait of the kabbalistic renewal stands out here too: the kabbalists did not intend to eradicate and replace the leading groups of the rabbinic institutional frame, but rather aimed at integrating with them and recasting their function. 2. Let us now turn to the other pole: the insistence on the Jewish community as a unique entity engaged in a collective ritual fabric and connoted by a great degree of inner cohesion. Before coming to our texts, it might be useful to recall the general description of ritual behavior as a specific domain of action made of repetitive ‘embodied habits’, which reinforces the ‘social liaison’ of a group, constructing its inner ‘identity’ and producing its ‘difference’ from other groups.101 It is evident that the halakhic corpus – by encoding the existential spheres of the Israelites through highly specific rules of conduct – had gradually established the boundaries of the Jewish form of life, making it distinct from surrounding environments. On the other hand, if inner social articulations continued to cross the rabbinic “community of Israel”, they were part of a largely unitary system of institutions and activities, connoted by a strong group identity. The theosophical-kabbalistic culture, here again, sustains earlier pillars of the rabbinic semiosphere. Beside the emphasis on the distinctiveness of some leading sectors, one finds repeated references to wholeness and integrity. The sharpest boundaries usually serve to separate from the outside – from “other nations”, or forms of Judaism felt as alien. The inner esoteric modes and elitist conducts that have been described above, are evidently to be harmonized with the path of Israel as a whole. Frequently enough, blending patterns seem to emerge, integrating difference within unity, distinction within social cohesion,

98

The semiology of gestures by André Chastel has sought to reconstruct social roles and cultural interactions through the analysis of paintings. 99 See above, n. 85. 100 See HQ, 288ff. (these secrets too largely stem from the Zoharic corpus: see Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, 1246). 101 This definition collects scholarly accounts from Durkheim to Bourdieu.

168

Chapter 4

according to a model that I would call ‘organicist’.102 Such organicist model is expressed in imagery and discourse as well as in practice.103 In effect, the kabbalistic circles usually tend to sharpen the particularistic aspects of the Jewish lore, highlighting the borders of Jewish existence, and the specificity (and superiority) of Israel’s status, role and praxis. Scholars have spoken of “external exclusivism”, “particularistic mysticism”, or even “ethnocentric narcissism”; I myself have used the term “ethnocentric inclusivism”. If earlier Judaisms revolved around the notion of the “community of Israel” as a unitary entity (in modern terms, a “social body” or a “corporate personality”), and some midrashic readings paved the way to a process of “hypostatization” (and “feminization”) of that human group mediating between God and the world,104 the medieval theosophists worked further on those instances. In particular, as is known, they developed an identification of the “assembly of Israel” with the “divine presence”, the “spouse” of God, or the “female side” of the godhead.105 Hence, the halakhic deeds – especially when fulfilling the secret practical wisdom – were deemed to contribute to shape, elevate and adorn that (‘deified’) collective body. It is likely that, given its nomocentric and ritualistic character, kabbalistic mysticism could not but radicalize the particularistic ethnocentric aspects found within Judaism. No wonder that the main ‘cultural markers’ of the Jewish community – such as dress codes, dietary laws, circumcision, etc. – were charged with extraordinary layers of sense and power.106 One may even argue that – well aware of the ‘embodied habits’ structuring the memory and the 102

103 104 105

106

Especially since the Eighties, Lotman began to associate his semiotic discourse to biological patterns of “organicist” kind, resorting to the notion of culture as a living unified “sphere”, made of (permeable) boundaries outside, complementary elements inside, etc. See Amy Mandelker, “Semiotizing the Sphere: Organicist Theory in Lotman, Bakhtin, and Vernadsky”, Publications of the Modern Language Association 109,3 (1994): 385–396. About the kabbalistic integration of elitist patterns within the frame of a centripetal community body, see already my Bodily Rituals, 307. For a discussion on this point, see Charles Mopsik, “Une querelle à Jérusalem: La féminité de la Chekhina dans la cabale”, Pardès 12 (1990): 13–25. Such process of “sexualization” has been widely investigated in the last years by E.R. Wolfson, C. Mopsik, P. Schaefer, D. Abrams, M. Idel. According to the latter, the kabbalistic projection of the community of Israel (seen as a “corporate personality” with a “performing body”) onto a supernal hypostasis, represents a case of “collective narcissism” (see his Enchanted Chains, 226; Il male primordiale, 351–352), or “ethno-eroticism” (see his Kabbalah and Eros (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), chap. 3, which discusses the kabbalistic myth regarding Israel as the bride of God). The remarks on the “secret of circumcision” (sod ha-milah) in our commentaries are emblematic. The overlapping of ‘cultural markers’ and ‘religious markers’ is typical of a traditional culture such as Judaism (until modern contexts).

The Construction of a Liturgical-Mystical Discipline

169

identity of the Jewish people – the kabbalists produced discursive forms to validate and regularize, sacralize and promote, those ‘incorporated dispositions’. In some cases, as has been said, they selected and exalted even more specific cultural markers, eventually privileging a local lifestyle with its variants in liturgy or ritual custom,107 and assuming that this distinctive authentic form would at last be assimilated by all Israel. This kind of imagery and discourse – centripetal as much as organicist – had certainly an impact on the more pragmatic layers. Judaism always gravitated around an institutional cult, which granted a very limited freedom to individual activities, let alone to antinomian and anarchic experiences.108 Rabbinic Judaism codified a collective daily liturgy that left little space to spontaneous individual prayer (improvised expressions too were somehow framed within strict borders109). It appears that classical theosophical Kabbalah, contrary to other forms of mysticism, inclined to endorse this collective ritualism.110 Although some restricted groups had a special knowledge, function and power, it was the shared regular keeping of the precepts by the whole congregation of Israel that, when fulfilled correctly, could achieve the utmost efficacy. On the one hand, the liturgical-mystical path outlined by the kabbalists adhered almost perfectly to the standard community service; on the other hand, elitist conducts (by kabbalists, priests, precentors, cantors, etc.), with all their specific behavioral styles, were embedded in ordinary social life.111 While sharing the typical oscillation between distinct functions and communal worship, esoteric reservations and exoteric stances, our commentators ultimately seem to privilege the latter aspects (“favoring the many”).112 They turn to the entire community, to which they intend to impart the hidden body of knowledge.113 They offer their works as guidebooks for the congregational prayer – and seem to promote common study. They assume that almost every procedure must 107 108 109 110

See above, chap. 3, around notes 32–33. See above, around notes 22–24. On this issue from the viewpoint of Ibn Gabbay, see Goetschel, Meir ibn Gabbay, 315, 330. See above, n. 14. Compare the following remark by Idel: “[In this perspective, kabbalistic] mysticism hardly represents a search for freedom. Rather, it is indicative of the pursuit of a way of life based on the adoption of a stricter mode of conduct that allows it to be integrated into a larger structure” (“On Some Forms of Order”, XXXVIII). 111 See also Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, 294–307. 112 See HQ, 312. A few pages before, an esoteric tone instead prevails (ibid., 308). For other examples, see Hallamish, Studies in Kabbalah, 361. 113 Their inclination toward the diffusion of the Zohar, as an ‘open text’ to be divulged and deciphered again and again, is much more evident than in other kabbalistic contexts (see Huss, The Zohar, 173). If the suggestions of Mopsik are correct, this non-esoteric and non-elitist trait would have ultimately belonged to the Zohar itself.

170

Chapter 4

be performed in the same way by all Israelites. A good deal of cultic acts are indeed collective liturgies to be enacted in the synagogue (in fact, “the one who recites the Shemaʿ out of the congregation, does not perfect his 248 limbs”114), and even the rituals to be accomplished separately (e.g., in one’s room) should be lived as synchronic actions, meticulously respecting a given order and timing.115 What I. Tishby said about the attitude to service in the Zohar, may be applied to the works under consideration here: they too highlight “the great importance of prayer in the synagogue”, considering the congregational worship “more important than the prayer of the individual”, and interpreting it in a mystical fashion.116 We have already mentioned the importance attributed to the communal liturgy in the quorum of ten, to be recited at a precise timing and with full synchronicity.117 Equally interesting are the discussions on some specific prayers, which since ancient times were imbued with mystical meanings and connotations, and precisely for this reason were to be pronounced within the institutional framework (some decision-makers strictly interdicted their recitation by single individuals118). Tolaʿat Yaʿaqov recovers for instance the Zoharic stance that reciting the 13 divine middot is permitted only within the daily liturgy of the whole congregation, and is prohibited to the individual.119 One may argue, in the end, that the kabbalists sought forms of integration between elitist paths and the common cultic life – forms of integration that were in fact plural and did not exclude ambivalence and oscillation. At times, the vectors of inner distinction emphasized the prerogatives of a restricted class of special individuals behaving in accordance with a hidden lore. Elsewhere, the vectors of inner cohesion fostered the ideal of an entire community engaged in the mystical cult as a single body. Organicist schemas often served 114

Ibid., 105. In this case, the superiority of the communal prayer derives paradoxically from the special contribution of the sheliaḥ ṣibbur during the recitation of the Shemaʿ: see above, n. 92. 115 Emblematic, as already seen, is Cordovero’s Tomer Devorah, instructing the kabbalistically-educated community about the synchronized cultic acts that have to be fulfilled along the cycle of the day. See above, chap. 3, notes 96ff. 116 See Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, 964–965. I consider this anchoring to collective body and social activity a major permanent feature of the theosophical Kabbalah, which distinguishes it from other types of mysticism. This trait was in certain cases even more strengthened by 16th-century kabbalistic circles. 117 See above, chap. 3, n. 94. See in part. TY, f. 9a-b. 118 See the closer investigation by Ruth Langer, To Worship God Properly: Tensions Between Liturgical Custom and Halakhah in Judaism (Cincinnati OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1998), 210ff., especially about the Qedushah. 119 See TY, f. 19c. Analogous debates about other liturgical sections, are reported in TY, ff. 13c, 40a.

The Construction of a Liturgical-Mystical Discipline

171

as mediation patterns in the kabbalistic discourse and practice. Then, the inner articulation was vital for a unified institution – as in the case of a kabbalistic elite that would directly lead the community, or would instruct the community leaders (the service guide, the cantor, or the priests) about the secrets of prayer. Despite its inherent esoteric postures, the mainstream kabbalistic movement appears in line with the rabbinic inclination to promote the congregational statutory ritual orders and to reject any acute inner differentiation. The ritual and the mystical paths substantially overlap, and the kabbalistic semiotics appears to support a collective (mystical-liturgical) disciplined pragmatics. 2.2 Towards a Communal Mystical Discipline? The writings of most theosophical kabbalists certainly picture a strongly integrated conduct in liturgy, which should be performed by the whole community – neither by individuals, nor by small confraternities (as was the case in some contexts to be mentioned below). They sketch out a ritual life with a pietistic-mystical flavor, to which all Israelites are invited to participate and where all dimensions are wisely organized and strictly coordinated – external performances (mostly, collective ceremonies carried out in a synchronized manner), as well as inner activities (including shared cognitions and emotions). It is not easy to verify whether, and to what extent, such a project of social discipline was ever realized in practice. Obstacles and difficulties must have been manifold and relevant. In the previous chapters, for example, we have described the exegetical pluralism and symbolical accumulation that generally characterize the kabbalists’ hermeneutics; we have also seen that their semiotics on liturgy could discern multiple sequential patterns in the same ritual segment, thus giving light to diverging pragmatic-cognitive routes. In this chapter, we have recognized within the kabbalistic context instances of distinction as to social roles and cultic functions; we have further observed that, according to some texts, only groups of “wise students” trained in the esoteric tradition, are actually able to keep the precepts with a complete knowledge of the rationales, a stringent execution of the procedures, and a sustained multidimensional engagement. These and other aspects created a cultural resistance to the disciplining attitude, and were likely to hinder the development of a systemic and integrated collective practice.120 If rabbinic liturgy has been associated to some kind of “cacophony”,121 the kabbalistic elaboration might have even more 120 121

For other ‘disorganizing drives’, see below, Final Remarks. See Idel, Enchanted Chains, 222–223, who portrays in this manner the “sonorous ambiance” produced by the Jewish communal prayer.

172

Chapter 4

generated a fragmented pragmatic situation with its multiplication of interpretations and layers, components and trajectories. A specific quandary is explicitly mentioned in our sources. These strive for interlacing entangled pragmatic procedures with multiple inner processes. Yet, they have to admit that the authoritative tradition from which the latter are drawn, is vast and variegated, it includes diverging exegeses, plural significata and different intentions (kawwanot) – something that threatens to confound the worshippers and to hinder a cohesive collective activity. Commenting on the various kabbalistic reasons for a prayer, Moshe Elbaz explains that he has decided to pick only one, and calls the practitioner to focus on it: Indeed you see that all the verses of this Song [the Song at the sea] are filled with many interesting interpretations […], and I have chosen this interpretation which is close to the intellect, so that the mind will be able to support it during the recitation of the verses of the Song, since the kawwanah risks being confused because of the multiplicity of interpretations and opinions.122 While encompassing and welcoming multiple explanations, the kabbalist underlines the problem of an unrestricted reception, expression and application of all of them on the practical level, and justifies his decision to adopt a selective approach. He claims to have chosen, among the various options, one single interpretation that should be kept in mind during the oral prayer, since it would be in fact impossible to mentally and emotively follow all the paths outlined by tradition. This strategy would evidently allow also less-educated people to take part in the kabbalistic liturgy, facilitating a uniform collective conduct. At any rate, a situation where the whole congregation attends the same charted cultic-mystical praxis, with the same timing, rhythm, outer activities, inner dimensions, and target-orientation, appears to be more like a paradigmatic model or ideal. The notion of a disciplined community, involved organically in the same activity system, stands out from textual passages about eschatology, showing the kabbalistic yearning for an extension of that form 122

HQ, 92. In another passage, he acknowledges that the issue would require a “long interpretation”, yet he has decided to cut his explanation “in order to avoid exiting from the kawwanah”: ibid., 227. This does not mean that his commentary lacks extensive digressions and multiple interpretations, however they appear to be limited if compared to classical kabbalistic writings (see chap. 1). For an example of the extremely varying and even contradictory explanations and kawwanot about a liturgical stage (the Shemaʿ), as they are scattered in the Zoharic corpus, see Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, 972–973.

The Construction of a Liturgical-Mystical Discipline

173

of worship to the entire society. In an early discussion on the conjunction (semikhah) of geʾullah and tefillah, the correct performance of the liturgical sequence is conceived as a condition for redemption, insofar as all people of Israel supposedly accomplish it.123 It is worth repeating that this picture fits the classical theosophical-theurgical Kabbalah, while it is less adequate in the case of other kabbalistic trends – first of all, the so-called “ecstatic Kabbalah”. In our sources, there is no trace of the prophetic-ecstatic mysticism proposed by Abulafia and inspired by him, whose ideological and experiential paths were centered on the individual, resorted to “anomian techniques”, and proposed some halakhic conducts as “optional”.124 Theosophical commentaries insert mystical experiences (including heavenly ascents and visions, or magical achievements) within the regular rituals performed collectively by the Jewish community with scheduled periodicity – avoiding reference to exceptional events connected to non-­ institutional practices. This attitude seems also to diverge from other models of kabbalistic thought and practice that were more individually-oriented, such as the ones developed in Renaissance Italy and influenced by philosophic and magic sources.125 More complicated is the comparison with the vast kabbalistic movement flourished in Palestine during the 16th century, a movement that was equally nurtured by the Zoharic Kabbalah conveyed by Sephardi immigrants. In this case, a main difference may lie in the fact that – at least at the beginning – the kabbalistic culture developed in Safed was mainly directed to reshape (with new rules of conduct and a new mystical flavor) the life of closer circles and small confraternities, and only at later stages did it start to be divulged and disseminated among entire Jewish communities.126 This is not the place for opening broader comparative views, by looking at disciplined paths found in other cultural environments. I will only note that the “spiritual exercises” of the Hellenistic (and then Christian-Hellenistic) traditions studied by Pierre Hadot, and by him defined as “discipline”, appear to share some traits with the kabbalistic training described before – first of all, 123 124 125 126

See Giqatilla, Shaʿare ʾorah, 110. See above, chap. 3, n. 34. This kind of mysticism, though born in Spain in the second half of the 13th century, played a more important role in Jewish environments in Italy and in the Ottoman Empire during the 15th-16th centuries. See Idel, La Cabbalà in Italia. See Huss, “The Zoharic Communities”; Roni Weinstein, “Kabbalistic Innovation in Jewish Confraternities in the Early Modern Mediterranean”, in Faith’s Boundaries. Laity and Clergy in Early Modern Confraternities, eds. N. Terpstra – A. Prosperi – S. Pastore (Turnhout: Brepols, 2008), 233–247.

174

Chapter 4

for the emphasis on a practical “form of life” marked by “focused attention” and “mental concentration”. Yet, basic divergences immediately emerge, and not only regarding content. Unlike those late-ancient traditions, the classical Kabbalah worked on a traditional religious system of activities, remodeling its stringent nomian-liturgical mode of behavior. Therefore, it did not engage purely spiritual introspective dimensions, but a multidimensional experience, including strong sensorial facets;127 rather than aiming at a removal of passion, will and power, it largely involved emotional and active sides of the human personality;128 finally, and most importantly here, it reinforced frequent collective rituals instead of establishing extraordinary individual paths.129 In substance, the semiotic machinery of the theosophical kabbalists seems to render the same standard communal service a disciplined setting of multimodal “exercises” inducing mystical experiences.130 2.3 Hypotheses on Psychosocial Effects Without ignoring or undervaluing ‘disordering drives’, we have emphasized the importance of ‘ordering drives’ in our kabbalistic culture, which favored the construction of a mystically-oriented collective discipline. We can now attempt to reason about the eventual impact of this construction on psychosocial 127

128 129 130

According to Pierre Hadot, Hellenistic teachings about “inner rumination” were of seminal importance for the developments of the Christian discipline, with its inclination to “asceticism” (an attempt of removal of corporeal and material aspects through mental control or physical abstinence): see Exercices spirituels et philosophie antique (Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes,1987). Although the issue of asceticism in Kabbalah is a broader one and has been differently evaluated (see M. Idel contra E.R. Wolfson, in Kabbalah and Eros, 223–232; 244–245; and also Lawrence Fine, “Purifying the Body in the Name of the Soul: The Problem of the Body in Sixteenth-Century Kabbalah”, in Eilberg-Schwartz, People of the Body, 117–142), one can note that ascetic leanings are rare, though not completely absent, in our commentaries (while they are more prominent in the contemporary kabbalistic literature from Safed). See also above, chap. 2, n. 77. See the next section. I refer to paths such as the ones described by Hadot (inner meditations that intend to elevate man to the universal Reason) or by Foucault (techniques of the self that intend to ‘free’ the individual). One may ask whether such translation of encoded, embodied, collective ritual ­habits into a mystical discipline, might be more adequately compared to what occurred as to the “holy liturgies” of the Oriental churches, or those of the Islamic world – ­regardless of the obviously different contents. Any attempt to trace eventual historical connections or phenomenological affinities would deserve detailed and comprehensive studies. See e.g. the essays by Paul B. Fenton, “The Symbolism of Ritual Circumambulation in Judaism and Islam”, The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 6 (1997): 345–369; “Devotional Rites in a Sufi Mode”, in Judaism in Practice, from the Middle Ages to the Early Modern Period, ed. L. Fine (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001), 364–374.

The Construction of a Liturgical-Mystical Discipline

175

layers, in the form of ‘effects of meaning’ resonating in the minds of kabbalistically-trained communities. To be sure, students of religion must be doubtful, and always behave with great caution, as concerns issues of psychology. It is evident that for ‘etic’ observers it shall be very difficult to fathom the mental or emotional processes experienced by mystical worshippers. On the other hand, scholars can attempt to make assumptions on the socio-psychological reverberations of determined semiotic, ideological and practical postures, even when looking ‘from outside’. Thus, having established that the theosophical Kabbalah largely developed its system of symbolical images on the ground of traditional practices and then returned in this new light to the system of ritual activities, one is authorized to formulate hypotheses about the changes that this biunivocal movement might have provoked in the collective consciousness of the communities led by kabbalists. In order to delve into this issue, I shall first briefly recall some general traits of the kabbalistic semiotic concern on rituals, resorting to grids used in current anthropological and sociological research.131 It has been argued that rituality differs from ordinary action not only because of its ‘apartness’ (being distinct from the routine), but also for its ‘scriptedness’ (since it prescribes in advance “a particular sequential ordering of acts, utterances and events”).132 Liturgical patterns have been described as encoded systems of ritual scripts (“meta-orders, or orders of orders”133). I have suggested before that the kabbalistic tradition infused further scripts full of ­significance into the already paroxysmal ritual life fixed by the halakhic corpus, generating semiotic areas of even higher level and practical arenas featured by extremely concentrated and disciplined behavior.134 In effect, its 131

I shall in fact leave aside any ambition to deal directly with aspects that are more focused on in classical psychological or psychoanalytic literature. On the difficulty in penetrating the “psychological process implied by kabbalistic kavvanah”, see the frank “confession” by Idel, “Kabbalistic Prayer and Colors”, 20. 132 See Pascal Boyer, “Cognitive Aspects of Religious Symbolism”, in P. Boyer (ed.), Cognitive Aspects of Religious Symbolism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 38, reflecting on the anthropological studies of B. Kapferer. 133 Rappaport, Ritual and Religion, 263. 134 This is indeed a common cultural phenomenon, to be found not only in religious movements. See Lotman’s famous portrait of the “semiotization of ordinary behavior” accomplished in 18th-century Russian culture by some groups (e.g. the Decembrists), which tended to construct a form of life where all gestures were codified, significant and relevant, so creating a peculiarly intense and recognizable “behavioral style”. Here we read: “The introduction of new forms of behavior and the semiotic intensification of old forms can testify to a specific change in the type of culture”; the latter process thus consists “in the semiotic intensification of existing forms, in particular, by increasing their symbolic

176

Chapter 4

theosophical ­semiotics seems to disclose forms of order and sense both in the extension of the encoded scripts (thus, unfolding further ritualization), and in the intension of them (thus, increasing trust in the significance, coherence and directionality of that rituality). Scriptedness and orderliness are clearly bound to broader ‘connectiveness’. In a scripted reality, any element is interrelated with extreme precision to the others. Along this inquiry, we have often observed that ‘order’ implies ‘interconnectedness’, and we have met several kinds of correlations. In chap. 1, we have mainly dealt with the textual connections detected by the kabbalistic hermeneutics in the primary canonic codes (however, we noted an immediate passage from correlations in the textual network to correlations in the existential domain). Chap. 2 has analyzed the cosmic connections envisioned by the kabbalists, and their imagery of an enchanted world made of “chains”, “links”, “knots” tying the multiple layers of reality. Chap. 3 has examined the emphasis on specific connections in ritual, especially in its syntactic and temporal patterns. The present chapter focuses on the social connections that characterize the community of Israel and its cultic system. At all levels, we can discern a tendency to fortify the perception of analogy and connectiveness, and the feeling that all correlations somehow converge in and depend on Jewish ritual praxis. A logical consequence of these traits was an increase in the ‘performativeness’ attributed to the people of Israel – more precisely, the insight of a formidable ‘power’ achieved thanks to their pietistic behavior. Employing the terms of anthropological research, one may say that the kabbalists viewed the halakhic orthopraxis as a collective building process of the human being (‘anthropopoiesis’), bringing the latter to perfect self-cultivation and self-configuration.135 Thus, the ‘textualization’ and ‘semiotization’ of the ‘Jewish body’ through ritual, did not only coincide with a ‘nomicization’ and ‘judaification’ of the Israelites, but endowed them with an exceptional force. The ­kabbalists,

135

character” (Lotman – Uspenskij, “On the Semiotic Mechanism”, 111–112; see also Lotman’s essays “The Poetics of Everyday Behavior” and “The Decembrist in Everyday Life”). In a general inquiry, John Skorupsky has spoken of operative languages found in diverse social contexts, which complicate the main “interaction-code behavior”, and give rise to special “interaction ceremonies” within that overall pattern: see his Symbol and Theory: A Philosophical Study of Theories of Religion (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976), chap. 6. On “anthropopoiesis”, the cultural drive to make humanity, or the perfect human being, see Francesco Remotti, “Thèses pour une perspective anthropopoietique”, in La fabrication de l’humain dans les cultures et en anthropologie, eds. C. Calame – M. Kilani (Lausanne: Payot, 1999), 15–31.

The Construction of a Liturgical-Mystical Discipline

177

evidently, took the anthropopoetic project based on Jewish ritualism to a further level.136 As the cultic orders connect to further supernal orders, the ritual performer is able to enter the channels of the same divine manifestation.137 This ensures a transformation of the human being into a supernal form (‘apotheosis’, ‘theomorfosis’); further, it enables him to determine the cosmic and the intra-divine orders (‘cosmopoiesis’, ‘theopoiesis).138 Since this building process concerned the single (male) Jew, but even more the collective (male) Jewish assembly,139 an increase of ‘cohesiveness’ obviously had to be generated. Employing Mary Douglas’ terms, one may say that the people of Israel appear to the kabbalists as a unique “collective personality”, where the “physical body” of each individual is embedded into the “social body”.140 By no chance, in the (highly ethnocentric and particularistic) mythical discourse proposed by them, the main protagonist is the body of Israel operating as one social actor and performing its common ritual life.141 It is within a compact social ensemble, involved in the same structured and 136

See Garb, Manifestations; Koch, Human Self-Perfection. The latter study deals with some aspects of this process as it unfolds in the 16th-century kabbalistic ethical literature. 137 See chap. 2, around n. 70. 138 Let me here just recall the classical formulation in Giqatilla’s works: “How great is the power of man... [as he fulfills the commandments in all their dimensions]!” (see e.g. chap. 2, n. 100). On these “ergetic aspects”, relying on the power of human action, see also the remarks by Idel in his aforementioned works. 139 On the ethnocentric-androcentric stance of the kabbalists, see in part. Wolfson, Venturing Beyond, 80ff. 140 See Mary Douglas, Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology (New York: Routledge, 1996), in part. chaps. 3–4. At least in the ideal situation, the Jewish “social body” (Society) is said to function as a “cosmic body” (Nature), linking heaven and earth – at once, microcosm and mesocosm. In several works, Mary Douglas worked precisely on the links between “the two bodies”, looking either at the categorical-symbolical systems that arrange human experience, or at the social structures that arrange roles and behaviors (many of her studies, from Purity and Danger to Leviticus as Literature, took the biblical literature as a main field of experiment). In Natural Symbols, in particular, she focused on the general proportionality between social control of individuals and formalization of the rules of action (both in cosmos and society). One may say that in Jewish mysticism all these factors rank very high. 141 The “social body” plays a crucial role in the anthropo-cosmic imagery of many traditional cultures – as has been demonstrated by anthropological research (Lévi-Strauss, etc.), history of religions (Eliade, etc.), and inquiries into medieval Christian culture (Le Goff, etc.). As to the latter field, let us just recall the imagery of the Church as a “mystical body”, or as societas perfecta endowed with a cosmic role. Of course, in the emic views, the power of those ‘bodies’ goes much beyond that of a social mechanism generating “collective representations” and “psychic forces” (as in Durkheim’s sociology of knowledge): their collective acts would ensure not only a reintegration of society (moral solidarity, etc.), but also a reconstitution of the cosmos (universal mending, etc.).

178

Chapter 4

oriented activity system, that the single worshipper attains the same supreme goals.142 In effect, the theosophical Kabbalah conceives human beings as an extension of the divine, capable of transforming themselves into a “chariot for the Shekhinah” or mending the supernal realm, especially insofar as they form a cohesive whole of Jews engaged in community service.143 These grids – ‘scriptedness’ and ‘connectiveness’, ‘performativeness’ and ‘cohesiveness’ – allow to explain in another way the extraordinary level of sense, order and intensity provided to the community ritual conduct by the kabbalistic semiotics. A major outcome of the latter is that – as the congregation of Israel fulfills its deeds according to the canonic and the most secret scripts, in integrity and synchronicity – that ‘social body’ becomes a unitary ‘textual body’, and a perfect ‘performative body’, so that its coordinated ritual language is capable of creating mighty events and tremendous experiences.144 An organic system, it does not only mirror the ontic texture of the universe, but also constitutes the agency of power that sustains it (through “pipes”, “pillars”, etc.). A dynamic energetic relationship thus arises between nomos, etos, and cosmos: as the Jewish community observes the law and cult, each of its minute acts resonates into the chains of the universe and put all layers into order. It is likely that such reshaping of the communal worship had significant effects on the cognitive and emotional spheres of Jewish practitioners. I presume, in effect, that the semiotic enterprise of the theosophical kabbalists accomplished a potent ‘psychic reinforcement’ of the communitas. The latter term has been used by Victor Turner in relation to special groups of individuals involved in “rites of passages”, which share a strong “social cohesion” and undergo a “numinous experience” exactly because of their condition of “liminality”.145 Yet, the literature under investigation here rather refers to the entire assembly performing regular forms of congregational service, and participating as a whole to a cogent and disciplined mystical journey.146 142 143

144 145 146

See above, notes 112ff. In this perspective, I believe that our texts seem to know little of the inception of the self, and the very notion of the self, that characterize the modern age. One should also note that 16th-century kabbalistic texts consider self-perfection as a process of self-annihilation (on this aspect, I agree with Fishbane’s “A Chariot for the Shekhinah”). See Mopsik, Les grands textes, 112–113; Idel, “The Performing Body”. It is no coincidence that Victor Turner has tended to oppose “structure” to “communitas”: see his The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 1969), 97. This phenomenon can be associated to certain social mechanisms studied by Durkheim: see below, n. 155.

The Construction of a Liturgical-Mystical Discipline

179

In this case, it can be supposed that the positive feelings matching mystical experiences derived not so much from the (vague and substantially passive) perception of the ‘mysterious’ or the ‘numinous’ by a few individuals, but rather from the active engagement in a focused art on the part of the entire community (at least ideally involved in its integrity). Arguably, an intense participation in liturgical-mystical communal sequels – encompassing shared knowledge of the scripts, synchronic coordinated activity, insight into the texture of connections, feeling of high performativity – could spark in the worshippers both a state of mind of religious fervor and a collective sentiment of “enthusiasm”.147 From an etic viewpoint, the rabbinic orthopraxis, and to a greater extent the kabbalistic one, may appear as a phenomenon of ‘collective neurosis’. It has been demonstrated that liturgies on themselves create a shared psychic space, and that repetitive rituals and obsessive ceremonies are able to strengthen the identity boundaries of a given community, its social bond, and its collective memory. On the one hand, they rest on trust in the social constructs that also craft traditional imagery and discourse; on the other hand, they sustain in turn those very constructs, rendering individuals zealous participants to socially shared values. This means that the disciplined application of ritual techniques does not only draw from a constituted imagined order (or ideology), but has feedback effects that validate the entire system. Of course, this function may be judged variously, either in its positive aspects (as a major source of individual balance and social stability and solidarity148), or in its negative aspects (as an essential factor in the building of a close, rigid, burdensome, exclusivistic identity149). From the emic viewpoint of rabbis and kabbalists, at any rate, the evaluation is univocal. They have no reservations about the “joke of the law”, and its pervasive penetration and homologation of individual lives and collective practices. The nomian labor is viewed as the basic condition of personal wellbeing, social harmony, and even cosmic order. We have seen how the kabbalists typically warn against any negligence or disregard of traditional injunctions, and at the same time sanctify and exalt their scrupulous observance. The practitioners 147 148 149

The latter word from Greek, as known, literally points to an intense excited piety based on the perception of embodying the divine. The psychologist David DeSteno has recently stated that “ritualistic actions […] produce effects on the mind ranging from increased self-control to greater feelings of affiliation and empathy” (New York Times, 1 Feb. 2019). See the famous “sociological” reflections of Franz Rosenzweig in the third part of his The Star of Redemption.

180

Chapter 4

can be confident that their technical mastery and pious action will enable them collectively to enter the semiotics of the sacred and to come into contact with the supreme holy orders. Reviving a classical exhortative formulation in dozens of variants, kabbalistic authors untiringly relate to the “happiness” and “beatitude” that supposedly derive from a complete fulfillment of the halakhic precepts. Thus, especially in Castilian sources, one reads statements such as: “Happy is the one who puts on tefillin and knows their [hidden] purpose!”, or “Happy is the one who hastens to the synagogue ascending to the higher rang!”.150 If the collective aspect of the ritual is here implicit, in other cases it is manifest: thus, “happy” shall be the community driven by an expert service leader, “woe to” the congregation that lacks him!151 It is interesting to observe how Ibn Gabbay declines this view commenting on the daily morning liturgy, in accordance – here again – with the ordering mentality that has become familiar to us: Happy is the one who knows the ways of His creator and is able to follow them in the right manner, and arranges (mesadder) the praise of God fittingly; while the one who does not know how to arrange the praise of God, it would be better if he had never been born, woe to him!152 Analogously, in the commentary on the morning Shabbat liturgy, we read: Happy is the one who completes his weekly portion in the proper manner, tuning with the divisions fixed in the supernal spheres!153 This literature likes to cite and comment on the biblical verse: “Happy is the people that know the joyful note” (Ps 89:16), understood as it were “Happy are those who know how to blow the shofar”.154 150 151 152 153

154

See e.g. Zohar I, 129a; II, 131a-b; III, 126a. Such formulations are particularly emblematic of the ‘enthusiastic’ language characterizing Zoharic literature. See above, around notes 87ff. TY, f. 19d. Ibid., f. 27b. Some lines below one finds the following sentence: “It is forbidden to confound the weekly portions, disarranging so much as a word or letter, thereby causing the Chariots to overlap” (see Ginsburg, Sod ha-Shabbat, 49, and the pertinent editorial notes, explaining in detail Ibn Gabbay’s view and his reuse of the Zohar). Both Ibn Gabbay and Elbaz dwell on the essential need for a precise knowledge of “the secret of the shofar blowing”, in the wake of the Zohar (III, 231b): see TY, f. 35b; HQ, 294. Already the rabbinic tradition associated the Psalm verse to the blowing ritual on the New Year festival, and commanded to recite it during the festival, immediately after the shofar was blown.

The Construction of a Liturgical-Mystical Discipline

181

In sum, our inquiry appears to question the classical scholarly association between “effervescent” or “paranormal experiences” (also of mystical kind) and ritual assemblages far removed from the ordinary conditions of life (initiation rites, festive dances, orgiastic celebrations, etc.).155 In the kabbalistic culture analyzed here, abnormal states of consciousness bound to a mood of excitement and sublimity might have rather accompanied the ordinary, cyclic, statutory rituals enacted by the entire congregation (albeit internally articulated). If the rhythmic ritualistic life prescribed by the Jewish law could already give the participants a feeling of inner cohesion and power, the kabbalistic translation of them into an organic mystical discipline might entail even stronger phenomena of entrainment, interconnection, perception of unity and mighty, enjoyment. In this context, discipline (surplus of order) did not mean only social control, but also integration (surplus of sense and intensity) – ensuring an increase of community self-identity and cohesion in the fervent application of the encoded social behavior. 2.4 Reflections on Socio-Cultural Functions The former picture may explain some of the broader socio-cultural functions fulfilled by the theosophical Kabbalah along its centuries-long history. We must however ask ourselves whether specific traits characterized some of its streams, and whether – in particular – the kabbalistic subsystem examined here could carry out a peculiar socio-cultural task, bound to the historical turn experienced by the Sephardi diaspora. Semiotics of culture teaches us, in effect, to look at recurrent structures and long-term schemas without neglecting dynamics, developments, or changes.156 From this perspective, our commentaries seem to be good textual fields to verify the relationship between the semiotic work of a stable culture and the mutable historical and experiential contexts in which that work takes place. 155

156

See Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (New York: The Free Press, 1995), 217ff., 228, besides Turner’s insight quoted above, n. 145. To be sure, Durkheim suggested that “effervescence” might also characterize large assembled groups involved in periodic sacred rituals, giving light to a “regulated commotion”. In his perspective, as known, religion has the “function” of strengthening “collective consciousness”, “social integration”, “mechanical solidarity”: logically, the regular fulfilment of institutional ritual deeds plays a central role in this production of order, discipline and cohesion (see e.g. ibid., 419ff.). See below, Final Remarks, n. 29. As I shall try to argue, all efforts to combine structuralism and contextualism should take into account the different “temporalities” crossing culture. Besides the basic permanent structures (and the steady temporal grids), it is important to trace the slow variations and shifts in the long-durée, as well as more rapid discontinuities and fractures, usually determined by historical events or intercultural collisions.

182

Chapter 4

A major function of culture, as well known, is giving sense to human practice.157 Especially in some epochs, under the pressure of certain conditions, a renewal of sense is required; strategies of re-signification are therefore put in place to explain, support and endow with further meaning the traditional canons or forms of life.158 This is particularly true for ritualistic cultures, whose frequent liturgies – encoded and conventionalized – can become almost automatic or lacking sense, or risk getting lost in the aftermath of dramatic historical vicissitudes. In such circumstances, intellectual environments feel the need to activate a semiotic work on rituals, in particular religious ceremonies, in order to revitalize them. Culture tends to reshape cult. It has emerged from different research areas that, quite often, mystical currents take on themselves the socio-cultural function of operating a “de-automatization” of habitual cultic structures, thus enabling a gain in intensity and richness.159 Contrasting the sclerotization or the mechanic reiteration of standard formulas and fixed gestures, their semiotics seeks to enlarge the semantics of ritual language, by revivifying each parcel and sequence of the ritual orders. Kabbalah certainly played this crucial role in medieval Judaism. To use the terms proposed in this inquiry: rather than being the outcome of an autonomous speculative project, it functioned as a cultural and discursive practice completely merged in the Jewish semiosphere; it aimed at disclosing meaning in earlier Jewish bodies of knowledge and capturing meaning in the Jewish everyday cultic life. Its complex semiotic work – interweaving exegesis and cosmology, theosophy and myth, philosophy and theology, ritualism and mysticism – was in effect largely addressed to revive the rabbinic lore and especially to de-automatize, legitimate and enhance the halakhic conduct. I presume that some correlation exists between the frequency of rituals featuring rabbinic Judaism and the cultural reinforcement accomplished by the kabbalistic semiotics. Insofar as the latter would succeed in loading with sense the pervasive and recurrent rituals of the former (a mission more difficult than in the case of exceptional rituals or closed-group ceremonies), the entire traditional culture of the Jewish communities could be lived with renewed firmness and commitment. Doubtlessly, to borrow Lotman’s formulation, the “semiotic 157 158 159

For an earlier and broader discussion of the issue here succinctly exposed, see Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, 307ff. On the “webs of significance” continuously generated by cultures, see Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973). See e.g. the psychiatric approach to mysticism by A.J. Deikman. Already Georg Simmel took into account the “danger” of social “forms” that threaten to “tighten up” life, and therefore need to regain meaningfulness and be constantly re-appropriated by the ­subjects.

The Construction of a Liturgical-Mystical Discipline

183

intensification of old forms” carried out by the kabbalists operated a “specific change” in the history of rabbinic culture, and in its (otherwise substantially invariant) form of life. The extensive segment of kabbalistic culture focused on by us – the one that, along the 16th century, disseminated the medieval Sephardi Kabbalah throughout early modern Europe and the Mediterranean – surely prolonged those features and tasks. Yet, it also had distinctive socio-cultural functions. Historians have carefully studied the capital importance of the Sephardi diaspora, showing how those exiled Jewish groups quite rapidly became socio-political centers of force within the broader society of their settlement, and how their elites soon acquired a higher status and a leading role at economic, social and intellectual levels (as first-rate religious leaders, they created social institutions, established educational centers, supported the printing of manuscripts, etc.).160 They were also able to create a thick network between very distant regions, based on trading and family relationships, but also on cultural interactions and exchange of knowledge and written materials. Scholars have also speculated on some socio-psychological traits of those Spanish and Portuguese sages. They paradoxically succeeded in feeling at home in the diasporic situation.161 Indeed, they had a strong perception of their cultural identity, a proud awareness of the greatness of their legacy, and even a sense of superiority in the confrontation with other Jewish traditions.162 Taken this background

160

161

162

See Joseph Hacker, “Jews in the Ottoman Empire (1580–1839)”, in The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. VII, eds. J. Karp – A. Sutcliffe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 831–863 (besides his other studies already mentioned before); Yaron Ben-Naeh, “The Jewish Confraternities in the Ottoman Empire in the 17th and 18th Centuries”, Zion 63,3 (1998): 277–317 (Hebrew). See Yosef H. Yerushalmi, “Exile and Expulsion in Jewish History”, in Crisis and Creativity in the Sephardic World: 1391–1648, ed. B.R. Gampel (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), 3–22. This is consonant with the general lack of apocalyptic messianism in the works of authors such as Abraham Adrutiel, Yosef Alashqar, Yehudah Hallewah, Meir ibn Gabbay, Dawid ibn Zimra. Let me here recall that a major revision of the Scholemian approach by Moshe Idel (and the later generations of scholars) has concerned precisely the direct univocal nexus established by Scholem (and his followers) between the traumatic historical events occurred in Spain and the arousal of particular eschatological speculations or a special messianic ferment in the main stream of post-expulsion Sephardi Kabbalah: see in part. Moshe Idel, Messianic Mystics (New Haven – London: Yale University Press 1998), 134–136, 153; idem, “Spanish Kabbalah after the Expulsion”, 170–171. Cf. Jonathan S. Ray, After Expulsion: 1492 and the Making of Sephardic Jewry (New York – London: New York University Press, 2013), 80ff., 162; Weinstein, Kabbalah and Jewish Modernity, 142ff., which finely describes the “distinctive group identity” featuring the Sephardi diaspora, its “battle for hegemony”, and its gradual achievement of a “dominant

184

Chapter 4

for granted, it may be worthwhile to reason on the motives and effects of these postures, especially for what concerns the kabbalistic elite. Many of those Sephardi wandering refugees, as emerged in the first chapter, brought with them a cultural legacy considered authoritative and sacred, especially gravitating around the esoteric textual repertoire, made of magmatic materials, known as the Zohar. This body of knowledge did not only constitute the core of their self-identity, but dictated a missionary attitude oriented at preserving and ensuring continuity to such heritage. On the one hand, the intellectuals responded to the need of headless and dispersed Sephardi groups, fearing a dramatic loss of their tradition. On the other hand, they were appreciated and urged by foreign environments that yearned to know more of their “sacred” wisdom. As has been brilliantly reformulated by B. Huss, those kabbalists were deeply conscious of the “cultural capital” represented by the Zohar: they strove to impose it on the cultural arenas, and succeeded in gaining cultural dominance through this activity.163 We have seen that a pressing request for cultural memory brought many of them, either emigrated or autochthonous, to pursue an activity of recollection, selection and reorganization of Zoharic materials, through ‘anthological’ or ‘encyclopedic’ writings – literary products that operated a re-signification of the canonic lore in the light of the secret wisdom transmitted in Spain and in turn ‘canonized’ in the former decades. This textual production was partly composed of ‘performative’ texts with immediate pragmatic goals, intended to remodel the cultic and social habits of the readers.164 Thus, the two emblematic sources mainly discussed above, are at once anthological commentaries and behavioral manuals.165 They aim at translating the old standard prayer order into a more aware, disciplined and refined path – mainly under the guidance of the “holy Zohar”, which supposedly allows to link the cultic orders to further supernal orders. Addressed primarily to the service leader, responsible of driving the congregation into the secrets of the service, these compendia

163 164 165

position” in the Jewish world. See also the collected essays in Haim Beinart (ed.), Moreshet Sepharad – The Sephardi Legacy (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1997). See the words cited in chap. 1, around n. 71. His monograph on the impact and reception of the Zohar makes an extensive and interesting application of Bourdieu’s grids (see e.g. Huss, The Zohar, 5–7, 108–109). For the influence of kabbalistic stances on the order of prayer of Moroccan Jewish communities, see Hallamish, Studies in Kabbalah, chap. 23, which also examines Moshe Elbaz’s work and its attempt to revisit the prayer service (see ibid., 360–363). I recognize the useful heuristic value of Lotman’s strong distinction between “book” (typical of text-oriented cultures) and “handbook” (typical of grammar-oriented cultures, imposing modes of behavior through codes and rules). Yet, our literary products seem to defy such a strict separation.

The Construction of a Liturgical-Mystical Discipline

185

however divulge (most of) the secret wisdom to the entire community, which should participate as a whole to the illuminated worship. That literary corpus could not but be a highly ‘conservative’ one. Its primary task was not to provide new and original ideas, but to rearrange and divulge older ones.166 At the very same time, this conservative enterprise surely had a refreshing impact. We have observed before various levels of this conservative renewal (or reinforcement). A major outcome was the merging of Kabbalah and Halakhah. For a long time, interpretations and instructions stemming from the theosophical Kabbalah had been adopted in the mainstream practical lore (made of moral-pedagogical instructions, normative responsa, and halakhic codes), as much as ritual habits fixed or highlighted by small kabbalistic groups, and originally performed only within closed circles, spread over and were assimilated by larger communities.167 By the early 16th century, however, this process had a strong acceleration, and the overlapping of kabbalistic secrets and halakhic rules of conduct reached an unprecedented peak.168 This was due to a great extent to the Spanish exiles’ endeavor to employ and divulge the Zohar as an authoritative source in law and custom.169

166

167 168

169

In recent years, scholars have discussed the alleged “degradation” and “decline” of Spanish Jewry during the 14th-15th centuries (as pictured first in the pioneering research by Y. Baer). They have pointed to the evidence of a cultural ferment, concerning for instance Talmudic studies, philosophy, polemics, or the sermonic activity (see e.g. the works by C. Horowitz, M. Saperstein, M.D. Meyerson, E. Lawee). Nonetheless they could not help but notice scarcely creative developments in Kabbalah – see e.g. Eric Lawee, “Sephardic Intellectuals: Challenges and Creativity (1391–1492)”, in The Jew in Medieval Iberia, 1100–1500, ed. J. Ray (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2012), 377 – especially if compared to the phenomena of “accelerated creativity” (Idel) characterizing the early stages of Kabbalah until 1300 circa. Despite the appearance of some peculiar instances (for example, in the circle of Sefer ha-meshiv), it is difficult to trace truly original elements or turning points. At any rate, as has clearly emerged in chap. 1, the theosophical literature of the Sephardi refugees stands out for the express attempt to preserve an earlier authoritative tradition through collecting strategies, and to counteract a loss in memory and knowledge. See above, around notes 32ff. Of course, this kind of penetration was neither univocal nor easy, at times it provoked overt opposition or implicit resistance by other elites, and especially some kabbalistic stances elicited controversies: see e.g. Meir Benayahu, “The Controversy between Kabbalah and Halakhah”, Da‘at 5 (1980): 115–161 (Hebrew) (focusing on Italy); Katz, “Halakhah and Kabbalah as Competing Disciplines”; Huss, The Zohar, 138–139, 142, 146–147. Interestingly, however, the (more sporadic) kabbalistic currents that inclined towards anomian or antinomian views, universalistic attitudes, or messianic expectations, aroused broader clashes and crises within the Jewish environments – which did not occur with the more nomistic and particularistic types of Kabbalah. As Huss has put it, “reliance on the Zohar regarding halakhic matters […] further contributed to the strengthening of Spanish Jewish cultural dominance. […] The book […]

186

Chapter 4

Other salient processes were much increased in the context of the Expulsion and the move toward east of the Sephardi culture. Among them, it is important to underline the propagation and popularization of the kabbalistic lore and the formation of kabbalistically-oriented micro-societies throughout the Jewish world. Recent studies have talked of the rise of “Zoharic communities”.170 As the Sephardi diaspora won the battle for cultural hegemony, and kabbalistic sages acquired a leading socio-institutional role, numerous Jewish groups started to pursue a cultic-mystical path in the wake of the Zohar (evidently, the “holy Zohar” had become not only a kind of textual refuge with a sacred aura, but also the core of a social religious life indipendent from historical and geographical circumstances). Indeed, although active in very distant sites, those sages brought about an analogous reworking of ritual patterns, which involved larger communities or smaller confraternities. The commentaries on prayer analyzed above, for example, became in a few decades influential not only on vast North-African and Ottoman Jewish areas, but even beyond, as is testified by the evidence that both of them reached Yemen and East European countries. In these contexts, some of the general effects of the kabbalistic semiotics pictured above became especially relevant. I surmise, in particular, that an increase in scriptedness and cohesiveness occurred, linked to phenomena such as a broader ritualization of life (for the Kabbalah dictated new styles of conduct and extended the domain of mystical piety), the production of a more directional ritual-mystical path built on deep syntactic patterns and rhythmic sequences, or the rising of a more disciplined collective behavior. Addressing the needs of shattered communities, deprived of a strong group identity, the Sephardi kabbalistic leaders could supply order and meaning, cultural memory and cultural identity, providing guidance to a renewed and rearranged

170

became a tool for the exiled sages to establish the Iberian customs and laws as authoritative in the communities where they settled” (The Zohar, 136). Recovering the grids employed by B. Stock in his study of medieval Christian groups, Huss has described the 16th-century Jewish Palestine as made of “textual communities” gravitating around the Zohar, the authoritative book that shaped their ideology, social structure and lifestyle (see Huss, “Sefer ha-Zohar as a Canonical”, 294). Accordingly, the various circles of Safedian kabbalists (both Lurianic and Cordoverian) may be all called “Zoharic communities”, despite the differences among them (see idem, “The Zoharic Communities”). In fact, the formation of congregations following a liturgical-mystical way of life imprinted by the Zohar occurred not only in Safed, but in numerous places marked by the arrival and settlement of Spanish immigrants, although probably only the Lurianic Kabbalah went so far as to suggest an explicit mystical “identification” with the earlier group guided by R. Shimon bar Yoḥai.

The Construction of a Liturgical-Mystical Discipline

187

communal life.171 No wonder their teachings and binding customs extracted from the Zoharic literature found broader receptivity among the Jews of the Mediterranean countries, and later gradually even in Ashkenazi areas. It seems that many were eager to receive kabbalistic education and to become part of Zoharic-inspired ensembles.172 Probably no less important were the effects at a psychological level, especially in terms of ‘perception of performativeness’. Reviewed in the light of theosophical-theurgical maps and transformed in an oriented setting of mystical techniques, the system of ritual activities codified by tradition appeared to achieve a tremendous efficacy – above all when fulfilled through an integral and collective participation. Therefore, the communities trained by those kabbalistic leaders were not only engaged in disciplined and synchronic experiential paths, involving all dimensions and requesting sustained concentration; they were also subjected to profound cognitive and emotive transformations, related first of all to the sentiment of sharing a powerful activity system. In turn, the collective “effervescence” produced by the kabbalistic reshaping of the standard ritual life certainly contributed to strengthen the social bond, to promote religious fervor and zeal, to produce representations of contact or unity with the divine, to stimulate feelings of cosmic power.173 In conclusion, the approach of cultural semiotics might not only discern the structural lines of a long-term cultural phenomenon like the theosophical Kabbalah, but might also help to understand the specific features and functions of the latter at the turn of the 16th century. Protracted processes had invested (and partly destabilized) the socio-cultural system of the Iberian Jewry, as much as abrupt historical events had provoked dramatic fractures within it. All this produced reactions of different types. A major counteraction was certainly 171

172 173

Thus, to take another example, Sefer Ṣafenat paʿaneaḥ by Yehudah Hallewah was intended to guide the inhabitants of Safed to righteous behavior “by emphasizing its consequences in the life to come”: Moshe Idel, “The Kabbalah in Morocco: a Survey”, in Jews and Art in a Muslim Land, ed. V.B. Mann (New York: Merell, 2000), 115. About the socio-cultural request of a renewed “order of conduct” made by closed fraternities, see Bar-Levav, “Ritualisation”, 75, 82. Scholars have often suggested some nexus between the historical lack of power experienced by the Jews and the ideological tendency to endow their own action with an enormous performativity – a phenomenon that apparently surfaced in the early modern age. However, the perception of a cosmic, and even theurgic, power of Israel was already vivid and widespread among the early kabbalistic circles, when the Jewish communities were in a relatively stronger and better situation. It seems to me that post-Expulsion literature stands out rather for its inclination to ‘make order’ in discourse and praxis – something that might have surely fostered the tendency to attribute a formidable effectiveness to the ritual life of kabbalistically-trained communities.

188

Chapter 4

implemented by the Sephardi kabbalists, who made great effort – in that turbulent age and despite all vicissitudes – to retrieve, remodel and prolong their cultural world through literary and experiential strategies. Their semiotic work was arguably successful: it revivified the earlier bodies of knowledge, and in particular the Jewish nomian orders, giving dispersed communities a potent centripetal identity around a sacred textual body, and a cohesive communal lifestyle around a sacred ritual language.

Final Remarks

Kabbalistic Orders from the Perspective of Cultural Semiotics 1 The Search for Methodologies Moving between Structure and History When reading the theosophical kabbalistic literature spread in the late medieval Sephardi world, and still influential in Jewish modernity, the first immediate impression is that of a traditional lore permeated by strongly conservative traits, where anthropological constants, underlying structures in thought, language and behavior, steady interpretive-literary models, play a major role. The question that arises is, therefore, what scholarly methodology might be more adequate to study such a cultural production, especially if one strives for a better understanding of the force of those stable characteristics. In the research on Kabbalah, scholars have employed many different methodological approaches, which all present certain advantages and inherent limits. Many studies have focused on a restricted portion of history or textuality, examining single authors and texts by means of classical critical tools (historical-philological), or more recent perspectives in literary and humanistic studies. Quite often, they have looked for novel ways of thinking, writing and living – in the effort, more or less conscious, to draw out the image of a prominent Authorship or the indicators of a new Zeitgeist, with significant marks of originality. The obvious risk of such approaches is to produce isolated portraits of figures and texts, or at best of specific circles or contexts, losing sight of the broader landscape, the shared roots and the longer threads that constitute the horizon of them all. In the case of cultural subsets where permanent cognitive-behavioral collective schemas occupy a place of primary importance, that risk seems to become even greater. No doubt, the study of the Sephardi theosophical Kabbalah – just as of any other cultural segment – requires targeted analyses of single moments, individuals and literary materials (often still in need of close historical-philological investigations), yet it cannot do without a large-scale analysis on structures and recurrences, regular features and interconnections.1 Especially the discourses produced after the creative early 1 In contexts of this kind, also the (obviously useful) scholarly attempts to illustrate sources and developments of a specific motif within a cultural stream, in accordance with some © Maurizio Mottolese, 2022 | DOI:10.1163/9789004499003_007

190

Final Remarks

phases exhibit many common traits, as well as a lower degree of originality in exegetical imagination, in literary expression, and in practical instruction. The focus on single personalities, separated textual segments, ground-breaking changes, might be a necessary but not sufficient condition to comprehend those discourses. As one evokes anthropological deep structures or constants, the question that immediately arises is at what layer they lie. First of all, one is called to assess whether they should be seen as universal characteristics or rather as relating to distinct cultures. Here I cannot examine such a matter in detail, because it would require broader theoretical considerations and a multilayered discussion. Let me however notice that a perusal of our cultural subset, usually associated to a kind of mysticism, ends up questioning the views that – on the basis of theological, philosophical, phenomenological or spiritual assumptions – lead to emphasize the general properties of mystical thought, drastically minimizing the relevance of cultural differences and historical shifts, and even looking for an alleged essential and universal core. It is the case of the scholars who argue for a “natural mysticism”, a “transcultural mysticism”, or a “mysticism of the pure consciousness”, assuming that an immutable mystical core, flowing from the same ideational pattern and driving to akin existential experiences, is shared by all human cultures. Here mysticism tends to appear as a stage of religious thought where both logical distinctions and traditional boundaries are blurred and overcome in the effort of human beings to attain the Infinite or the Oneness, despite all its transcendence and indeterminacy.2 It is also the case of a recent (but not new) version of the universalistic paradigm that has spread within academia, and especially outside, which holds the sort of history of ideas, or to trace exchanges or discussions with closer cultural segments in accordance with some form of historical or thematic comparativism, appear to be insufficient. 2 See Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, in part. 24ff. In this light, mysticism is perceived as the very antagonist of imaginative or nomian traditional languages. While ritualistic forms of life, or mythopoetic forms of discourse, are anchored to codes, structures and constrains in imagination, behavior or experience, the mystical merging of the individual into the One beyond-all-determinations supposedly ventures beyond all cultural strictures. In my opinion, these views are culturally-marked on their own, being related to specific theological beliefs or metaphysical concepts, and consequently risk producing biases towards all religious discourses that seem to diverge from their ideological picture (thus, for instance, they often underline the alleged closeness of mysticism to the theological via negativa, with its effort to reach the divine through apophatic ways, assuming a more or less explicit critical attitude towards positive language, especially anthropomorphic language, and its cataphatic attempts).

Kabbalistic Orders from the Perspective of Cultural Semiotics

191

Kabbalah as a uniform lore and treats it as the archetype of a perennial kind of mysticism. Here mysticism is understood as a generic path of inner spirituality and meditation that helps individuals achieve psychic well-being and a feeling of cosmic harmony.3 In the light of the former inquiry (and many others of course), the theosophical Kabbalah rather emerges as a nomistic, ritualistic, particularistic culture, where specific imaginative and performative schemas play a central role. As such, it appears different, and in many aspects sharply different, from other typologies of culture associated to “mysticism”.4 This is not intended to deny that certain patterns of socio-biological origins usually related to “religion”, might characterize many different cultures, and might be even assumed as very general structures of human thought, expression or experience.5 Examining texts from the Sephardi tradition along this 3 This ‘spiritualist’ model, characterizing the so-called New Age, shares some traits with the universalistic stances mentioned before, although it is less bound to a theoretical doctrine and more oriented toward a practical form of life, which is supposedly able to satisfy basic existential and psychological needs. Here again, mysticism is perceived as surpassing the boundaries of cultural spheres, and first of all the strictures of the pertinent normative and ritual systems. It must be yet noted that, while universalistic theological perspectives are more perplexed as to the kabbalistic tradition (see Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, Introduction, n. 9), in the latter views – picking up from different traditions suggestions and techniques for the “universal spiritual seeker” – the “Kabbalah” represents a main landmark, being conceived as a universal (anomian or anti-nomian) gnosis, infused with the aura of a secret ancient wisdom, yet now more or less open to everyone, and experienced somehow privately: see e.g. Boaz Huss, “The New Age of Kabbalah. Contemporary Kabbalah, the New Age and Postmodern Spirituality”, Journal of Modern Jewish Studies 6,2 (2007): 107–125, and Tomer Persico, “Kabbalah Through the Utilitarian Prism: Contemporary Neo-Kabbalah in Israel as a Form of Consumer Culture”, in Contemporary Alternative Spiritualities in Israel, eds. S. Feraro – J.R. Lewis (Palgrave Macmillan US, 2017), 21–38. 4 In several works, Boaz Huss has not only expressed a strong criticism of the notion of “mysticism” as a universal and perennial phenomenon, but has also rejected the use of the category of “Jewish mysticism” in academic discourse, viewing it as based on theological assumptions as well as on romantic and neoromantic Western perceptions, where mysticism appears as the epitome of religious facts “confined to the private, experiential and subjective realms” (see now Huss, Mystifying Kabbalah). This standing places itself on the path of a deconstruction of terms such as “the sacred” or “religion”, considered as the product of discursive elaboration in modern academic research (see the works of scholars like J.Z. Smith or T. Asad). See my own position on this issue above, chap. 3, n. 132. 5 Various streams in the academic field have in the last decades legitimately continued to search for ‘universals’ in religion (let me just mention the later works by W. Burkert or those produced by the cognitive science of religion). They point to biological structures (e.g. the ethological features of ritual), anthropological structures (e.g. the underlying logic of myth), sociological structures (e.g. the social functions of ritual collective behaviors), psychological structures (e.g. the cognitive need for beliefs in supernatural agents), semiotic structures (e.g.

192

Final Remarks

inquiry, we ourselves have detected elements that could be found also in other traditions commonly associated to “religious mysticism”: the logic of binary oppositions; the effort to reveal secret analogies, symmetries and correlations between earthly and heavenly spheres; the yearning and striving for an encounter and contact with a divine or supernatural reality; the tendency to re-signify and intensify the traditional cultic behavior; the effect of generating ‘effervescent’ or ‘paranormal’ experiences, etc. Notwithstanding, I share the need to emphasize the sociocultural constrains, and therefore the differences among cultures. Some generic aspects shared by “mystical” traditions seem to say little if compared to the great variety of imageries, discourses and practices that appear to diverge immediately as one looks at the means of mystical experience (ritual deeds, mental processes, etc.), its formal contexts (collective liturgies, individual paths, etc.), or its contents (types of visionary or acoustic attainments, imageries of the superhuman realm, etc.). A high degree of morphological variety is evidently found also within a ­single religious culture, which unavoidably encompasses changing contexts on a diachronic level (bound to socio-historical turns and leaps) and diverging contexts on a synchronic level (where a panorama of contemporary streams, schools or circles, is usually crossed by inner competition and conflict for hegemony). Thus, while I believe that the study of a cultural subset requires much attention to patterns and constants, I am also convinced that one should never neglect the inner differentiation, and must instead be sensitive to specific models, typologies and variants. This leads to cast doubts, for example, on any attempt to provide a comprehensive overview of “Judaism”, or even of “Jewish mysticism”, as they would be uniform essences, with the risk of overlooking plural tracks, distinct developments, internal controversies, and so forth.6

the encoded sensory schemes conveying paranormal experiences), and so forth. Yet, these views diverge from the universalistic views described before. Not only do they focus on common formal patterns rather than on shared content expressions. They also tend to see those general structures as deeply ‘culturalized’, therefore articulated and shaped differently in the various ethnic, social and historical environments. See also below, n. 32. 6 M. Idel has vigorously argued against any “monochromatic” picture of the Kabbalah, or any “unilinear” view of its history (see e.g. his Messianic Mystics; Ascensions on High). For a critical discussion of Idel’s methodology, see Elliott R. Wolfson, “Structure, Innovation, and Diremptive Temporality: The Use of Models to Study Continuity and Discontinuity in Kabbalistic Tradition”, Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 6,18 (2007): 143–167 (in this essay, as in other places of his work, Wolfson seeks to overcome from a philosophical viewpoint the distinction between iteration and innovation, recurrent structures and novel interpretations in Kabbalah, even questioning the distinction between conservative and innovative trends; I share his emphasis on the importance of “structures of thought that persist through time”,

Kabbalistic Orders from the Perspective of Cultural Semiotics

193

At any rate, as one focuses on underlying structures that pertain to a given ethnic or social context, one should ask again at what level they lie, and what might be said about their duration. In this perspective, it is important to recall that multiple layers of temporality are found in each cultural setting. A now renowned scholarly stance tends to distinguish in history between long-term phenomena (with minimal variations along millennia or centuries), medium-term phenomena (bound to different epochs or conjunctures), and short-term phenomena (coinciding with events and abrupt shifts). Different historical accounts are clearly produced depending on whether one looks at the very slow variations of the longue-dureé, or at the quick variations of the histoire événementielle.7 The first approach focuses on elements that remain constant over time and constitute structuring forces, although they too can slowly vary in the course of time, being slightly remolded in changing cultural assets. Of course, it is also important to consider how the investigated subjects themselves elaborate different modes of constructing time.8 In some cases, their ‘ideological temporality’ can give priority to long-term patterns (such as those expressed in a mythical history), elsewhere to short-term circumstances (such as events and changes experienced by themselves). With regard to kabbalistic literature, it has been convincingly shown that the historical time (including the events experienced by the authors themselves) was much less important than the mythical time recounted by archaic canonic writings.9 The former remarks are admittedly far from constituting an organic critical discussion of contemporary scholarly or cultural paradigms. They have the sole purpose of highlighting the need for suitable methodological grids when addressing cultural phenomena such as the one investigated in the present inquiry. The late Sephardi theosophical Kabbalah appears as a cultural subset where recurrent structures, lines of continuity, strategies of conservation and organization prevail over traits of discontinuity and creative impulses (even in presence of dramatic socio-historical turns). Certain anthropological constants found within it can undoubtedly be seen as long range phenomena, for they lasted through the ages. Let me just recall the permanent anchoring to a yet I would insist that they should be accurately differentiated and pertinently associated to specific historical-cultural settings). 7 I am obviously referring to the terms employed by the French Annales School of historical writing, which as known – especially since F. Braudel and still with E. Le Roy Ladurie – ­privileged the study of long-term historical structures. 8 On the grounding of time-perception in everyday social practices, and the overlapping of different temporalities within the same culture, see the anthropological studies by N. Munn and A. Gingrich. See also below, n. 29. 9 See Idel, Memento Dei.

194

Final Remarks

traditional system of ritual activities, fixed in daily and festive times, repeated along the generations with small variants; or, the cognitive schemas based on binary contrasts and vertical correlations, which permeated the imagery and the practice of Jewish people since antiquity (for instance, as concerns the right and the left hand). Other patterns surely lasted for centuries, such as certain modes of mapping the divine realm, or certain ways of performing the ritual deeds in accordance with those maps, or certain means of interpreting the canonic codes in the light of those same maps. Also the literary genres employed to express the latter interpretive stances remained very much the same for centuries, as well as their inherent strategies for the maintenance and transmission of collective memory and textuality. In fact, in that broader traditionalistic context, the same literary production seems to resemble a somewhat collective textual flow, where very similar literary pieces return from time to time cited, revisited and readapted in manifold variants.10 In this book we have indeed focused on the primacy of regular patterns at three main layers: in the domain of ritual praxis; as regards the hermeneutic grids and the semantic layers attributed to ritual acts in interpretation; as concerns the literary forms that expressed that interpretive activity (for instance, the theosophical commentaries on prayers and rationales for the precepts). It can be noted that cardinal features in material culture and synchronized behavior usually constitute the “longest” phenomena: normative habits such as cultic bodily practices grant social persistence and social memory throughout history, whether or not accompanied by cognitive processes.11 However, also the forms of order in kabbalistic imagery and interpretation that have been discussed above should be usually related to long-term or ­medium-term temporalities. I am not arguing that the cultural landscape under consideration was frozen and lacking of inner variety and tension: unfolded in a very wide geographical space and in a time of dramatic vicissitudes, it surely was not impermeable to experiences of migration, historical dynamics, or new sociocultural interactions. Neither can one deny that each manuscript possesses a specific physiognomy, in line with the character of its author, having his own way of ‘taking place’ and ‘making choices’ in the flow of tradition.12 Nevertheless, I believe that long-lasting structural vectors had a determinant force and made the Sephardi Kabbalah of those centuries a rather homogeneous cultural configuration, distinct from other ‘Judaisms’ as well as from other ‘major trends 10 11 12

See above, chap. 4, n. 82. See above, chap. 1, n. 63. See above, chap. 1, n. 59.

Kabbalistic Orders from the Perspective of Cultural Semiotics

195

in Jewish mysticism’. Not surprisingly, the literary sources examined above present themselves more as useful collections of an old persistent tradition than as the original expression of a single person (they anthologize and synthetize earlier bodies of knowledge, contain condensed hints at earlier lush narrative accounts, and so forth). It is my opinion that in cases of this kind only an integrated approach, wisely combining the detection of general structures and the inspection of particular discourses, may generate a high-level critical stance. This should seek to trace broader, deeper and long range patterns, showing at the same time how differentiated contexts and texts can give light to distinct customs or peculiar meanings, specific narratives or particular experiences. In fact, various methodological stances have offered a valid contribution in this direction – finely mixing ‘structuralism’ and ‘contextualism’, and avoiding any rigid dichotomy between ‘structure’ and ‘history’ (or ‘discourse’).13 In recent scholarship, interesting combinations between different perspectives have been proposed to study steady vectors without neglecting shifts in cultural formations. Thus, anthropology has continued to confront history (producing different kinds of ‘historical anthropology’), as much as history has often resorted to social sciences (producing various forms of ‘structural history’) – in the awareness that only a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approach can tackle the complexities of a multilayered human reality and its stratified temporality.14 Throughout this book, I have decided to privilege the use of a “semiotics of culture” – by itself an integrated approach15 – and I shall dedicate the next section to elucidate the reasons for such choice. 13

14

15

Such an effort has been pursued by structural anthropology itself, attempting to clarify the relationship between langue and parole, general rules and singular discourses (for instance, between the “mythemes” and the “mythical actors” at stake in concrete narrative constructions, or between the permanent “kinemes” and the “gestures” found in changing cultural contexts). Of course, much discussion has aroused about the efficacy of that attempt: see for instance the early critical remarks on Lévi-Strauss in Walter Burkert, Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual (Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1979), 10ff. For some examples in general academic research, see below, n. 22. For recent attempts to embrace anthropology within Jewish studies, applying it also to past phenomena, see Jewish Studies at the Crossroads of Anthropology and History, eds. R.S. Boustan – O. Kosansky – M. Rustow (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011). Well known are S.N. Eisenstadt’s historical-sociological reconstructions, attempting to highlight continuity and variance in “Jewish civilization”. As underlined below, I intend “semiotics of culture” as a broader research field, where anthropological, social and linguistic approaches interweave and interact greatly. A common denominator is that they all seek to overcome the rigid opposition between structure and story, synchrony and diachrony, continuity and change, deeper mechanisms

196 2

Final Remarks

On Semiotics of Culture and Its Fecundity for Kabbalah Studies

Semiotics (or semiology) in general looks at any phenomenon as part of a semiosis, namely as a signifying item within a system of signification and communication.16 Since the Sixties, particularly within the Tartu-Moscow Semiotic School, the focus has been placed on the “correlations” between the various systems of signs that constitute a culture.17 The latter is viewed in effect as consisting of numerous sign systems of different types and levels: “primary languages”, namely the more immediate ways of “modeling the world” (such as natural language or spatial language), and “secondary modeling systems”, which comprehend and coordinate the intertwining primary codes.18 It is then compelling to search for the “mechanisms”, “rules” and “constants” that govern the networks of signs, produce systems of relationships between them, and bring their plurality to unity. Gradually, Jurij Lotman introduced the term “semiosphere”, and biological organicist metaphors, to label a comprehensive semiotic space – namely, a multilayered but organic texture of semiotic systems that gives sense to any inner item and creates a social sphere around individuals.19 The internal subsystems within the larger semiosphere may be either verbal codes (expressed in discourses, texts,

16 17

18

19

and superficial meanings, codified rules and singular experiences. It is however true that the balance between these poles can also change according to the cultural context taken into account. To make an example: examining our textual materials, we have been led to underline regular structures and encoded processes, while scholars dealing with other types of culture (even within Judaism itself) could rather emphasize disruptive events or atypical experiences. In this section, I shall highlight a few aspects of the vast and intricate semiotic panorama, with no pretension to offer an organic and exhaustive overview. See the manifesto of the Tartu School (Boris A. Uspenskij et al., “Theses on the semiotic study of cultures (as applied to Slavic texts)”, in Structure of Texts and Semiotics of Culture, eds. J. van der Eng – G. Mojmír (The Hague, Paris: Mouton, 1973), 1–28), where “semiotics of culture” is defined as “the science of the functional correlations of the different sign systems” (1.0.0.). The terms “primary language” or “natural language” may be misleading. In Lotman’s view those languages are already composed by plural, stratified, encoded, multimodal media (verbal expressions, gestures, images, etc.). Thus, when speaking of Jewish rituality, one should recognize that – as any human practice – it is already ‘culture’, namely, a network of interrelated sign systems. See Jurij M. Lotman, “On the Semiosphere”, Sign Systems Studies 33,1 (2005): 215–239. Semiosphere can be the entire culture itself, or a vast subsystem within it (e.g. a museum or a literary tradition). Each semiosphere is considered as “limited” by definite “borders”, which separate it from an external environment perceived as “extraneous” or “not organized”: it is therefore “different” from other cultural universes, although it deeply interacts with them in many cases (by channels of “openness” and “translation”). Semiotics of culture therefore emphasizes both the boundaries of a cultural context and the exchanges

Kabbalistic Orders from the Perspective of Cultural Semiotics

197

artistic forms, etc.) or non-verbal codes (concerning ritual practices, social habits, tangible matters, etc.), but they are in any case “tied”, “organized” and even “institutionalized”. Semioticians of culture are therefore called to clarify how the various portions of reality and textuality are unified in a semiotic continuum, and how they operate strong constrains on the way of thinking and living of the human beings that are inscribed in that distinct cultural configuration.20 Structural analysis finally converges into a “typology of culture”.21 These basic pivots, in line with other contemporary reflections on language, have been assumed in the last decades by a range of disciplines and currents, somehow interlacing semiotics and social sciences (ethnology, anthropology, sociology, history, etc.).22 They too aim at a “typology”, or “topology”, of culture.23 Thus, whilst they seek to discern grounding semiotic patterns through the lens of general heuristic categories, they tend to outline a pluralistic landscape of languages and cultures (various semiospheres are in fact given, each of them governed by a differently-shaped “linguistic-semantic motor”, “topological fields distinct from each other”24). Some scholars shall attempt to retrieve

20

21

22

23

24

occurring at its borders. Even more interestingly, it seeks to study how extraneous elements come to be appropriated, remolded and readapted by a certain cultural domain. See Lotman’s statement quoted in Introduction, n. 6. In his vision, “culture organizes the part of the world that belongs to the subjects that live in it; it has a structure-making capability that the individuals use to understand, define, circumscribe, and develop a general view on their overall experience” (Lorusso, Cultural Semiotics, 69). See Lotman – Uspenskij, “On the Semiotic Mechanism of Culture”. Since “culture is a setting of signs organized in a specific manner”, typification of cultures means to identify and specify the “distinctive traits” of each cultural system (some cultures appear as “sets of texts”, others as “systems of rules”; in some cultures mythical language prevails; each culture has its dominating passions, etc.). See e.g. the reflections on “ethno-semiotics” by M. Hoppál or M. Del Ninno; those on “socio-semiotics” by T. Van Leewen or E. Landowski; those on “semio-anthropology” by R. Parmentier or J.J. Boutaud. As has been noted, also the interpretive anthropology of Clifford Geertz – apparently at odds with structuralist anthropology – has made larger (albeit implicit) use of cultural-­semiotic grids. The same may be said of the work of a literary critic such as George Steiner, or of a historian such as Carlo Ginzburg (see below). In the last decades, also “cultural sociology” has provided interesting insights about structures at various levels (social and cultural), and their interactions with human agency. About the latter term, see George Steiner, After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation (London: Oxford University Press, 1975), chap. 6. Although Steiner is far from being a structuralist and does not relate to cultural semiotics, he sketches out similar views: “a culture is a sequence of translations and transformations of constants” (ibid., 449), generating an “infinite expansion” of a small group of “deep structures” (ibid., 452); “the gestures through which we articulate fundamental meanings and values are […] quite restricted” (ibid., 485). Ibid., 449. Compare Umberto Eco’s view of signs and meanings as constituting an “encyclopedia” that depends on local cultural contexts – so that signs and meanings might be also seen as “cultural units” and “social habits”.

198

Final Remarks

the underlying “image-schemas” that constitute the “generative grammar” of the “surface narrative elaborations”.25 Other students will try to recognize the encoded “forms of life” that characterize social segments, with their own “styles” of speech and praxis.26 A common denominator of these views is that not only social practices and processes, but also individual behavior and experience are deeply determined by the web of semiotic codes found in each semiosphere (as well as by the semiotic ideology characteristic of it). Indeed, they underline the “embodied dispositions” distinguishing each cultural formation, the “collective memory” conveyed in each area (through oral channels, textual bodies, or action itself), and the power of the “institutional normative discourse” governing each social domain.27 In these perspectives, the collective frame – with its forms and meanings, its orders and rules – is said to ultimately precede and germinate the handling of individual actors. Underlying social patterns ‘inform’ all expressive production; written codes or oral bodies of knowledge ‘structure’ the practical life of individuals, or the experiential events lived by them.28 This does not mean that changes, innovations, or creative forces are impossible or lacking: the point is that they occur within a given frame and under determinate conditions, which semiotics of culture has the pretension to illuminate.29 25 26 27 28

29

See the semiotics of Algirdas Greimas, and especially the debate with Paul Ricoeur on “narrativity” and its “increase in meaning”. About the use of syntagms such as “forms of life” or “styles of life” in the academic field of semioticians of culture, see Alain Perusset, “Des formes de vie aux styles de vie, et viceversa”, Actes Semiotique 122 (2019): 1–22. In all these concerns, the research of French scholars has been particularly fertile and influential: let me just recall the names of M. Mauss, M. Halbwachs, M. Foucault, M. de Certeau, P. Bourdieu. The “contextualist” (or “constructivist”) stances look at the “sociocultural situatedness” of any idea or story, discourse or gesture; even the most idiosyncratic among them, are viewed as molded or constrained by primary collective frames that govern the production of sense: see e.g. Roslyn M. Frank et al. (eds.), Body, Language and Mind. Vol. 2: Sociocultural Situatedness (Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2008). In fact, the semiotics of culture – like many other 20th-century constructivist approaches – insists on the inextricable interaction between “expression” (or, textuality) and “experience”, assuming that the former has a structuring impact on the latter, so that one can speak of a social-cultural-literary construction of the human being, of its behavioral postures, of its cognitive activities, etc. (see also below, n. 32). On the “dialogical and dialectical relationship between experience and expression”, where “experience structures expressions”, but also “expressions structure experience”, see e.g. Edward M. Bruner, “Experience and Its Expressions”, in The Anthropology of Experience, eds. V.W. Turner – E.M. Bruner (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986), 6. According to the Tartu school, the synchronic view on the grammar of cultural codes has to be accompanied by the diachronic analysis of how the sign systems change over time. Lotman’s work, in particular, has described the cultural systems as “steady and dynamic”

Kabbalistic Orders from the Perspective of Cultural Semiotics

199

Increasingly, semiotic studies have been applied to religion and religious languages too.30 They endeavor to detect general structures while investigating particular religious semiospheres.31 In accordance with other academic approaches, they largely confirm that religious beliefs, ritual activities, and mythical imageries have a highly “textualized” and “contextualized” nature.32 Through these inquiries, a fact that is often underestimated becomes clear – that also mystical discourse and experience are “codified” and “culturalized”.33

30 31

32

33

at once, underscoring that ongoing dynamics take place especially at the “peripheral margins”, often provoked by “collisions” with external forces and systems (see above, n. 19). In his later studies, he has emphasized the different “temporalities” found in a single culture even more, talking about leaps and discontinuities, and even recurring to the notion of “explosion”: see Jurij M. Lotman, Culture and Explosion (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009). In this attention to historical changes and conflicts between various codes within the same “typology of culture”, Lotman’s semiotics has progressively moved “beyond structuralist dogmatism”, as emphasized by Umberto Eco in his Introduction to Jurij M. Lotman, Universe of the Mind. A Semiotic Theory of Culture (London – New York: I.B. Tauris, 1990). Similarly, Steiner has insisted on the “conservative” aspect of culture (“Culture and syntax, the cultural matrix which syntax maps, holds up in place”: After Babel, 488), speaking however of a “dynamic traditionality” (ibid., 489). In a recent lecture C. Ginzburg has indicated, as a leading principle of his research, that the same study of ‘case’ and ‘exceptionality’ points to ‘order’ and ‘regularity’. See e.g. Yelle, Semiotics of Religion. Even theologians have tried to introduce the vocabulary of semiotics (G. Lindbeck). Semiotic scholars (like B. Jackson, U. Volli, M. Leone) have dealt with Jewish and Christian texts (for recent studies on cult and worship, see the articles collected in Lexia, Rivista di semiotica 11–12/2012). To my knowledge, however, there has been no systemic attempt to reread kabbalistic literature through semiotic lens. For constructivist approaches to religious and mystical traditions, see e.g. Steven T. Katz (ed.), Mysticism and Religious Traditions (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1983); idem, Mysticism and Language (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1992). On the contextual “situatedness” and the fundamental “untranslatability” of ritual and mythical language, see also the well-known remarks by J.Z. Smith (they resonate some observations found in Lotman – Uspenskij, “Myth – Name – Culture”). The severe semiotic constraints on the imagination, thought, and communication of the individuals belonging to a religious universe, have been recently illuminated also by cognitive anthropology of religion (P. Boyer, E.T. Lawson, C. Severi, M. Houseman). That the formation of individuals draws heavily from their engagement in sensory social interactions – as stated in Thomas J. Csordas (ed.), Embodiment and Experience: The Existential Ground of Culture and Self (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994) – appears largely confirmed by studies on religious rituals, where the participants incorporate collective meanings through “body-schemas” and “social motions”: see e.g. Sebastian Schüler, “Synchronized Ritual Behavior: Religion, Cognition and the Dynamics of Embodiment”, in Religion and the Body: Modern Science and the Construction of Religious Meaning, eds. D. Cave – R. Sachs Norris (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2012), 81–101. Beside the studies collected by S. Katz (see the previous note), consider the reflections of psychologists of religion such as H. Sundén, W. Proudfoot or A.J. Deikman. According to them, mystical experiences are the result of a long ‘training’ within more or less codified

200

Final Remarks

It is true that mystical environments may appear to ‘de-automatize’ (or question) traditional codes, somehow ‘suspending’ the natural perception and the immediate application of social normativity;34 yet, far from being disentangled from the legal or cultic codes, they remain in a dialectic tension with them. Cultural semiotics (or, ethno-semiotics) in my opinion allows to assess that, as all higher-degree “modeling systems”, each mystical corpus surfaces within a former and larger cultural framework; whilst it strives for reviewing and renewing the previous lower-degree “systems of signification”, it is inextricably anchored to the latter and deeply affected by them. In terms of cultural semiotics, one can argue that the first concern of the kabbalists is a semiotic work on the Jewish semiosphere. As a secondary language revisiting primary Hebrew languages, their hermeneutic and discursive enterprise is oriented to re-signify and reformulate the traditional sign systems that constitute the Jewish canon, the Jewish phonosphere, the Jewish gestural sphere. Indeed, the kabbalistic repertoire might ultimately appear as a broader network of meta-texts, which re-arrange earlier written materials, oral traditions and behavioral modes. The working assumption of the present study has been that the higher-degree ordering language produced by the kabbalistic interpreters could not but tend to decipher and map the sign structures and correlations concealed in the former codes. As a “secondary modeling system” stemming from a traditionalistic semiosphere, it did not only remain largely close to the latter, but also tended to endorse and empower its basic orders through further orders.35 By no accident, the kabbalistic subsystem never ceased to be interlocked with the broader rabbinic culture. The above picture seems to be especially suitable to a (large) portion of the kabbalistic textual production, which appears as an integral part of the Jewish

34 35

religious contexts, whose theories and practices ‘structure’ the very experiences of the practitioners. Furthermore, human beings employ traditional beliefs, linguistic rules and social conducts for labelling and describing those experiences, as any experience. These views have obviously led to cast doubts on all those stances that assume a universal (disincarnated, culturally unconditioned) “mysticism of the pure consciousness” (E. Underhill, R. Forman), or also look for “transcultural mysticism” (J. Hollenback, R. Studstill). See e.g. A.J. Deikman’s approach mentioned above chap. 4, around n. 159. In Lotman’s vision, culture is a device that tends to organization and standardization, for it continually translates outer or heterogeneous elements into an inner homologous space; and if the primary language is already a source of structurality, this is even more true for the secondary languages. In Natural Symbols, Mary Douglas has studied the increase of organization typical of some kinds of culture and society: insofar as the “­systems of life” are highly structured, the “symbolical systems” produce formal frames and architectonics (see also above, chap. 4, n. 140).

Kabbalistic Orders from the Perspective of Cultural Semiotics

201

semiosphere, an ongoing semiotic work upon the traditional lore, a “fabric of sense” addressed in great part to a re-signification and revitalization of rabbinic law and cult. Its major authors, trained in classical rabbinic education, were usually masters of the law, pious devotees, community leaders, who composed commentaries on the earlier canonic writings.36 Their works continuously refer to the Jewish legal codes and ritual acts, and propose a religious path to be accomplished through the “keeping of the precepts”. Mysticism is here completely interwoven with (halakhic) ritualism. The most extraordinary achievements (of cosmic, theurgic, or unitive kind) are gained within the communal ordinary setting of ritual activities, first of all the liturgical cycle, rather than being tied to private exceptional paths, individual contemplative postures or anomian techniques (in brief, it is by adhering physically to the halakhic form of life that man can adhere to God!).37 It has therefore seemed to me particularly attractive to investigate from the viewpoint of cultural semiotics kabbalistic materials that, along the 16th century, strove to collect and disseminate the earlier theosophical tradition (my purpose, in a word, was to contribute to a “typology of culture” of the 16th-century Sephardi Kabbalah). To be sure, many characteristics are shared by the whole theosophical-theurgical kabbalistic literature produced throughout the “long” Jewish Middle Ages. Around the time of the Expulsion from Spain, however, certain traits stood out even more vividly. The emigrated Sephardi kabbalists, and the natives influenced by them, deployed strategies for the conservation, reinterpretation and transmission of their textual legacy (especially of the massive body of knowledge contained in the Zohar), and means for the compilation and submission of an enormous social memory. They brought to an apex the commitment to ‘extend’ the semiosis of the canonic textual and behavioral codes, and to ‘intensify’ the semantics and the syntax found therein. In that context, the exchange between the kabbalistic secondary language and the primary languages of the rabbinic semiosphere, was a perfectly mutual one: the kabbalistic culture was much determined by the identitarian Jewish cult, while ritual life and social habits were remolded by kabbalistic texts (here lies the outstanding “modeling force” of the kabbalistic semiotics, generating strong “effects of sense” on the collective-pragmatic level).38 36 37 38

See above, chap. 4, around notes 13ff. On the “untranslatability” of their writing, see also chap. 1, n. 104. Such picture appears quite distant from the representation of “mysticism”, including “Jewish mysticism”, that has come (or returned) into fashion in recent times: see above, around notes 2–4. Especially in chap. 4 we have started from our texts to describe theosophical Kabbalah in general as a social practice enacting textuality and meaning in performance and experi-

202 3

Final Remarks

On Ordering and Disordering Vectors in Kabbalistic Literature

Let us now return at last on the major topic of this study – the relation of theosophical Kabbalah to forms of orders – for some general (and inevitably rough) observations. Anthropology of religion has noted the permanent dialectics of order and disorder, structure and anti-structure, that is typical of religious cultures.39 On the one hand, religious thought and praxis tend to transcend the limits of the given existence and the borders of the known universe, are attracted by the Other, the secret, the indeterminate, and so forth. On the other hand, they are also very much concerned with orders and meta-orders, and play a major role in the creation of social rules and institutions, shared identities and stark distinctions, canonic codes and behavioral schemas.40 The two contrasting poles can also interlace and create ambivalences. Thus, the same religious rituality that seeks to control the chaos sacralizing social norms, leaves the way open to transcendent and undetermined forces; whereas it imposes formal constraints on the individual representation and practice, it generates at once paranormal experiences and possibilities of change and rupture.41 Anthropologists have further described ritual life as based on the following oscillation: within special times and places, the normal social organization can be inverted or destructured, although the ultimate outcome of rituality is a “heightening of order”.42

39

40

41 42

ence. Its literary expressions had immediate repercussions upon cultural-religious markers (rules of conduct, group interactions, existential paths, effervescent experiences, etc.). For an overview, see Enrico Comba, Antropologia delle religioni (Roma-Bari: Laterza, 2008), 45–46, 71–75, 126. Both anthropology and cultural semiotics envision culture as a complex integrated system characterized by two vectors: one driving toward diversification and pluralism, one pushing toward standardization and unification (this latter vector tends to assimilate the heteroclite and to enhance cohesion). Of course, the inspection of the various “patterns of culture” can reveal that some contexts accord primacy to one of the two poles (compare also above, n. 15). On the dynamics of order and chaos from the viewpoint of history of religions, see the ideal dialogue between Mircea Eliade and Jonathan Z. Smith, for instance in the latter’s Map is not Territory: Studies in the History of Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1978). These latter aspects have been especially stressed by sociologists of religion, from E. Durkheim to P. Berger. The latter has insisted on the strategic role of religion “in the human enterprise of world-building”, by projecting “human order into the totality of being” (see above, chap. 2, around n. 2). See also the cognitive approaches to religion mentioned above, n. 32. On structure and anti-structure, see the classical study by Turner, The Ritual Process, and more recently Michael Houseman – Carlo Severi, Naven, or The Other Self, A Relational Approach to Ritual Action (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2006). See Rappaport, Ritual and Religion, 218–220. Compare his synthetic conclusion: “Denials of order in ritual are seldom if ever absolute, and while they may be denials of this world’s

Kabbalistic Orders from the Perspective of Cultural Semiotics

203

Such dynamic polarity of organizing and disorganizing drives is also present in mystical cultures, giving rise to various typologies or forms of compromise. There are surely contexts where “mysticism” seems to lean towards breaking or removing orders, while in other religious environments it appears rather to be supporting traditional structures and boundaries. In this regard, I surmise that the oscillation between ordering and disordering stances intersects the relationship between conservation and innovation, as well as the one between communality and individualism – in such a way that a high-correlation coefficient might be likely verified between mystical increment of order, conservative propensity, and emphasis on the collective regular conduct. As to Jewish contexts, one observes a mutable coexistence of organizing and disorganizing trajectories, operating at multiple levels.43 Some ‘disordering vectors’ are surely tied to historical and social factors. The diaspora of the Jewish people in distant geographical and cultural areas favored the inner differentiation of their identity and practice, and the lack of a central religious and political authority contributed to a various and jagged landscape. In spite of the rather cohesive force of the rabbinic tradition, the scattered Jewish communities developed peculiar ideas and specific customs, also as a result of the transition of regional groups, oral traditions and textual materials, or because of dynamic interactions with the neighbors. Such differentiation process resulted in geographical variety (e.g. Sephardi versus Ashkenazi or Italian Jewry), in intellectual variety (e.g. rationalistically-oriented circles versus mystically-oriented circles), and also in the frequent flourishing of controversies and clashes. It is by no means surprising that the kabbalistic trends themselves were diverse, much variegated, and often competing for cultural dominance. They were to tackle corpora of different origin and nature, and although they sought to achieve some systematization, they maintained an inherent pluralistic character.44 A further source of disorder can be related to the kind of discursivity that is quintessential of rabbinic Judaism. Its textual culture substantially consists in an unceasing work on former materials, which come to be collected and cited, reinterpreted and rewritten by later authors. The midrashic mode of thinking and writing stands out for openness and flexibility, interpretive multiplicity and infinite discussion, fluid imageries and mutable patterns. The

43 44

order, liturgical orders are usually concerned with more than the order of the world here and now” (ibid., 382). See also above, chap. 4, n. 80. For an earlier discussion of these issues, see Mottolese, Bodily Rituals, 217–230, 294–307. See above chap. 1, n. 69. On these topics, see several inquiries by M. Idel (e.g. “The ­Kabbalah in Morocco”, “Encounters”; “On Mobility”).

204

Final Remarks

same halakhic literature that expounds the divine law in endless procedural ramifications, raises always new questions and requirements. These kinds of discursivity and textual production, so reluctant to be framed into a doctrinaire conceptual system, permeated the kabbalistic literature too.45 This was prone to embrace and integrate multiple interpretations (at best gathering them in hierarchical hermeneutic systems), and to revisit and rework flexible images (at best organizing them through more patterned clusters). Even in less creative contexts, such as those giving rise to our commentaries, the discourse encompassed diverging theologies, multifold exegeses, open symbols, conflicting instructions. At an ideological level, the kabbalists present some inclination to blurring traditional boundaries (although, to be sure, more limited than in other mystical traditions). They variously reflect on the Infinity beyond language and image, and yearn to the Oneness beyond all determinations. Their messianic or eschatological discourse contemplates the coincidence of the opposites and the inclusion of the other (even of the impure or left dimensions). One may further mention a few anti-nomian views, moving against specific halakhic contexts or authorities, or circumscribed anomian and meta-halakhic stances. Notwithstanding, the same studies that have focused on these aspects, had to recognize the kabbalistic insistence on speculative orders and binary oppositions, legal distinctions and practical borders, strict boundaries and interdictions at all levels.46 Disordering drives surface, at last, in the pragmatic and experiential domain. Having received a vast prescriptive corpus replete of regional variants, and an already diversified set of rationales for the precepts, the kabbalists outlined ritual paths that varied – at least in details – according to their peculiar areas, streams or circles, each one privileging certain normative aspects, practical customs, secret contents, or special techniques. Their approach could likely increment the inner differentiation, by reserving specific roles and activities to esoterically-trained elites or the leaders instructed by them. Moreover, the behavioral constrains in the cultic activity were so dense and thorough that it was quite impossible for one worshipper, even for the most pious and wise, to attend to all of them, or to enact any step with the same concentration: each member of the congregation was likely to proceed in a rather peculiar way, according to his preparation, his focus on this or that unit, his address to this

45 46

See Abrams, Kabbalistic Manuscripts. See e.g. above, chap. 4, notes 36, 38

Kabbalistic Orders from the Perspective of Cultural Semiotics

205

or that meaning, etc.47 We have before reached the conclusion that, if the Kabbalah entailed a general empowerment of the orthopractical system governing Jewish life, several drives had to hinder the rise of a fully compact and rigid community discipline. All this being said, my basic argument in this essay is that Jewish contexts and languages contain ‘organizing instances’ of primary importance, and that the kabbalistic corpus, especially for what concerns the domain examined before, was largely functional to reinforcing the ‘long range ordering vectors’ that characterize the Jewish semiosphere. I also surmised that academic research has so far quite neglected these vectors and the same “pathos for order” typical of kabbalistic literature (because of various reasons of ideological and methodological kind), and that the mechanisms of kabbalistic culture for ‘rearranging the work’ still deserve broader investigations.48 Along the present inquiry, orderly processes operating at various layers have appeared. They have emerged, for example, in the kabbalists’ strategies for organization and transmission of knowledge, that is, in their attitude to preserve and rearrange earlier materials and traditions (through commentaries including multifold interpretive devices, or encyclopedic/anthological styles of writing) and to find out correlations among previous, sometimes disparate, forms of order.49 Such an attitude responded evidently to socio-historical conditions characterized by the need to retain a long-lasting cultural memory, to share a common body of knowledge and tradition, to maintain a homogenous collective identity – all centripetal trajectories that had to contrast the centrifugal (turbulent and dramatic) vicissitudes of the Jews. This is especially true for the environments analyzed here. The Sephardi kabbalistic elites in the aftermath of the Expulsion had a centripetal role precisely because of their 47

48 49

The path could indeed vary from time to time (diachronically) for the single officiant, as well as within the same liturgy (synchronically) between the individuals participating to it (see above, chap. 4). One should also recall that the kabbalistic semiotics on the same liturgical stage illuminated different crucial units or sequences on each occasion, and that this ‘polycentric syntax’ could generate either fragmented narratives, or diverging pragmatic routes (see above, chap. 3). The expression “pathos for order” is present in the major exception in scholarly field: Idel, “On Some Forms of Order”, XXXVIII. In an attempt to explore the ‘semiotics of passions’ in the kabbalists’ world, one should certainly take into account their ‘desire for order’. There is certainly some grain of truth in Scholem’s opposition between “commentary” (more congenial to the Jewish tradition) and “system” (more typical of Greek-Western metaphysics): see e.g. his Revelation and Tradition. Notwithstanding, one should not neglect the peculiar ‘systemic’ traits that mark some Jewish (and kabbalistic) types of commentary.

206

Final Remarks

mobility: they spread a unified canonical lore among different Jewish centers of the Mediterranean area, paving the way for a broader restructuring of Jewish culture.50 In the light of Lotman’s late research, they might be seen as engaged in a “cultural resistance” against processes of increase in disorder, dissipation and disruption of structures – processes to which they reacted, aiming at a “reintegration” of symmetry and order at various layers and through various organizing principles and tools: modes and technologies of writing, activities of recollection and reinterpretation, renewed ritual-practical devices, among others.51 An organizational disposition has appeared to deeply characterize the imagery of the kabbalists as well as their expressive modes (we have mainly dealt with the verbal ones, but one could also refer to their graphic visualizations, diagrams, drawings, etc.52). Their theosophical discourse displays an array of imaginative maps and thought constructs, different from the halakhic-legal ones as well as from the philosophical-conceptual ones, though also drawing on them both.53 Most usually, they mix a ritual and a mythical ‘logic of order’, where binary opposites and numerical associations play a major role.54 The same narrative language employed by them is often based on precise artic50 51

52 53

54

This historical-cultural passage still deserves detailed inquiries of sociology of knowledge (see above, chap. 4, n. 7, and around notes 162ff.). Writing per se might be seen as a human tool that tends to shift from time to time between organization and dissemination of sense. In our postmodern age, the focus has been on the proliferation of signs and meanings, or on textual fluidity, with the risk of overemphasizing the latter pole (Derrida). But one should never forget the organizational properties inherent to writing, with their decisive social functions and cognitive implications. See for instance the remarks of Cardona, Antropologia della scrittura, about the pristine use of writing in Ancient Near East, with all its resort to lists, dictionaries, taxonomic classifications; or, the reflections of Brian Stock, The Implications of Literacy: Written Language and Models of Interpretation in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983), about the impact that written language had in that epoch on processes of categorization, and new modes of organizing thought, society and reality. See above, chap. 2, n. 57. While the dependence on philosophical grids – which occupies a marginal place in our sources – has been amply investigated, the adherence to halakhic methodologies and schemes has been less studied. Let me recall the famous account given by Rabbi ­Soloveitchik: “The Halakhah […] is the objectification of religion in clear and determinate forms, in precise and authoritative laws, and in definite principles. It translates subjectivity into objectivity, the amorphous flow of religious experience into a fixed pattern of lawfulness” (Halakhic Man, 59; on the propensity to ‘ordering’ and ‘measuring’, see also ibid., 21–22, 55–56). For the adherence of the kabbalists to the interpreted legal texts, making some resistance to an uncontrolled interpretation, see above, chap. 1, around n. 133. An emblematic example is represented by the numerical clusters with an ontological grip employed by Moshe de León: see above, chap. 3, notes 12, 67, 90.

Kabbalistic Orders from the Perspective of Cultural Semiotics

207

ulations of the cosmic order, and expresses iconic cartographies that establish correspondences or contrasts, distinctions or correlations, hierarchies or symmetries between the various entities. Frequently enough, there emerge conglomerates of imagined orderly patterns of various nature and origin, including normative schemes and ontological constellations, archaic figurations and medieval concepts, somehow blended together and overlapping. The kabbalistic ideology relates to an exegetical imagination that tends restlessly to decode ‘orders upon orders’ within reality. It envisions multiple articulations in the celestial world (made of angelic hosts, astral forces, divine measures), it sketches out cosmic hierarchies and architectonics (usually replicating the linguistic-cultural-social reality of the Jews), it establishes organic connections between all the layers of being. It focuses, in particular, on the links between the orders “above” and the (analogous) orders “below”. Thus, while the superhuman realities appear plural, dynamic and precarious, as is evident from tumultuous historiosophical accounts, a tremendous power is entrusted to man, as is shown by mythical accounts that illustrate the human faculty to maintain the cosmic order and to combat the forces of chaos. The kabbalistic semiotics, we have seen, germinates dramatic but ultimately positive narratives, claiming that pious Jews are able to ‘put the world to rights’ by means of their statutory cultic acts. It strives to infuse at the same time sense, order, connectivity, intensity, power – both in textuality and in reality. In particular, it reveals the ‘deep syntax’ of the traditional nomian structures, which are deemed to tie the cultic-practical sequences to processes on high – suggesting thus that to master the palimpsest of the ritual system is the only way to render man capable of mending the world. Therefore, major ordering drives of this semiotic enterprise were constituted by the same patterns of ritual and liturgical praxis that dominated the rabbinic semiosphere (or semiopraxis), and that were assumed as cornerstones by theosophical kabbalists. Their texts, and especially the commentaries on prayerbooks exemplified above, were directed to sanctify and revive the traditional system of ritual activities, and could not but strengthen the ancient behavioral structures fixed in the canonic writings. At the same time, they were to affect those same socio-pragmatic schemes of Jewish society. They reshaped the rabbinic service as a very articulated and disciplined setting of mystically-oriented precepts and customs, techniques and experiences, which had to be driven by kabbalistically-trained leaders and performed by the entire congregation (since all members actively participated in the organic whole according to their differentiated roles and functions). In conclusion, our inquiry seems to confirm that the kabbalists moved (more or less consciously, and with significant oscillations) between order

208

Final Remarks

and disorder, as well as between conservation and innovation, or community and elite. The ambivalence that marks the sources examined before, is emblematic. Their discourse continues to exhibit some dispersive facets – due to the inner pluralism of Jewish tradition, the exegetical nature of kabbalistic discursivity, the fluidness and fragmentariness of the mythical elaboration, the anchoring to the intricacies of halakhic normativity, etc. Nevertheless, I believe that the ordering drives prevailed, and were ultimately enhanced, in the cultural setting of the Sephardi Kabbalah, especially after the most creative phase. Some of these ordering drives come to the surface in the same ‘emic’ discourse. Our authors, as we have seen, present their interpretive work both as a humble “rearrangement” of the “authentic tradition” and as a great contribution to the “restoration” of the “primordial order”. Heirs of the secret wisdom about precepts and prayers, they have taken on themselves the task to gather, set up and convey in a clear manner those truths for a large Jewish audience. Not only are they able to disclose the hidden meanings of the single cultic units; they can also illuminate the sequential and directional paths concealed in liturgy and their profound repercussions. Enlightened by their handbooks, the Jewish worshippers would expand their self-consciousness and expertise to the point that their halakhic conduct would gain (back) cosmic harmony and allow a ‘mending’ of the world made of ‘distinctions’ and ‘chains’.55 Other forms of order can be rather detected by assuming ‘etic’ viewpoints, namely by adopting adequate approaches in academic research. Among the possible methodologies, for reasons now clear, I have found particularly useful the resort to an interdisciplinary approach mixing semiotics of culture, anthropology and social history. In this perspective, the late medieval Spanish theosophical Kabbalah appears to be grounded in deeper ‘structuring forces’. Its texts continue to gravitate around codified, stringent, well-ordered patterns, governing the mind and body of Jewish worshippers for centuries. They reread traditional accounts and rules of conduct in the light of earlier maps, categorical grids, “charter myths”56 – especially by systematizing images and 55

56

These models of thought and discourse, characteristic of the Iberian Kabbalah during the 13th-14th centuries, were largely continued by the 16th-century Sephardi sages across the Mediterranean Sea heading east, and they can still be found among the Lithuanian Mitnaggedim of the 18th century. The latter’s kabbalistic works again conceive the (Jewish) human being as capable of controlling “the myriads of forces and worlds in accordance to all the particulars of the orders of his practical conducts (ʿal pi kol prate sidre hanhagotaw)” (Ḥayyim of Volozhin, Nefesh ha-ḥayyim, Bene Baraq 1989, 4–5), and aim at instructing the Jewish community on how to play that cosmic role. Through this phrase, Malinowski defined the myths employed to justify social norms and institutions.

Kabbalistic Orders from the Perspective of Cultural Semiotics

209

interpretations contained in the Zoharic corpus. Thus, the emblematic manuals of prayer written by Sephardi kabbalists, which we have investigated in this book, propose a schematization of rather organic liturgical-mystical routes – reaffirming at last ‘ancient’ habits and institutions by means of rather ‘old’ theosophical patterns (in this way, they somehow add a new chapter in the long-term story of mythical empowerment of the Jewish ritual practice). From our point of view, the association between this kabbalistic discourse and terms such as “indeterminacy”, “irrationalism” or “spiritualism”, appears untenable.57 Rather than disarticulation of the orders (with dissipation of sense and dissociation of identity), it seems to provide extension and intensification of the bodily, linguistic and imaginative schemes characterizing the canonic tradition, its nomian collective identity, its rhythmic ritual sequels, its spatial-temporal distinctions, its purity-impurity concerns, its cognitive constructs, and so forth (some blurring of boundaries might, if anything, arise from a “surplus of signification”, an excess of constellations, connections and interpretations, namely the “vertigo of lists”, or the “accumulation of meanings”58). Rather than liberating the individual from the traditional routes of the Jewish form of life, this discourse seems to enhance the collective devotional practice and to augment the social pressure upon man, pushing him to a stricter pious conduct and an active participation to the regular communal service. Accordingly, we have spoken of a nomistic and ritualistic, communitarian and particularistic mysticism, substantially distant from those forms of mysticism that incline to develop breakthrough, private and rather free “spiritual exercises”. In this framework, the highest human experiences were conceived as anchored to a) a strict adherence to the structured system of cultic orders commanded to the people of Israel; b) the shared assumption of centuries-long interpretive, imaginative, literary orders flowing from the kabbalistic tradition. And all these orders had to be worked on in a super-individual activity. In this sense, as I have tried to show throughout this inquiry, certain commentaries 57 58

See Introduction, around n. 13. In fact, as the orders multiply, they can give the impression of disorder – yet, especially to an external reader (see the reflections by Barthes and Eco quoted above, chap. 1, notes 140, 144). I would then also raise doubts on the association of the kabbalistic (or midrashic) discourse with the postmodern Deconstruction and its ultimate ‘dissemination’ or ‘deferral’ of the sense (see above, chap. 1, n. 126). For a parallel criticism, see Idel, Absorbing Perfections, 423ff. (the “experience of plenitude”, which according to Idel informs the kabbalists’ tradition, is in fact made possible by their concern with ordered, loaded with sense, available and decipherable maps).

210

Final Remarks

were able to strengthen the institutional patterns of behavior in everyday life, while increasing at the same time a sentiment of cohesion and group identity, and providing an ‘effervescent’ state of mind tied to this feeling of social (and cosmic) integration. Such an effort to invigorate the standard practices of Halakhah in the light of the Sephardi Kabbalah, had to be particularly effective for supplying a cohesive identity, a strong self-perception, and a common disciplined piety to scattered distant communities.

Bibliography

Basic Primary Sources

Adrutiel, Abraham, ʾAvne zikkaron, Ms New York, JTS 1659. Alashqar, Yosef, Ṣafenat pa‘aneaḥ, facsimile edition (Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalaym, 1991) (Hebrew). Al-Naqawa, Yisrael, Menorat ha-maʾor, ed. H.G. Enelow (Jerusalem: Makor Publishers, 1972). Asher ben Shaul of Luniel, Sefer ha-minhagot, ed. S. Assaf (Jerusalem, 1935). Azikri, Eleazar, Sefer ḥaredim, Jerusalem 2005. Azriel of Gerona, Perush ha-ʾaggadot, ed. I. Tishby (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982). Baḥya ben Asher, Beʾur ʿal ha-Torah, ed. Ch. Chavel (Jerusalem: Mossad Ha-Rav Kook, 1966–1968). Baḥya ben Asher, Kitve Rabbenu Baḥya, ed. Ch. Chavel (Jerusalem: Mossad Ha-Rav Kook, 1970). Cordovero, Moshe, Pardes rimmonim, Jerusalem 1962. Cordovero, Moshe, Tefillah le-Moshe, Premislany 1892. Cordovero, Moshe, Tomer Devorah, New York 1970; Le palmier de Débora, ed. C. Mopsik (Paris: Verdier 1986). Dawid ben Yehudah he-Ḥasid, ʾOr zaruʿa, ed. B.B. Levi Ha-Cohen (Jerusalem – New York: Urim Publications, 2009). Dawid ben Yehudah he-Ḥasid, The Book of Mirrors, Sefer Marʾot ha-ẓoveʾot, ed. D. Matt (Chico CA: Scholars Press, 1982). Dawid ibn Zimra, Meṣudat Dawid, Jerusalem 2002. De Vidas, Eliyah, Reshit ḥokhmah, Jerusalem 2005. Elbaz, Moshe, Hekhal ha-qodesh, Amsterdam 1653; Jerusalem 2005. Eliyyah Ḥayyim ben Binyamin da Genazzano, La lettera preziosa, ed. F. Lelli (Firenze: Giuntina, 2002). Ezra of Gerona, Perush Shir ha-shirim, in Nahmanides, Kitve Ramban II, ed. Ch. Chavel (Jerusalem: Mossad Ha-Rav Kook, 1963). Ezra of Gerona, Perush taryag miṣwot, in Nahmanides, Kitve Ramban II, ed. Ch. Chavel (Jerusalem: Mossad Ha-Rav Kook, 1963). Giqatilla, Yosef, Ginnat ʾegoz, Amsterdam 1773. Giqatilla, Yosef, Sodot, in Yeḥiel Ashkenazi, Sefer Hekhal ha-Shem, Venice 1601; Ms ­Vatican 214. Giqatilla, Yosef, Shaʿare ʾorah, ed. Y. Ben Shlomo (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1970). Giqatilla, Yosef, Shaʿare ṣedeq, Cracow 1881. Ḥayyat, Yehudah, Minḥat Yehudah, in ʿAmude ha-qabbalah II, Jerusalem 2001.

212

Bibliography

Ḥayyim of Volozhin, Nefesh ha-ḥayyim, Bene Baraq 1989. Ifargan, Yaʿaqov, Minḥah ḥadashah, ed. M. Hallamish (Lod: Orot Yahadut ha-Maghreb, 2002). Kaletz, Yehudah (and Moshe), Sefer ha-musar, Jerusalem 2019. Maʿarekhet ha-ʾElohut, in ʿAmude ha-qabbalah II, Jerusalem 2001. Maimonides, Moses, The Guide of the Perplexed, eds. L. Strauss – S. Pines (Chicago – London: The University of Chicago Press, 1963). Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, ed. M. Hyamson (Jerusalem – New York: Feldheim ­Publishers, 1974). Meir ibn Gabbay, ʿAvodat ha-qodesh, Jerusalem 2004. Meir ibn Gabbay, Derekh ʾemunah, Warsaw 1890. Meir ibn Gabbay, Tolaʿat Yaʿaqov, Constantinople 1560; Jerusalem 1966. Moshe ben Makhir, Sefer Seder ha-yom, Venice 1599. Moshe de León, Ha-nefesh ha-ḥakhamah, in ʿAmude ha-qabbalah II, Jerusalem 2001; Sefer ha-mishkal: Text and Study, ed. J.H.A. Wijnhoven (Ph.D. diss. Brandeis University, 1964). Moshe de León, Sefer ha-rimmon, The Book of the Pomegranate, ed. E.R. Wolfson (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). Moshe de León, Sefer ha-Shem, ed. M. Oron (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2010). Moshe de León, Sefer Mashkyiot kesef, ed. J.H.A. Wijnhoven (Brandeis University, 1961). Moshe of Kiev, Shoshan sodot, Petah Tiqwa 1995. Nahmanides, Kitve Ramban, ed. Ch. Chavel (Jerusalem: Mossad Ha-Rav Kook, 1963). Nahmanides, Perush ha-Torah, ed. Ch. Chavel (Jerusalem: Mossad Ha-Rav Kook, 1959). Natan ben Saʿadayah Harʾar, Le porte della giustizia, ed. M. Idel (Milano: Adelphi, 2001). Qaro, Yosef, Bet Yosef, Venezia 1550–1551. Recanati, Menaḥem, Perush ha-tefillot, Commentary on the Daily Prayers, ed. G. ­Corazzol (Torino: Aragno, 2008). Recanati, Menaḥem, Perush ha-Torah, Tel Aviv 2003. Recanati, Menaḥem, Sefer Taʿame ha-miṣwot, ed. S. Lieberman (London: Honig and Sons, 1962). Sabba, Abraham, Ṣeror ha-mor, Bene Baraq 1990. Sefer ha-bahir, ed. R. Margaliot (Jerusalem: Mossad Ha-Rav Kook, 1951); The Book Bahir, ed. D. Abrams (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 1994). Sefer ha-qanah, in Torat ha-qanah I, Jerusalem 2008. Sefer ha-zohar, ed. R. Margaliot, 3 vols. (Jerusalem: Mossad Ha-Rav Kook, 1960); The Zohar - Pritzker Edition, ed. D. Matt (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003-). Shani, Yiṣḥaq, Meʾah sheʿarim, Venice 1543. Shem Tov ibn Gaon, Keter shem ṭov, in ʿAmude ha-qabbalah I, Jerusalem 2001. Shem Tov ibn Shem Tov, Sefer ha-ʾemunot, Jerusalem 1969.

Bibliography

213

Shimon ibn Lavi, Sefer Ketem paz, Jerusalem 1981. Siddur ha-geonim we-ha-mequbbalim, Jerusalem 1970. Siddur ʿim Perush ha-Zohar, Jerusalem 1997. Yaʿaqov ben Sheshet, Sefer Ha-ʾemunah we-ha-biṭṭaḥon, in Nahmanides, Kitve Ramban II, ed. Ch. Chavel (Jerusalem: Mossad Ha-Rav Kook, 1963). Yehudah ben Ḥunain, Eṣ ha-ḥayyim, Livorno 1783. Yiṣḥaq of Akko, Sefer Meʾirat ʿenayyim, ed. A. Goldreich (Ph.D. diss. Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1984). Yiṣḥaq the Blind, Perush Sefer yeṣirah, in G. Scholem, The Kabbalah in Provence, ­Jerusalem 1963 (Hebrew). Yosef ibn Shraga, Perush ha-tefillot, in Dawid ben Yehudah he-Ḥasid, ʿOr zaruʾa, ed. B.B. Levi Ha-Cohen (Jerusalem – New York: Urim Publications, 2009), 290–295. Yosef of Hamadan, Sefer ha-malkhut, Casablanca 1930. Yosef of Hamadan, Sefer Taʿame ha-miṣwot, ed. M. Meir (Ph.D. diss. Brandeis ­University, 1974).



Secondary Literature

Abrams, Daniel, “From Germany to Spain: Numerology as a Mystical Technique”, ­Journal of Jewish Studies 47 (1996): 85–101. Abrams, Daniel, Kabbalistic Manuscripts and Textual Theory: Methodologies of Textual Scholarship and Editorial Practice in the Study of Jewish Mysticism (Jerusalem – Los Angeles: Magnes, Cherub Press, 2010). Altmann, Alexander, “About the Authorship of Sefer Taʿame ha-miṣwot Attributed to R. Yiṣḥaq ibn Parḥi”, Qiryat Sefer 40 (1965): 256–276, 405–412 (Hebrew). Assmann, Jan, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). Assmann, Jan, Religion and Cultural Memory (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2006). Avivi, Yosef, “The History of the Supernal Need”, in Essays in Honor of Rav Mordekhai Breuer (Jerusalem 1992), 709–771 (Hebrew). Baer, Yitzhak, A History of the Jews in Christian Spain, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society 1961–1966). Bar-Levav, Avriel, “Ritualisation of Jewish Life and Death in the Early Modern Period”, The Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 47,1 (2002): 69–82. Barthes, Roland, Empire of Signs (New York: Hill and Wang, 1982). Baumgarten, Elisheva, Practicing Piety in Medieval Ashkenaz: Men, Women, and Everyday Religious Observance (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014).

214

Bibliography

Beinart, Haim (ed.), Moreshet Sefarad – The Sephardi Legacy (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1997). Bell, Catherine, Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997). Bell, Catherine, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). Ben-Nahe, Yaron, “Jewish Confraternities in the Ottoman Empire in the 17th and 18th Centuries”, Zion 63,3 (1998): 277–317 (Hebrew). Benayahu, Meir, “The Controversy between Kabbalah and Halakhah”, Da‘at 5 (1980): 115–161 (Hebrew). Berger, Peter L., The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (­Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967). Blidstein, Gerald J. (ed.), Sabbath: Idea, History, Reality (Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion ­University Press, 2004). Blidstein, Gerald J., “Sheliach Tzibbur: Historical and Phenomenological Observations”, Tradition 12 (1971): 69–77. Bolzoni, Lina, The Gallery of Memory. Literary and Iconographic Models in the Age of the Printing Press (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001). Bonfil, Robert, Rabbis and Jewish Communities in Renaissance Italy (Oxford: The ­Littman Library, 1993). Boustan, Raʾanan S. – Kosansky, Oren – Rustow, Marina (eds.), Jewish Studies at the Crossroads of Anthropology and History: Authority, Diaspora, Tradition (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011). Boyer, Pascal, “Cognitive Aspects of Religious Symbolism”, in P. Boyer (ed.), Cognitive Aspects of Religious Symbolism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 4–47. Bruner, Edward M., “Experience and Its Expressions”, in The Anthropology of Experience, eds. V.W. Turner – E.M. Bruner (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986), 3–30. Burkert, Walter, Creation of the Sacred: Tracks of Biology in Early Religions (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1996). Burkert, Walter, Homo Necans. The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth (Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983). Burkert, Walter, Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual (Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1979). Busi, Giulio, Città di luce. La mistica ebraica dei Palazzi celesti (Torino: Einaudi, 2019). Busi, Giulio, Qabbalah visiva (Torino: Einaudi, 2005). Cardona, Giorgio R., Antropologia della scrittura (Novara: De Agostini, 2009). Carruthers, Mary, The Book of Memory. A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). Comba, Enrico, Antropologia delle religioni (Roma-Bari: Laterza, 2008).

Bibliography

215

Connerton, Paul, How Societies Remember (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). Corti, Maria, Il viaggio testuale. Le ideologie e le strutture semiotiche (Torino: Einaudi, 1978). Csordas, Thomas J. (ed.), Embodiment and Experience: The Existential Ground of C ­ ulture and Self (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). Dan, Joseph, “The Emergence of Mystical Prayer”, in Studies in Jewish Mysticism, eds. J. Dan – F. Talmage (Cambridge MA: Association for Jewish Studies, 1982), 85–128. Dan, Joseph, Hebrew Ethical and Homiletic Literature: the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period (Jerusalem: Keter, 1975) (Hebrew). Dan, Joseph, “The Language of Mystical Prayer”, Studies in Spirituality 5 (1995): 40–60. Douglas, Mary, How Institutions Think (Syracuse NY: Syracuse University Press, 1986). Douglas, Mary, Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology (New York: Routledge, 1996). Durkheim, Emile, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (New York: The Free Press, 1995). Eco, Umberto, Infinity of Lists (London: Random House Inc., 2009). Eco, Umberto, The Limits of Interpretation (Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press, 1990). Eco, Umberto, Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language (Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press, 1984). Ehrlich, Uri, The Nonverbal Language of Prayer: a New Approach to Jewish Liturgy (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). Eilberg-Schwartz, Howard (ed.), People of the Body: Jews and Judaism from an Embodied Perspective (Albany NY: State University of New York Press, 1992). Eliade, Mircea, Images and Symbols: Studies in Religious Symbolism (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1961). Elior, Rachel, “The Kabbalists of Draʾa”, Peʿamim 24 (1985): 36–73 (Hebrew). Elkayam, Avraham, “On the Architectonic Structure of Sefer Maʿarekhet ha-ʾElohut”, Qiryat Sefer 64 (1993): 289–304 (Hebrew). Elman, Yaakov – Gershoni, Israel (eds.), Transmitting Jewish Tradition: Orality, Textuality, and Cultural Diffusion (New Haven – London: Yale University Press, 2000). Emanuel, Simha, “The Polemics of the German Pietists on the Language of Prayer”, Meḥqere Talmud III, eds. Y. Sussman – D. Rosenthal (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2005), 591–625 (Hebrew). Faierstein, Morris, “God’s Need for the Commandments in Medieval Kabbalah”, Conservative Judaism 36 (1982): 45–59. Faierstein, Morris, Jewish Customs of Kabbalistic Origins (Brighton MA: Academic Studies Press, 2013).

216

Bibliography

Fenton, Paul B., “Devotional Rites in a Sufi Mode”, in Judaism in Practice, from the Middle Ages to the Early Modern Period, ed. L. Fine (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001), 364–374. Fenton, Paul B., “The Symbolism of Ritual Circumambulation in Judaism and Islam”, The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 6 (1997): 345–369. Fine, Lawrence, “Dimensions of Kabbalah from the Spanish Expulsion to the Dawn of Hasidism”, in The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. VII, eds. J. Karp – A. Sutcliffe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 437–474. Fine, Lawrence, “Purifying the Body in the Name of the Soul: The Problem of the Body in Sixteenth-Century Kabbalah”, in People of the Body: Jews and Judaism from an Embodied Perspective, ed. H. Eilberg-Schwartz (Albany NY: State University of New York Press, 1992), 117–142. Fine, Lawrence (ed.), Safed Spirituality (New York: Paulist Press, 1984). Fishbane, Eitan P., “A Chariot for the Shekhinah: Identity and the Ideal Life in ­Sixteenth-Century Kabbalah”, Journal of Religious Ethics 37, 3 (2009): 385–418. Fishbane, Michael, Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). Fishbane, Michael, “Some Forms of Divine Appearance in Ancient Jewish Thought”, in From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism, eds. J. Neusner – E. Frerichs – N. Sarna (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 261–270. Forman, Robert K.C., The Problem of Pure Consciousness: Mysticism and Philosophy (New York – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). Foucault, Michel, The Order of Things: An Archeology of the Human Sciences (New York: Pantheon Books, 1970). Frank, R.M. – Dirven, R. – Ziemke, T. – Bernardez, E. (eds.), Body, Language and Mind. Vol. 2: Sociocultural Situatedness (Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2008). Frenkel, Yehoshua, “Jewish Sources for the History of Morocco”, in Medieval and Modern Perspectives on Muslim-Jewish Relations, ed. R.L. Nettler (London – New York: Routledge, 1995), 59–71. Garb, Jonathan, “Magic and Mysticism: Between North Africa and Eretz Yisrael”, Peʿamim 85 (2000): 112–130 (Hebrew). Garb, Jonathan, Manifestations of Power in Jewish Mysticism: From Rabbinic Literature to Safedian Kabbalah (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2004) (Hebrew). Geary, Patrick J., Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millennium (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994). Geertz, Clifford, The Interpretations of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973). Ginsburg, Elliot K., Sod ha-Shabbat (The Mystery of the Sabbath) (Albany NY: State ­University of New York Press, 1989).

Bibliography

217

Ginsburg, Elliot K., The Sabbath in the Classical Kabbalah (Albany NY: State University of New York Press, 1989). Goetschel, Roland, Meir Ibn Gabbay. Le discours de la Kabbale espagnole (Leuven: Peeters, 1981). Goldberg, Harvey E., “The Zohar in Southern Morocco: A Study in the Ethnography of Texts”, History of Religions 29 (1990): 233–258. Gondos, Andrea, Kabbalah in Print: The Study and Popularization of Jewish Mysticism in Early Modernity (Albany NY: State University of New York Press, 2020). Gorman, Frank H., The Ideology of Ritual. Space, Time, and Status in the Priestly Theology (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990). Gottlieb, Ephraim, The Kabbalah in the Writings of R. Baḥya ben Asher (Jerusalem: Qiryat Sefer, 1970) (Hebrew). Gottlieb, Ephraim, “The Meaning of Prayer in the Spanish Kabbalah”, in Prayer in Judaism: Continuity and Change, eds. G.H. Cohn – H. Fish (Northvale NJ: Jason Aronson, 1996), 143–162. Gottlieb, Ephraim, Studies in Kabbalistic Literature (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1976) (Hebrew). Gries, Zeev, Conduct Literature: Its History and Place in the Life of Beshtian Ḥasidism (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1989) (Hebrew). Gries, Zeev, “Print as an Agent of Communication between the Jewish Communities after the Expulsion from Spain”, Da‘at 28 (1992): 5–18 (Hebrew). Gross, Abraham, Iberian Jewry from Twilight to Dawn: the World of Rabbi Abraham Saba (Leiden: Brill, 1995). Gruenwald, Ithamar, Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2003). Guidi, Angela (ed.), Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 47, 3 (2011) (“Il mantello di Elia: trasmissione e innovazione della cabala”). Hacker, Joseph, “The Intellectual Activity of the Jews of the Ottoman Empire during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries”, in Jewish Thought in the Seventeenth Century, eds. I. Twersky – B. Septimus (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), 95–135. Hacker, Joseph, “Jews in the Ottoman Empire (1580–1839)”, in The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. VII, eds. J. Karp – A. Sutcliffe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 831–863. Hacker, Joseph, “The Sephardi Diaspora in Muslim Lands from the 16th to 18th Century”, in Odyssey of the Exiles. The Sephardi Jews 1492–1992, eds. R. Porter – Sarah Harel-Hoshen (Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defence Publishing House, 1992), 95–122. Hadot, Pierre, Exercices spirituels et philosophie antique (Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes,1987).

218

Bibliography

Halbertal, Moshe, Concealment and Revelation: Esotericism in Jewish Thought and Its Philosophical Implications (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007). Hallamish, Moshe, “Elbaz, Moses ben Maimon”, in Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World, 2010. Hallamish, Moshe, Kabbalah in Liturgy, Halakhah, and Customs (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan Press, 2000) (Hebrew). Hallamish, Moshe, The Kabbalah in North Africa (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2001) (Hebrew). Hallamish Moshe, Kabbalistic Ritual (Tel Aviv: Idra Publishing, 2016) (Hebrew). Hallamish, Moshe, Studies in Kabbalah and Prayer (Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University, 2002) (Hebrew). Hallamish, Moshe, “Yaʿaqov Ifargan and His Writings”, Peʿamim 43 (1990): 85–110 (Hebrew). Handelman, Susan A., The Slayers of Moses: The Emergence of Rabbinic Interpretation in Modern Literary Theory (Albany NY: State University of New York Press, 1982). Haudry, Jean, La triade pensée, parole, action, dans la tradition indo-européen (Milano: Archè, 2009). Hayman, Peter, “Monotheism – A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?”, Journal of Jewish Studies 42 (1991): 1–15. Hollenback, Jess B., Mysticism: Experience, Response, and Empowerment (University Park PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996). Horowitz, Elliott, “Coffee, Coffeehouses, and the Nocturnal Rituals of Early Modern Jewry”, AJS Review 14,1 (1989): 17–46. Houseman, Michael – Severi, Carlo, Naven, or The Other Self, A Relational Approach to Ritual Action (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2006). Huss, Boaz, “The Anthological Interpretation: The Emergence of Anthologies of Zohar Commentaries in the Seventeenth Century”, Prooftexts 19 (1999): 1–19. Huss, Boaz, “The Definition of the Symbol by R. Yosef Giqatilla and its Influence on Kabbalistic Literature”, Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 12 (1996): 157–176 (Hebrew). Huss, Boaz, “For the Letter Kills, but the Spirit Gives Life: Halakha Versus Kabbalah in the Study of Jewish Mysticism”, Modern Judaism 41 (2021): 47–70. Huss, Boaz, Mystifying Kabbalah: Academic Scholarship, National Theology, and New Age Spirituality (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2020). Huss, Boaz, “The New Age of Kabbalah. Contemporary Kabbalah, the New Age and Postmodern Spirituality”, Journal of Modern Jewish Studies 6,2 (2007): 107–125. Huss, Boaz, “Sefer ha-Zohar as a Canonical, Sacred, Holy Text: Changing Perspectives of the Book of Splendor between the Thirteenth and Eighteenth Centuries”, The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 7 (1998): 257–307. Huss, Boaz, “Sefer Poqeaḥ ʿiverim. New Information about the History of Kabbalistic Literature”, Tarbiz 61 (1992): 489–504 (Hebrew).

Bibliography

219

Huss, Boaz, Sockets of Fine Gold: The Kabbalah of R. Shimon ibn Lavi (Jerusalem: Magnes – Ben-Zvi Institute, 2000) (Hebrew). Huss, Boaz, The Zohar: Reception and Impact (Oxford – Portland: The Littman Library, 2016). Huss, Boaz, “The Zoharic Communities of Safed”, in Shefa Tal: On Jewish Thought and Culture, eds. Z. Gries – H. Kreisel – B. Huss (Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University Press, 2004), 149–169 (Hebrew). Idel, Moshe, Absorbing Perfections, Kabbalah and Interpretation (New Haven – ­London: Yale University Press, 2002). Idel, Moshe, Ascensions on High in Jewish Mysticism: Pillars, Lines, Ladders (Budapest – New York: Central European University Press, 2005). Idel, Moshe, Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism (London – New York: Continuum, 2007). Idel, Moshe, La Cabbalà in Italia (1280–1510) (Firenze: Giuntina, 2007). Idel, Moshe, Enchanted Chains. Techniques and Rituals in Jewish Mysticism (Los ­Angeles: Cherub Press, 2005). Idel, Moshe, “Encounters between Spanish and Italian Kabbalists in the Generation of the Expulsion”, in Crisis and Creativity in the Sephardic world, 1391–1648, ed. B.R. Gampel (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), 189–222. Idel, Moshe, “From Structure to Action: On the Divine Body and the Human Activity according to the Kabbalah”, Mishqafayim 32 (1998): 3–6 (Hebrew). Idel, Moshe, “Ganz andere: on Rudolph Otto and Concepts of Holiness in Jewish ­Mysticism”, Da‘at 57–59 (2006): V–XLIV. Idel, Moshe, The Gate of Intention: R. Isaac ben Shmuel of Acre and Its Reception (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2020). Idel, Moshe, “Gazing at the Head in Ashkenazi Hasidism”, The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 6,2 (1997): 265–300. Idel, Moshe, “The Image of Man above the Sefirot”, Da‘at 4 (1980): 41–55 (Hebrew). Idel, Moshe, Kabbalah: New Perspectives (New Haven – London: Yale University Press, 1988). Idel, Moshe, Kabbalah and Eros (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005). Idel, Moshe, “The Kabbalah in Morocco: a Survey”, in Jews and Art in a Muslim Land, ed. V.B. Mann (New York: Merell, 2000), 104–124. Idel, Moshe, “Kabbalistic Material from the School of R. Dawid ben Yehudah he-Ḥasid”, Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 2 (1983): 169–207 (Hebrew). Idel, Moshe, “Kabbalistic Prayer and Colors”, in Approaches to Judaism in Medieval Times, ed. D. Blumenthal (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), vol. 3, 17–27. Idel, Moshe, “Leviathan and Its Consort: From Talmudic to Kabbalistic Myth”, in Myths in Judaism, eds. I. Gruenwald – M. Idel (Jerusalem: Shazar Center, 2004) (Hebrew), 145–186.

220

Bibliography

Idel, Moshe, “The Liturgical Turn: from Sephardic Kabbalah to Safedian Kabbalah, until the Beginnings of Ḥasidism”, in Jewish Prayer. New Perspectives, ed. U. Ehrlich (Beer Sheva: University Ben Gurion, 2016), 9–50 (Hebrew). Idel, Moshe, “Maimonides and Kabbalah”, in Studies in Maimonides, ed. I. Twersky (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), 31–82. Idel, Moshe, Il male primordiale nella Qabbalah (Milano: Adelphi, 2016). Idel, Moshe, “Memento Dei – Remarks on Remembering in Judaism”, in Il senso della memoria (Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 2003), 143–192. Idel, Moshe, Messianic Mystics (New Haven – London: Yale University Press, 1998). Idel, Moshe, “Midrashic versus Other Forms of Jewish Hermeneutics”, in The Midrashic Imagination. Jewish Exegesis, Thought, and History, ed. M. Fishbane (Albany NY: State University of New York Press, 1993), 45–58. Idel, Moshe, “Nishmat ʾEloha: On the Divinity of the Soul in Nahmanides and His School”, in Life as a Midrash, Perspectives in Jewish Psychology, eds. S. Arzi – M. Fachler – B. Kahana (Tel Aviv: Yediot Ahronot, 2004), 338–381 (Hebrew). Idel, Moshe, “On Mobility, Individuals and Groups: Prolegomena for a Sociological Approach to Sixteenth-Century Kabbalah”, Kabbalah 3 (1998): 145–173. Idel, Moshe, “On the Performing Body in Theosophical-Theurgical Kabbalah: Some Preliminary Remarks”, in The Jewish Body: Corporeality, Society, and Identity in the Renaissance and Early Modern Period, eds. M. Diemling – G. Veltri (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2009), 251–271. Idel, Moshe, “On Some Forms of Order in Kabbalah”, Da‘at 50–52 (2003): XXXI–LVIII. Idel, Moshe, “On the Theologization of Kabbalah in Modern Scholarship”, in Religious Apologetics – Philosophical Argumentation, eds. Y. Schwartz – V. Krech (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 123–173. Idel, Moshe, “Particularism and Universalism in Kabbalah, 1480–1650”, in Essential Papers on Jewish Culture in Renaissance and Baroque Italy, ed. D.B. Ruderman (New York – London: New York University Press, 1992), 324–344. Idel, Moshe, “Performance, Intensification, and Experience in Jewish Mysticism”, Archaeus XIII (2009): 93–134. Idel, Moshe, The Privileged Divine Feminine in Kabbalah (Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter 2019). Idel, Moshe, R. Menaḥem Recanati, The Kabbalist, I (Jerusalem – Tel Aviv: Schocken, 1999) (Hebrew). Idel, Moshe, “R. Neḥemia ben Shlomo the Prophet’s Commentary on Elʿazar ha-Qalir’s Hymn And the Beasts who are found at the Corners of the Throne”, Kabbalah 41 (2018): 59–192 (Hebrew). Idel, Moshe, “R. Yehudah Hallewah and his Book Ṣafenat paʿaneaḥ”, Shalem 4 (1984): 119–148 (Hebrew).

Bibliography

221

Idel, Moshe, “Religion, Thought and Attitudes; the Impact of the Expulsion on the Jews”, in Spain and the Jews. The Sephardi Experience, 1492 and After, ed. E. Kedourie (London: Thames and Hudson, 1992), 123–139. Idel, Moshe, Representing God, eds. H. Tirosh-Samuelson – A.W. Hughes (Leiden: Brill, 2014). Idel, Moshe, Saturn’s Jews. On the Witches’ Sabbath and Sabbateanism (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011). Idel, Moshe, “Some Concepts of Time and History in Kabbalah”, in Jewish History and Jewish Memory, Essays in Honor of Y.H. Yerushalmi, ed. E. Carlebach (Hanover NH: Brandeis University Press, 1998), 153–188. Idel, Moshe, “Spanish Kabbalah after the Expulsion”, in Moreshet Sepharad – The ­Sephardi Legacy, ed. H. Beinart (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1997), vol. 2, 166–178. Idel, Moshe, “Visualization of Colors, i: David ben Yehudah he-Hasid’s Kabbalistic Diagram”, Ars Judaica 11 (2015): 31–54. Idel, Moshe, “Visualization of Colors, ii: Implications of David ben Yehudah he-Hasid’s Diagram for the History of Kabbalah”, Ars Judaica 12 (2016): 39–51. Jenson, Philip P., Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World (­Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). Jussen, Bernhard (ed.), Ordering Medieval Society: Perspectives on Intellectual and Practical Modes of Shaping Social Relations (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001). Kadosh, Meir, Kabbalistic Jewish Laws in Responsa from the 13th Century to the Early Years of the 17th Century (Ph.D. diss. Bar Ilan University, 2004) (Hebrew). Kapferer, Bruce, “Performance and the Structuring of Meaning and Experience”, in The Anthropology of Experience, eds. V.W. Turner – E.M. Bruner (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986), 188–203. Katz, Jacob, Halakhah and Kabbalah: Studies in the History of Jewish Religion (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984) (Hebrew). Katz, Jacob, “Halakhah and Kabbalah as Competing Disciplines”, in Jewish Spirituality, ed. A. Green (New York: Crossroad, 1987), vol. 2, 34–63. Katz, Jacob, “Post-Zoharic Relations Between Halakhah and Kabbalah”, in Jewish Thought in the Sixteenth Century, ed. B.D. Cooperman (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1983), 283–307. Katz, Steven T. (ed.), Mysticism and Language (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1992). Katz, Steven T. (ed.), Mysticism and Religious Traditions (New York, NY: Oxford ­University Press, 1983). Kellens, Jean, “Les précautions rituelles et la triade du comportament”, in Zoroastrian Rituals in Context, ed. M. Stausberg (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 283–289.

222

Bibliography

Kiener, Ronald C., “The Status of Astrology in the Early Kabbalah: From the Sefer Yesirah to the Zohar”, Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 6 (1987): 1–24. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara, “The Corporeal Turn”, The Jewish Quarterly Review 95 (2005): 447–461. Koch, Patrick B., Human Self-Perfection: A Re-Assessment of Kabbalistic Musar-Literature of Sixteenth-Century Safed (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2015). Lachter, Hartley, Kabbalistic Revolution: Reimagining Judaism in Medieval Spain (New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2014). Langer, Ruth, To Worship God Properly: Tensions Between Liturgical Custom and ­Halakhah in Judaism (Cincinnati OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1998). Laura, Heidi, “Collected Traditions and Scattered Secrets. Eclecticism and Esotericism in the Works of the 14th Century Ashkenazi Kabbalist Menahem Ziyyoni of Cologne”, Scandinavian Jewish Studies 20 (1999): 19–44. Lawee, Eric, “Sephardic Intellectuals: Challenges and Creativity (1391–1492)”, in The Jew in Medieval Iberia, 1100–1500, ed. J. Ray (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2012), 350–391. Le Goff, Jacques, The Medieval Imagination (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988). Levenson, Jon D., Creation and the Persistence of Evil: the Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998). Liebes, Yehuda, Ars Poetica in Sefer Yeṣirah (Jerusalem – Tel Aviv: Schocken, 2000) (Hebrew). Liebes, Yehuda, “De Natura Dei. On the Development of the Jewish Myth”, in idem, Studies in Jewish Myth and Jewish Messianism (Albany NY: State University of New York Press, 1993), 1–64. Liebes, Yehuda, God’s Story: Collected Essays on Jewish Myth (Jerusalem: Carmel, 2008) (Hebrew). Liebes, Yehuda, “New Directions in the Study of Kabbalah”, Peʿamim 50 (1992): 150–170 (Hebrew). Liebes, Yehuda, “The Zohar and the Tiqqunim, from Renaissance to Revolution”, in New Developments in Zohar Studies, ed. R. Meroz (Ramat Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 2007), 251–301 (Hebrew). Liebes, Yehuda, “The Zohar as Renaissance”, Da‘at 46 (2001): 5–11 (Hebrew). Lorusso, Anna Maria, Cultural Semiotics. For a Cultural Perspective in Semiotics (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015). Lotman, Jurij M., Culture and Explosion (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009). Lotman, Jurij M., “On the Metalanguage of a Typological Description of Culture”, Semiotica 14,2 (1975): 97–123. Lotman, Jurij M., “On the Semiosphere”, Sign Systems Studies 33,1 (2005): 215–239.

Bibliography

223

Lotman, Jurij M., Universe of the Mind. A Semiotic Theory of Culture (London – New York: I.B. Tauris, 1990). Lotman, Jurij M. – Uspenskij, Boris A., “Myth – Name – Culture”, Semiotica 22,3–4 (1978): 211–233. Lotman, Jurij M. – Uspenskij, Boris A., “On the Semiotic Mechanism of Culture”, New Literary History 9,2 (1978): 211–232. Malkiel, David, “Realism and the Rise of Kabbalah in the Sixteenth Century”, in Caminos de leche y miel, eds. H. de Boer et al. (Barcelona: Tirocinio, 2018), 313–327. Mandelker, Amy, “Semiotizing the Sphere: Organicist Theory in Lotman, Bakhtin, and Vernadsky”, Publications of the Modern Language Association 109,3 (1994): 385–396. Marciano, Yoel, “The Status and Dissemination of the Kabbalah in Jewish Society of the Iberian Peninsula in the Late Middle Ages”, Sefunot 26 (2019): 137–173 (Hebrew). Marcus, Ivan, “Exegesis for the Few and for the Many: Judah he-Hasid’s Biblical ­Commentary”, Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 8 (1989): 1–24. Matt, Daniel, “The Mystic and the Miẓwot”, in Jewish Spirituality, ed. A. Green (New York: Crossroad, 1986), vol. 1, 367–404. Matt, Daniel, “New-Ancient Words: The Aura of Secrecy in the Zohar”, in Gershom Scholem’s Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism – 50 Years After, eds. P. Schaefer – J. Dan (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 181–207. Meroz, Ronit, “Zoharic Narratives and Their Adaptations”, Hispania Judaica Bulletin 3 (2000): 3–63. Mopsik, Charles, Les grands textes de la cabale. Les rites qui font Dieu (Paris: Verdier, 1993). Mopsik, Charles, “Une querelle à Jérusalem: La féminité de la Chekhina dans la cabale”, Pardès 12 (1990): 13–25. Morlok, Elke, Rabbi Joseph Gikatilla’s Hermeneutics (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). Mottolese, Maurizio, Analogy in Midrash and Kabbalah: Interpretive Projections of the Sanctuary and Ritual (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2007). Mottolese, Maurizio, “Between Somatics and Semiotics. The Lulav Ritual Gesture and its Kabbalistic Re-signification”, Kabbalah 42 (2018): 7–61. Mottolese, Maurizio, Bodily Rituals in Jewish Mysticism. The Intensification of Cultic Hand Gestures by Medieval Kabbalists (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2016). Mottolese, Maurizio, Dio nel giudaismo rabbinico. Immagini e mito (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2010). Mottolese, Maurizio, “Hydraulic Imageries in the Kabbalistic Discourse”, forthcoming. Mottolese, Maurizio, “Preghiera vocale e voci divine. La dimensione sonora del culto rabbinico alla luce della prima Qabbalah”, in Ascoltare gli Dèi, ed. I. Baglioni (Roma: Quasar, 2015), 175–191.

224

Bibliography

Naeh, Shlomo, “The Art of Memory: Constructions of Memory and Patterns of Text in Rabbinic Literature”, Meḥqere Talmud III, eds. Y. Sussman – D. Rosenthal (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2005), 543–589 (Hebrew). Olick Jeffrey – Robbins Joyce, “Social Memory Studies: From ‘Collective Memory’ to the Historical Sociology of Mnemonic Practices”, Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1998): 105–140. Pachter, Mordechai, “Kabbalistic Ethical Literature in Sixteenth-Century Safed”, in Binah. Studies in Jewish History, Thought, and Culture, ed. J. Dan (Westport: Praeger, 1994), vol. 3, 159–178. Parpola, Simo, “The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 52,3 (1993): 161–208. Pedaya, Haviva, “Figure and Image in the Kabbalistic Exegesis of Ramban”, Maḥanayim 6 (1994): 114–123 (Hebrew). Pedaya, Haviva, Name and Sanctuary in the Early Kabbalah: A Comparative Study in the Writings of the Earliest Kabbalists (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2001) (Hebrew). Pedaya, Haviva, Vision and Speech: Models of Revelatory Experience in Jewish Mysticism (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2001) (Hebrew). Pely, Hagai, “Sefer ha-qanah and Sefer ha-peliyʾah: Literal and Esoteric Meaning of the Halakhah”, Tarbiz 77 (2008): 271–293 (Hebrew). Persico, Tomer, “Kabbalah Through the Utilitarian Prism: Contemporary Neo-Kabbalah in Israel as a Form of Consumer Culture”, in Contemporary Alternative Spiritualities in Israel, eds. S. Feraro – J.R. Lewis (Palgrave Macmillan US, 2017), 21–38. Perusset, Alain, “Des formes de vie aux styles de vie, et vice-versa”, Actes Semiotique 122 (2019): 1–22. Rappaport, Roy A., Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity (Cambridge: ­Cambridge University Press, 1999). Ray, Jonathan S., After Expulsion: 1492 and the Making of Sephardic Jewry (New York – London: New York University Press, 2013). Remotti, Francesco, “Thèses pour une perspective anthropopoietique”, in La fabrication de l’humain dans les cultures et en anthropologie, eds. C. Calame – M. Kilani (Lausanne: Payot, 1999), 15–31. Rossi Pietro (ed.), La memoria del sapere (Roma – Bari: Laterza, 1990). Sack, Bracha, In the Gates of the Kabbalah of R. Moshe Cordovero (Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University, 1995) (Hebrew). Sack, Bracha, “Some Remarks on Prayer in the Kabbalah of 16th-Century Safed”, in Prière, mystique et judaïsme, ed. R. Goetschel (Paris: Presses Universitaire de France, 1987), 179–186. Sack, Bracha, “The Sources of Perfection: Thought, Speech and Action”, Da‘at 50–52 (2003): 221–241 (Hebrew).

Bibliography

225

Scholem, Gershom, “The Concept of Kavvanah in the Early Kabbalah”, in Studies in Jewish Thought, ed. A. Jospe (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1981), 162–180. Scholem, Gershom, Kabbalah (Jerusalem: Keter, 1974). Scholem, Gershom, “The Kabbalah in Spain in the Age of the Expulsion”, Tarbiz 24 (1955): 167–206 (Hebrew). Scholem, Gershom, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken Books, 1961). Scholem, Gershom, On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism (New York: Schocken Books, 1965). Scholem, Gershom, “On Sefer ʾAvne zikkaron”, Qiryat Sefer 6 (1930): 259–276; 7 (1931): 457–465 (Hebrew). Scholem, Gershom, Origins of the Kabbalah (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987). Scholem, Gershom, “Revelation and Tradition as Religious Categories in Judaism”, in idem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (New York: Schocken Books, 1971), 282–303. Schüler, Sebastian, “Synchronized Ritual Behavior: Religion, Cognition and the Dynamics of Embodiment”, in Religion and the Body: Modern Science and the Construction of Religious Meaning, eds. D. Cave – R. Sachs Norris (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2012), 81–101. Schwartz, Dov, Studies on Astral Magic in Medieval Jewish Thought (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2004). Segal, Robert A., The Myth and Ritual Theory (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998). Segol, Marla, Word and Image in Medieval Kabbalah (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012). Skorupsky, John, Symbol and Theory: A Philosophical Study of Theories of Religion (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976). Smith, Jonathan Z., Map is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1978). Soloveitchik, Joseph B., Halakhic Man (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1983). Sperber, Daniel, Minhage Yisraʾel: Origins and History (Jerusalem: Mossad ha-Rav Kook, 1998–2007) (Hebrew). Stahl, Abraham, “Ritual Reading of the Zohar”, Peʿamim 5 (1980): 77–86 (Hebrew). Steiner, George, After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation (London: Oxford ­University Press, 1975). Stern, David, “Midrash and Indeterminacy”, Critical Inquiry 15 (1988): 132–161. Stock, Brian, The Implications of Literacy: Written Language and Models of Interpretation in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983).

226

Bibliography

Stroumsa, Guy, “Form(s) of God: Some Notes on Metatron and Christ”, Harvard Theological Review 76 (1983): 269–288. Talmage, Frank E., “Apples of Gold: The Inner Meaning of Sacred Texts in Medieval Judaism”, in Jewish Spirituality, ed. A. Green (New York: Crossroad, 1986), vol. 1, 313–355. Tambiah, Stanley J., Culture, Thought, and Social Action: An Anthropological Perspective (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1985). Ta-Shma, Israel, The Early Ashkenazi Prayer (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2003) (Hebrew). Ta-Shma, Israel, “ʾEl melekh neʾeman: the Development of a Custom”, Tarbiz 39 (1970): 184–194 (Hebrew). Ta-Shma, Israel, The Revealed in the Concealed: About the Halakhah in the Zohar (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1995) (Hebrew). Tishby, Isaiah, The Wisdom of the Zohar. An Anthology of Texts, 3 vols. (London – ­Washington: Littman Library, 1991). Turner, Victor, The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual (Ithaca NY: Cornell ­University Press, 1967). Turner, Victor, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (Ithaca NY: Cornell ­University Press, 1969). Urbach, Ephraim, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Cambridge MA: Harvard ­University Press, 1979). Uspenskij, B.A. – Ivanov, V.V. – Toporov, V.N. – Pjatigorskij, A.M. – Lotman, J.M., “Theses on the semiotic study of cultures (as applied to Slavic texts)”, in Structure of Texts and Semiotics of Culture, eds. J. van der Eng – G. Mojmír (The Hague, Paris: Mouton, 1973), 1–28. Valabregue, Sandra, “The Limits of Negative Theology in Medieval Kabbalah and ­Jewish Philosophy”, in Negative Theology as Jewish Modernity, ed. M. Fagenblat (Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press, 2017), 30–47. Van Der Heide, Albert, “PARDES: Methodological Reflections on the Theory of the Four Senses”, Journal of Jewish Studies 34 (1983): 147–159. Weinstein, Roni, Kabbalah and Jewish Modernity (Oxford – Portland: The Littman Library, 2016). Weinstein, Roni, “Kabbalistic Innovation in Jewish Confraternities in the Early Modern Mediterranean”, in Faith’s Boundaries. Laity and Clergy in Early Modern Confraternities, eds. N. Terpstra – A. Prosperi – S. Pastore (Turnhout: Brepols, 2008), 233–247. Wolfson, Elliot R., “Mirror of Nature Reflected in the Symbolism of Medieval Kabbalah”, in Judaism and Ecology, ed. H. Tirosh-Samuelson (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), 305–331. Wolfson, Elliot R., “Mystical Rationalization of the Commandments in Sefer ha-­ Rimmon”, Hebrew Union College Annual 59 (1988): 217–251.

Bibliography

227

Wolfson, Elliot R., “Mystical-Theurgical Dimensions of Prayer in Sefer ha-Rimmon”, in Approaches to Judaism in Medieval Times, ed. D. Blumenthal (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), vol. 3, 41–80. Wolfson, Elliot R., “Negative Theology and Positive Assertion in the Early Kabbalah”, Da‘at 33–34 (1994), V–XXII. Wolfson, Elliot R., “Re/membering the Covenant: Memory, Forgetfulness, and the Construction of History in the Zohar”, in Jewish History and Jewish Memory, Essays in Honor of Y.H. Yerushalmi, ed. E. Carlebach (Hanover NH: Brandeis University Press, 1998), 214–246. Wolfson, Elliot R., “Structure, Innovation, and Diremptive Temporality: The Use of Models to Study Continuity and Discontinuity in Kabbalistic Tradition”, Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 6,18 (2007): 143–167. Wolfson, Elliot R., “The Tree that is All: Jewish-Christian Roots of a Kabbalistic Symbol in Sefer ha-Bahir”, The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 3 (1993): 31–76. Wolfson, Elliot R., Through a Speculum that Shines: Vision and Imagination in Medieval Jewish Mysticism (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994). Wolfson, Elliot R., Venturing Beyond: Law and Morality in Kabbalistic Mysticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). Woolf, Jeffrey R., “Laʿavodat borʾo: The Body in the Shulḥan Arukh of R. Joseph Karo”, in The Jewish Body. Corporeality, Society and Identity in the Renaissance and Early Modern Period, eds. M. Diemling – G. Veltri (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2009), 159–177. Yelle, Robert A., Semiotics of Religion: Signs of the Sacred History (New York: Bloomsbury, 2013). Yerushalmi, Yosef H., “Exile and Expulsion in Jewish History”, in Crisis and Creativity in the Sephardic World: 1391–1648, ed. B.R. Gampel (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), 3–22. Yerushalmi, Yosef H., Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory (Seattle – London: ­University of Washington Press, 1982). Zafrani, Haim, Éthique et Mystique. Judaisme en Terre d’Islam (Paris: Maisonneuve et Larose, 1991). Zafrani, Haim, Kabbale, vie mystique et magie (Paris: Maisonneuve et Larose, 1986).

Index The index does not include Meir ibn Gabbay and Moshe Elbaz, which are mentioned in nearly every page of the book. Abate, Emma 72 Abrams, Daniel 21, 25, 43, 72, 168, 204 Abulafia, Abraham 70, 109, 173 Adrutiel, Abraham 12, 24, 183 Afterman, Adam 81 Alashqar, Yosef 12, 24, 120, 183 Alqabetz, Shlomo 24 Alqastiel, Yosef 115 Al-Naqawa, Yisrael 23, 95 Altmann, Alexander 47 Amram Gaon 94 Angelet, Yosef 21 Arama, Yiṣḥaq 15 Asad, Talal 191 Asher ben Shaul of Luniel 95 Assmann, Jan 28–29, 86 Avivi, Yosef 84 Azriel of Gerona 103 Baer, Yitzhak 115, 185 Baḥya ben Asher 77, 81, 95–96, 112 Bar-Levav, Avriel 154–155, 187 Barthes, Roland 50, 209 Baumgarten, Elisheva 154 Bell, Catherine 6 Ben-Nahe, Yaron 183 Benayahu, Meir 185 Berger, Peter L. 5, 59–60, 76–77, 86, 143, 202 Bilu, Yoram 143 Blidstein, Gerald J. 164 Bolzoni, Lina 28 Bonfil, Robert 143–144 Bourdieu, Pierre 166, 184, 198 Boutaud, Jean Jacques 197 Boyer, Pascal 74, 175, 199 Braudel, Fernand 193 Bruner, Edward M. 198 Burkert, Walter 91, 161, 191, 195 Busi, Giulio 63, 66, 69, 72

Cardona, Giorgio R. 67, 206 Carruthers, Mary 28 Chajes, Jeffrey H. 72 Chastel, André 167 Comba, Enrico 202 Connerton, Paul 29 Cordovero, Moshe 24–26, 32, 74, 79, 82, 95, 104–105, 123, 158, 170 Corti, Maria 50 Csordas, Thomas J. 199 Dan, Joseph 23, 44, 151 Dawid ben Yehudah he-Ḥasid 17, 19, 21, 33–36, 48–49, 55, 104, 109, 113, 164–165 Dawid ibn Zimra (Radbaz) 12, 25, 57, 107, 112, 122, 153, 183 de Certeau, Michel 198 De Vidas, Eliyah 19, 22, 25 Deikman, Arthur J. 182, 200 Del Ninno, Maurizio 197 Derrida, Jacques 206 DeSteno David 179 Douglas, Mary 5, 55, 77, 177, 200 Dumézil, Georges 103 Durkheim, Emile 28, 177–178, 181, 202 Eco, Umberto 48, 51, 197, 199, 209 Ehrlich, Uri 105 Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. 195 Eliade, Mircea 34, 147, 177, 202 Eliyyah Ḥayyim ben Binyamin da Genazzano 89 Elkayam, Avraham 95 Emanuel, Simha 44 Everson, William 5 Ezra of Gerona 74, 95 Faierstein, Morris 84, 151 Fenton, Paul B. 174 Fine, Lawrence 12, 20, 26, 151, 154, 174

229

index Fishbane, Eitan P. 81, 178 Fishbane, Michael 63, 65 Forman, Robert K. C. 200 Foucault, Michel 42, 174, 198 Frenkel, Yehoshua 15 Garb, Jonathan 14, 70, 79, 82–83, 90, 105, 114, 143, 158–159, 166, 177 Geary, Patrick J. 28 Geertz, Clifford 182, 197 Gingrich, Andre 193 Ginsburg, Elliot K. 12, 49, 51, 104, 108, 124, 180 Ginzburg, Carlo 197, 199 Giqatilla, Yosef 47, 56, 75, 80, 87, 89–90, 96, 104, 106, 113–115, 125, 130, 159, 173, 177 Goetschel, Roland 12, 44, 70, 81–83, 85, 88, 98, 106, 116, 169 Goldberg, Harvey E. 21 Gondos, Andrea 26, 155 Gorman, Frank H. 60 Gottlieb, Ephraim 70, 81, 82, 84, 86, 90, 98, 145, 148 Greimas, Algirdas J. 54, 127, 198 Gries, Zeev 26, 149, 155 Gross, Abraham 22 Gruenwald, Ithamar 101 Guthrie, Steward 74 Hacker, Joseph 22, 31, 183 Hadot, Pierre 173–174 Halbertal, Moshe 40 Halbwachs, Maurice 28, 198 Hallamish, Moshe 12, 16, 21–22, 25, 32, 101, 106, 112, 118, 122–123, 125, 145, 148, 151–156, 159, 166, 169, 184 Hallewah, Yehudah 12, 183, 187 Handelman, Susan A. 45 Haudry, Jean 103 Hayman, Peter 63–64 Ḥayyat, Yehudah 12, 25 Ḥayyim of Volozhin 208 Hoffman, Lawrence 94 Hollenback, Jess B. 160, 200 Hoppál, Mihály 197 Horowitz, Carmi 185 Horowitz, Elliott 143, 154 Houseman, Michael 199, 202

Huss, Boaz 11, 20–21, 23–24, 26, 31, 82–83, 104, 142, 144, 148, 152, 166, 169, 173, 184–186, 191 Idel, Moshe 1, 4, 6, 11–15, 17, 19, 23–24, 28–30, 39–49, 53–55, 61–68, 70–71, 73–75, 78–80, 82–88, 90–92, 95, 98, 103, 105–111, 120–121, 138, 142–144, 146, 148, 155–156, 168–169, 171, 173–175, 178, 183, 187, 193, 203, 205, 209 Ifargan, Yaʿaqov 25, 118 Jackson, Bernard S. 199 Jenson, Philip P. 60 Kadosh, Meir 109, 112, 133, 148 Kaletz, Moshe 24, 33, 46, 68 Kaletz, Yehudah 24, 33, 46 Kapferer, Bruce 7, 29, 141, 175 Katz, Jacob 26, 41–42, 44, 98, 109, 144–145, 147–148, 151–152, 185 Katz, Steven T. 199 Kellens, Jean 103 Kiener, Ronald C. 63 Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara 106 Koch, Patrick B. 25, 74, 81, 123, 177 Lachter, Hartley 114, 150 Landowski, Eric 197 Langer, Ruth 170 Laura, Heidi 23 Lawee, Eric 185 Lawson, Thomas E. 199 Le Goff, Jacques 76, 177 Le Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel 193 Leach, Edmund R. 6 Leone, Massimo 199 Levenson, Jon D. 88 Lévi-Strauss, Claude 42, 54, 177, 195 Liebes, Yehuda 63, 65, 91, 142, 146–147 Lindbeck, George 199 Lorberbaum, Yair 73 Lorusso, Anna Maria 38, 197 Lotman, Jurij M. 3, 5, 28, 54, 69, 120, 160, 168, 175–176, 184, 196–200, 206 Luckmann, Thomas 59 Luria, Yiṣḥaq 16, 24, 26, 96, 104, 123, 150–151, 186

230 Maʿarekhet ha-ʾElohut 95 Maimonides 13, 33, 73, 75, 98, 108 Malinowski, Bronislaw 208 Malkiel, David 155 Mandelker, Amy 168 Manor, Dan 12 Mar Ḥayyim, Yiṣḥaq 12 Marciano, Yoel 11, 149 Marcus, Ivan 163 Mauss, Marcel 42, 198 Matt, Daniel 108, 145–146 Meroz, Ronit 21, 131 Meyerson, Mark D. 185 Midrash Konen 114 Mopsik, Charles 25, 66, 74, 82, 85–87, 90, 97–98, 123, 145, 168, 178 Morlok, Elke 43, 113–114 Moshe ben Makhir 26, 118 Moshe de León 76, 104, 106, 116–117, 119, 122, 137, 206 Mottolese, Maurizio 4, 32, 35–36, 42–44, 50–55, 57, 64–65, 75–76, 78, 81, 91, 93, 105–109, 111–112, 114, 116, 120–122, 125–126, 127, 131, 139–140, 143, 145, 150, 153–155, 160–161, 164, 168–169, 182, 190–191, 203 Munn, Nancy 193 Naeh, Shlomo 17, 28 Nahmanides (Ramban) 68–69, 103, 132, 144 Olick, Jeffrey 28 Pachter, Mordechai 16, 25–26, 143, 151 Parmentier, Richard 197 Parpola, Simo 62 Pedaya, Haviva 53, 69, 75, 88, 164 Peirce, Charles S. 53 Pely, Hagai 147 Persico, Tomer 191 Perusset, Alain 198 Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 69 Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer 19 Plotinus 77 Proudfoot, Wayne 199 Qaro, Yosef 34, 112, 151 Rappaport, Roy A. 6, 102, 126, 128, 147, 160, 175, 202 Ray, Jonathan S. 183

index Recanati, Menaḥem 21, 23, 36, 69, 74, 104–106, 135, 140 Remotti, Francesco 176 Ricoeur, Paul 92, 198 Robbins, Joyce 28 Rosenzweig, Franz 179 Sabba, Abraham 12, 22, 24 Sacchi, Paolo 56 Sack, Bracha 82–83, 105, 123, 138, 154 Saperstein, Marc 185 Schaefer, Peter 63, 168 Scholem, Gershom 1, 6, 11, 23–24, 41, 61, 64, 67, 91, 97, 115, 117, 144–145, 149, 156, 183, 205 Schüler, Sebastian 199 Schwartz, Dov 63 Sefer ha-bahir 68, 74, 93 Sefer ha-qanah 21 Sefer ha-razim 62 Sefer ha-yiḥud 83 Sefer Poqeaḥ ʿiverim 23 Sefer yeṣirah 37, 44, 63, 71 Segal, Robert A. 91 Segol, Marla 63, 72 Severi, Carlo 199, 202 Shem Tov ibn Gaon 140 Shem Tov ibn Shem Tov 23, 98 Shimon bar Yohai 20, 145, 152, 158, 186 Shimon ibn Lavi 12, 24, 104 Shlomo ibn Adret (Rashba) 144 Skorupsky, John 176 Siboni, Aharon 16 Simmel, Georg 182 Smith, Jonathan Z. 86, 191, 199, 202 Soloveitchik, Joseph B. 147–148, 206 Sperber, Daniel 106, 148 Stahl, Abraham 21 Steiner, George 197, 199 Stern, David 45 Stock, Brian 186, 206 Stroumsa, Guy 62–63 Studstill, Randall 200 Sundén, Hjalmar 199 Talmage, Frank E. 46 Tambiah, Stanley J. 60 Talmud 18, 35–36, 44, 78, 94, 114, 152 Ta-Shma, Israel 109, 114, 145, 148 Tishby, Isaiah 108, 123, 136, 167, 170, 172 Turner, Victor 91, 110, 142, 178, 202 Tziyyoni, Menaḥem 23

231

index Underhill, Evelyn 200 Urbach, Ephraim 19 Uspenskij, Boris A. 3, 28, 69, 176, 196–197, 199 Valabregue, Sandra 67 Van Der Heide, Albert 46 Van Leewen, Theo 197 Vickers, Brian 42 Vital, Ḥayyim 118, 123 Volli, Ugo 199 Warburg, Aby 28, 63 Weinstein, Roni 26–27, 77, 123, 143, 150–151, 173, 183–184 Wexler, Philip 143 Wieder, Naphtali 94 Wolfson, Elliot R. 5, 29, 39, 41, 66–67, 70, 73, 76, 82, 117, 150, 168, 174, 177, 193 Woolf, Jeffrey R. 34

Yaʿaqov ben Sheshet 52 Yehudah ben Ḥunain 24, 46 Yehudah ha-Lewy 96 Yelle, Robert A. 93, 199 Yerushalmi, Yosef H. 28, 30, 70, 183 Yiṣḥaq of Akko 23, 104 Yiṣḥaq the Blind 97 Yissakhar Baer of Kremnitz 26 Yissakhar Baer of Shebershin 26 Yosef ibn Shraga 12, 25, 35, 104 Yosef of Hamadan 47, 68, 76, 82, 111 Zafrani, Haim 12, 21 Zimmer, Eric 106 Zohar 8, 14–16, 20–27, 31, 33, 35, 37, 47–49, 51, 67, 72, 83, 97, 99, 104–106, 109, 112, 114–115, 117–118, 123–125, 130–131, 133, 135–137, 148, 151, 155, 158–159, 163, 165–167, 169–170, 180, 184–187, 201