Mystifying Kabbalah: Academic Scholarship, National Theology, and New Age Spirituality 019008698X, 9780190086985

Citation preview

Mystifying Kabbalah

OX F O R D S T U D I E S I N W E S T E R N E S O T E R IC I SM Series Editor Henrik Bogdan, University of Gothenburg Editorial Board Carole Cusack, University of Sydney Christine Ferguson, University of Stirling Dylan Burns, Freie Universität Berlin Egil Asprem, University of Stockholm Gordan Djurdjevic, Siimon Fraser University James R. Lewis, University of Tromsø Jean-​Pierre Brach, École Pratique des Hautes Études Jeffrey Kripal, Rice University Jesper Aa. Petersen, Norwegian University of Science and Technology Michael Stausberg, University of Bergen Olav Hammer, University of Southern Denmark Peter Forshaw, University of Amsterdam Ronald Hutton, University of Bristol Wouter Hanegraaff, University of Amsterdam RECYCLED LIVES A History of Reincarnation in Blavatsky's Theosophy Julie Chajes THE ELOQUENT BLOOD The Goddess Babalon and the Construction of Femininities in Western Esotericism Manon Hedenborg White IMAGINING THE EAST The Early Philosophical Society Tim Rudbog and Erik Sand INITIATING THE MILLENNIUM The Avignon Society and Illuminism in Europe Robert Collis and Natalie Bayer GURDJIEFF Mysticism, Contemplation, and Exercises Joseph Azize

Mystifying Kabbalah Academic Scholarship, National Theology, and New Age Spirituality B OA Z H U S S Translated by ELANA LUTSKY

1

3 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © Oxford University Press 2020 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data Names: Huss, Boaz, author. Title: Mystifying Kabbalah : academic scholarship, national theology, and new age spirituality /​Boaz Huss. Description: New York : Oxford University Press, 2020. | Series: Oxford studies in western esotericism | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019052512 (print) | LCCN 2019052513 (ebook) | ISBN 9780190086961 (hardback) | ISBN 9780190086985 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Mysticism—​Judaism—​History. | Cabala. Classification: LCC BM723 .H87 2020 (print) | LCC BM723 (ebook) | DDC 296.7/​12—​dc23 LC record available at https://​lccn.loc.gov/​2019052512 LC ebook record available at https://​lccn.loc.gov/​2019052513 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed by Integrated Books International, United States of America

Contents Acknowledgments Introduction 1. The Modern Concept of Mysticism

vii 1 9

2. Jewish Mysticism and National Theology

35

3. The New Age of Kabbalah Research

62

4. “Authorized Guardians”: The Rejection of Occult and Contemporary Kabbalah

102

5. The Mystification of Kabbalah: Abraham Abulafia in Contemporary Kabbalah

132

Epilogue

157

Bibliography Index

161 179

Acknowledgments The Hebrew version of this book was published in the Theory and Criticism in Context Series by the Van Leer Institute Press and Hakkibutz Hameuchad. I am grateful for their permission to publish the book in English. I would like to thank Elana Lutsky for the efforts she put in translating the text. I owe a debt of gratitude to Yehuda Shenhav, Yossi Chajes, Amnon Raz-​ Krakotzkin and Jonatan Meir, who read the Hebrew manuscript, and offered helpful comments and thoughtful recommendations. I extend my thanks to Wouter Hanegraaff and Andreas Kilcher who read the English manuscript and offered perceptive suggestions for improvement. It is a great honor and pleasure for me to publish the book with the Oxford Studies in Western Esotericism Book Series. I am grateful to the editor of the series, Henrik Bogdan, and to the production team at Oxford University Press. Finally, my deep gratitude goes to Ephrat, for her love and support. Boaz Huss Omer, March 2020

 Introduction In 1906, the young Jewish philosopher and Zionist activist Martin Buber (1878–​1965) sent a copy of his newly published book The Tales of Rabbi Nachman to his friend, the renowned German publisher Eugen Diederichs (1867–​1930), with these words: I am sending you a book, The Tales of Rabbi Nachman, which you may find interesting. Do you perhaps recall that once—​a few years ago—​we discussed the question of the existence of Jewish mysticism? You didn’t want to believe it. With this book on Nachman I have opened up a series of documents that will expose its existence. (Schaeder 1972, 253)

“Mysticism” had become a popular concept by the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century. At that time (and still today), mysticism was defined as a direct and unmediated experience of a divine or transcendent reality, which constitutes the essence or apex of religion. Similar to many other thinkers of his generation, Diederichs, a central figure in the neo-​Romantic movement, denied the existence of mysticism in Judaism. He believed that Judaism was a rational and legalistic religion, essentially alien to mysticism. Buber sought to prove not only that mysticism exists in Judaism, but also that it is Judaism’s vital and central foundation. Buber viewed the publication of The Tales of Rabbi Nachman as the first step in the exposure of the existence of Jewish forms of mysticism. But what was the significance of such an exposure? In his preface, entitled “Jewish Mysticism,” Buber did not discuss unfamiliar texts or new and unknown trends in Judaism. Rather, he wished to demonstrate to the German-​ speaking public (Jews and non-​Jews alike) that well-​known Jewish texts are Jewish expressions of mysticism. Buber argued that classical Jewish sources, such as Sefer Yetzira and Sefer ha-​Zohar, were written under the inspiration of ecstatic experiences and that central Jewish movements, Kabbalah and Hasidism, in particular, were created under the universal aspiration for achieving mystical rapport with the supreme, transcendent reality. Mystifying Kabbalah. Boaz Huss, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190086961.001.0001

2  Mystifying Kabbalah Other Jewish thinkers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries shared Buber’s contention that Kabbalah and Hasidism are Jewish expressions of mysticism. Outstanding among them was Gershom Scholem (1882–​1897). As a young boy in Germany, Scholem became an enthusiastic Zionist. The writings of Martin Buber greatly impressed him, and later, he acknowledged that “Buber was the first Jewish thinker who saw in mysticism a basic feature and continuously operating tendency of Judaism” (Scholem 1976b, 145). At a young age, Scholem decided to abandon the study of mathematics and pursue research on Kabbalah. After submitting his dissertation on the early Kabbalist text Sefer ha-​Bahir to Munich University in 1922, he immigrated to Paletstine and joined the staff of the Hebrew University, then in its early stages of establishment. He began as a librarian and later became a lecturer. Scholem espoused the category “Jewish mysticism,” basing an entire field of academic scholarship on it. Scholem accepted the modern neo-​Romantic definition of mysticism and adopted Buber’s assumptions about the continuous presence of mysticism in Judaism. Scholem and his students devoted enormous efforts to the historical and philological investigation of the movements through texts and doctrines they deemed to constitute Jewish mysticism. They described the development of Jewish mysticism and the influence it had on Jewish history from the late Middle Ages to the beginning of the modern age. The main purpose of Scholem’s research was to reveal the centrality of the mystical element in Jewish history, which he believed enabled the national existence of the Jewish people during their exile from their homeland. According to Scholem, the study of Kabbalah had an important role in Jewish national revival. Furthermore, Scholem believed that academic research was the only means by which modern people could have contact with the transcendent reality that inspired Jewish mystical texts. Hence, in Scholem’s view, academic research on Kabbalah was the continuation of Jewish mysticism in the modern period. In the 1980s, following Scholem’s death, a revolution occurred in the academic field that he founded. Young researchers led by Moshe Idel, Yehuda Liebes, Elliot Wolfson, and others proposed new perspectives and directions for research. They disagreed with many of Scholem’s basic theoretical and methodological assumptions. The new scholars rejected Scholem’s assumptions regarding the source of Jewish mysticism and its historical development. They questioned the exclusivity of the historical-​philological methodology and suggested the inclusion of other research methods,

Introduction  3 primarily the phenomenological comparative study prevalent in religious studies. Nevertheless, the new research did not abandon the fundamental category of the field—​identifying Kabbalah and Hasidism as Jewish mysticism. Not only did researchers, led by Idel, not object to this identification, but they criticized Scholem and his followers for not sufficiently studying the mystical aspects of the Kabbalah. Following Idel, many contemporary scholars emphasized experiential and ecstatic aspects of Kabbalah and Hasidism. Through phenomenological and comparative research, they strove to understand the deep structures and basic models of the universal mystical experience, which, in their opinion, lay beneath Kabbalistic and Hasidic literature. Thus, the fundamental assumption of the research field, that is, the identification of Kabbalah and Hasidism as mysticism, continues to govern the academic study of Kabbalah and to determine its research practices. This book offers a genealogical study and critical examination of the concept and research field of Jewish mysticism. It seeks to expose the deep-​ rooted factors that have guided (and continue to guide) the identification of Kabbalah and Hasidism as mysticism, and how these influence the ways in which these movements are interpreted and studied. The book examines the identification of Kabbalah and Hasidism (and some other movements) as Jewish manifestations of a universal, mystical phenomenon, and the establishment of the academic field devoted to the study of Jewish mysticism. It reveals the historical processes that led to the structuring of the category of Jewish mysticism and turned it into the key concept that governs the perception of Kabbalah and Hasidism not only in academia but also among the broader public, including contemporary Kabbalistic and Hasidic movements. The book exposes the theological assumptions embedded in the concept of Jewish mysticism and how the revolutions that transpired in the field of study were, in fact, shaped according to the logic of these theological presuppositions. Two central claims that guide my discussion deserve clarification at the outset. The first is that mysticism is not a natural and transhistorical, universal phenomena that exists in all human cultures. Rather, it is a modern category that originated in Western Europe and the United States in the modern period, in specific theological and political contexts, and which served to organize and interpret a broad range of doctrines, practices, and social groups. The cultural practices and artifacts defined as mystical do not share common traits or characteristics that set them aside from other things

4  Mystifying Kabbalah not labeled as such. Scholars of comparative mysticism assert that mystical phenomena across cultures share some common traits. Yet I am not aware of any factor, or factors, that are common only to these phenomena, and I do not think that they resemble one another more than other phenomena that are not perceived as mystical. Notwithstanding the attempts of scholars to capture the shared elements common to different mystical traditions, the only common denominator that most scholars agree on is that mystical cultural phenomena have been inspired by mystical experiences; that is, they were the result of a direct encounter with God or the transcendent reality. I would like to emphasize that I do not deny the historical significance of texts and practices included in the category “mysticism,” nor do I oppose their research. I do not deny the fact that people put their heads between their knees, whispered songs and praises, memorized the names of angels, secluded themselves, and prostrated on the graves of the righteous. I do not doubt that people who employed these practices claimed to have had visions, to hear voices, or reported extraordinary events that they described as “descending to the chariot,” ascension into the garden of Eden, prophecy, or cleaving (dvekut) to nothingness. Nor do I deny the importance of the studies that examine these reports in their social and historic contexts. My claim is directed against the prevalent assumption, according to which one must catalogue and explain these reports as expressions of a universal mystical experience. I doubt that for all the phenomena labeled “mystical” in various cultures there is a factor or factors—​common only to them—​that justify their being labeled as such, and I do not think that they resemble one another more than other phenomena that are not perceived as “mystical.” In short, I do not accept the assumption that they belong to one category and require unique academic disciplines, theories, and methodologies for researching and teaching them.1 The various historical phenomena defined today as “mystical” can be studied according to research methods and theories of the humanities and social sciences, similar to other cultural practices and products that were formed in specific historical, political, economic, and social frameworks. The use of the category “mysticism” tends to disconnect phenomena from these social contexts. Despite the fact that most researchers of mysticism will agree that phenomena labeled “mystical” transpire in specific social and historical frameworks, the use of the category “mysticism” and 1 I am indebted here to Fitzgerald’s (2003, 249) observations concerning the category “religion.”

Introduction  5 the attempt to study it through phenomenological and comparative methods contribute to a severing of phenomena from their historical contexts and blur their social and political nature. This brings me to the second claim that guides my discussion of the study of Jewish mysticism. The modern concept of mysticism, as well as its use as an analytic category, entails theological assumptions that govern the way scholars study and interpret the social and cultural phenomena labeled as mysticism. Although modern definitions of mysticism do not assume an active and personal God who intervenes in history, they do assume that mystics across cultures experience an encounter with a divine or transcendent reality. Scholars of mysticism assume that the encounter with this metaphysical reality has an influence on the mystic and his or her creativity and, therefore, on human culture, society, and history. Hence, inherent within the use of the term mysticism as an analytical category is an implicit assumption that the divine or transcendent reality can be a causal factor that explains cultural products and social practices. The theological logic implied by the use of the category of mysticism, I will claim, dictates and shapes the research practices of the academic field devoted to Jewish mysticism. As I will demonstrate in the various chapters of the book, the formation of the academic field, the theories and research methods used in it, and the historiographies offered by scholars of Jewish mysticism are largely determined by the field’s inherent theological logic. Guided by these two central claims, the following chapters seek to reveal the processes that led to the establishment of the category of Jewish mysticism. They aim to clarify the factors that led to the building of a research field defined by this category and show how theological assumptions and national ideology shaped the theory and practice of the study of Jewish mysticism. The first chapter deals with the genealogy of the modern category of mysticism as it was shaped in the late nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century. The chapter examines the theological context of the modern definitions of mysticism. It shows that theological assumptions underlie the perennialist perception of mysticism, which claims that cross-​cultural mystical experiences are basically identical. It further argues that theological assumptions also have a bearing on the contextual approach to mysticism, according to which mystical experiences are shaped according to their cultural context. The chapter demonstrates that mysticism is a modern discursive construct and points out difficulties in applying it as an analytical category.

6  Mystifying Kabbalah The following two chapters of the book deal with the processes of formation and reproduction of the category of Jewish mysticism and its associated academic field. Chapter 2 examines the “exposure” of Jewish mysticism by Martin Buber and the establishment of the research field of Jewish mysticism by Gershom Scholem and his pupils. It examines the relevant nineteenth-​ century ideological and theological contexts, especially the modern Jewish national-​theological discourses associated with the Zionist nation-​building undertaking, that shaped Scholem’s historiography of Jewish mysticism. Chapter 3 examines the new directions and perspectives that emerged in the research of Jewish mysticism in the late twentieth century. It discusses the theoretical and methodological changes that challenged many of Scholem’s basic assumptions but also the perseverance—​and even intensification—​ of the use of the term mysticism as a fundamental category in the study of Kabbalah and Hasidism. The chapter demonstrates that the changes that occurred within the field were delineated by the theological logic of the research field. The chapter identifies the modern theological suppositions of contemporary scholars of Jewish mysticism and their affinity to contemporary New Age spirituality. The next two chapters examine the ways in which the category of mysticism, and its theological underpinnings, directed and governed the production of scientific knowledge about Kabbalah and Hasidism. Chapter 4 examines how the concept of Jewish mysticism excluded from the academic discourse Kabbalistic movements that were not considered to be part of authentic Jewish mysticism. The chapter examines the claim of Buber, Scholem, and many of their followers that the Hasidism of the eighteenth century was the final stage of Jewish mysticism. It reveals why later forms of Kabbalah and Hasidism were not regarded as authentic expressions of Jewish mysticism and why they did not, therefore, receive any scholarly attention but were the object of contempt. In this chapter, I show that the disregard of Scholem and his pupils toward the Kabbalistic formations of their times derived from a national-​theological position that viewed Jewish mysticism as a vital force of the Jewish nation during the exile, but which concluded its role with the return of the Jewish people to its homeland. The national-​mystical vitality of the Jewish people was, in their opinion, expressed in the modern era in the Zionist project and not in modern Kabbalistic and Hasidic movements, which were perceived as deteriorated and irrelevant. This stance expressed a typically Orientalist ambivalence that emphasized a supposed Eastern origin of Jewish mysticism and which glorified its glorious past but viewed its

Introduction  7 modern expressions (in the Middle East, North Africa, and Eastern Europe) as faltering and degenerated. Scholars of Jewish mysticism—​who viewed themselves as the authorized guardians of the Kabbalah—​believed that the continuation of the Jewish mystical tradition is to be found in academic research that exposes the historical significance of Kabbalah and Hasidism, and reveals their mystical, transhistorical source. The fifth and final chapter of the book examines the ways that the application of the category of mysticism directed the research interests of scholars of Kabbalah and Hasidism and shaped the image and practice of Kabbalah among the broader public. Subjugation of the Kabbalah to the category of mysticism led to an emphasis on Kabbalistic doctrines and practices that were compatible with the modern image of mysticism, such as reports of visions, ascension to other worlds, and union with God. Furthermore, scholars assumed that ecstatic visions and extraordinary experiences underlay Kabbalistic texts, even when the Kabbalists did not report such events. The chapter focuses on analyzing how the perception of Kabbalah as “Jewish mysticism” led to a growing interest in the writings of thirteenth-​century Kabbalist Abraham Abulafia and to his description as the Jewish “mystic” par excellence. In the chapter, I  discuss also the impact of the scholarship of Jewish mysticism on the image and practice of contemporary Kabbalah and on the reception of Abulafia’s, who was rejected from the traditional Kabbalistic canon, as a current cultural hero of Kabbalah. My analysis is indebted to studies written in recent decades that discuss the genealogy of the concept of religion and which offer critical examination of the field of religious studies. Talal Asad’s Genealogies of Religion was especially influential, particularly his claim “that there cannot be a universal definition of religion, not only because its constituent elements and relationships are historically specific, but because that definition is itself the historical product of discursive processes” (1993, 29). I was also inspired by the studies of Russell McCutcheon, Timothy Fitzgerald, and others (McCutcheon 1997, 2003; Fitzgerald 2000; Dubuisson 2003; Arnal 2000; Braun 2000) who, following Asad, explored the formation of the modern category “religion” and the theological assumptions underlying it. The comparative and phenomenological research of Mircea Eliade and his pupils was singled out in particular, which is significant because Eliade’s school greatly influenced research into Jewish mysticism. Fitzgerald claimed the phenomenology of religions is a kind of contemporary ecumenical theologization, whose main belief is that

8  Mystifying Kabbalah there are many religions in the world that are all equal (more or less) in that they constitute responses to one transcendent God. In Fitzgerald’s words: Ecumenical liberal theology has been disguised (though not very well) in the so-​called scientific study of religion, which denies that it is a form of theology and at the same time claims that it is irreducible to sociology either. In this context, an essentially theological enterprise has been repackaged as an academic analysis of things that can be found in the world, objects called variously religions, religious systems, faith communities and so on. (Fitzgerald 2000, 7)

As I will explain in the chapters of this book, similar theological paradigms lie behind the category of mysticism and guide academic research of Kabbalah and Hasidism. I was also inspired by various studies that show how the Western labeling of Oriental cultural phenomena as spiritual and mystical was accepted by political leaders and philosophers of those cultures (mainly in India and Japan) and was developed by them as part of an aspiration to construct non-​Western national collective identities (Sharf 1998; Van der Veer 2001; King 2002). As Partha Chatterjee argued, Indian nationalism launched its most creative and significant projects of structuring a modern national Indian culture in a so-​ called spiritual domain (Chatterjee 1993, 6). Within the various contexts in which Jewish national identity developed, similar processes shaped the formation of Jewish mysticism as a category and a research field. The genealogical and critical discussions proposed in this book progress in the opposite direction that research of Jewish mysticism has taken from the beginning of the century and up to the present. While research of Jewish mysticism assumes the existence of common essential and universal traits for doctrines and social practices defined as Jewish mysticism and strives to reveal and clarify these traits and show how they shaped Jewish history and culture, the present volume claims that the assumption that these phenomena have common traits originated in the late nineteenth century. The book seeks to reveal and clarify how this assumption was formed and how it shaped the ways in which the variety of social movements, literary texts, and cultural practices catalogued and subordinated under the category of Jewish mysticism were researched and understood.

1 The Modern Concept of Mysticism 1.1.  Introduction Gershom Scholem’s book Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism was published in 1941, and it became the foundational text of academic research on Kabbalah. Its first chapter deals with the general characteristics of Jewish mysticism. It opens with a discussion of the question “what is mysticism?” and states that an immense amount of literature has been written on the subject during the past half century. Scholem recommends books by Evelyn Underhill, William Ralph Inge, William James, and Rufus Jones. As an opening point for discussion of mysticism, he suggests Jones’s definition in his book Studies in Mystical Religion: I shall use the word to express the type of religion which puts the emphasis on immediate awareness of relation with God, on direct and intimate consciousness of the Divine Presence. It is religion in its most acute, intense and living stage. (Scholem 1971, 3–​4, following Jones 1909, XV)

The definition of Rufus Jones, a Quaker theologian who taught philosophy and psychology at Haverford College, expresses the outlook that was formulated in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, according to which mysticism is a universal phenomenon that centers on experience of direct and intense relation with God or a transcendent reality. This is said to constitute the essence and the apex of religion. Scholem, like several other Jewish scholars before him, adopted this definition of mysticism and used it as the central category in the description and research of Kabbalah, Hasidism, and other historical currents (mainly Heichalot literature and Hasidism in medieval Germany) that he viewed as major trends of “Jewish mysticism.” The definition of these historical movements as “mystical” shaped and continues to shape the academic study of Kabbalah and Hasidism. Since the 1980s, several scholars, first and foremost Moshe Idel, Yehuda Liebes, and Elliot Wolfson, contested many of Gershom Scholem’s Mystifying Kabbalah. Boaz Huss, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190086961.001.0001

10  Mystifying Kabbalah historiographical assumptions. However, the constitutive perception of the academic research field that Scholem established, according to which Kabbalah and Hasidism are Jewish expressions of a universal mystical phenomenon, is still accepted in research and is even awarded a more central place than in Scholem’s studies. Contemporary scholars of Kabbalah who use mysticism as a central, analytical category in their studies adopt the modern usage of mysticism and define it as “the search for, and sometimes the attainment of, direct contact with God” (Idel 2005b, 3), “the immediate experience of the divine Presence” (Wolfson 1994a, 55), or a “deep experience of indirect contact with the absolute reality” (Pedaya 2002, 183). The following chapters will discuss the contexts in which the perception of Kabbalah and Hasidism as Jewish mysticism was formed, as well as the ways in which this definition established and governed academic studies of Kabbalah and formed modern Kabbalistic practices. But before I begin to discuss the genealogy of “Jewish mysticism” and the study of Kabbalah by Gershom Scholem and his followers, in this chapter I would like to discuss the category of mysticism and its theological implications. I will present a short review of the history of the term mysticism and examine the formation of the modern perception of mysticism, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Next, I  will discuss the theological underpinnings of the modern definitions of mysticism and show that theological assumptions not only underlie the “perennial” perception of mysticism, which claims that all mystical experiences are basically identical but are also embedded in the “contextual” approach according to which not only the interpretations of mystical experiences but also the experiences themselves are shaped according to their cultural context. After I review the endeavors to propose nontheological definitions of mysticism and the use of Wittgenstein’s idea of “family resemblance” to justify scholarly use of the term mysticism, I will point out the problematics of using this concept as an analytical category in research. I will claim that mysticism is not a universal phenomenon that exists in every (or almost every) human culture; rather, it is a modern discursive construct that amalgamates a wide range of cultural products that share no common denominator, except scholars’ assumption that they all are expressions of an inner spiritual experience. This cultural and linguistic construct, formed in Europe and the United States in the nineteenth century (on the basis of earlier Christian theological usage of the term), constituted a basis for the formation of research fields and academic disciplines dedicated

The Modern Concept of Mysticism  11 to research of “mysticism” as a universal phenomenon and to the study of specific “mystical” traditions, such as “Jewish mysticism.”

1.2.  Mysticism The origin of the term mysticism is the Greek adjective μυστικός, stemming from the verb μύω, whose meaning is “to close or shut” (the eyes or mouth). The Church Fathers used the adjective mystical to describe commentaries revealing the allegorical Christological meaning in the Old Testament and the secret of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. The term mystical theology first appeared in the fifth century, in a Neoplatonic text attributed to Dionysus the Areopagite. It denoted contemplative prayer and other spiritual exercise directed at union with God (Bouyer 1980, 42–​55). In the outset of the Early Modern period, the use and the meaning of the term mystical and its derivatives underwent substantial changes. The term mysticism, which first appeared in the seventeenth century in various European languages, was gradually severed from its specific liturgical, exegetical, and Christological contexts and was perceived as denoting subjective and experiential knowledge of the Divine (de Certeau 1992, 11–​25). According to Michel de Certeau: from the time that European culture had ceased to define itself as Christian—​that is, since the sixteenth or seventeenth century—​one no longer designated as mystical that form of “wisdom” elevated by a full recognition of the mystery already lived and announced in common beliefs, but rather an experimental knowledge that slowly detached itself from traditional theology or church institutions, characterized by the consciousness, received or acquired, of a fulfilling passivity in which the self loses itself in God. (13)

De Certeau, who focused on the term mysticism in the French culture, has shown that the renewed use of the term mysticism led to the formation of mystical tradition. In other words, a broad range of cultural phenomena were identified as belonging to the mystical tradition, and texts that were perceived as belonging to this tradition served, from then on, as a foundation for any study of mystics. Another effect, according to de Certeau, was the psychologization of mystical states—​in other words, experiences defined

12  Mystifying Kabbalah as mystical were expressed and deciphered in more psychological terms (14–​15). Eric Lee Schmidt, who focused on the term mysticism in the English language, showed that the term appeared in England in the mid-​eighteenth century in the framework of the Enlightenment’s critique of the enthusiasm of radical Protestant groups (Schmidt 2003, 277–​279). Consequentially, mystics were identified as a Christian sect, excelling in extreme religious devotion. Thus, the Encyclopedia Britannica (1797) defined mystics as: A kind of religious sect, distinguished by their professing pure, sublime and perfect devotion, with an entire disinterested love of God, free from all selfish considerations. . . . The principles of this sect were adopted by those called Quietists in the seventeenth century, and under different modifications, by the Quakers and Methodists. (598)

Up until the nineteenth century, mysticism was perceived almost exclusively as a Christian phenomenon. The idea that mysticism is a universal religious phenomenon that appears in all (or most) religions was first formulated in the nineteenth century. This notion is expressed in The Collection from Oriental Mysticism (Blüthensammlung aus der Morgenländischen Mystik) by the German Orientalist and theologian August Tholuck, which mainly deals with Islamic mysticism (Tholuck 1925, 16, 28), as well as in Johann August Christian Heinroth’s History and Critique of the Mysticism of All Known People and Times (Geschichte und Kritik des Mysticismus allerbekannten Volker und Zeiten) (Heinroth 1830). Heinroth, one of the fathers of modern psychiatry, who treated mysticism as a negative pathological phenomenon, a “sinful abomination” (Sündhafter Greuel) (85), mainly deals in Christian mysticism but also discusses Egyptian, Persian, and Indian mysticism. The idea that mysticism is a universal phenomenon is repeated in the French philosopher Victor Cousin’s book, Lectures on the True, the Beautiful and the Good, which included a chapter on mysticism and was first published in 1853 and a year later translated into English (Cousin 1854, 102–​123). Cousin, also critical of mysticism, which he described as a desperate and ambitious dream of direct communication with God, which is a result of despair of intelligence (103), mentioned the mysticism of Plotinus, the Bhagavad Gita, and Lao-​Tzu  (120). The universal perception of mysticism is expressed, as Schmidt demonstrated, in the eighth edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (1858), where for

The Modern Concept of Mysticism  13 the first time the entry “mysticism” is included, instead of the entry “mystics.” The entry still expressed the negative perception of the Enlightenment) “a form of error . . . which mistakes the operation of a merely human faculty for Divine manifestation”), but it presents mysticism as a universal phenomenon, whose “main characteristics are constantly the same, whether they find expression in the Bagvat-​Gita of the Hindu, or in the writings of Emmanuel Swedenborg” (755). Alongside the negative approach, in the late eighteenth and throughout the nineteenth century, a positive approach to mysticism developed, within the framework of Romanticism, German Idealism, and the metaphysical and spiritualist movements in the United States. Various scholars of this period accepted the labeling of different social practices, in Christianity and other cultures, as “mystical,” and they adopted the dichotomy between mysticism and rationalism and the psychological understanding of mysticism. However, unlike the negative approach of the Enlightenment, these traits were assessed positively, and mysticism was viewed not as a pathological phenomenon but rather as a subjective, internal experience, identified as the core and apex of the religious experience. In this framework, mysticism, instead of being considered a mistake or a delusion, became a real and authentic experience of God, which in that period was often defined as the ideal metaphysical essence, the absolute spirit underlying reality. Schopenhauer, for example, defined mysticism in the second volume of his famous work The World as Will and Representation published in Leipzig in 1844: In the widest sense, mysticism is every guidance to the immediate awareness of that which is not reached by either perception or conception, or generally by any knowledge. The mystic is opposed to the philosopher by the fact that he begins from within, whereas the philosopher begins from without. The mystic starts from his inner, positive, individual experience, in which he finds himself as the eternal and only being, and so on. (Schopenhauer 1958, vol. 2, 611)

And later on he characterizes mysticism as “consciousness of the identity of one’s own inner being with that of all things, or with the kernel of the world” (613). Schopenhauer, who views mysticism as a subjective, internal, and private experience accepts the difference between mysticism and rational

14  Mystifying Kabbalah knowledge; however, in contrast to the perception of the Enlightenment, he does not see this as a shortcoming, but rather as a virtue. He views mysticism as universal and claims that every religion, at its zenith, becomes mysticism: We see all religions at their highest point end in mysticism and mysteries, that is to say, in darkness and veiled obscurity. These really indicate merely a blank spot for knowledge, the point where all knowledge necessarily ceases. Hence for thought this can be expressed only by negations, but for sense-​perception it is indicated by symbolical signs, in temples by dim light and silence. (610–​611)

During the same period, in the United States, the Unitarian theologian from Harvard University, Henry Ware, Jr., wrote:  “But what is Mysticism but the striving of the soul after God, the longing of the finite for communion with the Infinite” and claimed that without mysticism “there is, and there can be no religion” (Schmidt 2006, 51). A similar perception appears in the words of the German-​Jewish rabbi and scholar Adolf Jellinek published in 1853: “Mysticism is such an essential component in the spiritual development of humankind that it can be found in all nations and religions” (3–​4). In the late nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, the positive perception of mysticism as a universal religious phenomenon whose essence is an encounter or union with the divine (or the “absolute”) became common in the United States and Europe. Many works dealing in mysticism, some of which are quite influential up to the present, were written by theologians, historians, psychologists, and scholars of religion during this period (de Certeau 1992, 12). Among these are the French historian Edouard Recejac’s Essay on the Bases of the Mystic Knowledge (1897, and translated into English in 1899); the book by William Ralph Inge, an Anglican theologian from Cambridge University, Christian Mysticism (1899); the book by the renowned American philosopher and psychologist William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902); the book by the Quaker theologian Rufus Jones, who taught philosophy at Haverford College, Studies in Mystical Religion (1909); The Mystic Element of Religion (1908), written by the German Catholic theologian (who lived in England), Freidrich von Hügel; and the book by his pupil, Evelyn Underhill, the Anglo-​ Catholic theologian, who was also interested in Western esotericism, Mysticism:  A Study in Nature and Development of Spiritual Consciousness (1911).

The Modern Concept of Mysticism  15 These essays mainly discussed the traditions which were identified, since the seventeenth century, as Christian mysticism as well as texts and movements from other cultures identified as mysticism in the nineteenth century, including Plotinus Enneads, various Hindu and Buddhist traditions, and Sufism (Kabbalah was barely mentioned in these essays). As we will see in the following, William James spoke also about mysticism outside of established religious frameworks and regarded the American poet Walt Whitman as a mystic. The authors of these books proposed various definitions for mysticism which won significant influence in the twentieth century. Despite the differences between these definitions (and the common repetition of the cliché regarding the difficulty in defining mysticism), they adhere to the perception of mysticism as a universal experience of contact or union with the transcendent reality, while they characterize the essence of this transcendent reality and the nature of the mystic’s contact with it differently. Thus, William James who emphasized the universality of the mystical experience defined mysticism as the union between the individual and the absolute: This overcoming of all the usual barriers between the individual and the Absolute is the great mystic achievement. In mystic states we both become one with the Absolute and we become aware of our oneness. This is the everlasting and triumphant mystical tradition, hardly altered by differences of clime or creed. In Hinduism, in Neoplatonism, in Sufism, in Christian mysticism, in Whitmanism, we find the same recurring note. (1902, 419)

Rufus Jones, who emphasized that mysticism is the highest stage of religion, defined it as direct and intimate awareness of the divine’s presence: I shall use the word to express the type of religion which puts the emphasis on immediate awareness of relation with God, on direct and intimate consciousness of the Divine Presence. It is religion in its most acute, intense and living stage. (1909, XV)

As we will see in the next chapter, Gershom Scholem used this definition in the introduction to his book Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. Scholars of this period stressed the subjective and experiential aspect of mysticism, and they distinguished between this and the public and institutional aspects of religion, with clear preference of the internal mystical experience over the “external” expression of religion (King 2002, 22–​23). The

16  Mystifying Kabbalah four properties of mysticism, according to William James—​ineffability, noetic quality, transience, and passivity (James 2008, 278–​279)—​emphasize the perception of mysticism as a private, subjective experience differing from ordinary form of consciousness, which cannot be expressed using regular discursive means. Nonetheless, as Eric Lee Schmidt underlined, James and those of his time did not view mysticism as escaping this world; on the contrary: “James imagined mystical experience as a way to unleash energy, to find the hot place of human initiative and endeavor, and to encourage the heroic, the strenuous, the vital and the socially transformative” (2006, 56). This perception is expressed in Rufus Jones’s preface to Studies in Mystical Religion: We cannot lightly pass over the spiritual service of mystics. Far from being the unpractical, dreamy persons they are too often conceived to have been . . . They have led great reforms, championed movements of great moment to humanity and they have saved Christianity from being submerged under scholastic formalism and ecclesiastical systems, which were alien to man’s essential nature and need. They have been Spiritual leaders, they are the persons who shifted the levels of life for the race. (1909, XXX–​XXI)

As we will see further on, scholars of Kabbalah and Hasidism maintained a similar perception; they saw in “Jewish mysticism” the power that vitalized Judaism during the diaspora and preserved it from the stagnation and degeneration of the Halacha.

1.3.  Mysticism as a Theological Category The definition of mysticism, as it was formulated in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, is accepted to a great extent today in religions studies as well as in the study of Kabbalah and Hasidism. The numerous definitions of mysticism, from the end of the nineteenth century up to the present, for the most part repeat the same notion, which regards mysticism as an experience of direct contact with God or the transcendent reality. The differences between the various definitions of mysticism revolve mostly around the question of the essence of the metaphysical object of the mystical experience and the nature of the contact with it.

The Modern Concept of Mysticism  17 As discussed in the beginning of this chapter, in the early twentieth century the Quaker theologian Rufus Jones defined mysticism as “a type of religion that puts the emphasis on immediate awareness of relations with God, on direct and intimate consciousness of the divine presence” (1909, XV). At the same time, the American philosopher and psychologist William James described mysticism as a state in which “we both become one with the Absolute and we become aware of our oneness” (1902, 419). Similar definitions are repeated by scholars from the end of the twentieth century. The scholar of Christian mysticism, Bernard McGinn, described mysticism as “belief and practices that concerns the preparation for, the consciousness of, and the reaction to what can be described as the immediate or direct presence of God” (1991, XVII). Moshe Idel, the scholar of Kabbalah, observed: If mysticism is the quintessence of religion, the quintessence of mysticism is the sense of union with God. The intensification of religious life that characterizes most forms of mysticism culminates at times in paranormal experiences, whose literary expression appears in descriptions of unitive relations with super mundane beings and sometimes ultimately with God himself. (1988, 35)

As several scholars observed, mysticism, defined as such, is a theological category, embedded in modern, liberal (mainly Protestant) Christian theology. Steven Katz noted that missionary activity and ecumenical desire generated some of the early literature on the study of mysticism (1978, 24). Richard King has shown that Evelyn Underhill’s definition of mysticism, which she applies to different world-​religious traditions, is “uncompromisingly Western and Christian” and asserted that the application of Christian theological categories is widespread in the study of mysticism (2002, 7–​8). The use of the term mysticism as a modern theological category is embedded in the prevalent paradigm of religious studies. As Russell McCutcheon (1997, 2003)  and Timothy Fitzgerald (2000) argued, at the base of comparative study of religion, or phenomenology of religion, is a modern Christian ecumenical theological stance that views religion as a universal phenomenon whose essence is the encounter of humans with the sacred, in other words, with the revelation of God or a transcendent reality, in the world. This perception is expressed in the studies of Mircea Eliade, who affirmed that “the history of religions—​from the most primitive to the

18  Mystifying Kabbalah most highly developed—​is constituted by a great number of hierophanies, by manifestations of sacred realities” (1987, 11). Timothy Fitzgerald defined phenomenology of religion as “a contemporary style of ecumenical theologizing, which takes as its tenet of faith that there are many religions in the world that are all equally (more or less) responses to the one transcendent God” (2000, 47). This tenet of faith is clearly expressed in the modern use of the term mysticism. Mysticism is a theological category not only because the source of the term (like many other terms in modern academic discourse) lies in Christian theology, but because its contemporary use to characterize and analyze historical events, social structures, and literary texts involves a theological assumption, according to which God (or “the absolute”) is the causal factor of social and cultural phenomena. As seen in the definitions discussed earlier, the term mysticism assumes the existence of God, or a transcendent reality, that people, in certain situations, encounter, experience, or unite with. Use of the term mysticism as an analytical category assumes that contact with God or the metaphysical reality—​that is, the mystical experience—​is an event that has an impact on the behavior of human beings, the nature of their cultural products, and the course of history. This theological assumption underlies the category of mysticism as it was formulated in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century and as it is used in the study of religion, including Kabbalah and Hasidism, today as well. A clear expression of the assumption that the mystical encounter with God (or “the absolute realty”) is the causal factor of social and historical phenomena is expressed in Evelyn Underhill’s words, quoted by Gershom Scholem in his article “Mysticism and Society”: The mystic life . . . is the agent of fresh outbirth of spiritual vitality into the world, the mother of spiritual progeny. The great unitive mystics are each of them the founders of spiritual families. . . . The “flowing light of the godhead” is focused on them as in a lens only that it may pass through them to spread out on every side. (Scholem 1967, 15–​16, following Underhill 1911, 395)

The theological assumption, according to which cultural and social phenomena labeled as “mystical” are the result of a direct encounter with a divine reality are found in most of the definitions of mysticism accepted by scholars today. These definitions assume that God, the divine presence, or “the absolute” is the causal factor that stands behind the texts and practices of

The Modern Concept of Mysticism  19 the “mystics” and the social movements initiated by them. Hence, use of the term mysticism as an analytical term in the framework of academic research in itself involves theological assumptions. It should be noted that modern definitions of mysticism do not assume a personal and active God that intervenes in history, but rather an imminent and transcendental reality that the mystic is exposed to following his or her own initiative. Nonetheless, the claim that the encounter with the metaphysical reality impacts the social practices and literary products of the mystic, and through these culture, society, and history, assumes that God (or the transcendental reality) is the causal factor of social, cultural, and historical events. Scholars of mysticism mainly avoid explicitly suggesting that God is the cause of phenomena that they study and presumably some of them will deny that they make such an assumption. Thus, for example, I assume that most scholars will deny that they believe that the Book of Zohar was written under the inspiration of Ruach ha-​Kodesh (the Holy Spirit), as many followers of the Zohar believe. However, when they define a phenomenon as mystical and claim that a particular cultural product or historical event transpired following a mystical experience (defined as an encounter with the divine), then they propose the divine as its causal factor. In other words, the claim that the Zohar is a mystical text that was written under the impact of mystical experiences does not significantly differ from the claim that the Zohar was created under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Notwithstanding this prevalent supposition, theological explanations are not provided for every type of religious phenomenon. Thus, for example, scholars usually do not define spirit possession as “mystical” and do not explain it as caused by an encounter with transcendent reality (Chajes 2003, 8–​ 9). Furthermore, modern esoteric and new religious movements (including, as will be seen in Chapter 4, contemporary Kabbalistic groups) are usually not described in research literature as “mystical.” This reveals that the use of the theological definition of mysticism serves scholars to distinguish between what they perceive as authentic mysticism, whose source lies in an experience of encounter with a metaphysical reality, and other events, that are explained by natural, psychological, or social factors. Theological paradigms are accepted in some contemporary academic discourses, especially in theological seminars and faculties. Yet the assumption that God is the cause of natural, historical, and social phenomena, which underlined theology, the queen of sciences in the Middle Ages and early modern era, was rejected from modern academic scholarship. As Jeffery

20  Mystifying Kabbalah Chajes noted in his book on Dybbuks, Exorcists, and Early Modern Judaism, modern professional history is predicated upon the removal of God, or any other supernatural force, as a causal factor (2003, 8). Today most academic disciplines, both in natural sciences and human and social sciences, unequivocally reject theological paradigms (for example, the theory of Intelligent Design). Yet, in religious studies, including the study of Jewish mysticism, the assumption that encounters between human beings and the divine is a factor that explains literary, historical, and social events is prevalent. Hence, many of the research practices in the fields of religious studies and the study of Kabbalah, which are based on categories such as mysticism and religious experience, are conducted within a theological discursive framework.

1.4.  The Perennial and Contextual Approaches to Mysticism Steven Katz, in his influential study “Language, Epistemology and Mysticism” observed that ecumenical, theological assumptions are found in the academic discussions of mystical experiences, which represent a perennial approach. According to the perennial approach, all mystical experiences are basically the same, but mystics of various cultures offer different, culturally bound reports and interpretations to them. Contrary to the perennial approach, Katz (1978) proposed a contextual (or constructivist) approach, according to which not only the interpretations of mystical experiences but the actual experiences are shaped within their specific cultural contexts. The theological assumptions involved in the use of the term mysticism, as I presented in the previous section, are stated explicitly by scholars who maintain the perennial approach. Yet, as I will argue later, theological assumptions are embedded also in the contextual approach. According to the perennial approach, all mystical experiences are basically identical (although some who support this position believe they can be divided into several types). Fredrick Crossfield Happold, for example, wrote in his Mysticism: Study and Anthology, first published in 1931: Not only have mystics been found in all ages, in all parts of the world and in all religious systems, but also mysticism has manifested itself in similar or identical forms wherever the mystical consciousness has been present.

The Modern Concept of Mysticism  21 Because of this it has sometimes been called the Perennial Philosophy. (1991, 20)

According to this approach, the differences between descriptions of mystical experiences in different cultures stem only from different interpretations of the experience. The philosopher of religion, Walter Terrance Stace, the exemplary representative of this approach, wrote that “It is a presupposition of our enquiry that it is important as well as possible to make a distinction between a mystical experience itself and the conceptual interpretations which may be put upon it” (1987, 31). On the other hand, scholars who presented the contextual or constructivist approach claimed that there is no such thing as a pure universal mystical experience, and the differences between various mystical experiences are found not only in their interpretation, but in the nature of the experience itself. Rufus Jones claimed that “There are no ‘pure experiences’, i.e. no experiences that come wholly from beyond the person who has them . . . The most refined mysticism, the most exalted spiritual experience is partly a product of the social and intellectual environment in which the personal life of the mystic has formed and matured” (1909, XXXIV). Steven Katz famously articulated this approach: There are no pure (i.e. unmediated) experiences. Neither mystical experience nor more ordinary forms of experience give any indication, or any grounds for believing, that they are unmediated. That is to say, all experience is processed through, organized by, and makes itself available to us in extremely complex epistemological ways. . . . A proper evaluation of this fact leads to the recognition that in order to understand mysticism it is not just a question of studying the reports of the mystic after the experiential event but of acknowledging that the experience itself as well as the form in which it is reported is shaped by concepts which the mystic brings to, and which shape, his experience. (1978, 26)

This approach was accepted by most scholars of mysticism and it is the approach accepted among Kabbalah scholars (King 2002, 169; Wolfson 1994, 54–​55; Hellner-​Eshed 2009, 21). Yet, in the past decades, several scholars criticized the contextual approach and returned to a perennial position (Forman 1990b, 3–​49; Hollenback 1996, 12–​17; McGinn 1991, 323–​324).

22  Mystifying Kabbalah Such a position was also taken by the leading Kabbalah scholar, Moshe Idel, who claimed: Without denying the probability that the mystic is sometimes conditioned by images, concepts, and various realia that may indeed mold his experience, whereas other times it is amorphous, I think that their impact is on the manner of expression rather than on the mode of the experience itself. Emphasizing the pre-​experiential elements as molding the experience itself is basically an implicit attempt to demystify it. (1988, 37)

Yet, as I  will show, not only the perennial approach that Idel advocates but also the contextual approach involves a mystification of history. Both positions are based on an implicit theological presupposition, according to which the mystical experience (whether it is “pure” experience or whether it is shaped by specific cultural contexts) is stimulated by an encounter with God or a transcendent reality. Katz and others who support the contextual approach reject the existence of a pure, universal mystical experience as a common denominator of all mystical phenomena and claim that the mystical experience itself, and not only its interpretation, is shaped by the specific religious structure the mystic is affiliated with. This raises a question: What is common to all the culture-​ dependent experiences and their culture-​dependent interpretations that justifies viewing these as belonging to the same category and as expressions of a specific type of religious phenomenon? Scholar of Christian mysticism Bernard McGinn averred that Katz’s “unqualified contextualism” precludes the possibility of comparison (1991, 324). Indeed, the obvious conclusion to be drawn from the claim that mystical experiences are culture dependent is that there is no common universal factor of the various phenomena labeled “mystical” that justifies the use of the term as an analytical, transcultural term in academic research. However, despite this evident conclusion, researchers of religion and mysticism who adopted the contextual approach of Katz continue to use the term mysticism as an analytical category, claim it is possible to ascertain common traits for the various mystical experiences, and recommend the comparative research of mystical phenomena. Thus (similar to what Idel explicitly professed), they return to the perennial approach, according to which there are factors that are not culture dependent, common to all mystical experiences. Elliot Wolfson, who following Katz rejected the perennial approach (which

The Modern Concept of Mysticism  23 he calls the doctrine of unanimity) and claims that the mystical experience, like any experience, is context dependent, argues that this does not preclude the possibility that through comparative research one can expose deep structures and patterns of experience underlying the various mystical traditions (1994, 54–​55). Wolfson, like other scholars, takes for granted the identification of certain traditions as mystical, despite the fact that he does not clarify the criteria for including these traditions, whose deep common structures he seeks to reveal, in the category of mysticism. Israeli scholar of Jewish mysticism Rachel Elior also claims the existence of phenomenological resemblance in the essential characteristics of mystical phenomena, which, in her opinion, are also cultural dependent: In spite of the conceptual closeness—​or the phenomenological resemblance in a few of the essential characteristics—​of the mystical phenomenon in different religions and cultures . . . the study and profound exploration of meaning of the phenomenon require that it be interpreted within the cultural context in which it has been created and in which alone it may have meaning. (2007, 11–​12)

Nevertheless, Elior does not explain what are the essential characteristics that justify defining the various cultural-​dependent phenomena as “mystical.” Joseph Dan, who rejected the research value of “any approach that seeks to unite all mystical experience into a general common denominator of positive contents” (1997, 79) proposed a context-​dependent contingent approach as an alternative “that views the mystical phenomenon in its details as an historical phenomenon, that always bears, like every other historical phenomenon, lines of uniqueness” (79). Dan, too, does not clarify the criteria for inclusion of an event, or a text, in the category “mysticism.” His claim that “mysticism can be defined and described in a general fashion as long as we only use negative expressions to describe it, a kind of a via negativa research” (77), which adopts an apophatic approach to defining the modern academic term, does not clarify or justify the continued use of the term mysticism as an analytic category. Other scholars determined traits which, in their eyes, can define mysticism. Jess Byron Hollenback, who claims that he maintains a contextual approach, nonetheless asserts that there are mystical experiences that cannot be explained based on this paradigm (1996, 7). He enumerates seven salient characteristics of the mystical experience which, according to him,

24  Mystifying Kabbalah distinguish it from other forms of human experiences. These seven characteristics are (1) a radical, trans-​sensory metamorphosis of the subject’s mode of consciousness that takes place while he or she is awake; (2) a mode of consciousness that gives the subject both privileged access to and knowledge of those things that his or her particular culture and religious tradition regards as ultimately real. In other words, a revelation that concerns those things that are of supreme ontological significance for that individual’s particular cultural and religious community; (3) an experience that gives the subject privileged knowledge about those matters that his or her religious tradition considers to have the utmost importance for human salvation; (4) it is heavily laden with affect; (5) an illumination that is both literal and metaphorical; (6) it is fundamentally amorphous and its content historically conditioned; and (7) it is a mode of experience that usually has its genesis in the recollective act (40–​41). These characteristic that Hollenback dedicated numerous pages to clarify (42–​130) are in part too general, in part too narrow, and in part too vague to justify the use of the term mysticism as an analytical category in the framework of academic research. Thus, for example, radical changes in modes of consciousness in an awake state also occur in states that are not usually considered as mystical states (for example, influence of drugs and psychotic episodes). Furthermore, in most cases, the people described as mystics report what in their eyes transpired in reality and not a “metamorphosis in their mode of consciousness.” Similarly, many cases described in research literature as “mystical” do not deal with human salvation, are not laden with affect, and are not preceded by a recollective act. Grace Jantzen’s attempt to maintain the constructivist approach and preserve the category of mysticism is also not persuasive. Jantzen proposes that even for experiences that greatly differ from one another, it is possible there is a common denominator, for example the acknowledgment that in life there is something beyond the material and the physical (1997, 338). However, not only am I unconvinced that all traditions referred to as “mystical” acknowledge a metaphysical reality (some “mystical” traditions operated in a cultural framework in which there was no distinction between a material and metaphysical reality), and even if this is true, this common denominator is shared by countless philosophical approaches and worldviews that acknowledge the existence of a nonmaterial reality, which Jantzen probably would not wish to include in her framework of “mysticism.” As stated, according to the contextual approach, a pure mystical experience does not exist and every mystical experience is shaped by the mystic’s

The Modern Concept of Mysticism  25 cultural context. The implication of such a stance is that the common core of mystical experience is not the content of the experience (because the content of the experience is determined by the accepted beliefs of the specific community of each mystic), but rather, the cause of the experience. In other words, the common denominator to mystical experiences is the encounter with a divine or transcendent reality that each mystic experiences in a different, culturally bound way. Hence, scholars who maintain the contextual approach also accept the theological assumption underlying the perennial approach, according to which the common core of mystical experiences is the encounter with God or a transcendent referent. Thus, Gershom Scholem, who claimed, as we recall, that there is no mystical experience as such that is not shaped in the context of a particular religious system determined that it would be absurd to deny that there is a common characteristic for all mystical experiences (Scholem 1971, 6). Scholem claimed that a great distance separates the different circles of Jewish mystics, but he claimed that despite this they try to express the same experience in different ways (5). He describes this experience as an encounter with a “particular reality . . . of a very unusual kind” and as a “tremendous uprush and soaring of the soul to its highest plane” (5). Steven Katz, who also dismisses the idea of the universal mystical experience underlying “mystical” expressions in various cultures (as well as the reduction of mystic experiences to psychological states) (1978, 23), claims that the common core of mystical phenomena in the various cultures is the encounter with what he refers to as “the mystical reality” (27). In his introduction to the recently published anthology Comparative Mysticism, Katz asserts that mysticism is essentially different from drug-​induced experiences because “The latter are consequence of transformation in one’s subjective awareness of oneself and the world. Such experiences do not necessarily bring one into contact with God or Ultimate Reality” (Katz 2013, 3–​4). The assumption that underlies this statement is that in contrast to subjective psychedelic experiences, real mysticism is a result of objective contact with God or Ultimate Reality. Similarly, Elliot Wolfson, who as we saw earlier rejected the perennial approach, also reiterated the view in which mysticism is “the immediate experience of the divine Presence” (1994, 55). Consequently, scholars who support the perennial approach as well as those who support the contextual approach both maintain a theological stance according to which an experience of encounter with the divine is the underlying factor of cross-​cultural mystical experiences. As will be shown in

26  Mystifying Kabbalah Chapter 3, scholars of mysticism accept a universalistic ecumenical and liberal theology which is prevalent among contemporary New Age movements. According to this theological stance, experiences of encounter with an impersonal divine reality (which is often perceived to be found within the depths of one’s inner soul) are found in every culture. The difference between the perennial and contextual approaches is that while the perennial theology assumes that underlying all the events they define as “mystical” is the same experience (or several types of experience), contextualists believe that mystics of different cultures experience the encounter with the divine reality in different ways.

1.5.  Naturalists and Phenomenological Definitions Alongside the prevalent definitions reviewed earlier which view mysticism as an experience of contact with the divine involving a unique state of consciousness, there were some scholars who sought to avoid theological assumptions and instead came forth with psychological, neurobiological, or phenomenological definitions for mysticism that do not postulate the existence of a divine or transcendent reality experienced by the mystic. As mentioned earlier, Johann August Christian Heinroth, the author of the History and Critique of the Mysticism of All Known People and Times (1830), regarded mysticism as a pathological psychological phenomenon. Later, Sigmund Freud claimed that mysticism is regression to an infant’s early stage of development where it does not yet distinguish between the external world and itself (1963, 9–​10). James M.  Leuba regarded mystical events as hallucinations, which “may convince the mystic that he sees and hears, unhampered by opaque obstacles and distances, or that he travels bodily through space at his good pleasure” (1925, 27). According to Robert Gimello, the mystical experience is nothing but a psychosomatic empowerment of religious belief (1983, 61–​88). Psychological or neurobiological explanations of mysticism have generally been dismissed by scholars of religion, including researchers of Kabbalah, claiming these are reductionist explanations (McGinn 1991, 331–​332, 343; Hollenback 1996, 227–​229, 293; Green 1992, 80–​90). Yet in recent years various theories have been presented proposing neurocognitive explanations for mystical and religious experiences (Schjoedt 2009; Arzy, Idel et al. 2005;

The Modern Concept of Mysticism  27 Arzy and Idel 2015). Arzy and Idel present this approach in their introduction to Kabbalah: A Neurocognitive approach to Mystical Experiences: Using neurological and neuropsychological studies, analyses of brain lesions, experimental psychology, neurophysiology, and neuroimaging, we endeavor to decode the neurocognitive mechanisms and processes underlying these mystical experiences. (2015, 2)

In a way, this approach is a return to the earlier pathological explanations of mysticism. Yet Arzy and Idel (2015) do not take a disparaging attitude toward mysticism, and they recognize its significance and importance. Furthermore, they claim that their book “does not attempt to reduce the mystical experience into a ‘simple’ neurocognitive pattern . . . rather, we try to decipher the complexity of the mystical experience by pointing to its underlying neurocognitive mechanisms” (3). Theories that present psychological and biological explanations of mystical states do not necessarily oppose, and sometimes fortify, theological approaches. Some scholars who accept that mystical experiences are stimulated by neurobiological and chemical factors (including use of narcotics) believe that these enable the mystic to experience new horizons of metaphysical reality found beyond the regular human conscious (Duprè 1987, 247). It seems that the encounter with such a divine, transcendent reality is what distinguishes, according to these scholars, mystical experiences from other forms of neurologically or chemically induced hallucinations. Other scholars propose a phenomenological approach. According to these scholars, the definition of mysticism they use only describes the beliefs of the mystics without commitment to the reality behind these beliefs. For example, Joseph Dan writes in the preface to his book The Heart and the Fountain: One may ask: If so, how do we know that the mystical realm ever existed? How do we know that the mystics mean anything? Maybe there is just nothing there, nothing to explore, nothing to discuss. This may indeed be the case: We have no way of confirming that the mystic did indeed envision this or experienced that. Yet this does not mean that historical study of mysticism is pointless. . . . There may not be “mysticism” as such, yet no one can deny that hundreds of people who believed themselves to be mystics, and hundreds of thousands of people who were their adherents, believed in

28  Mystifying Kabbalah the existence of the mystical realm, and shaped their own lives and cultures being influenced by the words of these mystics. (2002, 6)

Similarly, the Israeli scholar Tomer Persico, who proposed a definition of the mystical experience that integrates between Bernard McGinn and Moshe Idel’s definitions, emphasizes that the mystical experience is a feeling or knowledge of an absolute presence, from the perspective of the mystic: “the mystical experience is a feeling and/​or the cognitive knowledge of empowering the presence of the absolute in an individual’s life, from his perspective” (Persico 2012, 27). Persico asserts that his definition does not assume that the absolute (which he identifies as a dimension considered eternal, absolute, infinite, spiritual or divine) “exists ontologically” (28). Nonetheless, an examination of the definitions of scholars of Kabbalah and mysticism shows that they do not present purely phenomenological descriptions that are based only on the perspective of the research subjects and on the terms and categories they use in their writing or reports. In difference to Dan’s and Persico’s assertions, only a very few among those referred to as “mystics” and their adherents “believed themselves to be mystics,” declared a belief in the existence of a “mystical realm,” or used terms such as “absolute presence.” As we know, the term “mysticism”—​or any other term with a similar meaning—​did not exist in non-​Christian cultures in which academic research identifies “mystical” phenomena; and the term experience, which underlies the various definitions of mysticism, did not exist in non-​European languages. As Robert Sharf has shown, there was no lexical equivalent for the word experience in Japanese and Chinese, and modern neologisms were introduced to translate the modern Western terms experience and erlebnis (1998, 99–​100). Similarly, there was no word for “experience” in Hebrew, and the modern term used today, havaya, was invented by the Zionist socialist thinker A. D. Gordon (1928, vol. 4, 31) as a translation of the German term erlebnis, which was central in the German Lebensphilosophie at the end of the nineteenth century. Scholars of mysticism translate the broad range of emic terms appearing in the writings of their research subjects into modern terms, such as “mystical realm” and “the absolute.” They interpret the reports of the so-​called mystics concerning things they saw, heard, felt, or became one with as an “experience,” and they explain the entities that the “mystics” report they have

The Modern Concept of Mysticism  29 encountered or united with by modern theological terms (such as “the absolute” or “the transcendent reality”) and not in terms used by the research subjects (Allah, Jesus, Brahman, Ayin, Metatron, etc.). Furthermore, most scholars of mysticism assume the reality of the divine or metaphysical realm which is the object of the mystical experiences (the “divine presence,” according to Jones, or the “absolute,” according to James), even if they claim that this reality is concealed, or beyond ordinary states of consciousness. As we have seen earlier, Steven Katz claims that while drug-​ induced experiences are only the transformation of one’s subjective awareness, mystical experiences bring one into real contact with God or Ultimate Reality (2013, 3–​4). Rachel Elior says that the visions of the mystics are not purely imaginary or hallucinatory; rather, they belong to “another reality that is revealed to visionaries when the veils obscuring everyday consciousness are lifted” (2007, 3). Moshe Idel explicitly speaks of “the divine aspects” as part of the components of the mystical experience, which, in his opinion, are fluid and incomprehensible: “As the components of this experience—​the human psyche, the external and inner conditions, and the divine aspects that enter the experience—​are either fluid or incomprehensible, or both” (1988, 36). Daniel Reiser observes in his recent book that “The assumption of God’s existence, of one sort or another, stands at the basis of many studies, including this one. In many areas of religious studies, the words religion, mysticism, etc., are used, and religious and mystical phenomena, including Kabbalah and Hasidism, are assumed to be the product of an immediate encounter with God” (2014, 72).1

1.6. Family Resemblance Several scholars who recognized the problematics of the essentialist definitions of the term religion suggested using Wittgenstein’s notion of “family resemblance” to define this term (Smart 1973; Saler 1993; McKinnon 2002). A similar suggestion concerning the definition of term mysticism was raised by Jonathan Garb, who criticized the attempt to propose a closed set of

1 Interestingly, this sentence (which is part of a critical discussion of my position regarding the theological presumptions of Kabbalah scholarship) was omitted from the English translation of Reiser’s book. Compare Reiser (2018, 58–​59).

30  Mystifying Kabbalah distinctive features of mystical experiences, as Jess Byron Hollenback did in his book Mysticism (Hollenback 1996). According to Garb: listing a limited and closed set of “distinctive features” of mystical expression, a la Hollenback, also fails to capture this vast array. Instead, one should see “mysticism” as a “family name” in the Wittgensteinian sense. This name captures a certain language or discourse, which often translates into a characteristic literary stance. (2004, 298)

There is no doubt that one can find a “family resemblance” between the different things that the speakers of a modern language call “mystical” (like in any other group defined by users of a language). It is possible to apply Wittgenstein’s famous words on “games” to the terms mysticism and religion: For if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all, but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that. And the result of this examination is: we see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and crisscrossing: sometimes overall similarities, sometimes similarities of detail. I can think of no better expression to characterize these similarities than “family resemblances”; for the various resemblances between members of a family: build, features, colour of eyes, gait, temperament, etc. etc. (1953, 32–​33)

However, the proposal that there are no shared characteristics, lines of resemblance, or common relations for all the things we refer to as “religion” or “mysticism” places a question mark regarding the benefit of using them as analytic terms and creating unique academic fields for their study. What can a phenomenological and comparative study of the complicated network of similarities overlapping and crisscrossing the traditions and practices labeled as religion and mysticism reveal about them? As Timothy Fitzgerald claimed, scholars who explain the term religion using Wittgenstein’s theory but continue to base their studies on this category introduce an essentialist—​ and fundamentally theological—​definition of religion back into research: To save the baby, the concept of religion must have some essential characteristic, and if it does not, then the family of religion becomes so large as to be practically meaningless and analytically useless. The theory of family resemblances, if it is not illegitimately smuggling in an essentialist definition under the table, is defining religion into oblivion by making it

The Modern Concept of Mysticism  31 indistinguishable from ideologies, worldviews, or symbolic systems in general. (Fitzgerald 2000, 73)

The proposal according to which mysticism captures a certain language or discourse also smuggles in an essentialist perception of mysticism, despite the use of Wittgenstein’s theory of family resemblance. The scholars who propose using the concept of family resemblance to define “religion” or “mysticism” ignore the fact that these terms do not denote organic, natural families; rather, families that were created by users of the language, in specific historical period and social contexts. As Richard King observed: Virtually all contemporary studies of mysticism fail to appreciate the sense in which notions of “the mystical” (including those that are adopted in the studies themselves) are cultural and linguistic constructions dependent upon a web of interlocking definitions, attitudes and discursive processes, which themselves are tied to particular forms of life and historically specific practices. Not only are contemporary notions of the “mystical” subject to the cultural presuppositions of the day, they are also informed by and overlap with a long history of discursive processes, continuities and discontinuities and shifts in both meaning and denotation. (King 2002, 9)

1.7.  Mysticism—​A Modern Discursive Construct In the last decades, many scholars criticized the assumption that the concept of religion indicates a universal, transhistorical phenomenon, and opposed the use of the term religion as an analytical category in academic research. American historian of religion Jonathan Z. Smith asserted that “religion” is a scholarly construct and claimed that “Religion is solely the creation of the scholar’s study. It is created for the scholar’s analytic purposes by his imaginative acts of comparison and generalization. Religion has no existence apart from the academy” (1982, 11). Similarly, in his book, Genealogies of Religion, anthropologist Talal Asad wrote “that there cannot be a universal definition of religion, not only because its constituent elements and relationships are historically specific, but because that definition is itself the historical product of discursive processes” (1993, 29). Following Smith and Asad, several scholars, among them Russell McCutcheon, Timothy Fitzgerald, and Daniel Dubuisson, have proposed critical discussions of the theological and political implications of the

32  Mystifying Kabbalah concept of religion of the field of religious studies, and of the phenomenological method it employs (Dubuisson 2003; McCutcheon 1997; Fitzgerald, 2000).2 The arguments of these scholars pertain also to the category of mysticism, which is perceived as the essence and the peak of religion.3 As we saw earlier, the modern definitions of mysticism characterize it as an experience of a direct and intensive encounter with God or the transcendent reality. This definition expresses a modern universalistic theological position based, to a great extent, on an ecumenical Protestant theological approach. Hence, research based on the use of the term mysticism as an analytical category constitutes a theological discourse that connects a variety of social practices and cultural products from different cultures that have no historical connections between them. Because researchers of mysticism believe that mystical things share a common essence that cannot be reduced to economic, social, and psychological factors, they claim that the study of mysticism must employ special phenomenological or comparative methods. The assumption underlying the use of these methods is that the path to understanding mystical phenomena is comparing one to the other and revealing their common denominators. Yet, as we saw earlier, beyond the theological assumption according to which things that are catalogued as “mystical” are the result of an encounter with the divine or the metaphysical reality, scholars of mysticism did not succeed in pinpointing common universal traits for all so-​called mystical phenomena in different cultures. Because there is no such common trait, the use of the term mysticism to catalogue a broad range of phenomena, from various periods of history and different cultures, creates an artificial affinity between things which often have no significant geographic, historical, or literary connections. Not only does the research of mysticism connect cultural products and social practices that have no real affinity, but also it tends to sever them from the historical and social contexts in which they occurred. Most scholars will agree that phenomena labeled as “mystical” occur in specific historical and social frameworks. Nonetheless, the claim that these cultural products and social practices are an expression of a universal mystical experience 2 Also see Braun 2000; Arnal 2000. 3 Several scholars raised criticism against the concept of mysticism, including Richard King, who examined in his book Orientalism and Religion the “mystification of Hinduism and Buddhism from a postcolonial perspective” (2002), and Grace Jantzen, who criticized from a gender studies perspective the study of Christian mysticism in her book Power, Gender and Christian Mysticism (1997). However, despite the important discussions of Jantzen and King on the category of mysticism, both continue to assume the existence of “mysticism” as a universal phenomenon. Robert Sharf offered a critique of “mysticism” as an analytical term in his discussion of the term experience that underlies the modern perception of mysticism (Sharf 1998).

The Modern Concept of Mysticism  33 and the way to research these is through phenomenological and comparative methods contributes to severing them from their historical contexts and blurring their social and political nature (King 2002, 24). Mysticism, therefore, is not a universal phenomenon that exists in every (or almost every) human culture, which was discovered by scholars in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; rather, it is a modern discursive structure that was created within the contexts of European colonialism and the formation of modern nationalism. Mysticism was perceived as the essence of religion, which, with its complementary term, the secular, were the formative categories of modern Western culture (Fitzgerald 2003, 209–​210). Defining mysticism as a subjective, experiential, and private phenomenon encapsulates the modern perception of religion that was implemented in non-​European cultures in the framework of Western imperialism and its aspiration to grant its modern values global hegemony. In this framework, disparate traditions, practices, and institutions in non-​European cultures were classified as belonging to the religious and mystical spheres (234). These cultural formations were deemed legitimate by Western liberalism and glorified within Romantic and neo-​Romantic perspectives, as long as they remained in the spheres defined by the modern conceptions of religion and mysticism; in other words, as long as they were confined to the private, experiential, and subjective realms without bearing upon political, economic, and social issues. Western labeling of non-​European-​Christian cultural formations as religious and mystical was accepted by intellectuals and political leaders from these cultures and developed within their aspiration to construct their national, collective identities. Texts, practices, and institutions identified as religious, spiritual, and mystical served in fashioning the national traditions of the different collectives (Chatterjee 1993, 8). Hence, as various scholars showed, the spiritualization and mystification of Hinduism and Buddhism were adopted and developed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by philosophers and political leaders in India and Japan in the framework of constructing Indian and Japanese nationalism (van der Veer 2001, 69–​77; Sharf 1998; King 2002, 136–​142). During this same period, similar processes were transpiring in the framework of constructing a national Jewish identity. As we will see in the following chapter, in the second half of the nineteenth century, Jewish scholars adopted the category of mysticism and identified the Kabbalah and Hasidism as Jewish national expressions of a universal mystical phenomenon. They defined various traditions, doctrines,

34  Mystifying Kabbalah and practices in Jewish cultures as mystical and compared them to cultural formations described as mystical in Christian culture and mainly in other Eastern cultures, such as Sufism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. The invention of Jewish mysticism served to defend and glorify Jewish culture in the framework of the fin de siècle positive evaluation of mysticism. It also served to construct a Jewish spiritual tradition that differs from the Halachic tradition, in the framework of creating a modern, national Jewish identity.

2 Jewish Mysticism and National Theology 2.1.  Introduction In 1906, Martin Buber published his first book on Hasidism, The Tales of Rabbi Nachman. He introduced the tales with a short essay entitled “Jewish Mysticism” in which he stated: Rabbi Nachman of Bratzlav, who was born in 1772 and died in 1810, is perhaps the last Jewish mystic. He stands at the end of an unbroken tradition whose beginning we do not know. For a long time men sought to deny this tradition; today it can no longer be doubted. . . .Yet we must recognize its unity, its individuality, and, at the same time, the many limitations out of which it developed. Jewish mysticism may appear quite disproportionate, often confused, at times trivial . . . still it remains the marvelous bloom of an ancient tree. Its color strikes us as almost too dazzling, its fragrance strikes us as almost all too luxuriant; yet it is one of the great manifestations of ecstatic wisdom. . . . If then, the strength of Jewish mysticism arose from the original characteristic of the people that produced it, so the latter destiny of this people has also left its imprint on it. (1956, 3–​4)

Further on in the essay Buber provides an outline of the historical development and the spiritual and national significance of Jewish mysticism, which he identifies mainly with the Kabbalah and Hasidism. Buber presents his basic assumptions and attitude to Jewish mysticism in his opening words. He argues that an unbroken Jewish mystical tradition existed from ancient times until the beginning of the nineteenth century and that the national character and the historical destiny of the Jewish people shaped the mysticism it created. He expresses an ambivalent stance that is in awe of the marvelous bloom of Jewish mysticism, yet disapproves of the excess of its dazzling colors and luxuriant fragrance.

Mystifying Kabbalah. Boaz Huss, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190086961.001.0001

36  Mystifying Kabbalah Buber was not the first to assume the existence of Jewish mysticism and identify it with Kabbalah and Hasidism. However, his introduction to The Tales of Rabbi Nachman summarized succinctly the approaches common among Jewish European scholars at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, and contributed to the reception of the term Jewish mysticism as the central category for the description and research of Kabbalah and Hasidism. Gershom Scholem (who was nine years old when Buber’s book was published) later espoused the category of Jewish mysticism and the general framework of its history as described by Buber and many of the assumptions common at the time regarding its significance and value, and positioned these as the foundation of the academic research field he established. Today, as Buber had hoped for in 1906, almost no one denies the existence of a mystical Jewish tradition. With the exception of a few Kabbalistic circles, academic scholars, as well as the broader Israeli and global public, take for granted the existence of Jewish mysticism, identified mainly with the Kabbalah and Hasidism. In his introduction to The Tales of Rabbi Nachman, Buber does not offer a definition to mysticism, whose existence in Judaism he seeks to expose; yet he assumes that it is a universal phenomenon expressed in the teachings of Plotinus, Meister Eckhart, Lao-​Tzu, and the Upanishads. He portrays it as a lightning flash of ecstasy, a breaking forth of the limitless in the silent depths of the soul (Buber 1956, 4–​5). According to Ron Margolin, Buber used the term mysticism to denote “a world view that is not committed to the bonds of rationality and is based on rejection of the world, a perspective that assumes that the core of the mystical experience is an annulment of the self and a union with the infinite” (2005, 9). Gershom Scholem, who established the study of Kabbalah and Hasidism as an academic discipline, espoused the category of mysticism as the defining category of the research field. Scholem, who commended Buber for being the first Jewish thinker who acknowledged the centrality of mysticism in Judaism (1976b, 145), proposed various definitions for the term mysticism in his studies, most of which are similar to Buber’s understanding (although he rejected the idea that mysticism necessarily involves a union with God). Thus, for example, he opened his 1961 series of lectures on the origins of Kabbalah with the definition:

Jewish Mysticism and National Theology  37 Mysticism is a knowledge in which a human being comes in contact with god or with the knowledge of the foundations of the world. Mysticism appears in atheist religions as well, Buddhism for example . . . or better to say: mysticism touches upon the background or the personal experience. These are types of experiences of experience (nisyonot shel havaia). Not all knowledge of the foundation of the world is mysticism:  it is an experiential experience (nisayon havayati), about the divine principle and the foundation of the primordial reality to which man attaches or connects with. Sometimes this experience includes knowledge, and sometimes it takes place beyond rational knowledge. This type of knowledge on the basis of a certain experience, which is beyond the regular experience of everyday life, and touches the realm where differences between the subject and the object are erased and something else is revealed, whether a union with the foundations of the world, or the understanding of god, this type of knowledge, by its essence cannot be transmitted to all. Such contents cannot be easily included within the framework of language, and they are not given to clear and total conceptual expression. They are given, by their very essence, to the preservation of an individual who has the aptitude for such an understanding or who has indirectly received them in an esoteric way. (Scholem 1962, 2)

Scholem and Buber’s definition of mysticism as a universal phenomenon of an encounter with the divine (or “primordial reality”), which involves a type of experience which is beyond rational knowledge and regular human experience, is still accepted by contemporary Kabbalah scholars. As seen in the previous chapter, this definition was formulated in the late nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century in the writings of theologians, philosophers, and scholars of religion, whom Buber and Scholem relied on. In this chapter, I would like to examine the formation of the concept of Jewish mysticism, the identification of Kabbalah and Hasidism as Jewish forms of mysticism, and the construction of an academic research field dedicated to what was defined as “Jewish mysticism.” I will examine the ideological and theological contexts in which the category of mysticism was shaped in the nineteenth century and the processes that led to the establishment of Jewish mysticism—​as a category and as an academic research field—​in the framework of modern theological-​national discourse and as part of the Zionist nation-​building endeavor.

38  Mystifying Kabbalah

2.2.  Kabbalah as Jewish Mysticism In the opening sentences of the introduction to The Tales of Rabbi Nachman, Buber noted the denial of the existence of Jewish mysticism. In his letter to his friend Eugen Diederichs, which I cited in the introduction to this book, Buber recalled a discussion they had had, in which Diederichs refused to believe in the existence of Jewish mysticism. Diederichs shared the opinion of many scholars and thinkers of the time who denied the existence of Jewish mysticism. Although Kabbalah was one of the first non-​Christian traditions to be described as mystical, already in the early modern period, Judaism was scarcely mentioned in the writings on mysticism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Thus, for instance, William James did not mention Kabbalah in his list of the “everlasting and triumphant mystical tradition” that included Hinduism, Neoplatonism, Sufism, Christian mysticism, and Whitmanism (1902, 419). The opinion that Judaism is fundamentally opposed to mysticism was prevalent at the time. Thus, for example, Adolf Lasson, the Jewish-​German philosopher who converted to Christianity, claimed in his book on German mysticism, Meister Eckhart, published in 1868, that Judaism and mysticism are indisputable opposites (Schwartz 2006, 212). The French historian Anatole Leroy-​Beaulieu stated in his book Israel among the Nations (published in English translation in 1895)  that Judaism, by nature, is not inclined to mysticism (1894, 337). The Scottish philosopher Edward Caird claimed in his book The Evolution of Theology in the Greek Philosophers, that the Jew was always protected from the extreme forms of mysticism, due to clear separation between the personality of God and man, characteristic of Judaism (1899, vol. 2, 214).1 Jewish thinkers of the period also shared this outlook, including the liberal Jewish Rabbi Leo Baeck, who denied the existence of authentic Jewish mysticism (Altmann 1981, 295–​298; Wiese 2018, 235).2 The position that mysticism is opposed to Judaism appears in the entry “mysticism” in the eleventh edition of Encyclopedia Britannica (1910–​1911):

1 As we will see later on, Gershom Scholem expressed a similar evaluation in his discussion on the absence of Unio Mystica in Judaism. For Caird’s definition of mysticism, see Caird 1899, vol. 2, 210. For a discussion of Caird’s perception, see Idel 2005b, 18–​19. 2 Later on Leo Baeck changed his outlook and in 1923 published an article called “The Significance of Contemporary Jewish Mysticism” and later on, in 1928, an article entitled “Jewish Mysticism.” See Altman 1981, 300–​305; Wiese 2018, 238–​241.

Jewish Mysticism and National Theology  39 For opposite reasons, neither the Greek nor the Jewish mind lent itself readily to mysticism: the Greek, because of its clear and sunny naturalism; the Jewish, because of its rigid monotheism and its turn towards worldly realism and statutory observance. It is only with the exhaustion of Greek and Jewish civilization that mysticism becomes a prominent factor in Western thought. (vol. 19, 124)

Nevertheless, at that time the notion of “Jewish mysticism” was becoming more prevalent. As we shall see, Jewish scholars in Europe and the United States had begun using it from the second half of the nineteenth century. These scholars adopted the term from German Romantic theologians who first used it in the early nineteenth century. The adjective mystical was first applied to the Kabbalah, in the writings of Christian scholars in the second half of the seventeenth century (as far as I know, Christian Kabbalists in the Renaissance period did not use this adjective to describe the Kabbalah). “Mystical Cabbala,” as one of the three types of Kabbalah, appears in the title of Henry More’s book from 1662. The Zohar is described as “mystical and Kabbalistic commentary” (comentarii Mystici & Cabbalistici) in the Latin title page of the Zohar edition published in Sulzbach in 1684 in the circle of the Christian Kabbalist Christian Knorr von Rosenroth.3 Nonetheless, it should be noted that the term mystical does not appear anywhere in the title of Knorr von Rosenroth’s highly influential book, The Kabbalah Unveiled, nor in the various chapter names throughout the entire two-​volume book, published in 1677 and 1684. The subtitle of The Kabbalah Unveiled presents Kabbalah as the metaphysical and theological teachings of the Hebrews (Kabbala Denudata seu Doctrina Hebraeorum Transcendentalis et Metaphysica atque Theologica). In the early eighteenth century, the Kabbalah was described as “mystical theology” in the preface of the influential book written by the French protestant pastor and historian Jacques Basnage, The History of the Jews from Jesus up to the Present (Basnage 1708, VII), first printed in Rotterdam in 1706 (and translated into English, in London, in 1708). According to Ephraim Chambers’s Encyclopedia, published in London in 1728, the prevalent meaning of the word Kabbalah is the interpretation of scriptures based on “mystical” explanations. In Diderot’s famous encyclopedia, first published in 1751, the Kabbalah is described as “mystical metaphysics” (and “occult 3 On the Sulzbach edition of the Zohar and the context of its printing, see Huss 2006b.

40  Mystifying Kabbalah philosophy”) (Diderot 1752, vol. 2, 476–​477). The adjective mystical does not appear in the entry “Cabbala” in the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1771; however, in the entry “Cabbalists,” mystical methods used to find mystical senses in Holy Scriptures are mentioned (2). Christian theologians in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries described Kabbalah mainly as a philosophy or theology of the Jews. Another term that was applied to the Kabbalah, which later became prevalent and is still used today, was theosophy. This term appears in the title of the German Alchemist Georg von Welling book Opus mago–​cabalisticum et theosophicum, published in 1721. The term mystical was not a central term used to describe the Kabbalah. When the adjective mystical appeared in association with the Kabbalah during this period, it was mainly used in accordance with in its medieval Christian theological meaning and referred to the hermeneutic methods used by Kabbalists. The term Jewish mysticism, as well as the perception that the Kabbalah constitutes a Jewish expression of a universal mystical phenomenon, did not appear, to the best of my knowledge, before the nineteenth century. In the early nineteenth century, German Romanticists revealed an increased interest in and admiration of the Kabbalah, which they were acquainted with mainly through the writings of Christian Kabbalists (Kilcher 2010, 8, 328–​329; Schulte 1994, 6–​8). Franz Joseph Molitor, the Christian theologian and freemason who was affiliated with the German Romantic movement and who dedicated his life to study of the Kabbalah (also from Jewish sources), described the Kabbalah as a mystical tradition. He was most likely the first to use the term Jewish mysticism in his book The Philosophy of History or About Traditions published in four volumes between the years 1827 and 1853.4 Although he used the term, the category of mysticism does not maintain a central hold in his perception of the Kabbalah, which he describes as theosophy and (as expressed in the title of his book) as “a philosophy of history.”5 It should also be noted that Molitor mainly used the term mysticism to indicate the esoteric and allegorical meanings of the scriptures and not in the sense of an unmediated experience of the divine (Mertens 2002, 169). In Molitor’s footsteps, the theologian and jurist Johann Friedrich von Meyer 4 See, for example, Molitor 1827, vol. 1, 44, 135; vol. 3, 63, 365; vol. 4, 2–​3, 42, 52, 55, 60, 79, 178, 428. 5 For Molitor’s definition of Kabbalah, see Koch 2006, 72–​80.

Jewish Mysticism and National Theology  41 also identified the Kabbalah as “the mysticism of the Jews” in his introduction to the German translation of Sefer Yetzira, published in Leipzig in 1830 (8). Members of the Jewish enlightenment movement (Haskala) of the late eighteenth century and the scholars of the Wissenschaft des Judentums movement in the first half of the nineteenth century did not identify the Kabbalah as Jewish mysticism. The term does not appear in the discussions on Kabbalah in Isaak Markus Jost’s The History of the Israelites from the Maccabees to the Present, published between 1820 and 1828, and Peter Beer’s The History, the Theories and Views of the Jewish Sects Past and Present and the Secret Doctrine or the Kabbalah, published between 1822 and 1823.6 Moses Mendelssohn and Isaac Satanow describe the Kabbalah as “Oriental philosophy,”7 a term that also appears in Adolf Jellinek’s introduction to the German translation of Adolph Franck’s book on Kabbalah printed in Leipzig in 1844 (v). Another term that was used to define Kabbalah by Jewish scholars in the nineteenth century was “religious philosophy.” Adolph Franck, a prominent French Jewish scholar, described Kabbalah as religious philosophy in his book The Kabbalah or the Religious Philosophy of the Hebrews, published in Paris in 1843 (dedicated to his teacher, the aforementioned Victor Cousin). The use of this term, which was probably inspired by Hegel’s famous Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, is repeated in David Heymann Jöel’s book Midrash ha-​Zohar: The Religious Philosophy of the Zohar and Its Relation to Religious Theology. Jöel claims that the ideas of the Zohar are compatible with other forms of religious philosophy, and he emphasizes that the Kabbalah of the Zohar is not mysticism in the common sense of the word (Jöel 1849, XII–​ XII; Kohler 2019, 87). The characterization of Kabbalah as religious philosophy is found also in the first comprehensive academic study of the Kabbalah in English, Christian Ginsburg’s, The Kabbalah:  Its Theories, Development and Literature, printed in 1865. Such a definition also appears in the title of Philip Bloch’s book The History of the Development of the Kabbalah and the Jewish Religious Philosophy, from 1894. Christian Ginsburg, who was a well-​known biblical scholar (who converted to Christianity), defined Kabbalah also as theosophy. He opened his aforementioned book with a 6 Nevertheless, Jost refers to Hasidism as “a new mystical cult” (1820–​1828, vol. 9, 40). 7 Mendelssohn, according to his friend and publisher Friedrich Nicolai, spoke of “Kabbalist philosophy” and called the Kabbalists “Oriental philosophers” (Nicolai 1799, 44). The Kabbalah is referred to as ancient Oriental philosophy (Philosophia orientalis antique) in the Latin title of Isaak Satanow’s essay Imrei Bina, published in 1784 in Berlin.

42  Mystifying Kabbalah classification of Kabbalah as “a system of religious philosophy, or more properly of theosophy” (Ginsburg 1865, 1). As we shall see later, the characterization of Kabbalah as theosophy will become central in the research of Gershom Scholem and his school. Although the term mysticism was not used as a central category in characterizing the Kabbalah in the first half of the nineteenth century, some Jewish scholars of the period used the term in association with the Kabbalah and Hasidism. Toward the middle of the century, the term became more prevalent in describing the Kabbalah. Leopold Zunz, one of the founders of the Wissenschaft des Judentums, described Kabbalists as “mystics” in his book Lectures on Prayer (Zunz 1832, 402), and Abraham Geiger, a Wissenchaft scholar and the future leader of reform Judaism, asserted that mysticism in Judaism is expressed in the Kabbalah (Geiger 1835, 39). The French Jewish scholar Adolph Franck, mentioned earlier, identified Kabbalah not only as religious philosophy, but also as mysticism, as he perceived it. In his influential book on Kabbalah (that was translated to German a year after its publication in French), Franck defined mysticism as a universal hermeneutic tendency and emphasized its subjective nature. According to Franck, three interpretative tendencies are found in the history of all religions: traditional orthodoxy, philosophical reasoning, and mysticism (Franck 1843, 29–​30; Franck 1926, liv–​iv). The mystics, according to Franck, are those thinkers who are not satisfied with tradition and authority, and cannot or dare not use reasoning. Therefore, “they see nothing but symbols and images in the greater number of dogmas, precepts, and religious tales . . . they search every­ where for a mysterious, profound, meaning, in accord with their thoughts and feelings” (Franck 1843, 30; Franck 1926, liv). Franck applied the three religious tendencies to Judaism and offered a distinction between rabbinic Judaism, Jewish philosophy, and Kabbalah. Frank did not use the term “Jewish mysticism” in his book. Yet he asserted that Kabbalah was a mystic doctrine:  “a profoundly venerated science which could be distinguished from the Mishna, the Talmud and the Sacred Books—​a mystic doctrine evidently engendered by the need for reflection and independence as well as philosophy” (Franck 1843, 55; Franck 1926, 24). The reform Rabbi Abraham Adler of Worms, one of the lesser known scholars of the Wissenschaft des Judentums, published in 1846 a long review of Franck’s book. As George Kohler demonstrated recently, Adler expressed a highly positive appreciation of Kabbalah that anticipated the positive appreciation of Kabbalah by scholars in the late nineteen and early twentieth

Jewish Mysticism and National Theology  43 century (Kohler 2019, 69–​78). Adler identified Kabbalah as Jewish mysticism, which he characterized as “the truth in form of pure inwardness (die wahrheit in der Form der blosse innerlichkeit)” (1846, 189). Adolf Jellinek, who translated Franck’s book into German, and became one of the most important scholars of Kabbalah in the nineteenth century, published in 1853 an anthology of Kabbalistic works entitled An Assortment of Kabbalistic Mysticism. In the preface to the anthology, Jellinek described mysticism as an essential component in the human spiritual development existent in all religions. He claimed that the Jewish Kabbalah is a specific, Jewish expression of this universal phenomenon: Mysticism is such an essential component in the spiritual development of humankind that it can be found in all nations and religions. Nevertheless, while many productive studies have been dedicated to Egyptian, Indian and Arabic mysticism, as well as early and late Christian Gnosticism, the historical development of the Kabbalah, from its basic foundations to its enormous ultimate structure, has not been awarded any comprehensive research. (Jellinek 1853, 3–​4)

The term mysticism appears as a central category for the description of the Kabbalah and other trends in Judaism in other works composed in this era. Isaak Markus Jost (who, as recalled, did not describe the Kabbalah as “mysticism” in his first book on Jewish history published in the second decade of the nineteenth century) calls the chapter on the Kabbalah in the third volume of his book The History of Judaism and Its Sects, published in 1859, “The Mystical Direction” (Jost 1859, vol. 3, 65–​81). It is important to emphasize that, for Jost, mysticism is still related primarily to scriptural hermeneutics: “Mysticism is the natural consequence of the overflowing wealth of thought caused by the profuse richness of the sources of the holy scriptures” (66–​67; Kohler 2019, 149–​150). Abraham Geiger, the scholar and leader of the Jewish reform movement, calls the chapter on Kabbalah in the last book he published, Judaism and Its History, printed in 1871, “Mysticism” (vol. 3, 64–​78). In the book, Geiger holds on to the negative, “enlightened” perception of mysticism and describes Kabbalah as an imaginary wisdom that was used by ambitious enthusiasts and attracted poor souls (vol 3, 14; Kohler 2019, 213–​214). Heinrich Graetz, the most important Jewish historian of the nineteenth century, who contributed much to the study of Kabbalah, notwithstanding

44  Mystifying Kabbalah his negative evaluation of its role in Jewish history, also applied the term mysticism to the Kabbalah and other Jewish trends, such as the Essenes and Heichalot literature (Kohler 2018, 107–​130). Nonetheless, mysticism is not a central category in his discussion of Kabbalah in the seventh volume of his magnum opus, The History of the Jews. Graetz uses other terms, such as secret doctrine (geheimlehre), to characterize Kabbalah (Graetz 1863, vol. 7, 73). The term secret doctrine was used to characterize Kabbala already in Peter Beer’s The History, the Theories and Views of the Jewish Sects Past and Present and the Secret Doctrine or the Kabbalah, which was mentioned earlier. Other scholars rejected the identification of Kabbalah as Jewish mysticism. Christian Ginsburg, as mentioned earlier, characterizes Kabbalah as religious philosophy and theosophy. Ginsburg congratulated Graetz for distinguishing between Kabbalah and mysticism and criticizes scholars who confuse the two terms (230–​231). Following Ginsburg, Bernard Pick also reiterates the need to distinguish between Kabbalah and mysticism in his book, The Kabbalah, published in 1913 (10). It is interesting to note that Arthur Waite, the English occultist and independent scholar concluded his book The Doctrine and Literature of the Kabbalah, published in 1902, with a chapter discussing the question of the relation between Kabbalah and mysticism. Waite takes for granted that the two concepts differ. He claims that much of the Kabbalah is extrinsic to mysticism, although its philosophical side is connected to it (2005, 483–​491). From the beginning of the twentieth century and onward, the term Jewish mysticism gradually becomes a common term for describing the Kabbalah. During this period, the positive evaluation of mysticism and its perception as a subjective experience of an encounter with the divine realm become prevalent. The term Jewish mysticism appears in numerous chapter titles in Sylv (Samuel) Karppe’s book, Study on the Origins and the Nature of the Zohar, printed in Paris in 1901 (1–​86) and in the title of Erich Bischoff ’s book from 1903, The Kabbalah:  Introduction to Mysticism and the Secret Jewish Doctrine. The terms mysticism and Jewish mysticism are common in the entry “Kabbalah” (written by Kaufmann Kohler and Levy Ginsburg) in the Jewish Encyclopedia in English, published between 1901 and 1906. Buber’s aforementioned article, “Jewish Mysticism,” was published in 1906, as an introduction to The Tales of Rabbi Nachman. I would like to turn now and discuss this essay, which played a seminal role in the formation of the modern concept of Jewish mysticism.

Jewish Mysticism and National Theology  45

2.3.  Martin Buber’s “Jewish Mysticism” (1906) In 1906, Martin Buber published his first book on Hasidism, The Tales of Rabbi Nachman. This book, as well as Buber’s second book on Hasidism, The Legend of Baal-​Shem, printed two years later, made a strong impression on the German-​reading audience, Jews and non-​Jews alike (Mendes-​Flohr 1991, 77–​132). As an introduction to The Tales of Rabbi Nachman, Buber published his short essay “Jewish Mysticism”8 and a short summary of the life of Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav. In his opening words he wrote that the essay on Jewish mysticism is only to be viewed as a general and preliminary introduction to the subject. Despite the fact that this is a short and general article, this introduction bears great importance in the forming of the modern category of Jewish mysticism and in shaping the academic research field of Kabbalah. In his essay Buber defines Jewish mysticism and delineates in general lines its development and progression. As we saw earlier, he claims that Jewish mysticism is an unbroken tradition whose beginnings remain unknown to us. He assumes that the mystical teaching existed as a mystery in the time of the Talmud and he regards The Book of Creation, Sefer Yetzira, which, in his opinion, was written between the seventh and ninth centuries, as the oldest Jewish mystical book that has been preserved. The period between the writing of Sefer Yetzira and the creation of the Zohar, in the late thirteenth century, is in his eyes the time of the real unfolding of the Kabbalah. However, he says, Kabbalah was limited during this period, and up until the expulsion from Spain, to a narrow circle and remained isolated from practical life: But for a long while yet those who occupied themselves with the Kabbala remained limited to a narrow circle, even though this circle extended from France, Spain, Italy, and Germany. During this whole period the teaching itself remains alien to life: it is theory in the Neoplatonic sense, vision of God, and desires nothing of the reality of human existence. It does not demand that one live it, it has no contact with action. (Buber 1956, 5–​6)

8 A short and revised version of the article was reprinted by Buber in a collection of his writings on Hasidism. See Buber 1962, 11–​18. An English version of the article, based on the short revised version, appeared in Morris Friedman’s translation. See Buber 1956, 3–​17 (Friedman’s translation was again printed, with an introduction by Mendes-​Flohr and Gries; see Mendes-​Flohr and Gries 1988, 3–​17). For a Hebrew translation of the whole, original version by Abraham Huss, see Huss 2008c, 114–​121.

46  Mystifying Kabbalah According to Buber, the expulsion of the Jews from Spain was the turning point in the history of the Kabbalah and this gave the Kabbala its great Messianic drive (6). A  new era of Jewish mysticism began in the mid-​ sixteenth century, with Isaac Luria’s (Ha’ari) doctrine that “proclaimed the ecstatic act of the individual as a co-​working with God to achieving redemption” (6). The messianic teaching of Luria found its expression, according to Buber, in the Sabbatean movement: The basic feeling of which this teaching was the ideal utterance found its elemental expression almost a hundred years later in the great Messianic movement that bears the name of Sabbatai Zvi. It was an eruption of the unknown powers of the people and a revelation of the hidden reality of the folk-​soul.  (9)

The collapse of Sabbateanism, in his opinion, paved the way to the final and highest point of Jewish mysticism, which is Hasidism: This movement, too, collapsed, more pitifully than any of the earlier ones. And now Messianism once again intensifies itself. The real age of mortification begins. . . . These martyrs of the will are the forerunners of Hasidism, the last and highest development of Jewish mysticism. Arising about the middle of the eighteenth century, Hasidism at once continued and counteracted the Kabbala. Hasidism is the Kabbala become ethos. But the life that it teaches is not asceticism but joy in God. (9–​10)

Nonetheless, Buber claims, Hasidism underwent a “decomposition” that led to its decline. The reasons for the decline were the demand of Hasidism for a spiritual intensity that the people did not possess and the institutionalization of the idea of the zaddik (righteous) as a mediator between God and the community. According to Buber, “The zaddik made the Hasidic community richer in security in God but poorer in the one thing of value—​one’s own seeking” (16–​17). Buber finished his essay stating that Hasidism degenerated at the end into desolate sectarianism (“So artete der Chassidismus zuletzt in wüstes Sektenwesen aus”) (Buber 1920, 19), a sentence which was omitted from the later German version and the English translation of the essay. According to Buber, that was the end of the Jewish mystical tradition. Yet he hoped for a resurrection of Jewish mysticism, which he regarded as essential for the destiny of Judaism. Buber concluded the second introduction to the

Jewish Mysticism and National Theology  47 Tales of Rabbi Nachman (an overview of his life), saying: “It is not given to us to know whether a resurrection will be granted it, but the inner destiny of Judaism seems to me to depend on whether—​no matter if in this shape or another—​its pathos will again become deed” (32). Buber’s first books on Hasidism, and his essay on “Jewish Mysticism,” were written within the framework of neo-​Romantic discourse of the early twentieth century, in which “mysticism” was a central concept. Buber sent The Tales of Rabbi Nachman to his friend the publisher Eugene Diederichs, a major figure in the neo-​Romantic movement in Germany (it was he who coined the term “neo-​Romanticism” in 1905). Diederichs called for a new cultural renaissance based on mysticism and myth, and declared that the Germans should pass into mysticism in order to regain as sense of the world as a whole. The declared objective of Diederichs’s publication activities was to promote a “return to a higher transcendent reality” (Urban 2006, 40). Buber, who wrote his doctoral thesis on the problem of individuation in the doctrines of Nicolas of Cusa and Jakob Böhme, adopted the category of mysticism, which was highly popular in neo-​Romantic circles, and applied it, following Jewish scholars who preceded him, to Kabbalah and Hasidism. His celebration of Jewish Mysticism as “the marvelous bloom of an ancient tree  .  .  .  one of the great manifestations of ecstatic wisdom” (Buber 1956, 4) reflects a neo-​Romantic enthusiasm from mysticism, Oriental religions, and the occult that was popular during the turn of the century. Buber, as other scholars of his time, viewed the Kabbalah, and mainly Hasidism, as a Jewish expression of the universal mystical phenomenon that presents an alternative to the materialistic rationality of the Western bourgeois culture of his time. Buber’s translations of Hasidic writings had a clear apologetic motive—​to show the German-​speaking public who adopted neo-​Romantic values, that “the tendency toward mysticism is native to the Jews from antiquity” (4). As mentioned earlier, Kabbalah was not identified as a mystical movement in most nineteenth-​century discussions of mysticism as a universal phenomenon, and many thinkers, including Diederichs, rejected the possibility of the existence of Jewish mysticism. Revealing the existence of a mystical Jewish tradition was intended to show that Judaism stood up to the values that neo-​Romanticism espoused and to prove that it is a vibrant national culture which is based, as are other national cultures, on mystical and mythical traditions of its own.

48  Mystifying Kabbalah As is well known, Buber was active in the Zionist movement, which he joined at the age of twenty, during his studies at the University of Vienna. His interest in Hasidism and his perception of Kabbalah and Hasidism as expressions of the Jewish mystical traditions were closely connected to his national ideology. In his introduction to The Tales of Rabbi Nachman, he presents Jewish mysticism as a major component of Judaism, which expresses the Jewish national character and was shaped by its history. Although he views mysticism as a universal phenomenon, Buber emphasizes, “If, then, the strength of Jewish mysticism arose from an original characteristic of the people that produced it, so the later destiny of this people has also left its imprint on it” (Buber 1956, 4). He claims that despite the influence of other cultures on Jewish mysticism “it preserved the power of its own stream, receiving all influx without being mastered by it” (3). Buber regarded Jewish mysticism as “a revelation of the hidden reality of the folk-​soul” (9) and saw it as a motivating power of Jewish history. Although he thought that Jewish mysticism had diminished and deteriorated in the later stages of Hasidism, he expected its resurrection—​its pathos becoming deeds again—​which he believed the inner destiny of Judaism was depended upon (Buber 1920, 32). Consequentially, Buber viewed the renewal of Jewish mysticism—​and probably he regarded his own work as part of this renewal—​ as an essential component of the national revival project. Buber, like other Zionist thinkers, was hostile toward rabbinical Judaism. He espoused the stance that was prevalent at the time, which glorified mysticism as a liberating and reformative force, working against petrified and restrictive religious institutions. Buber describes Hasidism, which he viewed as the apex of Jewish mysticism, as a movement of religious renewal. He claims that it liberated the people, who were always inclined to mysticism, from the tyranny of legalistic, Halachic Judaism: The piety of this people was inclined from of old to mystical immediacy; it received the new message [of the Baal Shem Tov. B.H.] as an exalted expression of itself. The proclamation of joy in God, after a thousand years of a dominance of law that was poor in joy and hostile to it, acted like a liberation. In addition, the people up till then had acknowledged above them an aristocracy of Talmud scholars, alienated from life, yet never contested. Now the people, by a single blow, were liberated from this aristocracy and established in their own value. (Buber 1956, 15)

Jewish Mysticism and National Theology  49 The category of Jewish mysticism in Buber’s essay, and in other works from the same period, was shaped within the framework of Orientalist perspectives of the fin de siècle. In the nineteenth century, both “mysticism” and “Judaism” were, to a great extent, perceived as Oriental categories. As aforementioned, the Kabbalah was perceived as “Oriental philosophy” in the writings of the early Jewish Maskilim. Buber also turned to the “East,” as manifested in his Zionist activity and in his interest in mystical traditions in general and in Jewish mysticism in particular, which he believed reached its peak among the Jews of Eastern Europe. Yet his stance involved a typical Orientalist ambivalence of being both drawn to and repelled by the East (Gilman 1979, 345–​349; Ascheim 1982, 126). Thus, despite his describing Jewish mysticism as “the marvelous bloom of an ancient tree” (Buber 1956, 4), he goes on and writes, “Its color strikes us as almost all too dazzling its fragrance strikes us as almost all too luxuriant” (4). According to Buber: “Jewish mysticism may appear quite disproportionate, often confused, at times trivial when we compare it with Meister Eckhart, with Plotinus, with Lao-​tzu” (4). In a paragraph, whose final words were omitted from the later version of the article and from its English translation, he writes: The wandering and martyrdom of the Jews have again and again transposed their souls into that vibration of despair out of which, at times, the lightning flash of ecstasy breaks forth. But at the same time they have hindered them from attaining the pure expression of ecstasy. They have led them to confuse the necessary, the actually experienced, with the superfluous, the borrowed . . . Thus arouse works like the “Zohar,” the book of Splendor, which elicited both admiration and disgust. (Buber 1920, 8; Buber 1956, 5)9

Similar expressions appeared in writings of other thinkers of the same era who wrote appreciatively about the Kabbalah (Huss 2008b, 369–​374). Thus, for example, Kohler and Ginzberg spoke about “the often repulsive Zoharistic Cabala” (1906, 478). Hillel Zeitlin, who not only emphasized the historical 9 The final words (in German “die ein Entzücken und ein Abscheu sind”) were omitted from the later German and English versions of the article. See Buber 1956, 5; Buber 1963, 12: Huss 2008, 115. The following sentences also contains harsh expressions (“alongside awkward personifications of God which are not made any more bearable to us through allegorical interpretation, between boring, colorless discussions, faltering in dim and flowery language, over and over revelations of the hidden depths of the soul and visions of overreaching secrets glow. Too often the pathos deteriorates to rhetoric. The Jews, and not only the mediocre ones amongst them, have always fallen in this sin”; Buber 1920, 8). This appears in a condensed and softer version in the later German version and in the English translation.

50  Mystifying Kabbalah and literary value of the Zohar but accepted it as a holy and authoritative text, nonetheless wrote in his 1920 article “The Key to the Book of Zohar”: “based on the content and richness of the Zohar it is entirely—​divinity; its exterior is sometimes mixed and murk” (314). Similar expression of admiration and repulsion from the Kabbalah return and appear later in Gershom Scholem’s writings. In the following section I will discuss Scholem’s reception of the term Jewish mysticism as a central category for description and research of Kabbalah and Hasidism, and the establishment of the academic field of research dedicated to Jewish mysticism. Scholem and his disciples initiated a vast research project, which achieved many academic accomplishments and won great prestige. As we will see in the following, this research field was based on the category of Jewish mysticism as it was formulated in the early twentieth century and on the theological, national, and Oriental perspectives that shaped this category.

2.4.  The Creation of a Discipline On the rear cover of the first volume of the Hebrew collection of Gershom Scholem’s studies, published in 1998 (Scholem 1998), it was written: “Gershom Scholem’s project of the study of Jewish mysticism is a rare accomplishment of the creation of a new field of research in the Humanities, by one man, almost out of nothing.” The assertion that Scholem created the research of Kabbalah ex-​nihilo (based on his own words [Scholem 1937, 9]), is frequently repeated among scholars of Jewish studies, as is the famous utterance often attributed to Martin Buber, according to which Scholem is the only scholar that created an academic discipline of his own.10 Many scholars researched Kabbalah in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and presenting Scholem’s research as a creation “out of nothing” is an exaggeration (Myers 2008; Kohler 2019). Yet there is no doubt that Scholem did succeed in creating a research field that was perceived as an academic “discipline” winning hegemonic status and great esteem. The prestige of the research field lies in Gershom Scholem and his students’ outstanding 10 See also Dan: “the thing that is most unique about Scholem’s activity is his not belonging to an existing discipline, not in the world nor in Israel, not in the Humanities or in Judaic studies. Scholem created the research field for himself, a field whose development he was dedicated to and which became identified with his name in the world of academics: the Kabbalah” (2005, 199; also see Biale 1979, 2; Tirosh-​Rothschild 1991, 161; Herzberg 1987, 198).

Jewish Mysticism and National Theology  51 academic achievements, in the enduring interest in Kabbalah in Jewish and Western culture, and in the high symbolic value of mysticism, the foundational category of the field. Gershom Scholem, who began to take interest in the Kabbalah in his youth, wrote his dissertation at University of Munich on Sefer ha-​Bahir (1922). After concluding his doctoral studies, Scholem immigrated to Palestine, and in 1925, he received and appointment as a lecturer on Kabbalah in the newly established Institute of Jewish Studies of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Gradually he established his status as the leading academic expert on Kabbalah and instituted the research of Jewish mysticism as a central research field within Jewish studies. When he began his research of Kabbalah, in the 1920s, Jewish mysticism had already become a familiar category. Several scholars at the time were party to Buber’s interest in the Kabbalah and Hasidism, and similarly evaluated the national and religious significance of Jewish mysticism. Shimon Dubnov and Micha Josef Berdyczewski assisted Buber in his work on The Tales of Rabbi Nachman (Mendes-​Flohr and Gries 1988, 13)  and other scholars, in eastern and western Europe and in the United States (Samuel Abba Horodezky, Hillel Zeitlin, Samuel Abraham Hirsch, Louis Ginzberg, Harry Sperling, Joshua Abelson, Ernest Mueller, and many others), wrote studies on Kabbalah, Hasidism, and Jewish mysticism, within and outside of academic frameworks.11 These scholars, who worked within neo-​Romantic and Orientalist perspectives, espoused the category of mysticism to describe Kabbalah and Hasidism and, for the most part, took a sympathetic, (sometimes enthusiastic) stand toward these. Following these scholars, Scholem adopted the category of mysticism (sometimes translated into Hebrew as mistorin) as a central category to describe, research, and analyze Kabbalah and Hasidism, and some other Jewish trends.12 Scholem’s delineated his perceptions concerning the significance 11 In 1907, an article by Samuel Abraham Hirsch entitled “Jewish Mystics” was published in the Jewish Quarterly Review. In 1910, an article by Harry Sperling entitled “Jewish Mysticism” was published in the volume Aspects of Hebrew Genius, ed. by Leon Simon (London: Routledge, 1910), 145–​176; and in 1914 Joshua Abelson’s English book bearing the same title was printed. In 1923, Leo Baeck (who in his earlier writings denied the existence of authentic Jewish mysticism) published an article entitled “The Meaning of Jewish Mysticism in Our Times” (and later on in 1928, an article entitled “Jewish Mysticism”). On these articles see Altmann 1981, 300–​305. On Baeck’s earlier denial of authentic Jewish mysticism, see Altmann 1981, 295–​298. 12 Josef Dan claimed that in Scholem’s first studies “mysticism” was not a central category and in his later studies he expressed an ambivalence regarding the term Jewish mysticism. See Dan 1987, 9; Dan 1998–​1999, vol. 4, 239. Indeed, Scholem expressed doubts regarding total identification of the Kabbalah as “mysticism.” In the entry for “Kabbalah,” which was first printed in the Encyclopedia Judaica in 1972, he wrote: “Kabbalah is a unique phenomenon and should not be considered to be

52  Mystifying Kabbalah and development of Jewish mysticism in his magus opus, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, published in English in 194113 and in a comprehensive article in Hebrew written in 1944, “Jewish Mysticism [mistorin] and Kabbalah” (Scholem 1976a, 230–​261).14 As Ron Margolin showed, the presentation of the history of Jewish mysticism in these essays is largely based on the outline presented in Buber’s introduction to The Tales of Rabbi Nachman (2005, 8). Scholem acknowledged Buber’s contribution to the formation of the modern perception of Jewish mysticism, saying that: Buber was the first Jewish thinker who saw in mysticism a basic feature and continuously operating tendency of Judaism. He goes very far in the formulation of this thesis, but the stimulus he provided by it is effective to his day, albeit in other perspectives. (1976b, 144)

In the essays mentioned earlier, and in a number of his other essays, Scholem discusses the definition of mysticism.15 Although Scholem, as did many others, declares the difficulty or impossibility to provide a precise definition of mysticism, he espouses the perception of mysticism formulated in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. In the first chapter of Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, Scholem recommends Evelyn Underhill’s writings and opens his discussion with Rufus Jones’s definition of mysticism (Scholem 1971, 3–​4). Scholem does not offer his own definition of mysticism, however he notes that the characteristic of the mystical experience is “direct relation between mankind and god” (9). Further on in the chapter he writes

identical with what is known in the history of religion as ‘mysticism.’ It is mysticism in fact; but at the same time it is both esotericism and theosophy” (Scholem 1974, 3). Yet, as Moran Gam-​Hacohen has shown, Scholem’s interest in mysticism appeared already in his early diaries (from 1915 to 1916) and his perception of the Kabbalah as mysticism was central in the lectures he gave in 1934. See Gam-​ Hacohen 2014, 71–​79; Gam-​Hacohen 2016, 81–​82. 13 The book is based on a series Scholem delivered at the Jewish Theological Seminar in New York in 1938. Parts of the first chapter of this book discussing the category of Jewish mysticism were first published in the Review of Religion in 1938. As mentioned, discussions on Kabbalah as mysticism were central in Scholem’s 1934 lecture series, which will be discussed later. 14 The article was first printed in “Sifriat Hashaot” in 1943. 15 See his articles “On the Possibility of Jewish Mysticism in Our Time” (Scholem 1997, 8–​9; “Religious Authority and Mysticism” (Scholem 1965, 9–​11) and in his lecture series on Kabbalah and Sefer ha-​Bahir (Scholem 1962, 2). An interesting discussion on mysticism can be found in a lecture Scholem delivered in the framework of the lecture series for students of the Hebrew University that took place in Ohel Shem auditorium in Tel Aviv in 1934 and it was called “Mysticism [Mystorin] in General.” See Gam-​Hacohen 2014, 80–​117. For discussions on Scholem’s definition of mysticism, see Schweid 1983, 5–​9; Margolin 2005, 22–​26; Gam-​Hacohen 2014, 71–​79; Gam-​Hacohen 2016, 81–​93.

Jewish Mysticism and National Theology  53 that “mysticism proceeds to merge the self into a higher union. Mysticism postulates self-​knowledge, to use a platonic term, as the surest way to God who reveals Himself in the depths of the self ” (18). According to Scholem’s dialectic scheme, mysticism is the third, romantic stage of religion. It follows the mythical stage in which the gap between man and God has not yet become a fact of inner consciousness, and the classic stage which destroys the dream-​harmony of man, universe, and God, and creates an abyss between a finite man and a transcendental God (Scholem 1971, 7). Only after religion obtained its classic expression, does mysticism appear: Mysticism does not deny or overlook the abyss; on the contrary, it begins by realizing its existence, but from there it proceeds to a quest for the secret that will close it in, the hidden path that will span it. It strives to piece together the fragments broken by the religious cataclysm, to bring back the old unity which religion has destroyed, but on a new plane, where the world of mythology and that of revelation meet in the soul of man. (8)

Scholem, who accepted the distinction between the classic and the romantic stage of religion from Leo Baeck (1958), accepts the idea that mysticism is the vital force which invigorates religion and undermines its institutionalization: If we follow Leo Baeck’s terminology, we can call this the romantic stage of religion, as opposed to its classic stage, the stage in which the large religious systems and their social formations, rituals and institutions were shaped. When a tendency to petrify and deteriorate becomes apparent in these, comes the turn of mysticism. Its message is borne by individuals who are attempting to return and create the immediate contact with the original source on which established religion based its authoritative power. (Scholem 1989, 284)

Following the anarchist-​socialist Gustav Landauer, who had also a considerable influence on Buber’s interest in mysticism, Scholem emphasized the anarchic and antinomian potential of the mystical experience (Schwartz 2006, 2015). In his essay “Religious Authority and Mysticism,” he wrote: In his mystical experience the mystic encounters Life. This “Life” however is not the harmonious life of all of all things in bond with God, a world

54  Mystifying Kabbalah ordered by divine law and submissive to his authority, but something very different. Utterly free, fettered by no law or authority, this “Life” never ceases to produce forms and to destroy what it has produced. It is the anarchic promiscuity of all things. Into this bubbling cauldron, the continuum of destruction, the mystic plunges. (Scholem 1965, 28)

Scholem acknowledged the universality of mysticism and contended that there is fundamental unity of mystical experiences in various cultures (Scholem 1971, 6). However, he emphasized that “There is no mysticism as such, there is only the mysticism of a particular religious system, Christian, Islamic, Jewish mysticism and so on” (6). As we have seen in the first chapter, this approach, which became known as “contextualist,” was later developed by Steven Katz and other scholars. In my opinion, Scholem’s emphasis on the cultural dependency of mysticism and the particular nature of Jewish mysticism is related to the Zionist perception that shaped, as we will see later on, Scholem’s research. According to Scholem, Jewish mysticism expressed the vital, national power of Judaism in the diaspora. Although Scholem identified Kabbalah as a form of mysticism, he denied the existence of unio-​mystica in Kabbalah. He claimed (similar to Edward Caird and other scholars that were discussed previously) that the idea of mystical unity was foreign to Judaism. Scholem, who viewed this as a unique feature of Jewish mysticism, claimed: “[J]‌ewish Mysticism as such does not exist at all, in the sense of direct, unmediated union with the Godhead. There is no such thing within the framework of the Jewish tradition as such a union requires a level of daring which seems impossible within the framework of the concepts traditionally accepted by one who calls himself a Jew (1997, 7).16 Yet, despite Scholem’s emphasize on the particular nature of Jewish mysticism, he assumed that there is a common core for all the mystical phenomena in various cultures. Despite the fact that there is no mysticism as such which is severed from a particular religious tradition: “That there remains a common characteristic it would be absurd to deny, and it is this element which is brought out in the comparative analysis of particular mystical experiences” (Scholem 1971, 6).

16 See also Scholem 1971, 122–​123. On Scholem’s claim on the absence of unio-​mystica in Judaism, see Idel 1988, 59–​91; Idel 2002a 21–​23; Idel 2005a, 6; Gam-​Hacohen 2016, 88–​90. As we will see later on, critique of this position of Scholem’s is a central component of Moshe Idel and other scholars` revision of Kabbala studies in the late twentieth century.

Jewish Mysticism and National Theology  55 Nonetheless, Scholem did not explore in his studies the universal aspect of mysticism and he only rarely applied comparative methods; he was interested in the history of Jewish mysticism and the philological-​historical research of texts he identified as belonging to the category. His interest in Jewish mysticism was derived from the common assumption that mysticism, whose essence is a direct and unmediated contact between man and God, expresses the vital element of religion, which prevents its degeneration. Scholem juxtaposed the vitality of mystical Kabbalah, to the Jewish Rabbinical law, that did not have enough vitality of its own to preserve Judaism and to prevent its decline. He claimed that Jewish mysticism, which preserved Judaism from degeneration and petrifaction, is the expression of the national Jewish spirit. He asserted that “mysticism is the most national terrain of all Jewish lands” (Scholem 1976a, 415), and claimed that as long as the Kabbala was truly a vital religious power, “we find it in live connection with the national myths, with the religion of the simple Jew” (213).

2.5.  Jewish Mysticism, Orientalism, and Zionism Similar to Buber, and under his influence, Scholem approached the study of Jewish mysticism as part of his Zionist convictions. In an interview with Muki Tzur in 1974, he said: I wanted to enter the world of kabbalah out of my belief in Zionism as a living thing—​as the restoration of a people that had degenerated quite a bit . . . I was interested in the question: Does halakhic Judaism have enough potency to survive? Is halakha really possible without a mystical foundation? Does it have enough vitality of its own to survive for two thousand years without degenerating? (Scholem 1976b, 18–​19)

Scholem reiterated and declared that his research is carried out from within a national perspective, and that this perspective enables objective and unbiased research of the Kabbala in particular and Judaism in general. Thus, for example, in his article “Reflections on the Science of Judaism,” he wrote: And then the fundamental change of perspective came. It came with the national movement. We have found a strong foothold to stand on. A new center from where completely new and different horizons were seen. We

56  Mystifying Kabbalah shall no longer see our problems from outside, from a perspective of obliteration or partial obliteration, from a cowardly, sanctimonious conservative stance, from smallminded apologetics with unresolved accounts of the past. The new slogan was: see from within, walk from the center to the periphery without fear and without looking aside. Rebuild the whole scientific structure in light of the historical experience of the Jew who sits within his people, and which has no other accounts. He is only interested in seeing the problems, the events and thoughts according to their real essence, in the framework of their national historical role. (Scholem 1976a, 398)

Scholem’s national approach was, as many scholars claimed, following Baruch Kurzweil (1969, 109–​ 134), a distinct theological approach. As Amnon Raz-​Krakotzkin stated: Scholem’s way can also be represented as an attempt to nationalize the Jewish theological approach, by someone who particularly emphasized the religious source of his national outlook. His religious perception totally differed from the Jewish Orthodox approach, but it was explicitly defined as fundamentally a religious-​theological approach . . . for him the national ideal was explicitly and prominently a theological ideal. (1996, 134)

Scholem’s national-​theological perspective postulated that the Kabbala preserved the national vitality of Judaism, by means of the unmediated experience of contact between man and the transcendent reality. Although Scholem was mainly interested in the way Jewish mysticism influenced Jewish history, he was also interested in the metaphysical and mystical foundation of the Kabbala. In his 1937 letter to Salman Schocken entitled “A Candid Word about the True Motives of My Kabbalistic Studies,” he disclosed that at first he thought to write about the metaphysics of Kabbala. Scholem tells in the letter of his desire to reach the mystical totality (mysticsche Totalität) that he believes underlies Kabbalistic literature, and asserts that the way to reveal the metaphysical and mystical meaning of Jewish mysticism lies in philological-​historical research: For today`s man, that mystical totality of truth, whose existence disappears particularly when it is projected into historical time, can only become visible in the purest way in the legitimate discipline of commentary and in the singular mirror of philological criticism. Today, as at the very beginning, my work lives in this paradox. In the hope of a true communication

Jewish Mysticism and National Theology  57 from the mountain, of that most invisible, smallest fluctuation of history which causes truth to break forth from the illusion of “development.” (Biale 1979, 66)17

We can learn from these words that Scholem believed that Kabbala was an expression of mystic reality and that, paradoxically, the way to get closer to that reality, today, is through philological criticism. From this we see (and I will elaborate on this in the next chapter) that according to Scholem, the philological-​historical research of the Kabbala is the legitimate and relevant continuation of the Kabbalistic tradition in the modern era (Biale 1979, 102; Kilcher 2010, 20–​26). As we saw, Scholem’s research project was based on a theological neo-​ Romantic outlook which viewed Jewish mysticism as the specific Jewish national expression of a universal religious phenomenon. Scholem focused his studies on the particular history of Jewish mysticism, which he regarded as the vital and radical force of Judaism that enabled its existence in the diaspora and, dialectically, led to Haskala (Jewish Enlightenment) and Zionism. Scholem bestowed the study of Kabbalah mysticism a distinct national and theological significance and viewed the academic study of Jewish mysticism as the modern successor of the authentic Kabbalistic tradition. As mentioned, Scholem perceived Jewish mysticism as the power that liberated the people from the petrification of the Halacha and thus anticipated Zionism (Raz-​Krakotzkin 1996, 129; Huss 2006, 228–​229). According to his perception, Jewish mysticism had a significant role in history of the Jewish people during it exile, but it lost its historical role (at least in its traditional formation) with the national revival in the land of Israel. Although Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism was not intended to offer a comprehensive chronological review of Jewish mysticism, the topics that the book cover (the first being Merkaba mysticism and the last, Hasidism) define the chronological scope of Jewish mysticism, as Scholem perceived it. In his Hebrew article “Jewish Mysticism and the Kabbala,” he enumerated six main periods in the development of Jewish mysticism:  Heichalot literature, Ashkenazi Hasidism, Kabbala in Spain, the Kabbalah following the Spanish expulsion (mainly, Luriainc Kabbalah), Sabbateanism, and Hasidism (Scholem 1976a, 230). Although the chapters in Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism do not totally correspond with the periods he enumerates

17 The original letter, in German is published in Biale 1979, 235–​236.

58  Mystifying Kabbalah in “Jewish Mysticism and the Kabbalah,” the main scheme of the history of Jewish mysticism is identical in both. This scheme, which to a great extent defines the topics that are studied and researched within the academic discipline of Jewish mysticism up to the present, is to a great extent based on the description of the development of Jewish mysticism in Buber’s introduction to The Tales of Rabbi Nachman. Following Buber, Scholem viewed mysticism as a guideline in Jewish history and in his studies he presented an autonomous history of Jewish mysticism. Although he believed in the Gnostic origins of Jewish mysticism and acknowledged the neo-​Platonic influence on early Kabbala, he argued that mysticism became an imminent element of Judaism in the late Middle Ages and early modern period. As Amnon Raz-​Krakotzkin observed, Scholem described the history of Jewish mysticism as a dialectical, internal Jewish process, which is largely disconnected from the Christian tradition and “external” influences (1996, 132–​133). The development of Jewish mysticism expressed, according to Scholem, a growing influence on the course of Jewish history (Scholem 1976a, 231). The social and national impact, in his opinion, was absent in the early stages of Kabbala’s development, during which it was “the esoteric wisdom of small groups of men out of touch with life and without any influence on it” (Scholem 1971, 34). Following Buber, Scholem claimed that the Spanish expulsion was a turning point in the history of Jewish mysticism and its historical influence: After the exodus from Spain, Kabbalism underwent a complete transformation. A catastrophe of this dimension, which uprooted one of the main branches of the Jewish people, could hardly take place without affecting every sphere of Jewish life and feeling. In the great upheaval of that crisis, Kabbalism established its claim to spiritual domination in Judaism. This fact became immediately obvious in its transformation from an esoteric into popular doctrine. (244)

According to Scholem, the major change in Kabbalah under the impact of the expulsion was the connection of Kabbalah with Messianism, which became prominent in Lurianic Kabbalah: “The catastrophic events of that period led directly to the rise of the new school of Safed. . . . The old spirit of mystical contemplation is enriched by the new element of Messianic fervor” (287).

Jewish Mysticism and National Theology  59 Buber’s claim in The Tales of Rabbi Nachman that Lurianic messianism erupted in the Sabbatean movement became a central component in Scholem’s historiography: The development of Jewish mysticism from the time of the Spanish exodus onwards has been singularly uniform and free from cross-​currents. There is only one main line. The catastrophic events of that period led directly to the new School of Safed. . . . The appearance of Sabbatai Zevi and Nathan of Gaza precipitated this step by liberating the latent energies and potentialities which had gradually accumulated during the generations immediately preceding them. The eruption of the volcano, when it came, was terrific. (287–​288)

According to Scholem, it was Sabbateanism that eventually brought about the Jewish enlightenment and reform movement. In his renowned article “Redemption through Sin,” he wrote:  “I shall endeavor to show that the nihilism of the Sabbatian and Frankist movement . . . was a dialectical outgrowth of the belief in the Messiahship of Sabbatai Zevi, and that this nihilism, in turn, helped pave the way for the Haskalah and the reform movement of the nineteenth century” (Scholem 1995, 84). Buber’s assumptions concerning Hasidism’s relation to Sabbateanism and his assessment that Hasidism was the final stage in the development of Jewish mysticism were accepted by Scholem. He concluded Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism in a chapter entitled “Hasidism, the Final Stage.” In the chapter Scholem quotes Buber’s assertion in the introduction to The Tales of Rabbi Nachman (I believe this is the only reference to Buber’s article in the book) that “Hasidism represents ‘Kabbalism turned Ethos’ ” (Scholem 1971, 342). According to Scholem’s dialectic perception, Lurianic Kabbala, Sabbateanism, and Hasidism are three stages of the same process that led to the dissemination of the Kabbala while, in the end, neutralizing its Messianic element: Lurianic Kabbalism, Sabbatianism and Hasidism are after all three stages of the same process. As we have seen, a proselytizing tendency was already inherent in the first. The distinguishing feature of Lurianic Kabbalism was the important part played by the Messianic element. . . . In the Sabbatian movement this urge for redemption “in our time” became the cause of aberrations. Great as was the influence of Sabbatianism, it was doomed to fail as a missionary movement. . . . Hasidism, on the other hand, broadly

60  Mystifying Kabbalah speaking represents an attempt to make the world of Kabbalism, through a certain transformation or re-​interpretation, accessible to the masses of the people, and in this it was for a time extraordinarily successful. (327–​328)

As already mentioned, Scholem saw in Hasidism the last stage of Jewish mysticism. He believed that the Kabbala in particular and mysticism in general ceased to constitute a significant factor in the modern era, and that contemporary Kabbalah became again what is was in its beginning: “the esoteric wisdom of small groups of men out of touch with life and without any influence on it” (34). Similar to Buber and other thinkers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century (and later), whose evaluation of “Jewish mysticism” was formed in the framework of an Orientalist perspective, Scholem expressed an ambivalent stance toward the “Oriental” followers of the Kabbala during his time. Alongside admiration and glorification of the Kabbala and Hasidism as highly significant historical phenomena, Scholem described the Kabbala and Hasidism of his time as marginal and degenerated. As recalled, Buber asserted in his introduction to The Tales of Rabbi Nachman that Hasidism degenerated at the end into desolate sectarianism, and Scholem expressed a similar view, stating that Hasidism “For all its decay it remains a living force in the lives of countless thousands of our people” (325–​326). It should be noted that Scholem was ambivalent also toward the “canonic” forms of Kabbalah. Reiterating the same words used by Buber in his Introduction to Tales of Rabbi Nachman, Scholem wrote: “If one turns to the writings of great Kabbalists one seldom fails to be torn between alternate admiration and disgust” (36).18 Scholem’s ambivalence regarding Kabbala and mysticism is also expressed in his evaluation of the personality of the author of the Zohar (which he claims is characteristic of many mystics): The author’s spiritual life is centered as it were in a more archaic layer of the mind. Again and again one is struck by the simultaneous presence of crudely primitive modes of thought and feeling, and of ideas whose profound contemplative mysticism is transparent . . . what we have before us is the reflection of their living conflict in the mind of a very remarkable personality in whom, as in so many mystics, profound and naive modes of thought existed side by side. (175)

18

Compare to Buber 1920, 8.

Jewish Mysticism and National Theology  61 These statements, which position the Kabbala as “archaic” and “primitive,” and express an ambivalent position of admiration and disgust, are embedded in the Jewish Orientalist discourse within which the academic research of the Kabbala was shaped (Anidjar 1996). The Orientalist stance that appreciates the historical expression of Jewish mysticism but rejects the value of the Kabbala in the present and the Zionist perspective that determines the historical significance of Jewish mysticism are both expressed in Scholem’s perception of the dialectical continuity between Kabbalah and Zionism: It is a basic fact that the creative element, drawing upon the authentic consciousness of this generation, has been invested in secular forms of building. This building or reconstruction of the life of the nation was and still is difficult, demanding energies of both will and execution leaving little room for productive expression of traditional forms. This power includes much that would under different circumstances have been invested in the world of religious mysticism. This power has now been invested in things which are seemingly bereft of religious sanctity, but are entirely secular, the most secular thing imaginable. (Scholem 1997, 17)

Hence, despite Scholem’s belief that the Kabbala in its traditional form ended its historical role, the vital force of Jewish mysticism, which enabled the existence of Judaism in the diaspora, appeared in his time in a new form—​not in the degenerated remnants of the Kabbala and Hasidism—​but in the Jewish national revival endeavor, which includes Scholem’s Kabbalah research project. In the famous concluding words of Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, Scholem expressed his hope for a resurrection of the vital mystical force of Jewish mysticism (in a way that recalls Buber’s words discussed earlier, on the possibility of the renewed resurrection of Jewish mysticism): The story is not ended, it has not yet become history, and the secret life it holds can break out tomorrow in you or in me. Under what aspects this invisible stream of Jewish mysticism will again come to the surface we cannot tell . . . To speak of the mystical course which, in the great cataclysm now stirring the Jewish people more deeply than in the entire history of Exile, destiny may still have in store for us—​and I for one believe that there is such a course—​is the task of prophets, not of professors. (1971, 350)

3 The New Age of Kabbalah Research 3.1.  Introduction In the introduction to Kabbalah—​New Perspectives, published in 1988, Moshe Idel described his approach to the study of the Kabbalah and how it differs from that of Scholem: Rather than concentrate upon the Kabbalistic schools—​ or trends, as Gershom Scholem designated them—​and their historical sequence, I will take a phenomenological approach that will deal primarily with the major religious foci of the Kabbalah—​their nature, significance, emergence, and development. Instead of presenting a historical sequence of Kabbalists or ideas, I adopt an essentialist attitude to the contents of Kabbalistic material that places greater emphasis upon their religious countenance than on their precise location in place and time . . . the unfolding of the key concepts that characterized and directed Kabbalistic activity and thought, their exposition as a-​temporal modes, and the understanding of their interplay in various Kabbalistic schools is the “inner” history of Kabbalah, or of Jewish mysticism, just as the temporal description can be considered the “outer” history. (xii–​xiii)

Idel introduces a new approach to the study of the Kabbalah, or Jewish mysticism. Instead of Scholem’s diachronic approach, which deals with the historical development of Kabbalistic schools and trends, he proposes an essentialist approach, which purports to expose the atemporal, religious essence of Jewish mysticism. Idel distinguishes between the external history of Jewish mysticism and its internal history and proposes to study the internal religious countenances of Kabbalah whose meaning is not dependent on their specific historical and geographical locations.1 The research approach that Idel proposes here integrates both Arthur O. Lovejoy’s history of ideas, 1 On Idel’s phenomenological approach, see Garb 2007; Margolin 2007; Abrams 2009. Mystifying Kabbalah. Boaz Huss, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190086961.001.0001

The New Age of Kabbalah Research  63 which investigates the history of unit-​ideas and individual concepts, and Mircea Eliade’s phenomenology of religion, which views religion as a sui generis phenomenon that cannot be reduced to historical, political, and social factors. Idel’s new approach to the study of Jewish mysticism arose in the framework of an overall revision that transpired within the field of Kabbalah research at the end of the 1980s. Within this framework, Idel and other scholars of his generation criticized the methodological approaches, theoretical assumptions, and historiographic conclusions of Gershom Scholem and his disciples, and they proposed new directions and perspectives for the study of Jewish mysticism. Despite the strong opposition these scholars encountered from Gershom Scholem’s veteran disciples, and the heated debate they stimulated in the professional literature and the media, the younger generation of scholars gradually gained a hegemonic status in the research field of Jewish mysticism. In this chapter, I will discuss the theoretical and methodological changes that transpired in the research field of Jewish mysticism in the late twentieth and early twenty-​first century, and I will examine the ideological and theological platform of these changes. I will present the critique of the new research approach on Scholem’s historiography as well as the new perspectives and methodological directions of research that arose in the field. The chapter will claim that although the new scholarship rejected central theories that reigned in the field and expanded its boundaries, it did not undermine the field’s founding category—​mysticism—​nor did it override the theological logic involved in the use of the concept “mysticism” as an analytical category. Moreover, the mystification of Kabbalah and Hasidism and the theological trajectories of the research field were intensified by the new perspectives that focused more on the mystical essence and the “internal history” of the Kabbalah than on its “external” historical and sociological contexts. By examining the accepted definitions of mysticism among Kabbalah scholars today, I will show that they are committed to modern theological approaches that identify the object of the mystical experience as an immanent metaphysical principle and locate the divine principle or “absolute reality” in the inner depths of the human soul and in a higher form of consciousness. These assumptions, which originated in the modern perception of mysticism discussed in the first chapter, continue to delineate the research of Jewish mysticism and shape its unique place in the academic field. The new developments in the research of Jewish mysticism resemble in many aspects

64  Mystifying Kabbalah new developments that transpired in other fields in the humanities and social sciences. Yet, I will argue, they also differ substantially from them, due to the field’s constitutive theological paradigm. Before I continue to discuss “the revolution” in the field of Jewish mysticism and the ideological contexts and theological directions of the new school of Kabbalah studies, I will provide a brief review of the institution of Scholem’s school of research and the hegemonic status it gained, despite some attempts which were made, in his lifetime, to undermine his views, and offer different approaches to the study of the Kabbalah. Some of these attempts anticipated the new perspectives that arose in Kabbalah research in the last decades of the twentieth century.

3.2.  Scholem’s School of Kabbalah Research In the second half of the twentieth century, the research school of Jewish mysticism which was established by Gershom Scholem became a highly influential and prestigious academic field. Although several of Scholem’s colleagues, and a few of his pupils, disagreed with some of his assumptions and conclusions, Scholem’s basic hypotheses regarding the nature and meaning of Jewish mysticism and the metanarrative he proposed regarding the development of Kabbalah and its role in Jewish history were accepted almost unquestionably. Scholem’s studies shaped the framework of Kabbalah research; they greatly influenced Jewish studies and had a considerable impact on other fields of religious studies. Scholem began to research and teach Jewish mysticism at the Hebrew University at the end of the 1920s. From the end of the 1930s, he supervised several students who later became leading scholars in various areas of Jewish mysticism. Among his pupils were Chaim Wirszubski, Isaiah Tishby, Joseph Weiss, Rivka Schatz Uffenheimer, Joseph Ben-​Shlomo, and Ephraim Gottlieb, and later on, Amos Goldreich and Yehuda Liebes. These scholars and their students (including Joseph Dan, Rachel Elior, Michal Oron, Mordechai Pachter, Moshe Hallamish, and Ze’ev Gries) broadened the research in areas perceived as belonging to Jewish mysticism and offered some alternatives to Scholem’s hypotheses. Thus, for example, several of his pupils disagreed with his claim regarding the absence of mystical unity in the Kabbalah; Isaiah Tishby disagreed with his claim that Hasidism neutralized messianism; and Joseph Ben Shlomo presented a more philosophical approach than Scholem’s

The New Age of Kabbalah Research  65 philological-​historical approach (Gam-​Hacohen 2016, 27–​46, Idel 1999a). Nonetheless, Scholem’s disciples based their research on Scholem’s basic assumptions and his ideological perspective and up to the 1980s refrained from opposing the authority of their teacher. Following Scholem, his students also regarded “Jewish mysticism” as the Jewish national expression of a universal religious-​spiritual phenomenon. They followed his delineation of the history of Jewish mysticism and his evaluation of its major trends, and they accepted his contention that philological-​historical research is the exclusive way to assess the metaphysical and historical significance of Jewish mysticism (Idel 1999a). Besides Scholem and his pupils, some other scholars around the world studied Kabbalah and Hasidism. While in the realm of Kabbalah studies Scholem’s authority went unquestioned—​and without competition—​in the area of Hasidism, Martin Buber gained immense recognition and authority even before Scholem began his scholarly activity (Mendes-​Flohr 1991, 77–​132; Myers 1995, 169). Despite the basic assumptions shared by the two scholars (discussed in the previous chapter) and the great influence Buber had on Scholem, they held different positions concerning the significance and value of Kabbalah and Hasidism, and a different approach to the modern study and engagement in Jewish mysticism (Idel 1995, 5–​ 6). Buber viewed mysticism as a universal phenomenon and his approach was mainly philosophical; the historical questions, which were the focus of Scholem’s studies, were secondary to him. The modern engagement in Jewish mysticism bore theological significance for both scholars. However, while Scholem assigned theological significance to the philological-​ historical research of all the various trends of Jewish mysticism, Buber particularly appreciated the Hasidic sources and found in them a potential for Jewish religious renewal. Scholem, who from the outset disagreed with Buber and his approach to the study of Hasidism, criticized Buber for his selective description of Hasidism, for his existential interpretation of Hasidism, and for his exaggeration in emphasizing the differences between Kabbalah and Hasidism (Scholem 1976b, 126–​171; 1980, 112; 1995, 221–​250). Buber, in his response to Scholem, defended his focus on the Hasidic tales and their comparison to non-​Jewish mystical traditions (Sufi hagiographical tales and Zen Buddhist koans) and claimed that he is not seeking to advance the historical knowledge on Hasidism, but rather to renew in his generation the vital force of the Hasidic tradition (Buber 1963, 218–​221; 1967, 732).

66  Mystifying Kabbalah Buber, who was highly esteemed as a modern Jewish philosopher, had a considerable influence on the acquaintance with Hasidism and on its image in the Western world. Most scholars of Jewish mysticism rejected his positions in the debate with Scholem, but there were other scholars who rose to defend them (Kurzweil 1969, 176–​179; Kepnes 1987; Silberstein 1988). Buber’s approach was continued, to a great extent, by Abraham Joshua Heschel (1907–​ 1972), who, similar to Buber, was more interested in Hasidism as a resource for modern Jewish spirituality and less in its historical aspects (Idel 1995, 6; 2010, 217–​233).2 Heschel, who was one of the most important Jewish-​ American theologians, had great influence on the Jewish Renewal movement in the United States and on several scholars of Kabbalah and Hasidism who were affiliated with this movement (first and foremost Arthur Green) (Margolin 2005, 40). As we will see in the following, the perceptions of Buber and Heschel of Hasidism in particular and Jewish mysticism in general have recently gained renewed esteem among scholars of Jewish mysticism in the United States and in Israel.3 In the second half of the twentieth century, some other scholars researched Kabbalah and Hasidism in different disciplinary frameworks; these included Ben-​Zion Dinur, Yitzhak Baer, Shlomo Pines, R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, Jacob Katz, Alexander Altmann, George Vajda, and their disciples. These scholars developed their own directions of research and disagreed with some of Scholem’s assertions.4 However, despite the critiques and the various directions of research they proposed, they accepted the authoritative status of Scholem and based their work on many of his basic assumptions 2 On Buber’s impact on Heschel, on the differences in their philosophical and theological approaches, and on the complex relationship between the two, see Kaplan and Dresner 1998, 164–​16, 219–​228. 3 On the affinity between Idel’s approach to the research of Kabbalah and Buber’s approach to Hasidism, see Tirosh-​Rothschild 1991, 168. 4 Thus, for example, Jacob Katz studied the connection between Halacha and Kabbalah, a subject that was less studied by Scholem and his pupils, and he challenged Scholem’s claims on the impact of Sabbateanism on the Jewish Enlightenment and the reform movements. See Katz 1979, 77–​83; Katz 1984. R. J. Zwi Werblowsky criticized Scholem’s approach to Sabbatenaism (1958, 539–​546), and, in his study of Joseph Karo (Werblowsky 1977), he focused on Karo’s mystical experiences from a more phenomenological and comparative approach than that of Scholem. Shlomo Pines challenged Scholem’s perceptions of the historical continuity and the defined boundaries of Jewish culture and gave much more attention to the Muslim and Christian sources of Kabbalistic ideas (Liebes 1990, 16–​22). Shlomo Pines, Alexander Altmann, and George Vajda placed more of an emphasis than Scholem on the affinities between the Kabbalah and Jewish philosophy. Yitzchak Baer placed more of an emphasis on the affinity between mystical trends in Judaism and non-​Jewish sources (Myers 1995, 123–​126, 231; Raz-​Krakotzkin 1996, 156–​160). Israel Weinstock and Samuel Belkin tried to prove the antiquity of the Kabbalah and they claimed that Kabbalistic concepts could be found in Rabbinic literature, in the writings of Philo of Alexandria, and in Jewish medieval philosophic sources (Weinstock 1963, 153–​159; Belkin 1940, 25–​92).

The New Age of Kabbalah Research  67 and his conclusions regarding the nature of the Kabbalah and its history. A  more significant critique on the historiosophy and historiography of Scholem was raised in the essays of the critic and literature scholar Baruch Kurzweil, who challenged Scholem’s historical approach and his claim to scientific objectivity; he criticized Scholem’s Zionist, secular interpretation of Judaism and accused Scholem of rewriting the history of Judaism based on his “Nihilistic Theology” (Kurzweil 1969, 99–​134). Scholem did not respond to Kurzweil’s criticism in public. However, his pupils, Isaiah Tishby and Joseph Ben Shlomo, as well as his colleague Jacob Katz, responded to Kurzweil and defended Scholem’s stance (Gam-​Hacohen 2016, 156–​172). Despite the public interest in the debate, the research field of Kabbalah was not greatly affected by it. The different approach to the study of Hasidism proposed by Buber and Heschel, Kurzweil’s critique of Scholem, and the various perspectives offered by scholars who did not belong to Scholem’s school did not diminish the hegemonic status of Scholem and his disciples. Scholem’s basic theoretical and methodological assumptions gained authoritative status and the school of research he created at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem became the dominant school in the research of Jewish mysticism. Scholem’s influence greatly exceeded the study of Kabbalah and Hasidism; his perceptions, to a great extent, shaped the research in Jewish studies in Israel and abroad and had considerable influence in other areas of religious studies (Idel 1998a, 42–​43). Only in the 1980s, following Scholem’s demise, did scholars begin to question his historiography and methodology and to propose new perspectives and directions of study.

3.3  New Perspectives in Kabbala Studies In the late 1980s and the early 1990s, several Kabbalah scholars in the Israeli academia, led by Moshe Idel and Yehuda Liebes, challenged some of the basic assumptions and research methods in the field and proposed new perspectives and new directions in the study of Kabbalah and Jewish mysticism.5 New trends in the research of Kabbalah and Hasidism that departed 5 Criticism on Scholem’s research approach was raised earlier by Eliezer Schweid in Judaism and Mysticism according to Gershom Scholem, first published in Hebrew, about a year after Scholem’s death (1985). The criticism, which mainly disputes Scholem’s assumption regarding the centrality of mysticism in Judaism, did not influence the research field of Kabbalah, and it differs from the criticism of the new generation of Kabbalah scholars, discussed later. Joseph Dan wrote a detailed

68  Mystifying Kabbalah from the framework Scholem had set also appeared in research of scholars in the United States and Europe, including Arthur Green, Elliot Wolfson, and Charles Mopsik. These new approaches were explicitly intended to undermine the hegemony of Scholem’s scholarship. According to Idel, Scholem’s proposals for a comprehensive scheme of a history of the Kabbalah “remained stable, virtually as it was developed by him decades ago. Furthermore, his phenomenology of Jewish mysticism, formulated in the late 1940s and early 1950s, has dominated the field, often being repeated and largely undisputed” (Idel 1998a, 43). Liebes claimed as well that “at the time Scholem’s theory reaped too much ‘success’, because Scholem’s authority was much too powerful and his theory was accepted with too little dispute. Thus, instead of its stimulating research, Scholem’s ‘success’ led to a certain standstill in Jewish Studies” (Liebes 1993a, b9). The new directions of research proposed at the time stimulated a passionate dispute. The focus of the argument revolved around Moshe Idel’s research, first and foremost his book Kabbalah: New Perspectives, published in English in 1988 and translated into Hebrew in 1993.6 Scholem’s disciples, first and foremost Isaiah Tishby, defended Scholem’s authority and the hegemony of his research by rejecting the innovation in Idel’s approach and criticizing the integrity of his studies.7 Other scholars sympathized with Idel’s approach and came to his defense.8 Several scholars, who defended Scholem’s approach, criticized also Yehuda Liebes and the new directions of research that he proposed.9 The dispute over Scholem’s legacy and the revolution in response to Schweid, in which he defended Scholem’s positions and claimed that Scholem was an objective historian whose research was devoid of ideological presuppositions (1984). On the argument between Dan and Shweid regarding Scholem’s research, see Gam-​Hacohen 2016, 172–​180. 6 On this dispute, see Myers 1995, 243; Schäfer 1999, 15; Tirosh-​Rothschild 1991, 167; Gam-​ Hacohen 2016, 181–​208. 7 See the articles by Tishby printed in the journal Zion in 1989 entitled “Revolution in Kabbalah Research” and “Apparent Innovation in Kabbalah Research” (and Idel’s response, “New Is Forbidden from the Torah” and “Old and New in Kabbalah Research”). Rivka Shatz Uffenheimer also criticized Idel’s book, in the introduction to Hasidism as Mysticism (1993, 50–​55). Joseph Dan harshly criticized Idel in an article he published in the newspaper Haaretz, in 1993, entitled “ ‘The New Perspective’: A Retreat to 1925,” where he asserted that the new perspectives Idel proposed are no more than a repetition of earlier—​and erroneous—​perspectives of Scholem in the beginning of his research. 8 See Green 1990; Halbertal 1990; Deutsch 1991; Liebes 1993a. 9 See Nathan Rotenstreich’s criticism of Liebes: Rotenstreich 1992, 140–​142 (and see Liebes’s response 1992b, 143–​145). Shalom Rosenberg criticized Liebes’s approach regarding Jewish myth. See Rosenberg 1998 (and see Liebes’s response in 1998). Rosenberg argues in that article also against Idel’s assertions regarding theurgical concepts in Rabbinic literature. On the dispute between Rosenberg and Liebes, see Gam-​HaCohen 2016, 208–​213.

The New Age of Kabbalah Research  69 Kabbalah research roused the attention of the public and several articles concerning it were published in the media.10 The senior Kabbalah scholars from Scholem’s school attempted to reject the new directions and trends in the study of Jewish mysticism, using what Pierre Bourdieu termed “strategies of conservation” versus the “subversion strategies” (1992, 72–​74) that the younger Kabbalah scholars used; but they failed. Idel, Liebes, Wolfson, and other researchers of their generation gained positions of power and authority in the academic world. The new perspectives and research directions they proposed won a hegemonic status in the field of Kabbalah studies and greatly influenced other fields of Jewish studies and religious studies. These scholars trained many students, some of whom integrated into Kabbalah research and instruction in academic institutes, mainly in Israel and the United States. They developed the new perspectives and directions of study of their teachers and presented also new research directions and ideological positions of their own.

3.4.  The Criticism of Scholem’s Metanarrative The new research in the field of Kabbalah developed out of the criticism against the metanarrative of Jewish mysticism presented by Scholem and his disciples, and out of rejection of the exclusivity of the philological-​historical methodology which, up until then, had governed Kabbalah research. Moshe Idel (and others in his footsteps) disputed Scholem’s dialectical scheme of the development of Jewish mysticism, which, as we saw in the previous chapter, had, to a great extent, already been determined by Martin Buber. Idel and other scholars of his generation questioned the historical connections Scholem determined between the Spanish expulsion and development of Lurianic Kabbalah, between the dissemination of Lurianic Kabbalah and Sabbatean messianism, and between Sabbateanism and Hasidism.11 In the framework of the rejection of Scholem’s scheme of the historical unfolding of Jewish mysticism, the chronological boundaries he had 10 Thus, for example, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz published in October 1989 an article concerning the dispute in Kabbalah studies, entitled “Almost a Mutiny” (Katzman 1989). Yehuda Liebes responded with an article in the same newspaper entitled “On Mutiny, Murder and Fear in the Department of Jewish Thought” (Liebes 1989). Other articles mentioned earlier (Dan 1993; Liebes 1993a) were also published in the same newspaper in 1993. An article by Arthur Green, was published in Commentary Magazine (1990). 11 Idel 1988, 256–​260, 264–​267; Gries 1990, 17; Liebes 1992, 154.

70  Mystifying Kabbalah outlined were also questioned, mainly the earlier ones. Scholem determined the beginnings of Jewish mysticism in the Heichalot literature and located the roots of the Kabbalistic myth in Gnosticism. In difference to Scholem, Liebes, Idel, and other new Kabbalah scholars claimed that the beginning of Jewish mysticism and the roots of the Kabbalistic myth could be found already in Rabbinic and biblical literature. As Liebes concluded in his article on “New Directions in the Study of Kabbalah” from 1992: In many studies that have been published lately we read a new description of Jewish mysticism. No more a Hegelian-​like theory of stages as we learned from Scholem, according to which after many generations of a non-​ mythical, even anti-​mythical Judaism, the Kabbalah sprung up almost out of nothing, in southern Europe in the twelfth century. Now it is described as a new formulation, stemming from a new religious interest, of mythical building stones (mytholegumena) which can be identified in Rabbinic literature, and in other forms in Heichalot literature and in Sefer Yetzira [ . . . ] The Kabbalists’ rapport to these ancient materials is not only that of textual interpretation. A link of successive and live traditions can be identified from the days of the Sages up to the Kabbalah, with Ashkenaz Hasidism as an important junction in these traditions. I have presented my positions of the details of this elsewhere, and thus I am part of a research effort in a similar direction, which is carried out by others as well. (157–​158)

Indeed, many studies written in the late twentieth and early twenty-​first century discuss mythical and mystical ideas in the Bible and Talmudic literature and place an emphasis on the continuity between early Jewish canonical texts and the Kabbalah. Liebes asserted the continuity of a core Jewish Myth from the Bible, via Midrash and Talmud, and up to the Kabbalah (Liebes 1993b, 1–​ 64; 1997; 2001); Idel suggested that central components of Kabbalistic theosophy and theurgy appear already in ancient Jewish thought (1988, 112–​199); and Ithamar Gruenwald claimed that the Old Testament should be included in the framework of the research of Jewish mysticism (1993, 30–​31). In the last decades, many other scholars have been working on mythical, theurgical, and mystical elements in biblical and Talmudic literature and regard them as anticipating central Kabbalistic ideas (Abrams 2001; Pedaya 2002, 47–​61; Lorberbaum 2015; Garb 2005, 29–​46; Fishbane 1989; Wolfson 1994a, 5–​13). Viewing the Kabbalah as a continuation of ancient Jewish perceptions broadens the historical and textual scope of materials perceived as relevant

The New Age of Kabbalah Research  71 to Kabbalah research; it emphasizes the centrality of Kabbalah and mysticism in Jewish history even beyond Scholem and his disciple’s approach; and it reinforces the essentialist perception of Jewish mysticism as an imminent foundation of Judaism (Raz-​Krakotzkin 1996, 132–​139). The new scholars of Jewish mysticism claim that the Kabbalah is an adaptation and development of ancient mystical and mythic perceptions, and they claim there is an organic development of Jewish myth and mysticism from the Bible and up to the Kabbalah. Idel, for example, postulates “a relatively organic evolution of Jewish Mysticism” (1988, 31) and claims that “Kabbalistic Myth is the result of a tenuous endeavor to explain the rationales of the commandments in accordance with material extant in the recorded Jewish tradition—​Talmud and Midrash—​ along with ancient, non-​ Gnostic speculative traditions passed down orally or in lost works” (157). Liebes succinctly expressed this essentialist perception: “Essentially, the Kabbalah is not a new creation, but a reformulation, in different form, of the same myth, that has been the very heart of the Torah since time immemorial” (1993b, 1). As Raz-​Krakotzkin observed, this approach enhances and intensifies the tendency to write an autonomous history of Jewish mysticism that characterized Scholem’s research (1996, 132). Although Liebes and Idel discussed Christian and Muslim influences on the Kabbalah (Liebes 1983; Idel 1991, 2007), their studies are based on the assumption that Jewish mysticism is an imminent Jewish phenomenon which, from time to time, is influenced by “the outside” and responds to such influences. The new scholarship of Kabbalah, similar to that of the previous generation, rarely examines the non-​Jewish historical and cultural contexts of Kabbalah. The exceptions to this are the studies of the non-​Israeli scholars Arthur Green and Peter Schäfer, who argued that the appearance of the Kabbalistic perception of the Shekhinah as the divine feminine element was influenced by the late medieval revival of the cult of the Virgin Mary (Green 2003; Schäfer 2002). Idel and Liebes spoke out strongly against these theories. Liebes, in his critique of Green, rejected the attempt to explain the development of Kabbalistic ideas as an adaptation, and response to Christian culture, without conclusive philological proof. Although the Kabbalists’ preoccupation with the divine feminine dovetails geographically and chronologically with the renaissance of the cult of Mary, according to Liebes: “Relying excessively on time and place is a methodological weakness that could lead to false conclusions” (2004b). Liebes agrees that there are some parallels between the descriptions of the Shekhinah in Early Kabbalah and the descriptions of the

72  Mystifying Kabbalah Virgin Mary in Christian literature. However, he rejects the attempt to explain mythic elements and Kabbalistic symbols as “external imports.” In his opinion these elements are expressions of the Jewish national consciousness: In these parallels, I  have found only amelioration and enhancement of the Kabbalistic thought. The roots of the fundamental myths are actually found in the ancient sources of Judaism . . . the primal mythic foundations (mytholegumena), that establish and shape the fundamentals of religion, its basic views, its ethics and sacred worship, cannot be regarded as external imports, as long as we can find their internal roots, and as long as we do not bring clear and solid proof of an external source. This is certainly so regarding Knesset Yisrael [i.e., Shekhinah, the divine feminine. B.H] the main symbol that expresses the national Jewish consciousness. (Liebes 2004a, 5a)

Idel, too, rejected Green’s and Schäfer’s theories and brings them as examples of distortion and bias in Kabbalah research: Two recent books deal with the possible impact of the medieval worship of Mary on the concept of the Shekhinah (the divine Presence) as a feminine divine power. The evidence is scanty and to a great extent circumstantial, and the thesis itself projects a relatively recent ecumenical trend celebrating good relations between Jews and Christians onto a past when such relations did not in fact exist. Such efforts inevitably limit and distort our perspective on the history or phenomenology of Jewish Mysticism. (Idel 2010, 3)

The new scholars of Kabbalah questioned not only early chronological boundaries of Jewish mysticism, which Scholem presumed, but also the later boundaries determined by him. As recalled, Scholem viewed Hasidism as the final stage of Jewish mysticism and questioned the possibility of the existence of modern Jewish mysticism. Excluding a few exceptional cases, he and his disciples did not research Kabbalah and Hasidism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. However, from the beginning of the twenty-​first century, scholars of Kabbalah began to deal with later developments of the Kabbalah, such as the Lithuanian Kabbalah of the followers of the Vilna Gaon, the Kabbala of Rabbi Shalom Sharabi and his school, and Rabbi Ashlag and his followers, as well as other forms of Kabbalah and Hasidism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Huss 2011, 357–​361). Still, Scholem’s assumption that Hasidism was the last significant stage of Jewish mysticism is accepted by

The New Age of Kabbalah Research  73 some researchers (Idel 1999b, 36; 2002a, 12). Research of modern Kabbalah for the most part remains in the margins of research (Garb 2010, 1–​3), and there are scholars who reject the authenticity of some of the contemporary Kabbalistic movements and do not regard them as part of “Jewish mysticism” (Huss 2007b).

3.5.  New Perspectives and New Directions of Study The new Kabbalah research that emerged in the 1980s not only disputed Gershom Scholem’s historiography but also his views regarding the nature and significance of the Kabbalah. Scholem characterized the Kabbalah as theosophy and esotericism and emphasized its mythic and gnostic elements. Idel, Liebes, and other scholars criticized Scholem and claimed that his research focused too much on the theoretical and speculative aspects of the Kabbalah and did not sufficiently examine its practical and experiential aspects. Idel claimed that “the evaluation of Kabbalah as predominantly theoretical rather than practical is misleading. [ . . . ] According to the perceptions of the Kabbalists themselves, this lore is primarily practical and experiential, and only secondarily theoretical (Idel 1988, 28). Idel characterized Scholem and his followers’ approach as “theological,” referred to it as “monochromatic phenomenology,” and proposed focusing on the experiential and existential dimensions of the Kabbalah.12 According to the typology proposed in his highly influential Kabbalah: New Perspectives, “there are two major trends in Kabbalah, the theosophical-​theurgical and the ecstatic” (1988, xi). Idel suggested that the theosophical-​theurgical trend engages with the elaborate structure of the divine world and the ritualistic and experiential way to induce a state of harmony in the divinity, while the ecstatic trend focuses on the individual’s mystical experience. In later studies Idel developed a more complex typology that distinguishes between three basic models in Jewish mysticism: the theosophical-​theurgical, the ecstatic, and the magical (1999b, 28). Liebes also criticized Scholem’s focus on Kabbalistic theories: “Scholem, as a scholar of religion, took it for granted that the Kabbalah, as a religious phenomenon, came to respond to the fundamental problems of religion in general, which are assumed to be theoretical problems” (1992, 153). Liebes suggested that “instead of the theoretical-​conceptual differences, it is more

12 Idel 1999b, 18–​22; 2004, 123–​174; 2005b, 11,19–​26.

74  Mystifying Kabbalah accurate to emphasize the differences of religious interests between the major trends of Jewish mysticism (157). Other scholars, including Rachel Elior (1992, 49, 56–​57) and Jonathan Garb (2009, 6), also criticized the emphasis of early Kabbalah scholarship on the theoretical aspects of Kabbalah. Hence, the revised research of Jewish mysticism in the last decades placed a larger emphasis on the practical and experiential aspects of Kabbalah and Hasidism, and many recent studies are dedicated to these topics. As Liebes observed (1992b, 154), many studies of Scholem’s disciples were dedicated to the study of Kabbalistic doctrines (Ben-​Shlomo 1965; Dan 1968; Tishby 1963; Tishby and Lachover 1949–​61). Many of the new studies in Kabbalah, on the other hand, examine “mystical” and “experiential” dimensions (Idel 1988b; Pedaya 2002; Hellner-​Eshed 2009; Persico 2012; Afterman 2016). In this framework, the new scholarship emphasized and enhanced the perception of Kabbalah as mysticism. For example, in an interview upon the publication of his book Kabbalah: New Perspectives, Idel said: I sought to emphasize elements that turn this literature into mysticism. Not to describe when someone lived, when someone died and if he wrote x or y number of books. These things are important, undoubtedly, and they have been done quite well up to now, but this does not touch on the Kabbalistic literature as mystical literature, rather as historical. This makeup is applied to this literature as if it was belle-​lettres or Middle Age poetry. I wanted to deal with the characteristic of this literature as mystical literature. (Katzman 1989, 23)

Even though several scholars disputed the use of the term “Jewish mysticism” and its suitability to describe Kabbalah,13 the “mystification” of the Kabbalah was intensified in the writings of Idel’s colleagues and pupils. Liebes predicted this trend in his review of Idel’s book: “what happened to Scholem is also happening to Idel. Scholem began examining the mystical element in Judaism. Idel came and went beyond Scholem’s assertions, and expanded the scope and significance of this element. It is possible to enhance further the flow of the spring that Idel had opened” (Liebes 1993a, 9b). Indeed, some scholars enhanced this flow and emphasized even more the mystical and ecstatic elements of Kabbalah. As mentioned earlier, Idel regarded ecstatic 13 Dan 2002, 7–​9; Liebes 2005, 203–​204; 2006; Goldreich 2010, 20, 34; Schäfer 2009, 1–​4, 24, 353–​355.

The New Age of Kabbalah Research  75 Kabbalah as one of two major trends of the Kabbalah (and later, as one of the three central models of Jewish mysticism). However, other scholars, such as Pedaya, Mopsik, and Hellner-​Eshed, placed a larger emphasis on the centrality of ecstasy and mystical experience in Kabbalah. They claimed that the mystical and ecstatic element underlies also phenomena that Idel regarded as belonging to the theurgical-​theosophical trend of Kabbalah (Hellner-​Eshed 2009; Mopsik 1996a; Pedaya 2002). Many of the new scholars of Kabbalah who criticized Idel, challenged his division of the Kabbalah into two main trends and affirmed the centrality of the mystical and ecstatic elements in theosophical-​theurgical Kabbalah as well. Arthur Green, for example, criticized Idel on his unwillingness to acknowledge that the theosophical Kabbalah of the Zohar is a projection of mystical experiences: “The essence of Kabbalah lies in the inner life of its devotees and the nature of their contemplative efforts rather than in the ideas or even the symbols they produce . . . His unwillingness to see the theosophical Kabbalah of the Zohar as itself a projection of inward mystical experiences . . . is a limitation in Idel’s work” (Green 1990). Alongside the emphasis of the mystical and experiential aspects of the Kabbalah, there are additional subjects that won considerable attention in the research of the new scholars, first and foremost, hermeneutics. In Kabbalah: New Perspectives, Idel asserted, “One of the most neglected areas of Kabbalistic thought is its hermeneutics” (1988, 200); ever since Kabbalistic hermeneutics have been discussed in studies by Moshe Idel, Elliot Wolfson, Oded Yisraeli, Shaul Magid, and others (Idel 1988, 200–​249; Yisraeli 1995; Idel 2002a; Wolfson 1994a; Magid 2008a). Other subjects that have won attention in recent years are related to sexuality and gender in Kabbalah.14 Some scholars relied in their study of Kabbalah on feminist and gender studies theories. Elliot Wolfson, who employed in his studies the theories of the French feminist philosopher and psychoanalyst Luce Irigaray, asserted the phallocentric nature of Kabbalah and its perception of the divine feminine as an appendage of the masculine divinity (Wolfson 1994b). Daniel Abrams, who also relied on feminist theories, in his book The Female Body of God in the Kabbalistic Literature (2005) emphasized the positive stance toward the female body which is found in Kabbalah. Liebes and Idel, who criticized Wolfson’s approach in general and his use of feminist theories in particular, 14 The interest in embodied activities, such as eating and walking, should also be noted (Pedaya 2011a; Hecker 2005; Greenstein 2003).

76  Mystifying Kabbalah also devoted studies to Eros and to notions of femininity in Kabbalah (Liebes 1994b; Idel 2005c).15 In the last decades, many more scholars dealt with questions of gender and sexuality in the Kabbalah, including Mopsik (2005), Sack (2009), Magid (2010), Koren (2011), and Kra-​Ivanov Kaniel (2010). Another subject that has been under discussion in recent years is the place of women in the history of the Kabbalah. In the introduction to Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, Gershom Scholem asserted that in difference from non-​ Jewish forms of mysticism, “the long history of Jewish Mysticism shows no trace of feminine influence. There have been no women Kabbalists” (1971, 37). Because of that, he claimed, Kabbalah “lacks the element of feminine emotion which had played so large a part in the development of non-​Jewish mysticism” (37). The lack of feminine influence had, according to Scholem, also a positive aspect on Jewish mysticism: “it also remained comparatively free from the dangers entailed by the tendency towards hysterical extravagance which followed in the wake of this influence.” Jeffery Chajes challenged this stand; he claimed that despite the fact that women were not part of the written Kabbalistic tradition, some Jewish women became mystics in their own, unique ways (2002, 140). In his studies, Chajes reveals the activity of Jewish female prophets and seers at the turn of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (2002, 2003). Similarly, Ada Rapoport-​Albert has shown the extensive activities of women in the Sabbatean movement (2011).

3.6.  New Methods of Research The new Kabbalah scholarship challenged Scholem and his disciples’ historiography and disputed the importance they attributed to the theoretical and speculative aspects of the Kabbalah. The new scholars also rejected the exclusivity of the philological-​historical research method in the study of the Kabbalah. They proposed to use new research methods, especially phenomenological and comparative methods. In Kabbalah: New Perspectives, Moshe Idel observed: For most of his students and followers Scholem’s initial commitment to the centrality of text study became an inert ideology of textology. Even

15 For Idel’s and Liebes’s criticism of Wolfson and their disparagement of feminist theories and gender studies, see Idel 2005c, 13, 22 (note 16), and especially 128–​131; Liebes 1997, 15 (note 10). For Wolfson`s response, see Wolfson 2001, 231–​232; 2007, 155–​157.

The New Age of Kabbalah Research  77 when the first stages of historical-​textual studies were far in the past, the approach was not enriched by additional perspectives . . . A striking lack of novel theories of the nature of Jewish mysticism that differ from those of Scholem is the result of this limited scope. His view have been repeated time and again with no proper attempt to add new theoretical perspectives influenced by modern research in comparative religion. (1988, 23)

Instead of the “textological” approach, Idel suggests “a careful use of other branches of humanistic studies—​for example, psychology” (24); however, the main research method he proposed to implement in Kabbalah research is the phenomenological-​comparative study of religion. Idel warns against a simplistic use of the comparative methods and criticized the “hybristic endeavors” of Mircea Eliade to discover the “patterns” of religions. Yet he expressed his hope that “A strenuous effort to become aware of the possibilities inherent in various fields of modern research can . . . fertilize the aridity of the conceptual approach to Kabbalah in the last decades” (23–​24). Idel called for a balanced combination of textual and comparative approaches and, as an alternative to Scholem’s philological historical methods, he proposed an approach that combines the history of ideas and phenomenology of religion. In later studies Idel developed his phenomenological approach into a “models theory” (1995, 45–​102; 2002a, 12–​15) that he called “synchronic polychromatism” (1998b, 17). He sought to organize the material found in Kabbalistic literature according to models he defined as “a cluster of concepts that constitute a reasonably consistent religious structure” (1995, 49). More recently, Idel has called for methodological eclecticism and the integration of additional methodologies in the study of the Kabbalah (2005a, 9–​10). He proposes using an approach he calls “perspectivism,” a comparative approach that attempts: “to better understand the logic of systems by comparing substantially different ones and learning about one from another” (11). Others scholars also proposed adopting phenomenological and comparative approaches in Kabbalah research. Wolfson employed such approaches and rejected the hegemonic status of philological research (Wolfson 2005, 16); Garb stated that his book Manifestations of Power in Jewish Mysticism: “does not clearly belong to the historical-​philological discipline that reigned in Kabbalah research up to nearly two decades ago.” (2005a, 1), and that his book Shamanic Trance in Modern Kabbalah: “seeks to further the

78  Mystifying Kabbalah phenomenological investigation of Jewish mysticism in the form initiated by Moshe Idel” (2011a, 2). Garb also advocates the integration of other disciplinary methodologies, and he states that “throughout, the book is informed by complementary approaches extant in the social sciences, such as psychology and anthropology” (1). Margolin also disagrees with the centrality of the philological-​historical method (which he refers to as the “diachronic-​linear approach”), which in his opinion “obscures the understanding of unique essence of the various spiritual components of the subject of research.” He proposes using synchronic investigation that “simultaneously examines an entire line of phenomena in the general and Jewish religious and spiritual life that share a broad common denominator while each phenomenon also can be defined as unique and distinguishable from the others” (Margolin 2005, 60). Hellner-​Eshed, in her book A River Flows from Eden: The Language of Mystical Experience in the Zohar, also disagrees with the centrality of the philological-​historical method and presents a methodology that integrates phenomenological and historical models (2009, 6). The phenomenological and comparative methodological approaches adopted by the new scholars of Jewish mysticism are based on the approach that was prevalent in research of religions (mainly in the school of Mircea Eliade and his followers), according to which religion is a sui generis phenomenon and cannot be reduced to economic, social, or psychological factors.16 As we saw in the citation that opened this chapter, Idel assumes that Kabbalistic material has an essential, religious countenance which is not dependent on the location of this material in place and time (1988, 10). In another context, Idel postulates a “mystical phenomenon” that the phenomenological effort should try to understand as an “entity in itself ” (26). Liebes, in difference from Idel, does not often rely on the phenomenological-​ comparative approach of religious studies; however, he also explicitly asserts: “In my opinion, the right approach to Jewish mysticism is as sui generis (in other words, as determines a class of its own)” (2006, 6). Wolfson too, in his discussion on “mysticism as a religious phenomenon,” says that his approach to the study of Jewish mysticism is based on the assumption that there is a irreducible aspect to the religious (1997, 410); and Garb as well claimed “on principle I do not accept the reduction of spiritual possibilities to a social level” (2002, 199). 16 For a critique on the phenomenological approach in religious research, see McCutcheon 1997, 2003; Dubuisson 2003; Fitzgerald 2000, 36–​53).

The New Age of Kabbalah Research  79 This phenomenological-​comparative approach, that regards things perceived as “religious” as sui generis, tends to diminish (and sometimes even deny) the importance of the historical contexts of the “religious phenomena.”17 The criticism of the centrality of the philological-​historical method in Scholem’s research, and the turn to a comparative-​phenomenological approach, involves a dehistorization of the “mystical” texts and, to a great extent, their separation from the social, economic, and political contexts in which they were embedded. Idel did not ignore the historical contexts of the Kabbalistic phenomena he studied, and he contributed much to the understanding of these contexts. However, he awards them a secondary place in his research. In the introduction to Kabbalah: New Perspectives, he wrote: Thus, my approach uses phenomenology in order to isolate significant phenomena and only thereafter to elaborate upon the possible historical relationship between them. In other words my starting point is the unfolding of the phenomenological affinity between two mystical patterns of experience, preceding their historical analysis per se. Hence, the phenomenological approach also serves historical aims, but not exclusively. In this sense, history plays a significant, but not central, role in the discussion included in this book. (1988, xviii–​xix)

In later studies, Idel presents a stronger ahistorical stance and claims that reliance on historical context for interpreting Jewish mysticism is misleading (1995, 47–​48; 1998a, 63). In his study on the Golem, for example, he declares his reservations of resorting to historical analysis for understanding religion: “I propose to allow a greater place for the immanent development of a certain theme, which continues to evolve in the same area, rather than resort to history as a crucial clue for understanding a certain literary or religious phenomena” (Idel 1990, 256). As Ron Margolin observed: Idel’s phenomenological approach emphasizes inquiry into different manifestations of phenomena such as theurgy, Unio Mystica, or magic, within the entire Kabbalistic-​Jewish body of works, on all its periods. In these researches, the historic-​diachronic aspect is used as a secondary aid, and the focus is on the actual spiritual phenomenon. (2007, 43)



17 Asad 1993; McCutcheon 1997, 9; 2003, 55–​56.

80  Mystifying Kabbalah An ahistorical approach is also presented by other new Kabbalah researchers. As mentioned earlier, Liebes claimed that “Relying excessively on time and place is a methodological weakness that could lead to false conclusions [ . . . ] the spiritual path is not so simple, and it does not necessarily follow those paths that the historian expects it to” (2004b). Elsewhere he wrote that the social historical aspect of “Zohar spirituality” is insignificant in his eyes and only has importance as a background or by-​product (2008, 30). The phenomenological-​comparative approach isolates religious studies from other disciplines in the social and human sciences because it regards religious phenomena as essentially different from other cultural and social realities. As Russel McCutcheon observed: “This asserted yet undefended, unique character of religion and religious commitment necessitates that any kind of institutional setting be itself unique and autonomous, lest the methods for teaching and studying other topics interfere and distort the study of religion” (1997, 20). Indeed, a tendency to disciplinary seclusion and a concern that theories and methods from other fields may disrupt research is expressed by scholars of Jewish mysticism. As we have seen, some of the new Kabbalah researchers called for the use of new research theories and methods and some studies employed methods and theories from other fields in the social and human sciences; but besides the use of phenomenological and comparative methods, derived from religious science, most of the new scholars avoid using theories and methods accepted in other disciplines and often explicitly disagree with their use. In Kabbalah: New Perspectives, Idel acknowledged the importance of using new research methods; however, the only example he suggested for this kind of method, besides comparative phenomenology, is psychology (1988, 24). In his recent research, he recommends “methodological eclecticism” and suggests using varied methods—​sociology, history of ideas, intellectual history, psychology, cognitive studies, and philosophy—​because there is no single method that can comprehensively approach religion (2005a, 1–​2, 9–​10). Nonetheless, in his introduction to Kabbalah and Eros, Idel expressed his reservations from the use of modern research methods: Since my assumption is that modern methods of study in the humanities (Freudian, Jungian, Feminist, structuralist, anthropological, cultural studies, etc.), contributing though they have to new and more nuanced understandings of earlier texts or traditions, all reflect, in a rather deep

The New Age of Kabbalah Research  81 sense, specific though different social agendas based upon twentieth-​ century sensibilities. I also assume that they offer fewer insights into those complexities which are characteristic of medieval situations. There is no need to adopt any of them as final truths. They are provisional and often feeble tools to be used carefully, wisely and selectively, not truths to be projected indiscriminately onto too many texts. (2005c, 15)

Further on in his book, Idel directs his critique to the use of methods taken from gender studies: In my opinion, any attempt to articulate a comprehensive system that operates upon premises which reflect modern gender studies may constitute an anachronistic projection if there is no specific assessment of the gendered underpinning of the system itself. Assumptions concerning the esoteric nature of the underlying gender theories may reflect more a modern psychoanalytic approach than a disclosure of a hidden dimension of medieval mystical texts. We should not reduce life in the Middle Ages to some simplistic cliché reflecting a conservative attitude; neither should we read those texts as adumbrating the details of the modern theories of gender. (2005c, 130–​131)

Yehuda Liebes also rejects the use of research methods accepted in social sciences in the study of the Kabbalah and views this as “external interference.” In his words, “one should strive toward maximum understanding and minimum external interference, and avoid distant arrogance and parasitic manipulation. I have very little esteem for the sociological-​anthropological-​ psychological research which tends to deteriorate into tendentious journalism” (2005, 202).18 He mainly objects to what he regards as imposition of foreign ideologies in Kabbalah research: “Indeed the mixing of fashions in the teaching of Kabbalah also involves imposing modern ideologies on its research, such as Marxism, (anti-​) Orientalism, and today, mainly feminism. This, in my opinion, systematically destroys all study and research” (2006, 7). He pours out his wrath especially upon “feminist ideology and 18 In another place, Liebes writes: “one can also approach the Kabbalah sociologically, and this is what important researchers do (such as Professor Yoram Bilu), but their ways are not mine. I, who am drawn to great creators and to the creations of the human spirit, find in sociology only the necessary background to understand these. The sociologist’s path is the opposite, in his eyes the creators, big and small, are merely the background and material for generalizations” (2006, 7).

82  Mystifying Kabbalah gender studies.” In his opinion, “this dubious science does not seek to understand the text according to its spirit (as far as this is possible), rather to judge it according to ideological standards of contemporary culture. Thus, the Kabbalistic texts are distorted according to the type of claim the scholar adopts and they become either feminist or misogynic and phallocentric” (Liebes 2009, 191). Liebes and Idel’s objection to the use of modern theories, and mainly feminist and gender theories, is to a great extent directed at the research of Elliot Wolfson and his pupils. Their position emphasizes their essentialist perception of the Kabbalah in particular and religion in general; they distinguish between “internal” insights, which can decipher the hidden aspects of Jewish mysticism according to on its own spirit, and “external” theories, which hinder and distort such an understanding.

3.7.  The Theologies of New Kabbalah Research As we saw in the first chapter, the perception of religion and mysticism as sui generis phenomena and their examination using comparative and phenomenological methods is dependent on a modern theological approach. Such an approach underlies the modern study of religion and mysticism, including the academic study of the Kabbalah. As recalled, mysticism is usually defined as an experience of direct contact with the divine or a transcendental being: William James described the mystical experience as a state in which man and the absolute become one and are aware of this unity (1902, 419), and Jones defines mysticism as “direct and intimate consciousness of the Divine Presence” (1909, xv). Similar definitions are accepted today as well, for example Bernard McGinn, a scholar of Christian theology, defined mysticism as “belief and practices that concerns the preparation for, the consciousness of, and the reaction to what can be described as the immediate or direct presence of God” (1991, XVII). It should be emphasized that in most cases scholars of mysticism do not claim that the definition of mysticism they use only describes the beliefs of their research subjects and not the reality behind them. The definitions of modern researchers of mysticism are not based on the categories and concepts that the researched subjects use; rather, they translate the various terms appearing in their research data (such as “nirvana,” “the active intellect,” “atman,” “heichalot,” etc.) into modern Christian theological terms

The New Age of Kabbalah Research  83 (“divine presence,” “absolute reality,” etc.). The scholars who determined the accepted definitions of mysticism were mostly liberal Christian theologians, who believed in a divine metaphysical reality. They claimed that the encounter with such a reality, the awareness of it, and response to it underlie the mystical experiences that appear, in their opinion, in various human cultures. Hence, the use of the term mysticism as an analytical category in research assumes, explicitly or implicitly, that the encounter with God (or the absolute reality, etc.) explains social practices, cultural products, and historical events. This theological assumption, accepted in the academic research of mysticism, was also accepted by scholars of Kabbalah and Hasidism. As we have seen in the previous chapter, Scholem adopted the prevalent definition of mysticism and following Rufus Jones and Evelyn Underhill he characterized it as “direct contact between the individual and God” and as a merger of the self into a higher union (1974, 9, 18). A similar definition of mysticism also appears in writings of the new Kabbalah scholars. Idel, for example, defined it as “the search for, and sometimes the attainment of, direct contact with God” (2005b, 3). According to Wolfson, mysticism is “the immediate experience of the divine presence” (1994a, 55), and Pedaya speaks of “an intense experience of unmediated contact with the absolute reality” (2002, 183). Daniel Reiser asserted that his research is based on the assumption that religious and mystical phenomena, including Kabbalah and Hasidism, are the products of direct contact with the divine (2014, 72). While some scholars of Kabbalah and Hasidism in the United States affirm their theological perspectives, and some have published theological works alongside their research activity (Matt 1996; Green 2003), in Israel, researchers of Jewish mysticism for the most part refrain from stating and clarifying their ideological and theological stance.19 Nonetheless, their notions concerning the essence and significance of mysticism disclose their underlying theological perspectives. Kabbalah scholars express different and varied positions regarding the nature of mystical experiences, the reality encountered in such experiences, as well as the influence of these experiences on the literary products and the historical expressions of Kabbalah, as well as concerning the spiritual and religious aims of their research. However, one

19 Yehuda Liebes differs in this aspect. He presented the religious and ideological positions underlying his research approach in his articles “Thoughts on the Religious Significance of Kabbalah Research” (2005) and “Spirituality and Spirit” (2006)

84  Mystifying Kabbalah can discern several common elements that characterize their theological perceptions. As we saw earlier, based on the prevalent definitions of mysticism adopted by Kabbalah scholars, mysticism is perceived as an experience of unmediated connection between human beings and a transcendent reality. This transcendental reality is described in different ways by theologians and scholars of religion: many identify the object of the experience with God or the divine (as in the definitions of Jones and McGinn), and others prefer to use nontheistic terms—​James, for example, who described the object of the mystical state as “the absolute.” The use of nontheistic terms is common among scholars of mysticism in the second half of the twentieth century. Frits Staal described the objects of the mystical experience as different and unfamiliar areas of reality (1975, 195), Louis Duprè spoke of knowledge of “ultimate selfhood” and the “transcendent source of the self ” (1976, 102), and Robert Forman described the object of the mystical experience as “pure consciousness” (1990, 21–​25). Similar assumptions are prevalent among scholars of Kabbalah. As we have seen, according to Idel and Wolfson, the object of the mystical experience is God or the Divine, and this perception is repeated with other researchers as well;20 however, other Kabbalah scholars prefer to use nontheistic terms to describe the reality encountered through the mystical experience. Rachel Elior claims that mysticism deals in “another reality that exists beyond the perceptible world” (2007, 3), and Pedaya speaks of “a reality that is beyond existing reality” and “ultimate reality” (2002, 183). Like researchers of mysticism in other cultures, some Kabbalah scholars identify the divine or metaphysical reality experienced by the mystic as an element found within one’s self. Scholem has already characterized the essence of the mystical experience as “an encounter with the absolute Being in the depths of one’s own soul” (1974, 15). Many current researchers of Kabbalah and Hasidism accept this presumption. Green defined mysticism as a religious outlook that seeks an inner experience of the divine and for this purpose cultivates a life of inwardness (1992, 68). Elior characterized mysticism as delving deep into the psyche to reach “a reality not grasped by means of ordinary human cognition” (2007, 1–​3). Margolin prefers the terms

20 Moshe Hallamish defines mysticism as “direct and intimate contact between the two poles: man and God. The mystic makes an effort to directly feel the presence of the divine” (1991, 17–​18). See also the definition of Arthur Green (1992, 68).

The New Age of Kabbalah Research  85 “internalization” or “internal religious life” over the term “mysticism,” which he defines as “the focus of attention on the spiritual and internal contents of the religious person’s life which can reach a level of spiritualization that annuls external reality” (2005, 58–​59). It should be emphasized that such perceptions concerning mystical experiences are very different from the reports of Kabbalists and Hasidim on the events that the researchers describe as “mystical experiences.” Concepts such as “the ultimate reality” or “pure consciousness” do not appear in premodern Kabbalistic writings. The entities that Kabbalists report they see or hear, or with whom they unite or attach themselves, are spirits of saints, angelic beings, or aspects of the divine configuration of the Sephirot. The accepted modern definitions of mysticism characterize in various forms the relationship with God or the metaphysical reality, which supposedly takes place during a mystical experience. Some of the definitions place an emphasis on the mystical experience of unification, as in James’s definition; other definitions, such as Jones’s and McGinn’s, describe awareness of the divine or transcendental presence. Similar perceptions appear in the definitions of Kabbalah researchers. As recalled, Gershom Scholem denied the existence of direct, unmediated union with the divine in Judaism and spoke about direct contact and acute awareness of the divine. Moshe Idel (who criticized Scholem’s claim that the idea of mystical unity cannot be found in Judaism) spoke of “the sense of union with God” and “unitive relations with supermundane beings” (1988, 35), and Hava Tirosh-​Samuelson spoke on encounter or unification with the ultimate reality (2010, 399). Many scholars of Kabbalah describe the nature of the connection between the mystic and the transcendental reality using the indefinite term “contact” (Hallamish 1991, 17–​18; Idel 1988, xviii, Pedaya 2002, 183). In Idel’s opinion, this term is preferred over others because it covers a wide range of meanings, from vague feelings of a special presence to experiences that can be understood as mystical union (Idel 2005b, 4). The perception of the connection between the mystic and transcendental reality as a relation of unity, awareness, or contact also derives from the modern theological stance that identifies the object of the mystical experience as a metaphysical, nonpersonal reality, with which contact cannot be established using regular senses, rather only via internal sensation and altered state of consciousness. It must be noted that this perception differs greatly from the theological perspectives of many of the “mystics” themselves, who view the beings with which they establish contact as personal and concrete

86  Mystifying Kabbalah entities and describe the communication with them via regular senses, mainly sight and hearing.21 According to the definitions of Kabbalah scholars, the divine, or the transcendental reality, which the mystic encounters, is not an active agent intervening in history. It is the mystic who is the active agent, striving for contact with the divine, or transcendent reality, via broadening, empowering, or altering his regular modes of consciousness. This falls in line with modern spiritual approaches that reject theistic theologies and ascribe subjectivity and agency to humans, not to the divine being or transcendental reality. This position also is very different from the theological perceptions of the Kabbalists and Hasidim, which perceived God, or the divine powers revealed to them, as personal, active agents. Although Kabbalah scholars do not perceive God as an active and personal god intervening in history they regard it as a creative energy, whose revelation, through the mystical experience, has an effect on the mystic, and through him, on culture, society, and history. Scholem accepted the prevalent assumption in his time that regarded mysticism as a vital and creative power, that prevented the degeneration and petrifaction of institutionalized religion, through the renewing the direct contact with the divine. According to Scholem, the mystical element of Judaism, that is, the direct encounter with the divine or the absolute, is an antinomian and anarchic force that preserved Judaism from petrifaction and enabled its national existence in the diaspora. Explicit assertions that explain and interpret Kabbalistic texts as the products of mystical encounters with the Divine are repeated in the writings of new scholars of Jewish mysticism. Wolfson, for example, claimed that the Zoharic texts “reflect a state wherein the mystic experienced the divine pleroma and reintegrated his soul with its ontic source” (1993, 210). Correspondingly, Hellner-​Eshed claimed that the richness and uniqueness of the Zohar are the products of mystical encounters with the divine realm: “[mystical] states of consciousness and the encounters they engender with the world of divinity, lie at the heart of the Zohar” (2009, 351). Other scholars of Jewish mysticism assert the historical, social, and cultural impact of the mystical encounters with the divine. According to Elior, mysticism 21 See Raanan Boustan’s critique of Vita Dafna Arbel`s Beholders of Divine Secrets: Mysticism and Myth in the Hekhalot and Merkavah Literature. Arbel interprets the bodily and tangible terms used in the Heichalot literature’s descriptions of heavenly ascents, as a form of mysticism based on internal, contemplative, and personal experiences (Boustan 2005, 124).

The New Age of Kabbalah Research  87 that transcends the limits of time and space and relates to a reality that is not grasped by usual modes of consciousness “is one of the phenomena that generate meaningful cultural changes in the course of history” (2007, 2). Smadar Cherlow suggested that a detailed sociological study of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook and the circles of his followers “can examine how the influence of the mystic is mediated through society, and can pinpoint the vicissitudes of the mystic’s flow of energy from the internal nucleus of the secluded individual to a broad social influence” (2004, 85).

3.8.  Kabbalah Research as a Spiritual Path The prevalent theological paradigm accepted in the study of Jewish mysticism, according to which the cultural products and social activities of Kabbalists were created following their unmediated encounter with a metaphysical or divine reality blurs the distinction between scholarly research and mystical and spiritual practice; it sees a continuity between them, and sometimes regards them as identical. Kabbalah scholars acting in the framework of this paradigm assume that academic research can reveal—​through phenomenological and comparative research—​ the essential characteristics of the mystical experience and its deep structures; some scholars view research as a means of revealing the transcendental reality that, in their opinion, underlies the mystical phenomena. This approach was already apparent in Gershom Scholem, who acted from a Zionist perspective and viewed the academic research of the Kabbalah as part of the spiritual revival of Judaism; through philological and historical methods he strived to reach the metaphysical and mystical elements of the Kabbalah. Contemporary scholars of Kabbalah and Hasidism also express their aspirations to reach the mystical element underlying the Kabbalistic texts. However differently to Scholem, who claimed that the way to reach the “mystical totality” is through philological-​historical research (Biale 1979, 76), contemporary scholars assert that the path to religious and spiritual revival is found in the Kabbalistic writings themselves—​and not in their philological-​ historical analysis. Scholem assumed that the Jewish mystical doctrines, which bore meaning and value in their historical context, lost their relevance to modern people; contrary to Scholem, today many researchers view the study of the Kabbalah as a means of exposure, investigation, and clarification of religious or spiritual contents that are also relevant

88  Mystifying Kabbalah in the present. From this aspect, some of today’s scholars do not view themselves merely as philologists, historians, or sociologists of the Kabbalah but rather as spiritual guides translating the mystical and spiritual contents of the Kabbalah and mediating these for the contemporary audience. This approach is particularly prominent in the writings of American Kabbalah scholars, some of whom engage in teaching theology and training rabbis in rabbinical institutes of various Jewish denominations. One of these is Arthur Green, who was the president of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College and the rector of the Rabbinical School at Hebrew College. He concluded the preface of a book on Jewish spiritualism he edited with the disclaimer that presenting Jewish spirituality in a historical form is not intended to create a barrier between the mystical materials and the contemporary reader (who he refers to as “a would-​be practitioner”) who can use these materials as part of the spiritual repertoire of contemporary Jewry (Green 1986, 25). A similar approach is expressed also by some Israeli researchers, who emphasize that their study of the Kabbalah is not purely historical; they assert that the texts and doctrines that they research are relevant to a spiritual renewal in the modern era. Liebes, in his article “Thoughts on the Religious Significance of Kabbalah Research,” wrote that the ancient myth that, in his opinion, underlies the Kabbalah “can perhaps serve as a basis to a movement of spiritual revival” (2005, 205). In a more unequivocal tone, Margolin asserted in the preface to his book The Human Temple that he is interested in the spiritual potential of Hasidic theological approaches for the forming of a meaningful spiritual life in the modern world: In my opinion, perceiving god as a vitality, understanding the divine powers as powers acting within the human soul, exchanging the superficial Providence for the recognition that the place where man thinks is where he is, emphasizing the importance of the individual tikkun (rectification). . . . all of these and another series of Hasidic principles can be vital to one who seeks in Judaism a source for structuring a significant spiritual life in the modern world. (2005, 9)

Melila Hellner-​Eshed also affirms that she is not interested only in engaging in the interpretation of the Zohar, but rather in mediating and translating into contemporary language “that which the Zohar conveys in his own words much better than I ever could” (2009, 7). She claims that the Zohar invites the

The New Age of Kabbalah Research  89 reader to join a way of life that enables the mystical-​religious experiences it describes (11). She does not view the Kabbalistic texts merely as objects of research; rather, she sees them as texts which are relevant for enhancing human consciousness and contemporary cultural and religious creativity: I have a deep, personal interest in mystical experience and the hidden potential of human consciousness. The extraordinary endeavor of mystics across the generations to seek out an enhanced human consciousness—​ experientially, sensorially, and emotionally—​has long inspired me . . . The Zohar is a spiritually inspired work of the highest order, and to mind the world it describes is neither closed nor lost nor confined to the Middle Ages. I experience its insights as a living invitation to a special religious consciousness, as well as to exegetical, cultural, and religious creativity. (9)

The theological gist of this approach was elucidated by Alan Brill, a scholar of Kabbalah and Hasidism from the United States, who praises Hellner-​Eshed, who in his words, “boldly claims that an academic attempt to understand the text should coincide properly with the attempt to induce a mystical experience” (Brill 2010b). Contemporary Kabbalah scholars regard the spiritual relevance of the study of Jewish mysticism mainly as pertaining to Jewish identity formation and the renewal and redemption of Jewish culture. In this, the new scholars continue the ideological stance of Scholem, who regarded Kabbalah research as an important part of the Jewish national revival project. Liebes asserted that contemporary reality calls today, even more than in the days of Scholem, “to return and emphasize on the role of Jewish studies within the forgotten (or even rejected) project of the nation’s revival. In my opinion the secret doctrine (i.e., Kabbalah. B.H) has a particularly important role, because it surpasses the purely intellectual realm, and it includes also other layers of the soul and fullness of life” (Liebes 2005, 203). Other scholars present a similar approach but place less of an emphasis on the national revival and more on the spiritual renewal of Jewish culture. Margolin presents his research as a “leverage to return to the search for new ways for a Jewish conceptual renewal, through a selection from the sources of Hasidism” (2005, 10). Hellner-​Eshed wrote that she finds in the Zohar “spiritual possibilities that are capable of redeeming aspects of the Jewish tradition—​of which I am part—​from fossilization” (2009, 9).

90  Mystifying Kabbalah Many of the new Kabbalah scholars see essential congruence and conceptual continuity between the academic research of Kabbalah and religious, mystical, and spiritual practices and insights. Tsippi Kaufman expressed hope that her book on early Hasidism, In All Your Ways Know Him, “will lead its readers to scholarly and perhaps also existential and religious insights” (2009, 21). Haviva Pedaya asserted in an interview for the daily newspaper Ha’aretz that spiritual guidance, advice, and healing are the natural continuation of academic research: My magic word is duplication. There is methodological study of the Kabbalah based on context and history and, on the other hand, there is the question of how the Kabbalah is read as texts that are intended to instruct man on how to become liberated on a spiritual level. There is no contradiction between the two. Pupils come to me with questions and ask for advice and healing, and this is a natural sequence. Sometimes I think the distance between learning and healing is not so great. (Porush 2008)

Avraham Elqayam also advocates the integration of spiritual experiential study in academic research. He claims that this kind of study can lead to spiritual awakening and mystical awareness. Elqayam is the director of the Shlomo Moussaieff Center for Research of Kabbalah at Bar Ilan University. The goal of the center, according to its website, is “to integrate between the study of Kabbalah according to the scientific-​research academic method and an experiential-​spiritual-​internal study [ . . . ] to awaken through academic-​ research study to the spiritual dimension of reality and ‘live with the secret’—​ in the words of philosopher and scholar of Hasidism Martin Buber.”22 Eliot Wolfson also asserts that the mission of the academic teaching of Jewish mysticism is to assist the students to reach mystical insights. Wolfson, who understands mysticism as “the capacity of the human mind to imagine what cannot be imagined and to think what cannot be thought” (2011, 103), states that “It is incumbent upon the professor of Jewish Mysticism to perform the play of disclosure and concealment and thereby assist the student

22 “From the director of the center,” http://​www.biu.ac.il/​HU/​moussaieff/​about/​about.htm (accessed February 2020). In an interview for the journal Eretz Acheret, Elqayam described how he integrates experiential study in academic courses: “I asked a doctorate student who was working on punctuation to teach a course I called ‘the secret dance of punctuation’. [ . . . ] In order to break the centrality of the text, I brought Sarita, a holistic healer, who related to the symbolism of Kabbalistic punctuation [ . . . ] we made the movement of the patach and we didn’t just sit and read texts” (Zifroni and Sheleg 2005, 50).

The New Age of Kabbalah Research  91 in envisioning the invisible and uttering the unutterable” (114). Hence, it is not surprising that professors of Kabbalah are regarded as religious guides and spiritual mentors. The well-​ known literary scholar Harold Bloom recommended Moshe Idel as a guide for the perplexed, who can show the path of authentic Jewish culture: “Questing for my rabbi I have gone from Buber through Scholem to Idel. I abide with Moshe Idel. He is not only a scholar of Scholem’s magnitude but a guide for the perplexed like myself. I believe he will yet show us the way to the authentic Jewish culture still available to us in this waning time.”23 The notion that contemporary academic Kabbalah scholars are religious guides who explore Kabbalah to find relevant materials for today’s spiritual seekers is presented explicitly by the scholar and Rabbi Or N. Rose: Thankfully, there is a small but growing cadre of American and Israeli religious teachers and scholars, such as Daniel Matt, Arthur Green, Melilah Hellner-​Eshed, Haviva Pedaya and Elliot Wolfson, who are engaging in thoughtful explorations of the classical teachings of Kabbalah, asking what of this ancient tradition remains compelling to seekers today and what is better left aside. (2004, 24)

3.9. Glorifying Kabbalah Many contemporary scholars of Jewish mysticism express their high regard to Kabbalah. They emphasize the creative and liberating power of Kabbalah and Hasidism and some of them claim that empathy toward mysticism is a prerequisite for its academic research. This approach highlights the theological paradigm that dominates Kabbalah research and distinguishes the study of Jewish mysticism from other research fields in the humanities and social studies, where empathy (or antipathy) is not regarded as a prerequisite to research. A  similar approach already characterized Scholem and his pupils: they expressed their affinity to Jewish mysticism and valorized Kabbalah as the vital, spiritual power of diasporic Judaism. Nonetheless, Scholem (like other scholars of the time) showed ambivalence toward Kabbalistic texts which, as we recall, aroused in him “admiration and disgust” (1974, 36). The new Kabbalah scholars, on the other hand, express

23 This appears on the book jacket of Idel 2010.

92  Mystifying Kabbalah only admiration for the mystical texts and shun form any negative evaluation of them. Ithamar Gruenwald, for example, claimed that a serious scholar must be closer to the research subject than it was common in the past because research of religion and mysticism cannot be conducted from a state of “research alienation” (Gruenwald 1993, 37). Yehuda Liebes asserted that an empathetic attitude toward Kabbalistic texts is necessary to research: “A researcher who does not have empathy toward the subject of his study is unable to understand what lies before him. Of course he cannot be a foolish enthusiast [  .  .  .  ] complete identification from the outset can in fact be harmful. However, with love this is not the case. One should only study what one loves” (2005, 201). He believes that an empathetic approach and a religious feeling are conditional for the study of Kabbalah: “One who does not love Kabbalah cannot research it and even more so one who views religious feelings as something strange” (2006, 6). The valorization of Jewish mysticism as a positive, creative, and liberating force in Jewish history characterizes the studies of Rachel Elior, and it is clearly expressed in the title of her programmatic book Jewish Mysticism: The Infinite Expression of Freedom (2007). A similar approach is expressed in the studies of Haviva Pedaya, who claims that mysticism “fulfills a refreshing, liberating and challenging role vis a vis religion” (2011b, 270). The sympathetic approach toward the Kabbalah and the attempt to find relevant positive spiritual meanings and values in Kabbalistic texts are prominent in studies that glorify the presumed feminist aspects of Kabbalah. Following Elliot Wolfson, who first applauded the sixteenth-​ century Kabbalist Rabbi Moshe Cordovero for his “noble attempt” to assign an equal value to the masculine and feminine in the divine realm (Wolfson 1994b, 177), Cordovero was hailed as the “knight of the Shekhinah (i.e., the last, feminine Sefirah. B.H)” (Hellner-​Eshed 2006, 222). Bracha Sack described the excitement of a group of female scholars upon discovery of Cordovero’s positive approach to the Shekhinah (also called Malkhut and Knesset Israel): At each reading we all were in awe from the effort Cordovero invested in describing the stature of Malkhut and all its traits [ . . . ] we discovered the intensity of his identity with Malkhut, Shekhinah, Knesset Israel and the great love he felt toward her. Many times we were enthused from his identification with her, from his responsibility to take part in her restoration and from his willingness to devote himself to her redemption. (2009, 9)

The New Age of Kabbalah Research  93 It is noteworthy to observe that while Kabbalah scholars express their enthusiasm of Corodvero’s “feminist” chivalry, there is very little criticism of the Kabbalistic patriarchal forms of oppression and the misogynist expressions found in Kabbalistic literature. As we saw earlier, some Kabbalah scholars reject critical gender studies as anachronistic projections. The empathy toward Kabbalistic sources, the search for their relevant spiritual meaning, and the attempt to integrate between academic research and spiritual practice all come to the fore in the recent translation of the Zohar into English, by the American Kabbalah scholar Daniel Matt (The Zohar Pritzker edition). Matt, who bases his translation and interpretation of the Zohar on philological-​historical research, regards the Zohar as a cultural resource in which the modern reader will find mystical and spiritual significance. In his introduction to the translation, in a section entitled “How to Read the Book of Zohar,” he guides the reader: The Zohar’s teachings are profound and intense . . . follow the words to what lies beyond and within; open the gates of imagination. . . . Above all, don’t reduce everything you encounter in these pages to something you already know. Beware of trying to find “the essence” of a particular teaching . . . here essence is inadequate unless it stimulates you to explore ever deeper layers, to question your assumptions about tradition, God and self. (Matt 2003, xxiv–​xxv)

3.10. Postmodern Contexts The new perspectives and directions of research in the study of Jewish mysticism emerged in the framework of a struggle for hegemony within the academic field of Kabbalah research, between new upcoming scholars and the old guard of Scholem followers. This struggle, and the changes in the study of Jewish mysticism it entailed, transpired within the context of global, social, political, and ideological transformations that had considerable effects on the academic world. Some scholars, such as Jean-​François Lyotrad, characterized the new transformations of knowledge in the academia as the postmodern condition (1991). The developments in Kabbalah research reviewed earlier occurred under the influence of these transformations, and the revolution in the study of Jewish mysticism has affinities to changes and revolutions that occurred in many other academic fields in the same period (Gam-​Hacohen

94  Mystifying Kabbalah 2016, 301–​305). Yet, as Fritz Ringer observed in his essay “The Intellectual Field, Intellectual History and the Sociology of Knowledge”: “The intellectual field is influenced by the concerns and conflicts of the larger society but its logic is its own, Thus, any influence upon the field from without is refracted by the structure of the field itself ” (2000, 4). As we will see in the following, the logic of the field of Kabbalah research—​ based on the identification of the Kabbalah with mysticism—​formed the unique nature of the transformations in the study of Kabbalah and distinguished between them and the postmodern developments in other fields of academic knowledge. I will show that because the logic of the study of Kabbalah is, to a great extent, theological, the changes that took place in the field are quite similar to developments that occurred in spiritual and religious fields, especially in New Age culture and contemporary spiritualty (Huss 2007c). Postmodern trends that characterize the academic discourse and the formation of academic knowledge in the late twentieth century are apparent in the new perspectives and directions of study of Jewish mysticism. The new scholars of Kabbalah rejected the metanarrative of Jewish mysticism that Scholem and his pupils proposed and disagreed with the hegemony of the philological-​historical method. This approach, as Amos Funkenstein argued (2008, 318–​320), reflects a postmodern loss of faith in history’s ability to construct a valid and representative master narrative: Many of the theses advanced by Idel are bound, almost by definition, to sever the Kabbalah from any possible national or social function and thus to deny the relevance of historical events—​a relevance that is prominent in Scholem’s later perception. Idel’s analysis, as he repeatedly admits, is “phenomenological” rather than historical. [ . . . ] Undoubtedly, though, his research follows a direction that is diametrically opposed to Scholem’s in that he challenges not only Scholem’s master narrative but also, implicitly or explicitly, the value and utility of any historical master narrative for grasping the world of the Kabbalists before and even after the expulsion from Spain. (320)

Indeed, Idel explicitly rejected the attempts of previous scholars to construct grand narratives, through the use of philological-​historical research. He assumes the possible coexistence of different explanations of the same

The New Age of Kabbalah Research  95 phenomena (Idel 2010, 10). According to Idel: “Given the diversity of personalities, circumstances, sources of inspiration, and inner tensions so conspicuous in the developments of Kabbalah, no one unifying history, psychology, or phenomenology of this lore is possible” (2). The rejection of metanarratives by Kabbalah scholars, the preference of fragmentary descriptions, and the choice of eclectic methodologies are all expressions of postmodern approaches that became prevalent in the academia since the last decades of the twentieth century. The search for relevant ideological meanings in Kabbalistic texts and the declarations concerning the personal spiritual interests of the scholars in Kabbalah are also part of a postmodern stance that casts doubts on the possibility of impartial objective research and affirms the personal positioning of the scholar in relation to his research projects. As we have seen earlier, contemporary Kabbalah scholarship is involved in postmodern directions of study that are prevalent in other disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, such as interest in questions of hermeneutics and gender. However, along with the common research approaches, there are also significant differences between Kabbalah studies and other academic areas. As we saw, the phenomenological-​ comparative approach that detaches religious phenomena from their social, political, and historical settings is dominant in the study of Jewish mysticism. This approach differs radically from critical postmodern approaches that had a pronounced impact on other fields in Israeli and global academia. Thus, although some Kabbalah scholars refer sometimes to postmodern literary theory and gender studies, they usually reject critical social and political analysis of the Kabbalah.24 This comes to the fore in Yehuda Liebes’s attack on the use of social theories in a book on the reception history of the Zohar (Huss 2016): The chapters of the book are characterized by observation from the outside, integrated with a positivist tendency with a pinch of postmodernism, with indifferent observation of phenomena that are considered objective and equally worthy of research, in a perspective that shoves aside one’s tendency and the researcher’s moral preferences, as if he no longer has interest in the internal value of the phenomena being studied and he views them merely as 24 An exception is Gil Anidjar’s critique on Kabbalah research (1996). Several scholars discussed Orientalist trends in Kabbalah research; see Raz-​Krakotzkin 1999; Huss 2003; Biale 2001, 85–​ 110. For a recent study that critically deals with the political significance of Kabbalistic ideas, see Tamari 2010.

96  Mystifying Kabbalah competitive subjective narratives and struggles of social hegemony. (Liebes 2008, 30)

Furthermore, even when Kabbalah scholars relate to postmodern theories, they often prefer to emphasize their similarity to Kabbalistic ideas (mainly to Kabbalistic hermeneutics) rather than use them for critical analysis of Kabbalistic texts and the field of Kabbalah research. Idel and Wolfson discussed the mutual influence and the correspondence between Kabbalistic perceptions and the ideas of Jacques Derrida (Wolfson 2003, 475–​514; Idel 2010, 176–​192), and Garb found parallels between Kabbalistic themes and concepts of Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze (2005a, 266, 273–​275). The notion that Kabbalah anticipated postmodern philosophic approaches fits into the trend of the new Kabbalah research to glorify the Kabbalah and present it as a potential resource for current intellectual and spiritual discourse. Garb, for example, asserted that Kabbalistic sources forestalled Foucault’s ideas of power. Because of this, he claimed, Kabbalah can again fill a central cultural role, as it once filled in the Renaissance period: The Kabbalah, in the detailed models it created, can provide inspiration for future development of ideas on power. Foucault proposed viewing power also as a positive phenomenon, and the Kabbalah presents us with an intensive development of this cultural possibility. It may be that the Kabbalah can again fulfill the cultural role it had during the renaissance period, when it offered a considerable contribution to the shaping of the initial systemized western thought on power and particularly in relation to the spatial organization of the power. (Garb 2005a, 273)

A similar approach is apparent in the interest of many Kabbalah scholars in issues of Eros and gender in Kabbalah. As suggested earlier, the interest in these subjects and the use of feminist theories by some scholars are in line with the interest in gender and feminist research in many disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. However, while feminist and gender studies in other fields presents a critical stance toward historical and contemporary expressions of androcentric and patriarchal positions, Kabbalah scholarship (mainly in Israel) refrains from criticizing Kabbalah and rejects critical gender research.25 The relative lack of a criticism toward 25 The exceptions from this perspective are studies by Wolfson (1994b) and Kara-​Ivanov Kaniel (2010).

The New Age of Kabbalah Research  97 Kabbalistic androcentrism and misogyny is connected to the theological paradigm of research, which demands an empathetic approach to the research data and glorifies Jewish mysticism as a liberating force in Jewish culture. As we saw, several Kabbalah scholars expressed their enthusiasm for Kabbalistic approaches to divine femininity. It seems that Kabbalah scholars are more interested to emphasize the liberating power of the Kabbalah and empower feminist spirituality based on Kabbalistic texts than to highlight the oppressive patriarchal aspects of the Kabbalah or to expose androcentric assumptions found in Kabbalah research. As Natalie Polzer asserted in her review of Rachel Elior’s Dybbuks and Jewish Women in Social History, Mysticism and Folklore (2008), Elior’s many publications on the history of kabbalah, while of necessity including discussions of feminine symbolism, are essentially theological rather than political, and to my knowledge, offer no feminist critique of either kabbalistic theology itself or its influence on the actual lives of Jewish women, past and present. In fact, both the substance and the rhetoric of most of her work suggests that kabbalah as a whole, in all times and places, has been a liberating, mind-​expanding force in Jewish history. (Polzer 2009)

The absence of critical postmodern approaches in the field of Kabbalah studies comes to the fore also in regards to the Jewish national paradigm of the research. In many fields of academic research in Israel, criticism was raised against the national-​Zionist paradigm that directed Israeli academic research in the humanities and social studies, especially history and sociology. However, the “post-​Zionist” approach of the New Historians and the New Sociologists is almost absent in the new Kabbalah research. The objections of the new scholars of Kabbalah to Scholem’s metanarratives are hardly ever involved in a critique of the national-​theological framework of his research. As Amnon Raz-​Krakotzkin observed, “In principle Idel’s critique is not directed against the fundamental-​Zionist approach of Scholem; it even refines and enhances the tendency of an autonomic writing of Jewish mysticism (1996, 135). Even though Liebes explicitly defined Idel’s approach—​and his own—​ as post-​Zionist, he does not criticize the Zionist perspective of Kabbalah research. On the contrary, he explicitly supports Scholem’s conviction that the Zionist perspective is necessary for an objective study of Judaism. Liebes asserts that Zionism is a prerequisite for the “normal life of the nation which

98  Mystifying Kabbalah allows it to observe itself calmly and with eyes wide open. From here stems the examination of the data of Jewish religion and history in their completeness, without emphasizing a certain direction from apologetic or ideological reasons” (1993b, 9).

3.11.  New Age Affinities As we saw earlier, the perspectives and directions of study of the new research in Jewish mysticism express postmodern trends, even though the theological paradigm of Kabbalah research distances it from critical postmodern approaches. I would like to show now that the new Kabbalah research has also a significant affinity to the postmodern spirituality of the New Age culture (Huss 2014, 54–​55), and especially to the Jewish renewal movement and to neo Kabbalistic and neo-​Hasidic groups. As I argued in the previous sections, many of today’s Kabbalah scholars uphold a theological definition of mysticism, rely on the phenomenological-​ comparative paradigm, and are interested in the spiritual potential of the Jewish mystical texts and their relevance to the shaping of a meaningful spiritual life and the enhancement of religious awareness. These characteristics of the new Kabbalah scholarship are shared with New Age Jewish spiritual movements, such as neo-​Kabbalist and neo-​Hasidic groups and the Jewish Renewal movement. The concept of God as a nonpersonal transcendent reality, which underlies the definition of mysticism used by Kabbalah scholars, is in tandem with New Age ideas, which, as Wouter Hanegraaff showed, rarely perceive the divine as a personal god (1998, 183). The perception of the divine, or transcendent reality, as an absolute source of being, as a unity and totality underlying fragmented reality, and as a creative energy that the mystic encounters via techniques for altering consciousness, prevalent among Kabbalah scholars, is also typical of New Age spirituality (186–​187,  205). As we previously observed, many contemporary Kabbalah scholars assert that the divine or metaphysical principle that the mystic experiences is found in the depths of the soul, and they regard the mystical experience as an internalization and focus of attention on spiritual contents found within one’s inner self. The positioning of the divinity or the metaphysical tenet underlying reality in the depths of the soul is characteristic of the sanctification of the self and the psychologization of religion of the New Age that

The New Age of Kabbalah Research  99 was characterized by the sociologist Paul Heelas as “self spirituality” (1996, 18–​40). The current interest of scholars of Jewish mysticism in the subjective mystical experiences of the Kabbalists and their “altered states of consciousness,” more than in their theological speculations on the nature of the divine system, is also a typical feature of the New Age (Hanegraaff 1998, 184–​185, 227–​228). The turn of new Kabbalah research to phenomenological-​comparative research methods shares a common perspective with new spiritual movements. The phenomenological-​comparative paradigm of religious studies is based on the assumption that the religious phenomenon is universal, and that it has significant traits that are expressed in different ways in all the human cultures. This paradigm is also central to contemporary spiritual and New Age movements. These movements espouse the perennial philosophy, which was accepted among esoteric and occultist movements in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, according to which there is a single universal truth reflected in all religions—​especially in their mystical systems.26 Aldous Huxley, the renowned author who influenced both the study of mysticism and the New Age movements, defined the perennial philosophy, which he considers to be universal and immemorial and which is found in all cultures and religions as “the metaphysic that recognizes a divine Reality substantial to the world of things and lives and minds; the psychology that finds in the soul something similar to, or even identical to, divine Reality; the ethic that places man’s final end in the knowledge of the immanent and transcendent Ground of all being” (1944, 7). This paradigm which underlies many theological and spiritual perspectives today is shared by the phenomenological study of religion and mysticism and the New Age movements. From this aspect, the phenomenological research of Jewish mysticism and the New Age movements share a common ecumenical theological paradigm. Another common denominator for the new academic research of Jewish mysticism and spiritual movements outside of academia is found in their topics of interest. The topics on which the new Kabbalah research focuses are parallel to a great extent with the fields of interest of the new spiritual movements. The focus of Kabbalah research on practical, experiential, and psychological aspects of Jewish mysticism

26 See Heelas 1996, 27–​28; Hanegraaff 1998, 327–​330; King 2002, 162–​163.

100  Mystifying Kabbalah is similar to the interests of the neo-​Kabbalistic and the New Age movements—​m editation techniques, experience and activation of divine energy, the enhancement of human consciousness, and the search for divine powers within the inner self. The glorification of Jewish mysticism is yet another shared element in both fields, as well as the interest in the relevant spiritual potential of Jewish mystical texts. Another common denominator is the interest in questions of gender, and the perception that the Kabbalah offers feminist-​ t heological possibilities. Beyond the ideological framework and the basic theological assumptions shared by Kabbalah scholars and New Age spiritual teachers, there are also interesting biographical and bibliographic ties between the two fields. The new Kabbalah research developed in the same cultural framework and during the same years in which Jewish New Age and spiritual renewal movements were developing. Writings of academic scholars of Kabbalah and Hasidism are a central source of information on the Kabbalah among New Age movements and neo-​Kabbalah groups and, to a large extent, scholars’ perceptions of the Kabbalah influenced contemporary Kabbalistic theories and practices. (an example of this will be discussed in Chapter 5). Academic scholars of Kabbalah and Hasidism, mainly in the United States, take a leading role in the neo-​Kabbalistic and neo-​Hasidic revival, especially in the Jewish Renewal movement; some of them wrote, alongside their research work, theological books that present distinct New Age ideas (Green 1997, 2003; Matt 1996). In conclusion, the new trends in the academic study of the Kabbalah and Hasidism that appeared in the late 1980s questioned Scholem and his pupils’ paradigms and basic assumptions and outlined new perspective and directions of study. The revolution in the research of Jewish mysticism occurred in the context of social, economic, and political changes that transpired in the last decades of the twentieth century, and in the framework of postmodern cultural trends that significantly influenced academic research. Some postmodern trends which became prominent in the humanities and social sciences appear also in the new research of Jewish mysticism. Yet, due to the theological paradigm underlying Kabbalah research, there are also significant differences between Kabbalah studies and other academic fields of study. The theological paradigm that governs the study of Jewish mysticism

The New Age of Kabbalah Research  101 (as well as other fields of religious studies) explains the ideological proximity between academic Kabbalah research and contemporary movements for spiritual renewal. As I will show in the following chapter, the trends and theological interests that Kabbalah scholars share with New Agers, and the fact that they view themselves as spiritual guides and as authorized guardians of the Kabbalistic tradition, creates tension and competition between scholars of Jewish mysticism and other present-​day neo-​Kabbalistic and neo-​Hasidic groups.

4 “Authorized Guardians” The Rejection of Occult and Contemporary Kabbalah

4.1.  Introduction In 2002, Joseph Dan, a senior academic scholar of Jewish mysticism, published The Heart and the Fountain:  An Anthology of Jewish Mystical Experiences.1 In his lengthy introduction to the anthology, he briefly relates to the Kabbalah in the twentieth century as a period of decline of Jewish mystical creativity. Dan writes: A new mixture of kabbalistic traditions, worship of leaders, and especially magic took shape in Israel in the last few decades. Parallel to the Western New Age, Israelis, especially those of Asian origins, developed new reverence to “kabbalistic” leaders, who were in most cases magicians and writers of amulets. Numerous “gurus” are presently operating in Israel, healing spiritual ailments and offering ways of confronting the hardships of modern existence; they are routinely called “kabbalists” even though there is hardly any element of the authentic traditions of the Kabbalah in their teachings. Celebrations are held at the tombs of old sages, in Safed and Netivot, attracting sometimes tens of thousands of adherents; as usual in such circumstances, this popular quest for heroes, saints, and healers is sometimes commercialized and used or abused by imposters. On the whole, the situation is not different from the contemporary surge of interest in magic, astrology, and gurus that characterize contemporary Western culture. (2002, 42)

1 A Hebrew version was published in 2005. Mystifying Kabbalah. Boaz Huss, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190086961.001.0001

“Authorized Guardians”  103 Expressing an Orientalist attitude, Dan disdainfully criticizes contemporary Israeli practitioners of Kabbalah, especially “those of Asian origins.”2 His disparagement of contemporary Kabbalah is diametrically opposed to the evaluation and high esteem that Kabbalah scholars (including Dan himself) show toward the “classic” historical expressions of Kabbalah and Hasidism. In difference to the texts which Dan included in his anthology (selected from Heichalot literature, Jewish philosophy, Kabbalah, Sabbateanism, and Hasidism) which represent in his view authentic Jewish spiritual phenomena (viii), he claims that there is hardly any element of the authentic traditions in the teaching and practices of contemporary Israeli Kabbalists. Dan emphasizes the commercial aspects of contemporary Kabbalah, and to stress its lack of authenticity, he puts double quotation marks on the word “Kabbalists.” Dan’s anthology follows the boundaries of Jewish mysticism set by Buber and Scholem. The anthology opens with a text from Heichalot literature, and the final Hasidic text in the book is taken from the writing of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov. The only texts from the twentieth century are poems and an essay by Hayim Nachman Bialik, which are described as “Mystical Poetry and Mystical Language” (251).3 Presenting the national Zionist poet as the final link in the chain of Jewish mysticism follows the national-​theological perception of Scholem, which I have discussed in Chapter 2. As we shall see in the following discussion, the exclusion of contemporary forms of Kabbalah and Hasidism from the framework of “Jewish mysticism” and the critical and contemptuous approach toward contemporary Kabbalistic circles are shared by many of today’s scholars of Jewish mysticism. This stance is continuous with that of Scholem, who did not regard most of the Kabbalistic and Hasidic movements of his time as part of Jewish mysticism. He did not study these movements and disparaged the various circles that practiced Kabbalah at that time. The two previous chapters dealt with the genealogy of the category “Jewish mysticism” and the theological paradigms of academic research of the Kabbalah. This chapter and the following will examine the implications of the use of mysticism as the major analytical category in the study of the 2 This is an interesting and telling expression, as most of the people who are engaged in the practices he condemns are actually from North African descent. The categorization of contemporary Kabbalah practitioners as mostly Jews of Asian origins highlights Dan’s Orientalist approach. 3 It should be noted that despite Dan’s strong reservations regarding the term “Jewish mysticism” in the book’s introduction (2005, viii, 7–​9), he continues to use it as a main category for organizing and explaining the texts he included in anthology.

104  Mystifying Kabbalah Kabbalah, and the theological assumptions involved in it, on the directions of research and the prevalent research practices of the field. This chapter will examine the attitude of scholars of Jewish mysticism to contemporary Kabbalah and Hasidism, and the reasons why modern forms of Kabbalah and Hasidism are usually not considered as “authentic” expressions of Jewish mysticism. I would like to emphasize that I do not think it is wrong to take a moral stand on research subjects. My purpose in not to argue with the judgmental stance of the scholars; rather, I try to understand the significance of the condemnation of modern Kabbalah, which is common among scholars who completely abstain from condemnation and criticism toward Kabbalah of earlier generations. Following Frederick Jameson (1991, 46), I think a scholar should avoid conceptualizing historical phenomena in terms of moral or moralizing judgments. As we shall see in the following, leading scholars of Jewish mysticism present moralizing judgements as an analysis of contemporary Kabbalah. Instead of researching current Kabbalistic movements, they act as the guardians of “authentic” Jewish mysticism, who are authorized to determine its value and significance in the modern world. In the following I will discuss the controversies of scholars of Jewish mysticism regarding their contemporary Kabbalistic and Hasidic movements. I will argue that the disparaging criticism of present-​day Kabbalah derives from the theological and national strands of Kabbalah scholarship which were described in the two previous chapters. We saw that in the eyes of Scholem and his disciples, Jewish mysticism was a vital force of the Jewish nation in the diaspora that lost its historical role with the national revival of the Jewish people and their return to their homeland in the Middle East. Kabbalah research, which was conducted within an Orientalist perspective, emphasized the Eastern origins of Jewish mysticism and aggrandized its glorious past. Yet its modern expressions were described as petrified and degenerated. As we will shortly see, many scholars do not see modern Kabbalistic and Hasidic movements as authentic expressions of Jewish mysticism; rather, they see the academic study of Kabbalah, which explores its historical significance and reveals its metaphysical and mystical roots, as the authentic and relevant continuance of the Jewish mystical tradition. They take a negative stand toward Kabbalists and Hasidim of their own generation as well as toward thinkers and scholars who revealed interest in the Kabbalah outside the framework of Scholem’s school of Kabbalah research. This negative attitude, I  will claim, is dependent on the theological framework of

“Authorized Guardians”  105 scholars of Jewish mysticism, who regard themselves as the authorized guardians and successors of the Kabbalistic tradition, and strive to determine the symbolic value of the Kabbalah and control its growing cultural capital in the modern world.

4.2.  Gershom Scholem and Jewish Kabbalists of His Time In the introduction to Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, Gershom Scholem asserted: At the end of a long process of development in which Kabbalism, paradoxical though it may sound, has influenced the course of Jewish history, it has again become what it was in the beginning: the esoteric wisdom of small groups of men out of touch with life and without any influence on it. (1971, 34)

Earlier, in his 1934 series of lectures on Jewish mysticism, he described his era as “the time of the historical death and demise” of the Kabbalah.4 Scholem did not only deny the historical significance of Kabbalah in his day; rather, he also rejected its value as an original mystical expression: “In the final analysis, one may say that there is no authentic original mysticism in our generation, either in the Jewish people or among the nations of the world” (1997, 11). Nevertheless, contrary to the Scholem’s description, numerous Kabbalistic groups were in fact active at the time. Some of them presented interesting doctrinal innovations and some had also a significant cultural and social influence. Scholem was aware of these groups’ existence, he was familiar with their writings, and even met with several Kabbalists who were active at the time, but this did not alter his negative evaluation of the significance of contemporary Kabbalah. As I will argue, his negative evaluation of contemporary Kabbalah was dependent on the foundational assumptions of modern Kabbalah research and on the discursive framework and the cultural stance that shaped it. Jerusalem, where Scholem resided since 1923, was at the time an active and vibrant Kabbalistic center. In his recent work on the Kabbalistic circles in 4 Lesson of Prof. Scholem dated April 17, 1934, Gershom Scholem archives, Arc. 4º 1599, folder 18, p. 4.

106  Mystifying Kabbalah the early twentieth century, Jonatan Meir showed how the residents of emergent Kabbalistic Yeshivot of the time, such as “Beit El,” “Rehovot Hanahar,” “Sha’ar ha-​Shamayim,” and “Itur Rabanim,” “energetically advanced their institutions, formulated curriculums, coined techniques, printed Kabbalah materials and reached out to the traditional Jewish public, both in Palestine and abroad” (2016, x). Scholem visited one of these institutes, the “Beit El” yeshiva, and in an interview in 1974 he recalls: “Sometimes I would go to their prayer services, which were very impressive [ . . . ]. What remained of Bet-​El was something like Yoga. I had the feeling that I was dealing with a group of Eretz Yisrael Jewish-​style Yoga Practitioners” (1976b, 37–​38). Scholem continued and told of his relations with one of the Beit El Kabbalists, Rabbi Gershon Vilner: When I met him I was twenty-​six and he was about seventy. I told him I wanted to learn Kabbalah. He looked a long time and checked—​looked at my forehead lines—​and only then spoke to me. He said. “I am prepared to teach you, but only on condition that you do not ask questions.” That made a tremendous impression on me  .  .  .  I  told him, I  “should like to think about it.” Then I said. “I can’t.” He was a remarkable Jew. A shining personality. (38)5

Gershom Scholem also met with other Kabbalists active in the Kabbalistic seminars in Jerusalem; among these were Makhluf Amsalem, Eliayhu Dahoki, and Yehuda Fetaya (Meir 2016, 13–​14).6 He also knew Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook and regarded him, in his words, “as an example par excellence of a great Jewish mystic, as expressed in the three volumes of his book Orot ha-​kodesh” (Scholem 1997, 11).7 Aside from Rabbi Kook, Scholem also mentioned Rabbi Arele Roth and his circle; he said they express “The possibility of spiritual ascent by means of pious attachment to the tradition, which originally doubtless drew upon an individual of mystical inspiration” (12). He also mentioned Habad Hasidism and its leaders. Scholem found in the call of the former Lubavitcher Rabbi “redemption immediately” 5 Scholem related this event in the opening remarks of his lecture on “Kabbalah and Myth” delivered in Eranos. See Scholem 1965, 95. 6 In an interview for the newspaper Kol Ha’ir Scholem’s wife, Fania, told about how during WWII her husband met with Kabbalists, who asked him to teach them how to use powers in order to eliminate Hitler, at their request (Harpaz 1990). See Harari 2016, 193–​194. 7 Also see in Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, where he describes Rabbi Kook’s work as “a veritable theologia mystica of Judaism” (Scholem 1971, 354, n17).

“Authorized Guardians”  107 (le-​`altar le-​Ge`ula) “a clear reliance upon the private realm of mysticism” (12).8 Yet, Scholem asserted that Rabbi Kook and Rabbi Arele Roth “are no longer Kabbalists in the strict sense . . . Anyone reading Rav Kook’s Orot ha-​ Kodesh can immediately see that he is not a Kabbalist; rather, we see here a great man, who translated his own religious experience into human language, drawing upon the heritage of the generations” (12). Despite the fact that he regarded Rabbi Kook, Rabbi Arele Roth, and Habad Hasidism as genuine mystics, he claimed that “all three of these manifestations . . . minimize insofar as possible the mystical component of their inspiration, to the point of barely acknowledging it at all” (12).9 Scholem was also acquainted with one of Rabbi Kook’s disciples, Rabbi David Cohen (1887–​1972), or Ha-​Nazir (the Nazarite), who lived in his neighborhood. He did not have much regard for him, despite their mutual interest in the Kabbalah of Rabbi Abraham Abulafia (to be discussed in the following chapter): Opposite us lived Rabbi David Cohen a noble person, a disciple of Rabbi Kook who was known amongst the Ashkenazi population of Jerusalem as “the Nazarite.” He studied Kabbalah, one may say, in the exact opposite way than I did [ . . . ] all my efforts to understand him were in vain. However, our common interest lay in the writings of Abraham Abulafia, from the thirteenth century, with which we both were deeply impressed. While we were neighbors, I visited him sometimes . . . but to argue with a Baal Teshuva (returnee to religion) on the ways of studying and understanding Kabbalah is a hopeless mission. (Scholem 1982, 204)10

A review of Scholem’s library reveals that he acquired and read the writings of some modern Kabbalists, who began their activities in the late 1960s and early 1970s and signaled the beginning of the revival of Kabbalah in the final decades of the twentieth century.11 His comments on these books show his 8 Another contemporary Jewish scholar that Scholem regarded as an authentic mystic was Nathan Birnbaum, who in his opinion, “as a spiritual phenomenon in our generation he was far more significant than the Rebbe of Lubavitch” (Scholem 1996, 13. See also p. 8). 9 Regarding Habad Hasidism, Scholem continues and writes: “the mystical side remains as a kind of hint to the individual whose soul may be touched by God, but not to the public whom they wish to organize or build up. The public success of Habad Hasidism stems, to a large extent, from their deliberate ignoring of the mystical realm” (13). 10 This passage does not appear in the English version of Scholem’s memoir. 11 The second edition of Levi Krakowski’s translation of Rabbi Yehuda Ashlag’s writings is in Gershom Scholem’s library. This is one of the first publications of the Kabbalah Research Center established by Philip Berg (originally, Gruberger). Scholem wrote in the book’s preface: “A second

108  Mystifying Kabbalah criticism and contempt for the attempt to create modern forms of Kabbalah. Thus, for instance, he commented on one of the prolific modern Kabbalists, Shimon Ben Zeev Halevy (Warren Kenton):  “Cheeky humbug! In the footsteps of Mathers and Crowley.”12 Despite his acquaintance with contemporary Kabbalists, Scholem did not dedicate any study to contemporary Kabbalah and he did not include it in his historiographic outline of Jewish mysticism. In the entry “Kabbalah” that he wrote for the Encyclopedia Judaica, he provides a short review of the Jewish mystics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century; in a short sentence at the end of the entry, he mentions that various forms of Kabbalistic literature continued to exist in Eastern Europe and the Middle East up to the time of the Holocaust, and in Israel, until the present (Scholem 197, 85). In his discussion of Yeshivat Beit El, he mentions the yeshiva leaders of the twentieth century, Mas`ud Cohen Elhadad, Ben-​Zion Hazan, and Ovadia Hadaya (83), and in a paragraph describing the Kabbalists of Lithuania—​Rabbi Shlomo Eliashov and his book Leshem Shevo ve-​Ahlama (84). He also relates to the transformation of Kabbalistic ideas into forms of modern thought in the writings of Rabbi Kook, Hillel Zeitlin, and Oscar Goldberg (85). In a very short review essay from 1953, Scholem briefly relates to Levi Yitzchak Krakowski and his teacher Rabbi Yehuda Ashlag (312). Scholem writes that in his work, The Light of Redemption (1950), Krakowski follows the footsteps of his master, by attempting some sort of rational presentation of Kabbalah; however, he also claims that there is a strong magical element in some of the chapters of the book. He criticized Krakowski’s “sober and uninspired style” and his lack of a critical historical perspective: “For critical historical or historical or analytical purposes it should be used—​if used at all—​only with great discretion” (312). Except for these references and a few others, Scholem did not dedicate any of his studies to contemporary Kabbalists, nor to the few scholars of his time (Rabbi Kook, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and Rabbi Arele Roth), whom he regarded as genuine Jewish mystics.

edition with many changes and an additional preface by Philip Gruberger (about whom see the attached court order from 1976) published in 1972.” The court order from the American Rabbinical Organization’s Court of Justice, attached to the book, admonishes Tova and Philip Berg on their false statements regarding the divorce of the latter from Rivka Gruberger. 12 Scholem scribbled this on his copy of Kenton’s book The Tree of Life: Introduction of the Kabbalah (1972).

“Authorized Guardians”  109

4.3.  Scholem’s Criticism of Neo-​Romantic Scholarship In addition to the Kabbalists who operated in the framework of yeshivot and traditional Kabbalistic movements, Scholem also was acquainted with Jewish scholars and thinkers of his time who approached Kabbalah from an enthusiastic national and neo-​Romantic approach. Scholem shared many of these thinkers’ assumptions regarding the nature and significance of Kabbalah and Hasidism, and he acted within a similar ideological framework; however, he disparaged their work in Kabbalah and Hasidism, mainly because of their lack of philological-​historical expertise. As we saw in Chapter 2, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, a positive approach toward the Kabbalah arose among Jewish thinkers and authors in central and Eastern Europe. In the setting of neo-​Romantic and Orientalist outlooks, and the emergence of the national Jewish discourse, intellectuals, authors, and poets found interest in Kabbalah and Hasidism, translated Kabbalistic texts, and published articles and books on these subjects (Mendes-​Flohr 1991, 77–​132). Naftali Hertz Imber, author of the Zionist national anthem, who had close ties with Western esoteric and theosophical circles, was interested in the Kabbalah, translated several Kabbalistic texts into English, and published the first journal dedicated to the Kabbalah, Uriel (Huss 2013); Ernst Müller, a member of the Zionist students union in Prague and a follower of Rudolph Steiner’s anthroposophy, translated excerpts of the Zohar into German and later published a book in English on the history of Jewish mysticism; and as recalled, Martin Buber also showed great interest in Kabbalah and especially in Hasidism following his prior interest in Christian mysticism. As is well known, Scholem was highly critical of the nineteenth-​century Jewish thinkers of the Wissenschaft des Judentums who took a negative stance toward the Kabbalah (1976, 385–​403). He was also critical and disparaging of the essays and studies of Kabbalah which were written during his time from an enthusiastic neo-​Romantic stance, although he shared their positive attitude toward the Kabbalah. Scholem’s first publications on Kabbalah were polemical review essays of contemporary works on Kabbalah that were written from an expressionist neo-​Romantic perspective, under the influence of Erlebnis (lived experience) philosophy. In the 1920 issue of Der Jude, Scholem published a review essay of Jankew Seidman’s anthology of Zohar translations, Aus dem heiligen Buch Zohar des Rabbi Schimon ben Yochai (1920, 363–​369), and a year later, in the same journal, he published a

110  Mystifying Kabbalah similarly vicious critique of Max Weiner’s anthology Die Lyrik der Kabbalah (1921, 55–​59). Scholem’s polemics were directed against the neo-​Romantic, expressionist rendering of Kabbalah and the ignorance and lack of philological skills of these authors. Thus, Scholem wrote in his review of Seidman’s anthology: But this has to be said: The translator has no clue, neither of the Aramaic language nor of its style or its rhythm. He looks at the texts with the eyes of a mystical high-​school pupil. Not only—​as will be shown—​does he commit the most awful elementary blunders; he also loves to render terms and sentences that are entirely crystal clear in the original, with stilted, obscure, or completely incomprehensible words. This, then, combines with a grotesque lack of knowledge of mystical terminology. (364–​365)

Scholem blamed Buber for Seidman’s expressionist and nonhistorical approach to the Kabbalah (366). He disapproved of Buber and his approach to Hasidism from the very beginning. He attacked Buber on his selective description of Hasidism and his exaggeration in highlighting the differences between Hasidism and Kabbalah and on his existentialist interpretation of Hasidism. Scholem acknowledged that Buber’s books on Hasidism influenced him to turn to Kabbalah studies, but in the same breath he rejected his romantic approach: “The lasting impression which Buber’s first two volumes on Hasidism made on me surely played a part as well. Still wholly written in the style of the Vienna school and of the Jugendstil (the German version of art nouveau, ca. 1895–​1905), they drew attention to this area in romantic transfiguration and flowery metaphors” (Scholem 1980, 112–​113). In his 1961 article “Martin Buber’s Hasidism,” Scholem criticized Buber for overloading Hasidism with his personal modern philosophical assumptions: To sum up, the merits of Buber’s presentation of Hasidic sayings and legends are very great indeed and to a large extent stand the test of time. But the spiritual message he has read into them in his more mature works is too deeply bound up with assumptions that have no root in the texts—​ assumptions drawn from his own very modern philosophy of religious anarchism. Too much is left out in his presentation of Hasidism, while what has been included is overloaded with highly personal speculations. (316)

“Authorized Guardians”  111 Scholem also spurned Samuel Abba Horodezky’s studies on Hasidism. In his autobiography, Scholem relates that in 1915 he read Horodezky’s writings and after he met him in Bern began translating several chapters from his Hebrew manuscript into German (Scholem 1980, 113). “While I was working on the translation,” Scholem writes, “I realized that there was something wrong with these writings, and that their author was a rather unperceptive panegyrist” (114). In another place, Scholem wrote that “the ardor of some other apologists for the teaching of Hasidism, like Horodezky, was essentially naïve and their writing sometimes lovely in its unaffected simplicity and sometime boring” (1961). In 1916, Scholem translated Hillel Zeitlin’s essay Shekhinah into German; however, he never published it (Schatz Uffenheimer 1993, 17, n. 10). In a letter to Rivka Schatz Uffenheimr, he wrote that although Zeitlin was one of the first authors whom he read about Hasidism, and that he made an impression on him, he did not find his essays on Kabbala to be suitable, “due to the lack of any historical feeling which predominated within” (Schatz Uffenheimer 1993, 17, n. 10). Although Scholem disapproved of the neo-​ Romantic and existentialist presentation of Kabbalah, he shared with the scholars he criticized the positive evaluation of the Kabbalah as a mystical, metaphysical, and nationally important phenomenon. He acknowledge Buber as “the first Jewish thinker who saw in mysticism a basic feature and continuously operating tendency of Judaism” (1976b, 145) and praised Zeitlin on his revealing “the enormous poetic potential in the Kabbalah” (1986, 45). He did not deny the influence these scholars had, particularly Buber, on his decision to study Kabbalah—​as recalled, his basic paradigm on the subject of Jewish mysticism and its historical development concurs with Buber’s basic assumptions, presented in the preface to Tales of Rabbi Nachman from 1906. Although Scholem rejected the neo-​Romantic enthusiasm of the Jewish intellectuals of his time, he assumed, as they did, that Jewish mysticism has relevant philosophic value in the modern age and, like these intellectuals, he strove to reveal this metaphysical-​mystical message through the study of Kabbalistic and Hasidic writings. However, contrary to their approach, he claimed that the only way to reveal the metaphysical meaning of the Kabbalah and ascertain its relevant mystical message is through strict philological-​historical research conducted from a national-​ Zionist perspective.

112  Mystifying Kabbalah

4.4.  Scholem’s Attitude toward Occultist Kabbalah Scholem expressed an even more harsh and adamant criticism toward non-​Jewish esoteric circles dealing in the Kabbalah who were active at the end of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. From the second half of the nineteenth century, there was much interest in the Kabbalah among Western esotericists and occultists. These circles presented an innovative adaptation of the Kabbalah, that the scholar of Western esotericism Wouter Hanegraaff described as “Occultist Kabbalah” (2006). Occultist Kabbalah was to a great extent based on the writings of Christian Kabbalists and on the Latin translations of Jewish Kabbalistic texts that were included in the seventeenth-​century anthology Kabbala Denudata by Christian Knorr von Rosenroth. However, in difference from Christian Kabbalah, the occultist Kabbalists of the end of the nineteenth century did not view the Kabbalah as proof of the Christian doctrines, but rather as a universal secret doctrine. The first person who dealt in the Kabbalah from an occultist outlook was Alfonse Louis Constant (1810–​1875), who went by the name Eliphas Lévi. Lévi believed that the Kabbalah is the ancient wisdom that underlies magic, alchemy, and all the other secret doctrines, and he was the first to claim that the Tarot cards bear Kabbalistic significance. He integrated numerous Kabbalistic motifs in his writings and translated portions of the Zohar into French (from the Latin translation in the Kabbalah Denudata). After he died, they were published by his follower, Gérard Encausse (1865–​1916), known as Papus, who also wrote about the Kabbalah and translated Sefer Yetzira into French. Helena Petrovna Balavatsky (1831–​1891), the founder of the Theosophical Society, was also interested in the Kabbalah and claimed that there was a secret Oriental Kabbalah that takes preference over Jewish and Christian Kabbalah (Pasi 2010, 155–​162; Chajes 2016, 33–​72). Kabbalah was central to the doctrines and practices of The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, a secret organization established in the late nineteenth century in England dealing in magic and the occult. One of the founders of the Order, Samuel Liddle MacGregor Mathers (1854–​1918), translated parts of the Zohar into English (also from the Latin translations of von Rosenroth), and another member of the Order, Arthur Edward Waite (1857–​1942), wrote several works on Kabbalah and the Zohar. The Kabbalah also filled a central role in the teaching of Aleister Crowley (1875–​1947), the controversial English occultist and magician.

“Authorized Guardians”  113 Scholem was acquainted with the Occult Kabbalists, and many of their writings are found in his library. Generally, he described them as charlatans and disparaged their writings. In the introduction to Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, he blamed the Jewish intellectuals of the Haskalah period for neglecting their role as authorized guardians of the Kabbalah and abandoning the field of Kabbalah to “charlatans and dreamers,” the likes of Eliphas Lévi and Aleister Crowley: The natural and obvious result of the antagonism of the great Jewish scholars was that, since the authorized guardians neglected this field, all manner of charlatans and dreamers came and treated it as their own property. From the brilliant misrepresentations of Alphonse Louis Constant, who has won fame under the pseudonym of Eliphas Lévi to the highly colored humbug of Aleister Crowley and his followers, the most eccentric and fantastic statements have been produced purporting to be legitimate interpretations of Kabbalism. (1971, 2)

In the entry “Kabbalah” written for the Encyclopedia Judaica, Scholem again criticizes the theosophical and occultist circles who wrote about the Kabbalah: The many books written on the subject in the 19th and 20th centuries by various theosophists and mystics lacked any basic knowledge of the sources and very rarely contributed to the field, while at times they even hindered the development of a historical approach. Similarly, the activities of French and English occultists contributed nothing and only served to create considerable confusion between the teachings of the Kabbalah and their own totally unrelated inventions, such as the alleged kabbalistic origins of Tarot cards. To this category of supreme charlatanism belong the many and widely read books of Eliphas Lévi (actually Alphonse Louis Constant; 1810–​1875), Papus (Gérard Encausse; 1868–​1919), and Frater Perdurabo (Aleister Crowley; 1875–​1946), all of whom possessed infinitesimal knowledge of Kabbalah that did not prevent them from drawing freely on their imagination instead. The comprehensive works of A.  E. Waite (The Holy Kabbalah, 1929) and P. Vulliaud, on the other hand, were essentially rather confused compilations made from secondhand sources. (1974, 203)

114  Mystifying Kabbalah A similar critique had already appeared in Scholem’s article on the Kabbalah and Alchemy, first published in 1925 (2006, 8),13 in the introduction to Bibliographia Kabbalistica (1927, xiii–​xiv), and in his lecture on Kabbalah research from Reuchlin to the present (1986, 319).14 Although Scholem disparaged the writing of the occult Kabbalists, he had some interest in them. In the passage cited earlier, he described the writings of Paul Vulliaud, an independent scholar associated with the esoteric circles in France in the early twentieth century, as “confused compilations.” Yet he dedicated two review articles to him (1925b, 1931b), and in Bibliograpia Kabbalistica he commented that Vulliaud’s book The Jewish Kabbalah was “interesting, but lacking scientific value” (1927, 157). Scholem also revealed interest in A. E. Waite`s books on Kabbalah (Waite was a member of The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn), and he published a review on his book The Holy Kabbalah (Scholem 1931a, 633–​638). Despite his harsh criticism, Scholem also found some positive elements in Waite’s work, and in Bibliographia Kabbalistica he wrote that Waite`s The Doctrine and Literature of Kabbalah and The Secret Doctrine of the Kabbalah “are some of the best books written on Kabbalah from a theosophical perspective” (1927, 158). Scholem expressed his appreciation of Waite`s intuition and his understanding of the central place of sexual symbolism in the Kabbalah and of the manner in which he treats the question of Christian influences on the Book of Zohar (1931a, 638). In the first chapter of Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, Scholem noted White and Franz Molitor as Christian scholars with mystic tendencies who revealed “real insight into the world of Kabbalism” and he also wrote: It is a pity that the fine philosophical intuition and the natural grasp of such students have lost their edge because they lacked all critical sense as to historical and philological data in this field, and therefore failed completely when they had to handle problems bearing on facts. (1971, 2)

Privately, Scholem expressed his negative appreciation of Waite in a note he scribbled on his copy of Waite`s book, The Holy Kabbalah: “Lying and deceitful book.”15 13 In his first version of this article, published in 1925, only Lévi and Papus are mentioned (1925a). 14 See Hanegraaf 2010, 108. Scholem was also familiar with books by Israel Regardie (Crowley’s formers secretary) and scribbled critical comments on the copy of his book, found in his library. See Burmistrov 2005, 27–​28. 15 Scholem’s library no. 8662; and see Burmistrov 2006, 26.

“Authorized Guardians”  115 Scholem was also familiar with the writings of Helena Blavatsky, the founder of the Theosophical Society, who also dealt in the Kabbalah.16 He described theosophy as “pseudo-​religion” (1971, 206)  (an expression he adopted from René Guénon’s book Theosophy: A History of Pseudo-​Religion, first printed in 1921) and criticized the misuse and distortion of Kabbalah in the theosophical writings of Madame Blavatsky’s circle (1980, 133). Despite this criticism, he also defended Blavatsky, although, with some irony, in a letter he sent to Joseph Blau in 1944: You are certainly too harsh on Madame Blavatsky, it is surely too much to say that the meaning of cabala has been forgotten in the “Secret Doctrine.” After all, the Lady has made a very thorough study of Knorr von Rosenroth in his English adaption, and of Franck’s “Cabale Juive.”17 She certainly knew more about cabalism than most of the other people you mention [ . . . ] I think it might be rather interesting to investigate the cabalistical ideas in their theosophical development. There is, of course, a big lot of humbug and swindle [!]‌, but, at least in Blavatsky’s writings, yet something more. (Scholem 1994, 294)

Despite his rejection of the esoteric and occultist interpretations of the Kabbalah, Scholem was in contact with several circles interested in Kabbalah from this perspective. In his biographical works, Walter Benjamin: A Tale of Friendship and From Berlin to Jerusalem, Scholem describes his meetings with members of Oscar Goldberg’s Jewish esoteric circle, whom he called “metaphysical magicians” (1980, 131, 146–​149; 1988, 117–​121, 129, 132–​ 133). Despite Scholem’s negative attitude toward Goldberg’s “schizophrenic character” and his “pseudo-​Kabbalah,” he showed interest in this circle and wrote an article on for the Encyclopedia Judaica. Scholem also mentions Goldberg as one of the Jewish scholars who transformed Kabbalistic ideas into forms of modern thought (1974, 85). Scholem also met on several occasion with Gustav Meyrink, the well-​known author who was a member of various esoteric movements including the Theosophical Society and the Golden Dawn. Scholem referred to Meyrink’s mystic novels, The Golem and 16 See Scholem’s discussion of the connection between Blavatsk`s Book of Dzyan and the Zoharic Sifra di-​Tseniutha (1971, 398–​399, n. 2). Scholem mentions there also a book by the Jewish theosophist L. A. Bosman, who was the first to suggest this connection. 17 Scholem is referring to Franck’s book La kabbale ou:  La philosophie religieuse des Hébreux Kabbalah. He probably confused it with Paul Vulliaud’s La Kabbale Juive.

116  Mystifying Kabbalah the The Green Face, as “pseudo-​Kabbalah” and described Meyrink as “a man in whom deep-​rooted mystical convictions and literarily exploited charlatanry were almost inextricably amalgamated” (1980, 133). Scholem, as we see, regarded the Western esotericists who were interested in Kabbalah as swindlers, charlatans, and pseudo-​Kabbalists. Even though he did find some positive points in a few of their writings, mainly in their positive regard of Kabbalah and in some of their “intuitions,” he denied the authenticity of their Kabbalah, because they did not belong to the Jewish Kabbalistic tradition. Furthermore, he criticized them on their lack of critical academic approach and philological-​historical expertise. The use of the terms “charlatanry” and “pseudo-​Kabbalah” stress the point that although Scholem did not offer a definition of Kabbalah, he held an essentialist notion of true Kabbalah that can be distinguished from fake Kabbalah. In his lecture on “Kabbalah Research from Reuchlin up to the Present,” he claimed that the writings of Eliphas Lévi, Papus, and Crowley do not contain even an inkling of what characterizes the religious historical phenomenon of Jewish Kabbalah (1989, 319). In his article “Alchemy and Kabbalah,” he wrote that “Many books that flaunt the word Kabbalah on their title page have nothing or practically nothing to do with it” (2006, 11). As Wouter Hanegraaff observed: “[T]‌his final sentence . . . implies that there is such a thing as the true or correctly-​understood Kabbalah and that it can be distinguished from a false or pseudo-​kabbalah, which misunderstands, and therefore distorts the truth” (Hanegraaff 2010, 108). In his article on Kabbalah research from Reuchlin to the present, Scholem discloses that his criterion for distinguishing authentic from fake Kabbala is belonging to “the religious historical phenomenon of Jewish Kabbalah.” (1989, 319). Indeed, Scholem uses the term pseudo-​Kabbalah only in regard to non-​Jewish Kabbalists. Scholem’s criticism of modern, Western esotericists who dealt in Kabbalah is directed against their inauthenticity (in other words—​not belonging to the Jewish Kabbalistic tradition) and their lack of academic criticism and philological-​historical expertise. In his opinion, these traits—​lacking among those who he regards as fake Kabbalists—​are exactly those that can be found in the school of Kabbalah research that he established. The academic research of Kabbalah, practiced by Scholem and his students, studied Kabbalah from a Jewish-​national perspective, using philological-​historical methods. As such, it was presented by Scholem as the authentic modern continuation of the Jewish Kabbalistic tradition. Following his rejection of the Western esoteric Kabbalists, which “don’t have an inkling of what characterizes Jewish

“Authorized Guardians”  117 Kabbalah,” Scholem moves on to present his school of Kabbalah research, which is conducted within a national, Zionist framework: Only in the twentieth century and more effectively after the First World War—​did the final turn (for the meantime) in the research of the Kabbalah occur, the final turn which I represent before you today. Its reasons, without a doubt, lie in the movement which set itself the goal to assist in reviving the people of Israel as a complete, vital national body. It enabled a new perspective of Jewish history [ . . . ] instead of prejudice, polemics and apologetics came an endeavor to understand the formation and development, the historical role and the social and ideological impact of the Kabbalah—​from within the internal and external powers that in their contexts, determined Jewish history. (1986, 319–​320)

4.5.  The Ideological Background of Scholem’s Criticism Scholem’s negative evaluation of Jewish Kabbalists circles of his time, his criticism of neo-​Romantics scholars’ writings on Kabbalah and his contempt of occult Kabbalists are embedded in his national theology. Scholem’s objections to contemporary forms of Kabbalah are embedded in the modernist and Orientalist presuppositions that outlined his academic research of Jewish mysticism. As we saw in the first chapter, Scholem’s interest in Kabbalah derived from the Zionist ideology he espoused during his youth in Germany. The Zionist perspective that led him to assess Jewish mysticism as the vital force that enabled the existence of Judaism in the diaspora explains his assumption that Kabbalah lost its relevance in the era of Jewish national revival. Scholem claimed that Jewish mysticism was a significant phenomenon in Jewish history during exile; he determined the beginning of Jewish mysticism in the Heichalot literature, which he believed was created in the first centuries of the Christian Era, and its conclusion, in the establishment of Yeshivat Beit El and the appearance of the Hasidic movement in the eighteenth century. As mentioned, according to his view, in the modern age the Jewish national vital force (which during the exile was expressed in Jewish mysticism) is conveyed in the Zionist, nation-​building enterprise. The modernist Zionist approach of Scholem’s research took shape within the framework of the Orientalist discourse of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century (Anidjar 1996, 114–​118; Raz Krakotzkin 1999, 49–​52;

118  Mystifying Kabbalah Biale 2001, 107–​110). David Biale, in his discussion of the complexities of Jewish treatments of the Orient, argued that “Jewish orientalism, as opposed to non-​Jewish, involved constructing an object which was also in some sense ostensibly one’s self, the subject that was doing the constructing” (2001, 88). Amnon Raz-​Krakotzkin observed the ambivalent stance of Zionism toward the Orient: “In a seemingly paradoxical way, the departure of the Jews from Europe and the establishment of a Jewish settlement in the East were a basis for integration in the West, and for defining the Jews as a European nation” (1999, 44). It was in this ideological framework that Scholem decided to emigrate to Palestine and dedicate himself to the study of Kabbalah. His emigration to Palestine, as well as his choice to study Jewish mysticism, was for him, a turn, or rather a return, to the Orient. Both Judaism and mysticism were defined in Western European discourse at the time as Oriental categories (Mendes-​Flohr 1991, 77–​132; Anidjar 1996, 113–​118; Raz-​Krakotzkin 1999, 37–​40). As with many Jewish intellectuals of his time, Scholem’s turn to the East involved an Orientalist ambivalence of attraction and repulsion, fascination and disdain; the East was perceived simultaneously as exotic and withered, as authentic and faltering. In assigning enormous importance to Jewish mysticism as an historical phenomenon while spurning its present-​ day manifestation, Scholem displayed a characteristically Orientalist stance that exalts the East as a source of archaic and authentic knowledge but perceives the Oriental present as fossilized, degenerate, and backward. Raz-​Krakotzkin highlighted the connections between Hebraism, the study of Hebrew and Jewish literature by Christian scholars and theologians in the early modern period, and the rise of Orientalist studies at the same period in Europe. According to Raz-​Krakotzkin, the Hebraist perspective differentiated between aspects of Jewish literature, which were perceived as authentic and as expressions of ancient truth, and the conduct of contemporary Jews, which was perceived as alien and threatening to European Christian culture. The images ascribed to the Jews in this context were similar to those ascribed to Orientals, in Orientalist discourse (Raz-​Krakotzkin 1999, 39). Raz-​Krakotzkin has argued further that the Hebraist ambivalence toward the Jews was adopted by modern Jewish scholarship: “Hebraism was founded on the assumption that Hebrew literature contains and authentic knowledge, which the Jews themselves cannot really understand. Hebraist scholars created the perspective, the terminology, and the basic literature of later modern Jewish discourse and modern Jewish studies” (2015, 285–​286). Indeed, as we have seen, Gershom Scholem expressed the same ambivalent stance toward

“Authorized Guardians”  119 Kabbalah and its contemporary manifestations. Tellingly, Scholem presented his own academic research of Kabbalah as a continuation of the Christian Hebraists project, specifically that of Johannes Reuchlin (1455–​1522), the Christian Kabbalist from the Renaissance period: If I believed in reincarnation, I could possibly be drawn to think that in the new framework of today’s research, the soul of Johannes Reuchlin’s—​the first scholar of the language and world of Judaism, and particularly of the Kabbalah, the person who some five hundred years ago begot the science of Judaism in Europe—​has reincarnated within me. (Scholem 1986, 309)

Both mysticism and Judaism were regarded in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as manifestly “Oriental” categories. In this framework Scholem assumed an inherent connection of Jewish mysticism to the East. The origins of Kabbalah were according to Scholem, gnostic elements that reached Europe from the Orient: “the gnostic material of Oriental origin in the Book Bahir, once it was received and adopted by a circle of religiously agitated and productive men, amply suffices to explain the inner development of Kabbalah, up to, and including, the Zohar” (1991, 90). The last significant developments of Jewish mysticism occurred, according to Scholem in the eighteenth-​century Middle East, with the establishment of Yehsivat Beit El in Jerusalem, and in East Europe, with the appearance of Hasidism, which he perceived as “the latest phase” of Jewish mysticism. After the “latest phase,” the creative force of Jewish mysticism turned, according to Scholem, in a totally different direction—​that is, toward the Jewish Enlightenment movement and from there to Zionism, the final stage in the dialectic development of the Jewish mystical spirit (Biale 1979, 162–​163; Raz-​Krakotzkin 1996, 132). Cultural phenomena that did not take part in this process—​including the Kabbalistic and Hasidic currents of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that flourished in the Middle East, North Africa, and Eastern Europe—​were relegated, in Scholem’s view, to the margins of Jewish history. The Kabbalah of his day, which continued as a living tradition in Hasidic circles and among oriental Jewish communities, was described by Scholem in terms of preservation and degeneration: “One can find in this generation a continuation of earlier forms, in the sense of a precious living heritage, or one which has degenerated but nevertheless continues to exist in its external forms, even though it has lost its soul” (1997, 11). This outlook of Scholem and his school on Jewish mysticism fit in with

120  Mystifying Kabbalah the negative attitude of the hegemonic secular Zionist stance in Israeli society toward bearers of Kabbalisic and Hasidic traditions and avatars of “diasporisem”—​mizrachi (Oriental) emigrants from Islamic countries and haredim (ultra-​orthodox) of Eastern European origins. Alongside the legitimacy that Kabbalah research granted “Jewish mysticism,” it also justified the relegation of the bearers of this tradition to the margins of Israeli society. Scholem’s Zionist perspective regarded the Kabbalah as a significant factor in the Judaism’s past history, which lost its historical role in the present. From this point of view, claimed Arthur Herzberg (using the same expression Scholem used regarding the scholars of Judaism that preceded him), Scholem was preparing a “dignified burial” for the Kabbalah: “Scholem was quite clearly re-​evoking these fascinating shades but ultimately, to use the language of his charge against the scholars of the Wissenschaft school, in order to bury them with due respect. It was part of the Jewish past, the present was Zionism” (1987, 199). Scholem determined that not only Jewish mysticism, rather mysticism in general, ceased to exist as a significant phenomenon in the modern world: “It is clear that in recent generations there have been no awakenings of individuals leading to new forms of mystical teachings or to significant movements in public life. This applies equally well to Judaism, Christianity and Islam” (1997, 6). This perception is embedded in a modernist perspective, which believes that the process of secularization leads to a necessary decline of religion in the modern world. Scholem opined that traditional Kabbalah could not be the significant cultural factor in the secular world, in which the belief in divine revelation cannot be entertained: This view was the culmination of the position of the Kabbalists in the earlier generations, and it was that which opened the gates to mysticism. There was an absolute belief here in something, but for many of us that very thing was a tremendous obstacle, if not an absolute obstacle. We do not believe in Torah from heaven [ . . . ]. It is this stumbling block which stands in the way of the formulation today of a Jewish mysticism bearing public significance. (15)

According to Scholem, the stumbling block for the formulation of a significant form of Jewish mysticism in his generation was the impossibility of belief in the Torah as divine revelation. His claim that “all of us today may to a great extent be considered anarchists regarding religious matters” (16) clarifies his modern perspective: he believes in the victory of the secularization

“Authorized Guardians”  121 process and is certain that traditional forms of religion are slowly losing their public significance in the modern world. Yet, despite his rejecting the relevance of Kabbalah and Hasidism of his time and denying the existence of significant mystical expressions in his generation, Scholem believed in the possibility of a continuation and revival of the Jewish mystical spirit. He believed that a continuation of the spirit of Jewish mysticism exists in Kafka’s literary works, in the Zionist undertaking of nation building, and in the philological-​historical research of Kabbalah conducted by him and his disciples in the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Scholem concluded his book Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism with the famous statement that the secret life of Jewish mysticism can break out tomorrow “in you or in me” (1974, 350). In these words Scholem reveals his assumption that the revival of Jewish mysticism could happen within his own reference group (“in you or in me”) and not in “them”—​the traditional Kabbalistic circles. In his article “On the Possibility of Jewish Mysticism in Our Time,” he raises the possibility that mysticism will not return and appear in the traditional garb, rather from within “the sanctums” of secularity: Perhaps mysticism will be revealed, not in the traditional garb of holiness . . . Perhaps holiness will be revealed within the innermost sanctums of this secularity, and the traditional concepts fail to recognize mysticism in its new forms? Perhaps this type of mysticism will not fit into the conservative traditional conceptions of the mystics, but will have a secular significance. One should note that this idea to which I am now alluding is not pulled out of thin air; there are those who see in the secularity of our lives and the rebuilding of the nation a reflection of the mystical significance of the secret of the world. (1997, 17–​18)

In these words, Scholem suggests that the Zionist national revival could be the secular expression of the Jewish mystical spirit. Scholem claimed that the creative element of Jewish mysticism, which in the period of the exile was expressed in Kabbalah, is presently invested in the Zionist undertaking of building the nation: It is a basic fact that the creative element, drawing upon the authentic consciousness of this generation, has been invested in secular forms of building. This building or reconstruction of the life of the nation was and still is difficult, demanding energies of both will and execution, leaving little

122  Mystifying Kabbalah room for productive expression of traditional forms. This power includes much that would under different circumstances have been invested in the world of religious mysticism. This power has now been invested in things which are seemingly bereft of religious sanctity but are entirely secular, the most secular thing imaginable. (17)

As recalled, despite Scholem’s rejecting the relevance of Kabbalah in his period, he indicated several forms of Jewish mysticism of the time that he found to be interesting. He attributed great importance to Rabbi Kook and viewed him as the “last example of productive Kabbalistic thought” (Scholem 1971, 354, n17). Scholem’s positive evaluation of Rabbi Kook is embedded in his modern and national perspective. He assigns positive value to Kook’s mysticism because of the latter’s commitment of Zionism, his affinity to the world of European philosophy, and to his willingness to acknowledge the sanctity in the secular (Raz-​Krakotzkin 1999, 225–​227). Yet, notwithstanding his positive appreciation, Scholem claimed that the commitment of Kook (as well as of other Jewish mystics of his time) to the principle of “Torah from Heaven” prevents his mysticism from bearing public significance (1997, 15). Scholem also expressed a romantic stance, which views literature and art as the modern expressions of religiosity. He believed that the continuation of the Jewish mystical spirit could be found in contemporary secular literature. Scholem concluded his reflections on the possibility of Jewish mysticism in his time, with a reference to the “feeling of the absolute sanctity of the absolute secular” of Walt Whitman’s poetry. Whitman, according to Scholem, is a striking example of the embodiment of the mystical experience in naturalistic and secular forms of consciousness (1997, 18). In Scholem’s eyes, Franz Kafka was such a modern successor of the Jewish mystical spirit. Scholem concluded his essay “Ten Unhistorical Aphorisms on Kabbalah” as follows: “For in a uniquely lofty way, Kafka provided expression to the boundary between religion and nihilism. Therefore, for many readers in our day his writings—​which are representations in secular terms of a Kabbalistic sense of the world (which he himself did not know)—​have something of the demanding light of the canonical, of the variegated whole” (Biale 1985, 88).18 In his lecture “My Path to Kabbalah” delivered in 1974 to the Bavarian Art Society, Scholem asserted that the three texts that reflect the spirit of Judaism 18 Scholem expressed a similar opinion in his letter to Salman Schocken, from 1937 (Biale 1985, 88).

“Authorized Guardians”  123 are the Bible, the Zohar, and the writing of Kafka (1986, 304). This definition of the Jewish canon is the most succinct formulation of Scholem’s understanding of Judaism. According to Scholem, the continuation of Jewish mysticism is found not only in literature but also in the academic research of Jewish mysticism, conducted from a Zionist perspective. As David Biale asserted, Scholem viewed the academic research of Kabbalah as the modern heir of the Kabbalistic tradition: “Scholem therefore sees the Kabbalists as his precursors and Kabbalistic theology as the precursor of his theological anarchism—​but they are not the same. Modern historiography is a new development in the history of commentary in which the Kabbalah was an earlier stage” (1979, 102). Similarly, Andreas Kilcher claimed, the modern scholarly discourse on Kabbalah, in Scholem’s eyes, is the modern continuation of Kabbalah: “Here, modern discourse on Kabbalah becomes modern discourse of Kabbalah and philology in turn becomes the modern kabbalistic activity par excellence: transmission” (2010, 24–​26).

4.6.  Modern-​Day Kabbalah Scholars and Contemporary Kabbalah As we saw in the previous chapter, Scholem’s pupils and successors accepted his understanding regarding the theological significance of Kabbalah research, and they view themselves as guardians of the Kabbalistic tradition in our time and as its authorized interpreters. Although there is growing interest of scholars in more recent developments of Kabbalah and Hasidism,19 many contemporary researchers still reject the authenticity of contemporary Kabbalistic movements and deny their relevance to the study of Jewish mysticism. Nonetheless, there are significant differences between Scholem’s approach to Kabbalah of his time and that of the new scholars of Jewish mysticism to contemporary Kabbalah. These differences are related to the changes in the public image of Kabbalah in recent years and to the new research trends, which were reviewed in the previous chapter. The rejection of Scholem’s metanarrative regarding the national and historical role of Kabbalah by the new generation of scholars allowed for more attention to be given to modern

19

See, for instance, Myers 2007; Garb 2009; Idel 2010; Meir 2016; Reiser 2018.

124  Mystifying Kabbalah and contemporary forms of Kabbalah. At the same time, some scholars perceive academic studies of Kabbalah and Hasidism as means for a Jewish spiritual revival, and they advocate the integration of spiritual experiential study and academic research. This approach positions academic scholarship of Jewish mysticism in competition with other neo-​Kabbalistic and neo-​Hasidic groups, who challenge the scholar’s position as authoritative guardian and interpreter of Jewish mysticism. As we will see in the following, the scholars’ critique of modern Kabbalah is based on the theological framework of Kabbalah scholarship, and it highlights the self-​perception of the academic scholars as the legitimate modern interpreters of the Kabbalistic and Hasidic traditions. As we saw in the previous chapter, the new Kabbalah scholarship broke out of the chronological borders of Jewish mysticism that Scholem delineated. The new scholars challenged Scholem’s presupposition that Jewish mysticism played a significant historical role only in the Jewish exile, and not in the modern period. Lately some scholars have directed their attention to the later developments of Kabbalah and Hasidism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, such as the Kabbalah of the Vilna Gaon and his disciples, the Kabbalat of Beit El and the doctrines of Rabbi Kook and Rabbi Ashlag. Scholars have also turned their attention toward some contemporary Kabbalistic and Hasidic movements. Nonetheless, Scholem’s perception that Hasidism was the last significant stage of Jewish mysticism is still accepted by many scholars.20 The study of modern and contemporary Kabbalah still remains in the margins of Kabbalah research. Many of the studies on later forms of Kabbalah and Hasidism are conducted by scholars from other disciplines (Huss 2011, 357–​361). In the 1980s, old and new Kabbalistic and Hasidic groups became active and the interest in Kabbalah became prevalent in Israel and the Western world. Kabbalistic schools and Hasidic movements broadened their activities, neo-​ Kabbalistic and neo-​ Hasidic groups were established, and Kabbalistic and Hasidic motifs were integrated in popular culture. Some of the new Kabbalistic and Hasidic groups won considerable public attention, both in Israel and around the world—​for example, the Kabbalah Center founded by Philip Berg (with whom Madonna, as well as some 20 See, for example, Idel’s assertion that Hasidism is the last significant stage in the development of Jewish mysticism (1999b, 36; 2002a, 12). It is interesting to note that a collection of Scholem’s studies on Hasidism, edited by David Assaf and Esther Liebes, was titled “Latest Phase: Essays on Hasidism” (Scholem 2008).

“Authorized Guardians”  125 other celebrities were affiliated); the Bnei Baruch movement established by Michael Laitman; the Kabbalist Yaakov Israel Ifargan, known as Ha-​Rentgen (“the x-​ray”); Rabbi Yitzchak Kaduri; the Habad movement under the leadership of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson; and various neo-​Breslov Hasidic groups. The activity of these groups is to a great extent integrated in contemporary New Age culture, and some of their cultural products and Kabbalistic practices have distinct postmodern characteristics (Huss 2007c). Although some scholars, of diverse disciplines, turned to study modern Kabbalistic and Hasidic movements in the past decades (Huss 2011), many scholars of Jewish mysticism show a negative, polemic, and disparaging stance toward some of these new trends. This approach is quite similar to Gershom Scholem’s critique of occultist circles who dealt in Kabbalah in the beginning of the twentieth century. The aspiration of Kabbalah scholars to highlight the difference between themselves and modern Kabbalists and to invalidate the authenticity of contemporary Kabbalistic groups comes to the fore in an article by the journalist Sarit Fuchs, who in 1986 interviewed one of the prominent Israeli scholars of Jewish mysticism, Prof. Joseph Dan. In her article, Fuchs describes Dan’s feelings on modern-​day Kabbalists: There is a distinct tendency on the part of academic scholars of Kabbalah in the academia to appeal to their scientific rigor in order to place a clear divide between themselves and the sects of humbugs, who in Professor Dan’s opinion, tend to be boors and ignoramuses, who clothe themselves in a mantle of Kabbalistic pretensions. The populism of Kabbalah—​which does not exist among genuine Kabbalists, who in fact tend to conceal their studies—​infuriates Professor Dan. In his eyes it is a monstrous perversion of Jewish spirituality, dissociated from the 613 commandments, and seriously distorting Kabbalah’s historical nature which has always been anchored in a life filled with the study of Torah and observance of the commandments. These religious sects, which speak of “pure spiritual life” or “mystical contemplation of reality,” who came here from California, are offering the masses a drug for fraudulent happiness. (Fuchs 1986, 25)

According to this report, the guardians of authentic Kabbalah are academic scholars with scientific rigor and “genuine” Kabbalists who tend to conceal their studies (nota bene: the genuine Kabbalists are also presented as dealing in the research of Kabbalah). The scholars and “genuine” Kabbalists protect Kabbalah from the California sectarian humbugs, who distort

126  Mystifying Kabbalah Jewish spirituality and the true historical essence of Kabbalah. In his critique on contemporary Kabbalists (whom he does not identify), Dan adopts the approach of Orthodox Jewish circles, which reject the authenticity of Kabbalistic movements that do not require observance of the commandments as a condition to studying Kabbalah. His critique of the populism of modern Kabbalah is also based on the traditional image of the Kabbalah as restricted and esoteric knowledge (a position, that in fact, many traditional Kabbalists rejected). Dan criticizes his unidentified opponents for speaking about “pure spiritual life” and “mystical contemplation of reality.” Presumably, he accepts Gershom Scholem’s assertion that in the modern world authentic mysticism no longer exists, and thus scorns the spirituality and the mysticism of Kabbalists of his time, which he considers to be “a drug of fraudulent happiness.” Similar criticism was voiced by Moshe Idel when in an interview for the IDF magazine Bamahane described the popularization of Kabbalah in the 1980s as a “crude simplification, perhaps even fabrication, an exploitation of the interest of the public, which is in a state of spiritual crisis” (Bar Yoseph 1989, 24). Another prominent Israeli Kabbalah scholar, Moshe Hallamish, of Bar-​Ilan University, opened his book Introduction to Kabbalah with a polemic aside against modern-​day Kabbalists: In this day and age [ . . . ] the widespread fascination with the world of mysticism and the yearning to get to know it more intimately are quite remarkable. Unfortunately, these pursuits have produced some side effects that are inherently dangerous or smell of pure charlatanism. Also in Israel, various institutions and courses have appeared in recent years that “sell” kabbalah to all who ask. (1991, 7; 1999, vii)21

A critique of contemporary forms of Kabbalah was also voiced by the leading American theologian and scholar of Jewish mysticism, Arthur Green, who in his Guide to the Zohar expressed his reservations about what he regards as the trivial and faddish elements of the contemporary interest in Kabbalah in the Western World: “Our age has seen a great turn toward sources of wisdom neglected by two or three centuries of modernity [ . . . ]. Recently interest in the Zohar and Kabbalah has emerged as part of this trend. As it is true of all other wisdoms examined in the course of this broad cultural phenomenon,

21 The last sentence appears only in the Hebrew version of the book.

“Authorized Guardians”  127 the interest in Kabbalah includes both serious and trivial or “faddist” elements (Green 2004, 186). Joseph Dan offered a more detailed polemic against contemporary Kabbalists. In the introduction to his anthology of Jewish mystical experiences, The Heart and the Fountain he writes: Kabbalah has become a meaningful component of the various New Age sects and views that began to spread several decades ago and seem to be a dominant force in the emerging culture of the new century. It is being united with astrology and alchemy, with Zen Buddhism and Hinduism, as well as with the multitude of schools of “alternative medicine” that are becoming a new dominant religion. Circles studying “Kabbalah” have spread throughout the Western world from Los Angeles to Berlin; hundreds of books of New Age lore are published including Kabbalah in their titles, and thousands of such locations are spread throughout the Internet. Nothing of the authentic Hebrew Kabbalah was retained during his process. Needless to say, most of the perpetrators of this phenomenon have no knowledge of Hebrew and no access to the original sources of the Kabbalah. (2002, 48)

Dan’s sneering critique of New Age Kabbalah is reminiscent of Scholem’s polemics against the occult Kabbalah of his time. Like Scholem, Dan regards contemporary Kabbalists as inauthentic and criticizes their insufficient knowledge of traditional Kabbalistic sources. However, in difference from Scholem, who used the term “pseudo-​Kabbalah” to describe only non-​ Jewish esoteric circles, Dan accuses also Jewish neo-​Kabbalists of charlatanism and lack of authenticity. At the close of his discussion on Christian Kabbalah, Dan explicitly accuses the new Kabbalistic movements in Israel of adopting Christian perceptions of the Kabbalah: “In the Israeli public today, the concept of Kabbalah is used according to the way it was formulated in the Christian Kabbalah in Europe and in its modern branches. The Hebrew term in its original meaning is used today only by a few scholars of this field. Indeed, it is in Israel that the Christian Kabbalah gained its most significant victory over traditional Jewish Kabbalah” (2005b, 71).22 In other words, in Dan’s opinion, only a few academic scholars of Kabbalah maintain the original Hebrew meanings of the term while the Israeli public, including modern Kabbalistic circles, hold to a new form of inauthentic, Christian Kabbalah. As an example of inauthenticity of contemporary Kabbalah, Dan refers to

22 This passage appears only in the Hebrew translation of Dan’s anthology.

128  Mystifying Kabbalah Philip Berg, the founder of the Kabbalah Center, the largest contemporary Kabbalistic movement today: “A distressing example of this phenomenon is the vast enterprise of ‘kabbalistic’ publications initiated and directed by ‘kabbalist Rav Berg.’ Originally he based his teachings on the work of one of the last authentic Kabbalists of the twentieth century, Rabbi Ashlag [ . . . ]. It was heartbreaking to observe how this authentic enterprise deteriorated into New Age mishmash of nonsense” (2002, 285).23 As we saw earlier, in the passage cited at the beginning of this chapter, Dan’s criticism of contemporary Kabbalah is not limited to the New Age formation of Kabbalah and to its popularization in Western culture. Dan’s critique is also aimed against the renewed awakening of the public interest in traditional Kabbalistic practices in Israel. In the category of inauthentic Kabbalah, he also includes the writing of amulets and the celebrations at the tombs saints, in which he asserts, “the popular quest for heroes, saints, and healers is sometimes commercialized and used or abused by imposters” (42). Arthur Green also described in a patronizing and Orientalist tone the awakening of interest in Kabbalah in Israel, which according to his view began following the 1967 and 1973 wars: It is manifest in the growth of kabbalistic Yeshivot, or academies; by the publication of many new editions of kabbalistic works; and by a campaign of public outreach intended to spread the teaching of Kabbalah more broadly. This new emphasis on Kabbalah is partly due to the reassertion of pride in the Sephardic heritage, where Kabbalah has an important place. It is also in part related to the difficult and trying times through which Israel has lived, resulting in both a resurgence of Messianism and a turn to “practical Kabbalah,” a longstanding part of Near Eastern Judaism, as a source of protection against enemies and hope of victory over them. (2004, 186–​187)

Green’s concludes his discussion of contemporary Kabbalah with a disparaging comment in which he too rejects the authenticity of some of today’s representations of Kabbalah: “Some versions of what is preferred as “Kabbalah” today can be described only as highly debased renditions of the

23 The second example Dan gives is of Zeev ben Shimon Halevi: “Another distressing phenomenon is connected with the numerous books concerning Kabbalah, its history, nature and traditions, as instructions for modern living, published by Ze’ev ben Shimon Halevi, who is a nice English gentleman from Hampstead who does not know any Hebrew.”

“Authorized Guardians”  129 original teaching and include large elements of folk religion that have little to do with actual kabbalistic teachings” (187). The recurring message of the academic scholars is the denial of the authenticity of contemporary Kabbalists. The use of the term “charlatanism,” the degrading quotation marks surrounding the word “Kabbalists,” and the description of their doctrines as “distortion,” “debased renditions,” and “monstrous perversion” present contemporary Kabbalah as “pseudo-​Kabbalah,” a term Scholem used in his time to describe Kabbalah of his age. However, Scholem used his term when speaking about non-​Jewish, Western and esoteric circles, while today’s Kabbalah scholars use similar rhetoric when speaking also of Jewish Kabbalistic circles. As we saw, Joseph Dan explicitly accuses the modern Kabbalistic circles that they are not dealing in authentic Jewish Kabbalah but rather in a type of Christian Kabbalah.

4.7. Authorized Guardians In the polemic passages quoted earlier, academic scholars repeatedly juxtapose contemporary Kabbalists, who are described as charlatans who deal with pseudo-​Kabbalah, with professional Kabbalists, who study genuine, authentic Kabbalah. According to the scholars, the professionals include the “true” Kabbalists of the past, possibly some “authentic,” but usually unnamed contemporary Kabbalists, and primarily, the academic scholars themselves. As the journalist Sarit Fuchs observed, Kabbalah scholars aspire to put a clear divide between the boors and ignoramuses, who clothe themselves in a mantle of Kabbalistic pretensions, and the scholars, who study Kabbalah with scientific rigor (Fuchs 1986, 25). Joseph Dan, in a passage quoted earlier, claimed that among the Israeli public the concept of Kabbalah is used according to its Christian meaning, and only a few Kabbalah scholars use the Hebrew term in its original meaning. In a review of Moshe Idel’s book Messianic Mystics, the American scholar Allen Nadler positions Idel’s erudite studies on the “profundity of Jewish Mysticism,” in contrast to the “abuses of Kabbalah learning” of contemporary Kabbalists: the recent emergence of numerous mystical charlatans who are peddling a deeply distorted version of Judaism’s most profound spiritual teachings to rich and famous Jews and non-​Jews, from rock singers to Hollywood stars.

130  Mystifying Kabbalah The most dangerous of these trendy purveyors of “Jewish mysticism” is the Kabbalah Learning Centre, an organization whose goal is to transform Kabbalah from esoteric theosophical teachings into a vehicle for New Age healing. [ . . . ] In light of the contemporary abuses of kabbalistic learning, the erudite studies by the prolific Israeli scholar Moshe Idel are a reassuring reminder of the real seriousness, breadth and profundity of Jewish mysticism. (Nadler 1999, 1)

As we saw earlier, Arthur Green argued in his book A Guide to the Zohar—​which he wrote as an introduction to Daniel Matt’s translation of the Zohar—​against what he presents as the contemporary debased renditions of genuine Kabbalah. In the concluding paragraph of the book, he suggests to the modern-​day reader to turn instead to Matt’s translation, and to his own guide, who will help them find the more authentic and profound aspects of the holy Zohar: “It is certain, however, that the Zohar will continue to find a place in the hearts of the new readers, some of whom will turn to the more authentic and profound aspects of its teachings. It is hoped that these readers will be helped and guided by this Guide as they turn to study the holy Zohar in its most recent translation and commentary” (Green 2004, 187). Similarly, Or N. Rose presents some of the academic scholars of Kabbalah as spiritual teachers and authorized interpreters (and censurers!) of Kabbalah in the modern era. In his article “Madonna’s Challenge:  Understanding Kabbalah Today,” he juxtaposes the Kabbalah Center and other “swindlers, novices and fundamentalists” with the “well educated and sensitive interpreters of this tradition”: Thankfully, there is a small, but growing cadre of American and Israeli religious teachers and scholars, such as Daniel Matt, Arthur Green, Melilah Hellner-​Eshed, Havivah Pedayah, and Elliot Wolfson, who are engaging in the thoughtful exploration of the classical teaching of Kabbalah, asking what of this ancient tradition remains compelling to seekers today, and what is better left aside. (Rose 2004, 24)

Matt Goldish, in his discussion of Rose’s polemics against the Kabbalah Center, wondered “why is Berg, a Rabbi and traditionally trained Kabbalist, perceived as a fraud, while these scholars are seen as reliable teachers of Kabbalah” (2005, 63). Goldish’s answer, in his article “Kabbalah, Academia and Authenticity” is that “academics are now near the forefront of popular

“Authorized Guardians”  131 Kabbalah as a part of Jewish religious practice” (64). He argues that their polemics is part of an ongoing debate among different Kabbalah factions regarding the proper reconciliation between Kabbalah and modernity (67). As Goldish discerned, the debate between academic scholars and modern Kabbalists indicates that the academic research of Jewish mysticism became a modern trend of Kabbalah, which competes with other contemporary schools on the authentic interpretation of the Kabbalah. The polemics are an expression of the ideological and theological stance of the academic study of Jewish mysticism. As we have seen, Kabbalah scholars regard their research as a way to reveal the relevant metaphysical truths of Kabbalah and to spiritually revive Judaism. Academic scholars, similar to other contemporary fractions of Kabbalah, strive to determine the symbolic value of Kabbalah and to control its growing cultural capital in the modern world. The harsh, disparaging polemics of the academic scholars is intended to distinguish themselves from Kabbalah practitioners outside of the academia, to undermine their rivals’ legitimacy and authenticity, and to establish their own position as the authorized guardians of the authentic Jewish Kabbalistic tradition and as its legitimate successors.

5 The Mystification of Kabbalah Abraham Abulafia in Contemporary Kabbalah

5.1.  Introduction Chava Aima, the founder and director of the Enlightened Life Sanctuary in Austin, Texas, and creator of “Alchemical Yoga,” published a few years ago on her website: For nearly 20 years I have studied and practiced the divine philosophies of Kabbalah, Hermetic Arts and Sciences, Alchemy, and Rosicrucianism from the West, and Advaita, Kundalini and Tantra yoga from the East . . . The Kabbalistic tradition which I  have found most useful in moving toward divine consciousness is Ecstatic Kabbalah, founded by Rabbi Abraham Abulafia. The core methods found in Ecstatic Kabbalah are similar in many ways to visual meditative techniques used by saints, sages, and mystics throughout the world. Rabbi Abulafia (1240–​1291) was a holy man and prophet who lived in Spain and Italy, and traveled widely. He taught the sacred science of divine realization to students of all religions. The Rabbi attained union with the Divine Self through specific ecstatic practices, and proclaimed, “I am the messiah,” indicating his loss of identity with the personality and his absorption into fully divine consciousness.1

The words of Chava Aima indicate that Kabbalah is accepted today, unequivocally, as a mystical system and that Abraham Abulafia’s ecstatic Kabbalah became part of the repertoire of the contemporary esoteric and New Age movements. Aima describes the Kabbalistic method of the thirteenth-​ century Kabbalist from Spain as a meditative technique similar to those used by mystics in various cultures and periods. She takes it for granted that the methods of the late medieval Jewish Kabbalist led to a mystical union with 1 This was published on Aima’s expired website “Alchemical Yoga.” Mystifying Kabbalah. Boaz Huss, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190086961.001.0001

The Mystification of Kabbalah  133 the “divine self ” and absorption into fully divine consciousness. She emphasized the universalism of Abulafia, who, she asserts, taught divine realization to students of all religions. Although Aima’s rhetoric differs from that of academic Kabbalah scholars, their basic assumptions are similar. As they do, she also assumes that the Kabbalah is a mystical method that uses techniques similar to those practices in other mystical traditions and that is intended to lead to a union with the divine self and absorption into the divine consciousness. There is no doubt that Aima’s opinions on the nature of Kabbalah, and the way in which she shaped her neo-​Kabbalistic practices, are based on the academic research paradigm of Jewish mysticism. Her knowledge of Rabbi Abraham Abulafia’s methods is based (directly or indirectly) on the academic research of the Kabbalah that discovered Abraham Abulafia (who was rejected from the traditional Jewish Kabbalistic canon) and constructed him as the ideal Jewish mystic. This chapter will examine how the application of the category of “mysticism” to Kabbalah and Hasidism channeled the directions of the academic study of Kabbalah and how it shaped contemporary practices of Kabbalah and its public image. In the previous chapter we observed that some of the modern Kabbalistic movements remained outside the scope of what was considered as genuine Jewish mysticism and were largely ignored in Kabbalah scholarship. In this chapter we will see how the categorization of Kabbalah as Jewish mysticism directed scholarship to emphasize doctrines and practices that were compatible with the modern perception of mysticism. Thus, scholars found much interest in reports of visions, ascents to the celestial realms, and union with the Divine, and they assumed that mystical ecstatic experiences underlie Kabbalistic and Hasidic texts, even when the texts themselves do not mention such experiences. The chapter will focus especially on the way that the modern hegemonic perception of Kabbalah as “Jewish mysticism” created an increasing interest in the writings of the thirteenth-​century Jewish writer Abraham Abulafia and how this Kabbalist, who was disparaged by his contemporaries, became today the Jewish mystic par excellence. I will examine the influence of the academic research of Jewish mysticism on the public image of Kabbalah and on the formation of modern-​day Kabbalistic doctrines and practices. We will see how Abraham Abulafia became a contemporary Kabbalistic cultural hero, despite the fact that his writings were rejected from the central currents of Jewish Kabbalah.

134  Mystifying Kabbalah

5.2.  The Mystification of the Kabbalah As we saw in the previous chapters, in the second half of the nineteenth century, Jewish scholars adopted from Christian Kabbalists and theosophists the concept of Kabbalah as “mystical theology.” These scholars, who came from the circles of the Jewish Enlightenment, and were integrated within the European culture, considered Kabbalah, Hasidism, and some other forms of Jewish knowledge as mystical phenomena. They accepted the previous “enlightened” perception of Kabbalah as irrational and Oriental knowledge; however, from their national and romantic perspective, they viewed these alleged attributes of the Kabbalah as positive characteristics of the Jewish national spirit. The term mysticism, which they used to describe Kabbalah and Hasidism, designated for them a subjective and private experience of direct contact with God. The term Jewish mysticism became gradually more prevalent, until it finally became the main category for the description and study of Kabbalah. The conceptualization of Kabbalah and Hasidism as mystical phenomena dictated the ways in which these cultural formations are taught and studied in the academia up to the present. Despite the new perspectives and directions of contemporary Kabbalah research, the basic assumption that established the field of study, namely, that the Kabbalah is the Jewish expression of a universal mystical phenomenon, is still accepted today. Following this assumption, scholars emphasize the ecstatic foundations of the Kabbalah and assume that main cultural products and practices of Kabbalah and Hasidism are based on mystical experiences or are intended to achieve them. Gershom Scholem accepted the assumption that personal ecstatic experiences underlie mysticism. Although he asserted that there is more in mysticism than just the personal experience, he assumed that such an experience lies at its core: “it would be a mistake to assume that the whole of what we call mysticism is identical with that personal experience which is realized in the state of ecstasy or ecstatic meditation. Mysticism, as an historical phenomenon, comprises much more than this experience, that lies at its root” (Scholem 1971, 5). The same mystical experience, underlies, according to Scholem, the various stages of Jewish mysticism, from the ancient Merkabah mystics to the east European Hasidic movement: “A great distance separates these old Jewish Gnostics from the Hasidic mystics [ . . . ] And yet, it is the same experience which both are trying to express in different ways” (5). Even

The Mystification of Kabbalah  135 though he recognized that autobiographic descriptions of revelations and encounters with the Divine are rare in Kabbalistic literature, he assumed that experiences of mystical encounters underlie all Kabbalistic literature. Yet the Kabbalists disguised their personal experience and preferred to describe the divine objects of their contemplations in an impersonal way, “by burning, as it were, the ships behind them” (Scholem 1971, 16). As we saw in Chapter 3, the new Kabbalah scholars of the late twentieth century placed a larger emphasis than that of Scholem on the mystical aspect of Kabbalah. These scholars criticized Scholem for emphasizing the theological and theoretical elements of Kabbalah more than its experiential aspects. Moshe Idel blamed Scholem for overstressing:  “the importance of the speculative over the mystical; Kabbalistic symbolism is envisaged as a way to penetrate the texts and to understand the divine structure, rather than as a path of experiencing the divinely revealed texts” (1988, 14). Idel assumes that theoretical Kabbalistic literature had one main purpose—​to guide humans toward the mystical experience: “this theoretical literature served more as a map than as speculative description. Maps, as we know, are intended to enable a person to fulfill a journey; for the Kabbalists the mystical experience was such a journey. Though I cannot assert that every ‘theoretical’ work served such a use, this seems to have been the main purpose of the greatest part of this literature” (47). Arthur Green raised a similar claim when he said: “The essence of Kabbalah lies in the inner life of its devotees and the nature of their contemplative efforts rather than in the ideas or even the symbols they produce” (1990). Moshe Idel distinguished between two main trends in Kabbalah—​the theosophical-​theurgical and the ecstatic (1988, xi). He emphasized the importance of the mystical elements in the ecstatic trend and dedicated many studies to Abraham Abulafia, who was considered its characteristic representative. Other scholars disagreed with Idel’s distinction between the two trends and emphasized the mystical foundations of the theosophic-​theurgical trend, especially, of Sefer ha-​Zohar. As mentioned in Chapter 3, Arthur Green claimed that the “unwillingness to see the theosophical Kabbalah of the Zohar as itself a projection of inward mystical experience . . . is a limitation in Idel’s work” (1990). Eliot Wolfson also disagreed with Idel’s distinction between the ecstatic and the theosophical-​ theurgical trends and in his studies stressed the ecstatic and visual aspects

136  Mystifying Kabbalah of theosophical Kabbalah and vice versa—​the theurgical and theosophical aspects in ecstatic Kabbalah (1994a; 2000). Haviva Pedaya also criticized Idel’s typology and asserted “that the dichotomy division of ‘theosophical’ versus ‘ecstatic’ Kabbalah may sometimes hinder” (2002, 136). She suggested that “a religious experiential sequence that includes an ecstatic state” appears in the theosophical-​theurgical Kabbalistic current (139), and a great part of theosophical Kabbalistic literature is also an expression of ecstatic experiences (though of a different type from that underlying ecstatic Kabbalah) (115–​207). In the framework of this new approach, Kabbalah scholars place an emphasis on the ecstatic elements in the Kabbalah and interpret Kabbalistic texts as expressions of mystical experiences or instructions of how to achieve them. As mentioned earlier, Gershom Scholem assumed that some Kabbalistic texts were written under the influence of mystical experiences, which were disguised by their authors. In later Kabbalah scholarship, the reading of Kabbalistic texts—​especially, the Zohar—​as products of mystical experiences became prevalent. Wolfson, for example, claimed: Any attempt to understand the Zohar must take into account the fact that the theosophical ruminations contained in this anthology are not merely speculative devices for expressing the knowable aspect of God, but are practical means of achieving a state of ecstasy [ . . . ] the texts themselves—​at the compositional level of writing—​reflect a state wherein the mystic experienced the divine pleroma and reintegrated his soul with its ontic source. (1993, 210)

Charles Mopsik, who also disagreed with the dichotomous division between theurgical-​theosophical Kabbalah and ecstatic Kabbalah, claimed that underlying the Zohar is a prophetic experience (1995, 6–​8). Pedaya also claims that many sections in the Zohar were written “in an enthusiastic prophetic state” (2002, 116, 115–​136). The central thesis of Melilah Hellner-​Eshed in her book, A River Flows from Eden, is that the Zohar was written (at least in parts) in a heightened state of consciousness and seeks to awaken the reader for such a mystical state: The Zohar is not a theoretical book about the essence of Jewish mysticism. Rather, the Zohar is a mystical composition, parts of which were surely

The Mystification of Kabbalah  137 written in heightened states of consciousness, and parts of which seek, to my mind, to awaken the reader to a change of consciousness. (2009, 3)

5.3.  The Academic Research on Abulafia and Prophetic Kabbalah The identification of the Kabbalah as Jewish mysticism shaped the academic research of Kabbalah from its very beginning. A clear example of this is the study of Abraham Abulafia and his doctrines. The interest of scholars in Abulafia since the late nineteenth century followed the categorization of the Kabbalah as mysticism, and this interest was intensified within the new trends of Kabbalah research in the late twentieth century. Abraham Abulafia was born in Zaragoza in the kingdom of Aragon in 1240. During the course of his life, he wandered between Spain, Palestine, Greece, and Italy. Abulafia developed a unique doctrine, which he called “prophetic Kabbalah.” In difference to other Kabbalistic schools of his time, which focused on the divine structure of the sephiroth and on human influence on the divine system through prayers and observance of the Jewish commandments, Abulafia was interested in the significance of prophecy and the ways to attain it. Abulafia based his doctrine on philosophic ideas he derived from Maimonides, on his understanding of the enigmatic Sefer Yetzira, and on the writings of Ashkenazy Hasidism. It is possible that he was also influenced by some Sufi practices. In his writings he suggested a variety of methods to achieve prophecy (which he understood as union between human intellect and the divine active intellect). Abulafia had messianic aspirations and in 1280 he attempted to meet with Pope Nicholas the Third. Other thirteenth-​century Kabbalists rejected his ideas, and the prominent Jewish leader of that period, Rabbi Shlomo Ben Aderet (Rashba), harshly condemned him: There are many frauds that I  have seen and heard. One of them was that scoundrel—​may the name of the wicked rot—​Abraham. He proclaimed himself a prophet and a messiah in Sicily and enticed several of the people of Israel with his lies. If I had not been able to close the door in his face, with God’s mercy, with many of my own letters and those of the holy congregations, he would have caused much damage, with his deceitful and imaginary words, that seem like high wisdom for the fools. (Rashba Responsa 548; Kaplan 1989, 59–​60)

138  Mystifying Kabbalah Due to the difference between his system and other forms of Kabbalah, and as a result of Rashba’s denunciation, which was repeated by later Kabbalists,2 Abulafia never entered the Kabbalistic canon. Even though his works had some influence on later forms of the Kabbalah (Idel 1988a, 62–​67; 1995, 55–​60), his name is rarely mentioned in Kabbalistic writings, his works were never printed until recently, and his Kabbalistic system was not perceived as part of the Kabbalistic tradition. While Abulafia played a marginal role in traditional Jewish Kabbalistic circles, he became very central in the academic tradition of Kabbalah research. Abulafia was “discovered” by Jewish German researchers in the second half of the nineteenth century, who were among the first to identify Kabbalah as Jewish mysticism. Abulafia’s methods to achieve prophecy, and his theories on prophecy as a union with the divine intellect, suited the modern notions of mystical techniques and mystical union. His doctrines and practices were much closer to the modern ideas concerning mysticism than the Kabbalistic theories about the divine system and humans’ influence on it, which were central in other Kabbalistic schools. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, scholars assumed that the Jewish Kabbalists experienced mystical encounters but concealed them. In difference to most Kabbalistic writings, who do not describe visions, revelations, and ecstatic experiences, the writings of Abulafia and his followers met the expectations of the scholars, as they include explicit descriptions of prophecies and visions. The marginality of Jewish religious law and practice in Abulafia’s writings (in contrast with the centrality of the commandments in the writings of other Kabbalists), his messianic aspirations, and the opposition he aroused among the rabbinical elite—​all fit well with the modern image of mysticism as a subversive, uninstitutional, and revolutionary element of religion. The first scholar who described the life, work, and doctrines of Abulafia was Meyer Heinrich Landauer, who encountered Abulafia’s writings in the manuscript collection of the Munich library. In an article published posthumously, Landauer was enthused by his discovery of Abulafia’s writings and suggested that Abulafia was the author of the Zohar (Landauer 1845). Adolf Jellinek, who was one of the first Jewish scholars to determine that the Kabbalah is a Jewish form of mysticism (1853, 3–​4), rejected Landauer’s

2 Rabbi Yehuda Hayat in his introduction to his commentary on Ma’arechet ha-​Elohut (1558), fol. 3a; Rabbi Yosef Delmedigo in his book Metzraf La-​Hochma (1629) fol. 13b–​14a, and recently Rabbi Yaakov Moshe Hillel (2002, 100, n. 46).

The Mystification of Kabbalah  139 suggestion (25–​26; 1851, 6–​8); however, he did take an interest in Abulafia’s doctrines, and he devoted several short studies to him and published some of his writings (1853, 13–​28; 1854, V–​XIV, 1–​25, 32–​48; 1887, 67–​85). Jellinek described Abulafia as “a mystic visionary in the full sense of the word, a kind of Jewish Sufi” (1854, v), and he described his method as a “letters and numbers mysticism” (1853, 9–​21). Although he regarded Abulafia as an “eccentric fanatic” (1853, 18), he asserted that “notwithstanding his ecstasy, one can find in his writings deep insights, elevated ideas and sharp observations; like a lightening, clear and explicit perspectives often penetrate the abstruseness of his writings” (1854, vi). Following the rise of interest in mysticism in the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, Abraham Abulafia was granted favorable and enthusiastic descriptions in the writings of Jewish intellectuals of that period. Shimon Bernfeld, who partially accepted Landauer’s theory and assumed that parts of the Zohar were indeed written by Abulafia (1899, 398–​399), described him as “a person who thinks and contemplates eternal truths, and has an enthusiastic moral and poetical nature. He was mainly a poet. Even his philosophical thoughts were poetic” (1930, 74). Azriel Günzig described Abulafia as “a person of great talents, with a mind full of lofty ideas and high sentiments, secrets, and endless imagination” (1905, 87). Gershom Scholem already took interest in Abulafia’s writing in the early stages of his career. He expanded the research on Abulafia and his school, established his image as a Jewish mystic, and proliferated the perception of his system as representing ecstatic Kabbalah. In his autobiography, Scholem related that he read Abulafia’s writings in 1920–​1921, while working on his doctorate thesis. He tried to perform some of the methods Abulafia prescribed and found out that they “stimulated alterations in states of consciousness” (1982, 161).3 Scholem`s wife, Fania, related in an interview: “When we were in Munich, he [Scholem] did exercises according to Abulafia’s instructions; he held his head between his legs, breathed in a certain rhythm, recited word and letters combinations and more. Afterwards he said that indeed an alteration of consciousness occurred” (Harpaz 1990, 50).4 One of the first articles Scholem published, soon after arriving in Palestine in 1922, was on the book Shaarei Tzedek (Gates of Righteousness), written by one of Abulafia’s disciples (1923b). Later on Scholem published the book 3 This story does not appear in the English and German versions of the book. 4 I am grateful to Doron Cohen and Jonatan Meir who drew my attention to Fania Scholem’s words (although it is worth mentioning that during his studies in Munich, Fania had not yet met Scholem).

140  Mystifying Kabbalah Sulam ha-​’Aliya (Ladder of Ascension) written by the sixteenth-​century Kabbalist Rabbi Yehuda Albotini, who espoused Abulafia’s methods (1945). In Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, Scholem discussed Abulafia at length in the fourth chapter, entitled “Abraham Abulafia and the doctrine of prophetic Kabbalism” (1971, 119–​155).5 In 1966, summaries of Scholem’s lectures on Abulafia were published, which included several excerpts from Abulafia’s writings (1966). Scholem depicted Abulafia favorably, as having a “remarkable combination of logical power, pellucid style, deep insight and highly colored abstruseness which characterizes his writing” (1971, 124). He described Abulafia as “the outstanding representative of ecstatic Kabbalah,” calling his doctrine a “mystical theory” and his method for attaining prophecy “technique of meditation” (125, 130). Following the psychological perception of mysticism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, he described Abulafia’s system as an inward journey: “Abulafia . . . casts his eyes round for higher forms of perception which instead of blocking the way to the soul’s own deeper regions, facilitate access to them and throw them into relief ” (132). Scholem adopted the notion of mystical experience as an altered state of consciousness and asserted that the purpose of Abulafia’s discipline: “is to stimulate, with the aid of methodological meditation, a new state of consciousness; this state can best be defined as an harmonious movement of pure thought, which has severed all relation to the senses” (133). As we have seen earlier, Scholem described the result of his own practice of Abulafia methods as an alteration of the state of consciousness. Following the perception of mysticism as a universal religious phenomenon, Scholem described Abulafia’s teachings as “but a Judaized version of that ancient spiritual technique which had found its classical expression in the practice of the Indian mystics who follow the system known as Yoga” (139). Later, Scholem stated that “objectively, there is no doubt there is a phenomenological proximity between the Kabbalistic-​meditative type and the meditative type amongst the Sufis and their Hindu sources” (1966, 164). Scholem established the perception of Abulafia as one of the distinctive representatives of Jewish mysticism and described Abulafia’s method in tandem with the prevalent notions on the essence of mysticism that were popular at that time (and are still popular today); his studies stimulated extensive public interest in Abulafia. 5 In this chapter, Scholem included English translations of two sections from the writings of Abulafia and his followers (1971, 136–​137; 147–​155).

The Mystification of Kabbalah  141 Scholem presented Abulafia’s ecstatic Kabbalah as one of the major trends of Jewish mysticism. Nonetheless, Abulafia did not play a central role in his research, and he dedicated relatively few studies to the writings and doctrines of his school. Scholem, whose historiography of Kabbalah was shaped in a Zionist discursive framework, found more interest in what he perceived as the Gnostic and mythical trends in Jewish mysticism. In his opinion, these trends expressed the national vital power of the Jewish people in the diaspora and not the ecstatic, universalistic, and psychological approaches he found in Abulafia’s writings. Moshe Idel, who observed the decline of interest in Abulafia’s Kabbalah in the later work of Scholem, and the disinterest in ecstatic Kabbalah among Scholem’s disciples, wrote:  “Kabbalah in general was described, at least implicitly, as a mythical, symbolic, theosophic kind of thought, influenced historically by Gnosticism or, in some other formulations, phenomenologically similar to it, and devoided of extreme unitive experience and locutions. None of these characteristics, which were deemed to describe Kabbalah in its entirety, fit the nature of ecstatic Kabbalah” (Idel 1993, 121). In the late twentieth century, when new scholarly trends emerged, Abraham Abulafia and prophetic Kabbalah became much more central in the academic research of Kabbalah. Abulafia and his school stood at the center of Moshe Idel’s scholarly work, at the beginning of his academic career. Idel criticized Scholem, and especially his disciples, for neglecting and marginalizing Abulafia’s Kabbalah (120–​124; Idel 1998a, 55–​56) and allotted Abulafia and his ecstatic Kabbalah a central place in his perspective of Jewish mysticism. He wrote his doctoral thesis on Abulafia’s Kabbalah in the late seventies; since then he has published numerous studies on Abulafia and ecstatic Kabbalah, which have contributed greatly to positioning Abulafia as a central Jewish mystic and to the diffusion of his writings, doctrines, and techniques. In his prolific studies, Idel expanded the study on Abulafia’s life and writings, studied extensively other Kabbalists who espoused his theories, and demonstrated the impact of Abulafia’s Kabbalah on later Jewish trends. Gershom Scholem described Abulafia’s Kabbalah as one of nine major trends of Jewish mysticism and claimed that Abulafia’s Kabbalah was one of two opposing schools of Sephardic Kabbalah of the thirteenth century (the other being theosophical Kabbalah, represented by the Zohar) (Scholem 1971, 124). Idel, on the other hand, argued: “that there are two major trends in Kabbalah, the theosophical-​theurgical and the ecstatic.” He accepted and developed the perceptions concerning the ecstatic and mystical nature of Abulafia’s system,

142  Mystifying Kabbalah accentuated its practical and experiential aspects, and argued for the centrality of mystical union in this school. Elliot Wolfson, Haviva Pedaya, and other scholars also dedicated studies to Abulafia and his disciples.6 As we saw earlier, some contemporary scholars disagree with Idel’s distinction between the two major trends of Kabbalah, and they argue for the centrality of ecstatic and mystical elements also in the theosophical-​theurgical trend. The repositioning of Abulafia’s Kabbalah at the center of Jewish mysticism in the new Kabbalah scholarship was related to the decline of Scholem’s grand narrative of the history of Jewish mysticism, the weakening of the national-​Zionist discourse that influenced Scholem’s historiography, and to the emphasis on psychological, ecstatic, and universalistic aspects of Jewish mysticism in the new research. Abulafia’s techniques of achieving prophecy, his claim that prophecy is a union of the human mind with the divine intellect and the subsidiarity of the particularistic aspects of Judaism in his doctrine are well suited to the modern perceptions on mysticism that are emphasized by scholars of Kabbalah. As I have argued in previous chapters, the emphasis of contemporary scholars on the more psychological, ecstatic, experiential, and practical aspects of Kabbalah in general, and in Abulafia in particular, are related to the impact of New Age culture and the Jewish renewal movement, which promote psychological, ecstatic, and experiential forms of spirituality. Under the influence of Kabbalah scholarship, Abulafia was also adopted by contemporary Kabbalistic and mystical circles. As we will see in the following, these circles publish and study his writings and practice his methods, which are branded as “Jewish meditation.” Following modern Kabbalah research, which accepted the category “Jewish mysticism” as its foundational category, Abulafia became one of the most well-​known Kabbalists in the broad public and his image and methods are integrated in many contemporary cultural products.

5.4.  “Mysticism” in Contemporary Kabbalistic and Hasidic Circles Before I  turn to review the reception of Abulafia into the canon of contemporary Kabbalistic circles and his becoming a Kabbalistic cultural 6 Wolfson 2000; Pedaya 2002; Hames 2007; Sagerman 2008; Afterman 2011; 2016.

The Mystification of Kabbalah  143 hero, I would like to discuss the adoption of the category of “mysticism” by Kabbalah practitioners in the twentieth century and the way it shaped contemporary Kabbalistic practices and changed the Kabbalistic canon. The Identification of Kabbalah with mysticism, which became a basic assumption in the academic study of Kabbalah, was unbeknownst to many of the Kabbalists and Hasids active in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Many of them were unfamiliar with the academic study of Kabbalah that had begun to develop during this period. Nonetheless, at the outset of the twentieth century there were already several Kabbalists and Hasids who were acquainted with the modern term mysticism and who used it in their discussion on Kabbalah, using sometimes the Hebrew term mistorin as its translation. Some of them were acquainted with the academic study of the Kabbalah and accepted some of its assumptions. Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, for example, was familiar with the term mysticism and its modern meaning, and he used this as well as mistorin in his writings. Rabbi Kook did not define Kabbalah as mysticism, but it appears that he regarded Kabbalah as pertaining to the mystical realm. Mysticism, in his eyes, is an intuitive form of consciousness, which is opposed to rational knowledge (Kook 1943, vol. 1, 232; Kook 2004, vol. 1, 89, 272). Kook applied the term mysticism to his own ideas and described his essay “Rosh Milin” as a “logical mystical notebook” (Kook 1943, vol. 3, 128). It is possible that Kook was familiar with modern studies on Kabbalah such as those of Gershom Scholem, with whom he had supposedly met, and was impressed by his knowledge of the Kabbalah (Barak 2009, 99–​104). One of Rabbi Kook’s disciples, Rabbi David Cohen “the Nazirite,” was familiar with Kabbalah research and was personally acquainted with Gershom Scholem. Even though he too does not identify the Kabbalah with mysticism, the modern perception of mysticism shaped to a great extent his ideas and his aspiration to achieve prophecy. As we will see later on, Cohen showed great interest in the writings of Abulafia, which he became acquainted with through Scholem. Another thinker whose approach to Kabbalah was shaped by modern perceptions of mysticism (especially those of William James and Henri Bergson) was Hillel Zeitlin, who described the Kabbalah as mysticism and mistorin (Zeitlin 2003, 55–​102). The perception of Kabbalah as mysticism became much more common among circles dealing in Kabbalah in the late twentieth and early twenty-​first century. The objection to academic study of Kabbalah and to the characterization of Kabbalah as mysticism still exists in some of

144  Mystifying Kabbalah the contemporary Kabbalistic groups: Michael Laitman, the leader of the neo-​Kabbalistic movement “Bnei Baruch,” firmly claims that there is no connection between Kabbalah and mysticism, because Kabbalah is science (Laitman 2014). Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, the chief Rabbi of Safed, published an article entitled “Mysticism Is Not Kabbalah” in which he rejected the identification of Kabbalah as mysticism and asserted that Kabbalah, the inner aspect of the Torah, is one of the great driving forces of Jewish practical life (Eliyahu 1998). Nevertheless, many contemporary practitioners of Kabbalah identify it as mysticism. They rely on academic studies of Kabbalah, and their doctrines and practices are shaped by the modern perceptions of the nature and meaning of Jewish mysticism. The adoption of the modern perception of Jewish mysticism is prominent and distinct among neo-​ Kabbalistic and neo-​Hasidic groups, who operate within the framework of New Age culture, such as the Jewish renewal movement in the United States. The identification of Kabbalah and Hasidism as mysticism is also prevalent in some orthodox Kabbalistic and Hasidic groups. Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, a contemporary Kabbalist affiliated with Habad Hasidism, for example, claims that “the term ‘Kabbalah’ is sometimes used to refer to classic texts of the ancient Jewish mystical tradition of the Jewish people” (2004, 7). The definition of Kabbalah and Hasidism as mysticism had a considerable impact on the shaping of the practices, teachings, and cultural products of contemporary Kabbalah. The words of Chava Aima, which were cited in the opening of this chapter, highlight the impact that the categorization of Kabbalah as mysticism has on the larger public. Aima states that she found in the ecstatic Kabbalah a useful method to approach the divine consciousness, which is similar to visual meditative techniques used by mystics throughout the world. Following the identification of Kabbalah with mysticism, many of those practicing Kabbalah today perceive it as a guideline to personal development, physical and mental happiness, and individual spiritual enlightenment. The producers and consumers of Kabbalah today are usually more interested in an internal search for the divine self than they are in the interpretation of Jewish canonical texts, the knowledge of the divine structure, and the performance of Jewish commandments that were central in earlier forms of Kabbalah (Huss 2007c).

The Mystification of Kabbalah  145

5.5.  Rabbi David Cohen and the Prophetic Kabbalah The modern categorization of Kabbalah as “mysticism” stimulated an interest in the Kabbalah of Abraham Abulafia, despite its rejection from the traditional Kabbalistic canon. Modern Jewish Kabbalists became acquainted with Abulafia’s writings through the academic research of Jewish mysticism. They were impressed with his writings and incorporated them into their practices and doctrines. One of the first to do so was the aforementioned Rabbi David Cohen, who was known as “the Nazirite.” Cohen was educated in traditional yeshivas in Lithuania and continued his studies in academic institutes in Russia, Germany, and Switzerland. Later on he became a follower of Rabbi Kook and established his home in Jerusalem in 1922. Cohen met with Gershom Scholem—​the two lived on the same street—​and although Scholem said that he studied Kabbalah in the exact opposite way from him, they both shared an interest in the Kabbalah of Abulafia (Scholem 1982, 203–​204).7 In an entry in his diary, from 1925, Cohen related enthusiastically of a meeting he had with Scholem, who introduced him to the writings of Abulafia and his disciples: I became familiar with the manuscripts of Rabbi Abraham Abulafia of blessed memory and of his disciples, through a researcher of Mysticism (Prof. Scholem who visited me with Ram in our house, on Saturday). And when I took them in my hands, they became for me a strong, firm and steadfast stimulant. My spirit rumbled, and became sanctified, purified and elevated, as I found my logic and the ways of my understanding in the auditory prophetic logic, the prophetic Kabbalah (of Abraham Abulafia) . . . I was changed and I became a new person. All day long, I must not keep quiet: I must strive and be strong again; I must expect the benevolence of the uppermost Divine revelation through chanting during the night. I can see that prophetic revelation from the mouth of Holiness, the God of Israel, which is necessary and expected in this generation of revival and redemption, is not far from us. Through preparation by way of chanting the grace of holy names, by combing the melody of their letters, courage, courage, courage and creation will be created, and the word of God will be revealed. (2005, 75)

7 This passage does not appear in the English version of Scholem’s memoir.

146  Mystifying Kabbalah It is not surprising that Cohen, for whom the yearning for prophecy was central, and whose theological ideas were shaped in the framework of the modern perception of mysticism, was so enthralled to discover the manuscripts of Abulafia. As Dov Schwartz observed, Cohen described his encounter with Abulafia’s writings as a religious revelation or illumination, which was followed by a sense of personal transformation (2003, 179). In his major work, The Voice of Prophecy—​The Hebrew Auditory Logic that was only published in 1970, Cohen included Abulafia in his historic description of the Kabbalah: “Abraham Abulafia [ . . . ] published the nominal, auditory, prophetic theory of Kabbalah, which the supreme prophetic wisdom elevates to the internal speech, that adheres to divine speech, as the divine voice never ceases” (1970, 158). It is clear from this passage, as Schwartz observed, that Cohen regards Abulafia as the precursor of his own mystical system, whose essence he described as “the Hebrew auditory prophetic logic” (2003, 176). Cohen’s encounter with the writings of Abulafia, mediated by Scholem,8 demonstrates how the academic study of Kabbalah research was instrumental in bringing Abulafia’s system to the knowledge of a modern Jewish Kabbalist, who enthusiastically adopted Abulafia’s techniques and incorporated them in his own modern mystical system. However, the case of Cohen’s reception of Abulafia is an exceptional case among early twentieth-​century Kabbalists. It was only in the final decades of the century that Abulafia’s writings became more influential and entered the canons of contemporary Kabbalah.

5.6.  Abraham Abulafia in New Kabbalistic Movements As we have seen, in the late 1970s, Moshe Idel began to ascribe great importance to Abraham Abulafia and the ecstatic Kabbalah in his research. During this same period, interest in Abulafia increased also in Jewish circles, mostly in the United States, that were part of the new spiritual culture of the 1970s and the emerging Jewish renewal movement. These circles, which became acquainted with Abulafia’s writings mainly through the works of Gershom Scholem, regarded Abulafia as a central representative of Jewish mysticism.

8 Moshe Idel argued that Cohen probably became acquainted with Abulafia before he met Scholem, from the writings of David Neumark and Adolph Jellinek (2005d, 820–​829). This may be possible; however, Abulafia is not mentioned in Cohen’s first publication, printed in Germany in 1920 (825).

The Mystification of Kabbalah  147 They started practicing his techniques which, in their eyes, were Jewish forms of meditation and yoga. The American author Carol Ascher published in 1980 an article entitled “The Return of Jewish Mysticism: Try It You’ll Like It” in the journal Present Tense. She wrote: All across the United States, as well as in Western Europe and Israel people in groups, or studying alone, have begun to search the Torah as well as the mystical texts for insight into meditation, breathing, chanting, and even Yoga-​style exercise. “Abraham Abolafia, a medieval Spanish kabbalist, did yoga,” a chiropractor tells me excitedly. (Ascher 1980, 37, cited in Meilicke 2002, 82)

Since the mid-​1960s, a group of Jewish poets and artists in California, including David Meltzer, Jack Hirschman, Jerome Rothenberg, and Bruria Finkel, who learned about Abulafia from Scholem’s Major Trends, became fascinated with Abraham Abulafia.9 These artists took part in the counterculture of the 1960s and were connected to The House of Love and Prayer and The Aquarian Minyan established by Shlomo Carlebach and Zalman Schachter-​Shalomi, movements out of which the Jewish revival movement developed later on (Meilicke 2002, 71–​72). The members of the group were enthused by Abulafia’s theories; they practiced his methods, integrated motifs from Abulafia’s Kabbalah in their artistic creations, and translated his writings into English.10 The members of the group aspired to create a new Jewish American Kabbalah through the integration of Abulafia’s Kabbalah in contemporary poetry (Meilicke 2002, 76). In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, a liberal Jewish Orthodox theologian, who was a prolific author and translator and died prematurely in 1984, published three books on Jewish meditation (Kaplan 1978; 1982; 1985). One of these books, Meditation and Kabbalah, published in 1982, became the most influential source for the reception of Abulafia in 9 David Meltzer began showing interest in Jewish mysticism in 1964 when the poet Robert Duncan referred him to Gershom Scholem’s studies (Meilicke 2002, 73). On the correspondence between Meltzer and Scholem, see pp. 63–​64. 10 In 1970, Jack Hirschman published an English translation of Sefer Ha’ot (that was first printed by Jellinek) in the journal Ilan; in 1976, David Meltzer published an anthology of Kabbalistic writings entitled The Secret Garden in which he included more translations of Abulafia’s writings (Meltzer 1976a); in the same year Meltzer and other members in the group published an anthology of translations from Abulafia’s writings entitled The Path of Names (Meltzer 1976b). Translations of Abulafia’s writings were also included in the anthology A Big Jewish Book: Poems and Other Visions of the Jews from Tribal Times to Present (Rothenberg et al. 1978).

148  Mystifying Kabbalah the Jewish renewal and related movements in the English-​speaking world. In this book, Kaplan dedicated a long chapter to Abulafia and his school. He described Abulafia’s life, his writings, and his teachings and translated many excerpts from his works based on the texts published by Jellinek and Scholem as well as further texts found in manuscripts (Kaplan 1982, 55–​111). Kaplan, who relied mostly on Scholem’s research, downplayed Abulafia’s messianic aspirations and emphasized his influence on later mainstream Kabbalists. He cited Rabbi Hayim Yoseph David Azulai’s (Hida) praise of Abulafia’s Hayei ha-​Olam ha-​Ba, concluding that: In view of this opinion, the general trend among knowledgeable Kabbalists has been to accept the teachings of Abulafia, even though his methods are considered to be very advanced and dangerous. His manuscripts have been copied and circulated among many Kabbalists, and they form an important part of the curriculum in some secret schools. While the personality of Abulafia may be questioned, it is generally recognized that he was in possession of authentic traditions and that he recorded them faithfully and accurately. (59)

Kaplan asserted that he wrote his books on Jewish meditation as a response to the growing interest of American Jews in Oriental religions, without being acquainted with Jewish methods of meditation (Kaplan 1985, v–​vi). Following Scholem, he described Abulafia’s methods of achieving prophecy as meditative techniques that alter the regular state of consciousness and lead to a mystical experience (Kaplan 1982, 81). Abulafia’s Kabbalah, especially his methods to achieve prophecy, which were perceived as Jewish meditation techniques, have become quite popular in recent years in the circles related to the Jewish renewal movement, who learned about them from the studies of Scholem and Idel, as well as from the writing of Aryeh Kaplan. Thus, for instance, Leonora Leet, a professor of English, who was a student of Kaplan (and of the New Age author Robert Lawlor), published in the 1990s several books on Kabbalah. According to Leet, her book Renewing the Covenant: A Kabbalsitic Guide to Jewish Spirituality, attempts to contribute to “a revitalization of Jewish spirituality [ . . . ] by providing a new approach to Jewish ritual practice appropriate to the new era of the world and of Judaism on whose threshold we now are standing” (1999, 1). Abulafia’s practices, which Leet learned about from Kaplan’s books, play a central role in her project for revitalizing Jewish

The Mystification of Kabbalah  149 spirituality in the spirit of the New Age, and she dedicates a significant part of her book to Abulafia (40–​94). Another example of Abulafia’s popularity is the book Ecstatic Kabbalah by Rabbi David Cooper (2005), a disciple of Zalman Schachter-​Shalomi. The book is advertised as a guide to Jewish meditation based on Abulafia’s techniques that provides “practical exercises on the path toward mending the soul.”11 The largest and most renowned Kabbalistic group today, the Kabbalah Center, which was founded by Philip Berg in the 1960s, does not grant Abulafia a central place in its activity; yet he is mentioned sometimes in Berg’s writings. Madonna, the most famous pupil of the Kabbalah Center, used images of divine names which were taken from Abulafia’s works in her 2004 reinvention tour.12 The modern perception of Abulafia as an ecstatic mystic—​a Jewish Yogi or Sufi that challenged the religious establishment of his time—​and the representation of his methods to achieve prophecy as meditation techniques, contributed to the great popularity of Abulafia in Jewish renewal and New Age circles. A literary expression of the fascination of American Jews with Abulafia is Myla Goldberg’s best-​selling novel, Bee Season (2003) (which was later adapted into a film, starring Richard Gere and Juliette Binoche). The book relates the story of an American Reconstructionist Rabbi who studies Abulafia’s Kabbalah and who teaches his eleven-​year-​old daughter to use his meditation techniques to win the spelling bee. The words of the hero of the novel, Rabbi Saul Naumann, express well the New Age reconstruction of the medieval Kabbalist as a universalistic mystic: The steps that Abulafia outlines, the methods that caused such an uproar, are basically instructions on how to meditate. Abulafia uses language play as a way to clear the mind, to remove oneself from daily concerns and thoughts . . . His methods are primarily a kind of Jewish Yoga, a way to relax. (Goldberg 2000, 172)

Interest in Abulafia is found also among contemporary non-​Jewish religious and spiritual movements. In Brazil, for example, a group called Academia de Kabbalah, headed by Mario Meir, focuses on Abulafia’s Kabbalah.13 In 11 https://​www.amazon.co.uk/​Ecstatic-​Kabbalah-​David-​Cooper/​dp/​1458785270. 12 The images, which accompanied the performance of “Like a Prayer,” were taken from a manuscript of Abulafia’s book Life of the World to Come; the images were published in Rothenberg et al. 1978. I am grateful to Avi Solomon who informed me of the source of the images. 13 I would like to thank Moshe Idel, who drew my attention to this group.

150  Mystifying Kabbalah Italy, the Ever Burning Light Organization translates Abulafia’s writings into English and holds online lessons in Abulafian Kabbalah.14 As the words of Chava Aima, which opened this chapter, indicate, Abraham Abulafia is perceived in New Age circles as a universal mystic, who can teach the sacred science of divine realization to students of all religions. Abulafia’s Kabbalah was also adopted in contemporary Kabbalistic and Hasidic circles who operate within Jewish Orthodox and Ultra-​Orthodox frameworks. Rabbi Isaac Ginsburgh, a Habad Hasid and one of the prominent Israeli Kabbalists today, who is known as the spiritual leader of the ultra-​ right “Hilltop youth” in the West Bank, integrates in his teaching Hasidic and Kabbalistic ideas, ultra-​nationalistic ideology, and New Age discourse. He cites Abulafia in his books, lectures, and website and refers to him as one of the greatest medieval Kabbalists (Ginsburgh 2014). Ginsburgh’s interest in Abulafia is related to his intensive use of gematria (numerical value of Hebrew letters), which is a central feature in Abulafia’s writings—​as well as to his interest in meditation techniques. Ginsburgh’s interest in Abulafia stems in my opinion from the impact of the modern perception of Kabbalah and Hasidism as Jewish mysticism on his thought. This comes to the fore in his frequent use of the term mysticism in reference to Kabbalah and Hasidism. Although Ginsburgh does not specify how he became acquainted with the writings of Abulafia, it is probable that Ginsburgh (who was born and raised in the United States) became familiar with them through Kaplan’s books. Abulafia’s Kabbalah plays a role also in the teachings of Ariel Bar Tzadok, head of the Bnei Nevi’im Yeshiva in Los Angeles. Bar Tzadok integrates Lurianic Kabbalah from the school of Rabbi Shalom Sharabi, Jungian psychology, and martial arts (Myers 2011, 188–​196). In his books and articles, which circulate on his website, he also refers to Abulafia and prophetic Kabbalah (Bar Tzadok 1999; 2004; 2007, 81–​101). According to Bar Tzadok: This might be the oldest and most authoritative of Kabbalistic schools. In Talmudic times, the prophetic Kabbalah was called Ma`aseh Merkava. Later forms were developed and practiced by Abraham Abulafia (Hayei Olam HaBa), Shem Tov Sefardi (Sha`arei Tzedek), Yehuda Albotini (Sulam Aliyah), Moshe Cordovero (Pardes, section Pratei HaShemot) and last but 14 The Ever Burning Light Organization presents itself as an interfaith, nondenominational scholarly association, interested in Jewish mysticism, especially prophetic Kabbalah. The group is associated with the Universal Life Church and claims that it collaborates with Orthodox Jews from Hasidut Habad and with the neo-​Breslov Azamra Institute, headed by Rabbi Avraham Greenbaum.

The Mystification of Kabbalah  151 not least the Ba’al Shem Tov (Amud haTefilah). Even Rabbi Haim Vital taught and practiced aspects of the Prophetic systems. (1999, 1, n. 1)

Prophetic Kabbalah fills a place also in the teachings of the ultra-​orthodox Kabbalist Rabbi Yitzhak Meir Morgenstern, who integrates Kabbalistic and Hasidic ideas from various sources—​the writings of Rabbi Shalom Sharabi, Rabbi Ashlag, Habad and Breslov Hasidism, among others (Garb 2011, 124–​ 125). In his article “The Path of Unification,” which discusses Kabbalistic meditative techniques, Morgenstern cites passages from Abraham Abulafia’s writings and from the book of his sixteenth-​century follower, Rabbi Yehuda Albotini (Morgenstern 2006, 307, 309, 320, 343, 349; Brill 2010a). Finally, it should be noted that in recent years, various courses in Kabbalistic meditation, based on Abraham Abulafia’a teachings, are offered by Amnon Gross (whose project of printing Abulafia’s writings will be discussed later on), David Cooper who was mentioned earlier, and recently, by Avraham Leader, in the framework of Zohar Hai institute. The flyer of the course, posted on Facebook, announced: We will explore the theoretical and prophetic writings of Abraham Abulafia—​the 13th century explorer of human-​divine consciousness and language mysticism. The lessons will focus on the deconstruction and reconstruction of voice, language and speech. In the practical part we will practice the method of Rabbi Abraham Abulafia for achieving prophetic consciousness together with personal work.15

5.7.  The Publication of Abulafia’s Writings The most remarkable expression of the contemporary reception of Abulafia and his school is the publication of their writings by Kabbalists who operate in Israeli Haredi (ultra-​orthodox) frameworks. Because of the ban on Abraham Abulafia and the rejection of prophetic Kabbalah from the traditional Kabbalistic canon, up to the end of the twentieth century, the writing of Abulafia and his disciples was printed only in academic frameworks. The Jewish scholar Adolf Jellinek published three of Abulafia’s works in the second half of the nineteenth century (1853, 13–​28;

15 https://​www.facebook.com/​zoharhai/​; posted August 24, 2017.

152  Mystifying Kabbalah 1854, 1–​24; 1887). Gershom Scholem published two works of Abulafia’s disciples (1923b, 1945). He included several excerpts from Abulafia and his disciples’ writings in the addendum to his lectures on Abulafia ((Scholem 1966) and included some excerpts translated into English in Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (Scholem 1971, 136–​137, 147–​155). In 1989, Haredi publishers began printing writings of Abulafia and his circle. Sulam ha-​Aliya and Sha`arei Zedek, two Abulafian texts that Scholem printed in his articles, were published now by Yosef Elazar Elimelech Porush from Yeshivat Sha`ar ha-​Shamayim, one of the oldest and most prominent Kabbalistic academies in Jerusalem (Porush 1989). It is interesting to note that the first texts of prophetic Kabbalah that were published in the Haredi sector were not those written by Abulafia himself. Most likely it was easier to break the unofficial ban on Abulafia by publishing texts of his school—​ and not his own writings. Yet Porush, the editor of these works, did not ignore their connection with Abulafia. In his preface, he justifies their publication with his reliance on the words of the Hida (Rabbi Hayyim Yosef David Azulai), the eighteenth-​century Rabbi who rejected the criticism of Abulafia and on the fact that Rabbi Hayyim Vital, Isaac Luria’s disciple, cited Abulafia’s writings (Porush 1989, 15). An additional publication that paved the way to the publishing of Abraham Abulafia’s writings was the fourth chapter of Vital’s book Sha`arei Kdusha, which was based on Abulafia’s writings and was omitted from its previous printings (Vital 1988). In his preface to the new edition, the editor, Rabbi Natanel Safrin (a descendant of the Hasidic dynasty of Kumarno), discusses the inclusion of Abulafia’s writings in Vital’s work and justifies its publication by quoting Hida’s defense of Abulafia. In the end of the 1990s, Rabbi Matityahu Safrin, Rabbi Natanel Safrin’s son, published two works by Abulafia himsel: Or ha-​Sehcel and Sefer ha-​Heshek (Abulafia 1999a, 1999b). In the preface to Sefer ha-​ Heshek, the editor’s father, Rabbi Netanel, wrote: “Rabbi Abraham Abulafia, the memory of the righteous be blessed, was one of the ancient authorities, who lived seven hundred years ago. Now, the time has come to reveal his writings in print” (Abulafia 1999b, 4). The project of printing Abulafia’s writings that the Safrin family began was carried on by Rabbi Amnon Gross. Gross, a Breslov Hasid, has printed in the last two decades most of Abulafia’s writings.16 In the introduction to Hayei ha-​Olam ha-​ba, Gross justifies his project by relying on the Hida and other

16 The books can be downloaded from Amnon Gross’s blog: http://​abuelafia.blogspot.com.

The Mystification of Kabbalah  153 Kabbalists who cited Abulafia, especially Hayyim Vital (Abulafia 1999c, 11–​ 18). At the end of Sefer ha-​Ziruf, Gross published his own article “Mahshevet Hoshev,” in the spirit of Abulafia’s Kabbalah, in which he tries to clarify Abulafia’s system to contemporary readers (Abulafia 2003, 155–​177). Gross, who practices and teaches Abulafia’s techniques, addresses his publications to potential practitioners who seek prophetic revelations. In the preface to Metzaref ha-​Sechel and Sefer ha-​Ot, he wrote: “For those dealing with the art of letter combination and yearning for the path, this book is the staircase that leads up to the ascension to the altar of prophecy” (Abulafia 2001, 2). Porush, Safrin, and Gross did not mention in their editions of Abulafia’s writings the academic scholars of Kabbalah or the works of Aryeh Kaplan either. Nonetheless, their decision to publish the same texts that Scholem had published previously, the references to historical information that was discussed in academic research, as well as their criticism of pseudo Kabbalists who study Abulafia (Abulafia 2003, 155) reveal that the Haredi printers of the Abulafian corpus were aware—​and responded to—​the academic research on Abulafia as well to the contemporary interest in prophetic Kabbalah in the Jewish renewal movement. It should be noted that Amnon Gross also addresses the non-​Haredi public in his blog and his Facebook page and in the courses he offers. Despite his use of the traditional language and style, Gross refers to Abulafia’s Kabbalah as mysticism, and his approach to Abulafia is influenced from the modern categorization of prophetic Kabbalah as mysticism. Gross, who defines prophecy in terms derived from Hasidism, interprets Abulafia’s ideas in a way which is closer to modern notions of mysticism, rather than to Abulafia’s Aristotelian perspective. Thus, for example, Gross wrote on his Facebook page: The writings of Rabbi Abulafia deal with the most encrypted area of Kabbalah and mysticism which is called “prophetic Kabbalah.” And this is exactly what it is; one who studies and implements it can reach the grade of prophecy. . . . prophecy is the connection to the divine abundance through the internal point within man, and when this internal point is purified it achieves the divine abundance. This is the prophecy.

In addition to the publication of Abulafia’s writings in Hebrew, recently they have also been published in English. As I mentioned earlier, in the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s, segments from his writings were translated by David Meltzer, Jack Hirschman, Jerome Rothenberg, and Aryeh Kaplan.

154  Mystifying Kabbalah Recently, translations of Abulafia’s writing were published by The Ever Burning Light Organization,17 and by Avi Solomon (2011; 2013).

5.8.  Abulafia in Literature, Art, and Popular Culture In conclusion, I would like to give a short review of Abulafia’s presence in modern and contemporary culture. Poets, authors, artists, and musicians find interest in Abulafia and his Kabbalistic system, and integrate motifs from his writings in their works. As we will see in the following, most of these artists rely on the writings of Kabbalah scholars (as well as the writings of Aryeh Kaplan). They view Abulafia as the definitive representative of Jewish mysticism as well as a precursor of modern avant-​garde art and poetry. In the late 1940s, the French-​German poet of Jewish origins, Ivan Goll (1891–​1951), who was affiliated with Dada and Surrealism, became interested in Kabbalah, especially in the teachings of Abulafia, and integrated motifs from his teaching in his poetry. Goll dedicated his poem “Raziel,” which was printed posthumously in his book Les Cercles Magiques, to Abraham Abulafia (1951, 56–​57). In the poem, Goll declared: “One of my ancestors was Abulafia, martyr of the Word” (Sjoberg 2014, 201; Goldman-​Ida 2016, 207, 217). The Romanian-​Jewish artist Isidore Isou (1925–​2007), who founded the French avant-​garde movement Letterism in the mid-​1940s, was also inspired by the Kabbalah of Abulafia. Isou wrote: “perhaps I would have been Abraham, the son of Abulafia of Saragosa, he who had left in search of the mystical river, Sabbation, and wanted to obtain the knowledge of the concealed essence of God, by the permutation of the letters of the alphabet and the Talmudic numbers (is this not my letterism?)” (Isou 1947, 355 cited in Sjoberg 2014, 201). The American Jewish poet Moshe Feinstein was also impressed by the image of Abraham Abulafia and in 1956 he published (in Hebrew) an epic poem about him, in which he integrated his adaptations to segments taken from Abulafia’s writings. Feinstein described Abulafia as “a strange and wonderful person. He was persecuted his entire life, but he held on, with every burning cell of his soul, to the tempest of his imagination, and by this tempest, he was lifted up to a secluded place that no one else knew of. There this exceptional spirit was silenced, but its echoes are still hovering in this world seeking for their rectification” (1956, 8). 17 See the list of translated book on their website: http://​www.everburninglight.org/​index.php/​en/​ translation-​plan.

The Mystification of Kabbalah  155 As mentioned earlier, in the late 1960s several Jewish poets and artists in California began to show an interest in Kabbalah, especially in prophetic Kabbalah. Abulafia’s writings inspired the poets David Meltzer, Jack Hirschman, and Jerome Rothenberg, who translated some of his writings and integrated them in their poetry (Meilicke 2002, 80–​91).18 The members of the California group described Abulafia as a rebel poet and mystic. In 1979, for example, Rothenberg published a lengthy poem entitled “The Circles of Abulafia,” in which he presents Abulafia as a crazed messiah, shaman, and poet (Meilicke 2002, 80).19 Rothenberg, and the other California poets, regarded Abulafia as their role model: “Abulafia . . . was never admitted into the great rabbinic canon of the Jews, because in fact he was the Jews’ truly modern poet/​visual artists” (Rothenberg et al. 1978, 406). As Christine Meilicke emphasized, the key to understanding the poems and poetic translations of these artists is not only found in Abulafia’s writings but also in the way Abulafia was presented in the studies of Scholem, which made a momentous impact on them (2002, 78, 83–​84). Meilicke, who described the California artists’ poetry as “Abulafianism,” claimed that it marks a shift in twentieth-​century American-​Jewish poetry, which had hardly dealt with religious and mystical subjects before (71). Other modern artists and poets were also influenced by Abulafia. The poet Nethaniel Tarn dedicated a poem to Abulafia (1964, 59–​61), and the French playwright, artist, and author Elie-​Georges Berreby wrote a play entitled Abraham Abulafia and the Kabbalah (n.d.). It is interesting to note that the science fiction author Philip K. Dick said that he wrote the novel VALIS in collaboration with the spirit of Abraham Abulafia, which possessed him from time to time (Herron 1993, 225). The Italian author and philosopher Umberto Eco alludes to Abulafia in the renowned novel Foucault’s Pendulum. In the book, abundant in Kabbalistic motifs, the hero’s computer is called “Abulafia.” In difference to the poets mentioned earlier, who found poetic-​ mystic inspiration in Abulafia’s Kabbalah, Eco relates to him with irony—​ the computer Abulafia’s software randomly produces texts bearing esoteric meaning.

18 Meilicke mentions also the influence of Abulafia (again, through the works of Scholem) on the avant-​garde poets Jackson Mac Low and Hanna Weiner. 19 Rothenberg began to write an opera on the life of Abulafia, together with the composer Charlie Morrow. The opera never reached the stage; however, Rothenberg did publish the first two scenes from it on his blog (2008; 2009).

156  Mystifying Kabbalah Abulafia was an inspiration to many visual artists as well. Ben Shahn, the Jewish-​American artist, told of the effect Abulafia had on his drawings and compared his love of Hebrew letters to that of Abulafia (Kriegel Leshnoff 1988, 79–​83). The artist Bruria Finkel, who was close to the Abulafian poets and helped them with translating Abulafia’s writings into English, integrated elements from Abulafia’s Kabbalah in her works (Meilicke 2002, 75). Abulafian motifs also appear in the works of the Jewish-​American artist Jules Kirschenbaum (Kriegel Leshnoff 1988, 90) and in the works of the Israeli-​French artist Abraham Pincas (131–​134). As mentioned earlier, images of Abulafia’s circles of divine names accompanied Madonna when she performed the song “Like a Prayer” in her 2004 reinvention tour. In conclusion, in this chapter, we saw how the marginal thirteenth-​century Kabbalist Abraham Abulafia, who was banned by the rabbinic authorities of his time, became a central figure in modern Kabbalah research and one of the best know Jewish mystics in contemporary culture. Abulafia’s writings were never accepted in the traditional Kabbalistic canon. Yet, beginning in the late nineteenth century, Jewish scholars who found his manuscripts archived in European libraries began to take interest in him. They saw similarities between his unique type of prophetic Kabbalah and the modern idea of mysticism as a universal phenomenon. The new scholars of Kabbalah—​the most prominent among them Moshe Idel—​were interested in the experiential and mystical elements of Kabbalah even more than their predecessors and emphasized the centrality of Abulafia and prophetic Kabbalah in the history of Jewish mysticism. Abulafia’s writings became known to the broader public through the research of the scholars. Contemporary Kabbalistic circles, new spiritual movements, authors, and artists found great interest in Abulafia’s doctrines and practices, which they perceived as the foremost expression of Jewish mysticism. The many academic studies dedicated to Abulafia, the comprehensive publishing of his writings and their translation into English, the popularity of meditative practices based on his teaching, and his integration in literature, art, and the cinema all indicate the centrality of Abulafia and prophetic Kabbalah both in the practice of contemporary Kabbalah and in its public image. The great interest in Abulafia and his reconstruction as the prototype of the Jewish mystic in contemporary culture are dependent on the modern identification of Kabbalah as Jewish mysticism. The modern reception of Abulafia highlights the impact that the mystification of Kabbalah had on modern Kabbalah research and the ways it influenced the contemporary image and practice of Kabbalah.

Epilogue This book opened with a quote from Martin Buber’s letter to his friend Eugen Diederichs. In his letter, Buber discussed the question of the existence of Jewish mysticism. As did many during the same period, Diederichs denied that Jews possessed a mystical tradition. Like some Jewish thinkers of his time, Buber disagreed and aspired to expose the existence of Jewish mysticism. He claimed that certain trends in Judaism, mainly Kabbalah and Hasidism, were Jewish expressions of mysticism, as it was defined in the late nineteenth century and often still is today—​a universal phenomenon of direct and unmediated experience of the divine or transcendent reality. The project of exposing the existence of Jewish mysticism consists, then, of classifying and interpreting Jewish ideas, texts, and practices according to the modern category of “mysticism.” The foundational assumption of this project is that the diverse social practices and cultural products categorized as “Jewish mysticism” were created under the inspiration of mystical encounters with the transcendent reality. This project achieved great success. Today, almost no one will deny the existence of Jewish mysticism. The public at large accepts the identification of Kabbalah and Hasidism as mysticism, and this identification contributes to the development of new forms of Kabbalah and Hasidism. The academic study of Jewish mysticism has become a renowned field of research. Despite the new perspectives and directions in the research of Kabbalah and Hasidism, most scholars take for granted the concept of Jewish mysticism and use it as an analytic category in their research. Only a few scholars question the political and theological assumptions that stand at its foundation and discuss the implications of these assumptions on the academic research of Kabbalah and Hasidism. This book took the opposite direction from the ongoing project of exposing the existence of Jewish mysticism and of subjugating Kabbalah and Hasidism to this category. Instead of assuming the universality of mysticism, and presupposing that Kabbalah and Hasidism are Jewish forms of mysticism, I have tried to reveal and clarify how these assumptions were formed Mystifying Kabbalah. Boaz Huss, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190086961.001.0001

158  Mystifying Kabbalah and the way they shaped the research and practice of Kabbalah and Hasidism. The book revealed the factors that have guided (and continue to guide) the identification of Kabbalah and Hasidism as mysticism, and it explored the historical contexts and discursive processes that shaped the construction of Jewish mysticism. It examined the ways in which this concept has become an analytical category that governed the academic study of Kabbalah and Hasidism, and the impact of this category on the practices of contemporary Kabbalistic and Hasidic movements. It uncovered the political and theological presuppositions underlying the academic study of Jewish mysticism and showed how the theological paradigms of the academic discipline have defined the borders of this field, directed the creation of scientific knowledge, and determined the symbolic value of the researched data. A central claim of this book is that the subordination of Kabbalah and Hasidism to the category of “mysticism” sustains the theological framework of the research field and detaches the products and practices labeled as “mystical” from the social girds and cultural amalgams they are part of. As I have shown in this book, beside the assumption that they were produced under the impact of an encounter with a divine or transcendent reality, it is difficult to find any traits common to things categorized as mystical. In many cases, there are no geographical, historical, or literary connections between the texts, practices, people, and movements labeled as such. Because of that, their study in the framework of a unique category and a specific discipline creates and artificial connection between them, and it tends to sever them from their specific historical, social, and political contexts. As a conclusion, I  would like to suggest that relinquishing “mysticism” as the major category for the conceptualization and study of Kabbalah and Hasidism may disengage the research field from theological presuppositions. This can open up the study of social, political, and economic aspects of Kabbalah that scholars of Jewish mysticism have neglected, enable a research of new historical and cultural contexts that were not taken hitherto into consideration, and encourage the study of Kabbalistic movements that were rejected by scholars as insignificant or inauthentic. I would like to clarify that my argument is not that the term “Jewish mysticism” is not accurate enough. I  do not suggest replacing it with another term or defining the field of Jewish mysticism by a better concept. My suggestion is more radical. I propose to disengage the study of Kabbalah, Hasidism, and the other social formations defined as Jewish mysticism from the historiosophical presuppositions, theological perspectives, and research

Epilogue  159 practices that this categorization entails. I  suggest to study the wide and diversified social practices and cultural products subsumed under the term Jewish mysticism not as expressions of some transhistorical essence, but as social and cultural formations that were created and shaped in specific historical conditions. As such, I do not think there is a need to dedicate a unique field of research to the study of “Jewish mysticism” nor to find a new concept or a different discipline under which to study the phenomena labeled as such. The historical formations that were categorized as “Jewish mysticism” should be researched in the framework of humanities and social studies. They should be studied in the historical and social settings in which they developed and in connection with relevant cultural and discursive contexts, including Jewish, Muslim, and Christian cultures, as well as Western esoteric movements and contemporary New Age spirituality. Abandoning the category of “mysticism” and the aspiration to expose the existence of Jewish mysticism may enable us to rethink the ways in which we classify and label historical phenomena. It may allow us to reconsider the similarities and differences we perceive between the cultural and social practices we research and reconsider the explanations and meanings we give them. Giving up the categorization of Kabbalah and Hasidism as “Jewish mysticism” surely undermines some of the basic assumptions still taken for granted in research today. It may also somewhat diminish the mystique and prestige of the academic study of Kabbalah and Hadisism. Nevertheless, it is necessary in order to open up new trajectories of thought, study, and research.

Bibliography Abelson, J. 1969. Jewish Mysticism: An Introduction to the Kabbalah. New York: Hermin Press. Abrams, Daniel. 2001. “Chapters from Emotional and Sexual Biography of God: Reflections on God’s Attributes in the Bible, Midrash and Kabbalah” [in Hebrew]. Kabbalah 6: 263–​286. Abrams, Daniel. 2005. The Female Body of God in Kabbalistic Literature [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Abulafia, Abraham. 1999a. Or ha-​Sechel [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Torat Hacham. Abulafia, Abraham. 1999b. Sefer ha-​Heshek [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem, Torah Hacham. Abulafia, Abraham. 1999c. Hayei ha-​Olam ha-​Ba [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Amnon Gross. Abulafia, Abraham. 2001. Metzaref ha-​ Sechel and Sefer ha-​ Ot [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Amnon Gross. Abulafia, Abraham. 2002. Sefer ha-​ Heshek, Mafteah ha-​ Ra`ayon, ha-​ Melamed [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Amnon Gross. Abulafia, Abraham. 2003. Sefer ha-​Ziruf [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Amnon Gross. Afterman, Adam. 2011. Devekut: Mystical Intimacy in Medieval Jewish Thought [in Hebrew]. Los Angeles: Cherub Press. Afterman, Adam. 2016. “And They Shall Be One Flesh”: On the Language of Mystical Union in Judaism. Leiden: Brill. Altmann, Alexander. 1981. Essays in Jewish Intellectual History. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. Anidjar, Gil. 1996. “Jewish Mysticism Alterable and Unalterable: On Orienting Kabbalah Studies and the Zohar of Christian Spain.” Jewish Social Studies 3: 89–​157. Arnal, William E. 2000. “Definition.” In Guide to the Study of Religion, edited by Willie Braun and Russel T. McCutcheon, 21–​ 35. London:  Continuum International Publishing Group. Arzy, Shahar, Moshe Idel, Theodor Landis, and Olaf Blanke. 2005. “Speaking with One’s Self:  Autoscopic Phenomena in Writings from the Ecstatic Kabbalah.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 12: 4–​30. Arzy Shahar, and Moshe Idel. 2015. Kabbalah:  A Neurocognitive Approach to Mystical Experiences. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Asad, Talal. 1993. Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Ascheim, Steven E. 1982. Brothers and Strangers: The East European Jew in German and German Jewish Consciousness. 1800–​1923. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Ascher, C. 1980. “The Return of Jewish Mysticism: Try It, You’ll Like It.” Present Tense 17(3): 37. Baeck, Leo. 1958. Judaism and Christianity. Philadelphia: Atheneum. Barak, Uriel. 2009. “On the Nature of Franz Rosenzweig’s Connection to Kabbalah” [in Hebrew]. Da`at 67: 97–​116.

162 Bibliography Bar Tzadok, Ariel. 1999. Lessons in Prayer & Meditation. http://​koshertorah.com/​PDF/​ lessons-​in-​prayer.pdf. Bar Tzadok, Ariel. 2004. Sefer Devekut. http://​www.koshertorah.com/​PDF/​devekut1.pdf. Bar Tzadok, Ariel. 2007. Walking in the Fire:  Classical Torah/​Kabbalistic Meditations, Practices & Prayers. Tarzana: Kosher Torah. Bar Yoseph, Yoseph. 1989. “Kabbalah on the Coach (interview with Moshe Idel)” [in Hebrew]. Bamahane April 27: 24–​25(4). Basnage, Jacques. 1708. The History of the Jews from Jesus Christ to the Present Times. London: T. Beaver and B. Lintot. Beer, Peter. 1822–​1823. Geschichte, Lehren, und Meinungen aller Bestandenen und noch Bestehenden Religiösen Sekten der Juden und der Geheimlehre oder Kabbala, I–​II. Brünn: J. G. Trassler. Belkin, Samuel. 1940. “The Midrash ha-​Neelam and Its Sources in the Old Alexandrian Midrashim” [in Hebrew]. Sura 3: 25–​92. Ben-​Shlomo, Joseph. 1965. The Mystical Theology of Moses Cordovero [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute. Bernfeld, Shimon. 1899. Da`at Elohim [in Hebrew]. Warsaw: Ahiasaf. Bernfeld, Shimon. 1930. Bnei Aliyah [in Hebrew]. Tel Aviv: Dvir. Berreby, Élie-​Georges. n.d. Abraham Aboulafia e la Kabbalah. http://​www.fuocosacro. com/​pagine/​libri/​Abraham%20Abulafia%20e%20la%20Kabbalah.pdf. Biale, David. 1979. Gershom Scholem:  Kabbalah and Counter-​ History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Biale, David. 1985. “Gershom Scholem’s Ten Unhistorical Aphorisms on Kabbalah: Text and Commentary.” Modern Judaism 5: 67–​93. Biale, David. 2001. “Shabbtai Zvi and the Seductions of Jewish Orientalism.” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 16–​17: 85–​110. Bischoff, Erich. 1903. Die Kabbalah:  Einfuhrung in die judische Mystick und Geheimwissenschaft. Leipzig: T. Grieben’s Verlag. Bloch, Philipp. 1894. Geschichte der Entwickelung der Kabbala und jüdischen Religionsphilosophie kurz zusammengefasst. Trier: Sigmund Mayer. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1992. Sociology in Question. London: Sage Publications. Boustan, Ra`anan S. 2005. “Book Review of Beholders of Divine Secrets: Mysticism and Myth in the Hekhalot and Merkavah Literature, by Vita Daphna Arbel.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 125(1): 124. Bouyer, Louis. 1980. “Mysticism: An Essay on the History of the Word.” In Understanding Mysticism, edited by Richard Woods, 42–​55. New York: Doubleday. Braun, Willie. 2000. “Religion.” In Guide to the Study of Religion, edited by Willie Braun and Russel T. McCutcheon, 3–​21. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Brill, Alan. 2010a. Rabbi Morgenstern and Meditation. February 9.  https://​kavvanah. wordpress.com/​2010/​02/​09/​rabbi-​morgenstern-​and-​meditation/​ Brill, Alan. 2010b. “Why Read the Zohar.” Forward, January 13. https://​forward.com/​culture/​123344/​why-​read-​the-​zohar/​. Buber, Martin. 1920. Die Geschichten des Rabbi Nachman. Frankfurt am Main: Rutten & Loening. Buber, Martin. 1956. The Tales of Rabbi Nachman. Translated by Maurice Friedman. New York: Horizon Press. Buber, Martin. 1962. Werke (Schriften zum Chassidismus III). München: Kösel. Buber, Martin. 1963. “Interpreting Hasidism.” Commentary 36(3): 218–​225.

Bibliography  163 Buber, Martin. 1967. “Replies to My Critics.” In The Philosophy of Martin Buber, edited by Paul A. Schilpp and Maurice Friedman, 689–​744. La Salle, IL: Open Court Press. Burmistrov, Konstantin. 2006. ”Gershom Scholem und das Okkulte.” Gnostika 33: 23–​34. Caird, Edward. 1899. The Evolution of Religion: The Gifford Lectures Delivered before the University of St. Andrews in Sessions 1890–​91 and 1891–​92. New York: Macmillan . Chajes, Jeffery H. 2002. “In a Different Voice: The Non-​Kabbalistic Women’s Mysticism of Early Modern Jewish Culture” [in Hebrew]. Zion 67: 139–​162. Chajes, Jeffery H. 2003. Between Worlds: Dybbuks, Exorcists, and Early Modern Judaism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Chajes, Julie. 2016. “Construction through Appropriation: Kabbalah in Blavatsky’s Early Works.” in Theosophical Appropriations: Esotericism, Kabbalah and the Transformation of Traditions, edited by Julie Chajes and Boaz Huss, 33–​72. Beer Sheva: Ben-​Gurion University of the Negev Press. Chambers, Ephraim. 1728. Cyclopædia, or An Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences. London. Chatterjee, Partha. 1993. The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cherlow, Smadar. 2004. Tzaddiq Yesod Olam: Rabbi Kook’s Secret Mission and Mystical Experience [in Hebrew]. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan Press. Cohen, David. 2005. Mishnat Ha-​Nazir. Edited by Hare`l Cohen and Yedidyah Cohen [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Nezer David. Cooper, David. 2005. Ecstatic Kabbalah. Boulder: Sounds True. Cousin, Victor. 1854. Lectures on the True, the Beautiful and the Good. New  York:  D. Appleton. Dan, Joseph. 1968. The Esoteric Theology of Ashkenazi Hasidism [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute. Dan, Joseph. 1987. Gershom Scholem and the Mystical Dimension of Jewish History. New York: New York University Press. Dan, Joseph. 1997. On Sanctity:  Religion, Ethics and Mysticism in Judaism and Other Religions [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Dan, Joseph. 1998–​1999. Jewish Mysticism, I–​IV. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson. Dan, Joseph. 2002. The Heart and the Fountain:  An Anthology of Jewish Mystical Experiences. New York:  Oxford University Press. Dan, Joseph. 2005a. “Gershom Scholem and the Study of Kabbalah at the Hebrew University.” In The History of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, A  Period of Consolidation and Growth, edited by Hagit Lavsky, vol. 2, 199–​218 [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Dan, Joseph. 2005b. The Heart and the Fountain:  An Anthology of Jewish Mystical Experiences [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Keter. de Certeau, Michel. 1992. “Mysticism.” Diacritics 22: 11–​25. Delmedigo, Yosef. 1629. Metzraf La-​Hochma [in Hebrew]. Basel. Deutsch, Nathaniel. 1991. “Mahloket.” Incognita 3: 241–​250. Diderot, Denis, and Jean-​Baptiste le Rond D’Alembert. 1752. Encyclopédie, ou Dictionnaire Raisonné des Sciences, des Arts et des Métiers. Paris: Briasson. Dubuisson, Daniel. 2003. The Western Construction of Religion: Myths, Knowledge, and Ideology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Duprè, Louis. 1976. Transcendent Selfhood:  The Loss and Recovery of the Inner Life. New York: Seabury Press.

164 Bibliography Duprè, Louis. 1987. “Mysticism.” In The Encyclopaedia of Religion, edited by Mircea Eliade, 245–​261. New York: Macmillan. Ehrenpreis, Marcus. 1895. Die Entwicklung der Emanationslehre in der Kabbala des XIII. Jahrhunderts. Frankfurt: J. Kauffmann. Eliade, Mircea. 1987. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. New York: Harper and Row. Elior, Rachel. 1992. “The Metaphorical Relation between God and Man and the Significance of the Visionary Reality in Lurianic Kabbalah.” In Lurianic Kabbalah, edited by Rachel Elior and Yehuda Liebes, 47–​57 [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: The Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies. Elior, Rachel. 2007. Jewish Mysticism: The Infinite Expression of Freedom. Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization. Elior, Rachel. 2008. Dybbuks and Jewish Women in Social History, Mysticism and Folklore. Jerusalem: Urim. Eliyahu, Shmuel. 1998. “Mysticism Is Not Kabbalah.” Nekudah 215 (April): 36. Encyclopedia Britannica. 1771. 1st ed.Edinburgh:  Colin Macfarquhar, Andrew Bell & Archibald Constable. Encyclopedia Britannica. 1797. 3rd ed. Edinburgh:  Colin Macfarquhar, Andrew Bell & Archibald Constable. Encyclopedia Britannica. 1842. 7th ed. Edinburgh: A & C Black. Encyclopedia Britannica. 1911. 11th ed.New York: Encyclopaedia Britannica. Feinstein, Moshe. 1956. Abraham Abulafia; A Historical Poem. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik. Fishbane, Michael. 1989. “Some Forms of Divine Appearance in Ancient Jewish Thought.” In From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism—​Intelect in Quest of Understanding: Essays in Honor of Marvin Fox, edited by Jacob Neusner, Ernest S. Frerichs, and Nahum Sarna, 261–​270. Atlanta: Scholars. Fitzgerald, Timothy. 2000. The Ideology of Religious Studies. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fitzgerald, Timothy. 2003. “Playing Language Games and Performing Rituals: Religious Studies as Ideological State Apparatus.” Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 15(3): 209–​254. Forman, Robert K.  C., ed. 1990. The Problem of Pure Consciousness:  Mysticism and Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press. Frank, Adolph. 1843. La Kabbale ou La Philosophie Religieuse des Hebreux. Paris:  L. Hachette. Frank, Adolph. 1844. Die Kabbalah oder die Religionsphilosophie der Hebraeer. Leipzig: H. Hunger. Frank, Adolph. 1926. The Kabbalah or The Religious Philosophy of the Hebrews. New York: Kabbalah Publishing Company. Freud, Sigmund. 1963. Civilization and its Discontents. London: Hogarth Press. Fuchs, Sarit. 1986. “Where Are the Roots of the Tree of Souls?” [in Hebrew]. Ma`ariv February 14L 25. Funkenstein, Amos. 2008. “Jewish History among the Throns.” In Thinking Impossibilities: The Intellectual Legacy of Amos Funkenstein, edited by David Biale and Robert S. Westman, 309–​327. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Gam-​Hacohen. 2014. Gershom Scholem 1934 Lectures at “Ohel Shem” [in Hebrew]. Kabbalah 31: 71–​117.

Bibliography  165 Gam-​Hacohen. 2016. Kabbalah Research in Israel:  Historiography, Ideology and the Struggle for Cultural Capital [in Hebrew]. Tel Aviv: Resling. Garb, Jonathan. 2002. “The Understandable Revival of Mysticism in Our Time: Innovation versus Conservatism in the Thought of Joseph Ahituv.” In Jewish Culture at the Eye of the Storm—​Festschrift in Honor of Joseph Ahituv’s Seventieth Birthday, edited by A. Sagi and N. Ilan, 172–​199 [in Hebrew]. Ein Zurim: HaKibbutz Hameuchad. Garb, Jonathan. 2004. “Mystics’ Critiques of Mystical Experience.” Revue de l’histoire des Religions 221: 293–​325. Garb, Jonathan. 2005. Manifestations of Power in Jewish Mysticism:  From Rabbinic Literature to Safedian Kabbalah [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Garb, Jonathan. 2007. “Moseh Idel’s Contribution to the Study of Religion.” Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 6(18): 16–​29. Garb, Jonathan. 2009. The Chosen Will Become Herds:  Studies in Twentieth-​Century Kabbalah. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Garb, Jonathan. 2011a. Shamanic Trance in modern Kabbalah. Chicago:  University of Chicago Press. Garb, Jonathan. 2011b. “Towards the Study of the Spiritual-​Mystical Renaissance in the Contemporary Ashkenazi Haredi World in Israel.” In Kabbalah and Contemporary Spiritual Revival, edited by Boaz Huss, 117–​ 140. Beer Sheva:  Ben-​ Gurion University Press. Geiger, Abraham. 1835. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift fur judische Theologie. Stuttgart: Fr. Brodhag. Geiger, Abraham. 1871. Das Judenthum und Seine Geschichte, I–​III. Breslau: Skutsch. Gilman, Sander. 1979. “The Rediscovery of the Eastern Jews: German Jews in the East. 1890–​1918.” In Jews and Germans from 1860–​1933: The Problematic Symbiosis, edited by David Bronsen, 338–​366. Heidelberg: Winter. Gimello, Robert M. 1983. “Mysticism and Its Contexts.” In Mysticism and Religious Traditions, edited by Steven Katz, 170–​199. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ginsburg, Christian D. 1865. The Kabbalah: Its Doctrines, Development and Literature. London: Routledge. Ginsburgh, Yitzchak. 2004. Body, Mind and Soul: Kabbalah on Human Physiology, Disease and Healing. Kfar Chabad: Gal Einai. Ginsburgh, Yitzchak. 2014. “About the Mystical Heart: A Spiritual Symbol of Love.” Gal Einai. http://​www.inner.org/​goldjewelry/​aboutjewelry/​aboutmysticalheart.php. Goldish, Matt. 2005. “Kabbalah, Academia, and Authenticity.” Tikkun 20: 63–​67. Goldman-​Ida, Batsheva. 2016. Alchemy of Words: Abraham Abulafia, Dada, Lettrism. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv Museum. Goldreich Amos. 2010. Automatic Writing in Zoharic Literature and Modernism [in Hebrew]. Los Angeles: Cherub Press. Goll, Ivan. 1951. Les Cercles Magiques. Paris: Edition Falaize. Gordon, A. D. 1928. Collected Writings. Tel Aviv: Ha-​Poel Ha-​Tzair [Hebrew]. Graetz, Heinrich. 1853. Geschichte der Juden von den ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart, I–​XI. Leipzig: O. Leiner. Green, Arthur, ed. 1986. World Spirituality: An Encyclopedic History of the Religious Quest, XIII (Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible through the Middle Ages). New York: Crossroad. Green, Arthur. 1990. “Jewish Mysticism.” Commentary Magazine, February 1.  https://​ www.commentarymagazine.com/​articles/​jewish-​mysticism/​.

166 Bibliography Green, Arthur. 1992. “Religion and Mysticism.” In Take Judaism, For Example: Studies towards the Comparison of Religions, edited by Jacob Neusner, 67–​91. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. Green, Arthur. 2003. Ehyeh: A Kabbalah for Tomorrow. Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights. Green, Arthur. 2004. A Guide to the Zohar. Stanford, CA:  Stanford University Press. Greenstein, David. 2003. “Aimless Pilgrimage: The Quotidian Utopia of the Zohar.” PhD dissertation, New York University. Gries, Zeev. 1990. Conduct Literature (Regimen Vitae)—​Its History and Place in the Life of Beshtian Hasidim [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik. Gruenwald, Ithamar. 1993. “Reflections on the Nature and Origins of Jewish Mysticism.” In Gershom Scholem’s Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism—​50 Years After: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the History of Jewish Mysticism, edited by Peter Schafer and Joseph Dan, 25–​49. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. Günzig, Azriel. 1905. “Rabbi Abraham Abuflafia” [in Hebrew]. Ha-​Eshkol 5: 85–​112. Halbertal, Moshe. 1990. “Varieties of Mysticism” (Book Review). The New Republic, June 11,  34–​39. Hallamish, Moshe. 1991. An Introduction to the Kabbalah [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: HaKibbutz Hameuchad. Hallamish, Moshe. 1999. An Introduction to the Kabbalah. Albany:  State University of New York. Hames, Harvey. 2007. Like Angels on Jacob’s Ladder: Abraham Abulafia, the Franciscans, and Joachimism. Albany: State University of New York. Hanegraaff, Wouter J. 1998. New Age Religion and Western Culture:  Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought. Albany: State University of New York. Hanegraaff, Wouter J. 2006. “Jewish Influences V: Occultist Kabbalah.” In Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism, edited by Wouter J. Hanegraaff, 644–​647. Leiden: Brill. Hanegraaff, Wouter J. 2010. “The Beginnings of Occultist Kabbalah:  Adolph Franck and Eliphas Levi.” In Kabbalah and Modernity:  Interpretations, Transformations, Adaptations, edited by Boaz Huss, Marco Pasi, and Kocku von Stuckrad, 107–​127. Leiden: Brill. Happold, Franck C. 1991. Mysticism: A Study and an Anthology. London: Penguin. Harari, Yuval. 2016. “Three Charms for Killing Hitler:  A Chapter in the History of Practical Kabbalah” [in Hebrew]. Zion 81: 177–​213.Harpaz, Yoram. 1990. “Casting a Large Shadow (2).” Kol ha-​Ir, January 19, p. 50. Hecker, Joel. 2005. Mystical Bodies, Mystical Meals: Eating and Embodiment in Medieval Kabbalah. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Heelas, Paul. 1996. The New Age Movement: The Celebration of the Self and the Sacralization of Modernity. Oxford: Blackwell. Heinroth, Johann Christian A. 1830. Geschichte und Kritik des Mysticismus aller Bekannten Volker und Zeiten. Leipzig: Biblio Bazaar. Hellner-​ Eshed, Melila. 2006. “Rabbi Moshe Cordovero’s Mythical Midrash on the Fashioning of Ornaments.” In Study and Knowledge in Jewish Thought, edited by Howard Kreisel, 207–​222 [in Hebrew]. Beer-​Sheva:  Ben Gurion-​University of the Negev Press. Hellner-​Eshed, Melila. 2009. A River Flows from Eden. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Herron, Don, ed. 1993. The Selected Letters of Philip K. Dick. Novata, CA: Underwoods Books.

Bibliography  167 Herzberg, Arthur. 1987. “Gershom Scholem as Zionist and Believer.” In Gershom Scholem, edited by Harold Bloom, 189–​205. New York: Chelsea House Publishers. Heschel, Abraham Joshua. 1996. Prophetic Inspiration after the Prophets:  Maimonides and Other Medieval Authorities. Edited by Morris M. Faierstein. New  York:  KTAV Publishing House. Hillel, Yakov Moseh. 2002. Sefer Ahavat Shalom [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Ahavat Shalom. Hollenback, Jess Byron. 1996. Mysticism:  Experience, Response, and Empowerment. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Horodezky, Samuel A. 1914. Mystisch-​Religiose Stromungen unter der Juden in Polen im 16.–​18. Jahrhundert. Leipzig: Gustav Engel. Huss, Boaz. 2006a. “Admiration and Disgust: The Ambivalent Re-​Canonization of the Zohar in the Modern Period.” In Study and Knowledge in Jewish Thought, edited by Howard Kreisel, 203–​237. Beer Sheva: Ben-​Gurion University of the Negev Press. Huss, Boaz. 2006b. “The Text and Context of the Zohar Sulzbach Edition.” In Tradition, Heterodoxy and Religious Culture: Judaism and Christianity in the Early Modern Period, edited by Chanita Goodblat and Howard Kreisel, 117–​138. Beer Sheva: Ben-​Gurion University of the Negev Press. Huss, Boaz. 2007a. “Jewish Mysticism in the University: Academic Study or Theological Practice?.” Zeek, December. http://​www.zeek.net/​712academy/​. Huss, Boaz. 2007b. “’Authorized Guardians’: The Polemics of Academic Scholars of Jewish Mysticism Against Kabbalah Practitioners.” In Polemical Encounters: Esoteric Discourse and its Others, edited by Olav Hammer and Kocku von Stuckrad, 81–​103. Leiden: Brill. Huss, Boaz. 2007c. “The New Age of Kabbalah: Contemporary Kabbalah, the New Age and Postmodern Spirituality.” Journal of Modern Jewish Studies 6: 107–​125. Huss, Boaz. 2008a. “‘Paying Extra’: A Response to Shaul Magid.” Zeek, March. http://​www. zeek.net/​803huss/​index.php?page=3. Huss, Boaz. 2008b. “The Formation of Jewish Mysticism and Its Impact on the Reception of Abraham Abulafia in Contemporary Kabbalah.” In Religion and Its Others, edited by Heicke Bock, Jörg Feuchter, and Michi Knechts, 142–​162. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag. Huss, Boaz. 2008c. “Martin Buber’s Introduction to the Stories of Rabbi Nachman and the Genealogy of Jewish Mysticism.” InBy the Well: Studies in Jewish Philosophy and Halakhic Thought Presented to Gerald J. Blidstein, edited by Ehrlich and H. Kreisel, 97–​ 121 [in Hebrew]. Beer Sheva: Ben-​Gurion University Press. Huss, Boaz. 2010. “‘The Sufis From America’: Kabbalah and Theosophy in Puna in the Late 19th Century.” In Kabbalah and Modernity:  Interpretations, Transformations, Adaptations, edited by Boaz Huss, Marco Pasi, and Kocku von Stuckrad, 167–​193. Leiden: Brill. Huss, Boaz. 2011. “Contemporary Kabbalah and Its Challenge to the Academic Study of Jewish Mysticism.” In Kabbalah and Contemporary Spiritual Revival, edited by Boaz Huss, 357–​373. Beer Sheva: Ben-​Gurion University Press. Huss, Boaz. 2013. “Forward to the East: Naphtali Herz Imber’s Perception of Kabbalah.” Journal of Modern Jewish Studies 12(3): 398–​418. Huss, Boaz. 2014. “Spirituality:  The Emergence of a New Cultural Category and its Challenge to the Religious and the Secular.” Journal of Contemporary Religion 29: 47–​60. Huxley, Aldous. 1944. The Perennial Philosophy. London: Perennial Classics. Idel, Moshe. 1988a. Kabbalah: New Perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Idel, Moshe. 1988b. The Mystical Experience in Abraham Abulafia. Albany: SUNY Press.

168 Bibliography Idel, Moshe. 1990. The Golem: Jewish Magical and Mystical Traditions on the Artificial Anthropoid. Albany: SUNY Press. Idel, Moshe. 1993. “The Contribution of Abraham Abulafia’s Kabbalah to the Understanding of Jewish Mysticism.” In Gershom Scholem’s Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism 50 Years After: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the History of Jewish Mysticism, edited by Peter Schäfer and Joseph Dan, 117–​143. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Idel, Moshe. 1995. Hasidism between Ecstasy and Magic. Albany: SUNY Press. Idel, Moshe. 1998a. “Subversive Catalysts:  Gnosticism and Messianism in Gershom Scholem’s View of Jewish Mysticism.” In The Jewish Past Revisited:  Reflections on Modern Jewish Historians, edited by David N. Myers and David B. Ruderman, 39–​57. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Idel, Moshe. 1998b. Messianic Mystics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Idel, Moshe. 1999a. “Academic Studies of Kabbalah in Israel. 1923–​1998: A Short Survey.” Studia Judaica 8: 91–​114. Idel, Moshe. 1999b. “Kabbalah Research:  From Monochromatism to Polymorphism.” Studia Judaica 8: 15–​46. Idel, Moshe. 2002a. Absorbing Perfections:  Kabbalah and Interpretation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Idel, Moshe. 2002b. “‘Unio Mystica’ as a Criterion:  Some Observations on ‘Hegelian’ Phenomenologies of Mysticism.” Journal for the Study of Religious Ideologies 1: 19–​41. Idel, Moshe. 2004. “On the Theologization of Kabbalah in Modern Scholarship.” In Religious Apologetics—​Philosophical Argumentation, edited by Yossef Schwartz and Volkhard Krech, 123–​174. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. Idel, Moshe. 2005a. Ascensions on High in Jewish Mysticism:  Pillars, Lines, Ladders. Budapest: Central European University Press. Idel, Moshe. 2005b. Enchanted Chains: Techniques and Rituals in Jewish Mysticism. Los Angeles: Cherub Press. Idel, Moshe. 2005c. Kabbalah and Eros. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Idel, Moshe. 2005d. “Abraham Abulafia, Gershom Scholem and Rabbi David Cohen (the Nazirite) on Prophecy.” In The Path of the Spirit, Eliezer Schweid’s Jubilee Volume, edited by Yehoyada Amir, vol. 2, 819–​834 [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University. Idel, Moshe. 2007. “Jewish Mysticism among the Jews of Arab/​Moslem Lands.” The Journal for the Study of Sephardic and Mizrahi Jewry 1: 14–​38. Idel, Moshe. 2010. Old Worlds, New Mirrors: On Jewish Mysticism and Twentieth-​Century Thought. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Inge, William R. 1899. Christian Mysticism. London: University of Oxford Press. Isou, Isidor. 1947. L`aggregation d`un Non et d`un Messie. Paris: Gallimard. James, William. 1902. The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature. New York: Longmans, Green and Co. Jameson, Fredric. 1993. Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. London: Verso. Jantzen, Grace M. 1997. Power, Gender and Christian Mysticism. New York: Cambridge University Press. Jellinek, Adolph. 1851. Moses ben Schem-​Tob de Leon und Sein Verhältniss zum Sohar. Leipzig: Heinrich Hunger. Jellinek, Adolph. 1853. Auswahl Kabbalisticher Mystik. Leipzig: Coldittz. Jellinek, Adolph. 1854. Philosophie und Kabbala. Leipzig: Heinrich Hunger.

Bibliography  169 Jellinek, Adolph. 1887. “Sefer ha-​ Ôt:  Apokalypse des Pseudo-​ Propheten und Pseudo-​ Messias Abraham Abulafia vollendet in Jahre 1285.” In Jubelschrift zum Siebzigsten Geburstage des Prof. Dr.  H.  Graetz, edited by Adolph Jellinek, 63–​88. Breslau: Shcottlaender. Jöel, David Heymann. 1849. Midrash ha-​Zohar: Die Religionsphilosophie des Sohar und ihr Verhältnis zur allgemeinen juedischen Theologie. Leipzig: Louis Lamm. Jones, Rufus M. 1909. Studies in Mystical Religion. London: MacMillan. Jost, Isaac Marcus. 1820–​1828. Geschichte der Israeliten seit der Zeit der Makkabaer bis auf unsere tag, I–​IX. Berlin: Schlesingersche buch-​und musikhandlung. Jost, Isaac Marcus. 1857–​1859. Geschichte des Judenthums und Seiner Sekten, I–​III. Leipzig: Dorffling and Franke. Kaplan, Aryeh. 1978. Meditation and the Bible. York Beach, ME: Samuel Weiser. Kaplan, Aryeh. 1982. Meditation and Kabbalah. York Beach, ME: Samuel Weiser. Kaplan, Aryeh. 1985. Jewish Meditation—​A Practical Guide. New York: Schocken Books. Kaplan, Edward K., and Samuel H. Dresner. 1998. Abraham Joshua Heschel, Prophetic Witness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Karppe, Sylv. 1901. Etude sur les origines et la nature du Zohar, Précédée D’une Étude Sur L’Histoire de la Kabbale. Paris: F. Alcan . Katz, Steven. 1978. “Language, Epistemology, and Mysticism.” In Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis, edited by Steven Katz, 22–​74. London: Sheldon Press. Katz, Steven. 2013. “Introduction.” In Comparative Mysticism: An Anthology of Original Sources, edited by Steven Katz, 3–​22. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Katz, Jacob. 1979. “On the Relationship Between Sabbateanism, Haskalah, and Reform.” In Ein Hadah:  Anniversary Volume for Alexander Altman, 83–​100 [in Hebrew]. Birmingham: Alabama University Press. Katz, Jacob. 1984. Halacha and Kabbalah [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Magnes. Katzman, Avi. 1989. “Almost a Mutiny” [in Hebrew]. Haaretz 20(10): 21–​23. Kaufman, Tsippi. 2009. In All Your Ways Know Him:  The Concept of God and Avoda be-​Gashmiyut in the Early Stages of Hasidism [in Hebrew]. Ramat Gan:  Bar Ilan University Press. Kenton, Warren (Z’ev Ben Shimon Halevi). 1972. Tree of Life:  An Introduction to the Cabala. London: Red Wheel Weiser Press. Kepnes, Steven D. 1987. “A Hermeneutic Approach to the Buber-​Scholem Controversy.” Journal of Jewish Studies 38: 81–​98. Kilcher, Andreas B. 2000. “Figuren des Endes: Historie und Aktualitat der Kabbalah bei Gershom Scholem.” In Gershom Scholem: Literature und Rhetorik, edited by Stéphan Mosès and Sigrid Weigel, 153–​199. Cologne: Böhlau. Kilcher, Andreas B. 2010. “Philology as Kabbalah.” In Kabbalah and Modernity: Interpretations, Transformations, Adaptations, edited by Boaz Huss, Marco Pasi, and Kocku von Stuckrad, 13–​26. Leiden: Brill. King, Richard. 2002. Orientalism and Religion: Postcolonial Theory, India and The Mystic East. London: Routledge. Kohler, Kaufmann, and Louis Ginzberg. 1906. “Cabala.” In Jewish Encyclopedia, I, edited by Isidore Singer and Cyrus Adler, 456–​479. New York: Funk and Wagnalls. Kohler, George. 2019. Kabbalah Research in the Wissenschaft des Judentums (1820–​ 1880): The Foundation of an Academic Discipline. Oldenbourg, Germany: De Gruyter. Kook, Abraham Isaac. 1943. Iggrot ha-​R`eiyah [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem:  Rabbi Kook Institute.

170 Bibliography Kook, Abraham Isaac. 2004. Shmona Kvatzim [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem. Koren, Sharon F. 2011. Forsaken: The Menstruant in Medieval Jewish Mysticism. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press. Kra-​Ivanov Kaniel, Ruth. 2010. “Eve, the Gazelle, and the Serpent: Narratives of Creation and Redemption, Myth and Gender” [in Hebrew]. Kabbalah 21: 255–​310. Kriegel Leshnoff, Susan. 1988. “The Influence of Jewish Mysticism on Jewish Contemporary Artists.” PhD dissertation, Colombia University. Kurzweil, Baruch. 1969. Struggling for the Principles of Judaism [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Schoken. Laitman, Michael. 2014. “Kabbalah Is Not Mysticism.” http://​www.kabbalah.info/​eng/​ content/​view/​frame/​85981?/​eng/​content/​view/​full/​85981&main. Landauer, Meyer H. 1845. “Vorläufiger Bericht über meine Entdeckungen in Ansehung des Sohar.” Literaturblatt des Orient 6, pp. 345, 380–​384, 417–​422, 471–​475, 488–​492, 507–​510, 525–​528, 542–​544, 556–​558, 570–​574, 587–​592, 709–​713, 748–​750. Leet, Leonora. 1999. Renewing the Covenant. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions. Leroy-​ Beaulieu, Anatole. 1894. Les Juifs et l’Antisesmitisme:  Isräel chez les Nations. Paris: Michel Levy Frere. Leuba, James L. 1925. The Psychology of Religious Mysticism. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Liebes, Yehuda. 1989. “On Mutiny, Murder and Fear at the Department of Jewish Thought” [in Hebrew]. Haaretz November 10: 44. Liebes, Yehuda. 1990. “Shlomo Pines and the Study of Kabbalah.” In Shlomo Pines Jubilee Volume On the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday, edited by Moshe Idel, Zeev Harvey, and Eliezer Schweid, 16–​22 [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University. Liebes, Yehuda. 1992. “New Directions in the Study of Kabbalah” [in Hebrew]. Peamim 50: 150–​170. Liebes, Yehuda. 1993a. “Metaphysics of Interpretation” [in Hebrew]. Haaretz October 15: 8b–​9b. Liebes, Yehuda. 1993b. Studies in Jewish Myth and Jewish Messianism. Albany: SUNY Press. Liebes, Yehuda. 1997. “Judaism and Myth” [in Hebrew]. Dimuy 14: 6–​15. Liebes, Yehuda. 2000. “God and His Attributes” [in Hebrew]. Tarbiz 70: 51–​73. Liebes, Yehuda. 2004a. “Is the Schechina a Virgin?” [In Hebrew]. Haaretz, February 20: 5a. Liebes, Yehuda. 2004b. “The Female Form Divine?” Haaretz English Edition, February 27. https://​www.haaretz.com/​1.4742068. Liebes, Yehuda. 2005. “Thoughts on the Religious Significance of Kabbalah Research.” In The Path of the Spirit, Eliezer Schweid’s Jubilee Volume, edited by Yehoyada Amir, 197–​ 208 [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University. Liebes, Yehuda. 2006. “Spirituality and Spirit.” [in Hebrew]. Makor Rishon (Sabbath supplement) October 20: 6–​7. Liebes, Yehuda. 2008. “The Enlightened Shall Shine, The Enlightened Shall Understand (Review of Boaz Huss, Like the Splendour of the Sky)” [in Hebrew]. Makor Rishon (Sabbath supplement) April 18: 30–​31. Liebes, Yehuda. 2009. “A Bride as she is (Review of Bracha Sack, Maayan Ein Yaakov” [In Hebrew]. Masekhet 9: 191–​199. Lorberbaum, Yair. In God’s Image:  Myth, Theology and Law in Classical Judaism. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lyotard, Jean-​Francois. (1991). The Postmodern Condition:  A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Bibliography  171 Ma’arechet ha-​Elohut (1558). Ma’arechet ha-​Elohut [in Hebrew]. Mantua:  Meir Ben Ephraim. Magid, Shaul. 2008a. From Metaphysics to Midrash: Myth, History, and the Interpretation of Scripture in Lurianic Kabbalah. Bloomington: Indiana University Press . Magid, Shaul. 2008b. “Is Kabbala Mysticism? Continuing the Debate.” Zeek, March. http://​ zeek.forward.com/​articles/​115669/​. Magid, Shaul. 2010. “Constructing Women from Man:  The Metaphysics of Male Homosexuality among Lurianic Kabbalists in Sixteenth-​Century Safed.” Jewish Studies Quarterly 17: 4–​28. Matt, Daniel. 1996. God & The Big Bang:  Discovering Harmony between Science and Spirituality. Woodstock, NY: Jewish Lights. Matt, Daniel. 2003. The Zohar: Translation and Commentary, I. Pritzker Edition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Margolin, Ron. 2005. The Human Temple: Religious Interiorization and the Structuring of Inner Life in Early Hasidism [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Magnes. Margolin, Ron. 2007. “Moshe Idel’s Phenomenology and its Sources.” Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 6(18): 41–​51. McCutcheon, Russel T. 1997. Manufacturing Religion:  The Discourse on Sui Generis Religion and the Politics of Nostalgia. New York: Oxford University Press. McCutcheon, Russel T. 2003. The Discipline of Religion:  Structure, Meaning, Rhetoric. London: Routledge. McGinn, Bernard. 1991. The Foundation of Mysticism:  Men and Women in the New Mysticism (1200–​1350). New York: Crossroad. McKinnon, Andrew M. 2002. “Sociological Definitions, Language Games and the ‘Essence’ of Religion.” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 14: 61–​83. Meilicke, Christine A. 2002. “Abulafianism among the Counterculture Kabbalists.” Jewish Studies Quarterly 9: 10–​71. Meir, Jonatan. 2016. Kabbalistic Circles in Jerusalem (1896–​1948). Leiden:  Brill, Aries Book Series. Meltzer, David. 1976a. The Secret Garden:  An Anthology in the Kabbalah. New  York: Seabury Press. Meltzer, David. 1976b. The Path of Names: Writing by Abraham Abulafia. Berkeley, CA: Tree Books. Mendes-​Flohr, Paul. 1991. Divided Passions:  Jewish Intellectuals and the Experience of Modernity. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Mendes-​Flohr, Paul, and Ze`ev Gries. 1988. “Introduction.” In The Tales of Rabbi Nachman:  Martin Buber, ix–​ xxviii. Atlantic Highlands, NJ:  Humanities Press International. Mertens, Bram. 2002. “‘This Still Remarkable Book’:  Franz Joseph Molitor’s Judaeo-​ Christian Synthesis.” Journal of Modern Jewish 1(2): 167–​181. Molitor, Joseph F. 1827. Philosophie der Geschichte oder über die Tradition. Frankfurt am Main: Hermann. Mopsik, Charles. 1996a. Rabbi Moses de Leon ‘s Sefer Shekel ha-​Kodesh [in Hebrew]. Los Angeles: Cherub. Mopsik, Charles. 1996b. “Reverberations of the Kabbalah in Modern French Thought.” Shofar 14: 32–​46. Mopsik, Charles. 2005. Sex of the Soul:  The Vicissitudes of Sexual Difference in the Kabbalah. Los Angeles: Cherub Press.

172 Bibliography More, Henry. 1662. A Conjectural Essay of Interpreting the Mind of Moses According to a Threefold Cabbalah viz. Literal, Philosophical, Mystical, or Divinely Moral. London: W. Morden. Morgenstern, Yitzchak Meir Morgenstern. 2006. Sefer Yam HaCochma [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Machon Yam HaCochma. Myers, David. 1995. Re-​Inventing the Jewish Past: European Jewish Intellectuals and the Zionist Return to History. New York: Oxford University Press. Myers, David. 2008. “Philosophy and Kabbalah in Wissenschaft des Judentums: Rethinking the Narrative of Neglect.” Studia Judaica 16: 56–​71. Myers, Jody. 2007. Kabbalah and the Spiritual Quest: The Kabbalah Centre in America. Westport, CT: Praeger. Myers, Jody. 2011. “Kabbalah for the Gentiles:  Diverse Souls and Universalism in Contemporary Kabbalah.” In Kabbalah and Contemporary Spiritual Revival, edited by Boaz Huss, 181–​211. Beer Sheva: Ben-​Gurion University Press. Nadler, Allan. 1999. “Moshe Idel’s Search for the Messiah: A Scholar’s Bold Revisions.” Forward, March 26: 1. Nicolai, Friedrich. 1799. Über meine gelehrte Bildung, Über meine Kenntnisse der kritischen Philosophie und meine Schriften dieselben betreffend, und über die Herren Kant, J. B. Erhard, und Fichte. Berlin: Culture et Civilization. Pasi, Marco. 2010. “Oriental Kabbalah and the Parting of East and West in the Early Theosophical Society.” In Kabbalah and Modernity: Interpretations, Transformations, Adaptations, edited by Boaz Huss, Marco Pasi, and Kocku von Stuckrad, 151–​166. Leiden: Brill. Pedaya, Haviva. 2002. Vision and Speech:  Models of Prophecy in Jewish Mysticism [in Hebrew]. Los Angeles: Cherub Press. Pedaya, Haviva. 2011a. Walking through Trauma:  Mysticism, History and Ritual [in Hebrew]. Tel Aviv: Resling. Pedaya, Haviva. 2011b. Space and Place: Essay on the Theological-​Political Unconscious [in Hebrew]. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad. Persico, Tomer. 2012. “ ‘Jewish Meditation’:  The Development of a Modern Form of Spiritual Practice in Contemporary Judaism” [in Hebrew]. PhD thesis, Tel Aviv University. Pick, Bernhard. 1913. The Cabala:  Its Influence on Judaism and Christianity. Chicago: Kessinger. Polzer, Natalie. 2009. “The Ambivalence of Spirit Possession:  Liberating ‘Voice of the Voiceless’ or Social Control? Review of Rachel Elior, ‘Dybbuks and Jewish Women in Social History, Mysticism and Folklore.’” H-​ Net Reviews in the Humanities and Social Sciences, July. https://​networks.h-​net.org/​node/​28655/​reviews/​30699/​ polzer-​elior-​dybbuks-​and-​jewish-​women-​social-​history-​mysticism-​and. Porush, Yosef Elazar Elimelch. 1989. Sefer Sulam ha-​Aliya and Saarei Zedek [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Shaarie Ziv. Porush, Tahel. 2008. “Like an Eternal Pregnancy” [in Hebrew]. Haaretz:  Gallery Supplement, September 18. https://​www.haaretz.co.il/​gallery/​1.3360188. Rapoport-​Albert, Ada. 2011. Women and Messianic Heresy of Sabbatai Zevi: 1666–​1816. Translated by Deborah Greniman. Oxford: Littman Press. Raz-​Krakotzkin, Amnon. 1996. “The National Narration of Exile: Zionist Historiography and Medieval Jewry” [in Hebrew]. PhD thesis, Tel Aviv University.

Bibliography  173 Raz-​Krakotzkin, Amnon. 1999. “The Golem of Scholem: Messianism and Zionism in the Writings of Rabbi Avraham Isaac HaKohen Kook and Gershom Scholem.” In Politik und Religion im Judentum, edited by Christoph Miething, 223–​238. Tübingen:  Max Niemeyer. Raz-​Krakotzkin, Amnon. 2015. “Secularism, the Christian Ambivalence toward the Jews, and the Notion of Exile.” In Secularism in Question:  Jews and Judaism in Modern Times, edited by Ari Joskowicz and Ethan B. Katz, 276–​298. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Recejac, Edouard. 1897. Essai Sur Les Fondements de La Connaissance Mystique. Paris: Alcan. Reiser, Daniel. 2014. Vision as a Mirror: Imagery Techniques in Twentieth Century Jewish Mysticism [in Hebrew]. Los Angeles: Cherub Press. Reiser, Daniel. 2018. Imagery Techniques in Modern Jewish Mysticism. Berlin: De Gruyter & Magnes. Ringer, Fritz K. 2000. Toward a Social History of Knowledge: Collected Essays. New York: Berghahn Books. Rose, Or N. 2004. “Madonna’s Challenge: Understanding Kabbalah Today.” Tikkun 19(6): 24–​27. Rosenberg, Shalom. 1998. “The Myth of Myths” [in Hebrew]. Jewish Studies 38: 145–​179. Rotenstreich, Nathan. 1992. “A Theoretical or Comprehensive Direction” [in Hebrew]. Pe`amim 52: 140–​142. Rothenberg, Jerome. 2008. “Abraham Abulafia Visits the Pope: A Fragment of a Steinian Opera.” Poems and Poetics [blog], November 13. hhttp://​poemsandpoetics.blogspot. co.il/​2008/​11/​abraham-​abulafia-​visits-​pope-​fragment.html. Rothenberg, Jerome. 2009. “Abraham Abulafia Visits the Pope: A Fragment of a Steinian Opera” (Scene 2).” Poems and Poetics [blog], July 19. http://​poemsandpoetics.blogspot. co.il/​2009/​07/​abraham-​abulafia-​visits-​pope-​fragment.html. Rothenberg, Jerome, Harris Lenowitz, and Charles Doria. 1978. A Big Jewish Book Poems & Other Visions of the JEWS from Tribal Times to Present. New York: Anchor Press Doubleday. Sack, Bracha. 2009. R. Moshe Cordovero Ma’yan ‘Ein Yaacov: Critical Edition [in Hebrew]. Beer Sheva: Ben-​Gurion University of the Negev Press. Sagerman, Robert. 2008. “Ambivalence toward Christianity in the Kabbalah of Abraham Abulafia.” PhD dissertation, New York University. Saler, Benson. 1933. Conceptualizing Religion: Immanent Anthropologists, Transcendent Natives, and Unbounded Categories. Leiden: Brill. Schaeder, Grete, ed. 1972. Martin Buber: Briefwechsel aus sieben Jahrzehnten, I (1897–​ 1918). Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider. Schäfer, Peter. 1999. “Jewish Mysticism in the Twentieth Century.” In Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century: Proceedings of the 6th EAJS Congress Toledo, July 1998, II (Judaism from the Renaissance to Modern Times), edited by Judith Tarragona Borrás and Angel Sáenz-​Badillos, 3–​18. Leiden: Brill. Schäfer, Peter. 2002. Mirror of His Beauty: Feminine Images of God from the Bible to the Early Kabbalah. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Schäfer, Peter. 2009. The Origins of Jewish Mysticism. Tübingen: Princeton University Press. Schatz Uffenheimer, Rivka. 1993. Hasidism as Mysticism. Translated by Jonathan Chipman, Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

174 Bibliography Schjoedt, Uffe. 2009. “The Religious Brain: A General Introduction to the Experimental Neuroscience of Religion.” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 21: 310–​339. Schmidt, Leigh Eric. 2003. “The Making of Modern Mysticism.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 71: 273–​302. Schmidt, Leigh Eric. 2006. Restless Souls:  The Making of American Spirituality. New York: HarperCollins. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1920. “Über die jüngste Sohar-​Anthologie.” Der Jude 5(5): 363–​369. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1921. “Lyrik der Kabbala?” Der Jude 6(1): 55–​69. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1923a. Das Buch Bahir, auch Genant Midrasch des Rabbi Nechunja Ben Hakana: Ein Mystisches Werk aus der Frühzeit der Kabbala, Berlin: n.p. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1923b. “Shaarei Zedek: A Kabbalistic Treaties from the School of R. Abraham Abulafia” [in Hebrew]. Qiryat Sefer 1: 127–​139. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1925a. “Alchemie und Kabbala:  Ein Kapitel aus der Geschichte der Mystik.” MGWJ 1–​2: 13–​30. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1925b. “Vulliaud, La Kabbale Juive.” Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 18: 494–​495. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1927. Bibliographia Kabbalistica. Leipzig: W. Drugulin. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1931a. “Review of ‘Waite, A.  E.:  The Holy Kabbalah.’” Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 7: 633–​638. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1931b. “Vulliauds Ubersetzung des Sifra Di-​Zeniutha aus dem Sohar und andere neure Literatur zur Geschichte der Kabbalah.” MGWJ 75: 347–​ 362, 444–​455. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1937. “Kabbalah at the Hebrew University.” The Reconstructionist 3: 8–​12. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom].1945. “Chapters from Sefer Sulam ha-​Aliyah of R. Yehuda Albotini” [in Hebrew]. Qiryat Sefer 22: 161–​171. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1953. “Krakowski, L.I.: The Light of Redemption (Book Review).” Jewish Social Studies 15: 312. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1961. “Martin Buber’s Hasidism: A Critique.” Commentary, October https://​www.commentarymagazine.com/​articles/​martin-​bubers-​hasidism/​. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1962. Beginning of Kabbalah and Sefer Ha-​Bahir [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Academon. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1965. On the Kabbalah and its Symbolism. New  York: Schocken Books. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1966. The Kabbalah of Sefer ha-​Temuna and of Abraham Abulafia [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Akademon. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1967. “Mysticism and Society.” Diogenes 15(1): 1–​24. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1971. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. New  York: Schocken Books. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1974. Kabbalah. Jerusalem: Keter. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1976a. Explication and Implications: Writings on Jewish Heritage and Renaissance [in Hebrew]. Dvarim be-​Go, Tel Aviv: Am Oved. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1976b. On Jews and Judaism in Crisis:  Selected Essays, New York: Schocken Books. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1980. From Berlin to Jerusalem: Memoires of My Youth. New York: Schocken Books.

Bibliography  175 Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1982. From Berlin to Jerusalem: Memoires of My Youth [in Hebrew]. Tel Aviv: Am Oved. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1989. Explication and Implications: Writings on Jewish Heritage and Renaissance, vol. 2 [Od Davar] [in Hebrew]. Tel Aviv: Am Oved. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1991. Origins of Kabbalah. Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1994. Briefe I:  1914–​1947. Edited by Itta Shedletzky. Munich: C.H. Beck. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1995. The Messianic Idea in Judaism and other Essays on Jewish Spirituality. New York: Schocken Books. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1997. On the Possibility of Jewish Mysticism in Our Time & Other Essays. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 1998. Studies in Kabbalah [in Hebrew]. Tel Aviv: Am Oved. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 2003. Walter Benjamin:  The Story of a Friendship. New York: New York Review Books. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 2006. Alchemie and Kabbala. Putnam, CT:  Spring Publications. Scholem, Gerhard [Gershom]. 2008. Latest Phase: Essays on Hasidism. Edited by David Assaf and Esther Liebes. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Schopenhauer, Arthur. 1958. The World as Will and Representation. Translated by E. F. J. Payne. Mineola: Dover. Schulte, Christoph. 1994. “Kabbalah in der deutschen Romantik. Zur Einleitung.” In Kabbala und Romantik, edited by Goodman-​Thau, Gert Mattenklot und Christoph Schulte, 1–​19. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Schwarz, Dov. 2003. Religious Zionism, History and Ideology [in Hebrew]. Tel Aviv: Security Ministry. Schwartz, Yossef. 2006. “Martin Buber and Gustav Landauer: The Politicization of the Mystical.” In New Perspectives on Martin Buber, edited by Michael Zank, 205–​218. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Schwartz, Yossef. 2015. “Gustav Landauer and Gerhard Scholem: Anarchy and Utopia.” In Gustav Landauer: Anarchist and Jew, edited by Paul Mendes-​Flohr and Anya Mali, 172–​190. Berlin: De Gruyter. Schweid, Eliezer. 1985. Judaism and Mysticism according to Gershom Scholem. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Sharf, Robert H. 1998. “Experience.” In Critical Terms for Religious Studies, edited by Mark C. Taylor, 94–​116. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Silberstein, Lawrence J. 1988. “Modes of Discourse in Modern Judaism:  The Buber-​ Scholem Debate Reconsidered.” Sounding 71: 657–​681. Sjoberg, Sami. 2014. “Remaking the Present through Language: Messianic Time in the Works of Ivan Goll and Isidore Isou contra Benjamin and Agamben.” Journal of Modern Jewish Studies 14(2): 199–​214. Smart, Ninian. 1973. The Phenomenon of Religion. London: Macmillan. Smith, Jonathan Z. 1982. Imagining Religion:  From Babylon to Jonestown. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Solomon, Avi. 2011. Meditations on the Divine Name. Philadelphia: Lulu. Solomon, Avi. 2013. The Heart of Jewish Meditation: Abraham Abulafia’s Path of the Divine Names. Hadean Press.

176 Bibliography Staal, Frits. 1975. Exploring Mysticism: A Methodological Essay. Berkeley: University of California Press. Stace, Walter T. 1987. Mysticism and Philosophy. London: J. P. Tarcher. Tamari, Assaf. 2010. “Erev Rav” [in Hebrew]. Mafte’akh 2: 43–​74. Tarn, Nathaniel. 1964. Old Savage/​Young City. London: Jonathan Cape. Tholuck, F. A. G. 1925. Blüthensammlung aus der Morgenländischen Mystik: nebst einer Einleitung uber die Mystic und die Morgenlandische insbesondere. Berlin: F. Dummler. Tirosh-​Rothschild, Hava. 1991. “Continuity and Revision in the Study of Kabbalah.” AJS Review 16: 161–​192. Tirosh-​Samuelson, Hava. 2010. “Jewish Mysticism.” In The Cambridge Guide to Jewish History, Religion and Culture, edited by Judith R. Baskin and Kenneth Sesskin, 399–​ 423. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tishby, Isaiah, and Fishel Lachover. 1949–​1961. Mishnat ha-​Zohar [in Hebrew]. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik. Tishby, Isaiah. 1963. The Doctrine of Evil and the Kelippah in Lurianic Cabbalism [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Akademon. Underhill, Evelyn. 1911. Mysticism:  A Study of the Nature and Development of Man’s Spiritual Consciousness. New York: Dutton. Urban, Martina. 2006. “The Jewish Library Reconfigured:  Buber and the Zionist Anthology Discourse.” In New Perspectives on Martin Buber, edited by Michael Zank, 31–​60. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Van der Veer, Peter. 2001. Imperial Encounters, Religion and Modernity in India and Britain. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Vital, Hayyim. 1988. New Writings by Hayyim Vital [in Hebrew]. Jerusalem:  Ahavat Shalom. von Hügel, Friedrich. 1909. The Mystical Element of Religion. London: General Books LLC. von Meyer, Johann Friedrich. 1830. Das Buch Jezira: Die älteste kabalistische Urkunde der Hebräer. Leipzig: C. H. Reclam. Waite, Arthur E., 2005. The Doctrine and Literature of the Kabbalah. London: Adamant Media Corporation. Weinstock, Israel. 1963. “Discovered Legacy of Mystic Writings Left by Abu Aaron of Bagdad” [in Hebrew]. Tarbiz 32: 153–​159. Werblowsky, R. J.  Zwi. 1958. “Reflections on Sabbatai Sevi by Gershom Scholem” [in Hebrew]. Molad 15: 539–​546. Werblowsky, R. J.  Zwi. 1977. Joseph Karo:  Lawyer and Mystic. Philadelphia:  Jewish Publication Society of America. Wiese, Christian. 2018. “Interreligious Dynamics in Leo Baeck’s Interpretation of Prophecy and Jewish Mysticism.” Kabbalah 40: 225–​253. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell. Wolfson, Elliot R. 1993. “Forms of Visionary Ascent as Ecstatic Experience in the Zoharic Literature.” In Gershom Scholem’s Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism—​50 Years After: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the History of Jewish Mysticism, edited by Peter Schäfer and Joseph Dan, 209–​235. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Wolfson, Elliot R. 1994a. Through a Speculum that Shines:  Vision and Imagination in Medieval Jewish Mysticism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Wolfson, Elliot R. 1994b. “Woman—​The Feminine as Other in Theosophic Kabbalah.” In The Other in Jewish Thought and History: Constructions of Jewish Culture and Identity, edited by Laurence J. Silberstein and Robert L. Cohn. 166–​205. New York: New York University.

Bibliography  177 Wolfson, Elliot R. 1997. “Jewish Mysticism: A Philosophical Overview.” In History of Jewish Philosophy, edited by Daniel Frank and Oliver Leaman, 450–​498. New York: Routledge. Wolfson, Elliot R. 2000. Abraham Abulafia—​ Kabbalist and Prophet; Hermeneutics, Theosophy and Theurgy. Los Angeles: Cherub Press. Wolfson, Elliot R. 2001. “Gender and Heresy in the Study of Kabbalah” [in Hebrew]. Kabbalah 6: 231–​262. Wolfson, Elliot R. 2003. “Assaulting the Border:  Kabbalistic Traces in the Margins of Derida.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 70(3): 474–​514. Wolfson, Elliot R. 2005. Language, Eros and Being:  Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and the Poetic Imagination. Fordham, NY: Fordham University Press. Wolfson, Elliot R. 2007. “Structure, Innovation, and Diremptive Temporality: The Use of Models to Study Continuity in Kabbalistic Tradition.” Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 6(18): 143–​167. Wolfson, Elliot R. 2011. “Teaching Jewish Mysticism: Concealing the Concealment and Disclosure of Secrets.” In Teaching Mysticism, edited by William B. Parsons, 103–​117. New York: Oxford University Press. Yisraeli, Oded. 2005. The Interpretation of Secrets and the Secrets of Interpretation: Midrashic and Hermeneutic Strategies in Sabba de-​Mishpatim of the Zohar [in Hebrew]. Los Angeles: Cherub Press. Zeitlin, Hillel. 1920. “The Key to the Book Zohar” [in Hebrew]. Ha-​Tkufah 6: 314–​332. Zeitlin, Hillel. 2003. Be-​Pardes ha-​Hasidut ve-​ha-​Kabbalah [in Hebrew]. Tel Aviv: Yavneh. Zifroni, Naama, and Bambi Sheleg. 2005. “The Body Inherits the Text” [in Hebrew]. Eretz Acheret 26: 48–​52. Zunz, Leopold. 1832. Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden historisch entwickelt. Berlin: A. Asher.

Index For the benefit of digital users, indexed terms that span two pages (e.g., 52–​53) may, on occasion, appear on only one of those pages.    Abelson, Joshua, 51, 51–​52n.11 Abrams, Daniel, 75–​76 absolute, absolute reality, 9–​10, 14–​15, 17, 18–​19, 28–​29, 63–​64, 82–​83, 84–​85,  86 Abulafia, Abraham, 7–​8, 107, 132–​56 Academia de Kabbalah, 149–​50 Advaita, 132 Aima, Chava, 132–​33, 144, 149–​50 Albotini, Yehuda, 139–​40, 150–​51 Altmann, Alexander, 66–​67n.4 Amsalem, Makhluf, 106–​7 Anidjar, Gil, 95–​96n.28 anthroposophy, 109 Arbel, Vita Dafna, 86–​87n.25 Asad, Talal, 7–​8, 31 Ascher, Carol, 146–​47 Ashkenaz, 107 Ashkenazi Hasidism, 57–​58, 70, 137 Ashlag, Yehuda, 72–​73, 107–​8n.11, 108, 124, 127–​28, 151 Assaf, David, 124n.23 Azamra Institute, 149–​50n.14 Azulai, Hayim Yoseph David, 147–​48, 152    Baal Shem Tov, 45, 48 Baeck, Leo, 38, 51–​52n.11, 53 Baer, Yitzhak, 66–​67 Bahir. See Sefer ha-​Bahir Bar-​Tzadok, Ariel,  150–​51 Basnage, Jacques, 39–​40 Beer, Peter, 41, 43–​44 Beit El (Yeshiva), 105–​6, 108, 117, 119, 124 Belkin, Samuel, 66–​67n.4 Ben Aderet, Shlomo (Rashba), 137, 138 Ben-​Shlomo, Joseph, 64–​65, 66–​67, 74 Berdyczewski, Micha Josef, 51

Berg, Philip, 107–​8n.11, 124–​25, 127–​28, 130–​31,  148–​49 Berg Tova, 107–​8n.11 Bergson, Henri, 142–​44 Bernfeld, Shimon, 139 Berreby, Elie-​Georges, 155 Bhagavad Gita, 12–​13 Biale, David, 56–​57, 117–​18, 119–​20,  122–​23 Bialik, Nachman, 103 Bible, 70–​71,  122–​23 Bilu, Yoram, 81–​82n.22 Birnbaum, Nathan, 107–​8n.8 Bischoff, Erich, 44 Blau, Joseph, 115 Blavatsky, Helena, 115 Bloch, Philip, 41–​42 Bloom Harold, 90–​91 Bnei Baruch, 124–​25, 142–​44 Bnei Nevi`im (Yeshiva), 150 Böhme, Jakob, 47 Bourdieu, Pierre, 69 Breslov Hasidism, 124–​25, 151, 152–​53 Brill, Alan, 89 Buber, Martin, 1–​2, 6–​7, 35–​38, 44, 45–​ 50, 51–​52, 53, 55, 57–​58, 59, 60, 61, 65–​66, 67, 69, 90–​91, 103, 109–​10, 111, 157 Buddhism, 15, 32–​33n.3, 33–​34, 37, 65, 127    Caird, Edward, 38, 54 Carlebach, Shlomo, 147 Chajes Jeffery, 19–​20, 76 Chambers` Encyclopedia, 39–​40 Chatterjee, Partha, 8 Cherlow, Smadar, 86–​87

180 Index Christianity, 13, 16, 38, 41–​42, 120 Cohen, David, 142–​44, 145–​46 Cohen, Doron, 139n.5 Constant, Alfonse Louis. See ii Cooper, David, 148–​49, 151 Cordovero, Moshe, 92, 150–​51 Cousin, Victor, 12, 41–​42 Crowley, Aleister, 107–​8, 112–​13, 114n.14, 116    Dan, Joseph, 23, 27–​28, 50n.10, 51–​ 52n.12, 64–​65, 67–​68n.5, 68–​69n.7, 102–​4, 125–​28,  129 De Certeau, Michel, 11–​12 Deleuze, Gilles, 96 Delmedigo, Yosef, 138n.2 Diaspora, 16, 54, 57, 61, 86, 104–​5, 117, 141 Dick, Philip K, 155 Diderot’s Encyclopedia, 39–​40 Diederich, Eugen, 1, 38, 47, 157 Dinur, Ben-​Zion,  66–​67 divine, 11, 14, 19–​20, 25–​26, 28, 40–​41, 44, 73, 84–​85, 86, 92, 98–​99, 133, 134–​35 divine consciousness, 132–​33, 144 divine feminine, 71–​72, 75–​76, 96–​97 divine intellect, 137, 138, 142 divine pleroma, 86–​87, 136 divine presence, 9–​10, 15, 17, 18–​19, 25, 29, 72, 82–​83, 85 divine reality, 1, 5, 18–​19, 24–​26, 27, 32, 37, 63–​64, 82–​83, 84–​85, 86, 87, 98, 99, 157, 158 divine revelation, 120–​45 divine self, 132–​33, 144 divine structure, 135, 137, 144 divine system, 98–​99, 137, 138 Dubnov, Shimon, 51 Dubuisson, Daniel, 7–​8, 31–​32 Duncan, Robert, 147n.10 Duprè, Louis, 27, 84 Dyonisus the Arepogate, 11 Dzyan, Book of, 115n.16    Eckhart, Meister, 36, 38, 49 Eco, Umberto, 155 ecstasy, 36, 49, 74–​75, 134–​35, 136, 138–​39

ecstatic experience, 1, 3, 7, 35, 46, 133–​35,  138 ecstatic wisdom, 35, 47 Elhadad, Mas`ud Cohen, 115 Eliade, Mircea, 7–​8, 17–​18, 62–​63, 77, 78 Eliashov, Sholomo, 108 Elior, Rachel, 22–​23, 29, 64–​65, 73–​74, 84–​85, 86–​87, 92,  96–​97 Eliyahu, Shmuel, 144 Elqayam, Avraham, 75–​76, 90–​91 Encausse, Gérard. See Papus Encyclopedia Britannica, 12–​13, 38, 39–​40 Encyclopedia Judaica, 51–​52n.12, 108, 113,  115–​16 Enlightenment, 12–​14, 41 Ephraim Chambers’s Encyclopedia, 39–​40 Eros, 75–​76,  96–​97 Essenes,  43–​44 Ever Burning Light Organization, 149–​50,  153–​54 Europe, 10–​11, 22, 39, 67–​68, 117–​19, 127–​28, 134, 156 Eastern Europe, 6–​7, 49, 108, 109, 119–​20,  134–​35 Western Europe, 3–​4, 51, 117–​18, 147 Exile, 2, 6–​7, 57, 117, 121, 124 expulsion from Spain, 45, 46, 57–​58, 69, 94    family resemblance, 10–​11, 29–​31 Feinstein, Moshe, 154 feminism, feminist, 75–​76, 80–​82, 92, 93, 96–​97,  99–​100 Fetaya, Yehuda, 106–​7 Finkel, Bruria, 147, 156 Fitzgerald, Timothy, 4–​5n.1, 7–​8, 17–​18,  30–​32 Forman, Robert, 84 Foucault, Michel, 96 France, 45, 114 Franck, Adolph, 41–​43, 115 Freud, Sigmund, 26, 80–​81 Friedman, Morris, 45n.8 Fuchs, Sarit, 125, 129 Funkenstein, Amos, 94    Gam-​Hacohen, Moran, 51–​52n.12 Garb, Jonathan, 29–​30, 73–​74, 77–​78, 96 Geiger, Abraham, 42, 43

Index  181 gematria, 150 gender,  75–​76 gender studies, 32n.3, 75–​76, 81–​82, 93, 95,  96–​97 Gimello, Robert, 26 Ginsburg, Christian, 41–​42, 44 Ginsburg, Levi, 44 Ginsburgh, Yitzchak, 144, 150 gnosticism, gnostic, gnostics, 43, 58, 69–​70, 73, 119, 134–​35, 141 Goldberg, Myla, 149 Goldish, Matt, 130–​31 Goldberg, Oscar, 108, 115–​16 Golden Dawn, 112, 114, 115–​16 Goldreich, Amos, 64–​65 Goll, Ivan, 154 Gordon, A.D, 28 Graetz, Heinrich, 43–​44 Green, Arthur, 66–​67, 68–​69n.10, 71–​72, 74–​75, 83–​84, 88, 91, 100, 126–​27, 128–​29, 130,  135–​36 Greenbaum, Avraham, 149–​50n.14 Gries, Zeev, 45n.8, 51, 64–​65 Gross, Amnon, 151, 152–​53 Gruberger, Philip, 107–​8n.11 Gruberger, Rivka, 107–​8n.11 Gruenwald, Ithamar, 70, 91–​92 Guénon, René, 115 Günzig, Azriel, 139    Habad Hasidism, 106–​7, 124–​25, 144, 149–​50n.14, 150, 151 Hadaya, Ovadia, 108 Hallamish, Moshe, 64–​65, 84n.24, 126 Halacha, 16, 55, 57, 66n.4 Halevi, Zeev ben Shimon, 127–​28n.26 Hanegraaff Wouter, 98, 112, 116 Happold Fredrick Crossfield, 20 Haredi, Haredim, 119–​20, 151, 152, 153 Hasidism, 1–​2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9–​11, 16, 18, 29, 33–​34, 35–​36, 37, 42, 45, 46–​47, 48, 50, 51–​52, 57–​58, 59–​60, 61, 63–​68, 69, 72–​73, 74, 83–​85, 87–​88, 89–​90, 91–​92, 100–​1, 103–​4, 109, 110–​11, 119, 120–​21, 123–​24, 133–​34, 144, 150, 153, 157–​59 Haskala (Jewish Enlightenment), 41, 49, 57, 59, 66–​67n.4, 113, 119–​20, 134

Hayat, Yehuda, 138n.2 Hazan, Ben-​Zion, 108 Hebraism,  118–​19 Hebrew University, 2, 51, 52–​53n.13, 64–​ 65, 67, 120–​21 Heelas, Paul, 98–​99 Heichalot literature, 9, 43–​44, 57–​58, 69–​70, 83, 85–​86n.25, 103, 117 Heinroth, Johann, 12, 26 Hellner-​Eshed, Melila, 74–​75, 77–​78, 86–​87, 88–​89, 91, 92, 130, 136 hermeneutics, 40, 42, 43, 75–​76, 95, 96 Heschel, Abraham Joshua, 66, 67 Hillel, Yaakov Moshe, 138n.2 Hindu, Hinduism, 12–​13, 15, 32n.3, 33–​34, 38, 127, 132–​33 Hirsch, Samuel Abraham, 51 Hirschman, Jack, 147, 155 Hollenback, Jess Byron, 23–​24, 29–​30 Horodezky, Samuel Abba, 51, 111 House of Love and Prayer, 147 Huss, Abraham, 45n.8 Huxley, Aldous, 99    Idel, Moshe, 2–​3, 9–​10, 17, 21–​23, 26–​27, 28, 29, 55n.16, 62–​63, 66–​67n.3, 67–​85, 90–​91, 94–​95, 96, 97–​98, 124–​25n.23, 126, 129–​30, 135–​36, 141–​42, 146–​47, 148–​49,  156 Ifargan, Yaakov Israel (Ha-​Rentgen), 124–​25 Imber, Naftali Herz, 109 India, Indian, 8, 12, 33–​34, 43, 139–​40 Inge, Ralph, 9, 14 Irigaray, Luce, 75–​76 Israel, Israeli, 2, 22–​23, 28, 36, 51, 57, 66, 67–​68, 69, 83–​84, 88, 91, 96–​98, 102–​3, 108, 119–​20, 124–​25, 126, 127–​28, 129, 130, 147, 150, 151 Italy, 46, 132, 137, 149–​50 Itur Rabanim (Yeshiva), 105–​6    James, William, 9, 14–​16, 17, 29, 38, 82, 84, 85,  142–​44 Jameson, Frederic, 104 Jantzen, Grace, 24, 31–​32n.3 Japan, 8, 28, 33–​34 Jellinek, Adolf, 14, 41–​42, 43, 138–​39, 147–​48,  151–​52

182 Index Jerusalem, 51, 67, 105–​7, 119, 120–​21, 145, 152 Jewish. See also Judaism; Jewish Mysticism; Jewish Nationalism; Jewish Spirituality Jewish Encyclopedia, 44 Jewish Renewal movement, 66, 98, 100, 142, 144, 146–​47, 148–​49, 153 Joel, David Heyman, 41–​42 Jones, Rufus, 9, 14, 15–​16, 17, 21, 29, 52–​53, 82, 83, 84, 85 Jost, Isaak Markus, 41, 43 Judaism, 1–​2, 16, 36, 38, 42, 43, 46–​48, 49, 52, 54–​55, 56, 57, 58, 61, 66–​67, 70–​71, 72, 74–​75, 85, 86, 87–​88, 97–​98, 111, 117–​18, 119, 120, 122–​23, 129–​30, 131, 142, 148–​49, 157 diasporic Judaism, 91–​92 halachic Judaism, 48, 55 Near Eastern Judaism, 128 rabbinical Judaism, 42, 48 reform Judaism, 42 Kabbalah Christian Kabbalah, 39, 40, 112, 118–​19, 127–​28, 129, 134 contemporary Kabbalah, 3, 7, 19, 44, 60, 72–​73, 89, 95, 98–​99, 100, 103–​5, 108, 123–​29, 133–​34, 142–​44, 146, 150, 156,  157–​58 ecstatic Kabbalah, 73, 74–​75, 132–​33, 135–​36, 139–​40, 141–​42, 144, 146–​47,148–​49 Lurianic Kabbala, 58–​60, 69, 150 metaphysics of Kabbalah, 56, 87–​88, 111, 131 neo-​Kabbalah, 98, 99–​100–​, 123–​25, 127–​28, 133,  142–​44 New Age Kabbalah, 127–​28 occult Kabbalah, 112–​17, 127–​28 practical Kabbalah, 128 prophetic Kabbalah, 137–​42, 145–​46, 149–​50n.14, 150–​52, 153, 155, 156 pseudo Kabbalah, 115–​16, 127–​28, 129, 153 theosophical-​theurgical Kabbalah, 73, 74–​75,  135–​36 Kabbalah Center, 124–​25, 127–​28, 130–​31,  148–​49

Kabbalistic literature, 56, 74, 77, 93, 108,  134–​36 Kaduri, Yitzchak, 124–​25 Kafka, Franz, 120–​21, 122–​23 Kaplan, Aryeh, 147–​49, 150, 153–​54 Karo, Joseph, 66–​67n.4 Karppe, Sylv, 44 Katz, Jacob, 66–​67 Katz, Steven, 17, 20, 21, 22–​23, 25, 29, 54 Kaufman, Tsippi, 90 Kenton, Warren. See Halevi, Zeev ben Shimon Kilcher, Andreas, 123 King, Richard, 17, 31, 32n.3 Kirschenbaum, Jules, 156 Kohler, George, 42–​43 Kohler, Kaufmann, 44, 49–​50 Kook, Abraham Isaac, 86–​87, 106–​7, 108, 122, 124, 142–​44, 145 Koren, Sharon, 75–​76 Kra-​Ivanov Kaniel, Ruth, 75–​76 Krakowski, Levi Yitzhak, 107–​8n.11, 108 Kurzweil, Baruch, 56, 66–​67    Laitman, Michael, 124–​25, 142–​44 Landauer, Gustav, 53 Landauer, Meyer Heinrich, 138–​39 Lao-​Tzu, 12, 36, 48 Lasson, Adolf, 38 Lawlor, Robert, 148–​49 Lebensphilosophie, 28 Leet, Leonora, 148–​49 Leipzig, 13, 40–​41 Leroy-​Beaulieu Anatole, 38 Lévi, Eliphas, 112–​13, 116 Liebes, Esther, 124n.23 Liebes, Yehuda, 2–​3, 9–​10, 64–​65, 67–​72, 73–​76, 78, 80, 81–​82, 88, 89, 91–​92, 95–​96,  97–​98 Lovejoy, Arthur O., 62–​63 Lubavitcher Rabbi, 106–​7, 108 Luria, Isaac, 46, 152    Mac Low, Jackson, 155n.18 Madonna, 124–​25, 130, 148–​49, 156 magic, 73, 79, 102, 108, 112, 115–​16 Magid, Shaul, 75–​76 Maimonides, 137

Index  183 Margolin, Ron, 36, 51–​52, 77–​78, 79, 84–​85, 88, 89 Mathers, Samuel Liddle MacGregor, 112 Matt, Daniel, 83–​84, 91, 93, 100, 130 McCutcheon, Russell, 7–​8, 17–​18, 31–​32,  80 McGinn, Bernard, 17, 22, 28, 82, 84 meditation, 99–​100, 134–​35, 139–​40, 142, 146–​49, 150, 151 Meilicke, Christine, 155 Meir, Jonatan, 105–​6, 139n.5 Meir, Mario, 149–​50 Meltzer, David, 147, 155 Mendelssohn Moses, 41–​42 Mendes-​Flohr, Paul, 45n.8 Messianism, 58–​59, 64–​65, 69–​70, 128 metaphysics, 39–​40, 56 metaphysical magician, 115–​16 metaphysical movements, 13 metaphysical reality, 5, 13, 16, 18, 19, 24, 27, 29, 32, 82–​83, 84–​86, 87, 98–​99 Meyrink, Gustav, 115–​16 Middle East, 6–​7, 104–​5, 108, 119–​20 Midrash,  70–​71 Molitor, Franz Joseph, 40–​41, 114 Mopsik, Charles, 67–​68, 74–​76, 136 More, Henry, 39 Morgenstern, Yitzhak Meir, 151 Morrow, Charlie, 155n.19 Mueller, Ernest, 51 mysticism Arabic, 43 Christian, 12, 15, 17, 22, 38, 109 comparative, 3–​4, 25 contextual approach to, 20–​26, 54 definitions of, 1, 9–​1 7, 18–​1 9, 20–​3 1, 33, 36, 37, 38n.1, 39, 42, 43, 46, 52–​5 4, 82–​8 3, 84–​8 5, 86, 90–​9 1, 92, 98 Egyptian, 12, 43 Indian, 12, 43 Islamic, 12 Jewish, 1, 2–​3, 5, 6–​8, 9, 10–​11, 16, 19–​20, 22–​23, 33–​34, 35–​61, 62–​66, 67–​68, 69–​75, 76–​77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83–​84, 86–​87, 89, 90–​92, 93–​94, 95, 96–​101, 102–​5, 108, 109, 111, 117–​18, 119–​21, 122–​24, 125, 126–​27, 129–​30, 131,

133–​35, 136–​37, 138, 140–​42, 144, 145, 146–​47, 150, 154, 156, 157–​59 modern construct of, 31–​34 mystical metaphysics, 39–​40 mystical theology, 11, 39–​40, 134 mystical union, 38n.1, 54, 55n.16, 79, 85, 132–​33, 138, 141–​42 perennial approach to, 20–​26 Persian, 12 myth, mythology, mythical, 47, 53, 55, 68–​ 69n.9, 69–​72, 73, 88, 141    Nachman of Breslov, 1, 35, 36, 38, 44–​45, 46–​47, 48, 51–​52, 57–​58, 59, 60, 103, 111 Nadler, Allen, 129–​30 nationalism Indian, 8, 33–​34 Japanese,  33–​34 Jewish, 2, 6, 8, 33–​34, 48, 57, 61, 64–​65, 71–​72, 89, 97–​98, 104–​5, 116–​17,  150 modern, 33 neo-​Hasidism, 98, 100–​1, 123–​25, 144 neo-​Romanticism, 2, 5, 33, 47, 51, 57, 109–​10, 111, 117, 139 Neumark, David, 146n.9 New Age New Age culture, 86–​87, 94, 98–​101 New Age movements, 25–​26, 98, 99–​, 132–​33, 142, 144 New Age spirituality, 6, 98, 158–​59 Nicolai, Friedrich, 41n.7 Nicholas the Third (Pope), 137 nihilism, 59, 122–​23 North Africa, 6–​7, 102n.2, 119–​20    occult, occultists, 39–​40, 44, 47, 99, 102, 112–​17,  125 orientalism, 6–​7, 49, 50, 51, 55–​61, 81–​82, 95–​96n.28, 103, 103–​4n.2, 104–​5, 109, 117–​20, 128 Oriental philosophy, 41, 49 Oron, Michal, 64–​65    Pachter, Mordechai, 64–​65 Papus (Gérard Encausse), 112, 113, 114n.13, 116

184 Index Pedaya, Haviva, 9–​10, 74–​75, 83, 84, 90, 91, 92, 130, 135–​36, 141–​42 Persico, Tomer, 28 phenomenology, phenomenological, 2–​3, 4–​5, 7–​8, 17–​18, 22–​23, 26–​29, 30, 31–​32, 62–​63, 66–​67n.4, 68, 72, 73, 76, 77–​80, 82, 87, 94–​95, 98, 99,  139–​40 philological-​historical research, 2–​3, 55, 56–​57, 65, 69, 76, 77–​78, 79, 87–​88, 93, 94–​95, 109, 111, 114, 116–​17 philology, 123 Pick, Bernard, 44 Pincas, Abraham, 156 Pines, Shlomo, 66–​67 pleroma, 86–​87, 136 Plotinus, 12, 15, 36, 49 Polzer Natalie, 96–​97 Porush, Yosef Elazar Elimelech, 152, 153 postmodern, 93–​98, 100–​1,  124–​25 prophecy, 137, 138, 139–​40, 142–​44, 146, 148–​49,  152–​53    Rapoport-​Albert, Ada, 76 Rashba. See Ben Aderet Raz-​Krakotzkin, Amnon, 56, 58, 70–​71, 97–​98,  117–​19 Recejac, Edouard, 14 redemption, 46, 59–​60, 89, 92, 106–​7, 145 Regardie, Israel, 114n.14 Rehovot Hanahar (Yeshiva), 106 Reiser, Daniel, 29, 83 religion religion, definition of, 7–​8, 29–​31 religious experience, 13, 14, 19–​20, 26–​27, 89,  106–​7 religious studies, 2–​3, 7–​8, 17–​18, 19–​20, 29, 31–​32, 64, 67, 77, 78, 80, 82, 99, 100–​1 Reuchlin, Johannes, 114, 116, 118–​19 Ringer, Fritz, 93–​94 Romanticism, Romantic Movement, 13, 33, 39, 40, 110, 122–​23, 134. See also neo-​Romanticism Rose, Or N., 90–​91 Rosenberg, Shalom, 68–​69n.9 Rosicrucianism, 132 Rotenstreich, Nathan, 68–​69n.9

Roth, Arele, 106–​7, 108 Rothenberg, Jerome, 147, 153–​54, 155 Rotterdam,  39–​40    Sabbatai Zvi, 46, 59 Sabbatean, Sabbateaniasim, 46, 57–​58, 59–​60, 66–​67n.4, 69, 76, 103 Sack, Bracha, 75–​76, 92 Safrin, Matityahu, 152–​53 Safrin, Natanel, 152–​53 Satanow, Isaac, 41 Schachter-​Shalomi, Zalman, 147,  148–​49 Schäfer, Peter, 71–​72 Schatz Uffenheimer, Rivka, 64–​65, 111 Schmidt, Eric Lee, 12, 15–​16 Schneerson, Menachem Mendel, 124–​25 Schocken, Salman, 56, 122–​23n.21 Scholem, Fania, 106–​7n.6 Scholem, Gershom, 2–​3, 6–​7, 9–​11, 15, 18, 24–​25, 36–​37, 41–​42, 50–​61, 62–​75, 76–​124, 125–​26, 127–​28, 129, 134–​35, 136, 139–​42, 145, 146–​49, 151–​52, 153, 155 Schopenhauer, Arthur, 13–​14 Schwartz, Dov, 146 Schweid, Eliezer, 67–​68n.5 secular, secularization, 33, 61, 66–​67, 119–​20,  121–​23 Sefer ha-​Bahir, 2, 51, 52–​53n.15, 119 Sefer ha-​Zohar, 1, 19, 39, 41–​42, 44, 45, 49, 50, 60, 74–​75, 77–​78, 80, 86–​87, 88–​89, 93, 95, 109–​10, 112, 114, 115n.16, 119, 122–​23, 126–​27, 130, 135–​37, 138, 139,  141–​42 Sefer Yetzira, 1, 41, 45, 70, 112, 137 Seidman, Jankew, 109–​10 sexuality, 75–​76,  96–​97 Sha`ar ha-​Shamayim (Yeshiva), 106, 152 Shahn, Ben, 156 Sharabi, Shalom, 73, 150, 151 Sharf, Robert, 10–​11n.3, 28 Shekhinah, 71–​72, 92, 111 Sifra di-​Tseniutha, 115n.16 Smith, Jonathan Z., 31–​32 Spain, 57–​58, 132–​33, 137. See also expulsion from Spain

Index  185 Sperling, Harry, 51 spirituality. See also New Age spirituality Feminist spirituality, 97 Jewish spirituality, 66, 88, 125–​26,  148–​49 postmodern spirituality, 98 self spirituality, 98–​99 Zohar spirituality, 80 Staal, Frits, 84 Stace, Walter Terrance, 21 Steiner Rudolph, 109 Sufi, Sufism, 15, 33–​34, 38, 65, 137, 138–​40,  149 Swedenborg, Emmanuel, 12–​13    Talmud, 42–​43, 45, 48, 70–​71, 150–​51,  154 Tarn, Nathaniel, 155 theology ecumenical-​liberal Theology, 7–​8, 17–​18, 25–​26, 32, 99 Kabbalistic Theology, 97, 123 mystical theology, 39–​40, 134 national theology, 35, 117 Nihilistic Theology, 66–​67 perennial theology, 25–​26 theological paradigm(s), 8, 19–​20, 63–​64, 87, 91–​92, 96–​97, 98, 99, 100–​1, 103–​4,  157–​58 Theosophical Society, 112, 115–​16 theosophy, 40, 41–​42, 44, 51–​52n.12, 73. See also Theosophical-​Theurgical Kabbalah theurgy, 70, 79. See also Theosophical-​ Theurgical Kabbalah Tholuck, August, 12 Tirosh-​Samuelson, Hava, 85 Tishby, Isaiah, 64–​65, 66–​67, 68–​69 transcendent reality, 1, 2, 3–​4, 5, 9, 15, 16, 17–​18, 19, 22, 24–​25, 26, 27, 28–​29, 32, 47, 56, 84, 86, 98, 99, 157, 158 Tzur, Muki, 55    Underhill, Evelyn, 9, 14, 17, 18, 52–​53,  83

United States, 3–​4, 10–​11, 13, 14, 39, 51, 66, 67–​68, 69, 83–​84, 89, 100, 144, 146–​47,  150 Universal Life Church, 149–​50n.14 Upanishads, 36    Vajda, George, 66–​67 Vilner, Gershon, 106 Vital, Hayyim, 150–​51, 152–​53 von Hügel, Freidrich, 14 von Meyer, Johann Friedrich, 40–​41 von Rosenroth, Christian Knorr, 39, 112, 115 Vulliaud, Paul, 113–​14, 115n.17    Waite, Arthur Edward, 44, 112, 113–​14 Ware, Henry, 14 Weiner, Hanna, 155n.18 Weiner, Max, 109–​10 Weinstock, Israel, 66–​67n.4 Weiss, Joseph, 64–​65, 115 Werblowsky, R.J Zwi, 66–​67 Western Esotericism, 14, 99, 109, 112, 114, 115–​17, 129, 159 Whitman, Walt, 15, 122–​23 Whitmanism, 38 Wirszubski, Chaim, 64–​65 Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 10–​11, 29–​31 Wolfson, Elliot, 2–​3, 9–​10, 22–​23, 25, 67–​68, 69, 75–​76, 77–​78, 82, 83, 84, 86–​87, 90–​91, 92, 96, 96–​97n.29, 130, 135–​36,  141–​42    Yisraeli, Oded, 75–​76 Yoga, 106, 132, 139–​40, 146–​47, 149    Zen Buddhism, 65, 127 Zeitlin, Hillel, 49–​50, 51, 108, 111–​12 Zionism, Zionist, 1, 2, 6–​7, 28, 37, 48, 49, 54, 55–​61, 66–​67, 87–​88, 97–​98, 103, 109, 111, 117–​18, 119–​21, 122, 123, 141, 142 Zohar. See Sefer ha-​Zohar Zohar Hai institute, 151 Zunz, Leopold, 42