The Kabbalah of R. Israel Sarug PDF

‫»؟‬Mil The Retfietu ofRabbinic Judaism 14 (2011) 158—187 V\W.
Y\\lu'١
I Kabbalah of R. Israel Sarug‫؛‬

A Lurianic-Cordoverian Encounter
Sharron Shatil
Open University, Pardes-Hanna, Israel
sharronshatil@gmail.com
Keywords
kabbalah, Israel Sarug, Moses Cordovero
Sarugian kabbalah is a field of kabbalistic discourse that is based upon the

teachings of Isaac Luria as presented by R. Israel Sarug during the late sixteenth
and early seventeenth centuries. Very little is known about Sarug before his
arrival in Italy in the 1590s, when he began to propagate Lurianic texts, êse
were mainly Kanfei Yona,! which was the earliest known redaction of the
Lurianic teachings in writing,^ and texts of his own composition. Sarug
traveled in Italy, Greece, and central Europe and had several famous students,
notably R. Menahem Azaria of Fano, R, Nathan Otolengo, and Abraham
Cohen Herrera.3 êre is some scholarly debate on whether Sarug was actually
a student of Luria and whether this happened in Egypt or in Safed, prior to
the meeting between Luria and Vital Yet there is no argument that the tracts
that Sarug brought with him to Italy were the first available sources of Lurianic
kabbalah in Europe and dominated its kabbalistic output through the1 2 * 4
1 dEis work is extant in several manuscripts, and there are at least three known versions of it,
probably written by different students of Luria. It is not certain whether Sarug was the first to
bring these texts to Italy or whether they arrived there before him; seej. Avivi, Kabbalah Luriana
(Jerusalem, 2008), pp. 194-203. dEis should not to be confused with Menahem Azaria of
Fano’s later edition of the work; see G. Scholem, Kabbalah (New York, 1978), p. 424.
2 See M. Benayahu, “R. Moses Yona, A Student of the Ari and the First to Put His Teachings
in Writing" (Heb.), in M. Benayahu, ed., Lurianic Kabbalah (Jerusalem, 1985), pp. 7-74.
‫ ﻵ‬Kabbalab Lilia, pp.236-2Al
4 dEe two sides of the debate are presented in G. Scholem, “Israel Sarug, Student of the Ari,"
in Zion (1940), pp. 214-243, and Ronit Meroz, “Israel Sarug, Student of the Ari: A Fresh
Examination of the Issue," in Da’at (1992), pp. 41-50.
© Koninklijke Brill NY Leiden, 2011 DOI: 10.1163/157007011Χ587567
S. Sbatil / The Review ofRabbinic Judaism 14 (2011) 158—187 159
seventeenth century. Some of these tracts were printed at the end of Solomon
Joseph Delmedigo’s Taalumot Chochma (Basel, 1629). Others were compiled
and edited in Delmedigo’s Shever Yoseph‫ י‬published in the same volume, or
incorporated into the main Sarugian texts: Limudei Atzilut, the interpretation
of Sifra De-Tzniuta (both in the same volume, Munkacz, 1897) and Drush
Ha-Malbush (Jerusalem, 2001).
In fact, Sarugian kabbalah is a distinct phenomenon within the kabbalah of
the last four hundred years and is highly influential on the history of kabbalah
and Jewish theology during this period, particularly in Europe, ê line of
Sarugian kabbalists continues up to the present day, with kabbalists who use
Sarug’s writings or those of his immediate students as primary sources. More-
over, the influence of Sarugian kabbalah can be easily discerned in many of the
prominent spiritual movements within rabbinic Judaism in the modern era,
including the Sabbatean movement, the school of the GRA, and the Hassidic
movement, in particular within Chabad’s unique strand of kabbalistic specu-
lation. Some distinctive Sarugian elements even made it into the systems of
Sefardic kabbalists, ever since the incorporation of a version of Sarug’s Drush
Ha-Malbush into R. Shalom Buzaglo’s Mikdash Melech on the portion of
Bereshit (Amsterdam, 1755). ûs, some of the concepts and ideas typical of
Sarugian kabbalah are considered by most kabbalists since the nineteenth cen-
tury to be an integral part of their kabbalistic universe.
Yet the ideas of Sarugian kabbalah have received little scholarly attention.
With the exception of Abraham Cohen Herrera, none of the Sarugian kabbal-
ists have been systematically studied.5 êre are only some brief suggestions of
the origin of some basic Sarugian concepts, such as the sha’ashua and the mal-
bush, which we will discuss further below, îs lack is probably due to
Scholem’s summary of Sarug’s kabbalah as "an attempt to provide a quasi-
philosophical basis for Luria’s distinctively unphilosophical doctrine by inject-
ing a species of Platonism into it.”56 Scholm’s project of finding out the
(‘authentic” or original ideas of Isaac Luria inevitably led to the sidelining of
Sarug, which is still prevalent in current research. Scholars constantly attempt
to cast doubt on his originality, his authorship, and his contact with Luria.
In this vein, Ronit Meroz has claimed that the writings that came to be
known as Sarug’s are actually the work of a school of kabbalists that existed
alongside Luria’s school in Safed and that later developed in parallel in both
5 A. Altman has devoted a preliminary paper to R. Menahem Azaria of Fano. See his “Com-
ments on the Development of the Kabbala of the Rama of Fano," 'mjerusalem Studies injewish
Thought (1984), pp. 241-267.
6 G. Scholem, Major Trends injewish Mysticism (New York, 1946), p. 257.
160 s. Sbatil / The Retnetu ofRabbinic Judaism 14 (2011) 158—187
the Middle East and Italy.7 8îs 9 10claim
11 was later put in question by Avivi’s
comprehensive study of early Lurianic manuscripts, in which he shows that
the texts that Meroz supposed were written in the Middle East were actually
composed in central Europe, which fits well with the known course of Sarug’s
travels.^ Avivi himself, however, goes to great lengths to demonstrate that
Sarug’s work is entirely based on interpretations of texts by Luria or his imme-
diate students. In consequence, he has to claim that the earliest known Saru-
gian text, known as Hatchalat Ha-Chochma,9 was in fact written by some
other, unknown student of Luria.10 He subsequently presents the bulk of
Sarug’s works as interpretations of this text. Avivi admits that the concepts
and ideas mentioned in Hatchatal Ha-Chochma cannot be found an^here
but in well known Sarugian texts. His conclusion that Sarug is not the writer
of this text is based on quite slim evidence." It seems that the strength of the
evidence did not lead Avivi to his conclusion‫ ؛‬rather his desire to present Sarug
as an outside interpreter of original Lurianic texts led him in this direction,
îs attitude is indicative of the customary derogatory approach towards
Sarug in scholarly research, which I aim to challenge in this paper.
ê general consensus of current research is that the Sarugian rendition of
the Lurianic teachings represents an offshoot of Lurianic kabbalah that devel-
oped independently, based on a possible brief contact with Luria himself, and
some early Lurianic essays of his definitive students. Moshe Idel pointed out a
malbush-like structure in the works of the kabbalists of Jerusalem in the early
sixteenth century, in which the 231 (‘gates” of Sefer Yetzira and the 236 (tens
of millions of) “parasangs” of the Shiur Komah are brought together, as they
are in the dimensions of the malbush.12 But Idel admits that this is just an
indication of a possibility, which requires further research.
7 Ronit Meroz, “The School of Sarug—A New History," in Shalem (2002), pp. 149-193.
8 Avivi, op. cit., p. 450.
9 Tris text arrived in Italy before 1600, reportedly from Damascus, though only Italian early
manuscripts of it are known (Avivi op. cit.) pp. 204-207).

10 Ibid.
11 In a compendium called 550 Tikkunim (extant in several manuscripts, for example, Jeru-
salem 407 8٥, B 309) Menahem Azaria of Fano collects aphorisms of Luria’s students, of Sarug,
and of his own composition, indicating their source by using one, two, or three lines next to each
section. Some sections, which appear to have been taken from Hatchalat Ha-Chochma, are
marked as taken from texts of Luria’s students. But it could well be that these paragraphs were
found in other sources or that Sarug had sent this text to Italy before he arrived there himself
(and taught the Rama), or it is even possible that R. Menahem Azaria made one or two mistakes
in his attributions. Given that the concepts and ideas found in this text are further developed
only in Sarug’s kabbalah, I believe this evidence is not strong enough to verify that Sarug’s work
was entirely an interpretation of someone else’s work.
)2 Cf. section B of this paper.
S. Shatil / The Retnew ofRabbinic Judaism 14 (2011) 158—187 161
As a first step towards a deep analysis of Sarug’s kabbalah, I suggest that the
malbush‫ י‬as well as other distinctive Sarugian ideas, have a source closer to
home, in the work of Moses Cordovero, which dominated the kabbalistic
discourse during the second half of the sixteenth century. Of course, the influ-
ence of the kabbalists of Jerusalem on Cordovero and the Safed kabbalists in
general remains an open question. But the environment in which the kab-
balah of Sarug evolved, as well as the atmosphere in which it spread in Europe,
were both steeped in Cordoverian kabbalah. It had to appeal to kabbalists who
thought along Cordoverian lines, and adapt itself to their concerns. If the
ideas of Sarug were indeed developed by a group in Safed, as Meroz suggests,
then it was bound to be a group of Cordoverian students. All these factors
support the conclusion of a careful textual analysis, as I will demonstrate.
One distinctive feature of Cordovero’s kabbalah is the attempt to solve
certain theo-philosophical issues about the principles of faith kabbalistically,
specifically using the ideas of the Neoplatonic strand of kabbalah, which as is
generally agreed, has reached its peak with Cordovero. In particular, Cordo-
vero wished to reconcile the unity and immutability of God with the theistic
conception of the Divine, and explain the nature of Divine providence and
justice, îs fundamentally theo-philosophical character of Cordovero’s
work was extensively discussed in Yosef Ben-Shlomo’s The Mystical Theology of
Moses Cordovero (Jerusalem, 1986). Yet, Yehuda Liebes has since suggested in
a number of places^ that Cordovero’s kabbalah in fact possesses a deeply
mythical character. Bracha Zack’s study of Cordovero, summarized in The
Kabbalah ofMoses Cordovero (Jerusalem, 1995), examined certain sections of
his later works that had been unavailable to Ben Shlomo, and corroborates
Liebes’ opinion. She finds in Cordovero’s works primarily a myth of the Torah
and the divine sha’ashua (delight), which will also be discussed further below,
îs debate lies largely beyond the scope of this paper‫ ؛‬it is enough for the
present discussion to rely on features of Cordovero’s kabbalah which everyone
recognizes, and that, more importantly, are stated quite clearly and repeatedly
in all his works.
Cordovero presented kabbalistic knowledge as something that the intellect
could come to appreciate but never reach on its own—this is the core of Cor-
dovero’s approach to the relationship bettveen Torah and the intellect, and
between kabbalah and philosophy, ê general principle he explicitly lays
down at every opportunity is that the sefirot, letters, and other elements of the
kabbalistic myth are means of cognition and comprehension of the divine and13
13 See Y. Liebes, “I Character, Writings, and Kabbalah of the Author of Emek HaMelech"
(We١٥.١١,V1Y Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought w (\‫ﻵﻵﻵ‬١ pp. \‫؟‬Α-Υ57٠ , New Directions in Kab-
balah Scholarship (Heb.) (1991), http://pluto.huji.ac.il/Tiebes/zohar/KDnJNIM.doc.
its providence, îs keeps Cordoverian kabbalah inherently linked with spec-
ulative concerns:
And the issue of saying “to benefit others,” we should know that this benefit is their
proximity to Him and their conception of Him... i٠e٠, since His excellence was
unknown as there was no one but Him, He created those inferior to Him in order for
them to recognize His supremacy, and this explanation is contained in the issue of the
benefit, for there is no benefit in the world greater than some conception of divinity,
and that is by degree ٠٠)
supremacy of kabbalistic speculation over philosophy plays a basic meth-

odological role in Cordovero’s system‫ ؛‬his descriptions are inherently pleasing
to the intellect, in that they preserve a certain logical structure, and accord
with the intellectual, mainly Neoplatonic understanding of fundamental con-
cepts such as unity, being, good, and nature. His kabbalah is in a sense pleas-
ing to the intellect precisely because it comes to solve problems that confound
the intellect, as a demonstration of its supremacy.
êre is no doubt that Lurianic kabbalah in general is intimately related to
Cordoverian ideas, a fact that is brought out in Zack’s research^ but has not
yet been thoroughly examined. However, I believe it is safe to say that Luria
presented his teachings as a fundamental shift ftom Cordovero’s perspective,
and so it was developed by his primary student, Chaim Vital. Most of Luria’s
extant remarks on Cordovero contain disagreements with what he had read or
heard him say) Even the famous dictum that emerged ftom the Vitalian
circle, that Cordovero taught the world of tohu (nothingness, chaos) while
Luria came to teach the world of tikun (restoration), indicates that Luria’s
teachings were perceived by Vital to subsume Cordoverian kabbalah rather
than transform it. For Sarug, on the other hand, the general framework
and concerns of the Cordoverian system remain intact. Sarug puts the Luri-
anic teachings in the sphere of Cordovero’s speculative kabbalah, though they
do not immediately lend themselves to it. He effectively took them to be a
new perspective on the same issues and concerns rather than an alternative to14 * 16
14 '‫ והיינו שלא‬٠..‫ צריך שנדע כי טובה זו היא קורבתם אליו והשגתם אותו‬,‫ועניין אומרו להיטיב לזולתו‬
‫ וטעם‬,‫ ברא אלו התחתונים ממנו ולמטה כדי שיכירו רוממותו‬,‫היה מעלתו ניכר לזולתו מפני שאין בלעדיו‬
٠ ٠ ٠ ‫ שאין שום טובה בעולם למעלה מהשגת מה באלוהות וזהו בהדרגה‬,‫ ‘זה הוא כלול בלהטיב‬Introduc-
tion to “Shiur Qomah”, 13:3, in Or Yakar (Jerusalem, 1991), vol. 21, p. 92.
)5 See especially B. Zack, “Ere Ramak and the Ari,” in M. Benayahu, ed., Lurianic Kabbalah
(Jerusalem, 1985), pp. 311-340.
16 Some of these were eventually included in Sha’ar Ma’amarei Rashb”y, for example, on
Trumah (Jerusalem, 1988), p. 98a.
S. Sktil / The Review ofRabbinic Judaism 14 (2011) 158—187 163
the entire Cordoverian discourse, which is the direction Luria himself was
apparently taking, ûs, many of what are usually considered to be Sarug’s
innovations are in fact what I will call Lurianic transformations of Cordover-
ian themes, îs is particularly true of Cordovero’s later works. Or Yakar and
Elima Rabati, and I will mainly concentrate on these texts.
To explain what I mean by Lurianic transformations, I will allow myself
the use of the caricature notions of (‘typically Cordoverian" and “typically
Lurianic" characteristics, whatever one’s opinion on the distinction bettveen
Lurianic and Cordoverian kabbalah, it is undoubtedly the case that there are
certain structures, concepts, and themes that are markedly Cordoverian or
Lurianic. whether by way of vocabulary and style, or by way of the thematic
role that certain concepts play in the system, texts can generally be identified
as Cordoverian or Lurianic in outlook, ê most distinctive Cordoverian
characteristic is his Neoplatonic picture of the emanation as a gradual unfold-
ing of diversity and complexity out of unity and simplicity, as a function of
the spiritual “distance” from Einsof) the Infinite Divine Being, ê transition
from nothing to something is conceived as the emergence of distinct existence
out of simple unity. Another typically Cordoverian characteristic, closely
related to the previous one, is that, since there can be no real change in Einsof.;
all existents exist on all levels of the emanation, in different degrees of diversi-
fication and distinction, îs serves Cordovero’s Neoplatonic conception of
the essential unity behind all structures.
Luria, on the other hand, introduced a new conception of the emanation,
which allows structures to take on a succession of forms at different stages,
though this does not occur in time as we understand it. I will refer to it as a
quasi-temporal conception of the emanation, îs allows him, among other
things, to distinguish between a cataclysmic initial stage of the emanation and
a subsequent stage of restoration. Other important typically Lurianic themes
are the tzimtzum and the production of the root of din (judgment, rule) as the
first act of emanation. Finally, the Lurianic system presents a typical kind of
symmetry, in which the same pattern repeats itself continuously through the
various stages in ever growing detail.
ôugh this is undoubtedly an abstraction, the notion of typically Cordo-
verian and Lurianic qualities is crucial to analyzing the Sarugian transforma-
tion of Cordoverian themes. Recasting such Cordoverian themes in the light
of some typically Lurianic quality is what I will call a Lurianic transformation
of these themes. I believe that a small number of such transformations are
the source of many distinctive Sarugian concepts, and these highlight Sarug’s
use of Lurianic ideas to present an alternative solution to Cordovero’s theo-
philosophical concerns.
164 s. Sktil / The Review ofRabbinic Jiáism 14 (2011) 158—187
single most typical tenet of Sarugian kabbalah is the complex processes
that precede the emanation of the ten sefirot into the vacant space of the
tzimtzum. All the other Lurianic versions mention a straightforward contrae-
tion of the light of Einsofi o leave a vacant space. In Sarug’s version, a number
of stages take place before the space of creation comes to be, and this number
kept growing as his thought evolved, îs indicates that Sarug was preoccu-
pied with the initial transition from perfect simplicity to multiplicity and
focused his evolving thought on this question, îs is itself a distinctively
Cordoverian concern, which Luria himself preferred in all versions of his
teaching to leave to simple divine will. Interestingly, once it gets to the ere-
ation of the different partzufi!) or humanoid configurations, out of the vessels
that were emanated into the vacant space and then shattered, all different
Sarugian accounts describe more or less the same details. It would be reason-
able to assume that Sarug received a more or less complete picture of the shat-
tering of the vessels and their restoration as the partzufi!) but his accounts of
the origins of the emanation underwent considerable development. I will
therefore concentrate on these sections here, which also contain all that came
to be widely recognized as Sarugian landmarks, ûs, I will explore the
Cordoverian roots of two major Sarugian themes related to the origins of
the emanation:
a. The shaashua (delight)

b. The malbush (garment)
In all these cases the same phenomenon recurs—certain quite identifiable
Cordoverian themes are Lurianically transformed so as to fit a Lurianic con-
ception of the emanation, ôugh Cordovero’s panentheistic view of creation
is still present in some form, the Neoplatonic understanding of the emanation
is all but gone in Sarug’s system. Instead, we find a far more mythically
expressed mystical insight into the origination of what does not exist in Divine
essence, but has to be brought out as a product of Divine will, ûs, the theo-
philosophical implications of the description are transformed according to the
typically Lurianic view, that the essential building blocks of creation, though
they emerge from Divine essence, contradict it to an extent in their finitude
and strictness, and therefore the Divine must contradict and withhold itself to
an extent for them to come to be.
A. TTe Shayashua
ê texts of Sarugian kabbalah generally open with the shaashua (delight) of
Einsofi which is conceived as the most immediate relationship between Einsofi
S. Sflatil / le Retneiu ofRabbinic Judaism 14 (2011) 158—187 165
and creation.17 18
Within
19 * a Lurianic context, the Sha’ashua is a distinctive mark
of the Sarugian line." But it is well known that the shaashua‫ י‬as it appears in
Sarug, is based on a Cordoverian concept.*‫ ؟‬Cordovero does not open his texts
with the shaashua‫ י‬but just like in the Sarugian system, it is the first occur-
rence in the process of emanation—the first act of the Divine that can be
conceived in any way or form.
ê sha’ashua in the thought of Cordovero is quite a complex idea that
requires some consideration, though it was discussed before by both Ben
Shlomo and Zack.2٥ Cordovero takes the sha’ashua to be the primordial and
permanent relationship of ‫ﺗﻤﺪة‬with the emanation, since according to his
Neoplatonic conception, there can be no change in Einsof. It is principally a
mythical representation of divine self knowledge, in which the knowledge of
all existents is contained. As divine self knowledge, the sha’ashua takes place
within the divine, and as such it is completely incomprehensible, in contrast
with the revelation of the divine outside of Itself However, the revelation of
the divine is the very reason for creation, as mentioned in the quote in the
introduction—and this is Cordovero’s explanation of the kabbalistic formula
that (‘the nature of the good is to benefit." So knowledge of the divine
essentially has two aspects, first, the self-knowledge of God, which is completely
concealed, and second, the way God reveals God’s self to the outside (which
God emanates forth). Yet, both kinds of divine knowledge are called sha’ashua
by Cordovero:
Prior to the existence of any emanation there was ^‫^^؛‬alone, and He was delighting
(‫משתעשע‬, mishta’ashea) in the comprehension of His own essence, and that is
something the intention of which we will never know, for we know not what He is...
17 The shaashua does not appear, however, in Kontras Hatchalat Ha-Hochma, which is the
earliest known Sarugian text, which contains only the germs of many Sarugian ideas. le version
there is based on the terminology of Moses Yona’s Kanfei Yona.
18 Although Meroz identified another early Lurianic source that opens with the sha’ashua, see
R. Meroz, “Early Lurianic Texts" (Heb.), in Masuot (Jerusalem, 1994), p. 527. lis would fit
well with her proposition that Sarug was a direct early student of Luria (see note 5). However,
the phrasing in this text: “Prior to the atzilut, Einsofwas alone taking delight (mishta’ashea) in
His essence..suggests that the sha’ashua is a constant state in which AZv?Zexists, which is still
within the confines of the Cordoverian understanding of the sha’ashua, as we shall see.
19 The sha’ashua is in fact the only element noted in passing by both Liebes and Meroz to be
a Cordoverian influence on Sarug. See R. Meroz, “I School of Sarug," p. 154, Y. Liebes, “I
Character, Texts, and Kabbalah of the Author of Emek ^-Melech," p. 105, note 24. In the
Zohar, the sha’ashua appears as the union of the shechina and the souls of the righteous; see for
example Zohar 2:255a. The connection between the sha’ashua and the very first stages of the
process of emanation is largely based on the opening of Genesis Rabbah.
See le Mystical leolo^ of Moses Cordoio, p. 61, le Kabbalah of Moses Cordoio,
However, after the emanation of Keter there were Him and His name alone, i٠e٠ Einsof
“Him" and Keter “His name,” and the sha’ashua of the Keter is the comprehension of
its own essence, and comprehending as much of its Cause as it could bear to have.21
I shaashua is therefore asymbol of the intellectual unity of self consciousness,

of comprehending one’s own essence, a unity in which the subject and object
of the comprehension are one and the same. If, in addition, comprehension
belongs to the essence of the subject, the result is the famous medieval dictum
that God is the unity of knower, knowledge, and known,22 the absolute self
consciousness. But every self conscious being also comprehends a portion of
divine essence, by virtue of comprehending its own essence, the very portion
that sustains it in existence. Any conception of God is thus achieved through
self consciousness, ê use of the term (‘delighting in the comprehension of
His own essence” is carefully drafted by Cordovero to imply a potential
distinction between two aspects—He and His essence—that in Einsof are
nevertheless in absolute unity, îs is later manifested in the relationship
between the sefirot Keter and Hochma, representing these ttvo aspects
respectively, êre is a direct connection in Cordovero’s system between the
concept of essence and the sefira of Hochma (wisdom) or the divine intellect
(this again relates to the philosophical view that intellection is essential to
the Divine), ê Shaashu is a relationship that exists essentially between the
Divine and Its wisdom, in such a way that everything that is united with
divine wisdom joins in the shaashua. In ‫ ﺗﻤﺪة‬this unison is absolute and
inconceivable, since “He and His wisdom are one.”23 As the essence of ‫ﺗﻤﺪة‬
this wisdom is completely incomprehensible and forever concealed, ê divine
wisdom that is revealed, eventually becoming the sefira of Hochma, is the
wisdom of God’s actions in relation to creation, êrefore, it is possible to say
that the concealed divine essence is distinguished from the revealed sefira of
Hochma in the same way that what God could have done is distinguished
from what He actually did.24 ê former is beyond all comprehension, but of
the second we can form some idea, ê revealed Hochma is nothing other* 22 23 24
Or Yakar 1:1:4 (Jerusalem, 1991), p 21. 12. ‫ והיה‬,‫ היה הא“ס לבד‬,‫’קודם שנמצא כל נאצל‬
‫ האמנם אחר‬...‫ כי לא ידענו מה הוא‬,‫ והוא ענייז לא נדע מה הנרצה בו‬,‫משתעשע בהשגת עצמותו‬
,‫ ושעשוע הכתר בהשגת עצמותו‬,“‫ וכתר"שמו‬,“‫ פירוש א״ס ”הוא‬,‫ היה הוא ושמו לבד‬,‫אצילות הכתר‬
‘.‫והשגת דבר מה בעילתו כאשר תוכל שאת‬
22 See for example in Maimonides’ Guide ofthe Perplexed 1:68 (Jerusalem, 1977), P. 1 lift.
23 Or Yakar, introduction to Shiur Qomah, ch. 5 (Jerusalem, 1991), vol. 21, p. 94.
24 THs is also expressed in Elima Rabatt 1:1:8 (Jerusalem, 1999), pp. 3d4a.
than the divine essence as it extends into the sefirot25 and is revealed in the
unity of the whole of creation:
And bring to your mind that as His essence is inconceivable to US, for He is endlessly
concealed, so His knowledge is concealed, and we only grasp a minute portion of the
wisdom of God, that extends into His creatures, which is of the wonders of the Perfect
Mind, that He performed a sublime Hessed (act of love) towards His creatures, in that
He brought them to existence in wisdom ٠ ٠ ٠ for He wanted the light of His wisdom to
extend forth and create the inferior physical beings, so there would be nothing in
creation that does not come to exist in wisdom, so that when you grasp His existence
from out of the created beings, your faith shall not be in another but actually in His
essence for He brought them to existence in His wisdom٠26
shaashua is thus the state of unity with divine wisdom, which represents
divine self-consciousness and self-comprehension. In ‫ ﺗﻤﺪة‬this unity exists
essentially and incomprehensibly, while within creation, it manifests itself in
the complete unity of all existents in the sefira of Hochma. îs sefira is the
divine essence itself, as far as it contains everything in existence. Since it is
through Hochma that everything receives some comprehension of the Divine,
it represents the quintessential form of the (‘benefit," for the sake of which
everything was created. But the faculty that represents the revelation of
Hochma is in fact Da’at (cognition, knowledge). Da’at is the hidden line that
extends initially fiom Keter, representing the extension of Divine will‫ ؛‬it pro-
duces Hochma and Bina and then links them together. As the line that extends
fiom Keter and Hochma, Da’at is the only revealed element of these two
sefirot, which otherwise remain concealed, êrefore, Da’at symbolizes the
revealed aspect of Divine essence. In a sense, it is possible to say that the sefirot
Keter and Hochma are like the “Da’at” of Einsof. As the only revealed aspect
of the absolute unity of Einsof) Keter and Hochma are to Einsofwkt Da’at is
relative to these sefirot. ê shaashua, as the self consciousness of the divine
and the unification of everything in this self consciousness, is manifested25 26
25 ™‫ ة‬is of course related to the well known Cordoverian view that the sefirot are both
essences and vessels, to which Ben Shlomo devoted much of his book. THs will be discussed
further in section B.
26 Or Yakar, introduction to Shiur Qomah, ch. 5 (Jerusalem, 1991), vol. 21, p. 94. ’‫ואתה‬
‫ ולא‬,‫ כך ידיעתו נעלמה‬,‫תעלה בדעתך שכיווץ שאין מהותו מושג אלינו מפני שהוא נעלם באיץ תכלית‬
‫ והרי זה מפלאי תמים דעים‬,‫עמדנו אלא על קצת מקצת מחכמת האל ית‘ הנמצאת מתפשטת בנבראיו‬
‫ לזה רצה שאור חכמתו תתפשט לברוא הגשמיים‬...‫עשה חסד נורא עם נבראיו שהמציאם בחכמה‬
‫ כדי שכשתעמוד על מציאותו מתוך הנבראים לא תהיה‬,‫הפחותים שאין לך כריה שלא נמצאת בחכמה‬
‫האמונה בזולתו אלא ממש בעצמותו‬.‘
168 s. Sbatil / The Review ofRabbinic Judaism 14 (2011) 158—187
predominantly in a state of constant union among the upper three sefirot. îs
union is most purely encapsulated by Da’at.27
With Da’at we make a full circle since, for Cordovero, it symbolizes divine
kn0wledge.28 Da’at exists in Einsofin absolute incomprehensible unity, but it
also extends into creation and is the source of everything good in it. Da’at has
a superior element—its root in the sefira of Keter, which remained concealed
even from Moses—and on the other hand it has an aspect that extends into
the seven lower sefirot and forms their inner soul.29 It is thus the outward
manifestation of unity, unifying creation with Hochma. Da’at is an extension
and an expression of the original shaashua, since each of the upper three sefirot,
which are unified by Da’at, manifests one component of Divine self knowledge,
knower, knowledge and known, ê shaashua, or unity of these three sefirot,
is the unfolding of the incomprehensible unity of the Divine. By way of
Hochma, Bina, and Da’at, this unity extends till it engulfs the whole of ere-
ation. Cordovero even warns US3‫ )؛‬not to take these three as separate attributes,
for they are all stages in the unfolding of the 32 paths of wisdom, which are
the roots of everything in existence, ê upper three sefirot are thus the ema-
nated manifestations of primordial qualities that exist already in Einsof,; as
aspects of His absolute unity, while the lower seven sefirot represent attributes
that Einsof cm only have in relation to creation, ê statement that prior to
creation (‘there was no one else” actually refers, therefore, to the unification of
the first three sefirot, a unification fully manifested in Da’at, the level of the
comprehension of the Divine:
“No one else,” by this negation I mean that there is no separation among these three
attributes, and this is His shaashua in His creatures and emanations, for when Bina
ascends to Hochma the light of £‫^^؛‬has sha’ashua in benefiting them, and there is
no measure to the benefit of His Hessed in this aspect, even if the world is returned to
chaos, no [flaw] exists in these three attributes, which are Einsofm Keter and Hochma,
and Hochma with Bina.27 31 28 29 30
27 In her discussion of the myth of the sha’ashua, Zack emphasizes its identity with the Torah
(see especiallty The Kabbalah ofMoses Cordovero, pp. 150-155). TTere is no contradiction here,
as we shall see, since Da’at and the Torah are one and the same. But I reserve discussion of this
idea for the next section.
28 In medieval Hebrew, this is the literal meaning of the term (in contemporary Hebrew it
means “mind” or “cognition”), ûs, the unity of knower, knowledge, and known is in Hebrew
the unity of Yode’a (‫)יודע‬, Da’at (‫ )דעת‬and Yadua (‫)ידוע‬.
29 D 1:2:5, p. 95.
30 Or Yakar, 11:2:1, p. 119.
31 Or Yakar, introduction to Shiur Qomah, ch. 6, vol. 21, p. 95. ’‫אין זולתו כוונתי בשלילה זו‬
‫ שהרי הבינה בהסתלקה אל החכמה‬,‫שאין שום פירוד בג‘ מידות אלו והוא שעשועו בנבראיו ונאצליו‬
S. Shatil / The Review ofRabbinic Judaism 14 (2011) 158—187 169
sha’ashua, as Divine self consciousness and self comprehension, is there-

fore a single State of unity, but it can extend to different levels of existence. It
exists in Einsofm a level on its own, which is completely incomprehensible. It
exists in the eternal unity of the upper three sefirot) representing the unity of
the Divine as acting within creation. But in the form of Da’at it has the poten-
tial to extend further into the whole of creation, including it all in divine
unity. Ben Shlomo stressed the conceptual distinctions between the various
appearances of the sha’ashua in Cordovero.3^ But that actually goes against a
central tenet of Cordoverian Neoplatonism as explained above, that the same
elements and processes exist on all levels, at different degrees of revelation and
diversification.*33 34
I am
* more in agreement with Yehuda Liebes’ claim3^ that
there is a deeply mythical framework behind the apparent systematic symbol-
ism of Cordovero’s kabbalah, ê shaashua is an act that is in some way
attributed to the Divine itself, which would make this account intensely myth-
ical and (‘positive,” as opposed to Maimonides’ negative theology. But for
Liebes and Zack,33 the sha’ashua becomes rather a fundamental Cordoverian
myth with clear psychological elements, in which God’s auto-erotic and nar-
cissistic delight in Himself evolves into a love relationship between God and
creation, particularly the souls of Israel. One reason that I went into a detailed
discussion of Cordovero’s sha’ashua, besides the complexity of the issue itself,
is to demonstrate that the sha’ashua is rather a prime example of how Cordo-
vero uses a daring myth to explain a complex speculative position, ê
sha’ashua plays a crucial role in bringing together such themes as God’s self
knowledge, the origins of creation, and eventually divine love of the souls of
Israel as well. In particular, there is nothing in this myth to contradict Rivka
Shatz’s claim36 that up until Cordovero, kabbalists in general refused to ascribe
any change to Einsofmd took it to be an absolutely abstract infinite unity.
Only Lurianic kabbalah shows readiness to begin with an act of contraction,
tzimtzum, in which Einsofis actively limiting itself For Cordovero, the myth
of the selfrcontemplation of the divine is at bottom an expression of the view
that the universe is just one way in which God is reflected to God’s self
‫ אפי‘ שיהפך העולם לתהו אין‬,‫ישתעשע אור אינסוף בהיטיבו להם ואין מידה להיטיב חסדה בבחינה זו‬
.‫בג‘ מידות אלו שהם א״ס בכתר וחכמה והחכמה עם הבינה‬.‘
‫ اﻷ‬The Mystical leolo^ ofMoses Conioio, p. 61.
33 Ben Shlomo himself points out this characteristic of Cordoverian thought elsewhere in
his book. See ibid.) pp. 176-200.
34 See “le Character, Writings, and Kabbalah of the Author of Emek HaMelech,"
pp. I17f.
‫ ﻷﻷ‬le Kabbalah ofMoses Cordovero, pp. \7\—Υ7‫>؟‬.
36 See Rivka Shatz, “Moses Cordovero and the Ari—Between Realism and Nominalism," in
Jerusalem Studies in Jewish !ought (\Ί١١, pp. 722-16.

170 s. Sktil / The Review ofRabbinic Jiiikism 14 (2011) 158—187
Lurianic readiness to push the boundaries of myth is nowhere more
apparent than in its Sarugian presentation, ê sha’ashua appears in Sarug’s
Limudei Atzilut as the first and only immediate act of the Divine in the direc-
tion of creation, ê shaashua gives rise to the original roots of existence
within Einsof. ê first description of the sha’ashua, at the start of the book, is
very concise, and its result is said to be the Torah:
Before anything, you should know that the Holy One took delight in Himself
(mishtaashea be-atzmo), meaning, that He was delighting and rejoicing, and just as it
is with a person, so with the Holy One, out of the joy.. ٠ a spark comes to be, and out
of the motion, according to the spark, the Torah is createdT
ê sha’ashua in the kabbalah of Sarug stands for the initial desire to create
and for the production of the foundation of creation, as encapsulated in the
original Torah, while Cordovero keeps to the dictum that Einsof is absolutely
unknowable, the Sarugian account of the sha’ashua implies that even the
coming to be of first roots of creation within Einsof cm be discussed, îs
position has one thing in common with the Cordoverian perspective, and that
is that all we can know about the Divine consists of the coming to be of ere-
ation and the conduct of the created realms. However, while Cordovero takes
the sha’ashua as a state of being of the unknowable unity of Einsof Sarug per-
ceives it as an originated event, which is aimed towards creation, ê differ-
ence bettveen the two accounts points out an inherent inconsistency between
the principle that Einsofis unchanging and the principle that Einsof is know-
able only in relation to creation. For if no change can take place in Einsoftkn
the roots of all existence must be co-eternal with It. But that would mean that
we can have some conception of A¿'٩^prior to creation, since the roots of
creation are already included there. Cordovero opted for one possible resolu-
tion, while Sarug took the other. By denying all change in Einsof Cordovero
must allow for some symbolic representation of divine essence in itself Sarug,
on the other hand, provides a mythical description of the coming to be of the
roots of creation by a willful act of Einsof precisely because such acts are con-
sidered to be distinct, in this conception, fiom the divine essence as it is in
itself At bottom, Sarug portrays a robustly mythical account of the events
taking place in Einsof because he considers it to be within the general confines
of a discussion about the origins of the process of emanation, at the stage
when it is still within the bounds of Einsof îs does not constitute, in his37
37 R. Israel Sarug, Limudei Atzilut (Munkacs, 1885) p. 3a. ”‫קודם כל דבר צריך אתה לדעת‬
‫ מתוך‬,‫ פי‘ שהיה משמח ומשתעשע וכמו כביכול האדם כך הקב״ה‬,‫כשהיה הקב“ה משתעשע בעצמו‬
‫ ומתוך הנענוע כפי הניצוץ دבראת התורה‬,‫ מתנוצץ‬...‫השמחה‬...“.
conception, a discussion of the Divine as it is in itself, but the effects of the

divine will to create, even before they outwardly manifest themselves. Sarug’s
Lurianic transformation breaks the (‘mythical barrier” in order to explain the
inner divine processes involved in creation. Interestingly, the very breaking of
the barrier allows Sarug to maintain two of Maimonides’ rational principles at
the same time: that God is beyond comprehension on the one hand, and that
creation was ex nihilo in the strict sense, which Aristotle rejects, on the other.
Cordovero has to break the second of these negative theological principles. In
Sarug’s conception, the Neoplatonic picture of the emanation as emergence
out of submerged existence in absolute unity is replaced by a picture of ere-
ation of the first roots of existence ex nihilo through a willful act of God. ê
rejection of the Neoplatonic conception is typically Lurianic in all the redac-
tions of his system. But in its Sarugian version, this is used to transform cen-
tral Cordoverian themes, rather than to present an alternative picture
altogether.
ê same transformation is manifested in the second, longer description of
the shaashua, towards the end of the first part of Limudei Atzilut. The shaashua
is described there fundamentally as the divine thought of becoming king, îs
very thought is considered to be the origin of the sefira of Malchut (kingship)
and the root of the power of din within Einsof. Din is the power of measure-
ment, restriction, and plurality, which are all necessary for the existence of
anything other than the Divine. Din is called a “drop of semen” produced by
the shaashua, conceived as a reduced, concentrated bit of divine essence that
is also identical with the Torah.38 Din is also the original divine inner root of
the possibility of evil. It is therefore taken by Sarug to be the one element that
was created by Einsofex nihilo through an act of will (or sexual arousal), and is
the one thing that has no room in its ineffable essence. Its production thus
constitutes the withdrawal of this essence, which Sarug identifies with the
Lurianic tzimtzum.
îs account ties in the sha’ashua with the question of the origin of din, a
connection that Cordovero himself does not explicitly make. But the emer-
gence of din out of absolute divine love and compassion occupies Cordovero’s
speculation a great deal, since he considers it to be one of the major theo-
logical problems that can only be solved kabbalistically. His solution is typi-
cally Neoplatonic, that the roots of din exist in Einsof in a purely mitigated
state, in which they are submerged in absolute divine compassion‫ ؛‬din is grad-
ually revealed as it is emanated “outwards” fiom Einsof.:3‫^ و‬is stems fiom the* 39
‫ ﻵﻵ‬Limudei Atzilut 2U—12‫ة‬٠

39 Elima Rabatti 29a-30a. A similar idea is found in Lurianic sources, particularly in Ibn
Tabul’s version, but in these sources din is not revealed gradually but as a result of separation and
position that divine will, represented by Keter, approaches identity with Einsof
in an infinite series of wills, so that nothing can exist in divine will that does
not exist also in God’s essence, ê sha’ashua, for Cordovero, is an expression
of this very mitigated diri) since if divine will includes diri) then it must ulti-
mately exist in divine essence, and it is symbolized by the motion of the
shaashua. For Sarug, on the other hand, the divine will to create is precisely
what does not exist in Einsof and comes to be ex nihilo at the onset of the
emanation, ûs, Sarug’s divergence from Cordovero at this point is an exten-
sion of the same rejection of the Neoplatonic picture of the origin of the
emanation. Sarug’s account of the sha’ashua assumes that din is brought into
existence by an act of will, even though it is completely contrary to the essence
of Einsof which has to be (‘contracted” and “congealed” for it to come forth.
His vividly mythical description of the primordial divine will rests on a com-
plete rejection of its identity with divine essence. Paradoxically perhaps,
Sarug’s adoption of robust mythical language adheres to Maimonides’ rational
conception of God more than Cordovero’s Neoplatonic description, which
at bottom must allow a glimpse into the simple divine essence.^ But this
Maimonedean via about divine essence lays the foundation for an
intensely mystical insight into the workings of divine will.
Another noticeable Lurianic transformation at work in Sarug’s treatment of
the sha’ashua has to do with form rather than content. However, it is just as
crucial to the way Sarug transforms Cordoverian ideas along typically Lurianic
guidelines, ê Cordoverian sha’ashua has a variety of manifestations on
different sefirotic levels, and may even come to engulf the whole of creation. As
mentioned, this is typical of Cordoverian Neoplatonism, in which the same
processes take place on all levels of creation, in varying degrees of diversification.
For Sarug, however, the sha’ashua is a distinct event that happens at the
beginning of the process of emanation within Einsof It may be an event in the
quasi-temporal history of creation, or it may be an event that takes place
timelessly on a certain spiritual level. Either way, it is confined to that level,
and does not occur an^here else. As a particular event, it is responsible for a
particular result, namely the creation of the roots of din and the Torah, which
are revealed eventually as the ten sefirot, and the twenty two letters of the40
concentration that took place in the process of tzimtzum at the beginning of the emanation; see
]. Ihn Tabul, “Drush Heftzi Bah," in M. Ha-Kohen Alhadad, Simhat Kohen (Jerusalem, 1911),
pp. 2a-b. It is this tzimtzum that the Sarugian shaashua and subsequent events attempt to
explain.
40 As Ben Shlomo discusses in Pardes Rimonim Cordovero explicitly rejects the Maimonidian
theory of negative descriptions in favor of the view that the three upper sefirot represent CO-
eternal positive qualities of God: Will, Wisdom, and Power. See pp. 77-79.
alphabet, êse were traditionally taken to be the thirty two paths of wisdom,
mentioned in Sefer Yetzira (1:1), from which everything came to be.
îs difference demonstrates a significant structural shift bettveen Cordovero
and Sarug, at the heart of which is the Lurianic quasi-temporal picture of the
emanation, while Cordovero’s system is at bottom still composed of the single
structure of the ten sefirot developed by Spanish kabbalists in the thirteenth
century, Sarug’s Lurianic system allows the divine realm to assume a succession
of forms at different stages. Instead of a Neoplatonic gradual unfolding, Sarug
presents a sequence of stages, all of which follow a basic symmetry, ê
sha’ashua is a distinct stage, but it sets the pattern for those that follow, except
that this pattern grows more complex every time, îs allows Sarug to arrange
the various events in the chain of emanation as a systematic set of symbolic
(‘definitions,” or introductions of specific elements that configure in all
subsequent events. Sarug’s entire system is constructed in this fashion, as we
shall see in more detail below, providing each term in its vocabulary with
some symbolic, genealogical “definition.” In its form, though by no means its
style, Sarug’s account is uniquely Euclidean, îs arrangement explains how
everything came to be as a result of divine manipulations, not as offshoots of
divine essence.
ê shaashua provides Sarug with the explanation for the origin of the
power of diU) which is produced by way of a symbolic “motion” within
the Divine. Furthermore, the ten sets of motion involved in the sha’ashua are
the source of all further sets of ten, and specifically the ten sefirot. Din, motion
and the ten sefirot figure in all successive stages of the emanation, but their
genealogy and explanation lie here, îs is most clearly formulated in the book
Sbener Yosef.
And this happened ten times, thus there were ten measurements, by means of ten
sha’ashuim, and for each measurement He took delight (nishta’ashea) in Himself, and
each sha’ashua gave birth to a measure. And when He reached the tenth measure He
measured it within Himself to be the proper measure for constructing the worlds.41
Sarug’s account is thus an explicitly mythical description of events within

Einsof) in which the origination ex nihilo of any plurality is a fundamental
premise, îs is reinforced by Sarug’s analogy of the sha’ashua as convulsions
of laughter, ripples in a pond, or the flickering of fire^2—the water and fire are41 *
41 Joseph Delmedigo (and Israel Sarug), Shever (facsimile of Korez, 1884), §2, p. 19.
‫ שעל כל מידה נשתעשע‬,‫’והיה זה י“פ ]י‘ פעמים[ ע“כ ]על כץ[ היה י‘ שיעורים על ידי יו״ד שעשועים‬
‫ וכשהגיע לשיעור עשירי שיער בעצמותו שבאותו שיעור נאה‬,‫בעצמו ובכל שעשוע נולד ממנו שיעור‬
.‘‫להעמיד העולמות‬
Linde! Atzilwt, pp. TV 41‫ه‬-22‫ة‬.
174 S. Sbatil ‫^ ا‬e Review 0‫؛‬Rabbinic Judaism 14 (2011) 158—187
completely still, until wind comes and blows through them, îs allows Sarug
to maintain the causal relationship between God and the power of din, with-
out making it a fully integral part of Divine essence, as it is in Cordovero’s
system. But the complex relationship of the Divine essence and the emanation
requires US to move to the next important stage in Sarug’s account of the
unfolding.
B. Malbush and the Cordoverian Concept of Torah
In her study of the unpublished Ein Ηα-Kore section of Elima Rabatt, Bracha
Zack lays out Cordovero’s conception of the Torah, which she encapsulates
as follows:
According to Cordovero’s conception, the Torah is the first pattern of all existents and
their primary root. Tie layout of the sacred worship is also set and arranged in the
supreme level of the Torah. Anyone who performs the sacred worship (each of the
sefirot and Israel) follows this layout. Tie Torah facilitates the mutual bond between
Einsofa. nd all existents, and between all existents and Einsof. Tie Torah, which pres-
ents the way of the sacred worship, unfolds fiom the top of the world of the Sefirot to
this world. Tie unfolding of the Torah is what prepares the way for the ascent of the
sefirot and of Israel, and for their return to grasp their rootT
Cordovero presents a picture of the Torah as the interface between ^'^¿ând

all existents. It is the first created being, the origin of the whole of creation,
and the instrument of transition from the unity of the Divine to the plurality
of the ten sefirot. In fact, as Zack maintains, the Torah is the interface of the
sha ’ashua—things join in the sha’ashua of ‫ﺗﻤﺪة‬through a revelation of their
root in the Torah.44 ûs, the Torah and Da’at alike represent everything that
can be grasped of God’s self knowledge, which is the inner essence of the
whole of creation. Da’at is the knowledge of God that every soul reaches
through selfrknowledge, while the Torah is the medium for attaining this
knowledge. It is to be found particularly in the secret layer of Torah, and is
thus the subject matter of kabbalah in particular.^
îs picture is intended to substantiate the view of the Torah as a unique
and complete source of divine knowledge, ê intellect can be enlightened by
such knowledge, but it can never come to grasp it on its own. Consequently,
the essence of everything in creation is revealed in the study of Torah, because* 44 45
The Kabbalab ofMoses Conkero, p. \4‫>؟‬, my visWkm.

44 Ibid.) pp. 155-156.
45 Ibid., pp. 176ff.
everything is created by the letters of Torah, from the top of the sefira of Keter
to this material reality, ê reason for studying the details of creation is that,
at bottom, they are manifestations of the Torah, the medium for the knowl-
edge of God, which is the source of all benefit in creation, ê kabbalistic
study of these details reunites them with their divine source, îs is achieved
by an active effort on the part of the soul, chiefly in the theurgic practice of
mitzvot and the study of Torah at the esoteric level. In particular, this study
reveals how divine unity, simplicity, and unbound love turn into the plurality,
complexity, and strictness that we find in the universe. Over and against the
rational Aristotelian conception of God as the unity of knower, knowledge
and known, Cordovero posits the Torah as a means of a mystical participation
in this unity, îs is, in fact, the kernel of Cordovero’s conception of kabbalah
as a superior alternative to rational philosophy.
ê same point is also evident in the discussion of the unfolding of the
Torah in Or Yakar at the beginning of the Shiur Komah section, îs section
of the book deals with the anthropomorphisms of the Idra sections of the
Zohar. Cordovero describes the emergence of the original roots of all beings
within the sefira of Keter, representing God’s will to create, îs is discussed
in relation to the Zoharic passage that describes the formation of the parsa
(membrane) on which the roots of the sefirot—known as the "kings”-were
created, using a shiur (measurement) and hakika (carving):
And these two words are qualities that the beings require in order to be revealed and
exist below. Tie first is called maglif, i٠e٠, carving 0hokek), which is the persistence of
the beings and their revelation in concrete reality. ٠ ٠ ٠ And the other is called mesha*er,
i٠e٠, that the beings, on account of their proximity to their cause, are without a shiur
and a limit at all, and as they extend they are measured and limited and emerge ftom
limitlessness to limit and ftom measurelessness to measure ٠ ٠ ٠ and He spread aparsa
before Him, thus He made a level down below within the Keter itself, and there, in
this utterly concealed Hochma, in the secret of this parsa, which is itself almost [iden-
tical with] the Keter, and since it is attached to it, it says aparsa before Him, for its
providence is never removed ftom it since they are both one. ٠ ٠ ٠ He carved and mea-
suredi the beings, which are rooted above in the secret of the aspect above à parsa,
and so placed them within it, and now they are somewhat more revealed, for they
descend a level into limit and shiur and hakika for the beings, as we interpreted. ٠ ٠ ٠
And it says in the land ofEdom meaning the dictates of din, i٠e٠ that the dictates of
din were emanated outside their proper place, and therefore they were concealed and
their existence not revealed, and din did not thereby come to be in the least, for Bina
was not yet emanated, the root of the existence of Bina in its proper place, ftom which
and below are the dictates of din as is knownT46
46 Or Yakar, Shi’ur Qomah, ch. 1, vol. 21, pp. 200-201 ,‫וירצה בשתי מלות אלו שהם עניינים‬
‫ והיינו קביעות ההויה והגלותה‬,‫ האחד נקרא מגליף פירוש חוקק‬,‫שצריכות ההויות ולהמצא למטה‬
êre is little doubt that this parsa, a membrane that allows eventually for the
emanation of Hochma (containing Bina) out of Keter, is the manifestation of
Torah on the level of Keter. It is explicitly identified as the concealed Hochma
within Keter, which facilitates the transition fiom nothingness to being, as a
transition fiom submersion in divine will to distinct revelation, ê eventual
failure of revelation, symbolized by the (‘death" of the “kings,” indicates that
it is still merely an interface which is not yet distinct from divine essence,
“since they are both one.” ê reason for the failure is that at this stage Bina
has not yet been emanated, ûs, the parsa represents Hochma as it is still
completely concealed within Keter. Bina of Keter, which is called “Air” (،avir),
facilitates the emanation of the sefirot outside of Keter, being the “air” in which
the first point of the emanation comes to be.47
When it comes to the sefirot Hochma and Bina themselves, which allows
for greater revelation, the “beings” discussed above turn out to be the basic
components of the Torah text—the letters, their crowns (tagin), vowel points,
and musical marks (ta’amim). The first roots of the alphabet exist in the sefira
of H٥chma.48 In Hochma the letters are formed in direct alphabetical order,
signifying a creative flow downwards, called Direct Light (oryashar). In Bina,
however, the letters exist in reverse order, from the last letter, tav (،‫)ת‬, to the
first one, aleph (،‫)א‬, îs signifies ascent back to the root, and is called
Returning Light {or chozer). ê union of Hochma and Bina is represented by
the combination of these two sets of alphabet, in all possible permutations,
îs is the origin of the 231 “gates,” or couplets of Hebrew letters, which was
also originally mentioned in Sefer Yetzira (2:7).
When Cordovero elaborates on this process even further,^ he writes that
in Hochma the letters exist in the form of the Hebrew vowel points, and it
is only once they are given over to Bina in conjugation that they take on
the form of letters. In fact, all the points emerge from an original set of three:
the cholam (،o’), shuruk (‘u’), and chirik (T), represented by a point above, in47 48 49
,‫ השנית נקרא משער והיינו שההויות לרוב ’להגלות קרבתן לסבתם הם בלי שיעור וגבול כלל‬...‫במציאות‬
‫ ופריס קמיה חד פרסה הוי‬...‫וכאשר יתפשטו ישוערו ויוגבלו ויצאו מאין גבול לגבול ומאין שיעור לשיעור‬
‫ ובה במציאות החכמה הנעלמה בסוד הפרסה הזאת שהיא היא‬,‫עשה מדרגה אחת למטה בכתר בעצמו‬
‫ ולהיות שהיא אדוקה בו אמר פרסא קמיה שאין השגחתו זזה ממנה כלל שהוא והיא‬,‫הכתר כמעט‬
‫ וכל המצואים המושרשים למעלה בסוד בחינה שהיא קודמת אל הפרסא גליף ושיער חזר ונתן‬...‫אחד‬
‫ ועתה שהיא מתגלית קצת שהרי ירדה מדרגה אחת גבול ושיעור וחקיקה אל ההויות‬,‫אל ההויות בה‬
‫ וירצה שהיה מתאצל שורת הדין שלא במקומו ולכן‬,‫ ואומרו בארץ אדום הכוונה שורת הדין‬...‫כדפירשנו‬
‫ מפני שעדיין לא נאצלה‬,‫ ולא היה הדין מתהווה בהם כלל ועיקר‬,‫היו מתעלמים בלתי מציאותם מתגלה‬
‘.‫ שממנה ולמטה שורת הדין כנודע‬,‫הבינה שורש אל מציאות הבינה במקומה‬
47 Or Yakar, ibid.) P. 210.
48 OrYakar 1:1:7, p. 21.

49 Or Yakar 1:3:3, p. 128.
S. Sbatil / The Retnetu ofRabbinic Judaism 14 (2011) 158—187 177
the midst, and below the letter respectively. According to Cordovero, these
stand for the three principles of unbound love (hessea،), judgment (din)) and
compassion (rahamirn). In the sefira of Hochma, the original roots of plurality
and din are thus manifested as the dimensionless vowel points. In Bina, the
letters themselves are brought forth, which are the instruments for expressing
the written and oral Torah, and all the created world with them. Bina gives
rise to the lower sefirot by combining the letters in specific patterns, ê
emanation of the sefirot consists of a typically Neoplatonic gradual revelation
ofTorah. In the seven lower sefirot, the qualities of the letters are distinguished,
and they are combined to form the names of the Hebrew language that then
govern the fate of everything‫ ؛‬they make up the divine Torah with which the
essence of everything is created and revealed.5Q
îs picture, in which the essence of everything is composed of letters and
divine names, has a long tradition in Kabbalah. Just prior to Cordovero,
R. David Ben Zimra devoted much of his Kabbalah to interpretations of
letters influenced by Sefer Ha-Tmuna.5\ It has also played a significant role in
all versions of the Lurianic system. Luria developed an extensive and original
theory of the genealogy of Hebrew names and their interactions.52 îs theory
appears in the works of Sarug as well, but his discussion of the malbush is a
derivative of Cordovero’s conception of the Torah, and in particular of his
description of the parsa mentioned above.
ê Sarugian malbush (garment) of Einsofis the primordial Torah produced
by the sha’ashua and composed of all possible couplets of Hebrew letters. It is
widely regarded in scholarship as the most distinctive mark of Sarugian
kabbalah.53 Meroz observed that the account of the malbush has discernibly
undergone at least three major stages of development. In brief, at first there is
no mention of the malbush at all, and the germ of the idea appears only in a
mysterious reference to the (‘folding up of the shechina and the "final ‫ "ﺳﻮ‬at* 51 52 53
Or Yakar 1:1:15, p 50. 47.,‫ וכץ אותיות שם ארץ‬,‫כי אותיות שמים יורו על עצם השמים ומציאותם‬
‫הייدו‬...‫כי האותיות בעצמם יורו על עצם הבריאה‬...‫וזה דרך לכל שם ושם משמות העניץ בלשוץ הקודש‬
‫ כי שם כל דבר‬:‫ והטעם‬...‫ ועניץ זה دודע בסוד ספר יצירה‬..‫תיבות התורה הפועלות שמים וארץ למטה‬
.‫ודבר הוא סיבה ועצם לדבר הנברא‬
51 D. Ben Zimra, Magen David (Jerusalem, 2007).
52 A topic that is yet to be investigated properly.
53 Scholem famously regarded it as a primary example of a Sarugian Neoplatonic supplement
to the Lurianic framework. See Kabbalah.... However, based on the studies of A. Altman and
M. Idel (Golem, New York, 1990, pp. 148-154), Liebes has already claimed that Scholem’s
perspective on Sarug as a quasi-philosophical and Neoplatonic kabbalist, in contrast with the
mythical character of the “original" Lurianic teachings is partial at best; see Y. Liebes, New
Directions in Kabbalah Scholarship (http://pluto.huji.ac.il/liebes/zohar/research.html), note 21.
the (‘feet of the shechinaE^ At the second stage, the malbush makes its first
clear appearance as the primordial Torah in the form of a weave of the 231
“gates," or couplets of Hebrew letters, and the four prototypical spellings of
the Tetragrammaton.55 At the third stage of development we find a discussion
of how the letters of the malbush were formed out of points of divine light
within the vacant space of the tzimtzum of Einsof. ê Sarugian presentation
of this typically Lurianic event is that the tzimtzum results in myriads of points
of light filling a round space that was cleared of the infinite light.56 êse
contracted points then extend lines in an attempt to rejoin the infinite light
surrounding them, and these lines form the basis from which the malbush and
letters are subsequently formed.57
ê shape of each letter indicates an intricate relationship between the
points and the light outside the space, where the points aspire to reach the
light but are unable to do so. A mystical homily on the form of the letters is
not found in any other primary Lurianic source, but Cordovero discusses it
extensively, and this could well have been Sarug’s motivation for doing so. As
opposed to Cordovero, for which the letters define certain balances among the
three attributes of hessed; difi) and rahamim, Sarug perceived them as the result
of interplay between the contracted points of light and the surrounding
infinite light, precisely the two elements that the tzimtzum makes conceptually
available to him. îs interplay is highly mythical in character, and the points
and letters are ascribed deliberation, desire, shame, and the like, ûs, the
Cordoverian myth of the gradual emergence of the letters through the different
levels of the emanation—from beings to points to letters in ascending and
descending order—is transformed into a myth of tzimtzum, separation, and
reunification of the infinite Divine essence. Both myths maintain a picture of
the Torah as the extension of divine essence into creation, but for Sarug this
implies some form of ontological reduction on the part of this essence,
symbolized by the separation of the “points” of light that seek to reunite with
their source, îs explains how the power of din came to exist ex nihilo, while
associating it also with the desire to ascend and return to the source, ê54 55 56 57
54 Kontras Hatchalat Ha’chochma, Israel National Library Ms. 8٥ 417. This idea appears
already in Kanfei Yonah of Moshe Yonah, that was definitely known to Sarug and his circle in
Europe; see M. Bnayahu, “R. Moshe Yona, of the Students of the Ari and the First to Write His
teachings" (Heb.), in Lurianic Kabbalah (Heb.) (Jerusalem, 1985), pp. 7-74. ûs, the Kontras
might represent the way Sarug actually received the teachings of Luria, whether directly or not.
55 They figure at the beginning of the Lurianic system in all its redactions. Tris is the one
element in the Sarugian picture of the malbush that is clearly Lurianic.

56 The germ of the idea can be found in Drush Ha-Malbush, p. 11, where a single point of
divine essence is said to remain in the vacant space in order to sustain the reshimu in existence.
57 In the version of Limudei Atzilut, lie.
Neoplatonic character of Cordovero’s description of the parsa is replaced with

a typically Lurianic dialectical one.
ê most developed Sarugian account of the formation of the malbush is to
be found in his interpretation of Sifra D’Tzniuta.5* îs account combines the
details of all previous stages of development and begins with the shiur as the
production of the sefirot and the space of emanation, as a result of the shaashua.
ê sefira of Malchut, which marks the end of this process, represents the
thought of becoming a king. It becomes the vacant space of tzimtzum, within
which the (‘carving" of the malbush takes place, out of the points left behind
after the contraction of divine light, ê mechanism of tzimtzum is far more
detailed than in any other presentation of the Lurianic system—the will of
God to become king causes the appearance of three initial dinim, which are
said to be the origin of the three sefirot Bina, Gvura, and Yesod. êse are
typically left-hand side sefirot associated with din, and so they are the first to
make a discernible appearance on the background of the infinite light of
Einsof. êse dinim manifest three dialectical capacities: to keep the infinite
light out (Binah), to preserve a reshimu of this light in the vacant space (Gvura),
and to mediate between the two (Yesod). ê unified effect of the three is to
create a round space surrounded by the infinite light of Einsof. Within that
space there are myriads of points of concentrated divine light, êse points
then undergo a sha’ashua of their own, which causes them to extend lines
towards the infinite light, êse lines combine to form a web-like structure,
which thickens to become like a membrane containing a general structure or
“draft” {sirtut)59 of the malbush. îs membrane is then disconnected ftom the
surrounding infinite light bit by bit, and in each “web” that is disconnected a
“point” of din comes to be. From these points the letters are subsequently
created. After the formation of the malbush out of all possible combinations of
Hebrew letters in ascending and descending order, its bottom half is folded
up, and the space that is left is called the Primordial Air. ê sefirot eventually
reveal themselves within this Primordial Air.
Fully developed, the theory of the malbush makes extensive use of typically
Lurianic themes, including tzimtzum, the production of the power of din as
the first divine act towards creation, and the notion of “sparks” of divine light* 55
\٠‫ا؟ات\ﺗﺔا؟‬, Interpretation ofSifra DT2sni1(ta,\ïïlïïte،ht١k١1ko‫ ؛‬Lindei Atzihit (Mika,

1892), in the Introduction, pp. 34a—d. Tris version forms the basis for the works of his students
in Italy. See Menahem Azaria of Fano, "22 êses," in Maamarei Ha-Rama ofFano (Jerusalem,
2003), Joseph Delmedigo, Novlot Hochma (Basel, 1631).
55 This metaphor is explicitly drawing on the process of writing a Torah scroll, which begins
by scoring the lines with a sharp instrument, on which points are marked to signify the places of
the letters.
180 s. Sbatil / The Retnew ofRabbinic Judaism 14 (2011) 158—187
that separate from their source and become the letters that sustain creation.
Cordovero’s Neoplatonism is replaced by a conception of the emanation as a
type of separation within the divine, ê letters are supported in existence by
some aspect of the eternal divine essence, but only after it has undergone
an ontological reduction of sorts, symbolized by the points, îs is closely
related to the Lurianic picture of evil sustained by captured sparks of holiness.
It draws a typically Lurianic symmetry between what happened in Einsof
during the tzimtzum and what happened to the shattered vessels later on
in the process, ê dialectics of separation and return—the paradox of
the real possibility to exist as disconnected from Divine essence—takes over
the Neoplatonic concern to dissolve plurality and otherness in unity, ê
panentheistic implications of the description are overshadowed, now, by the
picture of the emanation as an emulsion, of sorts, of sparks of divine essence
with pure created din, represented as the letters which were formed during
the disconnection from the Divine essence itself ê (‘disconnection" of the
malbush from its surrounding light serves to mark a transition from the
panentheistic shadow analogy pertaining to the shiur, which is still inherently
part of Einsof.; and the malbush, which is already an interface bettveen Einsof
and the worlds, ê existence of the Malbush relies on some separation from
divine essence, which provides the letters at the same time with an ontological
foundation in divine will:
And since the surrounding Einsof, after this malbush was made, it was as if the malbush
was attached to it, and they were almost one thing. And for this reason He had to
disconnect His essence from the malbush, each part on its own, for if He disconnected
all at once the malbush would have returned to its essence, i٠e٠, Einsof, and therefore
the disconnection took place bit by bit, so that the malbush will persist in existence٠6٥
Yet, the more the mechanisms of the malbush become recognizably Lurianic,
the more they corresponds in detail to the Cordoverian picture of the forma-
tion of the Torah, and in particular the formation of the parsa and the “air”
inside the sefira of Keter. îs corroborates the view that Sarug was not simply
moving away from a Cordoverian to a Lurianic perspective, but was rather
aiming for a transformation of the Cordoverian picture along what he took to
be fundamental Lurianic guidelines. Like Cordovero, Sarug describes the pri-
mordial Torah as an interface bettveen simplicity and complexity, and the first
manifestation of divine creativity. Sarug adopts Cordovero’s picture of the
Torah as the effect of the divine will to create, containing everything in poten-
tial, and acting as the interface bettveen all creatures and divine unity. However,60
60 ‫ﺧﺪ\ﺗﻶ>؟‬, Interpretation ofSijra De-Tzni’nta, p.

instead of din and plurality being gradually submerged in their opposites,

Sarug takes them to be originations ex nihilo that came about in a process,
which is described clearly as a willful act of God. Sarug’s described a dialectical
manifestation of the divine essence by way of tzimtzum, or withdrawal‫ ؛‬this
explains the formation of the letters, provides a mystical explanation of how
letters and names make up the essence of everything, and grounds the efficacy
of kabbalistic and magical alphanumerical operations. Again, a far more
explicit and robust mythical language is used relative to Cordovero, but it is
never taken to refer to Divine essence, only to His will for kingship, into
which this essence was reduced, ê Torah is produced for this purpose, and
is the plane of resolution of all oppositions and contradictions—(‘the place
where light and darkness are mixed together,” as the malbush is described in
the short Sarugian excerpt called I Kabbalah ofR. Israel Sarug.61 62
ê first Lurianic transformation that we identified in the discussion of the
shaashua is equally crucial here, in the discussion of the malbush. The “myth-
ical barrier” is broken in order to put forward a view of creation as ontologi-
cally distinct fiom divine essence. Creation involves the contradiction and
withholding of this essence, in order to fulfill the divine will for kingship, ê
Neoplatonic picture of gradual unfolding is rejected in favor of a position that
is philosophically far more consistent with Maimonides’ via negativa, holding
that divine essence is completely unknowable, ê relationship bettveen oppo-
sites is conceived as dialectical, where essence and will, freedom and din must
all act out the contradictions between them in order to be fully revealed۶
ê details of the formation the malbush display the second, formal trans-
formation we identified above just as clearly. Each level of Cordovero’s picture
of the gradual unfolding is developed into a distinct stage in the quasi-tempo-
ral evolution of the emanation. Just as in Cordovero we have:
61 First published in J.s. Delmedigo, Ta’alumot Chochma (Basel, 1629), p. 78a. It was also
reprinted at the back oiMaayan Ha-Hochma (Koretz, 1784), p. 33a, which is itself a reworking
o‫ ؛‬tW Kontras Hatbakt Ha-Hocbma.
62 It could be enlightening to compare this view, using all due caution, with the later Hassidic
distinction bettveen extension via emanation and extension via tzimtzum, which R. Menachem
Mendel of Lubavitch, for example, explains using the distinction bettveen a person’s actions and
the essence of their psyche (that lies beyond even intellect and will). He writes that though
actions are of a completely different substance than the psyche, they still manifest its inner drive,
which he identifies as delight ctaanugr). See Or Ha-Torah on Different Topics, “Adam of BY"A"
(New York, 1983) pp. 90-92. Not wishing to downplay the extent of development of thought
that took place between Sarug and Menachem Mendel of Lubavitch, the important ontological
distinction between the divine essence and the results of His will is already a fundamental tenet
of Sarug’s description.
i. Emergence of the parsa in Keter, representing the Hochma concealed
therein.
ii. Imprinting the beings on the parsa, and then in the ٤٤air,” representing
the union of Hochma and Bina.
iii. Emergence of the three points representing cholam, shuruk‫ י‬and chirik‫י‬
and then the rest of the vowel points in Hochma.
iv. êir transition to Bina, where they take on the form of letters in
ascending and descending order.
In Sarug we get:
i. ê emergence of the three dinim in the form of three points.

ii. ê creation of the space of tzimtzum filled with myriads of points.
iii. ê formation of the letters out of the points in ascending and descend-
ing order, manifested as couplets or "gates.”
iv. ê ascent of the bottom half or “folding” of the malbush and the
creation of the “Primordial Air.”
ê main difference in the two accounts is that for Sarug the creation of the
letters takes place in its entirety bettveen what Cordovero describes as stages i
and ii. Taking the malbush to be a distinct stage in the quasi-temporal process
of emanation allows Sarug to devote this stage to the formation of letters. As
the first manifestation of the whole of the created realm, the malbush is
conceived as the overall Keter of the system, ê processes within it mirror
what takes place in the sefirot Hochma and Bina within the Keter in Cordovero.
A transformed version of the emergence of letters in Cordovero thus becomes
Sarug’s account of the formation of the malbush. Sarug’s “folding” of the mal-
bush63 corresponds to the revelation of Bina within Keter (both are called
“Primordial Air”). For Cordovero it causes a consolidation of diri) that clears
space for the emanation to come forth. For Sarug, it becomes a symbol for
the utter concealment of Divine essence, so that the “space” of creation can
be created. In Sarug’s account, yud is the only letter of the malbush that is
left in its bottom half after it folds up, due to an inbuilt asymmetry in the
way the letters of the Tetragrammaton are set in the middle of the malbush.GA
I yud is henceforth known as the (craftswoman of the Holy One’,63 65 and
* is
the intermediary between the light contained at the top half of the malbush (or
63 ™‫ ة‬concept of folding appears in Moshe Yona’s description of the emanation of the ves-
sels, and it is reasonable to assume that Sarug looked for the details of this process in the writings
of Cordovero.
G4 LiTidei Atzihit 5c.
‫ ﻵق‬Ibid., \5ν>.
the shechina of the earlier Sarugian texts) and the created vessels and
worlds below.66
îs makes it highly probable that Sarug built his picture of the malbush on
Cordoverio’s account of the formation of letters and their counterparts, îs
is just one of the processes Cordovero explained using the emanation of the
ten sefirot. Sarug sets this process apart in a stage of its own, distinguished
from the emanation of the sefirot. He then uses it to provide the mystical
(‘definition" for the basic elements of the Torah, as the building blocks of all
potential universes.^ creative potential, encapsulated in the Torah,
becomes the first manifestation of the entire emanated realm, produced by the
sha’ashua and the shiur. It is conceived as the first stage in the quasi-temporal
development of creation as distinct from the divine essence. Consequently, it
mirrors what takes place in the higher sefirot in Cordovero’s linear unfolding,
ûs, the malbush is an extension of the Cordoverian۶rc^ in particular, as the
sefira of Hochma concealed within Keter. ê folding of the malbush explains
the formation of the “air,” which for Cordovero is the sefira of Bina within
Keter, the origin of the the lower sefirot. The parsa and the “air” are turned by
Sarug into opposite motions, the one formed by the descent and the other by
the ascent of the malbush. Both together explain the coming to be of the roots
of all existence, just as they do in Cordovero. But the folding of the malbush
is turned into the final act of separation between the divine essence and the
emanation‫ ؛‬the sefirot can come to be only once the essence recedes, even in its
ontologically reduced form of the letters.
ê typically Lurianic symmetry between each stage of development is a
marked characteristic of Sarug’s description, ûs, though the sha’ashua is
itself a distinct stage, the formation of the malbush also begins with a repeat
of the sha’ashua on the part of the points of light. Similarly, the last act
involving the malbush, its folding up, is like the repeat of tzimtzum for the
next stage of development, which takes place in the vacated “Primordial Air”
at the bottom half of the malbush. But on the other hand, it fits perfectly
within the Cordoverian description of the emergence of letter combinations
through the interplay between “direct light” traveling downwards and
66 Sarug’s description of the emanation is based on the picture of the intermediary men-
tioned in both Cordoverian (see for example Or Yakar 1:3:1, p. 119) and early Lurianic sources
(see for example Drush Hefzi-Bah, pp. 2c-d).
67 The crowns and the vowel points were formed when the bottom half of the malbush
folded up—the crowns represent the inverted “legs” of the letters that were folded, while the
points are made of the “ceilings” of the letters that are now below those legs (see Interpretation to
Sifra D’Tzniuta, in the introduction, p. 36a). However, an alternative explanation has it that the
letters of the first half of the malbush are inconceivable to US except as the vowel points, and this
is the origin of angelic script (see Limudei Atzilut, 22c).
(‘returning light" traveling upwards. It is another application of the formal
Lurianic transformation, where the Cordoverian unfolding is divided into
quasi-temporal stages, which are allocated a definitive and genealogical role
within the system. Here, the formation of the malbush out of all possible
(direct and inverted) couplets of Hebrew letters manifests the potential to
create and undo everything, the full infinite creative potential of the Divine,
as manifested by letter combinations, and probably identified with Hochma.
ê folding of the malbush represents the concealment of this infinite
potential, which sets the stage for the emanation of the sefirot, and is identified
with Bina.
ê Cordoverian view of the Torah as the manifestation of divine wisdom
pertaining to creation is transformed (though not contradicted) by Sarug’s
picture of the Torah as the infinite potential of creativity that precedes the
emanation of the sefirot, and is concealed to make way for it. Each stage,
though it appears to contradict the previous one, represents the next shift in
the revelation of the power of difi) ftom the thought of creation still contained
in the essence of Einsof, to the infinite potential of the creative power of
Einsof) to the vacated space that sets the foundation for creation, as ontologically
distinct ftom Einsof. I believe, therefore, that the malbush is indeed a prime
example of the kabbalistic ingenuity of Sarug (or his school), involving a deep
reading of both the Lurianic and the Cordoverian systems, and remolding
the latter into a new framework along Lurianic guidelines. Sarug accepts
Cordovero’s picture of the Torah as encompassing the infinite potential
creativity of the Divine and as the instrument of creation. In its primordial
form, it is the field of all possible Hebrew permutations, îs grounds the
various kabbalistic alphanumerical operations and their magical capacity as
paths of divine wisdom. Yet, his picture of the Torah is far more robustly
mythical, based on the premise that the focus of discussion is the originated
power of din. ê Maimonidean via negativa is used to lend support to a
mystical insight of that which confounds the intellect the most, creation
ex nibilo.
C. Conclusion
Sarug’s picture of the emanation was seen to be a Lurianic transformation of

Cordovero’s later kabbalistic speculations. In effect, Sarug took the Lurianic
teachings to present a superior alternative conception of the emanation, which
could nevertheless be used to address central Cordoverian theo-philosophical
concerns, ê Lurianic teachings provided Sarug with new mythical imagery
and a dialectical, quasi temporal picture of the emanation, in order to replace

Cordoverian Neoplatonism. Consequently, many of Sarug’s major innova-
tions are based on Cordoverian themes, transformed along these Lurianic
guidelines. In fact, Sarug’s account seems to be evolving away from a general
Cordoverian outlook containing typical Lurianic concepts and ideas, and
towards the opposite arrangement, where the details of Cordovero’s kabbalah
are fitted into a generally Lurianic framework.
In particular, Cordovero’s account of the shaashua and the Torah was
largely aimed to explain how all plurality is submerged back into unity in the
Divine, without constituting any change or limitation on this unity. In a
sense, Cordovero devoted the myth of origin of the emanation to the
reconciliation of the kabbalistic and rationalist conceptions of God. êse
two meet in infinity, and separate where divine essence is extended into
creation, which allows for a unique mystical contact with it through the
Torah. Only the Torah, and kabbalah in particular, can offer some insight
into this extension of divine essence, and only the souls of Israel can come in
contact with it. îs position obliged him to accept some essential unity
between the Divine and the emanation, which prevails in all the major texts
of Neoplatonic kabbalah, îs is precisely the theo-philosophical position that
Sarug consistently rejects. In his system, the emanation is connected with
Divine essence only through the least of the letters of the malbush. Furthermore,
these letters themselves are but manifestations of din sustained by points of
divine essence that separated from their source through the shaashua, so as to
sustain the purely created power of din. îs power manifests itself essentially
by the concealment of divine essence.
Sarug takes the Lurianic myth of the origin of the emanation to be a sort of
via positiva into divine will, to complement the philosophical via negativa
about divine essence. He relies on a clear ontological distinction between
divine will and essence, against Cordovero’s position, that they infinitely
approach identity, ê emanation is seen as ontologically distinct from divine
essence, though sustained by it at the same time, in reduced form. It is this
primary contradiction that lies behind the dialectical and dramatic processes
of Lurianic kabbalah. They are set in motion by a significant ontological
reduction on the part of divine essence. It was thus vital to Sarug, as opposed
to Luria’s definitive students, to present Lurianic kabbalah in a way that a
Cordoverian kabbalist would be able to understand and appreciate. It should
perhaps be remembered that Cordovero defended kabbalah as a superior
alternative to rationalist philosophy, which did not have many fervent
supporters at the time. Sarug, on the other hand, was looking to replace
Cordoverian kabbalah itself, which was considered the pinnacle of kabbalistic
186 s. Sbatil / The Retneiu ofRabbinic Judaism 14 (2011) 158—187
achievement. It was important to him to present the Lurianic teachings as a
superior conception of the voluntary interaction between God, creation, and
Israel. At the same time, he brings Lurianic kabbalah into the sphere of
Cordovero’s theo-philosophical concerns, and thereby opens the way for
interpreting it along speculative lines.
ôse who wish to see Sarug as an independent strand within Lurianic
kabbalah are vindicated to an extent by this analysis. Scholem’s view of Sarug
as distinctively different from the known students of Luria is still valid to an
extent. It has to be added, though, that this unique version is created by
transforming Cordoverian themes along Lurianic guidelines. Some of these
guidelines were highlighted by Scholem and Tishbi, such as the withdrawal of
Einsof,; the production of din, and the myth of exile. Others were not, such as
the theurgical and magical elements, and the typical Lurianic symmetry and
quasi-temporality. On the other hand, I believe the analysis proves just how
deeply involved Sarug was with the Lurianic teachings, whether he heard them
directly or read about them. Far from being an assortment of Lurianic,
Cordoverian and personal ideas, Sarug’s redaction of Lurianic kabbalah is
highly thought out, and clearly developed into an increasingly more coherent
picture, îs is particularly manifested in the almost Euclidian structure in
which he introduces the main elements of his system. Furthermore, since
Sarug presented a radical defense of the theistic and mythical strand in
kabbalah, the anti speculative drive of Luria’s teachings was definitely not lost
on him. But it was projected back into the speculative sphere by Sarug’s
recasting of significant Cordoverian themes.
One major consequence of this may have been the rise of the metaphorical
conception of Lurianic kabbalah in Europe during the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, or the premise that its meaning essentially stands in
need of interpretation, îs includes the famous debate on the question of
the literal or metaphorical meaning of tzimtzum.es But it also includes
interpretations of the entire system as a symbolic representation of divine will,
intellect, or conduct of the worlds and the souls. It is customary in scholarship,
for example, to ascribe the extreme panentheism, and even apparent acosmism
of some Hassidic thinkers to a Cordoverian influence.^ But the concept of the
reshimu, which is central to these Hassidic conceptions, is in fact typically
Lurianic, and is given strong panentheistic implications by Sarug, particularly
in texts of the second stage of development according to Meroz. êre is
plenty of evidence, much of it well known, for the enthusiastic acceptance and
68 See G. Scholem, Kabbalah, pp. 134-135.

69 See B. Zack “Considering the Influence of R. Moses Cordovero on Hassidism" (Heb.), in
EshelBe'er-Sheva 3. 1986, pp. 229-246.

reliance of Hassidic masters on texts of the Sarugian tradition, from Yonat

Elem of Menahem Azaria of Fano to Jacob Kopil Lipschitz’s Shaarei Gan
Eden, ôugh the early Hassidic masters were well versed in Cordovero’s
kabbalah, their main kabbalistic vocabulary was intensely Lurianic, much of it
in its Sarugian form, ûs, Hassidic development of the relationship bettveen
God, creation and the soul need not necessarily be a step back towards
Cordoverian notions, it may well be a step forwards from the Lurianic kabbalah
of the Sarugian line. But the influence of Sarugian kabbalah on Hassidism
requires, of course, a further in depth study. Sarug’s kabbalah was from the
start a synthetic project, which combined Cordoverian and Lurianic ideas,
and speculative thought with robust mythical symbolism, magic and
angelology. It naturally encouraged further synthesis and interpretation, and
thus became highly influential in the development of both kabbalistic imagery
and mystical theology in the last four hundred years.
ATLV
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, downioad, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by u.s. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.

The Kabbalah of R. Israel Sarug PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Kabbalah of R. Israel Sarug PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

‫»؟‬Mil The Retfietu ofRabbinic Judaism 14 (2011) 158—187 V\W.

I Kabbalah of R. Israel Sarug‫؛‬

Sarugian kabbalah is a field of kabbalistic discourse that is based upon the

manuscripts of it are known (Avivi op. cit.) pp. 204-207).

supremacy of kabbalistic speculation over philosophy plays a basic meth-

a. The shaashua (delight)

I shaashua is therefore asymbol of the intellectual unity of self consciousness,

sha’ashua, as Divine self consciousness and self comprehension, is there-

Jerusalem Studies in Jewish !ought (\Ί١١, pp. 722-16.

conception, a discussion of the Divine as it is in itself, but the effects of the

‫ ﻵﻵ‬Limudei Atzilut 2U—12‫ة‬٠

Sarug’s account is thus an explicitly mythical description of events within

B. Malbush and the Cordoverian Concept of Torah

Cordovero presents a picture of the Torah as the interface between ^'^¿^and

The Kabbalab ofMoses Conkero, p. \4‫>؟‬, my visWkm.

48 OrYakar 1:1:7, p. 21.

52 A topic that is yet to be investigated properly.

53 Scholem famously regarded it as a primary example of a Sarugian Neoplatonic supplement

element in the Sarugian picture of the malbush that is clearly Lurianic.

Neoplatonic character of Cordovero’s description of the parsa is replaced with

\٠‫ا؟ات\ﺗﺔا؟‬, Interpretation ofSifra DT2sni1(ta,\ïïlïïte،ht١k١1ko‫ ؛‬Lindei Atzihit (Mika,

60 ‫ﺧﺪ\ﺗﻶ>؟‬, Interpretation ofSijra De-Tzni’nta, p.

instead of din and plurality being gradually submerged in their opposites,

i. ^e emergence of the three dinim in the form of three points.

Sarug’s picture of the emanation was seen to be a Lurianic transformation of

and a dialectical, quasi temporal picture of the emanation, in order to replace

68 See G. Scholem, Kabbalah, pp. 134-135.

EshelBe'er-Sheva 3. 1986, pp. 229-246.

reliance of Hassidic masters on texts of the Sarugian tradition, from Yonat

Copyright and Use:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

Вам также может понравиться