Letter 2 × 1 = 2

3 × 2 = 6 4 × 6 = 24 5 × 24 = 120 6 × 120 = 720 7 × 720 = 5040 and so on.

Accordingly, the material form of the spirit, represented by the twenty-two letters of the alphabet, is the form of all existing beings. Apart from the three dominions, the macrocosm, time, and microcosm, it is only the Infinite who can be perceived, and of whom this triad testifies; for which reason it is denominated “the three true witnesses.” [47] Each of this triad, notwithstanding its multifariousness, constitutes a system, having its own centre and dominion. [48] Just as God is the centre of the universe, the heavenly dragon is the centre of the macrocosm; the foundation of the year is the revolution of the Zodiac; whilst the centre of the microcosm is the heart. [49] The first is like a king on his throne, the second is like a king living among his subjects, and the third is like a king in war. The reason why the heart of man is like a monarch in the midst of war is, that the twelve principal organs of the human body [50] “are arrayed against each other in battle array; three serve love, three hatred, three engender life, and three death. The three engendering love are the heart, the ears and the mouth; the three for enmity are the liver, the gall and the tongue; but God, the faithful King, rules over all the three systems. One [i.e., God] is over the three, the three are over the seven, the seven over the twelve, and all are internally connected with each other.” (Chapter vi, Mishna iii.) Thus the whole creation is one connected whole; it is like a pyramid pointed at the top, which was its beginning, and exceedingly broad in its basis, which is its fullest development in all its multitudinous component parts. Throughout the whole are perceptible two opposites, with a reconciling medium. Thus, in the macrocosm, “the ethereal fire is above, the water below, and the air is between these hostile elements to reconcile them.” (Chapter vi, Mishna i.) The same is the case in the heaven, earth and the atmosphere, as well as in the microcosm. But all the opposites in the cosmic, telluric and organic spheres, as well as in the moral world, are designed to balance each other. “God has placed in all things one to oppose the other; good to oppose evil, good proceeding from good, and evil from evil; good purifies evil, and evil purifies good; good is in store for the good, and evil is reserved for the evil.” (Chapter vi, Mishna ii.)

From this analysis of its contents it will be seen that the Book Jetzira, which the Kabbalists claim as their oldest document, has really nothing in common with the cardinal doctrines of the Kabbalah. There is not a single word in it bearing on the En Soph, the Archetypal Man, the speculations about the being and nature of the Deity, and the Sephiroth, which constitute the essence of the Kabbalah. Even its treatment of the ten digits, as part of the thirty-two ways of wisdom whereby God created the universe, which has undoubtedly suggested to the authors of the Kabbalah the idea of the ten Sephiroth, is quite different from the mode in which the Kabbalistic Sephiroth are depicted, as may be seen from a most cursory comparison of the respective diagrams which we have given to illustrate the plans of the two systems.

Besides the language of the Book Jetzira and the train of ideas therein enunciated, as the erudite Zunz rightly remarks, shew that this treatise belongs to the Geonim period, i.e., about the ninth century of the Christian era, when it first became known. [51] The fabrication of this pseudograph was evidently suggested by the fact that the Talmud mentions some treatises on the Creation, denominated ‏הלכות יצריה‎ and ‏ספר יצירה‎ (Sanhedrim 65 b; 67 b) which “R. Chanina and R. Oshaja studied every Friday, whereby they produced a calf three years old and ate it;” [52] and whereby R. Joshua ben Chananja declared he could take fruit and instantly produce the trees which belong to them. (Jerusalem Sanhedrim, cap. vii. ad finem. [53]) Indeed Dr. Chwolson of Petersburg has shown in his treatise “on the Remnants of the ancient Babylonian Literature in Arabic translations,” that the ancient Babylonians laid it down as a maxim that if a man were minutely and carefully to observe the process of nature, he would be able to imitate nature and produce sundry creatures. He would not only be able to create plants and metals, but even living beings. These artificial productions the Babylonians call ‏תולידאת‎ productions or ‏אבונאת‎ formations. Gutami, the author of the Agricultura Nabat, who lived about 1400 B.C., devoted a long chapter to the doctrine of artificial productions. The ancient sorcerer Ankebuta declares, in his work on artificial productions, that he created a man, and shows how he did it; but he confesses that the human being was without language and reason, that he could not eat, but simply opened and closed his eyes. This and many other fragments adds R—, from whose communication we quote, show that there were many works in Babylon which treated on the artificial productions of plants, metals, and living beings, and that the Book Jetzira, mentioned in the Talmud, was most probably such a Babylonian document. [54]

As the document on creation, mentioned in the Talmud, was lost in the course of time, the author of the Treatise which we have analysed tried to supply the loss, and hence not only called his production by the ancient name ‏ספר יצירה‎ the Book of Creation, but ascribed it to the patriarch Abraham. The perusal, however, of a single page of this book will convince any impartial reader that it has as little in common with the magic work mentioned in the Talmud or with the ancient Babylonian works which treat of human creations, as with the speculations about the being and nature of the Deity, the En Soph and the Sephiroth, which are the essence of the Kabbalah. [55]

Having shown that the Book Jetzira, claimed by the Kabbalists as their first and oldest code of doctrines, has no affinity with the real tenets of the Kabbalah, we have now to examine:—

II. The Book Sohar.

Before we enter into an examination concerning the date and authorship of this renowned code of the Kabbalistic doctrines, it will be necessary to describe the component parts of the Sohar. It seems that the proper Sohar, which is a commentary on the five Books of Moses, according to the division into Sabbatic sections, was originally called ‏מדרש יהי אור‎ the Midrash or Exposition, Let there be Light, from the words in Gen. i, 4; because the real Midrash begins with the exposition of this verse. The name Sohar (‏זוהר‎), i.e. Light, Splendour, was given to it afterwards, either because this document begins with the theme light, or because the word Sohar frequently occurs on the first page. It is referred to by the name of the Book Sohar (‏ספר הזוהר‎) in the component parts of the treatise itself. (Comp. The Faithful Shepherd, Sohar, iii, 153 b.) The Sohar is also called Midrash of R. Simon b. Jochai (‏מדרש של ר׳ שמעון בן יוחאי‎), because this Rabbi is its reputed author. [56] Interspersed throughout the Sohar, either as parts of the text with special titles, or in separate columns with distinct superscriptions, are the following dissertations, which we detail according to the order of the pages on which they respectively commence.

1. Tosephta and Mathanithan (‏מתניתן‎ and ‏תוספתא‎), or Small Additional Pieces which are given in vol. i, 31 b; 32 b; 37 a; 54 b; 59 a; 60 b; 62; 98 b; 121 a; 122; 128 b; 147; 151 a; 152 a; 232; 233 b; 234 a; vol. ii, 4, 27 b; 28 a; 68 b; 135 b; vol. iii, 29 b; 30 a; 54 b; 55. They briefly discuss, by way of supplement, the various topics of the Kabbalah, such as the Sephiroth, the emanation of the primordial light, &c., &c., and address themselves in apostrophes to the initiated in these mysteries, calling their attention to some doctrine or explanation.

2. Hechaloth (‏היכלות‎) or The Mansions and Abodes forming part of the text, vol. i, 38 a–45 b; vol. ii, 245 a–269 a. This portion of the Sohar describes the topographical structure of Paradise and Hell. The mansions or palaces, which are seven in number, were at first the habitation of the earthly Adam, but, after the fall of the protoplasts, were rearranged to be the abode of the beatified saints, who for this reason have the enjoyment both of this world and the world to come. The seven words in Gen. i, 2 are explained to describe these seven mansions. Sohar, i, 45 a, describes the seven Hells. In some Codices, however, this description of the Infernal Regions is given vol. ii, 202 b.

3. Sithre Tora (‏סתרי תורה‎), or The Mysteries of the Pentateuch, given in separate columns, and at the bottom of pages as follows. Vol. i, 74 b; 75 a; 76 b–77 a; 78 a–81 b; 97 a–102 a; 107 b–111 a; 146 b–149 b; 151 a; 152 b; 154 b–157 b; 161 b–162 b; 165; vol. ii, 146 a. It discusses the divers topics of the Kabbalah, such as the evolution of the Sephiroth, the emanation of the primordial light, &c., &c.

4. Midrash Ha-Neelam (‏מדרש הנעלם‎), or The Hidden Midrash, occupies parallel columns with the text in vol. i, 97 a–140 a, and endeavours more to explain passages of Scripture mystically, by way of Remasim (‏רמזים‎) and Gematrias (‏גמטריאות‎), and allegorically, than to propound the doctrines of the Kabbalah. Thus Abraham’s prayer for Sodom and Gomorrah is explained as an intercession by the congregated souls of the saints in behalf of the sinners about to be punished. (Sohar, i, 104 b.) Lot’s two daughters are the two proclivities in man, good and evil. (Ibid. 110.) Besides this mystical interpretation wherein the Kabbalistic rules of exegesis are largely applied, the distinguishing feature of this portion of the Sohar is its discussion on the properties and destiny of the soul, which constitute an essential doctrine of the Kabbalah.

5. Raja Mehemna (‏רעיא מהמנא‎), or the Faithful Shepherd. This portion of the Sohar is given in the second and third volumes, in parallel columns with the text; and when it is too disproportioned for columns, is given at the bottom or in separate pages, as follows. Vol. ii, 25, 40, 59 b; 91 b–93 a; 134 b, 157 b–159 a; 187 b–188 a; vol. iii, 3 a–4 b; 20 a, 24 b, 27, 28 a–29 a; 33 a–34 a; 42 a, 44 a; 63; 67 b–68 a; 81 b–83 b; 85 b–86 a; 88 b–90 a; 92 b–93 a; 97 a–101 a; 103 b–104 a; 108 b–111 b; 121 b–126 a; 145 a–146 b; 152 b–153 b; 174 a–175 a; 178 b–179 b; 180 a, 215 a–239 a; 242 a–258 a; 263 a–264 a; 270 b–283 a. It derives its name from the fact that it records the discussions which Moses the Faithful Shepherd held in conference with the prophet Elias, and with R. Simon b. Jochai, the celebrated master of the Kabbalistic school, who is called the Sacred Light (‏בוצינא קדישא‎). The chief object of this portion is to show the profound and allegorical import of the Mosaic commandments and prohibitions, as well as of the Rabbinic injunctions and religious practices which obtained in the course of time. At the dialogue which Moses the lawgiver holds with R. Simon b. Jochai the Kabbalistic lawgiver, not only is the prophet Elias present, but Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Aaron, David, Solomon, and God himself make their appearance; the disciples of R. Simon are frequently in ecstacies when they hold converse with these illustrious patriarchs and kings of bygone days.

6. Raze Derazin (‏רזי דרזין‎), or the Secret of Secrets, Original Secrets, is given in vol. ii, 70 a–75 a, and is especially devoted to the physiognomy of the Kabbalah, and the connection of the soul with the body, based upon the advice of Jethro to his son-in-law Moses (‏ואתה תחזה‎) and thou shalt look into the face. (Exod. xviii, 21.)

7. Saba Demishpatim (‏סבא דמשפטים‎), or the Discourse of the Aged in Mishpatim, given in vol. ii, 94 a–114 a. The Aged is the prophet Elias, who holds converse with R. Simon b. Jochai about the doctrine of metempsychosis, and the discussion is attached to the Sabbatic section called ‏משפטים‎, i.e., Exod. xxi, 1–xxiv, 18, because the Kabbalah takes this word to signify punishments of souls (‏דינין‎), and finds its psychology in this section. So enraptured were the disciples when their master, the Sacred Light, discoursed with Moses on this subject, that they knew not whether it was day or night, or whether they were in the body or out of the body. (Sohar, ii, 105 b.)

8. Siphra Detzniutha (‏ספרא דצניעותא‎), or the Book of Secrets or Mysteries, given in vol. ii, 176 b–178 b. It is divided into five sections (‏פרקים‎), and is chiefly occupied with discussing the questions involved in the creation, e. gr. the transition from the infinite to the finite, from absolute unity to multifariousness, from pure intelligence to matter, the double principle of masculine and feminine (‏אבא ואמא‎), expressed in the Tetragrammaton, the androgynous protoplast, the Demonology concealed in the letters of Scripture, as seen in Gen. vi, 2; Josh. ii, 1; 1 Kings, viii, 3, 16; the mysteries contained in Isa. i, 4, and the doctrine of the Sephiroth concealed in Gen. i; &c., as well as with showing the import of the letters ‏יהו״ה‎ composing the Tetragrammaton which were the principal agents in the creation. This portion of the Sohar has been translated into Latin by Rosenroth in the second volume of his Kabbala Denudata, Frankfort-on-the-Maine, 1684.

9. Idra Rabba (‏אדרא רבא‎), or the Great Assembly is given in vol. iii, 127 b–145 a, and derives its name from the fact that it purports to give the discourses which R. Simon b. Jochai delivered to his disciples who congregated around him in large numbers. Upon the summons of the Sacred Light, his disciples assembled to listen to the secrets and enigmas contained in the Book of Mysteries. Hence it is chiefly occupied with a description of the form and various members of the Deity, a disquisition on the relation of the Deity, in his two aspects of the Aged (‏עתיק‎) and the Young (‏זעיר‎), to the creation and the universe, as well as on the diverse gigantic members of the Deity, such as the head, the beard, the eyes, the nose, &c., &c.; a dissertation on pneumatology, demonology, &c., &c. It concludes with telling us that three of the disciples died during these discussions. This portion too is given in a Latin translation in the second volume of Rosenroth’s Kabbala Denudata.

10. Januka (‏ינוקא‎), or the Discourse of the Young Man, is given in vol. iii, 186 a–192 a, and forms part of the text of the Sohar on the Sabbatic section called Balak, i.e. Numb. xxii, 2–xxv, 9. It derives its name from the fact that the discourses therein recorded were delivered by a young man, under the following circumstances:—R. Isaac and R. Jehudah, two of R. Simon b. Jochai’s disciples, when on a journey, and passing through the village where the widow of R. Hamnuna Saba resided, visited this venerable woman. She asked her son, the young hero of this discourse, who had just returned from school, to go to these two Rabbins to receive their benediction; but the youth would not approach them because he recognised, from the smell of their garments, that they had omitted reciting on that day the prescribed declaration about the unity of the Deity (‏שמע‎). When at meals this wonderful Januka gave them sundry discourses on the mysterious import of the washing of hands, based on Exod. xxx, 20, on the grace recited at meals, on the Shechinah, on the angel who redeemed Jacob (Gen. xlviii, 16), &c., &c., which elicited the declaration from the Rabbins that “this youth is not the child of human parents” (‏האי ינוקא לאו ב״נ הוא‎); and when hearing all this, R. Simon b. Jochai coincided in the opinion, that “this youth is of superhuman origin.”

11. Idra Suta (‏אדרא זוטא‎) or the Small Assembly, is given in vol. iii, 287 b–296 b, and derives its name from the fact that many of the disciples of R. Simon b. Jochai had died during the course of these Kabbalistic revelations, and that this portion of the Sohar contains the discourses which the Sacred Light delivered before his death to the small assembly of six pupils, who still survived and congregated to listen to the profound mysteries. It is to a great extent a recapitulation of the Idra Rabba, occupying itself with speculations about the Sephiroth, the Deity in his three aspects (‏שלת רישין‎), or principles which successively developed themselves from each other, viz.—the En Soph (‏אין סוף‎), or the Boundless in his absolute nature, the Macroprosopon (‏אריך אנפין‎), or the Boundless as manifested in the first emanation, and the Microprosopon (‏זעיר אנפין‎), the other nine emanations; the abortive creations, &c., and concludes with recording the death of Simon b. Jochai, the Sacred Light and the medium through whom God revealed the contents of the Sohar. The Idra Suta has been translated into Latin by Rosenroth in the second volume of his Kabbala Denudata.

From this brief analysis of its component parts and contents, it will be seen that the Sohar does not propound a regular Kabbalistic system, but promiscuously and reiteratedly dilates upon the diverse doctrines of this theosophy, as indicated in the forms and ornaments of the Hebrew alphabet, in the vowel points and accents, in the Divine names and the letters of which they are composed, in the narratives of the Bible, and in the traditional and national stories. Hence the Sohar is more a collection of homilies or rhapsodies on Kabbalistic subjects than treatises on the Kabbalah. It is for this very reason that it became the treasury of the Kabbalah to the followers of this theosophy. Its diversity became its charm. The long conversations between its reputed author, R. Simon b. Jochai, and Moses, the great lawgiver and true shepherd, which it records; the short and pathetic prayers inserted therein; the religious anecdotes; the attractive spiritual explanations of scripture passages, appealing to the hearts and wants of men; the description of the Deity and of the Sephiroth under tender forms of human relationships, comprehensible to the finite, mind, such as father, mother, primeval man, matron, bride, white head, the great and small face, the luminous mirror, the higher heaven, the higher earth, &c, which it gives on every page, made the Sohar a welcome text-book for the students of the Kabbalah, who, by its vivid descriptions of divine love, could lose themselves in rapturous embraces with the Deity.

Now, the Sohar pretends to be a revelation from God, communicated through R. Simon b. Jochai, who flourished about A.D. 70–110, to his select disciples. We are told that “when they assembled to compose the Sohar, permission was granted to the prophet Elias, to all the members of the celestial college, to all angels, spirits, and superior souls, to assist them; and the ten spiritual substances [i.e., Sephiroth] were charged to disclose to them their profound mysteries, which were reserved for the days of the Messiah.” On the approach of death, R. Simon b. Jochai assembled the small number of his disciples and friends, amongst whom was his son, R. Eleazar, to communicate to them his last doctrines, [57] “when he ordered as follows—R. Aba shall write, R. Eleazar, my son, propound, and let my other associates quietly think about it.” (Idra Suta, Sohar, iii, 287 b.) It is upon the strength of these declarations, as well as upon the repeated representation of R. Simon b. Jochai as speaking and teaching throughout this production, that the Sohar is ascribed to this Rabbi on its very title-page, and that not only Jews, for centuries, but such distinguished Christian scholars as Lightfoot, Gill, Bartolocci, Pfeifer, Knorr von Rosenroth, Molitor, &c., have maintained this opinion. A careful examination, however, of the following internal and external evidence will show that this Thesaurus of the Kabbalah is the production of the thirteenth century.

1. The Sohar most fulsomely praises its own author, calls him the Sacred Light (‏בוצניא קדישא‎), and exalts him above Moses, “the true Shepherd.” [58] “I testify by the sacred heavens and the sacred earth,” declares R. Simon b. Jochai, “that I now see what no son of man has seen since Moses ascended the second time on Mount Sinai, for I see my face shining as brilliantly as the light of the sun when it descends as a healing for the world; as it is written, ‘to you who fear my name shall shine the Sun of Righteousness with a healing in his wings.’ (Malachi, [iii, 20] iv, 2.) Yea, more, I know that my face is shining, but Moses did not know it nor understand it; for it is written (Exod. xxxiv, 29), ‘Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone.’” (Sohar, iii, 132 b; 144 a.) The disciples deify R. Simon in the Sohar, declaring that the verse, “all thy males shall appear before the Lord God” (Exod. xxiii, 17), refers to R. Simon b. Jochai, who is the Lord, and before whom all men must appear. (Sohar, ii, 38 a.) [59]

2. The Sohar quotes and mystically explains the Hebrew vowel points (i, 16 b; 24 b; ii, 116 a; iii, 65 a), which were introduced for the first time by R. Mocha of Palestine, A.D. 570, to facilitate the reading of the Scriptures for his students. [60]

3. The Sohar (‏רעיא מהימנה‎ Faithful Shepherd, on section ‏קדושים‎ iii, 82 b), has literally borrowed two verses from the celebrated Hymn of Ibn Gebirol, who was born about A.D. 1021 and died in 1070. This Hymn which is entitled ‏כתר מלכות‎ the Royal Diadem, is a beautiful and pathetic composition, embodying the cosmic views of Aristotle, and forms part of the Jewish service for the evening preceding the Great Day of Atonement to the present day. The quotation in the Sohar from this Hymn is beyond the shadow of a doubt, as will be seen from the following comparison—

Sohar. Ibn Gebirol.

‏ואשתארו [סיהרא ושמשא] כגופא בלא נשמתא‎ ‏אבל יש אדון עליהם‎ ‏דאית אדון עליהם מחשיך מאוריהם‎ ‏מחשיך מאוריהם‎

It must be borne in mind that, though the Sohar is written in Aramaic, yet this quotation is in Hebrew, and in the rhyme of Ibn Gebirol. [61]

4. The Sohar (i, 18 b; 23 a) quotes and explains the interchange, on the outside of the Mezuza, [62] of the words (‏יהוה אלהינו יהוה‎) Jehovah our God is Jehovah for (‏כוזו במוכסז כוזו‎) Kuzu Bemuchzaz Kuzu, by substituting for each letter its immediate predecessor in the alphabet, which was transplanted from France into Spain in the thirteenth century. [63]

5. The Sohar (iii, 232 b) uses the expression Esnoga, which is a Portuguese corruption of synagogue, and explains it in a Kabbalistic manner as a compound of two Hebrew words, i.e., Es = ‏אש‎ and Noga = ‏נוגה‎ brilliant light. [64]

6. The Sohar (ii, 32 a) mentions the Crusades, the momentary taking of Jerusalem by the Crusaders from the Infidels, and the retaking of it by the Saracens. [65] “Woe to the time,” it says, “wherein Ishmael saw the world, and received the sign of circumcision! What did the Holy One, blessed be his name? He excluded the descendants of Ishmael, i.e., the Mahommedans, from the congregation in heaven, but gave them a portion on earth in the Holy Land, because of the sign of the covenant which they possess. The Mahommedans are, therefore, destined to rule for a time over the Holy Land; and they will prevent the Israelites from returning to it, till the merit of the Mahommedans is accomplished. At that time the descendants of Ishmael will be the occasion of terrible wars in the world, and the children of Edom, i.e., the Christians, will gather together against them and do battle with them, some at sea and some on land, and some in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, and the victory will now be on the one side and then on the other, but the Holy Land will not remain in the hands of the Christians.”

7. The Sohar records events which transpired A.D. 1264. Thus on Numb. xxiv, 17, which the Sohar explains as referring to the time preceding the advent of Messiah, it remarks, [66] “the Holy One, blessed be he, is prepared to rebuild Jerusalem. Previous to the rebuilding thereof he will cause to appear, a wonderful and splendid star, which will shine seventy days. It will first be seen on Friday, Elul = July 25th, and disappear on Saturday or Friday evening at the end of seventy days. On the day preceding [its disappearance, i.e. October 2nd] when it will still be seen in the city of Rome, on that self-same day three high walls of that city of Rome and the great palace will fall, and the pontiff ruler of the city will die.” (Sohar iii, 212 b.) Now the comet here spoken of appeared in Rome, July 25th, 1264, and was visible till October 2nd, which are literally the seventy days mentioned in the Sohar. Moreover, July 25th, when the comet first appeared, actually happened on a Friday; on the day of its disappearance, October 2nd, the sovereign pontiff of Rome, Urban IV, died at Perugia, when it was believed that the appearance of the comet was the omen of his death, and the great and strong palace (‏היכלא רברבא‎) Vincimento, fell on the self-same day, October 2nd, into the hands of the insurrectionists. [67]

8. The Sohar, in assigning a reason why its contents were not revealed before, says that the “time in which R. Simon ben Jochai lived was peculiarly worthy and glorious, and that it is near the advent of the Messiah,” for which cause this revelation was reserved till the days of R. Simon, to be communicated through him. Yet, speaking elsewhere of the advent of the Messiah, the Sohar, instead of placing it in the second century when this Rabbi lived, forgets itself and says [68]—“When the sixtieth or the sixty-sixth year shall have passed over the threshold of the sixth millenium [A.M. 5060–66 = A.D. 1300–1306] the Messiah will appear” (Sohar i, 116 a, 117 b, Comp. also iii, 252 a); thus showing that the author lived in the thirteenth century of the Christian era. In perfect harmony with this is the fact that:—

9. The doctrine of the En Soph, and the Sephiroth, as well as the metempsychosisian retribution were not known before the thirteenth century.

10. The very existence of the Sohar, according to the confession of the staunch Kabbalist, Jehudah Chajoth (flourished 1500), was unknown to such distinguished Kabbalists as Nachmanides (1195–1270) and Ben-Adereth (1235–1310); the first who mentions it is Todros Abulafia (1234–1306).

11. Isaac of Akko (flourished 1290) fully confirms all that we have hitherto adduced from the import of this book, by his testimony that “the Sohar was put into the world from the head of a Spaniard.” To the same effect is the testimony of Joseph Ibn Wakkar, who in speaking of later books which may be relied upon, recommends only those of Moses Nachmanides and Todros Abulafia; “but,” he adds, “the Sohar is full of errors, and one must take care not to be misled by them.” Upon which, the erudite Steinschneider rightly remarks, [69] “this is an impartial and indirect testimony that the Sohar was recognised scarcely fifty years after its appearing as one of the later works, and was not attributed to Simon ben Jochai.”

12. That Moses de Leon, who first published and sold the Sohar, as the production of R. Simon b. Jochai, was himself the author of it, was admitted by his own wife and daughter, as will be seen from the following account in the Book Juchassin, (p.p. 88, 89, 95, ed. Filipowski, London, 1857), which we give in an abridged form. [70] When Isaac of Akko, who escaped the massacre after the capture of this city (A.D. 1291), came to Spain and there saw the Sohar, he was anxious to ascertain whether it was genuine, since it pretended to be a Palestine production, and he, though born and brought up in the Holy Land, in constant intercourse with the disciples of the celebrated Kabbalist, Nachmanides, had never heard a syllable about this marvellous work. Now, Moses de Leon, whom he met in Valladolid, declared to him on a most solemn oath that he had at Avila an ancient exemplar, which was the very autograph of R. Simon ben Jochai, and offered to submit it to him to be tested. In the meantime, however, Moses de Leon was taken ill on his journey home, and died at Arevolo, A.D. 1305. But two distinguished men of Avila, David Rafen and Joseph de Avila, who were determined to sift the matter, ascertained the falsehood of this story from the widow and daughter of Moses de Leon. Being a rich man and knowing that Moses de Leon left his family without means, Joseph de Avila promised, that if she would give him the original MS. of the Sohar from which her husband made the copies, his son should marry her daughter, and that he would give them a handsome dowry. Whereupon the widow and daughter declared, that they did not possess any such MS., that Moses de Leon never had it, but that he composed the Sohar from his own head, and wrote it with his own hand. Moreover, the widow candidly confessed that she had frequently asked her husband why he published the production of his own intellect under another man’s name, and that he told her that if he were to publish it under his own name nobody would buy it, whereas under the name of R. Simon b. Jochai it yielded him a large revenue. This account is confirmed in a most remarkable manner by the fact that—

13. The Sohar contains whole passages which Moses de Leon translated into Aramaic, from his other works, as the learned Jellinek has demonstratively proved. To transfer these passages here would occupy too much of our space. We must, therefore, refer the reader to the monograph itself, [71] and shall only give one example, which the erudite historian, Dr. Graetz, [72] has pointed out. In his Sephar Ha-Rimon (‏ספר הרימון‎), which he composed A.D. 1827, and which is a Kabbalistic explanation of the Mosaic precepts, Moses de Leon endeavours to account for the non-occurrence of the Tetragrammaton in the history of the hexahemeron, whilst it does occur immediately afterwards, by submitting that as the earthly world is finite and perishable, this divine name, which denotes eternity, could not be used at the creation thereof; for if it had been created under its influence, the world would have been as imperishable as this name. In corroboration of this, Moses de Leon quotes the passage (‏לכו חזו מפעלות אלהים אשר שם שמות בארץ‎) Come, behold the works of Elohim, what perishableness he made in the earth (Ps. xlvi, 8), showing that ‏שמות‎ destruction, perishableness, is consonant with the name ‏אלהים‎. In looking at the original, it will be seen that the text has ‏יהוה‎ and not ‏אלהים‎, and that Moses de Leon, by a slip of memory, confounded this passage with ‏לכו וראו מפעלות אלהים‎ Come and see the works of Elohim (Ps. xlvi, 5). Now, the whole explanation and the same blunder are transferred into the Sohar. The commentators on this treasury of the Kabbalah, not knowing the cause of this blunder, express their great surprise that the Sohar should explain a mis-quotation. We subjoin the two passages in parallel columns.

Sohar, i, 58 a. ר׳ יהודה פתח לכו חזו מפעלות אלהים אשר שם שמות וגו׳ האי קרא אוקמוה ואתמרּּּּ שמות ודאי והא שמא גרים לכלא (לשון שמשון) דאלו הוו מפעלות. י׳ ה ׳ ו׳ ה׳ שם קיום בארץ אבל בגין דהוון מפעלות שמא דאלהים שם שמות בארץ: אמר ליה ר׳ חייא וגו׳

Moses de Leon, ii, No. 133, p. 25. אמנם כי יש פירוש אחר כהיות שם המיוחד נזכר כאחוזנה לקיים על ההויות אמרו חז״ל לכו ראו מפעלות וכו׳ מפני שהיו מפעלות אלהים שם שמותּּּּ שאלמלא ה יו מפעלות י׳ ה׳ ו׳ ה׳ שם קיום בארץ: והענין בזה על כל המפעלות זה העולם השפל כלם נפסדים מפני שכל הוויותי בשם זה שאלמלא יהיו בשם המיוחד כלם יה יו קימים בקיומם וכו׳

It is for these and many other reasons that the Sohar is now regarded by Steinschneider, Beer, Jellinek, Graetz, &c., as a pseudograph of the thirteenth century. That Moses de Leon should have palmed the Sohar upon Simon b. Jochai was nothing remarkable, since this Rabbi is regarded by tradition as the embodiment of mysticism. No better hero could be selected for the Sohar than R. Simon, of whom the Talmud gives us the following account: “Once upon a time, R. Jehudah, R. Jose, and R. Simon sat together, and R. Jehudah b. Gerim sat by them. R. Jehudah then began and said—How beautiful are the works of this nation (i.e., the Romans)! they have erected market-places, they have erected bridges, and they have erected baths! R. Jose was quiet, but R. Simon b. Jochai answered and said: what they have built they have built for no one except for their own use, they made markets to allure prostitutes, they made baths to gratify themselves therein, and bridges to get tolls by them. Jehudah b. Gerim repeated this, and the emperor’s government got to hear it, who passed the following decree: Jehudah, who exalted, is to be exalted; Jose, who was silent, is to be banished to Zipporis; and Simon, who spoke evil, is to be killed. He (i.e., R. Simon) at once concealed himself with his son, in the place of study, whither his wife daily brought them a loaf and a flask of water; but as the rigour of the decree increased, he said to his son: women are weak-minded—if she is tortured she may betray us. Hence, they left, and betook themselves into a deep cavern, where by a miracle a crab-tree and a well were created for their subsistence. He and his son sat in the sand up to their necks all the day studying the Law. They spent twelve long years in this cavern; when Elias the prophet came and stood at the entrance of the cavern, and called out—Who will inform the son of Jochai that the emperor is dead, and that the decree is commuted? They came out and saw the people tilling and sowing.” (Sabbath, 33 a. Comp. also, Jerusalem Shebiith, ix, 1; Bereshith Rabba, cap. lxxix; Midrash Koheleth, x, 8; Midrash Esther, i, 9.) This is the secret why the story that R. Simon b. Jochai composed the Sohar during his twelve years’ residence in the cavern obtained credence among the followers of the Kabbalah.

III. The Commentary on the Ten Sephiroth.

It is this commentary to which we must look, as the most ancient document embodying the doctrines of the Kabbalah. The author of this commentary, R. Azariel b. Menachem, was born in Valladolid, about 1160. He distinguished himself as a philosopher, Kabbalist, Talmudist, and commentator, as his works indicate; he was a pupil of Isaac the Blind, who is regarded as the originator of the Kabbalah, and master of the celebrated R. Moses Nachmanides, who is also a distinguished pillar of Kabbalism. R. Azariel died A.D. 1238, at the advanced age of seventy-eight years. “The Commentary on the Ten Sephiroth” is in questions and answers, [73] and the following is the lucid analysis of it as given by the erudite Jellinek, according to Spinoza’s form of Ethics.

1. Definition.—By the Being who is the cause and governor of all things, I understand the En Soph, i.e., a Being infinite, boundless, absolutely identical with itself, united in itself, without attributes, will, intention, desire, thought, word or deed. (Answers 2 and 4.)

2. Definition.—By Sephiroth I understand the potencies which emanated from the absolute En Soph, all entities limited by quantity, which like the will, without changing its nature, wills diverse objects that are the possibilities of multifarious things. (Answers 3 and 9.)

i. Proposition.—The primary cause and governor of the world is the En Soph, who is both immanent and transcendent. (Answer 1.)

(a) Proof.—Each effect has a cause, and every thing which has order and design has a governor. (Answer 1.)

(b) Proof.—Every thing visible has a limit, what is limited is finite, what is finite is not absolutely identical; the primary cause of the world is invisible, therefore unlimited, infinite, absolutely identical, i.e., he is the En Soph. (Answer 2.)

(c) Proof.—As the primary cause of the world is infinite, nothing can exist without (EXTRA) him; hence he is immanent. (Ibid.)

Scholion.—As the En Soph is invisible and exalted, it is the root of both faith and unbelief. (Ibid.)

ii. Proposition.—The Sephiroth are the medium between the absolute En Soph and the real world.

Proof.—As the real world is limited and not perfect, it cannot directly proceed from the En Soph, still the En Soph must exercise his influence over it, or his perfection would cease. Hence the Sephiroth, which, in their intimate connection with the En Soph, are perfect, and in their severance are imperfect, must be the medium. (Answer 3.)

Scholion.—Since all existing things originated by means of the Sephiroth, there are a higher, a middle, and a lower degree of the real world. (Vide infra, Proposition 6.)

iii. Proposition.—There are ten intermediate Sephiroth.

Proof.—All bodies have three dimensions, each of which repeats the other (3 × 3); and by adding thereunto space generally, we obtain the number ten. As the Sephiroth are the potencies of all that is limited they must be ten. (Answer 4).

(a) Scholion.—The number ten does not contradict the absolute unity of the En Soph, as one is the basis of all numbers, plurality proceeds from unity, the germs contain the development, just as fire, flame, sparks and colour have one basis, though they differ from one another. (Answer 6.)

(b) Scholion.—Just as cogitation or thought, and even the mind as a cogitated object, is limited, becomes concrete and has a measure, although pure thought proceeds from the En Soph; so limit, measure, and concretion are the attributes of the Sephiroth. (Answer 7.)

4. Proposition.—The Sephiroth are emanations and not creations.

1. Proof.—As the absolute En Soph is perfect, the Sephiroth proceeding therefrom must also be perfect; hence they are not created. (Answer 5.)

2. Proof.—All created objects diminish by abstraction; the Sephiroth do not lessen, as their activity never ceases; hence they cannot be created. (Ibid.)

Scholion.—The first Sephira was in the En Soph as a power before it became a reality; then the second Sephira emanated as a potency for the intellectual world, and afterwards the other Sephiroth emanated for the sensuous and material world. This, however, does not imply a prius and posterius or a gradation in the En Soph, but just as a light whose kindled lights which shine sooner and later and variously, so it embraces all in a unity. (Answer 8.)

5. Proposition.—The Sephiroth are both active and passive (‏מקביל ומתקבל‎).

Proof.—As the Sephiroth do not set aside the unity of the En Soph, each one of them must receive from its predecessor, and impart to its successor—i.e., be receptive and imparting. (Answer 9.)

6. Proposition.—The first Sephira is called Inscrutable Height (‏רום מעלה‎); the second, Wisdom (‏חכמה‎); the third, Intelligence (‏בינה‎); the fourth, Love (‏חסד‎); the fifth, Justice (‏פחד‎); the sixth, Beauty (‏תפארת‎); the seventh, Firmness (‏נצח‎); the eighth, Splendour (‏הוד‎); the ninth, the Righteous is the Foundation of the World (‏צדיק יסוד עולם‎); and the tenth, Righteousness (‏צדק‎).

(a) Scholion.—The first three Sephiroth form the world of thought; the second three the world of soul; and the four last the world of body—thus corresponding to the intellectual, moral, and material worlds. (Answer 10.)

(b) Scholion.—The first Sephira stands in relation to the soul, inasmuch as it is called a unity (‏יחידה‎); the second, inasmuch as it is denominated living (‏חיה‎); the third, inasmuch as it is termed spirit (‏רוח‎); the fourth, inasmuch as it is called vital principle (‏גפש‎); the fifth, inasmuch as it is denominated soul (‏נשמה‎); the sixth operates on the blood, the seventh on the bones, the eighth on the veins, the ninth on the flesh, and the tenth on the skin. (Ibid.)

(c) Scholion.—The first Sephira is like the concealed light, the second like sky-blue, the third like yellow, the fourth like white, the fifth like red, the sixth like white-red, the seventh like whitish-red, the eighth like reddish-white, the ninth like white-red-whitish-red-reddish-white, and the tenth is like the light reflecting all colours. [74]

The gradation of the Sephiroth is as follows—

i ‏רום מעלה‎ / \ / \ iii ii ‏בינה‎ ‏חכמה‎ | | | | v vi iv ‏פחד‎ ‏תפארת‎ ‏חסד‎ | | | | | | viii ix vii ‏הוד‎ ‏יסוד עולם‎ ‏נצח‎ | | x ‏צדק‎

For this date of the Kabbalah (i.e., 1150–1190) we have the testimony of some of the earliest and most intelligent Kabbalists themselves. Thus R. Joseph b. Abraham Gikatilla (born about 1247, and died 1307) most distinctly tells us that R. Isaac the Blind, of Posquiers (flour. circa 1190–1210), the teacher of R. Azariel, was the first who taught the doctrines of this theosophy. [75] R. Bechja b. Asher, another Kabbalist who lived soon after this system was made known, in his commentary on the Pentateuch, which he composed A.D. 1291, styles R. Isaac the Blind, as the Father of the Kabbalah. [76] Shem Tob b. Abraham Ibn Gaon (born 1283), another ancient Kabbalist, in attempting to trace a Kabbalistic explanation of a passage in the Bible to its fountain head, goes back to R. Isaac as the primary source, and connects him immediately with the prophet Elias, who is said to have revealed the mysteries of this theosophy to this corypheus of the Kabbalah. [77] Whilst the author of the Kabbalistic work entitled ‏מערכת אלהות‎ the contemporary of R. Solomon b. Abraham b. Adereth (flour. A.D. 1260), frankly declares that “the doctrine of the En Soph and the ten Sephiroth is neither to be found in the Law, Prophets, or Hagiographa, nor in the writings of the Rabbins of blessed memory, but rests solely upon signs which are scarcely perceptible.” [78]

It has indeed been supposed that covert allusions to the Sephiroth are to be found in the Talmud. If this could be proved, the date of the Kabbalah would have to be altered from the twelfth to the second or third century after Christ. An examination, however, of the passage in question, upon which this opinion is based, will show how thoroughly fanciful it is. The passage is as follows—“The Rabbins propound, at first the name of twelve letters was communicated to every one, but when the profane multiplied, it was only communicated to the most pious of the priests, and these pre-eminently pious priests absorbed it from their fellow priests in the chant. It is recorded that R. Tarphon said, I once went up the orchestra in the Temple after my maternal uncle, and, bending forward my ear to a priest, I heard how he absorbed it from his fellow priests in the chant. R. Jehudah said in the name of Rab, the divine name of forty-two letters is only communicated to such as are pious, not easily provoked, not given to drinking, and are not self opinionated. He who knows this name and preserves it in purity, is beloved above, cherished below, respected by every creature, and is heir of both worlds—the world that now is, and the world to come.” (Babylon Kiddushin, 71 a.) Upon this the celebrated Maimonides (born 1135, died 1204) remarks—“Now everyone who has any intelligence knows that the forty-two letters cannot possibly make one word, and that they must therefore have composed several words. There is no doubt that these words conveyed certain ideas, which were designed to bring man nearer to the true conception of the Divine essence, through the process we have already described. These words, composed of numerous letters, have been designated as a single name, because like all accidental proper names they indicate one single object; and to make the object more intelligible several words are employed, as many words are sometimes used to express one single thing. This must be well understood, that they taught the ideas indicated by these names, and not the simple pronunciation of the meaningless letters. Neither the divine name composed of twelve letters, nor the one of forty-two letters, ever obtained the title of Shem Ha-Mephorash—this being the designation of the particular name, or the Tetragrammaton, as we have already propounded. As to the two former names, they assuredly convey a certain metaphysical lesson, and there is proof that one of them contained a lesson of this kind; for the Rabbins say in the Talmud with regard to it: ‘The name of forty-two letters is very holy, and is only communicated to such as are pious, &c., &c., &c.’ Thus far the Talmud. But how remote from the meaning of their author is the sense attached to these words! Forsooth most people believe that it is simply by the pronunciation of the mere letters, without any idea being attached to them, that the sublime things are to be obtained, and that it is for them that those moral qualifications and that great preparation are requisite. But it is evident that the design of all this is to convey certain metaphysical ideas which constitute the mysteries of the divine Law as we have already explained. It is shewn in the metaphysical Treatises that it is impossible to forget science—I speak of the perception of the active intellect—and this is the meaning of the remark in the Talmud, ‘he [to whom the divine name of forty-two letters is communicated] retains what he learns.’” [79]

It is this passage, as well as Maimonides’ comment upon it, which led the erudite Franck to the conclusion that the mysteries of the Kabbalah were known to the doctors of the Talmud, and that the forty-two letters composing the divine name are the ten Sephiroth, which, by supplying the Vav conjunctive before the last Sephira, consist exactly of forty-two letters, as follows:—

5 + 5 + 3 + 3 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 4 + 4 + 3 = 42 ‏ויסוד‎ ‏מלכות‎ ‏הוד‎ ‏נצח‎ ‏תפארת‎ ‏גבורה‎ ‏נדולה‎ ‏בינה‎ ‏חכמה‎ ‏כתר‎

But Franck, like many other writers, confounds mysticism with Kabbalah. That the Jews had an extensive mysticism, embracing theosophy with its collateral angelology and uranology, as well as christology and magic, long before the development of the Kabbalah, and that there were a certain class of people who specially devoted themselves to the study of this mysticism, and who styled themselves “Men of Faith” (‏בעלי אמונות‎), is evident from a most cursory glance at the Jewish literature. Based upon the remark—“The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him, and he will show them his covenant,” (Ps. xxv, 14,) some of the most distinguished Jewish doctors in the days of Christ, and afterwards, claimed an attainment of superhuman knowledge, communicated to them either by a voice from heaven (‏בת קול‎) or by Elias the prophet (Baba Mezia, 59 b; Sabbath, 77 b; Chagiga, 3 b, 10 a; Sanhedrin, 48 b; Nidda, 20 b; Joma, 9 b). The sages had also secret doctrines about the hexahemeron (‏מעשה בראשית‎) and the Vision of Ezekiel = Theosophy (‏מעשה מרכבה‎), “which were only communicated to presidents of courts of justice and those who were of a careful heart” (Chagiga, 12 a–16 a). Coeven with this are the mysteries connected with the different letters of the several divine names (Kiddushin, 71 a). Those who were deemed worthy to be admitted into these secrets could at any moment call into existence new creations either in the animal or vegetable kingdom (Sanhedrin, 65 b, 67 b; Jerusalem Sanhedrin, vii); they could fly in the air, heal the sick, drive out evil spirits, and suspend the laws of nature, by sundry mystical transpositions and commutations of the letters composing the divine names, which they wrote down on slips of vellum or pieces of paper and called “amulets” (‏קמיעות‎). This mysticism and the literature embodying it began to develop themselves more fully and to spread more extensively from the end of the eighth and the commencement of the ninth centuries. Towards the close of the eighth century came into existence

1. The celebrated mystical work entitled the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba, which alternately treats each letter of the Hebrew Alphabet as representing an idea as an abbreviation for a word (‏נוטריקון‎), and as the symbol of some sentiment, according to its peculiar form, in order to attach to those letters moral, theoanthropic, angelogical and mystical notions. This work has recently been reprinted in two recensions in Jellinek’s Beth Ha-Midrash, vol. iii, p. 12–64, Leipzig, 1855.

2. The Book of Enoch which describes the glorification of Enoch and his transformation into the angel Metatron, regarding him as ‏ידו״ד הקטון‎ the Minor Deity, in contradistinction to ‏ידו״ד הגדול‎ the Great God and which was originally a constituent part of the Alphabet of R. Akiba. It is reprinted in Jellinek’s Beth Ha-Midrash, vol. ii, pp. 114–117. Leipzig, 1853.

3. Shiur Koma (‏שיעור קומה‎), or the Dimensions of the Deity, which claims to be a revelation from the angel Metatron to R. Ishmael, and describes the size of the body and the sundry members of the Deity. It is given in the Book Raziel (‏ספר רזיאל‎) of Eleazer b. Jehudah of Worms, printed at Amsterdam, 1701, and at Warsaw, 1812.

4. The Palaces (‏היכלות‎). This mystical document opens with an exaltation of those who are worthy to see the chariot throne (‏צפיית המרכבה‎), declaring that they know whatever happens and whatever is about to happen in the world; that he who offends them will be severely punished; and that they are so highly distinguished as not to be required to rise before any one except a king, a high priest, and the Sanhedrim. It then celebrates the praises of Almighty God and his chariot throne; describes the dangers connected with seeing this chariot throne (‏מרכבה‎); gives an episode from the history of the martyrs and the Roman emperor Lupinus, a description of the angels, and of the sundry formulæ wherewith they are adjured. Whereupon follows a description of the seven heavenly palaces, each of which is guarded by eight angels, and into which the student of the mysterious chariot throne may transpose himself in order to learn all mysteries, a description of the formulæ by virtue of which these angelic guards are obliged to grant admission into the celestial palaces, and of the peculiar qualifications of those who desire to enter into them. The document then concludes with detailing some hymns of praise, a conversation between God, Israel, and the angels about those mysteries, a knowledge of which makes man suddenly learned without any trouble, and with a description of this mystery, which consists in certain prayers and charms. This mystical production has also been reprinted in Jellinek’s valuable Beth Ha-Midrash, vol. iii, pp. 83–108.

These mystical treatises constitute the centre around which cluster all the productions of this school, which gradually came into existence in the course of time. So numerous became the disciples of mysticism in the twelfth century, and so general became the belief in their power of performing miraculous cures, driving out evil spirits, &c., &c., by virtue of charms consisting of the letters composing the divers divine names transposed and commuted in mystical forms, that the celebrated Maimonides found it necessary to denounce the system. “We have one divine name only,” says he, “which is not derived from His attributes, viz., the Tetragrammaton, for which reason it is called Shem Ha-Mephorash (‏שם המפורש‎). Believe nothing else, and give no credence to the nonsense of the writers of charms and amulets (‏כותבי הקמיעות‎), to what they tell you or to what you find in their foolish writings about the divine names, which they invent without any sense, calling them appellations of the Deity (‏שמות‎), and affirming that they require holiness and purity and perform miracles. All these things are fables: a sensible man will not listen to them, much less believe in them.” (More Nebuchim, i, 61.)

But this mysticism, with its thaumaturgy, though espoused by later Kabbalists and incorporated into their writings, is perfectly distinct from the Kabbalah in its first and pure form, and is to be distinguished by the fact that it has no system, knows nothing of the speculations of the En Soph, the ten Sephiroth, the doctrine of emanations, and the four worlds, which are the essential and peculiar elements of the Kabbalah. As to Franck’s ingenious hypothesis, based upon the same number of letters constituting a divine name, mentioned in the Talmud, and the ten Sephiroth, we can only say that the Kabbalists themselves never claimed this far-fetched identity, and that Ignatz Stern has shown (Ben Chananja, iii, p. 261), that the Sohar itself takes the ten divine names mentioned in the Bible, which it enumerated in vol. iii, 11 a, and which it makes to correspond to the ten Sephiroth, to be the sacred name composed of forty-two letters, viz.:—

4 + 2 + 2 + 5 + 4 + 5 + 2 + 5 + 2 + 4 + 3 + 4 = 42 ‏אדני‎ ‏חי‎ ‏אל‎ ‏צבאות‎ ‏ידוד‎ ‏אלדים‎ ‏אל‎ ‏ידויד‎ ‏יה‎ ‏אהיה‎ ‏אשר‎ ‏אהיה‎

Having ascertained its date, we now come to the origin of the Kabbalah. Nothing can be more evident than that the cardinal and distinctive tenets of the Kabbalah in its original form, as stated at the beginning of the second part of this Essay, are derived from Neo-Platonism. Any doubt upon this subject must be relinquished when the two systems are compared. The very expression En Soph (‏אין סוף‎) which the Kabbalah uses to designate the Incomprehensible One, is foreign, and is evidently an imitation of the Greek ἄπειρος. The speculations about the En Soph, that he is superior to actual being, thinking and knowing, are thoroughly Neo-Platonic (ἐπέκεινα οὐσίας, ἐνεργίας, νοῦ καὶ νοήσεως); and R. Azariel, whose work, as we have seen, is the first Kabbalistic production, candidly tells us that in viewing the Deity as purely negative, and divesting him of all attributes, he followed the opinion of the philosophers. [80] When R. Azariel moreover tells us that “the En Soph can neither be comprehended by the intellect, nor described in words; for there is no letter or word which can grasp him,” we have here almost the very words of Proclus, who tells us that, “although he is generally called the unity (τὸ ἕν) or the first, it would be better if no name were given him; for there is no word which can depict his nature—he is (ἄῤῥητος, ἄγνωστος), the inexpressible, the unknown.” (Theol. Plat. ii, 6.)

The Kabbalah propounds that the En Soph, not being an object of cognition, made his existence known in the creation of the world by the Sephiroth, or Emanations, or Intelligences. So Neo-Platonism. The Sephiroth are divided in the Kabbalah into a trinity of triads respectively denominated ‏עולם השכל‎ the Intellectual World, ‏עולם הנפש‎ the Sensuous World, and ‏עולם הטבע‎ the Material World, which exactly corresponds to the three triads of Neo-Platonism νοῦς, ψύχη, and φύσις. The Kabbalah teaches that these Sephiroth are both infinite and perfect, and finite and imperfect, in so far as the source from which they emanate imparts or withholds his fulness from them. Neo-Platonism also teaches that “every emanation, though less perfect than that from which it emanates, has yet a similarity with it, and, so far as this similarity goes, remains in it, departing from it so far as it is unlike, but as far as possible being one with it and remaining in it.” [81] Even the comparison between the emanation of the Sephiroth from the En Soph, and the rays proceeding from light to describe the immanency and perfect unity of the two, is the same as the Neo-Platonic figure employed to illustrate the emanations from one principium (οἷον ἐκ φωτὸς τὴν ἐξ αὐτοῦ περίλαμψιν).

III.

It now remains for us to describe the development of the Kabbalah, to point out the different schools into which its followers are divided, and to detail the literature which this theosophy called into existence in the course of time. The limits of this Essay demand that this should be done as briefly as possible.

The great land mark in the development of the Kabbalah is the birth of the Sohar, which divides the history of this theosophy into two periods, viz., the pre-Sohar period and the post-Sohar period. During these two periods different schools developed themselves, which are classified by the erudite historian, Dr. Graetz, as follows:— [82]

I.—THE SCHOOL OF GERONA, so called from the fact that the founders of it were born in this place and established the school in it. To this school, which is the cradle of the Kabbalah, belong

1. Isaac the Blind (flour. 1190–1210), denominated the Father of the Kabbalah. His productions have become a prey to time, and only a few fragments have survived as quotations in other theosophic works. From these we learn that he espoused the despised doctrine of metempsychosis as an article of creed, and that from looking into a man’s face, he could tell whether the individual possessed a new soul from the celestial world of spirits, or whether he had an old soul which has been migrating from body to body and has still to accomplish its purity before its return to rest in its heavenly home.

2. Azariel and Ezra, disciples of Isaac the Blind. The former of these is the author of the celebrated Commentary on the Ten Sephiroth, which is the first Kabbalistic production, and of which we have given an analysis in the second part of this Essay (vide supra, p. 176). Of Ezra next to nothing is known beyond the fact that his great intimacy with Azariel led some writers to identify the two names.

3. Jehudah b. Jakar, a contemporary of the foregoing Kabbalists. No works of his have survived, and he is only known as the teacher of the celebrated Nachmanides and from being quoted as a Kabbalistic authority.

4. Moses Nachmanides, born in Gerona about 1195, the pupil of Azariel, Ezra, and Jehudah Ibn Jakar. It was the conversion of this remarkable and famous Talmudist to this newly-born Kabbalah which gave to it an extraordinary importance and rapid spread amongst the numerous followers of Nachmanides. It is related that, notwithstanding all the efforts of his teachers, Nachmanides at first was decidedly adverse to this system; and that one day the Kabbalist who most exerted himself to convert him was caught in a house of ill fame and condemned to death. He requested Nachmanides to visit him on the Sabbath, being the day fixed for his execution; and when Nachmanides reproved him for his sins, the Kabbalist declared that he was innocent, and that he would appear at his house on this very day, after the execution, and partake with him the Sabbath meal. He proved true to his promise, as by means of the Kabbalistic mysteries he effected that, and an ass was executed in his stead, and he himself was suddenly transposed into Nachmanides’ house. From that time Nachmanides avowed himself a disciple of the Kabbalah, and was initiated into its mysteries. [83] His numerous writings, an account of which will be found in Alexander’s edition of Kitto’s Cyclopædia, under Nachmanides, are pervaded with the tenets of this system. In the Introduction to his Commentary on the Pentateuch he remarks—“We possess a faithful tradition that the whole Pentateuch consists of names of the Holy One, blessed be he; for the words may be divided into sacred names in another sense, so that it is to be taken as an allegory. Thus the words—‏בראשית ברא אלהים‎ in Gen. i, 1, may be redivided into other words, ex. gr. ‏בראש יתברא אלהים‎. In like manner is the whole Pentateuch, which consists of nothing but transpositions and numerals of divine names.” [84]

5. The Treatise on the Emanations (‏מסכת אצילות‎), supposed to have been written by R. Isaac Nasir in the first half of the twelfth century. The following is an analysis of this production. Based upon the passage—“Jaresiah and Eliah and Zichri, the sons of Jeroham” (1 Chron. viii, 27), which names the Midrash assigns to the prophet Eliah (Shemoth Rabba, cap. xl), this prophet is introduced as speaking and teaching under the four names of Eliah b. Josep, Jaresiah b. Joseph, Zechariah b. Joseph and Jeroham b. Joseph. Having stated that the secret and profounder views of the Deity are only to be communicated to the God-fearing, and that none but the pre-eminently pious can enter into the temple of this higher gnosis, the prophet Elias propounds the system of this secret doctrine, which consists in the following maxims—“I. God at first created light and darkness, the one for the pious and the other for the wicked, darkness having come to pass by the divine limitation of light. II. God produced and destroyed sundry worlds, which, like ten trees planted upon a narrow space, contend about the sap of the soil, and finally perish altogether. III. God manifested himself in four worlds, viz.—Atzilah, Beriah, Jetzira and Asiah, corresponding to the Tetragrammaton ‏יהוה‎. In the Atzilatic luminous world is the divine majesty, the Shechinah. In the Briatic world are the souls of the saints, all the blessings, the throne of the Deity, he who sits on it in the form of Achtenal (the crown of God, the first Sephira), and the seven different luminous and splendid regions. In the Jetziratic world are the sacred animals from the vision of Ezekiel, the ten classes of angels with their princes, who are presided over by the fiery Metatron, the spirits of men, and the accessory work of the divine chariot. In the Assiatic world are the Ophanim, the angels who receive the prayers, who are appointed over the will of man, who control the action of mortals, who carry on the struggle against evil, and who are presided over by the angelic prince Synandelphon. IV. The world was founded in wisdom and understanding (Prov. iii, 19), and God in his knowledge originated fifty gates of understanding. V. God created the world by means of the ten Sephiroth, which are both the agencies and qualities of the Deity. The ten Sephiroth are called Crown, Wisdom, Intelligence, Mercy, Fear, Beauty, Victory, Majesty and Kingdom: they are ideal and stand above the concrete world.” [85]

6. Jacob ben Sheshet of Gerona (flour. 1243). He wrote a Kabbalistic Treatise in rhymed prose, entitled ‏שער השמים‎ the Gate of Heaven, after Gen. xxviii, 17. It was first published by Gabriel Warshawer in his collection of eight Kabbalistic Essays, called ‏ספר לקוטימ בקבלה‎. Warsaw, 1798. It forms the third Essay in this collection, and is erroneously entitled ‏לקוטי שם טוב‎ the Collection of Shem Tob. It has now been published under its proper title, from a codex by Mordecai Mortera, in the Hebrew Essays and Reviews, entitled Ozar Nechmad (‏אוצר נחמד‎) vol. iii, p. 153, &c. Vienna, 1860.

The characteristic feature of this school, which is the creative school, is that it for the first time established and developed the doctrine of the En Soph (‏אין סוף‎), the Sephiroth (‏ספירות‎) or Emanations, metempsychosis (‏סוד העבור‎) with the doctrine of retribution (‏סוד הגמול‎) belonging thereto, and a peculiar christology, whilst the Kabbalistic mode of exegesis is still subordinate in it.

II.—THE SCHOOL OF SEGOVIA, so called because it was founded by Jacob of Segovia, and its disciples were either natives of this place or lived in it. The chief representatives of this school are—

1, Isaac, and 2, Jacob, junior, the two sons of Jacob Segovia, and 3, Moses b. Simon of Burgos, who are only known by sundry fragments preserved in Kabbalistic writings.

4. Todras b. Joseph Ha-Levi Abulafia, born 1234, died circa 1305. This celebrated Kabbalist occupied a distinguished position as physician and financier in the court of Sancho IV, King of Castile, and was a great favourite of Queen Maria de Moline; he formed one of the cortége when this royal pair met Philip IV, the Fair, King of France in Bayonne (1290), and his advocacy of this theosophy secured for the doctrines of the Kabbalah a kindly reception. His works on the Kabbalah are—(a) An Exposition of the Talmudic Hagadoth, entitled ‏אוצר הכבוד‎, (b) A Commentary on Ps. xix, and (c) A Commentary on the Pentateuch, in which he propounds the tenets of the Kabbalah. These works, however, have not as yet been printed. [86]

5. Shem Tob b. Abraham Ibn Gaon, born 1283, died circa 1332, who wrote many Kabbalistic works.

6. Isaac of Akko (flour. 1290) author of the Kabbalistic Commentary on the Pentateuch, entitled ‏מאירת עינים‎ not yet printed, with the exception of an extract published by Jellinek. [87]

The characteristic of this school is that it is devoted to exegesis, and its disciples endeavoured to interpret the Bible and the Hagada in accordance with the doctrines of the Kabbalah.

III.—THE QUASI-PHILOSOPHIC SCHOOL of Isaac b. Abraham Ibn-Latif, or Allatif. He was born about 1270 and died about 1390. Believing that to view Judaism from an exclusively philosophical stand-point does not shew “the right way to the sanctuary,” he endeavoured to combine philosophy with Kabbalah. “He laid greater stress than his predecessors on the close connection and intimate union between the spiritual and material world, between the Creator and the creation—God is in all and everything is in him. The human soul rises to the world-soul in earnest prayer, and unites itself therewith ‘in a kiss,’ operates upon the Deity and brings down a divine blessing upon the nether world. But as every mortal is not able to offer such a spiritual and divinely operative prayer, the prophets, who were the most perfect men, had to pray for the people, for they alone knew the power of prayer. Isaac Allatif illustrated the unfolding and self-revelation of the Deity in the world of spirits by mathematical forms. The mutual relation thereof is the same as that of the point extending and thickening into a line, the line into the flat, the flat into the expanded body. Henceforth the Kabbalists used points and lines in their mystical diagrams as much as they employed the numerals and letters of the alphabet. [88]

IV. THE SCHOOL OF ABULAFIA, founded by Abraham ben Samuel Abulafia, is represented by—

1. Abulafia, the founder of it, who was born at Saragossa in 1240, and died circa 1292. For thirty years he devoted himself to the study of the Bible, the Talmud, philology, philosophy, and medicine, making himself master of the philosophical writings of Saadia, Bachja b. Joseph, Maimonides, and Antoli, as well as of the Kabbalistic works which were then in existence. Finding no comfort in philosophy, he gave himself entirely to the mysteries of the Kabbalah in their most fantastic extremes, as the ordinary doctrine of the Sephiroth did not satisfy him. The ordinary doctrine of the Sephiroth he simply regarded as a ten unity instead of the Christian three unity. Through divine inspiration, he discovered a higher Kabbalah, by means of which the soul can not only hold the most intimate communion with the world-soul, but obtain the prophetic faculty. The simple intercourse with the world of spirits, which is effected by separating the words of Holy Writ, and especially those of the divine name, into letters, and by regarding each letter as a distinct word (‏נוטריקון‎), or by transposing the component parts of words in every possible way to obtain thereby peculiar expressions (‏צירוף‎), or by taking the letters of each word as numerals (‏גמטריא‎), is not sufficient. To have the prophetic faculty and to see visions ought to be the chief aim, and these are secured by leading an ascetic life, by banishing all worldly feelings, by retiring into a quiet closet, by dressing oneself in white apparel, by putting on the fringed garment and the phylacteries; by sanctifying the soul so as to be fit to hold converse with the Deity; by pronouncing the letters composing the divine name with certain modulations of the voice and divine pauses; by exhibiting the divine names in various diagrams under divers energetic movements, turnings, and bendings of the body, till the voice gets confused and the heart is filled with fervour. When one has gone through these practices and is in such a condition, the fulness of the Godhead is shed abroad in the human soul: the soul then unites itself with the divine soul in a kiss, and prophetic revelations follow as a matter of course.

He went to Italy, published, in Urbino (1279), a prophecy, in which he records his conversations with the Deity, calling himself Raziel and Zechariah, because these names are numerically the same as his own name, Abraham, [89] and preached the doctrines of the Kabbalah. In 1281 he had a call from God to convert the Pope, Martin IV, to Judaism, for which he was thrown into prison, and narrowly escaped a martyr’s death by fire. Seeing that his Holiness refused to embrace the Jewish religion, Abulafia went to Sicily, accompanied by several of his disciples. In Messina another revelation from God was vouchsafed to him, announcing to him that he was the Messiah, which he published 1284. This apocalypse also announced that the restoration of Israel would take place in 1296; and so great was the faith which the people reposed in it, that thousands prepared themselves for returning to Palestine. Those, however, who did not believe in the Messiahship and in the Kabbalah of Abulafia, raised such a violent storm of opposition against him, that he had to escape to the island of Comino, near Malta (circa 1288), where he remained for some time, and wrote sundry Kabbalistic works.

His Kabbalistic system may be gathered from the following analysis of his Rejoinder to R. Solomon ben Abraham ben Adereth, who attacked his doctrines and Messianic as well as prophetic pretensions. “There are,” says Abulafia, “four sources of knowledge—I, The five senses, or experimental maxims; II, Abstract numbers or à priori maxims; III, The generally acknowledged maxims, or consensus communis; and IV, Transmitted doctrines or traditional maxims. The Kabbalistic tradition, which goes back to Moses, is divisible into two parts, the first of which is superior to the second in value, but subordinate to it in the order of study. The first part is occupied with the knowledge of the Deity, obtained by means of the doctrine of the Sephiroth, as propounded in the Book Jetzira. The followers of this part are related to those philosophers who strive to know God from his works, and the Deity stands before them objectively as a light beaming into their understanding. These, moreover, give to the Sephiroth sundry names to serve as signs for recognition; and some of this class differ but little from Christians, inasmuch as they substitute a decade for the triad, which they identify with God, and which they learned in the school of Isaac the Blind.

“The second and more important part strives to know God by means of the twenty-two letters of the alphabet, from which, together with the vowel points and accents, those sundry divine names are combined, which elevate the Kabbalists to the degree of prophecy, drawing out their spirit, and causing it to be united with God and to become one with the Deity. This is gradually effected in the following manner. The ten Sephiroth sublimate gradually to the upper Sephira, called thought, crown, or primordial air, which is the root of all the other Sephiroth, and reposes in the creative En Soph. In the same manner all the numerals are to be traced back to one, and all the trees, together with their roots and branches, are converted into their original earth as soon as they are thrown into the fire. To the ten Sephiroth, consisting of upper, middle and lower, correspond the letters of the alphabet, which are divided into three rows of ten letters each, the final letters inclusive, beginning and ending with Aleph; as well as the human body, with its head, the two arms, loins, testicles, liver, heart, brain, all of which unite into a higher unity and become one in the active νοῦς, which in its turn again unites itself with God, as the unity to which everything must return.

“The ten Sephiroth are after a higher conception, to be traced to a higher triad, which correspond to the letters Aleph, Beth, Gimmel, and the three principles combined in man, the vital in the heart, the vegetable in the liver, and the pleasurable in the brain, and also form themselves in a higher unity. It is in this way that the Kabbalist who is initiated into the prophetic Kabbalah may gradually concentrate all his powers direct to one point to God, and unite himself with the Deity, for which purpose the ideas developed in unbroken sequence, from the permutations of numbers and letters, will serve him as steps upon which to ascend to God.” [90]

Abulafia wrote no less than twenty-six grammatical, exegetical, mystical and Kabbalistic works, and twenty-two prophetic treatises. And though these productions are of great importance to the history of the literature and development of the Kabbalah, yet only two of them, viz., the above-named Epistle to R. Solomon and the Epistle to R. Abraham, entitled the Seven Paths of the Law (‏סוע נתיבות התורה‎), have as yet been published.

2. Joseph Gikatilla b. Abraham (flour. 1260), disciple of Abulafia. He wrote in the interests and defence of this school the following works:—i. A Kabbalistic work entitled the Garden of Nuts (‏גנת אגוז‎), consisting of three parts, and treating respectively on the import of the divine names, on the mysteries of the Hebrew letters, and on the vowel points. It was published at Hanau, 1615. ii. The import of the vowel points entitled the Book on Vowels (‏ספר הניקוד‎), or the Gate to the Points (‏שער הניקוד‎), published in the collection of seven treatises, called the Cedars of Lebanon (‏ארזי לבנון‎), Venice, 1601, and Cracow, 1648, of which it is the third treatise. iii. The Mystery of the Shining Metal (‏סוד החשמל‎), being a Kabbalistic exposition of the first chapter of Ezekiel, also published in the preceding seven treatises, of which it is the fourth. iv. The Gate of Light (‏שער אורה‎), being a treatise on the names of the Deity and the ten Sephiroth, first published in Mantua, 1561; then Riva de Trento, 1561; Cracow, 1600. A Latin version of it by Knorr von Rosenroth is given in the first part of the Kabbala Denudata, Sulzbach, 1677–78. v. The Gates of Righteousness (‏שערי צדק‎), on the ten divine names answering to the ten Sephiroth, published at Riva de Trento, 1561. vi. Mysteries (‏סודות‎) connected with sundry Pentateuchal ordinances, published by Jechiel Ashkenazi in his Temple of the Lord (‏היכל יהוה‎), Venice and Dantzic, 1596–1606. [91]

From the above description it will be seen that the characteristic features of this school are the stress which its followers lay on the extensive use of the exegetical rules called Gematria (‏גמטריא‎), Notaricon (‏נוטריקון‎), and Ziruph (‏צירוף‎), in the exposition of the divine names and Holy Writ, as well as in the claim to prophetic gifts. It must, however, be remarked that in this employment of commutations, permutations and reduction of each letter in every word to its numerical value, Abulafia and his followers are not original.

V. THE SOHAR SCHOOL, which is a combination and absorption of the different features and doctrines of all the previous schools, without any plan or method.

1236–1315. Less than a century after its birth the Kabbalah became known among Christians through the restless efforts of Raymond Lully, the celebrated scholastic metaphysician and experimental chemist. This Doctor illuminatus, as he was styled, in consequence of his great learning and piety, was born about 1236 at Palma, in the island of Majorca. He relinquished the military service and writing erotic poetry when about thirty, and devoted himself to the study of theology. Being inspired with an ardent zeal for the conversion of the Mohammedans and the Jews to Christianity, he acquired a knowledge of Arabic and Hebrew for this purpose. In pursuing his Hebrew studies Lully became acquainted with the mysteries of the Kabbalah, and, instead of converting his Kabbalistic teachers, he embraced the doctrine of “the identity of the Deity and nature;” [92] and there is very little doubt that the Kabbalistic method of palming their notions on the text of Scripture, by means of the Gematria, Notaricon and Ziruph, suggested to him the invention of the Great Art (Ars Magna). It is therefore not to be wondered at that he had the loftiest conception of the Kabbalah, that he regarded it as a divine science and as a genuine revelation whose light is revealed to a rational soul. [93] It cannot be said that Lully derived as much benefit from the Mohammedans, for after making three perilous journeys to Africa to bring the sons of Ishmael to the truth of Christianity, he was stoned to death by them, June 30, 1315.

The new era in the development of the Kabbalah, created by the appearance of the Sohar, has continued to the present day, for nearly all those who have since espoused the doctrines of this theosophy have made the Sohar their text-book, and the principal writers have contented themselves more or less with writing commentaries on this gigantic pseudonym.

1290–1350. Foremost among these is Menahem di Recanti, who was born in Recanti (Latin Recinetum) about 1290. He wrote, when about forty years of age (1330), a commentary on the Pentateuch, which is little else than a commentary on the Sohar. This commentary—which was first published by Jacob b. Chajim in Bomberg’s celebrated printing establishment, Venice, 1523, then again, ibid., 1545, and in Lublin, 1595—has been translated into Latin by the famous Pico della Mirandola. [94]

1320. At the beginning of the fourteenth century Joseph b. Abraham Ibn Wakkar (flour. 1290–1340) endeavoured to reconcile this theosophy with philosophy, and to this end wrote a Treatise on the cardinal doctrines of the Kabbalah, which is regarded as one of the best if not the best introductory compendium. This production, which is unpublished, and a MS. of which exists in the Bodleian Library (Codex Land. 119; described by Uri No. 384), consists of four parts or Gates, subdivided into chapters, as follows:—

Gate I, which is entitled, On the views of the Kabbalists respecting the Primary Cause, blessed be he, and the Sephiroth, as well as their names and order, consists of eight chapters, treating respectively on the fundamental doctrines of the emanations of the Sephiroth from the First Cause, as transmitted from Abraham and indicated in the Bible and the Rabbinic writings in Gematrias (cap. i); on the unity of the Sephiroth (cap. ii); the relation of the Sephiroth to each other, the First Cause itself being a trinity consisting of a threefold light, the number of the Sephiroth being from 10, 20, 30 and so on up to 310, stating that there is a difference of opinion amongst the Kabbalists whether the Primary Cause is within or without the Sephiroth (cap. iii); on the three worlds of the Sephiroth (cap. iv); on the beginninglessness of the first and necessary first Emanation, investigating the question as to how many Sephiroth this property extends (cap. v); on the subordination and order of the Sephiroth and the diagrams, mentioning, in addition to the three known ones, the figure of bridegroom and bride under the nuptial canopy (cap. vi); on the names of the Deity and the angels derived from the Sephiroth (cap. vii); on the unclean (demon) Sephiroth or Hells (‏קליפות‎) and their relation to the pure ones (cap. viii).

Gate II, which is entitled, On the influence of the Sephiroth on the government of the world (Providence), consists of six chapters, treating respectively on the relation of the Sephiroth to the fundamental characteristics of Providence, such as mercy, justice, &c. (cap. i); on the corresponding relations of the unclean Sephiroth (cap. ii); on the influence of the Sephiroth on men, especially on the Hebrew race, and their vicissitudes (caps. iii and iv); on the possibility of the Sephiroth withholding this influence (cap. v); and on the relation of the Sephiroth to the days of the week (cap. vi).

Gate III, which is entitled, On the names of the Sephiroth among the Kabbalists, and which is the most extensive part of the work, consists of seven chapters, treating respectively on the names of the Deity, giving the sundry explanations of ‏אהיה אשר אהיה‎ current among the Jewish philosophers (cap. i); on the names of the Sephiroth, stating that there is no uniform principle among the Kabbalists; that the appellations are derived from the Bible, the Talmud and later literati; that the greatest difference of opinion prevails among the Kabbalists as to the mode in which these ancient sources are to be interpreted, recommending the following works as reliable guides: the Talmud, Midrash Rabboth, Siphra, Siphri, Bahir, Perakim of R. Eliezer, the opinions of Nachmanides and Todros Ha-Levi Abulafia of honoured memory, but guarding against the Sohar, because “many blunders occur therein” (cap. ii); on the import of the names of the Sephiroth, with examples of interpretation of the Bible and Talmud to serve as aids for the student who is to prosecute the work according to these examples, mentioning three explanations of the word Sephira (cap. iii); on the divine names occurring in the Pentateuch (cap. iv); on the masculine and feminine nature of the Sephiroth (cap. v); this is followed (cap. vi) by an alphabetical dictionary of the names of the Sephiroth, giving under each letter the Biblical and the corresponding Talmudic appellation appropriated by the Kabbalists to the Sephiroth; and (cap. vii) by an index of the names of each Sephira in alphabetical order without any explanation.

Gate IV, which is entitled On the positive proofs of the existence of the Kabbalah, describes the author’s own views of the Kabbalistic system, and submits that the Kabbalist has a preference over the philosopher and astronomer by virtue of the acknowledged maxim that he has a thorough knowledge of a thing who knows most details about it. Now the Kabbalists build their system upon the distinction of words, letters, &c., &c., in the sacred writings; and they also explain certain formularies among the Rabbins, which have undoubtedly a recondite sense. [95]

1370–1500. During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the Kabbalah took deep root in Spain. Its followers, who were chiefly occupied with the study of the Sohar, with editing some older works, and with writing Kabbalistic commentaries on the Bible, became more and more aggressive, denouncing in unmeasured terms their co-religionists who could not see the advantages of this secret doctrine. Thus Abraham b. Isaac of Granada—who wrote (1391–1409) a Kabbalistic work entitled The Covenant of Peace, discussing the mysteries of the names of God and the angels, of permutations, commutations, the vowel points and accents—declares that he who does not acknowledge God in the manner of the Kabbalah sins unwittingly, is not regarded by God, has not his special providence, and, like the abandoned and the wicked, is left to fate. [96]

Similar in import and tone are the writings of Shem Tob Ibn Shem Tob (died 1430). In his Treatise, entitled the Book of Faithfulness, which is an attack on the Jewish philosophers Ibn Ezra, Maimonides, Levi b. Gershon, &c., and a defence of the Kabbalah, Shem Tob denounces the students of philosophy as heretics, and maintains that the salvation of Israel depends upon the Kabbalah. He also wrote Homilies on the Pentateuch, the Feasts and Fasts, &c., in which the Kabbalistic doctrines are fully propounded. [97]

Moses Botarel or Botarelo, also a Spaniard, wrote at this time (1409) his commentary on the famous Book Jetzira, an analysis of which is given in the foregoing part of this Essay (vide supra, p. 147, &c.) Unlike Abraham of Granada and Shem Tob, his two contemporary champions of the Kabbalah, he praises philosophy, speaks of Aristotle as of a prophet, and maintains that philosophy and the Kabbalah propound exactly the some doctrines, and that they only differ in language and in technical terms. In this commentary, which he wrote to instruct the Christian scholar Maestro Juan in the Kabbalah, Botarel shows how, by fasting, ablutions, prayer, invocation of divine and angelic names, a man may have such dreams as shall disclose to him the secrets of the future. In confirmation of his opinions he quotes such ancient authorities as Rab Ashi, Saadia Gaon, Hai Gaon, &c., whom the Kabbalah claims as its great pillars. [98] It is almost needless to remark that these men lived long before the birth of the Kabbalah, and that this mode of palming comparatively modern opinions upon great men of remote ages, has also been adopted by advocates of other systems who were anxious to invest their views with the halo of antiquity.

As countrymen of the foregoing writers, and as exponents of the opinions of older Kabbalists, are to be mentioned—(i) Jehudah Chajath who was among the large number of Jews expelled from Spain in 1493, and who wrote a commentary on the Kabbalistic work, entitled The Divine Order; [99] and (ii) Abraham Ibn Sabba, who was banished with thousands of his brethren from Lisbon, 1499, and who is the author of a very extensive commentary on the Pentateuch, entitled The Bundle of Myrrh, in which he largely avails himself of the Sohar and other earlier Kabbalistic works. [100]

1463–1494. The Kabbalah, which soon after its birth became partially known to Christians through Raymond Lully, was now accessible to Christian scholars through the exertions and influence of the famous Count John Pico di Mirandola (born in 1463). This celebrated philosopher determined to fathom the mysteries of the Kabbalah, and for this purpose put himself under the tuition of a Jew, R. Jochanan Aleman, who came to Italy from Constantinople. His extraordinary intellectual powers soon enabled Mirandola to overcome the difficulties and to unravel the secrets of this theosophy. His labours were greatly rewarded; for, according to his shewing, he found that [101] there is more Christianity in the Kabbalah than Judaism; he discovered in it proof for the doctrine of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the divinity of Christ, original sin, the expiation thereof by Christ, the heavenly Jerusalem, the fall of the angels, the order of the angels, purgatory and hell-fire; in fact the same Gospel which we find in St. Paul, Dionysius, St. Jerome and St. Augustine. As the result of his Kabbalistic studies Mirandola published, in 1486, when only twenty-four years of age, nine hundred Theses, which were placarded in Rome, and which he undertook to defend in the presence of all European scholars, whom he invited to the eternal city, promising to defray their travelling expenses. Among these Theses was the following, “No science yields greater proof of the divinity of Christ than magic and the Kabbalah.” [102] Pope Sixtus IV (1471–1484) was so delighted with it that he greatly exerted himself to have Kabbalistic writings translated into Latin for the use of divinity students. [103] Mirandola accordingly translated the following three works: 1, Menahem di Recanti’s Commentary on the Pentateuch, erroneously called R. Levi de Recineto (Wolf, ibid., p. 10); 2, Eliezer of Worms’ ‏חכמת הנפש‎ de Scientia animae; and 3, Shem Tob Falaquera’s ‏ספר המעלות‎

1455–1522. Not only did Mirandola make the Kabbalah known to the Christians in Italy, but he was the means of introducing it into Germany through John Reuchlin, the father of the German Reformation. This eminent scholar,—who is also called by the Greek name Capnion (καπνίον), or Capnio, which is a translation of his German name Reuchlin, i.e. smoke, in accordance with the fashion of the time; just as Gerard, signifying amiable, assumed the name of Desiderius Erasmus, and Schwartzerth, denoting black earth, took the name of Melanchthon,—was born at Phorzheim December 28, 1455. At the age of seventeen he was called to the court of Baden, and received among the court singers in consequence of his beautiful voice. His brilliant attainments soon attracted notice, and he was sent (1473) with the young Margrave Frederick, eldest son of Charles II, afterwards bishop of Utrecht, to the celebrated high school of Paris. Here he acquired, from Hermonymus of Sparta and other fugitive Greek literati, who went to Paris after the taking of Constantinople (1453), that remarkable knowledge of Greek which enabled him so largely to amass the Attic lore and rendered him so famous through Europe. He went to Basle in 1474, delivered lectures on the Latin language and the classics, and had among his hearers nobles of high rank both from France and Germany. He went to Tübingen in 1481, where his fame secured for him the friendship of Eberhard the Bearded, who made him his private secretary and privy councillor, and as such this prince took Reuchlin with him to Rome in 1482, where he made that splendid Latin oration before the Pope and the cardinals, which elicited from his Holiness the declaration that Reuchlin deserved to be placed among the best orators of France and Italy. From Rome Eberhard took him to Florence, and it was here that Reuchlin became acquainted with the celebrated Mirandola and with the Kabbalah. But as he was appointed licentiate and assessor of the supreme court in Stuttgard, the new residence of Eberhard, on his return in 1484, and as the order of Dominicans elected him as their proctor in the whole of Germany, Reuchlin had not time to enter at once upon the study of Hebrew and Aramaic, which are the key to the Kabbalah, and he had reluctantly to wait till 1492, when he accompanied Eberhard to the imperial court at Ling. Here he became acquainted with R. Jacob b. Jechiel Loanz, a learned Hebrew, and court physician of Frederick III, from whom he learned Hebrew. [104] Whereupon Reuchlin at once betook himself to the study of the Kabbalah, and within two years of his beginning to learn the language in which it is written, his first Kabbalistic treatise, entitled De Verbo Mirifico (Basle, 1494), appeared. This treatise is of the greatest rarity, and the following analysis of it is given by Franck. It is in the form of a dialogue between an Epicurean philosopher named Sidonius, a Jew named Baruch, and the author, who is introduced by his Greek name Capnio, and consists of three books, according to the number of speakers.