From Metaphysics to Midrash

From Metaphysics to Midrash: Myth, History and Interpretation of Scripture in Lurianic Kabbala By Shaul Magid Book Report

Nosson Schuman

Teaching Midrash Dr. Moshe Sokolow August 8, 2012

From Metaphysics to Midrash

. Regarding the essence of Midrash and Biblical exegesis, Barry Holtz (1984) writes, The rabbis were elucidating the Bible, to be sure, but their interpretations reflect their philosophy, theology, and inner consciousness. Since the rabbis wrote no philosophy, it is through their Midrashic endeavors that we see their entire religious perspective. (p. 191) Joseph Heinemann (1986) expands this idea: while the rabbinic creators of Aggadah looked back into scripture to uncover the full latent meaning of the Bible and its wording, at the same time they looked forward into the present and the future. They sought to give direction to their own generation, to resolve their religious problems, to answer their theological questions, and to guide them out of their spiritual perplexities. The sages did this for they believed that the Bible provided the answer-if not explicitly, then implicitly-to every contemporary problem. (pp. 48-49) The birth of the second Temple marked the end of the prophetic period for the Jewish people. Henceforth, it would not be the spoken word of G-d to guide the Jews, rather understanding Gds will from what He already told us. Joseph Dan (1986) describes this succinctly, The texts of previous revelations are used to supply new answers to new questions, even though direct contact with the source of revelation is lost. (p.130) These Midrashic interpretations first started to be written down in the Tannaitic period (up to 200 C.E.). As the exile continued and the Jewish populace became entrenched in Babylon, many Midrashic anthologies appeared such as Genesis Rabbah, Midrash Tanhuma and the Tanna Debe

From Metaphysics to Midrash

Eliyahu. These expositions were spoken and preserved for the generations of Jews living in Babylon under relatively stable conditions for over six hundred years. However, as the exiles would move into new locales with different challenges, the expositions needed to change as well, As long as Jewish culture was given the chance to develop more or less autonomously, it generated mostly self-interpretative literature of this type. However, when attacked either by sectarians, like the Karaites, or by outsiders, like the Islamic theologians, the tradition reacted by reabsorbing the theological positions of its opponents, trying thereby to evidence the complete compatibility of Jewish texts with the intellectual standards of other traditions, such as Islamic Kalam or AristotelianismThe beginnings of kabbalah offer evidence of this reaction. (Idel, 1986, p.143) In the middle of the sixteenth century, a great renaissance (or naissance to some) of Kabbala took place in Sefad under the auspices of three great luminaries, Rav Moshe Cordevero, Rav Yitzchak Luria and Rav Chaim Vital. Concurrently, an immigration of converso Jews, mostly from Portugal, arrived in Safed between 1525 and 1555. Much of this immigration was the result of the forced conversion and subsequent expulsion of Portugal's Jews in 1497 by King Manuel, the renewed threat of an inquisition against judaizing conversos in Portugal in 1531, the tribunals of the Holy Office in 1536 and the autos-da-fe in 1540. (Magid, 2008, p. 79) If our premise is true, that the exegesis of the rabbis is their philosophy, the Biblical message for their times, then we can ask, was this message influenced by the return of the Spanish and Portuguese conversos at this time? Did the rabbis create a message especially for them, and even more noteworthy, did the conversos possibly influence the sphere of rabbinic thought?

From Metaphysics to Midrash Shaul Magid, in From Metaphysics to Midrash (2008) answers with a resounding, yes! He argues that, textual traditions are not only produced by or from history but, in fact, produce history themselves-that the mythic world of Lurianic Kabbala is both a response to, and a construction of, the historical reality in which it lived. (p.1) Although the Kabbalists never overtly mention the stimuli behind their writings, nor do they directly address their intended subjects, Magid is following the New Historicist ideology, I am reading Lurianic Kabbala as literature, suggesting that it both reflects and constructs historical narratives. The interpretations of biblical narratives in this literature can be viewed as

windows to view communal dilemmas and struggles, and to regard its cosmology a reification of new social conditions." (2008, p.5) Considering that middle sixteenth century in Sefad was a unique time, when Jews with Christian understandings were trying to reenter the community, Magid sees the Kabbalists as specifically speaking their language and addressing their needs. A few of the proofs he brings for this are: The resurrection of the prominence of The Original Sin (Adam and Eves eating from the Tree of Knowledge) in Jewish thought. The innovation (and/or) exposition of incarnation in Jewish thought. Alternative and gracious re-interpretations of the Erev Rav.

Standard rabbinic writings before the Kabbalistic period disregard the original sin of Adam as specifically relevant to the Jewish situation. Magid quotes Professor Isadore Twersky (1983), Nahmanides argues that Adam, since he had no will, could not be guilty of the sin, and therefore Judaism does not recognize the doctrine of original sin. "As a result of this

From Metaphysics to Midrash

second creation, the `fall,' Adam and Eve were converted into physical beings from their state of spiritualized bodies.... But their incipient humanity was not a curse; it was an opportunity. Within their human context, people were summoned to recognize the Creator, a summons which Nahmanides repeatedly formulates as the goal of human beings in the world" (p.97)

Notwithstanding Nahmanides downplay of the sin, the Ari regards the Original Sin as the act with the most devastating impact upon the world. Regarding the renewed interest, and prominence of the original sin of Adam in the Aris writings, Magid submits, Luria's interest, even infatuation, with Adam's sin may point to the pressing social issues of his day, the question of conversion and the converso. How can one be born a Christian (with a Jewish past) and return to one's ancestral tradition? Does the blemish of being born "outside" forever distinguish one from those born "inside"? Or are all humans blemished such that one's particular station in life (born a Christian, born a Jew) does not determine one's ultimate fate? Is there an antidote for Adam's sin or are all human beings, as mirrors of creation, corrupt from their inception? (2008, p. 35) I would add that perhaps the Kabbalists wanted to be able to relate to the mindset of these conversos. Being trained in the concept of the original sin, it would be easier for them to reconnect to Jewish thought if its not too different than what they were taught heretofore. Rav Chaim Vital explains in Shaar Maamrei Rashbi, Adam was commanded not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge (Etz ha-Da`at) because it was from `asiah and Adam had no portion in `asiah, only in yetzeriah and above, as we explained. Since he transgressed and ate of the Tree of Knowledge, which was located in

From Metaphysics to Midrash

`asiah, it caused a blemish in all the worlds. All the worlds descended from their respective original places (p. 35d) In Shaar HaPesukim, the Ari teaches, Afterward, when Adam sinned with the Tree of Knowledge, the world was returned to a state of disorder in all its levels. Even the animals sinned and ate of the Tree of Knowledge, as is known." (p.4a) While the original sin was oft viewed as a doctrine that takes form after Christianity severed its ties to Judaism and partially defines that very separation. That is, original sin made Christianity both possible and necessary and, at least from the Pauline perspective, made Judaism inefficacious and obsolete. (Magid, 2008 p. 36) Nonetheless, the Kabbalists did not refrain from resurrecting the sin and raising it to the utmost importance. Was it to appease the conversos, to speak their language? We do not know for sure, but the concurrence raises the question.

Incarnation is the belief that the divine becomes embodied in the flesh. Since this is the essential principle behind Jesus divinity, it would certainly not seem to be a Jewish concept of belief. Nevertheless, the Kabbalists promoted this postulate as well. Although they will certainly deny the degree to which Christianity understands this concept, they see a place for the Divine within the human soul. The oblique biblical image of God (zelem elohim), referring to the human, is taken in Kabbala to mean that the human is composed of the letters of the Torah-the human, as image of God, is comprised of the same matter as the text of God. The zoharic identity of God, Torah, and Israel is mediated through the letters of Torah. Thus the human is divine

From Metaphysics to Midrash

and the divine, human, creating an ostensible symmetry that makes incarnation at the very least reasonable, perhaps even inevitable." (Magid, 2008 p. 200) Sha'ar ha-Yihudim begins as follows: It is fitting for a man to imagine as if he is the house and seat of `azilut ha-kadosh because in the image of God, he made man. During the times of study and prayer this is even more important. In this manner one can unite to worlds until the supernal holiness rests on him. (p. 15c) Magid claims, Thus, while it is often argued that Judaism and incarnationalism are incompatible, the story is more complex. Divine embodiment, even in a human being, is neither historically nor philosophically at odds with the way Jews have fashioned the Jewish religion (2008, p. 203) Magid suggests that Kabbalists turned or returned to incarnational thinking to inform the conversos of where the Christians received their doctrines, thus closing a circle of the Jewish-Christian mystical imagination. (p. 204)

The Erev Rav is traditionally considered an unsavory lot. According to Rashi (Exodus 12:38), they were Egyptians inspired by the plagues and Moshe, who left Egypt along with the Bnai Yisrael to cling on to G-d. Since they were not of the same stock as the Bnai Yisrael, they were the first to sin when Moshe didnt return on schedule, and they seduced the Bnai Yisrael into worshipping the golden calf (Exodus 32:4). The Zohar degrades them further, demonizing them as simply a malicious bunch of outcasts, always seeking to perform the worst acts of evil: `Ervah (ERVA) is the `erev rav (ERV-RV) who brought exile into the world, the `erev rav in particular! It is said about the `erev rav, and the serpent was the shrewdest (`arum) of all the wild beasts God had made (Gen. 3:1). He was shrewd for evil purposes more

From Metaphysics to Midrash

than all the wild beasts, who are the idolatrous nations of the world. The erev rav are the children of the serpent in the garden, they are surely the poison that the serpent placed inside Eve. (Zohar 3: 279a) In marked contrast, Rav Chaim Vital, in his pre-Lurianic book Etz HaDaat Tov, not only sees them as not evil, but exerts himself to judge them fairly, And all the people witnessed the thunder and the lightening (Exod. 20:15).... Know that God took Israel out of Egypt. This is not the case with the `erev rav, who were taken out by Moses, as it says, who you took out of the Land of Egypt (Exod. 32:7). It does not say "I [God] took them [the `erev rav] out." Therefore the `erev rav are called "Moses' people." ... They are no worse than the other nations; in fact, they are better since they came [out] in order to convert, as we will explain. (p. 77b) [However] we must describe the `erev rav, who are called "people" (`am stam) [in the Torah]." Only Israel heard I am the Lord your God. The erev rav did not hear God's articulated speech but they did see the voices ... on the morning of the third day (Exod. 19:11).... Since they saw the voices and the raging fire with their very eyes they knew (yad`u) and apprehended (hek- iru) that it was God, as a consuming fire, who was speaking, and not Moses.... As a result they acquired another kind of faith. By experiencing the voices it became clear to them that God was speaking. However, it was still possible [from their perspective] that God was speaking from heaven." (p. 77c/d) From this point of understanding, Vital not only takes away the malice in the Erev Ravs participation in the sin of the golden calf but also to exonerates them: Therefore, do not err like the erev rav who acknowledged God's existence, as it says, so that God will not speak [directly] to us (Exod. 20:16). However, they were never sure

From Metaphysics to Midrash

about the second notion of two divine powers. That is why they said, regarding the golden calf, Come make us an elohim that shall go before us on the way, for that man Moses who brought us from the land of Egypt (Exod. 32:1) he led us in the land. Make for us an elohim in the form of Moses for the God (Elohim) in the heavens will not (or may not) lead us in the land.... The reason for their mistake was that they stood at a distance from Sinai and did not experience face to face I spoke to them (Dent. 5:4). But you Israel, who have seen [Me], you should not make the mistake to think that there are two powers. That is why I commanded you, Do not make an image, that is, do not make anything that will be viewed as sharing my power. (p. 78b) Magid claims that Vital viewed the conversos as his generations erev rav. The erev rav received revelation, but not hearing the word of G-d, lack full Jewishness. The conversos, likewise, were initially Jewish, but converted away and lost their Jewish identity. Both desired to join the Jewish people and both brought with them much undesired baggage. The erev ravs destiny became ruined in the desert, what would be with the conversos? Magid writes, The force behind the case for the absorption of these communities in both Vital and Luria is that the converts' rejudaization serves as a prerequisite for the completion of the covenant that failed in the Sinai desert and subsequently created a new opportunity for the final redemption. Lurianic texts explicitly claim in numerous places that their generation is the generation of the desert and thus they must re-play the desert narrative and, this time, get it right. (2008, p.9) Moreover, Magid relates that Vital saw himself, reliving Moshes original role as leader of the erev rav,

From Metaphysics to Midrash 10

My master [Luria] told me that I am obligated to facilitate merit for those transgressors more than other people. This is because all the transgressors in this generation are likened to the `erev rav who are mostly, or perhaps totally, from the [soul] root of Cain. They mixed his good sparks with evil ones, resulting in a majority of evil sparks. Therefore, I am obligated to rectify them because they [the transgressors or `erev rav] share the source of my soul." (Shaar HaGilgulim: 39) Is it any wonder then, that Vital found the sources to find merit for the erev rav, and consequently the conversos? Vital never openly reveals the connection between the erev rav and the conversos, but the connections are apparent. Likewise, there is a nascence in Kabbalistic, Jewish gnostic doctrine concurrent with Jews containing similar Christian beliefs, trying to rejoin the fold. Although absolute proof for causality is lacking in the Kabbalistic teachings, Magid is able to conclude, I discovered, among other things, that these kabbalists may not have been as divorced from realia as we conventionally think-that their mystical teaching, conscious or otherwise, may reflect, respond to, and reconstruct the challenges of the day, and sometimes in surprising ways. As far as we know, these adepts were uncompromising in their piety and halakhic behavior and rarely ventured too far outside their Judeocentric world, intellectually or culturally. And yet, perhaps even against their will, the outside world of Christianity and Islam may have penetrated, sometimes deeply, into their own Judeocentered universe. (2008 p. 226)

From Metaphysics to Midrash 11

References Dan, J. (1986) Midrash and the Dawn of Kabbalah, Midrash and Literature, New Haven, Yale University Press Heinemann, J. (1986) The Nature of Aggadah, Midrash and Literature, New Haven, Yale University Press Holtz, B.W. (1984) Midrash, Back to the Sources: Reading the classic Jewish texts, New York, Summit Books Idel, M. (1986) Infinities of Torah in Kabbalah, Midrash and Literature, New Haven, Yale University Press Magid, S. (2008) From Metaphysics to Midrash: Myth, history, and the interpretation of scripture in Lurianic Kabbala, Bloomington, Indiana University Press Twersky, I. (1983) Talmudists, Philosophers, Kabbalists: The Quest for spirituality in the sixteenth century, Jewish Thought in the Sixteenth Century, ed. Bernard Cooperman. Cambridge, Harvard University Press