TABLE OF COMBINATION.

‏שת‎		‏רש‎		‏קר‎		‏צק‎		‏פצ‎		‏עפ‎		‏סע‎		‏נס‎		‏מנ‎		‏למ‎		‏כל‎		‏יכ‎		‏טי‎		‏חט‎		‏זח‎		‏וז‎		‏הו‎		‏דה‎		‏גד‎		‏בג‎		‏אב‎
. .		‏רת‎		‏קש‎		‏צר‎		‏פק‎		‏עצ‎		‏ספ‎		‏נע‎		‏מס‎		‏לנ‎		‏כמ‎		‏יל‎		‏טכ‎		‏חי‎		‏זט‎		‏וח‎		‏הז‎		‏דו‎		‏גה‎		‏בד‎		‏אג‎
. .		. .		‏קת‎		‏צש‎		‏פר‎		‏עק‎		‏סצ‎		‏נפ‎		‏מע‎		‏לס‎		‏כנ‎		‏ימ‎		‏טל‎		‏חכ‎		‏זי‎		‏וט‎		‏הח‎		‏דז‎		‏גו‎		‏בה‎		‏אד‎
. .		. .		. .		‏צת‎		‏פש‎		‏ער‎		‏סק‎		‏נצ‎		‏מפ‎		‏לע‎		‏כס‎		‏ינ‎		‏טמ‎		‏חל‎		‏זכ‎		‏וי‎		‏הט‎		‏דח‎		‏גז‎		‏בו‎		‏אה‎
. .		. .		. .		. .		‏פת‎		‏עש‎		‏סר‎		‏נק‎		‏מצ‎		‏לפ‎		‏כע‎		‏יס‎		‏טנ‎		‏חמ‎		‏זל‎		‏וכ‎		‏הי‎		‏דט‎		‏גח‎		‏בז‎		‏או‎
. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		‏עת‎		‏סש‎		‏נר‎		‏מק‎		‏לצ‎		‏כפ‎		‏יע‎		‏טס‎		‏חנ‎		‏זמ‎		‏ול‎		‏הכ‎		‏די‎		‏גט‎		‏בח‎		‏אז‎
. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		‏סת‎		‏נש‎		‏מר‎		‏לק‎		‏כצ‎		‏יפ‎		‏טע‎		‏חס‎		‏זנ‎		‏ומ‎		‏הל‎		‏דכ‎		‏גי‎		‏בט‎		‏אח‎
. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		‏נת‎		‏מש‎		‏לר‎		‏כק‎		‏יצ‎		‏טפ‎		‏חע‎		‏זס‎		‏ונ‎		‏המ‎		‏דל‎		‏גכ‎		‏בי‎		‏אט‎
. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		‏מת‎		‏לש‎		‏כר‎		‏יק‎		‏טצ‎		‏חפ‎		‏זע‎		‏וס‎		‏הנ‎		‏דמ‎		‏גל‎		‏בכ‎		‏אי‎
. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		‏לת‎		‏כש‎		‏יר‎		‏טק‎		‏חצ‎		‏זפ‎		‏וע‎		‏הס‎		‏דנ‎		‏גמ‎		‏בל‎		‏אכ‎
. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		‏כת‎		‏יש‎		‏טר‎		‏חק‎		‏זצ‎		‏ופ‎		‏הע‎		‏דס‎		‏גנ‎		‏במ‎		‏אל‎
. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		‏ית‎		‏טש‎		‏חר‎		‏זק‎		‏וצ‎		‏הפ‎		‏דע‎		‏גס‎		‏בנ‎		‏אמ‎
. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		‏טת‎		‏חש‎		‏זר‎		‏וק‎		‏הצ‎		‏דפ‎		‏גע‎		‏בס‎		‏אנ‎
. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		‏חת‎		‏זש‎		‏ור‎		‏הק‎		‏דצ‎		‏גפ‎		‏בע‎		‏אס‎
. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		‏זת‎		‏וש‎		‏הר‎		‏דק‎		‏גצ‎		‏בפ‎		‏אע‎
. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		‏ות‎		‏הש‎		‏דר‎		‏גק‎		‏בצ‎		‏אפ‎
. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		‏הת‎		‏דש‎		‏גר‎		‏בק‎		‏אצ‎
. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		‏דת‎		‏גש‎		‏בר‎		‏אק‎
. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		‏גת‎		‏בש‎		‏אר‎
. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		‏בת‎		‏אש‎
. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		. .		‏את‎
—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—
1	+	2	+	3	+	4	+	5	+	6	+	7	+	8	+	9	+	10	+	11	+	12	+	13	+	14	+	15	+	16	+	17	+	18	+	19	+	20	+	21	= 231

[[156]]

In order to ascertain how often a certain number of letters can be transposed, the product of the preceding number must be multiplied with it. Thus—

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.”[9] Each of this triad, notwithstanding its multifariousness, constitutes a system, having its own centre and dominion.[10] 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.[11] 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[12] “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 [[157]]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. [[158]]

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.[13] 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;”[14] 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.[15]) 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 [[159]]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.[16]

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.[17]

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:— [[160]]

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.[18] 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; [[161]]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 [[162]]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, [[163]]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. [[164]]

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 [[165]]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 [[166]]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,[19] “when [[167]]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.”[20] “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, [[168]]who is the Lord, and before whom all men must appear. (Sohar, ii, 38 a.)[21]

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.[22]

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.[23]

4. The Sohar (i, 18 b; 23 a) quotes and explains the interchange, on the outside of the Mezuza,[24] of the words [[169]](‏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.[25]

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.[26]

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.[27] “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 [[170]]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,[28] “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.[29]

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 [[171]]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[30]—“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,[31] “this is an impartial and indirect testimony that the Sohar was recognised scarcely fifty years after its [[172]]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.[32] 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 [[173]]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— [[174]]

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,[33] and shall only give one example, which the erudite historian, Dr. Graetz,[34] 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. [[175]]

Sohar, i, 58 a.

Moses de Leon, ii, No. 133, p. 25.

‏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׳‎

‏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 היו 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 יהיו 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 [[176]]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,[35] and the following is the lucid analysis of it as given by the erudite Jellinek, according to Spinoza’s form of Ethics. [[177]]

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 [[178]]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.) [[179]]

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.[36] [[180]]

The gradation of the Sephiroth is as follows—

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.[37] 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.[38] 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 [[181]]mysteries of this theosophy to this corypheus of the Kabbalah.[39] 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.”[40]

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 [[182]]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 [[183]]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.’ ”[41]

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:—

= 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). [[184]]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. [[185]]

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 [[186]]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 [[187]]it makes to correspond to the ten Sephiroth, to be the sacred name composed of forty-two letters, viz.:—

= 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.[42] 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. [[188]]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.”[43] 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). [[189]]

[1] ‏ספר יצירה והוא לאברהם .… הורה על אלהותו ואחדותו בדברים מתחלפים מתרבים מצד אבל הם מתאחדים נסכמים מצד אחר והסכמתם מצד האחד אשר יסדרם מהם: כוזרי מאמר רביעי כ״ה‎ [↑]

[2] It is for this reason that the Book Jetzira is also called ‏אותיות באברהם אבינו‎ The Letters or Alphabet of the Patriarch Abraham. [↑]

[3] ‏בשלשים ושתים פליאות חכמח חקק יה יהוה צבאות אלהי ישראל אלהים חיים ומלך עולם אל רחום וחנון רם ונשא שוכן עד מרום וקדוש שמו בשלשה ספרים בספר וספר וסיפור: ספר יצירה פרקי א׳ משנה א׳‎ [↑]

[4] ‏אחת רוח אלהים חיים ברוך ומבורך שמו של חי העולמים קול ורוח ודיבור וזח רוח חקדוש: פרץ א׳ משנה ט׳‎ [↑]

[5] ‏שתים רוח מרוח חקק וחצב בה עשרים רשתים אותיות יסוד שלש אמות ושבעה כפולות ושנים עשר פשוטות ורוח אחת מהן: שלש מים מרוח חקק וחצב בהן תהו ובהו רפש וטיט חקקן כמין ערוגה חציבן כמין חומה סככן כמין מעזיבה: ארבע אש ממים חקק וחצב בה כסא הכבוד ואופנים ושרפים וחיות הקדש ומלאכי השרת ומשלשתן יסד מעונו שנאמר עשה מלאכיו רוחות משרתיו אש לוהט: פרק א׳ משנה ט׳ וי׳‎ [↑]

[6] ‏עשרים ושתים אותיות יסוד חקקן חצבן שקלן והמירן צרפן צר בהם נפש כל היצור ונפש כל העתיר לצור: פרק שני שנה ב׳‎ [↑]

[7] ‏כיצד שקלן והמירן אלף עם כולם וכולם עם אלף, בית עם כולם וכולם עם בית וחוזרת חלילה נמצא כל היצור וכל הדבור יוצא בשם אחד: פרק שני משנה ד׳‎ [↑]

[8] ‏שתי אותיות בונות שתי בתים שלושה בונות ששה בתים ארבעה בונות ארבע ועשרים בתים חמש בונות מאה ועשרים בתים שש בונות שבע מאות ועשרים בתים מכאן ואילך צא וחשוב מה שאין הפה יכולה לדבר ואץ האוזן יכולה לשמוע: פרק ד׳ משנה ד׳‎ [↑]

[9] ‏עדים נאמנים עולם שנה נפש: פרק ו׳ משנה א׳‎ [↑]

[10] ‏אחד על גבי שלשה שלשה על גבי שבעה שבעה על גבי שנים עשר וכולן אדוקין זה בזה: פרק ו׳ משנה ג׳‎ [↑]

[11] ‏תלי בעולם כמלך על כסאו גלגל בשנה כמלך במדינה לב בנפש כמלך במלחמה‎ [↑]

[12] ‏שנים עשר עומדים במלחמה שלשה אוהבים שלשה שנאים שלשה מחיים שלשה ממיתים שלשה אוהבים הלב והאזנים והפה שלשה שונאים הכבד המרה והלשון ואל מלך נאמן מושל בכולן אחד על גבי שלשה שלשה על גבי שבעה שבעה על גבי שנים עשר וכולן אדוקין זה בזה: פרק ו׳ משנה ג׳‎ [↑]

[13] Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden. Berlin, 1832, p. 165, &c. [↑]

[14] ‏רב חנינה ורב אושעיא דכל מעלי שבתא הוו עסקי בהלכות יצירה ומיברי להו עיגלא תילתא ואכלי לי: סנהדרין ס״ו ב׳‎ [↑]

[15] ‏אמר ר׳ יהושוע בן חנניא יכיל אנא על ידי ספר יצירה נסיב קתיין ואבטיחין ועבידלון איילין טבין והידנון עבידין איילין וטבין:‎ [↑]

[16] Der Israelitische Volkslehrer, vol. ix. Frankfort-on-the-Maine, 1859, p. 364, &c. [↑]

[17] For those who should wish to prosecute the study of the metaphysical Book Jetzira, we must mention that this Treatise was first published in a Latin translation by Postellus, Paris, 1552. It was then published in the original with five commentaries, viz., the spurious one of Saadia Gaon, one by Moses Nachmanides, one by Eleazer Worms, one by Abraham b. David, and one by Moses Botarel. Mantua, 1565. Another Latin version is given in Jo. Pistorii artis cabalisticae scriptorum, 1587, Tom. l, p. 869 seq. which is ascribed to Reuchlin and Paul Ricci; and a third Latin translation, with notes and the Hebrew text, was published by Rittangel, Amsterdam, 1662. The Book is also published with a German translation and notes, by John Friedrich v. Meyer, Leipzig, 1830. As useful helps to the understanding of this difficult Book we may mention The Kusari of R. Jehudah Ha-Levi, with Cassel’s German version and learned annotations, Part iv. chap 25, p. 344. &c., Leipzig, 1853; Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden (Berlin, 1832), p. 165, &c.; Graetz, Gnosticismus und Judenthum (Krotoshin, 1846), p. 102, &c.; Jellinek, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kabbala, Part i (Leipzig, 1852). p. 3, &c. Comp. also Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, vol i., p. 23, &c., vol. ii., p. 1196, vol. iii, p. 17, vol. iv. p. 753, &c.; Philosophie der Geschichte, vol. i, 2nd ed. (Münster, 1857), p. 63. &c.; Steinschneider, Jewish Literature (London, 1857), pp. 107, 302, &c.; and by the same author, Catalogus Libr. Hebr. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, col. 552. [↑]

[18] The Sohar was first published by Da Padova and Jacob b. Naphtali, 3 vols. 4to, Mantua, 1558–1560, with an Introduction by Is. de Lattes; then again in Cremona, 1560, fol.; Lublin, 1623, fol.; then again edited by Rosenroth, with the variations from the works Derech Emeth, and with the explanation of the difficult words by Issachar Bär, an Index of all the passages of Scripture explained in the Sohar, and with an Introduction by Moses b. Uri Sheraga Bloch, Sulzbach, 1684, fol.; with an additional Index of matters, Amsterdam, 1714, 3 vols. 8vo; ibid. 1728; 1772, and 1805. The references in this Essay are to the last mentioned edition. It must, however, be remarked that most of the editions have the same paging. Comp. Steinschneider, Catalogus Libr. Hebr. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, Col., 537–545; Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, iii, 329–385. [↑]

[19] ‏וכך אטררנא לכו רבי אבא יכתוב ורבי אלעזר ברי ילעי ושאר חברייה ירחשון בלבייהו: זוהר חלק ג׳ דף רפ ז ב׳:‎ [↑]

[20] ‏אסהדנה עלי שמייא עלאין דעלאין וארעה קדישה עלאה דעלאה דאנא חמי השתא מה דלא חמא בר נש מיומה דסליק משה זמנה תניינא לטורא דסיני דאנא חמינא אנפאי נהירין כנהורא דשמשא תקיפא דזמין למיפק באסוותא לעלמא דכתיב וזרחה לכם יראי שמי שמש צדקה ומרפה בכנפיה: ועוד דאנא ידענא דאנפאי נהירין ומשה לא ידע ולא אסתכל הה״ד ומשה לא ידע כי קרן עור פניו: זוהר חלק ג״ דף קל׳ב ב׳:‎ [↑]

[21] ‏כתיב יראה כל זכורך אל פני האדון ה׳ מאן פני האדון ה׳ דא רשב״י דמאן דאיהו דכורא מן דכרניא בעי לאתחזאה קמיה: זוהר חלק ב׳ דף לח א׳:‎ [↑]

[22] Comp. Alexander’s edition of Kitto’s Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature, s.v. Mocha. [↑]

[23] Comp. Sachs, Die religiöse Poesie der Juden in Spanien, Berlin, 1845, p. 229, note 2. [↑]

[24] For a description of the Mezuza, which consists of a piece of parchment, whereon is written Deut. vi, 4–9; xi, 13–21, put into a reed or hollow cylinder, and affixed to the right hand door-post of every door in the houses of the Jews, see Alexander’s edition of Kitto’s Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature, s.v. Mezuza. [↑]

[25] Comp. Nissen, in the collection of various Hebrew Dissertations, entitled ‏ציון‎, edited by Jost and Creizenach, vol. ii, Frankfort-on-the-Maine, 1842–43, p. 161, &c. [↑]

[26] ‏ושכינתא נוגה ונוגה לאש ומהכא קרי לבי כנישתא אש נוגה: זוהר חלק ג׳ דף רפ׳א א׳‎ [↑]

[27] ‏ווי על ההוא זמנא דאתיליד ישמעאל בעלמא ואתגזר. מה עבר קב״ה ארחיק להו לבני ישמעאל מדבקותא דלעילא ויהב להו חולקא לתתא בארעא קדישא בגין ההוא גזירו דבהון וזמינין בן ישמעאל למישלט בארעא קדישא כד איהי ריקניא מכלא זמנ׳ סגי כמה דגזירו דלהון בריקניא בלא שלימו: ואינון יעכבון להון לבנ׳י לאתבא לדוכתייהו עד דישתלים ההוא זכותא דבני ישמעאל: וזמינין בני ישמעאל לאתערה קרבין תקיפין בעלמא ולאתכנשא בני אדום עלייהו ויתערון קרבא בהו חד על ימא וחד על יבשא וחד סמוך לירושלים וישלטון אלין באלין וארעא קדישא לא יתמסר לבני אדום: זוהר חלק ב׳ דף לב א׳‎ [↑]

[28] ‏תנן זמין קב״ה למבני ירושלים ולאחזאה חד ככבא קביעא מנצצא בע׳ רהטין ובע׳ זקין נהרין מניה באמצעות רקיעא וישתאבון ביה ע׳ ככבין אחרנין ויהא נהיר ולהיט ע׳ יומין וביומא שתיתאה יתחזי בכ״ה יומין לירחא שתיתאה [שביעאה] ויתכניש ביומה שביעאה לסוף ע׳ יומין יומא קדמאה יתחזי בקרתא דרומי וההוא יומא ינפלון ג׳ שורין עלאין מההיא קרתא דרומי והיכלא רברבא ינפול ושליטא דההוא קרתא ימות: זוהר חלק ג׳ דף רי׳ב ב׳:‎ [↑]

[29] Comp. Beer, in Frankel’s Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, vol. v, Leipzig, 1856, p. 158–160. [↑]

[30] ‏וכד ייתי אלף שתיתאה דאיהו רזא דוא״ו כדין וא״ו יוקים לה״א, בזמנא שית זמנין עשר שיתין נפש כדין שלימו וא״ו עשר זמנין וא״ו שית זמנין עשר. (דוא״ו) וא״ו סלקא (בעשר) בי׳ וא״ ונחתא בה״א אשתלים וא״ו גו עשר שית זמנין כדין הוו שיתין לאקמא מעפרא: זוהר הלק א׳ דף קי׳ו ב׳ קי׳ז ב׳‎ [↑]

[31] Steinschneider, in Ersch und Gruber’s Encyklopädie, section II, vol. xxxi, p. 101; and Jewish Literature, Longman, 1857, p. 113. [↑]

[32] ‏בחדש אדר כתב ר׳ יצחק דמן עכו כי עכו נחרבה בשנת חמשים לפרט ושנהרגו חסידי ישראל שם בד׳ מיתות ב״ד׳ ובשנת ס״ה היה זה ר׳ יצחק דמן עכו בנבארה באיטאליה וניצל מעכו ובשנת ס״ה עצמה בא לטוליטולה, ומצאתי בספר דברי הימים שלו ר״ל מר׳ יצחק דמן עכו הוא שעשה ספר קבלה בשנת חמלאך ונחרבה בזמנו עכו ונשבו כולם בזמן בן בנו של הרמב״ן ובזמן בן ר׳ דוד בן אברהם בן הרמב״ם ז״לי והוא הלך לספרד לחקור כיצד נמצא בזמנו ספר הזוהר אשר עשה ר׳ שומעון ור׳ אלעזר בנו במערה אשרי הזוכים לאמתתו׳ באורו יראו אור: ואמרי לאמתתו, מפני שזייף מקצת אשר זייף. ואמר שקבל כי מה שנמצא בלשון ירושלמי האמין כי הם דברי ר׳ שמעון. ואם תראה בלשון קדש האמן כי אינם דבריו רק דברי המזייף מפני שהספר האמתי הוא בלשון ירושילמי כלו וז״ל: ומפני שראיתי כי דבריו מופלאים ישאבו ממקור העליון המעיין המשפיע בלתי מקבלת בשכמל״ו, רדפתי אחריו ואשאלה את התלכמידים הנמצאים בידם דברים גדולים ממנו מאין בא להם סודות מופלאים מקובלים מפה אל פה אשר לא נתנו ליכתב ונמצאו שם מבוארים לכל קורא ספר. ולא מצאתי תשובותיהם על שאלתי זאת מכוונות׳ זה אומר בכה וזה אומר בכה: שמעתי אומרים לי על שאלתי כי הרב הנאמן הרמב״ן ז״ל שלח אותו מארץ ישראל לקטלוניא לבנו והביאו הרוח לארץ ארגון וי״א לאלקנטי ונפל ביד החכם ר׳ משה די ליאון הוא שאומרים עליו ר׳ משה דיודאל חגארה. וי״א שמעולם לא חבר רשב״י ספר זה, אבל ר׳ משה זה היה יודע שם הכותב ובכחו יכתוב ר׳ משה זה דברים נפלאים אלה, ולמען יקח בהם מחיר גדול כסף וזהב רב תולה דבריו באשלי רברבי ואמר מתוך הספר אשר חבר רשב״י ור׳ אלעזר בנו וחבריו אני מעתיק להם דברים אלו. ואני בבואי ספרדה ואבא אל עיר ואלדוליד אשר המלך (שם) ואמיצא שם לר׳ משה זה ואמצא חן בעיניו וידבר עמי וידר לי וישבע לאמר: כה יעשה לי אלקים וכה יוסיף אם לא הספר הקדמון אשר חבר רשב״י אשר הוא היום בביתי במדינת ישבילי היא אוילה בבואך אלי שם אראך. ויהי אחר הדברים האלה נפרד ממני וילך ר׳ משה זח אל עיר [[173]]ארבלא לשוב אל ביתו לאוילא ויחלה בארבלא וימת שם, וכשמעי הבשורה היטב חרה לי עד מות ואצא ואשים לדרך פעמי ואבא אל אוילא ומצאתי שם חכם גדול וזקן ושמו ר׳ דוד דאפן קורפו ואמצאה חן בעיניו ואשביעהו לאמר: הנתבררו לו סודות ספר הזוהר שבני אדם נחלקים זה אומר בכה וזה אומר בכה ור׳ משה עצמו נדר לי (לתת) אלי ולא הספיק עד שמת ואיני יודע על מי אסמוך ולדברי מי אאמין. ויאמר דע באמת כי נתברר לי בלא ספק שמעולם לא בא לידו של ר׳ משה זה, ואין בעולם ספר זוהר זה רק היה ר׳ משה בעל שם הכותב ובכחו כתב כל מה שכתב בספר הזה. ועתה שמע נא באיזה דרך נתברר לי: דע כי ר׳ משה זה היה מפזר גדול ומוציא בעין יפה ממונו עד שהיום הזה ביתו מלא כסף וזהב שנתנו לו העשירים המבינים בסודות גדולים אלא (אלו) אשר יתן להם כתובים בשם הכותב ומחר נתרוקן כלו עד שעזב אשתו ובתו הנה ערומות שרויות ברעב ובצמא ובחוסר כל. וכששמענו שמת בעיר ארבולו ואקום ואלך אל העשיר הגדול אשר בעיר הזאת הנקרא ר׳ יוסף די אוילה ואומר לו: עתה הגיע העת אשר תזכה לספר הזוהר אשר לא יערכנו זהב וזכוכית אם תעשה את אשר איעצך. ועצתי היא זאת: שיקרא ר׳ יוסף זה לאשתו ויאמר לה קחי נא מנחה נאה ביד שפחתך ושלחי אותה לאשת ר׳ משה ותעש כן: ויהי ממחרת ויאמר עוד לה לכי נא ביתה אשת ר׳ משה ואמרי לה דעי כי רצוני הוא להשיא את בתך לבני ואליך לא יחסר לחם לאכל ובגד ללבוש כל ימיך ואין אני מבקשת ממך דבד בעולם רק ספר הזוהר אשר היה אישך מעתיק ממנו ונותן לבני אדם דברים אלה תאמרי לה לבד ולבתה לבד ותשמיעי את דבריהם אשר יענוכה ונראה היהיו מכוונים אם לא. ותלך ותעש כן. ותען אשת ר׳ משה ותשבע לאשת ר׳ יוסף לאמר כה יעשה לי אלקים וכה יוסיף אם מעולם ספר זה היה עם אישי אבל מראשו ולבו מדעתו ושכלו כתב כל מה שכתב. ואומרה לו בראותי אותו כותב מבלעדי דבר לפניו: מדוע תאמר שאתה מעתיק מספר ואתה אין לך ספר רק מראשך אתה כותב הלא נאה לך לאמר כי משכלך אתה כותב ויותר יהיה כבוד לך, ויען אלי ויאמר: אלו אודיע להם סודי זה שמשכלי אני כותב לא ישגיחו בדברי ולא יתנו בעבורם פרוטה כי יאמרו כי מלבו הוא בודה אותם, אבל עתה כאשר ישמעו שמתוך ספר הזוהר אשר חבר רשב״י ברוח הקדש אני מעתיקם יקנו אותם בדמים יקרים כאשר עיניך רואות:‎ [↑]

[33] Moses ben Schem-Tob de Leon, und sein Verhältniss zum Sohar, von Adolph Jellinek, Leipzig, 1851, p. 21–36. Jellinek also gives additional information on this subject in his other contributions to the Kabbalah which will be found mentioned in the third part of this Essay. [↑]

[34] Comp. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, vol. vii, Leipzig, 1863, p. 498, where other facts are given, proving that Moses de Leon is the author of the Sohar. [↑]

[35] ‏פירוש עשר ספירות על דרך שאלח ותשובח‎ Commentary on the Ten Sephiroth, by way of Questions and Answers. This commentary was first known through the Kabbalistic works of Meier Ibn Gabbai, entitled ‏דרך אמונה‎, The Path of Faith, printed in Padua, 1563, and ‏עבדת הקדש‎, The Service of Holiness, also called ‏מראות אלהים‎, The Vision of the Lord, first printed in Mantua, 1545; then Venice, 1567, and Cracow, 1578. It was then published in Gabriel Warschawer’s volume entitled A Collection of Kabbalistic Treatises (‏ספר לקוטים בקבלה‎), Warsaw, 1798; and has recently been published in Berlin, 1850. It is to this Berlin edition that the references in this Essay are made. [↑]

[36] The above analysis is taken from Dr. Jellinek’s Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kabbalah. Erstes Heft. Leipzig, 1852. This erudite scholar also gives some additional information on R. Azariel in the second part of his Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kabbalah, p. 32, &c. Leipzig, 1852. [↑]

[37] ‏וקבלה שבידינו על היות אלו החכמים משלשלת קבלה מעשה מרכבה מסיני עד עמוד הימיני החסיד ר יצחק סגי נהור בן הקדוש ר׳ אברהם שבבקרש [שבפושקירש]‎ This passage from Gikatilla’s ‏פירוש ההגדה‎ which is contained in Moses de Leon’s ‏ספר הנפש החכמה‎ is quoted by Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, vol. vii, p. 444. [↑]

[38] ‏ר׳ יצחק סגא נהור אבי הקבלה‎ Comp. Commentary on Pericope ‏וישלח‎ ed. Lemberg, 1811. [↑]

[39] In his Super-Commentary on Nachmanides’ Treatise on Secrets, (‏סודות הר״מבן‎) entitled ‏כתר שם טוב‎ or ‏ספר שם טוב‎ Shem Tob Ibn Gaon on Pericope ‏וישלח‎ remarks as follows ‏כי פירוש פסוק זה הוא איש מפי איש עד ר׳ יצחק בן הרב [ראב״ד] עד אליהו הנביא‎ In another Kabbalistic work, entitled ‏בדי הארון ומגדל חננאל‎ which he completed at Tafet in 1355, he says—‏ורבי עזרא ורבי עזריאל מגירונה חברו פירוש ההגדות על פי קבלה והוסיף עזרא לחבר פירוש התפילות.… כמו שקבלו מרבי יצחק סגי נהור‎ These two works are still in MS, and the quotations are given in Cormoly’s Itinéraris, p. 276, and in Graetz’s Geschichte der Juden, vol. vii, p. 445. [↑]

[40] ‏ודע כי האין סוף אשר זכרנו איננו רמוז לא בתורה ולא בנביאים ולא בכתובים ולא בדברי ר״זל אך קבלו בו בעלי העבודה קצת רמז‎ Comp. ‏מערכת אלהות‎ cap. vii, 32 b, ed. Mantua, 1558. [↑]

[41] Comp. More Nebuchim, part 1, cap. lxii. [↑]

[42] ‏רחכמי הסחקר מודים בדבר ואומרים כי אין השנתנו כי אם על דרך לא‎ Commentary on the ten Sephiroth, 2 a. [↑]

[43] Proclus, Inst. Theol. 7, 31; Smith, Dictionary of Roman and Greek Biography and Mythology, s.v. Proclus. [↑]