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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Book I, the exponent of which is Baruch the Jewish Kabbalist, is occupied with a refutation of the Epicurean doctrines; and simply reproduces the arguments generally urged against this system, for which reason we omit any further description of it.

Book II endeavours to shew that all wisdom and true philosophy are derived from the Hebrews, that Plato, Pythagoras and Zoroaster borrowed their ideas from the Bible, and that traces of the Hebrew language are to be found in the liturgies and sacred books of all nations. Then follows an explanation of the four divine names, which are shown to have been transplanted into the systems of Greek philosophy. The first and most distinguished of them ‏אהיה אשר אהיה‎ ego sum qui sum ( Exod. iii, 12 ), is translated in the Platonic philosophy by τὸ ὄντως ὢν. The second divine name, which we translate by ‏הוא‎ He, i.e., the sign of unchangeableness and of the eternal idea of the Deity, is also to be found among the Greek philosophers in the term ταυτὸν, which is opposed to θατερὸν. The third name of God used in Holy Writ is ‏אש‎ Fire. In this form God appeared in the burning bush when he first manifested himself to Moses. The prophets describe him as a burning fire, and John the Baptist depicts him as such when he says, “I baptize you with water, but he who cometh after me shall baptize you with fire.” ( Matt. iii, 11 .) The fire of the Hebrew prophets is the same as the ether (αἰθὴρ) mentioned in the hymns of Orpheus. But these three names are in reality only one, showing to us the divine nature in three different aspects. Thus God calls himself the Being, because every existence emanates from him; he calls himself Fire, because it is he who illuminates and animates all things and he is always He, because he always remains like himself amidst the infinite variety of his works. Now just as there are names which express the nature of the Deity, so there are names which refer to his attributes, and these are the ten Sephiroth. If we look away from every attribute and every definite point of view in which the divine subsistence may be contemplated, if we endeavour to depict the absolute Being as concentrating himself within himself, and not affording us any explicable relation to our intellect, he is then described by a name which it is forbidden to pronounce, by the thrice holy Tetragrammaton, the name Jehovah (‏יהוה‎) the Shem Ha-Mephorash (‏שם המפורש‎).

There is no doubt that the tetrad (τετρακτύς) of Pythagoras is an imitation of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, and that the worship of the decade has simply been invented in honour of the ten Sephiroth. The four letters composing this name represent the four fundamental constituents of the body (i.e., heat, cold, dryness and humidity), the four geometrical principal points (i.e., the point, the line, flat and body), the four notes of the musical scale, the four rivers in the earthly paradise, the four symbolical figures in the vision of Ezekiel, &c., &c., &c. Moreover if we look at these four letters separately we shall find that each of them has equally a recondite meaning. The first letter ‏י‎, which also stands for the number ten, and which by its form reminds us of the mathematical point, teaches us that God is the beginning and end of all things. The number five, expressed by ‏ה‎ the second letter, shows us the union of God with nature—of God inasmuch as he is depicted by the number three, i.e., the Trinity; and of visible nature, inasmuch as it is represented by Plato and Pythagoras under the dual. The number six, expressed by ‏ו‎, the third letter, which is likewise revered in the Pythagorean school, is formed by the combination of one, two, and three, the symbol of all perfection. Moreover the number six is the symbol of the cube, the bodies (solida), or the world. Hence it is evident that the world has in it the imprint of divine perfection. The fourth and last letter of this divine name (‏ה‎) is like the second, represents the number five, and here symbolizes the human and rational soul, which is the medium between heaven and earth, just as five is the centre of the decade, the symbolic expression of the totality of things.

The Treatise de Verbo Mirifico is, however, only an introduction to another work on the same subject which Reuchlin published twenty-two years later, entitled De Arte Cabalistica. Hagenau, 1516. This Treatise, like the first, is in the form of a dialogue between a Mohammedan named Marrianus, a Pythagorean Philosopher named Philolaus, and a Jewish doctor named Simon. The dialogue is held in Frankfort, where the Jew resides, to whom the Mohammedan and Pythagorean resort to be initiated into the mysteries of the Kabbalah. The whole is a more matured exposition and elaboration of the ideas hinted at in his first work.

The Kabbalah, according to Reuchlin, is a symbolical reception of Divine revelation; and a distinction is to be made between Cabalici, to whom belongs heavenly inspiration, their disciples Cabalaai, and their imitators Cabalistae. The design of the Kabbalah is to propound the relations of the absolute Creator to the creature. God is the Creator of all beings which emanated from him, and he implanted aspirations in them to attain actual communion with him. In order that feeble man might attain this communion, God revealed himself to mankind in various ways, but especially to Moses. This Divine revelation to Moses contains far more than appears on the surface of the Pentateuch. There is a recondite wisdom concealed in it which distinguishes it from other codes of morals and precepts. There are in the Pentateuch many pleonasms and repetitions of the same things and words, and as we cannot charge God with having inserted useless and superfluous words in the Holy Scriptures, we must believe that something more profound is contained in them, to which the Kabbalah gives the key.

1534–1572. The opposite to this school is the one founded by Isaac Luria or Loria, also called Ari = ‏אר״י‎ from the initials of his name ‏האשכנזי ר׳ יצחק‎ R. Isaac Ashkanazi. He was born at Jerusalem 1534, and, having lost his father when very young, was taken by his mother to Kahira, where he was put by his rich uncle under the tuition of the best Jewish master. Up to his twenty-second year he was a diligent student of the Talmud and the Rabbinic lore, and distinguished himself in these departments of learning in a most remarkable manner. He then lived in retirement for about seven years to give free scope to his thoughts and meditations, but he soon found that simple retirement from collegiate studies did not satisfy him. He therefore removed to the banks of the Nile, where he lived in a sequestered cottage for several years, giving himself up entirely to meditations and reveries. Here he had constant interviews with the prophet Elias, who communicated to him sublime doctrines. Here, too, his soul ascended to heaven whenever he was asleep, and in the celestial regions held converse with the souls of the great teachers of bygone days. When thirty-six years of age (1570) the Prophet Elias appeared to him again and told him to go to Palestine, where his successor was awaiting him. Obedient to the command, he went to Safet, where he gathered round him ten disciples, visited the sepulchres of ancient teachers, and there, by prostrations and prayers, obtained from their spirits all manner of revelations, so much so that he was convinced he was the Messiah b. Joseph and that he was able to perform all sorts of miracles. It was this part of the Kabbalah, i.e., the ascetic and miraculous (‏כבלה מעשית‎), which Loria taught. His sentiments he delivered orally, as he himself did not write anything, except perhaps some marginal notes of a critical import in older books and MSS. His disciples treasured up his marvellous sayings, whereby they performed miracles and converted thousands to the doctrines of this theosophy.

1677–1684. Whether the learned Knorr Baron von Rosenroth knew of the extravagances of Sabbatai Zevi or not is difficult to say. At all events this accomplished Christian scholar believed that Simon b. Jochai was the author of the Sohar, that he wrote it under divine inspiration, and that it is most essential to the elucidation of the doctrines of Christianity. With this conviction he determined to master the difficulties connected with the Kabbalistic writings, in order to render the principal works of this esoteric doctrine accessible to his Christian brethren. For, although Lully, Mirandola, Reuchlin and Kircher had already done much to acquaint the Christian world with the secrets of the Kabbalah, none of these scholars had given translations of any portions of the Sohar.

1856. Dr. Etheridge, in his Manual on Hebrew Literature, entitled Jerusalem and Tiberias, devotes seventy pages to a description of the Kabbalah. It might have been expected that this industrious writer, who draws upon Jewish sources, would give us the result of the researches of the above-named Hebraists. But Dr. Etheridge has done no such thing;—he confuses the import of the Book Jetzira, the Maase Bereshith (‏מעשה בראשית‎) and the Maase Merkaba (‏מעשה מרכבה‎), with the doctrines of the Kabbalah; and assigns both to the Book Jetzira and to the Sohar an antiquity which is contrary to all the results of modern criticism. The following extract from his work will suffice to shew the correctness of our remarks:—

We are not aware that anything has appeared upon this subject since the publication of Graetz’s researches on the Kabbalah and Löw’s lengthy critique on these researches. Of course it is not to be supposed that we have given a complete history of the Literature on this theosophy; since the design of this Essay and the limits of the volume of “the Literary and Philosophical Society’s Transactions,” in which it appears, alike preclude such a history. This much, however, we may confidently say, that nothing has been omitted which essentially bears upon the real progress or development of this esoteric doctrine.

Several works, in which lengthy accounts of the Kabbalah are given, have been omitted, because these descriptions do not contribute anything very striking in their treatment of the Kabbalah, nor have they been the occasion of any remarkable incidents among the followers of this system.

Printed by the Hebrew Publishing Company „Menorah” Ltd. Prague.