The Anonymous Author of Tikkunei Zohar and Ra‘ya Mehemna: An Antinomian or a Radical Maimonidean?

By Bezalel Naor

Today, it is an accepted fact in scholarly circles that Tikkunei Zohar and Ra‘ya Mehemna form a single unit that postdates the main body of Zohar.[1] More than one reader has been scandalized by statements in Tikkunei Zohar and Ra‘ya Mehemna likening the Mishnah to a shifhah or maidservant.[2] Predictably, in response, there grew an apologetic literature that attempts to justify how such shocking statements are compatible with normative Halakhah.[3]

One cannot rule out altogether the assertion by various secular historians that these pejorative statements betray an antinomian streak,[4] though to be certain, such statements of Tikkunei Zohar and Ra‘ya Mehemna are not situated in the present but deferred to the future. With this proviso, they are no more “antinomian” than the statement of Rav Yosef in the Talmud: “Mitsvot (commandments) are nullified in the future.”[5]

I wish to present a hitherto unexplored possibility. It seems likely that the anonymous author of Tikkunei Zohar and Ra‘ya Mehemna (which surfaced in Spain in the first decades of the fourteenth century)[6] was not so much an antinomian as a radical Maimonidean. It is in this light that we should understand negative statements issuing from the author regarding the study of Mishnah or those comparing the various Talmudic exercises and mental gymnastics to the backbreaking labor to which the Children of Israel were subjected in Egyptian exile.[7] These do not spring from an anti-halakhic mindset but rather from taking at face value Maimonides’ syllabus as laid out in his introduction to Mishneh Torah:

Hence, I have entitled this work Mishneh Torah (Review of the Law), for the reason that a person, who first reads the Written Law and then this [compilation], will know from it the whole of the Oral Law, without having need to read any other book between them [italics mine—BN].

We should be asking ourselves: Are there any historical grounds to assert that in Spain in the early 1300s there were halakhic Jews who openly—we should add, brazenly—promulgated the Maimonidean curriculum to the exclusion of Talmudic studies and the concomitant exercise of pilpul?

I offer the words of Joseph Ibn Kaspi:

Therefore my rabbis, listen to me and God will listen to you! I see that it is the intention of those among you who engage in Gemara, novellae and opinions (shitot),[8] to know proofs for the practical commandments, for you are not satisfied with the tradition from Mishneh Torah composed by Rabbenu Moshe [i.e. Maimonides], though he said: “And one shall have no need of any other book between them [Italics mine—BN].”

Here is an example. Ha-Rav ha-Moreh [i.e. Maimonides] wrote in his laws: “A sukkah that is higher than twenty ammah is invalid.”[9] Yet you despair and are without comfort until you know whether the reason is because “the eye does not rest upon it,” or because “one is not sitting in the shade of the sekhakh (overhead boughs) but of the walls,” or because “the sukkah must be a temporary dwelling,” as written in the Gemara.[10] Even this will not satisfy the very punctilious (mehadrin min ha-mehadrin) until they have added problems and opinions (shitot)[11]: “If you should say,” “one may say,” etc.

Truly, I admit that this is good, but why is the knowledge of proofs an obligation in regard to practical commandments, while not [even] an option,[12] but an outright prohibition when it comes to commandments of the heart? What sin has been committed by these four commandments of the heart (that I mentioned) that you do not treat them in the same manner but are satisfied by a weak tradition of few words, wanting comprehension?[13]

Who was Joseph Ibn Kaspi? Born either in Arles, Provence or Argentière, Languedoc,[14] around the year 1280, he passed in 1345 on the island of Majorca. His was a peripatetic life. The first period of his life was spent in the south of France. Later he gravitated to Barcelona, where his married son David resided. At approximately age thirty-five he travelled to Egypt for several months,[15] hoping to acquire there the intellectual legacy of Maimonides from the Master’s fourth and fifth generation descendants but was sorely disappointed in this respect. He even entertained the thought of traveling to Fez, Morocco in search of wisdom,[16] but that particular journey never materialized.

Ibn Kaspi’s reputation is that of an ultra-rationalist. His naturalistic explanations of events in the Bible far exceed even those of Maimonides; for that reason his opinions were marginalized. Though there is an abundance of manuscripts, it was only in the nineteenth century that Ibn Kaspi’s works were published from manuscript. (A few still remain in manuscript.) To this day, his interpretations have yet to “mainstream.”

My juxtaposing the Maimonidean enthusiast Joseph ibn Kaspi to the anonymous author of the kabbalistic works known as Ra‘ya Mehemna and Tikkunei Zohar may strike the reader of this essai as bizarre. Besides their contemporaneity, what basis is there for this juxtaposition?

Geographically, there are certainly grounds for relating the two authors to one another. Though separated by the Pyrenees, there was much traffic, intellectual and otherwise between Provence and Northern Spain. Some of the greatest families of Provencal scholars originated in Spain: the Kimhis, Joseph and his son David, who excelled as grammarians and Bible exegetes; and the Tibbonides, Judah and his son Samuel, who were the premier translators of classic philosophic works from Judeo-Arabic to Hebrew. And the traffic was two-way. Prominent Provencal families wended their way to Sefarad. The halakhist Rabbi Zerahyah Halevi (“Ba‘al ha-Ma’or”), a native of Gerona, established his career in Narbonne, only to return to Gerona at the end of his days. (His great-grandson was the Talmudist Rabbi Aharon Halevi of Barcelona.)[17] Ibn Kaspi is an example of a Provencal scholar who relocated to Catalonia: Barcelona, and eventually, the Balearic isle of Majorca. Thus, there could easily have been a sharing of ideas between southern France and northern Spain.[18]

In terms of mindset, the border between rationalist philosophy and kabbalah was especially porous at this time. Whoever authored Ra‘ya Mehemna and Tikkunei Zohar, carried with him much Maimonidean baggage. Linguistically, it is apparent to any student of the Ra‘ya Mehemna and Tikkunim that they are rife with the philosophic jargon made popular by the Tibbonides’ translations from Judeo-Arabic.[19] And let us not forget that the very backbone of Ra‘ya Mehemna is an enumeration of the commandments à la Maimonides’ Sefer ha-Mitsvot. (Rabbi Reuven Margaliyot isolated these commandments and presented them in orderly fashion in the introduction to his edition of the Zohar.)

*

When we put it all together it makes perfect sense. As shocking as some of its bold statements may be, the literary oeuvre of Ra‘ya Mehemna and Tikkunei Zohar cannot be construed as issuing from the mind of an antinomian. An antinomian would not go to the bother of constructing a Book of Commandments after a fashion. Rather, I maintain that the downgrading of the study of Talmud in general, and Mishnah in particular, should be attributed to a radical adoption of Maimonides’ curriculum of studies, whereby his halakhic magnum opus Mishneh Torah has superseded the study of Mishnah and Gemara.

In this respect, Maimonides’ devotees in Provence and Spain ventured beyond the Master himself. Maimonides penned a convincing letter to Rabbi Pinhas, the Dayyan (Justice) of Alexandria,[20] that regardless of what he wrote in the introduction to Mishneh Torah, the traditional study of the Talmudic tractates (albeit as summarized in Alfasi’s Halakhot) continues unabated in his beit midrash.[21] The curriculum that Maimonides once proposed remained an abstraction. It seems that Egyptian Jewry was not overly receptive to this innovation. Only well over a century later, did this great intellectual experiment of Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, a “hivemind of halakhah,”[22] designed to replace the “dialectics of Abayye and Rava,” find foot soldiers in the likes of Ibn Kaspi and the anonymous author of Ra‘ya Mehemna and Tikkunei Zohar. They launched their campaign from the soil of Provence and Spain.

Our thesis does not ride on the reputation of Joseph ibn Kaspi. Ibn Kaspi’s statement is perhaps the most outspoken and provocative call for adoption of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah as a way of bypassing Talmudic studies, yet there are other testimonies (from the least expected quarter) that the exclusive study of Mishneh Torah was starting to gain traction in medieval Spain.

The great halakhist Rabbi Asher ben Yehiel (Rosh) emigrated from Germany to Spain at the turn of the fourteenth century and eventually emerged as the Rabbi of Toledo, Castile, where he left his stamp on the shape of Castilian Halakhah.[23] Evidently, Rabbi Asher had cause to fulminate against authorities who decided questions of practical Halakhah based solely on the rulings of Mishneh Torah without recourse to Talmud.

Rabbi Asher writes:

I heard from a great man in Barcelona who was eminently familiar with three orders [of the Talmud, i.e. Mo‘ed, Nashim and Nezikin]. He said: “I am amazed at people who have not studied Gemara and adjudicate based on their reading in the books of Maimonides, of blessed memory, believing that they understand them. I know myself, when it comes to the three orders that I studied, I am able to understand when I read Maimonides’ books. However, his books that are based on Kodashim and Zera‘im—I do not understand at all. And I know that it is that way for them regarding all his books![24]

*

Rabbi Yahya Kafah (1850-1931) was not wide of the mark when he asserted that those statements in Zoharic literature that undercut the Talmud (comprised of Mishnah and Gemara) were designed to enhance the prestige of the Kabbalah. (By the same token, one may safely say that Ibn Kaspi’s desire to streamline the study of Halakhah, stemmed from his valorization of Philosophy.)

Logically, our next question should be: What was Maimonides’ own stake in proposing that his compendium Mishneh Torah take the place of protracted Talmudic studies? Maimonides provides a simple answer to this question in his introduction to Mishneh Torah:

At this time, severe vicissitudes prevail, and all feel the pressure of hard times. The wisdom of our wise men has disappeared; the understanding of our prudent men is hidden. Hence, the commentaries of the Geonim and their compilations of laws and responses, which they took care to make clear, have in our times become hard to understand so that only a few individuals properly comprehend them. Needless to add that such is the case in regard to the Talmud itself—the Babylonian as well as the Palestinian—the Sifra, the Sifre and the Tosefta, all of which works require a broad mind, a wise soul and lengthy time, and then one can know from them the correct practice as to what is forbidden or permitted, and the other rules of the Torah.

On these grounds, I, Moses the son of Rabbi Maimon the Sefardi, bestirred myself…[25]

While perhaps not the ideal curriculum, the exigencies of the time demanded the production of a bold new work on the order of Mishneh Torah that would preserve the practice of Halakhah for the masses ill-equipped to make their way through the labyrinthine discussions of the Talmud or even the decisions of the Gaonica (originally intended to clarify the canons of Jewish Law).

But was there perhaps another purpose of Mishneh Torah that Maimonides kept to himself and was not willing to divulge in writing? In Hilkhot Talmud Torah (Laws of the Study of Torah), Maimonides would proceed to sketch the traditional trivium of Mikra (Bible), Mishnah and Talmud, [26]such that Pardes (the esoteric teachings of Judaism) comes under the rubric of “Talmud”[27]; and that furthermore, the mature scholar who has covered the requisite literature and is thus no longer bound by the daily trivium, “will devote all his days exclusively to Talmud, according to the breadth of his mind and the composure of his intellect.”[28]

Was the condensing of Talmud into Mishneh Torah Maimonides’ master plan to free time for the study of Pardes or esoterica? Should that prove true, then Ibn Kaspi’s interest,[29] and mutatis mutandis that of the Tikkunei Zohar and Ra‘ya Mehemna, was not so very different from that of HaRav HaMoreh.[30]

[1] This fact was recognized two and a half centuries ago by the discerning eye of Rabbi Jacob Emden. See Emden’s Mitpahat Sefarim, Altona 1768, Part 1, chap. 3 (6b); chaps. 6-7 (16b-17b); Lvov 1870, pp. 12, 37-39.

Whereas Zohar itself has come to be associated with the name of Rabbi Moses de Leon, no single name surfaces in regard to Tikkunei Zohar and Ra‘ya Mehemna (though there are some who would attribute the latter to a yet unidentified disciple of De Leon).

It should be mentioned in passing that even in regard to the authorship of the Zohar there has been a sea change in scholarly thinking. Unlike Scholem, who was convinced that the single author of the Zohar was Rabbi Moses de Leon, current thinking (spearheaded by Yehuda Liebes) rejects this notion of single authorship and assumes the Zohar to be a collaborative or composite work on the part of a mystic fraternity or haburah.

[2] See Zohar I, 27b. This is actually a segment of Tikkunei Zohar that the Italian printers in 1558 mistakenly embedded in Zohar. See Editor Daniel Matt’s note to the Pritzker edition of the Zohar, vol. 1 (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2004), p. 170, note 499. See also the Introduction to Tikkunei Zohar (Vilna, 1867), 15b and gloss of the Vilna Gaon, s.v. shalta shifhah.

And see the Tikkunim appended to Tikkunei Zohar (Margaliyot ed.), tikkun 9 (147a).

By the same token, there are passages where the Mishnah is related to Metatron, the “‘eved” (male servant). See e.g. Ra‘ya Mehemna in Zohar III, 29b; and The Hebrew Writings of the Author of Tiqqunei Zohar and Ra‘aya Mehemna (Hebrew), ed. Efraim Gottlieb (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2003), p. 1, line 3.

Moshe Idel has demonstrated that this motif whereby the Mishnah is juxtaposed to Metatron is to be found in the obscure work of Rabbi Abraham Esquira, Yesod ‘Olam (Ms. Moscow, Günzburg 607, 80a-b). See Idel’s introduction to The Hebrew Writings of the Author of Tiqqunei Zohar and Ra‘aya Mehemna, pp. 23-24, 27-28. Inter alia, Esquira’s text makes mention of “six hundred orders of Mishnah.” This is a reference to b. Hagigah 14a. See Rashi there s.v. shesh me’ot sidrei Mishnah. Thus, p. 23, n. 76 of Idel’s introduction is in need of correction. By the same token, Esquira’s “seven hundred orders of confusion” (“shesh me’ot sidrei bilbulim”) is a parody of the “seven hundred orders of Mishnah” in b. Hagigah 14a. See Idel, ibid. p. 28, n. 105.

Concerning the juxtaposition of the six-lettered Metatron, the servant, to the six days of the work week, see the Vilna Gaon’s gloss to Tikkunei Zohar (Vilna, 1867), tikkun 18 (33b), s.v. be-gin de-Metatron. There is precedent in a Teshuvat ha-Ge’onim (Gaonic responsum) for restricting the activity of the angelic realm to the six days of the week and reserving the seventh Sabbath day for Israel’s sphere of influence. See Tosafot, Sanhedrin 37b, s.v. mi-kenaf ha-’arets zemirot shama‘nu; and Rabbi Reuven Margaliyot, Margaliyot ha-Yam ad locum, and idem, Nitsutsei Zohar to Ra‘ya Mehemna in Zohar III, 93a, note 2.

Later, in sixteenth-century Safed, Rabbi Isaac Luria advised reserving the Sabbath day for the exclusive study of Kabbalah (“as was the custom of the early ones”), while relegating the study of Halakhah to the six work days. This is hinted to in the two verses “Hishtahavu la-Hashem be-hadrat kodesh” (whose initials form the word “Kabbalah”) and “Hari‘u la-Hashem kol ha-’arets (initials “Halakhah”). See Rabbi Hayyim Vital, Peri ‘Ets Hayyim (Dubrovna, 1804), Sha‘ar ha-Shabbat , chap. 21 (103c); Rabbi Jacob Zemah, Nagid u-Metsaveh (Lublin, 1881), 25b. And see Peri ‘Ets Hayyim, Sha‘ar Hanhagat ha-Limmud, s.v. kavvanat keri’at ha-Mishnah (85a): “Know that the Mishnah is Metatron in Yetsirah…”

In the Ra‘ya Mehemna in Zohar III, 279b, the Mishnah is referred to as the “shifhah…the female of the ‘eved, na‘ar (“lad”). “Na‘ar” or “lad” is yet another epithet for Metatron; see b. Yevamot 16b (based on Psalms 37:25) and Tosafot ad loc. s.v. pasuk zeh sar ha-‘olam amaro. Just as Metatron is referred to as “‘eved,” “for his name is like that of his Master” (b. Sanhedrin 38b). Both Metatron and Shadai have the numerical value of 318. (In Ra‘ya Mehemna in Zohar III, 82b it is spelled out that “Metatron is a good servant, a faithful servant to his Master.”)

In Ra‘ya Mehemna, in Zohar III, 276a, three of the most difficult tractates of the Mishnah are singled out for derision, ‘Eruvin, Niddah and Yevamot, as they are assigned the acronym ‘Ani (poor man).  The Vilna Gaon points out that the derogation of the rabbis, students of the Mishnah, is not absolute, but only relative to the “ba‘alei kabbalah” (“masters of the Kabbalah”). See Yahel ’Or, ed. Naftali Hertz Halevi (Vilna, 1882), Tetse, 276a, s.v. ve-i teima.

Earlier in that passage (Zohar 275b) we have the underhanded compliment, “Hakham Mufle Ve-Rav Rabbanan” (“Outstanding Sage and Rabbi of Rabbis”), whose initials spell the word “hamor” (jackass). (This cynical remark found its way into the modern mystery novel by Richard Zimler, The Last Kabbalist of Lisbon [Woodstock, NY: The Overlook Press, 1998], p. 44.)

One who found absolutely outrageous the labeling of the Mishnah as a “shifhah” was the Chief Rabbi of Sana‘a, Yemen, Rabbi Yahya ben Shelomo (Sliman) Kafah (1850-1931). See his ‘Amal u-Re‘ut Ru’ah va-Haramot u-Teshuvatam (Tel-Aviv, 1914; limited facsimile edition Jerusalem 1976), p. 12. Available at hebrewbooks.org.

‘Amal u-Re‘ut Ru’ah va-Haramot u-Teshuvatam is Rabbi Kafah’s rejoinder to the bans placed upon him by the various batei din (courts) of Jerusalem—Ashkenazic, Hasidic and Sefardic. It struck Rabbi Kafah as highly ironic that he, a staunch defender of Talmudic Judaism, was placed under the ban, while the Zohar, with its numerous derisions of Talmud and its students, was upheld and, what is more, sanctified. Ibid. p. 14.

The constraints of space do not allow us to explore the controversy regarding the Zohar that erupted in Yemen in the early part of the twentieth century between Rabbi Kafah and his disciples, the self-styled Darda‘im, on the one hand, and their opponents, to whom they referred as ‘Ikeshim. (The first label is based on the Midrashic pun on Darda‘ [1Kings 5:11] as Dor De‘ah, “a generation of knowledge”; the second comes from Deuteronomy 32:5, “dor ‘ikesh u-petaltol,” “a perverse and twisted generation.”) At the instigation of his critics, Rabbi Kafah was jailed on more than one occasion by the Muslim authorities. (Rabbi Kafah alludes to this in ‘Amal u-Re‘ut Ru’ah va-Haramot u-Teshuvatam, p. 14.)

The man who acted as a peacemaker between the warring factions was none other than Rabbi Abraham Isaac Hakohen Kook. While upholding Rabbi Kafah’s status as an unusual Torah scholar, Rabbi Kook conveyed to him that he had erred in taking literally passages that were intended to be understood metaphorically. See Igrot ha-Rayah, vol. 2, ed. RZYH Kook (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook 1961), no. 626 (pp. 247-248); Haskamot ha-Rayah, ed. Y.M. Yismah and B.Z Kahana (Jerusalem, 1988), no. 41 (pp. 46-47); Ma’amrei ha-Rayah, vol. 2, ed. Elisha Aviner (Langenauer) (Jerusalem, 1984), pp. 518-521. An incomplete variant of the letter in Haskamot ha-Rayah was published by Rabbi Moshe Zuriel, Otserot ha-Rayah, vol. 1 (Rishon LeZion, 2002), no. 76 (p. 447). See further Rabbi Zevi Yehudah Hakohen Kook, Li-Sheloshah be-Ellul I (Jerusalem, 1938; photo offset Jerusalem, 1978), par. 107 (p. 46).

For Rav Kook’s involvement with the Yemenite community and facilitating their ‘aliyah at the beginning of the twentieth century, see ibid. par. 42 (p. 21); and recently Ben Zion Rosenfeld, “Yahaso shel ha-Rayah Kook le-Hakhmei ha-Mizrah bi-Tekufat Yaffo 5664-5674 (1904-1914)” [“HaRav Avraham Isaac HaCohen Kook and his Attitude Regarding the Sephardi Sages During His Stay in Jaffa 5664–567 4(1904–1914)”], Libi ba-Mizrah (My Heart Is in the East) 1 (2019), pp. 287-290.

[3] See Rabbi Hayyim Vital, introduction to Sha‘ar ha-Hakdamot (printed as an introduction to the standard editions of ‘Ets Hayyim); Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, Iggeret ha-Kodesh (4^th section of Tanya), chap. 26 (especially 143a). And see Rabbi Dov Baer Shneuri, Bi’urei ha-Zohar (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 2015), Bereshit (to Zohar I, 27b), 5a-8d.

[4] Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews, cited in Gershom G. Scholem, “The Meaning of the Torah in Jewish Mysticism,” in idem, On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism (New York: Schocken Books, 1970), p. 70, n. 1.

[5] b. Niddah 61b.

Contra Graetz, Scholem, referring to “the ambiguity of certain statements about the hierarchical order of the Bible, the Mishnah, the Talmud, and the Kabbalah, which are frequent in the Ra‘ya Mehemna and the Tikkunim, and which have baffled not a few readers of these texts,” states categorically: “It would be a mistake to term these passages antinomistic or anti-Talmudic” (op. cit. p. 70). Rather, to describe the peculiar posture of the Ra‘ya Mehemna and the Tikkunim, Scholem coins the term “utopian antinomianism” or “antinomian utopia” (op. cit., pp. 80, 82).

Other secular scholars who objected to Graetz’s judgment concerning the controversial passages in the Zohar (or to be more precise, Tikkunei Zohar) were Bernfeld and Zinberg. See Heinrich Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, 7, Beilage 12; Shim‘on Bernfeld, Da‘at Elohim, Part 1 (Warsaw, 1897), pp. 396-397, note 1; Israel Zinberg, A History of Jewish Literature, vol. 3, transl. Bernard Martin (Cleveland: The Press of Case Western Reserve University, 1973), pp. 55-56.

[6] Scholem and Idel would date Tikkunei Zohar and Ra‘ya Mehemna as early as the end of the thirteenth century (bringing the work in contact with Rabbi Moses de Leon). See Idel’s introduction to The Hebrew Writings of the Author of Tiqqunei Zohar and Ra‘aya Mehemna, pp. 10, 25-26, 29. Tishby established the years 1312-1313 as the terminus ad quem for the composition of Tikkunei Zohar based on its Messianic expectations for those years. Cited in Idel, ibid. p. 10, n. 7. See also p. 23. Idel, relying on Liebes, would make the terminus ad quem a year earlier, 1311. (Ibid.)

[7] See Zohar I, 27a:

They embittered their lives with hard labor (‘avodah kashah)—with kushya (difficulty);

with mortar (homer)—with kal ve-homer (a fortiori);

and with bricks (levenim)—with libun hilkheta (clarification of the law);

and with all [manner of] labor in the field—this is Beraita;

all their labor—this is Mishnah.

Though mistakenly embedded by the Italian printers back in 1558 in the text of the Zohar, this is actually a segment from the later work Tikkunei Zohar. See above note 2.

This same anachronistic interpretation of the verse in Exodus 1:14 is found (with slight variations) in the Ra‘ya Mehemna, again embedded in Zohar III, 153a, 229b (though in this case explicitly identified as Ra‘ya Mehemna). See also Tikkunei Zohar, tikkun 21 (Margaliyot ed. 44a); the additional Tikkunim appended to Tikkunei Zohar, tikkun 9 (147a); and the Tikkunim appended to Zohar Hadash (Margaliyot ed.), 97d (where the end of the verse is interpreted, “be-pharekh—da pirkha”), 98b, 99b.

And see now, The Hebrew Writings of the Author of Tiqqunei Zohar and Ra‘aya Mehemna (Hebrew), ed. Efraim Gottlieb and Moshe Idel (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2003), pp. 39-40.

This degradation of Talmudic hermeneutic was duly noted by Rabbi Kafah (see above note 2). Kafah believed that the not so hidden agenda of the anonymous writer was to promote the study of Kabbalah at the expense of the study of Talmud. See ‘Amal u-Re‘ut Ru’ah va-Haramot u-Teshuvatam, p. 12: “The entire purpose of the author of the Zohar is to cause the Mishnah and the Talmud to be forgotten from Israel, to stop up the mouth of the well of living waters from which flow the ways of the Oral Law, and have them occupy themselves with his new Torah.”

[8] The primary meaning of the Hebrew word shitah is a line; hence, a line of thought. For its derivative usage in medieval rabbinical literature, see Mordechai Breuer, ’Ohalei Torah (Jerusalem: Shazar Center, 2004), pp. 109, 510; Ya‘akov Spiegel, ‘Ammudim be-Toledot ha-Sefer ha-‘Ivri, vol. 2 (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan, 2005), p. 442; and lately, Hayyim Eliezer Ashkenazi, “Heker ve-‘Iyun be-Sifrei Rishonim (4),” Yeshurun, vol. 40 (Nisan 5779), p. 930, n. 7.

In the London Beth Din Ms. 40 (designated in the microfilm collection of the National Library of Israel, F4708), f.30, this word reads “mishnayot,” rather than shitot, but the reading is unlikely, to say the least. Cf. below n. 11.

[9] Maimonides, MT, Hil. Sukkah 4:1.

[10] The three opinions are found in b. Sukkah 2a.

[11] In the London Beth Din ms. for “shitot” there occurs the grotesquerie “shtuyot” (foolishness).

[12] The London Beth Din ms. has the superior reading “eino reshut o makom patur.”

[13] Joseph ben Abba Mari ibn Kaspi, Sefer ha-Mussar/Yoreh De‘ah, chap. 15.

Ibn Kaspi’s Sefer ha-Mussar was published in a couple of collections: Eliezer Ashkenazi of Tunis’ Ta‘am Zekenim (Frankfurt am Main, 1854); and Isaac Last’s ‘Asarah Klei Kesef (Pressburg, 1903). Our particular chapter (15) appeared earlier in the introduction to Ibn Kaspi’s ‘Ammudei Kesef u-Maskiyot Kesef, ed. Salomo Werbluner (Frankfurt am Main, 1848), p. xv. In Ta‘am Zekenim our quote appears on 53a; in ‘Asarah Klei Kesef on p. 70.

Sefer ha-Mussar was written for Ibn Kaspi’s twelve year old son Shelomo residing in Tarascon (Provence). According to the colophon, it was completed in 1332 in Valencia (Catalonia).

[14] Moshe Kahan is of the opinion that Joseph himself was born in Arles, and that it was his ancestors who hailed from Argentière (hence the Hebrew surname Kaspi). See M. Kahan, “Joseph ibn Kaspi—From Arles to Majorca,” Iberia Judaica VIII (2016), pp. 181-192.

[15] Kahan dates the journey between the years 1313-1315, and writes that Ibn Kaspi stayed in Egypt for about five months. Op. cit. p. 182.

In Mishneh Kesef I, ed. Isaac Last (Pressburg, 1905; photo offset Jerusalem, 1970), chap. 14 (pp. 18-19), Ibn Kaspi writes that about two years ago, at approximately age thirty-five, he went down to Egypt. The colophon of the book (p. 168) is datelined Arles, 1317, which would mean that the Egyptian expedition took place about the year 1315.

In Sefer ha-Mussar, which according to the colophon was completed in Valencia in 1332, we receive a slightly different picture. In the introduction, Ibn Kaspi writes that twenty years previous he wandered to Egypt; the total trip, from beginning to end, lasted five months. If we take him at his word, the trip to Egypt was in 1312. What is clear is that the actual sojourn in Egypt was less than five months.

[16] Introduction to Sefer ha-Mussar. In chap. 15, Ibn Kaspi spells out his fascination with Fez: “The Jews find repulsive and abandon today the Guide…the Christians respect and exalt it, and have translated it [to Latin]. All the more so the Ishmaelites; in Fez [italics mine—BN] and other lands, they established study-houses to learn the Guide from the mouth of Jewish scribes.”

[17] See Israel Ta-Shma, Rabbi Zerahyah Halevi (Ba‘al ha-Ma’or) u-B’nei Hugo (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1992), pp. 2, 16; Hayyim Eliezer Ashkenazi, “Heker ve-‘Iyun be-Sifrei Rishonim (4),” p. 933, n. 17.

[18] Though scholars assume a Castilian—rather than a Catalonian—provenance for Tikkunei Zohar and Ra‘ya Mehemna, I do not see that as a major obstacle. Surely, the main flow of traffic was between Provence in the south of France and Catalonia in the north of Spain, but for Jews, Sefarad was an overarching unity, no matter the local potentates into which it was fragmented. Thus, in 1305, the Rabbi of Barcelona, Catalonia, Rabbi Solomon ben Abraham ibn Adret (Rashba) was able to place a newly arrived German émigré, Rabbi Asher ben Yehiel (Rosh) in the rabbinate of Toledo, Castile. (See Avraham Hayyim Freimann, Ha-Rosh ve-Tse’etsa’av, trans. Menahem Eldar [Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1986], pp. 28-29.)

Sometimes, within a single family one finds both strands of Kabbalah, Castilian and Catalonian. Isaac ibn Sahula, native of Guadalajara, Castile, author of the bestiary Meshal ha-Kadmoni (1281), as well as a kabbalistic commentary to Song of Songs, was a disciple of Rabbi Moses of Burgos, as well as an assumed associate of Rabbi Moses de Leon. (The first reference to the Midrash ha-Ne‘elam, an early stratum of the Zoharic literature, is found in Ibn Sahula’s Meshal ha-Kadmoni.) His brother, Meir ibn Sahula, on the other hand, prided himself on his Catalonian and Provencal pedigree, being a disciple of “Rabbi Joshua ibn Shu‘aib and of Rabbi Solomon ben Abraham ibn Adret (Rashba), who received from Nahmanides, who in turn received from Rabbi Isaac the Blind, son of Rabad of Posquières, who in turn received from Elijah the Prophet.” So writes Meir ibn Sahula at the conclusion to his commentary on the Bahir, “’Or ha-Ganuz.”

(Yehuda Liebes speculated that the especially acerb remarks that precede this peroration are directed against recent developments in Castilian Kabbalah, namely the Zohar. See Y. Liebes, Studies in the Zohar [Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993], pp. 168-169, n. 50. However, in all fairness, the description of those “who expound books and books of the nations, and transcribe therein their gods, and call them ‘Secrets of the Torah’ [Sitrei Torah],” sounds more like an attack on Maimonides and his followers who construe Aristotelian philosophy as Sitrei Torah, than an assault upon the Zohar. At the end of his lengthy footnote, Liebes conceded this distinct possibility.)

Thus, the division of Spanish Kabbalah into discrete units of Castilian versus Catalonian traditions need not prejudice us against the possibility of penetrations and influences that defy this dyadic model. One needs to complexify the general picture of Spanish Kabbalah in order to appreciate the multiplicity of forces at work. Binaries are helpful as historic guidelines but they can never do justice to the complexity of lived reality.

[19] Tishby collected some of these Tibbonide neologisms, starting with “nefesh ha-sikhlit” or “intellectual soul” (Ra‘ya Mehemna in Zohar III, 29b). See Isaiah Tishby, Mishnat ha-Zohar, vol. 1, 2^nd printing with corrections (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1949), pp. 77-78.

One can well appreciate how the Chief Rabbi of Sana‘a, Yemen, Yahya ben Shelomo Kafah, a most outspoken opponent of the Zohar, typified its author as “the philosopher, author of the Zohar” (“ha-philosoph mehabber ha-Zohar”). See his ‘Amal u-Re‘ut Ru’ah va-Haramot u-Teshuvatam, pp. 12-16.

Besides the obvious use of Maimonidean terminology, there is the subtle copying of categories. An example would be the way in which the author of Tikkunei Zohar patterned his “hamesh minim” (“five species” or “five sects”) of the ‘Erev Rav (Mixed Multitude) after Maimonides’ “hamishah minim” (“five sectarians”). The passage from Tikkunei Zohar was incorporated by the printers in Zohar I, 25a. (The note in Derekh Emet alerts the reader that the material correlates to Tikkunei Zohar, tikkun 50. In the new Pritzker edition of the Zohar, the passage from Tikkunei Zohar has been removed.) Maimonides’ “hamishah minim” are found in MT, Hil. Teshuvah 3:7. This is just a random sample of the pervasive influence of Maimonides on the author of Tikkunei Zohar and Ra‘ya Mehemna.

Cf. the direct quote from Maimonides, Hil. Teshuvah 3:6 in Isaac ibn Sahula’s Meshal ha-Kadmoni (Venice, 1546), Sha‘ar ha-Rishon (10a), s.v. va-yo’el ha-tsevi le-va’er. And see now Sarah Offenberg, “On Heresy and Polemics in Two Proverbs in Meshal Haqadmoni” (Hebrew), Jewish Thought 1 (2019), pp. 64-65. Recently, Hartley Lachter has attempted to demonstrate that the general tenor of Meshal ha-Kadmoni is esoteric; see H. Lachter, “Spreading Secrets: Kabbalah and Esotericism in Isaac ibn Sahula’s Meshal ha-Kadmoni,” Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 100, No. 1 (Winter 2010), pp. 111-138.

[20] It should be noted, for whatever it is worth, that Pinhas ben Meshullam was a Provencal rabbi who took up the post of Dayyan of Alexandria, Egypt. It would be pure conjecture on my part to posit that his critique of Maimonides reflected the way in which Mishneh Torah had been received in Provence. It is equally possible that Pinhas’ critique was not based on actual observation of the Provencal reception of Mishneh Torah.

[21] See Igrot ha-Rambam, ed. Yitzhak Shilat, vol. 2 (Jerusalem, 1988), pp. 438-439; quoted in Bezalel Naor, The Limit of Intellectual Freedom: The Letters of Rav Kook (Spring Valley, NY: Orot, 2011), pp. 297-298.

[22] The term “hivemind” referred originally to the coordinated behavior of a colony of insects (bees or ants) which to an outside observer, appears the workings of a single mind. In the age of the Internet, it refers to the collectivity of the users who function as a single mind in expressing their thoughts and opinions. This is, in effect, what Maimonides created in Mishneh Torah. As he stated it so eloquently in the introduction to that work:

I…intently studied all these works, with the view of putting together the results obtained from them in regard to what is forbidden or permitted, clean or unclean, and the other rules of the Torah—all in plain language and terse style, so that thus the entire Oral Law might become systematically known to all, without citing difficulties and solutions or differences of view, one person saying so, and another something else [italics mine—BN]—but consisting of statements, clear and convincing, and in accordance with the conclusions drawn from all these compilations and commentaries that have appeared from the time of Rabbenu ha-Kadosh [i.e. Rabbi Judah the Prince] to the present, so that all the rules shall be accessible to young and old, whether these appertain to the (Pentateuchal) precepts or to the institutions established by the sages and prophets, so that no other work should be needed for ascertaining any of the laws of Israel, but that this work might serve as a compendium of the entire Oral Law…

(Moses Hyamson translation with correction)

[23] See A.H. Freimann, Ha-Rosh ve-Tse’etsa’av, chap. 4 (pp. 32-41).

[24] She’elot u-Teshuvot ha-Rosh 31:9; quoted in Bezalel Naor, The Limit of Intellectual Freedom, pp. 300-301.

[25] Translation of Moses Hyamson with slight alterations.

[26] b. Kiddushin 30a. See Tosafot there s.v. lo tserikha le-yomei.

[27] MT, Hil. Talmud Torah 1:11.

[28] Ibid. 1:12.

[29] In Sefer ha-Mussar, chap. 10, Ibn Kaspi lays out a study plan for his twelve year old son, Shelomo. He advises Shelomo to spend the next two years studying Bible and Talmud. From fourteen to sixteen, he should turn his attention to ethics: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Avot with the commentary and introduction of Maimonides, Hilkhot De‘ot of Sefer ha-Madda‘, as well as Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Starting at age sixteen, for the next two years, he should tackle the Halakhic codes of Alfasi, Rabbi Moses of Coucy [i.e. Sefer Mitsvot Gadol or SeMaG] and Maimonides, and pursue the study of logic. At age eighteen, he would be well advised to study natural science for two years. Finally, at age twenty, Shelomo should commence studying Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Maimonides’ Guide. (He is also advised to take a wife at that time.)

[30] See Maimonides’ famous parable of the King’s palace in Guide of the Perplexed III, 51.

Towards Decoding Ha-Yeriah Ha-Gedolah (The Great Parchment), A Cryptic 14th Century Italian Kabbalistic Text

By Ezra Brand

Ezra Brand is an independent researcher based in NYC. He has an MA from Revel Graduate School at Yeshiva University in Medieval Jewish History. His main research focus is currently 13th and 14th century sefirotic Kabbalah, and he is interested in using digital and computational tools in historical research. His previous contributions to the Seforim Blog can be found here, and a selection of his academic research can be found here. He can be reached at ezrabrand-at-gmail.com; any and all feedback is greatly appreciated.^[1]

Sefirotic Kabbalah has its origins in thirteenth century Provence and Spain. It reached its apotheosis in the Zohar, which began to appear in Castile in the late thirteenth century. Kabbalistic literature started appearing in Italy soon after. Moshe Idel, in his masterly survey of kabbalah in medieval Italy, shows how “Rome was a place where Catalan Jewish culture, philosophical and kabbalistic, were already well established in the 1280s.”^[2] And further: “Thus, in one decade, approximately 1280-1290, the Jewish culture in Rome was enriched by the arrival of a variety of Jewish esoteric material: theosophical and ecstatic Kabbalah, as well as Ashkenazi esoteric material.”^[3] Idel raises the possibility that “a massive importation of kabbalistic literature took place in Italy at the very end of the thirteenth century.”^[4] Idel make programmatic statement that “a pluralistic vision of the history of Kabbalah, which entails deemphasizing the centrality of Spain in the history of Kabbalah, will help to distinguish more precisely the specific contributions of Kabbalah in Italy.”^[5]

Ha-Yeriah Ha-Gedolah (from here on: YG) is a fascinating, enigmatic work, which provides a window into this first flourishing of Italian Kabbalah. According to Giulio Busi, the academic scholar who first published YG from manuscript in 2004, “Ha-Yeri‘ah ha-Gedolah was probably written at the beginning of the 14th century by an author whose name remains unknown to us. Most likely, he was an Italian kabbalist, since all the preserved manuscripts have been copied by scribes working on the Italian peninsula.”^[6]

The first modern academic scholar to mention YG was Gershom Scholem in his 1937 list of commentaries on the Ten Sefirot. Scholem also mentioned the line-by-line commentary on YG written by the fourteenth-century Italian kabbalist Reuven Tzarfati.^[7] Scholem’s student Efraim Gottlieb, in a pioneering study on Tzarfati, discusses YG briefly.^[8]

In 2004, Giulio Busi, with Simonetta M. Bondoni and Saverio Campanini, published YG for the first time, based on the extant manuscripts.^[9] It comes out to 71 pages, with at most around 13 lines on a page.^[10] Busi gives an introduction summarizing previous research and presenting his own research on this work, and an overview of the extant manuscripts of YG and Tzarfati’s commentary. (Busi’s introduction is available online.)

Like the thirteenth-century Zoharic literature^[11] and related kabbalistic works, YG interprets biblical stories and topics in terms of the interplay between the sefirot. Busi describes it as a “forgotten masterpiece of kabbalistic literature,^[12] and as “one of the most obscure texts of the whole kabbalah”.^[13]

Even after its appearance in print, YG does not appear to have evinced very much interest, either among academic scholars or among enthusiasts of Kabbalistic literature. I am not aware of any further scholarship on this work. In a previous paper of mine, I gave an overview of some aspects of YG. Here, I’d like to revisit this enigmatic work, provide some suggestions for a way forward in decoding it, and hopefully spur further interest and research.^[14]

YG is set up as work made up of sixteen “Sections” (sippurim).^[15] Busi describes YG as “a booklet of a few extremely dense and symbolic pages.”^[16] He further writes: “There is no doubt, however, that the Great Parchment is one of the most obscure texts of the whole kabbalah.”^[17] Busi in his introduction gives an overview of each story based on Tzarfati’s commentary, prefacing: “Obviously, there is no guarantee that Sarfatti’s exegesis always reflects the thought of the unknown author of the work. Nevertheless, the detailed analysis of this early commentator represents the only starting point we possess with which to explore this still unknown chapter of late medieval kabbalah.”

I would claim that Busi overstates the obscurity of this work. I would like to point out a few aspects of YG that would aid in making progress in decoding this fascinating work.

Indexing Sefirotic Correspondences

Busi writes: “Apparently rebelling against the laws of meaning, [YG] is striking for its capacity to evoke waves of esoteric implications without ever mentioning directly the kabbalistic secrets.”^[18] And further: “The key is offered by a scheme of correspondences that the author never enunciates openly but the reader must be aware of”.^[19]

Again, I believe that this is somewhat overstated. Admittedly, the overarching narrative of the sections is often unclear.  The work is dense with biblical and Talmudic quotations and allusions, and written in a kind of associative, stream-of-consciousness style, making the overall narrative difficult to untangle. There are often what appear to be throwaway lines that don’t seem to be relevant in context. As I mention below, it may be that the author was simply writing with stream-of-consciousness, and never intended every line to have a deeper meaning. In any case, YG is by no means the only esoteric work to have been composed in a purposefully enigmatic style.

With all this in mind, the fact is that throughout the work, YG explicitly mentions sefirotic correspondences. Unlike the Zoharic literature, YG is replete with explicit usage of the standard terms for the ten sefirot. The Temple is a clear theme throughout (see below), and YG explicitly indexes the one-to-one correspondences between ten items in the Temple and the ten sefirot, using the sefirot’s standard names.^[20] Another explication of symbols can be found in YG’s discussion of Ezekiel’s Vision of the Chariot, where the correspondence of the Four Faces with specific angels, cardinal directions, and sefirot are given, again using the sefirot’s standard names.^[21]

Certain terms are used consistently for Evil (or closeness to Evil) throughout, such as Sha’atnez, Woman, Snake, Calf, Donkey, Limping Thigh, Mixture.^[22] Specific terms recur with presumably consistent sefirotic equivalences, such as Ruth and Upper Pool.^[23]

Even if YG never explicitly defines the meaning of a symbol, comparison with other thirteenth- and fourteenth-century works should allow for fairly certain elucidation.^[24]

Close Commentary of Biblical Texts or Specific Topics

In many sections, YG very closely hews to biblical texts, quoting the biblical words and performing an extremely close interpretation, sometimes phrase-by-phrase, or even word-by-word. Busi’s edition does a tremendous service by italicizing the biblical quotes, but many quotes fall through the cracks and are not italicized. YG is often written in a way that only a single word is added to biblical text, or a biblical word is paraphrased, the order of words is switched, words are skipped words, or a pastiche between two biblical verses is made. These techniques presumably impart meaning. Closely separating the biblical quotes from YG’s additions or paraphrase helps clarify what exactly YG is attempting to convey.

Even when YG is not closely interpreting a biblical text line-by-line, the topic is often still clearly defined.

By comparing how other thirteenth- and fourteenth-century kabbalistic works interpret these biblical stories and topics, it is likely that much light would be shed on the discourses of YG.

Please see the appendix of this article for a chart comparing YG’s Sections with corresponding biblical stories or topics.

Word Associations

A striking aspect of YG is the continuous flow of writing, using word associations and wordplay. This is true both in terms of how it interprets biblical verses, as well as how it segues into new topics seemingly based on linguistic similarities alone. This interest in wordplay likely ties in to the ideas of “Linguistic Kabbalah,” which were influenced by Abraham Abulafia.^[25] As mentioned earlier, YG was most likely written by an Italian kabbalist at the beginning of the fourteenth century, a time when Abulafia’s influence was strongly felt.

Some particularly notable examples of this can be found in Section 7, which is devoted to Jacob/Tiferet. I’ll adduce one example from there, a riff on the word “Tiferet” (my underlines, italics of biblical verses and biblical citations in Busi’s original, with small changes in punctuation where it seems appropriate):^[26]

ועל כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל את גיד הנשה [בראשית לב לג]. לא יכרתו החוט הבא עליהם בשפע אמיתי, הנשה שלא ישכחו התורה, הה״ד ישראל לא תנשני [ישעיה מד כא]. והחוט הוא הוא״ו הנאצלת על תפארת הה״ד <ישראל> אשר בך אתפאר [ישעיה מט ג] ולקדוש ישראל כי פארך [ישעיה ס ט] זה ואלהי יעקב.^[27] אפריון עשה לו המלך שלמה מעצי הלבנון [שיר השירים ג ט]. ובית תפארתי אפאר [ישעיה ס ז]. ועם כל זה לא תפאר אחריך [דברים כד כ] בעשרה היניקות היונקות ונאצלות מן הקו האמצעי קדוש ונורא [תהלים קיא ט]. כי תחלת העשרה הוא השם הגדול א׳^[28]. על כן <לא> תסיר האצילות מהם. אם הם שפלים (אם) בעיניך, פאר הראש הם וגדולים, כי בן בג בג עומד על גבה. 

The overall message of this passage is fairly clear: First, the author closely interprets the verse in Genesis as saying that Jews should not block the flow (YG interprets “gid” to mean “chut”), and should not forget the Torah (interpreting the next word “hanashe” to mean “forgetting”, using the verse in Isaiah to show that “hanashe” can mean forgetting^[29]).

The passage then clearly begins to riff on the root “Pe’er,” which is the root of the word Tiferet, the sefirah under discussion in this Section. YG brings quotes which use “Pe’er” in five different ways (התפאר, פאר, אפריון, תפארת, פיאר). The passage is saying not to “remove” the ten sefirot which emanate from Tiferet,^[30] since the beginning of the ten sefirot are Keter. It may very well be that the individual verses do not add an additional mystical meaning, and the author is simply reveling in adducing additional verses with the same root.

Post-Biblical Sources

As mentioned, YG is dense not just with biblical quotes and allusions, but also with quotes of and allusions to Talmud, Midrash, and other medieval sources.^[31]

YG mentions the messianic figures of Menachem ben Amiel and Nehemiah ben Hushiel,^[32] who appear in early medieval works, such as the apocalyptic Sefer Zerubavel and Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer.

YG supports an idea with a quote that seems to be an adage that was popular among medieval Jewish authors:^[33]

״הה״ד אשרי המדבר באוזן שומעת״

The first source that I could find for this adage is Ramban in his early work Milhamot Hashem, at the end of a long piece, where he lyrically writes that a certain opinion is correct:^[34]

״והדברים מודיעים שכולם נכוחים למבין וישרים למוצאי דעת ואשרי המדבר לאוזן השומעת״

It therefore seems clear that YG’s ״באוזן״ should correctly be ״לאוזן״ as the Munich manuscript has it.^[35] Soon after Ramban, this saying is used by Meiri and Sefer HaHinuch in a similar way: As an exhortation at the end of passage, and certainly not as a quote.^[36]

Some Greek philosophical concepts are mentioned in YG, such as the Five Senses and the tripartite soul.^[37]

A sampling of interesting scientific statements made by YG: “Water is good at all times and for all living creatures, which is not the case for other liquids”. ^[38] “The dove has no gallbladder.”^[39]

While discussing YG’s sources and quotations, I can’t help but discuss a fascinating passage found in the discussion on the Sotah:^[40]

״מה שאמרו ז״ל סוטה לא הייתה ולא נבראת, ר״ל במעשה מפורסם, ואם תאמר המעשה שמביאין שאשה אחת שתתה מי סוטה בחילוף אחותה ולא הזיקו לה ואחרי כן <באה> אצל אחותה ונקשה ומן הריח מיד <וצבתה> בטנה ונפלה ירכה [במדבר ה כז] כי היא הייתה טמאה, זה סיוע לדברינו, ורצו באומרם [זה המעשה]^[41] כי כל הדיעות^[42] חוצבו ממקום אחד ואדם אחד ישיג השגת <העדן ואדם אחד ישיג השגת> גיהנם.״

YG starts off with a(n allegedly) rabbinic quote which makes the shocking statement that the Sotah ritual never actually happened. The quote is cryptically explained by YG to mean “במעשה המפורסם”, presumably meaning that in fact the Sotah ritual occurred, but that there was never a “famous” (or “publicly-known” or “well-known”) case.^[43] YG then continues that if you may question this explanation on the basis of “a story which is brought” (״ואם תאמר המעשה שמביאין״). The story appears as described in more than one Midrashic source.^[44] For convenience, I’ll quote the Midrash Tanhuma’s rendition with the online Sefaria translation:

“[There is] a story about two sisters who resembled each other. Now one was married in one city and the other was married in another city. The husband of one of them wanted to accuse her of infidelity and have her drink the bitter water in Jerusalem. She went to that city where her married sister was. Her sister said to her, “What was your reason for coming here?” She said to her, “My husband wants to have me drink [the bitter water].” Her sister said to her, “I will go in your place and drink it.” She said to her, “Go.” She put on her sister’s clothes, went in her place, drank the bitter water, and was found clean. When she returned to her sister’s house, she joyfully went out to meet her, then embraced and kissed her on the mouth. As soon as the one kissed the other, she smelled the bitter water and immediately died, in order to fulfill what is stated (in Eccl. 8:8), “No human has control over the wind to contain the wind, nor is there control on the day of death […].”

YG goes on to say that on the contrary, this story actually supports his explanation (״זה סיוע לדברינו״). It is likely that what YG means is that since in the story of the two sisters the actual death of the sister occurred in private, it was not a publicly-known case.^[45]

YG next says the story of the two sisters can be understood allegorically to mean that all “knowledge” (or “evil”) comes from one place. In other words, the story of the Sotah water being passed from the innocent sister to the guilty sister should be understood allegorically. The Sotah water has inherent power, but the power that it has really depends on the person imbibing it. The innocent sister was unharmed by the Sotah water, but when it reached her unfaithful sister, it had an effect. In the same way, all knowledge starts off the same, but whether this knowledge is reified as good or evil depends on the person comprehending the knowledge.

I could not find any source for YG’s quote that “סוטה לא הייתה ולא נבראת”. YG prefaces the quote with ״ומה שאמרו ז״ל״, which generally means that it’s a quote from the Talmud or Midrash.  The Talmud Bavli in Sanhedrin 71a uses the formulation “לא היה ולא נברא” regarding the Wayward Son and City of Idol Worshippers (בן סורר ומורה ועיר הנידחת), but not about Sotah.

Ishay Rosen-Zvi made this very same claim from a critical historical perspective in his 2008 book (based on his doctoral dissertation), that the Sotah ritual never actually happened and was essentially a purely theoretical law.^[46] Meir Bar-Ilan harshly criticized Rozen-Zvi’s thesis, in a review article called “Between False Reality and Fictional History”, available on his homepage here.^[47] Bar-Ilan admits that there are instances where even the Talmudic rabbis said that a biblical story or a biblical ritual never actually occurred, but he believes that Sotah is not one of these cases. It would be interesting to discover additional traditional sources that state that the Sotah ritual (or “Sotah ordeal”, as Bar-Ilan believes is the more accurate appellation) never actually took place.

Let me point to another case of YG claiming that a story recounted in an authoritative text was not an actual historical event. This time, shockingly, it is regarding the Sacrifice of Isaac, where YG claims that this was a dream:^[48]

“שעשה חסד לעקוד את יצחק בנו להיות זריז על מצות המלך שעקדת יצחק חלום היה ולא דבר אחר”.

 Marc Shapiro in his book Changing the Immutable cites other medieval sources (including possibly Maimonides) which also say that the Sacrifice of Isaac never happened, and shows how this idea was considered so problematic by a later printer of Moreh Nevuchim that it was censored out of the Ephodi commentary.^[49]

In any case, the two parts of the statement would seem to contradict each other : If YG assumes that the Akedah was only a dream, then what was the great “kindness” (״חסד״) to offer up Isaac? It is very likely that this line in YG needs to be read sefirotically: Isaac is a common reference to Gevurah while Abraham is a reference to Hesed. The Akeda is being read as an amelioration of Gevurah by Hesed. If this is true, the meaning of this line in YG is as follows: Since the Akedah was a dream, and not a historical event, we cannot explain the story in a straightforward way, for example as illustrating Abraham’s submission to God’s will. Rather, it must be understood sefirotically, as illustrating the interplay of Gevuah and Hesed.^[50]

Temple Vessels and Rituals

Many of the of biblical sections interpreted by YG, as well as topics discussed, relate to the Temple. As I mentioned earlier, YG clearly indexes the correspondences between items in the Temple and the sefirot.^[51] A majority of the Sections begin with an item from the Temple. The Scapegoat, sent into the desert by the High Priest on Yom Kippur as part of the Yom Kippur Temple service, is a recurring symbol of evil in YG.^[52] Most of Section 11 is an extended discussion of the Candelabrum, in turn interpreting the verses relating to the Candelabrum in Zachariah, Ezekiel, and the Pentateuch. The entireties of Sections 14 and 15 are devoted to verse-by-verse interpretations of the Bible verses on the Sotah and the Red Heifer, respectively. Both of these rituals were performed at, or at least near, the Temple.

Conclusion

YG is an early, fascinating, and cryptic work. I have attempted in this article to give an overview of some themes of the work, as well as some fascinating statements that I could not find elsewhere. I am hoping that someone will take upon themselves to publish Reuven Tzarfati’s commentary in some form, which should greatly further progress in understanding YG.^[53]

Appendix

Breakdown by Section of Interpretation of Biblical Texts or Topics

^[1] I would like to thank Binyamin Goldstein and my father  for looking over a draft of this article and making very helpful comments and corrections.

^[2] Moshe Idel, Kabbalah in Italy, 1280-1510: A Survey, pg. 99.

^[3] Idel, pg. 102.

^[4] Idel, pg. 111.

^[5] Pg. 113.

^[6] Pg. 23.

^[7] For more on Tzarfati, see Idel, Kabbalah in Italy, pp. 148-150, and index.

^[8] In Efraim Gottlieb, Studies in the Kabbala Literature (Hebrew), ed. J. Hacker (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1976).

^[9] Busi’s book includes Flavius Mithridates’s Latin translation of YG, which Mithridates had prepared for the well-known fifteenth-century Italian Renaissance nobleman and philosopher Giovanni Pico della Mirandola. Busi also includes an English translation of the Latin.

^[10] The actual text of YG is pp. 119-191.

^[11] I use “Zoharic literature” to mean “The Zohar”, as is now common in academic scholarship.

^[12] The Great Parchment. Flavius Mithridates’ Latin Translation, the Hebrew Text, and an English Version, Edited by Giulio Busi with Simonetta M. Bondoni and Saverio Campanini, Turin, Nino Aragno Editore, 2004, pp. 21, 28.

^[13] Pg. 29.

^[14] I still have not had a chance to study Tzarfati’s full commentary to YG. Busi says he has a transcription of it (pg. 29, footnote 19). Unfortunately I could not get access to this transcription. A few manuscripts of Tzarfati’s commentary are available through National Library of Israel’s Ketiv website. I read through a few pages of the commentary in Moscow RSL 134, which had the advantage of being available for download (the manuscript pages on Ketiv’s online reader load very slowly, and often buffer endlessly and don’t load at all).

I was excited to discover a new automated tool being developed for transcribing Hebrew manuscripts, which launched a few months ago, called Tikkoun Sofrim:  https://tikkoun-sofrim.firebaseapp.com/en. I read their documentation and contributed a few lines to each of the two manuscripts they have up, and I was quite impressed. I look forward to being able to use the tool to assist in transcribing additional manuscripts.

^[15] Although YG is called in some manuscripts “Iggeret Sippurim”, “sippurim” in this context likely means “sections”, as pointed out by Gottlieb. This is because there are no “stories” per se being told. For this reason I use the term “Sections” for YG’s “sippurim”, contra Busi who uses the term “Tales” to describe the Sections. That YG doesn’t contain any literal tales is in contrast to the Zoharic literature, where kabbalistic and midrashic interpretations are generally framed within tales of R’ Shimon bar Yochai and his circle. For a recent comprehensive study of this important aspect of the Zohar, see Eitan Fishbane’s, The Art of Mystical Narrative: A Poetics of the Zohar, Oxford University Press, 2018.

^[16] Pg. 21.

^[17] Pg. 29.

^[18] Pg. 28

^[19] Pg. 29.

^[20] Pg. 163, beginning of Section 11.

^[21] Pg. 169. The correspondences there are not completely clear to me, as mixed in with the standard names for sefirot are other superlatives, and it’s not completely clear to me how to punctuate the text. The sefirot seem to be grouped there into four parts as follows: 1) Keter; 2) Tiferet, Chochma, Bina; 3) Shechina (=Malchut); Gedulah (=Chessed), Gevurah; Netzach; 4) Hod, Yesod.

As an aside, I want to point out another confusing detail in this passage :

״וצורת אדם גבריאל ד׳ אלפין מרוח ימה.״

It would appear that רוח ימה in this context actually means East, and not West as it typically does. This is for two reasons: First of all, on pg. 183 YG states explicitly that צורת אדם corresponds with East. In addition, it is clear that it is actually צורת שור that corresponds to West, as it says in the continuation of pg. 169, as well as on pg. 183.

^[22] שעטנז, אשה (חוה), נחש, עגל (הזהב), חמור, ירך צולע, ערב.

^[23] רות, בריכה עליונה.

^[24] Eliyahu Peretz’s index of sefirot of selected thirteenth- and fourteenth-century kabbalistic works is especially useful in this respect: E. Peretz, Ma’alot ha-Zohar, Jerusalem 1987. I would like to thank Dr. Daniel Matt for bringing this work to my attention.

^[25] For more on this, see my previous article on YG, as well as my article “Joseph Gikatilla’s “Hasagot on the Moreh”: A Linguistic Kabbalist Reads Moreh Nevuchim”, which can be found here.

^[26] Pg. 144. Another very interesting illustrative example can be found earlier in that page, where one of the words in the association is not explicit:

״ואשרי המחכה ויגיע [דניאל יב יב] לקץ הימין, בזמן שהם עושים רצון השלשלת העליונה, ולא לקץ השמאל, הצולעה שנשמט מירך יעקב, ולא מישראל כי שרה עם אלהים, שאמר <גרש> האמה <הזאת> ואת בנה [בראשית כא י]״.

It seems clear that the connection being made is due to the wordplay of the homonyms spelled שרה, in the two verses, which is explicitly quoted in the first verse (where it means “struggled”), and implicit in the second verse (where “Sarah” is the speaker). Incidentally, this is an example of the word “Limping” being used a symbol for Evil, “Limping” being a common symbol in YG for Evil.

^[27] “Velohei Yaakov” seems to be a reference to a biblical phrase, which appears three times in the Bible. See Mithradates’ translation (pg. 216). It is unclear to me if Mithradates’ interpretation is correct.

^[28] This letter most likely is a shortening of “Akatriel,” which is used throughout the work to mean Keter.

^[29]  This may also be a play on “Yisrael” used in the verse in Isaiah, which can also mean Jacob.

^[30] The idea of each sefirah having its own secondary emanation of ten sefirot emanating from it, is a theme of YG, as Busi mentions in his introduction.

^[31] Busi’s edition does give those sources a handful of times, but mostly does not, even when a source is explicitly being quoted.

^[32] Pg. 165.

^[33] Pg. 133.

^[34] Milhamot Hashem on Rif Shabbat 12a, last line.

^[35] Apparatus fn. 184.

^[36] Meiri in his commentary to Bavli Berahot 3b s.v. “לעולם” (last line); Sefer HaHinuch, Parshat Va’ethanan, Mitzvah  419, s.v. “ומה שאמרו”. In subsequent generations, the adage is almost exclusively formulated in a more biblical style, as ״אשרי המדבר על אוזן שומעת״, on the pattern of Proverbs 25:12. It is formulated this way already by Meiri in his Magen Avot, Topic 1, s.v. ״ואף בשאלתות״ (last line).

^[37] Pg. 187. The manuscript on which the text is based only has two parts of the soul, but the apparatus in fn. 1025 says that the JTS manuscript has all three parts written.

^[38] Pg. 187: ״המים טובים בכל זמן ולכל בעלי חיים, מה שאין כן בשאר משקים״.

^[39] Pg. 141: ״ועל כן היונה אין לה מרה״. I also found this, using a search, in the Rashba (in his commentary on Bavli Hulin 42a s.v. “kol”) and in other medieval works.

^[40] Pg. 180.

^[41] This word is added in a MS, according to the apparatus.

^[42] According to the apparatus, one MS has “הרעות” in place of “הדיעות”, which may be the more correct version, based on the context.

^[43] See my footnote below for a discussion of this explanation and how to parse the whole passage of YG.

^[44] This story appears in Midrash Tanhuma parshat Naso (on one of the Sotah verses – Numbers 5:12),  §10 in the Buber edition, and §6 in the regular version, and in Bamidbar Rabbah (on that same verse) 9:9. As an aside, the story is also referenced by Rashi in his commentary on Numbers 5:13.

^[45] I would like to thank Binyamin Goldstein for clarifying this for me. Admittedly, the flow of the passage is confusing, with first stating the story as a question, and then suddenly saying that it’s in fact support.

^[46] Rosen-Zvi, The Rite that Was Not: Temple, Midrash and Gender in Tractate Sotah, Jerusalem: Magnes, 2008 (Hebrew).

^[47] Pp. 12-19. (See there pp.19-22 for an interesting discussion about the authenticity of Mishnaic descriptions of the Yom Kippur service in the Temple and the Red Heifer.) Bar-Ilan there in a footnote (fn. 42) points out that another scholar previously posited in her 1984 book that the Sotah ritual never happened and is totally theoretical.

I’d like to point out what appears to be a clear error made by Rozen-Zvi, not pointed out by Bar-Ilan (even though Bar-Ilan, pg. 13, quotes this passage in Rozen-Zvi verbatim). Rozen-Tzvi remarks, pg. 156, in reference to a story about a Sotah in the Mishnah in Eduyot 5:6 (parentheses and exclamation mark in the original):

״זוהי העדות היחידה (בכלל, לא רק בספרות חז״ל!) שנותרה על מאורע מסוים של השקיית סוטה בתקופת הבית.״

The Midrashic story quoted by YG is at least one instance of exactly such a textual witness. (As to whether the Midrash Bamidbar Rabbah and the Tanhuma are within the bounds of “Hazalic literature” is a separate discussion, but Rozen-Zvi explicitly adds there’s no such witness even outside of Hazalic/Talmudic literature.)

^[48] Pg. 138.

^[49] Shapiro, Changing the Immutable, pp. 67-73. I’d like to thank Marc Shapiro for telling me about this by email a few years ago, before Changing the Immutable was published.

^[50] I would like to thank Marc Shapiro and Jonathan Dauber for their insightful comments on this passage, when I was writing my first paper on this topic.

^[51] Pg. 163, beginning of Section # 11.

^[52] See especially the lines at the end of Section #11 (pp. 169-170):

״ושעיר המשתלח הפך המנורה. שמים חשך לאור ואור לחשך [ישעיהו ה כ], הה״ד בפיו ובשפתיו כבדוני ולבו רחוק ממני ותהי יראתם אותי מצות אנשים מלומדה [ישעיהו כט יג]. ושעיר המשתלח היה מעור סמאל. והמשלח את השעיר [לעזאזל] יכבס בגדיו [ויקרא טז כו].״

It is possible that עור סמאל is a play on אור, mentioned earlier in the section quoted,  as עור being the opposite of אור is a common idea in Kabbalah. In general, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the relevant well-known comment of the Ramban in his commentary on the biblical verse of the Scapegoat, where he makes the surprising comment that sending the Scapegoat to the desert is intended as a way to appease the forces of evil.

^[53] Reuven Tzarfati is an important Kabbalist in his own right, whose works deserve further study, according to Moshe Idel, one of the pre-eminent scholars of kabbalah. See Idel, Kabbalah in Italy, 1280-1510: A Survey, pp. 148.

Rabbi Chaim Volozhin’s Motivation to Write Nefesh HaChaim

(Including a response to R. Bezalel Naor’s Review of Nefesh HaTzimtzum)

Avinoam Fraenkel

Avinoam Fraenkel’s new 2 volume work, Nefesh HaTzimtzum (Urim Publications), is a full facing page translation and extensive commentary on Nefesh HaChaim together with all related writings by R. Chaim Volozhin. It also presents a groundbreaking study on the Kabbalistic concept of Tzimtzum which is demonstrated to be the key principle underpinning all of Nefesh HaChaim. The following essay captures some of the key insights in overview from Nefesh HaTzimtzum which should be referred to for in-depth details and sources.[1]

Life is complex and our most significant actions in life are often motivated by a wide spectrum of catalysts driven by both conscious and subconscious objectives. Therefore it is a considerable challenge when looking deeply into R. Chaim Volozhin’s magnum opus, Nefesh HaChaim, to try to ascertain what may have primarily driven him to compose it and what motivated him to provide an urgent deathbed instruction to his son in 1821, to publish it as soon as possible.[2]

Was it simply a structured presentation, recording the enormously important worldview of R. Chaim’s revered master, the Vilna Gaon? Was it a manifesto to set the tone for his newfound and soon to be world famous Volozhin Yeshiva? Was it a broadside shot at the entire Chassidic establishment to attempt to bring it into line? Was it a defense for the Mitnagdic camp, to shore up their opposition to the Chassidim by providing them with its own authoritative framework to dampen any attraction to the looming specter of what for many was the compelling allure of the competing Chassidic philosophy?

In all likelihood, all of these factors and many more, both communal and personal, may have motivated R. Chaim, at least to some degree. Nevertheless, on investigation, it appears that there was indeed a single primary motivating factor that can be isolated as significantly influencing the presentation of Nefesh HaChaim. However, in order to be able to relate to this factor, it is necessary to first dispel a smokescreen of deep rooted misconception which has persisted for the last 200 years about perceived fundamental differences of faith between the Chassidim and the Mitnagdim. Once dispelled, as explained below, it becomes clear that R. Chaim aimed his urgent message in Nefesh HaChaim at many on the periphery of the Chassidic movement, but not directly at the Chassidic establishment itself. He perceived those on the periphery to be at severe risk of compromising their faith due to their mistaken adoption of practices whose sole objective was to passionately increase their piety to get closer to God at all costs even if this would ironically result in Halachic compromise.

This smokescreen was a result of raging turmoil between the Chassidim and their opponents, the extent of which was so acute that it caused many to be utterly confused as to what the fight was actually about. It prepared the ground for it to be all too easy to believe and accept that the schism was about the fundamental principles of Judaism focusing, in particular, on the Kabbalistic concept of Tzimtzum and the degree to which God is directly manifest in this physical world – and therefore to have a different perception of the required balance between the desire to get closer to God and the necessary punctilious observance of the Halacha. So, even though many equivalences can be found between statements in Nefesh HaChaim, the contemporary Chassidic literature of its time in general and Sefer HaTanya in particular, the profound importance of the key message of Nefesh HaChaim to the wider Chassidic community was entirely misunderstood and therefore totally ignored, as Nefesh HaChaim was perceived to have been based on a fundamentally different philosophical outlook that diverged from what was mistakenly thought by many to be the exclusively Chassidic view on the extent of God’s immanence.

It should be noted that this is not just of historic interest in that it was only relevant in R. Chaim’s day. Even though the acuteness of the schism between the Chassidim and Mitnagdim has abated and both camps, although with some exceptions, are generally accepting of each other nowadays, nevertheless the prevalence of Halachic practice becoming the primary casualty of a desire to get closer to God is in many ways just as rife today as it ever was. This impacts all camps across the entire spectrum of Jewish religious affiliation. The less religiously affiliated who are susceptible to possibly view Halachic compromise as sometimes being acceptable if they see it as enabling more of their activities to otherwise be closer to God. The more religiously affiliated who frequently adopt pious self-imposed practices going beyond the letter of Halachic obligation, where out of what they call “Frumkeit,” are vulnerable to possibly look down on, speak about and act disdainfully with baseless hatred towards others who they may view as less pious, flagrantly and often publicly breaching the Halacha. This phenomenon is arguably manifest in its worst form in instances of acts of open aggression in the name of God against Jews by some extremist Jews who try to enforce what they perceive to be a high level of piety, where neither the aggression nor the supposed piety conform with anything even vaguely close to any accepted standard of Halachic practice. R. Chaim’s message is therefore just as urgently required and relevant today and the fact that Nefesh HaChaim has largely been ignored for the last 200 years has prevented its critical message from being properly communicated and absorbed.

It should also be highlighted that while the Chassidic community has ignored the message of Nefesh HaChaim due to their perception of the entire work as being philosophically disconnected from their own outlook, the Mitnagdim on the other hand have had a problem accepting the widespread study of Kabbalah. No-one in the Mitnagdic community has any authority or would dare to challenge the status of Nefesh HaChaim as a seminal work that must be studied. Nevertheless, many in the Mitnagdic community have been generally guilty of attempting to rebrand Nefesh HaChaim, trying to ignore that it is a Kabbalistic work, failing to appreciate, or even denying outright, that engagement in the Kabbalistic concepts it so intentionally presents for public consumption is an absolute pre-requisite to properly relate to its message. They surreptitiously treat it as an ethical work, a work of Mussar, by only focusing study on some selected non-Kabbalistic parts of the book and thereby entirely miss the point of the book.[3]]Therefore from either the Chassidic or Mitnagdic perspective, the key burning message of Nefesh HaChaim which so badly needs to be applied to Jewish life today, has sadly and irresponsibly been ignored!

The historic smokescreen of fundamental difference between the Chassidic and Mitnagdic camps has unfortunately been propagated by many of great stature in the Jewish world and also by many in the academic world. Simply put, the general mistaken presentation of difference around the Tzimtzum process which explains why we cannot see the infinite God in this finite physical world, is that the Chassidic view is that God is present everywhere and in everything physical but His presence is concealed, i.e., God is totally immanent. Whereas the Mitnagdic view is that God is removed and absent from the physical world and merely controls all from a distance through Divine Providence, i.e., God is totally transcendent.

This unfortunate presentation was perhaps most famously captured by a letter written in 1939 by R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the last Lubavitcher Rebbe, which delineates a 4 position approach to the concept of Tzimtzum and presents a picture of stark contrast between each of the views of the Vilna Gaon, the Baal HaTanya and R. Chaim.[4] In this letter R. Schneerson went so far as to state “… the author of Nefesh HaChaim … disagrees with his master, the Vilna Gaon [about the concept of Tzimtzum]. In general, it appears that R. Chaim Volozhin saw the works of Lubavitch – and Sefer HaTanya, in particular – and that he was influenced by them, however, I do not have definite proof of this.” In contrast to the positions of both the Vilna Gaon and R. Chaim, R. Schneerson then continued to explain the Chassidic view, that the Tzimtzum process was only initially applied to “the lowest level of the Light [of the Ein Sof].”

R. Schneerson’s statement here explicitly highlights a diverse difference in fundamental philosophical outlook between the Chassidic world and that of the Vilna Gaon and therefore the Mitnagdic world. His suggestion, without proof, that R. Chaim was swayed somewhat towards what he describes as the Chassidic view was based on the employment of many seemingly Chassidic statements in Nefesh HaChaim.

However, on in-depth study of the positions of the Vilna Gaon, R. Chaim and the Leshem[5] it becomes crystal clear that they are identical with the Baal HaTanya, and indeed with the Arizal and the Zohar, regarding the concept of Tzimtzum. In order to see this it is crucial not to initially look at the terminology they employ but to carefully assess the substance of each of their arguments. On face value, the Vilna Gaon and the Leshem seemed to openly express strong dissatisfaction with the Chassidic perspective and there is scope to question if the Baal HaTanya aimed scathing comments on this topic directly at the Vilna Gaon. Notwithstanding this, if we are particular to examine what they actually say about the substance of the topic, and not be deflected about what they may or may not have said about each other, then it will allow us to see that they in fact all agreed.

The critical factor to appreciate the substance of each of their arguments is to understand that they all saw the arena within which the Tzimtzum process occurs as only being in the Sefira of Malchut of any level, including that of the highest level called the “Ein Sof.”[6] Malchut is the lowest Sefira of any level and is in fact in a different dimension to it. This means that any change within Malchut of any level as a result of the Tzimtzum process, does not impact the level itself in any way. Therefore, the first instance of the Tzimtzum process which occurred in the Malchut of the first level which was emanated from God’s Essence, the Ein Sof, did not impact the Ein Sof in any way. Therefore, by extension, not only does the Tzimtzum process not change the Ein Sof, it also has no impact on God’s Essence in any way.

Once this is understood then it becomes clear that the debate over whether Tzimtzum means either immanence or transcendence is simply wrong. As the Tzimtzum removal only occurs within Malchut, transcendence only applies to Malchut. Therefore, everything above Malchut, i.e., both God’s Essence and also the Ein Sof, is entirely and absolutely immanent. In other words, the Tzimtzum process itself results in a dual simultaneous combination of both immanence and transcendence. The particular stance of immanence or transcendence then becomes a matter of perspective. In the language of the Nefesh HaChaim, immanence is “Mitzido”, the perspective of the higher level (and ultimately God’s perspective) and transcendence is “Mitzideinu”, the perspective of the lower level (and ultimately that of the physical creations).[7] All discussion about the differences between levels therefore becomes relative to the level the discussion is centered upon. This point is so important that it is the key to begin to understand any discussions of the Arizal.[8]

This, in a nutshell, is the concept of Tzimtzum that was held in common by the Vilna Gaon, R. Chaim, the Leshem, the Arizal and the Zohar. Any time any one of these sources refers to a “removal”, they are therefore referring to a removal within “Malchut” only of whatever level they happen to be discussing. It is far beyond the scope of this essay to provide sources to explain the concepts and demonstrate how they translate into day to day life and the reader is referred to Nefesh HaTzimtzum.[9]

However, just to whet the appetite and demonstrate that our focus must be on the substance of the argument and to not be deflected by terminology let’s look at two simple sources. The Baal HaTanya states “… the characteristic of His Malchut is the characteristic of Tzimtzum and concealment, that conceals the light of the Ein Sof.”[10] This, unsurprisingly, is consistent with R. Schneerson’s statement that the Tzimtzum process was only initially applied to “the lowest level of the Light [of the Ein Sof].” The Leshem, on the other hand, states the following “…and therefore that place within which the Tzimtzum process occurred is called Malchut of the Ein Sof … it is exclusively in Malchut of every revelation for every Tzimtzum is exclusively in Malchut ….”[11] Therefore, very surprisingly to many, the Leshem, the staunch Mitnaged and follower of the path of the Vilna Gaon, entirely agrees with the Baal HaTanya and with what R. Schneerson presents as the Chassidic view that the Tzimtzum process is only within Malchut!

With all of the above in mind, we are now in a position to step aside and briefly focus our attention on R. Bezalel Naor’s review of Nefesh HaTzimtzum (see here). In his eloquent review, he “cuts to the chase,” as he puts it, to describe his argument against the Tzimtzum thesis of Nefesh HaTzimtzum. Unfortunately, he “cuts” out more than he “chases” and it is astonishing that in his entire review, R. Naor doesn’t even vaguely mention or make any attempt to counter the key critical factor presented above that is emphasized numerous times in Nefesh Hatzimtzum, that all the players in the Tzimtzum discussion agree with each other that Tzimtzum happens exclusively in Malchut! It seems that R. Naor, in common with many of great stature before him, has unfortunately fallen into the classic historical trap which has plagued this topic for centuries of focusing on a presumed understanding of the terminology employed by the various proponents, especially in their expressions of disagreement with their colleagues. In doing so he has failed to investigate the actual substance of their Tzimtzum argumentation and is unaware that they actually agreed with each other! (This response continues in the note.[12])

Stepping back to the main thread of this essay, historically most were severely misled and confused by a smokescreen of difference which was contributed to by two key factors. Firstly, by terminology used by some key Kabbalists, the historic context of which was misunderstood.[13] Secondly, by a famous letter forged in the name of the Baal HaTanya which explained the Vilna Gaon’s position on Tzimtzum as arguing with the view of Chassidut.[14] However, not all were misled. Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler, among many other prominent individuals, understood that the argument between the Chassidim and the Mitnagdim was not about the fundamental principles of Judaism. He wrote on the topic of Tzimtzum in 1938 that “in this generation in which there is a need to unite…it is fitting to publicize the fact that there are no differences of opinion in the essence of these issues”.[15]

After fully absorbing the fact that the philosophical outlook in relation to the Tzimtzum concept of the Vilna Gaon, R. Chaim, the Baal HaTanya and the Chassidic world are identical, the genius of R. Chaim’s presentation in Nefesh HaChaim can then be clearly seen. The Chassidic works of his day, including Sefer HaTanya, barely quoted their sources. In contrast, when R. Chaim presents his ideas in general, and the concept of Tzimtzum in particular, ideas which at the time were seen by many to be uniquely Chassidic ideas, he frames them in the context of extensive quotations from and references to traditional Jewish sources. As mentioned above, he even uses many similar expressions and sentences to those appearing in the Chassidic works of his day. He is demonstrating that there is no scope for anyone to suggest that there is a fundamental difference between the formal outlook of the Chassidic Movement and that of mainstream Judaism and that the paths for serving God of both the Chassidim and the Mitnagdim are fundamentally the same and are derived from the same Torah and the same Mesorah. Therefore, against a historic backdrop of some who erroneously thought that the new Chassidic Movement had blazed a new trail in Judaism and were using the inspiring Chassidic presentation of these concepts to compromise Halacha, R. Chaim’s key message is, there is no basis for anyone to bend these concepts out of their true context of mainstream Judaism, and as a result, there is no basis to use them to license Halachic compromise in any way whatsoever.

It is fascinating to note that R. Chaim was not alone in this quest to highlight the potential pitfalls of Halachic compromise resulting from an attempt to get closer to God. He was joined by some of the establishment Chassidic figures who expressed themselves in a very similar way.[16] Furthermore it is inconceivable that the Baal HaTanya would have sanctioned any form of Halachic compromise, as he is after all the author of the widely respected and accepted Halachic work, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav.[17]

The underlying principle guiding R. Chaim’s presentation in Nefesh HaChaim reflects the position of his master, the Vilna Gaon, that as the Kabbalah is an intrinsic part of the Torah, it cannot be that anything derived from it can prescribe any action which contradicts and is inconsistent with the Torah.[18] Any directive derived from the Kabbalah which contravenes the Torah and Halachic practice must therefore be a misunderstanding of Kabbalah. In addition, this principle was explicitly highlighted by some of the Chassidic masters who were also clearly objecting to the same phenomenon of Halachic compromise on the periphery of the Chassidic world that R. Chaim was objecting to.[19]

The outcome of all the above is that because of R. Chaim’s historic motivation to write Nefesh HaChaim, he has left us with a remarkable work, a motivational framework of how a person is to view and philosophically interact with the world, which substantiates every statement it makes by referencing many traditional Jewish sources in general, and Kabbalistic sources in particular. As a result, the highly structured presentation of Nefesh HaChaim itself is a unique gateway into the highly unstructured world of Kabbalah. It is a tremendous portal through which a genuine introduction to the world of Kabbalah and to the deeper meaning of the Torah has been made accessible to one and all. May the study of Nefesh HaChaim and R. Chaim’s Torah bring a true conscious awareness of unity in the Jewish World.

[1] Nefesh HaTzimtzum includes the following:

• A historical and structural introductory overview.
• A corrected Hebrew text for Nefesh HaChaim, likely to be the most accurate ever published.
• An innovative hierarchical presentation of both the Hebrew and facing page English texts for ease of use.
• Extensive explanatory annotations on all texts.
• Expansion in English translation of virtually all sources quoted and referenced in Nefesh HaChaim, including all Kabbalistic sources.
• An explanation of the concept of Tzimtzum with:
  • Full details of the positions of the Zohar, the Arizal, Yosef ben Immanuel Irgess, R. Immanuel Chai Ricchi, the Vilna Gaon, the Baal HaTanya, R. Chaim Volozhin, the Leshem, R. Dessler and the Lubavitcher Rebbe, among others.
  • Extensive source material in both the original Hebrew and facing page translation.
  • A comparison between Nefesh HaChaim and Sefer HaTanya on their key approaches to Torah study, Mitzvah performance and prayer which are all based on their common understanding of the Tzimtzum concept.
  • A demonstration of how the correct understanding of the Tzimtzum concept underpins the concept of Partzuf and therefore all of the Arizal’s Kabbalistic teachings.
  • A presentation of the Vilna Gaon’s messianic outlook which is dependent on knowing Kabbalah and Science.
• An explanation of the concept of The World of the Malbush.
• Facing page translation of all of R. Chaim Volozhin’s published writings related to Nefesh HaChaim, including his single published sermon, letters and his introductions to commentaries of the Vilna Gaon on Shulchan Aruch, Zohar and Sifra DeTzniyuta (which includes the largest authentic published repository of stories of the Vilna Gaon by any of his students).
• Translated and cross-referenced extracts of all Nefesh HaChaim related sections from Ruach Chaim.
• Yosef Zundel of Salant’s brief extract on prayer with translation.
• Detailed outlines and extensive indexes by themes, people’s names and book references.

[2] As recorded by R. Chaim’s son, R. Yitzchak, in his introduction to Nefesh HaChaim. Nefesh HaChaim was subsequently published in 1824.

[3] Most of the Yeshivot which include the study of Nefesh HaChaim as part of their curriculum only study the last section, the Fourth Gateway. Most of the commentaries and translations that have been published to date omit comment on or even translation of the Kabbalistic material which forms a substantial part of the book.

[4] Iggrot Kodesh, published by Kehot, Volume 1, Letter 11.

[5] For a scholarly portrait of the Leshem which brings together much important biographical information, a succinct overview of the Leshem’s major works and many further sources, see Joey Rosenfeld, “A Tribute to Rav Shlomo Elyashiv, Author of Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: On his Ninetieth Yahrzeit,” the Seforim blog, 10 March 2015, available here.

[6] It is not in the scope of the discussion here to discuss what is meant by a Sefira or a level. In Kabbalistic terminology a level may be called a “World” or a “Partzuf”.  A “Sefira” is a subcomponent of the “World” or the “Partzuf”.

[7] “Mitzido”/”Mitzideinu” are also synonymous with the Zohar’s terminology “Yichuda Ilaah”/ “Yichuda Tataah,” e.g., as per end of Nefesh HaChaim 3:6 (Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 1, pp. 510-511).  Incidentally “Mitzido”/”Mitzideinu” are also synonymous with the terms of “Orot”/”Keilim”.
“Mitzideinu”, “Yichuda Tataah” and “Keilim” are all different expressions which mean “Malchut”.

[8] In particular, it is the dual simultaneous perspective which generates the concept of “Partzuf” which underpins all the discussions of the Arizal. See Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 2, pp. 145-150.

[9] In particular, to the first 2 sections of Volume 2.

[10] Sefer HaTanya 2:7:

… שמדת מלכותו היא מדת הצמצום וההסתר להסתיר אור אין סוף …

[11] Sefer Hakdamot UShearim, Shaar 7, Perek 5, Ot 1:

… ולכן נקרא אותו המקום שנתצמצם בו בשם מלכות דאין סוף … הנה הוא הכל בהמלכות של כל גילוי כי כל צמצום הוא רק בהמלכות …

There are many similar statements across the writings of the Leshem. This source is particularly explicit and the review of all of Ot 1 will be insightful.

[12] In continuation of the response to R. Naor’s review, a number of points have been picked up on as detailed below. Please note that all of these points are side issues and pale into insignificance compared to the details of R. Naor’s stark omission of the concept of Tzimtzum in Malchut as per the main essay text. These points are as follows:

(1) In note 1 of his review, R. Naor quotes Dr. Menachem Kallus and mentions that in a note to Etz Chaim, R. Meir “Poppers writes that it sounds to him as if Luria’s disciples Rabbi Hayyim Vital and Rabbi Yosef ibn Tabul understood from the Rav [Isaac Luria] that ‘the Tzimtzum is literal’ (‘ha-tzimtzum ke-mishma‘o’).”

R. Naor’s suggestion here is that the Arizal is saying that the Tzimtzum process results in total literal removal and transcendence of God from physicality. However, in the light of the fact that we now know that the Tzimtzum process that the Arizal is referring to only took place in Malchut of the Ein Sof, this point is simply not relevant as the removal and transcendence only occurs in Malchut, from the perspective of the creations, Mitzideinu, but at the same time there is a total immanence of God within the unchanged presence of the Ein Sof.

Even the Baal HaTanya agrees that there is a removal in Malchut, resulting in physicality from our perspective, as he says e.g., in Sefer HaTanya 2:3 that our “flesh eyes” only see physicality.

Also see the particularly explicit statement of the Baal HaTanya in Sefer HaTanya 4:20 which is a direct corollary of the Mitzido/Mitzideinu concept of Nefesh HaChaim: “Relative to [God – i.e., Mitzido], the created physical entity is as if it has no consequence, i.e., its existence is nullified relative to the power and the light which is bestowed within it. It is like the radiance of the sun [before it has emanated and is still] within the sun. This is specifically relative to Him, where His Awareness is from above to below. However, from the perspective of the awareness of [the created entities – i.e, Mitzideinu,] from below to above, the created physical entity is an entirely separate/disconnected entity, with this awareness and perception being [only] from below, as [from its perspective] the power which is bestowed within it is absolutely not perceived at all.”

Multiple sources from across Sefer HaTanya directly expressing the Mitzido/Mitzideinu concept are brought in Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 2, pp. 94-95, fn. 120.

(2) R. Naor quotes from R. Yitzchak Aizik of Homil, one of the greatest students of the Baal HaTanya who stated that the Mitnagdim “have no room for this faith that All is God.”

It is of interest to note that R. Dessler was a close student of R. Mordechai Duchman who in turn was a close student of R. Yitzchak Aizik of Homil (See Nefesh Hatzimtzum, Vol. 2, p. 305, fn. 474). R. Dessler was therefore intimately familiar with the works of Lubavitch and would have most certainly been aware of R. Yitzchak Aizik of Homil’s comment.  Notwithstanding this he clearly saw that Tzimtzum was not the issue of the Machloket and valiantly tried to publicize this, as quoted in the continuation of this essay.

(3) The Baal HaTanya’s rejection of “Tzimtzum Kipshuto” (Sefer HaTanya 2:7) uses scathing, derisive language to describe those who hold by that position referring to them as “scholars in their own eyes” (Yishayahu 5:21) and that “they also do not speak intelligently” (Iyov 34:35). The question is who was the Baal HaTanya referring to? Nefesh HaTzimtzum presents a number of arguments to say that it could not have been the Vilna Gaon or R. Ricchi and by a process of elimination would then be referring to the Shabbatians.  R. Naor rejects this position but in doing so starkly omits most of the argumentation from Nefesh HaTzimtzum!

A brief summary of the main Nefesh HaTzimtzum arguments is presented as follows (see Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 2, pp. 75-79 for much more detail on this).

Firstly and most importantly, even if we were to say that the Baal HaTanya was directing his statements at the Vilna Gaon and disagreed with what he may have assumed was the Vilna Gaon’s position, it doesn’t change the fact that the Vilna Gaon actually agreed with the Baal HaTanya on Tzimtzum only occurring in Malchut. So the debate about who the Baal HaTanya was referring to, while it may be interesting, is academic as far as who held what about Tzimtzum is concerned, as both the Baal HaTanya and the Vilna Gaon shared a common position.

R. Naor severely underplays the level of vitriol in the Baal HaTanya’s tone and considers that his statements are mild.  In Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 2, p. 75, fn. 80, a number of sources are brought which demonstrate that Chazal very specifically used both the expressions “scholars in their own eyes” and “they do not speak intelligently” to refer to the “wicked”, e.g., “. . . and even among the wicked there are scholars, as it says . . . ‘Woe to those who are scholars in their own eyes’” (Bereishit Rabbati, Toldot, on Bereishit 26:12). Even if one could make a (somewhat forced) argument that the Baal HaTanya is taking these expressions out of their original context, since the Baal HaTanya quotes directly from R. Ricchi’s Mishnat Chassidim twice in Sefer HaTanya, it is highly questionable to suggest that such a punctilious author would quote holy statements from anyone he directly refers to derisively as “a scholar in his own eyes” and implies that he is wicked!

The section of Sefer HaTanya which included these statements, although distributed to the Baal HaTanya’s students and is extant in manuscripts of Sefer HaTanya, was only inserted for the first time in a published edition of Sefer HaTanya in the 1900 Romm edition some 88 years after the passing of the Baal HaTanya. It should be noted that this section was not just a few lines containing caustic statements. It actually ran on for a number of pages. The majority of the information it contains is repeated from other places in Sefer HaTanya, although brought together in an effective presentation in one place. Even though this is the only place in Sefer HaTanya that the specific expression “Tzimtzum Kipshuto” is used, the rejection of this position is very clear from the presentation of Tzimtzum in other places in Sefer HaTanya. Therefore, if it were just 2 or 3 caustic statements that were not initially included in Sefer HaTanya and were later inserted in the 1900 edition, it could reasonably be argued (as R. Naor suggests) that they were not included due to the raging arguments at the time of the original printing in 1796 and that they therefore were pointed at the Vilna Gaon. However, if the Baal HaTanya wanted to include this section, it would have been trivial for him to simply edit the 2 or 3 very brief caustic statements to make them politically correct. The fact that he did not edit these statements, but omitted the entire lengthy section, suggests that there was another reason for the omission.

It should also be noted that the Vilna Gaon, never used the expression “Tzimtzum Kipshuto” in any of his writings and also, as already explained, did not actually hold this position. This means that if the Baal HaTanya was directing his vitriol at the Vilna Gaon, he was doing so based on rumor. On the Baal HaTanya’s release from prison in 1798, he wrote a letter outlining the importance of remaining silent in the face of controversy, strongly highlighting that this is a characteristic of those close to God (Sefer HaTanya 4:2). Given the devotional premium that he attached to remaining silent in the face of controversy it would have been complete hypocrisy were the Baal HaTanya to have been openly derisive about his main partner in controversy. This is accentuated by the fact that the Vilna Gaon did not actually hold this position and the Baal HaTanya’s attack would have been based on rumor.

(4) R. Naor quotes what he refers to as a key passage from Yosher Levav (Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 2, pp. 260-261): “Therefore relative to us (le-gabei didan), it is as if there was no Tzimtzum and we can say that the Tzimtzum is not literal. However, relative to the Ein Sof (le-gabei ha-Ein Sof) itself, it is literal.”  He argues that as R. Ricchi is saying that relative to the creations the Tzimtzum is not literal, how can Nefesh HaTzimtzum present R. Ricchi as saying that relative to the creations the Tzimtzum IS literal?

Unfortunately, R. Naor omits to present the very specific and complex context of R. Ricchi’s statement which appears in Yosher Levav, Ch. 15 – and as a result his statement is misleading!

The context is set at the beginning of Ch. 15, arguably the most subtle argument in the Yosher Levav’s overall Tzimtzum presentation, saying “Even though we have proven that the Tzimtzum process itself is literal, nevertheless there is scope to say that the way in which the Tzimtzum process was applied was not literal”.

R. Ricchi spent the previous few chapters explaining that the Tzimtzum process is literal and earlier (Yosher Levav, Ch. 13) he makes a key statement: “even though I cannot imagine how this could be [literal], as I have no knowledge of how He can contract Himself since there was no space empty of Him – this is my deficiency, as I have no way of knowing anything about His Exalted Unity.”  He is saying that God’s perspective is unknowable and notwithstanding God’s point of view of there being no space empty of Him, that from the point of view of the creations there is an apparent literal removal of God even though, as R. Ricchi highlig hts, he cannot logically relate to how this can be so.  Therefore R. Ricchi’s general position is that from our point of view, relative to us, Tzimtzum IS literal.

In contrast, the very specific context of the beginning of Yosher Levav, Ch. 15, is discussing a scenario after the literal Tzimtzum has already taken place. R. Ricchi explains that after the literal Tzimtzum, there still remained a residue, called a “Reshimu,” which has greater creative intensity than anything we could ever imagine – therefore relative to us, we cannot differentiate between the intensity of the Reshimu and of the Ein Sof, so we would relate to the Reshimu in the same way as we do to the Ein Sof and therefore relative to us there is scope to say that it is as if there was no Tzimtzum – however relative to the Ein Sof it is literal, because compared to the Ein Sof the Reshimu is like something physical.

This point is succinctly related to in Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 2, p. 70, fn. 65.

[13] In particular by R. Yosef ben Immanuel Ergas and R. Immanuel Chai Ricchi. See Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 2, pp. 63-71, for details.

[14] This forged letter is published in Iggrot Kodesh Admor HaZaken, published by Kehot in 1987, letter 34, p. 85. It was first published as an appendix to Metzaref HaAvodah, 1858 – which was also an entirely forged work. For extensive details and hard evidence of both the letter and Metzaref HaAvodah forgeries, see Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 2, pp. 79-88.

[15] This was from a letter written by R. Dessler expressing his position on Tzimtzum. It was R. Dessler’s position which prompted the response by R. Schneerson in his 1939 letter.  R. Dessler’s complete letter is published in Kodshei Yehoshua by his son in-law R. Eliyahu Yehoshua Geldzahler, Volume 5, Siman 421, pp. 1716–1717. It is also partially printed in Michtav MeEliyahu by R. Eliyahu Dessler, Volume 4, p. 324. This part of the letter only appeared in earlier print editions of Michtav MeEliyahu and was removed from the more recent print editions when its editor later decided to include another paragraph which was previously omitted (the complete letter could not be included at that stage as the book layout had been fixed and the contents of this letter had to be restricted to a single page).

[16] E.g., R. Tzvi Elimelech Shapira of Dinov, the Bnei Yisaschar, in Derech Pikudecha, Mitzvah Lo Taaseh 16, Chelek Hamachshava 4. Also R. Nachman of Breslov in Sichot Moharan, Siman 267. See Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 2, pp. 137-138, fn. 217.

[17] E.g., as quoted frequently by the Chafetz Chaim in his Mishneh Berurah, referring to the Baal HaTanya as “HaGraz”, “HaGaon Rabbi Zalman.”

[18] See R. Chaim’s introduction to the Vilna Gaon’s commentary on Zohar as brought in Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 2, p. 464.

[19] E.g., R. Tzvi Hirsch of Zidichov in Sur MeRah VeAseh Tov, pp. 79–80 of the Emet publication,

Jerusalem, 1996. Also R. Yitzchak Issac Yehuda Yechiel of Komarna in Zohar Chai, Hakdamat Sefer HaZohar, p. 41b. See Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Vol. 2, pp. 138-139, fn. 217.

A Tribute to Rav Shlomo Elyashiv,
Author of Leshem Shevo v-Achloma:
On his Ninetieth Yahrzeit
by Joey Rosenfeld

Joey Rosenfeld is a psychotherapist in St. Louis where he moved with his family. He published his first sefer, sc’hok d’yitzchak on the Kabbalistic theme butzina d’kardinusa, or darkened light. He is currently working on a monograph of R. Shlomo Elyashiv and the philosophical and psychoanalytic themes in Leshem Shevo v-Achloma.

His first essay at the Seforim Blog, is entitled: “Dorshei Yichudcha: A Portrait of Professor Elliot R. Wolfson,” is available available here.

Here is buried
Holy anointing oil, the light of souls
A torch of holy fire, speaker of heights
Sent from on-high to reveal the concealed
Enlightened the darkness through Leshem Shevo v-Achlomot
The Rav like an Angel of God
Genius of the world signified and clear
Secrets of the world in the Torah of truth
Revealed and opened before him
Righteous pillar of the world, vessel of modesty
A great humility in his roots
Our great teacher supernal holiness
Master of secrets unique in his generation
Our teacher R. Shlomo Elyashiv zt”l nbg”m
Author of the holy books Ha”Kadosh v-Leshem Shevo v-Achloma
Called to the Heavenly academy
27th of Adar 1925 here in the holy city of Jerusalem
May his soul be engraved in eternal life
and may his merit protect us Amen

–Rav Avraham Yitzhak Ha-Kohen Kook’s handwritten epitaph for Rav Shlomo Elyashiv, from Rav Kook, which is made available here courtesy of the private collection of Reb Shlomo Gross.

Lurianic Mysticism

When R. Issac Luria (1534-1572) known as the Arizal, developed his theosophical system often referred to as Kabbalat Ha-Ari or Lurianic Mysticism, he initiated a revolution within the Jewish mystical tradition.[1] In the margins of his predecessor and teacher R. Moshe Cordevaro (1522-1570) and through a highly innovative form of Zoharic hermeneutics, the Arizal established a radical approach to the ancient theories of Jewish cosmology (tzimtzum, shevirat ha-keilim), theurgy (kaavanot) and eschatology (tikkun). Codified by his various disciples, primarily R. Chaim Vital (1542-1620) and R. Yisrael Sarug (1590-1610), the Lurianic system took form in the work Eitz-Chaim and the eight volumes of collected teachings known as Shemoneh-Shearim.[2] After the Arizal’s passing, it was generally agreed upon that the Lurianic corpus should, and would remain a closed system, one in which novelty and creativity from subsequent scholars was discouraged and even prohibited. The treatment of the Lurianic corpus as a sacred textual matrix in which creative hermeneutics are discouraged appears to stem from epistemological as well as philological phenomenon. On the epistemological register, the esoteric material being elucidated within the Lurianic system was viewed as an exceedingly sensitive body-of-work that demanded a high level of secrecy and concealment.[3] Only the most spiritually refined individuals were seen as worthy and capable of processing the complexities of the kabbalah. While the political secrecy surrounding the Arizal and his disciples was not a new phenomenon in the history of Jewish esotericism; the emphasis placed on character refinement, both spiritual and physical, for the sake of initiation into the ranks of talmidei ha-Ari is noteworthy. The danger of an unqualified and inexperienced student imposing his own imaginative interpretations upon the system was seen as a potentially catastrophic event with both spiritual and historical consequences.[4] On the philological register, the Arizal himself imposed strict prohibitions upon his disciples regarding the sharing or revelation of his insights, thus creating an economy of occlusion in which his ideas flourished within the strict contours of secrecy. Historically, the Arizal’s pedagogical methods perpetuated the veil of secrecy that kept his teachings hidden while simultaneously enabling them to be collected. Much like the rabbinic sages of the Talmud, R. Issac Luria maintained a strict orality while teaching his disciples. Continuing the rabbinic model wherein oral teachings are associated with a direct teacher-student relationship in which the risk of mistakes and misunderstanding is mitigated, the Arizal delivered his teachings in small groups, often prohibiting his students from textually recording his lessons. It wasn’t until the Arizal was near death that he allowed his disciple R. Chaim Vital to exclusively record his teachings posthumously.

Interpretations of the Lurianic system

While various attempts at interpreting the Lurianic system following R. Issac Luria’s passing did exist, it wasn’t until the seventeenth-century that authoritative schools of interpretation were born. Generally speaking one may categorize four primary approaches towards Kabbalat Ha-Ari in which the Lurianic system was expounded while simultaneously adhering to the strict prohibition of creating concepts that had not been directly recorded by R. Chaim Vital. While each school contained followers who differed from the founding member, the four major personalities associated with unfolding the Arizal’s system were R. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto (1707-1746) known as the Ramchal, R. Elijah of Vilna, known as the Gaon of Vilna (1720-1797), R. Shalom Sharabi (1720-1777) known as the Rashash, and R. Yisrael ben Eliezer (1700-1760), known as the Baal Shem Tov. Respectively, each school can be said to have utilized a different mode of hermeneutical interpretation in emphasizing what they viewed as the fundamental aspect of Lurianic Kabbalah, or Kabbalat Ha-Ari. For Ramchal and his Padua school[5] an emphasis was placed on unpacking the metaphorical nature of the Lurianic system for the purpose of revealing the various modes (hanhaagot) in which the Divine is manifest throughout history, culminating with the metahistorical eschaton in which all will be rectified (tikkun) and unified (yichud). For Rashash and the Jerusalem kabbalists of the Beit El Yeshiva[6] the emphasis was placed almost exclusively on the theurgical nature of religious phenomenology, expounding and developing a highly complex and intricate system of mystical intentions (kavaanot) associated with prayer and religious ritual. The Baal Shem Tov,[7] founder of the Hasidic movement along with his early students read and translated the intricate details of Kabbalat Ha-Ari unto the psychological register, transferring the locus of the Arizal’s system from the hidden depths of the Godhead to the hidden depths of the individual soul, thereby democratizing the once guarded secrets of concealed wisdom (chochmat ha-nistar). The School known as Kabbalat Ha-Gra or Lithuanian Kabbalah,[8] consisting of the Vilna Gaon and the select disciples who learnt directly or indirectly from him, emphasized the spiritual nature of temporality and history with a focus on the Messianic personalities who actively participate in the apocalyptic eschaton, as well as the biblical allusions towards the Lurianic system.

Fourfold of Kabbalistic PaRDeS

It has been suggested that these four schools of Kabbalistic interpretation be compartmentalized according to the fourfold structure of rabbinic hermeneutics known as PaRDeS[9]- an acronym for Peshat, the literal meaning; Remez, the allegorical meaning; Drash, the moral meaning; and Sod, the secret meaning. Generally speaking the gamut of Jewish esotericism-including Kabbalat Ha-Ari- represents the realm of Sod, and as such these four schools of thought would represent the specific substructure of PaRDeS as applied to the Sod of the general structure of PaRDeS. The Rashash and his school primarily engage the textual edifice of Kabbalat Ha-Ari, unearthing apparent contradictions within the system itself while reconciling them through an innovative theory of relativity (erchin) represent the literal approach (Peshat) to the Arizal’s system. The Gra and his school exemplify the allegorical approach (Remez) by utilizing the various forms of creative hermeneutics- primarily sacred numerology (Gematria) and acronyms (Roshei Tevot)- to uncover allusions and intimations signifying aspects of the Lurianic system within biblical texts. The attempt of the Ramchal and his school to uncover the latent meaning within the metaphors of the Arizal represents the moral approach (Drash) in which the externalities of the system are plumbed and simultaneously shed to reveal the inner kernel of meaning. Finally, the Baal Shem Tov and the Hasidic approach, by translating Lurianic ontology into psychological terms represent the essential secret (Sod) wherein the spiritual seeker finds the entirety of existence within themselves thus enabling a unique form of dynamic divine service.

R. Shlomo Elyashiv: Leshem Shevo v-Achloma

R. Shlomo Elyashiv (1841-1926) known as the Leshem after his vast body-of-work Leshem Shevo v-Achloma was a Lithuanian Kabbalist known for his adherence to the school of Kabbalat Ha-Gra.[10] Described as the fourth stage, or peh revieeh within the chain of talmidei ha-Gra, the Leshem formed a system in which the apparent contradictions between the Vilna Gaon and the Arizal were reconciled through a unique form of Kabbalistic analytics. R. Avraham Yitzhak ha-Kohen Kook, close friend and student of the Leshem described R. Elyashiv as applying Talmudic analytics (pilpul) onto the Lurianic corpus thereby clarifying and reconciling the various contradictions and textual ambiguities.[11] With an exhaustive knowledge of the gamut of Jewish esoterica- from the philosophic rationality of the rishonim to the complex intricacies of R. Chaim de La Rosa’s Torat Chachom[12]- the Leshem can be described as one of the most comprehensive as well as creative Kabbalistic thinkers of the late 19^th and early 20^th century. Born in Zagory, a small city in northern Lithuania, R. Elyashiv was raised studying Talmud with his father R. Chaim Chaikl Elyashiv until leaving home to study under the tutelage of R. Gershon Tanchum of Minsk where he became known for his Talmudic expertise. After his marriage to the daughter of R. Dovid Fein the Leshem went on to study at the Telshe yeshiva where his intellect and vast memory earned him the appellation of Telsher illui. While in Telshe the Leshem was introduced to chochmat ha-nistar by his teacher R. Yosef Reissen who then served as the Rav of Telshe. While learning in Telshe, R. Elyashiv became familiar with the fundamental texts of Jewish mysticism, learning the Pardes Rimonim of R. Moshe Cordevero as well as the Vilna Gaon’s commentaries on Sefer Yetzirah, Safra D’Tzniyuta and the Tikkunei Zohar. Only afterwards did the Leshem begin studying the system of the Arizal and it’s commentaries. R. Aryeh Levin who served as R. Elyashiv’s assistant after the latter’s move to Jerusalem includes within the curriculum the texts of R. Moshe Chaim Luzzato as well; however the distinctive relationship between R. Shlomo Elyashiv and the Ramchal’s school of Lurianic mysticism will be discussed below. After leaving Telshe, the Leshem settled in Shavel, Lithuania where he began to write what would become his vast oeuvre known as Leshem Shevo v-Achloma. In 1922, through the help of Rav Avraham Isaac haKohen Kook and Rav Yitzhak haLevi Herzog,[13] R. Shlomo Elyashiv moved to Jerusalem with his family where he eventually passed away on the 27th of Adar in 1926. While never accepting upon himself any form of communal leadership, the Leshem became known as the preeminent scholar of Kabbalah, through his written works, glosses, vast reaching editorial skills and the various rabbinic personalities with whom he studied and taught.[14]

Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Overview of Texts

R. Elyashiv’s oeuvre generally referred to as Leshem Shevo v-Achloma is comprised of four separate yet highly integrated volumes.[15] While a comprehensive overview of each work is far beyond the scope of this essay, what follows is an attempt to describe the framework and context of each sefer. The four Kabbalistic works are Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Hakdamot u-Shearim (1909); Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Drushei Olam ha-Tohu (1911); Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Klalei Hitpashtut v-Histalkut (1924); and Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Chelek ha-Biurim (1935).

Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Hakdamot u-Shearim

Known as Sefer Hakdo”Sh,[16] this work serves as an introduction to Kabbalat ha-Ari for the novice student, clarifying such concepts as Divine names, unity of God and the mystical anthropomorphization of God. In an attempt to simplify the complexities of Lurianic Kabbalah, R. Elyashiv sets forth a five staged multileveled process through which Ein Sof becomes manifest in/as reality. There is nothing particularly original in the Leshem’s depiction of a five stage process, an idea that is ever-present in the Lurianic system of partzufim. The novelty of Sefer Hakadosh, however, may be found in the Leshem’s configuration wherein the five partzufim; Arich Anpin, Abba, Immah, Zeir Anpin and Malchut are analogously aligned with the five-tiered revelatory process (seder ha-gilluim) in which the latent potentiality of existence emerges as the manifest actuality of creation. These stages, or orders-of-revelation are Ein Sof; Tzimtzum/Kav; Adam Kadmon; Atzilut; and the triadic unit Beriah,Yetzira and Asiya (BY”A). Working with certain Lurianic axioms as refracted through Rashash’s concept of hitklalut v-hitkashrut (integration and redistribution),[17] R. Elyashiv depicts a highly integrated system in which each general stage (seder klali) encompasses a subsystem (seder prati) wherein the five stages operate in a self-contained manner. Thus for example, the general partzuf of Abba- analogous to the revelatory stage of Adam Kadmon- contains within itself a subsystem comprised of every other partzuf and/or gillui. Far from a theoretical divergence into complexities, this multivalent system wherein each part contains the whole rests at the foundation of the Leshem’s system of integration (seder ha-klilut) and secret of unity (sod ha-achdut). The first seven gates of Hakadosh discuss each revelatory-stage in detail including the interconnection between each stage, thus engaging the reader in a textual excursion through the basic framework of the Lurianic system. The eighth gate in Hakadosh– titled Shaar ha-Poneh Kadim– comprises a work unto its own. Here R. Elyashiv undertakes the formidable task of elucidating the Kabbalistic system of R. Yisrael Sarug, commonly referred to as Olam ha-Malbush. While an overview of Olam ha-Malbush as refracted through the works of R. Naftali Hertz Bacharach and R. Menachem Azariah of Fano is far beyond the scope of this essay, R. Elyashiv’s decision to include R. Sarug’s depiction of “hidden mysteries that begin far beyond the worlds described in the writings of our master R. Chaim Vital,” is a significant gesture regarding the source and validity of the Sarugian system.[18]

Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Drushei Olam ha-Tohu

Drushei Olam ha-Tohu – or Deah as it is known – is a monumental work that deals primarily with the Lurianic cosmological theme Olam ha-Tohu, the world(s) of chaos. Comprised of two parts, Sefer haDeah examines the primordial cataclysm known as the shattering of the vessels (shevirat ha-keilim). For the Leshem, this event- known as the death of the Edomite kings (mitat malchei edom) after the biblical account in parshat VaYishlach– serves as the pre-original opening through which the entirety of history unfolds. Far beyond a simple depiction, or elucidation of this Lurianic motif, part one discusses the “roots and foundations, existence and kingship, death and shattering” of the primordial kings, as well as “the ramifications that are born through this process, the source and the purpose of all this and the general process of rectification.”[19] According to R. Elyashiv the shevira was not an isolated event whose effects were limited to immediate consequences, rather, it serves as the traumatic source of everything that follows.[20] The stage of tohu– and all that transpires therein- is the constitutive break through which history gains its subjectivity. On a psychoanalytic register, not unlike Freud’s original seduction theory, the shattering of the vessels and the subsequent chaos represents the original trauma whose symptoms constitute the subject, as opposed to preexistent subject who experiences the symptoms. The worlds of tohu, resting at the beginning- before the beginning- accompany the historical process, concealed from sight, imposing and composing the ebb and flow of shevira and tikkun, shattering and rectification, which make up history.[21] Part one examines the roots of the necessarily imperfect tohu, from its most concealed source to its revealed manifestation as the existential condition of this-worldliness (olam ha-zeh or asiyah). Part two of Sefer haDeah, while similar to part one in that it deals with the various states of pre and post-shattered existence, is unique in both its conceptual arrangement as well as its area of focus. In part one the Leshem utilizes the complexities of the Lurianic system as well as the textual contradictions therein to slowly build his system. The second chelek assumes that the reader has a knowledge of these complex details and moves beyond the pratim to engage the biblical and historical manifestations of the framework described in the first chelek. R. Elyashiv sees the basic structure of shevira-tikkun, or chaos-order as a pattern that incessantly reasserts itself unto the stage of history. Moving from Adam ha-Rishon’s prelapsarian state, through the primordial serpent’s seduction, the Leshem illuminates the subterranean flow of Divine interpolation which he calls nora ahlilah based on the verse in Psalms (66:5), “Lichu u-riuh mif’alot Elokim nora ahlilah al bnei adam.” R. Elyashiv moves from Adam ha-Rishon’s expulsion from Eden to the narratives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, interweaving Lurianic interpretations with his distinctive focus on the delicate balance between the forces of tohu and tikkun. From there the Leshem goes on to describe the concealed essence of Knesset Yisrael’s movement from Egyptian servitude, the exilic wanderings in the wilderness, and the eventual climactic experience at Har Sinai. The Leshem continues clearing a path from Israel’s unconscious repetition of the shevira as embodied in the collective event of Cheit ha-Eigel towards the eschatological advent as depicted in the Rabbinic feasts of the righteous wherein the enigmatic Leviathan, Behemoth and Ziz Shadi take on immense Kabbalistic significance. The second chelek also includes an extensive treatment of the Talmudic narrative of the four who entered the Pardes as well as an analysis of R. Akiva and his nonlocal relationship with Moses. The Leshem closes Sefer haDeah with various maamarim that while related to the concepts expressed in Dea”h comprise a separate unit; these include Drush Eitz ha-Daat; Drush Sfeikot Iggulim vi-Yosher; and Drush Mi’ut ha-Yareiach.

Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Klalei Hitpashtut v-Histalkut

Klalei Hitpashtut v-Histalkut- or Sefer HaKlalim as it is referred to- can be described as R. Elyashiv’s most difficult as well as significant work. Following the Arizal’s depiction of the dialectical process through which existence comes-to-be as described in Eitz Chaim- particularly Shaar Mati v-lo Mati and Shaar ha-Akudim- the Leshem builds a system wherein each stage of revelation contains within itself a subsystem of Hitpashtut, egression and Histalkut, regression. In laying out the framework of this work, R. Elyashiv describes a comprehensive system “In which we will speak regarding the weaving and concatenation of the worlds. From the heights of the most elevated world to the limit of the lower worlds, Briah, Yetzira and Asiyah.”[22] For the Leshem the constant ebb and flow in which existence is revealed in order to be concealed as it is concealed in order to be revealed marks the basic structural framework that enlivens reality.[23] The dialectical play of egression/revelation and regression/concealment that serves to produce each subsequent stage of existence opens into the fourfold process of Hitpashtut Alef; Histalkut Alef; Hitpashtut Beit; Histalkut Beit. Generally speaking, through the act of Hitpashtut, the prior plenitude- seen as infinite relative to the ensuing stage- undergoes a process of concealment, akin to the first Tzimtzum in that, paradoxically, the prior levels concealment allows the next level to transition from its covert potential within the previous level into the overt manifestation as the new stage in existence. Next, with the first Histalkut, the new level now revealed undergoes a process of regression where what has become manifest returns to its previous source, leaving behind a roshem, or trace thus engraving a potential space in which the new level will eventually concretize. While an overview of this complex dynamic is far beyond the scope of this essay the main goal for the Leshem is to show how each and every stage can trace “their roots and spacing within the world of Adam Kadmon, both the details and the details of the details. To show how they are all eternally rooted and unified there, from the initial thought until the limit of action.”[24] In emphasizing the significance of this system, there is no better description than the words of R. Elyashiv himself, printed on the title page of the sefer:

“And the concept of the two Hitpashtiut and the two Histalkiut is as follows, for the Creator blessed be His Name has established the entirety of existence- the totality of which stems only from the surge of His blessed light that is revealed through His actions and his hanhagot from eternity to eternity- He has established it upon the concatenation of many stages, one below the other; and each stage is a totalized system and the entirety of a world, and that which is in this one is in that one as well, with each subsequent stage drawing from the preceding stage situated above it; and now each world has its source above it from which it is drawn and in/through which it exists; and upon this rests the two Hitpashtiut and the two Histalkiut, for the first Hitpashtut and Histalkut form the supernal source of each world that remains above, and the second Hitpashtut and Histalkut form the essential existence of each world in its physical space below. And now, these stem from the light of the Name Yud-Hei-Vav-Hei that shines in each and every world. The first Hitpashtut and Histalkut stem from the letters Yud-Hei of the Name, and the second Hitpashtut and Histalkut stem from the letters Vav-Hei of the Name.”[25]

Sefer Ha-Klalim is made up of two parts discussing each stage of existence and the fourfold process of Hitpashtut and Histalkut that occurs therein. The second chelek is primarily comprised of perek eighteen, anaf ten, or Chai Ani (Yud-Cheit, Anaf-Yud) which the Leshem describes as “the sum total of all of my teachings to show the interconnection of everything within A”K and A”K within everything.” Due to the highly complex nature of this system- running from the unconscious depths of the concealed Godhead to the existential reality of this-worldliness- the Leshem appended a chart in which the system of 52 integrated manifestations of the Tetragrammaton are codified and elucidated.

Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Chelek ha-Biurim

In Chelek ha-Biurim R. Elyashiv undertakes the enormous task of writing a “wondrous and detailed elucidation of the entirety of the Holiest of Holy, the Arizal’s Eitz Chaim.” While numerous works have been written on Sefer Eitz Chaim, simplifying and clarifying the Lurianic system, the Leshem’s vision lay beyond the normative approach to the text. For the Leshem, R. Chaim Vital’s Eitz Chaim represents a work whose “words are blocked and closed off, concealed by ancient days, as R. Chaim Vital wrote in his introduction, that all that has been revealed to us is nothing but the revelation of a singular handbreadth through the concealment of thousands.” As such, a worthy depiction of the Lurianic mosaic assembled within the gates of Eitz Chaim demands a resistant reading in which the work is read against itself in the hopes of revealing that which has remained concealed within the text. Rooting himself in the “deep wells of the holy Ari and Gra from who’s milk I have suckled and from who’s water I have drawn and drank” the Leshem seeks to “reveal the cherished light and archival secrets…deep beyond depth, elevated beyond height” that rests at the core of Eitz Chaim. In order to do this, R. Elyashiv works through the text, opening that which was closed through an incessant mode of questioning. Taking no statement for granted, the Leshem examines each idea through a hermeneutics of suspicion where the content of Eitz Chaim is measured and compared to similar and dissimilar concepts throughout the Lurianic corpus. When contradictions and textual ambiguities arise, the Leshem utilizes his unique mode of Kabbalistic analytics (pilpul) in reconciling the opposing texts by clearing a new path in which both statements are seen as augmenting one another. Arming himself with Rashash’s conception of Kabbalistic relativity known as archin, R. Elyashiv interprets Eitz Chaim as a dynamic system whose parts can only be properly understood with an intimate knowledge of their particular context. While the Leshem did undertake the enormity of this task, we have only been left with a biur up to Shaar Ha-Nekudim, Perek Gimmel leaving the majority of Eitz Chaim without commentary. The hundreds of pages it took R. Elyashiv to explicate such a small fraction of Eitz Chaim leaves one pondering the sheer vastness of the Leshem’s vision.

Mitnagdic Kabbalah

From a historical perspective Rav Shlomo Elyashiv served an important role in bridging the gap that existed between the Lithuanian world of the yeshiva and baalei mussar and the world of Lurianic Kabbalah. Throughout his time in Lithuania the Leshem studied Kabbalah with R. Yisrael Meir haKohen Kagan,[26] R. Elya Lopian,[27] R. Yosef Leib Bloch,[28] R. Yitzchak Blazer,[29] R. Yeruchem Levovitz,[30] and R. Yosef Yuzel Horwitz.[31] A more significant, yet historically ambiguous relationship was the purported interaction between R. Elyashiv and the founder of the Mussar movement, R. Yisrael Salanter.[32] The Leshem’s engagement with the various rabbinic personalities-most of who served as leaders of Lithuanian yeshivot- may be viewed through one of two sociohistorical lenses. As an adherent of the school referred to as Kabbalat ha-Gra, R. Shlomo Elyashiv represented a dying breed of mitnagdic-mysticism.[33] While never engaging the political polemics surrounding the mitnagdic/hasidic debate, the Leshem was a strong advocate for a clear and exacting approach to the Lurianic corpus, in contradistinction to the “Hasidic” approach in which the Lurianic system underwent a form of imaginative and psychological revisionism. It is important to note that while the Leshem appears to have associated this mode of interpretation with the “Hasidic” explanation of Kabbalat ha-Ari, he by no means viewed it as a uniquely Hasidic phenomenon. Many of the critiques leveled by R. Elyashiv were in fact directed towards R. Naftali Hertz haLevi, author of Siddur ha-Gra be-Nigleh u-Nistar who represented “those who delve too deeply into the system of Ramchal, interpreting the words of the Arizal as imaginative principles (maareh ha-nevuah).”[34] Nevertheless, by associating with rabbinic personalities who represented the mitnagdic elite, the Leshem maintained his position as a Lithuanian mekubal, one who continued the path of the Vilna Gaon.

Messianic Mysticism

Another possible explanation for R. Elyashiv’s vast interactions with the rabbinic elite of his time has less to do with his spiritual/political predilections and more to do with the Kabbalistic subject matter itself. Following a long tradition in which the expansion and expression of Kabbalistic studies was seen as a fundamental stage within the Jewish eschatological process,[35] the Leshem viewed his historical situatedness as signifying his personal spiritual mission. The spiritual and historical significance as well as the strident dereliction of Kabbalah study that the Leshem saw in his generation may have influenced R. Elyashiv’s emphasis on teaching and sharing his knowledge of chochmat ha-nistar. In one text the Leshem decries what he saw as the rabbinic elite’s disregard of Kabbalah as follows:

“And I am amazed with some of the wise ones of our generation (chochmei ha-dor), for they have no knowledge in this area whatsoever, how can they manage without engaging chochmat ha-emes, that is pnimiyut ha-Torah, and it is strange in their eyes to the point that they know nothing about it. And all of their answers and excuses are meaningless after what is written in Eruvin (55a), “it is not in heaven, and if it was in heaven you must ascend after her, and if she is beyond the sea, you must cross after her,” and it is apparent that this applies to all areas of Torah…including the esoteric aspect (chelek ha-nistar)…and the chelek ha-nistar transcends all other areas [of Torah].”[36]

Elsewhere, R. Elyashiv quotes from R. Yisrael Salanter in describing the unique historical moment in which the secrets of the Torah (sodot ha-Torah) were now accessible to all who were interested:

“And permission has been granted to all those who engage this wisdom to understand these ideas, each according to their level. And specifically from the year taf-reish (1840)[38] and onwards as it is written in the Zohar (2:117), “and in the six-hundredth year of the sixth millennia, the gates of the higher-wisdom (chochma li-ailah) were opened,” and what [the Zohar] meant in writing “opened,” this means to say that permission has been granted to all those who yearn to cleave with the living God (Elokim Chaim), to engage chochmat ha-emes, to enter and to utilize the Name properly. And anyone who delves into this matter will be enlightened and find that this was not the case before the year taf-reish (1840), because then it was still hidden and enclosed, except for a few exceptional individuals, so have I heard in the name of the gaon and chossid R. Yisrael Salanter z”l, and all of this is rooted in the revelation of supernal light that is revealed above and egresses below, as it draws into this world (olam ha-zeh) additional light and the secrets of Torah are revealed in order to rectify (tikkun) the world for the eventual rectification.”[37]

Ignorance coupled with what the Leshem saw as a historically unique time in which sodot ha-Torah were accessible to all may have influenced R. Elyashiv’s drive to engage those rabbinic personalities hitherto unaffiliated with the Kabbalistic system.

R. Elyashiv and R. Avraham Isaac Hakohen Kook

Another significant relationship centered around R. Elyashiv’s expertise in Lurianic Kabbalah was the friendship between the Leshem and the first chief rabbi of Israel, R. Avraham Isaac Hakohen Kook.[39] Serving as a young Rav in the town of Zaumel, Lithuania, R. Kook sought to resolve the “questions and difficulties with some foundational ideas in chochmat ha-nistar” [40] that had arisen in his studies. With permission from the members of his community, R. Kook travelled to Shavel where he spent a month studying and learning from the elder Rav Shlomo Elyashiv. From that point on Rav Kook and the Leshem continued their relationship, exchanging letters, with R. Kook eventually procuring the documents necessary for R. Elyashiv and his family’s move to Jerusalem.[41] R. Kook saw the Leshem as a unique link in the chain of Jewish mysticism, reportedly commenting on the latter’s work Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Hakdamot u-Shearim (Hakdo”Sh) that “from the time of R. Moshe Cordevaro there has been no sefer in chochmat ha-emet that grasps and expounds the subject matter like the sefer Hakdamot u-Shearim.”[42] Thanking the Leshem for sending his newly published manuscript, R. Kook wrote: “The house was filled with light upon the appearance of his holy book. I cannot convey to my soul-friend my feelings of inner happiness from the good light. In its yet unbound state, I have already devoured several pages, so enamored am I. It was sweet as honey to my mouth.”[43] R. Aryeh Levin, close student of R. Kook and assistant to R. Elyashiv in Jerusalem describes many nights during which the Leshem and R. Kook would study sifrei kabbalah from midnight until the early morning. R. Kook’s sense of a “divine bond in the depths of the heart”[44] existing between himself and Leshem was reciprocated by the elder R. Elyashiv who saw in the chief rabbi “a vast knowledge and unification of all variant Kabbalistic positions (shitot) and one who has earned the description of “no secret being removed from him” (kol raz lo anis leh).”[45] After the Leshem’s passing shortly after arriving in Jerusalem, R. Kook eulogized the great mekubal and composed the epitaph marking R. Elyashiv’s kever, a lasting testimony to their significant relationship.[46] While there has been no scholarly attempt at identifying the Leshem’s influence on the thought of R. Kook, the overlap in both thinkers approach to the spiritual significance of history as well as the utilization of R. Azriel of Geroni’s concept of the “potential (for) limitation within the unlimited (koach ha-gevul bi-bilti gevul)” is significant. It is important to note that while R. Kook and R. Aryeh Levin appear to have viewed R. Elyashiv’s approach to the Lurianic corpus as authoritative, this was not the case for R. Kooks other students comprising the chug ha-rayah. Both R. Yaakov Moshe Charlop[47] and the R. Dovid Cohen regarded the Leshem’s critical view of Ramchal’s interpretative reading of the Arizal as problematic. While the details of R. Elyashiv’s critical approach towards Kabbalat Ramchal will be discussed in a future essay, it appears that the critique of R. Charlop and R. Cohen, both deeply influenced by Ramchal, was more reactionary than substantive.

Leshem Shevo v-Achloma and the Kabbalists of Beit-El

Described by R. Yosef Chaim of Baghdad as the “lion of secrecy (Ari bi-Mistarim),”[48] it is surprising that R. Elyashiv’s vast body-of-work known generally as Leshem Shevo v-Achloma has been all but ignored by both the traditional and academic schools of Kabbalah study. Within the Haredi network of Kabbalah yeshivot the Leshem’s works are seen as important contributions towards the explication of the Lurianic system, but by no means have they entered the limited curriculum of primary texts comprising the “meforshei ha-Ari.” Only the glosses written by R. Elyashiv under the title ha”ShevaCh (Shlomo ben Chaikl) on the first half of Eitz-Chaim- compiled and printed in R. Menachem Menchin Halperin’s Hagaaot u-Biurim– have received treatment in the writings of sefardi mekubalim.[49] While greatly respected by the sefardic Kabbalists of his day- two works by R. Shaul Dweck ha-Kohen were printed with approbations from the Leshem[50]- his works did not enjoy the same treatment. Those following the sefardic approach to Kabbalat ha-Ari- namely the texts of R. Shalom Sharabi and his students- pay little or no attention to the texts of R. Elyashiv due to the fact that he is considered an adherent of the Vilna Gaon’s school whose focus on the allegorical nature of Kabbalat ha-Ari differs from the attempt to uncover the “depth of the practical meaning”[51] (omek ha-peshat). A point that remains to be shown however, is that while R. Elyashiv did not align himself with the interpretative approach of R. Sharabi and the Kabbalists of Beit-El; he engaged their texts both intellectually- composing a short peirush to Rashash’s Rechovot ha-Nahar[52]– and practically, editing R. Dovid of Agier’s Kuntreis Chasdei Dovid.[53] The Leshem’s respect and engagement with the system of RaSha’’Sh becomes clear with the following passage in which R. Elyashiv praises R. Sharabi’s interpretation regarding shvirat ha-Melachim as a process affecting each particular (prat) as opposed to the collective (Klal) understanding:

“And the words of our teacher Rashash are alive and sustained, and who like him descends to the depths of the abyss, drawing depth from the depths on each statement of the Arizal. We have seen as well by all the great chochmei sefard who have followed him, in particular the great R. Chaim de la Roza in his work Torat Chochom which engraves a path following him at every point, raising vast treasures on all of his words.”[54]

With this level of admiration and engagement with the thought of Rashash the conscious ignorance on behalf of chochmei sefard of R. Elyashiv’ texts becomes more conspicuous. However, a recently rediscovered letter the Leshem wrote to R. Menachem Menchin Halperin helps shed light on the (non)relation between sefardi mekubalim and the Leshem:

“And now my dear friend I will not refrain from informing you that which is within my heart, for I have seen how the great chochmei ha-sefardim- may the supernal sweetness be upon them eternally- align the teachings of our holy teacher R. Shalom Sharabi [in relation] to the teachings of the holy Ari, as they do regarding the oral law in relation to the written law. However in my opinion this does not stand with me. Because regarding the words of the holy R. Shalom may his merit protect us, here I will state that while in truth many of the teachings from his holy words are fundamental and essential regarding the depth of Torat ha-Ari without which it is difficult to grasp the truth; in general his approach is but one facet in the Torat ha-Ari, and it is possible to understand them properly, in my opinion, with other approaches as well, for there are many faces to Torah, and it is not necessary to understand them with his holy path (derech) alone. Furthermore his holy derech is sharp (charif) and very very deep and not every mind can handle this (lav kol moach savil da) and it is possible to understand based on a simpler and easier derech, as I have shown and seen in numerous places that God has graced me with.”[55]

From this letter it is clear that while R. Elyashiv held the Rashash and his derech in high esteem, by no means did he view it as the authoritative and essential approach to the writings of the Arizal. The Leshem’s opinion regarding the teachings of R. Sharabi runs counter to the hyper-essentialism with which the talmidei ha-Rashash viewed his approach. Whether or not this letter was known to the Kabbalists of Beit-El, R. Elyashiv’s stance may have influenced the disassociation from his writings.

Leshem Shevo v-Achloma and Kabbalat ha-Gra

Within the Ashkenazi world of Kabbalah, sifrei Leshem Shevo v-Achloma have experienced a significantly stronger engagement which has been both deeply respectful as well as revisionistic. Considered a student of the Vilna Gaon’s approach to kabbalah, R. Elyashiv differs from the other talmidei ha-Gra in that he had no direct line linking him to the Gra’s teachings. Both R. Chaim Volozhiner (1749-1821) and R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov (d. 1827), considered the main students of the Gra were taught the Lurianic system directly from him. R. Yitzchak Issac Haver (1789-1853), considered peh shlishi in the school of Kabbalat ha-Gra was a student of R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov, and devoted much of his effort towards developing a unifying system wherein the disagreements between the Arizal and the Gra were reconciled.[56] By grafting together the teachings of the Gaon with those of the Arizal in his Pischei Shearim, R. Haver attempts to show that the derech of the Gra is the derech of the Ari. Many of R. Haver’s other writings are direct peirushim on various works of the Vilna Gaon, thus emphasizing his place as an authoritative student. R. Haver’s main disciple, R. Yitzchak Kahane-Kellner- whose three-volume Toldot Yitzchak contains a commentary on the Gra’s peirush to Sefer Yetzirah– spent most of his later years creating institutions in Jerusalem whose sole purpose was to be the study and expansion of the Vilna Gaon’s kabbalistic writings. The Leshem on the other hand had no teacher linking him to the Vilna Gaon, nor did he devote any text to the primary treatment of Kabbalat ha-Gra. Although R. Elyashiv was deemed worthy of editing the writings of the Gra by R. Shmuel Luria of Mohilev and R. Dovid Luria, this did not translate into his works being treated and studied as fundamental texts within the system of Kabbalat ha-Gra.

Current Trends in Leshem Shevo v-Achloma Study

In recent years the writings of the Leshem have seen renewed interest within the Haredi world of Kabbalah study with newly edited editions as well as supplementary works being published. This development however can be divided into two schools of thought; one in which the texts Leshem Shevo v-Achloma are treated as a complex system in which the Lurianic system undergoes an intensive and analytic treatment, thus preserving the difficulty and detailed nature of the text; and one in which Leshem Shevo v-Achloma undergoes a process of simplification for the sake of popularization. Regarding the former, the texts of the Leshem are being edited and reprinted for the primary purpose of textual emendations. In addition, sources as well as footnotes have been added, directing the reader to the source material utilized by the Leshem. Furthermore, various seforim have been published in which the system of the Leshem is treated and clarified. A prime example of this approach is the recently published Yud-Gimmel Maarachot[57] in which the author elucidates the Leshem’s highly complex system of 52 integrated manifestations of the Tetragrammaton that serve as the basic infrastructure running from the recesses of Ein-Sof down to the coarse reality of this-worldliness. This is historically significant in the sense that never before have there been texts solely devoted to understanding R. Elyashiv’s system. With regards to the latter school, the Leshem’s texts have been combed with the redactors culling the philosophical and aggadic material discussing creation, free-will, and matters of faith while discarding the complex Kabbalistic subject matter. The primary example of this approach is the work entitled Shaarei Leshem Shevo v-Achloma (Barzani, 1993), in which R. Yehoshua Edelstein “collected, in full without any change from the holy books Leshem Shevo v-Achloma.”[58] This likkut has two parts; the first contains “a clarification of the fundamentals of faith and worship,” while the second discusses “the order of creation and concatenation (hishtalshlut) in time leading towards the full rectification, may it come speedily in our days.”[59] While the publisher acknowledges that this work serves only as an “opening of the gate to the works of the Rav who is like an angel of God (rav ha-domeh li-malach Hashem) the expert (gaon) in torat emet”[60] it appears to have taken the place of the primary texts for many and as such the actual works comprising Leshem Shevo v-Achloma have been overlooked.

R. Moshe Shapiro: The Popularization of Leshem Shevo v-Achloma

This phenomenon in which the texts of the Leshem undergo the “occasional deletion of a passage so as not to include matters of concealment (nistarot)”[61] for the sake of making them “equal to every searching ben-torah” has taken place primarily within the school of R. Moshe Shapiro and his students. Viewed by many within the Haredi world as the preeminent baal-machshava, R. Shapiro is purported to see in the Leshem– who he describes as “a giant, discordant with the nature of our lowly generation, sent to enlighten our eyes and enable us to grasp a miniscule taste of the depths of torah”[62]- a paradigm of authentic hashkafat ha-torah. In a letter reprinted in Shaarei Leshem[63] at the behest of the Leshem’s grandson R. Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, R. Shapiro explains the rational for publishing a collection of texts taken out of context as follows:

“Many have been asking and searching, who will give us faithful waters to drink from the well of living water, the seforim of our master (the Leshem) that were given over closed (chatumim), and they are yearning to find an opening, one that does not engage the depth of the sugyot in the Zohar and writings of the Arizal. And it is known that many of the drushim open gates in the knowledge of God, the fundamentals of faith and yearning for redemption that each Jew is commanded to know, and in our generation in which the wicked ones surround us and things are “cheapened in the eyes of men” and anything that stands at the height of the world is cheapened and lowered to the dust, it appears to be a “time to act for God” (ait laasot la-Hashem), to open an opening for the masses to the enlightened writings that cleanse the eyes and heal the spirit, that they may swim in them so that knowledge be spread; and I know personally how wondrous the affect these writings have on those who learn them, and even on those who taste from the edge of their sweetness, their eyes shall be enlightened.”

R. Shapiro’s logic is clear, due to the spiritual dereliction of the generation two difficulties arise in learning Leshem Shevo v-Achloma properly. The first is practical in the sense that many have expressed interest in the philosophical aspects of the Leshem’s system without a prior knowledge of the Kabbalistic subject matter. Secondly, the spiritual climate in which the holy is “cheapened in the eyes of men” demands a paradoxical transgressive act for the sake of upholding the law, an “ait laasot la-Hashem.” By utilizing the rabbinic notion of ait laasot R. Shapiro enables himself to support the simplification of the Leshem’s work while simultaneously maintaining the non-ideality of such an undertaking. R. Shapiro’s ambivalence between the ideal sanctity of Leshem Shevo v-Achloma as a unique contribution to the Lurianic system and the real inability of many within the Haredi yeshiva world to grasp the complex subject matter is relieved through the utilization of ait laasot, a temporary disavowal in which the laws governing the revelation of Kabbalistic texts are held in abeyance.[64] Sociopolitical factors notwithstanding, the fact that R. Shapiro acknowledges the ideal treatment of the Leshem’s thought as a self-contained Kabbalistic system is apparent from his involvement with texts that maintain the Kabbalistic and highly complex nature of Leshem Shevo v-Achloma. For example, the abovementioned Yud-Gimmel Maarachot contains a letter of approbation in which R. Shapiro praises the author for “revealing to the light of the world the valuable pnimim in the sugya of yud-gimmel maarachot that our master the Leshem valued and held as the fundamental and root of creation and the revelation of atzilut within the worlds of adam-kadmon; these words are enlightening and deep, and they demand much effort to understand, and few actually learn them…” This ambivalence between the popularization of Leshem Shevo v-Achloma and the faithfulness to its complexities is not unique to R. Shapiro; R. Yehoshua Edelstein who compiled Shaarei Leshem has also published Maf’teach Leshem Shevo v-Achloma, a compendium of Kabbalistic sources- from both the Arizal as well as the Vilna Gaon- that appear within the thousands of pages comprising the Leshem’s system. In a letter printed at the beginning of Maf’teach, R. Shapiro describes the project as one “whose great significance need not be explained to those who learn such things,” again highlighting the ideality of approaching the texts in a faithful and accurate way. R. Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, grandson and occasional study partner of his maternal grandfather was in possession of a library that contained seforim with glosses and annotations written by the Leshem. Some of these glosses- primarily Kabbalistic in nature- have been printed in Gilyonot Leshem Shevo v-Achloma as well as a recent edition of the journal Yeshurin dedicated to the memory of the Leshem. In addition to R. Shapiro and his students, the late Haredi Kabbalist R. Yisrael Eliyahu Weintraub delivered classes on some of the Leshem’s writings, often advising novice students to study Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Sefer Hakdamot u-Shearim as an introductory text.

R. Moshe Schatz: Leshem Shevo v-Achloma as Foundational Text

Within the Hasidic world of contemporary Kabbalah study, Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Morgenstern – rosh yeshiva of Yeshivat Torat Chochom – has consistently incorporated the works of the Leshem into his dynamic synthesis wherein the works of the Arizal, Rashash, Baal Shem tov and Gra are grafted together creating new constellations of thinkers who coalesce in a textual matrix described as “secret of secrets” (razin di-razin)[65]. It is R. Morgenstern’s teacher however, who serves as a significant scholar of Leshem Shevo v-Achloma. R. Moshe Schatz- born and raised in Brooklyn- sits in his cramped study in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Givat Shaul teaching the Leshem’s system to a wide range of students, many of whom have studied the Lurianic system extensively only to reach a point of confusion. In a process akin to Derridian deconstruction, R. Schatz leads his students through a process of deliberate unlearning in which the previously held assumptions regarding the Lurianic system are shed.[66] Once the student has moved beyond the preconceived notions that have compounded their confusion, R. Schatz begins to slowly work from the bottom up, elucidating and clarifying the fundamental ideas that the Kabbalistic system is built upon. For R. Schatz the Lurianic system – as refracted through the teachings of Rashash – is a complex structure in which specific concepts undergo a process of repetition through reconfiguration. Utilizing the Lurianic depiction of Partzufim, the works of the Arizal, Rashash, Baal Shem Tov, and the Vilna Gaon coalesce into a unified whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. Building a gestalt of sod, R. Schatz simultaneously reveals the unity that rests beneath the disparate manifestations of Kabbalah throughout history as he removes the commonly held assumptions of machloket that have marked the interpretive approaches of many scholars. According to R. Schatz, these basic concepts such as tzimtzum, reshimu and kav ha-yashar re/present themselves countless times throughout the system, generating a simple pattern in which the general concepts remain the same while the specific details change according to their relative position within the system. This notion of relativity, or archin as the Rashash termed it, has enabled R. Schatz to see in modern quantum physics a valuable model wherein the Lurianic system is mirrored. While R. Schatz utilizes the entirety of the Leshem’s system in explicating his understanding, it is Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Klalei Hitpashtut v-Histalkut (Sefer ha-Klalim) that serves as the primary model for the dialectics of repetition and difference that permeate the Lurianic model. While writing extensively, R. Schatz’s primary publication is his Maayan Moshe (Jerusalem, 2013), an introductory work that serves to guide both the novice and expert towards “a clear understanding of Kabbalat ha-Ari and Rashash.” Maayan Moshe is comprised of three sections; the first serves as an overview of R. Azriel of Gerona’s treatment of the sefirotic arrangement in Biur Esser Sefirot as well as R. Meir ibn Gabbai’s Derech Emunah based on the Arizal and the Leshem; the second section contains a critical edition of both Biur Esser Sefirot and Derech Emunah with footnotes and textual emendations; the third and final section contains a previously unprinted (and now, recently-published) correspondence between R. Elyashiv and R. Naftali Hertz haLevi in which the Leshem clarifies his critique of “those who delve too deeply into the writings of Ramchal” as well as his literalist interpretation of the Arizal’s system. From the hitherto unpublished correspondence R. Schatz shows how indebted the Leshem was to the ideas expressed within the work of R. Azriel of Gerona, namely the conceptual description of Ein-Sof’s “potential (for) limitation within the unlimited (koach ha-gevul bi-bilti gevul),” which as stated above greatly influenced the Kabbalistic approach of R. Avraham Isaac Hakohen Kook as well. R. Schatz continues to teach the Leshem Shevo v-Achloma in a creative approach wherein the ideas of quantum physics, neuroscience and Kabbalat ha-Ari meld together in what he views- based in part on the Leshem’s mystical historiography- as the messianic union of “the lower wisdom of below and the higher wisdom from above.”

R. Meir Triebitz: The Leshem as Authentic Mitnaged

Another current teacher of Leshem Shevo v-Achloma within the Haredi yeshiva world is R. Meir Triebitz who serves as a maggid shiur at Yeshivat Machon Shlomo, a baal-teshuva institute in Jerusalem. R. Triebitz, who also serves as a posek for his community, completed his dissertation in mathematical physics at Princeton University before moving to Jerusalem to teach. Aside from the Talmudic course he teaches, R. Triebitz delivers classes on Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Hakdamot u-Shearim as well as pertinent source materials from the Leshem’s writings. R. Triebitz’s approach is noteworthy in that he maintains that the Leshem’s system is one in which the Kabbalistic system is purified from any pantheistic and acosmic notions. As an adherent to the Vilna Gaon’s interpretation of Kabbalah, R. Triebitz views the Leshem as the last authentic Mitnagdic thinker, fighting both the Hasidic predilection towards pantheism as well as R. Chaim Volozhiner’s revisionism of the Gra’s radical materialism. In supporting his thesis, R. Triebitz highlights the Leshem’s usage of Maimonides’s Guide as well as his literalist approach to the Lurianic system as signifying his attempt to bridge the widening gap separating mysticism and rationality. Of note is R. Triebitz’s usage of philosophical texts- from Kant to Kripke – in an effort to contextualize the evolution of Kabbalistic theology.[67]

Leshem Shevo v-Achloma and the Academic Study of Jewish Mysticism

Within the academic field of Jewish mysticism the apparent ignorance of R. Elyashiv and his works is even more pronounced. While Gershom Scholem does include “Solomon Eliashov’s Leshem Shevo v-Achloma” among the works in which “the basic tenets of Lurianic Kabbalah are systematically and originally presented,”[68] there is no further treatment or analysis of the works. The only other place in which Scholem references the Leshem is in the context of the dialectical process of egression and regression that permeates the Lurianic system. Regarding the tzimtzum and residual reshimu, Scholem writes, that “Throughout this process the two tendencies of perpetual ebb and flow- the Kabbalists speak of hithpasthtuth, egression and histalthkut, regression- continue to act and react upon each other.”[69] In a note on this text Scholem directs the reader to R. Chaim Vital’s Eitz Chaim and adds that “This fundamental idea has been made the basis of the great Kabbalistic system propounded in Solomon Eliassov’s magnum opus Sefer Leshem Shevo v-Achloma. The third volume (Jerusalem 1924) called Klalei Hithpasthuth v-Histalthkut.”[70]

The next academic study that touched upon aspects of the Leshem’s thought was Mordechai Pachter’s 1987 essay Circles and Straightness.[71] In this study Pachter analyzes the Lurianic motif of iggulim v-yosher as described in the writings of R. Chaim Vital and refracted through the teachings of R. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto and R. Yitzchak Isaac Haver. In analyzing the textual contradictions that arise within the works of R. Vital, Pachter utilizes the Leshem’s analytic approach as recorded in Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Chelek ha-Biurim to clear a path of understanding. While there are a few references to the Leshem’s position as a mitnagdic Kabbalist, primarily with regards to his stance on tzimtzum,[72] Pachter does not engage the Leshem beyond the complex details surrounding the topic of iggulim v-yosher.

Following Pachter’s limited treatment of the Leshem, Ron Wacks completed his Hebrew University master’s thesis, “Chapters in the Kabbalistic Doctrine of Rav Shlomo Elyashiv” (1995), in which the Leshem Shevo v-Achloma undergoes the first significant academic treatment. However, it is Eliezer Baumgarten’s master’s thesis “History and Historiography in the Doctrine of Rav Shlomo Elyashiv” completed at the Ben-Gurion University (2006) where the thought of R. Elyashiv is treated in a systematic and significant fashion. Baumgarten analyzes R. Elyashiv’s usage of the historical process, primarily the teleological emphasis that the Leshem placed on historical temporality. The source material’s utilized by the Leshem, including the writings of the Arizal, Vilna Gaon as well as R. Yisrael Sarug are analyzed as well. It is the relationship between R. Elyashiv and the works of the Ramchal however, that receives the most significant treatment. Baumgarten traces the history of the literal/figurative debate regarding the Lurianic system, touching upon the notion of metaphoric (mashal) versus literal (nimshal) approaches, a topic that will be discussed at length in a future essay. While Baumgarten’s work remains the most extensive and systematic treatment of the Leshem’s system, there is much that remains unanalyzed as well as unthought.

There has been some, albeit limited research regarding the Leshem’s relationship with other mainstream approaches to Lurianic Kabbalah including the sefardic school of Rashash as well as the Hasidic approach to the Arizal’s system. Regarding the former, Jonatan Meir has correctly pointed out R. Elyashiv’s critique of the students of Rashash, or the michavnim in that they saw in R. Sharabi’s approach the only legitimate interpretive stance towards Kabbalat ha-Ari.[73] While Meir does gesture towards R. Elyashiv’s simultaneous critique and admiration for the sefardi mekubalim, his comments are limited to the historical relationship between the two wherein the Leshem “came close to the group of mechavnim, and spent time learning in the Rechovot ha-Nahar yeshiva, even writing a warm letter of approbation for a sefer of kavvanot that was published through the yeshiva.”[74] What is left unexamined is the Leshem’s deep engagement with the system of Rashash, both on a theoretical as well as practical level, manifested through editing and publishing various texts from within the Rashash’s school itself. Meir notes that the instigating factor in the Leshem’s critique of the Rashash’s system was “a difference in approach regarding the relationship between the mashal and the nimshal”[75] within the Lurianic system. Elsewhere[76] Meir suggests that both R. Elyashiv as well as the R. Yehuda Leib Ashlag, the baal ha-Sulam, took issue with the school of Rashash for similar reasons. Namely, that the michavnim were unable to penetrate the depths of meaning within the Lurianic system that were now revealed, a phenomenon- at least for R. Elyashiv – that was symptomatic of the historical epoch. From both sources it appears that Meir conflates the Leshem’s historical/practical critique of the sefardi mekubalim– namely the hyper-essentialism with which they viewed Rashash’s teachings- and the exegetical/theoretical critique that he claims the Leshem held vis a vis the school of Rashah. For Meir the alleged exegetical/theoretical critique was based on a difference of approach regarding the relationship between mashal and nimshal in the Lurianic system, with the Leshem disagreeing with Rashash. While it is clear, as will be discussed in a future essay, that R. Elyashiv did clear a unique path regarding the literal nature of Lurianic Kabbalah in contradistinction to the figurative approach championed by “those who delve too deeply into Ramchal,” it is difficult to claim that the Leshem’s stance varied from the approach of Rashash.[77]

With regards to the (non)relationship between the Leshem and the Hasidic interpretation of Lurianic Kabbalah, Bezalel Naor, Kana’uteh de-Pinhas (2013) offers a hitherto unpublished correspondence between R. Pinchas Lintop and R. Avraham Isaac Hakohen Kook regarding R. Elyashiv’s Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Hakdamot u-Shearim. As a Kabbalist, R. Lintop associated himself with the theoretical school of Habad and as such, took issue with the Leshem’s treatment of keilim within the world of Atzilut. While R. Elyashiv was in all probability unaware of R. Lintop’s critique, Naor serves as the Leshem’s surrogate in identifying what in Naor’s eyes serves as the distinguishing factor between R. Elyashiv’s mitnagdic-materialism versus Hasidic-acosmism, or pantheism. While Naor does present a coherent, and correct formulation of the differing opinions regarding the status of vessels (keilim) within the world of Emanation (Atzilut), his exegetical analysis in which the issue becomes analogous with the literal/figurative interpretation of tzimtzum is flawed. As will be discussed in a future essay, the Leshem’s understanding of tzimtzum as a literal event is a complex process resulting in a third category wherein tzimtzum must be viewed as both literal and figurative, or to borrow Elliot Wolfson’s locution it is both “figuratively literal as it is literally figurative.”[78] In addition, Naor’s approach appears to be narrow in scope, culling material from limited sources within the Habad school of Kabbalistic theosophy while quoting from only two sources within Leshem Shevo v-Achloma. From a sociohistorical perspective, Naor – correctly basing himself on R. Lintop’s letter in which the criticism of the Leshem is predicated on Hasidic texts as well as Ramchal’s system- appears to conflate R. Elyashiv’s critique regarding “those who delve too deeply into Ramchal”[79] with an assumed hostility towards Hasidut. While it is a legitimate to assume that as an adherent to the system of the Vilna Gaon, R. Elyashiv viewed Hasidut with a critical eye, I do not believe that the Leshem engaged in the harsh polemics that Naor would associate with him. Firstly, the textual evidence in which the Leshem even hints to Hasidut is extremely limited, with Naor’s main source being a letter written to R. Naftali Hertz HaLevi in 1883.[80] If R. Elyashiv, theoretically following in the footsteps of his spiritual predecessor, the Vilna Gaon, held the same beliefs regarding the danger and heretical leanings of the Hasidic movement, one would assume a more explicit and direct critique within his writings. Taking R. Elyashiv’s harsh criticism of Ramchal as an example,[81] it is apparent that the Leshem was not subtle when it came to those who misinterpreted the Lurianic system. Second, the Leshem quotes at times from texts written by Hasidic thinkers, a minuscule yet significant gesture when coming from the pen of a Mitnagdic Kabbalist.[82] While Naor is in all likelihood correct in that R. Elyashiv disagreed with the Hasidic approach to Lurianic Kabbalah,[83] it is reasonable to claim that the criticism was not nearly as severe as Naor, or R. Lintop for that matter, claim.

A positive exception to the ignorance of R. Elyashiv and his works within the academic study of Jewish Mysticism is Professor Jonathan Garb, who holds the Gershom Scholem chair in Kabbalah in the Department of Jewish Thought at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Garb, in his multifarious studies on twentieth-century Kabbalah has consistently gestured towards the significant impact the Leshem has had on individual thinkers as well as the field of Kabbalah study in general. While never offering a critical or comprehensive reading of the Leshem, Garb has pointed out certain significant aspects of R. Elyashiv’s unique approach to Lurianic Kabbalah. Of note is the Leshem’s particular stance with regards to the literal/figurative debate as applied to Kabbalat ha-Ari. As Garb notes in the name of R. Elyashiv, “The main sanctity and importance of the study of Kabbalah is to speak [to the realms] above, not below.”[84] Emphasizing the necessary demetaphorization of Lurianic mashal, the Leshem- as Garb correctly notes- highlights the ontological significance of Kabbalah study.[85] As opposed to the metaphorical readings in which the significance of the Kabbalah is limited to the historical or psychological influence leveled upon the subject,[86] R. Elyashiv calls for a metaphorically-literal reading wherein the Lurianic system maintains its transcendental quality. Garb is correct in pointing out that while the Leshem decries the strictly metaphorical reading of Lurianic Kabbalah, he by no means disregards the historical and psychological significance contained within an immanentist reading of the Kabbalah.[87] While most of Garb’s comments on the Leshem are relegated to tangential points or footnotes, the gesture towards his unique approach is noteworthy.

In situating R. Shlomo Elyashiv within the realm of modern Kabbalah scholarship, my aim is to point towards the significant impact – both historically and theoretically – the Leshem had on the world of Lurianic Kabbalah. While this essay has been primarily focused on the historical context of R. Elyashiv and his works, it is my hope that this serve as an introduction into the gates of the Leshem.[88]

Appendix A: R. Shlomo Elyashiv’s Approbation to R. Chaim Shaul Dweck’s Benayahu Ben Yehoyada: Tikkunei ha-Nefesh (Jerusalem, 1911):

Now it has come before me distinguished in tireless [effort] from the holy land in which God resides a flying scroll, sweet and pleasant, piercingly precious. A sefer enshrined in its clarity. Founded upon the purity of the soul, to purify her and sanctify her in the holy supernal light. And I have seen that it is a clarifying cornerstone, its foundations in the sanctified mountains, built and contained on wondrous and frightening unifications, built and founded upon these two holy Rabbis of Jerusalem, who are, the unique one of the nation- whose holiness is known by all- the holy Rabbi and godly mekubal, holy do we say regarding him, our teacher R. Chaim Shaul Dweck ha-Kohen, may God lengthen his days and years, and his viceroy the Rav, great in Torah and Hassidut in whom the wisdom of god rests our teacher R. Eliyahu Yaakov Lagimi may his days be lengthened and good, they are the builders of this holy edifice, a house for God, a palace for God. However, the essence of this sefer, its roots, branches and fruits belong to our master, the holy of holies, (the) Arizal himself from Sefer Shaar Ruach ha-Kodesh, but these chachamim I mentioned have revitalized her with additional light and great blessing, and they have done great work, holy work that has amazed me. For these yichudim that are in the Sefer Shaar Ruach ha-Kodesh, they contain various yechudim that remain closed off (Torah chatuma) and they necessitate clarification and explanation to unfold their essence, and some (yechudim) need workmanship in order to build them. Even the ones that are simple to understand, they too necessitate a clear order as to how to engage them practically; all of this has been rectified by these chachamim mentioned above, who accordant to their wisdom and righteousness have revitalized all of these yechudim collected from Shaar Ruach ha-Kodesh and concretized them within this holy sefer, and their wisdom has stood for them in ordering each and every yichud according to the desired intention, to the point that they no longer need any clarification as they remain open to all. They have also organized each and every yichud in an order appropriate for practical usage, and they have organized each yichud with the myriad Holy names that are applicable, and they have written them out explicitly in this sefer so that nothing is lacking for their practical utilization, one will find everything spread before their eyes in the opening of the gates to the holiness of God, and they need but to gaze with the proper intentions at the crowns of the letters that sparkle and shine the eyes in the holiness of the flaming fire of the godly flame. Furthermore, these chachamim have added crowning stones that shimmer with the spirit of God, for their essential goal is to reveal rectifications for the transgressive soul as the result of various transgressions, to reveal to them soul atonement, to save them from descent to the abyss and to enlighten them with the light of the face of the living King, and because it is impossible to rectify each transgression completely as if it never took place, until all of the blemishes that relate to the root soul and the myriad supernal lights are fully rectified, these chachamim have utilized their wisdom with regards to this as well, and they have taken from the teachings of our holy teacher R. Shalom Sharabi who is known for the wondrous teachings that have been revealed to him through supernal gates within the teachings of Arizal, and he has revealed each particular light that dwells in the chambers of the chariot, specifically with regards to the rectifications of the intentions of prayer and mitzvot; these chachamim have taken from his teachings as well and organized according to this the tikkun of each transgression correspondent to each specific light, to draw forth to each one (transgression) the light of yichud specific to each particular transgressions blemish, in order to perfect each tikkun as it applies to the root soul that is rooted in the holy of holies. There is no doubt that yichudim like these are included in our Sages statement (tb. Yoma 86b), “great is repentance wherein transgressions are transformed to merits”. Furthermore, these chachamim have included in this sefer various frightening yichudim that serve to draw forth upon oneself the holy supernal light, as the benefit of those who engage yichudim with purity and sanctity and who privatize their souls with God is known, and they have organized it all in the order necessary for practical engagement and they have intensified the process though all this. For this reason, there is no limit to the measurement of this sefer’s valuable elevation, for it is a jewel that knows no value, and it is worthy for all those in whose heart rests the fear of God to cleave to Him always and to serve as a stamp upon their hearts and a stamp upon their arms, for everything is contingent on the movement from below, as our Sages (Yumah, ch.3) have stated, “Man sanctifies himself a bit, and he is sanctified immensely, from below- he is sanctified above, in this-world- he is sanctified in the next”. These are the words written by the writer for the sake of this sefer’s holiness and practicality, for the merit of the masses, today the 8th of Adar, 1910,

Shlomo Ben R. Chaim Chaikal, author of Sefer Leshem Shevo v-Achloma

Appendix B: R. Shlomo Elyashiv’s Approbation to R. Chaim Shaul Dweck’s Eipha Sheleima al Otzrot Chaim (1907):

I have received what has been sent to me, a few leaves from the planted plaything, with numerous scents from the tents that God has planted, they are the works of the wondrous worker who seeks the concealed depths in all the proper measurements, with the full and righteous measuring stone (Eipha Sheleima v-Tzedek), clarifying and explaining the words of [the] Arizal in the holy and frightening Otzrot Chaim, and from what I have seen here and there, I have seen that it is a worthy and elevated sefer, great is the effort and great is the strength of this great man, the Rav of the land of Israel, the great Rav who contains vast measurements of valuable light, our teacher R. [Chaim] Shaul ha-Kohen may he live long and good days, his ability is great in deepening and widening these concealed teachings that stand at the apex of the world, in the supernal concealment, his strength is great to search and seek this concealed wisdom in her depths and heights, this is the Torah and this is its reward, to reveal the concealed wisdom, and may his wellsprings burst forth so that the masses may enjoy his light that enlightens the eyes of the wise, and to water the masses from his well, the well of living water that rests in the holy and frightening Sefer Otzrot Chaim. These are the words of he who speaks for the honor of the Torah and for the honor of this holy man, the godly mekubal, Kohen to the transcendent God, the wise author may his days be long and good, written and sealed bein ha-mitzarim, erev Shabbos kodesh, the 23^rd of Tammuz of this year 1906, waiting with exhausted eyes for the comfort of Zion and Jerusalem,

Shlomo Ben R. Chaim Chiakal Elyashiv

Notes:
Thank you to yedidi Reb Menachem Butler a true “chaver le-dvar naaleh.” Thanks as well to Reb Shlomo Gross for all of his insight and help with this essay.

[1] On the academic history and theosophy of R. Isaac Luria and the Lurianic school of Kabbalah, see Lawrence Fine, Physician of the Soul, Healer of the Cosmos: Isaac Luria and His Kabbalistic Fellowship (Stanford University Press, 2003); Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (Schocken, 1978), 244-286; Ronit Meroz, ”Redemption in Lurianic Teaching,” (PhD dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1988; Hebrew); Moshe Idel, “‘One from a Town, Two from a Clan’: The Diffusion of Lurianic Kabbala and Sabbateanism: A Re-Examination,” Jewish History 7:2 (Fall 1993): 79-104; Elliot R. Wolfson, “Divine Suffering and the Hermeneutics of Reading: Philosophical Reflections on Lurianic Mysticism,” in Robert Gibbs and Elliot R. Wolfson, eds., Suffering Religion (London: Routledge, 2002), 101-163; Morris M. Faierstein, “From Kabbalist to Zaddik: R. Isaac Luria as Precursor of the Baal Shem Tov,” in Leonard J. Greenspoon and Ronald A. Simkins, eds., Spiritual Dimensions of Judaism Omaha (NE: Creighton University Press, 2003), 95-104; Shaul Magid, From Metaphysics to Midrash: Myth, History, and the Interpretation of Scripture in Lurianic Kabbala (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008), Morris M. Faierstein, “Traces of Lurianic Kabbalah: Texts and their Histories,” Jewish Quarterly Review 103:1 (Winter 2013): 101-106, among other sources. See also my forthcoming essay, “Metaphoric Literality: The Leshem and Lurianic Kabbalah.”
[2] On the formulation of the Lurianic corpus, see Yosef Avivi, Kabbalat HaAri (Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 2008), three volumes.
[3] Regarding the complex dialectic of concealment and secrecy in Jewish mysticism, see Elliot R. Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being: Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and Poetic Imagination (New York: Fordham University Press, 2005), 200-224; Elliot R. Wolfson, Open Secret: Postmessianic Messianism and the Mystical Revision of Menahem Mendel Schneerson (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), 28-66.
[4] See Rav Chaim Vital, Hakdamah li-Shaar HaHakdamot, printed in R. Chaim Vital Sefer Eitz Chaim (Jerusalem, 1985), 5-24; Rav Tzvi Hirsch Eichenstein, Tzur Me-Rah v-Asseh Tov (Bnei Shlishim, 2004); Louis Jacobs, Turn Aside From Evil and do Good: An Introduction and a Way to the Tree of Life (London: Littman Library, 1995).
[5] On Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto and his systematic approach to the Lurianic system, see Isaiah Tishby, Messianic Mysticism: Moses Hayim Luzzatto and the Padua School, trans. Morris Hoffman (London: Littman Library, 2005); Jonathan Garb, Kabbalist in the Heart of the Storm: Rabbi Moshe Hayyim Luzzatto (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 2014; Hebrew); Mordechai Chriqui, Rehev Yisrael: Kabbalat R. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto (Machon Ramchal, 1995); and Elliot R. Wolfson, “‘Tiqqun ha-Shekhinah’: Redemption and the Overcoming of Gender Dimorphism in the Messianic Kabbalah of Moses Hayyim Luzzatto,” History of Religions 36:4 (May 1997): 289-332. For a socio-historical treatment of Ramchal and colleagues, see Elisheva Carlebach, “Redemption and Persecution in the Eyes of Moses Hayim Luzzatto and His Circle,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 54 (1987): 1-29; and Jonathan Garb, “The Political Model in Modern Kabbalah: A Study of Rabbi Moses Hayyim Luzzatto and His Intellectual Surroundings,” in Benjamin Brown, Menachem Lorberbaum, Avinoam Rosenak, Yedidia Z. Stern, eds., Religion and Politics in Jewish Thought: Essays in Honor of Aviezer Ravitzky, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Israel Democracy Institute and Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2012), 533-565 (Hebrew).
[6] For a historical overview of Rav Shalom Sharabi and his system of Kabbalistic theurgy, see Pinchas Giller, Shalom Shar’abi and the Kabbalists of Beit El (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008); Jonatan Meir, Rechovot HaNahar: Kabbalah and Exoterica in Jerusalem (1896-1948) (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press, 2011), 19-74. For an in-depth depiction of Sharabi’s approach to the Lurianic system, see Rav Yaakov Hillel, Ahavat Shalom: Yesodot u-Klalim bi-Torato shel Maran HaRashash (Ahavat Shalom, 2001). On Rav Yaakov Hillel, see Jonatan Meir, “The Boundaries of the Kabbalah: R. Yaakov Moshe Hillel and the Kabbalah in Jerusalem,” in Boaz Huss, ed., Kabbalah and Contemporary Spiritual Revival (Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2011), 163-180.
For a recent, massive work devoted to Rav Sharabi’s system, approach and relationship vis-a-vis other Kabbalistic schools, see Shmuel Ehrenfeld, Yar’ucha Im Shemesh: Klalim bi-Derech Limmud Torat HaRashash (Yam HaChochma, 2014). The interface between the Rashash, psychoanalysis and the philosophy of Merleau-Ponty will be discussed in my forthcoming essay, “Hitklalut u-Hitkashrut: Individuation, Depth and Coming to be.”
[7] While the bibliography on Hassidut is immense, I will limit the sources to works that deal primarily with the Hasidic (re)vision of Lurianic Kabbalah, See Elliot R. Wolfson, Open Secret: Postmessianic Messianism and the Mystical Revision of Menahem Mendel Schneerson (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), 24-43, for a discussion of the transmutation of the Lurianic system unto a Hasidic/Messianic register. See Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken, 1978), 325-350; Rachel Elior, The Paradoxical Ascent to God: The Kabbalistic Theosophy of Habad Hasidism (Albany: SUNY Press, 1993), 5-18; Naftali Loewenthal, Communicating the Infinite: The Emergence of the Habad School (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1990); Rivka Schatz-Uffenheimer, Hasidism as Mysticism: Quietistic Elements in Eighteenth-Century Hasidic Thought, trans. Jonathan Chipman (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993); and Zvi Mark, Mysticism and Madness: The Religious Thought of R. Nachman of Bratslav (London and New York: Continuum Books, 2009), 28-60; 185-200.
[8] On the Kabbalistic school on the Vilna Gaon and students, see Immanuel Etkes, The Gaon of Vilna: The Man and His Image (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2002), 3-26; Yosef Avivi, Kabbalat HaGra (Jerusalem, 1993); Eliezer Baumgarten, “The Gra and His Disciples’ Attitude towards the Authority of the Ari,” Da’at 72 (2011): 53-74; Sid Z. Leiman, “When a Rabbi is Accused of Heresy: The Stance of the Gaon of Vilna in the Emden-Eibeschuetz Controversy,” in Ezra Fleischer, Gerald Blidstein, Carmi Horowitz, and Bernard Septimus, eds., Me’ah She’arim: Studies in Medieval Jewish Spiritual Life in Memory of Isadore Twersky (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, Magnes Press, 2001), 251-263; Yehuda Liebes, “Tzidkat ha-Tzadik: The Vilna Gaon and His Students Relationship with Sabbatianism,” Kabbalah 9 (2003): 225-306 (Hebrew).
See also The Vilna Gaon and his Disciples, eds. Moshe Hallamish, Yosef Rivlin, and Raphael Shuchat (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2003), especially the two articles by Mordechai Pachter, “The Gaon’s Kabbalah from the Perspective of Two Traditions,” 119-136, and Yosef Rivlin, “The Influence of Kabbalah and Zoharic Literature on the Gaon’s Writings and Commentaries,” 137-154, and Eliyahu Stern, The Genius: Elijah of Vilna and the Making of Modern Judaism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), 196-198n19, and the review by Lawrence Kaplan at the Seforim blog (19 November 2013), available here. On R. Chaim of Volozhin, see Norman Lamm, Torah Lishmah: Torah for the Sake of Heaven in the Works of R. Hayyim of Volozhin and His Contemporaries (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1989), 21-45; 286-295. On R. Menahem Mendel of Shklov, see Moshe Idel, “R. Menahem Mendel of Shklov and R. Abraham Abulafia,” in Moshe Hallamish, Yosef Rivlin, and Raphael Shuchat, eds., The Vilna Gaon and his Disciples (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2003), 173-184 (Hebrew); Yehuda Liebes, “The Students of the Vilna Gaon, Sabbateanism, and Dos Pintele Yid,” Da’at (2003): 255-290 (Hebrew); Eliezer Baumgarten, “Rabbi Menahem Mendel of Shklov: Symbolic Interpretation within the Students of the Gra in the Eighteenth-Century,” in Israel Rozenson and Yosef Rivlin, eds., The Vilna Gaon’s Disciples in Eretz Israel: History, Thought, Reality (Jerusalem: Efrata College Publications, 2010), 23-54 (Hebrew). Regarding R. Yitzhak Isaac Haver, see Eliezer Baumgarten, “The Primordial Light and the Light of the Leviathan: Torah in the Teachings of R. Yitzhak Issac Hever Wildman,” Da’at 76 (2014): 83-110 (Hebrew). On R. Yitzhak Kahane-Kellner, see S.Y Popper, “Toldot ha-Michaber Baal Toldot Yitzhak,” in Toldot Yitzhak: Sefer Yetzirah im Biur HaGra (Machon HaGra, 2008), 32-44 (Hebrew).
[9] See Michael Fishbane, The JPS Bible Commentary: Song of Songs (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2015), 17-21; Moshe Idel, Absorbing Perfections: Kabbalah and Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 429-437; Elliot R. Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being: Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and Poetic Imagination (New York: Fordham University Press, 2005), 220-223. See also Lily Glasner, “The Jewish Pardes Metaphor as Reflected in the Magical Garden of a Christian Knight,” in Marcel Poorthuis, Joshua Schwartz, and Joseph Turner, eds., Interaction between Judaism and Christianity in History, Religion, Art and Literature (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 219-235.
[10] The biographical and historical information on R. Shlomo Elyashiv is limited. The works utilized in this effort are R. Aryeh Levin, “Toldot HaGaon HaKadosh Mechaber Sifrei Leshem Shevo v-Achloma,” printed in Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Chelek ha-Biurim (Barzani, 2010), 5-12; Rav Seraya Dublitzky, Kuntress Ari bi-Mistarim (Bnei Brak, 1951); Tzvi Hirsch Ferber, “Notes and Comments on the Works of the Vilna Gaon,” Talpiyot 5 (1951): 354-361, esp. 358-360 (Hebrew); and M.D. Chechick, “Aryeh d’Bei Illah: Perakim mi-Chayei HaMekubal HaGaon R. Shlomo Elya`shiv: In Honor of 100 Years Since the Publication of his First Sefer: Hakdamot u-Shearim,” Yeshurun 22 (2010): 781-796 (Hebrew). This volume of Yeshurun 22 (2010) was dedicated to the memory of Rav Sholmo Elyashiv. This volume included a reprint of Aryeh Levin’s classic biographical sketch on the Leshem; M.D. Chechick’s overview culling from materials printed on Rav Elyashiv, and an essay of The Leshem’s glosses to various seforim as well as hitherto unpublished letters. For an interesting discussion on R. Elyashiv’s writing-act itself, see Eliezer Brodt, Likkutei Eliezer, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 2010), 69
While it is beyond the scope of this essay to discuss the role of Kabbalah in the psak of Rav Shlomo Elyashiv’s grandson, Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, their relationship is noteworthy. See Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Klalei Hitpashtut v-Hitklalut, 6, where the Leshem thanks his grandson for his help with writing and arranging the texts. As a young child, Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, son-in-law of Rabbi Aryeh Levin, was able to relocate in Jerusalem through the efforts of Rav Avraham Yitzhak Ha-Kohen Kook, who was a close friend of his grandfather and served on his eventual Mesader Kidushin. About Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, see Avraham (Rami) Reiner, “Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv as a Halachic Decisor,” Modern Judaism 33:3 (October 2013): 260-300, and also Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, “Rav Kook & Rav Elyashiv,” Jewish Action (23 May 2013), online here for a review of Yisa Shalom: Choveret al Rav Kook v’Rav Elyashiv (2012).
[11] R. Moshe Zvi Neria, Likkutei ha-Re’ayah (Bnei Brak, 1990), 58.
[12] R. Elyashiv exhibits a succinct comprehension of R. Chaim de La Rosa’s highly complex Torat Chachom in numerous places, see for example Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Drushei Olam HaTohu, Chelek Alef, Drush Gimmel, Siman Hei, No. 7 (p.55). The author of Yir’ucha Im Shemesh, 899, recounts that Rav Elyashiv’s copy of Torat Chocham came into his possession and how the margins as well as the title page were filled with personal notations. For more on R. Chaim de La Rosa, see my forthcoming essay, “Hitklalut u-Hitkashrut: Individuation, Depth and Coming to be.”
[13] See Rav Avraham Yitzhak Ha-Kohen Kook, Igrot ha-Re’ayah (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1961), 212-213 (no. 132). Rav Elyashiv’s letter to Rabbi Yitzhak Isaac ha-Levi Herzog is printed in Avraham Shapira, “Geulah ve-Mikdash,” Techumin 5 (1983): 437-438 (Hebrew).
[14] Rav Elyashiv edited and played a major role in printing various Kabbalistic texts. See the comments of Rav Aryeh Levin, “Toldot HaGaon HaKadosh Mechaber Sifrei Leshem Shevo v-Achloma,” 8-9, regarding Rav Elyashiv’s involvement in editing the works of The Vilna Gaon that remained in the library of Rav Dovid Luria, in the hands of Rav Shmuel Luria. According to M.D. Chechick, “Aryeh d’Bei Illah,” 785-786, the edition of Rav Levin’s booklet that is found in The Gershom Scholem Collection at the National Library of Israel contains the following marginal note, “However, these seforim do not recall his (R. Elyashiv) name, and they specifically mention the names of others.” See however Ramchal, Daat Tevunot (Warsaw, 1889) and Rav Yitzhak Isaac Haver, Pitchei Shearim (1888) that contain mention to Rav Elyashiv’s editorial efforts. Regarding R. Elyashiv’s personal statement regarding his involvement in editing and publishing the Ramchal’s works, see Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Drushei Olam HaTohu, Chelek Alef, Drush Hei, Siman Zayin, 162, (No. 8). Rav Elyashiv also edited and reviewed Rav Dovid of Aiger, Kuntress Chasdei Dovid and Rav Shalom Sharabi, Rechovot HaNahar, both printed in the back of Sefer Eitz Chaim (Barzani, 2008), see Menachem Menchin Halperin, “Hakdamat ha-Misader veha-Miaseif et ha-Hagaaot u-Biurim,” Eitz Chaim (Barzani, 2008), 4.
[15] All references to Sifrei Leshem Shevo v-Achloma are based on the Barzani editions of the texts.
[16] Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Hakdamt u-Shearim has recently been reprinted by two separate editors, both appending their own footnotes and clarifications; Yehoshua Lipschitz, Hakdamot u-Shearim im Likkut Meir HaLeshem (Jerusalem, 2014) and Menachem Makover, Hakdamot u-Shearim: ha-Aruch ve-ha-Mevu’ar (Yerid HaSefarim, 2010).
[17] While the concept of the integration and redistribution of each level within all other levels is found in the Lurianic system as codified by R. Chaim Vital, it is my opinion that R. Elyashiv’s depiction of a highly complex equation of hitklalut u-hitkashrut through which each stage undergoes the process of individuation is rooted in RaShaSh’s conception of this Lurianic idea. See Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Hakdamot u-Shearim, Shaar Gimmel at length; compare to R. Sharabi, Hakdamat Rechovot HaNahar (Barzani, 2008), 2c-3b; Nahar Shalom (Barzani, 2008), 10a-b. Although R. Elyashiv makes no reference to RaShaSh’s conception of hitklalut u-hitkashrut in Shaar Gimmel of Hakdamot u-Shearim, the significance of this idea of the Leshem is apparent, see Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Biur li-Rechovot HaNahar in Gilyonot HaLeshem (Jerusalem, 1987), 323-328. The Kabbalistic concept of hitklalut u-hitkashrut can be compared to what the French philosopher Gilbert Simondon has termed “collective individuation.” See David Scott, Gilbert Simondon’s Psychic and Collective Individuation: A Critical Introduction and Guide (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2014), 27-66, as well as Carl Jung’s description of “psychological individuation,” see Frances Gray, Jung, Irigaray, Individuation: Philosophy, Analytical Psychology, and the Question of the Feminine (London: Routledge, 2004), 35-85. While Simondon and Jung depict the individuation process on the epistemological (Simondon) and psychological (Jung) register, R. Shalom Sharabi, and his disciple R. Chaim de La Rosa appear to be describing the complex dynamic of ontological individuation. For an insightful treatment of Jungian individuation as it applies to Lurianic Kabbalah and Hassidut, see Haviva Pedaya, “Guf ha-Nesirah ve-Individuation” in Dov Noy and B. Kahane, eds., El ha-Atzmi: Ta’halichei Individuation ve-Maavrei Hayim (Reuven, 2015), 297-332, and Haviva Pedaya, Psychoanalysis and Kabbalah (Yediot Sefarim, 2015), 69-84. See also my forthcoming essay, “The Whole is in the Part: Ontological Individuation in the Leshem and Rashash.”
[18] On the Kabbalistic teachings of R. Sarug/Saruq and his school, see Moshe Idel, Golem: Jewish Magical and Mystical Traditions on the Artificial Anthropoid (Albany: SUNY Press, 1990), 134-154; Moshe Idel, “Between the Kabbalah of Jerusalem and the Kabbalah of Israel Sarug,” Shalem 6 (1992): 165-173; and Ronit Meroz, “Contrasting Opinions Among the Founders of Saruq’s School,” in Paul Fenton and Roland Goetschel, eds., Expérience, Écriture et Théologie dans le Judaïsme et les Religions du Livre (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 191-202. While the teachings of R. Sarug and the worlds of the Malbush were highly significant within the school of Kabbalat HaGra, it was R. Elyashiv who revealed the interdependency between Rav Chaim Vital’s writings and the writings of the Sarugian school, see Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Hakdamot u-Shearim, 119-121, where R. Elyashiv offers an insight regarding the historical fact that R. Sarug’s writings were published before the writings of R. Chaim Vital, as well as the significance that the Vilna Gaon placed on the teachings of the Sarugian school. For a brief overview of R. Elyashiv’s engagement with R. Sarug’s system, see Eliezer Baumgarten, “History and Historiography in the Doctrine of R. Shlomo Elyashiv,” (MA thesis, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 2006), 16-19 (Hebrew). Regarding R. Naftali Hertz Bacharach’s Emek HaMelech, see the recently-printed letter by Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv in Yeshurun 22 (2010): 842 (Hebrew).
On the centrality of gevurot in the Leshem, from Olam ha-Malbush to Olam ha-Asiyah, see my forthcoming essay, “Expression, Intensification and Manifestation: Gevurot in the thought of the Leshem.”
See as well the brief comments of Rav Yitzchok Hutner regarding the Leshem and the Sarugian writings of Rabbi Menachem Azariah of Fano, in Pachad Yitzchok: Iggerot u-Ketavim (Brooklyn: Gur Aryeh, 1998), 147 (no. 80) (Hebrew). See also Robert Bonfil, “New Information on Rabbi Menahem Azariah da Fano and His Age,” in Immanuel Etkes and Yosef Salmon, eds., Studies in the History of Jewish History in the Middle Ages and in the Modern Period: Presented to Professor Jacob Katz on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday by his Students and Friends (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1980), 98-135 (Hebrew); and Robert Bonfil, “Halakhah, Kabbalah and Society: Some Insights into Rabbi Menahem Azariah da Fano’s Inner World,” in Isadore Twersky and Bernard Septimus, eds., Jewish Thought in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), 39-61.
[19] Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Drushei Olam HaTohu (Barzani, 2006), 2. Recently a new edition of Sefer haDea”H, Chelek Alef was printed with notes and annotations from the editor, Yehoshua Lipschitz, Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Drushei Olam HaTohu im Likkut Meir HaLeshem (Jerusalem, 2016).
[20] Ibid., “Maamar Klali al Yesod haSefer,” 3-12.
[21] Gershom Scholem’s interpretation of the Shevira as the traumatic formation of history is similar to Rav Elyashiv’s treatment, see Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken, 1978), 246-250; Elliot R. Wolfson, “Divine Suffering and the Hermenutics of Reading: Philosophical Reflections on Lurianic Mysticism,” in Robert Gibbs and Elliot R. Wolfson, eds., Suffering Religion (London: Routledge, 2002), 101-163; Harold Bloom, Kabbalah and Criticism (New York: Seabury Press, 1975), 24-49. Regarding Scholem’s conception of history and the influence it played on his Kabbalistic interpretations, see David Biale, Gershom Scholem: Kabbalah and Counter-History (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982), 94-147. See also my forthcoming essays, “Constitutive Trauma: A Psychoanalytic reading of Drushei Olam HaTohu” and “Afterwardness: The Temporality of Shevirat HaKeilim.”
[22] Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Klalei Hitpashtut v-Histalkut (Barzani, 2010), 1.
[23] The dialectical play of concealment and revelation within Jewish Mysticism is a key trope in the thought of Elliot R. Wolfson, which I described in an essay in Joey Rosenfeld, “Dorshei Yichudcha: A Portrait of Professor Elliot R. Wolfson,” The Seforim Blog (21 July 2015), available here, as well as my forthcoming essay, “Difference through Repetition: The Dialectical Play of Egression and Regression in Klalei Hitpashtut v-Hitklalut.”
[24] For a comprehensive account of this process, see A. Fraenkel, Nefesh HaTzimtzum, Volume 2: Understanding Nefesh HaChaim through the Key Concept of Tzimtzum (Jerusalem: Urim Publications, 2015), 35-58.
[25] Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Klalei Hitpashtut v-Hitklalut (Barzani, 2010), 3.
[26] M.D. Chechick, “Aryeh d’Bei Illah,” 787n16. See also Benjamin Brown, “Kabbalah in the Hafetz Hayyim’s Halakhic Work,” in Rachel Elior, ed., ‘New Old Things’: Myths, Mysticism and Controversies, Philosophy and Halakhah, Faith and Ritual in Jewish Thought through the Ages, vol. 2 [=Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 23] (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 2011), 486-542 (Hebrew).
[27] See R. Elya Lopian’s Lev Eliyahu, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 2005), 12 (Hebrew).
[28] R. Yosef Leib Bloch quotes a private discussion held with R. Elyashiv regarding acosmic/materialistic view of existence, see R. Yosef Leib Bloch, Shiurei Daat, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1975), 163-164 (Hebrew). R. Bloch refers to the Leshem as R. Shlomo Fine-Elyashiv after his father-in-law’s name.
[29] R. Aryeh Levin, “Toldot HaGaon HaKadosh Mechaber Sifrei Leshem Shevo v-Achloma,” 11.
[30] R. Yeruchem Levovitz, Daat, Chochma u-Mussar, vol. 2 (Brooklyn: Daas Chochmah U’mussar Publications, 1972), 184 (Hebrew).
[31] Tzvi Hirsch Ferber, “Notes and Comments on the Works of the Vilna Gaon,” Talpiyot 5 (1951): 358 (Hebrew).
[32] Curiously – and in my view, unfortunately – the purported encounter between R. Shlomo Elyashiv and R. Yisrael Salanter has been one of the most widely discussed topics within the small world of Leshem scholarship. Regarding the historical ambiguity surrounding this (non)event, see Benjamin Brown, “Eineni Shayich Li Ki Eini Osek Be-Zeh – ‘It Does Not Relate to Me’: The Relationship Between R. Yisrael Salanter and Kabbalah,” in Maren R. Niehoff, Ronit Meroz, and Jonathan Garb, eds., ve-Zot le-Yehuda – And This Is For Yehuda: Studies Presented to our Friend, Professor Yehuda Liebes on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2012), 420-439; S. Hoffman, “ha-Im Nifgash Baal haLeshem Shevo v-Achloma im R. Yisrael Salanter?” Yeshurun 16 (2005): 838-841 (Hebrew); On Rav Yisrael Salanter and Kabbalah, see Iggerot u-Ketavim le-Rav Shlomo Wolbe, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 2005), 49; Nathan Kamenetsky, “Al Pigishat haLeshem im R. Yisrael mi-Salant,” ha-Ma’ayan 46:3 (2006): 81-90 (Hebrew); Bezalel Naor, Kana’uteh de-Pinhas (Monsey: Orot, 2013), 114n58.
[33] Regarding mitnagdic, or Lithuanian Mysticism, see Allan Nadler, The Faith of the Mithnagdim: Rabbinic Responses to Hasidic Rapture (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), 29-50. See footnote eight above.
[34] The correspondence between R. Shlomo Elyashiv and R. Naftali Hertz were recently reprinted in R. Moshe Schatz, Maayan Moshe (Jerusalem, 2013), 254-273.
[35] See Gershom Scholem, Messianic Idea in Judaism: And Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (New York: Schocken Books, 1971), 37-49.
[36] Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Hakdamot u-Shearim, Introduction, 5.
[37] Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Drushei Olam HaTohu, Chelek Alef, Drush Hei (no. 4), 76.
[38] Regarding the eschatological significance of “the sixth millennia” in Jewish mysticism, see Haviva Pedaya, “The Sixth Millennium: Millenarism and Messianism in the Zohar,” Da’at 72 (Winter 2012): 66-80 (Hebrew). On the year 1840 and its messianic significance, see Israel Bartal, “Messianism and Nationalism: Liberal Optimism vs. Orthodox Anxiety,” Jewish History 20:1 (March 2006): 5-17.
[39] See Jonathan Garb, The Chosen Will Become Herds: Studies in Twentieth Century Kabbalah (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 140n16. Eliezer Baumgarten, however, takes issue with Garb’s depiction of R. Elyashiv as R. Kook’s teacher, claiming that at best their relationship was one of mutual admiration; see Eliezer Baumgarten, “History and Historiography in the Doctrine of R. Shlomo Elyashiv,” (MA thesis, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 2006), 9n8 (Hebrew).
[40] R. Moshe Zvi Neria, Be-Sdei ha-Re’ayah (Bnei Brak, 1990), 25-26 (Hebrew).
[41] R. Avraham Yitzhak ha-Kohen Kook, Iggerot ha-Re’ayah (Jerusalem, 1996), 750 (Hebrew). This pilgrimage is discussed in Yehudah Mirsky, “An Intellectual and Spiritual Biography of Rabbi Avraham Yitzhaq Ha-Cohen Kook from 1865 to 1904,” (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 2007), 100 and also, note 197.
[42] R. Moshe Zvi Neria, Moadei ha-Re’ayah (Jerusalem, 2007), 422-423 (Hebrew).
[43] R. Avraham Yitzhak ha-Kohen Kook, Iggerot ha-Re’ayah (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1996), 236-237. The translation of this letter is found in Bezalel Naor, “Rav Kook and Rav Shlomo Elyashev (“Leshem”) (1841-1926),” Orot (20 October 2015), here.
[44] R. Avraham Yitzhak ha-Kohen Kook, Iggerot ha-Re’ayah, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1996), 114 (Hebrew).
[45] R. Moshe Zvi Neria, Likkutei ha-Re’ayah (Bnei Brak, 1990), 164 (Hebrew).
[46] See appendix for the handwritten epitaph written by Rav Kook. For a description of R. Elyashiv’s funeral procession, see M.D. Chechick, “Aryeh d’Bei Illah,” 791.
[47] Regarding R. Yaakov Moshe Charlap’s critique of the Leshem, see Mei Marom al Shemoneh Perakim liha-Rambam, Vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Beit Zevul, 1981), 176-177; R. Y.L Sussman, me-Bechirei Tzadikei: Maamarim v-Iggerot, Reshamim v-Zichronot Me’at Ha-Tzaddik ha-Yerushalmi, HaRav Yosef Leib Sussman (Jerusalem, 2005), 172-173. With regards to R. Dovid Cohen’s view of the Sifrei Leshem Shevo v-Achloma, see R. Dovid Cohen, Kol haNevuah (Jerusalem, 1969), 219, 287, 291, as well as R. Dovid Cohen’s comments recorded in Klach Pitchei Chochmah im Pitchei haPardes: Biurei Nazir Elokim R. Dovid Cohen (Machon Ariel, 2004), 93-96. On the relationship between Rav Kook and R. Dovid Cohen, see the brief essay by my brother Josh Rosenfeld, “Seeker Finds Master—and Transcendence,” Tablet Magazine (14 August 2015), here.
[48] R. Moshe Zvi Neria, Sichot ha-Re’ayah (Tel Aviv, 1978), 161-162 (Hebrew). See also Jonatan Meir, “Toward the Popularization of Kabbalah: R. Yosef Hayyim of Baghdad and the Kabbalists of Jerusalem,” Modern Judaism 33:2 (May 2013): 148-172.
[49] See R. Menachem Menchin Halperin, “Hakdamat ha-Misader veha-Miaseif et ha-Hagaaot u-Biurim,” Eitz Chaim (Barzani, 2008), 3-4.
[50] See appendix for the text of these two haskamot
[51] My thanks to Prof. Jonathan Garb for this phraseology.
[52] “Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Biur li-Rechovot HaNahar,” in Gilyonot HaLeshem (Jerusalem, 1987), 323-350.
[53] R. Menachem Halperin, “Hakdamat ha-Misader veha-Miaseif et ha-Hagaaot u-Biurim,” Eitz Chaim (Barzani, 2008), 4.
[54] Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Drushei Olam HaTohu, Chelek Alef, Drush Gimmel, Siman Hei, no. 7 (p.55).
[55] The printed letter can be found in see Shmuel Ehrenfeld, Yar’ucha Im Shemesh: Klalim bi-Derech Limmud Torat HaRashash (Yam HaChochma, 2014), 544-545.
[56] Regarding the Vilna Gaon’s school of Kabbalah, see footnote eight above.
[57] R. M.D Parchiah, Kuntress Yud-Gimmel Maarachot (Jerusalem, 2015).
[58] Shaarei Leshem Shevo v-Achloma (Barzani, 1993), 1.
[59] Ibid.
[60] Ibid.
[61] Anonymous, Haggadah Shel Pesach im Likkutei Niglot Leshem Shevo v-Achloma (Jerusalem, 2000), Introduction.
[62] See Rav Moshe Shapiro’s approbation printed at the beginning of Maf’teach Leshem Shevo v-Achloma (Jerusalem, 2002):

[63] Shaarei Leshem Shevo v-Achloma (Barzani, 1993), 4.
[64] For an in-depth treatment of the paradoxical adherence of the law through its very disavowal, see Elliot R. Wolfson, Venturing Beyond: Morality and Law in Kabbalistic Mysticism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 186-286.
[65] On Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Morgenstern, see Jonathan Garb, “Mystical and Spiritual Discourse in the Contemporary Ashkenazi Haredi Worlds,” Journal of Modern Jewish Studies 9:1 (March 2010): 17-36; Jonathan Garb, Yearnings of the Soul: Psychological Thought in Modern Kabbalah (Chicago University Press, 2015), 140-144; Aubrey Glazer, Mystical Vertigo: Contemporary Kabbalistic Hebrew Poetry Dancing Over the Divide (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2013), 21-70; Elliot R. Wolfson, A Dream Interpreted Within a Dream: Oneiropoiesis and the Prism of Imagination (New York: Zone Books, 2011), 230-235, and Elliot R. Wolfson, “Afterword,” in Aubrey Glazer, Mystical Vertigo: Contemporary Kabbalistic Hebrew Poetry Dancing Over the Divide (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2013), 270-273.
[66] For an autobiographical depiction of R. Schatz undergoing the same process of unlearning, see the introduction to Moshe Schatz, Maayan Moshe (Jerusalem, 2013), Jonathan Garb, Yearnings of the Soul: Psychological Thought in Modern Kabbalah (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2015), 122-123.
[67] Rabbi Meir Triebitz’s classes can be found online here.
[68] Gershom Scholem, Kabbalah (New York: Meridian, 1978), 144.
[69] Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (Schocken, 1978), 136.
[70] Ibid., 404n56. See also Daniel Abrams, Kabbalistic Manuscripts and Textual Theory: Methodologies of Textual Scholarship and Editorial Practice in the Study of Jewish Mysticism (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2010).
[71] Mordechai Pachter, “Circles and Straightness: A History of an Idea (From Lurianic Kabbalah to the Teachings of Rav Kook),” Da’at 18 (1987), 59-90 (Hebrew), translated and reprinted in Mordechai Pachter, Roots of Faith and Devequt: Studies in the History of Kabbalistic Ideas (Cherub Press, 2004), 131-185.
[72] Ibid., 143n26.
[73] Jonatan Meir, Rehovot HaNahar: Kabbalah and Exoterica in Jerusalem (1896-1948) (Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 2011), 51.
[74] Ibid.
[75] Ibid. 51n137.
[76] See Jonatan Meir, “Wrestling with the Esoteric: Hillel Zeitlin, Yehudah Ashlag, and Kabbalah in the Land of Israel,” in Ephraim Meir and Haviva Pedaya, eds., Judaism: Topics, Fragments, Faces and Identities: In Honor of Professor Rivka Horwitz (Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2007), 585-647, esp. 602-604 (Hebrew).
[77] Regarding the similarities between the Leshem and Rashash’s approach to the literalist/figurative discussion regarding Lurianic Kabbalah, see Rav Yaakov Hillel, Ad ha-Gal ha-Zeh (Ahavat Shalom, 2004), 97-132 (Hebrew).
[78] See Elliot R. Wolfson, A Dream Interpreted Within a Dream: Oneiropoiesis and the Prism of Imagination (New York: Zone Books, 2011), 200.
[79] See Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Drushei Olam HaTohu, Chelek Alef, Drush Hei, Siman Zayin (no. 7-8), 162.
[80] See Bezalel Naor, Kana’uteh de-Pinhas (Monsey: Orot, 2013), 120n68. The publication of this volume was announced by Bezalel Naor at the Seforim blog (17 July 2013), here.
[81] Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Drushei Olam HaTohu, Chelek Alef, Drush Hei, Siman Zayin (no. 7-8), 162.
[82] See for example, Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Chelek ha-Biurim, Shaar Ach”P, Perek Gimmel (no. 5), 128. where the Leshem references R. Yitzchak Isaac Yehuda Yechiel Safrin of Komarno’s Zohar Chai, and Chelek ha-Biurim, Shaar TaNT”A, Perek Dalet (no.3), 203, where the Leshem references R. Eliezer Tzvi Safrin of Komarno’s Ohr Einayin. See also the letter printed in Yeshurun 22 (2010), 842, where the Leshem refers to R. Yaakov Tzvi Yalish, a close student and follower of R. Yaakov Yitzchak Horowitz- the Chozeh of Lublin- as “haGaon haChossid Baal Maalei haRo’im” when referencing his Kabbalistic encyclopedia Kehilat Yaakov, a worked adorned with Haskamot from Hasidic masters including the Divrei Chaim of Sanz, the Trisker Maggid and the Bnei Yissaschar.
[83] See for example the statement made by R. Yosef Leib Sussman in the name of R. Yaakov Moshe Charlop regarding the Leshem’s animosity towards Hassidut, R. Yosef Leib Sussman, me-Bechirei Tzadikei: Maamarim v-Iggerot, Reshamim v-Zichronot Me’at Ha-Tzaddik ha-Yerushalmi, HaRav Yosef Leib Sussman (Jerusalem, 2005), 172-173.
[84] Jonathan Garb, The Chosen Will Become Herds: Studies in Twentieth Century Kabbalah (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 180.
[85] ibid, 181. See the text of a lecture by Garb, entitled: “Kabbalistic Cultures in Jerusalem in the Early Twentieth Century,” and available online here.
[86] See Garbs discussion on R. Elyashiv’s critique of “those who delve too deeply into the works of Ramchal” in Jonathan Garb, Kabbalist in the Heart of the Storm: Rabbi Moshe Hayyim Luzzatto (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 2014), 328-331 (Hebrew).
[87] See Jonathan Garb, Yearnings of the Soul: Psychological Thought in Modern Kabbalah (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2015), 90-91.
[88] In future work, I shall discuss the theological and philosophical ideas that run beneath the Leshem’s system will move beyond the context into the subtext of R. Elyashiv’s mystical hermeneutics.