Ra„anan Boustan‟s sessions for “Jews on the Move” I. Personal

Transcription

Ra„anan Boustan‟s sessions for “Jews on the Move”
I. Personal journeys
Title: ―To Heaven and Back Again: From Personal Journey to Communal Responsibility‖
Reading for session:
Hekhalot Rabbati (The Greater [Book of the Heavenly] Palaces), §§81–93 and §§163–169;
translated in J. R. Davila, Hekhalot Literature in Translation: Major Texts of Merkavah
Mysticism (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 51–56 and 85–90.
Supplemental readings:
Ira Chernus, ―The Pilgrimage to the Merkavah: An Interpretation of Early Jewish Mysticism,‖
Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 6 (1987): 1–35.
Peter Schäfer, ―The Ideal of Piety in the Ashkenazi Hasidim and its Roots in Jewish Tradition,‖
Jewish History 4 (1990): 9–23.
Ra‗anan Boustan, ―The Study of Heikhalot Literature—Between Religious Experience and
Textual Artifact,‖ Currents in Biblical Research 6 (2007): 130–60.
Mandel Institute for Jewish Studies / ‫המכון למדעי היהדות ע"ש מנדל‬
/ THE PILGRIMAGE TO THE MERKAVAH: AN INTERPRETATION OF EARLY JEWISH MYSTICISM
‫ לפירושה של המיסטיקה היהודית הקדומה‬:‫המסע אל המרכבה‬
Author(s): Ira Chernus and ‫אירה צ׳רנוס‬
Source:
Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought /
‫מחקרי ירושלים במחשבת ישראל‬
PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE HISTORY OF JEWISH
MYSTICISM: EARLY JEWISH MYSTICISM / pp. 1-35 ‫ המיסטיקה היהודית‬:‫המיסטיקה היהודית‬
‫ כרך חוברת דברי הכנס הבינלאומי הראשון לתולדות‬,)‫(תשמ"ז‬
Published by: Mandel Institute for Jewish Studies / ‫המכון למדעי היהדות ע"ש מנדל‬
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23363664
Accessed: 26-05-2015 05:24 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Mandel Institute for Jewish Studies / ‫ המכון למדעי היהדות ע"ש מנדל‬is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to
Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought / ‫מחקרי ירושלים במחשבת ישראל‬.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Tue, 26 May 2015 05:24:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ira
Chernus
THE PILGRIMAGE
TO THE MERKAVAH:
AN INTERPRETATION
OF EARLY
JEWISH
MYSTICISM
[1]
IRA CHERNUS
the writings with which we are concerned."2 Even such a preliminary
characterization of Merkavah mysticism suggests the possibility of some
affinity with pilgrimage.
Of course one might suggest that any journey to a place in which
divinity is supposed to reside constitutes a pilgrimage. But a close look
at the Heikalot texts in light of what we know about the pilgrimage to
the Jerusalem Temple indicates a large number of quite specific paral
lels. Like the innermost Heikal, the Jerusalem Temple was the divine
residence (byt yhw-h), in the innermost recesses of which God could be
conceived
to
throne
be
seems
enthroned.
to
have
The
been
a
idea
YHWH
that
old
very
one
in
was
ancient
seated
a
upon
Israel.
It
was
apparently connected at first with the cherubim, as indicated by the title
"YHWH
S'baoth, enthroned upon cherubim,"3 and a later time, when
the cherubim were linked with the ark, the ark itself may have been
conceived as a divine throne.4 While the link between ark and throne is a
matter of long-standing dispute,5 it seems clear that by the Second
Temple era the theology of the Jerusalem cult included some conception
of an enthroned God making Himself present (albeit perhaps temporar
ily) in the Temple. One link between the ark and the throne may have
in the conception
been
link appears
of the ark
apparently
intended
as
connection
between
ark
this
Maier,
as
the
connection
throne
Yet
as a footstool
for the throne.6
for the
a prototype
cherubim
and
allowed
later
Jerusalem
is more
explicit.7
here
Temple;
the
to J.
According
to conceive
generations
Another
of the Tabernacle,
in the Priestly tradition's depiction
of the ark
of God.8
the Second
era
Temple
also
seems
to have
felt an uneasiness
about
positing a permanent residence of God in the Temple. This uneasiness
had
two
to exist
results.
On
in heaven,
the one
rather
hand,
than
the divine
on
earth.
throne
This
was
heavenly
particularly important role in late eschatological
of the period. In Maier's view:
said
increasingly
throne
plays
and apocalyptic
a
texts
Out of the ritual appearance before YHWH as an act of the
Temple cult, the heavenly journey [Himmelsreise] was able to
develop. It should be noted that the individual elements of this new
conception were already at hand in the old cult ideology, so that
they needed only a certain new interpretation in order to gain a
new significance within the new world — and Dasein- understand
ing of eschatology
and especially apocalyptic.9
[2]
THE PILGRIMAGE
TO THE MERKAVAH
Maeir sees
throne as
Jerusalem
Merkavah
this transition from cultic to visionary experience of the divine
the key link in the development which he traces from the
cult to Merkavah mysticism. While the cultic background of
mysticism is a point of dispute,10 it is generally agreed that
apocalyptic did form an essential background and source for Merkavah
mysticism and the Heikalot texts." It would be difficult to deny that
some elements from the Jerusalem cult did play a role in the shaping of
Merkavah mysticism; the dispute is really about the relative significance
of those
On
as
the
to
opposed
other
other
elements.
uneasiness
hand,
about
YH
confining
WH's
to
presence
the Temple led to concepts which might mitigate this uneasiness while
still asserting that YH WH was somehow present, at least temporarily, in
‫יי‬.His earthly
"house
The
two
most
of these
important
were
theconcep-
tions of Kavod and Shekinah. While each may have had a long develop
ment in ancient Israelite religion,12 they crystallized and were joined
together in the Priestly theology which formed the ideological frame
work for the Jerusalem Temple cult. The principle idea seems to have
been that YH WH Himself resided in heaven, but made Himself manifest
‫י‬,,onearth
by temporarily allowing His Kavod ("concentration
‫י‬,,radiance" the"
glory") to shaken ("dwell in a temporary lodging") in
inner sanctum of the Temple. This is significant in the present context
because
the
to
as
God
kinah.13
two
most
experienced
The
goal
common
by
terms
the
used
Merkavah
of the Merkavah
in the Heikalot
mystics
like
mystic,
are
texts
Kavod
the goal
to refer
and
She
of the pilgrim
to
Jerusalem, was the place in which the Kavod or Shekinah was believed
to reside. In the rabbinic era, the theoretical distinction between heav
and
enly
earthly
conception
pread
opposite]
temple
the
above
residence
that
Temple
is k'neged
was
"the
above."14
the
minimized
even
below
Temple
Or,
in
a
below,
Temple
further
is founded
more
and
precise
the
by
the
k'neged
ark
wides
[directly
version:
"The
is k'neged
the
radiance-throne above, as it is said, 'A throne of radiance on high from
the beginning, this is our Temple' (Jer. 17:12)... There is where our
Temple is directed toward."15 For those who accepted this conception,
there would have been an obvious parallel between the pilgrims'journey
to Jerusalem and the mystics'journey to the heavenly radiance-throne.
If we look at what is known of the process of pilgrimage to Jerusalem,
especially at the end of the Second Temple era when rabbinic Judaism
[3]
IRA CHERNUS
was in its formative stage, we find further parallels with the ascent to the
Merkavah as described in the Heikalot texts.16 The pilgrim ascending to
Jerusalem had to meet certain qualifications, most of which revolved
around considerations
of purity. An elaborate seven-day purificatory
ritual was required of pilgrims coming from outside the land of Israel17
—
perhaps
even
of those
who
resided
within
—
Israel18
and
"even
those
who were already pure could not enter [the Temple] unless they first
took a purificatory bath/'19 The wearing of white clothes also served to
signify the ritual purity of the pilgrim.20 Similarly, purificatory rites
including baths, special diets or fasting, and sexual abstinence played an
important
role
in the preparation
for the journey
As
to the Merkavah.21
the pilgrims approached the Temple, they were examined by Levites
who checked their ritual fitness to enter the sacred precincts,22 just as the
Merkavah mystic had to face inspection by the heavenly beings guarding
the thresholds of the various
Heikalot.23 In the Jerusalem Temple
were
precincts signs
posted warning gerim (proselytes) and women not
to
further
proceed
texts
tell
of
than
mystics
the
who
limits
were
set
not
for
them.24
permitted
So
to
too
proceed
the
Heikalot
past
certain
limits because
of their particular personal qualities.25
In the Jerusalem Temple cultus, this insistence on ritual qualifications
for the pilgrimage was embedded in the ritual through the chanting of
liturgical songs, in which the list of prerequisites was publicly recited. In
general, music and singing played a central role in the pilgrimage event,
as
reflected
throughout
the
Book
of
Pslams.26
Safrai
that
suggests
individual pilgrims may have entered the Temple precincts just when the
Levitical choir chanted the Psalm for the day.27 Similarly, the chanting
of
hymns
is a central
feature
of all
descriptions
of the
ascent
to
the
Merkavah, and it is especially the heavenly beings surrounding the
divine throne (the analogue to the earthly Levites) who do the chant
ing.28 During the festival pilgrimages, songs were also sung by the
inhabitants of Jerusalem to welcome the pilgrims as the latter entered
the city.29 Safrai takes this as one piece of evidence that the Jerusalemites
and the pilgrims generally maintained cordial relationships; he also
notes that the Jerusalemites undertook the responsibility of repairing
roads on which the pilgrims travelled and maintaining the water supply
to
fill
the
analogous
purificatory
baths.30
The
Heikalot
texts
give
evidence
of
cordiality shown by the heavenly beings to the ascending
[4]
THE
TO THE
PILGRIMAGE
MERKAVAH
mystics31 (although it should be noted that there is evidence of conflict
one
too;32
wonders
whether
between
relations
and
Jerusalemites
pil
grims could have been a completely harmonious as Safrai would like to
think).
Even the specific terminology employed in Merkavah mysticism
points to the parallel with pilgrimage. Two of the most common Hebrew
word-groups denoting the Jerusalem pilgrimage are those stemming
from the roots 'lh (to ascend) and r'h (to see). The very same word
groups figure prominently in denoting the mystical experience in the
Heikalot texts. The root 'lh, used in connection with earthly pilgrimage,
served to emphasize that God's palace was located on a mountain top !
which, by rabbinic times (and perhaps earlier), was believed to be the
highest point on earth.33 Similarly, the divine throne in the Heikalot
texts, and in rabbinic literature generally, was believed to be the highest !
point in the universe. While exoteric rabbinic texts often place the
throne in the highest of the seven heavens, Arabot,34 the Heikalot texts
often emphasize its elevation even more by placing it above Arabot.35
The
journey
to
the
Merkavah
was
thus
termed
naturally
an
"ascent.,'
The still unanswered
question is why, in many of these texts, it is
called a "descent."36 One explanation, offered by Scholem, is particu
larly interesting in the present context. He suggests that, "since the ark
containing the scrolls of the Torah is like the throne, the talmudic phrase
yored lifne hatebah [descend before the ark] (for prayer) may have
influenced
the
kavah]."37
Since
was
other
the prototype
that
the
and
one,
ark
i.e.,
yored
in the
inner
for the synagogue
Merkavah
implicit parallel
Temple
the
mystics
may
I'merkavah
sanctum
ark,
have
[descend
of the
Scholem
based
seems
their
to
the
Jerusalem
Mer
temple
to suggest
terminology
here
on
an
between the locus of divine presence in the earthly
its locus
in the upper
world.
behind the use of the term "descend,"
But
whatever
the true
motives
it is clear in all the Heikalot texts
that the goal of mystical experience was actually to ascend to the divine
throne, just as the goal of the earthly pilgrim was to ascend to the
Temple in Jerusalem.
The term "to see" entered into the vocabulary of the earthly pilgrim
age because of the Biblical commandment: "Three times in the year shall
all your males be seen before the Lord YHWH."38 While it seems quite
certain that the verb was meant to be taken as passive, the unvocalized
[5]
IRA CHERNUS
Hebrew
text could allow it to be taken in the active voice; such an
interpretation was in fact advanced by some rabbinic commentators.
Citing passages in Mekilta d,Rabbi Simeon, Sifre on Deuteronomy, and
Mekilta d'Rabbi Ishmael, M. Kadushin concludes: "The three sources
have in common the idea that the pilgrims who went up to the Temple in
Jerusalem
went
to see
up
God.1'39
on
Apparently
the basis
of this
idea,
some rabbinic authorities held that the blind were exempt from the
obligation of making the pilgrimage, precisely because they could not
the commandment
obey
to "see
the face
of the Lord
YHWH."
The
only
rabbi known by name to have supported this view is R. Judah b. Ilai,
whose interest in mystical and esoteric matters is evident from other
sources. R. Judah's view was specifically rejected by Rabbi (Judah the
of Mishuah. This may well reflect Rabbi's
prince) in his codification
general
to reject
tendency
views.
mystical
as
Yet,
the
Tosefta
indicates,
the rabbis' majority view agreed with R. Judah b. Ilanis,40 Kadushin
that
claims
the rabbis
R. Judah's
accepted
view
that
this
was
a point
of controversy
unrelated
to
God. But in any event it is
the claim that pilgrims in the Temple "saw"
clear
for reasons
the
among
and
rabbis,
that
some of the rabbis did believe that the vision of God was an essential
aspect of the earthly pilgrimage. As noted earlier, the perception of God
seated
His
upon
and
mysticism,
by
words
kinah,"
the
throne
see
from
literature.41
would
have
parallel
the
the
the King,"
It seems
made
between
least
their
own
Heikalot
root
texts
that
such
as
etc.,
abound
then,
of the
experience
and
that
"to
the
that
Merkavah
is noted
perception
Phrases
plausible,
some
of Merkavah
theme
the Kavod,"
r'h.
see
"to
quite
at
the essential
apparently
throughout
derived
"to
was
the
She
throughout
language
itself
aware
of the
mystics
which
see
rabbinic
tradition
of the pilgrims in Jerusalem.
Beyond all of these specific details, some general considerations
underscore the parallel between these two phenomena. The pilgrimage
postulated
and
the
"descent"
to the
Merkavah
were
both
voluntary
procedures.
Although Biblical and rabbinic law appear to make the pilgrimage to
Jerusalem obligatory, Safrai has assembled copious evidence indicating
that
in fact,
toward
the close
of the Second
Temple
era
at least,
it was
a
voluntary undertaking.42 Similarly, J. Maier has stressed the difference
between
Merkavah
the
visionary^
apocalyptic
by pointing
out
that
journey
the latter
was
and
voluntary
the
descent
and
to
the result
[6]
the
of
THE
willed
while
effort,
TO THE MERKAVAH
PILGRIMAGE
the
former
was
involuntary.43
totally
apparently
More difficult to substantiate empirically, and yet perhaps most impor
tant of all, is the parallel in the nature of the pilgrim's experience itself.
Safrai
stresses
that
the Jerusalem
must
temple
made
have
a tremendous
impression upon any pilgrim: "Both Josephus and the Talmudic litera
ture
at
speak
of
length
the
of
beauty
Herod's
and
Temple
of
the
tremendous impression it made on those who visited it... The Jew who
sometimes waited years for a chance to visit the Temple was filled with
numinous awe and spiritual exaltation when he bowed down and saw
the
and
Temple
There
its priests."44
is ample
evidence
to assure
us that
Safrai's
description of the experience of the Merkavah
make
texts
the
heart
it clear
of this
that
numinous
experience.
The
awe
and
dominant
words
form
an apt
mystics. The Heikalot
spiritual
exaltation
in these
concern
were
texts
at
seems
to be an attempt to push language to its limits in describing the immen
sity and sublimity of a heavenly realm which cannot ever be fully
in language.
encompassed
Scholem
that
suggests
the hymns
which
form
the bulk of the texts are prime examples of what R. Otto called "numi
nous
"In
hymns":
treasure-house
of
the
Hekhaloth
such
numinous
books
we
hymns.
The
have
as" it were
immense
a
full
of
solemnity
their style, the bombast of their magnificent phrases, reflects the funda
mental paradoxy of these hymns; the climax of sublimity and solemnity
to which the mystic can attain in his attempt to express the magnificence
of
his
vision
illustrate
is
also
this judgment
the
non
plus
by citing
some
ultra
of
typical
vacuousness."45
passages
from
We
may
the texts
at
random:
Placed
in the first Heikal
are 40,000,000 blazing chariots with
400,000,000 tongues of flame intermingling among them. Placed
in the second Heikal are 1,000,000,000 blazing chariots with
400,000,000 tongues of flame intermingling among them... Placed
in the seventh Heikal are 1,000,000,000,000 blazing chariots with
20,000,000,000 tongues of flame intermingling among them.46
R. Ishmael said: I asked R. Akiba: Just how far is it from bridge to
bridge? He responded: From bridge to bridge, 120,000 para
sangs... from rivers of terror to rivers of awe, 220,000 parasangs;
from rivers of hail to rivers of darkening, 360,000 parasangs; from
[‫]ל‬
IRA CHERNUS
chambers of lightning to clouds of comforting, 420,000 parasangs;
from clouds
of comforting
to the Merkavah,
840,000
parasangs...47
At each and every threshold stand, 3,650,000,000 attending angels
who are taller than the distance from the earth to the top of the
firmament, all of them full of eyes from the soles of their feet to the
tops of their heads, each eye being like the sphere of the moon; the
body of each is like burning coals and their faces like torches and
their eyeballs like brilliant lightning-bolts... and their swords are
swords
burning
are
weapons
and
their
arrows
arrows
of flame
and
all
their
fire.48
burning
[A typical description of an angel:] Wrapped in a garment of
majesty... with a visage like the appearance of lightning... as tall as
firmaments...
seven
with
flame
out
coming
of its mouth.49
While these examples are drawn from descriptions of the throne
realm, the same principles apply equally to descriptions of the vision of
God Himself. In the enigmatic Shiur Qomah tradition we find detailed
descriptions of the limbs of God's body and numbers indicating the size
of
but,
each;
monstrous
to
cite
length
Scholem
is not
meant
is really
"What
again,
measurements
made
clear;
the enormous
by
these
figures
have no intelligible meaning or sense-content, and it is impossible really
to visualize the 'body of Shekinah' which they purport to describe; they
are
better
on
calculated,
Yet
to absurdity/'50
vision
to see
God;
at least
the
such
to reduce
contrary,
the
claims
Merkavah
are
mystics
found
regularly
every
attempt
did
apparently
in the Heikalot
at such
claim
texts.
And again we find that numinous awe and majesty are the dominant
motifs; "Happy is the eye which is nourished and which looks upon this
wondrous light, this wondrous and marvelous vision;"51 "Fortunate is
the pure person, for he has the power and can look upon this loftiness
and greatness and dominion... see the wonderful loftiness and glistening
beauty."52 Most frequently, the numinous quality of this vision is
expressed in terms of its awesome and forbidding danger, which is felt
even
by
the
high
see
Him
backwards.
heavenly
coming...
creatures
they
who
retreat
see
and
God:
are
"As
soon
frightened
as
and
all
faint
those
on
and
fall
For no creature can come within 1,250,000,000 parasangs of
[8]
THE
that place because
out."53
Perhaps
danger
which
TO THE
MERKAVAH
of the streams of fire which burst forth and come
the
faces
PILGRIMAGE
most
common
human
beings
in these
motif
who
attempt
texts,
to see
is the
however,
God.
Even
those
who are qualified "tremble and step back and become terrified and faint
and fall backwards."54 "One who looks upon Him or glances at Him or
sees Him — whirling gyrations grip his eyeballs, and his eyeballs throw
off and eject fiery torches, and they burn him and ignite him, because the
fire which comes out of the person who looks, it burns him andignites
him."55
"Be
very
careful
about
the
glory
of your
Master,
and
do
not
descend to to it. But if you have descended it, do not feed upon it. For if
you have fed upon it you will end up being eliminated from the world."56
These passages and many others like them indicate that the sense of
mysterium tremendum occasioned by the vision of the Merkavah was
apparently even greater than that occasioned by the pilgrim's visit to the
Jerusalem
Temple,
but
the
difference
seems
to be
more
one
of degree
than of kind.
The differences between the Jerusalem pilgrimage and the descent to
the Merkavah are, of course, both numerous and significant; it would be
naive to think that Merkavah mysticism was "merely" a new form of
pilgrimage. But the evidence presented here makes it plausible, I think,
to see Merkavah mysticism as a unique form of pilgrimage, one of whose
sources was the earthly pilgrimage to Jerusalem. While
historians might inquire fruitfully into the specific relationship between
antecedent
the earthly
and
heavenly
in rabbinic
pilgrimage
Judaism,
I wish
to press
the inquiry in a different direction. Having established the plausibility,
of viewing the heavenly journey as a pilgrimage, I want to apply Victor
Turner's interpretation of earthly pilgrimage to Merkavah mysticism, in
hopes that it may yield some new light on the crucial question: Why did
some rabbinic Jews in late antiquity want to descend to the Merkavah
and see God?
[9]
IRA CHERNUS
the course of history and influencing the course of history. But such a
juxtaposition of apocalyptic and Merkavah mysticism is quite rare in
these texts." There are rewards and privileges — both of a this worldly
and other worldly nature — which are occasionally promised to the
but
mystics,
these
references
are
quite
The
sparse.58
most
significant
motivation for which the texts provide direct evidence is the desire of the
to learn
mystics
the heavenly
and
liturgy
it to the earthly
teach
commun
ity, so that the synagogue service might ideally become a perfect replica
of the service
before
the Merkavah."
we have
(Here
another
instance
of
the parallel between pilgrimage and mystical ascent. The pilgrims at the
Temple
have
in the earthly
participated
understood
it as a parallel
service
and
excellence,
par
to the heavenly
while
However,
service.)
well
may
the texts allow us to reconstruct this liturgical motive hypothetically,
they rarely refer to it explicitly. If this were in fact the primary motiva
tion
of
the
motive
must
Scholem
have
has
Gnosticism
mental
such
K.
as
be
much
expressed
to be no
it seems
reason
that
likely
more
to conceal
some
its
other
well.
Merkavah
would
reflect
has
was
mysticism
the upper
a Jewish
form
a more
ascent
redemption.62
If this
common
tradition
undertaken
to gain
mysticism
mystics
was
were
either
should
not
More
hoped
of
to
be seen
a
it
world:
or assurance
redemption
is
specif
gain
interpretation,
Graeco-Roman
there
that
to all Jews
promised
a valid
of the
however,
Unfortunately,
Merkavah
the
which
redemption
moreover
character."60
that
community.61
he asserts
world;
(redeeming)
suggested
of the
rabbinic
heavenly
and
of a "soteric
experience
the
that
work
that
of God
was
Schubert
within
believe
Therefore
at
claimed
seems
in which the mystic hoped primarily to gain direct experi
knowledge
proleptic
the
been
knowledge
ically,
of
central.
it to
expect
There
forthrightly.
if it were
centrality
would
we
mystics,
and
frequently
good
as part
to
reason
of this wider
tradition, for the mystics themselves did not claim that their experiences
had a soteric dimension. In fact, rabbinic Judaism seems to have made
significant efforts to separate the heavenly journey from the experience
of redemption.68
Thus
the
motive
which
seems
likely must be excluded from the discussion
We
are
left, then,
movement
has
texts
which
the
been
with
a sense
omitted
contain
that
all
our
to be most
here.
the central
by chance
(either
virtually
at first glance
evidence
concern
or design,
of the
of this mystical
or both)
from
movement.
r 10]
In
THE
PILGRIMAGE
TO THE
MERKAVAH
such a situation, the best we can hope for is to frame hypotheses which
are
consonant
plausible,
know
about
religious
with
the
texts,
and
experience
and
human
consonant
what
with
in general.
culture
we
In the
present case, I wish to suggest that it is plausible that Jews undertook
ascents
heavenly
for the same
reasons
which
Victor
Turner
claims
have
motivated pilgrims in all of the world's major religions.
Anyone familiar with Turner's work will not be surprised that his
interpretation of the pilgrimage centers on the relationship between
"structure"
and
the relevance
But
"anti-structure."
of these
is
categories
not immediately obvious, so it may be helpful to begin with a set of
oppositions which are more obviously pertinent to pilgrimage. The
— his fixed place — and commits
pilgrim is one who leaves his residence
himself to a period of constant movement.64 This period of movement
represents a radical break with one's familiar routine, one's normal
— away from the center
everyday life. And the movement is directional
of the pilgrim's "lived space" and, frequently, toward a distant goal on
the very periphery of the pilgrim's world. This was certainly true of the
Merkavah mystics. Living on an earth which they believed to be arched
by seven concentric heavens, they conceived the throne of God to be at
the
furthest
possible
from
remove
their
earthly
home,
lo
reach
this
periphery is, in Turner's view, to cross a threshold, to step out of one's
ordinary world.65 Yet crossing this threshold is often a paradoxical act,
for in some religious traditions the pilgrim's goal, on the periphery of
"lived
is according
space,"
to the
religious
cosmology
the center
of the
world (e.g., Mecca, Mt. Kailasa, Rome).66 The rabbinic sources give
ample evidence that pilgrims to Jerusalem saw themselves as journeying
to such
throne
a center.
which
was
In the
wake
"directly
of the Temple's
opposite"
destruction,
the earthly
throne
the heavenly
may
have
taken
on an even richer meaning as the only existing cosmic center. Thus the
both at the
divine throne, as pilgrimage site, was paradoxically
periphery of the mystic's world and simultaneously its very center.
This process of "beginning in a familiar place, going to a Far Place,
and returning to a Familiar Place" also defines the temporal structure of
the pilgrimage, in Turner's view.67 Leaving one's normal "lived space"
also means leaving normal "lived time" and crossing a threshold into a
special time, "a place and moment 'in and out of time'."68 From one
point of view, time still passes for the pilgrim in the same ways as always.
f 11]
IRA CHERNUS
But from another point of view, "he is no longer involved in that
of historical and structural time which constitutes the
combination
social process in his rural or urban home community, but kinetically
reenacts in the lives of incarnate gods, saints, Gurus, prophets, and
martyrs."69
There
is good
reason
to believe
that
at least
some
Merkavah
mystics (perhaps all) may have seen themselves as reenacting the "tem
poral sequences made sacred and permanent" during the revelation at
Mt. Sinai. Rabbinic midrash describes at length the Israelites' direct
experience of God at Sinai, and this episode may well have formed a
paradigm for much of Merkavah mysticism.70 Moreover, in rabbinic
tradition much is said of the divine throne as the source from which all
reality originated, and one of the common epithets for God in the
Heikalot texts is yozer b'reshit (the one who fashions creation).71 Thus
the mystic may also have seen himself as journeying to the time of
religious and even cosmic beginnings, the very periphery of time, which
is yet its center. Both spatially and temporally, then, the mystic, like the
pilgrim, could leave the ordinary world of structured opposites and
cross the threshold into a world in which the opposites meet and coexist
For Turner this is the central feature of liminality.72
simultaneously.
Crossing
this
threshold,
the pilgrim
sees
the world
more
comprehen
sively and in a wider scope. "The world becomes a bigger place" when
seen
from
the
new
center,
and
the
pilgrim's
perspective
becomes
more
Thus he realizes the provincial limitedness of his
"cosmopolitan."73
former center and is led to seek wider realms of association, both
sociologically and cosmologically;
ultimately this new view presses
toward
universality.74
In this
regard,
Merkavah
mysticism
would
have
been particularly satisfying, because the pilgrimage was intrinsically
able to offer a cosmic perspective, since it was not confined to any
earthly location but was the focal point for cosmic reality. From this
perspective, the earthly realm in its entirety might well have seemed
provincial and limited. This might have taken on a special meaning for a
community which had been deprived of its earthly locus of sacrality, its
"holy land." Turner's own approach here is to stress the altruism which
a wider perspective can bring.75 Whether this was true in Merkavah
mysticism is not at all clear. But his interpretation of pilgrimage suggests
implicitly that this wider perspective may have a much more far
reaching
meaning.
[12]
THE
TO THE
PILGRIMAGE
MERKAVAH
some element of the obligatory is also a ubiquitous element in pilgrim
age.77 Turner resolves this apparent conflict by claiming that the pil
grimage represents a "higher level of freedom, choice, volition"78 than
does
the
structure
of everyday
life,
even
though
the element
of obliga
tion means that some structure still frames the pilgrimage experience:
when one starts with obligation, voluntariness comes in; when
"Thus
one begins with voluntariness, obligation tends to enter the scene. To my
mind, this is a consequence partly of the liminality of the pilgrimage
situation itself — as an interval between two distinct periods of intensive
involvement
in structured
social
existence
out
of which
one
opts
to do
one,s devoirs as a pilgrim." 79 In other words, while the voluntarism in
pilgrimage is a sign of its liminality, its "higher level of... structureless
ness,"80 the sense of obligation which mitigates pure voluntarism is also
a sign of that liminality, because it produces a state in which opposites
are experienced simultaneously.
From both points of view, it seems fair to say that Merkavah mysti
cism is a manifestation of liminality. As noted earlier, Merkavah mysti
t 13]
IRA CHERNUS
cism
was
a purely
apparently
voluntary
is no evidence
there
enterprise;
that the rabbinic community placed an expectation of mystical ascent on
anyone. Yet having made the decision to pursue such an experience, the
would-be descender to the Merkavah had necessarily to undertake
obligatory, structured, and rigidly defined preparations which culmi
nated in an equally highly structured mystical experience. As we shall
the
see,
during
the
for
consequences
the ascent
who
mystic
be drastic.
could
to "do
failed
we have
Thus
here
one's
devoirs5'
evidence
further
of
the merging of opposites which marks Merkavah mysticism as a form of
liminality; not only does periphery merge with center and present with
but
past,
on
voluntarism
a structure
with
merges
takes
as structurelessness
obligation
of its own.
The need for structure is explained in part by another aspect of
liminality which has its analogue in Merkavah mysticism; this might be
called its "plasticity." Turner states that in the liminal period the rigidity
of
cultural
are
structures
is broken
to be combined
culture
and
surprising
even
thus
down,
in new
and
often
ways;
Merkavah
grotesque.81
the
allowing
creative
of
elements
novelties
these
this
displays
mysticism
dimension of liminality in a particular form which is directly related to
the
pilgrimage
beings,
many
seen
has
on
further,82
and
the mystic
not
only
seals,
are
But
earth.
role
whose
thresholds,
The
process.
of whom
these
it is primarily
must
adhere
names,
and
and
incantations
are
a series
unlike
but
these
For
of the
to ascend
that
safely
guardians
his fitness
he
anything
guardians
by his ability
also
as passwords
of heavenly
of the "pilgrim"
to pass
structure.
purity,
the
precisely
the fitness
in order
to a fixed
by his character
and
beings
is to check
face
grotesque,
must
descender
monstrous
is determined
to use
in the prescribed
secret
manner.83
The proper use of these is obligatory if the mystic wants to survive his
journey; but having used them properly he finds the grotesque guardians
suddenly transformed into benign and cooperative figures.
Again we can interpret an aspect of Merkavah mysticism in terms of
Turner's theoretical model. Turner finds that the plasticity of liminality
is inherently ambiguous; while the unlimited possibilities of new creativ
ity are alluring, the chaos and insecurity of the unknown are frightening
and disorienting. For the pilgrim, this ambiguity appears in his confron
tation
with
cosmopolitan
the
new
and
experience.84
engendered
unexpected
But
in a larger
sense,
by his wider
the
pilgrim
and
more
is expe
[14]
THE
riencing
the same
PILGRIMAGE
as
dynamic
TO THE MERKAVAH
all
who
those
to a far away
go
and
place
then return transformed; he is undergoing initiation. It is essential in
Turner's
of pilgrimage
interpretation
the
to see
as
pilgrim
an
initiate,
and thus to apply what is known of the initiatory process to pilgrimage.
It is not surprising, then, to find Turner speaking of this liminal expe
rience in terms of symbolic death and rebirth. The pilgrim undergoes a
symbolic death in leaving the safety of his familiar social structure, but
he experiences
of that
a new
he
structure,
birth
able
in the same
to grow
moment;
the restraints
escaping
to the
by exposure
new
possibilities
which are afforded him.85 Thus the plasticity of initiatory liminality is
simultaneously both harmful and beneficial, just as the grotesque
threshold guardians
just
as Scholem
has
of the Heikalot texts embody both qualities. And
stressed
the numinous
dimension
of those
with
texts,
their juxtaposition
of tremendum and fascinans, so Turner implies that
every experience of liminality must have this numinous quality.
In order to negotiate this potentially threatening coincidence of oppo
sites
just
safely,
initiate
every
as the descender
Turner
sees
must
rely on the security
to the Merkavah
the structure
as serving
relies
society
afforded
on his names
too,
by structure,
and
for it wards
seals.
But
off the threat
to social stability which is inherent in everv experience of anti-structure.
This is as true for pilgrimage as for traditional tribal initiations, but
Turner claims that there is a significant difference between the two.
Whereas traditional initiations (especially at puberty) are obligatory for
a whole
group,
pilgrimage
is always
in some
sense
voluntary
and
there
fore individualistic. Turner thinks that this is largely a function of more
structures in societies which
complex and diversified socio-economic
have pilgrimages; he suggests that pilgrimage in fact replaces tribal
initiation
when
those
structures
reach
a certain
degree
of complexity.86
Recently he has coined the term "liminoid" for the voluntary kinds of
liminality found in more complex societies, reserving the term "liminal"
for the experience of tribal societies.87 (Perhaps Merkavah mysticism,
being more voluntary and individualistic than the Jerusalem pilgrimage,
represents another phase of this progression.) But despite these differen
ces, the similarity between pilgrimage and other forms of initiation is of
fundamental
significance.87 Both are forms of what Turner calls
"ordered anti-structure," and pilgrimage is to be seen as "that form of
institutionalized or symbolic anti-structure (or perhaps meta-structure)
[15]
IRA CHERNUS
which succeeds the major initiation rites of puberty/'88 The synthesis of
voluntarism and obligation in pilgrimage thus appears to be merely one
facet of the broader
synthesis of structure and anti-structure which
Turner sees as the essential element in pilgrimage.
This concept of "ordered anti-structure" takes on deeper meaning in
the
context
of Turner's
view
of cultural
He
change.
sees
as
change
a
function of the ongoing relationship between two social situations:
society, which offers the structure of fixed roles, statuses, and socially
sanctioned distinctions, and communitas, which allows people to relate
free of roles, statuses and distinctions, and is therefore the social matrix
of anti-structure. "The historical fate of communitas seems to have been
to pass
from
to closure,
openness
from
'free'
to the solidar
communitas
ity given by bounded structure,from optation to obligation."89 This fate
stems
in part
from
the threat
which
structured
sees
society
in communi
tas: "Under
the influence of time, the need to mobilize and organize
resources
keep
to
the
members
of a group
alive
and
and
thriving,
the
necessity for social control... the original existential communitas
organized into a perduring system."90
But
are
also
benefits
from
anti-structure;
destroy
anti-structure
reap
to
there
Turner
offers
calls
"ordered
thus
Turner
claims
and
that
to
may
be
The
realized.
does
"normative
communitas,"
anti-structure."
The
pilgrimage
which
is the
is a form
not
want
the
incorporate
which anti
situation
resultant
—
must
perhaps
society
it wants
Rather
entirely.
—
can
society
threat safely, so that the new possibilities
appaarent
structure
which
is
is one
social
that
matrix
of "normative
for
com
Putting its cosmopolitanism and creativity at the service of a
structured religious tradition, it "imparts to religious orthodoxy a
renewed vitality... [and] renovates certain areas of the tradition that
munitas."
have
lapsed
into
latency."91
But
perhaps
more
important
than
the need
is society's recognition that structure holds inherent
who accept it and live within it. While tribal societies,
for
those
dangers
in Turner's view, offer the "safety-valve" of initiatory liminality but
for renovation
keep that rigidly separated from social structure, in the more complex
socio-economic situations religions "recognize [i.e., accept] some of the
anti-structural
throughout
features
whole
of communitas
populations
as a means
and
seek
of'release'
to extend
its influence
or 'salvation'
from
the role-playing games which embroil the personality in manifold guiles,
guilts,
and
anxieties."92
[16]
THE
PILGRIMAGE
TO THE MERKAVAH
The pilgrimage as "normative communitas" is thus a means of infus
ing structure with a permanent, pervasive, and yet controlled "dose" of
while
anti-structure,
it also
provides
the
benefits
of structure
to
the
communitas
situation. And the pilgrim reciprocates society's accep
tance of his role by his willingness to play a constructive social role:
"Enough room is left to the individual to distance himself briefly from
inherited social constraint and duty, but only enough room so as to
constitute, as it were, a public platform in which he must make by word
or deed a formal public acknowledgement of allegiance to the overarch
ing religious, political, and economic orders."93 In the pilgrim's attitude,
"the health and integrality of the individual is indissoluble from the
peace and harmony of the community."94 Thus, the pilgrim finds at least
three positive elements in the structure and obligation which surround
his liminality: It wards of the threat of chaos, allows him to link his
experience with his ongoing everyday life, and provides that "coinci
dence of opposites" in which he transcends the ordinary world's radical
disjunction between structure and anti-structure.95 Society, conversely,
finds at least three positive elements in ordered anti-structure: It pro
vides new creative possibilities, allows individuals a necessary tempor
ary escape from the anxieties of structure, and yet restrains the anarchic
threat by indissolubly linking anti-structure to structure. I want to
suggest here that each of the six points just mentioned is reflected in
what we know of Merkavah mysticism and that it is therefore plausible
to interpret
that
mysticism
as
a form
of "ordered
anti-structure"
in the
context of rabbinic Judaism.
It would be surprising to find any form arising within Judaism which
totally rejects or escapes from structure; this is particularly true of
rabbinic Judaism, which represents a massive acceptance of structure. J.
Neusner's words about Mishnah are equally valid for all of that religion
which is epitomized in Mishnah: "It accomplishes the transformation of
all things in accord
with that sense for perfect form and unfailing
regularity which,as I said, once were distinctive to the operation of the
cult... Here all things are a matter of relationship, circumstance, fixed
and recurrent interplay."96 It is essential to the present discussion that
Merkavah mysticism arose "in the very center of a developing rabbinic
Judaism"97 and always accepted that Judaism as its overarching frame
work. This was demonstrated long ago by Scholem, and has recently
t ‫»דנ‬
IRA CHERNUS
been
in various
supported
an indissoluble
by other
ways
There
scholars.98
in fact,
was,
link between Merkavah
mysticism and the rabbinic
Judaism which formed its matrix; hardly a line of the Heikalot texts can
be
understood
properly
without
reference
to
the
world-view,
ethos,
institutions, and language of exoteric rabbinic Judaism. And many of
the most influential figures in rabbinic Judaism appear to have had
some
involvement
have
been,
no
in
the
movement.
mystical
whether
doubt,
the
The
key
anarchic
potentially
must
question
elements
of
Merkavah
mysticism could be restrained; more specifically, the issue
was whether Merkavah mysticism would become a form of Gnosticism
and thus break the bounds of acceptability in the rabbinic world. While
Scholem
has claimed
cism,"99
others
than
problematic
mysticism is "Jewish
that Merkavah
have
recently
useful.100
that
suggested
It
tends
to
such
a
the
obscure
term
Gnosti
is
more
fact
central
that
Merkavah
mysticism never did truly become Gnosticism, for it never
rejected the central tenets of rabbinic Judaism, especially the centrality
of halakah (law). The Heikalot texts themselves display a commitment
to halakah principally in those sections devoted to mystical techniques
for successful Torah study.101 The journey to the Merkavah is linked
with
halakah
Merkavah
of
the
in at least
were
mystics
Halakah"
there
is
in
these
I
Elsewhere
literature
of exoteric
sion;
that
i.e.,
from
texts
have
Merkavah
that
holds
Judaism
the
silence
tried
constitutes
to
was
rigid
also
the
intricacies
of
interpretations
have
some
a rejection
that
demonstrate
leading
that
suggests
in the subtle
most
may
evidence
mysticism
which
story
at home
also
to
adhering
argument
nothing
Judaism.
well-known
"scholars
and
The
halakah.102
one
value
of rabbinic
the
to the same
successfully
here;
midrash
conclu
into
incorporated
rabbinic Judaism by a process of domestication which involved a subor
dination
of mystical
to exoteric
concerns.103
Given the relative safety of this situation, the exoteric society could
then
allow
itself
to
be
enriched
by
the
novel
creations
of the
mystics'
experiences. This enrichment is most obvious in the sphere of liturgy,
where many scholars have noted the affinities between the Heikalot
texts and aspects of traditional rabbinic liturgy.104It is also possible that
significant motifs in the rabbinic midrash developed under the influence
of mystical
traditions;
e.g.,
the midrashim
on the "binding
of Isaac,"
the
Exodus from Egypt, the revelation at Sinai, etc.105Rabbinic apocalyptic
[18]
THE
MERKAVAH
TO THE
PILGRIMAGE
also shows significant evidence of the influence of mystical traditions.106
Because much of this material has only been studied intensively in recent
we
years,
well
may
find
future
more
many
discovering
scholarship
such
influences than have hitherto been suspected. It is not difficult, then, to
that rabbinic Judaism allowed room for a measure of
demonstrate
ordered
such
anti-structure
because
anti-structure
and
it could
enrich
itself
contain
the
at the same
time.
threat
potential
Whether
of
Turner's
third point — that society wants to extend the influence of ordered
anti-structure
to
the
whole
"as
population
a
means
of
'release'
or
'salvation' from the role-playing games which embroil the personality"
— is valid for rabbinic Judaism, is a more complex
question. We have
noted
already
But
Merkavah
in varying
evaluate
for
degrees,
this
whole
may
turn
Jewish
of "salvation."
from
first to the other
structure.
side
the role of ordered anti-structure in the individual's
already
noted
that
the
synthesis
of structure
to expe
community
"release"
temporary
we
issue,
the
not a means
was
mysticism
a means
it was
perhaps
rience,
To
that
and
—
of the coin
life. We have
in Mer
anti-structure
kavah mysticism would allow the mystic an experience of coincidence of
opposites
which
in itself
affords
a temporary
escape
from
structure.
The
theme of "coincidentia
is evident in many aspects of
oppositorum"
Merkavah mysticism: the mystic links the upper and lower worlds ("as if
he had a ladder in his house"),107 he ascends as an individual and yet as a
member
sees
of a community,108
the God
Who
can
not
he knows
be seen,110
good and evil. This paradoxical
initiatory
structure
things
the God
that
no one
Who
can
he
know,109
is the source
of both
dimension also appears clearly in the
of the experience,
discussed
above,
in which
volunta
rism and obligation, danger and benefit, tremendum andfascinans all are
manifest
reflects
simultaneously.
the importance
The
centrality
of the second
of the
function
initiatory
of structure;
schema
while
also
effect
ing a coincidence of opposites, it also provides protection against the
threat of total structurelessness and chaos. The third function — the link
with ordinary everyday life — has already been illustrated in discussing
the links which exoteric rabbinic Judaism forged with its mystical
tradition. These served equally important roles from the viewpoints of
the society at large and the individual mystics. The individual could
experience temporary periods of anti-structure and yet stay within the
overarching structure of Judaism because he had already accepted the
[19]
IRA CHERNUS
primacy of that structure; he had renounced in advance any threats to
that primacy which his experience might engender. In rabbinic Judaism,
of course, structure meant Torah and more specifically halakah, the law.
The critical issue for both individual
and society was whether the
experience of anti-structure might lead to some form of halakah
rejecting Gnosticism, and the answer from the side of the mystics as well
as
their
society
seems
to
have
been
firmly,
,'No.'"11
If Merkavah mysticism was in fact "ordered anti-structure," Turner's
model suggests that we should find some form of "normative communi
tas" as its social matrix. Unfortunately very little is known as yet about
the social organization and setting of Merkavah mysticism. But a few
seem valid support for Turner's view.
observations
the
Heikalot
texts
there is frequent reference to some form
Throughout
of "master-disciple"
relationship; it is in this relationship that the
preliminary
requisite structures are taught and learned. Rarely, if ever, is there
specific reference to a mystic learning these techniques purely on his
own. In Heikalot Rabbati, the master, R. Nehuniah B. Hakanah, gath
ers a whole group around him and reveals the techniques to them; this
group is termed the haburah (fellowship)."2 In another text the term dor
(generation)
technical
as a synonym
appears
terms
for
a group
for haburah;113
who
of mystics
apparently
both
were
themselves
perceived
as
a
distinct social unit, and it may wellte that each of these units consisted
of a master and several disciples, although this has not yet been demon
strated. But it has been demonstrated, I think, that some Merkavah
mystics, while making their heavenly pilgrimages alone, saw themselves
as
representatives
of
the
Others
group."4
seem
to
have
been
solely
concerned with their individual experiences. But for those who did see a
social dimension in their experience, there is little evidence that external
role, rank, or distinction entered in. Yet the
distinction of master and disciple must have been central, and beyond
this there are likely to have been specific structures and procedures by
considerations
of social
which the group guided itself. It is hard to imagine pure "existential"
communitas in a group whose main function is to provide the matrix for
a highly structured ecstatic experience. (Turner also suggests that nor
mative communitas is always a product of an original state of existential
communitas;115
it seems
at
impossible
such was the case with Merkavah
present
to
determine
whether
mysticism.)
[20]
THE PILGRIMAGE
TO THE
MERKAVAH
There is another dimension to this question of "normative communi
arrives at the Merkavah, one of his
to
all the texts, is participation in the
principal concerns, according
of
the
liturgy
praise sung by
heavenly beings before the divine throne.116
tas." For when the "descender"
In this regard, the mystic becomes a member of a new society, and once
he has learned the procedures and structures which prevail in the upper
world there is little apparent distinction between himself and the heav
enly beings; or, at least, all such distinctions are overridden by the
common goal of offering proper and sincere praise to God. (There are
occasional references to the superiority of human beings, but these seem
to stem from a different viewpoint with different motives.)117 And the
mystic's chief responsibility to his earthly community seems to have
been his duty to teach the liturgy of the upper world and the procedures
employed there, so that the lower world might become a replica of the
upper
world.
The
ultimate
goal
was
apparently
to create
a single
"con
gregation," spanning the universe, which would participate in a unified
liturgy of praise three times each day.118 In this sense, both human and
heavenly participants would form a "normative communitas,"
differences of status and role would become secondary.
in which
Thus all of the relevant evidence seems to support a view of Merkavah
mysticism as an analogue of pilgrimage, a form of ordered anti
structure. Of course one might object that the Merkavah mystic in his
mystical experience was not involved in any kind of communitas, for he
made his journey alone. But Turner has already foreseen this objection
and dealt with it. He himself suggests in passing that mysticism might be
seen as a form of pilgrimage: "Perhaps we might speak of ritual liminal
ity as an exteriorized mystical way, and the mystic,s path as interiorized
ritual liminality."11' The paths of pilgrim and mystic meet, in Turner's
view, because both are seeking escape from structure; in mysticism,
"what is being sought is emancipation of men from all structural limita
tions, to make a mystical desert outside structure itself in which all can
be one.'"20 While the mystic may press this search in the company of
others, developing forms of communitas with them, he need not do so,
for "even the solitary mystic achieves communitas.'"21 This indicates
that communitas is not only a form of relationship among people; it is in
a wider sense a state of being into which one may enter alone. In this
wider sense the meaning of communitas tends to merge with the mean
[21]
IRA CHERNUS
ing of liminality and anti-structure as a state which "abolishes all
divisiveness, all discriminations.'"22 While anyone might be able to
learn about this state by viewing the symbols and rituals of their com
munity, the mystic and pilgrim share in common the desire to go one
step further and experience this state directly—to dwell in it and make it
part of their own state of being: "A pilgrim's commitment, in full
physicality, to an arduous yet inspiring journey is, for him, even more
impressive, in the symbolic domain, that the visual and auditory sym
bols which dominate the liturgies and ceremonies of calendrically struc
tured religion. He only looks at these; he participates in the pilgrimage
way."123 Thus the pilgrim, like the mystic, comes to embody the situa
tions and values which he experiences. The difference, however, is that
the pilgrim does not wish to abolish structure totally; rather he seeks to
overcome
the
conflict
between
order
and
structure
by
embodying
ordered anti-structure in his own life:
When communitas
operates within relatively wide structural lim
its it becomes... a means of binding diversities together and over
coming cleavages... The pilgrim becomes himself a total symbol,
indeed, a symbol of totality... Thus social and cultural structures
are
not
abolished
by communitas
but the sting
of their
divisiveness
is removed so that the fine articulation of their parts in a complex
heterogeneous
Such,
apparently,
unity
was
the
can
state
be
better
which
appreciated.124
the
Merkavah
mystic
sought
attain.
[22]
to
TO THE MERKAVAH
THE PILGRIMAGE
we
escape,
must
now
return
to the
which
question
left in suspense
was
above: Did the community see a corresponding advantage to itself in the
activities of its mystics?
The most likely answer to this question emerges, I think, if it is
considered in the context of Jacob Neusner's studies of rabbinic Juda
ism.
earlier
Neusner's
work
as successors
perception
has
to Moses,
the rabbis'
demonstrated
mediating
self
of heaven5'
the "Torah
to
the human community. He has also shown that the rabbis claimed not
only
to teach
Torah,
also
evidence
now
but
that
to embody
the
it in their
Merkavah
action.125
every
saw
mystics
There
themselves
as
is
inter
mediaries between heaven and earth, bringing that which they learned in
heaven
down
Merkavah
to the
human
seem
mystics
Therefore,
community.126
to have
been
rabbis
since
it seems
themselves,
of the
most
at least
plausible that they would have seen an analogy between their exoteric
and
esoteric
in both
roles;
the
throughout
rabbis
would
they
However
community.
why
the
well
as the complementary
would
would
community
cases,
have
to embody
attempted
in their own lives and thereby spread those values
spiritual values
have
be
wanted
this
of why
question
to
willing
still
to spread
accept
leaves
ordered
the
Neusne^s
as
in the
elements
non-mystical
it.
of
question
anti-structure,
recent
work
on
Mishnah may provide a direction for the answers.
Neusner
has
laid
stress
great
on
the
destruction
of the
Jerusalem
Temple as the formative event in the creation of rabbinic Judaism. For a
thousand
years,
life had
focussed
on
the
Temple
as pivot
and
of
source
the structure of life. Pilgrimage had been a symbolic expression of the
Temple's
centrality.
The
life
of
Israel
had
been
profoundly
locative.
After 70 AD, this locative worldview had inevitably to crumble. Pilgrim
age
was
Temple
no
longer
could
still
possible,
be
for
the
Temple
discussed,
remembered,
lay
in ruins.
and
However
thought
about;
the
a
mental Temple survived. Thus, in Mishnah, Jerusalem is "a city of the
mind, a particular place, framed in all due locative dimensions and
requisite spatial descriptions which, in fact, existed nowhere but in the
mind, which by nature is Utopian."127 "What Mishnah does... is to
permit Israel in the words of Mishnah to experience anywhere and
anytime that cosmic center of the world described by Mishnah: Cosmic
center in words is made Utopia... Mishnah transforms Israel into the
bearer. So Israel here is made into the pivot, in lieu of cult.'"28 "The shift
[23]
IRA CHERNUS
would be... from a center at the locative pivot of the altar, to a system
resting upon the Utopian character of the nation as a whole.'"29
Such a shift, Neusner claims, was psychologically necessary. To live
the fiction of pilgrimage in a world without a pilgrimage center would
constantly "underline the incapacity of the Israelite so to behave as to
replicate and regain the very center, the point from which lines of
structure and meaning radiated.130 Thus the Mishnaic system of purity
"imposes unbearable burdens upon the people who make it work...
Israelite life at the end of the first century after 70 must find some other
path than the pilgrim,s, some new direction at every meal than toward
the Temple.'"31 This new direction, in Neusner's view, is toward the
scribal sage, the one who knows the priestly rules: "If there is no access
to the holy
with
the
place,
there
is at least,
master
ubiquitous
master, like his people,
therefore,
of the
rules
the persistent
of the
being ubiquitous,
holy
engagement
And
place."132
the
is Utopian — nowhere in
particular.
Throughout all of this line of argument, Neusner cites his great debt to
Jonathan Z. Smith, who has outlined the more general theme of the shift
from locative to Utopian "maps" of reality in Late Antiquity. As Smith
describes this shift, it appears to explain the rise of Merkavah mysticism:
"The old beliefs in national deities and the inextricable relationship of
the
deity
to
particular
places
was
weakened.
than
Rather
a god
who
dwelt in his temple or would regularly manifest himself in a cult house,
the diaspora evolved complicated techniques for achieving visions,
epiphanies or heavenly journeys... If there was no native king, then even
the
homeland
was
in the
This
diaspora."133
last
sentence
why
explains
"diasporic" techniques would be likely to develop in the land of Israel
itself. Smith points to "the concentration upon mobile elements from
the Jewish cultus; e.g., the shekinah, kabod and ark rather than the
house"134 as evidence for a shift from locative to Utopian approaches in
early Christianity, but the very same concentration is apparent in Mer
kavah
mysticism within Judaism itself. Thus he concludes, "If the
Temple had not been destroyed it would have had to be neglected. For it
represented a locative type of religious activity no longer perceived as
effective in a new, Utopian religious situation.'"35
pilgrimage
through
heavenly
journey
would
have
had
Thus a new type of
to develop
regard
less of the course of political history.
[24]
TO THE MERKAVAH
THE PILGRIMAGE
Smith also seems to support the contention that this shift is related to
Turners theories. He claims that a Utopian stance arises when "the faith
in the good order of the cosmos and its ability to confer reality... is
shattered... In a world experienced in this way, liminality becomes the
supreme
rather
goal
than
a
in
moment
a
rite
of
Thus
passage.'"36
experiences such as pilgrimage, which enhance the sense of liminality,
will come to the fore, even though they might reflect earlier locative
practices; rebellion against the structure of order may frequently employ
"the very same ritual techniques
which had maintained
the original
order."137
If Merkavah
mysticism did represent a shift from locative to Utopian
the
orientations,
answer
to our
would
question
be
rather
obvious:
The
community valued the anti-structure embodied by its mystics because it
valued the anti-structure of utopianism wherever it could be found, in
mysticism as in Mishnah. However the situation is not so simple. For
Neusner asserts that Mishnah reflects the deepest desires of men "aching
for a stable and predictable world in which to... live out their lives within
and
strong
daries
choose
secure
boundaries.'"38
remains,
throughout
to
the
organize
The
focus
world
and
anchor
for these
around
the
themes
boun
"Mishnah
the Temple:
Mishnah,
and
does
of
topics
the
Temple. It is locative.'"39 The world is meaningful for Mishnah, because
the
structure
from
originating
the
is the
Temple
very
same
structure
which gives order to village, people, and ultimately the entire cosmos:
"Israel,
Temple,
communion.
form
village
The
Mishnah's
a trilogy,
in perfect
boundaries
deepest
a deep
correspondence,
are
not
locative,
uto
pian."140 This locative dimension is most evident in the laws of purity,
the most
must
extensive
be
alway
clean
among
Temple...
section
of the Mishnah,
for
prepared
ordinary
imminent
folk
means
the
system
Accordingly,
for these
entry
to
into
of uncleanness
"To
a pilgrimage
imposes
one
that
imply
the Temple:
for
prepare
laws
keep
to the
the pretense
that people forever live enroute to the holy place."141 Here pilgrimage is
clearly a locative, not Utopian, phenomenon.
But
the
system
of
uncleanness
ceased
to concern
the
rabbis
by the
early third century. While the burden of a locative approach was tolera
ble
in other
aspects,
here
where
it is the most
central
its burden
became
most unendurable
and so had to be given up. This suggests that the
framers of Mishnah and their successors struggled to hold on to the
[25]
IRA CHERNUS
locative vision for as long as they could, and finally gave it up only
partially and reluctantly. So the question remains: Is Mishnah funda
mentally
a locative
either
support
or
view,
There
document?
Utopian
and
in the end
so it seems
that
is ample
evidence
the answer
must
to
be:
It
is both. And in a few places this is the formulation at which Neusner
arrives: "We may call it both locative and Utopian, in that it focuses
upon
context
present
the
but
Temple
is serviceable
And
new."143
so,
It stands
document.
when
"Mishnah
anywhere."142
as a mediating
Neusner
cites
in the
appears
the old
between
affirmation
Smith's
and
that
the
Temple, if not destroyed, would have had to be neglected in the new
Utopian situation, he adds the comment: "Clearly, the position of the
rabbis of Mishnah on this matter is ambiguous.'"44
Yet Smith himself is well aware that the attraction of Utopian anti
structure
need
not
entail
a
total
He
of structure.
rejection
notes
that
society has moments of ritualized disjunction, moments of 'de
scent into chaos,' of ritual reversal, of liminality, of collective anomies.
But these are part of a highly structured scenario in which these
"each
moments
and
journeys
be
will
This
overcome."145
other
"In
ecstasies:
be
may
general
true
of heavenly
interstructural
activities
equally
these
e.g., ecstasy) are punc
and liminal situtions (like similar phenomena,
tual,
limited
which
experiences
of existence.'"46
in Late
And
the traditional
locative
form
part
such
Antiquity,
Smith
motifs;
structured
of a highly
of "cultic
speaks
scenario
call
could
experiences
on
that
phenomena
exhibit characteristics of mobility... and which represent both a reinter
pretation
ries."147
those
and
a
Such
central
reaffirmation
themes
of
native,
for Smith,
phenomena,
of Merkavah
locative,
celebratory
the Shekinah
include
Thus
mysticism.
catego
and
Smith's
Kavod,
theoretical
picture of Late Antiquity leaves room for just the kind of ordered
anti-structure which Turner sees as the key to pilgrimage.
It seems most reasonable to interpret the Judaism of Mishnah as
ordered
kavah
in the
anti-structure,
as
mysticism
ordered
same
way
anti-structure.
that
we
If, as
have
interpreted
most
scholars
Mer
believe,
mystics were rabbis who lived within the framework of
Mishnah, it is not suprising to find them pursuing the same synthesis of
locative and Utopian attitudes on both intellectual and mystical levels.
the Merkavah
Certainly
there
pursuits.
Yet
were
for
rabbis
them,
who
too,
the
did
not
chief
engage
problem
in any
kind
may
well
of mystical
have
been
[26]
THE
TO THE
PILGRIMAGE
MERKAVAH
finding and maintaining the fine life between structure and and
structure, a line which could only be held by synthesizing the two poles
in a single
integrated
Mishnah
culture.
seems
to have
been
one
impor
tant part of this integration process, and Merkavah mysticism may well
have had the same importance. Moreover if, as Neusner claims, the
weight of Mishnah's locative view became increasingly burdensome
during the third century, it would not be surprising to find Merkavah
mysticism playing a role of increasing importance in the community's
life. Neglect of the laws of purity meant, in some significant measure,
neglect of the earthly Temple as a locative focus. Yet the rabbis were
clearly reluctant to endorse this neglect, and so, perhaps, the solution for
many was to focus on a heavenly Temple which was at the same time
both
locative
and
Moreover
Utopian.
the
holy
person,
the new
of
focus
interest in the Utopian world-view, might be holy not only because he
knew the rules of the holy place but also because he had actually been to
the archetypal holy place — the heavenly Temple.
Thus the Merkavah mystic, who embodied ordered anti-structure in
his own life experience, may have been valued by the rabbinic commun
ity as a living answer to its fundamental problem: How can we live in a
locative world when a locative world is no longer endurable? Or, to put it
equally precisely: How can we live in a Utopian world when we find a
Utopian world unendurable? Merkavah mysticism, as a new form of
pilgrimage, offered the possibility of a life focused on a center which was
nowehere
bounds
in
this
of structure
world.
—
It
a life
offered
release
of structure
from
which
structure
within
simultaneously
the
trans
cended structure. Thus it provided one possible solution (a solution
mirroring that of Mishnah) not only to the particular historical problem
of rabbinic Judaism, but also to the more universal human problem of
ambivalence
toward
structure.
The
rabbinic
community
discovered
that
same truth which Turner finds in pilgrimage throughout the world:
structure
and
anti-structure
are
"contraries
that
must
be 'redeemed
by
destroying the Negation."148
The discussion presented
here has yielded a tentative suggestion
about the motivation underlying Merkavah mysticism. This suggestion
must remain in the realm of hypothesis, because the texts themselves are
relatively silent on this question. Yet that very silence may in itself be an
interesting piece of evidence. Merkavah mysticism was born in a world
[27]
THE
TO THE MERKAVAH
PILGRIMAGE
.Ibid., p .106
The
cultic
view
has
criticized
see
Ithamar
.den/Koln,
1980),
This
most
most
was first pointed
demonstrated
"The
‫י‬,,F.M. Gross,
W.F.
Albright,
1957),
pp. 262-264;
.New Testament,
Tabernacle
2, ed.
a mediating
(Lei
Mysticism
p. 72. It has now been
Trends,
in Apocalyptic.
Biblical
the Stone
art. "doxa"
G. Kittel
10 (1947)
Archaeologist
to Christianity
Age
G. von Rad,
vol.
and
and Merkavah
Major
by Gruenwald
From
His
Geheimnis
For
1975).
(Berlin,
Apocalyptic
out by Scholem,
in detail
Vom Kultus;
Wewers,
.96-97
,47-48
pp
by G.A.
Judentum
Gruenwald,
by Maier,
strongly
thoroughly
im Rabbinischen
Geheimhaltung
view,
is argued
background
been
(Garden
in Theological
(Grand
Rapids,
;66-67
N.Y.,
City,
of the
Dictionary
1964),
Michigan,
pp
.238-242
The
of Kavod
concept
Trends,
Major
pp.
in the Heikalot
literature,
von der Schekhina
"Zur
Scholem,
see A.M.
rabbinischen
in Von der mystischen
Shirta
B'slalah
,Tarbiz
2, no.
The
L'regel
Safrai's
Ha'aliyah,
.Talmud
Babli,
cites
Philo
Safrai,
Biy'mei
work
.Safrai,
p
.Safrai,
(Zurich
150, and
.(1962
cited
parallels
al pi Ha'agadah,"
Ma'aleh
Hasheni
Habayit
is Shmuel
pilgrimage
(Tel
Aviv,
Safrai,
I rely heavily
1965).
discussion.
.123
Rosh
Hashanah
in support
16b;
of this view
p. 141.
Sifra
49a.
Safrai,
Ha'aliyah,
p
,123
as well.
Cf. Mishnah
Yoma
3.3 and
Talmud
YVushalmi,
3, 40b.
Ha'aliyah,
p
.For a summary
Talmud
.Ha'aliyah,
This
Konzeption
.1
the Jerusalem
in the following
Ha'aliyah,
Sh'kalim
study
and G.
1969)
.145-150
Pequdei
on
Shel
Miqdash
:(1931
7 and
thorough
Ha'aliyah
on
2 (January
Vayaqhel
only
"Beit
is
in
über die Vorstelling
(Berlin,
der Gottheit
10, ed. Horowitz-Rabin,p.
cf. V. Aptowitzer,
There
texts. On Shekinah
kabbalistischen
Gestalt
in
in Merkabah
13, no. 1-2(1982).
Literatur
der
Entwicklungsgeschichte
Mekhilta
Tanhuma
Vol
by Scholem
of God
Untersuchungen
Goldberg,
,der Schekhinah,"
there;
"Visions
in the Heikalot
of Shekinah
in der frühen
is discussed
texts
Chernus,
Journal for the Study of Judaism
Mysticism,"
as yet no full discussion
rabbinic
cf. Ira
65-66;
Babli,
p
Hagigah
.Talmudic
ed.
22;
see
Gruenwald,
Philo,
Apocalyptic,
On the Special
Laws,
pp
1.156;
.99-102
cf. Safrai,
.144
is a common
Merkavah,
.142
of the data,
theme
Scholem
Tradition,
2nd
the Heikalot
throughout
(in Jewish
ed.
[New
Gnosticism,
York,
1965],
texts;
Merkabah
pp
see e.g.,
Ma'aseh
Mysticism,
,(101-117
.#14
[28]
and
IRA CHERNUS
which pressed strongly toward a totally Utopian stance. Its many formal
affinities with Gnosticism, which led Scholem to label it "Jewish Gnos
ticism," no doubt reflect some substantive similarity with that most
Utopian of all "maps." Yet the Merkavah mystics were strongly commit
ted to resisting the total abandonment of locative structure. If their
mysticism was their way to compromise on this most crucial of issues,
they nevertheless had to be extremely careful lest their intentions be
misunderstood. If an expert of Scholem,s stature, at the safe distance of
so many centuries, could label them as "Gnostics," how much more
easily might their contemporaries fall into this error? And thus how
easily might they be taken as advocates of a fully Utopian, anti-structural
mode of life. The reality of their experience, as they brought it back into
the community, would speak loudly enough of the need for a measure of
anti-structure. To speak of this directly, however — to articulate rejec
tion of the structure on which their communal life was based — would
be to go too far and risk leading others into serious error. Ultimately it
might lead some to embrace some form of Gnosticism itself. In their
attempt to adhere to this finest of lines without losing balance, the
Merkavah mystics may well have thought it advisable to ignore the
delicate subject of motivations in their spoken words and let actions
speak for themselves. Such an interpretation is highly speculative, of
course, but any interpretation of the motivations of Merkavah mysti
cism must take account of the texts' silence on that crucial question, and
the
one
offered
Gershom
York,
here
does
G. Scholem,
1961),
meet
perhaps
Major
Trends
that
criterion.
in Jewish
Mysticism,
3rd ed. rev. (New
43, 44.
pp.
Ibid., p. 49.
19:15,
Kings
1 Samuel
For
Isaiah
summaries
1965),
pp.
37:16.
2 Samuel
4:4,
H.
28-39;
Old
Testament,
vol.
ids,
Michigan,
1974);
Jeremiah
6:2,
of the data,
J. Zobel,
1, ed.
R.
3:16
f.
see R. E. Clements,
art. "aron"
G.J.
de
Botterweck
Vaux,
God
and
in Theological
Ancient
and
H.
Israel
Temple
Ringgren
(New
(Oxford,
Dictionary
of the
(Grand
York,
Rap
1965),
297-302.
1 Chronicles
28:2,
Exodus
25:18-22.
Johann
Maier,
Ezekiel
Vom Kultus
43:7,
Isaiah
zur
Gnosis
66:1,
Psalms
(Salsburg,
99:5,
1964),
132:7.
p. 92.
[29]
pp.
IRA CHERNUS
24.
Contra
Philo,
2.3 and
series
The
1.8.
best
of the story
Scholem,
Major
Trends,
Heikalot
Rabbati
25.6.
Cf.
Leiter,
Terms,"
tions
for the vision
Safrai,
27.
Ibid.,
28.
For a recent
ger,
PAAJR
as ritual
26.
of who
"Worthiness,
binic
well
52-53
pp.
6.2.4;
Mishnah
seems
to be viewed
to the seven
Jewish
is "worthy
Middot
as a
Heikalot
of
discussed
by
Heikalot
e.g.,
Pardes":
14-16.
pp.
Cf.
texts are frequently
Rabbati
con
in His beauty."
Some
Appointment:
be noted
Rab
that the qualifica
study of and obedience
involve
see,
entered
to see the King
and
It should
(1973-74).
Zutreti,
who
Gnosticism,
the Heikalot
Acclamation,
51-52
of God
purity;
Ha'aliyah,
of Heikalot
of the "four
and
In general,
with the question
S.
and
analogous
is the passage
example
in the context
cerned
rather
courtyards,
5.5.2
the Temple
tradition.
known
Scholem
Wars
Josephus,
In the latter source,
of concentric
the mystical
25.
2.8;
Apion
Kelim
to rabbinic
law as
13.2.
107-109.
pp.
146.
p.
comprehensive
und
"Singen
survey
Ekstatische
the Study
of the evidence,
in der
Sprache
for
29.
Safrai,
Ha'aliyah,
pp.
132-141,
30.
Tosefta
Sh'kalim
1.1;
Mekilta
Mishnah
citing
Yitro
Grözin
judischen
Mystik,"
66-77.
11 (1980):
of Judaism"
Journal
see Karl-Erich
frühen
Bikkurim
1, ed.
Bahodesh
3.3.
Horowitz-Rabin,
p.
203.
31.
Heikalot
32.
Peter
Rabbati
Schultz,
Joseph
Revelation
33.
23:2.
Rivalitat
Schäfer,
(March,
York,
History
Mircea
1978),
1959),
of Religion
34.
Aptowitzer,
35.
Maseket
"Beit
Smith,
1978),
shel
Miqdash
Senses
Cosmos
J.Z.
(Leiden,
Menschen
Rabbati
2.2;
1975);
(Berlin,
of Moses
of a Center,"
and
and History,
Map
is Not
the
41,
W. Trask
Territory:
no.
1
(New
Studies
in the
113-115.
pp.
Ma'aleh,"
p. 264.
1973],
///[Jerusalem,
ed. I. Gruenwald,
Yehezkiel,
Re'uyot
HAAR
trans.
ch. 4, ed. Jellinek(BeitHamidrash,
Heikalot
Heikalot
p. 43]:
The
Eliade,
12-17;
pp.
und
to the Ascension
61 (1971).
JQR
"Jerusalem:
Cohn,
Engeln
Opposition
of the Law,"
L.
Robert
Zwischen
"Angelic
Temirin
1 (1972): 135-139.
36.
Scholem
(Major
"ascent"
while
Trends,
later
detail.
demonstrated
in any
trance
Merkavah
of the
Perhaps
cally
here,
to denote
pp. 46-47)
texts used
as elsewhere
that the earlier
has suggested
"descent,"
Perhaps
experience"
in rabbinic
although
"descent"
denotes
(Gruenwald,
Hebrew,
"to
texts used
not yet been
this has
enter
Apocalyptic,
a term is used
into
p.
145).
euphemisti
its opposite.
[30]
the
THE
Jewish
Scholem,
Gnosticism,
20.
p.
Cf.
I.
Hat'filah
Elbogen,
Y. Amir (Tel
trans.
Hahistorit,
B'hitpathutah
TO THE MERKAVAH
PILGRIMAGE
Aviv,
B'yisrael
p. 353 and n.6 ad
1972),
loc.
Exodus
23.17;
Max
Kadushin,
The
sources
34:23;
for
16:16.
Deuteronomy
The Rabbinic
this
Mind
discussion
York,
(New
are
fully
p. 241.
1952),
cited
ibid.,
Kadushin,
by
pp.
240-243.
For
a full discussion
Safrai,
Maier,
Vom Kultus,
Safrai,
Ha'aliyah,
even
before
the Letter
"Visions
Chernus,
of God."
17.
p.
146-147.
Safrai
84-86
notes
that this must
of the Temple;
expansion
of Aristeas
99, which
and
he cites
have
been
true
Ben Sira ch. 50 and
of "astonishment
speaks
and
wonder."
p. 57.
Trends,
Major
Ma'aseh
merkabah,
Ma'aseh
Merkabah,
Odeberg
(New
Sefer
see
1.
pp.
Herod's
indescribable
Scholem,
of the sources,
ch.
Ha'aliyah,
ed.
York,
ed.
Heikalot,
#6.
Scholem,
ed.
#10; Sefer
Scholem,
Heikalot
(3 Enoch),
ed.
H.
ch. 22c.
1973),
ch.
Odeberg,
18.
Ibid., ch. 26.
Major
Heikalot
Rabbati
I. Gruenwald,
p. 64.
Trends,
Scholem,
8.3.
Hadashim
"Q'ta'im
Misifrut
Haheikalot,"
7art/'z38(1960):
360-365.
Heikalot
Rabbati
3.3.
Ibid., 23.2.
Ibid., 3,4.
Heikalot
The
as cited
Zutreti,
between
relationship
rabbinic
has been
apocalyptic
and
rini, "Apocalypses
Semeia
cism,"
by Scholem
the Heikalot
14(1970).
in Jewish
discussed
I believe
the connection;
in fact there is little influence
texts (cf.
n. 63
below).
Ma'aseh
Merkabah,
kabah
Shelemah,
1.1 ff. contains
is probably
below)
rather
than
Kabbalah
Scholem,
#4,13;
S. Mussaioff
a lengthy
section
Scholem,
ed.
ed.
section
to the
(New
suggesting
1974),
151.
mysticism
p. 374;
Mysti
in Sefer
5b. Heikalot
this worldly
Torah"
and
in the Heikalot
Rabbah,
1921),
Saida
rather overstates
of apocalyptic
to the "Sar
Merkavah
York,
Literature
Merkavah
and
mysticism,
by Anthony
that Saldarini
(Jerusalem,
to be attributed
length
in Rabbinic
'Apocalyptic'
However
at some
p. 77, n. 6.
Gnosticism,
Merkavah
literature,
rewards,
tradition
tradition:
Gruenwald,
Mer
Rabbati
but this
(see n. 101
Gershom
Apocalyptic,
[31]
G.
p.
IRA CHERNUS
For
a full
discussion
Jewish
Scholem,
Kurt
Wahrheit
6/7
Gnosticism,
theme
Ascent
has
"Individual
Chernus,
HUCA
Literature,"
and
52 (1981).
1.
and
Early
judische
F. Segal,
"The
Heavenly
and their Environment,"
Christianity,
der romischen
Wort and
Gnosis,"
"Apocalypses."
by Alan
surveyed
Judaism,
und Niedergang
Ira
cf. Saldarini,
been
recently
in Hellenistic
Aufstieg
p.
Hellenismus
p. 459;
(1963),
see
motif,
of the Heikalot
"Judischer
Schubert,
This
of this
in the Redaction
Community
Welt, II, 23.2 (Berlin
and New
York,
1980).
I have
the evidence
presented
in Rabbinic
Judaism
in Ira Chernus,
for this conclusion
and
(Berlin
New
York,
1982),
especially
Mysticism
5 and
chapters
6.
Victor
Turner,
as Social
"Pilgrimages
and
(Ithaca
Metaphors
London,
in Dramas,
processes,"
1974),
p.
Fields,
and
171.
Ibid., p. 197.
Ibid., p. 195.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 197.
Ibid., p. 207.
Chernus,
Mysticism,
Scholem,
Major
This
theme
recurs
Metaphors,
Turner,
1-4.
p. 65, and
Series,
and
Process,
1 (New
"Pilgrimages,"
p.
Jewish
Turner's
throughout
46-54,
pp.
Anthropology
chs.
Trends,
Gnosticism,
1979),
26-27.
p.
Fields,
and Pilgrimage,
Performance,
Delhi,
pp.
see, e.g., Dramas,
work;
18.
183.
Ibid., p. 179.
Ibid., p. 186.
Ibid., pp. 174-177.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 177.
Ibid., p. 175.
Ibid., p. 177.
Turner,
See
p. 20.
"Process,"
the comments
These
are
of Gruenwald,
discussed
Turner,
"Pilgrimages,"
Turner,
Process,
pp.
Turner,
"Pilgrimages,"
Turner,
Process,
Turner,
"Pilgrimages,"
p.
in detail
p.
183,
p.
Apocalyptic,
by Gruenwald,
111.
Apocalyptic,
and
Process,
p. 43.
and
Process,
p.
p.
102-111.
122 ff.
p.
182,
p.
182.
and
Ranchi
129.
130.
[32]
THE
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
Ibid.,
Ibid.,
Ibid.,
Ibid.,
Ibid..
Ibid.,
95.
Turner
96.
PILGRIMAGE
TO THE
MERKAVAH
202.
169.
227-228.
203.
177.
203.
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
stresses
that anti-structure
rather
a dissolution
Jacob
Neusner,
is not merely
of structure;
"Form
and
it is
p. 202.
45, no. 1 (March,
JAAR
in Mishnah,"
Meaning
of structure;
a reversal
cf. "Pilgrimages,"
1977), pp. 48, 49.
97.
Scholem,
Kabbalah,
98.
Scholem,
Major
Gruenwald,
Hebrew
99.
100.
Book
Scholem,
pp.
Setting,"
p. 180;
are
wald,
99.
106;
known
J.P.
150
pp.
in Gruenwald,
Gnosticism,
10-12,
Review
pp.
(Nashville,
Torah"
sections;
1965),
pp. 12-13,
and
and Gruen
184-187.
by the Author
H. Schiffman,
"The
in the Hekhalot
Ecstasy
(or Authors)
cf. Scholem,
p. 244;
Apocalyptic,
Lawrence
and
286-293.
pp.
for a characterization
Gnosticism,
of Halakah
from
"Historical
in The Bible
Jonas,
Recall
of
Jewish
of Rabbi
Rabbati,"
AJS
7(1976).
103.
Chernus,
Mysticism.
104.
Scholem,
Major
"Singen";
and
H.
Hekaloth
Kairos
of the Synagogue
Gnosticism,
Tarbiz
Literature,"
"Der
Avenary,
Synagogengesang,"
zation
p. 60, and Jewish
Trends,
"Yannai
wald,
and
Ben-Ha-Qanah
and Vision,"/OS1
p. 17; Alexander,
n. 3, 174-180,
the Heikaloth,"
Nehuniah
Gnosticism.
Hyatt
Knowledge
of the
Setting
Mysticism.
ch. 1; Hans
see Scholem,
Vom Kultus;
Maier,
Historical
Chernus,
Vom Kultus,
as the "Sar
"The
"The
and "Knowledge
Mysticism,
ed.
Apocalyptic,
Gnosticism;
Jewish
110-111,
Maier,
to the sources,
S. Lieberman,
1, and
pp.
Chernus,
Scholarship,
references
102.
ch.
Apocalyptic,
3 (1973),
Jewish
Alexander.
JJS 28 (1977);
Trends,
Major
1, and
P.S.
of Enoch,"
Gruenwald,
These
Ch.
Apocalyptic;
Modern
101.
12.
p.
Trends,
Einfluss
judischen
Lawrence
16(1974);
Service
der
Dame
(Notre
I. Gruen
pp. 27-28;
36 (1967);
A. Hoffman,
and
Grözinger,
Mystik
London,
auf
den
The Canoni
1979),
pp.
Shir Hashirim,"
in
59-64.
105.
Chernus,
Mysticism,
Scholem,
Jewish
106.
Saldarani,
107.
Heikalot
"Individual
108.
This
point
chs.
1-5; S. Lieberman,
Gnosticism,
Appendix
"Mishnat
D.
"Apocalypses.,‫י‬
Rabbati
and
13.2;
for a general
discussion
of this motif see Chernus,
Community."
is discussed
here
below.
[33]
IRA CHERNUS
,Ma'aseh
For
of the sources,
for
evidence
Supporting
Scholem
ed.
Merkabah,
a summary
.#24
see
this
"Visions."
Chernus,
is
contention
in
presented
Chernus,
Mysticism.
Heikalot
Rabbati
.Gruenwald,
.14
Hadashim,"
"Q'ta'im
and
Chernus,
"Individual
.Turner,
"Pilgrimages,"
.366
.169
p
‫יי‬,Grözinger, "Singen
p
Community."
.72-76
.pp
Rivalitat.
Schäfer,
"Individual
.Chernus,
and
Arnold
Goldberg,
"Einige
onellen
Einheiten
der
.trage 1 (1973),
Grözinger,
Community,";
Grossen
Heikalot,"
p. 48; Gruenwald,
"Singen,"
Frankfurter
Bei
Judaistische
.132-133,154-155,159
pp
Apocalyptic,
;77
p
und den redakti
zu den Quellen
Bemerkungen
.125
.Turner,
Process,
.Turner,
"Pilgrimages,"
p
p
.292
p
.207
.Ibid, p .203
.Ibid., p .288
.Turner,
"Pilgrimages,"
.Ibid., pp ,206 .208
J. Neusner,
"The
Phenomenon
,fasc. 1 (February,
and
1969)
and
"Individual
Chernus,
.J. Neusner,
Judaism:
J. Neusner,
"Map
.Sanctuary,"
Without
.2 (June,
p
Antiquity,
1 (February
Numen
,16
.(1970
(Chicago,
Mishnah's
19, no.
System
2 (June,
1977),
1981),
p
.47
of Sacrifice
p
and
The
Case
Territory,"
p
.126
Territory,"
p
.121
Structure:
of Mishnah,"
JAAR 45, no.
.188
Ibid.
.Neusner,
Smith,
Ibid.,
"Map
Map,
Without
p. xiv.
p. 188n.
.Ibid., p .128
.Ibid., p .170
.Ibid., p .151
.149
.Neusner,
Judaism,
.Neusner,
"Map
.Neusner,
Judaism,
p
.Neusner,
"History
and
p
and
.186
.112
p
"History
1977),
of Mishnah
Territory;
of Religions
Judaism,
.Neusner,
in Late
17, fasc.
Community."
The Evidence
History
J. Neusner,
of the Rabbi
Numen
Without
.149
Structure,"
p
.186
[34]
THE
142.
143.
Neusner,
Neusner,
Judaism,
"Map
PILGRIMAGE
TO THE MERKAVAH
p. 41.
Without
Territory,"
p.
122.
144. Ibid., p. 121.
145.
Smith,
Map,
p.
145.
146. Ibid., p. 150.
147. Ibid, p. 186.
148.
Turner,
"Pilgrimages,"
p.
139.
[35]
The Ideal of Piety of the Ashkenazi Hasidim and Its Roots in Jewish Tradition
Author(s): Peter Schäfer
Source: Jewish History, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Fall, 1990), pp. 9-23
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20101078
Accessed: 21-05-2015 23:19 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Jewish History.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 169.232.212.168 on Thu, 21 May 2015 23:19:24 UTC
Jewish
History
The
Vol.
IV, No.
2
Fall
1990
of Piety
Hasidim
in Jewish
Ideal
Ashkenazi
Its Roots
of
the
and
Tradition*
Peter Sch?fer
Some Remarks
on the State of Research
Despite a renewed interest in them in the last decades, the Pietists of medieval
(Ashkenazi Hasidim), who set their stamp on German Judaism for a
Germany
little more than one hundred years, are still an undefined mass on the landscape
of the history of Jewish ideas and culture. What we know about them with any
to the famous
is meager: Their main
representatives
belonged
certainty
family that immigrated to Germany from Italy in the ninth century
Qalonymus
in the "Shum" cities ? Speyer, Worms, and
and settled in the central Rhineland
?
as
on
as
in Regensburg
the upper Danube. Their productive period
well
Mainz
extended from about 1150 to 1250, and is connected with the name of Samuel
b. Qalonymus
(mid-twelfth century), his son, Judah b. Samuel he-Hasid (d. 1217),
and his relative and student, Eleazar b. Judah of Worms (d. ca. 1230). We have
very little reliable information, if any, about the lives of these representatives of
Hasidic thought; only a small part of their extant works has been edited and their
is obscure. On the one hand, the ethical "Volksbuch," Sefer
interrelationship
Hasidim,
ostensibly reflects the thinking of the "simple man,"1 and seemingly
eschews philosophic and talmudic erudition. On the other hand, the authors of
Sefer Hasidim produced many highly speculative, theosophic-esoteric writings.
Classifying the pietist movement, with its peculiar literary expression, within the
history of Jewish ideas and culture, and identifying its origins and goals, thus
In this essay, we will deal only with
the
difficulties.
poses enormous
as
are
of
Ashkenazi
Hasidic
aspects
ethical-pietistic
teaching, especially
they
found in Sefer Hasidim, not with the theosophic-esoteric
ones.2
*
This article
is the revised version
of Jewish Studies,
German
held
in Berlin,
draft, and Kenneth
improving
the English
of a lecture given at the Third Congress of the European Association
on the first
1987. I thank Israel Yuval for commenting
July 26-31,
Stow, Sarah Gluck,
and Aubrey
Pomerance
for their efforts
in shaping and
translation.
10
Peter Sch?fer
The state of research on the ethical-pietistic
teachings of the Ashkenazi Hasidim
in Sefer Hasidim
related
until
G. Scholem's
classic chapter
(and
works) up
can
"Hasidism inMedieval Germany"
in his Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism2
be briefly summarized as follows:
(1) The almost exclusive concentration on the inner values and ideals, on piety,
defense against sin, fulfillment of the divine will, and repentance, as expressed
in Sefer Hasidim,
the context of the traumatic
is unimaginable
outside
the
of
crusades.
The
First
Crusade had indeed occurred
experiences
devastating
much earlier (1906), and although the Second Crusade (1147) took place much
nearer to the heydey of the Ashkenazi Hasidim, the direct effect upon the Rhenish
it is argued that the
nonetheless,
community was in no way comparable;
impact on the Jews' self-esteem and sense of security must not be
psychological
underestimated.
with the Christian
Jewish hopes for peaceful
coexistence
had been irreversibly destroyed. This argument stands as the
environment
unchallenged communis opinio of scholarship.4
(2) As first put forth by Yizhaq Baer, Jewish pietism should be compared with
institutionalized Christian piety.5 Baer contrasted Judah he-Hasid
contemporary
with St. Francis of Assisi, and concluded that the main features of the Ashkenazi
ideas and practices. The
pietistic ideal were adapted from Christian monastic
Jewish pietists' ascetic extremism and their unique penitential practices were
conceivable only against the background of the renewed Christian monastic
ideal,
as expressed in Cluniac reform, the founding in 1098 of the Cistercians, and the
establishment
of the Mendicant
and Franciscan
Dominican
orders at the
beginning of the thirteenth century.
?
two reactions ?
to the crusades and to Christian monasticism
the discussion of the socio-historical
determined
moment
and impact of the
6
new light on the
Hasidic movement.
Ivan
shed
Marcus
has
Recently, however,
and
new
has
to questioning
in
In
scholars
addition
directions.7
problem
pointed
common
about the historical
has
of
assumptions
pietism, Marcus
origins
attempted to distinguish the teachings of each of the three main representatives
of Ashkenazi Hasidism. He argues that establishing a simple cause and effect
between the consequences of the crusades and the formation of the pietistic ideal
is stymied principally by the fact that this causality is not manifested
more
in Sefer Hasidim.
As Marcus
and
explicitly
rightly points out, martyrdom
asceticism are not the same. Furthermore,
it is hard to view the twelfth century
in general as a time of decreasing
in
security for the Jewish communities
These
the extent of Christian influence on the pietistic ideal, this
Germany. Concerning
argument would be more forceful if one could demonstrate a stronger dependence
on Christian sources, as has been the case up until now. Marcus correctly denies
claims that Jewish authors depended on Latin Christian Books of Repentance.
In his most
recent essay, "Hierarchies, Religious
and Jewish
Boundaries
The Idealof Piety
in Medieval
Spirituality
Germany,"8
Marcus
lucidly summarizes
11
the state of
research:
in
Pietism
in German
need be traced
elements
and early medieval
to isolate the characteristics
in
it be possible
in this way will
Only
customs
and practices
from those that
of ancient
that are the product
Pietism
of one or the other
derive from twelfth-century
Europe or from the idiosyncracies
the
I found a basis for isolating
In my study. Piety and Society,
authors.
pietist
R. Eleazar
to Pietism
of R. Judah the Pietist
contribution
from that of his disciple
The ancient
more
detail.
of Worms,
but
I also
concluded
from
twelfth-century
historically
and
Jewish
Baer),
persecution
or as a response
to the
Dan),
conclusions
negative
patterns
of behaviour,
to
point
an inference
that the whole
factors
phenomenon
as Christian
cannot
be explained
influence
(Yizhaq
Scholem,
(Baer, Gershom
Joseph
martyrdom
... The
Tosafists
French
Soloveitchik).
(Haym
and
of their traditions
the antiquity
of many
not stated
Ideal of the Ashkenazi
The Pietistic
such
explicitly
then.
It is stated
here.9
Hasidim
A close examination of the texts of Sefer Hasidim
that deal with hasidut, that is,
with the piety of the Hasid, reveals a constantly recurring motif; namely, that of
disgrace and shame (boshet and kelimah). The Hasid is disgraced by his fellow
Jews, who scorn him, condemn him, mock him, and jeer him. In a pun that refers
to popular etymology as well as to the learned Targum, the term Hasid is traced
to hasida (stork), which is (as in the Targum[()) translated by hiwwarita (whiteness
or paleness), "because they [others] disgrace his face and make it pale; but he [the
Hasid] remains deaf and mute; he does not open his mouth, nor does he disgrace
'
the face of his fellow creatures."1 The verse "For thy sake are we killed all the
day long" (Ps. 44:23) is interpreted as follows:
These
are humans
(actually
[fulfillment
Hasidim]
who accuse
who
fulfill
all
the day
who bear disgrace
and contempt
(boshet) and shame (kelimah)
of the face"
because
of the
pale
turning
[halbanat
panim])
of the] commandments...
the one who makes
their [the
[God] accuses
... And that is
faces turn pale with
Those
spilt blood
[what is written]:
?
who speak evil about them
my people by the word of sin (Isa. 29:21 )
the commandments.
That
is what
iswritten:
For Thy sake are we killed
'2
long.
"the
The "root of the strength of hasidut" ('iqqar hozeq ha-hasidut) is defined in such
a way that the Hasid, although scorned, does not abandon his pietism.13 These
and similar texts express a conscious sense of group solidarity. The Hasid belongs
to a group which "the others" despise and from which they remain aloof. The
identity of these "others" is never explicitly revealed, but it is clear that they are
Jews. In other words, the relationship between Hasidim and non-Hasidim
is
it
in
in
is
the
"internal
structure"
of
Judaism
the
Rhineland
the
clearly expressed:
second half of the twelfth century which is here described, although, for the most
part, negatively. On the one side, we find the non-Hasidim, clearly the majority,
who prevent
the Hasidim
from properly
observing
the commandments;
on the
12
Peter Sch?fer
other side, the close-knit band of the Hasidim gather, but earn for their ideals only
scorn. The relationship between the two groups is antagonistic,
but external
in
the
is
hands
the
of
non-Hasidim.
"power"
In reality, however, the Hasidim were by no means as wretched, nor as despised,
as they portrayed themselves. On the contrary, the texts display a distinct pietist
to denote the two
self-assurance, which the terminology used by Sefer Hasidim
are
The
Hasidim
"parties" clearly reveals.
"righteous" (saddiqim), "good" (tovim),
"respectable"
(hagunim), "God-fearing"
(yere'im), and "pure" (neqi'im); their
opponents are "wicked" (resha'im), "evil" (ra'im), "unfit" (psulim), and "violent"
is concealed within
the Hasid, who, although
(parisim).14 True righteousness
despised by others, imperturbably pursues piety, love of God, and fulfillment of
God's will ? as he understands
it. Those who understand God's will differently
are wicked and evil. The Hasid can bear abuse and contempt, but he does so in
the conviction
that he is superior to his opponents:
A
story
Hasidim]
them: Do
about
a Hasid
The
who was disgraced
and slandered.
community
[of
will reprimand
him and put him under a ban. He answered
In the same way
that! ... Learn
from me and act accordingly.
told him: We
not do
that
I suffer
and do not allow you to fight for me,
if you daily
thus,
[are forced
who
from someone
from some mean
person,
to] hear [alleged] contemptuousness
slanders
and insults you. [you] must disregard
his words.
For it is written: Moses
was very meek,
all the men
the face of the earth]
above
(Num.
[who were upon
never again did there arise
And
in Israel
12:3), and, accordingly
[it is written]:
a prophet
Ye shall walk
there is written:
like Moses
Furthermore,
(Deut. 34:10).
after
the Lord, your God
(Deut.
been still and refrained
I have
13:5), and
myself
I have
it iswritten:
long held my
peace;
(Isa 42:14).15
and similar texts do not, as Scholem proposed,16 imply the ideal of spiritual
equanimity, the moral ideal of "ataraxy," of indifference or "absence of passion,"
as in the tradition of the Cynics and Stoics and Christian monastics. The "ideal
of complete indifference to praise or blame"17 is neither an end in itself nor part
of preparing for mystical
exaltation. The accusations
of the "wicked" are
These
irrelevant.
Moses
?
and
God
?
alone
set
the
standard
for
the Hasid's
behavior.
have but one aim: as Moses was rewarded with
humility and modesty
to
all
other
prophecy superior
prophecies, so will the Hasid be rewarded. The time
will come when he will be proven superior to his opponents, when his disgrace
will become triumph. This time is the time of redemption after death. It is for
this alone that he lives and that he can bear the mockery of his opponents. The
very person whose face "has been made pale" is the one whose face will radiate
in the "days to come" (i.e., the world to come), who will be nourished by the
splendor of the Shekhinah.18 The "unassuming" proof for the radiating face of the
Hasid who is so despised on earth is none other than Isa. 60:1 ff. ("Arise, your light
His
has come, and the glory of the Lord shines over you"), the messianic connotations
of which the Pietists surely knew well. We may assume that the "Gentiles" who
"shall march
toward your light" (Isa. 60:3) are the "wicked ones," the
The Idealof Piety
13
non-Hasidim who in the days to come will have
glories of the Hasid. When the concern is for the
for his piety, the Hasid views this as no laughing
disappears. Another text says that a Hasid can deal
to acknowledge the concealed
future redemption, the reward
matter, and his "equanimity"
with all (false) accusations and
the charge that he will not be a
condemnations
by his opponents, but not with
to come." Such a charge will distress him and make his
the
world
"child of
fall"
"countenance
(naflupanaw), as is strikingly described (of Cain inGen. 4:5):
mocked
Someone
even when he was
he would
child
of
commit
the world
but his countenance
the Hasid,
did not fall, not
that
by his life and property.
[But] when he was cursed
numerous
and because
not be a
wicked
deeds
of that would
to come,
then he became
sad and his countenance
fell.19
and
insulted
cursed
The contempt of the "others" for the Hasid, in fact, corresponds to the contempt
the Hasid feels for them. It can have fatal consequences if the Hasid feels attacked
at the roots of his piety and is "forced" to curse his opponent (Sefer Hasidim, no.
1344: the "evil" head of the community). The opponent will not survive a year,
even though he has performed the normative (by non-Hasidic standards) "good
the newborn, showing hospitality, and
(washing the dead, circumcising
alms), for he has made the mistake of preventing the Hasid from
following his way of life, either by mocking his tallit or by "accelerating" prayer
in the synagogue, thus making it impossible for the Hasid to pray according to
deeds"
distributing
his
custom.
In the
things
that matter
the Hasid
is master
over
"life"
and
"death."
God's will, the Hasid's role model, follows Hasidic ideals. Therefore, the category
of "fundamental altruism," by which Scholem explained Hasidic ideology,20 is
inadequate. Rather, the Hasid is primarily interested in his own spiritual welfare.
His interest in others stops at the point when they reject Hasidic standards. The
principle of not doing unto others as they have done unto you21 does not aim at
the welfare of his fellow man, but serves the Hasid's own spiritual perfection, for
whom God's
The
example
alone
"Gedullah" Hymns
is decisive.
of Hekhalot
Rabbati
The Hasidim constituted an elite group (or perhaps, more exactly, a sect) within
Judaism, which defined itself on the basis of differences from and opposition to
In other words, in the historical context, it was not so
the Jewish environment.
much the Christians of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries who were responsible
for the Hasidic sense of group solidarity and group identity but the "others," those
Jews whom the Hasidim perceived as "different."22 This does not mean that there
was no Christian influence on the self-perception of the Hasidim, but it does
justify an intensified search for Jewish parallels and lines of development. The
first, which I shall not pursue here, is that of the Qumran sect.23 The second, which
the
is that of the Yorede Merkavah,
is more closely related historically,
14
Peter Sch?fer
protagonists of early Jewish mysticism, who are known to us through the so-called
are closely related to the German
Hekhalot
literature. The Yorede Merkavah
took
Pietists because their Hekhalot
shape in the ninth and tenth
writings
the
Pietists'
formal
before
appearance. The literary products of
centuries, shortly
the Ashkenazi Hasidim and the Yorede Merkavah are intertwined, because the
in fact transmitted
and rewrote parts of the Hekhalot
Hasidim
has
made
been
literature.24 This
increasingly clear by research on Hekhalot
Ashkenazi
literature.
Let us single out one textual unit that is especially suitable for comparison:
the
so-called Gedullah hymns of Hekhalot Rabbati.25 These hymns, which were last
studied in depth by G. A. Wewers,26 deal with the superiority of the Merkavah
is distinguished by his ability
mystics to their fellow Jews. The Yored Merkavah
to recognize the good and evil deeds of his fellows and by his precise knowledge
of who does and does not correctly observe the commandments:
even
is the fact that he sees and recognizes
all the deeds
of men,
in the chambers
whether
of the chambers,
they are good or
[them]
whether
If a man
deeds.
him.
steals, he knows
they are corrupt
[it] and recognizes
If one commits
he knows
him. If [one] murders,
he
adultery,
[it] and recognizes
Greatest
when
of all
they do
it and recognizes
him.
If [one] is suspected
sexual
of having
intercourse
a menstruating
he knows
him.
If [one] spreads
woman,
[it] and recognizes
he knows
him.27
gossip,
[it] and recognizes
knows
with
vile
Greatest
of all
smith, who
is pure. He
is the fact
which
perceives
even sees into
that all creatures
before
him
are
like
silver
before
the
has been refined, which
is impure, and which
the family ?
how many mamzerim
there are in the
sons were
how many
how many
sired during menstruation,
have crushed
family,
are castrated,
sons
how many
how many
how many
of
testicles,
slaves,
uncircumcised
[fathers].28
silver
The Yored Merkavah perceives himself as belonging to a group which likewise
be characterized as decidedly elitist. He is "distinguished"
or "set aside"
(muvdat) from all people, "feared for all his qualities."29 The antagonistic
relationship between the evidently small group of Merkavah mystics and the
surrounding hostile majority once again plays an important role. Anyone who
raises his hand against him and hits him will be punished by "plagues," "leprosy,"
and a "rash"; whoever "slanders" him may expect wounds that will produce "wet
ulcers."30 "Huge, disastrous, and powerful blows will come down from heaven"
on whoever offends him; "against whoever raises his hands to bring disgrace
may
[genai] upon him, the heavenly court will raise its hands in return."31 And, finally,
"whoever raises his face impudently toward him" (me'iz panaw) will go blind;
whoever
"confounds him" (boze 'oto) will have his family exterminated,
and
whoever
"spreads his disgrace"
(mesapper begnuto) will be destroyed.32
The same relationship that we have encountered with the Ashkenazi Hasidim
between an elite consciousness and the confirmation by God of this consciousness
The Ideal of Piety
i5
is also evident here. The "others" pursue the Yored Merkavah with their dislike;
they "confound" him and spread lies, but punishment will swiftly follow. Like the
ismaster over life and death, since his persecutors
Pietist, the Yored Merkavah
(or even those who simply do not accept him) unfailingly suffer divine judgment.
Both the Pietist and the Yored Merkavah believe that God iswith them, not with
the majority that despises them and whom they in turn despise.
Thus far, we are able to designate clear structural parallels between the Hasid and
the Yored Merkavah. But there is a crucial difference, at least on first sight. The
Pietist's
becomes
superiority
manifest,
as we
have
seen,
in the world
to come,
or
at least only after his death, when he alone is permitted to nourish himself on the
splendor of the Shekhinah. The Yored Merkavah's
superiority ismanifest here
and now. As I have demonstrated elsewhere,33 theMerkavah mystic does not need
indeed, in his ability to distinguish impure families
eschatology and theMessiah;
from pure ones,34 a skill originally reserved for the Prophet Elijah in the world
to come, he himself bears messianic qualities. Still, the differences should not be
since also in the teachings of the Ashkenazi Hasidim, at least
overemphasized,
as far as Sefer Hasidim is concerned, theMessiah
is a notably unimportant figure.
Scholem observed that Judah he-Hasid was opposed to messianic calculations,
for although "the imagination of these [Pietist] writers is powerfully affected by
everything
which
concerns
the
eschatology
does not center on theMessianic promise
from Sefer Hasidim
is characteristic:
Rav Hai went
there during
times around
of
the
soul,
... their
religious
interest
in the strict sense."35 The following
text
on a pilgrimage
to Jerusalem
from Babylonia
every year and stayed
the Feast of Tabernacles,
because
people
[there] used to walk seven
on Hosha'na
the Mount
of Olives
Rabba
and say
[in a procession]
Rav Hai
in silk and
the psalms,
had arranged
which
for them. Priests dressed
cloaks walked
in front of Rav Hai and the people
him. He [walked]
behind
in the
and those after him.
those before
middle,
leaving one hundred
yards between
A repentant
Rav Hai
the banquet,
murderer
After
of an
laughed.
[the subject
who
had
and been
discussion
how
earlier
upon
repented
forgiven],
seeing
Rav Hai was, asked
him: Rabbi,
why did you walk by yourself when
delighted
I go on pilgrimage
the Mount
Rav Hai answered:
of Olives?
Because
you circled
the Feast of Tabernacles
in order
from Babylonia
[to this place] every year during
to circle the Mount
I purify myself
of Olives,
because
Rabba
during Hosha'na
next to me ?
that is why we separate
ourselves
from those
[and] Elijah walks
?
he talks to me. I have asked him: When
and because
before and after us
walking
me: When
will the Messiah
arrive? And he has answered
circle the Mount
people
in the company
I have found
of priests!
So I have taken all the priests
that there might
them who bring this about
be some among
[the Mount]
of the Messiah].
said to me: Look at these priests before
Then Elijah
[the coming
in cloaks,
of them is Aaron's
how they flaunt around. None
seed,
you, all dressed
is despicable
them, whom
except the priest who walks behind
they scorn and who
in their eyes. He goes poorly
does not strive for honor,
and acts like a
garbed,
of Olives
to circle
person
priest
of no esteem;
he is also lame in one foot and lacks an eye. He
is a true
of Aaron's
seed! Upon
told [the murderer],
that is
life, Rav Hai Gaon
my
I laughed,
there was not one true priest among all of them, except
because
why
this cripple!36
16
Peter Sch?fer
the murderer conforms to the Hasidic
ideal of a sinner who has "lovingly"
were
tortures
that
the
of
penitence
accepted
imposed on him and who hereby has
a
status
the
of
he
is to be held in higher esteem than
regained
"righteous one";
and superficially
the "normal" Jew who only outwardly
obeys the com
a
as
in
revealer
and harbinger of
mandments.
his
traditional
role
Elijah appears
the Messiah, which he ? paradoxically ? plays to the extreme. His answer to Hai
arrival is deceptively simple: one
Gaon's question about the time of theMessiah's
has but to lead a priestly procession around the Mount of Olives on Hosha'na
Here,
Rabba. But it turns out that the only genuine
to perform priestly functions. In other words,
therefore the Messiah cannot come.
priest is a ba'al mum who is unfit
there are no other genuine priests,
This story alludes to the famous narrative
the Babylonian Talmud.37 In this passage,
the Messiah will arrive, Yehoshua b. Levi
indignant when the prediction does not
"today" is conditional: "today, //ye will
repent and fulfill God's will. The Talmud
of R. Yehoshua b. Levi and Elijah in
in response to his question about when
receives the answer: Today! But he is
come true. Elijah advises him that
hear his voice" (Ps. 95:7), i.e., if you
leaves room for hope: someday, the
whole of Israel may repent. The version of the story in Sefer Hasidim, however,
is devastating. Elijah's response indicates that the Messiah will never come, that
the traditional methods
for hastening or facilitating his arrival have lost their
efficacy. We may go even further. It is not by chance that it is the repentant
murderer alone to whom R. Hai explains the true state of affairs, for he is the
prototype of Hasidic ideology. He has repented and thus has already achieved his
is no longer a
personal salvation. Anyone can follow his example; the Messiah
prerequisite for this.3*
German
Pietist Patterns
of Behavior
The Pietist understanding of sin also plays a role in our scenario. Again and again
the author of Sefer Hasidim alludes to the same dangers and sins which the Hasid
must avoid. The essence of hasidut is the Pietist's constancy to his ideal, despite
the mockery of his opponents. Rather, and here is the positive inner meaning of
hasidut, "he directs his efforts [kawwanah] toward heaven, and does not look at
women
is the decisive
['eno sofe be-nashim]" To gaze or not to gaze at women
criterion separating the Pietists from their opponents: "They [the opponents] gaze
The
[at women]. Only he [the Pietist] does not [hem sofim hus mimmennu]"*9
true Pietist avoids every form of common behavior
Whoever
of
wants
the
to enter
into the depths of the halachot
into the depths of hasidut,
must
the depths
of his glory
be wise
and
[kevodo],
common
soul without
anger,
ways
[who] renounces
['azivat
with
conversation
humans
'azivat sihat
bene
speech;
[* profane
and
creator,
an obliging
judicious,
derekh
eres],
into
The Idealof Piety
'adam], playing
his wife,
except
the Hasid
Similarly,
forgoes
with
children
during
marital
resists everything
yeladim],
[sha'ashu'at
cohabitation.40
and even
conversation
17
with
to which his human nature pushes him. He
talk [devarim
pointless
gossip and slander
lying, gazing
betelim],
[leshon ha~ra\
new [textual]
at women,
about
and cavorting
interpretations
[hiddushim],
making
?
?
he feels like doing
all of which
taking an oath, using the name of the Lord
and other
in vain
shem shamayim
things that one's natural
levatala],
[lehazkir
inclinations
often
urge
one
to do.41
Scholem interpreted the ideal expressed in this and similar texts as a pessimistic,
in a magnified
that "finds
its antithesis
asceticism
world-abandoning
eschatological hope and promise,"42 and which is "closely related to the ascetic
ideal of the monk."43 Again, the Christian environment has been privileged, and
an exogenous explanation model is favored, even before an endogenous one has
been
considered.
Here, too, the inner Jewish line of tradition of the Yorede Merkavah helps us
understand the Pietist's behavior, especially as portrayed in Sefer Hasidim. First,
the terminology used by the Pietists to describe their behavior is typical of the
literature of the Yorede Merkavah. For
terminology used in the esoteric-mystical
a
be
that
verb lehikkanes is used by both Pietist
it
the
coincidence
may
example,
the depths of hasidut.44 It surely is
and Merkavah texts to describe penetrating
not a coincidence that both traditions in parallel contexts cite the famous passage
inMishnah Hagigah: "The forbidden degrees may not be expounded before three
persons, the Story of Creation before two, and Ma'aseh Merkavah before one
alone, unless he iswise and understands it through his own native knowledge [ela
'im ken haya hakham u-mevin mi-da'ato]."45 Sefer Hasidim
reads: "Whoever
wants to enter the depths o? hasidut, of the halakhot of the creator and his glory,
cannot do so [ 'en ze yakhol lihyot] unless he iswise and understands [ela 'im ken
hu hakham u-mevin]."46 This is a direct citation, and the author of Sefer Hasidim
is referring to esoteric-mystical
traditions that originate inMishnah
to
and
extend
the
Merkavah
literature. Other
Yorede
of the Hekhalot
Hagigah
own
his
than the omission of the phrase mi-da'ato
(of
knowledge), which the
author of Sefer Hasidim probably considered self-evident, both traditions clearly
assume that their adepts, the Hasid and the esoteric of early Jewish mysticism,
are capable of wisdom and special cognition. Indeed, this confidence in the ability
of their fellows to enjoy a special, deeper insight was perhaps the element that
cemented the sense of group solidarity evidenced by the Pietists and the Yorede
Merkavah. By referring to the "rules" by which the Creator constituted himself,
not to those he issued, entering the depths of hasidut becomes identical with
evidently
entering the depths of the halakhot of the Creator and with entering the depths
of his glory. The "modesty" that expresses itself also has parallel in the Hekhalot
literature.47
18
Peter Sch?fer
The evil "impulses" which the Hasid should avoid and the behavior against which
he should struggle likewise belong to the ethical code of the Yorede Merkavah.
The Merkavah mystic, who prepares for a revelation, must fast for forty days,
immerse himself daily in twenty-four baths, taste nothing impure, and not look
at a woman (we-'alyistakkel
be-'ishsha).4S One Geniza fragment extends the last
prohibition to all human contact: "He should sit alone in his house, fast the whole
day, eat not the bread of a woman, and look neither at a man nor at a woman
[we- 'enomistakkel lo be-'ish we-lo be-'ishsha]\ and if he walks about outdoors, his
eyes should avoid all creatures. He must look not even at a one-day-old infant."49
The Mishna30 itself has already recommended
that the pious student of the Torah
"not cultivate frequent conversation with women" (?al tarbesiha 'im ha-'ishsha),
which
is precisely
the advice given to the mystic
searching for a dream
revelation.51 What applies to the mystic applies equally to the Pietist. Sefer
to his wife
Hasidim
demands
of the Hasid
that he renounce
speaking
same
'im
in
the
so-called
The
verb
used
is
(u-milehasiah
Adjuration of
'ishto).52
the Sar
ha-Panim
in the Hekhalot
literature in discussing preparations
for
the
sexual
and
"not
immersion,
abstinence,
invoking
angel: fasting,
talk[ing] to
any
woman"
(we-lo
yihye
mesiah
siha
'im ha-'ishsha).53
The Hekhalot
literature contains some remarkable parallels to the behavioral
cautions detailed in Sefer Hasidim,54 particularly those against slander, frivolous
invocation of the divine name, unwarranted oaths, lack of sexual restraint,35
for safely
anger of unjustified disputes,56 and bloodshed.57 As a precondition
ascending to the Throne of Glory, the Yored Merkavah must not be defiled by
slander, false oaths, taking the divine name in
"idolatry, lewdness, bloodshed,
vain, impudence, and baseless animosities."58 The importance of these direct
to the Noachidic
commandments
parallels is not diminished
by similarities
this
the divine
lewdness, bloodshed,
(idolatry,
cursing
name).59 Indeed,
continuity serves to emphasize how intrinsically Jewish the approach of both the
Merkavah mystics and the Pietists was. By the same token, it de-emphasizes
linking the Hasid's ideals and way of life to those of Christian monastic ascetics.
are additional
the Pietist's
proper aspirations
parallels
regarding
'azivat derekh eres. Of course, as Scholem rightly pointed out, the
concerning
Pietist's way of life "finds its antithesis in a magnified
eschatological hope and
promise."60 But what precisely does this mean? Instead of looking at women, the
Pietist is to direct his full attention
(kawwanah) to heaven.61 The Hekhalot
literature says the same regarding the recipient of a dream interpretation: "Do not
maintain
with woman,
frequent conversations
[but] ... direct your heart to
There
heaven"
for avoiding
libkha la-shamayim).62
The
(kawwen
justification
conversation
(siha) with women and all people, urged upon both the Hasid and
the Yored Merkavah,
is stated explicitly in theHekhalot
literature: "Because your
'im
conversation
is
that
with
sihatkha
sihat malkekha]; your
your
[proper]
king [ki
talk
with
This
Creator
your
[proper]
cryptic phrase in
[is that]
['im yosrekha]"bi
The Ideal of Piety
19
Hekhalot Rabbati can mean only that the Yored Merkavah, who hides in the
shadow of the divine throne, has direct access to God, his king and creator, with
he therefore has no need for human
whom he is absorbed in conversation;
the
Yored
the
discourse. Like
Hasid exploits his code of behavior to
Merkavah,
enter
to
him
the
of
hasidut and the halakhot of his creator, and so
enable
depths
to reach perfection, absorbed, as it were, in "conversation" with his creator.
The same tendency is evidenced in no. 978 of Sefer Hasidim. Directly following
the statement that the true Hasid, in contrast to his opponents, does not look at
any woman, we read: "Then will he be deemed worthy of fullness of the 'hidden
good,' and his eye will be nourished by the splendor of the Shekhinah; 'thine eyes
'
shall see the king in his beauty"
(Isa. 33:17). This is precisely the goal which the
Yored Merkavah expects to reach. By adhering to his own stringent ethical code64
and relying on his knowledge of the Torah,65 the Yored Merkavah defies the
dangers threatened by the doorkeepers standing watch at the entrance to the seven
Hekhalot: "Do not fear, son of the beloved seed; enter and see the king in his
beauty" (here, the Munich manuscript
expressly quotes Isa. 33:17, "Thine eyes
shall see [the king in his beauty], you shall be neither devastated nor burned").66
Some
of
these
patterns
and
images
are
drawn,
of
course,
from
classical
texts. However,
this does not mean that the author of Sefer
eschatological
Hasidim did not invest them with contemporary meanings, which are much more
closely related to the immediate eschatology of, for example, the Qumran sect and
is as follows: A Hasid used to
Merkavah mysticism. A story in Sefer Hasidim
summer
himself
amid
in
and
fleas
by sitting
castigate
dipping his feet into ice-cold
water in winter. His students feared that such extremes might endanger his life
and bring punishment upon him in the world to come. Following the Hasid's
death, one of the students
threw himself
him to send a message
about
upon the grave of the Hasid,
begging
the castigations
or reward? The
in his dreams.
Had
in punishment
they ended
indeed appeared
in the student's
Hasid
dream and told him: Come with me, and
I will show you the answer. He brought
into the Garden
of Eden and
the student
then asked him: Where
ismy [future] place? [The Pietist]
answered:
[the student]
and if you gain even more merits,
the
There,
you will be even higher up. Then
student
At that high place. [The student]
said: Where
is your place? He answered:
don't you show me your place? He answered:
see
You cannot
persevered:
Why
to enable you to see my
merits
sufficient
[for] you have not [yet] gained
the student was [very] elated, because
of the great light shining
Thus,
there,
if he was not worthy
of seeing
his master's
for the student
place;
[now]
that [his master]
understood
had not been punished.67
it yet,
place!
even
eschatological
significance of this text is with the individual, not, as in
previous eschatologies, with a sect or the community of Israel as a whole. Much
thought and energy are devoted primarily to determining how the individual can
achieve his goal of personal redemption. Of course, such redemption occurs in
life after death in the world to come. But the eschaton nevertheless intrudes into
The
20
Peter Sch?fer
earthly reality, is part of it, and is already experienced as an existential certainty.
Thus, the absolute caesura between "this" and the "future" world has been
abolished. Above all, the individual is responsible for his own redemption. His
personal efforts, his exercises in repentance, and his self-castigation decide his
fate. In all this the Messiah has no part.68 The Hasid, like the Yored Merkavah,
redeems himself. The degree of his castigations and his merit (zekhut) determines
his place in the "future" world, and he can be certain of his place already in "this"
too, bears
world, thanks to his way of life. The eschatology of Sefer Hasidim,
and
immediate
characteristics.
elitist,
individualistic,
What, then, may we say in summation? ( 1)The Ashkenazi Hasidic codex of ethics
is a value-oriented one, based on a series of behavioral restraints and prohibitions,
norms which are also characteristic of the Yored Merkavah.
(2) The Hasid and
the Yored Merkavah
strive for direct access to God; however, not by heavenly
(3) The Hasid, like
journeys and magical adjurations but by moral self-perfection.
the Yored Merkavah,
lives a life despised by others, yet it is precisely from this
contempt that he draws his own justification and his expectation of salvation. It
is he, not the "other," who is truly righteous and assured of redemption. His
is the wicked and evil one who justly earns condemnation.
(4) The
opponent
Hasid's individual striving for salvation through the acquisition of zekhut and the
in the Messiah
and to an
endurance of castigations
leads to his disinterest
immediate eschatology. Here, too, surprising parallels exist between the Yored
is
Merkavah and the Hasid. (5) The striving for piety of the Ashkenazi Hasidim
not sufficiently explained by asceticism, the ethical ideal of ataraxy, or altruism.
is defined
(6) The sense of group identity and solidarity of the Ashkenazi Hasidim
to
in
fellow
the
their
their
conviction
of
uniqueness
comparison
through
primarily
Jews, not in contrast to the Christian environment. Sefer Hasidim reflects, above
all, the internal structure, not the external outlook, of the Hasidic movement. Of
Jewish
course, scholars must not abandon their efforts to compare German
what we have
Pietism with contemporary Christian developments. Nevertheless,
seen here indicates the need for intensified research in elucidating indogenous
the
for Pietist behavior. Unraveling
rather than exogenous
explanations
ideology will surely be fruitful.
intrinsically Jewish roots of Hasidic
The Idealof Piety
21
NOTES
1.
2.
1954 - London,
Cf. G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism
(New York.
1955), 81, 83.
see J. Dan, The Esoteric Theology
traditions of the Ashkenazi Hasidim
For the theosophic-esoteric
of Ashkenazi Hasidism
(Seattle and London,
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
[in Hebrew]
1968); idem, Jewish Mysticism
(Jerusalem,
and Jewish Ethics
1986), 45-75.
Trends, 80-118.
Scholem, Major
und Lebensverneinung
"Weltflucht
Cf. Scholem, Major Trends, 80; see also M. Awerbuch,
60 (1978), 53-93.
'Frommen Deutschlands,"'
Archiv fur Kulturgeschichte
See Baer's "The Religious and Social Tendency
? idem, "The
of
Orientation
Socioreligious
London,
1989), 57-95.
See his Piety and Society. The Jewish Pietists
150f. nn. 54 and 57.
Piety and Society,
1 (1986):7-26.
Jewish History
1 (1986):25 n. 34.
Jewish History
10. Deut.
14:18 Targum Onkelos:
of Sefer Hassidim"
'Sefer Hasidim,'"
of Medieval
[in Hebrew], Zion 3 ( 1938): 1-50
in Binah (New York, Westport,
Germany
Pseudo-Jonathan:
hawarita: Targum
der
(Leiden,
1981).
hiwwarita;
Fragment-Targum:
hiwwarta.
11. Sefer Hasidim.
Das Buch der Frommen
nach der Rezension
in Cod. de Rossi No.
1133. Zum ersten
versehen von J.Wistinetzki.
Frankfurt a.M.-, 1924, no.
Male herausgegeben und mit Anmerkungen
975; cf. also the facsimile edition by I.Marcus, Sefer Hasidim. MS. Parma 113280(Jerusalem,
1985),
["Kuntresim." Texts and Studies, 66-67].
12. Sefer Hasidim,
13. Sefer Hasidim,
14. See Marcus,
no. 976.
no. 978.
Piety and Society,
59ff.; H. Soloveitchik,
"Three Themes
inSefer Hasidim"
AJS Review
1 (1976):330ff.
15. Sefer Hasidim,
16. Major Trends,
17. Major Trends,
18. Sefer Hasidim.
19. Sefer Hasidim,
no.
119; cf. also nos.
118 and
1009.
92f., 96.
96.
no. 975.
no. 977.
20. Major Trends, 92f.
no. 1979, to which
21. See, e.g., Sefer Hasidim,
his case for the altruism of the Hasidim.
Scholem
(Major Trends.
93 and n. 45) refers inmaking
these "others'* were is not our subject here; see Soloveitchik.
"Themes," 351, who argues that
the "loss by the old Rhineland aristocracy of the commanding
heights of prestige and power" may
be one of the reasons for this sharp antagonism
between
the "disinherited"
Pietists and their
the new ruling class. The elitist character of the Pietist movement
has also been stressed
opponents,
22. Who
23.
by Soloveitchik
(e.g., p. 356).
For the "elitistic" attitude of the Qumran
see G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls. Qumran
community
in Texten der
Studien zum Menschenbild
1978), 87ff.; H. Lichtenberger,
1980) [StUNT
Qumrangemeinde
(G?ttingen,
15], 212fF.; B. Janowski and H. Lichtenberger,
Zur eschatologischen
"Enderwartung und Reinheitsidee.
Deutung von Reinheit und S?hne in der
JJS 34 ( 1983):31-62; L. H. Schiffman, "Purity and Perfection. Exclusion from
Qumrangemeinde,"
in Perspective
the Council
(Cleveland,
in the Serekh Ha-*Edah,"
in Biblical Archaeology Today. Proceedings
Jerusalem,
1984, Israel Exploration Society,
Congress on Biblical Archaeology.
1985), 373-89.
to the extent that we have become increasingly uncertain what is to be viewed as genuine
of the Community
of the International
24.
(Jerusalem
Interwined
in the manuscripts
literature and what is actually the work
of the Hekhalot
mysticism
in particular, and thus the result of
of the Ashkenazi
sages in general and the Ashkenazi Hasidim
Merkavah
22
Peter Sch?fer
see I. Ta-Shema,
"The Library of the
of Merkavah
mysticism;
specific adaptation
Sages in the Eleventh toTwelfth Centuries"
[in Hebrew], Kiryath Sefer 60 ( 1985):298-309;
P. Sch?fer, Hekhalot-Studien
1988) [TSAJ 19], 3fT.
(Tubingen,
P. Sch?fer, ed., Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur
1981) [TSAJ 2], nos. 81-92.
(T?bingen,
in Hekhalot
Zur Aussage der Gedulla-Hymnen
"Die ?berlegenheit
des Mystikers.
G. A. Wewers,
their own
Ashkenaz
25.
26.
1, 2-2, 3," JSJ 17 (I986):3-22.
no. 83: translation according
1987) [TSAJ 17], 3f.
(T?bingen,
Rabbati
to P. Sch?fer,
der Hekhalot
Literatur
II
27.
Synopse,
28.
Synopse,
29.
Synopse,
no. 86; translation
no. 85.
30.
Synopse,
no. 84.
31.
Synopse,
no. 85.
32.
Synopse, no. 91.
in Hekhalot-Studien,
292f. (? Gershom
See my "Aim and Purpose of Early Jewish Mysticism,"
Twelfth Sacks Lecture
The Aim and Purpose of Early Jewish Mysticism.
Scholem Reconsidered:
33.
[Oxford,
according
to ?bersetzung
ed., ?bersetzung
der Hekhalot-Literatur
II, p. 6.
1986]).
Synopse, no. 86.
35. Major Trends, 89.
34.
36.
37.
38.
Sefer Hasidim,
b San 98a.
It is. of course,
no. 630.
an exaggeration
traditional messianic
denies the
from this that Sefer Hasidim
completely
in the book to prove the
there are enough traditional elements
ideal of
this story and the individualistic
Trends, 88ff.). However,
to conclude
expectation;
(see Scholem, Major
as a whole point to a strong anti-eschatological
no. 978; cf. also no. 980.
Sefer Hasidim,
no. 984.
Sefer Hasidim.
contrary
salvation
39.
40.
41.
Sefer Hasidim,
42. Major Trends,
43. Major Trends,
bias.
no. 986; cf. also no. 980.
92.
96.
44.
no. 984; cf. the story of the four rabbis who entered (nikhnesu) the pardes: Synopse,
Sefer Hasidim,
also in the Talmud
no. 338f.. 344., 67If, and Sch?fer. Hekhalot Studien,
238 ff. It is mentioned
(b Hag 14b: cf. also t Hag 2, 3-4; y Hag 2, 1, fol. 77b), but this confirms the inner Jewish line of
Hasidim.
literature to the Ashkenazi
from Rabbinic
literature via Hekhalot
development
45.
46.
m Hag 2, 1.
Sefer Hasidim.
47.
Synopse,
48.
Synopse, no. 314.
P. Sch?fer, ed.. Geniza-Fragmente
49.
no. 984.
nos. 81-92.
zur Hekhalot-Literatur
(T?bingen,
1984) [TSAJ 6], 165 (fol.
la,
11-14).
50. m Av 1, 5.
no. 507.
51.
Synopse,
52.
Sefer Hasidim,
the anonymous
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
no. 984,
see above.
Baraita
inm Av
said this of a man's own wife.9*
Synopse, no. 623, MS New York
No. 986.
E.g., nos. 978, 980.
E.g., nos. 980, 981,
In referring to "A?s wife," Sefer Hasidim
1, 5: "Do not cultivate frequent conversation
alluding to
with a woman ?
they
is probably
8128.
119.
E.g., no. 815.
Synopse, no. 199; cf. N. A. van Uchelen,
"Ethical Terminology
in Heykhalot
Texts,"
in J.W.
van
The Ideal of Piety
23
et al., eds., Tradition
Henten
in Jewish and Early Christian Literature. Essays
and Re-interpretation
ofJ. C. H. Lebram (Leiden, 1986), 254ff.
For the seven Noachidic
see, e.g., b San 56a (end) and EJ12, s.v. "Noachide Laws."
commandments,
no. 815, mentions
the three commandments
of idolatry, lewdness, and bloodshed,
Sefer Hasidim,
which frequently represent the seven "commandments
of the sons of Noah" as a whole; see M.
in Honour
59.
Kadushin,
"Introduction
Occasion
of his Seventieth
Trends, 92.
to Rabbinic
Birthday
Ethics,"
(Jerusalem,
in Jehezkel Kaufmann
1968), 96.
Jubilee
Volume. Studies
on the
60. Major
no. 978.
61. Sefer Hasidim,
62. Synopse, no. 507.
no. 94; cf. also nos.
199; see above.
63.
Synopse,
64.
Synopse,
no.
65.
Synopse,
no. 234.
66.
67.
Synopse. no. 248.
no.
Sefer Hasidim,
68.
The Hasid
154, 687; Geniza-Fragmente,
185 (fol.
la, 35).
1556.
even competes with the Suffering Messiah;
no. 975, where the
cf., e.g.. Sefer Hasidim,
influenced by the Servant of the Lord of Isaiah (Isa. 42: Iff., 50:6,
image of the Hasid is apparently
53:3ff., and especially 53:7).
Institute f?r Judaistik, Freie Universit?t,
Berlin
The Study of Heikhalot Literature: Between
Mystical Experience and Textual Artifact
R A ‘A N A N S . B O U S T A N
Department of History and Near Eastern Languages and Cultures
University of California, Los Angeles, USA
boustan@history.ucla.edu
ABSTRACT
This essay outlines the fundamental methodological and empirical advances that the study of Heikhalot literature has experienced during the
past 25 years with the aim of encouraging specialists and enabling nonspecialists to approach this complex material with greater precision and
VRSKLVWLFDWLRQ7KH¿HOGRIHDUO\-HZLVKP\VWLFLVPKDVEHHQSURIRXQGO\
shaped by the increasing integration in the humanities of cultural and
material histories, resulting in an increased focus on scribal practice and
other material conditions that shaped the production and transmission
of these texts. Against previous assumptions, recent research has shown
Heikhalot literature to be a radically unstable literature. This article will
review the research tools (editions, concordances, translations, etc.) that
now allow for careful analysis of Heikhalot and related texts. Tracing
UHFHQWUHVHDUFK,GHPRQVWUDWHKRZRXUQHZXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKHÀXLG
and heterogeneous nature of the Heikhalot corpus will better enable
scholars to pursue the important work of understanding its social and
UHOLJLRXVVLJQL¿FDQFHZLWKLQWKHEURDGHUODQGVFDSHRIODWHDQWLTXHDQG
medieval religions.
.H\ZRUGVDSRFDO\SWLF+HLNKDORWOLWHUDWXUHPDJLFHDUO\-HZLVK0HUN
avah mysticism, reception-history, transmission-history.
Introduction
Heikhalot literature forms the earliest extensive and (semi-)systematic colOHFWLRQRI-HZLVKP\VWLFDODQGPDJLFDOVRXUFHV7KLVORRVHERG\RIWH[WV
written primarily in Hebrew and Aramaic with a smattering of foreign loan
Currents in Biblical Research
Copyright © 2007 SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore) Vol. 6.1: 130-160
Downloaded
from http://cbi.sagepub.com
at UNIV OF PENNSYLVANIA
LIBRARY on October 9, 2007
http://CBI.sagepub.com
ISSN 1476-993X
DOI: 10.1177/1476993X07080244
© 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
BOUSTAN The Study of Heikhalot Literature
131
ZRUGV WRRN VKDSH JUDGXDOO\ GXULQJ /DWH$QWLTXLW\ DQG WKH HDUO\ 0LGGOH
$JHVF±DQGFRQWLQXHGWREHDGDSWHGDQGUHZRUNHGE\-HZLVK
VFULEHVDQGVFKRODUVWKURXJKRXWWKH0LGGOH$JHVDQGLQWRWKHHDUO\0RGHUQ
period (c. 900–1500). While Heikhalot literature does contain some material that dates to the ‘classic’ rabbinic period (c. 200–500 CE), this literature
seems to have emerged as a distinct class of texts only at a relatively late
date, most likely after 600 CE and perhaps well into the early Islamic period
(Boustan 2006).
The term ‘heikhalot’ comes from the Hebrew word for the celestial
‘palaces’ (ʺʥʬʫʩʤ) within which God is said in this literature to sit enthroned
and through which the visionary ascends toward him and his angelic host.
7KLVIRUPRIUHOLJLRXVSUD[LVDQGH[SHULHQFHLVRIWHQUHIHUUHGWRDVµ0HUNDvah mysticism’ because of its general preoccupation with Ezekiel’s vision
of the divine chariot-throne (the merkavah of Ezekiel 1 and 10; also Daniel
7). Heikhalot literature presents instructions for and descriptions of human
ascent to heaven and angelic descent to earth. In both cases, this movement
between the earthly and heavenly realms is achieved through active human
agency, that is, the meticulous performance of ritual speech and action.
Yet, Heikhalot literature also encompasses an eclectic range of other
motifs, themes, and literary genres. In this respect, Heikhalot texts are charDFWHUL]HGE\WKHJHQHULFDQGUKHWRULFDOK\EULGLW\RI-HZLVKOLWHUDU\SURGXFWLRQLQ/DWH$QWLTXLW\LQFOXGLQJQXPHURXVFODVVLFDOUDEELQLFDQWKRORJLHV
in which a wide variety of discourses (e.g., legal, exegetical, narrative, and
liturgical) are juxtaposed and often inseparably interwoven (Hezser 1993;
6WHUQ 0XFK²SHUKDSV HYHQ WKH PDMRULW\²RI WKH PDWHULDO WUDQVmitted as part of the Heikhalot corpus does not in fact belong within the
FDWHJRU\RIµ0HUNDYDKP\VWLFLVP¶LIWKDWWHUPLVXQGHUVWRRGQDUURZO\WR
denote the visionary’s heavenly ascent through the celestial palaces and/
RUKLVFXOPLQDWLQJYLVLRQRI*RGVLWWLQJXSRQKLVFKDULRWWKURQH0DJLFR
ULWXDO WHFKQLTXHV GHVLJQHG WR JDLQ WKH DVVLVWDQFH RI DQJHOLF LQWHUPHGLDULHV IRU FRQFUHWH DQG RIWHQ TXLWH SUDFWLFDO DLPV DUH HTXDOO\ FHQWUDO WR WKH
WKHPDWLFVWUXFWXUHRIPDQ\+HLNKDORWFRPSRVLWLRQV²DQGLQVRPHFDVHV
FRQVLGHUDEO\ PRUH VR 0RUHRYHU ZH ¿QG LQ WKLV FRUSXV QXPHURXV RWKHU
genres, such as detailed descriptions of the gigantic body of God and the
ritual uses to which the names of his limbs can be put; cosmological or
cosmogonic speculation; physiognomic and astrological fragments; and,
perhaps most importantly, vast numbers of liturgical-poetic compositions,
many in the form of Qedushah-hymns built around the Trishagion of Isaiah
6.3. Heterogeneity in both literary form and religious sensibility is a constitutive feature of all Heikhalot compositions.
Downloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PENNSYLVANIA LIBRARY on October 9, 2007
132
Currents in Biblical Research 6.1 (2007)
To confuse matters further still, Heikhalot literature makes pervasive
XVH RI UDEELQLF ¿JXUHV IURP WKH µOHJHQGDU\¶ UDEELQLF SDVW DV LWV SULPDU\
SURWDJRQLVWVDQGVSRNHVPHQ7KHVH¿JXUHV²PRVWFRPPRQO\WKHWDQQDLWLF
authorities Rabbi Ishmael, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Neunya ben ha-Qanah
(second century CE²DUHQRWRQO\WKHPDLQFKDUDFWHUVLQWKHQDUUDWLYHSRUtions of this literature; Heikhalot texts directly attribute to these rabbis their
instructional content as well. This literary conceit of what we might call
‘pseudonymous attribution’ constitutes an indispensable organizational
WHFKQLTXHIRUSUHVHQWLQJWKHOLWXUJLFDOLQVWUXFWLRQDODQGQDUUDWLYHPDWHULDO
RIZKLFK+HLNKDORWOLWHUDWXUHLVFRPSRVHG0RUHRYHULWIXQFWLRQVDVWKH
primary authorizing strategy within Heikhalot texts, conferring legitimacy
on the potentially problematic forms of religious piety and practice they
prescribe (Schäfer 1992: 157-61; Swartz 1996: 173-229). This pseudRQ\PRXVIUDPHZRUN²DQGWKHDQRQ\PRXVFROOHFWLYHDXWKRUVKLSWKDWOLHV
EHKLQG LW²VLJQL¿FDQWO\ FRPSOLFDWHV WKH WDVN RI JDLQLQJ DFFHVV KRZHYHU
REOLTXHO\WRWKHSHRSOHEHKLQGWKHVHWH[WV
But, despite the formidable challenges created by the heterogeneity,
ÀXLGLW\ DQG SVHXGRQ\PLW\ RI +HLNKDORW WH[WV WKH VWXG\ RI +HLNKDORW OLWHUDWXUH²DQGRIHDUO\-HZLVKP\VWLFLVPPRUHJHQHUDOO\²KDVH[SHULHQFHG
far-reaching methodological and empirical advances over the past 25 years
since the publication in 1981 by Schäfer and his team in Berlin of their
LQÀXHQWLDO Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur (all citations of Heikhalot literature refer to this edition unless otherwise noted). This edition was soon
followed by the publication of fragments of Heikhalot texts retrieved from
the Cairo Genizah (Schäfer [ed.] 1984) as well as a series of related concordances and translations (Schäfer [ed.] 1986–88; Schäfer, et al. [trans.]
1987–95). The SynopseSURYHGSDUWLFXODUO\VLJQL¿FDQWEHFDXVHLWGHSDUWHG
fundamentally from the editorial practices traditionally applied to ancient
texts, including rabbinic literature. Rather than trying to reconstruct the
‘original’ form (Urtext) of the individual Heikhalot compositions, indicating textual variants where appropriate, the Synopse presents a synoptic
edition of seven of the best manuscripts containing the Heikhalot corpus in
its entirety (for detailed discussion of the methodology and contents of the
Synopse, see section 2 below).
7KLV HGLWLRQ KDV VXFFHHGHG LQ WUDQVIRUPLQJ WKH VWXG\ RI HDUO\ -HZLVK
mysticism in at least two fundamental ways. First and most practically,
the Synopse made the various Heikhalot compositions available to scholars
within a single volume, allowing for textually grounded analysis of individual textual units as well as of their relationship to the other components
of this literature. But more importantly, the synoptic nature of the edition
133
GLVFORVHGIRUWKH¿UVWWLPHWKHUDGLFDOO\XQVWDEOHDQGFRQWLQXRXVO\HYROYing nature of the Heikhalot manuscript tradition. Attention to the highly
protracted and complex redaction- and transmission-histories that shaped
VSHFL¿F+HLNKDORWWH[WVDVZHOODVWKHFRUSXVDVDZKROHKDYHOHGWRWKH
UHYLVLRQRIWKHORQJVWDQGLQJDVVXPSWLRQWKDW+HLNKDORWOLWHUDWXUHUHÀHFWVD
UHODWLYHO\XQL¿HGDQGFRQWLQXRXVWUDGLWLRQRIP\VWLFDOSUDFWLFHDQGH[SHULence. It is the purpose of this essay to consider how renewed interest in
the material history of Heikhalot texts has shaped the study of Heikhalot
OLWHUDWXUHDQGE\H[WHQVLRQRIHDUO\-HZLVKP\VWLFLVPPRUHJHQHUDOO\
In particular, I wish to call attention to the emphasis in recent scholarship on the determinative role that scribal practice and other material
factors played in the production of the Heikhalot corpus. The study of early
-HZLVK P\VWLFLVP²OLNH QXPHURXV RWKHU ¿HOGV RI KLVWRULFDO LQTXLU\²LV
currently characterized by increasing attention to the dialectical relationVKLSEHWZHHQFXOWXUDODQGPDWHULDOKLVWRULHV,QWKLVWKH¿HOGLVEHLQJSURfoundly shaped by interests that currently characterize the humanities in
general. This return to an emphasis on the material conditions of literary
DQG FXOWXUDO SURGXFWLRQ LV SHUKDSV EHVW H[HPSOL¿HG E\ UHODWLYHO\ UHFHQW
WUDQVIRUPDWLRQVLQWKH¿HOGRIWKHµ+LVWRU\RIWKH%RRN¶HVSHFLDOO\DVLWKDV
been reformulated under the rubric of the ‘New Textualism’ (for important
VWDWHPHQWVRIPHWKRGVHHHVSHFLDOO\&KDUWLHUDQG0F.HQ]LH
also the seminal comments in de Certeau 1984: 165-76; the term ‘New
7H[WXDOLVP¶ZDV¿UVWFRLQHGLQGH*UD]LDDQG6WDOO\EUDVV7KLVVFKROarship has criticized the tendency in many branches of intellectual, literary
and cultural history to treat ‘texts’ as disembodied or idealized entities,
and not as physical artifacts that were produced, circulated, and, of course,
UHDGDWVSHFL¿FKLVWRULFDOPRPHQWVE\VSHFL¿FW\SHVRISHRSOHWKURXJK
VSHFL¿FWHFKQRORJLHVRIWKHZULWWHQZRUG:KLOHWKLVWUHQGKDVKDGSHUKDSV
the greatest impact on the study of high medieval and early modern modes
RIFXOWXUDOSURGXFWLRQ²SHULRGVWKDWVDZUDGLFDOFKDQJHVLQWKHGLVVHPLQDtion of books in either manuscript or print form as well as in the reading
SUDFWLFHVRIWKHFRQVXPLQJSXEOLF&KDUWLHU²LWKDVDOVREHJXQ
WRUHVKDSHWKHZD\VWKDWVFKRODUVRIDQWLTXLW\DSSURDFKWKHLUWH[WXDOPDWHULals (for a recent, noteworthy example, see Grafton and Williams 2006). In
this new scholarship, traditional philological erudition and other types of
close textual analysis, while always essential, form just a part of the wider
analytical arsenal necessary for understanding interrelated patterns of technological, cultural and sociological change.
I wish to argue here that the generic hybridity of Heikhalot texts and their
KLJKO\ÀXLGWH[WXDOWUDQVPLVVLRQZKHQWDNHQWRJHWKHUFDOOLQWRTXHVWLRQ
134
SUHYLRXVVFKRODUO\HIIRUWVWRRIIHUDVLQJOHXQLWDU\FODVVL¿FDWLRQRIHLWKHU
the religious experiences represented in this literature or the historical location of its authors. Indeed, as we will see, Heikhalot literature encodes a
UDQJHRIFRQÀLFWLQJDQGHYROYLQJSRLQWVRIYLHZDERXWWKHSXUSRVHRIWKH
YDULRXVULWXDOWHFKQLTXHVWKDWLWDGYRFDWHVDQGLQSDUWLFXODUDERXWZKRPD\
legitimately engage in these practices.
I will, therefore, suggest that scholars studying Heikhalot texts should
not begin from the assumption that they are dealing with an internally
coherent religious system or an integrated set of ritual practices. In this radically unstable literature, the meaning that individual compositional units
carry is contingent upon the shifting literary contexts and thought systems
ZLWKLQZKLFKWKH\DUHGHSOR\HG0RUHRYHULWLVSUHFLVHO\WKHÀXLGLW\DQG
diversity of Heikhalot literature that allows us to trace its literary develRSPHQWWKHUHE\VKHGGLQJOLJKWRQWKHKLVWRU\RIHDUO\-HZLVKP\VWLFLVP
Thus, instead of teleological evolutionary schema, transhistorical categoULHVRUFURVVFXOWXUDOFRPSDULVRQD¿UPWH[WXDOIRXQGDWLRQPXVWVHUYHDV
the starting point for understanding Heikhalot texts as socially embedded
and culturally meaningful documents. Yet my conviction that research on
Heikhalot literature must attend to the minutiae of textual archaeology need
not imply a narrow research agenda restricted to empirical description of
its transmission- and reception-histories. In my view, only careful attention to textual archaeology, rhetorical texture and narrative structure can
illuminate how religious authority and experience are represented in and
FRQVWUXFWHGE\+HLNKDORWOLWHUDWXUH²DQGSHUKDSVXOWLPDWHO\DOVRFODULI\
the socio-historical context(s) of its producers.
1. Heikhalot Literature and the Problem of Comparison
While Heikhalot literature has come to play an increasingly central role in
KLVWRULFDODFFRXQWVRIWKHFKDUDFWHUDQGGLYHUVLW\RIODWHDQWLTXH-XGDLVPHJ
Irshai 2004: 82-99; Levine 2004a), this multifaceted body of texts continues
WR UHVLVW EDVLF VRFLDO JHRJUDSKLF DQG FKURQRORJLFDO FODVVL¿FDWLRQ<HW IDU
IURPLQKLELWLQJUHVHDUFKWKHRIWHQRSDTXHQDWXUHRIWKH+HLNKDORWFRUSXVKDV
made it especially attractive as a source for historical and phenomenological
FRPSDULVRQ6FKRODUVZKRVWXG\DQH[FHSWLRQDOO\ZLGHUDQJHRIVRXUFHV²
+HEUHZ %LEOH HDUO\ -HZLVK DQG &KULVWLDQ DSRFDO\SWLF OLWHUDWXUH WKH 'HDG
Sea Scrolls, the New Testament, early Christian and ‘Gnostic’ sources, classiFDOUDEELQLFOLWHUDWXUHDQG-HZLVKDQGQRQ-HZLVKPDJLFDOOLWHUDWXUHV²KDYH
mined the literary traditions found within the Heikhalot corpus to illuminate the religious ideas and practices on which they work. This comparative
135
perspective received special impetus from the pioneering work of the great
VFKRODURI-HZLVKP\VWLFLVP*HUVKRP6FKROHPZKRHPSKDVL]HGWKHQXPHURXVWKHPDWLFDI¿QLWLHVEHWZHHQWKHODWHDQWLTXH+HLNKDORWWH[WVDQGHDUOLHU
-HZLVKDQG&KULVWLDQVRXUFHV
It would be both impossible and impracticable to offer here a comprehenVLYHFDWDORJXHRIWKHQXPHURXV¿HOGVIRUZKLFK+HLNKDORWPDWHULDOVKDYH
been used as comparanda for one purpose or another. But before proceeding
ZLWKWKHPDLQERG\RIWKLVHVVD\,ZRXOGOLNHWRUHYLHZEULHÀ\DIHZVXFK
examples in order to suggest to the reader what is at stake in arguing for a
methodologically sound and sophisticated approach to Heikhalot texts.
Thus, for example, scholars disagree sharply about how the hymns that
dominate much of the Heikhalot corpus might illuminate the historical
GHYHORSPHQWRI-HZLVKµP\VWLFDO¶SRHWU\2QWKHRQHKDQGLWKDVRIWHQEHHQ
DUJXHGWKDWWKHµQXPLQRXV¶VW\OHRIPDQ\RIWKHVHK\PQVUHÀHFWVDQGFRQtinues long-standing liturgical traditions from the Second Temple period,
such as those found in the Qumran 6RQJVRIWKH6DEEDWK6DFUL¿FH (Scholem
1965: 128; Schiffman 1982, 1987; Baumgarten 1988; Nitzan 1994; Davila
1999) and the NT book of Revelation (Schimanowski 2004). At the same
time, the apparent absence of a direct literary relationship between these
corpora as well as important differences in their ritual-liturgical settings
caution against drawing facile conclusions concerning socio-historical or
even phenomenological continuities between them (Wolfson 1994b; Hamacher 1996; Swartz 2001: 184-90; Abusch 2003).
Similarly, the centrality of the motif of heavenly ascent within the HeikhDORW FRUSXV DQG HDUO\ -HZLVK DQG &KULVWLDQ DSRFDO\SWLF OLWHUDWXUH KDV OHG
some to view both groups of sources as literary expressions of a common
tradition of ecstatic mysticism (Scholem 1954: 40-79; Gruenwald 1980b;
0RUUD\-RQHV7KHK\SRWKHVLVWKDWWKHVDPHP\VWLFDOYLVLRQDU\
impulse underlies the extensive tradition of Merkavah-speculation within
-XGDLVPKDVEHHQWDNHQDVHYLGHQFHIRUWKHH[LVWHQFHRIDFRQWLQXRXVWUDGLtion of religious practice and lore preserved across the cataclysmic divide
RIWKHGHVWUXFWLRQRIWKH-HUXVDOHP7HPSOHLQCE (see especially Gruenwald 1981–82, 1988: 125-44; Elior 1995, 1997, 1998, 2004a, 2004b). In
part drawing on this scholarly tradition, historians have regularly made use
of Heikhalot literature to interpret NT and early Christian texts, especially
such puzzling material as the Apostle Paul’s heavenly ascent in 2 Cor. 12.16FKROHP6HJDO0RUUD\-RQHVDE
so-called ‘Gnostic’ forms of early Christianity (Segal 1977; Gruenwald
1988; Deutsch 1995, 1999; Fossum 1995; DeConick 1996), or the heavHQO\YLVLRQVLQHDUO\&KULVWLDQPDUW\URORJ\0XQRD
136
Perhaps predictably, in all of these cases as well, fundamental methodological objections have been raised to the reading practices and historical
assumptions on which claims of literary, cultural, and even sociological
continuity have been built. In a programmatic essay on the problem of comparison, Schäfer argued that literary motifs or themes in Heikhalot texts
FDQQRW EH SURSHUO\ XQGHUVWRRG RXWVLGH RI WKH VSHFL¿F²DQG RIWHQ VKLIWLQJ²OLWHUDU\FRQWH[WVDQGWKRXJKWV\VWHPVLQZKLFKWKH\DUHGHSOR\HG
He, therefore, suggested that scholars should resist the temptation to make
use of decontextualized literary parallels as positive evidence of continuity
between sources, practices, or groups far removed from each other in space
and/or time (1988f).
In a similar vein and at about the same time, Alexander pointed to the
need for greater precision when scholars make use of comparative categoULHV VXFK DV µ*QRVWLFLVP¶ WR LOOXPLQDWH WKH KLVWRU\ RI HDUO\ -HZLVK P\VWLFLVP²DQG YLFH YHUVD +LPPHOIDUE IRU KHU SDUW KDV QRW RQO\
TXHVWLRQHGZKHWKHUDSRFDO\SWLFDQG+HLNKDORWWH[WVFDQEHUHDGDVPRUHRU
less transparent representations of ‘mystical’ experience, but also pointed
to a basic shift in the conception of heavenly ascent from the passive model
RI µUDSWXUH¶ LQ WKH DSRFDO\SWLF JHQUH WR WKH DFWLYH ULWXDO WHFKQLTXH SUHscribed in Heikhalot texts (1988; 1993). And Reed has recently challenged
the prevalent scholarly habit of appealing to the existence of otherwise
unknown ‘esoteric’ channels of transmission to explain thematic or formal
continuities between Second Temple apocalyptic and Heikhalot literature;
she has instead suggested that, in at least some cases, Byzantine-period
+HLNKDORWWH[WVZHUHLQIDFWVKDSHGE\WKHDFWLYH-HZLVKUHDSSURSULDWLRQ
of material that had been preserved and transmitted within the context of
ODWHDQWLTXH&KULVWLDQOLWHUDU\FXOWXUH:KDW,WKLQN
XQL¿HVDOORIWKHVHVFKRODUVLVWKHLUVHQVHWKDW+HLNKDORWOLWHUDWXUHGHVSLWH
its tortuous textual history and often obscure subject-matter, ought not be
severed from the concrete social realities, material conditions and cultural
processes that produced it.
,WLVQRWWKHDLPRIWKLVHVVD\WRTXHVWLRQWKHJHQHUDOYDOLGLW\RIPDNLQJ
use of Heikhalot texts for comparative purposes. Nor do I wish to reasVHVVWKHKLVWRULFDOFRQFOXVLRQVGUDZQE\YDULRXVVFKRODUVLQVSHFL¿FFDVHV
Rather, I hope that, by focusing attention on Heikhalot texts as embodied
artifacts with concrete textual histories, I will encourage specialists and
enable non-specialists to approach this complex material with greater
methodological sophistication and empirical precision. I believe that, just
as scholars who utilize material from, say, the Pentateuch or the NT letters
of Paul are expected to have at least a working knowledge of debates surDownloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PENNSYLVANIA LIBRARY on October 9, 2007
137
rounding the Documentary Hypothesis or the authentic Pauline authorship
of individual letters, so, too, must research on Heikhalot literature be guided
by basic insights into the history and nature of the material evidence. I do
not think it unfair to say that not all scholarship on Heikhalot texts has
consistently demonstrated this fundamental level of historical awareness or
textual competence.
2. The Scope, Content and Transmission of Heikhalot Literature
The meager number of early textual witnesses to Heikhalot literature
obscures the complexity of its literary and intellectual development in Late
$QWLTXLW\DQGWKHHDUO\0LGGOH$JHV7KHWDVNRIPDSSLQJRXWWKLVGHYHOopmental trajectory is further hampered by the vast expanses of time that
VHSDUDWHWKHLQLWLDOVWDJHVRIFRPSRVLWLRQLQ/DWH$QWLTXLW\DQGFRPSLODtion from the medieval manuscripts through which we seek to glimpse this
process. In addition to the numerous problems created by limitations of
material evidence, scholars must also grapple with the fact that no absolute
criteria exist for delimiting the boundaries of the Heikhalot corpus. In this
section, I review the textual evidence for Heikhalot literature and discuss
the scope and content of this corpus.
I have argued above in the Introduction that the publication of the Synopse
zur Hekhalot-Literatur served as a catalyst for fundamental reconsideration
RIWKHKLVWRULFDOGHYHORSPHQWDQGVLJQL¿FDQFHRIWKH+HLNKDORWFRUSXV7KLV
edition presents in parallel columns seven manuscripts copied and edited
E\(XURSHDQ-HZVLQWKHKLJK0LGGOH$JHVWKDWFRQWDLQWKHIXOOUDQJHRI
+HLNKDORWFRPSRVLWLRQVDOWKRXJKRIWHQLQFRQVLGHUDEO\YDU\LQJVHTXHQFHV
DQGIRUPV7KHVHYHQPDQXVFULSWVDUH0661HZ<RUN2[IRUG
0XQLFK0XQLFK'URSVLH9DWLFDQDQG%XGDSHVWIRU
full descriptions, see Schäfer [ed.] 1981: viii-x). These manuscripts date
from approximately 1300–1550 CE. The oldest of these manuscripts are
WKH *HUPDQ $VKNHQD]L 06 2[IRUG ZKLFK GDWHV WR DURXQG DQG WKH %\]DQWLQH 06 9DWLFDQ ZKLFK GDWHV WR EHWZHHQ WKH HQG RI
the fourteenth century and c. 1470. The youngest of the manuscripts are
WKH$VKNHQD]L061HZ<RUNIURPDURXQGDQGWKH,WDOLDQ06
0XQLFKIURPWKHPLGGOHRIWKHVL[WHHQWKFHQWXU\
Each of the manuscripts contributes in one way or another to our understanding of temporal and regional particularities in the transmission-history
RI +HLNKDORWOLWHUDWXUHHVSHFLDOO\DV LWZDV JDWKHUHG LQ WKH +LJK 0LGGOH
$JHVDVDUHODWLYHO\XQL¿HGFRUSXV061HZ<RUNKRZHYHULVSDUticularly noteworthy: it is a capacious and idiosyncratic manuscript that
138
incorporates numerous narrative and magical traditions not found in the
other major manuscripts and must, therefore, be used with great care (Herrmann and Rohrbacher-Sticker 1989, 1992). In general, scholars should
QRWQHFHVVDULO\WUHDWWKHVHPDQXVFULSWVDVWKHRQO\²RUHYHQSULPDU\²YHUsions of individual compositional units. Schäfer has assembled a near complete catalogue of 47 medieval and early modern manuscripts that contain
Heikhalot materials in one form or another (Schäfer 1988e; further supplemented in Herrmann [ed.] 1994: 22-65). These other manuscripts also
provide important data about the composition, redaction, transmission and
reception of Heikhalot texts.
Indeed, by far the earliest witnesses to Heikhalot literature have turned
XS DV LQ VR PDQ\ RWKHU VSKHUHV RI -HZLVK FXOWXUDO OLIH DPRQJ WKH KDSKD]DUGUHPDLQVRIPHGLHYDODQGHDUO\PRGHUQ-HZLVKGRFXPHQWVUHWULHYHG
from the text-repository (genizah) of the Ben Ezra synagogue in Old Cairo
at the end of the nineteenth century (these fragments are collected most
fully in Schäfer [ed.] 1984; also Gruenwald [ed.] 1968–69; 1969–70; on
the history of the Cairo Genizah, see Reif 2000). Analysis of the physical characteristics and scripts of these 23 fragments (abbreviated in the
scholarly literature G1-23) has placed all but one of these texts after the
year 900 CE, and many of them are considerably later. Thus, while some
Genizah fragments do predate the medieval manuscripts, they do not by
GH¿QLWLRQUHÀHFWPRUHRULJLQDODQGWKXVµEHWWHU¶WH[WXDOUHDGLQJVVFKRODUV
must determine the relative value of textual witnesses on a case-by-case
EDVLVLQSDUWGHSHQGLQJRQWKHLUVSHFL¿FUHVHDUFKTXHVWLRQ/HLFKW
6WLOOLWPXVWEHVWUHVVHGWKDWVLJQL¿FDQWGLIIHUHQFHVH[LVWEHWZHHQWKHPDWHrials contained in the Genizah fragments and those that crystallized in the
European manuscript tradition. Some of these fragments contain material
known from the medieval manuscript tradition, though often with important differences (e.g., G1-6 contain sections of Heikhalot Rabbati; G7 and
G18 contain Heikhalot Zutarti); other fragments contain distinct and otherwise unknown compositions (esp. G8, G11, G12 and G13-17). This disparity between the ‘Oriental’ and ‘European’ branches of the literary tradition
strongly suggests that Heikhalot literature was transmitted along multiple
regional trajectories (Dan 1987; Schäfer 1993).
Schäfer offered a series of methodological guidelines that built on the
results of his editorial labors (1988d, 1993). He concluded that the manuVFULSW WUDGLWLRQ LV FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ ÀXLGLW\ RI ERWK ORQJHU DQG VKRUWHU
textual units, which he termed ‘macroforms’ and ‘microforms’ respecWLYHO\ 6FKlIHU¶V RZQ GH¿QLWLRQ RI WKLV VSHFLDOL]HG YRFDEXODU\ UXQV DV
follows:
139
I employ the term macroform for a superimposed literary unit, instead
of the terms writing or workWRDFFRPPRGDWHWKHÀXFWXDWLQJFKDUDFWHU
of the texts of the Hekhalot Literature. The term macroform concretely
GHQRWHVERWKWKH¿FWLRQDORULPDJLQDU\VLQJOHWH[W«DVZHOODVWKHRIWHQ
different manifestations of this text in the various manuscripts. The
border between micro- and macroformsLVWKHUHE\ÀXHQWFHUWDLQGH¿Qable textual units can be both part of a superimposed entirety (thus a macroform) as well as an independently transmitted redactional unit (thus a
microform) (1992: 6 n. 14).
,QWKLVYLHZLWLVQRWSRVVLEOHWRUHFRQVWUXFWHLWKHUD¿[HGUrtextRUD¿QDOO\
redacted form of these larger textual units, and in all likelihood such stable
beginning and end points of the transmission process have never existed.
+HLNKDORW OLWHUDWXUH²DQG LWV FRQVWLWXHQW SDUWV²FDQQRW VLPSO\ EH GLYLGHG
into stable ‘books’ or ‘works’, but must be studied within the shifting redacWLRQDOFRQWH[WVUHÀHFWHGLQWKHPDQXVFULSWWUDGLWLRQ,QSDUWLFXODUWKHG\QDPLF
relationships among single units of tradition as well as the relationships of
those units to the larger whole should be considered.
In light of this complex transmission-history, scholars have not always
EHHQDEOHWRDJUHHRQDVLQJOHGH¿QLWLRQRIZKDWFRQVWLWXWHVD+HLNKDORWWH[W
RURQKRZWKHFRUSXVPLJKWEHVWEHGHOLPLWHG7RRH[SDQVLYHDGH¿QLWLRQ
would fail to differentiate between Heikhalot literature and certain sources
WKDWVKDUHVRPHRILWVWKHPHVEXWLQRWKHUUHVSHFWVGLIIHUVLJQL¿FDQWO\&HUWDLQO\QRWDOO-HZLVKPDWHULDOVLQ+HEUHZDQG$UDPDLFIURP/DWH$QWLTXLW\
that deal in one way or another with the process of heavenly ascent or
describe a visionary’s encounter with angelic beings can be classed within
a single category. For example, one can draw a distinction between texts
that ground their reports of visionary experience in Scriptural citation or
interpretation and the vast majority of cases in standard Heikhalot works in
which revelatory discourse is self-authenticating (Goldberg 1997b).
Thus, despite certain shared features, the relatively late Massekhet
Heikhalot (Herrmann [ed.] 1994), Byzantine-period Hebrew apocalypses
like Sefer Zerubbabel (Lévi [ed.] 1914), and the post-talmudic martyrological anthology The Story of the Ten Martyrs (Reeg [ed.] 1985) cannot
be considered Heikhalot texts, since none of these employs the ritualliturgical framework that is so central to the religious ideology and practice
of Heikhalot literature (Himmelfarb 1988; Boustan 2003: 326-34, 2005:
149-98). Similarly, one can distinguish on a variety of formal, generic or
thematic grounds between Heikhalot literature proper and other associated
but still distinct works (see especially Schäfer et al. [trans.] 1987–95: II,
140
vii-xiii; Naveh and Shaked 1993: 17-18). These ‘related’ works include the
midrashic Re<uyyot Yeezqel (Gruenwald [ed.] 1972), magical handbooks
such as Sefer ha-Razim0DUJDOLRWK>HG@parba de-Moshe (Harari
[ed.] 1997), and Havdalah of Rabbi Akiva (Scholem [ed.] 1980–81), and the
cosmological treatise Seder Rabbah di-Bereshit (Schäfer 2004).
$ PRUH UHVWULFWLYH GH¿QLWLRQ RI +HLNKDORW OLWHUDWXUH ZRXOG OLPLW WKH
corpus to a relatively narrow set of major compositions and textual fragments (I here follow Schäfer et al. [trans.] 1987–95: II, vii-xiii; Schäfer
1988d, 1992: 7-8; Davila 2001: 8-12). Thus, in addition to the 23 Genizah
fragments published by Schäfer ([ed.] 1984), the Heikhalot corpus consists
of the following major ‘compositions’ (it must be stressed yet again that
the boundaries of the macroforms differ from manuscript to manuscript
and various types of material are regularly interpolated within them; therefore, the paragraph ranges I have given below represents just one dominant
recension of the macroform):
v 3 (Hebrew) Enoch (Synopse §§1-79);
v Heikhalot Rabbati = ‘The Greater [Book of Celestial] Palaces’
(Synopse §§81-306);
v Heikhalot Zutarti = ‘The Lesser [Book of Celestial] Palaces’
(Synopse §§335-426);
v Ma>aseh Merkavah = ‘The Working of the Chariot’ (Synopse
§§544-596);
v Merkavah Rabbah = ‘The Great [Book of] the Chariot’ (Synopse
§§655-708).
In addition to these major macroforms, Heikhalot literature also includes
a number of generically distinct compositions that are often embedded
within or appended to other Heikhalot texts.
First, there are a number of relatively stable compositions that present
ritual instructions for invoking various powerful angels to descend and aid the
practitioner with some undertaking. The most notable of these adjurational
texts is the Sar ha-Torah (Prince of the Torah) complex, which instructs the
practitioner how to compel the Sar ha-Torah to help him learn and retain
knowledge of Torah. This composition is often appended to Heikhalot
Rabbati (Synopse §§281-306). The Sar ha-Torah complex is followed in a
number of manuscripts by a number of smaller units of adjurational or liturgical material, namely: the Chapter of R. Neunya b. ha-Qanah (§§307-314);
WKHµ0HWDWURQSLHFH¶> RI1HZ<RUN-76@WKH
‘Great seal/Terrible crown piece’ (§§318-321); and a collection of laudatory
prayers (§§322-334). Some manuscripts also contain the relatively stable and
141
independent Sar ha-Panim (Prince of the [Divine] Countenance) text, which
likewise provides ritual instruction for adjuring a powerful angel to grant
one’s wishes (Synopse §§623-639; Schäfer 1988b).
Another independent class of texts are the Shi>ur Qomah compositions
EHVW UHQGHUHG µ7KH 0HDVXUH RI WKH +HLJKW >RI WKH 'LYLQH %RG\@¶ 7KH
Shi>ur Qomah should not be considered an independent composition, as
once thought (Cohen 1983, 1985), but is better understood as a generic
term for a relatively varied group of texts describing the body of God (Halperin 1988b: 364; Herrmann 1988). In any event, Shi>ur Qomah composiWLRQV²RUIUDJPHQWVWKHUHRI²DUHLQFRUSRUDWHGLQWRYHUVLRQVRIPRVWRIWKH
major Heikhalot macroforms (e.g., in Heikhalot Rabbati at Synopse §167,
in Heikhalot Zutarti at §§375-386, and, most extensively, in Merkavah
Rabbah at §§688-704).
A number of manuscripts of Heikhalot Rabbati DOVRLQFOXGH²HPEHGGHGZLWKLQWKLVPDFURIRUP²RQHRUPRUHEULHIDSRFDO\SWLFFRPSRVLWLRQV
These units include: the ‘David apocalypse’ (§§122-126); the ‘Aggadah
RI5,VKPDHO¶DQGWKHµ0HVVLDK$JJDGDK¶1RW
only are these units found in only some recensions of Heikhalot Rabbati,
but they often circulated together as an independent macroform of apocaO\SWLFVRXUFHVWKDWFRQFHQWUDWHRQWKH¿JXUHRI5,VKPDHO)RUH[DPSOH
066 -HUXVDOHP 0 5226 (printed in Habermann 1975: 86-88) and New
<RUN-76(1$ERWKFRQWDLQDOOWKUHHXQLWV7KLVPDWHULDOLVRIWHQ
integrated with accounts of R. Ishmael’s miraculous conception and the
special visionary powers that result from it (Boustan 2003, 2005: 99148). I have elsewhere argued that, while these units clearly belong to the
wider literary context of Heikhalot literature, they differ in fundamental
ways from it (2005: 43-45 and 113-21). As is typical of the apocalyptic
genre, these units characterize heavenly ascent as a passive process, often
EHVWRZHGRQO\RQSHRSOHRIVSHFLDOVWDWXVUDWKHUWKDQDVDFRQVHTXHQFH
of ritual action available to any properly-trained adept. Although these
apocalyptic compositions enhance our picture of the expressive and ideoORJLFDOUDQJHRIODWHDQWLTXH-HZLVKDVFHQWWH[WVWKHLUGLVWLQFWLYHWKHPDWLF
emphasis and transmission-history puts them solidly outside of the mainstream of Heikhalot literature.
Careful study of the major Heikhalot macroforms reveals an obvious and
TXLWHVLJQL¿FDQWGHJUHHRIYDULDWLRQLQFRQWHQWHPSKDVLVDQGHYHQEDVLF
theological orientation, some of which I will touch on below. Nevertheless,
these works do share (1) a more or less stable cast of human and angelic
characters, (2) a concern for the proper performance of magico-ritual practices aimed at gaining access to the heavenly realms and/or assistance from
142
DQJHOLFLQWHUPHGLDULHVDQDELGLQJHPSKDVLVRQWKHDFTXLVLWLRQDQGSUHVervation of revealed knowledge, especially of the Torah but also of other
kinds as well, (4) a general cosmological scheme, most often centered on
a seven-layered heaven, and (5) an interest in the cosmic role played by
both the liturgical activities of the angelic host and of Israel on earth. But
beyond this minimalist catalogue of basic themes, the internal heterogeneLW\RIWKH+HLNKDORWFRUSXVPXVWEHDOORZHGWRVWDQG²DQGWRVHUYHDVRQH
RIWKHSULPDU\GDWDUHTXLULQJLQWHUSUHWDWLRQ
0\SUHIHUHQFHIRUUHVWULFWLQJWKHWHUPµ+HLNKDORWOLWHUDWXUH¶WRWKLVVPDOOHU
group of sources should certainly not be taken to mean that the boundaries
RIWKHFRUSXVFDQRUVKRXOGEH¿[HGLQDEVROXWHWHUPV,QGHHGZH¿QGLQ
numerous cases that textual units not generally found in the dominant form
of Heikhalot compositions have been integrated within Heikhalot material
in meaningful, if redactionally secondary, ways. Thus, for example, §151,
a unit embedded in Heikhalot Rabbati describing R. Ishmael’s encounter
with Akatri<HO<DLQWKH-HUXVDOHP7HPSOHDSSHDUVLQRQO\RQH+HLNKDORW
manuscript (New York 8128) and was clearly taken over by the copyistscribe of this late and capacious manuscript from its canonical placement
in the Babylonian Talmud (Berakhot 7b) where it appears in precisely the
same form, almost word-for-word.
Similarly, works such as parba de-Moshe and Seder Rabbah di-Bereshit
were transmitted alongside Heikhalot works within several of the main
manuscripts of the corpus and cannot always be extracted cleanly from
the surrounding Heikhalot material (Schäfer et al. [trans.] 1987–95: II, xi);
recensions of these compositions are, therefore, included in Schäfer’s synoptic edition of the Heikhalot corpus (parba de-Moshe = Synopse §§598622, 640-650; Seder Rabbah di-Bereshit = Synopse §§518-540, 714-727,
743-820, 832-853). In such cases, however, transmission-history tells us
PRUHDERXWKRZPHGLHYDO-HZVXQGHUVWRRGWKHLUOLWHUDU\KHULWDJHDQGZKDW
FDWHJRULHV WKH\ XVHG WR RUJDQL]H NQRZOHGJH WKDQ DERXW OLWHUDU\ DI¿QLWLHV
DQGKLVWRULFDOFRQQHFWLRQV7KHVLJQL¿FDQWGLIIHUHQFHVEHWZHHQWKHVHZRUNV
DQGWKHPRUHW\SLFDO+HLNKDORWFRPSRVLWLRQV²LVVXHVRILQWHUQDOIRUPDQG
FRQWHQW²FOHDUO\ RXWZHLJK WKH EHODWHG UHGDFWLRQDO FKRLFHV RI PHGLHYDO
copyists.
0RUHLPSRUWDQWO\LWLVQRWP\LQWHQWLRQWRGLVFRXUDJHLQYHVWLJDWLRQLQWR
WKHLQWHUUHODWLRQVKLSDPRQJWKHYDULRXVVSHFLHVRI-HZLVKP\VWLFDOPDJLFDO
DQGFRVPRORJLFDOVRXUFHV²RUIRUWKDWPDWWHULQWRKRZDOORIWKLVOLWHUDWXUH
LVUHODWHGWRRWKHUIRUPVRIHDUO\-HZLVKDQG&KULVWLDQUHOLJLRVLW\2QWKH
FRQWUDU\RQHRIWKHFHQWUDOTXHVWLRQVWKDWUHPDLQVSURIRXQGO\XQUHVROYHG
LVZKHUH+HLNKDORWOLWHUDWXUH¿WVLQWRWKHODUJHUODQGVFDSHRI-HZLVKOLWHUDownloaded from http://cbi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PENNSYLVANIA LIBRARY on October 9, 2007
143
ary culture, especially the vast corpora of synagogal poetry (piyyut) and
classical rabbinic sources. I do, however, wish to caution strongly against
the scholarly habit of viewing the Heikhalot corpus as an open-ended and
WLPHOHVVUHSRVLWRU\RIHDUO\-HZLVKµP\VWLFLVP¶DQGµHVRWHULFLVP¶ZKDWHYHU
exactly these terms might be understood to denote.
3. From Textual to Thematic Heterogeneity
in the Study of Heikhalot Literature
6FKlIHU¶VLQVLJKWVLQWRWKHFRPSRVLWHDQGÀXFWXDWLQJVWDWHRIWKHPDWHULDO
evidence went hand in hand with his rejection of attempts to harmonize the
diverse materials represented in the corpus. Schäfer does not regard the two
SULQFLSDOWKHPHVRIWKHFRUSXV²QDUUDWLYHVLQZKLFKDKXPDQDFWRUDVFHQGV
to heaven, and adjurational material designed to bring angelic beings down
WRHDUWK²DVVHUYLQJDXQLIRUPIXQFWLRQZLWKLQDODUJHUFRQFHSWXDOZKROH
He contends instead that those who seek uniformity ‘suffer from the desire
WR ¿QG RQH H[SODQDWLRQ IRU WKH HQWLUH +HLNKDORW OLWHUDWXUH ZKLFK WKHQ
assigns all other parts to their places, thus ignoring the extremely complex
relations of the texts and the various literary layers within the individual
macroforms’ (1992: 152).
But beyond merely insisting on the formal and conceptual heterogeneity of these different strands of material, Schäfer’s research has called
LQWRTXHVWLRQWKHORQJKHOGDVVXPSWLRQWKDWLWLVSRVVLEOHWRUHFRQVWUXFW
WKH P\VWLFDO H[SHULHQFH WKDW WKH µ0HUNDYDK P\VWLFV¶ ZHUH EHOLHYHG WR
have cultivated (cf. Scholem 1954, 1965). Instead, he argues that it is
µTXLWHLPSUREDEOHWKDWZHFDQJHWEHKLQGWKHVWDWHRIWKH+HLNKDORWOLWHUDWXUHWR0HUNDYDKP\VWLFLVPDVDQHFVWDWLFSKHQRPHQRQ¶I
Schäfer, therefore, called for research that analyzes Heikhalot literature
qua literature.
+LPPHOIDUEWKURXJKKHUH[WHQVLYHVWXG\RIDVFHQWQDUUDWLYHVLQ-HZLVK
and Christian apocalyptic literature, has arrived at a similar assessment
of Heikhalot literature. She concludes from the descriptions of the ritual
use of ascent narratives found within the Heikhalot texts themselves (e.g.,
§335, §419) that there was ‘no need for the mystic to ascend, for telling
the story was enough. The actual performance of the acts is attributed to
DP\WKLFSDVWWKHHUDRIWKHJUHDWUDEELVRIWKH0LVKQDKUHFLWDWLRQLWVHOI
has become the ritual’ (1993: here 113; see also Himmelfarb 1988, 1995;
Halbertal 2001: 18-26). Therefore, while not a priori illegitimate, interpreWDWLRQRIWKHVRFLRKLVWRULFDOUHDOLWLHVDQGUHOLJLRXVZRUOGYLHZVUHÀHFWHGLQ
the corpus must be undertaken with great care.
144
An emphasis on these two complementary types of literary heterogeneLW\²WH[WXDODQGWKHPDWLF²KDVKDGIDUUHDFKLQJLPSOLFDWLRQVIRUWKHVWXG\
RI HDUO\ -HZLVK P\VWLFLVP %HIRUH 6FKlIHU WKH VWXG\ RI WKH +HLNKDORW
corpus had long been primarily concerned with the search for a single, unifying framework that could encompass its enigmatic plurality of perspectives and motifs. I believe that, in a very real sense, Schäfer accomplished
a systematic revision of the paradigm that Scholem had established in his
UHVHDUFKRQWKHHDUO\KLVWRU\RIWKH-HZLVKP\VWLFDOWUDGLWLRQ²RUZKDWKH
WHUPHGµ0HUNDEDK0\VWLFLVPDQG-HZLVK*QRVWLFLVP¶
Scholem’s groundbreaking work, which united deep philological erudition with a highly developed phenomenological-comparative sensibility,
had discerned a cohesive stream of mystical practice and experience in the
diverse material found in Second Temple apocalyptic, classical rabbinic
literature, and the Heikhalot corpus. Indeed, working in conscious opposition to nineteenth-century German Wissenschaft scholarship, which had
SUHVHQWHG HDUO\ -HZLVK P\VWLFLVP DV D ODWH DQG DEHUUDQW GHYHORSPHQW RI
the early Islamic era (esp. Grätz 1859; also Bloch 1893), Scholem situated
+HLNKDORWOLWHUDWXUHDWWKHYHU\KHDUWRIHDUO\UDEELQLF-XGDLVP0RUHRYHU
he interpreted this ‘peculiar realm of religious experience’ within the broad
FRPSDUDWLYHIUDPHZRUNRIWKHKLVWRU\RILGHDVLQ/DWH$QWLTXLW\HPSKDVL]LQJ LWV JHQHUDO DI¿QLWLHV DQG FRQFUHWH WH[WXDO OLQNV WR YDULRXV VWUDQGV
of ‘apocalyptic’ and ‘gnostic’ forms of religiosity and literary expression.
6FKROHP¶VSRZHUIXOWKHVLVWKDW+HLNKDORWOLWHUDWXUHZDVRQO\WKHODWHVWUHÀH[
of a continuous, stable, and largely subterranean tradition of ecstatic mysticism reaching back to biblical prophecy (esp. Ezekiel) and Second Temple
DSRFDO\SWLFLVPFRQWLQXHVWRH[HUWDWUHPHQGRXVLQÀXHQFHHJ*UXHQZDOG
E(OLRUDE0RUUD\-RQHV
While Scholem does distinguish among the diverse literary forms and
thematic interests contained in the Heikhalot and related literatures, he subordinates this diversity to an evolutionary model of religious history (one
in large measure predicated on a strictly hierarchical typology of religious
experience). His analysis of Heikhalot literature thus accords temporal and
thematic priority to ecstatic journeys to the otherworld, while relegating the
magical and theurgic elements of the corpus to secondary status. In fact,
Scholem went so far as to propose a relative dating scheme for the individual works in the corpus based primarily on the proportion of each type of
material (1954: 46-47; 1965: 12-13). As I noted above, it is precisely such
overarching and homogenizing schema that Schäfer cautions against, at
least before systematic and synchronic analysis of the various redactional
layers of the corpus has been undertaken (1988f).
145
6FKlIHUZDVQRWWKH¿UVWWREHJLQFKLSSLQJDZD\DWWKHHGL¿FHHUHFWHGE\
6FKROHP6HYHUDOGHFDGHVHDUOLHU0DLHUDOWKRXJKODUJHO\DGRSWLQJ6FKRlem’s categories as well as his insistence on the basic continuities between
6HFRQG7HPSOHDSRFDO\SWLFLVPDQGODWHU-HZLVKP\VWLFDOWUDGLWLRQVDUJXHG
that the earliest stratum of this tradition was speculative and exegetical, not
H[SHULHQWLDO0DLHUYLHZHGWKHHFVWDWLFSUDFWLFHVDQGWKHXUJLF
WHFKQLTXHV GHVFULEHG LQ WKH +HLNKDORW WH[WV DV ODWH GHYHORSPHQWV ZLWKLQ
an essentially textual tradition. This position was in part corroborated by
Urbach, who a few years later made the case that tannaitic references to the
‘works of the chariot’ (ma>aseh merkavah) depict it strictly as an exegetical
discipline (1967).
)ROORZLQJWKHLQVLJKWVRI0DLHUDQGHVSHFLDOO\8UEDFK+DOSHULQPRXQWHG
DVXVWDLQHGDQGFRPSUHKHQVLYHFULWLTXHRI6FKROHP¶VDFFRXQWRIWKHGHYHORSPHQWRI-HZLVKP\VWLFLVPLQWKHUDEELQLFSHULRG,QKLVPRQRJUDSKVWXG\
of the term ma>aseh merkavah in rabbinic literature, Halperin drew a fundamental distinction between the esoteric interpretation of Ezekiel 1 found
LQHDUOLHU3DOHVWLQLDQUDEELQLFVRXUFHVDQGWKHVXEVHTXHQWGHYHORSPHQWRI
DWUDGLWLRQRIHFVWDWLFP\VWLFLVPZKLFKKHDUJXHVLVUHÀHFWHGRQO\LQWKH
relatively late redactional layer of the Babylonian Talmud (1980). Indeed,
having driven a wedge between exegetical and mystical practice, Halperin
set out in his next project to account for the evolution of this exegetical
tradition into the heavenly ascent of the later and more fully developed
mysticism of the Heikhalot corpus (1987, 1988a, 1988b).
In response to Urbach and Halperin’s reassessment of the Scholem
SDUDGLJPVFKRODUVPRUHUHFHQWO\KDYHEHJXQWRTXHVWLRQWKHYHU\WHUPV
of the debate, which is predicated on the dichotomy between exegesis and
ecstatic experience. Alexander has thus argued for bridging what he terms
WKHµVRFLRKLVWRULFDO¶DQGWKHµPLGUDVKLF¶DSSURDFKHVWRHDUO\-HZLVKP\VWLcism through a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between
textual activity and religious mentality (1984). Working in a somewhat different analytical mode, Wolfson has also offered a brilliant deconstruction
of the regnant dichotomies that he believes have plagued analysis of early
-HZLVKP\VWLFDOOLWHUDWXUHVXFKDVWKHGLVWLQFWLRQEHWZHHQWKHµSV\FKRORJLcal’ and the ‘real’ or between ‘exegetical’ activity and ‘ecstatic’ experience
D +H KDV DUJXHG WKDW ODWH DQWLTXH -XGDLVP LQ IDFW VDZ D
fundamental convergence of interpretative activity and revelatory experience that produced a new and distinctive hermeneutics of vision. Wolfson’s
deconstructive project suggests important new avenues of research. In particular, he rightly emphasizes the generative relationship between discursive and embodied practices in the formation of mystical experience.
146
4. Early Jewish Mysticism from the Perspective of Material Culture
In recent years, a number of scholars have built upon Schäfer’s insights
concerning the epistemological limits posed by the shifting nature of the
literary evidence for Heikhalot literature. Their careful descriptions of the
FRQVWDQW UHFRQ¿JXUDWLRQ RI WH[WXDO XQLWV ZLWKLQ WKH PHGLHYDO PDQXVFULSW
tradition have demonstrated that Heikhalot literature is the product of centuries of scribal reworking. Indeed, this research has underscored the similarities between the textual processes that shaped Heikhalot literature and
WKRVHRSHUDWLYHLQWKHZLGHUERG\RIPHGLHYDO-HZLVKWH[WV7D6KPD
Literary evidence cannot, therefore, simply be used for naïve reconstrucWLRQRIODWHDQWLTXH-HZLVKP\VWLFDOWHFKQLTXHVDQGSUDFWLFHV²OHWDORQHDQ
experiential core. I wish to suggest here, however, that a careful literary
DSSURDFKWRHDUO\-HZLVKP\VWLFLVPQHHGQRWUHOLQTXLVKLWVFRQFHUQIRUWKH
historical, social, cultural, and perhaps ideological context in which certain
+HLNKDORWZRUNVZHUHLQLWLDOO\SURGXFHG²SURYLGHGRIFRXUVHWKDWSURSHU
attention is paid to the textual stratigraphy of this literature.
The reception history of Heikhalot texts has been most fully analyzed
by Herrmann and Rohrbacher-Sticker, who have illuminated in a series of
DUWLFOHVWKHZD\WKDWFLUFOHVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKH-HZLVK3LHWLVWPRYHPHQWLQ
medieval Germany (asidei ashkenaz) reshaped Heikhalot literature in the
course of its transmission in the twelfth to fourteenth centuries (Herrmann
1988, 1994; Herrmann and Rohrbacher-Sticker 1989, 1992; also Kuyt
1993, 1998; Abrams 1998). Herrmann has also demonstrated that the active
refashioning of this material continued even into the early modern period
(2001). This analysis has led Herrmann to the synthetic conclusion that
‘the over-creative medieval copyist is a danger to the over-creative scholar
of today’ (1993: 97). Indeed, Beit-Arié, in his monumental research on the
history of the Hebrew book, has stressed the activist nature of scribal activity in medieval Hebrew textual culture more generally (1993, 2000). Their
LQVLJKWVFDOOLQWRTXHVWLRQLQWHUSUHWDWLYHDSSURDFKHVWKDWGRQRWUHFNRQZLWK
the constraints imposed by textual considerations.
The literary methodology advocated by Schäfer, Herrmann, and others
has not served to foreclose interpretative possibilities, but, on the contrary,
has generated surprising, new avenues of research on Heikhalot literature.
0RVWQRWDEO\6ZDUW]KDVDSSOLHGERWKIRUPFULWLFDODQGUHGDFWLRQFULWLFDO
methods to one macroform of the corpus, Ma>aseh Merkavah, in order to
illustrate how textual meaning is generated through diachronic processes
of literary transmission and refashioning (1992; also 1986–87, 1989).
147
Because of his attentiveness to the dynamics of textual elaboration that
shaped Ma>aseh Merkavah, Swartz is able to trace within this single macroform a profound conceptual evolution, as more conventional forms of
OLWXUJLFDOSRHWU\ZHUHUHGDFWHGWRJHWKHUZLWKHFVWDWLFSUD\HUVWKDWUHÀHFWWKH
mystical and theurgic sensibilities of the later strata of the text (1992: 211FRPSDUHWKHKROLVWLFUHDGLQJRIWKHWH[WLQ-DQRZLW]$FFRUGLQJ
to Swartz, the achievement of the text’s redactors was to use a narrative of
heavenly ascent like that found in Heikhalot Rabbati as a literary framework to unite these chronologically and phenomenologically distinct styles
of prayer.
,QKLVVXEVHTXHQWZRUN6ZDUW]KDVDWWHPSWHGWREULQJWKHOLWHUDU\KLVWRU\
of the Heikhalot corpus to bear on the task of reconstructing its socio-cultural
FRQWH[WZLWKLQODWHDQWLTXH-HZLVKVRFLHW\+HDUJXHVWKDWWKHFHQWUDOLW\RI
scribal activity in shaping Heikhalot literature suggests an interpretive key
to the scholastic ideology of the Sar ha-Torah (Prince of the Torah) texts
(1996: 209-29; also 1994a, 1994b, 1995). These adjurational texts invoke
YDULRXVDQJHOVWRDLGWKHSUDFWLWLRQHULQDFTXLULQJNQRZOHGJHRI7RUDK²DQG
in perfecting his capacities to retain this wisdom. Swartz argues that this
HPSKDVLVRQPHPRU\DQGWH[WXDONQRZOHGJHUHÀHFWVWKHHWKRVRIµFLUFOHV
of non-elite intellectuals’, who coupled scribal activity with ritual expertise
to become minor ritual functionaries (1996: 229). These ‘secondary elites’
sought to claim for themselves the authority associated with mastery of
7RUDKOHDUQLQJDQGWKHUHE\WRDSSURSULDWHUDEELQLFYDOXHV0RUHUHFHQWO\
applying a shamanic model of religious experience to the people who produced the Heikhalot corpus, Davila has come to many of the same conclusions reached by Swartz about their social location (2001). Davila argues
that, although normally found in pre-literate societies, shamanic forms of
ULWXDO SRZHU DUH IXOO\ FRPSDWLEOH ZLWK WKH VRFLRORJLFDO SUR¿OH VXJJHVWHG
by Swartz. Swartz’s singular attempt to apply sophisticated sociological
thinking to Heikhalot literature demonstrates the salutary value of combining attentiveness to rhetorical and verbal texture with an awareness of the
historically situated processes of composition through which this literature
was fashioned.
5. The Limits of Reception-History
It has recently been argued that the emphasis placed by Schäfer and his
VWXGHQWVRQWKHÀXLGUHFHSWLRQKLVWRU\RI+HLNKDORWOLWHUDWXUHUXQVWKHULVN
of drawing attention away from the formative literary and ideological proFHVVHVWKDWVKDSHGLWVFRQVWLWXHQWVRXUFHVLQ/DWH$QWLTXLW\DQGWKHHDUO\
148
0LGGOH$JHV,QDQH[WHQVLYHKLVWRULFDOVXUYH\RIFULWLFDOHGLWRULDOSUDFWLFH
LQWKH¿HOGRI-HZLVKP\VWLFLVP$EUDPVDUWLFXODWHVZKDWKHFRQVLGHUVERWK
the successes and failures of Schäfer’s Synopse. On the one hand, he writes
that ‘Schäfer’s edition has taught us much about critical editing in the last
¿IWHHQ\HDUVIRUZKLOHLWZDVSUHYLRXVO\FRQVLGHUHGWREHWKHEHVWPHWKRG
for uncovering what was the earliest state of complex texts, it now can
be seen as a statement of their later reception’ (Abrams 1996: 43). On the
other hand, Abrams notes critically that the editorial principles on which
this work was based have the potential to create a new set of dogmatic
DVVXPSWLRQVFRQFHUQLQJWKHIRUPDWLRQDQGVLJQL¿FDQFHRIWKLVOLWHUDWXUH
Schäfer’s edition, which was said to present the manuscript texts without
DQ\VLJQL¿FDQWLQWHUYHQWLRQRIWKHHGLWRUVZDVQHYHUWKHOHVVEDVHGRQD
YHU\GH¿QLWHVHWRIDVVXPSWLRQVZKLFKVHFRQGJXHVVHGWKHRXWFRPHRI
their research, a point which was missed by every one of the volume’s
reviewers. Schäfer assumed that individual works did not exist and so
chose manuscripts from within a pool of manuscripts which contained
WKH ZKROH FRUSXV« 7RGD\ ZH XQGHUVWDQG WKDW WKHVH SDUWLFXODU PDQXscripts do not contain the somewhat amorphous collection of what once
was the early collection of Hekhalot traditions, but rather these manuscripts preserve the various medieval attempts to edit the separate works
(1996: 38-39).
Abrams is surely correct that the Synopse represents a highly selective
sample of Heikhalot texts. And, indeed, the manuscripts chosen for this
edition do not necessarily represent the ‘best’ witnesses to the individual
OLWHUDU\FRPSRVLWLRQVWKDWWKH\FRQWDLQ0RVWLPSRUWDQWO\$EUDPVULJKWO\
LQVLVWVWKDWVRPH²RUSHUKDSVPDQ\²RIWKHWH[WVJDWKHUHGLQWKHVHPDQXscripts existed in recognizable forms well prior to their transmission to
(XURSHDQFHQWHUVRI-HZLVKFXOWXUHLQWKHKLJK0LGGOH$JHV
His assessment, however, misses an essential point: Schäfer never
claimed that research should be limited to evaluating Heikhalot literature as
it is instantiated in the relatively few ‘corpus-length’ manuscripts gathered
in the Synopse. Rather, in his writings, he treats his own edition as no more
than a valuable gateway into the enormous pool of European medieval
PDQXVFULSWV²DQG KLV V\QRSWLF PHWKRG DV QRWKLQJ RWKHU WKDQ D SUDFWLFDO
strategy for presenting an enormous amount of material in as clear a way as
possible (see especially Schäfer et al. [trans.] 1987–95: II, vii). That some
have enshrined the SynopseDVDGH¿QLWLYHHGLWLRQRI+HLNKDORWOLWHUDWXUH
LQP\YLHZWHVWL¿HVWRWKHLUJUHDWGHVLUHWRHVWDEOLVKDQDXWKRULWDWLYHWH[WXDO
basis for their work. While analysis of the extraordinary variation in the
manuscripts of Heikhalot literature remains an important corrective in a
149
¿HOG¿[DWHGRQRULJLQV²DQGDYDOXDEOHSURMHFWLQLWVRZQULJKW²UHVHDUFKers must, wherever possible, seek to observe earlier processes of literary
composition and crystallization.
In an article on the literary identity of Heikhalot Rabbati, one of the
most studied texts in the corpus, Davila anticipated Abrams’s systematic
FULWLTXHRIWKHXVHWRZKLFKWKHSynopse has been put (1994). Davila argues
that Schäfer’s edition in no way exempts the scholar from the obligation
RIHVWDEOLVKLQJ²SULRUWRLQWHUSUHWDWLRQ²DWH[WFULWLFDOYHUVLRQRIZKDWHYHU
text-units are under consideration. Otherwise, he cautions, the relevant
material simply ‘remains unreconstructed in the individually more or less
corrupt MSS’ (1994: 213). Davila illustrates his point effectively with reference to a merkavah hymn contained in the various manuscripts at Synopse,
§253. He writes that the problem of textual variation in this case is ‘compounded by the treatment in Schäfer’s German translation’, which leaves
the reader ‘with the erroneous impression that the MSS present three different recensions, if not three different hymns in this spot. The hymn itself
still eludes us’ (1994: 213). Since the task of settling on a text suitable for
analysis cannot be endlessly deferred, Davila argues that the production of
eclectic critical editions of certain, suitable portions of Heikhalot literature
remains a desideratum. This, he believes, is particularly true for the textual
core of Heikhalot Rabbati (Synopse, §§81-277 with various omissions),
which represents a ‘common archetype behind all the complete extant MSS’
of this literary composition (1994: 215). A similar case could be made for
3 (Hebrew) Enoch, which despite having circulated as numerous distinct
‘macroforms’ likewise possesses a literary ‘core’ (i.e., §§4-20) that was
UHGDFWHGWRZDUGWKHHQGRI/DWH$QWLTXLW\$OH[DQGHU6FKlIHUet al.
[trans.] 1987–95: IV, l-lv).
One might well dispute the practicality of producing eclectic text editions
of Heikhalot texts. Nevertheless, Davila’s observations about the stability
of Heikhalot RabbatiDUHH[WUHPHO\LPSRUWDQWLQVRIDUDVWKH\FRQ¿UPWKDW
the medieval manuscripts that contain Heikhalot literature are not merely
UHSRVLWRULHVRIZKROO\RSHQHQGHGFRQ¿JXUDWLRQVRIORRVHO\UHODWHGWH[WXDO
XQLWV,QVRPH²WKRXJKQRWDOO²FDVHVWKHPDQXVFULSWWUDGLWLRQUHÀHFWVWKH
existence of previously extant textual units that crystallized prior to their
transmission by medieval scribes and attests to at least some degree of
constraint on scribal creativity.
I think it worth stating explicitly the methodological principles that I
have outlined here. In my view, the degree of a given text’s literary stability over time must be assessed on a case-by-case basis; and each individual
textual unit or complex must be investigated on its own terms without
150
any prior assumptions about either its stability or its variability. Indeed,
Schäfer himself stresses that the distinction between the various Heikhalot
compositions is relative: ‘it appears that although Hekhalot Rabbati has
been submitted to redaction to a larger extent than, for example, Hekhalot Zutarti, we must nevertheless be wary of speaking of it as if it were
a homogeneously composed or redacted “work” ’ (1988d: 12; see also
Schäfer 1988g; Goldberg 1997a). The Synopse²LQ FRQMXQFWLRQ ZLWK DOO
RWKHUPDQXVFULSWGDWD²VKRXOGEHVHHQQRWRQO\DVDWRROIRUWUDFLQJODWHU
scribal interventions, but also, wherever possible, for working back from
textual artifacts to earlier stages of literary development.
This pragmatic approach has been formulated in a more general way
by Alexander and Samely in their Introduction to a special edition of the
Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester entitled
‘Artifact and Text’ (1993). They caution against any form of methodologiFDOGRJPDWLVPZKHQDSSURDFKLQJDOOIRUPVRIODWHDQWLTXH-HZLVKWH[WXDO
artifact, including Heikhalot literature. Where it is possible to reconstruct
an Urtext, it is the scholar’s responsibility to do so; but where over-active
modern editorial work would only serve to obscure the dynamism of comSRVLWLRQDO UHGDFWLRQDO DQG VFULEDO SURFHVVHV²DQG WKXV HIIDFH WKH FRPSOH[LWLHVRIWH[WXDOVWUDWLJUDSK\²DQHGLWRUPXVWEHSUHSDUHGWRIRUJRWKH
FUHDWLRQRIDPLVOHDGLQJµ¿QLVKHGSURGXFW¶
The limitations of a reception-historical approach to Heikhalot literature in no way brings us full circle to the old paradigm in which the scholar’s task is to interpret a number of autonomous literary works with stable
titles and a coherent redactional purpose. The continuous process of literary production revealed by the manuscript data forecloses the possibility
of retreating to naïve and ahistorical methodologies. A literary-historical
approach to Heikhalot literature, while still governed by the constraints
of the material evidence, must set as its aim the description of the proFHVVHV E\ ZKLFK LWV FRQVWLWXHQW SDUWV HPHUJHG DV GLVWLQFW OLWHUDU\²DQG
WKXVLGHRORJLFDO²IRUPDWLRQV
Conclusion
Throughout this essay, I have traced recent developments in the study of
+HLNKDORWOLWHUDWXUHWKDWFKDOOHQJHWKRVHUHDGLQJSUDFWLFHVVWLOOTXLWHSUHYDOHQWLQWKH¿HOGWKDWSULPDULO\UHODWHWRWKHVHVRXUFHVDVGLVHPERGLHGµWH[WV¶
rather than as material artifacts. The work of Schäfer and others has shown
that Heikhalot literature, perhaps more than most textual traditions, continued to be susceptible to scribal intervention long after the initial stages
151
of composition. The boundaries between the roles of author, redactor and
FRS\LVWZHUHQHYHU¿UP7KHOLWHUDU\DFWLYLW\WKDWVKDSHG+HLNKDORWOLWHUDture often took the form of archival work, in which this textual tradition
was continuously mined for raw materials.
I have suggested that this decidedly ‘materialist’ or ‘textualist’ perspecWLYHKDVUDLVHGVLJQL¿FDQWHSLVWHPRORJLFDOSUREOHPVIRUVFKRODUVZLVKLQJ
to relate to Heikhalot texts as more or less transparent representations of
individual religious experiences. In his pointed assessment of scholarship
RQPHGLHYDO.DEEDODK$QLGMDUKDVFULWLFL]HGVFKRODUVRI-HZLVKP\VWLFLVP
more generally for their tendency to ‘read through’ mystical texts in the
hopes of gaining access to ‘deeper’ levels of symbolic or psychological
meaning, while invariably ignoring the very textuality of this literature
,QVKDUSFRQWUDVWWRWKLVWHQGHQF\LGHQWL¿HGE\$QLGMDU
WKHUHQHZHGIRFXVRQWKHPDWHULDOKLVWRU\RIHDUO\-HZLVKP\VWLFDOOLWHUDWXUH
that I have examined here aims to demystify Heikhalot literature, normalizing it as a mode of human discourse that is subject to the same formal,
social and technological constraints as any other. Indeed, in my view,
scholars should instead work toward a variegated literary and sociological
understanding of Heikhalot literature without reducing its heterogeneous
VHWRIWH[WXDODUWLIDFWV²DQGWKHYDULHW\RIGLVFXUVLYHSUDFWLFHVUHSUHVHQWHG
LQWKHP²WRDXQLWDU\H[SUHVVLRQRIDWLPHOHVV-HZLVKP\VWLFDOVHQVLELOLW\
The research tools necessary for analyzing the evolving literary forms,
VRFLRKLVWRULFDOFRQWH[WVDQGUHOLJLRXVVLJQL¿FDQFHRI+HLNKDORWOLWHUDWXUH
are now available to specialists and non-specialists alike. Schäfer’s Synopse
zur Hekhalot-Literatur and Geniza-Fragmente zur Hekhalot-Literatur,
along with the various concordances and translations, allow for both a
general overview of the Heikhalot corpus as a whole and in-depth textual
analysis and comparison. I have argued, however, that the Synopse should
QRWEHFRPHHQVKULQHGDVVRPHNLQGRI¿[HGµFULWLFDO¶HGLWLRQRI+HLNKDORW
OLWHUDWXUH 6FKRODUV ZLVKLQJ WR GHWHUPLQH WKH KLVWRULFDO VWDWXV RI VSHFL¿F
WH[WXDOUHDGLQJVRUFRQ¿JXUDWLRQVZLOOQHHGWRPDNHRQJRLQJUHIHUHQFHWR
WKH RWKHU²RIWHQ OHVV H[WHQVLYH²PDQXVFULSWV PDQ\ RI ZKLFK KDYH WKHLU
RZQYHU\LPSRUWDQWVWRULHVWRWHOODERXWWKHKLVWRU\RIVSHFL¿F+HLNKDORW
compositions or genres and their relationship one to the other.
2I FRXUVH LPSRUWDQW KLVWRULFDO DQG SKHQRPHQRORJLFDO TXHVWLRQV FRQcerning the place of Heikhalot literature within the broader landscape of
DQFLHQW DQG PHGLHYDO UHOLJLRVLW\ ERWK -HZLVK DQG QRQ-HZLVK UHPDLQ
+DSSLO\ KRZHYHU WKH VDPH SHULRG WKDW VDZ WKHVH VLJQL¿FDQW DGYDQFHV
LQRXUDFFHVVWRDQGXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKHVRXUFHVIRUHDUO\-HZLVKP\VWLFLVP KDV DOVR VHHQ WKH SURIRXQG UHYLVLRQ²DQG LQ VRPH FDVHV WKH WRWDO
152
GLVPDQWOLQJ²RIDZKROHUDQJHRISUREOHPDWLFFDWHJRULHVORQJXVHGE\VWXdents of ancient religions. The utility of viewing ‘Gnosticism’, ‘heresy’,
µP\VWLFLVP¶µPDJLF¶DQGHYHQµ-XGDLVP¶DQGµ&KULVWLDQLW\¶DVHVVHQWLDOO\
static entities has been fundamentally undermined (see, e.g., Smith 1995;
Williams 1996; Boyarin 1999, 2004; Becker and Reed [ed.] 2003). The
more variegated and dynamic picture of Hekhalot literature that is emerging is perfectly at home within this new historiographic tradition. The work
of comparing and contrasting Heikhalot literature with other ancient and
medieval religious discourses and practices will no doubt now yield ever
more interesting and surprising results, provided that it is pursued with a
modicum of care and caution.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abrams, D.
1998
Abusch, R.
2003
µ&ULWLFDO DQG 3RVW&ULWLFDO 7H[WXDO 6FKRODUVKLS RI -HZLVK 0\VWLFDO /LWHUDWXUH
1RWHVRQWKH+LVWRU\DQG'HYHORSPHQWRI0RGHUQ(GLWLQJ7HFKQLTXHV¶Kabbalah
1: 17-71.
‘Ma>aseh Merkabah as a Literary Work: The Reception of Hekhalot Traditions
by the German Pietists and Kabbalistic Reinterpretation’, JSQ 5: 329-45.
‘Seven-fold Hymns in the 6RQJV RI WKH 6DEEDWK 6DFUL¿FH and the Hekhalot
Literature: Formalism, Hierarchy, and the Limits of Human Participation’, in
-5'DYLODHG The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Post-Biblical Judaism
and Early Christianity67'-/HLGHQ(-%ULOO
Alexander, P.S.
1977
‘The Historical Setting of the Hebrew Book of Enoch’, JJS 28: 156–80.
µ&RPSDULQJ0HUNDYDK0\VWLFLVPDQG*QRVWLFLVP$Q(VVD\LQ0HWKRG¶JJS
35: 1-18.
1987a
‘3 Enoch and the Talmud’, JSJ 18: 40-68.
1987b
‘Prayer in the Heikhalot Literature’, in R. Goetschel (ed.), Prière, Mystique
et Judaïsme: Colloque de Strasbourg, 10–12 septembre 1984 (Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France): 43-64.
Alexander, P.S., and A. Samely
1993
‘Introduction: Artifact and Text’, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library
of Manchester 75: 5-17.
Altmann, A.
1946
‘Qedushah Hymns in the Early Heikhalot Literature’ (Hebrew), Melilah 2:
1-24.
Anidjar, G.
µ-HZLVK0\VWLFLVP$OWHUDEOHDQG8QDOWHUDEOH2Q2ULHQWLQJ.DEEDODK6WXGLHV
and the “Zohar of Christian Spain” ’, JSS NS 3: 89-157.
%DU,ODQ0
1987
The Mysteries of Jewish Prayer and Heikhalot (Hebrew) (Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan
University Press).
153
%DXPJDUWHQ-0
µ7KH 4XPUDQ 6DEEDWK 6KLURW DQG 5DEELQLF 0HUNDEDK 7UDGLWLRQV¶ RevQ 13:
199-213.
Becker, A.H., and A.Y. Reed (eds.)
2003
The Ways That Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the
Middle Ages76$-7ELQJHQ0RKU6LHEHFN
%HLW$ULp0
1993
‘Transmission of Texts by Scribes and Copyists: Unconscious and Critical Interferences’, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 75:
33-51.
µ3XEOLFDWLRQDQG5HSURGXFWLRQRI/LWHUDU\7H[WVLQ0HGLHYDO-HZLVK&LYLOL]DWLRQ -HZLVK 6FULEDOLW\ DQG LWV ,PSDFW RQ WKH7H[WV7UDQVPLWWHG¶ LQ< (OPDQ
and I. Gershoni (eds.), Transmitting Jewish Traditions: Orality, Textuality, and
Cultural Diffusion (New Haven: Yale University Press): 225-47.
Biale, D.
1982
Gershom Scholem: Kabbalah and Counter-History&DPEULGJH0$+DUYDUG
University Press).
Bloch, P.
µ'LH<RUGHL 0HUNDYDK GLH 0\VWLNHU GHU *DRQHQ]HLW XQG LKU (LQÀXVV DXI GLH
Liturgie’, MGWJ 37: 18-25, 69-74, 257-66, 305-11.
Boustan, R.S.
µ5DEEL,VKPDHO¶V0LUDFXORXV&RQFHSWLRQ-HZLVK5HGHPSWLRQ+LVWRU\LQ$QWL
Christian Polemic’, in Becker and Reed (eds.) 2003: 307-43.
2004
‘Angels in the Architecture: Temple Art and the Poetics of Praise in the Songs of
WKH6DEEDWK6DFUL¿FH’, in Boustan and Reed (eds.) 2004: 195-12.
2005
From Martyr to Mystic: Rabbinic Martyrology and the Making of Merkavah
Mysticism76$-7ELQJHQ0RKU6LHEHFN
2006
‘The Emergence of Pseudonymous Attribution in Heikhalot Literature: Empirical
(YLGHQFHIURPWKH-HZLVK³0DJLFDO´&RUSRUD¶JSQ 13: 1-21.
Boustan, R.S., and A.Y. Reed (eds.)
2004
Heavenly Realms and Earthly Realities in Late Antique Religions (New York:
Cambridge University Press).
Boyarin, D.
1999
Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism
(Stanford: Stanford University Press).
2004
Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press).
Chartier, R.
1994
The Order of Books (trans. L.G. Cochrane; Cambridge: Polity Press).
&RKHQ06
1983
The Shi>ur Qomah: Liturgy and Theurgy in Pre-Kabbalistic Jewish Mysticism
(Lanham: University Press of America).
1985
The Shi>ur Qomah: Texts and Recensions76$-7ELQJHQ0RKU6LHEHFN
'DQ-
1987
‘Hidden Heikhalot’ (Hebrew), Tarbiz 36: 433-37.
1998
Jewish Mysticism. I: Late Antiquity1RUWKYDOH1--DVRQ$URQVRQ
'DYLOD-5
1994
‘Prolegomena to a Critical Edition of the Hekhalot Rabbati’, JJS 45: 208-26.
154
2001
µ7KH'HDG6HD6FUROOVDQG0HUNDYDK0\VWLFLVP¶LQ7+/LPHGThe Dead
Sea Scrolls in their Historical Context (Edinburgh: T&T Clark): 246-64.
Descenders to the Chariot: The People behind the Hekhalot Literature-6-6XS
/HLGHQ(-%ULOO
µ0HOFKL]HGHN WKH ³<RXWK´ DQG -HVXV¶ LQ - 5 'DYLOD HG The Dead Sea
Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity67'-
/HLGHQ(-%ULOO
GH&HUWHDX0
1984
The Practice of Everyday Life (trans. S.F. Rendall; Berkeley: University of California Press).
GH*UD]LD0DQG36WDOO\EUDVV
µ7KH0DWHULDOLW\RIWKH6KDNHVSHDUHDQ7H[W¶Shakespeare Quarterly 44: 25583.
DeConick, A.D.
1996
Seek to See Him: Ascent and Vision Mysticism in the Gospel of Thomas (VCSup,
/HLGHQ(-%ULOO
Deutsch, N.
1995
The Gnostic Imagination: Gnosticism, Mandaeism, and Merkabah Mysticism
/HLGHQ(-%ULOO
1999
Guardians of the Gate: Angelic Vice Regency in Late Antiquity /HLGHQ (-
Brill).
Elior, R.
1995
‘From Earthly Temple to Heavenly Shrines: Prayer and Sacred Liturgy in the
Hekhalot Literature and its Relations to Temple Traditions’ (Hebrew), Tarbiz 64:
421-80.
1997
‘From Earthly Temple to Heavenly Shrines’, JSQ 4: 217-67.
µ7KH 0HUNDYDK 7UDGLWLRQ DQG WKH (PHUJHQFH RI -HZLVK 0\VWLFLVP¶ LQ
A.Oppenheimer (ed.), Sino-Judaica: Jews and Christians in Historical
Dialogue (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University): 101-58.
2004a
‘Hekhalot and Merkavah Literature: Its Relation to the Temple, the Heavenly
Temple, and the “Diminished Temple” ’ (Hebrew), in L.I. Levine (ed.), Continuity and Renewal: Jews and Judaism in Byzantine-Christian Palestine-HUXsalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press): 107-42.
2004b
The Three Temples: On the Emergence of Jewish Mysticism (trans. D. Louvish;
2[IRUG/LWWPDQ/LEUDU\RI-HZLVK&LYLOL]DWLRQ
)RVVXP-(
1995
7KH,PDJHRIWKH,QYLVLEOH*RG(VVD\VRQWKH,QÀXHQFHRI-HZLVK0\VWLFLVPRQ
Early Christology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Goldberg, A.
1997a
‘Einige Bemerkungen zu den Quellen und der Redaktionellen Einheiten der
JURVVHQ+HNKDORW¶LQ06FKOWHUDQG36FKlIHUHGVMystik und Theologie
des rabbinischen Judentums: Gesammelte Studien I76$-7ELQJHQ0RKU
Siebeck): 49-77. First published in Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 1 (1973):
1-49.
E
µ'DV 6FKULIW]LWDW LQ GHU +HNKDORW/LWHUDWXU¶ LQ 0 6FKOWHU DQG 3 6FKlIHU
(eds.), Mystik und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums: Gesammelte Studien
I76$-7ELQJHQ0RKU6LHEHFN)LUVWSXEOLVKHGLQFrankfurter
Judaistische Beiträge 13 (1985): 43-60.
155
*UDIWRQ$DQG0:LOOLDPV
2006
Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the
Library of Caesarea&DPEULGJH0$+DUYDUG8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
Grätz, H.
1859
‘Die mystische Literatur in der gaonaeischen Epoche’, MGWJ 8: 67–78, 103–18,
140–53.
Gruenwald, I.
1980a
‘Angelic Hymns, the Qedushah, and the Problem of the Composition of the
+HNKDORW/LWHUDWXUH¶+HEUHZLQ$2SSHQKHLPHU85DSSDSRUWDQG06WHUQ
(eds.), Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period: Abraham Shalit Memorial
Volume-HUXVDOHP<DG,]KDN%HQ=YL
1980b
Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism$*-8/HLGHQ(-%ULOO
± µ7KH3ODFHRI3ULHVWO\7UDGLWLRQVLQWKH:ULWLQJVRI0HUNDYDK0\VWLFLVPDQGWKH
Shi>ur Qomah’ (Hebrew), JSJT 1: 65-120.
1988
From Apocalypticism to Gnosticism (Frankfurt: Peter Lang).
Gruenwald, I. (ed.)
1968–69
‘New Passages from Hekhalot Literature’, Tarbiz 38: 354-72.
1969–70
‘New Passages from Hekhalot Literature’, Tarbiz 39: 216-17.
1972
‘Visions of Ezekiel’ (Hebrew), Temirin 1: 101-39.
+DEHUPDQQ$0HG
1975
padashim gam yeshanim-HUXVDOHP50DV
+DOEHUWDO0
2001
Concealment and Revelation: The Secret and its Boundaries in Medieval Jewish
Tradition+HEUHZ-HUXVDOHP+RWVD<at Ornah Hess).
+DOSHULQ'-
1980
The Merkavah in Rabbinic Literature (New Haven: American Oriental Society).
µ+HDYHQO\$VFHQVLRQLQ$QFLHQW-XGDLVP7KH1DWXUHRIWKH([SHULHQFH¶SBLSP
26: 218-32.
D
µ$VFHQVLRQ RU ,QYDVLRQ ,PSOLFDWLRQV RI WKH +HDYHQO\ -RXUQH\ LQ $QFLHQW
-XGDLVP¶Religion 18: 47-67.
1988b
The Faces of the Chariot: Early Jewish Reponses to Ezekiel’s Vision76$-
7ELQJHQ0RKU6LHEHFN
Hamacher, E.
µ'LH6DEEDWRSIHUOLHGHULP6WUHLWXP8UVSUXQJXQG$QIlQJHGHUMGLVFKHQ0\VWLN¶
JSJ 27: 119-54.
Harari, Y. (ed.)
1997
The Sword of Moses: A New Edition and Study-HUXVDOHP$TDGHPRQ
Herrmann, K.
µ7H[WXQG)LNWLRQ=XU7H[WEHUOLHIHUXQJGHVShi>ur Qoma’, FJB 16: 89-142.
µ5H:ULWWHQ0\VWLFDO7H[WV7KH7UDQVPLVVLRQRIWKH+HLNKDORW/LWHUDWXUHLQWKH
0LGGOH$JHV¶Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester
75: 97-116.
µ+DQGVFKULIW-18/0 5226 in ihren Verhältnis zum Schrifttum des El>asar von
Worms’, FJB 21: 109-30.
µ7KH5HFHSWLRQRI+HNKDORW/LWHUDWXUHLQ<RKDQDQ$OHPDQQR¶V$XWRJUDSK06
Paris 859’, in - 'DQ DQG . +HUUPDQQ HGV Studies in Jewish Manuscripts
760(0-7ELQJHQ0RKU6LHEHFN
µ-HZLVK0\VWLFLVPLQWKH*HRQLF3HULRG7KH3UD\HURI5DY+DPQXQD6DYD¶
in .+HUUPDQQ06FKOWHUDQG*9HOWULHGV Jewish Studies between the
156
Disciplines: Papers in Honor of Peter Schäfer on the Occasion of his 60th
Birthday/HLGHQ(-%ULOO
Herrmann, K. (ed.)
1994
Massekhet Hekhalot: Traktat von den himmlischen Palästen76$-7ELQJHQ
0RKU6LHEHFN
Herrmann, K., and C. Rohrbacher-Sticker
µ0DJLVFKH 7UDGLWLRQHQ GHU 1HZ <RUNHU +HNKDORW+DQGVFKULIW -76 LP
Kontext ihrer Gesamtredaktion’, FJB 17: 101-49.
µ0DJLVFKH7UDGLWLRQHQGHU2[IRUGHU+HNKDORW+DQGVFKULIW0LFKDHOLQLKUHP
9HUKlOWQLV]X061HZ<RUN-76¶FJB 19: 169-83.
Hezser, C.
1993
)RUP)XQFWLRQDQG+LVWRULFDO6LJQL¿FDQFHRIWKH5DEELQLF6WRU\LQ<HUXVKDOPL
Neziqin76$-7ELQJHQ0RKU6LHEHFN
+LPPHOIDUE0
1988
‘Heavenly Ascent and the Relationship of the Apocalypses and the Hekhalot
Literature’, HUCA 59: 73-100.
1993
Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (New York: Oxford University Press).
µ7KH3UDFWLFHRI$VFHQWLQWKH$QFLHQW0HGLWHUUDQHDQ:RUOG¶LQ--&ROOLQVDQG
0$)LVKEDQHHGV Death, Ecstasy and Other Worldly Journeys (Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press): 123-37.
,GHO0
1988
Kabbalah: New Perspectives (New Haven: Yale University Press).
1998
Messianic Mystics (New Haven: Yale University Press).
Irshai, O.
µ7KH3ULHVWKRRGLQ-HZLVK6RFLHW\LQ/DWH$QWLTXLW\¶+HEUHZLQ/HYLQHHG
2004b: 67-106.
-DQRZLW]1
1989
The Poetics of Ascent: Theories of Language in a Rabbinic Ascent Text (Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press).
Kuyt, A.
1990
‘Once Again: Yarad in Hekhalot Literature’, FJB 18: 45-69.
µ7UDFHVRID0XWXDO,QÀXHQFHRIWKH+DVLGH$VKNHQD]DQGWKH+HNKDORW/LWHUDture’, in N.A. van Uchelen and I.E. Zwiep (eds.), From Narbonne to Regensburg:
Studies in Medieval Hebrew Texts (Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers):
62-86.
1995
The ‘Descent’ to the Chariot: Towards a Description of the Terminology, Place,
Function, and Nature of the Yeridah in Hekhalot Literature76$-7ELQJHQ
0RKU6LHEHFN
µ7KH+DVLGH$VKNHQD]DQGWKHLU0\VWLFDO6RXUFHV&RQWLQXLW\DQG,QQRYDWLRQ¶
in U. Haxen, H. Trautner-Kromann and K.L. Goldschmidt Salamon (eds.),
Jewish Studies in a New Europe, Proceedings of the Fifth European Association for Jewish Studies Congress (Copenhagen: C.A. Reitzel A/S International
Publishers): 462-71.
Leicht, R.
µ6RPH2EVHUYDWLRQVRQWKH'LIIXVLRQRI-HZLVK0DJLFDO7H[WVIURP/DWH$QWLTXLW\ DQG WKH (DUO\ 0LGGOH$JHV LQ 0DQXVFULSWV IURP WKH &DLUR *HQL]DK DQG
Ashkenaz’, in S. Shaked (ed.), 2I¿FLQD0DJLFD(VVD\VRQWKH3UDFWLFHRI0DJLF
in Antiquity ,-66-/HLGHQ(-%ULOO
/HVVHV50
1998
Lévi, I. (ed.)
1914
Levine, L.I.
D
157
µ6SHDNLQJ ZLWK$QJHOV -HZLVK DQG *UHFR(J\SWLDQ 5HYHODWRU\$GMXUDWLRQV¶
HTR 89: 41-60.
Ritual Practices to Gain Power: Angels, Incantations, and Revelation in Early
Jewish Mysticism (HTS, 44; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press).
‘L’apocalypse de Zorobabel et le roi de Perse Siroès’, REJ 68: 129-60.
µ%HWZHHQ5RPHDQG%\]DQWLXPLQ-HZLVK+LVWRU\'RFXPHQWDWLRQ5HDOLW\DQG
the Issue of Periodization’ (Hebrew), in Levine (ed.) 2004b: 7-48.
Levine, L.I. (ed.)
2004b
Continuity and Renewal: Jews and Judaism in Byzantine-Christian Palestine
-HUXVDOHP<DG%HQ=YL3UHVV
0DLHU-
µ'DV*HIlKUGXQJVPRWLYEHLGHU+LPPHOUHLVHLQGHUMGLVFKHQ$SRNDO\SWLFXQG
“Gnosis” ’, Kairos 5: 8-40.
1964
Vom Kultus zur Gnosis6DO]EXUJ20OOHU
µ6HULHQELOGXQJXQG³QXPLQRVHU´(LQGUXFNVHIIHNWLQGHQSRHWLVFKHQ6WFNHQGHU
Hekhalot-Literatur’, Semitics 3: 36-66.
0DUJDOLRWK0HG
1966
Sepher ha-Razim: A Newly Recovered Book of Magic from the Talmudic Period
+HEUHZ-HUXVDOHP<HGLRW$FKURQRW
0F.HQ]LH')
1986
Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts (London: British Library).
0RUUD\-RQHV&5$
1991
‘Hekhalot Literature and Talmudic Tradition: Alexander’s Three Text Cases’,
JSJ 22: 1-39.
µ7UDQVIRUPDWLRQDO0\VWLFLVPLQWKH$SRFDO\SWLF0HUNDEDK7UDGLWLRQ¶JJS 43:
1-31.
D
µ3DUDGLVH5HYLVLWHG&RU7KH-HZLVK0\VWLFDO%DFNJURXQGRI3DXO¶V
$SRVWRODWH3DUW,7KH-HZLVK6RXUFHV¶HTR 86: 177-217.
E
µ3DUDGLVH 5HYLVLWHG &RU 7KH -HZLVK 0\VWLFDO %DFNJURXQG RI
3DXO¶V$SRVWRODWH3DUW3DXO¶V+HDYHQO\$VFHQWDQG,WV6LJQL¿FDQFH¶HTR
86: 265-92.
2002
A Transparent Illusion: The Dangerous Vision of Water in Hekhalot Mysticism
-6-6XS/HLGHQ(-%ULOO
0XQRD3%,,,
µ-HVXVWKH0HUNDYDKDQG0DUW\UGRPLQ(DUO\&KULVWLDQ7UDGLWLRQ¶JBL 121:
303-25.
1DYHK-DQG66KDNHG
1993
Magic Spells and Formulae: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity -HUXVDOHP
0DJQHV3UHVV
Nitzan, B.
µ+DUPRQLFDQG0\VWLFDO&KDUDFWHULVWLFVLQ3RHWLFDQG/LWXUJLFDO:ULWLQJVIURP
Qumran’, JQR 85: 163-83.
Reed, A.Y.
2001
‘From Asael and Šemihazah to Uzzah, Azzah, and Azael: 3 Enoch 5 (§§7-8) and
-HZLVK5HFHSWLRQ+LVWRU\RI(QRFK¶JSQ 8: 105-36.
158
Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of
Enochic Literature (New York: Cambridge University Press).
2005
Reeg, G. (ed.)
1985
Reif, S.C.
2000
Schäfer, P.
1988a
1988b
F
1988d
1988e
I
1988g
K
1992
1993
2004
Die Geschichte von den Zehn Märtyrern76$-7ELQJHQ0RKU6LHEHFN
A Jewish Archive from Old Cairo: The History of Cambridge University’s
Genizah Collection (Richmond, Surrey: Curzon).
Hekhalot-Studien76$-7ELQJHQ0RKU6LHEHFN
‘Die Beschwörung des ĞDU KDSDQLP: Edition und Übersetzung’, in Schäfer
1988a: 118-53. First published in FJB 6 (1978): 107-45.
µ(QJHOXQG0HQVFKHQLQGHU+HNKDORW/LWHUDWXU¶LQ6FKlIHUD
First published in Kairos 22 (1980): 201-25.
‘Tradition and Redaction in Hekhalot Literature’, in Schäfer 1988a: 8-16. First
published in JSJ 14 (1983): 172-81.
‘Handschriften zur Hekhalot-Literatur’, in Schäfer 1988a: 154-233. First published in FJB 11 (1983): 113-93.
µ7KH1HZ7HVWDPHQWDQG+HNKDORW/LWHUDWXUH7KH-RXUQH\LQWR+HDYHQLQ3DXO
DQGLQ0HUNDYDK0\VWLFLVP¶LQ6FKlIHUD)LUVWSXEOLVKHGLQJJS
35 (1984): 19-35.
‘Zum Problem der redaktionellen Identität von Hekhalot Rabbati’, in Schäfer
1988a: 63-74. First published in FJB 13 (1985): 1-22.
µ7KH$LPDQG3XUSRVHRI(DUO\-HZLVK0\VWLFLVP¶LQ6FKlIHUD
µ7KH,GHDORI3LHW\LQWKH$VKNHQD]L+DVLGLPDQGLWV5RRWVLQ-HZLVK7UDGLWLRQ¶
Jewish History 4: 9-23.
The Hidden and Manifest God: Some Major Themes in Early Jewish Mysticism
(trans. A. Pomerance; Albany, NY: State University of New York Press).
‘Research on Hekhalot Literature: Where Do We Stand Now?’, in G. Sed-Rajna
(ed.), Rashi, 1040–1990: Hommage à Ephraïm E. Urbach (Paris: Editions du
Cerf): 229-35.
µ0HUNDYDK0\VWLFLVPDQG0DJLF¶LQ36FKlIHUDQG-'DQHGV Gershom
Scholem’s Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism 50 Years After7ELQJHQ0RKU
Siebeck): 59-78.
‘In Heaven as it is in Hell: The Cosmology of Seder Rabbah di-Bereshit’, in
Boustan and Reed (eds.) 2004: 233-74.
Schäfer, P. (ed.)
1981
Synopse zur Hekhalot-LiteraturLQFROODERUDWLRQZLWK06FKOWHUDQG+*YRQ
0XWLXV76$-7ELQJHQ0RKU6LHEHFN
1984
Geniza-Fragmente zur Hekhalot-Literatur76$-7ELQJHQ0RKU6LHEHFN
1986–88
Konkordanz zur Hekhalot-Literatur, in collaboration with G. Reeg (2 vols.;
76$-7ELQJHQ0RKU6LHEHFN
Schäfer, P., et al. (trans.)
1987–95
Übersetzung der Hekhalot-LiteratureYROV76$-7ELQJHQ
0RKU6LHEHFN
Schiffman, L.H.
1976
‘The Recall of Rabbi Nehuniah Ben Ha-Qanah from Ecstasy in Hekhalot
Rabbati’, AJSR 1: 269-81.
1982
‘Merkavah Speculation at Qumran: The 4QSerekh Shirot >Olat ha-Shabbat’,
LQ-5HLQKDU]'6ZHWVFKLQVNLDQG.3%ODQGHGVMystics, Philosophers,
159
and Politicians: Essays in Jewish Intellectual History in Honor of Alexander
Altmann (Durham, NC: Duke University Press): 15-47.
1987
‘The Heikhalot Literature and the Writings from Qumran’, JSJT 6: 121-38.
Schimanowski, G.
2004
‘“Connecting Heaven and Earth”: The Function of the Hymns in Revelation
4–5’, in Boustan and Reed (eds.) 2004: 67-84.
Scholem, G.G.
1954
Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken Books, 3rd edn [1st
edn 1941]).
1965
Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition (New York:
-HZLVK7KHRORJLFDO6HPLQDU\RI$PHULFDQGHGQ>VWHGQ@
Scholem, G.G. (ed.)
1980–81
‘Havdalah de-Rabbi Akiva$6RXUFHIRUWKH7UDGLWLRQRI-HZLVK0DJLFGXULQJ
the Geonic Period’ (Hebrew), Tarbiz 50: 243-81.
Segal, A.F.
Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosti1977
cism6-/$/HLGHQ(-%ULOO
1990
Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New
Haven: Yale University Press).
6PLWK-=
µ7UDGLQJ3ODFHV¶LQ00H\HUDQG30LUHFNLHGV Ancient Magic and Ritual
Power5*5:/HLGHQ(-%ULOO
Stern, D.
µ$QWKRORJ\DQG3RO\VHP\LQ&ODVVLFDO0LGUDVK¶LQ'6WHUQHG The Anthology
in Jewish Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 108-39.
6ZDUW]0'
1986–87
‘>Alay le-shabbea: A Liturgical Prayer in Ma>DĞHK 0HUNDYDK’, JQR NS 77:
179-90.
µ3DWWHUQVRI0\VWLFDO3UD\HULQ$QFLHQW-XGDLVP¶LQ390)OHVFKHUHGNew
Perspectives on Ancient Judaism 6 /DQKDP0'8QLYHUVLW\3UHVVRI$PHULFD
173-86.
µ6FULEDO0DJLFDQGLWV5KHWRULF¶HTR 83: 163-80.
1992
Mystical Prayer in Ancient Judaism: An Analysis of0DµDVHK0HUNDYDK76$-
7ELQJHQ0RKU6LHEHFN
1994a
‘Books and Tradition in Hekhalot Literature’, JJTP 3: 189-229.
E
µ/LNHWKH0LQLVWHULQJ$QJHOV5LWXDODQG3XULW\LQ(DUO\-HZLVK0\VWLFLVPDQG
0DJLF¶AJSR 19: 135-67.
µ0DJLFDO3LHW\LQ$QFLHQWDQG0HGLHYDO-XGDLVP¶LQ00H\HUDQG30LUHFNL
(eds.), Ancient Magic and Ritual Power 5*5: /HLGHQ (- %ULOO
167-83.
1996
Scholastic Magic: Ritual and Revelation in Early Jewish Mysticism (Princeton,
1-3ULQFHWRQ8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
µ7KH'HDG6HD6FUROOVDQG/DWHU-HZLVK0DJLFDQG0\VWLFLVP¶DSD 8: 182-93.
7D6KPD,0
1985
‘The Library of the Ashkenazi Sages in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries’
(Hebrew), Qiryat Sefer 60: 298-309.
Urbach, E.E.
µ7KH7UDGLWLRQVDERXW0HUNDEDK0\VWLFLVPLQWKH7DQQDLWLF3HULRG¶+HEUHZLQ
((8UEDFK-=:HUEORZVN\DQG&K:LUV]XEVNLHGV Studies in Mysticism
160
and Religion Presented to Gershom G. Scholem -HUXVDOHP 0DJQHV 3UHVV
1-28.
:LOOLDPV0$
1996
Rethinking ‘Gnosticism’: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category
3ULQFHWRQ1-3ULQFHWRQ8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
Wolfson, E.R.
1993
‘Yeridah la-Merkavah: Typology of Ecstasy and Enthronement in Ancient
-HZLVK0\VWLFLVP¶LQ5$+HUUHUDHG Mystics of the Book: Themes, Topics,
and Typologies (New York: Peter Lang): 13-44.
1994a
Through a Speculum That Shines: Vision and Imagination in Medieval Jewish
Mysticism3ULQFHWRQ1-3ULQFHWRQ8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
E
µ0\VWLFLVPDQGWKH3RHWLF/LWXUJLFDO&RPSRVLWLRQVIURP4XPUDQ$5HVSRQVH
to Bilhah Nitzan’, JQR 85: 185-202.

Ra„anan Boustan‟s sessions for “Jews on the Move” I. Personal

Transcription

Similar documents

Lotus Speculos

AF8000E AF10000E manual

Exam link

babies wild - Marina Cano

my portfolio in PDF - Wouter van Faassen | Urbanism

Now It`s Bipartisan: Jeanine Pirro and Chris Owens

Chrismon Booklet - Gatlinburg Presbyterian Church

Vinyl Windows and Doors

Find your new HOME - New York Post Login

Druppel 16-3 - Dispuut Watermanagement