a oP CHAPTER 6 Before Alef/ Where Beginnings End Elliot R. Wolfson the middte of nothing is everything, the middle of everything nothing but the beginning that ends the ending that begins the ending sha begins all suffering in suffering the suffering of suffering returning to the place it has never been Berore ‘alef comes beit—in a nutshell, the wisdom of kabbalah. The parabolic ‘uccerance finds expression in what is presumably an older mythologoumenon preserved in Sefer ha-Bahir, long thought co be one of che earliest sources that Contains, albeit in rudimentary fashion, the panoply of theosophic symbols ex- pounded by kabbalists chrough the generations. First, I will provide a translation of the passage that has served as the basis for my reRections and, then, | will analyze its contene philosophically, linking the salient images employed therein to other statements in the bahiric anthol- ogy. The intent is to elucidate the hermeneutical dilemma of the beginning: How does the beginning begin without having already begun? However, if the beginning cannot begin withoue having already begun, in what sense isit a be- ginning? The mythic saying of the Bahin. which may well ell us something, otiginary about kabbalistic epistemology, relates in the first instance to this on tological problem.436° secinnina/acain °R. Rehumai said and expounded: Why is ‘alefac the head? For it? preceded everything, even Torah ‘And why is deit next to 12 Because i was first? ‘And why does it have a ail? To show the place whence it was, and there are some who say chat from there the world is sustained, ‘Why is gimmel third? For ic is thied and co indicate that ic bestows kindness (gomelet hese." Bur did R. Aqiva not say, “Why is gimme chied? Because it bestows (gomelet), grows (megaddelet), and sustains (meqayyemet) as ic says “The child grew up and was weaned’ (nie-yigddal ha-yeled wayiggamab (Gen. 218) He said to him, “This is [the intenc of] my very words, for [the gimme} ‘grew and bestowed kindness (gamal hese), its dwelling was with him, and it was a ‘confidant with him (Prov. 8:30)” Why is there a al atthe bottom of gimmee He said to them, “The gimmel has a head on top and it resembles a pipe. Just as the pipe draws from what is above and discharges to what is below, so gimme! draws by way of the head and discharges by way of the aa, and that is gimmed”® Preserved in this text is what I presume to be an ancient mytholo- goumenon according to which the array of divine powers can be represented by ithe first three letters of the Hebrew alphabet. ‘Alefis the foundation, “at thehead,” ha-roi,” but not the beginning, cebillah, for the beginning is bei, which is second. And what of gimme? It is third, exemplifying a threefold character, bestowing, growing, and sustaining. At last, we come to aletcer that coffees with its numerical value, for ‘lefis first but not the beginning, and befbthe beginning that is second." Does the first not begin? how is the begin- stig nor firs? “ Rddtessing the history of Western thought in an essay published in 1954, Heidegger contrasted “beginning” (Beginn) and “origin” (Anfang ‘The beginning is rather, che veil chat conceals the origin—indeed an un- avoidable veil. IFthac is the situation, then oblivion shows itself in a differ- ent light. The origin keeps itself concealed in the beginning.” Ie lis beyond the scope of this study to conduct a systematic investiga- tion 6f the terms Beginn and Anfing (co which one would also have to add ‘Uriprung in Heidegger's thought.” Suffice it for our purposes to focus on the difference between beginning, on one hand, and origin and inception, on the werone alee 337 other. Before continuing with this analysis let me acknowledge that [am ex- tracting Heidegger's terminology from its original context, which concerned the history of Western philosophy. This is a legitimate move, however, since Heidegger himself plainly and repeatedly affirmed a parallelism beowcen the history of being and the history of thought.!! How, then, can we formulate the difference between beginning and ori- ‘gin? Beginning is the advene of something that begins at a discrete juncture in the past and that will be brought to a conclusion ac some time in the fu- ture, A pattern of causal sequentialty is presumed and grafted unto the ag- sgregate of experiences believed co take shape within the plane of horizontal temporality: What occurs at che onset, however, becomes increasingly less sig- nificant in the unraveling of the event «0 be appropriated as temporally sig- nificant. As Heidegger puts it in another context, “being a beginning (Begin) involves being left behind in the course of the process. The beginning is there just to be abandoned and passed over. The beginning is always surpassed and lefe behind in the haste of going further.""2 Origin, by contrast, is not an occurrence that commences and terminates at a specific ime and place; itis the ground “from which something arises or springs forth.”'* Ic is the poinc of departure “from and by which something is what itis and as ie is. What something is, as itis, we call is essence or nature. The origin (Unyprung) of something is the source of its nature.” Essence and nature must not be understood in a static sense (logocentrically, one might say). On the contrary, the origin comes to be in the course of the event and ic is chus fully clear only at the end. Reflecting on the Greek word arche, in ‘which one should hear the resonance of origin ( Ursprung) and incipience (Ar- fang), Heidegger notes that it is “that from which something emerges, but that from which something emerges retains, in what emerges and its emerg- ing, che determination of motion and the determination of that toward which emergence is such.”!S The origin, therefore, “is a way-making (Babmung) for the mode and compass of emergence. Way-making goes before and yet, as the incipient (Aufingliche), remains behind by itself... . In this we per from whence there is emergence is the same as that back toward which eva: * On the way there are perspectives, but solely in the end is the indeterminacy determined, and only then can we speak of destiny, of having, been sent-forth in historical esoluteness to chart the circular extension of pri- mordial temporality, that is, time in its originary sense as the expectation of what is recollected in the recollection of what is expected.” Beginning and origin, therefore, have diametrically opposite trajectories: beginning is whae stands behind us; origin what stands before us. The origin invades the future by awaiting us in the past, advancing beyond all that is co498) oecinning/acan come by-recurning to where it has been.!*To see what lies ahead one must be ‘mindful of what is ac the head, Beginning is a veil thae shrouds what has come beforevand thus origin keeps itself concealed in the beginning, Suprisingly, in the words of Heidegger, I have found a key to unlock the bahiric symbolism. The beginning, we ean say, is bet, ‘alefthe origin. Beit, ac- cordingly, isa veil thac conceals ‘lef but can what is hidden be veiled?!” How does the (un}veiling of the veiled take place? Through the agency of the third, -gimmel, the conduit that draws fiom ‘slef and disseminates to beit2? For the moment, we must concentrate on origin and beginning, and thus return co ‘alefand bei, laying gimmel aside. If we are to maintain the distinction berwcen “origin” and “beginning,” the origin cannot begin nor can the beginning originace. To render this in the bahiric idiom, what is “ae the head,” ba-rovh, is noc the “beginning,” tehilah, ‘even though there is no way to the head buc through the beginning. To know ‘alefwe start with beit, for before ‘alef there is nothing but beit. That is why “Torah begins with beit and not ‘lef: the beginning that is before the origin that precedes it?! The beginning is second and thus points co that which comes before, Thus, we are told, the function of the seribal tail on the back- side-of the bei is “to show the place whence it was, and there are some that say that from there the world is sustained.” The beit—a trace of what was before it was after2\—reverts back to ‘lef the source that sustains the world thigough bestowing, a quality that is attributed co gimmel on accounc of its et- ymological link to gomel The secret open of ‘alefis manifest in the open se- ‘tet of gimmel? "To begin, then, we stare with bei, the beginning that is second. Ironically, thefirse discourse about eit thac appears in the redacted form of Bahirbegins somewhere in the middle of a conversation that has already begun, we know stot when: ‘And why does ie begin (madhid with bei? Just as [dhe word] Berakhah begins How do we know the Torah is called berakal? As it says, “And the sea” is fall ofthe Lord’ blessing” (w-male’birkar yhwh yam) (Deut. 33:23), and the [word] yams nothing other chan Torah, as it says “and broader than the sa” (w-rehaiah minni-yam) (Job 119). What i [the meaning of] “ll ofthe Lords blessing” (mule birkarybwh)? In every place, beitis blessing (berakhat),2 as itis said “In the begin~ ning” (Zerebit) and che [word] “beginning” (redhit) is nothing other ‘than wisdom (jobhmaf), and wisdom is nothing other than blessing, 35 Rerone ALEF 139) iis said "And God blessed Solomon,” “And the Lord gave wisdom to Solomon” (1 Kings 5:26). “To what may this be compared? To a king who married his daughter to his son, and he gave her to him asa gift, and said to him, “Do with her as ‘you please!” What cam we heed (mai mashna)? Thac berathah s from the word berekh, {as it says, “to me every knee shall bend” (ki Ui rkbna’kol Berek) (sa 45:23), che place to which every knee bows down, “To what may these be compared? To ones who seek to see the face of the king bue they do not know the whereabouts ofthe king. They ask about the house of the king initially (shoitimbeito shel melckb tbilla), and af- terward they ask abour the king. Therefore, “to me every knee shall bend,” even the supernal ones, “every tongue shall pledge loyalty” (ibid) “Torah begins with bei, for the word for “blessing,” berahah, begins with beit, and Torah is blessing, for blessing is associated with yam, the “sea,” and the sea is symbolic of Torah, for ‘Torah is the fullness of divine blessing, male birkat you, that i, the Fullness (male) chat is the blessing of the Lord (birkae _yhub), the beginning (reshit) that is the wisdom (hokbmah) given to Solomon, The bestowal of wisdom is compared parabolically to the gifting of the daughter as a conjugal offering to the son by their mucual father."! From this patable the readcr is encouraged to heed che connection between berakhah, “blessing,” and beret, “knce.” How so? The “blessing” isthe “place to which every knee bows down.” Buc what is this place? To understand we need an- other parable: Before one asks about the king, one must first ask about the dwelling of the king, shoidin beito shel melekh tebillah. The house about which one initially inquires (shotalim tehillat) is the beginning (tebillah) that shelters but also exposes the king.*To this house prayers are directed in bend- ing the knce and pledging the tongue. The blessing is the dwelling, the sheltering-exposing: the question of its whereabouts marks the beginning of the path. Here philological attunement is most expedient: The word tepillah stems from the root hill, to perforate, to make a hole, to be an opening. At the beginning, in the beginning, is the 1g. Whae can we say of this opening? That it opens and as a conse- quence—or is ic cause—it is opened. But what is (en)elosed in the opening that can be further opened? An opening, no doubt, but how might an open- ing be opened if it is already opened? To open the open, the open mast be en closed. for the opening of opening is enclosure, the circumference that encir-440 wecruniNG/acaiN eles the center, che limie from without chat delimies che limie within. Begin- ning, the beit with which Torah begins (mahi. is the opening chat encloses the enclosing that opens, the questioning utterance that silences the silence of ‘alefby exposing the shelter of the sheltered exposure. Why is beie closed on every side and open in front? To ceach you that i is the house of the world (Beit olem). Thus, the Hloly One, blessed be he, is the place of che world but the world is not his place.** Do not read beit but bayit as itis writeen “Through wisdom a house is buile” (Prov. 24:3). “The shape of beit—closed on three sides and open in frone—attests that wisdom/ Torah is beit ‘olam, that is, the enframing opening of the world.%* Borrowing another insight of Heidegger, nature may be viewed as the cleat- ing that allows beings to appear.” More profoundly, Heidegger notes that phuss, “nzcue,” signifies the juncture (Figug) of openness and self-conceal- tient, “The occurring of openness allows for self-concealing to occur within its own occurring of openness: self-concealment can only occur, however if it allows the occurring of openness to ‘be’ this openness.” To understand this co- ingidence af apposices one must be able to elucidate what the “enigma of the ‘essential embivalence of phusis conceals,” and this would be tantamount to ‘naming the “essence of the beginning.” “To think the essence of the beginning in bahiric terms i co ruminare over brit, enclosed opening of opened enclosure. The author of the aforecited text considered the question from the perspective of the shape of the letter, Beit is enclosed on three sides but open in front, signifying that it is beie ‘olam, the welling within which temporal beings come to be in passing-away and pass svay in coming-to-be, The measure ofthis dwelling in the stream of coming fo-be and passing-away is determined by and from wisdom, gnostically con- ceived as a potency of God, but its way is open, for in front there is empty space and new possibilities abound. From the kabbalistc perspective this is the intent of the rabbinic dictum that God is the place of the world but the world is not his place. That is, all things in time-space are God even if God is not all things in time-space.» The notion of world implice in the hoary myth is dependent on the paradox of determinate indeterminacy. chat is, a struc- ture thatis at once closed and open, formed and formless." This is the es0- teric sigeficance of the orthography of beit, the mark that inscribes the be- sinning thacis second, The inscription, hoveeve, is concomitantly an erasure, for the eit chat begins Torah veils the ‘alef whence ie originates. The role of BEroRE ALEF 44% Torah as preserving the concealment of that which must be concealed is al- luded ro in the following bahiric tex R. Bun stid, “Why is it writen “From eternity (me-alem) I was fashioned, cout of the origin (rier), before che earth’ (Prov. 8:23). What is from exernity’(me-olam)? The matter hat must be hidden (lee'alem) from the entire world, a it is writen ‘he also puts the world in their heart’ (Eccles. 3:11), do not read ‘the word’ (Aa-‘lam) but ‘concealment’ (helen) The Torah said, ‘I was Firs (giddann) in onder co be the origin of the werld (ros lecolan), a ic says ‘Prom eternity I was fashioned, out of the origin." Based on a play of words upheld in an older midrashic reading of the word fea, “everlastingly,” in Exodus 3:15 as lealem, “co conceal the author of the above passage connects fa-‘lam and e'elem. Insofar as ‘lam ‘connotes both temporal perpetuity and spacial extension, an intrinsic link is forged between three ostensibly disparate concepts, worldhood, etemity, and concealment, The rallying point of the three concepts is Torah, which is iden- tified with the wisdom thae is the subject of the verse “From eternity I was fashioned, out of the origin, before the earth’ (Prov, 8:23). The expressions ‘me-‘olam, “from eternity,” and “by means of the origin,” me-ro'h, are synony- mous. The intene of the verse, therefore, is to affirm that Torah derives from the origin (ro%b, which is the ‘alef) chat precedes the beginning (bei. Only if ‘we appreciate chis will we be in a position to comprehend the significance of the assertion that me-“olem should he interpreted as lebe‘alem, “to be hidden.” In proclaiming its primordiality, Torah is asserting, albeit cryptically, that it conceals the “matter that must be hidden from the entire world,” which is the head, ilimitable origin, whence ie springs forth. This, to, isthe esoteric sense of the statement actribuced co Torah, “I was first in order to be the origin of, the world.” The phrase that I translated as “origin of the world” is roth le- ‘alam. 1 opted for a more literal rendering, but this obscures the intended meaning. The word /e-ilam must be vocalized as leialem, “to conceal.” Once that is understood then the expression assumes an altogether different va- lence, Roih le-olam should be read as ro¥h fe'lem, that i, “the origin that one must conceal.” Torah, which declares itself as the first (giddamti) of all enti- ties. hides the origin before its beginning. Here we recall che comment of Heidegger cited above, “The origin keeps itself concealed in the beginning,” More of this beginning is disclosed in another unit that I consider ex- pressive of the older layer of tradition:sage sacivnin/AcaiNe og -ReAmora sat and expounded, "Why is ic writen “And the sea is full of the fe Lord blessing, take possession on the west and south’ (Deut. 33:23)? In Xe cevery place bets blessed, for itis the fullness (ha-mae), as it says ‘And che "tea ie fll ofthe Lord’ blessing’ (u-male birkat ybu). From there he gives drink to the needy and from the fullness he cook counsel at che beginning, (eillal.” “To what may this be compared? To a king who wanted to build his palace with hard granite. He cut out rocks and carved stones, and there emerged for him a well of abundan¢ living water. The king said, “Since L have flowing water, I will plane a garden and I will delight in ic esheaiashe'a 40), the whole world and I, as it is written ‘T was wich him as a confidant, a source of delight (shashu'im) every day’ (Prox. 8:30).” “The Torah said, “For ewo thousand years 1 was delighting in his lap (besheigo sha'asha i), as it says ‘every day’ (yom yom), and his day (yoo) sis one thousand years as it says For in your sight a chousand years ae like Jos yesterday (Ps, 90:4)" From here forward ics temporarily (l-arm), as ic seosays “in every time” (Prov. 8:30), but the remainder (ha-she‘a) everastingly JeueMde-‘olam), asic says “my glory [will hold in for you" (Isa. 48:9). “What is “my glory” debilla)? As ic is written, “a praise (tehillh) of David, | will excl you" (Ps. 145%!) age. What is the praise? For “I will extol you" (iaromimkha). And what is "exalraion (romemut)? For “I will bless your name forevet and ever” (ibid) ‘es And what isthe blessing? To what may this be compated? To a king ‘E-who planted trees in his garden, even chough rain has fallen, the [garden} 2 draws constantly and the ground is moist, he must irrigate [the erees] from {ithe spring, as ic says “The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord, a 4) sound understanding forall who practice ie” (bid., 111:10). Ifyou say she 2 -will be lacking something, thus it says “Praise of him (ceilaa) is everlast- 1 bid.) The det isthe fullness with which God took counsel at che beginning, an ‘obvious dllusion co Torah, which is depicted in similar terms in rabbinic tra- dition based on the image of wisdom in Proverbs 8:30, the playmate with which(God is enrapt two thousand years prior to creation. Nore, again, that the word for beginning is sebillak, che word used in conjunction with the question of the whereabouts of the dayit that shelters and exposes the king, the Beit that begins Torah, beginning of opening that is opening of begin- niing.** The author of the bahiric passage renders the aggadic motif of the God of Israel bemusing and amusing himself with Torah by the parable of a king who happens upon an abundant spring as he cu:s ehrough the quarty BeroRe ALEE 443 of scone he is using co build his palace. The palace, we are to suppose, will be surrounded by a garden, but only if there isa flow of living water can the king. plane the garden in which he and che inhabitants of the world will delight. The fullness of wisdom encompasses both the source of irrigation and the garden that is irigated. The poetic images convey in imagistic terms the two principles thar depice che basic dialectic within the divine nature, according to kabbalistic theosophy.*! the outpouring power of mercy and the con- straining force of judgment.*? Although not stated explicitly, one may infer that the spring (oma‘aya) and garden (gan) respectively betray masculine and feminine characteristics ** Wisdom is beit for it is both the (phallic) spring that overflows and the (vaginal) garden that is watered, projecting-in and ‘opening-our, exposed enclosure of enclosed exposure. Doubling of self ro be other stands at the beginning of the way. Bur what words can begin the account of the beginning, ma'aseh berethie God delights with his fullness.** Whac kind of delight is intended? At this juncture, attentiveness co language is most warranted. The frolic of God with TTorah/wisdom is designated sha‘ashu’a, an archaic locution attested in atleast wo critical chapters in Hebrew scripture, Proverbs 8:30-31 and Psalms 119:24, 70, 77, 92, 143, 174, The term connotes delight connected to wis- dom of Torah on the part of God and on the part of the human.** This con- notation is implied in the bahiric text, but what novel interpretation of the ancient word is put forth in the medieval collection? What new thought re- peated, what new teaching reiterated? We must listen more carefully to sha‘ashuz. Apparently, it stems from the root seit, which means to divide, to separate. To apprehend the nature of sha‘ashua, therefore, iis necessary co think through the alliance of delecta- tion and division, What jouissance is there in dividing and parting? The jouis- sance of beginning, for beginning entails the rapture of irruption and cohe- sion of separation. Sha‘ashu'a must be thought from the vantage point of the nexas of be ginning and division. To appreciate the fuller implications of this belonging, Together, one would do well co consider another bahiric text, Interestingly, in the pertinent passage, disclosure of the kabbalistc secret i the cask of students ‘expounding before their master, R. Berechiah: They began and said, “Originarily—one (berethit chad). “Spire before me is faint, Lam the one to create souls’ (Isa, 57:16). “The channel of God is full of wacer (Ps. 65:10). What is the ‘channel of God? (peleg lina)? Thus our master taught us that the Holy One, blessed be he, took the war ters of creation and divided them. He placed half of them in heaver and4g aecinninc/acain ‘a: half of them in the ocean, as it is written ‘God divided the fullness of -jovowater” By means of them a man studies Torah, a i is said, "Through che merit of acts of kindness (gemilut hasadim a man studies Torah as it says ris All who are ehirsey come for water, even if you have no money’ (sa 55:10), go co him and he will act with kindness rowards you, and 'you will scock up on food and ext (ibid.)."** ‘The secret here—as elsewhere in the bahiric anthology—is expressed through mytho-theosophic exegesis, that is, reading Hebrew scripture as a narrative about the inner nature of God. More specifically the exegesis placed in the mouth of R, Berechiah’s students, which includes a teaching received directly from the master, is meant «o explain the ontic transition from impar- tial onensss prior to creation to a division within the one, God's becoming- ther, which logically entails three modes of relatedness, for the other, with the other, in the other. The first word of Torah, berets alludes to the unity before the threefold ‘ethering of the one, a unity that technically is before there is one, for in being. ‘ont there would be two and consequently one to divide, Thus, Bereshit is inter- preted by the gloss had, that is, chad is opposite to bereihit, bereshit had, “originarily—one.” Division, on the other hand, is tied exegetically to Isaiah 59:16, hi muah mi-lefanay ya‘asof u-nesharot ‘ani ‘ait, “For spirit before me is, faint, I am the one to create soul: ‘maim, which 1 will leave untranslated for the moment. The bahiric homily en {mages the meaning of the latter verse but is completely silent about the former. “The silence noswithstanding, it is appropriate o begin with a brief comment about this verse. A distinct meaning was evidently assumed by the exegete ‘whose words (at leas in part and in some form) have been preserved in the writ- ten recensions of Bahirand we must try o recover something of i by listening. Ki rua miclefinay ya‘atof u-neshamot ‘ani ‘ait, “or spiric before me is faint, 1 am the one to cteate souls.” I assume this verse should also be read ytho-theosophically. To comprchend this we must ist ascertain who is speak- ing, The answer is offered in the poetic-liturgic utterance of the prophetic text ise ram we-nisia’ shokhen ‘ad we-gadosh shemo, “high and exalted, everlastingly ‘dwelling, holy is his name” (Isa. 57:15). The intenc of the verse, when read kab- balistcally, is to emphasize that souls are created by this high and exalted one whose name is holy and not by the spirit (ruah) that falters before him.” The creation of souls evinces the movement from one beyond one to one that is, ‘many, a one that signals division in the one.** This eran ‘ning and hence is symbolized by cit the second that is fi Further support may be adduced from the verse peleg @lohinm male’ mayim. ‘The plain sense cals forth the translation “the channel of God is full of water.” and to Psalms 65:10, peleg elohio male nerone AUT 445, “The esoteric exegete, however, read (in the double sense of interpreted and vo~ calized) the word peleg as palig, “to divide,” thereby changing the syntsx of the verse. The proper noun, peleg elohim, “channel of God,” is turned into predi- cate and subject, palag elobim, “God divided.” Moreover, che expression male! ‘mayim is not the predicate nominative “is full of water,” but the nominative “fullness of water.” The overall meaning of the verse therefore, is that God vided the fullness of water. To what docs this refer? To the primordial division ‘of waters, an ancient theme in Isracite cosmogonic myth. In the bahiric text, what else do we hear about the separation of upper and lower waters? We are cold that by means of these waters one studies “Torah, This is equated with a maxim, which is presented anonymously in some manuscript recensions and attributed to a specific rabbi in other recen- 0? that one merits studying Torah through acts of kindness, gemilue hresed. have not succeeded in locating a source or even precise parallel to the ‘maxim as ic is cited in Babir, but itis easy enough to list a number of rabbinic dicta wherein a tight connection is drawn between Torah and charitable, com- passionate behavior. On balance, it seems to me, the bahiric text offers an interpretation of a maxim that circulated independently in either oral or ws ten form. If, for the sake of argument, we assume this to be case, then the cri ical question is how did the author of the bahiric text understand the maxim? By the meric of che water thar was divided at the beginning—indeed the division that is the beginning—one studies Torah. First, we recall, thae the fullness of water, male’ mayim. refers technically to the effluence of divine wi dom, the sea that is Torah.*! the daughter beloved to her father and given as a mattimonial gift to her brother. Ie thus makes perfectly good sense to asso- ciate che division of waters and study of Torah. Moreover, the latter is con- nected to acts of kindness. This connection is interpreted in the following sway: He who wishes to study must go to the source of the water, che beit-bayit «hac is the beginning, the plentitude of wisdom/Torah, and from there a flood of mercy will issue forth. The overflow of wisdom is expressed as che gen- cerosity of spirit that bestows deeds of kindness in the world, gemillt pasadim. We encountered this force before in the description of the gimme! at the be- ginning of the path, bue we abruptly laid it aside, Now, however, itis time to take hold of the matter, o grasp the symbolic intent of this lece What is gimmef Ic bestows (gomel like a spring that erupts and warers the garden with the light/seed of wisdom that is hidden in che head (ba-roih),© the origin that is before there is one to begin because there is no second. Through the bestowal of the seed the distance separating ‘lef and beit is bridged. Hence, gimmel may be viewed as the division that is unifying in that ic unifies that which is divided by dividing that which is unified. The possi- bility of gimamelis there from before ‘ale for without positing the third term,Sab wecinnins/Acain ib isthe link, one cannot conceive the division that is che beginning, the pisbapirchac exposes by sheltering ‘alef ‘he iBefore we go further down this path, it might be protested that no mention sbiclottrs is made in the bahiric account of waters parting atthe beginning, Hw, then, can [introduce them into the mythologoumenon? This isa legiti- niate concern, one for which I have no decisive answer. [ conjecture, however, that the myth of the division of the waters can be semiotically encoded and thereby linked to the passage that preserves and transmits the tradition regard- ing ‘le, bit, and gimmmel The one thac is first before the beginning is signified by ‘lef the division of waters at the beginning by beit the channel connecting upper.and lower in the beginning by gimmel This is the significance of the ref erence (0 gemilut hasadim in this context. What sustains the earth isthe over- flow from heaven, the beneficence that comes by way of the conduie that be sows wisdom. The same activity facilitates study of Torah, de The full intent of this image can only be conveyed if one considers the ingplicie gender characteristics at work behind the letter symbolism. Although agstited explicitly, one can well assume that the auchor/transmicter of this passage had in mind the depiction of the upper waters as masculine and che lever-as feminine, a cosmological theme attested in classical rabbinic litera ‘ease: The relevant references in the older texts make it unambiguously clear ‘ee che gender imagery has a decidedly sexual nuance. Thus, in the dictum. AAR. Lev, “the supernal waters are masculine and the lower feminine,” the ‘efit that opens co receive the heavenly overflow, which is linked exegetically wofeaish 45:8, is depicted as “woman opening for che male.”** Ifthe upper is fink and the lower female, itis fair to conclude that the link connecting the sdrosisthe phallus. This surmise would go well with the phallic image of the speing to which I have already referred, the spring of wisdom that emerges spontanecusly from the rocks and waters the garden in which the king and his world delight. In terms of an alternative mythic Formulation, gimmelis the son: that bridges the distance between ‘alefand eit, father and daughter. | note, moreover, that gimme! occupies a central role in the erotic play of shaashu'a, Indeed, the impetus for the division of the fullness that is the be- ‘ginning atises from che springing-forth of gimmel, the will co bestow thac stems from gemilut hesed, love as the incessant overflowing, projecting-open ‘opening into the opening of the open-projection.* Prior to that point, which iszmo pine at all since for one to conceive of a point one must conceive of a lige and conceiving of a line is not possible without conceiving two points, there is nothing but che oneness that transcends number. In the beginning is the splitting of the waters, a rupture in the beginning. Thus the beginning is bis, signifying che duplicity brought about chrough division of one before all Berore ALF 447 division. Whete do we see this divide most wholly? In time, in the beginning, at the beginning, for co begin the beginning must have begun otherwise i i ro beginning. Whar begins, therefore, can only be what has already been. ‘The kabbalistic import of the myth places sha‘ashu'a at the beginning — following the rabbinic identification of wisdom as Torah—the fist sticring that is the erace of what came before, the Beit that begins Torah, time of be- ginning in beginning of time. The correlation of beginning and sha‘ashu'a un- derscores the temporal comportment of the primal eestasy, which, quire liter- ally in the kabbalistic symbolism, is an e&-stasi. standing out, an elongation of the line to be encompassed in the circle. The connection between time and sha‘ashu'ais aleeady conveyed by the verse from Proverbs wherein wisdom describes herself as being the delight before God “every day.” sha'ashu'im yom yom, and playing before him “in every moment,” mesahegetlefanan be-bhol et Insofar as wisdom was frolicking before God from the beginning—indeed, beginning is nothing but this frolic—sha‘ashu’a bears che Footprint of tempo- rality in the cyclical linearity of linear circularity. From the beginning we can deduce some general characteristics about time: To begin with, as we have already remarked, beginning cannot begin. That which cannot begin cannot end. To be always beginning, then, is «0 be never ending, but to be never ending isto be always of the moment. To be al- ‘ways of the moment is to always be of the moment, that is, to begin in the beginning thae cannot begin because ic has already begun. Temporaligy is measured by the moment that belongs to this beginning that cannot begin and co the end that cannot end. What will be in time is the same as what was in cime in virtue of being differenc chan what is in time, different in vircue of being the same. Here, again, Heidegger is helpful: ‘Time and the temporal mean what is perishable, what passes away in the course of time. Our language says with greater precision: what passes away with time. For time passes away. But by passing away constantly, time re- mains as time ... Time is not a thing, this nothing which is, and yet it re- ‘mains constant in its passing away without being something temporal like the beings in time.” As Heidegger poctically captured the paradox of time, we can say of sha’ashu'a thax ic persists in its passing, itis most evidently when itis no more, ‘The bliss atthe beginning cannot be the beginning of bliss, for the beginning, does not begin and remain beginning. Shaashu‘a is thus always of the mo- ‘ment—momentary elation, present in its absence, enduring in its recurrence, ‘eternal in its transience. The joy at the beginning —the ecstasy of beg nning—$48. sEcINNING/AcAIN never was for it never will not be. Yet, we must consider a distinction made fin the bahiric text itself There isa difference between two thousand years be- fore creation and the span of time that follows creation. In the former, ‘haiashu‘ais everlasting, l-olam, in the latter, mesabeger lefanae, toying before hie, from time to time, le-isim. ‘The transition from perpetual musing to intermittent play requies hold- ing-back and setting of boundary. The notion of withdrawal, which is not stated overtly, is a secret exegetically derived from the verse fema‘an shemi ‘daribh ‘appi u-teillati‘ehetam lakh le-vili hakbriselha, “For the sake of my tame I will postpone my wrath and my glory I will hold in for you so that L will not destroy you" (Isa. 48:9).”” The plain sense of the prophetic dictum. relates to divine mercy, which is expressed as God's long-suffering, the capac- ity to rescrain his rage. The expression rehillati ‘chetam, literally “my glory 1 will hold in,” is parallel to ‘aarikh ‘appi.” “I will postpone my wrath.” One may surmise at some point in ancient Isracl the notion of a vengeful god fielded irs opposite, the compassionate god who holds in his fury. In the ‘ahiric text, only che second part of the verse is cited because the focal point is the constriction of tebillah, which has been rendered above as the divine glory. Bur what resonance did the author of the bahiric passage hear in the seriptural verse? The self-limication, expressed as inhaling the breath and holding in the glory, makes possible the periodic moments of joy thar God ‘experiences with Torah/wisdom, Prior to the withholding the father’s musing. ofthe daughter had no temporal bounds; consequent to the withholding itis temporally bound. The contraction of divine glory through the holding in of Spiticrbreath facilitates the movement From fe~plam, everlastingly, o Le-Zttim, ‘ephemeraly. Time, which begins with the beginning that cannot begin, arises ‘45 a consequence of the constriction, The reader is told, moreover, that the glory that is held in for Israel, u- iebillati dhetam lakh (Is, 48:9), is the “praise of David,” ebillah lo-darid (Ds 145:1),7 the praise chat is exaltation (romemus), the blessing of the name. ‘These are differenc ways of referring symbolically co the glory, forthe later is comprised of the blessings of Israel and ic is the praise that is uplifted to be laced again as a crown on the head.7* The blessing is said to be “forever and ever,” le-olam wa~ed, eternally, but it must always be of the moment, be-khol “tin every moment, from time to time, le-ittim. The rhythms of prayer are set by the seemingly primordial eurning of time, fading of night into day, day into. night, return of same as different.” This is the mystery of song, the se~ ‘eretof prayet. In every moment, there isa beginning, and hence each moment js the same but different, nay, the same because different, To what may this ‘be compared? To the king who waters his garden from the spring even though BEFORE ALEF 349 the ground is sufficiently wet from previous rainfall. The image casts a shadow through which we may glean something about the beginning of tme in the time of beginning. Time must always begin, but to begin it cannot have begun. The beginning, then, must never end, but only that which ends everlastingly never ends, In bahiric imagery, the fount of wisdom—phallic aspect of God, which is symbolized by gimmel, the force that bestows (gomel) goodness— ceaselessly overflows from lalefto beit, bur itis never depleted. Each time im- plies every time, from time to time, timelessly beginning, eternally returning, Sha‘ashu'a, the father's be/musement for the daughter, the king’ contem- plation of wisdom, stands at che beginning: indeed, itis the beginning for it cannot begin. In this musing/amusing is the primordial divide, what-is becoming self and other, the springing into being of whac has been, the Full ness that is depleted, trace of ‘alefin beit that comes before it. The musing dis- closes something fundamental about the composition of time: Each moment is because ic incessantly becomes other than what it is. This is the way of sha'‘ashu'a, projecting out to hold in, In the bahiric parable, I have found support for Heidegger’s contention that the “ontological condition for the understanding of being is temporality itself."?5 For kabbalists this condition is related co the contemplative musing of which [spoke above, a musing that presupposes a division of the one, the dou- bling of beit, the beginning that is second. I would add chat in behiric frag ments and subsequent kabbalistic literature based thereon the correspondence of shavshuia and temporality underscores the erotic dimension of temporal comportment. [tis significant to note that che bahiric text highlights, pechaps intensifies, the erotic quality of sha‘ashu'a, which may have been at play from the beginning. The imagery of irrigation, which has come up already, should be interpreted in light oF chis erotic/contemplative delight. The aigument is bolstered by other fragments in the bahiric anthology wherein the image of water spreading over the garden more clearly alludes to sexual union—through phallic discharge—between male and female.”* Here we aso have to consider che accounts of the Father's desire for and co- habitation with the daughter scattered throughouc che textual landscape of Bair, Uhave discussed this motif in an earlier study.” I will not reproduce all the relevant texts again, but lee me simply emphasize chat the fathers amusing, himself through the daughter is inseparable from—indeed identical to—the father's musing over the daughter. Two points that follow from this are worthy of consideration. Fitst, the basic my¢h that explains the movemen: from the firse that is nota beginning to the beginning that is second, from eternality to temporality, involves the splintering of wisdom into three, father, daughter, son, and the consequent yearning t0 restore a sense of integration and whole-450. aEcinniNo/acain dness."Phat desire is expressed cither in terms of the father and daughter or in ‘erins of the son and daughter, but both representations relate to the drive to reinstate the elemental unity of wisdom. Eros from this perspective may be iewed as the longing to retrieve a detached aspect of self. The impulse for the ‘other, which underlies the sha'ashu' that God has for Torah, the father-king, for the daughter-princess, is an expression of this narcissism.”* “The second point of note is that the correlation between eros and nocisis suggested by the poetic image of sha‘ashu'a inthe babiric fragment has persisted among kabbalsts through generations. In a number of previous studies, I have posited that the epistemological matrix that informed the lived experience of, medieval kabbalists allows us to speak concomitantly of the noetic quality of eros and the erotic quality of noesis. In the beginning, God contemplates his wisdom, the father delights with his daughter. Contemplative eros ensues from ‘and results in the projecting-open, springing forward to receive. Logically, one ‘an imagine projection without reception, but, ideally, Kabbalistic metaphysics ‘demonstrates a dialectical orientation thac embraces both concurtently. This di- lalectic marks the beginning, bei of Torah, stuttering to be heard in the begin~ ‘ning of the way, setting out ro break open the open that is broken. In the be- -gisning tha cannot begin, time comes to be in its having been. “We can thus speak of an inexorable link between time, being, and eros in Kabbalistic ontology. This, I suggest. is the philosophic intonation of the “mythic saying regarding ‘alef Beit, and gimmelTo this saying we have tried to isten, but what can one hear of the sound made before ‘alf. where begin- sings end? ‘Notes ° 1. For the most comprehensive bibliography to date on scholarship relevant to che study of Sefer e-Bahir, ee Danicl Abrams, The Book Babir: An Edition Based tn the Farlst Manuscripts (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 1994), 293-336, 2. The Hebrew pronoun is actully in che feminine case, bu [have opted not to tansate this wotd a “she” in ordce not to confuse eaders by leading them ro belie thatthe leter symbolizes a female potency. Leters do assume gender uth (Ds. 119:160).” In this passage, a connection is chus made berween the beginaing and concealment of the word, which is truth, that is appropriate 0 the divine glory. Fora different interpretation of the notion ofthe beginning of Feats word, which is eelated to the same verse, see The Book Babir, $40, 141, and §50, 147. On the connection berween truth and the head, se ibid, 626, BI. 20. In The Book Bahir $56, 151, the spinal column (hus hasbidra) is depicted in terms similar tothe gimmel, for i draws ftom the brain and disperses to the resto the hody. See §104, 187, where the seventh ofthe ten sayings is idensi- fed athe east ofthe world whence the seed comes to Israel, “forthe spinal column deaws from the brain and comes tothe penis and fiom there isthe cd as itis writen ‘om the eas Iwill bring my seed (sa, 43:5)." On the ‘pina’ column (inked o the palm branch, lar, which is pate af che four species of Subs, se also $67,159. 21 Im-wkat is apparenly a passage that eflects the contemplative mysticism of con- temporary Provencal kabbalss responsible for che redaction of the bahirc text {The Book Babir, §48, 145), efi compared to the ear and the brain. The ‘ale thereor, i symbolic of the uppermost gradation of the divine, though that ex- 22, 2B 24 2 serone ater tends infinitely In tha content, moreover, leis identified asthe “holy palace” ‘eibhalha-qodes and iti lso associated withthe Teteagrammaton (based e¥ cgcticaly on dhe expression, wa-yhuh berosham, "the Lord isa dic head” in ‘Micah 2:13). On the idemiication of ofa the holy palace, se bid, $84,171 See also $103, 187, cite below in n. 40, In her kabblistic literature, the ident feation of lefand VHWH is explsined by decomposing the efit a yad on top and s yodon the bottom connected by 2 usw in che middle. The numerical salae ofthe theee pars of the efequal ewentysix (10 + 10 +6), hich i he ‘oumserology of YHWH (10165 « 6 65). Lam noe certain if hii ail a8- sumed by the author of the hahtic passoge. In The Book Bhi, 953, 149, the ‘connection is agin made beoweer te the eat. and the limieess thought of God, In thar context, morcover, laf idenvitid a the “essence of the ten words” reference ro the fet that she fist woud of the Decaloguc, anokhi Begins wich an lal ln 687, 173, the ten soe through which heaven and earth were sealed or- respond tothe ten commandments. On the connection berween the ea and the “great wisdom” hnhmah gel, chat has no limit see $55, 151 ‘The macter of she cil of deitis epeated in what appears to be a somewhat ga bled exe in The Book Babir, $11, 123: "To what may Beir be compared? Ta a ‘man who is created chiough wisdom, for he is closed on every side and opened, in Front. The ilefs open fom behind. He said, The wl of bees open from lbchind it, fori ie were not so man could not exist, Similarly, ifn fr the beit in its til, the world would noe exist.” In The Book Bahir, §17, 127. relercnce is made tothe light hidden by God ‘unl che sural time. This aspect of the primordial light is deduced from the face that the verse proclaims "Let there e light," wie, racher chan “and there was light,” we-haych on The description of the light as “already having been,” she-herar hayah, pales the accoune of the beit as pointing. with is til rove source, lle See above, a. 4. In The Book Bair. 992,177, the aibute of love, dda bese, is atsibuted ro Ababam who ws said to bestow kindness upon the world, grmal heed ba-‘olm. This passage ellects the theosophic imerpretasion of the fourth, fifth, and sixth of the ten sear chat was curtent amongst kab- bulists atthe time of che sedaction of Babin, The theceactebues ofthe divine, love (hee, fear (poh, and arth (et) are correlated respectively with the thee patratchs, Abraharn, Isaac, and Jacob, See also §§129, 131-132 It's posite thatthe identification of lefand gimme im che sense chac gir zmelis the realization of ‘lef is the intent ofthe enigmatic rematk in The Boo Bahir, §20, 129, regarding the relationship of gimme, dale, and he! Acconding to that pasage, which appears to have been transmitted in a somewhat corept Form, He's formed by taking the top pac of gimme! and the bottom pare of dale, The letter het scems, represents the fullness of divine wisdom, whied may be he intent of she comment that there isan upper band a lower fe an ‘dea expresed elsewhere in the bahiric anthology in tems of an upper and. lower Shebhinah (see elon. 63), 35349. BEG NNING/AGAIN “BThac isthe Torah, which begins with beei he frst leer of whichis bec Brn dhe vers, the word yom does noe connote the se,” bur rather the westerly neem. Ihave rendered the biblical lngoage, however, in igh of the pare bolic exegesis of che author ofthe bait tex 128. The cennection beewcen bet and blessing is made in ete rabbinic sures. Aceonling vo one especially noteworthy exegetical tradition, God erated the trorkl ath Beit and noc lefsince the Former isthe first eter of the word e- rath, “blessing” whereas the laters the fst leer of rina “urs.” See Palessnian Tal Hagigah 2:1, 77cs Genesis Rabbah 1:10, 9: Pest! Reba, ch, 21, 1092 29, Theres no extan verse in Hebrew stipe to which this fers as noted by Gershom Scholem, Dar Bach Bahir (Darmstadt: Wisenschafiliche Buchge- self, 1970), $3.61. 2, 530. The Book Babi $3,119. 51, For dizussion of this and other ahirc passages with special focus on the enusberwecn secrecy andthe gilt se Elie R. Wolfion, “Hebraic and He- Ionic Conceptions of Wisdom in Sefer harBahir” Poe Tay 19 © (19981:156-67 532, The sme theme is expese in slighty diferent vrs in The Book Bair S43, 11. According tothe parabolic image cmployed in that context, he one who rants to enter within che chambers ofthe king must fs look at or carer tate) the daughter in whoo the king has placed al chiry-o9o paths cee een hc apaion of esp te hoe, Bo Seda Sohich is ao iden as nog, the rmporary booths thar commemorate the Uwelingsinhabied by che lracltes in hee sojourn dhrough che desert (Le. S340), ce The Book abit S74, 163. Se also $104, 189, where Sheba as fociaad withthe west (mama) since all the seed that comes forth fom the east Fe mie (oie) within iis fered 10 a8 che “house ofthe Father” 138, The tabi reflection on the orthography of being closed on three of four sides shased on a similar ine of inuiry found in several abbini sures (at tubured co R Levi whose teaching was transite by R Yonah), but i chose Comet the shape ofthe leer i interpreted a an admonition that one should thor engage in speculation regarding what is above, below before, or afer ere on See Palestinian Talmud, Hagigah 2:1, 77: Genesis Rabbah, 110,85 P= ‘ign Babbar, ch. 21, 108 1, Cones Rabbah (8:9, 777-778 Minch Teil, edited by Solomon Buber (ila: Rom, 1891), 90:10, 390-391 35. The Bok Babi U1, 123, 36. On x depiction ofthe Feminine a matrix for eeaion, see THe Bonk Bair S117, 204 The Female i taken from Adam forthe wpper and lower works could noc exe without a female” 57. For eleenee to and discussion of some ofthe relevant sures, see de Bo, Thinking inthe Light of Time, 157. 238, Basel on passages parialytansatd in de Boe, Thinking in the Light of Time 549-350 n.28, On presencing asthe site of concealment in elaionship ‘0 4. 4 2. 43, 44 perone ALF 455, techne as bringing forth (Hervorbringen) and. phusiras the emerging of things of their own accord, sce MeNeill, Glance af the Fe, 298-299, Here my language reflects the technical term Zet-Reum of Heideggerian hought, the time-space, the abgrund. belonging tthe esental sway of eur as the sheltering-enelosue. Sce especially Martin Heidegger. Contributions to Philosphy (From Enouring) teansaved by Paevis Emad and Kenneth Maly (Bloomingron and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1999), 259-71 The notion of decrminate indeterminacy is embraced explicity in The Book Bali, 6108, 187. The context wherein this appens is an enumeration ofthe sev- mth ofthe ten sayings (yaar that help one articulate the nature of being (see $96, 1815 sce abo $32, 135). wil eansate che relevant pasige “The ser th? There are ony sx. Rather, this caches that heres the holy palace (end Ja-gode, i ears all of them, its considered as ewo, and i isthe seventh \Whac isi Jus as thought has no cn or iit, so this place has no end or ii.” The seventh, whichis appatcety in the posiion ofthe phallic porency according cova symbolic system attest in thie setion ofthe Bah, the east whence the sed disseminates co Shehinoh who resides in dhe west ee Gershom Scholem, (On the Mytcal Shope ofthe Gdheu: Baie Concept in the Kaba wanslatcd by Joachim Neugroschel, edited and revised by Jonathan Chipman {New York Schocken, 1991], 93-94) is here characterize in rtm that parallel thought, which ithe fire ofthe emanations. The later identification helps us date the material as ic would belong o the sraram ofthe text reflecting the cheosophie symbolism raring the infinite choughe of the divine current in Provence and fsorthern Spin in the owl and chi end or limit (se above, n.21) and ca centuries. logos, he place ofthe seventh i with- ‘out end or limit, Here, then sa wlzation ofthe principle of determinate inde- terminacy, albeit with a differen symbolic valence ‘My formlasion i indeed to William Desmond, Desire, Dialectic and Orher= ties: An Fut on Origins (Nw Haven and London Yale University Press, 1987), 184-185, The ontological theme expresed by the shape of beit may also be x= pressed in terms of the convergence of freedom and necessity, tha is the cone currence ofthe open and closed aspects suggests that within the Godhead there is no reason co dichotomize these tuo elements. Gods absolute freedom stens from the necessity ofthe divine nature and, conversely, the necessiry of divine nature is determined by Gods absolute freedom, Foran attompt to collapse the distinction betwen Feed and necessity in God in a manner thats onso- inant with abbistic ontology ce Friedrich W. J. Schelling, The Ages ofthe World, translated by son M. Wet (Albany, 2000), 5. See below, n. 52. According to the masortic text, Jind is written defectively. ie. without a This thought is wichour swat, and has i came wcalized as hele The Book Rahir. $8,121 Babylonian Talmud. Pesshim 50a, (iddushin 712. Thete ate some who think the word ‘lan may in fact be connected etymological to iam, that which hidden. Theough their mideashic playfulness the rabbinic exegetes may have re ‘viewed something ofthe original inet ofthe nor of world in ancient Ista,ABB. eGINNING/AGAIN BB. Acahe conclusion of the bahisie passage (seen. 43 for eference) he ise ehrce ©P words of Torah are cited and explicate: "As ic sid “a the beginning God exe- ded! (Gen. 1:1). And what is ‘ereated” The needs of all (sorkhei ha-tob, and erward God (tobe). And what is written after i@ "Heaven and earth.” The poine of ending with this exegsisis to underscore that Torah, which is alluded fo in the word bercit, was te fise ofall things fashioned. For an incerpreta- tion ofthis pasage, see Wolfon, Along the Path, 72-73. Ihave mosifed my ttanslasion herein ight of 2 new insight regarding the meaning ofthe text. See also The Book Bahir, 674, 163: “Why is Pentecost [ayer which isthe rabbinic hme for the holiday: see Mishnah, Rosh ha-Shanah 1:2; Hagigsh 2:4] one [ay For omic the Torah was given to Israel, and when the Torah was eeated inially (rei), the Holy One, blessed be he, ruled in his word alone with is sit iswaitten “The beginning of wisdom isthe fea ofthe Lord (Ps. 11110). He sid, ‘This being so your holiness should be for you alone.” 46, Gevets Rabbah VA, 1-2, 8:2, 57: Fsodus Rabbah 30:9; Leviticus Rabba elie by Mordeeai Margulies (Jersalem and New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1993), 19:1, 412-413 Song of Somer Rabbah, edited by ‘Shimston Dunasky (Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv: Doin, 1980) 5:7, 131 47. The Book Babir, 4, 119-121. 48, The imagery is repeated in. The Book Bahir, §37. 139, bur in the contest it ako given an eschatological valence: “What isthe Ait at che end [ofthe word aber? As itis written "Through wisdom the house will be built (Prov. 24:3). Tr docs not say ‘as bul’ bu rather ‘will be built’ In the Future, che Holy ‘One, blessed he he, will build her and adorn her two thousand times more than what she was, asi is sad "Why i the beginning ofthe Torah with a bi ‘as iv written‘ ws with him as a confidant, a source of delighe every day” (Prox. 8:30), ewo thousand years, forthe day of the Holy One, blessed be he, is fone thousand yests. Therefore, the Torah begins with bit. The det [ofthe «ord beef signifies ewo thousand and afterward is rei. as it ssid ew thousand yeats belong to him,’ for he is che beginning (eid 49, My tendeting of sha ashi indebted to Hartley Lachee, who is curently ‘rorking on his dissertation under my supervision. He suggested these transla tions in the seminar on Bahir eld in the Skirball Department of Hebrew and Jadaic Sdies, New York Universry. spring semester, 2000, 50. Aconding to the parable in The Book Bahir, $14, 125, God plans the re chat is Called “all,” 0 that she “encee world will take pleasure im ie” ishe'she bo ol ba‘lan). The end of that passage alludes co the “sere” hac involves the Firm gos here depicted as God planting and rooting the wee inthe ground For discussion of this passage, see Wolfion, Along the Pach, 71-72. 51 In this mater, kabbalstic symbolism is consonant with rabbinic theological spealation on the two primary atibutes of God, mercy and judgment 4 in {made briefly in one of my exlise published studies. ee Eliot R. Wolf fon, "Mysical-Theurgical Dimensions of Prayer in Seer ha-Riramon” in Ap iron 00 Jato in Medieval Times, vl 3, ited by David R. Burmenshal (Aclanta: Scholars Pres, 1988), 63-64 52. A philosophical presenttion ofthe kabbalistc dialectic is offered by Schelling, “Ages ofthe Word, 62 "Therefor, ewo principles are aleeady in what is necessry ‘of God: she outpouring, outseetching, sl giving being, and an equivalently ‘excmnal force of selfhood. of retreat into ill of Being in itself. Thar being and this force are both already God itself, wichout God asitance.” This is pre cisely what Ihave Foun coe the cae in my study of kabbalstic documenss. The dialectic af mercy and judgment, overflowing and containing, is che bale ance of life and the measure of ens even unco death, Interestingly, Schelling tses the language of “retret” to characterize the force of selfhood, of being in inset as opposed 0 the sel-giving being. The kabbalistic doctsine of imum, which apparently is quite old, likewise understands the withdrawal of divine Tight, the holding in of the breath. as an expression of limitation, demarcation, and the seting of Boundary. qualities chat are assciated with the eaditional at- tribute of judgment, | have deal with the mattsr extensively in "Divine Susfer ing and the Hermeneutics of Reiding: Philosophical Reflections on Lusanic Mythology.” «0 be published in 3 volume on suffering in Jewish and Christian religions though, « be edited by Rohere Gibbs and myself. A number of scholars have noted Schelling’ indebtedness 0 kabbalah, whether ean directly of through an intermediary. Particully relevant is he study by {Christophe Schulte, "Zimgum in the Works of Schelling.” yw 41 (1992): 21-40. impare The Book Bhi 615, 125-127. In dhe parable preserved in this pas. “age, reference is made to the spring dhe garden, and the Fuit-bearing ee planted in che gnden and sustained by the “spring overflowing with ving water (ma iyon novos avin anyon. See ibid 982. 169, whete the spring is described as possesing owelve pipes, which correspond to the twelve tres of Israel. On the ewelve springs. se also S111, 197. In $105, 189, che king is sid tohhave even gitdens and in che middle gatden there isa “beauifl spring -hat, ows from the source of living water” (many nach nove mi-magor may Jayyin). See also §121, 205, where the pipe” is linked exegetically with the verse, "You ate a gatden spring, a wel f living waters that Hows om J Lebanon” (Sang 4:15), 54. In The Boot Bair, 890.17 jin the image of the troops of the king who hemuse themselves (shea ashem) swith the matrona secaded in bis chamber 55. See Elliot R, Wolfion, Circle in che Square: Studies inthe Use of Gender in Kab ‘alive Syubolisn (Albany, 1995), 124-125 n. 6 and 190 0. 175 56. The Book Bahir, 934. 137. 57. Here its of interest ro note the flowing exegetical comment preserved in Palestinian Tal, Berakhoe 9:2, 12e-d "R, Joshua ben Hananiah said, ‘When the spire (rab) worse out into the world, she Holy One, blessed be he, broke ie against the mountains and weakened iin the valleys, and he sad to its He mindfl not to harm my creatures. For what reason? ‘For spite before me {is faint (Is. 37:16)’ He weaken tas iis said my spite failed within me (Ps, 134), Why 10 such lengeh? R. Hana sad in the name of R. Aha, “Tam the mythical conception of shah is depicred 157ABB necinminc/acain a 58, 8. thesoneto create soul (Is. $7:16), on account of the souls that I have made.” [easem o me that implicit in his remark is a presumption regarding 2 poten til conflice berween God and spi accordingly, the lace is admonished not tw harm che souls ereated by the former. leis curious that a gnostic reading of this vere also seems co be attested in the bahiric fragment, The matter requires more rsatch In The Book Bahir $96, 181, the first ofthe ten sayings, she supesnal crown eter ‘dyn is described as the “one of ones unifielin all his names,” bad hax “thadim ha-meyuhad be Ako shemotav. Although this belongs co a later stratum ‘ofthe Lahtic anthology, it expresies in more technical philosophic terms of the ‘one that is many an older mythical notion. ‘The anonymous reading i preserved in MS Monich 209, which was used as the basis forthe German translation of Scholem and the eitcal edition of| [Abrams, In MS Vatican, Or. Barb, 110 (as noted by Abrams inthe itil 3p- paratus ad lcm) the statement is aeributed to R. Hiyya. In che edivo princes (Ameterdam, 1651), which is reproduced in The Book Bahir, 269, the sate= ment isatrbured to R. Hama, Mishnah, Pe'ah 1:1, "Avor 1:2; Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 8b; Sukkah 49: Makkos 242, See Midrash Zura’ le-hamesh Megilos, edited by Solomon Buber ~ (Vilna, 1885), Ecclesiastes 7:2, Acconling tothe dicrum reported there in the 62, name of R. Lev, study of Torah leads co acts of kindnes. In The Book Bahir, 665, 159, the expression “sea of wislom,” yam t= bbokbmna, is used ro name the atribute tha is also refered to asthe “earth” or “precious stone’ and corresponding to eis the blue chat is sed in the finge gatment, a Blue that i rsiniscene of the sea, the heaven, and the throne of lory (based on the reaching atributed 10 R. Mer in Babylonian Talroud, Menahoe 43h). This passage seems to reflect the doctrine of ten potencies. Ac cordingly, the ateibute designated by these terms is Shebhinah, the tenth ofthe sefrot. The okder myth, in my opinion, identified che second of che three por fencicsas the sea that is Torah, the fullness of divine wisdom. In light ofthis teudition ie of interest co consid the comment. which apparently is from the period of redaction, in $111, 197: "The Holy One, blessed be he, at fist ave chem wellprings of water and afterward he gave them stones... . What is the reason? Fora first the Torah in the worl was compared co water and a= terwan’ it was fixed in a set place, which is che not the way of water, for today iis here and tomorrow it moves on.” See, however, The Book Babir, 6128, 211. Interpreting the eabbinic dictum (Mishnah ‘Avoe 2:5) thae an ignoramus (ae fare) cannot be 2 saintly per son (hed), che author ofthe bahiic text writes: "How can one do kindness with his mastee? Through study of Torah, for he who studies Torah bestows Kindness upon his master, a itis written “riding dhe heavens chrough your 2% sistance’ (Deut, 33:26). That is to say, when you study Torah for its own sake, then you ait me and I ride che heavens, and consequently ‘through the skies in his majesty’ (bid). Wha are the skies (shebagim)? I would say the chamber of chambers (hadves hadarim).” In contrast to §34, where the nexus between 63, 64, 65, 66, 67. 68 Torah study and gemiluehasadion was explained in terms of the human being. drawing benef fom che divine aueibute of mercy in $128, who benefits from the human act, which bestows kindness. Mote specifically. in the laner passage, the theurgical principle is embraced whereby the activity ofthe human being fciiraes the union of che divine, which is portrayed in the scripeural language of God!’ viding the heavens in his majesty, gaat, | sue gest char this term is camployed here as a euphemism for the phalls and the x= pression hradveihadarin. which is che meaning offered for shebaqim, refers to the female genitals. See Te Boot Bair, 985, 171, On the term gah in ear- lic Jewish mysticism and is resonance in Geeman Pieistc teature se Wolf ‘son, Along the Paoh, 13-14, 57, and reference to other scholarly works given on 125 n. 88. In cha sead, | was hesitant to offer a phallic interpretation of| gina, bur it appears to me that sich an explanation would have been wat ‘ante especially in the passages from the Rhineland Jewish pictets. On the theurgical role accorded Torah study a8 4 means to unite che masculine and Feminine potencies ofthe divine, see The Book Rahir, §137, 221, and analy in Wolfson, Cirle in the Sure, 10-13. The characterization of wisdom a ight (itherexplicily or implicitly) oceus in a number of pascges in the bahitic anthology. See The Book Babin S810 nd 12, 123 and 17, 127; and especially 116, 201: “He sat and expounded 10 them, "There is Shethinal below just as ther is Shekbinal above.” What is this Sbebohinal | would say that iis the ight that emanated from the fest light, ‘hich is wisdom. I, too. surrounds everything a it says ‘the earth was filled ‘with his glory’ (Isa. 6:3.” On the description of Shehinal as the light taken from che firs light,” which i identified a8 the "fear ofthe Lord,” and hidden away foe che righteous, see 131, 215, See abo §133, 219. In The Book Bohr, 671,161, che pillar that connects heaven aad earth an sustains the world i identifi asthe righteous one (addi), See also 685, 171, where the souls ofthe rightcous are described asisuing from che “spring” (na’ayan) co the “great pipe” (sinnor ha-gaded whence they cleave to the tree. The sightcous ones of Israel below serve ata catalyst to incite this proces. Te 15105, 189, the cighth ofthe ten sayings is identified asthe isthe foundation of che world. The activities of susaining che world and mak- ing it prosper associated with this aibute resemble the description of gimmel in $13, 125, Palestinian Tala. Rerakhor 9:2, 133; Gener Rabhah 13:13, 122. Abo relevant Foran appreciation ofthe medieval kabbalitic symbolism isthe fac thatthe dlr acibution of the upper and lower waters is expresed coger withthe no tion that che water that ills rom heaven is masculine and the earth cha is ie: gated thereby is feminine, See Ping Rabbi Ei zer (Watsaw, 1852), ch, 5, 13a. For discussion of this mythical structure and the eonjgerure regarding its ar- chaie provenance, see Wollson, Along the Path, 73-74 Here my language reflects Heidegger. Sce, in particular, Contritutions, 137. A source for this geometcc symbolism that became so crucial in the evolution ‘of kabbalistc thoughr is found in The Book Bir, $83, 169, ous one thit 1598B eo nnin/Acain (6. Martin Heidegger, On Time and Bing, taney Joan Stambaugh (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1972), 3 29. Ret of scholars have reconsidered the origins and evolution of he piv= ‘al habbalistic doctrine ofrimsum, withdrawal andor coneration. To date, the mes compichensive study is Moshe Hel, "Oa the Concept Zim in Kabbalah and its Research,” ferualer Seuhes in Jewish Thought 10 (0992}59-112 (Heb). Ide, op cic, 71, suggests har ee image of eating through the rocks found in the Babi, 64, which is found aswell ina nurber of theenth-century kabalistic texts, may allade to a doetine of sim. tn his argument del cid not mention the exegesis of Isiah 489 in the same ahi passage. My interpreation comtoboeates els suggestion, 71 Iisof ncerest o wonder ifthe rference to this verse doesnot imply echni- cal aplication of the term ‘arith appayn, othe nominative form to which it Isundoubtedly related veh payin Exod. 34:7), othe aspect of God thats alo reerted to asthe name (em) and asthe glory (eile), According to the Jmerprecation | have accep, these terms denote the feminine potency ofthe lvine which is ao symbolized as wisdom or Torah. Here it must recalled that in Kabbalistic texts from the ohare period the highest aspect of God is desig raed bythe term aid np and the lower aspect by zr yp. According to some sources, he later term is applied to Shthinah, which is he Feminine paso Sce Moshe Kel, Kabblahs New Penpeciver(New Haven and Landon: Male University res, 1988), 119 and 135, and Yehuda Liebes Studie inthe Zaher wansated by Arnold Scare, Stephane Nabache, and Tenina Pei (Ab thany: Sate University of New York Press 1993), 110-1 72.0 the distinction between fill, ‘prise,” and efillah, “prayer” see The Book Babi, $46,143. 273. Vetge of what [assume i a much alder mh that has had 2 profound n= pact onthe formation and evolution of kabhaiic symbol can be ound in the bate anthology, See The Book Bahir, $12. 123 Gn that pase, the par thoi image ofthe king preparing a crown to eet on the head of his son prior to creting his son is employed to explain the notion that light preceded the ‘wot 61, 153-155; and 72, 161-163. In my scholarly wring, Ihave re- ured this theme repeatedly, interpreting i as 3 mythic portayal ofthe gende- transformation ofthe fallen female through her restoration ro the head {Of the male See, for instance, ElliocR. Wallson, “Coronation of the Sabbath Bride: Kabbalistic Myth and the Ritual of Andeogynisaion" Jornal of ew Thaught and Philosophy 6 (1997):301~343 For discussion of some ofthe ap- plieae bahitcpasages, sce Arthue Green, Kee: The Cow of Godin Farly Jewish Myicim (Pincecon Princeton University Pres, 1997), 134-50. 74, Im The Book Bair, $49, 145-147, time is depicted in terms of the poate of night and day with che later being contained in the former Ihave analyzed this pusage in Circe inthe Square, 86-87. 175. Martin Heidegger The Base Pobloms of Phenomenology, cansation introdac- tion, and lexicon by Albert Hofétater (Bloomington: Indiana Universcy Press = 1982), 28. 76. The Book Bahir, $90, 175-177. For sranslasion and analysis, see Wolfson, 7”. 78. baie and Hellenic Conceptions,” 164=165, See Wolfion, op. cit. 157-62, [have touched on the implicit narcissism inthe kabbalistic understanding of | «ros as relates both co the intadivine proces and che human-divine relaion- ship. When Ihave spoken of ethee aucoeroticim oe homocroticism, T have had in mind this narcissist impulse, See Elliot R. Wolfson, Trough a Spec dre That Shines: Vision and Imagination in Medieval Jewish Myticnm (Reince- ton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 369-725 idem, Circle in the Square 60-74, 107-10; idem, “Eunuchs Who Keep the Sabbath: Becoming Male and the Ascetic Kdeal in Thisteenth-Cencury Jewish Mysticism.” in Becoming Male inthe Middie Aes, edived by Jeliy Jerome Cohen and Bonnie Wheeler (New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc, 1997), 164-174. Ihave explored the matter in more expansive form in "Eros, Pies and the Margin ofthe Pe- riphery” che dhied chapter in a manogaph 1 am currently completing tiled Language, Fron, Being: Kabbitc Hermenentcs and Poetic hnagination He.Beginning/Again Toward a Hermeneutics of Jewish Texts edited by Aryeh Cohen University of Judaism and Shaul Magid Jewish Theological Seminary Qooa