Moshe Idel - The Divine Female and The Mystique of The Moon - Three-Phases Gender-Theory in Theosophical Kabbalah

CEEOL copyright 2016
Eugen CIURTIN (ed.),

Twenty Years of History of Religions in Bucharest, 1996-2016
STVDIA ARCHÆVS XIX–XX (2015–2016), p. 151–182
THE DIVINE FEMALE

AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON:
THREE-PHASES GENDER-THEORY
IN THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAH
Moshe IDEL
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Matanel Professor of Kabbalah at the Safed Academic College
1. Gender and Kabbalah: Some Introductory Remarks
The emergence of articulated discussions of feminine aspects

of divinity in Kabbalah had provoked a long series of studies and
different explanations for such an emergence have been offered by
scholars.1 The preconceptions as to the pure monotheistic Israelite
God, accepted in many circles, theological and academic, was
instrumental in most of the scholars’ postponing the emergence of
those aspects in medieval period. The more recent explanations
offered to this sudden emergence are either under the impact of
Gnostic elements, according to Gershom Scholem 2, or under the
impact of the cult of Mary in the Middle Ages, in accordance to the
theory of Arthur I. Green3 and Peter Schaefer.4 Different as they are
1
For recent surveys of some of the scholarship discussed below see Hava
TIROSH-SAMUELSON, “Gender in Jewish Mysticism,” in ed. F. E.
GREENSPAHN, Jewish Mysticism and Kabbalah: New Insights and Scholarship,
(New York University Press, New York, London, 2011), pp. 191-230, Daniel
ABRAMS, The Female Body of God in Kabbalistic Literature (Magnes Press,
Jerusalem, 2005) (Hebrew), and Biti ROI, Love of the Shekhina: Mysticism
and Poetics in Tiqqunei ha-Zohar, (Bar Ilan University Press, Ramat Gan,
2017), pp. 30-33 (Hebrew).
2
Gershom SCHOLEM, On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead, tr. J.
Neugroschel, ed. J. Chipman, (Schocken Books, New York, 1991), pp. 150-
151, 165, 167-168.
3
Arthur I. GREEN, “Shekhinah, the Virgin Mary, and the Song of Songs:
Reflections on a Kabbalistic Symbol in its Christian Context,” Association of
Jewish Studies Review [AJSR] 26 (2002), no. 1, pp. 1–52.
Romanian Association for the History of Religions Institute for the History of Religions
member of EASR & IAHR Romanian Academy, Bucharest
www.ihr-acad.ro

152 MOSHE IDEL
these two explanations assume, therefore, an alien and quite decisive

influence of material on the emerging Kabbalah in order to explain a
major shift in Judaism. The two latter scholars capitalized on the
decline of the dominant role of Gnostic elements in Kabbalistic
theosophy as proposed in my studies, which opened for them the
possibility for an alternative, without however referring to them, but
succumbing again to a medieval explanation of the emergence of the
feminine aspects of divinity in Kabbalah. 5 This Christotropic theory
has been criticized in a series of studies, more eminently one of
Yehuda Liebes’s seminal studies 6, and also some of my studies 7, and
more recently in a study of Tzahi Weiss. 8 However, while in these
studies the scholars’ accent was on establishing the feminine gender of
the Shekhinah, the present study is concerned with the broader
framework of the texts under consideration, namely expanding on the
flux of the Feminine hypostasis in its three different phases, and its
adoption and theosophical interpretation in Kabbalah.
Attempts to find some earlier Jewish sources for the medieval
developments on this topic were not taken too much in account, 9 since
4
Peter SCHAEFER, Mirror of His Beauty – Feminine Images of God .from the
Bible to the Early Kabbalah (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2002).
5
See, e.g., Kabbalah: New Perspectives, (Yale University Press, New Haven,
1988), pp. 30-32, “Kabbalism and Rabbinism; on G. SCHOLEM’s
Phenomenology of Judaism,” Modern Judaism 11 (1991), pp. 281–296.
6
Yehuda LIEBES, Studies in Jewish Myth and Jewish Messianism, tr. B. Stein,
(SUNY Press, Albany, 1993), pp. 42-54, and for a reprinted Hebrew original
in God’s Story, Collected Essays on the Jewish Myth, (Carmel, Jerusalem,
2008), pp. 90-107 and his The Cult of the Dawn: The Attitude of the Zohar
Toward Idolatry, (Carmel, Jerusalem, 2011), pp. 25-26 (Hebrew).
7
Ben, Sonship and Jewish Mysticism, (Continuum, London, New York, 2008),
pp. 383-388, and the related footnotes on pp. 474-475.
8
Tzahi WEISS, Cutting the Shoots: The Perception of the Shekhinah in the
World of Early Kabbalah, (Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 2015) (Hebrew).
9
See IDEL, “Kabbalism and Rabbinism,” pp. 281–296, ID., “Jerusalem in
Thirteenth-Century Jewish Thought,” in eds., J. PRAWER and H. Ben
SHAMMAI, The History of Jerusalem: Crusaders and Ayyubids (1099–1250)
(Yad Izhak ben-Zvi Publications, Jerusalem, 1991), pp. 265–276 (Hebrew), a
part of which was printed in a much more expanded manner in an English
version “On Jerusalem as a Feminine and Sexual Hypostasis: from Late
Antiquity Sources to Medieval Kabbalah,” in eds. M. NEAMȚU and B.
TĂTARU-CAZABAN, Memory, Humanity, and Meaning: Selected Essays in
Honor of Andrei Pleşu’s Sixtieth Anniversary, (Zeta, Cluj, 2009), pp. 65-110,
“The Triple Family: Sources for the Feminine Perception of Deity in Early
Kabbalah,” in eds., E. BAUMGARTEN, A. RAZ-KRAKOTZKIN, R. WEINSTEIN,
Tov Elem, Memory, Community & Gender in Medieval & Early Modern

THE DIVINE FEMALE AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON: 153

THREE-PHASES GENDER-THEORY IN THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAH
the theory of Christian influence was regarded as self-evident

provided the concomitance of the alleged emergence and the ascent of
the cult of Mary, in areas close to the emerging Kabbalistic literature
in Western Europe. A stumbling block for such an approach is the fact
that the Book of Bahir, conceived to be the first Kabbalistic treatise,
was believed by Scholem and other scholars as being of an Oriental
origin, and hardly a good candidate for mediating Mary’s cult in the
West.10 Moreover, as pointed out by Daniel Abrams, some discussions
of the feminine nature of the Shekhinah in this book are later
accretions to the earlier versions of this book done by Kabbalists. 11
Another stumbling block is the scholars’ focusing their
discussions on the feminine divine power as if a separated entity, not
part of a couple, and unrelated to sexual relationship with the divine
masculine counterpart.12 A Christian-like reading of Kabbalistic
material triggered this scholarly narrow approach that ignores crucial
aspects of Kabbalistic worldview regarding the feminine. However,
what is even more astonishing, is the scholars’ neglect of a series of
Jewish texts, and others close to Judaism, where a feminine divine
power was nevertheless alluded, sometimes together with a male
counterpart, since late antiquity. 13 In some of those sources, a
Jewish Societies: Essays in Honor of Robert Bonfil, (Mossad Bialik,

Jerusalem, 2011), pp. 91-110 (Hebrew). Especially annoying is the neglect or
the ignorance of Liebes’s seminal study, the first one referred in n. 6 above,
that was printed in English long before the more recent emergence of
Christotropic move. The refusal to engage or even to mention those studies is
characteristic of the Christotrophic tendency.
10
See, more recently, Ronit MEROZ, “The Middle Eastern Origins of
Kabbalah,” Journal for the Study of Sephardic and Mizrahi Jewry, Feb. 2007
(http://sephardic.fiu.edu/journal/RonitMeroz.pdf), pp. 39–56, EADEM, “A
Journey of Initiation in the Babylonian Layer of Sefer ha-Bahir,” Studia
Hebraica 7 (2007), pp. 17-33, EADEM, “On the Time and Place of Some
Paragraphs of Sefer Ha-Bahir”, Da‘at 49 (2002), pp. 137–180, and see now
Israel KNOHL’s forthcoming study in a volume on Heikhalot literature (World
Union of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, 2017) (Hebrew).
11
“The Condensation of the Symbol ‘Shekhinah’ in the Manuscripts of the
Book Bahir,” Kabbalah 16 (2007), pp. 7–82.
12
See the cogent critique of Yehuda LIEBES, “Was the Shekhinah a Virgin?”
Pe‘amin 101-102 (2005), pp. 303-313 (Hebrew).
13
See, e.g., Mark S. SMITH, “God Male and Female in the Old Testament:
Yahveh and His ‘Asherah’,” Theological Studies 48 (1987), pp. 333-340,
Moshe WEINFELD, “Feminine Features in the Imagery of God in Israel; the
Sacred Marriage and the Sacred Tree,” Vetus Testamentum 46 (1996), pp.
515–529, James A. EMERTON, “‘Yahweh and his Asherah’: The Goddess or
Her Symbol? Vetus Testamentum 49 (1999), pp. 315-337, Mayer I. GRUBER,

154 MOSHE IDEL
feminine power, called Knesset Yisrael, and more rarely Shekhinah,14

has been conceived of as the mother of the Jewish nation, which God
was considered to be the father, as for example the Talmudic
discussion in BT. Berakhot, fol. 35b.15 In some of those Hebrew texts,
which were indubitably known to the early Kabbalists, the discussion
is of a family, and only by seeing the threefold structure in pre-
Kabbalistic and Kabbalistic sources, one can met justice to what is old
and what is new in the Middle Ages.
Writings in the vein of history of ideas, the wider conceptual
and cultural content of the divine feminine power in specific texts and
theories has been dramatically marginalized, by tearing one element
out of its conceptual context, and focusing only on some few of its
features, losing the sight of the wider role and meaning of this element
in the pertinent texts and culture. So, for example, it is most striking
the neglect of one of the major roles of the divine feminine as giving
birth to the souls as part of the intercourse with the divine male, an
approach conspicuously related to the primacy of procreation in
Jewish culture, hardly a pertinent value in the various cults of the
Virgin Mary.
The scholars’ separation between certain ideas or themes, and
their immediate context and the culture in which they flourished is
evident also in another recent development in the study of Kabbalah,
and of Judaism in general, that regards those literatures as
phallocentric, which means an inferior role of the divine and human
feminine entities, which were regarded as dominated, as subservient,
The Motherhood of God and Other Studies (Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia,
1992), pp. 3–16. See also GREEN, “The Virgin Mary,” p. 15 n. 66.
14
See SCHOLEM, On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead, pp. 140-197, and
Isaiah Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, An Anthology of Texts, tr. D.
Goldstein, (Littmann Library, London, Washington, 1991), vol. I, pp. 371-
387. See also Franz CUMONT, Lux Perpetua, (Geuthner, Paris, 1949), pp. 436-
438. For more recent surveys of Jewish and non-Jewish usages of Shekhinah
see Nicolas SED, “La Shekhinta et les amis ‘Araméens,” in ed. R.-G. COQUIN,
Mélanges Antoine Guillaumont (Patrick Cramer, Genève, 1988), pp. 233-242,
Dominique CERBELAUD, “Aspects de la Shekinah chez les auteurs Chrétiens
Syriens,” Le Muséon 123 (2010), pp. 91-125. Especially intriguing is the fact
that scholars did not consult dictionaries related to ancient languages, where
the root SKhN, is related to a goddess. See IDEL, Kabbalah & Eros, (Yale
University Press, New Haven, 2005), p. 266 n. 117, referring to The Assyrian
Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, (Chicago, Ill.
1989), pp. 165-166. See also IDEL, ibid., the bibliography and texts mentioned
on pp. 256-257 nn. 23-27, which I shall not repeat here.
15
IDEL, “The Triple Family.”


and often times masculinized or alternatively absorbed by the Male.

This is indubitably the most interesting contribution of Elliot R.
Wolfson to the phenomenology of the study of Kabbalah, and he
reiterated it in a long series of studies. 16 His approach has been
criticized by a series of scholars from different angles, 17 but no
sustained alternative of a gender-theory to his proposals have been
suggested, and this is the main purpose of the present study. Different
as this approach is from the two explanations of the history of the
emergence of the feminine mentioned earlier, it too is losing sight of a
16
See, e.g., Elliot R. WOLFSON, Through a Speculum that Shines: Vision and
Imagination in Medieval Jewish Mysticism (Princeton University Press,
Princeton, 1994), Circle in the Square: Studies in the Use of Gender in
Kabbalistic Symbolism (SUNY Press, Albany, 1995), Language, Eros, Being,
Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and Poetic Imagination, (Fordham University Press,
New York, 2005), “Coronation of the Sabbath Bride: Kabbalistic Myth and
the Ritual of Androgynisation,” The Journal of Jewish Thought and
Philosophy 6 (1997), pp. 301-343, “Patriarchy and the Motherhood of God in
Zoharic Kabbalah and Meister Eckhart,” in Envisioning Judaism: Studies in
Honor of Peter Schaefer, eds. R. BOUSTAN et al., (Mohr/Siebeck, Tübingen,
2013), vol. 2, pp. 1049-1088, “Tiqqun Ha-Shekhinah: Redemption and the
Overcoming of Gender Dimorphism in the Messianic Kabbalah of Moses
Hayyim Luzatto,” HR 36 (1997), pp. 289–332, “Woman: The Feminine as
Other in Theosophic Kabbalah: Some Philosophical Observations on the
Divine Androgyne,” in eds., L. SILBERSTEIN and R. COHN, The Other in
Jewish Thought and Identity, (New York, 1994), pp. 166-204, "Gender and
Heresy in the Study of Kabbalah,” Kabbalah 6 (2001), pp. 231-262 (Hebrew),
“Occultation of the Feminine and the Body of Secrecy in Medieval
Kabbalah,” Rendering the Veil: Concealment and Secrecy in the History of
Religions, ed., E.R. WOLFSON, (Seven Bridges Press, New York, London,
1999), pp. 113-154. See also his “The Face of Jacob in the Moon: Mystical
Transformations of an Aggadic Myth,” in The Seductiveness of Jewish Myth:
Challenge or Response?, ed. S. Daniel BRESLAUER, (SUNY Press, Albany
1997), pp. 235-270.
17
See, e.g., Arthur GREEN, “Kabbalistic Re-Vision: A Review Article of Elliot
Wolfson’s Through a Speculum that Shines,” HR 36 (1997), pp. 265-274, ID.,
Keter: The Crown of God in Early Jewish Mysticism, (PrincetonUniversity
Press, Princeton, 1997), pp. 122-123, Mark VERMAN, “Kabbalah Refracted,”
Shofar 14 (1996), pp. 123-130, and the exchange between Wolfson and
Verman, printed in ibid., pp. 154-163, and pp. 163-167 respectively, MOPSIK,
Sex of the Soul, p. 27, ABRAMS, The Female Body of God, p. 7, Abraham
ELQAYAM, “To Know Messiah,” Tarbiz 65 (1996), p. 665 n. 107 (Hebrew),
WEISS, Cutting the Shots, passim, especially pp. 18-20 and n. 49, Biti ROI,
“Women and Femininity: Images from the Kabbalistic Literature,” in To be a
Jewish Woman, ed. M. SHILO, (Urim, Jerusalem, 2001), pp. 131-155,
especially pp. 145-146 (Hebrew).

156 MOSHE IDEL
long series of Kabbalistic discussions that portray the feminine divine

power in quite positive terms, often times equal to or even higher than
the divine male. This means that phallocentric discussions – I would
prefer the term androcentric, which is more anthropologically oriented
than the psychoanalytic phallocentric - are indeed to be found in
Kabbalistic literature, but on the one hand they do not constitute the
only important voice, and in some cases, that will constitute the gist of
the present study, they may be better understood as part of a much
wider framework, which I would like to call the three-phases gender-
theory, which significantly changes the meaning attributed to a certain
phase in scholarship, when seeing it as part of a much broader
model.18 In principle, I am not inclined to subscribe to theories that
regard Kabbalah as a whole, as if having one basic answer to a certain
topic, including gender.
2. A Three-Phases Gender-Theory in Theosophical Kabbalah
The gist of the model that I shall describe in detail here 19, is
that the divine Female had a high source within the divine world,
equal two or sometimes even higher than the Male - a theme that
constitutes the first, or the primordial phase. Then She descended, or
fell, or is diminished, acquiring an inferior status, represented in the
common representation of the Malkhut as the last and lower of the
sefirotic system, and sometimes subservient, part of the androcentric
worldview, which is the second phase dealing with the present.
Finally, which is the third, restorative phase, the divine Female returns
18
See my initial remarks in R. Menahem Recanati, the Kabbalist, (Schocken,
Jerusalem, Tel Aviv 1998), I pp. 228-229 (Hebrew), “Androgyny and
Equality in Theosophico-Theurgical Kabbalah,” Diogenes 208 (2005), pp. 33-
34, and in a French translation in Diogène, (2004), ID., Kabbalah & Eros, pp.
63-64, 248, 272-273, n. 33.
19
On the diversity of models of gender in Kabbalah see IDEL, Kabbalah &
Eros, passim, and some earlier discussions of this topic in my “The Bride of
God,” Local Goddesses, ed. D. Hershman, (Jerusalem, 1994), pp. 44-46
(Hebrew), ID., R. Menachem Recanati the Kabbalist, p. 223, ID., “The Spouse
and the Concubine, the Woman in Jewish Mysticism,” in eds. D.Y. ARIEL et
al., Barukh she-‘Asani ’Ishah? The Woman in Judaism from the Bible to the
Present Days, (Yediyot Sefarim, Tel Aviv, 1999), pp. 141-157 (Hebrew), and
“Eros in der Kabbalah: Zwischen Gegenwaertiger Physischer Realitaet und
Idealen Metaphysischen Konstrukten,” in eds. D. CLEMENS – T. SCHABERT,
Kulturen des Eros (Fink, Munich, 2001), pp. 59-102, and “Ascensions,
Gender and Pillars in Safedian Kabbalah,” Kabbalah 25 (2011), pp. 55-108.


to Her supernal source, or even higher, as part of the eschaton, or in

privileged moments of time in the present, like the days of Sabbath or
other Jewish holidays. The first phase assumes an initial state of
equality of the Female to the Male, or even higher than Him. Some
instances that can be viewed as belonging to the third phase has been
discussed separately from this model by Arthur Green, as if they
constitute the leading theory in Kabbalah, as a response to Wolfson’s
phallocentric claim.20 The model to be discussed here attempts to
overcome the simplistic presentations of the different phases as if
standing by themselves and thus discussed separately as if alone
representative, without being aware of the broader framework, namely
the potential relevance of other stages of the divine Female. It offers a
more coherent organization of the Kabbalistic material that has been
seen even by scholars as if competitive, as the Wolfson/Green
dichotomy, for example. The existence of such a model may help a
better understanding of the second phase, the androcentric one, than
by isolating it and discussing its details as if this phase stands alone. In
other words, there is nothing like one single and simple vision of the
Shekhinah in this type of Kabbalah, but a complex process in which
this entity is occupying different roles.
The term “model” may assume a scholarly fabricated
construct, imposed on a variety of texts, which strives to offer a better
interpretation of material that is less reflective. It may become an
artificial effort to interrogate diverse texts by means of broader
considerations, which is only rarely explicated by the Kabbalists, as it
is the case of the phallocentric theory that has been inserted within
various discussions of traditional authors. In my opinion, the three-
phase model is resonating with the general perception of Jewish
history by traditional Jews, as constituted of the grandeur of the
ancient times, the exile in the present, and the eschatological future
understood as restorative. Strongly inclined to what can be call
ethnocentrism21, in many discussions in the theosophical Kabbalah
this model reflects, if I am correct, the shifting relationship of between
the nation of Israel and God, including the view of the Jewish nation
as the wife of God, a theme alluded already in the biblical prophets. 22
20
GREEN, "Kabbalistic Re-Vision,” pp. 265-274, and WEISS, Cutting the Shots,
pp. 125-129. See also my remarks in Kabbalah & Eros, pp. 212-213.
21
See IDEL, Kabbalah & Eros, pp. 12, 18, 104, 148. See also LIEBES, God’s
Story, p. 335, Haviva PEDAYA, Nahmanides: Cyclical Time and Holy Text
(‘Am ‘Oved, Tel Aviv, 2003), p. 426 (Hebrew), WEISS, Cutting the Shots, p.
83.
22
See D. BUZY, “L’allégorie matrimoniale de Jahve et d’Israël et la Cantique
des Cantiques,” Vivre et Penser 3 (1945), pp. 79–90, and N. STIENSTRA,

158 MOSHE IDEL
Needless to say that some forms of a cult of the moon in Rabbinic

Judaism, related to the lunar Calendar, facilitated the association
between the fate of the Jewish nation, the phases of the moon, and the
divine Female in Kabbalistic theosophies. 23
In the following pages I would like to translate a series of
Kabbalistic texts since an early period of Kabbalah in mid-13th
century, up to early Kabbalistic literature in 16th century.24 I hope that
most of those quotes explicate the three-phases model independently,
and my assumption is that I do not reconstruct or reveal a “hidden”
agenda of Kabbalists. The aim of this study is to identify and bring
together a series of discussions that inspired some of the leading
figures in the history of Kabbalah as to this model, which is not just a
matter of the existence of a series of discussions where it is explicit,
but that it may organize some other discussions in the writings of
those Kabbalists who are explicating this model, helping, hopefully, to
better understand their approach. However, this second claim, as to
the radiation of this model in other discussions of Kabbalists,
important as it is, cannot be addressed in this limited context, since I
am content here to elaborate on meaning of the series of passages
where the proposed model is presented in a more direct manner.
All this said I do not claim that this model is the single
understanding of gender in Kabbalah, as it is absent in writings of
some important Kabbalists as, for example, R. Abraham Abulafia and
his school of Kabbalah25, R. Isaac ibn Latif, R. David ben Abraham
YHWH is the Husband of His People (Kok Pharos, 1993), IDEL, ibid., pp. 104-
152, and ID., “The Triple Family.”
23
Julius LEWY, “The Late Assyro-Babylonian Cult of the Moon and its
Culmination at the Time of Nabonidus”, Hebrew Union College Annual, 19
(1946), pp. 405-489, Israel KNOHL, The Holy Name, (Devir, Jerusalem, 2012),
pp. 85-94 (Hebrew), and especially the passages in BT., Sanhedrin, fol. 42a,
Pirqei de-Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 53. For visual representations of the performance
of the rite of blessing the moon see Daniel SPERBER, Minhagei Yisrael,
(Mossad ha-Rav Kook, Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 179, 394-399, 409-410
(Hebrew).
24
For later reverberations of this Kabbalistic model in both Kabbalah and
Hasidism see my “On Gender Theories in R. Moshe Hayyim Luzzatto,”
forthcoming in Joseph Kaplan Festschrift, eds. A. Bar-Levav, (Merkaz
Shazar, Jerusalem, 2017) and “Some Observations on Gender Theories in
Hasidism,” forthcoming in Tamar Ross Festschrift, ed. R. IRSHAI, (Bar Ilan
University Press, Ramat Gan, 2017). For Safedian Kabbalah see my “Male
and Female”: Equality, Female’s Theurgy and Eros, R. Moshe Cordovero’s
Dual Ontology (forthcoming).
25
It is interesting to point out that Abulafia is not concerned with the mystique
of the moon that is so evident in many of the theosophical Kabbalah, and he


ha-Lavan, or R. Yohanan Alemanno. Those Kabbalists, most

influenced by a variety of philosophical concepts, do not however,
subscribe to the phallocentric model, too. Neither is the view as to the
supremacy of the moon over the sun, found in an oral tradition
adduced by R. Jacob ben Jacob ha-Kohen that was also copied by R.
Isaac of Acre, representative.26 Nevertheless, my claim is that the
three-phase model is one of the most explicit and widespread models
of gender. In my earlier studies I advocated a need to highlight the
diversity of thought not just in Kabbalah as a whole but also in the
case of individual Kabbalists, whose thought was less systemic, and
they could adopt or develop of variety of different explanations
regarding the same topic, in the vein of the Midrashic literature, an
approach that can be described as a grape-fruit approach.27
The assumption of some form of initial equality between the
Sun and the Moon, are found in an explicit manner in pre-Kabbalistic
and non-Kabbalistic sources, in the context of the Rabbinic myth of
does not comment on the verse from Isaiah 30:26. His view of the phases of
the moon is related to recurrent moments of national redemption and
destruction rather than to a divine Female entity. See M. IDEL, Messianic
Mystics, (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1998), p. 80. For his discussions
of the blessing of the moon – though not the issue of its diminution - see his
Sefer ha-Yashar, printed in Matzref la-Sekhel, ed. A. GROSS, (Jerusalem,
2001), p. 100, Sitrei Torah, ed. A. GROSS (Jerusalem, 2002) pp. 45, 136,
’Otzar ‘Eden Ganuz, ed. A. GROSS, (Jerusalem, 2000), p. 216, or ’Imrei
Shefer, ed. A. GROSS, (Jerusalem, 1999), p. 195.
26
See Daniel ABRAMS, “The Book of Illumination” of R. Jacob ben Jacob
HaKohen, A Synoptic edition, (Ph. D. Thesis, New York University, 1993),
pp. 330-338, and R. Isaac of Acre reference to it in ’Otzar Hayyim, Ms.
Moscow-Guensburg 775, fols. 95b-96a, ABRAMS, ibid., p. 339. The passage
has been printed in part and discussed in Michal KUSHNIR-ORON, ed., Sha‘ar
Ha-Razim, Todros ben Joseph Abulafia, (Bialik Institute, Jerusalem, 1989),
pp. 49 n. 19, Haviva PEDAYA, Vision and Speech, Models of Revelatory
Experience in Jewish Mysticism (Cherub Press, Los Angeles, 2002), p. 223
(Hebrew), WEISS, Cutting the Shots, pp. 83-87, Shifra ASULIN, “The Flaw and
its Correction: Impurity, the Moon and the Shekhinah: A Broad Inquiry into
Zohar 3:79 (Aharei Mot),” Kabbalah 22 (2011), pp. 195-196 n. 12 (Hebrew).
Her discussion, as well as Weiss’s one, of the myth of the moon in the Zoharic
literature is the reason why I do not address it here. The two discussions of the
myth found in R. Moshe de Leon, are worth of a separate discussion. See
WEISS, ibid., pp. 71, 100. For R. Joseph ben Shalom Ashkenazi’s view of
equality of the luminaries see WEISS, ibid., pp. 75-76.
27
See IDEL, Ben, pp. 616-618.

160 MOSHE IDEL
the diminution of the moon. 28 This view has been combined with
discussions about and Adam and Eve, the divine Male and Female,
already at the beginning of the Kabbalistic literature in Europe. 29 With
the time the texts on this issue become numerous and only a few of
them can be discussed here.30 However, they constitute solid evidence
as to the existence of the first phase of the model in Kabbalistic
thought. In the same texts, the diminution of the feminine power in the
present is also evident, in the vein of phase two in the model described
above. Provided the short format of those texts, it is hard to know
whether also the third phase was found or not in Kabbalistic writings
before mid-13th century.
Indubitably, the Kabbalists capitalized on a well-known
Rabbinic myth dealing with the diminution of the Moon, which has
been mentioned in Genesis 1:16 as one of the “two great luminaries”
while in the later part of the verse it is described as the “small
luminary”. This is as etiological myth that tries also to solve the
quandary of the smaller size of the moon despite what is written in the
biblical verse. It deals with the moon’s will to use or wear the crown
alone, without the sun, and a result of her audacious plea to God, she
is said to diminish herself, namely her light. As a result of this
diminution God says “bring an atoning sacrifice for Me since I have
diminished the moon.” As a compensation for this diminution the
count of the holidays in the calendar of the Jews was related to the
lunar phases.31 This myth includes the two first stages of the model
28
See, e.g., Rashi’s commentary to Genesis 1:16, the commentary to a
liturgical poem found in R. Abraham ben Azriel’s ‘Arugat ha-Bosem, ed. E.
E. URBACH, (Mekize Nirdamim, Jerusalem, 1963), vol. III, pp. 42-43
(Hebrew), the anonymous Ashkenazi “Commentary on the Silluq of Eleazar
Kalir for the Thorah-Portion Shekalim “Then Didst see and count,” published
by E.E. URBACH, in ed. Sh. ABRAMSON– A. Mirsky, Hayyim (Jefim)
Schirmann Jubilee Volume (Schocken Institute, Jerusalem, 1970), p. 3
(Hebrew). Those and some other similar texts have been overlooked in the
scholarship dealing with concepts of equality in Kabbalah. My assumption is
that there are common sources for both the Ashkenazi discussions and the
Kabbalistic ones. See my monograph Middot: On the Emergence of
Kabbalistic Theosophies, in preparation. Compare also to ABRAMS, The
Female Body, p. 5 and n. 10.
29
See my Kabbalah & Eros, pp. 59-73.
30
IDEL, ibid.
31
See, especially, BT., Hulin, fol. 60b, Genesis Rabba, VI:3, and Pirqei de-
Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 53. On the background of the Rabbinic myth of the
diminution of the moon see Louis GINSBERG, Legends of the Jews, (JPS,
Philadelphia, 2003), vol. I, p. 24, 25-26, n. 100, Amit ASSIS, “Two Kings, One
Crown, and Raban Gamliel’s Court: Between Strategies of Justifying


mentioned above, but not the third phase, which is apparently missing
from the classical Rabbinic variants of the myth. However, following
a late Midrash, in Kabbalistic discussions, it has been coupled with the
verse from Isaiah 30:26: “Moreover, the light of the moon will be as
the light of the sun, and the light of the sun will be sevenfold, as the
light of seven days, in the day when the Lord binds up the brokenness
of his people, and heals the wounds inflicted by his blow.” Apparently
unrelated to the above myth this biblical verse deals with an
augmentation of the moon’s light, to that of the sun, which is itself
augmented sevenfold. This is part of the eschatological scenario,
which includes the redemption of the people of Israel.
When those two distinct treatments were brought together,
the Isaiah verse is conceived of as part of a wider drama that repairs
the blemish of the moon in the beginning, in the eschaton. Such a
reading is facilitated by the mentioning of the seven days of creation
in the verse. This fusion between the two elements is found in a
Authority and Signification of Time”, Jerusalem Studies in Hebrew Literature

23 (2010), pp. 545-575, and for some of its metamorphoses, see especially,
Gershom SCHOLEM, On the Kabbalah and its Symbolism, tr. Ralph Manheim,
(Schocken Books, New York, 1969), pp. 151-153, Efraim GOTTLIEB, Studies
in Kabbalah Literature , ed. J. Hacker, (Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, 1976),
pp. 324-328 (Hebrew), LIEBES, Studies in Jewish Myth, pp. 42-54, ID., The
Cult of the Dawn, pp. 25-26, KUSHNIR-ORON, ed., Sha‘ar Ha-Razim, Todros
ben Joseph Abulafia, p. 49 n. 19, 51, 63-64, Charles MOPSIK, Le secret du
marriage de David et Betsabée, (Éditions de l’Éclat, Paris-Tel Aviv, 1994),
pp. 68, 78-79, ID., Sex of the Soul: The Vicissitudes of Sexual Difference in
Kabbalah, ed. D. ABRAMS, (Cherub Press, Los Angeles, 2005), pp. 100-102,
106-108, 118, 189-190 n. 69, WEISS, Cutting the Shoots, pp. 60-90, especially
pp. 63-65 n. 4, and 66-74, Haviva PEDAYA, "Sabbath, Sabbatai, and the
Diminution of Moon, - The Holy Conjunction, Sign and Image," in ed. H.
PEDAYA, Myth in Judaism, = Eshel Beer-Sheva 4 (1996), pp. 143-191
(Hebrew), EADEM, Nahmanides, pp. 359-364, EADEM, Vision and Speech, pp.
234-236, Melila Hellner-Eshed, ˝Of What Use is a Candle in Broad
Daylight?” The Reinvention of a Myth’
https://hartman.org.il/Fck_Uploads/file/havrutavol3LR.55-62.pdf, IDEL,
Kabbalah & Eros, pp. 69, 91, 261 n. 72. See also WOLFSON, Language, Eros,
Being, pp. 177, 144-148, Moshe HALBERTAL, By Way of Truth, Nahmanides
and the Creation of Tradition, (Shalom Hartman Institute, Jerusalem, 2006),
pp. 144-146 (Hebrew), Bracha Sack, The Kabbalah of R. Moshe Cordovero,
(Ben Gurion University Press, Beer Sheva, 1995), pp. 232, 246, 284 n. 27,
346, 357, 359, 365 (Hebrew), and more recently Asulin, “The Flaw and its
Correction,” pp. 193-251. See also Daniel ABRAMS, “The Virgin Mary as the
Moon that Lacks the Sun: A Zoharic Polemic against the Veneration of
Mary,” Kabbalah 21 (2010), pp. 7-52.

162 MOSHE IDEL
relatively late Midrash, Pirqei de-Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 53, and this
Midrash, though not mentioned in the Kabbalistic texts dealing with
this myth, was indubitably known to Kabbalists in many other
instances. Moreover, the ritual of the blessing the new moon every
month, is an important vehicle for spreading this myth. This blessing
contains the following statement: “True Worker, whose work is true,
and God said to the moon: ‘Renew yourself! a diadem of glory
[‘Ateret Tiferet] to the womb-laden [‘amusei baten]32, who are
destined to renew themselves like her, and to glorify the One who
formed them.” The entire blessing of the moon is replete with
eschatological references, which includes the renewal of the kingdom
of David and of the Jewish nation. Therefore, we have here both a
description of the present and the aspirations or the ideals for a future.
Thus, we may safely say that it is in this last Midrash and
cognate later Midrashim33, that Kabbalists found the narrative basis
for their symbolic interpretations. However, let me emphasize that the
Rabbinic starting point of the model has nothing to do with the
question of gender, but deals solely with exegetical, cultic, national,
and eschatological issues, which should be recognized before adding
other types of concerns.
Early Kabbalists, since the Book of Bahir, and especially in a
text of R. Abraham ben David, resorted to the symbolism of Moon
and Sun as referring to divine powers, transforming the cosmogonic
myth into a theosophical one, which can be called also theo-cosmic
that deals with the dynamics of the sefirot.34 This is also the case with
another Rabbinic statement as to the feminine figures and their
relations to king Solomon. The earliest Kabbalistic treatment of the
multiple positions and functions of the feminine divine power is found
in a text which I propose to attribute to the 12 th century R. Jacob the
Nazirite and its affinity to the anonymous Sefer ha-Bahir,35 This is just
one of the several examples in which early Kabbalah reflects the
32
Interpreted by many as a reference to the people of Israel.
33
See GINSBERG, Legends of the Jews, I, pp. 25-26 n. 100, where he claims
that there are earlier traditions for the more complex model as found in the
late Midrashim.
34
See my Kabbalah & Eros, pp. 61-73. For the ditheistic or binitarian
structure of aspects in early Kabbalah see my “Prayer in Provencal
Kabbalah,” Tarbiz 62 (1993), pp. 265-286 (Hebrew), ID., Ben, pp. 642-662,
and WEISS, Cutting the Shots, passim, especially pp. 24-32, 125-129.
35
Printed from a manuscript in IDEL, ibid., pp. 285-286. See already Arthur
GREEN, “Bride, Spouse, Daughter: Image of the Feminine in Classical Jewish
Sources,” in On Being a Jewish Feminist, ed. S. Heschel, (New York 1983),
pp. 248–260.


impact of earlier views found in traditional Judaism related to

femininity, a fact that has been neglected in modern research in the
above-mentioned attempts to portray the emergence of the feminine
divine power.
3. Nahmanides’ Hints and Their Later Reverberations
We shall be concerned below with a specific Kabbalistic

school, that of Nahmanides, which differs from other Kabbalistic
schools that emerged concomitantly. The Rabbinic myth of the moon
did not play a significant role in the Provencal Kabbalah and its
reverberations in Catalunia, in the school of Kabbalists that followed
R. Isaac the Blind, with whom Nahmanides was certainly acquainted,
or the somewhat later ecstatic Kabbalah, that was mentioned above.
This is the reason why I prefer not to speak about the view of
Kabbalah or Kabbalists in the singular, or about the archetype of the
moon in Kabbalah as a whole.
An authoritative figure in the history of medieval Judaism, R.
Moshe ben Nahman, known as Nahmanides [1194-1270], contributed
in a more substantial manner to the discussions related to the Rabbinic
myth about the diminution of the moon than any early Kabbalist.36 In
his Commentary to the Pentateuch he wrote
“And if you will be able to know their intention by saying in the

blessing of the moon ‘the ‘Ateret Tiferet to the womb-laden’ you will
know the secret of the primordial light [ha-’or ha-rishon], the storage
[genizah]37 and the distinction [havdalah], since he said38 ‘He
36
On this towering figure there is an entire secondary literature. For our
purpose here see especially the two monographs of PEDAYA, Nahmanides,
Halbertal, By Way of Truth, as well as my “Nahmanides: Kabbalah, Halakhah,
and Spiritual Leadership,” in eds. M. IDEL and M. Ostow, Jewish Mystical
Leaders and Leadership in the 13th Century, (Northvale, N.J., 1998), pp. 15–
96, Elliot R. WOLFSON, “By Way of Truth: Aspects of Nahmanides'
Kabbalistic Hermeneutic,” AJSR 14 (1989), no. 2, pp. 103-178 and below n.
41.
37
The storage of the primordial light is part of another Rabbinic myth, found,
e.g., BT, Hagigah, fol. 12a. For its development in Kabbalah see GOTTLIEB,
Studies in Kabbalah Literature, pp. 326-328, M. IDEL, “From the “Stored
Light” to the “Light of the Torah” a Chapter in the Phenomenology of Jewish
Mysticism,” On Light, ed. A. ZION, (Rehovot, 2002), pp. 26-36 (Hebrew). See
also PEDAYA, Nahmanides, pp. 367-370.
38
R. Yehudah in the name of R. Shimeon, in the Midrash Genesis Rabbah 3:6.
This is part of a dispute whether the primeval light was stored for the future

164 MOSHE IDEL
distinguished it for Himself’, and the secret of two kings that wear the
same crown, and at the end [Isaiah 30:26] ‘the light of the moon like
the light of the sun after the light of the sun will be seven time
greater’.”39
Of outmost importance are Nahmanides’ references to secrets

found in his opinion in the Rabbinic materials he quotes. The phrase
‘Ateret Tiferet understood as a unified entity of two entities, stands for
some kind of primordial light, which afterwards there was a
differentiation between ‘Ateret and Tiferet, that parallels moon and
sun respectively, then the diminution of the former takes place, and
finally the return to a state of equal light is mentioned. 40 Therefore, the
three stages mentioned above are evident in a text that is exoteric: the
cosmogonic, (basically interpreted as later on theogonic, as we shall
see immediately below), the diminution, and then the renewal. What
exactly are the secrets of Nahmanides related to these topics he does
not disclose just as he does not divulge other secrets he alludes in his
commentary. However, his secrets have been hinted at by his disciples
and their followers.41 So, for example, in a collection of Nahmanides’
Kabbalistic traditions preserved by R. Isaac of Acre, - a Kabbalist
righteous persons or for God. It should be pointed out that of distinction, or

differentiation, plays a major role in the manner the divine acts are imagined
in the creationalist narrative of Genesis 1. See M. IDEL, “Eros: Path of Unity
and Polarity in Kabbalah,” eds. L. SULLIVAN, F. MERLINI, L. E. SULLIVAN, R.
BERNARDINI, and K. OLSON (eds.), Love on a Fragile Thread | L’amore sul filo
della fragilità – Presentations of the 2011 Eranos Conference 2008-2011 =
Eranos Yearbook | Annale 70 (2009-2010-2011), (Eranos Foundation | Daimon
Verlag, Ascona | Einsiedeln Daimon Verlag, 2012), pp. 296-322.
39
Commentary to the Pentateuch, on Genesis 1:14. See also PEDAYA,
Nahmanides, pp. 362-366, and WEISS, Cutting the Shots, pp. 78-81, where the
discussions of the Nahmanidean background of treating sun and moon, in the
book of Bahir is found, though not the myth of diminution.
40
See also Nahmanides on Genesis 38:29, discussed in WEISS, ibid., p. 81,
where moon is depicted as mut’emet, to the sun. Compare to the secret of du-
partzufin as twins [te’omim] in ibn Gaon, Keter Shem Tov, ed. ‘Amudei ha-
Qabbalah, (Jerusalem, 2001), p. 74. Compare also ibid., p. 21 and below n.
51. See also a similar view quoted by the 14th century R. Menahem Zioni,
Sefer Zioni, (Jerusalem, 1964), fol. 75d. See also ibid., fol. 39d, and the
passage in fol. 66d, influenced by Ma‘arekhet ha-’Elohut.
41
For the problems related to decoding Nahmanides’ secrets see, e.g., M.
IDEL, “Commentaries on the Secret of Impregnation in the Kabbalas of
Catalunia and their Significance for Understanding of the Beginning of
Kabbalah and its Development,” Da‘at 72 (2012), pp. 5-49, ibid., 73 (2012),
pp. 5-44 (Hebrew), and PEDAYA, Nahmanides, pp. 106-110.


whose views on the topic will be discussed later on in this essay - we

learn:
“[a] The Kabbalistic tradition of Saporta: ‘Know that they were du-
partzufin, and when they were operating equally there was a fear that
provided that their rule was equal42, lest the people will err and say
that ‘there are two powers [in heaven], God forbid.’43 End of quote. [b]
But the opinion of the sage was that it is possible to say that du-
partzufin is from the perspective that in the sun the power of the moon
was comprised [kelulah], and also that this power of the moon has
been then consonant [mute’met] to the sun, and was not mixed to the
power of the sun, but was distinguishable44…[c] in any case it is
possible to say that the power of the moon is consonant in the sun at
that moment, and was exercising also the act of mercy, as it seems to
be from the Kabbalah of Saporta.”45
This is quite a composite passage. The Kabbalistic theory of Saportas

[a], most probably to be identified with Nahmanides as scholars
assume46, differs from the view of the anonymous Sage cited in [b], a
figure whose ideas are known in the circle of Nahmanides’ followers,
42
On equality see also the gloss inserted in R. Shem Tov ibn Gaon, Ma’or va-
Shemesh, ed. Y. KORIAT, (Leghorn, 1839), fol. 28b, cited in the name of a
sage, as well as the supercommentary on Nahmanides of R. Meir ibn Avi
Sahulah – (or R. Yehoshu‘a ibn Shu‘aib), to Nahmanides’ secrets, (Warsau,
1875), fols. 3d, 4ab, where the luminaries are depicted as both du-partzufin
and as operating in an equal manner, as part of the moon-myth. On du-
partzufin in this super-commentary see also ibid., fols. 5d, 10c, 19a, 24a.
Though the basic conceptual unit of du-partzufin and equality is adumbrated
already in the passage attributed, correctly in my opinion, to the late 12 th
century R. Abraham ben David, there the myth of the moon has not been
mentioned in an explicit manner. This passage has been analyzed by many
scholars, without referring to the role of the element of equality. See,
however, my Kabbalah & Eros, pp. 59-73.
43
BT., Hagigah, fol. 15a.
44
In Hebrew hayah nikkar. See also below in the next citation.
45
R. Isaac of Acre, Me’irat ‘Einayyim, ed. A. GOLDREICH, (Ph. D. Thesis,
Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1982), pp. 8–9. For an interesting discussion
where both equality and twins in the context of du-partzufin and the myth of
the moon see R. Yehoshu‘a ben Shmuel Nahmias, Migdol Yeshu‘ot, ed. R.
COHEN, (Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 71-76 (Hebrew), which summarizes some of
the discussions in the above passages and some to be discussed below. See
also ibid., pp. 78, 102.
46
See Efraim GOTTLIEB, The Kabbalah in the Writings of R. Bahya ben Asher
ibn Halawa, (Kiriat Sepher, Jerusalem, 1970), pp. 216-221 (Hebrew), and
GOLDREICH’s introduction, ibid., pp. 76-89.

166 MOSHE IDEL
who were Kabbalists but cannot be identified for the time being with
certainty.47 His view is presented as different, opening as it is by the
word “but”. In [b] and [c], which is the view of R. Isaac himself, there
are two different explanations, which have nevertheless something in
common: the two factors designated as du-partzufin are conceived of
as equal and different but nevertheless acted in some form of
consonance or cooperation. In my opinion, there are here hints at
some form of inner bisexuality, namely the inherent presence of the
feminine within the masculine, and vice-versa, a view found in the
book of the Zohar, and a development that influenced dramatically
Safedian Kabbalah.48 This means that there is no need to adopt a
phallocentric vision in order to account for the presence of the
feminine within the Male, neither of the fluidity theory of changing
functions of the same entity. If we adopt this view as a clue for
understanding Nahmanides, as it is found in traditions attributed to
him and from his circle, then an understanding of this Kabbalist is
predicated on understanding not just of the cooperation between two
distinct sefirot, but also on the various factors that are found within
the same sefirah.
These passages are of special importance for the Kabbalistic
theory of gender as I present it here, for a variety of reasons. First and
47
See in PEDAYA, Nahmanides, pp. 371-372.
48
See my “Male and Female”. For the assumption that each sefirah comprises
both the attribute of grace and that of judgment, and that each also comprises
all the other sefirot see ibn Gaon’s Keter Shem Tov, ed. ‘Amudei ha-Qabbalah,
p. 8. It seems that the first occurrence of this theory is found in R. Isaac
Todros in his Commentary to the Mahzor, Ms. Paris BN 839, fol. 215b,
written sometime in later decades of the 13th century in Barcelona. Following
him it can be discerned also in Keter Shem Tov by R. Shem Tov as printed in
Ma’or va-Shemesh, ed. Koriat, fols. 26b and 45a, or in the parallel discussions
in Ms. Paris BN 774, fols. 76b, 104a of this work, and in traditions from
Nahmanides’ school as found, anonymously, in e.g., Ms. Oxford-Bodleiana
1610, fol. 86b or in R. Menahem Recanati’s quotation of some Kabbalists in
his Commentary to the Pentateuch, fol. 25ab and R. Meir ibn Gabbai, Derekh
’Emunah, ed. M. SHATZ, (Jerusalem, 1997), p. 82. The term for comprised is
kelulah which is quintessential for understanding the way of thought in
Nahmanides’ school. See, e.g., R. Isaac Todros, Commentary on the Mahzor,
Ms. Paris BN 839, fol. 211b, Keter Shem Tov, ed. ‘Amudei ha-Qabbalah, pp.
29, 34, 35, 40, 55, 34, 61, R. Isaac of Acre, Me’irat ‘Einayyim, ed.
GOLDREICH, p. 152, and in Nahmanides himself in his Commentary to the
Pentateuch, Genesis 1:26. The term stems from Sefer ha-Bahir, ed. D.
ABRAMS, (Cherub Press, Los Angeles, 1994), p. 223. See also Maurizio
MOTTOLESE, Analogy in Midrash and Kabbalah, Interpretive Projections of
the Sanctuary and Ritual (Cherub Press, Los Angeles, 2006), p. 215.


foremost, in [a] it is evident that already in the primordial state, the

Male and Female were imagined to be distinguishable, as it is
mentioned explicitly, and implicitly in the fear that there is going to be
a theological misunderstanding as to the existence of two independent
powers on high. Provided this distinction and the equality of the
members of the couple, it is hard to assume that the Female was
considered just a part of the Male structure. Third, and also pertinent
to my understanding of the threefold model, is the primordial equality
between Male and Female. Nowhere in this passage is the Female
understood as being subservient. Last but not least: the existence of all
the sefirot in each of them, mean the existence of masculine factors
within the Female and vice-versa, as a given, not an event by means of
which one of the sefirot attains some form of perfection.
Let turn to an anonymous piece, found in a collection of
Kabbalistic traditions stemming from Nahmanides’ school, where it is
written that
“God, blessed be he, created a subtle creature in [the manner of] du-
partzufin, an equal power [be-koah shaweh] and they are ‘Ateret
Tiferet and they served the [first] three days until the fourth. And when
God has seen that the world is not worthy of such a great light49 He
did, by the light of du partzufin50, the lights of the spheres, which are
sun and moon, and they are the similitude of the lights of the first
ones. And those sun and moon served until the sixth day when Adam
and Eve were created also [as] du-partzufin, after the creation of the
world. And since she did accuse, namely the ‘Atarah in that legend,
that the moon said: ‘is it possible that two kings will use the same
crown’, namely the equal power, Her Creator, namely the Blessed be
He – that is the Teshuvah – answered her: “Go and diminish yourself!”
Immediately the twins separated themselves a little bit.51 And this was
in the eve of Sabbath, in the twilight, and also the sun and the moon
separated themselves, and Adam and Eve, which are the emanation of
the first ones.52 You should understand from this the legend according
to which Sabbath said to the Holy one blessed be He, namely the
Tzaddiq53 said about this: “You have given to all a partner and to me
you did not give one.” Then the Holy One blessed be he, said:
49
Probably the primordial light mentioned by Nahmanides.
50
Namely the two sefirot mentioned earlier.
51
Compare above in the previous text, n. 44 above, the phrase “was
distinguishable”. On twins see n. 40 above.
52
Namely Tiferet and Malkhut.
53
Namely the ninth sefirah or the sefirah of Yesod. This is also the view of R.
Yehudah ben Yaqar, cf. n. 77 below.

168 MOSHE IDEL
“Knesset Yisrael will be your partner”.54 Immediately the two unite to

each other and became both Sabbath.55 And you should rejoice and be
glad like the joy of bridegroom and bride. And to this issue the Rabbi 56
intended when he spoke about division, as it is written in the case of R.
Simon57: they divided to Him, namely the Teshuvah. And this is the
reason why [it is written] ‘you should bring a ransom for me’, namely
to me58…Know the secret of the primordial light namely for it ‘Ateret
Tiferet said, in order to show how that they were du-partzufin and in
one union.59 And when they said to ‘amusei baten, it refers to [the
secret of] storage. And there are some people60 who say that the influx
was separated by Teshuvah [going only] to Tiferet.61”62
The “subtle creature” mentioned at the beginning of the

translated passage is not the human Adam but a divine entity that
incorporated two entities that had an equal power, namely two sefirot
as symbolized by the two luminaries. The syntagm “equal power” in
the singular occurs again in the same collectanea in order to refer to
the zone of Tiferet.63 It should be pointed out that the storage of the
primordial light, or a part of it, by some form of its ascent on high, is
reminiscent of the constellation of ideas that culminated in a version
of the theory of withdrawal that became evident in the 16 th century.64
54
Genesis Rabbah XI:8.
55
Sabbath is a symbolic reference in early Kabbalah for both the ninth and
tenth sefirah. This view is found also in R. Yehoshu‘a ben Shmuel Nahmias,
ed. COHEN, Migdol Yeshu‘ot, pp. 73-74.
56
Namely Nahmanides.
57
Cf., BT., Hullin, fol. 60b.
58
This is a demythization of the Midrashic stance: It is not God that should be
forgiven because a mistake He made, but the sacrifice should be intended to
Him, referred here by the sefirah of Binah, symbolized by Teshuvah.
59
See also ibn Gaon, Keter Shem Tov, in ed., ‘Amudei ha-Qabbalah, p. 22.
60
This is also part of views found in Nahmanides’ school.
61
Which means that power is no more given to ‘Atarah, which receives now
from Tiferet.
62
Ms. Oxford-Bodeliana 1610, fols. 90a-90b, Ms. Cambridge Or. 2116.8, Ms.
Parma-Palatina (1285) 2270, fol. 113b, or Ms. New York, JTS 191, p. 94, part
of which has been printed now from the last manuscript in WEISS, Cutting the
Shoots, pp. 82-83. For cognate material see also Ms. Oxford-Bodleiana 1610,
fol. 91a.
63
Ibid., fol. 91a.
64
See Boaz HUSS, Sockets of Fine God: The Kabbalah of Rabbi Shim‘on ibn
Lavi, (Magnes, Ben Tzvi, Jerusalem, 2000), pp. 132-146 (Hebrew).
Interestingly enough one of the first traces of the theory of Tzimtzum, the
divine withdrawal, is found in one of Nahmanides’ Kabbalistic texts. See M.
IDEL, “On the Concept of Tzimtzum in Kabbalah and Its Research,” in eds. R.


Let me emphasize that the Rabbinic drama is depicted in terms of a

discussion taking place between two feminine powers in the
theosophical system, the lower one, that complains and the higher one,
Teshuvah, the third sefirah. A more detailed, technical interpretation
of the Rabbinic myth in theosophical terms is preserved again in R.
Isaac of Acre:
‘This is the reason that Tiferet and ‘Atarah are called du-partzufin
since at the beginning they were emanate from Teshuvah [as] du-
partzufin, and they receive [from there] in an equal manner [be-
shawweh], but the sins of Israel caused that they are in exile, and this
is the reason that it is necessary to bring atonement, and this is the
meaning of the Prosecution.65 This is the secret meaning I received:66
Know that the Teshuvah is the king of the kings of kings. How it is:
Teshuvah is king, kings are the arms of the world [namely Hesed and
Gevurah], [second] kings are du-partzufin that is two kings that serve
and use one crown, which is the Teshuvah that is the Holy One,
blessed be He. When the ‘Atarah stood and accused and said to
Teshuvah: ‘it is impossible that two kings will use the same crown’,
because you know that the du-partzufin were equal, since during the
six days of creation the light of one was like the light of another, since
Tiferet was the first day and ‘Atarah is the second one.’67
This is just another version that emphasizes however and element less
prominent in other variants: the strong connection between diminution
and the sins of the people of Israel, an interesting insertion of the
national motif in the theosophical interpretation.
4. R. Shem Tov ibn Gaon
R. Shem Tov ben Abraham ibn Gaon is a common student of

Nahmanides’ disciples in matters of Kabbalah, R. Shlomo ibn Adret
Elior, Y. LIEBES, Lurianic Kabbalah (Jerusalem, 1992), pp. 60-68 (Hebrew).

This issue deserves a more detailed analysis.
65
Qitrug. The verb qitregah, namely slandered, which is the source of the
noun qitrug, is found in many sources dealing with the complaint of the moon.
66
Compare to a similar view in ibn Gaon’s Keter Shem Tov, ed. ‘Amudei ha-
Qabbalah, p. 28.
67
Me’irat ‘Einayyim, ed. GOLDREICH, pp. 7–8. See also below for another text
of R. Isaac dealing with the first two days, analyzed in detail. The two texts
have been quoted and discussed in R. Moshe Cordovero’s Pardes Rimmonim,
Gate XVIII, ch.1, (Jerusalem, 1962), part I, fols. 83c-84a.

170 MOSHE IDEL
and R. Isaac Todros.68 He claims to be in the possession of the secrets

of Nahmanides, as transmitted orally by his two teachers.69 In his
influential supercommentary on Nahmanides’ secrets that were hinted
at in his commentary on the Pentateuch, the widespread Keter Shem
Tov, he writes: “that the secret of the primordial light refers to Tiferet,
that is du-partzufin that are equal, until the moon was diminished.” 70
This identification of the primordial light with Tiferet recurs in his
book.71 This means that originally within the realm of Tiferet there
were two equal powers, which were a distinction in union, one of
which has been then diminished. Du partzufin is a code that recurs
frequently in his book, for the sixth and tenth sefirot, which are
identified explicitly with the two luminaries. 72 The nature of
diminution is that the last sefirah does not suck its power from the
third sefirah, Teshuvah or Binah, but from the sixth sefirah, Tiferet,
conceived of as the Male. 73 However, in the future, the luminaries will
become again equal, as they were at the beginning, and he resorts to
the Isaiah 30:26 verse.74
“the correspondence of the days is so in our true Kabbalah,75 and if

you will understand the emanation and the secret of the two luminaries
68
This treatise had a lasting impact on a series of younger contemporary
Kabbalists, like R. Isaac of Acre, the anonymous Kabbalist that authored the
influential Ma‘arekhet ha-’Elohut, and R. Menahem Recanati’s writings,
including the topics to be discussed below. We shall deal in this framework
only with some of those reverberations, ignoring here the lengthy discussions
in Ma‘arekhet ha-’Elohut on the topic that have been analyzed already by
GOTTLIEB, Studies in Kabbalah Literature, pp. 324-328, 331, MOPSIK, Sex of
the Soul, pp. 103-108, and PEDAYA, Nahmanides, pp. 359-364. Some
treatments in this book attenuated the mythical aspects of the diminution.
69
It should be pointed out that in a quote in the name of ibn Adret, found in
his student’s Commentary to the Pentateuch, he is attributed a different
explanation than ibn Gaon’s, much closer to the view of R. Abraham ben
David, but this is not reported as a secret. See the original Hebrew text, an
English translation and analysis in MOPSIK, Sex of the Soul, pp. 100-102, 118-
119.
70
‘Amudei ha-‘Qabbalah, p. 12. For equality in a similar context see ibn
Gaon’s later Kabbalistic treatise Baddei ’Aron, quoted in IDEL, Kabbalah:
New Perspectives, pp. 131.
71
‘Amudei ha-Qabbalah, p. 11, several times. I quote ibn Gaon’s book from
different editions since all of them include different forms of accretions.
72
Ibid., pp. 3, 8, 10, 11, 22, 23, 25, 29, 31, 33, 63.
73
Ibid., p. 12.
74
Ibid. See also ibid., p. 27.
75
On this topic see PEDAYA, Nahmanides, pp. 217-221.


that was told to you concerning the two kings that wear one crown you
should know that this is very occult secret and I was not permitted to
hint at more. And as to the correspondence of this seventh day our
sages, blessed be their memory, said in the ’Aggadah 76: ‘Sabbath said
to the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Lord of the World to all you gave a
partner and to me you did not give one etc., Behold, He gave to him
His Name’.”77
Here, two Rabbinic myths have been juxtaposed, creating a

larger narrative, that I called a macro-myth. However, those obscure
hints are somehow more explicated elsewhere in the same treatise in
greater detail. When dealing with the erasure of the memory of
Amaleq and the completion of the name of God and His throne in the
eschatological epoch78, R. Shem Tov writes:
“and in the days of the Messiah, the Shekhinah will ascend and the
womb-laden will be renewed and Her light was like the role of the sun
at the beginning in79 the primordial light,80 and the name of Esau and
‘Amaleq will be erased because of the power of Israel, which will
have the kingdom [ha-Malkhut] … as it was at the beginning…and
God and His Name will be one, in an explicit and adequate manner, if
you will merit despite the fact that the connection of du-partzufin is
not absolute as it was in the primordial days, and even if this
connection will be, what was [in the past] will not repaired.”81
76
Genesis Rabbah XI:8.
77
Ms. Paris BN 774, fol. 74a, ‘Amudei ha-Qabbalah, p. 3. See also below
beside n. 87. Compare also to Nahmanides’ teacher in matters of Kabbalah R.
Yehudah ben Yaqar, The Commentary to Prayers and Blessings, ed. Sh.
ASHKENAZI, (Jerusalem, 1979), II p. 42, and see the English translation of this
text in IDEL, Ben, p. 391. I shall elaborate more on this topic and parallels
found in early Kabbalah elsewhere. See above n. 53 and R. Menahem
Recanati, Commentary to the Pentateuch, (Jerusalem, 1961), fol. 8b, and R.
Yehoshu‘a ben Shmuel Nahmias, ed. COHEN, Migdol Yeshu‘ot, pp. 73-74.
These Kabbalists read the Rabbinic legend as dealing with a sexually distinct
couple, identifying Sabbath with Yesod, and Kenesset Yisrael with Malkhut.
78
On this topic in early Kabbalah see Haviva PEDAYA, Name and Sanctuary in
the Teaching of R. Isaac the Blind (Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 2001) (Hebrew).
79
Or, according to another reading “as”.
80
In several instances, the primordial light is identified with the sefirah of
Tiferet. See Keter Shev Tov, in ‘Amudei ha-Qabbalah, p. 11, twice, 27.
81
Ms. Paris BN 774, fol. 91a, ed. ‘Amudei ha-‘Qabbalah, p. 33. This passage
in found in a paraphrastic version in R. Menahem Recanati’s Commentary to
the Pentateuch, fol. 44c. On this Kabbalist see below, section 6.

172 MOSHE IDEL
This statement contradicts what we have seen above about the

return to the ancient equality in another passage of this Kabbalist. The
model is found here the state of initial equality between Sun and
Moon in the past is evident and has been disrupted by sin and exile,
reflecting the present, while the third phase is reflected in the
possibility of atonement. In any case, according to ibn Gaon, it is
possible to elevate the Shekhinah to Tiferet,82 and according to another
text even to the Infinite83, a view that is not concerned with
eschatological situations. Thus, the third phase is well represented in
ibn Gaon’s treatise, either when dealing with messianism or with
theurgical activity that causes the ascent of the Shekhinah.
5. R. Isaac ben Shmuel of Acre
As seen above, several statements where the three-phases

model occurs, where found in the writings of R. Isaac of Acre. 84
Active at the end of the 13th and early 14th century this Kabbalist
preserved a variety of traditions from earlier forms of Kabbalah. In
one more of them we read:
“and Knesset Yisrael slandered and demanded good for herself, and so
too the moon in relation to the sun, and Eve in relation to Adam, and
all is the same matter, but one is the holy and consecrated spirit of
God, blessed be He, and the other have been created in a corporeal
manner.”85
Elsewhere, R. Isaac insists on the initial equality, writing that ‘at the
beginning they [the two luminaries] were equal [shawwim] . . . as they
were created du-partzufin, back to back, no one has any priority to the
other, this being the reason why Adam and Eve were equal
[shawwim]’.86 This primal equality of the two couples is developed in
a much longer passage that has been already discussed in scholarship
in order to exemplify the phallocentric model. I use Elliot Wolfson’s
English translation with some minor changes:
82
See ed. ‘Amudei ha-‘Qabbalah, pp. 27, 63.
83
Ibid., p. 71.
84
The only monograph dedicated to this Kabbalist is Eitan P. FISHBANE, As
Light before Dawn: The Inner World of a Medieval Kabbalist, (Stanford
University Press, Stanford, 2009).
85
Quoted by R. Isaac of Acre, Meirat ‘Einayyim, ed. GOLDREICH, p. 22.
86
R. Isaac of Acre, ‘Otzar Hayyim, Ms. Moscow-Ginsburg 775, fol. 95b,
IDEL, “Androgyny and Equality,” p. 30.


“You already know, as I have written, that the two countenances were
equal, the light of the one as the light of the other, in the six days of
creation. Thus, Tif'eret and ‘Atarah correspond to the first and second
days, Hesed and Pahad to the third and fourth days . . . Netzah and
Hod to the fifth and sixth days, Yesod ‘Olam is the Sabbath, and he has
no counterpart, but Kenesset Yisra'el is his counterpart.87 She
complained and sought benefit for herself, and similarly the moon
with respect to the sun, and Eve with respect to Adam, for it is all one
matter, but this is the spirit of God, sanctified and blessed, and the
others were created corporeally. The intention of Eve vis-à-vis Adam
her husband when she ate the fruit was to rise above Adam and to rule
over him so that he would be in need of her power. When she saw that
the eating harmed her and that she was punished on account of it, she
said, "I will also feed my husband so that he, too, will be punished,
and his stature will not be greater than my stature." On account of this
intention she was punished and the matter was reversed, and she was
in need of the power of her husband, and her desire'"' was directed to
him all day to receive the overflow and the progression from him.
Thus, when ‘Atarah complained that two kings could not make use of
one crown, she was demanding on behalf of herself, and her light was
diminished, and she became the speculum that does not shine . . . . See
how primal Adam was created two-faced, neck opposite neck, equal in
power and one in actuality. Afterwards "he took one of his ribs" [Gen.
2:21] from his side, that is, one of his parts . . . and from one two were
made, and even though they are two, they are one, as it says, "and they
will be one flesh" (ibid., 24). His attention is constantly directed to her
and her attention is constantly directed to him, and his wife is as
himself, “for this one was taken from the man” (ibid., 23), understand
this.’88
Equality is well-represented here in at least two occasions, which is

the starting point which should not be ignored in discussions about
Kabbalah and gender. It is relevant for the initial stage of three levels
of discussions: divine, astral and human and should be seen as
meaningful for the manner in which the reciprocity of the husband-
wife relation is reported, as it may reflect some reverberation of the
Platonic explanation of the attraction of the two halves of the original
androgyne.89
Three different Rabbinic myths are intertwined here: the
complaint of the moon, the two-faced creation of the primeval human,
and the complaint that Sabbath does not have a counterpart and
87
Genesis Rabbah XI:8. See also above n. 77.
88
Sefer Me'irat ‘Einayim, ed. GOLDREICH, p. 8, translated and discussed by
WOLFSON, Language, Eros, Being, pp. 61-62.
89
See my Kabbalah & Eros, pp. 73-77.

174 MOSHE IDEL
Knesset Yisra’el will be that counterpart. Sometimes, the addition of

the storage of the primordial light is added. Their mixture is intended
to account for the various cosmic levels of male/female relationship:
divine, astral, and human, thus creating a macro-myth informed by
theosophical processes.90 Part of a much larger development in Jewish
thought91 and especially in Kabbalah, this propensity to macro-myths
will culminate in the theosophies that constitute Lurianic Kabbalah.
However, consistency is hardly attained by those comprehensive
conceptual structures. So, for example, in the last passage, the sefirot
Tiferet and ‘Atarah are depicted as equal and correspond to the first
and second day of creation, which means that they are preceding, and
perhaps even higher than the sefirot of Hesed and Pahad. This is
certainly not an innovation of R. Isaac’s as we have seen it also
elsewhere, where indeed there are some few Kabbalistic diagrams that
depict such an unusual structure.92 This means that the ‘diadem’ - the
‘Atarah, – is considered to be higher in the theosophical hierarchy
than the sefirah of Yesod, or the phallus, and subsequently it cannot be
considered as belonging to it. According to such a view the first six
sefirot include the ‘Atarah as higher, and paralleling the second day of
creation, while Yesod is depicted as the lowest sefirah, seventh day
corresponding to Sabbath.
On the other hand, later on in this passage, this masculine
sefirah has another feminine counterpart, referred as Kenesset
Yisra’el, which stands for the last or the tenth feminine sefirah. Thus
there are two couples of divine powers, which are understood as
occupying different places in the lower sefirotic realm. A result of
adopting two different Rabbinic myths, one of the moon and the
‘Ateret Tiferet, and another one of the Knesset Yisrael, the Kabbalists
90
On macro-myth see M. IDEL, ‘Gazing at the Head in Ashkenazi Hasidism’,
Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 6 (1997), pp. 265-300.
91
For this propensity in later Rabbinic literature see Jeffrey Rubenstein,
“From Mythic Motifs to Sustained Myth: The Revision of Rabbinic Traditions
in Medieval Midrashim,” HThR 89 (1996), pp. 131-159.
92
“Wedding Canopies for the Divine Couple in R. Moshe Cordovero’s
Kabbalah,” forthcoming in Avidov Lipsker Festschrift, ed. Y. Schwartz et al.,
(Bar Ilan University Press, Ramat Gan, 2017). See, e.g., the following passage
from Cordovero’s ’Or Yaqar, (Jerusalem, 1967), vol. 4, p. 101: “The secret of
Malkhut is Her being on high together with Tiferet, during the Sabbath, over
Netzah and Hod, since this is Her place.” Compare to the much earlier view,
perhaps in the 13th century, in a text printed by Daniel ABRAMS, “A
Commentary to the Ten Sefirot from Early Thirteenth-Century Catalonia:
Synoptic Edition, Translation and Detailed Commentary,” Kabbalah 30
(2013), pp. 40-41, 47.


attempted to make sense of the different sexual dualities in the same

manner. This is not surprising when perusing some forms of later
Kabbalistic literatures, the belated ones like R. Isaac’s which practiced
different organizing games, based on earlier different material. This
practice precludes a strong systemic presentation, as to the existence
of one model, shared by all Kabbalists. This holds in the case of an
analysis of a single passage, and even more so when we take in
consideration the writings of a Kabbalist like R. Isaac of Acre, who
was enthusiastic about a passage of R. Jacob ben Jacob ha-Kohen,
where the moon is given clear primacy over the sun. 93 R. Isaac
belongs to what can be called the “mosaic” group of Kabbalists, which
includes also R. Menahem Recanati, to be discussed immediately
below, and R. Joseph Angelet, all contemporaries. 94 They were
relatively eclectic thinkers, whose views reflect a variety of earlier
Kabbalistic traditions.
6. R. Menahem Recanati
R. Menahem Recanati is an Italian Kabbalist active at the

beginning of the 14th century, which was well-acquainted with
Catalonian and Castilian Kabbalah, especially the Zoharic literature. 95
In his commentary on prayers, one of his earlier Kabbalistic writings,
he writes as follows:
“”And God will be the King’96- the Teshuvah, which is the king, ‘upon
[all] the world’. And you know the secret of “all” and secret of ‘the
earth”.97 This will be in the days of the Messiah that absolute
perfection will be, unlike what ever was. And this is [the meaning of
93
See above n. 26, and also the quite different discussion of another view of
the Female drawn from ultimately Platonic sources, extant in another book of
R. Isaac, discussed in IDEL, Kabbalah & Eros, pp. 153-178. Let me mention
also the fascinating discussion of R. Isaac of Acre, who claims that the
‘Atarah was the first emanation in the thought of the Infinite and the last to the
process of emanation, and She is first related to deed and last related to
thought. See his Me'irat ‘Einayim, ed. Goldreich, p. 118.
94
R. Menahem Recanati, the Kabbalist, vol. I, (Schocken, Jerusalem, Tel
Aviv, 1998), pp. 24-32 (Hebrew). See also Ronit MEROZ, “R. Joseph Angelet
and his “Zoharic Writings”,” in ed. R. MEROZ, New Developments in Zohar
Studies, [ = Te‘uda, vol. XXI-XXII] (Tel Aviv University Press, Tel Aviv,
2007), pp. 303-404 (Hebrew).
95
See my R. Menahem Recanati, the Kabbalist, I, pp. 85-109.
96
Zekhariah 14:9.
97
‘All’ refers to Yesod and ‘earth’ to Malkhut.

176 MOSHE IDEL
the verse] ‘and the light of the moon will be like the light of the sun’,
and two kings will wear the same crown.”98
Later on in the same commentary Recanati writes: “’and He shall

install his reign’99, refers to the return of the ‘Atarah to your older
days, [‘Atarah le-Yoshnah] which will be in the days of perfection.” 100
What is the nature of this perfection? According to a passage
from his Commentary on the Pentateuch, strongly influenced by R.
Shem Tov ibn Gaon’s Keter Shem Tov mentioned above, the two
luminaries were originally equal, before the light of the moon has
been diminished.101 This is also the case elsewhere in this book: “since
in the days of the Messiah, the ‘Ataret Tiferet of womb-laden102 will
ascend and renew and Her light will be like the light of the sun ‘and in
that days the Lord will be one and his name one.”103
Recanati’s texts demonstrate the strong nexus between the
model we discuss here, as expounded by Nahmanides’ followers, and
the nation of Israel and its fate. On the other side, the phallocentric
gender-theory can hardly be applicable here. This is also the case in
another passage of this Kabbalist, which reflects another version of
this myth:
“The Male and the Female are references to the luminaries, that refer
to the attribute of day and the attribute of night, and the sun is always
in its perfection104…but the moon, which corresponds to the supernal
Female, receives addition, want and renewal and sometimes She
clothes others garments. And the blemish that is found in Her, that is
never removed, is the impurity that the primordial serpent injected in
the supernal moon. And in the future this impurity will be
removed…and the woman that adheres to her spouse and does not
98
Perush ha-Tefillot, Ms. New York, JTS 1989, fol. 29b, as well as his
widespread Commentary to the Pentateuch, fol. 83a. See also the discussion in
IDEL, R. Menahem Recanati, I, p. 228.
99
This Aramaic phrase is part of the Qaddish prayer.
100
Perush ha-Tefillot, Ms. New York, JTS 1989, fol. 30a. It should be
mentioned that Recanati was very fond of the term perfection, sheleimut,
probably influenced by the Aramaic form ’Asheleimuta’/sheleimuta’ found
many times in the Zoharic literature.
101
Commentary to the Pentateuch, fol. 6c, WEISS, Cutting the Shots, p. 77.
102
This is part of the Rabbinic blessing over the moon.
103
Commentary to the Pentateuch, fol. 43c.
104
This is the same term as in the other cases discussed above.


receive from any other does give power to the Shekhinah, since she is
105
in the paradigm of what is found the high”.
Here it is the serpent that is conceived of as the responsible factor for

the diminution, and the decrease is changed for impurity, perhaps
under the impact of the Zoharic literature.
7. Sefer ha-Peliy’ah
An anonymous Kabbalist writing at the end of the 14th or

early 15th century in the Byzantine Empire 106 elaborated upon what I
propose to call the theo-cosmic interpretation of two-faced entity,
adding details as part of his presentation of the equality-theme. In
Sefer ha-Peliy’ah, a pseudo-epigraphy attributed to revelations
received by a leading second-century figure, a compilation from a
great variety of Kabbalistic sources, including Recanati, which had a
considerable impact on Kabbalah, a view adumbrated earlier refers to
the creation of the two great luminaries:
“At the beginning of their emanation the light of the moon was like to
the light of the sun because they were equal and were sucking in an
identical manner . . . and afterwards the light of the moon has been
called ‘small’ . . . because the moon, which was like the sun, said to
the [sefirah of] Binah: ‘It is sufficient that one will operate, why
should two kings wear the same crown.’ The Binah said: ‘Go and
diminish yourself.’ What is the meaning of diminution? That she does
not come to the king107 as it was at the beginning108, but by means of
the equal line [ha-qav ha-shaweh].109 You should understand that she
does not have a light of her own but one that comes by means of the
equal line that is Tiferet. Is there a greater diminution than that? But in
105
Commentary to the Pentateuch, fol. 61c. See IDEL, “The Spouse and the
Concubine,” p. 147, ID., Kabbalah & Eros, p. 123, Asulin, “The Flaw and its
Correction,” p. 203, and compare to WOLFSON, “"Gender and Heresy,” pp.
242-243.
106
For the time and place of this anonymous book see Michal KUSHNIR-ORON,
The Sefer Ha-Peli'ah and the Sefer Ha-Kanah: Their Kabbalistic Principles,
Social and Religious Criticism and Literary Composition, (Ph. D. Dissertation,
Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1980) (Hebrew).
107
Cf. Esther 4:1.
108
Namely directly.
109
The term recurs in ibn Gaon’s Keter Shem Tov, ed. ‘Amudei ha-Qabbalah,
pp. 4, 6, 27, 28, 32, 61 and in Recanati, Commentary to the Pentateuch, fol.
6c.

178 MOSHE IDEL
the future the light of the moon will be like the light of the sun, and
two kings will use one crown, and God and the divine name will
become one because and the sun and moon will conjoin in a perfect
union.”110
The three stages of the moon/Female are evident here. Inferior as the
moon is in the present she was equal to the sun in the primordium, and
will return to her state in the future. This future state should be
understood not just as union in which the female or the male loss their
identity, but an event that retrieves the lost equality. 111
8. R. Meir ibn Gabbai
One of the most influential Kabbalists among those who were

expelled from Spain was R. Meir ibn Gabbai, active in the Ottoman
Empire in at the end of the first third of the 16th century. 112 He
provided a comprehensive summary of the Spanish Kabbalah, while
incorporating only marginally the types of Kabbalistic thought written
outside Spain. From this point of view he indeed reflects major views
of Spanish Kabbalists as articulated in the book of the Zohar and the
Nahmanides’ school. Through his systematic and lucid presentation of
the theosophico-theurgical Kabbalah, he became immediately one of
the most printed and read Kabbalists, and his views should be seen as
shaping the attitudes of many later Kabbalists. It seems that he is the
first Kabbalist to dedicate to the topic of the diminution of the moon in
its specific theosophical interpretation analyzed here, an entire
chapter, as it is going to be the case a generation later, in the writings
of Safedian Kabbalists. In the vein of views found in Nahmanides’
school and in Sefer ha-Peliy’ah, he too emphasizes the equality of the
du-partzufin in the theo-cosmic context: ‘And the Lord made the two
great luminaries’, at the beginning of their emanation they were equal,
du-partzufin, together, and this is the reason they were called ‘great’,
110
Sefer ha-Peliy’ah (Premizlany, 1884), fol. 69a. See also Talya Fishman, “A
Kabbalistic Perspective on Gender-Specific Commandments: On the Interplay
of Symbols and Society,” Association of Jewish Studies Review [AJSR] 17
(1992), no. 2, pp. 199-245.
111
Interesting enough the Kabbalistic interpretation of the blessing of the
moon, as found in Sefer ha-Qanah, a book authored by the Kabbalist that
wrote Sefer ha-Peliy’ah, does not follow the Nahmanidean pattern. See ed.
(Crakow, 1894), fols. 55b-56a.
112
On this Kabbalist see Roland GOETSCHEL, R. Meir Ibn Gabbay: le discours
de la Kabbale espagnole, (Peeters, Leuven 1981).


the light of the moon was equal to the light of the sun, but only
afterwards it has been called the small light.”113 However, much more
important is a discussion that occurs later on in his masterpiece,
following the quote of the views found in the above passage in Sefer
ha-Peliy’ah:
“They were du-partzufin united together [and] illumining equally

according to one pattern. And this is the reason why both were called
great, because they were in one conjunction114 and the light was
arriving to them from the source [Binah] in an equal manner. And the
fact that they both were wearing the same crown [points to] the
supernal luminary [again Binah]. Then She said to the Holy One
blessed be He, ‘Is it possible that two kings [etc.]’ . . . The secret of
du-partzufin will wear the same crown, behold it is sufficient that only
one will reign and operate.’ She was asking for herself as she said ‘I
shall reign over the six extremities.’115 God said then: ‘Go and
diminish yourself’ . . . and since then [Genesis 3:16] ‘Your desire will
be to your husband and he will rule over you.’ And the great luminary
is [referred by] the Tetragrammaton116, and the small luminary is
[referred by the name] ’Elohim, the end of the supernal thought. 117 At
the beginning when they were balanced [shequlim]118 she was part of
the great name, its last He’ that is inscribed in it as the fourth letter, in
order to point to the union with it, in an equal manner [be-shaweh],
afterwards She diminished Herself, [and] was called ’Elohim.
Nevertheless, She ascends on high in all the directions, by means of
the last letter He’ of the Tetragrammaton, and then She is like
greatness and [then] there is abundance below. Because of the rule
over the inferior entities She is called ’Elohim, and Her kingship rules
over all.”119
113
‘Avodat ha-Qodesh (Jerusalem, 1973), part IV, ch. 8, fol. 119b. See also
ibid., fol. 118d, where the equality of du-partzufin is mentioned several times.
114
Perhaps the influence of the Zoharic Commentary to the Song of Songs,
printed in Zohar Hadash, ed. R. MARGOLIOTH (Jerusalem, 1978), fol. 70d-71a.
115
In Kabbalistic symbolism, those six extremities are lower six sefirot. This
formulation is found also in his other book Tola‘at Ya‘aqov (Warsau, 1890),
fols. 30d-31a.
116
Namely Tiferet corresponding to the sun.
117
Namely the tenth sefirah, which is the last one and the entire sefirotic
pleroma is designated as the divine thought.
118
This term may reflect the Zoharic view of the necessity of the balance
between the Male and female components within the divine realm. See note
114 above. This term occurs in the context of the luminaries also in ibn
Gabbai’s other book Tola‘at Ya‘aqov, fol. 30d.
119
‘Avodat ha-Qodesh, part IV, ch. 8, fol. 119b.

180 MOSHE IDEL
This passage presents three different moments in the relationship

between the two aspects of du-partzufin: the initial one, when they
were equal from both the ontological and functional points of view,
the second one after the diminution of the Feminine power, in the later
part of creation and afterwards, and finally the third one, the ascent of
the Feminine hypostasis within the theosophical system to a place
higher than Her Male counterpart. Therefore, the initial state of
equality is replaced by a more dynamic situation, in which the
feminine power acquires two different types of relationship with the
masculine sefirotic hypostasis: She is sometimes inferior to Him and
sometimes superior. It is the latter case that ensures the abundance
here below. Her transition from the inferior phase to the superior one
is quite explicit, and emphasized by the word ‘nevertheless’. By this
ascent, the feminine power retrieves Her lost greatness, and it is quite
plausible that she is described as reaching the rank of the fourth
sefirah of Greatness, Gedullah, namely a status higher than that of the
male power, Tiferet, and highest in the structure of seven lower
sefirot. This may also mean that the Female ascends to a place that
She received directly from the Binah, as in the older days.120
It seems that what has been the request of the moon, to rule
over the six extremities, which caused the diminution, is nevertheless
fulfilled, though perhaps temporarily. Interestingly enough this ascent
is restorative, but it is not depicted in clear eschatological terms,
which means that it may happen also in the present. In any case, at the
end of the discussion as found in his commentary to prayers, ibn
Gabbai claims that it was the intention of the moon/Female to be
dominant in the act of procreation that caused Her complaint.121 This
is certainly a non-eschatological understanding of the myth.
9. Concluding Remarks
We have surveyed below a series of discussions of some

leading Kabbalists since early Kabbalah to early 16th century, as to
120
See ibid., fol. 119a. See also ibid., fol. 119c.
121
Tola‘at Ya‘aqov, fol. 31a. Compare also to the view of the late 16th-
early17th century Italian Kabbalist, R. Menahem Azaryah of Fano, in his
interesting discussion of the diminution of the moon, as analyzed in Yehuda
LIEBES’s excursus, forthcoming in Ruth Kara-Ivanov Kaniel’s book Human
Ropes - Birth in Kabbalah and Psychoanalysis (Bar Ilan University and
Shalom Hartman, Ramat Gan, 2017) (Hebrew). In both cases, the Female is
depicted in the context of the moon-myth, as concerned with giving birth,
which is a new element in the history of this myth.


their complex and dynamic understanding of the nature of the

feminine divine power. Those discussions are rather explicit and they
gravitate around the changing size of an astral body, the fate of the
people of Israel, and the divine Female, especially their renewal and
redemption as found in a certain specific Kabbalistic school. And the
constellation of ideas that emanated from this school in later
Kabbalists. Concerned as these Kabbalists were mainly with the
national, rather than the individual, they preclude an understanding of
the intentions of those authors with a simple phallocentric approach.
Though such a reading can be inserted as an imposition that attempts
to decode the implicit meaning of those texts, such an approach does
not take in consideration the fuller context of one stage in a broader
context, which has been neglected. Stemming from an approach that
emphasizes the modern worldview concerned with the individual,
trans-ethnical vision, the phallocentric approach is one-dimensional,
failing to address what the above discussions, and many others treated
in studies to be printed elsewhere,122 have conceived of as the ideal of
the Kabbalists as discussed above: to retrieve the primordial state of
equality of the Male and Female divine hypostases, as a symbol for
national redemption. The mystique of the moon is also a mystique of
the divine Female and of the people of Israel, envisioned as
fluctuating, not a frozen entity invariably found in a simple, inferior
type of situation. The modern concerns with gender in their different
forms can be helpful in decoding the implicit - if such an implicit
theory is found in Kabbalistic thinkers - only after the explicit
concepts found in the text are first recognized and then duly analyzed.
In any case, the adding of the theosophical-theurgical level to the text
of the ritual of the blessing of the moon, enhanced the significance of
the ancient rite, intensifying the valence of the performance in the
religious life of Jews and of Kabbalists. 123 It includes not just “rites of
exile”, as Scholem put it, 124 but also an important component of
122
See above n. 24.
123
See SCHOLEM, On the Kabbalah and its Symbolism, pp. 151-153, M. IDEL,
“Performance, Intensification and Experience in Jewish Mysticism,” Archaeus
XIII (2009), pp. 93-134, and Maurizio MOTTOLESE, Bodily Rituals in Jewish
Mysticism: The Intensification of Cultic Hand Gestures by Medieval
Kabbalists, (Cherub Press, Los Angeles, 2016).
124
SCHOLEM, ibid., p. 149, and see also ibid., pp. 141, 146, 151. On the earlier
history of the exile of the Shekhinah see Norman J. COHEN, “Shekhinta ba-
Galuta: A Midrashic Response to Destruction and Persecution,” Journal for
the Study of Judaism XIII (1982), pp. 147-159, Michael FISHBANE, Biblical
Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003), pp.
134-136, 144ff.

182 MOSHE IDEL
renewal and those two components should be understood as

conjugated in an indissoluble manner.125 This is one of the reasons for
the reverberation of Nahmanides’ interpretation of the ritual during
centuries,126 despite its divergence with other Kabbalistic
interpretations, including the Zoharic one.
125
To a certain extent the phallocentric interpretation of Kabbalah is another
version of its exilic interpretation since both are gravitating around one
specific stage in one of the wider imaginary construct of the Feminine in
Judaism.
126
See above nn. 24, 67.

ARCHÆVS
Études d’Histoire des Religions | Studies in the History of Religions
XIX-XX (2015-2016)
Eugen CIURTIN (editor)

TWENTY YEARS
of HISTORY OF RELIGIONS
in BUCHAREST
Volume published on the occasion

of the Sesquicentennial Anniversary of the Romanian Academy
and of the 20th Anniversary of the Romanian Association
for the History of Religions
co-funded by
The Administration of the National Cultural Fund
&
Fondul Recurent al Donatorilor – Academia Română
INSTITUTE FOR THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS

ROMANIAN ACADEMY
BUCHAREST 2016

Moshe Idel - The Divine Female and The Mystique of The Moon - Three-Phases Gender-Theory in Theosophical Kabbalah

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moshe Idel - The Divine Female and The Mystique of The Moon - Three-Phases Gender-Theory in Theosophical Kabbalah

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CEEOL copyright 2016

Eugen CIURTIN (ed.),

THE DIVINE FEMALE

1. Gender and Kabbalah: Some Introductory Remarks

The emergence of articulated discussions of feminine aspects

CEEOL copyright 2016

152 MOSHE IDEL

these two explanations assume, therefore, an alien and quite decisive

CEEOL copyright 2016

THE DIVINE FEMALE AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON: 153

the theory of Christian influence was regarded as self-evident

Jewish Societies: Essays in Honor of Robert Bonfil, (Mossad Bialik,

CEEOL copyright 2016

154 MOSHE IDEL

feminine power, called Knesset Yisrael, and more rarely Shekhinah,14

CEEOL copyright 2016

THE DIVINE FEMALE AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON: 155

and often times masculinized or alternatively absorbed by the Male.

CEEOL copyright 2016

156 MOSHE IDEL

long series of Kabbalistic discussions that portray the feminine divine

2. A Three-Phases Gender-Theory in Theosophical Kabbalah

CEEOL copyright 2016

THE DIVINE FEMALE AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON: 157

to Her supernal source, or even higher, as part of the eschaton, or in

CEEOL copyright 2016

158 MOSHE IDEL

Needless to say that some forms of a cult of the moon in Rabbinic

CEEOL copyright 2016

THE DIVINE FEMALE AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON: 159

ha-Lavan, or R. Yohanan Alemanno. Those Kabbalists, most

CEEOL copyright 2016

160 MOSHE IDEL

CEEOL copyright 2016

THE DIVINE FEMALE AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON: 161

Authority and Signification of Time”, Jerusalem Studies in Hebrew Literature

CEEOL copyright 2016

162 MOSHE IDEL

CEEOL copyright 2016

THE DIVINE FEMALE AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON: 163

impact of earlier views found in traditional Judaism related to

3. Nahmanides’ Hints and Their Later Reverberations

We shall be concerned below with a specific Kabbalistic

“And if you will be able to know their intention by saying in the

CEEOL copyright 2016

164 MOSHE IDEL

Of outmost importance are Nahmanides’ references to secrets

righteous persons or for God. It should be pointed out that of distinction, or

CEEOL copyright 2016

THE DIVINE FEMALE AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON: 165

whose views on the topic will be discussed later on in this essay - we

This is quite a composite passage. The Kabbalistic theory of Saportas

CEEOL copyright 2016

166 MOSHE IDEL

CEEOL copyright 2016

THE DIVINE FEMALE AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON: 167

foremost, in [a] it is evident that already in the primordial state, the

CEEOL copyright 2016

168 MOSHE IDEL

“Knesset Yisrael will be your partner”.54 Immediately the two unite to

The “subtle creature” mentioned at the beginning of the

CEEOL copyright 2016

THE DIVINE FEMALE AND THE MYSTIQUE OF THE MOON: 169