The Worship of the Shekhinah in Early Kabbalah

by

Tzahi Weiss

The Open University of Israel

It is commonly recognized that the detailed depictions and the central function of the

feminine Jewish divine presence, the Shekhinah, distinguishes kabbalistic literature

from earlier Jewish literature. The question concerning the origins of the Shekhinah,

or, in other words, from whence did a female divine presence appear at the core of

patriarchal Jewish theology, has been discussed in the research literature over the past

150 years. The main subject which has occupied most of the scholars has been

whether the Shekhinah is a Kabbalistic innovation or whether the Kabbalists had only

put into writing an existing early Jewish tradition. In recent years, some scholars have

proposed a hypothesis concerning the influence of the devotions to Mary which

flourished in Western+Europe medieval Christian world on the evolution of the image

of the Shekhinah in Kabbalistic texts.

Nonetheless, despite the different attitudes concerning the origins of the Shekhinah, it

seems that there is an assumption common to all the above approaches, namely that it

was Kabbalistic literature which had disseminated the belief in the Shekhinah.

In this lecture, based on my book:

to be published in the coming months in

Magnes Press, I will reexamine this research consensus and will present a description

according to which the main motivation of most of the early kabbalists was not, in

fact, to disseminate the belief in the Shekhinah but rather and quite on the contrary –

1
that the intent of most of the Kabbalisits was to supervise and restrain this belief

which had developed outside the main Kabbalistic circles or in their margins.

In order to illuminate my argument, it is necessary to refer to the fact that, in many

Kabbalistic sources, the depiction of the Shekhinah is accompanied by the warning

regarding the danger of what the kabbalists, following the rabbinic terminology,

designated as ( ‫ )קיצוץ בנטיעות‬or the belief in 'Two Powers in

Heaven' (‫)שתי רשויות בשמים‬. My purpose is to demonstrate that this recurrent concern

about the exclusive worship of the Shekhinah expressed by the kabbalists is the

product of the encounter between two conflicting theological attitudes, namely that

parallel with the commonly held attitude of most of the kabbalists which considered

the exclusive worship of the Shekhinah as an act of heresy it seems that there were

contrary approaches which supported this very same belief.

My claim is that the designation 'Cutters of the Shoots' bestowed upon those who

exclusively worshiped the Shekhinah reflects the Kabalists’ struggle against these

heretical approaches. Moreover, in my opinion, we can conclude from this attempt of

the Kabbalists to moderate such current theological approaches that the aim of the

Kabbalistic literature was, at best, not only to disseminate Jewish Myths but also to

supervise and control them. In this sense, the present paper follows along the lines set

by Yehuda Liebes who has argued that, by and large, Kabbalistic literature is of a less

mythical character than is generally assumed in the research. According to Liebes,

Kabbalistic literature recasts Rabbinic Jewish mythical traditions subjecting them to

medieval schemes of Neo+Platonic and Neo+Aristotelian nature. This contention

presented by Liebes relates to the diachronic level in the transition from the classic

Midrashic literature to Kabbalistic literature. In the present lecture, I propose to

extend this line of thought to the synchronic level and argue that there exists in

2
Kabbalistic literature a consistent attempt to govern and control contemporary

mythical approaches which were judged by some Kabbalists as licentious.

Since discussions which express objection to the exclusive worship of the Shekhinah

are rather frequent in Kabbalistic literature, it is possible to examine this subject based

on a wide variety of examples. In the following I will concentrate on one image of the

Shekhinah which has been connected to the fear of as it will serve

subsequently in the lecture. The origin of this image is in Midrash Mishley a late

midrashic composition which depicts the Shekhinah as standing before God and

talking with him or according to some of the versions of the Midrash falling prostrate

before him. The fear provoked by such images is quite comprehensible since the

Shekhinah is depicted as separate from God or in other words as an independent entity

and consequently we have before us an image portraying two divine figures

conducting a dialogue rather than two different parts of one divine presence. This is,

for example, the way R. Menahem Recannati apologetically explains this midrashic

image:

.‫ עמ' ב‬103 ,‫ דף‬802 ‫ כתב יד פריס‬,‫ פירוש התפילות‬,‫ר' מנחם רקנטי‬

'‫ולפי זה יש לך לדעת כשתראה בדברי רז"ל דברים הנאמרים על המדות שיורו חסרון בחק עילת העילות ית‬
‫[ רק‬...] ‫[ דע כי ענין ההוא נאמר על הספירות‬...] ‫ כב[ נפלה שכינה ונשתטחה לפני קב"ה‬,‫כעניין ]מדרש משלי‬
‫ גם‬.[‫בעבור שאין הקב"ה עושה דבר רק על ידי מדותיו צריך לכוין בקשתו לעילת העילות ית']ברך[ וית']עלה‬
.‫למדה שבקשתו תלוייה בה ובלבד שלא תהא המחשבה זזה מייחוד הכל‬
Accordingly you should know that when you see in the words of the Rabbis sayings
concerning the attributes which point to a deficiency in the Cause of Causes blessed
be He, as it is said: 'The fell and prostrated in front of the Holy One
blessed be He' […] Know that this is said concerning the […] Since the Holy
One, blessed be He, does not do anything except through his attributes, one should
direct his request to the Cause of Causes, may He be blessed and exalted. [One may
direct his request] also to the attribute on which his request is dependent, provided
that the thought shall not move from the union of the totality.

3
R Menahem Recannati is apprehensive of the mythical description of the Shekhinah

falling prostrate before God. In order to explain the necessity of directing the prayers

to a specific he says that mythic images are uniquely relegated to like

the Shekhinah while the worship of God is consecrated to Cause of Causes.

Like R Menahem Recannati, R. Moshe Azriel the son of R. Elazar Hadarshan, also

relates to the theological danger involved in the description of the Shekhinah falling

prostrate before God, and so he writes:

‫ב‬11 ,46 ‫אנג'ליקה‬-‫ספר הקומה לר' משה עזריאל כת"י רומא‬

‫והספירה העשירית היא היוד והיא משפעת לנער כמו שאמ' ידו של הק' מונחת על ראש משרתו ששמו מיטטרון‬
‫ איככה יכול להיות‬.'‫ מיכאן יש ראי' ותשוב' לאותם שאומרי' שהנער היא השכינ‬.'‫והנער בא ומשתחוה להק‬
‫[ ועל זה טעו אדום ואומ' מן האב והבן‬...] ‫שהשכינ' משתחוה להק' א"כ ח"ו יש קיצוץ בנטיעות ואוי להם‬
.‫והקודשוהכל לקחו מכוח זה‬
And the tenth Sefirah is the and it bestows abundance on the youth as it is said:
the hand of the Holy One is placed on the head of his servant whose name is Metatron
and the youth approaches and bows to the Holy One. From here there is an important
proof and answer to those who say that the youth is the . How is it possible
that the bows to the Holy One?! That would indicate, God forbid, a
, and woe for them […] And this was Edom's (the Christians) mistake
who say from the Father, the Son and the Holy [Spirit], and they took everything from
this.

These words of R. Moshe Azriel are of special importance, as we can perceive the

degree of consternation evoked by the image of the Shekhinah falling prostrate before

God which is accredited the most severe image reserved to Binatrian heresy,

and is moreover compared by him to the Christian Trinitarian belief.

C.

Contrary to the last two sources which akin to most of the kabbalistic literature

express a vehement rejection of the belief in the Shekhinah as an independent divine

presence, I would like to note rarer sources which depict the Shekhinah as an

4
independent entity and discuss the very same Midrashic description of Her falling

prostrate before God in a positive manner.

I will begin with a quote from the Hebrew writings of the Ba'al Ra'aya Mehemanah

which commences with a version of a prayer to the Shekhinah in these words:

127-123 '‫ עמ‬,[‫הכתבים העבריים של בעל רעיא מהימנא ותיקוני זוהר – חיבור ב' ]גוטליב‬
‫[ אשרי‬...] .‫אמר המחבר שמתי נפשי רוחי ונשמתי כעני ההולך לעמוד בהיכל המלך ליכנס בהיכל שכינתך‬
[...] ‫ ולקשט המלכה בתכשיטיה להיות התפילין פאר עליה‬,‫המסדר תפלתו לעמוד בשער המלך ולבקר בהיכלו‬
‫[ אשרי שומרי השכינה‬...] ‫ והיא דת קדומת יומים‬,‫ והיא מלכות מהכל כלולה‬,‫והיא שורש הייחוד והאמונה‬
‫[ אשרי‬...] .‫ שהמצות הם תכשיטיה ותיקוניה להאיר אל עבר פניה‬,‫ושומרי מצותיה שהם בגלות מחזיקים בידיה‬
‫ ויסירו המסוה מעליה והם ההם הנכנסים בעומקי התורה וסודותיה‬,‫הנשמות המזמרים בתפלתן בכל יום אליה‬
[...]‫לראות יופיה ומהלליה‬
Said the author: I have placed my soul, spirit and breath – as a beggar who goes to
stand in the palace of the king – to enter the palace of your . […] Blessed is
he who orders his prayer [so as] to stand at the gate of the king and visit his palace,
and adorn the queen with her jewels so the phylacteries are garland on Her. […] and
She is the root of the union and belief, and She is who is consolidated from
the totality, and She is an age+old religion. Blessed are the guardians of the
and the observers of Her commandments, who hold Her hands in exile. For the
commandments are Her jewels and embellishments which illuminate Her face […]
Blessed are the souls who chant every day in their prayers to Her, and they shall
remove the veil from her and it is they who enter the depths of the Torah and its
secrets to see Her beauty and laud Her […]

From the words of the Ba'al RM concerning the Shekhinah and her attitude toward

God, I wish to call attention to the wording relating to those who worship the

Shekhinah: ! " # $ .

These words which encourage the worship of the Shekhinah, are based on a mythic

description which is presented in the same text according to which the Shekhinah is

the sole mediator between men and the upper worlds. The Shekhinah admits the

prayers of Israel and her position is like that of Queen Esther who pleads for her

people before God who upon hearing her pleas acquiesces and saves his people:

127-123 '‫ עמ‬,[‫הכתבים העבריים של בעל רעיא מהימנא ותיקוני זוהר – חיבור ב' ]גוטליב‬

5
,‫ ]אס' ז‬,‫[ היא מתחננת לפניו ובהן נשאת חן בעיניו‬...] ‫בההוא זמן בשלש ראשונות שכינה נכנסת לפני המלך י"י‬
‫[ 'מה‬6 ,‫ באחרונות הוא אומ' ]שם ה‬.‫ ובני לא ימסרו ביד העמים‬,'‫[ 'תנתן לי נפשי בשאלתי ועמי בבקשתי‬3
‫ והיא אומרת‬,‫ אחר שאלותיה היא נופלת על פניה ומשתטחת לפניו‬.'‫שאלתך וינתן לך עד חצי המלכות ותעש‬
‫[ 'אם על המלך טוב וטובה אני בעיניו' להפיר עצתו ומחשבתו של סמא"ל הרשע שגזר על עמך לגרשם‬5 ,‫]שם ח‬
[...] ‫ולאבדם ולטורדם ממקומם ומביתם‬
At that time, in the first three hours, the approaches the Lord […] She begs
before Him, and through them She finds favor in his sight "let my life be given to me
as my petition, and my people as my request" (Est. 7:3) and may my sons not be
handed over to the nations. In the last ones [three hours] he says "What is your
petition? It shall be granted you. Even to half of the kingdom it shall be done" (ibid
5:6). After Her questions, She fall and Her face and prostrates in front of Him and
says: "If it pleases the king and I am pleasing in his sight" to avert the plan and
scheme of the Evil Samael who had decreed that your nation be banished, destroyed
and uprooted from their places and homes.

This section is characterized by two attributes which are relevant to our discussion.

First, its Binitarian nature expressed in the clear presentation of a dual structure of

divinity in which there is a concealed king who is comparable to Ahasverosh and the

Shekhinah in the form of Queen Esther who mediates between the people and the

king. In this description the Shekhinah is represented as a clearly distinct entity

responsible for God’s responsiveness to the prayers of Israel. Second the section

presents the Shekhinah as She who falls prostrate before him. As noted above this is

the very same image of the Shekhinah which was cause of concern for the Recannati

and R. Moshe Azriel. In my opinion, the positive representation of this image in the

last text is not accidental as chronologically Ba'al RM wrote this text subsequent to

Reccannati and R Moshe Azriel and he was well aware of the battle waged by such

authors against the Binitarian image of the Shekhinah.

Thus, a complex picture unfolds in which we can observe that, in fact, there were

trends supporting the worship of the Shekhinah which developed outside the main

kabbalistic literature.

6
Another and earlier tradition dating from the middle of the thirteenth century, at the

latest, which describes the Shekhinah as prostrated before God in a positive manner is

quoted by R. Yitshak Hacohen in his treatise on the left emanation as well as by his

disciple R. Moshe from Burgos in one his treatise named %& ' . The

depiction that these two Kabbalists quote is one of the most beautiful mythic

traditions I have come upon on the subject. It is conspicuous in its linguistic

articulation which is similar to that of the Hekhalot literature on the one hand and that

of Sefer HaBahir on the other as well as in its literary narrative which tells of the

ascension of the Shekhinah beyond the other until Her encounter with Her

father the of wisdom:

‫ע"ב‬-‫ ד ע"א‬,62 ‫ כת"י מוסיוף‬,‫ טעם נרות זכריה‬,‫ר' משה מבורגוס‬

‫[ מסבים ומסובבים הכסא ביראה‬...] ‫ועוד קבלה ביד החכמים הקדמונים כי לכתר המלכות עוד שלשה שרים‬
[...] ‫[ ומשם מקבלות אותה שרי החס"ד והגבור"ה ביראה‬...] '‫וברעדה ובשתיקה מאצילות לאצילות עד ידיד יי‬
‫[ ומשם יופיעו‬...] ‫והיא נסתרת ונעלמת ביניהם מכל מיני האצילות עד בא שר הבינ"ה וחייליו ומקבלין אותה‬
‫[ ואחר קבלתה הברכה‬...] ‫[ חכמה ומקבלה בלשון בואי כלה בואי כלה‬...] ‫רובי חיילים ושר החכמ"ה‬
‫והשעשועים כורעת ומשתחוה לפני הכסא הנורא והנשגב המיוחד ואז כסא המלכו"ת מתגלגל וסובב סובב‬
‫[ ובהעלותה מלמטה למעלה‬...] ‫באמצעות השרים וכל החיילים וחוזרת חלילה מאצילות לאצילות כבתחלה‬
‫מקבלת אצילות עליוני' ובחזרתה חוזרת חלילה מרוה ומשבעת מן האצילות שקבלה מלמעלה אל המעלות‬
...‫שלמטה דרך גלגול וחזרה ותוקף השפע הגדול‬
Another tradition of the ancient sages is that has another three princes
[…] who carry Her, performing Her worship, observing Her charge, circling and
turning the throne in reverence, shudder and silence from emanation to emanation up
to ( […] And from there the princes of $ and ) # receive Her in
reverence […] And She is hidden and concealed among them from all the emanations
until the prince of ! and his soldiers receive her […] And from there shall appear
many soldiers and the prince of $ % […]$ % receives Her, saying: "Come,
my bride, Come, my bride". […]After She has received the blessings and delights she
kneels and bows in front of the frightful and exalted special Throne. Then the throne
of rolls and turns around through the princes and all the soldiers and goes
back from emanation to emanation as in the beginning […] And when She turns and
ascends from bottom upwards She receives emanation of the supreme and when She
turns back She saturates and satiates the degrees below from the emanation She had
received from above […]

The description of the Shekhinah in the above text as ascending above the seven

lower sefirot until arriving to a state of intimacy with wisdom, Her father, when she

bows before him is based upon the myth of the ascension of the Shekhinah. Clearly,

7
this detailed portrayal evolves from the intent to integrate between two traditions: a

Binatrian tradition according to which there exist only a father and a daughter and

those traditions which adhered to the belief in the existence of the ten Sefirot. This

text is a fascinating description according to which not only does the Shekhinah

ascend beyond the other Sefirot but, also, as some versions relate, the bounty which

the other Sefirot receive is, in fact, from the lower Sefirah, the Shekhinah, who on her

descent quenches the need of the other Sefirot. According to this text the Shekhinah is

no longer a weak Sefirah lacking in means and in need of the abundance which she

receives from upper Sefirot. On the contrary, the Sefirot are portrayed as in need of

the abundance + food and water which She bestows upon them. Methodologically, it is

of utmost importance when reading such traditions to pay attention, not only to the

content of the text, but also, to the potential it presents of outlining the tension

between the detailed Kabbalistic theosophy which includes the ten Sefirot and the

simpler Binitarian myth of father and daughter. This text serves as an aperture to

Jewish medieval theological approaches which although they are not rampant

nevertheless are extant in kabbalistic literature.

D.

In order to expand the discussion concerning the theological tension involved in the

description of the Shekhinah in the early kabbalistic literature, I would like to turn

your attention to two Zoharic interpretations to the words from Genesis 47:31: *

" ' A close examination of the differences between these

interpretations as well as the manner in which they were edited in the Zoharic

literature may reveal how, for all intents and purposes, those traditions which

8
supported an exclusive association to the Shekhinah were expelled from the core of

the kabbalistic literature.

In the Zoharic layer named one finds the following interpretation:

‫זוהר ח"א צט ע"ב‬

.‫ לשכינה‬,'‫'וישתחו ישראל על ראש המטה‬
* " ' to the Shekhinah

In contrast to this interpretation in which it is explicitly noted that Jacob bowed

before the Shekhinah, we encounter a more detailed Midrash in the Zohar whose

purpose seems to be to demonstrate that Jacob did not worship the Shekhinah but

rather that he bowed before :

‫זוהר ח"א רכו ע"ב‬

‫ ראש‬,‫[ מאן מטה דא כנסת ישראל‬...] '‫[ וישתחו ישראל וגו‬31 ,‫ בקדמיתא מה כתיב ]בר' מז‬,‫אמר רבי אבא‬
,‫ לההוא דקאים על ראש המטה‬,‫[ ויעקב לדידיה קא סגיד‬...] ‫ על ראש המטה דא מלכא קדישא‬,‫המטה דא צדיק‬
.‫ בגיני כך וישתחו ישראל על ראש המטה‬,‫ישראל שמיה‬
Rabbi Abba said. 'At first, what is written? * " ' (Gen.
47:31), as we have established: Who is bed? Assembly of Israel. $ Righteous one.
+ # (‫)על‬ – Holy King to whom all peace belongs, as is written:
( % ! (Song. 3:7). So Jacob bowed to what was his: the one who
stands + # (‫)על‬ named Israel. Therefore, * "
'.

It is quite obvious that as opposed to the first interpretation which determines that

Jacob bowed to the Shekhinah, the above interpretation presents the verse at length

and a bit differently by dividing the words * " ' to

three separate thereby reading the verse in an interesting manner according to

which it should be said that Jacob bowed before that represents the

name Israel.

9
In another text in the same Zoharic tractate one finds both interpretations which were

edited together and hence supplies us with an additional perspective on the tension

between them. An examination of the manuscript of this text reveals three central

versions which are different.

In the first version the interpretation of Jacob bowing to the Shekhinah is presented

first and immediately after, with no break, the second interpretation according to

which Jacob bowed to himself, . In both parts the same question is

posed ‘who is the bed?' and each time a different answer is offered. We encounter an

example of the first version of the text in MS. Vatican 186:

‫ ע"א‬56 ,186 ‫ כת"י וטיקן‬,‫זוהר‬

‫ ראש‬,‫ מאן ראש המטה שכינתא דכתיב הנה מטתו שלשלמה‬,'‫[ 'וישתחו ישראל על ראש המטה‬31 ,‫]בר' מז‬
‫ ולפי' ישראל‬,‫ דקאים על ראש המטה‬,‫ על ראש דא ישראל‬,‫המטה מאן דא הוא יסוד דהוא רישא דערסא קדישא‬
.‫לדידיה קא סגיד‬
* " ' (Gen. 47:31) who is the bed? Shekhinah, as is
written: ( % ! (Song. 3:7) – who is it? It is the
Foundation of the world, head of the holy bed. At the head of Israel, standing + #
(‫)על‬ , So Israel bowed to what was his.

The second version appears to be an attempt to correct the contradiction which arises

from the encounter between the two interpretations: the one in which Jacob bowed to

the Shekhinah and the other that he bowed to . In this version the word

Shekhinah is deleted in a manner which accentuates the interpretation according to

which Jacob bowed to himself, to . We find this in a version of the text

in the MS. British library 762:

.‫ ע"א‬166 ,762 ‫כת"י הספרייה הבריטית‬

‫וישתחו ישראל על ראש המטה מאן ראש המטה דכתי' הנה מטתו שלשלמה ראש המטה מאן הוא יסוד דהוא‬
.‫רישא דערסא קדישא על ראש דא ישראל דקאים על ראש המטה בגיני כך ישראל לדידיה קא סגיד‬
* " ' (Gen. 47:31) who is the head of bed? as is
written: ( % ! (Song. 3:7) – who is it? It is the
Foundation of the world, head of the holy bed. At the head of Israel, standing + #
(‫)על‬ , So Israel bowed to what was his.

10
From the reading of this text it seems that in order to obscure the difference between

the two interpretations the editor or the transcriber of the text omitted the word

Shekhinah from the first part of the interpretation.

The third version of the text is the most interesting. The claim that Jacob bowed to the

Shekhinah is clearly presented at the beginning followed by its rejection which is

accredited to R. Shimeon var Yohai who makes a correction in very sharp words

asserting that Jacob bowed to . This is the version of the text as it is to

be found in MS. Munich 217:

‫ ע"ב‬293 217 ‫כת"י מינכן‬

.‫ מאן ראש המטה דא שכינתא אמר ר' שמעון חס ושלום אלא לדידיה כרע וסגיד‬.‫וישתחו ישראל על ראש המטה‬
‫ דהוא רישא דערסא‬,‫ ראש המטה דא יסודא דעלמא‬.‫ דכתי' הנה מטתו שלשלמה‬,‫ מטה דא שכינתא‬,‫תא חזי‬
‫ על ראש דא ישראל דקאים על ראש המטה בגיני כך ישראל לדידיה קא סגיד‬,‫קדישא‬
* " ' (Gen. 47:31) who is the bed? Shekhinah. Rabbi
Shim'on said: 'Heaven forbid! Rather, to what was his he bowed and prostrated
himself. Come and see: bed is Shekhinahh, as is written: Look, the bed of Solomon!
(Song. 3:7) is Foundation of the world, head of the holy bed. At the
head of Israel, standing + # (‫)על‬ , So Israel bowed to what was
his.

In concluding this section the question should be posed as to why some of the writers

and editors of the Zoharic literature resist the belief that Jacob bowed to the

Shekhinah and prefer the tenet according to which he bowed to . In both

cases there is worship to one of the sefirot and essentially there should not be any

difference between these two positions in all that regards the fear of

. In order to respond to this issue, I would like to refer to a short and interesting

sentence from the chapter on Cutting the Shoots in Ma'arekhet HaEluhut. In this

sentence the Anonymous writer raises the very same question: why is the definition of

Cutting the Shoots directed mainly toward and not towards the other ,

The writer himself replies with the assertion that in order to deal with the reality of
11
those times in which the heretics believed mostly in it was necessary to

address the worship of the Shekhina as a threat and designate it as Cutting of the

Shoots. In his words:

.‫ עמ' ריז‬,‫ספר מערכת האלוהות ]עמודי הקבלה[ שער תשיעי‬

.‫דע כי בכל הספירות שייך קציצה והריסה או מעט או הרבה אך כי רוב הטועים במלכות הם טועים‬
'You should know that in all the Sefirot one can cut or destroy in a lesser or greater
extent but most of the errant err in Malkhut'.

If these words do indeed reflect an historical reality, then they serve us as a

fascinating aperture not only to the fact that there existed at the time a significant

trend of the worship of the Shekhinah but also to the manner in which the Kabbalists

dealt with contemporaries who held those beliefs.

In order to sum up, I would like to present two clarifying comments which relate to

the context which we have discussed in this presentation.

First, it is noteworthy that most expressions known to us in the kabbalistic literature

regarding the fear that the structure of the may lead to a perception of God

which is not unitary make reference to the multiplicity of two and, surprisingly, do not

make mention of the fear of a polytheistic perception. In my opinion, the reason for

this derives from the conceptual context in which the early Kabbalistic literature was

written. In the conceptual context of the time there existed theological trends which

continued to hold Binitarian traditions of a mediative nature and it was this conceptual

context which threatened the Kabbalists and of which they specifically cautioned. On

the other hand polytheistic concepts which were not rampant and were mostly

unknown to the Kabbalists at the time in their milieu were not perceived as a concrete

threat.

12
Secondly, we have seen that the Kabbalists’ attempt to moderate the theory of the

Shekhinah as an independent Divine presence is evidence to the existence of

unrecognized voices of Jewish beliefs that had not been put into writing or that did

not stand out amongst those voices which had been put in writing. Nevertheless, I do

not wish to argue that the belief in the centrality of the Shekhinah was rampant and I

do not believe it would be correct, to attribute this belief to what can be considered as

folklore. In the present day state of research with regard to texts in our possession,

there is in my opinion no reliable way to estimate the extent of the belief which exalts

the position of the Shekhinah during the early stage of the Kabbalah.

13