Book III, the exponent of which is Capnio, endeavours to shew that the

most essential doctrines of Christianity are to be found by the same

method. Let a few instances of this method suffice. Thus the doctrine

of the Trinity is to be found in the first verse of Genesis. If the

Hebrew word ‏ברא‎ which is translated created, be examined, and if each

of the three letters composing this word be taken as the initial of a

separate word, we obtain the expressions ‏בן רוח אב‎ Son, Spirit,

Father. Upon the same principle we find the two persons of the Trinity

in the words, “the stone which the builders refused is become the heed

stone of the corner” (Ps. cxviii, 22), inasmuch as the three letters

composing the word ‏אבן‎ stone, are to be divided into ‏אב בן‎ Father,

Son. Orpheus, in his hymn on the night, described the Trinity of the

New Testament in the words, νὺξ, οὐρανὸς, αἰθὴρ, for night which begets

everything can only designate the Father; heaven, that olyphus which in

its boundlessness embraces all things, and which proceeded from the

night, signifies the Son; whilst ether, which the ancient poet also

designates fiery breath, is the Holy Ghost. The name Jesus in Hebrew

‏י״ה״ש״ו״ה‎ the πενταγράμματον yields the name ‏יהוה‎ Jehovah; and the

‏ש‎ which in the language of the Kabbalah is the symbol of fire or

light, which St. Jerome, in his mystical exposition of the alphabet,

has made the sign of the Λόγος. This mysterious name therefore contains

a whole revelation, inasmuch as it shows us that Jesus is God himself,

the Light or the Logos. Even the cross, which is the symbol of

Christianity, is plainly indicated in the Old Testament, by the tree of

life which God planted in the midst of the garden; by the praying

attitude of Moses, when he raised his hands towards heaven in his

intercession for Israel during the combat with Amalek; and by the tree

which converted the bitter waters into sweet in the wilderness of

Marah. [105]

The Treatise de Verbo Mirifico is, however, only an introduction to

another work on the same subject which Reuchlin published twenty-two

years later, entitled De Arte Cabalistica. Hagenau, 1516. This

Treatise, like the first, is in the form of a dialogue between a

Mohammedan named Marrianus, a Pythagorean Philosopher named Philolaus,

and a Jewish doctor named Simon. The dialogue is held in Frankfort,

where the Jew resides, to whom the Mohammedan and Pythagorean resort to

be initiated into the mysteries of the Kabbalah. The whole is a more

matured exposition and elaboration of the ideas hinted at in his first

work.

The Kabbalah, according to Reuchlin, is a symbolical reception of

Divine revelation; and a distinction is to be made between Cabalici, to

whom belongs heavenly inspiration, their disciples Cabalaai, and their

imitators Cabalistae. The design of the Kabbalah is to propound the

relations of the absolute Creator to the creature. God is the Creator

of all beings which emanated from him, and he implanted aspirations in

them to attain actual communion with him. In order that feeble man

might attain this communion, God revealed himself to mankind in various

ways, but especially to Moses. This Divine revelation to Moses contains

far more than appears on the surface of the Pentateuch. There is a

recondite wisdom concealed in it which distinguishes it from other

codes of morals and precepts. There are in the Pentateuch many

pleonasms and repetitions of the same things and words, and as we

cannot charge God with having inserted useless and superfluous words in

the Holy Scriptures, we must believe that something more profound is

contained in them, to which the Kabbalah gives the key.

This key consists in permutations, commutations, &c., &c. But this act

of exchanging and arranging letters, and of interpreting for the

edification of the soul the Holy Scriptures, which we have received

from God as a divine thing not to be understood by the multitude, was

not communicated by Moses to everybody, but to the elect, such as

Joshua, and so by tradition it came to the seventy interpreters. This

gift is called Kabbalah. God, out of love to his people, has revealed

hidden mysteries to some of them, and these have found the living

spirit in the dead letter; that is to say, the Scriptures consist of

separate letters, visible signs which stand in a certain relation to

the angels as celestial and spiritual emanations from God; and by

pronouncing them, the latter also are affected. To a true Kabbalist,

who has an insight into the whole connection of the terrestrial with

the celestial, these signs thus put together are the means of placing

him in close union with spirits, who are thereby bound to fulfil his

wishes. [106]

The extraordinary influence which Reuchlin’s Kabbalistic Treatises

exercised upon the greatest thinkers of the time and upon the early

reformers may be judged of from the unmeasured terms of praise which

they bestowed upon their author. The Treatises were regarded as

heavenly communications, revealing new divine wisdom. Conrad

Leontarius, writing to Wimpheling on the subject, says—“I never saw

anything more beautiful or admirable than this work (i.e., De Verbo

Mirifico), which easily convinces him who reads it that no philosopher,

whether Jew or Christian, is superior to Reuchlin.” Aegidius, general

of the Eremites, wrote to the holy Augustine “that Reuchlin had

rendered him, as well as the rest of mankind, happy by his works, which

had made known to all a thing hitherto unheard of.” Philip Beroaldus,

the younger, sent him word “that Pope Leo X had read his Pythagorean

book greedily, as he did all good books; afterwards the Cardinal de

Medici had done so, and he himself should soon enjoy it.” [107] Such

was the interest which this newly-revealed Kabbalah created among

Christians, that not only learned men but statesmen and warriors began

to study the oriental languages, in order to be able to fathom the

mysteries of this theosophy.

1450–1498. Whilst the Kabbalah was gaining such high favour amongst

Christians both in Italy and Germany, through the exertions of

Mirandola and Reuchlin, a powerful voice was raised among the Jews

against the Sohar, the very Bible of this theosophy. Elia del Medigo,

born at Candia, then in Venetia, 1450, of a German literary family,

professor of philosophy in the University of Padua, teacher of Pico de

Mirandola, and a scholar of the highest reputation both among his

Jewish brethren and among Christians, impugned the authority of the

Sohar. In his philosophical Treatise on the nature of Judaism as a

harmonizer between religion and philosophy, entitled An Examination of

the Law (‏בחינת הדת‎), which he wrote December 29, 1491, he puts into

the mouth of an antagonist to the Kabbalah the following three

arguments against the genuineness of the Sohar: 1, Neither the Talmud,

nor the Gaonim and Rabbins knew anything of the Sohar or of its

doctrines; 2, The Sohar was published at a very late period; and 3,

Many anachronisms occur in it, inasmuch as it describes later Amoraic

authorities as having direct intercourse with the Tanaite R. Simon b.

Jochai who belongs to an earlier period. [108]

1522–1570. The voice of Elia del Medigo and others, however, had no

power to check the rapid progress of the Kabbalah, which had now found

its way from Spain and Italy into Palestine and Poland, and penetrated

all branches of life and literature. Passing over the host of minor

advocates and teachers, we shall mention the two great masters in

Palestine, who formed two distinct schools, distinguished by the

prominence which they respectively gave to certain doctrines of the

Kabbalah. The first of these is Moses Cordovero, also called Remak =

‏רמ׳ק‎ from the acrostic of his name ‏קורדואירו‎ R. Moses Cordovero. He

was born in Cordova, 1522, studied the Kabbalah under his learned

brother-in-law, Solomon Aleavez, and very soon became so distinguished

as a Kabbalist and author that his fame travelled to Italy, where his

works were greedily bought. His principal works are: 1, An Introduction

to the Kabbalah, entitled A Sombre or Sweet Light (‏אור נערב‎) first

published in Venice, 1587, then in Cracow, 1647, and in Fürth, 1701; 2,

Kabbalistic reflections and comments on ninety-nine passages of the

Bible, entitled The Book of Retirement (‏ספר נרושין‎), published in

Venice, 1543; and 3, A large Kabbalistic work entitled The Garden of

Pomegranates (‏פרדס רמונים‎), which consists of thirteen sections or

gates (‏שערים‎) subdivided into chapters, and discusses the Sephiroth,

the Divine names, the import and significance of the letters, &c., &c.

It was first published in Cracow, 1591. Excerpts of it have been

translated into Latin by Bartolocci, Bibliotheca Magna Rabbinica, vol.

iv, p. 231, &c., and Knorr von Rosenroth, Tractatus de Anima ex libro

Pardes Rimmonim in his Kabbala Denudata, Sulzbach, 1677. [109]

The peculiar feature of Cordovero is that he is chiefly occupied with

the scientific speculations of the Kabbalah, or the speculative

Kabbalah (‏קבלה עיונית‎), as it is called in the modern terminology of

this esoteric doctrine, in contra-distinction to the wonder-working

Kabbalah (‏קבלה מעשית‎), keeping aloof to a great extent from the

extravagances which we shall soon have to notice. In this respect

therefore he represents the Kabbalah in its primitive state, as may be

seen from the following specimen of his lucubrations on the nature of

the Deity. “The knowledge of the Creator is different from that of the

creature, since in the case of the latter, knowledge and the thing

known are distinct, thus leading to subjects which are again separate

from him. This is described by the three expressions—cogitation, the

cogitator and the cogitated object. Now the Creator is himself

knowledge, knowing and the known object. His knowledge does not consist

in the fact that he directs his thoughts to things without him, since

in comprehending and knowing himself, he comprehends and knows

everything which exists. There is nothing which is not united with him,

and which he does not find in his own substance. He is the archetype of

all things existing, and all things are in him in their purest and most

perfect form; so that the perfection of the creatures consists in the

support whereby they are united to the primary source of his existence,

and they sink down and fall from that perfect and lofty position in

proportion to their separation from him.” [110]

1534–1572. The opposite to this school is the one founded by Isaac

Luria or Loria, also called Ari = ‏אר״י‎ from the initials of his name

‏האשכנזי ר׳ יצחק‎ R. Isaac Ashkanazi. He was born at Jerusalem 1534,

and, having lost his father when very young, was taken by his mother to

Kahira, where he was put by his rich uncle under the tuition of the

best Jewish master. Up to his twenty-second year he was a diligent

student of the Talmud and the Rabbinic lore, and distinguished himself

in these departments of learning in a most remarkable manner. He then

lived in retirement for about seven years to give free scope to his

thoughts and meditations, but he soon found that simple retirement from

collegiate studies did not satisfy him. He therefore removed to the

banks of the Nile, where he lived in a sequestered cottage for several

years, giving himself up entirely to meditations and reveries. Here he

had constant interviews with the prophet Elias, who communicated to him

sublime doctrines. Here, too, his soul ascended to heaven whenever he

was asleep, and in the celestial regions held converse with the souls

of the great teachers of bygone days. When thirty-six years of age

(1570) the Prophet Elias appeared to him again and told him to go to

Palestine, where his successor was awaiting him. Obedient to the

command, he went to Safet, where he gathered round him ten disciples,

visited the sepulchres of ancient teachers, and there, by prostrations

and prayers, obtained from their spirits all manner of revelations, so

much so that he was convinced he was the Messiah b. Joseph and that he

was able to perform all sorts of miracles. It was this part of the

Kabbalah, i.e., the ascetic and miraculous (‏כבלה מעשית‎), which Loria

taught. His sentiments he delivered orally, as he himself did not write

anything, except perhaps some marginal notes of a critical import in

older books and MSS. His disciples treasured up his marvellous sayings,

whereby they performed miracles and converted thousands to the

doctrines of this theosophy.

1543–1620. The real exponent of Loria’s Kabbalistic system is his

celebrated disciple Chajim Vital, a descendant of a Calabrian family,

who died in 1620 at the age of seventy-seven. After the demise of his

teacher, Chajim Vital diligently collected all the MS. notes of the

lectures which Loria’s disciples had written down, from which, together

with his own jottings, he produced the gigantic and famous system of

the Kabbalah, entitled the Tree of Life (‏עץ החיים‎). This work, over

which Vital laboured thirty years, was at first circulated in MS.

copies, and every one of the Kabbalistic disciples had to pledge

himself, under pain of excommunication, not to allow a copy to be made

for a foreign land; so that for a time all the Codd. remained in

Palestine. At last, however, this Thesaurus of the Kabbalah, which

properly consists of six works, was published by J. Satanow at Zolkiev,

1772. New editions of it appeared in Korez, 1785; Sklow, 1800;

Dobrowne, 1804; Stilikow, 1818; and Knorr von Rosenroth has translated

into Latin a portion of that part of the great work which treats on the

doctrine of the metempsychosis (‏הגלגולים‎). [111]

1558–1560. The circulation of Loria’s work which gave an extraordinary

impetus to the Kabbalah, and which gave rise to the new school and a

separate congregation in Palestine, was not the only favourable

circumstance which had arisen to advance and promulgate the esoteric

doctrine. The Sohar, which since its birth had been circulated in MS.,

was now for the first time printed in Mantua, and thousands of people

who had hitherto been unable to procure the MS. were thus enabled to

possess themselves of copies. [112] It is, however, evident that with

the increased circulation of these two Bibles of the Kabbalah, as the

Sohar and Loria’s Etz Chajim are called, there was an increased cry on

the part of learned Jews against the doctrines propounded in them.

Isaac b. Immanuel de Lates, the Rabbi of Pesaro, and the great champion

for the Kabbalah, who prefixed a commendatory epistle to the Sohar,

tells us most distinctly that some Rabbins wanted to prevent the

publication of the Sohar, urging that it ought to be kept secret or be

burned, because it tends to heretical doctrines. [113]

1571–1648. Of the numerous opponents to the Kabbalah which the Sohar

and Loria’s work called forth, Leo de Modena was by far the most

daring, the most outspoken and the most powerful. This eminent scholar

who is known to the Christian world by his celebrated History of the

Rites, Customs and Manners of the Jews, which was originally written in

Italian, published in Padua, 1640, and which has been translated into

Latin, English, French, Dutch, &c., attacked the Kabbalah in two of his

works. His first onslaught is on the doctrine of metempsychosis in his

Treatise entitled Ben David. He composed this Treatise in 1635–36, at

the request of David Finzi, of Egypt, and he demonstrates therein that

this doctrine is of Gentile origin, and was rejected by the great men

of the Jewish faith in bygone days, refuting at the same time the

philosophico-theological arguments advanced in its favour. [114] It is,

however, his second attack on this esoteric doctrine, in his work

entitled The Roaring Lion (‏ארי נוהם‎), which is so damaging to the

Kabbalah. In this Treatise—which Leo de Modena composed in 1639, at the

advanced age of sixty-eight, to reclaim Joseph Chamiz, a beloved

disciple of his, who was an ardent follower of the Kabbalah—he shows

that the books which propound this esoteric doctrine, and which are

palmed upon ancient authorities, are pseudonymous; that the doctrines

themselves are mischievous; and that the followers of this system are

inflated with proud notions, pretending to know the nature of God

better than anyone else, and to possess the nearest and best way of

approaching the Deity. [115]

1623. The celebrated Hebraist, Joseph Solomon del Medigo (born 1591,

died 1637), a contemporary of the preceding writer, also employed his

vast stores of erudition to expose this system. Having been asked by R.

Serach for his views of the Kabbalah, del Medigo, in a masterly letter,

written in 1623, shows up the folly of this esoteric doctrine, and the

unreasonableness of the exegetical rules, whereby the followers of this

system pretend to deduce it from the Bible. [116]

1635. We have seen that the information about the Kabbalah, which

Mirandola and Reuchlin imparted to Christians, was chiefly derived from

the writings of Recanti and Gikatilla. Now that the Sohar had been

published, Joseph de Voisin determined to be the first to make some

portions of it accessible to those Christian readers who did not

understand the Aramaic in which this Thesaurus is written. Accordingly

he translated some extracts of the Sohar which treat of the nature of

the human soul. [117]

1652–1654. Just at the very time when some of the most distinguished

Jews exposed the pretensions of the Kabbalah, and denounced the

fanciful and unjustifiable rules of interpretation whereby its

advocates tried to evolve it from the letters of the revealed law, the

celebrated Athanasius Kircher, in a most learned and elaborate treatise

on this subject, maintained that the Kabbalah was introduced into Egypt

by no less a person than the patriarch Abraham; and that from Egypt it

gradually issued all over the East, and intermixed with all religions

and systems of philosophy. What is still more extraordinary is that

this learned Jesuit, in thus exalting the Kabbalah, lays the greatest

stress on that part of it which developed itself afterwards, viz., the

combinations, transpositions and permutations of the letters, and does

not discriminate between it and the speculations about the En Soph, the

Sephiroth, &c., which were the original characteristics of this

theosophy. [118] The amount of Eastern lore, however, which Kircher has

amassed in his work will always remain a noble monument to the

extensive learning of this Jesuit.

1645–1676. The wonder-working or practical branch of the Kabbalah

(‏קבלה מעשית‎), as it is called, so elaborately propounded and defended

by Kircher, which consists in the transpositions of the letters of the

sundry divine names, &c., and which as we have seen constituted no part

of the original Kabbalah, had now largely laid hold on the minds and

fancies of both Jews and Christians, and was producing among the former

the most mournful and calamitous effects. The famous Kabbalist,

Sabbatai Zevi, who was born in Smyrna, July, 1641, was the chief actor

in this tragedy. When a child he was sent to a Rabbinic school, and

instructed in the Law, the Mishna, the Talmud, the Midrashim, and the

whole cycle of Rabbinic lore. So great were his intellectual powers,

and so vast the knowledge he acquired, that when fifteen he betook

himself to the study of the Kabbalah, rapidly mastered its mysteries,

became peerless in his knowledge of “those things which were revealed

and those things which were hidden;” and at the age of eighteen

obtained the honourable appellation sage (‏חכם‎), and delivered public

lectures, expounding the divine law and the esoteric doctrine before

crowded audiences. At the age of twenty-four he gave himself out as the

Messiah, the Son of David, and the Redeemer of Israel, pronouncing

publicly the Tetragrammaton, which was only allowed to the high priests

during the existence of the second Temple. Though the Jewish sages of

Smyrna excommunicated him for it, he travelled to Salonica, Athens,

Morea and Jerusalem, teaching the Kabbalah, proclaiming himself as the

Messiah, anointing prophets and converting thousands upon thousands. So

numerous were the believers in him, that in many places trade was

entirely stopped; the Jews wound up their affairs, disposed of their

chattels and made themselves ready to be redeemed from their captivity

and led by Sabbatai Zevi back to Jerusalem. The consuls of Europe were

ordered to enquire into this extraordinary movement, and the governors

of the East reported to the Sultan the cessation of commerce. Sabbatai

Zevi was then arrested by order of the Sultan, Mohammed IV, and taken

before him at Adrianople. The Sultan spoke to him as follows—“I am

going to test thy Messiahship. Three poisoned arrows shall be shot into

thee, and if they do not kill thee, I too will believe that thou art

the Messiah.” He saved himself by embracing Islamism in the presence of

the Sultan, who gave him the name Effendi, and appointed him Kapidgi

Bashi. Thus ended the career of the Kabbalist Sabbatai Zevi, after

having ruined thousands upon thousands of Jewish families. [119]

1677–1684. Whether the learned Knorr Baron von Rosenroth knew of the

extravagances of Sabbatai Zevi or not is difficult to say. At all

events this accomplished Christian scholar believed that Simon b.

Jochai was the author of the Sohar, that he wrote it under divine

inspiration, and that it is most essential to the elucidation of the

doctrines of Christianity. With this conviction he determined to master

the difficulties connected with the Kabbalistic writings, in order to

render the principal works of this esoteric doctrine accessible to his

Christian brethren. For, although Lully, Mirandola, Reuchlin and

Kircher had already done much to acquaint the Christian world with the

secrets of the Kabbalah, none of these scholars had given translations

of any portions of the Sohar.

Knorr Baron von Rosenroth, therefore put himself under the tuition of

R. Meier Stern, a learned Jew, and with his assistance was enabled to

publish the celebrated work entitled the Unveiled Kabbalah (Kabbala

Denudata), in two large volumes, the first of which was printed at

Sulzbach, 1677–78, and the second at Frankfort-on-the-Maine, 1684,

giving a Latin translation of the Introduction to and the following

portion of the Sohar—the Book of Mysteries (‏ספר דצניעותא‎); the Great

Assembly (‏אדרא רבא‎); the Small Assembly (‏אדרא זוטא‎); Joseph

Gikatilla’s Gate of Light (‏שער אורה‎); the Doctrine of Metempsychosis

(‏הגלגולים‎), and the Tree of Life (‏עץ חיים‎), of Chajim Vital; the

Garden of Pomegranates (‏פרדס רימונים‎), of Moses Cordovero; the House

of the Lord (‏בית אלהים‎), and the Gate of Heaven (‏שער השמים‎), of

Abraham Herera; the Valley of the King (‏עמק המלך‎), of Naphtah b.

Jacob; the Vision of the Priest (‏מראה כהן‎), of Issachar Beer b.

Naphtali Cohen, &c., &c., with elaborate annotations, glossaries and

indices. The only drawback to this gigantic work is that it is without

any system, and that it mixes up in one all the earlier developments of

the Kabbalah with the later productions. Still the criticism passed

upon it by Buddeus, that it is a “confused and obscure work, in which

the necessary and the unnecessary, the useful and the useless are mixed

up and thrown together as it were into one chaos,” [120] is rather too

severe; and it must be remembered that if the Kabbala Denudata does not

exhibit a regular system of this esoteric doctrine, it furnishes much

material for it. Baron von Rosenroth has also collected all the

passages of the New Testament which contain similar doctrines to those

propounded by the Kabbalah.

1758–1763. Amongst the Jews, however, the pretensions and consequences

of the Kabbalistic Pseudo-Messiah, Sabbatai Zevi, and his followers,

produced a new era in the criticism of the Sohar. Even such a scholar

and thorough Kabbalist as Jacob b. Zevi of Emden, or Jabez (‏יעב״ץ‎),

as he is called from the acrostic of his name (‏יעקב בן צבי‎),

maintains in his work, which he wrote in 1758–1763, and which he

entitled The Wrapper of Books, that with the exception of the kernel of

the Sohar all the rest is of a late origin. [121] He shows that (1) The

Sohar misquotes passages of Scripture, misunderstands the Talmud, and

contains some rituals which were ordained by later Rabbinic authorities

(‏פוסקים‎). (2) Mentions the crusades against the Mohammedans. (3) Uses

the philosophical terminology of Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew Translation of

Maimonides’ More Nebuchim, and borrows the figure of Jehudah Ha-Levi’s

Khosari, that “Israel is the heart in the organism of the human race,

and therefore feels its sufferings more acutely” (Khosari, ii, 36, with

Sohar, iii, 221 b, 161 a); and (4) Knows the Portuguese and North

Spanish expression Esnoga.

1767. Whilst the Jews were thus shaken in their opinion about the

antiquity of the Sohar, learned Christians both on the Continent and in

England maintained that Simon b. Jochai was the author of the Bible of

the Kabbalah, and quoted its sentiments in corroboration of their

peculiar views. Thus Dr. Gill, the famous Hebraist and commentator, in

his work on the Antiquity of the Hebrew Language, adduces passages from

the Sohar to shew that the Hebrew vowel points were known A.D. 120, at

which time he tells us “lived Simon ben Jochai, a disciple of R. Akiba,

author of the Zohar.” [122]

1830. Allen, in the account of the Kabbalah in his Modern Judaism, also

premises the antiquity of the Sohar. Taking this pseudonym as the

primary source of the primitive Kabbalah, Allen, like all his

predecessors, mixes up the early mysticism and magic, as well as the

later abuse of the Hagadic rules of interpretation, denominated

Gematria, Notaricon, Ziruph, &c., which the Kabbalists afterwards

appropriated, with the original doctrines of this theosophy. [123]

1843. Even the erudite Professor Franck, in his excellent work La

Kabbale (Paris, 1843), makes no distinction between the Book Jetzira

and the Sohar, but regards the esoteric doctrines of the latter as a

development and continuation of the tenets propounded in the former. He

moreover maintains that the Sohar consists of ancient and modern

fragments, that the ancient portions are the Book of Mysteries (‏ספרא

דצניעותא‎), the Great Assembly or Idra Rabba (‏אדרא רבא‎), and the

Small Assembly or Idra Suta (‏אדרא זוטא‎), and actually proceeds from

the school of R. Simon b. Jochai, while several of the other parts

belong to a subsequent period, but not later than the seventh century;

that the fatherland of the Sohar is Palestine; that the fundamental

principles of the Kabbalah, which were communicated by R. Simon b.

Jochai to a small number of his disciples, were at first propagated

orally; that they were then from the first to the seventh century

gradually edited and enlarged through additions and commentaries, and

that the whole of this compilation, completed in the seventh century,

owing to its many attacks on the Asiatic religions, was kept secret

till the thirteenth century, when it was brought to Europe. To fortify

his opinions about the antiquity of the Kabbalah, Franck is obliged to

palm the doctrine of the Sephiroth upon passages in the Talmud in a

most unnatural manner. As this point, however has been discussed in the

second part of this Essay, (vide supra, p. 183, etc.) there is no

necessity for repeating the arguments here. [124] Still Franck’s

valuable contribution to the elucidation of the Sohar will always be a

welcome aid to the student of this difficult book.

1845. A new era in the study of the Kabbalah was created by the

researches of M. H. Landauer, who died February 3rd, 1841, when

scarcely thirty-three years of age. This learned Rabbi, whose premature

death is an irreparable loss to literature, in spite of constitutional

infirmities, which occasioned him permanent sufferings during the short

period of his earthly career, devoted himself from his youth to the

study of Hebrew, the Mishna, the Talmud, and the rich stores of Jewish

learning. He afterwards visited the universities of Munich and

Tübingen, and in addition to his other researches in the department of

Biblical criticism, determined to fathom the depths of the Kabbalah. It

was this scholar who, after a careful study of this esoteric doctrine,

for the first time distinguished between the ancient mysticism of the

Gaonim period and the real Kabbalah, and shewed that “the former, as

contained in the Alphabet of R. Akiba (‏אותיות בר׳ עקיבא‎), the

Dimensions of the Deity (‏שיעור קומה‎), the Heavenly Mansions

(‏היכלות‎), and even the Book of Jetzira (‏ספר יצירה‎) and similar

documents, essentially differ from the later Kabbalah, inasmuch as it

knows nothing about the so-called Sephiroth and about the speculations

respecting the nature of the Deity, and that, according to the proper

notions of the Kabbalah, its contents ought to be described as Hagada

and not as Kabbalah.” [125] As to the Sohar, Landauer maintains that it

was written by Abraham b. Samuel Abulafia towards the end of the second

half of the thirteenth century. Landauer’s views on the Kabbalah and on

the authorship of the Sohar, as Steinschneider rightly remarks, are all

the more weighty and instructive because he originally started with

opinions of an exactly opposite character. (Jewish Literature, p. 299.)

1849. D. H. Joel, Rabbi of Sheversenz, published in 1849 a very

elaborate critique on Franck’s Religious Philosophy of the Sohar, which

is an exceedingly good supplement to Franck’s work, though Joel’s

treatise is of a negative character, and endeavours to demolish

Franck’s theory without propounding another in its stead. Thus much,

however, Joel positively states, that though the Sohar in its present

form could not have been written by R. Simon b. Jochai, and though the

author of it may not have lived before the thirteenth century, yet its

fundamental doctrines to a great extent are not the invention of the

author, but are derived from ancient Jewish sources, either documentary

or oral. [126]

1851. After a lapse of seven years Jellinek fulfilled the promise which

he made in the preface to his German translation of Franck’s la Kabbale

ou la philosophie religieuse des Hébreux, by publishing an Essay on the

authorship of the Sohar. And in 1851 this industrious scholar published

a historico-critical Treatise, in which he proves, almost to

demonstration, that Moses b. Shem Tob de Leon is the author of the

Sohar. [127] Several of his arguments are given in the second part of

this Essay (vide supra, p. 174, &c.), in our examination of the age and

authorship of the Sohar.

1852. Whilst busily engaged in his researches on the authorship and

composition of the Sohar, Jellinek was at the same time extending his

labours to the history of the Kabbalah generally, the results of which

he communicated in two parts (Leipzig, 1852), entitled Contributions to

the History of the Kabbalah. The first of these parts embraces (1) the

study and history of the Book Jetzira, (2) diverse topics connected

with the Sohar, and (3) Kabbalistic doctrines and writings prior to the

Sohar; whilst the second part (1) continues the investigation on the

Kabbalistic doctrines and writings prior to the Sohar, as well as (2)

discusses additional points connected with the Sohar, and (3) gives the

original text to the history of the Kabbalah. [128]

1853. Supplementary to the above works, Jellinek published, twelve

months afterwards, the first part of a Selection of Kabbalistic

Mysticism, which comprises the Hebrew texts of (1) The Treatise on the

Emanations (‏מסכת אצילות‎), (2) The Book of Institutions (‏ספר העיון‎),

by R. Chamai Gaon, (3) The Rejoinder of R. Abraham b. Samuel Abulafia

to R. Solomon b. Adereth, and (4) The Treatise entitled Kether Shem Tob

(‏כתר שם טוב‎), by R. Abraham of Cologne. These Treatises, which are

chiefly taken from MSS. at the public Libraries in Paris and Hamburg,

are preceded by learned Introductions discussing the characteristics,

the age, the authorship and the sources of each document, written by

the erudite editor. [129] May Dr. Jellinek soon fulfil his promise, and

continue to edit these invaluable contributions to the Kabbalah, as

well as publish his own work on the import of this esoteric doctrine.

1856. Dr. Etheridge, in his Manual on Hebrew Literature, entitled

Jerusalem and Tiberias, devotes seventy pages to a description of the

Kabbalah. It might have been expected that this industrious writer, who

draws upon Jewish sources, would give us the result of the researches

of the above-named Hebraists. But Dr. Etheridge has done no such

thing;—he confuses the import of the Book Jetzira, the Maase Bereshith

(‏מעשה בראשית‎) and the Maase Merkaba (‏מעשה מרכבה‎), with the

doctrines of the Kabbalah; and assigns both to the Book Jetzira and to

the Sohar an antiquity which is contrary to all the results of modern

criticism. The following extract from his work will suffice to shew the

correctness of our remarks:—

“To the authenticity of the Zohar, as a work of the early Kabbalistic

school, objections have indeed been made, but they are not of

sufficient gravity to merit an extended investigation. The opinion that

ascribes it as a pseudo fabrication to Moses de Leon in the thirteenth

century, has, I imagine, but few believers among the learned in this

subject in our own day. The references to Shemun ben Yochai and the

Kabala in the Talmud, and abundant internal evidence found in the book

itself, exhibit the strongest probability, not that Shemun himself was

the author of it, but that it is the fruit and result of his personal

instructions, and of the studies of his immediate disciples.” [130]

Now the bold assertion that there are few believers among the learned

of our own time in the pseudo fabrication of the Sohar by Moses de Leon

in the thirteenth century, when such learned men as Zunz, [131] Geiger,

[132] Sachs, [133] Jellinek [134] and a host of other most

distinguished Jewish scholars, regard it almost as an established fact;

as well as the statement that there are references to the Kabbalah in

the Talmud, can only be accounted for from the fact that Dr. Etheridge

has not rightly comprehended the import of the Kabbalah, and that he is

entirely unacquainted with the modern researches in this department of

literature.

1857. The elaborate essay on Jewish literature by the learned

Steinschneider, which appeared in Ersch and Gruber’s Encyclopædia, and

which has been translated into English, contains a most thorough review

of this esoteric doctrine. It is, however, to be remarked that the

pages devoted to this subject give not so much an analysis of the

subject, as a detailed account of its literature; and, like all the

writings of this excellent scholar, are replete with most useful

information. [135]

1858–1861. A most instructive and thorough analysis of the Sohar

appeared in a Jewish periodical, entitled Ben Chananja, volumes i, ii,

iii, and iv. [136] This analysis was made by Ignatz Stern, who has also

translated into German those portions of the Sohar which are called the

Book of Mysteries, the Great Assembly, and the Small Assembly, and has

written a vocabulary to the Sohar. The recent death of this great

student in the Kabbalah is greatly to be lamented. With the exception

of the analysis of the Sohar, all his works are in MS.; and it is to be

hoped that the accomplished Leopold Löw, chief Rabbi of Szegedin, and

editor of the Ben Chananja, who was the means of bringing the retiring

Ignatz Stern into public, will publish his literary remains.

1859. As the Kabbalah has played so important a part in the mental and

religious development, and in the history of the Jewish people, the

modern historians of the Jews, in depicting the vicissitudes of the

nation, felt it to be an essential element of their narrative, to trace

the rise and progress of this esoteric doctrine. Thus the learned and

amiable Dr. Jost devotes seventeen pages, in his history of the Jews,

to this theosophy. [137]

1863. No one, however, has prosecuted with more thoroughness, learning

and impartiality the doctrines, origin and development of this esoteric

system than the historian Dr. Graetz. He, more than any of his

predecessors since the publication of Landauer’s literary remains, has

in a most masterly manner carried out the principle laid down by this

deceased scholar, and has distinguished between mysticism and the

Kabbalah. Graetz has not only given a most lucid description of the

doctrines and import of the Kabbalah in its original form, but has

proved to demonstration, in a very elaborate treatise, that Moses de

Leon is the author of the Sohar. [138] Whatever may be the shortcomings

of this portion of Graetz’s history, no one who studies it will fail to

learn from it the true nature of this esoteric doctrine.

1863. Leopold Löw, the chief Rabbi of Szegedin, whose name has already

been mentioned in connection with Ignatz Stern, published a very

lengthy review of Graetz’s description of the Kabbalah. Though the

Rabbi laboured hard to shake Dr. Graetz’s position, yet, with the

exception perhaps of showing that the Kabbalah was not invented in

opposition to Maimonides’ system of philosophy, the learned historian’s

results remain unassailed. Moreover, there is a confusion of mysticism

with the Kabbalah through many parts of Dr. Löw’s critique. [139]

We are not aware that anything has appeared upon this subject since the

publication of Graetz’s researches on the Kabbalah and Löw’s lengthy

critique on these researches. Of course it is not to be supposed that

we have given a complete history of the Literature on this theosophy;

since the design of this Essay and the limits of the volume of “the

Literary and Philosophical Society’s Transactions,” in which it

appears, alike preclude such a history. This much, however, we may

confidently say, that nothing has been omitted which essentially bears

upon the real progress or development of this esoteric doctrine.

Several works, in which lengthy accounts of the Kabbalah are given,

have been omitted, because these descriptions do not contribute

anything very striking in their treatment of the Kabbalah, nor have

they been the occasion of any remarkable incidents among the followers

of this system.

Among the works thus omitted are Buddeus’ Introduction to the History

of Hebrew Philosophy; [140] Basnage’s History of the Jews, [141] where

a very lengthy account is given of the Kabbalah, without any system

whatever, chiefly derived from the work of Kircher; Wolfs account of

the Jewish Kabbalah, given in his elaborate Bibliographical Thesaurus

of Hebrew Literature, where a very extensive catalogue is given of

Kabbalistic authors; [142] and Molitor’s Philosophy of History. [143]

We sincerely regret to have omitted noticing Munk’s description of the

Kabbalah. [144] For, although he does not attempt to separate the

gnostic from the mystical elements, which were afterwards mixed up with

the original doctrines of this esoteric system, yet no one can peruse

the interesting portion treating on the Kabbalah and the Sohar without

deriving from it information not to be found elsewhere.

NOTES

[1] ‏דע כי אין סוף לא יכנס בהרהור וכל שכן בדבור אף על פי שיש לו רמז בכל

דבר שאין חוץ ממנו ולכך אין אות ואין שם ואין דבר אשר יגבלנו‎, Commentary

of the ten Sephiroth, ed. Berlin, p. 4 a. This doctrine, however, that

everything is in the Deity is not peculiar to the Kabbalah, it has been

propounded by the Jews from time immemorial, before the Kabbalah came

into existence, as may be seen from the following passage in the

Midrash. “The Holy One, blessed be he, is the space of the universe,

but the universe is not his space (‏הקב״ה מקומו של עולם ואין העולם

מקומו‎). R. Isaac submitted: from the passage ‏מעונה אלהי קדם‎ (Deut.

xxxiii, 27), we do not know whether the Holy One, blessed be he, is the

habitation of the universe or the universe his habitation; but from the

remark ‏אדני מעון אתה‎ Lord thou art the dwelling place (Ps. xc, 1), it

is evident that the Holy One, blessed be he, is the dwelling place of

the universe, and not the universe his dwelling place.” (Bereshith

Rabba, § lxviii.) To the same effect is the remark of Philo, “God

himself is the space of the universe, for it is he who contains all

things.” (De Somniis, i.) It is for this reason that God is called

‏מקום‎ or ‏המקום‎ = ὁ τόπος, locus, and that the Septuagint renders

‏ויראו את אלהי ישראל וגו׳‎ (Exod. xxiv, 10), by καὶ εἶδον τὸν τόπον, οὗ

εἱστήκει ὁ θεὸς, which has occasioned so much difficulty to

interpreters.

[2] ‏לא ידע ולא אתידע מה דהוי בראישא דא דלא׳ אתדבק בחכמתא ולא כסוכלתנו

ובגן כן אקרי אין‎ (Sohar iii, 283 b.) To the same effect is the ancient

expository work on the doctrine of the Emanations which we quoted in

the preceding note, comp. ‏מה שאינו מוגבל קרוי אין סוף והוא ההשואה

גמורה באחדות השלמח שאין בה שנוי ואם הוא מבלי גבול אין חוץ ממנו‎,

Commentary on the ten Sephiroth, ed. Berlin, p. 2 a.

[3] ‏דע כי אין סוף אין לומר כי יש לו רצון ולא כונה ולא חפץ ולא מחשבה

ולא דבור ומעשה‎ ibid., 4 a.

[4] ‏אם האמר כי הוא בלבד כיון בבריאח עולמו יש להשיב על זה כי הכונה מורה

על הסרון המכון‎, Commentary on the ten Sephiroth, p. 2 b. Again, says

the same authority, ‏ואם תאמר שהגבול הגמצא ממנו תחלה היה העולם הזה שהוא

(העולם) חסר מהשלמותו חסרת חכוח שהוא ממנו .... ואם תאמר שלא כיון בבריאחו

אם כן היתה הבריאה במקרה, וכל דבר הבא במקרה אין לו סדר, ואנו רואים כי

הנבראים יש לחם סדר, ועל סדר הם מתקימים, ועל סדר הם מתכטלים, ועל סדר הם

מתחדשים‎, ibid., p. 2.

[5] Both the etymology and the exact meaning of the word ‏ספירה‎

(plural ‏ספירות‎) are matters of dispute. R. Azariel, the first

Kabbalist, derives it from ‏ספר‎ to number, whilst the later Kabbalists

derive it alternately from ‏ספיר‎ Saphir, from ‏השמים מספרים כבוד אל‎

(Ps. xix, 1), and from the Greek σφαῖραι, and are not at all certain

whether to regard the Sephiroth as principles (ἀρχαὶ), or as substances

(ὑποστάσεις), or as potencies, powers (δυνάμεις), or as intelligent

worlds (κόσμοι νοητικοί), or as attributes, or as entities (‏עצמות‎),

or as organs of the Deity (‏כלים‎).

[6] The Sohar, like the Talmud, generally renders the words ‏מלך שלמה‎

King Solomon; while verses in the Song of Songs, by ‏מלכא די שלמא

דיליה‎ the King to whom peace belongs.

[7] ‏כי כל בריאה כשנוטלין ממנה תתמעט ותתחסר .... כח האצילות שנוטלין

ממנו ואינו חסר‎, Commentary on the ten Sephiroth, 2 b; 4 a.

[8] ‏הספירות שהם כח השלם וכח החסר כשהם מקבלים מהשפע הבא מהשלמתו הם כח

שלם ובהמנע השפע מהם יש בחם כח חסר לכך יש בהם כח לפעול בהשלמה ובחסרון‎.

[9] The notion, however, that worlds were created and destroyed prior

to the present creation, was propounded in the Midrash long before the

existence of the Kabbalah. Thus on the verse, “And God saw everything

that he had made, and behold it was very good” (Gen. i, 31), R. Abahu

submits ‏א״ר אבהו מכאן שהקב״ה היה בורא עולמות ומחריבן ובורא עולמות

ומחריבן עד שברא את אלו אמר דין הניין לי יתהון לא הניין לי‎ from this we

see that the Holy One, blessed be he, had successively created and

destroyed sundry worlds before he created the present world, and when

he created the present world he said, this pleases me, the previous

ones did not please me. (Bereshith Rabba, section or Parsha ix.)

[10] The question, however, about the doctrine of the Trinity in other

passages of the Sohar will be discussed more amply in the sequel, where

we shall point out the relation of the Kabbalah to Christianity.

[11] The Kabbalistic description of Metatron is taken from the Jewish

angelology of a much older date than this theosophy. Thus Ben Asai and

Ben Soma already regard the divine voice, the λόγος (‏קול אלהים‎) as

Metatron. (Beresh. Rab., Parsha v.) He is called the Great Teacher, the

Teacher of Teachers (‏ספרא רבא‎), and it is for this reason that Enoch,

who walked in close communion with God, and taught mankind by his holy

example, is said by the Chaldee paraphrase of Jonathan b. Uzziel, to

‘have received the name Metatron, the Great Teacher’ after he was

transplanted. (Gen. v, 24.) Metatron, moreover, is the Presence Angel

(‏שר הפנים‎), the Angel of the Lord that was sent to go before Israel

(Exod. xxiii, 21); he is the visible manifestation of the Deity, for in

him is the name of the Lord, i.e., his name and that of the Deity are

identical, inasmuch as they are of the same numerical value

(viz.:—‏שדי‎ and ‏מטטרון‎ are the same according to the exegetical rule

called Gematria, ‏י‎ 10 + ‏ד‎ 4 + ‏ש‎ 300 = 314; ‏ן‎ 50 + ‏ו‎ 6 + ‏ר‎

200 + ‏ט‎ 9 + ‏ט‎ 9 + ‏מ‎ 40 = 314. See Rashi on Exod. xxiii, 21,

‏רבותינו אמרו זה מטטרון ששמו כשם רבו מטטרון בגמטריא שדי‎ and Sanhedrim

38 b). So exalted is Metatron’s position in the ancient Jewish

angelology, that we are told that when Elisha b. Abaja, also called

Acher, saw this angel who occupies the first position after the Deity,

he exclaimed, ‘Peradventure, but far be it, there are two Supreme

Powers’ (‏שמא חס ושלום שתי רשויות הן‎ Talmud, Chagiga, 15 a). The

etymology of ‏מטטרון‎ is greatly disputed; but there is no doubt that

it is to be derived from Metator, messenger, outrider, way maker, as

has been shown by Elias Levita, and is maintained by Cassel (Ersch und

Gruber’s Encyklopädie, section ii, vol. xxvii, s.v.; Juden, p. 40, note

84). Sachs (Beiträge zur Sprach- und Alterthumsforschung, vol. i,

Berlin 1852, p. 108) rightly remarks that this etymology is fixed by

the passage from Siphra, quoted in Kaphter-Va-Pherach, c. x, p. 34 b

‏אצבעו של הקב״ה נעשה מטטרון למשה והראהו כל ארץ ישראל‎ the finger of God

was the messenger or guide to Moses, and showed him all the land of

Israel. The termination ‏ון‎ has been appended to ‏מטטר‎ to obtain the

same numerical value, as ‏שדי‎. The derivation of it from μετὰ θρόνος,

because this angel is immediately under the divine throne (‏כורסייא‎),

which is maintained by Frank (Kabbala, p. 43), Graetz (Gnosticismus, p.

44) and others, has been shown by Frankel (Zeitschrift, 1846. vol. iii,

p. 113), and Cassel (Ersch und Gruber’s Encyklop. section ii, vol.

xxvii, p. 41), to be both contrary to the form of the word and to the

description of Metatron.

[12] The view that the serpent which seduced the protoplasts is

identical with Satan is not peculiar to the Kabbalah. It is stated in

the Talmud in almost the same words ‏הוא יצר הרע הוא השטן הוא מלאך המות

כמתניחא תנא יורד ומטע עולה ומשטין יורד וממים‎ the evil spirit, Satan,

and the angel of death, are the same. It is propounded in the Boraitha

that he descends and seduces; he then ascends and accuses, and then

comes down again and kills. Baba Bathra, 16 a.

[13] ‏כיון דנברא אדם אתתקן כלא וכל מה דלעילא ותתא וסלא אתכליל באדם ...

איהו שלימותא דכלא. זוחר חלק ג׳ דף מ״ח א׳‎

[14] That the righteous are greater than the angels is already

propounded in the Talmud (‏גדולים צדיקים יותר ממלאכי השרת‎ Sanhedrim 93

a); and it is asserted that no one angel can do two things (‏אין מלאך

אחד עושה שתי שליחות‎ Bereshith Rabba, section 1), for which reason

three angels had to be sent, one to announce to Sarai the birth of

Isaac, the other to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, and the third to save

Lot and his family; whilst a man can perform several duties. The

superiority of man over angels is also asserted in the New Testament.

(1 Cor. vi, 3.)

[15] The Karmarthi, who interpreted the precepts of Islamism

allegorically, also maintained that the human body represents the

letters in the name of God. When standing the human body represents an

Elif, when kneeling a Lâm, and when prostrated on the ground a Hê, so

that the body is like a book in which may be read the name Allah. De

Sacy, Introduction à l’Exposé de la Religion des Druzes, pp. 86, 87.

Comp. Frank, Die Kabbala, p. 32.

[16] The pre-existence of the human souls in the celestial regions was

believed by the Jews before the Kabbalah came into vogue. We find this

doctrine in the Book of Wisdom (viii, 20); in Josephus, where we are

told that the Essenes believed ‘that souls were immortal, and that they

descended from the pure air, συμπλέκεσθαι ὥσπερ εἰρκταῖς τοῖς σώμασι,

to be chained to bodies’ (de Bell. Jud. ii, 12); by Philo, who says

‘the air was full of them, and that those which were nearest the earth

κατίασιν ἐκδεθησομέναι σώμασι θνητοῖς, descending to be tied to mortal

bodies, παλινδρομοῦσι αὖθις, return back to bodies, being desirous to

live in them.’ (De Gignat. p. 222, C.; De Somniis, p. 455, D. Comp.

Arnald on the Book of Wisdom, viii, 20, and Whitby on John ix, 2.,

where these quotations and others are given); and in the Talmud where

it is declared that the human souls which are to be born (‏רוחות ונשמות

שעתידין להבראות‎), have their abode in the seventh heaven (Chagiga, 12

b); that they leave gradually the storehouse of souls to people this

earth (‏עד שיכלו כל הנשמוה שבגוף‎ Jebamoth, 62; Aboda Sara, 5; Nidda,

13); and that the Holy One, blessed be he, took counsel with them when

he was about to create the world ‏כנפשתן של צריקין נמלך הקב״ה וברא את

העולם‎ (Bereshith Rabba, section viii).

[17] The notion about the reluctance of the soul to enter into this

world is also not peculiar to the Kabbalah. The most ancient tract of

the Mishna thus speaks of the soul: “Against thy will thou becomest an

embryo, and against thy will thou art born” (‏על כרחך אתה נוצר ועל כרחך

אתה נולד‎ Aboth, iv. 29); on which Bartenora, in his commentary,

remarks: “The soul does not wish to quit the pure abode of the curtain

which encloses the Holy of Holies.”

[18] ‏כל אינון רוחין ונשמתין כלהו כלילן דכר ונוקבא דמתחברן כחדא ואתמסרן

בידא דההוא ממנא שליהא דאתפקר על עדואיהן [עיבוריהן] דבני נשא ולילה שמיה

ובשעהא דנחתין ואתמסרן בידוי מתפדשין ילזמנין דא אקרים מן דא ואחית להו

בבני נשא וכד מטא [מחא] עידן דזווגא דלהון קב״ה דידע אינון רוהין ונשמהין

מחבר לון כדבקדמיתא ומכרזא עלייהו וכד אתחברן אתעגידו חד גופא חד נשמתא

ימינא ישמאלא כדקא חזי ובגין כך אין כל חדש תחת השמש. ואי תימא הא תנינן

לית זווגא אלא לפום עוגדוי ואורהוי דבר נש הכי הוא ודאי. דאי זכי ועובדוי

אתכשרן זכי לההוא דיליה לאתחברא ביד כמה דנפיק. זוהר חלק א דף צא ב‎

[19] ‏בספרא דשלמה מלכא אשכחנא דבשעתא דזווגא אשתכח לתתא שדר קב״ה חד

דיוקנא בפרצופא ד״נ רשימה חקיקה בצולמא וקיימא על ההוא זווגא ואלמלי

אתיהיב רשו לעינא למחמי חמי ב״נ על רישיה חד צולמא רשימא כפרצופא דבר נש

ובההוא צילמא אתברי ב״נ ועד דלא קיימא [ס״א ועד לא קיימא] ההוא צולמא דשדר

ליה מאריה על רישיה וישתכח תמן לא אתברי ב״נ הה״ד ויברא אלקים את האדם

בצלמו. ההוא צלם אזדמן לקבליה עד דנפיק לעלמא כד נפק בההוא צלם אתרבי

בההוא צלם אזיל הה״ד אך בצלם יתהלך איש להאי צלם הוא מלעילא בשעתא דאינון

רוחין נפקין מאתרייהו כל רוחא ורוחא אתתקן קמי מלכא קדישא בתקוני יקר

בפרצופא דקאי׳ בהאי עלמא. ומההוא דיוקנא תקונא יקר נפיק האי צלם. ודא

תליתאה לרוחא ואקדימת בהאי עלמא בשעתא דזווגא אשתכח ולית לך זווגא בעלמא

דלא עלם בגווייהו. זוהר חלק ג דף קד א ,ב‎

[20] The two kinds of faculties, as well as the two sorts of feelings,

are also mentioned in the Talmud. Thus it is said—“All the prophets

looked into the Non-Luminous Mirror, whilst our teacher, Moses, looked

into the Luminous Mirror.” (‏כל הנביאים נסהכלו באספקלריא שאינה מאירה

משה רבינו נסתכל באספקלריא המאידה‎ Jebamoth, 49 b). And again—“Also the

divine service which is engendered by fear and not by love, has its

merit.” (Jerusalem Berachoth, 44; Babylon Sota, 22 a.)

[21] ‏לשם יחוד קב״ה ושכינתה ברחימו ודחילו וברחילו ורחימו ליחרא שם י״ה

בו״ה ביחודא שלים בשם כל ישראל‎

[22] ‏כל נשמתין עאלין בגלגולא ולא ידעין בני נשא אורחוי דקודשא בריך הוא

והיך קיימא טיקלא והיך אתדנו בני נשא בכל יומא ובכל עידן והיך נשמתין

עאלין בדינא עד לא ייתון להאי עלמא והיך עאלין בדינא לבתר דנפקי מהאי

עלמא. כמה גלגולין וכמה עובדין סתימין עבידן קודשא בריך הוא בהדי כמה

נשמתין ערטילאין וכמה רוחין ערטילאין אזלין בההוא עלמא דלא עאלין לפרגודא

דמלכא. וכמה עלמין אתהפך בהו ועלמא דאתהפך בכמה פליאן סתימין ובני נשא לא

ידעין ולא משגיחין וחיך מתגלגלן נשמתין כאבנא בקוספתא כמה דאת אמר ואת נפש

אויביך יקלענה בתוך כף הקלע השתא אית לגלאה דהא כל. זוהר חלק ב׳ דף צט ב׳‎

[23] According to Josephus, the doctrine of the transmigration of souls

into other bodies (μετεμψύχωσις), was also held by the Pharisees (comp.

Antiq. xviii, 1, 3: de Bell. Jud. ii, 8, 14), restricting, however, the

metempsychosis to the righteous. And though the Midrashim and the

Talmud are silent about it, yet from Saadia’s vituperations against it

(‏אבל אומר שמצאתי אנשים ממי שנקראים יהודים אומרים בהשנות וקוראים אותו

ההעתקח‎ Emunoth ve-Deoth, vi, 7; viii, 3) there is no doubt that this

doctrine was held among some Jews in the ninth century of the present

era. At all events it is perfectly certain that the Karaite Jews firmly

believed in it ever since the seventh century. (Comp. Frankel,

Monatschrift, x, 177, &c.) St. Jerome assures us that it was also

propounded among the early Christians as an esoteric and traditional

doctrine which was entrusted to the select few, (abscondite quasi in

foveis viperarum versari et quasi haereditario malo serpere in paucis.

Comp. epist. ad Demedriadem); and Origen was convinced that it was only

by means of this doctrine that certain Scriptural narratives, such as

the struggle of Jacob with Esau before their birth, the reference about

Jeremiah when still in his mother’s womb, and many others, can possibly

be explained. (περὶ ἀρχῶν i, 1, cap. vii; Adver. Celsum, i, 3.)

[24] The notion that the creation is a blessing, and that this is

indicated in the first letter, is already propounded in the Midrash, as

may be seen from the following remark. The reason why the Law begins

with Beth, the second letter of the Alphabet, and not with Aleph, the

first letter, is that the former is the first letter in the word

blessing, while the latter is the first letter in the word accursed,

‏למה בבית מפני שהוא לשון ברכה ולא בא״לף שהוא לשון ארירה‎ (Midrash

Rabba, sec. i).

[25] This view that the mere literal narrative is unworthy of

inspiration, and that it must contain a spiritual meaning concealed

under the garment of the letter, is not peculiar to the Kabbalah. Both

the Synagogue and the Church have maintained the same from time

immemorial. Thus the Talmud already describes the impious Manasseh,

King of Israel, as making himself merry over the narratives of the

Pentateuch and ironically asking (‏מנשוה בן חזקיה שהיה יושב ודורש

בהגדות של דופי אמר וכי לא היה לו למשה לכתוב אלא אחות לוטן תמנע והמנע

היתה פלגש לאליפז וילך ראובן בימי קציר חטים וימצא דודאים בשדה‎), whether

Moses could not find anything better to relate than that “Loton’s

sister was Timna” (Gen. xxxvi, 22); “Timna was the concubine of

Eliphaz” (ibid., v. 12); that “Reuben went in the days of the wheat

harvest, and found mandrakes in the field” (ibid., xxx, 14), &c, &c.

And it is replied that these narratives contain another sense besides

the literal one. (Sanhedrim, 99 b.) Hence the rule (‏כל מה שאירע לאבות

סימן לבנים‎), what happened to the fathers is typical of the children.

[26] Origen’s words are almost literally the same—“Si adsideamus

litterae et secundum hoc vel quod Judaeis, vel quod vulgo videtur,

accipiamus quæ in lege scripta sunt, erubesco dicere et confiteri quia

tales leges dederit Deus: videbuntur enim magis elegantes et

rationabiles hominum leges, verbi gratia vel Romanorum vel

Atheniensium, vel Lacedaemoniorum.” Homil. vii, in Levit. Again, the

same erudite father says, “What person in his senses will imagine that

the first, second, and third day, in connection with which morning and

evening are mentioned, were without sun, moon and stars, nay that there

was no sky on the first day? Who is there so foolish and without common

sense as to believe that God planted trees in the garden eastward of

Eden like a husbandman, and planted therein the tree of life,

perceptible to the eyes and senses, which gave life to the eater

thereof; and another tree which gave to the eater thereof a knowledge

of good and evil? I believe that everybody must regard these as

figures, under which a recondite sense is concealed.” Lib. iv, cap. ii,

περὶ ἀρχῶν. Huet, Origeniana, p. 167. Comp. Davidson, Sacred

Hermeneutics, Edinburgh, 1843, p. 99, &c. It must, however, not be

supposed that this sort of interpretation, which defies all rules of

sound exegesis and common sense, is confined to the ancient Jewish

Rabbins or the Christian fathers. The Commentary on Genesis and Exodus

by Chr. Wordsworth, D.D., Canon of Westminster, may fairly compete in

this respect with any production of bygone days. Will it be believed

that Dr. Wordsworth actually sees it “suggested by the Holy Spirit

Himself,” that Noah drunk, exposing his nakedness, and mocked by his

own child, Ham, is typical of Christ who drank the cup of God’s wrath,

stripped Himself of His heavenly glory, and was mocked by his own

children the Jews? But we must give the Canon’s own words. “Noah drank

the wine of his vineyard; Christ drank the cup of God’s wrath, which

was the fruit of the sin of the cultivators of the vineyard, which he

had planted in the world. Noah was made naked to his shame; Christ

consented for our sake to strip Himself of His heavenly glory, and took

on him the form of a servant. (Phil. ii, 7.) He laid aside his

garments, and washed his disciples’ feet (John, xiii, 4.) He hid not

his face from shame and spitting. (Isa. 1, 6.) When he was on the

Cross, they that passed by reviled Him. (Matt. xxvii, 39.) He was

mocked by His own children, the Jews. He deigned to be exposed to

insult for our sakes, in shame and nakedness on the Cross (Heb. xii,

2), in order that we might receive eternal glory from His shame, and be

clothed through His weakness with garments of heavenly beauty.”

(Commentary on Genesis and Exodus, London, 1864, p. 52.)

[27] The notion that the Bible is to be explained in this fourfold

manner was also propounded by the Jewish doctors generally, long before

the existence of the Kabbalah (Comp. Ginsburg, Historical and Critical

Commentary on Ecclesiastes, Longman, 1861, p. 30), and has been adopted

by some of the fathers and schoolmen. Origen, although only advocating

a threefold sense, viz.:—σωματικὸς, ψυχικὸς, πνευματικὸς, to correspond

to the Platonic notion of the component parts of man, viz.:—σῶμα, ψυχὴ,

πνεῦμα, almost uses the same words as the Kabbalah. “The sentiments of

Holy Scriptures must be imprinted upon each one’s soul in a threefold

manner, that the more simple may be built up by the flesh (or body) of

Scripture, so to speak, by which we mean the obvious explanation; that

he who has advanced to a higher state may be edified by the soul of

Scripture as it were; but he that is perfect, and like to the

individuals spoken of by the Apostle (1 Cor. ii, 6, 7), must be edified

by the spiritual law, having a shadow of good things to come. περὶ

ἀρχῶν, lib. iv, cap. ii. Comp. Davidson, Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 97.

Whilst Nicholas de Lyra, the celebrated commentator and forerunner of

the Reformation (born about 1270, died October 23, 1340), distinctly

espouses the Jewish four modes of interpretation, which he describes in

the following couplet—

“Littera gesta docet, quid credas Allegoria,

Moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia.”

Comp. Alexander’s edition of Kitto’s Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature,

s. v. Lyra.

[28] The above-mentioned exegetical canons, however, are not peculiar

to the Kabbalah. They have been in vogue among the Jews from time

immemorial. Thus the difficult passage in Isa. xxi, 8, ‏ויקרא אריה‎

which is rendered in the Authorised Version, and he cried, A lion! or

‘as a lion,’ as the margin has it, is explained by the ancient Jewish

tradition as a prophecy respecting Habakkuk, who, as Isaiah foresaw,

would in coming days use the very words here predicted. (Comp. Isa.

xxi, 8, 9, with Hab. ii, 1); and this interpretation is obtained by

rule i; inasmuch as ‏אריה‎ lion and ‏חבקוק‎ Habakkuk are numerically

the same, viz.:—

‏ה‎ ‏י‎ ‏ר‎ ‏א‎ and ‏ק‎ ‏ו‎ ‏ק‎ ‏ב‎ ‏ח‎

5 + 10 + 200 + 1 = 216 and 100 + 6 + 100 + 2 + 8 = 216

(See the Commentaries of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Kimchi on Isa. xxi, 8.)

Again, in the fact that Jacob made Joseph ‘a coat of many colours’

(Gen. xxxvii, 3), as the Authorised Version has it, or ‘pieces,’ as it

is in the margin, the Midrash or the ancient Jewish exposition, sees

the sufferings of Joseph indicated; inasmuch as ‏פסים‎ according to

rule ii, is composed of the initials of ‏פוטיפר‎ Potiphar, who

imprisoned Joseph; ‏סוחרים‎ merchants ‏ישמעאלים‎ Ishmaelites and

‏מדינים‎ Midianites, who bought him and sold him again as a slave.

(Gen. xxxvii, 25–28; xxxix, 1; comp. Rashi on Gen. xxxvii, 3.) For more

extensive information on this subject, we must refer to Ginsburg’s

Historical and Critical Commentary on Ecclesiastes, Longman, 1861, p.

30, &c.

[29] The limits of this Essay preclude the possibility of entering into

a disquisition on the seventy-two Divine names. Those who wish to

examine the subject more extensively we must refer to the Commentaries

on the Sohar (Exod. xiv. 19–31), mentioned in the third part of this

Essay; and to Bartolocci, Bibliotheca Magna Rabbinica, Pars iv, p. 230

seq., where ample information is given on this and kindred subjects.

[30] ‏יחודא רכל יוכמא איחו יחודא למנרע ולשואח רעותא. יחודא דא חא אמרן

בכמח דוכתי יחודא דכל יומא איחו יחיד דקרא ידו״ד קימאה אלחינו ידו״ד חא

כלחו חד וע״ד קרי אחד. חא תלת שמחן חיך אינון חד ואף על גנ דקרינן אחד חיך

אינון חד אלא בחויונא דרוח קרשא אתידע ואינון בחיזו דעינא סתימא למנדע

דתלתא אלין אחד. ודא איחו רזא דקול, דאשתמע קול איחו וזר ואייחו תלתא

גוונין, אשא ורוחא ומיא וכלחו חז ברזא רקול ולאו אינון אלא חד. אוף הכא

י״י אכהינו י״י אונון חד, תלתא גוונין ואינון חד. ורא איהו קיל דעביד בר

נש ביחודא ולשואח רעותיה ביהודא דכלא מאין טות עד סופא. דכלא באאי קול דקא

עביד בחני תלתא דאינון חד, ודא איהו יחודא דכל יומא דאתגלי ברזא דרוח

קדשא. וכמה גוונין דיחודא אתערו וכלהו קשוט מאן דעביד האי עביד ומאן דעביד

האי עביד, אבל האי יחודא דקא אנן מתערי מתתא ברזא דקול דאיהו הד, דא הוא

ברירא דמלה. זוהר הלצ ב׳ דף מ״ג ב׳‎

[31] ‏רבי אלעזר הוה יתיב קמיה דר״ש אבוי אמר ליה הא תנינן אלהים בכל אתר

דינא הוא, יו״ד ה״א וא״ו ה״א אית אתר דאקרי אלהים כגון אדני יהוה, אמאי

אקרי אלהים והא אתוון רחמי אינון בכל אתר אמר ליה הכי הוא כתיב בקרא,

דכתיב וידעת היום והשבות אל לבבך כי י״י הוא האלהים, וכתיב י״י הוא

האלהים. אמר ליה מלה דא ידענא דבאתר דאית דינא אית רחמי, ולזמנא באתר דאית

רחמי אית דינא אמר ִיה תא חזי דהכי הוא ידו״ד בכל אתר רחמי ובשעתא דמהפכי

חייביא רחמי לדינא כדין כתיב יהוה וכרינן ליה אלהים, אבל תא חזי רזא דמלה

ג׳ דרגין אינון וכל דרגא ודרגא בלחודוי ואענ׳ דכלא חד ומתכשרי בחד ולא

מתפרשי דא מן דא: זוהר חלק ג׳ דף ס׳ה א׳‎

[32] ‏מאן דאמר אחד אצטריך לחיפא אל״ף ולקצרא קריאה דילה ולא יעכב בהאי

אות כלל. ומאן דעביד דא יתארכון חייו אמרו ליה תו אמר תרינאינון וחדא

אשתתף בהו ואינון תלתא וכד הוו תלתא אינון חד. אמר לון אלין תרין שמהן

דשמע ישראל דאינון יהוה יהוה אלהינו אשתתף בהו ואיהו חותמא דגושפנכא אמת,

וכד מתחברן כחדא אינון חד ביחודא חדא: זוהר חלק ג׳ דף קס״ב א׳‎

[33] Comp. Galatinus, De Arcanis Cathol. lib. ii, c. 3, p. 31; who says

that some Codices of the Chaldee paraphrase in Isa. vi, 3, had also

‏קדיש אבא קדיש בריא קדיש‎ ‏רוחא קדישא‎ the Holy Father, the Holy Son,

and the Holy Ghost; see also Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebreca i, 1136; Graetz,

Geschichte der Juden vii, 249.

[34] Comp. Joel, Die Religionsphilosophie des Sohar. Leipzig, 1849, p.

240 ff.

[35] ‏בשעתא דיתפסין צדיקייא במרעין או במכתשין בגין לכפרא על עלמא היו,

כדין יתכפרון כל חובי דרא. מנלן מכל שייפי גופא. בשעתא דכל שייפין בעקאו

ומרע סגי שרייא עלייהו שייפא חדא אצטריך לאלקאה בגין דיתסון כלהו. ומנו

דרועה. דרועא אלקי ואפיקו מניה דמא כדין הא אסוותא לכל שייפי גופא. אוף

הכי בני עלמא אינון שייפין דא עם דא. בשעתא דבעי קב.״ה למיהב אסוותא לעלמא

אלקי לחד צדיקא בינייהו במרעין ובמכתשין ובגיניה יהיב אסוותא לכלא מנלן

דכתיב והוא מחולל מפשעינו מדוכא מעוונותיינו וגו׳ ובחברתי נרפא לנו

ובחברתו אקזותא דדמא מכאן דאקיז דרועא, ובההוא חבורה נרפא לנו אסוותא הוא

לנו לכל שייפין דגופא: זוהר חלק ג׳ דף רי״ח א׳‎

[36] ‏אנון נשמתין דבגנתא דעדן לתתא .... משטטי ומסתכלן באינון מאריהון

דכאבין ובני מרעין ואנון דסבלין על יחודא דמאריהון ותאבין ואמרין ליה

למשיהא בשעתא דאמרין ליה למשיחא צערא דישראל בגלותהון ואינון חייביא די

בהון דלא מסתכלי למנדע למאריהון׳ ארים קלא ובכי על אינון חייבין דבהו הה״ד

והוא מחולל מפשעינו מדוכא מעונותינו. תייבין אינון נשמתין וקיימין

באתרייהו. בגנתא דעדן אית היכלא חדא דאקרי היכלא דבני מרעין׳ כדין משיח

עאל בההו היכלא וקארי לכל מרעין וכל כאבין כל יסוריהון דישראל דייתון עליה

וכלהו אתיין עליה ואלמלא דאיהו אקיל מעלייהו דישראל ונטיל עליה׳ לא הוי בר

נש דיכיל למסבל יסוריהון דישראל על עונשי דאוריתא. הה״ד אכן חליינו הוא

נשא וגו׳ ... כד הוו ישראל בארעא קדישא באינון פולחנין וקרבנין דהוו עבדי

הוו מסלקין כל אינין מרעין ויסורין מעלמא. השתא משיח מסלק לון מבני עלמא:

זוהר חלק ב׳ דף ריב א׳‎

[37] Comp. Peter Beer, Geschichte der religiösen Secten der Juden.

Berlin, 1822–23, vol. ii, p. 309, &c.

[38] ‏ולא ידעתי אם ימחול יי לאשר הדפיסם אותם הספרים‎ Comp. ‏ארי נוהם‎

ed. Fürst, Leipzig, 1840, p. 7.

[39] ‏ספר יצירה והוא לאברהם .... הורה על אלהותו ואחדותו בדברים מתחלפים

מתרבים מצד אבל הם מתאחדים נסכמים מצד אחר והסכמתם מצד האחד אשר יסדרם

מהם: כוזרי מאמר רביעי כ״ה‎

[40] It is for this reason that the Book Jetzira is also called ‏אותיות

באברהם אבינו‎ The Letters or Alphabet of the Patriarch Abraham.

[41] ‏בשלשים ושתים פליאות חכמח חקק יה יהוה צבאות אלהי ישראל אלהים חיים

ומלך עולם אל רחום וחנון רם ונשא שוכן עד מרום וקדוש שמו בשלשה ספרים בספר

וספר וסיפור: ספר יצירה פרקי א׳ משנה א׳‎

[42] ‏אחת רוח אלהים חיים ברוך ומבורך שמו של חי העולמים קול ורוח ודיבור

וזח רוח חקדוש: פרץ א׳ משנה ט׳‎

[43] ‏שתים רוח מרוח חקק וחצב בה עשרים רשתים אותיות יסוד שלש אמות ושבעה

כפולות ושנים עשר פשוטות ורוח אחת מהן: שלש מים מרוח חקק וחצב בהן תהו

ובהו רפש וטיט חקקן כמין ערוגה חציבן כמין חומה סככן כמין מעזיבה: ארבע אש

ממים חקק וחצב בה כסא הכבוד ואופנים ושרפים וחיות הקדש ומלאכי השרת

ומשלשתן יסד מעונו שנאמר עשה מלאכיו רוחות משרתיו אש לוהט: פרק א׳ משנה ט׳

וי׳‎

[44] ‏עשרים ושתים אותיות יסוד חקקן חצבן שקלן והמירן צרפן צר בהם נפש כל

היצור ונפש כל העתיר לצור: פרק שני שנה ב׳‎

[45] ‏כיצד שקלן והמירן אלף עם כולם וכולם עם אלף, בית עם כולם וכולם עם

בית וחוזרת חלילה נמצא כל היצור וכל הדבור יוצא בשם אחד: פרק שני משנה ד׳‎

[46] ‏שתי אותיות בונות שתי בתים שלושה בונות ששה בתים ארבעה בונות ארבע

ועשרים בתים חמש בונות מאה ועשרים בתים שש בונות שבע מאות ועשרים בתים

מכאן ואילך צא וחשוב מה שאין הפה יכולה לדבר ואץ האוזן יכולה לשמוע: פרק

ד׳ משנה ד׳‎

[47] ‏עדים נאמנים עולם שנה נפש: פרק ו׳ משנה א׳‎

[48] ‏אחד על גבי שלשה שלשה על גבי שבעה שבעה על גבי שנים עשר וכולן

אדוקין זה בזה: פרק ו׳ משנה ג׳‎

[49] ‏תלי בעולם כמלך על כסאו גלגל בשנה כמלך במדינה לב בנפש כמלך במלחמה‎

[50] ‏שנים עשר עומדים במלחמה שלשה אוהבים שלשה שנאים שלשה מחיים שלשה

ממיתים שלשה אוהבים הלב והאזנים והפה שלשה שונאים הכבד המרה והלשון ואל

מלך נאמן מושל בכולן אחד על גבי שלשה שלשה על גבי שבעה שבעה על גבי שנים

עשר וכולן אדוקין זה בזה: פרק ו׳ משנה ג׳‎

[51] Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden. Berlin, 1832, p. 165,

&c.

[52] ‏רב חנינה ורב אושעיא דכל מעלי שבתא הוו עסקי בהלכות יצירה ומיברי

להו עיגלא תילתא ואכלי לי: סנהדרין ס״ו ב׳‎

[53] ‏אמר ר׳ יהושוע בן חנניא יכיל אנא על ידי ספר יצירה נסיב קתיין

ואבטיחין ועבידלון איילין טבין והידנון עבידין איילין וטבין:‎

[54] Der Israelitische Volkslehrer, vol. ix. Frankfort-on-the-Maine,

1859, p. 364, &c.

[55] For those who should wish to prosecute the study of the

metaphysical Book Jetzira, we must mention that this Treatise was first

published in a Latin translation by Postellus, Paris, 1552. It was then

published in the original with five commentaries, viz., the spurious

one of Saadia Gaon, one by Moses Nachmanides, one by Eleazer Worms, one

by Abraham b. David, and one by Moses Botarel. Mantua, 1565. Another

Latin version is given in Jo. Pistorii artis cabalisticae scriptorum,

1587, Tom. l, p. 869 seq. which is ascribed to Reuchlin and Paul Ricci;

and a third Latin translation, with notes and the Hebrew text, was

published by Rittangel, Amsterdam, 1662. The Book is also published

with a German translation and notes, by John Friedrich v. Meyer,

Leipzig, 1830. As useful helps to the understanding of this difficult

Book we may mention The Kusari of R. Jehudah Ha-Levi, with Cassel’s

German version and learned annotations, Part iv. chap 25, p. 344. &c.,

Leipzig, 1853; Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden (Berlin,

1832), p. 165, &c.; Graetz, Gnosticismus und Judenthum (Krotoshin,

1846), p. 102, &c.; Jellinek, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kabbala, Part

i (Leipzig, 1852). p. 3, &c. Comp. also Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, vol

i., p. 23, &c., vol. ii., p. 1196, vol. iii, p. 17, vol. iv. p. 753,

&c.; Philosophie der Geschichte, vol. i, 2nd ed. (Münster, 1857), p.

63. &c.; Steinschneider, Jewish Literature (London, 1857), pp. 107,

302, &c.; and by the same author, Catalogus Libr. Hebr. in Bibliotheca

Bodleiana, col. 552.

[56] The Sohar was first published by Da Padova and Jacob b. Naphtali,

3 vols. 4to, Mantua, 1558–1560, with an Introduction by Is. de Lattes;

then again in Cremona, 1560, fol.; Lublin, 1623, fol.; then again

edited by Rosenroth, with the variations from the works Derech Emeth,

and with the explanation of the difficult words by Issachar Bär, an

Index of all the passages of Scripture explained in the Sohar, and with

an Introduction by Moses b. Uri Sheraga Bloch, Sulzbach, 1684, fol.;

with an additional Index of matters, Amsterdam, 1714, 3 vols. 8vo;

ibid. 1728; 1772, and 1805. The references in this Essay are to the

last mentioned edition. It must, however, be remarked that most of the

editions have the same paging. Comp. Steinschneider, Catalogus Libr.

Hebr. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, Col., 537–545; Fürst, Bibliotheca

Judaica, iii, 329–385.

[57] ‏וכך אטררנא לכו רבי אבא יכתוב ורבי אלעזר ברי ילעי ושאר חברייה

ירחשון בלבייהו: זוהר חלק ג׳ דף רפ ז ב׳:‎

[58] ‏אסהדנה עלי שמייא עלאין דעלאין וארעה קדישה עלאה דעלאה דאנא חמי

השתא מה דלא חמא בר נש מיומה דסליק משה זמנה תניינא לטורא דסיני דאנא

חמינא אנפאי נהירין כנהורא דשמשא תקיפא דזמין למיפק באסוותא לעלמא דכתיב

וזרחה לכם יראי שמי שמש צדקה ומרפה בכנפיה: ועוד דאנא ידענא דאנפאי נהירין

ומשה לא ידע ולא אסתכל הה״ד ומשה לא ידע כי קרן עור פניו: זוהר חלק ג״ דף

קל׳ב ב׳:‎

[59] ‏כתיב יראה כל זכורך אל פני האדון ה׳ מאן פני האדון ה׳ דא רשב״י דמאן

דאיהו דכורא מן דכרניא בעי לאתחזאה קמיה: זוהר חלק ב׳ דף לח א׳:‎

[60] Comp. Alexander’s edition of Kitto’s Cyclopædia of Biblical

Literature, s.v. Mocha.

[61] Comp. Sachs, Die religiöse Poesie der Juden in Spanien, Berlin,

1845, p. 229, note 2.

[62] For a description of the Mezuza, which consists of a piece of

parchment, whereon is written Deut. vi, 4–9; xi, 13–21, put into a reed

or hollow cylinder, and affixed to the right hand door-post of every

door in the houses of the Jews, see Alexander’s edition of Kitto’s

Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature, s.v. Mezuza.

[63] Comp. Nissen, in the collection of various Hebrew Dissertations,

entitled ‏ציון‎, edited by Jost and Creizenach, vol. ii,

Frankfort-on-the-Maine, 1842–43, p. 161, &c.

[64] ‏ושכינתא נוגה ונוגה לאש ומהכא קרי לבי כנישתא אש נוגה: זוהר חלק ג׳

דף רפ׳א א׳‎

[65] ‏ווי על ההוא זמנא דאתיליד ישמעאל בעלמא ואתגזר. מה עבר קב״ה ארחיק

להו לבני ישמעאל מדבקותא דלעילא ויהב להו חולקא לתתא בארעא קדישא בגין

ההוא גזירו דבהון וזמינין בן ישמעאל למישלט בארעא קדישא כד איהי ריקניא

מכלא זמנ׳ סגי כמה דגזירו דלהון בריקניא בלא שלימו: ואינון יעכבון להון

לבנ׳י לאתבא לדוכתייהו עד דישתלים ההוא זכותא דבני ישמעאל: וזמינין בני

ישמעאל לאתערה קרבין תקיפין בעלמא ולאתכנשא בני אדום עלייהו ויתערון קרבא

בהו חד על ימא וחד על יבשא וחד סמוך לירושלים וישלטון אלין באלין וארעא

קדישא לא יתמסר לבני אדום: זוהר חלק ב׳ דף לב א׳‎

[66] ‏תנן זמין קב״ה למבני ירושלים ולאחזאה חד ככבא קביעא מנצצא בע׳ רהטין

ובע׳ זקין נהרין מניה באמצעות רקיעא וישתאבון ביה ע׳ ככבין אחרנין ויהא

נהיר ולהיט ע׳ יומין וביומא שתיתאה יתחזי בכ״ה יומין לירחא שתיתאה

[שביעאה] ויתכניש ביומה שביעאה לסוף ע׳ יומין יומא קדמאה יתחזי בקרתא

דרומי וההוא יומא ינפלון ג׳ שורין עלאין מההיא קרתא דרומי והיכלא רברבא

ינפול ושליטא דההוא קרתא ימות: זוהר חלק ג׳ דף רי׳ב ב׳:‎

[67] Comp. Beer, in Frankel’s Monatschrift für Geschichte und

Wissenschaft des Judenthums, vol. v, Leipzig, 1856, p. 158–160.

[68] ‏וכד ייתי אלף שתיתאה דאיהו רזא דוא״ו כדין וא״ו יוקים לה״א, בזמנא

שית זמנין עשר שיתין נפש כדין שלימו וא״ו עשר זמנין וא״ו שית זמנין עשר.

(דוא״ו) וא״ו סלקא (בעשר) בי׳ וא״ ונחתא בה״א אשתלים וא״ו גו עשר שית

זמנין כדין הוו שיתין לאקמא מעפרא: זוהר הלק א׳ דף קי׳ו ב׳ קי׳ז ב׳‎

[69] Steinschneider, in Ersch und Gruber’s Encyklopädie, section II,

vol. xxxi, p. 101; and Jewish Literature, Longman, 1857, p. 113.

[70] ‏בחדש אדר כתב ר׳ יצחק דמן עכו כי עכו נחרבה בשנת חמשים לפרט ושנהרגו

חסידי ישראל שם בד׳ מיתות ב״ד׳ ובשנת ס״ה היה זה ר׳ יצחק דמן עכו בנבארה

באיטאליה וניצל מעכו ובשנת ס״ה עצמה בא לטוליטולה, ומצאתי בספר דברי הימים

שלו ר״ל מר׳ יצחק דמן עכו הוא שעשה ספר קבלה בשנת חמלאך ונחרבה בזמנו עכו

ונשבו כולם בזמן בן בנו של הרמב״ן ובזמן בן ר׳ דוד בן אברהם בן הרמב״ם

ז״לי והוא הלך לספרד לחקור כיצד נמצא בזמנו ספר הזוהר אשר עשה ר׳ שומעון

ור׳ אלעזר בנו במערה אשרי הזוכים לאמתתו׳ באורו יראו אור: ואמרי לאמתתו,

מפני שזייף מקצת אשר זייף. ואמר שקבל כי מה שנמצא בלשון ירושלמי האמין כי

הם דברי ר׳ שמעון. ואם תראה בלשון קדש האמן כי אינם דבריו רק דברי המזייף

מפני שהספר האמתי הוא בלשון ירושילמי כלו וז״ל: ומפני שראיתי כי דבריו

מופלאים ישאבו ממקור העליון המעיין המשפיע בלתי מקבלת בשכמל״ו, רדפתי

אחריו ואשאלה את התלכמידים הנמצאים בידם דברים גדולים ממנו מאין בא להם

סודות מופלאים מקובלים מפה אל פה אשר לא נתנו ליכתב ונמצאו שם מבוארים לכל

קורא ספר. ולא מצאתי תשובותיהם על שאלתי זאת מכוונות׳ זה אומר בכה וזה

אומר בכה: שמעתי אומרים לי על שאלתי כי הרב הנאמן הרמב״ן ז״ל שלח אותו

מארץ ישראל לקטלוניא לבנו והביאו הרוח לארץ ארגון וי״א לאלקנטי ונפל ביד

החכם ר׳ משה די ליאון הוא שאומרים עליו ר׳ משה דיודאל חגארה. וי״א שמעולם

לא חבר רשב״י ספר זה, אבל ר׳ משה זה היה יודע שם הכותב ובכחו יכתוב ר׳ משה

זה דברים נפלאים אלה, ולמען יקח בהם מחיר גדול כסף וזהב רב תולה דבריו

באשלי רברבי ואמר מתוך הספר אשר חבר רשב״י ור׳ אלעזר בנו וחבריו אני מעתיק

להם דברים אלו. ואני בבואי ספרדה ואבא אל עיר ואלדוליד אשר המלך (שם)

ואמיצא שם לר׳ משה זה ואמצא חן בעיניו וידבר עמי וידר לי וישבע לאמר: כה

יעשה לי אלקים וכה יוסיף אם לא הספר הקדמון אשר חבר רשב״י אשר הוא היום

בביתי במדינת ישבילי היא אוילה בבואך אלי שם אראך. ויהי אחר הדברים האלה

נפרד ממני וילך ר׳ משה זח אל עיר ארבלא לשוב אל ביתו לאוילא ויחלה בארבלא

וימת שם, וכשמעי הבשורה היטב חרה לי עד מות ואצא ואשים לדרך פעמי ואבא אל

אוילא ומצאתי שם חכם גדול וזקן ושמו ר׳ דוד דאפן קורפו ואמצאה חן בעיניו

ואשביעהו לאמר: הנתבררו לו סודות ספר הזוהר שבני אדם נחלקים זה אומר בכה

וזה אומר בכה ור׳ משה עצמו נדר לי (לתת) אלי ולא הספיק עד שמת ואיני יודע

על מי אסמוך ולדברי מי אאמין. ויאמר דע באמת כי נתברר לי בלא ספק שמעולם

לא בא לידו של ר׳ משה זה, ואין בעולם ספר זוהר זה רק היה ר׳ משה בעל שם

הכותב ובכחו כתב כל מה שכתב בספר הזה. ועתה שמע נא באיזה דרך נתברר לי: דע

כי ר׳ משה זה היה מפזר גדול ומוציא בעין יפה ממונו עד שהיום הזה ביתו מלא

כסף וזהב שנתנו לו העשירים המבינים בסודות גדולים אלא (אלו) אשר יתן להם

כתובים בשם הכותב ומחר נתרוקן כלו עד שעזב אשתו ובתו הנה ערומות שרויות

ברעב ובצמא ובחוסר כל. וכששמענו שמת בעיר ארבולו ואקום ואלך אל העשיר

הגדול אשר בעיר הזאת הנקרא ר׳ יוסף די אוילה ואומר לו: עתה הגיע העת אשר

תזכה לספר הזוהר אשר לא יערכנו זהב וזכוכית אם תעשה את אשר איעצך. ועצתי

היא זאת: שיקרא ר׳ יוסף זה לאשתו ויאמר לה קחי נא מנחה נאה ביד שפחתך

ושלחי אותה לאשת ר׳ משה ותעש כן: ויהי ממחרת ויאמר עוד לה לכי נא ביתה אשת

ר׳ משה ואמרי לה דעי כי רצוני הוא להשיא את בתך לבני ואליך לא יחסר לחם

לאכל ובגד ללבוש כל ימיך ואין אני מבקשת ממך דבד בעולם רק ספר הזוהר אשר

היה אישך מעתיק ממנו ונותן לבני אדם דברים אלה תאמרי לה לבד ולבתה לבד

ותשמיעי את דבריהם אשר יענוכה ונראה היהיו מכוונים אם לא. ותלך ותעש כן.

ותען אשת ר׳ משה ותשבע לאשת ר׳ יוסף לאמר כה יעשה לי אלקים וכה יוסיף אם

מעולם ספר זה היה עם אישי אבל מראשו ולבו מדעתו ושכלו כתב כל מה שכתב.

ואומרה לו בראותי אותו כותב מבלעדי דבר לפניו: מדוע תאמר שאתה מעתיק מספר

ואתה אין לך ספר רק מראשך אתה כותב הלא נאה לך לאמר כי משכלך אתה כותב

ויותר יהיה כבוד לך, ויען אלי ויאמר: אלו אודיע להם סודי זה שמשכלי אני

כותב לא ישגיחו בדברי ולא יתנו בעבורם פרוטה כי יאמרו כי מלבו הוא בודה

אותם, אבל עתה כאשר ישמעו שמתוך ספר הזוהר אשר חבר רשב״י ברוח הקדש אני

מעתיקם יקנו אותם בדמים יקרים כאשר עיניך רואות:‎

[71] Moses ben Schem-Tob de Leon, und sein Verhältniss zum Sohar, von

Adolph Jellinek, Leipzig, 1851, p. 21–36. Jellinek also gives

additional information on this subject in his other contributions to

the Kabbalah which will be found mentioned in the third part of this

Essay.

[72] Comp. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, vol. vii, Leipzig, 1863, p.

498, where other facts are given, proving that Moses de Leon is the

author of the Sohar.

[73] ‏פירוש עשר ספירות על דרך שאלח ותשובח‎ Commentary on the Ten

Sephiroth, by way of Questions and Answers. This commentary was first

known through the Kabbalistic works of Meier Ibn Gabbai, entitled ‏דרך

אמונה‎, The Path of Faith, printed in Padua, 1563, and ‏עבדת הקדש‎, The

Service of Holiness, also called ‏מראות אלהים‎, The Vision of the Lord,

first printed in Mantua, 1545; then Venice, 1567, and Cracow, 1578. It

was then published in Gabriel Warschawer’s volume entitled A Collection

of Kabbalistic Treatises (‏ספר לקוטים בקבלה‎), Warsaw, 1798; and has

recently been published in Berlin, 1850. It is to this Berlin edition

that the references in this Essay are made.

[74] The above analysis is taken from Dr. Jellinek’s Beiträge zur

Geschichte der Kabbalah. Erstes Heft. Leipzig, 1852. This erudite

scholar also gives some additional information on R. Azariel in the

second part of his Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kabbalah, p. 32, &c.

Leipzig, 1852.

[75] ‏וקבלה שבידינו על היות אלו החכמים משלשלת קבלה מעשה מרכבה מסיני עד

עמוד הימיני החסיד ר יצחק סגי נהור בן הקדוש ר׳ אברהם שבבקרש [שבפושקירש]‎

This passage from Gikatilla’s ‏פירוש ההגדה‎ which is contained in Moses

de Leon’s ‏ספר הנפש החכמה‎ is quoted by Graetz, Geschichte der Juden,

vol. vii, p. 444.

[76] ‏ר׳ יצחק סגא נהור אבי הקבלה‎ Comp. Commentary on Pericope ‏וישלח‎

ed. Lemberg, 1811.

[77] In his Super-Commentary on Nachmanides’ Treatise on Secrets,

(‏סודות הר״מבן‎) entitled ‏כתר שם טוב‎ or ‏ספר שם טוב‎ Shem Tob Ibn

Gaon on Pericope ‏וישלח‎ remarks as follows ‏כי פירוש פסוק זה הוא איש

מפי איש עד ר׳ יצחק בן הרב [ראב״ד] עד אליהו הנביא‎ In another

Kabbalistic work, entitled ‏בדי הארון ומגדל חננאל‎ which he completed

at Tafet in 1355, he says—‏ורבי עזרא ורבי עזריאל מגירונה חברו פירוש

ההגדות על פי קבלה והוסיף עזרא לחבר פירוש התפילות.... כמו שקבלו מרבי

יצחק סגי נהור‎ These two works are still in MS, and the quotations are

given in Cormoly’s Itinéraris, p. 276, and in Graetz’s Geschichte der

Juden, vol. vii, p. 445.

[78] ‏ודע כי האין סוף אשר זכרנו איננו רמוז לא בתורה ולא בנביאים ולא

בכתובים ולא בדברי ר״זל אך קבלו בו בעלי העבודה קצת רמז‎ Comp. ‏מערכת

אלהות‎ cap. vii, 32 b, ed. Mantua, 1558.

[79] Comp. More Nebuchim, part 1, cap. lxii.

[80] ‏רחכמי הסחקר מודים בדבר ואומרים כי אין השנתנו כי אם על דרך לא‎

Commentary on the ten Sephiroth, 2 a.

[81] Proclus, Inst. Theol. 7, 31; Smith, Dictionary of Roman and Greek

Biography and Mythology, s.v. Proclus.

[82] Comp. Geschichte der Juden, vol. vii, p. 110, &c.

[83] Vide Ibn Jachja, Shalsheleth Ha-Kabbalah; Graetz, Geschichte der

Juden, vii, 88, &c.

[84] ‏עוד יש בידינו קבלה של אמת כי כל התורה כולה שמותיו של הקב״ה

שהתיבו׳ מתחלקות לשמות בענין אחר כאלו תחשוב על דרך משל כי פסוק בראשית

יתחלק לתיבות אחרות כגון בראש יתברא אלהים וכל התורה כי מלבד צירופיהן

וגימטריותיהן של שמות.‎

[85] This remarkable Treatise was first published by R. Abraham, Vilna,

1802; it was then reprinted with all its faults in Lemberg, 1850. The

erudite and indefatigable Dr. Jellinek has now reprinted it in his

Auswahl kabbalistischer Mystik, part i, Leipzig, 1853, and the above

analysis is from the Introduction to this excellent edition.

[86] Steinschneider, Catalogus Libr. Hebr. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana,

2677–2680. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, vii, 218, &c.

[87] Comp. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kabbala, von Adolph Jellinek,

part ii, Leipzig, 1852, p. xiii, &c.

[88] Comp. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, vol. vii, p. 221, &c.

[89] This will be seen from the reduction of the respective names to

their numerical value by the rule Gematria, viz.:—

‏ל‎ 30 + ‏א‎ 1 + ‏י‎ 10 + ‏ז‎ 7 + ‏ר‎ 200 = 248;

‏ו‎ 6 + ‏ה‎ 5 + ‏י‎ 10 + ‏ר‎ 200 + ‏כ‎ 20 + ‏ז‎ 7 = 248;

and ‏ם‎ 40 + ‏ה‎ 5 + ‏ר‎ 200 + ‏ב‎ 2 + ‏א‎ 1 = 248.

[90] This Epistle of Abulafia has been published by Jellinek in his

Auswahl kabbalistischer Mystik, part i. p. 13, &c., Leipzig, 1853, who

also gives the above analysis, which we have translated as literally as

possible.

[91] Comp. Jellinek, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kabbala, part ii, p.

60, &c.; Steinschneider, Catalogus Libr. Hebr. in Bibliotheca

Bodleiana, Col. 1461–1470.

[92] Comp. Tennemann, Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. viii. p. 837.

[93] Dicitur haec doctrina Kabbala quod idem est secundum Hebraeos ut

receptio veritatis cujuslibet rei divinitus revelatae animae

rationali.... Est igitur Kabbala habitus anima rationalis ex rectâ

ratione divinarum rerum cognitivus; propter quod est de maximo etiam

divino consequutive divina scientia vocari debet. Comp. De Auditu

Kabbalistico, sive ad omnes scientias introductorium. Strasburg, 1651.

[94] For the other works of Recanti, both published and unpublished, as

well as for the exact date of his literary labours, we must refer to

Steinschneider, Catalogus Libr. Hebr. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, Col.

1733–1737; and to Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, vol. iii, pp. 135, 136.

[95] The MS. of Ibn Wakkar’s Treatise is minutely described by Uri (No

384). It is written in a character resembling the later German Hebrew,

is furnished with references to the passages in the Bible and verbal

translations in Latin, and contains such clerical blunders as no Hebrew

copyist would commit. The above analysis of it is taken from the

article in Ersch und Gruber’s Allgemeine Encyklopädie, section ii, vol.

xxxi, p. 100, &c., written by the erudite Steinschneider. For the other

Kabbalistic works of Ibn Wakkar we must refer to the same elaborate

article.

[96] This ‏ברית מנוחה‎ has been published in Amsterdam, 1648.

[97] The ‏ספר אמונות‎ consists of eleven parts, subdivided into

chapters; and was published in Ferrara, 1557; the Homilies, entitled

‏דרשות על התורה‎ were first published in Venice, 1547, and then in

Padua, 1567.

[98] Botarel’s Commentary on the Book Jetzira was first published with

the text of this book and other commentaries, Mantua, 1562; then

Zolkiev, 1745; and in Grodno, 1806, 1820.

[99] The ‏מנחת יהודה‎ which is a Commentary on the ‏מערכת האלהו‎ was

published together with it in Ferrara, 1558.

[100] The Commentary ‏צרור המור‎ was first published at Constantinople,

1514; then in Venice, 1523, 1546, 1566; and in Cracow 1595. Pellican

has translated this Commentary into Latin, and the MS. of this version

is in the Zurich Library.

[101] Vidi in illis (testis est Deus) religionem non tam Mosaicam quam

Christianam; ibi Trinitatis mysterium; ibi verbi Incarnatio, ibi

Messiae divinitates; ibi de pecato originali, de illius per Christum

expiatione, de cælesti Hierusalem, de casu dæmonum, de ordinibus

Angelorum, de Purgatoriis, de Inferorum poenis; Eadem legi, quae apud

Paulum et Dionysium, apud Hieronymum et Augustinum quotidie legimus.

Comp. Index a Jacobo Gaffarello, published by Wolf, Bibliotheca

Hebraea, vol. i, p. 9 at the end of the volume.

[102] Nulla est scientia, quae nos magis certificet de divinitate

Christi, quam magia et Cabbala, vide Apologia, p. 42, opp. vol. 1.

Basil, 1601.

[103] Hic libri (Cabbalistorum) Sixtus IV, Pontifex maximus, qui hunc,

sub quo vivimus feliciter, Innocentium VIII, proxime antecessit, maxima

cura studioque curavit, ut in publicam fidei nostrae utilitarem,

Latinis literis mandarentur, jamque cum ille decessit, tres ex illis

pervenerant ad Latinos. Vide Gaffarelli in Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea,

appendix to vol. i, p. 9.

[104] “Is (Jekiel Loanz) me, supra quam dici queat, fideliter literos

Hebraicos primus edocuit.” Comp. Rudim. Hebr. p. 3.

[105] Comp. Franck, Die Kabbalah oder die Religion Philosophie der

Hebräer übersetzt von Jellinek. Leipzig, 1844, p. 8, &c.

[106] Comp. The Life and Times of John Reuchlin, by Francis Besham, p.

102, &c.

[107] Vide Life of John Reuchlin, p, 108.

[108] The ‏בחינת הדת‎ was first published in a collection of diverse

Treatises, in Basle, 1629–31; and then in Vienna, 1833, with an

elaborate philosophical commentary by T. S. Reggio. The arguments

against the Sohar are in this edition, p. 43.

[109] For the other works of Cordovero, both published and unpublished,

we must refer to Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, vol. i, p. 187, &c.; and

Steinschneider, Catalogus Libr. Hebr. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, col.

1793, &c.

[110] Pardes Rimmonim = The Garden of Pomegranates, 65 a.

[111] For a description of the component parts of the ‏ספר עץ החיים‎ as

well as for an account of the sundry editions of the several parts,

published at different times, we must refer to Fürst, Bibliotheca

Judaica, vol. iii, pp. 479–481.

[112] An analysis of the Sohar, as well as a description of the

different editions of it, are given in the second part of this Essay,

p. 160, &c.

[113] Comp. his Resp., ed. Vienna, 1860, p. 24, &c., ‏פסק נגד הרבנים

אשר בקשו לעכב הדפסת הזוהר מטעם גזרות המלכות על שריפה התלמוד‎; and

again, ibid. p. 26, ‏עוד יש מהם שהוסיפו סרה ואמרו כי העיון בזוהר יביא

למינות ולפיכך טעון גניזה או שריפה לבער הקדש.‎

[114] This Treatise is published in the collection entitled ‏טעם זקנים‎

by Eliezar Ashkanazi, Frankfort-on-the-Maine, 1854.

[115] The ‏ארי נוהם‎ was published by Dr. Julius Fürst, Leipzig, 1840.

Leo de Modena’s relation to the Kabbalah, the Talmud and Christianity

is shown in an elaborate Introduction by Geiger in the ‏מאמר מגן וצנה‎

Berlin, 1856. See also the article Leo de Modena, in Alexander’s

edition of Kitto’s Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature, vol. ii, p. 811.

[116] This Epistle, together with a German translation and learned

notes, has been published by Geiger in his collection of sundry

treatises, entitled Melo Chofnajim. Berlin, 1840.

[117] Comp. Disputatio Cabalistica R. Israel filii Mosis de animâ, &c.,

adjectis commentariis ex Zohar. Paris, 1635.

[118] Kircher’s Treatise on the Kabbalah is contained in his stupendous

work, entitled Œdipus Ægyptiacus, vol. ii, pp. 209–360. Rome, 1635.

[119] Comp. Jost, Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Secten, vol.

iii, p. 153, &c. Leipzig, 1859.

[120] Confusam et obscuram opus, in quo necessaria cum non necessariis,

utilia cum inutilibus, confusa sunt, et in unam velut chaos conjecta.

Introductio in Historiam Philosophiae Hebraeorum. Halle, 1702. Buddeus

gives in this Introduction (p. 232, &c.), a detailed description of the

Kabbala Denudata.

[121] The ‏מטפחת הספרים‎ of Jabez was published at Altona, 1763. A

thorough critique of it is given by Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, vol.

vii, p. 494, &c.

[122] Comp. A Dissertation concerning the Antiquity of the Hebrew

Language, Letters, Vowel-points and Accents. By John Gill, D.D. London,

1767.

[123] Modern Judaism, by John Allen, p. 67–96, 2nd edition. London,

1830.

[124] Franck’s La Kabbale has been translated into German, with notes

and corrections by the learned and indefatigable Adolph Jellinek; Die

Kabbala oder die Religions-Philosophie der Hebräer. Leipzig, 1844.

[125] The Literary Remains of Landauer, comprising his researches on

the Kabbalah, have been published in the Literaturblatt des Orients,

vol. vi, p. 178, &c.

[126] Die Religions-philosophie des Sohar, Von D. H. Joel. Leipzig,

1849, p. 72, &c.

[127] Moses Ben Schem-Tob de Leon und sein Verhältniss zum Sohar, Von

Adolph Jellinek. Leipzig, 1851.

[128] Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kabbala, Von Adolph Jellinek, first

and second parts. Leipzig, 1852.

[129] Auswahl Kabbalistischer Mystik, part 1. Leipzig, 1853.

[130] Jerusalem and Tiberias; Sora and Cordova, by J. W. Etheridge,

M.A., Doctor in Philosophy. London, 1856, p. 314.

[131] Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden. Berlin, 1831, p. 405.

[132] Melo Chafnajim. Berlin, 1840. Introduction, p. xvii.

[133] Die Religiöse Poesie der Juden in Spanien. Berlin, 1845, p. 327.

[134] Moses Ben Schem Tob de Leon. Leipzig, 1851.

[135] Jewish Literature, from the German of M. Steinschneider. London,

1857, pp. 104–122; 240–309.

[136] Versuch einer umständlichen Analyse des Sohar, von Schuldirektor

Ignatz Stern, in Ben Chananja, Monatschrift für jüdische Theologie,

vol. iv. Szegedin, 1858–1861.

[137] Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Secten, Von Dr. J. M. Jost,

vol. iii, p. 66–81. Leipzig, 1859.

[138] Geschichte der Juden, Von Dr. H. Graetz, vol. vii, pp. 73–87;

442–459; 487–507. Leipzig, 1863.

[139] Comp. Ben Chananja, Monatschrift für jüdische Theologie, vol. vi,

pp. 725–733; 741–747; 785–791; 805–809; 821–828; 933–942. Szegedin,

1863.

[140] Introductio ad Hist. Philosoph. Ebraeorum. Halle, 1702.

[141] Histoire des Juifs, English translation, pp. 184–256. London,

1708.

[142] De Cabbala Judeorum, in his Bibliotheca Hebraea, vol. ii, pp.

1191–1247. Hamburg, 1728.

[143] Philosophie der Geschichte oder über die Tradition, vol. iii.

Münster, 1839.

[144] Mélanges de Philosophie Juive et Arabe, p. 275, &c. Paris, 1859.