Home - Ziraff Technologies | We build Mobile & Web Apps | Hyderabad
Design and Development for Web & Mobile.
Bringing concepts to life can be a challenge- We make it happen
Design and Development for Web & Mobile.
Bringing concepts to life can be a challenge- We make it happen
Cloud Services for Web & Mobile.
Acheive Device and Location Independance with our cloud services
& 2014 Ziraff Technologies Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.baeck.html
&Back to the Walter Benjamin Research
Sefer Yetzirah
translated by Scott J. Thompson*
* [Translated from: Aus Drei
Jahrtausenden, T&bingen, J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1958, pp. 256-271;
Part One originally appeared in Monatsschrift f&r die Geschichte und
Wissenschaft des Judentums (MGWJ) LXX (1926), 371 ff. and Part Two appeared
in MGWJ, LXXVIII (1934), 448-455]
Translator's
Leo Baeck () was one of the outstanding German-Jewish scholars
of the 20th Century and a leader of Progressive Judaism. Born in Lezno,
Poland, Baeck began his studies near Warsaw in Breslau, Germany at the
Conservative Jewish Theological Seminary in 1894. During this period he
also studied philosophy in Berlin with Wilhelm Dilthey. From 1897 to 1912
and on, Baeck served as a rabbi in Oppeln, Duesseldorf and Berlin. During
WWI he was an army chaplain. A scholar and a lecturer, Baeck published
numerous articles in the leading German-Jewish journals of his time, such
as Der Morgen and J&dische Rundschau. When the Nazis
seized power in Germany in 1933, Baeck devoted himself to defending the
Jewish community as president of the Reichvertretung. In 1943 he
was deported to Theresienstadt concentration camp where he was named honorary
president of the &Altestenrat. Surviving the holocaust, Baeck
moved to London and eventually became Chairman of the World Union for Progressive
Judaism. Between 1948 and 1956, Baeck visted and lectured at Hebrew Union
College in Cincinnati, Ohio. The The Leo Baeck Institute was created in
1954 as an institute for the study of the history of German-Judaism.
Baeck was an historian of religion and a philosopher, as well as a rabbi.
His most famous work, Wesen des Judentums (Essence of Judaism),
was published in 1905 and went through many editions in different languages.
Its originally rationalist bent was subsequently revised to incorporate
a place for 'mystery' and the mystical. In his entry on Leo Baeck in the
Encyclopaedia Judaica (1974), A. E. Simon calls Baeck's view of
Judaism essentially &a dialectical polarity between 'mystery' and
'command'&:
The commands, according to Baeck, do not necessarily form a system of
commandments like the established halakhah, which imposes a required and
rather, they appear from time to time like flashes of
lightning that break through the cloud covering divine 'mystery.' [Encyclopaedia
Judaica, Vol. 4, Jerusalem, Keter Publishing House, ].
'[L]ike flashes of lightning' (Heb. k'mareh ha-bazaq) is a central
concept in Sefer Yetzirah (Book of Creation), concerning
which Leo Baeck devoted two concise and challenging essays written between
, testimony to the importance this work had for him. Baeck's volume
of essays Aus drei Jahrtausende (From Three Millenia, 1938)
containing Baeck's essays on Sefer Yetzirah was thrown into the fire by
the Nazis. This urgent context of world-historical conflagration and holocaust
(Baeck's second essay on &The Ten Sefirot in the Sefer Yetzirah&
was written the same year as the R&hm putsch) makes Baeck's penetrating
analysis of this mystical-magical text all the more poignant and intriguing.
In his seminal work Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (1941),
creator of modern Kabbalah scholarship, Gershom Scholem dismissed Leo Baeck's
work on Sefer Yetzirah as unconvincing:
L. Baeck has tried to show that the Book of Creation is a Jewish adaptation
of certain basic ideas of Proclus, much as the books of Dionysius the pseudo-Areopagite
are a Christian one, cf. MGWJ vol. 70 (1926) p. 371 - 376; vol. 78 (1934)
p.448 - 455. But his reasoning is not convincing, although his thesis looks
fascinating enough... [Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, New York,
Schocken Books (5th printing), 1971, p. 368]
Scholem's Kabbalah (1974) was even briefer in dismissing
Baeck's analysis:
Leo Baeck tried to prove that Sefer Yetzirah was written under the Neoplatonic
influence of Proclus, possibly in the sixth century. The Hebrew style,
however, points to an earlier period. [Scholem, Kabbalah, New York, New
York Times Book Company, 1974, p. 26].
In his Origins of the Kabbalah (1962, English trans. 1987),
however, Scholem's dismissal of Baeck has been tempered with second thoughts,
and it is clear that Scholem has been carefully considering Baeck's ideas:
Leo Baeck's hypothesis that the author wished to reproduce in Hebrew
garb Proclus's doctrine of Henads, seems unsubstantiated, and its author
has to resort to forced interpretations. Nevertheless, on some points of
detail Baeck's interpretations appear plausible and valuable. [Scholem,
Origins of the Kabbalah, trans. Allan Arkush, Princeton,
1987, p.29, note #46].
Pointing to the lack of detail in the arguments put forth against Baeck
by unspecified 'Hebr&isten,' classical scholar Philip Merlan called
attention to Scholem's ambiguity vis-a-vis Baeck regarding the Greek influences
on Sefer Yetzirah:
Immerhim gibt Scholem zu, dass Sefer Yezira von griechischen Quellen
beeinflusst ist [&Nonetheless, Scholem admits that Sefer Yetzirah
has been influenced by Greek sources,& Philip Merlan, &Zur Zahlenlehre
im Platonismus (Neuplatonismus) und im Sefer Yezira,& Journal of
the History of Philosophy, Vol. III, 2, 9].
Merlan's own analysis of Sefer Yetzirah in the context
of Neoplatonic number theory leads him to the conclusion that:
Ersetzen wir das Wort &Proclus& durch &Proclus und
seine Gesinnungsgenossen im Neuplatonismus,& so scheint die These
Baecks im wesentlichen richtig zu sein. [&If we were to replace
'Proclus' with 'Proclus and his like-minded compatriots in Neoplatonism,'
Baeck's thesis would seem to be essentially correct,& op. cit., 181].
Whether Baeck's thesis is correct or not concerning Proclus and his
school as the historical origin of Sefer Yetzirah, the value and plausibility
of his detailed analysis has been acknowledged by both Merlan and Scholem,
and the essay deserves to be read by those for whom the German remains
inaccessible. Readers familiar with Scholem's work will find it particularly
valuable as a contribution toward the clarification of what may be Greek
terms dressed in biblical imagery, for as Scholem himself has noted, &Various
peculiarities of the terminology employed in the book, including some curious
neologisms which find no natural explanation in Hebrew phraseology, suggest
a paraphrase of Greek terms...&
On the transliteration of the Hebrew:
The Greek and Hebrew characters were kept in the original version of
this translation and are essential to understanding the text. To put the
text on-line, however, I have temporarily resorted to transliteration.
Hebrew transliteration has yet to be successfully standardized. The first
letter of the Hebrew alphabet, Alef, can also be written as Aleph. Bet
can be written Bayt or Beit. The very title of our book in question here
has appeared in a very wide array of variations: Sefer Yetsira, Sepher
Yetzirah, Sepher Jetzira, The Book Yetzirah, Book of Formation, Book of
Creation, to name some of the most frequent. The present transliteration
is entirely provisional and will no doubt be frequently revised. ----SJT
I. Basic Concepts
of the Book Yetzirah
The Sefer Yetzirah has a peculiar place in the history
of Jewish mysticism. It marks the first attempt to form a system of mystical
natural philosophy. It also has an equally important place in the history
of the Hebrew language. For the first time, concepts from Greek philosophy
were independently fashioned and expressed through the medium of the Hebrew
tongue. The vividness characterizing mystical speech in general and allowing
it to creatively regenerate the language also proves itself in this book.
A few examples ought to illustrate and at the same time explain that
Sefer Yetzirah, in its thought as well as in its terminology,
is dependent upon the teaching of Proclus, the last great Neoplatonist.
Furthermore, the decisive passages of the Sefer Yetzirah
are none other than the transference of this Greek scholastic's system
into Jewish thought and biblical language.
SEFIROT B'LIMAH
In the first chapter of the book, ten Sefirot b'limah are named
with the twenty-two letters, which together trace the paths [n'tivot]
through which the Creation comes to fulfillment,
and many of the paragraphs in this first chapter begin emphatically with
the words &ten Sefirot b'limah&. What are these ten Sefirot,
which appear as something already familiar in Midrash Bemidbar Rabba
[VII,14], and which became a permanent concept of Jewish mysticism? In
his edition of Sefer Yetzirah, Lazarus Goldschmidt explains
them as &the abstract numbers which are both a Nothing and a Something
at the same time.&
Bloch translates
it as: &Numbers closed in themselves& and elucidates this as:
&without anything and thus abstract, purely for themselves alone.&[3]
The neologism Sefirah, which replaces the customary mispar
(number), indicates that the numbers mentioned here are not the numbers
of mathematics. We can infer that this term
is meant to render a special concept. As the peculiar word, Sefirah
, it names a very particular kind of number.
The identity of the concept transferred to this new word comes into view
when we focus on the meaning of the ten Sefirot in our book. They
are depicted here as the highest principles manifesting the Godhead's activity
in the world. Proclus himself speaks of the &miraculous numbers,&
[&berwesentlichen Zahlen] which are a determining part of his
system. He locates them between the primal essence [Urwesen] and
the Intelligible and gives them the special term autoteleis hen&des.
The hen&ds depict the mediating transition from the original
unity to multiplicity, like the ten Sefirot in our book. It is all the
more likely, then, that to render these hen&ds in a definite
expression, our author constructed the term Sefirot.When the epithet b'limah
is attached to the word Sefirot it is evidently intended to render
the attributes of absolute simplicity which Proclus uses in his attempt
to elucidate the essence of these hen&ds: autoteleis amigeis,
auta& kath' eaut&s.
word b'limah corresponds quite literally to amigeis [pure
or unmixed]. The selection of a biblical term [Job XXVI,7]
to render this concept fully accords with the style
of the rest of the book, for which the following example can also serve
as evidence.
RATSOH VA-SHOV
The sixth paragraph of the first chapter contains one of the most important
statements: eser Sefirot b'limah tsviyatan k'mareh ha-bazak v'takhlitan
ain l'hen qetz u'dvaro va'hen b'ratsoh va-shov ulma-amarov k'sufah irdofu
v'lifneh kiso hem mishtahavim. Goldschmidt translates: &Ten numbers
without something, their appearance is like a lightning flash, their destination
is endless, His word is with them in their running and returning and they
hurry after His comm and they prostrate themselves
before His throne.&Bloch translates
this paragraph in the following manner: &Ten numbers closed in themselves
--their appearance like the occurrence of a lightning flash and their destination
He leads them in a circular path and they pursue His word
like the storm, and before His throne they prostrate themselves.&[11] To bolster his interpretation, Bloch adds the
remark that u'dvaro [&and His word&--SJT] is derived from
the Aramaic dabar [to lead], and that ratsoh va-shov is to
be understoood as &outward and return,& or in other words as
an expression for 'circular.' Neither translation is able to explain what
is being expressed by this sentence.
Its meaning will be grasped only when it is realized that here, too,
our author is trying to express a particular concept from the philosophy
of Proclus through the words taken from the Merkabah [chariot] chapter
of Ezekiel [I,14]: ratsoh va-shov.Proclus's
system is modelled upon the doctrine of triadic development which had already
been prefigured in the philosophy of Plotinus. According to this triadic
development, the utterance [Hervorgebrachte] is just as much connected
to as it is differentiated from the one who utters it [Hervorbringenden].[13] On the one hand it 'remains' in its cause, on
the other hand it 'emerges' from it, and yet again, because the cause has
imparted itself to the utterance, the utterance 'turns toward' its cause.
It is a characteristic of this system that all formation [Werden,
growth] is in this circular movement of the emergence from the cause and
the return to it. All formation of things from the first principle occurs
in this triadic law of the mon&,the Being of the utterance
in the utterer, the pr&odos, the emergence from the cause,
and the epistroph&, the return to the cause. All cognition
is a cognition of this triad.
This, and nothing more, is what is being said in our sentence of the
Sefer Yetzirah. The pr&odos and the epistroph&
appear here as ratsoh va-shov. The words d'varo v'hen
[&His word is with them&] designate the self-imparting in
which the mon& is given. The utterer imparts himself to the
his creative power is in it. With a penchant for pictorial synonyms,
which is a hallmark of our book, the most important concept of the triadic
system, the epistroph&, has been reformulated in the biblical
phrase and once more brought to expression in the poetic sentence: &His
creative word they pursue like a whirlwind,&
and then with the other image which says the same thing, &and before
His throne they bow themselves.&
All that is now in need of explanation are the words v'takhlitan
ain l'hen qetz [&Their destination is to them no end.&].
A motion whose destination means no end is circular motion. It is the circular
motion of the triad in which, for Proclus, all development comes to pass.
The image for this, which was supplied by the Merkabah passage in
Ezekiel [I, 14], is presented by th it emerges from
the originating cause and yet abides in it and returns to it again. To
represent the continuity of this motion more definitively, our book directly
adds the other likeness drawn from the Merkabah chapter: &Their
end is infused in their beginning and their beginning in their end like
a flame attached to a glowing ember.&
Once again it is the image of a circle which emanates from God and returns
At this stage the translation of our sentence that now emerges is the
following: &The ten unmixed [unvermischten] numbers are to
be looked upon as the appearance of the
lightning flash: their destination is to them no end. God's creative thought
remains in them so that they emerge from His creative
word they strive after like the whirlwind and before His throne they bow
themselves.&
SHUV L'MAQOM
Understanding our paragraph in the preceding discussion will also clarify
the meaning of the one that follows it:
&Ten numbers, unmixed, that is closed and to you means: close your
mouth, that it not speak, and your heart, that it not ponder. And if the
word of your mouth runs to speak and the thought of your heart to ponder,
then return to the 'place'; for the biblical sentence has said: 'the hayyot
ran and returned,' and concerning this
the covenant was made.&
Just as the law of growth was the subject of the preceding discussion,
these sentences represent the law of knowledge. For Proclus, all dialectical
cognition is a cognition of the triadic movement, i.e. maqom ratsoh
va'shov; it is thus based on the fact that the understanding which
issues forth into the manifold always returns again
to the first origin, to the 'place' ; that
it leads the manifold back to the unity and thus comprehends the 'covenant',
the union with the One.
Above this knowledge, however, above what he calls this 'truth', there
is for Proclus something even higher, the pistis, faith,
which is a silence, a mystical quietude within
for it is through faith that the soul is placed in God.
This faith is signified by the words blom pikha [&close your
mouth&], and the last chapter of the book which glorifies Abraham
is a reference to them, i.e. that Abraham had this faith and that he acquired
creative power through it. What our paragraph
is thus trying to say clearly emerges as the following: if you would possess
the highest knowledge, have faith in silence. If you are not yet capable
of it and would seek the 'truth', you will find it by leading everything
back to its origin.
BRIT YAHID
The third paragraph of the first chapter has always given the interpretors
particular difficulty. To solve it, the meaning of the words brit yahid
mekhuvenet b'emtsa must first be understood. First of all, just who
is referred to by yahid ['sole' or 'single'] is shown in the comparison
with parallel phrases in our book: v'Adon yahid El Melekh n'eman moshel
b'khulam Mimon Qadsho (&And the sole Master and lofty King faithfully
governs them all from His holy dwelling&---SJT) as well as sh'Adon
yahid v'ain lo sheni(&And the Master
is solitary, and without a second&---SJT). The comparison indicates
that it is God who is denominated by these words. To indicate the absolute
unity of God, in contrast to the unity of the first number , our author, following a phrase from the Haggadah
, chose the word yahid to refer to the primordial
one or aut&en
of Proclus.
The phrase brit yahid accordingly refers to the union with the primordial
In addition, what has been declared concerning brit yahid, that
it is mekhuvenet b'emtsa [&to be determined in the center&],
also becomes clearer, especially when a parallel passage is referred to
which speaks of the six extensions and the holy temple in the center which
carries them all.
Following the example
of Plotinus on this point, Proclus had referred to the primordial essence
as the k&ntron, the central point
which rules and determines the entire circle of that which exists. [32] A connection with the primordial One is therefore
a connection to the central point, and this is the subject of our sentence.
Our author wants to exhibit it in the form of a symbol. Just as the
macrocosmic decad finds its microcosmic analogue in the human body with
its ten fingers above and ten toes below, by the same token this determining
central point has its analogue in the organ of the word, the center above,
and the organ of the circumcision, the center below. Both of these are
also designated by the word brit (covenant, connection).
Our sentence is therefore to be translated as follows: &The ten
unmixed numbers correspond to the number of the ten fingers, five against
five, and the connection with the primordial one, which being firmly fixed
by the central point corresponds to the word of the tongue and the circumcision
of the nakedness.&
The sense to which the basic concepts of our book lead thus demonstrate
how the Sefer Yetzirah has been influenced in a decisive
manner by the philosophy of Proclus. If this evidence has been adduced,
then the time when our book originated has been answered. The terminus
ad quem is firmly established since Aaron ben Asher used it and Sa'adia
had already written a commentary on it. The furthest terminus a quo
would therefore be the time of Proclus, i.e., the fifth century C.E. It
is the last rather than the first of these two time periods which will
allow us to draw closer to the book. This also proves to be approximately
the same epoch in which Zunz had placed it on the basis of its linguistic
characteristics.
This dependence of our book is also significant in terms of intellectual
history. At the waning of the ancient world, and casting his shadow far
into the distance, stands the figure of Proclus. By way of the writings
of Dionysius the Areopagite, Proclus had an influence on the Christian
Middle Ages. In the Jewish Middle Ages, however, the influence of Proclus
was felt in Sefer Yetzirah.
II. The Ten Sefirot
in the Sefer Yetzirah
It has been shown how the fundamental teachings of the Sefer Yetzirah,
such as those regarding the Sefirah, the law of the triad, the path
of knowledge and the central point, have been decisively influenced by
the philosophy of Proclus. In the following exposition this argument is
resumed with the individual Sefirot as its focus.
Speaking in an emphatic-liturgical style so characteristic of our book,
the ninth and tenth paragraphs of the first chapter concern the first two
Sefirot. The Sefirah 'One' is called 'Spirit of the Living
God'(Ruach Elohim Hayyim) and 'Holy Spirit' (Ruach ha-Qodesh).
Sefirah 'Two' is called 'Spirit of Spirit'(Ruach m'Ruach).
This bifurcation of the spirit cannot be
derived from a chain of reasoning within Judaism, whether the sources be
Haggadic or mystical. By comparison, the philosophy of Proclus, and it
alone, can make the significance of these two concepts and the reason for
distinguishing between them clearly identifiable.
One aspect of Proclus's teaching particularly characterizes his philosophy,
and in this he diverges from his predecessors: he posits above reason still
another special faculty of the soul. The consideration which led to this
idea is the following. Since like can only be known by like, according
to the well-known principle of Empedocles, that which in the Divinity [G&ttliche]
is highest cannot be grasped by the actual powers of thought, but only
by a power which exceeds thought. Now since the first Divinity is equivalent
to the highest Unity, it can only present itself to a particularly undivided
aspect of the soul. Proclus gives this undivided aspect a vivid name. Sometimes
it is called the 'flower of the intellect,' a phrase from the so-called
Chaldean Oracles, 'anthos tou nou,' other times it is called 'summit
of the soul,' akrotes tes psyches .
Only by virtue of 'what is undivided in our nature' [&Einheitliche
unseres Wesens&], 'to en tes ousias emon,' do we reach
up to the D it alone mediates the union with the primordial One.[38]
It is to this conceptual separation of a higher intelligence from the
actual intellect that our author's work corresponds here when he separates
a higher Spirit from the Spirit which emerges from it. That he should refer
to this first 'summit of the Spirit' as the 'Holy Spirit,' the 'Spirit
of the Living God' is in accord with his unique task of translating concepts
of Greek philosophy into biblical thought and language. The Jewish tradition
was accommodating
in the 'Holy Spirit' of both the
Bible and the Targum was contained the power of prophecy, the highest revelatory
knowledge, in which the One, God, was revealed to man.
RUACH M'RUACH
Actual intellect is called 'Spirit from Spirit' (Ruach m'Ruach)
by our author, and this term fits well with the principle in Proclus that
the second always takes part in (participates) the first. Regarding this intellect it is said:
&Ten numbers closed in themselves, transcendent [&berwesentlich]
--- Two is Spirit from Spirit. In it He ordained twenty-two primeval signs
[to] be inscribed and decisively engraved:
three mothers, seven doubles and twelve
simples.& This sentence, too, leads back to Proclus.
According to the system of Proclus, a plurality first emerges from the
oneness within the nous, this actual intellect which is a thinking of the
first. It is a plurality encircled by unity. This is the world of the paradigms,
of the intelligible ideas or, what amounts to the same thing, of the intelligible
numbers, which represent the connecting link between unitary, intelligible
and intellectual worlds.
This is precisely
what our sentence says as well: a first plurality comprised of the intelligible
number-ideas was inscribed in the 'Spirit from Spirit.' Our author calls
it by the name Autiot, which can be defined as numbers and paradigms
as well as letters and ciphers. When he gives the name 'mothers' to the
first three of this Autiot, this can be referred back to Proclus
also. Following his customary practice of positing metaphysical suppositions
and religious representations in one another, according to which numbers
are at the same time gods, Proclus refers to those primordial numbers [Urzahlen]
for which the pr&odos
[the bringing
forth] is decisive (in contrast to the abiding center and the return to
it) as three goddesses, the maternal forces.
Likewise, our author could have modelled the seven doubles of the Hebrew
alphabet on the planetary hebdomad, which for Proclus is the basis for
the order of the intellectual gods who mediate the transition of the Intelligible
to divided Being.
MAIM M'RUACH
It is said of the following Sefirah that,&Three is Water from Spirit.
He ordained a Tohu and Bohu, mud and clay to be hewed and
engraved. He ordained them be engraved like a garden bed, positioned like
a wall and covered like a kind of fortification.&
The philosophy of Proclus is the first to lead to an understanding of
this sentence. The triadic order of his system, which proceeds uninterruptedly
to the point of monotony, is also introduced into the totality of the thought
process. What his predecessor, Plotinus, considered the one Intellect,
nous, Proclus divides into three spheres: the Intelligible, the
noet&n, which he equates with B the Intellectual-Intelligible,
the noet&n ama ka& noer&n, which he also refers
to as L and the Intellectual, which he equates with Thought.Concerning Life, which for Proclus is &that
which is brought forth,& t& pr&ion ap& ton
archon , he says that its symbol is
Our author's phrase 'Water from
Spirit' could have been selected to correspond to the Intelligible Life
which follows from Intelligible Being. At the same time, he could have
been following a haggadic sentence, according to which water, spirit and
fire were created before the world. He also
concurs with Haggadic interpretations of the Genesis verse on &the
Spirit that hovered upon the water.&By
the same token, Proclus himself could have found support in the predecessor
whose words he occasionally cites, i.e. Numenius of Apamea, who once cited
the same verse of Gen
the same Numenius for whom his master Plato had been &an Attic-speaking
Moses,& Mouses attik&zon.
The philosophy of Proclus also makes it possible to comprehend what
our author, following the primordial signs in the Spirit, has now had correspondingly
categorized in the 'Water'. Our sentence calls it &Tohu and
Bohu, mud and clay.& As such it is clear that the point of
comparison here should be something which is mingled (mixed). Proclus's
teaching makes it perfectly clear what is intended here. It refers to what
is the first actual thing [das erste Wirkliche], the first which
is [das zuerst Seiende], t& pr&tos &n,
which may therefore be called ousia, substance [Wesen] [56] , as the mingled, t& mikt&n.
It is the result of bound and infinity [limit - unlimited]
, and it belongs with both of these to the first intelligible
triad. What Proclus calls the 'mingled'
appears in our sentence as &Tohu and Bohu, mud and clay,&
and 'garden bed,' 'wall,' and 'building' are presented as similes for the
product of boundary and infinity. It is now unmistakable what this simile
signifies.
ESH M'MAIM
The twelfth sentence refers to the following Sefirah: &Four
is Fire from Water. He ordained to be engraved and hewed from it a Throne
of Glory, seraphim and ophanim, hayyot and angels
His ministry.&
A Haggadic tradition has something to say abo the
higher substance was thought to have been fire according to an ancient
perception.
This could be connected to
an idea found in Proclus, and associated with the old Stoic teaching about
fire, that the bodies of the gods are to have been taken from the finest
immaterial light
, which was capable of
penetrating everything.
The decisive factor here, however, is something else: the division of
the Sefirot is once again consistent with the system in Proclus,
for whom the first triad pertained to the intellectual-intelligible gods
(and here he believed that he was following in the footsteps of Plato's
Phaedrus), the region above the heavens which
was called the 'Throne of Glory' by the Jews. What was a reference to the
uppermost Intelligible in the preceding sentences, now refers in this sentence
to the uppermost heights of the Intellectual-Intelligible.
The last six Sefirot are referred to in the thirteenth paragraph:
&Five---He sealed the height and He caused to issue above. . .; Six---He
sealed the depth and He caused to issue below. . .; Seven---He sealed the
east and He caused to issue forwards. . .; Eight---He sealed the West and
He caused to issue backwards. . .; Nine---He sealed the south and He caused
to issue to the right. . .; Ten---He sealed the north and He caused to
issue to the left. . .&
Everything in this paragraph acquires its definite character from the
teaching of Proclus. To begin with, the idea of sealing. It is Proclus's
intention to explain in an image the m&thexis, the participation
in the higher realms by which means something is filled with the idea.
In addition to having recourse to the old platonic image of the mirror,
he makes use of that image which Philo and Plotinus had already been fond
the seal. The ideas are what
is sealing [das Siegelnde]; they give 'a trace and impression of
themselves,' &chnos ti eauton ka& typon.
The image in our book is used in precisely the same
way. The Sefirot are the transcendent unities
they are its seals which have been imprinted by the Creator so that &His
word is in them,& as was said in an earlier passage.
They are not equivalent to space itself in its six extensions, but as its
transcendent unities they are simply its seals. That which in earlier sentences
had been designated as 'inscribe' and 'engrave' is referred to here by
the word for extension, 'turn towards,' extend, or cause to issue, ph'neh.
The basis of the conception of space in this passage likewise refers back
to Proclus, for whom space was something divine and animated, a finest
light, the spherically-shaped, all-pervading and undivided body of light
of the cosmos. This is exactly what space
is for our author: it is from Fire,
from the transcendent unities, the Sefirot.
With the teaching of the Sefirot, which the Sefer Yetzirah
introduced to Judaism, a problem entered Jewish mysticism which has remained
a perennial one ever since, namely, the problem of how the One, the Creator,
released from Himself the opposites and differences. However much the content
and nomenclature of the Sefirot changed in later ages, the problem
was always the same. Regarding this problem, one feature and defining characteristic
of our book has remained a constant in the tradition of Jewish mysticism:
its thought has adhered unswervingly to the one sole God, as He has been
proclaimed in the Bible, and this applies equally to the problem in the
present case. Because of this adherence, the dangers of pantheism and pancosmism
have remained distant ones.
Another idea to which our book testifies was later firmly adhered to
within the totality of Jewish mysticism: the idea of Israel as chosen.
It is Abraham who was called to mystical knowledge, as our book concludes.
He is the one to whom the Sefirot were revealed and who reached
the point in the center. It is with him and his descendents that God made
a covenant. In so doing, a danger of mysticism was averted. All mysticism
emphasizes the individual in isolation from the community, and this can
easily lead to an antagonistic relationship.
Through clear and constant emphasis upon this idea of 'the chosen,' the
individual was made aware of his place within the community and his intimate
connection to it.
[1] Sefer Yetzirah I,1: &In
thirty-two marvelous paths of wisdom Yah, Lord of Hosts,...traced&).
It is possible that the word n'tivot (&paths&) is a translation
of the Greek stoicheion , which depicts the Urprinzipien
[primary or first principles] as well as the letters and the signs of the
zodiac. The root word of stoicheion, stoichos or &line&
and its verb form stoichein, or &to advance in a row,&
could have meant the same to the Greek and Hebrew initiates as the word
[2] &die abstrakten Zahlen, die ein
Nichts und zugleich ein Etwas sind,& Lazarus Goldschmidt, Das
Buch der Sch&pfung, p. 80, n.7.
[3] &Zahlen, in sich geschlossen,&
&ohne irgend etwas, also abstrakt, rein f&r sich allein,&
Phillip Bloch, &Die j&dische Mystik und Kabbala& in Winter
und W&nsche, Die j&dische Litteratur, III, 245.
[4] It is possible that the shloshah sefarim,
the otherwise nearly incomprehensible threefold formulation of the root
word sefar, are meant to designate the three classes of number distinguished
by P see Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen 2, p. 862,
[5] Sefirah is the root sapir
with the feminine singular ending [of the Hebrew letter Heh]. The
word Sefirot is the feminine plural form with the ending [Vav-Tav].
On the connection between Sefirot and &sapphire& in the
book Bahir, see Gershom Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah,
trans. A. Arkush, Princeton Univ. Press, 1987, p. 81.--[S.T.].
[6] A reconstruction of the word ehad
[&one&], which would have been the perfect analogue to the expression
henads, was dismissed because this name of the one God with respect to
God's spirit obliged the book's author to preserve it unconditionally.
Compare this to Sefer Yetzirah I,7 and I,9.
[7] This is a construction of b'li [without]
and mah [what]. In his book Kabbalah [Jerusalem, 1974],
G. Scholem writes: &According to some views, the obscure word belimah,
which always accompanies the word Sefirot, is simply a composite,
beli mah-- without anything, without actuality, ideal. However,
judging from the literal meaning, it would seem that it should be understood
as signifying 'closed', i.e. closed within itself.& This idea is not
original with either Scholem or P. Bloch. It can be found in the earliest
extant Commentary on Sefer Yetzirah from Saadiah Gaon in
the 10th Century.--[SJT].
[8] Zeller has collected a large number of
examples. See op.cit. (p. 853ff.), and compare with Sefer Yetzirah
I, 5: eser sh'ain l'hen (&ten without [limit] to them&).
[The Greek can be translated as &teleologically autonomous, pure or
unmixed, absolutely in and by themselves.&--SJT].
[9] Job XXVI,7: &He stretcheth out the
north over the empty place and hangeth the earth upon nothing& [noteh
tsarphan al-Tohu, toleh eretz al-b'limah].
[10]Goldschmidt (p.50): &Zehn Zahlen
ohne etwas, ihr Aussehen wie die Erscheinung des Blitzes, ihr Ziel ist
endlos, sein Wort ist in ihnen in Hin- und Herlaufen und auf sein Befehl
eilen sie wie ein S und vor seinen Thron werfen sie sich nieder.&
[11] Bloch (op. cit., p.246): &Zehn
Zahlen, in sich geschlossen--ihr Anblick wie die Erscheinung des Blitzes
und ihr Ziel hat keine Grenze, er f&hrt sie in kreisf&rmigen
Lauf und auf sein Wort jagen sie dahin wie der Sturm, und vor seinem throne
verneigen sie sich.&
[12]Ezekiel I, 14: &And the living creatures
ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning.& [v'ha-hayyot
ratsoh va-shov k'mareh ha-bazak].
[13]&Das Hervorgebrachte&
is literally 'that which is brought forth' and can refer to 'the begotten,'
'the engendered' or 'the (word) uttered,' i.e. the object of the Hervorbringenden
[lit. 'that which brings forth']---SJT]
[14] The phrase ma'amaro ['His saying&]
corresponds to d'varo [&His word&] as its synonym. The
creative word abides in the hen&ds, and they turn back towards Him.
'radaf' has the meaning which is occasionally given to it in Talmudic
speech: &to strive after,& &pursue,& &throng,&
or &flock towards.& Regarding the phrase k'sufah [&like
a whirlwind&], see Isaiah V, 28; LXVI, 15. The self-propelling round
wheel is compared to the whirlwind.
[15] What is especially noteworthy is the
masculine plural form hem mishtahavim [&they prostrate themselves&]
which is separated by a long sentence from &Sefirot& [fem.
plural]. It would therefore be possible that the verb refers instead to
davar [&word&] and ma'amar [&saying&];
the creative word emerges from God and returns to Him.
[16] Ezekiel [I,13]: ud'mut ha-hayyot mareihem
k'ga'halei esh [&As for the likeness of the living creatures,
there appearance was like burning coals of fire.& The Holy Scriptures,
A Jewish Bible According to the Masoretic Text, Tel Aviv, Sinai Publishing
House, 1977, p.1131.---SJT]
[17] Sefer Yetzirah I,7: eser
Sefirot b'limah na-utz sofan b'tilatan u'tilatan b'sofan k'shalhevet q'shurah
b'galhelet [&Ten Sefirot b'limah: their end infused with their
beginning and their beginning with their end like a flame attached to a
glowing ember.& Our sentence has been used by Samuel ibn Motot in
his translation of the 'pictorial circle' which comprises a part of his
commentary on Sefer Yetzirah, Meshovev Netivot: 'sefer
ha-agullot ha-ra'yoniyyot,' ed. Kaufmann, p. 2b: 'dumah l'agullot
makhashavit shana-utz sufah b'takhlitah.'
[18] Regarding the meaning of the word ts'fiyah
which is to be found in the book Hekhalot Rabbati as 'view' or 'appearance,'
see Bloch (op. cit., p. 244, note #1). It is also possible, however, that
ts'fiyah has the neoplatonic meaning here of 'flowing' or 'streaming
[19] Sefer Yetzirah I, 7: &eser
Sefirot b'limah blom pikhah mildaber v'libkhah milharher v'im rahts pikhah
l'daber v'libkhah milharher shuv l'maqom shelkakh n'emar v'ha-hayyot ratsoh
va-shov v'al davar zeh nikhrat brit& [&Ten closed Sefirot:
stop your mouth from speaking and your heart from thinking, and if your
mouth runs to speak and your heart to think, return to a place of which
it was said, 'and the creatures ran and returned,' and concerning this
the covenant was made.&---SJT]
[20] The wordplay between b'limah and blom
is derived from the Haggadah Hullin 89a. See also Arukh sub voce
balam [Bet-Lamed-Mem] as well as Bahya ben Asher ben Hlava
regarding Deut. 33:27; his explanation of b'limah is certainly a
citation from our book.
[21] Our sentence also explains a passage
in a poem by Judah Halevi: &Divan,& (ed. Brody III 231, Strophe
4): v'ya'aritsu shuv v'ratsoh. Just how conversant with our book
Judah Halevi was can be seen in Kusari III, 17 (ed.Cassel, p. 230) and
especially IV, 25. This should be compred to V,14 (ed. Cassel, 406) as
[22] Wordplay is involved in the meanings
of maqom: on the one hand it signifies 'place', 'point of departure'
and on the other 'the omnipresent', God. The meaning expressed through
the words shuv l'maqom is expressed in I,4 through the words: v'hoshev
yotser al-mekhono (&let the creator be seated upon his foundation&).
Compare I,5: moshel b'khulam mimon kadsho [&governs
them all from His holy dwelling&] with I,6: v'lifneh kiso hem mishtahavim[&and
before His throne they bow themselves&].
[23] Proclus, Theologia Platonis,
I, 24ff. [The Theology of Plato, On-line English Translation]
[24] Sefer Yetzirah VI,15. It
is worth noting that the predicate applied to Abraham in this passage,
hatsav v'haqaq [hewed and engraved], is the same as that which is
applied to God the Creator in I,1 and many other passages of our book.
[25] Sefer Yetzirah I,5 and
I,7; compare this also with VI,2: melekh yahid b'olamo (&solitary
King in His universe&), the authenticity of which has been disputed.
[26] Sefer Yetzirah I,9 and
I,14: ehat Ruach Elohim Hayyim (&One: Spirit-breath of the
living Elohim&---SJT).
[27] &yahidu shel olam&:
Bereshit Rabba XXI, 5 to 3:22, Pessikta de-Rav Kahana
29b and elsewhere.
[28] Proclus, Theologia Platonis:
[29] The term brit yahid in Abraham
ibn Ezra's commentary on Lev. I,1 is perhaps reminiscent of our book, but
in his commentary it is given a stylistic sense.
[30] Sefer Yetzirah IV, 4: ma'alah
u'matah mizrakh u'ma'arav tsorphan v'darom v'heikhal ha-qodesh m'khuvan
b'emtsah. (&above and below, east and west, north and south, and
the Holy Palace stands in the center&---SJT) In itself it would be
possible to interpret the word m'khuvenet in the sense of 'analogous' [or
'respective'], as it is used in Jer Berahat 8c in the sentence bayt
qodesh ha-qodeshim shel matah mekhuvan k'negid bayt qodesh ha-qodeshim
shel ma'alah. But the use of the same word in this other passage of
our book [IV,4], where the meaning is undoubtedly 'erected, established,'
demands this same meaning here, too: &The connection with the primordial
One, which is established in the central point.&
[31] See the passages cited in Zeller, op.cit.,
p. 554, note 3 and p. 570, note 7. Regarding mekhuvenet b'emtsa,
compare Plotinus, Enneads I, 7:1 dei oun m&nein
aut& (tagath&n), pr&s aut& d' episr&phein
p&nta &sper k&klon pr&s kentron aph' ou pasai
gramma& [&It must be unmoved, while all circles around
it, as a circumference around a centre from which all the radii proceed,&
trans. S.MacKenna and B.S.Page, Chicago, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.,1952,
[32] Compare this to Sefer Yetzirah
I,5: moshel b'khulan Mimon Qadsho and IV,4: v'hu noseh et khulan.
This k&ntron (= emtsa) is analogous to m'khono
in I,4; m'on qadsho in I,5; kiso in I,6; maqon in
I,8; and Heikhal ha-Qodesh in IV,4. All of these expressions, therefore,
are synonyms.
[33] See VI,15: v'kharat lo vrit ben eser
etsba'ot yadav v'hu vrit ha-lashon u'ven eser etsba'ot raglav v'hu ha-milah
(&And He made a covenant with him between the ten fingers of his hands.
This is the co and among the ten toes of his feet,
and this is the circumcision.&)
[34] Compare p. 387, note 5.
[35] See Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vortr&ge,
p. 165f. Compare this to Bloch, op.cit., p. 244. This was the time during
which the Hebrew language was revived as a literary language.
[36] Sefer Yetzirah: &eser
Sefirot b'limah ehat Ruach Elohim Hayyim barukh shmo hu Ruach ha-Qodesh
shtaim Ruach m'Ruach&
[37] Platonis Theologia I,3:
t&n d& akr&teta tou nou ka& &s phasi,
t& &nthos ka& t&n hyparxin syn&ptesthai
pr&s t&s h&nadas ton &nton ka& di&
to&ton pr&s aut&n t&n pason ton the&on
hen&don ap&kryphon h&nosin. [Thomas Taylor, the
English Platonist, has translated this passage in the following way: &the
summit, and, as they say, flower of intellect and hyparxis, is conjoined
wit the unities of beings, and through these, with the occult union of
all the divine unities,& The Platonic Theology, Vol.
I (Books I - III], Kew Gardens, NY, Selene Books (Reprint), 1985.--SJT]
[38] In Cratylum, p. 51: t&s
g&r ous&as auton ---- sc. ton theon - os arr&tous
ka& agn&stous m&no to &nthei tou nou theorein
katale&pei. Ibid., p. 70: to gar &nthei tou nou kai
te hyparxei tes ous&as emon autois syn&ptesthai pephykamen.
De prov. et fato, cp. 24: fiat igitur unum, ut videat to unum, magis
videns enim intellectuale videbit et non supra
intellectum et quoddam unum intelliget et non to autounum.
[39] Compare with In Parmenidem
VI, 52: kat& t&s eauton akr&tetas ka& henoteas
enthoustiosi per& to hen ka& eisi theiai psycha&.
Regarding the 'Holy Spirit,' see Moore, Judaism I, 237f.
[40] See Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen
III, 2 (5), p. 858.
[41] Sefer Yetzirah I,10: shtaim:
Ruach m'Ruach haqaq v'hatsav bah esrim u'shtaim Autiot yesod shalosh imot
v'sheva k'phulot u'shtem esreh ph'shutot.
[42] In our book, the term yesod refers
that from which subsequent being [das Folgende]
[43] In addition to the plays on words like
milah [word, speech] and milah [circumcision] (I,3) or beli mah = closed
in itself, sufficient unto itself, transcendent and b'limah = taciturnity
and mysticism (I,8), double entendres are also one of our author's characteristic
loves. In this case haqaq= engrave and the giving of laws, and hatsav=to
hew, carve, engrave and to determine. See Spr. 8, 27f.
[44] Plat. Theol. III, 14/ IV,
28. As shown above, op. cit. (p. 382f.), the Sephirot are the transcendent
numbers, the absolutely simple unities which, being differentiated according
to qualities and powers, connect the One which is above existence with
what exists, or to express it in other words, the primordial principle
and its revelation. The Autiot yesod are the ideas, the world of
the paradigms.
[45] See above, p.384f.
[46] Plat. Theol. IV,1f.
[47] Plat. Theol. V, 1f. Compare
with Zeller, op.cit, p. 863.--It is also possible that the terms k'phulot
and ph'shutot are ambiguously connected to the thought of Proclus
in a manner characteristic of our author. For Proclus, movement is threefold,
in accordance with the triadic process of growth: the circular, which befits
the uppermost of what emerges, the spiral-shape of the turning back, and
finally the straight line of the abiding. Compare with Hugo Koch, Ps. Dionysius
Areopagita, p. 83ff. and 151f. The word k'phulot thus designates
not only 'double' and 'twofold' [see Sefer Yetzirah IV, 2], but also 'surrounded,'
'curved,' i.e., spiral- and ph'shutot would therefore mean not only
'simple' but also straight-lined.
[48] I, 11: shalosh: maim m'Ruach haqaq
v'khatsav bahem Tohu va-Vohu rephesh v'tit haqeqon k'min arugah khitsivan
k'min khomah sakhekhen k'min ma'azivah. The word sakhekhen in
this passage has its own ambiguity as well: to interweave and to effect
as well as to cover and to protect.
[49] Compare with Zeller, op.cit.,p. 857f.
[50] Plat. Theol. III, 9.
[51] In Timeum 318 A: zoes g&r
t& hygr&n symbolon di& ka& lib&da kalousin
aut&n (sc. the world soul) tes h&les zoogon&as.
Plat. Theol. IV, 15: o& leimones tes zoogon&as
ph&rousi t& hydor symbolon.
[52 ] Shmot Rabba XV, 22. Beginning.
[53] Bereshit Rabba II, 5f.;
Hagigah 12a and 14b; Jer Hagigah 77a and c.
[54] Numenius cited in Porphyry, De
antro Nymph. 10: pros&xanen (sc. Plato) to hydati
t&s psych&s theopn&o &nti. di& touto
ka& t&n proph&ten eir&kena emph&resthai
ep&no tou hydatos theou pneuma. [&They believed that souls
settled upon the water, which was 'god-inspired' as Numenius says, adding
that is for this reason that the prophet said, 'The Spirit of God was moving
over the face of the waters,'& Porphyry, On the Cave of the
Nymphs, trans. R. Lamberton, Barrytown, NY, Station Hill Press,
1983, p. 27.--SJT]
[55] Clemens Al., Strom. I,
[56] Plat. Theol. III, 9.
[57] Plat. Theol. III, 9. It
is possible that in connection with what is said about the three mothers,
Alef, Mem, Shin [III, 8ff.]: qashar lo kheter [&He placed
a crown upon it&], that this refers to the boundary (limit); verb.
katar = surround, circumscribe.
[58] Plat. Theol. III, 12: toiaute
m&n oun . . . ton noeton & prot&ste tri&s,
p&ras, &peiron, mikt&n. Compare with Zeller op.
cit. p. 855 note. Over the mikt& regarding
this point, see the aforementioned, p. 383.
[59] Sefer Yetzirah: arba: esh m'maim
haqaq v'hatsav bah kiseh ha-kavod seraphim v'ophanim v'hayyot ha-qodesh
u'malakhei ha-shuret (&Four: fire from water. He engraved and
hewed a throne of glory from it: seraphim and ophanim, living
creatures (hayyot) and angels, his ministry...& ---SJT).
[60] Bereshit Rabba 78,1; Shmot
Rabba 15,7; Jer. Rosh ha-Shanna 58a. Compare with
II Enoch 29; II Baruch 59,11.
[61] See Zeller, op.cit., p. 872. Dionysius
Areopagita, whose philosophy derives from Proclus, saw God and the angels
in images of fire and represented as fire forms, empyrioi schematismoi
--Ep. 9, 2--.
[62] Zeller, op.cit., Notes 1. and 2. Compare
this with the Stoic krasis di' &lon. From this point on,
the words of Sefer Yetzirah II,6: avir she'enu nitpas
are interpreted to refer to &air, that cannot be held fast.&
[63] Plat. Theol. IV, 37.
[64] Sefer Yetzirah: hamesh
hatam rum u'phana l'ma'alah v'hotmo b' Yod-He-V shesh: hatam takhat
u'phana l'matah v'hotmo b' Yod-Vav-He; shiva: hatam mizrach u'phana
l'phanav v'hotmo b'He-Yod-V shmona: hatam ma'arav u'phana l'aharav v'hotmo
b' He-Vav-Y tesha: hatam darom u'phana limino v'hotmo b' Vav-Yod-He;
eser: hatam zorphan u'phana lishmolo v'hotmo b'Vav-He-Yod. These six
permutations of the Tetragrammaton embody the idea that a different seal
of God is in the extensions of space, i.e., a different power issues from
God, but it is not the entire power of God. In our book, the terms for
combination with respect to permutability and variation with respect to
variability are: tsaraph, hamir = interchange, combine,
shaqal= balance, see II,4 and IV,6.
[65] Philo, de Mundi opificio
I, 17; de migratione Abrahami I, 451 and 466; legum allegoriarum.
I, 107 (Mangey); Plotinus, Enneads I, 1,7; III, 6,9.
[66] In Parmenidem V, 71ff.
[67] See above, p. 385. Compare with Sefer
Yetzirah III,2: v'hatum b'shesh taba'ot (&sealed in
six rings&).
[68] In Rem publicam II, 197f.
Compare with Zeller, op.cit., p. 71f.
[69] The derivation of the Sefirot
--summarized in I, 14: elu eser Sefirot b'limah Ruach Elohim Hayyim,
Ruach m'Ruach, maim m'Ruach, Esh m'maim, rum v'takhat mizrakh u'ma'arav
tsaphon v'darom--corresponds to the system of Proclus when the fifth
Sefirah and all the others following it are derived from the fourth
= rum m'esh [&height from fire&].
[70] The Autiot of space are differentiated
from the Sefirot
[71] See Elbogen, Der j&dische
Gottesdienst, supplement to the editorial remarks of the 2nd Edition,
Paragraph 44, 5ff