The "Name of Seventy-two Names": A Biblical Spin-off - Part 8

I have basically concluded posting the promised portion of "The Book of Sacred Names." However, I thought I should add a brief "addendum," as well as a list of reference works which I employed in the shared portion from the "Shem Vayisa Vayet" chapter of my mentioned publication on Divine Names.

To start with, the “Name of Seventy-Two Names” is employed in “Practical Kabbalah” for designs quite different from the previously listed meditational uses. Further applications of this special “Name,” for example in prayer, “dream invocation,” prophecy, etc., can be found in works like “Sha’arei Tzion” by Nathan Neta ben Moshe of Hanover. Of course, since a “Divine Name” is for Kabbalists the strongest focus of Divine Energy in manifestation, the “Name of Seventy-Two Names” is highly favoured for its great potency. Yet, Moses Cordovero informed us regarding the power of the “Shem Vayisa Vayet,” that “Some of the ancients commented that by the combination and permutation of the Name of Seventy-two or other names, after a great concentration (Hitbodedut), the righteous man.....combines the forces and unites them and arouses desires in them, each to his brother as the membrum virile of man and his companion until there is poured upon him a great influx, with the condition that he who deals with this will be a well-prepared vessel and worthy of receiving the spiritual force. For if it is not the case, it will become cruel to be turned into a ‘degenerate wild vine’.”

Keeping that admonition in the back of our minds, we note that the “Shem Vayisa Vayet,” considered “holy and awesome,” and most powerful, has been employed for a variety of “magical” purposes, sometimes to the great indignation of Rabbinical authorities. As it is, Abraham Abulafia himself vociferously voiced his disapproval and dismay at the magical usage of the “Name of Seventy-two Names.” In fact, in his denigration of such magical uses, he unwittingly shared a rather unsavory magical practice involving the “Shem Vayisa Vayet.” He wrote:

“I have found in one of the books, whose title I would like not to mention [explicitly]: ‘Whoever wants to bring a woman to him so that she will love him, let him pronounce the name of VHV YLY SYT ALM, frontward and backward seven times, in the night of Wednesday, during the first hour of night, which is the time of Saturn, and let him conjure Kaftziel, that is the angel presiding over that planet, by that name. At that time let him write four names on a parchment of a deer, without interrupting the writing by any speech. Then, let him put the amulet on his neck as an amulet and then the woman, whose name and the name of her father he has pronounced, will love him a great love, by the virtue of that name.’ Similar things I have found in great numbers, and they are almost infinite; and these things have spread and reached the hands of great Rabbis, but they hide them in a scrupulous manner and they think that their treasury is replete with pearls. And they are very reverent [awesome] while studying the names when they need them.....”

Abraham Abulafia’s objection notwithstanding, the “Name of Seventy-Two Names” has been put to extensive magical usage over the centuries, as expounded in a variety of Jewish magical writings. It is said that Kabbalists employed it in the construction of a Golem, and that the generation of the force that animated this artificial anthropoid, was the fully expressed and perfectly enunciated “Shem Vayisa Vayet.” In fact, the Sefer Raziel, a famous mediaeval Kabbalistic magical text, claims no magic is successfully worked without the support of this Name.

The Name is used in exorcism and other matters of a similar ilk, and thus it is understood that “whoever pronounces this name against a demon, it will vanish; at a conflagration it will be quenched; over an invalid, he will be healed; against impure thoughts, they will be expelled; if it is directed against an enemy, he will die, and if it is uttered before a ruler, his favour will be won,” etc. Yet, the same voice extolling its magical virtues, is also telling us that “whoever pronounces this name while he is in a state of uncleanness and impurity will surely be struck dead.” Of course, included in this last statement of “uncleanness” and “impurity” are unclean thoughts involving any cerebration of ill intent, as well as feelings of the same. Therefore it is necessary that the practitioner should be mentally, emotionally and physically in a state of Hishtavut or equanimity, in order to employ Divine Names of this nature.

Now, I personally believe that before one can enact any of the practical applications of the “Shem Vayisa Vayet,” one needs to be mentally and emotionally aligned with all associated aspects. In this regard, I have found this easy to achieve with the seventy-two triplets by simply vocalising the entire set every day in the form of a simple chant. However, we have to follow different routes when it comes to the associated elements, e.g. biblical passages, “Spirit Intelligences,” etc. As it is, the seventy-two letter triplets comprising the “Name of Seventy-Two Names” are respectively associated with seventy-two verses from the “Book of Psalms,” all said to be arranged by Rabbi Moses Isserles (Rama), in accordance with the “revealed truth” which Rabbi Moses Nachmanides (Ramban) passed on to his students. Each verse is constructed from seven words only, comprises the Ineffable Name (Adonai in one instance), and reveals, in exact order, the letters comprising its associated triad from the “Shem Vayisa Vayet.” I have listed and elucidated these in "The Book of Sacred Names."

As it is, these seventy-two verses from Psalms not only aid one in becoming fully aligned with the “Shem Vayisa Vayet,” but are also collectively employed to invoke the “spiritual forces” inherent in the Name. The “Name of Seventy-two Names” is said to open spiritual “gates of goodness and purity,” and is often employed in its entirety when requiring spiritual assistance, or needing relief and rescue from stressful circumstances. In this regard, the associated biblical verses constitute an awe-inspiring prayer-incantation, which is equally employed for these exact reasons. Whilst it was oftentimes employed as a prayer of protection prior to undertaking a journey at sea or when travelling into deserts, or for travels in general, it was recommended that one utters this prayer every day, in order to protect oneself against anything disadvantageous happening to oneself during the day. However, it is worth noting that the great benefit of this prayer-incantation is that it purifies the soul.

As can be expected, I have included an extensive delineation of the magical employment of the "Name of Seventy-two Names" in "The Book of Sacred Names," however, as said, this comprises an enormous chaper which I simply cannot publish in its entirety on this blog, hence I will conclude this partial excursion into the "Shem Vayisa Vayet" with the mentioned list of references which I have employed in writing the relevant material posted on this blog.

(References/Bibliography to follow)

The "Name of Seventy-two Names": A Biblical Spin-off - Part 5

It should be noted that, besides the case of the technique delineated in the previous part, a close affiliation is recognised between the “Name of Seventy-two Names” and the “Ineffable Name.” In fact, Kabbalistic doctrine informs us the seventy-two Names can be divided into four groups, pertaining respectively to the four letters of the “Ineffable Name.” In turn, as Moses Cordovero indicated, each of these four groups can be divided into three sub-sections comprising six Names each. These twelve sub-sections are said to relate in turn to the twelve permutations of YHVH as indicated below:

Though related in principle, the Sefer ha-Bahir offers a somewhat different delineation regarding the alignment of the Ineffable Name with the “Shem Vayisa Vayet.” In this text it is maintained that the seventy-two portions of the Name should be divided into three groups, each comprising twenty-four three-letter portions. The appropriate verse in the Bahir reads “These are the 72. They emanate and divide themselves into three sections, 24 to each section. Over each of these sections is a higher Officer. Each section has four directions to watch, east, west, north and south. They are therefore distributed, six to each direction. The four directions then have a total of 24 forms. [This is true of the first section] as well as the second and the third. All of them are sealed with YHVH, God of Israel, the living God, Shadai, high and exalted, who dwells in eternity on high, whose name is holy, YHVH. Blessed be the name of the glory of His kingdom forever and ever.”

In this instance the three sections of the “Name of Seventy-two Names” are respectively aligned:

A. with the original three verses from which the seventy-two Names were derived (Exodus 14:19–21);

B. with three “Officers,” these being the archangels Gavri’el, Micha’el and Ori’el;

C. with three concepts, termed “princes,” these being the “Axis, Sphere and Heart,” which my late mentor, William G. Gray, referred to as “Space, Time and Events”;

D. with the three appearances of the Ineffable Name in the priestly blessing which reads “YHVH bless thee and keep thee, YHVH make His face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee. YHVH lift up His countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.” (Numbers 6:24–26);

E. with the triple declaration “YHVH is King, YHVH was King, YHVH will be King,” which is part of an acrostic poem recited on the first day of “Rosh Hashanah” (the Jewish New Year); and lastly

F. with the three “Holies” of the famous Kedushah which reads “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory” (Isaiah 6:3).

In the earlier listed quote from the “Bahir” we are informed that each of the three sections of the seventy-two Names “has four directions to watch, east, west, north and south. They are therefore distributed, six to each direction.” In this instance the actual arrangement is quite straightforward, as shown in the following table:

(More to follow)

The "Name of Seventy-two Names": A Biblical Spin-off - Part 2

Having established the seventy-two segments of the “Shem Vayisa Vayet,” we are now faced with the issue of their actual verbal expression, of which there are a number of different ways in existence. Moses Zacutto addressed some of these in his “Shorshei ha-Shemot,” and offered the following vocalisations of the “Name of Seventy-two Names”:

Excepting the following variances: (14) Mavah, (20) Fehil, (21) Nalecha, (22) Y’yay’, (24) Chahu, (26) Ha’i’a, (36) M’nad, (37) An’, (38) Ch’am, (42) Miyach, (43) V’val, (47) ’shal, (51) Hachash, (53) Nina, (54) Niyat, (56) P’vi, (57) N’mam, (58) Yiyal, (61) Vamav, (63) Anu, and (69) R’ei, the vocalisations Zacutto listed in his “Shorshei ha-Shemot” match those presented by Moses Cordovero in “Pardes Rimmonim.”

A variety of ways have been suggested as far as the vocalisation of this remarkable Divine Name is concerned. It has been proposed that each portion of the “Name of Seventy-two Names” should be vocalised with the vowels segol–sh’va–segol. Accordingly the intonation of the seventy-two Names would be VeH’Ve, YeL’Ye, SeY’Te, EL’Me, etc. In this instance the vocalisation of the “Shem Vayisa Vayet” is aligned with the vowels of (Eh’yeh), which is said to greatly increase its power.

In another instance, employing this Name as a meditation device, Abraham Abulafia, asserted each letter comprising the “Name of Seventy-two Names” should be vocalised with the vowel directly associated with the name of each letter, e.g. (Alef) is uttered “ah”; (Bet) is pronounced “Beh”; (Gimel) is voiced “Gih”; etc. Other variances remain in a number of manuscripts and publications dealing with the “Name of Seventy-Two Names,” however, some forty years ago I was taught to enunciate the “Shem Vayisa Vayet” in the following manner, which is effective, powerful and easily memorised:

(More to follow)

"Kabbalah," "Cabala" or "Qabalah".....?

As said in "The Book of Self Creation," it is clear that while one may understand and accept that much diversification has been going on regarding this Tradition, especially over the last century, and having closely investigated such “variances,” we equally recognise that Kabbalah would become meaningless if its fundamental principles were compromised. In other words, principle Kabbalistic teachings and rudimentary reasoning cannot simply be altered in accordance with personal whims. Hence it is necessary to first understand the central, vital core teachings behind this Tradition, before adjusting parameters in alignment with personal perceptions. One simply can no longer speak of Kabbalah when the supposed stable primary doctrines of this tradition have been sacrificed in the fray. Sadly, such has been the case in a lot of works written in the name of Kabbalah, while they bear little or no relation to the Tradition. Often basic teachings of this tradition are sidelined and even dismissed out of hand.

When you come to think of it, Kabbalah is much more than the current assumption that the doctrine of the “Tree of Life” and the ten Sefirot comprise the entire teaching of Kabbalah. In fact, the “Tree-Concept” was originally only a small part of Kabbalah, and a relatively unimportant one at that. It is mainly Gentiles who expounded and increased it to its current central place in our system. It is certainly a lot clearer, more direct, and much easier to understand than the “letter-number” permutations of early Kabbalah. Yet, if the principles of “Letter-Number Kabbalah” are understood, some remarkable practices, meditations and “inner communications” can be found in this form of mysticism, which can produce some really far-reaching results for the individual who knows the system.

The entire arena of “Ecstatic Kabbalah” is based on this system. Few of these practices were, and still are, available to the modern public. A major part of the system often amounted to no more than mental exercises which enabled the brain to cope with the obscure problems of existence. To some extent it could then be likened to a cryptic crossword, in which the satisfaction came in the exercise of ones mental faculties. This was however never the only value of the “Letter-Number Kabbalah.” There was certainly a lot more to it as the practices of Shemot (Divine Names), Yichudim (unification exercises) and Tzerufim (permutation practices) show quite clearly.

Today the tendency is to think that there is really more than one Kabbalah so to speak, with three categories specifically identified: 1. Traditional Kabbalah—the one as understood to apply to Israel alone; 2. Christian Kabbalah; and 3. Hermetic Kabbalah. The latter two refer to the tradition as interpreted and worked on by Gentile scholars for the Western Inner Tradition at large, and we understand that though the basic formulae are the same, the application and exegesis are very different. End of story? Definitely not. This is a very simplistic and narrow viewpoint, in which the strictly Jewish origins of the Kabbalah are often ignored, not to mention that even in Traditional Kabbalah there are many divergent voices regarding practically every topic within that sector, that one would have to divide what is viewed collectively as “traditional” into many subcategories.

However, most modern researchers are still inclined to speak of “pre-Lurianic” and “Lurianic Kabbalah” in reference to the earlier mentioned two distinct periods in the development of Kabbalah. The first which could be termed “Zoharic,” not entirely correctly as an early Kabbalist like Abraham Abulafia did not belong in this category, culminated in the writings of Moses Cordovero, while his pupil Isaac Luria started a new trend which is now called “Lurianic Kabbalah.”

There are many who, in trying to indicate the distinction between Traditional Kabbalah and the one as applied in the Western Inner Tradition, use the spelling “Qabalah.” It has been suggested by several authors, specifically from the “Hermetic Schools,” that the spelling of the term “Kabbalah” should be varied in order to indicate variant applications, i.e. “Kabbalah” in reference to “Traditional Kabbalah”; “Cabala” to indicate the Christian variety, and “Qabalah” for the “Hermetic Kabbalah.” I have found no use for this kind of variant spelling for a variety of reasons, amongst others:

1. The common use of the “K” spelling is a fairly recent one, apparently introduced to create a consensus. However, it should be noted that many Rabbis, historians and other scholars have been using the “C” spelling when discussing what we might loosely term “Traditional Kabbalah.” In fact, to date there are still French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and Swiss authors, amongst others, who are still using that spelling in their studies of mainstream “Kabbalah.” The suggestion that the “C” spelling be used exclusively to designate a Christian variant of Kabbalistic thinking, would create confusion as far as a veritable host of works are concerned, which were written over a period of more than a hundred years. Likewise the “K” spelling was and still is being used by scholars around the globe in their discussions of “Christian Kabbalah.”

2. The division of the Kabbalistic Tradition in this manner into the mentioned three categories is seriously problematic. It suggests a uniform pattern of thought to be prevailing within the “Jewish Mystical Tradition,” which is patently an inaccurate portrayal of the tradition over the thousand and more years of its existence.

Besides the obvious differences between, for example, the teachings of Isaac Luria and that of the author of the Zohar, marking distinct periods in the development of the Tradition, there are enormous differences and major disagreements between Kabbalists living in the same era, with regard to even the most basic tenets of Kabbalah, e.g. the ten Sefirot, etc. Pertaining to this specific concept, there were Kabbalists who did not like the sefirotic system at all, and rarely made use of it. Moreover, there were thinkers within this tradition who did not agree with Talmudic studies, yet these very individuals are considered part of that tradition. In fact, there are several absolutely distinct “Kabbalistic traditions” and diverse schools of thought which developed over the centuries, some of them considered to be heretical, yet many of the latter kind are now generically accepted as part of what mainstream religionists term “Kosher Kabbalah.”

3. As far as I am concerned the word “Kabbalah” is a Hebrew term with only one spelling. The transliteration of this word has been somewhat problematic due to the fact that the sound of its initial letter is represented by two letters in the Hebrew alphabet, i.e. Kaf and Kof. The latter letter is the one used in the word itself, and has been designated “C,” “K,” or “Q” by different authors, thus the variants in the spelling of the word in languages using the Latin alphabet. Trying to use those variants to denote three different approaches within the Tradition does not work for anybody using the Hebrew, Greek or Cyrillic alphabet. Thus such usage cannot be universal.

Settling for one common spelling, i.e. “Kabbalah,” and then clearly indicating a specific subsidiary of this tradition under discussion—Ecstatic Kabbalah, Theurgic Kabbalah, Prophetic Kabbalah, Lurianic Kabbalah, Christian Kabbalah, Hermetic Kabbalah, etc., is far more useful and accurate. Besides, there is in truth only one “Kabbalah,” the teachings of which are wielded in as many ways as there are people to invent them from their personal perspectives. Provided the core principles and doctrines of the tradition are understood and upheld intact, there can be an infinite number of variant interpretations.

Tracing the Bet - Part 2

As mentioned previously regarding the attribution of the "Twelve Banners" to the Zodiac, in Lurianic Kabbalah the attributions of Elul and Adar are reversed, and the same applies to the associated verses, as shown in Sharabi’s “Or Levanah.” We should also remember that the twelve permutations are attributed to the central six sefirot on the Tree of Life, specifically:

Additionally, the “Four Banners,” comprising three permutations each, respectively corresponding to the four directions, i.e. the first three permutations starting with the letter Yod pertain to Mizrach (East); the second set starting with the first Heh corresponds to Darom (South); the third group starting with the letter Vav relates to Ma’arav (West); and the last three permutations starting with the final letter of the Tetragrammaton, Heh, pertain to Tzafon (North).

While Aryeh Kaplan lists these specific directional attributions in his “Sefer Yetzirah,” even here there are some differences of opinion. For example, Moses Cordovero offers a different set of attributions in “Pardes Rimmonim,” e.g. he assigns the first three to the South; the second set to the North; the third group of three to the East, and the last three to the West. What is perhaps strangest of all, is Cordovero’s version of the “Twelve Banners,” which is totally at odds with Gikatilla’s original version, as shown in the following table. The highlighted permutations indicate the differences between the two sets.

It is worth noting that the arrangement Aryeh Kaplan described in his “Sefer Yetzirah,” comfortably aligns with the exercises involving the application of these specific twelve permutations in the “Tracing the Bet” meditations.

Before we finally get to share a few practical applications, it is worth perusing the attribution of the twelve permutations to the hours of the day. In this tradition the daily cycle is marked from sunset to sunset, rather than from sunrise to sunrise. Hence the daily cycle comprises two sub-cycles of twelve hours each, the first from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m.; the second from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. The pattern of twelve permutations follow the two sets of twelve hours in exact order, e.g. the cycle is repeated in each twenty-four hour cycle. In related teachings, we are told that the twelve hours comprising the “night cycle,” pertain to the twenty-four permutations of ADONAI, while the twelve hours of the “day cycle” are associated with two sets of twelve permutations, respectively those of YHVH and EHYEH. For our purposes, the simple attribution of the twelve permutations of the Tetragrammaton to the hours of the day in two sub-cycles of twelve hours each, works perfectly well without any need for further complexities at present.

(More to follow)

The Challenge: Moses Cordovero & Practical Kabbalah

In the great tradition of the "duellists" of yesteryear, I have received a challenge! I am instructed to put my money where my mouth is, and back a claim I made in "The Book of Sacred Names" regarding "Practical Kabbalah" techniques in “Sefer Pardes Rimmonim” (Garden of Pomegranates) by Moses Cordovero, with verifiable evidence. My opponent maintains that there is not a single instance of anything pertaining directly to "Practical Kabbalah," or "Jewish Magic" for that matter, to be found in this text written by the father-in-law of the Holy Ari. Hence he felt it necessary to challenge me to either "own up" or face public exposure of my "deceit".....no less!!

Naturally I would not normally bother with uninformed challenges, but I thought I might face the "truth of the matter" and satisfy the "questing spirit" of my challenger with an example of Practical Kabbalah penned by the very hand of the great Moses Cordovero, who wrote (Pardes Rimonnim: Gate Ten Chapter 1):

"There is no doubt that the colours can introduce you to the operations of the Sefirot and the drawing down of their overflow. Thus, when a person needs to draw down the overflow of Mercy from the attribute of Grace, let him imagine the name of the Sefirah with the colour that is appropriate to what he needs, in front of him. If he [applies to] Supreme Chesed, [let him imagine] the outmost white.....Likewise when he will operate a certain operation and he will be in need of the overflow of the [attribute of] Judgement, let him then dress in red clothes and imagine the form [of the letters of] the Tetragrammaton in red, and so on in the case of all the operations causing the descent of the overflows.....Certainly in this manner [we may explain] the meaning of the amulets. When a person prepares an amulet for the [Sefirah of] Chesed, let him imagine the [divine] name in a bright white, since then the operation of that name will be augmented.....

We have seen someone who designed amulets which refer to the [attribute] of [stern] judgement [using the colour of] red, and those which refer to Grace in white and those which refers to Mercy in Green, and everything [was done] in accordance with what [was revealed] by true [angelic] mentors, which taught to him the preparation of the amulets. All this [was done] in order to introduce him to the subject of the colours and the operations which derive from the above....."

I hope this is satisfactory proof to my challenger, and, just in case I be accused of posting a bad translation of the original text, it should be noted that whilst the transliterations of Hebrew terms in the text is in accordance with my personal preference, the translation of the quote itself is not mine. It appeared in a chapter written by Moshe Idel which is titled "Jewish Magic from the Renaissance Period to Early Hasidism," and which was published in "Religion, Science, and Magic: In Concert and in Conflict" edited by Jacob Neusner, Ernest S. Frerichs and Paul Virgil McCracken Flesher. The latter is a most informative work which my challenger might want to peruse for greater elucidation on matters obscure!

On Practical Kabbalah being termed "Black Magic" revisited

I simply could not resist visiting the following "incident" on the net to which I was alerted by an observant friend. Since it pertains to a message I posted here, and since I am somehow personally involved, though not directly so by "name," I thought I would share the mentioned "incident."

In February 2010 I posted a short essay titled "Practical Kabbalah vs Black Magic." I am delighted to discover, if somewhat belatedly, that my little essay was crossposted on an "official" Chabad forum, where opinions were being sought on its contents. I did notice that the crosspost was edited in order to eliminate the link to my blog which was defined a "non-Jewish religious site." Since I am a Jew, I find this definition of my blog quite hillarious! Furthermore, whilst dealing with spiritual matters of "Jewish concern," my blog is not actually a "religious site" per se. Otherwise, though not cited by name, I am listed as "an academic whose impact outside of the university has been nil," yet I cannot be sure whether the commentator was referring to me personally, or to J.H. Chajes, the "real academic" mentioned in my missive, considering the fact that I have discarded my "academic mantle" some decades ago, and no longer make any pretensions in this regard.

Be that as it may, I was amazed at witnessing the incoherence and inability of those who, other than hiding behind their utmost rigid fundamentalist religious stance, have failed to deal with my essay in any meaningful manner. The strongest allegation is that I posited Abraham Abulafia, Shabbatai Tzvi and Jacob Frank against Josef Karo, which is plainly not the case, and which the commentator might have realised had he actually READ and UNDERSTOOD my original missive.

What I found most surprising of all is unfamiliarity with the contents of Moses Cordovero's "Pardes Rimmonim," by the one who was seeking indications of "Practical Kabbalah" in the writings of the great rabbi, and who very obliquely hinted at familiarity with this text. All right, lets give him the benefit of the doubt! In the mentioned text Moses Cordovero dealt with "early Kabbalah" from the broadest, most inclusive perspective possible, and his extensive essays on Divine Names and their practical applications in this book may not have been directly termed "Practical Kabbalah" (Kabbalah Ma'asit), but these were certainly recognised to be just that by other equally "orthodox," equally "frum," and equally respected Rabbis.....and of course those scholars whom the commentator considers to have no influence outside their acadamic institutions. Come to think of it, I made reference in my essay to some of these seemingly "mainstream" rabbis who openly indulged their minds, souls and bodies in the dreaded "non-Kosher" domain of "Practical Kabbalah," including the great Josef Caro himself, who do not appear to have been unduly bothered by his personal nightly "channellings" of a "spirit intelligence," although he did so in absolute secrecy, and details of which were discovered only after his demise.

It is quite telling that my detractors who carefully avoided commenting on these "anomalies," would rather, in accordance with the norm when it comes to dealing with "uncomfortable" issues, divert attention and focus on a personal assault on the poor chap who posted my "offensive" essay on the said forum. Come to think of it, perhaps they thought HE wrote it! I actually feel a little sorry for this guy who held out very bravely against the onslaught, but what chance would he have had discoursing with anyone whose consciousness does not extend beyond the length of his nose? I would say "ZERO"!

Yet, I believe it would have been interesting to have queried the said forum regarding the "occult" activities of the Besht, the very founder of modern Chasidism, who was in fact proud of being a "Baal Shem," a "wonder worker" in the traditional "practitioner of magic" or "wonderworker" sense, as recently highlighted by those who no longer follow the general inclination of suppressing evidence [See "The Besht: Magician, Mystic and Leader" by Immanuel Etkes].

All of this notwithstanding, I am absolutely delighted to have witnessed my essay "making it" on the Chabad forum, and those who would like to "revisit" it on this site, AND read the entire diatribe themselves, may access the "thread" on the forum at:

http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=11758

Tzachtzachot & the Christian Trinity

Earlier this evening I was confronted by an individual who thought the time of celebrating the birthday of the Christian Saviour to be the most ideal to practice his missionary zeal to the fullest. He "most urgently" exhorted me to attend the service to be held this Christmas Eve by his "spirit-filled" pastor, the one who could save my soul from the damnation which is, as it were, around the corner. Nothing I could say in a polite manner would sway him to "drop" the matter. As it is, I would not have referred to the incident here if it wasn't for the fact that I told him that I am a Jew and that I am particularly enamoured with the teachings of Jewish Mysticism, specifically Kabbalah. His face sort of lit up as he victoriously informed me that Kabbalah teaches the "doctrine of the Trinity," the Christian one, in its doctrine of the "Tzachtzachot." Eventually, after some fruitless bantering backwards and forwards, I informed the individual in question that I am simply not interested in going to his church, that neither my wife nor I would be attending the special service of his "spirit-filled" pastor, and he departed in great disappointment with a final rejoinder that he would "pray for my lost soul." Ah well.....this is a fairly regular occurence, albeit senza the "Tzachtzachot" bit!

The doctrine of the "Tzachtzachot" ("splendours") is the one Kabbalistic doctrine which Christian students of Kabbalah later claimed to be extolling the Christian concept of the "Trinity," quite despite the fact that in none of the extensive discussions of this topic in primary Kabbalistic literature are there any references made to the Christian "triune divine personages," i.e. "father, son and holy spirit." However, we will get to the Christian claim shortly. Let us first have a look at what the teaching of the "Tzachtzachot" is all about, and where the idea started.

Currently available evidence would have it that the source of the concept is the mystical speculations of the "Chasidei Azkenaz," the 13th century German Pietists (David ben Yehudah he-Chasid; etc.), regarding the emanation of the ten Sefirot out of Ayn Sof (Eternal No-Thing). These mystics of early Kabbalah were particularly perplexed by the fact that whilst there are ten Sefirot, there were traditionally the so-called "thirteen attributes" of God, and they were wondering whether any connection existed between the Sefirot, and these "attributes." In a "responsa" attributed to the famous rabbi Hai Gaon, there are references to "three forces" which are understood to be the foundation of the "ten," hence they thought the "thirteen attributes" should be divided into "ten" and "three," which respectively pertain to the ten Sefirot and three "primordial forces."

However, there were at the time quite diverse opinions regarding this matter, especially as some thought the "thirteen attributes" were considered to be contained in Keter, the first Sefirah. This idea was certainly not generally accepted, since others attributed the "thirteen attributes" to the sixth Sefirah (Tiferet). Others still, maintained that these "three forces" were emanations which were "split of" from Malchut, the tenth Sefirah. Some considered them to be effects "in the manner of Chesed, Din and Rachamim." It is important to keep in mind that right from the start the terms "Sefirot" and "Middot" (attributes) were used interchangeably as synonyms. We also need to consider that this topic was very complex, and that in the mystical thinking of the time it was conceived that there were, as it were, two sets of Sefirot, with the higher Sefirot of 'Illat ha-'Illot ("Cause of Causes") belonging to the "first cause." These "higher Sefirot" were considered entirely distinct from the standard, manifested Sefirot, so to speak. The Sefirot of 'Illat ha-'Illot were termed tzichtzuchim.

To really understand the very foundation of the doctrine of the "hidden splendours," one has to focus on the teachings regarding the relationship between Ayn Sof and Keter. Some of the early Kabbalists taught that Ayn Sof and Keter are the same, whilst others felt that they are not identical at all, and some even taught that Keter was not the first emanation. There was great uncertainty regarding this issue amongst the early Kabbalists. Moses de Leon for example alluded in one of his writings to the expression "Cause of Causes" ('illat ha-'illot or sibbat ha-sibbot), saying it is a reference to Keter, whilst in another he tells us "the Cause of all Causes is the cause of Nothingness (Ayn)," and he appears to be quite uncertain as to whether there should be a distinction between Ayn Sof and Keter.

As far as Kabbalists are concerned, Ayn Sof is hidden and have therefore no active participation in the emanation process. In fact, they maintain that there are intermediary stages between the unmanifest and the manifest, and some consider such a stage to exist between the "Eternal No-Thing" (Ayn Sof) and the ten Sefirot. As said earlier, in the 13th century some of the early Kabbalists, e.g. David ben Yehudah he-Chasid and the German Pietists, maintained this stage to comprise ten "higher Sefirot" considered to be the "roots" of the ten regular Sefirot. Others, specifically those from the Iyyun circle, perceived this intermediary stage to be "three roots concealed in the depths of Ayn Sof" which they termed "tzachtzachot," and which were understood to be three unattainably hidden lights. They were respectively called:

1. Or Penimi Kadmon ("internal primordial light");

2. Or Tzach ("ultra-transparant light"); and

3. Or Metzuchtzach ("clear light").

In a way, these concepts influenced many generations of Kabbalists, even though by the fourteenth century (when the thinking of many Kabbalists were more directly focused on the ten Sefirot and their significance in the world and in our lives), the earlier "ten and thirteen" ideas almost disappeared into obscurity. It took a couple of hundred years before the debate on the "ten and thirteen" resurfaced very strongly in the writings of Moses Cordovero, who offered explanations in accordance with the views held by the mystics living in sixteenth century Safed, the "home" of Lurianic Kabbalah. We are told that he "contended the thirteen truly are God's moral attributes embodied in the first Sefirah, and it is man's responsibility to emulate them." It is worth comparing the 13th century ideas regarding the three primordial lights (Or Penimi Kadmon, Or Tzach, Or Metzuchtzach) with the Adam Kadmon (primordial man) doctrine of Lurianic Kabbalah.

However, getting back to Moses Cordovero, it should be mentioned that he expounded the doctrine of emanation in many wonderful ways. The process of emanation is generally understood to be one of "unfoldment from within." Everything comprises everything, so to speak, i.e. Keter (Crown) comprises all the other Sefirot, and the succeeding Sefirah, Chochmah (Wisdom), actually derives from Chochmah in Keter. In turn, each of the ten Sefirot also comprise the entire array, an entire universe as it were, and each succeeding Sefirah derives from its equivalent in the preceding Sefirah, e.g. Binah is emanated from "Binah in Chochmah"; Chesed from "Chesed in Binah"; etc.

Cordovero tells us that each Sefirah is made up of an infinite number of bechinot (inner "characteristics" or "aspects"). Whilst most of these aspects are unknowable, there are some which can be perceived and six in particular were considered most important in the process of unfolding each Sefirah from its predecessor. Through these inner aspects all the Sefirot are causally related to one another, and each Sefirah can relate or "communicate" with any of the other, by resonating inwardly with the aspects of the other Sefirot to be found deep within itself. For example, an individual working in Malchut (Kingdom) can "awaken" Keter (Crown) by resonating his consciousness with the "Keter-aspect" hidden inside Malchut, etc.

Now, it would appear as if there was a "gulf" between the manifest and the absolute, or between the restricted finite and the limitless infinite, yet Kabbalists maintained that just as every Sefirah comprises the entire sefirotic ladder, so Ayn Sof contains the very primordial essences of the Sefirot. Whilst in early Kabbalah we were told that there are three tzachtzachot, hidden primordial lights, between the Eternal No-Thing (Ayn Sof) and the first Sefirah (Keter) on the ladder of emanation, Moses Cordovero informed us that these "concealed splendours" are in fact the loftiest bechinot (aspects) of Keter hidden within Ayn Sof.

Since the days of the great Moses Cordovero there have been a lot of speculation regarding the three hidden "splendours" (Tzachtzachot) in Kabbalistic literature, and as mentioned earlier, Christian students of Kabbalah claimed the doctrine of the three Tzachtzachot to be expressing the verity of the Christian trinity. Considering everything Kabbalists wrote about these "hidden splendours," it is rather difficult to reconcile Christian doctrine with this Kabbalistic teaching. Besides, the Christian claim has as much verity as would say a Hindu claiming this teaching to be about the Hindu trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, or perhaps some clever physicist somewhere could say it pertains to the three basic components of the atom (proton, neutron and electron), etc. In fact, we may extrapolate from all the writings regarding the three Tzachtzachot, that they were understood to represent, amongst many other concepts, three Sefirot—Chochmah, Binah, Da'at; the three "Pillars" on the sefirotic Tree; the three levels of the "Soul" (Nefesh, Ruach, Neshamah); etc.

There are lots of primary and secondary sources which you can consult for detailed deliberation on this topic. Some of the more readily available are:

1. "Sod ha-Shabbat: The Mystery of the Sabbath" by Meir ibn Gabbai, translated by Elliot K. Ginsburg;

2. "Isaiah Horowitz: The Generations of Adam" by Isaiah Horowitz;

3. "Lessons in Tanya: The Tanya of R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi" by Yosef Wineberg;

4. "Kabbalah" by Gershom Scholem;

5. "Origins of Kabbalah" by Gershom Scholem;

6. "The Sabbath in the Classical Kabbalah" by Elliot K. Ginsburg;

7. "An Introduction to the Kabbalah" by Moshe Hallamish; etc.

Wishing one and all well over the Festive Season!

Practical Kabbalah vs "Black Magic"

As indicated in the header of this blog, I intend discussing some of those techniques of "Practical Kabbalah" which I addressed in my "The Book of Self Creation," and which I have greatly expanded upon, with lots of additional practical Kabbalistic material translated from primary Hebrew sources, in my forthcoming "The Book of Sacred Names," to be published by The Sangreal Sodality Press as the second volume in "The Shadow Tree Series."

For more than forty years I have devoted myself to both a serious investigation as well as the practical implementation of Kabbalistic teachings in my everyday life. For me "Kabbalah" was like a pair of old slippers, i.e. absolutely comfortable and easily slipped into, and it has remained so for the entire period that I have been associated with it. There are certainly times when I battle with the obscurities of the doctrines found in some of the primary texts, but, in the main, Kabbalah has served me well on many levels, whether these be physical, mental, emotional or spiritual. In terms of my everyday existence, I have found the teachings of "Practical Kabbalah" especially meaningful, despite the endless warnings about these being "bad," and that I might incur "the wrath of the Almighty."

Of course, it is worth noting that "Kabbalah" and Orthodox Judaism have always been uneasy bedfellows. Sometimes they would be more or less comfortable in their relationship and need of each other, but at other times they would burst into open conflict. The strong messianic tendencies of certain Kabbalists, like for example Shabbetai Tzvi, Jacob Frank, or, much further back, that of Abraham Abulafia, contributed to the notion amongst the orthodoxy that the tradition is a blasphemous quagmire out to snare the gullible. Yet, should the same Messianic tendency shine forth in what appears to be a most godly and sanctified individual, such as Rabbi Isaac Luria, then we can relax and bask in the glory of his "unique light," without any trepidation of being led up the garden path, so to speak.

We know that mysticism goes hand in hand with Judaism, as it does with other faiths, provided it stayed on the thin and narrow and managed to dress its visions, miracles, and what can only be termed "magical activities," in the garb of the formal and accepted religious views of the day. Step out of line, and that individual, who was deemed into manifestation in order to be redeemed in eternity, will be doomed by his peers unto the aeons. To put it simply, certain concepts of Kabbalah entered into mainstream Judaism, and comfortably remained there to this very day. These concepts mainly pertained to the speculative side of the Tradition. In fact, many Rabbis were both Kabbalists and orthodox religious leaders of their communities, as they are still today, with no particular problem one way or the other.

Having said that, I should also mention that some of them did keep their more "controversial" experiences and activities quite hidden for fear of rejection, as for example the case of Rabbi Joseph Caro and his Maggid clearly indicates. However, the more individualistic aspects of the tradition, such as "Practical Kabbalah," which patently involves magical practices, often led to a fracas everywhere, and yet there were again many orthodox Rabbis who beneficially utilized this forbidden zone of the tradition. In fact, many still do with their Kameot (Hebrew amulets), Segulot, Terufot, and magical use of holy writ. To this day the grave of Rabbi ben Duan in Wazzan outside Fez in Morocco, is used as a place where miraculous healings take place. Prior to his demise, the good Rabbi issued an instruction that a certain Kamea (amulet) should be engraved on his tombstone, which would then cause the grave itself to become a place of healing when the sick are placed on it. I can relate a first hand example of its effectiveness, but it will make this introduction much too lengthy. It would appear that the many people undertaking a healing pilgrimage to the good Rabbi’s tomb, is not bothering the orthodoxy unduly.

Naturally we need to recognise that the rise of pseudo-messiahs, such as the earlier mentioned Shabbetai Tzvi and Jacob Frank, contributed enormously towards the fall of Kabbalah from grace in the eyes of mainstream Judaism. Even more so after Shabbetai Tzvi’s conversion to Islam, following the Jewish authorities denouncement of him as a blasphemer to the Muslim authorities. He caused a lot of havoc with his enormous influence over thousands of Jews across the then "civilized" world, and naturally this was more than worrying to the rabbinical authorities who wanted to protect their flocks, and who could see Tzvi’s appeal as spelling disaster for Jewry as a whole. This was certainly a very dark period for both Kabbalah and Judaism alike. However, today Shabbatai Tzvi and his approach to both Kabbalah and Judaism, are understood in a much more open manner, and he appears less of a threat. The same cannot be said for "Practical Kabbalah," which is still drawing vehement condemnation from mainstream religious authorities.

I recently responded to a post online in which it was claimed that Joseph Karo, the great 16th century legalist and Kabbalist, referred to "Kabbalah Ma'asit" (Practical Kabbalah) in his Shulchan Aruch as "black magic." Seeking clarification I wrote:

"In the numerous pre-Lurianic Kabbalistic texts, as well as several subsequent works of the same genre penned by East European Baalei Shem, the term 'Kabbalah Ma'asit' referred to 'Practical Kabbalah' exclusively. There is no specific indication in these writings that the appellation 'Kabbalah Ma'asit' referred to 'Black Magic' per se. When exactly did it acquire the adverse connotation you are referring to?"

To this I received the following response:

"Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'ah.....laws of Avoda Zerah. The Shulchan Aruch makes very clear that Kabbalah Ma'asit is what the Torah was referring to when it spoke about magic. There are a few rare exceptions, but by and large that is the status."

Since I could not find any reference to Kabbalah Ma'asit being "black magic" in the reference provided, I continued quizzing lest it appeared somewhere else in that authoritative legalistic tome, asking:

"Does the Shulchan Aruch use the specific appellative 'Black Magic' in reference to 'Kabbalah Ma'asit,' and does this turn astute and highly revered Kabbalists like Rabbi Eleazar of Worms, Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, Rabbi Moshe Zacutto, Rabbi Avraham Chamaui, et al, who openly shared techniques belonging to the 'Kabbalah Ma'asit' arena, into heretics who pandered what is forbidden? By the same token are 'Practical Kabbalistic' writings like the Sefer Raziel, Brit Menucha, Shorshei ha-Shemot, amongst others, considered 'black magic' texts?"

In response I was told:

"Actually the Sh"A refers to black magic and all other forms of forbidden sorcery as Kabbalah Ma'asit. As well as enumerates the practices that are forbidden. Considering that R' Cordovero was actually a teacher of R' Karo, I would assume that R' Karo learned what was forbidden from him. Receipt and knowledge of Kabbalah ma'asit is not forbidden, its usage is. Read the introduction by R' Zecuto (who is post-Lurianic by the way) he specifically warns against the usage of what he has written. There are exceptions to this within the bounds of halacha, but one first must be a competent Rav versed in the applicable halachot to know what they are and when they can be properly applied."

Realising the "deflective" nature of this response, the lack of direct textual references, the absurdity of the claim that it is in order to read and learn about Practical Kabbalah, but that you are not allowed to put such knowledge to practical use, and that I am not likely to get a clear answer to my query, I did not press for further details. It quickly became abundantly clear that pursuing the matter any further would just result in me listing more and more of those astute rabbis who did not only wrote about, but actually employed that which the individual in question termed "Black Magic," and likewise he will come back with a list of equally as many astute rabbis who decried "Practical Kabbalah." So why bother?

I thought the statement that Moses Cordovero was the teacher of Joseph Karo, and that the respondent assumed that accordingly "R' Karo learned what was forbidden from him," to be indeed most curious, since Cordovero himself freely shared techniques of the Kabbalah Ma'asit (Practical Kabbalah) genre in his Pardes Rimmonim (Garden of the Pomegranates). Joseph Karo was certainly not unfamiliar with the more "extreme aspects" of Kabbalah. After all, he diligently kept a diary, albeit a secret one, of his clairvoyant channelling of a Maggid, a heavenly spirit mentor, and he apparently left his mark in the local lore of Nicopolis, the town in which he grew up, where visitors are still shown Karo's Kan Gishmi (Fountain of Blood), a spot where it is said he "performed miracles." One wonders if the latter were of the "Practical Kabbalah" variety?

Regarding Moses Zacutto's warning "against the usage of what he has written," we know that he personally employed many of the magical techniques he listed so openly and enthusiastically in his Shorshei ha-Shemot (Roots of Names) and Sefer ha-Sodot she-Kibbalti mi Rabbotai (The Book of Secrets I Received from My Masters). In fact, in many instances he affirmed the efficacy of these procedures with the phrase "tested by me," and hence J.H. Chajes appears to be correct in his observation that Zacutto "assembled this magical material for practical and not merely theoretical purposes." It is also curious, as also noted by Chajes, that both Chaim Vital, of Lurianic fame, and his son Samuel did not hesitate to consult with Muslim magicians when they felt it necessary to do so!!