The eleventh through thirteenth centuries produced the most important exegetical literature of the Middle Ages and made a substantial contribution to the canonical writings in this genre. Rashi and his French followers, Abraham ibn Ezra, Nahmanides, and the Zohar represent the best of the medieval commentaries that not only became classics but also illustrate different intellectual attitudes toward the Bible and epitomize the main forms of Jewish spirituality of the period. Rashi was the master of the plain sense; the renowned philosopher and astronomer Abraham ibn Ezra opened vistas for understanding the Bible in terms of new forms of knowledge previously marginal in Judaism; Nahmanides and the Zohar contributed mystical and mythical understandings of the biblical canon. These influential commentaries have attracted the attention of numerous scholars, and many fine studies of their exegetical approaches are available.1
In this chapter, however, I shall be dealing with other forms of exegesis that also generated commentaries on the Torah, although they remained on the margin of Jewish culture, as the recent first printing of some of them indicates.2 In these commentaries, produced by authors belonging to Hasidei Ashkenaz and by the founder of ecstatic Kabbalah, Abraham Abulafia, there are substantial elements of what may be called radical hermeneutics, a phrase I adopt from the title of an excellent book on modern deconstruction.3 By radical I mean two different things. One is an aggressive attitude toward the interpreted text that dissolves its common literal structure, and sometimes the common structure of a particular language, a strategy I shall call deconstructive radicalism, which affects the “expression-plane.”4 The other meaning is the introduction of conceptual elements that are alien to the semantic fields of the interpreted text, an attitude that may be termed semantic radicalism, which in Kabbalistic texts is either allegorical or symbolic. This radical attitude brings together terms and concepts stemming from two or more different forms of thought as expressed in different literary corpora, an approach that will be called intercorporal hermeneutics. The term intercorporal points to the relationship that is established by means of hermeneutical devices between two intellectually different corpora stemming from different cultures and often written in different languages. Intercorporality involves a complex intellectual life that consists in a recognition of the reliability and authority of two different traditions. The process of translating one term into the intellectual framework of another system is not merely participation in “an event of tradition,” as Gadamer would put it, but creation of a third tradition, which to an extent unifies the corpora involved in the intercorporal hermeneutics. The expectation that both the biblical text and the Greek philosophical traditions will accord meant, for medieval as well as some Renaissance thinkers, that a third form of thought, close to the concept of prisca theologia, informs the esoteric meaning of the Bible and Greek philosophical thinking. It is the interplay of two or more heritages that was at work in some of the major medieval exegetical enterprises that concerned us in previous chapters and will continue to hold our attention. In other words, expectations of the existence of levels of Jewish traditions, which are conceived of as esoteric and much richer from the point of view of the realms they cover, informed the interpretive moves of many of the hermeneutes under scrutiny here. More unified forms of knowledge, reminiscent of Gadamer’s “fore-conception of completeness” or more specifically what has been called a “Jewish-Greek” approach, is conspicuous in the medieval philosophy of the Jews but also reverberates in various forms and doses in some of the Kabbalistic exegetical enterprises. It is a new form of organization of knowledge that is introduced by the intercorporal attitude, which unifies at the same time as it reduces the various intellectual traditions used in medieval exegetical interactions. Rather than regarding interpretation as the retrieval of ancient, original knowledge that guides the present, interpretation may be well seen as constructing a sense of broader relevance incorporating strata of human knowledge that corroborate and mutually enrich each other.
I would like to distinguish my understanding of intercorporality from the widespread concept of intertextuality. The latter points to what I have proposed to describe as intracorporal relations. In the forms of intertextuality expounded by Julia Kristeva and in Harold Bloom’s agonistic theory, a prior relation between the writer and the text that the writer absorbs, destroys, or displaces is presupposed. However, the intercorporal relation, despite the rhetoric of the interpreters who resorted to it, can be designated a false or imaginary intertextuality. By false I mean the assumption that many Jewish commentators in the Middle Ages made that all the sciences are found in the text of various details of the Torah and that it is possible to derive them from the “adequate” exploration of the structure of the sacred scriptures. His assumption as such is a false one, though his thought and writing themselves may well be defined as intertextual. Thus, paramount inter-textual writings, which I describe as intercorporal, may be based on assumptions describing false or imaginary intertextualities.
Unlike the intracorporal readings, which may elucidate one term by means of another found in the corpus or at least in the same culture (within a different corpus sharing similar conceptual presuppositions), the intercorporal reading changes, or at least significantly enriches, the conceptual cargo of one of the terms in contact with each other. While the intercorporal interpretation is a strong semantic deconstruction of the initial meaning of the text, the intracorporal one implies a weaker deconstruction of the initial meaning, despite the hyper textual approach. The latter may consist in a strong deconstruction of the linguistic fabric of the text, although semantically the deconstructive process is often less aggressive. In the discussions below I shall consider the Hebrew Bible as one literary corpus, a position that is simplistic given the document theory, which distinguishes between different layers in this collection of texts. If this approach is adopted, the intertextual interpretations found even in the Hebrew Bible may sometime consist in intercorporal exegesis. However, from the point of view of later traditional interpreters, both Jewish and Christian, the Hebrew Bible is a single, rather homogeneous body of writings, and intertextual interpretations are intracorporal.
Although the Hebrew Bible and the rabbinic literature are, from many points of view, different literary corpora, from the intellectual point of view they overlap on many basic issues, and the many intersections among them will therefore be treated not as intercorporal but, to a great extent, as intracorporal. On the other hand, the Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Bible can be described either as intracorporal, if one accepts the Christian view that the Hebrew Bible prefigures events in the Greek Bible, or as intercorporal, if one does not accept this view, and the two texts are conceived of as representing different religious outlooks.
Let me return to the two types of radicalism mentioned above. They cannot be dealt with in detail here, and I shall be focusing my analysis more on the first type. (More on this issue may be found below, in Chapter 11.) However, before addressing deconstructive radicalism, let me offer a short survey of the framework of my discussion. Beyond the specific contributions in content, which are decisive for the whole subsequent history of Jewish hermeneutics, the medieval period contributed unprecedented forms of awareness concerning three components of the hermeneutical process: the nature of the text, the nature of the hermeneute, and the nature of the methods. Only the last topic is represented in earlier rabbinic sources in the form of extended discussions, even treatises, dealing with thirteen or thirty-two measures or methods of interpretation.5 Interestingly, the thirteen measures of exegesis have become part of the ordinary Jewish liturgy and are recited in the morning prayer. The medieval systematic reflections on these issues are part of large-scale reformulations of Judaism after the encounter with Islamic and (to a lesser degree) Christian theologies. Moving from a much more “organic” form of creativity, from a less polemical and more text-centered religiosity as found in the rabbinic literature represented by the Talmud and Midrash, the medieval forms of Judaism express an acute awareness of the challenges other cultures and religions increasingly presented. One of the principal answers to these challenges is the process of arcanization.
Arcanization took place in one of the major religions, which was mostly exoteric in its initial phases, namely biblical and early rabbinic Judaism. During its long peregrinations, however, Judaism assumed some of the most complex esoteric expressions known in any religion. Yet the hermeneutical aspects of this pivotal process have remained on the fringe of modern Jewish scholarship. The process of arcanization adopted more than one form, and its vigor and extent seem not to be paralleled by developments in Christianity and Islam. The former, shrouded in mystery, was reluctant to adopt significant forms of esotericism; the latter, less concerned with mystery, was also less interested in religious secrets. This pendulum swing from exotericism to esotericism in Judaism is a remarkable development that found expression in some major forms of Jewish literature which, though sometimes related or reacting to each other, constitute divergent forms of thought. Those major corpora are Jewish philosophy, represented by two main twelfth-century authors, R. Abraham ibn Ezra and Maimonides, and the huge interpretive literature devoted to their writings; Hasidei Ashkenaz, the Jewish masters active in the Rhineland at the end of the twelfth and beginning of the thirteenth centuries; and Kabbalistic literature, in its various schools and versions. In different forms these three modes of esotericism remained influential until the middle of the seventeenth century, when other currents, which may be described as dearcanizing moves (whose origins are earlier), started to neutralize the effect of some of the strongest arcanizing propensities. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the main innovative forms of Jewish literature, like Polish Hasidism or the Lithuanian Musar literature, were basically indifferent toward the contents of the earlier processes of arcanization. They moved toward an emphasis on inner spiritual development rather then preoccupations with theosophical entities and processes.
The processes of arcanization contributed to new conceptualizations of the canonical texts, exposed in lengthy and authoritative commentaries that embodied the details of the esoteric interpretations. Significantly, the emergence of this interpretive literature was paralleled by the simultaneous emergence of systematic treatments of hermeneutics, including new forms of interpretation. This is the case in Abraham ibn Ezra’s introduction to his commentary on the Pentateuch,6 the important Hasidei Ashkenaz commentator R. Eleazar of Worms’s Sefer ha-Hokhmah,7 the Kabbalistic fourfold method of interpretation known by the acrostic pardes,8 and R. Abraham Abulafia’s explications of his sevenfold method of interpretation.9 The processes of arcanization triggered the emergence not only of the first systematic treatments of modes of interpretation (my focus here) but also of articulated views of the nature of the text and its interpreter. Systematic hermeneutics was articulated as part of a greater process of arcanization of the canonical texts. The new forms of interpretive literature attempted to justify their extraction of the secrets from the plainly exoteric text and to explicate the relationship between the new forms of interpretations and the earlier, more traditional ones. These claims may be thought of as double justifications: one, of the exegetical method and its integration into the culture of the community; the other, of its results within the larger life of the religious community of the hermeneutes, which share the same canonical texts and forms of religious life. Traditional communities encouraged, or at least selected, the more integrative approaches, which do not attempt to discredit or minimize the already existing exegetical approaches but rather strive to capitalize on their achievement and enrich the religious patrimony of that community. Although there sometimes are tensions between the traditional and eccentric exegetical modalities, by and large the more integrative approaches become the more influential ones.
Relating new speculative contents to ancient texts is a complex issue, and the modes of adaptation vary from one corpus to another. We may assume a certain affinity between the type of topics propelled within the text and the methods of these associations. We may generally distinguish between three main forms of extracting or finding secrets within the canonical texts: the numerical, the symbolic, and the allegorical. While the later two methods represent forms of thought most characteristic of Jewish literature in the Middle Ages, the first is well represented in much earlier Jewish sources. Before offering some historical reflections on the numerical devices, let me touch on nonnumerical ones. Both symbols and allegories adopted semantic strategies when approaching the interpreted text. The meaning, or plot, of the commented verse is conceived of as hinting at an additional plot involving layers of existence and experience that are believed to be of a higher religious order than the narrative told on the plain level of the text. One word on the plain level is understood as a code for a concept found on the symbolic or allegorical level, and thus one narrative is exchanged for another narrative. To a certain extent this exegetical development takes extratextual information as the clue to fathoming the hidden and sublime meanings of the canonical text. Thus, one semantic unit, usually a word, is deemed by the interpreter to point to a concept, often stemming from other cultural or intellectual layers than the interpreted text. We may describe this interpretation as intercorporal, which means that bodies of literature are understood to correspond to each other. Unlike intertextual interpretations, which presuppose the impact of one text on another while both texts stem from the same intellectual or literary tradition—one poem influences another, one narrative has an impact on another—the intercorporal interpretation consists in the imposition of the axiology of one corpus on another, which constitutes semantic radicalism.
Numerical interpretation, however, is much more intratextual. It assumes hidden numerical correspondences between linguistic elements found within the same text. In other words, the text is believed to elucidate itself, and the role of the interpreter is to discover these hidden numerical affinities. Although the discovery of such affinities may be conducive to new narratives, this is rarely the case. Unlike the narrative approaches, which infuse new meanings into older texts, frequently the numerical approaches were adduced in order to reinforce the uniqueness of a sacred text. This is the case in the conservative tone of Hasidei Ashkenaz hermeneutics, which found numerical relations between different words in the Bible or between words and pericopes in the Bible and those in the liturgy. By the very disclosure of the structural and formal correspondence, the divine wisdom is revealed and the belief in its perfection strengthened. In the following sections of this chapter, I will propose short surveys of how these radical techniques were in fact used in some of the commentaries on the Pentateuch, as part of the emphasis on an interpreter-oriented ergetic hermeneutics that I believe is characteristic of some Jewish mystical schools. The point I aim to make is that the existence of a multiplicity of radical methods allowed the interpreter a gamut of alternatives from which to choose.
The best known of the radical hermeneutical devices in Jewish mysticism is gematria. Recently it has been the subject of several articles,10 the last two emphasizing the relevance of this device for mystical experience. Therefore, I shall concentrate here on points that still require clarification, relating to gematria and hermeneutics.11
In the texts with which I am acquainted, the Jewish exegetes calculated the numerical value of words, not in order to indulge in Pythagorean speculation as to the special cosmological valence of the number, but for two main reasons. First, they wished to compare (more rarely, to contrast) one word or phrase with another. The numerical calculation leads to a semantic speculation created by producing an encounter between different words or phrases that possess the same numerical value. The chemistry between the different words is believed to be anchored into a primordial affinity that may be demonstrated by pointing out the numerical identity, but the semantic encounter nevertheless emerges from the semantic values of the words, not from their numerical valence. Second, by transforming words into numbers they hoped to extract some sort of theological information. The most famous instance of such a use of gematria in ancient Jewish mysticism is the precise measurement of the divine body, deduced by calculating the numerical valence of a biblical phrase describing God.12 By and large, this method is conservative, for it attempts to make an extra sense of the biblical material that coexists with the plain sense of the verse. This is not the place, however, for a detailed analysis of the different uses of gematria in Jewish mysticism, so I shall restrict my remarks mainly to two corpora: Hasidei Ashkenaz literature13 and the ecstatic Kabbalah, two forms of thought that attributed a decisive role to gematria. In his “gate of gematrias” R. Eleazar of Worms, an early-thirteenth-century Ashkenazi mystic, describes this interpretive technique as follows: “Gai in Greek means number, and matria—wisdom. Another interpretation: Gai means valley, matria means mountains, namely if you throw the mountain into the valley, it will be equal. So also you should do to the Torah, and you should find out what the sages said, in the Midrash or in the Talmud, by way of gematria, or by way of allegory14 … But you should not resort too much to gematria—because even the clowns do so—lest people deride you.”15,16 In spite of his own warning, R. Eleazar of Worms offers several examples of possible uses of this method: ‘“Elohim is equivalent to zeh dayyan;17 ve-’eloheikha in gematria [is tantamount to] be-din. Another thing: ’elohim in gematria [is tantamount to] ha-kisse’,18 and this is the reason why the sages said that this name stands for the ‘attribute of judgment.’”19
The divine name is related to two main concepts: judgment and the throne. Both are part of the patrimony of traditions received by R. Eleazar, and whether he invented the particular gematria or inherited them, we still witness an intra-corporal strategy that creates numerical relations between elements that coexist in the same conceptual system. The introduction of the concept of the chair or throne is an elaboration on the view (found inter alia in the Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, fol. 54a) that the divine throne preexisted the creation of the world. Thus, a mythic vision of the creation of the throne, and its importance to the extent that it is designated by one of the divine names, is emphasized by resorting to gematria. Someone may claim that a semantic radicalism may be discerned in the nexus between a created entity (the throne) and a divine name. Although both indeed preexisted creation, the special nexus of their juxtaposition in this account may significantly shift the meaning of one of the two words. In principle such semantic radical hermeneutics may be possible, but I doubt this is the case in this instance, because a semidivine, feminine status of the throne is already found in the Heikhalot literature.20
What seems to be more radical, however, is the change of the grammatical status of ’elohim from subject to object—no longer the creator, as is the case in the Bible, but the creature. This approach, which may be linguistically radical, is conceptually conservative, for no new concept is introduced by means of the gematria. All the terms linked by the device of gematria were already part of a certain way of thinking. Yet this does not mean that gematria cannot generate new ideas by putting together two elements that were previously unrelated. The numerical method is instrumental in creating unexpected encounters for readers who are less cognizant of the different layers of Jewish tradition. The identification of the attribute of judgment with the divine throne is a plausible example of such an innovation, as I am unaware of the juxtaposition created by two already existing equations: ’elohim = kisse’ and ’elohim = middat ha-din, which produced the identification of middat ha-din with kisse’.21 Creativity may therefore be somehow prompted by means of gematria, although it alone rarely creates radical interpretations.
The most important example of this conservative approach toward numerical calculation in Kabbalah is found in Nahmanides’ sermon Torat ha-Shem Temimah:
Let no one deride me22 because I rely on the calculation of the value of the letters called gematria, and think that it is a vain matter, because someone might change the allusion in verses into a pernicious matter by means of gematria. The truth is that no one is permitted to deal with numerology [in order to] deduce from [numbers] something that occurred to his mind.23 But in the hands of our masters [there was a tradition] that [some] gematrias were transmitted to Moses at Sinai, and they are a reminder and a sign to the subjects transmitted orally together with the remnant of the oral Torah; some of those24 deal with the subjects of haggadot, others with issues of ’issur ve-heter.25
The intracorporal nature of the material involved in the numeric affinity, according to Nahmanides’ view, is obvious: it is the oral Torah that comprises the topics related by numerical calculations, which function as mnemonic techniques. This attitude warrants the conservative nature of these calculations. What is conspicuous here is the apprehension attending innovations that may invade the Jewish discourse by allowing free resort to numerical calculations. In fact the gematrias themselves are part of a tradition, and Nahmanides plausibly insists that new ones should not be invented. We may describe Nahmanides’ approach as expressing an implicit concern with losing control over the halakhic processes, which are determined by nonnumerical rules, despite the fact that gematria was included in the classical list of rabbinic hermeneutics. Out of concern with preserving a religious status quo, which emphasizes the paramount importance of the ritual, the numerical technique is invoked only in order to conserve the achievements of earlier generations.
However, in Kabbalistic numerical hermeneutics, as represented in the writings of Abraham Abulafia, numerical methods are much more radical. Abulafia uses exegetical devices to deconstruct the text before reconstructing it, only then infusing it with new meanings, in a manner reminiscent of what we have proposed to call the intercorporal approach. Therefore, numerical approaches may be either conservative or radical.
As I have mentioned, the general trend of symbolic and allegorical approaches is conservative insofar as the structure of the text is concerned but radical because of the intercorporal tendencies. The numerical approaches of Hasidei Ashkenaz are radical from the standpoint of addressing elements in the interpreted text as disassociated from their immediate context by obliterating the canonical order for the sake of an intertextual interpretation. Intracorporal interpretations can extract the same term or different terms from their context in order to relate them according to a common formal feature, such as gematria. The fabric of the text is sometimes obliterated. In ecstatic Kabbalah, however, we find the radicalism of the intratextual approach as well as that of the intercorporal.
As I am concerned here only with numerical hermeneutics, let me illustrate the above statements by some examples. In one of his commentaries on Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed, Abulafia addresses the concept of gematria in some detail:
The gematrias comprise issues related to measures26 and the geometrical forms27 and the numbers. But there are persons who claim that the num-ber28 is not comprised [in this category]. But I know that the term gematria stems indubitably from Greek, because they call the earth yay29 and call the measure metron, and therefore its meaning is “the measure of the earth” and the name of the number is likewise so. And also in our language middah means measuring,30 and measuring is the number. But the number is found also in thought, and this is the reason why it is called calculation31 and measuring is predicated on something which has a size in reality which is greater32 either by its length or its breadth or its height. And the line [and] the point and the letter tell us the secrets of all the names, which represent reality.33 And we know that just as reality easily shows the philosophers the essences of things, all the letters too represent to us34 the essence of things in an even easier manner. This is why we have [esoteric] traditions which represent more easily the attributes of God, blessed be He, and His governance and providence, and His influx, and the existence of His actions, and what he [the Kabbalist] hears from it is something that the philosophers cannot attain even after a long toil, and after lengthy times and many studies, because about holy names you will hear [here].35
Abulafia’s book is a linguistically oriented commentary on the most logo-centric book written in Judaism up to that time, the Guide of the Perplexed. Thus, it is a conscious enterprise to submit Maimonides’ intellectualistic classic to forms of interpretation that stem from the earlier Jewish exegetical arsenal of what could be called eccentric hermeneutics, which Maimonides himself would have rejected.36 For Abulafia gematria, but not the combinations of letters, is fundamentally related to the understanding of reality. This does not mean that Abulafia did not consider this method exegetical. As we shall see, he expressly did consider it so from the very beginning of his literary activity. He discusses philosophy as revealing the essence of reality and sees Kabbalah as able to obtain the same information more easily, and to enjoy additional forms of gnosis unavailable to the philosophers. At least in the first case, the difference between philosophy and Kabbalah is only a matter of measure, not category. Gematria for Abulafia, like geometry for the Greeks, involves an understanding of reality, namely a nontextual hermeneutics, applied to the book of nature. For the Greeks, however, the main avenue is a matter of measuring nature by means of lines and points; for Kabbalah, however, it is the letters and the names that allow easier access to the same subject: the essences of reality. At least from this point of view ecstatic Kabbalah differs from the attitude of the theosophical-theurgical Kabbalists, who were looking symbolically at reality through the prism of the Torah as an absorbing universe, as we shall see in the next chapter.
Yet whereas Greek philosophers measured external reality and systemized their findings accordingly, Kabbalah obtains information from a text, from letters and names, as interpreted by means of gematria. From this standpoint the Greek approach is basically logocentric, for it assumes that language not only represents reality feebly but that it does not provide the best way to achieve understanding. Hence the information harbored by sacred texts is, for the Kabbalist, superior to natural science. Abulafia and many other Kabbalists would say that although there is nature outside the text, nature is best found within the text alone. To what extent there is an identity between essences in reality and the Hebrew letters, or to what extent letters are the most important channel for arriving at the transcendental essences, is less evident. This is a complex issue, and I do not believe that a simple answer does justice to the intricate discussions of Abulafia’s numerous texts. If the former answer emerges as predominant, the logocentric view will somehow be attenuated while the second possibility will enforce logocentric interpretation of ecstatic Kabbalah.
The divine attributes, the middot, and the knowledge of the essences found in reality are related to each other, as both are obtained by means of the linguistic rather than the geometric technique. Thus, for Abulafia geometry illustrates the Greek naturalistic attitude toward reality while gematria is presented as the Jewish attitude that prefers the book of God to the book of nature. How gematria both serves as an exegetical technique and facilitates understanding of divinity and existence we may learn from Abulafia’s very first book: “Divine names37 change the nature,38 [as they] are the throne,39 and this is the secret of [the verse]40 ‘the finger of God,’41 namely the finger changes nature42 by virtue of the mentioned ’Elohim, which is the attribute of judgment.”43,44
In order to better understand Abulafia’s exegetical move, let me adduce the interpreted verse: “This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh’s heart was hardened.” The Egyptian magicians explain the intervention in nature represented by the plagues as the work of the divine finger. The semantic field of the verse has to do with miraculous changes in the course of events for the purpose of bringing about a historical event: the deliverance of the people of Israel. In fact, neither the concept of nature nor a term that might convey it was available in biblical Hebrew. Abulafia introduced the term teva, a medieval neologism denoting nature, which in the definite form ha-teva’ is numerically equivalent to the divine name ’elohim. The biblical verse deals, therefore, with the intervention of the finger of God in nature. Prima facie we witness here an intercorporal interpretation, which links a certain intervention to the mode of thought that deals with a regular path of events (nature), and the breaking of that path; therefore the rapprochement between the biblical and Greek corpora is achieved by means of gematria. We witness not only a radical semantic form of hermeneutics but also a deconstructive radicalism, which affects the grammatical structure of the text, for the following reason. The Hebrew phrase ’etzba‘’elohim is a construct form, and ’elohim is part of the phrase “finger of God.” But by adducing the gematria of’ elohim as nature, the biblical phrase is disassembled so that the finger is understood to intervene within the elohim, which is tantamount to nature. Thus it is not simply a matter of exchanging one word for another, ’elohim for teva‘, but an extraordinary move that construes a whole drama between the two nouns, which originally are part of one expression. In other words, it is a syntactic aggression that divides two parts of one grammatical construct in order to introduce a term that represents a concept alien to the original corpus. What seems most important in our case, however, is not so clear from the careful formulation of the quoted passage: nature is identical with the divine attribute of judgment, and it appears, on the basis of many other passages, that no change can be assumed to take place, because nature is conceived to be unchangeable.45
In another discussion the same author indicates that “The name ’elohim comprises [several meanings]: it is an appellative for the totality of the natural forces; it is part of the names of the first cause, and it refers also to an attribute of Him, by which He, glory to Him, is separated from other entities.”46 The verb translated as “comprises” is kolel, which, like the appellative, kinnuy, is numerically equivalent to ’elohim, each having the value 86. If’ elohim points to natural forces, then the intervention was neither extraordinary nor miraculous but natural. Therefore the introduction of the term teva‘ constitutes both a violation of Hebrew syntax, a move I propose to describe as deconstructive radicalism, and semantic radicalism, because the meaning of teva‘ dramatically altered the message of the verse. In fact, someone may even argue that the volitional theology of the Bible has been replaced by a more naturalistic understanding of reality.
To put it differently: the canonical text is understood as dealing not only with a particular instance in history when God intervened and changed the regular course of events by a miracle. In fact, the sacred scriptures are understood as pointing to a new form of discourse, one that deals with the question of nature, its stability, and the relations between the natural order and divine attributes. Again the emphasis is not on the numerical structure, because the number 86 is not attributed to any specific quality per se, as representing a certain cosmological feature. What is more important is the relationship that is established between a divine name and a term dealing with Neoaristotelian physics. This move, which is represented by many other examples in Abulafia’s writings and those of his followers, takes the use of gematria a long way from its cautious application in Nahmanides. In lieu of establishing affinities between intracorporal elements and thus strengthening a closed system, as is the case in Hasidei Ashkenaz and Nahmanides, Abulafia uses this device so as to put the closed system in relation with other corpora, in a manner reminiscent of the allegorical strategy adopted by Maimonides and his followers. However, while the latter were more conservative from the linguistic point of view, because they did not attribute an important noetic role to language, the ecstatic Kabbalist introduced a mysticism of language that allows more precise affinities between alien concepts and traditional terminology. Moreover, among the most outstanding characteristics of Abraham Abulafia’s writings is the relatively large-scale resort to gematrias that involve a variety of alien words, mainly Greek but also Latin, Basque, Turkish, and Arabic.47 The more universalistic approach that is conveyed by this practice is in stark contrast to Nahmanides’ approach.
According to a statement in the introduction to Abulafia’s Commentary on the Pentateuch, which deals with a biblical story “they [the words of a verse] are taken within the philosophical approach, [they] become related to each other in a general manner, and not in all particulars. Whereas according to the methods of Kabbalah, not [even] one letter is left unused [by the commentator].”48 The hyperliteral approach that takes into consideration each and every letter of the interpreted text is basically different from the allegorical method of interpretation, which is more concerned with the general narrative than with the details of the interpreted text. While the conceptual additions to the contents of Jewish thought made by the ecstatic Kabbalist by means of gematria stem largely from Greek thought, the technique derives from Hasidei Ashkenaz, as well as some Greek and ultimately Babylonian sources.
I have explained the medieval systematization of the exegetical methods as emerging together with esoteric literatures—philosophical ones related to Hasidei Ashkenaz or Kabbalistic ones. Is there any significant affinity between elaborate arcanization and systematic hermeneutics? The praxis evident in these literatures demonstrates that this seems to be the case. But if so, we should speak about a double process of arcanization: that of the content of the scriptures, which originally was exoteric, and that of the exegetical methods, because these were conceived of as part of the esoteric literature, although earlier they were part of the rabbinic, exoteric literature. Such an arcanization of the exegetical devices is possible, though not necessary. Let me deal a bit more with the esoteric nature of the exegetical methods and the possible solutions for their emergence in the Middle Ages.
Some form of exegetical thought may be discerned earlier in R. Yehudah he-Hasid’s Commentary on the Pentateuch, where the term sod is used in order to point to esoteric interpretations.49 In his writings, however, no systematic treatment can be detected. According to his disciples, R. Eleazar of Worms, the author of the first extant treatise on Ashkenazi hermeneutics, Sefer ha-Hokhmah, also called the book Secret of Secrets, and it consists in seventy-three methods of interpreting the Bible, which he enumerates, explains, and exemplifies copiously.50 He points out explicitly that these techniques, which involve a variety of numerical methods, were part of an esoteric tradition he inherited from his master, R. Yehudah he-Hasid. He claims that the “fifty gates of understanding”—a classical rabbinic phrase51 which in my opinion sometimes points in R. Eleazar’s writings to non-rabbinic issues52—represent the realm of secret, sod, which is decoded from the biblical text by means of the seventy-three gates of wisdom.53 The fifty gates of understanding represent the conceptual arcanization. The seventy-three gates, however, are also seen as part of the esoteric tradition.54 Thus, the exegetical methods elicit not only secrets from a text but also secret topics in themselves. If, historically speaking, R. Eleazar is right and indeed he has been initiated into a series of exegetical norms by his master, as he explicitly claims, his exposition of these norms is a matter not of arcanizing exoteric norms but simply of revealing and to an extent exotericizing them after they had been handed down as part of an esoteric tradition. Again, if this claim is true, a substantial body of exegetical techniques has been transmitted as if it were esoteric topics. Among these techniques, the numerical ones, including gematria, played a very important role.
A similar situation may be discerned in Abraham Abulafia’s description of the advanced stages of his sevenfold hermeneutic system. When describing his three last forms of interpretation, he sees them as the secret ones, and all three involve deconstructive radicalism55 as they dissolve the commented text into its basic elements in order to build up new words, which are conceived of as “the meaning” of the interpreted text. These interpretive techniques, which include gematria as part of the sixth technique,56 are described as “the hidden path of the Kabbalah.”57 Therefore, the claim of two of those Jewish mystics who committed to writing the deconstructive radical methods, which include gematria, was that they inherited an esoteric tradition. Yet on the basis of the resort to gematria in rabbinic sources, and its inclusion in rabbinic exegetical methods,58 this claim of esotericism is a difficult one to maintain. Indeed, as R. Eleazar mentioned in one of the passages quoted above, even the clowns would use gematria. If these masters did not receive such a technique as esoteric, their claim would be superfluous, given that the method itself was already well established and therefore not in need of authoritative sources.
What, then, is the weight of such a claim for esotericism? Any possible answer depends on the earlier existence of traditions that would describe the technique of gematria as esoteric. Only if the existence of such a claim—or, even better, claims—could be demonstrated might the claims of the medieval masters carry some historical weight. But such a claim cannot be found in the rabbinic sources. Nevertheless, it was part of the very ancient Mesopotamian lore. As Stephen Lieberman has shown, some of the interpretive techniques that are very similar to the rabbinic, exoteric ones, including the techniques that correspond to gematria, were part of the esoteric lore in Mesopotamia.59 Lieberman compared the Mesopotamian material to the Jewish material that is closest in time, namely the rabbinic sources. He demonstrated in a virtuoso manner the similarities between some ancient techniques and rabbinic ones, but did not address the question of the discrepancy between ancient esoteric techniques in Mesopotamia and the quite exoteric rabbinic material that was informed by them. (This does not, of course, invalidate his conclusions.)
May we portray a historical development that started with the esoteric Mesopotamian technique, then made an exoteric move in the rabbinic texts, and then underwent arcanization in Hasidei Ashkenaz? Such a development is certainly possible, although it is far from plausible. One of the main reasons for my reticence to embrace this scenario is R. Eleazar’s claim that he indeed inherited the interpretive techniques as an esoteric tradition. Thus, although the gap in time between the ancient non-Jewish techniques and the medieval Jewish ones is much greater than in the case of the rabbinic sources, there still are two reasons to make the historical claim of an affinity between the two claims plausible. One, the common esoteric nature, has already been mentioned. The second reason is much more complicated.
Lieberman has described some intricate interpretive techniques used in Mesopotamia, but nothing so complex is known in the rabbinic sources. Although he was aware of more complex “Kabbalistic” forms of numerical interpretation60—in fact, those of Hasidei Ashkenaz—he did not follow up on the possibility that the more complex systems, though historically later, are nevertheless closer to the Mesopotamian material he adduced. One might suppose that similarities between corpora written in such different geographical areas, composed in different languages, and belonging to different literary corpora should not be compared, and they even constitute less plausible candidates for an attempt to establish a historical nexus between them. This is indeed a cautious approach, and the problems created by neglecting it may be quite serious. But there is no reason not to suggest possibilities that cannot, for the time being, be proven by means of standard approaches.61
One last interesting observation: according to a recent proposal, the Aramaic form gematrin, found long before the twelfth century, is related to the Greek grammateia, which denotes “a scribal means of writing secretly.”62
Let me describe briefly other exegetical techniques63 that are part of what I propose to call deconstructive radicalism: changing the order of the letters of a certain word or words in order to create a combination that is supposed to clarify or reveal the meaning of the original. The numerical calculation does change either the letters of a given word or even their order but enriches the word’s semantic cargo by confronting it with another, or other, numerically equivalent word or words. Just as in the case of allegorical and symbolic interpretations, the stability of the interpreted text is preserved, but the more comprehensive discourse is fragmented by a strong extraction of a word and the infusion of an additional meaning on the basis of nonsemantic reasons. Thus, the hermeneutical norm of gematria stands somewhere between semantic and deconstructive radicalism, for it overemphasizes the basic linguistic components at the expense of the more comprehensive linguistic units, namely words or sentences.
Other forms of exegesis are even more radical, however. The most interesting of them, and of a paramount importance for some techniques found in Jewish mysticism, is the combination of letters.64 First, as we saw in Chapter 1, it was more a cosmogonic technique already central for Sefer Yetzirah but also known in talmudic texts and influential on subsequent developments in Jewish mysticism and magic until late Hasidism, as we shall discover in Chapter 12. R. Abraham Abulafia contends in his first book, written in Spain in 1273, that
under this category65 there are gematrias and calculations,66 etc., and temurah, that is, the exchange of one letter for another, and its substitution, and its replacement for another, like the letters ’a[leph], h[et], h[e], ’a[yin], and the similar letters, all have substitutes. And this is a glorious lore,67 to be done everywhere in an appropriate manner, without adding or diminishing; and the combinations of letters is the permutation of one letter to another, without substituting them at all, like ’adam, ’amad, dama’, da’ am, mada’. And this is also a very glorious lore, and by means of these things the secrets of the Torah will be revealed, but not in any other ways.68
The Kabbalists use either of two devices. One involves manipulating the letters of a single word, changing their order or exchanging one letter for another, techniques described under the umbrella term temurah. The other, more complex technique is combination of letters, tzerufei ‘otiyyot, by which a variety of letters, either those of the Hebrew alphabet in general or those belonging to different words, undergo change.69 The method of gematria is explicitly described as different from combination of letters, although both are techniques for discovering the secrets of the Torah. To put it in a more radical way, an ecstatic Kabbalist may or should apply to the same word a variety of modes of radical hermeneutics, which in principle are, according to Abulafia, infinite in number.70 Indeed, Abulafia regards the principle of combination of letters as the essence of language itself, and therefore it is not only an exegetical norm but also the very structure of language. In several instances he adduces the gematria tzeruf’otiyyot = shiv’yim leshonot, namely the phrase “combination of letters” is numerically tantamount to the phrase “seventy languages,” a figure that points to the totality of languages.
We may assume that this passage, as well as many other texts of Abulafia’s, had an impact on the introduction to an early-sixteenth-century treatise on ecstatic Kabbalah composed by R. Yehudah Albotini in Jerusalem, in which we read:
the paths of combinations of letters and their permutations … which is a glorious lore,71 from which the secrets of the Torah will be revealed; and the different types of gematrias … to know the supreme and wondrous name, and they are also like a ladder to ascend to the degree that is the most sublime of all the degrees, to bring and to cause the descent of the influx from God, blessed be He, which cause that man will attain the divine spirit, and to the degree of prophecy, by means of the paths of hitbodedut72 and asceticism.73
The phrase “glorious lore” is absolutely identical to that occurring in the passage from Abulafia. In both cases knowledge of the secrets of the Torah is mentioned in the context of gematria and combination of letters. I am inclined to see in Abulafia’s book the source of the later treatise. Yet despite this similarity the sixteenth-century Kabbalist adds to Abulafia’s claim the explicit view, which may be inferred from Abulafia but apparently was never expressed by him, that gematria may cause the descent of the divine influx and perhaps a mystical experience. Such a claim recurs in several contexts in ecstatic Kabbalah and talismanic discussions as an attribute of the process of combination of letters,74 but it seems that Albotini is the first who explicitly combines this issue with the resort to gematria and to mystical experience.75 In both cases the interpreted word supplies only the prime matter for the creative game of the Kabbalists, who permuted letters in a variety of ways. Indeed, in defining Kabbalah Abulafia wrote: “The true Kabbalah which is in our hands is [claims] that whoever is not cognizant of the combination of letters76 and is not very experienced and has examined them77 and also in the calculation of the letters78 and their separation [from one word]79 and their conjugation,80 and their reversal81 and permutation,82 and their exchange,83 as it is written in Sefer Yetzirah84 according to our path, he does not know God [ha-shem, or the Name]. Therefore, it is impossible to comprehend reality but by means of the names.”85
The exegetical techniques are therefore not only a matter of interpretive norms but also paths for attaining knowledge of God in general—in Abulafia’s writings, I would say, an experimental knowledge of God. However, in addition to the religious valence of hermeneutic radicalism, knowledge of God, and even the achievement of mystical experiences, Abulafia introduced a more scientific achievement: comprehension of reality. Yet although in the last quote the two topics are mentioned together, in other instances these two achievements do not coexist so easily. So, for example, in one of his later works, after enumerating the books that constitute Aristotle’s Organon, Abulafia claims that he studied them in depth; but then he mentions the existence of a superior wisdom, “the path of the knowledge of the permutation of letters, which is more excellent than that [of Aristotle], its essence having been explained in the commentaries on Sefer Yetzirah.” The Kabbalistic way, which is tantamount to Abulafia’s own ecstatic Kabbalah, is regarded as superior to Aristotelian logic, as the former is the science of the “inner [and] superior logic” while the latter is an “external and lower aspect” in comparison to Kabbalistic logic.86 Several times in his writings Abu-lafia described the sixth and seventh ways of interpreting the Torah by means of various eccentric techniques, some of them ergetic.87 And though not in a systematic exegetical treatment, all these techniques were put in practice by a variety of Kabbalists.
Let me adduce one more example of the belief that combination of letters is an exegetical technique for understanding the arcana in the Torah—in addition to the Torah’s mystical function—from a book by a student of Abulafia. In Gate of Vowels R. Joseph Gikatilla wrote: “The entire Torah is woven [ne’ereget] from letters, as if you will say that the word bereshit emerged when someone mixed these six letters with each other, by the mixture of these letters and the understanding of the depth88 of their permutation89 and their combination90 the prophets and visionaries penetrated the mysteries of the Torah.”91 The idea of the woven Torah also occurs elsewhere in Gikatilla’s writings,92 and in both cases the assumption is reminiscent of the various descriptions found in Plato’s Cratylus (387e-388c, 425a, 431b) and Sophist (259e, 262c).93 Yet if for Plato the texture created by weaving is a matter of combinations of words, for Gikatilla it is the letters that provide the threads of the linguistic fabric. In any case, both authors compare the texture to the creation of the world.94
Let me now adduce one of the most important formulations regarding the discovery of the secrets of the Torah by means of combination of letters, as explicated by one of the most influential Kabbalists, the Safedian rabbi Moses Cordovero. In his widespread Pardes Rimmonim Cordovero, allowing a wide range of hyper textual readings of the Bible, contends that
the knowledge of the secrets of our Torah is by means of the tzerufim and gematria’ot and temurot and rashei teivot and sofei teivot and tokhei teivot and rashei pesuqim and sofei pesuqim and dillug ’otiyyot and tzeruf ‘otiyyot. And those matters are sublime and hidden and their secret is sublime [sic] and we have no power to comprehend them because of their outmost concealment because they [the secrets] are shifting in accordance with these paths to the infinite, in a limitless manner.95
This passage represents a moment of canonization of the ancient exegetical practices by a famous theosophical Kabbalist, who absorbed significant aspects of the ecstatic Kabbalah in his influential compendium. Despite the fact that in this passage, and in its context, Cordovero argues that those techniques are almost unknown and will be revealed in the eschaton, he describes them in some detail immediately afterward. There is no plausible reason to doubt the impact of ecstatic Kabbalah on this passage from Cordovero, and my assumption, to be elaborated in Chapter 12, is that the Safedian Kabbalist adopted exegetical techniques and concepts of the Torah stemming from Abraham Abulafia and his followers.
However, what is important for some of the contentions about to be presented in the next chapter is that Kabbalists were rarely concerned with ineffability or ontological transcendence, while expressions of noetic insufficiency related to the understanding of the divine realm are rather poor. In the last quote there is a clear example of noetic insufficiency, yet it is concerned not with the divine structures or powers but with secrets of the Torah and techniques of its interpretation. In fact, there is nothing reminiscent of the theologia negativa, but because of the assumption that there is a huge number of mathematically oriented exegetical methods, the secrets shift frequently and the human mind is unable to follow them. It is essential to pay attention to Cordovero’s remark that the secrets shift with the methods of interpretation. This is a recognition that the secrets depend on methods which in themselves can be understood and controlled. Although such an approach does not involve acknowledging that secrets are projected, the affinity Cordovero established between methods and secrets constitutes a step in the direction of the strong reader or interpreter.
Though technically identical, the Ashkenazi use of deconstructive radicalism is different from that of the ecstatic forms of deconstruction and their reverberations. We have seen the difference between the intracorporal and intercorporal approaches. Here I would like to suggest another major difference between the two main medieval hermeneutical treatments. The seventy-three techniques enumerated by R. Eleazar of Worms are conceived of as equally important or esoteric. We may describe R. Eleazar’s list as horizontal, for it does not attempt to offer a hierarchical distinction between the numerous methods of interpretation.
R. Abraham Abulafia, on the other hand, offered a very careful structure of seven modes of exegesis, arranged in what I propose to call a vertical hierarchical structure. The first three stages, or lower level, is the plain sense, the fourth the allegorical one, and the last three Kabbalistic. The verticality of the exegetical norms on the list is strengthened by its social implications, because the lower stages are explicitly intended for the vulgus (the common people), the fourth for the philosophers, and the last three to the few elite. Ontologically speaking, the different social groups were considered to be interested in the more material, philosophical, and spiritual topics, which stand also for the ladder of beings which brings men to God. Moreover, the higher the exegetical method on the exegetical ladder, the greater the ergetical character of the technique.
Let me adduce a clear example of the strong hierarchical propensity of Abu-lafia’s hermeneutics:
This knowledge should be taken by the righteous from the Torah according to its plain sense, in order to perfect his righteousness, but if he wants to become a pious man, he should approach it by means of the path of the philosophical-esoterical one. However, if he desires to prophesy, he must approach it according to the “path of the names,” which is the esoteric path, received from the divine intellect96 … If you want to be righteous alone, it suffices that you will follow the paths of the Torah, on the path of its plain form. If you wish to arrive at being pious alone, it suffices that you will know the secrets of the Torah in the manner of the men of inquiry, together with your being righteous. However, if you want to be prophets, it will suffice to follow the path of the prophets, whose path was to combine the [letters of the] entire Torah and to approach it by the path of the holy names, from its beginning to the end, as it reached us in a true Kabbalah regarding it [the path] that “the entire Torah is [consists] of the names of the Holy One, blessed be He,”97 together with being perfect in the first two paths.98
The affinity between the linguistic path of the names, which culminates in the practice of a discipline that involves at the lower stages both gematria and combination of letters, and prophecy is a central point in Abulafia’s system, just as it surfaces in the passage from R. Joseph Gikatilla quoted above. How may such a view be integrated into the innovative exegetical system of ecstatic Kabbalah? In my opinion, the immersion in exercises involving linguistic techniques, the ergetic practices, was envisioned as capable of inducing an ecstatic state of consciousness when text and language took over the mystic’s consciousness. Just as a modern deconstructive thinker would consider language as taking over the author and thus obliterating the importance of the authorial intent, so too some of the Jewish mystics claim that their interpretations are transmitted to them by higher entities with which they either communicate or identify. In the case of Abulafia, not only was the main technique that was believed to induce mystical experiences basically linguistic, but also the agent intellect was conceived to be primordial speech.
The intellectual hierarchy suggested in this passage from Abulafia therefore strengthens the hermeneutical one. The hierarchical structure emerges out of an attempt, found also in other forms of Kabbalah (especially in Castile), to integrate into one structure a variety of forms of literature, as we may learn from an analysis of the fourfold pardes interpretations.99
The Ashkenazi esoteric literature was less open to integrating significant bodies of alien material, what I call intercorporality, and the need to deal with problems of hierarchy was less evident. The Ashkenazi masters had to choose between equally important exegetical strategies, which were applied in most cases intra-textually, while some of the Spanish Kabbalists had to establish the superiority of Kabbalah in an intellectual ambiance that was permeated by a variety of bodies of thought. Thus its hermeneutics is sometimes arranged hierarchically, exploiting and emphasizing the differences between the corpora and the need for different exegetical strategies pertinent to these corpora, and sometimes conceived of as horizontal and intercorporal, as striving to point out the alleged correspondences or, to use a Renaissance term, hidden concordances between historically and conceptually diverse corpora. It should be mentioned, however, that despite the sometimes quite artificial interpretations of the sacred scriptures by means of a variety of Greek philosophical systems, these semantically radical interpretations became an integral part of the conceptualization of Judaism; in other words, they were significantly incorporated. This dynamics of incorporation, which absorbs the concepts that were introduced by intercorporal hermeneutics, is one of the most interesting processes in the intellectual expansions of Jewish thought. That is to say, the profound absorption of the attainments of intercorporal exegesis created subsequent forms of new intracorporal interpretations.
The eccentric hermeneutical techniques described above mainly on the basis of the thirteenth-century corpora were accepted as part of Jewish and Christian Kabbalah. Some of Abulafia’s foremost passages describing his views were incorporated in Sefer ha-Peliy’ah, a classic of Kabbalah written late in the fourteenth century in the Byzantine Empire.100 This is evident from the important role the exegetical techniques play in the most influential exposition of Kabbalah, Johann Reuchlin’s De Arte Cabalistica. Even more detailed is the treatment of thirty-two exegetical techniques used by Kabbalists offered by Nicolas le Fevre de la Boderie in a work attached to his brother Guy’s translation of Francesco Giorgio Veneto’s De Harmonia Mundi.101 Written in French and printed in Paris in 1588, it made available to a wider audience an exhaustive description of numerous Kabbalistic exegetical techniques, some taken from Abulafia’s writings. As we have seen, in their generation a distinguished Safedian Kabbalist, R. Moses Cordovero, incorporated many of the Ashkenazi and Abulafian eccentric techniques in his widely influential Pardes Rimmonim, thus offering a synthesis between the Spanish Kabbalah and the techniques that were much less in vogue in the Iberian peninsula. Whole gates of Cordovero’s classic book are devoted to explanations of the meaning of individual letters and to the presentation of interpretive techniques which became the patrimony of much larger audiences once the book was printed in 1584.102 Under his own direct influence, as well as that of his students and of Sefer ha-Peliy’ah, the eccentric techniques were adopted and used almost constantly in Polish Hasidism.103 They even appeared in the writings of a close disciple of R. Elijah of Vilnius, R. Menahem Mendel of Shklow, who was acquainted with some of Abulafia’s most important works, from which he quoted from time to time, and absorbed the ecstatic Kabbalists’ hermeneutical approaches.104