Tree of Souls Read online

  Notes

  1Ff. Pesikta Rabbati, chap. 28 et al.

  2By this I mean the various streams of Judaism that are shaped by, and owe allegiance to, Rabbinic authority as it evolves.

  3For other examples of this phenomenon, see Michael Fishbane, The Exegetical Imagination (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), esp. chapters 3 and 6.

  4A short list of recent scholarship on Jewish myth might include the works of Michael Fishbane, Yehuda Liebes’ two volumes for SUNY Press, Arthur Green’s Keter (Princeton, 1997), and the two issues of the Journal of Jewish Philosophy and Thought devoted to myth and ritual, vol. 6:1-2 (1997). The Hebrew reader might also consider Ha-Mitos be-Yahadut [Myths in Judaism], edited by Moshe Idel and Ithamar Gruenwald (Jerusalem: Z. Shazar, 2004). Broadly speaking, most Judaic scholars through the 1970’s tended to define myth narrowly and negatively, linking it with so-called “pagan” religions. They therefore tended to see Judaism as a demythologizing tradition, broken only by the “mythic resurgence” of kabbalah. Most recent scholars understand myth more broadly, as a fundamental human impulse (found in virtually all cultures) to structure life around orienting Stories. These scholars find rich myths in all strata of Judaism: not only in kabbalistic ritual but in Biblical imagery and Rabbinic aggadah. They extend the mythic arc to contemporary Judaism, to the Zionist marking of “wilderness as mythic space” to give one potent example. My fundamental sympathies, and those of Howard Schwartz, clearly lie with these “myth-friendly” scholars. For a spirited debate over the place of myth in Judaism, see Yehuda Liebes’ and Shalom Rosenberg’s pieces in Mada’ei ha-Yahadut 39 (1998). For two now-classic studies of the Jewish mythic imagination (especially in mystical tradition) see Gershom Scholem’s On the Kabbalah and its Symbolism (NY: Schocken, 1965) and On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead (ibid., 1991). Finally, for the ways in which diverse cultures make use of their central stories, see Wendy Doniger’s splendid Other People’s Myths: The Cave of Echoes (NY: Macmillan, 1988).

  5Canonization led to the possibility of grasping Scripture all at once, as a totality, in an almost holographic fashion. In rabbinic midrash, for example, one could read a given verse intertextually: in light of a pasuk rahok, a verse taken from a wholly different literary context with which, however, ingenious associations could be made.

  6The slippage from past tense to present tense here is intentional, exemplifying the mythic tendency to collapse orders of time, i.e., to blur the distinctions between then and now.

  7For Scholem, see his “Revelation and Tradition as Religious Categories” in The Messianic Idea in Judaism (NY: Schocken, 1971; for the Fishbane, see The Exegetical Imagination, p. 94.

  8This is not to say that everyone is equally empowered to interpret; rather, it is the religious virtuosi, the Rabbis, who assume that central role. Clearly, Howard Schwartz goes beyond the traditional Rabbinic models of authority in this book. On the three quotations cited here, see Ps. 62:12, quoted in sundry rabbinic sources; the rendering of Jer. 23:29 in TB Sanhedrin 34a; and TB Eruvin 13b et al.

  9On seventy faces, a shorthand for the inexhaustible fount of meaning, see Nachmanides to Gen. 8:4; Bachya ben Asher to Ex. 24:12, et al. On 600,000 faces, one for every soul at Sinai, see Hayyim Vital, Sha’ar ha-Kavvanot 53b; Moshe Cordovero, Derishah be-inyanei Mal’akhim; and the discussion in Scholem’s “The Meaning of Torah in Jewish Mysticism” in his On the Kabbalah and its Symbolism (NY: Schocken, 1965). On the white spaces, see Levi Yitzhak of Berdichev in Imrei Tzaddikim (cited in Scholem, “Meaning of Torah,” 81ff.) and the Noam Elimelekh cited in the Slonimer Rebbe’s Netivot Shalom: Mo’adim “Shavuot” s.v. “hag ha-’atzeret”.

  10My rendering is drawn from Hayyei Moharan pp. 3:3 ff. Likutei Moharan 1:20. See also the translation and discussion in Arthur Green, Tormented Master, esp. pp. 198-200.

  11In the Idrot section of the Zohar, the source for Nachman’s riff, this gesture itself is replete with meaning. But that matter lies beyond the scope of this essay!

  12Of course, there are exceptions to this model. Gods and heroes can act in ways in which ordinary folks cannot. Thus, King David’s sexual behavior is not simply valorized; and Moses is variously seen as exemplary (a model that can be asymptotically approached by the spiritual virtuoso) and exceptional, the figure who is sui generis and cannot be emulated. The Arthur Green quotation is taken from his “Jewish Studies, Jewish Faith,” Tikkun 1:1, p. 87; the Geertz citation comes from his The Interpretation of Cultures (NY: Basic Books, 1973).

  13The genius of our last reading, from a midrashic standpoint, is that it was able to be justified scripturally. The ram, Gen. 22:13 relates, was offered tahat b’no, in place of Isaac. But by choosing a secondary meaning of tahat, the interpreter astonishingly reads: after Isaac! The classical discussion of the Binding, as well as its midrashic, textual anchorings, can be found in Shalom Spiegel’s The Last Trial (Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights reprint, 1993).

  14This formulation was inspired by a long-ago conversation with my teacher, Arthur Green.

  15These notions have been developed by James Kugel in his “Two Introductions to Midrash” in Hartman and Budick, eds. Midrash and Literature (New Haven: Yale, 1986) and by Michael Fishbane in his various writings on Jewish hermeneutics.

  16The Hebrew YSF can be read either as “to add” or via a homonym “to end” or cease.

  17See Scholem’s magisterial essay, “Revelation and Tradition as Religious Categories in Judaism” in his The Messianic Idea in Judaism. This particular chain of readings is drawn from the 16th century kabbalist Meir ibn Gabbai’s Avodat ha-Kodesh 3:23.

  18From his The Texture of Memory (New Haven, Yale: 1994)

  19Myth 109 on the Primordial Light.

  20Oral communication from Reb Zalman Schachter-Shalomi, from whom I first heard this saying. And cf. Heschel’s The Earth is the Lord’s (NY: Schuman, 1950), p. 15, where we find the variant: “story where soul surprises the mind.”

  21See Pesikta Rabbati, chap. 21.

  22For a recent discussion of the anthological imagination in Judaism, and its various sub-genres, see the three issues of the journal Prooftexts, vol. 17:1-2 and 19:1 (1997/99). Of special use is David Stern’s prefatory comments in 17:1.

  23Bialik and Ravnitzky focused on relatively well-known Rabbinic works; while Ginzberg’s terminus ad quem was prior to the Safed Revival in the 16th century.

  24Likutei Moharan 1:65. For a translation of this text, see Lawrence Kushner, The Way into Jewish Mysticism (Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights, 2001) 147-149.

  INTRODUCTION

  I. The Mythical Strata of Judaism

  Is there a Jewish mythology? At first glance, it might not seem to exist. After all, the central principle of Judaism is monotheism—belief in one God, excluding the very possibility of other gods. How can there be a mythology where there is only one God, without any interaction between gods, one of the hallmarks of mythology? Mythology seems to imply a multiplicity of supernatural forces, which gives the story of divinity a tension and an excitement it does not have when there is only an all-powerful single Deity. And since, in the monotheistic view, God created the world out of nothing, ex nihilo, doesn’t this imply that God is the only inhabitant of heaven? Otherwise it could be said that other deities or divine beings participated in the Creation or have a share in ruling the world.

  With only one God, heaven would be a barren place, at least in mythic terms. Yet the actual Jewish view of heaven is quite different. There are seven heavens, filled with angels and other divine beings, such as the Messiah, who is said to have a palace of his own in the highest heaven. The celestial Temple can be found there—the mirror image of the Temple in the earthly Jerusalem—as well as an abundance of heavenly palaces, one for each of the patriarchs and matriarchs and sages, where he or she teaches Torah to the attentive souls of the righteous and the angels. (Yes—in Jewish mythology women teach Torah in the world to come, although they were not traditionally permitted to do so in this wo
rld.1) Above all, heaven is the home of the souls of the righteous, who ascend to Paradise after they take leave of this world.

  This vision of heaven ruled by God but populated by lesser divine beings and righteous souls may not seem to infringe on the core concept of monotheism. But among the inhabitants of heaven is an unexpected figure: God’s Bride. This divine figure is known as the Shekhinah. At first this term referred to God’s presence in this world, what is known as the Divine Presence. But by the thirteenth century, the term “Shekhinah,” which is feminine in gender, had come to mean “Bride of God” and the Shekhinah was openly identified as God’s spouse in the Zohar, the central text of Jewish mysticism.2 This is a major development in terms of Jewish mythology, as the very notion of such a divine Bride is the essence of myth, echoing such pairs as Zeus and Hera in Greek mythology, and El and Asherah in the Canaanite. But the existence of such a figure, strongly resembling a Hebrew goddess, echoing the role attributed by some to Asherah in ancient Israel, raises the most elementary questions about her role in a monotheistic system.3

  There are other unexpected echoes of polytheistic mythology to be found in Judaism. Genesis Rabbah, an important rabbinic text dating from the fourth or fifth century, speaks of a Council of Souls, apparently a council of heavenly deities, whom God consults with about the creation of the world and the creation of man. Here there is not one other divine figure, but multiple ones such as those found in pagan religions. Indeed, the Council of Souls is exactly like the divine council, led by the god El, who rules the world in Canaanite mythology. Such divine counsels rule in Mesopotamian and Babylonian mythologies as well.4

  How could such a myth about multiple divinities be found in a mainstream rabbinic text such as Genesis Rabbah? Why was it not rejected as blasphemous? The answer is that Judaism is not, and never has been, a single stream of thought, but a river formed of many, often contradictory, streams, and rabbinic texts are composites of different kinds of thinking. There has been a perennial struggle in Judaism between the antimythic, monotheistic forces, and the kind of mythic forces that are prevalent in many kabbalistic texts. Therefore, in many mainstream rabbinic texts, including the Talmud and the Midrash, it is quite possible to find dualistic or even polytheistic configurations, such as this one about a Council of Souls, side by side with monotheistic texts.

  Just as there are a variety of mythologies—every people of the world has one—there are many definitions of mythology. At this point it might be appropriate to provide a definition for the approach to mythology used in this book: Myth refers to a people’s sacred stories about origins, deities, ancestors, and heroes. Within a culture, myths serve as the divine charter, and myth and ritual are inextricably bound.5

  Let us consider this definition in terms of Jewish tradition: myth refers to a people’s sacred stories about origins, deities, ancestors, and heroes. This is precisely what the Torah recounts for the Jewish people—stories about origins, as found in Genesis; about God, the ruling deity; about ancestors such as Abraham and Moses, and heroes such as King David.

  As for having a divine charter, this is the precise nature of the Torah, dictated by God to Moses at Mount Sinai, which serves both as a chronicle and covenant. At the same time, myth and ritual reinforce each other in Judaism. The Sabbath alludes to the day of rest that God declared after six days of Creation. The ritual of the Sabbath is a constant reminder of the mythical origins of this sacred day.

  All of these primary aspects of mythology find expression in Jewish tradition, and individual myths have exercised great power over Jewish life. Even to this day Jews relive the Exodus at Passover, which recalls the escape from Egyptian bondage, and receive the Torah anew on Shavuot, which commemorates the giving of the Torah. Nor, in some Orthodox Jewish circles, has the longing for the Messiah subsided.

  For those who prefer not to use the term “mythology” in relationship to Judaism, there are two primary objections. The first is that the term suggests a constellation of gods rather than a single, omnipotent God. How could there be a Jewish mythology without contradicting this basic tenet of Jewish theology, without undermining monotheism? The simple fact is that despite being a monotheistic religion, like Christianity and Islam, Judaism does have real myth. Just as supernatural practices, such as using divination or consulting a soothsayer, were commonly performed despite the biblical injunction against them,6 an extensive Jewish mythology did evolve, especially in mystical circles, where it was believed possible to preserve a monotheistic perspective while simultaneously employing a mythological one. Here it was understood that most mythological figures, especially the Shekhinah, were ultimately aspects of the Godhead, despite their apparent mythological independence. Indeed, it sometimes seems as if all of Jewish myth (and perhaps all of existence) were the epic fantasy of one Divine Being, or, as Lurianic kabbalah suggests, a kind of divine illusion, similar to the Hindu concept of maya. For what sometimes appears to have mythic independence can also be understood as an emanation of the Godhead. Divine emanations take the form of the ten sefirot, as symbolized by the kabbalistic Tree of Life.7 It is possible to identify a sefirotic process underlying virtually every myth. But in translating mythic imaginings into stages of emanation, the sefirot also serve as an antidote to mythology, as they are entirely conveyed through allegory and symbolism, which are clearly not intended to be taken literally, and may have been created to restrain the unbridled mythic impulse released in Jewish mysticism, as well as to define its underlying archetypal structure. Certainly, this system of divine emanations is as complex and comprehensive as that of the Jungian theory of archetypes. And while the essence of myth is archetype, it is much harder, if not impossible, to mythologize a system as abstract as the sefirot. Yet underlying these abstractions are the living forces of myth.

  The second objection to the use of “mythology” in terms of Jewish tradition is that it suggests that the beliefs under consideration are not true. Even the mere identification of a culture’s beliefs as mythological indicates that it is being viewed from the outside rather than from the perspective of a believer. That is why, with a few exceptions, there has been such great reluctance to identify any of the biblical narratives as myths or to bring the tools of mythological inquiry to bear on Judaism or Christianity. While it is true that the study of these religions from a mythological perspective does imply the distance of critical inquiry, it does not mean that the traditions being examined are therefore false. Mythological studies are now commonly linked with psychological ones, and scholars such as C. G. Jung, Joseph Campbell, Mircea Eliade, Erich Neumann, Marie Louise Von Franz, and Sigmund Hurwitz have demonstrated how it is possible to recognize a dimension of psychological truths underlying mythic traditions, where myth can be seen as the collective projection of a people. And not only psychological truths, but the deepest existential truths. Indeed, this is the reason that myths persist, because the questions they raise are perennial. In the case of Judaism, many generations of rabbis, as well as other Jews, received and transmitted the sacred myths, rituals, and traditions, sometimes radically transforming them in the process, as well as imparting their own human imprint.

  Over time, as the number of supernatural figures in this pantheon increased and interacted, an abundance of mythological narratives emerged. These stories describe events such as the transformation of Enoch into the angel Metatron, the Giving of the Torah, the separation of God’s Bride from Her Spouse, the chain of events that has so far prevented the coming of the Messiah, and the attempts of Satan to gain inroads into the world of human beings. They also map out the realms of heaven and hell in great detail. By a process of accretion, these mythic realms were embellished and further defined, giving birth to additional narratives. In this way Jewish mythology has evolved into an extensive, interconnected—and often contradictory—mythic tradition.

  II. The Categories of Jewish Mythology

  Drawing on the full range of Jewish sources, sacred and nonsacred, ten major c
ategories of Jewish mythology can be identified: Myths of God, Myths of Creation, Myths of Heaven, Myths of Hell, Myths of the Holy Word, Myths of the Holy Time, Myths of the Holy People, Myths of the Holy Land, Myths of Exile, and Myths of the Messiah. Each of these categories explores a mythic realm, and, in the process, reimagines it. This is the secret to the transformations that characterize Jewish mythology. Building on a strong foundation of biblical myth, each generation has embellished the earlier myths, while, at the same time, reinterpreting them for its own time.

  Each of these ten major myths is represented here with several dozen submyths. These often form themselves into cycles, such as that of Enoch’s heavenly ascent, or of Lilith’s rebellion, or of Jacob’s elevation to the status of a divine figure. A passage in a late medieval midrashic text seems to confirm this organizational approach, attributing this tenfold structure to God:8 “Ten things were paramount in the thought of God at the time of the Creation: Jerusalem, the souls of the patriarchs, the ways of the righteous, Gehenna, the Flood, the stone tablets, the Sabbath, the Temple, the Ark, and the light of the World to Come.”9

  This midrash suggests its own definition of mythology: that which is foremost in the mind of God. By keeping these things in mind, God permits them to exist, for whatever God visualizes comes to pass. Indeed, all of existence depends on God’s willingness to let the world continue to exist. There are many variations on this theme. There also are myths to be found about prior worlds that God created and then destroyed, and some myths of an angry or dejected God who calls the continued existence of this world into question.10