Abstract
Cosmological descriptions and interpretations of the process of creation in kabbalistic literature deeply influenced various conceptual issues, especially the definition of “history.” Sefer ha-Temuna, which first appeared in Byzantium over the course of the fourteenth century, presents a unique concept of history in which the entire world operates according to a precise and predetermined model: the Sabbatical theory (Torat ha-shemitot). Its approach, however, was criticized by the Safed kabbalists in the sixteenth century. This article attempts to explain why this idea continued to influence Eastern European kabbalists in later generations, despite the harsh opposition it encountered.
The concept of time as cyclical – structured by recurring cycles that will continue until the world reaches its end – exists in many cultures. Using astronomical data and astrological notions, thinkers throughout the ages designed a multitude of calculations seeking to reveal the secret and internal cyclical nature of history and to predict when the world would cease to exist. As scholars have noted, the results of such calculations vary greatly: Indian cultures calculate that the end of the world is billions of years away, while the reckonings of Ismaili philosophers in eleventh-century Baghdad, as well as Jewish kabbalists, predict that it will occur after only a few tens of thousands of years.1 This paper discusses the kabbalistic concept of cyclical time, known as Torat ha-shemitot (the doctrine of sabbatical cycles), and principally the development of this idea in the anonymous medieval kabbalistic text Sefer ha-Temuna. Many kabbalistic works mention these sabbaticals, developing different approaches to them in the wake of Nachmanides’s teachings. Sefer ha-Temuna is commonly regarded as the most comprehensive source of information regarding the sabbatical cycles, and it even provides details about the current sabbatical era. This article endeavors to reveal how the author of Sefer ha-Temuna develops the idea of the sabbaticals in a radical and unique manner, one that diverges from meta-historical depiction of the eschatological context, transferring it to the existential plain. The author of Sefer ha-Temuna not only employs the concept of the sabbaticals to describe what will happen at the end of days, but he also uses it as a principal factor in his explanations of central theological concepts in contemporaneous reality: the existence of suffering and evil in the world, reward and punishment, and the question of free will.2
The earliest extant manuscript of Sefer ha-Temuna was copied in 1390 in Thebes.3 However, the work’s relatively late appearance did not prevent it from achieving a wide circulation or influencing many kabbalists. From the anonymous author of Sefer ha-Peli’ah and Sefer ha-Qanah to Rabbi David Ben Zimrah, Rabbi Shlomo Alcabeẓ, Rabbi Meir Ibn Gabbai, and other kabbalists in the generation following the exile from Spain, numerous authors cite Sefer ha-Temuna as an important source from which they drew in their own writings.4 Despite the popularity of the work among kabbalists in the generation of the Spanish exile, the kabbalists of Safed in the sixteenth century harshly censured its historical perception and the idea of redemption expressed therein. Rabbi Moses Cordovero’s criticism of Torat ha-shemitot in Sefer ha-Temuna has been discussed at length in a number of studies by Bracha Sack. In the following, I return to this criticism and its context, following a discussion of the ideas expounded in Sefer ha-Temuna. Apart from Cordovero’s harsh criticism, I also discuss below the censure of Sefer ha-Temuna in a number of works of Lurianic literature, in volumes produced by various different editors that have not yet received scholarly attention, and how the criticism of Sefer ha-Temuna was accepted in various geo-cultural spheres. As we will see, there is an evident link between the demand for the study of this work and how the criticism of the Safed kabbalists was received.
1 Torat ha-Shemitot: From Nachmanides to Sefer ha-Temuna
The six days of creation followed by the sabbath day of rest form the archetype of the biblical cycle of time,5 and the model of six years of work followed by the sabbatical year, during which the land lies fallow, is based upon it. The sabbatical and jubilee system is comprised of seven sabbatical cycles; in the fiftieth year, the year of the jubilee, slaves are freed and lands from family properties that were sold revert to their original owners. As early as the talmudic period, the sages employed the model of the sabbatical and jubilee to describe the process of history as fixed cycles of time with a clear purpose.
Rav Ketina says: Six thousand years is the duration of the world, and it is in ruins for one thousand years. As it is stated: “And the Lord alone shall be exalted on that day” (Isaiah 2:11). […] It is taught in a beraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ketina: Just as the Sabbatical Year abrogates debts once in seven years, so too the world abrogates its existence for one thousand years in every seven thousand years, as it is stated: “And the Lord alone shall be exalted on that day,” and it states: “A psalm, a song for the Shabbat day” (Psalms 92:1), a day that is entirely Shabbat. And it says “For a thousand years in Your eyes are but like yesterday when it is past” (Psalms 90:4).6
It is important to emphasize that the historical frame suggested by the Talmud, according to which the world exists for six thousand years, ending with its complete destruction in the seventh millennium, does not mention the possibility that this model can recur repeatedly. Indeed, the Baraita cited in support of Rav Katina’s words draws a parallel between the existence of the world and the six years of slavery, and even between the destruction of the world in the seventh millennium, similar to the seventh year, and the sabbatical. However, it contains no explicit reference to the jubilee year. Likewise, the moment when the world reaches its purpose, and the day that “the Lord alone shall be exalted,” will not occur in the fiftieth millennium, as in the sabbatical model, but rather in the seventh.7
Likewise, the Talmud does not examine the meaning of this idea in connection with other theological questions, such as divine providence, reward and punishment, or human’s role in the messianic process and redemption. Yet this talmudic discussion constituted the basis on which the kabbalists drew when developing the idea of the sabbaticals – including the author of Sefer ha-Temuna, who expounded it in a unique and radical manner. Furthermore, it is vital to note that such a model of the sabbatical and the jubilee also appeared much earlier, in the book of Jubilees, which was written at the beginning of the Second Temple period and describes the world in terms of sabbatical cycles that culminate in the fiftieth jubilee.8
2 Kabbalistic Applications of Torat ha-Shemitot
At the foundation of Sefer ha-Temuna lies the idea of the cyclical eras of sabbaticals and the jubilee, whose foundations were described briefly by Nachmanides and his disciples,9 yet the idea is completely absent in this form from the Zoharic literature.10 Nachmanides mentions the “great secret of the jubilee” on a number of occasions, and the cyclical concept of history recurs in many contexts throughout his writings, albeit in a rather esoteric manner. Indeed, the teachings of Nachmanides on this matter are highly obscure, making it difficult to glean from them details regarding the sabbaticals. His disciples and commentators also mention the sabbaticals and the jubilee quite extensively. However, despite the creativity and innovation characteristic of Nachmanides’s disciples,11 their works do not present a comprehensive development of the idea. Indeed, they do not reveal many details concerning this concept, and some of them even note that Nachmanides cautioned them against revealing this great secret.12
According to the system described by the author of Sefer ha-Temuna, the seven cycles of time during which the world exists – the seven sabbaticals until the great jubilee – are parallel to the seven lower sefirot (of the ten sefirot, luminous emanations): ḥesed (divine love or mercy); gevurah (strength), also known as din (judgment); tiferet (beauty); netzaḥ (eternity); hod (splendor); yesod (foundation); and malkhut (kingdom). Each one of these cycles of time is governed by a different one of these seven sefirot, endowing the era with its unique character. The author of Sefer ha-Temuna explains that the existence of suffering is the result of the current sabbatical – the second one, which is governed by the sefira of judgement, din. In this sabbatical, the entire creation, and man in particular, faces both physical and spiritual hardships: physically, man must endure exile, war, harsh decrees, plagues, illness, and physical pain, and so too the natural world around man is replete with dangerous animals. In spiritual terms, this era is characterized by the existence of depraved ideas such as idol worship, physical urges, evil impulses, and desires, and the great likelihood that man will sin. Thus, Sefer ha-Temuna describes the creation of the world under the rule of the second sefirah, din:
He also said to build another [second] palace [castle] and its kingdom would be like the first one, to do and sanctify and to give and to command that which is in the second sabbatical cycle, which is very hard and tough and its ways are hard and tough and evil and stringent […] everything is with judgment, to be reincarnation for all souls. […] In it [i.e., the world under the sefira of din] all difficult and hard things were created, among them demons and impure powers and evil spirits and the evil inclination and bastards and the shameless people and different languages and idolatries and forces for different nationalities limited to the nations in their lands and harsh decrees and iniquities and sins and incest and the long exile and polluted powers and polluted intercourse and impure animals and cattle and snakes and vipers and ghosts and all types of impurity and dirtiness and distance and externality above and below, for the inclination of the heart of man is evil from his youth.13
Sefer ha-Temuna concludes the list of shortcomings and difficulties that exist in this sabbatical by quoting God’s placating words after the flood: “For the inclination of the heart of man is evil from his youth” (Gen 8:21). Resigning ourselves to the essence of reality teaches us that the world should not be overturned or destroyed because of its defects. However, in Sefer ha-Temuna we discover another side of this equation: in addition to the pity expressed for man’s tendency toward evil, this work suggests that the suffering man endures is not linked to his acts, either good or bad.
This is expressed most obviously by the assertion that, in addition to enduring the suffering characteristic of the sabbatical of din, all souls will be reincarnated, without distinction between righteous and wicked.14 This is a highly unique approach among kabbalists. Transmigration of the soul was usually regarded as an atonement for past sins, whether by giving the sinner additional chances to mend his ways,15 offering an opportunity to perform a number of positive commandments that the individual had not yet carried out,16 or atoning for his sins through punishment and suffering.17
Defining the reincarnation of the soul within the context of reward and punishment in the world is a common approach to reincarnation. It appears among Muslim thinkers from the eighth century onward18 and among kabbalists throughout the generations. Yet, another approach appearing in Sefer ha-Bahir describes the idea of reincarnation as detached from reward and punishment and rather as part of the way the world is managed.19 This approach to reincarnation is developed much more extensively by Rabbi Yosef ben Shalom Ashkenazi in his commentary to Sefer Yetsira (attributed to Rabbi Abraham ben David) and in a much rawer manner in his commentary on parashat Bereshit,20 in which Ashkenazi describes “those appointed to destruction” (Prov 31:8) as part of his idea of the sabbaticals. Ashkenazi perceives the concept of reincarnation not as connected to the particular sabbatical in which the world is at present21 but rather as occurring among all parts of reality: minerals, vegetables, animals, and man, all of which undergo reincarnation from one state to another throughout the years of the world.
So too in Sefer ha-Temuna the idea of reincarnation is not specifically linked to the question of reward and punishment and the principle of free will.22 Rather, in opposition to the position of Rabbi Yosef ben Shalom Ashkenazi, it articulates the suffering and pain bound up with the expressions of the current sabbatical – the sabbatical of din. In his discussion of the issue of reincarnation in Sefer ha-Temuna, Gershon Scholem mistakenly concluded that the law of reincarnation in the work is the means by which humans can exist in the sabbatical of din, giving them an opportunity to repair their deeds. Scholem, who saw Sefer ha-Temuna as one of the first kabbalistic sources containing the idea of reincarnation,23 interpreted its idea of reincarnation similarly to that appearing in Sefer ha-Bahir and the writings of a number of kabbalists of Gerona, as an additional opportunity for the sinner to mend his ways. Perhaps for this reason, when Scholem discussed the topic and quoted the sentence “everything is with judgement, to be reincarnation for all souls,” he mistakenly omitted the word lekol (for all),24 as it appears in the 1892 Lemberg edition and in manuscripts of this version of the book from its earliest versions.25
According to Sefer ha-Temuna, the souls of all men (only humans), without reference to their deeds, sometimes transmigrate to a human body and on other occasions to that of a pure beast. This is part of the laws of the sabbatical of din. However, there are exceptions.
While many explanations of reincarnation are connected in some way to the same principal notion – intimately linking transmigration of the soul with the reward or punishment of man according to his actions – by contrast, in Sefer ha-Temuna the idea of reincarnation is not necessarily connected to reward and punishment or to the closely related principle of free will.26
According to the author of Sefer ha-Temuna, those saintly souls that do not require reincarnation originated in the previous sabbatical and were chosen in advance for this role. Thus, exemption from reincarnation is not a question of free will but rather an innate quality.27 For example, the greatness of Moses and other outstanding figures is not a consequence of their deeds in this world but rather due to the fact that their souls originated in the previous sabbatical, that of ḥesed.28 Similar to the Torah and the physical world, which is renewed in each and every sabbatical according to the era’s specific qualities, some souls are connected to the “body” of that sabbatical, and the souls connected to the sabbatical of gevurah, act according to its guiding principles.
And indeed, in this era there is one body full of souls. About this our rabbis, of blessed memory, said, “The son of David does not come until all the souls in the body have been destroyed.” And the souls of this body, they are the souls of Israel, and they come into the world every day, and when the redeemer will come, soon in our days, then all the souls will be able to come to that same body, and other souls will regenerate in that body, holy and pure and clean souls without any defilement, without [any connection to] idol worship and without the evil impulse. All these, the orders and the deeds, the sefira of ḥokhma ordered them and imparted them to that of bina, and all that bina does, everything comes from the ḥokhma, and it also arranged the sabbaticals and their worlds and a Torah for each sabbatical, with interconnected forms according to that sabbatical and its character. […] For everything comes from the order that ḥokhma established for each sabbatical and its world, its Torah, and strange creatures that we do not know what they are and what their faces look like.29
The process of souls departing from the world also occurs in a predestined fashion, throughout the six millennia of the sabbatical, until the seventh millennium. Likewise, the tiqqun (restoration) of these souls will conclude in the final generation of the sabbatical of din, when the last of the souls “in the body” connected to this sabbatical come forth into the world. And as the commentator on Sefer ha-Temuna notes (58b): “According to the days wherein Thou hast afflicted us, according to the years wherein we have seen evil [Psalm 90:15], that is to say the sabbatical30 will do its work and the prophecy will come to pass.” The pace of the sabbatical dictates the process of man’s tiqqun, and there is no possibility of changing the law of the cosmic era for better or worse. During the final days of the sabbatical of din, good and pure souls will once again come into the world. Yet not only is the departure of the souls planned in advance, without any connection to man, but so too is the process of repairing the souls predestined:
And from the strength of that same quality, a number of the powers in the upper and lower [worlds] mix together, and from this derives the power to mix, to reincarnate and to annihilate the souls with the body […] and from the same side of the River Dinur [the fiery river] that is in the middle world, which purifies souls against their will. And when they were not reincarnated in three different bodies, then they go and enter the River Dinur, immersing themselves in it, and this cleans from them all the impurity and dirt, and they go out pure and clean.31
The power of din causes the annihilation of the bodies and the reincarnation of the souls, but it also eventually restores the souls and purifies them in the fiery river, following three reincarnations. Although each soul undergoes only three reincarnations, each and every reincarnation is not equal to one (human) life span. A person can be reincarnated in one sabbatical for a thousand years, or even during an entire sabbatical era.32 However, according to the author of Sefer ha-Temuna, most souls return, whether voluntarily or not, to God on the Sabbath, that is, at the end of each sabbatical. This does not include souls that devoted themselves to “other masters,” meaning that they dedicated themselves to idol worship. These souls, similar to the slave who does not wish to be freed in the sabbatical year and whose ear is pierced by his master, undergo a process that is not exactly reincarnation and that continues until the jubilee:
Even though all these leave the authority of God, who is master of everything, and God allowed them to transgress and worship whatever idols they desired […], at the very end, they will all come on the Sabbath [i.e., at the end of the sabbatical] to God alone, whether they wish to or not. Apart from this, when his master pierced his ear with an awl so that he will be exiled and wander between the spirits and between the distant worlds, and they will not find rest or any good forever, until the jubilee year.33
Significantly, the commentator on Sefer ha-Temuna also highlights the possibility that a soul can be saved from transmigration by complete repentance and correct intention,34 although apart from the five saints mentioned by name, in practice no one can escape the process of reincarnation.35 Souls may be reincarnated not only in human bodies, but also in the bodies of clean animals. The transmigration of the soul into the body of an animal is mentioned in the commentary of R. Menaḥem Reqanati in the name of “some of the recent kabbalists,”36 although there it appears as the punishment, measure for measure, decreed upon a person who committed the sin of eating an organ from a living animal or other sins.37
Regardless of the exact rationalization, reincarnation as an animal is usually the result of a severe sin and entails great suffering. Yet according to the author of Sefer ha-Temuna, anyone may be reincarnated as an animal, although specifically as a clean animal – one of the species that were brought as sacrifices in the temple. Thus, he clarifies accordingly the laws of ritual slaughter, which in his words were intended to reduce the suffering of the beast being slaughtered:
And for this, the fifth letter (hey), from which derive all the harsh judgements38 […], these same five things are for the restoration [of the soul] of the slaughtered, so that the animals into which the souls that are worthy of life transmigrated should not suffer. And therefore they established that the beast be slaughtered with a knife that has been checked, which has in it no defect whatsoever, and there will be no clefts, no sorrow, no danger from the five things that disqualify the slaughter, none of these five things. Therefore the slaughter must be perfect and must be checked, because it is written, “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” and this is a warning to the slaughterer that his intentions during the act of the slaughter should be appropriate, using a knife that has no defect whatsoever … because sometimes he will think that he slaughtered an animal when in fact he slaughtered a certain saint, because the soul of a certain saint transmigrated into this beast and it [i.e., the soul] must not be prevented from leaving, and therefore our rabbis of blessed memory said “The slaughterers [are destined for] Hell.”39
Is reincarnation as an animal intended to bring suffering to the reincarnated soul? This matter is not completely clear in Sefer ha-Temuna. However, the author’s words indicate that due to identification with the reincarnated soul, and in consideration of the requirement to “love thy neighbor as thyself,” we must prevent the suffering of slaughtered animals. Another important matter, imparted as a digression in the text quoted above, emphasizes that the soul of a saint can also transmigrate into the body of an animal. This, as was noted, is highly exceptional in kabbalistic thought, which regarded reincarnation in the body of an animal as the result of a sin, usually a severe one.
Reincarnation, and the suffering it entails, is not a consequence of reward and punishment and is not dependent on man’s actions; rather, it is due to the realization of the full power of gevurah and divine din (judgment). The understanding that man cannot truly affect his own history, and certainly not wider historical processes, stands at the basis of Sefer ha-Temuna. The present discussion of the approach to evil and divine providence in Sefer ha-Temuna focuses only on the context of reincarnation. However, these topics are accorded extensive discussion in the work, in commentaries on the form of the letters, the conception of Torah and mitzvot, and the stories of the Torah. This unique approach, which greatly limits the idea of free will, was certainly accepted by many kabbalists, albeit with various reservations. As we will see below, however, the kabbalists of Safed, headed by Moses Cordovero and Isaac Luria, opposed this approach, openly and aggressively attacking Sefer ha-Temuna.
3 Criticism of Sefer ha-Temuna by the Kabbalists of Safed
3.1 Rabbi Moses Cordovero: An Alternative Version of Torat ha-shemitot
In his first book, Pardes Rimonim, which he wrote in his youth and which circulated widely, Rabbi Moses Cordovero, a student of Rabbi Shlomo, accepted the teachings of Sefer ha-Temuna.
According to Cordovero, Torat-ha-shemitot is not mentioned in Sefer ha-Zohar, despite the fact that this is a very basic matter. As such, Cordovero was apprehensive of discussing it:
In truth there is a gate that is closed and we do not desire to open it whatsoever, and this is the sabbaticals and the jubilees, and the reason is our fear of going up onto the mountain or even touching its edge, because this issue touches a little on the roots of faith. And not only this, but we did not find in the words of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, may he rest in peace, who satisfied us and quenched our thirst, and if he, who received the Kabbalah and [was] the father of the secrets, wanted to hide his secret, then who will come after the king to open the gate to his treasures without permission?40
Although Cordovero did not devote a separate chapter in Sefer Pardes Rimonim to Torat ha-shemitot and the transmigration of the soul, he mentions briefly the fact that the current sabbatical is the second sabbatical, that of din, as we find in Sefer ha-Temuna. However, his opening words indicate that he did not feel comfortable writing about this topic and expanding upon it at this stage in his life.
Nevertheless, in his work Shi‘ur Qoma, composed many years later, Cordovero spoke out harshly against the radical deterministic approach of Sefer ha-Temuna and those influenced by it:
Its words are strange, and I want to summarize its words in principles, to build a dike upon them and to pour a rampart on them, to destroy its foundations and hints and secrets, to raze them to the foundations, and to build the world on good.41
Cordovero’s declaration of war against Sefer ha-Temuna was the result of a deep theological disagreement regarding the fundamental perceptions and stances presented by the author of Sefer ha-Temuna. The basis of this dispute was the work’s attitude toward the world in which we live: it exists under the rule of the attribute of din, thus resulting in sorrow and pain, due to the laws of the sabbatical eras, and there is not necessarily any connection between man’s actions and his suffering. If suffering is one of the expressions of the rule of din, this denies the idea of free will.42 As Cordovero states:
The reason the world was created with Judgement was to reward and punish the souls in this world. Afterward are the days of reward, in the seventh millennium. […] If it were like their words [in Sefer ha-Temuna], then there would only be days of punishment in this sabbatical cycle, and the days of reward would only be in the previous sabbatical, and we would find punishment without reward and reward without punishment.
Moreover, Cordovero was concerned by the suggestion, found in Sefer ha-Temuna, that the souls of saints are also reincarnated in this sabbatical era and that the laws of ritual slaughter were intended to prevent the suffering of the slaughtered animal out of concern for the soul of the saint that transmigrated into the body of a beast. According to Cordovero, reincarnation is intended to purify a sinner’s soul, which “is sometimes defective in a manner that Hell cannot help it.”43 Therefore, Cordovero concluded his discussion of reincarnation by declaring that this should be viewed as a “branch of repentance.”44 Consequently, the stance adopted by the author of Sefer ha-Temuna with regard to suffering, which he describes as part of the divine plan, expressed by din or gevurah, also opposes Cordovero’s fundamental belief that God is only munificent.45
Cordovero not only undermined the theoretical foundations of Sefer ha-Temuna by exposing the deep disparity between the words of the author and his followers, on the one hand, and on the other hand his own theoretical beliefs. Rather, he also cast doubt on the authority of Sefer ha-Temuna and Sefer ha-Qana and their antiquity. Cordovero even attempted to attribute the book to a recent scholar, the author of the book Or Zaru‘a, Rabbi Yitshak,46 highlighting the many contradictions between it and ancient sources, such as the works of the sages or Sefer ha-Zohar: “And his wisdom is in everything apart from the matters pronounced by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai.”47 Cordovero furthermore launched a personal attack on the author of the commentary on Sefer ha-Temuna, describing him as an incompetent Hebrew writer whose sharp style is disrespectful:
He and his language reveal that he lacks knowledge, he is not even proficient in the holy tongue, and so too in Sefer ha-Qana you will find that it curses the simple people and prays that bad things will come upon them. And I already knew that one should not learn to prosecute the people of Israel.48
In contrast to the concept of sabbaticals advanced by the author of Sefer ha-Temuna, Cordovero presents an alternative, fundamentally different system;49 indeed, the two systems share nothing apart from the name itself.50 According to Cordovero’s conception, the world becomes more elevated with the passing of each sabbatical, from the last sefirah, malkhut (kingship), and until the end of the sefirah of ḥesed. The redemption of the world and its elevation indeed have no direct link to the acts of men, yet the latter can affect the time of the redemption. In fact, through their acts, humans are responsible for bringing exile and suffering into the world. In contrast to Sefer ha-Temuna, Cordovero’s theory does not negate the idea of free will, the principle of reward and punishment, and the perception of God as only munificent. Cordovero’s concept of the sabbaticals and his historical approach differ from that advanced by Sefer ha-Temuna, returning to man responsibility for his actions and refuting the idea that suffering, hardship, or evil originate from the divine.51 As we will see below, Luria went one step further and in fact repudiated the very idea of the sabbaticals. He achieved this through his teachings regarding the “breaking of the vessels” and the “sifting of the divine sparks,” which place man and his actions at the center of the messianic process.
3.2 The Refutation of the Sabbaticals in the Lurianic Kabbalah
Similarly to Cordovero, Rabbi Isaac Luria, ha-Ari, and his students censured the idea of the sabbaticals advanced by Sefer ha-Temuna, albeit in a more diplomatic and gentle manner. However, in his commentary on Idra Rabba, Luria responded directly to the matter of the sabbaticals as expounded by the author of Sefer ha-Temuna and his followers, including Sefer ha-Qana:
There is a mistake among some of the kabbalists, as in Sefer ha-Qana and the book of the author of ha-Temuna, who say that there are seven sabbaticals in the world and that each seven thousand years is one sabbatical and that one sabbatical has already passed and that we are now in the second sabbatical, which hints at the sefira of gevura [strength]. They go on at length in this way about things which are not so, and now I tell you not to believe these words.52
Luria completely repudiated the concept of the sabbaticals, explaining the basic error at its root. According to Luria, further on in the section quoted above (it is not included here in full due to its length), the authors of Sefer ha-Temuna and Sefer ha-Qana erroneously interpreted the allegory of the Zoharic myth that appears in one of the most basic sections of the Zohar, which concerns the “death of the kings” or “shattering of the vessels.” In the Lurianic teachings, the secret of the death of the kings describes the defects rooted in creation from the very outset, which must be repaired by man in order to bring about redemption. According to the Lurianic creation story, the universe was broken twice during its creation. The first instance occurred during the tragic event of the “shattering of the vessels,” as the world was being infused with the divine presence.53 As a result, the shards of the vessels and the sparks of light in them fell between the qelippot, the shells. It is man’s duty to sift these sparks of holiness from the qelippot and return them to their source in the heavens.
A similar process occurred not only in the upper realm, but also in the lower realm: Adam’s sin when he ate from the tree of knowledge.54 Had man not sinned, the world would have reached its eventual aim at the end of the sixth day of creation, entering the stage of redemption on the first sabbath following creation. However, when the first man ate from the tree of knowledge on Friday, the system of worlds (divided into Azilut, Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah) collapsed, and the great soul of the first man was broken into tiny parts. The responsibility for repairing these two basic defects in existence rests with mankind, and only once this has been achieved can all the worlds be repaired.55 This long process waxes and wanes, moving closer or becoming more distant depending on man’s acts. The soul of the first man, which was constructed, similarly to the human body, from different limbs, crumbled following the sin, and all the processes of history are connected to repairing this sin:
Know that when the first man sinned, all the sparks were damaged, those of his soul, and of his spirit, and of his core. And the matter lies in what is known, that just as the body of the man is made up of a number of sparks, 248 limbs and 365 ligaments, and there are some sparks in his head, and also in his eyes, and so in each and every limb, so too that soul [was made out of sparks] […] and when he sinned, most of the sparks of his nefesh and ruaḥ and neshama [soul and spirit and core] were damaged and scattered among the qelippot. And this is the secret that is said in Sefer ha-Tiqqunim, in the introduction concerning the verse, “As a bird that wandereth from her nest” [Prov 27:8], because just as the divine presence was exiled among the qelippot, so too the saints will be exiled with it, and they will go out and search for it, wandering from place to place. And so too the sparks, they were exiled to a place made for them within the qelippot, those from the head in the head, those from the eye in the eye, etc. And this is the matter of the exile of the souls mentioned there.56
Each and every soul is connected to one “limb” in the anthropomorphic structure of the soul of the first man,57 and sparks connected to it are scattered throughout the world.58 The saints seeking to bring about redemption search for the sparks that are especially connected to them, in order to repair them and thereby fulfil their personal role in repairing the world. The restoration of the collective soul of the first man in all its minute details, appearing as certain persons throughout the course of history, is one of the foundations of the Lurianic teachings.59 So too, transmigration of the soul constitutes part of the multifaced system of repair, and this continues until the complete repair of the first man’s sin. Only the full repair of all souls, on all their levels, will bring about a rectification of the sin committed by the first man and the redemption of the world.60 This approach regards man as a central and main actor in repairing the world, and thus in dictating historical processes.61
Indeed, the Lurianic Kabbalah contains calculations of the end. The most famous is the calculation of the year 1575, which was known in Safed not only among Luria’s circle.62 Rabbi Ḥaim Vital mentions this date, which draws on the calculation of the end of the world in the book of Daniel,63 yet explicitly states that the redemption will not necessarily arrive in this year, as was commonly thought, but it “can be the end of the redemption, [meaning] from the year 1575 onward.” Later, Vital emphasizes: “And until they will complete the purification of the souls that fell there in Olam ha-‘asiyah [the world of action], the redemption will not come.”64 The concern with hastening the process of redemption via various acts, and also missing the possibility of bringing the redemption at this date, was central to the activities of Luria and his students.65 So too, the calculation of the end of the world or the time at which the redemption was likely to occur requires human actions and preparation for the redemption.
Therefore, according to Luria, the author of Sefer ha-Temuna erroneously interpreted the statements of the Zohar regarding the death of the seven kings, believing these to be the seven thousand years that passed in the previous sabbatical era, and on the basis of this mistake developed his concept of the sabbaticals. While the author of Sefer ha-Temuna never refers to the Zohar in general, or the section dealing with the death of the kings in particular, this exegesis enabled Luria to refute the work’s historical perception of the sabbaticals. In the introduction to his book Eẓ Ḥaim, Luria’s student Rabbi Ḥaim Vital explains that one should not study the books of the kabbalists who followed the thought of Nachmanides, because the wisdom of kabbalah was hidden from them.
And behold, all the books of the last kabbalists, those that lived after Nachmanides, of blessed memory, do not go near them, because from Nachmanides onward the way of this wisdom was closed off before the eyes of all the sages, and there remained among them not even some branches of the previous ones without their roots. And on the basis of them, the most recent kabbalists, of blessed memory, built their words regarding the human mind […] and men of understanding, hearken unto me [Job 34:10], do not break through unto the Lord [Exod 19:21] to look at the most recent books, “but whoso hearkened unto me shall dwell securely, and shall be quiet without fear of evil” [Prov 1:33].66
As was noted, Luria considered Sefer ha-Temuna, as well as the rest of the commentators on Nachmanides, “recent” kabbalists who should not be trusted.67 The ambiguity regarding the sabbaticals in Nachmanides’s thought enabled Luria to avoid directly confronting the former’s historical perception. Rather, he was able to attribute it to the “recent” kabbalists, such as the author of Sefer ha-Temuna, and present a completely different concept of history.
The criticism voiced by Luria and Cordovero regarding Sefer ha-Temuna was accepted in various geo-cultural spheres of the Jewish diaspora in different ways. Scholem argued that, as a result of this criticism, Sefer ha-Temuna disappeared completely from kabbalistic literature until the appearance of the Sabbatean movement, and among these circles Sefer ha-Temuna and its ideas were once again accorded a central place.68 However, Shinichi Yamamoto recently demonstrated that Nathan of Gaza’s Torat ha-shemitot differs significantly from that developed in Sefer ha-Temuna and was based on other models of Torat ha-shemitot.69
In addition, as I have shown elsewhere, based on the number of surviving manuscripts, it appears that the number of copies made in Italy declined drastically at the turn of the seventeenth century. Sixteen manuscript copies of Sefer ha-Temuna made in Italy in the fifteenth–sixteenth centuries have survived, while only five of the surviving manuscripts were copied in the seventeenth–eighteenth centuries. By contrast, the number of copies made in Eastern and Central Europe rose from eight in the fifteenth–sixteenth centuries to seventeen copies in the seventeenth–eighteenth centuries (most of them originating from Eastern Europe). Apparently Luria’s criticism was accepted by the kabbalists of Italy, leading to a dramatic decrease in the demand for the study of this work and consequently also the number of manuscript copies produced.70
There are a number of direct references to the criticism voiced by Luria and Cordovero against Sefer ha-Temuna. Here I will discuss the most prominent example, which exemplifies the conflicting feelings this work sparked among some kabbalists. One of the kabbalists most closely identified with the spread of Lurianic Kabbalah in Eastern/Central Europe is Rabbi Meir Poppers, who edited Luria’s sermons in a collected entitled Derekh Etz Ḥaim, known in its most commonly known versions as: Etz Ḥaim, Pri Etz Ḥaim, and Nof Etz Ḥaim.71 Poppers was born in Krakow in 1624 and raised in that city, later leaving for the land of Israel, where he studied Kabbalah with Rabbi Yaakov Semaḥ and Rabbi Israel Benyamin. Following the pogroms during the Cossack revolt (1648–1649), Poppers returned to Krakow to discover how his family had fared, and there he finished editing the well-known collection of Luria’s sermons, which afterward spread throughout Europe.72 In addition to editing Luria’s sermons, he also composed a number of original works, among them an explanation of Nachmanides’s commentary on the Torah, which was printed under the name Torah Or.
On a number of occasions in this book, Poppers mentions his understanding of Torat ha-shemitot according to the writings of Nachmanides and, as a digression, also Luria’s criticism of the author of Sefer ha-Temuna.
“Until the jubilee he will be in slavery all the days of the world”: There are some who seek to interpret the words of Nachmanides regarding the secret of the sabbaticals and jubilees pronounced by the first kabbalists […] but this, the world of the present, is none other than seven thousand years only, and it is already known what the Rabbi [Luria] wrote in the work Nof Etz Ḥaim, section 2, parashat Kedoshim, opposing the belief in the sabbaticals and jubilees.
But it seems to me that there is no way to resolve the words of Nachmanides other than this, because on many occasions in his works he alludes to the idea of the sabbaticals. Or this can be explained following [Luria’s teaching in] derush ha-omer [the counting of the Omer].
But I believe in the matter of the sabbaticals, for we did not receive this idea in all its details without reason, because almost everything rests on this basis, and indeed the holy Qana, and Rabbi Moshe Leon, author of Livnat ha-Sapir, and Rabbi Yitzhak, author of Sefer Me’irat Einayim, and Nachmanides, all of them agreed about this, and if our Rabbi Yitzhak Luria, of blessed memory, were alive, I would ask him, “Teach us, our rabbi, tractate “fifty thousand generations” (Zohar, part 3, 136a) […], which is about the great jubilee, because every fifty years and fifty thousand generations from forty-nine sabbaticals [sic], and it is written, “The word which He commanded to a thousand generations” [Psalm 105:8].
And behold, at the beginning of Sefer Livnat ha-Sapir, parashat Bereshit, he discussed at length the sabbaticals, and know that it is possible to contradict the few words of Rabbi Moses Cordovero, of blessed memory, in his book Shi‘ur Qoma against Sefer ha-Peli’ah and Sefer ha-Temuna, which severely disparage and oppose the matter of the sabbaticals, and all the difficulties he raised. And Rabbi David Ben Zimra believed in the sabbaticals, as he noted at length in his book Midgal David, which concerns the appearance of the letters, and all [the book of] Ecclesiastes will be understood well in light of the matter of the sabbaticals, and I see no harm in the teaching of the sabbaticals, because what does it matter if I believe that today is 5,420 or 11,000 years since the creation, because finally there will be a transformation of something into nothing, and at the end all things will return to the primordial nothing from which they originated, and enough of this for now.73
The words of Rabbi Meir Poppers demonstrate that the tension between the words of Nachmanides and many other kabbalists, on the one hand, and Luria on the other caused him some distress. He mentions Luria’s negation of Torat ha-shemitot, as it appears in the collection Derekh Etz Ḥaim, which he himself had finished editing ten years previously. At the beginning of his remarks he seeks to try to explain Torat ha-shemitot according to Lurianic concepts. He connects, in a way that seems inevitable, the historical perception of the sabbaticals and Luria’s intentions in the counting of the Omer. The counting of the Omer is constructed on the same model as the sabbaticals: seven weeks of counting culminate in the fiftieth day.74 Yet it seems that Poppers himself was not truly persuaded by this explanation, and he addresses Luria directly, even aggressively, relying on the significant number of kabbalists who subscribed to the idea of the sabbaticals.
Poppers also mentions the difficulties raised by Cordovero and his rude attack on Sefer ha-Temuna and Sefer ha-Peli’ah, but he does not bother to refute them, and Poppers’s phrasing appears to indicate a sense of discomfort with Cordovero’s style. The fact that Poppers repeatedly cites the many proofs that to his mind support the idea of the sabbaticals, and thus also repeats his personal declarations of belief in the sabbaticals, indicates without doubt the internal conflict he felt regarding this matter – a conflict between the ideas on which he was raised when he began to study Kabbalah and according to which many of his concepts were molded, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the Lurianic teachings that he learned in Jerusalem and during his wanderings in the Ottoman Empire. Poppers returns to these same debates briefly also in his explanation of Nachmanides’s commentary on parashat Behar:
“And the secret of the days of the world is alluded to here”: That means the belief in the sabbaticals, in which Nachmanides, of blessed memory, believed, and according to the fact that this belief entails great difficulties, therefore he wrote: “What I am allowed to tell you” […], and I believe in the sabbaticals, and all of Sefer ha-Temuna expands here on this, and so too Sefer ha-Qana and Sefer Livnat ha-Sapir, and regarding what Cordovero, of blessed memory, wrote, who transformed this with difficulties in the book that he made about the Idrah, I am not worthy of deciding, but the interpretation of the words of our rabbi [Nachmanides] is thus and they cannot be interpreted in any other way, and God knows the truth.75
Despite the criticism voiced by Cordovero and Luria regarding Torat ha-shemitot, the fact that this idea appeared in many works and became highly assimilated into the kabbalistic culture of Eastern Europe reveals that even a Lurianic kabbalist such as Rabbi Meir Poppers chose to disagree with Luria and continued to subscribe to the historical perception of Torat ha-shemitot.
The extensive preoccupation with Sefer ha-Temuna and the belief in the idea of the sabbaticals appears in many works by Eastern European kabbalists, even after Luria’s writings circulated in that area. Thus, for example, well-known kabbalists such as Rabbi Mordechai Yoffe at the end of the sixteenth century; Rabbi Isaiah Hurwitz; Rabbi Meir Poppers; Rabbi Yaakov Kopel Lifshitz, author of Sefer Sha‘arei Gan Eden; Rabbi Elijah, the Vilna Gaon; and many others continued to discuss Sefer ha-Temuna, accepting the principles of its historical approach.76
4 Conclusions
Luria’s anthropomorphic teachings, the perception of evil and divine providence espoused by Cordovero, and the approach of Sefer ha-Temuna differ greatly. While Sefer ha-Temuna presents a deterministic perception of history – ascribing to man a marginal role in historical events, in suffering and the problem of evil in the world, and in the process of redemption and the messianic idea – according to Luria and Cordovero, the main responsibility for rectifying the world and improving it lies with man. Within a short time, Luria and Cordovero became kabbalistic authorities. Indeed, it seems that their opposition to Sefer ha-Temuna led to a decline in its popularity, and consequently fewer manuscript copies were made from the seventeenth century onward. However, it is important to note that this harsh censure did not have an impact in all geo-cultural spheres of the Jewish diaspora. From the seventeenth century onward, Sefer ha-Temuna indeed disappeared from the libraries of kabbalists in Italy. However, despite the harsh opposition of Luria and Cordovero to this work and its perception of history, it continued to influence the thinking of many Eastern European kabbalists. In explicit opposition to Luria and Cordovero, they preferred, for various reasons, the perception of history according to which the world is constantly advancing toward its repair, determined by a pre-designed program, rather than placing the responsibility on man.
Acknowledgments
This article is a product of my work as a postdoctoral researcher in the Ludmer International Project on the Jewish Heritage of Galicia and Bukovina, University of Haifa, and was written with the support of the Jewish Galicia and Bukovina Organization. This research was also supported by the Leonid Nevzlin Research Center for Russian and Eastern European Jewry at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. I would like to thank Prof. Zeev Gries, Dr. Yoed Kadary, and Mr. Avinoam Stilman for reading a draft of the article and adding their important comments. The article is an expanded and revised version of an article published in Hebrew: “Two Historical Conceptions in Kabbalah: Between Safed and Byzantine Kabbalah,” Judaica Petropolitana 11 (2019): 73–86.
The idea of cyclical time in kabbalistic literature, and its comparison with similar phenomena in other religions and cultures, has been the subject of extensive academic discussion. See, for example, Gershom Scholem, The Kabbalah of Sefer ha-Temuna and of Abraham Abulafia, ed. Josef Ben-Shlomo (Jerusalem: Academon, 1965), 6–21 [Hebrew]; Gershom Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah, ed. Raphael Jehudah Ẓvi Werblowsky (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987), 460–466; Shalom Rozenberg, “The Return to Heaven: Annotations of the History of the Restorative Redemption Idea in Medieval Jewish Philosophy,” in The Messianic Idea in Jewish Thought: A Study Conference in Honour of the Eightieth Birthday of Gershom Scholem (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1982), 36–87 [Hebrew]; Ehud Krinis, “Cyclical Time in the Ismāʿīlī Circle of Ikhwān al-ṣafāʾ (Tenth Century) and in Early Jewish Kabbalists Circles (Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries),” Studia Islamica 111 (2016): 20–108.
To this day, apart from Scholem’s 1964 lecture series, there exists no comprehensive account of the teachings of Sefer ha-Temuna; see Scholem, Kabbalah of Sefer ha-Temuna, 1–84. Concerning this lacuna, see Na’ama Ben-Shachar and Ẓaḥi Weiss, “The Order of Emanation Regarding ‘The Unity of Our God and Our Torah for Our People’ – A Commentary on the Ten Sefirot from the Circle of Sefer ha-Temuna,” Kabbalah: Journal for the Study of Jewish Mystical Texts 41 (2018): 284 [Hebrew]. For an important discussion from a different perspective, which briefly examines Sefer ha-Temuna and a number of the mystical, religious, and philosophical models arising therein, see Haviva Pedaya, “Shabbat, Saturn and the Waning Moon – The Secret Alliance: Letter and Figure,” in Myth in Judaism, ed. Haviva Pedaya, Eshel Beer-Sheva Occasional Publications in Jewish Studies 4 (Beersheva: Ben-Gurion University Press, 1996): 143–191 [Hebrew]. Two articles dealing with various aspects of the teachings of Sefer ha-Temuna were recently published in Polish: Dominika Górnicz, “The Role of ‘Sefirah Binah’ in the Process of Creation and Destruction of Worlds in the Treatise Sefer ha-Temunah,” Studia Judaica 36 (2015): 359–373 [Polish]; Dominika Górnicz, “The Symbolism of the Number Seven in the Kabbalistic Treatise Sefer ha-Temunah,” Studia Religiologica 49, no. 2 (2016): 161–178 [Polish].
This article does not discuss the date of the work’s composition. Concerning the different approaches to this question, see Scholem, Kabbalah of Sefer ha-Temuna, 21; Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (Jerusalem: Schocken, 1941), 178; Gershom Scholem, The Beginning of Kabbalah (1150–1250) (Jerusalem: Schocken 1948), 192 [Hebrew]; Gershom Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah, xiv, 460–462, 468, and n. 233; Efraim Gottlieb, Studies in Kabbalah Literature, ed. J. Hacker (Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University Press, 1976), 332–339 [Hebrew]. In recent decades, following Moshe Idel’s research, it is commonly accepted that the book was composed in the mid-fourteenth century in Byzantium. See Moshe Idel, “The Kabbalah in Byzantium: Preliminary Remarks,” in Jews in Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures, ed. Robert Bonfil, Oded Irshai, Guy G. Stroumsa, and Rina Talgam (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 677–686; Elliot R. Wolfson, “Murmuring Secrets: Eroticism and Esotericism in Medieval Kabbalah,” in Hidden Intercourse: Eros and Sexuality in the History of Western Esotericism, ed. Wouter J. Hanegraaff and Jeffrey J. Kripal (New York: Fordham University Press, 2011), 77–78 n. 50; Ben-Shachar and Weiss, “Order of Emanation,” 279–288. I have demonstrated elsewhere that an examination of the earliest manuscript versions of the work and a consideration of the various branches of its versions in fact reinforces the work’s connection with Spain, leading to an estimated date of composition that is closer to the suggestions made by Scholem and Gottlieb. However, at the same time, it is important to emphasize that it is impossible to determine the precise date of the work’s composition. See Roee Goldschmidt, “From Byzantium to Eastern Europe: The Textual Variants of Sefer Hatemuna and Its Circulation in Manuscripts and Printed Editions,” Kabbalah: Journal for the Study of Jewish Mystical Texts 46 (2020): 287–316.
Moshe Idel, “The Spanish Kabbalah after the Expulsion of Spain,” in Moreshet Sefarad: The Sepharadi Legacy, ed. Ḥayyim Beinart (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992), 503–512, esp. 509 [Hebrew]. In addition to their presence in kabbalistic writings, the ideas found in Sefer ha-Temuna are also found in halachic literature. Prior to the expulsion from Spain, the work is mentioned by Rabbi Ya‘akov Baruch ben Rabbi Yehuda Landa Ashkenazi in Sefer ha-Agur (Naples, 1490). See also Sefer ha-Agur, ed. Moses Hershler (Jerusalem: Boy’s Town Jerusalem Press, 1960), 29, 31; Oxford, Bodleian library MS Opp. 275, 114a, 119a–122b; Sefer Baruch She-Amar (Sheklov, 1804), 17b onward.
On the biblical concept of history as composed of cycles of time, in the context of shemita and yovel (the sabbatical year and the jubilee), see Raymond Westbrook, “Shemita,” Encyclopedia Biblica 8 (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1982), 111–119 [Hebrew]; Moshe Idel, “Some Concepts of Time and History in Kabbalah,” in Jewish History and Jewish Memory: Essays in Honor of Yosef H. Yerushalmi, ed. Elisheva Carlebach, John M. Efron, and David N. Mayers (Hanover, NH: Brandeis University Press, 1998), 157–160.
b. Sanhedrin 93a. Unless otherwise noted, all translations are mine. A similar model for calculating the end is found in the writings of the church fathers. See Richard Landes, “Lest the Millennium Be Fulfilled: Apocalyptic Expectations and the Pattern of Western Chronography, 100–800 CE,” in The Use and Abuse of Eschatology in the Middle Ages, ed. Werner Verbeke, Daniel Verhelst, and Andries Welkenhuysen (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1988), 137–211, esp. 141–142.
Cf. Haviva Pedaya, Nahmanides: Cyclical Time and Holy Text (Tel-Aviv: Am Oved, 2003), 16 [Hebrew].
Cana Werman, The Jubilees Book: Introduction, Translation and Interpretation (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2015), 34, 551–556 [Hebrew]; Oded Irshai, “When Will He Come? Jewish-Christian Eschatology in Late Antiquity,” Migvan De‘ot ve-Hashqafot be-Tarbut Israel (Rehovot: Ministry of Education, 2000), 39–57 [Hebrew].
Ḥaim Ḥanokh, Nachmanides: Philosopher and Mystic (Jerusalem: Tora La-Am, 1978), 430–468 [Hebrew]; Scholem, Beginning of Kabbalah, 81; Josef Dan, History of Jewish Mysticism and Esotericism in the Middle Ages, vol. 8 (Jerusalem: Shazar, 2013), 294–298 [Hebrew]; Pedaya, Nahmanides, 15–36, 209–411; Moshe Halbertal, By the Way of Truth: Nahmanides and the Creation of Tradition (Jerusalem: Hartman Institute, 2006), 212–248 [Hebrew]; Israel Weinstock, Studies in Jewish Philosophy and Mysticism (Jerusalem: Mossad ha-Rav Kook, 1969), 151–241 [Hebrew]. It is important to note that Weinstock tends to expand upon the sources wherein the idea of the sabbaticals appears partially or implicitly, placing them alongside sources wherein this idea appears explicitly. The same approach was also adopted by Pedya, Nahmanides, 11–14, 42 n. 100. Cf. Halbertal, Way of Truth, 212–213 and n. 291.
As Yehuda Liebes has demonstrated, the idea of the sabbaticals is generally absent from Sefer ha-Zohar and was even strongly opposed by Rabbi Moses de Leon. According to Liebes, the historical model of the sabbaticals replaced the myth concerning the “death of the kings of Edom.” However, Liebes highlights a few occurrences of the idea of the sabbaticals in Sifra Dizniuta and its parallels in Sefer ha-Zohar. See Yehuda Liebes, “How the Zohar Was Written,” The Age of the Zohar, ed. Josef Dan, Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 8 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989): 50–52; Yehuda Liebes, Ars Poetica in Sefer Yetsira (Tel Aviv: Schocken, 2000), 136–137, 317 nn. 71–76 [Hebrew]; Zohar 2:176b, 179b; Midrash Ne‘elam, Zohar Ḥadash (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1994), 32. In contrast to Liebes’s approach, Pedaya believes that Torat ha-shemitot deeply affected the historical perception of the end and calculations of it in Sefer ha-Zohar, even though she also argues that there is no explicit manifestation of the sabbaticals in Sefer ha-Zohar. This is a result of a tension among members of the Zoharic circle, which sought to break through the limits of the kabbalistic tradition established by the school of Nachmanides. See Pedaya, Nahmanides, 209–212; Haviva Pedaya, “The Sixth Millennium: Millenarism and Messianism in the Zohar,” Daat: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah 72 (2012): 51–98 [Hebrew]. Indeed, all the instances discussed contain the historical perception that developed from the words of Rav Katina in the Babylonian Talmud, and therefore there is no depiction of the renewal of the world in the seventh millennium. So too, in Sifra Dizniuta, the Zohar does not mention the sabbatical as a model for the renewal of the world after seven thousand years. The section within Midrash Ne’elam in Zohar Hadash is the only source that indeed mentions the sabbatical, and it also refers to the renewal of the world, but there is no real discussion of the cyclical model of seven sabbaticals concluding with the jubilee. Despite the fact that the secret of the jubilee is mentioned on numerous occasions in the Zoharic literature, it is removed from its historical meaning and rather relates to the sefira of bina. Ronit Meroz discussed this part of Sifra Dizniuta from another perspective in her article “The Archaeology of the Zohar Sifra Ditsenita as a Sample Text,” Daat: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah 82 (2016): 46–63, esp. 56–58. According to Meroz (ibid., 57), “The salient characteristics of the kabbalistic doctrine of cyclical time are the identification of the cycles (shemitot) with the divine hypostases (the seven lower sefirot), and the claim that each cycle of the world’s physical existence (shemitah) is an incarnation of a particular sefirah. These doctrines are of no help in understanding the short version of [Sifra Dizniuta], since kabbalistic theosophy is not discernible in its conceptual background.” Based on this assumption, Meroz explains the connection between Sifra Dizniuta and the gaonic sources, such as Midrash Alfa-Betot, in which the idea of creation and destruction is prominent. It is significant to note that the link between the time cycles of the sabbaticals and certain sefirot is a much later development of Torat ha-shemitot, the most detailed development of which occurred in Sefer ha-Temuna. On this see below, n. 12. For another perspective on the conception of history and memory in the Zohar, see Elliot R. Wolfson, “Beyond the Spoken Word: Oral Tradition and Written Transmitting in Medieval Jewish Mysticism,” in Transmitting Jewish Tradition: Orality, Textuality, and Cultural Diffusion, ed. Yaakov Elman and Israel Gershoni (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000), 214–246.
On the creativity and innovation of Nachmanides’s successors, see Daniel Abrams, Kabbalistic Manuscripts and Textual Theory: Methodologies of Textual Scholarship and Editorial Practice in the Study of Jewish Mysticism (Los Angeles: Cherub; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2010), 201–203; Halbertal, Way of Truth, 321–333; Pedaya, Nahmanides, 66–68, 98–119; Wolfson, “Beyond the Spoken Word,” 202–206, 222 n. 17; and compare Moshe Idel, “Nahmanides: Kabbala, Halakha and Spiritual Leadership,” Tarbitz 64 (2005): 556–578 [Hebrew].
Efraim Gottlieb, The Kabbalah in the Writings of R. Asher ibn Halawa (Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sefer, 1970), 233–237 [Hebrew]; Pedaya, Nahmanides, 233–273.
Sefer ha-Temuna (Lemberg, 1892), 29a, emphasis added; cf. version A, ibid., 38a–b. Significantly, the literary style employed by the author of Sefer ha-Temuna here is highly similar to that adopted by Rabbi Yosef Ben Shalom Ashkenazi in his commentary on Sefer Yetsira (attributed to Rabbi Avraham Ben David) in ch. 4, mishna 5 and mishna 6, and the manner in which he describes there the power of the stars Saturn and Mars. Below we will discuss very briefly the similarities and differences between the portrayal of Torat ha-shemitot and the reincarnation of the soul in Sefer ha-Temuna and in the writings of Rabbi Yosef Ben Shalom Ashkenazi; however, this complex issue requires a more comprehensive investigation and is beyond the scope of the present paper. As far as I know, until now no study has broadly compared, in terms of literary aspects and the ideas therein, Sefer ha-Temuna and the thought of Rabbi Yosef ben Shalom Ashkenazi, although a number of scholars have noted the possible connection between the two. Efraim Gottlieb believed that Sefer ha-Temuna influenced Ashkenazi, while Moshe Idel argued that the author of Sefer ha-Temuna was influenced by the writings of Ashkenazi and those of Rabbi David ben Yehuda ha-Ḥasid. On this see Gottlieb, Studies in Kabbalah Literature, 332–339; Michal Oron, “Introduction,” in Massu‘ot: Studies in Kabbalistic Literature and Jewish Philosophy in Memory of Prof. Ephraim Gottlieb, ed. Michal Oron and Amos Goldreich (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1994), 15–16 [Hebrew]; Moshe Idel, “The Commentary on the Alpha-Beta, by R. David b. Yehuda he-Hasid,” Alei Sefer: Studies in Bibliography and in the History of the Printed and the Digital Hebrew Book 10 (1982): 25–35; idem, “An Anonymous Commentary on the Pentateuch, from the Circle of R. Solomon Ibn Adret,” Michael: On the History of the Jews in the Diaspora 11 (1989): 9–21, esp. 17–19; idem, “An Additional Commentary to the Alphabet by R. David ben Yehudah he-Hasid and Sefer ha-Temunah” Alei Sefer: Studies in Bibliography and in the History of the Printed and the Digital Hebrew Book 26–27 (2017): 237–246; idem, “The Jubilee in Jewish Mysticism” in Fins de siècle – End of Ages, ed. Yosef Kaplan (Jerusalem: Shazar, 2005): 71–72; idem, “Spanish Kabbalah,” 503–513; idem, “Kabbalah in Byzantium,” 667–686. For Idel’s dating of the composition of Sefer ha-Temuna to between the years 1335 and 1345, see ibid., 682. See also Moshe Idel, “The Kabbalah in the Byzantine Area” Kabbalah: Journal for the Study of Jewish Mystical Texts, 18 (2008): 108–214. It is important to emphasize that it is very difficult to determine the direction of influence among certain kabbalists, and in particular who influenced whom, precisely because it is not entirely clear when exactly each kabbalist was active. Compare Pedaya, “Shabbat, Saturn,” 149–158. Concerning this, see also Goldschmidt, “From Byzantium to Eastern Europe.”
The commentator on Sefer ha-Temuna theoretically defies this notion, claiming that certain practices can save the unfortunate from reincarnation. See below, n. 31.
Similarly, Scholem describes the idea of reincarnation in Sefer ha-Bahir. Gershom Scholem, Elements of the Kabbalah and its Symbolism, trans. Josef Ben-Shlomo (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1980), 311–316, 322–324 [Hebrew].
In this context, the kabbalists mention in particular levirate marriage. See Scholem, Elements of the Kabbalah, 316–318; Oded Yisraeli, The Interpretation of Secrets and the Secret of Interpretation: Midrashic and Hermeneutic Strategies in Sabba de-Mishpatim of the Zohar (Los Angeles: Cherub, 2005), 113–148 [Hebrew]. On the various meanings of the secret of ibbur among the kabbalists of Catalonia, see Moshe Idel, “Commentaries on the ‘Secret of Ibbur’ in 13th Century Kabbalah and Their Significance for the Understanding of the Kabbalah at Its Inception and its Development – Part 1,” Daat: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah 72 (2012): 5–49 [Hebrew]. For other sources concerning the issue of reincarnation in general, see ibid., 32–33, n. 100. For additional sources on the inevitable reincarnation of a person who does not bear children, in various cultures, see ibid., 42 n. 137.
See, for instance, Shem-Tov Ibn Gaon, Keter Shem Tov, in Amudey ha-Kabbalah (Jerusalem: Neẓer-Shraga, 2001), 60; Scholem, Elements of the Kabbalah, 319. Cf. Yehuda Liebes, “Sections of Zohar Lexicon” (PhD diss., The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1976), 295 [Hebrew].
Haggai Ben-Shammai, “Transmigration of Souls in Tenth Century Jewish Thought in the Orient,” Sefunot: Studies and Sources on the History of the Jewish Communities in the East 5 [20] (1991): 122–123 [Hebrew].
Scholem, Elements of the Kabbalah, 312–316; Gershom Scholem, Kabbalah (Jerusalem: Keter, 1974), 346–348.
Moshe Hallamish, A Kabbalistic Commentary of Rabbi Yoseph Ben Shalom Ashkenazi on Genesis Rabbah (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984), 25–26, 177–178 [Hebrew]. See also the survey in Brian Ogren, Renaissance and Rebirth: Reincarnation in Early Modern Italian Kabbalah (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 11–20, esp. 19–20.
In fact, he does not discuss the question of which sabbatical the world is in at present, in contrast to Sefer ha-Temuna.
Although the idea of retribution for one’s actions appears in the book, it is not clear what role reincarnation plays in this. See, for instance, Sefer ha-Temuna, 3a–3b. Sefer ha-Temuna and its accompanying commentary refer to the reincarnation of the righteous in much the same way as the reincarnation of the wicked. In addition, in both sources the process occurs involuntarily. Ibid., 31a–31b. It is important to note that also in the writings of Rabbi Yosef Hamadan, known as Rabbi Yosef “of Shushan ha-bira,” and Rabbi Yosef ben Shalom Ashkenazi, the idea of reincarnation is connected with Torat ha-shemitot and other cosmic laws. However, Rabbi Yosef Hamadan does not completely separate reincarnation as beasts from the question of reward and punishment, and apparently he also influenced the author of Tikunei ha-Zohar and Raya Mehemana. See Liebes, “Sections of Zohar Lexicon,” 295. For Ashkenazi, the idea of reincarnation is connected to the elevation of all elements – mineral, vegetable, animal, human, and angels – who pass from one state to another according to the law determined at creation. See Melila Hellner-Eshed, “Transmigration of the Soul in the Kabbalistic Literature of Rabbi David Ben Zimra,” Pe’amim 43 (1990) 25–26 [Hebrew]; Scholem, Elements of the Kabbalah, 334–337. A similar approach, depicting certain aspects of reincarnation as fated and thus not dependent on man’s acts, appears in Saba de-Mishpatim; see Yisraeli, Interpretation of Secrets, 139–149. For an additional discussion of the topic of Yibum in Saba de-Mishpatim, see Pinchas Giller, “Love and Upheaval in the Zohar’s Sabba de-Mishpatim,” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 7 (1997–1998): 44–60.
This, as was noted above, follows Scholem’s dating of the composition of Sefer ha-Temuna to the first half of the thirteenth century.
Gershom Scholem, “A Study of the Theory of Transmigration in Kabbalah during the 13th Century,” Tarbitz 15 (1945): 136.
This phrasing appears already in the first dated manuscript of version B of the work, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Hunt. 309, Neubauer 1550, 48a. And indeed, in the first version of Sefer ha-Temuna, the entire sentence concerning transmigration of souls in this sabbatical is lacking. See the Lemberg 1892 edition, 38a and 40b, in the “Nusaḥ shel Ketav ha-Yad.” Concerning the various versions of Sefer ha-Temuna, see Goldschmidt, “From Byzantium to Eastern Europe.”
Although the idea of retribution for one’s actions appears in the book, it is not clear what role reincarnation plays in this. See, for instance, Sefer ha-Temuna, 3a–3b. Sefer ha-Temuna and its accompanying commentary refer to the reincarnation of the righteous in much the same way as the reincarnation of the wicked. In addition, in both sources the process occurs involuntarily. Ibid., 31a–31b.
Ibid., 37a–37b.
Rabbi Shlomo Alqabeẓ was influenced by the approach of Sefer ha-Temuna in this context and with regard to several other aspects of the reincarnation. See Bracha Sack, Solomon Had a Vineyard: God, the Torah and Israel in R. Shlomo Halevi Alkabetz’s Writings (Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University Press, 2018), 206–209 [Hebrew]. However, he also incorporates the words of Rabbi Menachem Recanati and other kabbalists. See below, n. 36.
Sefer ha-Temuna, 36b–37a, emphasis added.
This is phrased even more sharply in another version, New York, The Jewish Theological Seminary, Ms. 1386: “All this in this bad sabbatical, it will take its action” (emphasis added).
Sefer ha-Temuna, 42b–43a in the commentary, emphasis added.
Ibid.
Ibid., 67b in the commentary, 40a, 56b, emphasis added.
Ibid., 44a in the commentary.
See Hellner-Eshed, “Transmigration of the Soul.”
Menaḥem Recanati, Perush al ha-Tora al Derekh ha-Emet (Commentary on Genesis 9:4), (Venice: Brumberg, 1523), 51 (original unpaginated).
This idea was developed comprehensively by Rabbi Yosef Hamadan in his work Sefer Ta’amei ha-Mitzvot, and from there it was apparently quoted by Recanati. See the detailed discussion of Leore Sachs-Shmueli, The Rationale of the Negative Commandments by R. Joseph Hamadan: A Critical Edition and Study of Taboo in the Time of the Composition of the Zohar, vol. 1 (PhD diss., Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, 2018), 187–216 [Hebrew]. And indeed, Rabbi Yosef’s approach significantly differs from that found in Sefer ha-Temuna in this respect. For Rabbi Yosef, transmigration of the soul into a beast is always the result of various sins, and the animal to which the soul of the sinner will transmigrate is determined in accordance with the kind of sin. In Sefer ha-Temuna, as was noted, the reason for transmigration is not specifically related to a person’s acts but to the law of the sabbatical. See ibid., 202–203 and nn. 673–677. In my opinion, most of the sources cited by Sachs-Shmueli were in fact influenced by the approach adopted by the author of Sefer ha-Temuna, usually quoted by name, and not that of Rabbi Yosef Hamadan. See also the following note.
In the explication of the letter hey in all three parts of Sefer ha-Temuna, and also the commentary accompanying version B of the work, the letter hey represents the sefira of gevura. See Sefer ha-Temuna, 2a–2b 12b–13a, 38b–40a.
Sefer ha-Temuna, 39a, in the commentary, emphasis added. Similarly, also in Sefer ha-Qana the reason for minimizing the suffering of the slaughtered beast is because whenever a beast is brought to slaughter, the soul reincarnated in it has already achieved full tiqqun. Thus the author of Sefer ha-Qana combines the approach of Sefer ha-Temuna with ideas drawn from Rabbi Yosef ben Shalom Ashkenazi and Rabbi Menachem Recanati. See Sefer ha-Qana (Krakow, 1894), 135b–136a.
Moshe Cordovero, Pardes Rimonim (Korets, 1780), author’s introduction.
Moshe Cordovero, Shi‘ur Qoma (Warsaw, 1883), 79b; Bracha Sack, The Kabbalah of Rabbi Moshe Cordovero (Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University Press, 1995), 24 [Hebrew].
Bracha Sack, “Al Parashat Yaḥaso shel Rabbi Moshe Cordovero le-Sefer ha-Temuna,” in Massu‘ot: Studies in Kabbalistic Literature and Jewish Philosophy in Memory of Prof. Ephraim Gottlieb, ed. Michal Oron and Amos Goldrich (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1994), 188–189; Sack, Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, 279–290.
Cordovero, Shi‘ur Qoma, 84a.
Ibid., 85a.
Sack, Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, 25, 160–161.
See Gershom Scholem, “Rabbi David Ben Yehudah ha-Hasid, Nachmanides’ Grandson,” Kiryat Sefer 4 (1927): 325 [Hebrew]; Gottlieb, Studies in Kabbalah, 250.
Cordovero, Shi‘ur Qoma, 80a.
Ibid. For more details regarding Cordovero’s attitude to Sefer ha-Temuna and Sefer ha-Qanah, see Yoed Kadary, “The Angelology of R. Moses Cordovero” (PhD diss., Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, 2014), 212–216.
Sack, Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, 267–278.
It is important to mention that at the opening of his book Sefer Pardes Rimonim, Cordovero notes his apprehension at discussing the transmigration of the soul, in addition to his concern about Torat ha-shemitot mentioned above. This was, in his words, because the author of Sefer ha-Zohar also did not expand upon the transmigration of souls, and when he did mention it, the phrasing of the Zohar is unclear. In the work Sefer Shi‘ur Qoma, Cordovero did not dedicate a chapter to the transmigration of the soul. However, he dealt with it later at length in his work Or Yakar, specifically in his commentary on the Zohar, Saba de-Mishpatim. This part has never been printed and can be found in a few dozen manuscripts. Thinkers who clearly followed Cordovero, such as R. Shabtai Shaftel Horwitz of Prague, totally rejected the idea of reincarnation. See Bracha Sack, “Some Remarks on Rabbi Moses Cordovero’s Shemu‘ah be-Inyan ha-Gilgul,” in Perspectives on Jewish Thought and Mysticism: Dedicated to the Memory of Alexander Altman, ed. Alfred L. Ivry, Elliot R. Wolfson, and Allan Arkush (Amsterdam: Harwood Academic, 1998), 277–287. However, a manuscript entitled “The Secret of the Reincarnation of Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, ZLH″H” (Cincinnati, Hebrew Union College Ms. 570) should be noted and has yet to be discussed in academic research.
Cordovero’s model of the sabbatical and the jubilee does not terminate after fifty millennia. For Cordovero, the system is more complicated than one cycle of the jubilee. However, he does not stipulate how many jubilees there will be. See Bracha Sack, “Three Calendrical Calculations of the Redemption in Or Yakar,” in Messianism and Eschatology: A Collection of Essays, ed. Zvi Baras (Jerusalem: Shazar, 1983), 281–292 [Hebrew].
Sha‘ar Ma’amre Rashbi (Jerusalem: N.p., 1988), 212; Likutei Tora (Żółkiew, 1775), 82b; Shaar ha-Ma’amarim (Jerusalem: Ahavat Shalom, 2017), 94–95 and n. 209. It is important to note that Sefer Likutei Torah, edited by Rabbi Meir Poppers, mentions this discussion without naming Sefer ha-Temuna explicitly. Rabbi Meir Popper’s approach to this polemic between Luria and Sefer ha-Temuna will be discussed below.
Isaiah Tishbi, The Doctrine of Evil and Kelippah in Lurianic Kabbalah (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984), 21–38 [Hebrew].
In the words of Scholem: “Adam’s sin is a kind of repetition of the ‘breaking of the vessels.’ What happened there in the metaphysical realm now occurred in the psychological and anthropological realm.” Gershom Scholem, Shabbetai Zevi and the Shabbetaian Movement during His Lifetime (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1967), 31 [Hebrew]; Assaf Tamari, “Human Sparks: Readings in the Lurianic Theory of Transmigration and Its Concept of the Human Subject” (MA thesis, Tel Aviv University, 2009), 19–20, n. 80 [Hebrew].
Tishbi, Doctrine of Evil, 91–113.
Sha‘ar ha-Gilgulim (Jerusalem: N.p., 1998), ch. 3, 16–17; ch. 11, 36–37.
The Lurianic writings distinguish between Adam as a person and his representation as the ancient soul of all souls to come. See Sha‘ar ha-Gilgulim, ch. 23, 64; Ronit Meroz, “Redemption in the Lurianic Teaching” (PhD diss., The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1988), 277–287 [Hebrew]; Tamari, “Human Sparks,” 18–33.
The idea of sparks of the soul that return in reincarnation at various times appears already in an anonymous manuscript from the end of the thirteenth century, quoted by Scholem, who notes the connection between this idea and the development of the Lurianic perception. See Scholem, “Study of the Theory of Transmigration,” 143. For a detailed discussion of this idea and its roots, see Moshe Idel, “Commentaries on the ‘Secret of Ibbur’ in 13th Century Kabbalah and Their Significance for the Understanding of the Kabbalah at Its Inception and Its Development – Part 2,” Daat: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah 73 (2012): 30–37.
Meroz, “Redemption,” 267–276, 363–368; Scholem, Elements of the Kabbalah, 333; Sack, Solomon Had a Vineyard, 22–23.
Apart from transmigration, there is also the possibility of ibbur ha-neshama: the soul of a saint arrives to help to repair (tiqqun) the soul of someone close to him. Here the soul returns in order to help another one of that same “family of souls” reach full tiqqun. On the kabbalistic idea of ibbur in the Lurianic context, see Scholem, Elements of the Kabbalah, 331. On ibbur among Luria and his pupils, see Yehuda Liebes, “Two Young Roes of a Doe: The Secret Sermon of Isaac Luria before His Death,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 10 (1992): 116–117; Menachem Kallus, “Pneumatic Mystical Possession and the Eschatology of the Soul in Lurianic Kabbala,” in Spirit Possession in Judaism: Cases and Contexts from the Middle Ages to the Present, ed. Matt Goldish (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2003), 163–167. On the roots and meanings of this idea in thirteenth-century Kabbalah, see Idel, “Commentaries on the ‘Secret of Ibbur’ – Part 1”; Idel, “Commentaries on the ‘Secret of Ibbur’ – Part 2.”
Yehuda Liebes, “Two Young Roes of a Doe,” 132–135; Meroz, “Redemption,” 364–365; Tamari, “Human Sparks,” 106–111.
Meroz, “Redemption,” 5 n. 17; Scholem, Shabbetai Zevi, 54 and n. 2.
Dan 12:12.
Ḥaim Vital, Sha‘ar ha-Pesuqim (Jerusalem: N.p., 1978), 273; Ḥaim Vithal, Sha‘ar ha-Pesuqim (Jerusalem: Ahavat Shalom, 2017), 220.
Liebes, “Two Young Roes of a Doe,” 113–169; Meroz, “Redemption,” 328–359.
Eẓ-Ḥayyim (Jerusalem: N.p., 1960), R. Ḥaim Vital’s introduction, 19–20.
It is important to note, however, that Luria accepts the status of Sefer ha-Qana as a halachic decisor (posek). See Ḥagay Pely, “The Lurianic Kabbalah: Halakhic and Meta-Halakhic Aspects” (PhD diss., Ben-Gurion University, Beer Sheva, 2014), 152–153 n. 763, 171–172, 173 n. 375 [Hebrew]; Ronit Meroz, “Selections from Ephraim Penzieri: Luria’s Sermon in Jerusalem and the Kavvanah in Taking Food,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 10 (1992): 239 n. 180 [Hebrew].
Scholem, Kabbalah of Sefer ha-Temuna, 190–191 n. 3, 192–193; Scholem, Beginning of Kabbalah, 83–84.
Shinichi Yamamoto, “The Doctrine of World Cycles and Messianism in the Writings of Nathan of Gaza,” Kabbalah: Journal for the Study of Jewish Mystical Texts 38 (2017): 299–320.
On this, see at length Goldschmidt, “From Byzantium to Eastern Europe,” which concerns the role of the printed edition of Sefer ha-Temuna that was published in Krakow in 1599 in the distribution of the work in Eastern European manuscripts.
On Rabbi Meir Poppers’s edition, see Yosef Avivi, Kabbala Luriana (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2008), 636–656 [Hebrew].
Meir Wunder, A Thousand Pearls (Elef Margaliot) (Jerusalem: The Memorial Institute of Galicia Jewry, 1993), 326–328 [Hebrew]; Arie Lieb Frumqin and Eliezer Rivlin, Toldot Ḥakhmei Yerushalaym, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Solomon, 1928), 38–39; Avivi, Kabbala Luriana, 891.
Meir Poppers, Tora Or (Jerusalem: Eliyahu Ẓion Sofer, 1989), 117–118.
Another attempt to tackle the disparity between Luria’s words and those of the author of Sefer ha-Temuna appears in the writings of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady, who also sought to bridge the two. My thanks to Dr. Uriel Gelman for referring me to this source. See Shneur Zalman of Liady, Tora Or (Vilna: Rom, 1899), 51b; Shneur Zalman of Liady, Tora Or (Vilna: Rom, 1899), 51b.
Poppers, Tora Or, 131–132.
I intend to devote a separate article to the attitude of Eastern European kabbalists regarding Sefer ha-Temuna and their various uses of the idea of the sabbaticals.