|
Interpretation and Power:
The Emergence of Zohar Hermeneutics in the 16th century
by
Boaz Huss
Inroduction
Zohar exegesis has been a central cultural practice in the field of Kabbalistic production, since the mid 16th century. Although interpretations of Zohar passages were written previously - indeed, almost simultaneously with the creation of the Zoharic texts, it was only in the 16th century that the first running commentaries to the Zohar were written. It is during this period that two major Kabbalistic systems, the Cordoverian and the Lurianic, emerged as interpretations to the Zoharic corpus.
This paper will offer a short survey of the development of Zohar exegesis,1 followed by a discussion of the reasons for the 16th century emergence of Zohar hermeneutics as a major cultural practice. My thesis is that the centrality of Zohar exegesis is dependent upon the stabilization of the Zoharic corpus and its first printings. Previous to the definition of the Zoharic corpus, cultural capital in the Kabbalistic realm could be obtained through collecting, editing, and possessing Zoharic manuscripts. Subsequent to the definition of the Zoharic corpus and its publication in print, cultural power was achieved through obtaining control over its meaning -
i.e., through its exegesis. But before turning to the examination of the emergence of Zohar hermeneutics, I would like to give a short description of the Zohar and the early stages of its reception.
- A short description of the history of Zohar exegesis can be found in Isaiah Tishbi and Fischel Lachover's Mishnat ha-Zohar, Jerusalem, 1971, pp. 114-116. A more detailed discussion is found n Pinhas Giller's Reading the Zohar, Oxford, 2001, pp. 14-33.
The Zohar and its Reception
Sefer ha-Zohar, a collection of Kabbalistic writing from the late 13th and early 14th became, especially since the 16th century, the central text of Kabbalah, and one of the most authoritative and venerated text of Judaism, alongside the Old Testament and the Talmud.
The Zohar contains a wide variety of units, which can be roughly divided into three main sections: Midrash ha-Ne`elam (the hidden homily), Zohar to the portions of the Torah (which is the main part of the Zohar), and Tikunei Zohar and Ra`ya Meheimna (Zohar amendments and the faithful shepherd).
Most of the Zohar consists of Kabbalistic exegesis to the Torah, written in Aramaic. The Zoharic homilies, presented in the style of ancient Jewish Midrash, and attributed to a group of Jewish sages, headed by the second century Tanna Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, expose Kabbalistic secrets, pertaining usually to the structure of the divine system (the Sefirot), its inner dynamics, and humans influence on it. The Zoharic literature discusses a wide variety of other subjects as well, including moral, mystical and psychological issues, as well as stories and anecdotes relating to the adventures of Rabbi Shim`on bar Yochai and his fellowship.
Since the early 14th century, the Zohar was attributed to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. Yet, through the ages, and especially since the age of enlightenment, doubts were cast on the antiquity (as well as the literary integrity) of the Zohar, a stance accepted by Modern Kabbalah scholarship.
Although the exact authorship of the Zoharic literature is unknown, it is evident that most of this literature was created in Castile in the late 13th and early 14th century. Gershom Scholem, following previous scholars, asserted that most of the Zohar was written in the late 13th century by the Castilian Kabbalist Rabbi Moshe de Leon.1 According to Gershom, the latter strata of the Zohar - Tikunei Zohar and Ra`ya Meheimna, were written later, in the early 14th century, by a different, unknown Kabbalist, who imitated the style of the Zohar. Yehuda Liebes on the other hand suggested that not only Tikunei Zohar literature, but also Midrash ha-Ne'elam, as well as other Zoharic units, were created by different authors. Thus, the Zoharic literature should be regarded as product of a group of Kabbalists that operated in Castile in the late 13th and early 14th century. Moshe de Leon, according to this view should not be considered as the sole author of the Zohar, but rather a member of this group who played a central role in the creation and edition of the Zoharic literature.2
Zoharic texts from Midrash ha-Ne'elam
and the main part of the Zohar were cited for the first time in the late 13th century, as ancient Midrashic texts (Tikunei Zohar and Ra`ya Meheimna were cited only in later periods). Since the early 14th century Zoharic texts were perceived as belonging to one literary unit, referred to as Sefer ha-Zohar, or the homily of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. Until the printing of the Zohar in the 16th century, the Zohar circulated in collections that were very different in their scope and content from one another. The Zoharic canon was created in the mid sixteenth century when its first printers that based their editions on several manuscript collections. First, Tikunei Zohar were printed in Mantua, in 1557 followed by two editions of the other Zoharic units, divided according to the Torah portions, printed in Mantua in three volumes, and in Cremona in one volume, between 1558-1560. Another volume of Zoharic texts was printed under the title New Zohar, in Salonica, in 1597. Most of the later editions of the Zohar follow the Mantua and Salonica editions.
- Gershom G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, New York 1961, pp. 156-204.
- Yehuda Liebes, Studies in the Zohar, Albany 1993, pp. 85-90.
The Development of Zohar Exegesis
Commentaries on Zoharic passages were created as soon as the first Zoharic texts were circulated. In fact, some of the units that later became part of the Zoharic corpus include interpretations to earlier Zoharic strata. Commentaries to Midrash ha-Ne'elam passages can be found in the later units of the Zohar, the Idrot interpret Sifra de-Zniuta, and Tikunei ha-Zohar and Raya Mehemana offer exegesis on the earlier Zoharic texts.
Other examples of early commentary on Zohar passages can be found in Rabbi Menahem Recanati's Torah commentary, written in the first decade of the 14th century. In his Pirush Ta'amei ha-Mizwot he mentions a commentary to the Zohar he wrote, which was either lost, or, as Moshe Idel suggested, incorporated into his Torah commentary.1 Zohar commentaries also appear in Rabbi Joseph Angelit's writing, especially in his Livnat ha-Sapir, a work written in 1325, in which he asserts: "I have included in this compilation every passage I have found difficult in Midrash ha-Ne'elam [i.e., the Zohar] in order to explicate them".2
In between the mid 14th and mid 15th centuries, a period in which Kabbalah played a marginal role in Jewish culture, it is difficult to find Zohar exegesis (The only cases I am familiar with are some interpretations found in the writings of Rabbi Shem Tov Ibn Shem Tov and Rabbi Menahem Zion). It is only since the late 15th century, and especially, after the expulsion from Spain, that commentaries to Zohar passages became more prevalent. Rabbi Isaac Mor Yayyim wrote an interpretation to the beginning of the Idra Zuta in an epistle he wrote in 1491, and several commentaries to Zohar passages can be found in the response of Rabbi Joseph Elcastil to Rabbi Yehuda Hayyat. Many interpretations to the Zohar are to be found in the writings of important, usually Sephardic, Kabbalists in the first half of the 16th century, such as Rabbi Yehuda Hayyat, Rabbi Avraham Ha-Levi, Rabbi Meir Ibn Gabai, Rabbi Shlomo Alkavetz and many others.
I would like to emphasize again that while interpretations of Zohar passages were included in Kabbalistic works in the early 16
th century, as well as previously, no running commentaries of the Zohar had been written as of yet, except, possibly, that of Rabbi Menahem Recanati. It was only in the second half of the 16th century that the first running commentaries to the Zohar were written, and Zohar exegesis became a central genre of Kabbalistic literature. Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, who included many Zohar commentaries in his early work, Pardes Rimmonim, wrote the first, and probably the most comprehensive commentary to the Zohar, Or Yakar in the mid 16th century. As mentioned above, Cordovero's Kabbalistic system was dependent to a large extent on his Zohar hermeneutics. Similarly, Rabbi Isaac Luria's Kabbalah was created, as stated explicitly by his disciples, through his effort to comprehend the Zohar. In contrast to Cordovero, Luria was not a prolific writer. Yet, it is indicative that most of his writings are commentaries to the Zohar.3
Disciples of the two great Safedian Kabbalists also wrote commentaries to the Zohar. Rabbi Hayyim Vital wrote a commentary to the Zohar, previous to his encounter with Luria. Rabbi Abraham Galanti, Cordovero's disciple wrote a Zohar commentary entitled Yareah Yakar, which became one of the first Zohar commentaries to be printed. Two other disciples of Luria, Rabbi Joseph Ibn Tabul and Rabbi Israel Ibn Sarug also wrote commentaries on the Zohar.
During the same period commentaries to the Zohar were produced outside the sphere of influence of Safedian Kabbalah as well. In North Africa, around the year 1570, Rabbi Shimo'n Lavi wrote a Zohar commentary, which came to be known by the name Ketem Paz. At the same period, the Rema, Rabbi Moshe Isserles wrote a Zohar commentary in Poland. Since that period, and until our days,
Zohar commentaries are one of the most prevalent forms of Kabbalistic literature.
Thus, in the second half of the 16th century a new genre emerged, and Zohar hermeneutics became a central practice in the field of Kabbalistic production. As I suggested, the emergence of Zohar hermeneutics in this period is consequent to the formation of the Zoharic canon and its first Italian printing in the mid-sixteenth century. I would like to elaborate now on the connection I see between the definition of the Zoharic corpus and its printing, and its emerging hermeneutics.
- Moshe Idel, Rabbi Menahem Recanati The Kabbalist, Tel Aviv 1998, pp. 68-71 [Hebrew].
- Ms. British Library Add. 27000, fol. 418a.
- Fine, Lawrence, Physician of the Soul, Healer of the Cosmos, Isaac Luria and His Kabbalistic Fellowship, Stanford, 2003, p. 36.
The Definition of the Zoharic Corpus
Prior to its printing, what was considered "The Zohar" was still un-determined. In the vast collection of Zoharic manuscripts copied between the 14th and mid 16th centuries, there are only a few that are identical, or that can even be regarded as belonging to the same family.1 This, as well as several explicit remarks by the scribes of Zohar manuscripts, indicates that during this period scribes collected Zoharic texts, edited them, and created their own Zohar collections. Similarly, the study of Zohar citations found in 14th to early 16th centuries Jewish literature reveals that different authors had different collections of Zoharic texts in front of them, and perceived the scope of the literary unit they called "The Zohar" differently.
It was only during the sixteenth century that the scope of the
Zohar became more defined. Zoharic texts became more prevalent, and most of the texts that were included later in the printed editions of the Zohar were perceived as parts of the same literary unit. The printing of the Zohar in Mantua and Cremona between 1558 and 1560, and later, in Salonica in 1597, determined to a large degree the way the Zohar was subsequently perceived and transmitted.
The study of the formation of Zoharic collections between the 14th and 16th centuries reveals that the scribes, and later, printers of theses collections used exhaustive, rather than restrictive, criteria in forming the Zohar.
The scope of these collections, as well as some explicit references, show that their editors strived to accumulate and include in their collections as many Zoharic texts as possible. Many scribes and Kabbalists included Midrash ha-Ne'elam texts in their Zoharic collections, notwithstanding the significant differences between them and other Zoharic units. Tikunei Zohar, which were unknown to the first collectors of the Zohar in the early 14th century, were added to Zoharic collections since the late 14th century. Similarly, The Raya Mehemana, which began to be circulated only in the early 16th century, was included in Zoharic collections of that period. The exhaustive tendency that characterizes the formation of the Zoharic corpus comes to the fore in the title page of the Cremona edition of the Zohar, which reads:
Sefer ha-Zohar on the Torah written by the man of God, the saintly, wonderful R. Shimo'n bar Yochai Z"l, with many additions, which are: Sitrei Toarh, Midrash ha-Ne'elam and Tosephta on several parshiot. We have also added more than the other [printers]: the whole of Raya Mehemana, the innovations of the Bahir, Midrash Ruth, Midrash Hazit, the section Ta Hazi and Heichalot
This exhaustive tendency is explained, in my opinion, by the fact that Zohar collections were a source of cultural power during the 14th to the 16th centuries. As I have suggested elsewhere, the formation of Zoharic compilations was subsequent to the emergence of the Zohar as an imagined text.2 The notion that of a literary unit, called the Zohar (or, known by other names such as Midrash ha-Ne'elam or Midrasho shel Rashbi) attributed to Rabbi Shimo'n bar Yochai, and perceived as an authoritative and sacred text, emerged in the early 14th century. As soon as this notion appeared, the collection of texts perceived to belong to this authoritative and sacred literary unit became a central practice in the field of Kabbalistic production.
The collection and edition and possession of Zoharic texts, and the ability to cite from them, enhanced the cultural power of those who were in possession of these texts. As the scope of the Zoharic canon was not yet defined, Kabbalists, scribes and later, printers, attempted to create exhaustive compilations of the Zohar. To put it bluntly, the bigger one's Zohar was, the larger his cultural capital.
The cultural, as well as economical, power of those in possession of Zoharic manuscripts prior to the printing of the Zohar is highlighted by the words of Rabbi Moshe Basola in his decree in favor of printing the Zohar (which was printed in the 1557 Mantua edition of Tikunei Zohar):
Why should the Zohar be hidden amongst the rich, sealed in their treasure houses? They, with their richness boast in copying it, although they do not understand and comprehend it, and walk in darkness. Yet, the poor are seeking the bread of Torah and cannot obtain it. And even though they have lion hearts to investigate the secrets and understand the mysteries, their hand is too weak to obtain a manuscript of the complete Zohar. And those who have the Zohar in their possession hide it, and others can not obtain it.
- See Huss, Boaz, "The Early Dissemination of Sefer ha-Zohar", Tarbiz 70, 2001, p. 508 [Hebrew].
- Ibid, pp. 507-542.
The Emergence of Zohar Hermeneutics
As Zoharic texts became more prevalent and familiar and the scope of the Zohar more defined the cultural capital of those in possession of Zoharic manuscript diminished considerably. Cultural power was no longer in the hands of those who had exclusive access to the Zoharic texts, but in the hands of those who claimed to have access to its understanding. Hence, the emergence of Zohar hermeneutics as a central kabalistic practice and the production of the first wide scale Zohar commentaries in the two decades that followed the first printing of the Zohar.
Basola's statement concerning rich people, who accumulate Zohar manuscripts, without understanding their content, is probably an exaggeration. Yet, it reflects his awareness that prior to the printing of the Zohar, cultural power was anchored in the possession of the Zohar, and not in its comprehension. The shift from collecting Zoharic manuscripts and establishing the form of Zohar compilations, to interpreting the Zohar and to determining its meaning, is reflected in the writings of two of the first commentators of the Zohar, R. Moshe Cordovero and R. Shimo'n Ibn Lavi. Both Kabbalists had in their possession Zoharic collections that they had created themselves, previous to the printing of the Zohar. Both wrote their commentaries after the printing of the Zohar (although they also had engaged in Zohar hermeneutics previously).
That is not to say that the publication of the Zohar ended the debate over the form and content of the Zoharic corpus immediately. Both R. Shimo'n Ibn Lavi, and R. Moshe Cordovero wrote interpretations to their own Zoharic compilations and criticized the printed editions of the
Zohar. This criticism reflects the struggle over the control of the shape and form of the Zohar, which characterized Kabbalistic practice prior to its printing. Yet the fact that both Kabbalists turned to write commentaries to the Zohar after its printing indicates an attempt to establish their own cultural power as interpreters of the Zohar - i.e., as controlling the meaning of the sacred and authoritative text.
The cultural power of controlling the form and scope of the Zohar did not entirely disappear after the first printing of the Zohar. Additional Zoharic texts were added to the Zoharic corpus with the publication of Zohar Hadash in the late 16th century, and corrections and amendments were added to later printed editions of the Zohar. Yet, as I have shown in this paper, the focus of Kabbalistic cultural production turned to the production of Zohar commentaries, and the arena in which Kabbalists struggled for cultural dominancy was the hermeneutical one. As Zohar exegesis became a central cultural practice in the Kabbalistic production field, the struggle for hegemony depended upon the composition of authoritative interpretations to the Zohar.
This e-lecture is from the Goldstein-Goren International Centre for Jewish Thought
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
Return to top
|
