TRANSMISSION IN THE KABBALAH

“. . . since the esoteric aspects of the Tora require intense preparation and high sophistication, they could be apprehended only by the intellectual and moral elite, not by the vulgar. To expose the sodot, "secrets" ([1]) and sitre tora, "enigmas of the Tora" ([2]) found in Prophetic and Rabbinic literature, ([3]) to the unlearned would be as harmful as feeding a baby "wheat-bread, meat, and wine" ([4]). On the other hand, the Tora was designed for all, including the uneducated. The style of the Tora is a direct function of the strategy designed to resolve this dilemma. At the exoteric level, the Tora addresses these matters according to the understanding of the vulgar, while at the same time communicating the esoteric sense to the elite through riddles and metaphors ([5]). The Tora encodes these secrets and enigmas in cryptograms and riddles, which only the elite can decode. These cryptograms and riddles are formulated in an equivocal language that the vulgar would understand in an innocuous way, but the elite would interpret esoterically ([6]).  [7]

“With Maimonides, Newton believed that God not only reveals His will at an exoteric level, accessible to all, but, also, at an esoteric level: God encodes His will in riddles and cryptograms accessible to the intellectual elite alone. For Maimonides, not only does the Scripture itself contain such riddles and cryptograms, but also the physical realm. Indeed, Maimonides regarded the esoteric aspect of physical phenomena as one of the "great mysteries" of the universe ("Introduction"; 3:16-24), and he identified the study of ma’ase bereshit of the Rabbis with the esoteric study of physics (I, 33). Thus, there is a mystical and mysterious aspect to the Godhead, not revealed in the laws of nature, but, rather, encoded—in a specific Maimonidean style—in "riddles" and "cryptograms" that He had laid about in the universe, and that the initiate could decode. This is how Lord Keynes described Newton's outlook:

... he looked on the whole universe and all that is in it as a riddle, as a secret which could be read by applying pure thought to certain evidence, certain mystic clues which God had laid about the world to allow a sort of philosopher's treasure hunt to esoteric brotherhood. He believed that these clues were to be found partly in evidence of the heavens and in the constitution of elements (and that is what gives the false suggestion of his being an experimental natural philosopher), but also partly in certain papers and traditions handed down by the brethren in an unbroken chain back to the original cryptic revelation in Babylonia. He regarded the universe as a cryptogram set by the Almighty—just as he himself wrapt the discovery of the calculus in a cryptogram when he communicated with Leibniz. By pure thought, by concentration of the mind, the riddle, he believed, would be revealed to the initiate.

   He did read the riddle of the heavens. And he believed that by the same powers of his introspective imagination he would read the riddle of the Godhead, the riddle of past and future events divinely fore ordained, the riddle of the elements and their constitution from an original undifferentiated first matter, the riddle of health and of immortality.”[8]

  José Faur, Newton, Maimonides, and Esoteric Knowledge, CrossCurrents, Vol. 40, No. 4, desire (WINTER 1990-91), pp. 526-538.

 “I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy, playing on the seashore, and diverting myself, in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, while the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”

Sir Isaac Newton

Lord Maynard Keynes, ""Newton, the Man," in The Royal Newton Tercentenary Celebrations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947), p.29.

Moshe Idel, ‘Transmission in Thirteenth-Century Kabbalah’, in Y. Elman and I. Gershom (eds), Transmitting Jewish Traditions: Orality, Textuality and Cultural Diffusion, (New Haven and London 2000) pp. 146-49.

https://www.academia.edu/8693062/_Transmission_in_Thirteenth-Century_Kabbalah_

https://huji.academia.edu/IdelforAcademia

The study of the transmission of elements of culture, and their role in intellectual, religious, and other cultural change, may be carried out from various angles. Two in particular provide a salutary contrast to students of culture. On the one hand, there is translatio stadii, the translation of the subject from one cultural sphere to another, one school of thought to another. In the case of religious change, elements are transferred from one religion to another and cause change so great as to generate the recognition that another religion has been produced or, in cases of lesser change, generate syncretistic phenomena. In any case, transmission is viewed abstractly, in a gross way; systems impinge on one another, interact and become transmuted.

My primary concern is to examine the importance of one type of transmission, that is, oral transmission, during the first generation of Spanish kabbalists. Kabbalah, the major form of medieval Jewish mysticism, emerged in the thirteenth century and produced a large variety of voluminous documents that can be studied in some detail.

14 pages, 994 KB, PDF.

Transmission in Thirteenth-Century Kabbalah

Moshe Idel

 

The Chain of Transmission

 

   The study of the transmission of elements of culture, and their role in intellectual, religious, and other cultural change, may be carried out from various angles. Two in particular provide a salutary contrast to students of culture. On the one hand, there is translatio studii, the translation of the subject from one cultural sphere to another, one school of thought to another. In the case of religious change, elements are transferred from one religion to another and cause change so great as to generate the recognition that another religion has been produced or, in cases of lesser change, generate syncretistic phenomena. In any case, transmission is viewed abstractly, in a gross way; systems impinge on one another, interact and become transmuted.

 

On the other hand, cultural transmission and change may be viewed on the individual level, from the point of view of personal contacts, studying

 

238

 

two adjoining links in the chain of transmission. Only later on, perhaps much later on, does the work of a few individuals yield massive transformations, immense cultural alterations. For example, the appropriation of Muslim neo-Aristotelianism by medieval Jewish philosophy was primarily the work of Maimonides; in Renaissance Europe, the whole corpus of Platonic, Neoplatonic and Hermetic writings was made available - translated, annotated and published - by virtually one person, Marsilio Ficino.

 

   These great cultural changes are rarely a matter of the transmission of esoteric oral lore, or initiation in ancient theological or mystical doctrines; more often, they are effected by translation and general teaching of written material. The role of personal contact is rarely so crucial as in the transmission of Kabbalistic lore.

 

  In this case, we may designate contacts as "micro-chains:' in contrast to the "macro-chains" of large-scale cultural change. The latter often involves massive ruptures, abandonment of what had prevailed in the recent past, and consigning eternal verities to the proverbial "dustbin of history “often in an amazingly short space of time. In the case of the former, transmission involves more than trading information, translation of texts, and the appropriation of new ideas. As a precondition of all the above, and as the basis for what was to come, a certain type of new understanding of the significance of one's religious life had to be inculcated. Indeed, the crucial role of the master-adept relationship has stood at the centre of a whole series of studies of the social context of mystical knowledge. 1

 

In the following, I will restrict my analysis of this phenomenon to one century and one cultural orbit, namely, thirteenth-century Spain. In this way I hope to be able to draw some preliminary distinctions in an area which is still a terra incognita in the study of Jewish mysticism: the concept of esotericism, and the manner in which esoteric concepts have been transmitted, or have been conceived to have been transmitted.

 

   My primary concern is to examine the importance of one type of transmission, that is, oral transmission, during the first generation of Spanish kabbalists. Kabbalah, the major form of medieval Jewish mysticism, emerged in the thirteenth century and produced a large variety of voluminous documents that can be studied in some detail, 2 In these documents the direct transmission of esoteric lore is mentioned time and again. But my

 

141

 

concern here is not to prove the existence of earlier esoteric concepts or techniques, transmitted orally before being reduced to written form in the thirteenth century, important as such a subject may be for the history and prehistory of Kabbalah.

 

Here I am primarily concerned with how the kabbalists themselves viewed the importance of such transmission, and not, at least at this point, with the actual rituals of transmission, on the one hand, or the question of to what extent these ideas mirrored the reality of transmission. 3 In short, my concern is more with the rhetoric of transmission, the image of an esoteric tradition, than its actual praxis. I shall thus ignore the question of the actual transmission of esoterica in early Kabbalistic circles, 4 and concentrate my attention on the meaning of such transmission in various Kabbalistic schools of the thirteenth century.

 

In order to highlight the unique character of this transmission, I will briefly compare some aspects of it to what transpires in modem scientific endeavour. Though these two areas of knowledge are radically different in terms of both the object of research and the methodologies adopted to carry forth that study, they are structurally similar in ways vital to both, and a comparative approach similar to that proposed by Henri Atlan, may be of real benefit.5

 

Transmission of both religious and scientific knowledge involves a learned Informant, the Content of the information, the process of Transmission itself, and last but not least, the Recipient. 6 First, a kabbalist instructs his disciple, an act which at times has the character of an initiation rite. Likewise, a scholar may inform his graduate students, or assistants, or colleagues, of his recent findings. This takes place in a special environment, a symposium or a conference, involving highly ritualized forms of discourse.

 

Despite these surface correspondences, the differences between the two realms are profound. The kabbalist or religious teacher wishes to impart sacred knowledge, with a clear realization of the transformative effect of such knowledge on the psyche of his student or colleague. In some Kabbalistic circles the imparting of the sacred, esoteric tradition establishes a boundary

between initiates and outsiders; in some cases this involves the line between Jews and gentiles as well.7

 

Thus, while scientific information is, at least in theory, intended to be

141

universally available, Kabbalistic traditions are frequently intended to be secret, restricted to a few initiates or illuminati. Secret religious doctrine becoming available to the masses is deplorable; on the other hand, scientific knowledge which is restricted to a few practitioners signifies a defect in its dissemination. Closely tied to this concern is the matter of misinterpretation. Scientific misunderstanding does not incur the dangers attributed to Kabbalistic misapprehensions: heresy, disintegration of the receiver's personality, madness. Kabbalistic secrets are after all "secrets of the Torah?” The nature of God, of reality, of the soul, or even of history, as in eschatological matters - all of these matters affect the initiate's understanding of sacred Scripture.

In short, science attempts to confer structure to inchoate reality; tradition, however, confers meaning to lore or praxis that has already been fraught with meaning. Transmission, or the imaginary construction of such transmission, is a major means by which Jewish thinkers have linked the external face of Judaism, chiefly, its ritualistic side, to its more inward aspects.

The importance of the concept of oral transmission and oral tradition has

a long and vital history in rabbinic Judaism. Its importance in Kabbalistic

writings and thought merely carries on and perhaps intensifies that importance.

It may be worthwhile to delineate, briefly, some of the precedents

which influenced the early kabbalists in their regard for the importance of

oral tradition.

a. From its beginning, rabbinic Judaism held to primacy of its oral tradition, the "Oral Torah?' Its formative compilations, the Mishnah, the Talmud’s and various midrashic collections had their genesis in the work of small study-circles whose traditions were passed on orally. The restricted orality of these groups is reflected in the group study of the early kabbalists.

 

b. Oral transmission was thus both reliable and authoritative. Since

religious traditions cannot be empirically verified, or duplicated for

testing purposes, the identity of the Informant is almost as important

as the content of tradition. While experiential Kabbalistic lore,

as described below, depends more on repetition and praxis than on

explanation, religious esotericism is much more fideistic and experimental

than other religious knowledge.

c. Last but not least, the view that some religious knowledge, especially

theological knowledge, must only be transmitted orally is already

explicit in earlier rabbinic texts; indeed, this view inspired some of the kabbalists as well as Maimonides, as in his Guide of the Perplexed.8

 

CONCEPTUAL TRANSMISSION

 

In this section I will attempt to uncover the differences between the

transmission of religious concepts, on the one hand, and that of modes of

behaviour and esoteric techniques, which are often transmitted mimetically,"

In the latter case, a great deal of emphasis is put on the identity and psychological

makeup of the Recipient, as well as the identity and authority of the

Informant. In this context, the mode of Transmission serves, along with the

authority of the Informant, to ensure the religious validity of the Content of

the tradition. While some aspects of these pertain to scientific discourse as

well, the essential concern there is with the correctness of the information

transmitted; the identity of the Informant and Recipient are of secondary

importance. But beyond its informational value, religious traditions have

another dimension, which scientific data do not; religious doctrines so

transmitted must be congruent with the general outlook of the particular

religion concerned, and/or the worldview of the Informant. Moreover, it

must be perceived as religiously Significant to the Recipient.

 

There is yet another aspect of the transmission of esoterica which does

not occur in other realms, even non-esoteric religious ones. At some level,

an esoteric tradition must partake of the recalling of a certain aspect of the

primordial revelation, a fragment of knowledge which reverberates in the

very soul of the Recipient. Antiquity, which is not only irrelevant to scientific

exchange, but positively deleterious to the status of the information

imparted, enhances the tradition's authority in a religious context. Indeed,

novelty rather than antiquity is desired; the antiqui have long since lost out

to the moderni.

 

The authority of the Informant is derived from that of the founder of the religion, tradition, sect, or school; in the case of kabbalah, however, there are a number of candidates for this position: Adam, Abraham, and, last but not least, Moses. It is the latter who is portrayed as the prototype of both Recipient and Informant of secret lore. Thus, Kabbalistic teachings are often depicted as stemming from "the mouth of Moses?'

In conceptual transmission, as defined above, primordial knowledge has its own importance, quite independent of the importance of the current Informant; it must be accepted as authoritative, and must be perpetuated, because of the identity of its original Informant- the initiator of the human chain, behind whom stands divine authority. The current Informant is more a vessel for transmission than a creator of esoteric lore.

 

On the other hand, in those types of esotericism or mysticism which are

more experiential, and consist more of the knowledge of techniques for

inducing mystical experiences, the authority of the Informant, original or

current, is reduced, indeed, often drastically diminished, since the Recipient

may reproduce the experience.

 

Let me exemplify these two types of transmission by means of two quotes

from a Kabbalistic text composed by a thirteenth-century kabbalist, the

Castilian R. Isaac b. Jacob ha-Kohen. One deals with the reliability of an

experiential issue, the efficacy of magic; the other with esoteric lore per se.

According to the Kabbalah that was transmitted to the masters of this wisdom from the mouths of the ancient sages: We have known that indeed R. Sherira and R. Hai, 1O blessed be their memory, were competent in and received this science'! as a tradition transmitted in their

hands, master from the mouth of master, and sage (zaqen) from the mouth of sage, a gaon from the mouth of a gaon.P and all of them have used the magical practices of Hekhalot ZutarteiJ namely, the Shimmusha de-ShedeiJ in order to climb the ladder of prophecies and powers

by means ofit. 13

 

Elsewhere in the same treatise it is said that a certain esoteric topic

is transmitted in the name of the ancient sages who made magical use of

Shimmusha de-Hekhalei Zutartei and Shimmusha de-ShedeiJ and it is

ladder by which they attained degrees ofprophecy and its powers.tt

It should be emphasized that these quotes both assume that the ancient

masters indeed practiced both magical and mystical-here designated as

prophetical" - kabbalah. But- and this is crucial for the point I wish to

make - despite R. Isaac's insistence on the importance of the chain oftradition

he cites, the text has little if at all to do with the actual practice of a

thirteenth-century kabbalist, at least in the way described. In other words,

the grandeur of the ancients, their unquestioned religious authority, is made

to confer an aura of holiness on the kabbalah as sublime lore; Kabbalistic

texts which promote this image are less concerned with the actual Kabbalistic

praxis as such, at least as far as the kabbalist depicts himself in his own

writings. The reliance on the achievements of the ancients as mystics and

magicians was essential in order to foster the status of nascent medieval

kabbalah. It is this search for authority, more than anything else, including

its specific contents, that counts in these contexts.

 

Let me adduce another text to illustrate my point, this one from one of

the paragons of medieval Judaism, as well as one of the earliest promoters of

mystical lore, R. Moshe b. Nahman, Nahmanides. In his introduction, he

warns the reader of his Commentary on the Torah of the futility of attempting

to understand this mystical lore, unless he has first been initiated into it

by a master.

 

I adjure all who look into this book not to reason or entertain any

thought concerning any of the mystical hints which I record regarding

the hidden matters of the Torah, for I do hereby firmly make known to

him that my words will not be comprehended nor understood at all by

any means of reasoning or contemplation, unless [the one seeking to

understand such lore has received it] from the mouth of a discerning

kabbalist [speaking] into the ear of an understanding recipient. Reasoning

about [such doctrines] is foolish; any irrelevant thought can

cause much damage, without any [corresponding] benefit. IS

 

Nahmanides stresses the need to receive the interpretation ofhis Kabbalistic

hints from an expert master;16 otherwise, speculation as to their meaning

will be damaging. Though different from the claims of R. Isaac ha-Kohen,

who enlisted the titles of ancient books and extreme practices, such as

magic and prophecy, in order to enhance the knowledge he was to impart,

Nahmanides' argument is nevertheless based upon the same affirmation of

antiquity, without, at the same time, providing detailed information about

the concepts or praxis of this allegedly ancient Kabbalistic lore. Though

Nahmanides does not mention ancient books to underscore the antiquity of his Kabbalistic knowledge, he does describe Moses as the single source for authoritative esoteric lore.

 

It must be emphasized that although oral transmission is a prerequisite

for understanding Kabbalistic doctrine, this is not Nahmanides' sole requirement.

Clearly, not everything which is transmitted orally constitutes

part ofkabbalistic teaching and esoteric discipline. At least one other aspect

of the transmitted lore is essential: it must be related to hints concerning

topics inherent in the Torah. In other words, the oral tradition must address

issues explicit or implicit in canonical writings. This is apparent from another

ofNahmanides' assertions.

Indeed, this matter contains a great secret of the secrets of the Torah,

which cannot be comprehended by the understanding of a thinker, but

[only] by a man who acquires it, learning [it] from the mouth of a

reacher," going back to our master Moses, [who received it] from the

mouth of the Lord, blessed be He.18

It should be noted that here, unlike in the previous text, the emphasis is on

the Informant, while the qualities of the Recipient are not mentioned at all.

In yet another text, his SermononEcclesiastes, Nahmanides declares that

These issues'? and others like them cannot be understood properly in

any essential way from one's own reason-" but by means of kabbalah.

This issue is explained in the Torah to whomever has heard the meaning

of the commandment by kabbalah, as is proper - a receiver [meqabbel]

from the mouth of [another] receiver,21 [going back] to our master

Moses, [who received it] from the mouth of the Lord.P

We may infer that, according to Nahmanides' rhetorical strategy,23and in

my opinion, so too in his practice, esoteric issues included under the rubric

of"kabbalah" must be transmitted orally.24 However, it is important to note

that at times Nahmanides alludes to some theosophical doctrines, including

his explicit naming of the sefirot, without alluding to the fact that he is

revealing some esoteric lore. 2s In other words, it may be that the theosophical

content which serves modem scholarship as the principal criterion for

I44

14-0 .iVl.05YJe iue:

the definition of this kind of mystical lore did not serve Nahmanides in the

same way - it did not necessarily serve to demarcate the realm of kabbalah.

It should also be noted that Nahrnanides has no other option than to

declare Moses as the original human Informant; he alone is mentioned in

the quotes presented above. Moreover, his role is the one implied in another

important discussion, namely, Nahmanides' disquisition, such as it is, of the

location of the supernal palaces, the heikhalot, or Ma'aseh Merkal1ah. He

asserts that, despite the fact that he does not know it, he assumes that "there

was an oral tradition which [extends to the time] when Ezekiel and Isaiah

came and linked it [to the biblical text] :'26

This emphasis on the central role of orality for the transmission of Kabbalistic

information seems to be the result of two different considerations.

One is the actual practice in the circle of Nahmanides.F the other is the

conscious attempt of the main halakhic elite ofCatalonia - the primary elite

in thirteenth-century kabbalah - to keep to itself the "secrets of the law."28 It

is noteworthy that Nahmanides does not mention a term found in Jewish

esoteric, and even talmudic, texts: roshei peraqim, "chapter headings:'

namely, general hints, or perhaps some principles concerning esoteric issues.

29 His reluctance to employ, or his decision to marginalize, such an

important term in this context reflects Nahmanides' view that Kabbalistic

lore should be transmitted or, more precisely, reproduced, in a faithful

manner and without elaboration.30

The last third of the thirteenth century saw the emergence of highly

elaborate Kabbalistic systems. Some fourfold exegetical systems, such as

those of Isaac ibn Latif, Joseph Gikatilla, Moses de Leon, the Zohar and the

Tiqqunei Zohar, and that of Bahiya ibn Bahya, on the one hand." and that

ofAbraham Abulafia, on the other, is evidence for the period's deep interest

in hermeneutics, a much deeper and broader interest than before. Other

writers on Kabbalah - R. Joseph of Hamadan, late in the century, and

R. Isaac ben Samuel of Acre, at the beginning of the next - show a strong

interest in exegetical methods, though not in all aspects of the hermeneutic

enterprise, nor as systematic an interest.32

In contrast to Nahmanides, however, all of these kabbalists are representatives

of a distinct type: none of them, as far as I know, was an important

halakhic authority, and none of them played a leading, or even important,

role in the internal affairs of their respective communities. Moreover, despite

their achievements as kabbalists, it is far from clear whether they ever

produced, or were capable of producing, in-depth or wide-ranging legalistic

studies." They mark the appearance of a distinct, new type: the kabbalist.

These innovative kabbalists'" may well be described as members of a

"secondary elite:' namely, educated individuals who were uncomfortable

with the more "mainstream" intellectual stance into which they had been

educated, and were in more or -less continuous search of new types of

thought. Maimonidean philosophy most often constituted their starting

points; less common was an involvement with the views of Nahmanides,

The restless intellectual search which marked them stands in sharp contrast

to the role played by their contemporaries and seniors, the "primary

elite" of Catalonia and Castile, who managed to combine the roles of

authoritative halakhic authority and kabbalist. Nahmanides in Gerona,

R. Shelomo ben Abraham ibn Adret (Rashba) in Barcelonaj" R. Moses

ben Simeon of Burgos, and R. Todros ben Joseph 'ha-Levi Abulafia in

Toledo were all accomplished kabbalists who were also active either as social

leaders or halakhic authorities; in all these cases there is no evidence of an

interest in systematic Kabbalistic hermeneutics.

In my opinion, this distinction between the two groups is highly significant

for a proper understanding of kabbalistic conceptions of the nature and

role of hermeneutics. On the one hand, we have a secondary elite strongly

interested in the presentation of hermeneutic systems, and on the other, a

primary elite which is not. The interests of the secondary elite mark the

manner in which these kabbalists define their subject. Abraham Abulafia,

for example, enumerates the three principles ofKabbalah as follows:

... letters, combinations [of letters] and vowels....36 Their acronym is

'AZN, which can be permutated asTw'N. . . .The permutation controls

the letters, the vowels control the permutation, and the spirit of man,

given by God, controls the vowels until they cause the emergence and

According to other kabbalists in Abulafia's circle, Kabbalah is defined not by specific doctrines but by its linguistic methods. Among these were gematria, notarikon, temurot, that is, the permutation of Hebrew letters; their acronym, GiNaT, "the Garden of [the Nut]; 39 often serves as a metaphor for mystical speculations. w Both Abulafia's emphasis on language and the various mechanical permutations of its elements, and his acquaintances' emphasis on the more formal aspects of textual manipulation, involve facile manipulation of texts more than the interplay of esoteric concepts, which in the past constituted and would later constitute the inner religious core of canonic Kabbalistic writings. Though Abulafia was insistent, as were other kabbalists, on the importance of maintaining the esotericism of mystical knowledge, he is also aware of his own tendency to reveal it rather than to withhold it. Thus, he declares, in a rare example of conscious Kabbalistic exotericism:

 

Though I know that there are many kabbalists who are not perfect [in their knowledge], and think that withholding a secret doctrine [testifies] to their perfection [in this science], I care neither about their thought nor of their condemning me for disclosing [these secrets], since my view on this matter is very different from, and even in direct contrast to, their own.v

 

Immediately after this declaration, Abulafia discloses his view that

Ma'aseh Merkavah, the Account of the Chariot- one of the most important esoteric topics in Jewish mysticism, and one which has strong rabbinic support for its esoteric nature - should be understood neither as a visionary experience, nor as an allegory for metaphysics, as in Maimonides, but as a matter of letter permutations of divine names. It is thus not a doctrine, but an interpretative technique, and perhaps also a mystical technique.v

 

In sum, the various hermeneutic systems devised by late thirteenth century

kabbalists were deemed to extract new Kabbalistic doctrines, or to elaborate upon existing doctrines, from Scripture. This type of Kabbalah, with its emphasis on innovation, constituted a considerable departure from the dominant perception of Kabbalah as an ancient, precious fund of esoteric lore, which consisted of certain concepts or explanations of certain aspects of

Scripture, and which must be transmitted and preserved without change.

The emergence of the fourfold exegetical system, at the end of the thirteenth century, is an essential ingredient of the nascent innovative Kabbalah. Historically considered, this connection is of vital Imporrance.v

Transmission has been reduced to handing down certain methods, exegetical

or technical, much more than instruction into doctrine or theory. It is

for this reason that the contents of Nahmanides' mystical tradition could

continue to constitute a distinct Kabbalistic school which was perpetuated

orally and in secret for at least three generations after his demise. This

cannot be said of any of the systems of innovative Kabbalah of his juniors

and those of the next generation.

TRANSMISSION OF METHODS AND EXPERIENCE

Speaking abstractly, it may seem that tradition and experience stand at

loggerheads, ascompeting methods ofacquiring esoteric knowledge. Given

the veneration with which tradition was endowed by the kabbalists themselves,

the mystical insights achieved by experiential methods could easily

be overcome by traditional doctrines, even obliterating such knowledge.

Indeed, the question of the extent to which mystical experiences themselves

are shaped and determined by tradition, or alternately, have a status independent

of it, is part of an ongoing controversy in some academic circles.

44 However, since tradition as construed in that debate has a more

general sense than that which forms the essential centre of this paperthe

matter of oral transmission, I will not advert to that general debate.

Rather, I shall focus my short discussion on the question of the status of

experientially derived esoteric knowledge in the view of a few thirteenthcentury

kabbalists. According to a treatise belonging to the realm ofecstatic

Kabbalah:

The essence of this issue cannot be conceptualized, ex definitio, nor discussed orally, and even less in written form; for this reason it forms part of what is called Kabbalah, or "chapter headings,"45 namely, the principles [of this knowledge].46 [This is because] the meaning [of these chapter headings] depends upon the [ability] of the recipient to [understand it] in detail and [thus] divest [his soul from corporeality]

 

IMAGE: Fractal Merkabah by Perrelet