Kabbalah

The Hebrew word Kabbalah has become the standard term used for referring to the vast array of mystical thought and practice revealed and handed down as part of our Jewish tradition. The popular use of this term, as we shall see, dates back approximately 800 years.

Before then, Judaism’s mystical teachings were known by other names.  For example, in the Talmud, we find:

• Sitrei Torah, “Mysteries of the Torah”
• Ta’amei Torah, “Reasons of the Torah”
• Ma’aseh Breishit,“Workings of Creation”
• Ma’aseh Merkavah,“Workings of the Chariot”

In post-Talmudic sources, we find the esoteric tradition referred to as: 

• Chochmah Penimit,“Inner Wisdom”
• Chochmat Ha’Emet,“Wisdom of Truth”
• Chochmah Nistarah,“Wisdom of the Hidden”
• Sod,“Secret”

To what, then, can we attribute the enduring popularity of Kabbalah–a word that sounds rather drab alongside these more evocative expressions?

Generally, the term Kabbalah is translated as “Received Tradition.” In this sense, Kabbalah conveys the continuity of a tradition that has been passed down from generation to generation.

Without a doubt, transmission of mystical knowledge is central to the meaning of the word Kabbalah, but there are numerous other connotations associated with its Hebrew root k-b-l (pronounced: kabel; spelled: kuf-beit-lamed), in addition to the most common “receptivity/acceptance.” In fact, the Hebrew root of Kabbalah appears in the Bible fifteen times with various meanings: (This does not include the root k-b-l as it appears in the Aramaic sections of the Bible.)

In each one of the three parts of the Bible–the Torah (the Five Books of Moses), the Prophets, and the Writings–the root kblpossesses an independent meaning:

• In the Torah (2 appearances), it means “correspondence,”
• in the Prophets (2 appearances) it means “opposition,”
• and in the Writings (11 appearances), it means “receptivity / acceptance.” 

As the meaning of “opposition” is closely related to that of “correspondence” (both imply entities situated face-to-face, “against” one another), we shall consider them as one, and now see how the two basic connotations of the root k-b-l–“correspondence” and “receptivity / acceptance” –convey the essence and purpose of the Kabbalistic tradition.

 Although the Hebrew root k-b-l (pronounced: kabel; spelled: kuf-beit-lamed) appears fifteen times in the Bible, its appearance in the Five Books of Moses is limited to two verses in Exodus. Both of these verses refer to the tapestry that hung over the portable Tabernacle, known as “Tent of the Meeting,” in which, in the Holy of Holies, the Ark of the Covenant was housed.

This tapestry consisted of two long panels, each with fifty loops along its edge. The panels were joined by coupling the loops with golden clasps. The Torah describes these loops as makbilot, “corresponding,” to each other, thus introducing the first appearance of the root k-b-l.

The first verse, in which God instructs Moses with regard to the details of the overhang, reads:

Fifty loops shall you make in the one curtain, and fifty loops shall you make in the edge of the curtain that is in the second coupling; the loops shall correspond [i.e., be parallel, from the root k-b-l] to one another [lit., (like) a woman toward her sister].

The second verse, describing Moses’ execution of this detail, reads:

Fifty loops made he in one curtain, and fifty loops made he in the edge of the curtain that was in the second coupling, the loops corresponding [from the root k-b-l] one to one

Thus we see that the original meaning of the root k-b-l in the Torah implies correspondence and complement.

Insofar as the first appearance of any root in the Torah represents its conceptual origin (or in Kabbalistic terms, its “crown”), understanding this use of the root and its context will help us appreciate other connotations of the word kabbalah, and will shed light on why it has come to describe the Jewish mystical tradition.

The Tabernacle, which was constructed to be a “Tent of the Meeting” between God and the people of Israel, incorporated many symmetrical motifs and corresponding elements. The most significant example of correspondence was that of the two golden cherubim sculpted atop of the Ark of the Covenant that sat in the Tabernacle’s inner sanctum, the Holy of Holies. In dictating their design and arrangement, God tells Moses:

… And their faces, each toward the other [lit., (like) a man toward his brother]

(Although the root k-b-l does not appear here in Hebrew text, it does appear in the targums Aramaic rendition.)

While the idiom “[like] a man toward his brother” seemingly implies that the cherubim were male (since the singular of cherubim, cherub, is a male noun, grammatically, the idiom must read in the male tense), rabbinic sources depict them as male and female–symbols of the spouse-like relationship between God and Israel. The Tent of the Meeting itself represents a bridal canopy, a place where God could commune with His beloved people. This communion, as the Book of Exodus relates, took the form of messages that emanated “from between the cherubim upon the Ark of the Testimony.”

The correspondence between God and Israel manifested in the heart of the Tabernacle served to promote the transmission of Divine life force throughout creation. This is because God and Israel are the prototypes for every “transmitter” (mashpiya) and “receiver” (mekabel). When the channels of communication between them were open and active, all of creation benefited.

By appearing as male and female, the cherubim alluded to the Kabbalistic identification of transmitter and receiver as the male and female forces operating within reality. Hence, every man and woman has the power to emulate the symmetry of the cherubim and, through their correspondence, affect the extent to which the Divine life-force finds its way into the world.

Thus we find that the Tabernacle was endowed with an “inner” correspondence–expressed by the cherubim in the Holy of Holies–and an “outer” one, reflected in the “corresponding loops” that connected the two panels of its overhang. Insofar as Kabbalah identifies inner reality as inherently “male” and outer reality as “female,” it is not surprising that the cherubim are described in male terms, “[like] a man toward his brother”, while the loops are described in female terms, “[like] a woman toward her sister” (again, this is a grammatical necessity, since the word for “loop” in Hebrew is female).

Amazingly, the combined numerical value of “a man toward his brother” and “a woman toward her sister” (1118) is identical with that of the quintessential statement of Judaism: “Hear, O’ Israel, God is our God, God is one.”  By establishing one-to-one correspondences in both the male and female mode one comes to experience the underlying unity that prevails throughout all of reality–“God is One.”  This is the ultimate goal of Kabbalah. 

As a discipline that illustrates the multiple correspondences between levels of reality and points to the essential unity of creation and the Divine root from which it derives, Kabbalah merits its name.

It is in the last part of the Bible, the “Writings,” that the root k-b-l achieves its greatest prominence, appearing eleven times and always in the sense of “receptivity/acceptance.”

The first verse in this collection appears in the Book of Proverbs:

Hear counsel and receive instruction that you may be wise in your end

The conjunction in this verse appearing between “hear” and “receive” alludes to the importance of binah, “understanding”–the feminine emanation of Divine light (sefirah) associated with the sense of hearing.

The association between “understanding” and “hearing” is based upon the role that understanding plays in helping differentiate truth from untruth through a process of inner contemplation–a process which, like that of hearing, requires a certain sensitivity to nuance.

Hearing is associated with the feminine by virtue of its operational motif; hearing is a process of receiving and absorbing, the essential modes of feminine response. These are the qualities that are necessary in order to comprehend the subtle and often-elusive Divine truths conveyed through Kabbalistic thought.

The above verse from Proverbs, which links the term Kabbalah to the “acceptance of instruction”, alludes to an important character trait that predisposes one to properly absorb higher wisdom. Referred to in Chassidic sources as the trait of ego-submission, the willing acceptance of God’s instructions conveyed in the Torah is an absolute prerequisite for becoming a vessel capable of containing Divine wisdom

This is alluded to in the verse itself when it states that the purpose of “hearing” and “accepting” is “in order that you will become wise in your end.” The “wisdom of the end” is an allusion to the hidden wisdom of Kabbalah, which is increasingly revealed as we come closer to the End of Days.

 As its Hebrew name Megilat Ester implies, the ultimate purpose of this text is to inspire “revelation” (gilui) of that which is in a state of “concealment” (hester): God’s ongoing and active involvement with His creation.

Ostensibly, the Book of Esther tells of how the Jews of Persia in after the destruction of the First Temple were saved from annihilation through the intervention of Queen Esther, a young woman who had hidden her Jewishness when abducted by the King and later crowned his royal mate. Rich with subtext and innuendo, the narrative is a chronicle of conspiracies that intermeshed to transform what was to be a dark tragedy into joy and light. It should not surprise us, then, that this book is suffused with symbols and terminology that is the central in Kabbalistic discourse.

The protagonist of the story is Queen Esther. Given the Hebrew name Hadassah at birth; she assumed her Persian name, Esther, for the sake of concealing her Jewish identity. The name itself evokes an ironic association to the Hebrew word hester, which, as noted above, means “concealment.”  According to the Talmud, the name Esther alludes to the verse in Deuteronomy wherein God states: “I will surely hide (haster astir) my face on that day.”

As we shall see, this verse has special relevance to the Book of Esther and the events described in it. 

Far from coincidental, the similarity between Esther and hester highlights the cryptic nature of the Queen’s existence and, by association, that of all Jews in exile.

The banishment of the Jews from their ancient homeland less than a century earlier–and the concealment of God’s “face,” which the destruction of the Temple represented–obligated the chosen people to engage in the struggle of good against evil in a strange place, where the confrontation between these two forces was itself obscured.  Additionally, in exile, the Jewish People were deprived of prophetic revelation; hence their world appeared to be one ruled by arbitrary occurrences, as in the casting of the lots (in Persian, purim) by which the date of their annihilation was decided.

It was a dark time. God seemed to be absent, a feeling emphasized by the fact that the Name of God appears not even once throughout the entire text of the Book of Esther.

Nevertheless, the ultimate message of the story contained in this book is that Divine Providence and concern operate at all times and in all places–even when wholly concealed–to ensure survival and salvation for the Jewish People. This is where the paths of the Book of Esther and the teachings of Kabbalah intersect, for the aim of Kabbalistic consciousness is to illuminate the hidden element of Divine grace that is inherent in creation despite God’s apparent withdrawal from our immediate plane of experience.

 The root k-b-l itself appears in the book of Esther in three verses. Let us examine the latter two:

And the Jews accepted as binding the observances they had begun, and as Mordechai had written to them

The Jews ordained, and accepted upon them, and upon their seed, and upon all who joined themselves to them, so as it should not fail, that they would keep these two days according to their writing, and according to their appointed time every year

These two verses are similar enough to hint at the existence of a single principle from which they both derive. Both verses refer to the Jews’ committing themselves to an ongoing commemoration of the great miracle and victory that they witnessed. The two verses nevertheless differ in terms of the context in which that commitment is expressed.

The first verse emphasizes the fact that the Jews’ commitment at the time was a continuation of “that which they had begun to do” earlier. The sages interpret this as a reference to the observance of Torah commandments received at Sinai, thus focusing the verse on the distant past.

The second verse, on the other hand, generates a future context by emphasizing how the commitment was meant to be binding upon all coming generations, as well as upon any convert who chose to link his destiny with that of the Jewish People.

From these verses, it is inferred that the Jews of the time established as permanently binding the commitments they made at the time of the revelation at Sinai. 

The sages–by referring to Sinai as matan Torah, “the giving of the Torah,” rather than kabbalat Torah, “the receiving of the Torah”–seem to suggest that it was an event characterized more by the force of God’s initiative than by the awed response of Israel. The formulation of that response–as “we shall do and we shall hear”–itself emphasizes action (performing the commandments) over acceptance (understanding them).

It was this inherent imbalance that necessitated a later rectification.

At the time of the giving of the Torah, it was Moses alone who ascended Mt. Sinai. The rest of the people remained at the mountain’s base. Having not ascended to the same level as Moses, the people later found themselves vulnerable to obfuscation and illusion, as expressed by their slide into idol worship with the incident of the Golden Calf.

At the time of Esther, however, all Jews “ascended the mount” and together experienced the kabbalah, “acceptance,” of Moses, as it is said, “Moses received [kibel] the Torah from Sinai”.

These significant developments affected not only the revealed tradition of Torah law and practice, but the esoteric tradition as well. Hence, it is not surprising that hidden within the text of the Book of Esther one may find numerous allusions to concepts and terms that in subsequent generations were to become mainstays of Kabbalah

In the early part of the nineteenth century, one of the great Kabbalists of modern times, Rabbi Isaac of Homel, published a treatise entitled Maamar Ha’shiflut v’Ha’simchah (A Discourse on Humility and Joy) in which he introduced the idea of three distinct stages in the historical revelation of Kabbalah.

These three stages, which he refers to as “the three Kabbalot (plural of Kabbalah),” each represent a conceptual approach to understanding Kabbalistic tradition. Each is identified with a particular historical figure whose system of thought served to advance the evolution of Kabbalistic theory by providing new and more illuminating frameworks within which to organize the totality of Kabbalistic doctrine existing up to their time.

These three figures, as identified by Rabbi Isaac, were Rabbi Moses Cordevero (1522-1570), also known as the Ramak; Rabbi Yitzchak Luria (1534-1572), popularly referred to as the holy Ari; and Rabbi Yisrael, the Ba’al Shem Tov (1698-1762).

Whereas the revealed law of the Torah realized its greatest revelation at Sinai, only to have its clarity diminish over time, the hidden tradition experienced a virtually opposite situation: its doctrine, whose historical origins are obscure, has come into sharper and sharper focus with every passing generation. This is due to the mediation of select individuals who spontaneously emerged through the course of history, souls whose purpose was to reveal that measure of Divine mystery necessary in order to sustain an existential balance in the world.

The first stage in the revelation of Kabbalistic theory culminated in the 16th century with the work of the great Kabbalist, philosopher and Talmudic scholar, Rabbi Moses Cordevero of Safed. His goal was to rationally systematize all of Kabbalistic thought up to his time, in particular the teachings of the Zohar and its later interpreters.

The Zohar, which is the foundational text of Kabbalah, was first publicized in 14th century Spain by Rabbi Moses de Leon, although its teachings originated with the second century Talmudic sage, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai.

For the thousand years before coming into public view, the teachings of the Zohar were revealed to a select few in every generation deemed worthy of preserving their transmission. For the 250 years subsequent to its publication in 1305, many Kabbalists attempted to provide a conceptual framework within which to understand the loosely associated and highly symbolic homiletics of the Zohar.

None were as successful as the Ramak, who in his magnum opus,Pardes Rimonim, demonstrated the underlying unity of Kabbalistic tradition by organizing the various, often contradictory, teachings of the hidden wisdom into a coherent philosophical system. The core of the Ramak‘s system consists of a detailed description of how finite reality evolved from God’s infinite being through a hierarchy of creative forces known as sefirot.

The second stage in the revelation of Kabbalistic theory commenced almost immediately upon the Ramak‘s demise, and is identified with the work of his successor, Rabbi Yitzchak Luria. Rabbi Luria, otherwise known as the “Ari” (an acronym for “the Godly Rabbi Yitzchak”), was born in Jerusalem but subsequently relocated to Egypt where he quickly established himself as a Talmudic prodigy.

Introduced to the secrets of the Kabbalah by one of his mentors, he would often spend extended periods in isolated meditation. During one of his visionary experiences, the Ari was instructed by Elijah the prophet to return to the land of Israel where in the city of Sefad he would find the one destined to become his principal disciple and exponent.

The Ari arrived in Sefad on the very day of the Ramak‘s funeral. Joining the procession, he discovered that he alone was witness to a pillar of fire following behind the Ramak‘s bier–a sign, according to the Zohar, that he was meant to inherit the mantle of leadership left behind by the deceased. Nevertheless, the Ari avoided assuming any authority in Sefad for a full half-year until such time as his destined disciple, Rabbi Chaim Vital, presented himself for instruction.

The Ari only lived for another two years, but in that short period he managed to reveal a completely new path in the study of Kabbalah. So pivotal were his insights that to this day the study of Kabbalah is virtually synonymous with the study of the Ari‘s writings.

At the center of the Ari‘s system is a radically new description of the universe’s evolution, focusing on the dynamic interplay of forces within Creation made possible through the elaboration of individual sefirot into complex and interactive partzufim, “personae.” Unlike the Ramak‘s system, wherein the sefirot appear as discrete and autonomous forces advancing the evolution of Creation, the Ari‘s system posits a universe constantly interacting with itself, engaged in the perennial conflict between good and evil which will only be resolved through the advent of universal redemption–a redemption that man can either hinder or expedite through his own actions.

Subsequent to the Ari, there was one more personality who emerged on the scene, inspiring a qualitative shift in the evolution of Kabbalistic thought. He was Rabbi Israel, the Ba’al Shem Tov (Master of the Good Name). Born in 1698, in the western Ukraine, the Ba’al Shem Tov devoted the first half of his life to wandering among the downtrodden Jews of his region and humbly ministering to their needs.

At the same time he was an active member of the nistarim, a secret fraternity of mystics who delved into the mysteries of Kabbalah. In the year 1734, he revealed himself as a Kabbalist and healer, and proceeded to found a popular movement which was to reinvigorate the spiritual lives of Jews all across Eastern Europe.

This movement, which came to be known as Chassidism, was firmly based upon the doctrinal foundations of classical Kabbalah; nevertheless it outwardly emphasized the simple and joyful service of God, particularly through prayer and acts of loving-kindness, over the intellectual discipline of Kabbalistic study.

It was chiefly the Ba’al Shem Tov‘s disciples, particularly Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi (1745-1812), who revealed through written elaborations of his teachings their master’s profound understanding of Kabbalistic thought. In these works, which form the foundation of Chassidic thought and philosophy, the abstract and often impenetrable formulae of classical Kabbalah are recast into the psychological terms of ordinary human experience.

By employing the structure of the soul as an allegorical model for understanding the deepest mysteries of the universe, Chassidism was able to both elevate the consciousness of the ordinary Jew as well as expand the conceptual territory of Kabbalistic reflection.

By including the Ba’al Shem Tov amongst those who advanced the evolution of Kabbalistic thinking, Rabbi Isaac corrects the common misconception of Chassidism as a movement existing outside the formal mainstream of Kabbalah. In fact, according to Rabbi Isaac, not only did the Ba’al Shem Tov influence Kabbalistic thought; he introduced its supreme historical expression, both in terms of conceptual focus as well as its scope of influence upon the lives of the Jewish populace.

It has been said that if Kabbalah is the soul of the Torah, then Chassidism is its “soul within a soul.” Rabbi Isaac’s identification of three stages in the evolution of Kabbalistic thought implies a necessary sequential process in the exposure of human consciousness to the secrets of Creation. Without first understanding the nature of the Ramak and the Ari‘s Kabbalistic systems, it is impossible to appreciate the revolutionary turn introduced by the Ba’al Shem Tov.

 After presenting his model of “the three Kabbalot,” Rabbi Isaac proceeds to suggest that the three stages themselves correspond to three basic and recurrent concepts found in the seminal work of Chassidic philosophy, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi’s Likutei Amarim, otherwise known as the Tanya. These three concepts are hishtalshelut (evolution), hitlavshut (enclothement) and hashra’ah (omnipresence).

Before explaining these terms and their correspondence to the three Kabbalot, it would benefit us to understand the significance attached in Kabbalah to the formulation of comparative hierarchical models, such as the one put forth by Rabbi Isaac.

This in fact can be accomplished by inquiring into the meaning of the word Kabbalah itself. Kabbalah is generally taken to mean “receiving,” as evident from its root in Hebrew k-b-l (kuf-beit-lamed), to “receive”. The term Kabbalah, which was first coined in the middle ages, was presumably chosen as descriptive of the process whereby the hidden wisdom of Torah was orally transmitted through the course of history, each generation of student “receiving” the tradition anew from its masters.

Nonetheless, an additional nuance of meaning can be derived from the association between the word Kabbalah and the first appearance of its root, k-b-l, in the Torah. In Exodus (26:5, 36:12), the root k-b-l (in the word makbilot) appears to imply a state of “corresponding” rather than “receiving.” It is used to describe the “corresponding loops” which, when clasped together, joined the two sections of the overhang covering the Tabernacle.

How did the grammatical root of “correspondence” later come to denote the act of “receiving”? The implicit message is that in order to fully receive some essence, there has to first be a proper calibration, or “correspondence,” between giver and receiver; otherwise what gets transmitted is not the essence, but tangential elements.

Proper correspondence is what enables the receiver to fully assimilate the essence of the giver, in the sense implied by the Biblical expression panim b’fanim (“face to face”), describing the “correspondence” between God and Israel at the time when the Torah was given.

Although the expression panim b’fanim is generally translated as “face to face,” it literally reads “face in face,” thus suggesting that panim be understood in its alternate sense of “innerness,” implying the assimilation of God’s Essence (“innerness”) within the soul of Israel. Hence the first word of the Ten Commandments – Anochi (“I am”)–is interpreted in the sources as an acronym for ana nafshi ketavit yehavit, “I have written and given My Essence.”

In conclusion, we see that the word Kabbalah implies a capacity for establishing proper correspondences. For this reason, much of Kabbalistic discourse concerns itself with articulating various correspondences and parallelisms implicit within Creation. This mode of discourse constructively guides and disciplines one’s koach hamedameh, the “associative power” of consciousness responsible for intuiting hidden connections within reality.

This innate power possesses the tendency, if left unchecked; to invite fantasies and other distorted imaginings aimed solely at gratifying one’s senses and ego. Thus it is identified in Chassidic thought as the psychological root of man’s evil inclination. The study of Kabbalah helps rectify this power by guiding it in the direction of positive associations, those which express the harmony within Creation and eventually, at an even higher level, point to its Divine unity and oneness.

We are now better prepared to appreciate the approach of Rabbi Isaac and other Chassidic masters who expound their ideas through the use of parallel models. It is important to realize that whenever one attempts to articulate correspondences, there is either a conscious or unconscious frame of reference guiding one in the process.

The Torah itself provides us with the necessary prototypes for conceptually ordering our reality. These models differ according to the number of corresponding levels one is interested in articulating. For instance, should one wish to express four levels of correspondence, the classic frame of reference in Kabbalah is the ineffable four-letter Name of God (Havayah); ten levels always relate back to the ten Divine emanations (sefirot) within Creation; thirteen levels, to the thirteen attributes of Divine mercy; and so on. (The importance of such models as educational tools is hinted at in the Passover Haggadah, the essential Jewish primer, which concludes with a song entitled “Who knows one?” delineating in verse thirteen models of correspondence, ranging from one God to the thirteen attributes of His mercy.)

By suggesting a correspondence between the “three Kabbalot” and the following three concepts from the Tanya, Rabbi Isaac hopes to transplant the essence of the first model into the second, thus enriching it and giving birth to a new and deeper understanding.

 In line with R. Isaac’s expository method, it is possible to suggest yet another triad of terms corresponding to the conceptual model of “the three Kabbalot.” This triad is taken as well from the Tanya, specifically from the segment entitled Sha’ar Hayichud V’ha Emunah (“The Gate of Unity and Faith”). There, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi describes the process whereby God forms and sustains all of Creation through an infinite number of Hebrew letter permutations, each of which conveys three levels of Divine lifeforce: koach, chayut, and ohr.

Koach represents the innate “power” or “energy” which condenses into the very substance of Creation itself, be it in physical or spiritual form. This is comparable to the energy which Einstein identified as the ultimate component of all matter. The equivalence between energy and matter is expressed in the Kabbalah by the statement: mehitabut ha’orot, nithavu hakelim–“from the condensation of the lights, were the vessels brought into being.” This concept relates to the system of the Ramak, which sets out to delineate the evolving forms of energy (the sefirot) underlying the very substance of Creation.

Chayut represents the inner “lifeforce,” or soul, which fills the substance of Creation with an independent consciousness of the Divinity immanent within it. There is a quantum distinction between innate “energy,” inhering within the actual forms of Creation, and “lifeforce,” which while mysteriously enclothing itself within reality remains attached to its Divine source. Hence chayut corresponds to the system of the Ari which, as we have seen, deals directly with the process of hitlavhsut (“enclothement”) and the possibility of souls transmigrating from “vessel” to “vessel” within Creation.

Ohr represents the all-encompassing infinite “light” which inspires every element within Creation to transcend the boundaries of its own nature and become absolutely one with God. According to the Ba’al Shem Tov, the infinite light of God, which by definition disallows any other form of existence, paradoxically remains within the “empty space” which God cleared as a “womb” for His unfolding Creation.

The Ari‘s description of the withdrawal, or disappearance, of this infinite light is understood in Chassidic thought as emanating from the perspective of Creation itself, whose finite consciousness cannot accommodate the truth of God’s essential immutability. According to the Ba’al Shem Tov, the closer we come to the Messianic age, the more attuned we become to God’s omnipresence within Creation; hence the centrality of hashra’ah within his system of thought.

Having refined our understanding of the three Kabbalot, we can now better appreciate the succession of idioms used in the Shabbat morning prayer, Hakol Yoducha (“All will thank You”): Eyn aroch lecha (“there is none relative to You”), eyn zulatecha (“there is none other beside You”), efes bilt’cha (“there is nothing but You”), eyn domeh lecha (“there is none like You”).

• Eyn aroch lecha–“There is none relative to you.” This expression of Divine praise implies a relative estimation (or erech) of the various elements and forces within Creation. In this estimation, all finite realities are deemed insignificant relative to God’s infinite Being; however, relative to each other, created beings do possess significance and can indeed be compared one to the next.
• Hence this expression of praise reflects the orientation of the Ramak, whose system delineates the sliding scale of existence from the infinite being of the Creator to the finite physical realm in which we live.
• Eyn zulatecha–“There is none outside of You.” Implicit in this expression of praise is the idea that nothing can exist without God “entering” into it and actively bringing it into existence at each and every moment.
• This idea is expressed by Maimonides in the following language: b’amitat himatzo nimtzeu kol hanimtzaim–“through the truth of His existence, all existing things were granted (their own) existence.” This level of praise reflects the central theme of the Ari‘s Kabbalistic system: hitlavshut, the “enclothement” of Divine spirit within all reality. Although representing a higher level of consciousness than the expression which precedes it, the implication is still that other realities exists–even if only by virtue of God’s constant presence within them.
• Efes biltecha–“There is nothing but You.” This expression gives voice to the idea promoted by the Ba’al Shem tovand Chassidism that there is indeed no other reality aside from that of God Himself. In this statement of Divine praise, we negate the integrity of our own existence and declare the entire spectrum of created being to be no more than a manifestation of God’s own essence.
• Eyn domeh lecha–“There is none like You.” This assertion is explained in Chassidic thought as expressive of God’s power to sustain paradox. Hence it is a response to the previous expression which seems to contradict basic intuition by denying Creation its own autonomous existence. In His fashioning a world which simultaneously tolerates these two opposing interpretations of existence, God asserts His own essential singularity.

Kabbalah is the mystical tradition of the Jewish people. It dates as far back as Abraham (almost four thousand years), although it has gone through many stages of revelation since that time. The accumulated insights of Kabbalah provide access to the inner dimension of reality and thereby to the experience of God in this world. Simply put, Kabbalah is the study of God. The students of Kabbalah desire to know God in order to emulate Him and thus come close to Him. The Hebrew word Kabbalah has become the standard term used for referring to the vast array of mystical thought and practice revealed and handed down as part of our Jewish tradition. The popular use of this term, as we shall see, dates back approximately 800 years. At the moment when Israel stood at the foot of Mount Sinai, the heavens parted and the spirit of G-d descended from on high amidst thunder and lightning fire. In revealing Himself to the entire community of Israel, God in essence laid bare the hidden core of Kabbalistic truth which up to that point had been the privilege of a select few. According to Kabbalistic tradition, the purpose of Creation is to provide God with a “dwelling place in the lower realms,” a goal which achieves fulfillment through the channeling of Divine light into the progressively denser “vessels” of human thought, feeling, and deed, and from there into the rest of material reality. A primer on Kabbalah and Kabbalistic thinking. This article can be used as a first class on Kabbalah if you have an audience, and can easily be understood by even the most absolute beginner. Still, it contains deep insights into life, free will, parenting, and creation.

The fundamental concepts of the inner dimension of the Torah are explained. It is important to note that there are a number of synonyms for this inner dimension: Kabbalah, the concealed part of the Torah, secrets of the Torah, sitrei Torah, nistar or the soul of the Torah. Although each synonym has its own subtleties, they are all basically interchangeable. Chassidut, also included in the concealed part of the Torah, is the inner dimension of Kabbalah, or the soul of the soul of the Torah.

The Development of Kabbalah There are three distinct stages in the historical revelation of Kabbalah. Each represents a conceptual approach to understanding Kabbalistic tradition. Each is identified with a particular historical figure Rabbi Moses Cordevero, also known as the Ramak; Rabbi Yitzchak Luria, popularly referred to as the holy Ari; and Rabbi Yisrael, the Ba’al Shem Tov. Each system of thought served to advance the evolution of Kabbalistic theory by providing new and more illuminating frameworks within which to organize the totality of Kabbalistic doctrine existing up to their time. In this lecture the fundamental character of Kabbalah is explained as the union between wisdom and prophecy. The five major texts of Kabbalah (Sefer Yetzirah, Zohar, Pardes, Eitz Chayim, and Tanya) are the focus of a summary of its development over the ages. The dangers of studying Kabbalah from a non authentic source are explained.

At the moment when Israel stood at the foot of Mount Sinai, the heavens parted and the spirit of G-d descended from on high amidst thunder and lightning fire. In revealing Himself to the entire community of Israel, God in essence laid bare the hidden core of Kabbalistic truth which up to that point had been the privilege of a select few.

A sefirah (pl. sefirot) is a channel of Divine energy or life-force. This most fundamental concept of Kabbalah is that in the process of creation an intermediate stage was emanated from God’s infinite light to create what we experience as finite reality. These channels are called the Ten Sefirot, Ten Divine Emanations, Ten Divine Radiances, Ten Divine Eluminices, or Ten Divine Powers which are the basic terms and concepts of the inner wisdom of the Torah which is called Kabbalah

Kabbalah teaches us that at every level of created being–from the perfected realm of Atzilut (Divine “Emanation”) to the deficient plane of our own earthly existence–there exist ten sefirot (Divine “radiances” or “powers”) around which that reality is constructed. Each of these sefirot is given a name describing its unique role in the fashioning of reality. Each of the sefirot possesses both an external as well as an internal dimension. The external dimension of each sefirah is identified with the “functional” role that it plays in the process of Creation; its internal dimension is identified with the hidden motivational force which inspires its activity.

Before creation only God existed. Upon desiring to create independent reality and consciousness, He first revealed, to Himself, as it were, His Infinite Light. From this stage on, Kabbalah’s understanding of creation is enormously complex and is not something that can be covered in detail in an introductory text. The various stages of creation are often called “worlds”–a term which is used to denote various developments in the creative process, as well as levels of consciousness and spiritual phases.

 

Eleven Holy Names of God associated with the Sefirot

Name of God	Associated with the sefirah of:
Havayah	chochmah and tiferit
Ekyeh	keter and binah
Kah	chochmah
Kel	chesed
Elokah	chesed
Elokim	gevurah
Tzevakot	netzach and hod
Shakai	yesod
Adnut	malchut
Akvah	The “right side” of da’at, or yesod
Ehevi	The “left side” of da’at

 In the Holy book of Quran God holy names are 99.

At the moment when Israel stood at the foot of Mount Sinai, the heavens parted and the spirit of G-d descended from on high amidst thunder and lightning fire. In revealing Himself to the entire community of Israel, God in essence laid bare the hidden core of Kabbalistic truth which up to that point had been the privilege of a select few.

According to Kabbalistic tradition, the purpose of Creation is to provide God with a “dwelling place in the lower realms,” a goal which achieves fulfillment through the channeling of Divine light into the progressively denser “vessels” of human thought, feeling, and deed, and from there into the rest of material reality.

The Kabbalah’s attempt at bringing the mysteries of Creation into closer proximity of man’s own experience has expressed itself perhaps most radically through the vehicle of Chassidic thought and tradition.

Chassidut advanced the focus of the mystical tradition beyond the realm of olamot (“worlds,” the reality of space and time) into the sublimer realm of neshamot (“souls”).

Hence, while Kabbalah is referred to in the Zohar as the “soul of the Torah,” Chassidut has been coined the “soul of the soul of the Torah.”

SAAD RAMZI ISMAIL