1

Hannu Töyrylä:

Slimy Stones and Philosophy: Interpretations of tohu wa-vohu as Matter and Form

7.11.2000

Copyright Hannu Toyryla 2000, 2004

email: htoyryla@abo.fi

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................2 2. The Biblical and Rabbinic Basis for the Interpretations.................................................................2

2.1 The Biblical basis...................................................................................................................2 2.2 Relevant interpretations in Talmud and Midrash: Chaos or created entities ...........................3 2.3 Green line, slimy stones.........................................................................................................4 2.4 From Sefer Yetzirah to the book Bahir ...................................................................................6

3. Medieval Concepts of Matter and Form........................................................................................9 4. Bar Hiyya's Discussion on Matter and Form...............................................................................11

4.1 Bar Hiyya's theory of matter and form..................................................................................11 4.2 Matter and form as tohu and bohu .......................................................................................12 4.3 Bar Hiyya's cosmogonic exegesis........................................................................................13

5. How did Bar Hiyya's idea become popular? ...............................................................................15 5.1 Nahmanides ........................................................................................................................15 5.2 Nahmanides' background: the Gerona school......................................................................16 5.3 Later kabbalists....................................................................................................................18

6. Opinions of the philosophers......................................................................................................20 6.1 Jewish philosophy until the Aristotelians ..............................................................................20 6.2 The first Aristotelians ...........................................................................................................21 6.3 Isaac Albalag .......................................................................................................................21 6.4 Gersonides ..........................................................................................................................23 6.5 Isaac Abravanel ...................................................................................................................24

7. Philosophy and Kabbalism: The Physical and Spiritual Domains ...............................................25 8. Important themes and issues .....................................................................................................26

8.1 Chaos as the prime matter in late antiquity ..........................................................................27 8.2 The primordial nature of water .............................................................................................28 8.3 Comparison to a builder.......................................................................................................30 8.4 Bohu: form or composite?....................................................................................................31 8.5 Tohu as evil .........................................................................................................................34

9. Further questions .......................................................................................................................35 9.1 Sources and background for Bar Hiyya's equation...............................................................35 9.2 Dissemination and later development of Bar Hiyya's equation .............................................36

10. A Summary ................................................................................................................................37 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................39

Primary Sources ............................................................................................................................39 Secondary Literature......................................................................................................................41

2

1. INTRODUCTION In the beginning of creation, the earth was empty, without form and void. The creation account in the first chapter of Genesis describes how, from this state called tohu wa-vohu (Uvcu uv,) in Hebrew, God created and formed the world in the course of six days. However, the world is not all that grew out of tohu wa-vohu, —these two words presented a challenge for Jewish thinkers and commentators who generated a tradition of ingenious interpretations. It may seem improbable that the image of utter emptiness of the Gen 1:2 could have anything to do with the sober philosophy of Aristotle. However, such a connection was made, when in medieval Jewish thought the interpretation of tohu and bohu as matter and form –important concepts in medieval philosophy and science– surfaced and even attained a level of popularity.

This paper will trace the evolution of such interpretations, made in the Middle Ages using Biblical and Midrashic material as prooftexts. The focus of the investigation is in Abraham Bar Hiyya's interpretations from the 12th century, but attention is also given to earlier views as well as the later dissemination and development of Bar Hiyya's ideas. Finally, a couple of special issues arising from the evolution of the interpretations are handled in more detail.

2. THE BIBLICAL AND RABBINIC BASIS FOR THE INTERPRETATIONS In this chapter we will present and examine some particular passages from the Scriptures and the rabbinical literature, which are relevant to the study of the later development of interpretations of tohu and bohu.

2.1 The Biblical basis It is not within the scope of this paper to investigate the literal, Biblical meaning of tohu wa-vohu. Be it enough to note, that although the words are not very common in the Bible, there are still ample occurrences to allow us to compare the meanings1.Emptiness, chaos, void, but also 'lack of worth' and 'being in vain' match the context in all cases. Also the ancient Aramaic translations, targumim, translate the expression as

1 See Gen 1:2, Deut 32:10, Sam 1 12:21, Is 24:10, 29:21, 34:11, 40:17, 40:23, 41:29, 44:9, 45:18, 45:19, 49:4, 59:4, Jer

4:23, Ps 107:40, Job 6:18, 12:24, 26:7.

3

"waste and empty"2, or "waste of all people and empty of any cattle"3. Furthermore, in Biblical usage there does not seem to exist any kind of differentiation between tohu and bohu. In Gen 1:2 they appear together as a hendiadys. Otherwise, tohu appears usually alone whereas bohu never appears in a verse without tohu.

The role played by the Biblical references to tohu in this survey of medieval interpretations is mainly that of prooftexts, i.e. verses stated to support an interpretation. Such verses are usually from Isaiah or Job. A particularly influential reference to tohu and bohu occurs in Isaiah 34:11, where the prophet describes God's revenge on Edom: "He shall stretch over it line of tohu and stones of bohu"4. The line and stones have later been interpreted as builder's tools: a measuring line and a plummet. A medieval example of such interpretation is provided by David Kimhi's (1160?–1235?) commentary on this verse:

God shall stretch over it line of tohu and stones of bohu, because a builder stretches a line and a leaden weight; [here] the line and the weight are of tohu and bohu to state that the opposite of construction is done to them –that is, destruction.5

As we shall see, this verse will be used as a prooftext in Talmudic and medieval times to support new meanings given to tohu and bohu, and the analogy to construction builder will constantly reappear.

2.2 Relevant interpretations in Talmud and Midrash: Chaos or created entities In the Talmud and the Midrashim, tohu and bohu are most often used in their plain meaning. A typical example is of God reducing the world to tohu and bohu, for instance in case Israel would not have accepted the Torah (Exodus Rabbah 47:4). There are also allegorical interpretations like those dealing with the Jewish history: tohu and bohu are explained as the various exiles (Genesis Rabbah 2:4) and the whole history is divided into three periods of two thousand years each: a period of tohu, aperiod of Torah and a period of the Messiah (Tanna de-Vei Eliyahu Rabbah 2:1).

2 Targum Onkelos on Gen 1:2: thbehru thsm 3 Targum be Uzziel on Gen 1:2 rhgc kf in thbehru ab hbcn thsm thhvcu thhv, 4 uvc-hbctu uv,-ue vhkg vybu 5 See also Ibn Ezra on the same verse. According to Wildberger, p. 1346, the original meaning would rather be that after

the destruction, Edom will be divided, but the country is a desolate that even a measuring line of tohu will do. The

4

There are some more special passages, though. In Genesis Rabbah 10:3, the heaven and the earth are compared to two beautiful disks immersed in a pool of water. As long as the pool is filled with water, the beauty of the disks cannot be seen, but when the water is drained off, the disks become visible. Likewise, when the world was tohu and bohu, the heaven and the earth were not visible until tohu and bohu were removed. Literally, this could be read as identifying tohu and bohu with water. In Talmudic times, water was considered by some to be the first matter created6, and even later water is often closely connected to tohu and bohu. On another level, one can question what it is that needs to be removed in order to bring heaven and earth into existence. Probably the question is of the removal of the Primeval Chaos, a common theme in the antiquity, including Plato and some early Greek philosophers –even if the story reads well as a parable of the Aristotelian concept of privation7.

In another, well-known passage of Genesis Rabbah8, a pagan philosopher confronts Rabban Gamaliel by referring to Gen. 1:2: “Your God is a great artist, but he did have good help: ‘tohu, bohu, darkness, air, water, abyss’”. Rabban Gamaliel denies that these things would have been of help to the Creator and supplies biblical verses to prove that all these elements were created. What is interesting, although not evident at first sight, that at least in the eyes of the philosopher, tohu, bohu and darkness are more than mere qualities. They are considered equal to elements and as such useful in the process of creation. Moreover, Rabban Gamaliel's objection is not to this; he reacts because he considers all things having been created.

2.3 Green line, slimy stones Speculation in, among others, matters of creation was discouraged as attested by the prohibition in Mishnah (Hagigah 2:1). However, several teachings are recorded in the name of Abba Arikha, also known as Rav, an amora of the first generation. In Hagigah 12a, Rabbi Judah teaches in the name of Rav: "Ten things were created on

meaning of the stones is more unclear; the verse appears uncomplete and 'stretches' would not refer to 'stones', see Wildberger p. 1328.

6 Talmud Yerushalmi Hagigah 8b in the name of Judah ben Pazi, with many anonymous parallels in the rabbinical literature; See also Graetz, 30-33

7 According to Aristotle, change can be explained so that each thing contains within itself everything that it can potentially become. As long as it is prevented by privation to become something, it does not change. When the privation is removed, the change is brought about.

8 Genesis Rabbah 1:9, Midrash Tanhuma Bereshit ch. 5

5

the first day: heaven and earth, tohu and bohu, light and darkness, wind and water, length of day and length of night." Here again, tohu and bohu are considered as created entities, not mere qualities. But then the text continues to present a very strange teaching:

"It has been taught: tohu is the green line which encircles the whole world and out of which darkness proceeds9, as it is said (Ps. 18:12) 'He has hidden in the darkness that is around him'. Bohu are the slimy stones, sunk in the deep, out of which water is issued10, as it is said (Is. 34:11) 'He shall stretch over it line of tohu and stones of bohu'".

The passage is presented as an anonymous Tannaitic teaching, but it is probably also from Rav11. Either way, it makes little sense at first sight. The passage might be about the order in which the elements were created. The Talmud and the Midrashim show a clear interest in the order of creation, as is attested by many recorded opinions about whichever was created first: heaven or earth, light or darkness and so on. Taken in this light, the passage could be interpreted so that

1. Out of tohu becomes darkness. 2. Out of darkness, light is created. 3. Out of bohu becomes water.

Combined with other teachings of Rav, a complete order of creation can be reconstructed (Vajda, 1989, 121). Debates on the order of creation were often triggered by external pressure: more than once does the rabbinical literature record such questions posed by a non-Jew. In the Greek world, the quest for the primal element12 had been active since the beginnings of Greek philosophical thought.

There is a further possibility. Many sayings of mythical character have been recorded in the name of Rav. In his times, Gnostic and other myths proliferated, and he introduced kosher versions of such myths to ward off the attraction of the alien

9 laj tmh ubnna wukuf okugv kf ,t ;hena eurh ue - uv, :tb, 10 ohn ihtmuh ivna wouv,c ,ugeuanv ,unkupnv ohbct ukt - uvc 11 Urbach, 195, see also p. 774 note 46 12 I.e. the element that is more fundamental than the others and thus the origin of other things. For instance, some

believed that everything comes from water, another that everything comes from air.

6

myths13. A green line and slimy stones make little sense when taken literally, and there could well be a contemporaneous myth behind the saying.

One clue is given by a strange diagram of the Gnostic Ophite sect that is mentioned by Origen in his Contra Celsum14. The meaning of the Ophite diagram is obscure, but it includes yellow (green) and blue circles associated with light and darkness, respectively. Kurt Rudolph gives a reconstruction of the diagram in his book Gnosis (Rudolph, 68-69). The reconstruction is based on a typical ancient earth-centered universe consisting of concentric spheres for the planets and the stars. What is specific to this diagram is that beyond the stellar spheres, there are the additional spheres of Leviathan, Paradise, a blue circle (sphere) of darkness and a yellow circle (sphere) of light.

Urbach considers the Ophite myth and Rav's dictum in a footnote in his work of rabbinical thought (Urbach, 774 n. 47), and tends to emphasize the differences. In the Ophite diagram, for instance, the green circle is of light, but in Rav it is of darkness. Urbach does not exclude, however, the possibility that Rav could have used some myth here, which has been lost to us.

Anyway, we have here two very similar images from the same time period (3rd century C.E.). Rav's green line encircles the world. The Ophite yellow sphere surrounds the whole universe, if we can trust Rudolph's reconstruction15. Both have to do with light and darkness. Taken in this context, the tohu is the outermost sphere, whereas the stones of bohu lie deeply in the lowest depths, at the center of the universe.

So much for the speculation. If there ever was such a basis for Rav's dictum, it was lost. Meanwhile the dictum about the green line and slimy stones was to become one of the most popular prooftexts whenever tohu and bohu were mentioned in subsequent Jewish literature.

2.4 From Sefer Yetzirah to the book Bahir

13 Urbach, 194; Vajda 1989, 121 14 The Other Bible, 665-666 15 The Hebrew world 'olam' has both meanings 'world' and 'universe'.

7

Many medieval sages attributed the 'green line and slimy stones' dictum to Sefer Yetzirah: Abraham Ibn Ezra cites it as if from Sefer Yetzirah in his commentary on the Torah (on Gen 1:2), likewise does Judah Halevi in his Kuzari (Kuzari 4:25). Tohu and bohu occur twice in the more commonly used texts of Sefer Yetzirah, but a green line and slimy stones are not mentioned. However, Sefer Yetzirah exists in several textual variants, and the passage occurs for instance in the text used in the commentary of Saadia Gaon16. It is possible that in medieval times, Rav's dictum was thought to originate in Sefer Yetzirah rather than in the Talmud. As Sefer Yetzirah was traditionally considered to be ancient17, it is natural that the medieval Sages considered it to be the original source18.

Sefer Yetzirah describes how God creates the world with 32 mysterious ways, which are then identified with the 10 cardinal numbers and the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Each cardinal number also presents a stage in the creation, which starts from the spirit (ruah) of God, then proceeds to wind or air (ruah), then to water, fire and even further19. Out of water come tohu, bohu, mud and clay, which are then used by God as material for building the world20.

Three: water from air, He shaped and hewed in them tohu and bohu, mud and clay. He shaped them like a garden bed, He hewed them like a wall, He covered them like a ceiling.

This passage thus links together water, tohu and bohu, as well as the concept of building.

In another verse of Sefer Yetzirah, God is said to have formed something real (mamash) out of tohu21. It can be deduced from this that tohu itself is not anything real. In the Biblical usage there was hardly any difference in meaning between tohu and bohu. The Biblical expression tohu wa-vohu can be considered a hendiadys,

16 Saadia's Commentary on Sefer Yetzirah 4:6. The shorter versions are considered original. See Hayman (1984), p. 172..174.

17 It was attributed by many to the patriarch Abraham, by others to rabbi Akivah; both would be earlier to Rav. 18 This would explain why the text in the standard editions of the Talmud does not attribute the passage to Rav, but

gives it as an anonymous Tannaitic teaching. 19 Sefer Yetzirah 1:9..12 20 Sefer Yetzirah 1:11 vchzgn ihnf offx wvnuj ihnf ichmj wvdurg ihnf ieej wyhyu apr uvcu uv, 21 Sefer Yetzirah 2:6

8

expressing a single thing through two distinct words. In the Middle Ages tohu and bohu were however understood as two different entities –thus following the evolution which is visible already in the Talmud. In addition, differentiation between unreal and real became a very characteristic differentiation between tohu and bohu22, as can be seen in the following excerpt from a medieval kabbalistic book Bahir23:

Rabbi Berachya said "and the earth was tohu and bohu". What is the meaning of "was"? That it was already. And what is tohu? That which confounds24 people. And what is bohu? It was tohu and then turned to bohu. And what is bohu? That which has mamash (something real) in it, as it is written "bohu means ´something is in it´25".

What does this tell us? Tohu and bohu are something that already existed at the time of creation. Tohu is something that is incomprehensible, whereas bohu is something real. Tohu is associated with astonishment and confusion; this concept is found also in Rashi's commentary on the Torah. The real/unreal differentiation has its roots in Sefer Yetzirah, as we have seen. The 'bohu = bo hu' etymology is interesting. This explanation is held to be originated by Abraham Bar Hiyya in the first half of 12th century, and it is mainly because of this evidence that Gershom Scholem dates the book Bahir to the second half of the 12th century26.

Bar Hiyya (d. 1136?) was a mathematician and astronomer who lived in Spain and wrote on many topics, ranging from ethical homilies to geography. The 'bo hu'etymology appears in the first part of his "Hegyon ha-Nefesh". The book is primarily

22 That tohu is not mamash is also found in Donolo's commentary on Sefer Yetzirah, ed. Castelli, p.38. ann uc ihta laju er rcs uv, 23 Bahir 2

v,hv rcfa v,hv gnan htn uvcu uv, v,hv .rtvu s"n vhfrc r"t

uvck vrzju v,hv uv, tkt uvc htnu ost hbc tv,nv rcs uv, htnu

tuv uc uvc ch,fs ann uc aha rcs uvc htnu

24 This is a play of words and a very common popular etymology for tohu.ost hbc tv,nv rcs w"uv," htnu

25 This is also a play of words: bohu is equated with bo hu tuv uc - uvc 26 Scholem, 1987, 52-63; Dan, 1988, 130-131. According to Dan, Scholem also asserts that Bahir subscribes to Bar

Hiyya 's tohu/hyle and bohu/form analogy. I couldn't find direct support for this in Scholem's book neither in Bahir itself. The question would need further study. Indirect support is provided by the fact that in the Bahir, tohu is primarily interpreted as evil, which in Neoplatonism is associated with matter. See Dan, 1998, xx-xxxv, xlv-xlvii.

9

an ethical treatise, yet it begins with a long exposition of the philosophical27 concepts of matter and form. In the course of the exposition, Bar Hiyya identifies tohu with matter and bohu with form. In order to understand what he means with this it is necessary to understand what these concepts meant to an educated person of medieval times.

3. MEDIEVAL CONCEPTS OF MATTER AND FORM

Matter and form are central concepts in the medieval scientific world-view. They have their origin in the Aristotelian philosophy, which was preserved by the Arabs and the Jews and by them transmitted to Western Europe. The concepts were originally conceived to explain how change happens in nature. Everything that exists consists of the two parts: matter and form. The matter is an undifferentiated, underlying substrate; form is the differentiating element, which makes the thing precisely what it is. Change is explained by a thing losing one form and acquiring another, while the underlying matter is what stays constant. This is easy to grasp if we think of the matter and form in everyday terms: in case of a spoon the matter is the metal out of which the spoon is made and the form is the shape which makes the thing a spoon rather than a fork or a knife. But the two-fold division goes deeper than this. The steel out of which the spoon is made is itself a thing, therefore it must consist of an underlying matter and a form which makes it steel and not something else.

If we continue this analysis towards the origin of things, we will arrive at abstractions that we have never seen but which can be posited to be at the root of all other things. The common feature for all things in this world is tri-dimensionality; therefore we can posit a common matter for all things, which is tri-dimensional but not anything else. Such a matter is usually called absolute body28. By receiving forms it has the power to become other things. In medieval times, the elements were believed to be four: earth, water, air and fire. Therefore, when receiving the form of water, the absolute body will become water. The form of water is said to inform the absolute body.

27 Considering medieval philosophy, it should be remembered that the scope of philosophy was the totality of scientific

inquiry. Therefore we should read the meaning 'science' and 'scientific' in addition to 'philosophy' and 'philosophical' here.

28 See The Exalted Faith, 58, 61. See also Wolfson, 1971, pp. 99-101

10

It is possible to proceed even further. One can posit a matter totally devoid of any qualities, even without any dimensionality. Such a matter is called with the Greek word hyle. For Aristotle, hyle is a purely hypothetical concept without actual existence. It is pure matter without any form, and for him matter and form never exist separately. Before anything can exist, hyle must be informed by the form of corporeity, i.e. tri-dimensionality.

Hyle, prime matter (non-dimensional) Form of corporeity

Absolute body (dimensional) Forms of elements

Elements (Fire, air, water, earth)

By the middle ages, the pure Aristotelian concepts had been blended with Platonic and Neoplatonic concepts. Plato had posited a chaotic, unformed matter, which is formed by a Demiurge into an ordered universe. Later on, this unformed matter became identified with the Aristotelian concept of hyle. Aristotle's forms had originated in a critique of Plato's theory of ideas, but during the centuries these concepts were likewise blended with one another. Aristotle had denied the existence of matter and form separate of each other. For him, these concepts explained change: when a thing changes to another, a form is replaced by another and matter is the substrate which stays constant. Plato, however, had taught that the ideas are the real existents. In medieval times, it was common to consider hyle as more than a hypothetical entity; likewise it was common to posit the existence of pure forms, these being the angels and other spiritual beings as required by religion.29 Usually, the spiritual world was considered to consist of forms alone, but Ibn Gabirol had in his Fountain of Life30 expounded a theory that even the spiritual worlds consist of matter31 and form.

29 Another important distinction was that for Aristotle the world was eternal. Plato, however, had given an account of

how Demiurge, a Creator-God, forms the world out of unformed matter. Almost all Jewish thinkers, including Aristotelians, denied the eternity of the world.

30 This work was later lost and survived only in Latin translation, even its true authorship was forgotten until the discoveries made by S. Munk in the middle of the 19th century. That Ibn Gabirols work was known within medieval

11

4. BAR HIYYA'S DISCUSSION ON MATTER AND FORM 4.1 Bar Hiyya's theory of matter and form

Abraham Bar Hiyya presents, in the first part of his Hegyon Ha-Nefesh, a theory of matter and form which has a strong Neoplatonic flavor32. This is not surprising –in his time Aristotelianism was yet to be established in Jewish circles through the work of Maimonides some decades later.

According to Bar Hiyya, there are two distinct types of hyle and form respectively, an upper and a lower level:

Closed and sealed form Spiritual beings, angels...

Open and hollow form

Pure and clean hyle Celestial spheres

Hyle, which is like filth and dregs Lower world

The closed and sealed form is pure and free of any contact or association with the hyle. It subsists on its own, and shines on the hollow form which again is suited to attach to hyle and be changed with it. Therefore in a process of emanation the higher form so to say provides the lower form with the energy to inform the hyle with any forms that are needed to produce the material world. Celestial matter, i.e. the heavenly bodies and spheres are produced by the combination of the lower form and the pure matter. The lower form and the lower matter again produce the earth and the beings on it. The higher form in itself is the forms of the spiritual beings such as angels.

Jewry is attested firstly by the critique against him in the work of Abraham Ibn Daud (ca. 1160) and secondly, by the partial Hebrew translation by Shem-Tov Ibn Falaquera (1225–1295), see Munk.

31 It shall be noted that the everyday notion of matter does not apply here. Matter in the spiritual domain is only perceived by the intellect not by the senses. The appropriate technical terms are intelligible and sensible matter.

12

4.2 Matter and form as tohu and bohu Even if Hegyon ha-Nefesh starts with an exposition of scientific concepts, the work as a whole is homiletical in form and ethical by nature. The function of the scientific introduction is to gradually proceed from the basics of existence towards man as the summit of creation. The exposition is intervowen with Scriptures and what is most relevant for our topic is that immediately after presenting his theory of matter and form, Bar Hiyya proceeds to identify these concepts with the Biblical tohu and bohu.(HN = Hegyon Ha-Nefesh 2b-3a):

If you compare the explanation of hyle, of which it has been said that it has no image and no form and which cannot subsist by itself, to tohu, you will find that they are the same thing...33

Anything that has been said of hyle you can say about tohu.

It has been said about the form that it has power to clothe34 the hyle with shape and form. And the word bohu is divided into two things for this reason, because it is composed in meaning from two words, the first being bo and the second being hu...35

Bohu is the form that covers the tohu and sustains it. Proof for this is provided by the Scriptures; (Is. 34:11) "and he shall stretch over it line of tohu and stones of bohu". A line is only useful in balancing the building when being pulled by the weight of the stone which shows the correct way for building.

Therefore the Scripture pairs this [line] with tohu, as it is written 'line of tohu', and pairs the stone with bohu and says 'stones of bohu', because the stone indicates the correctness of the balance, as the form establishes the correct shape. And [the

32 For possible Neoplatonic and other sources for Bar Hiyya, see Wigoder's introduction to his translation, Meditation of

the Sad Soul, p. 12 33

wuv,v ogy kt unmgn ohhe,vk kufh ubhtu vrum tku ,uns tk uk ihta uhkg urnta hkuhvv oa 'hp ahen v,t otu

sjt ihbg kt sjh ohtmuh otmn,

34 ahckvk lehalbish, literally clothe, became the standard medieval term to mean form informing matter. 35

uv, kg rnuk kufh v,t hkuhvc urnt rat kfu

vrumu ,uns hkuhvv ,t ahckvk vrucd uk aha rcs tuva vrumv kg urntu

iuakv gnank vhubc thva hbpn wohbhbg hbak vzv ogy kg ,srp,n uvuc ,knu

uv hbavu uc sjtv ohkhn h,a in ut ,uh,ut h,a in

13

Scripture] says 'line of tohu' in singular, whereas the forms come to the clothed in many shapes.36

Bar Hiyya is held to be the originator of this identification of tohu with hyle and bohuwith the form37. He was also the first to write on philosophical matters in Hebrew: this work is written in the beginning of 12th century38. The main Jewish philosophers before him39 had all been writing in Arabic. The wave of translations of their works into Hebrew by the Tibbonides was yet to begin at around 116040. The Aristotelian works of Ibn Daud and Maimonides were not yet written41. Therefore the Hebrew usage of Bar Hiyya is particularly interesting42. His terminology feels surprisingly complete and modern to be that of a pioneer, for instance he uses tzurah (vrum) for form43, which will become standard usage.

4.3 Bar Hiyya's cosmogonic exegesis

G. Wigoder has called Bar Hiyya's thought as a combination of Neoplatonic, Aristotelian and Rabbinic elements44. Throughout his exposition, Bar Hiyya uses Scripture to provide backing and proof to his ideas, in a way which could be called midrashic. We have seen above how he uses Is. 34:11 to justify the linking of tohu and

36

Wuvc hbctu uv, ue vhkg vybu cu,fv in vhtr thcn v,tu Wu,ut ,nhhenvu uv,v ,t vxfnv vrumv uvc vhvhu

Wu,uhg ut ihbcv iueh, ,t vtrnv ictv scuf ,t luank ot hf ihbcv ,kueanc ,kug, uc iht uevu

wuvc hbctu rntu uvuc kt ictv vukvu Wuvu, ue rntba uvu, kt vz ,t cu,fv vukv vz hbpnu

Wrumbv ,uns ,be,n vrumv ratf ukueke ut keanv rauh ghsun ictva hbpn

,ucr ,ubn, u,ut acukv kg ,utc ,urumva hbpnw shjh iuakc uv, ue rntu

37 See Scholem 1987, 62; Dan, 1988,130-131; Simon, 91. 38 Stitskin, p. 47, states that the book was written no later than 1113. According to him, bar Hiyya died in 1143, whereas

others have given earlier dates (1136). 39 The most important being Saadia Gaon (882-942), Isaac Israeli (885?-955?), Solomon Ibn Gabirol (1020-1057),

Judah Halevi (1075-1140) and Bahya Ibn Pakuda (11th century). 40 Judah Ibn Tibbon translated Bahya Ibn Pakudah's Duties of the Heart in 1160, followed by Judah Halevi's Kuzari

1167 and Saadyah's Opinions and Beliefs. Ibn Gabirols philosophical work was almost lost to Jewish readership. 41 Ibn Daud's and Maimonides' philosophical work was also originally written in Arabic. 42 I. Efros has published studies on philosophical terminology in bar Hiyya, see his Studies in Medieval Jewish

philosophy, pp. 171-252; these two articles form a kind of dictionary to bar Hiyya's terminology. 43 As for matter, he uses hiyuli in Hegyon ha-Nefesh. Homer, which will become the usual term for matter, appears in

other works by Bar Hiyya. See Efros, p. 192. 44 See Wigoder's introduction to his translation: The Meditation of the Sad Soul, p. 26.

14

bohu to the philosophical concepts. Afterwards he proceeds into linking other entities from the Creation Account: water, light and firmament, to the various types of form (HN 3a-4b). Here we shall limit ourselves into looking how he approaches the case of water.

Using Job 26:7 "He stretches out the north over tohu and hangs the earth on belimah"he establishes that tohu is the same as belimah, bringing in even additional Biblical verses to support. Now because

tohu = without form belimah = without mah

it is thus established that mah is the form. But mah is also the Hebrew word meaning 'what?'. A form and the question 'what?' are connected: like 'what?' asks for the quiddity of a thing, the form makes the thing what it is, in other words provides the thing with its quiddity. Then Bar Hiyya considers, that the Hebrew word for water,mayim, is in fact the masculine plural form of mah! Water, therefore, is a term for the forms, and the use of plural is justified because the forms –being the source of multiplicity45 and change- are multiple.

Furthermore, Bar Hiyya identifies light of Gen 1:3 with the closed form that shines on the lower form but does not combine with the matter.

After this, the scripture explains the pure form, which subsists by itself and brings to actuality, and calls it light as it is written "Let there be light, and there was light" (Gen 1:3). Of this light the philosophers said that it is not a body nor attached to a body. This form does not need place to surround it46, but it is suited to serve as place for a body, because place is what covers a body on all its outer sides. (HN 3b)

He then proceeds to explain how the firmament created within the waters is the form that combines with the pure hyle.

...the Scripture said "Let there be firmament within the water, and there was a firmament between waters and waters" (Gen 1:6). This firmament is the form that attaches to the pure and clean part of hyle and combines with it inseparably and unchanged forever. And the Scripture said "Let there be firmament within the water", to teach that the firmament is sunk and hidden within the bright light created on the first day; the light surrounds it on all sides, is the place for it and assists it to be

45 This is the Aristotelian view. Neoplatonists like Ibn Gabirol seem to have difficulty in adopting the Aristotelian

concept, because it suits them better to make the matter the source of multiplicity. 46 Bar Hiyya is using Aristotle's definition of place of a thing being the surface which surrounds the thing.

15

sustained and to exist. The meaning of water is the form which contains all the forms, which are [then] cut out of it. (HN 3b)

In this way, Bar Hiyya identifies the various elements from Gen 1:2-6 into his theory of matter and form. With each added element, the theory becomes a bit more diversified; however in this study we cannot delve deeper into Bar Hiyya's system. What is most interesting here, is how his equation of matter and form with tohu wa-vohu affected the whole range of Jewish thought during the late middle ages.

5. HOW DID BAR HIYYA'S IDEA BECOME POPULAR? 5.1 Nahmanides

As regards the period of a hundred years after the appearance of Bar Hiyya's book, a survey of the major works from that period would suggest that the identification of tohu and bohu as matter and form was not well known47.

The situation changed suddenly with Nahmanides' Commentary on the Torah, some 125 years after Bar Hiyya. Nahmanides expounded creation using Bar Hiyya's equation, thus causing the idea to gain immense popularity.

[God] produced out of complete and absolute non-existence a very fine substance, lacking reality (mamash! ann), but having power to produce, ready to receive form and to proceed from potentiality to actuality. This is the first matter that Greeks call hyle.After this He did not create anything, but formed and made, because from it [hyle] he produced everything by informing it with forms and repairing them... 48

And this matter that is called hyle, is called in the Holy Tongue tohu, derived from 'betohe al harishonot'49, because if a man is trying to decide its name, he becomes confused and calls it with another name, because it did not yet acquire form which

47 The major exception is the Bahir, which has been shown by Scholem to be dependent on bar Hiyya. The book does

not, however, openly display bar Hiyya's theory. 48

wvrumv kcek ifun wthmnn jf tuv kct wann uc iht wstn es suxh ykjunv rundv xptv in thmuv kct

w ubbn vagu rmh kct wrcs trc tk hkuhvv rjtu /"hkuhv" ohbuhk treb wiuatrv rnujv tuvu wkgupv kt jfv in ,tmku

:o,ut ie,u ,urumv ahckvu kfv thmnv ubnn hf

49 Kiddushin 40b, where the context is about a person repenting his earlier conduct.

16

would attach to it a name. And the form that informs this matter is called in the Holy Tongue bohu, and this is a compound word for 'bo hu' (it is in it)…50

It is written (Is 34:11) 'He shall stretch over it line of tohu and stones of bohu', because the line is related to the thought of the building that the architect wishes to make,... and the stones are the form of the building 51 52 (Nahmanides' Commentary on the Torah, Gen. 1:2).

Nahmanides' apparent aim here is to prove that on the one hand the Jewish tradition is not in conflict with the Greek science, and on the other hand to defend the idea of creatio ex nihilo against the concept of uncreated, pre-existent matter53.

Nahmanides' commentary, written about 1260, served to distribute Bar Hiyya's analogy. Another popular commentary, written by Bahya ben Asher year 1291, relies on material from Nahmanides' commentary in the exegesis of tohu and bohu. Meir Aldabi's Shevilei Emunah from 1360 further reuses the same material to prove that the Greek science actually derives from Jewish sources.

5.2 Nahmanides' background: the Gerona school Nahmanides belonged to the so-called Geronese school of Kabbalah. Those were times when Kabbalah was growing and emerging in the course of only a few generations. Kabbalistic literary activities started to flourish in Gerona. The concepts of tohu and bohu play a prominent role in the Commentary of the Talmudic Aggadot by Azriel, an older representative of the Gerona school.

50

(:n ihause) obuakn ,rzdb vknvu w"uvu," asev iuakc treb whkuhv treba wvzv rnujvu

tk hf wrjt oac utruek lknbu tvu, woa uc ruzdk ost tc ota hbpn w,ubuatrv kg vvu,c

tuv uc rnukf w,cfrun vknvu w"uvc" asev iuakc ,treb vzv rnujk ,ackbv vrumvu /kkf oav vc ap,ha vrum ack

51 This analogy is not wholly apt from philosophical point of view. A line is like hyle only as far as both are lacking real existence. Otherwise an architect's vision of a building to be built is more analogous to form than to hyle. Stones are an ample analogy for hyle after being informed with form but not quite for pure form. See section 8.3.

52

ubhbc ,cajn inutv xjhh,h uc rat [uev] tuv hf wuvc hbctu uv, ue vhkg vybu (th sk vhgah) cu,fv rnta uvzu

/ihbcc ,urum ov ohbctvu w (sh zf ohkv,) 'v kt vue in rzdb w,uagk vueha vnu

53 That Nahmanides also has an esoteric, Kabbalistic doctrine of creation disguised within his commentary of creation, is shown by Scholem, 1987, pp. 426..429.

17

...and tohu, in which there is nothing real (mamash), contained all essences without limit, form or corporeality (golem). [And then] all the essences appeared with corporeality and form, and the refuse and dross were sifted to one side and the pure and clear to the other.

When from it was made a green, surrounding, darkness-issuing line, the elements, the potentialities one within another, became fixed and sunk to the lowest depth, and their construction rose up to a high place. And these elements were a beginning to the constructions of water, which are the stones of bohu in which there is mamash,recognisable and comprehensible with limit, and the existence of everything is recognisable in them. And from the [stones of bohu] water and darkness of water are issued, and from the water is made snow, from snow dust, from dust stones and iron and brass... 54

This excerpt is from a commentary to the tractate Hagigah, so it is not surprising to find Rav's dictum interwoven into the exposition. Tohu is presented here, on the one hand, as an undifferentiated substance that contains all existents in an undifferentiated state. On the other hand, tohu itself is –or at least becomes- the line which itself acts as the differentiating factor as it separates things to its two sides, and by doing so, generates the form.

Tishby asserts in a footnote of his edition of Azriel's commentary (Ibid. 151) that Azriel's concept of tohu and bohu is based on Bar Hiyya's work. Support for this can be found indirectly (Ibid. 144 n. 6-7). Azriel identifies tohu and bohu with the sefirot of Hokhmah and Binah, respectively. He does also explain Hokhmah and Binah as root (ara) and form (vrum), respectively. If we understand the root as hyle, as there is reason to do, then Azriel considers tohu as hyle and bohu as form, but not in the Aristotelian sense. Azriel, as a kabbalist, is mainly describing the divine world here, even if the passage quoted ends with material substances.

More direct evidence that Bar Hiyyas work was known in the school of Gerona, is provided by another Geronese Kabbalist, Jacob ben Sheshet, who quotes the relevant parts of Hegyon Ha-Nefesh in his Meshiv Devarim Nekhohim55.

Tracing the Geronese tradition backwards leads to Isaac the Blind, who was the master from whom the Kabbalah was transmitted to the Geronese Kabbalists. But when one goes backwards in this tradition, the writings get shorter and more

54 Commentary of the Talmudic Aggadot 45a, see also ibid. 53b. See also Dan 1986, 104-105. 55 Vajda, 1962, 38-39, 64.

18

obscure56. We find, for instance, how Isaac the Blind describes tohu as "impressions of essences without form"57. Very similar wordings appear in the commentary on Sefer Yetzirah usually attributed to Nahmanides, but currently held to be by Azriel, on Sefer Yetzirah 1:11:

"tohu is the potentiality (koah) of essences (havayot) in which there is no impression (reshimah), bohu [is the] potentiality of essences that do have impression in them".

Even if the concepts employed are among the most obscure in the early Kabbalah, the schema is clear: bohu is differentiated from tohu in that it is has reshimah. In the early Kabbalah58, reshimah represents one of the highest levels in the emanation chain, which proceeds from less to more differentiated through the levels of hidden,impressed, engraved, hewed and even further.

Thus there is a tradition on the interpretation of tohu and bohu behind Nahmanides. How the tradition is connected to Bar Hiyya is not altogether clear. Scholem has asserted that the book Bahir shows influence by Bar Hiyya –thus it is plausible to assume that the early Kabbalists were led to the interpretation by this work. The book Bahir is namely one of the main influences to the Geronese kabbalists, as is attested by frequent references to it by Azriel in his Commentary of the Talmudic Aggadot (p. 40). At some point, the more explicit interpretation of Bar Hiyya was included to this tradition.

5.3 Later kabbalists The other Kabbalists did not adopt the interpretation instantaneously59. Joseph Gikatilla had much to say about matter and form in his Ginnat Egoz without to my knowledge identifying them with tohu and bohu. Neither does his Sha'arei Orah

56 Even Scholem (1987, 253) admits not having understood more than half of the material transmitted in the name of

Isaac the Blind. 57 Isaac the Blind, Commentary on Sefer Yetzirah, in Or Yakar on Sefer Yetzirah p. 11.

vrum vc ihta ,uhuvv ,nhar uv, ifu 58 See Huss, p. 119-120. 59 Other contemporaneous mystical schools do not seem to have either knowledge or interest in bar Hiyya's theory.

Sodei Razayya by Eleazar of Worms gives a rather conventional explanation for tohu and bohu. As far as I have been able to check, tohu and bohu do not appear in the writings of the Iyyun circle, either. Their symbolism contains however interesting elements including circles and the green and blue colours.

19

contain this teaching. On the other hand the idea is found in a quite apparent form in the Zohar:

"Tohu is a place without any color or any image, and is excluded from the secret of image. It is like it would have an image but when you look at it, it has none. To every thing there is a vestment to wear60 except for it.

Bohu, it has a form and an image, [that is] stones sunk in the depth of tohu, and they come out of the depth in which they lie, and from there they draw benefit to the world, in the form of vestments, draw benefit to the world from upwards to downwards, and descend from up to down."61

Zohar, although composed at the end of the 13th century, was considered to be an ancient holy work and thus an authority, which gave additional credibility to the association of tohu/bohu with hyle/form. Of course, the Jews were never eager to admit that the Greek savants would have been more knowledgeable than their own ancient sages were. Simeon Labi's (16th cent.) valuable commentary on the Zohar, Ketem Paz, explains how the theory of hyle and form was known to the Jewish Sages and then transmitted to the Greeks (Ketem Paz 42b; 48a-48b). However, the Greeks only received a part of the teaching, which is knowledge of the lower tohu that is hyle.Knowledge of the higher tohu, which is the sefirah of Binah, the Jewish Sages had kept to themselves. Some centuries after Bar Hiyya, the idea of two-level matter and form resurfaces here62. In effect we have here a Neoplatonic construction in defense of the supremacy of Judaism over Greek philosophy!

The interpretation as matter and form becomes popular within Kabbalah, as is attested by its inclusion in many kabbalistic works: to me are known at least the following works in addition to those already mentioned63: Recanati's commentary on the Torah, Ma'arekhet Ha-Elohut and Minhat Yehudah (Judah Hayyat's commentary to

60 In medieval Hebrew, the word 'lehalbish', to clothe, is used in the technical sense of a form informing the matter. 61 Zohar I 16a

/kkf tbeuhs vhk ,hk vhc ikf,xn sf /tbeuhsc uvht t,av /tbeuhss tzrc khkf,t tku /tbeuhs tku iuud vhc ,hks r,t u"v,

/uv,s tphkd ud ihgean ihbct /tbeuhsu truhm vhk ,ht htvk u"vc /htv rc tack,tk tauck ,ht tkfk

/tkhgk t,,n hekxu /t,,k tkhgn t,kgu, hfan taucks truhmc /tnkgk t,kgu, hfan in,nu /in, igeans tphkd ud hepb

62 Azriel of Gerona, was also thinking of the higher, divine tohu in his exposition in the Commentary on the Talmudic Aggadot.

63 See Recanati: Commentary on the Torah 2b, Ma'arekhet Ha-Elohut 55b, Shevilei Emunah 14b (28), Pardes Rimonim: Gate 23 on tohu and bohu respectively, Shnei Luhot ha-Brit part 2 6b-7b, Etz Hayim (printed in Sha'arei Kedushah p. 104)

20

Ma'arekhet Ha-Elohut), Moshe Cordovero's Pardes Rimonim, Shnei Luhot Ha-Brit and even Hayim Vital's Etz Hayim.

6. OPINIONS OF THE PHILOSOPHERS 6.1 Jewish philosophy until the Aristotelians

Through tohu and bohu, the philosophical concepts of hyle and form became part of the religious exegesis both in kabbalistic circles64 and even in popular Biblical commentaries. But what did the actual philosophers say? Jewish philosophers were usually eager to quote Bible in support for philosophical concepts; therefore the tohu-matter/bohu-form identification should have had appeal for them as well.

Saadia Gaon explains65 how the earth was originally totally covered by water. The earth was bohu, and the water, which covers the earth on all sides, was tohu. Thus he manages to give a physical explanation to both the green line of tohu encircling the world, which is water, and to the stones of bohu hidden in the water, which is the earth.

Judah Halevi refers to attempts to explain Gen. 1:2 in Aristotelian terms in his Kuzari, most likely written somewhat after Bar Hiyya's work66.

Some people have thought that the ’water' mentioned in the account of creation is an appellation for this hyle, and the 'spirit of God' that hovers over the water, is the Divine Will which permeates all parts of the hyle, doing to it what it wills, how it wills and when it wills67, like a potter with formless matter. In contrast to this, lack of form and order were called 'darkness' and 'tohu wa-bohu'."68

Thus there had been attempts to reconcile the hylomorphic theory with the elements provided in the second verse of Gen. 1. Water takes the role of hyle here. Form is not

64 We cannot however assume that the concepts of matter and form entered Kabbalah solely (or even primaririly)

through Bar Hiyya's equation with tohu and bohu. Additionally, there is at least Joseph Gikatilla's Ginnat Egoz which uses the concepts of matter and form extensively. There is no reason to assume that many kabbalists could have been learned in scientific matters. Abraham Abulafia, for example, was well versed in Maimonides' philosophy.

65 Commentary of Sefer Yetzirah 4:6 66 Stitskin, p. 29, makes Halevi refer to bar Hiyya with his statement. However, at least in Hegyon ha-Nefesh, bar Hiyya

equates water with form rather than hyle. 67 Halevi's emphasis here might mean, that he refers to occasionalistic atomists, like the Muslim Asharites, who denied

causality and considered that the world consists of atoms which are continually reordered by God exactly as He wills. Halevi is well aware of this theory and discusses it in other parts of his work (see Wolfson, 1979b, p. 175-176). That atomistic views existed among Karaites, and that Halevi has a disapproving comment on Karaites somewhat earlier in Kuzari 5:2, would justify searching a possible source among Karaite thinkers.

68 Kuzari 5:2. See also ibid. 4:25.

21

explicitly identified, unless we understand that the Spirit or Will of God equals form here. Tohu and bohu are equal to privation i.e. lack of form.

Halevi does not specify whose idea he is quoting. In Kuzari 4:25, which is a commentary on Sefer Yetzirah, he gives a similar explanation in another context (see section 8.2).

6.2 The first Aristotelians The first Jewish Aristotelians either did not know Bar Hiyya's equation of tohu wa-vohu as matter and form, or they rejected it so completely that they did not bother to mention it. Even if Abraham Ibn Daud (1100-1180?) handles the concepts of matter and form in his Exalted Faith, he does not refer to tohu and bohu. Ibn Daud wrote his book around 1160, just a couple of decades after Bar Hiyya.

Maimonides (1135-1204) likewise is silent about the Bar Hiyya's equation. This is noteworthy for two reasons. First, it is one of his main theses that the ancient Jewish secret doctrines of Ma'aseh Bereshit and Ma'aseh Merkabah are identical with the Aristotelian physics and metaphysics. Bar Hiyya's ideas would certainly have given support to this. Second, large parts of his Guide of the Perplexed are devoted to biblical exegesis, including the creation account. Yet he does not supply an explanation of what tohu and bohu mean.69 Possibly he was unaware of the idea, or rejected it because of the Neoplatonian character of Bar Hiyya's formulation.

6.3 Isaac Albalag At the end of 13th century the idea finally emerges within the Jewish-Aristotelian philosophy in the work of Isaac Albalag (Vajda 1960, 139-142). In his 'Tikkun De'ot' (1292) he presents the by then common identification of tohu as hyle and bohu as form, and explains this as follows. Tohu is a yellow (sic!)70 line, because first of all a

69 Klein-Braslavy, 1987, 149-151; Vajda, 1962, 28 70 The Hebrew yarok is green in modern Hebrew; however the dictionary of rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic by Jastrow

gives the translation yellow. My description of Albalag follows Vajda's French translation, which says "le ligne jaune"

22

line is something which is in itself non-existent71, in the same way as tohu is something not really existent. Second, tohu is an intermediary between non-existence and existence; likewise yellow is an intermediary between white, which is really non-existence of any color, and all other colors72. The placement of yellow as an intermediate color may come from Aristotle.73

Albalag's theory follows Bar Hiyya in many respects. As regards form, both differentiate between form that exists separate from matter, and form that is in matter, and both make use of interpreting water as form. Both consider that the firmament in Gen 1. separates between the upper waters, which are the separate forms, and the lower waters which are the material forms.

Albalag furthermore explains that a stone in general means a principle or the origin of something.

As he goes on, he reveals that he considers rabbi Akiva as the source of the 'yellow line and slimy stones' dictum74. In another Talmudic story, rabbi Akiva has to do with water and stones of pure marble in a heavenly palace75. With three collegues he enters an orchard, apparently a heavenly palace. Thereupon he instructs the others not to say "Water, water" when they will come to the stones of pure marble. The original meaning of this story could well reflect the need to stay calm and concentrated during a mystical experience and not be carried away by any appearances. For Albalag, however, the story matches well the symbolism under discussion: water being the forms and stones being principles.

According to Albalag, the same Sage thus gives two specific teachings about stones and water. The stones of pure marble are about the separate forms, which are the pure forms, being angels and other celestial beings, of medieval philosophy that we

71 I.e. a line as a one-dimensional object is a mathematical abstraction which is not possible in reality, all real objects

have three dimensions. 72 This explanation really calls for the reading 'yellow', because how would green be intermediary between white and

other colours. 73 Both Staub (p. 213) and Touati (p. 271) refer this to Aristotle's Categories 10.12a17 ('ochron' is intermediary between

white and black). Aristotle's text however states more broadly that gray, sallow and all other colours are intermediaries between white and black.

74 Obviously Albalag's copy of Sefer Yetzirah contained this dictum. 75 Hagigah 14b.

23

referred to earlier. The slimy stones in water are the material forms through which the material world is structured.

Albalag then appears to use to a large extent the same results and arguments as Bar Hiyya does. On the other hand, Albalag uses Talmudic material –Rav's dictum and the story about rabbi Akiva– whereas Bar Hiyya to my knowledge only relies on Scriptural proof. Another new element in Albalag is his use of the Aristotelian concept of an intermediary in this context.

6.4 Gersonides The foremost Jewish Aristotelian alongside Maimonides, Levi ben Gershom (Gersonides; 1288-1344), is evidently to some extent dependent on Albalag76 on this matter. However, Gersonides' theory has one important difference: the roles of tohu and bohu are reversed. Tohu is now the form, bohu is the matter. With this reversal, Gersonides is able to present a more logical analogy to line and stones: a builder must first draw the form of the house with lines, after that the stones-matter are needed for the house to exist. We have already referred to the difficulties with the earlier explanations: a line is more akin to form than to matter; a stone would be a good analogy for form having already informed matter, albeit not so for pure form. It is possible that Gersonides has simply reversed the roles to avoid this clumsiness.

Gersonides discusses tohu and bohu both in his major philosophical work Wars of the Lord (Milhamot Ha-Shem) and in his Commentary on the Torah. His exact term for bohu is 'the first matter' and for tohu 'the last form'. The latter expression is problematic. The procession from first matter and form through intermediary levels of matter and form towards all kinds of existent things and beings is complex, and it is not evident which level of form he calls the last form and why77. Anyway, in the context of building a house, the term fits quite well. Gersonides says78 that the lines drawn on the ground to show the shape of the house are the last form of the house before the stones are laid. Before this, quite obviously, the builder has a plan of the house first in his mind, then on paper, before the construction is started. But this is an

76 He does not however quote Albalag by name. See Vajda, 1960, 8 n. 3; Touati, 39-41. He does, however give credit to

bar Hiyya in Milhamot Ha-Shem 6:2:4 but to a wrong work, see Staub, 211 n. 53. 77 For an extensive treatment of this problem, see Staub, 185-206. 78 Commentary on the Torah, Gen 1:2, p. 23.

24

analogy only. It is quite impossible that Gersonides would mean that tohu is the last form in the meaning of a physical shape of a thing79.

Gersonides shares Albalag's explanation about the yellow color being the intermediary between the white color and all the other colors. This is not a coincidence: the concept of an intermediary is essential for medieval philosophical theories about the generation of the world. These two philosophers' explanation of the color of the line as an intermediary contrasts clearly with the earlier, almost mythical explanation where the line is the origin of darkness, and green is the color of darkness.

As to the slimy stones, the original Hebrew expression is quite obscure80. The usual explanation to the word mefulamot was wet81. Gersonides gives a different explanation: the strange word is composed of two words peloni ( hbukp ;so and so) and almoni (hbunkt ;unknown), thereby stressing the elusive nature of hyle.

6.5 Isaac Abravanel Isaac Abravanel (1437..1508) presents in his Commentary on the Torah (p. 22..23) a summary of the different views on the meaning of tohu and bohu82. The first view is that tohu and bohu are synonyms meaning imperfect and lacking existence, or the genus of privation in particular. Abravanel quotes Ibn Ezra, Targum Onkelos and Genesis Rabba on this view.

The second view is that of Nahmanides, who considers tohu and bohu as separate entities meaning the prime matter and the form, respectively. To support his view, says Abravanel, Nahmanides brings the evidence of Sefer Yetzirah and Bahir. Abravanel adds himself, wondering why Nahmanides has omitted it, another prooftext from Bahir: "God made tohu and placed it in Evil, he made bohu and placed it in Peace, as it is written: 'He makes peace and creates evil' (Is. 45:7)". For Abravanel, tohu was thus associated with evil –another recurrent notion that we will return to.

79 In his commentary on the Torah, Gen 1:2, p. 23 he explains 'the last form' as 'the form which the matter receives first

before receiving the rest of the forms'. 80 Jastrow gives 'smooth', 'viscous'. The word appears also in Betsah 24b about moist, fresh caught fish; Zeb 54a about

stones. Urbach p. 775 derives the word from Greek πηλωµα 'clay'. See also Kaplan's Sefer Yetzirah, p. 382 for a list of further references.

81 Rashi on Gen 1:2.

25

Before explaining the third view, Abravanel already states his preference for the first two. The third view is –quite naturally– that of Gersonides, who asserts that tohu is the form and bohu is the prime matter. Abravanel gives a fair summary of Gersonides' view, but notes that Gersonides' only proof is based on the 'green line and slimy stones' dictum. The line, which encircles the world, is analoguous to the lines that define the limits of a building. Abravanel however proceeds to object that Gersonides has neglected that in the dictum, darkness proceeds from the line. This, according to him, cannot be said of the forms. On the other hand, the matter is the source of darkness, deficiency and evil. Furthermore, the first matter is a single substance whereas the dictum refers to 'stones' in the plural. The forms are many and therefore 'stones' must refer to forms rather than matter. Abravanel also dismisses the etymology offered by Gersonides to mefulamot, and quotes Talmudic uses of the word and prefers Arukh's explanations wet and strong.

Abravanel proceeds to present even more evidence to refute Gersonides' theory. Abravanel's argumentation is primaririly exegetical rather than philosophical: he presents Scriptural verses and Talmudic quotes to support and refute views –this time to refute Gersonides' view. His method is hardly surprising –we are discussing his Biblical commentary. Finally he presents several Biblical verses to prove that tohu is something imperfect and lacking –therefore it must be matter rather than form.

The conclusion arrived to by Abravanel was also made by the Jewish world in general, whether as a conscious choice or because of ignorance of Gersonides' view. What is noteworthy in Abravanel's presentation is the use of identification of tohu with evil and deficiency. We shall return to this question in a later section.

7. PHILOSOPHY AND KABBALISM: THE PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL DOMAINS

In the development of interpretations of tohu and bohu, we have seen how the originally philosophical concepts of matter and form were adopted within Jewish thought even outside the philosophical and scientific domain. Specially interesting is how these concepts became widely adopted and used within the kabbalistic circles.

82 It is recognised that this might not constitute a full picture of Abravanel's views on the subject. His special works on

creation, Shamayim Hadashim and Mif'alot Elokim will need to be studied.

26

There is, however, need for precision here. Although the philosophers and the kabbalists would seem to have shared the same ideas, this is true only on surface and in the use of common terminology. A philosopher was trying to reconcile science and philosophy with the Bible. For him, the scientific truth was the only truth, which by definition must be identical with the true religion. For a kabbalist, there was a deeper level of truth. Everything was a symbol for a deeper truth, everything here below corresponded to something in the higher world. Tohu and bohu, both in the Bible and in the world of science, had their counterparts in the Divine world. These higher tohu and bohu were identified with specific sefirot83 in the Divine structure as taught by the Kabbalah.

This does not mean that the philosophers would only have been interested in the physical world –we have seen that their interest encompassed also metaphysics. Yet the Kabbalistic metaphysics were of quite different kind –less rationalistic and more speculative. Neither was the kabbalist really interested in the physical world. As we have noted, in the view of Simeon Labi who held that the science of matter and form was known to the Hebrew Ancients, and only the secrets of the physical reality had been disclosed also to the Greek philosophers whilst the Divine tohu and bohu were kept secret.

8. IMPORTANT THEMES AND ISSUES In the preceding chapters, we have traced how tohu wa-vohu received its hylomorphic interpretation and how this idea then spread and was developed further. We will now turn to examine in more detail some specific issues arising from the survey that we have presented so far.

Although Bar Hiyya is held to be the originator of the identification of tohu and bohu as matter and form, the connection of tohu wa-vohu to the primal matter is an older one. In hellenistic times, the Platonic view that world had been formed out of unformed matter was common, and in late antiquity Gen 1:2 had been explained to refer to this matter. Even later the exposition of tohu and bohu is often intertwined with the other elements in Gen 1:2, and therefore we shall have a look at how water, which has close links with tohu wa-vohu, was understood at different times.

83 For Azriel tohu = Hokhmah and bohu = Binah.

8.1

27

The analogy with builder and building is perhaps the most frequent rational argument used to explain and motivate the hylomorphic identification of tohu wa-vohu. Below, we will present an overview of the use of this analogy, as well as some of the problems arising of its use.

A question of more technical nature, which has all the time been hiding in the background, finally surfaces during the discussion of building analogy. Whilst there is relative agreement on tohu being the matter, in some cases bohu does, or would seem to mean, the resulting composite of matter and form instead of pure form.

Finally we shall touch on a parallel tradition equating tohu with evil.

8.1 Chaos as the prime matter in late antiquity

The Platonic view on creation was that originally the universe was chaotic, unformed matter, which was then brought to order by a Creator-God, Demiurge. This view is formulated in Plato's Timaeus, and later developed by different Platonists, and was quite common in late antiquity.

It turns out that Gen 1:2 was already in late antiquity, at least in Christian circles, interpreted to mean the unformed matter. Augustine argues in his Confessions (Book XII 3..9) that the empty waste of Gen 1:2 is the formless matter, out of which God forms the world. According to both Gerhard May84 and H.A.Wolfson85, many other Church Fathers as well interpreted Gen 1:2 as the unformed matter86. May also asserts, in the case of Hermogenes, that such exegesis follows a tradition which goes back to Hellenistic Judaism.

Such views might form a basis for Bar Hiyya's theory, but not more than that. For instance, Augustine does not differentiate between tohu and bohu at all. He explains how Gen 1:2 as a whole represents the unformed matter, and in this scheme there is no room for form to be found in Gen. 1:2.

84 May, Creatio ex Nihilo, pp. 10..11, p. 122, pp. 140..142 85 Wolfson, 1979a, pp. 171..173 86 Wolfson is discussing whether the Church fathers also considered that Plato had subscribed to the createdness of this

unformed matter, something which is not relevant to our topic.

8.2

8.3

8.4

8.5

28

8.2 The primordial nature of water In this paper, we have in passing touched the question of water being regarded either as the prime matter or as representing the forms. The relevance of water within our current topic derives on the one hand from the common background provided by Gen 1:2, and on the other hand by the association of water with stones in Rav's dictum. Furthermore, any medieval exposition of tohu and bohu tends to take the form of a commentary to Gen 1:287, and therefore any further study on this matter cannot ignore how water, darkness, the deep and the spirit of God fit the picture.

It was common in the late antiquity to regard water as the prime matter, or as a symbol for such matter, and such views filtered into Jewish thinking as well. This is also attested in Halevi's Kuzari. With Bar Hiyya's theory, the situation changes, water is no longer matter but a symbol for the form.

Views regarding water as a kind of original matter are found in Talmud itself: "Rabbi Judah ben Pazzi expounded: in the beginning the world was water in water" (Jer. Hagigah 8b). The 19th century historian Heinrich Graetz says in his 'Gnosticismus und Judenthum' that the hylic principle, i.e. the original matter, was the topic of the mysterious Ma'aseh Bereshit. Talmudic sages took differing stands to such investigations; Graetz points to another quote (Jer. Hagigah 10b) which explicitly condemns Judah ben Pazzi's view as 'causing blemish in the King's orchard'. To Graetz, such criticism proves the alien origin of such views. In Greek philosophy, the idea of water as the first matter had been originated by Thales. Graetz however considers the Talmudic dicta having Gnostic origins: the Valentinian and Ophite Gnostics regarded water as a symbol for hyle88, and Gen 1:2 was understood to mean Wisdom hovering over the hylic matter and awakening and fertilising it into a formed and ordered condition. Graetz' exposition serves mainly to demonstrate the importance of water as a primal symbol in late antiquity. Tohu and bohu appear only as ingredients of Gen 1:289.

87 Even bar Hiyya attempts to explain all the elements in Gen 1:2, not only tohu and bohu. 88 Quite obviously hyle is to be understood here more in the sense of unformed, chaotic matter rather than the more

technical, Aristotelian sense. 89 The exception would be the derivation of the name Yaldabaoth from Aramaic ,uvc tskh == Yalda Bahut, and the

association of this to bohu. This is an intriguing possibility but not supported by current research. See section 9.1.

29

In Sefer Yetzirah, water appears as directly related to tohu and bohu. They, together with mud and clay, are produced from water, and together with water they are used by God as building materials. Water does not have here any exclusive status as a prime matter, it has its place in a chain of elements. Referring to this point in Sefer Yetsirah, Judah Halevi writes in Kuzari 4:25:

"There are such as call the water, over which the spirit of God hovers (in Gen 1:2), the first matter, which lacked any quality and was tohu wa-vohu, until it received quality by the will of God around it; [the will of God] then became 'spirit of God'. The simile (dimui) of water is the most suitable, because of anything finer than water cannot become a solid body, and in anything thicker than water, the natural effects are not uniformly distributed, since its parts are solid."

Note should also be made on how Saadya identified tohu with water, surrounding the earth. He did not refer to prime matter, though.

Bar Hiyya considers water as an equivocal term, one of the meanings of which is form. He considers mayim (water) to be the plural of mah (what): as 'what' is the question used to find the quiddity of a thing, so it is the form that determines the quiddity of a thing.

Isaac Albalag, as we have seen, also identifies water as forms. He furthermore provides new proof for the interpretation of upper waters as the spiritual forms, and the lower waters as the forms of the physical world. In both cases, Talmud provides for him a strong prooftext with an association to both stones and water. In the first case it is rabbi Akivah and the stones of marble in the celestial palace, finely matching the interpretation as spiritual forms –angels. In the second case it is also Akivah (as Albalag sees it) and the slimy stones in the depth –the forms of the physical world.

The conclusion would appear to be, that in late antiquity, both within and without Judaism, water had been a strong candidate for the prime matter. Bar Hiyya however had to explain water as being the forms, because he used Rav's dictum as a prooftext. His opinion was then followed by others who subscribed to his interpretation of tohu wa-vohu.

30

8.3 Comparison to a builder Among the rationally minded arguments given in support of hylomorphic interpretations on tohu wa-vohu, builder analogy is one of the most common. On the other hand, comparing creation to the activity of building is a theme which appears in the rabbinical literature90 as well as in the writings of Philo91. We have also seen how Sefer Yetzirah presents tohu, bohu, mud and clay as the building materials of the world. It is therefore not surprising that the analogy to building activity became a common explanation and proof to the association of tohu and line to matter, and bohuand stones to form –or in the case of Gersonides, the other way round.

The line and stones in Isaiah 34:11 were understood by Bar Hiyya to refer to a measuring line and a plummet –tools of a builder. In contrast with this, Nahmanides explains the line as 'the building in the thought of the builder', whereas the stones are the actual building. In this he concentrates on the fact that tohu is not in the state of actuality, not real, whereas bohu represents the state of actuality, reality. A line is only a hypothetical notion whereas the stones are real and substantial. This analogy is however problematic in conjuction to the concepts of matter and form. Especially given the Neoplatonian blend of medieval thought, whatever is in the thought of the builder is the form, not the matter. Quite probably this problem was recognised by Gersonides and led to his reversal of the concept.

The second point regarding stones as the actual building, i.e. that bohu is something substantial (mamash), is problematic from the technical point of view. We obviously cannot state that a form is real and actual in the purely physical meaning. One might argue that a Neoplatonist would call the form itself real. This is, of course, one solution. The fact is though that the different thinkers seem to have identified bohuinterchangeably with both the form itself and with the combination of matter and form. There are also expressions of becoming real which are better suited for understanding bohu as the result of matter being informed with form. An interpretation which might remove the difficulty would be to see bohu as the form which has been actualised within the matter. This question is returned to in section 8.4.

90 E.g. Genesis Rabbah 1:1, 1:3, 12:1, 12:12; Exodus Rabbah 15:22 91 De opificio mundi 17-20

31

Nahmanides' analogy is copied by others, including the popular Biblical commentary of Bahya ben Asher.

Gersonides, with his reversed scheme, can explain the stones as the matter and the line as the form of the building just before it is built. His explanation, thus, is free of the ambiguity of the meaning of bohu according to the previous theory. Gersonides' view remained, however, an isolated opinion, whereas Bar Hiyya's view remained popular within Jewish thought.

8.4 Bohu: form or composite? We have already mentioned, how some authors seem to interpret bohu as the form, whereas others appear to regard it as the matter after being informed with the form. To demonstrate the problem, let us consider the following excerpts from the Commentary of Pseudo-Ra'avad92 on Sefer Yetsirah 1:11:

...the essences of bohu, even if not hidden by themselves, because they were already clothed with form...

...and because bohu refers to the clothing of the form on the matter, it was called bohu from bo hu.

This does not entirely match to bohu being the form itself. The inconsistency, or difference of opinion if we consider it to be deliberate, may be based on a difference in purpose and objective. For a philosopher's point of view the difference between form and informed matter is substantial and decisive; likewise a medieval scientist would never confuse the form with the composite of matter and form. The difference is the same as between a recipe and the meal itself. A kabbalist on the other hand has a different agenda: he is reinterpreting both the Bible as well as any other material to create or amplify a new symbolism –a process that Scholem has called productive misinterpretation93. Furthermore, a kabbalist is interested in the spiritual domain and thus not worried about the technicalities which really concern the generation of the physical world. The role of an author of a Biblical commentary is somewhere in between, perhaps depending on the intended readership.

92 Scholem (1977, 29) attributes this work to Joseph b. Shalom Ashkenazi (early 14th century) 93 Scholem, 1969, p. 102

32

If we think of the content of the argumentation itself, there would seem to be three elements feeding the differences of opinion.

First, the builder analogy does favor the interpretation of bohu, i.e. the stones of the building, as something tangible. The result of form informing matter is composite matter, which is something tangible, whereas it is difficult to conceive the form itself as analoguous to stones of the building.

Secondly, the interpretation of bohu as bo hu –'it is in it'- is not unambiguous. What exactly is where? When a composite of matter and form is formed, the form enters or enclothes the matter. Of this state it is appropriate to say either 'the form is in the matter' or 'the matter is wearing the form'. Therefore, it seems justified to say that bohu is the result of matter being informed with form, rather than the true form. This does not however seem to be Bar Hiyya's original meaning.

The third point is the insistence that bohu is real (mamash) whereas tohu is not. This statement comes from the Bahir, which also states that tohu becomes bohu –a very significant statement as we shall see below.

Determining what Bar Hiyya's intention on this issue requires some care.

They said on the form that it ... has the power to clothe the hyle with image and form. The word bohu is therefore divided into two parts, bo and hu. (HN 2b..3a)

The explanation that follows is unclear, but then follows a clear statement:

Bohu is the form that covers tohu and sustains it. (HN 3a)

Some rows later he repeats, this time even more explicitly:

I will repeat what I said above, that the word bohu divides into two words, bo and hu,because the form that is clean, closed and pure sustains itself and does not need help. (HN 3a)

Thus, Bar Hiyya's intention here is clearly that bohu is the form itself. That 'it is in it' means that bohu is in it(self), i.e. capable of sustaining itself, in technical terms a substance. It should also be noticed that he does not compare the stones of bohu to the stones of the building itself, but to the plummet which is used to find the right form for the building.

Nahmanides starts also quite unambiguously: (Commentary on the Torah, Gen 1:2)

33

And the form that informs this matter is called in the Holy Tongue bohu, and this is a compound word for 'bo hu' (it is in it).

Some lines later he does, however, link the stones of bohu to the stones of the building:

It is written (Is 34:11) 'He shall stretch over it line of tohu and stones of bohu', because the line is related to the thought of the building that the architect wishes to make... and the stones are the form of the building.

Nahmanides formulation is still ambiguous, there is nothing to force us to conclude that he does consider bohu as anything else than the form. Bahya ben Asher rephrases Nahmanides and continues: (Bahya, Commentary on the Torah, p. 6)

...and linked the stones to bohu which is the form, because the stones are the form of the building... ...The earth after the creation was tohu, that is matter which lacked reality, and became bohu that clothed this form.

The origin of tohu becoming bohu is, as we may recall, in the Book Bahir, section 2.

And what is bohu? It was tohu and then turned to bohu. And what is bohu? That which has mamash (something real) in it, as it is written "bohu means 'it is in it'".

Even if we accept that Bahir subscribes to Bar Hiyya's interpretation, we must admit that there is a significant difference. If tohu is matter and bohu is form, as we are inclined to read Bar Hiyya, it is unthinkable that tohu would become bohu. The testimony of Bahir, when considered to be an ancient Midrash, was a factor which weighed more than Bar Hiyya's theory and contributed to blur and blend the original, philosophically unambiguous interpretation with the alternative of regarding bohu as the informed matter.

To quote a totally unambiguous example that regards bohu as informed matter, we will jump to end of the 18th century. Sefer Ha-Brit by Phinehas Elijah Hurwitz (1765-1821), is a curious work still strongly rooted in the medieval world view, while simultaneously replete with secular knowledge, science, technology and philosophy, in the spirit of the Enlightenment. At the beginning of the work a description is given of the medieval concepts of matter, form, substance and the Aristotelian categories. Hurwitz states, after describing the philosophers' view that matter and form were created simunultaneously:

34

But the kabbalists said that the first matter was created first, without any form, and it is called in the language of the Torah tohu, meaning wonder, ...and after that the first form was created, and was combined with the first matter and then called bohu... The matter of the earth was called tohu, because its figure and meaning were not recognizable in it until it became composite. After it acquired the form, which is the soul, the matter and the form together were called with the name bohu, and then the four elements (fire, air, water, earth) were generated with matter and form. Then they together were called bohu, because when the matter of the earth was alone, without form, it was called tohu. (Sefer Ha-Brit, petiha 14, p.10b)

To summarise: it is evident that bohu has been interpreted sometimes as the form, sometimes as the informed matter. The non-philosophical authors are not always very explicit in their statements and may even present contradictory views on this matter. The testimony of the book Bahir has been significant in advocating the interpretation as informed matter.

8.5 Tohu as evil

In discussing Isaac Abravanel we noted his arguments based on identification of tohu as lacking perfection, deficient, even evil. Of course, such a view is based on the Biblical uses of the word, at least as far as we are talking about lack and deficiency. In the Bible, on the other hand, it is difficult to find direct support for the polarity between tohu and bohu which is associated with these later interpretations of tohu alone as evil. Targum ben Uzziel characterizes tohu (as well as bohu) as signifiying a state of lack of people and cattle. In medieval Germany, Eleazar of Worms expounds in his Sodey Razzaya, with the help of scriptural references to tohu, that tohu is "empty of anything good".

Anyhow, there is no sign of polarity between tohu and bohu in the above quotations from Targum and Eleazar. A clear association of tohu with evil is to be found in Bahir94 as was known to Abravanel. In Bahir 11 "God creates bohu and places it in peace, creates tohu and places it in evil"95. That bohu is in peace is proved by "He makes peace in His high places" (Job 25:2); that tohu is in evil is proved by "He makes peace and creates evil" (Is. 45:7).

94 See Dan (1998b) pp. xxii..xlviii on the view on evil in Bahir. 95 grc unuen oau uv, trcu oukac unuen oau uvc trc ohvktv

35

The Zohar also contains explicit associations of tohu with evil. The same passage that we quoted earlier (Zohar I 16a) also describes the origin of tohu: there was snow in the water, impurity was issued, a strong fire flared up, refuse was formed and became tohu. Afterwards, the tohu was purified.

That tohu is associated with evil is also held by Meir Ibn Gabbai96, an important kabbalist of the generation of the expulsion from Spain. Ibn Gabbai is also especially to be noted as a kabbalist who does not make use of tohu and bohu as matter and form.

There has been, therefore, a parallel tradition regarding tohu as evil. In some cases, like in the Zohar and in Abravanel, the traditions meet. Of Bar Hiyya it can be said that he had all the elements to identify tohu with evil when he was discussing Job 26:7 (HN 3a, see 4.3 above), yet he refrained from making this connection.

9. FURTHER QUESTIONS 9.1 Sources and background for Bar Hiyya's equation

The most obvious question would be the background and the possible sources of Bar Hiyya's account of tohu and bohu. This is not only a question of the background for their identification as matter and form, but also of a more extensive and detailed study of his complete theory of matter and form. Such a study would have to start from the Jewish neoplatonists, Ibn Gabirol and Isaac Israeli being the most obvious.

The late antiquity views on prime matter, especially in connection with Gen 1:2, cannot be ignored. Tohu and bohu were considered to be, or to be associated with, the unformed matter, even if they were viewed collectively, not separately. On the other hand, the Talmud testifies how tohu and bohu were sometimes regarded as two separate entities. Thus the basic elements for an interpretation like Bar Hiyya's already existed in late antiquity, even if not necessarily within a single tradition or school of thought. Perhaps we can throw in a hypothesis that it was only when the Aristotelian theory had become dominant in science that there arose a need for the explanation of tohu and bohu as matter and form.

The interpretation offered by Graetz97 that Yaldabaoth means 'Child of Chaos (bohu)'(see note 89) is intriguing, because in the Gnostic cosmogony Yaldabaoth is the

96 Goetschel, p. 87, 160-161, 177-178, 418 97 Gnosticismus und Judenthum, p. 32.

36

demiurge who enters the chaotic matter and brings about the world98 –as if the function of form was retold in a mythical garb. However, both Scholem and Dan have dismissed this etymology for the name Yaldabaoth for philological and other reasons99.

9.2 Dissemination and later development of Bar Hiyya's equation The picture presented here on the dissemination of Bar Hiyya's idea is as yet based on a quite limited study. There would seem to be a quiet period of over a hundred years before the idea is suddenly spread with great speed. Incidentally, this coincides in time with the spread of kabbalistic thought in general. That there is a quiet period is a result based on argument ab silentio and more study would be justified. Neither is our picture compelete concerning how the idea reaches Nahmanides. A study of concepts of matter and form in early Kabbalah might prove useful.

A more complete picture on the use, frequency and development of Bar Hiyya's equation would be needed. The interaction with other elements in Gen 1:2 needs to be included. Both late medieval and later thought would have to be considered. We have a case here of how an originally philosophical and scientific idea was adopted by the kabbalists, who then transformed it to a theosophical level. The development of these ideas would have to be mapped; even comparison to any similar phenomena –kabbalistic transformation of scientific concepts-- would be interesting. When a kabbalist uses a concept –such as tohu, bohu, matter or form— as a theosophical symbol, he almost always identifies it with a particular sefirah in the divine world. Although tohu and bohu were identified with some of the higher sefirot, no agreement on the symbolism reached, and a survey of the different systems would be needed to identify reasons for this diversity.

What seemed a simple survey at first, is thus expanding into a field of study. To keep the work manageable, one probably should proceed by concentrating on limited subjects, such as one specific thinker's work, at a time.

98 See for instance On the origin of the world, Nag Hammadi Library, p. 173 99 Scholem 1960, pp. 71..72; Dan 1998a, pp. 311..321

37

10. A SUMMARY

The biblical basis is given by Gen. 1:2 and Is. 34:11. To this is added a mythical statement, probably by a Babylonian Amora, Rav, about tohu as a green line encircling the world and bohu as wet stones immersed deep in water. In this and some other talmudic statements, tohu and bohu become treated, contrary to Biblical usage, as two separate entities.

During centuries, the Jews became exposed to philosophy and science, which were built on the Greek heritage. On the one hand there was the Platonic view of the origin of the world: a Demiurge forms the world out of pre-existent, unformed matter. On the other hand, there were the Aristotelian technical concepts of matter and form used to explain the physical nature of the world.

Already in the Hellenistic times, Gen 1:2 as a whole is identified as the Platonic unformed matter. In the 12th century, Abraham Bar Hiyya, a Spanish astronomer, presents tohu and bohu as identical to the Aristotelian matter and form, in an exposition combinic Neoplatonic and midrashic elements with the Aristotelian.

According to Judah Halevi there had been attempts to explain the primordial elements in Genesis according to Aristotelian science. Somewhat later Maimonides declared the lost Jewish secret doctrines as identical to Aristotle's Physics and Metaphysics. The need to justify religion in the face of the scientific world-view therefore existed. Treatment of scientific concepts like matter and form even in writings of religious character was not uncommon100. On the other hand, tohu and bohu were mysterious entities badly in need for annotation, –therefore it was inevitable that somebody made the connection.

After bar Hiyya, the idea seems to have remained quite unknown, gaining momentum in the Kabbalistic circles like that of Gerona. Nahmanides advocated the idea in his commentary on the Torah, from where it started gaining popularity. Soon after that the idea reached the writings of Aristotelians, first in Albalag and then in Gersonides. And like the idea was first nurtured by Kabbalists, it remained popular among them and found its way to the Zohar itself. The idea was extremely common in the works from

100 Cf. Ibn Tzaddik, Ha-Olam Ha-katan; Bahya Ibn Pakudah, Hovot Ha-Levavot; Joseph Gikatilla, Ginnat Egoz

38

the end of the 13th century or from the 14th century. Later on it lived on101, but not accepted by all. Meir Ibn Gabbai, an opponent of philosophy, provided his explanation of tohu and bohu without referring to hyle and form.

It is important to realize how the Jewish thinkers were sometimes discussing the physical reality, sometimes the divine reality, sometimes both. Bar Hiyya presented a dual level structure, Azriel concentrated on the divine world whereas Nahmanides' commentary was also concerned of the physical world. Philosophers mainly concentrated on the physical world although they included the spiritual world in their schemes. Simeon Labi again introduced the dual level structure in full scale to prove the supremacy of Jewish knowledge. Tohu and bohu, which in the beginning were empty, without value and next to nothing, had grown to be understood as the roots of being, the secret of knowledge both physical and divine.

101 See Ma'arekhet Ha-Elohut 55b, Shevilei Emunah 14b (28), Shnei Luhot ha-Brit part 2 6b-7b, Etz Hayim (printed in Sha'arei Kedushah p. 104)

39

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources Abravanel, Isaac Commentary on the Torah (in Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1964 Aldabi, Meir Shevilei Emunah, Warshaw 1887, reprint n.d. Augustine Confessions, Penguin books, 1961 Azriel of Gerona Commentary on the Talmudic Aggadot, ed. Tishby, Jerusalem, 1982 Babylonian Talmud Bahir Hebrew text and translation contained in Kaplan, Aryeh: Bahir, York Beach,

1989 Bahya ben Asher Commentary on the Torah (in Hebrew), Bnei Brak, n.d. Bar Hiyya, Abraham Hegyon ha-Nefesh, Leipzig, 1860 (reprint Jerusalem 1967). English

translation by G. Wigoder, The Meditation of the Sad Soul, New York, 1969 Cordovero, Moses Pardes Rimonim, Munkacs, reprint Jerusalem, 1962 Donolo, Shabbetai Hachkemoni (Commentary on Sefer Yetzirah), ed. Castelli, Firenze, 1881,

reprint Jerusalem 1994 Eleazar of Worms Sodei Razayya, Jerusalem, 1991 Gersonides Milhamot Ha-Shem, n.d. Gersonides Commentary on the Torah, Jerusalem, 1992 Gikatilla, Joseph Ginnat Egoz, Jerusalem, 1989 Gikatilla, Joseph Sha'arei Orah,Halevi, Judah Kuzari, transl. Into Hebrew by Judah ibn Tibbon, printed with German

translation in Zürich 1990. New Hebrew translation by Judah Even Shmuel, Tel Aviv 1972. English translation by N.D.Korobkin, Northvale, N.J., 1998.

Horowitz, Isaiah Shnei Luhot ha-Brit, Poznan 1864, reprint Jerusalem 1975 Hurwitz, Phinehas Elijah Sefer ha-Brit, New York, 1977 Ibn Daud, Abraham The Exalted Faith (ha-Emunah ha-Ramah), published with English

translation and commentary by Norbert Samuelson, London/Toronto, 1986. Ibn Ezra, Abraham Commentary on the Torah (in Hebrew), in Mikraot Gedolot, Jerusalem,

1955. Ibn Gabbai, Meir Avodat Ha-Kodesh, Jerusalem, 1992 Ibn Pakuda, Bahya Hovot Ha-Levavot, with English translation, New York 1986.

40

Ibn Tzaddik, Joseph Ha-Olam Ha-katan, Breslau 1903, reprint n.d. Kimhi, David (Radak) Commentary on Isaiah (in Hebrew), in Mikraot Gedolot Labi, Simeon Ketem Paz, Djerba, 1940?, reprint Jerusalem, 1981 Maimonides Moreh Nevukhim, transl. From Arabic by Shmuel ibn Tibbon, Jerusalem,

1960. New translation by J.Kapah, Jerusalem 1977. English translation by M. Friedländer, New York 1956.

Ma'arekhet Ha-Elohut Mantua, (reprint Jerusalem 1963?) Midrash Rabbah Midrash Tanhuma Nahmanides Commentary on the Torah (in Hebrew), in Mikraot Gedolot, Jerusalem,

1955. The Nag Hammadi Library, ed. James T. Robinson, San Fransisco, 1990 Otzar Ha-Midrashim Bnei Brak, 1990 Origen Contra Celsum, quoted in The Other Bible, New York, 1984 Palestinian Talmud Philo De Opificio Mundi, Loeb classical library 226: Philo Volume I, Cambridge,

Mass. 1991 Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer Rashi Commentary on the Torah (in Hebrew), in Mikraot Gedolot, Jerusalem,

1955. Recanati, Menachem Commentary on the Torah (in Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1961 Saadia ben Joseph Commentary on Sefer Yetzirah (in Hebrew), transl. from Arabic by

J.Kapah, Jerusalem 1972. French transl. M.Lambert, Paris, n.d. Saadia ben Joseph Emunoth ve-Deoth Hebrew translation from Arabic by Jehuda ibn Tibbon,

Jerusalem 1987. New transl. by J. Kapah, Jerusalem, 1993. Sefer Ha-Peliyah Przemysl, 1883. Reprint, Israel, n.d. Sefer Yetzirah Jerusalem, 1990. Engl. Translation with commentary by Aryeh Kaplan, York

Beach, 1990. Sefer Yetzirah im perush Or Yakar With commentaries of Isaac the Blind, Nahmanides, Isaac

of Acre and Moses Cordovero. Jerusalem 1989. Sforno, Obadya Commentary on the Torah (in Hebrew), in Mikraot Gedolot, Jerusalem,

1955. Tanna de-Vei Eliahu Zohar

41

Vital, Haim Sha'arei Kedushah, printed with Tomer Devorah etc. in Jerusalem n.d.

Secondary Literature Dan, Joseph Gerschom Scholem and the Mystical Dimension of Jewish History, New

York, 1988. Dan, J. (ed.) The Early Kabbalah, New York, 1986 Dan, J. Jewish Mysticism, Late Antiquity, Northvale, New Jersey, 1998 (1998a) Dan, J. Jewish Mysticism, The Middle Ages, Northvale, New Jersey, 1998 (1998b) Fontaine, T.A.M. In Defence of Judaism: Abraham Ibn Daud, Assen/Maastricht, 1990 Goetschel, R. Meir Ibn Gabbay, Le Discours de la Kabbale Espagnole, Leuven, 1981 Graetz, H. Gnosticismus und Judenthum, Krotoschin, 1846, reprinted Farnborough,

1971 Hayoun, M-R Le Zohar, aux origines de la mystique juive, Paris, 1999 Hayman, P Some observations on Sefer Yesira: (1) Its use of Scripture, Journal of

Jewish Studies XXXV, pp. 168..184, 1984 Huss, Boaz Sockets of Fine Gold, the Kabbalah of Rabbi Shim'on Ibn Lavi, Jerusalem,

2000 Klein-Braslavy, Sara Maimonides’ interpretation of the story of creation (in Hebrew), Jerusalem,

1987 May, Gerhard Creatio Ex Nihilo, Edinburgh, 1994 Munk, S. Mélanges de philosophie juive et arabe, reprint, Paris, 1988 Netanyahu, B. Don Isaac Abravanel, Statesman & Philosopher, Ithaca, N.Y., 1998 Samuelson, Norbert M. Judaism and the Doctrine of Creation, Cambridge, 1994 Scholem, Gershom Origins of the Kabbalah, Princeton University Press, 1987. Scholem, Gershom Kabbalah, Jerusalem, 1977 Scholem, Gershom On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism, New York, 1969 Simon, H.; Simon, M. Geschichte der jüdischen Philosophie, München, 1984 Sirat, C A History of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages, Cambridge, U.K.,

1990. Staub, J.J. The Creation of the World according to Gersonides, Chico, 1982 Stitskin, Leon D. Judaism as a Philosophy, The Philosophy of Abraham bar Hiyya, New

York, 1960

42

Tishby, I Mishnat Ha-Zohar, Jerusalem, 1971. Tishby, I. Studies in Kabbalah and its branches (in Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1982 Touati, C. La pensée philosophique et théologique de Gersonide, 1973Urbach, E. E. Sages, their concepts and beliefs, Cambridge, Mass., 1975 Vajda, G. Isaac Albalag, Averroïste juif, traducteur et annotateur d'Al-Ghazâlî,

Paris, 1960 Vajda, G Notice sommaire sur Genese 1, 1-3, in Sages et penseurs sepharades de

Bagdad a Cordoue, Paris, 1989 Vajda, G. Recherches sur la Philosophie et la Kabbale dans la pensée juive du

Moyen-Age, Paris, 1962 Verman, M. The books of contemplation, Albany, N.Y., 1992 Wildberger, H. Jesaja, 3. teilband, Jesaja 28-39, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1982 Wolfson, Harry A. Crescas' Critique of Aristotle, Cambridge, Mass. 1971 Wolfson, Harry A. Plato's Pre-existent Matter in Patristic Philosophy, in Studies in the History

of Philosophy and Religion,vol 1., Cambridge, Mass., 1979 (1979a) Wolfson, Harry A. Repercussions of the Kalam in Jewish Philosophy, Cambridge, Mass. 1979

(1979b)