THEJEWI SHQUARTERLYREVI EW,Vol. 102, No. 3 (Summer 2012) 405430The Concept of Innity (Eyn-sof ) and theRise of Theosophical KabbalahSANDRA VALABREGUE- PERRYTHIS ESSAYDISCUSSEStheriseoftheosophical Kabbalahinlightofthe development of the notion of innity. Arguing that the origin of thetheosophic notion of innity goes back to Sefer yetsirah, I will analyze itsapplications in early sources and in Sefer yetsirahs medieval philosophicalcommentaries up to its theosophical commentaries in Kabbalah. In thesetheosophical texts we encounter a concept of God as innite dimension,where emanation is primarily understood as an innite essence in expan-sion. Thisessaysetsout todemonstratehowthistheosophical inniteGod has emerged from the multidirectional expansion of the serot in Seferyetsirah. The very movement from the serot to God himself and from thecosmological to the theosophical was made possible by two major shifts.Therstdependsontheunderstandingoftheserotasdivine, thusasinnite; and the second, in the shift from the multidirectional expansionto a unidirectional and vertical one. This argument leads, therefore, to anew understanding of Eyn-sof and its role in theosophic Kabbalah. It willreect, as well, upontherelationbetweenKabbalahandphilosophy.After some short methodological remarks, I will examine the concept ofEyn-sof inearlyJewishsourcesandnotablyinSefer yetsirah. Then, inorder to understand the novelty of theosophical Kabbalah, I will analyzethe philosophical interpretations of Eyn-sof in the philosophical commen-taries of Sefer yetsirah. I turn nally to the importance of the theosophicalnotionofEyn-sof asformulatedbytherstgenerationofkabbalistsinProvence and Gerona.Inhisseminal discussionof Eyn-sof, GershomScholemtracestheo-sophic innovation as a transition from one grammatical form to anotherThis essay develops issues I rst address in my book Concealed and Revealed: EinSof in Theosophic Kabbalah (Hebrew; Los Angeles, 2010). This research has beenmade possible by the generosity of a Jewish Memorial Foundation Fellowship.PAGE 405The Jewish Quarterly Review (Summer 2012)Copyright 2012 Herbert D. Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies.All rights reserved.................. 18250$ $CH3 07-18-12 15:03:13 PS406 JQR 102.3 (2012)from the adverbial form to the noun: the rise of theosophical Kabbalah,he argues, is connected to a linguistic shift in the usage of Eyn-soffromits use in adverbial phrases such as ad-eyn-sof (until innity, that is, with-out end), toitsappearanceasanoun, theInnite(ha-Eyn-sof).1Thenominalformmarksthe integrationofthephilosophicaltranscendentaldescription of God into Kabbalah and bears the mark of negative (apo-phatic) theology.2This means that Eyn-sof comes to represent theconcealed God whereas the serot are God manifested. This shift is para-digmaticandnot strictlyhistorical orlinearandis, asScholemnotes,difcult to pinpoint historically.3Thus, the linguistic shift is not deter-minative, and it cannot be used to pinpoint the emergence of theosophicKabbalah. We need to reconsider our understanding of the theosophicalstructure,atleast atthe beginningoftheosophic Kabbalah.4Moreover,1. For Scholems analysis of the concept of Eyn-sof, see Gershom Scholem, TheOrigins of the Kabbalah, trans. A. Arkush (Princeton, N.J., 1987), 26189, 43143;Scholem, Major Trends inJewishMysticism(NewYork, 1995), 2079, 21417;Scholem, Kabbalah (New York, 1974), 87105; Scholem, On the Mystical Shape oftheGodhead(NewYork, 1991), 3842, 15859; Scholem, Beginningof Kabbalah(11501250) (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1948), 10422; Scholem, The Kabbalah inProvence (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1963), 13783.2. Ontheimportanceof negativetheologyinScholemsthought: Scholem,Major Trends, 7; Scholem, ZehnUnhistorisheSatzeuber Kabbala,Geist undWerk: Aus der Werkstatt unserer Autoren: Zum75. GeburstagvonDr Daniel Brody(Zurich, 1958), 21213; DavidBiale, GershomScholems TenUnhistoricalAphorisms on Kabbalah, in Gershom Scholem, ed. H. Bloom (New York, 1987),11013; Harold Bloom, Scholem: Unhistorical or Jewish Gnosticism, in ibid.,20710, 220; Steven Wasserstrom, Religion after Religion: Gershom Scholem, MirceaEliade, and Henry Corbin at Eranos (Princeton, N.J., 1999), 8790. On the tensionbetween the impersonal God of the philosophers and the God of the Bible, andthe kabbalist solution to this tension, see GershomScholem, Das RingenzwischendemBiblischenGottunddemGottPlotinsderaltenKabbala, U bereinigeGrundbegriffe(Frankfurt,1996),952. Forthemorespecicidenticationbetween Eyn-sof and negative theology: Scholem, Origins, 433; Scholem, The Kab-balahinProvence, 15861; IsaiahTishby, ed., The Wisdomof the Zohar, 3vols.,trans. F. Lachower and I. Tishby (Oxford, 1989), 1:23335.3. Scholem, Kabbalah in Provence, 15556. Scholem himself was well aware ofmore positive theosophical conceptions (for example: Major Trends, 214; 21718),though it always seems to involve only the serotic realm.4. For indications of later developments of the notion of Eyn-sof as a noun, seethe remarks of Scholem and Idel: Scholem, The Kabbalah in Provence, 156; MosheIdel, Jewish Kabbalah and Platonism in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance,in Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought (Albany, N.Y., 1992), 33844; Scholem, OntheTheologizationofKabbalahinModernScholarship, inReligiousApologeticsPhilosophical Argumentation, ed. Y. Schwartz andV. Krech(Tu bingen, 2004),14858.PAGE 406 ................. 18250$ $CH3 07-18-12 15:03:13 PSINFINITY, THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAHVALABREGUE-PERRY 407furtherresearchinthiseldhasemphasizedthediversityof conceptspresented by theosophic Kabbalah. Moshe Idel has shown that viewingEyn-sof as a concept that belongs to negative theology understates otherusesoftheconcept, suchasanthropomorphicdescriptionsofEyn-sof.5Elliot Wolfson, in a major article, has shown clear expressions of positive(kataphatic) theology diminish the hegemony of negative theology.6In light of these studies, a more comprehensive model of Eyn-sof as theontological kernel of theosophic Kabbalah is still needed. This model shouldgive a sense of the positive theologyso intrinsicto theosophic Kabbalah.Therefore, I wish to propose an alternative comprehension of Eyn-sof. Theambivalence noted by Scholem and others between the uses of Eyn-sof asan adverb and as a proper noun reects not merely a transitional phase inthe development of theosophic Kabbalah but is a characteristic feature ofthenotionofEyn-sof itself.Infact,theambivalentexpressionsadEyn-sof(untilinnity)andle-Eyn-sof(toinnity)areextremelycommonbothinthe earliest period of theosophic Kabbalah and in major thirteenth-centurykabbalistic texts, including zoharic literature. Thus, I propose to view theadverbial forms as a major and fundamental form of theosophic Kabbalahrather than as an archaic form, and only a stage toward a more comprehen-sive and structured concept of God. Such a reading will change our under-standing of the theosophic ontology and its dynamic.* * *Let us turn rst to the historical development of Eyn-sof in Jewish sourcesin the time frame that preceded theosophic Kabbalah. In fact, contrary tohis predecessors, Scholem did not view Eyn-sof solely as concept importedfromphilosophy.7Indeed, innityis anotionpresent intheBiblein5. Moshe Idel, Kabbalistic material from R. David ben Yehuda he-HassidsSchool (Hebrew), JerusalemStudiesinJewishThought 2(1983): 17093; TheImage of Man above the Serot- R. David ben Yehuda he-Hassids Theosophy ofTen Supernal Tsah.tsah.ot and its Reverberations, Kabbalah 20 (2009): 181212.Foracritical approachofScholem, seeMosheIdel, OntheDoctrineoftheDivinity in the Early Kabbalah, Shefa Tal (Beer Sheva, 2004), 13148; Idel, OnBinary Beginnings in Kabbalah Scholarship, Jewish History 18 (2004): 197226;CharlesMopsikandEricSmile vitch, ObservationssurluvredeScholem,Pardes1 (1985):728;seealso Mopsiksintroductionof histranslation:MosheIdel, Une gure dhomme au-dessus des serot, Pardes 8 (1988): 12930.6. Elliot R. Wolfson, Negative Theology and Positive Assertion in the earlyKabalah, Daat 32 (1994): 622.7. Scholem, Origins, 26568; Scholem, TheKabbalah in Provence, 14851. Thehypothesesof GnosticinuencehadbeenreconsideredlatelybyMosheIdel,pointing out to an interesting Coptic Gnostic text, which may represent an earlierJewish tradition: Idel, On the Doctrine of the Divinity in the Early Kabbalah,PAGE 407 ................. 18250$ $CH3 07-18-12 15:03:14 PS408 JQR 102.3 (2012)phrasessuchaseynh.eker(unsearchable)andeynmispar(beyondmea-sure), which are used to describe Gods greatness.8Later, we encountersimilar expressionsin rabbinical literature, such as letsof(without end)or let minyan (without count).9As such, the notion of innity and relatedconcepts already bear two inseparable marks: an optimal magnitude andan inevitable inaccessibility.The notion of innity appears in the early mystical literature as well.10In a passage from the Slavic version of Enoch, we read: For you see themeasure of my body11. . . but I have seen the measure of the body of theLord, with no measure, similar to nothing and without boundary.12This137, 14445. On the resemblance of aperentos and Eyn-sof, see Charlotte Baynes,ACoptic Gnostic Treatise Containedinthe CodexBrucianus: ATranslationfromtheCoptic (Cambridge, 1933), 3, 10, 40. This stance was later expanded by ShalomRosenberg who pointed to further examples culled from rabbinical literature andmedieval Jewishphilosophy. ShalomRosenberg, TheConceptofInnite inMedieval JewishPhilosophyanditsRelationtothePhilosophical Tradition(Hebrew; M.A. thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1969), 16977; Rosen-berg, FromAnaximandertoLevinas: TowardaHistoryoftheConceptIn-nite, in Paradigms in Jewish Philosophy, ed. R. Jopse (Madison, N.J., 1997), 71.The examples found in rabbinical literature are in the same lines as the uses madeof innity in the Bible.8. See, forexample, GreatistheLord, andgreatlytobepraised, andhisgreatness is unsearchable (Ps 145.3); Great is our Lord, andabundant inpower, hisunderstandingisbeyondmeasure (Ps147.5); Astheheavensforheight, and the earth for depth, so the heart of kings is unsearchable (Prov 25.3);Whodoesgreatthingsandunsearchable, marvelousthingswithoutnumber(Job 9.10).9. Genesis Rabbah 2.5; mYeb 15.4; mPes 1.1; tNid 7.3; Baraita de-nidah 7.3.10. On the notion of Eyn-sof in the Hekhalot literature, see Scholem, Origins,54, n. 9; Scholem, The Kabbalah inProvence, 150; Joseph Dan, The Concept ofKnowledge in the Shiur Komah, in Studies in Jewish Religious and Intellectual His-tory Presented to Alexander Altmann on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. S.Stein and R. Loewe (Tuscaloosa, Ala., 1979), 6774.11. Kahanas Hebrewversion translates here: Shiur Komati. AbrahamKahana, ed., Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. (193637; Hebrew; repr. Jeru-salem, 1978), 1:123. Itamar Gruenwald has suggested that this could be the earli-est referencetoShiurkomahasapplyingtoGod. Thisof courserestsontheassumptionthattheoldSlavonicversiontranslatestheHebrewShiurKomah.Itamar Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (Leiden, 1980), 213. Thisbeing said,there is no evidenceof an inuenceof the Hekhalot literatureon 2Enoch, andGruenwaldssuggestionandKahanastranslationhavebeencriti-cized by Martin Cohen (see next note). Beside the philological difculties and thedifcult question of inuences, what interests us here is the correlation betweenconsideration of Gods height (komah) with consideration of his innity.12. Martin Samuel Cohen, The Shiur Komah, Liturgy and Theurgy in Pre-Kabbal-istic Jewish Mysticism (Lanham, Md., 1983), 7980.PAGE 408................. 18250$ $CH3 07-18-12 15:03:15 PSINFINITY, THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAHVALABREGUE-PERRY 409particularcombinationof extremeanthropomorphismandyet unfath-omability of his form is a distinctive trait of Shiur komah and specicallyreverberates in the clash between nite measurement and gigantic/innitedimension.13The understanding of measurement as leading to unreachable dimen-sionsintheHekhalotliteratureisamotifcarriedalsobytheSeferyet-sirah.14Here it is not the dimension (shiur) of God that is unfathomablebut rather the innite possibility of combination. Indeed, such a concep-tion will be explored later on in the medieval commentaries, mainly in thephilosophical ones.In Sefer yetsirah we nd another concept of innity, connected this timewith the notion of the serot.15While the notion of innity can be foundelsewhere, aswehaveseen, thenotionof theserot isuniquetoSeferyetsirah. Still, while the origin of the term serot in Sefer yetsirah has longbeenemphasized, thedeepdependenceofEyn-sofonthisclassical texthas been comparatively neglected. Sefer yetsirah is not merely another texttodeployEyn-sofadverbiallybutisalsothetexttowhichthetwokeyconcepts of the theosophic Kabbalah, serot and Eyn-sof, can be traced forthe rst time. The particular connection betweenEyn-sof and the serot,which is unique to Sefer yetsirah, will function as a textual trigger for thetheosophic meaning that will accrue in the Middle Ages to both Eyn-sofand the serot.To begin with, since Eyn-sof in Sefer yetsirah is a characteristic attributedtotheserot, andconsideringtheequivocal statusoftheserotinSefer13. Forsuchasummaryaswell asanewanalysisof thesubject of Shiurkomah, seeDaniel Abrams,The Dimensionsof theCreatorContradiction orParadox? Corruptions and Accretions to the Manuscript Witnesses, Kabbalah 5(2000): 3553.14. See Peter A. Hayman, Sefer Yesira, Edition Translation and Text-Critical Com-mentary (Tu bingen, 2004), 134 (The Long Recension). For a similar passage inShiur komah: the circumference of his head is 2,000,033 and a third [parasangs],which is that which the mouth cannot utter and that which the ear cannot hear;its name is Atar Huriyah Veatasiyah, Cohen, Shiur Komah, 18081, lines 7476(and notes there). For other tannaitic references to a number that is so large thatit cannot be uttered or heard, see bRosh 27a; bShav 20b; SifreNum 102.15. On the concept of the serot in Kabbalah, see Scholem, Origins, 2627. Onthe concept of the serot in Sefer Yetsirah, see Elliot R. Wolfson, The Theosophyof Shabbetai Donnolo, with Special Emphasis on the Doctrine of Serot in hisSefer Hakhmoni, Jewish History 6 (1992): 28687; Yehuda Liebes, The Ars Poeticaof the Sefer Yetzirah(Hebrew; Jerusalem, 2001), 1215, 2331; Ronit Meroz,Between Sefer Yetsirah and Wisdom Literature: Three Binitarian ApproachesinSefer Yezirah, Journal for the Studyof Religions and Ideologies 6.18(2007):10142.PAGE 409................. 18250$ $CH3 07-18-12 15:03:15 PS410 JQR 102.3 (2012)yetsirah,Eyn-sofisapparentlynotequivalenttoGodhimself.16Thusweread:Ten serot of Nothingness;17their measure is ten for they have no end:18dimension of beginning and dimension of end, dimension of good anddimension of evil, dimension of above and dimension of below, dimen-sion of east and dimension of west, dimension of north and dimensionof south. And the unique Lord, a trustworthy divine king, rules overthem all from his holy abode for ever and ever. (chapter 5)Ten serot of Nothingness. Their end is xed in their beginning19asa ame is bound to the burning coal. For the Lord is unique20and hehas none second to him; and before one, what can you count? (chap-ter 6)2116. The status of the serot in Sefer yetsirah is not quite clear. Actually, we dontknow if they are part of the divine or only the principles active in the process ofcreation, although it is more likely that as principles and primordial numbers theyareseenasdifferentiatingfromthedivine. Liebes, The Ars Poeticaof the SeferYetzirah, 1215.17. hmylb, Hayman translates here The ten serot are the basis. This notionhas to be paralleled to mishnah 8 of the short version. On the different meaningsof that term, see Liebes, The Ars Poetica of the Sefer Yetzirah, 55, 164.18. Hebrew: wshlyar[tdmhmylbtwrypsr[. ThelongversionandSaadya Gaons version has: And their measure is ten for they have no limit (yawshl) instead of Ten serot of Nothingness (hmylb); see versions A and C:Hayman, Sefer Yesira, 74. Their measure is ten for they have no limit appears inmishnahs 4, 6, and 7 (see above quoted mishnahs 6 and 7) of the critical edition(Gruenwald, ApocalypticandMerkavahMysticism, 14142; Hayman, SeferYesira,6971, 745). In the short edition of mishnah 4 and 8 the same sentence does notoccur, whereas it occurs only in 5. It is important to quote also another expressionof the same locution: ws hl ya tylkt (their nality has no end) in mishnah 6of the short version (Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism 143, mishnah8; Hayman, Sefer Yesira, 7779).19. The other versions add here: and their beginning is in their end, Hay-man, Sefer Yesira, 7779. Inthisimageliesanalternativenotionof innity, acyclicone, whichisgoingtobedevelopedasnumerical innitemainlyinthephilosophical commentaries.20. Seetheadditionintheotherversions:Knowandponder, andform(amentalimage)thattheLordisuniqueandtheCreatorisone. .. , Hayman,Sefer Yesira, 7779.21. I followed the translation of Peter Hayman, with some changes: Hayman,Sefer Yesira, 76. Im quoting from the short version, since this version was morecommon among the kabbalists; for a critical edition, see Itamar Gruenwald, APreliminary Critical Edition of Sefer Yezira, Israel Oriental Studies 1 (1971): 143(mishnah 7).PAGE 410 ................. 18250$ $CH3 07-18-12 15:03:16 PSINFINITY, THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAHVALABREGUE-PERRY 411Weencounterheretwomaindenitions: theserotofnothingnessandthe ten serot without end (eyn lahem sof). Considering the enigmatic lan-guage of the text, these denitions are obviously not meant to be contra-dictory but rather have to be understood, from the point of view of Seferyetsirah, as two similar descriptions of the serot. Nevertheless, this noth-ingness is different from the concept of innite expansion, and these twoconceptsshouldbeviewedastwoprimaryvectorsinthecosmologicalsystem of Sefer yetsirah. Indeed, one can see in the serot an innite powerof expansion, while the other underlines the power of annihilation,restraint, slowing down, and coming to a halt (which is another signica-tion of belimah, from the root blm).22From this perspective, there is aninherent tension between God and the serot, in which the notion of Eyn-sof plays an important role. This tension is between God as center of thecosmos and his expansions into the different directions, called serot.23Inthat regard, Eyn-sof is anotionthat depicts thepower of theinniteexpansion of the serot.24Therefore, on the one hand, we have the serotas extensions and as such innite, and on the other, God at the center of22. The dynamic that expresses the relation between God and the serot is, asYehuda Liebes describes, the cornerstone of the process of creation in Sefer yet-sirah. On the dynamic of expansion and annihilation, see Liebes, The Ars Poetica ofthe Sefer Yetzirah, 3546, 16789, 190203; on the different signications of blm:ibid. 55, 164. For a critic of Liebess book, see the reviewby Elliot R. Wolfson,Text, Context, and Pretext: Review Essay of Yehuda Liebes Ars Poetica in SeferYetzirah, Studia Philonica Annual Studies in Hellenistic Judaism 16 (2004): 21828.23. It is noteworthy that the notion of innite expansions is also at the centerof a Judeo-Christian text, called Pseudo-Clementine, written at the beginning ofthe second century, which could have inuenced or would have been inuencedby Sefer yetsirah. This astonishing similarity between Pseudo-Clementine and SeferyetsirahhasbeenoutlinedbyShlomoPines, inhisessayPointsof Similaritybetween the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Sephirot in the Sepher Yetzirahand a Text of the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies: The Implications of this Resem-blance, Studies in the History of Jewish Thought 5 (Jerusalem, 1997): 63142. Onthe tension between the perfect and limited One and the innite spatial expan-sions in early sources, see Pines, Points of Similarity, 7387; Pines, God, theGloryandthe Angels ina Theological Systemof the SecondCenturyBC(Hebrew), Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 6 (1987): 16, 13. Respectively, itis also interesting to note later application of the innite expansions conception,as found in Hasdai Crescas, where the inuence of Kabbalah is seen in its concep-tion of Innity: Carlos Fraenkel, Gods Existence and Attributes, in CambridgeHistoryofJewishPhilosophy, ed. S. Nadler and T. Rudavsky (Cambridge, 2009),1:59495; Zeev Harvey, Lunivers inni de Hasday Crescas, Revue de me taphy-sique et de morale (1998): 55157.24. On the concept of the serot as spatial expansion, see Liebes, Ars Poetica inSefer Yetzirah, 13, n. 8.PAGE 411 ................. 18250$ $CH3 07-18-12 15:03:17 PS412 JQR 102.3 (2012)creation, which reafrms again and again the power of his unity versusthe diversity implied by the ten serot, by the process of creation, and bythe world itself.25* * *The rst commentaries on Sefer yetsirah available to us are philosophicalinterpretations written from the tenth to twelfth centuries. In these com-mentaries, the paradigmatic opposition between the One standing at thecenter and the innite extremities of the Sefer yetsirah nds its expressionin an interesting numerical conception: the innity of the serot is under-stoodastheinnitenumericpower. Inthisnumerical concept, Oneisnot anumberbut rathertheimmutableprinciplethat isembodiedinevery number and which makes it possible to move from one number toanother.Thenumericalextensiondepartsfromone,movinguptonineorten. Fromthereon, it returnstooneandbecomesten(oreleven),which is the smallest unit of unity in diversity. From there, it continuesto twenty and to a hundred and so on. In such a scheme, ten is seen asthe arithmetic basis for the innite capacity of repeated counting. Sincethere are no numbers bigger than ten without returning to one, it is there-forethesmallest unitof unityinthemultiplicity; itistheprincipleofunity acting in the multiplicity. The rst expansion is therefore from oneto nine (or ten), and then returning to one to form the unity of the nextnumerical expansion and repeating this ad innitum.2625. We can see here an antagonism between the One and the multiple repre-sented by the innite power of the serot.26. Thisnotion, basedontherepetitionofafragmentoftenornine, canbefound in most of the philosophical commentaries on Sefer yetsirah (with the excep-tion of Shabbetai Donnolo). For references to this numerical concept: The Commen-tary of Sefer Yetzirah by Yehuda Barceloni (Hebrew; Berlin, 1885), 140, 144, 164; SeferYetzirah with Commentary of Saadya Gaon, ed. Y. Kapah.(Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1972),90; SeferYetzirahwithDunasbenTamimCommentary, ed. M. Grasberg(Hebrew;London, 1802), 2425. Cf. Paul Fenton, New Fragments of the Hebrew Versionof Dunas ben Tamin Commentarys on the Sefer Yetsirah, Aley Sefer 15 (198889):55; GeorgeVajda, LecommentairesurlelivredelaCreationdeDunasbenTamimdeKairouan(Xe sie`cle), ed. P. Fenton(Paris, 2002), 5256; Vajda, ElhananbenYakars Commentary on Sefer Yetzirah, Kovez al yad 16 (1966): 14797; Elhananben Yakar, The Book of Secret of Secrets, in Texts in the Concept of the Divine ofHaside Ashkenaz, ed. J. Dan (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1977), 910; Abraham ibn Ezra,Commentary on the Torah (Ex 3.15). See as well on this numerical theory: MauriceOlitzki, Die Zahlensymbolik des Abraham ibn Esra, Jubelschrift zum 70 Gebu rstagdes Isra el Hildesheimer (Berlin, 1890), 99104; Elliot R. Wolfson, Abraham Abulaa,Kabbalist and Prophet: Hermeneutics, Theosophy and Theurgy, (Los Angeles, 2000), 83,n. 264; Raphael R. Jospe, Early Philosophical Commentaries on the SeferYezirah, Revue des Etudes Juives 149 (1990): 369415.PAGE 412 ................. 18250$ $CH3 07-18-12 15:03:17 PSINFINITY, THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAHVALABREGUE-PERRY 413Thisnumericalinnitebasedonrepetitiongivesaninterpretationofthe innite expansion of the serot in Sefer yetsirah as opposing the One atthe center, although the notion of repetition in a way reduces the notionof innity to a potential numerical expansion. The position of Sefer yetsirahincontrastingtheOnewiththemultipleisevenmoreacuteinSaadyaGaons commentary. The concept that sees innity alongside the categoryof plurality is emphasized in his commentary, with the notion of innitesaid to be human rather than divine:. . . As for his establishing a correspondence (muwa za t) between theseTen and Ten Things that have no end (niha ya), he intended [to show]thereby that, whereas from the human [point of view] there is no endto what may be put together from the numbers by themselves, they arenite (tatana ha )from the Creators [pointof view]. Thus,we do notknowtheend(niha ya)of theFirst andLast of Time, whereasHeknows; we[cannot]reachtheendofthesixdirections, HeightandLowness,EastandWest,NorthandSouth,whereasHeknowsthis.NorcanwedenewithregardtoeverythingtheultimateinBene-cence and Badness, whereas He does dene them. Accordingly, theseten things have no end [from the point of view] of the created beings,but have an end [from the point of view] of their Creator.27TheOne, asintheNeoplatonictradition, issaidtobeunchangeable,absolutesimplicity. Thus, thereasonwhyEyn-sof isnot anotionthatwould easily represent Gods essence is understandable. Indeed, the rela-tion between the One and the innite has been problematic throughoutthe history of Western philosophy.28To attribute to the One the charac-teristics of the Innite makes sense since it only increases its perfection,2927. Sefer Yetzirah with Commentary of Saadya Gaon, 545. I follow here the trans-lation of this passage in Pines, Points of Similarity, 117.28. In Greek philosophy, apeiron was rst related to the power of the matter, itsamorphousness and power of taking any form. This versatility was understood asan imperfection and as such as unsuitable to the notion of One. Leo Sweeney, DivineInnityinGreekandMedieval Thought (NewYork, 1992); Haggai Ben-Shammai,Saadyas Goal in His Commentary on Sefer Yezira, in A Straight Path: StudiesinMedievalPhilosophyandCulture: EssaysinHonorofArthurHyman,ed. R.Link-Salinger and J. Hackett (Washington D.C, 1988), 7.29. Another example of the One as the main notion to which innity has beensubordinate can be found in the introduction of the commentary of Yehuda Bar-celoni on Sefer yetsirah: Blessed be God, God of Israel, One and unied in all hisways . . . One, unique who has no other . . . One that is not in number and notin likeness nor image, One without beginning nor end . . . and he has no end nornality, nor limit, the rst without beginning and the last without end, blessed bePAGE 413 ................. 18250$ $CH3 07-18-12 15:03:18 PS414 JQR 102.3 (2012)althoughsomethinginthenotionof innityseemstoopposetheverynotion of the One. We nd an echo of this conict in Saadyas concept ofinnity.Therefore,his modelofinnityevadestheproblemcreatedbythe possibility of innite expansion. To that extent, the innite expansionisinterpretedasacyclicinnite, whichiscontradictorytotheideaofinnite expansion. The ten serot that have no end are understood accord-ing to the second concept of the serot: ten serot belimah,30and subordi-natedtotheirnumericrestraint(thatis,theirnitude).31Inaway,theconceptofinnitereplicationofthesamesegmentoffersananswertotheproblematicdenitionofEyn-sof inSeferyetsirah. Theinniteisnolonger a wild expansion with all the dangers that this presents but ratherinnite possibilities of combination. The fact that the numerical conceptof innity is a concept of an innite number of possibilities of combinationshows that it is based on a concept of limitation rather than of limitless-ness. We nd ourselves far from the other concept of innite expansionsas found in the Sefer yetsirah and later adopted by theosophical commen-taries. Therefore, weneedtoseethattheprevalentmodel inSaadyasconcept is a nite one, as is his model of Gods perfection.32Interestinglyenough, theotheralternativeregardingtheinnityoftheserotintheSefer yetsirah as expressing aninnite expansion reverberates in Barcel-onis commentary, where it is presented as an another explanation:33he, and blessed be his name for eternity, Commentary of Sefer Yetzirah by YehudaBarceloni, 1.30. The conict between the two concepts of the serot (limited and unlimited)echoesinapassageofDunashibnTamimscommentary, inwhichheclearlyopposesSaadyasinterpretationof belimahasrestriction: Howright isSeferYetzirah when he comments that the ten serot of Nothingness (belimah) . . . buthe who interprets belimah as restraint is wrong. Abraham our father blessed behis memory wasright when he saidthat nothing is understandablebut only totheuniquemaster, God, faithful kingwhogovernshisworldfromhissaintedpalace, for eternity, Vajda, Le commentaire sur le livre de la Creation, 222. For thedifferent sense given by Saadya Gaon, see next note.31. Another proof of the prevalence of the One-limited on the Plurality-unlim-ited in Saadya Gaons philosophy is his translation of two different notions fromSefer yetsirah: qmw[(deep) andyq(end), usingthesameJudeo-Arabicword(hyahn). See the remarks of Joseph Kapar: Sefer Yetzirah with Commentary of SaadyaGaon, 51, n. 65; Pines, Points of Similarity, 116; Tony Levy, Figures de linni:Les mathematiques au miroir des cultures (Paris, 1987), 17377, 183.32. To this extent it is quite ironic that the so-called paraphrase of SaadyasBookofBeliefsandOpinions, whichwassoinuential intheMiddleAges,promulgatedanotionofinniteexpansion. IthinkthatthisstancecontradictsSaadyas commentary on Sefer yetsirah and thus should be regarded as a late addi-tion. See, on this question, Scholem, Origins, 266.33. If this other concept, as it is usually the case, is not shared by the author,we might see here a proof of his allegiance to Saadyas concept.PAGE 414................. 18250$ $CH3 07-18-12 15:03:18 PSINFINITY, THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAHVALABREGUE-PERRY 415Ten serot belimah their measure is ten and they are endless, etc. SomecommentariessaythatGodhadcreatedtensinglethingsparallelingthese ten serot, and these ten single things, their measure is ten withoutend. The explanation for their measure is measurement; meaning themeasurement of those ten things is endless and these are the depth ofbeginning and the depth of end; and the meaning of Depth is that noone can delve into and understand what it is.34The concept of innite expansion will take a clear theosophic turn in R.Shabbatai Donnolos commentary. In an important article, Elliot WolfsonhasshownthatDonnolosconceptoftheserotistobeunderstoodastheosophic, sinceheseestheserot aspart of thedivine.35It must benoticedthat thedivinestatus of theserot derives fromtheir innitestatus, and thus we read in his commentary:This is the import of what is written, They have noend. Thisinstructs us that there is no sage in the world who can know, compre-hend and penetrate the knowledge of God, to discover the end and toreachthelimitofthesetenprofound[impenetrable]serot.Ifasagepursues them and seeks in his mind all the days of the world to compre-hend them, it will not amount to anything. For a person cannot delvewith his mind to pursue in order to know these ten things which areinnitely and endlessly deep.36Donnolo explains the concept of innite expansion of the serot by reen-forcing their denition as innite depths. Nevertheless, a shift occurs intheunderstandingof thedepths, andfromaspatial dimensionit nowbecomesanepistemological dimension. Theinnityhereisunderstood34. The Commentary of Sefer Yetzirah by Yehuda Barceloni, 148. The clear mentionof two sets of serot is understood as one set being apparently nite, and referringtoanothersetwhichisinnite,i.e., beyondunderstanding.Onthetwosetsofserot in early Kabbalah, see Moshe Idel, The Serot above the Serot(Hebrew), Tarbiz 51 (1982): 23980.35. HereWolfsonhas shownthat thecommentaryof Donnolohas tobecounted as one of the earliest if not the earliest testimony of the theosophic con-cept of the serot which will, some two hundred years later, stand at the core ofthe theosophic Kabbalah. He wrote: It can be shown, moreover, that for Don-nolothisdemut,ortheupper aspectofthe glory,istheboundless andlimitlesslight that contains, embraces, or encompasses the ten serot, The Theosophyof Shabbetai Donnolo, 294.36. Shabbetai Donnolo, Sefer H. akhmoni, ed. D. Castelli (Hebrew; Jerusalem,1994), 3536. I have followed Wolfsons translation: The Theosophy of Shabbe-tai Donnolo, 299.PAGE 415................. 18250$ $CH3 07-18-12 15:03:19 PS416 JQR 102.3 (2012)astheimpenetrabilityofthedepthand, assuch, takestheformofanepistemological limitation. It is important to note that this crucial aspectof thenotionof innitywasalsofoundinthecommentaryquotedbyYehuda Barceloni: the meaning of Depth is that no one can delve intoand understand what it is. Both explanations connect the serot withoutendandthetendepths(amakim)inSeferyetsirah. Thealmostinvisibleline that separates the two meanings of innity (epistemological and onto-logical) is inherent to the ambivalent character of the notion of innity.Thisisnotthe casewithSaadyaGaon,whodrewaclearlinebetweenthe limits of human knowledge (the epistemological innite) and the trulyperfect though nite God. Whereas for Saadya the innity of the serot isonly the sign of an epistemological limit, in Donnolos commentary andinthequotebyBarceloni, thelimitsofhumanknowledgearethesignoftheinnitestatusoftheserot.Moreover, forDonnolo,the essentialunknowability of the serot is a sign of their divine nature.Twogenerationslater, anotherhintatatheosophical conceptoftheserot can be seen in the work of Shlomo ibn Gabirol (d. ca. 1058).37Ithas been suggested that he may be echoing a concept bearing a far moresubstantial approachtotheserot, onethatwascriticizedbySaadyaacentury earlier.38Gabirol indeed alludes that by means of the serot it ispossible to contemplate God:[God] has craved the trustees advice; a band of ten serot he plannedto reveal. He wrote facing them ten in Eyn-sof; and ve in ve in accor-37. Different scholars have pointed out the importance of ibn Gabirol a possi-ble source for the Neoplatonic inuences on Kabbalah: Gershom Scholem, Fol-lowing the Trace of ibn Gabirol (Hebrew), Studies in Kabbalah 1 (1998): 3964;Shlomo Pines, Ve-karah el ha-ayn ve-nikva: Research on Shlomo ibn GabirolsKeterMalkhout (Hebrew), Tarbiz50(1981):33947; YehudaLiebes,RabbiSolomon ibn Gabirols Use of the Sefer Yetzirah and a Commentary on I LoveThee (Hebrew), JerusalemStudiesinJewishThought 6(1987): 73123; Liebes,The Platonic Source for the Philosophical Riddle and for the Way It Is Used inibn Gabirols Poem I Love You, http://pluto.huji.ac.il/liebes/zohar/research.h-tml; Idel, On the Doctrine of the Divinity in the Early Kabbalah, 1414; Idel,On Binary Beginnings in Kabbalah Scholarship, 322, n. 22; Jacques ShlangerSur le ro le du tout dans la cre ation selon ibn Gabirol, Revue des Etudes Juives 126(1964): 12535. For an analysis of the position that opts for a kabbalistic read-ing of ibn Gabirol and its critics, see Liebes, Rabbi Solomon ibn Gabirols Useof the Sefer Yetzirah, 7980.38. On more mythical and mystical commentaries opposed by the philosophi-cal approach of Saadya Gaon, see Ben-Shammai, Saadyas Goal in his Commen-tary on Sefer Yezira, 19 (esp. 68).PAGE 416 ................. 18250$ $CH3 07-18-12 15:03:19 PSINFINITY, THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAHVALABREGUE-PERRY 417dance. (He who) understands their secret will be frightened andscared; from them he will study that the creator is one.39In fact, we might have here one of the earliest occurrence of Eyn-sof notasanadjectivebutasanoun, onethatprecedestheosophicKabbalah.This understanding of Gabirols concept of the serot is still open to schol-arly debate.40From our pointof inquiry, what matters isthat whateverGabirols position was, it is sufcient that such a reading was available tokabbalists. Furthermore, if indeed ibn Gabirols concept of the serot is tobe understood as theosophical, it will be due to a genuine understandingof serot as innite.41It should be stressed that the numerical innite gives an alternative tothe possibility of an innite divine concept, but once the innite expan-sion of the serot has been reconrmed, the identication between serotand Eyn-sof has reinforced the divine status of the serot. This points to ashift from a description of Eyn-sof as an innite space in Sefer yetsirah toaninnitedivinespace. ThisshiftclearlystressedinDonnoloscom-mentaryandinthecommentaryquotedbyBarceloniandperhapsalsoby ibn Gabirolwould become the focus of the study of the theosophicKabbalah at the end of the twelfth century.4239. Shire kodesh le Rabbi Shlomo ibn Gabirol, ed. D. Yarden (Jerusalem, 1981),1:9. See on this passage Idel, The Serot above the Serot, 278; Pines, Pointsof Similarity, 12226; Raphael R. Jospe, Early Philosophical Commentaries onthe Sefer Yezirah, Revue des Etudes Juives 149 (1990): 39092.40. Yehuda Liebes does not accept the reading of Pines and Idel of GabirolsconceptoftheserotandarguesinfavorofaconceptclosertothatofSaadyaGaon. For that argument (serot as primordial numbers), see Fons Vitae, 2, 21; onthispassage, seeLiebes, Rabbi SolomonibnGabirolsUseof theSeferYet-zirah, 7879. For other consideration on the notion of innity in Fons Vitae, seechap 1.5. I tendto agree with Ideland Pines thatbe-Eyn-sof (wsyab)is morelikely to express a substantive aspect of Eyn-sof. However, what I have intendedto outline in this research is that the distinction rst made by Scholem betweenadverb and noun is not so accurate anymore: it fails to explain the beginnings oftheosophicKabbalah, notonlybecauseasubstantialconceptofEyn-sofcanbefound in earlier sources and also in the adverbial form but because the distinctionbetween adverb and nominative forms is not representative of the formation oftheosophic Kabbalah. Moreover, it fails to reect the principal shift that occurredto the notion of expansional innity of the serot.41. Thus, it seems to me far more important that where Eyn-sof and the serotare possibly connected, a reading of the serot as divine on one hand and of anontological innite on the other is made possible.42. IhaveputasideinthisessaytheimportantHasideAshkenazmysticaltrend, in which important theosophic concepts can be found, and have decidedto focus on the serotic Kabbalah, which held a different serotic tradition. OnPAGE 417 ................. 18250$ $CH3 07-18-12 15:03:20 PS418 JQR 102.3 (2012)* * *Whereas the shiftfrom an innite space to an innite divinespace wasonly alluded to in the sources analyzed above, the interconnectionbetweenthe epistemologicaland ontologicalinnitewilllieat the basisof thenewtheosophicsystem. Iturnnowtotheearliest theosophicalcommentaries and will present examples of the development of two insep-arable notions: Eyn-sof and the serot, which serve as the basis of a newtheosophical language.Thebookof theBahir, usuallyviewedasaprototext of theosophicKabbalah, written in the late twelfth century in Southern France by ananonymous author, expresses an important aspect that will become cen-tral and paradigmatic to the theosophical way of thinking. Reecting ontheSeferyetsirah, wendthereareferencetotheinniteexpansionofspatial dimensions.43In another passage we read:The Aleph looks like the brain, when you mention the Aleph, you openyour mouth. The same is true of thought, whenyouextendyourthoughtstotheInniteandtheBoundless. FromAlephemanateallletters.44Indeed, the same expression of extension of thought until Eyn-sof45can befoundin the commentary ofSeferyetsirah writtenby R.Isaac the Blindthe thesophical concept of Haside Ashkenaz, see Scholem, Origins, 18487;JosephDan, The Esoteric Theologyof Ashkenazi Hasidism(Hebrew; Jerusalem,1968), 11929; Idel, Kabbalah, 19396.43. TheBlessedHolyOnehasaSingleTree, andit hastwelvediagonalboundaries . . . They continually spread forever and ever; They are the arms ofthe world, The Bahir, An Ancient Kabbalistic Text Attributed to Rabbi Nehuniah benHa-Kana, trans. A. Kaplan(New York, 1979), 34, 95. Forthe critical edition,seeDaniel Abrams, TheBookBahir: AnEditionBasedontheEarliest Manuscripts(Hebrew; Los Angeles, 1994), 15557, 63. It is important to point out that theterm is forever and ever (d[ yd[ d[) and not without end (ws ya). It is appar-ently a paraphrase of the innite expansion of the ten depths of Sefer yetsirah.44. Kaplan, The Bahir, 25, 70; Abrams, The Book Bahir, 145, 48. See anotherrelatedpassage: Isit thentheseventh? .. .Andwhat isit? Itis thoughtthatdoes not have any end or boundary. This place likewise does not have any endor boundary, Kaplan, TheBahir, 56, 154; Abrams,The BookBahir, 187, 103.For a presentation of the different commentaries known in the second half of thethirteenth century, see Moshe Idel, Sefer Yetzirah: Twelve Commentaries on SeferYetzirah and the Extant Remnants of R. Isaac of Bedreshs Commentary(Hebrew), Tarbiz 79 (2012): 471556.45. The parallels between the Book Bahir and Isaac the Blind might beaccounted for by later Provenc al interpolations in the Bahir. For an updated dis-cussionontheoriginandeditionsof theSefer ha-Bahir, seeRonit Meroz, APAGE 418 ................. 18250$ $CH3 07-18-12 15:03:20 PSINFINITY, THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAHVALABREGUE-PERRY 419(Isaac Sagi Nahor), a major gure in the transmission of esoteric lore. Atthe very beginning of his commentary, we read as follows:Inthirty-two: TheletterbetisanallusiontoH. okhmah(wisdom)andHaskhel (the intelligence) and it alludes to all that the apprehension ofthe thought apprehends unto Eyn sof, and all the more what is includedwithin itself . . . Every word that begins with a bet indicates both itselfandwhatiswithin. Sotoo, betinthirty-two, inwhichheengraved,meaning: that which thought does not apprehend.46First, it is interesting to note the unique interconnection of epistemologi-cal inquiry and cosmological expansion in the way both texts address thenotion of innity. Eyn-sof appears rst here to set the limits of the inquiryof thought but couldas well be understood asthe innitedimension ofthe thought. Understanding exactly the status of the thought is ratherdifcult considering the enigmatic style of R. Isaac the Blind. The ambi-guity between two different ways to understand thought, as being eitherhuman or divine, is part of the process of psychologization of the divine,which is so characteristic of the theosophic structure. At this very point,one can sensethe fusion between the epistemological approach and thecosmological one inspired by the words of Sefer yetsirah and Sefer ha-bahir.It is important to take note of two major transformations: the rst a movefromcosmological expansiontowardpsychological expansion, whereasthe second is a shift from human limitation to the divine realm.As inthe previous sources, inIsaacs commentary, Eyn-sof canbeunderstoodinitsadverbial form; nevertheless, sincetheidiomdoesntapply only to the serot, it can be understood as a proper noun as well,andthereforebothsignicationsareavailable:toinnity andtotheinnite. However, before we can even point out a kabbalistic inventionthat is named Eyn-sof, we should consider a preliminary step, namely, theshiftfromdivinecosmologicaldimensionstothetheosophicdimension.The fact that the latter has been characterized by its innity is reectedJourney of Initiation in the Babylonian Layer of Sefer ha-Bahir, Studia Hebraica7 (2007): 1733.46. MarcB. Sendor, TheEmergenceofProvenc al Kabbalah: Rabbi Isaacthe Blinds Commentary on Sefer Yezirah, Translation and Annotation (Ph.D.dissertation, Harvard University, 1994), 2:12. For a detailed analysis of the mys-tical conceptions of the earliest kabbalists, and mainly the school of R. Isaac, seeHaviva Pedaya, Name and Sanctuary in the Teaching of R. Isaac the Blind: A Compara-tive Study in the Writings of the Earliest Kabbalist (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 2001), esp.73102.PAGE 419 ................. 18250$ $CH3 07-18-12 15:03:20 PS420 JQR 102.3 (2012)as well in the way R. Isaac interprets the numerical concept of innity interms of expansion:The things have dimensions and measure, but the thought has no mea-sure, so they proceed ten by ten. Therefore, from the subtle come theinscribed, for ten come from ten, subtle ones from the innerness of thesubtle ones.47Limitation is here not only characteristic of human realm but extends tosomeserot aswell. Thetensionbetweenlimitedthingsandunlimitedthought has been resolved by means of a suggested innite possibility ofupward ascension: ten by ten. The twist given to the numerical concep-tion is emblematic of theosophic structure. While comparing the numeri-cal innitefoundinthephilosophical commentaries, twofundamentalchanges should be noticed. First, ten is the unity here and not One. Sec-ondly,thisverynumericalprinciple(tenbyten)comestodescribetheinnite numerical power, a vertical ascension expanding innitely towardthe Innite.Withoutenteringthecomplexquestionastothenatureoftheserotand the havayot (essences), it is my purpose to stress the different expres-siongiventotherelationshipbetweentheniteandtheinnite. Twodifferentconceptsoftheserotareintertwined. Accordingtoone,theirdimensions are nite, while according to the other, they are innite, sincetheirrootsneverendandtheyarebeyondall apprehension.48Tenbyten49refers to gradation of different levels, and the very idea of gradationimplies continuation, even though we are talking about opposites: niteandinnite. The Neoplatonic50structure of gradationthat has been47. Pedaya, Name and Sanctuary in the Teaching of R. Isaac the Blind, 3637.48. Forthosedimensionswhichhavebeenmentionedareall inEinSof.Inourlanguagethereareonlytheheadingsofthedimensions, Sendor, TheEmergence of Provenc al Kabbalah, 2:46.49. tenbyten referstoadoublestructureoftheserot, oneinnertotheother, and to a theory stressing that Eyn-sof encompasses ten hidden serot. Idel,The Serot above the Serot (more specically about Isaac the Blind, 24041).50. The chain of degrees that is suggested here in the adoption of the verticalelevation is strongly Neoplatonic. The multiplicity of essences in Eyn-sof contra-dicts the philosophical principle of simplicity and of unity. On the Neoplatonicinuences onR. IsaactheBlind, seeSendor, TheEmergenceof Provenc alKabbalah, 2:37, n. 95; 1:11729. On the similarity between the innite essences(ws hl ya tyywwh) of R. Isaac the Blind and the rst cause of Eriugena, see Idel,TheSerotabovetheSerot, 26768; GabrielleSed-Rajna, LinuencedeJean Scot sur la doctrine du Kabbaliste Azriel de Ge rone, in Jean Scot Erige`ne etlhistoire de la philosophie (Paris, 1977), 45363.PAGE 420 ................. 18250$ $CH3 07-18-12 15:03:21 PSINFINITY, THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAHVALABREGUE-PERRY 421adopted here, which lies at the very core of the shift from multidirectionalinnite expansion to a unilateral direction, is also a way to connect differ-ent levels to each other.51Thus, the different degrees are also ascensionaldegrees for those who seek to connect to Eyn-sof. It is impossible for theworshipertoreachEyn-sof directly, unlesshisprayersaremediated.52While dimensions in their nite expression are ways to comprehend, theinnite chain of their interconnection is there to outline another kind ofconnection to Eyn-sof, by way of suckling rather than that of knowledge.53The special status of the dimensions is honed by R. Isaac while making adistinction between dimensions and limits:Their limit (takhlitan) is not like their dimension (midatan). A dimen-sionissomethingreceivedbyseparatethings, fortheprophetssawdimensions according to their apprehension, and by virtue of receivingtheir power, they expanded their consciousness more than otherhumanbeings, forthey gainedby thisa breadthof soulto extend toparticulars within Ein Sof. But their limit is the limit of their investiga-tion. For every dimension has a limit and every nite thing has an end,51. Their measure is ten. Everything is a dimension and what is above it isits lling, for dimension is a power which is emanated from the dimension of themeasurer, the essentiality of dimension and the emanation of essence in Eyn-sof,Sendor, The Emergence of Provenc al Kabbalah, 4345. It is of some interest tomention that the distinction between the measurer (ddwm) and its measure (hdym)recallssomecommentariesontheShiurkomahdistinguishingbetweenthetwowords(rw[yandhmwq)andseeinginhdymhwq theactionofGod.Seeonthisquestion Yehuda Liebes, Chapters in the Dictionary of the Book of the Zohar(Hebrew; Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1976), 146.52. All the awesome dimensions are given to comprehend, for every dimen-sion is from a dimension that is above it, and they are given to Israel to compre-hend, from the dimension that appears in the heart, to comprehend unto Eyn-sof. For, there is no way to pray other than by the nite things a person receivesandelevatesinthoughtuntoEyn-sof, Sendor,TheEmergenceofProvenc alKabbalah, 7475.53. The pathways are sources of the byways: for pathway is the source of abyway (Ezek 21.26). The pathway is a generality and a principle, for the bywaysdisperse and separate and spread out from there. The pathways of the wondersare like veins within the stock of a tree, and hochmah is the root. They are innerand subtle essences, which no creature can contemplate except that which sucklesfrom it, a mode of contemplation by way of suckling, not by way of knowing,Sendor,TheEmergence ofProvenc alKabbalah, 1013.Onthe twowaysofcontemplation, see Idel, The Serot above the Serot, 241. On suckling as theonly way to connect to the Ayn, see Daniel Matt, Ayn: The Concept of Nothing-nessinJewishMysticism, inThe Problemof Pure Consciousness, MysticismandPhilosophy, ed. R. Forman (New York, 1990), 13536, nn. 74, 75.PAGE 421 ................. 18250$ $CH3 07-18-12 15:03:21 PS422 JQR 102.3 (2012)like that which is written for all nite things I have seen an end butYour commandment even though its beginning has a limit, continu-allyexpandsexceedingly (Ps. 119:96)untoEinSof. Whileevery-thing that perishes has a limit, your commandment cannot beapprehended by man to the utmost degree of apprehension, for a mangrasps nothing but the headings of the dimensions.54Despite the fact that in Sefer yetsirah both terms limit and dimensionexpress the innity of the serot, R. Isaac stresses the differencedistinguishingordinaryknowledgeandtheknowledgeoftheprophets.Theprophet canconnect toEyn-sof throughthedimensionsthat havebeenrevealedtohim: thewayofprophecyisthewayofwideningthepath, toward innity. These dimensions may be limited at their start butareunlimited intheirexpansiontowardtheirorigin(Eyn-sof).Interest-ingly enough, there is an overlap between the wideness of the propheticpath and the ascension on high.55In other words, the connection betweennite and innite is made possible by means of upward ascension, towardEyn-sof. Not onlydoesthepathbringoneclosertoEyn-sof but italsowidens the consciousness of the prophet/worshiper.This new theosophic space, created by the shift of the innite expan-sions of Sefer yetsirah toward an expansion to Eyn-sof, nds its expressionindeed in a new kabbalistic terminology that binds together the notion ofEyn-sof withthat of emanation. Theverybeginningof thetheosophicconceptofinnityisrstofall theconversionofinnitecosmologicaldimensions into a system of emanations, and thus into an innite expan-sion. This is well illustrated with the idiom innite efuence (meshekhEyn-sof) that is found in the writings of R. Isaac the Blind and his nephewR. Asher ben David,56and from here on becomes a common denomina-54. Sendor, The Emergence of Provenc al Kabbalah, 6162.55. This notion of a broad path ts another description given by R. Isaac ofthe path (bytn) as being the head of the road (rd): Sendor, The Emergence ofProvenc al Kabbalah, 1122, and n. 29. As Sendor notes, the difference on thismatter between R. Isaacs commentary and Nachmanides commentary is note-worthyandhadbeennoticedbyR. IsaacofAcreaswell. GershomScholem,Isaacof Achres CommentaryonSefer Yetzirah (Hebrew), Kiryat Sefer 31(1956): 383. Nachmanides understood the head of the road, lyb, in an oppositeway, to be narrower and hidden from perception (Scholem, Studies in Kabbalah,1, 88).56. Here are some major uses of this expression by R. Asher ben David: theefuence expanded from Eyn-sof, Daniel Abrams, R. Asher ben David, His Com-pleteWorksandStudiesinhisKabbalisticThought (Hebrew; LosAngeles, 1996),102; the efuence drown into them from Eyn-sof, ibid., 103; the expansion ofPAGE 422 ................. 18250$ $CH3 07-18-12 15:03:22 PSINFINITY, THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAHVALABREGUE-PERRY 423tionforemanation.57R. AsherbenDavidisanimportant linkinthetransmission of Provenc al Kabbalah to Spain and played a key role in thechanges undergone by the esoteric tradition as it moved from esoteric toexoteric lore.In the writings of R. Asher ben David, the ambiguity in the use of theterm Eyn-sof is still a common feature, as in the case of R. Isaac the Blind.The ambiguity that lies in the preposition ad (to/until) is reected hereinEyn-sofsrelationtoemanation.58Therefore, itisimportanttostressthat Eyn-sof, especially together with the description of innite efuence,meanstheoriginoftheemanationbutalsotheinniteessenceofthatexpanse.59Thus, emanation expresses an ontological continuity from thethe spirit in them coming from Eyn-sof, ibid., 65; the efuence of the benedic-tion coming from Eyn-sof, ibid., 105; the will that expands from Eyn-sof con-tinually without interruption since it is the line in the middle, ibid., 64; and onthe continuity of the innite efux that never stops, ibid., 111. In these examplesand some others the notion of efux is related to the middle way or the middleline: Vav is a sign of the thirteen attributes Vav here and Vav there and Aleph inthe middle, this is the line in the middle and the house of the word to come, andit supports everything, since the efux that expands in it (is) from Eyn-sof andthat is why He and His name are one, ibid., 104.57. This term (hkym ,hkmh ,m) can be translated differently: thread, exten-sion, attraction, orcontinuum. ItappearsevenpreviouslytothisinShlomoibn Gabirols poem A Crown for a King (8, l. 83): He drew the efuence ofBeing from Naught, as a ray of light breaks forth from the eye (yhmwmly[hmaxwyhrwahmhkyahm), in Scholem, Origins, 313, n. 232; Liebes, RabbiSolomon ibn Gabirols Use of the Sefer Yetzirah and a Commentary on I LoveThee, 8789.58. Insome descriptions, the efuence althoughemanating fromEyn-sof,stands for a name for Keter, the rst serah: Aleph is the rst Serah (keter) thatestablishedeverythingasOne(dja)inhisprimordial will andsinceit isthesource of the benediction and the efuence that expands (mnh mh) from it, asthe spring that irrigate all the garden, Abrams, R. Asher ben David, 104; and thisserah, that is called Gods living spirit, corresponds to the efuence that expands(mnh mh) in it from the source Aleph, [this] teaches us about the unity that iscomprised in the One and that is unied in it, about all the forces that are in it inall thepathsandinall theinscriptionsthat areinit, andthroughthat sameefuence that comes from Aleph without cessation. This serah is called One andis the beginning of the existence and the One that brings [into existence] is calledthe principle of all principles the cause of all causes. For that, it is said Bless andblessed is his name since all that comes after him is called (after) the name (thatis)abovehimandthisuntil theendof theserot andthat isenoughforanyscholar to understand, ibid., 106.59. The nature of the seroti.e., their innite originand/or essenceisdirectly connected to another question: whether the serot are the essence or ves-sels (of God). This question has been discussed by scholars. For Gershom Scho-PAGE 423 ................. 18250$ $CH3 07-18-12 15:03:22 PS424 JQR 102.3 (2012)source(fromnowoncalledEyn-sof)totheworld. Thischaracteristicdenes the very heart of the theosophic ontology, which differs in manyways from the Neoplatonic philosophy and from classical theology. Theconcept of God as an innite essence, together with the concept of differ-ent stagesof emanation, andtheconcept of theserot asinnertotheGodhead, demands an integrative model: a model that would match thepeculiar theosophic dynamic that deals with unity and multiplicitytogether.60This challenge can be sensed in the words of the introductionby R. Asher ben David, while explaining the purpose of his book:I, Asher ben David ben Abraham ben David . . . wish to seek after thethirteen dimensions (midot) to understand and comprehend and knowaboutthehearsaythatisheardthattheyarecalleddimensionsandwhether they are limited and separated or whether they are united anduniedinthecauseofthecausesandifsoinwhatmanneraretheybeing called dimensions and how are they related to his grand name tobe named so. Thus it makes sense that since they are called his dimen-sions, then they are dimensions without dimensions,61without end norlimit (aim, be-Eyn-sof ve-tekhilah)andwithout separation, Sublimeand Elevate. And they are called dimensions not regarding themselvesbutratherregardingwhatreachesusinthedimensionthatweneedthrough them as I have explained.62lem and Efraim Gottlieb, Isaac the Blind held a concept of serot as essence whilehis students held a concept of vessels: Scholem, Kabbalah, 1012; Scholem, Kabba-lah in Provence, 8384; Efraim Gottlieb, Researches in Kabbalistic Literature (Hebrew;Tel Aviv, 1976), 11530. Recent scholarship tends to nd in R. Isaac the Blindand R. Asher a concept of the serot both as essence and as vessels: Idel, Kabbalah,13741; Sendor, The Emergence of Provencal Kabbalah, 1:3037. Abrams, R.Asher ben David, 2527.60. According to Dauber, R. Asher ben Davids conception is similar to thephilosophical conception of simple divine unity, thus distinguishing him from R.Azriel on that question.61. For a similar formulation: They are not separated or limited dimensionsfrom the side of their beginning; since they are dimensions without dimensions,without end and beginning. They are not called dimensions from their side butrather from our side, Abrams, R. Asher ben David, 66. On the innite serot fromtheaspectoftheirbeginning, seealsoAbrams, R. AsherbenDavid, 107. Foranevenmorestraightforwardposition: Howisit possibletogivethemlimiteddimensions while they are connected to the principle of principles to the cause ofthe causes. Really, every limited has an extremity and an end and every form hasabodyandeverylimitedandeverythingthatisconnectedwill beseparated,Abrams, R. Asher ben David, 109.62. Abrams, R. Asher ben David, 118.PAGE 424 ................. 18250$ $CH3 07-18-12 15:03:23 PSINFINITY, THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAHVALABREGUE-PERRY 425R. Asher ben David addresses the kabbalistic lore as an advocate tryingto answer probing theological questions.63The question that he is tryingto answer inquires into the concept of the plurality of Gods dimensions,bearing in mind the challenge that it poses to the concept of Gods unity.He describes therefore a twofold reality. When representing Godsactions, the dimensions (midot) of God are named after him; but in regardtotheiractions, theyarenamedaftertheactionitself.64Althoughthevocabulary and the way of thinking seem to follow philosophical rhetoric,the fact that these dimensions reect Gods essence does not permit themto be understoodas simple attributes followingthe philosophical termi-nology.The innite axis that structures the theosophic realm bridges the gapbetween the upper world and the lower one and is thus dually orientated:up and down. The serot, the havayot, are said to be innite in regard totheir source and nite toward their application and action in the world.The theological answer given will serve as a major model in theosophicKabbalah and can be viewed as a process of unication. Different imageswill be given to this special feature of the serotic system. The serot arelike a bunch of grapes, which are all connected together, or like the differ-ent parts of the tree65or like the branches of the menorah, all of whichareconnectedatthebase.66Tobeuniedissynonymouswithinnity,and to be separated is synonymous with being nite.it is not possible to have in him a measured and limited dimension sincehe is one and he is unied in all of them and he acts in all of them asin one, or he acts in one of them and encompass in it all of them . . .becauseeverydimensionanddimensionisencompassedintheother63. JonathanDauber, PureThoughtinR. AbrahambarHiyyaandEarlyKabbalah, Journal ofJewishStudies60(2009): 185201: Dauber, CompetitiveApproaches to Maimonides in Early Kabbalah, in The Cultures of Maimonidean-ism, ed. J. T. Robinson (Leiden, 2009), 5788.64. His force, as it has beenseenbythepatriarchs, conformingtotheiractions and the extension in them (actions) of the spirit that comes from Eyn-sof,have been named by His names and they are the dimensions and plantations ofGod Bless be He. His inuence is Glory in them and He acts through them asHe wishes. For that reason, we unied Him in the verse: Listen Israel is One,Abrams, R. Asher ben David, 65.65. The image of the tree is a common one used to express the unity of differ-ent entities; see, for example, Abrams, R. Asher ben David,52; Scholem, Kabbalah inProvence, 9; Elliot R. Wolfson, Along the Path: Studies in Kabbalistic Myth, Symbolism,and Hermeneutics (Albany, N.Y., 1995), 6388.66. On the image of grapes and menorah: Abrams, R. Asher ben David, 102.PAGE 425 ................. 18250$ $CH3 07-18-12 15:03:23 PS426 JQR 102.3 (2012)andheactsinall ofthem, aswewrote. Andthereisnoseparationbetweenthemandnodivisionamongthemintheiractionsevery-thing is as I have explained.67Fromhereon, bothniteandinniterepresentthetwoextremities:the upper and the lower one, but they also express two different states:connectedorseparatedtoEyn-sof. SinceEyn-sofisineverydimension,they cannot be limited. The mere fact that the serot belong to Eyn-sof isexpressed in the idea of innite expansion that is in fact a model of uni-cation. There is one force that expands in each one, connects and uniesthem all. With this in mind, it is important to sense that the theosophicmodel of unication is very different from the model of coincidentia opposi-torum,68inwhichunicationsigniesthetotalannihilationofalldiffer-ences.69Indeed, the theosophic model demonstrated here shows a moretempered notion of unication that assembles different instances together:thetotalitythat isrepresentedherecouldbecomparedtoapuzzleinwhich all the parts t together. From this perspective, it is better under-stoodwhytheontological incompatibilityof theniteandtheinnitedoes not seem to be irreducible. Eyn-sof is the key to this new theosophicalconcept of unity. In fact, another major shift needs to be pointed out. Inmost of the theosophic systems, Eyn-sof is not a characteristic attendantto the One, as is usually the case in philosophical systems, but rather thevery concept on which the theosophical notion of unity and of unicationrest. This enables the consideration of a dynamic unication that permitsplurality in the divine world.67. Abrams, R. Asher ben David, 119.68. On this concept in R. Azriel of Geronas thought: Scholem, Origins, 312,43940; on the coincidentia oppositorum as mystical concept in Judaism, see ElliotR. Wolfson, AbrahamAbulaa, Kabbalist andProphet: Hermeneutics, TheosophyandTheurgy (Los Angeles, 2000), 10; Wolfson, VenturingBeyond: LawandMorality inKabbalistic Mysticism (New York, 2006), 2046, 26465; Wolfson, Luminal Dark-ness(Oxford,2007),xvixvii;Wolfson,Language, Eros, Being: KabbalisticHerme-neuticsandPoeticImagination(NewYork, 2005), 96105.Ontheimportanceofthis concept in the research of Gershom Scholem, Henry Corbin, and other schol-ars of the twentieth century, see Wasserstrom, Religion after Religion, 6782.69. Different meanings canbeattributedtocoincidentiaoppositorum, oneofwhich is the paradoxical convergence of the opposites that does not necessarilypoint to their annihilation. However, the model of unication that I have encoun-tered in my research portrays unication as a whole that is the sum of its parts.Here I point to unity or unication where each entity conserves its characteris-tics; in our case the nite stays nite and the innite stays innite but neverthelessthey stay in relation.PAGE 426 ................. 18250$ $CH3 07-18-12 15:03:23 PSINFINITY, THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAHVALABREGUE-PERRY 427Let us continue with some major developments offered by R. Azriel ofGerona, who discusses different aspects of the relationship between niteand innite. The writings of R. Azriel play an important role in the con-ceptualizationofthetheosophicstructureandareofspecial interesttothe theosophic concept of Eyn-sof. Here too we nd a system in which theboundary between the limited and unlimited is blurred, when in fact thevertical realm elevates by connecting nite things one to another and toEyn-sof:70In this mishnah, it is recalled that everything is from Eyn-sof, althoughthe things have measures and dimensions and they are ten, the dimen-sion that they have does not have an end (eyn la sof), since the impres-sioned is from the sensed and the sensed is from the intelligible, fromthe elevated hidden, and the hidden has no end (eyn lo sof), thus, in thesame manner the impressioned, the sensed, and the intelligible have noend, andthisiswhythosedimensionedweremadetocontemplatethrough them in Eyn-sof.71WhileR. AsherbenDaviddescribesGodsdimensionsasdimensionswithout dimensions, without end and beginning (be eyn-sof ve-tekhilah) andwithout separation,72R.Azriel will take a similarpath and discuss the70. Another proof of the imperative necessity of connection between inniteand nite can be found in a different text of Azriel (The Ways of Faith and theWays of Heresy), where he deems as heretics whoever think that because Godis without limits he cannot be grasped by those who are limited: Gershom Scho-lem, NewFragmentsfromAzriel ofGeronaWritings (Hebrew), inMemoryBook to Goulak and Shmuel Klein (Jerusalem, 1942). For a detailed analysis of therole of Eyn sof in Azriels conception of faith, see Mordehy Fechter, Principlesof Faith and Heresy in the Thought of R. Azriel, Kabbalah 4 (1999): 31514.71. The Writings of Rabenu Moshe ben Nachman, ed. B. Chavel (Hebrew; Jerusa-lem, 19631970), 2:45455. On the elevation of the kavanah to Eyn-sof and on thetheurgicactionofdrawingdowntheinniteefuence, seeanotherearlytext,ChaptersontheKavanahbytheAncientKabbalists, supposedlywrittenbyAzriel or bysomeoneof his entourage: Scholem, Origins, 41719. For otherexpressionsoftheefuence originatingfromEyn-sof,seeMartelGavrin,TheCommentary on Prayer by Azriel of Gerona (Hebrew; M.A. thesis, Hebrew Univer-sity of Jerusalem, 1984), 29, 31, 32 ; R. Azriel of Gerona, The Commentary on theAgadot, ed. I. Tishby (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1945), 25, 101; Moshe Idel, The His-toryoftheConceptZimzoum inKabbalahandintheResearch (Hebrew),Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 10 (1992): 102.72. For a similar approach to the serot, see also R. Ezra of Geronas letter toAbraham, where he discusses limiting and counting as human dispositionwhereastheserot arenonethelessinnite: Scholem, NewDocument forthePAGE 427 ................. 18250$ $CH3 07-18-12 15:03:24 PS428 JQR 102.3 (2012)ambivalent nature of the serot. R. Azriels analysis goes as follows: First,Eyn-sofis saidto beabsoluteperfection. Fromhere on, ifone saysthatGodiswithoutlimitandthereforecannottakepartinanythingthatislimited, thiswouldactuallyimplythatGodcouldnothavecreatedtheworld.Butsayingthat thelimit emanatesfrom him wouldalsodemon-strate his weakness, which too is impossible.73R. Azriel is eager to per-suade that the true faith, which bridges the gap and resolves the problem,isinEyn-sofandtheserotcombined. Anyattempttounderstandthemapart would be heresy. Thus, the status of serot as a medium and media-tor is the core of this concept.74Finally, R. Azriels position is best encap-sulated in a special formulation that encompasses the complex nature ofthetheosophicdynamism: Eyn-sof isperfectionwithout imperfection,andthat hispower inthe limitationisunlimited andthat thelimitationemanating from him which delimits all existent beings is the serot, havingthe power to act in perfection and imperfection.75His power is inniteandhispowertoactwithinthelimitisunlimited. Theserot standinbetweentheinniteandthelimitedworldandbelongtobothrealms.Eyn-sof crosses the limit and acts within the limit without any limit. Theinsistence on the close connection betweenEyn-sof and the serot showsthat the serot are not to be understood as mere attributes of God, as inthe model of classical philosophical theology. The description of emana-tionasextensionof Eyn-sof pointstoaconcept of Eyn-sof asessence.Rather thananabstract notion, it allows aconcept of anextendablepower. InAzrielsthought, theemanationisthelimit emanatingfromEyn-sof; it is the innite essence that expands in the limited. In this exam-ple, as in many others, the concept of serot as the essence of God formsthebasisofthetheosophicsystemandistheparticularsignatureofitsontological concept.* * *Throughout this essay I have shown how the theosophic notion of Eyn-sof has emerged out of commentaries of the Sefer yetsirah within an under-standing of the innite expansion of the serot as constitutive of the divineinner space. In a way, early Jewish mystical texts, despite their obviousdifferences, shared a common interest in the dimensions of God and hisHistory of the Beginning of Kabbalah, in Bialik Book, ed. J. Wahrman (Hebrew;Tel Aviv, 1934), 160.73. Early Kabbalah, ed. J. Dan and R. Kiener (New York, 1986), 9092.74. Onthestatusoftheserotasmediatorsbetweenniteandinnite, seeWolfson, Language, Eros, Being, 198201, 28899.75. Early Kabbalah, 92.PAGE 428 ................. 18250$ $CH3 07-18-12 15:03:25 PSINFINITY, THEOSOPHICAL KABBALAHVALABREGUE-PERRY 429measurement: incommensurability of the Shiur komah or the innitedimensions of the serot in Sefer yetsirah. Nevertheless, innity as repre-senting God in his essence has been the prerogative of Kabbalah.Whereas philosophical commentarieswith the exception of Donnolotendedtoneutralizetheproblematicnotionofinniteexpansionoftheserot, by way of a mathematical notion of innite repetition of the samesegment. Insharp contrast, the theosophical commentariesconrm andnalize thenotionofinniteexpansion: Eyn-sof, butnowitbecametheorigin of divine emanation and the emanation itself. Thus, while philoso-pherssuchasSaadyaGaonviewedinnityasasignof imperfection,the kabbalists view it as a sign of Gods absolute omnipotence. Saadyasphilosophical position reects the general position toward innity in Neo-platonic and Aristotelian trends while Eyn-sof as a term representing Godis an innovation of theosophic Kabbalah. Eyn-sof belongs not to the philo-sophicaltradition ofasingle,unied, andentirely distinctOnenessbutrather to a cosmological-theogonic tradition rooted in Sefer yetsirah.Therefore, evenwherewetendtondNeoplatonicinuenceonthetheosophical system, especially where the notion of emanation isinvolved, we need to bear in mind that the theosophical notion of Eyn-soforiginatedwithinthissysteminrupturewithphilosophical precedents.Nevertheless, though this assertion diminishes the inuence of (Jewish)Neoplatonicphilosophy, itisnot entirelydismissive. However, itdoesemphasize the cosmological roots of Eyn-sof and the unique theosophicalconcept of a metaspace: the divine realm. Rather than a theological com-promisea twofold concept of an apophatic Eyn-sof on the one hand anda kataphatic system of serot on the otherthe theosophical structure isa theological innovation. God as Innite represents a distinct alternativeto the philosophical concept of the One, of a simple and separated ontol-ogy; Eyn-sof offers a concept of unity that permits a dynamic, integrativemultiplicity.Themarkof thespatio-cosmological originof Eyn-sof isseenintheconcept of Eyn-sof as a direction and telos. The widespread expressions adEyn-sof andle-Eyn-sof provideanalternativetotheestablishedunder-standing of God as a disconnected transcendental principle. When Eyn-sofis characterized as a direction, it becomes a focus of kavanah (intention), atheosophic and theurgic address. The concept of Eyn-sof thus simultane-ously connotes the innite expansion itself and the source of this expan-sion. This twofold signication is manifested in the history of thedevelopment of theconcept of Eyn-sof, astheosophicKabbalahtrans-formstheinniteexpansionoftheserotfoundinSeferyetsirahintoaninnite axis. The ambivalence latent in these phrases is characteristic ofPAGE 429 ................. 18250$ $CH3 07-18-12 15:03:26 PS430 JQR 102.3 (2012)the theosophical structure in which Eyn-sof appears, both as the end of aninnite axis and as the innite axis itself. Interestingly enough, it is notby accident that in both Sefer ha-bahir and Isaac the Blinds commentaryonSeferyetsirah, pointedtoanelevationthatisdivine, yetdeeplycon-nected to human investigation; for the theosophic dimension derives alsofrom an epistemological inquiry. This theosophical-epistemologicaldimension, theverticalityofEyn-sof, isaltogetherdivineandhuman, aladder for Gods thought and mans. This innite axis invites continuitywith, rather than detachment from, the source.It isaxiomaticthat Eyn-sof, byitsverynature, cannot betiedtoaspeciclocationordirection; itisforthisreasonthatEyn-sofhasbeenrepresented as unattainable. This theosophic system is consistent with itstheurgic application: the innite axis between worshiper and Eyn-sof, asthe focus of prayer, creates a vertical model of ascent, through which theconnection with Eyn-sof is made possible. From that lofty height, Eyn-sofoperates beyond any eld of vision. But as a governing principle at theedge of the innite axis, it is in constant interaction with every point inthe system. We are thus faced with a notion of Eyn-sof in which the in-nite expansion can immediately be contracted and accessed.Eyn-sof is thus more a spatio-cosmological than theological concept; itbelongs to theosophic-theurgical rather than metaphysical discourse.There is a signicant difference between Eyn-sof as the end of an expan-siveaxisandEyn-sof asaninaccessiblemetaprinciple. Wemayindeedspeakof atranscendental concept of innitywithinthe theosophicalframework. Asanorientationratherthanasanunattainabletranscen-dence, Eyn-sofopensupabridgeratherthanachasm. Fromthispointon, themysticsabilitytocrossthisdistanceandconnectwithinnitydepends only on his specic theosophical, theurgical, or exegetical tech-nique.PAGE 430 ................. 18250$ $CH3 07-18-12 15:03:26 PSCopyright of Jewish Quarterly Review is the property of University of Pennsylvania Press and its content maynot be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express writtenpermission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.