Tag: Zohar

Authentic Mysticism vs. McMysticism

Posted on by Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

A true Jewish mystic doesn’t need to use hype or self-promotion like  Rabbi Yitzchak Batzri’s snake-oil charms. Any self-respecting Kabbalist shouldn’t live for the next photo-op.

Martin Buber has always been a great inspiration to me. His views on Jewish mysticism are grounded in the interpersonal realm of the ethical. We meet God when we respect the Other who is before us. Emmanuel Levinas expresses a similar thought in many of his writings as well, but Buber still remains my favorite.

Historically, people have often tried to control God through any kind of magical means at their disposal. The scriptural prohibition against making graven images is predicated upon the belief that man can control God; only in one’s imagination is such an absurd thought possible. Buber touches on this theme in a number of different works, but in the interest of time, I will cite one of my favorite quotes Buber is best known for concerning the danger of gnosis and magic that I think cuts to the heart of our problem today among certain types of hucksters like Rabbi Batzri.

“The two spiritual powers of gnosis and magic, masquerading under the cloak of religion, threaten more than any other powers the insight into the religious reality, into man’s dialogical situation. They do not attack religion from the outside; they penetrate into religion, and once inside it, pretend to be its essence. Because Judaism has always had to hold them at bay and to keep separate from them, its struggle has been largely internal. This struggle has often been misunderstood as a fight against myth. But only an abstract-theological monotheism can do without myth, and may even see it as its enemy; living monotheism needs myth, as all religious life needs it, as the specific form in which its central events can be kept safe and lastingly remembered and incorporated. Continue reading “Authentic Mysticism vs. McMysticism” →

What does the Talmud and Kabbalah have to say about Lilith?

Posted on by Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

Q. The Talmud makes ample mention of Lilith’s activities. Lilith is described as a female night-demon whose erotic nature evokes a desire for illicit sexual relationships (succubus). Lilith’s physical attributes are also described in detail; she is depicted as having long hair and wings[1] and the rabbis warns all men not to sleep alone in a house lest Lilith come and seduce them in their dreams (T. B. Shabbat 151b).[2] Lilith is especially popular in the Zohar where she appears as the seductress supreme.[3] In all likelihood the rabbinic stories about Lilith were probably, in part, intended to prevent young rabbinic scholars from the sins of masturbation and illicit sexual relations which the Zohar equates to the crime of murder. The scholar Rabbi Joshua Trachtenberg explains: Continue reading “What does the Talmud and Kabbalah have to say about Lilith?” →

Q. What are some of the Lilith legends?

Posted on by Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

What are some of the Lilith legends?

Although the origin of Lilith is not mentioned anywhere in the Talmud, she is mentioned popular medieval composition known as The Alphabet of Ben Sira (ca. 8th century). According to medieval Jewish folklore, God created Lilith from the earth just as He created Adam. From the beginning of their relationship, Adam and Lilith immediately began to fight. According to one version of the myth, Adam insisted on the making love in the missionary position and Lilith agreed—provided she could be in the dominant position instead:

After God created Adam, who was alone, He said, ‘It is not good for man to be alone (Genesis 2:18). He then created a woman for Adam, from the earth, as He had created Adam himself, and called her Lilith. Adam and Lilith immediately began to fight. She said, ‘I will not lie below,’ and he said, ‘I will not lie beneath you, but only on top. For you are fit only to be in the bottom position, while I am to be in the superior one.’ Lilith responded, ‘We are equal to each other inasmuch as we were both created from the earth.’ But they would not listen to one another. When Lilith saw this, she pronounced the Ineffable Name and flew away into the air. Adam stood in prayer before his Creator: ‘sovereign of the universe!” he said, ‘the woman you gave me has run away.’ At once, the Holy One, blessed be He, sent these three angels to bring her back.[1]

The quarrel was obviously more deeply psychologically nuanced and their parting ways is similar in many ways to the kind of arguments men and women have today. The myth draws attention to the pattern of dysfunction that affects the complicated world of human relations. It is conjectured that Adam could not endure having an egalitarian relationship and so their conflicts quickly lead to Lilith’s sudden departure—she did not want to be Adam’s underling! Rather than acting like an experienced marriage counselor, YHWH sent for three angels to bring her back and issued the following ultimatum. “If she agrees to come back, fine. If not, she must permit one hundred of her children to die every day.”[2]

After the Lilith prototype proved to be a failure, and to make sure there would never be a problem regarding who would be the “head of the family,” God this time creates a woman out of Adam’s rib to symbolize her subservience to her husband. In short, according to this version of the story, Lilith preferred to stay alone and focus on making infants sick. She threatened to inflict harm upon male infants until the eighth day after birth, female children after twenty days (but some variants say twelve). Lastly, Lilith made one additional vow: she would not harm the infant in any way if the infant wore an amulet bearing the name of three special angels. When Lilith sees their names, she remembers her oath, and the child recovers.”

[1] David Stern and Mark J. Mirisky, Rabbinic Fantasies: Imaginative Narratives from Classical Hebrew Literature (Chicago, IL. Publisher’s Row/Varda Books, repr. 2001), pp. 183-184.

[2] It seems strange that The Alphabet of Ben Sira did not think to ask where Lilith was going to find her new love interests. However, in a different variant of the myth, the angel Samael (not to be confused with Samuel), chief of the fallen angels (a.k.a “Satan”), finds her weeping and falls in love with her. Unlike Adam, Lilith finds Samael to be more egalitarian and appealing; she accepts him as her mate. See Maximilian Josef Rudwin “The Legend of Lilith” Devil in Legend and Literature (Chicago: Open Court, 1931), pp. 94-104.

Q. What does the name Lilith mean in Biblical Hebrew?

Posted on by Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

One of the most interesting personalities listed in rabbinic and non-rabbinic literature is the figure of Lilith, who was said to be Adam’s “first wife” and she is sometimes referred to as “the first Eve.” The only reference to Lilith may be found in Isaiah 34:14 where the name “Lilith” (lîlît) first appears.

Older bible translations render “lilit” as “screech owl.”[1] This interpretation is consistent with the previous stanzas that speak about other wild animals or birds.

Newer translations seem to prefer “Lilith” because of its strong connections to Sumerian, Babylonian, and Assyrian mythologies. In Sumerian, the word lil “wind” was related to the name and she was known as a storm-demon. If this definition is correct then the other creature mentioned in the same verse “sa’ier” must mean the hairy goat-demon. The fact that Lilith does not appear in any other Scriptural reference is significant—especially given the antiquity of the belief of her existence.[2]

For many years scholars thought that the name “Lilith” is connected to the popular folk etymology laylâ ( = “night”). However, the real origin of the name derives from the Assyrian lilîtu and Akkadian the lilū, lilītu and ardat lilī, who were the three storm deities. [3] In Sumerian, the term líl means either “wind” or “spirit.” The Jews probably first learned of this feminine demonic being after the Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdom of Israel was deported to Assyria in 721 B.C.E., and shortly later when the Southern Kingdom was deported to Babylon.[4]

Notes:
[1] Cf. the Septuagint, Pseudo-Targum Jonathan and the Vulgate. A modern rendering of this passage would thus be: The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the howling beasts; and the shaggy goat shall cry to his fellow. The screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest (MKJV).

[2] The líl is also mentioned in the Sumerian epic Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherworld (ca. 3rd millennium B.C.E.).

[3] Cf. BDB 539:1; HALOT 528; cf. Marcus Jastrow’s Dictionary of Targumim, Talmudic and Midrashic Literature, p. 707; Numbers Rabbah 16:25.

[4] According to one rabbinic tradition, Lilith was the daughter of Ahreman, the opponent of Ohrmizd in the Zoroastrian religion (T. B. Bava Bathra 73a). See Karel Van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter Willem Van Der Horst, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. (Leiden; Boston; Grand Rapids, Brill: Eerdmans, 1999), p. 520. She is also mentioned in the Jerusalem Targum to Num. 6:24; Deut. 33:24; Isa. 34:14 and in T. B. Erubin 18b.

Why did God create evil? A Parable from the Zohar

Posted on by Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

Why Did God Create Evil – A Parable From the Zohar

The fact that evil confronts good, gives man the possibility of victory.

— R. YEHIEL MICHAEL OF ZLOTSHOV, Hassidic Aphorism

Let us assume for a moment that the rabbis and the allegorical school represented by Philo of Alexandria and Gersonides are correct in identifying the serpent as a metaphor for the evil inclination. But why did God create the impulse for evil? Would humankind have been better off not having to deal with such an urge? The Zohar raises this question, and offers the reader a most intriguing thought-provoking response with respect to the phenomena of moral evil .

Should it be asked, ‘How can a man love Him with the evil inclination? Is not the evil inclination the seducer, preventing man from approaching the Blessed Holy One to serve him? How, then, can man use the evil inclination as an instrument of love for God?’ The answer lies in this, that there can be no greater service done to the Holy One than to bring into subjection the “evil inclination” by the power of love to the Holy One, blessed be He. For, when it is subdued and its power broken by man in this way, then he becomes a true lover of the Holy One, since he has learnt how to make the “evil inclination” itself serve the Holy One. Here is a mystery entrusted to the masters of esoteric lore. All that the Holy One has made, both above and below, is for the purpose of manifesting His Glory and to make all things serve Him. Now, would a master permit his servant to work against him, and to continually lay plans to counteract his will? It is the will of the Holy One that men should worship Him and walk in the way of truth that they may be rewarded with many benefits. How, then, can an evil servant come and counteract the will of his Master by tempting man to walk in an evil way, seducing him from the good way and causing him to disobey the will of his Lord? But, indeed, the “evil inclination” also does through this the will of its Lord.

It is as if a king had an only son whom he dearly loved, and just for that cause he warned him not to be enticed by bad women, saying that anyone defiled might not enter his palace. The son promised his father to do his will in love. Outside the palace, however, there lived a beautiful harlot. After a while the King thought: “I will see how far my son is devoted to me.” So he sent to the woman and commanded her, saying: “Entice my son, for I wish to test his obedience to my will.” So she used every trick in her book to lure him into her embraces. But the son, being good, obeyed the commandment of his father. He refused her allurements and thrust her from him. Then did the father rejoice exceedingly, and, bringing him in to the innermost chamber of the palace, bestowed upon him gifts from his best treasures, and showed him every honor. And who was the cause of all this joy? The harlot! Is she to be praised or blamed for it? To be praised, surely, on all accounts, for on the one hand she fulfilled the king’s command and carried out his plans for him, and on the other hand she caused the son to receive all the good gifts and deepened the king’s love to his son.[1]

The Zoharic passage just cited illustrates a remarkable concept that exists in many of the primal religions of the world, the notion of the coincidentia oppositorum, also known as “the reunion of opposites.” As Eliade has already noted, the lost memory of this unitive existence with reality emanates from a part of humanity that yearns to overcome the duality and opposites we now experience in a post-Fallen world. Eliade adds that: “On the level of presystematic thought, the mystery of totality embodies man’s endeavor to reach a perspective in which the contraries are abolished, the Spirit of Evil reveals itself as a stimulant for the Good. . . .”[2]

[1] Zohar 2:162b–163a (all translations of the Zohar are from the Soncino translation).

[2] The Two and the One (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1965), p. 123.