Chapter Three

Divinization and “Incarnational Thinking” in Hasidism: An Overview

“This doctrine [Incarnation] is one shameful to utter, to listen to it is sacrilegious, and God forbid that I sin with my tongue by even mentioning this doctrine with the opening of my mouth, or by saying these things brazenly in the face of heaven concerning the creator.”

Yaakov ben Reuven, Milhamot ha-Shem (Wars of the Lord)

“That the anthropos is made in God’s image implies that God is made in the image of the anthropos….To attribute human form to God is to attribute divine form to humans.”

Elliot Wolfson, Through a Speculum that Shines, 68, 69

The phenomenon that became known in scholarly parlance as zaddikism is one that looms large

in the Hasidic movement. While the centrality of the saint and holy man has a long history in

Judaism and rose to become a central motif in the Zohar, the classical text of medieval Judaism,

its place in Hasidism remains distinct if only because it has come to dominate living Hasidism.1

My aim here is not an analysis of the history of the zaddik in Hasidism per se, a topic of

continued scholarly interest, nor its relationship to previous Jewish literature, but the more

specific notion of the zaddik as a superhuman being who has achieved a quasi-divine or

“incarnational” status.2 The zaddik here will be used as a topos to exhibit the ways in which

1 See Gershom Scholem, On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead (New York: Schocken, 1991), 88-139; Yehuda Liebes, “The Messiah of the Zohar: R. Shimon bar Yohai as a Messianic Figure,” in Liebes, Studies in the Zohar (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1993), 1-85; and Arthur Green, “The Zaddik as Axis Mundi,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 45 (1997): 327-347. Cf. Rachel Elior, The Mystical Origins of Hasidism, 126-151; Moshe Idel, Hasidism: Between Ecstasy and Magic, 189-208; and Immanuel Etkes, “The Zaddik: The Interrelationship between Religious Doctrine and Social Organization,” in Hasidism Reappraised, ed. A. Rapoport-Albert (London: The Littman library of Jewish Civilization, 1997), 159-167. On sainthood in Judaism more generally see Robert L. Cohen, “Sainthood on the Periphery: The Case of Judaism,” in Sainthood: Its Manifestations in World Religions, R. Kieckhefer and G.D. Bonds eds. (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1988), 43-68; and my American Post-Judaism: identity and Renewal in a Postethnic Society (Bloomington, IN: Indianan University Press, 2013), chapter ??.

2 On the zaddik more generally in Hasidism, see Rivka Shatz-Uffenheimer, “The Essence of the Zaddik in Hasidism: Explorations in the Work of the Zaddik R. Elimelekh of Lyzinsk,” [Hebrew] in Molad 18 (1960), pp. 365-378; Mendel Pierkaz, The Beginnings of Hasidism [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1978), pp. 280-302;

1

Hasidic masters experimented with the complex and treacherous notion of traversing the

divine/human divide, an idea that has been a part of Judaism from antiquity and has been

incorporated as a central tenet of Christianity in its theory of incarnation.3 As Christianity

became more doctrinally focused on High Christology and as Judaism defined itself more in

opposition to Christianity, the traces of incarnational thinking faded from normative Judaism

except for the esoteric traditions that veiled its treatment in metaphysical and cosmological

jargon. The Maimonidean matrix of a radically transcendent God that denuded all incarnational

possibilities became normative in much of medieval and post-medieval Judaism and rabbinic

gestures toward incarnational thinking were interpreted out of existence.4 One can see this, for

example, in the work of Steven Schwarzschild (1924-1989) and his student Kenneth Seeskin,

two contemporary Jewish philosophers who promote a neo-Maimonideaism founded on radical

transcendence, an idea rooted in Maimonides and reaching a modern articulation in the neo-

Kantian philosopher Hermann Cohen (1842-1918). “The Transcendence of the Rational, which

might also be called ‘anti-incarnationalism’, asserts that it is impossible for the ideal to be

realized in a sensuous medium. The principle is the philosophic equivalent of the basic Jewish

conviction that God is separate from the world and cannot be depicted with images of things

found in the world.”5 This kind of thinking arguably dominated the world of Jewish philosophy

Azreil Shohat, “’Ha-Saddiq in the Hasidic Doctrine,’ Ya’akov Gil Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, 1970); Arthur Green, “Typologies of Leadership and the Hasidic Zaddiq,” in Jewish Spirituality II (New York: Crossroads, 1989); pp. 127-156; Ada Rapaoprt-Albert, “God and the Zaddik as the Two Focal Points of Hasidic Worship,” re-printed in Essential Papers in Hasidism, G. Hundert ed. (New York: NYU Press, 1991), pp. 299-329; and Immanuel Etkes, “The Zaddik: The Interrelationship between Religious Doctrine and Social Organization,” in Hasidism Reappraised, Ada Rapoport-Albert ed. (London and Portland: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1996), pp. 159-167. Moshe Idel’s Ben: Sondship in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Continuum, 2007), 531-584 deals with this this idea from the perspective of “sonship.” While the topic overlaps somewhat with my own, his focus os less on the notion of incarnational thinking and more on how the zaddik is depicted as a ‘son of God” and its implcaitions.

3 On the Israelite/early Jewish precedent for this idea, see chapter one. 4 See Menahem Kellner, Maimonides Confrontation with Mysticism (Littman Library of Jewish

Civilization: Oxford, 2011). Cf. Nathaniel Berman, “Aestheticism, Rationalism, and Esotericism: medieval Scholarship and Contemporary Polemics,” Jewish Quarterly Review 99-4 (Fall, 2009): 563-583.

5 Kenneth Seeskin, Jewish Philosophy in a Secular Age (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1990), 5. Cf. Steven Schwarzschild, “The Lure of immanence – The Crisis of Contemporary Jewish Thought,” in idem. The Pursuit of the Ideal” Jewish Writings of Steven Schwarzschild (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1990), 61-82.

2

until Kabbalah moved from its initial place in the realm of philological and historical studies to

become a template for constructive philosophical and theological thought.6 Kabbalah often

exhibited what I am calling “incarnational thinking” albeit until the seventeenth century – in part

due to the Sabbatean heresy and its aftermath which intensified the publication of kabbalistic

books – kabbalistic doctrine remained largely limited to small circles of adepts, seeping down

into popular religion largely in the form of customs.7 Hasidism’s adaptation and popularization

of the zaddik as a divine/human being plays an important role in the reintroduction of

incarnational thinking into normative Judaism in what I call Hasidism’s “christianization” more

generally.8

I am not claiming that Hasidism replicates Christianity’s High Christology. It certainly

does not. Rather, I am suggesting that Hasidism engages in new ways to situate the translucent

veil separating the human and the divine in a manner that suggests a daring experiment that

reverses the Maimonidean trajectory of Jewish thinking on this matter that influenced much of

post-medieval non-mystical Judaism.9

As I discussed in the Introduction, one of the salient characteristics of the Deuteronimic

reforms, concretized in Deuteronomy, is the transition from person to text as Moses prepares to

6 The embodied inclination of kabbalistic thinking may have also contributed to the introduction of feminism as a lens through which Jewish philosophy has been revised in the latter decades of the twentieth century. Se, for example, Hava Tirosh-Rothschild, “’Dare to Know’: Feminism and the Discipline of Jewish Philosophy,” in Feminist Perspectives on Jewish Studies, L. Davidman and S. Tennenbaum eds. (New haven: Yale University Pres, 1994), 85-119.

7 There are many examples one can bring to illustrate this. One quite stratling example can be found in Joseph of Hamadan’s Sefer Tashak in Jeremy Zwelling ed. Sefer Tashak: Critical Text Edition with Introduction, PhD dissertation, Brandeis University, 1975, 13, “Hence The Holy One said to Moses, our master, ‘Tell the Israelite people to bring me gifts (Ex 25:2), they should make a body and soul for [their] God and I will take bodily form (‘etgashem) in it.” Cf. Nahmanides commentary to Ex. 16:6 and Elliot Wolfson, Through a Speculuum that Shines, (Princeton: Princeton Universrt Press, 1996), 64 and note # 51.

8 I discuss the notion of “christianization” in a previous chapter.9 One could argue, correctly I believe, that this experiment has precedent in earlier Kabbalah, especially the

Kabbalah of the Zohar and, to a lesser extent, Abraham Abulafia. See Yehuda Liebes, “Shimon bar Yohai: Messiah of the Zohar,” in Studies in the Zohar; Moshe Idel, Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism (New York: Continuum, 2008), 531-584; Elliot Wolfson, “Judaism and Incarnation: The Imaginal Body of God,” in Christianity in Jewish Terms, 239-254; idem. “Iconic Visualization and the Imaginal Body of God: The Role if Intention in the Rabbinic Concept of Prayer,” Modern Theology 12 91996): 215-242; and idem. Language, Eros, Being, 190-260.

3

depart from the Israelite community. At Sinai and after, the law and Moses are inextricably

intertwined (Deut. 5:23, 24) but as the narrative unfolds and Moses’s death nears, the law and

Moses become more detached until we reach the point that the law replaces Moses as teacher

(Deut. 30:11-14).10 Moses sympathizes with Israel’s fear of losing him and consequently their

connection to God. He suggest that the word of God can be “taken to heart” and through

recitation can guide them in the right path (Deut. 6;7-9; 30: 11-14). Subsequent to Moses’ death

the law cum book becomes the central focus of Jewish meditation on the covenant while the

charismatic person plays less of a role (e.g. Joshua and even Ezra never attain the centrality

Moses enjoyed).

Christianity reversed this trajectory, perhaps most saliently captured in John’s “And the

word becoming flesh and lived among us” (John 1:14). For Christians it is not only that Jesus, as

God incarnate, is the central focus of covenantal life. It is that the person Jesus replaces/becomes

the book or the word. 11 While this sounds dissonant to contemporary Jewish ears we must

remember that the line separating the human and the divine were much more porous in those

times and such a locution would have not sounded as dissonant to many Jews in the late first or

early second century CE.12 The move from text to person, from human being (Moses) to

language (Torah), dominates Deuteronomy and subsequently Rabbinic Judaism. In accord with

Gershom Scholem’s claim that some subterranean ancient mystical traditions that survived the

hegemony of rabbinic orthodoxy may have emerged again in different form in Kabbalah, the

transition from person to language and then back to person may play a significant role in the

10 For a more in-depth discussion of this transition see my From Metaphysis to Midrash: Myth, History and the Interpretation of Scripture in Lurianic Kabbalah (Bloomington, IN: Indianan University Press, 2008), 198-200.

11 John’s locution seems to be an intentional inversion Isaiah 40:6-8, All flesh is like grass..grass withers but the word of God will stand forever…

12 See, for example, the comment in The Jewish Annotated New Testament, A.J. Levine and Marc Brettler, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 159, note on John 1:14. Cf. the discussion of contemporary scholarship on early Christianity in chapter one.

4

birth of the mystical in medieval Judaism. In short, the transition from person to text in

Deuteronomy was never fully implemented in the kabbalistic tradition.13 Finally, I suggest that

this resistance in kabbalistic teaching of the human/divine divide contributes to the birth of

zaddikism in Hasidism. In this sense, even though zaddikim may be the most innovative element

in Hasidism, the underpinnings for such a turn back to person from text is already deeply

embedded in the kabbalistic tradition upon which it is based.14 As I discussed in an earlier

chapter, the holy man as the meeting of the human and divine in Kabbalah was largely enveloped

in cosmological language. Medieval kabbalists were well aware of their Christian counterparts

and very sensitive to the commonalities between their esoteric discourse and Christian doctrine.

Many were also aware of Christian adaptations of kabbalistic themes, in some cases even

contributing to Christian Kabbalah by teaching and making kabbalistic material available to

Christian theologians.15 Hasidism’s relationship to Christianity was markedly different. While

they lived in a Christian orbit and in some cases were acutely aware of Christianity, they were

arguably freer than many of the their medieval predecessors – and their Italian contemporaries -

from the grip of Christian onlookers. Among other things, I argue that this enabled them to

explore the human/divine nexus in daring ways and in doing so, exhibit the extent to which the

person-text trajectory of normative Judaism was not as definitive as previously believed. On this

13 See especially Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being, 190-260.14 On the doctrine of the zaddik as the only real innovation of Hasidism, see Mendel Pierkarz, Be-Yemei

Zemikhat ha-Hasidut (Jerusalem, Mossad Bialik,1978), 28-304 and idem, Hasidut Polin (Jerusalem, Mossad Bialik, 1990) 157-180. Cf. Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken Books: 1961), 344-350; Rachel Elior, The Mysticism Origins of Hasidism (Oxford: Littman Librray of Jewish Civilization, 2006) 126-151, and Idel, Hasidism: Between Ecstasy and Magic (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1995)189-208.

15 See Gershom Scholem, “The Beginnings of Christian Kabbalah,” in The Christian Kabbalah, J. Dan ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard College Library1997), 17-54; idem. The Historical Figure of the Baal Shem Tov,” in Devarim be-Go [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1976), 294; Yehuda Liebes, “Christian Influences on the Zohar,” in Studies in the Zohar, 139-162; and Elliot Wolfson, “Language, Secrecy, and the Mysteries of Law: Theurgy and the Christian Kabbalah of Johannes Reuchlin,” Kabbalah 13 (2005): 7-42; Igor Tourov, “Hasidism and Christianity of the Eastern Territory of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth: Possible Contacts and Mutual Influence,” Kabbalah 10 (2004): 73-105; Moshe Idel, Ben, 567-570. Most recently see and the book on Yaakov Dweck, The Scandal of Kabbalah: Leon Modena, Jewish Mysticism, Early Modern Venice (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011).

5

reading Hasidism provides both a substantive and practical whitewashing of the Maimonidean

paradigm, often while adopting Maimonides into their camp.16

In what follows I read a series of selected Hasidic to substantiate my thesis, both in terms

of the daring ways Hasidic masters explored the divine/human nexus through discussion of the

zaddik and the way in which the zaddik serves to illustrate part of this “christianization” process

whereby the person-text trajectory is reversed, albeit not effaced, yielding a specifically “Jewish”

notion of incarnational thinking.

I begin with a rather striking albeit opaque quote from Yaakov Koppel Lifshitz’s (d.

1740) Sha’arei Gan Eden. Koppel was one of the pre-Hasidic pietists who lived just before

Hasidism was getting underway. He lived in Mezritch and there is at least some likelihood that

had contact with a circle of pietists who later coalesced around Dov Baer of Mezritch, the

disciple of the Baal Shem Tov who created the first real circle of Hasidim.17 Hagiographical

literature about the Baal Shem Tov records that the Baal Shem Tov read and highly

recommended Koppel’s Sha’arei Gan Eden.18 For our limited purposes Koppel’s text offers the

following reading of the verse in Psalms rendering Moses a “man of God” (‘ish ha- Elohim)

(Psalm 90:1). “It is said about Moses that he is an ‘ish ha-Elohim. But if he is a man (‘ish) then

he is not God (Elohim)?! Rather, above he is called God (Elohim) and below he is called a man 16 The use of Maimonides in classical Kabbalah isalos an important part of this story. See Moshe Idel,

“Maimonides and Kabbalah,” in Studies in Maimonides, I. Twersky ed. (Cambrisge, MA: Harvarad University Press, 1990), 31-82; and Elliot Wolfson, “Beneath the Wings of the Great Eagle: Maimonides and Thirteenth-Century Kabbalah,” in Moses Maimonides (1138-1204) – His Religious, Scientific, and Philosophical Wirkungsgeschichte in Different Cultural Contexts, G. Hasselhoff and O. Fraisse eds. (Wurtzburg: Ergon, 2004), 209-237. On the question of Maimonides and Hasidism see Jacob Dienstag, “Ha-Moreh Nevuhim ve Sefer Ha-Maddah be Sifrut Ha- Hasidut,” Abraham Weiss Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, 1964), 307-338; Abba Horodetzky, The Rambam in Kabbalah and Hasidism,” [Hebrew] Moznayim 3 (1943): 441-445; and my Hasidism on the Margin (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 2003), 40-71, 229-248.

17 On Koppel see my, “The Metaphysics of Malkhut: Malkhut as Eyn Sof in the Writings of Ya’akov Koppel of Mezritch,” Kabbalah 27 (2-012): 245-267 and chapter eight, “Malkhut as Kenosis: Malkhut as the Emptying of the Divine in Ya’akov Koppel of Mezritch’s Sha’arei Gan Eden,” in this volume.

18 For the only scholarly treatment of Koppel that I am aware of see Isaiah Tishby, “Between Sabbateanism and Hasidism: The Sabbateanism of the Kabbalist R. Yaakov Koppel Lifshitz of Mezritch,” [Hebrew] in Tishby, Netivei Emunah u Minut (Jerusalem, Magnus Press, 1982), 204-226. Tishby focuses almost exclusively on the similarities between Koppel’s kabbalism and the kabbalism of Nathan of Gaza.

6

(‘ish).”19 This is so striking because, in line with much of kabbalistic interpretation, its rejects,

even subverts, the more common euphemistic rendering of the passage (i.e. Moses is a “godly

man”) opting for a rendition that enables Moses to be both human and divine simultaneously.

While I have not seen this particular reading of this verse elsewhere it sets the stage for

what we will see below in greater detail in some Hasidic masters. This idea appears in different

guises throughout early Hasidism. For example, we read in the early master Elimelekeh of

Lyzinsk, “When the zaddik is found on a high level in matters of Torah, of mitzvot and of

contemplative worship (devekut) with God, he is called “son of the Makom (ben le-Makom –

Makom being a euphemism for God, sm)’. But when he thinks about domestic matters of this

world such as commerce, despite the fact that these are also great mitzvot, he is only on the level

of a servant.”20 While here we are not talking about attributing divinity to a human but sonship,

the notion that an individual’s status as human or something more than human as depending on

his state of devotion is not uncommon in the early period of Hasidism.21

I bring Koppel as a prelude because it expresses a kind of literary audacity what, while

oblique and thus not sufficient to make any claims regarding its meaning, would arguably be less

likely in a society (i.e. the context of modern Judaism in German speaking Europe at that time)

where Christianity was a looming presence. I am not claiming Koppel’s aside suggests that

Moses was divine – his lack of an explanation makes that impossible to know - only that he

19 Sha’arei Gan Eden, (Karetz, 1803; r.p. Brooklyn, NY, 1994), p. 44b. This idea resonates with some Sufi depictions of the “Perfect Human Being” particularly by the thirteenth-century Muslim mystic Mihyi ad-Din ibn al-Arabi. Ibn Arabi argues the Perfect Human being is an expression of the Divine Logos as manifest in the world. Although he does not quite transverse the incanrational line (he says that the Perfect Human Being is not divine but as close to it as anything can be) he comes quite close to the notion that the human can exceed his/her humanity. See Masataka Takeshita, Ibn Arabi’s Theory of the Perfect Man and its Place in the History of Thought (Tokyo, 1987); and Vincent Cornell, The Realm of the Saint: Power and Authority in Moroccan Sufism (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1998), pp. 205, 206, 208.

20 Elimelekh of Lyzinsk, Noam Elimelekh,(Jerusalem: Darkhei Noam, 1977), 45b. Cf. Idel, Ben, 242. Idel cites the page as 12c which is obviously from a different edition.

21 In Habad, with its distinctive acomsic metaphysics this idea is even more pungent. See Elliot Wolfson, Open Secret (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), 7-8, 59, 129; and Idel, Ben, 564-566; and the chapter on Habad later in this volume.

7

allows himself the linguistic freedom to express himself in such a way that could render such an

explanation of this comment plausible.

A general assessment of the nexus between the human and the divine in Hasidism can be

found in the first homily in Degel Mahane Ephraim by Moshe Hayyim Ephraim of Sudilkov,

(1740-1800?) a grandson of the Baal Shem Tov.22 Moshe Hayyim was not a leader or member of

any Hasidic school. He taught independently and did not live in close proximity to the emerging

Hasidic courts in the generation after the Baal Shem Tov.23 His collected teachings exhibit an

early period of Hasidic spirituality infatuated with faith healing, shamanism, and the magical

nature of the Hasidic zaddik as miracle-worker24 His collected teachings, Degel Mahaneh

Ephrayim often exhibit an audacious spiritual style here expressed in the liquidity between the

human and divine realm. In the text below Moshe Hayyim presents what appears to be a standard

case of identity between God, Torah and Israel as first articulated in the Zohar’s locution “God,

Torah, and Israel are one (khad hu).” This triad then becomes an occasion for a more reflective

notion of the divinity in/of the human.

It is written in the Zohar, “God, Torah, and the souls of Israel are all one” (Zohar

2.73b). This needs to be understood. The very life of Israel (hiyut Yisrael) is, as it

were, is from the essence of God (m’azmut Kudshe B’rikh Hu),25 as it is written,

and He blew into his mouth the soul of life (nishmat hayyim) (Genesis 2:7).26 And 22 He was the son of Adel, the Baal Shem Tov’s daughter and brother of Barukh of Medzhibozh. In general

see Jay Rock, “Rabbi Moses Ephraim of Sudilkov’s Degel Mahaneh Ephraim,” [PhD. Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 1986].

23 On the early formation of these courts, see Ada Rapoport-Albert, “Hasidism after 1772: Structural Continuity and Change” in Hasidism Reappraised, pp. 76-140.

24 For the most comprehensive study to date see, Alan Brill, “The Spiritual World of a Master of Awe: Divinity, Vitality, Theosis, and Healing in the Degel Mahaneh Ephraim,” Jewish Quarterly Review 8 (2001): 27-65.

25 See, Degel Mahane Ephraim (Jerusalem, 1994), p. 32b where he teaches that the life-force of God is present in the natural world. I would suggest, however, that the dimension of divine life in Israel, noted here as “essence,” is of a different nature than the divine life-force in natural world.

26 Cf. Shneur Zalman of Liady, Sefer Ha-Tanya, chapter 2, p. 6.

8

we know that a person only breaths from his essence. And this is the Torah

(Numbers 19:14) this is Adam/man. Therefore (the Torah) has 248 positive

commandments and 365 negative commandments that correspond to the limbs

and sinews of the human body. This is how to read the verse And the is the Torah,

Adam (Numbers 19:14).27 This alludes to the fact that the Torah is literally

(mamash!) the essence of Adam/Israel – God the Torah and Israel are one.28

The relevance of the Zohar’s identity of God, Torah, Israel to our topic is the way in which

Moshe Hayyim offers a literal rendering of this opaque triadic equation by suggesting that “the

breath of life” God breaths into Adam at creation is the transference of divine essence to the

human and thus the first link in this triad.29 This does not mean, however, the human is, by

definition, divine.30 The theosis of the adept, or in Moshe Ephraim’s locution, the full disclosure

of his divine essence, must be born through human action. Why? Because while the human may

contain the essence of God he is also comprised of corporeal matter that prevents that essence

from becoming manifest.31 The Torah serves as the second link in the triad God, Torah, Israel

27 A more common translation of this verse would be, This is the teaching about a person [who dies in a tent]. See Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses: Translation and Commentary (New York and London: W.W. Norton, 2004). The JPS Tanakh translates it more colloquially. This the ritual. When a person dies in a tent.

28 Degel (Jerusalem, 1994), p. 1. On rabbinic notions of the Torah as God incarnate see Jacob Neusner, The Incarnation of God (Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1992), esp. pp. 82-100; 150-198. On Logos Theology, and Boyarin, Border Lines, pp. 112-127. Cf, Wolfson, “Judaism and Incarnation: The Imaginal Body of God,” Christianity in Jewish Terms, pp. 239-253.

29 It should be noted that in classical Kabbalah the notion of “ben Adam” or in the Zohar “bar nash” while translated literally as “human” is more accurately referring to “the Jew,” and particularly the male Jew. See, for example, in Elliot Wolfson, Venturing Beyond, 75 and note # 239. “Needless to say, the Zohar (and all other kabbalistic texts influenced by their terminology) will yield a radically different logical conception when it is understood that in the vast majority of cases terms such as bar nash and benei nasha denote not humanity in general, but the Jewish people in particularly.”

30 Moshe Hayyim often obliquely claims that divinity does, in fact, dwell in the body of the zaddik. See Brill, “The Spiritual World,” p. 28. Cf. more generally in Moshe Idel, Hasidism: Between Ecstasy and Magic (Albany: SUNY Press, 1995), p. 246.

31 I use the pronoun “he” here because in the later kabbalistic tradition extending from the Zohar it is only the Jewish male who is created in the divine image and thus it is the male alone who hold the potential for this theosis.

9

that can activate the divinity dormant in the human to reach its full potential beyond the human.

In a very different context, this approach is reminiscent of Montaigne’s famous quip “Oh what a

vile thing is man…if he does not raise himself above humanity.” The Torah is presented here as

the template for human action and the vehicle for theosis – the unfolding of the essence of God

within - since Torah also contains the essence of God.32 In this suggestive text, Moshe Hayyim

claims that by living a life in accordance with Torah - by absorbing Torah through study and

action and allowing it to become a part of one’s being – the innate divine essence of the human

becomes manifest through interaction with the essence of divinity in the Torah the individual

absorbs.33

Further on in this homily Moshe Hayyim illustrates this through illness and healing. The

human body gets sick, he suggests, because of a lack of faith in the source of Torah (God)

making the individual susceptible to illness and disease. This lack of faith disables the divine

essence - and efficacy - of Torah, and therefore the human, making one susceptible to

corporeality and disease.34 The function of Torah as a healing salve is common in Degel Mahene

Ephraim and early Hasidism but is not directly relevant here.35 For our limited purposes this text

illustrates the extent to which the Zohar’s triadic equation is taken to infer a transference of

32 See Degel, 3a and 143a.33 On the absorption of the text as a Jewish form of incarnation, see Jacob Neusner, The Incarnation of

God: The Character of Divinity in Formative Judaism (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), pp. 82-102; Elliot Wolfson, “Judaism and Incarnation: The Imaginal Body of God,” in Christianity in Jewish Terms, Frymer-Kensky, Novak, Ochs, Sandmel, and Signer eds. (Boulder, Westview Press, 2000), pp. 239-254; and idem. Language.Eros, Being (New York, Fordham Press, 2005), pp. 190-260. Cf. my “Ethics Disentangled from the Law: Incarnation, the Universal, and Hasidic Ethics,” in Kabbala 15 (2006).

34 This is trminiscent of the talmudic story that the angel of death wanted to take King David but could not do so as long as he was engaged in Torah. At one point he was distracted from a noise outside the window and at that moment, death came upon him. See, b.T. Shabbat 30a/b. I similar story is told of Rabbah bar nahmani is b.T. Bab Metzia 86a.

35 See Brill, “The Spiritual World,” pp. 32-40; and Degel, p. 102b. This idea is rooted in the Zohar. See, Zohar Hadash on Ruth, p. 77d based on Proverbs 6:23. On faith healing in Eastern Europe, see Yohanan Petrovsky-Stern, “’You Will Find it in the Pharmacy”: Practical Kabbalah and Natural Medicine in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, 1690-1750,” in Dynner, Holy Dissent, 13-54.

10

divine essence to Torah and the human (Israel) potentially enabling the disciple of Torah to

transcend the limits of human frailty. The first text cited suggests a slightly different equation.

There, divinity is embedded in the human at birth and Torah enables that potential to become

fully manifest. On this reading, even if one posits generally that “Adam” in the Genesis verse

refers to all humanity (I do not think it does for our Hasidic thinkers), here since it is only the

Jew who is “commanded” in Torah (and only fully the male Jew) only the Jew, though Torah can

disclose the full divinity that lies within all human beings.

The linkage here also suggests an integration of creation and revelation. Creation is the

moment where God – creating Adam – first transfers God’s essence to the world. But this

essence remains dormant as a result of human frailty and sin. Revelation introduces an additional

dimension of divine essence (Torah or Logos) whose purpose appears to be the activation of the

divine essence of the Jew. The efficacy of Torah, however, it not simply its fulfillment in any

external sense but the absorption, one might even venture to say, consumption, of Torah by its

practitioner reminiscent of the passage in Ezekiel of being commanded to eat the scroll (Ezekiel

3:1-3). Hence Moshe Hayyim writes, “If this faith in God [presumably in the notion of Torah as

containing divine essence] is consistently embedded (takuah) in the heart of man, and God is his

trust, he will not need any [external] medicine. Rather, divine grace [alone] or prayer will arouse

the grace of God to heal him.”36 The activation of the divine essence of the individual will be

sufficient to overcome any deficiency in human corporeality. While this falls short of a formal

notion of divination it does suggest an ability to overcome the limits of corporeality and suggests

that the human contains the inner resources (Torah Logos) to provide the means for his of her

own healing.

36 Degel, 1.

11

The generic idea of superhuman potential implied in Degel Mahene Ephraim is applied in

specific instances in the writings of Jacob Joseph of Polonye’s Toldot Yaakov Yosef, the first

Hasidic text to appear in print in 1780.37 The Toldot is a combination of the creative homilies of

Jacob Joseph and a repository of teachings recorded from his master, the Baal Shem Tov. It is

one of the great compendia of early Hasidic teaching. The following excerpts deploy the notion

of superhumanity to biblical figures and, in one case, the rabbinic hero Rabbi Akiva. Each

instance assumes the possibility of transcending one’s humanness while remaining an active

member of humanity. In fact, for the Toldot, the most exalted state of humanness is precisely

being human while having transcended one’s corporeal limitations.

And Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years; Sarah had stopped having

the periods of woman. And Sarah laughed saying to herself, ‘Now that I am

withered, am I to have enjoyment with my husband so old (Genesis 18:11, 12). As

I have written in numerous places, it is difficult to understand how this is relevant

to all people at all times. 38 If it is just a story, what happened, happened [and why

should we care, ed.]? It seems it can be explained in the following manner: The

purpose of the human being created with matter (homer) and form (zura) is that

he can purify matter such that it can be transformed into form, as it is written, And

a person should make them and live by them (Leviticus 18:5).39 This can be 37 See Mendel Pierkaz, The Beginnings of Hasidism, pp. 20-31; and Zeev Greis, “The Hasidic Managing

Editor as an Agent of Culture,” in Hasidism Reappraised, pp. 149, 150.38 This is a common, perhaps fundamental, question in the Toldot. That is, for Jacob Joseph, Hasidism is

necessary precisely because it de-contextualizes and de-historicizes the biblical narrative such that it speaks to the needs and desires of the contemporary reader. See my “Hasidism: Mystical and Non-Mystical Interpretations of Scripture,” Jewish Mysticism, F. Greenspahn ed. (New York: New York University Press, 2011), 139-158.

39 This is a complete de-contextualization of the verse in question. Robert Alter translates this verse as, you should sacrifice it so that it will be acceptable to you. JPS Tanakh translates it as, sacrifice it so that it will be acceptable on your behalf. Jacob Joseph offers a hyperliteral translation of the verse to illustrate his notion of a person as a combination of matter and form that should be transformed (live by them) into matter. “Life” here seems to imply eternal life or immortality.

12

understood according to [Moses] Nahmanides’ idea that the status of the human

can be divided into various levels. The level represented by Enoch and Elijah is

one where their matter becomes so purified that that were transformed into angels

who continue to live [forever].40 There is another level. After such a person

ascends [is divinized?, ed.] he can return to the world to elevate those below. This

is secret meaning of the verse, I had bathed my feet – was I to toil them again

(Song of Songs 5:3)…It is known that the form, which is the soul, is called

Abraham and the body, which is matter, is called Sarah…Now we can understand

And Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years. This means that for both of

them matter and form were totally purified.41 In those coming days (u’b’im

b’yomim) refers to the level of form and soul which is called “days” in contrast to

the body or matter that is called “night,” as is known. Sarah has stopped having

the periods of woman. This refers to the level of matter that houses physical

desire, called “woman” (nashim). Rather this level of matter was elevated to the

place of the male soul that desires the spiritual. After they both reached this state

[of purity] it was said to them to return and have children, that is, the souls they

made in Haran (Genesis 12:5). Giving birth to a son is thus impossible for such a

person unless one returns from this lofty state in order to uplift those below. This

is the meaning of And Sarah laughed saying to herself, ‘Now that I am withered. I

am withered means; my body/physicality is done. She did not believe that she

40 The figure of Enoch looms large in any Jewish analysis of the superhuman. See most recently Moshe Idel, Ben, pp. 134-139, 645-670. Cf. Idel, “Enoch: The Mystical Cobbler,’ Kabbalah 5 (2000): 265-286 [Hebrew]; idem. “Adam and Enoch in St. Ephrem the Syrian,” Kabbalah 6 (2001): 183-205.

41 The translation does not catch the nuance of the locution כי שניהם החומר והצורה זכו בהזדכך חומרם. More literally this would read, “in both of them, matter and form were purified from their [corporeal] matter.”

13

could descend from the level where her form had completely nullified her

physical desire and evil inclination (yezer ha-ra)…42

The relation between matter and form is a repeating trope in the Jacob Joseph’s rendering of the

human condition. In this case, he situates this relation in the context of the seemingly unnatural

birth of Isaac in Genesis 18. As opposed to the conventional reading of this chapter that Isaac’s

birth was a miraculous instance of divine intervention in the natural order of human

reproduction, Jacob Joseph suggests that the unconventional nature of Isaac’s birth was that his

parents had already become so divinized (they had completely transferred their matter into form)

that they no longer had the carnal desire nor the requisite attachment to corporeality necessary to

conceive a child. In short, they understood themselves as angelic as Enoch or Elijah and as

spiritually refined as the rabbinic sage Ben Azzai who died the mystical death of the divine

kiss.43

Their surprise was thus not about the unnaturalness of giving birth after the cessation of

Sarah’s reproductive cycle but rather the awareness that in such a divinized state they could, in

fact, return and live as corporeal beings (to elevate those who dwell in the lower – human –

plane).44 Jacob Joseph’s frame of this narrative is essential. He begins by asking the question of

the usefulness of this story. That is, in what way can it relate to the spiritual life and aspirations

42 Toldot Yaakov Yosef, volume 1, p. 59a/b. For a fascinating account of Elijah’s apotheosis that makes a claim similar to the one made here, see the late fifteenth century kabbalistic treatise Sefer ha-Meshiv cited in Moseh Idel, Enchanted Chains: Techniques and Rituals in Jewish Mysticism (Los Angeles, Cherub Press, 2005), p. 115

43 On mystical death in Judaism, see Michael Fishbane, “The Imagination of Death in Jewish Spirituality,” in Death, Ecstasy, and Other Worldy Journeys, J.J. Collins and M. Fishbane eds. (Albany: SUNY Press, 1995), pp, 181-206; and Michael Fishbane, The Kiss of God: Spiritual and Mystical Death in Judaism (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1994).

44 Even in the case of the apotheosis of Elijah, kabbalists stress his ability to re-corporealize temporarily in order to performs miraculous acts or to reveal God’s glory. See in Sefer Ha-Meshiv cited in Moshe Idel, “Inquiries in the Doctrine of Sefer Ha-Meshiv,” Sefunot [Hebrew] 17 (1985): 191-212.

14

of the reader?45 In his view, if an exegete can only explain the story in context – that is, if he can

only provide a plain-sense reading, then the reader should ask “what happened, happened [and

why should we care, ed.]?” Hence his comment is not simply a way of understanding the biblical

episode but more importantly a lesson about the possibilities of devotion “for all people at all

times.”

By making their matter, form, thus purifying their corporeality (we will see in another

chapter how Shneur Zalman of Liady does something similar with the good and bad inclination

in the Tanya) the individual transcends the limits of their physicality and become divinized

creatures. What Sarah learns is that one who achieved that pure state can be asked to “return” to

the realm of the corporeal for the sake of others. This does not erase their spiritual achievement

but employs that achievement to a particular end, in this case giving birth to Isaac and creating

the lineage of covenant and redemption. This idea is repeated often in Jacob Joseph’s description

of the zaddik who is, to borrow an incarnational locution, is “in the world but not of this world.”

The idea of individuals transcending their humanness and achieving a quasi-divine status

is not uncommon in Hasidism. In a discussion about how such “divinized” individuals could

possibly fulfill commandments we read in Hayyim Czernovitz’s (1760-1818) Sidduro shel

Shabbat. “One who has left the bounds of humanity cannot fulfill any mitzvah and cannot study

Torah because he has already left the human condition. This is why God put it in our nature to be

cut off and fall back from too much love. Only then will we be able to fulfill the Torah.”46 What

is not explained here is if the individual loses that divine status or, perhaps, that status is

bracketed in order to live the covenantal life of mitzvot. In a slightly different vein, in the radical

45 On this dimension of Jacob Joseph’s Hasidic work see my “Hasidism: Mystical and Non-Mystical Interpretations of Scripture,” Jewish Mysticism, 139-158.

46 Hayyim of Czernovitz, Sidduro shel Shabbat (Jerusalem, 1960), 81a/b. See Arthur Green, Devotion and Commandment (Cincinnati, OH: HUC Press, 1989), 87 note 103.

15

Hasidic teachings of Gershon Henokh of Radzin (d.1890) we see a notion whereby an individual

erases the Distinction between human and divine will and continues to fulfill the commandments

simply to maintain social cohesion.47

In any event, the possibility of a divinized being to act in this world as human in the

teachings of Jacob Joseph is not only relegated to (mythic) biblical figures but also (quasi-

historical) rabbinic heroes. In the following text Jacob Joseph offers a reading of the famous

Talmudic passage of “four who entered Pardes,” (b.T. Haggigah 14b) as a frame to discuss the

difference between two types of divinized beings.

There is a negative commandment not to come at any time to the Shrine behind

the curtain [of the Tent of Meeting] (Leviticus 16:2)…We mentioned earlier the

four different levels of those that entered Pardes. Ben Azzai died in a state of

rapture. Nevertheless the stature of R. Akiva was greater for he “entered in peace

and returned in peace.” We need to understand why R. Akiva was greater than

Ben Azzai who died with a kiss and in a state rapture which is the telos and

perfection [of human life]…It appears that the status of R. Akiva was indeed

greater because the telos and perfection of human life that is constituted with

matter and form is to subjugate matter and make from matter, form, in all manner

of life (b’frat u’klal b’frat). That is, the person should sanctify his body such that

his matter becomes form. After he has adorned and sanctified himself is his

specific life he should do the same for others, the vulgar masses who represent

matter juxtaposed to the elite in Israel who constitute form. In doing this he

elevates the lowly ones to higher levels. This is what is meant by Draw me after

47 See my Hasidism on the Margin, 229-248.

16

you, let us run (Song of Songs 1:4). The lowly ones, who are matter, should be

drawn to those pulling them to the heights, to the level of form.48

Jacob Joseph rehearses a similar motif (one that dominates this entire work) regarding the

ability of the human to transcend human imperfection (matter) and the obligation to remain in

the world to sanctify those forever embedded in that lowly matter. In this case he suggests that in

substance there is no real difference between Ben Azzai and R. Akiva. R. Akiva achieved the

same lofty status as his comrade and thus the exalted state of dying a mystical death by divine

kiss did not elude him. 49 Rather R. Akiva, like Abraham and Sarah, was able to maintain his

state of superhumaness (having transformed his matter into form thus achieving a state of pure

spiritualization) in the world of the human. For Jacob Joseph and much of early Hasidism, this is

precisely the vocation of the zaddik or, more specifically, the complete zaddik (zaddik gamur).

One of the more salient features in early Hasidism is to view the biblical and rabbinic figures as

exemplars of a kind of spiritual achievement that is available to select individuals in the present,

i.e. zaddikim. Hasidic exegesis – Jacob Joseph being a classic case - is founded on the principle

of de-historicizing the biblical narrative in order to make it relevant to the contemporary reader.50

The practice of peshat as “contextual reading” is of little interest to most Hasidic exegetes.51 This

48 Toldot Yaakov Yosef, vol. 1, p. 328. Cf. Toldot, vol. 1, p. 408d; Nahmanides to Leviticus 18:5; and Hiddushei MaHaRsha to b.T. Haggigah 4b.

49 The rabbis teach that those who die with a kiss do not acquire a state of the defilement of death (tuma’at meit). See Zohar 1..168a; Nahmanides’ “Commentary on the Torah” to Numbers 19:2. Cf. Tosefot to b.T. Baba Meziah 114b s.v. “ma’hu.”

50 See my “Hasidism: Mystical and Non-Mystical Interpretations of Scripture,” Jewish Mysticism, F. Greenspahn ed. (New York: New York University Press, 2011), 139-158.

51 On the significance of “peshat” as plain-sense or contextual meaning see Raphael Loewe, “The ‘Plain’ Meaning of Scripture in Early Jewish Exegesis,” in papers of the Institute of Jewish Studies London volume. 1, J.G. Weiss ed. (Jerusalem: Magnus Press, 1964); Mordechai Z. Cohen, “Reflections on the Concept of Peshuto shel Mikra at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century,” in “To Settle the Plain meaning of the Verse”: Studies in Biblical Exegesis, S Jafet and E. Viezel eds. (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies, 2011) [Hebrew]; and more recently Robert Harris, “Concepts of Scripture in the School of Rashi,” in Jewish Conceptions of Scripture, B.D. Sommers ed. (New York: NYU Press, 2011), 1-2-122.

17

is not because they discount the viability of contextual reading but because their interests are

more utilitarian. For the text to function as a template for individual spirituality, making

categorical distinctions between what the patriarchs could achieve and what the contemporary

Hasid or zaddik could achieve, is counter-productive. In this sense, Hasidic exegesis brings the

text and its characters closer to the reader than the standard exegetical tradition which is

primarily concerned with explicating and elucidating the text. Hasidic commentators seem more

interested in the ways the text can be used as a model of individual devotion and less concerned

with solving inner-textual problems.

A more oblique yet somewhat startling example of the divine/human nexus can be found

Jacob Joseph’s contemporary, and competitor, Dov Baer, the Maggid, of Mezritch. In his

Maggid Devarav le-Ya’akov we read the following:

Can two walk together without having met? (Amos 3:3). It appears quite

unbelievable [lit. wondrous, יפלא] that spirituality (ruhaniyut elohut) can dwell in

thick corporeality (be-geshem ha-yoter av). This ability to do so is because they

already dwell together in the primordial thought [makhshava kaduma] that gives

life to everything. Because of this there is a connection (hitkashrut). And this is

what it means when it says, and the noble are not preferred to the wretched. (Job

34:19). And this why there is a yod at the head and a yod at the end (of the letter א

). The first yod is a point and the end is a point to teach that the end of all action,

that of the most corporeal, already exists at the beginning of divine thought. And

there is a total unity [of the highest and the lowest] in the primordial realm.

Therefore the alef (אלף) which is the same letters as peleh (wonder – is (פלא

18

written with a form of the yod at the head and a yod at the end and the straight line

connecting them gestures to the drawing down of that which is primordial to the

lowest levels. And the end is also a yod identical to the highest level.52

While the basic tenor of this text reflects the common liturgical locution in Shlomo

Alkabetz’s “Lekha Dodi, “the end of action is in the beginning of thought,” 53 what is suggested

here is more subtle and, I think, more provocative than the liturgical formulation. Dov Baer is

doing more here than simply reiterating the commonly known adage that God dwells in the

corporeal world, itself a foundation of the principle of incarnation although rarely taken to that

extreme in Judaism. He is suggesting that the corporeal is, in fact, divine, in that it exists in equal

stature with the spiritual in the primordial thought of God. So Job 34:19 (…and the noble are not

preferred to the wretched) comes as an answer to Amos 3:3 (Can two walk together without

having met?). They are “together” or unified, because they have in fact met in the divine mind.

This is illustrated by the two yods that comprise the letter alef representing the primordial and

unutterable letter of God. God can dwell in the world because both God and the world have the

identical root. The pantheistic tenor of this equation is common in Dov Baer’s writings. Yet this

particular unity of the divine and the corporeal also gestures toward a more nuanced rendering of

the divine/human nexus instantiated in the “divine” soul and the corporeal body. While not

advocating incarnation per se it does display an instance of “incarnational thinking” that I argue

stands at the center of Hasidic teaching.

52 Maggid Devarav le-Ya’akov. Rivka Shatz-Uffenheimer ed. (Jerusalem, Magnus Press, 1990), pp, 196, 197. Cf. For another discussion of this text see Ron Margolin, “New Models of the Sacred Leader at the Beginning of Hasidism,” in Saints and Role Models in Judaism and Christianity, M. Poorthius and J. Schwartz eds. (Leiden: Brill, 2004), p. 384.

53 On this, see Reuven Kimmlemen, The Mystical Meaning of Lekhah Dodi and Kabbalat Shabbat (Jerusalem: Cherub and Magnus Press, 2003) [Hebrew], 47, 48.

19

Another example of traversing the divine/human divide that speaks to the question of

divine corporeality and directly addresses the question of pre-existence appears in Zev Wolf of

Zhitomir’s (d. 1800) Or Ha-Meir in the name of the Maggid of Mezritch.54

And Abraham passed over the land as far as Shekhem (Genesis 12:6). This can be

explained according to what I heard from the Maggid (of Mezritch) who

explained the verse, This is the story of how the heaven and earth were created

(behavra’am בהבראם) (Genesis 2:4). The sages awaken us to the fact that it

should be ‘in/with Abraham” (beavraham באברהם ). (Genesis Raba 12:9). This is

difficult because the sages count ten generations from Adam until Noah and from

Noah to Abraham (Ethics of the Father 5:2). If this is so, how can the world be

established with Abraham before Abraham came into the world? What established

the world in the generations before Abraham? It can be explained that in truth this

is speaking about the attribute of Abraham which is kindness (hesed), the world of

love that is a pure, clear world (olam bahir) that no thought can grasp. This is

called the primordial Abraham (Avraham Saba). His entire form was adorned (sh-

kishet malei kumato) to serve the Creator with great love until his entire body was

made a chariot for the trait of love.55 His divinity and his emanating power were

regulated into creation and, as the sages taught, in the past he was called the God

of the heavens and now his name has become regulated among creation. This

54 See Ze’ev Wolf of Zhitomir, ‘Or Ha-Meir, two volumes (Jerusalem: Even Israel publishing, 1995), volume 2, beginning of Lekh Lekha.

55 The phrase “kishut malei kumato” is used numerous times by Ze’ev Wolf in hos ‘Or Ha-Meir. I have not found any other Hasidic or kabbalistic source that uses this phrase. In a discussion of Rosh ha-Shana Ze’ev Wolf uses it to describe the preliminary stages to make one a vessel fit to receive. In Deuteronomy he uses it to describe as the process of becoming pure from gentile impurity. And in genesis he uses it to describe how Jacob had not yet purified himself to sever his relationship with Laban.

20

means that all creatures saw that the trait of kindness (hesed) descended into the

world. It is also written in Sefer Bahir (#191) that hesed said before God, “before

Abraham came I stood on my guard to bring kindness to the world. Now that

Abraham has come into the world I no longer need to, as it is said, in light of

Abraham hearing my voice and keeping my judgments (Genesis26:5). I stood on

my guard and brought kindness to the creation. By means of his [Abraham’s]

righteousness and the merit of his pure body he made a complete chariot for my

attribute [of kindness]. This is the explanation of, And Abraham was old and well

advanced in years (Genesis 24:1). That is, the attribute of hesed in its place is

called Abraham Saba. Well advanced in years [well-rooted], that is, this attribute

descended and became corporeal (nitgashma) until it became “well-rooted” in a

holy physical body, literally, in this world.

Now we can understand what the sages meant when they said, “This is the story of

how the heaven and earth were created (behavra’am בהבראם) (Genesis 2:4)

‘in/with Abraham’ (beavraham באברהם ).” That is, the attribute of Abraham in its

place that is called Abraham the elder (Avraham ha-Zaken),56 created and

established the worlds, from the beginning of creation, from Adam until Noah,

and then until Abraham. Once [the biblical] Abraham entered the world and

embodied (ve-ahaz, lit. grasped) the attribute of hesed and merited becoming a

chariot for the world of love, at that moment, Abraham took over the job of being

the attribute of hesed to grant kindness to all of creation. At that moment the

entire world was established because of him, literally!

56 In this text, at least. Avraham Zaken seems to be used interchangeably with Avraham, Saba.

21

The notion of primordial Abraham (Abraham Saba) appears in the Zohar in some cases

defines as “strength” (eitan).57 It thus perfectly reasonable to state that Genesis 2:4 This is the

story of how the heaven and earth were created (behavra’am בהבראם), be read as Avraham (

according to the verse, And I said, the world will be built with kindness (hesed) (Psalms ( אברהם

89:3). What is intriguing in this text is the way in which this primordial Abraham is juxtaposed

to and then replaced by the corporeal Abraham. The primordial Abraham owns the hesed that is

then emanated into the world. However, when the corporeal Abraham perfects his body, can we

say divinizes his body, he embodies this attribute of hesed making the primordial Abraham

superfluous (“By means of his [Abraham’s] righteousness and the merit of his pure body he

made a complete chariot for my attribute [of kindness]”). The description of Abraham as

advanced in years is that this attribute (hesed) descended and became corporeal (nitgashma)

until it become “well-rooted” is a holy physical body, literally in this world. The corporeal

Abraham houses power of hesed that was one the sole provenance of the cosmic Abraham Saba.

So even though the corporeal Abraham is born ten generations after Noah, he houses the pre-

existing hesed upon which the world stands. Thus, when the midrash states that behavra’am

they mean both Abraham Saba and the corporeal באברהם should be read as beavraham בהבראם

Abraham since the latter becomes and thus replaces the former. And what he becomes is the pre-

existing force of hesed upon which the world was established.

While this text that surely cannot be likened to the incarnation of High Christology, its

notion that the perfected body can not only house but replace the supernal divine force, that is

that the flesh of corporeal Abraham was so pure that it essentially became Abraham Saba, does

suggest something about the transparency between the divine (i.e. cosmic) and the human. The

fact that Hasidism seems to traffic in the ambiguity of the divine/human divide with such relative

57 Zohar 2.110a; 2. 189b.

22

ease, especially in a time where in the “west” Jews were deeply invested in showing how

Judaism is categorically different than Christianity, begs the question as to whether Hasidism is

an illustration of a modern Judaism emerging without the apologetic agenda of its western

counterpart.

A final example from the early twentieth-century Hasidic master R. Shmuel Bornstein of

Sokochov (d. 1926) will round out my preliminary analysis on “incarnational thinking” in

Hasidism. Bornstein hails from the Ger dynasty in Congress Poland, more specifically from the

dynasty opf Kotzk. His father Rabbi Avraham Bornstein (1838-1910) , author of the well-known

respona Iglei Tal and Avnei Nezer, was the son-in-law of the Kotzker Rebbe Menahem Mendel

Morgenstern (1787-1859). R. Shmuel’s homilies are collected in his five-volume Shem me-

Shmuel.58 Dealing with the case of the red heifer as an example of a statue whose reason is

revealed to Moses but not given to Israel we read:

We read in Deuteronomy Raba (1:1), These are the words (Deut 1:1) A healing tongue is

a tree of life (Proverbs 15:4). Until Moses received the Torah he was not a man of words

(Ex. 4:10). Once he merited the Torah his tongue was healed and he began, “these are the

words…”…To understand this we need to know that the power of speech occurs though

the congruence of body and the intellect (sekhel). Hence a child cannot speak even

though it has all the requisite body parts until the intellect enters. This is what is meant

when the sages say, “When a child is born an angel comes and touches his mouth and he

forgets all he learned in the womb of his mother” (b.T. Niddah 30b). Before a child is

born its soul is distinct and thus exists in a realm of pure intellect and, as such, knows the

entire torah. When it is born, its [physical] development is complete and the soul is then

58 See my “Brother Where Art Thou?”: Reflections on Jesus in Martin Buber and the Hasidic Master R. Shmuel Bornstein of Sochacze,” German-Jewish Thought: Between Religion and Politics, Christian Wiese, Martina Urban eds. (Gottingen: Walter de Gruyter Press, 2012), 209-240 and chapter ?? in this book

23

attached to the body, making it’s a living being capable of corporeal speech. The

consequence is that it now forgets all that it knew before the soul as pure intellect became

part of a corporeal body.59

Basing himself largely on Rabbi Judah Loewe known as MaHaRal of Prague (1520-1609),

Bornstein sets up a standard Neoplatonic frame for his discussion of Moses, suggesting that the

limitations of humanness is founded on the embeddedness of the (divine) soul in the corporeal

body. The relevance to Moshe is that one consequence of the transition from the pure

non-“human” intellection of the soul and the corporeality of the body is the power of speech.

Given that Moses does not have the capacity to speak suggests something anomalous about

Moses’s humanness. “In fact,” writes Bornstein, “there is something difficult in this midrash, at

least according to MaHaRal’s rendering. Meriting Torah healed Moses’ tongue (he utters These

are the words…) whereas according to MaHaRal it should be the opposite.”60 That is, MaHaRal

suggests that speech is indicative of some kind of diminishing of one’s pre-born knowledge since

it is a consequence of corporeal embodiment. Referring back to Talmud Niddah 30b, speech

emerges only when Torah is forgotten thus functioning as the vehicle (via talmud torah) to

recover something lost. But this does not explain Moses special status. Bornstein suggests the

following.

The explanation for this is that through Torah, Moses’s body was purified/perfected

(nizdakekh) and elevated to the level of his soul. Thus his soul had no limitations in

unifying with his body and he was able to achieve speech. The soul is not subject to any

change, all change occurs in the body…Maimonides explains in distinguishing between 59 Shem me-Shmuel, volume 4, p. 297a. This is all based on a discussion in MaHaRal of Prague’s Gevurot

ha-Shem, chapter 28. I am quoting from the re-print of the Jerusalem edition by Eastern Book Press, Inc. Monsey , NY, no date.

60 Ibid. p. 297b.

24

the other prophets and Moses that with the other prophets when the prophesied they

became a different person, as we read in Samuel I:10:6, …and you changed into another

person. When prophecy ended they returned to who they were before. Moses, however,

was always in the same state. He was always prepared for prophecy…This is the level of

the soul without its bodily component.61

What Bornstein does here is invert the equation of humanness described by MaHaRal to

suggest that Moses achieved speech not because of his bodily nature – which is usually the case -

but because his body, or corporeality, was now fully absorbed in his soul. This is a highly

suggestive reversal of how the tradition understands humanness. Here Moses merits speech

through his transcendence of the corporeal. It is the disembodiment of the body that allows his

soul and body to meet thus enabling him to speak.62 Bornstein uses this observation to explain

the rabbinic comment that the statue of the red heifer (Numbers 19:2) was only revealed to only

Moses (and that he did not, or could not, reveal it to Israel). It is said that Israel had access to the

forty nine levels of understanding but only Moses had access to the fiftieth level. It is this fiftieth

level where the body transcends its corporeal state and reaches a state of “unchangability” (bli

shinui). “Hence, after Moses merited receiving the Torah his body was purified/perfected

(nizdakekh) to the state of unchangability it was said that he reached the fiftieth gate [of

understanding]…hence the reason for the red heifer was only revealed to Moses and, as the sages

say, ‘for the others it was a statute.’”63 Bornstein’s attempt to interpret MaHaRal’s notion of

speech as the consequence of the union of body and soul/intellect to solidify the super-

61 Ibid. Cf. Shem me-Shmuel, vol. 4, p. 248 where Moses is described, in opposition to Korah, as someone whose body becomes completely soul (שהגוף נעשה כולו נפש).

62 It would also fit well with the rabbis claim of Moses not dying, although R. Shmuel does not mention this. See, b.T. Sota 13b.

63 Ibid. p. 298a. Cf. Pesikta Rabati, 14.

25

humanness or perhaps non-humanness of Moses suggests that Moses exists as a quasi-divine

figure, not subject to corporeality, and thus has access to knowledge that is structurally

impossible for all who dwell in a corporeal body. On this reading of Bornstein, perhaps this is

why he does not undergo any change when receiving prophecy.

For our limited purposes these examples illustrate a tendency in both early and later

Hasidism to envision the human potential to reach beyond the limits of the human. Whether we

call this sanctification, divination, incarnation, or theosis may be significant but it should not

efface the recognition that we are in the same structural universe I call “incarnational thinking,”

that is, acknowledging the possibility of rending the veil that separates the human and the

divine.64As I argued in an earlier chapter, I think using the term “incarnation” enables us to view

similarities in orientation while simultaneously also acknowledging different articulations of that

phenomena. This may illuminate the ways in which Hasidism and its postwar influence may

have unwittingly brought Judaism and Christianity closer together precisely through a spiritual

system (Hasidism) that deems them irreconcilable.

What matters here is that human perfection understood as the transcendence of

corporeality and physical desire and limits is an integral part of early Hasidic “enlightenment.”

And, this phenomenon was not limited to biblical characters or rabbinic heroes but, as Jacob

Joseph writes, “at all times.” This is a crucial part of Jacob Joseph’s work and, for him, the

central contribution of his master, the Baal Shem Tov. And even when our examples limit their

discussion to one figure such as Abraham, Sarah, or Moses, the suggestion that their bodies

64 For example see Vigen Guroian, Inarnate Love: Essays in Orthodox Ethics (Notre Dame IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1989), 20. “The Incarnation was a perfect act of love in its descending and ascending movements. First, while preserving the integrity of the human nature and its distinction from the divine, God in Christ restored by grace the human capacity to reciprocate God’s love. Second, Christ in his humanity completed the human movement toward a full communion with the Godhead.”

26

reached a non-corporeal state through equivalence with their soul moves decidedly to the very

margins of what many take is a crucial distinction between Judaism and Christianity.65

65 In fact, the Jewish the convert to Christianity Joshua George Lazarus (1799-1869) who had a sympathetic attitude toward Lubavitch Hasidism - even secretly travelling there to observe their customs - notes the close affinity

between Hasidism and Christianity. See David Assaf, Untold Tales of the Hasidim: Crisis and Discontent in the History of Hasidism, Dena Ordan trans. (Hanover and London: University Press of New England, 2010), p. 60.

27