ARAMAIC STUDIESVoU.l (2006): 35-52 2006 Sage Publications (Lxindon, Thousand Oaks, CA, and New Delhi)DOl: 10.1177/1477835106066034hnp://as. sagepub.com

Hebrew and Aramaic as Languagesof the Zohar*

YEHUDA LIEBES(translated by Daphne Freedman and Ada Rapoport-Albert)

The Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies, Faculty of Humanities,The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

AbstractApart from a few Hebrew sections, most of the Zohar is written in aunique language: an idiosyncratic Aramaic that cannot be classifiedwithin the standard division of Aramaic dialects and which was nevera spoken language. On these grounds the scholarly literature haslabelled it 'artificial'. The present article challenges this label, arguingthat the Aramaic of the Zohar is completely natural. Aramaic wastraditionally used for mystical purposes, and the Zohar's preferencefor this language as the best vehicle for advancing its own mysticalpurpose has been vindicated by the work's quality and lasting effect.

Keywords: Hebrew, Aramaie, Zohar, Kabbalah, mysticism

* This is the English version ofa Hebrew lecture, delivered to the plenum of theIsraeli Academy of the Hebrew Language on 29 November 2004, and adapted from anealier seminar paper, originally presented by the author to the intemational Zohar researchgroup of the Institute of Advanced Studies in Jerusalem on 7 May 1999. It is due to bepublished in the original Hebrew in the Records of the Academy of the Hebrew Language.We are grateful to the author for allowing us to publish the English version of the lecturein advance of its publication in Hebrew.

36 Aramaic Studies 4.1 (2006)

The words of Isaiah, 'O Lord our God, other Lords but thee have been ourmasters, but thee alone do we invoke by name' (Isa. 26.13), wereinterpreted by the Zohar (II, 9a) to mean that in exile the forces of evilhave dominion over the Jewish people and only a remembrance of Godremains with them, namely, the twenty-two letters of the Hebrewalphabet,' alluded to by the word thee.'^ Language therefore comprises thewhole world of the Zohar and anyone who wishes to understand theZohar must begin by studying its language in depth.

Except for a few Hebrew pages, the Zohar is written in Aramaic.^According to the previous generation of scholars, this Aramaic is artifi-cial because it was not the author's natural language or the languagespoken in his environment. This language was invented, they believed, inorder to create the impression that the Zohar was not written whenAramaic was no longer a living language, in medieval Spain where theauthor lived, but in Palestine at the time of the tannaim. However, theevident artificiality of his Aramaic seemed to them to prove precisely theopposite, namely, that the language of the Zohar was not part of theorganic development of Aramaic and did not conform to its standardclassification into Westem and Eastem dialects; rather it was a product ofliterary sources with a recognisable substrate of medieval Hebrew, includ-ing, for example, the language of the Tibonite translators from Arabic,and betrayed the influence of other languages spoken in Europe at thattime: Spanish and perhaps also Arabic.

I wish to dispute the characterisation of the Aramaic of the Zohar asartificial. It is tme that the Zohar was written in medieval Spain, whereAramaic was no longer a living language, and that it is as innovative in itslanguage as in other respects.' Nevertheless, in my opinion, zoharicAramaic was formed as part of the natural development of an entire

1. According to the sections of the Zohar known as the Idras, the twenty-two letters ofthe Hebrew alphabet correspond to the restorations of the divine countenances, thirteenrestorations of the Ancient of Days and nine restorations of Zeir Anpin.

2. The Hebrew word -p, meaning ^by thee', has the numerical value of twenty-two.3. These pages are found in the Midrash Hane'elam on Genesis {Zohar part 1 and

Zohar Hadash) and in the Zohar on Exodus, on which see below.4. See Gershom G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (Jerusalem, 1941),

p. 163: 'The Aramaic oftheZoAor is a purely artiticial affair'; Isaiah Tishby, The Wisdomof the Zohar (London, 1994), I, p. 64; 'Linguistic analysis and a comparison of thelanguage of the Zohar with known Aramaic sources show that this Aramaic is an artificiallanguage drawn from specific literary source material'.

5. On the creativity of the Zohar, in theory and practice, see Yehuda Liebes, 'Zoharand Eros', Alpaim 9 (1994), pp. 67-119 (Hebrew).

LIEBES Hebrew and Aramaic as Languages of the Zohar 37

spiritual movement in medieval Judaism.* In the Aramaic of the Zohar V^Qcan detect a continuation of certain elements that existed in the spokenlanguage but were not transmitted through normative literary sources,such as those found in the popular verse published by Yahalom andSokoloff,'' for example, the use of the root tkl, 'to weigh', in the meta-phorical sense of to wed a woman.* It may also be appropriate to mentionhere the testimony of the earliest dictionary of zoharic Aramaic, attributedin one manuscript to Yehuda ben David the Pious, who was one of thelast members of the zoharic movement. The author of the dictionaryintroduces his explanation of the zoharic term butsina dekardinuta withthe words: 'I heard from a certain Chaldean'.'

As a written language, Aramaic was still alive amongst the SpanishJews in the Middle Ages. Those who read the Aramaic of the Talmud andthe targumim did not refrain from also writing Aramaic. We find this bothin their legal works and in their poetry,'" but particularly in their esotericwritings. The use of Aramaic for this purpose did not begin with theZohar. Numerous compositions and citations from the writings of theearliest Kabbalists have been preserved in Aramaic," and certain ele-ments and phrases in Aramaic were incorporated into the Hebrew of theBahir giving it its distinctive character. Magical literature was alsowritten in part in Aramaic, thereby preserving its ancient traditions, as canbe seen in the magical writings from the Cairo Genizah published bySchafer and Shaked,'^ or the Great Magical Formulary {Sidrei deShimusha Raba), published by Scholem, who maintained that it too waswritten in 'artificial Aramaic'.'^

6. See Yehuda Liebes, 'How the Zohar was Written', in idem. Studies in the Zohar(Albany, 1993), pp. 85-138.

7. M. Sokoloff and J. Yahalom, Jewish Palestinian Poetry from Late Antiquity(Jerusalem, 2004 [Hebrew]).

8. See Yehuda Liebes, Ars Poetica in Sefer Yetsira (Tel Aviv, 2001 [Hebrew]), p. 316n. 50.

9. SeeBoazHuss, 'A Dictionary ofForeign Words in the Zohar', ATaftZia/a/! 1 (1996),p. 174 (Hebrew).

10. See, e.g., poem 84 in Dov Jarden (ed.). The Secular Poems of Solomon benJudahIbn Gaft/ra/(Jerusalem, 1975 [Hebrew]), pp. 155-59.

11. See Moshe Idel, "The Beginnings of the Kabbalah in North Africa? A ForgottenDocument of Rabbi Yehuda ben Nisim ibn Malka', Peamim 43 (1990), pp. 4-5 n. 4(Hebrew).

12. Peter Schafer and Shaul Shaked, Magische Texte aus der Kairoer Geniza(Tubingen, 1994-99).

13. Gersehom Scholem, Demons Spirits and Souls (ed. Esther Liebes; Jerusalem,2004 [Hebrew]), pp. 116-44. On p. 122 n. 25 Scholem infers that the Aramaic of this

38 A ramaic Studies 4.1 {2006)

It is true that the language of the Zohar is not an organic developmentofa single Aramaic dialect but absorbed elements from various sources.In this the Zohar joins a long line of illustrious works, such as the epicof Homer whose language was composed of various Greek dialects toform the Homeric dialect. The Aramaic of the Zohar has its own dis-tinctive linguistic traits, its own grammar'" and distinct lexical character-istics.'^

Scholars have noted words that have been absorbed into the zoharicliterature through misunderstandings of literary sources, such as NSpin inthe sense of 'lap','* xnanx, meaning 'collection of books'," as well asAramaic words whose meaning was influenced by Hebrew, such as thephrase yh-'O n'^ n imsTis, 'they accompanied him for three miles', in anextension of the meaning of the Aramaic root =]tN, which concerns thelending of monies.'* Nevertheless, I do not consider this a sign of artifi-ciality. Literature and culture (as well as misunderstandings) are amongthe sources from which most languages draw, including the most 'living'of languages. This is certainly true of modem Hebrew, my mother tongueand that of most of my colleagues (and who would say that we arespeaking an artificial language?). Even terms that belong to the grammati-cal structure of the language are sometimes derived from mistakeninterpretations or incorrect spellings as, for example, the modem Hebrewwords ^^n, meaning 'the most', or m-\Db, 'in spite of, no less so ordinarywords, such as njwsb, 'to decipher', ]'hp)i, 'kit bag', 'UO''':', 'robbers',minx, 'Athens', and many more.

The naturalness ofa language is apparent from a synchronic descrip-tion without taking its lineage into account. If a language is fluent andbetter adapted to the needs of its speakers than any other language, itshould be considered completely natural. Everyday conversation is not

treatise is not genuine from the fact that the author uses the term sm i^iJT XDV to refer to theeighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles rather than to Pentecost. However, in my opinion,the author intended to refer to Pentecost. See the editor's comments and references in thesame note.

14. See Menachem Zvi Kadari, A Grammar of Zoharic Aramaic (Jerusalem, 1971[Hebrew]).

15. See Yehuda Liebes, 'Sections ofthe Zohar Lexicon' (PhD thesis, Jerusalem, 1976[Hebrew]).

16. See Scholem, Major Trends, p. 389 n. 48.17. See Yehuda Liebes, 'The Use of Words in the Zohar', in In Memory ofEphraim

Gottlieb (Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 17-18.18. See Scholem, Major Trends, p. 388 n. 45a.

LIEBES Hebrew and Aramaic as Languages of the Zohar 39

the sole purpose of a natural language and it need not be the only ver-nacular used by the speaker. A natural situation is one in which severallanguages are used for different levels of education and culture. This wasindeed the case in medieval Europe, where the language of culture andreligion was Latin, which was not a spoken language, and a similar situa-tion exists in many other cultures. The natural condition is a plurality oflanguages where culture and religion are conducted in a separate tongue,such as Sanskrit, Classical Arabic, Gez or Hebrew. In the Middle Agesthese were living, natural idioms which did not have to be acquired in aconscious and methodical manner. At that time, we do not hear aboutHebrew language studies or of any particular praise for those who knewHebrew, as in the Jewish Diaspora today.

The number of languages employed together is not limited to two. Onemay serve as the language spoken in the home, another as the language ofsecular culture, yet another as the language of prayer and another as thelanguage of govemment, and so on. The Kabbalists of Spain did not con-tent themselves with Spanish (or Arabic) and Hebrew but also addedAramaic.

The Aramaic ofthe Zohar represents a genuine linguistic need and isnot merely camouflage employed to give the illusion ofthe time and placeof Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai. This pretence was unlikely to succeed, notleast for the simple reason that in the time ofthe tanna Simeon bar Yohai,Hebrew was the language spoken in Palestine, not Aramaic, and thewords of Simeon bar Yohai are quoted in the Mishna and the Talmud inHebrew, the language ofthe tannaim. In my studies on Simeon bar Yohaiand his companions in the Zohar, I attempted to demonstrate that the'narrative framework', as it is customarily called, does not simply serveto transpose the work from its actual time and place but has a profoundsignificance in the spiritual world ofthe Zohar in its own right." So toothe Aramaic language: the Zohar is written in Aramaic because the natureofthe work demands it. Aramaic is the natural idiom ofthe Zohar. Thiscan be concluded both from the explicit remarks made by the Kabbalists,which reveal their attitudes to Hebrew and Aramaic, and from thefunction that Aramaic effectively fulfils in the Zohar.

The Aramaic of the Zohar flows naturally and in several places itseems that the words should be spoken out loud to appreciate theprofrindity ofthe passage. In Hebrew translation, the Zohar sounds less

19. See Yehuda Liebes, 'The Messiah ofthe ZoharOn Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai as aMessianic Figure', in idem. Studies in the Zohar, pp. 1-84.

40 Aramaic Studies 4.1 (2006)

assured, less natural, and a comparison of zoharic Aramaic with theHebrew passages ofthe Zohar does not grant the Hebrew any advantageof naturalness. On the contrary, the Hebrew sounds less fluent and it isdifficult and more awkward than the Aramaic, as can be seen, for exam-ple, from the unwieldy expression Q"'2Nn WT^, 'desiring songs', meaningcreatures that desire to sing.^ " The language ofthe Hebrew sections oftheZohar does not in the least resemble the Hebrew of Moses de Leon,whom many consider to be the author ofthe Zohar. Nor does the Aramaicof the Zohar give the impression that it is a translation of de Leon'sHebrew. This can be verified from a section ofthe Zohar which containsan Aramaic version of a passage written in Hebrew by Moses de Leon,which is very different from the Aramaic ofthe Zohar.^^

Aramaic, therefore, is nattiral to the Zohar. In this connection, it isworth remembering the beautiful lines written by Haim Naehman Bialikin his essay, 'The Hebrew Book':

Even at night, her [Aramaic's] heart did not sleep nor was her light extin-guished. The classic book ofthe Kabbalah, this nocturnal vision ofthe Hebrewnation, was created in her language and her spirit. The wonder of it is that inthe days ofthe Zohar the Aramaic language was already completely dead inthe speech ofthe Jewish people. Perhaps for this reason it was appropriate forthe mysterious, like the pale light ofthe dead moon for the dreamer. -^^

Bialik's words complement the Zohar's, own perception of Aramaic,which continues a long tradition that accords the Aramaic language adialectical role in relation to Hebrew. Bialik goes on to compare therelation between Hebrew and Aramaic to the bond between Naomi andRuth the Moabite, who left her foreign gods to follow Naomi and remainwith her (Ruth 1.16). Through savants such as Bialik this 'daughter-in-law' continued to accompany even modem Hebrew and influence it withits unique qualities." Even before the Zohar, Aramaic was accorded anintermediary status between Hebrew, the holy tongue, and all other

20. Zohar Hadash 5d, Midrash Hane'elam on Genesis. On this expression, seeLiebes, Ars Poetica, p. 123 nn. 20 and 21, and p. 182 n. 35.

21. See Zohar I, 186b-87a. These pages contain additions printed in brackets whoseorigin is in the writings of Moses de Leon, e.g.. The Mystery ofLevirate Marriage { -nomn'n), whieh was printed at the end of his The Wise Soul (nosnn :ss]n) (Basel, 1608), 13,f 1.

22. Haim Nahman Bialik, On Literature (miso nai) (Tel Aviv, 1959), p. 47. DrMelila Hellner-Eshed directed my attention to this.

23. See Moshe bar Asher, 'The Role of Aramaic in Modem Hebrew', in The Develop-ment and Renewal ofthe Hebrew Language (Jerusalem, 1996), pp. 14-74 (Hebrew).

LIEBES Hebrew and Aramaic as Languages ofthe Zohar 41

languages. Some considered Aramaic to be the first human language afterthe fall ofthe first man.^ " Others noted vital Aramaic elements in the holytongue." The wamings ofthe Babylonian Geonim against the tendency tostop using the Aramaic translation ofthe Bible, considered to have beenhanded down at Sinai,^ * which had acquired a ritual status and given itsname to the language that from then on was known as 'the language ofthe translation', are well-known.

At times, Aramaic was considered holy in the degree that was deemedappropriate for the time of exile, a time when the name of God was in-complete. This view can be found in the works ofthe first Kabbalists andeven earlier. In their opinion, the kadish is recited in Aramaic in order torestore the name of God to completion. The honour of the deity is notwell served by the fact that its defect is recognised in Hebrew, a languagethat is known to the angels (on which see below). According to onesource, even the Tetragrammaton is at the present time written inAramaic, since in Aramaic the verb 'to be' takes the form mn not T\^T\ as itdoes in Hebrew,^' and for this reason it is not revealed and cannot bepronounced^* (I recollect that my teacher, the late Professor EzekielKutscher, interpreted in this way the fact that in biblical Aramaic only inthis root was the letter tamed fonnd instead ofthe letter j o J amongst theauxiliary letters used to form the future prefixes). The Hebrew equivalentofthe Aramaic form ofthe Tetragrammaton is nTi\ This is a completename whose pronunciation is not forbidden and which will be used in the

24. See b. Sanh. 38b: 'The first man spoke Aramaic'; Abraham ibn Ezra, SafahBrurah (ed. G.H. Lipman; Fuerth, 1839), p. 2: 'Many have claimed that the Aramaiclanguage is primordial'. See also Midrash Peliah (Warsaw, 1895), 76b, 166; Moshe Idel,'The Infant Experiment: the Search for the First Language', in Alison P. Coudert (ed.).The Language of Adam (Wolfenbutteler Forschungen, 84; Wiesbaden, 1999), pp. 59-62;Milka Levy-Rubin 'The Language of Creation or the Primordial Language: A Case ofCultural Polemics in Antiquity', JJS 49.2 (1988), pp. 306-33.

25. Particularly Rabbi Yehuda ibn Koreish in his Risala (ed. Dan Becker; Tel Aviv,1984).

26. Thus, for instance, in Sefer Mitsvot Gadol, positive commandment 19, in the nameof Rav Amram and Rav Natronai. This can be compared to Philo's view ofthe status ofthe Septuagint.

27. The four-letter name of God is composed ofthe letters used to form the verb 'tobe' in Hebrew, and the Aramaic form more closely resembles the spelling used in theTetragrammaton.

28. See Sefer Hapardes, attributed to Rashi (ed. Haim Jehuda Ehrenreich; Budapest,1924), p. 323.

42 Aramaic Studies 4.1 (2006)

messianic fiiture, as it is written in Zech 14.9, 'On that day the Lord andhis name shall be (nTi") one'.^'

In truth, the views of the Zohar on this question are not unequivocal.There appear to have been rival tendencies or factions within the Zoharcircle, one in favour of Hebrew, the other of Aramaic. Evidence for thiscan be deduced from the testimony of Isaac of Acre in his famous letteron the composition ofthe Zohar that relates the warning he was given notto accept as genuine Hebrew sections of the Zohar since the authenticZohar was written entirely in Aramaic.^" An echo of this struggle canperhaps be discerned in the words ofthe editors printed in the Zohar atthe beginning of pericope vayehi, before a passage whose style attests thatit does not belong to the main body ofthe Zohar.

Said the editors. It is clear from the language, as light is visible from darkness,that this is not from the Zohar. It is our opinion that this is from the MidrashHane 'elam and it was written in the holy tongue, and the devious boasterschanged the language of truth and obscured the meaning and intention oftheauthor for they did not understand it and did not know how to construe thelanguage properly. {Zohar I, 21 Ib)

The movement to and fro between these languages can also be gaugedfrom the Zohar passages which appear in both. This is particularly notice-able in the section on Exodus, written partly in Hebrew and partly inAramaic, where the relation between the two languages differs in the vari-ous printed editions and manuscripts. Some of the passages that are inAramaic in the standard editions, which follow the Mantua edition (1558-60), appear in Hebrew in the Cremona edition (1559-60) and in subse-quent editions. In these passages, the Hebrew appears to be the originalversion which was later translated into Aramaic.^' On the other hand, wealso have quite a few Hebrew versions of passages originally written inAramaic that were translated by members ofthe Zohar circle, such as thewritings of David ben Jehuda the Pious and the Zohar passages that wereincluded in Israel al Nakawa's The Lamp ofthe Tabernacle. '^

29. On the other hand. Rabbi Joseph Caro thinks that the Kadish is recited in Aramaicto show that in friture Aramaic will be equal to Hebrew. Joseph Caro, Maggid Mesharim(Jerusalem, 1960), p. 21.

30. See the letter reprinted in Isaiah Tishby, The Wisdom ofthe Zohar, I (London,1994), p. 13.

31. This is also the opinion of Ronit Meroz who has devoted a detailed study, as yetunpublished, to this question.

32. Israel al Nakawa (d. 1391), Menorat Hama 'or (ed. E. Enelow; 4 vols.; New York,1929-32).

LIEBES Hebrew and Aramaic as Languages of tire Zohar 43

All this should be attributed to the dialectical relation that existsbetween Aramaic and Hebrew, according to religious sensibility of theZohar. This relation is attested long before the Zohar and emerges fromthe famous Talmudic statement that features prominently in the Zohar.

The ministering angels do not respond to anyone who requests his needs inAramaie for they do not recognise Aramaic.'^

This statement would appear to negate the mystic status of Aramaic bydistancing it from the angels, but this is not the whole truth. Although theangels do not understand Aramaic, the Shekinah, the divine presence,does. This emerges from the continuation of the passage in the Talmudwhich justifies the actions of one who prays for a sick person in Aramaic:'An invalid is different because the divine presence is with him'. What isthe difference between the Shekinah and the angels? The angels areapparently formalistic masters of ceremony who only use the officiallanguage. However, the Shekinah has a more intimate side for whichAramaic is more appropriate and it is precisely this intimate side that isneeded in the case of illness. This we leam from other places in theTalmud, such as the tale about Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai who, it isreported, asked Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa to intercede for him when his sonfell ill: 'His wife said to him. Is Hanina greater than you are? No, hereplied, but he is like a servant to the king and I am like a minister to theking. '^ ^ When an intimate servant will be more effective than a minister, itis preferable to use Aramaic.

Like the Shekinah, the bat kol, the voice from heaven, is also fond ofAramaic. This can be learnt from a parallel passage in the Talmud {b. Sot.33a) which sets out the above-mentioned principle that, 'The ministeringangels do not respond to anyone who requests his needs in Aramaicbecause they do not recognise that language' {b. Sanh. 99a) and thenappears to challenge it: 'But we have leamed that Rabbi Johanan, theHigh Priest, heard a heavenly voice issue from the Holy Of Holiesannouncing, "The young men who went to wage war against Antiochhave been victorious", and it spoke in Aramaic!' The answer given is, 'Avoice from heaven is different'. The celestial voice differs from the angelsin that it also understands Aramaic.

33. See t. Shab. 12b, and see Joseph Yahalom, 'Angels Don't Understand Aramaic',(1996), pp. 33-44.

34. See b. Ber. 43b: non sm K'7N ,ysb -.Th nas ?iaQ b^^^i srin ^DI nnosnan 'jsi ,i'7Dn 'it

44 Aramaic Studies 4.1 (2006)

Elsewhere in the Talmud and in the Hekhalot literature, the voice fromheaven speaks in Aramaic, sometimes even with the inclusion of aspecific reference to the fact that the words were spoken in Aramaic. On afew occasions, the celestial voice deals with the impending day of judg-ment, a subject which it is more appropriate to speak about in Aramaic,the language the angels do not understand, since we have leamed, 'Whatis meant by "the day of vengeance is in my heart"?" Rabbi Johanan said,I have revealed it to my heart, but not to my extemal limbs. Rabbi Simeonben Lakish said, I revealed it to my heart but not to the ministeringangels','* and according to a parallel statement: 'the heart does not revealto the mouth'." The heavenly voice or the Shekinah, which understandsAramaic, is identified, therefore, with God's heart. It appears that thisheart, which does not reveal that which is concealed in its depths, eitherto the mouth or the limbs, resembles the divine subconscious, a suitableplace to nurture feelings of vengeance. The angels, on the other hand,represent the conscious mind, or the limbs, or the mouth and they mightobject to vengeance on rational grounds,'* or, conversely, rush tooprecipitately to execute the imprecations.

The heavenly voice also speaks Aramaic when it proclaims the abilitiesofthe mystic, probably because, in this, man is superior to the angels andmay arouse their jealousy, as in Hekhalot Zutarti:

Rabbi Akiva said. When I ascended to the Chariot a heavenly voice issuedfrom beneath the Throne of Glory speaking Aramaic. What did it say? BeforeGod created the heavens and the earth, a ladder" was erected to the heavens toascend and descend.''"

Heralds and heavenly voices are often heard in the Zohar, and here toothey speak Aramaic. Perhaps these voices also influenced the language ofthe human speakers, since, in the Zohar, the close association between theheavenly voice and the conscious and even the sub-conscious of theauthor is evident. For here, the heavenly voice is not only identified with

35. Isa. 63.4.36. See b. Sanh. 99a: -Di .-n'":: K"? '^-avb ,'n''7'': "ab"? :]:nr '31 i n s ?-'3'?3 Dp: DV -XQ'

'^TTbi vh mon 'DN'^D'? ,''T\'bi '^hb riDS op"? ]3 ji^jan.37. cc/.^. 12.10.38. On the rationality of angels, see Yehuda Liebes, 'De Natura Dei: On the

Development ofthe Jewish Myth', in Studies in Jewish Myth and Jewish Messianism(Albany, 1993), pp. 1-64.

39. The reading 'ladder' is conjectural, based on the editor's note. See n. 40 below.40. Hekhalot Zutarti (ed. Rachel Elior; Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought

supplement, 1; 1982 [Hebrew]), p. 23.

LIEBES Hebrew and Aramaic as Languages ofthe Zohar 45

the Shekinah, but also, to some extent, with the protagonist ofthe Zohar,Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai, both during his life and after his death.

In one passage,'" Simeon bar Yohai's son heard a voice coming fromhis cave saying: 'Two young deer gave me pleasure fulfilling my desire'.I have devoted a long and detailed study to this statement, in which Iattempted to explain its meaning and as far as possible to determine theidentity of the speaker.''^ In another incident, a celestial voice emergedfrom behind the curtain in the house of Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai andquoted his precise words (also on the subject ofthe gazelles and the hartsin the Song of Songs). Interestingly, the words ofthe heavenly voice arein Aramaic while Rabbi Simeon's statement is in Hebrew:"^

Flee my love, like a gazelle or a hart.'''' All the longing of Israel is for theLord,''' for Rabbi Simeon said, 'Israel longs for the Lord neither to leave norto distance himself but to flee like a gazelle or a hart'.

The celestial voice is so comfortable speaking Aramaic that it sometimesrewrites biblical verses in Aramaic, as in a passage in the matnitin (thename given in the Zohar to anonymous passages, full of pathos, some-times put in the mouths of celestial heralds): 'Listen to me all who seekjustice'.''* However, in a parallel passage spoken by a human, we find:'Rabi Eleazar said, "Listen to me all who seek justice"','" in the Hebrewwords ofthe verse (Isa. 51.1). In another passage we even find a biblicalverse that Aramaic has conquered half of: 'As it is written, "All theherdsmen used to gather there and roll away the stone"'. The italicisedsection of the verse appears in the Zohar in Aramaic"* even though thebiblical verse was originally written in Hebrew.'"

41. Zohar III, 55b: '^b m^n smrn ^mp nna' xn'r^sT i^ '^ nu nn las i x'^ p sinn42. See Yehuda Liebes ' "Two Young Roes ofa Doe": The Secret Sermon of Isaac

Luria Before his Death', in Yehuda Liebes and Rachel Elior (eds.), Lurianic Kabbalah,Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 10 (1992), pp. 113-69.

43. It is possible that an earlier Hebrew version was integrated into the exegesis in theZohar (this is the opinion of Ronit Meroz in her study mentioned in n. 31 above).

44. Song 8.14.45. Zohar II, 14a: biciia^ is'osi NSIOD VD .D^ '^KH -ISIJJ'? IS ^i^b -\b nmi n n ma'

pmni2 s"?! ^p^n vh n"3pn nn '^c bicttD'' "^ E Dnisn n"nNTNn sin -[na SE^ p^^ 3

46. Zohar II, 12b: 'lran anp...m!ijp '3Tn pra'.47. Zohar 1,151b: 'pis ' a m '"^ s irato nas ita'^s '3n'.48. Zohar II, 13a: 'psn ns iTom N"na bo pn 'ODno ID :3''nD sm'.49. Gen. 29.3: iD'cm ]Xin ns lpom isnn 's "^ an jnsn ns i*?"?:! D^-{-ivn bz> noE ISDN:I'

'napab !^

46 Aramaic Studies 4.1 (2006)

Aramaic is also a more appropriate language for the Zohar than Hebrewbecause ofthe nature of its doctrines. The Zohar displays an awareness ofthis, as can be seen from its discussion of the sin of the builders of theTower of Babel, which is couched in ornate Aramaic and ascribes theirtransgression specifically to the use of Hebrew:

This generation spoke in the holy tongue known to the ministering angels andin no other language. For this reason, the verse^" says: 'now nothing will bebeyond their reach'. For if they had spoken another language that the celestialangels did not know, the acts they intended would have been diminished, sincethe actions of demons are momentary, lasting long enough to be seen by manand no longer. The language of scripture '[all the world spoke a single lan-guage] and used the same words',^' indicates that they knew each supemallevel thoroughly and did not confuse them. For this reason they took evilcounsel, the counsel of wisdom."

This passage is a commentary on the verse: 'All the world spoke onelanguage and used the same words'." The verse, which in the Bibleserves as background and as an introduction to the sin ofthe generation ofBabel, here describes the nature of the transgression. I do not know theexact meaning ofthe opening words kumtura dehormana, but it seems tome that they allude to the obduracy of that generation, which insisted onspeaking Hebrew, the language understood by the angels, rather thanAramaic. This they did in order to establish their world, the world of evil,on a particularly firm foundation, which is specific to the realm of theholy. For, in fact, it is Aramaic that is the language ofthe forces of evil,as we will see. The 'one language' that they wished to speak was Hebrew,possibly also because the numerical value ofthe letters of nnx nac, 'oelanguage', equals that of cnpn ]yDb, 'the holy tongue', a gematria dis-covered and caleulated by the medieval German Pietists.''' However, theZohar'?, principal innovation is found in its interpretation ofthe phrase

50. Gen. 11.6.51. Gen. 11.11.52. Zohar I, 72a {Sitrei Torah): lananON !C"nai Bipn ]1B'73 pbaa 'iDim sniQDip'

]fn^b2 jsunon 'bo'rsi ,'m onn i s a ' nb nniJi DTID -[D j ' n s ins jtcba i'''7'::aa nn N"?! n^ DinoT KiaiuT yi2 niaflo'? yjm p'^ni u^on n : n^a imonoK nn nb ^nbv 'DN'^ DT 'nnsin bzi ynbv yni yvi^ nm nnns Dnan .Tn'' i(b^ sojs ^n im"? s m 'BJ-I3 nbn in '^s is"?

) onns D''-i3-n ZTtD -JD ]^m s m m"? 'pnm nbt n"-n3 bn im

53. Gen. 11.1.54. This gematria is eited in the commentary of Jacob ben Asher on Gen. 11.1.

However, the claim that the generation ofthe Tower of Babel spoke Hebrew first is alsofound elsewhere, e.g., in Midrash Tanhuma on Gen. 19.

LIEBES Hebrew and Aramaic as Languages ofthe Zohar 47

'the same words' to refer to the stages or the sefirot which were 'thesame', that is to say, that each word had a specific kabbalistic inter-pretation, on a ratio of one to one, something that is only possible inHebrew. This property of Hebrew conceals a power which can be usednot only to establish the holy realm, but also for magical purposes, toconstruct an evil counterpart.

Particularly surprising is the juxtaposition at the end ofthe passage:'evil consel, counsel of wisdom'. Wisdom here, as in many other placesin the zoharic literature, refers to the doctrine of the Kabbalah, to thesefirot, and it appears that this doctrine can also be employed as a counselof evil. The punishment meted out to the builders ofthe Tower of Babelwas directed specifically against this transgression: God confiised theirlanguage and also altered the names ofthe angels with whose help theyhad attempted to act. Interestingly, Moses de Leon also speaks of the'great wisdom' possessed by that generation, but he, writing in Hebrew,does not connect this to their language."

The Zohar takes a different approach and does not heed the evil coun-sel ofthe builders ofthe Tower of Babel. 'Knowledge is power' as wesay today, and before the Kabbalah, which professes to know the secretsofthe upper realm, lies the danger of hubris: insolence against heaven andthe elevation of man above God. The Aramaic language serves as aremedy against this danger, for with its help, the personal and creativeelements find expression in the Zohar. The Kabbalah ofthe Zohar is notrigidly systematic, nor is it a fixed doctrine, but develops and alters,throwing out sparks in every direction, as I attempted to demonstrateelsewhere,^* without, at that time, indicating the role that Aramaic plays inthis process.

In contrast to the generation of the tower of Babel who attempted toestablish an evil world by means of the holy tongue, the Zohar took theopposite tack and established a holy world with the aid of Aramaic, whichit called targum, the language of the Aramaic translation of the Bible,even though it considered Aramaic the language of evil." The later Kab-balists followed the Zohar, and precisely because of the associationbetween the Aramaic translation and the forces of evil, they increasingly

55. See de Leon, The Mystery ofLevirate Marriage 13, F. 1 (Hebrew). ,56. Yehuda Liebes, 'Zohar and Eros', Alpayim 9 (1994), pp. 67-119 (Hebrew).57. See Zohar II, 129b. The association between mnn, 'translation', and the forces of

evil may receive support from the Arabic term for the devil, al sitan al rajim, that is, 'thestoned or accursed devil', derived from the same root rgm, nn.

48 Aramaic Studies 4.1 (2006)

emphasised the importance ofthe ritual public readings ofthe Aramaictranslation that served to assimilate the forces of evil known as kelipatnogah, the aspect of evil that is closest to the holy, into the realm oftheholy.5* Rabbi Nahman of Braslav also adds that Rabbi Simeon bar Yohaihad sanctified the language of the translation that is as essential to theestablishment ofthe realm ofthe holy as sleep is for consciousness whenone is awake, for surely the word mnn, 'translation', in gematriaequals nmnn, 'sleep'." This dialectical stance is understandable in lightofthe Zohar'?. attitude to evil. The term used by the Zohar to refer to therealm of evil, Kins snao, 'the other side', indicates a dualistic element.The world is divided into two warring factions. However, unlike otherdualistic systems, the Zohar does not always take this conflict withunbridled seriousness. He who knows the other side well, as does RabbiSimeon in the Zohar, can devise stratagems which render it much lessmenacing and even disposed to display pleasing and amusing traits.'"

Precisely because Aramaic is the language ofthe 'other side' it is ableto serve certain religious purposes. In this language, prophecy rests onanyone who is worthy of it, even if he is uncircumcised. Consequently,before Abraham was circumcised, it was said of him: 'The word oftheLord came to Abraham in a vision' (Gen. 15.1). A vision, ntna, not arevelation, nxno, the Zohar emphasises. The word for a 'vision' used inthis verse is, in the opinion ofthe Zohar, the equivalent Aramaic form ofthe Hebrew word 'revelation', since the root ntn is common in Aramaic inthe sense of'to see'.*' (Rabbi Yehuda ibn Koreish also adduces this as anexample of an Aramaic element in Hebrew.**^ )

58. Meir ibn Gabbai, The Worm Jacob (npi;' nu'rin) (Jerusalem, 1967), p. 23 c;Menahem Azria of Fano, The Wings of the Dove (njv 'S:D), part 3 7 (Lemberg, 1884),p. 64d;. Isaiah Horowitz, The Two Tablets of the Covenant (n'-an mm"? 'ra) traetateShabbat (Frankfurt a. Oder, 1717), p. 138a (the latter work discusses the merit ofthetargum at length).

59. See Likutei Moharan part 1 19; Sihot Haran 109 (Jerusalem, 1978), p. 78;Nathan of Nemirov, Collected Prayers {Likutei Tefilot), part 1, prayer 19 (ed. Bnei Brak;1975), p. 63. Apparently Rav Kook objeeted to this and considered the numerologicalassociation between the Aramaic translation and sleep inappropriate. See Orot Hakodesh,I, 93 (Jerusalem, 1963), p. 108.

60. See Liebes, 'Zohar and Eros', pp. 80-85.61. Zohar I, 88b: bzi s m it'n v.'mrvn N'^ N ntnon 'ND -\n&b nmaa wav. b'S, ' " i m T^'''n'

'n'2 ]"mnN j^'ipn ['The word ofthe Lord came to Abraham in a vision, saying'. What does'vision' mean? (It means) in that revelation, a rung on whieh all images appear].

62. See Koreish, Risala, p. 153.

LIEBES Hebrew and Aramaic as Languages of the Zohar 49

The combination of Aramaic and Hebrew is essential, according to theZohar, for the stability ofthe world, which requires harmony between theopposing elements. Confirmation of this the Zohar finds in the word D"'^ "','stable', in the phrase 'true and stable' in the Moming Prayer, which itconsiders an Aramaic word.*^ Interestingly, the Hebrew word n3:ia,'monument', from the same root which carries a suggestion of Aramaic,is retranslated into Aramaic in the Zohar as I'PTIB.*^ The Zohar^^ discoversanother example of this kind of combination in the Hebrew word for'these', n'^ N, at the end ofthe Aramaic verse interpolated into the Hebrewtext of Jeremiah: 'The gods who did not make heaven and earth shallperish from the earth and from under these heavens'.*^

Aramaic is, as the language of the other side, the most degraded oflanguages and at the same time the most elevated, for in it we address thedeity in a personal and intimate way. In this it is more elevated not onlythan the angels, as we have seen, but also above the sefirot. With the helpof Aramaic it is possible to destroy in one moment the entire kabbalisticedifice, or as the Zohar calls it, 'the locks and seals'. For this reason,according to one view, the kadish prayer was instituted in Aramaic, sinceits purpose is to raise the great name of god" above all blessings.''*

The main objective in dealings with 'the other side' is to avoidarousing its envy, that is to say, the evil eye. Complete disregard for evilis also hubris, and according to the Zohar this was the fault of Job, whowas otherwise free from sin. Precisely because he withdrew from evilcompletely (Job 1.1, 8; 2.3) and had nothing at all to do with the 'theother side', he drew the evil eye upon himself.*' This feature is easilydiscerned in the sin ofthe builders ofthe tower of Babel who wished tomake a name for themselves and conducted all their activities in the holytongue. Not only 'the other side' but also the angels are known for theirenvy of humans, as is well-known from numerous statements in rabbinicsources and the literature ofthe Second Temple period.'' For this reason,

63. See Zohar Hadash 42a.64. See Liebes, 'Sections ofthe Zohar Lexicon', pp. 212-13.65. Zohar I, 9a-h.66. Jer. 10.11: mnn pi NSJ-INC nns ' nnu ^ spnsi N^DB 'i s^ n"?!? ainb pinsn

67. K68. See Zohar II, 129b: 's69. See, Zohar II, 32b-34a, and Liebes, 'Zohar and Eros', pp. 80-85.70. Gen. 11.4: 'Come let us build ourselves a city.. .and make a name for ourselves'.71. Much has been written on this topic. See, e.g., Peter Schafer, Rivalitdt Zwischen

Engeln und Menschen (Berlin and New York, 1975).

50 Aramaic Studies 4.1 (2006)

too, Aramaic, the language they do not employ, is to be preferred. Attimes it is advisable, according to the Zohar, to forgo the mediation oftheangels so that they will not have access to man's words and will not envy

At times it seems that the Zohar was written in Aramaic precisely forthis reason, as appears from the discussion on the nature of kabbalisticinnovation found in the introduction to the work." This discussionrevolves around the verse: 'I put my words in your mouth and shelteredyou under my hand to fix the heavens in place and establish the earth'(Isa. 51.16). The exposition ofthe Kabbalist indeed creates and estab-lishes a world, a new earth and new heavens, and an ability such as this inthe hands of man naturally invites the envy of the angels and must beconcealed, in the words ofthe scripture, 'I sheltered you'. Admittedly theZohar does not explicitly mention Aramaic in this context and the con-cealment it advocates may well also allude to zoharic pseudepigraphy.Nor are those who envy man understood solely as angels, though cer-tainly they include human detractors, from whom the Zohar must besheltered until it has frilfiUed its messianic destiny and created a new earthand a new heaven.

The envy of the angels as the reason for the use of Aramaie in theZohar was also discussed by a contemporary witness, Isaac of Acre, theauthor of the famous letter on the composition of the Zohar mentionedabove. This is what he wrote in his Otsar Hayim, which remains inmanuscript:'''

Said the young Isaac of Acre, I saw what I believe to be a good reason forcalling the Greek empire evil, not wicked, and the Roman empire wicked, asthey say, 'the evil empire of the Greeks', '^ 'the wieked empire of theRomans'.'* This reason is known to the erudite from the kadish, the sublimemystery of whose action is to hasten the rise of our allies and the downfall ofour enemies, which was introduced in the Aramaic ofthe Bible translation.

72. See Zohar I, 9b; Zohar Hadash on the Song of Songs, 69c.73. See Zohar I, 5a, and Liebes, "The Messiah ofthe Zohar', pp. 182-87.74. MS Moscow, Ginzburg 775,94b.-95a. Dr Boaz Huss brought this to my attention.75. For example in the prayer D'O^ n bs [For the Miracles], where 'evil' derived from

the Hebrew root i3tD~\.76. 'Wieked' derived from the corresponding Aramaic root 3'n. I have not been able

to find this precise formulation, but 'Rome the wicked' (in a Hebrew context) occurs inMekilta, bahodesh 9. On the other hand, 'Rome the evil' does occur, see the next note. Itis also possible that Isaac of Acre had before him different readings, as these terms werealways liable to be emended by intemal or extemal censorship.

LIEBES Hebrew and Aramaic as Languages ofthe Zohar 51

that is, Jerusalem Aramaic, not the holy tongue. For God concealed the trans-lation, that is, Aramaic, from the ministering angels, who are man's accusers,and when the kadish is recited in a language [Aramaic] that they do notunderstand, they will not be roused to denounce us. The archangel of Greeeehas already fallen while the archangel of Rome is continually on the ascendantuntil he and his nation shall reign under the heavens for nine months.''Therefore the rabbis were unconcerned about denigrating the Greek empire inHebrew, because they were not anxious or afraid ofthe Greek archangel andhis nation, but now they fear to disparage the Roman Empire in the holytongue which is understood by her archangel and the accusers, and use onlyAramaic, which they do not understand, because they are concemed about thebirds in the sky and the winged messengers who may repeat their words.'*

And I maintain that because Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai clearly recognised thatthe spiritual powers above bitterly envy those engaged in studying the accountofthe creation, which is the science ofthe natural world, and the account ofthe chariot, which is the science ofthe deity," he and his son Rabbi Eleazarand ten others who were with him in the cave*" sat and wrote the whole Zoharin Jerusalem Aramaic, not in the holy tongue but in the language of theAramaic Bible translation, and Jerusalem Aramaic is further removed fromHebrew than Aramaic.

The archangel of Rome mentioned above may be understood not only as acelestial ruler. It is possible that the term, which literally means and couldrefer to any 'ruler', alludes also to the Pope and his cardinals, who mayhave acquired some knowledge of Hebrew to study the scriptures, butcertainly had no knowledge of Aramaic. Perhaps, because of this lack ofknowledge, they might have interpreted the phrase 'Rome the wicked' ina positive sense, as may be indicated by the Hebrew root Tn, not in thesense of 'iniquitous' as in Aramaic. This may be another reason for usingthis ambivalent phrase in reference to them.

Isaac of Acre distinguishes here between the indigenous JerusalemAramaic which is the language of the Zohar and Aramaic proper. The

77. See, b. Yoma 10a: 'The son of David will not come until the evil kingdom ofRome has extended its dominion over the whole world for nine months'.

78. AtlerEccl. 10.20.79. This is Maimonides' definition in The Guide for the Perplexed part I, Introduction,

which equates the two accounts with Aristotelian physics and metaphysics. Isaac of Acreprobably considers the envy ofthe angels to be the reason for the prohibition of studyingthe mysteries of creation and Ezekiel's chariot. See m. Hagiga 2.1.

80. This is a reference to the Idra Raba, Zohar III, 127b, where R. Simeon bar Yohaitaught nine companions, although this took place not in a cave but in a field amongst thetrees. Isaac of Aere probably identifies this incident with R. Simeon's sojoum iri the cavementioned in b. Shab. 33b. These motifs are first associated in Zohar Hadash, pericope A^(Tavo, 59c-60a (a passage which probably derives from the school of Joseph Angelit).

52 Aramaic Studies 4.1 (2006)

designation 'Jerusalem' applied to the Zohar is based on the work'sperception of itself.*' At a later period (in the Book of the RespondingAngel), the claim was reversed and the Zohar was said to have beenwritten specifically in Babylonian Aramaic in order to conceal its secretsfrom the masses in Palestine.*^ We also find the opposite view, namely,that the Aramaic ofthe Zohar was intended to bring these secrets closerto the masses who were not proficient in the holy tongue. This opinionwas current particularly amongst the Sabbateans, who adopted an exotericstance, an ideology which encouraged the revelation of secrets, and eventranslated the Zohar into other languages such as Yiddish.*^ This type ofideology is far removed from that ofthe Zohar. Although the Zohar does,at times, display a certain democratic tendency, this is not intended toencourage ignorance but rather to acknowledge that sometimes a manwho appears at first glance to be an ignoramus is later discovered to be ascholar. In the words ofthe Zohar itself, 'Sometimes a pearl can be foundin a poor man's bag'.*''

81. See Yehuda Liebes, 'The Zohar's Relation to the Land of Israel', in Z. Harvey etal. (eds.), Zion and Zionism amongst the Jews of Spain and the Orient (Jerusalem, 2002),pp. 42-44 (Hebrew).

82. See Gershom Seholem, 'The Maggid of Rabbi Joseph Taitazak', Sefunot 14 {SeferYavan 1), 1968 (1978), pp. 77-78 (Hebrew); Moshe Idel, 'Neglected Works ofthe Authorofthe Kaf Haktoref, Peamim 53 (1993), p. 80 (Hebrew). A good and complete version,drawn to my attention by Dr Boaz Huss, can be found in MS British Museum 776, pp.53b-54a.

83. See Boaz Huss, 'Sabbateanism and the Reception ofthe Zohar', in The SabbateanMovement and its Aftermath: Messianism, Sabbatianism and Frankism {= Rachel Elior[ed.], Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 16, vol. I), pp. 53-71 (Hebrew).

84. See, for instanee, Zohar III, 157b.