Reinterpreting
Mysticism and Messianism
Yehuda Liebes has
revolutionized our understanding of the Zohar and underscored the relationship
between kabbalah and Christianity.
By Alan Unterman
Like Moshe Idel, Yehuda Liebes is both a student and critic of Gershom Scholem, the pioneering
scholar of Jewish mysticism. Among Liebes' most important critiques of Scholem,
is his assertion that the Zohar--the greatest work of medieval
kabbalah--is a composite work, the creation of a group of Spanish kabbalists
that included Moses de Leon (whom Scholem had identified as the sole author of
the Zohar). The following is a review of two of Liebes' books, Studies
in the Zohar and Studies in Jewish Myth and Jewish Messianism, which
represent some of his most important
scholarship. Reprinted with permission from Le'ela (March 1994).
Yehuda Liebes is a representative of the Hebrew University's
new wave of kabbalistic research, best known through the writings of his
colleague Moshe Idel.
These collections of his academic papers in English
translation deal with the mythic dimension of Judaism, the composition of the
Zohar and its messianism, Christian influence on the kabbalists, Sabbatean
messianism, and the Sabbatean roots of [Hasidic leader] Rabbi Nachman of
Bratslav's techniques for rectifying sexual sins (tikkun hakelali).
Unlike his master, Gershom Scholem, Liebes claims that the
mythical elements in kabbalah are already to be found in rabbinic aggadah
[midrashic and talmudic narrative legend]:
"Essentially kabbalah is not a new creation but a
reformulation, in different form, of the same myth that has been the very heart
of the Torah since time immemorial. The mythical element did not erupt in the
kabbalah, rather, that is where it was given systematic formulation and set
within rigid frameworks, which may have in fact restrained and weakened its
personal, spontaneous vitality."
This view is based on a very wide definition of myth:
"A myth is a sacred story about the gods expressing that which the
abstract word?cannot express." In other words, anything not overtly
philosophical can be classed as myth. In fact there are fundamental differences
between aggadah, in which many contradictory "mythic" images co‑exist,
and the more authoritative role of true myth in a religion such as
Christianity, which makes Liebes' identification problematic.
Among the most stimulating aspects of Liebes' work is his
interpretation of the literary setting of the Zohar, the second‑century
CE circle of Shimon ben Yochai, as representing a real messianic kabbalistic
group flourishing in thirteenth‑century Spain around Rabbi Todros Halevi
Abulafia of Castile. This kabbalistic group looked forward to a new messianic
Torah, perhaps following the destruction of the last Crusader stronghold in
Palestine in 1291 ("the death of the kings of Edom"), which would be understood
not discursively but intuitively. Its kabbalistic activity was directed towards
tikkun, the rectification of the human and Divine worlds.
Members of the group composed the various parts of the
Zohar, in line with their different kabbalistic orientations The bulk of the
textual material was under the final redaction of Moses de Leon, a younger
contemporary of Todros Abulafia, who regarded his age as the one in which the
mysteries of the Torah would be revealed.
Liebes is also quite convincing in showing Christian
parallels to the language and images of the Zohar. He argues that some of the
more original Christological elements of the Zohar were censored by Jewish
copyists and are preserved by Christian kabbalists. He even finds something of
Jesus in the literary persona of Shimon ben Yochai in the Zohar.
The question he leaves unanswered, however, is why members
of the Zohar group, who were antagonistic to Christianity, should have been so
ambivalent towards Jesus and have used overtly Christian ideas in formulating
their system. He merely remarks about "the spiritual affinity,"
between Judaism and Christianity, which was indeed "among the causes for
the animosity between them."
He also shows why Zionist thinkers have taken an interest in
Sabbatean messianism [the 17th-century movement led by the false Messiah
Sabbatai Zevi], which they interpreted as a kind of proto‑Zionism. Liebes
claims, however, that they have misunderstood the non‑political and
purely religious character of Sabbatean redemption, which like Christianity,
related essentially to the internal world of mysticism. Crypto‑Sabbateans
even argued that in messianic times Jews would not go to the Holy Land.
In a very detailed article Liebes investigates how Nachman
of Bratslav tried to rectify the defects of Sabbatai Zevi by rescheduling the
latter's failed messianism into a new messianic consciousness. This was
centered round the life of Nachman himself and its highest religious value was
in the personal tie of his followers to him. Nachman's unique personal
authority as tzaddik hador [literally, "the righteous man of the
generation"], owes more to Christianity than to Judaism and his
idea of the Messiah bringing redemption to the world through his suffering has
a Sabbatean, and ultimately Christian, character to it.
Dr. Alan Unterman is Minister of the Yeshurun Synagogue
and part-time Lecturer in Comparative Religion at the University of Manchester
(UK). His major publications include Jews: Their Religious Beliefs and
Practices and Judaism and Art.
