Boaz Huss

THE THEOLOGIES OF KABBALAHRESEARCH

INTRODUCTION

It is commonly accepted today that Gershom Scholem’s study ofKabbalah was shaped within the framework of his national and anar-chic theology (although there remain scholars who dismiss this claim).1

In this article I would like to expand the discussion on the theologicalperspectives of the study of Jewish mysticism beyond the discussion ofScholem’s theological positions and their influence on his studies. Inthe following, I will suggest that the theological nature of the academicstudy of Kabbalah and Hasidism is not exclusively connected toScholem’s theological interest, rather it is imprinted within the basicassumptions of the field, and mainly in the use of ‘‘mysticism’’ as thecentral analytical category in the study of Kabbalah. As I have claimedin the past, the term ‘‘mysticism’’ is embedded in theological discourseand its use as an analytical category entails basic theological assump-tions.2 From this point of view, it is not only Scholem’s research thatbears a theological nature, but that of his successors as well, as long asit is based on categorizing Kabbalah as ‘‘mysticism.’’ It should benoted that a few researchers opposed use of the term mysticism tocategorize the Kabbalah (and it seems that this opposition has in-creased in the past few years).3 Yet, the theological perception thatidentifies Kabbalah as mysticism is still accepted by most researchersand, to a great extent, this notion shapes and dictates academic re-search on the Kabbalah and Hasidism. It should be noted that similartheological perceptions shape academic research in other fields ofreligious studies that use terms such as ‘‘mysticism,’’ ‘‘the sacred,’’and ‘‘religious experience’’ as analytical categories.4

In the following article I will reiterate and elucidate my claim thatthe category ‘‘mysticism’’ is based on theological assumptions; I willclarify the theological assumptions underlying the research of Jewishmysticism and I will present their affinity to theological perceptions ofmodern spiritual currents, mainly New Age movements. Finally, I will

doi:10.1093/mj/kjt024 Advance Access publication December 26, 2013! The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions,

please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com

at New

York U

niversity on January 12, 2014http://m

j.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

claim that nontheological research of the Kabbalah and Hasidism re-quires demystification of these historical phenomena and abandoningthe category Jewish mysticism as the constitutive category of this fieldof research.

MYSTICISM AS A THEOLOGICAL CATEGORY

Before I present my claim that mysticism is a theological category,I would like to explain my use of the term ‘‘theology,’’ which hasrecently become quite popular, particularly in the framework of dis-cussions of political theology. In this article, I will use the term theol-ogy in its original meaning, as indicating discussion and research ofGod, his divine nature, and his activities in the world (as Augustinedefined this—de divinitate rationem sive sermonem).5 Theology, in thissense, is a field of knowledge dealing with God and his attributesand which posits the Divine as a casual factor that explains natural,historical, and social phenomena.

Moshe Idel raised criticism against the overemphasis of the theo-logical aspects of Kabbalah by Scholem and his disciples (at theexpense of its mystical and experiential elements) calling it the ‘‘theo-logization of the Kabbalah.’’6 I would like to stress that my claim is notthat research of the Kabbalah overemphasizes the theological aspectsof the Kabbalah, rather that Kabbalah research itself is based on fun-damental theological assumptions.7 These fundamental theological as-sumptions are entrenched in the use of the term ‘‘mysticism’’ as ananalytical term in Kabbalah research.

I believe that mysticism is a theological term not only because itoriginates (as do many other terms in the modern academic discourse)in Christian theology, but also because its use in characterizing andanalyzing historical, social, and literary phenomena assumes that Godis the key explanatory factor of these phenomena. As I will demon-strate, the term ‘‘mysticism’’ assumes the existence of God, or a tran-scendent being, that people—in certain circumstances—encounter,experience, or unite with. The use of the term ‘‘mysticism’’ as ananalytical category assumes that the contact with God or the metaphys-ical entity (i.e., ‘‘the mystical experience’’) explains the behavior ofhuman beings, the nature of their cultural productions, and theirimpact on historical events. This is the underlying theological assump-tion of the category ‘‘mysticism’’ as it was formulated in the late nine-teenth century and the beginning of the twentieth, and how it is usedtoday as well in the research of religion, including that of Kabbalahand Hasidism. Most definitions of the term mysticism repeat the

4 Boaz Huss

at New

York U

niversity on January 12, 2014http://m

j.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

theological assumption that phenomena labeled ‘‘mystical’’ are theculmination or result of an encounter between human beings andthe Divine (or a nonpersonal, transcendent reality). Scholars of mysti-cism often speak of the difficulty in defining mysticism and note thenumerous definitions that have been given for the term.8 However,reviewing the definitions that have been proposed for the term andhow it is used by scholars, indicates that they define and use the termquite clearly and distinctively. Most of the numerous wordings for themeaning of ‘‘mysticism,’’ from the late nineteenth century through tothe present, repeat its definition as a direct experience of contact withGod or a transcendent reality.9 The differences between the variousdefinitions of mysticism center on the designation of the metaphysicalreality that the mystic encounters, and the nature of the human en-counter with that reality.

Hence, for example, at the beginning of the twentieth century theQuaker theologian, Rufus Jones, defined mysticism as ‘‘a type of reli-gion which puts an emphasis on the immediate awareness of a rela-tionship with God, on direct and intimate consciousness of the DivinePresence.’’10 During this same period, the well-known American psy-chologist and philosopher, William James, wrote that, ‘‘In mystic stateswe both become one with the Absolute and we become aware of ouroneness.’’11 At the end of the twentieth century, the scholar ofChristian mysticism, Bernard McGinn, stated that mysticism is the el-ement that concerns ‘‘the preparation for, the consciousness of, andthe reaction to what can be described as the immediate or directpresence of God.’’12

All these definitions of mysticism, as do many others, assume thatGod, the Divine presence, or the Absolute reality, is a casual factorthat explains the events labeled as ‘‘mystical.’’ This, as mentioned, is atheological assumption and, therefore, use of the term mysticism as ananalytical term in the framework of academic research in itself entailstheological assumptions.

It should be noted that there have been attempts to offer nontheo-logical definitions of mysticism. For example, Freud’s perception ofmysticism as regression to the infant’s early stage of developmentwhere it does not yet distinguish between itself and the outerworld;13 Robert Gimello’s claim that a mystical experience is a psycho-somatic intensification of religious belief,14 or theories that offer neu-robiological explanations for religious and mystical experiences.15

These definitions, which take for granted that all mystical phenomenahave a common denominator,16 but explain this common denomina-tor as something resulting from neurosis, pathology, or hallucination,and not as an encounter with the divine, are in general rejected byscholars of religion, including researchers of Kabbalah.17

Theologies of Kabbalah Research 5

at New

York U

niversity on January 12, 2014http://m

j.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

One can claim that definitions of mysticism are based on a phe-nomenological approach that only describes the mystics’ beliefs withoutcommitting to the reality behind those beliefs; however, the definitionsof researchers of mysticism and Kabbalah are not based on a merephenomenological description of the phenomena, according to emicconcepts used by participants in their writings or reports. Scholars ofmysticism interpret the reports of their research subjects on hearing,seeing, or feeling divine or supernatural beings as ‘‘an experience,’’ andthey describe the object of ‘‘the experience’’ in modern theologicalterms (such as ‘‘the Absolute,’’ Transcendent reality, etc.,) and not inthe terms used by the researched subjects (‘‘Allah,’’ ‘‘Jesus,’’ ‘‘Brahman,’’‘‘Metatron,’’ etc.). Scholars of mysticism accept the reality that standsbehind the description of ‘‘mystical experiences’’ (‘‘God,’’ ‘‘the Absolutereality,’’ etc.), even if they claim that this reality is hidden from ordinaryhuman perception or unattainable through normal modes of conscious-ness.18 In most cases, researchers of mysticism reject as ‘‘reductive’’ theassumption that mystical experiences are caused as the result of anerror, hallucination, or futile imagination, and they assume that under-lying the events they refer to as ‘‘mystical’’ lies an encounter with adivine or metaphysical reality (which some researchers believe is re-vealed in the depths of the human’s soul).

The theological definitions of ‘‘mysticism’’ are accepted in modernacademic research of Kabbalah and Hasidism that adopted the con-cept of ‘‘mysticism’’ as the founding category of the research field. Theadjective ‘‘mystical’’ was first applied to Kabbalah in the second half ofthe seventeenth century, although differing in meaning from that at-tributed to the term in later eras. Characterization of the Kabbalah as‘‘Jewish mysticism’’ first appeared, to the best of my knowledge, in thefirst half of the nineteenth century, in the writings of the GermanChristian theologian, Franz Molitor. Following in his footsteps, scho-lars of Judaism in the second half of the nineteenth century adoptedthe term, which became a main category in Kabbalah and Hasidismresearch from the onset of the twentieth century and up to the pre-sent.19 Gershom Scholem, who adopted the categorization ofHeichalot literature, Kabbalah and Hasidism, as ‘‘Jewish mysticism’’and established the modern academic research of the Kabbalah, de-fined mysticism (in the footsteps of Rufus Jones and Evelyn Underhill)as ‘‘direct contact between the individual and God,’’ or as a merger ofthe self into a higher union.20 According to Scholem, mystical experi-ence, ‘‘the tremendous uprush and soaring of the soul to its highestplane,’’ underlies the various mystical movements, from Heichalot lit-erature to Hasidism. These two movements use different sets of terms,‘‘and yet it is the same experience which both are trying to express indifferent ways.’’21

6 Boaz Huss

at New

York U

niversity on January 12, 2014http://m

j.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

Similar perceptions of mysticism govern the Kabbalah researchdone by Scholem’s pupils and disciples, including scholars who dis-agreed with many of his major theses. As is well known, from theeighties of the last century, several scholars, foremostly Moshe Idel,Yehuda Liebes, and Elliot Wolfson, proposed new perspectives anddirection in the study of Kabbalah that challenged many of the theo-retical and methodological assumptions of Scholem and, to a great ex-tent, they changed the field of Kabbalah studies. However, while thesenew directions and perspectives undermined many of Scholem’stheses concerning the significance of Kabbalah, its historical develop-ments and the methodology of its research, the basic assumption ofthe field, which categorizes Kabbalah and Hasidism as ‘‘mysticism,’’was preserved. The theological definition of mysticism as an experi-ence stimulated by direct contact with a metaphysical reality repeatsitself in the writings of contemporary Kabbalah researchers. Hence,for example, Moshe Idel defines mysticism as ‘‘the search for, andsometimes the attainment of, direct contact with God;’’22 ElliotWolfson characterizes mysticism as ‘‘the immediate experience ofthe divine Presence;’’23 and Haviva Pedaya speaks of ‘‘a deep experi-ence of unmediated contact with absolute reality.’’24

In the new research there is a considerable tendency to amplifythe centrality of the mystical and ecstatic element in Kabbalah. One ofthe main criticisms of Scholem—from Idel and other researchers—wasthat he did not put enough of an emphasis on the mystical and expe-riential element of the Kabbalah. As Moshe Idel said in an interviewfollowing the publication of his book Kabbalah: New Perspectives:

I wanted to emphasize the elements that turn this literature intomysticism. Not to describe when someone lived, when someonedied and if he wrote X number of books or Y number of books.These things are important, without a doubt, and they were donequite well up to now, but this does not touch on Kabbalic literatureas mystical literature, rather as historical literature. This makeover isdone to this literature as if it were medieval belles-lettres or poetry.I wanted to deal with the characteristic of this literature as mysticalliterature.25

While Scholem first and foremost perceived Kabbalah as theosophy,Idel stressed the significance of the ecstatic-mystical trend and de-scribed it as one of the two main trends of Kabbalah.26 Other scholarsplaced an even stronger emphasis than Idel on the centrality of themystical experience in Kabbalah, and claimed that ecstatic and mysti-cal experiences are also in the background of Kabbalistic trends thatIdel described as theosophical-theurgic, including the Kabbalisticschool of Gerona and Sefer ha-Zohar.27

Theologies of Kabbalah Research 7

at New

York U

niversity on January 12, 2014http://m

j.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

In contemporary Kabbalah research there is more interest in uni-versal aspects of Jewish mysticism and in comparative research, whichaspires to reveal universal traits of the mystical experience. GershomScholem, who was mainly interested in the particularistic aspects andthe historical expressions of the phenomena he identified as ‘‘Jewishmysticism,’’ claimed that the mystical experience is always formed ina particular religious context and that ‘‘there is no mysticism assuch.’’28 This approach (known as the ‘‘contextual approach’’), wasfurther developed by Steven T. Katz, who asserted that not only theliterary description of the mystical experience, but also the experi-ence itself is always formed in concrete, cultural contexts.29 Despitethe fact that numerous Kabbalah scholars have asserted that theyaccept the approach of Scholem and Katz,30 they also declare thatthe mystical experience shares common universal elements that canbe revealed through comparative study of mystical experiences(Scholem already claimed that it would be absurd to deny that mys-tical experiences have a common characteristic which is revealedthrough comparative analysis).31 In the past few years, some scholarshave limited or even rejected Katz’s contextual position, and haveadopted an approach that is closer to the perennial approach thatclaims that the core of the mystical experience is universal and notculture-dependent. Moshe Idel stated that ‘‘emphasizing the pre-experiential elements as molding the experience itself is basicallyan implicit attempt to demystify it.’’ The culture-dependent elements,according to Idel, have an impact ‘‘on the manner of expressionrather than on the mode of the experience itself.’’32 Elliot Wolfsonclaimed that contextualism, ‘‘does not however, logically preclude thepossibility of underlying patterns of experience or deep structuresthat may be illuminated through a comparative study of various mys-tical traditions.’’33 Rachel Elior emphasized that mystical phenomenashould be interpreted within the cultural context in which they havebeen created. Yet, she also recognized: ‘‘the conceptual closeness—orthe phenomenological resemblance in a few of the essential charac-teristics—of the mystical phenomenon in different religions and cul-tures.’’ 34

The assumption that phenomenological and comparative researchcan reveal the common universal traits of the mystical experiencewhich, according to scholars, underlie Kabbalah and Hasidism, en-hances the theological propensity of the research field. As I willshow later on, according to this approach the academic study ofJewish Mysticism is perceived as a practice that can reveal and leadtoward an encounter with the transcendental reality underlying uni-versal mystical phenomena.

8 Boaz Huss

at New

York U

niversity on January 12, 2014http://m

j.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

THE THEOLOGIES OF THE STUDY OF JEWISH MYSTICISM

While some scholars of Kabbalah and Hasidism in the United Statesaffirm their theological perspectives, and some have published theolog-ical works alongside their research activity,35 in Israel, researchers of‘‘Jewish Mysticism’’ for the most part refrain from stating and clarifyingtheir ideological and theological stance.36 Nonetheless, reviewing theirstudies, and especially their notions concerning the essence and signifi-cance of mysticism, reveals their underlying theological perspectives.Kabbalah scholars indeed express different and varied positions regard-ing the nature of mystical experiences, the reality encountered in suchexperiences, the influence of these experiences on the literary productsand the historical expressions of Kabbalah, as well as concerning thespiritual and religious aims of their research. However, one can discernseveral common elements that characterize their theological perceptions.

As we saw above, based on the prevalent definitions of mysticismadopted by Kabbalah scholars, mysticism is perceived as an experienceof unmediated connection between human beings and a transcendentreality. The transcendent reality in the mystical experiences is describedin different ways by theologians and scholars of religion. While manyidentify the object of the experience as God, or the Divine (as in thedefinitions of Rufus Jones and Bernard McGinn mentioned above),other researchers and theologians prefer to use nontheistic terms; forexample, William James described the object of the mystic state as the‘‘Absolute.’’37 Describing the object of the mystical experience in seem-ingly neutral terms from a religious perspective is common amongscholars from the second half of the twentieth century. Thus, LouisDupree spoke of knowledge of the ‘‘ultimate selfhood’’ and the ‘‘tran-scendent source of the self,’’38 and Robert Forman described the objectof the mystical experience as ‘‘pure consciousness.’’39 According toWalter Principe’s definition, mysticism is ‘‘a rare but universal and lib-erating experience of a special relationship with the Deity, whether thisremains unnamed or named as God, the Absolute, the Ultimate Reality,the Ground of Being, the Transcendent or the One . . .’’40

Similar assumptions are evident among scholars of Kabbalah. As wehave seen, Gershom Scholem, followed by Moshe Idel and ElliotWolfson, identified the object of the mystical experience as God orthe Divine, a perception that is repeated by other Kabbalah researchersas well.41 Other researchers prefer to use nontheistic terms to definethe reality encountered through the mystical experience. Rachel Eliorclaims that mysticism deals with ‘‘another reality that exists beyond theperceptible world,’’42 and Haviva Pedaya speaks of a ‘‘reality beyond theexisting reality’’ and ‘‘the ultimate reality,’’43 a concept that is foundalso in Hava Tirosh-Samuelson’s definition of mysticism: ‘‘a religious

Theologies of Kabbalah Research 9

at New

York U

niversity on January 12, 2014http://m

j.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

experience that involves a paranormal state of consciousness in whichthe human subject encounters or unites with ultimate reality.’’44 SomeKabbalah scholars (similar to researchers of mysticism in other cultures)identify the divine or metaphysical reality experienced by the mystic asan element found within one’s self. Scholem characterized the essenceof the mystical experience as ‘‘an encounter with the absolute Being inthe depths of one’s own soul,’’ 45 and Arthur Green defined mysticismas a religious outlook that seeks out an inner experience of the divineand to that end cultivates a life of inwardness.46 Rachel Elior spokeabout Mystics delving deep into the psyche to reach ‘‘a reality notgrasped by means of ordinary human cognition.’’47

This teaches us that many scholars of Kabbalah are committed tomodern theological perceptions, acknowledging the existence of ametaphysical, transcendent reality, often called ‘‘god’’ or ‘‘divinity,’’but which is not perceived as a personal god but rather as a metaphys-ical, immanent principle. These theological perceptions often sanctifythe Self and locate the divine principle or the ‘‘ultimate reality’’ in thedepths of the soul and the inner consciousness. These definitions ofthe object of the mystical experience differ considerably from the re-ports given by the Hasidim and the Kabbalists themselves. Conceptssuch as ‘‘the ultimate reality’’ do not appear in their writings and thedivine entities they see or hear, or with whom they unite or attachthemselves, are often described as angelic beings, philosophical prin-cipals, or aspects of the theosophical system of the Sephirot.

The accepted modern definitions of mysticism characterize in var-ious forms the relationship with god or the metaphysical reality, whichsupposedly takes place during a mystical experience. Some definitionsemphasize the mystical experience of unification (e.g., the definition ofWilliam James), while others (e.g., Rufus Jones and Bernard McGinn)speak about awareness of the divine or transcendent presence. WalterPrincipe defined the mystical experience as a kind of experientialknowledge, differing from other sorts of knowledge and inexpressible:‘‘Mystical experience is an intuitional or experiential knowledge,beyond sense knowledge, beyond reasoning, beyond poetic or artisticintuition. An experiential or intuitional knowledge that is passive, tran-sitory, far less permanent than sense knowledge or reasoning.’’ 48

Similar perceptions are repeated in the definitions of Kabbalahscholars. Gershom Scholem (who denied the existence of mysticalunity in Judaism) spoke of ‘‘direct contact’’ between man and God,of merger of the self into a higher union,49 and of ‘‘acute awareness ofultimate reality in a human being.’’50 Moshe Idel (who criticizedScholem’s claim that the idea of mystical unity cannot be found inJudaism), spoke of ‘‘the sense of union with God’’ and ‘‘unitive rela-tions with supermundane beings.’’51 Many scholars of Kabbalah use

10 Boaz Huss

at New

York U

niversity on January 12, 2014http://m

j.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

the vague term, ‘‘contact,’’ to indicate the nature of the relation be-tween the mystic and the transcendent reality,52 a term which, accord-ing to Idel, is preferred over others because it covers a broad range ofmeanings, from vague feelings of a special presence to experiencesthat can be understood as mystical union.53

Defining the relationship between the mystic and the transcenden-tal reality as one of union, awareness or contact is also derived fromthe modern theological perception of scholars of mysticism andKabbalah who identify the reality experienced by the mystic as anabstract metaphysical and nonpersonal reality with which one isunable to establish contact via regular senses, only through internalsensation and consciousness. It should be noted that this perception isvery different from the theological perspectives of the ‘‘mystics’’ them-selves, who often perceive the beings with whom they are in contact asconcrete and personal beings and describe the relationship with themthrough the regular senses, mainly sight and hearing.54

According to the theology of Kabbalah researchers, the divine, orthe transcendent reality which the mystic encounters, is not perceivedas an active agent that becomes involved in history. It is the mystic whois the active agent, searching and striving for contact with the divine/metaphysical/self through broadening, empowering, or altering the reg-ular modes of his consciousness. This perception also stands in line withthe modern theological and spiritual perceptions that reject personaltheistic perceptions, and ascribe the subjectivity and agency to humanbeings and not to the divine being or the transcendental reality. Thisperception is also very different from the theological perceptions ofKabbalists and Hasidim, that perceive God, or the divine powers re-vealed to them, as having agency and taking the initiative.

Although scholars of Kabbalah (similar to researchers of mysticismin general), do not perceive the Divine/Transcendent reality as a per-sonal and active God intervening in history, they do regard it as cre-ative energy whose revelation through mystical experience initiated bythe mystic has an effect on the mystic and his cultural productions,and through these on society and history.

Gershom Scholem, following William James, Rufus Jones, andother modern theologians,55 saw in mysticism the creative and vi-tal power of religion, undermining the religious establishment andthe institutionalized ritual, and preserving religion through renewingthe direct contact with the divine, against degeneration and petrifac-tion. Following Leo Baeck,56 Scholem identified mysticism as the ro-mantic stage of religion, as opposed to the classical, institutional stage:

. . .we may call it the romantic stage of religion, in contradistinctionto its classical state, which saw the formation of the great religious

Theologies of Kabbalah Research 11

at New

York U

niversity on January 12, 2014http://m

j.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

systems and their crystallization in social forms. When these tendto become stale and worn out, mysticism sets in, borne by indi-viduals who try to reestablish the immediate contact with theprimary source on which institutional religion has based itsauthority.57

The Kabbalah, as ‘‘Jewish mysticism,’’ was perceived by Scholem asa vital power that preserved Judaism from the degeneration andpetrifaction of halachic Judaism. Scholem gave mysticism, that is tosay, the contact and strive for direct contact with the divine, a dis-tinct national meaning, and viewed Jewish mysticism as a na-tional power that enabled the existence of Judaism as anational entity in the Diaspora. In an interview with Muki Tzur,Scholem said:

I wanted to enter the world of Kabbalah through my thinking of andbelieving in Zionism as something alive and as a renewal of a nationthat had deteriorated greatly . . . the question in which I was inter-ested: whether or not halachic Judaism had enough strength to self-perpetuate and to exist. Is halachah possible without a mystical ele-ment? Whether or not it has enough vitality of its own to endurewithout decaying over two thousand years 58

Scholem holds an anarchic and national theology. The mystical basisof Judaism—in other words, the direct encounter with the divine or theAbsolute—is an antinomic power that preserved Judaism from deteri-oration and enabled its national survival in the Diaspora. Hence, thedivine, or the Absolute, serves as a central explanatory factor in thetheological and Zionist historiography of Scholem.

Contemporary scholars of Kabbalah take less interest in the influ-ence of mysticism on Jewish history and disagree with many ofScholem’s historiographic assumptions. Nonetheless, there are recur-ring explicit theological claims in the writings of current researchers ofJewish mysticism that explain and interpret historical events and cul-tural products as the result of the mystical encounter with the divine.Thus, for example, Elliot Wolfson claimed, that the Zoharic texts,‘‘reflect a state wherein the mystic experienced the divine pleromaand reintegrated his soul with its ontic source.’’59 Correspondingly,Melila Hellner claimed that, ‘‘[mystical] states of consciousness andthe encounters they engender with the world of divinity, lie atthe heart of the Zohar’’ and ‘‘bestow upon the composition its rich-ness and uniqness.’’60 According to Rachel Elior, mysticism, thattranscends the limits of time and space and relates to a reality thatis not grasped by usual modes of consciousness, ‘‘is one of thephenomena that generate meaningful cultural changes in the courseof history.’’ 61

12 Boaz Huss

at New

York U

niversity on January 12, 2014http://m

j.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

ACADEMIC RESEARCH AS A SPIRITUAL PATH

The prevalent theological assumption accepted in the scholarship ofJewish mysticism, according to which Kabbalistic theories and literaryproductions were created following their unmediated encounter withthe divine or metaphysical reality, blurs the distinction between aca-demic research and religious and spiritual practice, and sees identityor continuity between academic research and mystical and spiritualrenewal. Some Kabbalah scholars, who assume that academic scholar-ship can reveal (through comparative and phenomenological research)the underlying patterns and deep structures of the mystical experi-ence, view historical and phenomenological research as a means ofclarifying, revealing, and coming closer to the transcendent realityunderlying mystical phenomena.

Gershom Scholem expressed his wish to reach the mysticaltruth beyond the historical expression of the Kabbalah and claimedthat this goal stimulated his studies. The way to reach this truth,Scholem claimed, is through the philological-historical study ofthe Kabbalah. Thus, in a letter to Zalman Shocken entitled, ‘‘acandid word about the true motives of my Kabbalistic studies,’’ hewrote:

For today’s man, that mystical totality of ‘‘truth,’’ whose existencedisappears particular when it is projected into historical time, canonly become visible in the purest way in the legitimate discipline ofcommentary and in the singular mirror of philological criticism.Today, as at the very beginning, my work lives in this paradox, inthe hope of a true communication from the mountain, of that mostinvisible, smallest fluctuation of history which causes truth to breakforth from the illusions of ‘‘development.’’62

As Moshe Idel wrote, this teaches us that:

Scholem began his scholarly activity by attempting to disclose themetaphysical substratum of Kabbalistic thought. Although he neverexplicitly acknowledged it, he assumed that, on a deeper level,Kabbalah expresses a metaphysical reality that can be grasped by aproper hermeneutics, using historical, philological and philosophicaltools. By decoding the symbols and discerning the lines of historicaldevelopment of key concepts, together with minute biobibliographi-cal work, he attempted to approach the ‘‘the mountain,’’ namely, thecore of that reality. He waited, as he himself confessed, to receive ahint coming from that core.63

Contemporary scholars of Kabbalah and Hasidism also assert theirinterest in reaching the mystical element underlying the Kabbalistictexts. However, while Scholem claimed that, paradoxically, the way toreach the ‘‘mystical totality’’ is through the philological-historical study

Theologies of Kabbalah Research 13

at New

York U

niversity on January 12, 2014http://m

j.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

of the Kabbalah, contemporary Kabbalah scholars view the study of thecontents of Kabbalistic writings, not their philological-historical analysis,as a path to spiritual and religious renewal. From this perspective, someof today’s Kabbalah researchers do not regard themselves as merelyphilologists, historians, or sociologists of the Kabbalah, but rather asspiritual guides, interpreters, and mediators of the Kabbalah’s spiritualand mystical content for contemporary audiences.

This approach is particularly prominent in the writings ofKabbalah scholars in the United States, some of whom engage inteaching theology and training rabbis in Rabbinic institutes of variousJewish denominations. For example, Arthur Green (formerly presidentof the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College and present rector of theRabbinical School at Hebrew College), concluded the preface to thefirst volume on Jewish spiritualism that he edited with the disclaimerthat presenting Jewish Spirituality in a historical form is not intendedto serve as a barrier between the mystical materials and the contem-porary reader (who he refers to as ‘‘a would-be practitioner’’), who canuse these materials as part of the spiritual repertoire of contemporaryJewry.64 A similar position is apparent in the Israeli scholar RonMargolin’s preface to his book, The Human Temple, in which he pro-claims that he is not interested in the historical and sociological as-pects of Hasidism, rather in their spiritual potential:

In my opinion, perceiving god as a vitality, understanding the divinepowers as powers acting within the human soul, exchanging the su-perficial Providence for the recognition that the place where manthinks is where he is, emphasizing the importance of the individualtikkun (rectification) . . . all of these and another series of Hassidicprinciples can be vital to one who seeks in Judaism a source forstructuring a significant spiritual life in the modern world.65

Melila Hellner-Eshed also affirms in her book, A River Flows fromEden, that she is not interested only to engage in the interpretation ofthe Zohar, but rather to mediate and translate into contemporary lan-guage ‘‘that which the Zohar conveys in his own words much betterthan I ever could.’’66 Hellner-Eshed, who claims that the Zohar invitesthe reader to join a way of life that enables the mystical-religious expe-rience it describes,67 does not view the Kabbalistic texts merely as ob-jects of research, rather as the relevant texts for enhancing humanconsciousness as well as contemporary cultural and religious creativity:

I have a deep, personal interest in mystical experience and thehidden potential of human consciousness. The extraordinary en-deavor of mystics across the generations to seek out an enhancedhuman consciousness—experientially, sensorially, and emotionally—has long inspired me . . . . The Zohar is a spiritually inspired workof the highest order, and to mind the world it describes in neither

14 Boaz Huss

at New

York U

niversity on January 12, 2014http://m

j.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

closed nor lost nor confined to the Middle Ages. I experience itsinsights as a living invitation to a special religious consciousness, aswell as to exegetical, cultural, and religious creativity.68

Alan Brill, a scholar of Kabbalah and Hasidism from the UnitedStates, praises Hellner-Eshed’s approach which, in his words, ‘‘boldlyclaims that an academic attempt to understand the text should coin-cide properly with the attempt to induce a mystical experience.’’69

Other scholars also see a correspondence and continuity between ac-ademic research and religious, mystical and spiritual practices. TsippiKauffman expressed hope that her book on Hasidism, In All Your WaysKnow Him, ‘‘will lead its readers to scholarly and perhaps also existen-tial and religious insights.’’70 Haviva Pedaya, in an interview for thenewspaper Ha’aretz, claimed that spiritual liberation, consultation andtherapy are a natural continuation of the academic research:

My magic word is duplication. There is methodological study of theKabbalah based on context and history and, on the other hand, thereis the question of how the Kabbalah is read as texts that are intendedto instruct man on how to become liberated on a spiritual level.There is no contradiction between the two. Pupils come to mewith questions and ask for advice and therapy, and this is a naturalsequence. Sometimes I think the distance between learning and heal-ing is not so great.71

The identification of academic research of the Kabbalah as reli-gious guidance is expressed in the words of scholar and Rabbi, Or N.Rose: ‘‘Thankfully, there is a small but growing cadre of American andIsraeli religious teachers and scholars, such as Daniel Matt, ArthurGreen, Melilah Hellner-Eshed, Haviva Pedaya and Elliot Wolfson,who are engaging in thoughtful explorations of the classical teachingsof Kabbalah, asking what of this ancient tradition remains compellingto seekers today and what is better left aside.’’72

RESEARCH OF THE KABBALAH AND THE NEW AGE

As we saw in the above, the theology of Kabbalah scholars is amodern, ecumenical, and liberal theology that rejects theistic and per-sonalistic perceptions of the divine. Kabbalah scholars see the Divineor the Absolute as a metaphysical immanent reality, which is oftenperceived as found within the self, and can be experienced throughaltered states of consciousness. In their opinion, mystical experiencesin which humans encounter the Divine, or the Absolute reality, arepotentially accessible to all human beings and appear in various formsin every human culture. In their opinion, such experiences and theaspiration to obtain them stand behind, and explain, various historical,

Theologies of Kabbalah Research 15

at New

York U

niversity on January 12, 2014http://m

j.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

social, and literary phenomena. Academic research of Jewish mysti-cism, and mainly its phenomenological and comparative research, isperceived as a means to become acquainted with and understand theunderlying patterns and deep structures of the mystical experiencesthat Kabbalists experienced and the means they employed to reachthem. As we have seen, some Kabbalah scholars are interested in fol-lowing these insights in their personal lives and use them to guidetheir students; they view the research of Kabbalah and Hasidism as away to achieve religious and spiritual experiences and advance con-temporary Jewish spiritual revival.

The theological positions of Kabbalah scholars are, to a largeextent, identical to the theological perspectives of the phenomenolog-ical and comparative study of religions that perceive religion as anautonomous, sui generis phenomenon, which reflects the ‘‘religiousreality.’’73 As Timothy Fitzgerald asserted, ‘‘phenomenology of religionis also a contemporary style of ecumenical theologizing, which takes asits tenet of faith that there are many religions in the world that are allequally (more or less) responses to the one transcendent God.’’74

The liberal ecumenical theology of the phenomenological andcomparative study of religion, accepted in Kabbalah research as well,is based on the perennial philosophy espoused by many metaphysical,spiritual and esoteric movements at the end of the nineteenth and thefirst half of the twentieth century.75 Aldous Huxley, who adopted thisperennial philosophy (and believed that it is in the foundation of allreligions and cultures), defined it as:

. . . the metaphysic that recognizes a divine Reality substantial to theworld of things and lives and minds; the psychology that finds in thesoul something similar to, or even identical to, divine Reality;the ethic that places man’s final end in the knowledge of the imma-nent and transcendent Ground of all being.76

The ecumenical theology and perennial philosophy underlyingWestern esoteric movements and the academic study of religionsbecame prevalent in the New Age movements that emerged in thesecond half of the twentieth century. From this perspective, contem-porary Kabbalah scholarship stands in close affinity with the New Agemovements and contemporary spirituality.

The concept of the divine or Absolute reality underlying defini-tions of mysticism of Kabbalah scholars is in tandem with New Ageideas, which, as Wouter Hanegraaff showed, rarely perceive the divineas a personal god.77 The perception of God, or the transcendent re-ality as an absolute source of being, as a unity and totality underlyingfragmented reality, and as a creative energy that the mystic encountersvia techniques for altering consciousness, prevalent among Kabbalah

16 Boaz Huss

at New

York U

niversity on January 12, 2014http://m

j.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

scholars, is also typical of the New Age.78 Positioning of the divinity orthe metaphysical tenet underlying reality in the depths of the soul isalso characteristic of the sanctification of the self and the psychologi-zation of religion of the New Age,79 which was characterized by soci-ologist Paul Heelas as ‘‘self spirituality.’’80 The interest in thesubjective experience of God and not in the nature of the godheaditself, typical of Kabbalah scholarship today, as well as the interest inmystical experiences and altered states of consciousness, is also a typ-ical feature of the New Age.81

Beyond the ideological framework and the basic theologicalassumptions shared by Kabbalah scholars and the New Age, thereare also interesting ties between the academic research of Jewish mys-ticism and contemporary spiritual movements. Writings of academicscholars of Kabbalah and Hasidism are a central source of informationon the Kabbalah among New Age movements and contemporaryKabblistic movements and, to a large extent, scholars’ perceptions ofthe Kabbalah influenced contemporary Kabbalistic theories and prac-tices.82 Academic scholars of Kabbalah and Hasidism, mainly in theUnited States, take a leading role in the Jewish Renewal movement, adistinctive Jewish New Age movement.83 The theological writings ofthese scholars discuss explicitly the theological assumptions that shapeand lead their research. The theological interests of contemporaryKabbalah scholars and their self-perception as spiritual guides createtension and competition between them and other contemporary neo-Kabbalist and neo-Hasidic groups. This, to a great extent, explains thehostility that academic Kabbalah researchers show toward these groupsand why, until recently, Kabbalah scholarship avoided the study ofcontemporary Kabbalah and Hasidism. 84

SUMMARY

In this article I claimed that the use of ‘‘mysticism’’ as the definingcategory of the academic study of Kabbalah and Hasidism involves atheological assumption according to which an encounter with God orthe Absolute reality underlies and explains the ideas and practices ofthe Kabbalists and Hasidim, their literary output and their historicaland social influence. In the above I examined the theological percep-tions of the academic study of Jewish mysticism. I indicated the ecu-menical and perennial nature of these theologies that view the divineor the ‘‘Absolute’’ as an immanent reality and maintain that the way toexperience this metaphysical reality through altered states of con-sciousness is, in principle, open to all people and underlies all

Theologies of Kabbalah Research 17

at New

York U

niversity on January 12, 2014http://m

j.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

religions. These theologies, whose roots lie in esoteric and neoroman-tic philosophies of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,are central also to the New Age movements and other contemporaryspiritual groups, including Jewish Renewal. Furthermore, I showedthat some scholars of Jewish mysticism view academic research as ameans of revealing the mystical truth discovered in the Kabbalist andHasidic texts, and strive to interpret and mediate the spiritual andmystical contents of the Kabbalah to the contemporary audience,and contribute to a religious and spiritual Jewish revival.

The theological perception categorizing Kabbalah and Hasidism as‘‘mysticism’’ separates the phenomena identified as ‘‘Jewish mysticism’’from history and presents an essentialist theological notion of mysticismas a meta-physical meta-historical force. The assumption, according towhich ‘‘mystical’’ cultural practices are the result of experiences of anencounter between humans and transcendent reality, sets phenomenacategorized as ‘‘mystical’’ apart from ‘‘regular’’ cultural practices andproducts, and regards them as belonging to a different sphere, which isinherently detached from political and social reality. Hence, for example,Haviva Pedaya recently claimed: ‘‘Religion and mysticism . . . are a way oflife and an unceasing source of inspiration. We must examine the pro-cesses of degeneration and disruption of these phenomena upon theirentering the socio-political sphere.’’85 The employment of comparativeand phenomenological methodologies borrowed from the religious stud-ies in researching Jewish mysticism, which assumes that mystical and re-ligious experiences are sui generis phenomena which cannot be reducedto social, economic, and political factors, the aspiration to reveal throughcomparative research the imminent element common to mystical expe-riences in various cultures, and binding contemporary research of Jewishmysticism for spiritual renewal, together reinforce a specific a-historicaltendency in the academic research of Kabbalah and Hasidism.86 As RonMargolin diagnosed, in connection to Moshe Idel’s phenomenologicalapproach: ‘‘Idel’s phenomenological approach emphasizes inquiry intodifferent manifestations of phenomena such as theurgy, Unio Mystica ormagic, within the entire Kabbalistic-Jewish body of works, on all its pe-riods. In his research, the historical-diachronic aspect is used as a second-ary aid, and the focus is on the actual spiritual phenomenon.’’87

Theology, queen of the Middle Age sciences, was pushed aside inmodern academia and in modern theological claims, and the claimthat God is a causal factor that explains physical, biological, historical,or social phenomena, is not accepted in academic disciplines today.88

However, as we saw in the above, theological assumptions are stillaccepted in the study of Jewish mysticism, as well as in other fieldsof religious study that use terms such as ‘‘religion,’’ ‘‘mysticism,’’‘‘sanctity,’’ and so on, as analytical terms and assume that phenomena

18 Boaz Huss

at New

York U

niversity on January 12, 2014http://m

j.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

labeled as ‘‘mystical’’ and ‘‘religious,’’ including Kabbalah andHasidism, are the outcome of a direct encounter with a divine ortranscendent reality. Nontheological study of the Kabbalah andHasidism that interprets and explains these as part of the historical,social and political fabric, and not as an expression of a metaphysicalphenomenon that defines a category of its own, requires demystifica-tion of the Kabbalah and Hasidism and relinquishment of the category‘‘Jewish mysticism’’ as the founding category of this field of study.

BEN-GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV

NOTES

This article is based on a Hebrew study, which was published in:Daniel J. Lasker (ed.), Jewish Thought and Jewish Belief (Be’er Sheva,2012). The Hebrew article was translated by Elana Lutsky. I would liketo thank Shaul Magid, Guy Meiron, Haggai Pely, Dalit Simchai, andAssaf Tamari, who read the first version of the article and offered sig-nificant comments that greatly helped me to articulate my arguments.

1. See, for example, David Biale, Gershom Scholem: Kabbalah andCounter-History (Cambridge, MA, 1970), pp. 112–46; Baruch Kortzville,Struggling Over Values of Judaism (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1970),pp. 99–134; Gershon Weiler, ‘‘On the Theology of Gershom Scholem,’’Keshet, Vol. 71 (1976), pp. 121–28 [Hebrew]; David Myers, Re-Inventing theJewish Past: European Intellectuals and the Zionist Return to History (NewYork, 1995), pp. 151–76; Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin, ‘‘The NationalPortrayal of the Exile, Zionist Historiography, and Medieval Jewry’’(PhD Thesis, Tel Aviv, 1996), pp. 128–44 [Hebrew]; Moshe Idel, ‘‘Onthe Theologization of Kabbalah in Modern Scholarship,’’ in ReligiousApologetics – Philosophical Argumentation, (ed.) Yossef Schwartz andVolkhard Krech (Tubingen, 2004), pp. 148–60; Eric Jacobson,Metaphysics of the Profane, The Political Theology of Walter Benjamin andGershom Scholem (New York, 2003).

On the other hand, there still are researchers who present Scholem asan objective scholar whose research is isolated from his theological andnationalist agenda. See Joseph Dan, On Gershom Scholem: Twelve Studies(Jerusalem, 2010), p. 159 [Hebrew]; Mor Altschuler, ‘‘Against All Odds:On the Debate between Ben-Zion Dinur and Gershom Scholem on thequestion of Messianism in the Beginning of Hasidism in Joseph Dan,’’ inGershom Scholem (1897-1982) in memoriam, (ed.) Joseph Dan, Vol. 1(Jerusalem, 2007), pp. 5–6 [Hebrew]. See also Daniel Abrams, ‘‘DefiningModern Academic Scholarship: Gershom Scholem and the Establishmentof a New (?) Discipline,’’ The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy, Vol.9 (2000), pp. 269, 273–75, 278.

Theologies of Kabbalah Research 19

at New

York U

niversity on January 12, 2014http://m

j.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

2. See Boaz Huss, ‘‘The Mystification of the Kabbalah and theModern Construction of Jewish Mysticism,’’ BGU Review (Be‘er Sheva,2008); Idem, ‘‘Jewish Mysticism in the University: Academic Study orTheological Practice?’’ Zeek (December 2007); and Idem, ‘‘Paying Extra’’:A Response to Shaul Magid,’’ Zeek (March 2008).

3. Itamar Gruenwald preferred the term spirituality over the termMysticism (however he gave both a similar theological meaning).See Itamar Gruenwald, ‘‘Reflections on the Nature and Origins ofJewish Mysticism,’’ in, Gershom Scholem’s Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism,50 Years After, (ed.) Peter Schafer and Joseph Dan (Tubingen, 1993), pp.28–29. A critique on categorization of the Kabbalah as Jewish mysticismwas also expressed by Joseph Dan, The Heart and the Fountain (Oxford,2002), pp. 7–9. Despite his criticism, the category ‘‘Jewish mysticism’’ andthe assumption of the existence of a significant common denominator forphenomena labeled as such are central to his studies. Ron Margolin, alsodisagreed with the use of the term mysticism and instead proposed usingthe term ‘‘internal religious life.’’ See Ron Margolin, The Human Temple:Religious Interiorization and the Structuring of Inner Life in Early Hasidism(Jerusalem, 2005), pp. 52–53 [Hebrew]. Yehuda Liebes also claimed thatthe choice of ‘‘mysticism’’ to describe the Kabbalah is not appropriate. SeeYehuda Liebes, Makor Rishon, October 20, 2006, p. 6 [Hebrew]; Idem,‘‘Contemplations of the Religious Significance of the Study ofKabbalah,’’ in The Path of the Spirit, Eliezer Schweid’s Jubilee Volume, (ed.)Yehoyada Amir (Jerusalem, 2005), pp. 203–4 [Hebrew]. Instead, Liebesproposes using the term ‘myth’ as best suited for understanding Jewishesotericism. Recently, Peter Schafer raised reservations regarding use ofthe term mysticism and expressed his willingness to accept the claim thatthe category mysticism has no true use or meaning in the framework ofthe history of Jewish religion. See Peter Schafer, The Origins of JewishMysticism (Tubingen, 2009), pp. 1–4, 24, 353–55. See also AmosGoldreich’s reservations regarding use of the term: Amos Goldreich,Automatic Writing in Zoharic Literature and Modernism (Los Angeles,2010), pp 20, 34, note 36 [Hebrew]. It should be noted that these scholarshave reservations regarding the non-Jewish source of the term ‘‘mysti-cism,’’ its unsuitability to the Kabbalah, or its vagueness, but not the theo-logical assumptions involved in its use. For a detailed critique opposinguse of the term ‘‘mysticism’’ as an analytical category see: B. Huss, ‘‘TheMystification of the Kabbalah.’’

4. Many scholars discussed in the last decades the theological percep-tions of religious studies, see, for example, Russell T. McCutcheon, TheDiscipline of Religion, Structure, Meaning, Rhetoric (London & New York,2003); Idem, Manufacturing Religion (New York, 1997); DanielDubuisson, The Western Construction of Religion (Baltimore, 2003); WilliBraun, ‘‘Religion,’’ in Guide to the Study of Religion, (ed.) Willi Braun andRussell T. McCutcheon (London, 2000), pp. 3–21; and William E. Arnal,Definition, ibid, pp. 21–35.

20 Boaz Huss

at New

York U

niversity on January 12, 2014http://m

j.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

5. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, Vol. VIII, No. I, the term appears in thismeaning, in Greek, in Plato’s Republic 379a, and in additional sources.See Henry Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, in the entry:y"o!og0".

6. See M. Idel, ‘‘On the Theologization,’’ pp. 123–74. Also seeLiebes’s critique opposing the emphasis of theoretical aspects of theKabbalah: Y. Liebes, ‘‘New Directions in the Study of Kabbalah,’’Pe’amim, Vol. 50 (1992), pp. 151–57 [Hebrew].

7. M. Idel, ‘‘On the Theologization,’’ p. 162, emphasizes that he doesnot claim that the scholars he critiques are theologians or ‘‘that they ac-tually believed in the theologies they described.’’ My claim, on the otherhand, is that Kabbalah scholarship involves theological positions, although,these differ from the theologies of the Kabbalist they research.

8. For example, Gershom Scholem said: ‘‘when I come to define theterm mysticism I have to say that no one knows what mysticism is. Thenumber of definitions of the term mysticism in philosophy or the scienceof religion, amounts to the number of authors or sages who have writtenabout it. Each has his own definition.’’ Gershom Scholem, Origins of theKabbalah and the Book Bahir (Jerusalem, 1966), p. 2 [Hebrew]. GershomScholem stated that it is curious that although there is almost no doubtregarding what constitutes the phenomena called mysticism, ‘‘there arealmost as many definitions of the term as there are writers on the sub-ject,’’ G. Scholem, Major Trends, pp. 3–4. See also: P. Schafer, The Originsof Jewish Mysticism, p. 1. Many scholars refer to the book by the Anglicantheologian William Ralph Inge, who enumerates twenty six different def-initions of mysticism. See: William R. Inge, Christian Mysticism (London,1899), pp. 335–48.

9. For an attempt to characterize mysticism without theological as-sumptions, see Shaul Magid, ‘‘Is Kabbala Mysticism? Another View,’’Zeek (March 2008). In my response to Magid I argue that the new defini-tion that he proposes involves not only a radical change of the conven-tional definitions of the term, but also of the phenomena the term usuallyrefers to, see: B. Huss, ‘‘Paying Extra.’’

10. Rufus M. Jones, Studies in Mystical Religion (New York, 1909),p. XV.

11. William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, Research onHuman Nature (New York, 1929), p. 410.

12. Bernard McGinn, The Foundation of Mysticism (New York, 1991),p. XVII.

13. Sigmund Freud, Civilization and its Discontents (London, 1963),pp. 91–10.

14. Robert M. Gimello, ‘‘Mysticism and its Contexts,’’ in Mysticism andReligious Traditions, (ed.) Steven Katz (Oxford, 1983), pp. 61–88.

15. For a review on these types of theories and related experimentscarried out, see Uffe Schjoedt, ‘‘The Religious Brain: A GeneralIntroduction to the Experimental Neuroscience of Religion, Method andTheory,’’ in The Study of Religion, Vol. 21, No. 3 (2009), pp. 310–39.

Theologies of Kabbalah Research 21

at New

York U

niversity on January 12, 2014http://m

j.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

I would like to thank Nathan Ophir (Ofenbacher) who brought this articleto my attention.

16. For a critique of this assumption underlying the naturalist expla-nations of mysticism, see B. Huss, ‘‘Mystification of the Kabbalah.’’

17. In one place Gershom Scholem does indeed speak about how thedirect mystical experience of the mystic ‘‘is real in his eyes’’ (G. Scholem,Chapters in Understanding the Kabbalah and its Symbols (Jerusalem, 1981),p. 9 [Hebrew]). However, as we will see later on, Scholem identifies thissubjective reality as the absolute, divine reality found in the depths ofone’s soul. Rachel Elior speaks of visions of the imagination and enti-ties perceived to transcend the natural order of things that the Mysticsperceive as real.. But she does not relate to these experiences as imagi-nary or hallucinatory, rather as ‘‘another reality . . . that is revealed tovisionaries when the veils obscuring everyday consciousness are lifted,’’Rachel Elior, Jewish Mysticism: The Infinite Expression of Freedom (Oregon,2007), p. 3.

18. See Steven T. Katz, ‘‘Language, Epistemology and Mysticism,’’ inMysticism and Philosophical Analysis, (ed.) Steven T. Katz (London, 1978),p. 23; B. McGinn, The Foundation of Mysticism, p. 343; Jess B. Hollenback,Experience, Response and Empowerment (Philadelphia, 1996), pp. 226–29;Arthur Green, ‘‘Religion and Mysticism,’’ in Take Judaism, For Example:Studies Towards the Comparison of Religions, (ed.) Jacob Neusner (Chicago,1992), pp. 89–90; Moshe Idel, Kabbalah, New Perspectives (New Haven,1988), p. 35. Yet, mention should be made of the article by Arzy, Idel,et al., that offers a neuro-biological explanation of Abulafia and others’mystical experiences. See S. Arzy, M. Idel, T. Landis, and O. Blanke,‘‘Speaking With One’s Self, Autoscopic Phenomena in Writings fromthe Ecstatic Kabbalah,’’ Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 12 (2005),pp. 4–30.

19. See B. Huss, ‘‘The Mystification of the Kabbalah;’’ Idem, ‘‘MartinBuber’s Introduction to the Tales of Rabbi Nachman and the Genealogyof Jewish Mysticism,’’ in By the Well: Studies in Jewish Philosophy andHalachic Thought, (ed.) Uri Ehrlich, Haim Kreisel and Daniel Lasker, pre-sented to Gerald J. Blidstein (Beer Sheva, 2008) , pp. 101–8 [Hebrew].

20. G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, pp. 9, 18. For adiscussion on Scholem’s various definitions of mysticism, see EliezerSchweid, ‘‘Mysticism and Judaism According to Gershom G. Scholem,’’Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought (1983), pp. 5–9 [Hebrew]; R.Margolin, The Human Temple, pp. 22–26; B. Huss, ‘‘Martin Buber’sIntroduction,’’ pp. 107–13; P. Schafer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism, pp.5–7; and Moran Gam-Hacohen, ‘‘Trends in Kabbalah Research in Israel1929-2010,’’ (PhD thesis, Beer Sheva, 2011), pp. 61–73 [Hebrew].

21. G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, p. 5.22. Moshe Idel, Enchanted Chains: Techniques and Rituals in Jewish

Mysticism (Los Angeles, 2005), p. 3.23. Elliot. R. Wolfson, Through a Speculum That Shines: Vision and

Imagination in Medieval Jewish Mysticism (Princeton, 1994), p. 55.

22 Boaz Huss

at New

York U

niversity on January 12, 2014http://m

j.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

24. Haviva Pedaya, Vision and Speech: Models of Prophecy in JewishMysticism (Los Angeles, 2002), p. 183 [Hebrew].

25. Avi Katzman, ‘‘Almost a Revolt,’’ Ha’aretz, October 20, 1989, p. 23[Hebrew].

26. M. Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, p. XI.27. See, for example, E. Wolfson, Through a Speculum that Shines; H.

Pedaya, Vision and Speech (above n 24); and Melila Hellner-Eshed, A RiverFlows from Eden: The Language of Mystical Experience in the Zohar (Stanford,2009).

28. G. Scholem, Major Trends, p. 6.29. S. Katz, ‘‘Language, Epistemology, and Mysticism,’’ pp. 22–74.30. See, for example, E. Wolfson, Through a Speculum that Shines,

pp. 54–55; J. Dan, On Holiness (Jerusalem, 1997), p. 79 [Hebrew]; M.Hellner-Eshed, A River Flows from Eden, p. 21.

31. G. Scholem, Major Trends, p. 6.32. M. Idel, Kabbalah, New Persepctives, p.37.33. E. Wolfson, Through a Speculum that Shines, pp. 54–55.34. R. Elior, Jewish Mysticism, p. 12.35. See, for example, Arthur Green, Seek My Face, Speak My Name: A

Contemporary Jewish Theology (Northvale, NJ, 1992). Idem, Ehyeh: A Kabbalahfor Tomorrow (Woodstock, VT, 2003); Daniel Matt, God and the Big Bang:Discovering Harmony Between Science & Spirituality (Woodstock, 1996).

36. An exception is Yehuda Leibes, who presented the ideologicaland religious positions underlying his research approach in his article‘‘Spirituality and Spirit,’’ Makor Rishon (Sabbath supplement), October20, 2006, pp. 6–7 [Hebrew]. And ‘‘Contemplations of the ReligiousSignificance of the Study of Kabbalah,’’ in The Path of the Spirit:Eliezer Schweid’s Jubilee Volume, (ed.) Yehoyada Amir (Jerusalem, 2005),pp. 197–208 [Hebrew].

37. See William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, Research onHuman Nature (New York, 1929), p. 410.

38. See Louis Dupree, Transcendent Selfhood: The Loss and Recovery ofthe Inner Life (New York, 1976), p. 102.

39. See Robert K. C. Forman, The Problem of Pure Consciousness (NewYork & Oxford, 1990), pp. 21–25.

40. See Walter Principe, ‘‘Mysticism: Its Meaning and Varieties,’’ inMystics and Scholars, (ed.) Harold Coward and Terence Penelhum(Waterloo, Ontario, 1977), p. 4.

41. Moshe Halamish defines mysticism as, ‘‘direct and intimate con-tact between the two extremes: man and god. The Mystic makes an effortto directly feel the divine presence.’’ Moshe Halamish, Introduction toKabbalah (Jerusalem, 1991), pp. 17–18 [Hebrew]. See also ArthurGreen’s definition in his ‘‘Religion and Mysticism,’’ p. 68.

42. R. Elior, Jewish Mysticism, p. 3.43. H. Pedaya, Vision and Speech, p. 183.44. H. Tirosh-Samuelson, Jewish Mysticism, p. 399.45. G. Scholem, Major Trends, p. 15.

Theologies of Kabbalah Research 23

at New

York U

niversity on January 12, 2014http://m

j.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

46. A. Green, Religion and Mysticism, p. 68, and see also p. 90.47. R. Elior, Jewish Mysticism, pp. 1-3.48. W.H. Principe, Mysticism: Its Meaning and Varieties, p. 4.49. G. Scholem, Major Trends, pp. 9, 18.50. Blau, ‘‘Scholars Laud Reviver of Jewish Mystic Past,’’ The New York

Times (October 18, 1975), p. 32.51. M. Idel, Kabbalah, New Perspectives, p. 55.52. M. Halamish, Introduction to Kabbalah, pp. 17–18; and H. Pedaya,

Vision and Speech.53. M. Idel, Enchanted Chains, p. 4.54. See Ra’anan S. Boustan, ‘‘Book Review of Beholders of Divine

Secrets: Mysticism and Myth in the Hekhalot and Merkavah Literature,’’ byVita Daphna Arbel, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 125,No. 1 (2005), p. 124.

55. See, for example, M. Jones, Studies in Mystical Religion, p. XXXR.56. Leo Baeck, Romantic Religion, Judaism and Christianity

(Philadelphia, 1958), pp. 189–292.57. Gershom Scholem, ‘‘Mysticism and Society,’’ Diogenes, Vol. 15

(1967), p. 8. Recently, Haviva Pedaya reiterated a similar approach, butshe identifies mysticism as appearing in the first stage of religion. Pedayareiterates the romantic perception of mysticism as a subversive and liber-ating force (at least in its first stage of appearance): ‘‘Mysticism [. . .] fulfillsa challenging, fresh and liberating role towards religion; it creates a kindof flexibility, spiritualization, and sometimes internalization of the reli-gious systems. It often expresses a kind of recoiling from the institutionaland political.’’ H. Pedaya, Expanses: an Essay on the theological and politicalUnconscious (Tel Aviv, 2011), p. 270.

58. M. Zur, With Gershom Scholem: conversations that took place inthe winter of 5734/1974; A. Shapira (ed.), Dvarim B’go: Chapters onMorasha and Techiya (Tel Aviv, 1976), pp. 26–27.

59. E. R. Wolfson, ‘‘Forms of Visionary Ascent as Ecstatic Experience inthe Zoharic Literature,’’ in Gershom Scholem’s Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism:50 Years After, (ed.) P. Schafer and J. Dan (Tubingen, 1993), p. 210.

60. M. Hellner-Eshed, A River Flows from Eden, p. 351.61. R. Elior, Jewish Mysticism, p. 2.62. D. Biale, Gershom Scholem, p. 76.63. M. Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, pp. 11–12.64. Arthur Green (ed.), Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible through the

Middle Ages (London, 1986), p. XXV.65. R. Margolin, The Human Temple, p. 9.66. M. Hellner-Eshed, A River Flows from Eden, p. 7.67. Ibid, p. 11.68. Ibid, p. 9.69. Alan Brill, ‘‘Why Read the Zohar?’’ Forward (January 13, 2010).70. Tsippi Kauffman, In All Your Ways Know Him: The Concept of

God and avodah begashmiyut in the Early Stages of Hasidism (Ramat Gan,2009), p. 21 [Hebrew].

24 Boaz Huss

at New

York U

niversity on January 12, 2014http://m

j.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

71. Tahel Porush, ‘‘Like an eternal pregnancy,’’ Haaretz, GallerySupplement (September 19, 2008) [Hebrew].

72. Or N. Rose, ‘‘Madonna’s Challenge, Understanding KabbalahToday,’’ Tikkun, Vol. 19, No. 6 (2004), p. 24.

73. Steven M. Wasserstrom, Religion After Religion, Gershom Scholem,Mircea Eliade, and Henry Corbin at Eranos (Princeton, 1999), pp. 29–30.

74. Timothy Fitzgerald, The Ideology of Religious Studies (New York,2000), p. 47.

75. See Richard King, Orientalism and Religion: Postcolonial Theory,India and The Mystic East (London, 1999), pp. 162–63; and Paul Heelas,The New Age Movement (Oxford, 1996), pp. 27–28.

76. Aldous Huxley, The Perennial Philosophy (London, 1944), p. VII.77. Wouter Hanegraaff, New Age Religion and Western Culture,

Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought (Albany, 1998), p. 183.78. Ibid., pp. 187–86, 205.79. Ibid., pp. 205, 224.80. P. Heelas, The New Age Movement, pp. 18–40.81. W. Hanegraaff, New Age Religion, pp. 184–85, 227–28.82. See Boaz Huss, ‘‘The Formation of Jewish Mysticism and its

Impact on the Reception of Abraham Abulafia in ContemporaryKabbalah,’’ in Religion and Its Others, (ed.) Heicke Bock, Jorg Feuchter,and Michi Knechts (New York, 2008), pp. 142–62.

83. On the Jewish Renewal movement see Yaakov Ariel, ‘‘Can Adamand Eve Reconcile: Gender and Sexuality in a New Jewish ReligiousMovement,’’ Nova Religion, Vol. 9, No. 4 (2006), pp 53–78; Marie Josee-Posen, ‘‘Beyond New Age: Jewish Renewal’s Reconstruction ofTheological Meaning in the Teaching of Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi,’’ in New Age Judaism, (ed.) Celia Rosenberg and Anne Vallely(London, 2008), pp. 73–94; Shaul Magid, ‘‘Rainbow Hasidism inAmerica – The Maturation of Jewish Renewal,’’ The Reconstructionist,Vol. 68 (2004), pp. 34–60; Chava Weissler, ‘‘Meanings of Shekhinah inthe ‘Jewish Renewal’ Movement,’’ Nashim: A Journal of Jewish Women’sStudies & Gender Issues, Vol. 10 (2006), pp. 53–83; and Idem, ‘‘Artis Spirituality!: Practice, Play, and Experiential Learning in theJewish Renewal Movement,’’ Material Religion, Vol. 3, No. 3 (2007),pp. 354–79.

84. See B. Huss, ‘‘ ‘Ask No Questions’: Gershom Scholem and theStudy of Contemporary Jewish Mysticism,’’ Modern Judaism, Vol. 25, No.2 (2005), pp. 141–58.

85. H. Pedaya, Expanses, p. 290.86. See B. Huss, ‘‘The Mystification of the Kabbalah,’’ p. 26; Idem, ‘‘A

New Age of Kabbalah Research,’’ Theory and Critcism, Vol. 27 (2005),p. 249 [Hebrew]. David N. Myers, ‘‘History and Mysticism’’ (editors intro-duction), JQR, Vol. 101, No. 4 (2011), p. 480; Ra’anan Boustan,‘‘Rabbinization and the Making of Early Jewish Mysticism,’’ JQR, Vol.101, No. 4 (2011), pp. 484–85; Hartley Lachter, ‘‘The Politics of

Theologies of Kabbalah Research 25

at New

York U

niversity on January 12, 2014http://m

j.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

Secrets: Thirteenth-Century Kabbalah in Context,’’ JQR, Vol. 101, No. 4(2011), pp. 502–3.

87. R. Margolin, ‘‘Moshe Idel’s Phenomenology and its Sources,’’Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, Vol. 6, No. 18 (2007), p. 43.

88. See Jeffrey Chajes, Between Worlds: Dybbuks, Exorcists, and EarlyModern Judaism (Philadelphia, 2003), p. 8.

26 Boaz Huss

at New

York U

niversity on January 12, 2014http://m

j.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from