Unknowability of God In Jewish Mysticism, Part I

It is impossible to say exactly when the mystical approach within Judaism was inaugurated. There are mystical works dating from the Talmudic period (i.e., Sefer Yetzirah), and, as we saw above, Philo's own writings weave together Greek mysticism with Scriptural exegesis to create something which can only rightly be described as Jewish mysticism. In this connection, another unique figure who was heavily influenced by Greek mystical thought is the early medieval poet-philosopher Solomon ibn Gabirol. In his long poem Keter Malchut, he expresses thoughts about God's remoteness and unknowability which would be by no means foreign to Philo:

(I) Thine is the might in whose mystery our thoughts can find no stay, so far art Thou beyond us.... Thine are the mysteries that transcend understanding and thought... (XXVI) Who can approach Thy seat? For beyond the sphere of Intelligence hast Thou established the thrown of Thy glory... Thus far reacheth Intelligence, but cometh here to a standstill, For higher still hast Thou mounted, and ascended Thy mighty thrown, "And no man may go up with Thee." (zangwill_23)

Again, we find the idea that God-in-Himself somehow exceeds the reach of man's intelligence, that although thought can embrace and measure many things, it cannot embrace and measure God. In another respect like Philo, ibn Gabirol remains an ambiguous figure in Jewish philosophy, not only because of his Scholastic alter-ego "Avicebron", but because he doesn't fit comfortably into a particular Jewish intellectual tradition. If nowadays he is perhaps seen as less of a mystic and more of a poet, this is probably due to the manner in which Jewish mysticism came to be exclusively identified with the system of thought known as the Kabbalah, thus leaving other Jewish mystics out in the cold.

At least since the Middle Ages, "Jewish mysticism" has indeed meant "Kabbalah." But the Kabbalah as we know it popularly today (much like rational theology as we know it popularly today) might be said to bear the marks of having been abandoned by serious scholars. Esoteric terms are thrown around with a wink and a nod and a hope that someone, somewhere, actually understands how it all works. While the abandonment of rational theology by scholars may be blamed on the advent of modernity — the sweeping vistas of natural philosophy and science luring contemplative thinkers away from the stodgy confines of Scholastically-shackled theological ponderations, in the case of the Kabbalah, Scholem sees the opposition of Jewish scholars to the Hasidic movement as a principle reason for the abandonment of the Kabbalah by serious scholarship. Guilt by association, as it were. And inevitably, says Scholem (1954,p.2), in place of scholarship came instead credulity and silliness: "The natural and obvious result of the antagonism of the great Jewish scholars was that, since the authorized guardians neglected this field, all manner of charlatans and dreamers came and treated it as their own property." One may be tempted to say that such a statement was probably never truer than it is today, when Kabbalah is associated in many people's imaginations with "myth and magic" of various varieties; however, a quick survey of the history of Jewish mysticism shows that Kabbalah always presented an irresistible attraction to individuals of questionable motivations and sanity (e.g., Nehemiah Hayyun, Judah Leib Prossnitz, Nathan of Gaza, etc.). In any event, here we will limit ourselves to what some of the classic kabbalistic sources say about the unknowability of God, and try as best we can to understand them.

While the evolution of the Kabbalah was probably fairly organic, the classic work that nevertheless stands at the center of this world is the Zohar, which was circulated and — in all likelihood — partially written by Moses de Leon in the 13th century. We will therefore begin our review of the mystical approach to God's unknowability with this key work. The Zohar on Exodus (scholem_49) says the following:

If one should ask: Is it not written, "For ye saw no manner of similitude" (Deuteronomy 4:15), the answer would be: Truly, it was granted us to behold him in a given similitude, for concerning Moses it is written, "and the similitude of the Lord doth he behold" (Numbers 12:8). Yet the Lord was revealed only in that similitude that Moses saw, and in none other, of any creation formed by his signs. Therefore it stands written: "To whom then will ye liken God? Or what likeness will ye compare unto Him?" (Isaiah 40:18). Also, even that similitude was a semblance of the Holy One, be blessed, not as he is in his very place which we know to be impenetrable, but as the King manifesting his might of dominion over his entire creation, and thus appearing to each one of his creatures as each can grasp him, as it is written: "And by the ministry of prophets have I used similitudes" (Hosea 12:11). Hence says He: Albeit in your own likeness do I represent myself, to whom will you compare me and make me comparable?

Because in the beginning, shape and form having not yet been created, He had neither form nor similitude. Hence is it forbidden to one apprehending him as he is before Creation to imagine him under any kind of form or shape, not even by his letters "hay" and "vav," not either by his complete holy Name, nor by letter or sign of any kind. Thus, "For ye saw no manner of similitude " means, You beheld nothing which could be imagined in form or shape, nothing which you could embody into a finite conception.

But when He had created the shape of supernal man, it was to him for a chariot, and on it he descended, to be known by the appellation YHVH, so as to be apprehended by his attributes and in each particular one, to be perceived. Hence it was he caused himself to be named El, Elohim, Shaddai, Zevaot and YHVH, of which each was a symbol among men of his several divine attributes, making manifest that the world is upheld by mercy and justice, in accordance with man's deeds. If the radiance of the glory of the Holy One, be blessed, had not been shed over his entire creation, how could even the wise have apprehended him? He would have continued to be unknowable, and the words could not be verily said, "The whole earth is full of His glory." (Isaiah 6:3)

We can certainly see here echoes of Philo in the statement that God appears "to each one of his creatures as each can grasp him," but it remains entirely unclear what is meant by the notion of "grasping" in this context. It seems that we are referring here to some powers of the mind and some capacities of "conception" (or lack thereof), as indicated by the expression "nothing which you could embody into a finite conception." The passage goes on to suggest that God makes himself known to man through his "attributes," which provide an avenue of access without which God would have been utterly unknowable.

What begins to take shape here is the idea that God-as-He-is-in-Himself is utterly beyond mental conception, but that nevertheless there are some aspects of God which do fall within the realm of man's knowledge. In the kabbalistic system, the Divine comes to be regarded in terms of a remote unknowable component or essence referred to as En Sof or Ayin (Ayin may alternatively refer to the first Sefirah, if that is considered to be other than an aspect [scholem_74] or identity of En Sof [robinson_94,sherwin_06]. cf. Deus absconditus), along with a collection of Sefirot which represent aspects of God which are capable in some way of interacting with created world.

"Of God as He is in Himself — En Sof — nothing can be said at all, and no thought can reach there" (jacobs_73). En Sof itself is sometimes referred to as a realm of "pure Thought" (scholem_74), so as to detach it completely from any merely mortal variety of thought. The names En Sof and Ayin themselves (respectively, "Without End" and "Nothing"), and their other synonyms in the kabbalistic literature all are suggestive of the fact that nothing can be known about this entity — that it is beyond thought and exceeds human conceptual capacities (scholem_74).

In many ways, the kabbalistic stance of "mystical agnosticism" (scholem_74) regarding En Sof, inasmuch as En Sof is represented as transcending the "limits of human apprehension," is really no different than the stance taken by the Maimonides and the rationalists regarding the "infinite supreme eternal entity" (sherwin_06,dan_06), and is also very close to the Neoplatonic ideas of Philo and ibn Gabirol. Indeed, "the concept of an infinite, perfect supreme being that cannot change, a concept absent from Jewish thought in antiquity, is dominant in both philosophy and kabbalah" (dan_06). Certainly, to the extent that God-in-Himself is claimed by both rationalists and kabbalists to be utterly impervious to description, it is probably permissible to regard the En Sof of the kabbalists and the Divine Essence of the philosophers as the self-same (and empty) concept.

The unique idea of Kabbalah concerns the manner in which God interacts with the world and with humanity in particular, and this is by way of the Sefirot. Indeed, if there is one feature that most distinctly characterizes kabbalistic mysticism, it is the notion of Sefirot. However, what exactly the Sefirot are is difficult to say — not because there is a dearth of sources describing the Sefirot, but because there is an excess of sources describing them, and describing them in an excess of different ways (dan_06). In Cordovero's introduction to Kabbalah, the Sefirot appear to play the same role as God's "actions" does for Maimonides:

[The beginner] needs to know that Eyn Sof caused and emanated His sefirot, and His actions are [performed] through them. They constitute the ten "sayings" through which he acts. They serve him as vessels for the [34a] actions which derive from Him in the World of Separation and below. Truly His being and essence extend themselves in them... the [divine] names [themselves] are the sefirot, and the names are appellations of Eyn Sof according to His actions. (robinson_94)

However, there are disagreements as to whether the Sefirot actually represent actions or instruments of God, as above, or whether they are manifestations of divine attributes, aspects of the Divine essence, or something else (robinson_94, sherwin_06, scholem_74). In the later Kabbalah, the Sefirot are generally regarded as being both of the essence of God, and yet separate from Him (scholem_74). In this paper, we will not go into any details about how the Sefirot are hypothesized by various authors to function. Rather, when we later present a formal knowledge representation framework, we will try to show how it might map onto the kabbalistic ontology of En Sof and Sefirot, at least when these are conceived of in something like Cordovero's model. For the present, let us try to understand a little bit better — by considering some more sources — what is the nature of the peculiar limitation that places En Sof forever beyond the reach of human conception.