A Prayer to the Divine Beloved

My Beloved, save me and be gracious to me;

Return me to You, my Kind One;

My Lover, You are precious;

Honey-like in sweetness is Your kiss.

A Meditation on the Divine in Feminine Terms

The previous post touched on the integral, equal “feminine” and “masculine” aspects of G-d, and explained how the freedom from any limit (the “masculine G-d”) is the freedom to assume every limit (“feminine ruach of G-d”) and the freedom to assume every limit (“feminine ruach of G-d”) is the freedom from any limit (the “masculine G-d”). Thus, one can legitimately regard either the “masculine” or “feminine” aspect of G-d as including both aspects. Throughout the Tanach, the emphasis is typically on the “masculine” aspect including both aspects. However, there are places where the other approach is displayed. One such place is the Shir Ha-Shirim (Song of Songs). The Zohar makes clear that the feminine lover in the Song is not merely the people of Israel or the soul, but is a “feminine” aspect of G-d – the sefirah Malchut (e.g., the Zohar on Parshat Tzav – see http://www.kosherkabbalah.org/upload/27%20-%20Tsav.pdf, for example, sections 2, 44, 149, and 156).  In fact, there is such a level of equality between the male and female lovers in the Shir Ha-Shirim - both are inflamed by love, both seek the other, both regard the other as the summa bonum - that one may legitimately understand that each fully experiences the Divine Beloved through the mortal beloved.

One verse in the Song is particularly apt for our consideration, the beginning of 6:9, which reads “echat hi’ yonati tamati”, “One is She, My Dove, My Perfect One”. There are two parts here. The first expresses G-d’s freedom from any limit, even that of defined self. Just as the masculine form “echad” (aleph, chet, dalet) has been read as an acronym for “ain chotzeitz davar” (“no-thing intervenes”) (cf. R. Avraham Sutton, Giluy HaYachid), so too, we may read the feminine form “echat” (aleph, chet, tav) as an acronym for “ain chotzeitz techum” (“no limit intervenes”). Thus, “echat” is evoking G-d’s freedom from any limit. The next word, “hi’” - She, contains the three consonants - heh, yud, and aleph - used in the Divine Name “Ehyeh” (I will be) that evokes the most basic of all freedom from limitation - freedom even from defined self. The second part expresses G-d’s freedom to assume every limit. The word “yonah” (dove) brings to mind the fluttering of the “ruach Elokim” over the waters in B’reishit (Gen.) 1:2 (cf. Rashi's commentary, for example), and G-d’s dynamic freedom to assume limitation that the “ruach Elokim” conveys, as explained in the previous post. The word “tamah” (perfect, complete) brings to mind the wholeness, inclusiveness of that freedom, and the inter-inclusiveness of both freedoms. So, “echat hi’ yonati tamati” is an invocation of both aspects of G-d's Freedom, wholly in “feminine” terms.

There is a fruitful meditation that one can do with this verse from Shir Ha-Shirim. The commandment to wear tzitzit (fringes) with a thread of blue on the corners of our garments is in order to “remember all the commandments of Y-H-W-H” (Bamidbar [Num.] 15:38-39). If one examines the Hebrew of 15:39, one can see that it is not only about remembering all the commandments, but also G-d – for it reads “uzchartem et kol mitzvot Y-H-W-H”, and the particle “et” is “aleph, tav”, the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet, signifying the all-inclusiveness of G-d, the First and Last (cf. Yeshyahu (Is.) 44:6). Now, to do this meditation, one should look at the blue and white threads of a fringe of the tallit katan or tallit gadol, using any of the halachically permissible forms of blue dyed threads, and mentally repeat the verse “echat hi’ yonati tamati”, associating the first part – “echat hi’” – with the inward breath and with the blue color, since blue is the color of the limitless sky or sea (freedom from any limitation), and the second part – “yonati tamati” – with the outward breath and with the color white, since white light is inclusive of all colors (freedom to assume every limit). The two pauses or "gaps" between the inhalation and exhalation are the Absolute Union of the two freedoms from which each arises, through which each is transformed from one to the other, into which each returns, and which remains unchanged nonetheless. In this way, one uses the ruach (breath) itself to meditate on these integral, equal aspects of G-d, wholly in “feminine” terms, as “Feminine Beloved”.

L’Yachadah Qud’sha B’riq Hu USh’khinteih

“To unite the Holy One Blessed Be He and His Shekhinah (Feminine Divine Presence)”

This is an Aramaic statement of intention that the sixteenth century mekubal, the Arizal, prescribed to be uttered before doing any mitzvah (commandment). It is commonly used, often in one of several variations, by Sephardim and Chassidim, although it is less frequently used in other Jewish streams, and some have rejected it outright, fearing that it impinges on the absolute nature of Divine Oneness. The meaning of this intention, as commonly understood, is that our doing a mitzvah is intended to bring about a revelation of the unity of G-d’s transcendence and immanence, to show that G-d is fully present even in the most mundane circumstances.

Among the earliest archeological texts associated with ancient Israel are the late ninth or early eighth century BCE ostraca from Kuntillet Ajrud (Horvat Teman) that state “berakhti etkhem l’Y-H-W-H shomron (or in other cases teman) ul’Asherato”, “I bless you (plural) by Y-H-W-H our guardian (or of Samaria/Teman) and by His Asherah”. Another text, from an eighth century BCE tomb at Khirbet el-Kom near Hebron, reads: "Blessed be Uriyahu by Y-H-W-H, for from his enemies, He saved him by His Asherah.” Some secular scholars have suggested that these texts are evidence of Israelite worship of the Canaanite goddess Asherah, but “His Asherah” is not a formulation known outside of the Israelite texts (Asherah taking the personal possessive pronoun, like El and Ba’al, because it is not just a name but a title), is remarkably similar to “His Shekhinah” in the Arizal’s statement of intention, and bespeaks something belonging to G-d, not a separate being, like a goddess. The sixteenth century mekubal, the Ramak, makes it clear that “Asherah” is a term for the Shekhinah, the Feminine Divine Presence (e.g., Or Ne’erav, chelek zayn, but also in his work Pardes Rimonim). Moreover, this equation also occurs in some manuscripts of the Zohar (cf. Zohar I, 49a and Matt [2004] in Volume 1 of his Zohar translation pp. 270–271, notes 1259-1264). Thus, although the Arizal’s formulation is comparatively recent, it reflects a very ancient tradition of regarding G-d as having a “Feminine” aspect.

Now, several questions arise. First, is there any evidence for this in the Written Torah? Second, is this “Feminine Presence” truly an aspect of G-d or a merely a creation, as some medieval Jewish sources suggest? Third, if it is indeed an aspect of G-d, are we to take it as a “hypostasis”, introducing a measure of independence that would represent plurality in G-d, like the “persons” of the Christian Trinity?

The very beginning of the Torah affirms that at the start of creation, before G-d metaphorically spoke creation into existence, “ve-ruach Elokim merachefet ‘al p’nei hamayim” (B’reishit [Gen.] 1:2) – “and the breath of G-d fluttered over the face of the waters”. Note two things about this verse – ruach literally means “breath”, which is exactly what the Latin “spiritus” (spirit) conveys, and the word is feminine, as made clear by the feminine verb form “merachefet” (a bird-like fluttering used to poetically characterize the light breathing in and out of involuntary breath). So, before “speaking” creation into existence, G-d’s “feminine breath” was present, just as breath precedes any human speech. Breath in humans is an involuntary and continuous activity, and without it, the human being will die – it is an essential activity. So to take the Torah’s own metaphor further, G-d’s “feminine ruach” must be regarded as essential to G-d, not a creation by G-d. But, while essential, it is an activity, not having the degree of independence of a “person” or "hypostasis".

There is a further implication of “ruach”. Going back to B’reishit 1:2 and what follows, it is clear that “ruach Elokim”, like breath in humans, not only precedes but also is the actual basis of G-d’s creative “speech” (cf. also Tehillim [Ps.] 33:6), a further activity that is entirely voluntary (unlike “breath”) and thus, represents the Divine assumption of limitation in that G-d’s activity of “speech” is existentially limited by its own inessentiality. Therefore, “ruach Elokim” is the G-d’s freedom to assume limitation. What is more, this freedom to assume limitation is a facet of G-d’s freedom from any limit. Indeed, freedom from any limit is the freedom to assume every limit, and vice versa. For without freedom from any limit, there is no freedom to assume every limit, since the latter would be limited by not being free from its own essential limit. Similarly, without the freedom to assume every limit, there is no freedom from any limit, since the latter would be limited by not being free to assume limit. Thus, “ruach Elokim” is not merely a power or mediator of G-d, but is truly an integral aspect of G-d.

This realization returns us to an early post here from Wednesday, May 5, 2010, which indicates that the Divine Name Y-H-W-H itself reflects this very same truth. There, it was shown that Y-H-W-H means “He will be”. As indicated there, “He will be” should be understood to mean that the “He” (i.e., the self) does not yet exist. However, in order to ensure that one does not mistakenly assume that G-d is locked into this negative, no negative is used, but instead the positive expression of the verbal imperfect. Moreover, the verbal imperfect does not only convey the future sense of “not yet” (“He will be”) but also conveys the contingent sense of “can” or “may” (“He can be” or “He may be”). Thus, the Name Y-H-W-H presents us with a freedom, not a negation – a freedom from self (the most basic limitation), even from the non-self construed as a self, and a freedom to take on self. So, the Name Y-H-W-H itself points us to “masculine” G-d and the “feminine” “ruach Elokim”, the Holy One Blessed Be He and His Shekhinah, Y-H-W-H and His Asherah. The mistake of seeing separate deities here (as in “Paganism”) or of hypostatizing here (as in Christianity) is effectively shut down by the meaning of the Name reflecting these integral, equal aspects of Divine Freedom, Divine Infinity.