Ruach-Chochmah-Malchut

In previous posts, two aspects of the Divine “Feminine” have been discussed – Ruach and Chochmah.  There is a third aspect that is the focus of much of Medieval and contemporary Kabbalah – Malchut or “Kingdom” (for example, http://www.aish.com/sp/k/48971776.html and http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380807/jewish/Malchut.htm).  In an earlier post, it was noted that “the understanding that limitation, that creation, is an aspect of G-d’s ‘Ruach’/‘Chochmah’, and that G-d’s ‘Ruach’/‘Chochmah’ is an aspect of G-d is a two-fold process that is the birth of the ‘Kingdom of G-d on Earth’, the realization of Oneness with G-d even in the diversity of our own existence.”  Thus, a connection between the three aspects was alluded to.  But here, let us look at this in more detail. 

Each of the aspects presents its own unique step in this process.  With Ruach (breath), there is the freedom to assume any limitation, and there is continuity of the “inner” with the “outward” flow.  Then, with Chochmah (wisdom) there is an initial step in that free limitation, with a distinction between the intuitive knower, act of knowing, and objects of that knowledge, but no actual separation, since the objects remain within the mind.  Finally, with Malchut (kingdom) there is an ultimate step in that free limitation, with not only distinction but with actual separation that can yield a sense of Ruler and ruled.  In one sense, in Ruach, there is the most complete experience of Oneness with G-d since the freedom to assume limitation is essentially rooted in Divine Infinity (freedom from any limitation), an embedding that is readily evident in the continuity between “inner”/”outer” breath.  But in another sense, in Malchut, there is the most fulfilling experience of Oneness with G-d since even in the furthest extent of G-d’s free limitation, in our separateness as individuals, our individual freedom to choose full surrender to the Ruler is found to be nothing but G-d’s very own freedom to be us, and G-d is realized as nonetheless still free from any limitation, hence not separated from us, even in this ultimate limitation. 

Together, Ruach – Chochmah – Malchut, using their first Hebrew letters (roshei teivot), create the acronym RaCHaM, which is the Hebrew root word for both womb and compassion.  A “feminine” or “motherly” nature to this compassion can be imputed from the female anatomical association of the womb.  There are two aspects to this “motherly” compassion – that which is G-d’s compassion in allowing us this path to realize Oneness with G-d and that which is our path to that Oneness through practice of compassion to all that G-d manifests.

Is There Really Divine Permission to Eat Animal Flesh?

In the previous post information was presented on the Nasareans, a Jewish group of the late Second Temple period (ca. 200 BCE – 70 CE), which abstained from animal flesh, opposed animal sacrifice, and regarded portions of the Written Torah as having been falsified.  They appear to have had their own traditions regarding the Torah that had been given to Moshe at Sinai that were at odds with the Torah in writing at their time and with that which has passed down to us. 

Among the variety of writings preserved in part or in full among the so-called “Dead Sea Scrolls”, which date from the time when the Nasareans were active, there is an intriguing confirmation of the Nasarean perspective.  Scroll 1Q20 represents an Aramaic translation and interpretation apparently intended to be read alongside and to interpret the Torah Book of B’reishit (Genesis).  Much of the preserved text deals with Genesis 6 – 15.  In the section (Column 11, Lines 16-17) that presents Genesis 9:3-4, which is the cornerstone in the “canonical” text of Genesis for permitting the consumption of animal flesh, which had not been included in what human beings could eat in Genesis 1:29, 1Q20 reads in translation:

“Behold, I give to you and to your children everything for food among the greenery and the herbs of the land. But all blood you shall not eat.”

There is no permission to eat animal flesh here; instead, only a reaffirmation of the original vegetarian diet.

Perhaps, 1Q20 reflects a tradition or even a text at variance with that of the received text of Genesis 9:3-4 and in line with that of the Nasareans. The fact that earlier in 1Q20 (Column 10, Lines 13-17) there is mention of Noach’s sacrifice of animals, as in Genesis 8:20 but in more detail, makes it untenable that 1Q20 itself is a Nasarean text, given their rejection of and hostility to animal sacrifice.  This fact thereby increases the likelihood that variant texts or traditions regarding Genesis 9:3-4 were not merely confined to a single sectarian entity during the late Second Temple period nor simply the product of such a sect.

For more on 1Q20, please see:

Daniel K. Falk, 2009, Anatomy of a Scene: Noah’s Covenant in Genesis Apocryphon XI.  In Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network 2003-2006, edited by Aandres Klostergaard Petersen, et al., Brill Academic Publishers.

And 

http://etd.nd.edu/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-07022007-205251/unrestricted/MachielaD072007.pdf