Imma Sheli Ruach HaQadosh

The above Mishnaic Hebrew text is “Imma Sheli Ruach HaQadosh (or HaQodesh)” meaning "My Mother, the Holy Spirit (Breath)". This expression affirms that G-d's inherent Ruach - Divine Breath or Spirit - is "Feminine" and "Mother". The roshei teivot, or initial letters of the four Hebrew words, are aleph, shin, resh, heh. These letters spell “asherah”, which, if taken as the proper name “Asherah”, can be a reference to the “Feminine” aspect of God as known from the First Temple period (e.g. finds at Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Kom) and also through Kabbalah (Zohar I, 49a, and Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, Or Ne'erav, chelek zayn). In the Kabbalistic sources, "Asherah" is a name for the Shekhinah, which means happiness or bliss. So, in this case, there would not only be an assertion of the “Femininity” of the Holy Spirit (Breath) here, as “Mother”, but a tie of "Her" directly to “Asherah” as Absolute Bliss. The text also is affirming that, as Divine Breath, "Asherah" is an inherent aspect of God, not a separate deity or consort as was mistakenly believed by some in antiquity.

If the roshei teivot of “asherah” are instead taken as expressing not a proper name but a common noun, then what can be understood is a reference simply to happiness or bliss in general. Probably, one is meant to understand it both ways, as we shall see.

The final Hebrew letters (sofei teivot) of each word in “Imma Sheli Ruach HaQodesh (or HaQadosh)” (aleph, yud, chet, shin) spell the words “ei chash”, which in Mishnaic Hebrew mean “without having pain” or “without feeling pain”. It is tempting to see a further import of this saying as being a teaching to avoid causing pain to any creature. 

The remaining Hebrew letters in the phrase - mem, lamed, vav, qof, dalet - have a combined numerical value (40+30+6+100+4) of 180. This is very significant in that it represents 10 x 18. The number 18 is the value of the Hebrew word "chai" meaning life or living. Ten is a number representing totality or completeness in Biblical and Kabbalistic understanding - 10 commandments, 10 sefirot for example. So, 10 x 18 or 180 symbolizes the totality of living beings. 

One further item also is worth noting – the number of letters on the saying is 13, which equals echad or one in Hebrew. The oneness may be both that of the Divine Breath with God and also that of the continuity of the totality of living beings with the Divine.

Taken together, all of these above elements help us to comprehend this Hebrew saying as follows: there is an integral relationship between experiencing the “Mother” that is the "Feminine" Divine Breath in all living beings, the Shekhinah, the Infinite Freedom To, as perfectly one with God, the Holy One Blessed be He, the Infinite Freedom From, in Absolute Bliss, and not causing pain but only providing happiness to the totality of living beings. In addition, there can be a causal interpretation: by not causing pain and only giving happiness to the totality of living beings, understood as continuous with the Divine, one can have the bliss of experiencing God’s inherent Divine Breath as one’s “Mother”.

Another Meditation

In one earlier post, we saw that the "Feminine" aspects of G-d, Ruach – Chochmah – Malchut, using their first Hebrew letters (roshei teivot – “resh, “chet”, “mem”), create the acronym RaCHaM, which is the Hebrew root word for both womb and compassion. In another earlier post, we identified the very Essence of G-d as “Feminine”, noting that “Atzmut” and “Mahut,” the Hebrew words for the Divine Essence, are feminine. If we add to the “resh”, “chet”, and “mem” above the Hebrew letter “yud” as the initial letter of the Hebrew word “yechidah” or “only one”, which is the feminine gendered word denoting continuity and unity, and is used for the soul at One with G-d, then we allude to the continuity of Ruach – Chochmah – Malchut and to the idea that, while remaining One with G-d at the level of the Divine Essence, the Divine Breath also constitutes the substance of projected creation from G-d, that all is continuous, from the Divine Essence to every creature, even in any and every difference. 

The four letters together spell the word "RaCHMI", a Hebrew imperative – “have mercy” – in feminine gender, invoking the compassion of the Divine in "Feminine" aspect. Repeating RaCHMI in mantra-like fashion is a splendid use of this word to do this invocation. One should have in mind that the compassion being sought is from the “Feminine” “Atzmut” or very Unmanifest Essence of G-d, the Fathomless “Womb” from which all comes forth. One also should have in mind that the imperative is calling upon one’s own soul – all words in Hebrew for the soul (nefesh, ruach, neshamah, chayah, and yechidah) are grammatically feminine in gender – to be compassionate to all that comes from G-d.

The four letters together also spell “RaCHMaY”, a very ancient Feminine Divine Name meaning “One of the Womb” or “Compassionate One”. This Name, found in the 13^th Century BCE texts from Ugarit, has been associated by scholars with Athirat (Asherah), Anat, Shapash, or seen as an independent goddess. A contemporary shamanistic approach to Hebrew/Israelite religion views RaCHMaY as follows: “the Womb of All Life, the Mother of Life, and of Life Force in its many, many forms…How can one think of Her, of what She is, and not feel awe?” (Elisheva Nesher, Shophet of AMHA, in The Goddess in America, 2016).

Thoughts on the Judean Pillar Figurine

Over 3,000 fired clay pillar figurines in female form with pinched or molded heads, bare breasts supported by arms, and a pillar-like lower body, have been found in archeological contexts in Israel, mostly from the southern kingdom of Judah, and mostly from the 8th and 7th centuries BCE. The most common theory regarding their identification and function is that they represent a goddess like Asherah or Ashtart and were a focus of domestic cult for child birth and lactation (cf. W.G. Dever 2005 - Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel, and R. Kletter 1996 - Judaean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah). Recently, much has been made of the clay fabric, the domestic refuse context of the majority of the figurines, and lack of distinctive attributes to argue that they could not represent major deities (cf. E. Darby 2014 - Interpreting Judean Pillar Figurines: Gender and Empire in Judean Apotropaic Ritual). Instead, it has been suggested that they represent minor guardian figures used in specific rituals for healing and protection.

That clay could be used for major deities is suggested by Egyptian rituals that likely represent Isis in clay figurines (cf. E.A. Waraksa 2009 - Female Figurines from the Mut Precinct: Context and Ritual Function). Logically, refuse contexts would be a problem for even minor divine or semi-divine guardian figurines unless the figurines no longer contained that presence. After the ritual has been completed, the presence would be gone and the figurine could be discarded. But in such a case, there is no obstacle to a major deity having been present in or through the figurine during ritual.

The lack of distinctive attributes may be explained by seeing them not as representing a deity, but as expressions of Y-H-V-H's “feminine” aspect or activity of life force (“Ruach” or breath), which I associated in a previous post with the Freedom to assume any definition, not as a separate personality with its own attributes. Given that women are the ones in whom a new form grows and from whom new life emerges, it would have been only natural to characterize this aspect of the Divine as "feminine".

The only attributes of the figurine are its feminine form, breasts, and the red and yellow colors of paint applied to it (along with black paint for certain details).  Most are connected to the life force – the “feminine” breath of G-d, breasts as source of life sustaining milk, and the red color of blood as a vehicle for the life force. In addition, the red color may have symbolized, along with the yellow, the terebinth tree - designated as "elah" ("goddess") in Hebrew since the flowers and fruit of that tree are red and its resin yellow.

The presence of these figurines in tombs need not be regarded as evidence against them as representatives of the Divine life force. The Tanach provides ample evidence for G-d's presence even in Sheol (e.g., Tehillim 139:8) and the hope for being raised back to life from Sheol (e.g., 1 Shmuel 2:6). And the reference to G-d and His Asherah in the inscription at the Khirbet el-Qom tomb (8th century BCE) show this as well. To place a figurine of this type in a tomb, an apparently rare occurrence, would reflect a hope for being returned to the realm of the living by G-d's “feminine” life force that remains available even in Sheol for such a restoration.

Finally, it is worth noting that a now lost seal from Judean Lachish shows a feminine figure with hands at the breasts like the figurines but which certainly had major Divine status since the seal shows an adjacent worshiper, branch or tree, and solar disk (cf. T. Romer, 2015, The Invention of God, p. 171), but the figure itself lacks any attributes beyond a diadem, which also appears painted on some of the figurines.

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

Ancient Jewish Vegetarianism - Part 2

Epiphanius, a Christian writer of the fourth century CE, discusses a Jewish group that he dates to before the time of Jesus.  Translations below are adapted from A. Kampmeier, The Pre-Christian Nasareans (1913).

In Anakephalaiosis 134 C he says: "The Nasareans forbid all flesh-eating; they do not partake of that in which there is life generally; previous to Moses and Joshua the son of Nun they make use of the holy names of the patriarchs in the Pentateuch and believe in them, I mean Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and those before them, as also Moses himself and Aaron and Joshua. But they teach that the writings of the Pentateuch are not of Moses and affirm to have others besides these."

In the Epitome he says: "Concerning Nasareans, these accept the patriarchs contained in the Pentateuch and Moses. That Moses received a law, they say. However, the law itself and the whole Pentateuch they do not accept, but believe that another law had been given him. They do not partake of that in which there is life, nor do they offer sacrifices. They say that the books have been falsified and that none of them took their origin from the fathers.”

In Panarion XVIII he says: "The Nasareans are of Jewish ethnicity, have circumcision, observe the Sabbath and the same feasts, but they do not admit fate and astronomy. They accept the fathers in the Pentateuch from Adam to Moses, those glorious in the deeds of fearing God, I mean Adam, Seth, Enoch, Methusalah, Noah, Abraham, Isaac. Jacob, Levi, Aaron, Moses and Joshua, the son of Nun. But the Pentateuch itself they do not accept. Yet they confess Moses and believe that he received the law though not this one but another. Wherefore they observe everything of the Jews, being Jews, but they do not offer sacrifice, nor partake of that in which there is life, but it is considered unlawful with them to eat flesh or that they sacrifice. They say that these books are falsified and that nothing of them has originated from the fathers.” 

Dark Beauty

Shechorah Ani veNa’vah

“Black I am, and beautiful” – Shir haShirim 1:5

This verse is one of great esoteric importance.

Kabbalah connects the color black with Ein Sof – G-d in “Himself,” apart from any relationship to the created world (for that characterization of Ein Sof, cf. http:www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_

0006_0_05655.html).  For example, regarding the initial Sefirah (Keter) that emanated from Ein Sof, Rabbi Moshe Cordovero (Or Ne’erav 6:4) states, “by virtue of being with the Emanator, it is black.”  Daniel Matt (The Essential Kabbalah p. 171) comments, “Since Keter is joined with Ein Sof, it partakes of the unknowability of the infinite, symbolized by the color black.”

The association of the color black or of darkness with the Infinite Depth of G-d is not confined to Jewish esoteric sources.  In Christian mysticism, G-d, considered not in relation to creation or any other activities, is regarded as a “super-essential Radiance of the Divine Darkness,” not an absence of light but a superabundance of light that is “a deep but dazzling Darkness” (cf. http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/Volume II/MysticalTheology.html).  In Islamic Sufi mysticism, night represents the Unmanifest, the Divine Essence, as in the story of Laila and Majnun, in which the feminine beloved Laila (the Arabic word for night) represents the Divine Beloved, a blackness that absorbs all light, a beauty that is above manifestation, That which lies beyond Being (cf. http://psychspiritual.blogspot. com/2012/04/islam-divine-feminine.html).  Similarly, for Shakta Hinduism, Kali is depicted as black because black is the color in which all other colors merge – “Just as all colors disappear in black, so all names and forms disappear in Her” (Mahanirvana Tantra).

Thus, we have here in Shir haShirim a mystical statement regarding the Divine Essence, and the words used are feminine in form, thereby evoking the “Femininity” of that Essence.  As previously explained, one can legitimately regard either the “masculine” or “feminine” aspect of G-d as including both aspects.  In this verse, we see the “feminine” aspect as the very Essence of G-d.  It is worth noting that “Atzmut” and “Mahut,” the Hebrew words for the Divine Essence, are feminine.  Such is also the case in Arabic, where the word for the Divine Essence, “al-Dhât,” is feminine.  The Sufi master Najm al-Din Kubra wrote of “al-Dhât” as the “Mother of the divine attributes” and  Ibn al-‘Arabî wrote that “I sometimes employ the feminine pronoun in addressing Allah, keeping in view the Essence.”  So, the Jewish esoteric perspective should be regarded as fully in consonance with the Islamic one, with the role of Laila in Sufism being that of the Shulamit here.