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.

Ancient Jewish Vegetarianism

In the late 15th C. C.E., R. Yitzchak Arama, in Akeidat Yitzchak “Parshat Beshalach”, makes the following statement (translation by R. Dovid Sears, The Vision of Eden, p. 321):

Thus, from time immemorial, men of spiritual attainments, possessed of divine wisdom and removed from worldly desires, having separated the intellect from the physical, removed themselves from society to dwell in the deserts and forests, far from the rest of humankind, in order to attain spiritual perfection. They refrained from consuming the flesh of animals, but sustained the body with grains, fruits, and vegetables. Heeding G-d’s benevolent instruction to all mankind at the beginning of creation to eat only vegetarian foods, they sought to extricate the intellect from the physical and free themselves from inner conflict. Thus, the wise [King Solomon] said, “Better a morsel of bread eaten in peace than a feast in a house full of strife” (Proverbs 17:1). According to this teaching, bread and all that belongs in this category – grains, fruits, and vegetables that comprise the level below the animal realm – are the foods that a spiritually refined person should eat.

R. Arama’s words evoke the ascetic vegetarian practice of the Jewish men and women who lived in the community of the “Therapeutae” described near Lake Mereoitis in Egypt by 1st C. C.E. Philo Judaeus in De Vita Contemplativa (translation at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book34.html):

(37) and they eat nothing of a costly character, but plain bread and a seasoning of salt, which the more luxurious of them to further season with hyssop; and their drink is water from the spring; for they oppose those feelings which nature has made mistresses of the human race, namely, hunger and thirst, giving them nothing to flatter or humor them, but only such useful things as it is not possible to exist without. On this account they eat only so far as not to be hungry, and they drink just enough to escape from thirst, avoiding all satiety, as an enemy of and a plotter against both soul and body.

(73) I know well that some persons will laugh when they hear this, but they who laugh will be those who do things worthy of weeping and lamentation. And in those days wine is not introduced, but only the clearest water; cold water for the generality, and hot water for those old men who are accustomed to a luxurious life. And the table, too, bears nothing which has blood, but there is placed upon it bread for food and salt for seasoning, to which also hyssop is sometimes added as an extra sauce for the sake of those who are delicate in their eating…

In 1999, archaeological investigations in Israel, near Qumran, have yielded evidence for a similar community and practice (http://www.archaeology.org/9905/newsbriefs/vege.html):

Twenty-eight spartan dwellings on the edge of the Ein Gedi oasis in southern Israel may have been the home of a community of Essenes, the Jewish sect thought by some to have collected the Dead Sea Scrolls. While no inscriptions have been found positively linking the site to the group, its proximity to the village of Ein Gedi a mile away is grounds for assuming that its inhabitants belonged to the same community, says Yitzhar Hirschfeld of Hebrew University, the site's excavator. Descriptions of the Essenes by ancient authors such as Pliny the Elder "fit the character of the site," he says. Another clue is the presence of a mikveh, or Jewish ritual bath.

The Essenes are thought to have flourished between the second century B.C. and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70. Ancient sources describe them as a tightly knit group of men, possibly celibate, who practiced communal ownership of property. "The people who lived here worked the fields of the oasis," says Hirschfeld, who suspects that the site was a permanent, rather than seasonal, settlement. The dwellings were built for one person only and measure six by nine feet. They appear to have been occupied twice, in the first and early second centuries A.D., and between the fourth and sixth centuries. Three larger buildings possibly had a communal use; one, likely a kitchen, had three stoves and a thick layer of ash on the floor.

While the site yielded a fairly rich collection of pottery vessels, glass sherds, and seven coins from the early Roman and Byzantine eras, it is most remarkable for its lack of animal bones. "Although we worked carefully, sifting everything, we didn't find any," says Hirschfeld, adding that the settlers might have been vegetarian. Although Josephus noted that the dietary restrictions of the Essenes were stringent, the nearby village appears not to have been bound by vegetarianism. "We've found 4,000 animal bones in the village of Ein Gedi," he notes.

Musings on Meat and Vegetarianism

While it is true that HaShem has permitted the eating of meat both for Jews and non-Jews, this is a permitted practice but not a required one, except in the case of the qorbanot (sacrifices). The mandatory consumption of sacrificial meat generally is restricted to the Kohanim, with Israelites and Levites consuming only the meat of voluntary offerings. One case where meat consumption is required of all Jews is the mitzvah of Qorban Pesach. The only other Torah requirement regarding meat consumption is to fulfill the mitzvah of rejoicing on Yom Tov (a Biblical holiday)through eating meat and drinking wine (Pesachim 109b). Without the Beit Hamikdash, qorbanot consumption obviously is not possible, and the Torah obligation of rejoicing on Yom Tov is fulfilled entirely by drinking wine (Beit Yosef, Orach Chaim 529). Devarim 12:15 and 12:20-21 discuss the permission to eat meat beyond the qorbanot, and make it dependent on the soul’s “strong desire” to eat meat. To get a sense of the nature of that desire, one should note that the word used - ta'avah - actually is used elsewhere in the Torah for strong craving, lust. Without such a strong desire to eat meat, this permission is not applicable. Thus, under Halacha (Jewish Law) no Jew currently MUST eat meat.

Nonetheless, some have argued that eating meat is a mitzvah. This position is rooted in the Kabbalistic idea of “raising the sparks”. In brief, as discussed by the Arizal (Rabbi Yitzchak Luria, zts”l), during the creation of the universe, there were holy vessels that were intended to contain flow of “light” from G-d, which were shattered, and “sparks" of holiness (netzotzot) fell to “lower” levels, ultimately becoming entrapped in material things. Human beings, especially Jews, are tasked with “raising” these “sparks”. When it comes to consumption, that role has been described thus (http://www.chabad.org/parshah/
article_cdo/aid/2941/jewish/Meat.htm):

“When a person drinks a glass of water, eats an apple, or slaughters an ox and consumes its meat, these are converted into the stuff of the human body and the energy that drives it. When this person performs a G-dly deed -- a deed that transcends his natural self and brings him closer to G-d -- he elevates the elements he has incorporated into himself, reuniting the sparks of G-dliness they embody with their source.”

Elevating the “holy sparks” in food and drink is primarily done through the brachot (blessings) offered over the food or drink and the mitzvot done with the energy derived from them.

However, the “sparks” are not the only issue involved in eating/drinking. The Arizal also discusses the passage of human souls into animals, plants, and inanimate objects – gilgul ha-neshamot (Sha’ar HaGilgulim, Hakdamah 22). The soul of a sinner may be present in the animal, plant or other object, awaiting a tikkun – “repair”, “rectification” – which will release it to move onto its next destination – be it another body or not. The sinner’s soul that may be in inanimate objects or plants can be rectified simply by the mitzvot performed by anyone who consumes them (cf. Tzidkas HaTzaddik by R. Tazdok HaKohen of Lublin, Perek 240). It should be noted that for most fruits, grains, and vegetables, as well as all inanimate objects (water, etc.), the item consumed does not require taking its life. Unlike some root vegetables that must be uprooted, causing the death of the plant, most consumed vegetation is either harvested after the plant has died (like grain or legumes) or represents the produce of a plant that is removed without killing the plant (like an eggplant, apple, tree nut, etc.), and one may suppose that the sinner's soul that may be there either will remain in the living plant from which the produce has been removed or will have departed upon the natural death of the plant prior to harvest, having fulfilled its term in the full natural cycle of the plant's life. Indeed, R. Yosef Chaim (Otzrot Chaim I, Tikkun Ha-M'gulgolim B'Domem, Tzomei'ach, Chai, Medeber) raises a concern about the presence of a sinner's soul when consuming only those vegtables that have grown entirely in the ground - i.e., need to be uprooted (killed) for consumption.

For the sinner’s soul in animals, matters are more complicated. For products discharged from animals, like milk and non-fertile eggs, which don’t involve taking the animal's life, little is said in Kabbalistic sources, and one may presume that the situation is similar to that with plant produce, namely that the sinner's soul that may be present is retained in the living animal from which the product has come. With respect to animal flesh, the tikkun depends upon the slaughtering of the animal. The moment when the animal’s life is taken is a moment when the human soul there may or may not be rectified. When it comes to land animals and birds, it all depends on the actions and concentration (kavannah) of the slaughterer (shochet). As R. Nosson Sternhartz (Likkutei Halachos, Shechitah 4:3) states:

The shochet must be extremely pious and G-d-fearing. He must recite the blessing prior to the act of slaughter with deep concentration, and exercise the greatest care concerning every detail of the laws involved [my note – the laws include a perfectly sharp knife with no nicks, showing the knife to a Torah Sage, and a seamless cut across the arteries and windpipe, etc. to mimimize pain to the animal as much as possible]. Thus, he will redeem the soul within the animal and elevate it to the human level. (translated by R. Dovid Sears – The Vision of Eden, Orot 2003)

Ideally, the shechitah will have been done as cleanly and painlessly as possible and the kavannah of the shochet will have been sufficient so that any such reincarnated soul will have been sent on its way from the animal flesh long before any person consumes it. Otherwise, there is a concern that the consumer will be subjected to negative influences from the reincarnated soul of a sinner that may still be present in the meat. See what is written in the Ramak’s (Rabbi Moshe Cordovero's) Shiur Komah, Daf 84c regarding the transmigration of a sinner’s soul into an animal:

Thus a conscientious person should avoid eating meat, as it is possible that the soul of a wicked person may cleave to him - sometimes hastening his death. The editor adds: “In the light of this, one should never eat meat unless the divine mysteries have been revealed to him, and he knows that it does not contain the reincarnated soul of a transgressor” (translated by R. Dovid Sears in The Vision of Eden, Orot 2003, from R. Chaim Chizkiyahu Medini’s Sdei Chemed, Inyan Achilat Basar).

So, even in the pre-industrial conditions of the sixteenth century, when most knew the slaughterer or did the slaughtering oneself and the shechitah was not under the kind of time pressures that factory farming have rendered to it, there was so much concern that the shechitah may not have been done properly, that it was advised to avoid eating meat unless “divine mysteries have been revealed” and its is known that the animal “does not contain the reincarnated soul of a transgressor”. The requirement for a “revelation” means one cannot simply assume that the shochet has done his job properly. How much more so in our day, when industrial conditions exist in most shechitah contexts, should one be concerned that such conditions may have lessened the shochet’s kavanah and/or cleanness and painlessness of the shechitah. It is such concern that led R. Shlomo Goren zts”l (once Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi of Israel) to give up meat after visiting a kosher slaughtering plant and that led R. Mordechai Eliyahu shlita (former Rishon LeTzion and Zakein HaMekubalim) to only eat meat when he has been able to personally inspect the knife and watch the shechitah.

What about fish, which are not subjected to the laws of shechitah – can they be consumed without such a concern about the soul of a human sinner remaining in the flesh one consumes? Generally, fish appear to be less of an issue. Many sources suggest that human souls that are incarnated in fish typically are not those that have committed particularly grave sins, and that the tikkun for such souls is easier than for those in land animals and birds (cf. Sefer Kedushas HaAchilah 164; Shiv’chei Baal Shem Tov [A. Rubenstein, ed.] 74; Kochvei Ohr, Anshei Moharan by R. Abraham ben Nachman Chazan, 38ff). However, there are cases in which there are human souls in fish that are those that have committed grave sins, even to the extent that such a soul has no tikkun. See, for example, the case of the soul in a fish that even the Tzaddik of Kallo could not rectify (Degel Machaneh Yehudah Sect. 4). In such a case, consuming the flesh of the fish, would no doubt subject one to the same problem discussed by the Ramak above. So, the concern persists.

What about Shabbat (the Sabbath) and Yom Tov? Some have argued that the potential for a sinner’s soul to still be in the flesh consumed is not a concern on Shabbat and Yom Tov. For example, R. Ariel Bar Tzadok has stated (http://www.koshertorah.com/PDF/noah.pdf): “On Shabat, even an Am HaAretz raises up the fallen souls when he eats meat, regardless of his specific intentions. The reason for this is that the holiness of the Shabat and the Yamim Tovim arouse the souls to ascend.” This idea appears to be problematic. First, it is clear that some souls cannot be rectified in their present state, even in kosher animals – like the fish that the Tzaddik of Kallo could not correct (Degel Mahaneh Yehudah Sect. 4). No mention is made of using Shabbat or Yom Tov as an opportunity to correct this soul, it simply could not be corrected at that point in its transmigrations. Second, if souls are always corrected simply by consumption of meat on Shabbat, how could the Beit Yosef’s Maggid prevent him from buying meat for Shabbat in order to teach him that meat was not necessary for Shabbat (Maggid Mesharim 35C)? This would have been both denying a particular opportunity to correct souls and also presenting a teaching, if heeded, which could prevent such future opportunities. Not to mention what we have already quoted from the Ramak’s Shiur Komah 84c. There we see that one must be “never” eat meat unless one knows from a special “revelation” that there is no sinner’s soul in it – “never” makes no exception from Shabbat or Yom Tov.

According to Kabbalistic considerations, it has been argued that there is a holy path possible in meat consumption, but, as we have seen above, it is one fraught with danger, especially in our day, no matter whether one eats meat and fish or fish alone, and no matter whether one does it on any weekday or only on Shabbat or Yom Tov. Without such danger, there also is a holy path in a strictly vegetarian diet. This is made clear in a variety of places. I present some of these below.

The holiness of the vegetarian path is also manifest in the lives of those Gedolim and Mekubalim who have refrained from meat at all times, even Yom Tov and Shabbat. In addition to the Sage R. Raphael Pinchas Yehoshua DeSegura mentioned by R. Medini below and that Chaver of the Arizal to whom R. Cohen refers below, we have R. Seckel Loeb, zts”l (the Baal Shem of Michelstadt), who from an early age never ate anything derived from animals, including milk and eggs; R. David Cohen zts”l, the Nazir of Jerusalem, who refrained from meat and fish at all times from early adulthood; and, R. Yitchak Kaduri, zts”l, who only ate a bite of fish twice a year (on Erev Yom Kippur and on Purim) and not any meat at all for much of his life.

From R. Chaim Chizkiyahu Medini, Sdei Chemed, Inyan Achilat Basar (translated by R. Dovid Sears – The Vision of Eden, Orot 2003):

On the subject of eating meat nowadays, our master [R. Chaim Benveniste] in his Knesses HaGedolah (Yoreh De'ah 28) citing the Rashal, states that we may rely upon the Ri and the Ran, and eat meat for the sake of bodily nourishment, and not afflict ourselves at all. However, the Chida [R. Chaim Yosef David Azulai] in his Chaim Sha'al, 43:6, states: "It all depends upon the nature of the individual. If one can afflict oneself in order to atone for one's sins-for 'there is no person free from sin'-that is well and good." As for ourselves, what can we say to this, in such an orphaned generation when the number of our sins is beyond calculation and our plight is almost unbearable, may God forgive us.

This view is shared by [R. Raphael Pinchas Yehoshua DeSegura] in Os Hi L'Olam, 63c. Here we find support and justification from a well known sage, may the Merciful One protect and sustain him, who for many years abstained completely from eating meat. Heaven forefend that anyone disparage him; happy will be his lot. He abstained even from wine, except when performing a religious precept (e.g., Kiddush, Havdalah, or the Four Cups of the Passover Seder meal). It has been said that all of a person's labor is for the sake of food; therefore, gluttony often leads to transgression. We have already cited the words of the Ari [R. Yitzchak Luria], "Happy is the person who is able to abstain from meat and wine all week long." Also note [R. Yehudah Tiktin] in Ba'er Heitiv on Orach Chaim 134:1, sec. 3: "There is an accepted practice not to eat meat or drink wine on Monday and Thursday, since the Heavenly Court is then sitting in judgment... Happy is the person who is able to refrain from meat and wine the entire week." Also see Yakhel Shlomo on Orach Chaim 529:2.

It is true that [the Talmud states] that on the Sabbath one dines on meat and wine. However, that is a person's right, not his obligation. Our sages taught, "One should eat on the Sabbath just as on a weekday [in order to avoid taking charity]" (Shabbos 118a). [Therefore, the consumption of meat cannot be construed as obligatory.] This is also the ruling of [Rabbi Moshe Isserles] in Darkei Moshe on Yoreh De'ah 341. In Reishis Chochmah [the classic introduction to the Kabbalah by R. Eliyahu de Vidas] (129b) there is a lengthy discussion that concludes that one should not consume the flesh of any living creature. And [R. Eliyahu HaKohen of Izmir] in Shevet Mussar, 192a, states that meat is only permitted to a perfectly righteous person. However, all this only pertains to the devout, and a common person is not actually forbidden to eat meat. Nevertheless, we have learned that it is correct to refrain from doing so if one is able to endure privation. Such an individual is considered mighty and holy. Also note Kerem Shlomo on Yoreh De'ah (chap. 1), which explains at length that there is no actual religious duty to consume meat and wine even on the Sabbath or Festivals.

I have recently seen the Kabbalistic work Shiur Komah by Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, and one of my students, who shall always remain dear to me, has shown me page 84c regarding the transmigration of the soul into the vital spirit of an animal. [There it states,] "Thus a conscientious person should avoid eating meat, as it is possible that the soul of a wicked person may cleave to him - sometimes hastening his death." The editor adds: "In the light of this, one should never eat meat unless the divine mysteries have been revealed to him, and he knows that it does not contain the reincarnated soul of a transgressor. Similarly the Ari in Sha'ar HaMitzvos, in the Torah portion Eikev, cautions us not to eat much meat for this reason. He adds that certainly one must never consume the heart of any animal, beast, or bird, as therein dwells the life force".

From a 2002 email to me from R. She’ar Yashuv Cohen shlita (Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi of Haifa):

The following story [is] in the name of the saintly Rabbi Chaim Vital:

And it happened in the courtyard of our Holy Master (the saintly Rabennu Yitzchak Ashkenazy – known as Ha’ari Ha’kadosh) that one of the chaverim (fellows) well known for his piety and erudition took upon himself not to eat or enjoy anything that was alive. And the members of our court “the chaverim” started rebuking him and say: “This way of life is not permitted in our place. It is not the way of Israel”. And the holy master (meaning the Ari) heard about it and immediately called them in and scolded them and said: “Do not dare to speak against him, a holy man of G-d shall be said about him and that is his way in the Holiness”.

The Tzimztum

In Sefer Eitz Chayim, the Ari’zal speaks of a “contraction” or “tzimtzum” of the Infinite into “Himself” that allows for a “space” for the finite to exist (translation adapted from Rachel Elior, http://www.shma.com/2010/01/tzimtzum-a-kabbalistic-approach-to-creation/):

Know, that before the emanations were emitted and the creatures were created, a supernal light was extended, filling the entire universe. There was no unoccupied place, that is, empty air or space; rather, all was filled by that extended light…. But then, the Infinite contracted Himself into a central point which is truly in the center of the light, and that light was contracted and withdrew to sides around the central point. Then an empty place remained with air and empty space. The Infinite then extended one straight line from the light, and in the empty space It emanated, created, formed, and made all of the worlds in their entireties (Eitz Chayim, Sha’ar 1, Perek 1).

There is an historic dispute about whether the “tzimtzum” is literal or symbolic, and also about whether it describes an event in the “Essence” of G-d or in His “light”.

Those Mekubalim who interpreted the “tzimtzum” literally included the Shabbatean heretics like Nathan of Gaza and Nehemiah Chayon, but also “mainstream” figures like R. Immanuel Chai Ricchi and possibly the Vilna Gaon. Some of them posited an unbridgeable expanse between the Creator and His creatures. They believed that G-d actually withdrew from what was to become the world at the beginning of creation and therefore is only transcendent from, not fully immanent in, it. According to this view, the sole Divine presence in this world is to be found in the Torah.

Aside from the problem of the obviously spatial nature of the “tzimtzum” when taken literally – which suggests it is a metaphor since G-d is not a body, as affirmed by the Rambam and others – there is the problem with this view in that it limits the Infinite by excluding Him from some manner of the finite.

Those Mekubalim who interpreted the “tzimtzum” in a non-literal way included R. Abraham Herrera, R. Yosef Ergas, and, of course, Chassidic rebbes from the Besht onward. It is worth noting that the Vilna Gaon’s talmid R. Chayim of Volozhin also took a non-literal view.

The difference between the Chassidic view and that of R. Chayim of Volozhin is summarized by the Lubavitcher Rebbe zts”l, with the latter holding that the “tzimtzum” affected the “Essence” of G-d as well as His “light”, but the former limiting the “tzimtzum” to the “light” (Ohr Ein Sof) alone (cf. http://www.sichos
inenglish.org/books/letters-rebbe-1/04.htm).

Note that the passage in Eitz Chayim speaks of both a “contraction” of the Infinite “Himself” and of the “light”. The idea that the “tzimtzum” only affects the “light” of the Infinite is somewhat problematic philosophically for it is built on the analogy of rays of light and their solar source, which involves a spatial distance that has to suggest an ontological otherness to prevent the source from being affected, and thus tends to make the “light” a hypostasis, a distinguishable reality alongside of the Infinite. Otherwise, to the extent that His “light” is affected – since there is no spatial separation – He too would be affected. Thus, in addition, it raises the question of this distinguishable – hence finite – “light’s” origin from its Source when finitude itself is supposed to not exist until the “contraction” of the “light”, and introduces a measure of regressus ad infinitum.

While the Lubavitcher Rebbe zts”l maintains that Chabad Chassidut does not accept any “tzimtzum” in G-d “Himself”, it is worth noting that R. Aharon HaLevi – a prime talmid of R. Schneur Zalman, the founder of Chabad – does actually posit a first “tzimtzum” (also called a “beqi’a”) in Infinite “Himself” that actually leads to the emergence of the Ohr (the “light”) of Infinite and then a second “tzimtzum” in the “light” that is detailed in the Eitz Chayim (cf. Avodat HaLevi as cited in G. Scholem, Kabbalah, p. 135). Perhaps, this was R. Aharon’s way of addressing the problematic nature of a “tzimtzum” only in the “light”, as discussed above.

One good way to understand the “tzimtzum” is as the absolutely free act of the Absolutely Infinite – if the act is truly tree, then it is existentially contingent, and that represents its own boundary, its own finitude, which is the very emergence of finitude itself from the Absolutely Infinite that remains free from any self to be changed or altered in any way when He freely acts in any way, and means that the act is not G-d. This way of understanding the “tzimtzum” has the advantage of being non-literal, and also of making G-d “Himself” – not just His “light” - the ground of that activity but without subjecting G-d to any change or modification; hence, avoiding the issue of regressus ad infinitum.

Sage Words on G-d as All that Exists

In my previous post, I discussed the implications of G-d's Absolute Infinity, and referred to some of the sources in our mesorah that discuss the implication that G-d is all that exists. In this post, I present some sage words from these sources. Except for the last quote, the translations are my own and I take responsibility for any errors.

From R. Chaim of Volozhin's Nefesh HaChayim (Sha’ar Gimmel, Perek Vav) regarding the initial pasuk of the Shema:

The One L-rd, blessed be He, is One in all the worlds and the entire creation, an absolutely simple Oneness, and all things are reduced to nothing, and there is naught else beside Him, may He be blessed, at all.

From R. Schneur Zalman, Perek 6 of Sha’ar HaYichud veHaEmunah:

This, then, is the meaning of “and take unto your heart that Havayah is Elokim”. That is, these two Names actually are one, for even the Name Elokim, which contracts and hides the light, is an aspect of Chesed, like the Name Havayah. For the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, are one with Him in an absolute unity, and “He and His Name are One”, for His attributes are His Name. And if so, as a result, you will know that “in the heavens above and on the earth below, there is nothing else”. This means that even the material earth, which appears to the eye of each to be truly existent, is naught and actual nothingness with respect to the Holy One, blessed be He.

From Rabbi Aharon HaLevi's Sha’arei HaYichud veEmunah, Sha’ar I, Perek 24, Daf 49a:

But with respect to the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it were, there is nothing that preceded Him that that He could expand into them because there is naught beside Him, and nothing but Him, and nothing outside of Him, may He be blessed, that one could say about Him that from the perspective of His Will such a thing [is so].

Nor is this idea confined to the Chabad school of Chassiduth. Note the following from the Breslov perspective, as discussed and translated by R. Dovid Sears:

Rabbi Nachman’s foremost disciple and scribe, Reb Noson, also affirms this concept: “When the verse states ‘ein od milvado,’ it means to say that nothing exists but G-d. Above and below, in heaven and on earth, everything is absolutely naught and without substance – although this is impossible to explain, but can only be grasped according to the intuition of each person” (Likkutei Halakhos, Matnas Sh’chiv me-Ra’ 2:2).
(http://www.nachalnovea.com/breslovcenter/articles/
Comparing_Chabad_and_Breslev.pdf)

The Implications of Hashem's Absolute Infinity

Implication One – Hashem is All That Exists

Since Absolute Infinity is the freedom from any and all definition, the Absolutely Infinite is not locked into a nature or “self” that prevents Him from being anything at all. In fact, the Absolutely Infinite freely IS the finite, IS all that exists. Yet, being completely Undefined – having no nature to be changed or affected in any way - He remains unchangedly Undefined/Infinite even while being the defined/finite. Thus, G-d can freely be fully immanent, not just IN all but AS all, with no change to Him whatsoever, for He has no “nature/self” to be changed. The Absolutely Infinite remains Natureless in the naturehood of the finite, No Thing even as all things.

As it says in the Torah:
“You have been shown to know that Hashem is the G-d, there is naught else beside Him” (Devarim [Deut.] 4:35) – ain od milvado

“Know this day and take to your heart that Hashem is the G-d, in the heavens above and on earth below there is nothing else” (Devarim 4:39) – bashamayim mima’al ve’al ha-aretz mitachat ain od

The message of these verses – that G-d is all that exists – is elaborated in R. Chaim of Volozhin’s Nefesh HaChayim (Sha’ar Gimmel, especially Perekim Vav and Zayin), one of the most important theological works of the school of the Vilna Gaon; in the part II of R. Shneur Zalman’s Tanya, which is entitled Sha’ar HaYichud veHaEmunah, and is one of the foundational works of Chassidic philosophy and theology; and, in great detail in R. Aharon HaLevi Horowitz’s She’arei HaYichud veEmunah, which is an exposition of Chabad theology by one of the foremost students of R. Shneur Zalman. Thus, we see that the both the Chassidic and Litvak (Mitnagid) streams of Judaism are united in this truth.

Similarly, the Sephardic stream also embraces this truth, as seen in R. Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Perush on B’reishit 1:26 – “HaShem is One, and He creates all, and He is all”; R. Moshe DeLeon’s Sefer HaRimmon (182) – “thus, the Divine Essence is below as well as above, in heaven and on earth, there is nothing else”; and, R. Moshe Cordovero’s Sefer Elimah (Daf 24b) – “And the fact is that before anything existed, HaShem, the Infinite, was alone, and He was all that existed, and also after He brought forth those that exist, there is nothing but Him”.

Implication Two – All That Exists is Not Hashem

With no confinement to a defined nature or self, the Absolutely Infinite most certainly can freely be all defined/finite things, and yet because He remains entirely Undefined/Infinite, since He is free from any defined nature to be lost or altered in any way, this also means that no defined/finite thing itself is or ever can be G-d. As the Ramak so elegantly sums it up – “G-d is all that exists but all that exists is not G-d” (Sefer Elimah 24d).

G-d is One with ALL His acts, but that does NOT mean they are one with Him. This simply doesn’t follow logically. Acts freely done and roles freely assumed even by finite humans do not represent our essence – when we cease to do them or assume them, we don’t cease to exist. How much more so with the Absolutely Infinite, free from any nature or self to be even changed or modified by His free acts or freely assumed roles at all, let alone have such acts or roles constitute or represent Him “as He is”.

Further, just because the Absolutely Infinite is all, doesn’t logically mean that any of the all or even all of it is the Absolutely Infinite, and here is why: (1) anything differentiable in any sense must have some boundary (ontological, epistemic, physical, etc.) that permits its differentiability, and boundary – any boundary – means it is and remains thus finite, and is thus, NOT the Infinite; (2) Absolute Infinity means an absolute freedom from constraint that renders the existence of any act done or role assumed by the Infinite purely ex nihilo (being brought into existence [even timelessly] from not existing at all), hence not the Absolutely Infinite because constrained by its very existential contingency; and, (3) since the Absolutely Infinite is free from any nature or self to be changed by any act He freely performs or role He freely assumes, He remains free from finitude even in assuming it, which means that none of the “all”, no finite, is Him. He can be the all as that which is NOT Him, as only the Absolutely Infinite can be.

Nothing distinguishable can be G-d in any sense unless one has a finite for “G-d”. For if truly free to G-d, then it is existentially contingent ex nihilo, even if eternal, and this would mean that you have something finite at the level of its very existence for “G-d”. And, of course, if intrinsic to G-d, then you have an essentially finite for “G-d” due to the essential constraint that “intrinsic” invariably denotes. The contingent is bounded – finite – by its dependency; the intrinsic is bounded – finite – by the constraint of its necessity.

While boundary is not an impediment for G-d, it most certainly IS an impediment for that which is bounded by the boundary, and in the case of ANY finite it is an existential boundary (one which allows them to be differentiably what/who they are, allows them in themselves to be at all) that prevents them from being G-d. G-d’s Oneness with them even in the midst of their lack thereof with Him is a great and wondrous testimony to His Absolute Infinity.

All of this means that the multiplicity of the finite All is not an illusion or dream, but really does exist, even as G-d remains One/Absolutely Infinite while being that All. As R. Aharon HaLevi Horowitz indicates (She’arei HaYichud veEmunah Sha’ar Bet Perek Kaf-Chet, p. 40a):

And behold, although we have explained that all of the descriptions (of G-d) and the aspect of unification of the world of Atziluth are all from our side, from the perspective of the creatures that are in the aspect of the hiding of the light, do not err in understanding that all the aspects of the light and the concealment and the sephiroth are only relative to our perspective but that relative to the Blessed One these aspects do not obtain at all. Because, the comprehension of our earlier words, which we have explained to you , on the contrary, (shows that) there is not even the aspect of the smallest of the small that has not been created with special concentration by Him, the Blessed One, and exactly by the drawing of His Essence, Blessed by He, into them. But our meaning is that from the perspective of His exalted blessed Might, which is His unknowable Being, although He is drawn into the worlds in their aspect of finitude, they are not considered as a being in itself, and He is in them without any distinction at all.

R. Aharon is clearly asserting that finite things are real in themselves, but that G-d remains absolutely free of any finitude even while being fully in them and that from G-d’s “point of view” their finitude is His freedom from finitude. The question is how can this be? How can G-d’s “view” of them as His freedom from definition not erase their definition? R. Aharon considers this a “pele”, a “marvel” or “wonder” not comprehensible by the human mind. We may add that it may be a wonder but it does make logical sense when one considers that His freedom from definition is not itself a definition at all, thereby not conveying any exclusion of their own definition.

Implication Three – In Our Finitude We Cannot Know Hashem

In our finitude, there is no knowing G-d “as He is” any more than there is any finitude that can present G-d “as He is”. “Man cannot see me and live” (Shemot 33:20) and “Yet, none can know You” (Tikkunei Zohar - Petichat Eliyahu).

What is “made known” are free acts by G-d and roles freely assumed in these free acts, not G-d “Himself”, not G-d “as He is”. They can point us to G-d, they can open us to G-d, but in their distinguishability, in their finitude, they are NOT G-d in ANY sense, which obviously includes any sense of being “G-d as He is known/knowable”.

The Tanach does NOT define G-d at all; all it does is present defined roles freely taken on in the context of entirely free defined activities by G-d. “Revelation” is an activity, and so long as any activity is truly free, it is existentially constrained by its utter contingency, just as is also the role of “actor” freely assumed in any such activity, which is completely contingent on that free activity. “Creator” only exists in the context of the act of creation, regardless of whether that act is temporal or eternal. Logically, there is simply no role of “Creator” outside the activity of creating for how, meaningfully, can one be said to be “creator” if there is no creation. So, it is the act – not the role – that really is at issue here.

Implication Four – How We Can “Know” Hashem

While in our finitude, He provides a way to know His free acts, to relate to the roles He freely assumes in those acts. But there also is a way to “know” Him, not merely His free acts and freely assumed roles. The way He provides for this is through letting go of any finitude by opening our finite minds via the intrinsically definition negating function of a term like Y-H-V-H. While Absolute Infinity cannot be described or analyzed at all, we can be open to Absolute Infinity through the logic of the Name Y-H-V-H that - to avoid self-contradiction - always pushes us beyond any definition, even its own, even this as a definition.

Let me explain. Since the Name Y-H-V-H is conveying a freedom from even the most basic of all definition – that of self – it is not a term that itself is defined in any intrinsic way. Thus, it is a term that is intrinsically definition-transcending, definition-negating. All words are just sounds or letters, having no meaning without referents. Ordinary terms are meaningless unless they are defined by reference to the defined. By contrast, an intrinsically definition-transcending term is meaningless the moment it is defined or conceptualized, meaningless unless it remains truly undefined and referentially open. Such referential openness obviously requires it (as far as the sounds or visual letters that mark [denote], but don’t conceptually or ontologically define, it) to entirely “get out of the way”. Unless it always pushes us beyond any conceptualization or definition, even its own defining sounds, letters or referential stance, it becomes completely meaningless self-contradictory gibberish. Its self-negation is intrinsic and complete. Thus, such a term always pushes us beyond itself, always eludes definition – thereby opening the mind rather than closing it around any defined, hence finite, concept.

This is where logic/reason plays a crucial role at its own final limits. The logic of the meaninglessness of Name Y-H-V-H when taken as a definition of any sort is an important tool in opening the mind to G-d. Reason, used in this way, can bring us to faith – the “leap” that is this openness to the G-d. Malachi 3:16 references meditation on the Name Y-H-V-H, and it is the way just described that represents such meditation.

This mode of “knowing” is not knowledge in the sense of a form of consciousness, but rather as an opening of finitude to the Absolutely Infinite that has been characterized in the Torah as “deveikuth” – cleaving to G-d (Devarim 11:22).