Ruach and Chochmah

The extra-Biblical book called “Wisdom of Solomon” equates Sophia (“Chochmah”) with the “Holy Spirit” (9:17) and characterizes “Her” as Divine “Breath” (7:25).  The extra-Biblical book “Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sirach)” states that Sophia (“Chochmah”) came out of the mouth of G-d (24:3).   Thus, it would appear that there is good reason to consider “Chochmah” of the Biblical book “Mishlei (Proverbs)” as equatable with G-d’s “Ruach” from Gen. 1:2 and elsewhere.  Some have raised the objection that while G-d’s “Ruach”, like breath in humans, must be regarded as essential (inherent) to G-d, not a creation by G-d, “Chochmah” appears to have been created (Prov. 8:22-25; Ben Sirach 1:4, 24:9).  In fact, in one case, an attempt has been made to consider Sophia (“Chochmah”) as a created angelic nature of G-d’s “Ruach” existing in “hypostatic union” with “Her”, akin to the relationship of human and Divine natures in Jesus per Christian Nicene theology (cf. Sophia, The Holy Spirit: The Divine Feminine p.16).  However, a careful examination of the verses said to assert the creation of Sophia (“Chochmah”) suggest that “She” is not a creation.  First, the Hebrew verbs used in Proverbs 8:22-25 are a qal form of “qanah”, a niphal form of “nasak”, and a pulal form of “chul”.  The first word can mean “create” but in the Tanach much more commonly means “possess or acquire”.  The second word means “installed” or “anointed”, and the third means “born” or “brought forth”.  So, a plausible translation of Proverbs 8:22-25 is:
 
Y-H-W-H possessed me as the beginning of His way,
   before His works of old.
I was installed from everlasting, from the beginning,
   or ever the earth was.
When [there were] no depths, I was brought forth;
   when [there were] no fountains abounding with water.
Before the mountains were settled, before the hills,
   I was brought forth.
 
Turning to the ancient Greek translation of Proverbs (the so-called “Septuagent”), we find that the Greek words used to translate Hebrew “qanati” are “ektise me”, with “ektise” from the verb “ktizo”.  Forms of this very same Greek verb appear in both of the other verses under consideration (Ben Sirach 1:4, 24:9).  In addition to “qanah”, the Greek verb “ktizo” is used to translate a variety of Hebrew verbs in Greek translations of the Tanach, some relate to creation (“bara”, “yatzar”), but others have a variety of meanings, such as “yasad” (found or establish), “kun” (set up), and “shakan” (dwell or settle).  So, while some are eager to use the Greek verb as evidence for the creation of “Chochmah” (Sophia), the matter is not so simple, and one can legitimately understand the Greek as “The Lord established me as…”.  Furthermore, some have pointed to the linguistic relationship of “ktizo” and “ktaomai”, which means “acquire” or “possess”.  With that relationship, we may consider that the forms of “ktizo” used to translate Proverbs 8:22 and the two Ben Sirach verses (no Hebrew version of these verses has yet been discovered) are expressing “possess” just like “qanah”.

So, we are left with no legitimate reason to regard “Chochmah” (Sophia) as created.  Instead, like G-d’s “Ruach”, we should understand “Her” as something inherent (essential) to G-d, which is “brought forth” in the process of creation, as with the “breath” in creating “words”.  So like “Ruach”, there are two aspects – the one that “comes forth” (the “outward breath”, “Chochmah” as “brought forth from G-d”) and the one that is “within” (the “inward breath”, “Chochmah” as “possessed by G-d”).  The latter reflects the essentiality of the “Ruach”/ “Chochmah” to G-d, the Divine Freedom to assume limitation that is inherent in the Divine Freedom from any limitation, while the former represents the sense of separateness/distinction from G-d that marks the actualization of the Freedom to assume limitation and constitutes the very finitude of creation itself and concomitantly defines G-d as “Creator”.  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.  This process starts with love for the Beloved, including reverence for all “Her” forms (e.g., harmlessness to all creatures as the cornerstone of daily living), and culminates in the realization that “He is She and She is He”.    

Another Pasuk (Biblical Verse) Evoking the "Feminine" Aspect of God

Job (Iyov) 33:4, in English:
"The Spirit (Breath) of G-d made me, the Breath of the Almighty (Breasted One) keeps me alive".

Two different words that both mean "breath" are used as synonyms here, with slightly different nuances - "ruach" (as we saw in a previous post, conveying the idea of soft, involuntary breathing, but also associated with speaking the things of the universe into existence) and "neshamah" (which in Gen. 2.7 is associated with the more voluntary action of G-d blowing the breath - neshamah - of life into Adam and not with speaking things into existence).  One may envision the usage here as conveying that the Divine Breath both has been used to speak a creature into existence in the first place and also to silently continue to keep the creature alive.  These two facets of the Divine Breath are presented as aspects of G-d since they doing the actions of making and life-sustaining here, and they are explicitly "Feminine", given the feminine nouns and verbal forms.  This verse thus evokes the "Feminine" aspect of G-d.  

Additionally, the verb "made" ('asah) here literally conveys acting or doing - a making from oneself, as in acting or doing in a certain way.  So, the assertion is that the "Feminine" Breath of G-d is the "material" cause, which is particularly apt since the Divine Breath is the very substance of the all-formative Divine Word, just as ordinary spoken words are comprised entirely of breath driven through the vocal apparatus to create sound.

One may also add that "Shaddai", usually translated as "Almighty", has been credibly understood as "Breasted One" (cf. http://www.academicroom.com/article/god-breasts-el-shaddai-bible) and even has been plausibly seen as an archaic West Semitic grammatically feminine word (cf. Harriet Lutzky’s 1998 Vetus Testamentum article “Shadday as a Goddess Epithet”), thereby reinforcing the "feminine" emphasis here.  In fact, if these interpretations of “Shaddai” are correct, then one may comprehend that its use here is a reflection upon the truly “androgynous” nature of the G-d Who possesses a “Feminine” Breath, i.e., this essential (inherent) “Feminine” activity of G-d manifests the reality of G-d as El (“Masculine”) Shaddai (“Feminine”).  “He is She and She is He”, which is to say:  the Divine Freedom from any limitation is the Divine Freedom to be all limited things and vice versa, for without the freedom to be all limited things, there is no freedom from that limitation, and without the freedom from any limitation, there is no freedom to go beyond the limits of self.

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.

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”.