Center for the Study of World Religions hosted our annual List Lecture Speaker Adam Afterman. Dr. Adam Afterman is a Professor at the Department of Jewish Philosophy and Talmud at Tel Aviv University, specializing in Jewish philosophy and Kabbalah. He is a senior scholar and director of the John Paul II Center for Interreligious Dialogue and a senior fellow of the Kogod Center for the Renewal of Jewish Thought at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem. Dr. Afterman addressed the profound impact of Neoplatonism on Kabbalah, the medieval trend of Jewish mysticism. While its impact on the development of a new form of mystical religiosity of communion and unio mystica is relatively known, he focused on another critical development: Afterman argueed that through an interpretation of Neoplatonic emanation in terms of substantive intra-divine emanation, the kabbalist developed for the first time a Jewish godhead.
CSWR List Lecture with Adam Afterman
SPEAKER 1: Harvard Divinity School.
SPEAKER 2: CSWR List Lecture. Kabbalistic Neoplatonism. Divine Emanation and Mystical Integration. September 28, 2023.
CHARLES STANG: Welcome, everyone. Good evening. My name is Charles Stang. I'm the director here at the CSWR, and I feel like I'm standing in front of my father's podium. We've got two podiums going because Adam is tall. I thought I was tall, until I approached this podium.
So we're very happy to be hosting the center's Annual List Lecture in Jewish Studies in person again this year. This is the second time we've been able to do so since the pandemic. Recent list lecturers have included our very own Shaul Magid, who is in the second row over there to the left. He was at this podium just last year. Other recent list lectures have included Elliot Wolfson, Guy Stroumsa, Vivian Liska and Sarah Hammerschlag.
So we are honored this evening to add Professor Adam Afterman to that distinguished list of list lecturers. Dr. Adam Afterman is a professor at the Department of Jewish Philosophy and Talmud at Tel Aviv University, specializing in Jewish philosophy and Kabbalah. He's a senior scholar and director of the John Paul II Center for Interreligious Dialogue, and a senior fellow at the-- am I saying this right, Kogod? Kogod Center for the Renewal of Jewish Thought at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem.
His early work focused on the notion of Devekut, or cleaving, in Jewish mysticism. And he published an important article in 2013 in the Journal of Religion entitled, "From Philo to Plotinus, The Emergence of Mystical Union," in which he argued that Plotinus' famous account of mystical union, which was to have such an enormous influence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, had an important precedent and possible source in Philo of Alexandria's allegorical commentary on the Bible.
He carried that work forward into his 2016 monograph entitled And They Shall Be One Flesh, On the Language Of Mystical Union in Judaism, published by Brill. That book offers an extensive study of mystical union and spiritual embodiment in Judaism. Professor Afterman was here five years ago, almost to the day, and gave a lecture on his latest project, then in its early stages, on the role of the Holy Spirit in Kabbalah. And my understanding is that this lecture this evening fits into that broader project.
This evening, Professor Afterman will address the profound impact of Neoplatonism on Kabbalah, the mystical trend of Jewish mysticism. While its impact on the development of a new form of mystical religiosity of communion and union mystica is relatively well known, he will focus on another critical development.
Afterman will argue that through an interpretation of Neoplatonic emanation in terms of substantive intradivine emanation, the kabbalist developed, for the first time, a Jewish Godhead. Professor Afterman, thank you for accepting our invitation to deliver this year's list lecture. We're honored to have you. This podium is yours.
[ADAM AFTERMAN: Thank you, Charles, for such a nice introduction and for this kind invitation. It's always a great honor and pleasure to be back here at the center at the Harvard Divinity School. And I see many familiar and friends' faces and friends here in the crowd. And, yeah, what I'm going to talk about today is really trying to put together some of the work I've been doing over the last, possibly, 10 to 15 years. You can put the next slide. Thank you.
Jerusalem and Athens, a tale almost as old as these civilizations themselves. Their first synthesis occurred in the writings of Philo, forgotten by rabbinic Jewish world until the Renaissance, and their second, during the 10th century and onwards in the Islamic Arabian Peninsula. The second attempt met with greater success, but also greater resistance, as may be attested by the enormous supposition that Moses Maimonides' grand synthesis met.
Greek wisdom by most medieval Jewish rabbinic Jews was seen as, at best, as one option but not authoritative, and at worst, heretical. Nevertheless, the work of Maimonides and his predecessors was still absorbed by much of rabbinic Judaism, including somewhat surprisingly, kabbalistic writings.
Perhaps the most crucial idea incorporated by medieval rabbinic Judaism was philosophical monotheism. The encounter with kalam thought and its emphasis on Tawhid led Jews in the 10th century to a more philosophical understanding of God's oneness, an incorporeal and transcendent oneness not subject to any category of change.
This conception became so foundational to Judaism, even read as the intention of the most important biblical verse, "Hear, o, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one." That later, Jewish thinkers identified it as the original Jewish idea that was later absorbed and adopted by the other monotheistic faiths.
Hand in hand with philosophical monotheism, consider now the foundation of Jewish thought, and adopted by almost all medieval Jews, was the introduction of some form of another of the theory of emanation. As portrayed in Neoplatonic and [INAUDIBLE] sources, the Jewish philosophical adaptation of emanation was understood as a process that produced a metaphysical emanation, leading to the creation of a physical existence.
This emanative process, as it manifested first in creation and continuously through the ongoing emanation of metaphysical overflow in prophecy and providence, was described using the Arabic term [ARABIC] and translated as the Hebrew word, "shefa," flow or flux. In its initial introduction, Plotinus, this process was understood in terms of how the intellect and soul emerged from the one, and how those entities emanate from other beings, and eventually, existence itself.
Key metaphors utilized by Plotinus were those of emanated rays of light and unending streams of water, emanated substances that do not distract from their source. He also offered the beautiful metaphor of the life of the great tree flowing through it from top to bottom. Yet the question remained for later interpreters and philosophers as to the precise nature of these metaphors.
What is the nature of this emanation and overflow? Is it a metaphor for realization of divine potency, or an actual divine substance, or any kind of substance?
We'll explore these different interpretations. The former in the writings of Maimonides, and the later and those of several early kabbalists. So we can move on. Thank you. Moses Maimonides. The notion of metaphysical overflow is critical in Maimonides' theory of the interface, between the metaphysical and physical realms, and in analyzing human perfection, divine providence, and prophecy.
He discusses the overflow several times in his Guide for the Perplexed, as he wrote, and this is the first quote, "As the overflow from the deity and from the intellect has been mentioned repeatedly in our discourse, we must explain to you its true reality, I mean, that of the subject that is designated as overflow."
He continues and writes, "This term, I mean 'overflow,' is sometimes also applied in Hebrew to God, likening him to an overflowing spring of water. For nothing is more fitting as a simile to the action of one that is separate from matter than this expression, I mean, "overflow." For we are not capable finding the use, the true reality of a term that would correspond to the true reality of this notion."
So we see that he doesn't have a term to analyze the impact of the intellect, but only a metaphor. For Maimonides, the overflow metaphor describes how the non-corporeal active intellect affects the material realm, including the human mind. Importantly, this overflow is not understood as a divine substance or a substance at all, but rather as a radiation of power that retains the unchanging character of the active intellect and God's oneness in a philosophical sense, while discussing the relation between the metaphysical and physical realms.
The overflow is a conceptual bridge used to overcome the gap between these realms, the Material and the Noetic. But for Maimonides and other Jewish philosophers, it did not erase this gap. It merely explained how divine providence and prophecy worked through the agency of the active intellect. Throughout his philosophical treatise, Maimonides used three metaphors for the agency of the active intellect.
Water, light, and spirit, identifying the Noetic overflow with the Hebrew term Ruach HaKodesh, translated as the Holy Spirit. Now I'm going to talk about shefa in kabbalistic thought.
The alternative to Maimonides' rendering of metaphysical overflow is found in the early Kabbalah of the 13th century. In these diverse writings, the kabbalist developed theories of intradivine emanation and overflow of divine substance which were critical in developing their unique kabbalistic systems and mystical paths. Many of these discussions include explicit Neoplatonic elements and concepts related to emanation drawn directly from Neoplatonic sources known to them.
The sources offer a unique synthesis between biblical and rabbinical concepts, with the general structure and mechanism of emanation and overflow. In my view, the outcome of this synthesis is a new form of Jewish discourse, although its content may seem ancient. These theories of Kabbalistic Godhead based on intradivine emanation are dramatic innovation compared to earlier non-Jewish sources. And they are remarkable, especially considering the background of philosophical monotheism that I just mentioned before. It comes after the philosophical monotheism. They shared.
In this critical development, the one God was perceived as emanating his essence into a hierarchy of dynamic forces or qualities that share the same substance as the divine source. In this theory, the Kabbalistic, the very substance of God, is imminent in the Godhead and continues to emanate within creation of man.
Although the divine is ever changing, it always remains the same. Therefore, its internal unity is left intact. This theory, therefore, allows the divine to go beyond itself, and reach and embody the Jewish individual and community, and allow them to participate in the inner divine life, clinging to the divine via his overflow, his Holy Spirit.
This theory of substantive emanation allowed the expansion of God into a Godhead. For the first time, I argue in the Jewish tradition. While the role of Neoplatonism in shaping early Kabbalahs has long been recognized in scholarship, its impact on the formation of the Kabbalistic Godhead and the component of shefa, as divine overflow has not been fully recognized, and the significance of the overflow shefa and its identification in most kabbalistic sources, with the term Holy Spirit, still lacks a comprehensive analysis.
Today, I would like to offer some preliminary remarks concerning the role of divine overflow in kabbalistic thought. This element continues to flow from God through and from the Godhead to the rest of existence and the mystics. This overflow, which is one of God, yet overflowing from God, is a critical feature in the mystical systems developed by the early kabbalists.
Both of these ideas, the emanation of the Godhead and the divine overflow, were new to the Jewish tradition and are the fruit of its encounter with Neoplatonism. We can put the next slide. Gershom Scholem, who you can see here, recognized usually as the founder of the study of academic study of Kabbalah, who didn't deny the general importance of Neoplatonism to the emergence of Kabbalah, nevertheless, downplayed its role in shaping the Kabbalistic Godhead, and insisted that it was instrumental mainly in the development of the most transcendent aspect of the Godhead and the sub-divine phase of emanation, but not the intradivine phase of the Godhead, not the sefirot.
Scholem noted that the kabbalistic developed an intradivine theory of emanation which differs for the classic Neoplatonic theory of metaphysical emanation. This proves, he argued, that the Kabbalist Godhead did not draw upon Neoplatonism. Furthermore, insisted that the kabbalistic theory of divine overflow was not to be interpreted as an emanation of divine substance, but as a metaphor or discourse of power.
He wrote, for example-- and you can change the slide. The first quote is not there. I'll just read it for you. "One doubts whether the Neoplatonic image of emanation adequately expresses their actual intentions." Because the language, the writings itself are full of Neoplatonic terms and references and metaphors. But he says, it didn't reflect their intentions.
And this is the most famous quote that you have here, likewise, in his 10 unhistorical aphorism on Kabbalah, he wrote the quite amazing quote, "As the actual misfortune of the Kabbalah, one ought to consider the doctrine of emanation. The insights of the Kabbalah concern the structure of what exists. Nothing will be more disastrous than to confuse the connections of this structure with the doctrine of emanation."
And he has. He writes about it. He's quite obsessed about this topic, and he writes about it a lot in different sources against misunderstanding the kabbalistic discourse as emanative, and substantively emanative. Scholem explicitly rejects the theory that the emanation of the sefirot was that of divine substance. But rather he claims, once and again, that it was simply the power of the emanator that goes forth in the emanative process, a position that reminds me of Maimonides view that was just briefly presented.
Scholem's antagonistic attitude towards Neoplatonic emanation was due to his belief that kabbalistic doctrine could not abide by a wholly pantheistic outlook. Scholem assumed that substantive emanation in a Neoplatonic form leads to pantheism, as in the case also of una mystica, stipulating that Jewish mystics have avoided both for theological reasons.
And you mentioned before, I also argue, about una mystica. And it's not only me. This is already clear that Kabbalah and Jewish mysticism does have, here and there, elements of una mystica. In the case of divine emanation, he invested a significant effort to argue that the kabbalistic theory of emanation is non substantial. The most critical outcome of this approach was the misrepresentation of the role of the divine overflow as a crucial element of the Kabbalistic Godhead and its unity, including its identification as the Holy Spirit.
In a non-substantive understanding of the emanation, one cannot fully account for the complex and rich role of the Holy Spirit and diverse kabbalistic systems, as will be demonstrated in a few sources in a minute. To make things even more complicated, Scholem, who ignored the Holy Spirit in Kabbalah totally, believed that the Kabbalistic Godhead was a unique outcome of a combination of the Neoplatonic transcendent God, and the Gnostic Jewish tradition that stood for the positive aspects of the Godhead and its overflow.
This tradition arrived, he argued, from the Orient, and somehow surfaced in Northern France at the end of the 12th century. This theory never proven was presented, for example, by a student of Isaiah Tishby. So this is just one example of this theory. "At the very beginning of the new speculative kabbalah, En-Sof, which represents the God of Plotinus and his followers, was joined to a system of sefirot, which was the Jewish version of Gnostic pleroma, and so the kabbalistic mystery of the divine, comprising the hidden God and the revealed God, came into being."
Scholem's bias against Neoplatonic understanding of the emanative process has left scholarship with a distorted understanding of this development. The much more straightforward explanation is that the early kabbalists adopted an interpretation of Neoplatonic illumination, and applied it first to an intradivine stage similar to what we find in Christian and Islamic adaptations of Neoplatonism, such as found in Augustinian and Andalusian Sufi literature.
One of the outcomes of this distorted outlook was misunderstanding the role of divine overflow in the Kabbalistic Godhead and mystical life. While scholarship has explored the terminology used to describe the sefirot, the different powers in the Godhead, and their development from biblical and classical rabbinical literature until medieval kabbalistic literature, how these sefirot emanated from the divine substance and the nature of ongoing divine overflow, especially that which continued to pass through the sefirot and from them to the world, was generally ignored.
For example, Isaiah Tishby in his systematic presentation of kabbalistic doctrine discusses the overflow only as an instrument of divine providence, but not as a primary mechanism of mystical integration between man and God. That's something I want to argue about today. Since Tishby, some progress has been made in the works of Jonathan Garber and Haviva Pedaya, which stand out in this regard.
And I also want to mention here, also, Alexander Altmann that was here in the States, who also wrote about the Neoplatonic context differently from Scholem, but he was less known than Scholem. It appears that the continued ignorance of the central role of the Holy Spirit in medieval kabbalistic thought is driven by a deep anxiety of influence from Neoplatonism. And if the threats, and its threats of pantheism on the one hand, and also, possibly, Christianity on the other hand.
Now that I have prefaced my remarks concerning the emergence of the Kabbalistic Neoplatonic Godhead, I would like to bring a few examples in which the role of the overflow as a divine substance cannot be denied. I argue in early Kabbalah. So the first case is that of one of the first kabbalists. Possibly, even the first kabbalist, Asher Ben David, who was the first to articulate in writing a theory of the Godhead based upon a theory of its emanation from God. It's probably the first written articulated theory of emanation.
Ben David began to identify the various Neoplatonic images of shefa as water and light with the Hebrew terms. Power and blessing, [HEBREW] which also linked to the flow of water from its source, from the pool, from the [HEBREW] The overflow, and the source, and the pool, are related. They play upon that, and it's classic in Kabbalah. In his system, shefa, the overflow, is the primary ontological reality. And the sefirot foundation. The sefirot are only secondary to the flow and serve as vessels for this substantive divine emanation.
He describes not only the emanation of divinity with these terms, but also the world's creation by corresponding between the six days of creation and the middle sefirot. He wrote that everything was created in that time in potential, for it was encapsulated in, and I'm quoting, "The flow of blessing, shefa baha, which is from the source of life, and from the fountain that blesses everything every day, and at all times in order for them to exist."
In a similar vein, he wrote that this blessing, which is the overflow, unites all of these attributes, "all of these sefirot, unitive power. just as the potency of the roots of the tree disseminates in its branches. So to the internal spirit, flows through these attributes, and this spirit planted in them is called plantings. For all entities that are set in place, and does not move, and is never separated from there is called planted."
So he's talking about how these sefirot are integrated into this overflow and united by this overflow. While previous scholarship stresses the instrumental understanding of the sefirot in Asher's thought with a renewed focus on the understanding of the Neoplatonic underpinning of Asher's emanation, there's a continuous flow in unity from the infinite, which is the source of blessing. Until these attributes, which are considered as planted inside the divine are considered one with the system.
Furthermore, he stresses that the attributes are not separate from the divine, but are part of it. The unit development, I want to stress now a very important point, that this overflow is also the unit of element of the system. The unit of element of the structure was the utmost importance for all the kabbalists. But is also critical. It has also critical implication.
It might seem counterintuitive to some of us, but it does not assume that the process of emanation and overflow in its intradivine phase contradicts God's fundamental unity and oneness. On the contrary, the overflow constitutes the unity and oneness of the organic Godhead. Since it is divine substance, which is always united with the divine, it projects this unity into its recipients, including the sefirot themselves through its vessels.
Asher articulated a detailed theory in which the same divine flow, also identified by him as the Holy Spirit, reaches the mystic and induces a variety of revelations. So the sefirot and man are the vessels that receive this flow. The next example, and we can move on to the slide, is Moses Nahmanides, Ramban, one of the most important 13th century kabbalist.
In his commentary on Sefer Yesirah, he presents a theory of the emanation of the Godhead and the human soul, all sharing one divine substance. He illustrates the emanation of nomadic terms, beginning with the spirit breath of God. God first inhales, creating a vacuum into which he excels the sefirot, both created from and infused of his Holy Spirit.
The spiritual overflow does not lose its divine nature. Rather, Nahmanides described it as being more refined. He talks about the Hebrew term, [HEBREW], becomes more and more refined when it's closer to its source, and less refined the further it is. But it's always connected. The same spirit is what enters the individual through which they can embody the divine and unite with it, becoming an extension of the divine breath.
Nahmanides also refers to the substance using the analogy of water, which can exist as ice, as water, as steam, yet all of these forms retain the same fundamental identity as one substance. So he really stresses this idea that it's one divine substance. So the divine flow remains a divine substance wherever it's close to the source or further. It may change its form, but not its identity and unity with the divine. Thus, for humanity, God remains one even though it is a complex unity.
And again, I'm trying to refer to this fact that Nahmanides is writing after Maimonides, after the philosophical monotheism was accepted as the foundational idea of Judaism. So how can the system of 10 sefirot, or whatever system you want, can be considered as one God? And I'm trying to argue that the system of the chef, by itself, is the secret of the unity and oneness of these godheads.
Nahmanides, it is the same Nahmanides, in a different context, also argues against the philosophical understanding of metaphysical emanation or overflow, as holding back, implied by the Hebrew term "Atzilut." The philosophers viewed emanation as occurring outside of God, as a sub-divine process. And therefore, emanation implies which is, an emanate is not divine. Nahmanides offered an alternative kabbalistic understanding as drawing. OK, drawing the divine substance, and as an alternative to the philosophical understanding. It is their structural similarity that demanded his clarification.
So here we see a kabbalist that's fully aware of the philosophical structures and is trying to offer his own theory of emanation. It is also an essential significance for the status of the human soul. As for philosophers-- and when I say philosophers, usually, Maimonides it is-- the human mind and soul are the final product of the sub-divine emanation. But for Nahmanides, the human soul is part of the divine organism drawn from the same substance as the Godhead.
The significance of this theory of emanation and its identification of the divine substance as the Holy Spirit-- also, Nahmanides shares that idea-- emphasizes the Holy Spirit role as the infinite ground and source of the Godhead, allowing the mystic to integrate with the Godhead while increasingly embodying the Holy Spirit. So here we're starting to talk about another element in which the Holy Spirit is embodying the mystic. And here we're reaching this idea of mystical integration.
It's not only serving the unity of the Godhead, it's also serving the unity of man and God. Another example, that's key for-- you can move the slide-- is The Zohar. More than any kabbalistic source, The Zohar is fascinating with divine emanation and overflow. The word "Zohar" itself means divine light. The mystical moments in The Zohar are rich when the divine system of powers, of sefirot, or whatever regain its inner unity and harmony.
Consequently, the overflow flows from the Godhead that's higher to lower vessels and reaches its human destination. In The Zohar, the overflow which is also God's blessing is linked with the mystery of God's unity, enacting through the sexual unification of God and the shekhinah, which overflows onto the kabbalists.
The unification of the masculine and feminine powers allows the overflow originating from the higher source of the Godhead to flow to the feminine-- lower power, the shekhinah. And from her to her sons. The mystics participating with her union. This flow is the force of unity of the Godhead, the fruit of the unification of which the mystic participates and also has an active role in inducing.
The intra and inter-unification of these divine entities is enacted through the individual's participation with the divine overflow, which remains united in all its manifestations. For example, through the recitation of sh'ma, the same verse I quoted at the beginning, the oneness of God is disclosed through the divine overflow that unites all. In other words, the divine oneness is drawn to the mystic by unifying the multiple divine elements-- usually, the masculine and feminine-- and receiving the overflow which is one with the unified God.
A similar-- and you can-- similar dynamic. We're not going to read the source. It's a classic source from The Zohar talking about the dynamics of Shabbat Evening. It's a big mystery that The Zohar describes here. A similar dynamic is developed in The Zohar conception of Shabbat. At this time, harmony occurs within the divine and human realms. Therefore, the Jewish people receive even more of the divine overflow than during the days of the week.
This state is referred to as the mystery of the one, in which the divine overflow, unobstructed, descends from the highest source until the people of Israel. Thereby, including them within the divine unity. This unification is a process in which the masculine transmits the shefa called the mystery of the one upon the feminine, the shekhinah, which she is united with him. At the same time, the people of Israel receive from her, the divine shefa, in the form of the Holy Spirit or the additional souls that they receive from above this power that descends from above.
The unity and oneness of God, which is the mystery of Shabbat, is experienced through this light spirit, which is the divine overflow that unites all. On the Shabbat, which corresponds to cyclical temporality, returning to the first days of creation and residing outside of history, the Jewish people participate in the mystery of the Holy Spirit bestowed on them as a collective.
Now, the last case I want to bring, and I'm bringing very central figures or sources from 13th century kabbalah. So we had Asher Ben David, Nahmanides, and The Zohar. Now we're going to talk about Abraham Abulafia. OK, just briefly. The last case, I would like to explore briefly comes from a slightly different intellectual background than others. Abraham Abulafia, the famous founder of ecstatic kabbalah. You can move on to 12
Abulafia was a student of Maimonides and other Jewish and Muslim philosophers. He wrote several kabbalistic commentaries on The Secrets of the Guide of Perplexed. Unlike modern scholars, Abulafia recognized the centrality of shefa, of flow, in Maimonides esoterica. For Abulafia, unlike Maimonides, the shefa is not limited to the Noetic mechanism of the active, but rather, it is divine reality that exists beyond the metaphysical hierarchies.
His mystical path is focused on the divine overflow as he develops a unique, what I call, theosophy of overflow without a theosophy of sefirot. In contrast, the other kabbalists ones mentioned before, stressed the need to generate unity in the Godhead, the sefirot, to receive the overflow.
Abulafia emphasized how the overflow is united and integrated, and therefore, individuals may unite with the divine flow through perfection of their imagination and intellect, but not necessarily by working and uniting the powers of the Godhead. The divine flow is the focus of his ecstatic integration with the Godhead, leading to moments of ecstatic union with the unified flow.
While I've shown, I hope, that overflow is a vital component of most medieval metaphysical and theosophical systems, Abulafia's insight is that these structures are not only originate with the shefa, but are linguistic projections that create order, hierarchies, and casual relations between entities or powers in the overflow.
So I'm going to try to explain. He has a sophisticated theory of the overflow is the only thing that exists, and all the types of discourse are just attempts to describe the different dynamics that happen between God and man. Abulafia, you can move on to the source. We're not going to read it. You can look at it. I'll just summarize the system. Abulafia argues that the various fields of language, for example, Maimonides metaphysics, or the kabbalist theosophy of sefirot, or even Christianity, picture identical dynamics within the divine overflow, while the divine shefa lies beyond all metaphysical structures, and therefore, beyond any specific discourse, including the kabbalistic one.
Since the mystical path is ultimately to reach the source of the overflow, the dynamic of self-realization is one of overcoming the many and often contradictory discourses of philosophy and religion by comprehending the common truths that the various discourses share, and reach the ultimate reality that lies beyond all discourse. And you can see, he's all the time identifying similar phenomena in the different discourse. The philosophers call this this. Kabbalists call this this. The Bible calls it this. It's basically the same phenomena.
This descending dynamic of overflow meets the ascending dynamic of human transformation and integration. Individual transformation is an ever-increasing fusion with this overflow, experienced as light and as Holy Spirit, inducing various ecstatic experiences associated with prophecy. This dynamic reaches its ultimate end in the moment of ecstatic union, in which the true unity and singularity of existence are experienced, and when the structure of language and thought are shown to be merely nominalistic and dissolve into singular presence of the flow of the one God.
So his system is really focused on this flow, and reaching at the end, some kind of mystical union with this flow. So the concluding remarks. And here I'm going to try and say a few more general beyond these examples. Early Kabbalah represents, in my eyes, a complex synthesis of Neoplatonic structures with biblical, rabbinic, and other Jewish sources and concepts. Some of them are medieval, pre-kabbalah like philosophy. Some of them are ancient, and some of them are unknown yet. We don't know where they came from.
The early kabbalists absorbed the two Neoplatonic axes or pillars really developed in early Jewish philosophical sources-- that of emanation and overflow, and that of spiritual return and integration. The two pillars, to the extent that they shaped the new chapter in the history of Jewish mysticism. The path of return internalized into the inner space of man, leading to states of mystical communion, devekut, that you mentioned before, and mystical union on the one hand, and the introduction of emanation. And most importantly for me tonight, divine overflow on the other marked a dramatic innovation in the perception of God and the understanding of religious transformation and perfection in the Jewish tradition.
Through an interpretation of Neoplatonic emanation in terms of substantive intradivine emanation, the kabbalist developed for the first time a Jewish Godhead. This development included the introduction of the element, of divine overflow associated, by most of them, with the Holy Spirit that served a critical role in their mystical lives. For theological reasons, Scholem and some of his followers were ambivalent about the kabbalistic reception of Neoplatonic theory of emanation. Particularly, the substantive one.
And when I say ambivalent, I mean, there's a lot of effort riding against this interpretation. While Scholem and his followers, most notably in this case, Joseph Ben Shlomo, who was probably his most admired student, categorically denied it. I argued for a substantive interpretation of different key kabbalistic imminent 13th century sources, and I hope I showed that it is the precise understanding that is found in primary kabbalistic texts. And they are more properly understood in this manner.
There's no way, in my eyes, that you can interpret any of these sources in a way that's not talking about an emanative, substantive emanation. You have to start arguing, no, they didn't mean what they wrote. No, they couldn't reach-- Ben Shlomo, even, has a famous place where he said, no, he's talking about 16th century kabbalist Moses Cordovero that's kind of continuing the same kind of kabbalah.
And it says, no, there's no way he could say such an outrageous theory so many times. So he doesn't mean what he said. He didn't mean what he wrote. So I think that the sources-- and I'm just going to remind, just summarize again. Asher is understanding of divine essence and the sefirot subsumed within it. Nahmanides in his discussion of the emanation of the sefirot through the divine breath and Holy Spirit, which is also the soul of the individual.
So what does it mean? What is this soul? If it's not a substance coming from God, what is it? There's no way to understand this theory. The czar's conception of divine unification of God and shekhinah, and the link between the Jewish people and the Holy Spirit, or Abulafia's radical nominalistic understanding of metaphysical structures, both philosophical and Jewish, which collapsed at the moment of mystical union. All of these sources, I argue, support this reading of emanation.
Both Neoplatonic pillars of descent and ascent were first absorbed and developed in medieval Jewish philosophy, and only later by early kabbalah. This is a very important point in my eyes. The philosophical adaptation of both access was limited to the metaphysical realm, in the case of the philosophical interpretation. The emanation and overflow were in the sub-divine realm. And accordingly, the dynamics of return and integration were limited to the metaphysical realm.
For the early kabbalists, the emanation overflow are from, and in the divine-- and this is the big difference. They jump one level above, and they go from the metaphysical to the divine. And the mystical return and integration, accordingly, occur also in the divine realm. The kabbalistic projection of the Neoplatonic structure of emanation on the divine carved the divine space with an overflow that absorbed a variety of Jewish terminology related to the divine majesty without any of these terms becoming the exclusive terms or term accepted by all kabbalists.
That's why I'm always saying, it could be shefa. It could be [NON-ENGLISH]. It could be Ruach HaKodesh. It could be this sefirah, that sefirah. Anyone who knows these sources know that it's never determined 100% what's the proper term for any of these phenomena. So what I'm trying to say is, it's the intradivine emanation created a space in which all these terms were absorbed. Shekhinah, kavod, et cetera, et cetera.
At the same time, the dynamics of return were internalized in an inner space. Yet at the same time-- and this is also a classic Neoplatonic move-- leading to a gradual assimilation and integration with the divine realm and its overflow. This axis, which I only briefly touched upon today, was projected back into the biblical and rabbinical languages of communion, [NON-ENGLISH], union, intention, covena, and love.
The combination of overflow and communion, of shefa and devekut Shefa and devekut. Or Ruach HaKodesh and devekut. It could be either shefa, Ruach HaKodesh, [NON-ENGLISH] and devekut. This combination of overflow and communion marks the development of classic kabbalistic systems in my eyes. The outcome of this kabbalistic form of Neoplatonism was the birth of a new ideal of mystical integration, that of man with God.
In moments of acute and mystical union, and that of God and man in the form of the embodiment of the Holy Spirit. Thank you very much.
SPEAKER 3: Questions.
ADAM AFTERMAN: Yeah, sure. Guy at the back.
AUDIENCE: Thank you for your presentation. I appreciate that [INAUDIBLE] I think this scholarship has often tended to be more exclusive and say that Christianity invented a lot of things, and that the influence of Neoplatonism is not as essential. And I appreciate that you have much more positive [INAUDIBLE]. And my question again, in medieval German philosophy, mainly the Dominican school with people like Dietrich of Freiberg and Meister Eckhart, the idea of [INAUDIBLE] also plays a very important role.
And I think that they read the same sources, so they also took the term from [INAUDIBLE]. But it is almost always associated with metaphysics of creation. So the overflow is not within the Godhead, but it is in the foundation of creative being. And now I'm wondering, are these two uses of overflow essentially different? Does kabbalistic literature have a fundamentally different view of that? Because as I understood, the emotion of overflow only concerns the Godhead.
ADAM AFTERMAN: Right.
AUDIENCE: As in Christian theology, it will concern creation as such, so how can these two be so different.
ADAM AFTERMAN: Thank you. Thank you very much. So I'll address both of the comments. I'm not positive, not negative, but this is what the evidence suggests. Like I said, the literature itself, the kabbalistic literature itself, is full of Neoplatonic allusions. The terms are there. The problem was that the scholars before me-- most of them, not all of them, preferred to interpret what their real true intentions were, and offered a different understanding of what they really meant.
I know that this kind of ambivalence towards Neoplatonism was shared also by previous generations of scholars, also of Christian mysticism. That's for sure. And I know it's something that's shared. Personally, I enjoy reading Neoplatonism. So I do have a positive. I'm not embarrassed. I'm not embarrassed at all by Neoplatonism. I don't share Scholem's ambivalence about that, or his fear of pantheism, or anything like that.
This is theology. I'm not coming at all from any kind of theological outlook. From my point of view, this is what the sources express. Now I just want to be clear that many of the sources do talk about sub-divine overflow. Maybe I wasn't clear about that. The kabbalists combine both a flow that begins in the divine, and then continues to the sub-divine realm. Some of them combine them, some of them see it as something that jumps. There's all kinds of combinations of this story.
And I think Maimonides is very similar to the philosophers you mentioned. Maimonides thinks about overflow as a metaphysical element. But he's different because he thinks it's not only relevant for creation, it's also relevant for ongoing explanation of providence, and human perfection, and prophecy. Now here, this is a whole matter in a medieval, both Jewish, and Muslim, and Christian philosophy.
The fact that the overflow is key concept in this literature is known and there's no question. I think that the kabbalists came after the-- they were reading these sources, and they offered interpretation that starts first from the divine, and then continues to the lower realms. So that's my kind of reading here. Yes, Shaul, please.
SHAUL MAGID: I want to ask you a question that extends beyond this, into the 16th century, and even the 18th century. So I'm not sure if, according to your view of the more deeply embedded Neoplatonic influence on these 13th century mystics, whether the Lurianic revolution is more radical or less radical. And what the implications of that are?
Because that's, basically-- you'll tell us in a moment, but that's, basically, that 16th century move is moving much more deeply into a kind of non-emanative, Gnostic, rupture-model of creation, which, in some way, makes devekut more difficult, rather than easier. And then how does that translate into the 18th century where you have Hasidut, where all of a sudden, it seems like the emanative model just becomes unreflectively accepted. Right?
And if you're right, I guess, and this is a more of an insider baseball-- although the whole thing was insider baseball-- but this was a little more that if you're right, then you don't need Idel's theory of Abulafian influence, because you would have it already there in the 13th century without Abulafia. You know what I'm saying?
ADAM AFTERMAN: Yeah, yeah, I know. The first thing about the 16th century, you're perfectly right, that is categorically different from all the kabbalah that's before him . And we don't, fundamentally, in Lurianic kabbalah, you do not have these two things, shefa and devekut. He doesn't have the devekut and he doesn't have shefa in the same way, he doesn't have a Holy Spirit that comes really embodies and fuses man in a real way.
The other 16th century kabbalists I mentioned even before. Ramak, Cordovero, Vital that he wrote about, and all these folks, they continued the movement that I talked about today, and they have very strong understandings of devekut and shefa working together. Luria has a different system altogether, and he takes kabbalah to a different kind of development.
And then hasidut in the 18th century, I think, goes back is trying to combine Ramak, Cordovero, and others and other sources with this Lurianic reading, and they offer a different kind of understanding. He also wrote about the Tzimtzum, and about all these different understandings. And I agree with you that the attempt to try to say Abulafia is this, and the Zohar is this, and stuff like that, when you look at it through the lens that I'm trying to offer today, we're talking about something totally different.
What's categorically important for me is the notion of devekut and the notion of Ruach HaKodesh shefa . Because I don't find those elements before the 13th century and the way they developed in Kabbalah. I'm not emphasizing any more theosophy in the sefirot. I'm not emphasizing theurgy, because I don't think that's what's important for them. Honestly, I do think that what they care about is the process of the shefa.
Most of the theories are emphasizing the shefa both of the source of the entire Godhead, and also the outcome that comes down to man. And all these unifications, and all this theory what we call in our field, theurgy, of impacting this is just instrumental for receiving this shefa, this overflow to man. And also devekut. That's a new idea in my eyes that's developed. If you ask, for example, Professor Idel, he tried to claim that devekut is something that goes back to rabbinics, and I claim no.
It's true that I claimed about Philo. But Philo is someone that's not in the rabbinic world. So Philo is an example, a great example in which a Jew is synthesizing Judaism with middle Platonism and reaching a very similar outcome of kabbalah. So you can compare kabbalah and Philo and see that they're quite similar on these points.
AUDIENCE: We also speak to one point that like I think totally about Shalom, but what was his real issue? You talked about theological,
ADAM AFTERMAN: He was allergic. Yeah, let's deal with it. He was allergic to Neoplatonism in general. But that was like common at the time. And it was a big embarrassment for him. It was a big embarrassment, let's put it on the table, that the Kabbalah was-- he couldn't say that it's not there because the evidence is clear.
So he went out-- he started this mission, and his student, Ben Shlomo, did the theological work because he was a brilliant theologian. To argue that look, it's all there but that didn't mean that it's there. Because they had this whole thing about pantheism, as you know. Pantheism says at the end, the man and God are one. And he wanted to emphasize theologically that this is what distinguishes Judaism from Christianity.
Judaism always maintains-- even the most radical mistakes. If it's Abulafia, if it's this. It doesn't matter who the mistake is. The Jewish mistake. Psychologically, you cannot go all the way and blur this distinction between God and man. If it's mystical or if it's with some kind of understanding of emanation they have to have some kind of separation . So if you're saying that God's substance is emanated into man, and it's the same the way I read Nahmanides.
So that's something he can't accept. And he ignored, totally ignored, the role of Ruach HaKodesh, of the Holy Spirit in kabbalah, to the I'm looking for a word about it in his entire corpus. And it's amazing. It's a key concept, and he's just ignoring it because how can he deal with this concept? Not only that it's divine substance, in most sources, identified with the Holy Spirit. I think there was just too much for him because he was also sensitive about separating Judaism from Christianity.
Because his background, as you know. Yes, Shiraz.
SHIRAZ: Thank you, Adam, for expanding our minds with some amazing analysis. I want to come at this from some Muslim perspectives. So as far back as the 10th and 11th century, Muslim thinkers are having a problem with this notion of pantheism, that God is beyond all attributes. So there's that berm put there that be and it is is that moment where this ineffable God initiates, and I think the term that's used is mabda-- so Abduh Mabda. And this notion of creation of the first intellect and from there on, the emanations happen.
And if we're reading Henry Corbin, he talks about the drama in heaven. You're suggesting that there's not that concern in the kabbalistic thought. One. The second issue that I want to bring up is on slide 11, I think it was, Nahmanides. We didn't read it but there is a discussion there that God sits on the throne, and then in the steps, that emanation happens to the participants in the Shabbat.
ADAM AFTERMAN: That's from the Zohar, yeah.
AUDIENCE: Yeah, from the Zohar. So that's a very drastic shift from that notion of the drama in heaven to a continuous process of emanation and union. So could you touch on those and enlighten us?
ADAM AFTERMAN: Like you mentioned in the philosophy, we have some of the Jewish Neoplatonic philosophical tradition. And we probably need to make a difference now. If you accept what I'm saying, I named this kabbalistic Neoplatonism because I think it's a form of Neoplatonism. Although they were not advanced students of Neoplatonism, most of them, some of them were actually really knowledgeable of Neoplatonism and really could teach a course here in Neoplatonism. Like Azriel from Gerona.
But most of them had a very limited general understanding. They just absorb structures, themes, and stuff like that. But we do have in the philosophical Neoplatonic Jewish tradition, we do have this kind of discourse. Or its first creation, and then emanation. They're aware of that. But when you come to the mystical or kabbalistic kind of trend, You don't find too much of that. Most of them are not concerned about that at all.
On the contrary, like the Zohar, like Nahmanides, they're stressing the ongoing continuity that this is coming. There's one kind of flow that's coming from the crown, or from the soul, or from the highest source possible in the Godhead, to men and embodying man infusing into men.
And this is one entity, one unified being that's carrying the unity of God himself. So like I said, it's counterintuitive in a way because if you think about this is a kind of change, it's a flow, it's a movement, but this movement is really just the one God in a form of movement. It's not undermining his unity and oneness. So that's why in The Zohar, they see this flow as really the secret of the one.
You say where's one of this system? The one is in the flow. OK.
AUDIENCE: I just follow up.
ADAM AFTERMAN: Yeah.
AUDIENCE: So is the flow intentional, or it just happen. If God intend for it to happen, or is it just that--
ADAM AFTERMAN: You can ask that about-- that's God. The flow is God. So you can ask that question about. He has both aspects in his personality in the kabbalistic tradition. There's something that's there. There's something that's personal. And this flow, there's something very personal about it. Some sources stress the personal aspect of it, that it embodies the collective, the Jewish people.
Some talk about it more in a kind of more naturalistic way. You can find different versions of this. Yes, then and Charles, yeah.
AUDIENCE: I wanted to ask about-- I wanted to ask about sources. You mentioned this briefly now with Azriel Gerona but how much do we know about how much some capitalists were exposed directly to Neoplatonic sources? Because I know of some 16th century kabbalists that you see in their writings that they're quoting the Jewish philosophers-- Ibn Paquda, and Maimonides, but how much were they exposed to the, let's say, original, or at least, the Arab translations ?
ADAM AFTERMAN: There's a lot of work being done since Scholem on this, including by Idel and other scholars opening this up. Some of the Kabbalah, especially the Gerona kabbalists were quite acquainted with sources we know which sources they are but it's not like they're experts-- advanced experts.
In 16th century, if you call Maimonides, and from my point of view, Maimonides is a mixed kind of figure that's also a Neoplatonic thinker, especially because he has, like Al-Farabi, this theory of emanation, and that's Neoplatonic. That's considered Neoplatonic. So the kabbalists were well aware of Maimonides. Like Abulafia, like I mentioned, he was a student. He was someone that wrote Abulafia, taught Abulafia.
Nahmanides was a giant reader of Abulafia, of Maimonides. They know Maimonides. They know some Neoplatonic sources. They know some sources by Isaac Israeli. They know some sources here, some sources there. They know some sources of Solomon Ibn Gabirol. It's not that we have a clear source that I can come and say, here, this is where they learned emanation. Some of them, I can see, they're learning how from Neoplatonic textbook.
Some of them are just developing this idea that emanation is in the area. And it's just something. It's a new idea that came into Judaism, through the philosophers, and then applied now to reading. And I didn't go into in this context because the limit of how much I want to go into details, but they're using this now to read Sefer Yetzirah, The Book of Creation, in which there's some kind of description of something that resembles emanation, or something that's easy to be interpreted as emanation.
So it's a process. It's a process that we don't fully understand now. But we can talk more about the sources. Yes, Charles.
CHARLES: Thank you, Adam. I can't play insider baseball with you on this, but I want to ask you a question from the adjacent baseball tradition that is the Neoplatonists themselves. So when I hear you talk about overflow in the kabbalist tradition, it sounds like what's often described in-- this is very often the case when people talk about overflow and Neoplatonism.
It's like a one of those pyramids of champagne, and it just sort of automatically overflows from one level down. Whereas in Plotinian emanation, it's very clear that there's a more precise choreography whereby whatever emanates tries to revert to its source to see its source.
So emanation and self-reversion are the choreography that's extremely clear in Plotinus at the level of one to intellect. And I think it's important at every level of the declension of being, this self-reversion, which I think is important for two reasons. And the reason why I'm asking it, one is, it helps explain the declension of being from one to subsequent levels, which might mitigate an anxiety about pantheism. Might, because there's an account of-- well, the failure of autoscopy at every level means there's a kind of diminishment of being.
The second reason, I think, it might be important is that then on this scheme, in order to climb back up, you have to, somehow, you have to restage and undo the self-reversion. You have to stage an autoscopy. You have to find out what the appropriate higher level is, confront it, and then undo it. It may be kind of an opaque way of putting it, but I'm wondering.
So do you see, in the kabbalistic sources, evidence for the logic of self-reversion because it's all over Plotinus, and might that mitigate-- well, who knows what's going to mitigate the anxiety that Scholem feels. On the one hand, it feels like Scholem is just embarrassed by the fact that it sounds like you're saying it's the anxiety of influence. Something outside the tradition is influencing, but then it sounds as if he has a particular unannounced theological worry.
Or maybe, it's not even a theological worry, just that this is what keeps Judaism from becoming Christianity. And maybe the last question I'll have is, to what degree is Spinoza a kind of shadowy figure here?
ADAM AFTERMAN: Spinoza's definitely here in the background, because he's the pantheist-- Jewish pantheist that went beyond the borders of the Jewish that the Jews allowed-- they were allowed to go. And yeah, I think that, what you're asking is there are some Kabbalistic sources that show more sophisticated Neoplatonic kind of knowledge. And in those sources, but they're not many.
You can find this more advanced understanding of how this emanation happens, and also the pillar of return is more connected to the original Platonic kind of understanding. So that's what I was trying to say. It's more kind of absorbing a simplistic version, and that already happens. This adaptation of more simple forms of Neoplatonism already happens in both in the Arab sources, and then also in the Jewish sources.
So they're not the first to absorb. They're not doing an advanced seminar here in Neoplatonism of Plotinus. They're reading it in a very general way.
AUDIENCE: But is there a notion that the Godhead in flowing out wants, that the Godhead is differentiating in an effort to see itself, and thereby know itself? Because that's at the heart of his account of how the one becomes other than the one. I'm just curious.
ADAM AFTERMAN: What they share with Plotinus is to understanding the extent of what-- when you talk about the noose, and then the soul, and all the different things, the way that they participate in the one. How the oneness is critical in this kind of development. But then, we have to understand what it means in a divine twist on Neoplatonic form of emanation. Because it's different. We're talking about a different theory. So I'm talking about a theory that says that really, this emanation, it's not truly a Neoplatonic theory. Because it's not the same.
Because it's saying that in the intradivine, the first phase, you don't have this understanding that the 3rd sefirah or the 10th sefirah are really different, or the flow that's coming out is really different from God. It's considered really one.
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]
ADAM AFTERMAN: Yeah. so they're taking this participation in the one, but not really accepting this understanding of what divination is. But then they use the divination in that way when they talk about the sub-divine levels of emanation. Then they tune back into the more Neoplatonic structures that they know. So it's a kind of development.
Now if you go back to, I don't know, [INAUDIBLE] or some of the Christians that read Neoplatonism used it to develop a philosophical understanding of The Trinity. So maybe that could be compared in a way. And I think Scholem, he had a fear that this will be interpreted as Spinoza. At the end, this will be taken to saying, ah, these folks are really talking about a Neoplatonic kind of theory that leads us to pantheism, especially some of the sources.
I want to stress something that there's a lot of diversity in these sources. And that's why I brought a few examples because I wanted to stress, there are there's a lot of diversity. There are some sources that can really bring you to a strong pantheistic understanding and Scholem already kind of hinted toward when you move forward, and it becomes more elaborated, and more developed, they're much more sophisticated.
And also there are readings from, it's not clear yet from where, more Neoplatonic kind of ideas that are coming in from fresh, from a new sources in the 16th century, possibly from the Renaissance and stuff like that. So it's a whole new game there. Any more comments or questions. Hi, Kimberly.
KIMBERLY: Adam, thank you. What a wonderful talk. I just had a very general question about angelology. And I'm just wondering to what extent angelology and conceptions of angels are used or understood as a theological language and belief system to express some of these dynamics, for example, with a much earlier with Dionysus the Areopagite.
We have the notion of angels as directly kind of representing and embodying the original brilliance of God in a hierarchical way and illumination. Very Neoplatonic. So that's, of course, Christianity and much earlier. But I'm wondering if angelology-- I know it figures surprisingly Maimonides, but does it figure here in the thinking of these catalysts? And if so, how does it relate to this notion of emanation?
ADAM AFTERMAN: Let me just mention before I go into the angels, they used to talk about the divine names. So that's another kind of realm that they use. And then they put them together, with the divine names are emanating each other. They exist in some kind of hierarchy, very similar to what we find before.
About the angels, generally speaking, the early kabbalah, they keep the angels on the sub-divine realm. They're not absorbed. When I talked about carving this divine realm that absorbs the sefirot, the middot, different terms or images from [NON-ENGLISH], from merkabah, from ancient sources, they're very careful at the beginning to not talk about the angels as divine powers, or part of the hierarchy of the divine. But they will talk about the merkabah, right the chariot it is. But the Angels are usually underneath.
But then, it doesn't mean that later on, there won't be people that would bring the angels up or elevate them back into what I call the Godhead. It exists. Yeah, it exists later.
AUDIENCE: Thank you.
ADAM AFTERMAN: Sure. Yeah, question here.
AUDIENCE: I've been trying to phrase this, but so the general question is just Adam Kadmon. Where is he in this? All right, the speculations on the divine anthropos, and particularly, since you see an explosion of speculations around the same time as these substantive emanation idea comes in the 13th century, what's the relationship between that and these speculations on the divine?
ADAM AFTERMAN: Generally speaking, the theories about Adam Kadmon, they do exist in a preliminary kind of way in 13th century, but they developed in 16th century. But I do think that if we look back, because Scholem's process of looking now, and this is, people have been looking at what [INAUDIBLE] means, and what Adam Kadmon means. And there's a lot of people have been doing, including Shaud here, that's written about it.
And there have been dealing with Scholem's kind of theological enterprise that tries to explain this as metaphors or not in a substantive way. I think we have to go back, and ask ourselves, what did they really mean in including this theory? In my eyes, there's no reason to doubt that even those sources are talking about some kind of substantive emanation-- if they're talking about.
Some of them are very, very explicit about it, and it's clear, I mentioned that before in our conversation, some of them ignore that and take the discourse to something totally different. So it's quite a complex story that needs different discussion. I'm sorry, I can't go into details now, because it takes us to a different period. We didn't talk about it here.
CHARLES STANG: Well, thank you, Adam.
ADAM AFTERMAN: Thank you.
SPEAKER 2: Sponsor, Center for the Study of World Religions.
SPEAKER 1: Copyright 2023. President and Fellows of Harvard College.