This is a report on a series of lectures given

by Moshe Idel at the University of Washington

(Seattle) about a year ago. I have divided

report into three posts, one for each lecture.

These are not verbatim transcripts: they are

summaries of the sort that might be made by

anyone from notes made during the lecture. Not

everything is included, and most of what Idel

said is summarized. I have tried to indicate

where I missed things, and what I missed. The

initial material is from the flier that was

passed out to everyone before the lectures.

Moshe Idel is in no way responsible for my

reports of his lectures. I have done my best to

be as accurate as I could. At the same time, I

should hope that I'm not infringing on his

copyright by reporting what he said. --Such are

the mysteries of the copyright law!

THE SAMUEL & ALTHEA STROUM

LECTURESHIP IN

JEWISH STUDIES

Moshe Idel

PARDES:THE QUEST FOR SPIRITUAL

PARADISE IN JUDAISM

April 16

Primordial Wisdom: The Philosophers' Quest

April 18

Primordial Light: The Ecstatics' Quest

April 22

PARDES: Between Sefirot and Demonology

The Core of the "Pardes" Tradition: Tosefta

Hagigah 2:3-4

Four entered the Orchard (Pardes): Ben Azzai,

Ben Zoma, Akher and Rabbi Aqiva. One peeked and

died; one peeked and was smitten; one peeked and

cut down the shoots; one ascended safely and

descended safely.

Ben Azzai peeked and died. Concerning him

Scripture says: "Precious in the eyes of he

Lord is the death of His loyal ones" (Ps. 16.

15).

Ben Zoma peeked and was smitten. Concerning him

Scripture says: "If you have found honey, eat

only your fill lest you become filled with it

and vomit" (Prov. 25:16).

Akher peeked and cut down the shoots.

Concerning him Scripture says: "Do not let your

mouth bring your flesh to sin, and do not say

before the angel that it is an error; why

should God become angry at your voice, and ruin

your handiwork" (Eccl. 5:5).

Rabbi Aqiva ascended safely and descended

safely. Concerning him Scripture says: "Draw

me, let us run after you, the King has brought

me into His chambers" (Song I:4).

Lecture I: Primordial Wisdom: The Philosophers'

Quest

Tuesday 16 April 1991, 8:00 pm.

[This is a precis summary; reporter's comments

are in square brackets; otherwise text should be

taken as an attempt to transcribe the gist of

what the speaker actually said. The result is a

rather dry, compressed text; typographical

devices have been used to break it up and make

it more readable. Some of these may not

transpose well to Net text. I have tried to

regularize the spellings of Hebrew terms, but

I'm afraid I've probably let a number of them

vary all over the map.]

[The first lecture was something of a Society

event; there was quite a collection of The

Better Sort, who actually toughed it out through

much of the first lecture, if only for the sake

of the reception afterward. Idel's lecture (in

thoroughly accented English) made fewer

concessions than one might imagine to a non-

specialist audience. These lectures are usually

edifying cultural events, but Idel used the

opportunity to go over material he was working

up for a book. imposing countenances, who had a

reception for themselves and the speaker

afterward.]

First, some general observations in an attempt to

locate the Pardes legend in its context.

1: Biblical and Rabbinic Judaism were exoteric in

nature: Judaism was seen as being open, to both

the elite and the vulgus [the crowd, common

people, hoi polloi] on the same basis. The idea

was that the knowledge and practice were to be

spread, and could be spread, to all levels of the

Jewish nation, and that study of the Torah was

open to all. Religious life was not regarded as

dangerous.

2. This might seem like belaboring the obvious,

but it was not obvious if seen in the context of

contemporary cults and religions, in either the

world of early Judaism (with the nature religions

of neighboring nations) or in the Hellenistic

world (with its mystery religions). Judaism

insisted on rules binding on all members, and on

public rites, as exemplified by the need for a

quorum to legitimize certain rites. It was

collective, group-oriented, and "nomian," [cf.

"antinomian"] that is, oriented toward practicing

a nomos, i.e., the Torah. The attitude toward the

Commandments was summed up in the saying, "You

shall live by them."

3. Thus, in a sense, that Judaism was relatively

egalitarian [the speaker actually said

"equalitarian"]. The Law was (in principle)

available to and incumbent upon everyone, and the

Law, the nomos, was the standard. Religious

practice was collective, public, non-sectarian,

and not dangerous.

This then is how one can describe the first

phases of Judaism, the Biblical and what might be

called the Classical (i.e. Rabbinic-Midrashic)

phases.

But there were also other types of Judaism,

cultivated in smaller circles, as exemplified by

the Hekhaloth literature. These involved

contemplation of the Divine vehicles, or the

Divine stature, and involved non-Halakhic

techniques for transcending common experiences in

favor of achieving a strong but dangerous result:

the experience or vision of the Merkavah, or of

the Divine body or glory. One finds these efforts

expressed in some very ancient texts, which also

link them with dangers and the paying of a high

price. These efforts lead to awful [or aweful]

encounters with angels; their result is the

experience of a tremendum. It seems to have been

less than delightful, and it was reserved for the

very few.It is presented in terms that constitute

both the statement of an ideal and a warning

against embarking on a quest for it.

One of the key exemplary texts is the account of

the four sages, the four upright persons, who

entered the Pardes, the Orchard or Garden, all but

one of whom were severely damaged by the

experience despite their excellent qualities.

This cannot be taken as a historical document,

despite the fact that these four did live at

approximately the same time. This is not a report

of historical events; it should be taken as a

collection of traditions about the effects of

entering the Pardes. Two results were positive:

one person died, but remained loyal; one (Rabbi

Aqiva) remained safe. Two results were negative:

one person went mad; the other became a heretic.

Instead of reading this as a biographical

account, we should read it as a typological

account, one describing types of experiences and

the types of effects those experiences can have.

From its first appearance, this crucial text was

not historical, but exemplary.

This text is used in different ways in different

settings. In mystical literature, it is used to

point out dangers that can befall the mystic. In

Talmudic-Midrashic sources, it is used to point

out the dangers and achievements that are related

to speculations, rather than to experiences. The

interpretation of the account depends on the

context in which it is used; thus it is a mistake

to try to establish a single "genuine" meaning

common to all versions.

This account is, then, a parable whose

significance is not explicated, as in Kabbalah:

the Pardes is an unexplained parable for an

unrevealed secret. There is a crucial vagueness

here, and one must make the assumption that this

sort of vagueness does not represent a defeat but

an opportunity - to introduce new meanings to an

open text, as in Umberto Eco's account of reading

texts as open texts. [Cf. Umberto Eco, The Open

Work.] The Pardes be comes a generalized metaphor

for the danger zones of religious experience, seen

as something which is good for the few, but

pernicious for others.

The Pardes story, then, has been (re)interpreted

in a variety of directions; here, we are

interested in patterns of interpretation proposed

in the Middle Ages (though the history of the

interpretation of the story could be continued

onward from there).

Today, we talk about Maimonides and the

philosophical tradition.

Next: about the ecstatic tradition.

Last: about (a) the Divine Sefiroth and (b) the

encounter with the demonic.

In all three streams of interpretation, the

vagueness of the basic story contributed to the

richness of the resulting interpretations.

After the Classical (Rabbinic) period, Judaism

underwent two major changes, one of which was its

transformation into an esoteric religion (at least

as understood by some elite masters), a religion

having two levels. An esoteric understanding of

Judaism was a shared feature of various

traditions: the Kabbalah, the classical

philosophical schools (e.g. Maimonides), and the

Hasidi Ashkenaz and other medieval mystical

groups. This move involves [though the speaker

did not overtly label it, the second change] the

atomization of the collective or the group. The

group is important as a mystical tool in some

forms of Kabbalah, but it plays a restricted role.

The core aim of personal redemption, or the

achievement of individual perfection, moved to the

forefront. To understand the underlying secrets,

and to behave in accordance with them: this was

crucial to the Jewish elite in the middle ages.

It was a cult of individual attainment, which

involved the reading of its sources as secret

messages hidden in canonical scriptures, messages

connected to the goal of salvation.

There were two models for salvation in those

scriptures: salvation as attaining the End, or as

returning to the Origin. Thus the effort to

obtain salvation meant either hastening the end

(collectively, this involved messianism), or

reaching back to a lost paradise that had been

existing since the beginning. This is why the

concept of Paradise is important in understanding

the meaning of the Pardes, even though they were

not originally as closely connected is it might

seem.

"Pardes" actually means an orchard. The actual

term for "Paradise," in the sense of the Garden of

Eden, was Gan Eden, which in the Septuagint was

translated by the Greek word for Paradise

[deriving originally from Persian], from which

there was a backward linkage to the Hebrew word

Pardes. The two ideas, originally different, came

to explain or amplify each other. Thus, the

dangers associated with Gan Eden [the angel with

the flaming sword] and Pardes also converged:

both came to represent dangerous ideals, and ideal

dangers.

The Pardes story then came to have as a subtext

the story of Paradise (Gan Eden). It became a

common effort of medieval commentators to explain

the story of Paradise by means of the story of

Pardes. The attempt to escape ritual and return

to Paradise was a threat to Judaism as a religion

[i.e., as a religion based on ritual and the Law];

thus, it could not be proposed openly as a goal.

Any attempt to enter Pardes then was an entry into

a dangerous zone. Classical Judaism was not

escapist: that is, it did not involve an attempt

to transcend history. The transcendental ideal

could stand as an ideal for the few, but it was an

ideal that was dangerous to (or if adopted by) the

many; it thus had to be reserved to the few to

stop escapist religious trends.

Maimonides' interpretation, in summary, took

perfect philosophy as the wisdom of Adam, lost but

retrievable by some (perfect) persons, e.g., R.

Aqiva. To be in Paradise, from this point of

view, was to be a philosopher. Philosophy is

perfection in the present; Paradise is perfection

in the past and in the future. The ideal of

philosophy is to exist in continuous

contemplation. When the Primordial Man fell: he

was [or became] unable to stay in the state of

perfect philosophy.

The Pardes story, however, points out a path of

return, and suggests an analysis of Judaism as a

project of return to perfect philosophy. It

points out both techniques and possible problems.

The first part of Maimonides major Halakhic work

is where he explains the meaning of Pardes - but

of course, since he was a Rabbi, he doesn't

explain it openly. He mentions that it is a

matter of the [four?] key "themes dealt with in

the preceding chapters," leaving the reader to

select which of the many themes are the key

themes. Though all four of the characters in the

story were great men of Israel, not all had the

capacity to grasp the subject clearly. For him,

then, the Pardes is linked to speculation: it is

something to be known, something that must be

grasped clearly, rather than a mystical

experience. Maimonides states that it is not

proper to walk in the Pardes without being filled

with bread and meat, i.e., knowledge of what is

permitted and forbidden, i.e., without having had

a solid Rabbinic education. Why is this? Because

knowledge of these things gives composure to the

mind. Maimonides presents Jewish law as a way of

achieving a certain stability, a mastery of lust

and imagination. The Commandments are a sine qua

non, the basis for the requisite composure.

The Law, then, gives one the possibility of

calming the mind, of mastering imagination and

lust, in order to be able ... to study Aristotle.

By which he meant, to study the Physics and

Metaphysics.

This study has two major dangers. One is the

cognitive or classical or Aristotelian: a

misunderstanding of physics and metaphysics due to

imaginative distortion of reality. One's

understanding [or the clarity of one's

understanding] can be spoiled by one's [non-

rational] inclinations.

There is also the Platonic danger: the

political implications better not understood by

the masses, as in Book l [Book XII] of the

Metaphysics.

Not all of the four Masters, then, were calm

enough, educated enough, to grasp Aristotelian

metaphysics.

There are two ways of understanding Maimonides'

position here: one exoteric, the other esoteric.

The exoteric understanding would take the

historical Adam as the perfect philosopher,

brought down into a fallen state by the last

remnants of desire and fantasy. Thus our current

condition of isolation from philosophic truth

would be the historical result of Adam's fall.

The esoteric reading, however, is that the state

of the Primordial Man is always open to us, always

available at any time - as, too, is the sin of

Adam. In principle, at least. Kafka has an

interpretation of the expulsion from Paradise that

can be taken as a key to the esoteric reading of

Maimonides' position. According to that

interpretation, the Expulsion from Paradise is

final, and life in this world is irrevocable. It

is eternal in nature. [I.e., it is an event "in

eternity," rather than in history.] At the same

time we are continuously in Paradise, whether we

realize it or not. Thus neither the Expulsion nor

the Paradisal state are historical events: they

are structures of experience open to each of us.

This is also, by the way, the Kabbalistic

interpretation developed by Abulafia, who was the

first to treat the Pardes as an ongoing

experience. His interpretation was very similar

to Kafka's. "Anyone who enters Pardes has to

enter in peace and exit in peace."

This spiritualistic reading, that the Pardes is

not a matter of history but is open to anyone,

proposes a spiritualistic typology, a scheme of

typical experiences or states that can be

actualized at any time. History becomes

unimportant. By studying Bible, Talmud, Kabbalah,

philosophy, we become aware of what can happen in

experience.

This reading seems to do justice to certain

passages in Maimonides about people "of the rank

of R. Aqiva." History disappears: The Bible,

Talmud, Aristotle - all speak about inner

experiences related only to the elite because they

are dangerous, but which are to be pointed out to

the masses to orient them, to give them the sense

that Judaism is more than its ritual.

This approach still assumes that there is

danger, but Judaism is here seen as trying to cope

with the problem of the dangerous ideal. The

ideal may be dangerous, but it is to be

cultivated. This formulation becomes a way of

balancing ritualistic approaches against the

explosion of metaphysical speculations that might

endanger the observance of the ritual.

The aim is not merely to propose philosophy but

to use Aristotelian psychology and metaphysics to

point to meditations on secret Judaism, to

introduce a new paradigm for understanding

Judaism. Thus, Maimonides was able to begin a

tradition of interpretation (which lasted from

about the 14th to the 18th centuries) which took

ritual as means of introduction to philosophy.

This interpretation fortifies the place of ritual,

yet puts it in its place, shows that it is not

final. It is needed, but in a way to be

transcended - by the few, for whom a higher ideal

is needed, that of the Pardes.

Next time, we talk not about philosophic

speculation but about ecstatic experience, the

encounter with a terrible Light, the Primordial

Light.

QUESTIONS

Question: The aim is to master the corporeal,

which if not understood will distort one's

grasp of reality? Then for Maimonides there

was a specific absolute reality?

Answer: Yes. He believed a certain metaphysics

was true. His was not a modern,

Heideggerian philosophy. For him, God was

the sum of the intelligibilia, as was the

case for other medieval philosophers. God

was taken as the great intelligence. There

was a negative theology, but there was also

a positive theology.

Question: What about the Pardes story and the

Ari?

Answer: A very complex issue - and another story.

Question: Kafka wrote about Maimonides-

A: Not about Maimonides, but Genesis.

Q: Genesis then. If the expulsion is eternal...

A: We are expelled all the time from Paradise,

but it is here. We are out and in at the

same time. It is a matter of each of us.

That is why the Fall is not final.

Q: The Halakha becomes then a means - is it time-

bound? May there be other means at other

times for Maimonides?

A: Halakha remains necessary all the time. It is

not like a ladder. Desires are always

present. Halakhic discipline is not simply

preliminary: it is needed all the time - it

too is eternal. [Cf. the Great Chain of

Being, or Crowley's understanding of

initiatory hierarchy.]

Q: Why is this in the Mishne Torah, not in the

Guide?

A: To Maimonides, the code of behavior is an

introduction to the Pardes. He starts with

the Pardes, only then to go on to talk about

the Law. The Pardes is integral to the

Mishne Torah.

Q: What then does the RamBam have to say about

the Messiah?

A: There is only one hint - Perfect Philosophy is

Paradise, personal salvation. Each of us

then is his own Messiah, and we don't need

another Messiah - as individuals. As a

collective, it is another story. The

Messiah is needed to embody a certain

political, social, et cetera, state.

Q: And Halakha is a mechanism to reach that

experience?

A: Yes.

Q: What about the discussion of the Castle in the

Guide?

A: In III:51 of the Guide of the Perplexed,

Maimonides mentions Ben Zoma - among rabbis

expert only in Halakha, unable to understand

metaphysics. Thus they are outside the

castle.

Q: Is there any significance in this to the fact

that some of Maimonides' students were not

Jewish, but Muslim?

A: I'm not aware of any advanced students who

were Muslim. There were Muslims who were

followers, who studied the Guide...

Q: But there was a Muslim who studied Aristotle

with Maimonides; we have diaries...

A: I don't know about that.

Q: Esotericism was widespread-

A: But Maimonides was not in Baghdad.

Q: This was in Egypt...

Q: What is the nature of danger in the Kabbalah?

A: Danger is associated with individual

initiative. Danger enters with the desire

for the paranormal, for the transcendent

experience, the desire to go beyond the

communal experience.

Q: What about the use of PARDES as a code [an

acrostic] for the four ways of interpreting

the Torah?

A: It did become that, but only later, long after

Maimonides, with Kabbalists in Spain and

Italy. But there is a huge amount of

material available, and I had to select it

very even inside this narrow topic in order

to be able to give a manageable lecture.

There is material for a year's worth of

lectures for any of these topics.

II: The Primordial Light: The Ecstatics' Quest

Thursday 18 April 1991

[The introduction to the lecture

mentioned that the lecture series would

eventually be coming out as a book to

be published by the University of

Washington Press.]

[The introducer mentioned an article

in the Jerusalem Post about Scholem and

Idel. Idel has established the basis

for a critical look at Scholem's work.

Scholem's approach was historical and

contextual: he interpreted the Kabbalah

as a system of thought. Idel's approach

is phenomenological: he endeavors to

discern what the symbolism and ritual

meant to those who practised it. For

Idel, the Kabbalah is not a system of

ideas but a practical path to mystical

experience. For Scholem, Kabbalah

entered Judaism from the outside, and

was the result of the influence of Greek

gnosticism on Rabbinic Judaism. It was,

in effect, an alien heresy with an

underground existence. For Idel,

Kabbalah is an esoteric tradition

flowing from within Judaism itself,

though with links and correspondences

with other mystical traditions. Idel

feels that the study of the manuscript

tradition has just barely begun, and

that therefore most of the field has yet

to be explored.

He also feels that even the most

theoretical texts are experientially

oriented. This has led him to try to

reconstruct the techniques that were

actually used. He has done so in part

through observation of practices of

ultra-Orthodox communities in Israel -

and they in turn have come to him for

technical advice on reading and

understanding their texts.]

There is another paradigm through which the

story of the entry to Pardes can be read - one

which is not philosophical, but ecstatic. This

variety of paradigms by the way is very

important. It shows that Jews were less

interested in establishing a unified theology

than they were in finding secret interpretations

that would attract many different kinds of

people. They were open to having a different

way for each sort of person. This is a sign of

the openness of the elite culture to allowing

different approaches for a variety of people -

not so much to attract the masses, but to allow

for diversity among the elite.

This second interpretation of the Pardes was

the result of the merger of Jewish mysticism and

Neoplatonic philosophy. For Maimonides, it was

a Pardes ha Chokmah, a Pardes of Knowledge. It

had to do with the solution to cognitive

problems. For Maimonides, Adam was lost in

contemplation of metaphysical truths. Thus, for

Maimonides, R. Aqiva was the central figure, the

most perfect of the four sages.

But for some Kabbalists at the beginning of

the Thirteenth Century the major figure was not

R. Aqiva but Ben Azzai, the Talmudic master who

died. For them, the Pardes was not a matter of

intellect, but of the experience of a supreme

light. This Light was not an intellectual or

conceptual light, but an experiential light.

Ancient Jewish textual material is rich in

emphasis on the importance of light - as in

Genesis, where Light is the first created

entity. Midrashic texts portray Adam as an

entity of Light, and as having garments of

Light, which were lost after his expulsion from

Eden. In this tradition, the basic activity of

Adam was the contemplation of the Light, of the

Shekinah. The "Light of the Shekinah" is a key

term in these texts.

Both Pardes and Paradise, in this tradition,

are seen as full of Light. Adam's experience in

the Fall is the loss of the possibility of

contemplating the Light. The loss of garments

of Light leads to their replacement by garments

of skin (a pun in Hebrew). This loss of the

possibility of experience of the Light is

crucial in ancient Hebrew texts.

For example, in the Book of Adam and Seth (as

preserved in Armenia): "But Adam .. in being

stripped of the Divine Light .. became an equal

of the dumb beasts. Enoch for forty days and

nights did not eat. Then he planted a garden ..

and was in it for 552 years. Then he was taken

up into heaven ...." [The quotation was quite a

bit longer; unfortunately, I couldnot keep up.]

This portrays an attempt by Enoch to reconstruct

and re-enter the situation of Adam. This is a

basic pattern in later discussions of the Pardes

texts: an attempt to return to the ability to

contemplate the Light as Adam once did.

In the Hekhaloth texts, too, the idea of Light

is paramount. Pardes is described as full of

the radiance of Light.

There is a manuscript text by an unknown

author - one which I needed some 60 pages to

analyze, so we can only deal witha small part of

it here. There are some ten lines in it about

Ben Azzai (who did not return). "Ben Azzai

peeked and died. He gazed at the radiance of

the Divine Presence like a man with weak eyes

who gazes at the full light of the sun and

becomes blinded by the intensity of the light

that overwhelms him... He did not wish to be

separated, he remained hidden in it, his soul

was covered and adorned ... he remained where he

had cleaved, in the Light to which no one may

cling and yet live." [Quotation approximate]

This text portrays people gazing not at a

Chariot or a marble throne, but at the radiance

of God (Tzvi ha Shekinah), a light so strong

that no one can bear it. The idea of

"overwhelming" is textually crucial. The idea

of having a great desire to cleave, as described

in the medieval text, is new. In ancient

literature, contemplation is of something far

away, across an unbridgeable gap. There is no

idea there of love, only of awe. Here, however,

we see a trace of a radical change: the

intensity of the experience is linked with a

great desire to cleave to the radiance of the

Shekinah. There is a strong experience of union

with the Divine, the result of a desire to enter

and become a part of the Divine realm. There is

an attempt to enjoy the Divine without

interruption. The language of desire implies

erotic overtones to the experience, especially

since "Shekinah" in Hebrew is feminine. The

text then is speaking about an attempt to cleave

to a feminine aspect of the Divine - also a

development unique to the medieval literature

(and not found in the ancient literature). And

also the idea of "sweet radiance" has erotic

overtones.

So what happened? He couldn't return from the

experience. The Hebrew terms are very strong.

After his death he was "hidden away in the place

of his cleaving." This death was the death of

the pious ones whose souls are separated from

all concerns with the mundane world, and who

cleave to the supernal world. It was, in other

words, not an accident but an achievement.

There is a threefold structure implied here,

reminiscent of Christian and Neoplatonic

mysticism. The first phase is the via

purgativa, "Those who are separated from all

concerns of the lowly world." The second phase

is the via illuminativa. The third phase is the

via unitiva. There is here a combination of

ancient Jewish material with pagan or Christian

Neoplatonist material to portray or interpret

the experience of Ben Azzai. This interpretive

paradigm continued in active use from the

Thirteenth through the Eighteenth centuries,

where it was used among the Hasidim. It was a

tradition that lasted 600 to 700 years, and it

is exactly the kind of tradition it is hard to

study without looking at manuscripts.

This text was also copied by a Thirteenth

Century Kabbalist who gave it an even stronger

nuance of mysticism. Ben Azzai died because of

the cleaving of his soul out of a great love;

his soul didn't return because he reached a

great attainment. The assumption: out of

intense love, his cleaving was total. Later,

there were even stronger formulations, in which

the soul and the Light become one entity.

This text is one example of texts dealing with

the unio mystica. It allows for bridging in a

total manner the gap between man and God. This

is another example of the formative power of the

Neoplatonic mystical tradition, as it also

expressed itself in Christianity and Islam.

However, for the Kabbalists the major events

took place i