Elkayam Tez
Elkayam Tez
Elkayam Tez
by Abraham Elqayam
ABSTRACT
The Sabbatian movement was a movement for spiritual redemption and religious
renewal, whose principal aim was to deliver religion from its petrification and its
errors, and revive religion, faith and the true Godhead. Sabbatianism is thus one of
many such trends that sought to remedy the crisis of faith which beset Jews in the
late 17th century. The central role of faith in Sabbatian ideology stemmed both
from the crisis of faith experienced by Sabbatai Sevi himself, and the rise of
scepticism and crisis of faith endured by the Jews in the 17th century.
The present study shows that Nathan of Gaza strove to set up a Sabbataiocentric
experience of redemption; i.e., a redeeming religious experience centered on a
concrete messiah Sabbatai Sevi. Sabbatai Sevi was thus not an abstract notion, but,
in his person, embodied both the foundation and the ultimate end of the redeeming
religious experience. Therefore it can maintained, that Nathan of Gaza's most
prominent contribution lay in shaping a fideist, heterodox prototype of "The Man of
Faith", whose religious experience revolves around the sacramental belief in a
fleshandblood messiah, Sabbatai Sevi.
The ideology formulated by the Sabbatian prophet was centered not only on
reshaping the religious experience in a Sabbataiocentric form, but also on
reforming the Jewish nation's religious consciousness of the God of its faith.
Sabbatai Sevi was the messiah who, exposing the real identity of the God of
religion and faith, delivered the Jewish religion from its shameful petrification and
saved the people of Israel from a grave flaw in its faith. The spiritual redemption of
the individual would henceforth be contingent upon his or her knowing the God of
Sabbatai Sevi's Faith.
However, as Nathan of Gaza's thought entered its last phase, the belief in Sabbatai
Sevi and the belief in The God of Sabbatai Sevi's Faith became one and the same,
for Sabbatai Sevi was by then considered an incarnation of the god of his Faith.
The axis of continuity should be associated with the methodological level, whereas
change is best understood on the conceptual one. Aspects of continuity on the
methodological level are the inherent bond between the mystery of creation and the
mystery of the messiah's soul, the mythical, paradoxical quality of Nathan of Gaza's
Sabbatian thought, and its interpersonal sources.
The major part of the analytical endeavour in this study is dedicated to revealing
the aspects of change in Nathan of Gaza's writings, aspects which research
literature has largely ignored. The study follows both the terminological and
conceptual changes to which his thought was subjected, and shows the theological
developments that took place during the years 16651666, developments which
cannot be interpreted as mere paraphrases. Moreover, the changes occurred not
only between the preapostasy phase and the postapostasy one, but also within the
postapostasy phase in itself.
Among the causes of change in Nathan of Gaza's mythological vistas and theology
are those inherent to the method, apparently motivated by the wish for greater
methodical coherence; the ones stemming from the historical internal dynamics of
the Sabbatian Movement; those deriving from the interpersonal dynamics between
messiah and prophet; the ones arising from the mystical experience of Nathan of
Gaza himself; and above all, those originating in the new revelations presented by
Sabbatai Sevi to his prophet.
According to the personality hypothesis, the Gazati myth is derived from the
historical biography of both Sabbatai Sevi and Nathan of Gaza. The personality
hypothesis involves a position referred to as "the parallelistic position", suggesting
correlation between Sabbatai Sevi's personality and Nathan of Gaza's ideology and
Theology. This position, starting with an insight of Scholem's, is mirrored in
various positions adopted by subsequent researchers of Sabbatianism: Wirszubski,
Schatz, Liebes.
The hermeneutic line shared by Scholem, Wirszubski, Schatz, and Liebes, is their
basic agreement that there is, phenomenologically speaking, a correlation between
the myth of Godhead and creation and the historical personality of Sabbatai Sevi.
Liebes presents an additional correlation, between the Gazati myth and the
historical personality of Nathan of Gaza and his selfperception.
Scholem tends to focus discussion on the Kabbalistic symbol per se, perceiving it
as a Jungian archetype, originating in the collective unconscious. He, and those
following him, maintain that the symbol precedes personality ontologically,
logically and psychologically. Such a stance counters much of the main thrust of
the parallelistic position, since it leads the researcher to isolate his discussion of the
myth, neutralizing its personalityrelated contents.
The methodological model put forward in this study is basically that the Gazati
myth should be interpreted as stemming both from the individual personality of the
messiah and the extreme changes to which it was subjected, and from ideologizing
his antinomistic behavior. Hence, the source of dialectics in Nathan of Gaza's
thought is neither the Godhead, the creation, or the world; rather, it emanates from
the paradoxical person of Sabbatai Sevi.
Accepting Sabbatai Sevi's personality as the hermeneutic key does not limit us to a
specific analytic path. Sabbatai Sevi's personality can be analyzed with various
tools: psychiatric ones, emphasising the pathological disorder as the central key to
this personality; or mystical ones, emphasising as the dominant element Sevi's
position as a mystic, who deals personally and intimately with the God of his faith.
The dominant position among the researchers accepting the psychiatric insight of
Sabbatai Sevi is Scholem's, who diagnosed Sevi as a bipolar psychotic. Sadeh and
Liebes are the prominent representatives of the other school, the one emphasising
Sabbatai Sevi's mystical qualities and perceiving him as homo religiosus.
Part B of this study discusses the mystery of "the God of Sabbatian Faith" in
Nathan of Gaza's works before Sabbatai Sevi's apostasy, i.e., in the years 1665-
1666. Those of his preapostasy works that relate to the mystery of the God of
Sabbatian Faith are analyzed diachronically, focussing on the trends of
development apparent in them. The discussion is based on two premises:
[I]. The new understanding of the God of Sabbatian Faith did not originate in
Nathan of Gaza; rather, it was formulated by Sabbatai Sevi himself.
[2]. Sabbatai Sevi's concept of the mystery of the God of his Faith was subject to
development.
[3]. The changes in Sabbatai Sevi's concept of the mystery of the God of his Faith
were the prime cause of the shifts and changes in the mystery of the God of Faith in
Nathan of Gaza's writings.
The Vision of R. Abraham the Pious, an apocalyptic essay, first suggests that
Sabbatai Sevi's messianic mission is not merely political, but involves both
restoration [Tiqqun] of the Godhead in general and the God of faith in particular,
and reforming the false faith of the Jewish nation, restoring it to faith in the "true
God". Nathan of Gaza suggests that restoration of the Qelippah (shell) involves the
restoration of the God of faith, which, in its turn, subsumes the mystery of the
messiah's deification. He also hints at a highly significant inherent bond between
dynamic processes in Sabbatai Sevi's mystery of faith and his bipolar personality.
However, he does not discuss this bond extensively in his apocalypse, and it is only
clarified in his latest works.
The apocalypse The Vision of R. Abraham the Pious contains two verses that were
soon to become the manifesto of Sabbatian ideology:
The first verse is "The just shall live by his faith" (Habbakkuk 2:4). The Qumran
Sectaries was the first to interpret this verse personally, namely, as relating to the
faith in the "Teacher of Righteousness". But it seems to have acquired its
sacramental meaning only in the New Testament, where it became a maxim of
Christianity, expressing the sacramental belief in Jesus. In the Middle Ages, Jewish
thinkers tried to counter this exegesis, using, among others, irony and sarcasm. But
in the 17th century this verse became the motto of the Sabbatian ideology of
sacramental belief in Sabbatai Sevi (excluding only the Kardozian school).
The second verse is "Now for a long time Yisrael has been without the true God"
(Chronicles 2, 15:3). This verse, which served previously as the watchword of the
Karaite ideology, now became the manifesto of all the various schools of the
Sabbatical movement, and a central element of its testimonia.
criticism of Jewish faith in the main streams of Sabbatian movement in the late
17th century, and to shaping their ideological direction.
In The Penitential Devotions, Nathan of Gaza delineates a praxis of reform for the
penitent, consistently underlining the behavioral implications of both faith and
repentance: Just as repentance is defined behaviorally, not as an inner experiential
process, so is faith defined in behavioral, actionoriented terms, rather than
experiential or cognitive ones.
In his Letter to Raphael Joseph Nathan of Gaza maintains that the God of Faith
is `lllath Ha`illoth Vesibbath Hasibboth (Cause of All Causes). In keeping with the
spirit of The Penitential Devotions, he sees significant messianic meaning in the
belief in `lllath Ha`illoth Vesibbath Hasibboth, but he digresses from that essay
when trying to reduce the theurgical aspect of the mystery of Godhead and perhaps
to eliminate it completely.
In his Letter, Nathan accepts Sabbatai Sevi's radical demand to reject the Lurianic
theory of kawwanoth (mystical intentions), but does so out of Lurianic Kabbalah's
inner logic. He does succeed, this way, to meet his messiah's wishes, but the gap
between their primary motivations remains as wide as ever.
In the Letter the belief in Sabbatai Sevi has a sacramental value, which shows
traces of Luther and Calvin's reformation. Nathan of Gaza maintains unequivocally
that the belief in Sabbatai Sevi is a necessary condition to redemption in this world
and in the afterworld. In this way he shapes the Jewish faith as a messaiocentric
experience, and the Sabbatian religion as a "religion of faith". This phase of his
thought still incorporates a tension between the belief in Sabbatai Sevi and the
belief in the God of his Faith. This tension is to be resolved in identifying the
messiah with the God of his Faith.
Nathan of Gaza wrote four separate essays, which thematically make up one essay,
that systematically elaborates The God of Sabbatai Sevi's Faith. These essays
include The Prophecy of Jonah's Ship; The Short and The Long Exegesis that
interpret it, and The Intent of the Faith of our Lord that summarises it.
The Prophecy of Jonah's Ship is a sort of commitment note for the individual
who wishes to join the Sabbatian movement. It rephrases the mystery of the God of
Sabbatian Faith as a query regarding the identity of the worlds' Ruler (upper world
and other worlds).
In this essay, Nathan of Gaza first introduces the essential inherent bond between
the mystery of the God of Sabbatian Faith and initiation into the Sabbatian
movement. This bond implies that the initiate has to embrace The God of Sabbatai
Sevi's Faith. Furthermore, the essay assumes the implicit conception of Sabbatai
Sevi himself as corpus Christi, presenting the initiation as incorporation in the
messiah's body, and consequently incorporation in the God of the messiah's Faith.
This position is fully developed only in the second part of The Book of Creation.
The Intent of the Faith of Our Lord is Nathan of Gaza's last formulation of
Sabbatai Sevi's mystery of the God of his Faith before the latter's apostasy,
designed to establish the normative mystery of the God of Faith required from the
Sabbatian believer.
The Intent of the Faith of Our Lord evinces Nathan of Gaza's intent to solve the
diachronic changes in Sabbatai Sevi's object of faith, or, alternately, the synchronic
difference between Sabbatai Sevi's object of faith and that of other believers. This
he does in two fashions: The first one is a function of Sabbatai Sevi's unique
personality. The God of Sabbatai Sevi's Faith does not compel Nathan of Gaza or
any other believer, for psychomythological reasons particular to Sabbatai Sevi's
own personality.
Sabbatai Sevi is the only one who "greatly labored", until "he caused the king... to
sit on his throne", and thus was granted "exaltation"; that is to say, his psycho-
theurgic structure was transfigured, allowing him to nurse directly from
from `Attiqa Qaddisha (the Holy Ancient One). Still, in The Intent of the Faith of
Our Lord, the theme of the root of the messiah's soul is not as pivotal to fathoming
the relationship between Sabbatai Sevi and the God of his Faith, as it was to
become in The Treatise on the Dragons.
The second way Nathan deals with this discrepancy is by trying to synthesise,
neutralising the difference by metaphysical means. The synthesis he suggests
centers on the relationship between existence and epistemology in the Godhead
world: Any differentiation among the powers making up the emanated structure of
Godhead, or between the emanating and emanated concept of Godhead, is
practically an illusion. Hence, the difference between the God of Sabbatai Sevi's
Faith in the first or second phase, or between Sabbatai Sevi t s and that of other
believers, is actually an illusion.
In The Treatise on the Dragons, Nathan of Gaza argues unequivocally that parsuf
Ze`ir Anpin (configuration of the Holy One Blessed Be He) is the obligatory God
of faith of Judaism, and anyone praying to any other configuration e.g., to parsuf
`Attiqa Qaddisha (configuration of the Holy Ancient One) should be termed "he
who abhors God".
As he did In The Penitential Devotions, Nathan of Gaza derives the identity of the
God of Faith from the mystery of The God of Sabbatai Sevi's Faith, but ignores the
personal bond between believer and God suggested by his messiah's conception,
and interprets the mystery of the God of Faith in Lurianic messianic terms.
Throughout The Treatise on the Dragons are numerous hints of the relation
between the mystery of faith, the soul root, the restoration of the tehiru (the
vacuum produced by the contraction of the Godhead) and leadership of the worlds.
Restoring the soul root is part of the process of restoration of the tehiru, causing a
psychophysical transfiguration. The process begins with the restoration of Sabbatai
Sevi's soul. This results in the exaltation of Sabbatai Sevi to the rank of
the sefirah (one of the ten different stages of emanation) of Tif'ereth (Holy One
Blessed Be He), and Tif'ereth's consequent restoration. The end product is the
exaltation of Tif'ereth to The Cause of All Causes. Since the process of Sabbatai
Sevi's restoration is a model of imitation for the believers, the corresponding
transfiguration for them means shifting from belief in Ze`ir Anpin to belief in The
Cause of All Causes.
Nathan of Gaza proposes two different personality models of faith in The Treatise
on the Dragons. One model, represented by the faith of Abraham and probably
based on his own sort of faith, is viewed by Nathan of Gaza as striving to separate
the good from the bad, and to utterly destroy the bad; while the other one,
represented by Job and ostensibly based on Sabbatai Sevi's personality, is seen as
striving to assimilate the bad into the good.
Thus, in the doubleedged relationship between faith and heresy, Nathan chooses
faith alone. His is a firm, steady, unvarying faith, one unthreatened by heresy or
doubt. But Nathan of Gaza is aware of his faith's limitations and weaknesses. His
faith belongs only to the upper tehiru. It is unable to complete the messianic
restoration: to enter the lower tehiru, to pull out souls to the upper tehiru, and
assimilate the bad into the holy. This is the striking weakness of his faith.
The source of weakness in Sabbatai Sevi's fluctuating faith is also its source of
power and strength. Only by Sabbatai Sevi's paradoxical faith can the
lower tehiru be restored, the holy souls elevated, and the bad assimilated into the
good. This means that, contrary to Nathan of Gaza's unipolar faith, reflected only in
the upper tehiru, Sabbatai Sevi's paradoxical faith, associated with both parts of
the tehiru, is the only sort of faith that can produce the needed change and
restoration for the Jewish faith.
Part C of this study discusses the mystery of the God of Sabbatian Faith in Nathan
of Gaza's works after Sabbatai Sevi's apostasy and until his death, i.e., in the years
16661676. In this part, as in the previous one, those of his postapostasy works that
relate to the mystery of the God of Sabbatian Faith are analyzed diachronically,
focussing on the trends of development apparent in them.
In The Mystery of the Messiah King, Nathan of Gaza strives to explain Sabbatai
Sevi's conversion to Islam. This he does by means of a powerful mythical portrayal
of an epic struggle between Serpents: the mythical struggle of Sabbatai Sevi
presented as "the holy serpent", against the qelippoth (shells) of his soul,
represented by two serpents "the crooked serpent" and "the piercing serpent".
The struggle for the mystery of faith, represented on the overt level of history as the
messiah's apostasy, is just an outward manifestation of an inner mythological
struggle, whose arena is the messiah's soul itself, inasmuch as, according to Nathan
of Gaza, Christianity and Islam are the shells of the messiah's soul. Thus can the
Lurianic myth of the "breaking of vessels" be deciphered on the psychological level
as referring to Sabbatai's Sevi's own personality. The "breaking of vessels"
expresses more than the trauma of a broken Godhead, more than the historical
trauma of the expulsion of the Jews from Spain above all, it is the deep existential
shock of the apostatic shattering of the messiah. It is "the messiah of the God of
Jacob" who has disintegrated through apostasy. Interpreting the apostasy as a
personality "breaking of vessels" shows how perceptive Nathan of Gaza was of
Sabbatai Sevi's deepest feelings during this phase of his life.
Even though the apostasy was a traumatic breakdown experience for Sabbatai Sevi,
nonetheless Nathan of Gaza perceives it as a necessary phase in the process of
restoring his bipolar personality.
The Book of Zemir `Arisim shows a significant shift in the way Nathan of Gaza
perceives the mystery of the God of Faith. He has now a crucial metaphysical
distinction, derived from Sabbatai Sevi's bipolar personality, between ma`aseh
bereshith (M.B.) (work of creation) processes, and ma`aseh merkavah
(M.M.) (work of the chariot) processes. M.B. processes refer to the building
of tehiru as a vessel, whereas M.M. processes are the flowing of divine emanation
into this vessel. The God of Faith, while in the sefirah of Tif'ereth, is merely in the
capacity of M.M.; the God of Faith is truly perfected only after the light of Qav
Hayosher (straight line) emanates into Tif'ereth.
In The Book of Zemir `Arisim, as in The Treatise on the Dragons and The
Mystery of the Messiah King, the serpents' position is one of gnostic dualism.
But The Book of Zemir `Arisim introduces a novel approach to this myth: the
serpents' designs in the lower tehiru are now on par with the will of En-
Sof (Infinity). Hence, though the serpents' belief amounts to heresy in Tif'ereth, it
no longer means a rebellion against the will of EnSof, not only from the serpents'
viewpoint, but from EnSof s as well.
In The Treatise on the Dragons, Nathan of Gaza featured the messiah's paradoxical
faith as derived from his bipolar personality. The emphasis in The Book of Zemir
`Arisim differs somewhat. Sabbatai Sevi is now perceived as upholding gnostic-
dualist faith as "a holy deceit", a weapon in his struggle against the serpents (to
whose temptation he almost succumbs). Sabbatai Sevi's messianic mission, on the
level of faith, is to restore the gnosticdualist faith, a mission which he can only
achieve by paradoxical means. The messianic era is portrayed as the ultimate
triumph of harmonist faith over gnosticdualist faith.
Nathan of Gaza's phrasing in The Book of Zemir `Arisim leaves much that needs
clarification: does he see the will of EnSof as antagonistic toward Tif'ereth, or as
consonant with it? If the first interpretation is correct, it means that, for the first
time in his writings, Nathan of Gaza lays the foundations for a position of gnostic
dualism between EnSof and Tif'ereth, actually envisioning EnSof itself as "the other
side". This introduces into The Book of Zemir `Arisim grave inherent
contradictions, which are only to be resolved in The Book of Creation, by means
of the distinction between thoughtsome vs. thoughtless light.
In the first section of the first part of The Book of Creation, in accordance with
what we have already seen in The Treatise on the Dragons, Nathan of Gaza
asserts that the root of belief is derived from the soul's root. He delineates a
typology of souls' belief, based on identifying the ontological roots of the souls, and
depicted against a background of various developmental phases in the history of the
people of Israel.
The connection between the mystery of faith and the messianic process is as
follows: The faith of "the intelligent souls", who lack the nether root, cannot
contribute significantly to the messianic process, while the gnostic belief of the
"souls of the middle generations" can only disrupt this process. A small minority of
these souls i.e., those of the converted ones can actually exercise the gnostic-
dualist faith as a tactic of "the holy deceit", but such a practice can only be
considered a temporary provision.
The faith of "the wise souls" is not exclusively derived either from the facial root or
from the nether root, but is a harmonious combination of both. Consequently, the
mystery of the faith of "the wise souls", like that of the messiah, is neither a gnostic
dualism, or a reversed gnostic dualism, but a harmonious combination
of M.B. and M.M. In other words, the transcendent God, in His immanent aspect, is
the personal God of "the wise souls'" faith.
The second section of the first part of The Book of Creation lays out a
harmonist model of the God of Faith, unprecedented by anything presented in the
first section. This model depicts the God of Faith namely, the scorch of Tif'ereth -
as containing as an aspect of its essence the light of llana Yaqira (precious tree),
created by the union of two opposing forces: thoughtsome light, embodying the
powers of Asiluth (emanation) and creation; and thoughtless light, embodying the
powers of nonbeing and negation. It should be noted, however, that both lights
emanate from EnSof itself. The Sarah of Tif'ereth, into which the Ilana
Yaqira emanates, represents the harmonious union of these two opposing forces, a
union considered necessary, since the thoughtless light has the powers of creation,
whereas the thoughtsome light, in spite of its desire to create, is impotent, and has
to employ the creative forces of the thoughtless light.
In The Treatise on the Dragons, Nathan of Gaza portrayed Sabbatai Sevi in his
time of distress, when, in the depth of depression, he felt forsaken by the God of his
Faith. There the serpents were the alternative to the God of Faith; here Nathan of
Gaza introduces a whole new conception of the experience of faith. No longer are
the destructive forces of Godhead (i.e., thoughtless light) demonized; now, at last,
Nathan of Gaza can afford a model of appeasement and reconciliation, one that
accepts the destructive aspects as an indivisible part of the God of Faith, and not an
external demonic alternative. If in The Treatise on the Dragons he adopted
Sabbatai Sevi's viewpoint of depression as a separation experience, now he
launches a different model, in which depression and abandonment are no less a
testament to God's living presence.
The second part of The Book of Creation shows that Nathan had retrospectively
(apparently after the year 1675) come to the tragic conclusion that he had written
most of his works without a true knowledge of the mystery of the God of his
messiah's faith. The first signs of this conclusion can be discerned in the weak
agnostic position in the second part of The Book of Creation, revealed by his
admission of ignorance of the mystery on the one hand, and his detailed discussions
of this very same mystery throughout the book on the other hand.
In the second part of The Book of Creation Nathan of Gaza elaborates on the
model of Mana Yaqira, which plays the major part in the discussion of the identity
of the God of faith, linking between the God of Faith and Sabbatai Sevi's
apotheosis Mana Yaqira is an emanated force of Tif'ereth in the worlds of BYA
Beriah (creation), Yesirah (formation) and `Asiyyah (making). The mystery of the
God of Sabbatian faith is therefore Tif'ereth in the world of Asiluth and Mana
Yaqira in the worlds of BYA. Mana Yaqira's main chore in the messianic
restoration is related to the mythological struggle between Tif'ereth in the
upper tehiru and the serpents in the lower one. Both Tif'ereth and the serpents
contend over the ultimate position of the tehiru lights which went astray in the
worlds of BYA: Tif'ereth strives to purify them and elevate them to his level, while
the serpents try to draw them into their great rebellion against
him. Tif'ereth emanates Mana Yaqira for the purpose of using it in his struggle to
subdue the serpents.
Mana Yaqira is the mystery of the God of Sabbatian Faith (i.e., "the God of
Israel"), only in a state of being filled with the light of life, that emanates into it
from the world of Asiluth, that is, a state of being "complete Godhead", in the
capacity of M.M. Mana Yaqira is not present in the state of a dry, empty vessel,
devoid of the light of life, in the capacity of M.B. Raza demeheimanuta the mystery
of Faith applied to Mana Yaqira means a full union between vessels and essence.
This sort of dynamic is not novel in Nathan of Gaza's works: it recurs in his
writings, from the Treatise on the Dragons to The Book of Zemir Arisim. Yet,
in The Book of Creation, the parallels drawn between the mystery of the God of
faith, and Sabbatai Sevi's bipolar personality, were significantly altered. In
the Treatise on the Dragons, Sabbatai Sevi was conceived as in danger of being
tempted by the serpents. In the second part of The Book of Creation, however,
Sabbatai Sevi is no longer depicted that way, but is said to have had "the
prerogative of knowing his Creator even while apparently in the state of a dry
vessel". This assertion is fully in accord with the dedemonizatory trend of the
depression states revealed, as mentioned above, in the second section of the first
part of The Book of Creation, and signifies that, just as Mana Yaqira becomes
complete in the harmonious abundance of lights emanating in it, so is Sabbatai Sevi
healed and completed in the harmony between the pole of depression and the pole
of mania.
Mana Yaqira integrates into the messianic process of restoring the upper half of
the tehiru, by purifying the BYA worlds and elevating them to a state of "complete
Godhead". Thus, the theory of Mana Yaqira knowingly defuses the borderline
between the world of Asiluth and the worlds of BYA, and perceives the ultimate end
of the messianic restoration as a state of mystical pantheism.
It would seem the drive to develop the Mana Yaqira theory comes mainly from the
wish to expand the range of the messiah's mystery of faith beyond
the Asiluth world, to his emanation in the BYA worlds. The cosmological messianic
restoration of the BYA worlds, which is the basis of the Mana Yaqira theory, is but
a shoot and branch of the theory of Sabbatai Sevi's own Godhead.
One can relate the emanation of Mana Yaqira in the worlds of BYA not only in
neoplatonic terms, as a process of "emanation of being", but in incarnation terms as
well. Mana Yaqira not only emanates in BYA, but is also incarnated in Sabbatai
Sevi, elevating him to a level of "complete Godhead". Thus Mana Yaqira becomes
an aspect of Sabbatai Sevi, since the God of his Faith is incarnated in him.
Only in the second part of The Book of Creation does Nathan of Gaza decide to
array his arguments through philosophical method, directly attacking the
philosophers' God. Nathan of Gaza has one battle, which he wages against the self-
same pattern of faith, only this time he chooses to assail it by philosophical means,
rather than by his favorite method of mythological designs. The analogy which can
be drawn between the way he portrays the philosophers' God, and his depiction of
the serpents' God, may imply that Nathan of Gaza regards philosophical belief as
implicitly gnostic.
His religious interests lie in affirming the principle of creation, which he interprets
as affirmation of the emanated Godhead. If the central issue in the mystery of the
God of Sabbatai Sevi's faith is the identity of the God of Faith, and if Sabbatian
theologians desire above all to locate the God of Faith on the level of essence, this
part of The Book of Creation focuses on the very possibility that the God of faith
and religion is the emanated Godhead. Nathan of Gaza thus contends in favor of the
emanation principle, both on the mythological level and the philosophical one.
Nathan of Gaza is first and foremost a mythologist, and throughout his works he
presents a mythological portrayal of the serpents' pattern of belief, which is, as
mentioned above, a gnostic dualism. In the second section of the first part of The
Book of Creation the serpents represent the thoughtless light, which opposes the
emanation principle, which is the essence and duty of thoughtsome light. The
serpents think, not unreasonably, that the emanated forces are rebellious ones,
which rose against EnSof, so the campaign against them should be waged to its
bitter end. Here Nathan defends the emanation principle by mythological means: by
coupling the forces of nonbeing and negation (thoughtless light) with the forces of
creation and emanation (thoughtsome light). This coupling permits the process of
creation within the tehiru space, and the emanation of divine forces, which is no
longer perceived as metaphysical rebellion against EnSof.
As already mentioned, one of the main themes of the present study is the psycho-
mythological parallelism between Sabbatai Sevi's paradoxical personality and the
thoughtsome / thoughtless light dichotomy. However, this psychomythological
parallelism is not the only one. As the dichotomy between the lights reflects the
contrasts within the messiah's person, so it reflects another contrast: the one
between messiah and prophet.
It has already been related that Nathan of Gaza's personality is reflected in the
thoughtsome light aspect of the messiah's personality, both because Nathan of Gaza
projects his own personality onto his conception of his messiah, and because he
perceives him as multifaceted and allembracing. But the angle suggested now
differs somewhat. Now the dichotomy between the lights reflects Sabbatai Sevi as
purely thoughtless light, and Nathan of Gaza as purely thoughtsome light.
The suggested hypothesis is that the theory of faith propounded in The Book of
Creation is based on two religious prototypes, which are not only different, but
contradictory. The dichotomy between the light categoriess implies an outline of
two different religious prototypes: one is a thoughtsome light type, based on
Nathan of Gaza's personality; the other, a thoughtless light type, is based on
Sabbatai Sevi's personality. This typology, though not wholly explicated, runs
throughout the discussion of faith in The Bock of Creation.
One can draw a correspondence between Weiss's classic typology the one
distinguishing between mystical, contemplative Hasidism, and Hasidism of faith
and the typology based on the twolight dichotomy in The Book of Creation. The
personality prototype derived from thoughtsome light, and based on Nathan of
Gaza's personality, corresponds to the "mystical Hasidism" prototype, while the one
derived from thoughtless light, and based on Sabbatai Sevi's personality,
corresponds to the "Hasidism of faith" prototype. It goes without saying that
Weiss's typology does not exhaust the variety of nuances in each lightderived
personality type, but it affords a chance to understand them.
The features common to the thoughtsome light religious prototype and to mystical
Hasidism are: a conception of the immanence of God in the world, within
the tehiru space, up to and including pantheism; an impersonal conception of
Godhead; a striving toward monism and rejection of dualism; a largely optimistic
anthropology; a generally impersonal relationship between man and God; and a
mystic religious experience based on contemplation and ecstasy.
The features common to the thoughtless light religious prototype and the Hasidism
of faith are: a blatant negation of the immanence principle and a notion of total
Divine transcendence that tends to empty tehiru space from His presence; a
personal, even voluntaristic conception of God; a paradoxical, antirational theism,
and consequently paradoxical behavior by God's absolute will; an extreme dualism
penetrating all the systems of being; a pessimistic anthropology; and a religious
experience based on the relating of a personal man to a personal though faraway
God.
Nathan of Gaza portrays thoughtsome light according to his own ascetic, nomistic,
nonparadoxical personality, whose main tendency is to maintain the limits of Law
(mythically represented by the vessels). The structures of the upper tehiru had been
built by thoughtsome light, and creation, in its entirety, owes its existence to that
light. Though the mystical prototype is a radical sort, not devoid of some potential
anarchistic element, his tendency to keep within the limits of tehiru and vessels,
and avoid destructive exceeding beyond the tenure, is a central characteristics of
this prototype in The Book of Creation.
Not so with the faithreligiosity prototype derived from Sabbatai Sevi. The root of
Sabbatai Sevi's soul is in thoughtless light, which means it mehader betar hurbana
courts destruction: its nature is to strive to destroy the tehiru constructions and
reunite with the EnSof. Even though the wish to be united with its source in En-
Sof conceals a latent mystical element, mysticism is, in this instance, the domain on
the edge of faith.
Thus, in the tehiru space thoughtless light finds itself cut off from its source. While
thoughtsome light, in its embodiment within tehiru space, is linked to its source by
means of Qav Hayosher, thoughtless light, in contrast, has no functional
equivalence of Qav Hayosher to keep it in touch. The imprisoned, chained thought-
less light longs to escape its cosmic tehiru prison and return to its source in En-
Sof. But this dream of homecoming can only be realized by destroying its prison,
actually blasting the tehiru.
So it is with Sabbatai Sevi. The tehiru, symbolising in the Gazati myth the Torah,
is also a more general symbol, of Law. Sabbatai Sevi's antinomian, antiLaw drive,
stems from his destructioncourting nature. The conservative trends of Judaism are,
for him, the Law, the tehiru: a cosmic prison, a closed claustrophobic space,
completely severed from EnSof, without his own Qav Hayosher (i.e.,
castrated; Qav Hayosher straight line is obviously a phallic symbol), and devoid of
all means of communication with the God of his faith.
But Sabbatai Sevi, the "man of faith", is seeking the God of this faith, is longing for
the live, immediate touch, for the relationship between "I" and "Thou". But the God
of his faith is far away, residing beyond the space of tehiru, beyond Law; and so is
Sabbatai Sevi, imprisoned in tehiru, stifled by Halakhah, chained by Law,
condemned to yearn, from his metaphysical prison, to the God of his faith.
A close examination of the Zohar's approach to the Three Knots of Faith shows,
that neither the Three Knots of Faith nor the relationship between it and the
messiah as "son of God" can be considered a novel contribution to Kabbalistic
thought. However, it seems it was Sabbatai Sevi who reinstated the Zohar's Three
Knots of Faith in the late 17th century, and his own innovation gave it a
sacramental value.
The assertion of Sabbatai Sevi as God's elder son does not suffice Nathan of Gaza.
He strives further than that: his wish is to present Sabbatai Sevi as an incarnation of
the God of his Faith. The designation of Bera Bukhra in The Principles means
more than a personal, intimate messianic relationship between messiah and God;
the conception it reflects is a conception of identity.
The designation of Bera Bukhra does not refer only to the concrete messiah
Sabbatai Sevi, but also to aspects and levels in the Great Chain of Being, presented
in The Principles mythologically, as links in the chain of the messiah's soul. The
process of creation is a messianic one, in the sense that it refers to the actualisation
of the messiah's soul, from its primordial, eternal mode of being in the EnSof ha-
Klali (global infinity), through its emanation in the tehiru worlds, and ending with
its incarnation in a fleshandblood messiah, Sabbatai Sevi. Assuming the Chain of
Being closes to a circle, one can also describe the process in the other half of the
circle: Sabbatai Sevi's therapeutic ascent to the level of Tif'ereth, and the
consequent ascent of Tif'ereth to the level of Mif`al Qadmon (primordial act). But
this was not explicitly written in The Principles, but orally cited from Nathan of
Gaza, by his students' evidence. Nevertheless, it would not be an exaggeration to
assert that Nathan deemed Sabbatai Sevi God's elder son, in the sense of being His
incarnation.
Doctrinally put, this mythical position means one should believe in the Three Knots
of Faith, of which Bera Bukhra is an element. The T.K.F. mechanism includes the
following elements: [1] The light of EnSof, which is equivalent to Makhshavah
Qedumah (primordial thought), which is equivalent to Mif`al Qadmon, which is
equivalent to Bera Bukhra; [2] Qav Hayosher, which is Tif'ereth; [3]
the sefirah of Malkhuth (kingdom). The first element is the domain of EnSof, which
is transcendent to the tehiru, while the second and the third ones belong to the
space of simsum, which is the immanent aspect of EnSof.
The prime issue in The Principles is therefore the assertion that the mystery of the
God of Faith is the Three Knots of Faith, a mystery hidden and concealed in the
Holy Writ, from the Bible to the Zohar. The Principles' aim is to decipher this
mystery, and offer a hermeneutic key to reveal it in the Zohar and Tiqqunei Zohar.
However, one can suggest a much more farreaching assertion: that The
Principles contain the implied position that Sabbatai Sevi is himself the God of
faith and religion, in the sense that he contains the Three Knots of Faith in his
person, or that he is one of the Three. In The Principles, Nathan of Gaza
apparently holds the implicit position that Sabbatai Sevi is an incarnation of the
God of faith. Even though nothing is explicitly said of the Three Knots of Faith
being one in the person of Sabbatai Sevi, or of his being one of the Three,
still, since The Principles depict Sabbatai Sevi as Bera Bukhra, he must be,
consequently, one of the Three Knots of Faith.
This, put together with Tishby's premise, that Nathan of Gaza thought Sabbatai
Sevi would depose Tif'ereth and rule the worlds in his stead, means that The
Principles contain the esoterically hidden assumption that Sabbatai Sevi, already
an incarnation of Tif'ereth, is going to be elevated, in his lifetime, to the level
of Tif'ereth, and rule the worlds. This links the Three Knots of Faith theory with the
theory of God's incarnation in the messiah.
The Sabbatian movement was only just beginning when Nathan of Gaza first
introduced the sacramental value of the belief in Sabbatai Sevi. Then, it was the
belief in the messiah, rather than the God of his Faith, which was sacramental.
Later, in the last phase of his writing, Nathan of Gaza identified Sabbatai Sevi with
the God of his Faith, granting the belief in Three Knots of Faith a sacramental
value. Apparently, by Nathan of Gaza's conception of Sabbatai Sevi as an
incarnation of the God of his faith, he realized the wish to have a personal God,
since, at that point, Sabbatai Sevi himself became, in a way, the God of faith and
religion.
It has already been noted that The Principles are a hermeneutic system affording a
new reading of the sacred texts of Judaism, with the Three Knots of Faith as the
internal guide. The mystery of Three Knots of Faith in The Principles is that
Sabbatai Sevi is included in the Three Knots of Faith. Thus, the sacred texts can be
said to be a mythological biography of Sabbatai Sevi. Such is the hermeneutic key
Nathan of Gaza suggested in the twilight of his life to interpret the Jewish Canon,
and such is the hermeneutic key to the Gazati myth itself.
Copyright Avraham Elqayam
See also: Sabbatai Sevi and Sufism - The Treatise of the Dragons.
Home Summary of volume one Research Archives Abstracts of Ph. D. Kabbalists Dictionary
Bibliographic Directory Commented Bibliography Colloquia Event and News Lectures and
Seminaries Doctoral Thesis in progress Interviews Books and Reviews received Web Sites devoted
to Kabbalah Automatic Research Testimonies Letters Questionnaire