Nathan Wolski - The Zohar (Zohar: The Pritzker Editions) Vol 10: Midrash ha-Nelam

The translation and publication of the Zohar is made possible through the thoughtful and generous support of the Pritzker Family Philanthropic Fund.

Stanford University Press

Stanford, California

2016 by Zohar Education Project, Inc.

All rights reserved.

For further information, including the Aramaic text of the Zohar, please visit www.sup.org/zohar

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available from the Library of Congress at http://Iccn.loc.gov/2003014884

ISBN 978-0-8047-8804-5 (cloth)-

ISBN 978-1-5036-0347-9 (electronic) (vol. 10)

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free, archival-quality paper.

Designed by Rob Ehle

Typeset by El Ot Pre Press & Computing Ltd., Tel Aviv,
in 10.5/14 Minion.

Academic Committee
for the Translation of the Zohar

Daniel Abrams

Bar-Ilan University

Joseph Dan

Hebrew University

Rachel Elior

Hebrew University

Asi Farber-Ginat

University of Haifa

Michael Fishbane

University of Chicago

Pinchas Giller

American Jewish University

Amos Goldreich

Tel Aviv University

Moshe Hallamish

Bar-Ilan University

Melila Hellner-Eshed

Hebrew University

Boaz Huss

Ben-Gurion University

Moshe Idel

Hebrew University

Esther Liebes

Gershom Scholem Collection, Jewish National and University Library

Yehuda Liebes

Hebrew University

Bernard McGinn

University of Chicago

Ronit Meroz

Tel Aviv University

Charles Mopsik,

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique

Michal Oron

Tel Aviv University

Haviva Pedaya

Ben-Gurion University

Bracha Sack

Ben-Gurion University

Elliot R. Wolfson

New York University

Arthur Green

Co-Chair

Brandeis University

Rabbi Yehiel Poupko

Co-Chair

Jewish Federation of Chicago

Margot Pritzker

Chair, Zohar Education Project, Inc.

Daniel C. Matt

Translator, Zohar Education Project, Inc.

Contents

Midrash ha-Nelamthe Concealed Midrash, or perhaps better, the Midrash of the Concealedis recognized by all Zohar scholars as the earliest layer of the Zoharic literary corpus. Midrash ha-Nelam thus stands at the very origin of the Zoharic enterprise and presents the first fruits of the Zoharic world.

Midrash ha-Nelam on the Torah differs greatly from the main body of the Zohar. Sefirotic symbolism is virtually absent from the work (except for parts of parashat Shemot), as is the grand epic narrative featuring the Companions gathered around Rabbi Shimon son of Yoai. In their place, one finds philosophical allegory and proto-kabbalistic midrash, as well as homilies and narratives featuring a much larger number of rabbis, including elaborate stories about the Masters of Mishnahthe forerunner to the Zoharic fellowship. Though Midrash ha-Nelam is in some ways stylistically undeveloped in comparison to the main body of the Zohar, readers will have no difficulty in sensing the same daring exegetical spirit, the same Zoharic eye, running through its pages. Indeed, Midrash ha-Nelam might be regarded as the portrait of the artist as a young manbe that artist Moses de Len, or the Zohar as a wholerevealing the first stirrings of genius, the original literary breakthrough that lent the Zohar proper its distinctive landscape, tone, and rhythm.

Where the Zohar proper is concerned with theosophy, i.e., knowledge of the mysteries of the inner workings of divinity and its emanations, lavishly articulated through rich symbolism, Midrash ha-Nelam presents inter alia allegorical readings of the Torah and more conventional Neoplatonic philosophical teachings. Through the story of the patriarchs, these allegorical readings tell the grand story of the souls descent from the world above (Abraham signifying the soul and Sarah the body), its sojourns and adventures on earth (in particular battling Lot, the evil impulse), its peregrinations after death (Melchizedek, king of Salem signifying Michael the prince of Jerusalem Above; the King of Sodom signifying the prince of Hell), culminating in the resurrection (Isaac and Rebekah signifying the soul in the resurrected body) and the purification of the evil impulse in the next world (as Lot the accursed is replaced by Laban, the refined impulse.) Midrash ha-Nelam marks one of the high points, if not the high point, of medieval Jewish philosophical allegory.

Philosophical allegory, however, is only one element of Midrash ha-Nelam. The other is midrash, at times seemingly similar in spirit to classical rabbinic midrash, yet invariably infused with proto-kabbalistic themes. Creation, cosmology, the angelic realm, the origin and nature of the soul, and, of course, the drama of the people of Israel and their ritual and historical life all lie at the center of Midrash ha-Nelams concerns. And even if this proto-kabbalistic midrash does not contain the same mythic and erotic element found in the Zohar proper, some of the Zohars most important and characteristic innovations are first found here: the nocturnal delight in the Garden of Eden, as well as the Companions penchant for walking on the way and their concomitant quest to pursue the deeper meaning of Torah.

Significantly, these two aspects, the allegorical-philosophical and the proto-kabbalistic, align with another interesting feature of Midrash ha-Nelam: its bilingualism. Unlike the main body of the Zohar, which is written entirely in Aramaic, Midrash ha-Nelam combines Hebrew and Aramaic. Sometimes entire sections appear in one language, while on other occasions the language shifts mid-sentence. Interestingly, this linguistic fault-line corresponds, in the main, with the two chief modes of Midrash ha-Nelam, and so we find that the philosophical allegorical layer of the text is composed in Hebrew, and the proto-kabbalistic midrashic layer in Aramaic. Unfortunately, this crucial element of the texture of Midrash ha-Nelam is lost in translation, though I have noted significant fault-lines in the notes.

How are we to make sense of this arrangement? Is Midrash ha-Nelam a unified work? Or might the two languages point to two different compositions brought together by a later editor? And if two different compositions, which is earlier? Or might we assume a single author, who wrote one work in his youth, perhaps the philosophical layer, and appended and interlaced the proto-kabbalistic layer later in his life? Even more intriguing, can we imagine a single author moving between languages as he moved between genres and modes of discourse? Whatever the case (and part of the charm of reading