VISIONS OF GOD IN MERKABAH MYSTICISM

BY

IRA CHERNUS

University of Colorado, Boulder

I

The recent publication of Ithamar GRUENWALD'S Apocalyptic and

Merkabah Mysticism is an important event for those of us interested in

Jewish mysticism and esotericism during the rabbinic era. The

book will surely be a basic point of reference for future studies in

this area, as it provides the most comprehensive discussion yet available of all the Heikalot texts and their background. Therefore

it is important to look closely at GRUENWALD'S judgments about the

nature of Merkabah mysticism as we try to gain a more precise

understanding of this enigmatic phenomenon. One statement in the book which may occasion surprise comes in

a discussion of the controversy among the tannaim as to whether it

is possible to see God'). GRUENWALD shows here that there is signifi- cant negative opinion on this question in the rabbinic literature, and he claims in particular that R. Akiba, so closely associated with

mystical concerns, denies the possibility of human beings seeing God. Supporting this interpretation, GRUENWALD claims, rather in

passing:

As a matter of fact, the idea that the mystics and the angels cannot see

God is also stressed several times in the Hekhalot literature. Despite the daring modes of expression one can find in that literature about

the contents of mystical experience, the possibility of a direct visual

encounter with God is generally ruled out. The mystics whose ex-

periences are described in the Hekhalot literature, expect to see "the

King in (all) His beauty", but when it comes to a face to face meeting with God, one repeatedly hears of what is and should be done in order to avoid the experience2).

1) Ithamar GRUENWALD, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (Leiden/Köln: E. J. Brill, 1980), pp. 93-97.

2) Ibid., p. 94.

124

This assertion, coming from an acknowledged authority, raises

some important questions. Our understanding of Merkabah

mysticism will be significantly different, I think, if we accept GRUENWALD'S view than if we reject it. For if the Merkabah mystics did think it possible to see God, it seems likely that this vision would

be the central concern and motivating force of their endeavors. In

fact, Gershom SCHOLEM has already written that "the main pur-

pose of the ascent to the Merkabah is the vision of the One Who sits

on the Throne"3). If SCHOLEM is correct, then his view ought to be

a foundational element in any overall interpretation of Merkabah

mysticism. Moreover, we would also like to know whether rabbinic

Judaism in general included a "visible" God or not. If GRUEN-

WALD'S view can be shown correct, then his general impression that

rabbinic Judaism denied the "visibility" of God would be more

probable; if the Merkabah mystics thought it impossible to see God, it is hardly likely that their non-mystical contemporaries held the

opposite view. Thus the whole question seems worth further

investigation. Before examining the Heikalot texts themselves in detail, a brief

sketch of some earlier Jewish views on this subject may be useful.

GRUENWALD himself indicates that all of the basic elements of

Merkabah mysticism are already found in the visions of God

reported in the Bible: 1 Kings 22:19, Isaiah 6:1 ff., Ezekiel 1,

3:22-24, 8:1 ff., 10, and Daniel 7:9-10. Listing the essential

characteristics that these visions have in common, he notes that in

all of them God is sitting on a throne, and that in two (Ezekiel and

Daniel) God has the appearance of a man4). In fact, it seems likely that nearly all manifestations of God in the Biblical era were

assumed to be anthropomorphic manifestations. Discussing

"Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament,"

James BARR says:

There is adequate evidence for a strong tradition in early Israel that Yahweh let himself be seen at times in the form of a man ... The most

important question which remains is perhaps better phrased thus: not

3) Gershom SCHOLEM, Kabbalah (New York: Quadrangle/The New York Times Book Co., 1974), p. 16. A similar conclusion, from a different and very interesting point of view, is reached by S. LEITER in "Worthiness, Acclamation, and Appoint- ment: Some Rabbinic Terms," Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research XLI-XLII (1973-1974).

4) GRUENWALD, Apocalyptic, pp. 29-31. (Note that p. 31 erroneously refers to 2 Kings rather than 1 Kings.)

125

"Is God conceived of as essentially in human form?", but "When he

does appear in a form at all, is it thought that the human form is the natural or characteristic one for him to assume?" To the question put this way it seems to me that we are entitled to answer in the

affirmative5).

While BARR cautions that the evidence in this area is difficult to

assess, he shows that anthropomorphism was probably a stronger and more persistent factor in theophanies in ancient Israel than

usually assumed. Many ancient Israelites undoubtedly thought that

it was possible for certain human beings under certain (perhaps

extraordinary) conditions to see God.

This attitude was alive in what we have come to call the "inter-

testamental" period in Judaism as well, as seen most clearly in the

apocalyptic literature. The vision in Daniel 7 is only one example of

this. In a recent survey of visions of God in apocalyptic writings,

Christopher ROWLAND claims to find evidence that in fact the

anthropomorphic element in this literature declined during the first

centuries BC and AD. While it remains for specialists to evaluate

this claim, one of ROWLAND'S conjectures is worth noting here. He

speculates that the absence of an anthropomorphic God in the

"Merkabah" vision of the Apocalypse of Abraham may be a

polemic against anthropomorphism6). This would imply, of course, that some people in the author's environment (who were Jews, one

assumes) did in fact think it possible to see God in human form

during a heavenly ascent. (It may be relevant here that the

Targumic tradition, with its well-known circumlocutions to avoid

anthropomorphism, must have been taking shape at roughly the

same time.) The tannaim and amoraim, then, were heirs to a tradition which

gave abundant evidence of the possibility of seeing God and yet also

included some anti-anthropomorphic elements as well. GRUEN-

WALD, in his brief discussion of this problem among the tannaim, adduces only a small fraction of the relevant evidence, and even

that is far from certain in its interpretation. A key point for GRUEN-

WALD is R. Akiba's interpretation of Exodus 33:20: "Man shall not

see me and live Akiba's interpretation is: "Even the living

5) James BARR, "Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament," Supplements to Vetus Testamentum VII (1960), pp. 32-33.

6) Christopher ROWLAND, "The Vision of God in Apocalyptic Literature," Journal for the Study of Judaism 10:2 (December 1979), p. 151, n. 31.

126

creatures [bayot] which are carried [in the divine throne] do not see

the glory." But GRUENWALD notes that a leading recent student of

Akiba's life, S. SAFRAI, reads this text in exactly the opposite way,

seeing it as evidence that Akiba thought it possible for human

beings, but not the 4yot, to see God'). In fact, a full-scale investiga- tion of this problem in rabbinic literature would be likely to find

many conflicting views among the rabbis, and many conflicting

interpretations of individual rabbinic sayings such as this would

surely be possible. The closest that we have to such a full-scale

investigation is the study of the concept of the Shekinah by Arnold

M. GOLDBERG. GOLDBERG devotes several paragraphs in his Con-

clusion to the question of "seeing the Shekinah," and it seems

worthwhile to quote him at length here, since his view seems to do

justice to the complexity and the general tenor of the rabbinic

views:

The question of the possibility of seeing the Shekinah was thoroughly real for the rabbis. The midrashim do indeed deal with the past, but the homiletical Tendenzen make it readily apparent that the com-

parisons with the rabbis' own time were serious and not at all merely theological-academic. If the Shekinah was really thought of as

present, a definite behavior was prescribed, namely covering the head and lowering the eyes. Appearances of the Shekinah in the present were thus fundamentally admitted, but one fought against those who

sought a vision of the Deity, whether it be merely out of curiosity or to attain some spiritual or material advantage. To be sure, not only were the Merkabah-mystics intended here, but also certainly the mystical practitioners. Those persons so directly warned or condemned by the rabbis were not marginals. They were also nowhere branded as

heterodox, but only as presumptuous transgressors who did not

respect the dignity of God. The controversy can be dated without difficulty to the tannaitic era,

probably in the time after the Bar-Kochba rebellion (although a con-

siderably older age can not be excluded). At that time mystical speculation and magical practice had probably reached a certain

apex. The rabbis (with few exceptions) did not thereby call into question

the possibility of the vision of God; neither did they seek to dispose of those who sought it or participated in it as dreamers or simply frauds. Rather they developed a new ideal-respect for secrets and the honor

7) GRUENWALD, Apocalyptic, p. 96 n. 73.

127

of God. Just as Moses lowered his eyes at the burning bush, so was it

seemly for every Israelite to do. To be sure, this opinion did not go unchallenged.

The advice of R. Jose b. Halafta to his son Ishmael to study Torah in the land of Israel if he wanted to see the face of the Shekinah in this life must sound all the more noteworthy if the very same R. Jose denied the descent of the Shekinah upon Sinai with the passage, "The heavens are the heavens of the Lord." Whoever was really the author of this saying, and whatever this saying might actually mean, the

saying makes it quite clear that the seeing of the Shekinah, for some at

least, was not only held possible but was also aspired to.

Evaluating all the texts, one can come to the conclusion that most of the rabbis were opposed to the "seeing of the Shekinah in this world." Where controversy can be discerned, one gets the impression that the representatives of mystical trends are only cited so that one can better oppose them. Yet one can not speak of a real suppression of such an idea. In the end it was left to each individual's discretion to set himself against the advice of the rabbis and seek the vision of the

Deity8).

II

Against this background, we now turn to the Heikalot texts themselves to see what they have to say about the possibility of

seeing God9). There are in fact a large number of assertions in the Heikalot literature that it is possible for a human being to see God. I shall survey here what I believe to be a complete inventory of these

passages, as well as passages which assert that celestial beings can see God and passages which deny the possibility of a vision of God.

The texts which most frequently speak of humans seeing God are Heikalot Rabbati and Malaseh Merkabah. In the former we find R. Nehuniah b.Hakanah revealing the characteristics of "one who is qualified to look at'O) the King and throne in His splendor and His beauty" (13.1). It is apparently important to know these

8) Arnold M. GOLDBERG, Untersuchungen über die Vorstellung von der Schekhinah in der frühen rabbinischen Literatur (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1969), pp. 513-515.

9) In defining the corpus of Heikalot texts, I follow the list offered by Jonas C. GREENFIELD in the Prolegomenon to Hugo ODEBERG, 3 Enoch or the Hebrew Book of Enoch (New York: Ktav Publishing Co., 1973), p. xxviii.

10) The Heikalot texts use several verbs to denote the act of seeing God. In this essay I have translated them consistently according to the following schema: "look at" = hstkl; "see" = r'h; "glance" = hzyz; "gaze at" = zph; "behold" = hzh. While variation in translation of these terms might occasionally give a more preferable reading, this pattern seems to be satisfactory in nearly every instance.

128

characteristics because of the terrible fate which awaits those who

are unqualified and yet attempt the vision. At the threshold of the

sixth heikal the angel Kazpiel is waiting with his sword for "anyone who is not qualified to look at the King and throne" (18.5). In this

same sixth heikal one must pass the test of seeing the marble plates without mistaking them for water; those who cry out "water, water" are "not qualified to see the King and His throne"

(25.6)"). Those who are qualified, however, although they "tremble and step back and become terrified and faint and fall

backwards" are helped by the celestial beings, who tell them: "Do

not fear, beloved child of a drop. Enter and see the King in His

beauty, and you will not be destroyed nor burned" (23.2). It is

apparent, then, that some people can in fact see God, despite the

dangers involved, according to this text. It is puzzling, therefore, when we read in the same text a lengthy

description of the numinous splendor of God upon His throne, followed by the assertion that "he who looks at Him is immediately torn apart, and he who glances at Him is poured out as if from a

bucket" (8.2). Does this mean that it is impossible for any human

to see God? Likewise, Heikalot Rabbati offers a description of God

wrapped in His special garment, the baluqI2), followed by the

warning that "the eyes of every creature are unable to look upon Him-neither the eyes of flesh and blood nor the eyes of His

servants" (3.4). GRUENWALD cites this passage in particular as

evidence that the Merkabah mystics thought it impossible to see

God directly1 3). Yet the text immediately goes on to say: "One who

looks upon Him or glances at Him or sees Him-whirling gyrations

grip his eyeballs, and his eyeballs throw off and eject fiery torches, and they burn him and ignite him, because the fire which comes out

of the person who looks, it burns him and ignites him. Why? Because of the nature of the haluq ..." (3.4). Here, too, GRUENWALD

finds evidence that the Heikalot texts rule out a direct encounter

11) A more elaborate version of the text, cited by Gershom SCHOLEM in Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (3rd ed. rev.; New York: Schocken Books, 1961), p. 361, reads: "to see the King in His beauty." Cf. the general discussion of this passage by SCHOLEM in Major Trends, pp. 52-53 and in Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition (2nd ed.; New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1965), pp. 14-16.

12) SCHOLEM, Jewish Gnosticism, chap. VIII. 13) GRUENWALD, Apocalyptic, p. 94 n. 64.

129

with God by warning the mystic to avoid itl4). Yet in fact this text

speaks quite explicitly of "one who looks upon Him or glances at

Him or sees Him," which indicates clearly that a vision of God is

possible. On a literal reading, the text seems to contradict itself; it

first asserts that no creature can see God, then immediately describes what happens to a creature who sees God.

Can this contradiction be resolved? GttUErrwwLD's interpretation seems unable to resolve it, for he can not account for the presence of

the explicit assertion that it is possible to see God. On the other

hand, Gershom SCHOLEM says: "This is not, it is to be noted, a

description of dangers confronting the mystic, but of a mystical

transfiguration taking place within him"15). SCHOLEM sees this as

analogous to the transfiguration of Enoch described in Sefer

Heikalot (=3 3 Enoch) 15.1. Yet SCHOLEM'S interpretation also

leaves the contradiction unresolved: If there is in fact no danger involved in the vision of God, why does the text say that it is im-

possible to see God? Perhaps the text means that it is impossible for

an ordinary person, or any person under ordinary circumstances, to see God, while special individuals under special circumstances

may have such a vision. But this is to read a great deal into the text.

A more reasonable way to solve the problem, I think, is to

assume that in fact this text is describing dangers-very dreadful

dangers-facing the mystic who wants to see God. It seems unlikely that anyone could face the prospect of being burned by fire emitted

from his own body with equanimity. And we know that the dangers

facing the mystic in the ascent to the Merkabah form a substantial

and pervasive theme in the Heikalot literature. The dangers are

often said to intensify as one approaches the throne of God, and so it seems likely that they would culminate with the vision of God

Himself. Yet these dangers do not make it impossible to see God.

On the contrary, since the dangers are the price one must pay for the ultimate vision of God, their existence in fact confirms that such a vision is possible. I think, then, that the text is saying that no creature can see God under ordinary circumstances, but if an in- dividual is willing to accept these terrifying dangers then he may in

14) Ibid. 15) SCHOLEM, Jewish Gnosticism, p. 60. Johann MAIER, "Das Gefahrdungsmotiv

bei der Himmelsreise in der jüdischen Apokalyptik und in der 'jüdischen Gnosis', "Kairos 1 (1963), pp. 32-33, accepts SCHOLEM'S opinion as well. But cf. SCHOLEM'S earlier view, Major Trends, pp. 51, 52.

130

fact see God'6). Certainly this text would serve, as GRUENWALD

says, to urge people to avoid the experience. J. MAIER has sug-

gested that all of the descriptions of dangers involved in Merkabah

mysticism may well have served to discourage people from becom-

ing involved in esoteric and potentially heretical pursuits"). But

this does not mean at all that those involved in these pursuits

thought it impossible to see God. The truth is, apparently, quite the

contrary. The other Heikalot texts serve to confirm this impression. In the

text Malaseh Merkabah'8), R. Ishmael asserts that having learned

the "secret of the chambers of the heikal of the Merkabah ... I saw

the King of the universe sitting upon a throne, high and exalted"

(# 7). In the same text, R. Akiba asserts: "I prayed a prayer and I

gazed upon the Shekinah and I saw everything that they do before

His throne of glory" (# 32 top; cf. # 8). The same rabbi makes a

similar assertion in an almost incidental way: "When I ascended

and gazed upon the Power, I saw all the creatures who are in the

paths of heaven" (#2). At least one manuscript of this text asks:

"How is it possible ... to behold what Rozei YVY God of Israel

does?" (#4 top), and the lengthy prayer which follows seems to be

the answer, implying that such a vision is in fact possible. (The con-

text makes it apparent that Rozei YVY is the name of God Himself, not an angel. It seems unlikely that there is a significant difference

between seeing what God does and seeing God Himself, though the

possibility of such a distinction can not be excluded.) While

Malaseh Merkabah contains several general allusions to the

dangers involved in the journey to the Merkabah ( # ' s 9 , 1 1 , 1 2 , 1 4 , 15 etc.), there are no specific descriptions of the dangers attendant

upon the vision of God.

In the fragmentary text from the Cairo Geniza published by I.

GRUENWALDI9) we find a similar series of assertions that one can see

16) The existence of a similar pattern in many different cultures and religious traditions has been documented in the studies of Mircea ELIADE. The "initiatory" pattern often involves phenomena of fire, heat, and light. See, e.g., Myths, Dreams and Mysteries, trans. Phillip Mairet (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1967), chap. IV, and The Two and the One, trans. J. M. Cohen (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1965), chap. I.

17) "Das Gefährdungsmotiv," p. 39; idem., Vom Kultus zur Gnosis (Salzburg: Otto Müller Verlag, 1964), pp. 139-140.

18) The text was published by SCHOLEM as Appendix C to Jewish Gnosticism; it is cited here by paragraph number in SCHOLEM'S edition.

19) "New Fragments from the Heikalot Literature," Tarbiz 38 (1969), pp. 354-372.

131

God, in this case by following the guidance of the angel Tanarel.

The angel speaks of "a seal for the descent to the Merkabah, for

human beings-for you and for anyone who wants to descend to

glance at the King in His beauty" (p. 358, 1. 25). Following these

instructions, "he will descend and he will see and he will not be

harmed" (p. 358, 1. 26). The "seal of the Merkabah" may in fact

be the name of the text, and it is affirmed further on that it is possi- ble "to descend by means of it to see the King in His beauty" (p.

364, 1. 23, and GRUErrwnLn's note ad loc. ) . R. Ishmael affirms here:

"I gazed and I saw [the] King in His beauty" (p. 363, 1. 18). One

very interesting reference to the dangers involved in the vision

occurs in this text. The angel advises R. Ishmael to stuff his orifices

with cotton

so that they might hold back your soul so that it will not go out before I reach you. And I will come and stand by you and fan over you and return your spirit, and your soul will revive. For this is what I have commanded you when you seek to descend to the Merkabah to look at the King in His beauty-you and all those who seek to descend to the Merkabah. (p. 360, 1. 44-47)2°).

This passage seems to imply that death, or at least the risk of death, is the price one must pay to obtain a vision of God2'). Here, as in

Heikalot Rabbati, the dangers facing the mystic serve to affirm, rather than deny, the possibility of seeing God.

The text Re'uyot Yehezkiel purports to be a description of

Ezekiel's vision of the seven firmaments22). It affirms at the outset

that it is describing the occasion "upon which Ezekiel saw the

Power" (1. 5). More specifically, it claims that "while Ezekiel was

looking, the Holy One opened the seven firmaments and he saw the

Power" (1. 33). It then offers an interesting parable of a man in a

barbershop looking in a mirror and seeing a king passing by. The

barber tells the man to turn around and see the king, but the man

replies: "I have already seen the mirror," implying that he does

20) Cf. GRUENWALD'S note in Tarbiz 39 (1969), p. 216. There are striking parallels to this text in a series of rabbinic midrashim on the revelation at Mount Sinai. These traditions all assert that when the Israelites heard the word of God "their souls burst out." See my Mysticism in Rabbinic Judaism (Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1982), chap. III.

21) It may be significant that Heikalot Zutrati, in listing the powers available to the Merkabah mystic, includes the ability to "see the vision of the dead": SCHOLEM, Jewish Gnosticism, p. 78.

22) The text was published by I. GRUENWALD in Temirin 1 (1972), pp. 101-139.

132

not need to turn around to see the king23). The parable concludes:

"Thus Ezekiel stood along the river Chebar and was looking at the

water and the seven firmaments were opened for him and he saw

the holy glory" (1. 38). GRUENWALD finds in this parable significant evidence for an actual technique of gazing into water used by the

Merkabah mystics to induce visions. He comments: "This pro- cedure could be a means of avoiding the immediate sight of the

Godhead and the heavenly beings." But the point of the parable is

that the man has already seen "the king," and therefore does not

need to turn around to see him. There is no suggestion that the man

is reticent to turn around because he does not want to see the king

directly. Neither is there any indication in the text that Ezekiel's

vision was anything but an actual vision of God. If GRUENWALD is

correct in suggesting that this text offers a paradigm for the ex-

perience of the Merkabah mystics, then it serves as further evidence

that they thought it possible to see God.

In the other Heikalot texts explicit affirmations of the vision of

God also appear, although less frequently. Heikalot Zutrati24) cites

the story of the "four who entered Pardes," concluding with God's

statement that R. Akiba "is qualified to look at My glory" (p. 77 n.

7). The same text also includes the passage about the marble in the

sixth heikal which looks like water, discussed above. In the text

Merkabah Rabbah25) we find the statement "I saw the King of the

23) See GRUENWALD'S comments (Re'uyot Yehezkiel, p. 113) on the term mar'ah ( = "mirror"). It is interesting that the text consistently uses the phrase "ra'ah b'mar'ah" when it wants to say that someone looked in a mirror, while the phrase rendered here as "I have already looked in the mirror" is "kbar ra'iti et hamar'ah." While the translation offered here is the most likely one-and the one suggested by GRUENWALD'S comments-the grammatical difference may be significant. If we read mar'eh rather than mar'ah in the man's response to the barber, we get a gram- matically more satisfactory reading: "I have already seen the vision (or "ap- pearance" or "image")." The term mar'eh appears (in a plural form) as a technical term for the vision of God in Ezekiel 1, the locus classicus of Merkabah mysticism. And GRUENWALD suggests that the unusual term re'uyot should be understood as a plural of r'ut, "vision," which is, he asserts, synonymous with mar'eh (Re'uyot Yehezkiel, p. 101). Thus the author of the text may have been implying a play on the equivocal root mr'h, suggesting that the man in the barbershop had already seen a vision of God. (Note that in Genesis Rabbah 73.10 the word mar'ah appears with the meaning "picture" rather than "mirror.")

24) I cite Heikalot Zutrati according to the text as printed in various parts of SCHOLEM's Jewish Gnosticism. Individual passages are cited here by page number in Jewish Gnosticism.

25) The text was published by S. MUSSAIOFF in Sefer Merkabah Shelemah (Jerusalem, 1921), pp. 1a-6a.

133

universe sitting upon a throne, high and exalted" repeated twice

(la, 5b). A virtually identical phrase appears in the text of Shiur

Komah published by MJ SSAIOFF26) (36a). It must be admitted that

this phrase as it appears in Merkabah Rabbah and Shiur Komah stands alone, without any significant context. This gives it the

appearance of a stereotyped literary convention, rather than a

meaningful claim about a vision of God. It is not unlikely that the

claim to have seen God could have become rather conventional and

stereotypical among some Merkabah mystics as time went on. Yet

this does not exclude the simultaneous existence of a living tradition

of actual visions, and it presupposes at least the earlier existence of

such a living tradition.

Another factor to be considered is possible censorship in the texts

which have survived, since the claim to have seen God must have

been considered presumptuous or even scandalous by some. One

important text in which such censorship has recently been asserted

is Sefer Heikalot ( = 3 Enoch)27). Indeed, there is only one reference in the whole text which directly implies a vision of God:28) "I will

show you the right arm of God ... and he showed it to me"

(48A.1-2). The claim here is limited, of course, to seeing the arm of

God, and it is further qualified by the preface that "seraphim and

ofanim are not permitted to look at it" (48A, I). Moreover, it is

immediately followed by the assertion that "no eye is able to look at

it" (48A.2). Here, as in Heikalot Rabbati 3.4, we have the

apparent contradiction that, while no one can see God, a human

being is nevertheless reported to have seen Him. In Heikalot Rab- bati the point seemed to be that no one can see God unless he is

willing to suffer terrible consequences (and likewise in the Geniza

fragment discussed above). Here, in a more specifically apocalyptic

setting, the point is rather that a chosen human has seen, through the help of the highest celestial being (Metatron/Enoch), what no

human can see under any natural conditions. To complete this in-

ventory of explicit affirmations that human beings can see God, we

26) Ibid., pp. 30a-36a and 36a-44a. 27) Sefer Heikalot was published by H. ODEBERG under the title 3 Enoch or the

Hebrew Book of Enoch; it is cited here by chapter and paragraph number in ODEBERG'S edition. On censorship in this text, see P. S. ALEXANDER, "The Historical Setting of the Hebrew Book of Enoch," Journal of Jewish Studies 28 (1977), p. 178.

28) Cf. 3 Enoch 1.5 and GRUENWALD'S comments in Apocalyptic, p. 193, n. 4, on the term "d'mut."

134

may note the claim in Sar Torah (which forms the conclusion to Heikalot Rabbati) that "our forefathers saw the throne of glory ... and the King of the universe upon it" (29.4).

Another reference to the primordial past will serve to introduce a

series of passages which may affirm the possibility of seeing God,

though their meanings are not as clear as those discussed thus far. The text Shiur Komah claims that God "became visible [nigleh] in

the garden of Eden" (41b), implying that Adam and Eve could see

God. A similar affirmation may be found in Sefer Heikalot: "The Primal Adam ... looked upon the image of the shape [tolarl of the

splendor [ziv] of the Shekinah, since its splendor would go from one end of the universe to the other" (5.3). This passage raises the

problem of the phrase "splendor of the Shekinah": Is a claim to have seen the "splendor of the Shekinah" equivalent to a claim to have seen God Himself? On the one hand, like many of the

previous passages cited here, this text claims that there is a specific image to be seen. But on the other hand it speaks of light diffused

throughout the universe, while the previous passages all referred to a "spatially locatable" God, as it were. Of course the reference here is to a unique situation in the primordial past, and it may well be influenced by the idea of the light created on the first day of

creation29). Other texts speak of a vision of divine light by the Merkabah

mystics in the present. Malaseh Merkabah has R. Nehuniah b. Hakanah teach R. Ishmael a series of five theurgic prayers, in a context fairly typical of the techniques offered throughout the Heikalot literature for attaining a vision of God. But the conclusion of the prayers reads: "Everyone who prays this prayer with all his

strength will be able to gaze upon the splendor of the Shekinah, and the Shekinah [will be] beloved to him" (#31 end). Previously in the same text R. Ishmael asks R. Nehuniah b. Hakanah: "When one mentions twelve [theurgic] words, how is he able to gaze upon the

splendor of the Shekinah? He said to me: Let him pray a prayer with all his strength and the Shekinah is beloved to him and gives him permission to gaze and he is not injured" (# 17). Again, this

certainly seems like a discussion of the means for seeing God, and

characteristically of Malaseh Merkabah it includes a rather vague

29) Cf. ODEBERG'S comments on p. 15 of his English translation of 3 Enoch.

135

allusion to the dangers awaiting those ignorant of the proper means.

In Heikalot Zutrati there is a list of powers available to the

mystic, one of which is "to look at the splendor" (p. 78). This list is

followed by the comment: "And who can explain and who can

behold? First it is said, 'For man shall not see Me and live' (Ex.

33:20),3°) and secondly it is said, 'That God speaks to man and he

lives' (Dt. 5:21), and thirdly it is said, 'I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, etc.' (Isa. 6:11)" (ibid.). The author or compiler of the

text seems to have felt the paradox involved in claiming that a

human being could see "what no eye can see." There are conflict-

ing interpretations of his own viewpoint. GRUENWALD says on this

passage: "Rabbi Akiva is quoted as settling the issue by saying: 'It

is as if He resembles us; but He is greater than everything else, and that is His glory which is hidden from us' "3'). Thus

GRUENWALD,consistent with his general approach, takes Heikalot

Zutrati to mean here that God can not be seen. If this is the

meaning of the text, then "to look at the splendor" would not be

equivalent to seeing God. Yet SCHOLEM takes a different approach. For him, as we shall see below, R. Akiba's words do not exclude a

vision of God. And SCHOLEM's comment on the whole passage is:

"The occult powers acquired by the initiate to the Merkabah are

thus considered to be a prelude to the vision of the glory and the

knowledge of the measures of its mystical body"32). The "glory" in

SCHOLEM's opinion is a term for God Himself insofar as He is seen

by the mystics33), and thus it may well be equivalent to the

"splendor," which would thus imply a direct vision of God.

There is also ambivalence about seeing God in the first prefatory

paragraph in Heikalot Zutrati:

Be very careful about the glory of your Master, and do not descend to it. But if you have descended to it, do not feed upon it. For if you have fed upon it you will end up being eliminated from the world. "It is the

glory of God to conceal things" (Prov. 25:2), so that you will not be eliminated from the world. (p. 77, n. 6)34).

30) The translation offered here follows SCHOLEM'S suggestion in Jewish Gnosticism, p. 78 n. 10.

31) GRUENWALD, Apocalyptic, p. 148. 32) SCHOLEM, Jewish Gnosticism, p. 79. 33) Ibid., p. 67. 34) GRUENWALD, Apocalyptic, p. 142 offers quite a different translation of this

passage. But he notes (p. 142, n. 5) that his translation is conjectural, and the

136

Here the ambivalence arises from concern about the consequences of the act, not concern about its theoretical possibility. We can

assume that this passage deals with a vision of divine light because

of the distinctive phrase "feed upon." This phrase and its

synonym, "be nourished by," appear frequently in rabbinic

midrash, always in relationship to the "glory" or the "splendor of

the Shekinah"35). It also occurs in Heikalot Rabbati: "Happy is

the eye which is nourished and which looks upon this wondrous

light, this wondrous and marvelous vision" (8.3). The context of

this latter passage seems to indicate that the light is that of God and

His throne, though it may also be interpreted as referring to the

light of the celestial beings surrounding the throne.

The uncertainty in interpreting this passage leads to a more

general observation about the visions of divine light. We began by

asking whether such visions are seen in these texts as equivalent to

visions of God Himself. The texts cited here do not offer a univocal

answer to this question. Yet this is perhaps inevitable, if actual

visionary experiences, probably involving altered states of con-

sciousness, are in fact reflected in the Heikalot literature. Such

visions, which occur in a large number of cultures, often involve

complex and fluid light phenomena. Their meaning often depends more on the interpretative framework applied to them by the

visionary and his community, either before or after the fact, than on

the content of the vision itself36). We can expect that within a com-

plex tradition such as Merkabah mysticism there would be a broad

range of interpretative frameworks employed, while the centrality of visions of light would be common to all. And this is in fact the

stuation reflected in the extant texts. While all see great importance in the light experiences, some apparently identify these with visions

of God Himself, while others seem to draw a distinction between

God and His manifest light (though this is never stated explicitly). Still others leave the meaning of the phenomenon altogether

uninterpreted. It seems likely that precision of interpretation would

be more important in some circles and less so in others. In the reali-

parallel he cites there from Abot d'Rabbi Nathan seems rather to support the translation I have offered here.

35) I have discussed the rabbinic evidence in Mysticism in Rabbinic Judaism, chap. V.

36) Cf. ELIADE, The Two and the One, chap. I: "Experiences of the Mystic Light."

137

ty of visionary experience, the precision which the scholar might desire may often be impossible, and perhaps irrelevant. (It seems

plausible, too, that some of the Merkabah mystics would have been

reticent to claim publicly that one could actually see God; for them, a claim to have seen only the light or "splendor" of God might have been a way of mitigating the audacity of their reports.) In

sum, the most that we can say is that some passages asserting a

vision of divine light were intended to be assertions of a vision of

God Himself, while others probably were not. Each case must be

examined individually. In the Geniza fragment published by GRUENWALD there is

another enigmatic passage which may speak of a direct vision of

God: "Fortunate is the pure person, for he has the power and can

look upon this loftiness [ga)avah] and greatness [g'dulah] and domi-

nion [s 'rarah] , for he has looked upon the king and upon His ser-

vants and upon His ministers, and it was fitting for him [to do so]"

(p. 365, 1. 33)3'). The context here is explicitly that of a vision of

God. Moreover, the term g'dulah may very well be another

synonym for God Himself in the Heikalot literature38). If so, one

may ask whether galavah and s'rarah might not perform the same

function here. Elsewhere in this text, the angel Tanarel promises to

protect the descender to the Merkabah so that he may "see the

wonderful ga'aaah and glistening beauty" (p. 360, 1. 48). While this

text does not explicitly assert a vision of God, the context of the

passage is definitely concerned with such a vision, and the term

"beauty" is particularly characteristic of this text's descriptions of

the vision of God-"the King in His beauty." It seems at least

possible, then, that for this particular text the term galavah (and

perhaps s'rarah) may be a terminus technicus relating to the direct

vision of God.

In Heikalot Rabbati we find: "When will the descender to the

Merkabah descend? When will he see the gal'avah on high? When

will he hear the final salvation? When will he see what no eye has

seen?" (16.5). The "ga)avah on high" may be the referrent of

"what no eye has seen" here. We have noted previously that this

latter phrase often refers to a vision of God. But it may be the "final

salvation" which is the referrent of "what no eye has seen." (The

31) I assume here that GRUENWALD is correct, in his note ad loc., in asserting that mishtamesh is a synonym of mistakel and can thus be translated as "look upon."

38) SCHOLEM, Kabbalah, p. 16. On ga'avah, cf. idem, Major Trends, p. 358, n. 18.

138

term ga'avah also appears in an apparently eschatological context in TB Hagigah 5b.) There is also a reference to the ga'avah, and the

s'rarah, in a phrase which appears several times in Heikalot Rab- bati : "Wonderful loftiness [ga'avah] and strange dominion [s'rarah], loftiness of exaltation and dominion of majesty, which come to pass before the throne of glory three times each day" (13.4, 16.3,

18.3)39). Although the meaning of this phrase is unclear, ga'aaah and s'rarah can hardly denote God as the object of vision, since they are explicitly said to be in front of His throne. It seems possible then, that the word galavah, like the vision of divine light, had different meanings among different groups of Merkabah mystics; for some it may have denoted God Himself as seen in mystical vision'°).

In contrast to this abundance of passages indicating that human

beings can see God, there are a relatively few passages which claim that the celestial beings can see God. In Malaseh Merkabah, R. Nehuniah b. Hakanah tells R. Ishmael to mention, at the end of his

theurgic prayer, "three 'letters' which the hayot mention when they gaze and see Arkas YVY the God of Israel" (# 13). Assuming that this is a reference to seeing God, rather than some other celestial

being, we have here an interesting parallel between the theurgic practices of humans and those of celestial beings, with the former modelled on the latter4'). In Heikalot Rabbati there is a reference to a class of celestial beings who "annul the decree" and "avert the wrath" of God; they "remind about love-the love of Abraham our father-before their King when they see Him becoming angry at His children" (12.1). This appears to be a direct affirmation that these celestial beings can see God, although other interpretations may be possible.

Another passage in Heikalot Rabbati says:

As soon as all those on high see Him coming upon the firmament which is above the heads of the cherubim and the ofanim and the holy 4ayot, they retreat and are frightened and faint and fall backwards.

39) Cf. also Heikalot Rabbati 3.3. The translation is that of Morton SMITH as cited in SCHOLEM, Jewish Gnosticism, p. 11.

40) Cf. Ma'aseh Merkabah #21, where the term ga'avah appears; its meaning there is unclear.

41) Note, however, that the text does not say that this procedure will enable R. Ishmael to see God. Rather it says that he will be able to "obtain wisdom" by this means.

139

For no creature can come within 125,000 times 10,000 parasangs of that place because of the streams of fire which burst forth and come out of the mouths of the ofanim and the holy hayot and the cherubim.

(3.3))2).

GRUENWALD cites this passage too as evidence that the Merkabah

mystics thought it impossible for any creature to see God43). Yet

here again the text plainly says that the creatures do in fact see God

and do endure a terrifying experience, linked to fire phenomena, because of that vision. A similar passage occurs in Sefer Heikalot; it

says of the celestial beings that "their eyes are aflame from the light of the beauty of the splendor of their King, and their faces are

blackened and they. become weak" (22B. 7)44). Assuming that a

vision of the "splendor" is a vision of God here, the drastic con-

sequences again serve to affirm rather than deny that these beings have in fact seen God. We have already mentioned a passage in

Sefer Heikalot which denies to the celestial beings the ability to see

God's right arm (48A. 1). But that same passage, which also claims

that "no eye is able to look at it," makes these denials precisely to

point up the privileged status of R. Ishmael, who can and does see

God's right arm. We may have here an echo of the general theme

that some human beings have privileges denied to the angels45), but

more important (as suggested above) is the theme of privileged individuals being able to see "what no eye can see" (cf., e.g., Heikalot Rabbati 3.4 discussed above).

This leads to a further observation: Absolute denials of the ability of human beings to see God are quite rare in the Heikalot

literature. It is already clear that what appears to be such a denial

may in fact be just the opposite. Oddly enough, the one text which

denies most flatly the ability to see God is Shiur Komah. We would

expect that this text, with its detailed description of the human form

42) In Ma'aseh Merkabah :# 33, R. Akiba reveals a theurgic prayer which enables one "to gaze above the seraphim who stand above the head of Rozei YVY God of Israel." In light of Heikalot Rabbati 3.3, this may well be an implicit asser- tion of the possibility of seeing God, although such an interpretation is by no means certain.

43) GRUENWALD, Apocalyptic, p. 94 n. 64. 44) Cf. Heikalot Rabbati 8.2. 45) This theme has been studied by Peter SCHAFE, Rivalität zwischen Engeln und

Menschen (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1975). GRUENWALD, in his review of the book in Kiryal Sefer 51 (1976) notes that SCHAFER unfortunately did not make use of the Heikalot texts which could have enriched his study.

140

(komah) of God, would assert (or at least assume) that human beings can see God. The very existence of the Shiur Komah material is an

implicit indication that the Merkabah mystics claimed to have seen God. It is possible, of course, that these mystics described God so

meticulously without having had visions of Him, but that hardly seems likely46). And LIEBERMAN has shown that the Shiur Komah tradition may well have originated among tannaim who spoke explicitly of the Israelites at the Reed Sea and Mt. Sinai having seen God directly'7). Thus it is surprising when we find in the text Shiur Komah a reference to "the Holy One blessed be He who is hidden from all creatures" (36a). "Like the image of the wind and like the form of the soul, no creature can see [hakir] Him" (37a). "He is hidden from the eyes of all the living ... He sees but is not seen" (41b). It seems probable that these passages are not an intrinsic part of the Shiur Komah material; SCHOLEM notes that "a a

large portion" of MussAioFF's text "are hymns and prayers the relation of which to Shiur Komah is doubtful, but which do belong to the Hekhaloth literature"48). We noted above the likelihood of

divergent viewpoints existing among the Merkabah mystics, and it is certainly possible that some among them denied the possibility of

seeing God altogether. If so, this group might well attach their denials precisely to the Shiur Komah, which of all these texts asserts most daringly the "visibility" of God.

A particularly interesting text in this regard is Maseket

Heikalot49), which SCHOLEM calls "apparently the latest"5°) of all the Heikalot texts. In this brief text we find no affirmations that

46) SCHOLEM, Major Trends, p. 64 says of the enormous figures in the Shiur Komah: "It is impossible really to visualize the 'body of the Shekinah' which they purport to describe; they are better calculated, on the contrary, to reduce every at- tempt at such a vision to absurdity." Yet he offers no concrete evidence for this (apart from a citation of Judah Halevi), and one could argue that the enormous numbers are rather calculated to communicate a sense of the vastness of what mystics actually claimed to have seen. In the very same paragraph Scholem writes: "But a feeling for the transmundane and the numinous still glimmers through these blasphemous-sounding figures ... God's holy majesty takes on flesh and blood. "

47) Saul LIEBERMAN, "Mishnat Shir Hashirim," in SCHOLEM, Jewish Gnosticism, Appendix D.

48) SCHOLEM, Jewish Gnosticism, p. 38 n. 1. 49) The text is cited by chapter number as printed in A. JELLINEK, Beit Hamidrash

(3rd ed.; Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1967), vol. II, pp. 40-47. 50) SCHOLEM, Jewish Gnosticism, p. 7; cf. GRUENWALD, Apocalyptic, p. 210.

141

either human or celestial beings can see God, but there are a

number of passages which deny this ability to the celestial beings:

Something like a garment of bright shining splendor is spread over

[God's throne] ... so that even the holy ?ayot which are in the Merkabah and the cherubim of the power and the ofanim of the Shekinah are unable to look at the splendor of the glory because it is

spread over it. And from the splendor of His throne a cloud with the

appearance of brilliance encircles His throne all around ... so that the

ministering angels will not be nourished by the splendor of the

Shekinah, nor by the splendor of His throne, nor by the splendor of His kingship, nor by the splendor of His glory. (3)

Four groups of ministering angels sing praises before the Holy One blessed be He ... and all of them have wings as high as their heads and fire wrapped around their faces so that they will not gaze upon and will not see [makir] the form of the presence of the Shekinah, for the Shekinah is with them ... They gaze upon the image of the throne of

glory but they do not see the form of the presence of the Shekinah. (6)

The texts also describes the walls of fire surrounding God's throne

and asserts that "even the seven great princes who are called by the

name of their King-YHVH YHVH, the glorious and awesome

name-are not able to look upon the splendor of those walls" (4). While there are no specific denials that humans can see God in this

text, its whole tenor indicates a tradition which denied to all

creatures this possibility. If this is in fact a very late text, it might be

evidence of a significant change in the attitude of some Merkabah

mystics on this central question; the additions to Shiur Komah

noted above might reflect a similar development. However this con-

clusion must probably remain conjectural5').

III

On the basis of all the evidence presented here, the most plausi- ble conclusion is that a majority of the Merkabah mystics did think

it possible for certain individuals, both human and celestial, to see

God. There were, obviously, some who disagreed and others who

accepted this claim but minimized its public expression. If this con-

clusion is accepted, the next question must be: What did those who

51) Heikalot Rabbati 11.4 also implies that the angels can not see God's face because He covers His face whenever they attempt to see Him.

142

claimed to have seen God actually see? What do they tell us about

the content of this culminating vision? In fact, the data available to

answer this question are frustratingly slim. There are, of course, those texts which seem to equate the vision of God with a perception of light. But we have noted how difficult these are to interpret with

any precision. Beyond this, these texts actually tell us nothing about

the appearance of God; they merely assert that He is visible because

He has been seen.

The one other important piece of evidence in this regard is the

Shiur Komah material-the descriptions of God as having human

shape and form. SCHOLEM writes: "But the main purpose of the

ascent to the Merkabah is the vision of the One Who sits on the

Throne, 'a likeness as the appearance of a man upon it above'

(Ezek. 1:26). This appearance of the Glory in the form of supernal man is the content of the most recondite part of this mysticism, called Shiur Komah"52). However SCHOLEM makes two assump- tions here, neither of which is directly obvious from the Heikalot

texts themselves. First he assumes that the vision of God is the

"main purpose" of the journey to the Merkabah; elsewhere he says that it occurs "at the end of his journey"53). It seems a priori likely that this is accurate. One can hardly imagine a Jewish mystic

having a vision of God and then going on to a vision of something else. Certainly in the cosmology of this mysticism God is the center

and the top of the experienced universe. As one proceeds up

through the firmaments and in through the heikalot, God is always the focus of one's direction. In value terms as well, it is obvious that

nothing else can equal, much less surpass, the significance of God Himself in the world-view of these mystics. Yet it must be admitted that the texts themselves do not say explicitly that the vision of God

is the end or goal of the experience, nor does their literary structure

make this vision the culmination of the texts. (This may, of course, reflect the influence of censorship on the texts.)

SCHOLEM'S second assumption is that the Shiur Komah material

should be used to interpret the entirety of the Heikalot texts, being their "most recondite part." Again this seems a priori likely, but the

texts themselves (apart from the text Shiur Komah) very rarely

incorporate this material explicitly. GRUENWALD notes a brief Shiur

52) SCHOLEM, Kabbalah, p. 16. 53) SCHOLEM, Jewish Gnosticism, p. 36.

143

Komah fragment in Heikalot Rabbati (10.1) and comments:

"These measures (unless interpolated) show that the writer of

Hekhalot Rabbati was aware of the Shiur Komah speculations and

that the latter, although little room is given to them in the Hekhalot

writings, were part of the ancient Jewish mystical tradition"54). The problem is that we can not say just what part these speculations

played. It is also important to note here that the Shiur Komah

material is rarely used in direct connection with assertions of the

vision of God. The texts do consistently speak about "seeing the

King," and we have every reason to assume that "the King" is

depicted in human form55), but rarely do we read that a human

being has seen the "komah" or the to )ar" of God.

Despite this absence of textual evidence, the texts do seem to

assume implicitly that the vision of God is often (perhaps usually) an anthropomorphic one. If this is a valid assumption, we may go on to ask whether these mystics thought that they were actually see-

ing God Himself. Professor SCHOLEM has offered an unequivocal

opinion on this question: "The theory does not imply that God in

Himselfpossesses a physical form, but only that a form of this kind

may be ascribed to 'the Glory,' which in some passages is called guf ha-Shekinah ('the body of the Divine Presence')"56). Thus the

mystics were seeing the kabod of God, which is not, in SCHOLEM'S

view, the same thing as seeing God Himself. But an analysis of

ScHOr.EM's argumentation on behalf of this conclusion may raise

some serious questions about its validity5'). He suggests that the

Merkabah mystics would have been reacting to the Gnostic distinc-

tion between the "true" God, who is entirely good, and the creator

or Demiurge-identified with the Biblical God-who is evil. Jewish

mystics would have countered this dualism with the assertion that

there is "something like a harmony"58) between God Himself and

the Demiurge, but in doing so they would have admitted at least

that there is some meaningful distinction (though not opposition)

54) GRUENWALD, Apocalyptic, p. 160 and n. 34. 55) Cf. LEITER, "Worthiness," showing that the analogy of God and human

kings is a basic element in all of Merkabah mysticism. 56) SCHOLEM, Kabbalah, p. 17. 57) SCHOLEM'S argument is presented most clearly in Major Trends, pp. 65-66. In

later works he has elaborated somewhat on this argument and assumed its validity, but these works add nothing new and fail to present the argument quite as clearly.

58) SCHOLEM, Major Trends, p. 65.

144

between the two. And it was the Demiurge, called "yozer b'reshit" in

Hebrew, which was the object of mystical vision.

Yet elsewhere59) ScrtoLEna suggests that the Shiur Komah tradi-

tion may well date back to the first century AD or even further, and

thus it would have arisen before-and therefore independently of-the various Gnostic movements. Obviously, then, it could not

be explained as a reaction against Gnosticism. It is possible, SCHOLEM thinks, that the specific term "yozer b'reshit" might have

come into the Shiur Komah tradition at a later time and therefore

might be explained as a result of Gnostic influence. If so, one would

be arguing that the Shiur Komah tradition originally referred to

God Himself, but later, under Gnostic influence, came to refer to

the Demiurge. This is possible, of course, but ScHOLEr.t offers no

explanation of why such a shift would take place. In the absence of

textual evidence the whole line of argument is totally hypothetical. And the texts themselves raise a crucial problem here: while the

term "yozer b'reshit" does occur in the Heikalot texts, nowhere is the

"yozer b'reshit" explicitly said to be the object of mystical vision.

When the texts speak directly of the vision of God, they never use

any language which suggests that it is some sort of Demiurge which

is being seen.

As a supposed proof of his viewpoint, ScHOLEn-t cites a passage from Heikalot Zutrati: "He is like us, as it were, but greater than

everything; and that is His glory which is hidden from us"6°). This

means, he claims, that the Shiur Komah was intended to refer not

to the divinity Himself, but to the "hidden glory" (apparently hidden to all but a few mystics) which is God's "corporeal

appearance"6'). To confirm the validity of this interpretation, SCHOLEM notes that "later, when the 'Glory of God' had become

identified with the Shekinah, the 'Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba'

expressly referred to the `Body of the Shekinah' as the subject of the

Shiur Komah"62). This indicates, apparently, that at an earlier

time the subject of the Shiur Komah might have been defined as the

"body of the glory," or in other words the "hidden glory" men-

tioned in Heikalot Zutrati. But there are several difficulties with

59) Gershom SCHOLEM, "Schi'ur Koma; die mystische Gestalt der Gottheit," in Von der mystischen Gestalt der Gottheit (Zürich: Rhein-Verlag, 1962), pp. 27-28.

60) SCHOLEM, Major Trends, pp. 66, 365. 61) Ibid., p. 66. 62) Ibid.

145

this line of reasoning. Firstly, GRUENWALD offers a totally different

interpretation of the Heikalot Zutrati passage. He reads the key term lbh not as "glory" but as "human figure indistinctly seen from a distance"63). On this reading, the later relationship between the terms "glory" and "Shekinah" would be irrelevant. More-

over, GRUENWALD interprets the passage literally and finds it to mean that the "human figure" of God is in fact hidden from

everybody. This, of course, reflects GRUENWALD'S general position on the vision of God, which we have challenged here. But the point is that the meaning of this passage, which SCHOLEM cites as a

crucial piece of evidence, is far from clear. Even if we accept SCHOLEM'S interpretation as valid, problems still remain. He himself admits that the synonymity of "glory" and "Shekinah" is a late development, as is the term "body of the Shekinah." Thus the reference in Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba may not tell us anything meaningful about the earlier (and more creative) period of

Merkabah mysticism. Moreover, in the basic Heikalot texts which we have studied here (which does not include Alphabet of Rabbi

Akiba, following SCHOLEM'S own view) the phrase "body of the Shekinah" is never used to refer to God as the object of vision. More critically, the same texts only rarely use the term "glory" in

speaking about the vision of God. They do speak about seeing the

Shekinah, but this is often connected with visions of light which

may not imply a vision of human form at all, and it is not certain that "glory" and "Shekinah" were synonymous when these texts were composed. More commonly they speak of seeing "the King" or "the power" or "YVY God of Israel" or merely "Him." But if

the term "glory" rarely appears in this context, then even if

SCHOLEM has understood the passage in Heikalot Zutrati correctly it may not be as crucial as the claims.

It is possible, of course, that SCHOLEM has accurately described the

viewpoint of many, or even most, of the Merkabah mystics. But his

arguments just do not seem persuasive. If we restrict ourselves to the textual evidence at hand, we can not conclude that the Merkabah mystics distinguished between God Himself and some

visible manifestation of God. If they had made such a distinction an

important part of their tradition, it would surely be evident in the

63) GRUENWALD sees the term shebah, which SCHOLEM translates as "glory," as cognate to Aramaic shaba: Apocalyptic, p. 215 n. 14.

146

texts when the vision of God is mentioned. Yet there is nothing in

the texts which makes such a distinction at all apparent. If we take

the texts at face value, those mystics who held it possible to see God

were saying that what the seer saw was God. There is no more

precise information or definition offered. The vision of God might take the form of light, or be associated with light, and it seems

reasonable to infer that it most often took the form of a human

being, although this can not be proven. All that can be said with

any certainty is that many, and probably most, of the Merkabah

mystics did think it possible to see God; thus the vision of God was

most probably the culmination (and therefore possibly the goal) of

their visionary experiences. Beyond that, we are left primarily with

silence, which is perhaps as it should be.