Cosmology, Judaic Theories of - Brill Reference http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-judaism...

BrillOnline.com

BrillOnline Reference Works

Home > Jewish Studies > Encyclopaedia of Judaism > Cosmology, Judaic Theories of

Encyclopaedia of Judaism

Search Results: Prev | 1 of 163 | Next

Cosmology, Judaic Theories of(6,728 words)

“./012304 of the cosmos” present general pictures of what the universe (meaning, everything that
exists) looks like. Such theories form a critical part of every primary text of Jewish theology, from the Article Table of Contents
Hebrew Scriptures through the historical development of Jewish philosophy and mysticism well into
the twentieth century. This is because Jewish communal and individual religious life have always Genesis' Account of Creation (167)
been conceived in terms of obligations or duties incumbent upon Jews in consequence of the people Ezekiel's account of the Chariot
of Israel's relationship with the creator deity of the universe, who is their redeemer. These duties (168)
form a coherent whole that can be expressed as a moral system, and, in turn, generalized as two
Midrash Genesis Rabbah (169)
seemingly distinct imperatives, which Jewish tradition calls “duties of the mind” and “duties of the
limbs.” These imperatives are, “Believe what is true!” and “Do what is right!” Medieval Jewish Philosophy and
Science—Ibn Daud's Exalted Faith
Doing what is right constitutes the sub-system of Jewish law (Halakhah); believing what is true (170)
constitutes the sub-system of Jewish belief (Aggadah). While in some ways these sub-systems are
Kabbalah—The Zohar (171)
parallel, at base Judaism conceives them in diBferent terms: Jewish law is more speciDEcally
determined and subject to strong communal enforcement in a formal or informal Jewish polity. Applications of Tradition to
Jewish belief is more general, and its speciDEcation tends to be left more to the individual. Hence, Modern Jewish Cosmologies
while Rabbinic and other leaderships of Jewish communities have tended to be rigorous about
overseeing communal behavior, such rigor has not occurred in rewarding beliefs the community
judges to be true and punishing convictions it judges false. Note, however, that contrary to what is
often thought, this is not because (at least before the twentieth century) religious authorities considered belief less important to religious life
than practice. On the contrary, the two have always been viewed as interrelated, so that true belief is seen to teach and promote right behavior
and right behavior to encourage true belief. Rather, the emphasis has always had to do with what the community in fact is able to enforce.

For a similar reason, right practice is primarily a matter of correct behavior and only secondarily a matter of correct intention. To be sure, to
intend to do what is right is better than not to, but doing what is right without intention is better than doing what is wrong with the best of
intentions, and since external action is readily observable while internal intention is not, the community can create an objective structure to
judge and instruct divinely obligated morality. The situation is just the reverse in questions of proper faith. True belief is primarily a matter of
correct conception and only secondarily a matter of correct expression. To say what is true is better than not to, but for individuals to say what is
true when they either do not understand at all what they are saying or even understand their words to be something false does not in any sense
constitute true belief, and since internal conception is not obvious from words externally uttered, the community can not readily create an
objective structure to judge divinely obligated true belief. Hence, in its attempt to fulDEll the collective's duty to profess truth, the community is
forced to rely on tools to instruct and encourage true faith rather than tools to obligate and enforce true utterance.

The primary means of this instruction has always been the publication by diBferent rabbis of books that present reasons for believing what is
true. Since the foundations of these arguments always rest on an understanding of the character of the universe as a whole, we can see clearly
how, within Judaism, cosmologies become so central. For, as we noted above, Judaism asserts that the same God who reveals to the people its
moral obligations is the creator of the universe and the redeemer of the Jewish people. In other words, Judaism aBDErms the existence of a God
who creates the universe as a whole, reveals morality to the people Israel, and, through this creating and revealing, also redeems the people, in
particular, and the universe, in general. This complex statement presupposes an adequate conception of what it means for both God and the
Jewish people to exist in relationship to each other by way of the relationship of both to something called “the universe.” Such a conception is a
cosmology.

All Jewish conceptions of cosmology have their origin in images drawn in the Hebrew Scripture, which presents two dominant pictures, the
account of creation in Gen. 1:1–2:3, referred to as Maʾase Bereshit , and the account of the chariot in Ezek. 1:1–28, called Maʾase Ha-Merkavah .
While, in general, all Judaic theories of the cosmos are interpretations of these two biblical texts, at diBferent periods in history each text has had
more inKLuence than the other. The DErst collections of speculation of these texts are found in the compilations of Rabbinic midrash attributed to

1 of 7 12/12/2014 00:09
Cosmology, Judaic Theories of - Brill Reference http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-judaism...
the early rabbis. Here the focus is primarily on the account of creation, although the in uence of the account of the chariot is also apparent.
Beyond midrash, the sources for Jewish theories of the universe are independent manuscripts and biblical commentaries attributed either to
Jewish philosophers or to Jewish mystics. In the ages when the primary form of Jewish speculation about the nature of the universe was
philosophic, the account of creation dominated, but in ages in which the primary form of Jewish speculation on this subject was mystic, the
account of the chariot dominated. Still almost all Rabbinic readers, at least until modern times, believed that the pictures drawn in both biblical
texts are the same, or, at least, coherent and consistent with each other.

In the following, we begin by summarizing what both biblical texts say. Then we turn to see how these texts were interpreted in Rabbinic
speculation through the subsequent centuries, including in Rabbinic midrash, in the classic Jewish philosophy that begins around the tenth
century in the Eastern Muslim Empire, and in those written Jewish texts generally associated with Jewish mysticism, called “Kabbalah” (lit.,
“tradition”).

-./.010' 34456/7 58 49.3715/ (167)

The Hebrew Bible opens with a general picture of the origin and nature of the universe. This functions as a cosmological framework for
understanding the central narrative that follows, which presents an epic history of the rise and fall of the ;<rst Jewish theocratic nation state. The
framework includes the origins of the universe (Gen. 1:1–2:3), humanity (Gen. 2:4–3:24: the story of the Garden of Eden), diverse human families
(Gen. 4:1–5:32: the story of Cain and Abel and its aftermath), and diverse human nations (Gen. 6:1–11:32: the stories of the ood and the tower of
Babel and their aftermaths). Our focus is exclusively on the cosmological part of the framework, concerning the origin of the universe.

The creation story is divided into seven distinct units, identi;<ed in the biblical text as “days.” Creation itself is an intentional act by which God
transforms a pre-existent space into diverse regions (days 1–3), which in turn act as God's agent to produce the forms of living entities (days 4–6).
Each of the ;<rst three days marks the separation of a distinct region of space out of a pre-existent region—light out of dark (called respectively
“day” and “night”) on day one, a separation of earth and water (called “sky”) on day two, and the separation of a portion of the surface of the
earth from the water (called respectively “dry land” and “seas”) on day three. Also on day three God generates the vegetation that covers the
entire surface of the earth. This vegetation is in or transitional between the already generated space and the living occupants of that space that
will be generated in the next three days. It functions as the basis of the food chain intended to nurture the unlimited number of yet-ungenerated
material life forms commanded to occupy the space of the universe.

On the next three days, God orders the appropriate spaces to generate a single general form for the subsequent generation, through an endless
serial chain of acts of procreation, of spatial occupants. On day four, the light of day, created on day one, creates multiple objects made from light
(the sun, moon, and other celestial objects). On day ;<ve, the pre-existent water creates the form of a swarming sea life (;<sh and other entities,
such as sea serpents, that live in water), while the sky, created on day two, generates from its material the form of life that can y above the
surface of the dry land (birds). Next, on day six, the pre-existent earth generates the form of living earthly entities (wild and domestic animals)
that roam the dry land formed on day three. In addition, God joins the earth in creating a ;<nal creature, the human. This being (ha-adam) is a
single form that contains within it the potential to be diLferentiated into two genders (called “male” and “female”). This potential does not
become actual until the following story of the Garden of Eden.

Note that this cosmology presupposes that initially God is not alone. Prior to God's act of creation, on what we (but not the text) can call “day
zero,” there are undiLferentiated regions of space. The initial universe is a sphere with a central earth core, surrounded by a ring of water, above
which hovers something that the text calls “God's wind” (ruah elohim). The earth, water, and (possibly also) divine wind are the stuLf from which
God creates. God creates by speaking. In general, the verbs used to express God's activity describe the action of an absolutely powerful ruler who
need simply states that something be done for it to be accomplished. God is a ruler of such power that, in his case, to “say” something and to
“make” something are the same. The only things that God makes as such are the light and the spread (raqiy'a, most often translated “;<rmament”),
which he creates alone on the ;<rst and second days respectively, and the human, which he creates in partnership with the earth on day six. In
every other case, what God “says” constitutes a commandment to his already generated creatures to do the actual work.

On day one, God says that there should be light, which there is, and which God perceives. The light is then set to contain the region of dark
encompassing the material world into a distinct region. God names the light and its region “day,” and the dark and its separate region “night.”
Note that the terms “day” and “night” designate regions of space and not time. Nothing in the text suggests that any of these distinct acts
collectively called “creation” take place in time.

On the second day, God inserts a ring of distinct material into the ring of water that divides the water into two separate, discrete rings of the
same material, called “upper and lower waters.” He makes this divider by saying that it should exist and naming it “sky.” Then, on day three, he
tells the waters below the sky to collect together in such a way that some of the surface of the globe of the earth emerges at the surface of the
sky ring. God names the earth surface facing the sky “dry land” and the water space and material bordered by the earth and the sky “seas.” With
these two acts of naming, God completes his diLferentiation of the space of the universe. Then, still on day three, he initiates his creation of the
living occupants of this space.

The picture that dominates God's generation of living occupants of his created space is political. One political feature we already have noted.
God acts by speaking, meaning, in God's case, as an absolute ruler, for him to say something is suL;<cient for it to happen. The other crucial
features in this story of God as a ruler are that he commands laws for his subjects to obey, and he assigns agents over each of his regions to
govern the subjects and territories on his behalf. On day three he tells the earth to make plants and fruity trees sprout on its surface, the earth
produces the vegetation that makes fruit, and God perceives that what he commanded happens. On day four, God separates day and night and
says that there should be celestial objects to govern them by enlightening the earth and functioning as signs for the seasons, days, and years.
Again, God perceives that what he said in fact happens. Next, on day ;<ve, God tells the water to generate a swarm that swarms in the seas and a
ier that ies in the sky. He perceives that they do what he said they should do, and then he blesses the sea-swarm. He then tells the ier to
2 of 7 12/12/2014 00:09
Cosmology, Judaic Theories of - Brill Reference http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-judaism...
increase on the earth and the sea-swarm to be fruitful, increase, and ll the water. Finally, on day six, he tells the earth to produce a “fresh life”
(nefesh hayah) and to join him in making the human. The human is then made the governor of all these creatures below the domain of the
celestial objects. God then blesses the human and commands him/her to be fruitful, increase, and to ll, conquer, and subdue the earth. In
addition, he authorizes all of his life forms to eat the plants. Then, once again, he perceives that everything that he has said has come to be.

The last stage of the story is the creation of the seventh day, about which we are explicitly told practically nothing other than that God nished
making his task. The story ends with God's blessing and sanctifying the seventh day.

+,+-.+/'0 1223456 37 68+ 2819.36 (168)

At the initiation of his prophecy, in chapters one and ten, Ezekiel creates a visual image. I treat these two chapters as alternative descriptions of
the same experience, which I begin by setting in context. Ezekiel ben Buzi, a priest of Zadok, is sitting by the river Chebar, which in all likelihood
is another name for the Euphrates, on the fourth day of the month of Tammuz, in the fourth year of his, and his people's, exile from the holy city
of Jerusalem, which dates the vision around 592 C.2.+. At this speci c time and place, Ezekiel is hit by a strong, stormy wind (ruah) from the
north. He nds himself sitting in the middle of a great cloud, surrounded by electrical re, and within this re he sees a vision, which he, like
many other priest-prophets before him, identi es as a word (davar), also called a “hand,” from the Lord. In general, his vision is not unlike those
of others. God calls him and tells him what he must say to his people. But unique in this case is that the aural description is preceded by a
relatively lengthy (for the Hebrew Scriptures) visual description.

At the bottom of Ezekiel's picture is a set of wheels, which, while spatially separate from the creature, were the mechanical means by which it
moved. But the wheels were not the cause of the motion. Rather, they were moved, constantly back and forth, by the wind. Above, but spatially
separate from, the wheels is a compound living thing (hayot) with four sides. On each side can be seen a face, attached to a body with human
hands that are covered by a set of wings, attached to straight legs that end in the feet of a calf. Additionally, from each body there spreads out a
second pair of wings, which in conjunction produce the appearance of an interconnected, organic, single entity. All of the feet, like the four
bodies, are uniform in appearance and color; they sparkle and have the color of burnished brass. All that is diJferent about the creatures is their
faces. According to Ezekiel chapter one, the four faces in order were of a human (adam), a lion, an ox, and an eagle; according to chapter ten,
they were in order the faces of a cherub, a human, a lion, and an eagle.

The living creature and its wheels, set rmly upon the earth, belong to a spatial domain distinct from the envisioned space above the life form.
What separates the two domains is a spread (raqiy'a). Above the spread is a seat or throne, above which is a human, which Ezekiel calls “the glory
of the Lord.” This is generally described as “the appearance of the divine,” but it is not. First, everything described above the spread is only
something “like an appearance” and not an actual appearance. Second, within this kind of appearance the throne isn't really a throne; it is “the
likeness” of a throne. Third, the appearance of the human above the throne is only a likeness of something like the appearance of a human. This
two-steps-removed-from-an-actual-appearance-of-the-human is ablaze in re. Thus, what Ezekiel sees is a re in what is sort of like a human
shape, which is also like a rainbow in a cloud, and, at the same time, is like the glory of the Lord.

The rst half of the last sentence of Ezekiel's vision in Ezek. 1:28 describes the association of the image of the human with the image of God's
glory. The second half of the sentence reads, “I looked, fell on my face, and I heard a voice/sound (qol) speaking.” What it speaks is the word/hand
of God. In other words, where the visual image ends, with the identity of the human and divine glory, the aural begins. Presumably, the aural is to
be understood as a higher form of knowledge; to hear what God says to the human transcends seeing whom God and the world are.

So end the two primary cosmological pictures of the universe found in the Hebrew Scriptures. What follows is how these verbal images were
interpreted in subsequent ages of Jewish civilization. These interpretations, here considered in historical sequence, constitute the diJferent
cosmologies of Rabbinic Judaism.

P.Q9108 R+5+0.0 91CC18 (169)

The single most important collection of early Rabbinic discussions of the meaning of the Genesis creation text is Genesis Rabbah. Whenever it
was written, the interpretations presented in this collection are the oldest Rabbinic sources for cosmology. The account has a number of
distinctive characteristics in relationship to and in contrast with the range of literal meanings of the biblical text itself. First, it sees creation as a
single event, in which the list of days is to be understood as specifying a logical rather than a temporal order. Second, its authors were well aware
of a dispute as to whether or not the pre-existent material out of which God creates the world is itself created, and the midrash's overall tendency
is to reconcile both views rather than to choose between them. The rabbis make this move by positing other universes from which the materials
of the creation of this world are drawn. Third, the rabbis introduce angels who, while they are present in other places in the Pentateuch, play no
role in the biblical account of creation.

Once angels are introduced, the rabbis question whether they pre-exist or are created. As with the pre-existent materials explicitly mentioned,
they aJ rm that they both pre-exist and are created. Consequently, fourth, the rabbis aJ rm that our world is not the only one. Here the term
“world” does not merely specify a domain of spatial-temporal continuity. DiJferent worlds have diJferent natures. One such world is the Garden of
Eden. There, for example, the sun and moon have the same size, and trees are as edible as their fruit. Furthermore, there exist species in the
Garden of Eden that have never existed in This-World of ours, and humans are by nature vegetarians. The rabbis also discuss other worlds that
co-exist with ours in time as well as at least one more world, the World-To-Come, that will exist when our world comes to an end. Actually, not
everything that Scripture says was created was created for our world. Notably, the original light created to limit the dark on day one is set aside
from This-World for the World-To-Come.

P+Q.+U1/ V+W.08 X8./303X8Y 15Q 02.+52+—.C5 Q14Q'0 (170)

3 of 7 12/12/2014 00:09
Cosmology, Judaic Theories of - Brill Reference http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-judaism...
Ibn Daud wrote his Exalted Faith at the time that Aristotelian philosophical science was just beginning to gain dominance over the more Stoic-
oriented, atomistic philosophy of Kalam. Stoicism, which began around 300 ".#.$. with Zeno of Citium in Cyprus, grew in in'(uence until, in less
than a century, it dominated the world of Roman intelligentsia. Among its more famous exponents were Chrysippus, Panaetius of Rhodes,
Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus of Phrygia, and even the emperor Marcus Aurelius. At its ontological core was a view that reduced every thing and
event in the universe to small, indivisible, qualitatively indistinguishable materials (i.e., atoms) that interact with force. This dominant, popular,
general philosophy was taken over more or less uncritically by the earliest apologists for Islam, who presupposed and made use of it in
promoting the new faith of Islam. The form of rhetoric used by these thinkers was called “Kalam” (speech), which Jewish thinkers, in'(uenced by
Islamic culture, subsequently associated with the Hebrew term “dibbur.”

By the eighth century #.$., both terms came to refer to speech using logic as well as rhetoric, and those who used it became known as “reasoners”
(mutakallimun in Arabic; ha-medabbrim in Hebrew), or, simply, “those who love wisdom”, i.e., “philosophers.” By the tenth century, in polemics
with Karaites, Muslims, and Christians, these Jewish philosophic theologians developed precise formulations of the beliefs of Rabbinic Judaism.
Those formulations presupposed a Megarian scienti9:c overview of the universe. This school of Greek philosophy had developed in Mégara,
located in eastern central Greece on the Saronic Gulf, from the late 9:fth century ".#.$. through the third century ".#.$. Its founders, Euclid of
Mégara and Eubulides, made major contributions to the then beginning scienti9:c study of argumentation, that is, logic. Their work assumed that
logic entails ontology (the theory of what is), and the ontology it entailed was the source for the subsequent materialist atomism of the Stoics.

On this view, the universe consists of discrete material entities occupying discrete spaces in discrete time, where events occur either by chance or
will. That science had been superseded by an overview of the universe that held that everything occupied a distinct hierarchic place relative to
everything else and in which change was understood primarily in terms of a natural intentional or unintentional movement by which the subject
of the change sought to become better. Individual members of species were uniquely more or less like ideal prototypes that de9:ned their species,
and each member, when unhindered by external forces, sought to become more like the prototype, and, therefore, better than it was. Similarly,
species were uniquely more or less like an ultimate ideal 9:rst cause of the universe that alone was not subject to change because it and it alone
was perfectly what it could wish to be.

Ibn Daud sought in his Exalted Faith to show how the most basic beliefs a>9:rmed by Rabbinic Judaism could be demonstrated rationally within
the conceptual framework of the new Aristotelian science. But the audience for his work knew little of this science. Hence, the 9:rst part of the
Exalted Faith is a primer for educated Jews in Aristotelianism as Ibn Daud understood it. In a word, “Aristotelianism” refers to that philosophy
developed through the so-called middle ages by Muslims, Jews, and Christians whose source was the writings of Aristotle (384–322 ".#.$.). Its
content is not identical with the philosophy of Aristotle but grew out of independent observations and arguments deeply in'(uenced, but not
entirely determined, by what Aristotle wrote, as those writings were translated from Greek into the vernacular and interpreted by commentators
in'(uenced by the translated works of Plato (about 427–347 ".#.$.), Aristotle's teacher. The major voices in this tradition of interpretation
included Aristotle's own students, notably Theophrastus and subsequently Alexander of Aphrodisias (third century #.$.), Themistius (about
317–388 #.$.), and John Philoponus (about 490–580 #.$.).

Ibn Daud's primer on Aristotelian philosophy more or less determined the overview of the universe through which Rabbinic philosophers
interpreted Jewish faith until at least the sixteenth century. Book I of the Exalted Faith consists of eight chapters, the last four of which—on the
9:rst mover, the soul, angels, and the heavens—constitute a general view of the universe. The resulting scienti9:c cosmology provides the
presuppositions for Ibn Daud's demonstration of the nature of divine action in his Basic Principle 4 in Book II. That principle is the conceptual
key to his demonstration of the 9:nal principle of the book, Principle 6, that attempts to explain divine providence within the framework of an
Aristotelian science.

Ibn Daud's general view of the universe can be summarized as follows: The 9:rst principle and 9:nal cause of everything that exists is what the
new science identi9:es as the Absolute One and what the Jewish, revealed tradition of the Mosaic Torah recognizes as the God of Israel. From this
single source emanate or over'(ow two distinct orders of entities, one spiritual and the other material. The spiritual order consists of a series of
spherical shaped spaces, simply called “spheres,” that are alive, which means that they are intimately associated with forces, called “intellects” or
“souls,” that initiate in their spaces motion. Ibn Daud lists ten such spheres, some of which (but not all) contain material bodies. The 9:rst, the
Absolute One, lies itself beyond the cosmos. In its domain resides “The Essence of the Throne,” which, in turn, is the domain of the second
intellect or mover. Each succeeding sphere and its associated intellect or mover is located within the preceding sphere, the former being subject
to the motion of the latter. The second intellect governs the sphere of the universe in general and is called “The All-Encompassing Sphere,” “the
First Sphere,” and “The Right Sphere.” This sphere is divisible into a northern and southern inclined sphere. It also initiates what is called “the
motion of the Same,” and it produces the forms of the material elements. Within the 9:rst sphere resides the second intellect that governs the
third sphere, called “the Eccentric Sphere,” “the Ecliptic,” or “the Zodiac.” It initiates the contrary “motion of diversity,” and it produces the
common matter that, in conjunction with the elementary forms, produces the four elements from which all material entities are composed.

Beyond these three intellects and two spheres are the di>ferent spherical heavens whose intelligible movers themselves are subject to natural
motion. The fourth intellect governs the third sphere in which resides the planet Saturn and the 9:fth intellect. The 9:fth governs the fourth
sphere of Jupiter, the sixth governs Mars, the seventh governs Mercury, the eighth governs Venus, and the ninth governs our sun. Finally, the
tenth intellect, called “the Active Intellect,” governs the sphere of our moon, within which resides the globe of the moon and the globe of the
earth. Rabbinic tradition identi9:es this intellect with the Shekhina (the divine presence), through whose agency some human beings receive
prophecy.

This spiritual chain of emanation governs and directs the mechanical causal chain by which material objects are generated within spiritual space
by other material objects. Through di>ferent combinations of the four elements—9:re (viz., the celestial substance), air (viz., gas), water (viz.,
liquid), and earth (viz., solid)—minerals, vegetation, life in the sea and on the earth, humans, and celestial beings are generated in hierarchical
order. The lower the species the more dominant is the element earth, and the higher the species the more dominate is the element 9:re.

4 of 7 12/12/2014 00:09
Cosmology, Judaic Theories of - Brill Reference http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-judaism...
Notably absent from Ibn Daud's application of the new science is a doctrine of creation. Presumably it is missing because Ibn Daud did not
believe it could be explained in terms of the new science, mainly because in this Aristotelian universe species have no temporal beginning or end.
However, Gersonides, coming at the time of the maximum development of Aristotelianism, some four hundred years later, was able to reconcile
the by then dogma of creation with Aristotelianism. He showed through his commentary on Genesis that the creation spoken of there is not
itself a temporal event. Rather, the movement of the constant $%ow of procreated individual members of species, as well as the movement of
species themselves, are to be understood as asymptotic functions, i.e., movements towards a motivating, in&'nitely remote end. As such, while the
motions themselves occur in time, neither their origin nor their end are within time. Rather, both the origin and the end of the motion are
eternally and in&'nitely remote from the temporal motions they move respectively as a &'rst and &'nal cause. The end is identi&'ed in Jewish
tradition as the end of days or the World-To-Come, and the origin is the creation of Genesis.
(171)
-.//.0.1—314

An early source for Kabbalistic cosmology is the Sefer Yetzirah (“the book of creation”), which was compiled from materials as early as the third
century =.4. but did not reach its &'nal form until the ninth century, when it was combined with a commentary by Saadiah. There we learn of
thirty two distinct paths to wisdom about God, the nature of the universe, and human happiness, constituted through some kind of interaction
between the ten spheres and the twenty two letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The spheres are identi&'ed as divine attributes that are imagined
anthropomorphically with special reference to the &'ngers, the tongue, and the foreskin. These attributes are also identi&'ed with divine potencies
for action, ten depths (beginning, end, goodness, evil, height, depth, east, west, north, and south), and the elements of being (holy spirit [voice,
speech, spirit], spirit from spirit, the elements water and &'re, and the cosmic dimensions height, depth, east, west, north, and south). The
Hebrew letters are identi&'ed as the very material of reality situated in three places—the space of the universe (olam), the time of the year
(shanah), and the microcosm of life (nefesh). The permutations of these di@ferent sets of factors—spheres and letters—have parallels in the
cosmology of the equally authoritative Shiur Qomah.

By the twelfth century in Provence, notably in the Sefer Ha-Bahir (“the bright book”), the spherical divine powers, now called “sayings,” become
visualized as a tree whose limbs function symbolically in much the same way that the human &'ngers functioned in earlier Kabbalistic texts.
These limbs are seen to be minimally symbols for the essence of the divine reality. Against this background, the Zohar presents the ten spheres,
associated with divine names, in two pictures. One is a geometric web and the other is a human form. The spheres are crown (keter) associated
with the divine I am (ehyeh), wisdom (hokhmah) associated with yah, understanding (binah) associated with the Lord (yhwh) vocalized as God
(elohim), mercy (hesed) with el, judgment (din) or power (gevurah) associated with elohim, beauty (tiferet) with yhwh, eternity (nezah) with the
Lord of Hosts (yhwh zevaot), majesty (hod) with elohim zevaot, foundation-element (yesod) with the living el (el hai) or el shaddai, and the sphere
of kingdom (malchut) or divine presence (shekhina) associated with the divine name of my Lord (adonai). In its human form, the crown, wisdom,
and understanding constitute the head of the primordial human created in God's image, while the two arms are represented by mercy and
judgment, the two legs by eternity and majesty, and the male and female genitalia are represented respectively by the foundation-element and
the kingdom.

How these representations of God in Kabbalistic cosmologies are to be understood is not altogether clear. Super&'cially these pictures of the
cosmos di@fer radically from the pictures drawn in Jewish philosophy. But this judgment is only super&'cial. The critical di@ference between them
is not their intent, which in both cases is to provide a model for understanding the universe, humanity, and divinity, and to depict how the three
are related. Rather, the di@ference, to the extent there is one, is epistemological, found in the respective judgments by the two sets of
cosmologists on the extent that human imagination can be used to augment the way that human reason makes reality comprehensible. The
more that Jewish cosmologists relied on scienti&'c reasoning to express their images, they were philosophers; the more that they relied an
aesthetic imagination to express their conceptions, they were mystics.

The di@ference between the two ultimately has to do with a preference for one of two dominant forms of mathematical reasoning, one algebraic
and the other geometric. Thanks to René Descartes (1596–1650), we know that algebra and geometry are alternate expressions of the same logic,
i.e., the same formalized way of thinking out systematically the solutions to a problem, for it was Descartes who &'rst demonstrated through the
use of what are called “Cartesian coordinates” that any geometric &'gure can be expressed as an algebraic operation, and any algebraic expression
can be represented as a geometric form. Prior to Descartes' work in mathematics in the seventeenth century, geometry and algebra were seen to
be distinct logical disciplines. Which one was utilized in constructing solutions to problems depended on the nature of the problem.

Generally, operations that can be expressed in &'nite, de&'nite terms lend themselves to questions about linear equations most readily solvable
algebraically, and operations that must be expressed in in&'nite, inde&'nite terms lend themselves to questions about non-linear equations most
readily solvable geometrically. Historically in western thought, at least outside of the domain of those skilled in pure mathematics, the terms
“rational” and “logical” have tended to be applied almost exclusively to the former kinds of questions, expressions, and solutions, while the latter
kinds, because their expressions are inde&'nite or “fuzzy,” and their solution techniques involve imaginative use of pictorial constructions, have
tended to be called “irrational” or “emotional.” In fact, most issues in topics as abstract as cosmology involve both kinds of thinking, but the
history of western thought in general has tended to alternate in a wave-like movement between the two, which translates in terms of the history
of Jewish thought as a movement to mysticism from philosophy and to philosophy from mysticism, i.e., from reliance on imaginative concrete
paradigmatic pictures (mystical reasoning) to reliance on so-called rational abstract symbolic expressions (philosophical reasoning), and back.
This tendency is no less apparent in contemporary Jewish thought than in classical and medieval Jewish philosophy and Kabbalah.

.PP0Q=.3QRST RU 3V.WQ3QRS 3R XRW4VS Y4ZQT1 =RTXR0R[Q4T

Jewish philosophy is no less continuous than Jewish mysticism throughout Jewish history. In fact, the lines that separate them are somewhat
arbitrary, at least $%exible, since Jewish philosophy tends to $%ow into Jewish mysticism and visa versa. Still, there is a di@ference in emphasis that
gives some justi&'cation for the separation. While none of the earliest works of Judaism—the Hebrew Scriptures and the collections of Rabbinic

5 of 7 12/12/2014 00:09
Cosmology, Judaic Theories of - Brill Reference http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-judaism...
midrash—are either philosophical or mystical in primary intent, clearly both contain philosophical and mystical content, and both played a role
as authoritative texts in the subsequent development of Jewish philosophy and mysticism. If a distinction can be drawn between these two
modes of thought, it may be made on the basis of the kind of cosmologies both tended to advance.

In general, three kinds of views of the universe emerge. At times the view of the universe is atomistic, in which what happens is believed to occur
solely by chance and/or necessity, without purpose. This view dominates in the modern Newtonian period and is most clearly expressed by
Spinoza (the Netherlands, 1634–1677). But it is equally the case in the pre-tenth century Muslim world, in which the dominant model for
cosmology exploited by the Mutakallimun was a composition of ancient Greek Megarianism with Roman Stoicism. Jewish philosophy and
mysticism exist in both periods, but neither thrives in this intellectual atmosphere. At other times the view of the universe is a process view, in
which what happens occurs primarily through directionality towards some kind of end or limit. This view dominates in the medieval Aristotelian
period and is the setting in which medieval Jewish philosophy prospers. Conversely, at other times the view of the universe is a static conception
of ideal entities related to each other through principles of imitation. This view dominates in periods in which the dominant philosophical model
is Neoplatonic and is the setting in which medieval and early modern Jewish mysticism thrives. However, these two directions combine in the
tradition of twentieth century European neo-Kantian, Marburgian philosophy initiated by Hermann Cohen (Germany, 1842–1918), where the
actual universe is seen in terms of a procession towards in9:nitely remote and 9:xed ideals (called “asymptotes” in mathematics) that constitute
reality. This view is most clearly expressed in the creationist philosophical theology of Franz Rosenzweig (Germany, 1886–1929).

Note that the above general characterizations of kinds of Jewish cosmology are simply that, general characterizations that, as such, make lines of
separation far stricter than they are in fact in the texts considered. Creationists use emanationists' themes, and emanationists include elements
of the creationist view of the universe. The di?ferences here have to do with emphasis only, and the drawing of these lines in any speci9:c case is
not self-evident to any not-so-predisposed reader of these texts. But these di?ferences are not trivial.

Modern science, dominated by the atomist conception of a cosmos ruled exclusively by mechanical notions of chance and/or probabilistic
chance, has tended to see the world, because it lacks any inherent purpose, as amoral. Although it is possible for a scientist to approach his or her
work as a moral enterprise and as a theist, this way of conceptualizing the universe tends to favor belief that there is no deity (since a deity has
no place within the cosmology) and there are no real moral duties (since ethics seem tied to notions of purpose, and this cosmology has no place
for purpose). In contrast, the mystic's emanationist view of the universe de9:nitely a?9:rms the existence of some kind of deity, but generally this
entity is seen to be something whose reality lies within the individual thinker. Although it is possible for a mystic to approach his enterprise with
moral sensitivity to other human beings, this way of conceptualizing the universe tends to dull, even negate, moral consciousness. In general, we
human beings learn moral responsibility when confronted by other human beings whose needs are not our own.

Moral sense is a response to that concrete need, but for people whose primary religious road is to turn ever inward to 9:nd the God within,
especially when that God is identi9:ed with the mystic's true self that is seen to be the only reality, it is not surprising that these emanationists
tend not to be aware of the needs of others beyond themselves, for how can others place real moral obligations on us when ultimately in truth
there are no others except the deity within who is the sole reality. Hence, the multiple forms of creationist cosmology, from Aristotle's universe of
material motions to Cohen's world of asymptotic functions, tend to be most supportive as a foundational philosophy for sensitizing thinkers to
both the divine and the moral. Here the world is seen in terms of functions that originate in distinct human individuals and move towards
radically other distinct human individuals, forming a chorus of voices directed at an ultimate, utterly radical divine individual. In such a theistic
directed cosmology, as is most apparent in the philosophical and theological writings of Rosenzweig's disciple Emmanuel Levinas (1906–1996),
ethics play as primary a role as they did in the creation model of the author of Genesis and the chariot vision of the prophet Ezekiel.

Norbert Samuelson

Cite this page

Samuelson, Norbert. "Cosmology, Judaic Theories of." Encyclopaedia of Judaism. Brill Online, 2014. Reference. University of Queensland. 12 December 2014
<http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-judaism/cosmology-judaic-theories-of-COM_0039>
First appeared online: 2006
First Print Edition: 9789004141001, 20040701

6 of 7 12/12/2014 00:09
Cosmology, Judaic Theories of - Brill Reference http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-judaism...

7 of 7 12/12/2014 00:09