Monday night at JTS, Dan and I attended a lecture by Dr. Daniel Matt on How the Zohar Reimagines God. Dr. Matt is the lead author on a new translation of the Zohar and a quick internet search demonstrates he is one of the leading scholars in this area. It is important to note that the Zohar is treated very reverently is certain Orthodox circles, so an academic approach to this text is relatively new in the coming, despite it’s age.
His lecture started with a description of the Sefirot and quickly focused on, what I suppose you can call the top and the bottom of a Sefirot chart: Ein Sof and Shekhinah, the ultimate ineffable all-encompassing/encompassing-nothing origin of it all and the final projection of this energy into the earthly realm in the form of the feminine, respectively. He then focused on the female nature of G-d, the history of this notion outside (or around) Judaism, including a conversation on the Caananite female divinity, Asherah. His essential point is that the Zohar reintroduced this idea, it was very revolutionary at the time, and the notion of a female deity or a female component resonates with humans. This was his only real answer to the question posed by an audience member questioning why the Zohar’s concepts spread so quickly.
I have reservations on this whole subject. It feels like a bunch of linguistic machinations to erode the unitary notion of G-d. I admit I do not have enough information to judge either way, but it bothers me. Someone pointed out to me that I maybe 10 people all rolled up in one, so why can G-d not have multiple emanation types. Again, I am just dumb Nathan, not Luria, Cordovero, or The Vilna Goan and I just might not get it.
Here is the start of the Zohar’s commentary on parshat Be-Reshit:
At the head of potency of the King, He engraved engravings in luster on high. A spark of impenetrable darkness flashed within the concealed of the concealed5, from the head of Infinity—a cluster of vapor forming in formlessness, thrust in a ring, not white, not black, not red, not green, no color at all. As a cord surveyed, it yielded radiant colors. Deep within the spark gushed a flow, splaying colors below, concealed within the concealed of the mystery of Ein Sof. It split and did not split its aura, was not known at all, until under the impact of splitting, a single, concealed, supernal point shone. Beyond that point, nothing is known, so it is called ראשית (Reshit), Beginning, first command of all.
Yikes! There are 4 more volumes where that came from, 11 planned.
As for the title of this post, the answer to a question about the important of the philosophy in the Zohar, Dr. Matt answered, “What is the difference between Spinoza and Kabbalah? The Mitzvot!” Seemingly saying in a mind boggling quip, all the once, that The Enlightenment was the de-G-dification of existing philosophy (we all know this!) and that the Mitzvot are central to Kabbalah, cf. Tikkun Olam.