Metaphors of Sacrifice in the Zohar

[1] Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power in the Indian Theory of Government (New Haven: The American Oriental Society, 1942), p. 68. The text quoted is Satapatha Brahmana IX. 3.3.15,16. The wealth of Indian parallels as well as the unusually lucid grasp of patterns of mythological and ritualistic thinking make Mr. Coomaraswamy’s study a prime source of reference for the following paper.

[2] Cf. ibid., p. 10, n. 13: “Any initiatory rebirth, or indeed a birth of any kind, implies a previous death… Any Sacrifice is symbolic suicide; it is himself that the Sacrificer sacrifices to the Gods, to Agni.” And further: “The Sacrifice is a ‘devotion,’ and that is as much as to say a self-sacrifice” (p. 67, n. 47). Gershom Scholem finds the same notion in the kabbalistic author Isaac the Blind: “Par le sacrifice, l’homme s’offre soi-même; tout le reste n'est que revêtement symbolique” Les Origines de la kabbale, trans. Jean Loewenson (Paris, 1966), p. 232.

[3] All references to The Zohar are from the English translation by Harry Sperling, Maurice Simon, and Dr. Paul P. Levertoff (London: Soncino Press, 1933-34), 5 vols. References indicate volume, page of the standard Mantuan edition, and page of the English translation.

[4] The present study limits itself for the most part to metaphorical expressions, rather than a strictly theosophic discussion, of sacrifice. For an excellent introduction to the theosophical system of the Zohar, see Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, 3rd ed. (New York, 1961), pp. 205-243.

[5] Coomaraswamy, Spiritual Authority, p. 68, quoting Aitareya Aranyaka III. 1.2. In the Zohar rain is often a synonym for blessings (I, 64a, 210; 115a, 360). In I, 62a, 202 it is specifically connected with sperm. Its connection with human sustenance, whether physical or spiritual, is upheld in II, 246a, 380-381 by an illusion to Ex. 16:4.

[6] Leone Ebreo, Dialoghi d’Amore, ed. Santino (Bari, 1929), p.143, translation and italics mine.

[7] A remarkable parallel to the metaphorical complexities of the “smoke of sacrifice” may be found in Philo’s interpretation of the three objects to be placed in the inner sanctuary of the Temple (Ex. 25 and 30), the candlestick, censer and table. Professor Harry Austryn Wolfson (Philo [Cambridge, Mass., 4th ed., 1968], II, 241-248) has discussed the meaning of sacrifice in Philo both in general and in the essential text of De Vita Mosis II, 106 ff., but he has neglected the important symbolical passage that precedes:

The altar of incense he placed in the middle [of the Sanctuary], a symbol of the thankfulness for earth and water which should be rendered for the benefits derived from both of these, since the mid-position in the universe has been assigned to them. The candlestick he placed at the south, figuring thereby the movements of the luminaries above; for the sun and the moon and the others run their courses in the south far away from the north…(104) The table is set at the north and has bread and salt on it, as the north winds are those which most provide us with food, and food comes from heaven and earth, the one sending rain, the other bringing the seeds to their fullness when watered by the showers. (105) In line with the table are set the symbols of heaven and earth, as our account has shown, heaven being signified by the candlestick, earth and its parts, from which rise the vapors, by what is appropriately called the vapor-keeper or altar of incense (Philo, De Vita Mosis II, 101-105, trans. F.H. Colson [Cambridge, Mass. and London: The Loeb Classical Library, 1950, II vols.]. VI, 498-502, italics added).

Whether or not the table with its food symbolizes heaven and earth, as Colson seems rightly to suggest (p. 500, n.b.), the first important parallel to be noted is the insistence, within a strongly ritualistic context, of the mutual action of heaven and earth in “bringing the seeds to their fullness”. Further, both this and the Zoharic passage place the sacrifice within a truly universal setting (the Temple being a replica of the entire universe). Finally, one notes the allusion to the earth as producer of vapors and the metaphorical identification of these with the smoke of the sacrifice, both seen as rising upward toward the heavens or sun.

[8] The emphasis on Israel’s duty to give the first impulse may seem purely homiletic, especially when compared with such contrary assertions as the following: “the desire of the female [Israel] toward the male [divinity] only awakes when a certain spirit enters into her and the flow ascends to meet that of the male” (I, 60b, 195). In fact, however, the Zohar expresses with striking boldness man’s efficacity and responsibility in the sacrifice. Noah “knew it was incumbent upon him to bring an offering,” having discovered “the basis on which the existence of the world depends, to wit, the sacrifices, without which neither the higher nor the lower world can endure” (I, 58b, 189). In another instance it is said that the heavenly King does not “eat” until his servants have finished, and this true eating occurs “in the place where it was when the savor of the sacrifices used to ascend” (IV, 7a-b,339). But the righteous not only eat before the King; when the sacrifice is pleasant, “Israel feeds their Father in Heaven” (ibid.). Coomaraswamy gives interesting Indian parallels (Spiritual Authority, p. 66 and n. 47): “Because of the separation of Earth and Sky” the Gods are hungry. “The Gods to whom no offering is made do not eat” (quoting Pancavimsa Brahmana XIV. 6.8).

[9] Although the syzygy sun and earth is common in the Zohar (“light being male and darkness female” I, 23a, 94), the author also establishes sexual opposition through the symbols of sun and moon. In the following passage, for example, the luminaries united by man’s sacrifice seem to refer to the sefirot Tif’eret and Malkut, the male Son and the female Shekhinah: “The Lord is blessed when the Moon is illuminated by the Sun and they draw near one another” (IV, 9b, 345); “it behooves us to bring the moon, as it were, into the sun and the sun into the moon so that there should be no separation between them, this being the portion of man by which he should enter the world to come” (II, 196b, 246). It should be observed that, although the upper world is male with respect to the lower one, everything in the universe is sexually ambivalent, male with respect to its inferiors and female with respect to its superiors. This applies to the angels (III, 4b, 12) and even to the sefirot: “For this King [Tif’eret], although supreme, is, in relation to the Highest Point [Keter], the most hidden One, feminine or receptive; but at the same time he is masculine or active in relation to the lower King [Yesod]; and this double relationship, to that which is above and that which is below, appertains to the whole supermundane world” (III, 4a, 9).

[10] By the same token we are now able to understand other sexual symbols in our original passage (I, 35a) with the help of the following: “When the upper world was filled and became pregnant, it brought forth two children together, a male and a female, these being heaven and earth after the supernal pattern. The earth is fed from the waters of the heaven which are poured into it. These upper waters, however, are male, whereas the lower are female, and the lower are fed from the male, and the lower waters call to the upper, like the female that receives the male, and pour out water to meet the water of the male to produce seed” (I, 29b, 113-114). Here “heaven and earth” and “male and female” are, on the supernal level, Tif’eret and Malkut and, on the lower level, the “Adam and Eve” of our original passage.

[11] As often “female” here signifies this lower world of humanity. The meaning is that “this world was created by the attribute of Justice” (III, 22b, 75).

[12] In the same way Adam and Eve are reunited when man recovers his original, androgynous nature (“all spirits are compounded of male and female, and when they go forth into the world [for birth into the body] they go forth as both male and female” V, 43b, 5); that is to say, when Eve is reduced to Adam. At least, this seems to be implied in the observation that the original Adam or man was both male and female (e.g. V. 46b, 12).

[13] In the productive arts such as carpentry Plotinus enjoins the artists to “take their principles from that realm and from the thinking that goes on there” (Enneads V, 9, 11). Moses likewise is commanded to make all things of the Sanctuary “according to the pattern that is shown thee on the mount” (Ex. 25:40). There is thus no “mine” or “yours” in ideas but rather correct and incorrect, correctness being measured not by “originality” but rather by the extent that human thinking corresponds with divine archetypes. In consequence, “his” means “devoid of any blessing” (II, 144a, 62), and Rabbi Simeon explains concerning a youth’s sublime exegesis of a Biblical text that “one should not think that all this exposition was merely the youth’s own idea: it contains recondite thoughts which bear the seal of divine Wisdom” (II, I50b, 83; see also IV, 7a, 338 concerning Moses). The close correspondence between heaven and earth is commonplace in the Zohar: “whatever is on earth has its counterpart on high, there being no object, however small, in this world but what is subordinate to its counterpart above which has charge over it; and so whenever the thing below bestirs itself, there is a simultaneous stimulation of its counterpart above, as the two realms form one interconnected whole” (Il, 156b, 102). Thus, in imitation of the seven days of creation (called the consecration or “filling” of the High Priest above), “there were seven days of consecration for the priest below, that the lower might correspond with the upper” (IV, 34b, 390). With characteristic daring the Zohar reverses the formula and pictures the altar service performed in heaven as on earth. With epic grandeur the author evokes “the six hundred thousand myriads in each corner, all under one commander, and all clad in an ephod, who are there to carry out the service of the altar in correspondence with those on earth” (IV, 30a, 382). The boldness is perhaps only apparent, however, since the humans involved are the pious whose behavior already corresponds to heavenly modes of action. It is in this idealistic sense that Israel is called a “Kingdom of priests” (IV, 34b, 391), or that all its practices are said to be “on the supernal pattern” (IV, 40a, 407).

[14] Levi is explicitly assigned to the side of Stern Judgment (II, 172b-173a, 161; V, 62b, 50), whereas “the priest is from the Right” (IV, 27a, 381).

[15] Not infrequently the Zohar states that three members are necessary to the sacrifice. In addition to the priest and Levite, for example, this passage calls for the “shepherds,” who are understood to be alternately the leaders of the people or simply pious Israelites and whose part in the sacrifice is to “make his heart contrite and humble before God the Holy King” (IV, 32a-b, 388). When the third party is a poor man, there are actually two offerings: “one is the actual sacrifice, and the other his own flesh and blood” (IV, 9b, 344-345). For just as the flour and oil are heated, the man’s own flesh and blood burn with hunger. The inner meaning is applicable to all: “a man should offer to God his desires and his passions” and thus endure their burning within him rather than seek their satisfaction.

[16] “Song comes from the side of the Left, not of Hesed” (II, 230b, 338). In answer to the problem of how the contrite and sorrowful man can fulfill the injunction to “serve the Lord with gladness” (Ps. 100:1), the Zohar explains that “this was provided by the priests and Levites: rejoicing was carried out by the priest because he is far from chastisement and must ever show a more joyful countenance than the rest of the people. The singing, again, was carried out by the Levites, whose function it was. So the priest stood by him and found suitable words to unify in joy the Holy Name, while the Levites broke out into song” (IV, 8a-b, 341-342). The text goes on to show that, though there are no longer sacrifices (because of the destruction of the Temple), the worshipper still performs the unification within himself: “This is the completion of joy, for joy is in the heart and song in the mouth.”

[17] See above, n. 17; also Zohar II, 200a, 259: “Desire, which is thought, is the beginning of all things, and Utterance is the completion.” This innermost thinking may be identified with the “still small voice, referring to the very innermost point, which is the source of all illumination” (II, 209a, 291). The dialectical opposition between inner and outer and the ontological priority of the former is common to most “primitive” forms of religious thinking and is implicit in such doctrines as the primacy of contemplative over the active life, or, in art theory, the priority of the inner image over its external manifestation. Concerning artistic creation, whether of the world or a simple object, Eckhart distinguishes three stages: First an intangible word “springs up” in the mind; then the artist pauses in the word or idea and gives it shape; then it is spoken out as an outer expression of the inner word. See Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, The Transformation of Nature in Art (New York, 1934), pp. 76-77.

[18] Reconciliation of Left with Right occurs at the time of sacrifice, when “fire and water are intermingled and become one” (II, 164b, 129).

[19] These complex symbols are developed with extraordinary force in the Zoharic commentary on Lev. 9:1-11:47 (IV, 35a-42a, 394-411), an idea of which may be got from the following: “wine is of the side of the Levites, but the side of the priests is pure and clear water… Wine, oil and water issue from the same place [i.e. Hokmah or Wisdom, the second Sefirah]. Water and oil, which is joy first and last, as it is written: ‘Like the goodly oil upon the head that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron’s beard’ (Ps. 133:2). Wine, which is of the left, is inherited by the Levites that they may raise their voices in song and not be silent, for wine is never silent, but oil is always noiseless. The difference between them is this. Oil comes from the side of Thought [Hokhmah, the origin of the supernal oil (IV, 34a, 390), is on the Right], which is always silent and unheard, whereas wine, which is for raising the voice, comes from the side of the Mother [Binah, which is of the Left]. Therefore the priest, when he entered the Sanctuary to perform divine service, was forbidden to drink wine, because his service was carried out quietly” (IV, 39a, 403).

[20] “Observe that David in his psalms made allusion to the three periods of prayer, in the words, ‘Evening, and morning and at noonday do I meditate and moan’ (Ps. 55:28). Here we have allusion to the three periods, although David himself observed only two prayers, one alluded to in ‘do I meditate’ and the second in ‘and moan’. The first is the prayer of the morning, the period of mercy; hence ‘meditating’ suffices. The second is the prayer of afternoon, the period of rigor; hence ‘do I moan’” (Zohar II, 132b, 29-30). The text goes on to explain that the third belongs to Jacob and is of less importance than the first two. This assignment of the three daily prayers to the three Patriarchs goes back to the Talmud (Berakot 26b) and also occurs in the Gerona kabbalist Jacob ben Sheshet, quoted in Georges Vajda, Recherches sur la philosophie et la kabbale dans la pensée juive du moyen âge (Paris and the Hague, 1962), p. 369 and n.2. In Zohar IV, 27b, 381, the priest is specifically associated with the morning service, which is “the time when his own side Hesed is in the ascendant.” Again: “gladness and song correspond to the two prayers of morning and afternoon, and to the two daily sacrifices—gladness in the morning and singing in the afternoon” (II, 229b, 335).

[21] See Das Buch Bahir (Sefer ha-Bahir), trans. G. Scholem (Berlin, 1923), 78 and p. 80. n.2.

[22] Incense or ketoret is related to the Aramaic Katar, “bind” (see IV, 37b, 400 and n.1.): “There are two altars below and two altars above. Of the latter one, the innermost of all, is that on which is offered the inner fine incense, which is the bond of faith, and the most high-priest of all offers this incense with the bond of faith. This is called the Altar of Gold, the place where all the threads of faith are bound together” (IV, 30a-b, 382-383). Esoterically, Faith is the whole pleroma of the sefirot, the great mystery of the inner life of the Deity, so termed perhaps because faith “est supérieur aux structures que la raison peut appréhender par ses propres moyens” Georges Vajda, L’Amour de Dieu dans la théologie juive du moyen âge (Paris, 1957).

[23] See above, n. 17. This symbolic function is already evident in Rev. 5:8 and Ps. 141:2, where the rising smoke of sacrifice is pictured as a symbol or vehicle of prayer.

[24] Theosophically speaking, both prayer and sacrifice unify the Holy Name of four letters (YHVH) in the same manner, by uniting the Son Tif’eret (“V”) with the Daughter (the Lower “H”, the Princess Malkut) and, by reconciliation of Rigor and Mercy, freeing the “Stream that flows from Eden” (the Mother Binah or Upper “H” that issues forth from the Father Hokhmah or “Y”) and allowing the waters of blessing, through the Son, to water the Female Garden of Eden and Israel. For an excellent description of the theosophical aspects of the unification of the Holy Name see Georges Vajda, L’Amour de Dieu dans la théologie juive du moyen âge (Paris, 1957), pp. 211-218.