Koninklijke Brill NV, Leioen, 2009 !!"# 17.

2
Also available online brill.nljjtp DOI: 10.11o3103o9909X120o8o309012
ABRAHAM JOSHUA HESCHEL`S THEOLOGY OI
JUDAISM AND THE REWRITING OI JEWISH
INTELLECTUAL HISTORY
Reuven Kimelman
Branoeis University
$%&'()*'
Abraham Joshua Heschel`s +,-.(, oeals with the continuum ol Jewish religious
consciousness lrom the biblical ano rabbinic perioos through the kabbalistic ano
Hasioic ones with regaro to Goo`s concern lor humanity. The goal ol this stuoy is
to show how such a Nachmanioean reaoing has partially oisplaceo the oiscon-
tinuous Maimonioean reaoing promoteo by Yehezkel Kaulman, Ephraim
Urbach, ano Gershom Scholem. The result is that Heschel`s unoerstanoing ol the
oevelopment ol Jewish theologizing is more in!uential now than it was ouring his
liletime. This stuoy traces the growth ol that oevelopment ano explores how
Heschel became the scholar-theologian who most succeeoeo in brioging the gap
between scholarship ano constructive theology.
The most in!uential ano wioely-reao Jewish theologians ol the
twentieth century were Abraham I. Kook ,18o193,, Martin
Buber ,187819o,, Moroecai M. Kaplan ,18811983,, Iranz
Rosenzweig ,188o1929,, Menahem M. Schneersohn ,1902199!,,
Joseph B. Soloveitchik ,19031993,, ano Abraham J. Heschel
,19071972,.
1
The youngest ol these, Heschel, who except lor
Rosenzweig also oieo the youngest, is the one most citeo by scholars
ol Juoaism when oealing with the history ol the interpretation ol
Juoaism, as opposeo to oiscussing the theology ol the thinker in
1
Ior my comparison ol Heschel ano Soloveitchik, see Reuven Kimelman,
Rabbis Joseph B. Soloveitchik ano Abraham Joshua Heschel on Jewish-Christian
Relations, /+0,(12!-0)3&4 2!2,200!,:221271. The essay is available online ,http:
www.eoah.orgbackenoJournalArticle!_2_Kimelman.pol , ano has also been
reprinteo in "5, 60)5 !+-(1)782 9:;<=:>2 ?67-72 @AB9<C3&7,.2 @AB@D ,200,, 121. A
Hebrew version is lorthcoming in "5, #(+*,,031E&2 +F 2 '5,2 G1',(1)'3+1)72 H+1F,(,1*,2 +12 '5,2
"5+-E5'2 +F 2 !+&,I52 JK2 L+7+.,3'*53M ,helo at the Van Leer Conlerence Center in
Jerusalem, 2003,, ano in L'-03,&2 312 '5,2 G1!-,1*,2 +F 2 N)%%32 !+&,I52 O+12 L+7+.,3'*53*M2 +12
H-7'-(,82 60-*)'3+182 )102 +12 !,P3&52 "5+-E5', to be publisheo by Magnes Fress ano the
Van Leer Institute.
208 !"#$"%& '()"*)+%
question. In lact, Heschel`s unoerstanoing ol the oevelopment ol
Jewish theologizing is more in!uential now than in his own oay. This
stuoy traces the growth ol that oevelopment ano explores how
Heschel became the scholar-theologian who most succeeoeo in
brioging the gap between scholarship ano constructive theology.
While much has been saio ol Heschel`s religious genius ano moral
courage,
2
more neeos to be saio about his intellectual auoacity. He
challengeo the whole acaoemic mooel ol ooing the historiography
ol Jewish theology by ollering an alternative reaoing ol the history
ol Jewish theologizing. In ooing so, he contributeo as much as any
scholar ol the twentieth century to the theological unoerstanoing ol
all lour pivotal perioos ol pre-mooern Jewish existence: biblical,
rabbinic, meoieval philosophic, ano kabbalistic-Hasioic.
3
Heschel`s +,-.(, traces the continuum ol Jewish religious conscious-
ness lrom the biblical ano rabbinic perioos through the kabbalistic
ano Hasioic ones.
!
Despite their oillerences, Heschel argueo that
they are uni"eo by the theme ol Goo`s concern lor humanity. The
oillerent expressions ol Juoaism are not mutually exclusive, but
rather moments in the oialectic ol man`s encounter with Goo.
Where others saw oichotomies, he saw polarities. Our inclination to
unoerstano Juoaism or to approach the oivine through only one ol
the poles leaves us, accoroing to Heschel, with partial unoerstano-
ings ol Juoaism ano lragmentary visions ol the oivine. In contrast,
Heschel`s theology ollers a historical as well as a conceptual lrame-
work lor maintaining the oialectic without reoucing one pole to the
other.
2
See, e. g., Reuven Kimelman, The Jewish Basis lor Social Justice, in N,73E3+182
N)*,82)102!-&'3*,2312)2H5)1E31E2$4,(3*), eo. G. Or"elo ano H. J. Lebowitz ,New York:
The Century Iounoation Fress, 1999,, !1!7, 183.
3
This claim, which I "rst maoe in 1972 in the wake ol Heschel`s oeath, is here
substantiateo baseo on the scholarship ol the intervening years, see Reuven
Kimelman, In Memoriam: Abraham Joshua Heschel, N,&I+1&, 1o ,1972,: 122,
ano in Hebrew, Avraham Yehoshua Heschel Moreh Ha-Dor, Q)O+)( ,Shevat 7!3
|~ 1983|,: 187188, also in "5,2 /,7'+12 !+-(1)7 1 ,Winter 1983,, 3, 232!, ano as
Abraham Joshua HeschelOur Generation`s Teacher in N,73E3+12R2G1',77,*'-)72S3F,
2, no. 2 ,Winter 198,: 918 ,http:www.crosscurrents.orgheschel.htm,.
!
The exception is the meoieval philosophic perioo. As we shall see, lor Heschel
the meoieval philosophic perioo was the exception, while lor others it was the prism
through which they perceiveo the other perioos.
+,!+-+)&./0-#+& -"01-"*20&3-"/*/45&/6&.#7+(0) 209
In this regaro, "+()5 /31 Q)L5)4)T34 J,$&I7)U)(3)52 L5,72 Q)O+(+'2
quali"es as Heschel`s magnum opus.

It guioes the reaoer through

the wool ano warp ol the classic texts that inlorm his writings on
contemporary theology, /)1 G& V+' $7+1,
o
ano W+0 G1 L,)(*5 +F /)1.
7
2
These books that maoe Heschel such an insightlul writer lor the
Jewish ano to a great extent lor the Christian auoience restate his
historical-theological vision ol Juoaism. He "rst presenteo this vision
in "5, #(+I5,'&
8
ano subsequently ano more extensively2in2"+()5 /312
Q)L5)4)T34K
9
2This vision, which involves tracing the threao ol Goo`s
interest in man throughout the labric ol Juoaism, is re!ecteo in his
contemporary writings.
So much ol Heschel`s work is ol one cloth. /)1 G& V+' $7+1,2 is
subtitleo $ #537+&+I5T +F N,73E3+1, while W+0 31 L,)(*5 +F /)1 is subtitleo
$2 #537+&+I5T +F !-0)3&4. Ior Heschel, man is not alone because Goo
is in search ol man. By virtually beginning W+0 31 L,)(*5 +F /)1 with
the statement, Religion is an answer to man`s ultimate questions,
Heschel unoerscores his thesis that the philosophy ol Juoaism is an
answer to problems in the philosophy ol religion, inoeeo its ultimate
problems. Not only oo these two works on contemporary theology
"t together, they also converge with his two major works ol histori-
cal scholarship, "5,2#(+I5,'& ano "+()52/312Q)L5)4)T34, in his state-
ment that pathos in "5, #(+I5,'& is an explication ol the ioea ol
Goo in search ol man.
10

Chronologically,2"5,2#(+I5,'&, baseo on his German oissertation ol
the early 1930s,
11
came "rst, it was not publisheo in its expanoeo
English lorm until 19o2. It was lolloweo by his two alorementioneo

"+()5 /31 Q)L5)4)T342J,$&I7)U)(3)52L5,72Q)O+(+' ,"5,+7+ET +F $1*3,1' !-0)3&4,, 3
vols. ,vols. 12, Lonoon: Soncino Fress, 19o219o, vol. 3, New York: Jewish
Theological Seminary ol America, 199,. ET: Q,).,17T "+()5 )& N,F()*',0 '5(+-E5 '5,
W,1,()'3+1&, eo. ano trans. Goroon Tucker ano Leonaro Levin ,New York:
Continuum, 200,.
o
/)12 G&2 V+'2 $7+1,:2 $2 #537+&+I5T2 +F 2 N,73E3+1 ,191, repr., New York: Harper ano
Row, 19oo,.
7
W+02312L,)(*52+F 2/)1:2$2#537+&+I5T2+F 2!-0)3&4 ,19, repr., New York: Merioian
Books, 19o1,. HT: -!!=!f9/!-'!#+!, Jerusalem: Magnes, 2003,.
8
"5, #(+I5,'& ,Fhilaoelphia: The Jewish Fublication Society, l9o2,.
9
As noteo by Ephraim Urbach, "5,2 L)E,&:2 H5)I',(&2 312 H+1*,I'&2 )102 J,73,F& |in
Hebrew| , Jerusalem: Magnes Fress, 19o9,, 1! n. 2o ,ET: "5,2 L)E,&:2 "5,2 X+(702 )102
X3&0+42 +F 2 '5,2 N)%%3&2 +F 2 '5,2 ")74-0 |Cambrioge, MA: Harvaro University Fress,
1987|, o9 n. 20,.
10
/+()7 W()10,-( )10 LI3(3'-)7 $-0)*3'T, eo. Susannah Heschel ,New York: The
Noonoay Fress, 199o,, 1o0.
11
O3,2#(+I5,'3, ,Krakow: Nakaoem Folskiej Akaoemji Umiejtnotci, 193o,.
210 !"#$"%& '()"*)+%
books on theology ol the 190s. In the early 19o0s, the "rst two
volumes ol "+()5 /31 Q)L5)4)T34 were publisheo. Nonetheless, it is
clear that his two major works ol scholarship, though publisheo
later, were conceptually prior.
12
Ior Heschel, scholarship ano theol-
ogy convergeo.
Heschel`s position that the continuities in Juoaism are as salient
as the oiscontinuities also explains the impetus ol much ol his work
in meoieval philosophy ano Kabbalah. His most controversial lorays
into meoieval thought locuseo on prophetic inspiration. Whereas
others argueo that prophecy hao ceaseo with the close ol the bibli-
cal canon or earlier, Heschel provocatively titleo two ol his essays
-''1'!'/'!f#9!!%#: ,Frophetic Inspiration in the Mioole Ages, ano
!#1+ !!)$f!-"/:! !0'/!!? ,Dio Maimonioes Believe That He
Hao Attaineo the Rank ol a Frophet?,. Both were printeo together
in English unoer the illuminating title #(+I5,'3* G1&I3()'3+1 )F',( '5,
#(+I5,'&.
13

This same sense ol historical connecteoness alloweo his stuoy,
The Mystical Element in Juoaism,
1!
to shilt auoaciously lrom a
oiscussion ol Kabbalah to one on prophetic consciousness.
1
Were
a link to be establisheo between prophetic ano kabbalistic thinking,
it woulo parry Gershom Scholem`s in!uential thesis about the rup-
ture in Jewish thought introouceo by Kabbalah, a rupture so great
12
Which is why a work ol a liletime took only several years to compose, see
Susannah Heschel`s loreworo to Q,).,17T "+()5 )& N,F()*',0 '5(+-E5 '5, W,1,()'3+1&.
13
#(+I5,'3* G1&I3()'3+1 )F',( '5, #(+I5,'&, eo. Morris Iaierstein ,Hoboken, NJ: KTAV,
199o,.
1!
The Mystical Element in Juoaism, in "5,2 !,P&:2 "5,3(2 Q3&'+(T82 H-7'-(,82 )102
N,73E3+1, eo. Louis Iinkelstein ,19!9, repr., Fhilaoelphia: The Jewish Fublication
Society, 19o0,, 2:93293.
1
The irony is that Heschel in chap. 21 ol "5, #(+I5,'& unoerscoreo the oiller-
ence between mystical ano prophetic experience. There, however, the contrast is
in the context ol a chapter on An Examination ol the Theory ol Ecstasy. Ior
Heschel the prophet was the object ol a oivine search, whereas lor the mystic Goo
was the object ol a human search. This oichotomy ol course breaks oown in that
classical Spanish Hebrew poet who so in!uenceo Kabbalah, namely Juoah Halevi,
who lamously oescribeo the religious experience as in my going out to You I louno
You ,coming, towaro me ,'=:9+!('=8/!(=:9+!'=8,. In lact, Heschel appro-
priateo the same language to oescribe the interlace ol the oivine-human encounter,
saying: In turning towaro Goo, man experiences Goo`s turning towaro him ,"5,
#(+I5,'&, !87,. Still, the contrast is in the experience, not in the awareness ol Goo`s
interest in humanity. Whatever the case, it is not clear that Heschel woulo locate
Kabbalists within his phenomenology ol mystical consciousness. In that whole
chapter, there is not a single relerence to the sources ol Jewish mysticism even
though he hao shown ,ano others were to show even more, elsewhere that there
was a revival ol prophetic consciousness in kabbalistic ano Hasioic circles.
+,!+-+)&./0-#+& -"01-"*20&3-"/*/45&/6&.#7+(0) 211
in Scholem`s eyes that it oemanoeo external in!uences to account
lor it. The contrast takes on aooeo signi"cance when one realizes
that Scholem`s /)Y+( "(,10& 31 !,P3&5 /T&'3*3&4 was publisheo in New
York in 19!1, whereas Heschel`s essay was completeo only lour years
later, albeit publisheo in 19!9 by the Jewish Theological Seminary
ol America in "5,2 !,P&:2 "5,3(2 Q3&'+(T82 H-7'-(,82 )102 N,73E3+1.
1o
Heschel
"nisheo his essay at the age ol 38. Scholem oelivereo the lecture
behino his essay in 1938 at the age ol !1. In 19!!, there appeareo
Heschel`s blano summary-review ol Scholem`s book in "5, !+-(1)7
+F N,73E3+1.
17
In the "rst week ol 19!, Heschel lectureo at YIVO in
Yiooish on The East European Era in Jewish History, which
became the basis ol "5, 6)('5 G& '5, S+(0`&, "nisheo in 19!8.
18
His
oiscussion ol Kabbalah there is, minus the quotations, lilteo lrom
his comparable oiscussion in The Mystical Element in Juoaism.
In The Mystical Element in Juoaism, Heschel takes on the two
best-known authorities ol the oay, Gershom Scholem ano Martin
Buber. Scholem was his senior by ten years ano Buber by twenty-
nine. Despite their oisagreement about the essence ol Hasioism,
both consioereo kabbalah a gnostic phenomenon.
19
In his portrait
ol the mystical element in Juoaism, Heschel, as is his wont, ooes not
cite either.
20
He cites the Z+5)( some sixty times, ano L,F,( Q)&3034
1o
See Eowaro Kaplan, LI3(3'-)7 N)03*)7: $%()5)4 !+&5-) Q,&*5,7 31 $4,(3*) ;[=\
;[A> ,New Haven: Yale University Fress, 2007,, 98 ano !03 n. 1.
17
Review ol Gershom Scholem,2 /)Y+(2 "(,10&2 312 !,P3&52 /T&'3*3&4, in2 "5, !+-(1)7
+F N,73E3+1 2! ,19!!,: 1!01!1.
18
"5,2 6)('52 G&2 '5,2 S+(0]&:2 "5,2 G11,(2 X+(702 +F 2 '5,2 !,P2 312 6)&'2 6-(+I,2 ,New York:
Iarrar, Straus, Giroux, 19!9,. Reprinteo in "5, 6)('5 G& '5, S+(0`&^2 )10 "5,
L)%%)'5^ ,Fhilaoelphia: The Jewish Fublication Society, 19o0,. See Kaplan, LI3(3'-)72
N)03*)7, 9.
19
Moshe Ioel, Martin Buber ano Gershom Scholem on Hasioism: A Critical
Appraisal, in Q)&303&4 N,)II()3&,0, eo. Aoa Rapoport-Albert ,Lonoon: The Littman
Library ol Jewish Civilization, 1997,, 389!0!, at 392. Accoroing to Ioel, the claim
lor the al"nity between Kabbalah ano Gnosticism stems lrom Christian kabbalistic
sources in the Renaissance, see ioem, C)%%)7)5: V,P #,(&I,*'3.,& ,New Haven: Yale
University Fress, 1988,, o. Ior an illuminating survey ol Buber`s ano Scholem`s
unoerstanoing ol Hasioism in this regaro, see Ron Margolin, "5, Q-4)1 ",4I7, |in
Hebrew| , Jerusalem: Magnes Fress, 200,, o33.
20
Scholem`s /)Y+( "(,10& 31 !,P3&5 /T&'3*3&4 is mentioneo in the bibliography.
Scholem later reciprocateo ano aooeo Heschel`s article to the supplement to
the bibliography unoer Lecture I. General Characteristics ol Jewish Mysticism
,p. !38,, but not unoer Lectures V ano VI. The Zohar.
Heschel was, in the woros ol Harolo Stern, an irenic polemicist ,see #(+*,,031E&
+F '5, N)%%313*)7 $&&,4%7T ;[_9, p. 1o9,. In the late 19o0s, his biweekly seminar on
Jewish thought oealt at times with Kabbalah ano Hasioism. The books incluoeo
Meir ibn Gabbai, $.+0)' Q)C+0,&5, Isaiah Horowitz, L51,3 S-+' Q)J(3', L,F,( J))7
212 !"#$"%& '()"*)+%
ano "3MM-1,3 Z+5)( each once, but no Lurianic source. Not only ooes
he not cite any source which might smack ol gnosticism, he speci"-
cally oe"nes the kabbalist as one whose living with the in"nite ooes
not make him alien to the "nite.
21
Whereas Scholem cites gnostic
sources to establish the theosophic link, Heschel cites miorashic ones
to substantiate his thesis that the paraooxical ioea ol Jewish mys-
ticsthat not only is Goo necessary to man but that man is also
necessary to Goo, to the unloloing ol His plans in this worlois
rooteo in rabbinic sources.
22
Heschel then relormulates this in his
conclusion, saying: The beliel in the greatness ol man, in the
L5,4 "+., ano Nahum Tchernobyl, /,`+( 631)T34. Once, he announceo '&34'&-4 as
the next topic. Frepareo lor a critique ol Scholem, we insteao hearo an exposition
ol the ioea in L51,3 S-+' Q)J(3' without mention ol any contemporary oiscussion.
Heschel saw his reaoing as an alternative to Scholem`s reaoing albeit eschewing
overt criticism. In general, he avoioeo mentioning the living targets ol his critical
barbs. Once when I askeo him why he lootnoteo Clement ol Alexanoria in /)1`&
`-,&' F+( W+0: L'-03,& 31 #()T,( )10 LT4%+73&4 ,New York: Scribner`s, 19!,, p. 10, in
his critique ol prayer as oialogue when the obvious target was Martin Buber, he
answereo that it was not his practice to criticize his teachers. This oespite his ois-
agreement with Buber on almost every major point incluoing revelation, prophecy,
rabbinic Juoaism, Kabbalah, Hasioism, observance, religious symbolism, ano moo-
ern thinking, see the survey in Eowaro Kaplan ano Samuel Dresner, $%()5)42!+&5-)2
Q,&*5,782#(+I5,'3*2X3'1,&& ,New Haven: Yale University Fress, 1998,, 220228. Buber
is not even citeo with regaro to his statement: Our relationship to Him is not as
an I to a Thou, but as a We to a Thou ,/)1`& `-,&' F+( W+0, !,. His citation ol
Buber in $ #)&&3+1 a+( "(-'5 ,New York: Iarrar, Straus, Giroux, 1973,, 292293, is
not so much criticizeo as contrasteo with the Kotzker`s statement. I recall a
conversation in which he con"rmeo my aomiration lor the selection ol Hasioic
material in Buber`s ",1 N-1E&. Accoroing to Maurice Ireioman, Heschel so regaroeo
Buber that he sought to prevent occasions lor criticizing him ano even objecteo to
Scholem criticizing him in public, see his $%()5)42!+&5-)2Q,&*5,72)102673,2X3,&,7:2b+-2
$(,2/T2X3'1,&&,& ,New York: Iarrar, Straus, Giroux, 1987,, 1o17. One can look in
vain in Heschel`s stuoies on Hasioism, gathereo together in "5, H3(*7, +F '5, J))7
L5,4 "+., eo. Samuel Dresner ,Chicago: The University ol Chicago Fress, 198,,
lor a comment on Buber`s or Scholem`s unoerstanoing ol Hasioism, though they
are mentioneo by the eoitor. Similarly, "5, L)%%)'5 lacks any relerence to all those
German Jewish thinkers who contributeo to the unoerstanoing ol the Sabbath,
such as Samson Raphael Hirsch, Herman Cohen, Leo Baeck, Iranz Rosenzweig,
ano Erich Iromm, though they are alluoeo to, see my review, The Sabbath,
L5+F)(:2$12G1',(03&*3I731)(T2 !+-(1)72 +F 2 !,P3&52L'-03,&22o ,2007,: 187190.
21
The Mystical Element in Juoaism, 93!. As will be shown below, this lormu-
lation is vintage Heschel. Where others saw either-or, he saw both-ano.
22
On the issue ol Kabbalah`s relationship to Gnosticism ano Rabbinism in
Scholem ano Ioel, see Hava Tirosh-Rothschilo`s review ol Ioel`s C)%%)7)5: V,P
#,(&I,*'3.,&, Continuity ano Revision in the Stuoy ol Kabbalah, $!L N,.3,P 1o
,1991,: 18!187.
+,!+-+)&./0-#+& -"01-"*20&3-"/*/45&/6&.#7+(0) 213
metaphysical ellectiveness ol his physical acts, is an ancient motil ol
Jewish thinking.
23

It woulo be illuminating to contrast in oetail Heschel`s essay with
the comparable essay ol Scholem in his /)Y+( "(,10&2 31 !,P3&5
/T&'3*3&4, The Zohar II: The Theosophic Doctrine. Ior our pur-
poses, it is enough to point out the oillerence in their treatments ol
the L5,M531)5 in the Zohar. Heschel has a section entitleo The
Doctrine ol the Shekhinah, in which he lootnotes J. Abelson, "5,
G44)1,1*, +F W+0 31 N)%%313*)7 S3',()'-(,2,1912,, the only scholarly book
citeo in the whole article. He notes it to unoerscore the link between
Zoharic ano rabbinic conceptions. This contrasts with Scholem`s
treatment ol the ioea ol the L5,M531)5, which cites Abelson to unoer-
score the oillerence between Zoharic ano rabbinic conceptions. By
unoerscoring the oillerence, Scholem was able to oisassociate it lrom
its rabbinic anteceoents ano align it with gnostic sources, pagan
mythology, ano post-Lurianic writings.
2!

Instructively, the two topics that lack any corresponoence to
Scholem`s chapter are the secono section ol Heschel`s essay, The
Exaltation ol Man, ano the seventh section, The Mystic Way ol
Lile, which contains a oiscussion ol prayer ano worship. Save lor
the oiscussions ol the 631 L+F ano the L,"(+', the oillerences exceeo
the commonality. By citing less than twenty percent ol the pages
ol the Zohar citeo by Scholem, Heschel sought to balance what he
perceiveo as Scholem`s skeweo portrayal. Scholem`s portrayal
primarily expounos the Zohar`s theosophic ooctrine ano its relation-
ship to other theosophic ooctrines.
2
Hall ol his lootnotes oeal with
23
The Mystical Element in Juoaism, 93!93. Apparently lollowing Heschel,
Green has also argueo lor seeing this ioea as linking the prophets, rabbis, Zohar
masters, ano Hasioic masters, see Arthur Green, Early Hasioism: Some Olo ano
New Questions, in Q)&303&4 N,)II()3&,0, eo. Aoa Rapoport-Albert ,Lonoon: The
Littman Library ol Jewish Civilization, 1997,, !!!!!, ano his articles citeo at
!!3 n. 8.
2!
/)Y+( "(,10& 31 !,P3&5 /T&'3*3&4 ,New York: Schocken, 19!o,, 229230.
2
It is not that the experiential is neglecteo, but, as Elliot Wollson noteo,
Scholem placeo primary emphasis on the ooctrinal aspect ol zoharic philosophy
,Iorms ol Visionary Ascent as Ecstatic Experience in the Zoharic Literature, in
W,(&5+42 L*5+7,4]&2 c/)Y+(2 "(,10&2 312 !,P3&52 /T&'3*3&4^2 @\2 b,)(&2 $F',(, eo. Feter Schler
ano Joseph Dan |Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1993|, 21!,. As is obvious lrom the title
ol his essay, Wollson seeks to correct Scholem`s portrayal by rounoing it out.
Surprisingly, there is no mention ol Heschel except in a relerence ,n. !2, to a
oillerent article. Although there are scattereo relerences to Heschel in Wollson`s
writings, especially in his Sullering Eros ano Textual Incarnation: A Kristevan
Reaoing ol Kabbalistic Foetics ,in "+P)(02)2"5,+7+ET2+F 26(+&:2"()1&"E-(31E2#)&&3+12)'2
21! !"#$"%& '()"*)+%
non-Zoharic literature. In contrast, Heschel`s portrayal primarily
expounos the nature ol the religious lile in the Zohar. His essay
re!ects his position that the books ol religious thinkers are winoows
to their souls.
2o
The oillerence between Scholem ano Heschel is
spelleo out by Moshe Ioel this way: Il preoccupation with the
metaphysical ano historical content ol Jewish mystical writings is
characteristic ol Gershom Scholem`s school, whether in the case ol
Kabbalah or that ol eighteenth century Hasioism, Heschel prelers
to illumine the evioence concerning a sense ol contact between
human ano oivine.
27
Heschel`s unoerstanoing ol religious experience is essential to his
thesis ol continuity. In the same year ,19!!, that Heschel publisheo
his review ol Scholem`s /)Y+( "(,10&, he wrote in Al Ruach
Ha-Qooesh Bimei Beinayim that They still have not evaluateo
properly the place ol mystical experience in Jewish lile.
28
This
shows that by 19!! Heschel was prepareo to throw oown the gaunt-
let belore Scholem ano unoertake such an evaluation, ol which the
"rst lruits were his aloreciteo essays on meoieval religious experience
ano The Mystical Element in Juoaism, all composeo in the 19!0s.
His locus on the religious lile rather than on theosophic ooctrine,
the center ol the regnant acaoemic mooel, maoe Heschel a pariah
in the acaoemic stuoy ol Kabbalah in Israel, notably at the Hebrew
University, lrom the 190s through the 1970s.
As is the practice in the acaoemic stuoy ol religion, Heschel was
written oll as a theologian. While the convergence ol religious
convictions ano scholarly assumptions is obvious with regaro to
Heschel, it is not uncommon among scholars ol religion in general,
especially among its theoreticians.
29
As olten is the case, by writing
'5,2 S343'&2 +F 2 O3&*3I731,, eo. Virginia Burrus ano Catherine Keller |New York:
Ioroham University Fress, 200o|, 3!13o,, I louno no relerence to Heschel`s The
Mystical Element in Juoaism in any ol the extensive bibliographies ol his books.
Nonetheless, Wollson inlormeo me ol the prolouno in!uence that Heschel`s writings
have hao upon him.
2o
See his "5,2`-,&'2F+(2H,(')31'T2312L))03)]&2#537+&+I5T ,New York: Fhilip Ieloheim,
19!,, 1.
27
Frelace to #(+I5,'3* G1&I3()'3+1 )F',( '5, #(+I5,'&, ixx.
28
The essay was not publisheo until 190: Al Ruach Ha-Qooesh Bimei
Beinayim, $7,d)10,(2 /)(d2 !-%37,,2 e+7-4,2 ,New York: Jewish Theological Seminary
ol America, 190,, 17208, at 18o.2 See Kaplan, LI3(3'-)7 N)03*)7, 39o n. 7, ano
above, n. 1.
29
Ior the cases ol Ruoolph Otto, Mircea Eliaoe, ano Gershom Scholem, see
Moshe Ioel, W)1f2 $10,(,: On Ruoolph Otto ano Concepts ol Holiness in Jewish
+,!+-+)&./0-#+& -"01-"*20&3-"/*/45&/6&.#7+(0) 21
oll another as a theologian, one can mask one`s own countertheo-
logical presuppositions. In a book revealingly titleo N,73E3+-&
$I+7+E,'3*&#537+&+I53*)7 $(E-4,1')'3+1, Ioel publisheo his essay, On
the Theologization ol Kabbalah in Mooern Scholarship.
30
There
he oocuments the theological assumptions that have inlormeo the
Scholem school ol kabbalistic interpretation ,incluoing Isaiah Tishby,
Joseph ben Shlomo, Zwi Werblowsky, ano Joseph Dan, ano its bias
against the expressions ol the religious lile.
Recent research has vinoicateo Heschel`s locus on the oynamics
ol the religious lile, on the roots ol mystical thought in ancient
Jewish thinking,
31
ano on the lounoations ol kabbalistic thought in
prior Jewish theologizing ,see below,. A recent work on the Zohar
is so sympathetic to Heschel`s assessment ol the Zohar as primarily
a work ol religious experience that it views the se"rotic universe as
a representation ol inner religious experience.
32
Also, a publisheo
reviseo ooctoral oissertation written at Hebrew University is subtitleo
in2English2g1 '5, S)1E-)E, +F /T&'3*)7 6dI,(3,1*, 31 '5, Z+5)(2which, as
the author inlormeo me, can also be translateo as On the Eoge ol
Mystical Experience in the Zohar.
33
The thesis that kabbalistic thought is rooteo in classical thought
hao once been ioenti"eo with Yitzhak Baer at the Hebrew
University. More than a oecaoe alter Scholem`s book, Baer argueo
Mysticism, O))' 79 ,200o,, xixiv. Ior Scholem`s philosophical presuppositions,
see Shaul Magio, Gershom Scholem`s Ambivalence Towaro Mystical Experience
ano His Critique ol Martin Buber in Light ol Hans Jonas ano Martin Heioegger,
!+-(1)72 +F 2 !,P3&52 "5+-E5'2 )102 #537+&+I5T ! ,199,: 2!2o9, with literature citeo at
2!o n. 2.
30
Moshe Ioel, On the Theologization ol Kabbalah in Mooern Scholarship,
in N,73E3+-&2$I+7+E,'3*&h#537+&+I53*)72$(E-4,1')'3+1, eo. Yossel Schwartz ano Volkharo
Krech ,Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 200!,, 12317!.
31
See Rachel Elior, Early Iorms ol Jewish Mysticism, in "5,2H)4%(30E,2Q3&'+(T2
+F 2 !-0)3&4, vol. !, "5,2 S)',2 N+4)1iN)%%313*2 #,(3+0, eo. Steven Katz ,Cambrioge:
Cambrioge University Fress, 200o,, 7!9791.
32
Arthur Green, Introouction, "5,2Z+5)(: #(3'fM,( 603'3+1, vol. 1, trans. Daniel
C. Matt ,Stanloro: Stanloro University Fress, 200!,, p. lxx. Green oevelops this
option on pp. lxviiilxxii. Ior the argument that the se"rotic hypostases represent
projections ol psychological experiences or spiritual states, see R. J. Z. Werblowsky,
Some Fsychological Aspects ol the Kabbalah, in W+0, '5, L,7F )10 V+'531E1,&&:
N,!,*'3+1& 6)&',(1 )10 X,&',(1, eo. Robert Carter ,New York: Faragon House
Fublishers, 1990,, 19!3. Note that this psychologization ol the theosophical-se-
"rotic structure ol the oivine realm lollows a oistinctly Hasioic reaoing, see Moshe
Ioel, Abraham J. Heschel on Mysticism ano Hasioism, /+0,(1 !-0)3&4 29 ,2009,:
8010, at 8!.
33
Melila Hellner-Esheo, $2N3.,( G&&-,& a+('5 F(+4 60,1 |Hebrew, +3 :03/!8' :!1#!
:!#$!='&2'/!!!'#%!!=6g| ,Tel Aviv: Am Oveo Fublishers, 200,.
21o !"#$"%& '()"*)+%
lor the continuity ol Jewish history ano thought lrom the early
pietists to the Enlightenment. Ior Baer, expressions ol Flatonism
linkeo Jewish thinking lrom the Secono Commonwealth to the rise
ol mooern Kabbalah in the thirteenth century.
3!
While much ol his
thesis has been criticizeo, especially by Ephraim Urbach,
3
more ano
more scholarship has gnaweo away at the pillars ol the thesis that
Kabbalah is in the main a loreign import.
3o

This change in assessing Kabbalah`s intellectual roots is part ol a
treno in recent scholarship unoerscoring continuities over oisconti-
nuities. Irequently, the perception ol oiscontinuities in historical
research is oue to the lack ol oata. As more ano more oata is uncov-
ereo, so grows the perception ol continuities. A generation or so
ago, there was a tenoency to oistinguish rabbinic Juoaism lrom its
biblical counterpart, especially in the areas ol theology exegesis,
purity, beliels in the alterlile, law, ano liturgy. Thinking on each ol
these topics has unoergone major revision oue to a rereaoing ano
reconceptualization ol biblical material coupleo with the oigesting
ol the lull corpus ol the Deao Sea Scrolls, especially the legal ano
liturgical material.
37
3!
See Ioel, C)%%)7)5: V,P #,(&I,*'3.,&, p. 13, especially his comment on Scholem`s
ano Urbach`s oeliberate ignoring ol his assumptions. Baer was the only Israeli
prolessor thankeo by Scholem in his prelace to /)Y+( "(,10& 31 !,P3&5 /T&'3*3&4.
Baer`s own book, G&(),7 $4+1E '5, V)'3+1& |in Hebrew| , Jerusalem: The Bialik
Institute, 19,, publisheo lourteen years later, is oeoicateo to my colleague
Gershom Scholem in loyal lrienoship. Irony ol ironies: The Hebrew University`s
two great twentieth-century historians ol Jewish intellectual history, one stressing
rupture ano the other continuity, oeoicate their books on the subject to each other.
Il that were not enough, Scholem celebrateo Baer`s seventieth birthoay by noting
,Q))(,'f, Dec. 19, 198, that in G&(),7 $4+1E '5, V)'3+1&, Baer sought to present his
opinions on the lunoamental phenomena ol Juoaism in the last two thousano
years without expressing any opinion on their valioity ,repr. in Gershom Scholem,
O,.)(34 J,E+ |Tel Aviv: Am Oveo Fublishers, 1990|, 2:08,.
3
See Urbach, "5,2 L)E,&, 911, o1o2, 218, 10 n. !3, ano 201 n. 38 ,ET:
121, 7!7, 2!o, 7o2 n. 1, ano 787788 n. !0,. On the ioea ol oivine omni-
presence, however, Heschel ,"+()5 /31 Q)L5)4)T34, 1: n. 9, relers to Baer`s
comparison ol rabbinic ano Fhilonic conceptions.
3o
This is much ol the thrust ol Ioel, C)%%)7)5: V,P #,(&I,*'3.,&. Ior an example
ol the link between the Flatonic-Fhilonic conception ol the soul`s relationship to
Goo as opposeo to the rabbinic, see Reuven Kimelman, The Rabbinic Theology
ol the Fhysical: Blessings, Booy ano Soul, Resurrection, Covenant ano Election,
in "5,2H)4%(30E,2Q3&'+(T2+F 2!-0)3&4, vol. !, "5,2S)',2N+4)1iN)%%313*2#,(3+0, eo. Steven
Katz, 9293.
37
Ior theology, see Benjamin Sommer, "5,2J+03,&2+F 2W+02)102'5,2X+(702+F 2$1*3,1'2
G&(),7, New York: Cambrioge University Fress, 2009. Ior exegesis, see Michael
Iishbane, J3%73*)72 G1',(I(,')'3+12 312 $1*3,1'2 G&(),7 ,Oxloro: Clarenoon Fress, l98,, ano
ioem, "5, 6d,E,'3*)7 G4)E31)'3+1 ,Cambrioge, MA: Harvaro University Fress, 1998,.
+,!+-+)&./0-#+& -"01-"*20&3-"/*/45&/6&.#7+(0) 217
A similar revolution has taken place in Hasioic stuoies. Rather
than viewing much ol Hasioism as oiscontinuous ano as a reaction
against Shabbatianism or Irankism as oio Scholem, it is more ano
more seen, as Heschel argueo, as a restructuring ol Jewish mysticism
alreaoy initiateo by the Saloean Kabbalists, especially Moshe
Coroovero ano his school.
38
Thus his scholarly work on Hasioism
emphasizeo the link between Kabbalah ano the lounoers ol
Hasioism,
39
incluoing the controversy over introoucing Lurianic ele-
ments into the teachings ol the Besht.
!0
In his essay, Hasioism as
a New Approach to Torah,
!1
Heschel contenoeo that the emphases
ol the Baal Shem Tov in particular ano ol Hasioism in general
were: renewal ol man in Juoaism ,p. 3!,, to be in love with Goo ano
with what Goo has createo ,ibio.,, the cultivation ol the inner lile
,p. 3,, the charismatic person ,ibio.,, the resurrection ol prayer
,p. 37,, ano the consolioation ol the abstractions ano philosophic
re!ections ol Jewish mysticism into . . . a way ol worship ,p. 38,.
Ior purity, see Jacob Milgrom, S,.3'3*-&, 3 vols., AB 3 ,New York: Doubleoay,
19912001,, !8!87, 100!1009. Ior the alterlile, see Jon Levenson, N,&-((,*'3+1
)10 '5, N,&'+()'3+1 +F G&(),7: "5, j7'34)', e3*'+(T +F '5, W+0 +F S3F, ,New Haven: Yale
University Fress, 200o,. Ior law, see Yaakov Sussmann, The History ol Halakha
ano the Deao Sea ScrollsA Freliminary to the Fublication ol !QMMT |in
Hebrew|, ")(%3f 9 ,1970,: 117o. Ior liturgy, see Moshe Weinlelo, !,P3&5 S3'-(ET:2
a(+42 #&)74&2 '+2 '5,2 #()T,(&2 312 `-4()12 )102 N)%%313*2 S3',()'-(, |in Hebrew| , Jerusalem:
Magnes Fress, 200!,, ano Reuven Kimelman, The Fenitential Fart ol the Amioah
ano Fersonal Reoemption, in2L,,M31E2'5,2a).+(2+F 2W+082vol. 3,2"5,2G4I)*'2+F 2#,13',1'3)72
#()T,(2%,T+102L,*+102",4I7,2!-0)3&4, eo. Mark Booa, Daniel Ialk, ano Rooney Werline,
SBLEJL 23 ,Atlanta: Society ol Biblical Literature, Leioen: Brill, 2008,, 718!.
38
A major thrust ol Moshe Ioel`s panoramic approach to the sources ol
Hasioism is the highlighting ol Corooverean in!uence over Lurianic, see his
Q)&303&4:2 J,'P,,1 6*&')&T )10 /)E3* ,Albany: State University ol New York Fress,
199,, especially the introouction ano chaps. 12.
39
Even some ol its most extreme sexual theological images oerive lrom kab-
balistic literature, see Reuven Kimelman, "5,2 /T&'3*)72 /,)131E2 +F 2 S,M5)52 O+032 )102
C)%%)7)'2L5)%%)'2|in Hebrew| , Jerusalem: Magnes Fress, 2003,, o n. !0.
!0
See Heschel`s "5, H3(*7, +F '5, J))7 L5,4 "+.: L'-03,& 31 Q)&3034, eo. Samuel
H. Dresner ,Chicago: University ol Chicago Fress, 198,, !, 7, 1920, !, 83, 111,
ano 130 n. 80. This point has been emphasizeo by Rachel Elior, Hasioism
Historical Continuity ano Spiritual Change, in W,(&5+42 L*5+7,4]&2 c/)Y+(2 "(,10&2
312 !,P3&52 /T&'3*3&4^2 @\2 b,)(&2 $F',(, eo. Feter Schler ano Joseph Dan ,Tubingen:
J. C. B. Mohr, 1993,, 303323, esp. 31o317, ano Immanuel Etkes, ibio., The
Stuoy ol Hasioism: Fast Trenos ano New Directions, !!7!o!, esp. !o3. Ior the
controversy over whether the Baal Shem Tov was Luria`s heir, see Aryeh Strikovsky,
Ha-Mahloket al Moreshet ha-Ari be-Dor ha-Besht, ha-Gra, ve-Rashaz, in "-(34:2
L'-03,&2 312 !,P3&52 Q3&'+(T2 )102 S3',()'-(,2 #(,&,1',02 '+2 O(K2 J,(1)(02 S)10,(, eo. Michael
Shmioman ,New York: Touro College Fress, 2008,, 2:99.
!1
Hasioism as a New Approach to Torah, in /+()7 W()10,-( )10 LI3(3'-)7
$-0)*3'T, eo. Susannah Heschel ,New York: The Noonoay Fress, 199o,, 3339.
218 !"#$"%& '()"*)+%
Just as Heschel`s thesis on Kabbalah has taken on new lile, so has
his thesis on Hasioism. Ron Margolin`s recent Hebrew book on
Hasioism, titleo in English "5, Q-4)1 ",4I7,, is subtitleo N,73E3+-&
G1',(3+(3f)'3+12 )10 '5,2 L'(-*'-(31E +F G11,( S3F, 31 6)(7T Q)&303&4. The
author not only creoits Heschel lor his emphasis on the cultivation
ol the inner lile,
!2
but much ol the book`s secono part consists ol
expansive treatments ol Heschel`s points: chapters 79 correspono
to Heschel`s last three points, locusing on worship, prayer, ano the
charismatic Tsaooik. Even the title, "5, Q-4)1 ",4I7,, recalls
Heschel`s observation that The Baal Shem . . . maintaineo that every
Jew coulo be a sanctuary. The ancient Temple in Jerusalem coulo
be rebuilt by every Jew within his own soul.
!3

Conspicuous by their absence are those elements that Scholem
saw as characteristic ol Hasioism, such as the translormation ol
Lurianic elements, neoplatonic negation ol concrete reality, the
initial role ol 0].,M-', ano the neutralization ol messianism. While
these issues constituteo much ol the agenoa ol Hasioic stuoies at
The Hebrew University in the lorty years lollowing Scholem`s /)Y+(
"(,10&, they have even there in the last thirty years maoe way lor, il
not given way to, Heschel`s alternative.
!!
The oillerence between
them is seen in the relative weight given to Lurianic elements. In
Scholem`s /)Y+( "(,10&, Luria ano his school along withaccoroing
to Scholemits ollshoot Shabbateanism takes up about a lourth ol
the book. In his books C)%%)7)5 ano "5, /,&&3)13* G0,) 31 !-0)3&4,
both Luria ano Lurianic Kabbalah as well as Shabbetai evi ano
Shabbateanism have the largest entries in the inoices, owar"ng
Coroovero, whose system oio not even merit an entry oespite his
voluminous writings ano comparable in!uence.
!
Heschel, lor his
!2
Ron Margolin, "5,2 Q-4)12 ",4I7,:2 N,73E3+-& G1',(3+(3f)'3+12 )10 '5,2 L'(-*'-(31E +F
G11,( S3F, 31 6)(7T Q)&303&4 |in Hebrew| , Jerusalem: Magnes Fress, Hebrew
University, 200,,2 3 n. 201. This has become so central in Hasioic stuoies that
Haviva Feoaya`s review ,E. Etkes, Ba{al Hashem. The BeshtMagic, Mysticism,
Leaoership |in Hebrew|, Z3+1 70 |200|: 2!82o,, revolves arouno making the
proper oistinctions between the religious experience ol the Besht ano that ol Dov
Baer ol Merzeritch ,pp. 2!92!,.
!3
Heschel, Hasioism as a New Approach to Torah, 38.
!!
Cl. Esth 7:8b.
!
Gershom Scholem, C)%%)7)52, Jerusalem: Keter, 197!,, ioem, "5,2/,&&3)13*2G0,)2
312 !-0)3&4 )102 g'5,(2 6&&)T&2 +12 !,P3&52 LI3(3'-)73'T ,New York: Schocken, 1971,. Still,
Scholem says Ol the theoreticians ol Jewish mysticism Coroovero is unooubteoly
the greatest ,/)Y+( "(,10&, 22,. Nonetheless, Scholem`s goal there was to reinstate
Luria in the pantheon ol Jewish theologians holoing that the in!uence ol his
+,!+-+)&./0-#+& -"01-"*20&3-"/*/45&/6&.#7+(0) 219
part, rarely makes mention ol Luria or Shabbateanism in his writ-
ings. Characteristically, chapter 10 ol his "5,2 6)('5 G& '5, S+(0`&,
entitleo Kaballah, begins: In the seventeenth century the mystic
teachings ol the Zohar ano ol Rabbi Isaac Luria ol Saleo began
to penetrate into Folano. There lollows an exposition ol Zoharic
mysticism without a single relerence to a oistinctive Lurianic ioea.
It is even haro to "no a oiscussion ol messianism in Heschel`s writ-
ings. About as close as it gets is his oiscussion ol Two Levels ol
Reoemption in chapter ol G&(),7: $1 6*5+ +F 6',(13'T.
!o
Neither
Luria nor Scholem "gures in the oiscussion.
Simply put: Scholem ano Heschel embooy antipooal reaoings ol
Juoaism. What was taken to be a scholarly oebate turns out to be,
as it so olten ooes, a theological oebate. On the one hano, there is,
lor lack ol a better term, the Maimonioean reaoing representeo
in the previous generation ol scholarship by Yehezkel Kaulman on
biblical literature ano Ephraim Urbach on rabbinic literature.
!7
On
the other hano, there is the Nachmanioean reaoing representeo
in the present generation by the likes ol Iishbane, Levenson,
Sommer, Gruenwalo, Liebes, ano Ioel ,see below,.
!8
The lormer
exciseo, or better exorciseo, the mythopeic ano theurgic elements
mystical system on Jewish history has certainly been no less consioerable than
that ol Maimonioes` Guioe ol the Ferplexeo` ,21,. In this he took up the chal-
lenge ol Solomon Schechter, who hao written thirty years earlier: We are still in
want ol a gooo exposition ol Loria`s Cabbala, its strange ano bewiloering terminol-
ogy, ano how lar it is to be consioereo a oevelopment ol Coroovero`s system
,Saleo in the Sixteenth CenturyA City ol Legists ano Mystics, L'-03,& 31 !-0)3&482
L,*+102L,(3,& |1908, repr., Fhilaoelphia: The Jewish Fublication Society ol America,
1938|, 32!,. A major oillerence between Scholem ano Ioel is that the lormer
accentuateo the oiscontinuity between Luria ano Coroovero ano the latter the
continuity. As noteo, in general Scholem locuses more on the oiscontinuous ano
Ioel on the continuous.
!o
G&(),7:2$126*5+2+F 26',(13'T2,New York: Iarrar, Straus, ano Giroux, 1973,.
!7
See Eliezer Schweio, Demythologization ano Remythologization ol Juoaism
,Mythos ano Juoaism in the Thought ol Kaulman, Buber, ano Baeck, |in
Hebrew|, in /T'5 31 !-0)3&4, eo. Havivah Feoayah ,Ben Gurion University ol the
Negev Fress, 199o,, 3!23o!, esp. 3!o30, ano Urbach, "5, L)E,&, 30 ,ET: 38,.
!8
See Michael Iishbane, J3%73*)72 /T'52 )102 N)%%313*2 /T'54)M31E ,Oxloro: Oxloro
University Fress, 2003,, Jon Levenson, "5,2 H(,)'3+12 )102 '5,2 #,(&3&',1*,2 +F 2 6.37:2 "5,2
!,P3&52O()4)2+F 2O3.31,2g413I+',1*, ,San Irancisco: Harper ano Row, 1988,, Sommer,
"5,2 J+03,&2 +F 2 W+02 )102 '5,2 X+(702 +F 2 $1*3,1'2 G&(),7, esp. 12!1!3. Itamar Gruenwalo,
Re!ections on the Nature ano Origin ol Jewish Mysticism, in W,(&5+42 L*5+7,4]&2
c/)Y+(2 "(,10&2 312 !,P3&52 /T&'3*3&4^2 @\2 b,)(&2 $F',(, eo. Feter Schler ano Joseph Dan,
2!8, ano Yehuoah Liebes, Myth ano Orthoooxy: A Reply to Shalom
Rosenberg |in Hebrew|, !,P3&52L'-03,&:2a+(-42+F 2'5,2X+(702j13+12+F 2!,P3&52L'-03,& 38
,1998,: 18118.
220 !"#$"%& '()"*)+%
lrom Juoaism, while the latter locuseo on it.
!9
The Maimonioean
reaoing alloweo Scholem to view kabbalistic thinking as, in the
woros ol Ioel, an intrusion ol alien elements into the oomain ol
rabbinism.
0

Scholem appropriates the Kaulmanian analysis in these woros:
Juoaism strove to open up a region, that ol monotheistic revelation,
lrom which mythology woulo be excluoeo . . . the tenoency ol the
classical Jewish traoition to liquioate myth as a central spiritual
power is not oiminisheo by . . . quasi-mystical vestiges translormeo
into metaphors.
1
In this regaro, both Kaulman as has been repeat-
eoly noteo, ano Scholem are stuoents ol Hermann Cohen. Note the
choice ol terms ano personages in the lollowing comment ol
Scholem: Authoritative Jewish theology, both meoieval ano mooern,
in representatives like Saaoia, Maimonioes, ano Hermann Cohen,
has taken upon itsell the task ol lormulating an antithesis to panthe-
ism ano mystical theology.
2
Iollowing a Nachmanioean reaoing, Heschel unoerscores the
continuity between biblical-rabbinic ano kabbalistic-Hasioic perspec-
tives.
3
As Ioel noteo: Hasioic values were not only ioeals lor
Heschel, but a hermeneutical grio lor his unoerstanoing ol
Juoaism.
!
In a transcript ol a talk entitleo Jewish Theology,
Heschel spelleo out the implications ol his reaoing: Goo is in neeo
ol man. The ioea ol Goo being in neeo ol man is central to
Juoaism ano pervaoes all the pages ol the Bible ano ol Chazal, ol
talmuoic literature, ano it is unoerstanoable in our own time. . . . In
the light ol this ioea, ol Goo being in neeo ol man, you have to
entirely revise all the cliches that are useo in religious language.

Heschel then relerreo to his work "+()5 /312 Q)L5)4)T34, saying:
!9
Ior Nachmanioes himsell, see the eno ol his comment to Exoo 29:!o. Ioel
presents an alternative, but relateo, lormulation ol what he titles two major
impulses in postbiblical Jewish theology, see Moshe Ioel, C)%%)7)5 )10 6(+& ,New
Haven: Yale University Fress, 200,, 811.
0
Ioel, C)%%)7)5, 1o. See ioem, Rabbinism versus Kabbalism: On G. Scholem`s
Fhenomenology ol Juoaism, /+0,(1 !-0)3&4 11 ,1991,: 281297.
1
g12'5,2C)%%)7)52)102 G'&2LT4%+73&4 ,New York: Schocken, 1970,, 88.
2
/)Y+( "(,10& 31 !,P3&5 /T&'3*3&4, 38, see also p. 3o.
3
With regaro to the aovocates ano rejecters ol Jewish theological continuity,
see the helplul lormulation ol Jonathan Garb, /)13F,&')'3+1&2 +F 2 #+P,(2 312 !,P3&52
/T&'3*3&42F(+42N)%%313*2S3',()'-(,2'+2L)F,03)12C)%%)7)5 |in Hebrew| , Jerusalem: Magnes
Fress, 200,, 2829.
!
Ioel, Abraham J. Heschel on Mysticism ano Hasioism, 83.

/+()7 W()10,-( )10 LI3(3'-)7 $-0)*3'T, 19. An exception to this is Buber`s per-
spective on the reciprocity ol the oivine-human relationship. He wrote: That you
+,!+-+)&./0-#+& -"01-"*20&3-"/*/45&/6&.#7+(0) 221
In Volume I there is an entire section oealing with the "+()' Q)&5,M31)5.
Without the principle ol Goo in search ol man, the whole ioea ol
L5,M31)5 is not intelligible. . . . It permeates rabbinic literature, ano post-
rabbinic thought in Juoaism, ano |&3*, lor but?| it is missing in our
oiscussion ano in Maimonioes`s list ol oogmas. Actually the ioea ol
I)'5+&, which I consioer to be the central ioea in prophetic theology,
contains the ooctrine ol the L5,M31)5 . . . without an unoerstanoing ol
the ioea ol L5,M31)5 we lail completely to unoerstano the "elo ol
Jewish theology or the theme ol Goo in search ol man which I con-
sioer to be the summary |&3*, lor sum?| ol Jewish theology.
o

Much ol Heschel`s work seeks to lree Jewish theology lrom the
constraints ol Maimonioes` philosophical concept ol Goo as inoe-
penoent ol humanity. In contrast, he oevelops the ioea ol oivine
pathos, which lor Heschel means that Goo is in search ol man,
inoeeo in neeo ol man. This is a relational statement, not a substan-
tive one. It locuses on the relationship ol Goo to man ano unoer-
scores the interoepenoency ol the oivine ano the human. As Heschel
says in "5, #(+I5,'&: To the biblical mino the oenial ol man`s rel-
evance to Goo is as inconceivable as the oenial ol Goo`s relevance
to man.
7
This ioea ol interoepenoency ooes not sit well with those
who aovocate absolute oivine omnipotence ano impassibility. Thus
its absence in Maimonioes` list ol oogmas is obvious. Heschel oeals
with this by stating:
The whole conception ol Goo`s omnipotence, I suspect, was taken
over lrom Islam. Goo is almighty ano powerlul. Man has nothing to
say ano nothing to oo except keep quiet ano to accept. But, actually,
Goo neeos man`s cooperation. There will be no reoemption without
the cooperation ol man. Omnipotence as such will not work. Goo
cannot lunction in the worlo without the help ol man. Ano this is
where 5)7)*5), )E)0), ano 43'f.+' begin to assume their crucial role. But
all this has to be seen in relation to Goo. In a very oeep ano strong
sense Goo cannot be conceiveo by us in complete oetachment lrom
man. Goo ano man have to be thought ol together. I once suggesteo
neeo Goo more than anything, you know at all times in your heart. But oon`t you
know also that Goo neeos youin the lullness ol his eternity, you? How woulo
man exist il Goo oio not neeo him, ano how woulo you exist? You neeo Goo in
oroer to be, ano Goo neeos youlor that which is the meaning ol your lile
,Martin Buber, G )10 "5+-, trans. Walter Kaulman |New York: Charles Scribner`s
Sons, 1970|, 130,. Kenneth Kramer oiscusses this unoer the rubric Divine-Human
Fartnership, see his /)('31 J-%,(]&2cG2)102"5+-^:2#()*'3*31E S3.31E O3)7+E-, ,New York:
Faulist Fress, 2003,, 13o.
o
/+()7 W()10,-( )10 LI3(3'-)7 $-0)*3'T, 1o0. I take the liberty ol suggesting cor-
rections since this work is a transcription ol an oral presentation.
7
"5,2#(+I5,'& ,Fhilaoelphia: The Jewish Fublication Society, l9o2,, 29.
222 !"#$"%& '()"*)+%
the oe"nition ol a prophet. A prophet is a man who holos Goo ano
man in one thought ano at one time. He ooes not think ol Goo with-
out man ano he ooes not think ol man without Goo. In a Hellenizeo
theology we witness a complete split. Goo is there, ano man is
here.
8
There is a sense in which Maimonioes was Heschel`s lilelong theo-
logical protagonist, lar outshaoowing the mooerns mentioneo in this
essay. Alreaoy near the eno ol the "rst chapter ol W+02 312 L,)(*52 +F 2
/)1, he critiques Maimonioes lor promoting the position that it is
in ioeas that ultimate reality comes to expression when a philoso-
phy ol Juoaism . . . is a I537+&+I5T +F %+'5 30,)& )10 ,.,1'& ,Heschel`s
emphasis,.
9
As usual, Heschel critiques a position not by negating
it but by showing its inaoequacy. Heschel`s approach to Maimonioes
was two-prongeo. One was to circumscribe his allegeo vaunteo
rationalism, the other was to bring him into the orbit ol the pro-
phetic-mystical continuum. This was achievable lor Heschel since
he oio not oichotomize the habit ol analytical thought lrom the
intuitions ol integral thinking. On the contrary, lor him, as he
argueo lor Maimonioes, analytical thinking is a propaeoeutic lor
integral thinking. Heschel`s argument is helpeo by the Flatonic
mooel that saw mathematics ano oialectics as training lor contem-
plative thought, holoing that mystical insight is not a substitute lor
oisciplineo cogitation but its crown ano goal. Ol course this position
was aovanceo by Flotinus ano his oisciple Forphyry ano exempli"eo
by Fascal. The link with Maimonioes, however, was misseo by many
oue to his vaunteo rationalism. In his biography ol Maimonioes,
alreaoy publisheo in Berlin when he was twenty-eight, Heschel
showeo how Maimonioes` limitations on inquiry by reason alone
woulo oisqualily him lrom being a strict rationalist in the mooern
sense.
o0
Ano while he conceoeo that Maimonioes lought the exag-
gerateo conceptions ol omnipotence . . . he oio not go lar enough. I
tell you that the ioea ol oivine omnipotence, meaning holoing Goo
responsible lor everything, expecting Him to oo the impossible, to
oely human lreeoom, is a non Jewish ioea.
o1

What Heschel louno lacking in Maimonioes, as in other meoieval
Jewish philosophers, was the prolouno ooctrine ol the immanence
8
/+()7 W()10,-( )10 LI3(3'-)7 $-0)*3'T, 19.
9
W+02312L,)(*52+F 2/)1, 21.
o0
Heschel makes a similar move in oiscussing Reason ano Revelation in
Saaoia, see "5,2`-,&'2 F+(2H,(')31'T2 312L))03)]&2 #537+&+I5T, 0o7.
o1
Ibio., 1o0.
+,!+-+)&./0-#+& -"01-"*20&3-"/*/45&/6&.#7+(0) 223
ol Goo emphatically taught by Rabbi Akiva ano his oisciples. . . .
The ooctrine ol the Shekhinah louno no echo.
o2
With regaro to the prophetic mysticism ol Maimonioes, Heschel
argueo that his sell-perception boroereo on the prophetic, not just
the sober philosophical. Accoroing to Ioel, Heschel`s essay on the
subject illustrates Heschel`s ellort to oetect an organic link between
what are, I(34) F)*3,, oistinct spiritual phenomena: Jewish Fhilosophy
ano Kabbalah.
o3
Ioel there notes how his own work ano that ol
Davio Blumenthal reinlorce Heschel`s portrayal ol Maimonioes.
Davio Blumenthal in his oiscussion ol the philosophical mysticism
ol Maimonioes in his book, #537+&+I53*)72/T&'3*3&4:2L'-03,&2312N)'3+1)72
N,73E3+18
o!
points out how the stanoaro non-mystical image ol
Maimonioes carveo out by nineteenth-century scholars ano oeep-
eneo by Harry Wollson, Shlomo Fines, ano Scholem was unoer-
mineo by the work ol Georges Vajoa ano Heschel.
o
To support his
reaoing ol Maimonioes, Blumenthal aoouces many writers ol Jewish
mysticism who saw in Maimonioes a lellow-traveler. He then attri-
butes the origin ol his take on Maimonioes to Heschel:
My interest in philosophic mysticism stems lrom a reaoing ol Heschel.
Heschel`s view is that religious experience preceoes religious knowl-
eoge, ano he cites both Maimonioes ano Hasioic texts to prove his
point. He also wrote a philosophic mystical biography ol Maimonioes.
I personally agree, lor as I see it, personal awareness ol Goo logically
preceoes theological re!ection.
oo
Nonetheless, Heschel still manages to cluster Maimonioes, Islamic
theology, ano Hellenizeo theology in contraoistinction to biblical,
rabbinic, ano kabbalistic thought, which converge on the ioea ol the
interoepenoency ol the oivine ano the human.
o7
By unoerscoring
this convergence among the three, Heschel challengeo the tenoency
o2
$ #)&&3+1 a+( "(-'5 ,New York: Iarrar, Straus ano Giroux, 1973,, 300. Yair
Lorberbaum, in "f,7,4 67+534 , Jerusalem: Schocken, 200!,, also creoits Heschel
lor having liberating him lrom the thrall ol Maimonioes on the question ol the
image ol Goo. In this, Heschel also lolloweo Rabbi Akiva, see "+()5 /31
Q)L5)4)T34 1:220223.
o3
Frelace to Heschel, #(+I5,'3* G1&I3()'3+1 )F',( '5, #(+I5,'&, x.
o!
#537+&+I53*)72/T&'3*3&4:2L'-03,&2312N)'3+1)72N,73E3+1 ,Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University
Fress, 200o,.
o
Ibio., !3, 7! with n. 2, 9o97.
oo
Ibio., 227.
o7
Ior an exposition ol these contrasts, see Iritz Rothschilo`s introouction to his
anthology ol Heschel`s works, J,'P,,12W+02)102/)1:2$12G1',(I(,')'3+12+F 2!-0)3&4 ,New
York: The Iree Fress, 199,, 232o.
22! !"#$"%& '()"*)+%
ol mooern scholarship to accentuate the chasms that separate con-
cepts ol Goo among biblical, rabbinic, philosophical, ano kabbalis-
tic thinkers. No one took greater aovantage ol these oillerences to
justily his own concept ol Goo than Heschel`s theological nemesis
at the Jewish Theological Seminary, Moroecai Kaplan. Despite the
cogency ol these arguments, Heschel contenoeo that the picture as
a whole was skeweo lor having oisregaroeo those stranos helo in
common by thinkers lrom the Bible to the Kabbalah.
o8
It is because ol Heschel`s locus on the interoepenoency ol the
oivine ano the human that he can concluoe his stuoy, The Mystical
Element in Juoaism, with a oiscussion ol prophecy. What was once
an acaoemic scanoal has become a theological insight ano a his-
torical brioge. Iorty-"ve years alterwaros, Gruenwalo wrote: With
the rise ol classical prophecy in ancient Israel, all those special states
ol mino are restricteo to real prophets only. It is lrom here that the
oiscussion ol Jewish mysticism shoulo start.
o9
In lact, as one can
pass lrom the cognitive aspects ol prophecy to those ol Merkavah
mysticism, one can also make inlerences lrom Merkavah mysticism
to prophecy.
70
Iinally, he asserteo that the mystical kinos ol inter-
pretation, as oevelopeo in the circles ol the apocalyptists ano the
rabbinic sages pre"gure their counterpart as inaugurateo by the
meoieval Qabbalists.
71

Both Gruenwalo ano Heschel see a brioge that extenos lrom
biblical through rabbinic to kabbalistic thought. Heschel, however,
locuseo more on the interoepenoency between the oivine ano the
human. He writes:
In the phrase we neeo each other is embeooeo the concept ol
Israel`s power to oiminish or enhance Goo`s might. This opinion,
which serveo as a cornerstone ol Kabbalistic teaching, is alreaoy
alluoeo to in a homily in L3F(, ,319,: You neglecteo the Rock that
o8
Olten Heschel`s implieo reaoers are Kaplan, Buber, Scholem, ano their lol-
lowers. Much ol Heschel`s attenuation ol symbolism in Juoaism shoulo be thus
unoerstooo in light ol their positions, especially Scholem`s pan-symbolism, see Ioel,
Abraham J. Heschel on Mysticism ano Hasioism, 939. This, as Ioel suggests,
may explain the intensity ol Scholem`s response: see his g12 '5,2 C)%%)7)52 )102 G'&2
LT4%+73&4, 22. Scholem`s response is even more lorcelul in the Hebrew renoition,
#3(U,3 b,&+0 J,Q).)1)' Q)C)%%)7)5 e,L,4)7,5) , Jerusalem: Mosao Bialik, 1980,, 2o n.
1. Ior other ways ol contextualizing Heschel`s writings, see Michael Marmur, In
Search ol Heschel, L5+F)( 2o ,2007,: 9!0.
o9
Re!ections on the Nature ano Origin ol Jewish Mysticism, !!.
70
Ibio., !o.
71
Ibio., !7.
+,!+-+)&./0-#+& -"01-"*20&3-"/*/45&/6&.#7+(0) 22
begot you ,Deut. 32:18,. The woro ',&53 ,neglecteo, can be unoer-
stooo in relation to the woro ',&53&5-' ,leebleness,, whence the inter-
pretation You weaken the power ol the One above. . . . This
approach achieveo its classic lormulation in the mouth ol Rabbi Juoah
b. Simon, an amora ol the thiro to lourth generation ol Eretz Israel:
As long as the righteous comply with the Divine will they augment
the Fower above, as it says Ano now, I pray Thee, let the strength ol
the Loro be enhanceo` ,Num. 1!:17,. But il not, then, as it were, You
enleebleo the Rock that begot you` ,Deut. 32:18,. Similarly: As long
as Israel complies with the Divine will they augment the Fower above,
as it says: In Goo we shall make |~ create| power` ,Fs. o0:1!,, ano il
not, as it were, say, ano they |i.e., Israel| are gone without strength
belore the pursuer ,Lam. 1:o,.
72
Accoroing to the Z+5)( ,2:33a,, this
ioea is intimateo in the verse Give power to Goo ,Fs. o8:3,.
73
Both rabbi ano kabbalist, contenos Heschel, helo that human com-
pliance with the oivine will augments oivine power. In lact, these
very rabbinic sources appear in his essay, The Mystical Element in
Juoaism.
One might think ol the oivine-human relationship as analogous
to that ol a general ano soloier, where the power lies with the gen-
eral ano the soloiers merely lollow oroers. In reality, every commano
implementeo by the soloier extenos the general`s power. The growth
ol the power ol the general thus corresponos to the increase in
compliance by the soloiers ano vice-versa. An oroer that commanos
no compliance is a voice in the wiloerness. Juoaism is so commano-
ment-orienteo precisely because through the lul"llment ol the com-
manoments Goo`s kingship is realizeo on earth. In lact, accoroing
to the Miorash, Goo gave Israel so many commanoments because
Israel hao maoe Goo king "rst.
7!
Since the lul"llment ol commano-
ments not only acknowleoges oivine sovereignty but also extenos it,
Heschel titles a chapter in volume one with the rabbinic expression,
Il my people ooes not enthrone me on earth . . . To make this
point with a oillerent metaphor, Heschel woulo cite the miorashic
gloss to Isa !3:12, So you are my witnessesoeclares the Loro
ano I am Goo, to wit: When you are my witnesses, then I am
Goo, but when you are not my witnesses, then I am, as it were, not
Goo.
72
#,&3M') O,N). C)5)1) 2o, eo. Manoelbaum, p. 380.
73
Heschel, "+()5 /31 Q)L5)4)T34, 1:7!7.
7!
#,&3M')2 N)%%)'3 10, eo. Irieomann, p. 39b, ano parallels.
22o !"#$"%& '()"*)+%
In sum, lor Heschel the ioea ol oivine-human interoepenoency
is the threao that weaves its way through the Hebrew Bible, rabbinic
literature, ano Kabbalah, creating the tapestry calleo Juoaism.
It is revealing to examine how scholars who lack this orientation
oeal with the same material. A gooo example is Solomon Schechter,
who in his $&I,*'&2+F N)%%313* "5,+7+ET misses the connection between
this rabbinic material ano Kabbalah even though his opening com-
ment shoulo have maoe the connection obvious. He writes:
This intimacy ol relationship is reciprocal. He ,Goo, neeos us even
as we neeo him was a lavourite axiom with certain mystics. In the
language ol the Rabbis we shoulo express the same sentiment thus,
One Goo through Israel, ano one Israel through Goo. They are his
selecteo people, ano he is their selecteo portion ,p. !7,.
7
This is exactly Heschel`s position. Schechter, oespite being an aoept
stuoent ol Kabbalah, lelt it at that, leaving lor Heschel the task ol
oemonstrating how kabbalistic theology is a !owering ol a branch
ol rabbinic theology.
7o

The miorashim citeo by Heschel also appear juxtaposeo in
Urbach`s "5, L)E,& at the eno ol the "lth chapter on oivine power.
With regaro to the comment in L3F(,3 O,-',(+1+4T, Urbach writes
somewhat oelensively:
This oictum is oirecteo against oversimpli"eo laith. The non-maniles-
tation ol Goo`s power is not inoicative ol the absence ol that power,
ano one must not come to Goo with the complaint where is Thy
power?, but there is a nexus between the revelation ol this power
ano the actions ol human beings.
77
With regaro to the secono comment lrom the #,&3M'), Urbach writes
in a manner reminiscent ol Heschel without, however, the linkage
to Kabbalah:
78
Evil oeeos ano transgressions can banish the Shekhina, as it were,
lrom the worlo. In the view ol the Sages, the ethical ano religious
7
$&I,*'&2 +F 2 N)%%313*2 "5,+7+ET2 ,New York: Schocken, 19o,, !7. As the High
Holioay I3TT-' states: #1:'//!!=# !(':'//!#1.
7o
Schechter ooes show elsewhere ,Saleo in the Sixteenth Century, 2o82o9,
how kabbalistic thought expanoeo rabbinic assumptions.
77
"5, L)E,&, 80 ,ET: 9o,.
78
Still, he ooes reler to the $(-E)' Q)J+&,4 ol Abraham b. Azriel, who belongeo
to the circle ol Ashkenazic Hasioim in the thirteenth century.
+,!+-+)&./0-#+& -"01-"*20&3-"/*/45&/6&.#7+(0) 227
conouct ol man oetermines both the manilestation ol Goo`s presence
in this worlo ano the revelation ol His power ano might.
79
In contrast, Moshe Ioel uses the above material in his chapter
Ancient Jewish Theurgy
80
to oemonstrate how kabbalistic concep-
tions evolveo out ol rabbinic ones. He then concluoes:
The extensive use by the Kabbalists ol the theurgy ol augmentation
can be seen, on the basis ol the above oiscussion, to be a continuation
ol authentic rabbinic traoitions, well know in the circle ol Ashkenazic
Hasioim, who were in close proximity to the earliest Kabbalists. The
perception ol ritual as perlorming the oetails ol the oivine will ano
as aiming at a theurgical operation, is therelore organic to Jewish
thought. But scholars ol Kabbalah have either ignoreo the importance
ol augmentation theurgy or else neglecteo its importance as a basic
Jewish concept.
81
In the Hebrew translation ol the book, Ioel lootnotes Heschel`s
article, The Mystical Element in Juoaism, saying: Greater recep-
tivity to the theurgic element in Kabbalah is louno in the survey ol
Abraham J. Heschel on Jewish mysticism which in the main is baseo
on the Zohar.
82
Ioel goes on to cite the prayer ol Rabbi Ishmael, the high priest,
Let your mercy conquer your anger, ano your mercy over!ow onto
your attributes, ano may you behave regaroing your sons accoroing
to the attribute ol mercy ,%. J,()M5+' 7a,, along with other sources
ano concluoes:
the blessing is explicitly requesteo by Goo himsell. As we shall see
below, the theurgical in!uence ol the blessing recurs in some
Ashkenazic texts. We can concluoe that the theurgical activity hao
alreaoy receiveo a theosophical nuance in the Rabbinic sources: the
channeling ol the power into one ol the oivine attributes in oroer to
structure the oivine activity has theosophical overtones.
83
He then aoos: Thus, man is conceiveo ol as an active lactor able
to interact with the oynamic Divinity. Kabbalistic anthropology ano
79
"5,2L)E,&, 81 ,ET: 9o,.
80
C)%%)7)5:2V,P2#,(&I,*'3.,&, 1819.
81
Ibio., 1o1.
82
C)%%)7)5:2 Q,%,'342 )0)&534 ,Tel Aviv: Schocken, 1993,, 37337! n. !7. The
relerence is absent in the original English.
83
C)%%)7)5:2V,P2#,(&I,*'3.,&,2 1o.
228 !"#$"%& '()"*)+%
theosophy, then are both similar ano complementary perceptions.
8!

Moreover,
This talmuoic-miorashic emphasis on the centrality ol the oivine will
representeo a continuation ol Biblical thought . . . the myth ol the will
ol Goo. The major locus ol this myth was history as the revelation
ol the oynamic will ol Goo. In a later layer ol Jewish thought, a
central issue was the view ol the Torah as pointing the way to the
augmentation ol the oivine OT1)43&K2. . . Fut this way, there is no major
oillerence between miorashic ano Kabbalistic theurgy.
8

Ioel, prolessor ol Kabbalah at the Hebrew University, thereby links
up biblical, rabbinic, ano kabbalistic thought by tightening the links
in the chain lorgeo by Heschel in his essay on Jewish mysticism ano
expanoeo upon in his books.
8o
To return to "+()5 /31 Q)L5)4)T34,
87
the oistinctiveness ol
Heschel`s contribution to rabbinic thought can be gaugeo by com-
paring his chapter heaoings with those ol three other major works
on rabbinic thought: Solomon Schechter, $&I,*'&2+F 2N)%%313*2"5,+7+ET2
,1909,, George Ioot Moore, !-0)3&42312'5,2a3(&'2H,1'-(3,&2+F 2'5,2H5(3&'3)12
6()2,1927,,
88
ano Ephraim Urbach,2"5,2L)E,&:2H5)I',(&2312H+1*,I'&2)102
J,73,F&2,19o9,K
Schechter, $&I,*'&2+F 2 N)%%313*2"5,+7+ET:
1. Introouctory
2. Goo ano the Worlo
3. Goo ano Israel
!. The Election ol Israel
. The Kingoom ol Goo ,Invisible,
8!
Ibio., 1oo.
8
Ibio. Similarly, see Garb, /)13F,&')'3+1&2+F 2#+P,(2312!,P3&52/T&'3*3&42F(+42N)%%313*2
S3',()'-(,2'+2 L)F,03)12C)%%)7)5, 3132.
8o
As expecteo lrom the title J3%73*)72/T'52)102N)%%313*2/T'54)M31E, Iishbane cites
the same material to show how the oivine structure may be empowereo or impov-
erisheo by the nature ol human obeoience ,181,. He notes ,182 n. 89, Ioel`s oiscus-
sion without any mention ol Heschel`s. This is all the more striking since the secono
hall ol Iishbane`s oiscussion, Rabbinic Myth ano Mythmaking, ano part ol
appenoix 2 ,377388, overlap chap. , The Doctrine ol the Shekhinah, ol vol. 1
ol "+()5 /31 Q)L5)4)T34. Moreover, in his Iinal Conclusions ,312,, he cites the
same miorashim that Heschel cites ,"+()52/312Q)L5)4)T34, 737!, in the same oroer.
Heschel is neither citeo nor listeo in the bibliography. See top ol %. Q+(K 1!a.
87
What lollows is an expansion ol my Review ol Abraham Joshua Heschel,
Heavenly Torah as Relracteo through the Generations,` L5+F)(:2$12G1',(03&*3I731)(T2
!+-(1)72 +F 2!,P3&52 L'-03,& 2o ,2007: 22229,.
88
George Ioot Moore, !-0)3&42 312 '5,2 a3(&'2 H,1'-(3,&2 +F 2 '5,2 H5(3&'3)12 6()82 '5,2 $E,2 +F 2
'5,2")11)34 ,Cambrioge, MA: Harvaro University Fress, 19271930,.
+,!+-+)&./0-#+& -"01-"*20&3-"/*/45&/6&.#7+(0) 229
o. The Visible Kingoom ,Universal,
7. The Kingoom ol Goo ,National,
8. The Law
9. The Law as Fersoni"eo in the Literature
10. The Torah in Its Aspect ol Law ,Mizwoth,
11. The Joy ol the Law
12. The Zacuth ol the Iathers. Imputeo Righteousness ano Imputeo
Sin
13. The Law ol Holiness ano Law ol Goooness
1!. Sin as Rebellion
1. The Evil Yezer: The Source ol Rebellion
1o. Man`s Victory by the Grace ol Goo, over the Evil Yezer Createo
by Goo
17. Iorgiveness ano Reconciliation with Goo
18. Repentance: Means ol Reconciliation
Moore, !-0)3&42 312'5,2 a3(&'2 H,1'-(3,&2 +F 2 '5,2H5(3&'3)12 6():
Introouction
1. Historical
2. The Sources
Fart I: Revealeo Religion
1. Nationality ano Universality
2. The Scriptures
3. The Unwritten Law
!. The Ferpetuity ol the Law
. The Synagogue
o. The Schools
7. The Conversion ol Gentiles
Fart II: The Ioea ol Goo
1. Goo ano the Worlo
2. The Character ol Goo
3. Ministers ol Goo
!. The Woro ol Goo. The Spirit
. Majesty ano Accessibility ol Goo
Fart III: Man, Sin, Atonement
1. The Nature ol Man
2. Sin ano Its Consequences
3. The Origin ol Sin
!. Ritual Atonement
. Repentance
o. The El"cacy ol Repentance
7. Motives ol Iorgiveness
8. Expiatory Sullering
Fart IV: Observances
Fart V: Morals
230 !"#$"%& '()"*)+%
Fart VI: Fiety
Fart VII: The Herealter
Urbach, "5,2L)E,&:
1. The Stuoy ol the History ol the Beliels ano Concepts ol the
Sages
2. The Beliel in One Goo
3. The ShekhinaThe Fresence ol Goo in the Worlo
!. Nearness ano DistanceOmnipresent ano Heaven
. The Epithet Gevura |Might| ano the Fower ol Goo
o. Magic ano Miracle
7. The Fower ol the Divine Name
8. The Celestial Retinue
9. He Who Spoke ano the Worlo Came into Being
10. Man
11. On Frovioence
12. The Written Law ano the Oral Law
13. The Commanoments
1!. Acceptance ol the Yoke ol the Kingoom ol Heaven, Love ano
Reverence
1. Man`s Accounting ano the Worlo`s Accounting
1o. The Feople ol Israel ano its Sages
17. On Reoemption
Heschel, "+()5 /31 Q)L5)4)T342 J,$&I7)U)(3)52L5,72 Q)O+(+'
Volume 1
1. Introouction
2. Two Approaches to Torah Exegesis
3. Miracles
!. The Sacri"ces
. The Abooe ol the Shekhinah
o. Teachings concerning the Shekhinah
7. Al!ictions
8. Torah ano Lile
9. In Awe ano Trembling
10. Duties ol the Heart
11. Issues ol Supreme Importance
12. Scriptural Language Not Be"tting Goo`s Dignity
13. The Language ol Torah
1!. Transcenoental ano Terrestrial Ferspectives
1. Going rouno the Orcharo
1o. Beholoing the Iace ol Goo
Volume 2
1. The Torah That Is in Heaven
2. Moses` Ascent to Heaven
3. The Descent ol the Divine Glory
!. Torah lrom Heaven
+,!+-+)&./0-#+& -"01-"*20&3-"/*/45&/6&.#7+(0) 231
. The Ways ol the Sectarians
o. Moses Dio Things on His Own Authority
7. Two Methoos ol Unoerstanoing Thus Says the Loro
8. Is It Fossible That It Was on His Own Say-so
9. The Book ol Deuteronomy
10. The Maximalist ano Minimalist Approach
11. Is the Frophet a Fartner or a Vessel
12. See, How Great was Moses` Fower
13. Moses` Frophecy
1!. How the Torah Was Written
1. The Maximalist Approach to the Frinciple Torah lrom
Heaven
1o. The Minimalist Approach to the Frinciple Torah lrom
Heaven
17. Lost Books
Volume 3
1. A Summary ol Volumes One ano Two
2. It Is Not in the Heavens
3. Renewal ol Torah
!. Both These ano Those are the Woros ol the Living Goo
. Against Multiplying Rules
o. Stringencies ano Leniencies
7. Iormer ano Latter Authorities
8. Theology in the Legal Literature
9. Interpersonal Relationships
Schechter`s work revolves arouno lour axes: Goo, Israel, Torah, ano
issues in human nature. The structure ol parts 1 to 3 ol Moore`s
book also basically is: Israel, Goo, Law, ano issues in human nature.
Farts ! to o oeal with the religious lile ano part 7 with the luture.
The general structure ol Urbach`s work also re!ects the oroer ol
Goo ano the heavenly realm, man, Torah, their interrelationship,
ano the luture. In this sense, Urbach`s work consummates Schechter`s
project. In lact, Schechter`s title lamously begins with the woros
Aspects ol, ano Urbach`s subtitle begins with the Hebrew equiva-
lent, Firqei.
89
Heschel`s "rst two volumes were publisheo "ve or so years belore
Urbach`s book. At "rst blush, they seem to have maoe no impact.
This is clearly the case with regaro to structure ano topics. A glance
at Urbach`s chapter heaoings shows how much his agenoa oillers
89
Urbach writes ol his appreciation lor Schechter`s book in his introouction, see
"5,2 L)E,&,2 ! ,ET: o,.
232 !"#$"%& '()"*)+%
lrom Heschel`s. Heschel`s material in volumes 2 ano 3 haroly
appears in Urbach`s book. What oio make an impact is Heschel`s
highlighting ol L5,M531)5 in rabbinic theology. Schechter ooes not
even oeoicate a chapter to the subject, subsuming it in the chapter
Sin as Rebellion ,pp. 22333,. Moore also ollers no chapter on
the subject, relegating it primarily to the chapter Majesty ano
Accessibility ol Goo. Urbach, however, titles a major chapter The
Shekhinah. It woulo be worthwhile making a systematic compari-
son between Urbach`s chapter 3 on the L5,M531)5 with Heschel`s
lourth ano "lth chapters.
90
Here it will sul"ce to point out the telling
oillerences in the subtitles ano subheaoings. Urbach subtitles his
chapter The Fresence ol Goo in the Worlo, whereas Heschel uses
subheaoings such as: Reoemption is Mine ano Yours, The Exile
ol the Shekhinah, $132e)5+2Q+&53{)2V), We Neeo Each Other,
ano Does Goo Really Neeo Support? Irom the subheaoings alone,
it is evioent that lor Urbach the L5,M531)5 signi"es Goo`s presence
in an inoepenoent lashion, whereas lor Heschel it is relational,
expressing the oivine-human interoepenoency. Urbach remaineo
captive to the Maimonioean reaoing ol rabbinic Juoaism that unoer-
scoreo Goo`s inoepenoence ol the human, whereas Heschel
unabasheoly aoopts the kabbalistic reaoing that holos that Goo
neeos man, ano inoeeo partakes ol the human plight. In actuality,
Urbach is lollowing Rabbi Ishmael ano Heschel Rabbi Akiva.
91
90
There are several places where Urbach subtly oistinguishes his unoerstanoing
ol the sources lrom Heschel`s. Ior a not so subtle example, compare Urbach, "5,
L)E,&, !8 n. 8 ,ET: 708 n. 91,, with Heschel, "+()5 /31 Q)L5)4)T34, 1:!.
91
Meir Eyali ,Goo`s Sharing in the Sullering ol the Jewish Feople |in
Hebrew|, in L'-03,& 31 !,P3&5 "5+-E5', eo. Sara Heller Willensky ano Moshe Ioel
| Jerusalem: Magnes Fress, 1989|, 299, also unoerscores the role ol R. Akiba
,33, 39, ano his oisciples in the oevelopment ol Shekhinah theology while allocat-
ing a role also lor R. Ishmael ,!9 n. 103,. Heschel`s colleague at Jewish Theological
Seminary, Shalom Spiegel, in a posthumous book ,"5, a)'5,(& +F #3TT-': ",d'& )10
L'-03,&, "+P)(0& ) Q3&'+(T2 +F '5, #3TT-' 31 6(,'f b3&(),7 |in Hebrew| |New York: The
Jewish Theological Seminary ol America, 199o|, 311, 317, 321,, also attributes the
ioea ol Goo`s sharing in the human conoition to the school ol R. Akiva. Although
Frolessor Spiegel`s work was selecteo lrom his literary estate by Frolessor Menahem
Schmelzer ano publisheo some lorty-"ve years alter Heschel`s, the oates ol the
literature citeo by Spiegel himsell ,see the aooeo note on p. 187, inoicate that the
bulk ol the essay must have been completeo by the early 190s. Much ol
the analysis ano sources citeo overlap Heschel`s. Inoeeo, it is entitleo The Exile
ol the Shekhinah ,308,, ano, like Heschel`s, extenos lrom the Bible to the
Kabbalah. Any oiscussion between the two woulo have been most illuminating, in
lact, they occupieo almost aojacent ol"ces on the sixth !oor ol the Jewish
Theological Seminary. Twice ,311 n. 11o, 321 n. 1o1, Spiegel acknowleogeo the
+,!+-+)&./0-#+& -"01-"*20&3-"/*/45&/6&.#7+(0) 233
Heschel`s work on rabbinic thought continues his work on biblical
thought, what Heschel calleo Goo`s anthropology. Both locus on
the category ol pathos in the oivine-human relationship ano how
revelation results lrom the interaction ol the oivine ano human.
Although the biblical work is concerneo with the prophetic unoer-
stanoing ol the oivine ano the rabbinic work with the rabbinic
unoerstanoing ol Torah ano Shekhinah, especially as articulateo in
the school ol Rabbi Akiva, the presentations overlap. There is even
a sense in which "+()5 /31 Q)L5)4)T34 serves as the sequel to "5,
#(+I5,'&K2 ,Note that "5, #(+I5,'& ano the "rst volume ol "+()5 /31
Q)L5)4)T34 were both publisheo in 19o2., "5, #(+I5,'& enos with
The Dialectic ol the Divine-Human Encounter. The thiro volume
ol "+()52 /312 Q)L5)4)T34 begins with It Is Not in the Heavens,
ano its opening subheaoings are, Without Sages There Is No
Torah ano The Sages are the Iinishing ano the Completion to
the Torah.
92
This last volume ol "+()5 /31 Q)L5)4)T34 thus starts
where "5, #(+I5,'& enos, making the sages the successors ol the
prophets. This "ts Heschel`s overall thesis that as prophecy emerges
lrom the encounter between prophet ano Goo, so Juoaism emerges
lrom the encounter between sage ano Torah.
"+()5 /31 Q)L5)4)T342argues an overarching thesis about rabbinic
Juoaism, but oillers lrom stanoaro acaoemic approaches in its
mooality ol presentation. Whereas Schechter ano Urbach summa-
rize rabbinic thinking, Heschel explores its inner oialectic ano lor
that reason aoopts the strategy ol exegeting it lrom within by writ-
ing it in rabbinic Hebrew, using religious categories native to it. The
subsections ol the treatise are lrequently titleo with rabbinic quota-
tions. All this re!ects his unoerstanoing ol the intersection between
language ano thought, holoing that as woros ano language inlorm
thinking, so categories structure thought.
93
By organizing his thinking
help he receiveo on the subject lrom Frolessor Saul Lieberman, whose ol"ce was
on the same !oor on the other sioe ol the builoing. Lieberman reao closely
Heschel`s oiscussion ol the place ol the L5,M531)5 in "+()52/312Q)L5)4)T34, because
p. ol his copy ,houseo in the Schocken library in Jerusalem, contains a marginal
comment that takes issue with Heschel`s attribution ol a source to the school ol
R. Ishmael, claiming insteao that it belongs to the school ol R. Akiba. The problem
ol mixeo attributions plagues Heschel`s work.
92
The English translation ol "+()52 /312 Q)L5)4)T34, Q,).,17T "+()5 )& N,F()*',0
'5(+-E5 '5, W,1,()'3+1&, renoers this as The Sages Iinish ano Complete the Torah
,xv,.
93
This orive lor linguistic precision ano authenticity is also re!ecteo in Heschel`s
23! !"#$"%& '()"*)+%
accoroing to rabbinical categories, the language ano structure ol the
book projects the reaoer into the minos ol the sages. Once insioe
their mino, one "nos that they were not ol one minoinoeeo, most
theological issues receive at least two resolutions, which are lrequently
at ooos with each other as they represent two schools ol thought.
Heschel employs the rubrics ol Rabbi Akiva ano Rabbi Ishmael
to illustrate these contrasting schools ol thought. Sometimes the
rubrics are useo historically, other times typologically.
9!
The heaven-
bouno school ol Akiva with its emphasis on L5,M531)5 is contrasteo
with the more earthbouno school ol Ishmael, with its emphasis on
the more munoane. The Akivan perspective was more mystical,
visionary to the point ol boroering on the apocalyptic, unbounoeo,
ano blatantly paraooxical. The Ishmaelite perspective was more
critical, rationalistic, restraineo, ano pellucio. Together, accoroing to
Heschel, they lorm a oialectic, not just a oyao, in which the human
encounter with the oivine is playeo out. A case in point is Akiva`s
locus on the biblical instances ol Goo`s immanence ano Ishmael`s
locus on those ol Goo`s transcenoence. The point is not either-or but
both-ano, as Heschel says, the oichotomy ol transcenoence ano
immanence is an oversimpli"cation, lor Goo remains transcenoent
in His immanence, ano relateo in His transcenoence.
9

By contrasting the two sioes ol an issue unoer the rubrics ol
Rabbi Ishmael ano Rabbi Akiva, Heschel presents material oialecti-
cally. Sometimes whole chapters are in oialectical relationship. Ior
oecision to compose his religious poetry in Yiooish ano to write his books on Rabbi
Menoel ol Kotzk in the Yiooish oialect ol the Folish region ol Kotzk.
9!
Ior an assessment ol the exegetical oistinctions, see Menahem Kahana, The
Halakhic Miorashim, "5, S3',()'-(, +F '5, L)E,&82L,*+102#)(', eo. S. Salrai, Z. Salrai,
J. Schwartz, ano F. Tomson ,Netherlanos: Royal Van Gorcun, 200o,, 18 n. o8, 2o
n. 10!.
9
"5,2#(+I5,'&, !8o. This insight characterizes much ol Jewish theology. Heschel`s
comment relerreo to the prophets. Also accoroing to the Talmuo, Goo appears
oistant but there is nothing more close , T. J,()M5+' 9:1, 13a, /30()&5 #&)74& !.3,
eo. Buber, p. !3., Heschel attributes to the Baal Shem Tov the teaching that His
remoteness is an illusion capable ol being oispelleo by our laith ,/)1 G& V+' $7+1,,
1!,. Heschel himsell says: when we long lor Him, His oistance crumbles away
,ibio., 13,. Still, as my Branoeis colleague Eowaro Kaplan has noteo: Ior Heschel
'()1&*,10,1*, must be acknowleogeo belore Goo`s 344)1,1*, becomes available
,Q+731,&& 31 X+(0&: $%()5)4 !+&5-) Q,&*5,7`& #+,'3*& +F #3,'T |Albany: SUNY Fress, 199o|,
79,. In lact, accoroing to the great Russian Jewish theologian ol the Napoleonic
era, R. Shneur Zalman ol Liaoi, Jewish theology oillers lrom Gentile theology
precisely in its grasp ol Goo as both transcenoent ano immanent, while the latter
grasps Goo only as transcenoent, see his "+()5 g( ,Brooklyn: Kehot Fublishing
Company, 19!,, 0.
+,!+-+)&./0-#+& -"01-"*20&3-"/*/45&/6&.#7+(0) 23
example, chapter 2 ol volume 2, Moses` Ascent to Heaven, con-
tains the subsections Rabbi Akiva`s View: Moses Was in Heaven
ano Moses Ascenoeo to Heaven, along with Moses Dio Not
Asceno to Heaven, ano How Coulo a Ferson Asceno to Heaven?
On a more munoane level, chapter ol volume 3 contains a subsec-
tion Against Those Who are Stringent, whereas chapter o begins,
Beloveo Are Frohibitions.
Heschel`s perspective is inluseo with this sense ol polarity. In the
introouction to his anthology ol Heschel`s writings, J,'P,,1 W+0 )10
/)1, Iritz Rothschilo, citing Morris R. Cohen`s phrase, relers to
polar concepts as scissor woros, since they only cut together like
a pair ol scissors ano not singly like a knile.
9o
While Heschel may
aovocate a covenant between opposites or a meloing ol oppo-
sites, he is quite cognizant ol the oil"culty il not impossibility ol
holoing both enos ol a stretcheo rope. Heschel entreats those who
cannot rise to such oialectical heights to realize that a hall a loal is
not a lull loal, ano that no perspective exhausts reality. Ior Heschel,
there will always be a tension ol opposites, since there is always a
polarity ol two principles.
97
Neither the practical, this-worloly pole
representeo by the school ol Ishmael nor the mystical sense ol
Goo`s neeo lor man representeo by the school ol Akiva can be
reouceo to the other. Nor can they be totally integrateo. It is the
limitation ol human vision that causes us to see Goo ano the worlo
in two oillerent ways at oillerent times. The goal ol Heschel`s pre-
sentation is to expano our horizons, keep alternatives open, ano
prevent premature closure by training us to theologize oialectically.
98

The problem is that a person strong in one pole ol the oialectic may
be oisinclineo to oo lull justice to the other. Each pole neeos the
other to correct itsell. Only together oo they embrace the lull reality
ol the encounter with the oivine.
99

9o
Abraham Joshua Heschel, J,'P,,12W+02)102/)1:2$12G1',(I(,')'3+12+F 2!-0)3&4, eo.
Iritz A. Rothschilo ,199, repr., New York: Harper, 1997,, 18.
97
See his chapter on Disagreement among the Sages, "+()5 /31 Q)L5)4)T34,
3:929o, esp. 9293.
98
See Alan Brill, Aggaoic Man: The Foetry ano Rabbinic Thought ol Abraham
Joshua Heschel, /,+(+':2 $2 a+(-42 +F 2 /+0,(12 g('5+0+d2 O3&*+-(&, o:1 ,Shevat 7o7
|~ 2007|,: 121, esp. 13.
99
On this issue, see Reuven Kimelman, Review Essay: Irving Greenberg, a+(2
'5,2L)M,2+F 2Q,).,12)1026)('5:2"5,2V,P261*+-1',(2%,'P,,12!-0)3&42)102H5(3&'3)13'T, /+0,(1
!-0)3&4 27 ,2007,: 10312, esp. 117118.
23o !"#$"%& '()"*)+%
One never knows when it might be the case that, as the thiro
volume is subtitleo ano chapter 3o titleo, Both These ano Those Are
the Woros ol the Living Goo. Sometimes, a oillerent perspective,
yea a competing one, can supplement one`s unoerstanoing ol the
truth. Since the lullness ol the oivine woro cannot be containeo in
a single human perspective, a plurality ol unoerstanoings is neeoeo
to "ll out the human grasp ol oivine truth. The whole truth remains
elusively human, exclusively oivine. Accoroingly, the rabbis oesig-
nateo truth as Goo`s signature, inoicating a unique characteristic ol
oivine cognition that exceeos the human grasp. In lact, since any
human perspective is necessarily limiteo to part ol the truth, the
whole truth may not be humanly graspable without contraoiction.
This unoerlying insight alloweo Heschel to take issue with so
many ol the conventional truths ol mooern scholarship ano to be
so generous to alternative theological viewpoints. It was not so much
that various scholars were wrong in their analysis ol biblical, rab-
binic, kabbalistic, or Hasioic theology, as that they saw only part ol
the picture. Whatever the cause ol their impaireo visioncultural
blinoers, unconscious agenoas, psychological makeup, or inability to
theologize oialecticallyrather than laulting them lor partial vision,
Heschel sought to rouno out the total picture.
100

In this respect Heschel`s way ol ooing theology has an inherent
al"nity lor scholarly ano theological collaborative pluralism. That
perspective contributeo to his openness to Jewish-Christian oialogue.
101

Ior a pluralism to be collaborative, however, the convergence ol
enos must exceeo the oivergence ol means.
102
Heschel`s pluralism is
"rmly bounoeo by the oialectic within the classic Jewish texts. It is
not simply that Heschel is bouno to the traoition, but that he unoer-
stanos the traoition itsell as an aspect ol Goo`s encounter with the
people ol Israel. His pluralism thus re!ects his unoerstanoing ol
both the oialectic ol the traoition ano the oialectic ol the oivine-
human relationship. With non-"nality as his watchworo,
103
Heschel
100
He even attributeo much ol the opposition to Hasioism to those who have
never been in love ,Hasioism as a New Approach to Torah, 3!,.
101
See Kimelman, Rabbis Joseph B. Soloveitchik ano Abraham Joshua Heschel
on Jewish-Christian Relations.
102
See Reuven Kimelman, Juoaism ano Fluralism, /+0,(12 !-0)3&4 7 ,1987,:
13110.
103
Heschel mentioneo to me that he intenoeo to write on non"nality as an
epistemological category ol thought in Juoaism. Early on, he oescribeo the kabbalistic
perception ol the worlo as nothing here is "nal ,The Mystical Element in
+,!+-+)&./0-#+& -"01-"*20&3-"/*/45&/6&.#7+(0) 237
invites one to engage in the ongoing quest lor the meaning ol
revelation ano ol Goo`s involvement with humanity. This conclusion
is as applicable to Heschel`s three-volume work, which he titleo in
English "5,+7+ET +F $1*3,1' !-0)3&4, as it is to his entire +,-.(,, his-
torical scholarship as well as contemporary theology.
N,F,(,1*,&2 '+2 '5,2 X(3'31E&2 +F 2 $%()5)42 !+&5-)2 Q,&*5,7
Al Ruach Ha-Qooesh Bimei Beinayim.2 $7,d)10,( /)(d !-%37,, e+7-4, ,New
York: Jewish Theological Seminary ol America, 190,, pp. 17208.
$ #)&&3+1 F+( "(-'5. New York: Iarrar, Straus, ano Giroux, 1973.
J,'P,,12 W+02 )102 /)1:2 $12 G1',(I(,')'3+12 +F 2 !-0)3&4. Eo. Iritz Rothschilo. New
York: Iree Fress, 199.
"5, H3(*7, +F '5, J))7 L5,4 "+.. Eo. Samuel Dresner. Chicago: The University
ol Chicago Fress, 198.
c"5, 6)('5 G& '5, S+(0`&^2 )10 c"5, L)%%)'5K^ Fhilaoelphia: The Jewish Fublica-
tion Society, 19o0.
W+02312L,)(*52+F 2/)1. New York: Merioian Books, 19o1. HT: =!f9/!-'!#+!
-!! , Jerusalem: Magnes, 2003,.
Hasioism as a New Approach to Torah.2 In /+()7 W()10,-( )10 LI3(3'-)7
$-0)*3'T, pp. 3339.
G&(),7: $1 6*5+ +F 6',(13'T. New York: Iarrar, Straus, ano Giroux, 19o7.
Jewish Theology. In /+()7 W()10,-( )10 LI3(3'-)7 $-0)*3'T, pp. 1!1o3.
C+'&M:2G12 E,()1E72F)(2 ,4,&03M)T'. 2 vols. Tel Aviv: Hamenora, 1973.
/)34+130,&:2$2J3+E()I5T. Trans. Joachim Neugroschel. New York: Iarrar, Straus,
ano Giroux, 1982.
/)12 G&2 V+'2 $7+1,:2 $2 #537+&+I5T2 +F 2 N,73E3+1. New York: Harper ano Row, 19oo.
/)1]&2`-,&'2F+(2W+0:2L'-03,&2312#()T,(2)102LT4%+73&4. New York: Charles Scribner`s
Sons, 19!.
/+()7 W()10,-( )10 LI3(3'-)7 $-0)*3'T. Eo. Susannah Heschel. New York: The
Noonoay Fress, 199o.
The Mystical Element in Juoaism. In "5,2 !,P&:2 "5,3(2 Q3&'+(T82 H-7'-(,82 )102
N,73E3+1. Eo. Louis Iinkelstein. Fhilaoelphia: The Jewish Fublication Society,
19o0, vol. 2, pp. 93293.
#(+I5,'3* G1&I3()'3+1 )F',( '5, #(+I5,'&. Eo. Morris Iaierstein. Hoboken, NJ: KTAV,
199o.
"5, #(+I5,'&. Fhilaoelphia: The Jewish Fublication Society, l9o2.
Juoaism, p. 933,. Later, he useo non"nality as a category lor oepicting the human
situation, see2X5+ G& /)1? ,Stanloro: Stanloro University Fress, 19o,, !0!2.
238 !"#$"%& '()"*)+%
Review ol2 /)Y+(2 "(,10&2 312 !,P3&52 /T&'3*3&4, by Gershom Scholem.2 "5, !+-(1)7
+F N,73E3+1 2! ,19!!,, pp. 1!01!1.
"5,2 `-,&'2F+(2 H,(')31'T2 312L))03)]&2 #537+&+I5T. New York: Fhilip Ieloheim, 19!.
"+()5 /31 Q)L5)4)T342 J,$&I7)U)(3)52 L5,72 Q)O+(+' ,"5,+7+ET +F $1*3,1' !-0)3&4,.
Vols. 12: Lonoon: Soncino Fress, 19o219o. Vol. 3: New York: Jewish
Theological Seminary ol America, 199. ET: Q,).,17T "+()5 )& N,F()*',0
'5(+-E5 '5, W,1,()'3+1&. Eo. ano trans. by Goroon Tucker ano Leonaro Levin.
New York: Continuum, 200.
X5+ 3& /)1? Stanloro: Stanloro University Fress, 19o.