What, then, of these others? What of those who were interested in the subject but had never approached it and would be lost in its complexities? What of those who, having heard of the subject, were hesitant, not knowing whether they could or should engage in its study? The messianic imperative, which affected Cordovero no less than other Jews of his generation, indicated that Kabbalah had to be popularized if its knowledge was to spread among the people in order to hasten the Messiah’s coming. For this reason, among others, Cordovero determined to embody the Kabbalah’s teachings in a form accessible to readers who were not specialists in Kabbalistic studies.

One such venture was an ethical treatise which he titled Tomer Devorah (“The Palm Tree of Deborah”). In it, Cordovero successfully integrated the genre of moral and ethical exhortation, which was fairly widely accepted, with Kabbalistic teachings concerning the sefirot. Thus the exhortation to internalize the qualities of God, such as mercy and lovingkindness, was imbued with the tenfold division of the sefirot such that each sefirah encompassed a moral and ethical principle which Jews were exhorted to make a part of their lives. This work, which was the first of its kind, was followed by numerous others in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries.

Or Ne’erav

The other major attempt by Cordovero to popularize his Kabbalistic teaching was the treatise translated here, Or Ne’erav. Because it contains no introduction by the author, we are unable to say with any certainty when it was written or why. From its contents, however, we can readily discern that Cordovero utilized his immense intellectual and pedagogical talents to create a work with a dual purpose. As his son, Gedaliah, who brought the book to press, indicates in his introduction, he abridged the material which was argued in extenso in Pardes Rimmonim. To this abridgement he added, at the beginning of the treatise, “additional chapters… to [cause others to] understand and to teach the usefulness of this discipline and the necessity for learning it.” Thus, on the one hand, Or Ne’erav served as an argument for the legitimacy of Kabbalah and its study. On the other hand, it presented an epitome of Pardes Rimmonim suitable for people just beginning their Kabbalistic studies.

We will have something to say regarding this latter aspect of Or Ne’erav later on. At present, however, we are interested precisely in the “additional chapters” which come at the beginning. They give us an important insight into the way in which a major Kabbalistic scholar envisaged the study of Kabbalah by beginners at the very time when Kabbalah was emerging to compete openly for a place in the Jewish curriculum.

With regard to the first purpose of the treatise, that of establishing Kabbalah’s legitimacy as an intellectual discipline, it might be said that Cordovero basically continued the genre of “defenses” of true Kabbalah against its detractors and opponents both within and without the Kabbalist camp. His treatment of his sources is unmistakably Cordoveran in its thoroughness and meticulousness but is nonetheless not terribly original. Indeed, it might even be said that some of the groups Cordovero argued against, such as those who entirely denied that the Torah could be interpreted esoterically, did not constitute a formal school of thought in his day and were included only in order to fill the spectrum of logical possibilities of opposition to his enterprise. What is new in Or Ne’erav is Cordovero’s detailed vision of the ideal Kabbalistic education.

For Cordovero, the ideal student should have attained the age of twenty before commencing his study of Kabbalah. In stating this, he placed himself in conscious opposition to the view that Kabbalistic studies should be limited to those who had achieved the age of “understanding” — forty. Though Cordovero does not mention it in this context, he asserts in the introduction to Pardes Rimmonim that his own education in Kabbalah began at the age of twenty. Thus, in a self-reference, he could emphatically state: “Many have acted in accordance with our opinion and succeeded.”

Cordovero’s own experience with the study of Kabbalah is likely to have inspired him to demand of the potential student that he “first strip from himself the shell of gross pride which prevents him from attaining the truth. He should [then] direct his heart to heaven [to pray] that he not fail.” In the introduction to Pardes Rimmonim, Cordovero claimed to have undergone a similar conversion experience at the age of twenty, in which he renounced worldly vanities and turned to Kabbalah. As he said of himself, at the age of twenty “My Creator aroused me as one who is aroused from sleep, and I said to my soul, ‘Until when will you cause the misbehaving daughter to disappear?’”

The student, having attained the requisite age and deportment, should also have undergone a rigorous preparatory course in the classic exoteric Jewish texts. Influenced here as elsewhere by Maimonides, Cordovero asserted that the ideal curriculum ought to be divided into three divisions: Scripture, Mishnah, and Talmud. Mishnah was defined as the entire range of rabbinic law, while Talmud was meant to refer to pardes (esoteric studies). Thus Cordovero stated:

He [the prospective student] must be accustomed to engaging in profound pilpul [dialectical reasoning] so that he might be accustomed and able to strip [relevant] matters from parables…. He must apply himself to fill his belly with [the study of] the laws of the Gemara and the explanation of the commandments on the literal level in the work of Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, the Yad…. He should also guide himself in the study of Scripture — whether [it be] much or little…. [Then] he will not fail.

Of course, mastery of these preparatory subjects should not become so complete as to inordinately delay the study of Kabbalah. As Cordovero stated:

There are those who imagine that before pursuing [Kabbalah], they must first master the science of astronomy. They have other notions which keep them from following the straight path. They sanctimoniously give themselves the excuse that their bellies are not yet full of the bread and meat of the Gemara. For these poor people, their entire lives will not be sufficient to learn even a bit of [Gemara], let alone to fill their bellies so that they could partake of this science [of Kabbalah] and be sated. Thus the poor people go to their eternal rest bereft of wisdom.

Beyond proper preparatory study, would-be students of Kabbalah must also possess a strong desire to study the subject for its own sake in order to enter into its mysteries, to know their Master and to achieve a wondrous level in the true acquisition of knowledge of the Torah. To pray before their Master and to unify, through His commandments, the Holy One, blessed be He, and His Shekhinah.

By way of contrast, those who desire to study Kabbalah merely as one discipline among many, and for whom acquiring “a bit of this science is the same… as [acquiring] a smattering of medicine, astronomy, logic, mathematics, and the other sciences,” were characterized as sinners.

So much for the student of Kabbalah; what must one expect of the teacher of this subject? Cordovero asserted that a student who truly desires to study Kabbalah should take as a teacher someone who has fulfilled the requisite standards for a Kabbalist. Thus, a teacher of Kabbalah must be a person with an adequate background in the exoteric texts, who has mastered Kabbalah for its own sake and not as one discipline among many. To study with a teacher who does not fulfill these conditions will lead the student to error and might eventually result in his losing his faith.

However, what is one to do if one is unable to find a suitable teacher? Does the lack of a qualified teacher mean that one may not begin the study of Kabbalah at all? Cordovero’s answer to this problem is self-study. Doing it by yourself, though it may lead you to error, is preferable to refraining from any attempt to study Kabbalah. In the end, Cordovero asserted, even the erroneous study of Kabbalah has its divine reward. In an era in which teachers of Kabbalah were few and manuscripts of Kabbalistic texts were scattered, it is not unlikely that Cordovero’s accommodating attitude toward self-study reflected the contemporary situation.

Just as Cordovero was exacting with regard to the choice of an instructor, preferring self-study to instruction by an inadequate teacher, so was he exacting with regard to the texts the student should study. Living in an era in which several more or less systematic accounts of Kabbalah were available, Cordovero advised the beginning student to avoid all of them. The authors of these Kabbalistic works, he said, had “compose[ed] their books in riddles and metaphors so that their message is encumbered by much [extraneous] matter. We ourselves would not do this, God forbid. It is improper to place a blemish upon sanctified things.”

Rather than rely upon such books, Cordovero urged students to concentrate mainly on the Zoharic literature and such sanctified works as Sefer Yeẓirah (“Book of Creation”) and Sefer ha-Bahir (“Book of Clear Light”).

[The student] should stick to these books lovingly. He will succeed in [mastering] this science on condition that he delve deeply into them and [devote to them] exceptional study. He will then find explanations for most of what is to be found in the books of the latter commentators, which he need not consult. It is not our intention to declare these [latter works] unfit, God forbid, but rather to indicate to the student the path which is short, though it seems to be long.

In pursuing the study of these texts, some times are better for learning than others.

It is certainly easy for a student to study throughout the day. However, the optimum time for gaining profound wisdom is the long night, from midnight on, or on the Sabbath day, which is [itself] a factor. This [also applies to] the eve of the Sabbath, commencing at noontime and on holidays, particularly on Aẓeret [Shavuot]. I have tried this many times and found it to be a marvelously successful day. Also, there is great success [in studying] on Sukkot in the sukkah. These times [1 have] mentioned I have tried. I am speaking from experience.

In addition to studying the optimum texts at the optimum times, the student was to approach his studies in the following way:

First of all, [the student] should review the texts many times, making notes in order to remember his studies fluently. He should not delve too deeply at first. Secondly, he should study the material with great concentration according to his ability…. At times [the amount of time given to] the two forms of study should be increased and sometimes lessened, all according to the need of the hour and the [degree of] peace of mind…. Though it may seem to the student that he does not understand [the texts], he should nevertheless not cease studying, for his Master will faithfully cause him to discover esoteric wisdom…. I have experienced this innumerable times…. Should any subject in this science seem doubtful for [the student], he should wait. For in the course of time the matter will be revealed to him. The essential reward [for the study] of this science is [derived from] waiting for [the revelation of] the mysteries which will be revealed to him in the course of time.

As previously noted, Moses Cordovero’s son, Gedaliah, considered all the material we have dealt with so far as merely prefatory to the essential part of Or Ne’erav, which is the epitome of Pardes Rimmonim. The section of the work containing the epitome is entitled “On the Necessary Preparations for Beginners in This Science.” We noted earlier that Cordovero, in criticizing the authors of other Kabbalistic treatises, stated that his work would differ from theirs. He was presumably saying, though not in so many words, that Pardes Rimmonim was an adequate text for Kabbalistic studies and that Or Ne’erav was a proper way for beginners to be introduced to the material it contained.

It has been observed that Cordovero’s ethical work, Tomer Devorah, pioneered a genre in which Kabbalistic ideas and motifs began suffusing and controlling moral and ethical discourse. It has not been sufficiently noted, however, that Or Ne’erav begins another trend: the publication of abridgements and epitomes of Kabbalistic works. In the seventeenth century, two further abridgements of Pardes Rimmonim appeared. In addition, Reshit Ḥokhmah (“Beginning of Wisdom”) by Moses Cordovero’s disciple, Elijah De Vidas, who saw his work as a sort of primer leading to the study of Pardes Rimmonim, was issued in abridged form. Other Kabbalistic works, such as Isaiah Hurwitz’s Shnei Luḥot ha-Berit (“The Two Tablets of the Covenant”) also generated abridgements.

In any account of the attempt to popularize the study of Kabbalah, Moses Cordovero and his Or Ne’erav deserve a prominent place. However, this is not because the work attained a continuing degree of popularity. It was never completely forgotten amid the welter of books offering an entree to the study of Kabbalah and was reprinted several times. Nonetheless, due partly, perhaps, to its admittedly unfinished character, and partly to the relative eclipse of Cordoveran Kabbalah by the writings of Isaac Luria and his disciples, it never became the important conduit to the study of Kabbalah that it was intended to be. It remains, however, a precious document for historians of Kabbalah and of Jewish education, for it enables us to gain an insight into what a major authority on Kabbalah thought about Kabbalistic education in an era in which that education — like Kabbalah itself — was undergoing tremendous expansion and change.

On the Translation

This translation of Or Ne’erav was prepared on the basis of the first edition (Venice, 1587), the pagination of which is indicated in the text with brackets. The introductory material that prefaced the first edition will be found in the appendices. The text was compared with later editions, particularly that edited by Rabbi Yehuda Zvi Brandwein (Tel-Aviv, 1965), whose notes were often helpful.

Care was taken to render the Hebrew and Aramaic text into a readable English. In order to facilitate this goal, words and phrases not contained in the original, which were considered necessary aids to comprehension, were added in brackets. Quotations from Scripture are printed in italics. In many cases Cordovero did not quote complete phrases or verses; when the omission is at the beginning or end of a quotation this is self-evident, when it occurs in the middle an ellipsis (…) is utilized to indicate that something is missing. No part of Cordovero’s text was omitted from the translation.

Part I, Subject
On the Rectification of the Harm Incurred on Account of the Opinions of Those Who Stay Aloof from This Science

Part I, Chapter 1

Those who shun this science [of Kabbalah] can be divided into three classes. The first [class comprises] those who shun it because they think that there is no need to believe [in the existence] of an esoteric meaning of Torah. There are a number of reasons [for their opinion]. Some believe that the words [of the Torah] must be understood literally. Hence they have no desire [to comprehend] the esoteric. Who, indeed, can force them to believe in the ten sefirot and the other aspects of this science?

Furthermore, they have no desire to transcend their belief in [God’s] wondrous unity. When some aspect of this discipline comes before them, whether it concerns Eyn Sof or the form of the Torah, they begin to denounce the enlightened [Kabbalists], who appear to them as little short of heretics. Some of them take up this argument — to the deficiency of their souls — without believing it entirely. Others sincerely believe it to be true. To argue against such people is nearly forbidden because of the embitterment [it causes]. Nonetheless the honor of the Torah must be upheld and this opinion must be refuted.

Without doubt it is concerning these men and their like that King Solomon, peace upon him, said, The fool does not desire understanding, but only to air his thoughts (Prov. 18:2). It is apparent that one who follows his desires and spurns enlightenment in the mysteries of the Torah can be called a fool, since he continues his folly and his intoxication with this lowly world. [The verse] states, The fool does not desire understanding — these are the esoteric subjects hidden within the exoteric matter. This definition of understanding is the one which [the sages], their memory be a blessing, [used when they] said, “He who understands one thing from another.”

The fool, then, has no desire [to comprehend] the hidden things which require understanding to discover. Thus [Solomon] said, A man of understanding can draw them out (Prov. 20:5). [The fool] only [desires] to air his thoughts [with regard to] the revealed matters which serve as a garment [concealing] the esoteric aspects and which appear to constitute the plain meaning of the subject. These matters are indeed revealed to the heart, but they are not [revealed] to the hearts of the enlightened — only to the hearts of fools like him. This is the meaning of to air his thoughts: It refers to his limited mental capacity.

Of these men and their like, Rabbi Simeon bar Yoḥai, peace upon him, said in the Tikkunim [no. 43]:

In the beginning (Gen. 1:1).

There it is dry, and here the river dries up and is parched (Job 14:11).

At that time when he is dry and she is dry, sons cry out below in unification and say, Hear, O Israel (Deut. 6:4).

And there is no voice in response (I Kings 18:26).

Thus it is written, Then they will call to Me, and I will not answer (Prov. 1:28).

This concerns one who removes Kabbalah and wisdom from the oral Torah and the written Torah, who causes that they should not attempt [to acquire] them, and who asserts that there is nothing beyond the plain meaning of the Torah and the Talmud.

Certainly it is as if he removed the flow from that river and that garden.

Woe to him.

It were better for him had he never been created in the world, and had he never taught the written Torah and oral Torah, for it is considered as if he had returned the world to formlessness and void (Gen. 1:2) and bequeathed poverty and length of exile to the world.

There are several points to be made with regard to this passage.

1. The passage begins with he is dry and continues with she is dry.

2. Sons cry out. Why does this belong here, and what does it mean? It is certainly true that when blessings do not rise on high, there is no flow of emanation to influence the lower [world], but this is nothing new. What is it doing here?

3. “They cry out below in unification.” Why was the unification of Hear, O Israel singled out, for it would seem that [such a statement] requests neither blessing nor emanation? Let them, rather, recite a prayer consisting of blessings.

4. Sons cry out below. Which “sons” are these? If they are righteous, then why is there no answer? [Such an absence of response] would not be worthy of them. It would have been better to say “they” cry out below rather than “sons” [to indicate] that these are the ones who have caused the “removal” and the “dryness.”

5. “This concerns one who removes.” The implication is that his punishment is nothing other than Then they will call to Me [and I will not answer], whereas [that punishment] does not stem from [this] but rather [from the sin of the one] “who causes [that they should not attempt to acquire them].”

6. “Who removes Kabbalah and wisdom.” This is redundant.

7. “Who causes that they should not attempt.” Why this lengthy repetition? If he believes this, then either it does or does not suffice. If he does not believe this, either he will assert it or not. What is the difference? This matter surely cries out for investigation.

8. “It is as if he removed.” Why does the text read this way, since [the man’s] intention is praiseworthy and in accordance with what appears to him to be the plain meaning of the text? Even if he is not to be praised, how is he responsible for the removal of the flow?

9. The passage enumerates four things that [this man] causes. They are formlessness and void, poverty and length of exile. How are they connected, and how do they emanate from him?

10. The passage does not seem to be presenting a real incident. If so, what is its purpose? Also, while we are on the subject, we may ask this question of each passage in the words of our sages where they state “It is as if the world had returned to formlessness and void.” What is the purpose [of this phrase]?

Certainly the intention of [the passage] is that the letters of the word in the beginning (br’syt) should be rearranged to make the words ‘rt ybs (“dry river”). There is no doubt that the word ‘rt means “river,” similar to the word ‘ryt’, which signifies “irrigation ditch,” and which our sages have taken to mean a dry river. Since the verse mentions only one removal of the overflow — from the “river” and not from the “pool” — [the passage] states, “Here the river dries up and is parched.” The verse indicates that since there is no flow in the “river,” there is also none in the “sea.” Thus it is written, The waters of the sea fail, and the river dries up and is parched. The reason that the flow of emanation left Malkhut is because that “‘river’ dries up and is parched.” The dryness of the “river” causes the drying up of the “sea.” Thus once Scripture indicates the dryness of the “river,” the dryness of the “sea” is understood as a matter of course, for the two are interconnected, since it is known that there is no water in the “sea” except from the “river.”

At that time. The intention is to explain the end of the verse [In the beginning] God created [heaven and earth] (Gen. 1:1). The passage states, “At that time when he is dry and she is dry.” This indicates that after the emanation which had been deposited with it has been expended and no [further] emanation reaches it, the “river” will also be dry and parched. Thus “he is dry and she is dry.”

It is known that “river” signifies the mystery and continuity of vav. It is also known that [in this manner] emanation is removed from [the sefirah] Tiferet, which is [identified with] vav, though [it is] not completely [removed]. Thus [Tiferet] does not experience an absolute dryness but rather one in which there still remains some moisture, though no water. In [the sefirah] Yesod, which is below [Tiferet], there may be [absolute] dryness. That is why [the passage] states the river dries up — from the perspective of Tiferet — and is parched — from the perspective of Yesod.

Possibly [the verse] In the beginning God created refers to the dryness of all three [sefirot], with the word God [‘Elohim] signifying Malkhut. Rabbi Simeon bar Yoḥai, peace upon him, often stated this. Now the dryness of Tiferet, Yesod, and Malkhut is mentioned in the verse, with “dry river” referring to Yesod.

Alternatively it is possible that [the word br’syt can be rearranged] as t’r ybs (“dry form”) as in [the verse] Joseph was well formed [t’r] and handsome (Gen. 39:6). Created [in the verse would thus] refer to Tiferet, which “created” on high. And, as Rabbi Simeon bar Yoḥai explained many times, ‘Elohim signifies Malkhut. Therefore heaven and earth, experiencing this dryness, together cry out the unification [of the Shema] and there is no voice in response, as we will explain with God’s help. Thus [returning to the verse] and the earth, which refers to the river and the sea will be dry and parched, was formless and void, as we will explain.

Alternatively, God [‘Elohim] created signifies the righteous, for they are the sons which God created, the sons of the Shekhinah. These holy souls cry out below. Heaven and earth refers to the unification [of the Shema Yisrael] — and is there no one listening? God forbid! In this way it is easy [to comprehend] the phrase “sons cry out below.”

If [you were to say] that all this is no problem, seeing that one sinner can destroy much good, nonetheless [the passage] carefully stated Hear, O Israel, referring to Tiferet and Malkhut. Heaven and earth indicates an actual unification. Thus the passage would mean that even if they came to perform a unification, [an action] which seemingly rectifies the [sefirotic] separation, this [rectification] is nonetheless impossible to accomplish, particularly through prayer. This is why heaven and earth was specifically mentioned, for it signifies unification. Despite this there is no voice, referring to the Holy One, blessed be He, and no answer, referring to His Shekhinah. This is why [Scripture] states, The earth was formless and void. The earth — the Holy One, blessed be He, and His Shekhinah — was formless and void, or, in other words, dry and parched. Since it might seem farfetched to say that they would not succeed if they come to effect a reparation and unification, he proved the matter from the verse, Then they will call upon Me [and I will not answer]. This indicates that they actually recited Hear, O Israel, calling upon them, [Tiferet and Malkhut, to unify,] and [the result was that] I will not answer — God forbid.

The verse is not [ostensibly] written concerning this. Moreover, it is possible to say that [this interpretation of] the verse presents a difficulty, for why would God not answer after the rectification of the separation? Therefore the verse [must be] interpreted [to mean] that their sin affects the upper spheres and thus they have no means to rectify it. This is why [the passage] states “This concerns one who removes [Kabbalah and wisdom],” which relates to the verse Then they will call upon Me [and I will not answer].

The preceding verse states, Wisdom [cries out] in the streets (Prov. 1:20). This verse refers to the recondite secrets of our holy Torah. [Wisdom] states, How long will you simple ones love simplicity? (Prov. 1:22). In other words, you who follow after the simple meaning deceive yourselves with your love of simplicity — the part of the Torah you do believe in — which contains nothing beyond the simple meaning. And scoffers [be eager] to scoff. This has reference to [King] Manasseh [son of Hezekiah], who would expound [difficult haggadot and say, “Did Moses have only to write The sister of Lotan was Timna (Gen. 36:22)]?”

Who has caused these people to chase after the simple meaning [of Scripture] and ignore the esoteric portions? It is you dullards [who] hate knowledge (Prov. 1:23), meaning the knowledge of hidden things. What is written [in the verse] after that? You are indifferent to my rebuke, I will now speak my mind to you. This means that the soul which is enwrapped in the simple meaning [is now addressed]: I will now speak my mind to you and let you know my thoughts concerning the secrets which I possess. And you spurned [my counsel] (Prov: 1:25)… Then they will call upon me [but I will not answer (Prov. 1:28). This is why [the passage] states, “This concerns one who removes Kabbalah and wisdom. [Kabbalah] means the written Torah, [which symbolizes] Tiferet, and [wisdom] refers to the oral Torah, which is Malkhut. This is the mystery of the vav heh in which the yod heh is concealed, as it is written, The hidden things are for the Lord our God. There the secret of God is revealed — to us and our children forever (Deut. 29:28).

Thus one who denies the mysteries of the Torah and its esoteric lore causes the “removal of wisdom,” yod, “and Kabbalah,” heh, from Tiferet and Malkhut, vav and heh, referring to the written and oral Torah. Since it is difficult for one [to understand] how the poor man, who can only believe what his eyes see, could sin [so grievously] as to be punished by having the yod heh removed from the vav heh [in the divine Name], [the passage] states that we are dealing only with one who teaches this publicly and acts according to his teaching. This is the reason that [the passage] states “[He] who causes that they should not attempt [to acquire] them and who asserts that there is nothing beyond the plain meaning of the Torah” — the written Torah — “and Talmud” — the oral Torah. The man who has done this has caused a “dryness” above as surely as if he had sinned with his very hands. This is why [the passage] states, “It is as if he removed the flow from that river,” i.e., vav, “and that garden,” i.e., heh, which constitute the written and oral Torahs.

“Woe to him. It were better for him had he never been created,” since he has caused harm on high, “and had never taught,” for through his “study” of the written and oral Torah he takes Tiferet and Malkhut and removes from them the mystery of yod and heh. Thus in his very Torah study he causes loss and division, so that the study becomes a sin. It is doubtless concerning him that [the verse] states, And to the wicked God says (Ps. 50:16), for it is considered as if he [had returned the world to formlessness and void]. In truth there exists formlessness and void [on the side of] good and formlessness and void of the kelipah. “Formlessness” (tohu) signifies [the sefirah] Ḥokhmah, which is a place of astonishment (toheh). “Void” (bohu) is that which clothes the formlessness. It signifies [the sefirah] Binah. By means of these [two sefirot] the formlessness and void of the kelipah are nullified. Thus everyone who removes these two [sefirotic] qualities and causes the “outer ones” to prevail can surely [be considered] as if [he had caused] the world to return to formlessness and void. He removes the world which is the dwelling place of the formlessness and void of the Holy One, blessed be He, and causes the “outer ones” to rule. Thus the world is clothed in the kelipah, which constitutes the primordial formlessness and void. This is why [Scripture] states, And the earth was formless and void, for there was no emanation from the supernal formlessness and void, as I have explained.

This defect, therefore, is the mystery of yod heh, which refers to wisdom and Kabbalah. This he removes, causing “poverty” in place of the “riches” emanating from Tiferet, which is the mystery of the river mentioned previously. “Length of exile” is the mystery of the “waters” left the “sea” [signifying that] the Shekhinah left for exile. This was explained by Rabbi Simeon bar Yoḥai, peace upon him, in another place. [He stated] that the mystery of the earth was formless and void [refers to the period] after the destruction of the First and Second Temples. And God said, “Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3) — this [refers] to the mystery of the future redemption. I dealt with this matter in my book, Or Yakar.

With this the passage has been explained and we have uncovered the sin of those who hold this opinion. First of all, [the sin] involves the removal of emanation and [the separation of] Ḥokhmah and Binah from Tiferet and Malkhut. Secondly, it is as if the world had returned to formlessness and void. Thirdly, it causes “poverty”. Fourthly, [it causes] “length of exile,” as I have explained.

Part I, Chapter 2

More on This Matter

In [the Zohar], section Be-ha’alotekha [III, 152a], it states:

Rabbi Simeon said;

Woe to that son of man who says that this Torah has come to present an ordinary story and ordinary words. For if this were so, even in this time we would be able to make a Torah of ordinary words; [one] better than any of them.

If [the Torah] comes merely to present ordinary words, then there are even greater words among the nobles of the world. If so, let us seek [those words] and make a Torah of them.

However, all the words of the Torah are [sublime].

Come and see:

The upper world and the lower world are evenly balanced: Israel below and the high angels above. Of the lofty angels it is written, He makes His angels as winds (Ps. 104:4). This [refers to their state] in the high place.

When they come down to earth [the angels] clothe themselves in the garments of this world.

Had they not clothed themselves in garments after the fashion of this world, they would not have been able to exist in this world, and the world would not suffer them [to exist].

If this is so with regard to the angels, then [how much more so] with regard to the Torah, which created them and all the worlds, and everything exists for its sake.

When [the Torah] did come down into the world, were it not clothed in the garments of this world, the world would not have been able to suffer it.

Therefore the story of the Torah constitutes its garment.

He who thinks that the garment is actually the Torah and and not something else, let his spirit deflate and let him have no portion in the world-to-come.

It was in this connection that David said, Open my eye that I may behold wondrous things out of your Torah (Ps. 119:18), [meaning] that which is under the garment is really Torah.

Come and see:

A garment is visible to all.

Those fools, when they see a man in a garment that appears good to them, seek no farther.

They think that the garment is the actual thing.

[However,] the essence of the body is the soul.

Just so, the Torah has a body.

The commandments of the Torah are called the “body” of the Torah.

This body is clothed in a garment made up of the stories of this world.

The fools of the world look on nothing save the garment, which is the story of the Torah [and nothing more. They do not look at that which is under the garment].

The wise, who worship the Most High King, those who stood at Mount Sinai, look only at the soul, which is the most essential thing of all.

It is the true Torah.

In the world-to-come, they will look at the soul of the soul of the Torah.

Come and see.

Thus it is above:

There is garment and body and soul and soul of souls.

The heavens and their host are the garment.

The congregation of Israel is the body which receives the soul, which is the glory [Tiferet] of Israel, which is the very Torah.

The soul of the soul is the ancient Holy One.

All are connected one to the other.

Woe to those sinners of the world who say that this Torah is nothing but an ordinary story.

They look at the garment and no farther.

Happy are the righteous who regard the Torah properly.

Wine cannot stay except in a jar.

So Torah cannot abide except in this garment.

Because of this one must seek to look at [the Torah] only only through what exists under the garment.

Thus all those words and stories are garments.

In this passage, [the Zohar] has instructed us concerning the refutation of the opinion of this group and those like them who denigrate the esoteric portion of our holy Torah. Essentially, we learn from [the passage] that over and above the secret inherent in the matter there is an even more hidden level of mystery which is presently unknown even to those who know [Kabbalah]. Nonetheless we and all Israel will be privileged [to behold] this [mystery] in the future world.

Now, brethren, explain to me how a person who has never beheld the soul [of the Torah in this world] will, in the future, gaze upon the soul of the soul? Such a person will be found wanting in the future [world]. Do not reply that some are unworthy [to behold] her, for there is a great difference between one who denies her and one who does not deny her and yet has never beheld [her] light. Superior to both of them is the one who has pursued her.

The Lord, the living God and eternal King, sits in judgment to clear the innocent and declare the culprit guilty. He apportions to man according to his ways (Jer. 17:10). The words of our sages, their memory be a blessing, cannot be denied. [They stated] in Midrash Mishlei: “They ask a man [on the Day of Judgment], ‘Have you gazed upon the Merkavah? Have you beheld my Shi’ur Koma?” Copying this [entire] passage would be too cumbersome. Rabbi Simeon bar Yoḥai, peace upon him, also dealt with this matter in the Zohar, same section, page 149. Read it there.