From Divine Shape to Angelic Being: The Career of Akatriel in Jewish Literature

Author(s): Daniel Abrams

Source: The Journal of Religion, Vol. 76, No. 1 (Jan., 1996), pp. 43-63
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1204285
Accessed: 10-01-2020 04:13 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Journal of Religion

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:13:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 From Divine Shape to Angelic Being:
The Career of Akatriel in Jewish
Literature*

Daniel Abrams / Jerusalem

The creation of man in the image of God (Gen. 1:26) has historically been
the focus of theological inquiries not only into the nature of man but also
of God. And although the Hebrew Bible declares that Moses cannot see
God's face and live, it tries to distance itself from a literal reading which
would attribute shape to God, declaring that "You cannot see my face,
for man may not see Me and live" (Exod. 33:20). Other biblical verses,
however, plainly state man's viewing of the divine (Exod. 24:10; Isa. 6:1).
In a study on anthropomorphism and theophany, James Barr argued
that the Hebrew Bible draws the distinction between God's form and the
appearance which man may see. According to Barr, we must speak of
the Hebrew Bible's acceptance of anthropomorphic theophanies, but not
necessarily of a divine form.' In some biblical texts at least, angels are
therefore to be viewed as the accompaniment of an anthropomorphic
appearance and not the mitigation of an earlier doctrine concerning the
divine form.
Later Jewish texts expanded on the emotive description of the divine
in the Bible, attributing to God personality which interacts with that of
man. The Rabbinic doctrine of anthropomorphism, however, went
beyond that of the Bible. While both describe God in human terms, var-
ious Rabbinic texts describe God in corporeal terms, for example, par-
taking in rituals which require physical attributes.2 These Rabbinic

* This study was made possible through a grant from the Memorial Foundation for Jew-
ish Culture. I would like to thank Dr. Boaz Huss and Prof. Charles Mopsik for making
various helpful comments.
J. Barr, "Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament," Vetus Testamentum
7, suppl. (Leiden: Brill, 1960): 31-38. See also Moshe Weinfeld, "God and the Creator in
Genesis 1 and in the Prophecy of Second Isaiah," Tarbiz 37 (1968): 105-32, esp. 113-16;
Avraham Ahuvia, "Bezelem elohim bara oto," Beit Miqra 30 (1985): 361-69.
2 See, most recently, Shamma Friedman, "Graven Images," Graven Images 1 (1994): 233-
38, where he argues that the midrashic image of Jacob's face being inscribed on the divine
throne or "on high" in fact states that Jacob's visage resembles that of the Divine Presence.
@ 1996 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0022-4189/96/7601-0003 $01.00

43

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:13:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Journal of Religion

dicta, which posed an embarrassment to rationalists in the medieval per-

iod, can also be understood to be figurative descriptions which lack any
particular or concrete referent. The various modern scholars who have
discussed this problem have tried to show that either God does indeed
possess a definite shape in at least some Rabbinic texts or that anthro-
pomorphism was always used figuratively as an accepted means of
expression.3
Many Jewish mystical texts of the Middle Ages embraced some doctrine
of divine anthropomorphism or incarnation. Indeed, a major theme un-
derlying many theosophical texts of the Kabbalah is the arrangement or
hierarchy of the ten ontological grades of the divine theosophy (sefirot)
according to a human shape.4 More interesting for the question of the
origins and function of anthropomorphism in Rabbinic texts and their
possible connection to various forms of ancient Jewish mysticism is the
measure of the divine body, the Shi'ur Qomah. The Shi'ur Qomah was de-
scribed in the Hekhalot literature as the human shape of God.5 Its de-
tailed measurements were so great that they too have been understood
to be taken figuratively by various scholars.6 This same body of literature
also describes the ascension of Enoch and his transformation into the
angelic Metatron. When these texts were received in the circles of the
German Pietists and shortly thereafter among the first Kabbalists, Meta
tron was identified with the Shi'ur Qomah, in effect bridging the gap b

3 The first comprehensive study is A. Marmorstein's two-volume work, The Old Rabbin
Doctrine of God (London: Oxford University Press, 1927; reprint, New York: Ktav, 1968
More recent studies include Michael Fishbane, "The Measures of God's Glory in the A
cient Midrash," in Messiah and Christos: Studies in Jewish Origins of Christianity Presented to Dav
Flusser, ed. I. Grtinwald (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993), pp. 53-74; Jacob Neusner, The Incarnation
of God: The Character of Divinity in Formative Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988); G
Stroumsa, "The Incorporeality of God," Religion 12 (1983): 345-58; David Stern, "Imitatio
Hominis: Anthropomorphism and the Character(s) of God in Rabbinic Literature," Prooftexts
12 (1992): 151-74; Allon Goshen Gottstein, "The Body as Image of God in Rabbinic Litera
ture," Harvard Theological Review 87 (1994): 171-95. On interpretations of the Aggadah, s
Marc Saperstein, Decoding the Rabbis: A Thirteenth-Century Commentary on the Aggadah (Cam
bridge, Mass., and London: Harvard University Press, 1980), chap. 1.
4 See Moshe Idel, "The Image of Man above the Sefirot," Da'at 4 (1980): 41-55; Ellio
Wolfson, "Anthropomorphic Imagery and Letter Symbolism in the Zohar,"Jerusalem Studies
in Jewish Thought 8 (1989): 141-81 (in Hebrew). Also see the brief commentary to Gen. 1:
preserved in Ms. Vatican 294, fol. 22b, where each limb part of the human body is pair
off with one of the ten sefirot.
5 Martin Cohen, The Shi'ur Qomah: Liturgy and Theurgy in Pre-Kabbalistic Jewish Mysticism
(Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1983), The Shi'ur Qomah Texts and Recension
(Ttibingen: Mohr, 1985).
6 See Joseph Dan, "The Concept of Knowledge in the Shi'ur Qomah," in Studies in Jewis
Religious and Intellectual History Presented to Alexander Altmann on the Occasion of His Seventie
Birthday, ed. Siegfried Stein and Raphael Loewe (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Pres
1979), pp. 67-74.

44

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:13:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Career of Akatriel

tween the descent of the divine into the human world and the ascent of
man into the sphere of the divine world.'
Although Rabbinic literature knows of Metatron, placing him on a
throne next to God in the celebrated story of the four who entered the
Pardes (mystical "garden") and where Elisha ben Abuye mistakes him for
a second deity, Metatron is by no means the sole expression of divine
anthropomorphism in Rabbinic literature. A more striking and direct
presentation of the divine form is found in the episode of the Babylonian
Talmud where Akatriel appears before Rabbi Ishmael. The nature of
Akatriel, literally, "the crown of God," or "God crowned," is not clearly
defined in this context, leaving much room for interpretation by later
figures. At one extreme of the spectrum, Akatriel is identified as God
himself, physically manifesting himself in the holy of holies. At the other
extreme, Akatriel is distanced from all things divine, relegated to the
world of created angelic beings.
The origins and career of Akatriel therefore parallel that of Metatron,
who has been interpreted as both angel and God.8 The names Metatron
and Akatriel appear at first glance to be those of angels, while in Rabbinic
literature their appearance is compared to that of the divine (if not
equated with it). This study traces the history of interpretations of this
Rabbinic aggadah and shows how Akatriel underwent various metamor-
phoses as he was appropriated by various systems of thought. Further, it
argues that the tradition of Akatriel as the expression of the divine shape
predates that of Metatron in Rabbinic literature and was all but sup-
planted in later literature, beginning with the Amoraic period on
through the medieval period. Although Akatriel had receded to the back-
ground ofJewish literature, his original importance as the anthropomor-
phic form of the divine was only appreciated after the crystallization of
classical medieval Kabbalah, when the boundaries between God, angel,
and man were codified.

7 See Moshe Idel, "Enoch is Metatron," Immanuel 24/25 (1990): 220-40. See his forthcom
ing study, "Metatron-Comments on the Development of Jewish Myth," in Myth in Jewis
Thought, ed. H. Pediah (Ber Sheva: Ben Gurion University Press, 1995; in Hebrew), wher
he terms the upward and downward movement, respectively, as "apotheosis" and "theoph
any." See also the tradition recorded in Midrash Bereshit Rabbati, ed. Chanoch Albeck (Jeru-
salem: Wahrmann, 1940), p. 41, where Prov. 30:4 ("who ascended into heaven and de
scended") is understood to refer to Akatriel.
8 I have discussed the career of Metatron in my study, "The Boundaries of Divine Onto
ogy: The Inclusion and Exclusion of Metatron in the Godhead," Harvard Theological Review
87 (1994): 291-323.

45

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:13:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Journal of Religion

THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD

Akatriel first appears in the celebrated passage of the Bab

(Berachot 7a) where Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha views him in
chamber of the Temple. This passage follows a discussion a
lactaries God wears and a brief discussion concerning t
recites in order that his attribute of mercy will overcom
of justice:

It has been taught on Tannaite authority: Said Rabbi Ishmael b

time I went in to offer up incense on the innermost altar and I
the Lord [Akatriel, YaH], enthroned on the highest throne, an
"Ishamel, my son, bless me". I said to him "may it be your will
overcome your anger, and that your mercy prevail over your oth
that you treat your children in accord with the trait of mercy and
go beyond the strict measure of the law". And he nodded his he

Inasmuch as he is seated on the highest throne and speak

attributes, Akatriel is at the very least a supreme angel in
at the most the enthroned form of the divine himself. I am inclined to
accept the latter reading because Akatriel is not directly designated as a
angel and is termed YaH, sharing part of the divine name.' A more skep
tical reading would argue that God does not take on a physical, an
thereby visible, form, and Akatriel therefore represents God only to t
extent that he is the angelic agency of God which manifests itself in t
created and finite world. To be sure, such a determination is based on a
interpretive reading of the passage which is dependent on a specific th
ory of the Rabbinic doctrines of angelology, anthropomorphism, and in
carnation." While one might claim that even the first reading is based
a specific orientation not grounded in the text, there is no indication th
Rabbi Ishmael has entered into a dream state, that the episode is in fa

I Neusner, p. 194, Neusner's translation. Of note is Leopold Zunz's view that this passag
is relatively late. See his Die gottesdienstlichen Vortiige derJuden (Frankfurt am Main: J. Kauf
mann, 1892), p. 173, note e: "Der Name ,xnrnnx (Berachot 7a) ist eine Umschreibung de
g6ttlichen Majestit; allein ich halte jene Boraitha fiir jiinger als die Gemara [obwohl
bereits von R. Chananel citiert wird]."
10 Previous scholars who have understood Akatriel as identical with the deity accordin
to this talmudic passage include William Rosenau, "Some Notes on Akatriel," in Sonderdru
aus der Paul Haupt Festschrift (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1926), pp. 103
Gustaf Dalman, Aramdisches-Neuhebrdisches Handworterbuch (Frankfurt am Main: J. Kauff
mann, 1922), p. 18; and the note by Y. Schorr in He-Halutz 10 (1929): 70, designatin
Akatriel to be the most high or the composite of a two-part divine name akhatrei and el.
I See Neusner, pp. 11-21, 192-94; see further Elliot Wolfson's review of Neusner's stud
in the Jewish Quarterly Review 81 (1990): 219-22. Wolfson distinguishes between incarnation
with its ontological implications, and anthropomorphism, defined as a representatio
mode of the divine taking on a human personality.

46

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:13:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Career of Akatriel

a parable, or even that Akatriel is an angel, all interpretations whic

emerge in the Middle Ages.
Manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud differ from the printed text
and cause me to amend the above translation. For example, all manu
scripts agree in naming Akatriel Akatriel YaH YWY Zeva'ot or Akatriel Ya
YYYZeva'ot to include a representation of God's four-letter name.'2 Mor
pertinent to the identification and role of Akatriel is the way in whic
Rabbi Ishmael addresses his response. (It is here being assumed tha
Rabbi Ishmael addresses his prayer to Akatriel in the above passage and
does not distinguish him from a higher or separate aspect of the divine
At least three manuscript versions of this address have survived. The
most common version, found in most medieval copyings, omits any qual
fier and follows the translation provided above.'" The second version can
be found in what is recognized to be the most important manuscript o
the Talmud as a whole. There, Rabbi Ishmael responds by addressin
"The Master of the Universe" to further clarify the object of Ishmael'
blessing."4 A third version preserved in a geniza fragment in Oxford fro
the tenth or eleventh century includes an even sharper reading, wher
Rabbi Ishmael requests: "May it be your will, Lord My God ... .."5
These variations in the text seem to point to an uneasiness with the
nature of Akatriel. If, on the one hand, the geniza fragment has pre-
served the original version, then it could well be argued that the origin
intent of the author(s) was to identify Akatriel with God.'6 The omissio
of the divine name would therefore be the mitigation of this identifica

2 Jacob Lauterbach, "Substitutes for the Tetragrammaton," Proceedings of the America

Academy for Jewish Research 2 (1930-31): 39-67. Rosenau suggested that YaH Y' Zeva'ot migh
be an interpolation of an early marginal gloss which sought to explain the text.
'~ See, e.g., the early complete copying of the Talmud: Ms. Florence, National Library,
11-1-7, fol. 5d, copied in the year 1173: rIno nxK r mn~ 1W 1-3W I~,1 pYi rr,'. See also M
Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale 671, which follows this version.
14 Ms. Munich 95, fol. 140b. Other manuscripts consulted include Ms. Oxford 266, fol
2d-3a, and Ms. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale 631, fol. 196a, copied, respectively, in th
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. These manuscripts lack the appellation "Master of th
Universe." For a description of these and other manuscripts of the Talmud, see N. Zacks
Mishna Zeraim (Jerusalem: Yad ha-Rav Herzog, 1972), pp. 65 ff. Ms. Oxford 366 further
records the wholly different reading: '...5KrinnxK inK n nnerin ,2 'v n;nrl t;aran K5mv, n "
xrann' ,',,rn nnxK mn. Smaller differences include "And I said to him" (*') vs. "And I said befo
him" (1-,13) and Akatriel "who sits on a high and exalted throne" (arn, Kfrnw) vs. Akatri
"who is seated" (nvw). Might this difference refer to the permanent vs. incidental role
Akatriel as the enthroned form? Such an interpretation can be found in Naftali Trev
Herz's Commentary to the Prayers (Thiengen: Elieazer Herz, 1560, 4nx) regarding a passag
in the liturgy which reads u',rn 15rn or, alternatively, a , 15r1n. For further variants to th
passage in Berachot, see Variae Lectiones (Diqduqei Soferim) (Munich: Heinrich Rosel, 1867
1:22-23 (in Hebrew).
'I Ms. Oxford-Bodleian 2826, twelfth fragment.
'6 Based on the context, it seems highly unlikely to me that the gloss seeks to distinguish
the divine from Akatriel and to direct the address to God alone.

47

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:13:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Journal of Religion
tion. If, on the other hand, one were to claim that the divine name had
been added at this early stage and the complete Talmud manuscript pre-
serves the more original version, then the geniza fragment has incorpo-
rated a gloss which strengthens the identification in the face of criticism
prior to the emergence of the Kabbalah in medieval Europe.

HEKHALOT LITERATURE

The passage from Berachot does not play a prominent ro

or early medieval body of Jewish mystical texts collec
the Hekhalot literature; rather, it was interpolated into
copyings and reworkings of these texts. One such passa
a knowledge of the talmudic text versions cited above.
gloss in the same hand adds the tetragrammaton to Ra
sponse before Akatriel and marks a deletion over the w
the Universe," indicating that one should replace the oth
manuscript which contains a later reworking of the va
texts,18 Akatriel Ya YHWH Zevaoth speaks to Rabbi Ish
similar claim as that just cited can be extended to this
as Peter Schafer has commented, "Akatriel is here clear
who, however, functions as an angel of revelation." '9
In an earlier collection of these texts from the circles of the German

I7 See, e.g., par. 151 of Ms. New York, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, Mic 8128,
fol. 6a; Peter Schifer, ed., Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur (Tiibingen: Mohr 1981), p. 66:
...1=1311W ,nic5K- ,,, ",1-136 pri ,nV t3'1 pM51 [V-rirnri '"tw"5-v r,, r ",'n ,',n 'n -i . Gershom
Scholem already noted the addition of "The Lord of Israel" to "Akatriel Yah" in this same
manuscript, fol. 35a. See his Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition, 2d
ed. (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1965), pp. 53 n. 31; p. 54, n. 34,
Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, 3d rev. ed. (New York: Schocken, 1941), pp. 356, n. 3; 363,
n. 57.
18 K. Herrmann and C. Rohrbacher-Sticker, "Magische Traditionen der New Yorker
Hekhalot-Handschrift JTS 8128 im Kontext ihrer Gesamtredaktion," FrankfurterJudaistische
Beitrage 17 (1989): 101-49.
19 Peter Schaifer, The Hidden and Manifest God: Some Major Themes in Early Jewish Mysticism
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992), p. 36, n. 109. See also Rachel Elior,
"Mysticism, Magic and Angelology: The Perception of Angels in Hekhalot Literature," Jew-
ish Studies Quarterly 1 (1993/94): 3-53, esp. 33, where she comments that, in the context of
Hekhalot literature, the divine appellation is added to angelic names to imply a new doc-
trine of the unity of the divinity. J. Dan, however, warns us not to use the term "angel" too
readily in these cases. See his "Anafiel, Metatron and the Creator," Tarbiz 52 (1983): 448-57,
esp. 448, n. 5. As noted above, this "new" view determined by the addition of the divine
appellation can be found already in the manuscripts of the Talmud. See also Carl Eric
Grozinger, "The Names of God and the Celestial Powers: Their Function and Meaning in
the Hekhalot Literature," Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 6, nos. 1-2 (1987): 56, 62: "The
highest deity gives some of its own names away because the participation in God's Name is
participation in God's power and thus in the deity itself." See, however, par. 667, where
Akatriel is mentioned as one of a series of angels.

48

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:13:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Career of Akatriel

Pietists there can be found a passage not found in the other manuscript
copyings of the Hekhalot literature. Hugo Odeberg first published this
passage from manuscripts not included in Schifer's edition: "In this mo-
ment Akatriel Yah JWHW of the Hosts spoke and said to Metatron, the
Prince of the Countenance, 'Let no prayer that he prays before me return
void. Hear his prayer and fulfill his desire, great or small."'20 Odeberg
comments that Akatriel "is here in all probability a name of the Most High,
not an angel." Gershom Scholem concurs, understanding Akatriel to be
"one of the names of God as He appears on the throne."2' Indeed, Aka-
triel gives instructions to Metatron as only God does in other passages of
Hekhalot texts. In yet another Hekhalot manuscript there can be found
another unique passage (par. 310) where Akatriel is called Akatriel YWY,
the Lord of Israel, making this claim even stronger. The text continues with
a listing of God's thirteen attributes.22
The boundary between Akatriel and God is best expressed, however,
in paragraph 597 of the Hekhalot texts, where Akatriel replaces Metatron
as the enthroned being whom Elisha ben Abuye viewed during his ascent
to the (heavenly) Pardes.23 In this aggadah, which is preserved among
other places in the Babylonian Talmud, Hagiga 15a, Elisha confuses this
seated form with the divine and claims that there are indeed "two de-
ities." 24

20 The translation follows that of Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, p. 52. Compare Hugo Ode-
berg, 3 Enoch, or the Hebrew Book of Enoch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928),
p. 42. This text can be found as well in "'Hilkhot Metatron' in Eleazar of Worms," Sodei Razaya,
Ms. Vatican 202, fol. 116a-b, and the recently rediscovered manuscript of Hekhalot collecta-
nea once housed in Vienna. This manuscript, copied at the end of the thirteenth century, is
located in the Jewish National and University Library, Jerusalem: Ms. 80 5226, fol. 22b:

'plv1 p n p1 In - 1-1r w rv mnian vnt ap-n. I would like to thank Dr. Klaus Herrmann
and Uli Hirschfelder of the Institut ffir Judistik (Berlin) for information regarding this
manuscript. See K. Herrmann's study of the manuscript in Frankfurter Judaistische Beitrage
19 (1995): 109-30: "Die Jerusalemer Handschrift 80 5226 in ihrem Verhdltnis zum Schrift-
tum des El'azar von Worms."
21 Odeberg, p. 42; Scholem,Jewish Gnosticism, p. 52.
22 Ms. Vatican 228. The above formulation is repeated in par. 501.
23 E. Urbach noted that, in the Hekhalot literature, Metatron replaces Akatriel in a re-
casting of the talmudic version. See his "The Traditions about Merkabah Mysticism in the
Tanaaitic Period," in Studies in Mysticism and Religion Presented to Gershom Scholem on His Seven-
tieth Birthday, ed. E. E. Urbach, R. J. Zvi Werblowski, Ch. Wirszubski (Jerusalem: Magnes
Press, 1967), p. 23 (in Hebrew).
24 Scholem (Jewish Gnosticism, p. 53) compares this passage to the Geonic view that Aka-
triel is an angel. On the interchanging of Metatron and Akatriel, see Moshe Idel, "Olam ha-
Demut ve-Liquttei HaRan," Eshel Be'er Sheva 2 (1980): 165-76, esp. 167-71; Meir Bar Ilan,
"The Idea of Crowning God in Hekhalot Literature and the Karaitic Polemic," Jerusalem
Studies in Jewish Thought 6 (1987): 221-34, esp. 233, n. 37. On Sandalfon's role as the angel
who ties the crowns on God's head, see Sefer ha-Hesheq (Lemberg: J. M. Epstein, 1865),
fol. 9a; Elliot Wolfson, "Mystical-Theurgical Dimensions of Prayer in Sefer Ha-Rimmon," in

49

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:13:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Journal of Religion

GEONIC LITERATURE

Geonic literature (seventh through eleventh centuries) is

to understand Rabbi Ishmael's viewing of Akatriel. The G
cially sensitive to the physical representation of God as
fending themselves against the attacks of the Karaites,
Rabbinic community of an anthropomorphic view of th
example, Salmon ben Yeruham states that "whoever says
the appearance of Akatriel as described in Berachot "is cu
God of Israel."'25 Geonim such as Hai and Sherira distanced themselves
from the Shi'ur Qomah texts of the Hekhalot literature, questioning thei
attribution to (second-century) tannaitic Rabbis or claiming that their
meaning was a "great mystery."''26 Other Geonim held a more moderate
view, declaring God's ability to speak directly to man as described in the
Hebrew Bible and various Midrashim, while claiming that all physical
manifestations of the divine are carried out by angelic beings. So, the
most influential thinker of the period, Saadia Gaon (882-942), based his
theology on a doctrine of a created light, identified with the "Divine
Glory."27 To this Glory are predicated all anthropomorphic statements
about the divine. Although Saadia's known works do not include an inter
pretation of this passage concerning Akatriel, other prominent Geonim
a century later, such as Hananel b. Hushiel (died 1056), understood Saa-
dia's doctrine of the Glory to include Rabbi Ishmael's viewing of Akatriel
"Do you not see that because Rabbi Ishmael the high priest saw in the
holy of holies the Glory, Akatriel, Lord of Hosts, seated on the exalted
and high throne in the holy of holies, in the mind's eye [be-re'iyat ha-lev

Approaches to Judaism in Medieval Times, ed. D. Blumenthal (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988)
3:77, n. 146.
25 Israel Davidson, ed., The Book of the Wars of the Lord Containing the Polemics of the Karaite
Salmon ben Yeruhim against Saadia Gaon (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America,
1934), p. 109 (in Hebrew). Although it is not clear from the immediate comment wha
aspect of the Aggadah he finds offensive, from the context of this chapter of his work and
the book as a whole it becomes clear that it is the belief that God has a definite shape. Se
further, Alexander Altmann, "Moses Narboni's 'Epistle on Shi'ur Qoma': A Critical Edition
of the Hebrew Text with an Introduction and an Annotated English Translation," in Jewis
Medieval and Renaissance Studies, ed. A. Altmann (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1967), p. 228.
26 Sherira's response that it is a "great mystery" can also be viewed as an endorsement
rather than a denial of these traditions. See Gershom Scholem, "Shi'ur Komah: The Mystica
Shape of the Godhead," in his On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead, trans. J. Neugrosche
(New York: Schocken, 1991), pp. 35-37. See also Altmann, pp. 226-27.
27 See, e.g., Alexander Altmann, "Saadya's Theory of Revelation: Its Origin and Back
ground," Saadya Studies, ed. E. Rosenthal (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1943)
pp. 4-25, reprinted in A. Altmann, Studies in Religious Philosophy and Mysticism (Ithaca, N.Y
Cornell University Press, 1969), pp. 140-60.

50

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:13:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Career of Akatriel

as did Isaiah (6:1) and Micah (2 Kings 22:19) who heard the [divine] voice
[coming from]28 the Glory.... And there are those who say Akatriel is an
angel, but we have received [qibalnu] that he is no other than the [divine]
Glory.'"29 Hananel adds two important changes to Saadia's view: he classi-
fies the vision to be a vision "in the mind's eye" in order to deny the
existence of a corporeal manifestation of God. Second, he adds to Aka-
triel's appellation the term "Glory," apparently to strengthen his tradi-
tion. Hananel therefore raises Akatriel's status from angel to divine Glory
as he removes his manifestation from the physical world.
The student and successor of Hananel, Nissim Gaon (990-1062), seems
to return to Saadia's view of the divine Glory as an entity which physically
manifests itself in the world. He cites the "few Aggadot [to which] the
Sages commented that Akatriel is an angel, like Michael or Gabriel. And
Ishmael saw an angel but the voice he heard spoke the words of God,
may He be blessed."30 Further, in the first third of the twelfth century,
Rabbi Yehuda Barzeloni writes:

And so every prophet and seer who sees this luminous light says "I have seen
God". And when the prophet says he "sees God": he means to say "I have seen
signs from God which demonstrate [the presence] of His Glory", according to
[what Saadia] explained [regarding] this whole matter in a full commentary in
the Book of Unity.3' According to this correct view, we are obliged to say that
Rabbi Ishmael saw one form [zurah] of the forms of luminous light which were
created first. And the name of this [particular] light is Akatriel, and it is called the
God of Israel, that is a sign of the Lord of Israel.32

Barzeloni has therefore placed Akatriel within Saadia's understanding of

the Glory, viewed as one of its forms. Further on, Barzeloni characterizes

28 Literally, "before."
29 David Metzger, ed., Perushei Rabenu Hananel bar Hushiel La-Talmud (Jerusalem: Machon
Lev Sameah, 1990), 1:12-13; Otzar ha-Geonim, ed. B. Lewin (Haifa, 1928), 1:5. Part of this
text was copied by Yehuda Barzeloni in his Commentary to Sefer Yezirah, ed. S. J. Halberstam
(Berlin: Mikeze Nirdamim, 1885), p. 22 (in Hebrew), and Sefer RaBN, sec. 127. This text
was also included in Sefer Shakod of Shmuel Qalonimos. See my forthcoming edition and
study: "Fragments of Sefer Shakod of Samuel b. R. Qalonimos and the Doctrine of the Divine
Glory of a Student of Eleazar of Worms," Asufot, vol. 9 (1995) (in Hebrew).
30 Simha Immanuel, "A Fragment of Sefer Megilat Setarim of Nissim Gaon," in Rabbi Morde-
chai Breuer Festschrift, ed. Mosheh Bar-Asher (Jerusalem: Akademon, 1992), 2:535-51, esp.
548 (in Hebrew); the passage cited was already printed by A. Epstein, "Das talmudische
Lexicon t,rnwimx ,an ,on und Juehuda b. Kalonymous aus Speier," Monatsschrift fir
Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 39 (1895): 507-13, esp. 511. See further Shmuel
Poznanski, "Collectanea from Sefer Megilat Setarim of R. Nissim," Ha-Zofe 5 (1921): 177-88,
esp. 186 (in Hebrew).
3~ Apparently this is a reference to the second chapter of Saadia's Book of Belief and Faith
(secs. 10 and 12). See Shimon David Luzzato's comments in Sefer Ben Garni (Amsterdam:
Widow of David Propos, 1851), p. 70.
32 Barzeloni, pp. 20-2 1; Otzar ha-Geonim, 1:16.

51

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:13:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Journal of Religion

Saadia's view more sharply, understanding this form of the Glory as an

angel: "And it seems from what R. Saadia Gaon, may his memory be
blessed, wrote earlier33 that Akatriel Ya, Lord of Hosts, is an angelic mes-
senger34 of God, may He be blessed. But many of the Geonim, may their
memories be blessed, said that Akatriel is not one of the angels but is
[made] of the light of the Glory, may it be exalted, and from the great
splendor from which Rabbi Ishmael saw the form.35

GERMAN PIETISM AND THE SPECIAL CHERUB CIRCLE

The various ways in which German Pietism grappled wit

phic descriptions of God can all be contrasted to the
emerged elsewhere, possibly in France, of the so-called
Circle. Certain manuscripts which describe the emanate
sitting on the divine throne are attributed to Eleazar of
figure of the pietist circle at the beginning of the thirteen
lem was misled by these attributions and attempted to g
reading of both corpora.36 Later studies by Joseph Dan
impression and outlined new demarcations for the two
ture.37 We can now see that the pietists avoid a literal
seeing God. On the whole, Eleazar of Worms tends to f
that Rabbi Ishmael viewed Akatriel in the "mind's eye,"
templative vision. So, for example, he writes in his Com
Prayers:

So Akatriel appeared to Rabbi Ishmael, the high priest,3s as if he prays, [saying

the words:] "May it be My will before Me that my mercy will overcome My [other]
attributes". In this same way, [he appeared] to Moses, "And God passed before
his face and called ... ,that he was wrapped [in a prayer shawl], like the represen-

11 Compare Otzar ha-Geonim, p. 18.

14 The same view can be found in Salomon Parchon's Lexicon Hebraicum (Pusonii: Antonii
Nobilis de Schmid, 1844), pt. 2, fol. 38d (in Hebrew): "He is called an angel, that is, the
angel Lord of Hosts told him thus [one] prays before me, and he says 'Blessed are you
Lord,' in order to teach to the blessings to the children of Israel."
35 Barzaloni, pp. 20-21.
36 See, e.g., Scholem, Major Trends (n. 17 above), pp. 110-16.
37 See Joseph Dan, "'The Exceptional Cherub' Sect in the Literature of the Medieval
German Hasidim," Tarbiz 35 (1966): 345-72 (in Hebrew), reprinted in his Studies in
Ashkenazi-Hasidic Literature (Ramat Gan: Masadah, 1975), pp. 89-111 (in Hebrew); and see
my forthcoming study, "The Evolution of Intention of Prayer to the "Special Cherub":
From the Earliest Works to a Late Unknown Treatise," Frankfurter Judaistische Beitrdge,
vol. 22 (1995).
38 Only in the Hekhalot version is Elisha termed high priest.

52

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:13:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Career of Akatriel

tative of the congregation.39 [This does] not [mean] that He [really] prays, rath
that he shows them how to pray, because through his Glory he displays the w
of the Creator, may He be Blessed, as through a looking glass.40

Eleazar has equated Akatriel with the divine Glory which is itself per-
ceived in a visionary state. Moreover, Eleazar is not willing to accept th
plain sense of the aggadah that Akatriel prays and instead characterize
Akatriel as a symbolic mode of representation. A sharper formulation
of this passage can be found in another work of his where he call
Rabbi Ishmael's viewing of Akatriel "a contemplative vision which
called such [i.e., by the name Akatriel]."4 Akatriel is therefore the nam
of the vision of the anthropomorphic manifestation of the divine or H
Glory.42
Another text, attributed to figures two generations prior to Eleazar,
indeed shows some affinity to the doctrine of the Special Cherub. In a
passage printed by the collector and printer Shlomo Mussayef at the be-
ginning of this century from a manuscript now housed in the Jewish Na-
tional and University Library (Jerusalem), Saadia's doctrine of the "Cre-
ated Glory" is understood to contain two "Glories," one transcendent and
one enthroned:

And on top, upon this semblance of a throne, there was the semblance of (Ez
1:26) two images, as it says in [Saadia's] Book of Beliefs [and Opinions] there are
two "Glories" above in the heavens, one on the throne and another above [it].
And this is the meaning of two glories. And the Shekhina which is seen on the
throne appears to be very fine. And all that they [the prophets] saw was not th
appearance of the Creator, may He be blessed, but [the appearance] of a created
human [form] which is seated on the throne of the Holy One blessed be He, an

19 Babylonian Talmud, Rosh ha-Shana.

40 Eleazar of Worms, Perushei Siddur ha-Tefila la-Roqeah, ed. Moshe and Yehuda A. Hershle
(Jerusalem: Machon ha-Rav Hershler, 1992), pp. 145-46. On the possible identification of
Akatriel with the Glory (and the "Great Metatron"), see Asi Farber-Ginat, 'Jacob ben Jaco
Ha-Kohen's Commentary to Ezekiel's Chariot" (M.A. thesis, Hebrew University, 1978), p.
134, n. 1 (in Hebrew).
41 See Eleazar of Worms, Sha'are ha-Sod ha-Yihud ve-ha-Emunah, ed. Joseph Dan in Temirin
1 (1972): 141-56, esp. 150, 'In nxp- ,1~ --rin in'. See further the tradition mentioned
in the name of R. Eleazar in E. Urbach, ed., Arugat Ha-Bosem, 4 vols. (Jerusalem: Mekize
Nirdamim, 1939), 1:72. Finally, see the German pietist text (possibly written by Eleazar)
published in S. Mussayef, ed., Merkavah Shelema (Jerusalem: Shlomo Mussayef, 1906), fo
21b, where it states that "Akatriel is the name of the Holy One blessed be He."
42 See also the formulation by a student of Eleazar of Worms which characterizes the
aggadah as describing "the image of the glorious Glory, Akatriel Yah, Lord of Hosts." Thi
text was published in part by Joseph Dan, Sifrut ha-Yihud shel Haside Ashekanz, in his Studie
in Ashkenazi-Hasidic Literature, p. 81, and will appear in a fuller edition taken from ne
manuscripts in my study "Fragments of Sefer Shakod" (n. 29 above).

53

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:13:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Journal of Religion
He showed him this form [demut], [whose measure] is the numerical equivalent
of 236 million parsangs, and so is the measure of he who sits on the throne. And
this was received from R. Yehudah Hasid and from Yoel Hasid and from his
brother R. Qalonimos Hasid.43

This tradition portrays a split between the transcendent deity and th

human shape of the Shi'ur Qomah as described in the Hekhalot literatu
The split seems to account for any difficulties with the vision of God
stands in sharp contrast to the view of Eleazar of Worms. We can furt
view this text as a harmonization of the opposing tendencies found in
Geonic writings.
The integration of a transcendent and manifest form of God is bes
articulated by the theology of the Special Cherub. In these works,
emanated (or created) angelic form sits on the throne while God's tr
scendent aspect remains above. The earliest writing to survive which f
lows the doctrine of the Special Cherub is apparently the Pesaq ha-Yir
This work inverts the standard imagery of the Glory as a lower or physica
manifestation of God and describes the Glory as transcendent and th
Cherub as the enthroned and visible aspect. The latter is also term
Kingdom and Greatness, and the former, Holiness. In a brief passage,
author describes this two-part theosophy with the additional names
two angelic figures: "And it is found in Sefer Hekhalot: Yah Akatriel is
Greatness, Hadariel, Lord of Israel, is his Holiness, [and] Adiriron is h
Power."44 Although it is clear that Akatriel, as His Greatness, is identif
with the Cherub, Adiriron's function is not explained in this work. A l
work written according to this theology, the Berayta of Yosefben Uziel, offe
the following interpretation: "And the holy Cherub has two names: A
triel, and he is sealed [with the second name] Adiriron when his Shekh
rests upon him."45 It would appear that the Berayta has preserved an
older tradition which was hinted at already in the Pesaq where Akatrie

43S. Mussayef, ed., Merkavah Shelema (Jerusalem: Mussayef, 1906), fol. 30a, printed f
Ms. Mussayef, 40 9, now housed in the Jewish National and University Library, Jerusa
80 6246. I discuss this passage and the sources in Saadia's work in my forthcoming stu
"The Shekhina Prays before God: A New Text toward the Theosophic Orientation of t
German Pietists and Their Method for the Transmission of Esoteric Doctrines," Tarbi
(1994): 511, and my "'The Secret of Secrets': The Concept of the Divine Glory and
Intention of Prayer in the Writings of R. Eleazar of Worms," Da'at 34 (1995): 61-81, e
63-64 (in Hebrew).
44 See Joseph Dan, "Pesaq ha-Yirah ve-ha-Emunah and the Intention of Prayer in Ashken
Hasidic Esotericism," Frankfurter Judaistische Beitrdge 19 (1991/2): 185-215, at 199. On
author's source from Hekhalot literature, see ibid., n. 53.
45 Ms. New York, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, Mic 1885, fol. 73a. See Farbe
Ginat, pp. 125, n. 16; 151, n. 5; see also the later tradition which connects Akatriel wi
Adiriron in G. Scholem, "Isaac of Acco's Commentary to the First Chapter of the Boo
Creation," Qiryat Sefer 31 (1956): 379-96, esp. 386 (in Hebrew). I would like to thank D
Harvey Hames for bringing this source to my attention.

54

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:13:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Career of Akatriel

the higher of two aspects of the Cherub. This higher aspect expresses
the Cherub's connection to the Shekhina and the lower aspect, Adiriron,
expresses the Cherub's manifest quality.46

THE EARLY KABBALAH

Akatriel does not hold a central place in early Kabbalistic s

though many Kabbalists commented on Rabbinic aggadot,
description of Akatriel, their main interest was to explain
thropomorphic manifestations in their system of though
Metatron served their purposes far better and replaced Ak
discussions concerning the relevant pages from Berachot. In
discussion of the early Kabbalah it will be shown that the
Akatriel in the context of Berachot by the earliest known Kabb
caused another early Kabbalist to comment on Akatriel's a
comment was misread by modern scholarship and through
tion will be shown to shed light on Akatriel's role in earl
theosophy.
The early thirteenth-century provengal Kabbalist, Asher ben David,
quoted the comment of his grandfather, Rabbi Abraham ben David of
Posquiers (Rabad), one of the earliest known Kabbalistic personalities. In
this passage, the talmudic reference to God's phylactaries is said to "refer
to the Prince of the [divine] countenance [i.e., to Metatron], whose name
is like the name of his Master." This passage was discussed by Scholem to
demonstrate the logos doctrine off the early Kabbalah, comparing it
to the Kabbalistic understanding of the last sefirah as in the Book Bahir, to
the parallel doctrine of the Special Cherub texts,47 and to various texts of
members of ancient Jewish sects from "the Orient." Scholem was there-
fore trying to place the mystical thought of Rabad within a common pool
of medieval symbolism which is collectively identified by him as the early

46 See further Sefer Ha-Temunah (Lemberg: Isak Eckhus, 1892), fols. 17b-18a, 52a, which
develops this idea according to the doctrine of the sefirot.
47 See Abrams, "The Boundaries of Divine Ontology" (n. 8 above), and "New Manuscripts
to the 'Book of Secrets' Compiled by R. Shem Tov bar Simha and the Sources He Pos-
sessed," Asufot 10 (1996, in press) (in Hebrew), where I discuss a tradition attributed to "the
Rabbi," namely Nahmanides, in which Metatron is conceived of as a type of logos. See,
however, Gershom Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah, ed. R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, trans. Allan
Arkush (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1987), pp. 298-99, where he understands
"the Rabbi" to be Isaac the Blind apparently due to the juxtaposition of this tradition in the
manuscript to that of his students' works. The misreading known to Scholem and found in
many texts was first cited by M. Steinschnieder, "Literarische Beilage: Zur Kabbalistischen
Literatur," Hebrdiische Bibliographie 10 (1870): 156-61, esp. 161. On the logos in the Special
Cherub texts, see my study "The Evolution of Intention of Prayer to the 'Special Cherub'"
(n. 37 above). Of note is the early comment by Odeberg where he notes that Akatriel is
compared to the Special Cherub in the Beryata of Yosef ben Uziel. See Odeberg (n. 20 above),
p. 42 of the English translation, n. 4.

55

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:13:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Journal of Religion

Kabbalah, based in Provence but displaying various contemporary off-

shoots. Moreover, by comparing this idea to ancient texts, Scholem was
trying to flush out, in yet another example, the reemergence of ancient
(and gnostic) sources in a medieval, rabbinic setting.48
The basic distinction made by Rabad is that Metatron (and not Akatriel
who is mentioned by name in the continuation of the text of the Talmud)
is the visible anthropomorphic form "who appeared to Moses and which
appeared to Ezekiel," while "the Cause of Causes did not appear to any
man." This text, attributed to Rabad, can therefore be seen as the first
Kabbalistic text which seeks to supplant Akatriel with Metatron as the
physical manifestation of the divine.
In a manuscript recently made available to the scholarly community
and from which Moshe Soave first published these passages attributed to
Rabad over a century ago,49 the middle sentence of the tradition is brack-
eted on either end with the word haga'ha, denoting the insertion of an
editorial comment by another:
In tractate Berachot50sthe words of my grandfather R. Abraham b. David-[it
says:] "Whence do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, puts on Phylacta-
ries?" This refers to the Prince of the Countenance whose name is like his
master.5'

A gloss: "But perhaps there is one above him who emanated from the high
cause, and in whom there is supreme power." End of gloss.52
And it is He who appeared to Moses at the [burning] bush and He who app
to Ezekiel in the vision of the man above (Ez. 1:26). But the Cause of Causes
not appear, not] right nor left, front nor back53 [can be predicated to it]. And
is the secret of the Account of the Creation: "whoever knows the measure of
creator of the beginning [yozer bereshit] is assured a place in the world to co
And this is what is written [Gen. 1:26], "Let us make man in our image."54

48 In his study, Rabad of Posquiers: A Twelfth-Century Talmudist (Cambridge, Mass.: Har

University Press, 1962), pp. 286-300, Isadore Twersky interprets in a less mystical wa
texts Scholem discussed which were written by and attributed to Rabad.
49 Moshe Soave, "The Fourth Rabad," in Ozar Nechmad, 4 vols. (Vienna: Igraz Blum
feld, 1860-63), 4:37-43, esp. 37. This manuscript is Ms. Moscow, Giinzberg 321, fol
which was copied in the year 1397. I am currently preparing for publication the wor
R. Asher ben David based on this manuscript.
50 On whether Rabad wrote a commentary to all of Talmud, see S. Z. Havlin, ed., Hi
of the Oral Law and of Early Rabbinic Scholarship by Menahem ha-Meiri (Jerusalem and C
land: Ofeq, 1992), p. 132 and notes cited there (in Hebrew); Gershom Scholem, "A
Document for the History of the Beginning of the Kabbalah," in Sefer Bialik, ed. Y. Fich
(Tel Aviv: Va'ad ha-Po'el, 1934), pp. 141-62, esp. p. 153.
5 According to the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 34b.
52 Twersky translates, p. 290, n. 14: "Or perhaps there is a being higher than this,
nated from the first cause, and possessing greater power."
53 On these terms see Scholem, Origins, p. 218, where he cites Maimonides' Hilkhotyes
ha-torah 1:10.
54 MS. Moscow, Gtinzburg 321, fol. 87b. Compare to Scholem's translation, Origins, p. 212.

56

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:13:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Career of Akatriel

Ignoring the version printed from this manuscript, Scholem presented

the comment without the words "gloss" and "end of gloss" and discussed
this comment in the context of the full passage as if it too came from
the hand of Rabad.55 Scholem thereby secured a more theosophic (i.e.,
sefirotic) reading of the passage in the vein of later Kabbalists. Accord-
ingly, Metatron is understood to be one of various emanated forces, the
phrase "one above him" referring to a separate power positioned be-
tween "His Master," the Cause of Causes, and Metatron.
The bracketed comment can only be viewed as the later addition of
another, the opposite development being highly implausible. It stands to
reason that a relatively early Kabbalistic figure, made his comment in the
margin. A later copyist then inserted the comment into the body of the
text as if it were placed in the margin as to complete the existing text. A
second and more careful copyist also viewed the manuscript with the
gloss in the margin and inserted the comment into the body of the text,
marking it on either end as a gloss. Two families of manuscripts there-
fore arose.56

The integrated comment circulated in most manuscripts and influ-

enced various Kabbalistic figures. The author of the gloss was apparently
bothered by the exclusion of Akatriel, and in viewing the angelic names
as referents of the emanated divine sefirot, he sought to place Akatriel
above Metatron. Rabad's original intent was to describe a transcendent
deity who relates to the world through the agency of angelic beings, a
doctrine found in Rabbinic literature. Moreover, having established the
true nature of the comment of the Rabad, it can be shown that a second

55 See esp. the Hebrew text in Gershom Scholem, Reshit ha-Qabbalah (Jerusalem and Tel
Aviv: Schocken, 1948), pp. 75-76. Note that Scholem's Hebrew text also includes the word
"emanated," which is lacking in the Moscow manuscript and Geiger's transcription. While
this word is present in the version found in a Ms. London, British Library, 768, the incipit
differs as well. Scholem's version does appear, however, in Sefer Ma'arekhet Ha-Elohut (Fer-
rara: n.p., 1558), fols. 212b-213a, and Mantua 1558, fol. 157a. See now as well the collecta-
nea found in Ms. Manschester, Gaster Add. 11, fol. 21a. Might Scholem have relied (in part)
on the printed version of Sefer Ma'arekhet Ha-Elohut without referring to it? See Origins, p.
299, n. 198; H. Graetz, Geschichte derJuden (Leipzig: Leiner, n.d.), p. 387.
56 See Ms. Parma 68 (2704), fol. 18a, where the comment is copied independently without
these markings. See further the collectanea in Ms. London, British Library 768, fol. 107a,
published by G. Margoliouth, Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the British
Museum (London: William Clowes & Sons, 1915), 3:75. I was unable to locate this passage
in the parallel manuscript of Ms. Oxford 1956. See, however, Ms. Oxford, fols. 18b-19a:
"Behold I send an angel before you, this speaks of the angel of the countenance whose
name is like his Master, as it is written (Ex. 23:21) 'For My name is in him.' Here is a proof
that according to their level and according to their [assigned] task they are named. [From]
the work of Rabbi Asher b. David b. Abraham who commented on the thirteen attributes."
This work is cited once again there on fol. 64b. On the interpolation of glosses in Kabbalistic
manuscripts, see the final pages of Abrams, "Fragments of Sefer Shakod" (n. 29 above), as
well as Daniel Abrams, The Book Bahir (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 1994), chap. 1, esp. pp.
40-41 (in Hebrew).

57

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:13:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Journal of Religion

comment, recorded in the name of Rabad by Ya'akov Ibn Habib in his

Ein Ya'akob, is a further reworking of the above text with its addition. I
will cite this version in full since Scholem only presented a short ex-
cerpt:57 "And I found written in the name of Rabad, may his memory be
blessed, on the commentary of'it was not delivered by means of a messen-
ger', a messenger [refers] to the prince of the world who appeared to the
prophets, who reigns over the Merkabah; [he] is emanated from the
highest cause, and in whom there is the power of the supreme. And it is
of him that the verse [Gen. 1:26] 'Let us make man in our image'
speaks."'58 Here the gloss is retained, but the reference to the additional
power has been omitted. Two suggestions can be offered to explain the
addition of the gloss. First, it can be suggested that the gloss was added
to account for the absence of Akatriel in Rabad's remarks and apply his
interpretation to the discussion in the Talmud. Second, the later author
might also have had difficulty with a two-part theosophy based upon the
most distant Cause of Causes and the visible angelic form. According to the
author of the gloss, it is necessary to bridge the gap between the two with
a high but defined power. This idea can be found in various formulations
in the theosophic systems of alter Kabbalists. So, for example, many
thirteenth-century Kabbalists discussed the relationship between the
highest aspects of the theosophic structure of the divine sefirot, Ein Sof
and Keter or even Keter and Hokhma.59

7 For a further tradition (spuriously) cited in the name of Rabad, see Twersky, p. 287,
n. 3.
58 Ya'akov Ibn Habib, Ein Ya'akob (Vilna: Widows & Brothers Ram, 1894), Ta'anith, fol.
40b. See Scholem, Origins (n. 47 above), p. 215, n. 26. Compare again to the earlier source
translated by Scholem, Origins, p. 212.
59 In a recent study Charles Mopsik has provided an integrated reading of the above two
comments attributed to Rabad and further harmonized them with his celebrated comment
regarding the dual, sexualized nature of the first man and the attributes of God. In light of
the above conclusions, Mopsik has nevertheless correctly analyzed the reception of these
texts by later Kabbalists. See his study, "Genese 1:26-27 l'image de Dieu, le couple humain
et le statut de la femme chez les premiers cabalistes," in Rigueur et passion: Melanges offerts en
hommage a' Annie Kriegel, ed. Stephane Courtois, Marc Lazar, and Shmuel Trigano (Paris:
Cerf, 1994), pp. 341-61, esp. pp. 345-49. Mopsik has also recasted the famous gloss of
Rabad to Maimonides' Code (Teshuva, chap. 3, par. 7; critical edition, B. Naor, ed. Hasagot
Ha-Rabad la-Mishne Torah [Jerusalem: Zohar, 1984], pp. 42-43), where he says that "people
greater than and better to him" believed in anthropomorphism, which Maimonides termed
heretical. Mopsik showed (p. 345) that the continuation of the comment-cited by Twersky
(n. 48 above, pp. 282-83), but not by Scholem (in Origins, p. 211)-points to a criticism of
the plain sense of Scripture and certain aggadot and not a blanket vindication of anthropo-
morphism. See further Warren Zev Harvey, "The Incorporeality of God in Maimonides,
Rabad and Spinoza," in Studies in Jewish Thought, ed. S. Heller Willensky and M. Idel (Jeru-
salem: Magnes Press, 1989), pp. 72-73 (in Hebrew). Harvey argues that Rabad's critique
was aimed at certain philosophers, i.e., that these aggadic texts which contain anthropo-
morphisms "corrupt" philosophic principles. See alternatively J. Gellman, "The Philosophi-
cal Hassagot of Rabad on Maimonides' Mishne Torah," New Scholasticism 52 (1984): 145-69,
esp. 153-55.

58

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:13:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Career of Akatriel

In a later discussion, Scholem read Rabad's text through the lenses of

the Hekhalot literature, among other sources.60 For Scholem, just as the
Hekhalot literature terms Metatron the lesseryah (based on the tetragram-
maton) to distinguish him from God, here, Rabad (i.e., the author of the
gloss), emphasizes that "there is one above him," to indicate that Meta-
tron is not God. Scholem therefore finds only two powers described in
the passage, not three.61'
Before turning to the interpretations of Akatriel and the passage from
Berachot in the classical Kabbalah of the thirteenth century, it should be
noted that Kabbalists in the generations prior to the Spanish expulsion
received the integrated text alone. The fourteenth-century author of
Sefer Ma'arekhet Ha-Elohut admitted that he "at first did not understand
what [Rabad] meant because his words seemed to contradict our own.
And afterwards, I [studied it more] carefully, and he who knows about
prophetic vision, what I have mentioned [earlier] in this chapter, will un-
derstand our words. And [its meaning] is very deep and true." To this
passage Judah he-Hayyat commented at the end of the fifteenth century:

It is the view of the Rabbi [Rabad] that "the Prince of the Countenance who is
Enoch [is] Metatron who is called by the name of his Master", this refers to the
Holy One blessed be He according to what is said in this aggadah. And this is
what is meant by "he who wears [phylactaries]", and according to his view, the
phylactaries refer to the four camps of the Shekhina that are above him. [And the
words of Rabad that,] "Perhaps there is another62 above him .. ." agree with what
I received, that there is a great Metatron and a lesser Metatron just as with the
emanation of the large face [apei ravrevei] and the small face [apei zutrei]. And the
large one is the body of the Shekhina63 which is emanated from it and following
this, the Shekhina is called Metatron. And the second [Metatron] below it is the
heaven beneath the four camps of the Shekhina which is above the heads of

60 Gershom Scholem, The Kabbalah of Provence: The Circle of Rabad and his Son Isaac the Blind
(The Lectures of Gershom Scholem Presented in 1963), ed. R. Schatz (Jerusalem: Akademon,
1976), p. 98 (in Hebrew). There Scholem claims that Asher ben David is citing Rabad's lost
commentary to Berachot (and not an independent comment).
61 Ibid., p. 99. See further Moshe Idel's study on the Kabbalah in Provence, where he
casts traditions recorded in the name of Rabad against an Ashkenazi background of a binary
theosophy with respect to prayer. See M. Idel, "Prayer in Provengal Kabbalah," Tarbiz 62
(1993): 265-86, esp. 268 (in Hebrew).
62 Both the Ferrara and Mantua editions (1558) read "another" (aher) instead of "one"
(ehad ).
63 See Moshe Idel, "The World of Angels in Human Form," in Studies in Jewish Mysticism,
Philosophy and Ethical Literature Presented to Isaiah Tishby on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, ed. Joseph
Dan and Joseph Hacker (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1986), p. 32 (in Hebrew). Idel describes
a view found in the Book of Contemplation where there are two groups of angels in the form
of man. The first is composed of eight angels and the second of the four camps of the
Shekhina. The first is termed demut ha-Shekhina or guf ha-shekhina, the image or body of
the Shekhina.

59

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:13:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Journal of Religion
the beasts [of Ezekiel's chariot] which are the chariot of the secondary chariot
of the Shekhina and the first chariot to the created Metatron.64

This passage displays the crystallization of Kabbalistic symbolism. Even

when the author clearly understands Metatron to be a sefirah and yet
needs to explain the presence of an additional angelic figure, he does not
resort to Akatriel who is described in the talmudic passage. Rather, Judah
he-Hayyat employs an older tradition which describes two "Metatrons,"
an angelic Metatron and a sefirotic one. Akatriel therefore has been all
but excised from the force of the talmudic passage and supplanted by an
extended mythologoumena concerning Metatron. The process by which
Akatriel was identified and later replaced by Metatron can be traced
through the writings of the thirteenth-century Kabbalah.

CLASSICAL THEOSOPHIC KABBALAH

One of the first known Kabbalists in Spain, Ezra of Ger

Kabbalistic commentary to the aggadot which remains in
his discussion to the aggadic passage concerning Akatrie
chot he writes: "We have received [a tradition] that this
'guardian of Israel'. And wherever one finds the matter
[written] in Scripture, know that it refers to the angel of t
ha-Kavod ] which is called in Rabbinic terminology65 Shekhin
ofJudgment."66 Ezra has here understood Akatriel to be the
He has therefore collapsed various symbolic systems int
ture of the sefirotic map of the divine world. Among th
can easily be identified are Rabbinic literature and poss
etism. This commentary was reworked by his younger co
riel, who apparently added the term Cherub to this list
displaying a familiarity with the works of the Special Ch
A generation later, Todros Abulafia cited this passage o

64 Hayyat's Commentary to Sefer Ma'arekhet Ha-Elohut (Ferrara, 1558),

1558), fol. 157a; and copied as well in the Kabbalistic collectanea, Yalku
Brothers Levine-Epstein, 1802), fol. 21a. See Altmann, "Moses Narbo
238. For more on this passage and further parallels in Kabbalistic liter
World of Angels," p. 53, n. 198.
65 Ms. Parma reads: "called in most places [in the works of] our Rabbis,
be blessed."
66 Ms. Vatican 294, fol. 3a; Ms. Parma 1390 fol. 112b; Ms. New York, Jewish Theological
Seminary, Mic 1878, fol. 25a; Ms. Vatican 202, fol. 55a.
67 See further the anonymous commentary to this passage from Ezra as discussed in my
study, The Book Bahir, p. 85.
68 Azriel's Commentary to the Aggadot, ed. I. Tishby (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1943), p. 11
(in Hebrew).

60

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:13:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Career of Akatriel

balah and tried to make sense of what to him was an inversion of Akatriel
from a highly placed manifestation to the last sefirah:

Extend your ear and listen: The sages of the Kabbalah said of this holy name that
it is the crown of Kingdom ['ateret malkhuth], which serves before the holy of holies.
And [it] is therefore called by this name, that is crown [keter], which is the diadem
['atarah]. And there are those who say Katriel. And I have received that his name
is such, and so I have seen written in some of the words of some of the Kabbalists
which are hidden and sealed, locked away, that it is [called] the guardian of Is-
rael. .... And if we say that his name is Akatriel, [then] also the [letter] aleph refers
to the Ein Sof That is [it consists of] Aleph [and] Katriel.69

Todros seems to be incorporating an earlier and contradicting tradition,

wherein Akatriel is placed at the top of the divine structure with that of
Azriel, which identifies Akatriel as the last sefirah.70 He is able to blend the
two by parsing the name Akatriel and interpreting the first letter, aleph,
as the referent of the first sefirah and providing a synonym for the second
half of the word, Keter, that is, 'Atarah, a term which refers to the tenth
sefirah. Akatriel therefore symbolizes the entire emanative and theurgic
act which is operated through prayer. As he explains in the sentences
which follow the above: "And regarding what is said [in Berachot 7a],
"Bless me," the [word] blessing is derived from the supernal blessing7'
which blesses and extends the good and supernal [efflux] from the top
and until the bottom."

LATER REACTIONS

Although the developing symbolism of the early Kabba

to absorb unique "angelic" figures such as Metatron and
hierarchy of ten sefirotic powers," some later Kabbalis
more developed theosophic system were freer to exami
description on its own terms. Yom Tov bar Abraha
fourteenth-century commentator of the Talmud with tie

69 Sefer Ozar Ha-Kavod Ha-Shalem (Warasw: Jacob Shapira, 1879),

Oron, ed., Sha'ar Ha-Razim of Todros ben Joseph Abulafia (Jerusalem: Mo
150. Both sources are cited already by Tishby. Ibn Ziah, Zror ha-Hayyi
Ozar Ha-Kavod (Ms. London-Montefore, 318, fol. 57b-58a), adds litt
ments. See also Meir Ibn Gabbai, Avodat Ha-Qodesh, pt. 1, chap. 16, w
passage, as well as Moshe of Kiev's Shushan Sodot (Koretz: Jahn Anton
52b. The latter emphasizes that, of the two divine grades, Keter and A
two possible interpretations of the text, Rabbi Ishmael must have vie
otherwise his prophetic vision would be ranked higher than that of M
70 For the identification of Akatriel with the sefirah Keter, see Shem
Sefer Ha-Emunot (Ferrara, 1556), fol. 39a, and the text published in Sef
(Livorno: Eliezer Menahem Ottolenghi, 1739), fol. 13a.
71 Understood also as the third sefirah, Binah.
72 D. Abrams, "The Shekhina Prays before God" (n. 43 above).

61

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:13:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Journal of Religion
Solomon Ibn Adret (Rashba), understood Akatriel as "the name of
God.""73 Along these lines, in Isaac of Acre's Ozar Ha-Hayyim we find the
blessing addressed to Akatriel, Lord of Hosts, requesting of him that he
instruct his angels to answer certain prayers.74 Most striking is the com-
ment of the fifteenth-century author of Menorat ha-Me'or, Israel Ibn Al-
Nakawa. He cites the text of Berachot as follows: "Rabbi Ishmael said:
'One time I was offering a sacrifice on the altar when I saw the Creator(!
[ha-bore], who was sitting on a high and exalted throne.''75
The identification of Akatriel with the simple deity, "God," appears in
texts composed after the classical period of the theosophic Kabbalah in
which elaborate descriptions of the relationships between the sefirot an
handbooks listing their various appellations were written. Possessin
these well-defined symbolic systems, these figures were not compelled t
read this passage with sefirotic referents in mind. By the sixteenth cen
tury, the reknowned Kabbalist, Moses Cordovero, was bothered by the
apparent identification of God with Akatriel in the passage from Berachot:

Said Rabbi Ishmael b. Elisha, "I saw Akatriel Yah, Lord of Hosts". He is the on
who receives the prayers and is not [to be identified with] the glorious King, fo
if so he would not have said "I actually saw [him]". God forbid! And it is known
that Akatriel is the prince in heaven and is not God ['eloha]. And why is it that
says Ya Lord of Hosts? Because the angels are called according to the name of th
masters, according to the name which hovers above them and enclothes them
which is the Shekhina. And so in the case of Akatriel, which when [seated] on th
adorned Glory says Ya, Lord of Hosts.76

Although Cordovero is not compelled to identify Akatriel with a certain

sefirah, he is insistent that Akatriel is an angel and not God, apparently
responding to statements which directly make this association. Cordov
ero's statement therefore shows the opposite of the phenomenon de
scribed above: instead of being defined with God himself, Cordovero dis
tances Akatriel from any aspect of the Godhead.
Cordovero's comments brings us full circle in the understanding of
Akatriel's appropriation by various figures throughout the history ofJew
ish literature and Jewish mysticism in particular. For although Akatrie

73 Moshe Hershler, ed., Hidushei Ha-Ritba of Rabbi Yom Tov bar Abraham Alashveli (Jerusalem:
Mossad ha-Rav Kook, 1985), p. 25. See, however, the tradition recorded in the Kabbalisti
collectanea of Ms. Parma 1221, fol. 278a.
74 Ms. Moscow, Gtinzberg 775, fol. 63a. I would like to thank Dr. Boaz Huss, for this ref
erence.

75 H. G. Enelow, Menorat Ha-Maor, 4 vols. (New York: Bloch

76 Pardes Rimmonim, Sha'ar Amidatan, pt. 6, chap. 3 (Lemberg
reprinted in Reuven Katz's Yalkut Re'uveni, fol. 90a (p. 179). See
'Erkhei ha-Kinu'im, pt. 23, chap. 1, fol. 122d.

62

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:13:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Career of Akatriel

was reinterpreted in many other late works which cannot all be discussed
here," the examples discussed demonstrate how Akatriel, who was first
depicted as the physical manifestation of the divine, was later absorbed
into the symbolism of a complex godhead, only to be cast out by a leading
figure of that same system of thought.

77 For studies which record many later understandings of Akatriel, see Reuven Margoli-
oth's Malakhei Elyon (erusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1945), pp. 13-15; Shmuel Horedet-
zky, "Akatriel and Sandalfon," in Festschrift Armand Kamina zum siebzigsten Geburtstage, ed. S.
Rappaport and M. Zikier (Vienna: Verlag des Wiener Maimonides Instituts, 1937), pp.
9-20 (in Hebrew). See also Zadok ha-Kohem, Sefer Sihat Mal'akhei ha-Sharet (Lublin, 1927),
fols. 39d-41b; and Moses Weinstock, Sefer Hadrei ha-Merkavah (erusalem: Institute for the
Publication of the Works of Rabbi Weinstock, 1995), pp. 204-10.

63

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Fri, 10 Jan 2020 04:13:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms