About the Work
Messianic Mystics is a scholarly study by Moshe Idel that examines the intersection of Jewish mysticism and messianism, focusing specifically on figures who were both mystics and messianic claimants, or mystics who held significant views on the nature of the Messiah. The book originated from earlier articles on theosophical-theurgical and magical treatments of redemptive acts in Kabbalah, as well as an unpublished chapter from the author’s 1976 doctoral dissertation on Abraham Abulafia’s messianism. The English version was translated by Iris Felix, with work conducted at Princeton University and the Shalom Hartman Institute. The Hebrew edition provided approximately a quarter of the material for the English version, with some chapters merged and new ones added.
The study is explicitly not a comprehensive survey of messianism in Judaism but rather a focused examination of the messianic dimension of Jewish mysticism. It engages in critical dialogue with the late Gershom Scholem, whose influential views on Jewish messianism are closely examined against Kabbalistic sources. The book acknowledges innovative treatments of zoharic, Lurianic, and Sabbatean messianisms by Yehuda Liebes, as well as contributions from Bernard McGinn, Ronit Meroz, Havivah Pedaya, David Ruderman, Shalom Rosenberg, and Stephen Sharot. Topics such as the messianic views of the Maharal of Prague, the Frankist movement, and modern Lubavitch messianism are treated only casually due to a lack of new texts or insights.
Context
The book situates itself within the broader scholarly conversation about Jewish messianism, particularly challenging the dominant paradigm established by Gershom Scholem. Scholem’s views, popularized by J. Dan and R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, had long held that mysticism and messianism were fundamentally exclusive categories. Werblowsky argued that mysticism’s focus on the absolute and unchanging contrasted sharply with messianism’s engagement with history and historical transformation. Idel counters this position by demonstrating that this characterization describes only some mystical phenomena, not all, citing Christian mystics like Teresa de Avila and Juan de la Cruz, as well as early Kabbalists who contemplated the dynamic system of the ten sefirot.
The book also challenges what Idel calls the “traumatic-historic interpretation” of Jewish messianism, which links messianic outbursts primarily to crises such as the expulsion from Spain. Idel notes that mystics often downplayed or ignored historical crises, and he suggests that hope, rather than crisis alone, can serve as a prelude to messianic awareness, citing the Arab victories, Mongol conquests, and the Six Day War of June 1967 as examples. An “existential view” is proposed as an alternative model, where messianism gives meaning to history and life as part of a search for purpose, connected to Frank Manuel’s concepts of euchronia (good times) and eupsychia (good spiritual event).
The book engages with multiple methodological approaches, distinguishing between a “panoramic approach” that risks becoming a simplistic inventory of models and a “global approach” that allows inspection of how each model developed, the processes connecting them, and their ascent and decline in different historical circumstances. Idel advocates for Clifford Geertz’s “thick” descriptions of specific messianic phenomena before generalizing about the “messianic idea,” arguing that theory building should make thick description possible, not generalize across cases but within them.
Structure of the Book
The book is organized into eight chapters that trace the development of Jewish mystical messianism from its pre-Kabbalistic forms through the emergence of Hasidism.
Chapter 1 examines pre-Kabbalistic Jewish forms of messianism, including discussions of angelology and the development of a “mesocosmic bureaucracy” in which once-impersonal angels became personalized with proper names and differentiated functions. The chapter explores how the concept of mashiyah itself emerged as part of a differentiation process attributing the divine role of savior to one of God’s officers, and how biblical verses on redemption from Egypt were seen as typologically redemptive, pointing to future redemption.
Chapter 2 focuses on Abraham Abulafia and his ecstatic Kabbalah and spiritual messianism. This chapter presents Abulafia’s system as an anthropocentric approach where messianism is the actualization of intellectual potential—an internal human phenomenon. It examines Abulafia’s views on natural redemption, his astrological and Aristotelian explanations for the restoration of Jewish statehood, and his self-perception as an anointed king over Israel.
Chapter 3 addresses concepts of the Messiah in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, particularly theosophical forms of Kabbalah. This chapter contrasts the Kabbalah of the Zohar with Abulafia’s system, presenting the Zohar’s theocentric view that focuses on restoring the sefirot to original harmony through regular Jewish ritual. It discusses Moses de Leon’s treatment of prayer and redemption, the nature of Kabbalistic redemption, and the three models of Kabbalah: the mystical-ecstatic, the mythical-theurgical, and the mythical-apocalyptic.
Chapter 4 covers messianism and Kabbalah from 1470 to 1540, a period of intensified eschatological discussions and messianic calculations, particularly in Italy. The chapter discusses figures such as R. Mordekhai Dato, R. Jacob Mantino, and the anonymous manuscript from 1598 that describes the Messiah’s advent in terms of cosmic cycles and metempsychosis.
Chapter 5 traces the movement from Italy to Safed and back from 1540 to 1640, examining the rise of Safed as a new Kabbalistic center and the creative impetus of second-generation Spanish, Italian, and Ashkenazi Kabbalists. The chapter discusses the messianic activity in Italy, the Safedian Kabbalists including Moses Cordovero, Joseph Karo, and Shlomo ha-Levi Alqabetz, and the emergence of Isaac Luria and his restricted student circle.
Chapter 6 examines Sabbateanism and mysticism, focusing on Sabbatai Tzevi and Nathan of Gaza. The chapter argues that Tzevi should be examined as following earlier Kabbalah forms rather than Lurianic Kabbalah, and it explores the elements of Tzevi’s mysticism found in the Zohar, Sefer ha-Qanah, and Sefer ha-Peliyah, including Abulafian material that was integrated into these works.
Chapter 7 discusses Hasidism and its mystical messianism and mystical redemption, examining the spiritualization of redemption in Hasidic thought, the concept of individual redemption, and the affinity between Hasidic texts and thirteenth-century ecstatic Kabbalah.
Chapter 8 presents concluding remarks that critique historicism in messianic studies, discuss the proliferation of “movements” in scholarship, and examine the fragmentation of the Messiah’s persona in later Jewish mysticism.
Detailed Section-by-Section Summary
Preface and Introduction: The Sources of Messianic Consciousness
The book begins with a preface explaining its origins. It grew from earlier articles on theosophical-theurgical and magical treatments of redemptive acts in Kabbalah, as well as an unpublished chapter from the author’s 1976 doctoral dissertation on Abraham Abulafia’s messianism. A 1980 lecture proposed three models for redemptive activities: the mystical (ecstatic), the theosophical-theurgical (represented by late-thirteenth-century Castilian Kabbalah), and, from the fifteenth century onward, the magical model. The structure of this English edition differs from the original Hebrew version, with some chapters merged and new ones added. The author acknowledges the innovative work of Yehuda Liebes on zoharic, Lurianic, and Sabbatean messianisms, along with contributions from other scholars. The study focuses specifically on the messianic dimension of Jewish mysticism, not messianism in Judaism broadly, and is not intended as a comprehensive survey. Topics such as the messianic views of the Maharal of Prague, the Frankist movement, and modern Lubavitch messianism are treated only casually due to a lack of new texts or insights. The work is framed as a critical dialogue with the late Gershom Scholem, whose views are closely examined against Kabbalistic sources. The Hebrew edition provided about a quarter of the material for this English version, which was translated by Iris Felix.
The introduction, titled “The Sources of Messianic Consciousness,” establishes the book’s central concern: the nexus between messianic awareness and private mystical experience. Messianism can be approached from sociological, psychological, theological, and mystical perspectives, but Idel focuses on how mystical experiences—often involving intimate, direct contact with God—relate to messianic ideas. Messianism is defined as ideas, concepts, and figures related to present or future states of redemption. The book deals only with Messiahs who were mystics, mystics who considered themselves Messiahs, or mystics with clear opinions on the Messiah’s nature. Unlike ancient apocalyptic literature, where revelations were granted to anonymous, nonmessianic figures, medieval and later mystical literature reveals messianic messages to messianic figures themselves.
Idel directly challenges the view, expressed by R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, that mysticism and messianism are exclusive. Werblowsky argued that mysticism’s focus on the absolute and unchanging contrasts with messianism’s focus on history. Idel counters that this describes only some mystical phenomena, not all, citing Christian mystics like Teresa de Avila and Juan de la Cruz, and early Kabbalists who contemplated the dynamic system of the ten sefirot. He argues that messianic self-awareness often originates in inner spiritual experiences. Most scholarship has focused on public, historical manifestations, but Idel and Liebes argue that intense mystical life does not preclude messianic efforts. The emergence of messianic self-awareness is often presented as a private theophany, with the material for study being fragmentary, found in autobiographical texts, accounts of believers, and testimonials of contemporaries.
Idel questions the “traumatic-historic interpretation,” which links messianism to crises like the expulsion from Spain. He notes that mystics often downplayed or ignored historical crises. He suggests hope, not just crisis, can be a prelude to messianic awareness, citing the Arab victories, Mongol conquests, and the Six Day War of June 1967. An “existential view” is another model, where messianism gives meaning to history and life, part of a search for purpose. Idel connects this to Frank Manuel’s concepts of euchronia (good times) and eupsychia (good spiritual event), arguing that inner experiences can trigger the construction of euchronical pictures. Greek philosophical ideas (Aristotelian and Neoplatonic) contributed to a spiritual interpretation of Jewish messianism, shifting the messianic drama from an external war to an internal one—the victory of mind over imagination or soul over body. The text discusses the medieval imaginaire, including the royal imagery of the Messiah, figures like David ha-Reuveni and Nathan of Gaza, and the Jewish Antichrist, Armilus. Messianism is seen as an “open book” inviting imaginative elaboration. The relationship between the Messiah and his audience involves mutual projections and misreadings, forming a “pyramid” with the Messiah at the top, messengers in the middle, and a larger audience at the base.
Methodological Approaches and the Mesocosmos
The author distinguishes between a “panoramic approach” and a “global approach” to studying messianism. The panoramic approach risks becoming a simplistic inventory of models that may have inspired a particular Messiah, dealing more with possibilities than processes. The global approach allows inspection of how each model developed, the processes connecting them, and their ascent and decline in different historical circumstances. The emergence of a “mesocosmos”—an intermediary realm of beings between divinity and humans—appears in late biblical books, apocalyptic literature, Philo of Alexandria, Christianity, and Gnosticism. This opens the door for inserting a transcendent depersonalized Messiah within the quasi-divine company. The gap created by God’s attenuated direct involvement in history was filled with surrogates, creating a threefold rather than twofold structure of the religious universe.
In some biblical traditions, once-impersonal angels became personalized, receiving proper names and differentiated functions. A “mesocosmic bureaucracy” emerged, sometimes involving a preexistent, transcendent Messiah. This is described as systemic development similar to modern bureaucracy’s built-in logic of expansion and differentiation. The concept of mashiyah itself is part of a differentiation process attributing the divine role of savior to one of God’s officers. This development should not be seen as divorced from cultural, historical, and political circumstances. In Kabbalah and Hasidism, this led to ascribing messianic attributes to various human beings—a fragmentization of the personalization of the redemptive function. This proposition differs from G. van der Leeuw’s description in Religion in Essence and Manifestation, which assumes the personalized savior emerged from a more structured perception of salvific understandings of natural factors or powers.
Christianity, a messianic religion drawing upon Jewish sources, problematized earlier Jewish concepts, which were marginalized to distinguish Judaism from Christianity. Early Christian views reflecting Jewish stands should be treated together with Jewish developments as different options inherent in earlier sources. Islam, though less permeated by messianic views, should be considered, particularly regarding eschatology’s spiritualization in Sufism (as with Al-Ghazzali). Greater Islamic influence on Jewish mysticism appears through mediating Greek views on psychology. Global attempts require examining vast material over a vast period. Acquaintance with Babylonian religion, Greek thought, Christianity, and Ottoman civilization is essential. Global shifts from corporate identities to the soul or intellect of the individual as the arena of redemptive processes, then return to corporate identity (as in Hasidism), exemplify interfaces between cultural systems. Several narratives may organize the history of various models—converging, intersecting, diverging—rather than a single master narrative.
In elite literatures, messianism is part of broader conceptual systems. A certain mystical literature may prefer individual redemption described as messianism with political activity; other types may involve magical activity for the Messiah’s advent without political acts. Unio mystica (direct contact with God) is crucial in the former, absent in the latter. A third model, theosophical-theurgical, emphasizes classical Jewish ritual performance. Mystical experiences, myths, magic, theology, rituals, and philosophies become associated with messianic concepts. Gershom Scholem described how apocalyptics intertwined motifs of current history with apocalyptic, eschatological nature, filling ancient mythical images with utopian content. The author excludes mystical Messiahs from this, emphasizing mystical experiences with teleological aspects and theological aspects represented by the theory of models. Experiences were shaped by models; models enriched by intersections with individual experiences.
The author proposes that mythical images may be filled with messages concerning ritualistic performances rather than utopian elements. Myth is conservative rather than subversive. Paul Ricoeur’s definition is accepted: myth is “a traditional narration which relates to events that happened at the beginning of time and which has the purpose of providing grounds for the ritual actions of men of today.” Messianic elements fitting this concept relate to restorative aspects recovering lost time (Claude Lévi-Strauss’s definition). More utopian messianic elements push mythical elements to the margin. Unlike Buber, the author sees the utopian future as aspiration and expectation rather than repetition and ritual. The integration of myth and messianism belongs to Edmund Leach’s “icon of orthodoxy,” while affinities between mysticism and messianism are understood as the “icon of subversion.” This subversive propensity creates religious innovations opened to Messiahs by divine revelation. Scholem noted “an intrinsic connection between active messianism and the courage for religious innovation.” The author advocates Clifford Geertz’s “thick” descriptions of specific messianic phenomena before generalizing about the “messianic idea.” Theory building should “make thick description possible, not to generalize across cases but to generalize within them.”
Theosophical Kabbalah vs. Abulafia’s Ecstatic Kabbalah
The passage draws a sharp distinction between two contemporaneous forms of Kabbalah. Abulafia, following Maimonides, emphasized God’s absolute unity and intellectual nature, taking an anthropocentric view where messianism is the actualization of intellectual potential—an internal human phenomenon. In contrast, the Zohar and most Spanish Kabbalah imagined God as composite forces in constant fluctuation, dependent on fulfilling the mitzvot. This theocentric view focuses on restoring the sefirot to original harmony through regular Jewish ritual.
Moses de Leon on Prayer and Redemption
R. Moses de Leon, a leading Kabbalist at the end of the thirteenth century and main participant in writing and editing the Zohar, was a proponent of theocentrism. In his Sefer Maskkiyyot ha-Kesef, a commentary on daily liturgy, he discusses the liturgical piece Emmet ve-Yatziv, claiming all sublime issues and profound secrets are found there. He describes connecting redemption to prayer to unite the Sensitive Light with the Intellective Light without separation. The passage represents texts assuming man can perfect divinity through ritual—part of the via perfectionis. Exploiting a talmudic statement, Moses de Leon uses two terms: redemption and prayer, corresponding to two daily liturgy pieces recited consecutively. In Kabbalistic jargon, prayer stands for Malkhut (the last sefirah), while redemption symbolizes Yesod (the ninth sefirah). The two kinds of light occur in the twelfth-century Sefer Kuzari, adopted by Geronese Kabbalists, but their interpretation as divine powers appears in Moses de Leon’s earlier books. The union of the two sefirot is achieved through precise pronunciation of prayer, depicted in erotic imagery. Prayer coming from below reaches the feminine manifestation and prepares her for union with the higher divine masculine power. Redemption becomes not only a future process but a symbol for an existing active entity.
The Nature of Kabbalistic Redemption
This redemption is less dramatic than the advent of the Messiah at the end of time. It means improving the world’s plight through descent of influx. The Messiah, even when introduced, is not a genuinely free agent but a symbol of divine manifestation. The daily liturgy, re-described eschatologically, may revitalize messianism. The Messiah, a preexisting person according to rabbinic literature, is met by few who ascend to heaven; Kabbalistic rendering opens another religious experience comparable to the Christian sacrament where Christ is present during ritual.
Aramaic Formulations in the Zohar
In the earlier layer of the Zohar, the Midrash ha-Ne’elam: “When will the Redeemer come? When Israel will pray a prayer and will join redemption and prayer, and Israel are in the land of Israel.” When they don’t cause union, Shekhinah goes into exile. Composed in Spain when prospects of return were dismal, this reflects messianic motifs attracting to a discussion not acutely eschatological. The term geullah (“redemption”) was activated associatively, attracting its complementary term galut (“exile”). The plural form ge’ullot indicates redemptive significance since plural cannot refer to liturgy.
Factors Shaping de Leon’s Discussion
Three factors shaped the discussion: rabbinic starting points (requirement not to pause between prayers), hypostatical reading formative for de Leon’s hermeneutics, and messianic connotations (only third). The fascination with theosophy and theurgy attracted messianic motifs and changed them; messianic motifs in turn changed theosophical-theurgical thought. This description is also valid for sixteenth-century Lurianic Kabbalah. In de Leon’s writings, symbolism is more alluded to than explicitly invoked; later explicit symbolism became prevalent. The Messiah’s role became less important than the theurgical Kabbalist who acts to open the way for his advent.
Theocentric Messianism in the Zohar
The Zohar presents messianism as fruits of human attempts to restore divine perfection disturbed by Adam and Eve’s sins. When original harmony is restored, perfection reigns in the divine world and expresses itself in the human sphere—the end of days. This is theocentric or soteriological, concentrating on redemption of the divine itself. Abulafia’s order concerns individual perfection as precondition for national redemption—two completely different intellectual structures in two distinct Jewish cultural centers. Most zoharic layers advocate theurgical activity’s centrality. The bulk doesn’t exhibit acute messianism like Abulafia but presents comprehensive messianic theory. Modern scholarship hasn’t explored messianic underpinnings; with the exception of Liebes’s exposition of the messianic basis of the Idrot, the prevalent assumption is messianism isn’t salient in the Zohar. Hundreds of short treatments exist. Later parts including Idrot and Tiqqunei Zohar emphasize messianic elements. According to Liebes, R. Shimeon bar Yohai was imagined as maintaining the world by theurgical activity.
Three Models of Kabbalah
The three models—Abulafia’s mystical-ecstatic, the Zohar’s mythical-theurgical, and R. Yitzhaq ben Jacob ha-Kohen’s mythical-apocalyptic or traumatic—witness integration of messianism and diversification of Kabbalah’s concept. Earlier Kabbalah (first half of thirteenth century) and specific types in Castile show messianic elements no more noticeable than in other Jewish circles of the period.
From Italy to Safed and Back, 1540–1640
Quantitative agents in Kabbalah’s spread are part of a complex picture including creative impetus. Spanish Kabbalists wanted their heritage preserved as Judaism’s innermost sense, helping establish them in new Mediterranean centers. By mid-sixteenth century, this conservative drive declined; second-generation Spanish, Italian, and Ashkenazi Kabbalists engaged with mystical lore differently, with greater interaction with other thought forms than in Spain. Encounters in Italy, the Ottoman Empire, Jerusalem, and Safed provoked reactions and syntheses. Despite darker aspects—expulsion repercussions from Spain, Portugal, Sicily; Italian ghettos; Christian use of Kabbalah for conversion; Jerusalem’s decline—a cultural renascence overcame gloomy assumptions. Intensified eschatological discussions appeared as messianic calculations and exegesis, most pronounced in Italy, also in Protestant areas. Safed’s new Kabbalah center relates to Galilee’s identification in the Zohar as where Messiah arrives first, predating expulsion traumas. Kabbalists there included Moses Cordovero, Mordekhai Dato, and Hayyim Vital, some aware of Christian Kabbalah. Two contradictory positions appear in Scholem’s writings: no relationship between historical messianic roles and Kabbalistic leanings versus inseparable connection. The author argues for profound connection—two sides of the same coin—favoring integral structures over compartmentalization.
Messianic Calculations
After Molkho’s death, calculations accelerated in Italy. Year 1575 was set as redemption year based on Genesis 49:10, with Shiloh’s numerical value 335 pointing to Jewish year 5335 (1575 CE). R. Mordekhai Dato’s Migdal David and anonymous Sefer Avodat ha-Qodesh contain such calculations. R. Jacob Mantino, court physician and Molkho’s adversary, translated Averroes into Latin yet also calculated the end—showing intellectual activity seeking history’s secrets rather than messianic self-awareness. An anonymous manuscript from 1598 notes Hebrew date 5358 corresponds to mashiyah‘s numerical value 358. The text describes the secret of Messiah’s advent as forbidden to disclose except to close friends. The Messiah “has already arrived” in prior cosmic cycles and will come again. The term gilgul means “rotation” but also metempsychosis; the verb ba (“to come”) can hint at soul transmigration. The Messiah preserves existence between cycles through metempsychosis. This combines linear history (progress toward redemption) with cyclical time (each cycle’s end begins the next). Lemlein, Molkho, ha-Levi, and David ha-Reuveni focused propagandistic activities toward Italian Jewry. Yitzhaq Abravanel’s writings directly reacted to expulsion trauma, but subsequent Italian messianism was largely divorced from expulsion. This exegetical activity borders acute messianism and literary interpretation. Qumran community used similar devices. Abraham Abulafia’s Sefer ha-Maftebot and Sitrei Torah reveal secrets due to living in redemption’s age. Sefer ha-Meshiv school extended eschatological commentary. Sefer Kaf ha-Qetoret covered Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, talmudic passages, and High Holy Day piyyutim. Molkho avoided commenting on sensitive eschatological verses due to Christian environment and papal warnings.
Safed’s Kabbalistic Center
Jerusalem Kabbalists produced extensive literature with scarce messianic themes. Safed rose in 1540s with Spanish expellees.
Hasidic Spiritualization of Redemption
A composition from the circle of the Great Maggid, R. Dov Baer of Medzierecz, offers a striking reinterpretation of the classic Kabbalistic practice of “stripping away corporeality.” For this circle, this act is not a preparatory technique but the very essence of redemption (geullah) itself. The redemption in question is not the historical redemption of the Jewish people or a geographical return to the Land of Israel, but an inner, spiritual process. It is the redemption of man’s soul, spirit, and higher soul (neshamah) from the prison of bodily corporeality, allowing them to cling to the infinite Creator, the ‘Ein-Sof. This is a pronounced spiritualization of the messianic idea, shifting the focus from external, national events to an internal process of suppressing bodily instincts’ influence on consciousness, climaxing in communion with God.
R. Jacob Joseph of Polonoye, another important student of the Besht, quotes traditions from his master that confirm this emphatically spiritual understanding of the soul’s redemption. He interprets Psalms 69:19 (“Draw near to my soul and redeem it”) as a direct illustration of this concept. The Besht’s teaching is explicit: “The exile of the soul is the Evil Inclination… from its exile is the Evil Inclination.” Redemption, therefore, means going forth from this inner exile—the Evil Inclination, which is synonymous with materiality itself. The drama of exile and redemption is relocated from the map of the world to the landscape of the human soul.
Scholem’s Interpretation Critiqued
The author directly engages with Gershom Scholem’s famous remark that this Hasidic exodus is “not from exile but in exile.” The author argues that this critique is only valid if exile is understood in purely geographical and historical terms. However, for a mystic, the soul’s exile can be as significant, if not more so, than historical exile. For the Hasidic master, exile may precisely mean the soul’s state of alienation from God even while physically inhabiting the Land of Israel. Scholem’s preference for objective, historical significance over the mystical sense presupposes that evading history and geography means evading “authentic” messianism. The author questions this presupposition, asking whether the Hasidic master’s destruction of exile through spiritualization is any less concrete or messianic than the approach of the Sabbatean Messiah, which was rooted in historical and geographical action.
Scholem argued that due to the disastrous results of Sabbatianism, early Hasidic teachers could not stress historical messianic elements and thus formulated a theory of “neutralization” of external redemption modes. He further claimed that individual redemption is “a totally modern dilemma” that did not exist before 1750. The author counters this on both points. First, a previous mystical model for individual redemption exists in the writings of Abraham Abulafia, making the theory of neutralization unnecessary to explain Hasidic reactions to Sabbateanism. Second, the spiritualistic interpretation of redemption may relate to views already present in Jewish mystical tradition from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, some of which were printed by the sixteenth century. The author suggests that Hasidic individual redemption may represent the resurgence of a peripheral trend that returned to prominence due to favorable historical circumstances, with the reaction to Sabbateanism remaining an open, secondary question.
Affinity with Thirteenth-Century Thought
The author points to a deep affinity between Hasidic texts and the writings of Abraham Abulafia, which were inspired more by Aristotelian than Neoplatonic sources. Both refer to the rescue from Egypt as the soul’s redemption from the “exile” of the material world. Hasidism espouses spiritualizations (“neutralizations”) of various topics, including the Land of Israel, the Temple, psychological interpretations of the sefirot, and theurgical acts. Ecstatic Kabbalah similarly neutralized the Land of Israel’s centrality and the theosophical function of the sefirot. The author argues that the transfer from tiqqun (Lurianic-Sabbatian) to devequt (Hasidic) is not a total exchange of one value for another, but the return of a marginalized value to prominence. He notes that Scholem repeatedly mentions mystical literature that differs dramatically from Hasidism rather than the closer forms, and that Abulafia’s name is notably absent from Scholem’s essays in The Messianic Idea.
Later Generations and Messianic Revival
While early Hasidism emphasized individual spiritual redemption, the third and fourth generations showed more radical, apocalyptic views. The nineteenth century saw a revival of this more acute messianic self-awareness in figures like R. Nahman of Bratzlav and R. Yitzhaq Aiziq Yehudah Yehiel Safrin of Komarno, who combined ecstatic experiences with a powerful sense of their own messianic role.
The Besht and R. Hayyim ben ‘Attar
A story attributed to the Besht by Safrin illustrates the inner, anthropological dimension of this messianic process. The Besht intended to meet R. Hayyim ben ‘Attar, a Kabbalist from Morocco dwelling in Jerusalem. The meeting would have unified the Besht’s spirit (ruah, from David’s spirit in the world of Emanation) with the Kabbalist’s soul (nefesh, from David’s soul at a lower ontological level). This conjunction would have brought about the descent of the neshamah and yehidah, producing true redemption (ha-ge’ullah ha-amitit). However, the Besht envisioned his image in the supernal world but could not see his heels (agevav), so the meeting failed. This story reinterprets the Lurianic concept of the “heels of the Messiah” anthropologically, transforming it from a cosmic process into a personal, spiritual obstacle.
Inner vs. Christian Redemption
Both ecstatic and Hasidic personal redemption resemble Christian spiritualistic versions of salvation. However, the author maintains that the sources are different: Greek psychology provided the terminology for these inner processes, not direct Christian influence. This appropriation of Greek psychological concepts relates to an enrichment by medieval theologies, not a crisis or reaction against apocalyptic messianism. The author critiques Jacob Taubes’s position that this interiorization belongs to the “career of the idea,” which assumes history’s crucial role. Taubes sees Hasidic messianism as “the viable mythic response whereby Lurianic Kabbalah overcame the disastrous apocalyptic consequences manifested in the Sabbatean comedy”—a position the author finds still deeply Scholemian. While the author agrees with Taubes’s legitimization of Hasidic messianism, he rejects his historical explanation.
Models of Messianism
The author proposes that we should think in terms of multiple models rather than one single “messianic idea.” The theosophical-theurgical (Lurianic) model is the least important in Hasidism; the ecstatic and talismanic models are far more characteristic. Hasidism combines many modes of thought, and its emphasis on experience is a key feature.
Critique of Historicism in Messianic Studies
The book presupposes multiple models of messianic ideas rather than a single basic concept, forming a “stream of traditions” that traveled through history. The persistence of these messianic varieties “questions dramatically” the importance of historicistic descriptions in Jewish studies. A Messiah emerging in specific decades due to historical, political, social, and religious circumstances does not limit that phenomenon’s relevance to that period. The perception that Lurianic messianism is the sole relevant form for Sabbateanism because Luria was closest in time to Sabbatai Tzevi exemplifies the historicistic approach. However, the persistence of ecstatic Kabbalah in Byzantium and the Ottoman Empire via quotations in Sefer ha-Peliyah demonstrates its relevance beyond geographic confines. Periodization and geographical compartmentalization prove difficult: Abulafia roamed for three decades, exposed to varied conceptual systems, and addressed Jewish and non-Jewish communities. The author questions what would be the “most defining moment” in his messianic formulations. If Tzevi knew Abulafia’s views from a book he studied while explicitly rejecting Luria, historicistic explanations lose weight. The availability of ideas through oral transmission or print reduces scholarly attempts to restrict explanations to periods with characteristic conceptual frameworks. Contextualization should consider elements from remote places and large time spans, bridged by written documents. Historicist approaches focus on meaning for formulators and later consumers; more panoramic approaches with complex methodologies may better address complex phenomena. Reception theories help explain why older ideas recur and inspire intense religious lives.
Proliferation of “Movements” in Scholarship
Modern scholarship overstates the popular-mythical aspects of messianism since they are the most accessible for historians. Some modest phenomena are called “movements,” inspiring academic histories. This tendency to escalate apocalyptic messianism’s importance originates in ideological links, causing exaggerated descriptions. Two examples follow. In 1122, a convert to Judaism, apparently a former crusader, known as R. ‘Ovadiyah the Proselyte, encountered in northern Israel a Karaite named Solomon, a Kohen, who claimed to be the Messiah and would reveal himself in two and a half months. ‘Ovadiyah did not believe this.
The End of Chapter 6: Sabbatean Ideologues and the Luzzatto Circle
The chapter’s final section deepens the analysis of Sabbatean ideology through its key figures. Abraham Michael Cardoso emerges as a central, mystically oriented author and ideologist whose terminology in messianic dreams closely resembles that of Hayyim Vital’s Sha’arei Qedushah. Cardoso’s use of “lights” (orot) to describe revealed powers is particularly notable, yet he insisted these revelations were not induced by technique. The notes also clarify technical details, such as the gematria of the seven Hebrew planet names (538, not 541), and draw a parallel between Abulafia’s phrase “their God” and Sabbatai Tzevi’s leitmotif of “my God.” A seventeenth-century Kabbalistic text is cited for its surprisingly positive attitude toward Jesus, while Cardoso is shown critiquing the attribution of apotheosis to Tzevi himself. The discussion of the Messiah atoning for Adam’s intellectual sin connects to broader scholarship on the Messiah-Adam affinity in biblical literature. The section closes with a reference to John Evelyn’s 1669 History of Sabatai Sevi, noting how Tzevi’s epistle was translated from Hebrew to Italian to English, with Scholem pointing out an Armenian parallel.
The narrative then shifts to R. Moses Hayyim Luzzatto, whose work is examined through Tishby’s studies. Luzzatto’s Daat Tevunot discusses religious improvement (tiqqun), a requirement that predates Sabbateanism. A key concept is hakhanah (preparation) for receiving descending powers, which is compared to Neoplatonic and talismanic magic views that astral powers are received according to the recipient’s readiness; this is linked to Cordovero and R. Moses Alshekh’s Torat Moshe. Vital’s dream tradition of a magical stone in the Weeping Wall, to be removed for redemption, is read as talismanic. Luzzatto’s recurrent use of the verb hakhen (to prepare) in cosmogonic contexts is highlighted as a signature of his system.
Chapter 7: Hasidism—Mystical Messianism and Mystical Redemption
The opening of Chapter 7 addresses a major scholarly debate. The author contrasts Gershom Scholem’s view of Hasidism as a “neutralization” of messianism with Tishby’s textually grounded critique of that position. The author states an intention to demonstrate the presence of non-Lurianic messianic elements within Hasidism. The discussion begins with the Besht’s epistle describing his soul ascent on Rosh ha-Shanah 5507 (1746), which includes the theory of a double Paradise, a pillar linking the lower Paradise to other levels, and the figure of Ahijah the Shilonite as a mystical mentor. A later source, R. Shalom of Kaidanov, claims the Besht began the messianic era’s “sparkling.” Scholem is noted as finding Tishby’s distinction between magico-messianic and Hasidic elements to be artificial. A textual note suggests that the “three names” in the Besht’s epistle are three Tetragrammata.
The focus then turns to R. Menahem Nahum of Chernobyl’s Me’or ‘Einayyim. This text teaches that each Jew possesses a Messiah element to purify, that the tzaddiq builds the divine stature, and that prayer draws down divine influx. This is compared to the Seer of Lublin’s magical messianic attempts. Further discussion centers on the unification of speech and thought as a redemptive act, the concept of the “aspect of the Messiah” (behinat mashiyah), and Elijah’s continuous arrival. The author critiques Scholem’s view of “deferment” as minimizing the circular, daily experiences of redemption. Finally, R. Levi Yitzhaq of Berditchev is cited for viewing redemption as a gradual development rather than a rupture.
Endnotes: Kabbalistic Sources and Figures
The extensive endnotes provide a dense web of citations and commentary. Note 7 references a Paris manuscript mentioning the names Adonay (for Malkhut) and another for Tiferet as male and female divine potencies. Note 15 discusses Abulafia’s use of the verb Yitpa’er in claiming a revelation of the date of the end. Note 17 discusses the number seven in relation to sealing a cycle or the series of prophets, referencing Abulafia’s Sefer Hotam ha-Haftarah. Note 20 notes a play on the Hebrew consonants of Messina, and note 23 points out the irony that the last letters of a word constitute the noun tehilat, meaning “beginning.”
The concept of Metatron is explored in depth. Note 29 discusses the term rav being transposed onto Metatron, with the mystic sharing the name moreh with it. Note 30 mentions that in Ashkenazi Hasidism, Metatron is described as a teacher of infants who died before studying the Torah. Note 37 compares two titles for the Messiah to the double Messiah in Qumranic texts, and note 38 discusses the Messiah as an educator, referencing Moses and the teacher of righteousness. Note 46 identifies an acronym for Metatron, Sar Ha-panim. Note 50 discusses the gematria of “Yaar” (wood) being 280, and the connection between hyle and Sandalfon. Note 55 mentions R. Yitzhaq of Acre’s book, preserved in R. Moses of Kiev’s Sefer Shoshan Sodot, which mentions various forms of Metatron. Note 58 discusses hastening the coming of the Messiah through procreation, referencing BT, Yevamot, fol. 62a. Note 59 discusses the gematria of words related to sheep and the Messiah, with the roots KBS and KBSh implying suffering and power respectively. Note 64 corrects a previous decoding of consonants from MoSheH to an acronym for Metatron, Sar Ha-panim. Note 76 states that Abulafia described Jesus as someone who founded “a new religion” and assumed the title of the Anointed One.
Appendix 2: Tigqun Hatzot—A Ritual between Myth, Messianism, and Mysticism
This appendix analyzes the midnight vigil ritual, Tigqun Hatzot, and critiques Gershom Scholem’s views, noting contradictions in his work. It questions a claim about Luria’s influence by pointing out that R. Karo’s book was printed in Venice in 1565, before Luria arrived in Safed. Scholem is quoted on the creation of the new rite, but his description of Leah’s “perpetually repeated reunion with her Lord” is deemed inaccurate. The appendix discusses the ritual’s theosophical premises, the role of weeping, and the Kabbalist becoming a chariot for the Shekhinah.
Appendix 3: Some Modern Reverberations of Jewish Messianism
The final appendix discusses modern interpretations of Jewish messianism. Ben Zion Dinur’s view is cited, identifying two factors in Judaism: a sociopolitical one and a psychological one consisting of messianic belief. The discussion then moves to Martin Buber’s views on messianism and Judaism, followed by a reference to Emmanuel Levinas and Menahem as a name of the Messiah. Walter Benjamin’s messianic thought is also discussed, alongside a reference to Franz Kafka. The appendix concludes by addressing messianism in modern Israel, bringing the book’s exploration of messianic mysticism from its ancient and medieval sources into the contemporary era, where the tension between mystical longing and political reality remains a living and unresolved question.
Main Arguments
The central argument of Messianic Mystics is that mysticism and messianism are not exclusive categories but are profoundly interconnected. Idel demonstrates that messianic self-awareness often originates in inner spiritual experiences, and he argues that intense mystical life does not preclude messianic efforts. The book shows that mystical experiences, myths, magic, theology, rituals, and philosophies become associated with messianic concepts in complex ways that resist simple compartmentalization.
A second major argument concerns the inadequacy of the “traumatic-historic interpretation” of Jewish messianism. Idel challenges the assumption that messianic movements arise primarily in response to historical crises such as the expulsion from Spain. He notes that mystics often downplayed or ignored historical crises, and he proposes that hope, not just crisis, can be a prelude to messianic awareness. The book also questions the related assumption that Lurianic messianism is the sole relevant form for understanding Sabbateanism because Luria was closest in time to Sabbatai Tzevi, arguing instead for the persistence of ecstatic Kabbalah in Byzantium and the Ottoman Empire via quotations in Sefer ha-Peliyah.
A third argument challenges the view that individual redemption is a modern dilemma absent from premodern Judaism. Idel counters Scholem’s assertion that “the question of private or individual redemption is a totally modern dilemma” by demonstrating that Abraham Abulafia’s writings from the thirteenth century present a fully developed model of individual spiritual redemption. The author argues that Hasidic individual redemption may represent a resurgence of this peripheral trend that returned to prominence due to favorable historical circumstances, rather than a novel development or a reaction to Sabbateanism.
The book also argues for the necessity of multiple models rather than a single “messianic idea.” Idel proposes three primary models: the mystical-ecstatic (represented by Abulafia), the theosophical-theurgical (represented by the Zohar and later Lurianic Kabbalah), and the magical or talismanic model (emerging since the fifteenth century). These models witness the integration of messianism and the diversification of Kabbalah’s concept, and they cannot be reduced to a single master narrative.
A fifth argument concerns the relationship between myth and messianism. Idel challenges Scholem’s description of how apocalyptics intertwined motifs of current history with apocalyptic, eschatological nature, filling ancient mythical images with utopian content. The author proposes that mythical images may be filled with messages concerning ritualistic performances rather than utopian elements, and that myth is conservative rather than subversive. He accepts Paul Ricoeur’s definition of myth as “a traditional narration which relates to events that happened at the beginning of time and which has the purpose of providing grounds for the ritual actions of men of today,” and he argues that messianic elements fitting this concept relate to restorative aspects recovering lost time.
Finally, the book argues against the indiscriminate use of the term “movement” in messianic scholarship. Idel contends that modern scholarship overstates popular-mythical aspects of messianism since they are most accessible for historians, and that some modest phenomena are called “movements,” inspiring academic histories. He provides examples of this tendency, including the treatment of a Karaite Messiah in the early twelfth century and the depiction of Abulafia’s influence as creating a movement when only a few statements exist about his followers.
Key Concepts
The Three Models of Kabbalah: Idel identifies three distinct models of Kabbalistic thought that integrate messianism in different ways. The mystical-ecstatic model, represented by Abulafia, emphasizes individual perfection as a precondition for national redemption. The theosophical-theurgical model, represented by the Zohar, focuses on restoring the sefirot to original harmony through regular Jewish ritual. The mythical-apocalyptic or traumatic model, represented by R. Yitzhaq ben Jacob ha-Kohen, witnesses the integration of messianism with apocalyptic expectations.
The Mesocosmos: The concept of an intermediary realm of beings between divinity and humans appears in late biblical books, apocalyptic literature, Philo of Alexandria, Christianity, and Gnosticism. This opens the door for inserting a transcendent depersonalized Messiah within the quasi-divine company. The gap created by God’s attenuated direct involvement in history was filled with surrogates, creating a threefold rather than twofold structure of the religious universe.
Hakhanah (Preparation): The term hakhanah refers to the preparation required for divine influx to descend upon an individual. The author argues that a moderate form of the talismanic model appears in earlier Kabbalistic passages, supported by this term and the presupposition of deep affinity between deeds below and influx descending upon preparations. The Besht reportedly said that whoever wishes the Godhead to dwell upon him should consider himself to be ‘Ayin (Nought), and that this is a preparation for the dwelling of the Godhead on him.
The Talismanic Model: This model relates closely to astrology and the descent of divine influx upon those who are properly prepared. The affinity between the descent model and talismanic model is not merely phenomenological but reflects a deep structural relationship. Astral sources influenced Jewish mysticism particularly after the fourteenth century, and the author argues that integrating astrological systems into Kabbalah study is necessary for understanding Jewish mysticism’s development.
Metatron and Yaho’el: The archangel Metatron, also referred to by the theophoric name Yaho’el, plays a significant role in Jewish mystical messianism. The angel’s revelation by the sea hints at its salvific nature, reflecting divine intervention. Two tendencies appear in the relevant texts: apotheotic (man into angel) and theophanic (redemptive revelation by the sea). Metatron is implicitly eschatologized as equivalent to the messianic ben David in some texts.
The Messiah’s Intermediary Role: In some Luzzatto writings, the Messiah’s suffering alleviates Israel’s suffering during exile, while his reception of power ensures the people of Israel receive power. The Messiah plays an intermediary role even before the time of the end. This vicarious suffering is reminiscent of the Christian view of Jesus, introduced into Jewish mysticism by R. Shlomo Molkho and, under his influence, by R. Isaac Luria and Sabbatean authors.
The Spark of the Messiah: R. Ya’aqov ‘Emden, a fiery opponent of Sabbateanism, wrote that “In each and every generation God, blessed be He, sends a spark of the Messiah, either in order to redeem Israel when they repent, or to maintain the world during the wicked generation, like the generation of apostates, or to illumine the world during the exile by means of his Torah, so that the world will not be destroyed altogether.” This concept presents different functions of the Messiah’s spark, including a conservative role of sustaining the world.
Fragmentation of the Messiah’s Persona: The evolution of messianic ideas brought individualistic penchants forward—a gradual fragmentation of the Messiah’s persona uniqueness. Two forms exist: synchronic, represented by the Hasidic concept of the Messiah’s aspect in every individual, and diachronic, involving the Messiah’s reincarnation in various bodies. Function over persona becomes more evident later, causing a turn to many messianic figures collectively expected to accomplish less dramatic effects than one extraordinary mythical Messiah.
Euchronia and Eupsychia: Connected to Frank Manuel’s concepts, euchronia refers to good times and eupsychia to good spiritual events. Idel argues that inner experiences can trigger the construction of euchronical pictures, suggesting that hope and positive spiritual experiences, not just crisis, can be preludes to messianic awareness.
The Icon of Orthodoxy and the Icon of Subversion: The integration of myth and messianism belongs to Edmund Leach’s “icon of orthodoxy,” while affinities between mysticism and messianism are understood as the “icon of subversion.” This subversive propensity creates religious innovations opened to Messiahs by divine revelation.
Themes
A recurring theme throughout the book is the tension between individual and collective redemption. Idel traces how Jewish messianism shifted from collective to individual redemption through encounters with Greek philosophy, particularly Platonism and Neoplatonism, which introduced concepts of the soul’s alienation, return to the source, contemplation, and theurgy. The book shows how this shift manifested differently across various Kabbalistic schools, from Abulafia’s emphasis on individual intellectual perfection to the Zohar’s focus on cosmic restoration through ritual, and finally to Hasidism’s spiritualization of redemption as an inner process of suppressing bodily instincts’ influence on consciousness.
The theme of spiritualization versus historical messianism appears throughout the book. Idel examines how various Jewish mystics interpreted messianic concepts in increasingly spiritual terms, transforming classical apocalyptic expectation into philosophical-mystical explanation. In this reading, “ben David” becomes a stage in mystical development rather than a historical personality, and redemption involves no substantial change in historical reality but an alteration in the relationship of spiritual to material world. The author questions whether the Hasidic master’s destruction of exile by spiritualization is less concrete or messianic than the Sabbatean Messiah’s approach, challenging Scholem’s preference for objective significance over mystical sense.
The relationship between messianism and historical crisis forms another central theme. Idel challenges the traumatic-historic interpretation that links messianism primarily to crises like the expulsion from Spain, noting that mystics often downplayed or ignored historical crises. He proposes instead that hope can be a prelude to messianic awareness, and he examines how international crises such as the Mongol conquests and the contest for the land of Israel in the 1250s-1260s fostered messianic expectations. The book also explores how Italian messianism after the expulsion was largely divorced from the expulsion trauma, suggesting that other factors were at work.
The theme of continuity and discontinuity in Jewish mystical traditions runs throughout the book. Idel argues against the view that Lurianic Kabbalah was the sole influential corpus for later developments, demonstrating instead the persistence of Cordoverian and Abulafian traditions. He shows how Abulafia’s writings were copied verbatim in Sefer ha-Peliyah, how his Kabbalah remained in dozens of manuscripts in Byzantium, and how Hasidic individual redemption may represent a resurgence of a peripheral trend from thirteenth-fourteenth century thought rather than a novel development.
The theme of the Messiah’s evolving nature examines how the concept of the Messiah transformed from an ancient king-Messiah representing the corporate community to more mundane, numerous Messiahs. The salvific function from ancient sacral royalty survived in different avatars, and the hypostatic Messiah’s presence enabled actualization “on low” in various individuals, introducing multiple Messiahs and tensions between personal and collective redemption. The book traces how the divine redeemer becomes less common, with semi-divine angels or personalities assuming redemptive function, and how after the twelfth century, more mundane individuals may perfect themselves and reach salvific status.
The theme of scholarly methodology and its influence on the study of messianism appears throughout the book. Idel critiques how modern scholarship overstates popular-mythical aspects of messianism since they are most accessible for historians, and how the term “movement” is used indiscriminately, evoking the Zionist movement. He points to relationships between Zionist ideology and the academic establishment, not as denigration nor anti-Zionist/post-Zionist stance but as “a simple reflection of my consciousness of the influence of historical contexts upon the historian himself.” The book advocates for more panoramic approaches with complex methodologies that can better address complex phenomena, including reception theories that help explain why older ideas recur and inspire intense religious lives.
The Author’s Conclusions
Idel concludes that the book presupposes multiple models of messianic ideas rather than a single basic concept, forming a “stream of traditions” that traveled through history. The persistence of messianic varieties “questions dramatically” the importance of historicistic descriptions in Jewish studies. A Messiah emerging in specific decades due to historical, political, social, and religious circumstances does not limit that phenomenon’s relevance to that period. Periodization and geographical compartmentalization prove difficult, as demonstrated by Abulafia’s roaming for three decades, exposed to varied conceptual systems, and by the persistence of ecstatic Kabbalah in Byzantium and the Ottoman Empire via quotations in Sefer ha-Peliyah.
The author argues that the Sabbatean movement, while the most important messianic phenomenon in premodern Judaism, has been misunderstood through excessive focus on Lurianic influence. He proposes that Sabbatai Tzevi should be examined as following earlier Kabbalah forms, particularly ecstatic Kabbalah, rather than Lurianic Kabbalah, and he suggests that Tzevi’s spiritual development differs substantially from Scholem’s account. The paramount formative impact of Tzevi’s later encounter with Nathan was exaggerated in Scholem’s historiography.
Regarding Hasidism, Idel concludes that the theosophical-theurgical (Lurianic) model is least important in Hasidic messianism, while ecstatic and talismanic models are more characteristic. He argues that the transfer from tiqqun (Lurianic-Sabbatian) to devequt (Hasidic) is not a total exchange but a return of a marginalized value. The spiritualistic interpretation of redemption in Hasidism may relate to views already in Jewish mystical tradition from thirteenth-fourteenth century thinkers, some printed by the sixteenth century, making neutralization unnecessary to explain reactions to Sabbateanism.
The book concludes that the evolution of messianic ideas brought individualistic penchants forward—a gradual fragmentation of the Messiah’s persona uniqueness. From the ancient king-Messiah representing the corporate community, recent developments show the community’s more obvious role without unifying personality. Mundane, numerous Messiahs represent a development starting with the supernal one Messiah, God. The divine redeemer becomes less common; semi-divine angels or personalities assume redemptive function. After the twelfth century, more mundane individuals may perfect themselves and reach salvific status. This development has “nothing teleological about it”; the angelic and median status of the Messiah in early Christianity and Judaism is paramount.
Idel emphasizes that Jewish messianism comprises inner and outer aspects, with emphasis on inner aspects associated with elite figures whose public attempts rarely crystallized into movements. He cautions against assuming public moments are less important religious phenomena but advocates for balanced attitudes. The book ends by noting that the public domain of the Zionist movement turned scholars’ attention to public aspects, and that sociological methods were barely used in messianic studies.
Significance
Messianic Mystics represents a significant contribution to the study of Jewish mysticism and messianism, offering a sustained critique of the dominant Scholemian paradigm while proposing alternative frameworks for understanding the relationship between mystical experience and messianic consciousness. The book’s significance lies in several areas.
First, it challenges the long-held view that mysticism and messianism are exclusive categories, demonstrating through detailed textual analysis that messianic self-awareness often originates in inner spiritual experiences. This argument has implications not only for Jewish studies but for the comparative study of mysticism and messianism across religious traditions.
Second, the book’s critique of the traumatic-historic interpretation of Jewish messianism offers a new way of understanding the relationship between historical events and messianic movements. By demonstrating that mystics often downplayed or ignored historical crises and that hope, not just crisis, can be a prelude to messianic awareness, Idel opens new avenues for understanding the psychological and spiritual dimensions of messianic phenomena.
Third, the book’s emphasis on multiple models rather than a single “messianic idea” provides a more nuanced framework for understanding the diversity of Jewish messianic thought.
