JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

emanationism the ultimate product, the material universe, is
not regarded as evil, as in gnostic systems of emanation. A variety
of models are used to describe emanation. For example,
it is compared to the efflux of light from a luminous body, or
to water flowing from a spring. The emanationist theory was
given its classical formulation by Plotinus in the Enneads,
in which the typical fourfold scheme of the One, Intellect,
Soul, and Nature is found. Emanationism tends to be combined
with an eschatology (or soteriology) that envisions the
soul’s return to its ultimate source of being by epostrophē or
“reversion” (see A. Altmann, Studies in Religious Philosophy
and Mysticism (1969), 41ff.). The theory of emanation was
developed further by Plotinus’ successors, particularly Proclus,
who systematized the scheme of monēproodos-epistrophē
(immanence, procession, reversion) to account for the process
of emanation.
In Jewish Philosophy
The Hebrew terms used for emanation are aẓilut or aẓilah (cf.
Num. 11:17), hishtalshelut, meshekh, shefa; the verbs shalaḥ and
sadar (in the pu’al) are also used (see J. Klatzkin, Thesaurus
Philosophicus (1930), 96; 4 (1933), 112). The theory of emanation
was known to medieval Arabic and Jewish philosophers
from several sources. Plotinus was known from the Theology of
Aristotle (in both a vulgate and long recension), a paraphrase
of texts from the Enneads, as well as from Plotinian material
ascribed to “al-Sheikh al-Yūnānī” (“The Greek Sage,” probably
Porphyry, editor of the Enneads), and a work titled al-ʿIlm
al-Ilāhī (“The Divine Science”), falsely ascribed to al-*Fārābī
(translations of this material are in Plotinus, Opera, ed. by H.
Schwyzer (1959), vol. 2). Proclus was known from the Liber de
causis (Kitāb al-Idāh fī al-Khayr al-Maḥḍ) ascribed to Aristotle
but actually based on Proclus’ Elements of Theology (ed. and
tr. by E.R. Dodds, 1963). One must also take into account neoplatonic
texts such as the pseudo-Aristotelian source utilized
by Isaac *Israeli and Abraham *Ibn Ḥasdai (see S.M. Stern, in
Oriens, 13–14 (1960–61), 58ff.) and the pseudo-Empedoclean
Book of Five Substances (ed. by D. Kaufmann, Studien ueber
Salomo Ibn Gabirol (1899), 17ff.). Jewish philosophers also relied
on the appropriation and development of emanationism
by Arabic philosophers such as al-*Kindī, al-Fārābī, *Avicenna,
and the Sincere *Brethren (Ikhwān al-Ṣafāʾ). In medieval Arabic
and Jewish neo-Aristotelianism, the neoplatonic theory of
emanation was applied to the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology
which posited a series of nine concentric spheres encompassing
the earth, each endowed with an intelligence. Thus,
Aristotle’s active intellect (De Anima, 3) was identified either
with Plotinus’ universal intellect in the neoplatonic hierarchy,
or with the intelligence of the lowest sphere (of the moon) in
the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology. Emanation is a necessary
(natural) and eternal process, and is thus thought to imply
the absence of will and design on the part of the ultimate
source. Thus, the theory of emanation is in conflict with the
biblical concept of temporal creation by divine volition. Also,
emanationism sees the divine source as somehow omnipres-
emanation
ently immanent in the world, and it therefore tends toward
pantheistic expressions.
In their discussions of cosmology, Jewish philosophers
sometimes tried to harmonize emanation with biblical concepts
of *creation and *providence. Isaac Israeli, for example,
postulates an initial act of creation by “the will and power”
of God which results in the first two substances, which are
in his system prime matter and form (or wisdom), while the
subsequent entities are generated by a process of emanation.
These are the typical hierarchy of intellect, soul, and nature of
Plotinus, but the universal soul, like the individual soul, is
tripartite (rational, animal, vegetable; as in Ibn *Gabirol),
and nature is identified with the first or outer sphere. Each
emanated being is derived from “the shadow” of its anterior
cause. Ibn Gabirol injected an element of voluntarism into an
emanationist system with his notion of “will,” which mediates
between the first essence and primary matter and form,
which together constitute the hypostasis of intellect. Will thus
appears not as a function of the creator (cf. Israeli), but as a
distinct hypostasis. Gabirol often appeals to the metaphors
of a spring of water, light from the sun, the reflection in a
mirror, and human speech to explain emanation. There is a
pronounced tendency toward pantheism (see Mekor Ḥayyim
5:39, 3:16).
Pseudo-*Baḥya‘s Kitāb Maʿanī al-Nafs (“On the Essence
of the Soul”) combines creation and emanation. The entire
chain of being hinges on God’s will and wisdom. Intellect is
called Shekhinah and soul is called Kevod Elohei Yisrael (see
Guttmann, Philosophies, 110). *Abraham bar Ḥiyya posits five
worlds above the celestial spheres, which he correlates with
the five days of creation, giving each a theological interpretation.
The lower three (the worlds of knowledge, soul, and
creation) seem to correspond to the neoplatonic hypostases.
Above them are the world of light (ha-olam ha-nurani) and
the world of dominion (olam ha-ravrevanut), probably derived
from an Arabic neoplatonic work (Megillat ha-Megalleh, ed.
by A. Posnanski (1924), 21ff.; see also, G. Scholem, in MGWJ,
75 (1931), 172ff.; and Guttmann, Philosophies, 112ff.). Like Ibn
Gabirol, Abraham bar Ḥiyya uses expressions which are tantamount
to pantheism. God is essentially identical with the
universe insofar as He gives it the power of being.
The emanation theory of Arabic and Jewish Aristotelians,
an intricate system explaining the derivation of the spheres
and their intelligences, was rejected by *Judah Halevi as an
unproven claim (Kuzari, 4:25). Abraham *Ibn Daud also rejected
the emanationist explanation of the derivation of the
spheres and their intelligences, but without denying the order
itself (Emunah Ramah, ed. by S. Weil (1852), 67). The position
of *Maimonides is complex. He was keenly aware of
the opposition between eternal necessary emanation of the
world from God and the free act of creation. Nevertheless he
wrote: “It has been said that the world derives from the overflow
(fayḍ) of God and that He has caused to overflow to it
everything in it that is produced in time.” In the same context
he compares the derivation of the world from God to a
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6 373