146 Aaron W. Hughes
emergence of kabbalah (e.g., before the fi nal redaction of the more system-
atic Zohar) or because he was acutely aware that the Torah was not just a
mystical text, his conception of Torah is highly inclusive. Unlike that of
many later kabbalists, Nahmanides maintains a delicate equilibrium be-
tween the Torah’s literal, mystical, and other meanings. A good example
of this may be found in his discussion of the term devequt (cleaving) in
Deuteronomy 11:22 (“and to cleave unto Him”). Although later kabbalistic
interpreters oft en interpreted this to mean a form of unio mystica, Nah-
manides does not confi ne its semantic range solely to a mystical experien-
tial mode. In the verse’s most literal sense, he argues that the meaning
of the verse is one of admonition against idolatry, meaning that one’s
thought should not move from God to other gods, that one should not
think that there is any substance to idolatry but instead that it is all empti-
ness and worthless. In this regard this verse is similar to and Him shall you
serve, and unto Him shall you cleave [Deut. 13:5], the intent being to warn
that one is not to worship God with anything besides Him, but to worship
God alone, with one’s hearts and deed. 18According to Nahmanides, Deuteronomy’s call to cleave to God, on its sim-
plest level, means that one should not or must not worship other gods or
otherwise engage in idolatrous practice. Following this, however, Nahman-
ides writes that devequt can also refer to the practice of being close to God
at all times: “It is possible that [the term] ‘cleaving’ means that you should
remember God and His love always, that your thoughts should never be
separated from Him when you walk by the way, and when you lie down,
and when you rise [Deut. 11:19], so that when you are speaking to others by
mouth and tongue, your heart will not be with them, but instead directed
toward God.”19 According to Nahmanides, here devequt is not simply a
negative term, used to denote the avoidance of idolatrous beliefs and prac-
tices, but now receives a more positive valence: to keep God constantly in
one’s thoughts, even when engaged in more mundane activities. Following
this, Nahmanides writes that for some people even this is not enough and
that for “such men of excellence it is possible that even in their lifetime,
their souls shall be bound to the bundle of life [1 Sam. 25:29], since their very
being is a ‘residence’ for the Divine Glory, as the author of the Book of the
Kuzari [Judah Halevi] alludes.”20 In Nahmanides’s deft hermeneutics here,
we witness how the term devequt receives both a simple and a technical