Jewish Concepts of Scripture

Concepts of Scripture in Jewish Mysticism 171

comprehend anything at all. . . . Th e drawing down is specifi cally by means

of the letters, and this is the reason that despite the fact that he does not

understand the meaning, he is able to draw [the revelation of the light of

the Infi nite] down, whereas in the case of the Oral Torah, clothed as it is

within [the sefi rah of ] H.okhmah, he cannot draw it down unless he under-

stands. 36 In the case of the Written Torah, however, he draws down even if

he does not understand, as it [the drawing down] does not depend on un-

derstanding to such an extent [as is the case with the Oral Torah] because

the source of the drawing down is higher than [the sefi rah of ] H.okhmah,

etc. Th is means that it [the drawing down] is [done] by means of the let-

ters, and this is why the Written Torah is called Miqra — because we call

[qore’ ] and [then] draw [down] by means of the letters. 37

As mentioned earlier, in Hebrew the verb qore’, translated here as “calls,”
stands also for “reading.” Here the reading of the Torah is understood more
as a recitation, actually as a calling of God, an invocation which is very
powerful because it is done by means of letters, whose origin is higher than
the realm of H.okhmah, the second sefi rah. Moreover, according to another
passage, this drawing down occurs by virtue of a special feature of the bib-
lical text, which is conceived as constituting a continuum of divine names.
A most interesting parallel of our passage by the same author argues again
that “the whole Torah consists of the names of God, blessed be He, which
are the aspects of the letters of the Torah, and this is the reason that it is
called miqra, which is derived from the term qeri ’ah [understood as “call-
ing”], because he calls Him by His names, and because of this He makes
Himself available.”38 In this context, the hamshakhah, the drawing down, is
explicitly mentioned, inter alia defi ning the whole Torah as drawing down
from H.okhmah.
Th e longer of the two passages by Shneor Zalman quoted above intro-
duces a remarkable distinction between the diff erent ways the two Torahs
are understood to function. On the one hand, the Written Torah is con-
ceived of as having been voiced as part of ritual in general, and as part of
magic in particular, which is not conditioned by the understanding of the
Torah’s content. On the other hand, the Oral Torah is described as hav-
ing to be understood, namely, as undergoing a process of epistemological
assimilation that does not comprise the act of verbalization. Only when
this epistemological assimilation takes place can the drawing down occur.
Prima facie, this distinction involves a double contradiction: the Written
becomes oral, and the Oral become written. However, these contradictions