“Son of an Israelite Woman and an Egyptian Man”—Jesus as the Blasphemer (Lev 24:10–23): An Anti-Gospel Polemic in the Zohar

Introduction

The short biblical story of the blasphemer (Lev 24:10–23) received a unique mystical and mythical interpretation in the Zohar. ¹ When carefully examined, the zoharic homilies of the story reveal the hidden influences of Jewish polemic anti-gospel traditions. This essay exposes the strong link between the biblical blasphemer and Jesus, ² as well as between the blasphemer's mother and the Virgin Mary. ³ In fact, the zoharic commentary on the blasphemer's biblical story provides a significant understanding of the Zohar’s ambivalent attitude towards Jesus as Son of God—and of the Virgin Mary as linked to the Shekhinah.

Several elements of the early counter-narrative history of Jesus, as it is found in the Talmud, for instance, were developed in Jewish anti-Christian polemical works and folklore formulated from Late Antiquity to the early Middle Ages (mainly in western Europe). These elements eventually became part of the famous polemical tract known (in its different variants and forms) as Toledot Yešu (The life story of Jesus) [henceforth TY]. ⁴

The article focuses on three central themes of the counter-narrative history of Jesus: 1) the magical and lethal use of the Holy Name; 2) the Egyptian father; 3) the mother as a prostitute/an adulterous woman.

The anti-Christian zoharic homilies should be understood as part of a rise in Jewish anti-Christian polemical works in Western Europe in the early Middle Ages, many of them from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. ⁵ Moreover, as shown in this essay, the zoharic anti-Christian polemics were likely also influenced by Kabbalistic traditions containing polemical material against Christianity, such as the material which can be found in the mystical medieval midrash ʾOtiyot dĕRabbi ‘Akiva (8–9^th cent.), in the writings of Rabbi Abraham Abulafia (13^th cent.), and in Sefer haPĕli’āh (13–14^th cent.).

The story of the blasphemer is described in Lev 24:10–14:

Now the son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the sons of Israel; and the Israelite woman's son and a man of Israel struggled with each other in the camp. The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name and cursed. So they brought him to Moses. Now his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.

They put him in custody so that the command of the Lord might be made clear to them. Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Bring the one who has cursed outside the camp, and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head; then let all the congregation stone him.

This short story is extremely unusual and stands out in the narrative frame of Leviticus, ⁶ raising many questions: Who exactly is this son of Shelomith and an Egyptian man? Who is the Israelite man who fights with him? And most importantly: What exactly does the blasphemer do? And what is the nature of his blasphemy?

Midrashic and Philonic Interpretations

The earliest source supplying a narrative context to the biblical story of the blasphemer is found in the writings of Philo (d. 45–50 CE), who describes the blasphemer (the son of the Israelite woman and an Egyptian man) as a bastard (νόθος). ⁷ Philo uses extremely strong condemnatory language, describing this product of a mixed marriage as “a promiscuous, nondescript and menial crowd, a bastard (νόθον) ⁸ host, so to speak, associated with the true-born.” ⁹ Philo sees Shelomith's son as having rejected his mother's tradition and having embraced his father's Egyptian atheism, which included the worshipping of the earth as a challenge to heavenly rule. In a fit of anger, and out of his love for Egyptian atheism, the son of the Egyptian cursed God and was punished by stoning. ¹⁰

The following source, supplying a fuller narrative version of the blasphemer's story, is found in midrash Vayyiqrāʾ Rabbah (5–6^th cent. Palestine) [henceforth VR]:

In the name of Rabbi Levi: “[He being the son of an Egyptian man (Lev 24:10).] He was definitely a bastard. How so? The taskmasters [in charge of the Israelites enslaved in Egypt] were Egyptians and the officers were

Israelites. One taskmaster was in charge of ten officers and one officer was in charge of ten [Israelite] men. Thus a taskmaster was in charge of a hundred and ten men [namely, a hundred Israelite slaves and ten Israelite officers]. One time a taskmaster paid an early morning visit to an officer and said to him: ‘Go and assemble your group of ten.’ When [the Egyptian taskmaster] entered [the Israelite officer's] house, [the officer's] wife smiled at him. He thought, ‘She is all mine!’ He went out and hid behind a ladder. As soon as her husband went out, he entered and disgraced himself with her. [The Israelite officer] turned around and saw him coming out of the house. When [the Egyptian taskmaster] realized that he had seen him coming out of his house, he kept beating him the whole day, saying, ‘Work better, work better!’ He intended thereby to kill him. At that moment, the Holy Spirit stimulated Moses, as is written: He turned this way and that way (Exod 2:12). What does this mean? Well, [Moses] saw what [the Egyptian taskmaster] had done to [the Israelite officer] in the house and what he intended to do to him in the field. He said, ‘Not enough that he disgraced himself with [the Israelite's] wife, but he wants to kill him!’ Immediately, He saw that there was no man [and he struck the Egyptian and buried him in the sand] (ibid.).”

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nehemiah and Rabanan (lit. the rabbis) argued on the meaning of the words He saw that there was no man. Rabbi Yehuda says: “He saw that there was no one to stand and be zealous for the name of the blessed Holy One and he killed him.” Rabbi Nehemiah says: “He [Moses] saw that there was no one to stand [against him] and he mentioned upon him the name (םשה תא וילע ריכזיו) and killed him.” ¹¹

The blasphemer described here is a bastard, the fruit of an illicit relationship between his mother (Shelomith) and the Egyptian taskmaster killed by Moses (using the magical power of God's name). In earlier midrashic sources (from 3^rd cent. Palestine) the blasphemer even appears as the only bastard known in his times. ¹²

The narrative described here bears an intriguing resemblance to the counter-narrative to the story of Jesus's birth in the New Testament, as hinted in the Babylonian Talmud:

(Was he) the son of Stada (and not on the contrary) the son of Pandera?

Said Rav Hisda: the husband (ba‘al) was Stada, (and) the cohabiter/lover (bo‘ēl) was Pandera.

(But was not) the husband (ba‘al) Pappos ben Yehuda and rather his mother Stada [he is Jesus the Nazarene ¹³ ]”?

His mother was [Miriam], (the woman who) let (her) women's [hair] grow long (megadla [sē‘ar] nešayya). This is as they say about her in Pumbeditha: This one turned away from (was unfaithful to) her husband (satat dā miba‘alāh). ¹⁴

In this passage, Jesus is described as born as a result of an act of adultery. His real father is identified as Pandera, ¹⁵ a name almost identical to the one mentioned by Celsus:

Let us return, however, to the words put into the mouth of the Jew, where the mother of Jesus is described as having been turned out by the carpenter who was betrothed to her, as she had been convicted of adultery and had a child by a certain soldier named Panthera. ¹⁶

It is possible that the story about Jesus's Father being a (Roman) soldier named Panthera (or Pantera) influenced the description in VR, whereby the Egyptian taskmaster was the blasphemer's father, thus hinting at the counter-narrative life story of Jesus. ¹⁷

Moreover, Celsus also mentions the connection between Jesus and Egypt in the context of obtaining Egyptian magical powers:

And he says that because he [Jesus] was poor he hired himself out as a workman in Egypt, and there tried his hand at certain magical powers on which the Egyptians pride themselves; he returned full of conceit, because of these powers, and on account of them gave himself the title of God. ¹⁸

Jesus's escape to Egypt is mentioned in Matt 2:13–16, but here Celsus adds his own counter-gospel narrative of the short period that Jesus spent in Egypt. Schäfer has shown the possible connection between the Egyptian magic used by Jesus (as described by Celsus) and the identification of the magician with the god whom he conjures up. In this context he also mentions the magical use of God's name (in particular, the mention of the Tetragrammaton YHWH), as found in the Greek magical papyri from Greco-Roman Egypt(!). ¹⁹ The fact that Jesus achieved magical powers in Egypt is also hinted at in the Talmud, which describes the Son of Stada as bringing magic from Egypt “by means of scratches/tattoos (biseritāh) upon his flesh.” ²⁰ In this context, another important detail mentioned in the midrash from VR is the power of the ineffable Holy Name, as a weapon used by Moses to kill the Egyptian man (the blasphemer's father). By this allusion, as suggested by Scholem, the midrash is possibly hinting at the attempt of the blasphemer to use the magical power of the name. ²¹ As is well known, the use of the ineffable Holy Name becomes a central theme in the counter-narrative of Jesus's life found in polemic Jewish sources. ²²

The combination of the various elements in the VR story creates a strong resemblance to the counter-narrative traditions about Jesus found in the Talmud and in Celsus: the description of the blasphemer as the most famous bastard of his time; the fact that his father is an Egyptian soldier (who committed adultery with Shelomith); the possible allusion to the magical use of the ineffable Holy Name (which Jesus might have acquired in Egypt, as described by Philo); and finally, the fact that both Jesus and the blasphemer were publicly executed for their acts. ²³

The Zoharic Homilies on the Blasphemer's Story

The zoharic homilies on the blasphemer appear in the manuscripts (preceding the first printed editions of the Zohar) as part of a separate unit, unconnected to the Emor pericope, with which they are linked in the printed editions (where they appear at the end of the pericope, Zohar 3 105b–106b). ²⁴

When one takes into account the fact that the contents of these homilies contain some resemblance to the Rā‘ya Mehēmna and Tikunei Zohar (henceforth RM and TZ), ²⁵ it seems plausible to suggest that this material might have its origins closer to the beginning of the fourteenth century.

1. The bastard, the mixed multitude and the lethal use of the Holy Name

The zoharic homilies on the blasphemer have many similarities to the midrashic (and Philonic) interpretation of the blasphemer's story. However, these homilies contain some unique additions, which strengthen the anti-Christian allusions to the counter-narrative history of Jesus.

The homily begins with an allusion to the fact that the blasphemer is a bastard:

“The son of an Israelite woman—he being the son of an Egyptian man—went out . . . (Lev. 24:10).”

Went out. Rabbi Yehudah said, “He went out from the sphere of all, he went out from the sphere of faith, and he went out from the sphere of the share of Israel.

“Brawled in the camp—from here we learn: Whoever comes from a filthy seed eventually exposes it before all.

What causes this? The filth of the evil portion within him, for he has no share in the entire sphere of Israel.” ²⁶

The Zohar places the story of the blasphemer in a unique mythical context. The Son is transformed into the mythic figure of the bastard, who was begotten of “a filthy seed” and who therefore has the “filth of the evil portion within him.” As demonstrated above, the midrash in VR emphasizes the fact that the blasphemer is the sole example of the biblical bastard. The Zohar, in its unique hermeneutic interpretation, adds a mythical context to this figure by hinting to his adulterous origin from the seed of the Evil Serpent (symbolizing the Sitra ʾAḥra, the “Other Side”).

The symbolism of the filthy seed is known from earlier sources ²⁷ and appears in another zoharic source belonging to TZ (or RM):

Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field (Gen. 3:1). “Subtle (‘arum)” for Evil (lera‘), “than any beast” – of the world's nations’ idolaters (ם"וכע), and they are the sons of the Ancient Serpent who seduced Eve. And [they are] the mixed multitude (‘Erev Rav), certainly they are [from] the filth [seed] that the serpent had penetrated in Eve. And from that filth was Cain begotten, and [he] killed Abel. ²⁸

The filthy seed of the Serpent is identified here with the “mixed multitude” (i.e., Israelites mixed with Egyptian origin). In the zoharic homilies on the blasphemer this is connected with the mythic figure of the bastard who was begotten from the Serpent's filthy seed. Interestingly, the mixed multitude is identified in another zoharic RM passage with the figure of Jesus (and Muhammed):

From the side of idolatry Šābtai (Saturn) is called Lilith, mixed dung, on account of the filth mixed from all kinds of dirt and worms, into which they throw dead dogs and dead asses, the sons of Esau and Ishmael, in her (and there) Jesus and Mohammed, who are dead dogs, are buried among them. She (Lilith) is the grave of idolatry, where they bury the uncircumcised, (who are) dead dogs, an abomination and a bad smell, soiled and fetid, a bad family. She (Lilith) is the ligament, which holds fast the “mixed multitude” (Ex. xii. 38), which is mixed among Israel, and which holds fast bone and flesh, that is, the sons of Esau and Ishmael, dead bone and unclean flesh torn of beasts in the field, of which it is said (Ex. xxii. 31): “Ye shall cast it to the dogs.” ²⁹

When combining these three sources (which might all be linked to the later RM material), it is plausible that the serpent's filthy seed, from which the blasphemous bastard was begotten, alludes also to Jesus. ³⁰

The zoharic homily also reveals a similar background story to that which appears in the VR midrash:

[Rabbi Abba said:] Come and see: It is written and the son of the Israelite woman and a certain Israelite man brawled in the camp (Leviticus 24:10). This verse has already been established; but this is the son of another wife of his father, husband of Shelomith.

When an Egyptian man came to her in the middle of the night, [her husband] returned home and realized what had happened: he separated from her and no longer cohabited with her. He took another wife and engendered this one, called a certain Israelite man, whereas the other one is the son of the Israelite woman. ³¹

This description is very similar to the midrash in VR. However, the Zohar adds the background story of the Israelite man being the son of Shelomith's husband from his second wife. Another possibility, which appears further on in the homilies, is that the Israelite man is actually Shelomith's husband himself, fighting with his wife's bastard son. The homily continues to expand the narrative, bringing additional information that is not found in earlier midrashic sources:

[Rabbi Abba asks:] “If they brawled with one another, what need is there here for the Holy Name? And why did he blaspheme the Holy Name?”

Well, in the midst of fighting, that certain Israelite man said something about the [other one's] mother. Immediately, the son of the Israelite woman blasphemed (בוקיו, vayiqqov [pierced])—as is said: “Vayiqqov (he pierced), a hole in its door” (2 Kgs 12:10). . . . And [he] cursed in order to defend his mother. . . . Mystery of the matter: Such is the way of an adulteress . . . (Prov 30:20). ³²

Rabbi Abba reveals that during the fight between the Israelite man and “the son of an Israelite woman” (the blasphemer), the Israelite man said “something about the mother.” Clearly it is hinted here that the Israelite man told the blasphemer that his mother was a whore and that he was a bastard. ³³ As a result, the offended son, wanting to defend his mother's name, used the Holy Name as a weapon in an attempt to kill (pierce) the Israelite man.

Another detailed description of this fight is found in an alternative homily by Rabbi Yitzhaq:

Alternatively, The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name, cursing it (Lev 24:11). . . .

Rabbi Yitzhaq said, “They brawled with one another and he [the ‘Israelite man’] said something about the [blasphemer's] mother, and that his [Egyptian] father was the one killed by the Holy Name - as has been established: It is written: Do you speak to kill me [as you killed the Egyptian]? (Exod 2:14), for Moses killed him by the Holy Name. So he [the blasphemer] extended a word toward him. . . .

Therefore, he was brought to Moses (Lev 24:11) . . . so father and son fell into Moses’ hands.” ³⁴

Rabbi Yitzhaq adds that the Israelite man had not only spoken about the blasphemer's mother (implying her impurity), but had also revealed to him that Moses killed his Egyptian father by the lethal power of the Holy Name. Rabbi Yitzhaq alludes to a midrashic tradition according to which the question: Do you intend to kill me? (רמוא התא ינגרהלה, Exod 2:14), should be read hyperliterally: Do you speak (רמוא) to kill me?—implying that Moses killed the Egyptian taskmaster by voicing the Holy Name (YHWH), ³⁵ as mentioned also in the ending of the VR midrash mentioned above. As a result, the blasphemer “extended a word toward him,” that is, he pronounced the Holy Name in order to aim its lethal power toward the Israelite man. Eventually, both his father and he “fell into Moses’ hands.”

A few elements in the zoharic homilies strengthen the possibility that the hidden meaning of these homilies is an anti-Christian polemic alluding to some familiar Jewish counter-narrative traditions regarding the life story of Jesus (in particular some variations of TY). The following sections will discuss a few themes that might be hinted at in the VR midrash that seem to be more explicitly alluded to in the zoharic homilies.

a. The magical and lethal use of the Holy Name

As mentioned above, the magical use of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) is found already in Greek magical papyri from Greco-Roman Egypt. ³⁶ In rabbinic literature, aside from the descriptions of Jesus using (Egyptian) magical powers, a censored passage in b. Sanh. 106a might hint to Jesus using the power of the Holy Name (through an interpretation of the words of Balaam): “‘Alas, who shall live when God does this! (Num 24:23),’ [R. Simeon ben Lakish said: Woe unto him who makes himself alive by the name of God].” ³⁷ In our context it should be mentioned that, similarly to the blasphemer, Balaam functions in some rabbinic sources as sort of a (counter) pre-figuration of Jesus. ³⁸ In a censored version of a passage in Tikunei Zohar, the name of Balaam replaces Jesus's name, which appeared in the first editions of the Zohar. ³⁹ Balaam is even described, in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (est. 8–9^th cent. Palestine), similarly to the way in which Jesus is described in the Aramaic texts of TY. ⁴⁰ However, in the Aramaic texts of TY Jesus has no knowledge of the Holy Name. He simply uses “words of magic” (אישרחד ןילימ), while only R. Yehuda is described as using the power of the Holy Name against Jesus. ⁴¹

In his Maftēaḥ haŠēmot (The Key of Names) written toward the end of 1280, Rabbi Abraham Abulafia draws an analogy between Pharaoh and Jesus, who both pretended to be Gods. ⁴² Abulafia explains that the true Messiah (who, according to Abulafia, is referred to by the Christians as the “anti-Christ”) will stand up against all Christians and declare:

What he [Jesus] had said to the Christians, that he is a God and the son of God, is a complete lie. He did not receive his power from the unique (Holy) Name, as all his power is dependent (יולת) upon the image of the Teli (ילתה תומדב), because he was hanged (יולת) on the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. ⁴³

It is clear from here that Abulafia knows about the tradition of Jesus using the Holy Name, and he goes against this tradition by explaining that he only used (Egyptian) astral magic connected to the Teli (the astrological figure of the cosmic serpent or dragon), ⁴⁴ identified here with Jesus himself. ⁴⁵ A somewhat similar critique on the tradition describing Jesus as using the power of the Holy Name appears in Niṣṣaḥon Vetus (13^th cent.):

The magicians did the like with their spells (Exod. 8:3,14). R. Abraham the proselyte proved from here that Jesus did not know the secret name of God, for it was not known even in the generation of Moses, which was a holy one, and certainly not thereafter. Thus, all he did must have been done by magic. Indeed, it is written in the Gospels that he was in Egypt for two years, and there he must have learned magic, as the Rabbis say, ⁴⁶ Ten measures of magic came down into the world; Egypt took nine and the rest of the world one. ⁴⁷

It is evident here that the anonymous author insists on preserving the older traditions (as they appear in the Talmud and in the early Aramaic versions of TY) describing Jesus as using (Egyptian) magic, and he refuses to accept the later traditions describing Jesus as using the power of the Holy Name. It is possible that a dispute regarding this tradition existed in the thirteenth century and that the Zohar adopted it (in the blasphemer homilies) while Abulafia and Niṣaḥon Vetus refused to accept it.

A Muslim anti-Jewish polemical work (12^th cent.) by al-Samawʼal ibn Yaḥyá Maghribī, Ifhām al-yahūd (Silencing the Jews), is probably one of the earliest sources mentioning Jesus as using the power of the Holy Name in a polemical context similar to TY. The book quotes the Jewish anti-Christian tradition against Jesus:

We say to them [the Jews]: What say you about Jesus the son of Mary? They will say: The son of Joseph the carpenter by fornication; he learned God's great name and with its help used to impose his will upon many things. . . . We say to them: If Moses also performed miracles by invoking the names of God, why do you believe in his prophet-hood and reject that of Jesus? They will say: Because God Almighty taught Moses the divine names, whilst Jesus learned them not by inspiration but from the walls of the Temple. ⁴⁸

This tradition was later developed and integrated in the later versions of TY, which described Jesus as stealing the Holy Name from the Temple.

The first evidence of a TY text describing Jesus as using the power of the Holy Name is apparently found only towards the end of the thirteenth century in Raymond Martini's Spanish text Pugio fidei ⁴⁹ (1280, or perhaps in mid-13^th cent. Germany in Der Passauer Anonymus). ⁵⁰ Horbury raised the possibility that one of the texts that Martini was given access to was the shorter version of Wagenseil's TY text. ⁵¹ This text, found in a seventeenth-century manuscript in Leipzig, ⁵² contains an interesting remark regarding the way Jesus achieved the Holy Name:

And by magic and the defiled name he entered the temple [to steal the Holy Name]. If not so, how did the holy priests, sons of Aaron, allow him to enter? But certainly by magic and the defiled name he did it all. ⁵³

This comment appears after a description of the way in which Jesus had stolen the Holy Name (by writing it on a piece of paper and keeping it within a cut in his flesh). It appears that this comment is an attempt to resolve the tension between the earlier and later traditions: Jesus did use the Holy Name which he had stolen from the temple, but this theft was made possible only through the use of “magic and the defiled name.” Interestingly, in Ibn Shaprut's ʾEven Boḫan (14^th cent.), both traditions appear side by side in his TY version; he begins with a description of Jesus hiding the Holy Name in his flesh and continues with the Aramaic version describing his use of magic. ⁵⁴

The final source that is extremely relevant in our context is the description of the Holy Name given to Jesus, as described in Sefer ha-Pĕli’āh:

And know, that any wise man needs to be proficient and knowledgeable in the matters of the wisdom known as Yeš (ש"י - lit. substance), ⁵⁵ and the gate to enter [this wisdom] is the combination of the unique square [comprised of four letters] [Holy] name [YHWH] (עברמה דחוימה םש) . . . and you should know that God judges his world ‘Measure for Measure’ (הדמ דגנכ הדמ), and our ancestors have sinned in forgetting the [Holy] Name. Therefore, [The name] was given to two Proxies (םיחולש), in order to denounce us, and they are the Masters of Edom and Išmael (לאעמשיו םודא ירש), Yĕšu the Christian and Mohammad the Išmaelite, they are devils (םינטש) and they came as opposed to the true worshipers, the holy Israel who worship the truth. ⁵⁶

This anonymous Kabbalistic book, probably edited between the mid-thirteenth and late-fourteenth centuries, contains many early Kabbalistic traditions (including, among others, writings by Rabbi A. Abulafia, his student Rabbi Joseph ben Abraham Gikatilla ⁵⁷ and some zoharic traditions). ⁵⁸ The passage quoted above bears some resemblance to Abulafia's description mentioned above; the use of the phrase “wisdom known as Yeš” in this polemical context, in particular, seems to resonate with Abulafia's teaching:

And he [pharaoh] thought that he was God, the first of all beings (םיארבנה לכל ןושאר). As is the mistake of the Christians today in the matter of Yešu Ben Pandira (ארידנפ ןב ושי), whose mystery is (ודוסש, i.e. the numerical value of this phrase is equivalent to): Yeš Mamzer (lit. bastard) Ben Ha-nida (הדנה ןב רזממ) ⁵⁹ (son of the menstruant). He [Jesus] is the mystery of the Prima Materia (ןושאר רמח) . . . Yeš mĕ-‘ain (Ex nihilo, ןיאמ שי) ⁶⁰

It is plausible to assume that a tradition on the connection of the mystery of the Yeš (and the Prima Materia) to both the Holy Name and Jesus was influenced by Abulafia. ⁶¹ Abulafia, as demonstrated above, went against the tradition which described Jesus using the Holy Name. However, the zoharic homilies on the blasphemer and the source from Sefer ha-Pĕli’āh might be evidence of a shift in medieval Kabblistic tradition regarding the description of Jesus using the magical powers of the Holy Name. In TY, where this tradition was given its final form, Jesus uses the Holy Name as a lethal weapon (mostly aimed at Judas Iscariot). As shown above, the Holy Name is used as a lethal weapon in the blasphemer's zoharic homilies as well.

b. The Egyptian father

I have discussed above some Talmudic and other sources which imply a connection between Jesus and Egypt, ⁶² primarily in the form of his having learned Egyptian magic. I have also suggested a possible link made in the midrash in VR between the Egyptian taskmaster and the Roman soldier described by Celsus as Jesus's father. A tradition regarding Jesus's father being a Gentile is found in a mystical medieval misdrash (8–9^th cent.):

Ṣaddi, why does it have two heads? Because this refers to Jesus of Nazareth who took hold of two heads, one of Israel and the other of Edom, and he went and caused people to err. When the Jews saw him they stood over him, captured him, and hung him on the cross. As they interpreted “If your brother, your mother's son, entices you” (Deut 13:7), it does not say “your father's son.” ⁶³

This midrash on the graphic meaning of the shape of the Hebrew letter ṣaddi (צ) voices a clear polemic against Jesus and is known to have influenced zoharic literature and other medieval kabbalistic sources that possibly also refer to Jesus. ⁶⁴ The ṣaddi represents Jesus, who governs both Israel and Edom—Jews and Christians—and entices them to sin. ⁶⁵ This dual connection of Jesus to Edom and Israel is alluded to again at the end of the passage, in the context of an interpretation of the verse regarding the son who entices others to idolatry (Deut 13:7) as referring to Jesus: he is “your mother's son,” but not “your father's son.” The interpretation of this verse, linking Jesus to the son who entices to idolatry, is common in medieval Jewish anti-Christian polemic literature. ⁶⁶ However, in a slightly different version of this midrash there is an added explanation to the interpretation of the verse: “(and) as his Mother was of Israelite origin, and his father was a Nazarene” (ירצנ ןמ ויבאו התיה לארשימ ומא יכו). ⁶⁷ From this extra explanation, it is clear that Jesus is described in this midrash as being the son of an Israelite Mother and a Gentile (Nazarene) ⁶⁸ father. Through his mother Jesus was connected to Israel, and through his father to Edom. This tradition, similar to the one found in Celsus, may have influenced the Zohar (and even the midrash in VR) to link the Egyptian father of the blasphemer to Jesus's Gentile father.

Another important Kabbalistic source which strengthens the connection between Egypt and Jesus is found again in the writings of Rabbi Abraham Abulafia, who identifies Jesus as the overlord or the Pharoah of Egypt. ⁶⁹ Moreover, as shown by Sagerman, Abulafia also alludes to the possible identification of Jesus with the Egyptian taskmaster (the blasphemer's father), whom Moses smites. ⁷⁰ In an earlier work I have similarly demonstrated the affinity between the Egyptian man and Jesus (or Christendom), as can be found in some zoharic homilies. ⁷¹ It is very plausible that these zoharic homilies, including the homilies on the blasphemer, were influenced by the teachings of Abulafia ⁷² (perhaps through his disciple, Joseph Gikatilla).

Finally, one of the most important pieces of evidence regarding the identification of Jesus's father as an Egyptian man can be found in the late Huldreich (Huldrico) edition of TY. ⁷³ The Huldreich version of TY combines some of the earliest and some of the latest TY traditions (with some additional ones being unique to this version) and was probably edited around the fifteenth to sixteenth century. ⁷⁴ After the rabbis accuse Jesus of being the son of a menstruant, the son of a prostitute, and a bastard, R. Akiva asks Jesus which town he comes from. Jesus replies:

I am from Nazareth, and the name of my father is “Egyptian” (אירצמ) and the name of my mother is Qarāḥāt ⁷⁵ (תחרק). . . . R. Akiva went to Nazareth and asked the people of the town: Where is the home of the Egyptian (אירצמ תיב) and his wife? ⁷⁶

After R. Akiva finds out that these are not the real names of Jesus's parents ⁷⁷ (which were changed after they escaped to Egypt and returned back to Nazareth), ⁷⁸ he provides his own explanation for the father's new name:

He told her: He changed his name to “Egyptian” because he acted like the Egyptians (םירצמ השעמ השע). ⁷⁹

From this evidence it seems reasonable to assume that the Huldreich tradition preserved older polemic traditions which identified Jesus's father with Egypt by naming him “Egyptian,” ⁸⁰ and which associated him with “Egyptian acts” (hinting at his impure sexual behavior). ⁸¹ Interestingly, the Huldreich version also repeatedly describes Jesus as a blasphemer (ףדגמ) who curses (ףרחמ) the God of Israel. ⁸² This might be another indicator of a known polemic tradition identifying the biblical blasphemer with Jesus.

c. The mother as a prostitute/an adulterous woman

The portrayal of Jesus's mother as a prostitute is known already from early Christian sources, as found, for instance, in the writings of the Christian theologian Tertullian (2–3^rd cent). ⁸³ It appears also in rabbinic sources—in midrash Pĕsiqta Rabbati—as the attribute “bera di-ṣenuta” (lit. son of the whore). ⁸⁴ Even the name by which Jesus is known in the Talmud, “son of Pandera,” might be interpreted as “son of the whore.” ⁸⁵

As mentioned above, Rashi (Rabbi Shelomo Yitzhaqi), the twelfth-century medieval biblical commentator, had already suggested that Shelomith (the blasphemer's mother) was a prostitute. ⁸⁶ Moreover, the Zohar itself clearly alludes to the adulterous nature of Shelomith in the lines which follow immediately after the explanation of the mystery of the blasphemy:

[The blasphemer] cursed in order to defend his mother. . . . This is uttered for the Reapers of the Field. Mystery of the matter: Such is the way of an adulteress (Prov. 30:20). Happy is the share of the righteous, who know the matter and conceal it! ⁸⁷

My claim is that portraying the blasphemer's mother as a whore and as an adulterous woman alludes to the polemical counter-narrative of Jesus's birth by Mary and against the Virgin's veneration, as will be further discussed below. ⁸⁸ Moreover, the verse from Prov 30:20 serves as an internal code, which could be decoded only by the “Reapers of the Field,” the righteous men, who are warned to keep the mysteries of the blasphemer and his adulterous mother concealed. This kind of “warning” is repeated four times during these short homilies. ⁸⁹ It seems plausible to assume that these “warnings” serve as internal censorship of the anti-Christian polemics concealed in these homilies.

A clear reference to Mary as the adulteress woman described in Prov 30:20 appears in the late-thirteenth-century polemical anti-Christian work of R. Meir ben Simeon of Narbonne, Milḥemet Miṣvah:

(Prov 30:20) Such is the way of an adulteress woman; she eats, and wipes her mouth, and says, I have done no wickedness. . . . A great insinuation is hinted here on a woman that will in future say this, and there is no truth in her words, and it came [this verse] to teach you not to fail in believing her. ⁹⁰

It is possible that anti-Christian Jewish polemics such as Milḥemet Miṣvah, have transmitted a clear reference to Mary as the adulteress woman described in Prov 30:20 into the Zohar.

Another interesting example from the Kabbalistic tradition describing Jesus's mother as a whore and adulteress appears in the writings of Rabbi Joseph of Hamadan (13–14^th cent.), who might even be the author of some parts of zoharic literature. ⁹¹ In his Ta‘amei ha-Miṣwot (lit. reasons for the commandments) he writes:

Until a bad faith had risen in the nations of the world, “new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not” (Deut 32:17), and this is the faith of the abominable and detestable villain Jesus of Nazareth, the evil person, who had created a faith to believe in (ןימאהל הנומא םשו), and appointed himself as a God (הולא ומצע םשו). . . . And “Thou shalt have no (other gods before me)” is opposed to “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” hinting at this evil person who went out and declared himself a God. . . . Any place in the book of Proverbs where we find “adulterous woman” or “whore” hints at the defiled sect and the idolatrous sect, and regarding this it is said: “Remove thy way far from her, and come not nigh the door of her house.” (Prov 5:8) ⁹²

It is clear that Rabbi Joseph of Hamadan alludes here to the Christian devotion of Mary as representing the idolatrous “defiled sect” worshiping the “adulterous woman” or “whore.” In this context, it is important to mention that the final part of the zoharic homilies on the blasphemer is focused on the mystery of the verse: “There shall be among you no strange god, and you shall not bow to an alien god” (Ps 81:9). This might be another allusion to the hidden anti-Christian polemical contents of these homilies.

2. Mythical-theurgic aspects of the zoharic blasphemer homilies

The main addition of the zoharic homilies, which is absent in the VR midrash, is their unique mythical-theurgical interpretation of the blasphemer's narrative.

These homilies offer the following interpretation of the verb vayyiqqov (בוקיו, lit. pronounced) in the scripture's description of the blasphemy:

The son of the Israelite woman pronounced the Name (Lev 24:11). What is meant by vayyiqqov (pronounced)? Rabbi Abba said, “Vayyiqqov (pierced), surely—as is said: Vayyiqqov, he pierced, a hole in its door (2 Kgs 12:10) – piercing (naqqiv) what had been sealed (םיתס הוהד המ ביקנ).” ⁹³

This passage provides a unique explanation to the verb vayyiqqov, by comparing it to the identical verb used to describe the piercing of a hole in the temple's door by Yehoyada the priest (in order to collect money for the temple). ⁹⁴ The same interpretation is given here: the act of the blasphemer is “piercing what had been sealed.” ⁹⁵

This raises a few questions: What is the meaning of the piercing in the context of the verse in Lev 24:11? In addition, what is the “matter that is sealed” which was “pierced” by the blasphemer?

The homily continues to provide unique answers to these questions:

His mother's name was Shelomith daughter of Dibri (Lev 24:11).

Until this point, Scripture concealed his mother's name; once it is written, בוקיו (vayyiqqov)—(he) pierced (naqqiv) his mother's name. ⁹⁶

The “piercing” (naqqiv) is enacted by pronouncing the name; but instead of focusing on the act of pronouncing the ineffable name of God, the focus here is on the blasphemer's pronunciation of his mother's name. She is the “matter that is sealed” which her son, the blasphemer, “pierced.” Until this point in scripture, the blasphemer's mother is referred to only as “the Israelite woman” (Lev 24:10); therefore, her identity is “concealed.” Once her son “pierced/pronounced her name,” she is named “Shelomith daughter of Dibri” (Lev 24:11). By “piercing” the Holy Name, the blasphemer also “pierced” his mother's “sealed” name.

This matter receives a mythical-theurgical explanation in the continuation of the homily:

The mystery of the matter: He [the Israelite woman's son] took the [last] letter ה (He) of the Holy Name YHWH (ה"והי) and cursed (טייל) in order to defend his mother.

This is piercing (אביקנ, nĕqqiva), for he pierced (ביקנ, naqqiv) the Holy Name. ⁹⁷

Here the Zohar reveals the theurgic act of the blasphemer. After his opponent insulted him (by referring to the adulterous nature of his mother), he pierced the Holy Name. By this act he harmed the sacred union between the Divine Male and Female symbolized by the four letters (YHWH); separating the last letter he (the Divine Female, the Shekhinah) from the letters YHW (the Divine Male).

In this mythopoetic interpretation, the Zohar associates Shelomith (the blasphemer's mother) with the Shekhinah, the Divine Female, ⁹⁸ as being the sealed matter which the blasphemer had pierced. This sealed matter is actually the Holy Name (YHWH), ⁹⁹ the union of the Divine Male and Female. This sexual union is complete only when it is kept “sealed” and unrevealed; otherwise—if revealed (or magically misused)—the unity is disrupted and the Male is separated from the Female. Through this separation, the Shekhinah becomes vulnerable and eventually violated by the Sitra ʾAḥra (the “Other Side”), symbolized by the mythic evil serpent (identified in the beginning of the homilies with the Egyptian man). When united with the serpent she becomes an adulterous woman:

This is uttered for the Reapers of the Field. Mystery of the matter: Such is the way of an adulteress (Prov 30:20). Happy is the share of the righteous, who know the matter and conceal it! ¹⁰⁰

The “Reapers of the Field” are those who guard the mystery of the Holy Name (the “sealed matter”) from falling into the wrong hands and from being separated (or “pierced”); thus preventing the Shekhinah from becoming an adulterous woman. As justly explained by Matt in his commentary on this passage: “It is as if Shekhinah became an adulteress, like Shelomith—or as if She turned into Lilith, the demonic female who threatens to steal the flow of emanation.” ¹⁰¹

However, the Zohar adds that the blasphemer did all of this “in order to defend his mother.” Matt has interpreted this as “he sought to defend his mother by associating her with the Divine Female, Shekhinah, who is symbolized by the last letter of הוהי (YHVH): ה (he).” I would go one step further and argue that the Divine Female, referred to by the blasphemer, is not only the Shekhinah but also the Holy Virgin Mary. My argument is that the complex anti-Marian polemic here is executed by mythicizing Shelomith into a Divine Female entity identified with both the Shekhinah and Mary: when united with God she is the Shekhinah; but when separated from God and united with the “Other Side” (the evil serpent), she is identified with Mary the “adulterous woman” (associated with Lilith). ¹⁰²

Furthermore, as argued at length above, the blasphemer here is strongly associated with Jesus, as he is described in the polemic anti-gospel Jewish traditions: after being insulted by being called the son of an adulteress (and a mamzer [bastard]), he defends his mother by associating her with the Holy Virgin who was conceived by God, his father. Moreover, he made magical use of the ineffable Holy Name in an attempt to defend his mother and keep her “sealed” as a Virgin. ¹⁰³ Instead, unknowingly, he harmed his mother, the Shekhinah, separating her from God, causing her to be “pierced” by the “Other Side,” ¹⁰⁴ thus transforming her into Mary/Lilith. ¹⁰⁵ Therefore, instead of being the Messiah, the son of God and the Shekhinah, he becomes the anti-Messiah, the son of the “Other Side” (“The Egyptian Man”) and the “adulterous woman” Mary/Lilith.

Similarly, the thirteenth- through fourteenth-century Kabbalist Rabbi Isaac of Acre interprets the mythical-theurgic act of the blasphemer as follows:

He spoke against above, and made from one–two, and he spoke against the Shekhinah, which is named ‘Šem’ (lit. name) in many places “He cursed the name,” and “blasphemed the name”—all referring to the ‘atara. ¹⁰⁶

Making “from one–two” is a clear allusion to the heretical notion of converting the belief in one God to a binitarian belief in two Gods. This is a clear allusion to the Christian belief in God and his Son, as can be found in midrash Pesiqta Rabbati: “if the son of the whore [Jesus] tells you: ‘there are two Gods,’ tell him: ‘I am [the God revealed] on the sea I am [the God revealed] on Sinai.’” ¹⁰⁷ This argument is strengthened by the homily that appears at the end of the blasphemer's zoharic homilies. This homily deals with the punishment of one who curses God, as a sign of heresy and idolatry. ¹⁰⁸ It is plausible that this also alludes to the hidden anti-Christian polemical nature of these zoharic homilies.

Moreover, R. Isaac of Acre adds that the blasphemer spoke against the Shekhinah. In the Christian polemic context this might also be a reference to the zoharic polemic homily on harming the Shekhinah by transforming her into Mary.

In the continuation of the zoharic homily we find that, as a result of the blasphemer's act, the Shekhinah, who became Mary/Lilith, punishes her son:

The final ה (he) was the female, suckling of two sides. Consequently, she took the weapons of the King to wreak her vengeance. Take out the one who cursed (Lev 24:14). Thus it is written: “Every man shall revere his mother and his father” (Lev 19:3), reverence for one's mother preceding that of one's father. Blessed are Israel in this world and in the world to come! ¹⁰⁹

The Shekhinah has the potential of being influenced by both sides: right and left, mercy (ḥesed) and judgment (din), at times associated also with the blessed Holy One and the “Other Side.” ¹¹⁰ After being “pierced” by the “Other Side,” filled with anger, she wreaked vengeance on her son who caused her to be so “pierced.” From the verse alluding to the Shekhinah (Lev 19:3) it is clear that the son's sin was that he was not careful enough in revering his mother.

This could be understood as another complex way in which the Zohar polemicizes against the flourishing cult of the Virgin (which was widespread in 13–14^th cent. Castile). The blasphemer (Jesus) wanted to glorify his mother, portraying her as the Holy Virgin, the Divine Mother. However, he was not careful enough with his devotion to his mother; instead he “pierced” her by the “Other Side.” At the same time, this could allude also to an inner kabbalistic polemic regarding an exaggerated devotion to the Shekhinah. ¹¹¹ In other words, over-“defending” the Mother might lead to harming her, by replacing the devotion to God, the Father, by a devotion to the Mother (as happened as a result of the Christian devotion to Mary).

This reading is strengthened by a similar interpretation of the blasphemer's acts given by the fourteenth-century Kabbalist Rabbi Joseph Angelet, who quotes parts of these zoharic homilies (or who might even be one of their authors) in his homily. ¹¹² He argued that the motivation behind the blasphemy is that “he [the blasphemer] wanted to strengthen the Mother's power, to be the same as the Father's power.” ¹¹³ These words are easily interpreted as a polemic against over-strengthening the Divine Female, possibly alluding to the danger of the similarity between an over devotion to the Shekhinah and the cult of the Virgin. ¹¹⁴

Concluding Remarks

This essay reveals a hidden anti-Gospel polemic in the zoharic homily regarding the blasphemer, influenced by ancient and medieval anti-Christian Jewish polemical works. This polemic is specifically targeted towards the figures of Jesus and the Virgin Mary. By revealing this polemic, this essay provides a better understanding of the ambivalent zoharic attitude towards Jesus as Son of God—and of the Virgin Mary as linked with the Shekhinah.

The essay attempts to demonstrate one of the complex ways in which the Zohar deals with the representation of Jesus as son of the Shekhinah; and particularly the ambivalent zoharic attitude towards the idea of Mary's virginity as a virtue, as opposed to a glorification of the idea of the sexualized female, who is engaged in sexual unity with God.

In the larger context, the zoharic commentary on the biblical story of the blasphemer is an example that provides a better understanding of the influence of the polemical tract TY (in its different variants and forms) on the Zohar – an influence which has never before been examined.

Finally, as I have shown elsewhere, this polemical anti-Christian interpretation of the blasphemer's story is spelled out explicitly in the exegesis of the late-sixteenth and seventeenth-century kabbalistic commentators on the Zohar. ¹¹⁵ In light of this essay, I believe these commentators managed to reveal and preserve the original anti-Gospel polemic hidden in the zoharic homilies on the blasphemer.