Thoughts and Meditations on the Feminine Divine Breath

L’Yachadah Qud’sha B’riq Hu USh’khinteih

“To unite the Holy One Blessed Be He and His Shekhinah (Feminine Divine Presence)”

This is an Aramaic statement of intention that the sixteenth century mekubal, the Arizal, prescribed to be uttered before doing any mitzvah (commandment). It is commonly used, often in one of several variations, by Sephardim and Chassidim, although it is less frequently used in other Jewish streams, and some have rejected it outright, fearing that it impinges on the absolute nature of Divine Oneness. The meaning of this intention, as commonly understood, is that our doing a mitzvah is intended to bring about a revelation of the unity of God’s transcendence and immanence, to show that God is fully present even in the most mundane circumstances.

Among the earliest archeological texts associated with ancient Israel are the late ninth or early eighth century BCE ostraca from Kuntillet Ajrud (Horvat Teman) that state “berakhti etkhem l’Y-H-W-H shomron (or in other cases teman) ul’Asherato”, “I bless you (plural) by Y-H-W-H our guardian (or of Samaria/Teman) and by His Asherah”. Another text, from an eighth century BCE tomb at Khirbet el-Kom near Hebron, reads: "Blessed be Uriyahu by Y-H-W-H, for from his enemies, He saved him by His Asherah.” Some secular scholars have suggested that these texts are evidence of Israelite worship of the Canaanite goddess Asherah, but “His Asherah” is not a formulation known outside of the Israelite texts (Asherah taking the personal possessive pronoun, like El and Ba’al, because it is not just a name but a title), is remarkably similar to “His Shekhinah” in the Arizal’s statement of intention, and bespeaks something belonging to God, not a separate being, like a goddess. The sixteenth century mekubal, the Ramak, makes it clear that “Asherah” is a term for the Shekhinah, the Feminine Divine Presence (e.g., Or Ne’erav, chelek zayn, but also in his work Pardes Rimonim). Moreover, this equation also occurs in some manuscripts of the Zohar (cf. Zohar I, 49a and Matt [2004] in Volume 1 of his Zohar translation pp. 270–271, notes 1259-1264). Thus, although the Arizal’s formulation is comparatively recent, it reflects a very ancient tradition of regarding God as having a “Feminine” aspect.

Now, several questions arise. First, is there any evidence for this in the Written Torah? Second, is this “Feminine Presence” truly an aspect of God or a merely a creation, as some medieval Jewish sources suggest? Third, if it is indeed an aspect of God, are we to take it as a “hypostasis”, introducing a measure of independence that would represent plurality in God, like the “persons” of the Christian Trinity?

The very beginning of the Torah affirms that at the start of creation, before God metaphorically spoke creation into existence, “ve-ruach Elokim merachefet ‘al p’nei hamayim” (B’reishit [Gen.] 1:2) – “and the breath of God fluttered over the face of the waters”. Note two things about this verse – ruach literally means “breath”, which is exactly what the Latin “spiritus” (spirit) conveys, and the word is feminine, as made clear by the feminine verb form “merachefet” (a bird-like fluttering used to poetically characterize the light breathing in and out of involuntary breath). So, before “speaking” creation into existence, God’s “feminine breath” was present, just as breath precedes any human speech. Breath in humans is an involuntary and continuous activity, and without it, the human being will die – it is an essential activity. So to take the Torah’s own metaphor further, God’s “feminine ruach” must be regarded as essential to God, not a creation by God. But, while essential, it is an activity, not having the degree of independence of a “person” or "hypostasis".

There is a further implication of “ruach”. Going back to B’reishit 1:2 and what follows, it is clear that “ruach Elokim”, like breath in humans, not only precedes but also is the actual basis of God’s creative “speech” (cf. also Tehillim [Ps.] 33:6; and also Job 33:4 reinforces the creative role of “ruach”), a further activity that is entirely voluntary (unlike “breath”) and thus, represents the Divine assumption of limitation in that God’s activity of “speech” is existentially limited by its own inessentiality. Therefore, “ruach Elokim” is the God’s freedom to assume limitation. What is more, this freedom to assume limitation is a facet of God’s freedom from any limit. Indeed, freedom from any limit is the freedom to assume every limit, and vice versa. For without freedom from any limit, there is no freedom to assume every limit, since the latter would be limited by not being free from its own essential limit. Similarly, without the freedom to assume every limit, there is no freedom from any limit, since the latter would be limited by not being free to assume limit. Thus, “ruach Elokim” is not merely a power or mediator of God, but is truly an integral aspect of God.

Ruach and Chochmah

The extra-Biblical book called “Wisdom of Solomon” equates Sophia (“Chochmah”) with the “Holy Spirit” (9:17) and characterizes “Her” as Divine “Breath” (7:25). The extra-Biblical book “Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sirach)” states that Sophia (“Chochmah”) came out of the mouth of God (24:3).  Thus, it would appear that there is good reason to consider “Chochmah” of the Biblical book “Mishlei (Proverbs)” as equatable with God’s “Ruach” from Gen. 1:2 and elsewhere. Some have raised the objection that while God’s “Ruach”, like breath in humans, must be regarded as essential (inherent) to God, not a creation by God, “Chochmah” appears to have been created (Prov. 8:22-25; Ben Sirach 1:4, 24:9). In fact, in one case, an attempt has been made to consider Sophia (“Chochmah”) as a created angelic nature of God’s “Ruach” existing in “hypostatic union” with “Her”, akin to the relationship of human and Divine natures in Jesus per Christian Nicene theology (cf. Sophia, The Holy Spirit: The Divine Feminine p.16). However, a careful examination of the verses said to assert the creation of Sophia (“Chochmah”) suggest that “She” is not a creation. First, the Hebrew verbs used in Proverbs 8:22-25 are a qal form of “qanah”, a niphal form of “nasak”, and a pulal form of “chul”. The first word can mean “create” but in the Tanach much more commonly means “possess or acquire”. The second word means “installed” or “anointed”, and the third means “born” or “brought forth”. So, a plausible translation of Proverbs 8:22-25 is:

Y-H-W-H possessed me as the beginning of His way,
  before His works of old.
I was installed from everlasting, from the beginning,
  or ever the earth was.
When [there were] no depths, I was brought forth;
  when [there were] no fountains abounding with water.
Before the mountains were settled, before the hills,
  I was brought forth.

Turning to the ancient Greek translation of Proverbs (the so-called “Septuagent”), we find that the Greek words used to translate Hebrew “qanati” are “ektise me”, with “ektise” from the verb “ktizo”. Forms of this very same Greek verb appear in both of the other verses under consideration (Ben Sirach 1:4, 24:9). In addition to “qanah”, the Greek verb “ktizo” is used to translate a variety of Hebrew verbs in Greek translations of the Tanach, some relate to creation (“bara”, “yatzar”), but others have a variety of meanings, such as “yasad” (found or establish), “kun” (set up), and “shakan” (dwell or settle). So, while some are eager to use the Greek verb as evidence for the creation of “Chochmah” (Sophia), the matter is not so simple, and one can legitimately understand the Greek as “The Lord established me as…”. Furthermore, some have pointed to the linguistic relationship of “ktizo” and “ktaomai”, which means “acquire” or “possess”. With that relationship, we may consider that the forms of “ktizo” used to translate Proverbs 8:22 and the two Ben Sirach verses (no Hebrew version of these verses has yet been discovered) are expressing “possess” just like “qanah”.

So, we are left with no legitimate reason to regard “Chochmah” (Sophia) as created. Instead, like God’s “Ruach”, we should understand “Her” as something inherent (essential) to God, which is “brought forth” in the process of creation, as with the “breath” in creating “words”. So like “Ruach”, there are two aspects – the one that “comes forth” (the “outward breath”, “Chochmah” as “brought forth from God”) and the one that is “within” (the “inward breath”, “Chochmah” as “possessed by God”). The latter reflects the essentiality of the “Ruach”/ “Chochmah” to God, the Divine Freedom to assume limitation that is inherent in the Divine Freedom from any limitation, while the former represents the sense of separateness/distinction from God that marks the actualization of the Freedom to assume limitation and constitutes the very finitude of creation itself and concomitantly defines God as “Creator”. The understanding that limitation, that creation, is an aspect of God’s “Ruach”/”Chochmah”, and that God’s “Ruach”/”Chochmah” is an aspect of God is a two-fold process that is the birth of the “Kingdom of God on Earth”, the realization of Oneness with God even in the diversity of our own existence. This process starts with love for the Beloved, including reverence for all “Her” forms (e.g., harmlessness to all creatures as the cornerstone of daily living), and culminates in the realization that “He is She and She is He”. 

Ruach-Chochmah-Malchut

Two aspects of the Divine “Feminine” have been discussed above – Ruach and Chochmah. There is a third aspect that is the focus of much of Medieval and contemporary Kabbalah – Malchut or “Kingdom” (for example, see http://www.aish.com/sp/k/48971776.html and http://www.chabad.org/ kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380807/jewish/Malchut.htm). Also above, we alluded to a connection of God’s “Ruach’/‘Chochmah” with the birth of the “Kingdom of God on Earth.” Here, let us look at this in more detail.

Each of the aspects presents its own unique step in this process. With Ruach (breath), there is the freedom to assume any limitation, and there is continuity of the “inner” with the “outward” flow. Then, with Chochmah (wisdom) there is an initial step in that free limitation, with a distinction between the intuitive knower, act of knowing, and objects of that knowledge, but no actual separation, since the objects remain within the mind. Finally, with Malchut (kingdom) there is an ultimate step in that free limitation, with not only distinction but with actual separation that can yield a sense of Ruler and ruled. In one sense, in Ruach, there is the most complete experience of Oneness with God since the freedom to assume limitation is essentially rooted in Divine Infinity (freedom from any limitation), an embedding that is readily evident in the continuity between “inner”/”outer” breath. But in another sense, in Malchut, there is the most fulfilling experience of Oneness with God since even in the furthest extent of God’s free limitation, in our separateness as individuals, our individual freedom to choose full surrender to the Ruler is found to be nothing but God’s very own freedom to be us, and God is realized as nonetheless still free from any limitation, hence not separated from us, even in this ultimate limitation. 

Together, Ruach – Chochmah – Malchut, using their first Hebrew letters (roshei teivot), create the acronym RaCHaM, which is the Hebrew root word for both womb and compassion. A “feminine” or “motherly” nature to this compassion can be imputed from the female anatomical association of the womb. There are two aspects to this “motherly” compassion – that which is God’s compassion in allowing us this path to realize Oneness with God and that which is our path to that Oneness through the practice of compassion to all that God manifests.

A Further Meditation

Above, we saw that the "Feminine" aspects of God, Ruach – Chochmah – Malchut, using their first Hebrew letters (roshei teivot – “resh, “chet”, “mem”), create the acronym RaCHaM, which is the Hebrew root word for both womb and compassion. It also is worth noting that “Atzmut” and “Mahut,” the Hebrew words for the Divine Essence, are grammatically feminine. If we add to the “resh”, “chet”, and “mem” above the Hebrew letter “yud” as the initial letter of the Hebrew word “yechidah” or “only one”, which is the feminine gendered word denoting continuity and unity, and is used for the soul at One with God, then we allude to the continuity of Ruach – Chochmah – Malchut and to the idea that, while remaining One with God at the level of the Divine Essence, the Divine Breath also constitutes the substance of projected creation from God, that all is continuous, from the Divine Essence to every creature, even in any and every difference. 

The four letters together spell the word "RaCHMI", a Hebrew imperative – “have mercy” – in feminine gender, invoking the compassion of the Divine in "Feminine" aspect. Repeating RaCHMI in mantra-like fashion is a splendid use of this word to do this invocation. One should have in mind that the compassion being sought is from the “Feminine” “Atzmut” or very Unmanifest Essence of God, the Fathomless “Womb” from which all comes forth. One also should have in mind that the imperative is calling upon one’s own soul – all words in Hebrew for the soul (nefesh, ruach, neshamah, chayah, and yechidah) are grammatically feminine in gender – to be compassionate to all that comes from God.

The four letters together also spell “RaCHMaY”, a very ancient Feminine Divine Name meaning “One of the Womb” or “Compassionate One.” This Name, found in the 13^th Century BCE texts from Ugarit, has been associated by scholars with Athirat (Asherah), Anat, Shapash, or seen as an independent goddess. A contemporary shamanistic approach to Hebrew/Israelite religion views RaCHMaY as follows: “the Womb of All Life, the Mother of Life, and of Life Force in its many, many forms…How can one think of Her, of what She is, and not feel awe?” (Elisheva Nesher, Shophet of AMHA, in The Goddess in America, 2016).