Judith Weiss

Guillaume Postel’s Kabbalistic Notions of

Marriage, Sex, and Family*

1. Introduction

S uch topoi as marriage, sex, and family relations, within the human and the
divine realms alike, stand at the heart of medieval theosophical-theurgical Kab-
balah, that Jewish tradition which captured the hearts of some of the prominent
Catholic writers in the Renaissance.1 THis Kabbalistic trend, originating in Castile
in the late 13th century and proliferating throughout the Jewish world ever since,
describes the Godhead as a body of partly personified divine attributes, commonly
referred to as Sefirot. THe Sefirot, a neoplatonic hierarchy of sorts, were perceived
as constantly emanating from an unknown transcendent source (En Sof ) all the

* THis article is based on a lecture delivered in the 20th Annual Brenninkmeijer-Werhahn con-
ference on “Marriage and/as Metaphor in Christian and Jewish Traditions” at the Center for
the Study of Christianity, Hebrew University, Jerusalem (March 2019). I am grateful to the
listeners for their comments. I would also like to thank Jean-Pierre Brach for his close reading
and helpful remarks, and Noam Lev-El for his assistance in preparing the article for publica-
tion. My research is funded by the Harry Walsh Q.C. Career Development Chair in Jewish
Law and Morality at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev as well as by the Azrieli Foundation.
1 On these subjects in theurgical Kabbalah, see for example: D. Abrams: THe Female Body of
God in Kabbalistic Literature: Embodied Forms of Love and Sexuality in the Divine Feminine
[in Hebrew], Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2004, 45-68; M. Idel: Kabbalah and Eros, New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2005, 247-250; E.R. Wolfson: Language, Eros, Being: Kabbalistic Herme-
neutics and Poetic Imagination, New York: Fordham University Press, 2005, esp. 142-189, 333-
371; E.R. Wolfson: Luminal Darkness: Imaginal Gleanings from Zoharic Literature, Oxford:
One World Publications, 2007, 144-184. On Renaissance Christian Kabbalah in general, see
for example: J.L. Blau: THe Christian Interpretation of the Cabala in the Renaissance, New
York: Columbia University Press, 1944; F. Secret: Les Kabbalistes chrétiens de la Renaissance,
Paris: Dunod, 1964; F. Secret: Le Zôhar chez les kabbalistes chrétiens de la Renaissance, Paris:
Mouton, 1964; M. Idel: “THe Magical and Neoplatonic Interpretations of the Kabbalah in
the Renaissance”, in: B.D. Cooperman (ed.): Jewish THought in the Sixteenth Century, Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983, 186-242; M. Idel: “Kabbalah, Platonism and
‘Prisca THeologia’: THe Case of R. Menasseh ben Israel”, in: Y. Kaplan et al. (eds.): Menasseh
ben Israel and His World, Leiden: Brill, 1989, 207-219; M. Masters: “Renaissance Kabbalah”,
in: A. Faivre/J. Needleman (eds.): Modern Esoteric Spirituality, New York: Crossword, 1992,
132-153; F. Secret: Hermétisme et kabbale, Naples: Bibliopolis, 1992; S. Campanini: “I cab-
balisti cristiani del Rinascimento”, in: P.R. Sabbadini (ed.): La cultura ebraica, Turin: Einaudi,
2000, 149-165; W. Schmidt-Biggemann (ed.): Christliche Kabbala, Ostfildern: J. THorbecke,
2003; W. Hanegraaff: Esotericism and the Academy: Rejected Knowledge in Western Culture,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012, 53-68.

74 Marriage, Families & Spirituality 26, 74-92. doi: 10.2143/INT.26.1.3288951

© 2020 by INTAMS/Peeters. All rights reserved
 J. Weiss

way through the lower parts of the Sefirotic structure and into the mundane
world. THe theurgical Kabbalists described this continuous flow of divine influx
as a transference of semen issuing from the higher areas in the Sefirotic system,
areas they conceived as masculine, into the lower Sefirotic strata, accordingly
perceived as female. THis transference of divine semen was straightforwardly, even
bluntly, described by them as sexual relations between male and female aspects
of the Godhead, an inner-divine intercourse, including references to such images
as courting, seduction, foreplay, penetration, orgasm, and, eventually, pregnancy
and childbirth.2
Among the various medieval Kabbalistic treatises that develop their theological
outlook in this manner, the single most renowned treatise is probably the Zohar,
with which Catholics interested in Kabbalah in the Renaissance were acquainted.
It is therefore intriguing to examine how these Catholics reacted to this highly
sexual aspect of Kabbalistic theology expressed within a corpus of teachings, which
they considered to be a divine ancient oral lore preserved by the Jews. In the
present article I will examine one such case, namely that of the sixteenth century
orientalist and mystic Guillaume Postel (1510-1581).3 Apart from being an original
and highly productive figure among the so-called “Christian Kabbalists” of this

2 From among the many studies delving into these topics in Kabbalah, I will only mention the
following: Y. Liebes: “Zohar ve-Eros” [in Hebrew], in: Alpayim 9 (1994), 67-119; D. Abrams:
THe Female Body of God; C. Mopsik: Sex of the Soul: THe Vicissitudes of Sexual Difference in
the Kabbalah, ed. D. Abrams, Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2005, 128-149; E.R. Wolfson:
“Murmuring Secrets: Eroticism and Esotericism in Medieval Kabbalah”, in: W.J. Hanegraaf/
J.J. Kripal (eds.): Hidden Intercourse: Eros and Sexuality in the History of Western Esotericism,
Leiden: Brill, 2008, 65-109; M. Hellner-Eshed: A River Flows from Eden: THe Language of
Mystical Experience in the Zohar, trans. N. Wolski, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009,
204-228, 296-300; D. Abrams: Kabbalistic Manuscripts and Textual THeory: Methodologies of
Textual Scholarship and Editorial Practice in the Study of Jewish Mysticism, 2nd ed., Los Angeles:
Cherub Press, 2013, 152-168; M. Carmeli: “THe Interaction with the Feminine as a Gate to
the Divine Realm: A New Appraisal of Sexual Union and Male and Female Fluids in the
Zohar” [in Hebrew], PhD diss., Bar-Ilan University, 2018; T. Werthmann: “‘spirit to Spirit’:
THe Imagery of the Kiss in the Zohar and its Possible Sources”, in: Harvard THeological
Review 111 (2018), 586-609.
3 Postel has received much scholarly attention, and I will only mention very few examples of
this vast output: W.J. Bouwsma: Concordia Mundi: THe Career and THought of Guillaume
Postel, 1510-1581, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957; F. Secret: Le Zôhar, 51-61;
G.A. Sivan: “Guy Le Fèvre de la Boderie and his Epic ‘History’ of Gaul: THe Biblical, ­Rabbinic,
and Kabbalistic Foundations of a French Renaissance Legend”, PhD diss., Hebrew University,
1974, vol. 1, 129-193; M.L. Kuntz: Guillaume Postel: Prophet of the Restitution of All THings:
His Life and THought, THe Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1981; C.G. Dubois: La mythologie des origines
chez Guillaume Postel: De la naissance à la nation, Orléans: Paradigue, 1994; G. Postel: Des
admirables secrets des nombres platoniciens, ed. J.P. Brach, Paris: Librairie philosophique, 2001,
7-29  ; R.J. Wilkinson: Orientalism, Aramaic and Kabbalah in the Catholic Reformation: THe
First Printing of the Syriac New Testament, Leiden: Brill, 2007, 95-135 W. Schmidt-Biggemann:
Geschichte der christlichen Kabbala, vol. 1, Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog, 2012, 510-657;
J Weiss: A Kabbalistic Christian Messiah in the Renaissance: Guillaume Postel and the Book of
Zohar [in Hebrew], Tel-Aviv: HaKibutz HaMeuchad Press, 2016; J. Weiss: “Structure Amid
the Chaos: Guillaume Postel’s THought”, in: Journal of Religion 99 (2019), 361-382.

75
Marriage, Families & Spirituality 26 (2020)

period,4 Postel will serve our purpose well as he situated the Zohar, and, more
specifically, the Zohar’s unmistakable preoccupation with gender issues, at the
very basis of his theological and eschatological scheme.5 It should be noted, how-
ever, that although Postel offers himself as an excellent case of non-Jewish atti-
tudes toward this prominent Kabbalistic trait, his approach cannot be considered
as characteristic of other Catholics, or Christians in general for that matter,
interested in Kabbalah in this period, as each of these figures expressed indi-
vidual, disparate Kabbalistic attitudes and ideas. Indeed, as will shall see, one of
Postel’s peculiarities among the Catholics interested in Kabbalah is this very
strong engagement of his with issues related to gender relations within the divine
realm of Sefirot.
From among the many treatises Postel composed throughout his life in which
he engaged with the issues of marriage, sex, and family, this study will offer a
preliminary sketch of his views on this topic based on his Zohar commentary.
We will concentrate on Postel’s Kabbalistic perspective on the notions divine and
human marriage, sex, and family relations, as those are tackled in his first Latin
translation and commentary on the Zohar, composed between the years 1547-1554.
Based on close analysis of several extracts from this work, we will try to sketch
a preliminary view of Postel’s attitude toward Kabbalistic sexual and marital
notions, and try to understand his unique adaptations of these ideas.

2.  THe Basic Kabbalistic-THeurgic Attitude toward Sex

and Marriage within the Sefirot

I will begin by saying a few general words on the basic Kabbalistic-theurgic

attitude toward sex and marriage within the Sefirot. To begin, it must be noted
that the theosophic-theurgic Kabbalists were mainly preoccupied with two of the
ten Sefirot, and specifically those pertaining to the lower part of the Godhead.
THese two they described as a couple consisting of male and female, namely, the
male Tiferet and the female Malkhut (or Shekhina, among other prominent
­designations). Within this literature, Tiferet and Malkhut are depicted repeatedly
as engaging in sexual intercourse, often through the medium of a third, male
Sefira, Yesod, functioning as the divine Phallus. THis Divine intercourse within

4 On a critical view regarding the scholarly use in this term see J.Weiss: A Kabbalistic Christian
Messiah, 20-23; see also Y. Schwartz: “THe Esoteric and Inter-Religious Aspects of the Rela-
tion Philosophy/Kabbalah in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe”, in: Studia Judaica
16 (2008), 129.
5 F. Secret: Le Zôhar, 51-61; J. Weiss: “Guillaume Postel’s ‘Idea of Zohar’”, in: Aries 19 (2019),
248-263; J. Weiss: On the Conciliation of Nature and Grace, Restituted into One: A Latin
Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on the Zohar by Guillaume Postel [in Hebrew],
Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2017. Parts of Postel’s Zohar translation and commentary were
transcribed in F. Secret: Le Zôhar, 61-78 (opening passages from each Zohar pericope), 1­ 04-114
(Postel’s introduction to his translation), and in J. Weiss: On the Conciliation of Nature and
Grace (first half of the Genesis pericope with Hebrew translation).

76
 J. Weiss

the Sefirotic structure is, in fact, according to their view, what allows divine influx
to flow uninterrupted from the sublime source into the mundane world. Unfor-
tunately, however, this ideal theosophical structure is interrupted time and again,
namely when human misconduct strengthens the negative forces within or with-
out the Sefirotic realm, alienates Malkhut from Tiferet, and consequently causes
ruptures and hindrances in the flow of divine influx. THis dire state of affairs does
not occur solely within the divine but simultaneously also in the mundane world.
It finds its expression in such phenomena as the dispersion of the Jewish people
and their expulsion from their homeland (Galut). Following rabbinic images,
these Kabbalists described the Jewish people going into exile together with their
Sefirotic symbolical mother – namely, the “Congregation of Israel” (Kenesset
Israel) – who is no other than the female Sefirah Malkhut herself.6
Although these descriptions are commonplace in the theurgical Kabbalistic
trend, the Zohar nevertheless stands out not only as the most popular and wide-
spread treatise related to this Kabbalistic trend, but also, as has been shown in
many studies, as perhaps the single most erotic and sexual treatise composed as
part of this corpus. As Yehudah Liebes famously put it in his constitutive “Zohar
and Eros”: “A treatise as erotic as the book of Zohar is nowhere to be found within
the entire corpus of Jewish Literature”.7 THerefore, any engagement with this
impressive and popular Kabbalistic corpus cannot escape confrontation with the
meaning of divine and human marriage, sex, and family. We will now turn to
Postel in order to examine how he coped with this aspect of the Zohar. However,
before we turn to Postel’s Zohar commentary, a word is needed concerning Pos-
tel’s general system of thought, the way I understand it.

3.  Postel’s General System of THought

My most basic premise in reading Postel is that he was not, as many of his
contemporaries thought, an incoherent writer. According to recent scholarship,
it seems that a great deal of what Postel wrote is based on one common theo-
logical structure or infrastructure, which I use as a tool for understanding and
interpreting his writings.8 For our purpose, it will suffice to review the main idea
concisely.

6 A few studies dedicated to this main feature of theurgical Kabbalah: M. Idel: “Multiple Forms
of Redemption in Kabbalah and Hasidism”, in: THe Jewish Quarterly Review 101/1 (2001),
55-68; E.R. Wolfson: “Divine Suffering and the Hermeneutics of Reading: Philosophical
Reflections on Lurianic Mythology”, in: R. Gibbs/E.R. Wolfson (eds.): Suffering Religion,
London: Routledge, 2002, 101-162; R. Kara-Ivanov Kaniel: Holiness and Transgression:
­Mothers of the Messiah in the Jewish Myth, trans. E.D. Matanky/R. Kara-Ivanov Kaniel,
­Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2017, 173-209; B. Roi: Love of the Shkhina: Mysticism and
Poetics in Tiqqunei ha-Zohar [in Hebrew], Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2017, 137-272.
7 Y. Liebes: “Zohar ve-Eros”, 99.
8 J. Weiss: “Structure Amid the Chaos”, 361-382.

77
Marriage, Families & Spirituality 26 (2020)

Postel’s system is formed from elaborations on a simple basic quadruple struc-

ture. THis structure, I believe, should be understood as stemming from the epitome
of the Sefirotic structure commonly held by Castilian medieval Kabbalists. THis
means the following: a structure consisting of two upper elements, a male and
a female, and two lower elements, likewise male and female. From the Sefirotic
perspective, this seems to express the quadruple structure, which is the core of
the Sefirotic system, itself consisting of the higher couple Hokhma and Bina, and
the lower couple Tiferet and Malkhut.
Two points in this Postellian infrastructure are of significance for our present
purpose. First, there is the centrality of the feminine element, indeed in complete
concordance with the Kabbalistic principles themselves. THe second point is the
inner analogy within this structure, from which it follows that each and every
dimension of being unfolds and acts in double forms. THus, following the
­Kabbalistic conventions, Postel based his theological outlook upon the centrality
of the female element and of the couple “male-female”. As I have shown, I believe
that Postel’s entire system of thought as well as the actual texts he composed,
albeit rich, heterogeneous, and sometimes chaotic in nature, can be understood
through these quadruple lenses.

4.  Marriage, Sex, and Family in Postel’s Zohar Commentary

Within this framework, let us now go into our subject, namely marriage, sex,
and family in Postel’s Kabbalistic thought as expressed in his Zohar commentary.
As stated, this large opus of Postel, never fully published and still extant in full
only in the original autograph copy (BL Ms. Sloane 1410), was composed between
1547-1553 or perhaps the beginning of 1554. Our first text is extracted from Postel’s
annotated translation of the Zohar on the Genesis pericope, which he composed
in the final stages of his work on this kabbalistic treatise, namely, probably at the
end of 1553.9 I am stressing this point because it means that what we are about
to read represents Postel’s Kabbalistic thought at a relatively developed stage.
THis passage is very typical for Postel’s writing in terms of contents and style.
Nevertheless, it is quite uncommon in its use of the term “matrimony” itself
(matrimonium). I will start by presenting his version of the relevant Zohar pas-
sage (in my English translation) in a somewhat lengthier extent in order for us
to understand the original context. For our purpose, I chose not to delve into
the differences between Postel’s translation and the original Zohar, although, as
always, his translation indeed differs from the original and in very telling ways.10

9 J. Weiss: “BL MS Sloane 1410: Some Paleographical Issues Relating Guillaume Postel’s First
Latin Zohar Translation and Commentary”, in: Revue des études juives 175/1-2 (2016), 135-146.
10 For more on the quality of Postel’s translation, see J. Weiss: “THe Quality of Guillaume
Postel’s Zohar Latin Translation (1547-1553)”, in: Accademia: Revue de la Société Marsile Ficin
15 (2013), 63-82.

78
 J. Weiss

Nevertheless, our main concern here is with his commentary on the text he
produced. Postel’s Zohar translation reads:
[“And the King shall delight in God”, Ps. 63,12]11 – the delight of the light which emanates
after the concealed path, which is in itself. THe [letter] ‫=[ ב‬Beth, the second letter of the
Alphabet] enters – two that are one. And because of that composite, the world is put
together or connected in perfect stability. “The King” indeed, “shall become delighted in
God” – in the Superior and profound delight, which overflows and emanates. In what
light is that delight? In “Elohim” [i.e., the Sefirah Binah]. Unto it he sent Life, the kind
of life they call “the life of the King”. THis is the source and basis of the Home. THis Home
is the sons of the Home [i.e., the family members].12

According to Kabbalistic symbolism, “the King” (HaMelekh) in this passage

probably refers to the lower female Sefirah Malkhut, and “God” (Elohim) is the
superior female Sefirah Binah. According to this Sefirotic scheme, it seems that
the paragraph deals with the affinity between the two female Sefirot and with the
way divine profusion flows from the superior female to the inferior one. However,
this is not the way Postel read this text; rather, it seems that he understood the
designation “King” (Melekh) as referring to the masculine Sefirah Tiferet. THus,
the “Life of the King” is for him divine profusion emanating and flowing into
the lower female Sefirah. Apparently, he saw this as related to the establishment
of the “Home” and of the “Sons of the Home”, as the “Home” becomes populated
with the offspring produced by this divine conjugation:13
[“And the King shall delight in God”, Ps. 63,12] – the delight of the light which emanates
after the concealed path, which is in itself. THe [letter] ‫=[ ב‬Beth, the second letter of the
Alphabet, and the preposition “in” as part of the phrase “in God”] enters – two that are
one.
([it is] that concealed path of the holy semen’s channel, which also flows unto us through
the divine body, through the concealed Motherhood, as the Godhead, through a concealed
path, outpours Its semen through a hidden path into the created wisdom. THus all the
things are from God through the male Christ, and all the things are from Christ through
His lower part, and all the things are from the general Mother herself, through these two’s
firstborn son. In this manner, all things are two in one. For all things are to be {united}

11 Postel did not copy this biblical citation on which the Zoharic homily is based, although it
does appear in the Parma version (only the words: “And the King shall delight”).
12 Sloane 1410, fol. 17v. THis is an English rendering of Postel’s Latin translation of Zohar I, 29a.
Postel’s original Zohar manuscript is now lost, but the text itself was a very close cognate of
Ms. Parma Palatina 2718 (De Rossi 1392) [henceforth: Ms. Parma]. See R. Meroz/J. Weiss:
“THe Textual Source of Guillaume Postel’s Zohar Latin Translation (1547-1553)”, in: Renaissance
Studies 29/2 (2014), 247-260.
13 It is evident from the versions found in the printed editions that this passage underwent
significant distortions. THe Aramaic version we have in Ms. Parma, which I take to hold the
version closest to that of Postel, reads: ‫"והמלך ישמח" חדו דנהרא דנפיק בחד שבילא טמיר וגניז‬
‫ עילאה‬,"‫דעייל ביה בתרין דאינון חד ועל דא עלמא אשתכלל לקיומא שלים "והמלך ישמח באלהים‬
,‫ דא עיקרא דביתא‬.‫ חיי מלכא איקרי‬,‫ ביה שדר חיים‬.‫ באן אתר באלהים‬.‫ חדו דנפיק ונגיד‬,‫עמיקא‬
‫ עלמא בני עלמא‬,‫ביתא דא בני ביתא‬.

79
Marriage, Families & Spirituality 26 (2020)

for all eternity under the father and the mother, to the extent that it would be impos-
sible to assume that a greater unification than that of the two parents within the son
could ever exist, and [that a greater unification than that] of form and matter – than in
the composite, and [that a greater unification than that] of the upper and lower worlds
[could exist, other] than [that which is] in the world’s globe, and of [the unification of ]
God and the general intellect – than in one Christ, the one that consists of both the
created and uncreated wisdom, which arranged everything).14

Postel explains that the river or channel, mentioned in the text on which he
comments, refers to the channel of divine semen, which emanates from the Binah,
the upper feminine Sefirah, or “concealed Motherhood”. THus, the Binah is twice
exalted; she is not revealed but concealed, and she is not just a “mother” rather
the more general and less personal designation of “Motherhood”.15 For Postel,
there always exists a hierarchy between two parallel or similar strata, of which
one is higher and more general in character while the other is lower, more con-
crete, revealed, and detailed. Consequently, for him “the concealed” or the “uncre-
ated” will always be the upper strata, male or female depending on the subject
at hand, according to the quadruple divine structure I briefly described above.
In this case, the concealed Motherhood is naturally the upper female Sefirah
Binah, source of divine influx or semen, pouring through the entire divine body,
namely the lower male Sefirah Tiferet, into the highest female Sefirah Malkhut
(here referred to as the Created Wisdom). THis trajectory of the divine semen
also seems to express for Postel his own “divine autobiography” so to speak, as
well as the scheme for the world’s redemption. THis is described by the following
quadrupled plan of emanators and mediators, the latter becoming sources of
emanation in the next phase, as follows: God (higher male) begets everything
through the male Christ (lower male); then Christ begets everything through his
lower part or “general motherhood” (higher female, probably to be identified
with a certain Johanna16); lastly this general mother begets everything through
her and Christ’s firstborn son (lower female, to be identified as Postel himself ).

14 Ms. BL Sloane 1410, fols. 16v-17r: Via abscondita est canalis seminis sancti et coelesti corpore
ad nos difflu|entis per Maternitatem occultasm sicut Divinitas occulta via suum semen per
viam occultam in Sapientiam creatam effundit. ita omnia ex Deo per Christum Masculum,
et omnia ex Christo per eius Inferiorem partem, et omnia ex ipsa Matre Generali per utriusque
filium primogenitum. Ita omnia in duobus sunt Unum. Nam sub Patre et Matre omnia sunt
unienda in aeternum. ita ut sit impossibile maiorem unionem dari utriusque parentis quam
in filio, et Formae Materiaeque quam in composito, et mundi superioris inferiorisque quam
in universitatis globo, et Dei intellectusque generalis, <quam> in uno Christo qui Sapientiam
Increatam et creatam in se <omnia disponeret> habet.
15 As an aside I add that when writing in Hebrew Postel translated the term “motherhood”,
central to his thought in general, as ‫( אמימות‬Amimut) and hence also fatherhood as ‫אביבות‬
(Avivut). See G. Postel: Ta’am HaTe’amim [in Hebrew], ed. J. Weiss, Jerusalem: Magnes
Press, 2018, 40.
16 THe Venetian nun Johanna and her close relationship with Postel during the years 1547-1549
has received much scholarly attention. Scholars are mainly intrigued by the fact that Postel
studied Kabbalah and specifically the Zohar, the Bahir and other treatises with an uneducated
elderly woman, and that he became persuaded by her messianic narrative according to which

80
 J. Weiss

THis plan of couplings between the divine strata allows Postel to explain how
he can include within himself the entire Sefirotic structure. In fact, Postel’s very
existence is both proof and guarantee for the innate universal unity, or – using
one of his characteristic idioms – for the principal of concordia mundi.17 THis
expresses the undeniable and unbreakable unity between male and female as well
as the endless manifestations of this couple within the universe. Among these,
he enumerates the following examples: form and matter, heaven and earth, God
and creature.18 Let us now look a bit further:

she was Christ’s wife and the designated Papa angelicus, as well as Postel’s own spiritual mother,
and the mother of the world (mater mundi). See for example: C.G. Dubois: “Les Metamor-
phoses Mystiques de la sexualité dans la pensée de Guillaume Postel”, in: Études françaises 4
(1969), 171-207; J. Simmonet: “La mère du monde: Miroir de la pensée de Guillaume Postel”,
in: J.C. Margolin (ed.): Guillaume Postel, 1581-1981: Actes du colloque international d’Avranches,
Paris: Guy Trédaniel, Editions de la Maisnie, 1985, 17-21; M.L. Kuntz: “THe Myth of Venice
in the THought of Guillaume Postel”, in: J. Hankins/J. Monfasani/F. Purnell (eds.):
Supplementum festivum: Studies in Honor of P.-O. Kristeller, New York, 1987 (Medieval and
Renaissance Texts and Studies; 49), 507-523; M.L. Kuntz: “Lodovico Domenichi, Guillaume
Postel and the Biography of Giovanna Veronese”, in: Studi Veneziani 16 (1988), 33-44;
B. ­Newman: From Virile Woman to WomanChrist: Studies in Medieval Religion and Literature,
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995, 218-221; J.P. Brach: “Dieu Fait Femme:
Guillaume Postel et l’Illumination Vénitienne”, in: M. Cazenave (ed.): La Face Féminine de
Dieu, Paris: Agnès Vienot Editions, 1998, 41-61; Y. Petry: Gender, Kabbalah, and the Reforma-
tion: THe Mystical THeology of Guillaume Postel, Leiden: Brill, 2004, 95-115; J.P. Brach:
“Son of the Son of God: THe Feminine Messiah and Her Progeny, According to Guillaume
Postel (1510-1581)”, in: O. Hammer (ed.): Alternative Christs, Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 2009, 113-130.
17 Concordia mundi is a major topic in Postel’s thought, which he uses to express his quest for
universal unification in various contexts, theological as well as others. For example, it is also
the title of his early magnum opus, written prior to the years of his preoccupation with matters
related to Kabbalah and divine gender, in the year 1544 (G. Postel: De orbis terrae Concordia
Libri Quatuor, Multiiuga eruditione ac pietate referti quibus nihil hoc tam perturbato rerum statu
vel, utilius vel accomodatius potuisse in publicum edi quivis aequus lector iudicabi, Paris, 1544).
In a nutshell, Postel’s sincere missionary fervor led him to crystalize a messianic notion regard-
ing an underlying uniformity between Christianity, Judaism (mainly Kabbalah), and Islam.
THis meant for him that it would be possible to Christianize the followers of these religions
once they understood that the kernel of their beliefs and traditions cohere with those of
Christianity (the way he perceived the latter, naturally). In fact, quite a few of his treatises are
dedicated to this goal or present it in one way or another. Apart from the above-mentioned
voluminous treatise bearing this title, one could mention the following examples: G. Postel:
De originibus seu de Hebraicae linguae et gentis antiquitate, deque variarum linguarum affinitate,
Liber, Paris, 1538; G. Postel: Alcorani seu Legis Mahometi, et Evangelistarum Concordiae Liber,
Paris, 1543; G. Postel: Panthenosia, sive Compositio omnium dissidiorum, circa aeternam veri-
tatem, aut verisimilitudinem, versantium, quae non solum inter eos, qui hodie Infidelium, Judae-
orum, Haereticorum, et Catholicorum nomine vocantur, orta sunt et vigent, sed jam ab admissis
per peccatum, circa nostrum intellectum, tenebris fuere inter Ecclesiae peculiaris et communis
membra, Basel, 1561; et alia. THis orientation has also clear linguistic bearings, see for example:
J. Céard: “De Babel à la Pentecôte: La transformation du mythe de la confusion des langues
au XVIe siècle”, in: Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 42 (1980), 577-594; M.L. Kuntz,
“Hebrew and the ‘Other Sister’ Arabic: THe Language of Adam as a Paradigm for the ‘Restitu-
tio Omnium’ in the THought of Guillaume Postel”, in: Quaderni di Studi Arabi 15 (1997), 21-44.
18 THis literary and pedagogical strategy of enumerating long lists of couplets of general notions
of all sorts is very common in Postel, and the great thematic diversity characterizing these lists
was probably one main reason his readers tend to despair of his writing. Indeed, many such

81
Marriage, Families & Spirituality 26 (2020)

And because of that composite, the world is put together or connected in perfect stability.
“THe King” indeed, “shall be delighted in God” – in the Superior and profound delight,
which overflows and emanates.
(THe entire treasure of nature is poured out of God into the primary creation, and it
overflows within God before it is poured forth, in the same manner that the semen of
the father is in the father before it is transmitted to the mother who is to bear a foetus.
For this is the most exalted delight of that King.
In what light is that delight? In “Elohim” [i.e., the Sefirah Binah].
For this is the creation of the world of the Agent Intellect).19

In this part, Postel’s attention is drawn to a more in depth and actual descrip-
tion of this unification process as he delves into the question of the nature and
meaning of the transference of semen. THe “delight” of the “King” refers to God’s
intercourse with the female. For him, this intercourse means an outpouring of
the entire treasure of nature, namely the lower divine essence, of female character,
which is juxtaposed with “Grace”, accordingly the higher, loftier and male essence.
THis description can of course be seen as resonating with the divine coupling
of Johanna with Christ, Postel’s spiritual parents. However, prior to the actual
ejaculation, a moment of inner flowing within the male “king” takes place, and
it is exactly this that ensures the divine unifying quality of the male semen after
its extraction and pouring into the female who is to create the foetus. In this case,
he chooses to accentuate the effect of child conception, which he describes as the
ultimate “delight of the king”. THis is indeed the King’s delight, and not so much
the intercourse itself. THe same tendency recurs when Postel emphasizes the out-
come of the conjugation (namely, the creation of the world) and less so the
coupling itself.
In addition, he makes recourse here to an additional, alternative field of
thought, basing himself on Aristotelian notions, through which he is able to refer
to a divine male conceiver of the world, the Agent Intellect. As I described earlier,
much of Postel’s ingenious and seemingly chaotic hermeneutics is indebted to
this strategy of describing one fixed theological structure while constantly chang-
ing and alternating his terminology regarding this structure, interchanging and
substituting terminology and notions related to various philosophical, theological,
and other subjects of whole systems of thought. What we see here is a good
example of this feature as well as of the hermeneutic advantages this entailed for
Postel’s needs, as follows:

examples are to be found on almost every page Postel wrote, and very prominently in his
Kabbalistic writings.
19 Ms. BL Sloane 1410, fols. 17r: Et propter istud compositum compactus seu connexus est
mundus stabilitate perfecta. Rex vero laetabitur in Deo summo et profundo gaudio, quod
effunditur et praecedit Effunditur totius naturae THesaurus ex Deo in creaturam primariam,
et praecedit in Deo antequam diffundatur, ut semen patris in patre antequam in matrem
foetum educaturam transfundatur. Haec est enim summa Regis illius Leticia). In quo lux est
ipsa Laeticia. in Elohim. (est enim intellectus agentis mundi opificium.)

82
 J. Weiss

Unto it he sent life

(Him, who is THe Life, and this life is the light of men)
the kind of life they call “the life of the King”.
(For it is impossible that the God would be known to live, unless he will scatter Himself
in actuality into the general intellect, which is mobile in actuality. For without motion,
which God lacks, it is impossible for the life of Virtue to exist.)
THis is the source and basis of the Home
[Home] of the world
THis Home is the sons of the Home [i.e., the family members]
(For the home cannot be proper without <indeed matrimony> until the mother herself,
into which the father let down semen of Equivalence, would be present, in order for the
sons to exist in actuality. THus in the creation, before the uncreated Unity, Truth, and
Goodness, He had created in one creation all His qualities that are movement in actuality,
through Potency, Wisdom, and Grace, even though they are emanated from His side, the
home of the world could not have existed. It is necessary that in the same manner that
Satan’s venom stained everyone, there will also be those sons [born] in pure birth).20

Here Postel is looking into the nature of the divine semen itself, in a move
that will lead him, again, to delve much more into the results of the conjugation,
namely the offspring and, in general, the creation of the world, rather than on
the erotic delight itself. Following his earlier reliance on Aristotelian notions, he
touches upon the question of the necessity of creation, from this philosophical
viewpoint. THe emission of semen, designated here as “Life”, he explains as a
divine compulsion, whose aim is making the divine known to humans, or, to put
in philosophical terms, rendering the immutable male known through the mobile
Created Intellect. Postel often discusses this Intellect when he uses Aristotelian
jargon, while unequivocally identifying it with the female, juxtaposed to the male
unmoved and uncreated intellect.21
Postel then goes on to expound on the Zohar’s remark, which relates the female
to the family and the children, saying that “the female” (here, Home), and prob-
ably we can add sexual intercourse with the female to this, are improper without
marriage. As I noted in the text quoted above, in the autograph manuscript

20 Ms. BL Sloane 1410 17a: In eum mittit vitam (ille qui vita est, et ea vita est lux hominum)
Talem vitam vocant Regis vitam (Quia impossibile ut cognoscatur Deus vivere nisi quatenus
actu sese spargit in Intellectum Generalem actu mobilem. Sine motu enim quo caret Deus,
Impossibile est ut vita eminens possit dari.) Haec est origo et Basis /[Zohar I 29b] Domus
(Universi) Domus haec, sunt filii Domus Nam Domus non potest esse proprie sine <Matri-
monio autem> donec adsit ipsa Mater in quam aequivalens semen demittat pater ut sint filii
actuales. Sic in creatione, antequam Increata Unitas, Veritas, Bonitas, Et Sapa potentia,
Sapientia, Benevolentia condidisset in una creatura omnes suas proprietates actu mobiles, et
de eius latere [illegible letters, struck-through] <emanat{a}s> non poterat esse mundi Domus.)
sint autem tales filii nativi{ta}te munda neces|se est, sicut Satanae venenum omnes infecit.
21 J. Weiss: “Structure Amid the Chaos”, 366. Regarding this semen, later on it is said as
a “semen of equivalence”. On this term and its Kabbalistic background, see ibid., for example
366-367, and J. Weiss: “Covert Jewish Sources of Christian Kabbalah: THe Case of Guillaume
Postel and ‘Iyyun Traditions”, in: Medieval Encounters 26 (2000), 1-21.

83
Marriage, Families & Spirituality 26 (2020)

Postel wrote the word matrimonio above the line, adding it after completing at
least this sentence and most probably more than that. Postel added and changed
words in his work, at least in part as proof-reading after he finished the entire
translation, and ours is perhaps one of those cases.22 And so, although this addi-
tion clearly appears in Postel’s handwriting and cannot be considered to be a gloss
added by some later reader, it is nevertheless worth stressing that this word, indeed
very uncommon in Postel, was not part and parcel of his original comment.23
On the other hand, in this case the syntax in fact relies on this addition, so it
does seem more probable that it is an on-the-spot correction.
I wish to stress that for Postel the important point in the Zohar’s description
is not the sexual coupling per se but the presence of the “Mother” in the “Home”,
as part of “matrimony”. It is only once the Mother, now filled with the Father’s
semen, is present inside the home that the “Sons” can also exist in actuality.
Postel underlines a point which he makes time and again in his writings, namely
that although the male aspect of God is perfect and uncreated, without his lower
feminine side, the male God would have been unable to manifest Himself and
to create the world, the Universal “Home”. THis female side is expressed accord-
ing to Postel both in the corporeal Jesus Christ, and to a greater extent in the
figure of the Mother of the world, his spiritual mother, Johanna. It is also pos-
sible that this is why he chose to use here the term matrimonium, derived from
Mater, and which in the plural is sometimes used in Latin to designate married
women or simply wives.24
Can we consider this text as expressing Postel’s general reluctance toward
­Kabbalistic expressions of divine sexuality and the notion of sex organs within
the Godhead in general? It seems so, and we will see more in this direction in
what follows. Also, given that generally Postel was very much preoccupied

22 J. Weiss: “BL MS Sloane 1410: Some Paleographical Issues”, 145.

23 In general, regarding the order of composition and the various strata in this manuscript see
J. Weiss: “BL MS Sloane 1410: Some Paleographical Issues”.
24 Postel is renowned for relying quite freely on phonetic resemblance between words in order
to explain their meaning, even in cases of clear linguistic remoteness and without any etymo-
logical justification. Although he ought not be considered as unique or innovative in doing
this in this period and even earlier, his use of this hermeneutical strategy is indeed ingenious
and well worth the scholarly attention it received. In addition, Postel was also unique in that
he came up with an on-the-mark designation for this method, Emithology. THe latter designa-
tion, deriving from the Hebrew word Emeth (truth), pinpoints three important insights
regarding Postel’s hermeneutics: juxtaposition with the Greek ideal of etymology, the Jewish
notion of Truth, and the linguistic supremacy of the Hebrew. On this see for example:
F. Secret: “L’Emithologie de Guillaume Postel”, in E. Castelli (ed.): Umanesimo et esoterismo:
Atti del convegno internazionale di studi umanistici, Padua: CEDAM, 1960, 381-437; G.A. Sivan:
“Guy Le Fèvre de la Boderie”, 180; J. Céard: “Le De Originibus de Postel et la Linguistique
de son Temps”, in: M.L. Kuntz (ed.): Postello, Venezia e il suo mundo, Florence: L.S. Olschki,
1988, 27-28, 33; C. Escarmant: “Écriture mystique et mystique de l’écriture chez Guillaume
Postel”, in: P.B. Fenton/R. Goetschel (eds.): Expérience et écriture mystiques dans les religions
du livre, Leiden: Brill, 2000, 155-162; R.J. Wilkinson: Kabbalistic Scholars of the Antwerp
Polyglot Bible, Leiden: Brill, 2007, 85-86; J.Weiss: A Kabbalistic Christian Messiah, 82-83 and
n. 223.

84
 J. Weiss

s­pecifically with the female aspects of the Godhead, with male-female relations
and with couplings between these gendered divine strata, it stands out that he
tended to reject certain aspects of these notions, the more explicit sexual aspect
commonly accentuated in the Zohar.
In another passage from the Genesis pericope of the Zohar on which Postel
comments, he again elaborates on a passage, which describes the transference of
divine semen using the rare term matrimonium and in a way that accentuates the
philosophical meaning of this image:
[so that the “King at his repose”, namely the male Sefirah Tiferet, would become stabilized
within his inferior Kingship, namely the female Sefirah malkhut] with that secret of love
and delights, which are in the superior garden [namely, originating from the Sefirah Binah],
and through that path which is concealed and in hiding, [the Yesod, channel of divine
semen, the Malkhut] is filled from there
(For these superior matrimonial delights, which are of mutual kindness [or: service], depend
from the first love and the secret influx, which the Divinity pours into the agent intellect,
and the agent intellect into the potential [intellect], and both into all the individual things,
until this love and pleasure become the basis of nature.)25

In this passage, the expression “matrimonial delights”, which is not derived

from the Zohar but introduced into the commentary by Postel, is used to express
two points he adds to the discussion: the first is the reciprocity characterizing the
sexual obligations within marriage. THis seems to follow the notion of debitum
coniugale, or the principle of mutual consent in the establishment of the sacrament
of marriage.26 THe second, very similar to the case analyzed earlier, is Postel’s reli-
ance on notions and terminologies taken from the philosophical-Aristotelian per-
spective. In the current case, his reference to the view of the Godhead as a hier-
archy of divine intellects allows Postel to discuss divine intercourse in much milder,
metaphorical terms, while retaining the basic theosophical structure expressed in
the Zohar. In his adaptation, the male Tiferet transferring its divine semen through
the divine phallus, Yesod, to the female Malkhut, becomes a depiction of intel-
lectual profusion emanating from higher to lower intellects within the Godhead.

25 Cum secreto illius Dilectionis et deliciarum quae sunt in horto superiori, et per eam viam
quae est abscondita atque recondite, impletur ex eo (in the original Zohar: Eden and not
Garden). Nam summae illae deliciae matrimoniales quae sunt in mutuo officio dependent ex
prima dilectione et secreta influentia quam Divinitas in Intellectum Agentem, et Intellectus
Agens in Possibilem, et uterque in omnia Individua ita ut ista dilectio et delectatio sit naturae
basis.
26 On the conjugal debt, see for example J.A. Brundage: Law, Sex, and Christian Society
in Medieval Europe, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987, 358-361; E.M. Makowski:
“The Conjugal Debt and Medieval Canon Law”, in: J.B. Holloway/C.S. Wright/
J. Bechtold (eds.): Equally in God’s Image: Women in the Middle Ages, New York: Peter Lang,
1990, 129-143; P.L. Reynolds: How Marriage Became One of the Sacraments: THe Sacramental
THeology of Marriage from its Medieval Origins to the Council of Trent, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2016, 17, 35, 42 and elsewhere. On the Consensus principle introduced in
the 12th century, see P.L. Reynolds: How Marriage Became One of the Sacraments, 43-51, and
throughout this important work.

85
Marriage, Families & Spirituality 26 (2020)

5.  Postel’s Attitude toward Female Sexuality

THis attitude of Postel, expressed in the passages analyzed above, should be

examined in relation to another telling aspect in Postel’s Kabbalistic formulations,
namely his attitude toward actual female sexuality within the legitimate marital
arrangement, divine and mundane alike. In a way, the first passage we analyzed
above touched upon this issue when asserting that the “Home”, namely the
divine female aspect, cannot be complete without “matrimony”. I will try to
broaden the discussion in more concrete and even corporeal directions in Postel’s
attitude toward sexuality, and specifically female sexuality, in the divine and
the mundane.
First, in regard to actual women’s sexuality, Postel seems to have had a rather
negative approach. THus, he described women’s love as defective, imperfect, and
shameful. It therefore followed that male desire for women is dangerous and
even demonic altogether.27 Nevertheless, in his French treatise Les tres merveil-
leuses victoires du nouveau monde, he explained that the principal of love is in
fact stronger in women. As has been noted by Redpath, this he related to women’s
Anima, a characteristic which also explains why they are more susceptible to
divine messages than men.28 Finally, as is well known, one should recall that
Postel held the state of virginity and anything related to it in the highest esteem,
and he considered virginity as one of Johanna’s most sublime divine character-
istics. Indeed, for Postel virginity, celibacy, and chastity were the path through
which one could converse with God.29 THe reason for this, according to him, is
that spiritual pleasure can be attained only once physical pleasure is renounced.
Physical gratification, therefore, was for him contradictory to spiritual pleasure.
In light of this, it is not surprising that his descriptions of divine couplings
as a positive occurrence resulting in divine joy and the bliss of marriage seem
confined to the metaphorical meanings of these images, as that of transferring
intellectual influx, as we have just seen. To be sure, this stand is quite remote
from the Zohar’s own attitude to these matters. As has been shown in a growing
corpus of scholarly literature dedicated to sexuality, eroticism, and mainly female
sexuality in the Zohar, it becomes clear that the Zohar is highly attentive to female
sexuality and physicality, and that it shows sensitivity to female sexual arousal

27 BL Sloane 1410 59r-v.

28 G. Postel: Les très merveilleuses victoires des femmes du nouveau monde, ed. B. Gustave, Geneva:
Slatkine Reprints, 1970, 9-11; P.A. Redpath: “THe Nature of Woman and her Role in Religion
According to Guillaume Postel”, in: J.C. Margolin (ed.): Guillaume Postel, 140-141.
29 See G. Postel: Les très merveilleuses victoires, 9-11; P.A. Redpath: “THe Nature of Woman”,
140-141. On the other hand, the Zohar is very harsh concerning celibacy, considering it a grave
sin: Y. Liebes: “Sections of the Zohar Lexicon” [in Hebrew], PhD diss., Hebrew University
of Jerusalem, 1976, 303-304; Y. Liebes: “THe Messiah of the Zohar: On R. Simeon bar Yohai
as a Messianic Figure”, in: Studies in the Zohar, trans. A. Schwartz et al., Albany, NY: SUNY
Press, 1993, 70-71; Y. Liebes: “Zohar ve-Eros”, 104-105; Y. Liebes: “Myth vs. Symbol in the
Zohar and Lurianic Kabbalah”, in: L. Fine (ed.): Essential Papers on Kabbalah, New York:
New York University Press, 1995, 213-215.

86
 J. Weiss

as a prerequisite for intercourse, divine and human alike. THerefore, considered

as a whole, it stands out that Postel was largely reluctant regarding this aspect of
the Zohar, a treatise he nevertheless considered the ultimate and perfect prophecy
of his own messianic message.30
In the following passage from his Zohar commentary, Postel gives an interest-
ing perspective on Adam’s sin, when he explains that Adam sinned in that he
conjugated with Eve, who was Christ’s wife up until that moment, in the absence
of her husband. THis also seems to imply that the intercourse between Adam and
Eve was of a sexual and not spiritual nature, or in other words, that it was a result
of personal or selfish lust:
THis is why it is forbidden to invite a woman over on her own, but only together with
her husband, lest one becomes suspect of sexual sin […] R. Juda said: certainly the union
with a woman who is alone is prohibited unless her husband would be with her.
(THis is why Adam, who was the most informed human being and the one informed by
God, had sinned in the worst possible way, since he convened with Eve, who had been
Christ’s wife first, [and he convened with her] in the absence of her husband, that is,
without summoning the divine spouse in order to fulfil His purpose, [namely] the beget-
ting of spiritual sons for her, once the mind had been entirely elevated into God. Rather
he [convened with her] thinking of purpose-directed love, and out of his selfish passion
to dominate the great free peoples. […] therefore Adam begot [offspring] only in the body,
since no Animus was applied unto the offshoot of eternity.31

In this paragraph Postel develops an idea he laid down earlier in the com-
mentary regarding Adam’s sexual sin, namely that his coupling with Eve (“con-
vening” in the Latin, “communion” in the Zohar) was sinful because it came
about as a result of selfish lust and therefore excluded the higher divine element.
In this passage, Postel explains that Eve was first Christ’s wife, a striking remark
indeed. To be sure, this should be understood in accordance with Postel’s quad-
ruple theological structure briefly outlined earlier: Postel referred in his writings
both to “Jesus” who he identified as a higher female entity, situated under the
lower male, God the father, and over the Holy Spirit. However, on top of these
he identified a fourth, most exalted general male principle that includes the entire
Trinity over which it presides, and Postel identified this all-encompassing element
as “Christ”.32 Given this background, it seems that in this passage Postel suggests
that Eve was originally the wife of this primordial “Christ”. We learn here that

30 J. Weiss: “Guillaume Postel’s ‘Idea of Zohar’”, 250-251.

31 Sloane 1410 fol. 59v: Unde prohibetur Invitare foeminam solam nisi cum marito suo, ne
suspicetur de revelatione pudendorum. […] R. Juda dixit certe res sic habet, quod prohibetur
unio cum uxore sola nisi si fuerit vir eius cum ea (ob id doctissimus mortalium et theodidactus
Adam gravissime omnium peccavit, quia convenit Havam prius uxorem Christi quam suam,
non presente marito suo Jesu, idest non adhibito in suum finem divino marito ut illi genera-
ret filios spirituales sublata omnino in deum mente, sed cogitando de finali amore et voluptate
{propria} in regendis magnis populis et liberis. […] genuit solo corpore Adam | non adhibito
ad aeternitatis prolem animo.
32 J. Weiss: “Structure Amid the Chaos”, 368.

87
Marriage, Families & Spirituality 26 (2020)

this primordial aloof “Christ” was not celibate, rather, that a primordial Eve
cohabited with him.33 Upon the creation of the world and of Adam, “Christ”
handed this Eve to Adam to be his wife.
In addition, it seems from the passage that the new bond between Adam and
Eve was made possible under the condition that “Christ”, Eve’s first husband,
will somehow take part in the union of Adam and Eve.34 Had things worked
out in this manner, Adam and Eve could have produced “spiritual sons”, prob-
ably immortal ones. Regretfully however, Adam mated with his wife out of
selfish sensual lust and not by way of elevation to God. THis act Postel under-
stands as related to all material human passions, and specifically to human polit-
ical and territorial uninhibited ambitions. Postel asserts that this wrong manner
of coupling is to blame for the fact that the sons born to Adam and Eve are
deprived of an Animus, namely that they are mortal.35 THe only way out of this
postlapsarian situation of humankind is to turn to the legitimate way of sexual
coupling, which includes the divine element in the process as a prerequisite. THis
idea is very telling when compared to the original perspective of the Zohar
regarding divine intervention in human intercourse. While the Zohar indeed
asserts the importance of including the divine aspect in human coupling, it is
in order to arouse divine sexual lust. In other words, human legitimate sexual
activity is seen as an incentive for divine intercourse, and not, as in Postel’s
description, a way to legitimize mundane sexual intercourse and render it per-
missible.
Another perspective of the tension between bodily and spiritual copulation is
expressed in the following passage from the Zohar commentary. Postel states here
that the sin referred to by Kabbalists as “Cutting in the Shoots” (Kisus BeNetiot,
in the Latin abscidere plantas), in fact meant cutting Eve from the “Just” one
(Sadik, namely the Phallic Sefirah Yesod). In Postel’s view, this Eve is his spiritual
mother, Johanna. For our purpose, this repaired and renovated conjugation is
telling:
“And the just one is the basis of the world”, and thanks to him the world is stabilized,
and thanks to him it is created.
(all the fathers [i.e. Kabbalists] agree on this point, that Adam in his sin cut the shoots.
Namely, that he cut the trunk of humankind off its root, and off its head, Christ, upon
which the world is created and on which it stands. THis is why until the male has his wife

33 Perhaps the Rabbinic description of the primordial Torah existing two thousand years before
the creation of the world should also be considered here, see Bereshit Rabbah 1 1, ed.
J. THeodor/H. Albeck, Jerusalem: Vahrmann Books, 1936, 1-2.
34 Here one might call to mind the concept according to which the soul of a wife’s former
husband interferes in her sexual relations with her new husband, described in the Zohar, Sabba
deMishpatim, in detail (for instance Zohar, II 102a onwards).
35 On Postel’s concept of the psychological structure see J. Weiss: “Structure Amid the Chaos”,
367-368. Indeed, Postel asserted that the Anima could only achieve immortality through the
Animus.

88
 J. Weiss

present for him, [given that the wife] has been reformed in both sexes, he will not be able
to grow and reach his full stature, to which he had been designated by the infinite God.
And thus, as now the mother of the world came to be created, it is necessary that the end
of all things will begin to become revealed. For male without female has not been gener-
ating anything. However [now, the male] gradually infused together the love of the spirit,
the mind and the Anima, until he united body with body.)36

In this paragraph, Postel explains that Adam sinned in separating the so-called
“trunk” of the human race from “Christ”, who is the head of this trunk or body.
According to Postel, this means the separation of the male head from the female
body, a state which hinders the male from achieving his full-blown eminence,
since he is detached from his roots. However, he explains, this dire situation of
separation has recently ceased to exist, as Christ’s female, namely Johanna,
mother of the world, is now present in the world. THis felicitous situation in
which male and female are present for each other, Postel describes as a unifica-
tion of their entire beings, or perhaps as a unification of their entire inner
quadruple structures.
Here these quadruple structures of the male and female are described based
upon one of the common psychological formulations in Postel’s writings – mens,
spiritus, anima (possibly with Christ’s male animus), and body.37 It should be
noted that the apex of this copulation accentuates the unification of body with
body, a very physical and even carnal stage at the summit of this copulation. In
other words, here we see Postel explicitly clarifying that when discussing the
sublime copulation between Christ and Johanna, he does not consider the female
alone as a bodily entity but also Christ, as he very clearly described their union
as a union of bodies. To be sure, this is not to suggest that Postel is describing
any real, carnal, or sexual, copulation between them; rather, he is describing this
occurrence in the divine realms the way he structures them, an occurrence which
seems, according to him, to have brought about the actual existence of corpore-
ality as such.38

36 BL Sloane 1410 fol. 177r, Ms. Parma 71r; Zohar I 82a: Et Justus est Basis mundi. et super
ipsum stat mundus, et propter illum sustentatur, et propter ips{um} conditus est (omnes
patres in hoc conveniunt, quod Adam in suo peccato abscidit plantas. idest rescidit truncum
humani generis a sua radice et capite christo super quo creatus est et stat mundus. Unde
donec ipsi masculo adsit sua foemina in utroque sexu instaurata non potest crescere inque
illam devenire magnitudine{m} ad quam Infinitus deus illum ordinavit. Creata itaque nunc
Domina mundi opus est ut Incipiat finis rerum videri. nam mascul{us} sine foemina nil
generabat, sed sensim amorem spiritus mentis et animae infundebat, quoad corpus corpori
uniret.)
37 THis quadruple psychological scheme is closely dependent upon the Kabbalistic psychological
model of NaRaN (initials of: Nefesh, Ruah, Neshamah). See on this J. Weiss: “Structure
Amid the Chaos”, 367-368.
38 THis of course is also a reference to Genesis 2,24 “et erunt duo in carne una”. I am very thank-
ful to Jean-Pierre Brach for this insightful phrasing.

89
Marriage, Families & Spirituality 26 (2020)

6.  Negative Attitude toward Some Aspects of Actual Sexual Carnality

Alongside all these positive references to sexual dynamics in the Godhead,

including, as we have just seen, overt references to the bodily aspects of the
copulation of Christ and Johanna, Postel does show a negative and even repulsed
attitude toward some aspects of actual sexual carnality and sexuality related to
the divine. For example, in what sounds like a reference to his own celibacy,
Postel writes that he lived “outside of the flesh” in order to keep his genitals pure,
and that this is how he accounts for successfully resisting Satan’s temptations.39
We learn that it was only after having resisted these temptations that he became
worthy of the designation “Just”, and of the implied identification of this desig-
nation with either the Yesod or Malkhut:
Rabbi Simon said: Joseph was not called a “Just” man [Sadik] up to that event [or: mis-
fortune] which happened to him [i.e., with Potiphar’s wife]. When he retained that firm
and constant covenant of his [i.e., his sexual purity, his phallus], he was called a “Just”
man, and that level of holy covenant [namely the Sefirah Yesod, symbolizing the divine
phallus] was crowned together with him.
(even if the first-born and the mediator of the entire creation [=Postel himself ], would be
considered to be Justice itself [Sedek, namely the female Sefirah Malkhut], let alone the
Just one [the Yesod], he would not, nevertheless, be considered worthy of the designation
“Just” while in himself, or while in the organs [humankind, Christ’s organs]. Rather he
would have been considered as most worthy of the designation “Just one” only once he
had been laid in the well of flesh. And lest his genitals become contaminated, he lived
outside of the flesh, and when [the Satan] had come to tempt his [body], the minister of
the world … nevertheless had nothing in him. THus, he will now be released in the mother
of the world, in whom he himself will crown the eternal holy covenant, which had been
exempted for all of Noah’s sons, through his organ of procreation).40

THis is indeed a striking paragraph imbued with incestual overtones, in which

Postel explains that, like Joseph, he himself became worthy of the designation
“Just one” only after resisting sexual temptation and preserving his chastity.
­Paradoxically, the divine level of “Just one” can only be achieved by those who

39 THis refers to Satan’s temptations of Jesus (Matthew 4,1-11 for example). See Y. Petry: Gender,
Kabbalah, and the Reformation, 121 n. 20 and her reference to a French treatise published by
Secret “Qu’est ce que de l’image de Dieu à laquelle l’homme est créé et faict?”, see F. Secret:
Postelliana, Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1981, 344.
40 Sloane 141p fol. 491v; Ms. Parma 206a; Zohar I 194b: Rabi Symeon dixit. Quum nondum
accidisset Josefo casus ille non vocabatur Justus, quando conservavit illud Ber{ith} constans
et firmum vocatus est Justus, et ille gradus Berith Sancti coronatus est cum eo. (Licet pri-
mogenitus, totiusque creaturae m{e}diator sit ipsissima Justicia nedum Justus, tamen in nulla
{muliere} [completion according to context] magis nomen Justi meruit tam in se quam in
membris, quam qu{um} in carnis cisterna positus <ne> illius polluerentur genitalia, extra ca{r}
nem vixit, et quum venisset ad tentandum eum princeps mundi {..}ius, in eo tamen non habet
quicquam. Sic nunc eximetur in matr{e} mundi, In qua ipse per membrum generationis suae
coronabit pa{ctum} sanctum aeternum omnibus Noachitis concessum.)

90
 J. Weiss

descend into the inferior and carnal position he terms as the “well of flesh”. Still,
in order to keep his genitals safe and pure, those organs which seem to be
the most vulnerable and holy part of his body, he kept them “outside of flesh”.
However, Postel states that at present he is ready to expose his sexual organs
without risking contamination, since now he can instead crown his own phallus,
probably identified with Christ’s phallic aspect (namely, the Holy Covenant)
within his mother Johanna. By so doing, Postel also allows the sons of Noah,
namely the gentiles, to partake in the commandment of circumcision from which
they were exempt.

7.  Conclusion

To conclude, although Postel is the first comprehensive translator of the Zohar

into Latin and an original thinker propagating the idea of female universal
redemption through the universal coupling of divine male and female, we have
seen that in general he tended to tone down the strong erotic dimension of the
Zohar’s descriptions of the Godhead. When commenting on Zohar passages, he
often accentuated the results of divine copulation, namely the establishment of
a “Home” and the birth of the “Sons” who inhabit it. In addition, when com-
menting on overtly sexual passages, he time and again retreated to philosophical
jargon which allowed him to minimize the sexual and corporeal aspects of the
description. Finally, with regard to the term “matrimony”, which is not central
in his writing, he strongly related it to the final stage of the coupling, in which
the “Mater” is in the “Home” with the Sons. From yet another angle, we observed
that he was generally reluctant toward actual female sexuality, ironically, in that
he differs from his Kabbalistic source, the Zohar, a Kabbalistic corpus which lays
much emphasis on the sexual aspect in the divine and mundane worlds alike.
While similarly to the Zohar he described divine participation in the corporeal
coupling (specifically that of Adam and Eve) as imperative, he nevertheless
described this participation as a way of legitimatizing the intercourse, and not as
a means for arousing divine sexuality, as is very common in the Zohar. From
a different angle, we looked into Postel’s idea of the coupling between Christ
and Johanna, noting that in this semi-divine intercourse, he described Christ as
no less corporeal than Johanna, and hence their union was clearly for him of
a certain bodily nature. Finally, we saw that in what concerns his own sexuality,
as well as Johanna’s, Postel was very fierce in his defense of celibacy and virginity.
Not only did he see complete abstinence as prerequisite for any presence of the
divine, but he also underlined the great eminence of restraint in face of actual
sexual temptation. Interestingly, in his present situation, living under the auspices
of his mother Johanna (albeit deceased), he saw his own phallus as pure and
protected, as it was “crowned” and elevated within the female, Johanna.

91
Marriage, Families & Spirituality 26 (2020)

Summary
Guillaume Postel’s Kabbalistic Notions of Marriage, Sex, and Family
THe Zohar, a fundamental work in Jewish mystical thought, depicts a creation that
emerges from the relations – described using explicitly sexual terms – between male and
female attributes (Sefirot) of the Godhead. It emphasizes the erotic, carnal aspect of the
metaphor, framing legitimate human intercourse as an incentive for divine intercourse.
Although not overly representative of “Christian Kabbalists” of the early modern period,
the French linguist Guillaume Postel’s (1510–1581) work is of interest for his engagement
with issues associated with gender relations within the body of partly personified divine
aspects of Jewish mysticism. Here, Weiss explores how Postel, in the first comprehensive
Latin translation of and commentary upon the Zohar, takes the basic quadruple Sefirotic
structure – a divine male and female couple (Hokhma and Bina) and a mundane male
and female couple (Tiferet and Malkhut) – and reinterprets it with a creative progression
that flows from God (higher male) to Christ (lower male) to motherhood in general
and his spiritual mother – the Venetian nun Johanna – in particular (higher female) to
creation in general and himself in particular (lower female). He sanitizes the Kabbalistic
presentation, expressing his negative view of female sexuality in terms of an espousal
of virginity, celibacy, and chastity, the renunciation of physical gratification as a means
to attaining spiritual pleasure. THe mundane coupling of male and female becomes
something to be foregone in favor of the divine coupling of those attributes, legitimized
by matrimonial union, which generate creation and will redeem fallen nature. Weiss
also highlights an interesting interpretation of Adam’s sin as having conjugated with
Eve, Christ’s wife up until that moment, in the absence of her husband. Since that union
was one of selfish lust, excluding the higher, divine element, their offspring were mortal.
THis suggests that, had Christ, Eve’s first husband, taken part in the union, they would
have produced “spiritual children”, probably immortal ones with a Home (Domus
[­Universi]) for them to inhabit. THe only legitimate manner of sexual coupling therefore
is to include the divine element in the process. Bodily copulation can be repaired and
renewed if it is reconnected to its spiritual root, divine coupling.

Judith Weiss is a senior lecturer at the Goldstein-Goren department for Jewish

THought in Ben Gurion University of the Negev, where she studies Medieval
­Kabbalah and Renaissance Christian Kabbalah. She has published three books on
Guillaume Postel (in Hebrew) as well as several articles, among them: “Structure
Amid the Chaos: Guillaume Postel’s THought” (Journal of Religion, 2019) and “Covert
Jewish Sources of Christian Kabbalah: THe Case of Guillaume Postel and ῾Iyyun
Traditions’” (Medieval Encounters, 2020).

92