While the Talmud speaks of esoteric knowledge, and there are mystical Jewish texts of considerable antiquity, most scholars date the emergence of what is now known as Kabbalah (literally “tradition,” or “thing that is received”) to a group of rabbis in medieval Provence, whose teachings then spread into northeastern Spain. Tamar Marvin considers how to make sense of their teachings:

Kabbalists themselves, including contemporary ones, emphasize the antiquity and continuity of esoteric traditions; they are of necessity (small-c) conservative, in the sense of conserving ancient, even primeval, knowledge. Scholars of Kabbalah, in contrast, tend to stress the novelty of medieval esoteric circles and what they describe as their sometimes-radical creativity. Each of these perspectives comes laden, of course, with its own ideological lens. I would offer that on the one hand, the many streams of antique esoteric Jewish thought nourished medieval Kabbalah deeply, while on the other, medieval thinkers applied their own spiritual needs, curiosities, and intellects to this ancient wellspring of tradition.

As for what changed with these Provençal thinkers, Marvin adds:

Until the 13th century, with a few exceptions, kabbalistic secrets were not written down, but transmitted orally from master to disciple. . . . Two students of [the pioneering kabbalist] Rabbi Isaac the Blind, Rabbi Ezra ben Shlomo (died 1238 or 1245) and his younger contemporary Rabbi Azriel of Girona, were instrumental in formulating kabbalistic thought. Azriel, who was also interested in philosophy, systematized kabbalistic concepts and introduced to them a vocabulary inflected with philosophical terminology. Evidently, Azriel and Ezra—often confused due to the similarity of their names—began disseminating the teachings they had received in writing, prompting a stern missive from Isaac the Blind imploring them to stop.

Information about a supposedly near-finalized hostage deal continued to trickle out yesterday. While it’s entirely possible that by the time you read this a deal will be much more certain, it is every bit as likely that it will have fallen through by then. More likely still, we will learn that there are indefinite and unspecified delays. Then there are the details: even in the best of scenarios, not all the hostages will be returned at once, and Israel will have to make painful concessions in exchange, including the release of hundreds of hardened terrorists and the withdrawal from key parts of the Gaza Strip.

Unusually—if entirely appropriately—the president-elect’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, has participated in the talks alongside members of President Biden’s team. Philip Klein examines the incoming Trump administration’s role in the process:

President-elect Trump has repeatedly warned that there would be “all hell to pay” if hostages were not returned from Gaza by the time he takes office. While he has never laid out exactly what the specific consequences for Hamas would be, there are some ominous signs that Israel is being pressured into paying a tremendous price.

There is obviously more here than we know. It’s possible that with the pressure from the Trump team came reassurances that Israel would have more latitude to reenter Gaza as necessary to go after Hamas than it would have enjoyed under Biden. . . . That said, all appearances are that Israel has been forced into making more concessions because Trump was concerned that he’d be embarrassed if January 20 came around with no hostages released.

While Donald Trump’s threats are a welcome rhetorical shift, part of the problem may be their vagueness. After all, it’s unlikely the U.S. would use military force to unleash hell in Gaza, or could accomplish much in doing so that the IDF can’t. More useful would be direct threats against countries like Qatar and Turkey that host Hamas, and threats to the persons and bank accounts of the Hamas officials living in those counties. Witkoff instead praised the Qatari prime minister for “doing God’s work” in the negotiations.”