Divinity Atlas

Sacred Correspondences
Qliphoth

A'arab Zaraq

AH-arab ZAH-rak

Citation Formats

General Reference

APA Style

BibTeX

Origin 1270 to 1300

A'arab Zaraq is the seventh Qlipha, the shadow of Netzach, the sphere of Victory. Its name means 'the Ravens of Dispersion', the scattering into wasted craving of what should have been victory and enduring desire. In the scheme followed here it is ruled by Baal. Spellings and rulers of the shells vary by source. The material is presented academically.

Facts
Origins
Origin Period
1270 to 1300 1Tradition: Zoharic Kabbalah: the qelippot as husks or shells
Origin Period
1550 to 1600 2Tradition: Lurianic Kabbalah: the shattering of the vessels and the origin of the shells
Origin PeriodSourced to the subject's own account
1888 to 1900 3Tradition: Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn: the named qliphothic orders
Origin Period
The concept develops through three historical layers: the Zoharic qelippot of late thirteenth century Castile, Isaac Luria's elaboration of them in sixteenth century Safed, and their organization into this ten named list by Mathers and the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn in London from 1888. 2
Place of Origin
Castile for the Zoharic material 2
Place of Origin
London for this ten-fold list of named shells 2
Place of Origin
Safed, Ottoman Palestine, for the Lurianic doctrine 2
Language
Aramaic 1
Language
Medieval Hebrew 4
Learn More
The Shell and Its Shadow Sephirah

A'arab Zaraq is the seventh Qlipha, the shadow of Netzach, the sphere of Victory. Its name means "the Ravens of Dispersion", the scattering into wasted craving of what should have been victory and enduring desire.

In the scheme followed here it is ruled by Baal, a title rather than a proper name in its Canaanite and Phoenician context, meaning simply "lord" or "master" and applied to the storm and fertility god worshipped across the Levant and repeatedly opposed in the Hebrew Bible, most famously in the contest with Elijah at 1 Kings 18. Because "Baal" was a title used of several distinct local deities in the ancient Near East, the demon of the same name in later grimoire lists, including the Ars Goetia's first-ranked spirit Bael, is better understood as a Kabbalistic and grimoire era abstraction of that older title than as a continuation of any single deity's cult. Spellings and rulers of the shells vary by source; the material is presented academically.

Netzach is attributed to Venus, and A'arab Zaraq's scattering ravens are read as Venus's desire and attraction dispersed into wasted craving, a victory that never resolves into anything held or enjoyed. Ravens themselves recur across many cultures as scavenger birds read as ill-omened, which likely reinforced the image's choice for this particular shell.

Sources Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd editionMichael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik (eds.) with The Book of the Goetia of Solomon the KingSamuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers (trans.); Aleister Crowley (ed. and publisher), The Golden Dawn: The Original Account of the Teachings, Rites, and Ceremonies of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, 6th editionIsrael Regardie

From Lurianic Doctrine to the Modern List

The concept of the qelippot is a genuine part of classical Kabbalah, but the tidy scheme of ten named "shadow sephiroth", each with an assigned ruling demon, is largely a later construction. It was elaborated by Christian Kabbalists, given systematic form in the ceremonial magic of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and developed further in twentieth and twenty-first century "Left-Hand Path" and Thelemic writing. The demons named as rulers, such as Baal for A'arab Zaraq, are drawn from earlier Jewish, Christian and grimoire demonology and mapped onto the scheme after the fact.

Luria's own kelippot, as set out in Hayyim Vital's Etz Chaim, number four rather than ten: three described as "completely impure" and a fourth, kelippat nogah, a translucent or glowing shell understood as a mixture of good and evil rather than pure evil, through which the ordinary permitted things of the world are said to pass. A one-to-one shell for every sephirah, with A'arab Zaraq as Netzach's specific opposite, does not appear in that Lurianic material in this form; it is the later systematizers, working chiefly from S. L. MacGregor Mathers's unpublished paper on the Qlippoth, who built the fully sephirothic ten-fold tree the modern list now presents. The system is presented here as a documented strand of esoteric thought, described in historical terms; the demons are not asserted to be real, and nothing here is offered as instruction or as the teaching of any single religion.

Sources Major Trends in Jewish MysticismGershom Scholem with The Golden Dawn: The Original Account of the Teachings, Rites, and Ceremonies of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, 6th editionIsrael Regardie, Physician of the Soul, Healer of the Cosmos: Isaac Luria and His Kabbalistic FellowshipLawrence Fine

Cross-Tradition Connections

Originates in Language

Aramaic, Languages
Source The ZoharTraditionally attributed to Moses de Leon
Sources
1. The Zohar
Traditionally attributed to Moses de LeonOn the qelippot, the shells of the divineView the Source
2. Physician of the Soul, Healer of the Cosmos: Isaac Luria and His Kabbalistic Fellowship
Lawrence Fine, Stanford University Press, 2003on Luria's cosmogony, the shevirat ha-kelim and the doctrine of the qelippotView the Source
3. The Golden Dawn: The Original Account of the Teachings, Rites, and Ceremonies of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, 6th edition
Israel Regardie, Llewellyn, 1989the tables of the averse sephiroth and their ruling spiritsView the Source
4. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism
Gershom Scholem, Schocken Books, 1961Lurianic doctrine of the breaking of the vesselsView the Source
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share a thought.
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.

View At A Past Year

Choose a year to see this entry's facts and connections as the atlas records them at that moment: what it held then, what it held instead, and what it had not yet adopted. Choose Present for the current record.