Ezra Brand

Professor Jonathan Dauber

Fall 2015: Topics in 13th-Century Kabbalah (JPH 6745)

May 6, 2015

The Yeriah Gedolah: An Allusive Rendering of the Sefirot

HeYeriah HaGedolah (from here on: YG) is a fascinating, but

extremely difficult to understand, explanation of the theory of

the Sefirot. It was written in early- to mid-fourteenth-century

Italy and provides an insight into the first flourishing of

Italian Kabbalah.

The existence of YG was first pointed out by Scholem in his

famous Kiryat Sefer article indexing all the known manuscripts of

commentaries on the Ten Sefirot known to him.1 The alternate name

of the work in manuscripts is Iggeret Sippurim – “The Letter of

Stories” or “The Letter of Tales,”2 Scholem in another place in 1 Kiryat Sefer 10 (1934), “Mafteah Lepeirushim al Eser Sefirot,” pg. 504, no. 52.2 Scholem in his Kiryat Sefer article mistakenly transcribes the name of the work as “Iggeret Purim” instead of “Iggeret Sippurim.” It continues to be titled this way inthe Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Mansuscripts online catalogue, as pointed out by Giulio Busi in his Introduction to the printed version of YG (in Busi, S. M. Bondoni, and S. Campanini (eds.), The Great Parchment: Flavius Mithradites’ Latin Translation, the Hebrew Text, and an English Version (Torino: N. Aragno editore), pg. 22,

BRAND 1

that article points out the existence of a commentary on YG, that

of R’ Reuven Tzarfati.3

Efraim Gottlieb raises the possibility that Tzarfati himself

wrote YG.4 Giulio Busi reacts to this by saying: “The commentary

[of Tzarfati on YG] has a distinctive philosophic flavor and

adheres to the work it elucidates in such a perfect way that it

has been suggested that Sarfatti [sic] was the author of the Great

Parchment as well. However, there is some evidence that allows us

to rule out this hypothesis and point instead to a circle of

Jewish mystics who shared a common vision.”5 Busi’s evidence is

that in one place Tzarfati writes in his commentary that “maybe

the author meant through reincarnation, but I did not receive.”

footnote 5). Scholem continued to make this error as late as 1974. See Scholem, Kabbalah (Jerusalem: Keter, 1974), pg. 63. There he describes “Iggeret Purim” (!) as “an unusual symbolic interpretation of the theory of the Sefirot.” Efraim Gottlieb, Studies in the Kabbala Literature (Hebrew), ed. J. Hacker (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1976), pg. 365, is the first to correctly call it “Iggeret Sippurim.”3 Kiryat Sefer, ibid., no. 28. Busi writes on pg. 29, footnote 19, that Tzarfati's commentary has been transcribed at the institute with which he is affiliated. I contacted Busi a number of times requesting that he send me this transcription to be used for research purposes, with no response. JTS has a manuscript of Tzarfati’s commentary, and I perused the first few pages of it. On pg. 26, footnote 17, Busi incorrectly states that “[t]he authorship of the commentary [to YG] has been established by E. Gottlieb […].” In fact, that Tzarfati wrote the commentary is clear in the manuscripts, and was already stated by Scholem in his Kiryat Sefer article. Gottlieb uses this fact, among other things, to prove Tzarfati’s authorship of a different commentary (the well-know “Paz” commentary on Ma’arekhet Elohut).4 Gottlieb, pg. 365, footnote 33. 5 Busi, pg. 26-27.

BRAND 2

Busi earlier shows that it appears that the author of YG “was

familiar with Recanati’s writings or even belonged to his

circle.”6

A number of points should be made. Gottlieb did not explain

why he raised the possibility that Tzarfati himself wrote YG. I do

not understand what Busi means when he says that Tzarfati’s

commentary having “a distinct philosophic flavor” is a reason to

believe that he himself wrote YG. There is nothing philosophical

about YG.7 I believe that it is more likely that Gottlieb meant

that because YG is so difficult to interpret,8 it is likely that

it was never meant to be studied alone, but only together with

Tzarfati’s commentary. As for the proof from Tzarfati stating

that he is unsure about how to interpret a passage, it can be

said that since he said it only once, it is very possible that

this is part of the literary fiction performed by Tzarfati.

6 Busi, pg. 25. 7 As for Busi’s second statement - that Tzarfati’s commentary adheres to YG “ina perfect way” – I cannot judge this until I read Tzarfati’s entire commentary.8 Gottlieb himself briefly describes YG as “a work consisting of obscure treatises” (“םםםםם םם םםםםםם םםםםםםםם”). Gottlieb, pg. 365.

BRAND 3

1. Reuven Tzarfati

Reuven Tzarfati is an important Kabbalist who lived in

fourteenth century Italy.9 According to Scholem, Tzarfati was

“[t]he outstanding Italian kabbalist of the 14th century.”10 He is

“rather neglected.”11 Gottlieb, in the article mentioned above,

uncovers a number of works by Tzarfati. Scholem in the

abovementioned article already points out that Tzarfati wrote

commentaries on YG and Yeriah Ketana. Gottlieb shows that, in

addition, Tzarfati wrote the commentary “Paz” on Ma’arechet

Ha’elohut; a small work called Ilot Ha’ilot; and a small work belonging

to the genre of “Commentary on Ten Sefirot.” His methodology is a

combination of Kabbalah together with some philosophy and

tzeirufim,12 in this he is an intellectual student of Abulafia.13

9 It should be pointed out that Busi consistently and incorrectly transcribes Tzarfati’s name as if it is spelled “םםםםם”. It is in fact spelled “םםםםם”. OnReuven Tzarfati see also A. Elkayam, Issues in the Commentary of R. Reuben Zarfati on the Book Ma’arekhet ha-Elohut (Hebrew), MA Thesis, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1987; C. Mopsik, Les grande texts de la cabale. Les rites qui font Dieu, Lagrasse 1993, pg. 287-289; M. Idel, Kabbalah in Italy: 1280-1510 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011), pg. 148-150. The first two items are cited by Busi, pg. 26, footnote 17. I attempted to obtain a copy of Elkayam’s work, but was unable. 10 Scholem, Kabbalah, pg. 63.11 So writes Idel, Kabbalah in Italy, pg. 148. Idel there describes Tzarfati as “[o]ne of the most important among the minor Kabbalists between the period of Menahem Recanati, in the early fourteenth century, and Yohanan Alemanno, at the end of the fifteenth.”12 Gottlieb, ibid. 13 Idel, ibid. Gottlieb and Idel says this in regards to Tzarfati’s commentary“Paz.” I do not know if this describes the commentary on YG well.

BRAND 4

See below for my discussion of Tzarfati’s commentary on YG.

2. Layout of YG , and Busi’s edition

YG is also called in manuscripts “Iggeret Sippurim” – “The

Letter of Stories” or “The Letter of Tales,” as mentioned above.

These pieces are therefore titled “Tales” by Busi in his

introduction, and I have done so as well. However, they are not

“tales” in the conventional sense, but free-flowing extended

monologues.14 Each has a very loose theme. They begin with one

subject, but then by association segue into other topics.

Sometimes a topic will be mentioned in a few words, and sometimes

it will be explored and propounded upon for a relatively great

length. The topics that are explored at length are generally

pericopes in the Bible (see below).

The work is fairly short. In Busi’s edition it takes up 73

pages (pg. 119-191). This is even shorter than it sounds because

it is large print and only around ten lines a page. Busi’s

edition also contains Mithridates’ Latin translation, and Busi’s

14 Gottlieb points out that Tzarfati uses the term “sippur” to mean “treatise”,Gottlieb, pg. 368. This may explain well the title of Iggeret Sippurim .(”םםםם“)which according to Gottlieb was possibly written by Tzarfati.

BRAND 5

translation into English of Mithradates’ translation. Busi’s

edition of the original Hebrew is also accompanied by a critical

apparatus of a few selected manuscripts.

3. Biblical texts analyzed and form of quotation of Biblical

texts

The topics that are explored at relative length are

generally pericopes in the Bible, all in the Pentateuch besides

for the extended commentary/discussion on Ruth and Boaz (Ruth

chapter 3; pg. 160-163). By “relative length” I mean anywhere

from a few lines to a few pages. The types of pericopes in the

Bible discussed at length are narratives on the one hand – mostly

from Genesis – and law on the other.

Examples of narratives analyzed are the description of Eden,

the creation of Adam and Eve, and the sin of eating from the Tree

of Knowledge (Genesis 2:9-3:9; pg. 119-121); Bila’am hitting his

donkey (Numbers 22:25-31, ibid. 25:1-12; pg. 122-123); the very

long discussion of the Flood narrative taking up essentially the

entire Second Tale (Genesis 6:1-3, ibid. 7:6-8:21; pg. 125-131);

and the birth and expulsion of Ishmael (Genesis 16:12-15, ibid.

BRAND 6

21:10-19; pg. 136-137). Examples of law pericopes analyzed: Parah

Aduma (Numbers 19:2-18; almost the entire Tale Fifteen, pg. 182-

187)15; and Sotah (Numbers 5:17-31; almost the entire Tale

Fourteen, pg. 177-181).16 But not all extended discussions are

based on Biblical pericopes; for example, circumcision is

discussed at relative length on pg. 132-134.

The analysis of the pericopes often follow the order of the

verses very carefully, often incorporating the words of the

original in the analysis. For one to truly grasp the intention of

YG, one must carefully compare the text of the Biblical text with

the explication of YG. Often YG adds just a single word to the

Biblical text that makes a big difference.

For example, when analyzing the Flood story, YG consistently

adds either “sweet” or “bitter” to the word “water” when the word

“water” is quoted. See pg. 128 (1x); and 129 (4x). In all but one

of these cases the additional word is in the midst of direct

15 Presumably the connection between Parah Adumah and Tale Fifteen is that Parah Adumah is brought by the Kohen. On pg. 182 it is specified that somehow the Parah Adumah shows that the Kohen is holy (“ םםםם םםםם םםם םםםםםם םםםםםםםםם םם"ם םםםם םם םםםם םםם' (םםםם ם:ם) םםםם םםםם םםם םםם םםםםם םםםםםם םם םםם .It is unclear to me how this is showed in the continuation .”[...] םם16 The connection between Sotah and Tale Fourteen, which begins with the Urim Vetumim, is made clear on pg. 179, where a connection is made between Sotah and Urim Vetumim.

BRAND 7

quotes from the Bible. The one exception is the first mention of

water on pg. 129: “ It is clear 17.” םם םםםםםםםםםםם םם םםםם םםםם

that this is a paraphrase of the Biblical phrase mentioned three

times in the context of Moses praying in front of God: Exodus

םםם “) Deuteronomy 9:9, ibid:18 ;(”םםם םם םםם םםםם םם םםם“) 34:28

18.(”םם םםםםם םםםם םם םםםםם

Sometimes YG simply switches the order of words in the

Biblical verse, in order to stress the words at the beginning of

the quote. For example, on pg. 156: “ םםם םם םםם םם םםםםםםם [םםם

is stressed, and it ”םםםםם“ Right before the word .”םם] םםםם םםםם

is clear that the word “םםם םם” is meant to be stressed here as

well.19

YG often quotes verses with skipped words in between. In

some of these cases, the editors add the skipped words in

brackets.20 There are many examples of this. One representative 17 In all cases of my quoting YG, I quote exactly as it appears in Busi’s edition (including italics), except for the following sigla: “<>”; in addition, brackets and underlines are my additions. My brackets are based on manuscript variants quoted in the footnotes of Busi’s edition, and my underlines serve to indicate a point I mean to stress. 18 See also pg. 178 for the contrasting of “bitter” and “sweet” water. In thiscase, the water of the Sotah is explicitly called “bitter” in the Bible. Cf. pg. 189 (“םםםם םם םםםם םםם םםם םםםםם”). 19 The addition by the editors of “םםם םם” in brackets makes no sense here, as it ends up being repetitive.20 Brackets are not mentioned in the list of sigla on pg. 117.

BRAND 8

example is on pg. 166: “ ['םםם ם] םם"ם םם םםםם [םםםם] םםםם

Sometimes the editors even add letters in brackets in .”...םםם

cases of paraphrasing (e.g., pg. 167 - “[ם]םםם”).

YG generally does not introduce quotes from the Bible with

any formulaic phrase. But when he does, it is with the phrase “

”םם"ם“ However, I found one place where .םם"ם” (=”םםם םםם םםםםם”)

does not introduce a quote from the Bible, but a quote from an

earlier medieval source: On pg. 133 he writes: “ םם"ם םםםם םםםםם

This does not appear in the Bible, but is a quote .”[ם]םםםם םםםםם

from the Sefer Hahinukh, end of #419.

In light of YG’s constant quotation of Biblical verses, the

editorial decision to put all words from the Biblical text in

italics is extremely helpful. However, the editor was not careful

to italicize all words from the Bible. In addition, the words

that are paraphrased are not highlighted in any way.

Unfortunately, Busi’s edition does not contain any index at

all, not even of Biblical verses quoted.

4. Understanding YG ; Obscure Style of YG

BRAND 9

The text of YG is highly allusive and obscure. Busi writes:

“There is no doubt, however, that the Great Parchment is one of the

most obscure texts of the whole kabbalah.”21 It is likely that YG

is intentionally obscure, and one gets the sense that not all of

it is meant to be understood. Possibly the obscure style is meant

to convey a sense of mysteriousness (similar to the dense and

allusive “Sifra Detzniuta” section of the Zohar). In addition,

the difficulty to understand would keep away those who were not

qualified, and would possibly require a teacher to understand the

meaning. If Tzarfati himself is the author of YG, then it is very

likely that YG was never meant to be understood on its own, as

mentioned above.

It is interesting that YG does not constantly stress the

mysteriousness and difficulty of reaching a true understanding of

Kabbalistic secrets, as many Kabbalistic works do. But there are

a few statements saying that not everything is being stated

explicitly. After a discussion of the setup of the sefirot, he

quotes the verse in Proverbs often quoted in these contexts

(Proverbs 9:9): “Give to a wise man and he will become more

21 Pg. 29.

BRAND 10

wise.”22 At the end of Tale Seven, the Biblical story of Moses

hitting the rock is discussed at relative length (pg. 146-148).

YG says that Moses’s sin was hitting the rock with his staff

instead of speaking to the rock;23 because he hit the rock with

his staff people could have mistakenly believed that the staff

was magical. YG the ends the tale with the following (pg. 148): “

םםםםם םםםם םםםםם םםםםם םםםם םםם םםם םםםם םםםם םםםםםם םםםםם

This line is even more enigmatic .”םםםםםםם םםם םםםםםםםם םםםםםם

than usual, and YG specifically says that it is so on purpose.24

At the very end of Tale Fifteen, which is almost exclusively

devoted to the topic of Parah Adumah (as mentioned above), YG

quotes the verse in Ezekiel 28:3 (pg. 188): “ םםםם םםם םםם םםםםםם

This line has no connection to the context. It .”םם םםםם םם םםםםם

is simply saying that what he is writing is unclear, but a wise

person will understand.25

22 Pg. 145. According to the Parma manuscript and the manuscript used by Mithridates, this is the end of the Seventh Tale. See ibid., footnote 361, andeditor’s introduction, pg. 44. 23 This is the way Rashi there explains Moses’s sin, see Rashi on Numbers 20:20. Ramban brings other interpretations, as do others, see the long Ramban on Numbers 2:1. 24 Earlier on pg. 146, the Torah is described as “םםם םםםם”. In general, “ םםם is often an allusion to the Christian cross. This connection is even ”םםםםmore likely since we are discussing Korah, but it is very difficult to know for sure without some kind of parallel elsewhere.25 The quote on pg. 142 of the verse in Proverbs 25:2 – “םםםם םםםםם םםםם םםם” – is not directed at the reader (as it is often used in esoteric texts), but

BRAND 11

Busi writes that Tzarfati’s commentary is “the only starting

point we possess” in understanding YG (pg. 30). Busi’s overview

is therefore based on Tzarfati’s commentary. However, Busi’s

overview only scratches the surface of each Tale. Only a very

small part of each theme is summarized.

Tzarfati’s commentary of YG goes line-by-line, and attempts

to elucidate the Sefirotic symbolism in each line. However, the

commentary almost never gives YG’s sources in Chazal, of which

there are many.26 While much if not most of YG is meant to be

understood sefirotically, it is clear that at least on a simple

level much of it can be understood without recourse to sefirotic

symbolism. The same is true regarding the Zohar, that the Zohar

often makes midrash-type statements that can be understood on a

simple level, even if there may some kind of sefirotic symbolism

also intended to be conveyed at a deeper level.

As mentioned above, many allusions are made to sources in

Chazal. Explicit reference to Chazal is made in a very few cases,

by saying “as they said, may their memories be blessed” [pg. 177:is to be understood in the context there, in the discussion of Jacob not revealing the date of the End of Days. 26 In perusing Tzarfati’s commentary, I noticed an interesting thing: Tzarfati calls the Sefirot of Chessed and Din by their first two letters: “.(”םםם“) for Din ”ם"ם“ and (םםם) for Chessed ”ם"ם

BRAND 12

In general, it is simple .([”םם"ם םםםם“ :pg. 178 ;”םםם םםםםם ם"ם“

to find a source in Chazal, but in some cases where “Chazal” is

quoted in this text, I could not. For example, see pg. 178 “ םם"ם

.”םםםם םםםם םםםם םם םםםם םםםם םםםםם םם םםםםםםם םםםםםם םם םםםםםםם

This line appears nowhere in Chazal in regards to Torah. However,

it does appear in regards to eating with a friend (Midrash Agadah

[Buber], Shemot, Parashat Shemot, 2:20): “ םם' םםםםם םםםם םםםםם

Another quote from .”םםםםם םםםםםם םם םםםםםםם, םםםםםם םם םםםםםםם

Chazal that I could not find the source for is on pg. 180: “ םם

.”םםםםם ם"ם םםםם םם םםםםם םםם םםםםם

Very few of the allusions, or even of direct citations, to

sources in Chazal are pointed out by the editors. However, there

are a few times where the editor does cite the source. I have

counted nine places that the editors cite Chazal. In a few of

those places, there are clear errors. For example, on pg. 153

there is a citation of “םםםםם םםם םם ם” for no reason that I can

fathom. On pg. 181 “םםםם םםםםםם םם.ם” (!) is cited. It should say

should be ”ם' םםםםם םםםם םםםםם םם.ם“ ,On pg. 189 .”םםםם םם ם"ם“

immediately after the words “םםםם םםםםםם םםםם” (and the word “

BRAND 13

,that appears a few words later should probably be omitted ”'םםם

as in the Munich manuscript cited in footnote 189).

One of the things that makes YG so difficult to study and

understand is its propensity throughout to jump from one topic to

another for no apparent reason. Because of this, YG has a very

disjointed feel. It is rare for a single topic to be discussed at

great length. The few times it is, a single biblical pericope is

usually being discussed, as mentioned previously. Often an idea

will be alluded to in a line, when suddenly a completely

different topic will be introduced. Each individual line may be

understandable, but understanding the flow of ideas is

difficult.27 For a representative example, in middle of the

Seventh Tale, a discussion of the Even Shetiya (םםם םםםםם)

abruptly begins (pg. 145),28 then suddenly the Korah incident is

briefly discussed (pg. 146), then suddenly – again for no

apparent reason – the story of Moses hitting the rock is

discussed at length (pg. 146-148).

27 I have not studied Tzarfati’s commentary well enough to notice whether he explains the flow of ideas, and if so, if his explanations are convincing.28 Because it begins so abruptly, the Parma manuscript and the manuscript usedby Mithridates begin a new Tale here. See above, footnote 22. Both of these manuscripts take a heavy editorial hand in the ordering of the Tales in order to “improve” the order, see Busi, pg. 111-113.

BRAND 14

5. Love of Language in YG

Examples can be found almost on every page of YG where usage

is made of linguistic association. In some cases, YG quotes a

verse seemingly for no reason other than a linguistic

association. Some examples: Pg. 141 (“ םםםםםםם םםם םםם םםםםםם םםם

(םםםם ם:ןןןןןןן ןןןן ןןןןן םםםם םםםם םםם 30 םם"ם םםםם םם'.29םםםםם

ןןןןן(םםםםם םם: םם) םםם םםםםם םםםםם םם"ם ןןןן ןןןן ןןןןן ןןןןם).

(םםם םםםםםם ם: םם). םםם םם םםםםם םםם םם ןןןןן ןןןן ןןןן ןןןןןן

םםםםם םם:ם) ןןןןן )ןןןןןןן ןןן ןן ןןן םם"ם 31םםם. ”); and pg. 172 (“

(םםםם םם: ןןןןןןןןןןןןןן ןןןןןןן ןןן' ןןןןן םםםםם םםםםםםם םםםם םם

Of course, in all these .(” (םםםםם םם:םם) ןן ןןןןןןןןןןןן ם)

cases a connection may be found under force,32 but the impression

that one gets is that the author of YG simply thought in terms of

Biblical associations.

Why is linguistic association so important? Italian Kabbalah

was strongly influenced by the Kabbalistic system of Abraham 29 This is a reference to the story in Bavli Shabbat 49a.30 This is a quote from Exodus 28:36 in regards to the tzitz. This verse is quote earlier in the Tale (pg. 140), and is applied here to tefillin, as is clear from the flow of the Tale.31 This is a medieval idea, and is found in other Hebrew sources as well. See,for example, Meiri to Hullin 43a s.v. “Benei”: “םםם םםםם םםם םםם םםם”. 32 It should be examined if Tzarfati in his commentary does so.

BRAND 15

Abulafia, as Idel points out.33 Abulafia famously focuses on

words and word permutations. However, it should be pointed out

that YG is not especially replete with word permutations. Only

one place in YG comes to mind: The permutation of Ishmael’s

description in Genesis 16:12 as a “ .(pg. 136) ”םםם“ into ” םםםםםם

There may be few word permutations, but there are a number

of acronyms in YG. The verse in Deuteronomy 30:12: “ םם םםםם םםם

is explained to refer to circumcision because it has the ”םםםםםם

acronym “םםםם” (pg. 134); in this case, it is clear that YG’s

intention in quoting this verse is for this acronym because an

apostrophe is put after each first letter of the cited verse.

A fascinating case of interpretation of a verse based on an

acronym is on pg. 122. Here the interpretation is the opposite:

reading a Biblical word as an acronym (as opposed to taking a

Biblical phrase and creating an acronym from the initial

letters). In YG we find the following in the context of a brief

discussion of the sin of the Golden Calf (pg. 122):

33 Throughout his book Kabbalah in Italy. For Tzarfati specifically – the possible author of YG – see there pg. 148-150.

BRAND 16

"םםםם םםםם םםםם םם םם םםםם םםםםם [...] םםםםם םםםםם םםם

'םם םםם םםם' (םםםם םם:ם) םםםםםם םם34םםם םםםםם םםם.

םםםםם. 'םם םם םםם םםםם' םםםםם םם םםםםם."

Mithridates translates: “They entered into the golden calf

with the help of Joseph the just […] Joseph the just was an ox

and was turned into a calf, because Moses is delayed. Moses is

Michael is ,םםםםם םם םםםםם in Hebrew: his letters show that םםם

the highest arch-angel”.35 Mithridates understands that the

author’s intention is that “םםם” is an acronym for “ םםםםם םם

It is interesting that here there are no apostrophes) .”םםםםם

after the first letters of “םםםםם םם םםםםם”.) Mithridates does

not translate the words “36.”םםםםםם םם םםםםם But in any case it

is clear that here, too, as YG explains, “םםם” in the verse is an

acronym for “םםםםםם םם םםםםם” (and here, too, there are no

apostrophes).

34 See Mithridates’ translation. This is likely a reference to the idea in theMidrash that the coffin of Joseph was used to create the Golden Calf. See Louis Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1954), vol. 3, pg. 123, with endnote 266 there (vol. 6, pg. 51); aswell as note 126 on vol. 4, pg. 49-50. In the latter place, Ginzberg quotes medieval references to this story. 35 Pg. 197.36 It is possible that he did not have these words in the manuscript in front of him. However, there is no mention in the footnotes of any manuscripts not containing these words.

BRAND 17

Yet another fascinating case is in the beginning of the

Thirteenth Tale, in which the Temple and prayer are discussed

(pg. 174):

"םםםםם םםםםםםם םםםםם םםםםם םםם םם םםםםם םםםם םםםםםם םםם

םםם37םםםםםםםם םםםם "םםם םםםם םםםםםם" (םםםםם ם:םם). <םםם>

םםםם םםםםם םםםם םםםםם ם'םםםם ם'םםם ם'םםםם. ם'ם ם'םםםםם

ם'םםם."

This entire statement is very strange, for a number of

reasons. But I find the last three words most fascinating. First

of all, why is it that saying the word “Yerushalayim” with proper

intention (“kavanah”) is so important? If the word “Yerushalayim”

is not a mistake, it is likely that he is referring either to the

section of “Yerushalyim” in the Amidah, or to the section of

“Boneh Yerushalayim” in Birkhat Hamazon. I found something

similar to the latter possibility in Recanati, where he quotes

the Bavli Berakhot 48b as follows: “ םםם םם םםםם םם"ם [םםםםם םם

37 This is how it appears in the printed edition. According the explanation ofsigla on pg. 117, these sigla signify “a text corrected on the basis of the manuscript tradition.” The footnote on pg. 174 (footnote 306) does not clarifywhich manuscript this is based in this case.

BRAND 18

םםםםםם םםם םםם םםםםם םםםםםםם ם"ם] םם םםם םםם םםם םםםם םםםם םםםםם

38.” םם םםם םםם םםםםםםםםםםם

But I think that it is more likely that “Yerushalayim” in

YG is a mistake, and it should say “Shema” instead. With this the

continuation makes sense: “ for the ,”' 'םםם םםםם םםםםםםםםםם

following reason: It is clear that the last two phrases in the

above quote – “ם'םםםם ם'םםם ם'םםםם. ם'ם ם'םםםםם ם'םםם” - are

meant to be the filling out of the acronym “םםם”. This is why

there are apostrophes after each first letter (as was the case on

pg. 134, as mentioned above). It appears clear that the two

phrases “םםם םםםם םםםםםםם” and “םםם םםם םםםם” which appear one

right after the other in the above quote, are meant to be the

filling out of the acronym “םםם”, even though there are no

apostrophes. In any case, YG at the end of the above quote says

something quite shocking: one of the things that “םםם” stands for

is "Please answer me Metatron"!39

38 Parashat Eikev 8:10, end, s.v. “Veheneh”. In our versions of the Bavli theword “םםםםםם” does not appear.39 For a discussion of prayer to Metatron, see the appendix to Idel, Ben (London: Continuum; Jerusalem: Shalom Hartman Institute, 2007), pg. 645-670. This instance and the previous instance are the only explicit mentions of Metatron. However, throughout the work, reference is made to an “angel of God” It is likely that this is a reference .(for example on pg. 183 – ”םםםם םםם“)to Metatron, or possibly Michael. See also pg. 122 (bottom) – 123: “םםםם םםםםם

and 'םם From .” (םםםםם םם:ם)ןן' ןןן ןןןן ןןןןן ןןןן ןן ן' ןןןןןןםםםםם םםם םםםםםםם

BRAND 19

Related to this phenomenon is YG’s interesting explanations

based on linguistic associations. He explains (pg. 177) the line

in the Mishnah Sotah (9:12) of “םםםםם םםםםםם םםםם םםםםם םםםםםם”

(“when the Prophets40 died, the Urim Ve’tumim ended”), as that

the “םםם םםםםםםם” (“the light of innocence” or “perfection”)

ended. The association is made between the word “םםםםם” and “

”He proves that “the light of innocence/perfection ended .”םםםםםם

by quoting a Mishnah at the end of the chapter (9:15)41 that “םםם

When Rabbi died, humility“) ”ם םםםםם םםםםם םםםם םםםם םםםםם םםם

and fear of sin ended”).42

on is a quote from Numbers 25:4, as signified by the italics in the printed YG(Full verse: “ םםםםם ם' םם םםם םם םם םם םםםם םםם םםםםם םםםם םם' םםם םםםם םםםם is based on the verse in Samuel 2 ”םםםםםםם“ The word .(”םםםם םם ם' םםםםםם21:6, see Rashi on Numbers ibid. The phrase “םםםם םםםםם םםםםם םםם” is a literary phrase which appears a number of times in Zechariah (1:10, 13, 14, and more – “םםםםם םםם םםםםם םםםם םם”). In Numbers ibid. it says that God told the Israelites to hang them. It appears that YG is conveying that in this casein fact it is not God who commanded, but rather an angel, likely Metatron or Michael. See the continuation on pg. 123: “ םםם םםםם םם םםםםם םםםם םםם. םםםםםם

ןןן ןןןןן ןןן (םםםםם םם:םם) םםםם םםםם ןןן ןן ןןןן]ן[ ןןןןםם םםםם םםםם. םםם םם That Phineas is Elijah is in Pirkei D’Rabbi) .”[...] (םםםם םם:םם)ןןןןן

Eliezer 47. See also my further discussion of this passage below.) It is unclear what the message of the passage is, and if “Hanokh” is a continuation of the previous statement, or is a new statement. In any case, it appears that“Hanokh” symbolizes Metatron (as it does in many places in Kabbalistic writings, based on earlier Midrash), and the verse in Exodus 32:34 is meant toshow that Metatron the angel is leading the Israelites (this verse in Exodus is often used to show that, cf. Rashi ad. loc.). 40 In our versions of the Mishnah, specifically the “first Prophets” are mentioned. This may be another case of paraphrase.41 Only here is the citation given by the editor.42 It is unclear to me what the proof is.

BRAND 20

6. Themes and Symbols in YG

Evil is a major focus of YG, as it is of many late

thirteenth century works, most famously the Zohar. A number of

terms are used to symbolize the power of Evil.

According to – (pg. 132; 142; 149; 169; 170) ”םםםם םםםםםם“

Leviticus 16, a part of the Yom Kippur ritual is that two goats

are stood up, and by lottery one is chosen “for God,” and one

“for Azazel.” The one “for Azazel” is sent to the desert. This

“sent goat” (“םםםם םםםםםם”, as it is termed in Chazal) is

understood in Kabbalah to be sent to appease the power of Evil,

and therefore becomes itself a symbol of Evil. The fact that this

word (“םםםם”) is another name for Esau further strengthens this

association.

This is clearly a reference to the Golden – (pg. 123) ”םםם“

Calf. See also pg. 121-122 where the sin of Golden Calf is

briefly discussed.

Woman or female is also a common symbol for Evil. On pg.

174-175 it says that against the good powers there is an evil

woman:

BRAND 21

םםםםם םם םםם םםם םםםם םםםםם םםםם םםםם םםםםם םם םםםם. םםםםם "

".םםם םםםםםם םםםםם

The “man of war” battles her. Here we see that Sha’atnez

(the Biblically forbidden mixture of wool and linen), as well, is

a symbol for evil,43 as is the “donkey.”44 On pg. 183, it is said

that the Ox “rules” in the West (see discussion later), and

Shekhina, which resides in the West, must “remove” the “wife of

the Ox” (“םםםם [םםםם] םםםםם םםם םםםם”).45

Hagar symbolizes evil (pg. 136-137), and “one who

investigates (םםםםםםם)46 should drink from the waters of Rebecca,

and should not drink from the waters of Hagar the Egyptian which

is filled with anger (םםם םםםם םםםם)47.”

43 See also pg. 138 where YG explains that this is Cain’s sacrifice was not accepted, because it was a mixture of wool and linen. This is a common Kabbalistic explanation. (Rashi on Genesis 4:3 simply brings an opinion that Cain brought flax.) See also pg. 176, in the context of a discussion of tzitzit. 44 Cf. pg. 122 for YG’s analysis of the story of Bila’am, where there is an obscure reference to a donkey (“םםםם םם םםםםם םםם םםםםם”). 45 See also pg. 126: “ (םםםםםם ם:ם-ם)ןןןןן ןןןןן ןןן. ןןןןן ןןן ןןןןןן ןן ןןןן ןןןן .”םםם םם םםם םםם םם46 It is possible that YG is playing on the similarity of the word for “the one who investigates” (םםםםםם) and the word for spring (םםםםם), as water is being discussed.47 Previously (pg. 137) there was a play on the word “םםם” – “pitcher [of water]” - which appears in Genesis 21:14 in the context of Hagar and Ishmael’sexpulsion, which sounds similar to “םםם”, meaning “anger”.

BRAND 22

Ham, the son of Noah, is a representative of Evil (pg. 125):

.”םםם םםם םםם“

The word “limping” is a common symbol for weakness from the

power of evil. (It should be pointed out that “םםםם” is often

spelled plene, i.e. “םםםםם”.) “The thigh of Jacob” (םםם םםםם) is

a recurring symbol (e.g., pg. 165).

A number of times the term “םםםםם” (“chain”) is used in the

context of emanation of sefirot. It is unclear to me what it

means. In the Zoharic corpus the term does not appear to be

unequivocal. In Zohar 3:10b the term seems to symbolize the

three-fold (hence the name “םםםםם”, whose root means “three”)

combination of Keter, Hokhma, and Bina.48 In a Zoharic passage

which is part of the Tikkunei Zohar, it appears that “Shalshelet”

means Tiferet.49 Here is a list of places that it appears: Pg.

48 See Tishby on that passage (I. Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), vol. 1, pg. 342-343); Matt on that passage (D. Matt (tr.), The Zohar, vol. 7 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2012), pg. 53-54,and footnotes 159-161). 49 Zohar 1:24b. In Ra’aya Mehemna, 2:20a, as well, it appears that “Shalshelet” refers to Tiferet. This is because Tiferet ties together Chesed and Gevurah, thus creating a “three-fold chain.” However, see the commentary Matok Mid’vash there on Zohar 1:24b (D. Frisch, Matok Mid’vash, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Mechon Da’at Yosef, 1993), pg. 279), where “Shalshelet” is explained to mean the musical note, as it often means in Rabbinic texts. For the fact that this passage is in fact part of Tikkunei Zohar, see Matt there (Matt, The Zohar, vol.1 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004), pg. 170, footnote 499, based onScholem, Kabbalah, pg. 218.

BRAND 23

119 (“ (םםםםםם ם:ם) םםםם םםםם םםםםם ןןןןןן ןןןןןםםםם םםםםםם

םםםםםם“) pg. 122 ;(”םם םםםםםם םםםם םםםםם םםםםם“) pg. 121 ;(”םםםםם

;(”םםםםםם םםםםם םם םםםם םםם םםםםםם םםםם םםםםם“) pg. 123 ;(”םםםםם

pg. 124 (“ םםם “) pg. 136 ;(” (םםםםםם ם:םם) םםם םםםםםםןןן ןןןןןןן

“) pg. 143 ;(”םם םםםםם םםם םםםםם םםםםםם (םםםםם ןןןןן ןןןןן ןןןןן

“) pg. 164 ;(”םם:םם) םםם םםםםם םםםם םםם םםםםם םםםם םםםםםם םםםםםםם

It may be .(”םםםם םםם םםםםםם םם םםםםםם“) pg. 166 ;(”םםם םםםםםם

that “Shalshelet” means the actual chain of emanation.50 The

phrases “םםםםם םםםםם” and “םםםםם םםםםם” are especially

intriguing; I could not find them anywhere else in the

Kabbalistic literature, and I am unsure as to what it means.

7. Theme of Netzach and Hod

YG has a somewhat strange fixation on the Sefirot of Netzach

and Hod. These Sefirot are relatively neglected among Kabbalists.

50 This is the common meaning of the term “Shalshelet” in Kabbalah. See Idel, Enchanted Chains (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2005), especially pg. 44-53; HartleyLachter, Kabbalistic Revolution (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2014), pg.61-63. See also Elliot K. Ginsburg, “The Image of the Divine and Person in Zoharic Kabbalah,” In Search of the Divine (New York: Paragon House Publishers, 1987), pg. 76. The “three-fold thread” on pg. 150 (“ םםם םם םםםם םםםם םםםםםmay also be related to this. However, explaining “Shalshelet” as (”[...] םםםםםmeaning emanation this does not seem to fit the appearance of the term on pg. 143. There it is more likely that it means a specific entiry, such as Ein Sof,Keter, or Tiferet.

BRAND 24

They often seem to be somewhat irrelevant and extraneous when

compared to the great meanings invested in the other sefirot, as

if they are only there to fill out the number of sefirot to ten.

However, in YG Netzach and Hod are mentioned very often, possibly

more often than any other sefirah.51

In YG, mention is often made of the fact that Netzach is

equivalent to the Negative Commandments (םם םםםם), while Hod is

equivalent to the Positive Commandments (םםם). Noah corresponds

to Netzach and to Negative Commandments,52 while Abraham

corresponds to Hod and to Positive Commandments.53 Bila’am also

51 This is especially true when comparing sefirot which are mentioned in YG explicitly. However, I have not made a count of explicit mentions of sefirot. The creation of an index would be very helpful in general for interpretation of YG, and would answer this specific question as well.52 Pg. 154. See also pg. 121 and pg. 123 (Netzach = Noah); pg. 124 (Netzach = Negative Commandments).53 Pg. 156, beginning of Tale Ten. As an aside, there is a fascinating statement made in YG that the Akedah of Isaac was a dream (pg. 138): “םםםם םםם

.”םםםםם םם םםםם םםם םםםםם םםםם םם םםםם םםםם םםםםם םםםם םםםם םםם םםם םםם םםםProfessor Marc Shapiro related to me by email (April 23, 2015) that there wereother medieval scholars who said this, and that he gives the sources in his forthcoming book, Changing the Immutable. One of the censorships Shapiro discusses there deals with this very point. In any case, Shapiro pointed out to me that the line in YG is hard to understand: If YG assumes that the Akedahwas only a dream, then what is the great hesed to offer up Isaac? Dr. Dauber suggested to me that it is possible that this line in YG needs to be read sefirotically: Isaac is a common reference to gevurah while Abraham is a reference to hesed (even though he also functions as hod). The akeida is perhaps being read as an amelioration of gevurah by hesed. However, this does not help with the dream about what is meant when YG states that the akeida wasa dream.

BRAND 25

corresponds to Netzach and to Negative Commandments, and Phineas

battled him by “grasping Hod and stabbing the snake and Eve.”54

8. Theme of the Vessels of the Temple

One of the major themes in YG is the vessels of the Temple.

In fact, the majority of the Tales begin with a symbol related to

the Temple.55 Nine out of the sixteen Tales begin with a symbol

related to the Temple : #3 – Golden Altar; #5 – Incense; #6 –

Tzitz; #11 – Menorah; #12 – Cherubim; #13 – Zion; #14 – Urim

Vetumim; #15 – Kohen; #16 – Show Bread. The key to these symbols

is given only at the beginning of the Eleventh Tale (pg. 163),

with no introduction of any sort:

םםםםם םםםם םםםםםםם. םםםם [ם]םםםם םםםם. םםםםם םםםם. םםםםםם "

םםםםם םםםם םםםםם םםםםם םםםםםם םםם. םםם םםםם םם םםםםםם. םםם םםם.

".םםם םםםםם םםםם. םםםם םםםם םםםםם. םםם םם םם םםםם םם םםם

54 Pg. 122-123. This is yet another instance of the female as epitomizing Evil. In addition, we have the common symbol of Evil, the snake. More examplesof the snake as Evil: Pg. 121; 124. 55 This fact is not mentioned at all by the editor in his general introduction. It is somewhat hinted to in the titles of the Tales in his list of Tales on pg. 114-115.

BRAND 26

Then, YG abruptly begins a long discourse on the Menorah

(which it had begun with), lasting almost to the end of the

Tale.56

These symbols are used as well for their respective sefirot

throughout YG, presumably to refer to their respective sefirot as

delineated in the list.

It would appear that the term “Ben Bag Bag” (at the end of

this list) signifies Ein Sof, as it is “above all of them,”57 and

Menorah clearly symbolizes Keter. “Ben Bag Bag” is the name of a

Tanna, mentioned in the Mishnah in Avot (8:22) among other

places. Some commentaries there say that this is a pseudonym, and

is equivalent to the other similar sounding name mentioned in

Tractate Avot, “Ben He He.” They point out that both names are

56 Pg. 168. However, there is another quick mention of the Menorah at the endof pg. 169. Starting from the end of the Tale there is suddenly a discussion of the symbolism of the four beings depicted on the side of the Chariot according to Ezekiel 1:10. Each being is corresponded to one of the four arch-angels. In addition, in the first three out of the four beings there is an unclear reference to a cardinal direction, as well as a list of attributes. Among the terms in the lists of attributes, a few are standard terms for specific sefirot, while others are not. (It is unclear to me why the additional attributes appear, maybe to confuse?) The following terms appear inthe presentation of YG there: 1) Human = Gavriel = West (“םםם םםם”) = Tiferet,Hokhma, Bina; 2) Ox = Michael = West, North = Shekhina; 3) Eagle = Uriel = South (“םםםם”) = Hod, Yesod; 4) Lion = Refael. However, on pg. 183 it appears that Human is in the East, and Ox is in the West. Further investigation is necessary. 57 That “Ben Bag Bag stands above them” is mentioned also on pg. 145.

BRAND 27

numerically equivalent to ten (Ben Bag Bag because ם + ם + ם + ם

=10 , and Ben He He because the letter “he” plus the letter “he”

equals ten). Presumably, YG therefore uses the name to signify

the entity above all the ten sefirot. I have not found “Ben Bag

Bag” used in any other Kabbalistic work as a symbolic term.

9. Beginning and Ending of Tales

The First Tale and the Second Tale both begin with

introductory verses. This is not continued with the rest of the

Tales. (As mentioned, the majority of Tales begin with a symbol

related to the Temple.) The verses appear to have no relation to

the ensuing content of Tales, and are not translated by

Mithridates (despite the fact that there is no mention of any

manuscripts not containing the passages). They appear to be

general statements of hope and positivity. These introductory

verses are similar in style to those placed at the beginning of

the books of Mishneh Torah by Maimoinides. In fact, the second

verse quoted at the beginning of the First Tale (pg. 119) is from

Psalms 119:80, which says “My heart should be perfect in your

laws, in order that I should not be ashamed”; similarly,

BRAND 28

Maimonides at the beginning of his introduction to Mishneh Torah

quotes the verse in Psalms 119:6: “Then I will not be ashamed

when I gaze upon all your laws.”

In the Second Tale, after the introductory verses, a

programmatic statement is made: “םםםםםם םםםם םםםם םם םםם םםם םםם”

(pg. 125). After the conclusion of the Tale, the statement is

repeated, with the addition of “and here you have[…]”, and a

paraphrase of the ending: “ םםםם םם םםםםם םםםם [ם]םםם[ם] םם םםם

.No other Tale has this programmatic statement .”םםם םםםם

10. Conclusion

YG, from fourteenth century Italy, provides further evidence

of a flourishing Kabbalah in Italy in the fourteenth century. It

is quite a fascinating work, providing a formidable riddle for

the reader. It may be that it was never meant to be grasped on

its own. But it is possible to map out the basic skeleton of the

work, and to identify a number of themes. The majority of “Tales”

begin with items relating to the Temple; each item is clearly

given a sefirotic equivalent. Linguistic associations play a

strong role in the hermeneutic of YG, as well as a close, but

BRAND 29

creative, reading of Biblical verses. YG has a strong focus on

Evil. There still remains much to be investigated, first and

foremost the true relationship between YG and Reuven Tzarfati, as

well as YG’s relationship with other works of its time. In

addition, it remains to be clarified why YG is written in such an

obscure and difficult-to-understand way.

BRAND 30