P. 1
Hayman, A. Peter. Sefer Yesira .. Edition, Translation and Text-critical Commentary (TSAJ 104), Tübingen 2004.split

Hayman, A. Peter. Sefer Yesira .. Edition, Translation and Text-critical Commentary (TSAJ 104), Tübingen 2004.split

|Views: 169|Likes:
Published by Sergiy Grygoryshyn

More info:

Published by: Sergiy Grygoryshyn on May 04, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/16/2015

pdf

text

original

A.

Peter Hayman

Sefer Yesira
Edition, Translation and Text-Critical Commentary

Mohr Siebeck

A. Peter Hayman, born 1943; studied Theology at the University of Durham; 1968 PhD in Oriental Languages (School of Oriental Studies, University of Durham); Senior Lecturer in Hebrew and Jewish Studies at the University of Edingburgh.

ISBN 3-16-148381-2 ISSN 0721-8753 (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism) Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bib­ liographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.ddh.de. © 2004 by Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copy­ right law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tubingen, printed by Gulde-Druck in Tubingen on nonaging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Preface

This edition of the text of Sefer Yesira has been a long time coming. I first conceived the idea of doing it in the early 1980s when I was reading the text with my students in a course on Jewish Mysticism at the University of Edinburgh. The fundamental research for the book was carried out in 1985 in a visit to the Microfilm Institute of the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem, funded by a grant from the British Academy. My initial intention was to produce an edition, translation and both a text-critical commentary and a commentary on the content. In the event it turned out that this was too ambitious a project to be accomplished within one book and, in any case, competing priorities, especially from the pressures of university admin­ istration, preventing me from producing more than a series of one-off papers and articles on Sefer Yesira. I now plan a series of three books: first, this edition, second, a collected edition of my papers on Sefer Yesira, and third, a commentary on the content of the text. This book, therefore, is concerned solely with the text - with the manuscripts, the recensions, the individual readings within the paragraphs. Issues of introduction, date, place of origin, and what the text might mean, will be reserved for the later books, though 1 have already dealt with many of these in my published papers. Of course, no rigid dividing line can be drawn between these different ap­ proaches to a text and, inevitably, I will stray into discussion of the content from time to time, but I wish to stress that this is not my primary purpose in this book. In 2003 the University of Edinburgh allowed me a complete sabbatical year with relief from all teaching and administrative duties - partly funded by a grant from the British Arts and Humanities Research Board. This gave me, at last, the freedom to concentrate on producing the edition of the text. I am very grateful to both for giving me this opportunity. My thanks are also due to those who, over the years, have kept urging me to produce the book, especially Peter Schafer and Joseph Dan. I am grateful for the help of Stefan Reif and Philip Alexander in obtaining the AHRB grant. But my deepest thanks are due to Ithamar Gruenwald of the Uni­ versity of Tel Aviv for the many hours we have spent discussing Sefer Yesira in his visits to Edinburgh and mine to Jerusalem. 1 build upon the foundation he laid in his "Preliminary Critical Edition of Sefer Yezira" and his 1973 REJ article, "Some Critical Notes on the First Part of Sefer Yezira." Finally, my thanks are due to the various libraries who have given me permission to publish the manuscripts used in this edition and supplied me with the microfilms and photographs of the manuscripts: the Syndics of Cambridge University Library,

VI

Preface

Bibliotheque nationale de France, Leiden University Library, the Bodleian Library, the British Library, the Library of the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, the Vatican Library, the Bibliotheca Palatina di Parma, the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, and the Microfilm Institute of the Jewish National and Uni­ versity Library in Jerusalem. Above all am I grateful to three generations of Librar­ ians of New College Library (University of Edinburgh) - John Howard, Murray Simpson and Eileen Dickson, for the unstinting help they have given me in obtain­ ing the research materials I needed to complete this project.

The School of Divinity New College University of Edinburgh December, 2003

Peter Hayman

4 11.2 The Saadyan Recension 8. Why a new edition of Sefer Yesira? 3. The Chapter and Paragraph Divisions (Appendix II) 10.3 11. The Manuscripts 5. Abbreviations in the textual apparatus 8.5 11.3 10.Contents Abbreviations Introduction 1.1 The Long Recension 5.4 11. The Three Recensions and the Development of the SY Text Tradition .2 The Saadyan Recension 5.2 11. Editing Jewish texts from the first millennium C. The "original text" of SY or "the earliest recoverable text"? 4. The Four Pre-Kabbalistic Commentaries 10.1 10.1 The Long Recension 8. The flu id state of the text of Sefer Yesi ra 2.6 The Commentary of Saadya Gaon The Commentary of Dunash Ibn Tamim The Hakhemoni of Shabbetai Donnolo The Commentary of Rabbi Judah ben Barzillai The Biblical Material in Sefer Yesira The Rabbinic Material Creatio ex Nihilo in Sefer Yesira The Astrological Material in Sefer Yesira The Kabbalistic Readings and Additions The Commentary Material XI 1 1 3 6 9 12 12 13 13 14 16 16 16 18 20 24 25 26 29 31 32 33 34 34 35 36 37 37 39 11.1 11.2 10.E 5. The rules of the edition 7.3 The Short Recension 6. The Earliest Recoverable Text of Sefer Yesira and the Three Recensions 12. Notes on the manuscripts 8.3 The Short Recension 9.

VIII Appendix]: Contents The attestation of the paragraphs in the manuscripts 43 46 49 52 Appendix II: The order of the paragraphs in the manuscipts Appendix III: The earliest recoverable text of Sefer Yesira Appendix IV: The Long Recension additions Edition and Commentary 59 Bibliography Index of sources Index of modern authors 197 203 205 .

Abbreviations B.IRL EJ IOS JA JHP JNUL JQR JJS JPSA JSOT JSS JTS MGWJ REJ RHR TSAJ Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Encyclopaedia Judaica Israel Oriental Studies Jewish Art Journal of the History of Philosophy Jewish National and University Library Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Jewish Studies Jewish Publication Society of America Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Monatsschrift fur Geschichte unci Wissenschaft des Judentums Revue des Etudes Juives Revue d'Histoire des Religions Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum .

.

but in order to make his translation work Lambert has to supply in brackets "nous ferons ainsi" to provide an antecedent for the conjunction x"? 7 (so that not). 2002. p. preferable. p. Lambert. (nous ferons ainsi) afin qu'il n'y entre pas d'alteration ou d'erreur.. then we will explain it because it is not a book which is widely available and not many people have preserved it from suffering changes or alterations. Kafach's translation is. SY) completely. Vajda. p. J. m S D UHTDI O i n n DV tiiWTl HTX' 1DD )1XJ. Dunash ben Tamim says: "mais nous avons deja dit qu'il pouvait y avoir dans ce livre des passages alteres que le patriarche Abraham [n'a jamais enonces]. Commentaire sur le Sefer Yesira ou livre de la creation par le Gaon Saadya de Fayyoum. [provenant] des commentaires en hebreu. Grossberg. The two Hebrew versions. 4 . Lambert and Kafach's translations of Saadya's Arabic differ at this point. Sefer Yezirah ascribed to the Patriarch Abraham with commentary by Dunash Ben Tamim.D.E.e. ." Kafach 2 5 1 translates: '"ix»rt iDD irxw 'JOB . 1891. therefore. Le Commentaire sur le Livre de la Creation de Di'mas ben Tamin de Kairouan (X' Steele): Nouvelle edition revue el augmentee par Paul B.m-in. Fen ton. Either way of taking the Ara­ 1 1 bic n'Vy ^p' (preserved it/ understood it) implies that the text has not been preserved in a good state. 29. Written in 931 CE. Like Dunash he attributes the corruption of the text (almost 2 3 4 Henceforth SY. written by Judah ben Barzillai frequently quotes different versions of the text and discusses variant readings of which he was aware. The fluid state of the text of Sefer Yesira 1 Right from the beginning of the emergence of Sefer Yesira into the light of day in the early tenth century it was recognized that its text had not been transmit­ ted without errors.njonnx p -inxi . 65. p. 13. are not a great help at this point. M. states at the end of his introduction to SY: "we think (it best) to write down each paragraph from it (i. the earliest commentator whose text has been preserved. 241. 1972." Writing not much later than Saadya in 955/6 C. Saadya Gaon. which is clearly intended to link together the two clauses rather than commence a separate statement. 129. Lambert has: "nous croyons bon de transcrire chaque paragraphe integralement et ensuite nous Pexpliquerons.irviDVtto rrcVn roVn yap ? w x n lV?n IS ->1W 13 Xrr> xVtP Viv VI»U7 D1X '338 O ' m X ?! . Hebrew text. G. trans. 34. auxquels des gens ignorants ont ajoute posterieurement un autre commentaire et la verite se perdait entretemps. 241 and M." The most comprehensive of the early commentaries..Introduction /.. p. car ce livre n'est pas un livre repandu et en outre grande nombre de gens ne le comprennent pas. p. printed in Haberman.. p. See also the notes to § 45 for further discussion of this passage in Dunash's commentary. 1902. "m'SP 1DD IpnV O'JDX" Sinai 20 (1946/7). Kafach. See below for more detailed discussion of the early commentaries on SY.

If we just take a word count of the three manuscripts which serve as the base texts for this edition we can see the extent of the problem. 5 6 7 8 See I. p. I. a longer version which contained commentary material. 459. his fundamental conclusions that the Saadyan Recension is no older than Saadya himself and that the Long Recension is really only a copy of the text which is embedded in Shabbetai Donnolo's commentary have been invalidated by manuscript discoveries of which Epstein was unaware at the time. p. See the Table of the Attestations of the Paragraphs of SY in Appendix I. Ms K (Parma 2784. fols. However. Some manuscripts have far fewer words than Ms K . "Pseudo-Saadja's und Elasar Rokeach's Commentare zum Jezira-Buche: Die Recension Saadja's. element. Weinstock. 12. it is more likely that the recensions predate any of the known commentaries on SY. ed.14.2 Introduction certainly correctly) to the incorporation into it of marginal notes and commentary material. Epstein 1893:460. n v r nDD n o u n IViaV. 66a-71b) has 2737 words. By implication Saadya locates this added material in the second half of the work (his chapters 5-8) when he remarks that there is little new in them and he does not intend to devote much effort to expounding them. while Ms C (Cambridge University Library. and a version which completely rearranged the material and which was attributed to Saadya Gaon. The complex textual state in which SY has been handed down is implicitly recognized in the first printed edition (Mantua 1562) in which the Short Recension is printed as the main text (with commentaries) and the Long Recension as an appendix. Ms A (Vatican Library (Cat. then. Temirin I. Kafach 1972: 127. it has been recognized that SY existed in a num­ ber of recensions ( m x r t O l l ) . Epstein in his articles in MGWJ (= Epstein 1893). while others range anywhere between this low figure and the full range of material seen in Ms A. Since the nineteenth century it has become conventional to refer to these versions as the Short. p. Weinstock (1972). Dunash explicitly attributes to the work of commentators the material. see also Vajda-Fenton 2002: 150-157 for the problematic textual basis of the reference by Dunash to Saadya's commentary. for the relevant passages. De Rossi 1390.some form of standard text. Lambert 1891: 89. Assemani) 299(8). 120. There is a similar collection in Haberman 1946/7: 241. 36b-38b) has 1883 words." MGWJ 37 (1893). and part of the human body. From the tenth century on. and his "Studien zum Jezira-Buche und seinem Erklaren". As we shall see. which details the precise connections between each letter of the alphabet. 6 7 8 5 .as few as 1300. the Long and the Saadyan Recensions. These observations by the early commentators are fully vindicated when we come to compare the large number of manuscripts of SY that have been preserved since the Middle Ages. MGWJ 37 (1893). fols. The fundamental work on delineating the recensions of SY and working out which of them lay before the early commentators was achieved by A. Epstein. mostly in the latter part of SY. For the relevant passages in Dunash and Judah ben Barzillai's commentaries see A. Taylor-Schechter K21/56 + Glass 32/5 + Glass 12/813) has 2066 words. However.

similarly suggests the need to keep the recensions separate: "Le resultat obtenu par I.Origins of the Kabbalah (Princeton 1990). Lazarus Goldschmidt's edition. Occasionally. In the excellent edition by Nehemiah Allony: " n r w a n ' r n o m i X 3 1"DT nOIJ D T r "ISO Tnp". he finds it impossible to present the Short Recension readings as variants from a basis represented by Ms A and prints the Long and Short Recen­ sions in parallel columns." Thirdly. p. Gershom Scholem's judgement on this book is damning: "The so-called 'critically edited text' in the edition and translation of Lazarus Goldschmidt. is not based on a first-hand study of manuscripts but on the printed editions and commentaries. For the first time we have an edition of the text based on a representative sample of the best manuscripts prior to the first printed editions. because it seems to me preferable to present the Long and Saadyan Recensions separately with their own textual apparatuses. Why a new edition of Sefer Yesira? Prior to 1971 no proper critical edition of the text of SY was available. Fourthly. n.one combines the readings of the Long Recension and the Saadyan Recension. p. le texte primitif. Finally. Nicolas Sed's review of Gruenwald's edition . Why a new edition of Sefer Yesira? 3 2. since SY appears simultaneously in the tenth century in three separate recensions. is patched together in a completely arbitrary manner and devoid of scientific value" . " Implicitly this accepts A. he adds a series of short notes and observations on the readings.34. Below it he presents two textual apparatuses . Goldschmidt's action of comparing the three main recensions (plus the Lurianic re-edition of SY) produced a number of valuable insights into the state of the text and these will be referred to later in the textual notes. 518. However. As his base text Gruenwald presents a diplomatic (and almost entirely faultless) reproduction of the most important (and one of the two earliest) manuscripts . including all manuscript variants produces an apparatus which is very difficult to read and in which it is hard to identify real or major variants in the 9 10 12 13 1 ' Israeli Oriental Studies I (1971).2. Why do I feel the need to provide a new and different edition of SY? Firstly. Epstein's view (1893:267) that the Saadyan Recension is really only a reshaping of the Long Recension and hence that there are really only two basic recensions ofSY. Secondly. 25.." 10 12 13 IJ . only part of which was available to Gruenwald .the tenth century Genizah Scroll of the Saadyan Recension. Temirin II (1981). 132-177. Gruenwald nous semble confirmer que seule l'edition paralleles trois recensions pourra apporter une reponse complete. la grammaire et la metaphysique".Vatican 299 (Ms A in my edition). REJ 132 (1973). In the edition of Habermann 1946/7.. Professor Ithamar Gruenwald's "Preliminary Critical Edition of Sefer Yezira" represents an enormous leap forward in the study of this text. then that is how the evidence should be laid out with diplomatic reproductions of the earliest manuscript of each recension as the main text and presented in parallel col­ umns. 9-29. Das Buch der Schopfung (Frankfurt 1894). because we now have nearly all of a major textual witness." the other presents the readings of the Short Recension manuscripts."Le Sefer Yesira: l'edition critique.

But many of his observations are undermined by failure to take on board the problems of the textual attestation of the material he is discussing. is a good example of this. Weinstock 1972. made any sign ificant contribution to the history of its textual development. Liebes incorpo­ rates into his book a photographic reprint of the Mantua edition of the Long Recension of SY.e. He has many valuable insights into the interpretation of SY but he has not. an edition of this text could be anything other than "pre­ liminary. 40a-43b contain a Short Recension text. It is difficult to exclude all errors in collation and I would not claim to have done so myself.4 Introduction morass of clear scribal errors and orthographical variants. Most manuscripts which contain SY either precede or follow it with a commentary or commentaries.14 (Ms K) readers should certainly have available reliable editions of the basic texts for the study of SY. Fols. For example. He presents a sample edition of chapter 1 (i. 16 18 15 . though only very rarely mentioning specific manuscripts. however. Gruenwald describes his edition as "preliminary. Margol. Nehemiah Allony's of the Genizah Scroll (Ms C in this edition) and my edition of Parma 2784." The manuscript tradition of SY is too varied and inconstant for anything like a definitive edition to be produced. but between Gruenwald's edition of Ms A. but others embed the text within a commentary. then fols. given the state of the manuscripts." I am not sure that. 6577 (Cat. Often it is hard to discern where the text ends and commen­ tary begins. the weakly attested §§ 62-63 might be better regarded as commentary to § 48 than as part of the text.not included in our apparatus. In setting out all three to­ gether I hope that my edition makes it easier for scholars to work with these basic texts rather than continuing to use the defective printed editions. At about the same time that Gruenwald published his "Preliminary Edition" Is­ rael Weinstock made a very different attempt to show what an edition of SY might look like. as many have continued to do even after Gruenwald's work was published. there are some errors in Gruenwald's collations. §§ 1-16) using different type-faces to distinguish what he identifies as the four layers discernible now in the text.almost to create a new text. n T X ' ISO ^tP n T X ' n m i n (English title: Ars Poetica in Sefer Yetsira)." Finally and inevitably.5) . As we shall see one explanation for the origin of the Long Recension is that it arose from commentary on the Short Recension. noting on occasion the variations between the recensions. a glance at the Table of the Order of the Paragraphs in Appendix 11 will demonstrate the freedom some scribes felt to re-arrange the text before them . 736. He does use Gruenwald's edition from time to time. Apart from the difficulty of fixing the borderline between text and commentary. while one manuscript places § 63:3-4 in the margin alongside § 48. The four layers are: 16 17 18 Reading SY in Gruenwald's edition with an honours class at the University of Edinburgh brought this point home forcibly to me. 43b-52a have a second version but embedded within a commentary. 2000. The latest example of this unfortunate practice is Yehuda Liebes' large-scale study of SY. As the notes to the text of § 63 show this is where some manuscripts place part of this material. " British Library Or.

subversive or obsolete ideas? The essential thing is to start with objective facts ." And so on. on the supposition that it was added to an earlier core text? On the other hand. The "source" comes from the Tannaitic or even the end of the Second Temple period. serving a different purpose than his should include the three versions separately. As 1 have done. possibly even towards the end of the Second Temple. Weinstock dates this layer to the eighth or ninth centuries. much like Gruenwald's. (2) A series of clarifications added in the talmudic period to make explicit things which the original author had intended to keep secret.to reconstruct the original text of SY before it separated out into the different recensions. The style is said to be similar to that of the Gaonic midrashim. leaving out errors and orthographical variants.a systematic series of additions in the form of a commentary. with a 3/4 metre. the . Why a new edition of Sefer Yesira? 5 (1) The original text which is short. We can then ask what material is attested in all three recensions. I find Weinstock's apparatus difficult to use.2. In the end he chose to provide a single text with a critical apparatus which divides the variants between the three recensions. so anything that reflects the style and language of other periods must be relegated to a later period and cannot belong to the "original text.e. so mere dull prose must belong to a later layer.what is. could we explain its absence on the sup­ position that it was cut out by later editors/copyists who objected to the presence of potentially dangerous. Weinstock considers whether to produce three separate apparatuses for the three recensions or whether to combine all three into a single text and apparatus. rhythmical and cryptic. On this solid basis it may then be possible to make conjectures as to how a work like SY could have evolved in the time before we have actual evidence of its existence (i. the creator of this layer added about one hundred lines to chapter one in order to clarify what the sefirot are. A preferable procedure is to start with the text-critical evidence we have and to pres­ ent it in as objective a fashion as possible. what in two or just one? What appears in the supplementary readings in a few manuscripts or only a single manuscript? If the material that is not attested by all manuscripts begins to reveal common characteristics or lan­ guage. or is not attested in the manuscripts. though he grants that a fuller edition. but my main criticism is directed at the criteria which he developed to distinguish the four layers in the text. (4) The final layer consists of a series of headings and appended notes of various dates produced not long before SY emerges into the light of day in the early tenth century. Weinstock dates it to the Tannaitic period. Weinstock introduces only a selection of variants. His choice reflects his principal aim . poetic. They leave him in the constant danger of arguing in a circle: the "source" layer is rhythmical and poetic. For example. (3) Weinstock's third layer is basically the Long Recension . laid out like Rashi's commentaries. can we identify where it came from.

for example." 20 .6 Introduction early tenth century). This would involve projecting backwards to before this time lines of development clearly discernible in the transmission of the text after the tenth century. there are a striking number of cases where proceeding in this man­ ner does bring us to the same conclusions as Weinstock on the layering of the text of SY (though not on the dating of the layers). and aware of the unavoidable corruption imposed by the unconscious mechanics of copying. p. copyists in particular did not view copying as mechanical reproduction. relevant material and the copyist's own opinion. diagnostic conjecture. The "original text" of SY or "the earliest recoverable text"? What. Most of the points he makes are valid but Weinstock's work is not entirely worthless. the lack of centralised political and religious institu­ tions in medieval Jewry meant that no control could be exercised over individual copying of texts: "Encouraged by authors to correct their works. Consequently." 20 Another factor which Beit-Arie also regards as potentially fatal for the effort to reconstruct the "original text" is the way in which authors continued to update and expand their works with the result that manuscripts copied at different stages of the evolution of a text would be in circulation at the same time and inevitably then " Sed 1973: 518-522 subjects Weinstock's edition to devastating criticism. 83. but instead as a critical editorial operation involving emendation. collating other versions or completing missing or abbreviated parts relying on memory and the authority of his scholarship. As Malachi Beit-Arie points out. sentences or words. Weinstock's "source" (T)p?D). and deliberate integration of pertinent texts. The scribal practices of medieval Jewish copyists are the major reason why the search for an "original text" is almost bound to be frustrated. 19 3. 1993). the second one [the individual owner/scholar] may feel free to change the copied text consciously by amend­ ing and editing what might seem to him corrupted passages. collation of different exemplars and even incorporating external. to an earlier form of the text which was "rhythmical and poetic". If this procedure points. contamination by different models and versions. Hebrew Manuscripts of East and West: Towards a Comparative Codicology (London. many Hebrew manuscripts present texts not only corrupted by the accu­ mulation of unsupervised involuntary copying errors. some pearls can be rescued from the mire. but also distorted by editorial or even redactoral reconstruction. As we shall see. we can never do is to get back to the "original text". then we are on firmer (though still somewhat shaky) ground when we apply such criteria in the absence of text-critical evidence. however. Beit-Arie finesses these observations in his paper on "The Palaeographical Identifi­ cation of Hebrew Manuscripts" (1986/87: 14) when he makes a distinction between the attitude to the text being copied of the professional scribe working for hire and that of the individual author copying a text for his own use: "While the first scribe [the professional] is more vulnerable to unconscious mistakes conditioned by the copied text and the mechanism of copying.

unique for Jewish works from the first millennium C. the processes described by Beit-Arie will have been at work long before this. using the standard tech­ niques of textual criticism.?... John O'Neill that "Matthew. Some of this bracketed material could well have its origin in the kind of muddle that Beit-Arie sees arising from authors' own continuous updating of their work. As my notes to the text will show this usually amounts to identifying the textual material which all the three recensions have in common . The "original text" of SY or "the earliest recoverable text"? 7 would cross-fertilize. What a text-critical nightmare is revealed when we dig below the level of editions like that of Herford (1962) which seem almost designed to keep their readership ig­ norant of the real situation. Somewhat closer to home. PA like SY exists in three separate recensions in which both the text and the order of the material varies. At the level of the individual manuscripts there is even more variation.say. There never was one . for example. of course. are not ap­ plicable to Hebrew manuscripts" . the stemmatic classification of versions and restoring the original text. Take. such as establishing the genetic relationships between manuscripts.. The "earliest recoverable text" is the one which can be ascer­ tained from the manuscript information we have available. Mark. The reasons for the judgements I make are provided in the commentary. 1 am very much inclined to agree with my. Beit-Arie draws the following lesson for texteditors from the above observations: "many principles and practices of classical text criticism.just an ever-grow­ ing collection of rabbinic sayings attached to the end of the Mishnah in order to encourage people to study it. and Luke as we have them are the end product of three lines of scribal tradition. All these features that Beit-Arie identifies can easily be seen in the manuscript tradition of SY. the text of Pirke Aboth. They are not the work of three authors who looked across at uni­ fied sources and made hundreds of changes on each page at their authorial will" (O'Neill 1991: 500). The main text of the Appendix outside the brackets is based on textual evidence. The closest parallel to the phenomena which greet the scholar when studying texts like PA and SY is actually the three Synoptic Gospels.the lowest common denominator. it is instructive to compare the state . In my reconstruction in Appendix Three of the earliest recoverable text of SY I have attempted by means of square brackets to identify those parts which 1 suspect were added in the process of transmission but for which there is little or no textcritical evidence to back up my judgements. making the "original text" irrecoverable. for there we have a large mass of sayings which reveal a bewildering mixture of both order and disorder while yet quite clearly having a common origin. I prefer to use the term "earliest recoverable text" rather than the "original text" of Sefer Yesira.E. sadly now-deceased colleague. Undoubtedly. However. {ibid). this can only take us back to a stage just before the emergence of the earliest manuscripts we possess . the second half of the ninth century C.E. The state in which we find the text of SY is not. One can make comments on the history and development of this text and the rabbinic values which it reveals but the search for the "original" PA is doomed to failure. None of these will be attempted in this edition.

Inspiration". turns out to be a frustrating task: although they clearly belong to the same work. "Qissa Mujddalat al-Usquf." Klaus Hermann's study of the famous Hekhalot manuscript. in Genizah research after ninety years. came to the same conclusions as Dan over the freedom medieval scribes felt to supplement and even reshape the traditions they were transmitting. in this attempt to set the state of the tex­ tual tradition of SY in its wider context of the transmission of Jewish literature as a whole. Qissa Mujddalat al-Usquf(Vienna. Source. 155-159. therefore. Genizah fragments.3 (1993). "Qissa Mujddalat al-Usquf and Nestor Ha-Komer: The earliest Arabic and Hebrew Jewish anti-Christian polemics". Finally. or with each other.3 (1993). ' Sara Stroumsa. So the situation we observe in the manuscripts of SY is by no means unique and. Lasker. Abraham Berliner. hence. we meet the ubiquitous "three versions." In the same volume Sarah Stroumsa deals with the Qissa Mujddalat al-Usquf of which the Sefer Nestor is a Hebrew version and comments: "And yet an attempt to collate the Arabic fragments with Schlosberg's edition. Leon Schlosberg. 1880). 1992). BJRL 75. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Dan is here referring to Peter Schafer's Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur (1981)." An editor of SY can sympathize with Stroumsa's frustration. Sefer Nestor Ha-Komer (Altona. as may also the order of the paragraphs. 1875). let us mention the earliest Hebrew and Arabic Jewish anti-Christian polemi­ cal texts. ed. 22 23 24 25 26 2 21 . "Re-written Mystical Texts: the Transmission of the Heikhalot Literature in the Middle Ages". What the original form of that anti-Christian polemic was cannot now be determined. as Joseph Dan says: "less than half of the twenty-three Genizah frag­ ments conform even in part to the Synopse structure. A case study in polemical literature". see below. and the Genizah frag­ ments. Daniel J. BJRL 75. 114. 93-94. and 1998: 257. we need to consider now how other editors of such texts have dealt with the problems posed for us by the transmitters of these traditions. Each of the fragments contains more or less the same paragraphs but the vocabulary may vary consider­ ably." To cite first Daniel Lasker: "It may be concluded. Reif (Cambridge. New York 8128. in Genizah research after ninety years: The case of Judaeo-Arabic. Joshua Blau and Stefan C.8 Introduction of the text of SY with that of the Hekhalot texts since it is generally transmitted in exactly the same Hebrew manuscripts. that there was a body of anti-Christian polemic in Judaeo-Arabic that was compiled in at least three versions: Schlosberg's Qissa. the Arabic Vorlage of the Nestor manuscripts. they hardly ever correspond from beginning to end. and less than half of these contain substantial fragments of the same structure. Here the most revealing comparison is between the medieval European Hekhalot manuscripts and the oriental. "The Ancient Hekhalot Texts in the Middle Ages: Tradition. Once again.

Editing Jewish texts from the first millennium Given this situation which confronts scholars working on the medieval manu­ scripts. The principal function of the apparatus is to provide support for my observations in the commentary on the text. The extent of Schafer's scepticism can be gauged from the introduction to his synopsis of the Jerusalem Talmud where he claims that the most that can be achieved is to reconstruct the text as it existed in the thirteenth to eighteenth centuries. if they so wish. Where." 29 30 31 28 . Most of them are attested in medieval manuscripts mainly from Europe and they contain a bewildering variety of text types. 4. I am not as pessimistic as he is over the possibilities of using textual criticism to at least reconstruct earlier forms of texts than are attested in the manuscripts we have. Only major variants affecting the meaning of the text are presented in the apparatus. Hekhalot-Studien (Tubingen.much the same question as arises from Beit-Arie's observations quoted earlier. the question of how to edit Hebrew texts from Late Antiquity and the early medieval period has been widely debated in recent years. suspicion and scepti­ cism. However. Peter Schafer has more or less proclaimed the death of the so-called "critical edition" but has also chal­ lenged the notion of regarding Jewish texts of this period as "texts". He leaves it to scholars using his works to make what comments they like on the text and. Hence the layout of my edition of SY is a compromise between that of Gruenwald and that which would be suggested if I followed Schafer's procedures in his synopses.4. and rather resort to the safe synoptic presentation of the transmitted texts. 28 29 50 I have a lot of sympathy for Schafer's position. How can we know that these texts were not put into their present shape by the scribes of these medieval manuscripts? . in any particular paragraph. recording the 31 I have dealt with this issue in some detail with particular reference to SY in Hayman 1995. Editing Jewish texts from the first millennium C. Schafer provides no critical apparatus in these works but just lays out the text of the most important manuscripts in synoptic form. and above all refrain from establishing authentic texts. errors and orthographical variants are excluded. Schafer 1991: VII.e. 51) where he says that we must use medieval Hebrew manuscripts "with great caution.E. 9 C. as works consciously shaped by authors which can be studied by techniques applicable to modern literary works (Schafer 1988). I have taken to heart Malachi Beit-Arie's advice at the end of his 1993c article (p. 1988). while proposing our critical analysis and reconstruction in the form of notes. or even critical editions. He has argued that this concept of the text ignores the reality of the textual evidence we have for nearly all Jewish texts from this period. I present the earliest manuscripts of the three main recensions in synoptic form with a limited textual apparatus for each of them. i. to engage in the futile task of reconstructing an original text which never existed.E. Schafer's approach to textual criticism was enshrined first in his ground-breaking Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur (1981) and now in his Synopse zum Talmud-Yerushalmi (1991—).

What is required at this stage is an edition that makes the major recensions and variants available to scholars in as usable a form as possible. 1994). That is my own feeling in the case of SY. But what represents a real variant and what is just a scribal error are matters over which scholars constantly disagree. 110). He provides a list of the other manuscripts of the text and refers to some of their readings in the course of his discussions of the redaction and reception history of the text. all the other extant manuscripts descend from one or other of these recensions. in Abrams's opinion. See. but one based on the one-hundred and thirty-one manuscripts listed in the Collective Catalogue of the Jewish National and University Microfilm Institute would be a daunting task and probably virtually unreadable. My solution to the problems of editing the text of SY may be contrasted with that chosen by Daniel Abrams in his edition of The Book Bahir? .very much more so than the choice repre­ sented in this edition of SY. SY is a short enough text to make an edition based on nineteen manuscripts possible. It might have been better and more helpful to the reader for him to have set out all the paragraphs in this fashion. 1 32 33 The Book Bahir: An Edition Based on the Earliest Manuscripts (Los Angeles.Faced with the more than one hundred extant manuscripts of this text Abrams chose to provide a diplo­ matic reproduction of the earliest dated manuscript (Munich 209) with an appara­ tus recording the variants of the next earliest dated manuscript (Vatican-Barberini Or. Abrams regards his work not as a defini­ tive edition of the text but as providing "what will hopefully be the groundwork for future enquiries in the text and its influence" (1994: *11). Moreover.though always printing the text of the three main manuscripts. Reading be­ tween the lines one has the feeling that Abrams thinks that not a great deal would be gained by the massive amount of work required to provide a complete critical edition based on all the manuscript evidence. for example. These two manuscripts represent two separate recensions of the text and."" But to more clearly illustrate the differences between his two manuscripts Abrams does also set out in parallel columns thirteen of the one hundred and forty paragraphs of Sepher Ha-Bahir. 1 have from time to time varied the base manuscript for the collations . Abrams 1994: *1I-*I2. . The Munich manuscript has been extensively corrected and readings from the other recension (and some from an unknown source) recorded in the margin and hence the manuscript represents "a kind of critical edition of the Bahir as it was known in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. and.10 Introduction readings of a manuscript would overly complicate the apparatus because it var­ ies too much from the base manuscript for its recension I have printed its text in full in the synoptic section. in any case. unless the choice of variants to be included in the apparatus was ruthlessly selective . My aim throughout has been to make the critical apparatus as simple as possible. the apparatus to § 15 where I have collated all the short recension manuscripts to Ms P rather than K.

much like Abrams. Some manuscripts are so marred by errors that they are virtually unusable in an edition and have. it seems preferable to be consistent and. keep the editor's judgement to the textual notes and to confront the reader directly with the textual chaos which is all too often present in the manuscripts. David Stec opts for the diplomatic solution in his edition of the rabbinic Targum of Job: "it is the responsibility of the editor to present a faithful transcription of the text as it is found in one manuscript. for example) though I have not attempted to record their errors in the ap­ paratus . 105.' . Scholars who wish to see the full range of evidence from the early manuscripts of SY can still have recourse to Gruenwald's edition. Many of the numerous manuscripts of the Short Recension were rejected on these grounds. p. some manuscripts are important enough to be included despite the state of their text (manuscripts B'G and H. 1994). But.4. However. my use of the manuscripts whose text is not diplomatically reproduced in the parallel columns but utilised in the critical apparatus is much more aimed at providing evidence for my judgments on the history of the text than conforming to the structure of the traditional critical edition. Where the element of editorial judgement still remains in my procedure is over which variants are worth recording in the textual apparatuses.particularly since most of them are recorded in Gruenwald's apparatus." However. and to note all the variants in the apparatus. In the case of SY only rarely will just three manuscripts plus apparatus suffice to adequately represent this situation. 99. the nature of the Targum manuscripts with which he has to deal often drives him to abandon this procedure and adopt the synoptic method.E. Ibid. as far as possible. However. Comparison with that will reveal the variants which I have judged to be errors or too trivial to be worth recording in the apparatus. therefore. as 1 have stated above. this variation between the diplomatic and the synoptic procedure still depends very much on the judgement of the editor as to the point at which the manuscript tradi­ tion diverges too much to make the diplomatic procedure feasible. But the subjectivity of this procedure is partly obviated by the printing of the full text of the manuscripts when the variations demand it and also by the availability of Gruenwald's edition. Sometimes the texts of up to seven manuscripts will need to be reproduced in order to fairly present the range of variations. We do not have enough manuscripts of the Long Recension to permit the luxury of 14 35 The Text of the Targum of Job: An Introduction and Critical Edition (Leiden. been left out. Editing Jewish texts from the first millennium C. 11 real variants can arise as the result of scribal attempts to correct previous errors! So. Faced with the same set of problems that confront the editor of SY. as Gruenwald's edition shows. as he points out. Such an eclec­ tic procedure would be possible in the case of SY. 34 35 The constantly repetitive language of SY laid it wide open to mechanical errors in the process of transmission and many scribes were unable to copy it properly.

4. Bodleian Library Ms.27. n. fols. 19-183)." 37 38 ) 36 . place of origin and date of the Mss is taken from the relevant library catalogues or from the Collective Catalogue of Hebrew Manuscripts of the Microfilm Institute of the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem. Gruenwald's 1. 227a-230a.199 (Cat. 1515. Square script similar to the Genizah Scroll (Ms C). 379b-387a. 'n and n a r e full of mistakes.9 (Cat. Neubauer 1531). fols. Margoliouth 737/2). fols. Beit-Arie-May 1994: 256. 66a-71b. '" Though Gruenwald 1971: 136 says "written probably in Italy in the fifteenth century. fols. VII. Margoliouth 752/13). Italian semi-cursive script. The Supplement to Neubauer's catalogue seems to reverse his judgement on the relative dating of parts 1-3 (fols. fols. Ashkenazi cursive script "c. Gruenwald's X. Neubauer 1531). Tenth century . Ashkenazi semi-cursive script of the early fourteenth century. Mich. 38 37 B Oxford. 1300" Gruenwald's D. Add. I have added two manuscripts to his list (B and E) for reasons discussed below.1 The Long Recension* Manuscripts A Vatican Library (Cat. Schafer 1981: ix.299 (Cat. Further reasons for rejecting other manuscripts that might have been included are also given below in the notes on the manuscripts. as Gruenwald remarks. •" Beit-Arie-May 1994: 256. Bodleian Library Ms. Ashke­ nazi square script. D Florence. the English equivalents of those used by Gruenwald and hence the order is that of the Hebrew alphabet. Pluteo II 5/9.es­ pecially since. Mich. fols.15. 79a-81b. cursive script. Neubauer 1886: 538 states that numbers 1-3 are "older than the others". See Gruenwald 1971: 135. Gruenwald's H. However. p. the order in which I list the two parts of this manuscript reflects their position in the manuscript and not their relative dating. 2 2 1 5. 39 2 G British Library. 1 have decided not to in­ clude collations from the first printed edition since these are provided in his edition ( ' n and n ) and would only further complicate my apparatus for no great gain . as far as possible. fourteenth century.9 (Cat. Library Mediceo-Laurentsiana. Ill. See P. Information on the script. Gruenwald's 1. 95a-103b. sixteenth century. See also Schafer 1989: vol.12 Introduction leaving some out. Add. 40 H British Library. B' Oxford. lb—lib. 1-18) and parts 4-13 (fols. I have seen no reason to deviate from Gruenwald's choice of the manuscripts on which to base an edition of SY. The sigla of the Mss are. The 5. Italy. xix-xx for a full description of this manu­ script. Assemani) 299(8).

Bodleian Library Pococke 256 (Cat.4 6 b (Cat. indeed. as we shall see it has very close connections.l 18). en 1397. The Book of Hebrew Script: History. Gruenwald 1971: 136. 103. 107a-110a. especially n. and Colette Sirat. Oriental square script.57b-59b (Cat. la-3a (Cat. 36b-38b. p. How­ ever. Zotenberg. Z Oxford. par Joseph. Semi-cursive Sep­ hardi script.fifteenth century. Semi-cursive Sephardi script of the fifteenth century. Hebrew Manuscripts of the Middle Ages (Cambridge. therefore. Yardeni.14 (Bibliotheca Palatina 2784/14). 1262. Gruenwald's M Paris 726/2. Palaeography. 4 4 b . fols. Gruenwald's D. fils de Sabbathai. Harley 5510 (Cat. Neubauer 1533)." 42 43 44 45 4 6 47 41 . it is perhaps closer to the examples of fifteenth century Sephardi semi-cursive illustrated in A. a et6 execute par 'Amram. 45 L Paris 802/5. Richler and Beit-Arie 2001: 314-316. fols.3 The Short Recension K Parma 2784. p. According to Zotenberg "Le ms. Gruenwald's D. Gruen­ wald's n . Script Styles. 1. E British Library. For full details see the edition of this scroll by Allony 1981.2 The Saadyan Recension 41 42 C The Genizah Scroll . However. De Rossi 1390. Margoliouth 754/6). fils de ce dernier. Gruenwald dates it to the fourteenth century and. Italian semi-cursive script of the fourteenth century. fols. Part 6 of this Ms also includes on fols. The Manuscripts 13 5. Italian semi-cursive script. 1977). It has not.124). See the editions by Lambert: 1891 and Kafach 1972: and the Supplement to Neubauer (BeitArie-May 1994: 256). II fut cede par Hayyim. Zotenberg. a Mas'ond. fils de Simeon. Oriental semicursive script. Taylor-Schechter K21/56 + Glass 32/5 + Glass 12/813. 46 N Paris 764/1. Baghdad. The date given is that of the Collective Catalogue of the JNUL Microfilm Institute. According to Gruenwald "writ­ ten in Spain (or North Africa) between 1365 and 1393". For the significance of this see Schafer 1984:9. been included in this edition. Cambridge University Library. 1286. Calligraphy and Design (Jerusa­ lem. 244-49. its script is not greatly different from that of Ms N with which. p. fols. Gruenwald's T. Tenth century. This edition supercedes Haberman 1946/7. Gruenwald's 1 47 The scroll would have unrolled vertically rather than horizontally like biblical scrolls. fols. Italian semi-cursive script of the fourteenth .5. 44 43 5. for a photograph of a similarly constructed Geniza scroll. 2002). 110a—112a a not particularly good Short Recension text of SY which has some unique glosses and expansions.135). p. Zotenberg. fils de Moi'se.

The rules of the edition 6. R Paris 809/2.1 The aim of this edition is to present the evidence for the textual history of Sefer Yesira in as clear a fashion as possible. Cod. Greek semi-cursive script "written possibly in Hebron. 24/5. No pagination in Ms but the text of SY occupies pp. end of the fifteenth century or beginning of the sixteenth century" according to Gruenwald but from Italy according to the Catalogue of the JNUL Microfilm Institute. fols. Gruenwald's V. Ms K in the left hand column usually serves as the base text for the Short Recension. The text of SY conies at the end and in a different hand from that of the rest of the Ms. and Ms C in the right hand column for the Saadyan recension. Gaster 293). Gruenwald's D. Gruenwald's 49 5 0 P 1 Q Moscow (Lenin State Library).91). p..137). for example. Ms A in the middle column for the long Recension. Written in "Germany. Therefore the text of the three main recensions is printed in parallel columns. 10. The date is that of the JNUL Collective Catalogue. British Library.l40b-142a (Cat. Semi-cursive Sep­ hardi script of the fifteen century. 93a-94a (Cat. 91 when he says that the text of SY begins on fol. Or. Palestine. Gaster dates this Ms to the sixteenth century. Thus. fols. A fine. Italy. 4 9 50 51 48 . Gruenwald's 1. Gruenwald ibid. p. 1-11. Ms D which often hovers between the long and the Short Recensions in its readings is frequently printed in full below the text of Ms A.1263 (Cat. Margoliouth 600. 51 6. 160v. Steinschneider is in error on p. Steinschneider.according to Margoliouth a Karaite Ms dated 1433 "or perhaps copied from a Ms of that date. each with its own textual apparatus. Or. as Gaster 415.324/3 (Cat. about 1540". in error. fols. 29a-32a. Where the text of any other manuscript diverges too far from the base manuscript in its recension to make collating its variants useful. Gruenwald's D . 88-89. Note that Gruenwald lists this Ms. fols. Ginzburg Collection 133/15. fols. 1 have printed its full text in the relevant column. semi-cursive veering to cursive script." Semi-cursive script. 198a-199a. 4762. Semi-cursive Sephardi script of the fifteenth century. delicate.14 Introduction S Leiden Warn. Steinschneider.1). 2a-3b . Zotenberg. Klau Library (Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion). Cincinnati 523/1. p. Gruenwald's j?. as does Weinstock 1972: 25. about 1500. 48 F British Library Or.

e. 6.3 Errors in these base manuscripts are printed as they stand. These also are usually recorded in Gruenwald's edition. These restorations are placed between square brackets and are based on the evidence of the other manuscripts. In general.8 The copula 1 is not collated except where a change of meaning may be im­ plied. The number of manuscripts which contain the text of a particular paragraph can also be checked by referring to the Table of Attestations in Appendix I.. etc. 6.10 An asterisk alongside the siglum for a Ms (e. occurrence of that word in the paragraph. The place where the paragraph appears in each manuscript can be seen from the Table listing the order of the paragraphs in Appendix II.2 The texts are printed as they appear in the manuscripts.g. Punctuation is only provided where there is a corresponding mark in the manuscript. 1°. Sometimes the quality of the microfilms and photographs from which 1 have worked makes the punctuation difficult to discern. A'"s) indicates the reading of a later corrector which has been placed in the margin.5 1 have not followed Gruenwald's edition in attempting to punctuate the He­ brew manuscripts. 52 53 54 c Most of these errors are recorded in Gruenwald's edition.6 Above the textual apparatus in each column there appears a list of the manuscripts available and collated for the relevant paragraph. 6. written out fully. the apparatus aims to record variants which indicate a significant change in meaning. Obvious errors in other manu­ scripts are not recorded in the textual apparatuses. but not always.7 The critical apparatus is selective. A ) indicates the reading of a later corrector in the text. 5J 54 52 . after a word in a lemma indicates the first.g. except that where there is physical damage to a manuscript 1 have attempted to restore its text. The rules of the edition 15 6. Purely grammatical and orthographical variants are usually not recorded neither are obvious scribal errors. while a raised mg (e. A*) indicates the reading of the original hand.4 Unambiguous abbreviations in the base manuscripts are usually. 2°. Hence conclu­ sions e silentio cannot be drawn. A raised c (e. except for errors which have been corrected by the original scribe. 6.g.9 A number with raised circle.g. second. 6.6. How I understand the sense divisions within the para­ graphs is indicated by my translations. Within each recension the choice of the base manuscript(s) for the collation is based on this latter criterion and on the need to keep the apparatus as simple as possible. 6. 6. 6. and to present as clearly as possible the relation between the manuscripts.

. Notes on the 8. Gruenwald's note 2 to § 11.. ..1 The Long Recension manuscripts A: The square script of this manuscript is clearly written and easily legible. However. There are some corrections within the text and marginal corrections by a later hand. The scribe or 55 Gruenwald 1971 prints facsimiles of two pages of this manuscript between pp. 55 B': This is a carelessly written manuscript with numerous errors. after Ms A. There is no title for the text. it is one of our earliest representatives of the Long Recension version of the text and should. most of them un­ corrected. be present in an edition of SY. Abbreviations . A later hand has made marginal corrections to §§ 18 and 37. (within a lemma) = in the textual apparatus all the words between the words preceding and following the dots. The punctuation between paragraphs is by a simple dot plus a space. (within a list of Mss) = all the Mss as arranged in the list of Mss from the manuscript preceding the dots to the one following the dots.mii n a n run ? n a r r a s i a mu nan a n s a pnx vow 1 8. 138 and 139. for example. See. A few corrections have been made by the original scribe.. . which may be why Gruenwald did not include it in his edition. manuscripts Mss = manuscript Ms = ora = omits adds add = homoio = omission by homoioteleuton omission by homoioarcton homoioarc = Apparatus App = err = error prior (places before it) pr = cannot be read In (legi nequit) = ditt = dittography read rd = transposes the words separated by the back slash transp = DXtP Vain = ban axw = •"Hxa pis vow rua"? n a r r a D i a .16 Introduction 7. therefore.

Despite being incorpo­ rated in the same manuscript as B it shares no peculiar readings with it. III (37-44). J V D ) which is not shared with H and H has § 10. The latter rewrites many words above the line though the original writing is mostly perfectly legible. one manuscript cannot be a copy of the other since not all their errors or omissions are shared. See the notes to this paragraph. for example. this begins to peter out in chapter IV (after § 37) and disappears completely in chapter V (after § 45). The paragraph divisions are then marked with a short back slash and a space.4 which suggests that ultimately they depend on a manuscript that has descended from A. . but the numbering system fizzles out from § 52 onwards. so the exemplar of H had the same reading as B and B . In § 61. Bet is usually slightly more dipped In § 15 it shares the reading Tl'3 with B but the reading 1 T 3 in Ms H is clearly a transpo­ sitional error for I V D .8. B has a long omission by homoioteleuton (lV. However. Nevertheless. Notes on the manuscripts 17 his exemplar has attempted to implement a numbered paragraph division as well as the standard chapter division. 1 2 2 J 2 . there are a striking number of peculiar readings shared with Ms H. Its cursive script makes it very difficult to distinguish between Bet and Kaph. D: This is a carefully written manuscript with few errors. especially nu­ merous omissions by parablepsis. The text of the Long Recension in the first printed edition (Mantua 1562) comes from the same line of transmission as B and H. As explained above it has a distinctive text which often falls between the Long and Short Recensions so that rather than attempt to collate its readings within the Long Recension appara­ tus it very often makes sense to print its full text. At least three scribes seem to have been involved in the copying of the text of SY with changeovers taking place in the middle of §§ 49 and 57. IV (45-64). The paragraphs are numbered by letters and the end of the paragraphs indicated by a double vertical line. Against all the other manuscripts which have a chapter division Ms G does not end a chapter with § 22 but has a four chapter division: I (1-16). The scribe has numbered the para­ graphs in chapter 1 ( = §§ 1-16) but not thereafter. which B does not. G: This manuscript is so badly copied and full of errors that Gruenwald was led to abandon his usual policy and not record its "obvious mistakes" in his apparatus. II (9/17-36). However. the connections between these two manuscripts are close enough to suggest that they have a common ancestor. Note for example their shared gloss in § 55 (1HT mVTOn Vl"U 'Vn) or their shared text in § 48a which forces me to print the text of B separately and collate to it Ms H's two very minor deviations. However. There is an intriguing shared reading of these two manuscripts in § 54.. 2 56 1 1 1 1 B : Ms B contains many errors and has been extensively corrected both by the original and a later scribe.

Bodle­ ian Library Pococke 256 . the Scroll was copied in the tenth to eleventh centuries (more likely the earlier) in Palestine. The rest of the Scroll contains various piyyulim all of Palestinian origin. "vnp riDaa nVn» rrnxa r c n n o i : n r x ' noo". It has a paragraph numbering system similar to that of Ms B . 57 58 The three fragments of the Scroll are as follows. In his introduction (p. But like G it is poorly written and full of mistakes. The manuscript makes heavy use of abbreviations and the scribe was clearly looking to lighten his workload. Nehemiah Allony identified the other two pieces among the Genizah fragments in the Cam­ bridge University Library and produced an edition of the complete scroll in 1981. lines 46-195 in Allony. lines 1-55 of Allony's edition. 4 4 . See the comments on the text of this manuscript in the notes on § § 4 1 .18 Introduction at the top than Kaph but not always. Israel Weinstock (the editor of Temirin) was responsible for filling the lacunae in the Scroll (in square brackets) and also for providing a textual apparatus compar­ ing the Scroll with the text of SY found in Saadya's commentary (Oxford. According to Allony. Jt contains SY plus Eleazar's commentary.the end).5 " " n r r nso npnV o'jax". This was torn into three pieces which were scattered in different places in the Cairo Genizah and are now in Cambridge University Library (Taylor-Schechter Genizah Unit). The Scroll contains no chapter and paragraph divisions and what little punctuation there is does not coincide with the paragraph divisions found in Saadya's commentary.Z in this edition). In contrast to all other manuscripts than C Ms D does not have any chapter divisions. This leaf is torn from the top left to the bottom right and matches exactly T-S (Glass) 32.ll) Allony lists six fragments of Saadya's commentary.9-29.7:2). H: H is a large manuscript of 601 folios containing the works of Eleazar of Worms and copied by Elias Levita for Cardinal Aegidio de Viterbo. T-S (Glass) 12/813 contains one page of the Scroll (7:3 . paragraph divisions are indicated by a single or double dot. We have already noted its close connection with Ms B . Subsequently.M.2:6 in Saadya's chapter and paragraph division).241-265. Except for a few lines where T-S (Glass) 32. Sinat 20.7:1 was edited by A. Temirin 58 11. . and 54. lines 199-232 in Allony's edition. 1 1 8. T-S K21/56 contains one page of the Scroll (1:1 .2 The Saadyan Recension C: The most important witness for the Saadyan Recension is the Genizah Scroll. Haberman in 1946/7.5 which contains two pages of the Scroll (2:4 . Hence there is some uncertainty about read­ ings like Nl^HD/Klina in § 8. one from the Genizah and the rest in the Bodleian Library but these are not used in the textual apparatus. The central piece (Taylor-Schechter Glass 32/5) containing chap­ ters 2:4 .

In my transcription. The occasional vocalisation of the text appears to be in the hand of the original scribe. because this Commentaire sur le Sefer Yesira ou livre de la creation par le Gaon Saadya de Fayyoum (Paris: Emile Bouillon).7 of his edition. 59 60 61 62 03 E: Along with the primary witnesses to the Saadyan Recension (Mss C and Z) I have included collations from Ms E (British Library. See his list on p. For example. and Hebrew translation). There are some slight differences between my readings and those of Allony . The manuscript was written in Baghdad in 1263 according to the colophon provided by the scribe.but only where there is a matching space in C. This is available in two editions.g. See Kafach 1972:6 for a transcription of the colophon and information on the scribe. Kafach is rightly critical of some aspects of Lambert's work and.hence the name given to the recen­ sion.usually over the visibility or otherwise of single letters. one by Mayer Lambert in 1891 (Arabic and Hebrew text with French translation) and one by Joseph Kafach in 1972 (Arabic text in Hebrew script as in the manuscript. It is a pity that Allony occasionally confuses the reader by placing in square brackets readings imported from Ms Z for which there is no space in Ms C. both his transcription of the manuscript and his translation are more reliable. resisted the temptation to improve the Genizah scroll from Saadya's text. Kafach's edition does contain an apparatus recording the variants of the other fragmentary manuscripts of Saadya's commentary. See below on the chapter divisions in the Mss. 6 0 1 59 61 62 65 . "]TD1 for j?l"Dl in § 17. the restorations in square brackets are taken from the text found embedded in Saadya's commentary on SY (Z in my edition) . Bodleian Library Pococke 256. in § 37b he gives the reading tt^nfl]. It is a rather carelessly written manuscript with a number of accidental omissions and ditlographies. Allony's collations are mostly accurate with only the occasional error. as in Allony's. Prior to the discovery of the Genizah Scroll this commentary was the only evidence for the existence of a third recension alongside the Short and Long Re­ censions. )1XJ m y o U n T D l D i n n 03? Zbwn n T X IDC (Jerusalem: Dior). In the Oxford manuscript the text is divided into eight chapters.S. is hard to discern and where I am uncertain of it I have left it out. and the chapters into separate paragraphs (rVDVn). of the two. Only one complete manuscript of Saadya's commentary has survived: Oxford. but this is Saadya's reading and there is no space in Ms C for the Waw. Harley 5510). e. Jt would have been better to have placed such readings in round brackets or. in particular. Notes on the manuscripts 19 ends and before T-S (Glass) 12/813 begins we now have the whole of this scroll. The punctuation. better still. Z: The other primary witness to the text of this recension is that found in Saadya Gaon's commentary on SY written in 931 . The manuscript is written in a square oriental script similar to that of Ms A but it has suffered considerable damage and is often difficult to read.

the mess the scribe makes of §§ 32-34 (Langerman 1997: 59). There are a series of marginal notes to the first eight paragraphs of the text intro- Fols. The newer page numbering is folios 107a—110a as I have given above. 7 M 65 8 8.3 The Short Recension K: the Italian semi-cursive script of this manuscript is clearly written and mostly legible . Finally. This is the manuscript which Wein­ stock (1972: 29) lists as his J but when he gives the folios in which the text appears as 2l2a-216a he is using an older page numbering. Another British Library Ms (Or. A number of errors. as Langerman says: "certain features of the text as found in our manuscript are quite certainly later accretions. See. Paris 770. especially of Hebrew grammar and syntax . .apart from the occasional problem of deciding between Bet and Kaph. it has been excluded from the apparatus. It has many scribal idiosyncrasies and errors. perhaps even the doings of the copyist himself" (1997: 50). For example. 3 b .gender and number concord are alien to this scribe! Nevertheless. Bodleian Library Pococke 256 but not the paragraph divisions.20 Introduction manuscript generally supports the arrangement of the material as it is found in Ms C. It is a strange manuscript. 1263. It is replete with errors.6 a ) does. suggest that ultimately it goes back to the version of SY found in Saadya's commentary. 1 will occasionally incorporate informa­ tion from it in the commentary. but this time his text is unique though clos­ est to the Short Recension Mss S and R. a fifteenth century text which Weinstock (1972:29) lists as his J h a s also not been included. which mostly follows the paragraph order of the Saadyan version. 2a-3b of this Ms = F in the apparatus of the Short Recension. the manuscript is of interest for the later his­ tory of the recensions in the Middle Ages. and cannot simply have been derived from the text of SY found in Saadya's commentary. after § 37b he repeats § 38 which he has already given earlier in both the Saadyan order (chapter 2:3) and the Saadyan text form. Accordingly. Since it contains little of independent value and contains many errors and additions. fols 41b-45b. The Italian semi-cursive script of this manuscript is sometimes difficult to read. Some duplications make it fairly clear that the scribe had available at least one manuscript of each recension and was attempting to create a new text out of them. for example. it too has not been included in this edition. which the manuscript shares with Ms Z (over against Mss C and E). It has the eight chapter divisions found in Oxford. follow very closely the text as it appears in Saadya's commentary and it may well have been copied from it. The manuscript edited by Langerman (1997: 49-64) is a defective copy of the Saadyan version. however. fols. but its text is an eclectic mixture of all three recensions. The manuscript has no chapter divisions and the paragraph divisions are shown by the insertion of spaces.

III (23-33). 6577 . Note the reading "tnx shared with FP in § 48b. they are the only two manuscripts to attest the addition V D H DilfttP in § 19. IV (37-44). But the inter-relationships between the group M N F P are best seen in the form of § 50 which they alone attest except for the one minor variant shared by MN. 67 L: L is a good. 6577 TITOn. But R cannot be simply a copy of K . They seem to be in the same hand as that of the original scribe or one very similar. alone of the Short Recension manuscripts. 67 68 66 e . L has the shortest colophon (§ 64) of all our manuscripts. having a shorter text than Ms K. so has not been included in the apparatus . N l i m n . The editio princeps of the Short Recension (Mantua 1562 . the addition shared with FPJQ in § 48b (the germ of § 63?). R's colophon in § 64 is identical with part of that in K. K. but it provides no readings of interest beyond those found in MN. II (17-22). fols. Margoliouth 736 (5). note how. see Beit-Arie 1993c: 50. 68 For this scribal practice. Notes on the manuscripts 66 21 duced by 'N3. though this expansion of § 48b can be seen starting in the addition in that paragraph shared by MNFPIQ and by the interpolation of parts of §§ 62-63 in Ms Paris 763's form of 48b. does not attest § 48a is an important piece of evidence for the attempt to unravel the process of growth of §§ 48-49. there are certainly other mistakes which he could have rectified! The text is liberally punctuated with dots and spaces. After § 8 the scribe seems to have given up the attempt to correct the manuscript except for the addition above the line in § 24 of a Mem missing from x"?D1Ql. Note the shared readings of K and R in §§ 32-34 and see the notes to § 35. 40a-43b). It has the five chapter division found in all the earlier Short Recension manuscripts: I (1-16). V (45-64). See the apparatus to §§ 62-63 and the notes on the text. and R alone of the Short Recension manuscripts attest §§ 62-63. ft and 1 were copied from the same prototype. See the notes to these paragraphs. Again. which is similar to one use of the Kniv and the Q re in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible. Links between MN and other Short Recension manuscripts can also be ob­ served. The fact that L. indicating what is clear anyway. and the homoioleleuton shared in § 49 with FP. Gruenwald (1971: 137) has already noticed the "close affinity" between K and Ms R.Cat. along with Ms S. M N : As Gruenwald (1971: 38) observes.'n in Gruenwald's apparatus) often agrees with these manuscripts. Their agreement in § 38 with the text cited by Judah ben Barzillai (Halberstam 1885: 120) may be significant .do we have here a Spanish/North African recension of SY? There is a manuscript closely related to them in the British Library (Or." They invariably combine to­ gether. they omit § 30. In § 45 a reading from this Ms suggests that its common ancestor with M and N was prob­ ably illegible: for T i m n M has l i m n .8. and Or. For example. standard representative of the Short Recension. that the standard Aramaic form of this paragraph is no part of the earlier text. "there are good reasons to believe that Ms.

fols. D an attempt to reintegrate some of the readings of the long recension into the short one" (1971: 137). notably its short text of § 1 which is very close to that of Ms Q. lb-3a. Hebrew Manuscripts of the Middle Ages (Cambridge. It deviates sometimes from the standard Short Recension type of text under the influence of Long Recension readings. p. Weinstock (1972: 26) used it for his edition of SY chapter 1 . There are a few other corrections in the margin and within the text itself." Note Gruenwald's comment on this Ms: "one can detect in Ms. forming an inclu­ sion with the abbreviation for thirty-two (D ?) with which it starts the paragraph. It is particularly interesting for the way in which it shows how §§ 62-63 grew out of the expansion of certain elements in § 48b. It is a poorly written manuscript with many errors and omissions so that sometimes I wondered whether the scribe really understood Hebrew. hence leaving just the VX\ which means "air. Note also the gloss added at the end of § 3. though almost all of § 12 was omitted by parablepsis . The date given above is Gruenwald's but the Catalogue of the JNUL Microfilm Institute initially had fourteenth century but now has sixteenth century. 2002). .his Ms X. 70 71 77 . See above on L for its omission of § 48a.). See the notes to these paragraphs.22 Introduction 69 Paris 763:1. On five 72 " The date given is that of the Collective catalogue of the Microfilm Institute of JNUL but Zotenberg 1866: 124 dates it to 1284: "les neuf premiers ouvrages ont ere ecrits par Jonathan. It is mostly carefully copied. 2 S: Ms S is a standard representative of the Short Recension type of text. See the notes to §§ 12 and 25. accordingly. though in § 56a it seemed the best representative of the Short Recension. given its relatively early date for a Short Recen­ sion manuscript I have referred to some of its more interesting readings in the tex­ tual notes. 70 F: The scribe of this manuscript clearly had trouble (as we do) with the ambiguous meaning of ITD in the text and its overlap with T I N . This manuscript has some interesting readings. in § 29 he substitutes n i l for r r v i so reproducing the reading m i O ni") from § 12.from 32?m in § 12 to 32?m in § 13. qui a termine sa copie le 12 iyyar 5044 (1284 de J. Hence it seemed best to print its text separately from K in §§ 13.17. while in § 32 r v n in the text is overwritten with mi. fils d'Abi'ezer Kohen. is a fourteenth century Italian manuscript with links to the kind of readings found in Mss MN but not exclusively so. However. At the end of § 1 F adds 3 ^ XTHl.C. de Ferrare. namely that the margin of error extends from at least fifty years to two hundred years or even more. decided not to include its readings in the textual apparatus. 267. 16. In § 16 he omits the word before D T1 DTfTK. Note how the reading of Mss AB'H in this paragraph identifies n'lT with m*l. It is probably appropriate then to refer to Colette Sirat's cautious words on the problem of dating manuscripts from their script alone." In § 14 he substitutes m"lD for D'Dft. 71 1 P: There is some doubt about the date of this manuscript. I have.

offer one of the shortest versions of the Short Recension. Finally alongside §§ 33-34 we find the missing permutations of letters but this time recorded as ''D (interpretation). Does this layout relate to the dubious status of these two paragraphs in the Short Recension? See the notes to these paragraphs. For its two versions of § 17 see the notes to that paragraph. especially in the light of Malachi Beit-Arie's reservations mentioned earlier. It does. its form of § 1. Alone among the Short Recension manuscripts it omits § 2 with all the Long Recension manuscripts except D. in particular. Maybe collating all the 131 manuscripts of SY listed in the Catalogue of the Hebrew University Microfilm Institute would make such a chart possible. been recorded in the textual apparatus. 74 73 This is the sole Ms of which 1 have been unable to obtain a microfilm or photograph and am. R : For the textual affinities of Ms R see above on K. 50 and 63. Ac­ cording to his note at the end of § 64 the scribe seems to have thought (erroneously) that he was copying SY in the arrangement of Saadya Gaon. §§ 62-63 are written in the form of an inverted cone which eventually narrows down to the last word of § 63 . however. The layout of Ms I at its end would caution against such a conjecture since it narrows § 61 down in the same way to a single word. Presumably the fact that it is placed in the margin and not in the main text like the addition to § 48b indicates its lesser status. therefore. I: Ms 1 has many peculiar readings which are mostly errors and have not. Apart from the few indications given above of links between these Short Recension manuscripts I cannot discern enough inter-relationships to enable me to construct a manuscript tree. and then the colophon follows written once again across the page. so I have refrained from the attempt. I am not convinced that the effort would be worthwhile. 15. Notes on the manuscripts 23 occasions I will use Ms P as one of the base manuscripts for the Short Recension: §§ 1. therefore. There are three additions to the basic text provided by the scribe of this manu­ script and the way they are recorded seems to represent his attempt to classify this extra material.42. 74 73 . Q : This is a carelessly written manuscript with many mistakes corrected by the original scribe. reliant on a single collation done in the Microfilm Institute of the JNUL in 1985. In the margin alongside § 6 we find the Long Recension reading cited again as 'XD.fi. See. The addition to § 48b which I have printed as part of § 63 is actu­ ally incorporated in the text of the manuscript after 48b but introduced with 'XD31 (= and in another text) and concluded with 'DJ7 (= up to this point).n?DN. Gruenwald's note 1 to § 9 is incorrect since Q does have this paragraph.

Mss AB G. they do not have § 57. §§ 1-16 deal with the ten sefirot. The six manuscripts which have the six chapter division clearly took § 56a (all they have of § 56) as winding up the previous chapter. The table in Appendix II and the corresponding table of attestions in Appendix I will be fundamental tools for developing the commentary on the text. while it is Ms Z (containing Saadya's commentary) which has a full division into chapters and numbered paragraphs .presumably a covert reference to the Saadyan Recension. But where does the section dealing with the "twelve simple letters" (pXJ7DjV DnT'in) end? There is no clear conclusion to this section and SY tails off into a series of paragraphs which attempt to draw the work to a conclusion but which are cluttered up with various later additions to the text.Mss B'HKLSR. Mss A and B have no further chapter divisions while the rest begin a new chapter at § 45 (where G begins its chapter IV). 76 77 75 . So Haberman 1946/7: 242. On this see Gruenwald 1971: 138-39. Thereafter divisions between the manuscripts multiply. Judah ben Barzillai informs us that this was in his day the chapter division found in most forms of the text (Halberstam 1885: 105). The Short and Long Recension manuscripts all begin chapter II in the same place . All the manuscripts except C and D divide up the text into chapters. especially footnote 24 on p. Later comes a division into five chapters . and § 58 as beginning the next. Ms E only into chapters.after § 16.24 9. 139.possibly the work of Saadya himself. Some go further and attempt a numbered paragraph division as well. §§ 17-22 provide a general introduction to the role of the letters in creation. 2 76 77 2 The divisions mostly reflect a logical ordering of the material in the text. All except G begin chapter III with § 23 and chapter IV with § 37. The earliest divi­ sion seems to be into four chapters . He mentions other versions which mess it up (D'aa-IVD m i x ) . The Saadyan Recension has its own distinctive division into eight chapters. We will deal with the Saadyan chapter and paragraph order in connection with our discussion of the origin of the recensions. The Chapter Introduction and Paragraph Divisions (Appendix II) 75 The order in which the contents of SY are arranged is a crucial factor in assigning manuscripts to the different recensions and in plotting their interrelationships.Mss MNFPIQ. It is similarly an instantaneous clue to the nature of the manuscript or manuscripts with which the commentators are working. . but the Genizah Scroll (C) is di­ vided into neither chapters nor paragraphs. still later we find a six-chapter division as reflected in the first printed editions of SY . Those with a six-chapter division make another break at § 58. In addition it tells us how the transmitters of the SY tradition had understood the structure of the work or how they reshaped it according to their own predilections. §§ 23-36 deal with the "three mothers" (W73X) and §§ 37-44 with the "seven double letters" (mDDTJD).

We will see this to be the case in at least two instances in Saadya's commentary. before SY was taken over by the Kabbalists in the course of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. So many of our manuscripts have to be dated by script and codicological criteria alone but for our three tenth century commentaries (Saadya. ed. And each of them attests one of our three basic recensions. Again. E. perhaps even the certainty. vol. But at least Saadya usually tells us when he is doing this. As we saw at the beginning of this introduction our commentators are also well aware of the problems with the text of SY and can throw valuable light on the factors responsible for it. Friedman (Jerusalem).10. The Four Pre-Kabbalislic Commentaries 25 10. 155-187. Moreover. 165). I have confined my use of commentaries to those which belong to Joseph Dan's "second phase" in the history of SY. this will sometimes produce a discrepancy between the text cited in the lemmas and the text which the commentator is clearly addressing. since only rarely are they available in reliable critical editions. Fortunately. We then have to face the possibility. Are other com­ mentators as honest? In the light of these problems why use the commentaries at all? In the case of SY the answer must be that the commentaries give us a fixed point of reference in the development of the text. that is. But they are invaluable aids for reconstructing the history of the text and hence will be extensively used in my notes to the text. See his "Three phases of the History of Sefer Yezira". I (1998). Then there is the possibility that the commentator has concluded that the text he has before him is corrupt and he has amended it without any manuscript support. In this case the Hebrew text which precedes the commentary is completely different from the one translated and interpreted in the commentary. in his Jewish Mysticism. There is first of all the necessity of reconstructing the text of the commentaries themselves. The reservations stated above mean that it would be inadvisable to do. The Four Pre-Kabbalistic Commentaries The problems of using commentaries as an aid to the reconstruction and edition of the texts on which they are commenting are well known to scholars. Fenton conjec­ tures that it was added to the manuscript after the work of translation had been done from another Hebrew text of SY (ibid. and incorporate the text of the commentaries into the apparatus of a critical edition. 79 78 . Dunash ben Tamim. that as scribes copy the text of these com­ mentaries they will update the text being commented on to that with which they are familiar in their own time. my concern in this edition is not with the content of the commentaries on SY but only with their 78 79 A striking example of this is the Arabic commentary on SY edited by Paul Fenton in Mas'ai Moshe: Studies in Jewish and Islamic Culture presented to Moshe Gil. Shabbetai Donnolo) we have precise dates of composition. as Weinstock does. Dunash's commentary is particularly valuable because it attests the state of the Short Recension in the tenth century when our earliest manuscript of this recension (Ms K) dates to 1286. Fleischer and M. we will need to confront this problem in relation to Saadya's com­ mentary. 164-183.

"Saadya's Goal in his Commentary on Sefer Yezira". Haggai ben-Shammai. 1-9.1. Saadya seems 82 83 80 Saadya provides us with the precise date of composition .11.1 The Commentary of Saadya Gaon This commentary. 369-415. 1988. 3 from bottom. Georges Vajda has devoted to Dunash ben Tamim's commentary. from the usual problem of utilising commentaries for text-critical editions . 177-193. See H. "Early Philosophical Commentaries on the Sefer Yezirah: Some Comments". as we shall see. Epstein 1893: 119. From time to time their views on the meaning of the text will be taken into account but only when they bear on the issue of the state and development of its text. Saadya Gaon: His Life and Works (New York. R." Annuaire de I'Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes. written in 931 C.Kafach 1972: 86. und verlieh ihm eine neue Gestalt". Kafach 1972: 33. How reliable is he as a transmitter of the text of SY? The first scholar to directly address this question . However.?>0X1DVX p 'fXJOXVx (there came about at this (time) parts of the paragraphs and the arrangement of the words). But far less attention has been paid to it as a witness to the text of SY. Sciences Religieuses (Paris). Joseph Dan also accepts this view of Saadya's role in the creation of the Saadyan Recension (1998: 184-85). 81 80 Apart.26 Introduction testimony to the state of its text. ed. sondern er redigierte das Jezira-Buch nach seinem Gutdiinken. Joseph of Lucerne's translation placed in parallel columns alongside the extracts cited by Ju­ dah (Halberstam 1885: 268-274). was firmly of the view that Saadya created his own version of SY and that the history of the Saadyan Recension starts with him: "Saadja lag nicht etwa von den bekannten beiden Recensionem verschiedene vor. Link-Salinger.. Maker (1921: 356-57) postulates the existence of at least four Hebrew translations. 10. 82 83 81 . 356-359. "Sa'adya commentateur du 'Livre de la Creation'.Studies in Medieval Philosophy und Culture: Essays in Honor of Arthur Hyman. and Raphael Jospe. another major problem confronts us in the case of Saadya's commentary. then. the problem of first fixing their own textual history. Vajda.1-2). Mailer. 3-35. Saadya himself says explicitly that the arrangement of the text as he received it was put into writing at the same time as the Mishnah: n ' l n rPD DVpID D X W ? X J D DX'OJVX m m .E. in A Straight Path . has been much studied from the point of view of its position very near the beginning of Jewish medieval philosophy and as one of the earliest writings of the Gaon. Lambert 1891: 52. Epstein. Judah ben Barzillai in his commentary on SY quotes extensively from two of them and probably knew of two more.namely. Haberman (1946/7: 47) prints the introduction to the commentary from a Munich manuscript of Moses b. There is a need for the kind of detailed attention to the textual tradition of Saadya's work that. REJ 149. 1921). We have already referred above to the editions of the Arabic text but the full utilisation of this commentary for text-critical purposes would be greatly enhanced if we also had available editions of its early Hebrew translations.A. G. Lambert 1891: 13.

85 8 88 84 . 34-37. 87 "roi nD13"3U' n T S f 1DD vVljWl VOW mnanV.) takes the word TO'Tti in the phrase XnDN&n "^V T\^?T\ roVn m& r Q T I J ]K n j D to mean "fix" (the text).1. Saadya's comments show that these were present in the text before him but the Scroll only has these paragraphs where they are logically required. Ms E agrees with the Scroll.with §§ 9 and 17 following on from § 12. He calls in evidence first the doublets which are found in the com­ mentary but not in the Scroll . If he felt able to do what Epstein suggests he would not have admitted on occasions that the text he had before him was wrong. He is admitting to choosing the text which he regards as the best one but not to composing his own version. Temirin.5). II. As 1 hope that I have demonstrated in the notes to the text of SY. 4:2) to be ad­ mitting that he was rearranging the text to produce a more logical order. It seems highly unlikely that a scribe copy­ ing from Saadya's commentary would accept exactly the readings which Saadya 87 88 Kafach 1972: 34. " Kafach 1972: 110. See the translations of Kafach and Lambert cited above in footnote 2. The logical inference is that these doublets were added in after the recension was constructed.3 has a different reading from both of them. with the bet­ ter text descending through the Scroll to Ms E and the inferior text coming before Saadya. then the Long Recension. and then the Saadyan Recension created from a rearrangement of the Long Recension. is too simple and uncompli­ cated for the confusing textual data we have.§§ 37b and 56a. 84 85 86 Israel Weinstock has made a strong case that the Genizah Scroll of SY (Ms C) was copied from the sort of text that Saadya had before him and not from his commentary. He would have just altered it and kept quiet. Then Weinstock cites two paragraphs where Saadya proclaims in error readings which appear in the Scroll .§§ 19 and 54. The Four Pre-Kabhalistic Commentaries 27 to be accepting here that material was added to the previously orally transmitted SY at the time that it was put into writing but that the order of the material was henceforth fixed.10. There are too many instances where the Saadyan Recension seems to take us back to a form of SY which predates even the Short Recension. Lambert 1891: 73). Ms E agrees with the Scroll in § 19 but in § 54. and he does this in view of the problems created by the long history of oral transmission which he postulates for the text of SY. This would be in conflict with what Saadya has just said about the order of the words being "fixed" at the time of the writing down of the Mishnah. Lambert 1891: 13.1. Epstein takes Saadya's comment on § 12 (his ch. J would understand Saadya at this point to be just trying to discern the logic of the arrange­ ment he inherited . We might add to Weinstock's list here the case of § 47 where Saadya proclaims incorrect precisely the leading which appears in the Scroll. It seems to me that Saadya is referring here to his practice of writing out the full Hebrew text of each lemma in what he regards as the correct text before commenting on it. a history of the text which posits first the Short Recension. In the paragraph which follows this statement Epstein (ibid.5. See the notes to these paragraphs.

then. But Ms Z has eleven! Presumably there were twelve when the text left Saadya's hands. for example. It seems clear. that the Scroll. 89 90 91 See the notes to this paragraph.28 Introduction has deemed to be incorrect. " Note also what Haberman says: p n ? JHY1] Vlll ipa?3D p x j n n s D'XTI MR ]K3 DJ V7JJ3 D T y O TH ' 3 n 3 VstEO iV'SKI " m p T O m O D NinilO C03U (1946/7: 242). one of which is the reading of Ms C that he declares erroneous. shows rather decisively that the Saadyan Recension was not the work of Saadya himself but of an editor much earlier in the chain of transmission. But if we accept that Saadya was not actually the creator of the Recension which has come to bear his name. for example. In § 54. A History of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages (Cambridge 1990). we do know that Saadya was occasionally unhappy about the text which he had and felt the need to correct it. further. these few indications mean that Saadya's commentary (and with it Ms Z) have to be treated with some caution as witnesses to the text of SY. Did he alter the reading to imnn which he declares is the correct o n e ? In the case of § 47 it is not inconceivable that Saadya found sixteen "diagonal lines" in his text as we find them in Ms C and corrected them to twelve. § 2 where he comments as though the word T I C was present in his text though it is not in Ms Z . Ms E has the chapter divisions but not the paragraphs. what he does with § 17 (Kafach 1972: 110. His translation and comment on § 12 seem to presuppose the text found in Mss CE and not that in Ms Z. most notably in § 19 where he cor­ rected the number of "gates" from 221 to 231. See Colette Sirat. how far can we rely on Ms Z to have transmitted ac­ curately the Hebrew text of SY which Saadya embedded in his commentary? Can we be sure that the text it transmits has not been "improved" in the three hundred and thirty one years since it left the Gaon's pen? There are a few occasions where it seems clear that Saadya is working from a different Hebrew text than the one contained in Ms Z.or CE for that matter. Nor can Saadya's translation into Arabic of the Hebrew text on which he is commenting be a secure basis for reconstructing the Hebrew text he had before him since what he offers is often the "meaning" of the text or just a paraphrase. As we have seen. can we rely on him to have faithfully transmitted the text he did receive and. supported by Ms E. Finally.3 he knows of two variant readings. See. It is probably time to dethrone Ms Z from its role hitherto as the primary witness to this recension. Weinstock points out that the Scroll has none of the chapter or paragraph divisions that Saadya found (or inserted?) in his text. Lambert 1891: 102-03. 9 0 1 8 9 9 2 . Lambert 1891: 74). See. All in all. Hence the importance of Mss C and E as independent witnesses to the text of the Saadyan Recension. Kafach 1972: 140. Moreover. At least here he tells us what he has done.

214. Altmann and S. p. Fenton. In a series of articles published in REJ between 1939 and 1963 Georges Vadja gave extensive consideration to this commentary. besides Dunash. Fenton considers it possible that Jacob ben Nissim wrote a 92 91 94 95 96 97 98 57-68 and A. Stern.that of Moses ben Joseph (dating from the second half of the twelfth century) and that of an anonymous author of unknown date based on an abridgement made from the original Arabic text possibly of 1092. Vadja. Two of these translations are available in critical editions . In 955/6 C. The Four Pre-Kabbalistic Commentaries 29 10.108). parts of which Dunash could have incorporated in his own work. Vadja has argued that in the course of transmission these have contaminated each other in a way which can no longer be disentangled. Ibid. Isaac Israeli. Three-quarters of Dunash's original Arabic text have been preserved in the Cairo Genizah (in fragments now in Cambridge and St Petersburg). Isaac Israeli: A Neoplatonic Philosopher of the Early Tenth Century (Oxford 1958). to Jacob ben Nissim of Kairouan (died 1007). Ibid. 7. At least five Hebrew translations were made during the Middle Ages. Grossberg. 39.E. Barzillai cites Dunash's commen­ tary from this abbreviated version (Vadja-Fenton 2002: 35. Lambert 1891:42. 211-248. n. we are awaiting a definitive edition of them by Paul Fenton. 58-61).B. Ibid. Hebrew text on p. 2002).2 The Commentary of Dunash lhn Tamim Dunash Ibn Tamim from Kairouan (c. The text is in Grossberg 1902: 22 and Kafach 1972: 74-5.10. and P. Fenton argues that Jehuda b. he wrote a com­ mentary on SY primarily in order to counteract what he regarded as the errors in Saadya's commentary. His work on this text has now been collected and re-published with extensive corrections and additions by Paul Fenton (= Vadja-Fenton 2002). it has been attributed to his teacher Isaac Israeli.E. and even to Abraham Ibn Ezra. However the com­ mentary we have cannot be the work of Isaac since the author refers to him as his teacher in the preface. 28-30.M. There is some confusion in the manuscripts over the authorship of this commen­ tary and. The St Peters­ burg fragment of the Arabic text attributes it to the head of a Palestinian academy. See the preface to his commentary (G. M. to after 955/6) was a pupil of the Jewish neo-Platonic philosopher. Sefer Yezirah ascribed to the Patriarch Abraham with commentary by Du­ nash Ben Tamim (London 1902). Fenton (Paris-Louvain. See Paul Fenton's introduction to Vajda-Fenton 2002:11 and Fenton 1988: 46-47. At one point Dunash quotes a comment of Isaac which also appears in Saadya's commentary but attributed to an anonymous source.890 C. The Hebrew translations lend to tone down Dunash's criticisms of Saadya. Judah h a . G. Vajda-Fenton 2002: 16. Le Commentaire sur le Livre de la Creation de Dunas ben Tdmin de Kairouan (Xe siecle): NouveUe edition revue et augmenteepar Paul B.K o h e n It is quite possible that Isaac Israeli did write a commentary on SY which is now lost. 93 94 95 9 6 97 98 99 . For the date see his comment on SY § 7 and Vajda's note on the complex problems of the textual variants in the Mss for this date (ibid.

" The confusion with Abraham Ibn Ezra may have arisen because he might have been one of the earliest translators of Dunash's book. pp. § 38 (closest to Ms K). Dunash generally seems to have had an even shorter text than that represented in our best Short Recension manuscripts. Mosis Haddarsan (Jerusalem 1940). 101 102 . However. As we shall see in the notes on the text. take us back even earlier in its transmission history than they do. no Short Recension manuscript resembles Dunash's text as closely as this. The existence of the Short Recension is also attested in the mid-eleventh cen­ tury by Moshe Ha-Darshan of Narbonne. the readings we have reveal clear affinities with the Short Recension. 1-2. Albeck. However. § 42 (agreeing with Ms A except for reading D'DSJD instead of WW with the Short Recension Mss KSFPIR). § 39 (exactly as K). The text cited in the commentary agrees on the whole with our best manuscripts of this recension and may. § 43a (closest to Mss SFI). hence Vadja's title for the work: "le commentaire Kairouanais. In the first paragraph of his Bereshit Rabbati he cites SY §§ 19a (agreeing with the text of Mss KAD). unlike Saadya's commentary where we have at least two manuscripts (C and E) which are almost (but not quite) identical with the Hebrew text embedded in it. only had available a copy of the Prague manuscript on which he based his edition and was unable to see the original manuscript. A good case could now be made for including it within the apparatus of an edition of SY. it is invaluable in my attempt to reconstruct the history of the text of SY." Dunash's commentary is our earliest witness to the existence of the Short Recen­ sion of SY. An indication of the high status Moshe accorded to SY as a source of tradition from at least the rabbinic period is the formula ] 3 ' 3 m with which he introduces these quotations. and finally § 37 (exactly as Ms K except for omitting 'DTI along with nearly all the Short Recension manuscripts). See the table in Appendix II.especially the large portion of the original Arabic text. it is unsafe to rely on this work as a witness to the text of SY because the editor. C. The task is immeasurably aided by Fenton's re-edition of Vajda's translations of the commentary in the light of all the textual data which we now possess . 100 m 102 ™ See Epstein 1893: 458. Nor was he able to give a date for the manuscript. though he seems to suggest that it postdated the invention of printing (1940: 36). therefore. text. on occasion. as does the order § 43a followed by § 4 2 . confined my use of this commentary to the textual notes where. I have. Midras Beresit Rabbati ex libro R.30 Introduction commentary on SY (now lost) that was later confused with Dunash's work. Chaim Albeck. However. The Hebrew text on which Dunash is com­ menting is clearly distinguished from the commentary and does not appear to have suffered from intervention by Dunash himself. however. Vajda and Fenton together have demonstrated conclusively that the commentary is Dunash's own work but that it encapsulates the view of SY taken by the school of Kairouan.

However. probably nearer the latter.mainly those which can be interpreted as containing. in the same way that he sees Saadya's commentary as the source of his eponymous recension. and even then would be subject to the vagaries of fate and scribal intervention which we discussed earlier. astrological doctrine. // commento di Sabbatai Donnolo stil libra della creazione. will certainly need to be handled with the usual "health warnings". See. for example. This makes it difficult at times to isolate the text of SY which Donnolo had before him from his own comments on it.3 The Hakhemoni qfShabbetai Donnolo Shabbetai Donnolo (913 . There are complications about using the text of the Hakhemoni to throw light on the textual history of SY. ' "Unfortunately Castelli's edition of Donnolo's commentary to SY. This commen­ tary.after 982) came from Oria in South Italy. The Hakhemoni does not have § 62 against all the Long Recension manuscripts. SY § 20 where it is clear that the text found in Mss A and B is presupposed in Donnolo's com­ mentary but his commentary cannot be their source. esoteric. 103 104 2 105 106 See Andrew Sharf. Epstein's identification of the Long Recension (Mantua II in his terminology) as the SY text with which Donnolo was working. The Four Pre-Kahbalistic Commentaries 31 10. The Universe of Shabbetai Donnolo (Warminster 1976). David Castelli. We have already referred to A. See Epstein 1893:458-462. p. then. but his interest was in Donnolo's astrology and anthropology and he does not deal with his work as a source for the textual history of SY. He is primarily interested only in parts of SY . was written between 946 and 982. Donnolo's work on SY is not comparable to that of Saadya and Dunash. should not be consulted without checking the manuscripts he used!" (1973: 483).the Hakhemoni.10. many of them in libraries outside Italy. Large parts of S Y are either recorded without comment or with paraphras­ tic additions inserted into the base text. Neither conclusion is now tenable. part way be­ tween the ports of Taranto and Brindisi. But Epstein goes further and sees Donnolo's commentary as the actual source of the Long Recension. major terminals of the trade routes to the eastern Mediterranean. in his 1880 edition. 104 105 m 103 . His commentary on SY . pp. but Ithamar Gruenwald is scathing about the quality of his work. The text of SY contained in the Hakhemoni is certainly the Long Recension but it is by no means identical with the near contemporaneous Ms A. the way in which he handles the text of SY certainly throws a lot of light on the process by which the Long Recension emerged. 11. used four Italian manuscripts. so where did they get it from if Donnolo's work was their source? Many other examples could be supplied to show that Donnolo's version of the Long Recension was not identical with the one we have in our manuscripts. 155-158) provides some information on the manuscripts of the Hakhemoni and the areas where he felt that Castelli's edition required supple­ mentation. A proper critical edition would need to take in the evidence of them all. Sharf (Appendix A. The Catalogue of the JNUL Microfilm Institute lists twenty-three manuscripts of Donnolo's Hakhemoni.

102." Judah builds on the view of the origins of SY which is presented by Saadya at the conclusion of the introduction to his com­ mentary.'jiVman »Wia p m i T n"? n T X ' nso w i t d in Masuut. He reports that the manuscript was then in the possession of Professor Nehemiah Allony in Jerusalem who let him examine it.in Padua. So Epstein 1893: 459. "' Dan 1994: 105. Goldreich (Jerusalem 1994). His massive and immensely detailed commentary was written about the middle of the twelfth century. then. his work required a large series of corrections which are supplied as an appendix by David Kaufmann but it is still regarded as unreliable. v m n s a i vsix .D a-in D ' j i p T i n n i n n ? (Dan 1994: 99. on the Short Recension though he knew the Long Recension. only one manuscript of Judah's commentary has survived .' However. like Dunash's. He sees it as only one remnant of a once larger collection of J I T S ' n i D T H . as we shall see. It was edited by S. as with the other commentaries we 15 6 107 I. Usually. There is a similar negative judgement on Halberstam's work by Ithamar Gruenwald (1973: 482). Jehuda b. Ta-Shma. EJ. Oron and A.3. according to Joseph Dan. See. n. 1994:99-119. Barsilai (Berlin). much the same motivation lies behind the expansion of the text of SY as we go from the Short to the Long Recension. Siphre de-beRav and the Hekhalot texts. See Halberstam 1885: 101 and Dan 1994: 115. p.32 Introduction 10." we will need to return to these later since. The state of its text is not.. Judah's reasons for writing such an extensive commentary on SY (three hundred and fifty-four pages in Halberstam's edition) have been carefully studied by Joseph Dan. his comments cited in the notes to § 1. His primary source was Saadya's commentary and secondarily Dunash's " but he seems to refer to Shab­ betai Donnolo's work anonymously. he classifies Long Recension readings as commentary material which he found in some versions. a great surprise to him. M.M. studies in Kabbalah and Jewish Thought in Memory of Ephrayim Gottlieb. Judah cites Saadya's work frequently throughout his commentary and in­ cludes at the end an extensive excerpt from one (no longer extant) Hebrew translation of it (Hal­ berstam 1885: 268-278). as we have seen. ed. 1893:459.l). It is based. n a p i n m n e m r i D n x x i n ? 'IXYI . Halberstam in 1885." Again. X: 341-42. n. for example." Judah seems to classify SY with the talmudic baraitot. Judah seems to extend this period of oral transmission to the time of the Gaonim . 1 0 8 m 110 112 113 114 115 116 1 1 . as Epstein was the first to point out.YIX» iv C O H P D f i i ? t?opon. had postulated an oral tradition of the laws of creation (HTS'' I T O V t I ) descending from Abraham and only written down at the same time as the Mishnah. .J. Continental-zum Sepher Jezira von R. Saadya. 107 108 109 110 1 2 3 4 Unfortunately.at least that is how Dan understands his rather vague statements on this point.4 The Commentary of Rabbi Judah ben Barzillai Judah ben Barzillai of Barcelona was active in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries.

" Issues like that will be of concern for a subsequent work to this one. Appendix IV contains the full text of Ms A with the material which is additional to my "earliest recoverable text" underlined. Ms K's elimination of the permutations of m r P in § 15. Penetrating into that period does become highly speculative and obviously passes over the borderline between textual and literary/source criticism. of Ithamar Gruenwald's speculations that §§ 1-16 and §§ 17-63 were originally separate works artificially bound together by mate­ rial like the introductory § l. The Earliest Recoverable Text of Sefer Yesira and the Three Recensions 33 will need to pay close attention to the text that Judah appears to be commenting on as a check on the text cited in his lemmas. We have no reason to presume that these processes had not been in operation prior to the period to which the manuscripts give us access. There are a few occasions where we can guess why a scribe might want to shorten the text he had before him . for example. Ms A contains virtually the whole of 7 8 117 118 See the quotation from Emmanuel Tov cited in the general note on §§ 39-44. scribes altered the ideological orientation of the text by means of supplementation and. Otherwise.for example. Often. It also. It has been created as a theoretical exercise in order to try to penetrate into the processes which led to the formation of the multitudinous texts of SY which have come down to us. but not always. As we have seen. I am thinking here." By this 1 mean the text on the basis of which it is possible to explain how most of the variant texts now in the recensions and manuscripts arose." My "earliest recoverable text" is not to be taken as synonymous with the "origi­ nal text" of SY. if that produced internal inconsistencies. turns out to be the shortest text we have. almost invariably.//. we certainly have the support of the earliest commen­ tators for assuming this to be the case for SY. See Gruenwald 1973. but nearly always it is easier to think of reasons why scribes expanded the text. 11. There is only one case where I am inclined to suspect that part of the text was cut out for theological reasons .what they all have in common. The Earliest Recoverable Text of Sefer and the Three Recensions Yesira In Appendix III I have summarised the results of my investigations into the text of SY by printing what 1 have chosen to call the "earliest recoverable text of SY. it did not seem to worry them.§ 60b in the Saadyan Recension. it will be the lowest common denominator of our available texts . Judah's commentary is particularly valuable for the wide range of evidence he brings to his discussion of the text of SY and his apparent awareness of the reasons for the differences between the sources he had. .

and that it refers allusively in the final paragraph (61) to Abraham's strange experience recorded in Genesis 15. not the twelve tribes of Israel.but this is absent in the Saadyan Recension.E. and that is all. However. sidelines revelation in favour of empirical observa­ tion . 13. 120 121 122 . 47. vol. "the book occupies a kind of spiritual isolation. and 61. a faint echo of Isa 45:7 in § 37b (probably itself a later addition). as seen in § 61.2 The Rabbinic Material Apart from the fact that it is written in Hebrew. Part of Qoh 7:14 is quoted without an introductory formula in § 60b . See the notes to § 60 for the reasons why I think it may still be part of our "earliest recover­ able text. men and women. The added biblical material can be found in §§ 1. For him the number twelve conjures up the twelve signs of the zodiac. an allusion to Isa 64:3 in § 40. Ezek 1:14 again in § 8. 120 121 11. By analysing this supplementary material we can get a good idea of how and why the text of SY was subject to such continuous scribal activity. date proposed by Yehuda Liebes (2000: 229-300). Buber. the Messiah or life after death. It does not mention Moses or his Torah. I. S. the author's concern is with human beings as such (U7D3). we have only a tiny handful of allusions: Job 26:7 in the word nD'Va (§§ 3-10). the signs of the zodiac are twelve. not Jews in particular. the year twelve months. and it does not claim any pseudonymous authority. p. Therefore all the tribes of Israel are twelve" (eel. one word of Gen 1:1 and two of Isa 57:20 in § 13. Vilna 1885. This supplementary material can be classified under the following heads: //. Its epistemology. p. 10. 1 The Biblical Material in Sefer Yesira* 19 The biblical content in our "earliest recoverable text" is very minimal. The people of Israel are not mentioned. that it alludes to the Temple in § 38. Otherwise. I do not see that the scarcity of biblical material in the earliest layer of the SY tradition provides any grounds for the impossibly early mid-first century C. The day has twelve hours. that is positively unique in the history of Hebrew literature" (1973: 477).34 Introduction the SY tradition. Contrast Tanhuina WaV'hi 17: "But it [Scripture] arranged the tribes according to the order of the world.presumably one of the reasons why it was such an attractive basis for their 122 "' This material has been investigated in much greater detail in Hayman 1984. the night twelve hours. It goes without saying that scribes are more likely to add biblical material than leave it out. there is little on the surface which is Jewish in our "earliest recoverable text" of SY. All other biblical references are not attested in one or more of our sources. As Ithamar Gruenwald has well said. 179." See the table in Hayman (ibid). 38. 221). 56. We have explicit citations with the requisite introductory formulae only in § 5 (Ezek 1:14) and § 14 (Ps 104:4).

56 and 57 I have attempted to show that there "is a series of additions to the core text of SY which attempt to restructure its cosmology in line with that presupposed in the Hekhalot literature and other talmudic material. Part of the function of the Long Recension additions is clearly to mitigate this strangeness of SY and to pull it back from the periphery to the centre of the ongoing rabbinic version of Judaism.41 and 52 seems designed to call to mind the famous story in b. See Hayman 1987. Other midrashic material can be observed in the glosses in §§ 38 and 56." . The weak attestation of this material in the SY tradition undermines Yehuda Liebes's attempt."The Doctrine of Creation in Sefer Yesira: Some Text-Critical Prob­ lems. I2J cf Joseph Dan." In §§ 3 and 61 the additions bring the covenant of circumcision into the text and stress the connection between God. It comes. to argue for the throughgoing Jewish nature of SY. Men. continued in the commentaries. This is clearly presupposed in the constant use of the verbs j?j?n and D S n and also "IXV"IX. 77." 124 125 11.3 Creatio ex Nihilo in Sefer Yesira The predominant image in SY of God as creator is that of the artist working on pre-existent materials. see Liebes 2000: 225.3i'?xian 'V»ro p mirr "V? m'jp I D D W I T D . of smoothing over the evident contradiction between the worldview of SY and that of Scripture and Talmud. The literary structure of §§ 32-34. ' See Hayman 1993 . 14. Hag. 43b. But there are many other additions which give the text much more of the feel of the rabbinic and midrashic texts. especially with regard to the process of creation. therefore. Less overtly it can be seen in 2 I have investigated the epistemology of SY in greater detail and in comparison with Qohelel in Hayman 1991. The whole feel of the text is different when we move from Ap­ pendix III to Appendix IV. especially pp. 4 8 . as no surprise that a layer of glosses can be detected that attempt to correct SY's view of the creative process in the direction of creatio ex nihilo} *' This is directly observable in the text of § 20 where we will see that many scribes have had a hand in rewriting the text.//. but also in regard to epistemology. 4 7 . 119. There is a clearly discernible layer of glosses drawn from talmudic material in b. p. 78-80." We find the same list of names in § 56 which is too weakly attested to be assigned to our "earliest recoverable text. as against Dan. 125 I2f 123 . We know that this was a problem for its early in­ terpreters. vrnmai VDIX . Obviously the addition of the biblical material discussed above is one element which makes the difference. see §§ 13. The Earliest Recoverable Text of Sefer Yesira and the Three Recensions 123 35 own speculations of our tenth century commentators. Now the creator becomes the "God of Israel. 29b of Moses ascent to heaven and his observation of God tying crowns to the Torah. The additions initiate the process. Abraham and his descendants. Finally in §§ 3 8 . 12 and y. Hag. The difference can be seen immediately in the text of § 1 with the insertion of the long list of divine names and titles. 47 and 56.

62) mentions the seven hours and. In no paragraph in SY is the verb N"Q attested in all recensions and manuscripts. n." The seven hours refers to the allocation of each hour of the day. "Deration" und Gotzendienst (Frankfurt 1982). In the quotation from this text in § 48a all texts have In this way the potentially problematic view of creation in SY is adjusted to that which became the norm in medieval Judaism. 27-35.36 Introduction the attempt to insert the verb throughout the text and allow it to qualify j?pn. n.'Vn . Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research. and Sefer Yesira § 59" (forthcom­ ing). 43. whereas the Jewish form of the planetary hours (counting from the first hour of Sunday) requires the order DSC *?3)n. 52. 11. ed. as Solomon Ganz has correctly observed the author of SY "connected the seven planets in the natural order of V'DJn DSU7 . "° Ganz 1948/9: 238. A. to the seven planetary bodies . This phrase recurs in § 24 but only in the Saadyan Recension. none of the other paragraphs in SY which describe which object was created by each of the seven letters (§§ 39. Kantor (St Petersberg 1887).with the first seven days instead of the first seven hours of creation". 44. In § 19b only the Short Recension Mss K and R have the phrase *?3n Dn»1P. Harkavy. 213-254. in sequences of seven. Schliiter. However. Epstein 1894: 68. 33-51.322. Ancient Astronomy (London and New York: 1994).L. La mystique cosmologique juive (Paris 1981). S'^nX . seven hours and seven days.4 The Astrological Material in Sefer Yesira Apart from the possible reference to the nodes of the moon in the word 'Vn in §§ 55 and 59. the most blatant example of this attempt to correct the text of SY is found in the quotation from Qoh 7:14 in § 60 where many manuscripts substitute N"D for the nttW of the biblical text. 210. In § 4 the gloss 'D inVlT fXT rd? XTQI *1XV S i n appears only in four Long Recension Mss. 41. However. .E. The allocation is crucial for the operation of astrology because it tells us which planetary body is dominant at the time of any particular event. Y. See Ganz. See Hayman "The Dragon. i. and M. I agree with Epstein (1894: 64-65) and Sed. seven earths.. See Sharf (1976: 28-9) for the headache this ordering in SY created for Shabbetai Donnolo. "The Origin of the Planetary Week or The Planetary Week in Hebrew Litera­ ture". there is only one clear astrological reference in SY. D s n and "ISV"1S. Ganz concludes that SY § 42 is "the 127 128 129 See A. that 'Vn here refers to the axis mundi. 130-142. Barton.6 also regards SY § 42 as a late interpolation into the text.the system which gives rise to our names of the days of the week. The Universe of Shabbetai Donnolo (Warminster 1976). Sharf. in § 42: "And with them were carved out seven firmaments. 18 (1948/9).e nab n»n"2D1D HJIJ n a n D'lXB p n s TOW. and T. 128 I W 127 . April/May. In § 1 the phrase IftVlV nx N"D is missing in Mss DPQ and the commentators Dunash ben Tamim and Judah ben Barzillai. the Axis Mundi. Ben-Ammi.

41-44. Tel etait probablement a I'origine le sens de 'Vn et cest seulement apres que la conception du dragon lunaire eut penetre dans les mileux juifs que ce mot prit d'autres significations et finalement celle de dragon lunaire" (1894: 64-65). § 6 (B'GH). 130 131 11. The Earliest Recoverable Text of Sefer Yesira and the Three Recensions 37 gloss of a later editor who wished to reconcile the theory of the Book of Creation with the accepted theory of the planetary hour week. The addition of the names of God in §§ 1 and 56 may reflect the same motivation. and § 7 (G) seems designed to identify the ten sefirot as attributes of God. SY § 42 in the second form in which it appears in the Short Recension (i. But another was to make SY conform to later astrological orthodoxy.5 The Kabbalistic Readings and Additions There is very little additional material in SY which can be allocated to scribes with an interest in its kabbalistic interpretation ." In the notes to §§ 39. One major motive for the creation of this material was to spell out the implications of the enigmatic § 39. Naturally. the Long Recension form of § 42. identifying the names with the sefirot. what few readings there are appear only in manuscripts dating from the fourteenth century onwards. after § 43a and before § 45). Yecira designe par le mot '^n et voila pourquoi il lui asssigne un rang si important dans l'univers. 132 131 . The gloss in § 55 in Mss B'H (mViQH VVU 'Vn 1!"H) is an overt sign of a scribe wishing to emphasise this particular line of interpretation. These range from simple one word or phrase "C'est certainement ce dragon representant l'axe du monde que notre S. On the Lurianic edition of SY which takes this line of interpretation as given see Goldschmidt 1894: 25-26. Gruenwald (1973: 499) points out that the addition of the quotation from Ps 93:2 in § 10 provides ten words from J133 to 1371 and this laid the text open to kabbalistic interpretation.D ' t P n D as they are often classified by the early commentators.1 have argued that the "earliest recoverable text" of SY contained only the Saadyan version of § 39.6 The Commentary Material The overwhelming majority of the additions to the text of SY reflect no ideologi­ cal bias but are clarificatory and expository material . as does the reading 1 0 1 0 3 inV'nm wVnrD 1D1D in § 6 (G). None of the material in §§ 41-44 is attested in all three recensions. The reading i m D for JIITO in § 4 (Ms B ). But. more significantly.Dan's "third phase" in its history. and the Short and Long Recension forms of § 43a belong to this later astrological reshaping of SY. in line with the attempt Epstein identifies to give an astrological connotation to the word 'Vn in § 59. ' Dan 1998. 132 1 1 11.e. The readings W S J ? and ircVDni in § 8 (B ) seem to have the same tendenz.//. Neither is present in the Saadyan Recension. and the alternative form of § 42 found directly after § 39 in most Short Recension manuscripts does not contain the phrase n i l ^ iOtP.

Dunash or Judah. the bulk of them appear in the last three chapters of the Saadyan version. !TJtP3. spread right across the whole textual tradition. 41. and 52. The words D ^ l l O .2) that the literary structure of this complex of material also serves the purpose of binding SY closer to the rabbinic tradition. Again none of this material appears in the Short Recension. and this casts a shadow over the possible presence of §§ 32-34 in the earlier stages of the SY text tradition. An example of a gloss appearing in just one manuscript is the words n n X l P l P in Ms A.4 9 complex. mankind by itself. Two large complexes of material seem to have this integrative motive: (1) §§ 32-24. . 44 and 54 precisely parallel the content of §§ 32-34. §§ 2 and 9 seem to have been created for this purpose. 37b. . These latter I en­ close in square brackets in Appendix 111. Israel Weinstock argues. some in one or more of the recensions. . I would surmise. constructed on a fixed framework. . and §§ 17-61 (63) dealing with the twenty-two letters. Neither §§ 41 nor 52 appear in the Short Recension or the commentaries of Dunash and Judah. For example. In the Saadyan Recension it ap­ pears in a single block at the beginning of Saadya's chapter eight. D D' 1. Some additions of this type appear in one manuscript only. For a set of single word glosses compare the text of § 39 in Appendices III and IV. many of the additions. This is clearly an attempt to explain the ambiguous word DlpftV which precedes them. the Short Recension version of § 12 is a complete rewrite of the earlier form of the paragraph with the evident intention to integrate together the two separate parts of SY . We have already seen above (in section 11. the §§ 4 8 . there would be no mention of the twenty-two letters in chapter one (§§ 1-16) of SY. take further the explicatory and integrative purpose discernible behind the single word additions to § 39 and spell out in detail the evidence for the fundamental principle of § 43c. seem to have this aim. They appear throughout the text but are concentrated towards its end. 41 and 52 but cast their material into a different literary framework. and some have. and have been added after D'DDID. etc. 133 See the notes to §§ 32-24. the year by itself. as Gruenwald has already suggested (1973: 498).§§ 1-16 dealing with the sefirot. (2) §§ 36. especially in the Long Recension. § 5. In fact."He split up the witnesses and made each one stand by itself .38 Introduction clarifications to whole paragraphs or larger complexes of material. that this was the original arrangement of this material and only later was it split up and distributed in the Long Recension over the chapters dealing with the three separate groups of letters (1981: 44). without them. But often the additional material reflects far more intrusive editorial motivations. possibly rightly. and D "ll?ttn to further stress the principle laid down in § 43c ." These additions in §§ 5 and 39 are relatively simple explanatory glosses with larger expansions of the same type appearing in §§ 17b.the universe by itself.

also missing in the Short Recension and similarly labelled commentary material by Judah. Another type of expansion reflects none of these ideological or literary motivations and seems to be that most loosely attached to the SY text tradition . Dunash and Judah. The Saadyan Recension cannot just have been created out of the Long Recension either by Saadya or a predecessor.52 and 36. 12. although present in the Long and Saadyan Recensions. Judah ben Barzillai explicitly labels it interpolated commentary material. some earlier editor according to Weinstock. at the source stands the Short Recen­ sion while the Long Recension is simply the text of SY as extracted out of Shab­ betai Donnolo's commentary. Weinslock 1981: 37-38. Inevitably this means that any simple theory of how the text of SY developed must be ruled out of court. It is clear.Saadya himself according to Gruenwald. Gruenwald and Weinstock seem to agree that the Saadyan Recension was created out of the Long Recension but they differ as to who did it .41. but others are more ad hoc and incidental.missing in the Short Recension. The differences between 134 154 Gruenwald 1973: 476-77.44. The Three Recensions and the Development of the SY Text Tradition We have already referred to Abraham Epstein's relatively simple explanation of how the recensions of SY arose. The Three Recensions and the Development of the SY Text Tradition 39 The same evident purpose of spelling out the implications of the principle enun­ ciated in § 43c seems to be behind § 62 which is missing in all but two of the Short Recension manuscripts. as does § 58b .12. and 54).g. that these additions were made to the text of SY out of multiple motives. as so often elsewhere. But the complex situation we have to face in commenting on the various manuscripts and recensions reveals that no simple solution is adequate to explain the evidence before us. Weinstock is almost certainly correct in arguing that Saadya did not create his eponymous recension and nor did the Long Recension come out of Donnolo's com­ mentary. § 57. In this case we have sufficient manuscript evidence to be able to demonstrate how § 63 grew out of what was probably a marginal note to § 48b. and the Saadyan Recension that found in Saadya's commentary. . §§ 27-31 are missing in the Saadyan Recension and I will give reasons in the notes to §§ 25 and 27 for surmising that they arose out of an attempt by scribes to deal with an internal contradiction which may have been present in the earlier text of SY. they actually make matters worse. the two complexes of §§ 32-34. shows another way of expressing this integrative motive. Some do seem to reflect a disciplined and determined editorial intention (e. In his view. then. Harmonising additions are a common type of textual variant but here.the numerical midrashic material which first appears in § 48b and is fully developed in § 63.

23. This is not. Everywhere else a judgement has to be made between the evidence of all our available witnesses and no "rule of thumb" can be applied.27-31 (i. The Long and Saadyan Recensions omit § 50.19. after all. Nor elsewhere is it the case that I always find the "earliest recoverable text" in the Short Recension. surprising since it is one of our two earliest manuscripts. Combined with the paragraphs cited above where the Saadyan Recension text is preferable to all others this is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that we cannot simply identify the Short Recension as the "earliest recoverable text". In fact. not a great deal. i. then. This is the case in §§ 3.both in the extent of the material and the nature of their par­ ticular readings. 15. 37a. omitting them). But this does not mean that the text of the individual paragraphs in the Saadyan Recension is inferior to that in the other two recensions. and 61. though. In § 2 1 find the earliest form of the text in most Long Recension manuscripts and one Short Recension manuscript. 4 7 . My notes to the text will constantly attempt to provide the evidence for this conclusion. 4 5 . admittedly. 12. and 59. they omit it.40 Introduction the two are too great . probably correctly.42/43a/43b (again omitting them). the overlap in their shared material is so significant that the Saadyan version could have been constructed out of the Long Recension at an earlier stage in its development than we see in Ms A or Donnolo's commentary. 14. against the two versions of it in the Short Recension manuscripts. What light does all this throw on the history of SY? Unfortunately. §§ 5. 115 . 25.14.e. it is most often found in the Short Recension but. very often supported by Dunash. However. 39. See. I have often been driven to the conclusion that the Saadyan Recension takes us closest to the "earliest recoverable text" of SY. 8. We have already seen that the Short Recension version of § 12 is probably the latest form of the text. for example. But that puts paid to any simple line of development .18.Short Recension — Long Recension — Saadyan Recension. This can have been preserved in any of our textual witnesses. Since the text of SY emerges into the light of day early in the tenth century in all its complexity we would have to allow sufficient time for the complex pro­ cesses of development traced in my notes to the text. 4 0 .e. I would certainly concur with all my predecessors that the order of the chapters and paragraphs in the Saadyan Recension is secondary to that which we find in the Long and the Short Recensions. In the case of §§ 12.22. Judah. the notes 135 2 An alternative way to phrase this would be to say that the Saadyan Recension was created out of a Short Recension text that had already received some of the expansions that would later come to characterize the Long Recension. In a number of paragraphs the best text is preserved in all the recensions and in these paragraphs we can have the most confidence that we are in touch with the "earliest recoverable text" of SY. and one of the other recensions.19 and 61 it is Ms C (usually followed by E but not Z) which has the earliest text. namely. Ms C must in these > > paragraphs be taking us back to the time before the recensions arose. In § 20 the earliest form is in Mss A B and Donnolo. 7. 18.

932?) wrote a commentary on SY puts its date back to at least the first half of the ninth century. I am grateful to Professor Stefan Reif for drawing my attention to this article. The possibility discussed above that Isaac Israeli (850 . That search must be left for another book. possibly earlier if we have to allow it time to have taken on the aura of an ancient enough text to warrant such attention. at this point we cease to have any concrete evidence of the existence of S Y and start to have to rely on less firm criteria than hitherto. We pass over from textual to literary and historical criticism and the search for relevant parallels in content. But how much time do we need to allocate for this? I would guess at least one hundred years but.12. . has removed the alleged sixth century citation of SY by Eleazar Kalir from contention as the earliest reference to SY. The Three Recensions and the Development of the SY Text Tradition 41 on §§ 41-44 and 4 8 . it is impossible to be sure. "On the Antiquity of Sefer Yezira: The Qilirian Testimony revisited". Tarbiz 71 (2002). 136 Ezra Fleischer. However. 405-432. in the absence of any ninth century textual witnesses.4 9 where I feel the need to allow for six stages in the growth of these complexes.

.

Appendix I The Attestation of the Paragraphs in the Manuscripts ( x = paragraph is present in the manuscript) Long Recension Mss: § 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 X X X X X X Saadyan Recension H Short Recension K L M N A B 1 B 2 G D c z X X E s X F p I Q R X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X .

44 Long Recension Mss: 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43a 43b 43c 44 45 46 47 48a 48b 49 50 52 X X X X X X X Introduction Saadyan Recension H X Short Recension A X B' X B X 2 G X X D X c X X z X E X K X L X M X N X s X X F X p X 1 X Q X R X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X .

Appendix 1: The Attestation of the Paragraphs in the Manuscripts 45 Long Recension Mss: 53=43c 54 55 56 57 58 59 60a 60b 61 62 63 64 X X Saadyan Recension H X Short Recension K L M N A B' B X X 2 G X D c X X z X X E s F p I Q R X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ? X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Note: § 51 in Gruenwald's reckoning is actually the Short Recension version of the first sentence of § 56 (=§ 56a). See the notes to that paragraph. I have left it out of this table and the table of the order of the paragraphs. Accordingly. .

Appendix II The Order of the Paragraphs in the Manuscripts (Chapter divisions marked in capital Roman numerals) Long Recension A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 Saadyan Recension H Short Recension K 1 2 3 4 7 8 6 5 10 12 13 14 15 16 II B' 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 3 11 12 13 14 15 16 II B 2 G 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 D 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 C 1 2 3 7 9 23 Z 1 2 3 7 9 23 E 1 2 3 7 9 23 37a 45 L 1 2 3 4 7 8 6 5 10 12 13 14 15 16 II M 1 2 3 4 7 8 6 5 10 12 13 14 15 16 11 N 1 2 3 4 7 8 6 5 10 12 13 14 15 16 11 S 1 2 3 4 7 8 6 5 10 12 13 14 15 16 II F 1 2 3 4 7 8 6 5 10 12 13 14 15 16 11 P 1 2 3 4 7 8 6 5 10 12 13 14 15 16 11 1 1 2 3 4 7 8 6 5 10 12 13 14 15 16 II Q 1 3 4 7 8 6 5 R 1 2 3 4 7 8 5 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 II 37a 37a 45 45 10 6 12 13 14 15 16 II 58a 56a 58a 59a 58a 59a 4 8 9 59a II II 10 12 13 14 15 16 11 12 9 13 14 15 16 11 13 14 15 16 9 17 4 8 9 24a 4 24a 8 38 46 47 18 9 9 23 26 17 18 19 20 22 9 9 17 19 24a 38 37b 46 38 47 18 58b 9 9 9 23 17 18 19 20 22 9 23 17 18 9 17 18 19 9 23 26 9 17 18 9 23 17 18 19 20 21 9 17 19a 17 18 19b 20 17 9 19 20 21 22 111 18 9 19 20 21 22 23 17 18 19 20 21 19a 26 17 18 17 18 9 17 18 19 20 17 18 20 19 23 20 21 24 25 58b 46 5 6 9 47 19a 19 17 18 20 21 19b 19 20 21 20 21 19 20 20 22 21 22 56a 111 18 5 19b 22 .

Appendix II: The Order of the Paragraphs in the Manuscripts 47 Long Recension A 21 22 111 Saadyan Recension H 22 HI Short Recension K 22 III B 1 B 2 G 26 27 28 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 111 D 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 C 25 26 Z E L 22 III M 111 N 111 S III F 20 22 21 22 111 P III 1 22 111 Q 111 R 21 22 III 23 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 IV 22 111 58b 6 III 9 25 26 24b 37b 48a 23 24 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 IV 23 24 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 IV 23 24 26 27 28 31 29 30 32 34 33 IV 23 24 28 30 31 32 33 34 IV 23 24 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 IV 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 IV 23 24 25 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 IV 24b 5 37b 6 48a 9 40 56 57 10 25 26 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 33 IV 23 24 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 IV 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 33 IV 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 IV 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 33 IV 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 IV 24b 40 37b 56 12 48a 57 9 17 19 20 12 13 14 15 16 32 33 34 35 39 41 40 56 57 IV IV 37 38 39 42 40 37 38 39 40 41 42 10 12 9 17 19 20 12 13 14 15 16 V 37 38 39 42 40 37 38 39 42 40 37 38 39 37 38 39 42 40 37 38 39 37 38 39 40 41 42 37 40 41 42 43a 10 12 9 17 19 20 13 14 15 16 V 37 38 39 40 37 43a 38 42 42 V 37 38 43a 43a 40 42 V 39 42 40 43a 40 37 38 39 43a 41 43b 42 42 V 43a 37 42 V 43a 39 42 V 37 38 43a 43a 42 V 38 39 42 40 45 47 42 40 43a 42 V 43c 43c 43b 44 45 46 47 48 49 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 43c 44 V 42 V 45 47 49 45 47 49 39 43a 43a 44 40 43b 40 41 42 43a 43c 41 44 V IV 45 47 49 42 48a V 45 47 49 45 47 49 45 47 49 45 46 48a 48a 49 43a 50 45 50 56 VI 42 45 46 47 48 49 52 54 55 56 57 32 33 34 35 39 41 43c VI 50 56 VI 50 56 58 42 V 56 VI 47 49 48a 45 50 47 43c 47 44 48 49 52 53 54 55 56 57 48a 50 50 56 58 56 58 43b 45 43c 32 48 52 53 62 36 44 54 33 34 35 39 41 45 58 48a 56 49 VI 43c 46 45 44 45 46 47 48 49 47 48 49 52 54 55 46 47 48 49 52 53 58 58 59a 47 59a 50 25 56 VI 48a 50 59a 59a 59a 25 49 25 25 58 59a 25 25 59b 48a 26 60b 50 59a 56 25 58 59b 26 26 59b 58 59b 60b 59b 59b 48b 56 60b 59a 26 59a 60b 48b 60b 60b 61 48b 61 VI 43c 48 VI 48b 25 59b 25 52 48b 48b 64 58 (63) 26 60b 59b .

48 Introduction Long Recension A 52 54 55 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 B 1 Saadyan Recension H 58 C 55 Z 48 E 53 VII Short Recension K 61 62 63 64 L 64 M 61 64 N 61 64 S F P B 2 G 58 59 D 59 I Q R 56 57 58 59 54 55 59a 61 25 26 59b 60b 48b 61 64 64 59b 48b 60b 60b 61 48b 64 61 64 48b 61 62 63 64 60a 59 60a 59b 52 60a 53 55 61 VII 56 60a 55 57 55 62 VIII 60b 55 60b 61 62 63 64 60a 58 55 60b 61 62 63 64 62 36 59 61 VII144 60b 60a 62 61 62 63 64 55 63 36 44 54 55 54 63 55 59b 60b 64 61 62 63 64 59b 60a 60a 55 55 61 61 .

Appendix III The Earliest Recoverable Text of Sefer Yesira .

50 Inlroduclion .

.Appendix III: The Earliest Recoverable Text of Sefer Yesira 51 17 s Long and Saadyan Recension form. Short Recension form.

As the notes to the text show. fols. So this appendix should always be considered along with these notes. 66a-71b. Sometimes the entire text of a paragraph has been rewritten. .Appendix IV The Long Recension Additions This appendix contains an exact copy of Vatican (Cat. Assemani) 299(8). 1 have underlined that material which is not present in my presumed "earliest recoverable text of SY" = Appendix 111. Punctuation is provided only where there is a corresponding mark in the manu­ script. it is not in fact a simple case of a series of additions being made to one core text. The function of this appendix is purely illustrative to enable the reader to get some visual idea of the scope and nature of the additions made to the text of SY in the course of its growth and development. Ms A in my edition. Things are far more com­ plicated than that.

Appendix IV: The Long Recension Additions 53 .

54 Inlroduclion .

Appendix 1V: The Long Recension Additions 55 .

56 Inlroduclion .

Appendix IV: The Long Recension

Additions

57

58

Inlroduclion

Edition and Commentary

Se/er Yesira § 1 K mn'ru D W I D'tpVwa mn ' -f ppn naan nixVs D'nVx V X T O ' 'nVx mxax J D W s n i m ' T O Vx o n nx xna I D P umpi iy naoa: ' D ' I O D nwVwa iaViy
,,

A
m-pru CittM D'wVu?

."iSOl "iDOl By means of thirty-two won­ drous paths of wisdom Yah, the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, the Living God, God Almighty, high and exalted, dwelling for ever, and holy is his name (Isa 57:15), carved out. He created his universe with three groups of letters (separim): with seper and seper and seper.'
1

" -p ppn naan mxVa o'nVx V X T O ' 'nVx mxas K m DT nn; Vx D " n xna law wnpi ny pw onso nwVuo iaViy nx .naoi naoi naoa
Yah, the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, the Living God, God Almighty, high and exalted, dwelling for ever, and holy is his name (Isa 57:15), carved out thirty-two wondrous paths of wisdom. He created his universe with three groups of letters (separim): with seper and seper and seper.

,

C [ma'n]3 D'wVwa] f v re ppn naan m]xVs D'nVx Vxnw 'nVx mxax xmn unnp ' T O Vx D " n iaViy nx xna. ny pw iau> i D D i naoa onso nwVwa
By means of thirty-two won­ drous paths of wisdom Yah, the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, the Living God, God Almighty, holy and terrible is his name, dwelling for ever, carved out. He created his universe with three types of things (whose names derive from the same root letters - s-p-r): with writing (seper) and numbers (s'par) and speech (sippur).

Dim K e
P D

m

ma'm D'nun D'wVwa m n ' m ppn naan mxVa noo D n s o 'ia iau> mxax
.TIDOI I D D I

ma'm o'nun D'tpVwa n ppn naan mxVo D " n D'nVx mxax mn'
1

on ' T O Vx V X T O '
,

'nVx

iau> unnpi ny pw xu>'3i nao nap. D "IDD nwVwa
.TIDD1

Z ma>n: o w n o'wVti'a m rr» ppn naan mxVa D'nVx Vxnw 'nVx mxas pw xum an ' T O Vx o"n nx xna iau> umpi ny naoa D'nDD nu>Vwa laViy .ms'oi nam

I have transliterated the Hebrew letter Pe here consistently with p in order to show as clearly as possible the play on words going on in the Hebrew text. Elsewhere I will use "f" to reflect the variant pronunciation of this letter when it is preceded by a vowel, e.g. in sefirot.

1

60 Q

Edition and Commentary

ma'nj D T H P I D ' W V U Q mxax " ppn noan mx'Va naoi naoa D n a o u>Vu>a
.ms'Di LMNSFIR collated to K: o'wVtPa] oV?w I. mxVa]
B'B GH
2

collated to A:
B'B GH.
2

E collated to Z:

wwi]
2

D'nun

mxVa] mx'Va E.

mx'Va M N F I R . 'nVx VxntP'] om L M N . D'nVx ttnnpi ...D"n] om L. D"n] add D V W -|Vai M N . 'nu? Vx
IDC?...] om M N . nSDI 2°] ms'Di L S , m s o i M N F I R .

mxVa] mx'Va G . naoi i°] nao B . naoi 2°] nia'oi
B'B GH.
2

Notes on the text of§ 1 The textual chaos of the manuscript tradition of SY is immediately apparent in § 1. Ms Q has thirteen words for this paragraph, P fifteen, L eighteen, D twenty-six, while the rest have twenty-eight or twenty-nine words. That the text has suffered considerable disruption is also clear from its syntactical problems. In most forms of the text the verb ppn is left without an object. Has the longer text evolved out of the shorter, or has the shorter text arisen from an attempt to resolve the syntactical prob­ lems of the longer form of the text? If it was the latter, then the attempt was not very successful. Even in the short form of the text (as in Mss P and Q) ppn is left without an object. In fact, the longest form of the text (in Mss AB'B GH) is the easiest to construe; see my translation above. If we compare the different forms of the text we see that there are two main differences between the long and the short forms: the list of divine names can vary in length from two up to fifteen words, and in Mss DPQ the phrase 173711? n x X 1 3 is omitted. There are a few other minor variants.
2

The evidence from the early commentators generally supports the shorter forms of the text. Dunash ben Tamin, in the Oxford Bodleian Ms 2250 edited by Gross­ berg (1902: 18) has the exact same text as Ms P, but the Hebrew translation of his commentary by Moses ben Joseph of Lucerne (Vajda-Fenton 2002: 215) has '131 instead of indicating that the list of divine names should be inserted. How­ ever, Georges Vajda's critical reconstruction of Dunash's text (2002: 41) places all these extra names in square brackets while Dunash's paraphrase of the text in his commentary presupposes the presence of only one name. And only this name (niX3X mn') is explained - rvuran V3 mVx. Neither Hebrew version of his com­ mentary has 1D?1i? n x X 1 3 and Dunash feels obliged to explain why the author has not used the verb X 1 3 . Shabbetai Donnolo has a very long form of the text
2
2

Vajda-Fenton 2002: text p. 217, trans, p. 50, Grossberg 1902: 23.

Kafach 1972: 46-48. 4 5 6 3 . If we look first at the problem of the number of divine names in the paragraph. as we shall see. Presumably. four in Mss MN. there are serious text-critical problems with that para­ graph . He says that the most accurate version has ten names parallel to the ten ma'amarot in Genesis 1 and the ten sefirot. this gives us a clue as to why these names were drawn into the text of SY from biblical texts like Isa 26:4. Their number does vary in the Mss. 138). significantly omitted by Mss M N as well as LPQ and Dunash."there are versions here which mention fewer of these names and there are versions which mention more of them" (Halberstam 1885: 116). None of the shorter forms can be explained as scribal errors unless we presuppose that a manuscript ancestral to LPQ and Dunash had ITDtP niX3X mn followed by the list of divine names concluding with 173U? WTTpl and that a subsequent copyist dropped the list by homoioteleuton. 4 5 1 6 One of the Mss of the Hakhemoni cited by Castelli in his footnote 8 to this page shows how scribal errors could shorten the list of divine names: the Turin Ms omits Vx D " n D'nVx by ho­ moioteleuton. therefore. except for reading D tt''?lP at the beginning and -IID'OT nSDl "IDD3 at the end (Halberstam 1885: 105. to agree with Weinstock (1972: 3 . Judah ben Barzillai cites a text which is generally closest to that of Ms D. Saadya says that these ten names refer to the ten Aristotelian categories and these in turn correlate with the Ten Commandments. However. 57:16 and from b. SY shows no interest at all in the people of Israel or the political dimension of Judaism. Otherwise his text agrees fairly closely with that of Ms K. The name VxiW occurs in SY only here and in § 56a as part of this divine name. For the importation of biblical and rabbinic material into the text of SY see Hayman 1984 and 1987. This list of names recurs in § 56a but. up to nine or ten in most Mss. Lambert 1891: 20-22. Hag. He recognises (p. for example the name Vxw 'nVx. from one in LPQ and Dunash. See Hayman 1986 for an attempt to show that the problem of the exile was actually central to the concerns of the author of SY. It is more convincing to see their reading as evidence of the list creeping up in size from one name on its way to the full ten required by the kind of exegesis we find in Saadya and Judah ben Barzillai. I am inclined. we see that Judah is quite right. except for reading "HOOT as the last word.Sefer Yesira § I 61 (thirty-one words) and even provides the required object (1D7TS? nx) after p p n (Castelli 1880: 34). Take. He says that the longer readings could be regarded as interpretative glosses (1D1? W l lansi p t t n v D I D D mnoun ixwn msoun mrrnn iVxw).the bulk of it is missing in the Short Recension and our earliest manuscript (A) does not have it at all. 116) that the number of divine names cited in § 1 varies in the Mss . at least on the surface. 12b. It could not explain the name list in Mss MN. But. He is aware of the read­ ings D'wVttO and laViy nx X 1 3 but insists on the correctness of his reading. none of the extant Mss has such a reading. so scribal error as an explanation for this variant remains possible but purely hypothetical. 13a.

13. but these paragraphs are missing in the Saadyan recension and represent a reformulation of §§ 32-34 where the verbs Dnn or "IS are used. (22). (24). is absolutely characteristic of the vocabulary of SY in all recensions and texts. They clearly betray the artistic analogy behind the author's concept of creation. Both Weinstock (1972 : 34. See §§ 1. though they are not as firmly anchored in it as ppn and 3 S n . and also see Liebes 2000: 33 for the differ­ ent interpretative implications of the two readings. (31). (36). (31).62 Edition and Commentary 32) that the earliest recoverable form of SY had only one divine name in § 1: m"P mxax or mxax mrr n\ 7 And now for the problem of laVlJ? n x X13. omitted by DPQ. then. If so. (42). seeing ppn as subordinate to X13 as the main verb in the paragraph. on the other hand. Likewise the verbs T1X and ~m and the noun 1ST' belong to the original vocabulary of the text. (54).17) and Gruenwald (1973: 482) are right. (49). Dunash and Judah. Its presence in § 1 could. The problematic attestation of the verb X13 in SY § J and elsewhere in the text weakens Liebes' case for an analogical link between Gen 1:1 and SY § 1 (2000: 96). (52). But X13 is very loosely anchored in the text of SY. (33). while about half the other manuscripts agree with Qoh 7:14 in reading instead of X13. has no such associations. it did not succeed in this task as my translations of Mss K. (34). then. Dunash's embarrassment at its absence is significant. 20. 12. (61). (48). 14. The word ppn (carved out) used in § 1. 8 10 7 . 39. (44). * See §§ (4). in agreeing with Judah ben Barzillai that loVlS? nx X13 is a later addition. The verb X13. and Z show. (6). In no paragraph in SY is the verb X~I3 attested in all recensions and manuscripts. (32). To assess the likelihood of this phrase belonging to the earliest recoverable form of the text we need to briefly survey the relative textual attestation of the different words used in SY for God's creative activity.2) and Gruenwald (1973: 481) as an attempt to correct the syntactical problems created when the phrase 1071V n x X13 was inserted into the text. 19. 48-49. In §§27-30 the Niphal of X13 is used. 20. And now for some of the minor textual variants in § 1: The reading D'wVwa for oV?W is regarded by Weinstock (1972: 32. but he does not take the text-critical data into account (2000: 13-34). see my translation of Ms A. Apart from § 1 the Qal form of the verb is used elsewhere only in §60 and there the quotation from Qohelet 7:14 in which it occurs is absent in the Saadyan recension. 8 9 10 This seems also to be the implication of Gruenwald's comments (1973: 482). n. n. See Hayman 1993 for a more detailed treatment of the concept of creation in SY. Brackets round a para­ graph number indicate that the words do not appear in all the textual witnesses to that paragraph. (39). of working on pre-existent materials. (17). along with its companion verb 3 X n (hewed out) used in §20. be the result of that effort to correct the doctrine of creation in SY which we will see has so clearly muddled up the text of § 2 0 . 19. Liebes takes the exact opposite line. His choice of the words ppn and 3 S n cannot help but have evoked the idea of sculpture. It is easier to construe the text without it. (56). (41).

II Chron 2:16). i. trans. n.5) relegates this to the status of a gloss on the evidence of Judah ben Barzillai. Donnolo 2 Weinstock regards the reading of Dunash as found in Oxford 2250. n&Dn. The overwhelming textual evidence is against such conjectures. Cited by both Gruenwald 1973: 483 and Weinstock 1972: 34. 1 0 0 (number . Weinstock (1972: 33. Weinstock (1972: 33. hence "TOTtf is the plural of m V U . n. and IIS © (speech .Dunash cites Esther 5:11 to refer us to the Piel o f 1 9 0 ) ? Or does it refer to the division of the alphabet into the three moth12 13 1 11 12 11 Vajda-Fenton 2002. He wonders also if JT)X?D before it should be simi­ larly regarded. to some extent. i. no clear textual support for Weinstock's supposed original reading. I S O (writing . 215.see Dan 1:4).e. "by thirty-two paths the Lord carved out his name in three D/HDO". Ps 119:129 and Dan 12:6. n. then. le nombre et la parole.e.. 19 The vocalization is that of Ms Z. But it is more likely that was dragged in after niX3X under the influence of Am 4:13. The overwhelming weight of evidence favours the feminine DTIW. KLMNSF1R B'B DGH. no doubt correctly. 41. Judah ben B. MNF1QR in the Short Recension.7) suggests that this provides an object for the verb ppn. Dunash. There is. CZE. It may go back ultimately to Saadya's Arabic translation of SY § 1 where he renders D'lDD as X'tPX (things) = D n m (Kafach: 35. the choice between them comes down to what they may be supposed to mean and which makes best sense in the overall context of SY. i. and Ms E in the Saadyan Recension read n i X ^ D . Is the reference to the three modes of reality which can be expressed by words based on the root 1 9 0 . text p. Isaac of Acre says that this is the correct reading. However. regards it as an interpre­ tative substitution for the obscure word D'lDO here. The weight of the textual evidence for the two readings 1D011D011D03 and 1D03 1 1 0 0 ) 0 1 1 9 0 ( 1 ) is finely balanced and. We have two divergent readings for the last three words of the paragraph: 1001 -iDOl 1DD-J "1130)01 ~iD0(1) 1903 A. 1 D 0 1 D 0 1 9 0 (Grossberg 1902:18) as the original one. contra Liebes 2000: 33. 1DU> in LP and Dunash. Lambert: 13). Cf.e. a reading which came through into the printed editions. Ms G in the Long. p. The reading D'lrJT for D'lSD in the margin of Ms K was known to Judah ben Barzillai (Halberstam 1885: 138) who.Sefer Yesira § 1 63 WWlWTW. However. . Gruenwald (1973: 482) states that this reading is "certainly corrupt" and the weight of the manuscript evidence clearly favours such a judgement."" This is the reading which is presupposed in the comments Dunash makes on these words. Moses ben Joseph's Hebrew version of this commentary has I I O ' D I 1 D 0 1 1 3 0 3 and Vajda's reconstruction of the commentary based on all the extant sources has "dans l'ecriture. "11X79.

n o ' nvmx D'nun c o'nun [D']ne>y niTDO -iu>y yau> maix cVc nvmx [n-i]tpy [D'nun] mViaa mmu>a Ten sefirot. and artificial addition to the book" (1973: 480) designed to weld together the two disparate parts of SY. while Judah ben Barzillai explains it as the equivalent of D ¥ W . by numbers and by speech. Sefer Yesira § 2 K o'-iu>yi na'Va niTDO -iu>y u V > T I O ' nvmx o'nun >u m c y D'nun mViaa m a s .).jn na'Va mvDO iu>y . carved out thirty-two wondrous paths of wisdom by means of three types of things: by writing. can be left aside for the moment.e. or the three spheres of God's creativity . text p. and so Dunash (Vajda-Fenton.muiu>a mu>y 1 " I translate "primary letters" rather than the literal "mothers" in accordance with the un­ derstanding of this word in the early commentators. All the textual witnesses we have attest one or other form of this paragraph. But may this not be a correct interpretation of the original author's intention? In conclusion. 14 The ten sefirot are the basis and the twenty-two letters are the foundation. twenty-two let­ ters. 101). as we shall see. time ( V j V j ) . seven double (letters). Ithamar Gruenwald's argument that SY § 1 is "a late. and humanity (WDJ)? Any of these could be supported by the subsequent text of the work. A ••>-iu. however." 1 This is very close to what Weinstock (1972: 58) restores as the "original" text of SY. three primary letters. easier to explain how YlD(')01 100(1) 1003 arose as an interpretation of100110011003 than the other way round.the universe (oVlS?). the Lord of hosts. and twelve simple (letters). seven doubles and twelve simple letters (§ 2 etc. . i. and twelve simple (letters). §§ 1-16 and §§ 17-64. Saadya. trans. Textual criticism here shades off into commentary. we have no evidence that SY ever existed without it.mmu>a The ten sefirot are the basis and the twenty-two letters are the foundation: three pri­ mary letters. It is. equates it with the Arabic VlSX (= milO'). [seven] double (letters). 234.64 Edition and Commentary ers. D Z D'-iu>y na'Va nn'ao iu>y max u " u nvmx D'nun >? > mu>y D'nun mViaa yau? ••nwy na 'Va nn'ao iu>y unVu> -no nvmx D'nun D'nun mViaa yaw max . the earliest recoverable form of SY § 1 would seem to be: loci noo3 d'ido wVun IYIX3X mn rr j?j?n noon mxVo rvavu D'nun D'wVw iO)doi "Yah.

17 This omission could be by homoioarcton but see below on the next paragraph and the para­ graph order of B'B H. mvDO] mrrro I.. introducing the second part of the book which deals with the twenty-two letters. 140) has the short form which is presupposed also by Donnolo. again. If § 2 arose as a gloss on § 1 then we could detect a process of expan­ sion from this short form to the longer form which appears in most of the Mss.3 . T I C ] om niViDD] mViDS jnun L . all the Mss of the Short Recension having that paragraph in its logical place after § 16. the material seems to be out of place.. Castelli 1880:34-35.~itt>5?] om E*. Dunash treats §§ 1-3 as a single unit but Judah Ben Barzillai keeps § 1 separate from §§ 2 .aVis7n mo"' jnw nnn ?w nvmx amwi anwin nana nrvao In the Mss which have it the paragraph is attested in two forms . 6 . m Notes on the text of §2 This paragraph is not securely anchored in the textual tradition of SY. the correction in the margin of E towards the usual longer form of this paragraph is by a later hand. See the Introduction § 8. Judah ben Barzillai (Halberstam 1885: 105. m r i T O ] add 110'' 1. At least for these three Mss the absence of §2 produces a better overall structure which their archetype would have found more difficult to achieve had §2 lain before its scribe. 2 16 11 15 . WWV -no' nvmx D'nun E e. The contents of § 2 are basically repeated in § 9 where. nvms . and a longer one in which the twenty-two letters are split up into three groups. It is miss­ ing in most Mss of the Long Recension and Ms Q in the Short (which as we have just seen comes closest to preserving the earliest recoverable state of § l).Sefer Yesira §2 LMNSFPIR collated to K: §2 in the Long Recension occurs only in Mss A and D E collated to Z: 65 MNFI.3.. R. Shabbetai Donnolo paraphrases rather than quotes exactly but his paraphrase shows how §2 could easily have arisen as a gloss. The short form is found in Ms A and also in Paris 763 (a Ms which is not used in the edition but whose evidence I will use from time to time).a short form. Gruenwald (1973:484) and Weinstock (1972: 35) regard §2 as a gloss on the words ma'nj B ' J W I D'tP?tP of the first paragraph. The original reading of Ms E has a short form of the text but this is the addition found elsewhere in the longer form (muiWD niWJ? B'nttn niVlDD S D W m a x W7W). Saadya treats §§ 1-2 as a single unit in his commentary and in Ms C there is no space between §§ 1 and 2. After 1D03 Tia'01 1D01 he continues: 15 -wv loViy nx mxax 'n n' ppnw n a a n mxVa ma'na amwi aV?w an I V X I .

thus making the allusion to Job 26:7 transparent. ' However. If T I C belongs to the original form of § 2 it is parallel in meaning to nana. Saadya omits it in § 19. The form ]T1C is more securely rooted in the SY tradition in § § 2 3 . It looks as though it was not in the scribe's exemplar but he knew of (he reading or had another Ms which had it. in any case. A preferable explanation is that D1X is just a dialectical variant of BX in Rabbinic Hebrew parallel to DW for DIP (1993: 183). Saenz-Badillos. The Saadyan Recension (apart from § 2 . 2 3 . The allusion is. 19 20 21 22 23 18 . n. A History of the Hebrew Language (Cambridge 1993). and so attempted to put it in but in the wrong place! Kafach 1972: 50. not one (Vajda-Fenton 2 0 0 2 : 53). m a ' X / m a X / m a i X . Most other Mss spell it max. in §§ 17 and 19.but in his commentary on this paragraph Saadya spells it m a i X ) fairly consistently spells it JYiaiX. In Ms I TIC is found at the end of the paragraph. that the expression is two words. 17. 29) has almost reached the same conclusion as I have. p. It is impossible to be sure what the original author wrote since he clearly introduces a play on the root D?a in § 5 which would favour the reading ~ W ? 3 here. This has an uncertain position in the textual tradition of SY.45. Mss LRB D do this fairly consistently wherever it appears in the text. if it belongs to a later stage in the evolution of the text then it is an attempt to interpret its meaning. Hence I take SY § 2 as two parallel nominal clauses with n a na and T I C having approximately the same meaning.66 Edition and Commentary Mss follow Ms D in separating this out into its component parts na na. The Saadyan Recension and Mss M N F I in the Short Recension omit it here (as they do in § 9 ) . 20 2 22 23 Halberstam 1885: 140. My translation presupposes that the allusion to Job is the primary reason why the author qualifies niTDO "VVV with this word. Scholem connects it to the mishnaic word n a i X meaning "foundation. Ms A consistently spells this word niD'X.n. 183.following Saadya. 37 and 45. root. 2 ll 19 nana. A. where most of the Short Recension Mss omit T I C . would require the text to read niDlVa. although he accepts that it means "mothers".nothing). to which the clue is the prefixing of T I C to ttntP m a i X . See also § § 9 . Lambert 1891: 24.3 1 . He is asking the question: what is the foundation/basis on which God has constructed the universe? To which Job 26:7 gives the answer: "173 'Va 75? Tnx nVn (he has suspended the world on belt ma . MNFI add it! The Saadyan Recension has the word in § 17 but not § 18. But in his commentary Saadya assumes that the word is present although he con­ nects it with niOX W7W and not n v m x DTlWl DntZW. 1987: 30. n. though (following Saadya) he favours nD 73 with its connection to BlVa in § 5 he tells us that others separate the words 18 and understand the meaning to be DT7D xVa. Scholem's translation "closed" (1987: 28) . I962:25. appar­ ent from the lack of syntactical connection between niTDO "WV and nana. in explicit conflict with Saadya. Dunash insists. principle) and." Saadya glosses n i a i X with the Ara­ bic ?2?X (origin. Some T I C . 49. In § 17 Ms Z vocalises it "liaiX. Joseph Dan (1993: 22. says that is used metaphorically. Judah ben Barzillai knows of both readings and.

. T r r ] nm N.1 for the connection between these three Mss. addx'nw vVn myaxx nwy pa F.like the number of the ten fingers. as in §4 the "ten-ness" of the sefirot is similarly underlined. given the fixed connection of §§ 37-38 in the Short and Long Recensions and §§ 45-46 in the Long Recension 2 25 2 24 25 I am following Saadya's understanding of nnai here. or. Note its position in Mss B'B H . nna B'.the number of the ten fingers. 1 n"?aa K «- M 2 myan K s m L M N S F P I Q R collated to K: B ' B G H collated to A: 2 ZE collated to C: nwy] nwy mo' I. and the creation of the Unique One is exactly in the middle. B'B GH. in E.nyxn] myan K. na] naai E.nV'aa ] om B B . . iR.Sefer Yesira §i 67 Sefer Yesira §3 K naoaa na'Va m r a o nwy n:ua wan myaxx nwy mnaa nnai wan nV>aai pw ? 'nnaayxaxa .the scribe's eye slipped to the beginning of §4. nnaa] nVaa K .after § 9 which. C na'Vp niTDO] nwy wan [mvaxK nwy n s o a j a nnaa m m n n a i w a n ] T o a n a p pwVi nVpaa y x a x p The ten sefirot are the basis .^yxn 1 A naoa na'Va mmao nwy •u:a wan myaxx nwy nmao m n " nnai wan nai pwV nV'aa yxaxa .mywn Q . R. naoaa] naoa L M N S P Q . pwV] ]iw"?n L N F P I Q R . immediately after the introduction of the seven double letters and the twelve simple letters their "seven-ness" and their "twelveness" is heavily emphasized by the following paragraph. in their case. Hence in these three M s s § 1 is immediately followed by §4. Possibly we see here at work the editorial flair of some scribe up the transmission line from B'B H."'*L .vyan nV'aai The ten sefirot are the ba­ sis . the missing §2. five opposite five. 24 The ten sefirot are the ba­ sis .. This produces a structure parallel to §§ 37-38 and §§ 4 5 . and the covenant of the Unique One is exactly in the middle in the covenant of the tongue and the circumcision of the flesh.^ L . five opposite five. See the introduction §8. Tyan] myan 2 1 2 n"?'aa] nVaa z. is almost identical with. 2 Notes on the text of §3 This paragraph is missing in Ms D. . nai] naai G .. in word and tongue and mouth.in the number of the ten fingers. and the covenant of unity is exactly in the middle by the word of the tongue and mouth and the circumcision of the flesh.4 6 where.mn' i. presumably through homoioarcton . five opposite five.. of course. naoa] naoaa B G I I .

but the reverse is also possible. .which he helpfully glosses as Nl~ltt> n n y n . the dimensions of space and the basic elements as explained later in the text. 27 28 It is interesting to note that Moses ben Joseph's translation has the same error (?) of YiyttTI for TWO"! as Ms Q but Dunash's commentary assumes that he was expounding llSOn nV'MI. T V . There is no other secure reference to "circumcision" in SY since the mention of it in §61 is missing in Ms C. Donnolo paraphrases again. Lambert 1891: 26).2. referring us to Hab 2:15. Saadya also has a radically different understanding of this paragraph from all the other interpreters since he reads r n 3 1 as n*"Gl (=nx 121) and translates "and one body is placed exactly in the middle. This bears on the issue of whether we have here nV'D (circumcision) or ilVo (word). followed by "flyOn as "circumcision. Unfortunately. "nn \ Apart from Ms 1 this is confined to the Long Recension. 1 28 . have nV&3. both words could be spelt either way.68 Edition and Commentary (the Short does not have §46) are these Mss putting us in touch with the original order of these paragraphs? In the Saadyan Recension § 3 is followed by § 7 and is combined by Saadya into his halakhah 1. 2 7 26 ." This way of taking the text would be fully congruent with the basic assumptions of SY about humanity's place within the universe. la langue et I'alliance de la chair" (Vajda-Fenton 2002: 56). He denies the view that the reference is here to the "covenant. i. especially in the Long Recension.D pnVs o n i inyVx Vac 'Vy r m n n a i Vsp'i runxn i n r ip . Vajda's reconstruction of Dunash's text presupposes for the second half of the paragraph a formulation somewhere between that of Ms A and the Saadyan Recension: "I'alliance de PUnique est fixee au milieu. According to the Hebrew translations of Dunash's commentary the text he was working on was close to that of the Short Recension. rather than quotes exactly. but this is incorrect" (Kafach 1972: 52. and there are considerable variations in the Mss cited by Castelli (1880: 35). Ben-Shammai (1988: 6) suggests that Saadya may have drawn his understanding of n n a from an earlier commentary on SY. Our witnesses basically agree on the text of this paragraph as far as r v i 2 l . Most Mss." That would give us a nice play on words. n"?''?D3. par la parole. and we can see the same divergence of spelling between the Genizah Scroll (Ms C) and Saadya. Followed by \VXh it would naturally be taken as "word". But would this play lake us back to the earliest form of the text? Not if we followed the Saadyan version which does not have it at all. One possible explanation of how these divergent texts arose would be to assume that the Saadyan version is the earliest and that Saadya correctly understood the 26 ." He understands this to be a reference to hu­ man beings as the creation of God placed in the middle of the universe surrounded by the ten sefirot.e. However. there­ after things become quite complex and it is difficult to produce a tidy explanation of how all the variant readings arose. It is easy to see how it could have arisen from TTP. But it looks like he had before him a text similar to that of Ms A but with ~flJ7Dn rather than TJ?D"1 . The shortest text is actually in Paris 763 which omits everything after VSttSa."and sometimes they make a mistake here and say that T n n n a i means "covenant".

The gloss in Ms F (l'Vn m y a S N p a XTIU7). Ti?0"t. Then "llVD"! nV'Dai was added (as in Ms A) to make the reference to the Abrahamic covenant quite clear.ywn . His reconstruction of SY § 3 is subjected to devastating criticism by Nicolas Sed in his review of Gruenwald and Weinstock's editions. "IDT was removed in the Short Recension to produce the even better balance of YWan nV'Dai |1WV nV'/aa . in his notes and corrections to Halberstam's edition (p. If some such process as this took place then it parallels other changes to the text of SY which had the effect of making it a more religious text.40 the Ms reads myan. The change from T I T to TUT' fits in with this shift in the orientation of § 3 . Another error is 15?xn in Ms K. corrected in the margin to ms??an. But then subsequently m a was understood in the light of § 61 which.nnwy nnx xVi nwy . Whether n n a a in K is also an error is difficult to say since it makes good sense.Sefer Yesira §4 69 intention of the author. though he could have cited Paris 763 to support his relegation of nVOH nV'ftai ]Wb nV'TDa to secondary status. However. Sed 1973: 519-522. 311) says that on p. 30 31 29 . 140). Kaufmann. There are signs in the Ms of an attempt to write over the "2. 1993. This must be an error in Ms A though we also find it in Judah ben Barzil­ lai (according to Halberstam 1885: 105. 1987. The corrector of the Ms obviously thought it was a mistake.nraa oam .so Gruenwald (1973: 488). Then nV'Qa was introduced before ]Wb. shows this process at work. Judah's subsequent com­ ments assume thai he is expounding a reading TJ7?Dn (testifies).•niaa nwy na'Va mmao iwy nnx xVi nwy ywn xVi Diam naana pan nnwy Yipm ana pna nraa naym mxi aiwm yn p a nxr> awm vma Vy nan pxw nwy p m a i inaa Vy .mo pV c nwy na'Va [mmao nwy] 'nwy] xVi nwy ywn xVi Dam naana [pan nnwy p a mpm] ona pna nraa nan maym mxi [awm ym Vy nxv a]wm ixma Vy [maa See Hayman 1984. has itself undergone substantial expansion in the course of time. as we shall see. it is missing in Mss B'B H." 2 29 30 Sefer Yesira § 4 K A xVi nwy na'Va niTDO nwy . Weinstock (1972:36-37) regards most of the second half of this paragraph as a series of additions to the original text and VS73K3 njliaa n n " n n a i he emends to 27X0X3 T n ' pDDI (and the dwelling-place of the Unique One in the centre). D. which Donnolo also has.naana p n naym ona -npm ona pna Vynxvawm vnaVynan . This produces the nice play on words. Fi­ nally. The suggestion is interesting but has no support in the extant Mss.

4.2 in his version. inaa] lawia B'*.i:iaa LMNSFPIQR collated to K: B'B GH J xVi nwy na'Va mmao nwy nnwy'nwy xVi nwy ywn n r a a oam naana p a n ym p a mpm Dna p n a Vy nan naym mxi awm . Understand with wisdom. 45. Know and ponder and form (a mental image). 58a and 59a to complete his chapter one. Instead of treating the ten sefirot. n n a i H. 37a. 6. Edition and Commentary The ten sefirot are the ba­ sis . 23. Know and ponder and form (a mental image). awim] awm E. Get the thing clearly worked out and restore the Creator to his place. 1 2 imma] m a E.ten and not nine. §3 is combined with §7 as chapter 1. Z nwy na 'Va mmaa nwy nnx xVi nwy ywn xVi oam naana p n nnwy mpm Dna pna nraa naym mxi aiwm yn ona Vy nxr awm vma Vy nan . And their mea­ sure is ten for they have no limit. D The ten sefirot are the basis . Test them and investigate them. ten and not eleven. and be wise with understanding. § 4. Get the thing clearly worked out and restore the Creator to his place. Test them and investigate them. Understand with wisdom. pmai] imai B . and get the thing clearly worked out and restore the Creator to his place. As we have already observed. 5 (1972: 58). 3. and be wise with understanding. mxi] om G. Gruenwald also attempts to restore the original order at this point to: 4.ten and not nine. It is followed then by §§9. the seven doubles. The first four chapters of the Saadyan Recension completely reorganise the material of SY on a different principle from that of the other recensions. 8. 6. But the paragraph order from here to § 10 is also disrupted in the other recensions. and be wise with understanding. Understand with wisdom. 8. Test them and investigate them. see Weinstock 1981: 33. and the twelve simple letters in that order." He restores the "original" order as follows: 1. 7. mm a w m yn R. 7. ten and not eleven.inaa Vy nxr awim imma E collated to Z: collated to A: ona] add mxi a w m yn L. the three mothers. The arguments produced by Weinstock and Gruenwald to support their . add xmai nxr xm 'a mVn pxi naV B'B GH.ten and not nine. is placed at the beginning of Saadya's chapter two. ten and not eleven. 5. together with § 8.70 The ten sefirot are the basis . Weinstock argues that all the existing witnesses have corrupted the original order but the Short Recension is the "least worse (1972: 24). Notes on the text of §4 At this point the Saadyan Recension makes a decisive break with the order of the material as we find it in the other two recensions. each chapter in turn treats all four sequentially.

Some scribes were clearly unsure where it properly belonged. at the begin­ ning of §7 in the Saadyan Recension and linking together §§4 and 8 in Saadya's chapter 2:1. after all is the reading of all the Mss except one) may take us deep into the author's basic thinking. 33 2 1 34 p m o i . the Saadyan Recension. Its presence is not presupposed in Dunash's com­ ment on this passage. and the matter is best left open. possi­ bly because the scribe did not understand this rare idiom (for which see b Git. n. Ms E's reading in agreement with this suggests that 1XTI3 (his creator) in Ms C is an error occasioned by 1XV in the next clause. However. a gloss which reflects the Long Recension form of §6. add at the end of the paragraph j n T O l mo p"? p x w "IWJ7. and LR in the Short Recension add the phrase m n 31Wm VI. 144) he quotes a text almost identical with that of K. supported by Judah ben Barzillai" and Dunash ben Tamim.Sefer Yesira §4 71 proposed re-ordering are not compelling. This looks like the Hiphil imperative of 31W. Unfortunately. inside § 7 in the Short and Long Recensions (probably the most logical place for it). nothing significant is introduced by it" (1973: 489). But there is a real difference between "restore" and "seat" and the former (which. Gruenwald (1973: 489) notes the absence of this phrase in the Short Recension Mss of §§ 6 and 24 and remarks that in the sense in which it is has here "is mostly found in medieval literature. Saadya's reading is a clarification which does not actually alter the meaning. mTOl in H) recurs in § 6 where they are joined by Ms G. 1113. see Hayman 1986: 181-82. A plausible reconstruction of the growth of §4 is as follows: (1) The earliest recoverable stage is in Mss K and M . According to the Hebrew version of Moses ben Joseph (Vajda-Fenton 2002: 219) and Oxford 2250 (Grossberg 1902: 26). (2) Ms D. This is the Long Recension spelling. but Saadya reads a w i m which is clearly from 3 W \ Allony (1972: 72. n. For a contrary opinion see Liebes 2000: 143-44. and most Long Recension Mss. The reading i m m in Mss B (cf. This looks like a tendentious kabbalistic alteration identifying the sefirot as attributes of God. Most Mss of the Short Recension have V13 without the vowel letter. Weinstock too (1972: 42. a w m . Gruenwald suggests that "the reading 3 W i m found in Se'adya's text seems to be induced as a contrast to the previous Yoym.).5) thinks that there is no real variant here and that 3WH is simply a defective Palestinian spelling of 3WI!7 though he does not cite any evidence to support this assertion.56) is sure that the form 3WH is to be taken as the Hiphil of a w because of the two-root letter theory which he sees as fundamental to the author's outlook. Judah has at one point a very short text (Halberstam 1885: 31) but later on (pp. Vajda's reconstruction of Dunash's text (ibid. (4) The Long Recension Mss B'B GH add inVlT p X I VD ? X T Q 1 T T P Kin ' 3 . while G alone has this reading in § 7. 89b. 57) contains the addition found in my proposed stage (2). This phrase occurs at the beginning of § 6. In any case." (3) Ms A. 105.Q in the Short Recension. especially when they come to different conclusions. 33 M 32 1 . the beginning of the Arabic text of Dunash's commentary is missing in the Geniza fragments.

. and remember that thus it is written: And the living creatures ran to and fro (Ezek. R .. D c D"?a n a n a mn'ao nwy nnnnVa D*?a nan"?a -pa DipaV aiw p ' V p p DXI nan "?yi aiwi xixn nanwaa nna nnna: m The ten sefirot are the basis: restrain your mouth from speaking. oiVa p ?] pVi L . And if your heart races return to the Place. 1 aiwi xixn K s 1 m Z Di"?a n a n a mn'ao nwy •pa DiVa ana nnnn"?a ma aiw p"? p DXI nan?a aiwi xixn naxj p w Dipa"? .xixna ] xixn 1 ia' ?] -pa G. for thus it is written: (like) running and returning (Ezek 1:14). And if your heart races return to the place where you started. And concerning this matter the covenant was made. naxi] om E.an p DXI naV?a man u a a nnxx'w DipaV xixn nvnm nax) p w n n a nna: m nan Vyi aiwi The ten sefirot are the ba­ sis: restrain your heart from thinking. 2 1 o"?a nanVa] om E*.. And concerning this matter the covenant was made. restrain your mouth from speaking. R .72 Edition and Commentary Sefer Yesira §5 K A r s oiVa n a n a mn'ao nwy nnnnVa pV DiVa nanVa p w Dipa ? aiw p ? p DXI nai Vyi 'aiwi xixna nax) . I have. translated the text of Ms Z here. ia ?] p"?i E*. according to the understanding of it conveyed by Saadya's Arabic translation. 1:14). And concern­ ing this matter a covenant was made. u a a nnxx'w man] om B'B GH.nna nna: m nan 1 -pa DiVa n a n a mn'ao nwy nnnn"?a pV Di"?a nanVa Dipa"? aiw p ' V p DXI "?yi aiwi xixn nax: -pw nna nnnaj m nan L M N S F P Q R collated to K: B'B GH collated to A: 2 E collated to Z: nanVa] nnnnVa R. However.an aiw n. in his translation Saadya clearly sepaMs C in this paragraph is too corrupt to serve as a basis for the translation of the Saadyan Recension. And if your heart races return (it) to (its) place. Notes on the text of §5 In the Saadyan Recension § 5 begins chapter 3 where it is combined (without a break) with § 6 . 35 . 1 K «L . for thus it is written: running and returning (Ezek 1:14). as it is in Ms A. restrain your heart from thinking. aiw ] aiw MN.nna nna] m nan *?yi DiVa na n a mn'ao nwy nnnnVa p"?i nan"?a -pa Dipa ? aiw p"? 'pm DXI "?yi aiwi xixn p"? naxiw .nna nna] m 1 1 DiVa n a n a mn'ao nwy -pa Di"?a nnnnVa n. restrain your heart from thinking. 35 The ten sefirot are the basis: restrain your mouth from speaking.. therefore. M nan] om M*N.

Lambert 1891: 55. are among the commonest variants in medieval Hebrew Mss but the addition of nvnm here may be of real significance since Gruenwald thinks that it laid the text wide open to kabbalistic interpretation. . 66-69. 36 1 37 1 The order of the phrases nmnVa "pV DT?3 /13Y77D T D oV?3 is reversed in the Long Recension. Note also the readings of Mss R and G. Liebes' further attempt (p. Weinstock (in Allony 1981a: 19) is almost certainly correct in seeing I D n w a s as an error for ITDXJtP in contrast to Liebes (2000: 35. As Gruenwald remarks (1973: 490). n.Sefer Yesira §5 73 rates the two sayings. There are a number of relatively minor differences between the Mss but only one major one. introducing each of them with XiVlp ""JVOT (and the meaning of our saying). Weinstock (1972: 43. There can be little doubt that this isolated reading in Ms A is an interpretative gloss.the Place or Omnipresent or just the ordinary noun "place"? In §61 Mss KLSFR and Judah ben Barzillai clearly use DIpDH as a divine name where the Long Recension Mss have (H"3) wnpn. as it is said about the angels: being present and returning. Ms A clearly reflects the understanding of the text which we find in Saadya's translation: "ten closed numbers: close your mouth from speaking too much about them and close your heart from thinking about them. In the Short Recension § 5 comes after § 6 and before § 10.3) deduces from this that irnrf7D " V DIVD. 105. n. and if your thinking gets out of hand (lit. where more or less of a biblical quotation is included in the text. was originally a marginal gloss to " " in the next clause. 36 37 Kafach 1972: 90. and most Mss of the Short Recension do not repeat DY73. This is the addition of T O D "1300 nnXS'W after OipD ? in Ms A. This is possible but unprovable in the absence of any Ms which has only one of these clauses.2) who does not refer to Weinstock's opinion.165). The addition of DiVJ in Ms 1 after imnV?3 reflects the same need that Saadya obviously felt to spell out what it is that must not be thought about. Ms D and all the Short and Saadyan Recension Mss do not have nvnm." When Judah ben Barzillai first cites § 5 he reads 1»lp»V IHTTnn (Halberstam 1885: 31) which looks like a straight translation back into Hebrew of Saadya's translation. Urbach 1979: I. this addition misses the point of the allusion to Ezek 1:14 which is simply to "going backwards and forwards. This reflects one of the two ways in which the ambiguous word DlpD was understood by the early commentators. When he quotes the paragraph again he reads IDlpa ? 31W (ibid. The generally poor state of the text of SY in the Genizah Scroll can be clearly seen in this paragraph. 54) to see a connection between SY § 5 and Deut 4:15 is built on a shaky textual foundation. See Marmorstein 1927: 92-93. Shabbetai Donnolo even reads DTlVsV here (Castelli 1880: 38) which leaves no am­ biguity about how it should be understood." Such readings. Is it a divine name . runs) return it to its place. and p p? was inserted in different places in the early Mss.

and before one. Know and ponder. and before one. naio] naioi x m p Q. Their end is fixed in their beginning as the flame is bound to the burning coal.naio 1 pV pxw nwy p m a i pVmna p i o p y ) mo nanVwa p i c a pVmm aiwm yn nVma nmwp nxvm mm pnxw mxi nnx -oaVi TO I T pxi nnx . Sefer K p y : n a n a J Y I T D O nwy nanVwa 'pVmna p i o mm pnxw nVma nmwp na nnx ')aVi IV ' r w pxi naio nnx Yesira A §6 c mo n ? jxw nwy p m a i pVnm pVnna p i o y iy: yn nVma nanVwa )aioa )xi nnx nxvnw mxi awm nnx na nnx 'jaVi vnyVa . Their end is fixed in their begin­ ning. as the flame is bound to the burning coal. and there is none other than him. and he has none second to him. and he has none second to him.pio jaioa] inVmna laio laioa inV'nm H.naio nnx na nnx ')aVi 1 LMNSFPIQR collated to K: pVmna] pVmm add K"'* pica FR. 58 B'B GH collated to A: p m a i ] mna B'GH.. This deletes the biblical quotation entirely and gets rid of the difficult phrase "p V p . m And their measure is ten for they have no limit. It is difficult to see how it relates to the rest of the textual tradition of SY and can only be a free rewrite. 2 See the Introduction § 8. and form (a mental image) that the Creator is one. what can you count? Z pV pxw nwy p m a i pVmna p i o p y : mo nanVwa p i c a pVmm mxi awm yn nVma nmwp vnyVa pxi nnx nxvnw . what can you count? 1 p i c a pVmm add K ". nmwp] nxiyi Q. . and their beginning in their end.74 Edition and Commentary The text of Ms Paris 770 at this point is a striking example of the freedom felt by some scribes to rewrite the text they are copying. mxi] myi G. and before one. 38 From DXI onwards it reads: DXI 1 nna mai m nai Vi? n oipaV yw nmnV "pVi nai ? T S yp (and . Their end is fixed in their beginning.2 for my reasons for not including this Ms in the textual apparatus. what can you count? D The ten sefirot are the basis. . as the flame is bound to the burning coal. and form (a mental image) that the Lord is unique and the Cre­ ator one. return to the Place because concerning this matter a covenant was made). For the Lord is unique. and their beginning in their end.. Know and ponder. if your mouth detests speaking and your heart thinking.naio nnx na And their measure is ten for they have no limit.naio nnx na nnx ':aVi E = Z: p y ) na n a mmao nwy ]aioa pVnm jnVnna p i o nVma nmwp nanVwa T I T pnxw mxi awm yn ' ) W i ? pxi nnx nxvm .

Again the Short Recension matches up to its name and offers a shorter text which is supported by Judah ben Barzillai whose citations almost entirely agree with Ms K (Halberstam 1885: 31. See the notes to §4. as far as the texual evidence we actually have goes. n. 105. Weinstock (ibid. Weinstock (ibid. 256. so it is almost certainly a later addition.) and. 41. (4) "11X1 3HPITI i n is absent in all the Short Recension Mss and in Judah ben Barzillai. Ms P also has this ad­ dition as part of a marginal reading showing awareness of the difference at this point between the recensions: 'JD ?! VtS73 f N I Kin tm 1SVH '3 11X1 3 W m JH HflX p n s "IDO = ] 'NO. It looks like a standard Long Recension addition to the Short Recension. 1 . we have a similar rhetorical structure in § 4 on the pattern a:b/b:a. (5) In the second half of the paragraph the Short and Saadyan Recensions have two clauses governed by the conjunction tP. 102) can hardly count against the weight of all the other Short Recension Mss. and the Saadyan Recension begin the paragraph with ^ID pV pxtP "WV p"PD1. so the phrase may have been accidentally omitted from an ancestor of most of these Mss. a Ms of a commentary on SY. (2) JD102 pV'nm is absent in most Short Recension Mss and Weinstock rele­ gates it to his third layer (1972:40). There is no obvious mechanical explanation for it as an omission. despite Allony's note (ibid. But this is a late Ms (1456 C. The main differences between the Recensions and the Mss are: ( 1 ) Ms A. while 1 1 0 p ? yXW "UPS? p T O l is securely rooted in § 7. whereas the Short Recension has nO'Va J Y 1 T S 0 "WV. (3) iTYKPp is absent in the Genizah Scroll and Ms Q (reading ilSIS?]) shows an­ other way of filling the gap between roitVttO and JlVrua. 40. . It is. But n?D '73 mTDO "HPS? is fairly well rooted in the textual tradition in §§ 2-5. n.4) may be correct in seeing HTKPp as a later addition. Bodleian Poc. 10. though fluctuating in position elsewhere. See the notes on §4. The Long Recension has an extra clause and seems to have taken t n x "IXTTt from the Saadyan Recension and combined it with the two clauses of the Short Recension. He relegates I ? "fKI to his layer four. in any case. but we can­ not be sure which one. Weinstock sees 110 pV fNlP "WV p T O I throughout chapter one as an addition and similarly HD^D JYITSO "WV everywhere except at the beginning of § 3. the other Long Recension Mss with the exception of D. while he thinks that the clause "PrP pIXtP was suggested by "PIT p"IK in § 7. we can only say that one of these three clauses is certainly a later addition. He may well be right but. The overall pattern of §§2-10 would suggest that the Short Recension has the correct reading here. However. 163).6) argues that only the single clause X1H i n x "ISVTHP is original.Sefer Yesira §6 75 Notes on the text of §6. 1 39 1 It does appear in Oxford.E. They disagree in their readings though the meaning is more or less the same. used by Allony 1981: 80.

mo on ? p xw nwy paiy . n a n a mn'ao nwy paiy mo pV ]'xw nwy paiy nnnx paiyi mwxn Din paiy yn paiyi aio nma paiy nnn paiyi p a x paiy a n y a paiyi mn' p n x i oinn paiyi |Viaa Vwio p x : n. dimension of above and dimension of below.yn paiyi aio paiy nma paiy nnn paiyi Din pax paiy anya paiyi mm pnxi Dinn paiyi ]Viaa Vwia p x : n. 1D103 Sefer Yesira § 7 K A pmai 1 p n a na'Va mn'ao nwy paiy .nma paiy . rules over them all from his holy abode for ever and ever. dimension of north and dimension of south. a trustworthy divine king. And the unique Lord.anya p a Vx mm pnxi . The reading inV'nrD 1S10 lnV'nm may reflect the same tendenz.nnnx paiyi mwxn .Din paiy . rules over them all from his holy abode for ever and ever.nnto paiy yn paiyi oinn p a i y i pax p a i y anya p x : n.Va Vx mm p n x i nyi iwnp pyaa ]Viaa Vwia ny n y mo pV pxw nwy p m a i nnnx paiyi n'wxn paiy paiy . And the unique Lord. o m pyaa |Viaa Vwia p x i ny n y nyi iwnp The ten sefirot are the basis.76 Edition and Commentary On the reading i m a in B'GH see the notes to §4. dimen­ sion of east and dimension of west. ny n y nyi] ny n y K s m M Z p n a nana mn'ao nwy p a i y .ny n y nyi iwnp pyaa . dimen­ sion of good and dimension of evil. dimension of east and di­ mension of west.Vo Vx ny n y nyi iwnp p y a a The ten sefirot are the ba­ sis and their measure is ten for they have no limit: di­ mension of beginning and dimension of end.oin paiv .nnn paiy paiyi pax paiy . rules over them all from his holy abode for ever and ever.Waw for Nun. dimension of north and di­ mension of south.Va Vx . if it is not a straight error . dimension of above and dimension of be­ low. dimension of good and dimension of evil. dimension of east and dimension of west.mo onV pxw nwy p a i y nnnx p a i y i m w x n aiu p a i y nnn p a i y . dimen­ sion of above and dimen­ sion of below. a trustworthy divine king. And the unique Lord. dimension of north and dimension of south.sn paiyi aio paiy . a trustworthy divine king. c mo [pV pxw nwy pmai] nnnx] paiyi n'wxn paiy paiy [nnn paiyi mn paiy nma paiy y]n paiyi aio [pax puiy anya paiyi Vx mn' pnxi Dinn paiyi [|Viaa Vwia [ p x : nV]a [ny] n y ny iwnp py[ao And their measure is ten for they have no limit: dimen­ sion of beginning and dimen­ sion of end. dimension of good and dimension of evil. their measure is ten for they have no limit: dimension of beginning and dimension of end.

However. none of our Mss attests this reading and the author of Lekach Tob. on] nVva G. whereas the Short Recen­ sion Ms M follows the order of CE.. The omission of HTD'Vs niTDO in the Saadyan Recension is due to the fact that it combines §§ 3 and 7 into one state­ ment (Saadya's chapter 1:2).Nosignifkant variants B'B DGH collated to A: 2 77 E = C exactly HD^a] om B .. For i m o in G see above on §§ 4 and 6. 1 Notes on the text of§ 7 As Gruenwald notes (1973: 495f). There is only one minor variant worthy of note: Ms Z follows the order of the dimensions as in the Long and Short Recensions.Sefer Yesira § 7 LN. This probably reflects an early transpositional error which spread into the manuscript tradition of CE. Tobias ben Eliezer. The substitu­ tion of nVl>0 for D1T and HDD for nnn in G also appears in § 16 scattered around the recensions. 7 and 5 together at this point suggests that he is quoting erroneously from memory. . tin] om B'G. The omission of tlM in K and G (and also in Donnolo and Dunash) reflects the influence of lsa 26:4. The way he runs parts of SY § § 8 .D'lnnwa p ixoa 'JDVI On this problem see Dan 1993: 23. and probably reflects contamination from § 15. i m a G.59) by relegating the whole of §§ 10-16 to his first layer of additions to the original SY is not based on any text-critical evidence.[D'innju'D 1 . the description of the sefirot presented in this paragraph is not easy to harmonise with the one which follows in §§ 10-16. 40 m g Sefer Yesira K jn'DX na'^a n n ' s o "wv |rv"DX A §8 fx on'Vam ptan nxioa X12HD p a n a n 'yp p ? 1 n a ^ a m r s o -IUW r x p'Vam pian nxiaa xina p a n a i f p p a 19TTT HDIOD IIDXD ?! 1 c pV | ' x c -raw p v a i [pTa nxnaa p'pox fio n a n tp pV ]x Div^am i s m ' nsioa naxaVi aiun D'lnntpa on ixoa 'JDVI n&xoVi [ann] x-una p a DH 1X03 'ID ?! 1DTP HD1DD . p v o i ] om 1 B . Weinstock's resolution of the problem (1972: 38. is not noted for accurate citation of his sources. There is remarkable unanimity among the Mss over the text of § 7. The paragraph is cited in the Midrash Lekach Tob (Buber 1884: 2) where it substitutes "|ttm j?»1in TIK p a i s n for i n p a i s n 3itf p » i y . n. It is clearly more logical for the dimensions of space to be kept together as in §§ 15 and 16.RcollatedtoK. How­ ever. 30. nnn] no» G.

line 3. Dunash's commentary on its own is insuf­ ficient support to outweigh the united testimony of all our other Mss in favour of 101YV. 1:14). See the notes to §§6 and 7.131T nS?W3110103. 2 2 1 1 2 1. jri'Vani] irvVDm B .I :I4). He cites Nahum 1:3 in support . and before his throne they bow down.they have no limit. the text of § 8 is reasonably stable. And his word is in them as though running and return­ ing (Ezek.1:14).78 The ten sefirot are the basis. His word is in them as though running (Ezek. n. Vajda 1963: 152). The singular suffix on W O X and iri'Vom in B presumably reflects the same attempt to turn these paragraphs into a description of God (with the sefirot as his attributes) as we find in its text of §§ 6 and 7 . and before his throne they bow down. Their appearance is like the sight of lightning. 110 for p p in K M N P Q is an obvious correction to the 110 JiT? pXW 1tt?i? JflTai from the previous paragraph but may also be an attempt to get in a reference to 110 pX. In the Saadyan Recension it is combined with § 4 forming Saadya's chapter 2:1. and they pursue his command like the storm wind.rf?D. LMNSFPIQR collated to K: DnnDm] irVsm M N . Vajda transcribes this as 1D1TT> but the photograph (ibid. and before his throne they bow down. may show how the variant arose. ]n"DX] 2 2 ZE collated to C: Tn"DX] IJVDX Z. The reading of Ms I is interesting with its insistence that p p is the correct read­ ing. and they pursue his com­ mand like the storm wind. Instead of 1SYTT Weinstock (1972: 40) reads I D l l T on the basis of the Hebrew text cited in the Genizah Ms of the Arabic text of Dunash's commentary (TaylorSchechter 307 . and their end? . Their appearance is like the sight of lightning. see Weinstock 1972: 39. X12TO 31UH B DH (In B ). And his word is in them as though running and returning (Ezek. The biblical passage. in"DX B'. And their measure is ten for they have no limit.they have no limit.they have no limit. Edition and Commentary The ten sefirot are the ba­ sis. and their end? . The weight of evidence supports Ms I's scribe here. and their end? . X12TD] add 21U> G. mg 1 s . | m i ° ] DTfr B'B GH. pp] 110 K"'sMNPQ. 011 the contrary. 154) shows that Weinstock is correct. However. Their appearance is like the sight of lightning.if it is not just an error. 110 X ?! rp 1 B'B DGH collated to A: nana] om B'B H. f X ] px IV B'B H.4. Donnolo (Castelli 1980: 37) combines both readings: p p l 110 JIT? px. and this explains the omission of the usual introductory phraseTO'VaniTOO " P ? and the substitu­ HS tion of 110 pV pXtt? i w y p m a i . and they pursue his command like the storm wind. Rather than using Saadya's rare form JJVDX I have restored the text of Ms C according to Ms E which agrees with all the other witnesses in reading pp'OX. Notes on the text of §8 Like the preceding paragraph.1"l»K»Vl] n » x » Vvi MN.

which may be related to the Short Recension's incorporation of § 9 within § 12. seem the more logical place for this paragraph and. though it does not have § 10.nnx] boa nnx B'B GH.Sefer Yesira §9 79 Sefer Yesira §9 K C antpjn na'Va n w o o •no' nvmx ™ anew mVioa v a c max wVtz? . But note the position of §9 in Ms D . The ten sefirot are the basis and the twenty-two letters are the foundation: three mothers. and twelve simple (letters). It may be significant that Ms D agrees with the other recensions in omitting the phrase. In this position the initial phrase found at the beginning of the Long Recension (rtTD'Va n i T S D "WV) would be quite out of place. p a nnx LMNSFPIQR collated to K: B'B GH collated to A: 2 ZE collated to C: TID'] om MFIQ •no''] omB'. The fluctuating posi­ tion of § 9 within the Long Recension itself reinforces the conclusion that it is out of place in §§ 1-10 and originally belonged elsewhere. and twelve simple (letters). is most likely an addition which fits § 9 in the Long Recension into the overall pattern of §§ 2 .8 .]na mVioa yyv maix cnVw mows D W I The twenty-two letters are the foundation: three primary letters. Judah ben Barzillai places 2 . Notes on the text of §9 §9. 10 which all begin with this phrase. And the Spirit is one of them. however. as we have already seen. In B'B H § 9 is placed between §§8 and 3 while Ms G follows the order of Ms A. After § 16 and before § 17 does. Of the three commentators who generally follow the order of the Short Recension. seven double (letters).mows n i f s o'nun n i c nvmx D'nan [cnjwv niD' n v m x D'nun a>T\vn mViaa yaun n w x n n x n m moitPD m u s . and twelve simple (letters). then. D The twenty-two letters are the foundation: three primary letters. more or less repeats §2. 7 .5 . r w V a niTDO "WV. In the Short Recension it comes after § 16 at the beginning of the second part of the book which deals with the twenty-two letters. seven double (letters). it is repeated there in the Long Recension. seven double (let­ ters).between §§ 12 and 13. 2 maix] max E. l i e nvmx D'nun wvov nVnoa i>aun max wVw rmi mmotp m r a D'nun . indeed.

that is to say: one .80 Edition and Commentary §9 after § 16 and before § 19a.this is the Holy Spirit (ruah). Sefer Yesira § JO K A c mn n n x n a n a mn'ao nwy p a : D'aViyn m D"n D'nVx n n nnx naiVa mmao nwy -piaai i n n D"n D'nVx rip . "the Spirit of God". 2:2) . and the twelve simple letters (§45). while Dunash does not seem to have had it at all or. in this Recension. Voice.nam mm . This phrase properly belongs to § 12 where it is attested in all three recensions.wmpn mn wmpn mn x'n n The ten sefirot are the ba­ The ten sefirot are the basis: sts: one . 58b.§§24a.wmpn Ten sefirot. the Holy Spirit (ruah).the Spirit of the one . T10\ On the uncertain place of this word in the SY text tradition see the notes on § 2 . Donnolo places it after § 16 and before § 17. It is significant that in the fourth run through § 9 immediately precedes § 17 as in Mss SPR in the Short Recension and all the Long Recension Mss.46-47.o'aViyn mVw law n n xm nn . 66b] txa O'aViyn mVw law nmaai m a m mm mp mn Dmy ? 1 mw nniaai -pna Txa ixoa xm IT nyi nyi amy"? man .l. the seven doubles (§37a). This is the (ntah) and speech . lakes us immediately to the three mothers (§23). ]na nnx (Va3) mm (Long Recension). 41 nnx n a n a mn'ao nwy ixoa pa: . 18. is established from of old His throne is established (Ps 93:2).l).the Spirit of the Living Living God.this is Holy Spirit. Thus the use of § 9 in the Saadyan Recension re­ inforces the conclusion that it has its proper place and function as we find it in the Short Recension." 41 . In the Saadyan Recension § 9 performs the same function as it does in the other recensions. chose to ignore it in his com­ mentary (see Vajda-Fenton 2002: 83. 38. Twice blessed from of old (Ps 93:2).D"n D'nVx mn •pna. Ms K's n a n a is clearly an idiosyncratic reading." So Weinstock 1972: 48. Gruenwald (1973: 497) says that these words "are added here in order to bridge between this paragraph and the next one which discusses the first sefira. n. His throne God. and so the translation of the Short Recension should be "The ten sefirot are the basis. Twice blessed is the name of the Life of the Worlds. at least. and air for ever and ever. n. [foi. the Life of the Worlds. Twice is the name of the Life of blessed is his name always the Worlds. Voice. All other Short Recension Mss and all the Mss of the other recensions read n a n a here. But it is then reused at the start of the second run through the letters (ch. It introduces us to the treatment of the twenty-two letters which. and air (ruah) and word .the Spirit of the Liv­ ing God. And similarly for the third and fourth runs (chapters 3:2 and 4:3).

We could suggest four stages in the growth of this paragraph: (1) A simple statement identifying the first sefirah as the Spirit of the Living God. nan] n a n F. D'DViyn] add T»n B H. H. xm] B H collated to A: TXO 1X03 J13J] om 2 ZE collated to C: TDn] om E. Our author was not necessarily a logical or consistent thinker! (2) The addition of the phrase mam mil Vlp . Weinstock (ibid. 4:1). 2 om M N Q . begins the fourth run through the sefirot and the twenty-two letters (= Saadya's ch." The purpose it serves is not clear. 8) rightly calls this a "conspicuous enigmatic addi­ tion."|TQ»1] om H.Sefer Yesira §10 D 81 n n x n a '"?a niTDO nwy ]iaj D"n D'n'px n n x'n law -piaai nna txa ixoa oViy ? n a n D'anvn 'n "?x nT nan mna n m Vip nvi . most prob­ ably because the scribe's eye slipped from the introductory phrase of § 3 to that of § 11 in the case of B and from 9 to 11 in the case of G. Mss B and G omit this paragraph entirely. iaw] add oViy"? I. Gruenwald (1972: 497-98) makes a convincing case here that "paragraphs 10. The two 1 1 . 12. . In the other recensions it introduces a relatively stable section with regard at least to the order of the paragraphs (§§ 10-16). because the identification of the sefirot in §§ 10-14 does not square with that offered in §7. 13 and 14 did not originally contain anything but the names of the sefirot" He is rather too modest in stating that "there is no textual evi­ dence for it". sin nn] x'n in L S P I . n.not present in the Saadyan Re­ cension. Notes on the text of§ 10 In the Saadyan Recension § 10. using internal self-consistency as a text-critical criterion in SY (or any other ancient Jewish text) has to be done with the greatest of caution. 500) comments that "the three words may well point to possible Logos-speculations which lie at the bottom of this section of the book. . Gruenwald (ibid.l) relegates the whole of §§ 10-16 to his second and later layers of the SY tradition. This represents basically all the material which the recen­ sions have in common.just ordinary "air" over against the Spirit of God. 45. However. since it seems at least for § 10 that isolating what the recensions have in common produces precisely such a relatively unadorned statement. followed immediately by § 12.unpn mi x'n 1 L M N S F P I Q R collated to K : nai"?a] na'^a L . n." nn in this phrase presumably represents what TIN does later in the book . identified in turn with the Holy Spirit: D^nVx (Tin nnx HD'Va mTDD *1UW ttmpn mi XT7 IT D ' T I . tl>1 2°] om ZE. R. Weinstock (1972:44.

2 . .fire from water. to rabbinic ti­ tles for God and familiar liturgical expressions have the effect of toning down the strangeness of SY and making it look more at home in the rabbinic tradition of Juda­ ism. only compounds the ambiguity rather than clarifying it. which is completed in different ways in the recensions. north and south. Gruenwald points out that with this addition there are ten words from p3J to 1371 which laid the text open to kabbalistic interpretation. see Hayman 1984: 171. B'B GH collated to A: u m p n ] om G. while Ms H (supported by Dunash) omits "|"I13?D1.n. Neither Dunash. But making this addition at this point. Overall. not ten sefirot. four . see Hayman 1987: 83. It is clearly secondary.3). Donnolo on his own is insufficient evidence to support such a conclusion but his quotation does illustrate the fluid nature of this paragraph. the additions to § 10 with their references to the Bible. as was noted long ago by Gratz (1846: 102-132). This leads Weinstock to relegate D n to the status of a gloss. (3) The addition of the quotation from Ps 93:2 . 1 am not persuaded by Shlomo Pines' argument (1989: 88) that the Saadyan version of §§ 10 and 12 shows signs of an ear­ lier stage of the SY tradition which only referred to six. though he does substitute D'oVllTI n'?U' for D'^n earlier in the paragraph. Donnolo. 2 . Weinstock too sees this as one of the motives for the growth of this paragraph (1972:45. nor Judah ben Barzillai have it in their texts of this paragraph. Donnolo does not have this particu­ lar addition at all. east and west. three . but although influences similar to those which were at work in these Jewish-Christian texts may ultimately be behind the origin of SY. The parallels between SY and the Clementine Homilies are indeed fascinating.only in the Long Recension and then not in Ms H. and above and below. Sefer Yesira § 11 A vans n n a o'o w^v unipn n n a n n OTIW D " n cnVx n n nnx na'Va niTDO now • m i p o n rrwai mtai nnni o m o'aa The ten sefirot are the basis: one . .air from the Holy Spirit. We will see far more of this type of secondary material as we progress through the work.water from air. Finally.82 Edit ion and Commentary kinds of n n are distinguished in § 12 (in reality the next paragraph in the book). identifying the names with the sefirot. the text as we have it in all the Mss clearly has ten sefirot and only ten. and apparently identifying the two kinds of n n . two .the Spirit of the Living God. (4) An addition in all recensions of the liturgical expression IDtP "T113D1 " ] n 3 . Note the other signs of the growth of this addition in Ms 1 in the Short and B H in the Long Recension.

Sefer Yesira § 12

83

Notes on the text of §11 This paragraph is missing in all the Short Recension Mss, in the Saadyan Recen­ sion, and in Ms D in the Long Recension. It recurs in all witnesses at § 16 which seems a far more logical place for such a summary rather than wedged between paragraphs specifying the first and second sefirot.

Sefer Yesira § 12 K

asm ppn mna mn amw nvmx omen D'nwy 'na yawi max wVw mo' nnwy amwi .mViaa p a nnx mm .moiwa

asm ppn mna mn o w a'awn m n n yanx na a m i pax anyai nma . p a nnx Vaa mm

a s m ppn m n a mn a m w n m a o ' a w n m m n yanx na Vaa m m D i m pax anyai p a nnx [= ch. 4:2] a s m p p n m n a mn Dmw .'a'awn m m n yanx a a Two - air from Spirit: he carved and hewed in it the four winds of heaven - east and west, north and south. And the air is in each one of them. [= ch. 4:2] Two - air from Spirit: he carved them and hewed in them the four winds of heaven. D'awn... 2°B nW is placed after §20 and before § 13 in CE. It is absent in Z.
1 ,

Two - air from Spirit: he carved and hewed in it the twenty-two basic letters three primary letters, and seven doubles, and twelve simple (letters). And the Spirit is one of them.

Two - air from Spirit: he carved and hewed in it the four winds of heaven - east and west, north and south. And the air is in each one of them.

S* omits from na to asm in § 13 by homoio. It is partly restored in the margin. LMN(S)FPIQR collated to K: mo1] om LP. nnx] nnx VaV L, nnx FP, nnx VaV R, Vaa B'B GDH collated to A:
2

1

ZE collated to C(ch. 4:2): p p n ] ppn E. Da] na E.

mna] add wnpn H. na]
om B . Vaa] Va Dy B'B H.
2 2

nnx s * ™.

Notes to the text of§ 12 The Long and the Short Recensions go their separate ways in this paragraph while Mss C and E have two different versions of it. Their first version appears as Saadya's chapter 4:2 between §§ 10 and 17. But they then have a second version placed between §§20 and 13, i.e. between Saadya's chapter 4:4 and 4:5. In this lat­ ter position the paragraph is in its logical place, as reflected in the Long and Short

84

Edition and Commentary

Recensions - before §§13-16. These two Mss seem, therefore, to have preserved an earlier stage in the formation of the Saadyan Recension before § 12 was wrenched out of its original context and placed before § 17 - for reasons which, as we will see, probably generated the Short Recension version. The version which Saadyan had before him had simply eliminated what would now have appeared as an unneces­ sary doublet. Ms B also has two versions of § 12 but placed side by side; first comes the Long Recension form (collated above), and then part of the Short Recension form. Besides preserving signs of the original location of § 12 Mss C and E have probably also preserved the earliest recoverable form of the paragraph, providing more textual evidence for Gruenwald's view of the original text of §§ 10-14. It is interesting to observe that in his translation of this paragraph (more a paraphrase actually), and in his comment on it, Saadya appears to be addressing himself to this shorter CE form rather than the one cited in the lemma in Ms Z. His translation goes: "for in the second stage (we have) the visible air from which blow the four winds" (Kafach 1972: 110, Lambert 1891: 73). It is possible that the Hebrew text of SY cited in Ms Z has been updated in the two hundred and thirty years since the commentary left Saadya's pen. The Ms E text with the singular forms j?j?n and 7X2 makes better sense than the plurals of C and agrees with all the other witnesses and is, therefore, the nearest we can get to the original form of § 12.
2 42 43

The next stage in the evolution of § 12 is reflected in the Long Recension which was also the basis for the first citation of the paragraph in the Saadyan version. This spells out the four winds of heaven, emphasizing that the air or the Spirit - the ambiguity is irresolvable, is present throughout them. But note the uncertainty of the scribes about the meaning of the last four words JHD nrtN "?D3 m i l , both in the Long and the Short Recensions. Another variant occurs at this point in Dunash's commentary: DrTTa n n x n m (Vajda 1954: 41, Vajda-Fenton 2002: 224). The Short Recension represents a complete rewrite of the paragraph. It looks as though the Long Recension form of § 9 has been grafted onto the original version of § 12 replacing the phrase D'BtPn m n v i This reflects the same editorial urge which we can see in the creation of § 2, the position of § 9 in the Long Recen­ sions, and the masterplan for the structure of the Saadyan Recension, namely, to integrate together the two separate parts of SY - §§ 1-16 dealing with the sefirot, and §§ 17-61 (63) dealing with the twenty-two letters. The artificial nature of the
44 45

4 2

nnx

"?33 nm m o w s r n i r a D'nen niViDD vaun nwK vbw -no nvmx o'niin onuro
1

|no.

See also Weinstock's note to this paragraph in Allony 1981a: 23,1. 118. However, Oxford 2250 has the Short Recension reading DHD n n x m i l (Grossberg 1902: 40). See Liebes 2000: 280 for an attempt to make sense of the variant readings at this point. How­ ever his attempt on p. 168 to use the Short Recension version of § 12 to throw light on §20 does not take into account the versions of § 12 found in the other recensions. Cf. Gruenwald 1973: 498.
44 45

43

Sefer Yesira § 13

85

Short Recension version of § 12 is clear from the last three words ]n?D n n s nTTl: and the Spirit is one of them. One of what? - the twenty-two letters! The variant readings reflect the puzzlement we share with the scribes. The phrase makes sense in the context of the Long Recension - the air, created from the Spirit is in all the four winds of heaven; it does not make sense here in this reshaped version of the Short Recension. It was probably the phrase TWO JYOIXn (hewn out in the air) from § 17 - referring there to the twenty-two letters, which gave rise to this Short Recension version of § 12. Saadya in his commentary on the passage connects it up with § 17 and, as we have seen, in his version and the first version in Mss CE, § 12 is immediately followed by § 17. Probably, we can see here at work one of the principles which helped to reshape the Long into the Saadyan Recension.

Sefer Yesira § 13 K
a x m ppn n n a D'a wVw .u'di won i m a i i m n a n a paa p ' x n n n u paa p p n .na'iva p n a p s ' o n a m

a s m ppn n n a D'a wiVw c d i c a n inai imn na P'xn n m v p a a
p a a p a ' o i nam p a a

p'Vy iVw ps'i nanva jVw"? 'a imw nas> nuwn ip m imn p s 'in l a s ' a"?ii>n ns mpaw pim
maViaa o ' j a s iV'x i n i 3 P ' r s a i a i n n 3 mypiwan .psxv can
Three - water from air: he carved and hewed in it tohu and bohu, mud and mire. He carved them like a sort of garden-bed. He erected them like a sort of wall, and he wove them like a sort of ceiling. Three - water from air: he carved and hewed in it tohu and bohu, mud and mire. He made them like a sort of garden-bed. He erected them like a sort of wall, and he wove them like a sort of ceiling. And he poured out snow over them and it became dust, for it is said: For to the snow he says, "Become earth" (Job 37:6). Tohu is a green line which surrounds the world. Bohu is the slimy stones sunk in the abyss between which the water comes out (b. Hag. 12a, y. Hag 77c).

3 x m p p n n n a D'a wbw t?'Di wan i m a i mm n 3 p a a p a o n m v p a jxuw n a m p a p x n na'roa •\sv nwim p'Vy a ' a pr>i

P'T n p m n a s ' fiwb 'a

iVia Dmvn "?a n s T p a w
m a m a a D ' w s V?s i n i 3 • ' : 3 a i Qinn3 m y p i w a n D'a i s x '

Three - water from air: he carved and hewed in it tohu and bohu, mud and mire. He made them like a sort of garden-bed. He wove them like a sort of ceiling. He hewed them like a sort of wall, and he poured out wa­ ter over them and it became dust, For to the snow he says, ["Become earth" (Job 37:6). Tohu] is a green line which surrounds the world. Bohu is the slimy stones sunk in the abyss between which the wa­ ter comes out (b. Hag. 12a, y. Hag 77c).

86

Edilion and Commentary

s
sxm ppn n n a D ' a wVw
O'tJl CDT ini31 inw DH3
JXBW

D

Z
s x m ppn n n a D'a u^tp jxwy u ' t n wsn i n a i i n n n s n a m pas p x n n m y pas D'a px'i n s n y a p a s p r o '3 naxjw noy n w y n p ' ^ y nt i n n p x x i n n a x ' J V ? o n y n "?s n x T>pau> p i T i p D'lSX V?x m a iVis oinns m y p u p a n niaVioan pxiv on'rsaV ip n'Vy n d i n a x w D'a
.ins 'JSXI inn

3 x m ppn n n a D ' a wbw

p a s p ' x n nrny pas jppn px na'iya pas psoi nam 3TIDT -\ov nwsm p'"?s? D ' a
1

inn

px

xin

nax'

JVW'? - O

oViyn nx T>pau> piT ip nT maVioa D ' J S X IV'X ins iVs on'jsai oinns mypiwan
.D'XXV D'OH

u'tsi mil insi p a p a s p ' x n .runs? pas nnnya p a s p s o .nam noy ntpyn p'Vy D ' a px'i mn nax iVwV '3 a'nsi i n 3 p i r ip m inn . p x maVisa D ' J S X V?X •inns mypican .pxxv on D'an o n ' r s a i
1

LMNFPIQR collated to K: p p n ] p e w LP. p ' x n ] p x n I.

B'B GH collated to A: nD] om B . |X»y] pr p p n B . pS'DI] jaS'DI B ' B R ti>W] D ' a B . l a X W ] om B'H.
1 2 2 2

2

E collated to C:

wVrc] wVw E. p p n ] ppn E. pso] p t o E. 'S] pv nas naxw E.

oViyn nx] i^is DViyn Vs
B'B .
2

Motes on the text of§ 13 § 13 illustrates clearly the tendency of SY to grow by the accumulation of biblical and rabbinic material. The quotations from Job 37:6 and from b. Hag 12a,y. Hag 77c are attested only in the Long and Saadyan Recensions and Ms S in the Short Recension, while Saadya adds a quotation from lsa 34:11 which is the source of the baraita in the two Talmuds. The implication of Gruenwald's argument (1973: 498) is that everything after i m D D'a tPVtt> is an addition to the original text of the paragraph. He may well be right but we have no supporting textual evidence for such a short text. Dunash and Judah ben Barzillai reflect the Short Recension form of this paragraph while Donnolo's paraphrase seems to be based on a text close to that of Saadya. In the Short Recension form of the paragraph the biblical allusions lie scarcely detectable in the background: 171131 i m n (Gen 1:2), tt'Ul WST (lsa 57:20), n m i ? (S of S 6:2). Gruenwald (1973: 505) suggests that the motivation for the expansion of this paragraph was probably "editorial harmonization of the three-element theory of SY with the common four-element theory" and "this edito­ rial harmonization was introduced at this stage just because water and earth are the
46

See Hayman 1984: 183 and 1987: 83, and for more detailed treatment of § 13 1984: 172-74, 1987: 76-78.

wa­ carved them and hewed in it ter]: he carved and hewed in the throne of glory. it looks as though the scribes mistook this paragraph as referring to the creation of the earth whereas. while the Long and Saadyan Recen­ sions (less Ms D) have them created out of the air. D r a / r Q . A C asm ppn mn» wx yanx ama xax Vai maa xoa na vaxVa nwiy ama pw . It looks as though the Short Recension understanding is that tohu and bohu were carved and hewn out of the waters. It is the same with the variants p ' S n versus p s n . Weinstock (1972: 49. 1:15. (Ps.m mmn asm p p n a'»» W X yanx D'jaixi maan xoa na wmpn nvm a'anwi pwVwai nnwn 'axVm nwiy naxaw uiy» no" wx vnnwD mmn vaxVa . his servants a flaming . his servants a flam­ ing fire (Ps. n. as it is said: he makes his angelswinds. for thus it the holy living creatures.l04:4). 47 . as it is said: he makes his angels winds.Hag. 12a. but not the floor.&nr> Four .fire from water: he Four . and all Ofanim and the Serqfim. 77c-d. And from the three of them he founded his abode." In addition.on the analogy the author is working with. D'a/lVw p S ' t D'» is an adaptation to the theme of § 13 (so Gruenwald 1973: 507) but may also be an accommodation to § 28. R. and the Ofanim and the Serafim. iVw fits the biblical text better. h. and the heavenly host. See the same variant between Mss C and E in § 12./?r<?(Ps. and the it the throne of glory.6) argues for the priority of but I am unable to see any secure criterion for deciding between these two variants. And thus conforming to the Hillelite view that earth was created first whereas §28 explicitly reflects the Shammaite position. See Gruenwald (ibid. the walls and the ceiling. and the holy living creatures.l04:4). Possibly the reading r n is the result of contamination from §§ 12 and 14.omV wx rnnwa Four . it deals only with the creation of the boundaries of space and the heavens .Sefer Yesira §14 87 two components of clay which is mentioned at the beginning of our paragraph. etc. as I have argued (1984: 172-184).fire from water: he carved them and hewed in it the throne of glory. is written: he makes his an­ and the ministering angels. in fact.) for rabbinic material making similar use of Job 37:6. 47 Sefer Yesira § 14 K axm p p n D ' » » wx yanx onaixi maan xoa na 'axVm wmpn nvm D'anwi i:iya no" pwVwm nnwn mmn vaxVa nwiy naxjw . and the ministering angels.Hag. gels winds.fire from air [rd.l04:4). ]NCS7 (Long and Saadyan Recensions) versus p p n (Short Recension except for Mss LP). see the famous debate in y. And from the three of them he founded his abode. Ber.

It is of a piece with the baraita from the same source by which § 13 was expanded in the Long and Saadyan Recen­ sions. D's-iun] om I -foKW] om F. However. na] jna MQ. n. 12b. Gruenwald sees here yet another sign of the "textual incongruity between the two parts of the book. Liebes (2000: 26.. see the same error in Ms F.R. The difference between CE and Z on the length of the biblical quotation is only apparent.. But that scheme would really require a reading n n . water. E collated to Z: D'OD] om E. and in contrast to § 13. as with so many biblical quotations in rabbinic texts the partial citation was meant to call up the whole of the text in the mind of the reader .presumably the air. Hag. |ppn] ppn L. and fire of §§ 12-14.88 Edition and Commentary Z asm ppn D ' D D u>x ynnx 0T1D X3X "?D1TOD XD3 n 2 YOK^O nto'y mns p u ? om"? v m w mnvi L M N S F P I Q R collated to K D ' Q O ] nviD F. This specification of the four classes of angels is taken from b. It is simpler to see the reading nviO IPX as pro­ duced by erroneous comparison with the beginning of the two previous paragraphs . In the Short and Long Recensions OVID X3S Vsi is replaced by a fuller descrip­ tion of what this term refers to. 48 .17) is inclined to see this as a deliberate attempt to harmonize with the Aristotelian ordering of the elements. the phrase recurs in §57 (which is not attested in the Short Recension) but there it refers to the three groups of the letters of the alphabet. | p p n ] p p n L. As Gruenwald 1973: 499 points out. From the three of what? . B'B GH collated to A: asm] om B .3. the apparatus to the Saadyan Recension in §§ 12 and 13 and the note on DH3/na in § 13. Notes on the text of § 14 The textual situation here is similar to that in §§ 12 and 13: one recension has a short form of the paragraph which is considerably expanded in the other recen­ sions.hence the 'IT in C. Donnolo (Castelli 40) adds tPKOI O'ODl m i » after IJiya. 'nsi 2 2 D. As with § 12. see Hayman 1987:74-75. X3X] E.. Dni"? IPX l ' D T O ] om E. 'nDT S." reflecting his view that ultimately they go back to different authors. 1 0 " intPVlPBI.R. Clearly the Short Recension reading is p p n in line with the Saadyan Recension. if neither the Short and Long Recension 48 49 See the notes on Ms F in the Introduction §8.nviD m i and nvia D'a. nviD in C is clearly an error. it is the Saadyan Recension (and specifi­ cally Mss CE) which offers the shortest text.. Cf.

he sealed the east.'ina iamm iamm i r a ' ? mo'i D m naaa pax Dnn ntrr . We have seen that Gruenwald thinks that only the names of the sefirot were in the original text.HWY. especially since the quotation from Ps 104 is particularly apposite to the point being made in § 14.'ina lanm lanm v-inx ? mo anva ma D m onn ywn . He chose three simple letters and fixed them in his great name . in front] and sealed it. Seven . Eight he sealed the west. Six . 1 have previously drawn attention to the fact that hardly any of the biblical citations now found in the various texts of SY are attested in all the witnesses (Hayman 1984).'ina lanm iva "? ianm iVxaw ? mo [fliax . He turned downwards and sealed it with YWH].he sealed below.YHW. and he turned behind and sealed it.he sealed be­ low. He turned in front and sealed it with HWY. However.he sealed be­ low.mia . In fact. and he turned upwards and sealed it. Nine . then the incongruity was created at one of the later editorial stages.ima lanm nVya? ma d i i vish ma n n a Dnn yaw onn maw . It probably did not exist in the earlier form of the text. possibly by different editors. He turnedbehind and sealed it with Five . and he turned downwards [rd. and he turned to Five . He sealed above. and he turned downwards and sealed it.He chose three simple letters and fixed them in his great name .he sealed the .he sealed the south. only Ezek 1:14 and Ps 104:4 appear in all our Mss.Sefer Yesira §15 89 texts of § 14 nor the whole text of § 57 belong to the earliest layer of material in the book.'ma iamm Vrxaw ? 1 1 Five . And he sealed with them the six edges (of the universe). in the light of the absence of textual support for this I am reluctant to leap to such a conclusion.he sealed the east.he sealed the west. Nine .ima yaw . And he sealed with them the six edges (of the universe). Sefer Yesira § 15 K wbw n a mi Dnn wan Vran iawa p a p i m o w D n:oi n m p ww D m Dnm Dnn lanm nVya ? lanm nun"? nasi nnn noa"? moi n n a Dnn yaw D i v a Dnn maw ianm ywn ianm v-inx"? moi ianm ira' ? msi u r n Dnn iVxaw"? moi pax onn nwy 1 1 A unVw " I T D o n Dnn wan Vmn iawa p a p i moiwo ww jna onm vi 'n i v iamm nVya"? moi nnxp mo') nnn onn ww.vna onn iwy . [Six .he sealed the east. He turned in front and sealed it with HYW. He turned downwards and sealed it with YWH.nva 1 1 1 nna Dnn isnm mvaw . This might predispose us to think that even these two quotations should be regarded as secondary. Seven . and turned upwards and sealed it with YHW.he sealed the west.vna iamm v-inx ? niD': anya onn Dnn n'j'OT .nva iamm noaV VJDV n w i 1 C niDTOD wVw n a [W]an 'in Vmn lawa ]V[a]pi Dnn nnxp ww p a onm . And he sealed with them the six edg­ es (of the universe). He turned behind and sealed it with HYW. He chose three simple letters and fixed them in his great name. He turned upwards and sealed it with YHW.he sealed above. Six . Seven . It is possible to speculate that even the Saadyan form of the text of § 14 represents an expansion of the original.he sealed above. Eight . Eight .

ima H .mia ianm nsaw ? 1 1 1 1 1 LMNSFIQR collated to P: mtnwa. In the Long and Short Recensions it has separated Din DJin from Thvttb n3D. D south. 1 Notes on the text of§ 15 Although the three recensions witness to approximately the same text of this para­ graph there is some disturbance at the beginning which suggests that an earlier form has undergone expansion.ima lanm yaw . nVyaV rtJS Din Dnn on the pattern of the rest of the paragraph and that TVD miXj? WW | n a Dnm VI 'n I V Vvnn 17DW2 |S?3j?l niDIWS Wr>W is a later inser­ tion. He turned to his right and sealed it with WYH. I suspect that the earlier form of the text had WDn . nna] nva SIQ. nvms moiwan p ] m a s SQ...wan] wan moiwan p nvms w"?w w"?w nya mna Dnn M N . T:aV] vnnsV E.he sealed the north. 50 . P Z w"?w nva o n Dnn wan p a m moiwan p nvnix p a Dnm in' Vnrtn lawa nVyaV mai mix.'inn ianm ianm inns'? p o i anya .227b] pox Dnn .vna .'ina via ? mai nma onn onn ywn vna lanm tod ? Dnn mow . In the Saadyan Recension it was inserted between W » n and Oil DJin. He turned to his right and sealed it with HWY.mia . The text of this insertion is not stable unlike the rest of the paragraph: all Short Recension Mss except K read like Ms P niOlWDH p ni'DlK wVw instead of simply niDlWD WT>W.nnxj? ww ona Dnm im nnn onn ww ima ianm .'ma lanm nwy . Ten he sealed the north.? ww nnn onn ww .mia ianm i r o n mm [foi. while Mss M N begin the paragraph: ISO DVD Dnn niOIWDn p nvms wVw W»n i n ' Vmn 1 » w a p a p i W"?W. Ten . He turned to his left and sealed it with YWH. The expansion builds in links to the second part of 50 Donnolo (Castelli 42) begins the paragraph with an even longer insertion before resuming Din onn. nma] nva B ' B . 2 2 E collated to Z: Vran] add 'in E.vna lanm inns'? m lanm i r a n nwi u m onn mai pax Dnn nwy . moiwan] moiwa a" Fi. B ' B G H collated to A: 2 Din] om B .he sealed the north. Ten .90 his right and sealed it.n'ia lanm iva'V ma Dinn nsaw ? n:a pax Dnn nwy mai o m Dnn ywn .ima Dnm nVya ? mo 7\vtf7 mai nnn onn ww yaw ..'ma lanm nsaw"? 1 jyapi moiws w"?w nna w"?w nva o n onn won ww p a onm Vrun lawa Vran lawa p a p m a s nVyaV ma Din onn nnxp .. lawa p a p Vimn] lawa iyaj?i B .'inn ywn .he sealed the south.nva lanm noa ? mai lanm vja"? mai nma onn ai anya onn maw . He turned to his left and sealed it with WHY. Nine . Edition and Commentary HWY.nva ianm nua"? ma ionm TjaV ma nma onn yaw nva sVi imn lanm ma anya Dnn maw . and he turned to his left and sealed it.

above. Ms K. These ten sefirot are the basis: one . three . two . north and south.air from the Spirit. in the first part of the book the dimensions of space are denoted by the term J7D1J7 (§ 7). it cannot serve as the base manuscript for the Short Recen­ sion. On the other hand. north and south."IVa instead of W O . B''s readings would result in the following translation: "Five . and the height above and below. is it conceivable that they were added in an ancestor of all the other Mss at the same time as the long insertion before or after DVt Dnn? 2 .more strongly in the form of the expansion in most Short Recension Mss. below. fire. n n x p ww (1973:510). east and west. Sefer Yesira § 16 K A C na'Va n w s o -wv IV'X DVJ mm . nJS 3 in Ms A.noa nVi?» . two . west. Another variant of this insertion can be seen in Mss B'B (H) in the Long Recen­ sion and SIQ in the Short . Apart from this insertion in § 15 there is no securely attested refer­ ence in the first part of the book (§§ 1-16) to the threefold division of the letters of the alphabet. water.wx nnx ntapVs nvi'DD -raw n n D'nw D"n o'nVx n n yaix n n a D'a w^v n n a nnm D'aa o n O ' D B W X D i m psx 3-ii?oi m i a 3-ivai m t a n n m nVya .nna n n D T I W Dim D'aa wx V 3 i x . east and west. in/Q etc. These ten sefirot are the ba­ sis: one .. three .water from air. Gruenwald similarly sees textual disturbance in the beginning of this paragraph but his res­ toration simply rearranges the existing material: p a D f i m .three simple letters.fire from water. Presumably its scribe felt that this was esoteric material best concealed from the masses.. the variants m?DX (SQ) and n i O W D a"> take us further along this trajectory (cf.Sefer Yesira § 16 91 the book . nilXj? WW comes in from the textual tradition of § 38. north and south.omi pax These ten sefirot are the basis: the Spirit of the Living God. §§24. and fixed it in his name YHW. above from water and below. Most Long Recension manuscripts keep to HJD in line with the other recensions.air from the Spirit..the Spirit of the Liv­ ing God. alone takes out these permutations of the divine name which is why. the correct reading VinxV is in C and E.water from air.he sealed above with Yod.D"n D'nVx n n n n x D'a wi?v . east.the Spirit of the Living God.nna .3ij?» m i a . The order of the combinations of the letters of the divine name varies in the manuscripts and there are naturally errors and duplications which are not worth recording." There is an extensive omission by parablepsis in MS C (i7D&V H3D n n n D n n WW HVa i a n m ) while Z repeats V3DV. four . niOTOS wi?W I T S nVi?S)V ruDi o n o n n .D"n DTIVX nn :na'Va niTDO iura i r x . This reading also occurs in Paris 763 and Dunash according to Vajda-Fenton 2002: 80. four . and air.fire from water.nVon. on this occasion. 45). .

jw pwVai D'JW p .Vipn Dy mwanwa .D"n D'nVx n n nnx wiVw . nVya] mn L M N P .noai . nua] nnn LMNFPQ.Vipa mpipn .pwVn wxnai D'naw . pr Dim q.inserting the numerals and the phrases nT1?D and DD from §§ 12-14. r? ? for TO ' rl D ? DT in some Mss departs from the term hitherto used for this sefirah in §§ 7 and 15. D D 2° in C is clearly a duplica­ TD ' tion from the previous phrase D'DD WX.maipa wana naa myiap n:V on pa n i a ia yn nx p w OT A nvmx D'nwi D'nwy (17a) yawi ma'x wiVw mo' nnwy omwi mViaa Vipa mpipn moiwa naa myiap mna maixn (I7b). Edition and Commentary D z nnx n a n a mn'ao nwy iVx mn D'nw D"n D'nVx mn yanx m n a w x wVw m n a n m a nnm Din D'aa w x .but note G's reading in §7) and Mss SQ. Again it seems that a shorter text preserved in the Short Recension (apart from Ms S) has been expanded in the other Recensions. Sefer Yesira § 17 K nvmx D'nwi D'nwy (17a) . 1 This produces the composite reading nVs?D Din in the Long Recension (apart from G . The expansions were simple .maipa nwana mVon pa'j «pia yn nx wxna nmwp wnxoT nVma nanVwa pwVn moa mwanwa yn nx i a i a nyVan n'aai pwVn pa mwanwa [foi. a m i pax anyai B'B GH collated to A: 2 E collated to Z: WX nwy] omB'. n n o WX in Ms Z certainly looks an error though it is what C (but not Z!) has in § 14.Dinm pax a n y a i .92 S n a n a nmao nwy iV'x D'nw 0 " n D'nVx n n n n x mna D'a wVw n n a n n nVya Dim o'aa wx yanx p a x anya nma .mnV n n a D'nw c a a wx S 3 i s . Notes on the text of§ 16 On the general position of this paragraph in the text of SY see the notes on § 11.mnna: ]iwVn wVw Vy pwVn wxna mVon wnxot .na n a mmao nwy iVx .om LMNFP1QR collated to K: n n ] om F.mna maixn . nVya] omG. 1°] D'a E.67a] pan .nna D'a nma noai nVya o m . D»n] om L P .jw pwVai D"rw ]'a c nvmx D'nwi D'nwy (17a) yaw maix wiVw m c nnwy D'nwi mViaa maixn nvmx moiwa myiap Vipa mpipn m n p ] nx maipa nwana naa n:V on oan «p ia yn nanVwa pwVn wxna njV yn nx (17b) nVma n'ai pwVn moa mwanwa mwanwa i a ia nyVan 'j pwVn wxnai D'naw p nnnai pwVn wVw Vy oa •pnai pwVn wxna mV on wnn oi Vipn Dy mwanwai .

Pe are pronounced between the teeth and by the tip of the tongue. Ayin. Yod. p w dt m"? t n . They are carved out by the voice. Mem. Yod. Resh. fixed in the mouth in five positions: Aleph. Zay­ in. Het. Waw. Samek. Aleph. Bet. Bet. Samech. Tet are cut off a third of the way up the tongue. Lamed. Lamed. He. Pe. Tet. Sade.]w pw"?ai D'nswn t i c nvmx D'nwi onwy TiD' nvmx D'nun Dnwy mViaa yawi max wiVw mViaa yaw niaix w"?w . Mem. Shin.n"?ma nanVwa pw"?a . Zayin.w-ixot . Kaph. Taw. He. Yod. Qof are cut off a third of the way up the tongue. Nun. Dalet. Waw. Sade. Pe. Het. Lamed.m>ma nan"?wa pwVa moa mwanwa ynnx fpia .]w> pwVai Dnwn |'a . Gimel. Dalet. Kaph.Sefer Yesira §17 (17a) The twenty-two letters: they are hewn out in the air. He. Lamed. Resh. Yod. Samek. Taw. and twelve simple (letters). He. Taw are pronounced by the tip of the tongue with the voice.nyVan mai pw"?n moa moa mwanwa yn nx w x t j i D'naw p a «]»ia ia . Dalet. Pe. carved out by the voice. Taw. Samech. Dalet. Resh. Qof.nyVan maai pw"?n pwVn wVw "?y pan .pwVn D'nawn pa mwanwa >p pw"?n 'xn Vy nr?in nlmpj pan .]w? pw"?ai wvo p a wxna mwanwa mVin mwanwa wis dt . Shin. (17a) The twenty-two letters are the foundation: three primary letters. Taw by the tip of the tongue and with the palate. and twelve sim­ ple (letters). and they are pro­ nounced with the voice. Tet. Mem. Het.pw"?n . Aleph. Taw.pwVn . Nun. Gimel. Waw. Tet.pw"?n wVwa mwanwa . Zayin. Ayin. Qof. fixed in the mouth in five posi­ tions: Aleph. Gimel.. Bet. Tet. Kaph. carved out by the voice. Shin (are pronounced) between the teeth with the tongue re­ laxed. Waw. Pe are pro­ nounced between the teeth and by the tip of the tongue.Vipn oy mwanwa . Mem. Bet. Lamed. Resh. D 93 (17a) The twenty-two letters are the foundation: three pri­ mary letters. Nun. Kaph. Ayin are pro­ nounced at the back of the tongue and in the throat. Nun. Zayin. He. Sade. (17b) to the tip of the tongue as the flame to the burning coal. Gimel. Ayin are pronounced at the back of the tongue and in the throat. seven dou­ ble (letters).nyVan maai pw"?n D'nawn pa mwanwa pan . Zayin. Gimel. Nun. seven double (letters). Ayin. Mem.. Taw. Shin (are pronounced) be­ tween the teeth with the tongue relaxed. They are hewn out in the air. Waw. Nun.pw"?n wxnai . nvmx OTuin wwv maixn Vipa mpipn mo' nwana naa myiap n n a pa n i » ia yn nx maipa nvnwp . hewn out in the air. Tet.muiwa mwy dviwi nvmx muiwa mwy D'nwi maixn Vipa mpipn Vipa mpipn nna maixn nwana naa myiap n n a maipa nwana naa myiap pan 3D ia yn nx mmpo mVtn pan «pia ynnx nvnwp p w at mV t n mwanwa ynnx . He.pw"?n wxiai wnsoT . Bet. fixed in the mouth in five positions: Aleph. (17b) They are bound to the tip of the tongue as the flame to the burning coal. Lamed. Samek. He. Dalet.pwVn wVwa mwanwa wxna mwanwa mVin pa mwanwa pwcn . Kaph.

In MNF1Q §23 is then repeated in its logical position after §22. The paragraph order in the Short Recension.23.Vipn Dy mwanwai . jw] naiaw n m o w i ] B'GH. p w . 2 2 m a i x n Vipa m p i p n ] jVia m p i p n G. . In the Saadyan Recension § 17 comes before the block of material which we have just been considering (§§ 12-16) and is then followed by §§ 19 and 20. having been stable since § 10 is now considerably disturbed. in Mss MNIQ 9. The ini­ tial sentence of § 17 in the Long and Saadyan Recensions is similarly just a version of §9.aia. After § 16 the order in Mss K and R is 9. §§23 and 26 seem to have been attracted to this context because of the mention of the "three mothers" in § 9 but there may be more to the dislocation of the paragraph order at this point.17.nVma nanVwa m c nvmx amwi anwy mViaa yaw max wVw nvmx moiwa mwy amwi n n a maixn Vipa mpipn nwana naa myiap pan na ia yn nx :maipa mmwp p w o t niV on nanVwa pwVn wxna mwanwa yn nx .jw pwVai D'iw pa B'B GH collated to A: 2 LMNFPIQR collated to K (Ms R repeats § 17 after § 19a = R ): n v m x ] add m c M N F I . 17.26. 2 Notes on the text of§ 17 For the placing of § 9 before this in the Short Recension see the notes to § 9. § 18 follows in all the Mss. and one after it (= R ). 19a. This paragraph presents one of the more notable places in the textual tradition of SY where the Long and Saadyan Recensions offer a much more extended text 1 2 .Vy] Vw pwV Vy mmwVw Vy n n naa G.mnna: pwVn wVw Vy pan nnai pwVn wxna n:V on p w a.19a. Apart from Ms R.|iwVn wxnai D'naw pa . 18.nVma mwanwa n.94 Edition and Commentary mna maixn Vipa mpipn maipa wana naa myiap OT n:V on pan iaia ynnx pwVn wxna mmwp . 23. 17. mnna:.pwVn moa . in Ms L 9.. now placed in its logical position. in Mss SP 9. Ms R has two versions of § 17. in Ms F 9. 17. As we have seen it is basically a heading designed to introduce the second part of the book. 17. one after § 9 and before § 19a (= R ).26. omaw pa] Dmawa B .

The closest parallel to the theory of phonetics expressed here in paragraph 17b is found in an Arabic treatise Kit'ab Al-Ayin produced by the Muslim scientist and linguist Al-Halil (c. He dates it somewhere in the second half of the eighth century.775/91). The parallels between SY and Al-Halil's book are discussed by Allony (1972:88-91). A similar argument is presented by Steven Wasserstrom (1993: 14). Judah ben Barzillai also has the Short Recension (Halberstam 1885: 208) but followed by an interpretation of the five groups of letters which bears little relation to that found in the Long and Saadyan Recensions. 52 In his review of Allony's 1972 article Nicolas Sed (1973: 522-528) prints a French transla­ tion of the three recensions of § 17 in parallel columns but unfortunately draws no text-critical conclusions from the differences between them. Al-Halil's book was known and used by medi­ eval Jewish linguists. 52 51 . 6577. He argues that. not 5 as in SY. Likewise Epstein. For the sheer textual chaos at this point in Dunash's commentary see Vajda-Fenton 2002: 84-89. How­ ever. as we have already seen. I decided not to include in the apparatus. we look at the text critical evidence for SY § 17. 710 . so SY must postdate the Islamic enlightenment. One could quibble with the details of Allony's argument here . is characterised by attempts to integrate Long Recension material into the Short Recension.5) which. though they both draw independently upon an Indian linguistic tradition.Sefer Yesira § 17 95 than the Short Recension. Until that is. REJ2& (1894). Does the detailed linguistic information belong to the earliest recoverable stage of the text or has it been added later in the post-Islamic period as a form of explanatory commentary? 51 The issue becomes: has the Short Recension preserved the earlier form of SY or the Long/Saadyan Recension? It may help to orientate ourselves to an answer to this question if we look at one British Library Ms (Or. In a later paper (1981b) Allony revises this judgement and now sees the source of SY's linguistic knowledge definitely coming from Arab sources. Margol. Al-Halil divides the con­ sonants into 8 groups."Recherches sur le Sefer Yecira".for example. and he has a more logical ordering of them from the throat to the lips. Donnolo (Castelli 1880: 43) more or less follows the Long Recension but with some interesting omissions. SY §40). 97-103. for reasons explained above. the Hebrew text presupposed by his commentary seems to be that of the Short Recension. Solving the problem of the text of SY § 17 is crucial for dealing with the issue of the date of the work. Cat. the overall argument does seem quite convinc­ ing. 736. in his discussion of the pho­ netics of SY could have helped his case for preserving an early date for SY if he had paid attention to the text-critical situation instead of basing his discussion on the Long Recension alone . He too organises the letters by the place of articulation in the mouth and he also knows of the permutation of letters up to a five-letter word (cf. See the introduction §8. However.3. though Saadya does not seem to have known it. The explanation of where in the mouth the five different groups of letters are pronounced is completely absent in the Short Recension Mss except for Ms S which. SY must be given a late date on the basis of its linguistic knowledge which he says only became available to Jewish scholars after the Muslim conquest.

this time following exactly the text of Ms K. The next stage would be that represented by Ms S which incorporates into § 17 a lot.pwVn wxna mwanwa niVon .nanVwa pwVn wxna mmwp p n n n v m x :i>nnx . then we have § 18. BL Or. 6577 or Paris 763. Saadya's translation into Arabic of the Hebrew text on which he is commenting seems to reveal the same degree of license.mwanwa Vipn ai> pwVn 'xn Vy :mVtn . followed by: pan . It lacks the phrase nVma nanVtPD pwVn WX13 niTlTPj? which in these Recensions connects together § 17a and § 17b. it offers an interesting sidelight on how SY § 17 could have grown. w"' PtPVai as "with the tongue quiescent" and to add a "special supplement" about roVoi . .mna pwVn wVw Vy :pan .pwVn wxnai D'naw pa mwanwa :n. but not all. It looks like we have here the first stage in the growth of § 17b. Then the commentary itself is generally shorter and less precise than that which appears in our Long and Saadyan Recen­ sion Mss. Kafach 110). 41a agrees with that of Ms K except that it omits !1D3. Ms Paris 763 also seems to go back to this first stage of expansion prior to S.96 Edition and Commentary However. It is a Short Recension Ms but here after § 17a it has a form of 17b: . And then he feels the need to justify his translation of 7. The phrase has been taken from § 6.pwVn wVwa mwanwa . but is not identical with. And this is where the text of Ms R' becomes interesting because it has the text of Ms K and all the other Short Recension Mss but plus this phrase.pwVn : 55 What is interesting about this Ms is the way in which § 17b is separated from § 17a and then clearly labelled as commentary.aia . pwVm D"vw pa :wnxot Again we have an expansion of § 17 which seems to draw on.(?) naiaw pwVai o"rwn pa mwanwa wnxoi . If we now look in more detail at the individual clauses of § 17b we can see more of this fluidity in its text: This last word is difficult to read. the fuller version seen in the Long Recension. Judah ben Barzillai's expansion of § 17a in his commentary seems to reflect the same degree of scribal independence though to a greater extent than Ms S. On fol. Immediately after the end of § 64 there follows on fols. 44b § 17 is again quoted. But note that Ms Z also lacks this phrase. Folios 40a-43b of this manuscript contain the Short Recension text of SY and the text of § 17 on fol.pwVn moa mwanwa yn nx pia nvmx amwi onwy myiapn no Vw maipa iVx wx-oi D T I D W pa mwanwa qaia . for he does not offer a straight literal translation but what looks like an "improved" version. of the material which appears in the Long Recension."they have a distinguishing feature which is that they touch the teeth from their inside to their upper part" (Lambert 74. 43b-52a a short commentary on SY.

From this textual evidence it might be possible to reconstruct an earlier shorter form of § 17b which takes us on a smooth trajectory from § 17a to the more detailed explanations of the Long and Saadyan Recensions and then on to the commentar­ ies. and Paris 763 reads n V D in this place. we could add that the content of § 17 is at variance both with itself and the rest of the book. seem to be a strong case for regarding § 17b as a supplement to § 17a with both scribes and commentators feeling some freedom to update or rewrite the material according their own linguistic knowledge and understanding. 6577. then. Donnolo omits pu^n wxiai. The signs of textual disturbance here are the following: the attempt to combine the beginning of the paragraph with a shorter or longer version of §9. Ms E.possibly as § 17 was inserted in different places. Mss CE supplement with "pnai. Note the strange reading here in Ms G. and the signs of textual disturbance in the paragraph order of most Short Recension Mss . The threefold division certainly lies at the base of the SY tradition and governs the structure of the work. J W is omitted in Paris 763. 6577. 2). This division is nowhere repeated in the book. Scholem and Weinstock all regard § 17 as a later accretion to the book.Sefer Yesira § 17 97 ny'Van m a a i ]Wbn m o a nwnTWtl Sn nx. Paris 763 omit the last phrase n^Van maai. n. the reversal of the phrases n n a maisn /Vlpa mpipn in the Saadyan Recension. "This is the first instance in which this division appears in the history of Hebrew linguistics and it may not have been included in the first version of the book" (1971: 784). There would. Particularly for this latter reason Gruenwald. BL Or. Vipn ay m r a r a pW*?n WJOa mVtr?. However. the fluidity of this part of § 17 would probably make the result too conjectural. B'GH replace it with n n w i naiDW . seven doubles and twelve simple letters (integral to the structure of SY) conflicts with the fivefold division which follows. while Saadya has pw"?n 'Xn for O ' T W pa W1X0T. See the editor's note which he places at the end of Allony 1981b: 50. Finally. and it has no bearing on its doctrines" (1973: 476.none whatsoever! In fact. For what part does a fivefold division of the letters of the alphabet play in the rest of SY? . the opening part of the paragraph (in its Long Recension form) with its threefold division of the three mothers. BL Or. m m D J pwVn W»Vw V» pan. I conclude that § 17a belongs to the same point in the expansion of the book as stage three of § 12. Vlpn a y is omitted by Donnolo and Mss DS. |UT pwVai "Paragraph 17 seems to be an independent unit: it discusses the fivefold division of the twenty-two letters of the alphabet in phonetic terms. But the question is now worth raising as to whether even § 17a belongs to the earli­ est recoverable stage of the text of SY. 55 56 54 . Both 54 55 56 pwVn wxna. This threefold division is chosen on the basis of far more simplistic linguistic theories than that found in the longer version of § 17.BL Or. m m D J is missing in Mss DS. pwVn wxiai o v i s t ? pa mwanwa T a i a . This reading could be reflecting the expansion and explanation offered in Saadya's commentary. 6577 may have naiDW.

yiaa nuaV ny-iV c nvmx D'nwi onwy ona bibi mn ViVaa myiap naioa px T J I V p ' o mnxi ny Y J D X I j)iyo nVynV ynya no»V The twenty-two letters are their foundation. The wheel rotates backwards and forwards. scribes found this paragraph difficult to copy. Correction to yiJO with Mss Z and E. In particular the scribe dropped the phrase niYHPj? P~IW"0T by parablepis . and if in evil. and if for evil. If we take this view of the relatively late date of § 17 in the development of the SY tradition. below pain. Sefer Yesira § 18 K OTIC A mo' nvmx D'nun D'nwy D'nxaa VaVaa myiap mm D'Yj/u> -mxi o'"iwyi P ' o mi mnxi D'ia VaVan nVyaV naioV D X Y J I V noaV nym> D X I 'yw» yjj» The twenty-two letters are the foundation. It is fixed on the Hook. on a wheel with two hundred and twentyone gates. above pleasure. below pain. § 17 is a further development of § 19a to which. 58 n.his eye leapt from the Taw at the end of na"? to the one at the end of niTIWp. C H E W -mxi onwyi P ' o nn mnxi ona VaVi oxi >jy» nVyaV naioV ox . F mo' nvmx D'nun onwy D'nxaa ViVaa myiap m n .o'-iyw nnxi D'wVwi p ' o inn mnxi mis VaVan nVyaV naioa px mnV . And this is the sign: if for good. 1 nvmx D'nwi D'nwy omxaa ViVia . The Saadyan Recension is much better preserved in Mss Z and E.yi:a noaV nma pxi M I > » 57 58 D Z mxax ' v m ppn p a w Vx D " n D'nVx Vxiw 'nVx wnpi iy piw xwn on nw (=56a) 1DW m c nvmx D'nun onwy D'nxaa VaVia myiap mn D'iyu> nnxi D'wVwi naiua D X mnxi D'JD VaV* ny-ia D X I i)ya nVyaV mnV p ' o im vw> nooV nvmx D'nwi onwy ona VaV* mn VJVJD myiap Following the marginal correction. then there is no need to invoke early Indian/Sanskrit influence (as does Liebes 2000: 236-37) in order to counteract a post-Islamic dating of SY. as we have seen. above plea­ sure. ." above pleasure. They are fixed on a wheel with two hundred and twenty-one gates.a s there are also in some other Mss. and if for evil. The text of the Genizah Scroll (Ms C) is in a poor state in this paragraph. The twenty-two letters. be­ low pain.'Vna yiap mn . And this is the sign of the matter: if for good. The wheel rotates backwards and forwards. J]y« ' X J A e. They are fixed on a wheel. A sign for the mat­ ter: if in good. The wheel rotates backwards and forwards. There are other duplications and errors .98 Edition and Commentary of these fill the gap in the earlier form of the work which omitted to specify exactly how the twenty-two letters were created. it is closely related in many Mss.

myiap] add 'Vna R .wedged between §§47 and 58b (Saadya's ch. some Mss split § 19 into two parts.i]iyD 1 . The manuscript of Saadya's commentary (Z) splits up § 56 into two parts and inserts § 56a here before § 18 and again before § 58.yj:o nVyn"? nyia 1 -no'> nvmx DTIWI D'iwy D'nx»a VJVJQ m y i a p i n n D n y w inxi n n w y i P ' o nn . parablepsis is most probably the reason for this omission.more confusion! 1 . jTiO'' M R . 13lV| om L R . there is some doubt even there over their place in the earliest recoverable text of SY. It is clearly intrusive here as Mss C and E show.except that it is missing in Mss B'G... The para­ graph has the same position in the Short Recension except. pxi uuiyo rbvnb naio"? px yiw noaV nyn ? s.mnxi ana VjVjn nVynV naio a x iian ? ncaV nym> DXI . yjM.yjw 1 1 § 18 is missing in Mss B'G. p ' o imi] om LMNSPIQR H L. 1 1 1 1 1 -no nvmx D'non o n t p y D'nxaa Vjfaa m y i a p i n n D n y w tnxi o n w y i p ' o nn mnxi ana W?an nVyoV px naioa ox nan"? noa ? px nyiV axi jjya .y'?j» 1 1 B 2 E nvmx o'nun anwy W?a ntn VaVaa myiap ]'x naiV p ' o i -nnx ? ana pxi wiyo nVya"? naioa . 4:3-4) while § 18 is placed in an entirely different setting .rX] w y a rhvzh naiua DK yiw noa ? nyia axi L. one of which precedes §§ 17 and 18 and one of which follows them.DX DXI inya nVya ? px naio ? y ^ a noo ? ny-i"? M N Q . once we have stripped out from Z the intrusive § 56a and the doublet TirtXI D 3S VaVl "ITin it can be seen to be attesting the same text form. m w N Q . However. Since all three paragraphs begin with the same phrase. as we shall see later.yiiD collated to F: TID'] om I. as we shall see. The shortest text of this paragraph is in Mss C and E.Sefer Yesira § 18 99 mnxi ana W ? J nnn mnxi nVya ? naioa px nai ? p ' o n"?y»"? nyna pxi iiva . The scribes seem to have had real difficulty in understanding the second half of § 18 and virtually every scribe has attempted to clarify the text with the result . In the Saadyan Recension § 19 follows on after § 17 (Saadya's ch. 2:5-6). The other recensions seem to have imported the 221/231 gates from § 19 though. A/o/ev on the text of§ 18 The position of § 18 is firmly fixed in the Long Recension between §§ 17 and 19 .

Most of the readings make some kind of sense. Viai iVna oy X X B J nV'Vn n n n m m a I X X D J nV'Vn nvmn jViai nnxi onwyi ovixaa ma onwyi D'nxoa mxxv .except for scribal attempts to rectify or improve the text.100 Edition and Commentary 110"'. The same error occurs in the Mss of § 19. The correct formula for the permutations is n(n-l) + 2 which with n=22 gives 231.nrVn mnrin jViai Von ovixaa mxxv nxxa: X X D J D'nyw nnxi onwyi xxv ma'nn Vai mx'n Va . as the marginal corrector saw. It is very difficult to work out what has caused the textual confusion at the end of this paragraph . he hewed them.mainly in the Long and Saadyan Recension Mss. What the author originally wrote has disappeared from sight though the general point he wished to make is not difficult to discern.nnx owa (19a) Twenty-two letters: he carved them out.. 'Vna in Mss K and R is imported from §§ 55/59 and is out of place here. Similarly Vy\V2 in C is an error typical of this poorly written Ms.f?pw . he com59 mo' nvmx D'ntrn onwy p x n p p n moix unVw nx nrxa p w r n ]Vpu> pnx oy jViai jVia Dy iVx janx Dy tViai iVia oy ma iVx ay pnai pna Dy Von ma . he weighed them. 59 60 Sefer Yesira § 19 K A C nvmx a v i o n onuw (19a) ippn n v m x ovran onuw p n x i ]T»ni |Vpw p x n . Our two earliest Mss (A and C) already exhibit the major variants ( p x 1 or DX and ilVyaV 2° versus noa ?).Van xnaj o n a w wwy Va x x a : onyw n n x i mx'n Vai mann Va x x a : xxv mann Vai mx'n . Allony's solution to this problem (1972: 81) has much to commend it: in an early Ms the upper stroke of the abbreviation X'Vl was faint and a scribe misread it as X'DI and the error was then passed down the line . p p n Turn Vawajpanxi mx'n Va WDJ Dna nxi janx n o mxV mnyn Va W D J I mxV m n s n Va W S J I Dy TVX | T » m TVpw nx p o m p p w nx nrxa (19b) Dy ma iVx Dy piai p i a iVx oy | V I D I | V D UV ^ V X Van ma Dy piai jVia DV D71D1 oVia Din ma Van oy 7. p x n . he weighed them and exchanged them. in § 19 Saadya found ovixaa inxi D'lWyl in the Hebrew text before him but corrected it to O'wVttn DTIXaa inxi as an obvious error. nnxi onuwi awaa/nnxi oV?tm crnxaa. p o n . Ms H and MNQS show scribes trying to solve the problem by putting in all the variants they know of. he hewed them. he com- Twenty-two letters are the foundation: three primary letters . he hewed them.nnx Dwa xxv . Kafach 1972: 117 and Weinstock 1981: 36.nnx owa Twenty-two letters: he carved them out.0 . The repeated VXi in Ms A is clearly an error. See on § 2 for this ubiquitous variant. he combined See Lambert 1891: 80. . He carved them out. he exchanged them. ' See Epstein 1894: 97 for the even wider figures for the number of gates that we get when we add in the readings of the medieval commentaries on SY..

Again with the rest of the Mss.ins owa sxv mx'n i n s DW3 1 LMNSPIQR collated to K: nvms] add T I C M N I Q R . How did he combine them? . How did he weigh and exchange them? . D'lWy 2°] B'B GH collated to A: nvms] add 110' B'B GH.mx ? DV ma iVs Dy jViai p a . and them all with Aleph. D z nvms omwi onwy p p n nvms omwi D n w y ppw p x n p p n T I C ixn p ' a m ]Vpw p i x p x n W D J ona ixi p i x p ' a n mnyn V3i mx'n Va p 3 mnyn Va won mxm Va DJ? ^Vs p i x i x r s a i . m s i D'lwyi omxaa] '3on31. nV'Vn n n n m ] om I. bined them and formed with them the life of all creation and the life of all that would be formed. 61 62 101 them. and them all with Bet. anwyi] D'wVwi L M N S P . p a ] ona G.. nsxa: M N Q . . Dyi] Dy L.Aleph with them all. Gimel with them all. Bel with them all. (19b) How did he weigh and exchange them? . sxaj s. 0'iwyi] D'wVwiB'G.^Vs oy p s i . n'3 in Ms K does not make sense. Bet with them all. The result is that all creation and all speech go out by one name. R . and them all with Gimel. Vs wan] Vai B . and them all with Bet. D'lWy in K is an obvious transpositional error for D'lyw. The result is that they go out by two hundred and twentyone gates.nx"? p ' a m jVpw ix'a .oVa DJ? ^ V S Dy Van n'3 oy piai p i s n'D D V ]Vai | V D D V n'3 tViai Van Dy piai pia lsxa: nV'Vn n n n n 7*731 msxv isxaj nV'Vn m m n D'wVwi omxaa msxv m s i D'wVwi D'nsaa •73 KXD3 D'lyw m s i Vai n a m Vs sxan onyw sxv main Vai mx'n .Aleph with them all. nV'Vn m m n jViai s. Bet with them all. The result is that [they go out] by two hundred and twenty-one [gates] . And they all rotate in turn. sxa: ma] msxv lsxai L P .lXl ] IX' B . The re­ sult is that all creation and all speech go out by one name. 2 2 2 2 m e nvms D'nwi onwy mViaa yawmaiswiVw ppn moiwa mwy D'nw P'ami ]Vpw p i x p x n Dy T V S jaix ix nrxa Dy n'3 iVs oy ]Viai ]Via ]Viai n'a oy jViai ]Via nisxv isxa: nV'Vn n n n n m s i anwyi D'nsaa Vai mx'n Va sxaj onyw . And they all rotate in turn.ins T V S owa sxv n a n n 61 62 Following the rest of the Mss. The result is that they go out by two hundred and twenty-one gales. lxxai 1.Aleph with them all. The result is that all creation and all speech go out by one name.Sefer Yesira § 19 bined them and formed with them the life of all creation and the life of all that would be formed. he weighed them.. and them all with Aleph. 1X1] IX'l M N Q . and he exchanged them. V3 WD31] V31 MNPQR. And they all rotate in turn. and them all with Bet. P'am i°&2°]p'aymG. jaixi] p i x |Via oy iVs B'H. and them all with Aleph.

39. Saa­ dya. 58-9) it means "human being. in §24 the Short Recension Mss omit 3iwm V I 1 2 M 2 6 3 See Schafer 1995:255-56. as though we can reconstruct from the Saadyan Recension an earlier form of the text of § 19a which read only: D'lWV P'&'m ppw p I X pxn ppn n v m x DVIWI." Ms Z too omits it in its version of this clause . and only partly there in C. 1X1] I X ' l Z..Q. If the Saadyan version has preserved the earlier form of § 19 then the word IX was not present in it.e.. It looks. the rabbinic sources and especially thepaytanim. . inx urn Commentary oniw urn TOIH urn DW3] VD nna D W D xxv nnx VD X X B J I LMNPQ. Wl w V n i U W S TTWV DVW nV?lD3 1>3W ni&lX . as in § 18.llxV 7>r\V7\ V31 HX^n Vs p 3 Note also the absence of the second occurrence of this word in Mss MNPQR in the Short Recension and B in the Long Recension. vra. does not. belong to the earliest layer of the text. in § 20 only one Ms reads 1X1 against all the rest. either here or in the rest of his article (as Weinstock points out in his editorial note at the end of Allony 1981b: 50). once we discount the standard extension of the phrase T O ' n v m x DYlUn D'lttW. Mss C and E offer the shortest text of this paragraph. 4J. i. C and E do not have the clause referring to the use of the letters in creation . The evidence from the rest of SY is as follows: the phrase in which it occurs in §§4 and 6.11X ? Tns?n "?D WS31 HX'H V D WD J p 3 1X1. The use of the word WD3 here to mean "life" is unique in SY.missing in Z and the other Recensions. Allony argues that the play between the two forms reflects the two-root letter linguistic theory which he attributes to the author of SY (1972: 81). 1X1 p i n | T a m |VpW pxn ppn. Notes on the text of§ 19 Again.i onaw ] om L.TO'Hn Vn VDI ] VDI si.102 Edilion and L. The absence of the word WD3 in this earlier form of SY would be decisive for settling the dispute between Peter Schafer and Moshe Idel over the presence or absence of the idea of the golem in S Y.. Crucially. Whenever this chain of verbs occurs in SY inevitably the order of the words will vary in the Mss. in commenting on §41 (Lambert 1891: 94. However. MNQ. Everywhere else in the book (§§30-34. not only across but also within the recensions. 52. 11X1 31Wm J H . is to pay attention to the attestation of these terms in the textual tradition of SY.R. what Allony does not do. therefore. Kafach 1972: 132) says that 13 1X1 is simply a variant form for 13 I X ' l and he quotes a series of similar abbreviated forms in the Bible. i.e. B .. This variant appears many times in the Mss of SY. as we have seen.

and Judah ben Barzillai (Halberstam 207 and 208) split it up into two halves and distribute them either side of §§ 17 and 18. . The reversal of lism Vol "lIDnn V D in Mss S and I reflects the Long Recension order. (3) .D">»Vl? I I S m m mD "O read as "for by in (the letters) Yudh He the Lord created the worlds." | T » m f?pw I S 'XO. m D XSDi does not make any sense but the various attempts to correct the error in the Short Recension Mss sug­ gest that the mistake occurred well back in the transmission line of the Recension. The text of Ms K is very faulty in this paragraph. A and C are our oldest Mss of SY. For the variant D -|WS'1/D W 7W1 see notes on § 18. We come finally to the main problem of the text of § 19: Mss KFR. §§41 and 52 where it occurs are not present in the Short Recension. (2) D iytt'. . M 65 For the connection between K and R see the introduction §8. The extension to Gimel is found only in Mss ACZ... and them all with Aleph. in §§ 32-34 most Short Recension Mss read Dnm instead of I S I . Donnolo (Castelli 1880: 43) extends it to Dalet.3 and the notes to §§62-63. Von X 1 D 3 DH73W is an idiosyn­ cratic reading found only in Mss K and R. This would be an obvious addition for a scribe to make but. My con­ clusion is that the word I S as an alternative to probably belongs to a secondary layer of additions in the textual tradition of SY. X D as well as DX to give 231 x 2 combinations. It appears at the end of § 24a in the Saadyan Recension and reflects the attempt.. only in §39 is 12? attested in all Mss. on the other hand.. OntiW for D n U W is clearly a transpositional error.lX D. Dunash (Vajda-Fenton 2002: 83 and 91). 65 l . so the omission of the phrase by parablepsis is a possible explanation for its absence in the majority of Mss. Hag 11c .Sefer Yesira § 19 103 "I1S1 yet again. in §61 it is not attested in all the Mss. The Saadyan Recension has the slightly shorter I S nrxo pis. 1 64 . Although Mss B'H in the Long Recension keep the parts of§ 19 together their internal para­ graph division (indicated by their numbering system) splits it into three parts: (1) T)X ?. The variant 'DOnD (Ms I) is found also in Judah ben Barzillai in both §§ 18 and 19 (Halberstam 208). m. "Aleph with them all.." See also below on Dunash's commentary on §21. The rea.. from where it may occasionally (as in § 39) have crept into all the Mss. i.e. .g. Judah acknowledges the existence of the reading 221 but says 462 is the correct reading.1NXDJ. It probably reflects the influence of the interpre­ tation of Isa 26:4 found in y. discussed in connection with §§ 1 and 20 to insert the verb X1D into the text of SY. V > Dl> f?101 fro UV VmJ.0 "ltt>y. The division at YIX? is exactly the dividing point of the paragraph in the Short Recension Mss. it is achieved by counting in the reverse combinations of two letters. . in §48 it is only found in the Long Recension while §49 is not present in the Saadyan Recension.. e.

and he made them its existence. highly conjectural since § 19b does appear in all our Mss. i : w can: i v x w T i x a nwyi 1°] om N. as we shall see. Dunash and Judah.oan: ivxw Tixa D'Vm E i v x a i x w y i w a a i n n ixn nwyi wax nwyi imna T T oniay asm w ivx nx . Sefer Yesira K jmx nwyi waa imna i x D ' ^ n a D ' n a y axm i:w> . the gates are missing in the Saa­ dyan version of § 18 and some explanation is required for the distribution of the text in Mss KFR.wan: ivxw T i x a a ^ n j . and he hewed out great columns from intan­ gible air. and he hewed out great columns from intangible air.«lVx Dy S nx nwyi waa imna i x ' ••may asm i:w ivx . nn] add P'O N.Tixa can: ivxw D'Vna And substance went out from chaos and he made it (?) and it exists. p ' o nn . ivx] ivxw F I R . This is the sign: B 1 He formed substance from chaos. §21 with these lists of combinations is absent in many Mss.wnp wnp wnp o w o i B = A except that p ' O m is in the margin. and he made it with fire and it exists.wan) ivxw m x a 1 §20 c ixwyi waa imna xxn o m a y axm i:wi i:xai .wan: i v x w T i x a D'Vvrc D n x n w y i waa i n n a i x ' D'may a x m iV w . This is.wan: ivxw T i x a D'Vni p a i ]"?a D V I V X nvmx nn . 2 D'Vna D ' n a y axm . LFP1QR collated to S: ix ] add mm woxa L R . This is the sign: M Z nx nwyi waa imna i x ' o m a y axm i:w ivx .104 Edition and Commentary son for this re-ordering (if that is what it is) is not obvious since § 19b clearly picks up and develops the two verbs fipW and ]T?Dn (JD1X in the case of the Saadyan Recension) from § 19a. But that then raises the possibility that § 19b arose as a later explanation of 19a. I V X ] I V X 1WX H. And. of course. warn] 1 GH collated to B': 1 X 1 ] I X G.wnp wnp WVTj? o w o i N collated to M: nx xwyi waa l m n a nxn o'-nay axm i : w i v x . However. and he hewed out great columns from intangi­ ble air. A i x w y i waa i m n a -UP a m a y axm i : w i wxa w a n : i v x w T i x a D'Vra ^a'D nt He formed substance from chaos. if the Saadyan form of § 18 is earlier than that of the other recensions. the original form of SY had no reference to the 231 gates or the permutation of the letters of the alphabet. D ' ^ n i D m a y ] o n a x 1 . In which case.V?x w a n : i v x w T I X A D'Vrn .

This version of §20 fits. This form of the text. 4:7. one can pro­ duce a translation which seems to make sense: "He formed substance from chaos. 1:5. It fits in with the attempt which we isolated in our discussion of § 1 to insert the verb XTJ into the text of SY. wnp. 66 1 2 2 It is much easier to explain the revision of the text found in Mss A. warn] add m i Don o'-wwri p a w n J C D G. B . m V v u G. They fit a view of creation in which God works with pre-existing material rather than the creatio ex nihilo which seems to lie behind "he made the non-existent exist. paraphrases the text of S Y he has before him but it is not too difficult to work out what that was: i m n o n r p m » y asm a w i n r? n o x m r r a s m i w x a i x w y i aViy Vw rVVn x i n w a a W5P. as so often. m .-.3 mXW n i X O B ^ m Presuming that aW'l is an error for 1JW\ Donnolo's text is identical with that of Mss A and B . We know that Saadya was unhappy with the view of creation 2 I have dealt in some detail with the text and interpretation of this paragraph in Hayman 1993. makes good sense. into the text form found in the majority of Mss than the other way round." Mss A and B . 105 yVotev 0/7 the text of §20 Many scribes seem to have exercised their creative talents in their attempts to up­ date and correct what this paragraph says about God's creative work. both in the light of parallels elsewhere in SY and especially in the light of the comments on Genesis chapter one found in Bereshit Rabba. R. and made the non-existent exist. And as we have already seen in our consider­ ation of § 1 it is terms like asn and pj?n which are the characteristic vocabulary of our author when we wishes to describe God's creative activity. •'won] nvnwn p ' o mi LFPl.Sefer Yesira §20 add oViy VW iVVrO L . Donnolo. The first clause ( W a a i m n a m P ) presupposes exactly the view of creation attributed to R. "he made the non-existent exist" alongside "he formed substance from chaos".R.D^o'Di] m i p ' O IQR.Huna in the name of Bar Qappara in Gen. and hewed out great columns from intangible air". then. At least. and Don­ nolo. See that paper for a fuller attempt to justify the view of SY § 20 which I take here. supported by the text presupposed in Donnolo's commentary of­ fer a very different version of § 20. while the fire of the second clause (WX3 1XW1?) will come from the well-known midrashic explanation of the word B'DW ( = B ' a i WX) cited in b. 12a and Gen. This midrash is also behind the statement in SY §§ 14 and 28 that the heaven was created from fire. The major­ ity of the Mss more or less follow the form of the text as found in Mss S B and Z.Hag. though not as even as that in the majority of manuscripts. This form of the paragraph seems clear and straightforward. quite comfortably into the milieu of the rabbinic period. But there is clearly a tension in saying.

68 . 68 1 Sefer Yesira A §21 ]V 0 3 1 " i c y P " rn J X p oa yV *p y ' po nn WT m na nx D3 n 67 T l1 j ' oo yn IT ri pn nn vn na Vx o"? p o' yn i n p pi nn un m D X p D ? ya T fo pn m wi nn aa nx DD 1 See Hayman 1993: 223. The reading mVvn D^ax for D'Vm Omai? in Ms G reflects the influence of §40. both of which retain the first word of the second clause 1XWSH. T i x a is obviously displaced since the singular ODm IVXW cannot qualify the plural D'Vni D/HITDl?. and he hewed out great columns from intangible air" (Lambert 1891: 84. ja^D HT in Ms A and some Short Recension Mss is an introduction to §21 with its columns of combinations of letters. Note also Saadya's attempt to explain away the use of the verb ppn in § I (Lambert 1891:18. Mem. For the scribe's interpretation of the second reading see the variant in Ms L D V U ? V W iVVna and Donnolo's paraphrase cited above. C has even retained 13W1 which only makes sense in the context of the reading of A. The reading offered in Mss S and D (Wnp Wnp w n p OWOI) is a cross-sum gematria: Wlip = 100+4+6+300 = 410 x 3 = 1230 which by cross-sum gematria = 6 = the cross-sum gematria of 231 (the number of the gates). Light is thrown on the reading Wax nWSH (M) or "imn Waxa I X ' (LR) by the scribe of Paris 763. Ms E takes us a little further along the road to the text as it appears in Z and the majority of Mss. XX ! in Ms C is clearly an aural error for nX'1 though Judah ben Barzillai reflects a similar reading . He offers a translation of § 20 which he more or less admits goes beyond what the Hebrew text says. 2a. even with his updated version of §20. Kafach 1972: 42). This reading is a valiant attempt to connect § 20 to what follows in §§ 24-36. His text of this paragraph is: p">xa W nWSH imna I X ' worn irxw T i x a D'Vm omay axm.it is the hol­ low space of the world). .106 Edition and Commentary 67 presented in SY. Kafach 1972: 121). He translates §20: "He created something out of not from something. and also in Ms E. because he thought even the formula 13WIVX nx XW1? did not adequately exclude the view that God created the world out of something which already existed. D*?ll?n Wn (Another Ms (reads): he formed Aleph. But then he adds: xin :wax nx^ nnx noo . lV W V?X nx nwin in Ms D is presumably an error for 13W IVX nx nwin. Shin . and made what did not exist exist.Waa W n a XXV (Halberstam 1885: 211). fol. The words are naturally missing in the Saadyan Recension which does not have § 21. Others before him were clearly unhappy too with the earlier form of the text of SY §20. . The fall­ out from this revision of the original text can be discerned in the garbled text of Ms C.

Da p ' i y yn I T pi pn n wi na Vx .'v n i n ix ix i ix ix ia W3 nx Pn pt yi in XI pi 13 wx 01 yn IX V P* P= on VI px P P3 01 m 01 yi px Vi on 11 0} ya DX ai Vn 01 n 03 yx •i > an Vi DI 13 ox 01 'n ai Vi 03 IX m on 'i 31 V3 ox T 1 nn 01 •1 > aa Vx .yn 10 pi po iV wa n' n 71 na ox 'i p p Va Vi D D DI p p oa 01 ya yi ia 11 pa i i pi pa p i px ia pi n wa oi 'i ai Vi ai p oi yi Vx DX JX pa py io wi no TI nn po iy wo ni m on px I D wy no m oi m pn ix W D ny DT n -p ip wx na on 'T I I Vn i o wp nx m I T Vi on wi np 'o i n VT B I p w m i o Vn DT p on nw v Vo Dn p oi yn na V' D O ]n OT yi in Va D ' p on yT ii pn 1 2 c ox yx ix px px ix wx nx This should be O U .Sefer Yesira §21 107 oi yi i o pV pa T nn m in TX vn io pi pa iV wa n n TI nn ox 1 1 py po m w o nV ' p m D J 'a ix pi pa iy wo ni m o n n p Va ax pn ix wa ny DT 'i in Vi oa ]a ox i o wp nx >n I T Vi an p o> y a ix w m i o Vn DT p on yi i> pa px 1 [fol. The D looks as though it has been altered to 0 and the D is easily con­ fused with V in the script of this M s . K ! aV p o' yo i n pi pi in wi ni ax p oV ya i ' po pn I T W I nn aa ix 1 i yo iV pa p> i o wn m n na ix yo 1 : po pV ia w no m u ia nx Ii py po ia wo nV Tn n m oa 'x pi . 0 3 K .01 yi 1 0 pV pa Y> W O nn ni ia TX .nw T Vo Dn p oi yn i i pi pa ix na V D O p DT yi i n pi pi ia wx 1 1 Error for in. D Va na nw w wi 10 ip pn P* V pa D' V' a m np wp wx 1 IX ia pa py 70 00 Vo ao '0 nx na oa wy iy 10 on in on Vn an TI yT O T P O T VT on ny no wo wi 3 T 'T O T m ni no .oa p oa v 1 0 pn pT n wn m ix p 0 0 yV ia y po in WT m ia nx .nvaaVx 'aaV p ' o . 67b] .Va D ' p 1 o n yT ii pn pi u wa nx oi va iV pa p i o wn m u na ix yo ii po pV ia w no m u ia nx i y po pi i o wV na m n ni oa 'x pa py io w: no 11 nn o i n i a Vx px I D wy no m oi m i i Va aa p ip wx na on n 11 Vn D I p oa yx wi np 'o i n VT ai |n oi yj i a px .

stating that nearly all the Mss contain errors but that A seems to be the least corrupted. and entirely missing in the Saadyan Recension. I have followed the layout of the paragraph exactly as it appears in the manuscripts. VIDD pn JlwVl n a i n ) and something must have preceded it in the scribe's exemplar. Donnolo organises the paragraph in a completely different way from our manuscripts resulting in 495 combinations. He tells us that he la­ boured hard to put it back into its correct order. 1 1 ) . As for the early commentators. I have included the text of Ms D because it arranges the combinations in a different order from that of A and K . As it stands now in the majority of Mss § 21 appears to be an interpreta­ tion of the phrase •'•Vna D/HIDl? 3Sm in §20. The meaning of its header line is unclear to me. However. but the result is yet one more possi­ ble arrangement.). . He offers a second table with the reverse order of combinations in .basically in reverse order (atbash). 26:11. . How much. Hence its form of § 23 does not make sense on its own (DTWD. 3) notes that there are significant variants in the manuscripts he used for his edition. we cannot know. But originally this would have been simply a reference to the biblical pillars of heaven (Prov 9:1. he detects two errors in it (I detect one) and it has eleven duplications in 242 combinations instead of the required 231. its omission in Ms G may just be an error since this Ms omits §21-22 and resumes part way through § 23 at H3in. n. . The text of Ms K is very similar to that of Ms A and would have been virtually identical if its scribe had not omitted the line n i . etc. Nevertheless. of course. Dunash reports that the manuscript tradition of §21 had reached him in a poor condition full of errors and misarrangements. but Castelli (1880: 45. Job 9:6. Gruenwald 1971: 21 prints only the text of Ms A with no apparatus. The relatively weak attestation of § 21 suggests that it belongs to that later layer of material which we have already identified emerging in the Long and Short Recension texts of § 18 from the shorter Saadyan version and which added § 19b as an interpre­ tation of 19a.108 31 Edition and Commentary ay yn yo DT 02 ny xo ao a: yj yo DO pa pi no po wo wV n"? na n"? na wa W' T P in n 1 nn Tn in nn nn nT W T W1 oa na ta 'a oa na T3 3X ••x OK so 30 X7 pv n ao oV a? aa 1 wa oV Da aV y"? ya oa D' DO xa aa a' P= P' X' no po pn no wo wn nn nT ia na nx T X IX na m nn r y yo an xo ao an at xn XT XI PT pn pi m nn nn wn wn wa ia na na aa nn na na nx nx ax ax "?x Notes on the text of §21 §21 is missing in seven out of our nineteen Mss (GCZEMNQ) spread across all three recensions. . "]X by homoioteleuton C]l .

. and with F (as we shall see) having both readings.nVon nnx i n a o'xan He looks and exchanges. D ' n w i ontzw tnx «ym] ina m x niaa] om B ." This produces the 462 combinations attested in Ms I's text of § 19.n m Va nx nuns> vzroi natx D'nwi D ' . How significant this is depends on how the paragraph is understood.I H W Va n x nunv T O ' D I n s i x natV p ' D i n n x ou> . The second sentence . Judah ben Barzillai does not cite § 21 but he does discuss the different possible ways of combining the letters in apparent dependence upon Dunash (Halberstam 1885: 216).. There seems to be a clear tendency both in the commentators and the manuscripts to transmit less carefully those parts of the SY tradition that could be characterised as com­ mentary on or expansions of an earlier core text. There are no text-critical grounds for preferring one reading over another. he makes all cre­ ation and all speech one name.Sefer Yesira § 22 69 109 order to illustrate the phrase "Aleph with them all. 1 2 M N I Q . he makes all cre­ ation and all speech one name. Va nxi . Before it we find: i n x DW l i m n VD P X T T i m VD D X H E W I } T . mia] I'm B D . Its language suggests a connection with the later layers of §§ 18-21 which we have al­ ready discussed.a m ] D T S -tnx l u a o ^ o n '3D I D T > p ' o i . and them all with Aleph. B ' B DH collated to A: 2 He looks and exchanges. And a sign for the matter: twenty-two objects and one body. And a sign for the matter: twenty-two objects in one cat­ egory (or body). Ms F has two different versions of §22 either side of §21..H P V naiV jn'oi inx aw -nan .IR.lV also occurs in §48b but is significantly absent in the Short Recension and Ms D. Ms K has two clear errors (omission of OTHPT and n x ) as the rest of the Short Recension Mss make clear. 1 6 9 Vajda-Fenton 2002: 231-32.R. Sefer Yesira K §22 A Va nxi u r n D'S'Dn D ' . The only significant Ms variant is nisi (seven Mss) versus ^UD (six Mss) but absent in B . after it: VD n x i T u r n VD n x nuns? n » » i n o i x n n x i i n 'DD |»"»on n n x uw -iiDin. Notes on the text of §22 The absence of this paragraph in the Saadyan Recension (and in Ms G) places a question mark over its presence in the early stages of the development of SY. nx] L. .. LMNSFPIQR D'-ITO] collated to K: L.i n x n i j o D'XDn D'nun DnWi? TD.n a n n nx i m .

nam »pi mat .D'a XW13 mm wx pxsv [i30]ow .o'vua ynaa Three primary letters: Alef. Shin.o'o xwia wxnw nisi A . In the apparatus M = the version of § 23 which appears on the second occasion after § 22. and the lan­ guage of law holds the bal­ ance between them. B'B GDH collated to A: p i O ] om H. Their basis is the scale of acquittal and the scale of guilt. Their basis is the scale of acquittal and the scale of guilt. In Mss MNFIQ this paragraph appears in two places .D"nra i m a o Three primary letters: Alef. 1 2 «p p i c wax maix wiVw pn pwVi nam nai mat .a"ma ynao Three primary letters: Alef. Their basis is the scale of acquittal and the scale of guilt. LMNSFPIQR collated to K: wan) add uw Vo nx p. For the position of this paragraph in the various recensions see the notes to §§9 and 17. Mem.110 Edilion and Commentary Sefer Yesira §23 K »p p i c wax mox wVw pn pwVi . leaving it uncertain as to whether to read xVaiai or xViaoi. Its placing after § 9 may reflect the influence of the Saadyan Recension since the order 9. Mem.here and after § 9. In Mss A and K it begins their third chapter devoted to the three mothers. Shin.23 reflects the logic of the paragraph order in that recension. For the defective form of the paragraph in Ms G see the notes to § 21. ZE = C: Notes on the text of §23 §23 is attested in all our Mss with an almost uniform text. It clearly belongs to the earliest recoverable stage of SY.Van xnaa Dnow D ' O I ni>aoa anin wox (24b) awm in napii nata Vmnai . 2 A C ip p i o > w o x mo'x wiVw pn pwVi n a m l a i niaT . Mem. and the language of law holds the balance between them. 2 Sefer Yesira §24 K Vina n o wax max wVw wwa Dinm 'xVaiai noiaa wx o'xsv ijaai mvao naT ppVnnai n m o'oi .napn 1 The scribe originally wrote xVlDI and then added a above it. and the lan­ guage of law holds the bal­ ance between them. Shin. c n o wax mo'x wiVw nvmx amen Dnws? (24a) mnni xVoioi noiao Vna i?aw [njioix unVw m c pxsv laooi msao wwa m o w s nnwu Dmwi mViaa lata Vmnai n m D'a wx mo wox [mjoix wiVw wxnw nisi awm i n napai nxiaoi xVaioi xoiao Vna . mat] nnx M .

Mem. In the Saadyan form of § 24a 1X1DQ adds one more numinous adjective to xVsiDl XD13D while for Van X133 Dn»W see § 19b (Mss K and R). and wa­ ter and air. (24b) Alef. And from it goes out fire. LMNSFPIQR collated to K: xVsiOl H013D] X7D1Q nOlDOl MNFPIQ. The sentence DV3 XW13 WXHW 11X1 2ttmi i n in the Long and Saadyan Recensions is not attested in the Short Recension and we have already seen that whenever the phrase 11X1 3tt>m 571 occurs in SY it is never attested in all three recensions. Know and ponder and form (a men­ tal image) that fire evaporates water. Shin . For the insertion of § 9 into § 24a in the Saadyan Recension see the notes to §9. 111 (24a) The twenty-two letters are the foundation: three pri­ mary letters. and sealed with six seals.Sefer Yesira §24 Three primary letters: Alef. Mem. Probably the splitting up of §24 into two parts also results from the editorial reshaping of the text of SY which produced this recension.a great secret. and it is wrapped up in male and female. i n ] om B . 1 Notes on the text of §24 § 24 has a fixed position after §§ 20-23 in the Long and Short Recensions but is split into two in the Saadyan Recension and the parts are assigned to Saadya's chapters 2:2 and 3:2. The process of growth of the paragraph seems to have been from the Short Recension to the Long Recension and finally the Saadyan Recension. and the last clause of § 24a (after D'DI) reads . Three primary let­ ters: Alef. Mem. 24 a = chapter 2:2 in Z. hidden and ineffable. And from it goes out fire. water and air. 24b = chapter 3:2. hidden and ineffable.a great secret. see the notes to §§4. and 19. Three primary letters: Alef. Mem. 13QD1] o n » i LMNPQ. S h i n sealed with a seal wrapped up in male and female. Know and ponder and form (a mental image) that fire evaporates water. G omits from WVXW to §25 (U>X1°) homoio. Shin . seven double (letters). ZE collated to C: n s n o a a n i n ] wwa m n n niSDO ZE. and sealed with six seals. D'D XWU tPXTlW is found in the next paragraph though only in the Short Recension. B'B GDH collated to A: X7D1&1 HOIDO] X V D W 2 nOIDOl DH. and it is divided into male and female. from which everything was created. and twelve simple (letters). 6. Shin . hidden and in­ effable and glorious from which go out fire and air and water.for 1X1D731 it has 1X1SB1 OlJim.a great secret. Ms Paris 770 may take us back a stage in the process whereby the Saadyan version of this paragraph emerged from the Short Recension since remnants of the Short Recension appear in its text of this paragraph .

And this is a sign for the matter that fire evaporates water. Mem. The reversal of the order of X V D I O I HOIDO in Mss MNFP1QDH probably re­ flects the language of Ecclus 3:21a as quoted in b Hag 13a .fire. We will deal with this issue in the notes on § 26 and § 59.the Pual of Vnn occurs only once in the Bible in Ezek 16:4. it does not attest. miVin . the off­ spring of earth is water.D"n)D Three primary letters: Alef. myau WW3 mnn in Mss ZE seems preferable to n i 7 3 0 3 O m n in Ms C in the light of the other Mss and the probable reference to the six permutations of the let­ ters WDX.ttnin Vx 1. the offspring of air is the Spirit. In §§ 11-14 and 28 the order is IPX D'» mi while in §§25. Mem. It is probable that the obscurity of the word occasioned the change to the much more recognisable f'pVnno in the Short Recension. c a i wx . LMNSFPIQR collated to K: mm 2"] add i?'iDa pn MNFIQ. Here we will concentrate on the prob­ lem of the widely divergent text of this paragraph in the three recensions. It is sig- . Notes on the text of §25 In the Short Recension this paragraph appears in the middle of §59.730 X V D D 3 ipnn Vx -pa noia&m. The offspring of heaven is fire.112 Edition and Commentary Van X13J OnVw nap]! 1ST J'pVnnai. however. J'pVnnoVVmnoi. B'B-'GDH collated to A: pn] om H.nwVw mm nt>aV D'a . fire above.wax :maix wiVw mi mix miVin wx D'aw nVvaV wx .D'a p x miVin v i s a pin m i noaV D'ai . Shin. fire above. air is the balancing item.can nx nxwu wxnw 1 miVin wax ma'x wiVw i n x miVin wx o'awn wx D'a p x miVin m i pn mm nuaV D'a nVs?aV . the off­ spring of earth is water. water below. D'aw miVin] wx miVin D'aw D'ai m i E. and air is the balancing item. Vmra is a very rare word . Contrast the order in the Saadyan Recension which agrees with that in § 35 which. and air is between them. water below. Shin. wx z. the offspring of air is the Spirit. water and air. water below. The order of the words m i l D'TDI WX is unstable in the Mss. the text of this Ms may be a deliberate and later attempt to reintegrate the text of these two recensions.o"nra s?'iDa Three primary letters: Alef.nVvaV ID! ? p ' o nn .29. The offspring of heaven is fire.o"ma . ZE collated to C: wax] add D'ai mm Three . Sefer Yesira K A §25 C wx mm . fire above. On the other hand. 30 we find the same order as that of § 24.

the intrusive nature of the specification of what WDX represents. Possibly also we should retain m a x after WiVw with the Long and Short Recensions. § 28 states this explicitly 71 Vajda-Fenton 2002: 231-32.in the Long and Saadyan Re­ censions. simple statement which explicates well the underlying principle of the header statement § 23. A History of Greek Philosophy. Our core then becomes 70 D"n33 [y-DB p n ] n n i noaV D'a nVyaV u>x [max] nunc Can we develop a plausible argument for how our recensions could have arisen from this possible core? To begin with. to a slightly less extent. This restates the substance of §§ 28 and 35 in different language. and the mn which comes from him = V1X. Liebes (2000: 29) sees no ambiguity in § 12 since for him D'nVx mn in SY = God.Sefer Yesira §25 113 nificant that. But there is another more seri­ ous contradiction introduced by this presumed second expansion of our paragraph . Perhaps the phrase SPIDTD pn attested in all Mss except KLSR and by Dunash (Vajda-Fenton 2002: 135) should be seen as part of this core because of its presence in § 23. and § 14 that the heavens are created out of fire. It is then similar to the structure of § 26 and. But the artificiality of the insertion in § 25 becomes clear when in the final phrase • " W O jmDD pn m m (which belongs to our presumed core) n n again has the meaning "air". II. of course. There is one significant change of wording in this addition when we compare it and §28 with § 12: § 12 § 25 § 28 n n a n n D'nw n n T1X mT?in mna xnm V1X1 Two . § 12 presupposes that the air is the "offspring" of the Spirit and not vice versa. namely D'TDI m m WX is clear from its position in Ms E and its absence in our two oldest Mss (A and C). For the possible background to this paragraph in classical and rabbinic thought see Epstein 1894: 29. see Guthrie. Perhaps the best way to tackle the problems of this paragraph is to begin by iso­ lating the common material which appears in all three recensions: D'Tun m n noa ? D'a nVyaV wx n u n c 1 This is a short.the use of the word miVin. 145. Gruenwald's attempt to present a unitary text of SY is abandoned and he is forced to print the text of the Short and Long Recensions in parallel columns (1971: 152). §§29-30. The second major addition . § 13 that earth comes from water and not water from earth. 7(1 71 . possible that the use of both mn and Y1X in SY represents an attempt to translate into Hebrew the Greek distinction between al0iip and onip. Ms Z differs from C only in the addition of these words. It is. is the words Wli p X mTVin n n T1X mT?W WX D'TDWH niY?in. only for the second time so far (the other is § 19). Judah ben Barzillai's text is identical with that of Ms K (Halberstam 1885: 257). 66-68.air from Spirit the offspring of air is the Spirit and air was created from the Spirit In §§ 25 and 28 the word T1X is introduced in order to resolve the ambiguity of the two senses in which m i is used in § 12.

for example.nprnw pw . D c iVx npmw pw n a a n oa . shorter version. Finally we come to the sentence D'an nx nxWIJ WXnW IDlV ja'O mi in the Short Recension. See Guthrie (ibid. II: 434.o'ma y i a a See Liebes 2000: 21-34 for a discussion of the internal contradictions in SY between these paragraphs and an attempt to resolve them without. 7 ! 72 . The problem then.D'ma vnaa pn m i n a a n aa wax max wVw pn m i * V . Mem.114 Edition and Commentary and is in clear contradiction with the Long and Saadyan versions of § 25. that it is possible to argue that the existing recensions have arisen from an earlier. the sort of paraphrastic rendering of SY which we find in Donnolo's Hakhmoni.npmw pw n a a n oa . and Shin hisses. 72 73 Sefer Yesira K n a a n Da wax max wVw §26 A smaa pn iVxi npmw pwi . I suggest. Oft wax ma'x wiVw nVx .O'ma Three primary letters: Alef. Mem lifts up. Shin hisses. The discrepancy can be resolved by assuming that o'a p x nnVm nn T I N nnVin wx o'awn nnVin and the whole of §35 (and.naan . Shin. Shin. trying to be helpful. Mem lifts up. as we shall see. Its absence here in the Long and Saadyan Recensions (including our two earliest Mss) must count against its belonging to the earliest recoverable stage of SY. taking full account of the text-criti­ cal data. becomes one of why should a scribe or scribes have wanted to introduce a discrepancy into the text of SY. perhaps.o"ma imaa pn Mem is silent. It is a commonplace observation recorded as far back as Anaximander and Heraclitus. The word order of § 35 (D'a p X nn T1X WX D'aw) supports the addition in § 25 but § 35 is not attested in the Short Recension. 0 " n r a srnaa pn Three primary letters: Alef.). however.but not in the Short Recension. § 27) are a later layer of material. this would not be the first time that a scribe. actually made matters worse (!) but. and Alef is the balancing item. I: 81. the substance of which can still be seen in all three of them. Q iVx . Alef is the balancing item. Shin hisses. we should see here no more than the over-riding influence of Gen 2:4a (O'awn nnVin) which then drives the parallel construction of the next two clauses. the last part of which we have already seen in § 24 . Mem.npmw pw yx . It looks very like the sort of brief explanatory comment that char­ acterises. Of course. Alef is the bal­ ancing item. then.

there are three other textual problems to be considered. I generally agree with Gruenwald in the readings of the Mss at this point. It is also out of sequence in Ms L (being placed after §9 and before § 17). it is no longer needed. The inser­ tion of §26 in this position and its merging with §25 explains the omission of the introductory rubric in Mss MNI. This paragraph is missing in B and H . Note.1. 26. 26. They clearly belong with all the other paragraphs (23-36) which deal with the "three mothers. It is easy to see how this arose. how in Ms F §26 is retained in its original position with the other 'three mothers" paragraphs but is then repeated before §59b. In Ms Q §26 first appears in the sequence 9. since distinguishing between Dalet and Resh in medieval Hebrew Mss is often extremely difficult. Like § 25 it provides a further explanation of the principle announced in §23." §§ 59 and 26 have the word pn in common and the arrangement may have arisen from some scribe who felt that §26 threw light on §59. The Short Recension distribution of this and the previous para­ graph is highly eccentric. 1 2 115 ZE collated to C: n a a n ] n a a n ZE. in n n p. then. Subsequently in some Short Recension manuscripts §25 may have got dragged in along with §26 to its present position in the middle of §59. and then appears again with §25 before § 59b. Apart from the problem of the rubric. for example. 17-22. All the Short Recension Mss insert §25 between the two halves of §59. 23. The absence of the whole paragraph within Mss B and H is easily explained by homoioarcton as the scribes' eyes (or is it the scribe's eye? ) jumped from the rubric at the beginning of § 26 to that at the beginning of § 27. if the words STHpD pn are part of the earlier text of §25 it could have been deliberately extracted along with §26 in order to throw light on §59a. §§ 25-26 would seem to be out of place. Notes on the text of §26 In the Long Recension this paragraph has a fixed position within chapter three (§§ 23-36) which deals with the "three mothers.Sefer Yesira §26 L M N S F P I R collated to K: w a x m a x wVw] om M N I ." Accordingly. Our second major problem is the variant nDDV)/ nDDTI. B G = A. We conclude. Or. and 24b are integrated under the general rubric which is §9. Clearly §26 has a rather uncer­ tain position in the Short Recension and this may be due to the attempt to align it with §59. Inserted within § 59. pn] pn n n LSI. naan] n a a n LMNFPI. In that context the rubric is not required since §§25. 1 74 74 See the introduction §8. it begins with the rubric WON fllD'X U>V7tt> which introduces most of these paragraphs. . while MNFPIQ insert both §§25 and 26 in this position. The Saadyan Recension preserves the sequence §§25-26 within its chapter 3:2. that the rubric WON niO'K WlVtP probably belonged to the earlier text of SY on the as­ sumption that the original locus of § 26 was within §§ 23-36 (chapter 3).

But 1107311 clearly makes the best sense in this context and is almost certainly original. llVlJ] om LF. Dunash does not comment on §26. 1 max] om B .Vx here is the equivalent of m i in §25. Judah ben Barzillai knows and attempts to interpret both readings. And from them were born three fathers from whom everything was created. 76 75 . §§ 28-30 are structured around the verb X13 which we have already seen reason to assign to a later stage of the SY tradition.116 Edilion and Commentary except that he has not recorded the reading of Ms L. max nwiVw nVu j n a i w a x ma>x wiVw . Donnolo obviously read naan as his comment shows: naaia m0XJ Dan nix (Castelli 46). as we shall see when we reach § 32. Mem. And when we look more closely at the content of these paragraphs problems begin to multiply. see Kafach 1972: 26. n. the insertion of (Til after *]Vx in Mss QLSI (P?) D is probably a gloss explaining that 1. But note that Ms P has a variant version of this paragraph as its § 50. Mem. though clearly under the influence of Saadya's commentary (Halberstam 1885: 220-222). 1 76 It is difficult to work out what Hebrew text Saadya had before him since he takes this para­ graph to be drawing analogies from the physical shape of the letters rather than from their pronun­ ciation and translates accordingly. And from them were born three fathers from whom everything was created. there is a question mark over the original place of §§32-34 themselves in the earlier SY tradition. Finally. Shin. However. This almost certainly explains the dropping of our paragraph in Mss H and P.Van ixiai onaw Three primary letters: Alef. Shin. B'B GD collated to A: 2 nVu] om B . §§32-34 (attested in all three recensions) revert to the verb IX which is more securely rooted in the textual tradi­ tion of SY. see the notes to § I. n. Basically they recycle material which appears in a different format in §§ 32-34. 1. assuming that the paragraph order ran originally as it is now in most Mss of the Long and Short Recensions. Notes on the text of §27 §§ 27-31 are missing in the Saadyan Recension and that immediately poses a prob­ lem. 26 and Lambert 1891: 82.Van ixiaa Dnaw Three primary letters: Alef. However. § 32 does not begin with WOX niD'X U7lVtP. 1 cannot be certain of the reading in all cases. Or it is simply imported by error from § 25? 75 Sefer Yesira §27 A K max nwiVw nVu jnai wax max wVw . 2 nwiVw] om F. However. One's first reaction is to suspect omission by homoioarcton similar to the dropping of §26 in Mss B and H or §30 in Mss M and N. LMNSFIQR collated to K: Wax] add p i O ' MNFIQ.

Shin .a^aa Three primary letters . 37b] p x i . B'B GD collated to A: 2 LMNSFPIQR collated to K: oViya] om Q. since the addition in § 25 contradicts § 28. as here in § 27. and earth was created from water. Mem. Perhaps we can understand why the scribe of Ms B omits JTDX in §27! The text of Mss MNFP in § 50 is another attempt to sort out the mess. Donnolo struggles vainly with the problem and tries to have it both ways: JinVlH WX D'aWH niTVlDl D'aWH WXn (Castelli 1880: 46). mxi] T I X I L.wxa nVnn ixna: D'aw . and water and fire. §58 explicitly makes this connection in its opening sentence: ]!VmY7im m a x nwVw. However. Mem.Alef.Alef. and air was created from the Spirit.wxi D'ai mn amya wax max wVw [fol.Q. and water and fire.a'aa nxna: Three primary letters . Heaven was created first from fire." Neither D'DWn niT?W D'a p x nnVin nn T1X n i Y ? i n WX in § 25 nor § 27 can be easily reconciled with §58. Sefer Yesira §28 K A . D T I M ynaa mna xna: mxi . It seems to me that §27 is re­ lated to the secondary layer of material which we divined in §25: D'OWn JinVin •"•a p x nnVin m i T1X nnVin U7X.in the universe: air. 77 The reading of all the other manuscripts. D " n r a ynaa mna xna: T I X I . I am inclined to accept this judgement.Sefer Yesira §28 117 As for the content of §27 Goldschmidt regards it as "zweifellos unacht. 2 IIIO' in Mss MNFIQ (and Judah ben Barzillai) has come in from §23. and earth was created from water. But if we assign the addition in §25 and the whole of §§27-30 (31) to a secondary stage in the evolution of SY we will have to assume that this material itself. Judah ben Barzillai seems to opt for the same solution (Halberstam 1885: 222). not being internally consistent.in the universe: air. holding the balance between them. auch stimmt er inhaltlich mit der sonstigen Annahme des Verfassers nicht iiberein" (1894: 86).wxa m»nn ixna: o'aw . contains at least two layers. They do so by simply identifying "the mothers" and "the fathers": ni3X nwVw JHW m a x wVw. §58 (which is attested in all recensions) turns the relationship around: instead of.. Shin . . mothers giving birth to fathers it has "three fathers and their offspring. 77 wxi D'ai mn DViya wax ma'x wiVw nxnai p x i .. holding the balance between them. Heaven was created first from fire. and light [air] was created from the Spirit. wxi a'ai mn] a^ai mm wx D.

m w a w a x m a x wVw n n a m m .in the year: fire. 0 ' a a XTJJ mpi .Alef. and humidity from air holding the bal­ ance between them. Sefer Yesira §29 K Din . nVlTD fits better the pattern of the rest of the paragraph and the formulation in § 28 . n m D'ai wx] m m m m Din L M N I Q . Mem. mi] n n a XTJ: B . T1X in Ms K is more likely to be an error than scriptio defective!.VnDTD n n » X133 TIKI D ^ n r s . cold was created from water.Alef.in the year: fire. as we have discussed above. its absence in the Saadyan Recension and its compatibility with the Long and Saadyan Recensions of §25 and with §58.wxa XYJJ oin n n a m i l .D'aa XTJJ m p i . n m D'ai WX mwD w a x m a x wVw mm D'a wx mwa wax ma'x wV?w n n mm . Heat was created from fire. hu­ midity is the air holding the balance between them. The replacement of mm D'ZDI WX by m m mm Din in Mss LM N1Q and D is parallel to the addition of mitt ]tt31 WXT in § 30 by Mss LFPI and D.OTOD V T j a L M N S F I Q R collated t o K : B ' B H collated to A: 2 m w a ] om Q. What is created by "the mothers" is felt to be more appropriate here. The only issue is. water and air. 2 . Shin . m m m p i Din . n n a ] n n a n x T j ] I.o a . Mem. The paragraph is again missing in Ms H but not this time in B'. and water and air. We find the same set of variants in the next paragraph. The absence in most Mss of § 30 of any specification after WDJ3 raises the possibility that at an earlier stage no specification at all was present after oVli?3 in § 28 or after HJW3 in §29.D^nrn unaa Three primary letters . w x a XTJJ . Mss G and P omit the paragraph by homoioarcton. 2 Notes on the text of §29 For the general question of the place of this paragraph in the SY textual tradition see the notes on §27. Mss AB'H read n n against nviO in all the other Mss. Heat was created from fire.DTUD y . and cold was created from water. In §28 only "the mothers" are specified. XT33 in B and nXT33 in Ms I reflect the influence of the previous paragraph. Three primary letters . Shin . D Din .D'aa X T J : mp . w x a xnaa .118 Notes on the text of §28 Edition and Commentary The textual tradition of this paragraph is uniform and presents no problems.

3. The head was created from fire. B'B GDH collated to A: piJf] add j T a m D. Mem.Alef.n3pai TJT waia m a ' x wnwi Three primary letters: Alef. male and female.D"nra i>naa n n mini . male and female. a'ai wx n m T i n B . the belly from water. 2 Mss M and N omit the paragraph almost certainly through homoioarcton. Probably the scribe of Ms B intended to make this same addition but confused it with part of § 29.wxa xnaj wxn waw wax m a ' x wr?w . n n ] 2 nna B . Sefer Yi sira K | n a i n . The head was created from fire. Mem. and the three primary let­ ters in mankind. 78 Following Donnolo's gloss: D'ma 5?naa i n n n naw: xin n n (Castelli 1880: 47).Sefer Yesira §31 Sefer Yesira K . p x n .D»aa p a i Three primary letters . waja] add T i n p 3 i wxn D .wax m a x §31 A wVw w"?wi mwa m a x wVwi . and the three primary letters in the year. and the three primary letters in the year. See also §35 . combined them and formed with them the three primary let­ ters in the universe. mnn p i miin p i . For its absence in the Saadyan Recension see the notes to § 27. 78 . IIP Q. Apart from these there are no significant variants in the textual tradition of this paragraph. n n a ] om Q. p a i ] xnaj p 3 i D .avsa p a i Three primary letters . and the three primary let­ ters in mankind. He carved them.in mankind. p p n . Mem. combined them and sealed with them the three primary let­ ters in the universe.waw wax max wVw 119 §30 A Dvua u n a a n n a n ' u i .n n 137.in mankind. Shin.nap:i naT waaa m a x a n m p n x p x n p p n wax ma'x wr>w mw3 ma'x wiVwi D7ii?3 m a ' x wr?w p 3 . For their shared readings see the Introduction §8.wxa X T J J wxn . Shin . add m i n pai wxn LFPJ. Dnm FI. and the chest from air holding the balance between them. and the chest is the air holding the balance between them. i7T> 2 Three primary letters: Alef.p"ix . Mem. 2 Notes to the text of §30 For the variant n i T O \ m i and the addition of m i l l ]D31 WXT in Mss LFP1 and D see the notes to § 29. hewed them. LMNSFPIQR collated to K: Til] pr f?pw MN. the belly from water.aVwa m a x wVw . hewed them. He carved them. Shin. Shin .Alef. B'B GH collated to A: 2 LSFP1QR collated to K: wa:3] om Q.

see.S p s n ]ppn belong to the core vocabulary of SY. The words D n m JST. non pas "1X1. . V). as in § 15 and by implication in §24.4 9 . V 79 2 The additions of flpW in Mss MN and | T D m in D are typical of variants which occur in the Mss wherever this chain of verbs appears in SY. but there it is the Short Recension which reads D n m while the Long and Saadyan Recensions have I S I . see §§ 1. presques tous les texts ont. In the case of §§ 27-30 there were additional problems over their vocabulary and the internal consistency of their content. 4 8 . Dunash. in the highly complex jumble of §§ 4 8 . used to seal the various parts of the created universe? We will have to revisit this issue when we come to consider §§ 32-34 and especially §§41 and 52. which is constructed on the same pattern as §31 (and. 12-14. 17a.120 Notes on the text of §31 Edition and Commentary IXVDnm. We have seen that the omission of §§ 27-31 in the Saadyan Recension inevitably raises a question about their presence in the earliest recoverable stage of the text of SY. reading D n m instead of I S I . Epstein 1894: 73. incidentally has all MSS reading I S I ) is attested in all three recensions. But we also saw that the earliest recoverable text of that paragraph contained no reference to the use of the letters of the alphabet in creation. 5." Epstein correctly observes that the variant o n m does not appear in §§ 39 and 48-49. Saadia a le mot IX meme pour les lettres WOK (V. We would then have to assume its accidental omission from the manuscript out of which the Saadyan Recension was constructed. The Long Recension form here of §31 (supported by Mss FI from the Short Recension). n.. Are the letters agents in the process of creation (as they certainly are accord­ ing to §§39 and 48-49) or just. parce que les trois substances fondamentales avaient deja une existence ideale . So. on emploie le mot 1X1 parce qu'il s'agit la de creations veritables. Donnolo (Castelli 1880: 47) and Judah ben Barzillai (Hal­ berstam 1885: 224) support the reading D n m .4 9 all Mss attest a structure parallel to §§ 31 and 39. on the basis of its structure a good case could be made out for the presence of § 31 in an earlier form of the text of SY. 3 9 . argues that the correct reading is Dnm: "pour les lettres WON. mais D n m . Precisely the same variant recurs throughout §§ 32-34. In the notes to § 19 we saw that the biliteral form I S (as against the triliteral "IS ) probably belonged to a later stage in the evolution of the text of SY. 15. § 39. according to Vajda-Fenton 2002: 106 has "scelle" (= Dnn) but the Hebrew text cited in the Geniza fragment of Dunash's commentary has I S ' (Vajda 1954: 50). Pour les objets crees avec les sept autres doubles (ch. This textual variant impinges directly on our understanding of how the creative process was envisaged by the author of SY. 19a. IV) et et les douze lettres simples (ch. " Of our three early commentators.. No such problems occur over the vo­ cabulary of § 31. meme pour IP'OX. It is not easy to obtain a consistent picture of how the earliest recoverable form of SY envisaged the role of the letters in the creative process. is in line with that early form of § 19. parce qu'il a reuni arbitrairement toutes les trois classes des lettres dans un meme paragraphe et qu'il s'est servi invariablement du meme terme IX pour toutes les lettres. for example. § 19. Similarly. Ms B throughout these three paragraphs has the double reading 1ST Dnm. 1).

owxa He made Alef rule over air (ruali). and bound to it a crown." (2) either the person responsible for the Saadyan Recension did not have §31 in the text before him or he left it out because it did not make sense. and formed with them air (awir) in the universe.oVlVD O W P f i x TIN WS3D m i l ] O D .DWX3 nu>pi mna iVx nx -pVon nxi ma m pnxi nna iV mmm oViya T I X p a nai waaa m m mwa napn waxa nai napn .male with Alef.Dwxa n a p n u>Dxa nwpi mna iVx nx TVon onm n oy IT p i n ins V ? mu>a T i n D V I I O T I X p a napai u>axa TJT waja T i n . and the chest in man­ kind . and female with Alef. Shin. Sefer Yesira K A §32 c -pVnn -m m DJ? m pnxi nna r> iippi n n a <f?n n x m w a m v m D r w a T I X ia nai n a p n nai w a i a nnm . and humidity in the year. Shin. He made Alef rule over air (ruah). humidity in the year. Mem. problematic. and combined them with each other.precisely what is presupposed by §§ 32-34. Mem. On the basis of the parallels with §§ 39 and 4 8 . Mem. Mem. Shin. and female with Alef.4 9 the object of the verbs -IX/Dnn in § 31 should have been WX1 . Mem. and female with Alef. -m] pr onm B . mu>a] om B'G. and bound to it a crown.male with Alef. and combined them with each other. and humidity in the year. 2 . Shin. and sealed with them air (awir) in the universe. B'B GDH collated to A: 2 He made Alef rule over air (ritah). As the translation above shows it does not make sense: God either forms the "three mothers" by means of the "three mothers" (Short Recension) or seals them with themselves (Long Re­ cension).male with Alef. T i ' l Q. We are faced then with two sets of alternatives: (1) either the muddle goes back to the original author or it was created by an early scribe who saw that §39 and 4 8 . WDJD] add n a p n TJT LMNPQ. however.mtt>3 m i l Tip D i n . We do not possess the relevant data to make a choice between these alternatives possible. Mem. male and female . and formed with it air (awir) in the uni­ verse. and combined them with each other. Shin. Shin. LMNSFPIQR collated to K: • n m ] T i l MNF. ZE collated to C: m v m ] m m ZE. and the chest in mankind. male and female . and the chest in man­ kind. With some hesitation 1 conclude that §31 should not be included in my attempt to reconstruct the earliest recoverable text of SY.Sefer Yesira §32 121 The content of our paragraph is. and bound to it a crown.4 9 required a parallel statement for the "three mothers" to the one made for the "seven doubles" and the "twelve simples.

heat in the year. .oViya o'aw napn xawa iai W D J S wxm . Aleph. He made Mem rule over wa­ ter. cold in the year. male with Shin. 2 2 ZE collated to C: i n 3 ] add HT Dy HT p l X I ZE. LMNSFPIQR collated to K: •WD] add m D3? m p i x i LPIQ (HT3 HT). heat in the year. and bound to it a crown. male and female. and combined them with each other. 2 2 ZE collated to C: i n a ] add HT Dy HT p i X I ZE. male with Mem. m w 3 D i m .. and formed with it heaven in the universe.13T WXa3] H3p31131 LMNSFPIQ.Q.napn 1 3 T W D » wxm m w s He made Shin rule over fire. male and female. . . and female with Shin. B'B GDH collated to A: ixi] pr D n m B . Shin. Mem. and the belly in mankind. cold in the year. 13] DH3 PI. He made Shin rule over fire.DNWD iwpi wxa pw nx rVan ixi m oy HT p i x i ina iV mwa D i m DViya D'aw ia . and sealed with it earth in the universe.. and bound to it a crown. and the head in mankind. ia] p a B'GD. and formed with it earth in the universe.mjpn iai waia wxm He made Shin rule over fire.122 Edition and Commentary Sefer Yesira K A §33 C 1 iwpi D'aa oa n x mVan nwpi D ' a 3 oa nx mVan oris?:} p x ia D n m i n s iV ID isi m 3 m p i x i ins i ? u»wa |D3 nsi m w 3 mpi ] D 3 i mwa mpi DVII>3 p x . and bound to it a crown. W X 3 3 H3p31 X W 3 3 131 iV iwpi D'aa D a nx TVan mpi DViya p x 1 3 ixi ins .. and female with Mem. W313] om PQ. heat in the year. and combined them with each other. cold in the year. and bound to it a crown. Aleph. Aleph.W333 psi moo . male and female. Aleph. and the head in mankind.. W33 '131 jt>33 F. and formed with it earth in the universe. LMNSFPIQR collated to K: 13] p 3 LMNPIQ. Mem.. and sealed with it heaven in the universe. and combined them with each other.13T D X W D ] mipn iai L. He made Mem rule over wa­ ter. and the belly in mankind. B'B GDH collated to A: ixi] pr D n m B . iV iwpi wxa pw nx mVan Dim oVya D'aw I D I X I ina . Shin. and bound to it a crown. and the head in mankind.n3p:i I D T [fol. | 0 3 '131] ]OD1 I. and the fruit of the belly in mankind. and bound to it a crown. 68a] W333 He made Mem rule over wa­ ter.. ID] p a GD. Sefer Yesira K A §34 C V? iwpi wxs pw nx yVan 13 onm nt oy n p i x i ina . and formed with it heaven in the universe.

The problem is that the parallel constructions in §§41 and 52 are not present in the Short Recension and Dunash regards 32-34 as inter­ polated commentary material. Arabic text in Vajda 1954: 52. wie oft sie in unserem Buche vorkommen. a nat The floating element DT Dl? HT ]S"l2n can also be observed in the parallel §41 but especially in § 52 where it is not present in Mss CE and D. . The core structure is: WK/D'D/nna pw/DB/n^x oViya nwa o'acvpx/vix Bin/rip/mm ia Dnn/nn nna r? nx rVon -iwpi nwa The floating elements are: tpm/ioa/min m oi> m p i n napn nat .Sefer Yesira §34 123 Notes on the text of §§32-34 These paragraphs are best taken together since they are constructed on the same pattern and exhibit the same suite of textual variants. §35. ultimately from Gen 1:27. . fehlen in der einen oder anderen Recension. from which the permutations may be drawn. significant parts receive no 80 8 0 Vajda-Fenton 2002: 110. It has presumably arisen out of the frequency of this expression in the Hebrew Bible. The spelling out of the permutations of U?DX and their assignment to male and female is very patchily attested in the Mss and certainly looks like scribal expansion. of course. Goldschmidt may be correct when he says: "Die Worte H2p31 "IDT. In the Saadyan Recension §§ 32-35 are assigned in a block to its chapter 5:1-3. see Weinstock 1981: 33-34. und schon dies beweist. . Chapters 5-8 in this recension are not organised on the same principle as the first four chapters but consist mainly of material lifted in complete blocks from the Long Recension. a napj . Ms P adds them in the margin to §§ 33-34 but classified as "interpretation" C'D) . We come now to the problem of the status of §§ 32-34 as a whole in the earlier stages of the SY tradition. Saadya seems to have regarded this as supplementary material since he provides no translation of it and only a cursory commentary. It is possible to isolate a core structure attested in all three recensions and some floating elements which appear at random in the various Mss. Hebrew text 238. . The reading | 0 3 '"IDT in the Short Recension of §33 is clearly out of harmony with the context and has no support in the other recensions. dass sie erst spater eingeschoben wurden" (1894: 86). It is present in § 31 but we have seen that there is a question mark over the status of this paragraph in the SY tradition. .in contrast to its marginal reading in § 6 which is classified as a real variant ('NO). rDpTl ~DT comes from § 24 but. is not present in the Short Recension.

as we have argued in the notes to § 19. Man's head is fire. 82 Sefer Yesira § 35 A XBW XWa WXa DWX W B X JDIX IX nt'XD . we might note that §§ 28-30. A§M. though possibly not part of the earlier text. §AM . ASM. Finally. his heart spirit (or air).AM§. and secondly. Ben-Shammai 1988: 7 observes that Saadya and Dunash make similar comments on the secondary nature of this material at the same points in their commentaries since Saadya's remarks about his procedure in dealing with the second half of SY precisely precedes his chapter five. Mem. that in §§ 32-34 (and § 31) Dnm is the original reading and not "1X1. firstly.heaven/fire. air/ spirit. that the active role of the letters Aleph.nn ia ? D'a UOD. his belly water. 2a). MAS. SMA.124 81 Edition and Commentary commentary at all. Man's head is fire. air/spirit. in deference to Dunash and the implication of their position in the Saadyan Recension 1 enclose them in square brackets in Appendix III to indicate some doubt as to their presence in the earlier form of the text. MA§. There is less of a clash with §§ 1-16 and 20 if we assume. However. 33 in Mss KSIR (and Paris 763.heaven/fire. 82 83 81 .WX1 D'DI n n / T I N . Meanwhile. No such connection is made for the other two groups of letters. We might also note some minor disturbance in the paragraph order at this point in the Short Recension: 32. How did he combine them? . his belly water. Shin in creation belongs to a later stage of the textual tradition .D'a p x . perhaps.D'a HDD mn IDV w x How did he combine them? . MSA. §MA. earth/water. For the problems created by the (later?) attempt to resolve the ambiguity of mn in SY by introducing the word V 1 X see the notes to §25. 34. We will need to return to this problem when we come to consider §§41 and 52. SAM . ZE collated to C: DWX] add XWa ZE. scientific approach" (1993: 26-27). Hence §§41 and 52 could have been created by analogy from §§ 32-34.AM§. significant that Dan struggles to reconcile the concept of creation in these paragraphs with that which elsewhere he describes as SY's "systematic. that only in the case of Wax does SY see an integral relationship between the phonetic character of the letters and the realities they represent. his heart spirit (or air). It is. earth/water. §§32-34 must be assigned to the earliest recoverable stage of the SY text (albeit with the reading D n m ) because they are attested in all three recensions. 83 B'B GDH collated to A: 2 nn 2 137 D'a UDD] D ' a U U D n n in ? 1 B'B DH.DXW C x a w w x a DWX w a x ]snx nx m n T I X WX mxs D'aw iwxn D'a p x n n T I X wx D'aw DXW . wx onxVw 1 W3X7W i w x n . W3X7W] D1X7W ZE. It may be significant. as Liebes points out (2000: 18-19). do not attribute a direct role in creation to the actual letters but refer only to what they symbolise .

Mss B G and H have the permutations of the letters WDX in a different order from that in the other Mss. So alsoGoldschmidt 1894: 87 and Allony 1972: 84.wax Three primary letters: Alef. It is an attempt to complete the expansion of the text which can be seen beginning in some Short Recension Mss. cold. Was it chosen because of its similarity to the word WX alongside it or have all the other texts corrected to the proper Hebrew word? We cannot know. that this paragraph cannot have been present in the earliest recoverable form of SY. There was formed with Alef: spirit. to the supplementary material which begins Saadya's chapter five. Donnolo and Judah ben Barzillai do not expressly cite it but their commentaries attempt the same task as § 35.though Mss K and R have most of its material distributed over §§ 32-34 while most Short Recension Mss have part of it in §32. and the law of language.nVon . There was formed with Mem these: water. Mem. When a text is not expressly cited by the commentators it is often difficult to discern what they had before them. and the tongue (or lan­ guage).Sefer Yesira §36 125 Notes on the text of §35 This paragraph is not present in the Short Recension . 8 There was formed with Alef these: spirit. then. It is commented on by Dunash though not expressly cited (Vajda-Fenton 2002: 110). If we take the order of the combinations in Ms A as 123456. the chest. the belly. It seems. air. . and the scale of acquit- 85 " Castelli 1880: 48-50. earth. The substitution of 13V for the rarer and ambiguous mil of §§ 30 and 32 is another sign of the later date of §35. in the Saadyan Recension it is assigned.pw"?i j?im mvn m m nt . The weight of evidence suggests that the correct order of words at the end of the paragraph is D'D 13U3 m i 13 ?. There was formed with Mem: earth. 1 would judge that Dunash knew § 35 more or less as we have it but that Donnolo and Judah did not. 84 85 1 1 Sefer Yesira A §36 C m m m n m i x n n V?'X] p x oi> i m . air. As we have seen. humidity.mat p i Torn -np> p x oa oy ixu nam p i wxm Dim D'aw pw D V I X U . law. then B'H have them in the order 123645. Ms C obviously omitted the combination XWQ in error. namely. Similarly.niDT p i w x m Dijn D'aw w x V?x p w DS? i m [nDin 1 T I N n n «px DV ixi] wax ma'x wiVw . the chest. hu­ midity.pw ? [pirn [ p i pj3i mp p i x c a ] iV'x Da oy i r u . along with §§ 32-34. G in the order 12465. Halberstam 1885: 226-228. The only variant reading of interest is Ms C's W3X for the D1X of all our other witnesses. to systematize and sum up the preceding paragraphs. Shin. especially K and R.

D Z pirn m i n m n T I X n n I T X i V X Dy T X U . In the Saadyan Recension these three paragraphs are in a block together at the beginning of Saadya's chapter eight where there are no paragraph divisions and the text runs smoothly through all twenty-two letters.nam . and the scale of acquittal. the head. like the preceding one. the head. as having come into the text of SY from a commentary. witnesses for him to its supplementary character (1981: 44). There was formed with Shin these: fire.mat 131 . Its place at. heat. while Z has five created with Aleph and Mem but only four with Shin. we have already seen that the notion that the letters Aleph. 86 87 Donnolo (Castelli 1880: 50) has a very expanded form of this paragraph. heaven. This textual fluidity is another reason for concluding with Weinstock that this is not core SY material. It simply fits §§28-35 into a new framework and then fuses the end of §23 into them. Golclschmidt 1894: 87 also regards this paragraph.ni3T i 3 i Din D'aw w x I T X p w Dy T i l ] 1 w a x m a x wVw .pw ? 13i p m mp p x D'a I T X D'a o y i x u . In Ms A six items are created by the letter Aleph but only four by the other letters.wax D O DI> T I N p a i mp p x B'B GH collated to A: Tii31°-3°] m x : B . cold. Ms D manages a consistent four items created with each letter but its sentences are in a different order from the other Mss. Weinstock argues that this was the original arrangement of this material and only later was it split up and distributed in the Long Recension over the chapters dealing with the three separate groups of letters. while Dunash and Judah ben Barzillai do not seem to have had it before them. along with the similarly constructed §§44 and 54. 1 1 2 E = C as restored Notes on the text of §36 This paragraph. 87 8 6 . Shin. the end of these chapters. the belly. However. Ms C appears to have five items created by each letter. Moreover. Mem.7X D V i x i ] m n a m *pi w x m Dim D'aw p w Dy i r u . This is Alef. Shin had an active role in creation is only loosely embedded in the text of this part of SY. and the scale of guilt. the process has reached different levels of achievement in the various Mss and none manages a harmonious balance. us­ ing this framework. Mem. pwVi pirn] pwV pirn B. and the scale of guilt. is not present in the Short Recension. §36 as it stands adds nothing new to the content of SY. or near. The end. heat.pwVa p m m n T I X n n n.126 Edition and Commentary tal. There was formed with Shin: heaven.

beauty and mastery. Perhaps an ancestor of all these Mss reversed these two words in error when copying from §23. Dalet. Taw. mastery and slavery.m[03] n a . n y a 1 §37 C n a mViaa yaw (37a) p i c . Dalet. These sorts of additions obviously belong to the editorial work which produced our present recensions. pros­ perity. Their basis is life and peace.nna a"n n n a n n m a n n n a n . wis­ dom.naaw y n n n a n . Dalet. beauty and mastery. Gimel. Resh. beauty. Gimel.nnay nVwaa n n a n . Taw. Resh. Kaph. will be subsequent to the creation of the Saadyan Recension. n n p nnan n n a y nVwaa nanVa 'X3 A *.nmwV m w 3 nnmnai naan aiVwi D"n .nman anw mVioai . ilT in the Long Recension rounds off the chapter. Pe. Taw. (37b) Seven double letters: Bet. Pe. ptf?Vl p i m in Ms A seems a clear error but ptf?V p i m in B and the Saadyan text does not seem a much better attempt to quarry § 23.nVix p n n a n .'yi oiVw n n a n iwiy n n a n . for they represent two catego­ ries of opposites: Bet/Vet. (37a) Seven double letters: Bet. Gimel. Kaph. See the paral­ lel rubrics in §§44 and 54. wealth. p i c nVwaai p i inn iwiyi . Taw. Ms D's ]Hr/?3 p m looks like an attempt to make more sense out of the original error.my nnan . Kaph. Their basis is life and peace. Bet.nmwV 'nwa maninai 13 7 i 7 t Van Van n o ma w n in in wi wn 'a 'D «p man nnan nwpi pi ' a n . In §44 B goes with the other Mss and has TX13 but deviates again in §54. : m Seven double letters: Bet. if Weinstock is correct. Dalet.nman ]m wVn yi aiVw n n a n nna D"n n n a n nVix naan n n a n naaw y n nman my iwiy n n a n nxa p n n a n n n a y nVwaa A moa n a mVisa yaw naam oiVwi 0 " n p i c nVwaai p i ym iwiyi nmwV mwa mimnai nmanVw mViaa onw Vi Vi Van Van n o n o wn wn na na i a ia nwpi -p 1133 v n v n p i wVn 1333 n a n nnan . Ms B has 11X3 (the Niphal perfect of the root TIX) while the other Mss have 1X13 (from the root IX'). Taw. They are pro­ nounced with the tongue in two different positions.Sefer Yesira §37 127 The introductory formula WQX mO'X WlVtP in the Long Recension is due to the placing of this paragraph in chapter three of that recension which. They are pro- . 1 1 1 Sefer Yesira K maa T O mViaa yaw .ma D"n n n a n naan n n a n . They are pro­ nounced with the tongue in two different positions. Gimel. wealth.naaw y n n n a n . Pe. wis­ dom. It is further reinforced by A's nVon which is not in the other manuscripts. Kaph. prosperity. Dalet. Their basis is life and peace. They are pronounced with the tongue in two different positions: Seven double letters: Bet. Resh. wealth. Pe. wisdom.maa p iwiyi naam aiVwi a"n .nVvx naan . prosperity.nnayi [nVwaai yjn maa u a mViaa yaw (37b) nmwV 'nwa mwanwa ao aa n 33 3 3 mViaa p w man nnan "p 133a :nn n n n a n .wVm n n a n . Kaph. Resh. Pe. Gimel.yi aiVw iwiy n n a n . Resh.

the opposite of prosperity is des­ olation. yn nanVa B . 2 2 p i ] p c n n i D s i B . Kaph/Khaph. The opposite of life is death. a paradigm of strong [and] weak. 'Dm WI] om L M N F P I Q .128 Bet/Vet.unm B'B GH. a paradigm of strong and weak.Daghesh and Raphe. The opposite of life is death.'ra nuny nman . Dalet/ Dhalet.mnsy nVoaa mian m s s ni3 mViDD y s c '3 miwV mcanca 1? nVn nVn Va? Van p :vn v n ' o n V n ' a ' S n. and the oppo­ site of mastery is slavery. Taw/Thaw. Pe/Fe. naan nman] pr yn 3 i o nman si. nnsn nwpi in D " n n m a n . and the opposite of mastery is slavery.Yl. Gimel/Ghimel. cor­ responding to soft [and hard]. the opposite of wealth is poverty.BD.n m. the opposite of beau­ ty is ugliness. 1 2 E collated to Z: ni3iun muo mimnai 2°] om LP. the opposite of wisdom is folly.nanVa DIVU> . corresponding to soft and hard. nounced with the tongue in two different positions. Edition and Commentary Gimel/Ghimel. Pe/Fe.nman p . D moa n i 3 mViDD J O O naon onun D " n p i c nVoaai p i ynn nunyi ni3iun T U P D . mnsy nVwaa 3:3] LMNSFPIQR collated to K: pi ymi] ynn p LMNPQ. Taw/Thaw. mx'a] mya E. Resh/Rhesh.ma nman . the opposite of peace is evil. Dalet/ Dha­ let. yn] ni3UPV]add mVlDDpC mmanVu> E. They are oppo­ sites.YU1. and the opposite of mastery is slavery.33 Z p i c nnss nj. soft and hard. for they are double (letters): Bet/ Vet. the opposite of prosperity is desolation. Pe/Fe. nnmnai . yn] nanVa S F I R .33 E. Kaph/Khaph. the opposite of beauty is ugli­ ness.? u>Vm n i 3 i nnsn nu?pi nn nman n m a n p c mViDa yn D I V C nman ma a m nman nVix naan nman n a a c ym nman my nuny nman mxn p nman [Chapter 2:2.naau> .. the opposite of wisdom is folly. . a paradigm of strong and weak. Gimel/Ghimel.nrm nasn nman ym mian . the opposite of wis­ dom is folly. the opposite of wealth is poverty. They are double letters because they are opposites.nn. Resh/Rhesh.D3. Dalet/ Dhalet. unm. Kaph/Khaph. the oppo­ site of wealth is poverty. B'B GH collated to A: p i c ] pioi B . Taw/ Thaw . the opposite of beauty is ugliness.. 2 n m a n one mViDDi] p i n m a n S P I Q R .3 mViDD y s c yni nciyi nasn DiVtzn o^n [Chapter l:3].myo p mian . Resh/Rhesh. the oppo­ site of prosperity is desola­ tion. the opposite of peace is evil.nman Vu> mViDD p c ni)3 .R.m>U>aai p wVm ni3J. The opposite of life is death. the opposite of peace is evil. nwpi nn] n ncp n. They are opposites. pn] yi L.

Mss SPIQR. JYUrunTDI JYIJUPV) which links the two halves and the phrase occurs twice in the Short Re­ cension. n v n o n jm. However.wVm man nwpi -p vn vn u>n wn o o «p *p nVi nVi Van Van o o nmwV mwa §37 is missing in the truncated version of Dunash's commentary edited by Grossberg 1902: . a short form of § 37 (more or less equivalent to § 37a) is cited as the lemma: 8li nVwaa ym jn -nznyi naam oiVun B"n nmwV T W O nnmna maa -ua mViaa yaw . D. 26. The longer form of this rubric as we see it in the Long Recension Mss and Mss C and E (as against Z) . that although the doublet of § 37b stood in the text Saadya had before him. Weinstock also uses this example to demonstrate that the Genizah Scroll is independent of and much earlier than the form of the Saadyan Recension on which Saadya based his commentary. Both in the Genizah fragment (Vajda 1954: 53) and in the Hebrew translation of Moses ben Joseph (Vajda-Fenton 2002: 239). three mothers. C have a shorter form of this second rubric in the same position. in the Saadyan Recension it is split into two parts (which I have labelled 37a and 37b) and distributed as follows: 37a occurs in all three manuscripts in the first se­ quential run of the ten sefirot. is split into two in the Short Recension and in Ms Z and the phrase niTIDn D H W mVlDDI directly precedes the list of the opposites. The deletion of its second occurrence in Mss L and P is obviously an attempt to remove the duplication. namely.Sefer Yesira §37 129 Notes on the text of §37 § 37 is attested in all our recensions and manuscripts. The variants could either be the result of an attempt to blend together two originally separate paragraphs or reflect the impact of the separation into two paragraphs as in the Saadyan Recension. in all three Mss § 37b appears as Saadya's ch 3:3 after § 25. as in Mss C and E. 24b taken as one unit dealing with the three mothers and before §§48a and 40. Was §37 split into two for the purposes of the re-arrangement which charac­ terises the Saadyan Recension or did its editor already find it as two separate paragraphs? There are signs of textual disturbance in the clause (VHPD.after § 24a and before § 38. is in ch 3:3. It is almost impossible to reconstruct from these variants an earlier form of SY from which they could all have descended. it is out of place in ch 2:2 and its correct place. seven doubles and twelve simples . The evidence of Dunash ben Tamim's commentary may be decisive in helping us to judge between these two alternatives. Weinstock (1981: 35) argues.nmonVw mVisa D H W rmiwV Tiwa r m m n m . filling the twelve simples slot. Finally. Then 37b occurs in Ms Z alone in Saadya's ch 2:2 . In the Short and Long Recen­ sions it introduces the chapter which deals with the seven double letters. correctly I think. again taken as one unit. It is superfluous in this position since § 38 fills the slot required for a paragraph on the seven doubles.ch 1:3 according to Saadya's numbering. once in each half of the paragraph.

then. We can now observe in the textual tradition of § 37 the same process of updat­ ing and improvement which we saw in § 17b. how in Mss KSR nwpi "p is glossed by ''DTl wn. W1TD). and nwpi has been omitted after YI. It ends up in Mss DSFIR completely replacing STl. Ms A's marginal variant nanVa for SH is another improvement.representing the "doubling of these letters". I conclude. This suggests that § 37b may have arisen as commentary to § 37a and that the variants we have been considering arose as the commentary was integrated jnto the base text. however. Ms A's insertion of YAJ3 between limi and wVn over against all the other Mss strengthens the sense of contrast. "Evil" does not seem a natural op­ posite to "peace" . T W O ]n mian . If so.Isa 45:7 is probably behind the original choice of words. This would take us back to a stage not long before the emergence of the final form of the Short and Long Recen­ sions. that the text of SY § 37 as cited in the Genizah fragment of Dunash's commentary might represent the earliest recoverable stage of this part of the SY tradition. . mT3SJ is added after nVwaa in 37a through the influence of 37b.nVvx naan mian »onn mxi n m s ? nVwaa mian . for example.130 Edition and Commentary Then the content of § 37b follows but clearly labelled as commentary (TODn.naaw snT. The replacement of numna by mwanwa in the Saadyan Recension may be part of this process.ms? -iwiy nman . Note. though this might be quite deliberate . since the same doublet recurs at the beginning of the next paragraph. § 37b is present in all our Mss I include it within square brackets in my attempted restoration of the core text of SY. § 37 will then have reached its present form by a similar process to § 17. the division into two halves in the Saadyan Recension does take us back to an earlier stage of the text than the Short and Long Recensions. 89 1 Sefer Yesira K m x p o i p a n n x p viw p i D Dipa i m p Dipai 5 §38 C A m s s TAD mViaa yac NVI vac ww NVI i?au> myVx ww |iiaa n n a c -ua maa ma mViaa i?ac yaw ww xVi yac maa myVs ww miaw xVi '' Donnolo combines both readings and then adds m i O N J l for good measure (Castelli 1880: 51). mwanwa occurs elsewhere in SY only in § 17b which we have found good reason to assign to a very late stage in the emergence of the SY tradition. But note the text of IQIsa"! This marginal variant and its incorporation into Ms B as a gloss is an object lesson in how textual variants arise. Since. The form of § 37b in chapter 3:3 of Ms Z is almost identical to that in ch 2:2 except that there is less vocalisation and Taw is spelt in. It may be significant that Judah ben Barzillai cites §37 as far as 1H DlVw mian and then continues (Halberstam 228-229): mian . Ms C has the usual crop of errors: there is a doublet of m D 3 153 at the begin­ ning.

noa mxp amw . Pe. the eternal edge.Sefer Yesira §38 131 nnxp DTIW . p i a a pia nx xwu xim] om B'.pia nx xwu xim .DVa nx xwu xim B'B G collated to A: 2 E collated to Z : oipa] ]na M N Q . Kaph.oVia nx xwu xim Seven double letters: Bet. Gimel.maa ma mViaa yaw wnpn aipai oipa mxp ww mxp nnx .nVya mxp yanx . Resh. -ma . Pe. Gimel.iapa iaViy pxi . and the Holy Temple set in the middle. Resh. L -ma maa raa mViaa yaw nnxp ww aipa .nnta yaw .yxaxa jiiaa . seven and not eight .one.nnx l a i p a a p i a wnpi wVw . DVia] aViyn Via I.nVya n n x p a m w n n x p yanx . Kaph. And he supports them all. Taw.the northern edge. seven and not eight . n 7 y a w a n . Resh. Resh.anya 'yawn nxpm .anya n n x p w a n .anya nnxp ny n y nnxp yaw .pax yxaxa p i a a wmpn Va^i . Blessed be the glory of the Lord from his place (Ezek 3:12). Dipaa] laipaa F I . m a a m a mViaa yaw Dinai n n x p w w nna . pna] add maa E .nnx aipaa . Taw. Kaph. Blessed be the glory of the Lord from his place (Ezek 3:12).six directions for the six sides (of a cube). Pe. xim] om Q . Kaph. five . four . two . Dalet.the eastern edge.iapaa laipa iaViy pxi iaViy . Gimel.nnxp yaw p a x anya nma nuai nVya p i a a wnpn Va'm a m aVia nx xwi: xim yxaxa MNPQ collated to L: ww xVi yaw mViaa yaw yaw maa ma mViaa yaw mxp ww miaw xVi yaw ww miaw xVi yaw ww xVi wnpn Va^m .ainn mxp . but his world is not his place.D'ann wwV Va'm D n n o nwwV my"?x maa nina yxaxa piaa mna yxaxa piaa wnp Vw laipa xin laipaa " aViyVw laipa xim laipaa laipa ia?iy pxi V?w oViy .six directions corresponding to the six sides (of a cube). Seven and not six. DViya Via r?aF. seven. Dalet. Dalet. and the Holy Temple set in the middle.nma mxp wVw ww . Dalet. He is the place of his world. yxaxa] yxaxaw Q. Pe. Seven and not six.iapa xVw iaVy jxi . a place set within a place . and the holy temple set in the middle and it supports them all. Seven edges: a place of edges and a holy place. Seven double letters: Bet. six .pax n n x p w w . D Seven double letters: Bet. He is the place of his world. FI collated to K: wnp Va'm D n n o nwwV wnp Vami anno nwwV " maa mna yxaxa ]aia "" maa nina yxaxa jiiaa Vwiaipaxin laipaa laViyVw laipa xim . three .pox mxp wan . n o a n n x p . Gimel. Z mxp Dipa] nnxp ww n n a F.noa nnxp wVw . but his world is not his place. Taw.the up­ per edge. S R nwwV] nwwi E. Bet.the western edge.nma nnxp yanx nnxp ww . Taw.the lower edge.

Since there is no parallel form for the "three mothers" chapter. are so divergent that setting up a single textual apparatus for them is impossible. See Urbach 1979: 68. However. while offering the Long Recension version as an alternative reading (ibid.a helpful clarification (Castelli 1880: 52). Pines suggests "because it contradicts the assertion in the preceding passage that God is localised in one particular place" (1989: 86. 92 93 . three and not two" it is possi­ ble that the Long Recension text both here and in §46 was built up from the model of §4. DV13 HX XW13 X i m is not present in the Saadyan Recension 93 ™ For an exposition of this paragraph and its importance in the overall scheme of SY see Hay­ man 1986. See also Liebes 2000: 194-95 who tries to maintain the originality of the Long Recension version of this paragraph but without taking into account the full range of textual evidence. Donnolo cites a text which is almost identical with that of Ms A (and hence of most Long Recension Mss) except that he reads D ' T I X for D ' T I D .183). in turn. n.p i a H X NW13 yX&ND.U' «nj?n V D ' H I . "three and not four. as S.pia nx xwi: xim yxaxa p i a wnpn Va'm Judah ben Barzillai first cites this paragraph in a text identical with that of Dunash except for the reversal of HOD and (Halberstam 1885: 120) but then. i. If we assume that Oip» in Ms L is an error for DH?D then it too supports this short version of the text.132 Edition and Commentary Vcm . pre­ sumably by parablepsis. while the rabbinic saying (pxi laVlV i m p » Xin 92 IDlpO loViy) may have been added. the latter of which is not present in the Short Recension. as so often in SY is clearly intrusive and brought in by the reference to the Temple. Ms Q has the shortest text of all for it simplifies the end of the paragraph making clear that it is the Temple which supports them all . it is omitted (along with §39) in Ms H. The biblical reference. Behind the various Short Recension readings it is possible to discern a shorter text (more or less equivalent to the form in Mss MNQ and cited by Dunash and Judah) which has then been expanded in Mss KFISR.e.DVID nx xwi] wipn "rami ny n y n m p xwu xim yxaxa piaa nx 7Vo/<?5 on ///<? text of^'38 90 §38 is present in all three recensions. Dunash has a relatively simple text very close to that of Mss MNQ (L): m m pax aiyai nma nVya noa nnxp ww ono nnxp yaw iroa maa ma mViaa yaw "'. the Long and Saadyan Recensions offer a very different text from the Short Recension Mss and these. he cites it in a text close to that of Mss S and R. 231). " Vajda 1954: 53.iv n y nxp xin xim yxaxa piaan wnpn . later on. The Long Recension form of the paragraph is modelled on §§4 and 46.

Gimel. Kaph. 1 Sefer Yesira K A §39 C . 15 or 47. p x m . x"?W in Ms C is an aural error for iVw. the clays in the year.1 have added it in brackets to my hypothetical reconstruction of the earliest recoverable text of SY.nica D'D'i .pix . Dalet. Gimel. Resh. If we strip out these evident expansions we ar­ rive at an even shorter text than in Mss LMNQ. Pe. maa n a mViaa vac p p c p i x p x m ppn a>aaia p a ixi p'am anvci n:ca D'D'I DViva nvac nvac ca:a Seven double letters: Bet. Dalet. he combined them. and he formed with them the plan­ ets in the universe.TOj? SOW? miXj? WW is present in all recen­ 1 sions in § 15 as a description of the directions of space whereas D'YIO HWW in §47 is confined. he combined them. and the apertures in mankind. weighed them and exchanged them. Gimel. as here. c a j a D n y c i Seven double letters: Bet. Goldschmidt (1894: 60) makes a similar attempt to reconstruct the original form of this paragraph. . He carved and hewed them. Kaph. .Sefer Yesira §39 133 or Ms B' in the Long Recension and thai naturally places a question mark over its place in the earlier form of the text. But I cannot account for its absence in the Saadyan Recension or Ms B . However. Could D'lYO have been brought in to provide a subtle allusion to the six sedarim of the Mishnah? JYIvVx occurs in SY only here in the Long and Saadyan Recensions. the days in the year. Kaph. by sevens. what the pre­ cise wording of such a core text might have been is impossible to reconstruct. Taw. combined them. to the Long and Saadyan Recensions. Taw .the six edges (of the universe) and the Holy Temple set in the middle). his reconstruc­ tion is close to the text found in Mss (L)MNQ. Gimel. Resh. and the apertures. and the apertures in mankind.nyac nyac . Dunash and Judah: yxoxa p i a c n p Va'm onto ncc ? niyVx c c maa n a mViaa vac This could have been simply expanded by spelling out what the six directions were following §§7. m a a n a nvViaa v a c p a i s i . Resh. Taw. Pe. The clause DTia J1X XW13 X i m is very congruent with the overall teaching of SY and is certainly present in the majority of witnesses. Kaph. Taw. Tentatively I recon­ struct a possible earliest form of §38 as follows: i r m p WW JTIDa 1J3 nV>19D V3W J7XDK3 p l O w n p byXV\ (seven double letters. Bet. and he formed with them the planets. giving us the Short Recension text. hewed them. Dalet.aViya D'aaia . Pe. Pe.ppn . Resh. and formed with them the planets in the universe.anyci D'D' Seven double letters: Bet. Dalet. by sevens. He carved and hewed them.maa n a mViaa yac p p c pi[x] pxn ppn D'aaia p a ixi p w r n . weighed them and exchanged them. Was it D'-ITO HWWV mj/Vx WW or simply n. the days. He carved them.

134
LMNSFPIQR collated to K:

Edilion and Commentary B'B G collated to A: |TDm ppW p n x ] p p w
2

ZE = C

D7iya] D71V3 nyaw
B'yimn F. n y a w nyaw] om LMNFPIQ.

janxi p p n D. nxi...ppn] jmaym p p n p x m p p w nxi G. p n x ] om B .
1

Notes on the text of §39 §39 in all recensions unequivocally slates that the seven double letters had a role in the process of creation. For the textual uncertainty in the earlier part of SY on the role of the letters see the notes to §§ 19 and 31. Compared to §38 the textual problems of § 39 are relatively simple. A shorter text in the Saadyan version seems to have been expanded by the addition of D-VllO, 7\W2, and WS3D. in all other Mss. Then the Long Recension and three Mss of the Short Recension have added HSDW TW2X} at the end. Finally, it looks as though the list of verbs depicting God's crea­ tive activity has been augmented in the course of time: the Short Recension has four verbs ("IX p n x p x n ] p p n ) , over against six in the Long and Saadyan Recen­ sions O S ] T » H p p t P p n x p s n p p n ) while Dunash has just three verbs ( p p n IX p s n ) . Judah ben Barzillai has the four verbs of the Short Recension (Halberstam 1885: 239) and Donnolo has the six verbs of the Long Recension (Castelli 1880: 52). There are comparable variations in the number of these verbs in §49. If these minor additions were present in the text before the reviser who produced the Saadyan Recension I can think of no reason why he should omit them. Add­ ing them reinforces the role of the letters in the three dimensions of reality which structure this part of SY.
9 4

Sefer Yesira K a n a x nw .pnx m 'xa wVw ,D'na nw mna yanx .oma nww mna ,D'na yanxi ones? mna anwyi nxa mna wan mxa yaw mna ww .ova mna yaw . D V O anwyi p ' o .cyanxi o'aVx nwan pxw na awm xx n.V'xi pxw nai nan ? Via ' nan .yiaw ? nVia p x n
1 1 1 1
M

§40 c anax mw pnx nx nrxa mna wi"?w c n a nw mna mna yanx c n a nww wan a'na yanxi onwy ww oma onwyi nxa mna onwyi mxa yaw mna nwan mna yaw . c n a P ' a oma D'yanxi D'aVx Via' rxwa awm mx nVm nixn ? nVia pywai nanb yiaw"? 7rr\y< p x w a i
1 1

A Dnax 'nw janx nx nrxa wiVw oma nw mna yanx . B T O nww mna .ama yanxi anwy mna anwyi nxa mna wan mxa yaw mna ww c n a mna yaw .D'na onwyi D'yanxi caVx nwan xx n,7'xi p a ' a .ova nan [68b] pxw na aiwm pyn pxw nai nan ? nVia
1 1

Vajda 1954: 54, Vajda-FeiUon 2002: 239. However, the beginning of §40 presupposes the presence of the verb |D1X in § 39.

Sefer Yesira §40 p x c nai mxnV nVia' .mac ? nViD' jnxn
1

135

How did he combine them? - two stones build two hous­ es; three build six; four build twenty-four; five build one hundred and twenty; six build seven hundred and twenty; seven build five thousand and forty. From here on go out and ponder what the mouth cannot speak, and what the ear cannot hear.

How did he combine them? - two stones build two houses; three build six houses; four build twentyfour houses; five build one hundred and twenty houses; six build seven hundred and twenty houses; seven build five thousand and forty houses. From here on go out and ponder what the mouth cannot speak, and what the eye cannot see, and what the ear cannot hear.
D

How did he combine them? two stones build two houses; three build six houses; four build twenty-four houses; five build one hundred and twenty houses; six build sev­ en hundred and twenty hous­ es; seven build five thousand and forty houses. From here on go out'' and ponder what [the mouth] cannot speak, and what the eye [cannot] see, and what the ear [can­ not] hear.
5

O'jaX m c janx nX'a ciVc ,ova n c m m yanx .ama n c c n m a .ama yanxi a n c y m n a D n c y i nxa n m a c a n mxa yac nma c c ama nmayac D m a a n c y i D'yanxi B ' D V X n c a n na a i c m xx |xao .ama I'xi nanV m a nan p x c .yiacV nVia' pxn
1

m n a a n a x m c janx nx'a n c c n m a cVc a m a n c a'ncy nma yanx a m a nxa nma c a n D T O yanxi y a c nma c c a m a o n c y i y a c Dma onttwi mxa D'yanxi D'aVx n c a n nma a i c m xx n^'xi ] x a a . a m a nan ? nma' nan p x c na mxn"? n r c pvn p x c nai .yiacV nViD' j n x p x c nai
1

L M N S F P I Q R collated to K : IDnX.-'Xa] om L M N P Q .

D'jax] n v m x M N .
D'yanxi] add DTD L...R.

B'B GH collated to A: nVia' f yn p x c nai mxnV] om B .
2

2

Z collated to E: mxnV nVia' pyn P N C nai] om Z.

Notes on the text of §40 This paragraph, like the preceding one, is present in all our recensions and Mss. Its rather repetitive wording has given rise to many errors by parablepsis in the Mss. They are recorded in Gruenwald's apparatus. Since both Mss C and Z suffer in this way I have printed the text of E which has preserved the Saadyan version intact. There are very few real variants. Ms Q adds D'JDK after the numerals 3-7 while

nix must be an error for XX.

136

Edition and Commentary

Ms G omits most occurrences of both WTO and JTI313. The only substantial variant comes at the end of the paragraph. All texts attest "OTh Via' riDH pXtt? HO and n » snawV nVia1 pixn pxw but mxnV nV^^ ps?n pxw na appears only in A B ' G H C and E. So it is absent in Mss from all three Recensions and not in the Short Recen­ sion at all. It could, of course, have been omitted by parablepsis but it is more likely to have come in under the influence of lsa 6 4 : 3 . The saying is often cited in Jewish texts, most often in the "mouth" and "ear" version as in most Mss here. . A version with "eye" and "mouth" occurs in III Enoch § 3 9 and in the Visions of Ezekiel, 1.51 (Gruenwald 1 9 7 2 : 1 2 1 ) . Mss M and N rather crassly substitute the literal nvmx for the metaphorical Dnax. There are the usual crop of scribal errors in the text of Ms C .
96
9 7

Sefer Yesira

§41

as> m janxi -ins iV nwpi n o nx T>Van nai mwa nsun aViso 'nsw 13 nxi m
.W333

m janxi nna iV nwpi Van nx -pVan nauo nnxi aViio pnx 13 nxi m as?
.waj3 p a
1

muo

m janxi nna iV nwpi Vn nx TVan nawa 'vwi aViso D'nxa ia nxi m . W 3 3 3 Vixaw p y m w 3 DS? m pnxi nna iV nwpi ia nx -pVan nawa 'wVwi D V I I O nan ia nxi m .waia p a ' ixi mu>3 DS> m ]anxi nna iV nwpi na nx T>Van m w 3 nawa 'yam oViso n n : ia nxi m .waia Vixaw ixi nT janxi nna iV nwpi wn nx "pVan 'warn aViva nan aaia ia nxi m as? .wa:a I'a' jnxi n:u>3 nawa DJ? m janxi nna iV nwpi vn nx "pVan muo nawa 'wwi D V I I O n:3V ia nxi m .waia Vxaw jnxi
96

DV m janxi nna iV nwpi ma nx -pVan l nai muo nawi DVva maw ia nxi m wa:a m )anxi nna iV nwpi Van nx yVan 2 py. nawa nnxi oVva pnx ia nxi m oy .wa:3 p a ' D'nxa ia nxi nna iV nwpi Vn nx -pVan 3 wa:a Vxaw py, n:w3 nawa nun DVJ?3 nan ia nxi nna iV nwpi ia nx "pVan 4 wa:3 po' ixi mwa nawa 'wVwi aVva mi: ia nxi nna iV nwpi na nx -pVan 5 Vxaw ixi mwa n3W3 ' y a m aVso
wai3

aaia 13 nxi nna iV nwpi wxn nx T>Van 6 p a ' pixi n:w3 n3W3 'warn aVya nan wa:a niaV ia nxi nna iV nwpi vn nx yVan 7 Vxaw pixi mwa n3W3 'wwi D V S O wa:a

See Shiur Qoma §949 and for the parallels here and elsewhere between SY and SQ Cohen 1983: 180-181 and 208, n. 35, Sifre Numbers § 102 (Horovitz 1966: 100), b. Shab 20b, b. RH 27a. Cohen (ibid. 181) makes a serious methodological error when he seeks to draw a parallel between SY §4 and SQ. The reading which interests him 110 |nV p x w nttW wmai is found only in the printed editions of SY (Long Recension) and in Mss B'B . It is not present in any other of our textual witnesses. It is a tendentious kabbalistic alteration; see the notes to §4. Halperin 1988: 275f regards the presence of the "eye" clause as an indication of the late date of the Visions of Ezekiel.
2 97

Sefer Yesira §41 (1) He made Bel rule, and bound to it a crown, and combined one with another, and formed with it Saturn in the uni­ verse, the sabbath in the year, and the mouth in mankind. (2) He made Gimel rule, and bound to it a crown, and combined one with another, and formed with it Jupiter in the uni­ verse, the first day of the week in the year, and the right eye in mankind. ( 3 ) He made Dalet rule, and bound to it a crown, and combined with another, and formed with it Mars in the universe, the second day of the week in the year, and the left eye in mankind. (4) He made Kaf rule, and bound to it a crown, and combined one with another, and formed with it the Sun in the uni­ verse, the third day of the week in the year, and the right nostril in mankind. (5) He made Pe rule, and bound to it a crown, and combined one with another, and formed with it Venus in the universe, the fourth day of the week in the year, and the left nostril in mankind. (6) He made Resh rule, and bound to it a crown, and combined one with another, and formed with it Mercury in the uni­ verse, the fifth day of the week in the year, and the right ear in mankind. (7) He made Taw rule, and bound to it a crown, and combined one with another, and formed with it the Moon in the uni­ verse, the sixth day of the week in the year, and the left ear in mankind.
D

137

(1) He made Bet rule, and bound to it a crown, and combined one with another, and formed with it Saturn in the uni­ verse, the sabbath in the year, and the mouth in mankind. (2) He made Gimel rule, and bound to it a crown, and combined one with another, and formed with it Jupiter in the uni­ verse, the first day of the week [in the year], and the right eye in mankind. ( 3 ) He made Dalet rule, and bound to it a crown, and formed with it Mars in the universe, the second day of the week in the year, and the left eye in mankind. (4) He made Kaf rule, and bound to it a crown, and formed with it the Sun in the universe, the third day of the week in the year, and the right nostril in mankind. (5) He made Pe rule, and bound to it a crown, and formed with it Venus in the universe, the fourth day of the week in the year, and the left nostril in mankind. (6) He made the head [Resh] rule, and bound to it a crown, and formed with it Mer­ cury in the universe, the fifth day of the week in the year, and the right ear in mankind. (7) He made Taw rule, and bound to it a crown, and formed with it the Moon in the universe, the sixth day of the week in the year, and the left ear in mankind.

Z

oi> m p i x i ma iV iwpi ma nx mVan 1 nsi mwa nawi oVwa maw in ixi m .wa:a ina iV i n ina V iwpi n nx mVan 2 ? pa' pin mwa nawa inxi .aViva .waia
a n x a ia ixi ina iV iwpi 'i nx - p a n 3

Vxaw pin mwa nawa w i aViva .waia nan ia ixi ina iV iwpi 'a nx mVan 4 pa' |TXI mwa nawa 'W'Vwi aViva .waia

DI? m ]aixi ina iV iwpi ma nx mVan nai mwa nawi DVi>a mac ia ixi m .waia m p i x i ina iV iwpi Van nx mVan nawa nnxi DVi?a pix ia ixi m ai? .waia p y pvi mwa ni pixi ina iV iwpi Vi nx rVan nawa 'run DVi?a D'ixa ia ixi m oi» .waaa Vxaw pin mwa DI? m p i x i ina iV iwpi n,a nx rVan mwa nawa >wVwi O V I D nan ia ixi m .waia ]'»' «]xi

1 2 3 4

does not seem to know §44. 43c. The phrase "binding a crown" constructs a link with the famous story in b.43a.X1 71W2 N 3 W 3 B'B GH = A 2 DI> m janxi nn3 r? nwpi no nx T>7an nwi n3W3 ' y a m D ^ y j mi) 1 3 nxi m . Men 29b of Rabbi Akiba's ascent to heaven. 43a. then. Most Mss of the Long Recension follow the order 39. §§43b. The rest of the chapter (i. because he then moves on to §45 (Vajda 1954: 54-55. while §40 is placed in its chapter 3:4. The Saadyan Recension has 39 followed by 41 in its chapter 5. all of which are missing in the Short Recension and all of which are preserved in a single block in the Saadyan Recension (chapter eight).^033 VlXaU> |TX1 TiWl 113^3 D7iy3 331313 nxi w n nx yVan . Vajda-Fenton 2002: 124-126).waja Vxaw i x i as? m janxi nna 17 nwpi wn nx "pVan n a w 3 'warn aVya nan saia ia nxi m . We have already seen the struggle that Joseph Dan has 99 Dunash follows this sequence though he only seems to know 39. 43.40.e. 42. as we will see when we review the whole of §§ 39-44. though B has 39.ws:3 p a ' n. Judah ben Barzillai follows the order of Mss KS and he. 44.xi muo n3u>3 ' w a r n 'ww aViya n33713 nxi vn nx "pVan . or 43b. The Short Recension Mss attest two separate sequences: (1) KS have 39.wai3 f a jnxi mwa 1 ay m janxi nna V? nwpi v n nx -pVan miP3 naw3 w i aVys n » 7 13 nxi m .tt>D)3 Vxaw JT1X1 E collated to Z: m ay m janxi 2-7] om E. 42. They enhance the rhythmic. Donnolo has a considerably expanded and paraphrased form of this paragraph (Castelli 1880: 56-57). None of these omissions can be explained by parablepsis. It does not have 42. We have. and 54. 42.v on the text of §41 We have already noted in connection with the similarly structured §§32-34 that §41 is not present in the Short Recension. Neither is § 52 which again has the same struc­ ture.138 Edition and Commentary t d i i oVijd nxn ia nxi 'a nx -pVan . 43a.WD23 7XatI> n. 42. 99 98 . See also the notes on § 36. 41. too.42. poetic feel of SY and they also bind it closer into the world of rabbinic Judaism while adding nothing to its overall teaching. a major rupture in the textual tradi­ tion of SY at this point and this cannot be unrelated to problems over the content of the material. A'o/e. Both the sequences 32-34 + 41 + 52 and 36 + 44 + 54 take material which has already been discussed and re­ cast it into a rigid literary framework with some slight expansions of the content. 40.43a. 41. 42. 2 98 The problem of §41 needs to be discussed in relation to the parallel problem of §§ 36. 40. At this point too the paragraph order in the Mss diverges. 40. and 44) is then missing in the Short Recension. 40. (2) the other Short Recension Mss have 39. Dunash ben Tamim does not cite § 41 and neither does Judah ben Barzillai.

may.D'tf'p mow .one which is more open to later mystical/kabbalistic exploitation. it is easier to see all this material as part of the process of expansion which led to the emergence of the Long Recension. having once presented the full formula.ID "1X1 HT DS7 m 1J13 iV T ^ p l .5-7.ippm jnm 33vi A p'oV D'BSO nsowi . The variants in the other Long Recension Mss recorded in Gruenwald's apparatus are either minor ones of syntax (e. then why not §§41 and §§52? But if that was the case.. no mechanical explanation is available for their absence nor is it easy to see why they might have been objectionable to scribes who left §§ 32-34 in the text. Are C and D abbreviating or A and Z expanding. Note the omissions of HT DS? HT JD1X1 in Ms E.6.superficial links to contemporary Jewish culture designed to make SY appear less strange or heterodox than it actually is? Such allusions. On balance. why are the latter missing in the Short Recension.1. Could the "binding of the crowns" be on the same level as other. Clearly some scribes. The presence of the full formula in §41. constitute natural "growth points" for any later attempts to bind SY more firmly into mainstream Jewish tradition.Sefer Yesira §42 139 to reconcile this sequence of SY material with its concept elsewhere of the creative process. Mss A and Z consistently attest the full formula but Mss C and D do so only in §41. Ms D has a similarly abbreviated text in §52. often weakly attested allusions to biblical and rabbinic tradition . . J1X TVon. What Dan depicts as SY's second way of describing the letters and their relation to the creator . What is more difficult to decide (and probably impossible to determine without new manuscript evidence) is whether or not these tantalizing links to more normative tradition already present (like § 32-34) in the Short Recension do go back to the original author or belong entirely to the process of textual transmission. If § 32-34 belonged to the earliest text of SY. Ms C's errors this time are: (1) the omission of 7\W2 in 41.some­ times drastically as in D 41. be the view of the editor responsible for the additions of the Long Recension. in fact.. Dunash and Judah? Like the parallel sequence of 36 + 44 + 54.1 in all Mss suggests that the former alternative is the most probable. felt no need to restate it every time and abbreviated the rest .ms"i> sowi .D'awn nnn p n W? 100 Dan 1993: 26-27. when more firmly rooted in the tex­ tual tradition. 7 Sefer Yesira § 42 K .msnx soun . 100 The only textual problem of any consequence within §41 concerns the length of the framework formula . HTD HI for m DS i"IT) or clear errors.g.D'awn nnn ' y a w m n x ynun c y p n nyaw ippm jnm 'yaw s e n p o V D ' a nyawi niyw satin 1 .2 and (2) in­ stead of WH in 41.

and the mouth. Saturn. Therefore he loved the seventh above everything under heaven. seven hours and seven days. D ' T m m .a'awn mxnx] manx M N . L M N S F P I Q R collated to K: myw] mnaw L P Q . Venus. And the seven apertures in mankind: two eyes. mnaw] nyawi D'O' pan VaV] om M N F I Q .maV .omx mwi . Saturn. Mars.nm . o ' S ' F. Mercury. ixn 'ap nwi M N Q .nan aaia nyawi .140 Edition and Commentary And with them were carved out seven firma­ ments. And the seven days: the seven days of creation.n'wxna 'a' 1 . D"mm] o'ax B . and the mouth. 1 2 . Moon. Moon. Mss LMNFP1QR have another distinctive form of this paragraph at the end of §39. D'OVD] nVOT» F. n n a i D F. Therefore he loved the seventh under heaven. Mercury. two ears. o'aoin B . a'awn] prVa M N I Q . two nostrils. mnaw R. two nostrils. LMNSFPIQR collated to K: These are the seven planets in the universe: Sun.nai o^mm These are the seven planets in the universe: Sun. And the seven apertures in man­ kind: two eyes.|?TX .nan :oViya a'aaia nyaw |n . Jupiter. two ears. D ' r r a m ] n. And the days in the year: the seven days of creation. seven earths.mwxna 'D' nyaw D'a nyawi mwi amx mwi Dnn? mw waia D n y w .D'ry . ••yaw] add p an Va1? M N S F P Q . D'DVD yawi] myw] n n y w D. Jupiter. Sefer Yesira <? 43a K A nan aaia nju nan aViya o'aaia ]n iV'xi nyaw mwa D'an D'nxa p i x 'naw ma ? mw :WD)a anyw nyawi . B ' B G D H collated to A: 2 And with them were carved out seven firma­ ments.D'nxD .nam . Mars. B ' B G H collated to A: 2 oViya] om F.maw 1 IV'XI . seven hours and seven times. oViya] om H. o'sx nw S F I . This form of the text is collated below to the text of Ms P: P yawi mxnx yawi a'ypn nyaw ppn ]noi nnn pan VaV 'yaw aan p'aV mnaw . om L M N Q .xn 'mm nwi LP. Venus. seven earths.

pya .nVnxi naan. 'arqa.the universe by itself.mx'ai p i pa' Vxaw pixi naw anyi maV vn oy nsi: mnayi nVwaai .nnaV WD: . mankind by itself. [Vxaw [ixi nawa 'W]Vw nan iV'x ia ay nsi: myi nwiy pa [ i s i ] nawa n>an mi: IV'S na ay nsi: . tebel.the universe by itself.nans] xn pns Van n"s m'w: Van npns G. pns.nnaV mw . 'eretz.pns . Raqia.inaV nns nns p'aym D'nyn ns nnn . 1 Sefer Yesira A §43c C .Sefer Yesira §44 141 Sefer Yesira A §43b . the year by itself. heled. mankind by itself. nns 3°] om ZE.nnaa ma m 1 . Shehaqim.nnai D"m nai naw maw n'a ay nsi: pyi [69a] nawa nnxi pns Van oy nsi: ym DIVWI pa 1 O T n i nai naw maw iV'x ma oy nsn Vxaw pyi nawa mwi D'nxa Vn Dy nsi:.n"x .mai py]i nawa nnxi pns iVx Van oy [nsi: . Ma'on.npnx nanx :msnx yawi .naawi y n n pixi nawa 'warn nan aaia wn oy nsi: .rn^w: . And the seven earths: 'adama.myi nwiyi Vxaw ixi nawa 'yam nn: na ay nsi: .nVn . neshiyya. Sefer Yesira A §44 nnaa ma mViaa yaw . Makon. ZE collated to C. siyya.Viat . B'GH collated to A: pns nVn n"s] nwa> nVn pns B . 2 2 nns nns nns p^aym anyn ns nnn .pan .inaV aViy He split up the witnesses and made each one stand by itself .pVn rD'ypn nyawi .mnayi nVwaa 1 1 1 .ypn .. The sentence is repeated after § 52 in all three Mss (= § 53).Van And the seven firmaments: Wilon. Zebul.nVvxi naam pa ixi nawa 'wVwi nan ia Dy nsi: . In Mss B GD this sentence is repeated after § 52 (= § 53). B'B GDH = A.nym [DiVw pa pyi naw]a nwi onxa iV'x nVn Dy nsn .naawi ym Vsaw nawa ['wan nan aaia] iVs wn ay nsi: mx'oi ]n pa ]nsi Vsaw []TXI na]w any maV Dy nsi: .o'pnw .. Arabot. .nnaV wa: nnaV naw inaV DVy inaV He split up the witnesses and made each one stand by itself .many . the year by itself.

the fifth day of the week. for example. the right ear. corresponding to the three groupings of the twenty-two letters of the alphabet. Taw. There was formed with Kaf these: the Sun. Note. Pe. the second day of the week. There was formed with Taw: the Moon. the preparation of the sabbath. B'B GDH collated to A: -nx'ai] Tisroi B ' B G D H . The list of the seven heavens is drawn directly from and follows exactly the text 2 2 . peace and evil. There was formed with Pe: Venus. wealth and poverty. the second day of the week. There was formed with [Taw these]: the Moon. life and death. mastery and slavery. Resh. prosperity and desolation. naa ?] pr r>'x i n ZE. wisdom and folly. peace and evil. m a a T Q m ] om D. the left nostril. Resh. the right nostril. Dalet. the right eye. the first day of the week. the fourth day of the week. the left eye. life and death. at least for the seven double and the twelve simple letters. §§41-44 develop § 39 with two inconsistent streams of material. However. the left nostril. the sabbath. There was formed with Bet: Saturn. There was formed with Kaf: the Sun. There was formed with Resh these: Mercury. There was formed with Gimel: Jupiter. Kaf. wealth and poverty. prosperity and desolation. §§41 and 44 similarly build on this pattern using the literary frameworks we have seen in §§32-34 and 36. nau> anm] ww D. that there is a harmony between the three spheres of reality . namely. the right nostril. the preparation of the sabbath. the right ear. beauty and ugliness. the left ear. 58-59). Gimel. Kaf. nau> any] n a w a ww z. the right eye. and D'HS'lP of § 39. the left ear.142 Edition and Commentary There was formed with Bel these: Saturn. the left eye. and mankind. n a w a wvr\ G. the fourth day of the week. There was formed with Pe: Venus. the third day of the week. Gimel. 1 General Note on §§39-44 It is necessary at this point to look at the overall structure and textual situation of these paragraphs before considering in more detail the text of §§42-44. There was formed with Dalet these: Mars. beauty and ugliness. Taw. the mouth. n n a s n ] add m m a a m a E. the paragraph or­ der in Ms B with § 43a following on directly from § 39 and no punctuation or space to mark a break between the two. §43a is based on this threefold structure and simply spells out the D ' a a i a .the universe. This is Bet. Indeed. The source of its inspiration becomes clear when we look at its expansion in § 43b. 2 2 ZE collated to C: Yix'ai] . Seven double letters: Bet. Pe. This part of §43 is present only in the Long Recension and then not in Mss B or D. the Long Re­ cension form of § 42 and the duplicate form cited in the Short Recension after § 43a ignore this structure entirely and take us off in a completely separate direction. There was formed with Dalet: Mars. the third day of the week. the sabbath. time. the letters have a role in the creation of their corresponding levels of reality. There was formed with Resh: Mercury. the first day of the week. mas­ tery and slavery. There was formed with Gimel these: Jupiter. the mouth. § 39 has the threefold struc­ ture which characterises SY elsewhere (§§48-49. §43c explicitly spells out this underlying principle. wisdom and folly.n r a i E. D'D'. Dalet. the fifth day of the week.

Sefer Yesira §44

143

of b Hag 12b while the list of the seven lands is closest to the Palestinian tradition in texts like A R N 37. See the comparative table in Sed 1981: 275.'°' §44 combines §43a with the seven opposites from §37 all in the literary structure which first ap­ pears in §36 and reappears in §54. It ignores §§42 and 43b. So one line goes out from § 39 to §§42 and 43b, and another to §§41, 43a, 43c, and 44. None of this material in §§41-44 is attested in all three recensions. In the notes to §41 we have already seen that both it and § 4 4 are unlikely to have been present in the earliest recoverable text of SY. §§42 and 43 are not present in the Saadyan Recension while §43b is weakly attested as we have already seen. Ms D does not have §43a or 43b. §§43c and 44 are not present in the Short Recension while Dunash seems to know §42 only in the form which is compatible with §39 and shows no sign of §§41, 43 and 4 4 . How do we account for all this? We need to look more closely at the content of these paragraphs. Despite the fact that he was working with a defective printed text of SY (Warsaw ed. 1884), Solomon Ganz has correctly observed that the author of SY in §§41 and 44 has "connected the seven planets in the natural order [of their supposed distance from the earth] V'3Jn D'SIP with the first seven days instead of the first hours of creation." Consequently, §§42 and 43a with their reference to the "seven hours" and the order D'SW V'33n must be "the gloss of an editor who wished to recon­ cile the theory of the Book of Creation with the accepted theory of the planetary week". " So the later editor "mentions the seven hours and changes the sequence V'DJn Q"S1V into the sequence O'XW V'3Jn to correspond with the first seven hours of the first day of the week" (ibid.). It is interesting that Shabbetai Donnolo was acutely conscious of this discrepancy and expressed the necessity of correcting the aberrant contents of SY at this point. The absence of §§42 and 43 in the Saadyan Recension would appear to give strong support to this conclusion. But the Short Recension, as we have seen, does not have §§41 and 44 which list the (apparently aberrant) collocation of the planets and the days of the week, and the arranger of the Saadyan Recension could have left out §§42 and 43 because he sensed this disharmony with §§41 and 44.
A 102 103 l(M 1 5 106

The first printed edition of SY (Mantua 1562) represents what may be another editorial solution to the disharmony between these paragraphs: in §43a it lists the
See also Halperin 1988: 276, n. 28. Vajda 1954: 54 and Vajda-Fenton 2002: 124. Judah ben Barzillai has 39, 40,43a, 42 in that order. He has the Ms K form of §42 (Halberstam 1885: 237, 245).
102 101

107

101
m

i.e. ruaV n»rra3i3 nm nan a n s a pis 'naw.
i.e. B ' t x a pis 'naw maV nan'saia mv nan.
le

los " T | Origin of the Planetary Week or The Planetary Week in Hebrew Literature", Proceed­ ings of the American Academy of Jewish Research, 18 (1948/49), p. 238. So also Epstein 1894: 68, n. 6 - SY §42 "paraissent avoir ete interpole plus tard." See Castelli 1880: 59-61, English translation in Ganz 1948/9: 239-240, and also Sharf 1976: 27-28. n in Gruenwald's apparatus.
m 107 2

144

Edition and Commentary

planets in the order "?'DJn O'XtP, i.e. exactly as §§41 and 44. The editorial change is simple: just swap round D'XU> and V'DJn. It is interesting that when Judah Ha-Levi cites SY § 43a he gives the planets in the order V'DJH. D'Xtt* even though he alters the corresponding days to fit in with the usual astrological pattern. Could 0'2HP V'Din be the original reading of § 43a? A possible suggestion of the way in which the textual tradition of SY §§41-44 developed is as follows: (1) At their base lies the Saadyan recension form of § 39. (2) Two parallel expansions of § 39 then emerged: firstly, the form of § 42 attested in most Short Recension Mss after § 39 and in Dunash, and secondly, §43a with the planets in the order V'DJn D ' W . (3) A later editor expanded the original §43a and put together the planets, the specific days of the week, and the seven human apertures - all connected to the seven double letters. This produced §41, later expanded in §44 (which, as we have seen, simply puts §41 and §37 together). (4) A still later scribe saw, like Shabbetai Donnolo, that SY's arrangement of the planets and the days of the week did not conform to the correct astrological order­ ing of the planetary hours. Hence he reshaped §42 into the form seen in the Long Recension and the duplicate Short Recension version (the Ms K form placed after §43a with its reference to the planetary hours), and he reversed the order of D'XtP V'DJn in §43a so that it corresponded with the order of the planetary hours count­ ing from the morning of the first day (Sunday), i.e. D'XIP V'33n. He thus created a fundamental disharmony in the text of SY. (5) The arranger of the Saadyan Recension left out §§42 and 43a-b either be­ cause they were not in the text with which he was working or because he perceived their inconsistency with §§41 and 44. (6) §43b was added at a very late stage as its weak attestation in only some Mss of the Long Recension shows. It looks, then, as though we can allocate only § 39 to the earliest recoverable text of SY - to the stage well before later editors attempted to make SY conform to their contemporary astrological lore. However, although §43c is not present in the Short Recension it contains nothing which is inconsistent with material we have isolated as belonging to the earliest stage of the SY tradition, nor does it contain
108 109

"In the year: Sabbath, Thursday, Tuesday, Sunday, Friday, Wednesday, Monday" (Kuzari 4:25) - Cassel 1869: 345. To have ironed out the discrepancies would have involved a major reconstruction of these paragraphs. Compare what Emmanuel Tov says about the biblical text: "As a rule, differences in major details have not been changed. After all, there are too many major differences between the laws and stories in the Pentateuch, so that any attempt to harmonize between them would result in a major rewriting of the Bible". And further on: "in biblical Mss harmonizing additions are more frequent than harmonistic changes. This situation is easily understandable, as the degree of intervention in the text is more limited for additions than for changes" (1985: 9, II).
m

108

Sefer Yesira §44

145

anything which is characteristic of the Long Recension additions. In fact, it states rather clearly one of the fundamental structuring principles of SY. Nevertheless, its absence in the Short Recension prevents us assigning it with any confidence to stage (1) above. I place it in square brackets in my reconstructed SY text to indicate both my feeling that it may be quite early but also its weaker textual attestation.

Notes on the text of §42 The earliest form of §42 will, then, be the form as cited in Mss L...R after §39. The duplicate form cited after §43a in most Short Recension Mss and the sole form cited in the Long Recension reflects the impact on the text of SY of the editorial changes discussed above. In this form the original m n a w J73W has been altered to jyiirw SOW except in Mss LPQ. Ms D's mm?W for mi>W is probably an error while Ms R's mri3W for D aJ?D is probably a relic of the earlier reading. The addition of D'DyD nV3W in most Short Recension Mss (but not LMNQ) and WtT in the Long Recension may have been intended to reinforce the astrological connection of the hours and the days of the week. The scribe of Ms F has clearly decided to try and harmonize his two versions of §42. The phrase f a n VaV seems necessary to the sense of the last sentence of the paragraph but it is not well attested in the Short Re­ cension Mss and may have been a strengthening addition like the Va before D DW in Mss MNIQ. Neither is present in Dunash's citation of the paragraph.
, ,

Notes on the text of § 43a The only textual disturbance here is over the precise specification of the two nos­ trils. The variants are harmonizing with §41.5, 44, and 62. DOin as in Ms B ap­ pears in §63 in some Mss.
2

Notes on the text of§ 43b The variants concern only the list of the seven names for the earth and involve mainly changes of word order. With the list in Ms G compare PRK, Rosh Ha-Shanah 10 (Mandelbaum 1987: 343-344).

Notes on the text of § 43c The third T n s in Ms C is clearly a duplication.

146 Notes on the text of §44

Edition and Commentary

mVlDS S72U> (Long Recension). See the note on the introductory formula tt>DX m a ' X U VU in § 36. The introductory formula here in § 44 is introduced for >?> precisely the same reason. It is not required in the Saadyan version where §§ 36,44, and 54 are all in one continuous block of material - probably the original arrange­ ment. The conclusion m D D "U3 M is likewise not present in the Saadyan version T for the same reason, since it goes on immediately to apply the set structure to the twelve simple letters. It is missing in Ms D but added in Ms E. For the variant spell­ ing of TWO see the text and apparatus of §37. iV'X in was obviously omitted in error by the scribe of Ms C. We noted in §41 the tendency of Ms D to shorten the text. It does so again in §44, omitting 1X13 after its first two occurrences.
m S D 113

Sefer Yesira §45 K niuiwo rrwv VTW .mxi t p i c pxs>or7"jnnn ,noV? ,nrro ,nnn .nyau; A mt?iu»s m p j D'nu» mole's rrwv a>nw n"Nn p i c pxyop'omin p i c [px]3?[D37' omin] mnun nnnn n y a c nnn nyaw mxi D"n nwva tyaumi nu'ini nr\ [m^m nu>]j>a n[0']y7 -nn-pn pinun t i n m^m .mw mxa mnmn pimp
,

.mV'n ,7wyn .vravn [38a]
,T\TW ,nmn ,pinc ,t3n
Twelve simple letters: He, Waw, Zayin, Het, Tet, Yod, Lamed, Nun, Samek, Ayin, Sade, Qof. Their basis is sight, hearing, smelling, talking, eating, sexual inter­ course, action, walking, an­ ger, laughter, thought, sleep.

.m'un Twelve simple letters: He, Waw, Zayin, Het, Tet, Yod, Lamed, Nun, Samek, Ayin, Sade, Qof. Their basis is sight, hearing, smelling, time, eating, sexual inter­ course, action, walking, anger, laughter, thought and sleep.
D

Twelve simple letters: He, Waw, Zayin, Het, Tet, Yod, Lamed, Nun, Samek, Ayin, Sade, Qof. Their basis is life, sight, hearing, smelling, talk­ ing, eating, action, walking, anger, laughter, ugliness and sleep.

p i c mDHPD rrwv wrw nmu? nnn nyaw n"xi mVn nuwn wmin ntrvV .n3'Ci main pim? nr\

mxn p i o pxyo]V>onnn ncy? nmw nnn nyaw T3in mV'm nwso tyawn .m'tn iimn pine
E collated to Z:

1

L M N S F P I Q R collated to K:
D ' n c ] pr jma MNFIQ.

n i c ] om Q. nnn] nn Q. ran] noan tyatrn F. T\rv] add 1 1 3 1 1 F .

B'B GH collated to A: p i c ] pno B . nnnn] n n n B . mnizn] nmu> B'B GH.
2 2 2

2

nnn] nnna E.

and UPTDtPJI and nrPW are omitted. 0 2 1 . just as in the same paragraph he has selected § 23 from the beginning of chapter 3 and § 37a from the beginning of chapter four. a scribe could have been influenced by the beginning of Isa 11:3. He is not happy with the text of §45 as he received it because it mentions only three of the five senses. The testimony of most other Mss suggests that the He at the beginning of this word is a dittography of the one at the end of r W O W . [provenant] des commentaires en hebreu. D n and 11X3 come in from § 37. 1 1 The looser translation in Ms Oxford 2250 (Grosberg 65) reflects essentially the same Arabic text. nrw is an error for n r t P I . B 's reading ]TI0 is found in B in § 37 ( p i O l for ]T10'). Some slight variants in the order of the bodily functions have not been thought worth recording in the apparatus. He proceeds to tell us what it should have said but then follows with a highly significant general comment on the state of the text of SY: "Mais nous avons deja dit qu'il pouvait y avoir dans ce livre des passages alteres que le patriarche Abraham [n'a jamais enonces]..nan 'aa ina'>Vi pnan m pn ? nxnn . Ms C has the usual selection of errors. The minor variations in the textual tradition of this paragraph are mostly easily detected errors. Could n m 3 in Ms E be an attempt to correct this error? mnwi in Ms A must be an error. On the omission of 7110'' in Ms Q see the notes to §2.'" The Hebrew text of SY §45 cited within the Arabic text of the Genizah frag­ ment (Vajda 1954: 55) seems to have been emended to conform to at least part . Nous avons l'intention de corriger ce chapitre et de le reconstituer selon nos forces" (Vajda-Fenton 2002: 129). . The Arabic text of this passage seems to have suffered some damage. auxquels des gens ignorants ont ajoute posterieurement un autre com­ mentaire et la verite se perdait entretemps. since otherwise the word HITHn is unknown. Moses ben Joseph's careful translation is as follows: 111 110 •o n"y irax annax anas xVw na D'aVinn anan noon ma nvnV p n 'a m a s laaw nx . The error must be an early one in the Long Recension since it has spread to B'GH. 3." A word n m n is known from Rashi on­ wards.Sefer Yesira §45 147 Notes on the text of §45 §45 lias a fixed position in the Long and Short Recensions . hence the restorations in Vajda's translation. Mss Z and E do not contain these errors of C and stick closer to the common text found in the other recensions. In the Saadyan Recension it is found in the first run through the 10. All other Mss read iirPtt? (conversation). Alternatively. See Kimhi's commentary ad toe. n n 1 ] n i T H n A B ' G H . 7 and 12 in chapter 1:3.avna naxn nnym nns unr-on w i 9 i annx O ' E N N p nnx ixai n a y pwVa noon ©ma . Clearly the arranger of the Saadyan Recension found it at the beginning of chapter five in his base text and naturally se­ lected it as his first example of a paragraph on the "twelve simple letters".at the beginning of chapter five according to most Mss. Dunash ben Tamin has an interesting comment at this point.

rrwv add mow W^W xVi B ' G . Waw. nnx] om G . Sade. There is no comparable saying for the "three mothers" which leaves only § 4 attesting this construction in all three recensions. Yod. y o . 2 2 Notes on the text of §46 We have already had occasion to comment on the textual status of § 4 6 in connec­ tion with § 38. Zayin. as we shall see. Tet. Het.rrwv •'vwv xVi rrwv wrw p x . Twelve and not eleven. Sade." 2 Sefer Yesira § 46 A Dvitt> pxi>D]7 onTin m o i t P D rrwv DVHP . Tet. that this final chapter of SY in most Mss has suffered more insertions of later material than the preceding chapters. D rrwv D W rrwv nnx xVi rrwv rrwy wbw x"?i ZE collated to C: 3°] niDIWS 1°] om ZE. just like § 38 in the Long and Saadyan Recensions. 112 . Moses ben Joseph's translation has retained the common text attested in nearly all our Mss (Vajda-Fenton 2002: 241). Nun. Lamed. Zayin. It is not present in the Short Recension like the whole of § 46 here.rrwv n n x x"?i rrwv . Qof. Samek.148 Edition and Commentary . of Dunash's comment on this paragraph: noJ7V has been replaced by HD3n . pX. All the Long Recension Mss have suffered to a greater or Weinstock 1972: 11 takes this passage from Dunash as his starting point for unravelling the history of the text of SY. Ayin. The comparison with §§4 and 38 would suggest that only Ms D has preserved intact the original text of the Long Re­ cension in this paragraph. ] 7 . B ' B G H collated to A: &rw i°] pr W H O B . Ms D appends it directly to §45 without the introductory rubric. perhaps reflecting its origin as an expansion out of that paragraph. twelve and not thirteen.a change reflected in the Oxford 2250 translation. Nun. Waw. Twelve simple letters: He. Het. There we saw that the part of the Long and Saadyan Recensions which reads n n » W xVi J73W W xVi S?3W is unlikely to belong to the earliest recoverable text of SY.rrwv wbw xVi rrwv uvw Twelve simple letters: He. We can only assume that §46 was built up on the model of § 4.]7 ' 0 m in] om Z.J?0. Yod. Lamed. It is certainly the case. Twelve and not eleven. Qof. C 'D m in m n w s m o n P D rrwv &rw . Ayin. Samek.

nmnn nmas Via? Viaa . separating in each di­ rection: .manya nmas Via? manya Viaa .nmrna n'anya mainp] Vina . the upper western line. separating in each direction: . the east western line. the upper eastern line. the lower northern line. the north western line. 7 and 12. the south-eastern line.man nmas manya Via? . the upper western line.DViy myim A §47 c paVx 'Viaa nwy ww o m a nwipV pVsiaa .nmas nmma Via? poaVx Viaa .nmnn .manya Via? .DViy m y m ]n p i ny n y Their measure is twelve di­ agonal lines: the north east­ ern line. the south western line. In the Saadyan Recension § 4 6 is combined with §47 to make chapter 2:4.man manya nas Via? . the north eastern line. Judah ben Barzillai cites it in a form which reflects the problems in the Long Recension Mss (Halberstam 1885: 253).nrnas manya Viaa Via? .nmnn nmas Viaa . the upper western Naturally.ri'sm Via? . radi­ ating out to the six faces (of a cube). the south western line.Sefer Yesira §47 149 lesser extent from omissions by parablepsis.the south-eastern line. the lower eastern line. . the lower west­ ern line.nrnnn m[ T-S 32/5 begins] . they are preceded by § 24a and 37b/38. radi­ ating out to the six faces (of a cube).nmnn Twelve diagonal lines. the lower southern line.man nmma .main manya Viaa . the lower northern line. Dunash does not cite § 4 6 but passes directly from § 45 to § 47. The omissions in Mss Z and E may be remnants of an earlier shorter text closer to that of D. the north-western line.main nmas Viaa .many nmma Via? .man m a m p p i ny n y i y paVim .nrnnn m a m Via? pamnai . the 115 Twelve diagonal lines.nnV nn p ppoaia ." 3 Sefer Yesira K niaa -ws wvo jmo . m a m n ™ Viaa nmnta Via? . the upper northern line. m a m manya n'anya Via? . the up­ per northern line. the lower eastern line. 3.the south-east­ ern line. the lower western line. the north-western line. To­ gether they provide the "twelve simple letters" material for this second run through the 10.main rvrma . the upper eastern line.nmnn Viaa . the poiVax 'Via? nu>y o'iu> Dmo n > > pVsaia uuV nnV n n pa ppoaia Viaa m a m mnma Viaa nmma Viaa man mnma nmnn nmas Viaa nmnn Via? manya nmas Via? manya Viaa man nmas manya Via? nmnn man n'anya Via? man Viaa nmnn manya Viaa m a m Viaa nmnn m a m ny paVim pamnai man .nrnas nmma Viaa mnma Viaa .nmnn Viaa . the north-west­ ern line. material placed in comparable second positions in chapters three and four of the earlier text. the upper west­ ern line. the lower eastern line. m a m mnma Via? Via? . the upper eastern line.main man . Donnolo has a text of this paragraph identical with the Saadyan version (Castelli 1880: 72-73).manya mann Viaa . This confirms our paragraph's original position after §45 in the text before the Saadyan reviser.

the lower southern line.e. 163f). Hag. nnV. And they expand continually for ever and ever and they are the arms of the universe (cf. poaVx] amoaVx L F P I R . Since the order and num­ ber of the boundaries/lines differs in all the Mss I have left these variations out of the critical apparatus. msn-n] ms»ai B ' R Notes on the text of §47 All the copyists understandably had trouble with this list of boundaries/lines. 78-80). Edition and Commenlary line.g. poaiVx Q.. pp. Apart from these two expansions of the earlier text. the upper upper [south­ ern] line. then two expansions become visible: (1) mT? m i pa ppoaiO D'TtO nwb pVXDia in the Long and Saadyan Recen­ sions.150 upper southern line. Ms E nine. poaVx B . the low­ er northern line. j'poaiB] ppoao z.. " The two verbs in this expansion were probably drawn from Resh Laqish's words in b. . the west eastern line. B'B GH collated to part of of Ms K. DmoaVxa N . the lower western line. 2 upper northern line.'|m» Ms A. p x i a o ] pVxao Z E ..B 3tt>: . nVl7. the south western line. cf Liebes 2000:173. This provides a link with the bibli­ cal text (Deut 33:27) and with many other Jewish cosmological speculations of the first millennium C E . paVim pa^ma/l in the Short and Long Recen­ T sions. i. 114 See Hayman 1986 and 1987 (especially. a w i ] nyau'7 H . In the Saadyan Recension. D7iy. 12a ("|Vim Tma TVTX D n). Judah ben Barzillai offers a number of variant readings for this expansion. niai] B'Viaj B'GH. Ms A manages to get twelve but only by duplicating JVDn n ' a i y a Vl31.. Deut. Clearly the context requires that there should be twelve of these. i.33:27). Deul. poiVax] poaVx B . amoaVx GD. only some of which appear in our manuscripts (Halberstam 1885: 253). as we have seen. . This expansion harmonizes §47 with § 38 in its Long and Saadyan Recension form. e. | a m » 1 : ••7133] D'Vm MN. 2 2 1 joaVx] poaVx E.33:27). Copyists rarely achieved this..e.B'W and L M N S F P I Q R collated to part Z E collated to part of C . And they expand continually for ever and ever and they are the arms of the universe (cf. poaVxa M. They are listed in Gruenwald's edition (p. .. (2) oViy numT |n jm "O ">1V is. poa7X. .. the lower southern line.. the upper southern line. . ww] pr j m a B . Ms Z eleven. and D 7 W .. i. §38 directly precedes §§46/47. It is not present in the Saadyan Recension.. poVaix H.ya mai: . It is not present in the Short Recension.e. Ms C has sixteen. the differences between the Mss boil down to problems over the syntax of the phrase pOD^X " V J and the "i a 4 . If we take as our base text what the three recensions have in common.

Nun. he arranged them in battle array. Lamed. He carved them. Waw. he combined them. Sade.px yo p |ma'n p x n moiwa mwy D'nw . Samek. he weighed them and exchanged them. one opposite the other God made them (Qoh 7:14). Qof. one opposite the other (Qoh 7:14). Het. 70a] D'Vn m nanVa p a p i y n a n a m naiy ? 1 mwy D'nw mwy D'nw ' o m in moiwa moiwa jVpw p i x p p n . the months. Qof. he arranged them in battle array.ovnxn ]xwy m naiy ? 1 1 He made them a sort of law­ suit. Waw. Ayin. n ' O n in Ms C is an error. he combined them. and formed with them the constellations. namely j'DllJ W'l I'DlVaiX. Mss Z and E have the correct n'DVll. It is not a case. They are the in­ ternal organs. the Resh having been omitted. two babbling ones.px ya p 'o m in moiwa p ' a ' m ppw p x n p p n D'wim mVia p a ixi p i x nwi D't'Vy nw p r m a i nwi D'tyn nwi D'lyi ? 'nw ]napip p i o'X'Vy p a jxwy o ' n n 'nwi D " T m nanVa p a p i y i n a n a .D'nVxn nwy 1 moiwa mwy D'nw p i x p p n pxyojV'omin p a nxi j v a m jVpw p x n P ' m a i D'wim mVia pyr> nwi p i n y nw p i p x n y nwi p y u nwi 'nwi D ' T 'nwi p a p m p p a jxwy [fol. Ils Twelve simple letters: He. the months. Yod." Scribal confusion over the spelling of Greek loan words in Hebrew is normal. They are the internal organs and the two hands and feet. Translation of the second (ch. Zayin. Tet. Nun. and formed with them the constellations. he hewed them. and exchanged them.Sefer Yesira §48a 5 151 spelling of poaVx. the two hands and feet. Sefer Yesira K §48a paa p i y i n a n a r a n jxwy m nay ? m nx D I nan"?a . Het. he weighed them. He made them a sort of lawsuit. two babbling ones. he arranged them in battle array. He made them a sort of lawsuit. Lamed. Ayin. Sade. Zayin. Yod. two deliberating ones and two re­ joicing ones. as Allony's transcription (1981: 19) would suggest (IVDVlp]) of the initial letter of the word being obscure. Samek. Tet. one opposite the other (Qoh 7:14)."" Ms F introduces a variant spelling immediately after D'llDaVx. two deliberating ones and two rejoicing ones. and the prin­ cipal (bodily) organs: two exultant ones. He carved them. 6:1) version only. and the principal (bodily) organs: two exultant ones. 116 . he hewed them. Twelve simple letters: He.

mna 'nun E .m naiyV m .D'Vn nu> D'T nu> napi 'nun a n ' 'nun ynpip pny nana paa jxu>y nana p a pu>y . c a n x nu?Vu? nanVaa nu?Vu? nanVaapnaiy D"na nunu> .ma G.onm m nay ? m nanVa paa naiyV nn nanVa p a pnyi (6.D'n'aa nu?Vun Vxi a'n'aa nu>Vun D"na ]"na nu?Vu?i O'naa nunun .nvVa 'nun a n n 'nun d ' t mu> .ptyiV nun prVy nu? :jn'ma nu>y onun mu>a cunn nu?y Vino nna . G collated to A : E collated to Z : janx] om G. . 1 B 2 nu?y onu? p a nxi p'am ppun ]anx ppn px yo p 'on nn nioiu?a nnu>y cnu? Dnu> i onn 'Vn na ne>p anpy D m x a nVma nnx pno caixn mu> nVo oViya mVia .B'xny nxi jra'm ]Vpu> pnx naai ma om .Bn"x prmai B'unn mVia p a mVia nvVai Vinoi ooam BTVy nun B'ryV nu> ppip Vxau? mViai pa' p i D'xny nun anyn nu> . B 1 B'unm mVia p n nxi p'an |Vpu> pxn ppn pxy ojV 'on tin mt>iu>a nnu>y o'nu> pn"x nun pamo nun o'X'Vy nun piyn nu> onyiV nu> [foi. pupmp] paapmpm. jnapnp] add an'.piyi) nun px'Vy nu? .aiaai Sefer Yesira §48b K A c naiy inaV nnx nnx n > u naiy inaV nnx nnx nu?Vc uV> inaV nnx nnx nnx nunu? Vy nunu? ppiVn nyau> Vy ]'piVn nu?Vu.1) . pa] om G.4) ] T a m ppu> nun .D'naa ynaa nnxi nu?7U? ynaa pin nnxi nunu> ynaa pin nnxi nunu> Vy nanVaa jnaiy nu?y anu> jnaiy nu?y Dnu? c n a a nu?y Dnu? nu?y D n c .7a Vx . nyau? nu?Vu?i ]'pVin nyau> nyau? .o xjiu' nu?Vu> D'amx nu?Vu?i B'amx nu>Vun o'anx n.d'd-iuj nun .o'Tim nun .pxyo jV'o D'unm mVia ana nxi (3. 8a] crVy nu> on'mai o'X'Vy nc? nvVan mu> c x y n nu> naam nnan onyiV nu> Vinoi oaan o'X'Vy nu> 'nun d ' t 'nun p:apmp am D'Vn mu> on"x nu> on' mu> pamu nu? ppnpm napn nt naiyV nt nanVa p a pny nana p a pu>y D'Vn H collated to B : pa] ia H.D'rVy n c on'mai niDiu?e nnu>y o'nu> nun .nanVa c a ' a pny nana p a jxu>y .B'nVxn pu?y m 1 MNFP1QR collated to K: p n y i ] pu>y Q.152 Edition and Commentary D z ppn moica TVWS wrw nnn niDWD rrwv aviu> P'am ]Vpu? pxn pnx janx pxn ppn .pp-\p"\ nap . D'unm mVta] B'rVy nun O'ryV] B'rVy i c y Dnun mVia nu>y anu> B'tyi"? nun E .D"n:a nu?7U?i pamx nu?7u.onyiV pxn ppn pxyop'onnn nun .o'Vn 'nun mm 'nun jnapmp p i .

2). a'maa] add nwVw nam B'atxm aVn a'amx m a m naan D'xnw nwVw pwVm M N F P I Q . "po] om Q. Twelve stand in battle array: three are hostile but three love.an nwVw any nwVwa naiy inaV apiVn nyaw. .nnx i°] Via M N P I Q .ma m ppinx pai nwy L M N S F P I Q R collated to K: nnx nnx] nnx M N F P . nnxi nnx Vai . seven are at loggerheads .nnx maa Vy nnx piaa Vwia p x : 'aa Vy nwVwi nwVw 'aa onw 'aa Vy nyawi nyaw .nnx maa D'xan D':wi Three . and one is the law which holds the balance between them. Van Vy N . three kill but three give life. nnx nnx] nnx nnx nnx B . seven . And the di­ vine.omra ynaa pin nnxi pnaiy nwy anw nwy D':w D'amx nwVw nanVaa nwVw D'a'ix nwVwi piai a"na nwVwi B'maa nanV p ' o i m ay m ppinx f]iai B'san B'nwi onwy (6. Twelve stand in battle ar­ ray: three love but three hate. And the divine. And they all adhere to each other.om:a ynaa [fol. nnxi] pm M N . D'amx/D'a'ix] transp B G .Va Vy nwVwi nwVw ' a : Vy 'aa Vy nyawi nyaw 'a? m ppinx |Viai nwy D':w nnwy nanV p'on ma . three give life but three kill.o'D'ix nwVw .one on top of three.nwVw 'aa anw 'aa Vy nyawi . Vxi] ' V Vx S. maa] mai G . 2 2 2 E collated to C: nnx 3°] om E.three against three. Vy B ' B G H collated to A: 2 nyaw inaV nnx nnx nwVw nwVw 'aa Vy nwVw ppiVn .three against three. B'a'ix] D'X:iW E.D'amx nVa Vxi .nyaw . trustworthy king rules over them all .one on top of three.2).each one stands by it­ self. rViaa] iwnp pyaa L.each one stands by it­ self. and three on top of seven. D Three . and one is the law which holds the balance between them.D"na nwVw Vy nnx .each one stands by itself. Twelve stand in battle ar­ ray: three are hostile but three love.Sefer Yesira §48b 153 p ' o ma m ppinx ]Viai D'xan anwi anwy nanV (6. and seven on top of twelve. and seven on top of twelve. p x : ] om G . And they all adhere to each other. ppiVn nwVw] ppiVn wVw B .amaa nwVw . / D " n a nwVw D'maa nwVwi] transp B ' H . And they all adhere to each other.three are at loggerheads with three. trustworthy king rules over them all .pa Vy Vwia p x : 'aa Vy nwVwi . onax: pin nnxi nwVw nwVw . three give life but three kill. and three on top of seven. seven are at loggerheads . 229a] nanVaa anaiy nwy D':w nwVw . The sign for the matter is: twenty-two objects in one body. and one is the law which holds the balance between them.nTa m ppinx jViai iwy nnx piaa Vwia p x : n. Three . And the sign for the matter is: twentytwo objects in one body.

ooan . He carved them and hewed them out. Kislev.o'aixn . Ayin.|ono . Nun.154 Edition and Commentary Sefer Yesira § 49 yo jV K m i n mmix n w omw (49a) A pxyo|V'omin moiwa nnwy omw (49a) p a nxi |mam p p w pnx p x m p p n D'wnn nwy Dnwi DViya mVta nwy onw . p x m .mw . the gall. p a ' Van . Elul. Tishri. Yod. Shevat.nVina nnx . Tevet. Tammuz. Het.ViVx DX m :WD)D p r m a nwy onw p iV'xi .nnx .Vxaw m p a . the left foot.nvVa .DViya mVia nwy onw . lyar. Sade. the intestines. Het. Kislev. lyar. the right fool.vVoa p w n n a nwn .|vo . pxm] pnx B . Qof.naa . p n x M N . Gemini. Tevet. nwyi p n x ] p.nVina . He carved them and hewed them out.arnxa . 2 2 1 2 1 1 . Aquarius. (49b) These are the twelve constellations in the universe: Aries. Samek. D n n mw] Vn Vxaw Vn p a ' B'H.ppnp 1 (49a) Twelve simple letters: He. the twelve months in the year. Leo. Zayin. the gullet. Taurus. and the twelve principal organs in mankind. the gullet. 2°] om LSP1Q. And these are the twelve prin­ cipal organs in mankind: the right hand. mWD LMNFPIQR.nj nwp anpy .nwn . p p n p . Tet.nan . and formed with them the twelve constellations in the universe. two feet. (49b) These are the twelve constellations in the universe: Aries..'Vn . Tammuz. and formed with them the twelve constel­ lations in the universe. D'wnn nwy onwi] om B . Scorpio. Waw.nnw .px B'wnn nwy Dnw .Dnn .na'p .nnx . Qof.ooan .nVo mVta nwy Dnw p iV'xi (49b) p n p y . the twelve principal organs in mankind.Vxaw V n . the spleen. nVo] pr p ' O MN.nvVa .Dnn nn . Av.nao . mVra 2°] add oViya B . Av. the stomach.na'pi (49a) Twelve simple letters: He. p n o . om (homoio?) B . p ' a m ppw] om M N P Q .wa:a DTma nwy Dnwi mwa . Cap­ ricorn. the spleen. weighed them and exchanged them.ppn .waia D'vma nwy Dnw . LMNSFPIQR collated to K: B ' B G D H collated to A: 2 nvmx] moiwa p x m ] pnx p x n L I . And the twelve months are: Nisan.piwnna . the gall. nvVa mw] p a ' mVa Vxaw nnai H . Cancer. nxi] nxi p n x SQ. two kidneys. Can­ cer.nwp . om F. Samek.nnx mwi . the liver. the twelve months in the year. napi. Taurus. Marheshvan. Aquarius. p n D'wnn nwy Dnwi . Waw. Libra. These are the twelve principal organs in mankind: two hands. Adar. Tishri. DVWD 2°] om Q. Sade. Tet.Vino . Gemini.vVoa mw . Libra. Scorpio. Dna mn p r a m |Vpw .p iVxi i°] om B D . Nun. Elul. DViya mVta nwy a n w 2°] om M N F P . Leo. Virgo. the liver. Shevat.O'oixn .nnai .mwa : DViya mVta nwy anw p iV'xi (49b) . Sivan. Lamed. mw on'] Vxaw m p a ' m B'H. Sivan. Yod.n"x nwy onw p iV'x . Virgo. Pisces. Zayin. two kidneys.on' mw :waaa p r m a .nj . he combined them.ViVx p x . pnx] p x n B . And these are the twelve months: Nisan. Sagittarius. the intestines and the stomach.Dn:n mw . D m x a n a n ]vo T ' x |on :mwa D'wnn nwy Dnw now nat? . Marheshvan. Adar. Ayin. Sagittarius. Lamed. he weighed them and exchanged them. Pisces.Vino .naa . om H .nnai ..mw nVo ]n iV'xi . Capricorn. the left hand.

albeit with a shorter version of § 48b. This simple sentence is expanded in §49a in the Long and Short Recensions and in Ms B 's version of §48a. Let us consider first the order in which this material appears in the recensions. While it is relatively clear how SY §49 evolved. If we look first at the text of Ms A it is clear that these two paragraphs duplicate each other.Sefer Yesira §49 155 General Note on the text of §§48-49 §§48-49 are an overlapping complex of material distributed in different ways across the recensions and manuscripts. and This is very similar to the way in which a short earlier text of § 39 preserved in the Saadyan Recension has been expanded in the Short and Long Recensions. again giving us a clue as to how the text might have evolved. 117 . §49a simply expands §48a by adding the repeated numeral ~\W2 WW and the qualifying phrases o V l S O . B and H repeal the duplicated material. The paragraph numbering follows Gruenwald's edition which prints the text of Ms A as its base and then records the vari­ ations of all Mss from this base. §49b then fills out the content of this now expanded short sentence . The positioning of §48 in the Short Recension is highly significant. In the Saadyan Recension the simple sentence which we have isolated as the core of §§48-49 appears on its own in chapter 3:4.representing the second stage in its expansion. not twelve. Mss DB'B H incorporate this commentary material directly into their version of §48. Mss B and D omit the whole of § 49b. as we have already seen. create a presumption that the material they contain is less likely to belong to the core text of S Y. §43a is not present in the Saadyan Recension and neither is § 49b. as we have seen. and not before it as in the Long Recen2 2 2 1 17 The artificial placing of §48a before §40 in ch 3:4 of the Saadyan Recension is revealed by the fact that §40 concerns the permutations of the number seven. Moreover. There is a partial parallel to it also in § 31 but we have seen that the content of that paragraph is problematic.' Then at the beginning of chapter 6 we find what is essentially the Long Recension version of § 48. §49b is then structured exactly like §43a which. 7\W1. It is probably significant that while the Saadyan Recension does not have §49b (or §49a) some of the material in it appears in Saadya's commentary on §48.4 9 lies a simple sentence. It is not too difficult to see that at the core of § § 4 8 . The single sentence it has of § 48a is placed after § 49. Chapters 5-8 of the Saadyan Recension are not organised on the firm principles of the first four chapters and their status in Saadya's commentary does. similar in construction to the earlier form of § 39: D'rnjoi D'tinm diVto Dnn nxi p o m fipw p x n p n x p p n mowD nnipi> 1 WTW This sentence appears in § 48a in Mss ADGB and chapter 6:1 in the Saadyan Recen­ sion (Mss CZE). the situation in §48 is much more complicated. after 37b and before §40. probably rep­ resents the first stage of expansion from §39.

Its arranger seems simply to have taken the evolved form of § 48 (minus one later sentence) from the Long Recension. placed the core first sentence in his chapter 3:4 and the full paragraph in his chapter 6:1-2. -HPS onun aViya mVta iu>y onw p a nxi p x n p n x jppn nioupa nncy DVHP napi nyam nnai naa Vino nina VHP D n m n c o n nt? &>aja an'nia nti?y onci n w a . Vajda 1954: 56. See the notes to §60. then. The text of SY as cited in the other early commentaries throws valuable light on the process 1 have outlined above.156 Edition and Commentary sion. that the earlier simple forms of § 48a and § 48b were originally separate blocks of material.D'Tjm nun .WYbv " W l . It looks like an inserted expansionary comment on § 49. Dunash ben Tamim's text is as follows: 2 . §48b has been attracted into its present position in the Long Recension (and hence from it into the Saadyan Recension) by the single sentence at the end of §48a. either he had a base text like Mss B and D which did not contain §49b or he left it out as constituting duplicate material. Vajda-Fenton 2002: 241-242. Most of § 48a in its Long and Saadyan Recension form is part of the same complex of material as §49. Stage (5): § 48a sucks § 48b into the Long and Saadyan Recensions out of its original context after §60b. 119 118 . d h » x 3un .4 9 as follows: Stage (1): nr>T» DH3 1 X 1 ] T » m pptt> p x n p i X |ppn mtJltPD TVWV WTW ""D'rnwi D'ttnm Stage (2): the expanded form of stage (1) as in §49a.9 Whether the term D'J'nja would have been comprehensible on its own to the first readers of SY without the sort of explanations provided by §49 is an issue which will have to be discussed on another occasion when we come to compose the commentary on the content of SY. like §48b belonged originally next to §60. which is all that most Short Recension Mss have.O'T^V W Vxaw rvVoT pa* ivVia nvVai Vinoi o o a m nasi ma o m . All these stages must have been completed prior to the creation of the Saadyan Recension. Then. It is clear. It is not present in the Short Recension. We may summarise the possible growth of § § 4 8 . Stage (4): §48a as in the Short Recension. This would certainly seem to be a more logical position for it rather than in the section of SY which oth­ erwise deals exclusively with the twelve simple letters. §48b then appears in the Short Recension after §60b. It belongs better with the summary material at the end of the work drawing together the threads and attempt­ ing to integrate themes treated earlier.DVtVxn ncy m naiy"? m nx aa nanVa r a a pnyi n a n a p a a p ^ y japnpi D'unn 1 1. Stage (3): §49b as in the Short and Long Recensions. and which either arose as a short expansionary comment on the earlier version of §§48-49 which we have isolated above or.d"»dtid > 0 ?3fl 'Jtt? D T' nu? r D p l p p l p appears in the Long and Saadyan versions of §48a. It may be significant that not even this part of §48a is present in Mss L and S.l . drawing like § 60b on Qoh 7:14. Stage (6): the expansion 'Jttn .D/'TylV ">3Un .

later on in his commentary after §60b he cites §48b in the expanded form found in Mss MNFPIQ. takes us back to stage (3). He. e. namely. However. Then like B and D Donnolo has only §49a without §49b. After the 1 1 2 1 2 . He is at stage (6). Most striking of all is that our latest commentator . The list of months was left out (homoioteleuton?).. one might almost conclude that these duplications are deliberate .more or less a shortened version of the Short Recension. The scribe's confusion is shown by the fact that the next term is DTVl?1? with the initial Lamedh crossed out. D'D-lirj (D) and p " X 'JWl rDTIU W I (B ). Donnolo's text of §48a is very similar to that of Ms B . 1 1 2 2 Notes on the text of § 48a We find the usual duplicate readings in Ms C . The dittography in Ms B (D'Vn VWI D ' T TlW D ? n "WI D ' T "WI) may have been created as a by-product of the process of incorporating §49b into §48a. W I p i n i W I p V T ? W I VV^V W ) in the process of ex­ pansion as individual scribes try their hands at enhancing the text. integrating together the material of §§48 and 49 (Castelli 1880: 73-74). after the reference to the bodily organs which ends with D 75"l T U 1 Q ' T TUPI. This reflects the style elsewhere of his commentary and again helps us to see how texts like that of B and B were cre­ ated.4 9 which we find in Ms A.TTWV WT\V once and niDlWD twice.g. What is striking about this information from the commentators is the way in which it confirms what we know from the manuscripts. Hence Dunash takes us back to somewhere between stages (3) and (4) in the evolution of this material. We can see here the original fourfold list (pX'Vj. especially as §48 and 49 cross contaminate each other.Judah. has the text in an earlier stage of development than his tenth century predecessors. Ms E's addition nvVs TNtf! which comes in from § 49 or Long Recension Mss like B or B .l 1 . this dittography was I 7 created.expressing distribution? The reading DTJ? ? in Ms Z has arisen by a transposition of the initial two letters of DTVl? as in C. i. There are inevitable variations in the lists of the bodily organs. A similar redundancy can be seen in the text of Mss B and H. In §49b D'Vn 'nw D'T TW heads the list of the bodily organs. This is the only information provided twice in the form of §§ 4 8 .e. Judah ben Barzillai cites §49 (Halberstam 1885: 256) but like Mss L and S shows no knowledge of § 48a. The text of B was created by lifting the lists of the zodiacal signs and the bod­ ily organs from §49 and transferring them to §48a. therefore. I When this list was transferred to the appropriate place in §48a. that by the tenth century all these various forms of the SY text in different stages of its evolution were available simultane­ ously.Sefer Yesira §49 157 Basically this represents stage (2) plus the part of stage (3) which spells out the twelve organs of the human body plus stage (4) .l 2 . See. Were it not that 7\"WS WTW is not duplicated in the second occurrence in ch 6:1.

tPD33. It comes in from §22. f S110 >Jtt>l the statement 2° D'Vn . . 2 1 120 ncVw ' 3 J Vy nnx max cVan onyu.. See the notes to that paragraph. Most of the variants in the other Mss are either errors or expansions (like B'H's spelling out of the pairs of organs).p"IX becomes '1J1. This is not present in the Saadyan form of the text and some of it appears as a separate paragraph in Dunash's commentary. but his eye slipped from VxOtt' Vn to n'Vsi VXBtt>. e. and Fenton 1988: 51.. The expansion in Mss MNFPIQ reflects the sort of material that will grow into §63. 120 Notes on the text of §49 The overwhelming weight of the evidence favours the reading ni01tt>D at the be­ ginning of this paragraph rather than Ms K's nvmx as does the standard opening of most paragraphs in this fifth chapter of the work. but this may reflect nothing more than the scribal practice of only citing part of a biblical quotation expecting the reader to understand the rest. lines 4-6).. It partially duplicates §57. Ms P has an alternative longer form of this expansion (inserted between p 1 D 3 and inX) which will be cited in connec­ tion with §63. nyaw an'nja new ww nnx Tua o'xan Dnun nia m j'pnx aVai nu>y o*w 'aa Vy nyaun nyaw 'aa Vy nvbun (Vajda-Fenton 2002:247.. a paragraph which is attested in the Short Recension only in Mss K and R and. The Long Recension omits the words D'nVxn ntt>y of the quotation from Qoh 7:14. Notes on the text of § 48b Jf we take as our core material what all the Mss have in common then two additions to this paragraph can be isolated: (1) nyaun nmw »3a Vy nwVun rwbw ' 3 a Vy inx 7/7133 Vcn» p x j -|V» Vxi "Hpy WW 'QJ Vy. The scribe of B probably had before him the same expan­ sion of nvVD TW as we find in H... (2) inx 1^3 D ' X S n WW\ WWV -\WV? ]W0\ This is not present in the Short Recension or Ms D but it does appear in Dunash's commentary in the paragraph just mentioned although the material is arranged in a different order. but it is left behind as a remnant of the earlier form of the text.g. Ms G abbreviates the text of this paragraph. Having incorporated most of § 49b into §48a the scribe of Ms B agrees with D in dropping this part of §49.158 Edilion and Commenlary insertion of 1° wbr\ .. paj?Tip D H becomes redundant. The shared omission of DVIS73 m T "lUW WW (2°) in MNFP is worthy of VO note since they share the expansion in §48b related to §63 and the minor shared variant inx also in that paragraph. in the Saadyan Recension only in Ms E.

and twelve simple letters. water . I have retained Gruenwald's numbering of the paragraphs in order to avoid confu­ sion for readers using both our editions. At this point Dunash has the first sentence of Ms P (D'O m i tt>X X2T jn»tt> ITDX Tiwbw ]7W m » X wbw) and then moves on to § 58. for they pass directly from § 50 to § 56 and do not attest §§ (51) . In reality it is a version of the first sentence of § 56. air.three primary letters. Notes on the text of §50 In Ms K the punctuation indicates that this is not an independent paragraph but functions as an introduction to § 56.like most Short Recen­ sion Mss (Vajda 1954: 57). Judah. The context here requires that the metaphor "mothers" be retained at this point rather than its meaning being "cashed out" in the translation.Sefer Yesira §51 159 Sefer Yesira K §50 P mwy oviwi . LSIQR collated to K: max] add wax s.mtnwa mwy Three mothers which are three fathers from which came forth fire. The paragraph is not present in the Long and Saadyan recensions and Gruenwald takes its text from the printed editions of SY. MNF collated to P: XX'] XXY> MN 121 Three primary letters. attesting nothing in between . who has the Ms K version of this paragraph. like §50. The longer version of § 50 found in Mss M N F P is related to §27 but instead of the "fathers" coming from the "moth­ ers".5 5 .mViaa yawi . That seems to be its function in all the Short Recension Mss. does the same (Halberstam 1885: 257). However.max wVw a'a n n .mViaa yawi . and twelve simple letters. Since it has no independent existence in the Mss I have eliminated it from my edition. Sefer Yesira §51 In Gruenwald's edition §51. is taken from the printed editions and not from Ms A. See the notes on §27.max wVw wx xx' jnaw max nunc? jnw max wVw D V I W I . 121 . and seven double letters. here they are identified with them. and seven double let­ ters.

nan 10 .I'D' Vu? nniai oy m janxi nna r> ncpi nv nx Tnan 6 miz?a 7i7Xi aViya nVina ia nxi nt .] nsca n a m oViya jtno ia nxi ma .u?asa "?iau? m m c a nso oVyD n n i a nxi nna i"? ntfpi n x nx i n a n 11 . and the liver in man­ kind.u?aia napi mu?3 jiwnna aVya ntrp ia nxi nna V? nwpi -po nx n. onn 13 nxi nna r? nt^pi mp nx n.u?a)a j ' a ' Vm m c a D3tf D"?yD Vm nsu?a nnxi Dmya onn ia nxi ma . and bound to it a crown.waja a o a m [70b p n x i nna iV nu>pi mo nx -pVan 5 mu?3 axi aViya nnx ia nxi ma m .nan 12 .nan 1 .tt>D)a Vxauntp nniai m janxi nna 17 nu?pi naV nx n.127333 pa' n n i a i mu?a 3 x aVya nVin3 i a nxi nna i"? ntz?pi n v nx Tnan 6 .ca:a Vinoi m janxi nna 17 nwpi nm nx n.nan 4 .wasa 7xatz? 7[m] nmi nnx oVya 1 He made He rule.u?asa Vxaw nnai m c a 7V>x 0 7 i y 3 13 nxi nna iV nu?pi na"? nx n.casa p a ' ma m janxi nna r? nu?pi j'y nx Tnan 10 Vxac mi mu?3 naoi DViya na ia nxi .wasa naa mu>a jam oVyD mu? i a nxi nna 17 nwpi n nx Tnan 2 .nan 12 1 1 1 C .u?aia m janxi nna 17 nwpi mp nx n.px y o jV m in m janx anx mxa nVo i a nxi nna r> ncpi 'n nx "jnan 1 . and combined one with another.nan 7 m c a TOm oViya amxa ia nxi m oy .nan 3 m c 3 jvoi aViya D'aixn ia nxi m Dy . Nisan in the year.160 Edition and Commentary Sefer Yesira § 52 A m oy m janxi nna 17 nwpi m "inan 1 naai nwi jam oViyD nVo in nxi .u?aja 7 i n o i mu?3 jvoi aVya a'aixn jtno i a nxi nna iV nti?pi m n nx n.u?asa ma m janxi nna i ? nwpi n x nx Tnan 11 j ' a Vjm mtz?3 oam DViya n n ia nxi .wasa japnpi Dy m janxi nna V? nwpi ju nx n.nan 8 mu?a jnumnai aViya anpy ia nxi m . Nisan in the year. .caia 7ixau? 1 He made He rule. and formed with it Aries in the universe. and formed with it Aries in the universe.wai3 j'anw mi m w a lnoa oVya n i i a nxi nna r> [nwpji j'y nx n. and bound to it a crown.u?oja napi Dy m janxi nna r> ncpi "jao nx "pVan 9 mi nsu?a lnoai aViya ncp ia nxi m .nan 4 foi.nan 9 .«?9ia nt janxi nna i ? nwpi j"T nx n.u?aja nnai nsu?a n"xi aVya 13 nxi nna 17 nwpi j " t nx -pVan 3 .tposa ooai mu>3 nan oVys n n x i a nxi nna r> ntrpi m u nx Tnan 5 . and the liver in man­ kind.tpa:3 os? m janxi i n s V? nu?pi T I nx -|nan 2 nnai mu?a n"xi 07is>2 TO in nxi m .u?a)a japnpi mo>3 nu?n oVya amxa anpy i a nxi nna r? nu>pi pi nx j n a n 8 .

and bound to it a crown. and the right kidney. and bound to it a crown. and the gall in mankind. and formed with it Taurus in the universe. and the left hand in mankind. and bound to it a crown. BIul in the year. and formed with it Capricorn in the uni­ verse. Tammuz in the year. and formed with it Sagittarius in the universe. and formed with it Leo in the universe. and combined one with another. 4 He made Het rule. and formed with it Libra in the universe. Shevat in the year. and the left hand in mankind. and formed with it Gemini in the universe. and the stomach in mankind. and the intes­ tines in mankind. Sivan in the year. and the left kidney in mankind. Kislev in the year. and formed with it Sagittarius in the uni­ verse. and combined one with another. 10 He made Ayin rule. . and bound to it a crown. Kislev in the year. and bound to it a crown. and combined one with another. and the gullet in mankind. 9 He made Samek rule. Tishri in the year. and the stomach in mankind. Elul in the year. 8 He made Nun rule. and bound to it a crown. and bound to it a crown. Tevet in the year. and formed with it Virgo in the universe. 6 He made Yod rule. 7 He made Lamed rule. and the right foot in mankind. and combined one with another. and bound to it a crown. 3 He made Zayin rule. and the right kidney in mankind. and combined one with another. and the spleen in mankind. Tammuz in the year. and formed with it Leo in the universe. 11 He made Sade rule. and the gall in mankind. and bound to it a crown. and bound to it a crown. and bound to it a crown. and combined one with another. and the right hand in mankind. and formed with it Taurus in the universe. 9 He made Samek rule. and bound to it a crown. 3 He made Zayin rule. and formed with it Capricorn in the universe. and formed with it Scorpio in the uni­ verse. 5 He made Tet rule. 6 He made Yod rule. and the right hand in mankind. 161 2 He made Waw rule. Marheslwan in the year. and formed with it Aquarius in the universe. 10 He made Ayin rule. and bound to it a crown.Sefer Yesira §52 2 He made Waw rule. Av in the year. Iyyar in the year. and the gullet in mankind. and the intestines in mankind. and the right foot in mankind. Tishri in the year. Iyyar in the year. Marheslwan in the year. and bound to it a crown. Shevat in the year. and combined one with another. and formed with it Cancer in the universe. and the spleen in mankind. and bound to it a crown. 4 He made Het rule. and bound to it a crown. Tevet in the year. and formed with it Virgo in the universe. Av in the year. and combined one with another. and formed with it Gemini in the uni­ verse. and combined one with another. and bound to it a crown. and formed with it Aquarius in the uni­ verse. and formed with it Libra in the universe. and combined one with another. 5 He made Tet rule. and combined one with another. 7 He made Lamed rule. and formed with it Scorpio in the universe. 11 He made Sade rule. and bound to it a crown. Sivan in the year. 8 He made Nun rule. and bound to it a crown. and formed with it Cancer in the uni­ verse. and the left kid­ ney in mankind. and bound to it a crown.

Except for the omis­ sion of in sentence 5 Ms A has preserved the paragraph intact. along with them and §§ 3 6 . either reading could be correct. it might have been taken out once the introductory rubric was included and felt to cover the whole paragraph. On the other hand. This suggests that the scribe began to repeat nTXD. B ' B K J D H collated to A : 2-12 movm oy m pnxi] om D 3-12 1 3 ] ] H 3 G.p ' O n p I X IX'D (Castelli 1880: 74). 35 and 40. 2 . realised his error. and combined one with another.. 12 He made Qof rule. and bound to it a crown. In the Saadyan Recension §52 is preceded by §§48a-b and followed by §53. stopped and then carried on without deleting the redundant Kaph. it is to be assigned to the major expansion of SY which produced the Long Recension. add IPDJ3 B ' B 1 . GDH. Since in the Long Recension the combined § § 4 8 .4. and bound to it a crown. The absence of the phrase in Mss C and E but its insertion in Z might indicate that it did not belong in the earlier version of the paragraph. 2 2 C ZE collated to C: 31X nTXD] IXT'XD Z.. HT] om ZE.m] px oy yo Vi p t r ' D m nT m in rp z.1 2 ins] add nT oy m p i x i z. px. and formed with it Pisces in the universe. the other variants in the Mss are mainly simple scribal errors. In E. and seen that. and formed with it Pisces in the universe. In sentence 10 Allony transcribes C as VXDtt> V n where I read VXBtt> T . and the left foot in mankind. The Ms is very difficult to read at this point. Donnolo has a form of this introductory rubric . The scribal correction of DODm to COOT in B is in line with the reading of this Ms in §54. and the left foot in man­ kind.4 9 is imme­ diately followed by § 52 this indicates that the arranger of the Saadyan Recension simply lifted §§48-53 in a block from his Long Recension base text in order to create his chapter 6. 4 4 and 54. The reading 3 1 X nTXD in C is puzzling especially with a medial Kaph at the end of a word. Adar in the year. The initial rubric in the Saadyan version of this paragraph (px ]V 'U nT i n m p I X 31X niXD) has been constructed on the model of §§ 19b. Notes on the text of §52 In the notes on §§32-34 and 41 we have already dealt with the position of this paragraph in the development of the text of SY.162 Edilion and Commenlary 12 He made Qof rule. but followed by a much expanded and paraphrased § 52. VXDW V n would be an error since VxDtP V n is created by Qoph (sentence 12). Apart from the minor variant nT QV m / n i a nT (not recorded in the apparatus). 4 ooam] D'DDI 5 pa'] B . Adar in the year. It may predate the insertion of the phrase nT DS» nT p i X I in most Mss of the Long Recension but not D.

nnaV wan .nvaoi nyiawi nna n"x mw iV'x n ay nxi: 2 . = D: nnx 2°] add nnx B . ma ? wavnaV nw] transp E. the year by itself and mankind by itself.mnnm nma ooa nan pna iVx nn Dy nxi: 4 . BG 2 2 jmaym] maym E. 1 Notes on the text of §53 2 This repetition of § 43c is found in the Long Recension only in MssB GD and in the Saadyan Recension.manm nwyai Vxaw lapnpi nwn omxa na"? Dy nsn 7 . the year by itself and mankind by itself.mwnm nnn Vino jro D'aixn iVx pn oy nxi: 3 .anoi n.Vino Vion 1 .Vino Viom 1 c mxn [naai p n ] nVo iV'x m oy nxi: l . ZE collated to C: 1 He split up the witnesses and made each one stand by itself .naa Vion pinw Vxaw p p nao n i p y Dy nxi: io .nnaV wa: npaV] mw naV oViy He split up the witnesses and made each one stand by itself .naa Viom tim pa' pinwi Vxaw nn nao n i py oy nxi: io .nimaym nonn Vw mViai ViVx nVina nv Dy nxi: 6 .maVxi panw nnia ax nnx iVx mo oy nxi: 5 .ooam nan pna nm Dy i r u 4 pa' Vw mViai ax nnx mo ay nxi: 5 .mnoi wawn m?"™ na'pi piwnna anpy p: Dy nxi) 8 .Sefer Yesira §54 163 Sefer Yesira § 53 (= 43c) D naV inx nnx jmaym onyn nx nnn .the universe by itself.iVn na'p pwnna anpy p: oy nxi: 8 .aoDynxi: 9 .imini n n pa m inaa nwp -po Dy nxi: 9 . See the general note to §§ 39-44.mwnm nmm Vmoi ]vo D'aixn p t Dy nxi: 3 . Sefer Yt nra §54 A pxyop'onnn moiwa mwy amw .nnrm minaai[foi. 7ia]nwpn.mmn nwya wawn ppnp nwn amxa naV ay nxi: 7 .paym no'yV Vxaw nnia ViVx nVma nv oy nxi: 6 .naV aViy 1 na ? nnx nnx j[may]m anyn nx nnn .nvaoi m'xm naai p n nVo m ay nxi: l nyawi nnm n"x mw vi ay nxi: 2 .the universe by itself.mnnoi . It is not present in the Short Recension.ma ? nw .

smelling and anosmia (?)• There was formed with Het: Cancer. Av. sight and blindness.nraoi mxn iaa p n rno 'n av nxi: 1 p n nb-o iV'x m Dy nxi: 1 . Tet. the right kidney. Nisan. eating and hunger. the left leg. the spleen. 4 There was formed with Het these: Can­ cer. thought and thoughtlessness. Nisan. Nun. Tammuz and the gullet. Kislev. Iyyar. Het. Waw. the left hand. 9 There was formed with Samek: Sagit­ tarius. sexual intercourse and impotence. sight and blindness. 10 There was formed with Ayin: Capricorn. Adar. 'o mm . smelling and anosmia (?). 12 There was formed with Qof: Pisces. walking and lameness (?). There was formed with Zayin: Gemini. hearing and deaf­ ness. Tishri. the stomach. laughter and sad­ ness. 10 There was formed with Ayin: Capricorn. laughter and sad­ ness. Marheshvan. Kislev. action and paralysis. Elul. 3 There was formed with Zayin these: Gemini. the left kidney. 2 3 4 There was formed with Tet: Leo. Sade. action and paralysis. the intestines. the gullet. Shevat.[i:]rxi mn "?ion nrw 7 X » I P Vn nnx en mp . Elul. Zayin. Sivan. Tammuz. the right hand. Tishri. Shevat. 8 There was formed with Nun: Scorpio. the gall. Samek. the left leg. 9 There was formed with Samek: Sagit­ tarius.px »o r. the stomach.my»i nmum Twelve simple letters: He. Lamed. 5 There was formed with Tet these: Leo. eating and hunger. the right hand.17 ay nxi: 12 -pm nnn There was formed with He these: Aries. the right kidney. 12 There was formed with Qof: Pisces. Tevet.aVn Viom VsDif Vm n s o m mp oy nxi: 12 . walking and lameness. the gall. Marheshvan. the intestines. the right leg. anger and equanimity. Sivan. 8 There was formed with Nun: Scorpio. thought and thoughtlessness.164 Edition and Commenlary mmn pp Van ODIP n n nx [ay] nxi: 11 mnmrn r e "?in ODU> nn n x ov nxi: n . 6 There was formed with Yod: Virgo. anger and equanimity. 1 There was formed with He: Aries. the left hand. There was formed with Waw: Taurus. Yod. Ayin. talking and dumbness. the right leg. sexual intercourse and impotence. sitting and insomnia (?)• D 5 There was formed with Waw these: Tau­ rus. sleep and insomnia (?) 2 Z mxn nam . 1 . the liver. 7 There was formed with Lamed: Libra. 11 There was formed with Sade: Aquar­ ius. Adar. 11 There was formed with Sade: Aquar­ ius. Qof.ni'DDi . the liver. the left kidney. 6 There was formed with Yod: Virgo. 7 There was formed with Lamed: Libra. Iyyar. Av. Tevet. hearing and deafness. the spleen.mows nncy ova? .

while of our four early commentators only Saadya and Donnolo seem to know of it.nnnm nnn nmo c o m nan p i o iV'x nn ay ixi3 4 . myai] my'3i B'H.nnaun nauma pa' Vrn oaw n i 'x Dy n .nnn Vino p'o a'aixn'T oy 3 maVx nm&> ooan nan p i o 'n ay 4 no'yV I'D' m'Via ax nnx 'o Dy 5 . § 54 repeats the information found in § 52 with the addition .maim nuwa napi pumia aipy iV'x p3 Dy ixi3 8 .iaa Viom T 3 i i Vxatf mi nao n* iV'x p y oy ixi310 . § 54 is only found in the Long and Saa­ dyan Recensions.munn nyau> ma i"x mc I ov 2 . 2 2 Notes on the text of §54 Like the similarly constructed §§ 36 and 44. 9 laa Viom] iaai Viom G.m:ayi ntpyai Vxaw n"Via ViVx nVwa " oy 6 . 3 nnn] nnnm E. 7 mnoi] monoi B'GH. m m o i ] nnnm 2 B'GH. 6 OITDI] msinm B . 3 nnm] p m 2 1 H.oimoi vmn Vxaunw ppipi ne»n amxa iV'x laV ay ixi3 7 .Vino Vio'3 pine.Sefer Yesira §54 165 .Vxaw m nao na 7 'y ay 10 . 2 12 iV -]Vm na] px yo p '0 nnn im ma E. add maV'Xl nmtP B G . nnyai B . nnnm] maon E(?).mtznm Vinoi p'o D'aixn iV'x p'i av ixi3 3 .i33'xi aVn Vio'3 mmn Vxaw Van n x a m iV'x iip oy ixi: 12 . 4 ooam] coal B . p a y n H. add nnnn mmip B ' H .nnrm mVn p a ' mi iVoa ncp iV'x "|ao Dy ixi3 9 . laa Vio'ai B .nna pimp .maVxi nniai ax nnx iV'x mo ay ixi3 5 .41 and 39-44. p a ' Van oaw 'Vi iV'x n x ay 1x13 n .paym no'yV pane* xniai ViVx nVina iV'x i v ay ixi3 6 . pinun B . payiVi B . 12 na'um] nw B ' H .iV iVm na m't? E collated to Z: 1-121X13] 11X3 B .maiai .oTioi vmn ppip nam amxa 'V av i . 5 n i 3 n a y n ] paym B ' G .mun -|iVn na'p piwmai aipy': oy 8 .nx'pi nrw Vxatz? Vn n x a m 'p ay 12 B ' B G H collated to A: 2 nyaw mai v x mw iV'x n ay ixi3 2 . 1 nvaoi] maiaa'oi E. 2 2 nno ni3iin E. 11 133'X1]omE.o'ann m p a ' T inoa nu>p 'o Dy 9 . For general comments on this block of SY material see the notes to §§ 36.

" This is Donnolo's reading (Castelli 1880: 76). But note that Donnolo has a similar statement at this point which clearly relates to the emergence of the six chapter division of SY: ISO m j?X y o f? 'U m in n v m x 3'"> Vw 'WVw (Castelli 1880: 76). some of which appear here for the first time in the Hebrew language. however. It is. The introductory rubric in the Long Recension is redundant in the Saadyan Re­ cension which. Did the scribe leave it out in despair? Ms E's reading is hard to make out . They clearly caused problems for some of the scribes and the result is a certain amount of textual chaos. But if the Saadyan version preserves the original ar­ rangement then the rubric will have been inserted when this material was separated out and assigned to different chapters in the Long Recension. The derivation from nmnn is reinforced by the reading m3"inn of Ms B . Saadya knows of this read­ ing and declares it to be an error along with nviO (garbage. though it is actually present in Ms A's sentence seven as the opposite of W D W n . See also Weinstock 1981: 36. According to Saadya the correct reading is nvinn which. See the notes to §§ 36 and 44 for the similar rubrics there. The vocabulary of SY §54. as we have seen.44 and 54 altogether as a single block of material in its chapter eight. introduces some rare words. The reading nvinn (rivalry) in Mss CB'GH is no better. There is no reading at this point in Ms D. 146a he says means "anosmia. Our guiding principle in the search for the original read­ ing has to be that the structure demands that the final two items of each list should be words with opposite meanings. . especially in the list of opposites. Ms A's m m o . There is a gloss in the margin: "'D p n V O (this means "bad smell") but it appears to be explaining E's peculiar read­ ing (miO m v m i ) in sentence 6 rather than anything in sentence 3. and the scribe responsible for this may have felt the need for some summarising statement at this point. It is not difficult to see how n v i n n could have arisen by error from n n n n .m 3 0 n (?). Unlike Mss C and Z Ms E inserts §63 between §§54 and 55.clearly another abstract noun formation from the adjective ]"inn. 122 2 122 Kafach 1972: 140. nittnn. The summarising statement at the end of this paragraph in Ms E J?0 |V m i n im) may be related to the beginning of § 55 in the Long Recension.B. and it may be identical with Saadya's nvinn. This set of opposites (nVOO. As in § 52 Ms D cuts out the structuring formula DI? TilJ after the first sen­ tence. etc. stink". seems to be derived from the root n*10 meaning "smell badly. Lambert 1891: 102-103. possibly a by-form of JiniD (bad smell). The vocabulary used shows that this material belongs to the latest stratum of the SY tradition.166 Edition and Commentary of the opposites of the bodily functions listed in §45 generated on the pattern of § 37b.) is not listed in the summarising paragraphs 62 and 63. This is the opposite of what is required at this point. stench) which he cites as a variant at this point. places §§ 36. unattested elsewhere. Our problems begin with sentence three. on the basis of the occurrence of the word n m n n in b B.

m n (E). The rest of the Ms tradition is unanimous on reading m»V X1 nmttVnmO. 01*10)0 (castration) or the abstract niCHO . In sentence 5 Ms A's abstract noun n i i n s s n or D's n i 3 3 J n seems preferable to the adjective p a i n but the latter has the support of the Saadyan Recension Mss and B'G.4. What the opposite of "sleep" was in the original text is almost impossible to tell from the be­ wildering set of variant readings in the Mss. When Saadya explains aVn VlCJ in his commentary he ignores this addition. Ms D's n x p obviously makes excel­ lent sense but it would not explain how the variants arose so looks like an obvious correction. In sentence eight Ms C's m*l*tni instead of m*l*tm will be the result of the same error which produced m*inm out of n n n m in sentence three only the other way round. inserts this set of opposites at the end of § 37. The strange addition in Mss C and Z of u r x i after 3*?n VlD'J is not found in any other Ms.possibly a new coinage. He filled the lacuna with his own pair of opposites (delay and quickness). This raises the intriguing possibility that the reading in Mss B'H (mntl n'TItt ) may have arisen from the work of a scribe who was copying a Ms which was ultimately dependent on A (or even A itself). 7 . For the reading OOan (Long Recension Mss except for B ) versus 0 C ) 0 » (Saadyan Mss) compare §52. Compare §45 where Ms C has 7\YW where A has TWW. 123 2 niTJ* is also the reading of Ms Paris 763 which. Donnolo cites both p3STI and m i n a x n . In sentences six and seven Mss Z and E (against all the other Mss) reverse the bodily functions in line with the order in §45 but Ms C shows that this may have been a deliberate correction. possibly by Saadya himself. Clearly Ms A's . Where this reading in Ms A came from is a mystery. as does Donnolo's nTptt* which he glosses with niTJ* Xin (Castelli 1880: 76). The end of sentence 4 (m?D 7 X1 nmtt*) is missing in Ms A though there is a blank space where these words should be. Some Mss prefer the biblical word p 3 i n (B H). which then got corrupted to niJ*» in Ms A. . Something has gone badly wrong at the end of sentence twelve. nnyai B .m*llS*» perhaps. . n i l » (Ms C). although it does not have § 54. In sentence seven Ms A's HV10 cannot be correct as the opposite of ttPatWl. 2 2 . and n n (E)? B'H clearly recognise the need for a word based on this root. is clearly cor­ rect. n3 *2* l is an error for nrtt*l but this itself could be an error for n*T>tt*l as in Mss DB'H and ZE. But could the original reading have been a new coinage from the root "11J* with a prefixed Mem .Sefer Yesira §54 167 close to the reading of Ms A (fflmo). 123 . . Saadya struggles to make sense of the reading he has before him.

And they all adhere to the Hook.168 Edition and Commentary Sefer Yesira §55 A ViVn n n a ppinx jViai pxyop'omin m .1. . Zayin.mmwa mwy D'nw p a w nvmx D'nwi D n w y m i x D'nVx " ' ' m no' 'nVx D"n D'nVx mxax p i w xwm on n w Vxnw mow nw . It seems clear that the Saadyan Recension has simply repro­ duced the duplicate of § 55 in the Long Recension.aVi This is He. Waw. the Celestial Sphere. he may have regarded the second § 55 as a replacement for § 59a which he had trans­ ferred to his chapter 1:4. The gloss shared by B and H is significant for their related ancestry . ZE = C 1 aVi] add mVton Vim n n im B . In all the Mss of the Long Recension except for Ms A it appears again in­ serted between the two halves of § 60. n n im mVion Vy Vim H. It was lifted out of that recension with its associated block of material (§§ 59-61) and placed in chapter eight without the arranger of the recension bothering to eliminate the duplicate. It is also duplicated in that position in the Saadyan Recension at the end of § 60a. 59b. 60b does not appear in this recension. Het. 54. B'B GDH collated to A: 2 C . the Celestial Sphere.DT .44. Samek. Alternatively. 55. 61. D " n D'nVx .low winpi . 60a. Ayin. Tet.ny §56 mViaa yaw mo'x wVw iV'x . Notes on the text of §55 This paragraph is not present in the Short Recension. 1 124 Sefer Yesira K nvmx amwi anwy iV'x . Nun.mxax m m ' m piw . Sade. and the heart. The paragraph order of chapter eight in the Saadyan Recension is as follows: 36. and the heart. Lamed. Yod. Qof.Vxnw 'nVx . It looks like a duplicate of § 59a.xwn . 55.low winpi ny mxax mow yanx / m ' m 'nVx m m ppn p a w nw Vx D"n D'nVx Vxnw wmpi ny piw xwm on nyanx m m mow nw low mxaxa mx mxax mow naa nw Vxnw 'nVx iVw ixnpi nwVw D"n D'nVx Vx yy D"n D'o D'nVx D"n 124 See the Introduction §8.aVi W?? n n a ppinx jViai And they all adhere to the Hook.

noaV xwin nVyaV . God Almighty. the Living God. God Al­ mighty. Yahweh. and "lofty" for he lifts and supports both above and below. high and lofty. is above By them Yah Weh.nVyaV ixwai onaix iVi D'wnp vnnwai xim .IVID wnp . higher than the highest. the Lord of Hosts."n ]XD nyw xim nVyaV -xiwai noaV Vy Dm . [founded] (the universe). carved out (the universe).wnp wnp wnp D T VDD DViyn VD nx Vmoi xwn wiDVaw :iy piw . the God of Israel. dwelling for ever.poon nV *xi xin 'napm . and "lofty" . God. "holy is his name" and his servants are . "God of Israel" . sev­ en double letters.for he lifts and supports both above and below.D'ain VD IVD DViyn VD nx Vmoi pw . founded (the universe). Three principal letters. and holy is his name (Is. the Living God.posn nV pxi ny 'ny imnwai wnp xmw law VDD D'naix iVi . D " n D'xiw: VDnw noai nVya xmw Dm . Nor­ mally with human beings they are below what they lift. Yah".Sefer Yesira §56 169 iVw mxnxn xin mx n w nwp Vx nw Vx D " n xin nw Vxnw 'nVx DWT xinw on n p m? nwVw .57:15). the Living God. Blessed be He. "dwelling for ever" for his kingdom is eternal and has no end.nuai nVya Vmoi ny n y iniDVaw :ny piw noaV xin om nwa -pn law wnp .for he dwells in the height of the universe.DViy Vw l a n s xwui noaV X W J I nVyaV xwuw xwm ..for he dwells in the height of the universe. higher than the highest.57:15). Yahweh. running water.nwp Vx :Vx . four names: "hosts" . high and lofty.he is a prince before God. the Lord of Hosts. and holy is his name (Is. high and lofty.a strong God who has been sufficient so far: "high" . the God of Is­ rael. "Almighty" so far sufficient. "God" a strong God. 57:15).three are called living: the Living God. God Almighty.it is a sign in his host. "God of Israel" he is a prince before God. "Living God" .D'ump . but the Holy One. God.D"n D'nVx Vx D'ann Vy Dm D V W V W i a n a yv D " n D'a : D " n ixnpj Vmoi xwi:w Vmoi x w n :nw . "God Almighty" . dwelling for ever. the tree of life. and holy is his name (Is.three are called living: running wa­ ter. the God of Israel. dwelling for ever. for all who lift are below and what they lift is above. and twelve simple ones: these are the twenty-two letters on which Yah. and "high" . and he lifts and supports all his uni­ verse.it is a sign in his host. Two names "Yah-Weh". the tree of life.wnp wnp wnp D T These are the twenty-two let­ ters [on which] Yah. but he is above and what he lifts is below. four names: "hosts" . "Living God" . Two names: "Yah.

"holy is his name" . holy. D " n omVx B'G.f y D'a DWV xinw DT .for he is holy. Vxnw. holy. and he lifts and supports all his universe. holy.for his kingdom is eternal and has no end. mn' m 'nnn MN. D'nVx D"n] om L. holy (Is.DmVx] mVx D"n D'nVx Vxnw B'GH.law wmpi ny ni m maw nw m (56b) nix mxDX maw nymx Vxnw mVx iVw xaxa xm D " n D'nVx Vx n s a xin nw omVx 0 " n ixnp) nwVw Vx D"n y y D " n D'a D"n p nyw mw nwp Vx mw lama awv xmw on 'xn D'ann VD Vy Dm oViyVw Vmoi xwi) xinw xw)i pxwnn VDW noai nVya DI nVyaV piwai noaV ]n noaV ixiwai nVyaV xim oViyn VD nx Vmoi xwm my miDVaw ny p i w IVD law wmpi peon nV p x i ny vwnp vnnwai wmp xinw wmp DV VDD omaix iVi . and his servants are holy.DViyn 73 nx Vmoi p x i ny n y imoVaw . and every day they say to him.in m m m . holy..ny xinw law wmpi .moiwD nnwy omw nvmx omwi onwy in niXDX mm m n c p n w on nic Vx Vxnw mVx .. mVx'« Q. holy (ls. law] add law wmpi Dina MN.6:3).maw nymx . p. omVx D"n2°]omB'.'iiff . "Dwelling for ever" .noaV ixiwai p i w .. wmp 3°] ID add niXDS " ' E.m p s nyw Vy om oViy Vw l a v o Vmoi xwuw xw:i D'an D'xwun 7 W noai nVya D nVyaV Dxiwai on nuaV nVyaV 'm xin Vax .6:3) nvmx omwi wwv iV--x mxnx " v ' m n c paw m Vxnw mVx D " n DVIVX .wmp wmp "" m] omVx ivnVx 'n L. mw] mw Vx B'GH. non Vx] omVx n s B'. mnx ornVx] om B .iVw XDXD xm nix mxnx Vxnw xin nw Vxnw mVx .mw Vx] nyw mw Vx nya mw nwp Vx "n JXD ma E.wmp wmp wmp iV naixi LMNFPIQR collated to S: B'GH collated to B : 2 •m m ppn p n w (56a) omVx Vxnw mVx mxax p i w xwm on mw Vx D"n .170 Edition and Commentary and what he lifts is below.ona xwi) xin .D"n omVx Vx non DmVx D"n ixnp) nwVw . vwnp] D'wmp E. nixnsD] xaxa B'H. . ny] add Dina PQ. Vmoi xwn] Vmo E. and every day they say to him. D p j p r 1 E collated to Z: m m] mn* m E. D holy.D'wmp vnnwai wmp .nwp Vx Vx ..IDIT wmpi ny piw xw)i mViDD yaw max wVw iVx . noa] nsV E. xinw] n w v xmw B'.law wmpi ny p i w xwm pwyiw mn' maw nw p i . Vxnw] add Vx 'TO P.poon nV ."•> m omVx F.

The slightly shorter Saadyan Recension (97 as opposed to 115 words) takes us a little way back in the process of the expansion of the text.§ 56a. namely. the original (?) single sentence . where it is followed by § 57. Dunash does not have any part of § 56. 257). that this is the core of the paragraph from which the rest has developed. serves to introduce the conclusion of SY. The arranger of the Saadyan Recension clearly found § 56 next to §§ 57 and § 58 in his Long Recension source and has maintained these connections in his rearrangements. a point made by Judah in his comment on this paragraph. No doubt scribes were also led astray by their familiarity with the sources of the material in the paragraph. but in Saadya's own commentary (MS Z) the first sentence (= § 56a) is used twice elsewhere . In the context in SY its second half (§56b) looks intrusive. He is then spot on when he cites the Long Recension version of this paragraph as coming from an early version which incorporates in its text "a little commentary" (ibid. r 2 . Judah ben Barzillai has the single sentence (§ 56a) in the form found in Ms S as printed above (Halberstam 1885: 256). Functionally. Kafach does not include it in his text. The verb T C may have come into the manuscripts of SY under the influence of Prov 3:19 or Ps 104:5. and in ch 2: 5. TO'' is found in § 14 but in the phrase T 0 ' pwVtPm which is not present in the Saadyan Recension. The most significant variation is the use of the word ppn in the Saadyan recension where the Long and Short Recensions have "I0\ Elsewhere in the work there is a clear preference for ppn as the primary word for God's creative activity. The phrase recurs in § 57 but this paragraph is not present in the Short Recension. What 731 stands for in Ms Z is unclear. This reinforces the conclusion which we could draw from the fact that only § 56a is found in the Short Recension. where it is followed by § 58b. it has none of SY's usual concerns or language but is composed of traditional mi­ drashic material well attested elsewhere in rabbinic literature. see especially § 1.Sefer Yesira §56 171 Notes on the text of §56 It is significant that this paragraph is missing not only in the Short Recension (ex­ cept for one sentence = Gruenwald's §51) but also in the oldest manuscript of the Long Recension (A). In the Saadyan Recension § 56 constitutes chapter 3:5. The scribe probably began to write then realised his error. In §56a D leaves out the divine name D^n O'nVs but contains the comment on it in § 56b. Similarly C contains the midrashic explanation of the name mx. Two similar errors can be detected in Mss D and C.. mm O'nVs has clearly fallen out of Ms B before D n C O . I am inclined to think that § 56a should be allocated to our earliest recoverable text of SY but its absence in Ms A and Dunash forces me to include it only in square brackets.in ch 1:4. where it is followed by §58a.32? mm but omits the name in 56a. There is considerable variation between the Mss in this paragraph not unlike those in the very similar § 1 and mostly due to the usual copying errors. so it must have been in its exemplar. It almost certainly belongs to that layer of expansionary material which characterizes the Long Recen­ sion. .

therefore. And they all depend on one . CZ) which must have placed Hti* after Vx 1° when it should have read simply ntt*j? V N V N as in the Mss of the Long Recension. Donnolo has an expanded. And they all depend on one . Sefer Yesira § 57 A C p a a Vy nVyoV nyawi TOD"? nwy WW inyo tw pwVwm nyaw a a Vy nwVwi nw iV pxi nnxV p ' o m x a piVn piai nnx IOWI nnx xinw laViya mn* p a Twelve below and seven above on top of them.trustworthy wit­ nesses: the universe. In Mss B'GH the explanation of the epithet Xtt*m has become garbled by scribal errors. been excluded from the apparatus. and three on top of seven. Z E collated to C: 1 B'B GDH collated to A: nVyaV] om B GD. and three on top of seven. E does. paraphrased version (Castelli 1880: 83-84). § 57 offers an alterna­ tive understanding of the phrase U i y o 10"" pcVtPOl from that found in § 14 where the "three of them" seems to refer to "air. a King unique in his universe. Twelve below and seven on top of them.172 Edition and Commentary stopped and marked it for deletion. 12a. The explanation of XU*ni got garbled in E as it does in B'GH. 2 2 iaiV mx-i] om E. And from the three of them he founded his abode. In the context of § 57 it must refer to the three groups of letters of the alphabet. Judah assigns it to the same expansionary version which contains § 56b and does not comment on it (Halberstam 1885: 257). fire". these readings have. And from the three of them he founded his abode. The additions at the end of the paragraph in the short recension Mss PQMN come from lsa 57:15.a sign for the One who has none second to him. for he is one and his name one. for he is one and his name one. the year and mankind. piVn] add THDiyi B'H.a sign for the One who has none second to him. water. however. onw] nwy a n w Z E . C's D'XIU*! is an error for D'STIJ as ZE show and X t t m is an error for 1 X W 0 1 . Notes on the text of §57 This paragraph does not appear in the Short Recension or Dunash's commentary. preserve the correct reading D'ttmp where Z has the error T>tt*nj?. Hag. The Saadyan Recension prefaces the paragraph with a sentence which in the other recensions appears in § 58.wan m w DVIS> onaxj OHS> "at ? mxi a a Vy nwVwi p a i Vy nynwi noaV Dnw piVn | V I D I D i y o n o " jnwVwm nyaw mn' p a n w iV ]xi -mxV i^'o m x a nnx IDWI inx xmw iDViya A proof for the matter . The phrase HO 13 comes in from b. a King unique in his universe. The effect is to bind together the . . The reading in Ms E HO 13 " m Htt> ntt>j? Vx »H |XD IVW Htt> Vx is partly occasioned by an error in its exemplar (cf.

its counting is by ten. the year and man­ kind. Ms C has omitted ~\W3 after D'lW through error.its counting is by ten.jmma nwy 1 [majx nwVw (58a) D'wiaa nyaw .Sefer Yesira §58 173 earlier and later parts of SY which seems to be one of the functions of this final chapter of the work . and the twelve diagonal lines. Eleazar Roqeah's comment on this part of SY: jlwVa xnpin ]'m Via Xin mna wm mVta a'" ia B'lVnW 'aV 'Vn B'aan (cited in Harkavy 1887: 34).trust­ worthy witnesses: the uni­ verse. And a proof for the matter . 125 . and seven dominant ones and their hosts. seven - Three fathers and their off­ spring.trustworthy witnesses: the universe. (58b) A proof for the matter .wen mw aViy o n a x : wx nwVw nnwya mn'ao nyawi nyaw B'ai mm nwy a n w nwy anwi B'aaia nnwya nnmao mw mVTa mum aim nij? nwVw mwxna ' a ' nyaw nyaw B'wnn nwy anw nwy a n w i nwVw nnwya nnn'ao W3) nyaw p a i n m n wxn nwy Dnwi D'nyw nyaw jmrna nwy anw (58a) Three fathers and their offspring. and the twelve diagonal lines. the year and mankind. Three fathers and their off­ spring.anfmixpxi nanV n'xn ]oa[Vx] 'Viaa mw DViy [anax: B'ny] W33 B'ny nanV n'xn (58b) aViy . And a proof for the matter . seven dominant ones and their hosts. reading 125 The weight of the evidence is against the nVl?DV in Mss AB'H as is the parallel sentence in 48b. and the twelve diagonal lines. mankind .holding together its disparate threads.oViy 1 §58 pminVim max nwVw p m i x a n a'waa nyawi J'oiVax 'Viai nwy anwi onaxj a n y nan ? mxm wan mw oViy nnwya mn'ao DViy wa: nnwya n n r a o mw D'nwyi nnwya nnn'ao .mw .its counting is by ten: three fire. the year . And there are twen­ ty-two objects in each one. Sefer Yesira K pminVim max nwVw j m x a n D'waia nyawi poaVx 'Viai nwy anwi rO'iaw B'ny nan ? mxm . the year and mankind. And a proof for the matter trustworthy witnesses: the universe. See the notes to § 12 for other examples of this editorial urge. the year and man­ kind.its counting is by ten.nnx Vaa w D'xan anwi mnwx nwVwoViya anwi a'aaia nyawi B'ai nwVw mwa .wan .trust­ worthy witnesses: the uni­ verse. The universe .pminVim nnwy [anwi] . and seven dominant ones and their hosts. |"lVn (instead of rpVtN which we find in § 48b) may be a play on the word 'Vn in §§ 55 and 59. air and water. Cf. The universe .mVia nwy ' a ' nyaw n n m aim nij? D'wnn nwy anwi n'wxna p a i w x n nwVwwaia onwi a'nyw nyaw n n m . The rest of the material in the paragraph comes mainly from § 48b.

2:6) nyaw mm o'a wx nwVw nyaw . and twelve . and twelve .poiVaix maa nwy anwi pioaVx maa nwy anwi nwy anwi .the seven days of creation. seven . the chest.aim mp nwy anw nwy Dnw aoaia nyaw nyaw n n m aim .ammxaxi anax: am* nan ? n"xm anax: any nan ? mxm nan ? mxn paVx maa .the head. B D'aaia ti p m i n m m m a x a poD7X '713a m i p m i x a x a n a x : a n y nan ? m ' x m w a : m w oViy D'DI w x nwVw iriTDD a m y mVTD a a m a i a n n m mp a a n w y a n n v a o m w a' m w x n a ' a ' n m m a i m j *a nnmao w a : O'wnn y D n y w m m m p a i wxn . n m a nwy anw . 1:4) .ammxaxi a'aaia nyawi a'wiaa nyaw . and the belly.nwVw /aa nnmao mw nyaw nyaw D'ai mmwx mp nw"?w m r o a nnmao ••a' nyaw .wa:i n:w amy anax: a n y nwy anw amaia nyaw . p w i V i m . The year . the belly and the chest.the twelve months. the seven days of creation.wx .a'wtn nwy anw .cold.wa:i mw B7iy . B 2 D z p'nnVim max nwVw . heat and the temperate state.mm .mm .ammxan B'waa nyaw . n m .its count­ ing is by ten: three . heat and the temperate state. 'aa inmao aViy nan ? mxn (58b = ch. In mankind there are three: the head.the seven exits.wa:i mw aViy wa:i n:w a"?iy anax: a n y nwVw nnwya invoo B7iy nwVw. and the twelve principal or­ gans.174 Edilion and Commentary In the universe there are three: fire. and the seven exits.its counting is by ten: three . air and water.mwxna nnwya nnmao n:w mVra anw nwy anw mwxna w nwVw 'aa inmao wa: nyaw nnm aim mp nwVw nnvao waa B'wnn nwy nyaw . and twelve . Mankind .pai . In the year there are three: cold.wxn anw mwxna ' a ' nyaw nnai wxn nwVw mwya . seven .B'ai .the twelve prin­ cipal organs. p m v n i m max nwVw max nW7W (58a = ch. j n m a 'an 1 1 1 and the seven planets. and the twelve months.]nm:a nwy anw .the twelve constel­ lations.D'nyw wa: omv nwy anw nwy anyw nyaw nyaw p a i wxn nwVw nnwya nnvao anw nwy anw (?)anyw nyaw nyaw p a i nnai pi'nia nwy nwy anw nwy anw anyw rama 1 1 1 1 . and seven planets and twelve constellations.amaia nwVw nnwya inmao D"?iy mw mVia nwy anw .

piDD^X I. As we have seen. In which case these other paragraphs look like an attempt to bring § 58 into harmony with whatever parts of §§27-36 lay before the editor of the Long Recension. Unlike §§ 27 and 50. i.Sefer Yesira §58 LMNSFPIQR collated to K: D'ttO-D] D'U713D LSFIQ «. The "counting by ten" only appears in SY § 58b. GH collated to A: D'UOD] D'SSIS G. It has the effect of binding together four of the five chapters of SY (chapter one = 10. Saadya. 127 126 . ptoVx] ppCOVx LMNFPR.e. § 58a appears in all our texts. however. Then in his commentary he justifies See the Introduction § 8.2. Mss C and E do not have this addition. m 175 E collated to C: mu>l>3 10] add nwbw HJDUn E. 58a. 126 127 The phrase j m n i T > i m max nwVw at the beginning of § 58a must be related both to § 27 and to the form of § 50 which appears in Mss MNFP. though it is present in British Library Or. chapter four = 7. Notes on the text of §58 In the Saadyan recension the material in this paragraph is found in two different places: in Saadya's chapter 1:4 (after §45) = §58a and in chapter 2:6 (after § 18) = § 58b. 43. and 48/9. Nonetheless. D'DDD Q*. Saadya faces the same problem in his translation and commentary on § 58 and has a neat solution which solves the problem at the drop of a hat: although the Hebrew text before him says ]nmYY7im JTOX nwVtP he trans­ lates it "three mothers and what originates from them" (iVim x m nXHDX 'nVn X n w . This suggests that 58b is an expansion of 58a drawn from material in §§ 29. the absence of § 58b in the Short Recension and in the commentaries of Dunash and Judah ben Barzillai indicates that it is likely to belong to the Long Recension expansion of the text of SY.6 a . §§ 56a. the resumptive repetition of the clause DVT3? D ' W X J D'Hl? 13"?V m x i WD31 7\W at the beginning of 58b shows that the arranger of the Saadyan Recen­ sion must have had the Long Recension version of § 58 in front of him and felt the need to pick up and repeat the last sentence of § 58a before introducing § 58b. 30. which creates a presumption that it belongs to our earliest recoverable text. It must be significant that the Saadyan version splits the material at precisely the point where the Short Recension of the paragraph comes to an end. 1263 in the Saadyan version which appears in fols. Lambert 1891: 31). D'ODO D'DDID H. pDDlVx Q.Kafach 1972: 59. 3 b . that seems to be one of the basic literary functions of this supplementary Long Recension material. It is striking that in our restoration of the earliest recoverable text of SY we in fact replicate exactly what Saadya has in his chapter 1:4. Donnolo has an expanded and paraphrased version of the Long Recension text of §58 (Castelli 1880: 84). chapter five = 12). chapter three = 3. 59a. as we saw in connection with § 56 repeats § 56a at the beginning of §58a. However.

1X03 1. n n o 3 "P>»3 W M 37 . Basically. No other readings of G and H are worth citing in the apparatus. may well represent an attempt to tidy up and provide a more logical structure for the more verbose form of the text found in the earlier Mss. However. the celestial sphere.a"? 7i7n .nanVM *]VDD (59a) There is a law of ten.176 Edition and Commentary his translation as follows: "I have translated "V13X "mothers" in accordance with what I have said before that our words "fathers" and "mothers. (59b) The Hook in the The Hook in the universe is universe is like a king on his like a king on his throne.nm*i3 D . Mss B and B contain minor errors but both are closer to the form of the text found in the Saadyan Recension than they are to that of Ms A. and the heart. arose . seven and twelve. heart. three. given its late date. The Hook in the uni­ verse is like a king on his throne.nnn7B3 . They have command of the Hook. This phrase seems to provide the basis for the unique arrangement of the material found in Ms D which. but in general the variations between the Mss which belong to the Long Recension and between the Long and Saadyan Recensions reflect deliber­ ately different arrangements of the same basic material." "pri­ mary matter.703 U*D33 37 .probably drawn from §22. If. three.nn3 •J7D3 D7iy3 n n .nonVas There is a law of ten.motm n n 3 j m p s -\wy onwi . There is a law of ten." "principles. the celestial sphere in In Ms B there is an illegible word after Dnytt? which may be a dittography though it is not marked as an error. the ce­ the celestial sphere. seven and twelve.all these have the same mean­ ing." This is the same solution as the Mss MNFP text of § 50 and may indicate to us how that text arose. only Ms A has the phrase i n x "733 W D'XDn D'3tt»1 onttWl . throne. [and] the lestial sphere. .371 ViVn 75? "1703 07ij?3 n n (59b) p » 3 mwa ViVi . § 58a does go back to the original author of SY then the problem of its compatibility with the "three mothers" of chapter three (§§ 23-36) existed from the beginning. They seven and twelve." "elements. they arrange the material like Mss B and B ." and "basic substance" .as a gloss on D/'U'SD. as seems likely.ixoa by T7D3 7171 .nwbw\ . They are are officials over the Hook. 1 2 128 .niwy pn (59a) A c njunw mwy pi[n] (59a) -\wv [onwi mow 371 ViVi n n 3 onmp'Di pas D"?V3 n n 1 (59b) p a s rows 7i7i xo3 by p n s 1113 3 ? n m » 3 . present in the Hook. 1 1 2 Sefer Yesira §59 nioun nwbw mwy pn o n n o i nwy Dnun . H's reading D'SDID D tt*33 shows us how the reading D'SDID in Mss Q* DB and G. and the heart. three. Perhaps Saadya's solution accurately reflects the author's thinking. the celestial sphere in the celestial sphere in the 128 2 K . The repetitious nature of the language of §58b created many opportunities for scribal errors.

all our witnesses attest both halves of § 59. .Sefer Yesira §59 the year is like a king in a province. the heart in man­ kind is like a king at war. so the situation is not comparable to that which we found in the manuscript evidence for §§ 56 and 58. V is easy to see how P Y p D I could have arisen from J'llpD. as we have seen..mankind. .R. 2 177 the year is like a king in a province. ZE = C D W I ] add mVtD L.the numbers three. . It . the seven. why do we not find anything illustrat­ ing the seven and the twelve? There is no obvious solution to this problem. There is only one significant variant between the Mss in this paragraph rTpDl\|mpS\Dn mp Dl.| V D 3 ] 711a p a a nanVaa naiVs F. This raises the possibility that § 59b may have arisen as an explanatory gloss on § 59a. the heart in man­ kind is like a king at war.Vna -paa] p n a L. The insertion of §25 looks as though it might be starting an explanation of the three. | m p S makes the best sense within the overall thought structure of SY and has the most manuscript support . as it stands in the Long Re­ cension.. V J V J = 7\W.R. but if so. see the notes to § 26. seven. nanVaa . aV] aVi L. In the notes to §26 we considered the possibility that the word pin might be the link. It may have arisen as an explanatory gloss. there would be only one letter's difference from p l p D . Notes on the text of §59 Again we find that the Saadyan Recension splits up the material of this paragraph into two parts: 59a is placed after 58 at the end of Saadya's chapter 1:4 while 59b appears in chapter 8:4 placed logically after § 55.though if it were written without the Yudh vowel letter. year is like a king in a prov­ ince. and twelve are "counted in/present in" 'Vn = DViy. and the twelve. Again it must be significant that the Short Recension also splits up § 59 at the same point inserting into it either § 25 (Mss KLSR and Judah ben Barzillai) or §§25-26 (Mss MNFPIQ and Dunash). belongs to the earliest recoverable text it remains difficult to explain why all the Short Recension Mss inserted §§25 or 25-26 here. less easy to account for o n ' t l p ' S I . and D = W W .. But if § 59 in its integrity. B'B GDH collated to A: p n ] n n B'H. is used in an unusual sense in SY . but those Mss which insert only § 25 here are precisely the ones which do not have this word in that para­ graph.. B ' T p a i ] O'Yipai MNIQR. assuming an original plural termination in D\ The reading 1/113 in CZE (which appears in Ms 1 and in a garbled form in Ms F) replaces WSJ which. LMNSFPIQR collated to K: i?n] pr DHyn nx nnn L. T. waja] 7113 1. the heart in mankind is like a king at war. On the other hand..

aioa aio . D iVx nxpa NAN Vw lVVa DY iVxi iVx DY panose naa iV'x mman .aio .iV'x iVxi iVx nman iVx iVx OY mx .iV'x naa iVx |x OKI iVx naa iVxi . and those to these. these are oppo­ sites of those. Good is stored up for the good.yn nx pnaa ym yn nx ynza a'aioV nna naio .evil from evil and good from good. Good brings evil to light and evil brings good to light. neither do those. and if these do not exist. and those of these.iV'x rx I V ' X px D X I iVx ]x nt naiy? m ysn Va D I yn naiyV aio D'nVx xna 3io aioa 3ioi yna yn pnaa ym ynnx pnaa .aio n»yV YN nx pnaa aio.178 Edition and Commentary Sefer Yesira §60 iV*x nspn NAN *?v lVVa nxpa nanVw iVVa (60a) ay I V ' X I mx DY psnoxi iVxi iVx DY I'snoxa iV'x iV'x nman iV'x .D'snV nnioa? nym The sum of the matter: in some cases these are com­ bined with those. and if these do not exist. Good is stored up for the good and evil is kept for the evil. these correspond to those. and those with these. these are oppo­ sites of those. yna naio aion nx pnaa ym nmatz" nym .s created everyneither do those. Good brings evil to light and evil brings good to light. and those of these. evil good from good and evil from evil.D'aioV nna .yna yn 3 i o a 310 .mx nman iV'xi iVx naa iV'x iVx nman . nayV m yon Va D I (60b) nayV aie :0'nVx xna m aio . and those to these. Qoh 7:14): good opposite evil . one opposite the othercreated every object.iV'x naa iV»xi . So God has object.omoV nna naio aio nx The sum of the matter: in some cases these are com­ bined with those.lV'X ViVn 'Vna rpnx pai nwy nt nayV m m aVi YN . So Go</ /io.iVx iV px iV px DXI . Qoh 7:14): good opposite one opposite the other (cf. and those with these. these correspond to those.YN nayV aio D'nVxn YM . (cf.D'ynV .

This raises the question as to whether § 60b could have arisen as an expansion of 60a based on the quotation from Qoh 7:14 and the last sentence of § 48a. The fact that all the Long Re­ cension Mss (apart from A) repeat § 55 (aVl ViVi 'Vna f p H X |Vl31) between 60a and 60b confirms this.Sefer Yesira §60 179 LMNSFPIQR collated to K: xnajnwy mnfpiq.yn nayV aio :0'nVx xna m noyV m fan Va B J I'naa »m yn nx imaa aio .. ym D'ynV nmow B \ nym Dnyi7 m m G. mm) nniow mn. nmow] m m s. D'nVx] D'nVxn L.iV'x maa iV'xi .iV'x nna [. Notes on the text of $60 The textual tradition of §60 presents us with a real dilemma: the Short Recension only attests §60b while the Saadyan Recension only has 60a with the result that no part of it is present in all our Mss. This suggests that the combination of the two in Ms A and the Long Recension is a later development.aVi V V 'Vna ppinx ]Viai] aa §60b (Short and Long Recensions) (j60a (Long and Saadyan Recensions) As we have already seen.iV'x Dy iV'x T'x iV'x px bxi . 60a and 55 together and lifted them as a block into the end of his chapter eight. Let us first of all assemble this material together: §48a (Short Recension) §48b (Long Recension) nx oi nanVa r a a pnyi nana *'oa ixwy ..371 ViVi B ' B G H . DII pr n n a ppinx jViai . SID SI aioa 3ioi| ym 3ioo 310 SID B ' B G H . D'aioV] D'p'nxV L. §48b in all Short Recension Mss is found after 60b. B'B GH collated to A: . D'ynV ym . nmow nym D'ynV] D'ywnV n u .O'nVxn nwy m noyV m •'piVn nwVw nyaw noiy inaV nnx nnx nwVw nwy anw D"nja ynao pin nnxi nwVw Vy D'Bmx nwVwi B'a'ix nwVwnnnVoB p o i y Vwio joxj ")Vo Vxi B'moo nwVwi o"no nwVw nyaw 'aa Vy nwVwi nwVw '3i Vy nnx ]Viaa ma m Tpinx |Viai nwy anw 'aa Vy nyawi . In §60 and the parts of §48 found in the Short Recension we seem to have a complex of material built around Qoh 7:14. D'aioV] add D'ynV m m nym B .Q. The creator of the Saadyan Recension found §§ 59b. but it seems to be picking up and developing the phraseology of §48a (underlined . : 1 H.yno ym aioo aio D'ynV nmow nym o'aioV m m n3io .310 nx iV'xi iV'x Dy I'anoxi iV'x nxpo nan V lVVa w iV'x .iV'x mmon iV'xi iV'x mmon iV'x . noyV aio yn] add aio naiyV ym p.

PO'ID (lawsuit) and p i n (law). Dunash's form of §60b maintains the exact text of Qoh 7:14 as in §60a (Short Recension). But why would he want to do this? 129 130 131 It is hard. leaves §§48-49 just dealing only with the twelve simple letters. and JlDlrVD. Dan 1993: 29. picking up and slightly rewording the biblical quotation with which it ends. §60b looks like a parallel develop­ ment of Qoh 7:14 to § 48a (Short Recension) or an expansion of it.as reconstructed in Appendix III. Qoh 7:14) but also because of the verbal link f?1D1 PpVTN to § 55 which is inserted at the end of 60a in all Long Recension Mss except A. In fact the text of Mss LS and Judah ben Barzillai. as we saw in the notes to §§48-49. Judah ben Barzillai works hard in his commentary to show that §60b is compatible with rabbinic Judaism (Halberstam 1885: 262-63). (2) The editor of the Long Recension found §48b after §60b where it is now in the Short Recension and moved it to §48 because he saw the verbal connections with §48a. We are faced with two alternatives: (1) §§48a and 48b originally belonged together as part of the §§48-49 complex and a scribe of a Ms which is ancestor to all our surviving Short Recension Mss extracted 48b from its original position and moved it after 60b. But that would raise the question as to what the Short Recension version of §48 was doing in the §§48-49 complex in the first place. The complex deals with the "twelve simple letters" whereas the content of §48a (Short Recension) seems much more at home with § 60 and the sort of summary material we find in this concluding part of SY. § 60b) in the Saa- D'i'njai o'wnm nvVro ona nxi iram p p w p x n p n x p p n mows nnwy D'nw . would under­ mine the freedom of the will essential to the working of rabbinic Judaism.180 Edition and Commentary above) . one conclusion we could draw is that the absence of a paragraph (i. to choose between these alternatives. 130 129 .e. the Short recension version of §48a seems to be firmly positioned in all recensions and Mss (except LS and Judah ben Barzillai) as an early comment on the brief original sentence of §48a/49a. But. not only because of the thematic connection (i. Or do they witness to an earlier situation in which none of this material was connected to §§48-49? So another version of this second alternative could be that the editor of the Long Recension found §§48a (Short Recension) and 48b together next to § 60 and moved them both to after § 48 (original version as 1 have reconstructed it in the notes to §§48-49). This would suggest that § 60b existed well back in the development of the text of SY and that would raise the question as to why the editor of the Saadyan Recension chose to leave it out. as Joseph Dan notes. However. if not impossible.e. by dropping out §48a (Short Recension form) entirely. A motive for its omission can be imagined: the editor could have disliked its ethical determinism which. When the Saadyan Recension was created §48a and 48b were situated together as they are now in the Long Recension because we find them together at the beginning of Saadya's chapter six.

1?'1» m i 3 ' 0 » 3 1 0 3 1 0 n x pniO im in (good does good and evil does evil. i r i i m p x m ppm ] n x vVy nV:u i m a nnVyi ipwn ipma i3'wim Van iawi lamx ixipi iwxi Vy iynVi iV n n a mai ma nawmi ' " a paxm . c a a wxa p w a . The weight of the evidence (all the Mss except A) favours the reading l?1!a SHI 31073 3 1 0 and with the clause D'lnV miDW nVII at the end.Sefer Yesira §61 181 dyan Recension might not indicate this time that it was not present in the exemplar of its editor. Sefer Yesira §61 K ivax amax naxw j v a i . though it is easy to see how the lat­ ter could have been added to an originally shorter text. There are possible reasons why he might want to leave it out . § 60a seems to be part of the major Long Recension expansion of SY. good wipes out evil and evil wipes out good).nV'a v m myaxx iwy . This demonstrates yet again the freedom the scribe of this manuscript felt to rewrite the text he was supposed to be copying. though there still remains the possibility that 60b could have been a later expansion of § 48a.nvnwn . Ms Paris 763 has an interesting but idiosyncratic version of the latter part of § 60b: JIN j?m» 3 1 0 . I am inclined to the view that §48a (Short Recension). §48b and §60b all originally belonged together as part of the build up to the conclusion of S Y.nna jwyi wxa iwy D'JWD p m : .oViyV Iina n n a iV m a . The voluminous variants cited in Gruenwald's apparatus to this paragraph are nearly all mechanical errors occasioned by its repetitious language. 7ia] ima nnVyi [iixx] Dioa mn xipan la'wim Van p i x vVy .ynm xim v m myaxx iwy . D) could be correcting in accordance with the text of Qoh 7:14.mo nina .pam ipm n x m c a m .pwV n n a xim [fol.npixV iV n n a xim i n n niyDxx A irnx nmnx xnw p m ix ivax a m a x j'anwai p a m ipm nxm c c m nnVyi awm ipm iixi nwm 3xm mxi ppm vVy xip " vVy nVr: [i]ma nVa: [fol.mVia .iy 'aViy iy iynVi n n a amwi onwy iwp pwV wnpm mwVa nvmx a'aa pwa ma iV nVn n n a jwyn wxa ]pVi Bnwa Dim: nyawa py'D .it partly duplicates §48a (Short Recension form) and its orthodoxy is questionable. On bal­ ance.mVta iwy Iina n n a iV m a .mi ynym ]ona ixip iwxi Vy ipwji ipma iV mai i:a iawi lamx z p a x m nVivV iynVi mia ixi ivax D m a x panwai xipi npix iV nawmi ' " a nnVyi awm ipm i t x i aioa a m a i ' " maa vVy xipi 'napn vVy nVa: m a l a i n ynym ]oaa p x x lixx D I D D mn xipan vVy iwy i m a n n a iV mai xxn oioai I'nyi' p 3 3 iwa xim i n n mvnxx ciiV x'331'nwipn a m o linn nnn iV m a nV'a iV mai lanx ixwyi . 38b] nvmx nnwy iV iwp iV nV'i mpam miwVs pVi . The reading 7WV for X 1 3 (MNFP1Q. all our texts have the verb 7WV in §48a. but more likely X 1 3 represents the line of correction of SY which we discerned in §§ 1 and 20.

15:6). and the Holy One revealed to him the secret. and succeeded.it is language. [Trans. and combined. he shook them into the air. 133 . and investigated. and the Omnipresent revealed to him his secret. and pondered. 132 Edition and Commentary When Abraham our father came. etc. And he made him sit in his lap. the Lord of all was revealed to him. I knew you.it is the covenant of circumcision. as it is written: Before I formed you in the womb. and made a covenant with him and his seed for ever. the Lord was revealed to him. He bound twenty-two let­ ters into his language. He drew them out into water. I knew you. (Jer.it is the covenant of language. and carved. error.l:5). He bound twenty [-two] letters into his language. He made with him a covenant between the ten toes of his feet . he led them into the twelve constellations. and investigated. and hewed. and succeeded. Arid he trusted in the Lord. and looked. the Lord of all was revealed to him. and made a cov­ enant with him and his seed for ever. and investigated. He called him his friend and named him his son. and understood. he burned them into fire. he branded them into the seven. of C] M D E irax annax naxw p a i axm ppm nxm c a m pnx T>VJ? nVro ima nnVsn n n a nnai lanx lxnpi Van " ' a paxm uniVi iV 132 irax annax xaw p m pam npm nxm c a m nnVin nx'1 p x i axm Van pnx inv nVro ima ipu*:i ipma la'wim nx irax annax panwai ima nnVvi awm "]mxi x n p i m a a ins? nVro nnxx anoa mn xnpan ins? ixwv "Viai/n -pnvm p a a The reading of all the other Short Recension Mss shows that B'nwi was omitted here in I follow here in my translation the majority reading of the Mss . he led them into the twelve constellations. he branded them into the seven. He made with him a covenant between the ten fingers of his hands . etc.l5:6). and he accounted it to him for righteousness (Gen. He called him his friend and named him his son. 133 When Abraham our father understood. And he made him sit in his lap. (and) formed and combined.it is circumcision. and looked. and hewed. and combined. he burned them into fire. and un­ derstood. He made with him a cov­ enant between the ten toes of his feet . and saw. and saw. He drew them out into water. and carved.182 When Abraham our father observed.B'»a. He made with him a covenant between the ten fingers of his hands . and pondered. and kissed him upon his head. and formed. And he invoked upon him the glory of the Lord. (Jer.l:5). And he trusted in the Lord. and he accounted it to him for righteousness (Gen. and succeed­ ed. and kissed him upon his head. he shook them into the air. He invoked over him this scripture: Before I formed you in the womb. etc.

lymVi] add vnnx P. The textual evidence for this paragraph vividly illustrates our prob­ lem with comprehending the textual history of SY. one has twenty-one words (Ms C). As we shall see.-pnym xim i n n myaxx nwy nna iV nnai .nyawa p y a . ' a m x H. N P I Q R collated to M: awm] pt-nxn B ' B G H . tram] om F. pwVn] mna pwVn P I Q R . the other eighty-nine words (Ms A). myaxx] nwy mysxx L S F R .a'aa pwa . nVij] nVjj TX L. nyaws] add D'aaia p. Van ]inx] xin -pna wmpn B'H.mo v> nVm miw?a . nyawa] nyawa B ' B H . §§62-63 are clearly later additions.nrrta nwy onwa L S F R collated to K : B ' B G H collated to A : 2 naxw] nxnw L.amy maa i n y xnpi . wnpm] aipam B G . and in the Saadyan Recension. n"?m] aipam nVn P I Q R . n r a n ] nna n r a P I Q R .pwVn xmi vm myaxx nvmx amwi anwy nwpi pwa . lanx ixnpi] om I.nV'an x'm i n n . iamx] 'ainx B ' . pwV n n a wnpn G.D'aa onwa p n : .pwV n n a mwVa nvmx Dmwi lyntVi nna i ? nnai iamx . pwV] pwV nna B .npnx V? p a a nnxx anua aman 'n pa nna iV nna .mVta nwy iawi .Sefer Yesira §61 183 nna npnx"? iV mawmi myaxx nwy pa n n a iV nwy pai . Of our two oldest Mss. 2 1 2 wxa] wxa irax] add aiVwn iny N Q . amaia nyawa G . mVfa] om L R . There are two ver- . §61 forms the conclusion to SY.iamx ixnp iwxna ny iymVi nna iV nnai na nawmi 'na paxm . axm ppm] pam npm nxn p x i axm ppm P I R . anwy] amwi anwy L S F R .nna jwyn wxa pVn . mna] 2 mna B ' B G .ny 'amy nyi amy ny 1 iV nVj xm mna wnpm pVn .wxa nnn . na iawi] nai B'H. ]awa] j r m n B . na iawi] iawi lawa L.mo p y a mna jwyn . 2 2 2 2 2 D'aa] a ' a a B ' B G H . pn: PIQR. Notes on the text of §61 In all the Mss of the Short Recension (except for K and R). 2 nnai G.nV'a nna xim vm myaxx nwy pa o n w y nwp . p m ] pm N . WXa B G H ( B err WXna).a'aaia nyawa . nwa nV-a] nV'a nna G . wxa o'as] a'aa L S F R . nVi:] nVjm B . nxn] nxi SR. irax] add Dr?wn iny LS.

(5) The sentence 133 1»Un 13H1S 1K"ip 1tt>KT ?J7 l p w n i p V D I S ' C i m is not present in Mss CI. There is no way of deciding which represents what the original author wrote. Note PIR's addition of four extra verbs ( f o m "lpm "DPI flXI) to the four verbs in M N R ( 3 X m p p m n x m t r a m ) . we cannot reconstruct an earlier agreed list of these verbs.the longer or the shorter version? Arguments can be supplied to support both positions but. So again. Their text is intermediate between that of K and M. My reconstruc­ tion simply takes the text of C but this expresses no confidence that its four verbs represent the original choice of the author. We can detect its growth from a two-word addition . 1° nna 135 I3( 1 1 134 I? mai. 266). (2) Next we have a chain of verbs. to the nine-word version found in the other Short Recension 1 2 1 have provided the text of M in the Apparatus. Mss S and B show the type of text that results from this type of omission. 134 135 136 137 (3) The phrase 1 T 3 nnVsn is attested in all Mss. one represented by Ms K (plus LSFR) with seventyeight words and another attested in Mss M N and to some extent in Mss P1QR ..184 Edition and Commentary sions of the Short Recension. constituting part of the protasis before the single verb of the apodosis . Which is earlier .. Three expansions . (4) Again m n vVi? is in all texts. 137 Judah ben Barzillai has xa in his first citation of this paragraph (Halberstam 1885: 99) but tnv in his two other subsequent citations (pp." The number of the verbs in this list varies from three in Ms E (3ttVl1 *)TX1 IX) to eight in the Long Recension and some Short Recension Mss. S omits 1° "pna. "IX and ppn play a crucial role elsewhere in SY but CZ do not have ppn and M N Q do not have llPYlX. ' Omissions by parablepsis would not account for all the differences. 261. not only because of its distinctive form.Van ]1~IX in the Short Recension and ADB G. This has sixty words. it is easier to account for the longer version as the result of successive additions to a core text than to see one of our two earliest Mss as the result of a drastic shortening of an earlier much longer text. on the whole."was revealed. Some scribes have clearly decided to throw in all the key verbs from the earlier parts of SY. X3 in the Long Recension and p 3 n in the Saadyan Recension.'imT7l and B .1XUW 13HX (ZE) or 13HX INip (MNPQR). But even the shortest lists do not provide us with a single verb which is attested in all Mss... NW m n a ttmpn in B'HZ and ' 3 1 1 3 3 (DE) testify to a simple core reading expanded in different ways by enterprising scribes. Let us work through the paragraph phrase by phrase and try and isolate the core of the tradition and the source of the expansions: (1) The three recensions are immediately distinguished by the verb chosen to begin the paragraph: in the Short Recension. to the six word 1CX13 iptPJI i p V D IS'ttnm 13H1X I X I p in Ms D. Even within the Saadyan Recension there is no agreement among our three witnesses since Ms Z has thirty-six words and E thirty-three words. At least here we have testimony to a uniform earlier text. . but because the text of Ms K is contaminated with several errors.

Since the Saadyan editor included both these ear­ lier sets of additions it is difficult to understand why he would want to leave these final statements out of the conclusion to the book.. p W D ) . as in (4) above. This is not present in any of the Saadyan Recension Mss. Functionally. binding it all together. then.8.'3. Inevitably. This ? wnpn or si3 m i 3 wnpn. on the basis of what are almost certainly a couple of errors in Ms Q 0p"?n for p?n and ini?3 for pj?3) he corrects the suffixes of all the verbs in the chain ]jn 3.1 13 "pVon (§§ 32-34. some scribes felt the need to provide an explicit subject for the verb .pB?D from plural to singular. This is another way of stating the point made by the two streams of Long Recension additions . otherwise it is attested only in medieval Hebrew. (8) The reference to "covenant" (6) leads to a considerable expansion which draws on S Y § 3 :iV ma n>o nu?3 xim vVn mi?3xs nwi? -pns nns T? msi |1WV Sim vm nil?3XS nwi? Tn3 m n 3 . 41. It is easier to comprehend them as additions.14) accepts the reading piD' here from the first printed edition against the evidence of all the manuscripts. (9) The phrase pwV (nn3) at the end of this expansion is then itself expanded by the clause 131WV3 nvms DTIW1 Dnwi? n w p . . (11) The final expansion describes the infusing of the letters into the different el­ ements of creation (mVta . this addition forms a fitting conclusion to the text. (6) IS? 'aVlS? V niDI. L 138 . B'H have an eight-word version with ' M l instead of sentence is found in all Mss except C so must belong to a very early stage in the growth of the text.Sefer Yesira § 61 185 Mss and the Long Recension. Liebes 2000: 73 (and 290. It is not present in the Short Re­ cension or Judah ben Barzillai's citations of § 61. Even the short text of Ms C implies the context of Genesis 15. . n. n. For its suitability in the context of §61 see Liebes 2000: 209.44. It is probably significant that they are missing in Donnolo's citation of §61 in his commentary (Castelli 1880: 85) while Judah describes this element as a "variant reading" ('Din msi). If this is a correct account of how SY §61 developed then the core text consisted more or less of that found in Ms C minus the biblical quotation from Jeremiah. Shabbetai Donnolo's citation of §61 stops at this point (Cas­ telli 1880: 85) as does Judah ben Barzillai's first citation of the paragraph (Halber­ stam 1885: 100). Gen 15:6 gets drawn into most Mss but not CE. (7) A reference to Jer 1:5 appears in the Long Recension and from there was probably transmitted to the Saadyan Recension.D1J70H or 11? 1J7TT71 1V13 133 iawi. again against the evidence of all the other manuscripts.. Similarly. so this is a natural theme for any Jewish scribe to add in at this point. 52) and mi 131X13 (§§ 36. Again this is not found in the Saadyan Recension. 38 (10) mo' V? mm follows in the Short and Long Recensions but. 54). It may also be significant that a Piel form of the verb Win appears for the first time here in the Hebrew language.

In Ms C a Waw must have been omitted before IX. N's reading pn* (he placed them) makes better sense.Vino p ' o paixn .n3w .ooan n a n p i o nVins .n3w 2 .Vxaw ixi nswn ' v a n n a w 3 -wan nan 3313 ' w w maV .133 p n nVo 3 .pa* ]7ixi m .pa* 113 m .pa* ixi n3W3 Vxaw pvi nawa nw [ixi naw]3 *w*Vw nan n3W3 *i?*3i n m p a 1 *i>*3i nn* .mnm m n m T I X I Dim . but this disrupts the syntax.p'31 is the protasis (when he came/saw/under­ stood.).that 11*3. 2 139 2 140 .. IS is missing in the transcription of Dunash's text found in Moses ben Joseph's translation of this commentary (Vajda-Fenton 2002: 248).Vxaw pixi n3W3 .Vxaw 1X1 n3W3 p i x i n3W3 wan nan H3W3 w msV .7ino p'o paixn .mas u s n[i] [. otherwise the sentence cannot be properly construed.ma n n x ..wax m .wxm pix . 140 141 .pa* pyi n3W3 inx p i n n3W3 mw a n x a c p x n n m mum m x l Bin a'aw p a i mp . R reads p i S 3 .186 Edition and Commentary The reading ilVl* TX in Ms L reinforces the syntax implied in every other manu­ script except C and B .5] ..mVxaw nnia ViVx .Vxaw JT1X1 T*X .joai mp . The reading pni in Ms M is difficult to construe since the verb ~\T\) (to be poured out) is always intransitive in the Qal and Niphal and is not attested in the Piel.ppip nwn amxa T ' x mw 1 3 3 p n nVo] 3 Vmoi p'o paixn m a i nnx o*oai n a n p i o nVwa pa*Vw mViai B X Vxaw xnisi ViVx [ppipi nwn ontxa '' The Leningrad fragment of the Arabic text of Dunash's commentary has nVl" IS (Fenton 1988:52).rnD3 mw .mo 3X n x wiwo n a n p i o ViVx H7in3 pa* mVia nwn amxa Vxaw mVia p w m a aipi? . See Hayman 1989: 234.B*aw .pa* pin r»3W3 m x §62 A p x .nai naw T O W 2 . 141 Sefer Yesira K p x . In many Mss it is difficult to decide whether the reading is /mia/tt>X3/D''?33 nJ73UO or nS73tt>3/mi3/tt>X3/0 »3.wax m .) and nVl" the apodosis (then was revealed .. pl?13 in Ms K has some slight support in Ms S and probably R but this is probably an error (Waw for Yudh).wax m wxn pix .nna* mVia ax . crucial for our understanding of the whole religious orientation of SY.]03i mp .wxm m x pix nai naw *n3w 2 a n x a p a pin n a w 3 1 pin rows m w a n x a n3W3 *w*Vw nan Vxaw *wnw nan . The syntax of this initial sentence is.133 p n nVo 3 nan 3313 Vxaw ixi p a ' pixi n3W3 wan pixi n3W3 [*ww] n*3V .Vxaw [End of T-S 32.maa i i 3 T * X mw ..ppnp l3 .Vxaw m n . All the other Mss have either pI7*3 or pJ73.mini m m m i x l Din D'aw .probably an error for 1*11713. It is not difficult to see how the one reading may have arisen from the other..nDi . of course.pa* ixi 3313 . The addition of the Waw in B (nVl'l) creates one long protasis with no apodosis. and 1991: 99. The manuscript tradition clearly became confused about this at an early stage.

Adar. Qof. Mem. Libra.Sefer Yesira §62 187 [T-S (Glass) 12/813 . the left kidney. Samek. (2) Saturn. the left foot. Venus. lyyar and the gall. Cancer. Resh. the gul­ let. Mercury. the second day of the week and the left eye. This is He. earth. Zayin. Nisan. Cancer. Leo. Venus. sabbath and the mouth. the sixth day of the week and the left ear. the right hand. the first day of the week and the right eye. the fifth day of the week and the right ear. earth. Scorpio. Sagit­ tarius. Zayin. Nun. lyyar. Shevat. Libra. Mar­ heshvan.px I'D ]V ' 0 1 . and heat and the head. the fourth day of the week and the left nostril.Vxaw m nao na a m . Yod. Venus. the left kidney. the Sun. Het. earth.yiy Vn oaw m . Tammuz. Pi­ sces. Virgo. the sixth day of the week and the left ear. Sade.Vxaw Vn . Taw. the second day of the week and the left eye. This is Alef.Vxaw m nao n i mx D ' n I'D Vn oaw m in xin m . Pe. the left foot. the left foot. Mars. (3) Aries. Adar. the first day of the week and the right eye. Sivan. and temperate state and chest. the left hand. Marheshvan. Sade. Shin. Resh. Zayin. Gem­ ini. Elul and the left kidney. This is Bet.pxyorV'onnn (1) Air. Taurus. Leo. Shevat and the right foot. Samek. Shin. Dalet. Tishri. heaven. Mars. the right foot. the right foot. Av. the third day of the week and the right nostril. This is He. (3) Aries. Sade. Av. heal and the head. Libra. Mercury. Kislev. the stomach. Tet. the right hand. the Sun. Nun. sabbath and the mouth. Tishri and the intestines. Yod. Pisces. lyyar. Shevat. Lamed. Tet. Mars. Taw. Sivan. Gimel. Jupiter. Tet. Mar­ heshvan. Resh. the spleen. the Sun. Dalet. Mem. Sivan. Samek. Adar. This is Bet. Scorpio. Tammuz. Tishri. the left hand. Aquarius. Lamed. Kaf. Gemini. and the spleen. the sixth day of the week and the left ear. Aquarius. Kislev and the right hand. Waw. Pe. the third day of the week and the right nostril. the intestines. heat and the head. . Scorpio. Waw. the liver. cold and the belly. Qof. the gall. Capricorn. the Moon. sabbath and the mouth. the stomach. Av and the right kidney. Jupiter. Jupiter. the liver. Dalet. Ayin. the stomach. Gemini.na'p piwnna anpy . the fourth day of the week and the left nostril. Yod. Leo. the fifth day of the week and the right ear.p»' T> inoa nwp 'Vn . Virgo. Het. Kaf. Kislev. Nun. pwnna an]py begins] p a T I iVoa nwp na'p n n Vxaw] v nao [ni [nnx ann pa' Vm oaw |V 'o m in im]. Te­ vet. the right kid­ ney. Nisan. Sagittarius. the gullet. Waw. (1) Air.I'zr m inoa nwp . the right kidney. the Moon. This is He. the third day of the week and the right nostril. Sag­ ittarius. This is Alef. Mercury. the second day of the week and the left eye. (3) Aries. Pe. Het. Capricorn. Aquarius. Ayin.[px vo 1 (1) Air. temperate state and chest.Vxaw Vn mx . Tevet. Gimel. Capricorn. Tammuz and the gullet. Elul. Elul. the fifth day of the week and the right ear. Lamed. Pisces. the intestines. Nisan. the liver. cold and the belly. Gimel. Taurus. heaven. the gall. Vxaw Vn . Tevet. Taw. Cancer. the fourth day of the week and the left nostril. Mem. This is Bet.na'p nn . Virgo. Ayin. the Moon. Kaf. (2) Saturn. heaven. Taurus. Shin. cold and the belly. the left hand. the first day of the week and the right eye. the spleen. This is Alef. and temperate state and chest. Qof. (2) Saturn.

fitting the iden­ tity of sefirot 2 . 0*0 and m i .4 in chapter one (§§ 12-14).49. 62. mi ->s j W 7 nsp na WW O'lltPXTI nana ainai (Halberslam 1885: 261). In the Short Recension form of § 25 they are IPX.1 lists as T2"»X are actually the "fathers" or the "offspring" of the "mothers". 44. 180. The two paragraphs are present in all the Mss of the Long Recension but §63 occurs only in Ms E in the Saadyan Recension. See the notes to § 36. This is quite a logical arrangement since these paragraphs all have the same literary structure (.1 and 62. The absence of §62 in Donnolo's commentary is significant since he usually follows the Long Recension version of SY. 41. Judah ben Barzillai states that §§62-63 come from a version which incorporates commentary material into the text. 30. We have seen that the arrangement of the Saadyan and nearly all Mss of the Short Recen­ sion shows that §61 was the original conclusion of SY. What §62.1 and the identification of U*?3X earlier in the text. and 52. 3 00»n] D'DD B .UV "I*""!") and they spell out which letters created the individual items of §62. Marg. 143 142 There is a disharmony between § 62. 733. 2 Notes on the text of §62 In the Short Recension §§62-63 are found only in Mss K and R.. The Saadyan Recension follows §62 with §§ 36. Dunash ben Tamim does not have §§62-63 and Shabbetai Donnolo only has §63.. The contents of § 62 constitute a re-arrangement of material found in §§ 29. Weinstock (1981: 34) prefers to put it in terms of the Long Recension having preserved intact here a block of supplementary material of the type which elsewhere it spreads throughout chapters 3-5 (§§23-64). 27. In Weinstock's view §§36. He thinks that chapter seven in the Saadyan Recension (= § 62) shows that chapters five to eight of that Recension preserve the original arrangement of the supplementary material found in the Long Recension. like it. §60 likewise ( 1 3 1 Vtt" lVV3) indicates that we are near to the conclusion of the text. similar to the additions to § 56. and 54 would be a similar block of material to §62 which has. been split up and spread across the second half of SY by an editor of the Long Recension subsequent to the one who first incorporated this commentary material in the text. then a form of §63 after p 1 3 3 in §48b. § 62 relates to that " See the notes to Ms R in the Introduction § 8. 3 unit"?*] ooan R.3 after §48a. In other words. 2 .3 for its peculiar layout of §§62-63.188 R collated to K: Edilion and 2 Commenlary B'B GDH collated to A: ZE=C 2 1° nan*] -natt* R.44 and 54 (= the first part of its chapter eight). Ms Paris 763 incorporates a form of §62:2 after §43a. A Short Recension Ms not included in this edition (British Library Add. Cat. nx] nnx R. though Mss MNPIQ have a small part of §63 in their form of §48b.1) also contains these paragraphs with a text almost identical with that of KR.

30 and 32 these words are spelt n'Tl and mil.iamm v r x i v r y 1 3 4 5 6 ]n iV'x D'a'ix nwVw . 35 and 50 (Mss MNFP). There are many variants in the Mss but they can all be fairly easily classified either as errors or minor differences in orthography.aVi D'nxi n w D'ma nwVw .aVi D'JTXI D'ry jn iVx D'ma nwVw 3 5 6 .Vxaw Vw naai paoin nwD'maanwVw .oiV'pi py? myn nvxn nwVw 9 pyi nyn pyi na'x: .vamm vmxi v r y l 2 3 4 an iVx D'anx nwVw l . in section 3 of this paragraph K's pTD' H'VlD is spelt n T D X"Vl3 in R. 1 Sefer Yesira § 63 K A E ]n I V ' X I o ' a n x nwVw l .vamm imxi pixV myiaw nwVw nyiawi nai mVVp myn .nyn maio myiaw nwVw naio nyiawi nana pixV . The close relation between Mss K and R can be seen from the text of the colophon in each (§64).max: pyi naio pyi . However. Apart from the three variants recorded in the apparatus to §62.nana py"? ma' nvxn nwVw 10 pyi naio pyi nwi3 .nam o'Vm imwna pxw nwVw .nyn nyiawi pixV m y a w nwVw 8 oiV'pi nana maio .nsm D'mm D"Vrin mw imwna p'x nwVw .oiVpi py myn nvxn nwVw . However.omawi o'Vinm D'mn 5 Vw imwna pxw nwVw v r y mw ]n iVx anx . In §29.nnam naam pwVn aVn D'amx nwVw 2 .mna py nyn py nax: 6 7 myn myiaw nwVw 7 nyawi mnn nVVp inx ? . For example.nana maio nvxn nwVw 10 pyi naio pyi nwia . the orthography of words which they have in common like n'll'n and n'11'1 suggests that this paragraph was a later addition at some point to the manuscript tradition from which they both de­ scend.Sefer Yesira §63 189 secondary layer of material which we first identified in the Long Recension form of §25 and which then appears in §§27.nam amnnnn imwna jnw nwVw .nam omnnnn D'ap: D M ' imwna jnw nwVw . R would not seem to be a copy of K.nnai naai pwV an iVx D'amx nwVw 2 . there are differences in orthography.D'rym D'JTxm D'nm: nw pma nwVw . and Vx»W H'Via becomes n'VxDW H"Via.nsn maio myiaw nwVw 8 naio nyiawi nana pixV .naio nyiawi myn nvxn nwVw 9 pyi nyn pyi nax: py . In §49 they are m x and OODIt.VxawVw 1D31 D'Dp] '3W O'D'Oa nwVw . Suspicious also in K is the spelling o f ' I X and WWti.max: 8 9 nwia ma' nvxn nwVw 10 .max] pixV m y a w nwVw 7 mnm nVVp myn |m .nnai nam pw"? ••my manix nwVw .

10 Three sights are good for 10 There are three good the eye: modesty. 11 Three things are bad for 11 Three things are bad for the tongue: He who the tongue: He who speaks evil in the pres­ speaks in the presence of ence of his fellow. a good eye. 7 Three things are heard by the ear and they are evil: cursing. 5 There are three which are in man's control: the feet. 8 Three good things are heard by the ear: bless­ ing.373 nnxi HDD n n x 'xna i n v nsnam nnx n3t»m punom 373 -mxi DD3 n i 3 i o pun ? W17W 12 1 pwV? m310 nWPW 12 jiw ? n v o w i . 2 Three love. 2 Three love: the eyes. 7 Three evil things are heard by the ear: cursing. 2 Three love: the heart. These are they: his two eyes. a good eye. and he speaks one thing with the 6 There are three which are not in man's control. the liver and the gall. These are they: 5 the hands. the hands and the mouth. and a trustworthy eye. an evil eye and a deceptive look. his ears and his nostrils. he the slanderer. a good report and praise. his ears and his nostrils. an evil eye and a decep­ tive look. 9 There are three evil sights: an adulterous leer. his ears and his nostrils. look. 4 Three kill: the two lower orifices and the mouth. blasphe­ my and an evil report.n»x n s n o i 1 Three are hostile and these are they: the tongue. 3 Three give life.190 n3inn rwV? m m n u n w 11 Edilion and Commenlary min pun? nunw 11 in ivn 'iD3 i 3 v t n [fol. 8 Three good things are heard by the ear: bless­ ing. he who who slanders. 9 Three sights are bad for the eye: adultery. 3 Three give life: the two nostrils and the liver of the left side. 6 There are three which are not in man's control: his eyes. and the mouth. and he who speaks one . 7 Three things are heard by the ear and they are evil: cursing. a good sights: modesty. These are they: the tongue. These are they: the tongue. 10 There are three good sights: modesty.373 nnxi msiu pun"? wi7W 12 pw ? nmaun npmw . 8 Three good things are heard by the ear: bless­ ing. 71b] n3inn n s n o m .pcnon '3D3 . the liver and the gall. praise and a good report. an evil eye and a deceptive look. shaming and an evil report. 4 Three kill: the two lower orifices and the mouth. and a trustworthy look. 1 pun nmaun npmw .nox n3im 1 Three are hostile. 9 There are three evil sights: an adulterous leer. and the lips. the ears and the heart.n»x nsnoi 1 1 Three are hostile. These are they: the eyes.npmw . the ears and the eyes. 11 Three things are bad for the ear: He who speaks evil in the presence of his fellow. the feet. blasphemy and an evil re­ port. a good report and praise. 3 Three give life: the two nostrils and the liver of the left side. the feet. he who slanders. mm pix? nunw n puna nnxi yn iin --D3 pirns nnx nsnan nnxi . 6 There are th ree which are not in man's control: his two eyes. 5 There are three which are in man's control: the hands. and a trustworthy look. the ears and the heart. the liver and the gall.

9 n a a a ] mx33no 2 2 1 B ' . 12 Three things are good 12 Three things are good for for the tongue: silence. reti­ reticence. a n n n amx onn* maio myiaw nw"?w 8 nyiowi nsw nana px ? py ? myi n r x i nw"?w 9 . n 3 .371 OntK D'ltS D T y 2 pDtJin ')W D'TID 3 -ap: n w ovrao nw"?w 4 . and speaking the truth.mom TJDm 1 paoin nw D"n» nwVw . the tongue: silence. nwi3] py n w i 3 B . reti­ cence. and speaking cence. D T I D W I Dnn mm imwna | r x nw"?w 6 . other with the heart. and he who speaks too much. Vincn B .nym m m mxn py ? m 3 i D nvxi nwVw 10 . D D'amx nwVw X'031 2 . who speaks one thing thing with the tongue but with the mouth but an­ another with the heart.nox 1 1 1 1 1 R collated toK: l anrix] o'xnw R. 8 myow] myiDW B'B GH. .Vinum 3 nw pmaa nwVw .11pwVom] 3'm 2 TW70n B'. I2n»x] pax B'H.37m omxm Dnn>n pw"?n D*xnw nwVw . truth. and speaking the the truth.nam D m n n n n D'ap-n 4 /ay nwVwi a-anx nwVw i . 4 nam] ixm R.Sefer Yesira §63 191 mouth but another with the heart. 10 m s i D ] mo' B'H. n 3 i o i nnox n w i 3 ix ? m y i m n n nw"?w .man DOT nwp w x 3 : ix ? m 3 i o m n n nwVw . B'B-'GH collated to A: 3 7l»W Vw 13D1] om G.mon DOT mim pio pwWmynnwVw u mrwVoi n n m [?]wym ]1W77 maio wnw 12 i 3 m nmow! npmw .HD1 HOD anx Vw imwia nw"?w 5 . nS3] |1W73 B'.n » H . n m a G .mm iaa pw"? a'amx . my»w] myiaw B ' B H . 12 Three things are good for the tongue: silence.

to the longer addition in Ms P and Dunash.. so the ap­ paratus is highly selective. still connected to 48b. Like the previous paragraph it is clearly out of place here in SY between the original conclusion of the text in §61 and the colophons in § 64. see Aboth ch. Are these manuscripts positing two livers? 1 In sentence 11 Mss K and R have an alternative version probably occasioned by the omission of 17113P1 after '3D3 in an earlier Ms. Inevitably mechanical errors abound: E omits part of line 3 through to line 5. 0 . further reinforcing the connection between these two paragraphs.13173711 Ms D has a single word which is only partly leg­ ible. 1 The variants in the Mss of the Long Recension are mostly errors. midrashic-type material.. to the full form of §63 as an independent paragraph in the Long Recension . also inserted within 48b but it is introduced as interpretation. He obviously tried to amalgamate sentences 1-3 and then gave up at sentence 4. Dunash has a very similar version of §63 to Ms P.4l.but located in a position which (like the marginal note to Ms P) still clearly indicates its nature as supplementary. British Library Add. only appears in KR in the Short Recension. The connections between §§63 and 48b in these short recension Mss probably give us the clue to the origins of this ma­ terial: it developed out of 48b. It is not too difficult to draw a line of expansion from the MNFPIQ addition after DTPTDD in §48b."" The scribe of MS P indicates that he is citing a sample from a more extensive set of material by prefacing his extract from § 63:1-4 with X'031 ( = IflX 1 9 0 3 1 ) and ending it with '317 (= 1X3 117). like §62. partly expanded like its unique development of sentence 10. see the notes to § 48b.partly abbreviated like its version of §§ 52 and 54. But Ms D has a strange text . it gives the impression that its scribe was aware of the nature of this material and did not feel as constrained to copy it accurately as other parts of SY.192 Edition and Commentary Notes on the text of §63 §63 is not present in Mss C and Z and. m ' K1 ""S p "irm (Vajda-Fenton 2002: 246). A subsequent scribe has then noticed that this left only two things "bad for the tongue" so has added the rather lame "he who speaks too much" in order to make up the requisite number. In sentence 3 D has Vino in agreement with Ms P over against KR and the Long Recension which have the rather strange reading VxowVtP 1 3 3 .strange because we have already had the "liver" in sentence 1. It falls into the well-known type of the numerical midrash attested as far back as Prov 30:18-31.5 and ARN ch. B omits line 5. G reverses lines 11 and 12. Where the other Mss have 3*73. Overall. 27180 has §63:3-4 in the margin alongside §48. Ms P has part of this paragraph inserted within §48b and this develops the additional material in Mss MNFPIQ cited above in the apparatus to 48b.

mnaanV xmyw D The Book of the Letters of Abraham our father (peace be upon him!). which is called "the Book of Creation.xan aViyn p xmw iV noaia TO'I m naoa '» K ." There is no limit to the wisdom of everyone who looks into it. This is the Book of Creation ." is completed." There is no limit to the wisdom of everyone who looks into it." is completed. H . And the secrets of the upper and lower world will be revealed to everyone who occupies himself with it and studies it . This is the book of Abraham our father (peace be upon him!). nmx' nao n p n m irax a m a x n nvmx n r r nao p n nVon G . 2 xmi?'w mV 'axn Vai.mnoanV The end. nmn maVn •npman irax D m a x n nvmx naa p n .xan aViyn p xinw iV noaim pnnnn aVim p'Vyn oVivn mpm nanm D'nVx xmi jna now '»V xVx n'n' naa'n xV ia 'iVn aViun Vaw ma'yn iunan xV D'aViv nviwn " a yum ' w nmxi naaio' nan "a noiam 'aV uipV nv 'aViv nv loVan xVi Whoever understands this book and keeps it has the assurance that he is a member of the world to come. which is called "the Book of Creation. There is no limit to the wisdom of everyone who looks into it. nmr> naa nVon B .mnnanV xiis'tp mV The end of the Book of Creation." There is no limit to the wisdom of everyone who looks [into it]. nmx' maVn npn»n irax ornaxi nvmx nao p n A mnnainV This is the book of the letters of Abraham our father which is called "the Laws of Cre­ ation. which is called "the Laws of Creation. .Sefer Yesira §64 193 Sefer Yesira § 64 mi?'u> mV ma ' D X T Vo.of the letters of Abraham our father which is called "the Book of Creation. This is the book of the letters of Abraham our father which is called "the Laws of Creation.nmx' naa npnan irax a m a x n nvmx naa p n aVwi This Book of the Letters of Abraham our father. . mV ma 'a:n JXD Vai.inaanV rnvw p x ia yvnn Va ma npman nao p m . H I T maVn •npnan 'nv irax a m a x n nvmx naa DVU>: . n m I D D npnan irax omaxn nvmx naa p n B This is the book of the letters of Abraham our father which is called "the Book of Cre­ ation." 1 ma 'axn Va." There is no limit to the wisdom of everyone who looks into it.nmr> nao xnpjn DiVwn vVi? irax DmaxVu> nao m mtio iV iVim vnima jnvi ia nmVi ia povnan Vai .

steadfast love surrounds him who trusts in the Lord (Ps 32:10)." There is no limit to the wisdom of everyone who looks into it. as it is said. Praise to the awe-inspiring God. It has been completed by the mercy of heaven. There is no limit to the wisdom of everyone who looks into it.n'noanV x i w w n»V nm mxn Va irax omaxV n T y nao pin p This is the Book of Creation of Abraham our father. "MxVm an an an n T X " o p'Vo I End of the Book of Creation. Is it not said thus. xnoanV N This is the Book of Creation of Abraham our father (peace be upon him!). is 'aVis? 72 i»Van xVi iunan xV. and he has the assurance that he is a member of the world to come. which is called the Secret of Intercalation on which the whole world depends. finished. you will not be put to shame or confounded to all eternity (lsa 45:17). xmaV nVnm naw. The Lord of Hosts is with us. ia nVn DViyn Vaw mayn -no n p n o i pirn Vxnw. Israel is saved by the Lord with an everlasting salvation.n'naainV D'nVx X T I jn» now ' D V XVX -io?r xVi. our refuge (Ps 46:8).e. which is called "the Laws of Creation. And it should not be handed over to anyone except he who turns away from evil and fears God and waits for his creator. . uV aiwo i:»i> mxax"»\ ijaaio'' ion ">m noiam 'DXJ p xV.pin p " o n X'QU? ' o m a aVtm xnaanV This is the Book of Creation of Abraham our father (peace be upon him!). . n'V nm mxn Va n r r maVn npnan irax a m a x i nao p n "a aVw . i. you will not be put to shame or confounded to all eternity (lsa 45:17). and it says. x-iiiHP n ' 7 nm mxi VD. steadfast love surrounds him who trusts in the Lord (Ps 32:10). 145 146 i. This book. finished. XTUHP rv7 nm mxi Va n T X maVn n p n a i TII? max omaxV n-iT» nao pin M 1 .194 Edilion and Commenlary and knows its secrets.e. p x i p x aViyV n w -pia. Blessed be the Lord for ever. It is finished. which is called "the Laws of Creation. It has been completed by the mercy of heaven which assists them with strength.X'DW ' a m : aVw. This is called the Secret of Intercalation for all the world depends on it. Amen and Amen. Israel is saved by the Lord with an everlasting salva­ tion." There is no limit to the wisdom of everyone who looks into it.the Book of Abraham our father which is called "the Laws of Creation. . oVum n T X nao on s 1 The Book of Creation is finished and completed. should not be handed over to anyone except he who turns away from evil and fears God and waits and hopes for his creator. . mpV nanai '"•VyyymnV D ' » V I » nmum "m vum XTII>'W F This book is completed . nY5r> maVn n p n a i 'ni? irax DmaxV n Y i p nao pin .DVIS.xm 7xV nVnn n T y nao oVtn l The Book of Creation is completed. Worship and praise to the creator of the world." There is no limit to the wisdom of everyone who looks into it.

There is no limit to the wisdom of everyone who looks at it.nmaainV myu> px TPTP 'DXT Va. so it looks as though we have here an Italian tradition.'VT pxi nnyo ai I I T D S nTn lao D V W J This is the book of Abraham (peace be upon him!) which is called "the Laws of Creation".inaanV tijhp px ia p'yan Va. reflecting their closeness to K and R in §§62-63. The scribe of Ms Q is confused since he has certainly not given us the Saadyan Recen­ sion. The Book of Creation is com­ pleted in the version of Rav Saadyan Gaon (may his memory be for a blessing!). the scribe of Ms K placed his whole lengthy colophon in brackets in a block in the centre of the page while the scribe of Ms H placed nVon at the end of §63 before the colophon. §61 ends the text of the Saadyan Mss . nTn maVn npnan 'ny amaxV nvy* nao p i .] h i t lao/maVn n p n a i irax a m a x i n r n / n r m x naa pin [.mnaainV The most distinctive variation is the much lengthier colophon in Ms K which is clearly related to the shorter form in Ms R. . . For example. which is called the "Book of Creation. 1 This is the book of Abraham our father (peace be upon him!).Sefer Yesira § 64 195 Q . Ms F also reflects part of this addition. We have already noted the close rela­ tion of these two Mss in §§ 62-63.xan aViyn p xintr. The colophons in Mss LSI probably take us back to a stage before the standard form of § 64 evolved. Notes to §64 This paragraph almost certainly has its origin in a note added at the end of the text by a scribe well back in the chain of transmission since its basic form is reflected in many Mss of both the Long and the Short Recensions. and he has the assurance that he is a member of the world to come.undoubtedly the original conclusion of the work. The basic form to which there seem to be a restricted number of variations is: nyu> n'V n'a 'axi Va.B'H and MN. All these manuscripts come from Italy. Other manuscripts whose relation we have noticed earlier continue that connection in this colophon . r r n r lao xipin oiVwn vVy irax amaxVip lao nt R iV neoiai pnnnn DViyi jvVyn aViyn n m o iV iVin vnnio y n n ia poynan Vai . The colophon was written in Aramaic and this clearly distinguishes it from the main text though scribes have other ways of making the distinction.180 also have colophons in this tradition. And the secrets of the upper and lower world will be revealed to everyone who occupies himself with it and knows its secrets." There is no limit to the wisdom of everyone who looks into it. Mss Paris 763 and BM Add 27.

.

Temirin II. 45-55. . . Eieazar b. ed. D. I Late Antiquity (Northvale. . P. ed.(1974/5) "Az minni 'ad holalla". J. 7em/wn n. E. 61-78. 75-78. in 7 X W nnum»D D ' V W I T npn?a. MGWJ31.Studies in Medieval Philosophy and Culture: Essays in Honor of Arthur Hyman. . . 9-29. .C. .(1998) HT3P 1D07 n'TO'-ri'DIW Dlip WITS in Mas'al Moshe: Studies in Jewish and Islamic Culture presented to Moshe Gil. .458-462.(1880) // commento di Sahbatai Donnolo sul libro della creazione (Firenze). Dan.(1988) "Saadya's Goal in his Commentary on Sefer Yezira".(1993a) "nTy I D D 7tt> n v n n rra»w»n". 117-120.']l7X13n 'Vna p m i T '"17 PITS' "S WITS in Masuut: Stud­ IO ies in Kabbalah and Jewish Thought in Memory of Ephrayim Gottlieb. Friedman (Jerusalem). Alei Sefer 15. Goldreich (Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute). NJ: Jason Aronson Inc). . H. 24-34. 13. . Kalonymus Of Worms . . E. 29.(1972) nTX' 1D0D. 1. M. Link-Sa­ linger (Washington D. Epstein. A. . R. Of Books And Articles On Sefer Yesira cited in the text . REJ2&. 94-108. in his Jewish Mysticism. Sinai 75.(1988) HTX' 1 D D 7 D'»n p W1TD7 ' 3 1 » n Tp»TO O'ttnn D'SDp. 63-99. 155-187. 99-119. Temirin I. Dan.(1893) "Pseudo-Saadja's und Elasar Rokeach's Commentare zum Jezira-Buche: Die Re­ cension Saadja's". Castelli. . .(2002) "On the Antiquity of Sefer Yezira: The Qilirian Testimony revisited". Tarbiz 71. ed. 405-432. 164-183. 7-29. 41-50. J. 1-9. in A Straight Path . . ed. ed.(1883) Perush 'al sefer Yesira (Przemysl).(1893) "Studien zum Jezira-Buche und seinem Erklaren". m a i T I mjlVan 7 rr&a-llXJXn ntJ'Wn. N.(1998) "Three phases of the History of Sefer Yezira".Bibliography Bibliography Allony. Oron and A. Judah b. MGWJ 37.(1994) VJTIDiai VD1X . vol.(1981b) "Zeman hibburo shel Sefer Yesira".(1894) "Recherches sur le Sefer Yecira". Weinstock W (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook).(1981a) Trip nr:j» nVna rnixn r c n noi: nTJp iso.: Catholic University of America Press). Fleischer and M. Ben-Shammai. Fenton. Fleischer. 266-269.

1-2 (Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem). . 132— 177.(1986) "Some Observations on Sefer Yesira : (2) The Temple at the Centre of the Uni­ verse" J.(2000) m T ISO VW n i ' m m m (English title: Ars Peotica in Sefer Yetsira) (Tel-Aviv.(1993) "The Doctrine of Creation in Sefer Yesira: Some Text-Critical Problems". Barsilai (Berlin: Mekize Nirdamim).(1989) "Was God a Magician? Sefer Yesira and Jewish Magic". Sinai 20.2. Habermann./S'XXXVI1.E. REJ 132. pp. VI. 4 9 . Y.M.369-415. Halberstam. 27-35. 475-512. in Words Remembered. JJS XXXV. April/May. ed. URBACH: CONGRES EUROPEEN DES ETUDES JUIVES. YT. 1-17. . .(1997) "A New Edition of Sefer YesiraV. Gabrielle Sed-Rajna (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf). and Sefer Yesira §59" (forthcoming) (Miinster: Ugarit-Verlag). Y. Grossberg.(1946/7) " D T r "1D0 "iptY? D^DX". Israeli Oriental Studies I. ed.(1990) "Early Philosophical Commentaries on the Sefer Yezirah: Some Comments". .P. A.'Vn . Liebes. .198 Bibliography Goldschmidt.French trans. M. S. Hayman. JJS XLI. Jehttda b. A. 219-227. I. L.(1984) "Some Observations on Sefer Yesira : (I) Its Use of Scripture". ed.2.71-85. M. A. . the Axis Mundi. .2. Sawyer.(1973) "Some Critical Notes on the First Part of Sefer Yezira". RASHI 1040-1990 HOMMAGE A EPHRAIM E. Gruenwald. . 241-265. .L. . R. J. Schocken). JSOT 50. 176-182.(1995) "The 'Original Text': A Scholarly Illusion?". 434-449. Kafach.W. . . Ben-Ammi. . 93-111.(1971) "A Preliminary Critical Edition of Sefer Yezira". only). D. J Davies. . Proceedings of the First Gershom Scholem International Conference on Jewish Mysticism. REJ 149. Jospe.(1887) X'VnX . Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought.l. . Langerman. .(1902) Sefer Yezirah ascribed to the Patriarch Abraham with commentary by Dunash Ben Tamim (London: R. Lambert. 225-237. . Kantor (St Petersberg). Harkavy. . . G Harvey & W E G Watson (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).(1972) p x i nni>0 i m W1TD1 D i n n Di? DVwn H I T "ISO (Jerusalem: Dror). . reprinted 1986 Alencon: Editions Bibliophane .W.(1891) Commentaire sur le Sefer Yesira ou livre de la creation par le Gaon Saadya de Fayyoum (Paris: Emile Bouillon.(1991) "Qohelet and the Book of Creation".(1987) "Sefer Yesirah and the Hekhalot Literature".6 4 . Texts Re­ newed: Essays in Honour of John FA. Rabbinowicz). .(2004) "The Dragon.(1885) Commentar zum Sepher Jezira von R. Kabbalah 2.(1894) Das Buch der Schopfung (Frankfurt).

Barton. A. G. S . . Vadja. 149-162. Mosis Haddarsan (Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim). of Ursprung unci Anfdnge der Kabbala (Berlin 1962). . C. I. . Weinstock. VII.(1963) "Deux nouveaux fragments arabes du commentaire de Dunash b. 159-84. . D. 1-30. Vajda. 31-39.(1959-60) "Sa'adya eommeulaleur du 'Livre de la Creation'. Scholent.(2002) Le Commentaire sur le Livre de la Creation de Dunas ben Tamw de Kairouan (X' siecle): Nouve/le edition revue et augmenlee par Paul B. a General Bibliography Abrains.M." Annuaire de TEcole Pra­ tique des Hautes Etudes. I. Sefer Yesira . S.(1990) Origins of the Kabbalah. Beil-Arie. vol.(1993:) "Sefer Yesira and Early Islam: A Reappraisal". and Stem. Trans.(1562) (Mantua). EJ XVI. A. Tamim sur le Livre de la Creation". Fenton (Paris-Louvain: Peters) Wasserstrom.(1940) Midras Beresit Rabbali ex libro R.(1972) NV2R> 1D0 n0i:n Tina1?. Jewish Thought and Philosophy 3. and Fenton.M. The first printed edition. Trans. . . 37-61. le Sefer Yesira el les trente-deux sentiers de la sagesse". RHR 170. 132. Weinstock (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook). Sed. .(1954) "Nouveaux fragments arabes du commentaire de Dunash b. . REJ 113.3. Altmann. G.Tamim sur le Sefer Yesira". . Temirin. Temirin I. ed. la grammaire et la metaphysique". Proceedings of the Israel Acad­ emy of Sciences and Humanities.(1989) "Points of Similarity between the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Sefirot in Sefer Yezira and a Text of the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies".(1981) 'J'DT noirnw n r r I D D V > vVuVoi V D I X mnanV. Albeck. 513-528. G. Sciences Religietises (Paris).Bibliography 199 Pines.(1994) Ancient Astronomy (London and New York: Routledge). u. P.B. 9-71. le texte primilif. N. 24-35. . S. 782-788. M .(1971) "Yezirah.. Arkush (Princeton: JPSA and Princeton Uni­ versity Press). Sefer". REJ 122. .(1958) Isaac Israeli: A Neoplatonic Philosopher of the Early Tenth Century (Oxford: Ox­ ford University Press).(1966) "Le Memar samaritain.(1994) The Book Bahir: An Edition Based on the Earliest Manuscripts (Los Angeles: Cherub Press). .(1973) "Le Sefer Yesira: 1'edilion critique. . 3-35. . 63-142. . T.

(1993) "Re-written Mystical Texts: the Transmission of the Heikhalot Literature in the Middle Ages". . JA 12-13. repr. Dan. 101-139. ein agadischer Commentar zum ersten und zweiten Buche Moses von R.nVxptn' nVIXT' in Temirin I.3.Mohr) Herford.(1962) The Ethics of the Talmud: Sayings of the Fathers (New York: Schocken). Ganz. Tobia ben Elieser (Wilna). . .(1869) Das Buch Kusari des Jehuda ha-Levi nach dem hebrdischen Texte des Jehuda IbnTibbon (Leipzig). H. New York.C.C. . . 97-116.S.: Gregg International Publishers). Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 75. Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 18.L. Grdtz. 83-96.B. S. . 11-40. . S. .(1884) Lekach Tob (Pesikta Sutarta). Gruenwald. Cohen.(1962-1980) A History of Greek Philosophy. edited by R. rnnno . 15-44. Inspiration". M.S. 213-254. The Hebrew University). I. . I. ed.(1972) "UHTDI rv-np D. London: University Press of America). Neubauer's cata­ logue). Cassel. D.(1846 (1971) Gnosticismits und Judentum (Krotoschin: B.(1993b) "The Ancient Hekhalot Texts in the Middle Ages: Tradition.(1966) SiphreD'BeRab (Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books). K.(1993a) Hebrew Manuscripts of East and West: Towards a Comparative Codicology (London: The British Library).K.(1988) The Faces of the Chariot: Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel's Vision. 6 vols. Horovitz. R.A. .200 Bibliography . Buber.(1885) Midrash Tanhuma (Wilna). . H. .(1983) The Shi'ur Qomah: Liturgy and Theurgy in Pre-Kabbalislic Jewish Mysticism (Lanham. Hermann. . BJRL 75. J.3. I (A.K. Farnborough U. compiled under the direction of Malachi Beit-Arie. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Halperin. Source.J. .3.(1993b) The Makings of the Medieval Hebrew Book (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.(1986/87) "Palaeographical Identification of Hebrew Manuscripts: Methodology and Practice". 33-51. . W. Reprinted with additions and corrections in Beit-Arie 1993b. . reprinted in Dan 1998: 243-260. .(1993c) "Transmission of Texts by Scribes and Copyists: Unconscious and Critical Inter­ ferences". . D. T. .(1948/49) "The Origin of the Planetary Week or The Planetary Week in Hebrew Litera­ ture". BJRL 75. Weinstock (Jerusa­ lem: Mossad Harav Kook). TSAJ 16 (Tubingen: J. Monasch und Sohn. Guthrie. May (Oxford: Clarendon Press).(1994) Catalogue of the Hebrew manuscripts in the Bodleian Library and in the College Libraries of Oxford: supplement of addenda and corrigenda to vol.

Neubauer. Sirat. P . N. . JTS 42. in Genizah research after ninety years: The case of Judaeo-Arabic. .(1989) Vibersetzung der Hekhalot Literature. Origins of the Kabbalah (Princeton: Princeton University Press and the Jewish Publication Society of America).C. English translation by A.Mohr). A . The earliest Arabic and Hebrew Jewish anti-Christian polemics". 249-261.(1976) The Universe of Shabbetai Donnolo (Warminster: Aris & Phillips).(1981) La mystique cosmologiquejuive.(1987) Pirke de Rav Kahana (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America). TSAJ 6 (Tubingen: J. TSAJ 19 (Tubingen: J.Bibliography 201 Lasker.Mohr).(1984) Geniza Fragtnente zur Hekhalot-Literatur. Matter. Saenz-Badillos. Band 1/1-2. Marmorstein. . (London). Etudes juives XVI (Paris: Editions de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes/Mouton). TSAJ 22 (Tubingen: J.C. TSAJ 2 (Tubingen: J.B. G .(1981) Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur. G.(1899-1935) Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the British Mu­ seum. .(1993) A History of the Hebrew Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). A. . M . D. TSAJ 31 (Tubingen: J. . Sharf. vol.B. Margoliouth. O'Neill. . C. Arkush.(1982) "Deraqon" und Gotzendienst: Studien zur an/iken judischen Religionsgeschichte. Reif (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).B. A. Scholem.Mohr) . ed. . . H. B. Schafer.(1886) Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library (Oxford: Clarendon Press). J.(1927) The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God (London).(1995) "The Magic of the Golem: The Early Development of the Golem Legend". M. .J.(2001) Hebrew Manuscripts in the Biblioteca Palatina in Parma (Jerusalem: JNUL).C. . A. B And Beit-arie. . 1987/1990 (= Scholem 1987).C. 112-118.(1921) Saadya Gaon: His Life and Works (Philadelphia: JPSA of America). .(1990) A History of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press).Mohr). 4 vols. . Sed. Ill.C.B.(1988) Hekhalot-Studien.C. JJS 46. .(1991) Synopse zum Talmud Yerushalmi. Schluter.Mohr). Frankfurt: Peter Lang).(1992) "Qissa Mujddalat al. . Joshua Blau and Stefan C. Mandelbaum. Richler.Usquf and Nestor Ha-Komer. ausgehend von einem griechischen Lehnwort in m AZ III 3 (Judentum und Umwelt. 483-504.B.(1962) Ursprung und Anfange der Kabbala (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co).(1991) "The Lost Written Records of Jesus' Words and Deeds Behind our Records". 4.

(1994) The Text of the Targum of Job: An Introduction and Critical Edition. Palaeography. JSOT 31. Urbach. A case study in polemical literature". . E. . Script Styles. Slec. . S. Zotenberg.3-29.(1866) Catalogues des manuscrits Hebreux el Samaritains.M.D. 341-2. l.202 Bibliography Siral. in Genizah re­ search after ninety years: The case of Judaeo-Arabic.M.(1971) "Judah ben Barzillai". H. Tov.(1992) "Qissa Mujadalat al-Uscpif. Arbeiten zur Geschiclile des anliken Judentums und des Urchristentums. C.(1985) "The Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblical Manuscripts". ed.E. .(1979) The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press. .Brill). Stroumsa. Calligraphy and Design (Jerusalem: Carta). Joshua Blau and Stefan C. 155-159. EJ X. A.(1977) The Book of Hebrew Script: History.(1990) A History of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press). . E. Ta-Shma. Reif (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). .J. Yardeni. XX (Leiden: E.(2002) Hebrew Manuscripts of the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Fonds Hebreu (Paris). . . the Hebrew University). .

19 9.15 57. 130 194 59.129 Job 80.27 Isaiah 6.16 63 63 Chronicles 63 63 34.1 1.3 26.87 171 108 192 Song of Songs 6.3 Jeremiah 1.158.89 131 182.15 57.62 86 114 182.86 34.13 Psalms 32.4 34.36.178-181 86 .15 33.78.5 Ezekiel 1. 77.72.4 15.11 45.18-31 108 34.Index of Sources 1. 172 34.20 64.14 Esther 5:11 Daniel 1. 103 86 34.2 Qohelet 7.4 12.8 194 194 63 34.6 34. 169.2 104.6 // 2.7 26.11 37.66 108 85.6 26.7 47.10 46.62.5 119.4 104.6 Proverbs 3. 136 73 150 9.12 Amos 4. 87.151.82 34.73.1 30.185 170 61.2 2. 89 171 63 Deuteronomy 4.14 3. 185 Bible 93. Hebrew Genesis 1.

Rabbinic literature ARN 136 37 41 A b.5 1. 150. Buber) 77 Bereshil Rabbati Moshe ha-Darshan (ed.61. Shabb 20b b. Horovitz) Sifre Numbers 27a y. Men 29b 35. R. 143.15 4. RH 143 192 (ed. 2 192 105 87 105 136 166 Tob (ed. 138 3.103 136 100 Ber.BB 146a Aboth 5 b.51 texts 35. 105.Hag 77 b. 1. 85. 85.7 Tanhuma Wa^hi 17 34 Lekach p. 86. 86. Albeck) p. If 30 Ezekiel 136 . Hekhalot Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur §39(111 Enoch) 136 §949 (Shiur Qoma) 136 and related Visions of 1.204 Index of Sources 2. Hag 12 b. 172 35.

32. D. 25 Ganz. 106. 114. 73. 37. 32 Lambert.69. 119. 30-32. 109. H. 65.117. 73. 114. 71. 30 Allony. 102. 8 Horovitz. 3 . 188 Halperin. 113. 84. 95.T. 39. N. 36. 1 0 8 .116.61. 185. 106. 143. 10 Albeck. 37-39. A. 32. 143 Harkavy. 102. 36. 7. 37. B.143 Goldreich. 78. 192 Friedman.68. 139. 181 Guthrie. 32 . 117. R. 185 Link-Salinger. 68. 26. 113. 86. 1. 36 Kaufmann. 88. 96.25.60. 24. 20 Lasker. 143. 186. 31. 61. 6 3 . 68. 3. 155. 125.3 6 . 63. D. 143. 73.13. 32 Goldschmidt. 108. Y. 100. 73.E.21.62-65. 8 Liebes.S. 19.C. 73. 106. 80. 84. M. 9. 34. 6 6 .135. 32. 98. 71. 25. L.134. 73 Neubauer. A. 158. 136. 150.Z. 134. 130. 166. 61. H. D. 33. 35. 13. 3 . 21. 132.91.P.132.M. 6. 4 .95. 29.62. 166.157. 69.21. 71. 35.13. 132. 126. 61. 136 Jospe. A. 37. 150. 139. 6 6 . 84. 75. 130. 128 Beit-Arie.D. 26 Kafach. 138. 90. S. 159.175 Langerman. 26 Maker.96.2 6 . C.100. 103. 84. 157. R. 26. 124. 84. Haberman. 9 7 . 88. 82. 26 Mandelbaum. 71. 6 3 . 143. D.8 8 . 162. 120. 149. 28 Halberstam.K. 115. 173 Hayman. 8 6 . M. 11-17. 100. S. 26. 123. 103. 138. 97. P. 66. 125. 6 8 .185 Cohen. 84. 12-14 Marmorstein. 6 0 .T. 145 Margoliouth. 95. 129 Gruenwald.124 Berliner. G. 19. 116. M. 89. 73. 100. 1-3. 6 4 . 124. 29. J. 105. 151. 103. 132. 159. Y.106.S. 134.C. 34 . 77. 24. 71. 9 1 . 6 8 .147. 113.18. H. A. 156. 9 . S. 66. M. 171. 8 Buber. 166. T. A. 113. A. 4.J.171. 1. 29 Barton. J. 18. 133 Grossberg.186 Herlbrd. 125. 84. 24 .117. 66. 9. 12. 80. 69-71. 123. 138. 63. W. 7 Oron. 65. J.143 Fenton. 150. 172. 63. 1. 34 Cassel. 12 O'Neill. D. 162 Altmann. 120. 102. M. 81. 184. K.95. 171. 13.W. 120. 75. 77. 2. 71. 172. 180 Epstein.116. J. 62. 180. 95. 22.113. 120. Y. M.175 Kantor. 113. 26. 171. A. 1. 136 Dan.L. 175. 126. 144 Castelli. 23 Ben-Shammai.Index of Modern Authors Abrams.5 . 13. A. 25. 73. 19. 61. D. R. 8. 116. 125. 7 Hermann. 8 Blau. 150. A.

G. 22 . 148. 166. 95. 84. 4 .192 Wasserstrom. 9.73. 3. H. 102 Schlosberg. 38. 144 Urbach. 13 Zotenberg. 126. 31.69. 123. 33. 3 . I. 63. 87. 36 S e d . 78. A. 39. S. 14. 28 Stec. 29 Stroumsa. N . 134. 26. L.M. 71. 66 Schafer. 132 Reif. 20. S. S. 22. 109. 12. 11 Stern. 188 Yardeni. S. 14. 41 Richler. 32 Tov. 13. 13. P. 143. 1. 73. 120. 138.206 Pines. 143 Sharf. 25. E. 22. 147. C. I. 36 Sirat. 36. 8.132 Vajda. 8 Scholem. G. 13 Saenz-Badillos. 80-82. S. B.6 . 66. 186. 18. 129. 132.E. 8 Index of Modern Authors Ta-Shma. E.69-71. 27. 97 SchlQler. 64. 158. 75. 100. 29. M. A. 2. 102. 13. A. 60.M. D.61-65. 97. 156. 82. 95 Weinstock.

): Studies in the B o o k o f Jubilees. 1995. Integrating J e w i s h W o m a n into S e c o n d T e m p l e History. Volume 76. A. 1992. lpla. Hezser. Hayman. and Historical S i g n i f i c a n c e o f the R a b b i n i c Story in Y e r u s h a l m i N e z i q i n . Becker. - see Schafer. Anja: see Schafer.: see Albani. Ulrike: see Schafer. Klaus (Ed): Massekhet l-Iekhalol. Jens: D i e Paralipomena Jeremiae. Hirschfeldei. 2004. Kerstin: see Schafer. Volume 9. W. Hans-Jiirgen: Die groBen rabbinischen S a m m e l w e r k e Palastinas. David: The Monarchic Principle. by W. J e w s . Samuel Houlman. 1999. Volume 97.. Volume 77. Ego. Friedrich: Tora und Leben.see Schafer. E d . 1999. . 1996.1. .: Samaritan Scribes and Manuscripts. Aryeh: T h e Jews in Hellenistic and R o m a n Egypt. Alan D.: The Faces o f the Chariot. L e b e n A d a m s und E v a s ' . Volume 21. Shakedand G. J e w i s h W o m e n i n G r e c o . Lange (Ed. Peter Jacobs. Catherine ( E d . Volume 91. Volume 104. Rabbinische Texte als Gegenstand der Auslegung. 1995. Beetle: Targum S c h e n i z u Ester. Peter T h e S o c i a l Structure o f the R a b b i n i c M o v e m e n t i n R o m a n Palestine. 2 0 0 2 . Stroumsa ( E d . Martin Samuel: The Shi ur Q o m a l i : Texts and Recensions. Vol. A. Engel. Volume 7. 2 0 0 3 . ) : T h e Ways that N e v e r Parted. Schafer. 1985. . Volume 14. 1986. E. Ameling. 1999. Arnold: M y s t i k und T h c o l o g i e des rabbinischen Judentums. 1994. 1994. Becker. Hezser. Catherine: F o r m . 1997. M. Volume 32. David. Volume 73. Schafer. Volume 38. Gesammelte Studien II. A. 2 : K l e i n a s i e n . Doering.C h r i s t i a n Controversy f r o m the earliest times t o 1789.. 1996. Volume 43. Presented to D a v i d Flusser. 1994. H. Martin: Die Institution des jiidischen Patriarchen. Inslone Brewer. Frey. 1992. Volume 56. Gruenwald. Avemarie. Knittel. E d . by M. Volume 78. F u n c t i o n . Krauss. L e x i c o n o f J e w i s h N a m e s in Late A n t i q u i t y . 1990. Volume 52. Peter Bloedhorn. Volume 30. 1988. Volume 18. 1999. 2 0 0 1 . Frick.R o m a n Palestine. Volume 88.: see Krauss. 1997. Leigh: T h e J e w i s h M a n u m i s s i o n Inscriptions o f the B o s p o r u s K i n g d o m . E d . Volume SO. Herrmann. ) : M e s s i a h and C h r i s t o s . 1997... Volume 44. Volume 66. Volume 65. Volume 70. 2 0 0 3 . 1993. Crown. by M. 1. Peter Hoi bury. Chester. 2002. 1988. Sh. Peter Frey. Jews and Hellenistic C i t i e s i n E r e t z . 1982.I. Alberdina: M i s h n a h und Tosefta. Kashei. 1996. Thomas: Das griechische . Grbzingei. Volume 95. and A n c i e n t A r a b s . Volume 99. 2004.see Schafer. Cohen. Goldberg. J. G e s a m m e l t e Studien I. Peter: Sefer Yesira. Gleflmer. Volume 54. Lena: Q u m r a n and the Essenes. Samuel: T h e J e w i s h . Volume 60. Hanswulf: see Noy. Volume 16. Volume 48. Gibson. Volume 39. Tal. David: Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 C E . Karl: M u s i k u n d G e s a n g i n der T h e o l o g i e der fiiihen j i i d i s c h e n Literatur.G. Han. 1985. Uwe: E i n l e i l u n g i n die Targume z u m Pentateuch. 1999. Y . Volume37. 1996. R e e d ( E d . Lutz: Schabbal.l s r a e l . A . 1995. ) : R a b b i n i c L a w in its R o m a n and N e a r Eastern Context. M. Schliiler and P. 1997. Goodblatt. Volume 3. Peter: D i v i n e Providence in P h i l o o f A l e x a n d r i a . David Cansdale. Volume 75. Idumaeans.l. Volume 61. Schiiiter and P.Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism Alphabetical Index Albani. Halperin. Volume 59. Volume 55. 1999. Andrew: D i v i n e Revelation and D i v i n e Titles in the Pentateuchal T a r g u m i m . Waller: Inscriptiones ludaicae Orientis. V o l . Peter Herzer.Horbury.

VOLUME 74. . 2002. DAVID PRIGENT. VOLUME 33. PETER. MIRIAM: J e w i s h Rights i n the R o m a n W o r l d . : see ALHANI. GUIDO WEVER: K o n k o r d a n z zur Hekhalot-Literatur. 1995. L e Judaisme et 1' image. 1992. Hekhalot-Studien. RONEN: Sifra unci M i s h n a . PETER LOOPIK. MUCH. RINA: see SCHAFER. VOLUME 26. NICHOLAS DE: G r e e k J e w i s h Texts from the C a i r o G e n i z a h .) in cooperation w i t h ANJA ENGEL. . . VOLUME 13. 2004. . VOLUME 27. and HANS-JIIRGEN BECKER (Ed. PETER (Ed. VOLUME 24. HANSWULF: Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis.K o k h b a .): Ge n i za . DAVID IBLOEDHORN. LANGE. HANS GEORG VON MULIUS (Ed. KITYL. a. 1998. VOLUME 19.) in cooperation with HANS-JURGEN BECKER. VOLUME 84. OLYAN. VOLUME 12. (Ed. 1989. SCHAFER. HANSWULF: Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis. VOLUME 29.see SCHAFER. 2003. ALEXANDER / BLOEDHORN. VOLUME 17. VOLUME 68. A . SCHAFER. LUCIE: see SCHAFER. . CLAUDIA: see SCHIIFEI. 1985. . VOLUME 58. VOLUME 102. V o l u m e 1: Eastern Europe. 1987. 1993.Descent' to the Chariot. DAVID / PANAYULOV. RINA OLTERBACH. 1981. VOLUME 15. VOLUME 36.TEXTS AND STUDIES IN ANCIENT JUDAISM KUHN. LEIH: Talmudic Reasoning. ) : T h e Ways o f the Sages and the W a y o f the W o r l d .B a n d IV: 1995. SCHAFER.see GOLDBERG. 1987. ARNOLD . LANGE. ALEXANDER: T h e Interpretation o f Speech in the Pentateuch Targums.3 3 4 . B a n d 1/3-5: 1992. VOLUME 87. CLAUDIA ROHRBACHER-STICKER. VOLUME 34. PUMMEL. VOLUME 22. . GOTTFRIED (Ed. VAN (Transl. VOLUME 67. REED. CEROID: see SCHAFER. VOLUME 92. 1996. .B a n d 4: §§ 5 9 8 . PETER (Ed. JUTTA: Jewish Worship in P h i l o o f A l e x a n d r i a . MULIUS. Band 1/6-11: 1992. M. B a n d 1: 1986.: T h e R e v e l a t i o n o f E l c h a s a i . REEG. LELMARDT. 1998.: A Thousand Thousands Served H i m .A u f s t a n c l .B a n d 2: §§ 8 1 . PETER NOV. H. STEFAN SIEBERS: Ubersetzung der Hekhalot-Literatur. PETER. MENDELS.): D i e G e s c h i c h l e v o n den Z e h n M a r l y rein. c o m m . ANDREAS: Q a d d i s h . PETER.B a n d 2: 1988. A. NOV. OLTERBACH. SCHAFER. DORON: The L a n d o f Israel as a P o l i t i c a l C o n c e p t in H a s m o n e a n Literature. REINHARD: E a r l y Christian A u t h o r s o n Samaritans and Samaritanism.5 9 7 .): O r i g e n ' s I l e x a p l a and Fragments. SAULM. VOLUME 101. PIERRE. 2001. VOLUME 20. PETER RENNET. MICHAEL: Entwicklungsstadiendesjiidischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer Zeit.T h e B a r K o k h b a W a r Reconsidered. V o l u m e 3: S y r i a and C y p r u s . LOHMANN. VOLUME 35. 1992. PUCCI BEN ZEEV. 2002. VOLUME 51. PETER NECKEI. CLAUDIA ROHRBACHERSTICKER. GERARD P. VOLUME 45. LUCIE RENNET. ALEXANDER: see NAY. GERT WILDENSEE: Synopse z u m T a l m u d Y e r u s h a l m i . ULRIKE HIRSCHFELDEI. GEORG VON: see SCHAFER. PETER REICHMAN.9 8 5 . 1995. KERSTIN IPLA. ANNELIES: T h e . VOLUME 46. D e r B a r . 1991. PETER: Offenbarungsstimmen im A n t i k e n Judentum. A. 2002. . VOLUME 2.): Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur. VOLUME 6. B a n d 1: §§ 1-80. VOLUME 100. B a n d 1/1-2: 1991. VOLUME 47. MOSCOVILZ. SAMELY.F ragm ent e zur Hekhalot-Literanir. MARTINA URBAN. 1988. 2004. GEROLD NECKEI. 1984. A. 1981. PETER SALVESEN.in cooperation w i t h KLAUS HERRMANN. GOTTFRIED REEG. . VOLUME 8. VOLUME 1. ULA LOHMANN. CEROID NECKEI. PETER PANAYOTOV. 1991. 1990. LEONHARDL. LUTTIKHUIZEN. VOLUME 31. VOLUME 10. 1998. 1985. SCHIIFEI. ROHRBACHER-STICKER.B a n d III: 1998. KLAUS HERRMANN. MARGARETE SCHLULCI. M. VOLUME 89.B a n d 3: §§ 3 3 5 . Y: see BECKER. ULA: see SCHAFER. 1989.

Schiiiter.M e t i m . Volume 72. Peter (Ed.R o m a n Culture II. 1996. Catherine (Ed. GerclA. 1990.B a n d 2: 1997. 1998.: A g r i p p a I. Schroder. The W a y s that N e v e r Parted. Shaked. .: G o l d e n B e l l s and Pomegranates. Israel: T h e A r m i e s o f Hie Hasmonaeans and H e r o d .D-72010 Tubingen/Germany Up-to-date information on the internet at www. Schafer. Daniel R.: The Mysteries o f Rigtheousness. 1984. Peter and Hezser.vaterlichen G e s e t z e ' . Volume 50. Volume40. Vitae Prophetatum Band I: 1995. 2000. Martina: see Schafer. Harry: Tehiyyat H a . Schafer.): T h e T a l m u d Yerushalnii and G r a e c o . Volume 49. Anna Maria: Studien z u den friihjiiclischen Prophetenlegenden. 1997. . Francis: L e Testament G r e c d ' A b r a h a m . 2003.G. Weyer. 2004. Volume 25.M a g i e und H a l a k l i a . Volume II.: see Gruenwald.O. Arnold . Peter Veltri. Volume 93.): M a g i s c h e Texte aus der Kairoer G e n i z a . 1991. and Shaul Shaked (Ed. Volume 57. . Stefan: see Schafer.5" Century J e w i s h Palestine. Volume 42 . 1992. Schwemer. Bernd: D i e . Guido: see Schafer.de . Volume 23. 2 0 0 3 . Spilsbury. 2002. Margarele: see Goldberg. Gerl: sec Schafer. Wandrey. Volume S3. Volume 96. 1994. Wiidensee. 2003. Michael D. Peter Siverlsev. 1997. G.: M y s t i c a l Prayer in Ancient Judaism. Loren T: T h e B o o k o f Giants from Q u m r a n . Volume 41. 1996.): T h e T a l m u d Yerushalnii and Graeco-Roman Culture III. Irina: „ D a s B u c h des Gewancles" und „ D a s B u c h des A u f r e c h t e n " .mohr. Peter Schmidt. Stroumsa. Visotzky. Peter. Urban.sec Schafer. Schwartz. 1998. Volume 62. Giuseppe: E i n e Tora fiir den K o n i g T a l m a i . Swartz. 1994. Stuckenbruck. . Burton L. Volume 5.: Probleme der Bavot-Traktate.B a n d 3: 1999. Volume 63. Shahai. 1. 2004. Volume 96. Peter Shalzman. Schafer.B a n d II (mit Beiheft: Synopse zu den Vitae Prophetaruni): 1996.Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism Schafer. Yuval: Josephus Geographicus. Peter Wewers. Sysling. Volume 69. Shaul: see Gruenwald. Paul: T h e Image o f the Jew i n F l a v i u s Josephus' Paraphrase o f the B i b l e . Walter T. B a n d 1: 1994. Volume 90. 1986.see Schafer. Box 2030 . Peter Wilson. Siebers. Volume 64. 1 1 For a complete catalogue please write to the publisher Mohr Siebeck • P. Volume 98. Alexei: Private Households and P u b l i c P o l i t i c s in 3" . Volume 94. Peter ( E d ) : T h e Talmud Yerushalnii and Graeco-Roman Culture I. I. Volume 79. Volume 71. Volume 28.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->