1 Introduction
Many years ago, when still a Research Assistant at the Taylor-Schechter Genizah Research Unit at the Cambridge University Library, I happened upon a Genizah fragment of an unknown commentary on the talmudic ʾAggadot to be found in the tractate Beraḵot. Like so many partial texts uncovered in that treasure trove, its contents were highly tantalising but I withheld its publication, convinced at the time that I would eventually unearth additional pages of the same commentary and possibly discover its authorâs identity. The years that have rolled by have not seen the fulfilment of that wish and so I have taken the decision to publish this text in the hope that it will enable future researchers to perhaps identify in time further pieces of this interesting work in the Cairo Genizah holdings.
For all its brevity, our fragment is extremely valuable on more than one count. Besides its recognition of an allegorical meaning to the ʾAggadot, albeit a relatively moderate one in comparison to the radical philosophical interpretations of later periods, it touches on some important issues. Some are brought up by the talmudic text itself, such as the problem of suffering, Divine providence, and angelology, while others are introduced by the author, such as the mystical-philosophical meaning of the precepts, metaphorical interpretation, Divine transcendence, and anti-Sabean polemics.
It illustrates an exegetical approach to the ʾAggadot which had been initiated at the time of the Geonim partly in response to the Qaraites, who had targeted the hyperbolic language of the midrash, especially its anthropomorphic aspects, in their anti-Rabbanite polemics. Indeed, our author draws on Geonic sources and even in the few preserved folios we find him invoking the authority of both R. Hayya Gaonâs (939â1038â¯CE) commentary on Beraḵot as well as a passage from the Megillat setarim of R. Nissim Gaon of Qayrawan (990â1062â¯CE).1
In a famous responsum, precisely on an anthropomorphic passage from TB Beraḵot 59a, R. Hayya Gaon taught that:
this is an Aggadic statement concerning the like of which the rabbis declared that authority is not to be afforded to the words of ʾAggadot. By way of explanation, it should be first made clear that according to both rational analysis and the opinion of the Sages, it is certain that no comparison can be drawn between the Holy One blessed be He and any created being [â¦]. Having clarified this principle, you will become aware that all similar expressions employed by the rabbis were not meant literally but rather as a metaphor and a comparison to phenomena that we can perceive [by the senses], since âthe Torah expresses itself in human languageâ (TB Beraḵot 31b). Indeed, the Prophets used parables when [speaking of God] such as âthe eyes of Godâ (Gen. 38, 7), âthe hand of Godâ (Ex. 9, 3) as metaphors used in human speech.2
In their commentaries and responsa, the Geonim such as SaÊ¿adyah, Hayya, Ḥananʾel and Nissim Gaon, provided rational explanations for many random passages, but none compiled a systematic treatise on the rabbinical homilies. The first to envisage such a work was Moses Maimonides (1135â1204â¯CE) who considered the talmudic ʾAggadot as a repository of ancient Hebrew thought and science. In his youth, Maimonides had intended to write an exhaustive allegorical interpretation (taʾwÄ«l) of the ʾAggadot:
I intend to compose a work in which I will gather all of the homilies to be found in the Talmud and other [sources]. I will explain and interpret (taʾwÄ«l) such that they be in accordance with their true meanings and will also provide proof of this from the [rabbisâ] very statements. I will clarify which of the homilies are to be understood in their literal meaning, which are parables, and which are dreams [even though] they are expressed in straightforward language as if they had occurred in a wakeful state. I will expound to you in that composition numerous principles and provide examples to serve as analogies. May I not be criticised for the liberty my exposition has taken in regard to certain terms and notions, of which the philosophers might disapprove. I did so in order to provide comprehension to those who possess no prior understanding of this exalted matter which all are not [capable of] grasping.3
Having begun this work which he called KitÄb al-muá¹Äbaqah, the Book of Concordance, i.e. the agreement between the teachings of the rabbinical legends and those of philosophy, he later renounced its composition on the grounds that he would have to reveal that which the Sages had chosen to conceal. If, on the other hand, he âexplained what ought to be explained, it would be unsuitable for the vulgar among the peopleâ and he would therefore be defeating his primary purpose.4 As we shall see anon, Maimonidesâ only son and heir, R. Abraham MaymÅ«nÄ« (a.k.a. Abraham Maimonides) (1186â1247â¯CE) did compile such a work along the lines set out by his father.
On palaeographical grounds, we can safely assume that the present fragment originates from Egypt and probably dates from the thirteenth century CE, whereas its doctrinal content points to the post-Maimonidean period. Thus, we have to give consideration to the possibility that R. Abraham may be its author.
A first likely source may be this commentary on the Talmud mentioned in his famous letter preserved in the Bodleian Library, MS Pococke 186. Abraham speaks there of a diqduq peruÅ¡ ha-talmÅ«d,5 a title which might suggest an examination (tanqīḥ) of selected passages. In a recent article, A. Breuer endeavoured to demonstrate that Abraham Maimonidesâ commentary on the tractate Beraḵot is to be identified with a Hebrew commentary, hitherto ascribed to Hayya Gaon.6 The arguments he adduces are mainly based on the claim that the script of one of the fragments of this commentary, Oxford, Bodl. MS Heb. d. 64 fol. 89, apparently the authorâs draft (ms A), is identical with that of a Cairo Genizah fragment of a Judaeo-Arabic work CUL T-S Ar. 44. 266 (ms B), which he claims is an autograph excerpt from the KifÄyat al-Ê¿ÄbidÄ«n.7
These arguments are totally fallacious. Firstly, a cursory examination of the two manuscripts clearly shows that not only were they not written by the same scribe8 but they are definitely not in R. Abrahamâs hand. Secondly, although I do not entirely rule out the possibility that ms B is from the KifÄyah, there is a detail which argues against this ascription. The fragment seems to be a discussion on reward and punishment, which is indeed a theme R. Abraham considered in section 8 of Book IV:1 of the KifÄyah.9 However, the second folio is devoted to the exegesis of Ps. 8 in which we read that according to the anonymous author, kavÅd in the verse âhonour and gloryâ (v. 6) refers to manâs âinner formâ (ṣūrah bÄá¹inah), which is the source of his nobleness. On the other hand, in the KifÄyah, kavÅd is a synonym for the soul which is the source of âhuman perfectionâ (al-kamÄl al-ʾinsÄnÄ«).10 Consequently, we are still justified in envisaging as a likely source of the present text R. Abraham Maimonidesâ commentary on the Talmud.
Alternatively, we could assume that the present fragment may derive from his discourse on the interpretation of rabbinical ʾAggadot which formed one particular chapter of his KifÄyat al-Ê¿ÄbidÄ«n, Compendium for the Servants of the Lord, completed circa 1232â¯CE. In my tentative reconstruction of this work, I suggested that the chapter in question probably figured in the first part of Book II,11 where it may have been followed by a fully-fledged, systematic treatise on the subject. A short description of the discourse on rabbinical homilies in what follows will not be unwarranted.
Like his magnum opus itself, this section has been incompletely preserved and only its introduction has come down to us. Nonetheless, this introduction came to be considered as a separate treatise and between the Middle Ages and the sixteenth century CE it was even translated three times into Hebrew with the title Maʾamar Ê¿al Ê¿odot deraÅ¡ot Ḥazal, âDiscourse on the Rabbinical Homiliesâ. This partial translation achieved a relatively wide diffusion as it was published upfront of most editions of Ê¿Eyn YaÊ¿aqoá¸, a popular compilation of the Aggadic passages of the Talmud.12 In addition to the Hebrew translation, fragments from the original Arabic have come to light in the Cairo Genizah in recent times.13
It is quite clear from the following passage taken from the foreword, that R. Abraham considered this chapter to be a realisation and revival of Maimonidesâ undertaking as he closely adheres to the outline of his fatherâs project. However, perceiving in the allegorical interpretations of ʾAggadot a means to bolster and legitimise his own pietistic doctrine, his chapter follows a new personal agenda. Indeed, already in the ethical section of the KifÄyah in the exposition of his pietist principles he often refers to the Aggadic passages of the Talmud and likewise in his commentary on the Pentateuch.
My father and teacher, of blessed memory, had the intention of composing a work on the interpretation [of the ʾAggadot] as he mentioned at the beginning of his Commentary on the Mishnah [Sanhedrin]. He eventually relinquished the project âand Moses feared drawing nigh to itâ,14 as he stated at the beginning of the Guide.15 After his demise, I commented upon a small number of homilies16 but could not devote more to the subject for I turned to the composition of the present work [the KifÄyah], since I saw it would be of more substantial utility than the undertaking of the former work. Nonetheless, I call upon thine attention and reflexion to open thine eyes to the way in which the Sages expressed themselves in the homilies they produced. Heed their intention and it will be for thee a judge whereas thou shalt be their mouthpiece. Consequently, thou wilt preserve thyself from belittling the words of the Sages and denying the truthfulness of their sayings. Nor wilt thou consider them as miraculous occurrences as were wrought for prophets and every wise and pious individual as if there were no difference between the parting of the Red Sea for the sake of Moses and those that came forth from Egypt and that of the Jordan for Elijah and EliÅ¡aÊ¿ or other such miracles. All this follows if thou takest the homilies (deraÅ¡ot) in a literal sense, or according to what initially appears at first sight. It would have sufficed that we show that there are homilies and parables that have an inner, esoteric meaning beyond the exoteric and apparent meaningâespecially [in light of] what my father and teacher expounded on these matters in his compositionsâ, were it not for my will and desire to add for thee an elucidation and to reveal to thee the different categories of these homilies in accordance with their different subject matters.17
Though Abraham Maimonidesâ usage of homilies would warrant a full study, this would exceed the scope of the present article. Beyond the postulation that the Aggadic homilies contain an exoteric and an esoteric meaning, which is the very basis of any mystical system, Abraham Maimonides aims at classifying the diverse types of ʾAggadot and determining the exegetical attitude that is appropriate for each. Unlike his father, he does not use allegories for philosophical ends but in support of his own pietistic principles. Interestingly, this is notably one of the ways in which he uses his fatherâs methodology to further his own Judaeo-Sufi ideas. For example, in stark contrast to his fatherâs views on miracles, Abraham Maimonides has no problem subscribing to the reality of miracles (karÄmÄt) and accepting that God changes the laws of nature. In true Sufi spirit, he claims that these are vouchsafed to the possessors of virtuousness and saintliness (al-á¹£alÄḥ wa-l-wilÄyah) and he gives as an example the story of Nahum of Gimzo as reported in TB TaÊ¿anit 21aâb.18 Furthermore, it may be noted that the tendency to perceive in the ʾAggadot mystical parables, parallels the way in which Sufis use ḥadīṯs for their anecdotes and hagiographical tales. Just by way of illustration here are a few examples culled from the KifÄyah, which, by virtue of the nature of the preserved proportions of this work, mainly concern his use of talmudic homilies to illustrate his pietistic ethics. In his chapter on generosity, he sees Hillel as a paragon of this virtue on the basis of the talmudic account.19 In his chapter on reliance (ʾittikÄl), he draws on examples from the Talmud of rabbinical figures who exercised common trades to gain their sustenance,20 and in that on solitude, he claims that the talmudic Sages practised spiritual retreats.21
His conviction that the rabbinical homilies contained âmysteriesâ is also to be found in his commentary on the Pentateuch. An interesting example is his discussion of death by âa divine kissâ referred to in TB MoÊ¿ed Qaá¹an 28a, an expression in which the commentator perceives âa supernal mysteryâ referring to an exalted degree of prophecy.22
We see then that the Nagid accepts his fatherâs principle of allegorization of the rabbinical homilies which he perceives as containing spiritual rather than philosophical mysteries. I will now proceed to examine more closely whether the present extracts could have been part of the lost chapter of the KifÄyah dealing with rabbinical homilies.
1.2 Discussion of Authorship
Certain characteristics, both external and internal, argue strongly in favour of their ascription to R. Abraham b. Moses Maimonides or his school. Firstly, the dating of the manuscript, for, as already stated, its palaeographical features are typical of thirteenth-century CE Egypt. Secondly, its language, Judaeo-Arabic being R. Abrahamâs preferred literary medium. Thirdly, its content, which seems to be part of a running, allegorical commentary on the rabbinical homiliesâa clear fulfilment of the Maimonidean project. By the way, this is the first systematic commentary of this type known to us in Jewish literature. Fourthly, the anonymous author quotes both from R. Hayya Gaonâs commentaries and R. Nissim Gaonâs Megillat setarim, authors who are also cited in the KifÄyah.23 Fifthly and most importantly, not only are our anonymous authorâs philosophical ideas of a decidedly Neoplatonic and Sufi nature but he employs a technical vocabulary of a Sufi character, certain terms of which are common to Abraham Maimonides, such as maqÄmÄt (âspiritual stationsâ),24 riyÄá¸ah (âspiritual trainingâ),25 and ʾittiá¹£Äl (âcommunionâ).26
On the other hand, certain discrepancies between the concepts expressed in the present text and what is known of Abrahamâs doctrine cast doubt on his authorship. Firstly, the allegorical interpretation of the phylacteries given in this text has no parallel to what we read in the chapter devoted to tefillin in the KifÄyah.27 However, this is not in itself conclusive. Secondly, in his Discourse Abraham actually refers to one of the ʾAggadot which is also interpreted in the present text. In the second category of legends, those that occur in a dream or in a state of sleep, Abraham cites as an example the vision of R. YiÅ¡maʾel in the Temple.28 In our text, however, the same account seems to be presented as a wakeful vision.29 This contrast notwithstanding, to my mind the two interpretations are not mutually exclusive and still leave room for the ascription of our fragment to the author of the KifÄyah.
With the exception of a reference to one of his explanations given elsewhere, presumably in the same commentary, our author does not quote his other writings or those of Maimonides, as was Abrahamâs wont, but then again, we are only dealing with a small excerpt. Whatever the case may be, it is clear from its pietistic character and its mystical vocabulary that the present text emanated from an author close to the Judaeo-Sufi circle in Egypt. Indeed, the anonymous scribe of this fragment is known to us from other pietistic writings in his hand.30
2 Two Exegetical Samples
2.1 Sample One
I would like to give two outstanding examples of his allegorical interpretation which are of singular interest. The first is our authorâs interpretation of the talmudic text TB Beraḵot 6a: âAnd how do we know that even if one man sits and studies the Torah the Divine Presence is with him? For it is said: âIn every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come unto thee and bless theeâ (Ex. 20, 21).â31 This becomes:
And how do we know that even if a single individual remains alone with his soul and engages in the pursuits of the intellect,32 his soul will become limpid and will unite with the realm of Light and the Divine Presence, and a personal Divine Providence will accompany him? For it is said: âIn every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come unto thee and bless theeâ (Ex. 20, 21).33
Now the expression âremains alone with his soul and engages in the pursuits of the intellectâ is reminiscent of the famous description of the ecstatic state occurring in the Theology of Aristotle, ultimately derived from Plotinusâ Enneads:
I was, as it were, alone with my soul ⦠I rose in my essence ⦠to the divine world and I was, as it were, placed there ⦠above the whole intelligible world.
Now among the Judaeo-Arabic authors who were conversant with this passage was Abraham Maimonides himself, who provides an echo of the Plotinian description in his Commentary on Genesis:
âJacob remained aloneâ (Gen. 32, 25). When Jacob remained alone with his soul (ḵalÄ bi-nafsi-hi), separated from his suite and his possessions, he journeyed (salaka) in the mode of external solitude towards that of internal solitude (ḵalwah bÄá¹inah). As a result of the latter, he was inspired with a prophetic vision in the form of a man wrestling with him.34
Similarly, R. Abrahamâs son Ê¿Ovadyah Maimonides (1228â1265â¯CE) provides an echo of the Plotinian description in his Treatise of the Pool:
When thou remainest alone with thy soul (wa-iá¸Ä ḵalawta bi-nafsi-ka) after having subdued thy passions, a Gate will open before thee through which thou wilt contemplate wonders. When thy five external senses come to rest, thine internal senses will awaken which will reveal to thee a resplendent light emanating from the light of the Intellect.35
2.2 Sample Two
The second passage to which I would like to draw special attention occurs in Extract 1, fol. 1b in the commentary on TB Beraḵot 6b:
R. Abin son of R. Assi in the name of R. Isaac stated: âHow do we know that in his supernal stations and sacred contemplations (maqÄmÄti-hi al-rabbÄniyyah wa-muÅ¡ÄhadÄti-hi al-qudsiyyah), Moses grasped the mystery of the phylacteries (tefillin), to a point where, so to speak, he perceived them with his senses in the Absolute Being (al-wujÅ«d al-muá¹laq)? From the verse: âThe Lord hath sworn by His right hand, and by the arm of His strengthâ (Is. 62, 8).
Firstly, this interpretation may have been prompted by the allegorical explanation of this same passage by R. Ḥananʾel b. ḤuÅ¡iʾel (ca. 950â1085â¯CE), preserved in a fragment of his commentary on Beraḵot:
The Holy One blessed be He manifests His Glory to His pious and saintly followers through the speculative vision (ʾobanta) of the heart in the form of a seated man [â¦]. As it is known that He reveals Himself to the prophets in this manner, it is clear to us that the vision referred to is that of the heart and not that of the eye for it is impossible to say that the Holy One blessed be He has a form perceptible by optical vision [â¦] but rather a vision of the heart (reʾiyat ha-lev̱). Hence it is possible that an individual can perceive through the vision of the heart a manifestation of His Glory as a head crowned with phylacteries.36
Secondly, the expressions âsupernal stations and sacred contemplationsâ (maqÄmÄti-hi al-rabbÄniyyah wa-muÅ¡ÄhadÄti-hi al-qudsiyyah) have a distinctive Sufi ring to them. Later in Extract 2, fol. 3a, he refers to the âspiritual and angelic stationsâ (al-maqÄmÄt al-rūḥÄniyyah al-malakÅ«tiyyah).
Now Moses Maimonides, in his Introduction to Sanhedrin X, uses the adjective malakÅ«tÄ« as in al-rutbah al-malakÅ«tiyyah, the âangelic degreeâ,37 whereas Abraham Maimonides in his Commentary on Genesis and Exodus employs the adjective rabbÄnÄ«, as in ʾasrÄr rabbÄniyyah (âDivine mysteriesâ).38 However, I do not recall Abraham using the adjectives rūḥÄniyyah, malakÅ«tiyyah, or qudsiyyah to describe ontological degrees. They do, however, occur in his Commentary on Genesis and Exodus as qualifications of the metaphysical worlds but in actual fact within a quote from his companion R. Abraham he-ḥasid (d. ca. 1223â¯CE).39 Indeed, these terms are typical of R. Abraham he-ḥasidâs lexicon and are recurrent in the surviving specimens of the latterâs writings.40 It can be pointed out that the anonymous author of De Beatitudine, ascribed to Maimonides, but which definitely originates from the Egyptian pietistsâ circle, also speaks of al-ʾanwÄr al-rabbÄniyyah wa-manÄzil al-malakÅ«tiyyah.41
As for the term Absolute Being (al-wujÅ«d al-muá¹laq), it is a philosophical and mystical concept and a very specific Sufi technical term. Somewhat reminiscent of the Pure or True Being (al-wujÅ«d al-maḥá¸) of the Longer Version of the Theology of Aristotle, it signifies according to the Sufis Absolute Being devoid of all qualities and relations, as opposed to manifested Being. The concept is dealt with by Ibn Ê¿ArabÄ« (d. 1242â¯CE) in his ʾInÅ¡Äʾ al-dawÄʾir,42 and his spiritual disciple Ê¿Abd al-KarÄ«m al-JÄ«lÄ« (d. 1409â¯CE) uses it to designate the second ontological level of devolution, after Absolute occultation.43 Å abistÄrÄ« also discusses this concept in Question 3 of his Mystic Rose Garden, composed in 1317â¯CE. His commentator, al-LahajÄ« (d. 1506â¯CE) defines it thus: âAbsolute Being in regard of its remoteness from relations and attributes is not indicated in any phenomenon, but in regard of its accidental connexion with the visible universe it is indicated by the phenomenon âmanâs selfââ¯â.44 However, it is difficult to see how this ties in with the locus probans, Is 62, 8, where âstrengthâ refers to the tefillin, unless read together with the following verse: âand those who gather the grapes will drink in the courts of my sanctuaryâ. On the other hand, the reference could just be to the spiritual tefillin, worn, as it were, by God.
Notwithstanding the limited extent of the present fragments, it is nonetheless possible to draw from them certain traits which characterise the commentary and its exegetical method. Since the comments are made on the Aggadic passages which follow each other in the talmudic text, it is plausible that the author composed a running commentary on the ʾAggadot. The terminology used by him demonstrates a philosophical approach with a tendency to employ a mystical vocabulary typical of Judaeo-Sufi texts. This commentary could be seen as an attempt to fulfil Maimonidesâ wish to compose an esoteric commentary on the rabbinical legends. The authorâs mystical and philosophical interpretations provide an interesting glimpse into the intellectual and religious world of the Jewish pietists in the Middle Ages. We can observe that the tendency to interpret the ʾAggadot in a philosophical light, a genre which will be extensively developed in a slightly later period and in a different geographical region, had already become an accepted discipline in the Egyptian milieu which produced this commentary. In the wake of Maimonidean philosophical speculation in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Spain the allegorical interpretation of the talmudic ʾAggadot became a central issue and the object of Qabbalistic and philosophical commentaries, such as those of Ê¿Azriʾel of Gerona (ca. 1160â1238â¯CE) and YedaÊ¿yah Penini (ca. 1270â1340â¯CE). The latter saw them as a tool to legitimise or delegitimise philosophy in the context of the Maimonidean controversy. Hopefully, more pages of the present commentary will eventually turn up.
3 Description of the Manuscript and Its Content
Transcribed here are two Genizah fragments CUL T-S Ar. 47, fol. 170, one bi-folio comprised of four pages, and CUL T-S Ar. 46, fol. 213, two bi-folios comprised of eight pages, which, though to be found in two separate boxes hundreds of fragments apart, actually derive from the same manuscript and virtually form an entire gathering. The latter was probably composed of five/six folios of which twelve nigh consecutive pages have been preserved, lacking only a small passage representing one folio between 3b and 4a. The pages measure 19.5/20â¯Ãâ¯14â¯cm (text 15â¯Ãâ¯10â¯cm), bearing 22â23 lines of writing per page. The text is written in brown ink in a neat and fairly elegant thirteenth-century Egyptian square Hebrew script with sparse Hebrew and Arabic vocalisation including the tanwÄ«n in Arabic script. Judging from the several corrections and marginal additions, it is quite possible that we have in hand the authorâs original holograph (in which case this would rule out Abrahamâs authorship for this is not his hand). Together the three folios form what we may assume to have been the beginning of a running commentary on the ʾAggadot appearing on folios 5bâ7a of the talmudic tractate Beraḵot according to the Vilnius printed edition (referred to henceforth as âVâ). That this may have been a systematic commentary is further indicated by the authorâs reference to one of his explanations given elsewhere, presumably in the same work.
The commentary consists firstly of an Arabic translation or paraphrase of the Hebrew and Aramaic passages of the talmudic text. Curiously, the work of translation is not consistent for sometimes the Hebrew passages are left untranslated and merely quoted in the original. The translation is in no way literal and often deviates quite widely from the original. It is noteworthy that the order of the dicta commented upon is not always that of the textus receptus of the Vilnius edition. Indeed, the commentator does not consistently follow the text but omits certain passages and biblical verses. He may have intentionally selected those passages best suited to his doctrine and omitted others as inappropriate. The translation employs a philosophical vocabulary and is usually followed by a few comments. The possibility that our fragment is a first draft may account for these irregularities. Despite its shortness, our text nonetheless conveys an idea of the commentatorâs tendency which is generally of a mystical-philosophical leaning. Indeed, as already stated, its pietistic character and its mystical lexicon suggest that it emanated from an author close to the Judaeo-Sufi movement in Egypt. It is in fact this connection that initially sparked my interest all those years ago!
The language is an admixture of Hebrew and Middle Arabic, and, at one point, the author or the scribe slips into the Egyptian dialect. In order to facilitate its comprehension, we have added diacritical points and punctuation to our edition of the Judaeo-Arabic text and divided it into paragraphs all of which did not of course exist in the original.
4 The Arabic Original
4.1 Transcription
4.1.1 Extract One
CUL T-S Ar. 46.213 and CUL T-S Ar. 47.170
â®[â1â¬
â®
â®
â®
â®
â®
â®
â®
â®
â®
â®
â®
â®
â®
â®
â®
â®
â®
â®
â®
4.1.2 Extract Two
CUL T-S Ar. 47.170 and CUL T-S Ar. 46.213
â®[â2â¬
â®
â®
â®
â®
â®
â®
â®
â®
â®
â®
â®
â®
â®
4.2 Translation
CUL T-S Ar. 47.170 folio 1a begins in the middle of an explanation of an ʾAggadah to be found in TB Beraḵot, ed. Vilnius, fol. 5a. The beginning of the passage commented upon has been supplied in brackets in order to restore the context.
4.2.1 Extract One Translation
[R. Levi b. Ḥama says in the name of R. Å imÊ¿on b. LaqiÅ¡: A man should always incite the good impulse [in his soul] to fight against the evil impulse, as it is written: âTremble and sin notâ.66 If he subdues it, all well and good, but if not, let him study the Torah, as expressed in the continuation of the verse: âCommune with your own heartâ. If he subdues it, all well and good, but if not, let him recite the Å¡emaÊ¿, as the same verse states: âUpon your bedâ. If he subdues it, all well and good, but if not, let him call to mind the day of death, as the verse [concludes]: âAnd be still, everlastinglyâ.]
[fol. 1a] retiring to oneâs couch at night. But whosoever does not (immediately) sink into (sleep) but recites the Å¡emaÊ¿ and meditates upon passing away and the return (of the soul), has, assuredly, availed himself of the weapons with which to combat his matter, since (when) this becomes a habitus, the hand (of the evil impulse) no longer dares (to rise up against him).
R. Isaac states that this person would be preserved from the evil of any harmful thing and not be exposed to adverse circumstances.67 R. Šimʿon b. Laqiš states that all who engage in the teaching of the Torah will be protected from punishment and any adversity. However, whoever has the possibility to study the Torah and wastes the opportunity to do so, then God [visits him with sufferings]68 and punishes him with that which dissevers him from meditating upon the Divinity.
R. Zera states: âConsider the difference between intellectual and divine matters and sensual and concupiscent ones. For whenever a (precious) object passes to the buyer [and is lost to the seller], evil, jealousy, pursuit, avariciousness, are aroused. However, in the case of intellectual matters, observe how the scholar rejoices in imparting his knowledge of them to another, for he derives a benefit therefrom, even to one other than himself.â
Rabba states: âIf an individual sees that tribulations and punishments visit him, on account of his neglect of (Torah), let him examine how he may improve his conductâ. If their cause is not apparent to him from his acts, let him not attribute injustice to existence but perhaps the cause is his deficiency in the study of the Torah and his neglect in the pursuit of true knowledge. The latter constitute [1b] the nourishment of the rational soul, for through knowledge the soulâs essence becomes manifest in the same way as the realities of things as they truly are imprinted in a polished mirror.69
If it is clear to him that he was not neglectful in these (pursuits), then he will be aware that these tribulations came about through chastisements (ʾÄdÄb)70 of love in order to inure in the soul the habit of constancy, so let him not fret when misfortune visits him.
R. Seḥorah stated that if the Almighty is pleased with a man, he intensifies his afflictions in order to increase his reward i.e. on condition that he accepts them with love and constancy and not with despair and irritation.71 Part of his reward is that his knowledge will be established within him, for if the soul remains constant and meditates that which befalls it at times of distress, how much more (will its knowledge be established) at times of delight and ease!72
[YaÊ¿qov b. Idi and R. Aḥa b. Ḥaninah differ with regard to the following:] The one73 says: Chastisements of love are such as do not involve the intermission of study of the Torah. [For it is said: âHappy is the man whom Thou chastisest, O Lord, and teachest out of Thy lawâ (Ps. 94, 12).] And the other one says: Chastisements of love are such as do not involve the intermission of prayer at its appointed time. [For it is said: âBlessed be God, Who hath not turned away my prayer, nor His mercy from meâ (Ps. 66, 20).] A third74 said: Both of these cases are chastisements of love for whosoever obtains habitus and spiritual preparation75 will attain every goodness.
It has been taught: R. Å imÊ¿on b. Yosi76 says: The Almighty, exalted be He, gave Israel three precious gifts, all of which were bestowed solely through discipline (riyÄá¸ah) and deprival.77
The first is the Torah, which was only revealed after they had undergone spiritual preparation at Mara through thirst,78 and at Elim through hunger until the Mannah descended,79 and through chastity [2a] as well as through the physical conditions (suffered) in the Sinai desert.80
The second is the Land of Israel (as for preparation for it) suffice it to recall that which transpired in the wilderness during the forty years.
The third is the world to come. The latter can only be gained through the training of the soul through the observance of the positive commandments, the avoidance of prohibitions, and abstention from indulging in (corporeal) passions, even in the case of that which is permitted.
The (following) was recited before R. Yoḥanan: Whosoever engages in rational and moral virtues and is assailed by calamities such as the death of his children and similar (tragedies) let him grieve not. But let him know that this is in order to expiate his errors and failings and so that his soul is not fettered at the hour of death, pining after his wealth and offspring and regretting having to abandon them, such that vestiges cling to his soul that will impede it from uniting with its source.81
R. Yoḥanan stated that to be afflicted with disease and barrenness is a punishment of which one was deserving and not a chastisement through love. (This is unlike) one who rears children and loses them in their childhood, which sometimes occurs as an atonement for oneâs (sins).
In this connection, a tradition was brought up according to which R. ElÊ¿azar once fell ill and R. Yoḥanan came to visit him. As he found him lying in a dark room,82 he bared his arm and illumined the room through the luminosity (nÅ«rÄniyyat nafsi-hi) of his soul and the limpidity of his matter.83 Upon beholding this, R. ElÊ¿azar wept84 and R. Yoḥanan enquired: âWherefore dost thou weep? If it be because thou art saddened through fear of death since thou didst not perfect thyself in all of (the branches) of science and knowledge,85 have we not learnt: [âOne who studies] much [2b] and one who studies little are equal (in merit) provided that oneâs intention in the pursuit of knowledge is the perfection of oneâs rational soul and not the pursuit of praise and lordshipâ. If thou weepest on account of the loss of thy children, behold I have lost ten children and this is the finger-bone of my tenth son whom I have taken as a bezel which I use as a signet. May my own affliction console thy grief and bereavement!86 Or perhaps thy weeping is on account of the meagerness of your sustenance in this world? Know then that few are the mortals that have the privilege to enjoy two states.87 Thou hast obtained the world to come, grieve not over the measure of sustenance in this world! R. ElÊ¿azar replied: âI am weeping on account of the gleam of the beauty of thine outward and inward form88 and how this limpid matter will decay in the earth, each element returning to its source!â
He said to him: âThou hast rightfully wept!â
A Further Tradition
R. Huna possessed four hundred jars of wine which turned sour. R. Yudah, the brother of R. Sala the Pious, and a company of scholars went in to visit him in order to comfort him. When they were present, they said to him: âThe master ought to examine his actions and put right that which is reprehensibleâ.
âAm I then suspect in your eyes of something reprehensible?â he retorted.
âDoes there then exist injustice that punishes a person without desert?â89 they replied.
He asked them: âHas any of you heard of anything held against me?â
[1a]90 They replied: âWe have heard that the master does not give his hireling his lawful share of the vine twigs.â
He replied: âDoes he bring me any besides what is left from what he steals and sells without my knowledge?â
They said to him: âThis resembles the proverbial saying: Steal from a thief, if only to obtain the leftovers!â
It is said that henceforth he pledged himself to give (him) his fair share. Some report that thereupon the four hundred jars that had turned to vinegar became fine wine again, whereas others reported that the (price of) vinegar rose so high that it sold for the same price as wine.
[TB Beraḵot 6a]
R. Adda91 says in the name of R. Isaac: âHow do we know that Divine Providence92 rests upon the community93 rather than upon the individual? [From the verse: âGod standeth in the congregation of Godâ (Ps. 82, 1).]
And [how do we know that] the Divine presence descends to the synagogue so that the individual feels an uplifting within his soul and (experiences) transcendence in his prayer? From the verse: âGod standeth in the congregation of judgesâ (Ib.). Likewise, [how do we know that] if ten virtuous individuals assemble, even though not within a synagogue, then the Divine Presence accompanies them? From the verse: âGod standeth in the congregation of judgesâ (Ib.). And how do you know that if three are sitting to judge the people and they apply Godâs justice in which is to be found His providence that the Divine Presence is among them? From the conclusion of the verse: âIn the midst of the judges He judgethâ (Ib.). Similarly, [how do we know that] if two are sitting and studying the Torah, the Divine Presence is with them? From the verse: âThen they that feared the Lord spoke one with another; [and the Lord hearkened and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him, for them that feared the Lord and that thought upon His name]â (Mal 3, 16). From the expression: âAnd that thought upon His nameâ there is an indication that if [a man] had the intention of fulfilling a commandment and [1b] yet he did not actually perform it, he nonetheless also has a reward for his intention.
And how do we know that even if one man remains alone with his soul and engages in the pursuits of the intellect,94 his soul becomes limpid and unites with the realm of Light and the Divine Presence, and he enjoys individual divine providence? From the verse: âIn every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come unto thee and bless theeâ (Ex. 20, 21).95
[TB BerÄkhÅt 6b]
R. Abin son of R. Assa96 in the name of R. Isaac (further) stated: âHow do we know that in his supernal stations and sacred contemplations,97 Moses grasped the mystery of the phylacteries (tefillin),98 to a point where, so to speak, he perceived them with his senses in the Absolute Being?99 From the verse: âThe Lord hath sworn by His right hand, and by the arm of His strengthâ (Is. 62, 8). Just as the purpose of oneâs arm is to repel and defend the whole of the body, similarly Divine Providence protects the individual who has apprehended the mystery of this commandment and has established it according to its reality.
Dost thou not perceive the discussion of the Sages concerning that which is written in the compartments of the phylacteries whose mystery Moses grasped in the world of the Intellect? They mentioned that the texts therein allude to the Divine Providence attached to this nation which was commanded to perform these precepts in order that they be conducive to the level of the supernatural realm. (The allusion to Godâs donning the phylacteries is) not to the existence of a physical object, for God transcends such things.100 This interpretation has already been alluded to by R. Hayya Gaon in his commentary on the tractate Beraḵot where the (reader) can find it.101 The Sages too referred to the notion (of Providence) at the end of their discussion with the words âand all these verses (referring to the unique relationship between God and Israel)102 are written on [the tefillin of] his armâ.103
4.2.2 Extract Two Translation104
[TB BerÄkhÅt 6b]105
[2a]106 the words which were quoted (are conducive to) the meditation of these intellectual matters insofar as the Sages encouraged (people) to attend weddings in order to obtain the illumination (of the Torah) and the engrossment in the delight in its apprehension, as you can perceive from what they mentioned thereof.107
R. Ḥelbo further said in the name of R. Huna: If one is filled with the fear of God, oneâs words are eventually hearkened to, for it is said: âThe end of the matter, all having been heard: Fear God, and keep his commandments, for this is the whole manâ (Eccl. 12, 13).108 What is meant by the expression: âFor this is the whole manâ?âR. ElÊ¿azar says: âThe Holy One, blessed be He, says: The whole world was created for his sake onlyâ. R. Abba b. Kahana says: âHe is equal in value to the whole worldâ. R. Å imÊ¿on b. Ê¿Azzay says [some say it was R. Å imÊ¿on b. Zoma]: âThe whole world was created to be his auxiliariesâ.
The meaning of (this statement) is that whosoever has in mind Godâs sake in his speech and admonition to his listeners, in commanding them to observe the (religious) injunctions and prohibitions, while keeping himself from hypocrisy, then God will strengthen his words (and strike) reverence and inspiration into the hearts of his listeners. (If this is not the case) then the opposite (will occur).
As for the expression âas his auxiliariesâ, it signifies that the rest of mankind is there to accompany him and undertake his chores and tasks, for [2b] the virtuous man is the purpose of the existence of the human species.109
R. Ḥelbo further said in the name of R. Huna: If one knows that his friend is used to greeting him, let him greet him first, for it is said: âSeek peace and pursue itâ (Ps. 34, 15).110 And if his friend greets him and he does not return the greeting he is called a robber, for it is said: âIt is ye that have eaten up the vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your housesâ (Is. 3, 14).
[BerÄkhÅt 7a]
R. Yoḥanan says in the name of R. Yose: How do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, recites prayers? Because it says: âEven them will I bring to My holy mountain and make them joyful in the house of My prayerâ (Is. 56, 7).111 It is not said, âtheir prayerâ, but âMy prayerâ; hence (you learn) that the Holy One, blessed be He, says prayers.
What then does He pray?âR. Zutra b. Tovi said in the name of Rab: âMay it be My will that My mercy may suppress My anger and that My mercy may prevail over My (other) attributes, so that I may deal with My children in the attribute of mercy and, on their behalf, stop short of the limit of strict justiceâ.
The meaning of this passage is (as follows): It is well known that according to the Sabaeans, it is impossible for God, by virtue of His transcendence, to commune with this impure temperament i.e. human beings.112 Our Sages guided us by means of these mysteries to the truthful opinion, i.e. that despite His awesome transcendence, God willed that in the principle of existence, His compassion extends to the whole of (human) kind. The meaning aimed at is [â¦] and guidance of the prophets, for the purpose of prayer is to connect with His sacredness and furthermore with (its) possibility. Dost thou not see the allusion in their expression âWhat then does He pray?â The intention is to indicate Godâs concern with the lower world, His governance of its inhabitants and His compassionate mercy for [3a] His elect, contrary to those that claim: âthe Lord hath forsaken the landâ (Ezech. 8, 12).113 Elsewhere (TB Pesaḥim 117b) they have explained that the meaning of prayer is a petition, as they stated: [The ending of the benediction preceding] the (Ê¿amidah) prayer is âHe who redeems Israelâ. What is the reason (the verb is in the present tense)? Because it is a petition.
It was taught: R. YiÅ¡maʾel b. EliÅ¡aÊ¿ says: I once entered [into the innermost part of the Sanctuary] to offer incense and saw Akatriʾel Yah, the Lord of Hosts, seated upon a high and exalted throne.114 He said to me: YiÅ¡maʾel, My son, bless Me! I replied: âMaster of the World, may it be Thy will that Thy mercy may suppress Thy anger and Thy mercy may prevail over Thine other attributes, so that Thou mayest deal with Thy children according to the attribute of mercy and mayest, on their behalf, stop short of the limit of strict justice!â Thereupon He nodded to me with His head.
What does this come to teach us? Here we learn (incidentally) that the blessing of an ordinary man must not be considered lightly in thine eyes.
This is part of the spiritual and angelic degrees (maqÄmÄt) of this master when the column of his spiritual (lit. âintellectualâ) cloud of incense communed with the ineffable and he grasped the ultimate through the mystery of the physical incense.115 He became, as it were, united with his degree (maqÄm) (situated) in the levels of the active intellects, the principal and noblest of whom is Akatriʾel.116 It is said of the latter, called Sandalfon in the treatise Ḥagigah (TB Ḥagigah 13b), and elsewhere Maá¹aá¹ron, [3b] that he âtresses crowns for his Creatorâ (Ibid.). Now there is no difference between Akatriʾel and âhe who tresses crowns for his Creatorâ for him who understands derived proper nouns. Having communed with this archangel and reached through his mediation the apprehension of the Throne and the grandeur of Him to whom it is assigned, (R. YiÅ¡maʾel) could but burst into praise, exaltation, glorification, and emotion at that which he had grasped. Thereupon, in this station he considered the souls of his people (al-millah), and since he found them to be in need of assistance, he asked for mercy on their behalf from the Merciful who is compassionate towards all creatures, and he formulated his petition.117 (Now this does not transpire) in a state of any physical reality as the ignorant [i.e., the Qaraites] odiously (claim).
The author of Megillat Setarim118 has already reported that he was questioned on the subject (of Godâs metaphysical nature) and he replied: Turn a few pages to a later passage: To whom did (David) refer in these five verses beginning with âBless the Lord, O my soulâ (Ps. 104)? He was alluding only to the Holy One, blessed be He, [and to the soul. Just as the Holy One, blessed be He, fills the whole world, so the soul fills the body.] Just as the Holy One, blessed be He, sees, but is not seen, so the soul sees but is not itself seen. [Just as the Holy One, blessed be He, feeds the whole world, so the soul feeds the whole body. Just as the Holy One, blessed be He, is pure, so the soul is pure. Just as the Holy One, blessed be He, abides in the innermost precincts, so the soul abides in the innermost precincts. Let that which has these five qualities come and praise Him who has these five qualities].119 See that it is explicitly stated here that God, may He be exalted, does not belong to the category of things visible. Indeed, this passage is an allegory and a metaphor just as the prophets were wont to use metaphors in the spirit of the statement that âthe Torah employs human speechâ (TB Nedarim 3a).
Do not be baffled by the expression âAkatriʾel Yah, the Lord of Hostsâ, for it is as if it were written âthe angel of the Lord of Hostsâ, the first element having been eluded and there are numerous examples of (such elisions).120 As for the expression âThereupon He nodded to me with His headâ, it signifies that he revealed to him in this station some of the mysteries of the principles of existence which hitherto he had not seized. May this suffice on this subject!
[TB Beraḵot 7a]
R. Yoḥanan further said in the name of R. Yose: [How do you know that we must not try to placate a man in the time of his anger?] What is the meaning of the verse: âMy face will go and I will give thee restâ (Ex. 33, 14)? The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: âWait till My countenance of wrath shall have passed away and then I shall give thee restâ. Is anger then a mood of the Holy One, blessed be He?âYes, for it has been taught: âA God that hath indignation every dayâ (Ps. 7, 12)?
And what is the duration of this indignation?âAn instant. [And how long is an instant? One fifty-eight thousand eight hundred and eighty-eighth part of an hour.] And no creature has ever been able to fix precisely this instant except the wicked BalÄm, of whom it is written: âHe knoweth the knowledge of the Most Highâ (Nu. 24, 16)? [Now, he did not even know the mind of his beast; how then could he know the mind of the Most High? The meaning is, therefore, only] that he knew how to fix precisely this moment in which the Holy One, blessed be He, is angry. And this is just what the prophet said to Israel: âO my people, remember now [what Balak king of Moab devised,] and what BalÄm the son of Beor answered him ⦠that ye may know the righteous acts of the Lordâ (Mich. 6, 5). [What means âThat ye may know the righteous acts of the Lordâ?âR. ElÊ¿azar says: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel]: See now, how many righteous acts I performed for you in not being angry in the days of the wicked BalÄm. For had I been angry, not one remnant would have been left of the enemies of Israel.121
[TB Beraḵot 7a]
It was taught in the name of R. Meʾir: At the time when the sun rises and all the kings of the East and West place their crowns upon the soil122 and bow down to the sun, the Holy One, blessed be He, becomes at once angry.
This entire passage alludes to the fact that the intensity of His providence towards mankind and His protection and safeguard of them is proportional to their turning towards [4b] His presence. Whenever obliviousness occurs, even for the briefest moment, this bond that brings about a strong, personal providence, is weakened, whereupon they become tributary to universal providence which englobes all creatures in terms of protection. This is alluded to by the fact that BalÄm looked out for a (moment) of inattention on the part of Israel in order to be able to gain sway over them. The Israelites remained in an extreme state of attentiveness, alertness, and awareness of his intention. They were not overcome by inadvertence or unwariness123 even for the twinkling of an eye but remained like an attentive contender on the alert for his opponent and thus BalÄm was unable to carry out his aim against them. Even this was insufficient were it not for the Master of prophets who opposed his intentions with his breath and with what God enjoined him to recite following [BalÄmâs] imprecations.124 This was the supernal gift i.e. that God had repelled the obstacles conducive to concealment which had they not been removed then inattention would have taken place and the BalÄmâs (curse) would have taken effect upon them.
R. Yoḥanan further said in the name of R. Yose: Better is one [self-reproach in the heart of a man than many stripes].
5 Appendix: Supplementary Pages from Abraham Maimonidesâ Discourse on Rabbinical Homilies
The present occasion affords me the opportunity to publish two additional pages from the Judaeo-Arabic original of Abraham Maimonidesâ Discourse on Rabbinical Homilies together with an English translation. It turns out that these pages, which I had the good fortune to identify several years ago in the Paris AIU Geniza collection, are not only part of the Cambridge Judaeo-Arabic manuscript published by Dr E. Hurvitz in 1974, but they belong to the very same gathering, forming its outer folios.125 Hence, they add to the beginning and end of Hurvitzâs text since Lewis-Gibson Arabic II.39, fol. 2 (Hurvitzâs text, p. 1), is the direct continuation of the present Arabic manuscript folio 1aâb,126 while its folio 2aâb is the immediate continuation of Lewis-Gibson Arabic II.39, fol. 5 (Hurvitzâs text p. 12, end).127 In order to facilitate its reading diacritical points and punctuation have been added to the text.
5.1 Edition of Paris, AIU Arabe II.1
â®[â1â¬× ]â¬ââ®××¤× ×××¨× ×ª× ×§×¡× ××× ×׳××¡× ×קס×× .×××עש××ת â¬ââ®×××ª× ×׳×ר××× ×ª× ×§×¡× ×¢×× ×ר××¢× ×קס×× â.â¬â¬ââ®××× ×קס×× ×××רש×ת â¬ââ®×××׳××¡× ×¤×× â¬ââ®×××§×¡× ××××× â¬ââ®×× ×× ×רש×ת ×××קצ×× ××× ×׳×××¨× ,×××××× ×׳××רת×× â¬ââ®××× × ×××ת׳ר ×××שת×××× ×ס×××ת×× .××××³× ×××§×¡× â¬ââ®××¢ ××× × ×××× ×× ×× ×פתקר ××ת׳×× ,פ×ת׳××× â¬ââ®×××× ×××××× ×§×××× ×¤× ××ר ×ר××ת :××׳ ר׳ â¬ââ®×××× × ×ש×× ×¨×³ ש××¢×× ×× ××××× ×ס×ר ×××× â¬ââ®×©×××× ×¤×× ×©××ק ××¢××× ××× ,×©× ×³ :×× ×××× â¬ââ®×©××ק פ×× × ××ש×× ×× × ×¨× × .×× ××××¨× ××××× â¬ââ®××××× ××× ×עש×ת ×¢× ××× .××××ª× ×××× ×©××ק â¬ââ®×¤×× × ××ש×× × × ×¨× × ?×××× ×©××××¨× ××××× ××××× â¬ââ®××× ×עש×ת ×¢× ××× .××××§×¡× ××ת׳×× × â¬ââ®×× ×× ×רש×ת ××× ×׳××ר ××××× ,××××§×¦× ××××³× â¬â
â®[â1â¬× ]â¬ââ®×××§×¡× ×× ××××¢× × ×××××× ×¤×× ×× ××××¢× × ×× â¬ââ®×׳××ר ×× × .××× ×× ××³×¢× ×× ×׳××ר ×׳×××£ â¬ââ®×××× × ×פ×××× ×§× ××× ××ת׳ר×× ×× ××× â¬ââ®×¤× ××××××× ××©×¨× ××××©× × .××ת׳×× ×××³× â¬ââ®×××§×¡× ×§×××× ×¤× ××ר ×ª×¢× ××ת :××׳ ר׳ ×××× ,â¬ââ®××׳ ×¢××× ××ר×× ,××׳ ר׳ ×××¢×ר :עת×× ×ק××³×³× â¬ââ®×עש×ת ×××× ×צ××ק×× ××× ×¢×× ×××× ×¢××× â¬ââ®××× ××× ××× ××× ×××× ×ר×× ×× ××צ××¢× ,â¬ââ®×©× ׳ :×××× ×××× ×××× ×× × ××××× × ×× ×§××× × â¬ââ®×× ×××ש××¢× × ×× ××× ×§××× × ×× × ×××× ×× ×©××× â¬ââ®××ש××¢×ª× .פ×׳××ר ×××³× ×××רש ××××©× â¬ââ®×× ×עתק××× ×× ×תשרע ,×× ××× ×¢××§× .â¬ââ®××××× × ××××³× ×§×¦×× ×§×××× ×× ×©× ×× × â¬ââ®×××קצ×× ×עתק××× ×× ×× ×תשרע ××× × â¬ââ®×××ק .××׳×× ×× ××׳ר ××צ××ק×× ××××׳×ר ×××× â¬ââ®××¢××× ××× ×× ××ר×××× ×× × ×ª×¢×³ ×× ×× â¬ââ®×××× ××ר××× ×¤× ××ר ×××× ×× ,××׳×× ×× ×××× â¬â
â®[â2â¬× ]â¬ââ®×¤× ××××× ×××××ס×× ×¢× ×××ר×׳ ,××× ××× ××ר×׳ â¬ââ®××©× ×ר×׳ ××ª×³× ×××³× ××קצ׳×× ×××ª× ××××× â¬ââ®×××ª×³× ×××³× ×××¦× ×£ ×¤× ××ת×××× ×ת׳×ר â¬ââ®××××¦× ×£ ××ת׳××ת׳ â¬ââ®×× ××××³× ×תע×× ×× × ×עתק×× ×¦××× .××ת׳××× â¬ââ®×§×××× ×¤× ××©× ×ª ×ª×¢× ××ת :××¢×©× ×©×××¨× ×× â¬ââ®×××× × ×××¢×× ×©×ר×× ×ש××× .××ר ××× :צ×× â¬ââ®×××× ××¡× ×ª× ××¨× ×¤×¡××× ×ש××× ×©×× ×××§× .â¬ââ®×תפ×× ××× ×ר×× .×¢× ×¢××× ××¢×× ×ת××× .××ר :â¬ââ®×¨××× × ×©× ×¢××× ×× ×× ×©×× ×¤× ××× ×¢×× ×©×× × ××× â¬ââ®××ת ××¤× ×× .× ×©××¢ ×× × ×ש×× ××××× ×©××× × â¬ââ®×× ××××× ×¢× ×©×ª×¨×× ×¢× ×× ×× .×ת×××× ××ש××× â¬ââ®×× ×פ×× .××ר :×× ×× ×©×××ª× .×ר×× ×××¢×£ .××ר :â¬ââ®×× ×× ×©×××ª× ××× ×ש×× ×¨×¦×× ×ר×× ×× ××× .×ר×× â¬ââ®××ª×§× × .פ×××³× ××××¢×©× ×תע×× ×× × ×עתק×× â¬ââ®×¦××× ,××× ×× ×××× ×ª×××¨× ×תע××× ×ס×× ××׳×× â¬ââ®××¢× ×¢×××× ××צ××××× ,××× ×ª×¦×³×× ×ת××× :â¬â
â®[â2â¬× ]â¬ââ®×× ×× ××× ×××× ×שר ×× ××××× ×§×¨×××× ×××× ×××× ×××× × â¬ââ®××× ×§×¨××× × ×××× .×ק×× ×¢×× ×× × ××× :×× ×ª×§×¨× ×××× â¬ââ®××¢× × ×ª×©××¢ ××××ר ×× × × .××¤× ×× ×ª×¦×³×× ×ª× â¬ââ®×ª×¤×× ×××©× :×קר××× × ×××¢× ×× .×× ×׳×ר ×׳×× â¬ââ®×¤× ××ת×××× ×§×××× ×¤× ××ר ×ª×¢× ××ת :×¤×¢× ××ת â¬ââ®×¢×× ×× ×שר×× ×ר×× ××× ××× ××× ××× ×שת×ת .â¬ââ®××× × ×§××××× ×× ××ר××× ××¦× ××××× ××× ×©××× â¬ââ®×©× .××ר ×× :××××× × ×©×ª×× ×¢×©×¨× ××¢××ת ××× â¬ââ®××× × × ××ª× ×× ×©× ×× ×¢×©×¨ ×××¨× ×סף .קצץ ×× â¬ââ®×סף ×ק××¢ ×× ××× .×ש××××¢ ××× × ×©×× ×× :â¬ââ®×©×ר ×× ×× ××× ×× ××¢×ת .ש×× ×× :×¢× ×× ×ש â¬ââ®×× ×¨×× .×צ×ר×× ×©×× ×× :ש×ר ×× ××× ×× ××¢×ת .â¬ââ®×©×× ×× :×¢× ×× ×ש ×× ×©××ת ×××× .××× ×× â¬ââ®×©×× ×× :ש×ר ×× ××× ×× ××¢×ת .ש×× ×× ×¢× â¬ââ®×× ×ש ×× ×©××ת ×××× .××ר ×××ª× ××××× ×× â¬ââ®××©× × ×××× ×× ×ר×× ×ש××× ×¢×ש×× ×ר×× .â¬ââ®× ×× ×¡ ×ש××× ×××ת ××ר××¥ .×× ×¢×©× â¬â
5.2 Translation of Paris, AIU Arabe II.1
[all those homilies which are to be found in the sayings of the rabbis in the Talmud] and elsewhere are divided into five categories, whereas the tales to which they relate are divided into four types.
As for the five categories of homilies:
The First Category is comprised of homilies the intention of which is literal and, on account of their simplicity, their literal meaning is obvious to the majority of those that consider them. Even though this category is so clear that it does not require an illustration, I will nonetheless provide an example by way of explanation, namely the following passage from the treatise Beraḵot (31a): R. Yoḥanan said in the name of R. Å imÊ¿on b. Yohay It is forbidden for a man to fill his mouth with laughter in this world, as it is written: âThen will our mouth be filled with laughter and our tongue with singingâ (Ps 126, 2). When will that be? At the time when âthey shall say among the nations it is proclaimed âThe Lord hath wrought great things with theseââ¯â (ibid. 3).
The Second Category is comprised of homilies that have both a literal and a metaphorical meaning. The intended meaning of this [1b] category is its metaphorical and not its literal sense but it was allocated a literal sense in contradiction to its metaphorical sense for beneficial reasons. Most or all of the latter have been expounded [by Maimonides] in the Guide and the Commentary on the Mishnah. An example of this category is their statement in the treatise TaÊ¿anit (31a): R. Ḥelbo said in the name of Ê¿Ulla of Bira, R. ElÊ¿azar said: In the days to come, the Holy One blessed be He will hold a chorus for the righteous in the Garden of Eden and He will sit in their midst in the Garden of Eden and each will designate Him with his finger, as it is said âAnd it shall be said in that day: Lo this is our God whom we awaited, that He might save us; this is the Lord for whom we waited, let us rejoice and be glad at His salvationâ (Is. 25, 9).
God forfend that any student of the Torah, nay any intelligent person, should believe the literal meaning of this homily. The inner meaning its transmitter had in mind is certainly the intended belief on the part of every student of the Torah for it is the truth. This is that what is mentioned here about the reward of the righteous in the life of the next world consists of their perceiving of God that which was imperceptible in the lower world. This is the utmost [beatitude of which there is nothing higher].â
2a
In regard to longanimity and forbearance in the face of importunity even from that which causes the greatest annoyance as illustrated by the tale related here. Of this type, there are numerous examples in the Talmud.
The Third Type is one from which one learns a correct opinion, an example of which is reported in the tractate TaÊ¿anit (23a): Once it happened that the people sent a message to Honi the Circle Drawer: âPray that rain may fallâ. He said to them: âGo and gather in the ovens of the Pascal lambs so that they may not crumbleâ. He prayed but the rain did not fall. He thereupon drew a circle and stood within it and exclaimed [before God]: âMaster of the Universe, Thy children have turned to me because [they believe] me to be a member of Thy house. I swear by Thy Great Name that I will not move from here until Thou hast mercy upon Thy children!â Rain began to drip, whereupon he exclaimed: âIt is not for this that I have prayedâ. The rain then began to come down with great force. Thereupon he exclaimed before [God]: âIt is not for this that I have prayed but for the rain of benevolence, blessing and bountyâ. Then the rain fell normally.
From this tale, one learns a correct opinion i.e. that God, blessed and exalted be His Name, responds to the petition of His pious servants, as is written in His book: âFor what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is in all things for which that we call upon him?â (Deut. 4, 7) And He said through His prophet: âThen you will call, and the Lord will answer; you will cry for help, and He will say âHere am Iââ¯â (Is 58, 9). And Mosesâ prayer contains the verse: âHe will call on me, and I will answer him; [I will be with him in trouble, I will deliver him and honour himâ] (Ps 91, 15).
Similarly, it is related in the tractate TaÊ¿anit (19bâ20a): Once it happened when all Israel came up on pilgrimage [to Jerusalem] that there was no water available for drinking. Thereupon Naqdimon b. Gurion approached a certain local [heathen] lord and said to him: âLoan me twelve wells of water [for the Pilgrims] and I will repay you twelve talents of silverâ. He fixed the sum and a time limit [for repayment]. When the time came [for repayment and no rain had yet fallen] the lord sent a message to him [in the morning]: âReturn to me either the water or the moneyâ. Naqdimon replied: âI have still timeâ. At midday he [again] sent to him a message: âReturn to me either the water or the moneyâ. Naqdimon replied: âI still have time todayâ. In the afternoon, he [again] sent to him a message: âReturn to me either the water or the moneyâ. Naqdimon replied: âI still have time todayâ. Thereupon the lord [sneeringly] said: âSeeing that no rain has fallen throughout the whole year will it then rain now?â Thereupon he repaired in a happy mood to the baths. Meanwhile, what did [Naqdimon] do?
See infra, n. 119.
J. Musafia, ed., TeÅ¡Å«bÅt ha-GeʾÅnÄ«m (Lyck: Meqizey Nirdamim, 1864), par. 98; B.M. Levin, Otzar ha-Geonim, Thesaurus of the Gaonic Responsa and Commentaries, following the order of the Talmudic Tractates (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Press Association, 1931), BerÄḵÅt, Hayya Gaon, TeÅ¡Å«bÅt, no. 357, 130â131. A Hebrew translation of the Aramaic original is to be found in A.Y. Brumberg, ed., PeyrÅ«Å¡ey rišʾÅnÄ«m l-ʾaggÄdÅt Ḥazal (Jerusalem: Committee for the Publication of the Works of Rabbi Brumberg, 1981), 22; see also S. Immanuel, ed., TeÅ¡Å«bÅt ha-GeʾÅnÄ«m ha-ḥadaÅ¡Åt (Jerusalem: Meḵon Ofeq, 1995), 155.
Y. QÄfiḥ, ed., Maimonidesâ Commentary on the MiÅ¡nah (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1963â1969), III (of VIII), Introduction to Sanhedrin (Jerusalem: Rav Kook Institute, 1965), 209.
Introduction to Sanhedrin (Jerusalem: Rav Kook Institute, 1965), 209. In his attitude to the ʾAggadot, Maimonides took his cue from the Geonim as when he states in HilḵÅt yesÅdey ha-tÅrÄh, I, 8: âThe Torah and Prophets clearly affirm that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not possess a body [â¦] for if He possessed one, He would resemble other bodies. If this be the case what does the Torah imply when it uses expressions such as âunder His feetâ (Ex. 24, 10), âthe finger of Godâ (ib. 31, 18), âthe hand of Godâ (ib. 9, 3), âthe eyes of Godâ (Gen. 38, 7) [â¦]? All are employed in relation to human understanding, which can only conceive of [physical] bodies for âthe Torah expresses itself in human languageâ (TB BerakÌot 31b) and all these [expressions] are metaphorical.â
See the introduction to his Guide for the Perplexed (see, Y. QÄfiḥ, ed., Maimonidesâ Guide for the Perplexed (Jerusalem: Rav Kook Institute, I (of III), 9); see also S. Pines, transl., Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963 I (of II), 9)). Let us recall that Daniel b. al-MÄÅ¡iá¹ah says critically of Maimonides that he considered âthat for an individual proficient in the words of the Rabbis with proper reasoning, no statement of theirs could preclude allegorical interpretationâ. See P. Fenton, âMaimonidesâFather and Son,â in Traditions of Maimonideanism, ed. C. Fraenkel (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 133.
See A.H. Freimann and S.D. Goitein, eds., The Responsa of Abraham Maimonides (Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1937), no. 124, 210. It is possible that this letter, like the preceding item in the Pococke ms., was addressed by Abraham Maimonides to R. Isaac Ibn Å uwayḵ, Gaon of Baghdad from 1221â1247â¯CE.
A. Breuer, âTwo Observations on the Identification of Fragments as R. Hayya GaʾÅnâs Commentary on BerÄḵÅt and the Identification of A. Maimonidesâ Commentary on BerÄḵÅt and the Sefer ha-MaspÄ«q,â Ḥitsei Gibborim 8 (2015): 1107â109.
With one exception (see immediately below), none of the fragments of the KifÄyah listed in my article, P. Fenton, âDanaâs Edition of Abraham Maimuniâs KifÄyat al-Ê¿ÄbidÄ«n,â Jewish Quarterly Review 82 (1991): 194â206, seem to be an autograph. We do have numerous specimens of A. Maimonidesâ hand, which, as I have characterised elsewhere, tends towards an Andalusian cursive script, despite his having been born and bred in Egypt. Autograph specimens are to be found in JTS MS 8254.17e (olim ENA 3313.9), a commentary of the Passover Haggadah extracted from the KifÄyah, JTS ENA 18.36, a letter to his brother-in-law, published in P. Fenton, âA Judeo-Arabic Commentary on the Hafá¹arÅt by Ḥananʾel ben Å emuʾel,â Maimonidean Studies 1 (1990): 27â56, see 49â54, and Bodl. Heb. c 28, 45â46, a tract in defence of the pietists, translated in P. Fenton, Deux Traités de mystique juive: Ê¿Obadyah b. Abraham b. Moïse Maïmonide, Le Traité du puits, al-MaqÄla al-ḥawá¸iyya: David b. Josué, dernier des Maïmonide: Le Guide du détachement, al-MurÅ¡id ilÄ t-tafarrud (Lagrasse: Verdier, 1985), 82â83.
The forming of the Ê¿ayin, which differs in A and B, is decisive. Compare also the qÅf and final nÅ«n (both slope to the right in A, whereas they are straight in B) and the elongated foot of final tav in A, which has no equivalent in B.
P. Fenton, âDanaâs Edition of Abraham Maimuniâs KifÄyat al-Ê¿ÄbidÄ«n,â 199.
S. Rosenblatt, ed., The High Ways to Perfection of Abraham Maimonides (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1938), II, 10. However, see ibid. II, 224.
P. Fenton, âDanaâs Edition of Abraham Maimuniâs KifÄyat al-Ê¿ÄbidÄ«n,â 198.
An anonymous translation is preserved in JTS Misc. 2324, a miscellany compiled by Eliezer Eilenburg, and in Oxford Bodl. ms. Neubauer 1649.4, copied in Poland in 1465â¯CE. The Discourse was printed several times from this latter manuscript, for example in Kerem Ḥemed 2 (1836): 7â61; A. Lichtenberg, ed., Qovetz teshuvot ha-Rambam vâ Igrot Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Leipzig: HL Shnoys; 1859), II 40â43; and, more recently, in R. Margaliot, ed., Abraham Maimonidesâ MilḥamÅt ha-Å¡em (Jerusalem: Rav Kook Institute, 1953), 81â98. A second translation was made in the East in the 16th century CE by Abraham Ibn MigaÅ¡ (see A. Harkavy, âNotes and Additions to H. Graetz, History of the Jews, vol. V,â ḤadÄÅ¡Ä«m gam yeÅ¡ÄnÄ«m 10 (1896): 7), and a third in the Maghreb in the same century by Vidal Sarfati (ca. 1545â1619â¯CE) of Fez, published in the introduction to his commentary on the MidraÅ¡ rabbah, Imrei yÅÅ¡er, (Warsaw: Y. Kalinberg, 1874).
See E. Hurvitz, âMaʾamar Ê¿al Ê¿odot deraÅ¡ot Ḥazal,â Joshua Finkel Memorial Volume (New York: Yeshivah University Press, 1974), 139â168. The missing word on p. 147, l. 9 reads: taqṣīr, translated in the Hebrew as be-qaáºrÅ«t lÄÅ¡Ån. See the appendix to the present article, where I publish an additional fragment to those discovered by Hurvitz.
Wordplay on Ex. 34, 30.
See supra, n. 3.
Is this possibly the present fragment?
R. Margaliot, ed., âMaʾamar Ê¿al Ê¿odot deraÅ¡ot Ḥazal,â in Abraham Maimonidesâ MilḥamÅt ha-Å¡em (Jerusalem: Rav Kook Institute, 1953), 83.
S. Rosenblatt, ed., The High Ways to Perfection of Abraham Maimonides (New York: Columbia University Press, 1927), I, 16; see also idem, pp. 138, 298, 414 (quoting from TB Å abbat 33b) and in his Commentary on the Pentateuch (see infra n. 22), 479. God shows grace by changing the natural order for those who rely upon Him, especially prophets and saints (ʾawliyÄʾ). In other instances, e.g., p. 457, on Ex. 32, 15, he is more sceptical, accepting the miracles reported in the midraÅ¡ only if they âare lawâ, according to the expression used in MiÅ¡nah, Yebamot 5, 3. On the Sufi concept of wilÄyah, which Abraham uses in The High Ways (see S. Rosenblatt, ed., The High Ways to Perfection of Abraham Maimonides, I, 184, 202, and II, 416; see also M. Chodkiewicz, The Seal of the Saints: Prophethood and Sainthood in the Doctrine of Ibn Ê¿Arabi (Cambridge: The Islamic Texts Society, 1993)).
S. Rosenblatt, ed., The High Ways to Perfection of Abraham Maimonides, II, 198 on Hillel as reported in TB Šabbat 30b.
S. Rosenblatt, ed., The High Ways to Perfection of Abraham Maimonides, II, 120 referring to TB Ber. 8a, 28a, Ket. 105a and TaÊ¿anit 23a. Cf. Y. QÄfiḥ, ed., Maimonidesâ Commentary on the MiÅ¡nah, AbÅt, 4, 7, 441â446. For further examples, see S. Rosenblatt, ed., The High Ways to Perfection of Abraham Maimonides, II, 206 (ârelianceâ) (MiÅ¡nah Ber. 5, 5); idem, 234 (âfrugalityâ) (TB TaÊ¿anit 23aâb), idem, 264 (âcelibacyâ) (TB Qidd. 29b, Yeb. 63b). For Talmudic examples of abstinence, see S. Rosenblatt, ed., The High Ways to Perfection of Abraham Maimonides, II, 234, 298 and P. Fenton, âAsceticism among the Judeo-Sufis of Egypt: The Cases of R. Abraham Maimonides and R. David II Maimonides,â Asceticism in Judaism and the Abrahamic Religions = Jewish Thought 3 (2021): 67â97.
S. Rosenblatt, ed., The High Ways to Perfection of Abraham Maimonides, II, 417; see also our article, P. Fenton, âLa Pratique de la retraite spirituelle (khalwa) chez les judéo-soufis dâEgypte,â in Les mystiques juives, chrétiennes et musulmanes dans lâEgypte médiévale, eds. G. Cecere, M. Loubet and S. Pagani (Cairo: Institut français dâarchéologie orientale, 2013), 211â252.
E. Wiesenberg, ed., Abraham Maimonidesâ Commentary on Genesis and Exodus (London: S.D. Sasson, 1958), 189 on Gen. 48, 8 and idem, p. 276 on Ex. 15, 20. Here Abraham took his cue from his father. Cf. Y. QÄfiḥ, ed., Maimonidesâ Guide for the Perplexed, III, 51, 684; see also S. Pines, transl., Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, 627â628.
R. Dana, ed., Sefer ha-maspik leʾovdey ha-šem (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1989).
See S. Rosenblatt, ed., The High Ways to Perfection of Abraham Maimonides, II, 410 et passim.
S. Rosenblatt, ed., The High Ways to Perfection of Abraham Maimonides, I, 190, l. 3.
S. Rosenblatt, ed., The High Ways to Perfection of Abraham Maimonides, II, 392, l. 20 and 416, l. 1.
R. Dana, ed., Sefer ha-maspik leʾovdey ha-Å¡em, 177, 260â266. Much like Abraham Maimonides, the author of the Treatise on Prayer, who I surmise is R. Abraham he-ḥÄsÄ«d, considers that the phylacteries and the Divine names they contain, constitute a reminder of the spiritual world (al-Ê¿Älam al-rūḥÄnÄ«); see P. Fenton, âA Mystical Treatise on Prayer and the Spiritual Quest from the Pietist Circle,â JSAI 16 (1993): 137â175, esp. 147. Nor does our fragment bear any resemblance with the long development on the mysteries of the phylacteries proposed by David II Maimonides in his Epistle on Esoteric Matters. See P. Fenton, âAn Epistle on Esoteric Matters by David II Maimonides from the Genizah,â in Pesher Nahum, Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature from Antiquity through the Middle Ages presented to Norman Golb, eds. J. Kraemer and M. Wechsler (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2012), 62 (Arabic text) and 69â70 (English transl.).
R. Margaliot, ed., âMaʾamar Ê¿al Ê¿odot deraÅ¡ot Ḥazal,â in Abraham Maimonidesâ MilḥamÅt ha-Å¡em, 84 on TB BerakÌot 7a.
CUL T-S Ar. 46.213.
Notably, St. Petersburg, Russian National Library, II Firk. Yevr.-Arab. NS 2706. The latter is a fragment of the al-RisÄlah al-muntaḵabah, a work I am inclined to ascribe to Abraham Maimonidesâ companion R. Abraham he-ḥÄsÄ«d. I discussed this âEpistleâ in my study, P. Fenton, âA Mystical Treatise on Perfection, Providence and Prophecy from the Jewish Sufi Circle,â in The Jews in Medieval Islam: Community, Society, and Identity, ed. D. Frank (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 301â334. On the similarity between R. Abraham he-ḥÄsÄ«dâs terminology and that of the present text, see infra n. 40.
The lesson is derived from the use of the singular âtheeâ.
TB BerakÌot 6b. Vilniusâ edition reads: âand sits and studies the Torahâ.
Cf. E. Wiesenberg, ed., Abraham Maimonidesâ Commentary on Genesis and Exodus, 327. Contrary to his father, who says this verse refers to the sanctuaries, Abraham Maimonides says that this verse refers to âtrue worship, worship of the heartâ.
Loc. cit., p. 109. On the notion of ḵalwah, and in particular âexternal solitudeâ and âinternal solitudeâ, see P. Fenton, âLa pratique de la retraite spirituelle (khalwa) chez les judéo-soufis dâÃgypte,â 211â252.
P. Fenton, The Treatise of the Pool by Ê¿Obadyah Maimonides (London: Octagon Press, 1981), 90, Arabic text fol. 12a. I have discussed elsewhere the many Jewish authors who referred directly or indirectly to this passage of the Theology; see P. Fenton, Philosophie et Exégèse dans le Jardin de la métaphore (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 79, 218; and P. Fenton, âRémanences néoplatoniciennes dans un commentaire judéo-arabe sur le Cantique des cantiques,â in LâInfluence de la religion néoplatonicienne dans les monothéismes au Moyen Age, Studia Graeco-Arabica 12 (2022): 113â133.
B.M. Levin, Otzar ha-Geonim Thesaurus of the Gaonic Responsa and Commentaries, berÄḵÅt, Annex PeyrÅ«Å¡ey R. Ḥananʾel, 3. The ultimate source of this passage is: D. Kaufmann, ed., Judah b. Barzilays Commentar zum Sepher Jezira (Berlin: Mekize Nirdamim, 1885), 32. Let it be noted in passing that the notion âvision of the heartâ is a metaphor frequently employed in Sufi mystical literature, but is already to be found in the Talmud TB Meg. 24b.
Y. QÄfiḥ, ed., Maimonidesâ Commentary on the MiÅ¡nah, Introduction to Sanhedrin, III, 212.
E. Wiesenberg, ed., Abraham Maimonidesâ Commentary on Genesis and Exodus, 111.
Loc. cit., 379â381.
See P. Fenton, âSome Judaeo-Arabic Fragments by Rabbi Abraham ha-Ḥasid, the Jewish Sufi,â Journal of Semitic Studies 26 (1981): 50â51 (Arabic text, l. 6, 20: bi-l-Ê¿Älam al-malakÅ«tÄ«, l-il-Ê¿Älam al-rūḥÄnÄ«), 52 (Ar. l. 7: wa-Ê¿Älam al-rūḥÄniyyÄ«n), and 63 (Ar. l. 17: al-Ê¿awÄlim al-malakÅ«tiyyah). See also in his passage on the Unveiling of Mysteries preserved in Oxford, Bodl. Heb. e. 74 and published by N. Wieder, Islamic Influences on the Jewish Worship (Oxford: East and West Library, 1947), 34 (Ar. l. 11: al-Ê¿Älam al-rūḥÄnÄ«; l. 12: Ê¿Älam al-malakÅ«t al-rabbÄnÄ«), 35 (Ar. l. 3: Ê¿Älam al-rūḥÄniyyÄ«n), and n. 118. See also P. Fenton, âA Mystical Treatise on Prayer and the Spiritual Quest,â JSAI, 16 (1993), which I am inclined to attribute also to Abraham he-ḥÄsÄ«d, 151 (l. 6: Ê¿Älami-hÄ al-qudsÄ«) and 152 (l. 22â23: al-ḥaá¸rah al-malakÅ«tiyyah al-rabbÄniyyah).
H. Davidowitz and D. Baneth, eds., [Pseudo-] Maimonidesâ De Beatitudine (Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1939), 3. See also p. 11, where he mentions sulÅ«k al-maqÄmÄt, and p. 14 (rabbÄnÄ«, malakÅ«tÄ«).
See P. Fenton and M. Gloton, transl., Ibn Ê¿ArabÄ«, La Production des cercles (Paris: Ed. de lâeclat, 1996), 16, 21â22.
Ê¿Abd al-KarÄ«m al-JÄ«lÄ«, âMarÄtib al-wujÅ«d,â in Das Buch der vierzig Stufen, ed. E. Bannerth (Vienna: R. Rohrer, 1956), 33. See also Ê¿Abd al-KarÄ«m al-JÄ«lÄ«, Al-ʾinsÄn al-kÄmil (Cairo: M. al-Halabi, 1970), I (of II), 37, 108â109. See thereon R.A. Nicholson, Islamic Mysticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980) 95. One is tempted to equate this second degree with the sefÄ«rÄh ḥÅḵmÄh in Qabbalistic parlance, also called âthe first section of the head phylacteryâ. Cf. P. Fenton, ed., Joseph Ibn WaqÄr, Principles of the Qabbalah (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2004), 177.
E.H. Whinefield, ed. and transl., MahmÅ«d Å abistÄrÄ«, GulshÄn I Raz: The Mystic Rose Garden (London: Trubner, 1880), 29â30; see also pp. xiv, 40, 50, and 63.
CUL T-S Ar. 46.213.
In the original: â®
ââ®
Leg. â®
â®
CUL T-S Ar. 47.170, fol. 1a.
Cf. J. Blau, Dictionary of Medieval Judaeo-Arabic Texts (Jerusalem: Academy of Hebrew Language, Israel Academy of Science and Humanities, 2006), 200b: âgardenerâ.
Note colloquial form.
â®
CUL T-S Ar. 47.170.
TB Ber. 6b.
TB Ber. 7a.
â®
CUL T-S Ar. 46.213.
TB Pes. 117b.
V adds: â®
ââ®
â®
TB Ned. 3a.
V: â®
V: â®
âTremble and sin not: commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still, Selahâ (Ps. 4, 5).
Mazziqim, lit. âdemonsâ. The author makes no comment but from the continuation of the passage it seems he interprets the word as âpunishmentâ. He refers to the mazziqim which inhabit ruins mentioned in TB Beraḵot 3a; R. Abraham translates this word as dabÄ«b âreptilesâ, thus defusing the superstitious import (see R. Dana, ed., Sefer ha-maspik leʾovdey ha-Å¡em, 66).
In brackets here and throughout = V.
The simile of the pure soul and the polished mirror is widespread in Sufism. See T. Burckhardt, âDie Symbolik des Spiegels in der islamischen Mystik,â Symbolon I (1960), 12â16. See also H. Davidowitz and D. Baneth, eds., [pseudo-]Maimonides, De Beatitudine, 18â19, 33â34; and the work studied in P. Fenton, âA Mystical Treatise on Prayer and the Spiritual Quest from the Pietist Circle,â 151â152, 164.
See P. Fenton, âA Mystical Treatise on Prayer and the Spiritual Quest from the Pietist Circle,â 160â161. The Sufis and Judaeo-Sufis refer to their discipline as ʾadab, lit. âinstructionâ.
Cf. S. Pines, transl., Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, III, 17, 470â471.
The terms âdistressâ or âretractionâ and âeaseâ recall the Sufi states of qabḠand basá¹. Cf. A.H. MaḥmÅ«d and M. b. al-Å arÄ«f, eds., Al-QuÅ¡ayrÄ«, al-RisÄlah al-QuÅ¡ayrÄ«yah (Cairo, 1966), I, 196.
V: âthe study of Torah and acts of charityâ.
V: R. Abba the son of R. Hiyya b. Abba.
RiyÄá¸Ät, lit. âspiritual exercisesâ, a name Sufis give to their discipline.
V: Yoḥay.
The Hebrew carries yissurim âsufferingsâ.
Cf. Ex. 15, 23â26. Cf. Treatise of the Pool, p. 105.
Cf. Ex. 16, 1â36 and Numb. 11, 1â9.
On the sojourn in the wilderness as a means of perfection, see Treatise of the Pool, p. 112 and n. 157.
Leg. li-watani-hÄ.
R. Elʿazar was a pauper and lived in a windowless room.
According to TB BÄbÄ MeáºiÊ¿a, 84a, R. Yoḥanan was of radiant beauty. In his Commentary on Exodus 35, 29, Abraham Maimonides mentions the âluminosity (nÅ«rÄniyyah) of the bodyâ in connection with Mosesâ radiance in virtue of the subtlety of his matter after having contemplated the âlights of the Divine Presenceâ (see E. Wiesenberg, ed., Abraham Maimonidesâ Commentary on Genesis and Exodus, 487). However, this term could well be borrowed from Sufism. Indeed, according to pseudo-Ibn Ê¿ArabÄ« (= al-KaÅ¡ÄnÄ«), TafsÄ«r al-qurʾÄn al-karÄ«m, (Beirut: Dar al-Andalus, 1978), 39 on QurʾÄn 20, 22, the whiteness of Mosesâ hand was not due to leprosy but: âhis hand was illumined (munawwarah) with the light of true guidance and the rays of holy lightâ (cf. LXX, Onqelos, and SaÊ¿adya on Ex. 3, 6). It is a frequent leitmotiv in Persian poetry; see J. Stephenson, transl., AbÅ« l-Majd al-SanÄʾī, The Enclosed Garden (Lahore, 1908), 25, 44 (Persian text p. 28, l. 20): âthe hand of Moses became a moonâ.
V: Thereupon, he noticed that R. Elʿazar was weeping. But our text makes more sense in view of the conclusion.
V: Did not study enough Torah?
The Talmud deduces from this saying that he regarded juvenile death as a chastisement of love. Traditional commentaries understand the bone to have been a tooth of the last of his sons which he would show to the bereaved in order to induce in them his own attitude of resignation (see B.M. Levin, Otzar ha-Geonim, Thesaurus of the Gaonic Responsa and Commentaries, ʾOáºar ha-GeʾÅnÄ«m, BerÄḵÅt, Section II, PeyrÅ«Å¡Ä«m, 6).
V: âtwo tablesâ i.e., learning and wealth, or perhaps, this world and the next.
See supra, n. 10.
V: Is the Holy One, blessed be He, suspect of punishing without justice?
CUL T-S Ar. 47.170.
V: Rabin b. R. Adda.
V: the Holy One, blessed be He.
V: House of Assembly, i.e., Synagogue.
V: âand sits and studies the Torahâ.
The lesson is derived from the use of the singular âtheeâ.
V: Adda.
See supra, n. 40.
V: âthe Holy One, blessed be He, dons tefillinâ.
See supra, n. 44.
I.e., the divine phylacteries are not physical but a metaphor for spiritual concepts, alluding here to providence.
No doubt a reference to Hayyaâs commentary cited in B.M. Levin, Otzar ha-Geonim, Thesaurus of the Gaonic Responsa and Commentaries, Beraḵot, section 1 (teÅ¡Å«á¸Åt), 12, where he explains that this means God showed Moses how to make tefillin; see A.Y. Brumberg, ed., PeyrÅ«Å¡ey rišʾÅnÄ«m l-ʾaggÄdÅt Ḥazal, 39; cf. also the quote in Hayyaâs name apud S. b. Adret, ḤiddÅ«Å¡ey ha-RaÅ¡ba (Warsaw: P. Lebensohn, 1859), fol. 4c; see also B. AÅ¡kenazi, Å iá¹á¹Äh mequbeáºáºet (New York: s. n., 1956), fol. 2c, which is a literal interpretation. Further fragments of R. Hayyaâs Talmudic commentary on Beraḵot have been listed by Y.M. Dubovick, âThe First Folio of Rav Hayya Gaonâs Commentary on Tractate Beraḵot,â NetÅ«Ê¿im 19 (2014): 143â154, especially pp. 143â144 (Hebrew), which do not deal with our passage. See also U. Fuks, âR. Hayyaâs Strictures on the Talmud,â in Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Ta-Shema, A. Reiner, J.R. Hacker, M. Halbertal, M. Idel, E. Kanarfogel and E. Reiner, eds. (Alon Shvut: Tevunot Press, 2012), II (of II), 143â154 (Hebrew).
Enumerated in TB BerakÌot 6a, ult.
TB BerakÌot 6b, top.
After a small gap of about one missing page, the commentary resumes with the sayings of R. ḤelbÅ to be found in TB BerakÌot 6b. It begins with a commentary his words: âR. ḤelbÅ further said in the name of R. Huna: âWhosoever partakes of a bridegroomâs wedding feast and does not felicitate him does violence to âthe five voicesâ mentioned in the verse Jer. 33, 2.ââ¯â
Curiously, the quotations from the Talmud are reported henceforth in the original Hebrew and are left untranslated.
CUL T-S Ar. 47.170.
Allusion to the Torah which is the reward of those who rejoice with the bride and groom, according to R. Joshua b. Levi in the following passage.
He interprets: âEverything is heard, if you fear Godâ.
This statement has a Maimonidean ring to it. In his Commentary, Maimonides, expounding a rabbinical homily taken from TB Ber. 58a, states that all creatures serve the Perfect Man (rajul kÄmil) (see Y. QÄfiḥ, ed., Maimonidesâ Commentary on the MiÅ¡nah, 45). Since the subject is in the singularâthe virtuous Manâand not in the plural, one can also perhaps detect here a reminiscence of the Sufi concept of the Perfect Man (al-ʾinsÄn al-kÄmil). See further in P. Fenton, âLe Symbolisme du nombre quarante et la doctrine de lâHomme Parfait dans la mystique juive et musulmane,â in Mélanges Michel Chodkiewicz, ed. D. Gril (Aix-en-Provence, forthcoming).
If one is used to greeting his neighbour and fails to do so a single day, he transgresses the injunction âseek peaceâ.
See on this passage the responsum of SaÊ¿adyah Gaon (see B.M. Levin, Otzar ha-Geonim, Thesaurus of the Gaonic Responsa and Commentaries, section 1, teÅ¡Å«á¸Åt, 14â15); i.e., God teaches Israel how to pray and enjoins them to perform prayers. The ultimate source of this passage is Judah b. Barzilay (see D. Kaufmann, ed., Judah b. Barzilays Commentar zum Sepher Jezira, 34).
I do not recall having seen this doctrine quoted elsewhere in the name of the Sabaeans, but as is known this name is used as a generic term for all sorts of heretics. In The High Ways, the denial of Godâs knowledge of particulars in respect of Providence is ascribed by Abraham Maimonides to âthe naturalist scholarsâ and âGreek philosophersâ (see S. Rosenblatt, ed., The High Ways to Perfection of Abraham Maimonides, II, 129â130).
Cf. Y. QÄfiḥ, ed., Maimonidesâ Commentary on the MiÅ¡nah, III, 19, 523; see also S. Pines, transl., Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, 480.
See also on this passage the responsum of SaÊ¿adyah Gaon (see B.M. Levin, Otzar ha-Geonim, Thesaurus of the Gaonic Responsa and Commentaries, section 1, teÅ¡Å«á¸Åt, 15â18; see also D. Kaufmann, ed., Judah b. Barzilays Commentar zum Sepher Jezira, 20â22).
Lit. âcommuned with that which he communed and grasped that which he graspedâ.
Strangely, the Qabbalists similarly consider Akatriʾel to allude to keter, first sefÄ«rÄh. Cf. T. AbÅ« l-Ê¿Afiya, ʾOtsar ha-kÄá¸Åd (Warsaw: P. Lebenson and D. Fridman, 1879), fol. 4c. On the polemics relative to this passage, see B.M. Levin, Otzar ha-Geonim, Thesaurus of the Gaonic Responsa and Commentaries, 15â18.
This passage is highly reminiscent of A. Maimonidesâ interpretation of Exod. 34, 10 (which he says differs from that of his father) according to which Moses, having attained the ultimate level, made a plea in favour of the community of Israel : âwhen Mosesâ apprehension increased and he reached a fuller attainment (wuṣūl) in this level (maqÄm), intensifying his bond and his desire, he prayed for continuance and communion (ʾittiá¹£Äl) not only for himself but for the entire people (al-millah), that every one of them may reach the ultimate perfection it is possible to attainâ (see also B.M. Levin, Otzar ha-Geonim, Thesaurus of the Gaonic Responsa and Commentaries, Beraḵot, Annex PeyrÅ«Å¡ey R. Ḥananʾel, p. 5).
This work is by R. Nissim Gaon of Qayrawan (990â1062â¯CE) and the passage in our manuscript (quoted erroneously as CUL T-S Ar. 47/213) has already been discussed by S. Abramson, R. Nissim Gaon (Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1965), 281â282, 332, n. 7.
TB Ber. 10a. I have supplied the whole passage in order to understand the context.
The literature relative to this debate in mediaeval sources has been summarised by R. Margoliot, Malʾaḵey Ê¿elyÅn, (Jerusalem: Rav Kook Institute, 1945), 12â15.
V: âof the enemies of Israelâ, a euphemism for âthe Jewsâ.
V: âupon their headsâ.
ʾInḥijÄb, lit. âconcealmentâ from ḥijÄb, which is also a Sufi technical term. Cf. A. al-RazzÄq, Dictionary of the Technical Terms of the Sufis (Calcutta: s.n., 1845), 35, no. 116.
Obviously based on a midraš, the source of which has escaped me.
E. Hurvitz, âMaʾamar Ê¿al Ê¿odot deraÅ¡ot Ḥazal,â 139â168, where he published part of the original Judaeo-Arabic based on Cambridge, Westminster College, Lewis-Gibson Arabic II.39, fols. 2r and 5v. See supra, n. 13.
Corresponding to R. Margaliot, ed., Abraham Maimonidesâ MilḥamÅt ha-Å¡em, 89, lines 6â24.
Corresponding to R. Margaliot, ed., Abraham Maimonidesâ MilḥamÅt ha-Å¡em, 93, lines 22â30, where the Hebrew translation is much abridged.