Ajs Review 1986: Spring, No 1

Front Matter Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Spring, 1986) Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486352 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:16 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

AJS VOL.

SPRING

X

.

NO. 1986

1

t1A

TheJournalof theAssociation forJewishStudies

('I

REVIE

VolumeXI, Number1, Spring, 1986

ASSOCIATION FOR JEWISH STUDIES CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

AJSReview EDITOR:

RobertChazan,QueensCollegeandCUNYGraduate Center ASSOCIATEEDITORS:

SeymourFeldman,RutgersUniversity of NewYorkat StonyBrook RobertGoldenberg,StateUniversity Jewish of America PaulaE. Hyman, Theological Seminary of Pennsylvania David C. Jacobson,University BaruchA. Levine,NewYorkUniversity University BenjaminC. I. Ravid,Brandeis CORRESPONDING EDITOR:

LloydP. Gartner,Tel-AvivUniversity BOOK REVIEW EDITOR:

MichaelStanislawski,ColumbiaUniversity The AJS Review(ISSN 0364-0094) is publishedtwice annuallyby the Association

forJewishStudies.

for consideration shouldbe sentto Prof.RobertChazan, Manuscripts Dept.of

History,QueensCollege,Flushing,N.Y. 11367.Booksfor reviewshouldbe sentto Dr. CharlesBerlin,Associationfor JewishStudies,WidenerLibraryM, Harvard Mass.02138. University,Cambridge,

forJewishStudies ? 1986 bytheAssociation MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

AJS REVIEW THE JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR JEWISH STUDIES

VOLUMEXI, NUMBER 1, SPRING, 1986

Articles 1

RONALD C. KIENER

The Hebrew Paraphraseof SaadiahGaon's Kitabal-Amanatwa'lI'tiqdddt 27

ELLIOT WOLFSON

Left Containedin the Right: A Study in Zoharic Hermeneutics 53

SEYMOUR FELDMAN

The End of the Universein MedievalJewish Philosophy 79

LAWRENCE FINE

The Art of Metoposcopy:A Study in Isaac Luria's Charismatic Knowledge Book Reviews 103 MarthaHimelfarb.Toursof Hell:An ApocalypticFormin Jewishand ChristianLiterature PETER MANCHESTER

104

LawrenceA. Hoffman. The Canonizationof the SynagogueService KENNETHE. BERGER

109

Harold Pollins. EconomicHistory of the Jews in England TODD M. ENDELMAN

113

Allan Arkushand AlexanderAltmann.Moses Mendelssohn.Jerusalem; or, On ReligiousPowerand Judaism ALFRED L. IVRY

116

Michael Wyschogrod. The Body of Faith: Judaismas Corporeal Election DAVID R. BLUMENTHAL

121

StevenT. Katz. Post HolocaustDialogues:CriticalStudiesin Modern Jewish Thought MICHAEL WYSCHOGROD

CollectedStudies 127 Ronald A. Brauner,ed. JewishCivilization:Essays and Studies 128 128

RichardI. Cohen, ed. Visionand Conflictin the Holy Land FrancesMalino and BernardWasserstein,eds. TheJews in Modern France

129

SeymourSiegel and Elliot Gertel,eds. Godin the Teachingsof ConservativeJudaism

129

William Frankel,ed. Surveyof JewishAffairs 1983

Books Received HebrewArticles xK

1 S.1.K pi

3-In

?v

In=3

.I*.1Kt;1~5

VolumeXI, number1, of the AJS Reviewrepresentsa departurefrom the normalformat of the journal.The boardof editorshas long desiredto publish special issues devoted to particularfields within the broad set of disciplinesjoined togetherunderthe rubricof Jewishstudies.These special issues are intendedto introducethe broadreadershipof the AJS Reviewto the rangeof creativityin the given field. Our firstsuch specialissue focuses on the relatedfields of Jewishphilosophyand Jewishmysticism,a field in which creative and diversifiedresearchhas been underwayboth in the United Statesand elsewherein the worldof Jewishscholarship,particularly in the Stateof Israel.The articlespresentedin the firstspecialnumberof the reviewcover a broad range of time periodsand issues. They representthe work of a varietyof scholarsworkingin variouspartsof this countryand in the Stateof Israel.Specialappreciationfor workon this collectionof essays goes to ProfessorsSeymourFeldmanand AlfredIvry. It is hoped that this will be merelythe firstin a seriesof suchcoherentcollectionsof studies.We welcomeresponsesto the notion in generaland suggestionsfor otherfields for which such special numbersmight be appropriate. The Board of Editors Publicationof this volumeof AJS Reviewhas been madepossibleby grants from the National Foundationfor JewishCulture,the S. H. and Helen R. ScheuerFamilyFoundation,and the Dorot Foundation.The Associationis gratefulfor their support and encouragement.

The Hebrew Paraphrase of Saadiah Gaon's "Kitāb al-Amānāt wa'l-I'tiqādāt" Author(s): Ronald C. Kiener Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Spring, 1986), pp. 1-25 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486353 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:16 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

THE HEBREWPARAPHRASE OF SAADIAH GAON'S KITABAL-AMANAT WA'L-I'TIQADAT by RONALD C. KIENER Saadiah Gaon (882-942) was a prolific and pioneeringteacher, sage, and communalleaderwho pursuedhis wide-rangingstudieswith a singlemindedcommitment.'His was the firstRabbanitetranslationof the Hebrew Bible into Arabic;his was one of the first Hebrewdictionaries;his Siddur marked one of the first attempts to regularizethe liturgy. His Kitdb al-Amandt wa'l-I'tiqdddt(Book of Beliefs and Opinions) was the first major

work of medievalJewishphilosophy.2Writtenduringhis renownedforced

1. See H. Malter, Saadia Gaon: His Life and Works (Philadelphia, 1921); S. W. Baron, "Saadia's Communal Activities," in Ancient and Medieval Jewish History, ed. L. Feldman (New Brunswick, N.J., 1972), pp. 95-127; and J. Mann, "A Fihrist of Sa'adya's Works," Jewish Quarterly Review, n.s. 11 (1920-21): 423-428. 2. The Kitab was edited in Arabic characters by S. Landauer (Leiden, 1860); and again in Hebrew characters with a modern Hebrew translation by Y. Kafah (Jerusalem, 1970), entitled Sefer ha-Nivbar be-Emunot u-ve-De'ot. The Landauer edition abounds in errors, especially regarding biblical citations. By convention, the Arabic text of Landauer is the edition cited in

1

2

RONALDC. KIENER

retirementin the year 932 C.E.,the Kitdbal-Amdndtrepresentsthe beginning of a long and noble traditionof Judeo-Arabicphilosophy. The original Kitdb al-Amdndtconsisted of ten separate treatises on matters pertainingto Jewish theology and ethics. Apparently Saadiah reeditedthese individualcompositionsinto one long work,addingan introduction on epistemology.3The revisedwork is a masterfulpresentationof normativerabbinicdoctrine,constructedmethodicallyfrom epistemological presuppositionsand culminatingin a tendentioustreatiseon ethics and humanconduct.Throughout,Saadiahfollowedthe philosophyand method of the Mu'taziliteKaldmtheologianswho becamerenownedfor their five theological principles(usal), the most prominentbeing tawhfd("[God's] unity")and 'adl("[God's]justice").4Saadiahmay havedeviatedoccasionally fromthe Mu'taziliteprogram(for example,he rejectedthe predominant Mu'taziliteatomism),5but he ultimatelyremainedfaithfulto the contemporarytheology of Baghdad. Saadiah'sArabicphilosophicalwork was translatedinto Hebrewtwice. Well known is the translation entitled Sefer ha-Emunotve-ha-De'otby JudahIbn Tibbon,preparedin 1186.6But at leasta centuryearlier,in places presentlyunknown,a "poetical,enthusiasticand quasi-mystical"'version of Saadiah'sdry Kitdbal-Amandtwas prepared,known today simply as "the anonymousParaphrase."As we will see, the Paraphrasewas seized upon by European Jewish intellectualsas one of the few authoritative

this paper.An Englishtranslationof the Arabicwasmadeby S. Rosenblatt,TheBookof Beliefs and Opinions (New Haven, 1948).

3. Evidenceof this editingprocesscan be uncoveredby comparingthe Oxfordand Leningradrecensionsof the Judeo-Arabictext, in whichthe seventhtreatiseof the Kitabappearsin two significantlydifferentforms,and in Saadiah'srathercumbersomemethodof occasionally referringto otherpartsof the Kitabby treatisetitles ratherthan sequencenumbers.Landauer publishedthe seventhtreatiseaccordingto the Oxfordrecension.W. Bacherpublishedthe of the seventhtreatisein "Die zweite Leningrad-thenknownas the "Petersburg"-recension Versionvon Saadja'sAbschnitt6iberdie Wiederbelebungder Todten,"in Festschriftzum achtzigsten Geburtstage Moritz Steinschneiders (Leipzig, 1896), Hebrew sec., pp. 98-112. See H. Malter, Saadia Gaon, p. 194. 4. For a recent analysis of these five uSal, see W. M. Watt, The Formative Period of Islamic

Thought(Edinburgh,1973),pp. 228-249. 5. See H. A. Wolfson, "Atomismin Saadia,"Jewish QuarterlyReview,n.s. 37 (1946): 107-124. 6. Editedand annotatedby I. Kitower(Josefow, 1885). 7. Suchis the descriptionby G. Scholemin MajorTrendsin JewishMysticism(New York, 1946),p. 86.

OFKITABAL-:AMANATWA'L-I'TIQADAT PARAPHRASE HEBREW

3

expressionsof Jewish theology in the Holy Tongue. That the Paraphrase was particularlydearto medievalJewishmysticsis a testimonyto the rather strangetwist that befell Saadianicthoughtas filteredthroughthe words of the Paraphrase.The Paraphrasewas an importantand influentialdocument in the evolutionof AshkenaziI;Iasidictheology, the Maimonideancontroversy, and early Kabbalah.In the last century,scholarshiphas progressed significantlytoward accountingfor these movementsin medievalJewish intellectuallife. But it has been nearlyas long sincethe Paraphrasehas been the focus of study.This paperseeksto considerthe relevantdata-both new and old-pertaining to the Paraphraseand to draw appropriatenew conclusions.

There are three whole manuscriptsof the Paraphraseand many fragmentaryversions,epitomes, and one moderntranscription. MS Vatican269 is a verybatteredmanuscript,defectiveat the beginning. It contains 141 folios. It is writtenin a Spanishrabbinicscript.There are indicationsthat this manuscriptis the oldest extant witness of the Paraphrase.First,it containsmorecorrectJudeo-Arabicinterpositionsthan any of the other witnesses.Second, and less conclusively,the colophon states that the work "was finishedin the year 4855" (nishlambi-shnatdttn"h= 1095C.E.).8It is likely that this is not the date of the copy, but ratherthat of the originalwork itself.9 The most legiblemanuscriptis MS Vatican266, in whichthe Paraphrase appearsin the first 137folios. Eachfolio, with the exceptionof folio 68, is in double columns, 32-34 lines to a column. Folio 68 is writtenin one wide column. It is of two hands,with the secondscribetakingover at the beginning of the fifth treatise(69a:1). The firstportionis writtenin a fineGerman rabbinic script of the fourteenth century, while the remainderis either German or French and is somewhatlater.

8. Folio 140b.L. Dukes'semendationto dttqn"his totallywithoutjustification,basedon a need to place the date of the colophonwithinthe life span of Berechiahha-Nakdan.See H. Ewald and Dukes, Beitrage zur Geschichteder Aeltesten Auslegung undSprachkldrungdes Alten

Testamentes(Stuttgart,1844),2:16, n. 6. 9. See Malter,SaadiaGaon,p. 361.

4

RONALDC. KIENER

The third completewitnessis MS Munich42, which containsthe Paraphrasein folios 301a-526a.10It containsnumerousdittographies, andtranspositions, andis extremely haplographies, corrupt.In themidstof the thirdtreatise(fol. 373a)the textabruptlybreaksoff andthenbeginsa laterportionof thetreatise.Themissingportionof thethirdtreatiseappears in themiddleof thefourth.Thus,theorderforthethirdandfourthtreatises is:

ThirdTreatise FourthTreatise

368a-373a,386b-399b, 373a-383b 384a-386b,399b-412b

Theremaining witnessesareeitherepitomes,"fragments,12 manuscript moderntranscriptions,'3or so defectiveas to be useless.14 The Paraphrasehad a limitedpublishinghistoryof its own; only a few fragments-at most two of the eleven treatises-were ever brought to press.'5Surprisingly,it enduredfor some time in Europe,copied and epitomizedat least ten timeswell into the modernera.16 It was quoted,cited,and otherwiseplagiarizedby numerousmedievalswho could have turnedto the Ibn Tibbon translation.Theremust have been an allureto the Paraphrase that was abiding. 10. An initialtreatmentof this MS was madeby P. Bloch, "Die zweiteUebersetzungdes Saadiahnischen Buches Emunoth wedeoth," Monatsschriftfair die Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 19 (1870): 401-414, 449-456. See M. Steinschneider, Die Hebraeischen Handschriften der K. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek (Munich, 1895), pp. 27-28.

11. MS Paris669, for example. 12. MS Parmade Rossi 769; MS Munich65/lc (fols. 20b-39a); MS Munich 120 (fols. 66b-69a);and MS Breslau183,identifiedby Poznanskias MS Heidenheim1, aboutwhichM. Die hebraeischen askedin 1893"wojetzt?"SeeSteinschneider's Steinschneider Uebersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher (Berlin, 1893), p. 440.

13. MS Warsaw687, preparedby S. Poznanskibefore 1912from MS Munich42. 14. MS OxfordBodl. 1224(opp. 599;old 1185).See A. Neubauer,Catalogueof theHebrew

Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library (Oxford, 1886), 1:432. 15. Sefer ha-Tebiyyah ve-ha-Pedut (Mantua, 1556) is a reworking of the seventh treatise.

(Mantua,1556),containinga largeportionof the eighthtreatise, Seferha-Pedutve-ha-Purqan was reprintedas least nine times, once under the title Sefer ha-Galutve-ha-Pedut(Venice, 1634). 16. See MS Paris669, MS OxfordBodl. 1224,MS Breslau183,and numerousfragments listed by Steinschneider,HebraeischenUebersetzungen,p. 440. Berechiah b. Natronai ha-Nakdan's Sefer ha-Ilibbur, in The Ethical Treatises of Berakhya, ed. H. Gollancz (London,

1902),Hebrewsec. pp. 1-115, is similarlyan epitome.

HEBREWPARAPHRASE OFKITAB AL--AMANAT WA'L-I'TIQADAT

5

The impulse for translatingthe Kitab al-Amandtfrom Arabic into Hebrewis hardly a mystery.Saadiah'sstature as the leader of Islamicate Jewryand championof RabbaniteJudaismmade curiosityabout his writJews. Furthermore, ings a naturalpreoccupationof non-Arabic-speaking those Jews of Europewho thirstedfor accessibleJewish speculativetheologicaldocumentshad veryfewHebrewtextsto whichtheycouldturn.First and foremost,therewas a numberof rabbinichomiliesandtraditionswhich could be utilizedin theologicaldiscussions.Then therewas the crypticSefer An Italiancontemporaryof Saadiah,ShabbetaiDonnolo, wrotea Yegirah.'7 A bit laterthe cosmological/astrologicalcommentaryto the Sefer Yezirah.'8 Hebrew works of AbrahamBar Iliyya appeared,"8and another Hebrew commentary(containing a partial Hebrew translationof Saadiah's own Judeo-Arabiccommentaryto the Sefer Yegirah)was published by Bar But the Arabicworksof Saadiahand antagonistJudahb. Barzilai.20 LHiyya's his philosophico-linguisticsuccessorsin the Middle East and Spain were impenetrable.Not until the late twelfth centurywould these Judeo-Arabic works be renderedinto Hebrew by the Tibbonides and the other professional translatorswho lived in Provence.2'Only then would Saadiah's Kitab al-Amdndt,Babya Ibn Paquda'sHidaya ild Fard'idal-Qulab,Judah Halevi's Kitab al-Radd wa'l-Dalilft al-Din al-Dhalil, and Maimonides' Daldlat al-fHd'irinbe availableto non-Arabic-speakingJews. The impact of these twelfth-centurytranslations on European Jewish speculative thoughthas beenchronicledand constitutesin and of itselfa crucialchapter in the history of Jewish philosophy. But between the tenth and twelfth centuriesthere was a dearth of speculativematerialoutside of Islamicate lands.Into this vacuumappearedthe Paraphrase,the firsttranslationof the first major work of Jewish philosophy. 17. The first references to the Sefer Ye;irah appear in the sixth century C.E.Saadiah composed a Judeo-Arabic commentary to this work which was translated into Hebrew a number of times beginning in the eleventh century. See Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Uebersetzungen,pp. 443-448; Malter, Saadia Gaon, pp. 355-359; and G. Vajda, "Sa'adya Commentateur du Livre de la Creation," in Annuaire de Pratique des Hautes Etudes (Paris, 1959/60), pp. 1-35. 18. Sefer Castelli (Florence, 1880), written sometime between 946 and ed. D. l',cole The Universe of Shabbetai Donnolo (New York, 1976), pp. 1-13. 982. See A. Sharf, .akhmoni, 19. A full bibliography is provided by G. Wigoder in his introduction to Bar Ijiyya's The Meditation of the Sad Soul (New York, 1968), pp. 4-6. 20. Perusch Sepher Jezira, ed. S. J. Halberstam (Berlin, 1885), written sometime in the first half of the twelfth century. 21. I. Twersky, "Aspects of the Social and Cultural History of Provencal Jewry," in Jewish Society Throughthe Ages, ed. H. H. Ben-Sasson and Ettinger (New York, 1969), pp. 195-202.

6

RONALD C. KIENER

The second translation of the Kitdb al-Amandtis known to most studentsof Saadiah'sphilosophy:it is the translationof JudahIbn Tibbon, professionaltranslatorfor the Hebrew-speakingscholars of Provence.22 This Tibbonide translation quickly replaced the earlier effort, for the Paraphrasewas a lavish, cacophonouslyexpansive,and inaccuraterendering, while Ibn Tibbon's translationwas terse and accurate,exceedingly faithfulto the originalArabic.The value of Ibn Tibbon'stranslationwas readily apparent,and it quickly became the vehicle by which Saadiah's philosophy became known to the Jews of Europe-at at least until the Wissenschaftscholarsrediscoveredthe Arabic original. The playfullanguageof the Paraphrase,derivedfrom familiarliturgical styles, helpsto accountfor its popularity.On the one hand, the Paraphrase renderedsome of the more obscure philosophicalpassages into a fairly simple and straightforwardrabbinic/paytanicidiom-a far cry from Ibn Tibbon'sslavishquasi-Arabicsyntax.On the other hand,the authorof the Paraphrasepossessed an almost mischievouscreativity in coining new words for subtle concepts. And, as Gollancz once noted, the Paraphrase aboundsin rabbiniccitationsand biblicalallusionsnot found in eitherthe With this stylistic feature, Kitdbal-Amdndtor Ibn Tibbon'stranslation.23 the Paraphrasepossesseda compellingair of traditionalismwhich the Ibn Tibbon translationneveracquired.These two factorstogether-the sometimes simple, sometimesconfoundingHebrew languageand syntax; and secondlythe constantrabbinicand biblicalallusions-help to accountfor the Paraphrase'searly popularityand widespreadacceptance. But the Paraphrasedid not garner only praise for Saadiah;a third feature-its long-windedness-did not go over well with most of Saadiah's Evenin the originalArabic detractorsand some of Saadiah'ssupporters.24 Saadiahdisplayedan annoyingtaste for repetitivelists and verboseturnsof phrase.The Paraphrasefreelystretchednumerouspassageswith a metrical, rhymingexpansion,and as a resultthe Paraphraseis some 50 percentlonger than the originalKitdbal-Amdndt,alreadya substantialwork. It is the very length of the Paraphrasethat generatedthe numerous compendia and 22. See Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Uebersetzungen, p. 439; Malter, Saadia Gaon, pp. 370-373. Malter never published his promised critical edition. Whereas Ibn Tibbon followed the "Petersburg" recension, the Paraphrase is more faithful to the Oxford text. See Hebraeischen Uebersetzungen,p. 441, and Landauer's introduction to the Kitcab,p. viii. 23. Ethical Treatises of Berakhya, editor's introduction, p. xli. 24. See Malter, Saadia Gaon, pp. 283-284, n. 607.

HEBREWPARAPHRASE OF KITAB AL-AMANAT WA'L-1'TIQADAT

7

epitomes, and these in turn helped to make certainaspects of Saadiah's magnumopus, now distilled,popularin Europe.25 The Paraphraseis both a renderingof Saadiah'sKithb al-Amdndtinto Hebrewand a creationof a newvocabularyand Hebrewphilosophicalprose style. As a translation,the Paraphraseis but a faint and falteringreproduction of the Arabicoriginal,generallyconveyinglittle morethan the gist and outward structure of the exceedingly complex and technical Kitab alAmandt. As literary creation, the Paraphrasesurvives as a remarkable hermeneuticalinvention which, through linguistic and stylistic features, createda new Saadiah,a new Saadianictheology,and a new (thoughlittleused) theologicalvocabulary.

Though we cannot identify the paraphrasist,we are certain of a few thingsregardinghis abilities.He was not an accuratetranslator,nor was he as proficientan Arabistas the later JudahIbn Tibbon. In this respect,the paraphrasisttypifiesmanypre-Tibbonidetranslators,such as the eleventhcenturyByzantineKaraitetranslatorswho undertookto translatethe vast body of Judeo-ArabicKaraiteliteratureand who have been found wanting in recentevaluationsof their ability.26The problemwas widespread:in the Rabbanite world of Provence, Judah Ibn Tibbon complained about the inaccuracies of the early translations.27 The Paraphrase easily falls into the

category of flawed translation,a maladythe Tibbonidessought to rectify with their new round of translations. As an exampleof the Paraphrase'sinadequacies,I presenthere the text of a philosophically dense Kaldm proof for the createdness of the world, one

of the many examplesof paraphrasticmistranslation. 25. In general, the epitomes tended to pass over the cosmological treatises of the original Kitab al-Amandt, concentrating instead on the more "ethical" treatises, such as chapters 4, 5, and 6. See, for example, how the epitomist of MS Paris 669 opens the first treatise with the phrase "A version selected from the second scroll" (nusab me-'inyyan megillah sheniyah, fol. 8a), and then reduces more than thirty folio pages in MS Vatican 266 to one folio. 26. Z. Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium: The Formative Years, 970-1100 (New York, 1959), pp. 191-193. 27. His complaints may have been specifically directed at the Paraphrase. See his introduction to the translation of Babya Ibn Paquda's Hiddyah, entitled Sefer Hovot ha-Levavot (Warsaw, 1875), p. 4.

RONALD C. KIENER

8

Ibn Tibbon (Josefow ed.): 56

Para.,MS Vat.266, fol. 14b:1-2

Kitab(ed. Landauer):32

The Paraphraseis in wordcount morethan triplethe lengthof eitherthe Kitabal-Amandtor the Ibn Tibbon translation.This is partly due to the typical hendiadys and pleonasms of the Paraphrase, such as the Paraphrase's mugbalim ve-niq avim be-shi'ur ve-takhlit ve-heker for the single Arabicword But there is also a horrendous mistranslation in

mutanahiydn.

this passage from which the paraphrasist never fully recovers. The from first Aristotelian of the four tradition, Kaldm proofs for the createdness of the world, derived can be statedsuccinctlyin threepropo-

sitions:first, the world is finite in magnitude;second, the force within the world, that "which preserves" the world, is finite; third, a finite force cannot

produce Hence,the world must have a beginningand an end. Theinfinite secondexistence. propositionis defendedby the statement"it is not possible that an infiniteforceexistwithina finitebody."28 The translation. ThisTibbonide is partly due to the 1

that

an

infinite

force

exist

within

a finite

body."

The

Tibbonide

translation

28. For a treatment of this proof, see H. A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Kalam (Cambridge, Mass., 1976), pp. 374-382; and H. Davidson, "The Principle That a Finite Body

HEBREWPARAPHRASE OF KITAB AL-AMANAT WA'L-I'TIQADAT

9

faithfully reproducesthis statement. But the paraphrasisthas clumsily reversedthe sense of the argumentand now employs the statementas a buttressfor the first proposition,namely,that the world is finite in magnitude:"for it is impossiblethat [thepower]be boundedin a massthat is not bounded;and also it is impossiblethat a determinatemeasureresidein a rather,just as their body that is neitherdeterminednor limited [nitkal];29 be it is that their forceis determinateso body limitedand deterappropriate minate." Thus, the buttressingstatementno longer supportsthe second proposition,and in the Paraphraseit becomesa furtherdemonstrationof the world's finitude.A cruciallink in the argumentis foreverlost. Not only is precisionlost in the torrentof words, but accuracyis also tossed aside. In the hermeneuticalprocess,the paraphrasisthas so embellished the argumentas to renderit inaccurate,and the embellishmentonly serves to compoundthe problem. Occasionally,and despite his indefatigablecreativity,the paraphrasist was unableto translatean Arabicterminto Hebrew.Sometimeshe offered both his Hebrew approximationalong with the Arabic original, as if to allow the readerto decidefor himself.Oncehe even insertedinto his translation an Arabic phrase not present in the Kitdb al-Amdndt.30Thus, numerousArabismsand Arabicphrasesappearin the text, particularlyas preservedin MS Vatican269. A preliminarylist of someof theseArabismsis providedbelow: i MS Vatican266, fol. 6b, col. 1: inny K[om]. Ed. Landauer,p. 13: 'ilmmd ilaihi, "necessarilyinferredknowledge." dafa'atal-dariarah MS Vat. 266, 9a:1: nan x. Ed. Landauer,p. 19: al-majarrah,"the Milky Way."

MS Vat. 269, fol. 13b, 11.19-21: n~il i•

[vocalized!]. Ed. Landauer, p. 29:

amranwa-nahiyan,"commandand prohibition."

Ed. Landauer, p. 29: al-ld'ah wa'l-ma'piyah, "obedience and n,;rml inn. rebellion." Can Contain Only Finite Power," in Studies in Jewish Religious and Intellectual History, ed. Stein and Loewe (University, Ala., 1979), pp. 75-92. 29. An unattested nifal form of TKL, derived from KLH with a performative tav: TaKhLrt. Ben-Yehudah notes a paytanic hifil form of TKL. See E. Ben-Yehudah, Thesaurus Totius Hebraitatis (New York, 1959), p. 7747a-b. 30. Ibn Tibbon retains the Arabic only once. See Sefer ha-Emunot, pp. 59 f.

RONALD C. KIENER

10

nfK1 nmon. Ed. Landauer, p. 29: al-basandt wa'l-saydt, "good and evil

deeds." No MS Vat.266, 13b:1: nz rra (MS Vat.269, fol. 13breadsannn K carrI). the "title of from in text. Judeo-Arabic al-kitab, ?adr Probably parallel book." Ed. Landauer,p. 41: sanawbariyan,"coneMS Vat. 266, 18b:l: "•2nn. shaped." . Ed. 61: al-ittifdq MS Vat. 266, 27a:1: pmonx... inDn:. Landauer, p. i•,... "chance occurrence." bi-ittifdq, ... ryx [!]. Ed. Landauer, p. 145: wa'l-jabr MS Vat. 269, fol. 64b, 1. 2: i'l' 1 t'

wa'l-'adl,"predestinationand divinejustice."

Ed. Landauer, p. 207-8: MS Vat. 266, 85b:1 0mno nn'i1 -i5x ,oin'. bi'l-karr wa-yusammunhual-tandsukh, "return or transmigration."

Anotherdistinguishingfeatureof the Paraphrase,in the firsttreatisein particular,are phrasesconstructedfromthe Sefer Yegirah,a workwhichhas beenvariouslydatedsometimebetweenthe secondand sixthcenturiesC.E.31 One such peculiarlinguisticcreationderivedfrom the Sefer Yezirahreverberatedinto later theologicalliterature.It is what ultimatelybecame the standardHebrewformulafor "creationex nihilo":yesh me-ayin(MS Vat. 266, fols. 14a:1,18a:2,79a:1,87a:1,87b:2),used to translatethe Arabicid minshay',"creationfromnothing."32 Thisis derivedfromSefer Yegirah2:6: ve-'asahet einoyeshno,"He [God]madethat whichwas not into that which is." Of the earlymedievals,SolomonIbn Gabirol(1021-1057) madeuse of this passagein his sacredpoetry,thoughin a way that avoidedthe formulaic construction and was far removed from the ex nihilo signification.33 AbrahamIbn Ezra(1089-1164) used the formulain his short commentary to Genesis,but this usageis attributableto his knowledgeof the Paraphrase, for the phrase was not widely in use in Hebrew until the late twelfth 31. On the Sefer Ye;irah, see G. Scholem, Major Trends, pp. 75-78; idem, Reshit ha-Qabbalah ve-Sefer ha-Bahir (Jerusalem, 1979), pp. 1-59. 32. On the terminology for "creation ex nihilo" in medieval Hebrew and Arabic philosophy, see H. A. Wolfson, "The Meaning of Ex Nihilo in the Church Fathers, Arabic and Hebrew Philosophy, and St. Thomas," in Medieval Studies in Honor of J. D. M. Ford (Cambridge Mass., 1948), pp. 355-370; reprinted and cited from Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion, ed. Twersky and Williams (Cambridge, Mass., 1973), 1:207-221; and more recently The Philosophy of the Kalam, pp. 355-372. 33. In Ibn Gabirol's Keter Malkhut: li-mshokh meshekh ha-yesh min ha-ayin, "to draw up the film of the existent from the nothing." See Ha-Shirah ha-'Ivrit be-Sefarad u-ve-Provans,ed. J. Schirmann (Jerusalem, 1959), vol. 1, sec. 1:262.

HEBREW PARAPHRASE OFKITABAL.-AMANATWA'L-I'TIQADAT

11

century.34 Previousassumptionsto the contrary,the Tibbonideseschewed

the phrase yesh me-ayin,preferringinstead the more literal lo mi-davar, "not from a thing."35 Thus,we may regardthe paraphrasist'scoinageof the formulayesh me-ayinfor "creationex nihilo"as the first instanceof this now famous Hebraism.36 As a literarycreation, the Paraphrasecontains two distinct styles: a predominantnarrativeprose style (of which the passagecited above from the first treatiseis a fine example),in which both neologismsand poetic parallelismsappear with moderate frequency;and a less frequentstyle composedof "poeticsequences"in whichthe parallelismsincreasedramatically to a lilting crescendo,and creativelynew derivedforms and coinages abound. The Paraphrasewavers between a sporadicallycarefulliteralism and a wildlyexpansiveconcatenationof phraseswhichonly vaguelyreproduce the originalArabic. For example: MS Vat. 266, fol. 61a:1-2 mi!)n-r r jrlau nrimrnl5Dnvr1 1=1

nK

Ml

111,11,31,

nimy-11

nx

-.12

7MI31

131Y1u

Innu

71YU521

t tpn

1XI31

nlrLt)3-.

xNl.

rmrm nri) vv. nx m

ivrif5 invy 5y a t NXtr-)5r

nx

5D

nx

i 7513-.

n rnt I~ml

1

n1

n~tV

i2TY51

Kitdb(ed. Landauer):147

Kin xri rim

vntl

I -)-IM

.)3E

t3-.15

5y

t3.7x

tro-m-.

-.ItlYl

t3.)5151

)iI

jivini

tnlnix

nXI

rurlu 5nl

nyn

plu

t3.)

X

)Yln

nimu1

? Y

J~.A5

LS;r (,LL,

xKl.

53n

-.1imm

tor.13

-.1 31

(!)

tnnyn

u)I.) 53

nx

nwrlr

rimm-.1

Kv.1

trnrl

Q

0Xj5 &4

L;Dy~

t3.-I- only t)il trimin nrrnlyn rnXn- 03-.511xim Imm 1731rm r5D Kin (!)53DI-1Irpi rnn5y

dkI 9jULL rj

c~4 ~Y(

l

Jj?

Irm,1

3'3? )

JI

Lij"3 Ij?

a3mul31

triv

)izvv -Ty mn=i K11 m o i ?trl1 a2r1?r mimwt? -To niwix2K ?Dvw nit rim Kmin ?rim"nl 1731 mm ri n 712nr mr) n nnr ix-miripi [ rrv Kin n*Dxn 7-)rm i ivi in rK r tr-m trn) x rt tvnyu1 rxt ' rim i=5= min "m t t -)x~y min rimmm w~ n m5b n'yn rr imi -nrnum tra u "mm mrltvlm ym, min mnovw nim roirm ny imoD 1 3 5 3 y i m i m o i n x n x n x ronmroi yri tl u33ivi 7tprim iniMri inL~wnn nimi

vr7~n

n-12

5*ow

it~rorm

n-mi anxv

3ypi

tnnirmn mixi

tK~

imn

-I Y-)Wl

tnrimp in

t3-03DID."I

15-

-Ily.)Ivl~~~l

[t31m1m] .mrm~n

5m

trn-rm

m

trvirn

-)Yfn

rimmi

tPrl'm.)I5

tri-m'I2-

tlmrmi

tmmp25itmriirmi

n

[PT3-)35y~twl m

tvrnuoi

ri-'7lB

rmn

n n~

ri-mim

7-mrw ni5-)Yi

tmmyo

34. See his comment to Genesis 1:1. 35. Judah al-Harizi also used the literal lo mi-davar in his translation of Maimonides' Guide. See his translation, also entitled Moreh Nevukhim, ed. L. Schlossberg (London, 1851), vol. 2:20a, 21a. 36. The Paraphrase was quite popular among mystics of the twelfth and thirteenth cen-

12

RONALD C. KIENER

This passage demonstratesa number of key features typical of the Paraphrase.First,it is highlyexpansive,morethan doublethe lengthof the Arabic.37Second, it abounds in assonantal rhyming parallelismsof an occasionalmetricquality.The passageaboveis admittedlyan extremecase, but it is not unique.Third,the passagecontainsa numberof rarerabbinic words, such as moranim,"storehouse";38 qetidra'ot,"chair";39 i"la'ot (or i;tallut), "shoe-lining";40gastreihem, "their military camps";41and "theircastles."42 Finally,even an air of esotericismis injected tarqoneihem, into the passage by the seeminglyinnocent phrase u-mevinet ha-otiyyot, "[bythis wisdomman]also comesto knowthe letters,"a phrasecompletely absentin the Arabicoriginal.By invokingthe verbmevinwith the letters,the Paraphraseconveysa senseof "gnostic"legitimacyto Hebrewletter speculation and manipulation. As previousstudentsof the Paraphrasehave alreadynoted, the Paraphrasecontainsnumerouswords,phrases,and constructionswhichemulate the neologistic Hebrewof Eleazarha-Kallir,the Palestinianpaytan who lived and died sometime before Saadiah'slifetime.43As one of the first Palestinianliturgicalpoets, Kallir's unique treatmentof the Hebrewlanguage influencedsubsequentPalestinianpoets. Neo-Kallirisminfluenced Babylonian,Italian,German,and northernFrenchstyleswell into the thirEvenSaadiah'sown difficultpoetic style exhibitsKallirian teenthcentury.44 turies. Thus, we may further surmise that the popularity of this phrase amongst medieval kabbalists in more properly attributable to the Paraphrase than the Tibbonide translation. On the popularity of the phrase yesh me-ayin amongst kabbalists, see Scholem, Major Trendsp. 25; idem, On the Kabbalahand Its Symbolism (New York, 1969), pp. 101 f.; idem, "Sch6pfung aus Nichts und Selbstverschrankung Gottes," in Uber einige Grundbegriffedes Judenthums(Frankfurt a. M., 1970), pp. 53-89. 37. Moses b. Hisdai (Taku), who had the Paraphrasebefore him, complained that Saadiah "could have written in five tracts what he writes in fifteen." See MS Paris H711:14a, published by J. Dan in facsimile form as KeTAV TAMIM (Jerusalem, 1984). 38. B.T. Bava Batra 6a. 39. J.T. Sukkah 55a. 40. Tosefta Bava Batra 4:6. 41. From gastra, B.T. Shabbat 121a. 42. From tarqa, Targum Proverbs 25:24. 43. Saadiah mentions Kallir in his Agron (ed. N. Allony [Jerusalem, 1969], p. 154), which was composed in 902 (see Allony's introduction, p. 23). He mentions Kallir again as an "ancient" poet in his commentary to the Sefer Ye;irah entitled Kitab al-Mabadd(ed. Kafab [Jerusalem, 1972], p. 49); which was written in 931 (ibid., p. 86). 44. A. M. Habermann, Toledot ha-Piyyul ve-ha-Shirah(Ramat Gan, 1972), 1:40-49; and 2:11, 23. On Kallirian style in Byzantine Italy, see J. Schirmann, Studies in the History of Hebrew Poetry and Drama [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1979), 2:18-29.

HEBREW PARAPHRASE OFKITABAL-AMANATWA'L-I'TIQADAT

13

forms.45 The Kallirite style is best summarized by the Spanish scholar Abraham Ibn Ezra: There are in R. Eleazarha-Kallir'spoetry four difficultfeatures:the first is that most of his poems are riddlesand parables. . . the secondfeatureis that his poems are interspersedwith talmudicphrases,and it is well knownthat a numberof expressionsappearin the Talmudthat are not of the Holy Tongue ... the third featureis that even when words are derivedfrom the Holy Tongue,they containmanyerrors... the fourthfeatureis that all his poems are full of midrashotand aggadot.46

These stylistic features are all amply evidenced in the Paraphrase. The two passages cited above each are representative of the two different narrative styles, but together they display the Kallirite proclivity for new and rare constructions and Hebraicized Aramaicisms. Many of these Hebrew coinages have already been treated by Zunz and Bloch.47 Some of the most unique and recurring terms are qene;, "proof," and the hifil maqni;, "to prove";48sar'af (or shar'aj), "mind" or "to think" as a verb;49da'deq or mitda'deq, "contemplation" or "to contemplate";50gimmuy, "intention"; qishyon, "question";"1and sa'an (or so'an), "limit."152 Very few of these peculiarities in style and language help in identifying the time or place of the composition of the Paraphrase, other than to say that the paraphrasist participated in paytanic stylistics and drew from such Hebrew sources as the Sefer Ye;irah. We must look to the external evidence provided by the manuscripts and other authors who cite the Paraphrase. The earliest possible date for the Paraphrase is provided by the colophon to MS Vatican 269, which, as we have already stated, provides the date of 1095 C.E. This date in the colophon must serve as a terminusad quem for the

45. But see M. Zulay, Ha-Askolah ha-Paylanit shel Rav Sa'adyah Ga'on (Jerusalem, 1964). 46. Commentary to Ecclesiastes 5:1. See Zulay, Ha-Askokah, pp. 16-18; and L. Zunz's still valuable treatment in Literaturgeschichteder synagogalen Poesie (Berlin, 1865), pp. 29-64. 47. L. Zunz, Gesammelte Schriften (Berlin, 1876), 3:234-237, and Bloch, "Die zweite Uebersetzung," pp. 412-414, 452f. 48. Ben-Yehudah, Thesaurus, p. 6038a-b. 49. From Ps. 94:19. See Ben-Yehudah, Thesaurus, pp. 7620b-7621a. 50. Literally, "to think subtly." 51. Ben-Yehudah, Thesaurus, p. 6250b. On the -on ending in Saadianic poetry, see Zulay, Ha-Askolah, pp. 38-39. 52. Ben-Yehudah, Thesaurus, p. 3898b.

14

RONALD C. KIENER

Paraphrase,whilethe dateof compositionof the Arabicoriginal(932 C.E.)is the terminusa quo.It is not imprudentto concludethat the Paraphrasewas made duringthis 163-yearperiod. If we wereto disregardthe evidenceof the colophon,we wouldnexthave to turn to the earliestcitationof the Paraphrasein other datableworks. In this case, we are led to no earlierthan the last half of the twelfthcentury, whenthe Paraphraseis citedin both FranceandSpain.In FranceBerechiah b. Natronaiha-Nakdanboth epitomizedand quotedthe Paraphraseextensively in his Sefer ha-fHibbur("The Compendium") and his Sefer ha-Ma;ref

("The Book of the Refinery"),the latterwrittenaround1170.53The former is largely, though not exclusively,an epitome of the Paraphrase.Other authors,notablyAbrahamIbn Ezra,SolomonIbn Gabirol,and BabyaIbn Paquda,are cited. The second and chronologicallylater work containsno new Saadianicmaterialover and above the Hibbur. Berechiahflourishedin the secondhalfof the twelfthcentury.As his title implies,he was apparentlya vocalizerof biblicalmanuscripts.His place of originwas France,thoughJ. Jacobsattemptedto identifyhim witha certain Benedictusle Puncteurof Oxford,makinghim an importantEnglishJew.54 Jacobs'stheoryis untenable,for Berechiah'sown epitomeof the Paraphrase is dedicatedto "the patronR. Meshullam,"none otherthan Meshullamb. Jacob of Lunel, the sponsor of the great Rabbanitetranslationprojectin southernFrance.55This dedicationdates, locates, and identifiesBerechiah as a memberof Meshullam'simmensetranslationfactoryin Lunel. Many attemptshave been made over the last centuryto identifyBerechiahas the authorof the Paraphrase.The identificationof Berechiahas the paraphrasistwas originallymade by J. Fidrst,though by implicationL. Dukes first raised the connection.56And indeed, Berechiahproducedan abbreviatedversionof the Paraphrasein his Hibbur.However,thereis not the slightestevidencethat Berechiahwas conversantwith Arabic, for his other known translationefforts constitute a Lapidariumand a version of 53. For the date of composition of these two works, see Gollancz's introduction, Ethical Treatises of Berakhya, p. 1. 54. See the exchange between Jacobs and A. Neubauer in Jewish QuarterlyReview, o.s. 1 (1889): 182-183, and 2 (1890): 322-333, 520-526. 55. See Ethical Treatises of Berakhya, p. 1. On Meshullam, see I. Twersky, Rabad of Posquieres (Cambridge, Mass., 1962), p. 12-14. 56. First, Bibliotheca Judaica (Leipzig, 1863), 2:210; Ewald and Dukes, Beitriage,2:16, n. 6.

HEBREW PARAPHRASE OFKITABAL-AMANATWA'L-I'TIQADAT

15

Adelard of Bath's Questiones Naturales.57Conceivably, this identification

was basedon the contentsof MS Munich42 (the MS most often citedin the nineteenth century), in which the Paraphraseappears immediatelypreceding Berechiah'stranslationof the QuestionesNaturales.58Despite this very circumstantialassociation,it is now generallyregardedthat the once promisingidentificationis fruitless.59 In Spain the anti-ChristianpolemicistJacob b. Reuben quoted extensively from the Paraphrasein the twelfthchapterof his Milhamotha-Shem (composed 1170).60This book is cast in the form of a dialoguebetweena Christian (ha-mekhabed, "the denier") and a Jew (ha-meyabed, "the

uniter"), and is a literaryexpansion of a private "disputation"that the In the final chapterof youngJacobheld witha friendlypriestin Gascogne.61 the book thereappearsa compilationof variousphilosophicdemonstrations which seeks to prove that the Messiahhad not yet arrived.In this chapter Jacob cites Isaac Israeli, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Abraham Bar Hiyya, and most

prominentlySaadiahGaon. Jacobquotesat lengthnumerouspassagesfrom the seventhand eighth treatisesof the Paraphrase,devotedrespectivelyto the doctrines of bodily resurrectionand messianic redemption. These passagesare typicallyintroducedby the phraseamarha-ga'on,"the gaon said," or amar he-hakham ha-gadol be-sifro, "the great sage said in his

book."62 It is open to some doubt whetherJacob drew from a copy of the full text of the Paraphraseor from an epitome,such as Berechiah'sHlibbur or MS Paris 669, for these epitomes delete but a small amount from the content of the seventh and eighth treatises.In either case, Malter'sinitial evaluationof the Milbhamot ha-Shemas a valuabletool in determiningthe

57. On Berechiah's knowledge of Arabic, see Gollancz in Ethical Treatises, pp. xxxix-xl. An early and fairly accurate bibliography of Berechiah's works is provided by H. Gross, Gallia Judaica (Paris, 1897), 2:180-185. See Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Uebersetzungen, pp. 958-962. Berechiah also composed poetry; see I. Davidson, Thesaurus of Medieval Hebrew Poetry (New York, 1933), vol. 4, s.v. "Berakhyah b. Natronay ha-Naqdan." 58. Steinschneider, Hebraeische Bibliographie 3 (1860): 44, n. 1; and Hebraeischen Uebersetzungen, p. 440. 59. Zunz, Bloch (for his own reasons), Neubauer, Gollancz, Steinschneider, Malter, and Porges were all in agreement on this point. 60. For the date of composition of this work, see Y. Rosenthal's introduction in Sefer Milhamot ha-Shem (Jerusalem, 1963), p. viii. 61. See Rosenthal's introduction, Milbamot ha-Shem, p. ix. 62. Milfhamotha-Shem, pp. 157, 159, 161, et al.

16

RONALD C. KIENER

text of the Paraphrase ought to be ignored, for the text is a derivative witness of little textual value.63 A third witness to the Paraphrase from the twelfth century is more problematic: it is the Shir ha-Yihud ("Hymn of Unity"), an anonymous poem deriving from the earliest German pietist circles of the Rhine River valley.64Unlike the other witnesses, the Shir ha- Yizud does not cite Saadiah by name, nor can it be dated with any precision. The poem, composed at least a generation before R. Judah (d. 1217), is essentially an meter of the second treatise of the ecstatic reworking set to rhyme andhe-.Hasid Paraphrase. The first to recognize the link between Saadiah and the Shir was R. Moses b. Ijisdai (Taku), the bitter anti-Saadiah polemicist who lived in the midst of the pietist Rhineland.65 He attacked the Shir ha-Yihud-and by implication Saadiah-for its confused and heretical theology.

There is a poem called "Song of Unity," and I have heardthat R. Bezalel composedit-but not all cf it-from the Book of Beliefs,for from the verse ed. Habermann,33:97],66 R. "God Almighty" [Shaddai;Shir ha-Yihbud, Samuelcomposedit. In it is written:"Everythingis in You, and You are in everything"[25:39],"You surroundall and fill all, and with the becomingof all, You are in all" [26:49],"Beforethe all, You wereall; and with the beginningof all, You filledall" [27:65].If this is the case,thenwhyis it also written: "TheJudgesits as an AncientOne,His hosts to the leftand right"[29:18]?It is as if He were a createdform! Thus, the Torah opinion is that anyonewho recites [the poem] is a defiler.67

63. Saadia Gaon, p. 368. 64. The poem was published with critical commentary by A. Habermann in Shirei ha-Yibud ve-ha-Kavod(Jerusalem, 1948), pp. 13-45. For a recent discussion of the poem's position in German pietist tradition, see J. Dan, The Esoteric Theology of Ashkenazi fasidism [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1968), 47-48. 65. On this individual, see J. Epstein, "Moise Tako b. Hisdai et son Ketab Tamim,"Revue des etudes juives 61 (1911): 60-70; and more recently J. Dan's introduction to the facsimile edition of the Ketav Tamim (Jerusalem, 1984), pp. vii-xxvii. 66. This verse of the Shir contains the acrostic "Samuel." 67. MS Paris H711: 54a.

PARAPHRASE OFKITABAL-AMANAT WA'L-I'TIQADAT HEBREW

17

Observantcriticthat he was, Mosesb. HIisdaicriticizedthe Hymnfor its ecstatic panentheismand correctlyidentified the source for this deviant thought: the Paraphrase,identified by Moses b. Hisdai as the Sefer ha-Emunot.Moses b. Hisdai also objectedto the notion that God is portrayedas a physicalform,and herewe touch upon a secondmotif sharedby the Shir ha-Yibudand the Paraphrase:the existence of a created and resplendentKavod("Divine Glory")which acts as God's revelatoryagent and immanentpresence.68And indeed,there are a few paraphrasticdeviations fromSaadiah'shighlytranscendenttheologyof the Kavodwhich,when takentogether,providea visualpanentheistcoloringto Saadiah'swork.The most importantaspect of this theologicalshift is the Kavoddoctrineas it appearsin the Paraphrase.

Para. MS Vat. 266, fol. 41b:1

Kitdb(ed. Landauer):99

7-111rO Irmrrumm Y-)i n rcrurn 1-IYllyn Y-... n r nix:xnr ai wxrrm

*z nix i wxvin'v

n~~ri -Ilx- y ln3 -~ wxn 1117-112in

rran trx?!Dvll t3S)xw3-;I17m 17rrn

rinly

v jn

L~C~lIrm~~

px?~roninniroi xron nzy rim rnirminwt mwi mnrr -i )xn imi nix rin tr rz ni nim -rrrn .rn mn rn ..rnr mnr~n -)?: ;w nrrnmv inix wirr vn -ronml z P-)-) -z n-rnl r miv mr imrrmrmv -mrm i i jr!*vnrzn imun

silp-min

my'1~

wmrsi rorny

nx

n

rmn-

=3

nz7

nx

irnon

r;Iyn-)

~-yPrW>

tY

&z#~l( i

J9 4

5:x

nyr i

mun

U_(Yyi;~~ DjLl yU5

*"ml

in

'mvv~~sv In

'"

51~

n~~;Irnrippi~7rui pr~1?1 B~l

L;. ~gL ~1wi nrm71;51b ;71ib

68. On the Kavod doctrine in the original Saadianic formulation, see A. Altmann, "Saadya's Theory of Revelation: Its Origin and Background," in Saadya Studies, ed. E. I. J. Rosenthal (Manchester, 1943), pp. 4-25.

18

RONALD C. KIENER

Paraphrase.: ... Know that this form is createdand broughtnew into existence, and so are the Throneof the firmamentand those that carryit-all of them are created.And the Creatorcreatedthem from a shininglight and a shiningsplendor,so that it would becomeclearto the sent prophetsthat the Creator,may His mentionbe glorified,is the very one that speakswith him and the very one who sent him, as I shall explainin the thirdscroll.But this formis a wondrousand supernalformin the imageof the lofty andmarvelous angels;and it is awesomein its clearand brightand illuminatedappearance, shiningin its light like the light of the Shekhinah.And for this reason it is called the Kavodof the Lord and His Shekhinah.... And the sages calledit Shekhinah,andmanytimesthe lightshinesforthwithneitherimagenorform. Butthe Maker,may His mentionbe raised,lifts up His servantthe prophet and lifts him and bringshim up and honorshim whenHe causeshim to hear His word fromthe shiningand illuminatedand wondrousand createdform, from the shininglightandglitteringsplendor.And it is calledthe Kavodof the Lord, as I have explained. Kitdb.:Ouransweris thatthis formis somethingcreated,and thatlikewisethe Throne,the firmament,and the carriersof the Throneare all created.God createdthemout of lightin orderto verifyto His prophetsthatit was He who inspiredthem with His words, as we shall explainin the thirdchapter.This form is nobler than the angels, magnificentin character,resplendentwith light, which is called the Kavodof the Lord.... It is this which the sages characterizedas Shekhinah.Sometimesthereappearsa lightwithoutthe form of a person.God confersdistinctionon His prophetby allowinghim to heara propheticrevelationfromthatmajesticformcreatedout of lightand calledthe Kavodof the Lord, as we have explained. The observant reader should note that through extensive use of parallelism, the Paraphrase accentuates a visual light motif, thereby stressing the resplendent and permeated nature of the ubiquitous Kavod. This glittering and resplendent Kavodestablishes a divine immanence that easily lends itself to the creation of a visually startling cosmogony, such as is contained in the German pietists' Kavod doctrine.69

69. See Dan, Esoteric Theology, pp. 84-103. See M. Idel, "The World of Angels in Human Form" [Hebrew], in Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought,vol. 3, Studies in Mysticism Presented to Isaiah Tishby(Jerusalem, 1983/84), pp. 15-19, in which Judah Halevi is regarded as a crucial ideational link between rationalists and the kabbalistic theory that the divine realm appears in human form. Quite possibly the Paraphrase may have served a similar purpose.

HEBREWPARAPHRASE OF KITAB AL-AMANAT WA'L-I'TIQADAT

19

Anotherfeatureof the Paraphrase,left unmentionedby Moses b. HIisdai, is the infusion of an esotericisminto Saadiah'stheology of the Godhead. Typical expressionsof this esotericistspirit appearthroughoutthe second treatise of the Paraphrase, as in she-hu daq mufla ve-ne'elam ve-hevyon

ve-ganusve-;afun mi-kol, "for He is subtly wonderful and hidden and secretedand disguisedand concealedfrom all." This statementis accom-

panied by a bold panentheist shift: she-hu meqif et kol ha-'olam ve-hu meqayyem me-'amidat ha-kol, "He encompasses all the universe and pre-

serves [it] by the enduranceof all."70Takenin theirtotality, these kinds of passagesprovideda firm foundationfor pietist speculationsregardingthe nature and workingsof the divinity.71 Of both doctrinal and lexicographicalinterestare the many passages from the Shir ha-Yibudwhich are drawn directly from the Paraphrase. Thesetextualadaptationshavebeen fullydocumentedby A. Berliner.72 One of the most powerfuland obvious adaptationsappearsin the hymnfor the fifth day, establishinganotherstrong esoteric theme.

Shir ha-Yihud, 36:48-37:60

MS Vat.266,fol. 33a:1

r=-nmo/ i1rix mmrrn n1o 1wirmKxx3 p--r 1-') p /1 pon on Ln p Dlbi ?z f

ninoi

/

?Dn L?Dnl

tn

31IV jr~LY

?Dn

lj

3

jl

)Yl

/

31IV3

LDn

-1

?DD

L?lv)

~n ?n -.1 31/

?Irl

L?D

*h9L

Ivy Invi

1

7iyn

tftn

L?zn .1 31

LDn

t n / lin / pinn i)r nrr i 3? piny ipi i rz rnnwm, x? / rin t rim xi , I, rxirm nzl

am

.I1non

L~3 71 71n L~9 l 717 1Kt,/ y~w Ivi vv1 * t rTy~ rixIN -lvx71 y~u Ibv1z XNl y~yl S1xi a-)!Dyi m / nmVnw ' n rmmninivly 'z nimt ' rnrinrbw ~IV'm o r 1~rrIVL'/ D ) 1~ 1jz?

70. MS Vatican 266, 38a:2. 71. Scholem, Major Trends, pp. 108-109.

ix

on

P-)3n

am

nrLrim~ I;r nriSI~

?=

anu plin

1L)x I xL x3 = oin 'ln oiny

rinm

*

x

I-)

rim

?

ninwvnnri rn

X

nizim~

nivin

ri

rin

hru

X~l

w

?zw IV;I

rmvao

t*Y

31 ml L?n

j

rTLyi

inirb

-)3!Dn

t-)xv

;) Nh

l

X

i

1 ?z

ninnivyu-n

rrnyiv7tatLn

1=3

Dn

1r~y

I;l

.

~~

-non

)xv n

Yl

ivx

N'i

?

31m

n~m ?ir

-1 3.)n

rrtnuI'~Dw

l?z

L?Dn

innwri?

X~l

?m~

Ir i

?=

rnin

x?

nin

mwn

-.1 31

L?Dn

x?

M~z

t'Nx,

piny

nv3Y7vVri

nixL?3

w

-ixn3 .

.

1zLi

rnxnNn~w

Irwr

Ix

;inly

20

RONALD C. KIENER

Aside from the hymn for the fifth day, the hymnsfor the second,third, fourth, sixth, and Sabbathday contain phrasesand unique words lifted from the Paraphrase.Of the particularinterestare the terms for the ten Aristotelian categories (eser ha-imriyyot; Tibbonide eser ma'amarot), some

of whichappearin the passageabove. These termsare interesting,for they representone of the firstattemptsat renderingthesetechnicalphilosophical terms into Hebrew.73Very few of these terms persistedinto Tibbonide Hebrew,and some, such as ereshfor "substance,"are uniqueto the Paraphrase and the Shir.74 Finally,and most dubiously,we mayinferthat AbrahamIbn Ezra-not the most proficientArabist-was familiarwith the Paraphrase,if only for the fact that he severelycriticizedthe Gaon for his verbosity.75At most, then, the Paraphrasewas cited or otherwiseutilizedby scholarsin Spain, France, and Germanyin the latter half of the twelfth century.

c

?

?

72. Ketavim Nivkharim(Jerusalem, 1945), 1:164-170. 73. The Paraphrase contains two accounts of the categories. In both instances the Arabic original merely mentions "the ten categories" without going into details or naming each of the categories. The two passages occur in MS Vatican 266, fols. 34b:1 and 39a:1. Below is a chart comparing the Paraphrase terms with the Tibbonide terms, derived from Judah Ibn Tibbon's Be'ur Millot Zarot in the introduction to Sefer ha-Emunot ve-ha-De'ot (Josefow, 1885), pp. 11-12. Ibn Tibbon

Paraphrase 1. la. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

substance accident quantity quality time place relation position possession action passion

IVxm ,3'y ,WVZ ,1•p?) 1V ,5 ,r•,p Tx tat Tinx T

5Dte,5Dt on ,11not,'01t ninK T,-) ,T~m"p

,W15Y1D nwis 'vy ,1YD

OYY ,ni ;• Tx 'n, ,o"t

k

,

5DA,)V 74. Ben-Yehuda's edesh (Thesaurus,p. 78a) is based on Gollancz's rendering of Berechiah's text, and should be ignored. 75. See his Yesod Mora (Jerusalem, 1970), p. 4, and Malter, Saadia Gaon, p. 283, n. 7.

HEBREW OFKITABAL-AMANATWA'L-I'TIQADAT PARAPHRASE

21

In the course of the nineteenthcentury, three distinct theories were advancedas to the identity of the paraphrasist. 1. P. Blochproposedthat the paraphrasistwas also the authorof the anonymous Shir haYih.ud.76 2. A. Berlinersuggested the possibilitythat the Paraphraseand one of the presentlyanonymousHebrew translationsof Saadiah'sJudeo-Arabic commentaryto the Sefer Ye;irah(not that of Moses b. Joseph of Lucena)77were made by the same individual.78 3. J. Fiirst proposedthat the paraphrasistwas none other than Berechiah ha-Nakdan. Many nineteenth-centuryscholars adopted this position, but it has now been properlydiscarded.

It should be noted that in the case of Bloch's and Berliner'sproposals, we would still be unableto identifythe paraphrasist.At best, a new seriesof linkages would be established that might help to create bibliographic relationships. Bloch'stheoryis centeredaroundthe termyihiud,"unity,"and its recurring use and function in both the Paraphraseand the Shir ha-Yibud.The termyihudis indeeda new creationof the Paraphrase,andthe Shirha-Yihiud does employit prominently.Butthis is hardlyan adequatebasisuponwhich to draw the conclusionsthat Bloch did. Rather, as Berlinersuggestedin responseto Bloch, it might be more appropriateto assumethat the author of the Shir had the Paraphrasebeforehim and drewfrom it in a varietyof ways. Berliner'stheorydeservesfurtherconsideration.Thoughboth the Paraphrase and the Sefer Ye;irahtranslationstand outside TibbonideHebrew syntaxand vocabulary,no correlationcan be establishedon this fact alone. The Sefer Ye;irahtranslationdoes contain Arabismsand paytanicterms,79 but at best this merelyestablishesa similarculturaland linguisticenvironment for the two works. It may be that the two works are from the same hand, but that bringsus no closer to knowingthe date or location of the translator. 76. 77. 78. 79.

Bloch, "Die zweite Uebersetzung," pp. 453-456. Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Uebersetzungen, pp. 443-448. Ketavim, 1:159 f. Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Uebersetzungen, pp. 447-448.

22

RONALD C. KIENER

Two scholarsin the twentiethcenturymadeundocumentedassertionsas to the geographicoriginsof the Paraphrase.N. Porgessuggestedthat the Paraphrasederivedfrom Babylonia,s8and Malterput forwardthe suggestion of Palestinianorigins."•There are good reasons for acceptingtheir generalinclinationto ascribean Easternoriginfor the Paraphrase,though not as far east as they suggest. The language and stylistic peculiaritiesof the Paraphraseuniformly point away from Spain/Provenceand towardthe East.The Kalliriteterminology of the Paraphrasewas unknownamongstSpanishtheologiansof the tenth and eleventh centuries,and Spanish paytanimcompletelyavoided Easternstyles of rhyme, meter, and vocabulary.Spanish poetry may be described as "neoclassical,"tending toward biblical form and Arabic rhymingpatternswhile avoidingan undueamountof neologisticpyrotechnics.82AbrahamBar IHiyya(d. after 1136),the great Hebrew-writingpreTibbonideSpanishphilosopher,sharesnot a singlevocabularyitemwiththe Kallirian Hebrew of the Paraphrase.83 Western Europe, soon to be the the of Tibbonide was undertaking, not the homeof the Paraphrase, recipient be it would used though extensivelyby philosophersand their literary in and France duringthe firstroundof the Maimonidean opponents Spain controversy.In fact, though the Tibbonide translationwas availableby 1186, a full generationlater the text of choice in Spain, Provence,and Germanyremainedthe Paraphrase.84

80. Zeitschrift fiir hebraeische Bibliographie 7 (1903): 38. 81. Saadia Gaon, p. 361. 82. See Schirmann's introduction, Ha-Shirah ha-'Ivrit, 1:23-55, especially 40-42. 83. Such a blanket statement is possible thanks to two studies by I. Efros: "Studies in Pre-Tibbonian Philosophical Terminology," Jewish Quarterly Review, n.s. 17 (1926/27): 129-164, 323-368, and "More About Abraham b. Hiyya's Philosophical Terminology," ibid., n.s. 20 (1929/30): 113-138. 84. The instigator of the controversy in Spain, Rabbi Meir b. Todros ha-Levi Abulafia (1170?-1244), cites Saadiah from the Paraphrase version. See Kitab al-Rasd'li, ed. J. Brill (Paris, 1871), pp. 14, 36-37, 57. Brill was unaware of the existence of the Paraphrase; see ibid., p. 137n. On Abulafia, see B. Septimus, Hispano-Jewish Culture in Transition: The Career and Controversiesof Ramah (Cambridge, Mass., 1982); and on the controversy in general, see Y. Baer, A History of the Jews in Christian Spain (Philadelphia, 1961-66), 1:96-110. In Provence, both Aaron b. Meshullam (d. 1210) and the Tosafist Samson b. Abraham of Sens (ca. 1155-1225) quoted from the seventh treatise of the Paraphrase; see Kitab al-Rasd'il:57, pp. 136-137. Interestingly, D. Silver claimed that a Saadianic interpretation of Maimonides which was current during the early controversy illustrated "the quick proliferation of ideas through [the Tibbonide] translation" (Maimonidean Criticism and the Maimonidean Controversy

OFKITABAL-AMANATWA'L-I'TIQADAT PARAPHRASE HEBREW

23

And however popular the Paraphrasewas with rationalists,it was thoroughlyembracedby Jewish mystics duringthe twelfth and thirteenth centuries.Echoesof the Paraphraseappearin an extremelydisparatecrosssectionof this earlyJewishmysticalliterature,andit wouldnot be unfairto assume that furtherreverberationsof the Paraphrasewill be uncoveredas the Paraphrasebecomesbetterknownamongstmodernscholarsof the early Kabbalah.The ecstatic panentheism,the visually resplendentKavod,and the air of esotericismthat was fosteredby the Paraphrasemadethis unusual versionof Saadiaha favoriteof Jewishmystics.No wonderthatthe German pietistsdeclaredSaadiahto be "a masterof secrets"(ba'alsod).85In general, it is not that the Paraphraselaid the theologicalfoundationfor pietismor early Kabbalah;rather, there are numerouspassages in the Paraphrase which were thought to legitimatealready-heldbeliefs.For the pietistsand other medievals,the Paraphrasetook on the statureof authority.For the Jewishmystics,the Paraphrasewas not so muchinfluentialas it was legitimating. There was an enormousappealin being able to cite the venerable Gaon as an authority,and Jewish mystics did not fail to do so when the opportunityarose.86 [Leiden, 1965], pp. 119-120). Silver was thus also unaware of the existence of the Paraphrase. In Germany, there is Moses b. Hisdai in his Ketav Tamim,written sometime between 1210 and 1234. Also, see the comments by E. Urbach, "The Participation of German and French Scholars in the Controversy About Maimonides and His Works" [Hebrew], Zion 12(1947/48): 150-154. 85. See Dan, Esoteric Theology, p. 23, n. 5; idem, Studies in Ashkenazi-Hasidic Literature [Hebrew] (Ramat Gan, 1975), p. 32, n. 9; Scholem, Major Trends, p. 86; and I. Weinstock, "Ha-im Hayah Rav Sa'adyah Ga'on Ba'al Sod?" in Be-Ma'agalei ha-Nigleh ve-ha-Nistar (Jerusalem, 1969), pp. 81-106. It may be that Saadiah became known as a mystic in later times through a pseudo-Saadianic German pietist commentary to the Sefer Ye;irahthat was partially published in the Mantua 1562 edition of the Sefer Ye;irah. 86. Aside from the Shir ha- Yibud,the oldest extant work that can be directly linked to the Ashkenazi Ijasidim (see Dan, Esoteric Theology, pp. 47-48), the Paraphrase appears in at least two other German pietist works: Judah he-Hasid's Sefer Iasidim, ed. J. Wistinetzki (Frankfurt a. M., 1924), pp. 38-39, contains a portion of the fifth treatise (MS Vatican 266, fols. 74b: 1-75a:1 and 71a:2); see also Eleazar of Worms's Sefer ha-Roqeah ha-Gadol (Jerusalem, 1960), pp. 33-36. Even the very penitential terminology of the Roqeab draws from the fifth treatise of the Paraphrase, which abounds with the terms basid and moreh. See I. Marcus, Piety and Society (Leiden, 1981), pp. 109-129, 144-145. The pietist R. Abraham b. Azriel quotes a long passage from the ninth treatise of the Paraphrase in the midst of a discussion of Maimonidean issues. See Urbach, "Participation of German and French Scholars," pp. 150-152. As Scholem has pointed out, the demanding pietist insistence upon strict and even legally excessive observance of the Law is also rooted in the Paraphrase's formulations on the topic. See Scholem, Major Trends, p. 97, and MS Vatican 266, fol. 72b:2. The Paraphrase is also quoted in the

24

RONALD C. KIENER

In only one partof Europedid Kallirian/Palestinianstylestake root. In the ninth century, liturgicalpoetry of a Palestinianmold blossomed in Venosaand Oria, southernItaly.87Nowhere else in Byzantiumwere these Palestinianstyles emulated.88In 1054, a descendantof the first Byzantine paytanimcomposed a narrativehistoryof his family'sexploits in rhymed saj'-like couplets. This "Chronicle of Abhima'ag(b. Paltiel)" contains numerousneologismsreminiscentof Kalliritecreativity;however,none of the unique coinages of the Paraphraseappearin the Chronicle.89 Even more interestingis the fact that eleventh-centuryByzantiumwas witness to an amazing literaryand social phenomenonwhich Z. Ankori termed"theByzantineKaraiteLiteraryProject."Thisprojectwas a massive undertakingwhichhad as its goal the translationinto Hebrewof the entire Arabic Karaitelibrary.90Unlike the later Tibbonideprojectsponsoredby Meshullamb. Jacob of Lunel,the Byzantineeffort was not broughtabout by an unfamiliaritywith ArabicamongstByzantinepartisans.The desired audiencewas not internal,but external.Set in motion by Tobiasb. Moses "the Translator,"the Byzantine Karaite Literary Project "was a wellcalculatedand well-plannedcommunalundertaking"designedto win the

literature ascribed to the so-called Iyyun circle; see G. Scholem, Les Origines de la Kabbale (Paris, 1966), pp. 327-367. In one of the Iyyun texts, the Tefillah le-Rav Nehunya ben haQanah, the sefirot are described as balaqim she-einam mithalqim ("indivisible particles"; see Scholem, Originesde la Kabbale,p. 274, n. 109);this is precisely the Paraphrase definition of the "eternal spiritual beings," or atoms, of Plato's theory of creation (MS Vatican 266, fol. 18a:2; Ibn Tibbon: ha-halakim asher lo yehalku). In this way the sefirot were defined as eternal spiritual entities, a definition which remained valid for later generations. Zoharic meditations on the tenth sefirah, Kingdom (malkhut), also resort to visual imagery and panentheist notions, but no direct tie to the Paraphrase can yet be established. On the Shekhinah in the Sefer ha-Zohar, see I. Tishby, Mishnat ha-Zohar, 3d ed. (Jerusalem, 1971), 1:219-231. The fourteenth-century kabbalist Menalem Recanati quotes the Paraphrase in his Bible commentary in defense of the kabbalistic doctrine of shemilot ("cosmic cycles"); see Perush RabbenuMenahem me-Reqanati (Lublin, 1605), sec. Behar: 31a-b, and cf. MS Vatican 266, fol. 14b:1-2. 87. A. Sharf, Byzantine Jewryfrom Justinian to the Fourth Crusade(New York, 1971), pp. 171-172; and Schirmann, Studies, 2:9-16. 88. Sharf, Byzantine Jewry, p. 174. 89. This Chronicle was first published as Sefer ha-Yubasin by A. Neubauer in Medieval Jewish Chronicles, 2:111-132: Notice should be taken of the word nimus in the Chronicle, not as "school of thought" (Paraphrase) or "law" (Bar Hiyya; see H. Wolfson, "Additional Notes to the Article on the Classification of Sciences in Medieval Jewish Philosophy," Hebrew Union College Annual 3 [1926]: 374-375), but as "road, way." See R. Mirkin, ed., Megillat Abima'a; Me'ubedet u-Mugeshet ke-fHomerle-Milon (Jerusalem, 1965), p. 139. 90. Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium, pp. 354-452.

HEBREWPARAPHRASE OF KITAB AL.-AMANAT WA'L-I'TIQADAT

25

heartsand mindsof ByzantineRabbaniteJews.9'The projectwas a militant ideologicaleffortof communalproportions,not the resultof the curiosityof a scholarlyelite. Could it be that in the midst of this flurryof Karaiteliteraryactivity there arose a Rabbanite translator who sought to give the despised "Pithomite"enemyof the Karaiteshis own Hebrewvoice?It wouldonly be naturalthat Saadiah,so much the focus of Karaiteire in the newly translated Hebrewliterature,be made availableto the same Byzantineaudience that now had the Karaite castigationsin hand. Kallirian styles were in vogue, as the Chronicle of AIima'ag and Italian poetry testify. And it should be recalledthat the Germanpietists,the firstto use the Paraphrase, attributedtheir esotericato an Italian conduit.92 Thus, the existenceof a ByzantineKaraiteTranslationProjectprovides the heretoforemissinglink with regardto the originsof the Paraphrase:it providesthe propersocial and intellectualcontext for an eleventh-century translationof Saadiah'sKitabal-Amcndt. On the other hand, the Paraphraseexhibitsnone of the telltaleindications of Byzantinecomposition,such as the appearanceof Latin or Greek interpositions.Nor is there any indicationof an early or prolongeduse of the Paraphrasein Italy. Finally, we would be hard-pressedto find a RabbaniteByzantinesufficientlyfamiliarwith Arabic.93Onlyan immigrant Rabbanitecould have composedthe Paraphrase,for in ByzantiumArabic was the exclusivepossessionof the Karaites:no Karaitecould be responsible for a loving translationof the despisedSaadiah'smasterpiece! Indications point to the East, though with no resolution. Whether Babylonian,Palestinian,or Byzantine/Italian,the Paraphrasemust have answereda need. In the eleventhcentury,that needwas createdby Karaism, burdened with its antagonistic "Saadiah complex." The paraphrasist respondedto that need. TrinityCollege Hartford,Conn.

91. Ibid., p. 416. 92. Dan, Esoteric Theology, pp. 14-20. 93. Tobias b. Eliezer, the most important Rabbanite homilist of Byzantine Jewry, is typical in his ignorance of Arabic. See Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium, p. 290, n. 114.

Left Contained in the Right: A Study in Zoharic Hermeneutics Author(s): Elliot Wolfson Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Spring, 1986), pp. 27-52 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486354 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:16 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

LEFT CONTAINEDIN THE RIGHT: A STUDY IN ZOHARIC HERMENEUTICS by ELLIOT WOLFSON

Although there has been much in modern scholarship written about the historical and theosophical background of the Zohar,' scholars have paid little attention to the literary structure of the work and its relationship to the thematic content contained therein. There is, as far as I know, not one in-depth study of such a nature.2 This paper will attempt to unfold one recurrent theme which serves as the literary thread connecting the zoharic treatment of Exodus 1-20, i.e., the biblical account of Israel's enslavement in Egypt, their subsequent exodus, 1. See G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, 3rd ed. (New York, 1961), pp. 156-243; idem, Kabbalah (Jerusalem, 1974), pp. 213-244. Isaiah Tishby, Mishnat ha-Zohar, 2 vols. [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1971) [hereafter cited as MhZ]. See also Daniel Matt, Zohar.: The Book of Enlightenment (Ramsey, N.J., 1983), esp. pp. 3-39. 2. See, however, Yehuda Liebes, "The Messiah of the Zohar" [Hebrew], in The Messianic Idea in Jewish Thought: A Study Conference in Honour of the Eightieth Birthday of Gershom Scholem (Jerusalem, 1982), pp. 87-236. This essay, which is rich in textual analyses and has indeed set the standard for all future research into the Zohar, contains many insights which may be useful to one interested in pursuing the issue of literary structure and its relation to thematic content in the Zohar.

27

28

ELLIOT WOLFSON

and, finally, the Sinaitic revelation.3 We will suggest that there is a common theme which the Zohar (exegetically) discovers within the biblical text. This theme, in turn, lies at the core of the zoharic understanding of the theological categories of exile, redemption, and revelation.

Introduction:The "Left" and the "Right" As is well known to scholars in the field of Jewish mysticism, amongst the sources which exerted an influence upon the author of the Zohar are to be counted kabbalistic texts which derived from a "gnostic" school of Kabbalah which emerged in the second half of the thirteenth century in Castile.4 One of the salient features of this school was the positing of a demonic realm morphologically paralleling the realm of the divine:5as there are ten holy emanations (sefirot), so there are ten "emanations of the left."6 In the words of one of the members of this circle, Moses of Burgos: "There is a left [side] corresponding to the right, intended to perfect the right, to punish and chastise with 'chastisements of love' those who walk in a bad way in order to purify them."7 To be sure, as Scholem has already pointed out, this dualism was never presented as absolute, for in order for a text to be accepted within the framework of normative Judaism, the dualistic 3. I am limiting myself in this paper to an analysis of texts which form part of the main body of the Zohar. For a discussion of the various literary strata in the Zohar, see Scholem, Major Trends,pp. 159-163; idem, Kabbalah, pp. 214-220. All citations and references to the Zohar will be taken from Sefer ha-Zohar, ed. Reuven Margaliot, 3 vols., 6th ed. (Jerusalem, 1984). References are to volume and page number. References to Zohar Hadash are from the Margaliot ed., 2nd ed. (Jerusalem, 1978) [hereafter cited as ZH]. 4. See Scholem, "Kabbalot R. Ya'akov ve-R. Yigbak ha-Kohen," Madda'ei ha- Yahadut2 (1927): 193-197; Liebes, "The Messiah," pp. 124-128. 5. Scholem, "Kabbalot R. Ya'akov ve-R. Yigbak"; J. Dan, "Samael, Lilith, and the Concept of Evil in Early Kabbalah," AJS Review 5 (1980): 17-41. 6. According to R. Isaac, the ten emanations of the left comprise "three worlds which were created and destroyed" (cf. Gen. R. 9:2, ed. Theodor-Albeck, p. 68) and seven archons which do battle against the seven lower holy emanations. See Scholem, "Kabbalot," pp. 194, 248-251. The expression "emanations of the left" was not used by R. Isaac, but rather by his student, R. Moses of Burgos. See Scholem, "R. Moshe, Talmid R. Yi4hak," Le-Heker Kabbalat R. Yi;zbakb. Ya'akovha-Kohen, in Tarbiz 4 (1933): 207-225. 7. Scholem, "R. Moshe," p. 209. See also Todros Abulafia, O;ar ha-Kavod(Warsaw, 1879; reprint, Jerusalem, 1970), 3a: "Where dogs bark there the Angel of Death is to be seen, for [he] is emanated from the left side, which is an emanation in itself." This should not be understood in any absolute sense, but rather as meaning that the left comprises its own powers which parallel those of the divine. See ibid., 23b, concerning the "worlds created and destroyed" (see n. 6 and below n. 22).

LEFT CONTAINED IN THE RIGHT

29

tendencyhad to be mitigated.8Accordingly,thesekabbalistsstruggledover the question,Whencearose the demonic,or left, side?9While they differed as to the exact momentwithinthe emanativeprocesswhichwould account for the emergenceof the left side, all agreedthatat some momentthis in fact occurred.The demonicsidewas thus accordeda "quasi"independence,said to have emergedfrom eitherthe third sefirah,Binah,or the fifth, Gevurah (Strength)or Din (Judgment).'oIn eithercase,accordingto these kabbalists, the "emanationsof the left"havetheiroriginin and are sustainedby the left side of the divinerealmitself.Thatis to say, therefore,thatthe demonichas a root within the divine. Thisgnosticthemeis developedrepeatedlyin the Zohar;indeed,it forms one of the essentiallycharacteristicdoctrinesof the work." Like the kabbalists of the Castiliancircle, the author of the Zohar posits a demonic realm,calledby him SitraAhra,the "OtherSide,"whichstructurallyparallels the divinerealm:12both realmsare constitutedby ten powers.'3Further8. Scholem, "Kabbalot," pp. 193-194. See also Shulamit Shahar, "Catharism and the Beginnings of the Kabbalah in Languedoc: Elements Common to Catharic Scriptures and the Book Bahir" [Hebrew], Tarbiz 40 (1971), esp. p. 502, and p. viii of the English summary. Shahar concludes that despite the similarities between some of the doctrines of the Catharic sects in Languedoc in the twelfth century and the Kabbalah of the Bahir, with respect to the question of evil one must make a clear distinction between the two: the former were "entirely dualistic," "making an absolute distinction between the good God and the principle of evil," whereas the latter remained "completely monistic, since God is portrayed as the Creator of Chaos, and Satan is one of His attributes." See n. 9. 9. Cf. Tishby, MhZ, 1:292, 295-298. As Tishby noted, the kabbalists' concern with discovering the source for the demonic realm within the divine was an effort to mitigate the potential dualism of their doctrine concerning a left emanation. See below n. 12. 10. According to R. Isaac, the ten emanations of the left emerged from Binah, the third sefirah, whereas, according to R. Moses of Burgos, they emanated from Gevurah, the fifth sefirah, or the attribute of judgment. See Scholem, "Kabbalot," p. 194; idem, "R. Moshe," p. 210. Cf. also, Scholem, "Sitra Alira: ha-Tov ve-ha-Ra ba-Kabbalah," in Pirkei Yesod be-Havanat ha-Kabbalah u-Semaleha (Jerusalem, 1976), pp. 191-193. As Scholem points out (pp. 193 ff.), in the Kabbalah before the Zohar there was a third explanation for the origin of evil, viz., the last sefirah. This is reflected in the Zohar as well; see Tishby, MhZ, 1:298. 11. See Tishby, MhZ, 1:288-292. 12. Ibid. 1:288-289. It should be noted that Tishby (p. 292) distinguishes between morphological and ontological parallelism. In other words, while it is true that there is a parallelism of structure between the two realms, they are not of the same ontological standing; the demonic realm is of a secondary nature in comparison with the divine, or, according to one of the metaphors employed in the Zohar, the relation of the two is like that of an ape to a human being (see II, 148b). According to Tishby, this distinction is one of the various attempts to mitigate the potential dualism of the doctrine of two realms. See above n. 9. 13. III, 41b. See also II, 223b-224a; III, 70a. On occasion it is not the entire sefirotic realm but only the seven lower sefirot which are said to have a parallel in the demonic realm; see I, 194a. (See above n. 6.) Although there are several names for the demonic forces in the Zohar,

30

ELLIOT WOLFSON

more, the demonic realm, which vis-A-vis the divine is considered to be the left, is itself constituted, as is the divine, by a left and right side, i.e., by a masculine and feminine dimension:14in mythological terms, just as there is male (= Tiferet) and female (= Malkhut) within the seifirotic world, so there is Samael and Lilith in the demonic world."5 Moreover, just as the upper sefirot are arranged by means of three lines, i.e., the right side, or grace (Ton), so the lower the left side, or rigor (rnin), and the median, or mercy (on,rnn), sefirot are bound together by three knots.'6 Just as there is a complicated structure of palaces (mii'rn)below the holy sefirot, so there is a corresponding structure below the demonic sefirot. 7 Finally, both realms can exert an influence upon and be influenced by human events. The human being stands

in a reciprocalrelationshipto both realms, and it is the intentionwhich directs the channel of energy from below which ultimately distinguishes one's attachment to the divine or to the demonic. Accordingto intentionwhichone has in this world,so the spiritfromaboveis drawnupon him.... If his will intendstowardsthe upperholy matter,then

the most common are: "lower crowns" (see, e.g., I, 95b, 167a; II, 21b, 35b, 39b, 64b, 85b, 94b; III, 14b, 48b, 69a, 95b, 11 b, 119b, 208b, 209b); "lower grades" (see, e.g., I, 133b, 177a [but see remark of Tishby, MhZ, 1:288, n. 4], 194a; II, 244b); "impure crowns of magic below" (see, e.g., I, 167a; II, 30b; III, 41b); and, collectively, Sitra Ahra (see, e.g., I, 191b, 204b, 228a; II, 69a, and elsewhere). 14. I, 53a, 160a; II, 192b, 194b, 243a; III, 63a, 207a. Even though there is a right and left dimension in both realms, the demonic vis-A-visthe divine is known as the left, while the divine vis-a-vis the demonic is known as the right. See I, 195b; 211b; III, 259b. See Tishby, MhZ, 1:289, n. 2. 15. I, 148a (Sitrei Torah), 161b (Sitrei Torah).Cf. also I, 5a, 64a, 153a, 160b; II, 163b, 236b, 243a; see Tishby, MhZ, 1:298-300. The pairing of Samael and Lilith as husband and wife in the demonic realm, corresponding to Adam and Eve, was already made by R. Isaac ha-Kohen in his "Treatise on the Left Emanation"; see Scholem, "Kabbalot," pp. 251-252, 260, 262. For a discussion of R. Isaac's historical and literary sources, see Dan, "Samael, Lilith, and the Concept of Evil in Early Kabbalah," pp. 17-40. (The relevant passage is translated on pp. 18-19.) See below n. 44. 16. II, 38a. (Cf. also I, 166b; II, 40b.) By means of the merit of the "three knots of faith," i.e., the three patriarchs and the sefirot which they represent, the Israelites were released from the "three knots of magic" by which the Egyptians had bound them; see below n. 41. Cf. Yehuda Liebes, "Sections of the Zohar Lexicon" [Hebrew] (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, 1976), s.v. nvwp,n. 2, pp. 394-395, n. 20, p. 400. For an extended discussion of the possible Christian influence on the Zohar with respect to the notion of the trinity, see idem, "Christian Influences in the Zohar" [Hebrew], Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 2, no. 1 (1982/83): 43-74. Cf. also idem, "The Messiah," pp. 130-131, n. 182. 17. I, 211b; II, 244a, 263a.

LEFT CONTAINED IN THE RIGHT

31

that thingis drawnuponhimfromaboveto below.If his willis to cleaveto the OtherSide,andhe intendsit, thanthatthingis drawnuponhimfromaboveto below.'8 The close affinity of theurgy and magic reflects the structural parallelism of the two realms. Moreover, the author of the Zohar, like his Castilian predecessors, was concerned with the problem of the origin of evil and the etiological relation of the divine to the demonic. While there are various approaches to this problem in the Zohar, these may be subsumed under two basic categories, the one mythological in nature and the other philosophical. The former, which we may call the cathartic view, posits that evil results as a by-product of the process of elimination of waste from Divine Thought, a process which

18. I, 99b. See ibid., 125b, 161a; III, 112b, 145a. On this basis, e.g., the Zohar (Midrash ha-Ne'elam) reinterprets the midrashic comment on Deut. 34:10, "And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like Moses": "In Israel none arose, but in the nations of the world there arose; and who was it? Balaam." See Sifrei Devarim 34:10, ed. Finkelstein, p. 430; for other rabbinic references, see Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1968), 6:125, n. 727. The author of the Zohar writes: "Moses' works are above, Balaam's below. Moses made [theurgical] use of the holy crown of the supernal King above, and Balaam made [magical] use of the lower crowns below which are not holy" (II, 21b). Cf. Moses de Le6n, Shekel ha-Kodesh, ed. Greenup (1911), pp. 16-18. Cf. ZH, 58b; III, 193b. The motif of Balaam as a chief magician and protagonist of the demonic is repeated often in the Zohar. See e.g., ZH, 66a; I, 125b, 126a, 166b; III, 112b, 194a, 207b, 212a. The association of Balaam with magic is found already in rabbinic Aggadah; see Ginzberg, Legends, index, s.v. "Balaam, the magical powers of." Moreover, according to earlier sources, Balaam was considered to be the chief magician of Pharaoh; see Sotah Ila; Ginzberg, Legends, 2:334-335. See II, 69a. See below, n. 41. The Aramaic in the Mishnah; wbnwl, lit. "made use of," was used technically in a theurgical context already see Avot 1:13. See Scholem, Major Trends, p. 358, n. 17, and idem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition, 2nd ed. (New York, 1965), p. 54, n. 36. It is of interest to note that in this passage (I, 99b) the mystic (R. Abba) learns his wisdom from a book brought to him by "the children of the East." Now, according to the Midrash (see, e.g., Eccles. R. 8:23), the wisdom of the children of the East consisted of astrology and divination. See Saul Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1965), p. 98. Moreover, according to the Zohar itself, the land of the East was the place whence Laban, Be'or, and Balaam learned all their sorcery, for it was the place into which the angels Azza and Azael fell. See I, 126a, 133b, 223a. The children of the East, therefore, were masters of magical knowledge. Yet here they are portrayed as bearers of the correct mystical (theurgical) knowledge. Hence, in this context, the line between theurgical and magical knowledge is difficult to draw. See Tishby, MhZ, 2:11, who distinguishes between the two in terms of the ultimate purpose for which the given act was performed, i.e., whether to influence the upper powers or whether to gain benefit for oneself. But see ibid., p. 435, where the distinction is somewhat blurred. Cf. Scholem, Reshit ha-Kabbalah (Tel Aviv, 1948), pp. 143-144; Liebes, "The Messiah," p. 180, n. 319.

32

ELLIOT WOLFSON

occurs during the very first stages of activity, indeed prior to the emanation of the sefirotic world from IHokhmahdownward.19 Before the process of emanation could unfold, it was necessary for God to rid Himself of the unbalanced forces of judgment, referred to mythically as "the primordial kings of Edom who died,"20 or as "the worlds created and destroyed."21 According to the second category, which we may call the emanative view, the demonic realm as a separate force is viewed as a link in the continuous

chainof being. Heretoo thereis no uniformityof opinionin the Zohar,for the root of evil is said to be in one of three gradations: Binah,22Gevurah,23 or Malkhut.24The common denominator of these views, however, is that the demonic left side has its root in the left side of the divine. Furthermore, it is an imbalance in the sefirotic world, a breaking of the harmony between right and left, which ultimately eventuates in the coming-to-be of an "autonomous" left realm.25 Hence, while the demonic structurally parallels the divine, the former is ontologically posterior to the latter.26In the course of our analysis it will become clear how this question has a bearing upon the

thematicunder discussion.

19. See II, 254b-255a; III, 292b (Idra Zuta). For a discussion of the cathartic view, see Tishby, MhZ, 1:150-151, 296; Ephraim Gottlieb, Mehkarim be-Sifrut ha-Kabbalah(Tel Aviv, 1976), pp. 178-182; Liebes, "Sections of the Zohar Lexicon," p. 147; Moshe Idel, "HaMabshavah ha-Ra'ah shel ha-El," Tarbiz 49 (1980): 356-364. 20. See II, 176b (Sifra di-Zeni'uta); III, 128b (Idra Rabba), 135a, 142a, 292a (Idra Zuta). The biblical basis for this mythical conception is Gen. 36:31 ff. Cf. Tishby, MhZ, 1:138, 150. For a discussion of the possible source for this conception in the Castilian circle, and particularly Todros Abulafia, see Liebes, "The Messiah," pp. 219-221. Moreover, as Liebes points out (p. 219), this conception was probably suggested to the kabbalists by the midrashic claim that God at first considered creating the world with judgment and only afterwards decided to combine judgment and mercy together. See, e.g., Gen. R. 12:15. 21. See II, 34b. The source for this mythical conception was R. Isaac ha-Kohen; see above n. 6. Cf. Scholem, "Kabbalot," pp. 194-195. 22. See, e.g., I, 31a, 151a; II, 64a, 83a, 175b; III, 15b, 39b, 65a, 99a, 118b, 262b. Cf. Joseph Gikatilla, Sha'arei Orah, ed. Joseph Ben-Shlomo (Jerusalem, 1981), 1:235. 23. See Scholem, "Kabbalot," p. 194; idem, "Sitra Alira," p. 200; Tishby, MhZ, 1:296-298. 24. See I, 16a; II, 149b; III, 148a. See above n. 10. 25. See I, 17a-b. With regard to the question, What creates the imbalance in the sefirotic world? there are basically two approaches: it results either from an internal process or as a result of human sin. See Scholem, Pirkei Yesod, pp. 202-204. 26. Here I have made use of Tishby's terminology; see n. 12.

33

LEFT CONTAINED IN THE RIGHT

Exile The biblicalnarrativeconcerningIsrael'ssojournin Egyptand its subsequent exodus represents one of the many exegetical bases upon which the author of the Zohar develops the gnostic drama. Egypt, according to the symbolic map of the Zohar, represents the demonic left side.27This symbolic correlation is based in the first instance upon a close textual reading of the

scripturalaccountof the firstthreedivinemanifestationsof powerin Egypt. The preliminary miracle performed by Aaron before Pharaoh, the casting down of the rod which was then transformed into a serpent (see Exod. 7:9 ff.) and the first two plagues, the turning of the waters into blood and the spreading forth of the frogs (ibid. 19-22, 8:1-3), it will be recalled, are matched by the magicians of Egypt.28It is clear from the Bible, then, that the spiritual power of Egypt was that of magic. This factor was already elaborated upon by the rabbis of the Talmud. Thus in one place we read: "Ten measures of magic descended upon the world; nine were taken by Egypt." 29 The intrinsic relationship of Egypt to magic was developed at length by the author of the Zohar.30The old aggadic theme, however, is transformed by the theosophic symbolism of the Kabbalah. That is, Egypt's special relation to magic underscores Egypt as the seat of demonic power, for according to the Zohar, magic is the force of the demonic, the Sitra Abra,

27. For references, see below n. 31. See Tishby, MhZ, 1: p. 81 of the Introduction. Tishby suggests that many of the passages in the Zohar which deride Egypt are in reality intended against Islam and the Arabs. 28. The power of the magicians is from the outset rendered impotent in comparison with the power of God. Hence, we are told that the rod which Aaron cast down, and which became a serpent, swallowed up the rods which the magicians cast down (Exod. 7:12). Moreover, the magicians' use of secret arts could match the divine power only for the first two plagues (ibid. 8:18-19). Finally, the magicians themselves are affected by the plague of boils, causing them to disappear. For a succinct discussion of these issues, see M. Noth, Exodus: A Commentary, trans. J. S. Bowden (Philadelphia, 1962), pp. 71-72. The impotence of the Egyptian magicians vis-A-vis God was a favorite theme in rabbinic Aggadah. See, e.g., Sanhedrin 67b, Exod. R. 10:7, Tanhuma, Va-Era 14. See also Ginzberg, Legends, 2:335, 352; 5:429, n. 185. 29. Kiddushin 49b. See also Menakot 85a, Exod. R. 9:6. For other references in aggadic literature to this theme, see Ginzberg, Legends, index, s.v. "Egyptians, masters of astrology and magic." 30. See. e.g., I, 81b, 83a, 249a; II, 30b, 35b, 38a, 191a, 192b; III, 50b, 69a, 70a. See below nn. 35-45.

34

ELLIOT WOLFSON

which correspondsto the divine.3'Indeed,the ten lower sefirotare called specificallythe "ten crowns of magic [of] impuritybelow."32In another place we read that all the magicians(v'in) of the world are called o•lvn because"all typesof magicof the worldare boundto and emergefromthat primordialserpent['i-rip vnl] which is the spirit of impurity."33 Employing this symbolic correspondencebetween Egypt and the demonic,the author of the Zohar interpretsthe verse "And Abramwent down to Egypt"(Gen. 12:10):"This verse hints at wisdom and the levels down below,to the depthsof whichAbrahamdescended.He knewthembut did not becomeattached."34The descentof Abrahamto Egyptthus symbolizes, as one writerput it, "hisexplorationof SitraAbra,'the OtherSide.'"35 In yet anotherplace,the Zoharwritesthat whenJosephcameto Egypt,"he

31. See, e.g., I, 167a; II, 30b; III, 41b, 70a, 192a. This is also the underlying meaning of a repeated claim in the Zohar concerning the special relation between the feminine and magic. That is, the demonic realm vis-A-vis the divine is considered to be feminine (although there is both a feminine and masculine dimension within the left side; see above n. 14); accordingly, all magic (i.e., the demonic) is related to the feminine. See ZH, 92b; I, 126a. 32. III, 41b. See also II, 223b-224a. 33. I, 125b. See also II, 215b. The "primordial serpent" in the Zohar frequently refersto the feminine counterpart to Samael in the realm of the Other Side (based on the aggadic image that Samael rode upon the serpent; cf. Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, chap. 13), but it can also refer to this whole realm or to the masculine potency alone. See Tishby, MhZ, 1:304-305. 34. I, 83a (trans. by D. Matt, Zohar, p. 63). Cf. ibid., 133b, where the author of the Zohar elaborates upon the talmudic interpretation of Gen. 25:6, "And to the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts," i.e., Abraham transmitted to them a "name of impurity" by which to do magic (Sanhedrin 91a, and the commentary of Rashi, ad loc.). According to the Zohar, Abraham gave the sons of his concubines the names of the impure forces which are the lower grades; that is to say, Abraham imparted to them knowledge of the demonic realm. See ibid., 223a. This interpretation likewise presupposes that Abraham had significant knowledge of the demonic realm. See below n. 45. 35. See Matt, Zohar, p. 220. Matt goes on to say: "This dangerous psychic journey is the crucible of Abraham's spiritual transformation." That is, as the passage from the Zohar itself (I, 83a) emphasizes, it was necessary for Abraham to descend into Egypt (the "Other Side") before entering the land of Israel (the portion of the Holy One) so that he would be purified. That is also the mystical significance of Israel's enslavement in Egypt: spiritual purification by means of contact with the unholy. See also II, 184a:"The words of Torah reside only there [i.e., in the desert, which is the abode of the demonic force], for there is no light except that which emerges from darkness. When that ['other'] side is subdued, the Holy One, blessed be He, ascends and is glorified. And there is no divine worship except amidst the darkness, and no good expect within evil. When a person enters an evil way and forsakes it, then the Holy One ascends in his glory. Thus the perfection of all is good and evil together, and afterwards to ascend to the good.... This is the complete worship." See n. 45.

LEFT CONTAINED IN THE RIGHT

35

learnedtheirwisdomconcerningthe lowercrowns."36Or again,elaborating upon a saying of the rabbis in the Talmud (see above), the author of the

Zohar writes: It is taught:Ten types of wisdom descendedupon the world, and all were absorbedby Egyptexceptfor one, whichspreadout in the world.And all of theseweretypesof magic,and from themEgyptknewmagic[better]than the rest of the world.37 Egypt, therefore, epitomized the place of impurity. "R. Yose said: All the streets of Egypt were filled with idolatry; and, moreover, in every house were to be found implements by which they [the Egyptians] were bound to those lower crowns below and which aroused a spirit of impurity amongst them." 38Contained here is the mystical explanation for Moses' command to the Israelites, "And take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in

the basin"(Exod. 12:22),namely,"in orderto removethe spiritof impurity from amongst them."39 On the symbolic level, therefore, Israel's being in Egypt represented their being under the force of the demonic: they were bound by "the knots of magic."40Pharaoh, king of Egypt, symbolized in turn the dominating power of this demonicside.41The Zohar,accordingly,elaboratesupon a metaphor employed in Ezekiel 29:3, "Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh, king of Egypt, the great crocodile that crouches in the midst of his streams."42The 36. III, 207a. 37. Ibid., 70a. 38. II, 35b. Cf. ibid., 38a; III, 50b. 39. Ibid. Cf. ibid., 41a, 80b. 40. II, 25a, 38a, 52b, 69a; III, 212a (it was by means of the magic of Balaam that the Egyptians bound the Israelites; see Ginzberg, Legends, 6:27, n. 156). On the usage of the word "knot" (xiwp) as a magical bond in the Zohar, see Liebes, "Sections of the Zohar Lexicon," p. 397. This linguistic association is indeed quite old. For a survey of ancient Near Eastern materials, including relevant biblical texts, relating to magical bonds and knots, see Michael Fishbane, "Studies in Biblical Magic: Origins, Uses and Transformations of Terminology and Literary Form" (Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 1971), chaps. 1 and 2. 41. I, 195a; II, 28a, 37b, 52b, 67b. According to rabbinic sources, Pharaoh was a magician par excellence; see Moed Katan 18a (cf. Shabbat 75a), TargumPseudo-Jonathan,Exod. 7:15. See also Ginzberg, Legends, 2:335, 352, 358; 3:13; 5:428, n. 175. 42. The attribution of the metaphor "the great crocodile" in Ezek. 19:3 to the Pharaoh in the time of the exodus can be found already in the Midrash. See Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, trans. J. Lauterbach (Philadelphia, 1976), vol. 2, p. 175; Exod. R. 9:4. Cf. Ginzberg, Legends, 3:66, 6:27, n. 156.

36

ELLIOT WOLFSON

"great crocodile" names the demonic force, and "his streams"are "the gradationswhichemanatefromhim."43 The knowledgeof this "greatcrocodile"is alludedto as wellin the verse"Go in to Pharaoh"(Exod. 10:1).That is, the esotericmeaningof God's injunctionto Moses, "Go in to Pharaoh," is that God imploredMoses to plumbthe innerdepthsof the divinesecrets concerningthe demonic side. The Holy One, blessed be He, "must do battle"againstthis "greatcrocodile"and "not againstanother."44Moses, therefore,was granted"the mysteryof the wisdom of the great crocodile that crouchesin the midstof his streams,"a wisdomthatis grantedonly "to thejust who knowthe secretsof theirmaster."45It was necessaryfor Moses 43. II, 34a. In the continuation of this section, the Zohar makes use of the rabbinic myth concerning Leviathan and his mate, i.e., a male and a female sea-monster. See Bava Batra 74b based on Isaiah 27:1; Ginzberg, Legends, index, s.v. "Leviathan." According to the author of the Zohar, Leviathan and his mate correspond to Samael and Lilith, who, in turn, correspond to the Holy One and the Shekhinah. The Zohar was here influenced by the writings of R. Isaac ha-Kohen; see Scholem, "Kabbalot," pp. 262-263, and the translation of this passage in Dan, "Samael, Lilith, and the Concept of Evil," pp. 38-39. See above n. 15. According to this passage (II, 34a-b), there is the great crocodile, i.e., Samael, and ten streams, i.e., vessels which contain the demonic forces: "in each stream there wanders about one crocodile" (ibid., 34b). The ten crocodiles, collectively, are the ten "lower crowns" which correspond to the ten sefirot. See Tishby, MhZ, 1:303. Cf. also I, 52a. On the historical influence of R. Isaac upon the author of the Zohar, see Scholem, "Kabbalot," p. 195. According to Scholem, however, the "''great crocodile" represents Samael, while the strearts, in the midst of which he crouches, are the remaining nine lower crowns. The text, in my opinion, seems to bear out the interpretation of Tishby. 44. II, 34a. 45. Ibid. There is, according to the Zohar, an especially esoteric nature to this knowledge. With regard to this, the author of the Zohar was influenced by the Castilian kabbalists, who were reluctant to elaborate on this topic and who likewise spoke of the secret of the demonic as being known to only a select few. See Liebes, "The Messiah," pp. 123-124. Thus, after the initial discourse on the "great crocodile" we read: "R. Shimeon said: The Account of Creation -the comrades are busy studying it and they have knowledge of it, but few are they who know how to allude to the Account of Creation according to the mystery of the great crocodile. Thus we learned [cf. Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, chap. 9] that the entire world evolved only upon the scales of that [crocodile]" (II, 34b). For a discussion of the literary sources and theosophical significance of this passage, see Liebes, "The Messiah," pp. 123-126. The statement concerning Moses' attainment of knowledge of the "great crocodile" succeeds a discussion about Job. The error of Job, according to the Zohar, was that he did not give any portion of his sacrifices (which were all burnt-offerings) to the "Other Side," and thereby aroused its jealousy. The sin of Job is referred to in the Zohar as "not including evil and good together," for had he given a portion to the demonic realm as well, then he would have comprised the two together. "Thus it is fitting for a person to know good and evil, and then return to the good. That is the secret of faith." (See above n. 35 and below n. 111.) Job is described in Scripture as being "removed from evil" (Job 1:8), i.e., he had no portion in Sitra Ahra. See II, 181b-182a; III, 101b; Tishby, MhZ, 1:291. By contrast, Moses, like Abraham (see above n. 34), had a portion in both realms; thus it

37

LEFT CONTAINED IN THE RIGHT

to attain such knowledge,for at that time, the people of Israelwereunder the dominionof the "greatcrocodile,"the chiefpower of evil, embodiedin the person of Pharaoh,king of Egypt. Redemption Israel'sexilic state correspondsto an exilicstatewithinthe divinerealm, viz., the dominationof the Shekhinahby Samael.46 Alternativelyexpressed, the historicalexile signifiesa separationabove betweenthe Shekhinahand the Holy One (Malkhutand Tif'eret).47 The redemptiveprocess,as we shall is in characterized the two Zohar see, by stageswhich, respectively,correto the twofold characterization of exile as (1) the subservienceof the spond to the and holy (the right) unholy(the left),48 (2) the separationof male and female, right and left, within the divine.49 The firststagein the redemptiveprocessis the overthrowingof the yoke of Satanic(i.e., Egyptian)rule.Sucha powercouldbe overthrown,however, only by the very means through which it governs. In order for God to redeemIsrael,therefore,it was necessaryfor Him to use the tactics of the left againstthe forcesof the left, to fightfirewith fire.Thusthe authorof the says "Go to Pharaoh," i.e., attain knowledge of the demonic realm, a knowledge which Job did not possess. See Liebes, "The Messiah," p. 126. On Solomon's being taught from a book of magic by Asmodeus, see II, 128a; III, 19a, 77a. Cf. also III, 233a-b concerning the legend of Solomon riding an eagle to a place in the wilderness called "Tarmod" (see I Kings 9:18: "Tadmor"), where Azza and Aza'el were bound by chains of iron, and where none but Balaam was allowed to enter. From that place Solomon "learnt wisdom." 46. See Tishby, MhZ, 1:224-225, 230-231. "The subservience of the Shekhinah to Sitra Ahra," concludes Tishby, "is the hidden mystery of the exile of the Shekhinah. The upper exile is a disturbance of the order of the divine reality, a closing of the channels of influence and an eclipse of the lights due to the removal of the Shekhinah from the realm of the sefirot and her joining with the Sitra Abra. The exile of Israel in the countries of the nations is a process which parallels an event that occurs above." See n. 48. 47. See Tishby, MhZ, 1:225, 229-230; Liebes, "The Messiah," p. 198. 48. This is expressed in several ways: (1) the submission of the Shekhinah to Sitra Ahra (see n. 46); (2) the unification of Tiferet with Lilith (see I, 122a-b; III, 69a): (3) the dominion of the other nations over Israel (see I, 84b-85a); (4) Israel's being nourished by the power of Sitra Abra in place of the power of holiness (see I, 95b; II, 152b). 49. On the analogy between the pair of opposites, male-female and right-left, see, e.g., I, 30a, 70a. See n. 81. 50. I, 21lb. Cf. ibid., 201a; II, 29a, 36a. See also Menahem Recanati, Perush 'al ha-Torah (Jerusalem, 1961), Exod. 12:22, 41c-d. On the theme of the Shekhinah employing the forces of Sitra Abra in order to punish the wicked, see Tishby, MhZ, 1:224-225.

38

ELLIOT WOLFSON

Zohar interprets the verse "I compare thee, my love, to a mare among Pharaoh's cavalry" (Cant. 1:9): Come and see: Thereare chariotsof the left in the mysteryof the OtherSide and chariotsof the rightin the mysteryof the supernalHoliness.The ones are parallelto the others;the ones of mercyandthe othersof judgment.And when the Holy One, blessedbe He, carriedout judgmentin Egypt,everyjudgment that He did was in the very likenessof those chariots[on the left] and in the likenessof that veryside.Justas that sidekills and removessouls,so the Holy One actedin that very way, as it is written,"And the Lordkilledeveryfirstborn" [Exod. 13:15].50 Nowhere was this more apparent, according to the Zohar, than in the plague of the killing of the firstborn; this event symbolized the wiping out of the demonic power of judgment by means of divine judgment. The Zohar thus interprets the verse "And the Lord will pass through to smite Egypt" (Exod. 12:23): "He will pass through the strict lines of judgment of the [lower] crowns, which are bound to the other crowns above, and He will loosen them from their place. And He will pass over his ways in order to act with judgment to protect Israel.""51That God "will pass over" means that God will pass through the domain of the lower crowns, the demonic realm, in order to execute judgment upon them and thereby protect Israel. Specifically, according to the Zohar, the divine attribute employed by God in carrying out this act of judgment was the tenth sefirah, Shekhinah, commonly called the "lesser" or "weaker" attribute of judgment,52or "the lower Court." 53This is alluded to in Exodus 12:29, "And the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt": "And the Lord" ('i), according to a midrashic comment, refers to the Holy One and His Court, which, in kabbalistic terms, symbolize Tif'eret and Malkhut.54 The Zohar's point, 51. II, 36b. 52. I, 261a; II, 187a. 53. II, 231b. Cf. Shekel ha-Kodesh, pp. 80-83. See Tishby, Perush Aggadot le-R. 'Azriel (Jerusalem, 1945), p. 56. 54. II, 37b (based on rabbinic interpretation of 'm as "the Lord and His Court," see Gen. R. 51:3, Exod R. 12:4). See also ibid., 37a; III, 176a. See Moses de Le6n, Shushan Edut, ed. Scholem, "Shenei Kuntrasim le-R. Moshe di-Li'on," Kove; 'al Yad, n.s. 8 (1975): 344. It should be noted that, with respect to this very issue, Nabmanides was very careful to emphasize that the plagues in general, and particularly the plague of the killing of the firstborn, were carried out by the Shekhinah in conjunction with the Holy One, i.e., the attribute of judgment together with that of mercy. The motivation here was clearly to avoid the separation of the

LEFT CONTAINED IN THE RIGHT

39

therefore,is that the killingof the firstborn(chiefpowerof the demonic)was achievedby means of God acting through"His Court,"i.e., Shekhinah. This is furtherbroughtout in anotherpassageinterpretingthe sameverse. Here,as elsewherein the Zohar,Shekhinahis calledby the name"Night":55 "Andjudgmentwas carriedout on all of them when they all enteredtheir homes ... and the Night carriedout judgmenton themall in that time."56 This too is the underlyingintent of the Zohar'scommentthat the "essence of the redemptionof Israel was in the night."57Yet this attributelies in betweenthe rightand left sides of the divine,and thereforehas the capacity to act with mercyor with judgment.58At the momentof the killing of the firstborn, the Shekhinahturned with mercy toward the Israelites, thus expressingher dual nature.59 The exile, as we havenoted,was a statein whichthe demonicdominated overthe divine;redemptionis the restorationof powerto its properdomain, viz., the realmof the uppersefirot.Such a restoration,however,entaileda twofold process.The first stage was the subjugationof the demonicleft by the divineleft, which resultedin the freeingof the Communityof Israel(= Shekhinah)from underthe dominionof Pharaoh(= Sitra Abra).It is this Shekhinah from the rest of the divine attributes, a sin which the kabbalists referred to as tryp mynlt, i.e., "cutting the shoots," an expression used in the classical Aggadah to refer to Adam (see Gen. R. 19:3) or to Elisha ben Abuya (fIagigah 14b). (On the kabbalistic meaning of "cutting the shoots," see Scholem, "Te'udah Hadashah, le-Toledot Reshit ha-Kabbalah," in Sefer Bialik [Tel Aviv, 1934], p. 153, and Tishby, MhZ, 1:221.) Cf. Nabmanides, Commentaryon the Torah,Exod. 12:12 (ed. Chavel, vol. 1, p. 329). Cf. also the supercommentaries on Nabmanides: Shem Tov ibn Gaon, Keter Shem Tov, in Ma'or ve-Shemesh(Livorno, 1839), 34a; Joshua ibn Shuaib, Be'ur Sodot ha-Ramban, attributed to Meir ibn Sahula (Warsaw, 1875); Isaac b. Samuel of Acre, Sefer Me'irat Einayim: A Critical Edition, ed. Amos Goldreich (Jerusalem, 1981), p. 79. 55. On "Night" as a name for Shekhinah, see, e.g., I, 16b, 92b; II, 239b, and elsewhere. See Moses de Le6n, Shushan Edut, p. 341. 56. II, 38a. See Recanati, Perush 'al ha-Torah, Exod. 11:4, 41a. 57. II, 38a. Cf. Moses de Le6n, Sefer ha-Rimmon, MS Oxford 1607, 54b (a critical edition of the aforementioned work will appear as part of my dissertation). 58. On the dual character of the Shekhinah, see Tishby, MhZ, 1:223-228. Cf. also Nabmanides, Genesis 49:24 (ed. Chavel, vol. 1, p. 273), and Me'irat Einayim, p. 83. It should be noted that, according to the Zohar, not only Shekhinah but each of the sefirot has the capacity to act with mercy and judgment; see II, 36a; III, 15a, 36b, 146a, 262b. This latter idea can be traced back to the circle of kabbalists in Gerona; see, e.g., Jacob ben Sheshet, Sefer ha-Emunah ve-ha-Bittabon, in Kitvei Ramban, ed. Chavel (Jerusalem, 1964), vol. 2, p. 359. Cf. Sefer ha-Rimmon, 71a; Gikatilla, Sha'arei Orah, 1: 235. 59. See II, 36a, 37a. This is the esoteric meaning of the killing of the firstborn at midnight, i.e., at a time when the Shekhinah performs two functions reflecting her dual nature: mercy toward Israel and judgment toward Egypt. See II, 37b, 80b.

40

ELLIOT WOLFSON

transformationfromthe unholyto the holy which,accordingto the Zohar, is the mysticalintentof the twin commandmentsto removeall leavenprior to Passoverand to eat unleavenedbreadduringthe sevendays of Passover. That is to say, the leavensymbolizesthe evil inclination,the "OtherSide," foreign gods and idolatry, which must be obliterated,whereas the unleavenedbreadsymbolizes the firstgradationin the realmof holiness,i.e., Shekhinah,the dominion of the Holy One.60 The second stage involvedthe beginningof the processof reunification of the left and right within the divine sphere,a unificationthat was torn asunderby the exilic state. This stage is implicitin the biblicalnarrativeas well. The nighton whichGod smote the Egyptianfirstbornis referredto in Scriptureas tivv 5,, i.e., "the night of watchfulness"(Exod. 12:42). Commentingon this verse, the Zohar notes, inter alia, that the word for "watchfulness," t,'l1nw, is in the plural, whereas the word for "night," M,, is

in the singular.61 The pluralform, we are told, alludesto the secretof unification betweenmaleand female,rightand left,62whichwas destinedto take place on that very night.The night, ~5,is the femininewithout her masculine counterpart;when the feminineis joined togetherwith the masculine, then becomes 't.63 Thus the versecontinues:"this is the Lord'swatch,-) i night" t•'iwv 'in mn

n Xin.The night of redemption is a night wherein the

two are united,and hencethe formins is used.This marksthe beginningof the second stage in the redemptiveprocess. This mystery,accordingto the Zohar, is alludedto as well in Exodus 13:21,"And the Lordwent beforethem by day in a pillarof cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give themlight;that they maygo by day and night."Nabmanideshad alreadyinterpretedthe versein termsof kabbalisticsymbolism:the word 'im,"andthe Lord,"as the rabbis had said,64 always refersto the Lord and His Court, which, understood theosophically,symbolize Tif'eretand Malkhut.Hence the verse comes to 60. See I, 226b; II, 40a, 182a; III, 95b. Cf. Sefer ha-Rimmon, MS Oxford 1607, 54a-b. It should be noted that leaven was already used allegorically as a symbol for that which is evil or impure in Greco-Jewish, New Testament, and talmudic sources. See Philo, Questions on Exodus, 1:15, 11:14(but see The Special Laws, 11:184);I Cor. 5:6-8; Matt. 16:11-12; Berakhot 17a; Gen. R. 34:10, p. 320; Tanbuma,ed. Buber, Noab 15b. And see now B. Bokser, The Origins of the Seder (Berkeley, Calif., 1984), p. 120, n. 13. 61. II, 38b. 62. See above n. 49. 63. II, 38. Cf. I, 260a; II, 131a; III, 22a. 64. For references, see above n. 54.

LEFT CONTAINED IN THE RIGHT

41

tell us, comments Nabmanides, that "the Holy One, blessed be He, went with them by day and His Court by night,"65 that is to say, the attribute of mercy governed them by day, whereas the attribute of judgment governed them by night.66While both attributes were thus operative in the redemption from Egypt, the two were not perfectly united, for each had its allotted time. Yet, contained here is also an allusion to the future redemption in which "the attribute of His Court [i.e., judgment] will ascend to [be united with] mercy."167This is the secret of the word 'm: the Holy One and His Court will be united as one, and redemption will be complete. The author of the Zohar clearly develops the interpretation of Nabmanides, but he does not accept the latter's distinction between the redemption from Egypt and the future redemption. "And the Lordwent beforethemby day."The Holy One, blessedbe He, and His Court. R. Isaac said: It has been taught:The Shekhinahtravelswith the "He goes beforethem by day,"that [refersto] Abraham."In a patriarchs.68 pillarof cloud,"that [refersto] Isaac."To lead themthe way,"that [refersto] Jacob."Andby nightin a pillarof fireto show themthe way, "that [refersto] King David.... And it is written,"Andthe Lordwent,etc., that they maygo by day and by night."Now why did they go by day and by night?... So that the highestperfection[lit.the perfectionof all] shouldbe foundamongstthem, for there is no perfectionwithout day and night.69 The "highest perfection," is found only where there is •n Kxnm•,5o, "day" (masculine potency of the divine) and "night" (feminine potency) united as one. There is here an echo of one of the theosophic principles which the Zohar establishes in connection with the creation account. In response to the question, Why does the Bible record with respect to each day, "And it was evening and it was morning"? the author of the Zohar writes: "To teach that there is no day without night, nor night without day, and they should not be separated."70In the event of redemption, as in that 65. Nahmanides, Exod. 13:21 (ed. Chavel, vol. 1, p. 348). 66. See Isaac of Acre, Me'irat Einayim, p. 81; Recanati, Exod. 13:21, 43a. 67. Nabmanides, loc. cit. 68. The notion of the fourfold unity between the Shekhinah and the patriarchs (i.e., the sefirot Hesed, Gevurah,and Rabamim) is repeated often in the Zohar. It is related, alternatively, to the four components of the Chariot or to the four legs of the Throne. See I, 60b, 99a, 120b, 150a, 237a, 248b; III, 174a, 182a, 262b. See Tishby, MhZ, 1:516. 69. II, 46a-b. Cf. also III, 191b. 70. I, 46a. Cf. also, ibid., 5b, 32a; III, 93b, 134b.

42

ELLIOT WOLFSON

of creation,we find a unificationof day and night,masculineand feminine, the Holy One and the Shekhinah. This second stage of redemption is expressed in somewhat different, but

not unrelated,termsin the climacticevent of the miracleof the sea. It is in his exegesisof this portionthat the authorof the Zoharis able to develop most fully his theosophicunderstandingof redemptionand to introducehis unique parlance: the containment of the left within the right. Commenting on the verse "And Israel saw the great work [lit., the great hand, n?tran'vn] which the Lord wrought against the Egyptians" (Exod. 14:31), the author of the Zohar writes: R. Ijiyya said:The Hand and all the fingerswere here perfected.The Hand was perfectedfor it was containedwithinthe right,for it has beentaught,"All is containedwithinand dependsupon the right."7 Thus it is written,"Thy righthand, O Lord, gloriousin power, thy righthand, O Lord, shattersthe enemy" [ibid., 15:6].72 The attribute by means of which the divine redeemed Israel and at the same time destroyed Egypt, as we have said above, was the Shekhinah, here referred to by the expression "the great Hand."73 This is made explicit in

anotherzoharicpassage:"Whatis the meaningof 'the greatHand'?Thatis to say, 'hand' [wr]is not less than five fingers. 'The great' [n;hian]contains five other fingers; then it is called 'great.'" 74 The "great Hand" is a composite of

both hands,the term"great"(n~ran)referringto the five fingersof the right

hand,75 and the term "hand" (r) referring to the five on the left.76

Shekhinah,insofar as it is the sefirahwhich comprisesall ten gradations

71. See I, 17a, 253a. 72. II, 52b. 73. See Nabmanides, Exod. 14:31 (ed. Chavel, vol. 1, p. 353); Ibn Shuaib, Be'ur Sodot ha-Ramban, 13a; Me'irat Einayim, p. 82; Babya ben Asher, Perush 'al ha-Torah, ed. Chavel, 5th ed. (Jerusalem, 1981), vol. 2, p. 121. See also Recanati, 43b. 74. II, 53b. Cf. the commentaries of R. Moses Cordovero and R. Abraham Galante to the Zohar, ad loc., cited by Abraham Azulai, Or ha-Hammah (Benei-Berak, 1973), vol. 2, 43b-44a. 75. The word niar is a common name for the attribute of besed or the right hand; see, e.g., II, 59b, 286b; III, 277a, 302a. 76. The word "rby itself refers to the left hand; see III, 142b. See also Sefer ha-Babir, ed. R. Margaliot (Jerusalem, 1978), ? 163 (Scholem, Das Buch Bahir, ? 109, p. 116), where the principle of evil is said to have the "form of a hand."

LEFT CONTAINED IN THE RIGHT

43

corresponding to the ten fingers,77is called the "great Hand." Put differently, Shekhinah is called "the great Hand" because She is the hand which contains both the left and right hands as one. Concerning the latter image, we read: Come and see: It has been said that all ten plagueswhich God performedin Egyptwere [wroughtby] one hand, for theleft was containedin theright.The ten fingers,containedone within another,correspondto the ten sayingsby meansof whichthe Holy One, blessedbe He, is called.In the end,corresponding to them all, is the great and mighty Sea.78 The ten plagues were performed by ten fingers which correspond to the ten sayings, i.e., the ten sefirot. Yet all the plagues were wrought by the "one Hand," i.e., Shekhinah, for the fingers of the left (= sefirot aligned on the side of Rigor or Judgment) were contained in those of the right (= sefirot aligned on the side of Mercy or Love). Moreover, as the miracle at the sea was the culmination of the plagues-in the Zohar's language "corresponding to them all"-so Shekhinah, symbolized as "the great and mighty Sea,"79contains within itself the whole sefirotic order."0This is the meaning of R. Hiyya's comment: "the Hand and all the fingers were here perfected." The containment of the left within the right which characterizes the state of the Shekhinah at the climax of the redemptive process reflects a higher process within the divine, a process which is exegetically connected in the Zohar to the verse "Thy right hand, O Lord, glorious in power, thy right hand, O Lord, shatters the enemy" (Exod. 15:6). The right hand symbolizes the divine attribute of love, whereas the left hand symbolizes the attribute of judgment. One would expect, therefore, that Scripture should describe the left hand of God as being "glorious in power" and as the one which "shat-

77. On the correspondence of the ten fingers to the ten sefirot, see Sefer Ye;irah 1:3;Sefer ha-Babir, ? 124 (Scholem, ? 87, p. 94), ? 132 (Scholem, ? 94, p. 101). See Nabmanides, Exod. 17:12 (p. 372); II, 75b. 78. II, 56b. 79. Cf. I, 19b, 86a, 236b, 241a, 267b; II, 19b, 226a; III, 58a, 150b. 80. This description of the Shekhinah is to be found already in the Babir and in other early kabbalistic sources. See Scholem, "Ha-Shekhinah," in Pirkei Yesod be-Havanat ha-Kabbalah u-Semaleha, p. 276. Cf. also Tishby, MhZ, 1:219. A related idea, also found in the earlier sources, is that the whole sefirotic order is reflected in each of the sefirot. See Tishby, Perush ha-Aggadot le-Rabbi 'Azriel, p. 15, n. 2.

44

ELLIOT WOLFSON

ters the enemy." For what reason is the right hand so described in the above passage? Addressing this issue, the Zohar notes: "Thyrighthand,O Lord,gloriousin power,thy righthand,O Lord,shatters the enemy."Whatis the meaningof It shouldbe written"1Ix!Whenthe n•'Tx? left comes to unitewith the right,then it is written'ruti [i.e., is glorious],and yirn [i.e., shatters]. It is always like this, for the left is found in the right and is

containedtherein.R. Shimeonsaid: It is as we have explained,for a man is found divided.Whatis the reason?In orderthat he may receivehis mate,and theywill makeone body.8'So [it says]'Thyrighthand,'i.e., it is divided.What is the reason?In orderto receivethe left handwith it. Thusis everything:one [part]with another.Therefore,with one hand He strikesand heals, as it is written,"Thy right hand, 0 Lord, shattersthe enemy."82 The right hand of God is described as the one "glorious in power" and as the one which "shatters the enemy," for the right hand contains within itself the left hand as well. When there is harmony in the sefirotic realm, then the left is united with, nay contained in, the right-as male united with femaleand all acts, including those of the left, are carried out by the guidance of the right: "with one hand He strikes and heals." Comeand see: Fromthe righthandof God all light, blessings,and happiness are aroused.Withinthe rightthe left is contained,just as thereis in a human being a right and left hand, and the left is contained in the right..

. When the

right is arousedthe left is arousedwith it, for the left is held and contained within the right.83 81. This clearly reflects the aggadic myth that Adam was created as androgynous and was then separated into man and woman. For references, see Ginzberg, Legends, 5:88-89, n. 42. Cf. I, 35a, 37b, 165a; II, 55a, 231a-b; III, 10b, 19a, 44b; ZH, 55c-d, 66c. According to the Zohar, not only Adam but the soul of each person was originally made androgynous, and only upon descent to the world is divided into male and female; at the time of marriage the original unity is restored (see Yevamot63a). See I, 85a, 91b, 108a; II, 246a; III, 43a-b, 283b; Tishby, MhZ, 2:608. The one who remains single is called by the Zohar KmafD, i.e., "half-a-body." See III, 7b, 57b, 296a, (Idra Zuta); Liebes, "Sections of the Zohar Lexicon," pp. 277-278; Matt, Zohar, p. 217. The kabbalists applied the aggadic myth to the divine: as the complete human personality is to be found only in the unification of male and female, so too the divine being is only complete when male (Tiferet) and female (Malkhut) are united. See Tishby, Perush ha-Aggadot le-Rabbi 'Azriel, p. 86; idem, MhZ, 1:139, 148-149. Cf. also Liebes, "Sections of the Zohar Lexicon," p. 33, n. 26, and idem, "The Messiah," p. 202. 82. II, 57b. See also III, 37a. 83. II, 57a. Cf. Shekel ha-Kodesh, p. 39. See Tishby, MhZ, 2:341. Cf. I, 230b; II, 162b, 223a, 263a; III, 17b, 80b, 118b, 176b. Cf. Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, ed. Lauterbach, vol. 2, p. 41.

LEFT CONTAINED IN THE RIGHT

45

The removalof the right hand, by contrast,summonsseparationand division, the dominationof the left hand of the divine,and with this comesthe dangerof the left resultingin an "autonomous"demonicrealm:"Whenthe right hand is found, the left is found with it, and acts of judgmentdo not dominate in the world. . ... But if the right is removed and the left is

summoned,then acts of judgmentare stirredup in the world andjudgment rests upon all." 84 Hence, the divine act of redemptioncan be viewed from two vantage points:the subjugationof the demonicleft by meansof the divineleft, and the containmentof the divineleft withinthe divineright.Whileit is the case that the word "left"is used with two distinctmeanings,theredoes not seem to be any equivocationon the part of the Zohar,for the apparenttensionis resolvedby a properunderstandingof the dialecticalrelationbetweenthe demonicand the divine.Thatis, the subjugationof the unholyleft is accomplished by means of the divine left, which, unlikethe former,is contained within the right. Whereasexile representsthe dominationof the (demonic) left, redemptionrepresentsthe containmentof the (divine) left within the (divine)right.Put differently:exile is a conditionof purejudgment,redemption one of mercybalancedwithjudgment.The severingof this balanceis, in the first place, one of the causes for the emergenceof an independent demonic realm. Revelation

In EgyptIsraelwas underthe dominionof the "OtherSide."The exodus representeda transferenceof power from the unholy to the holy. This process reached completion only at the theophanousevent of Sinai. Before Israelcould receivethe Torah,however,two other significanteventsin their history were recordedin Scripture. The firstwas the warwithAmalek(Exod. 17:8-16).TheZohar,building upon a midrashictheme,85maintainsthat Israelwas attackedbecausethey 84. II, 57a. The notion of the left hand over the right signifying misfortune is reflected in Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, ed. Lauterbach, vol. 2, p. 41: "When the Israelites do the will of God, they make His left hand to be like the right, as it is said, 'Thy right hand, O Lord ... Thy right hand, O Lord'-two times. And when the Israelites fail to do the will of God, they make His right hand to be like the left, as it is said, 'He hath drawn back His right hand' [Lam. 2:3]." See Judah Goldin, The Song at the Sea (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971), p. 149. 85. Cf. Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, vol. 2, p. 139; Berakhot 5b; Tanbuma, Beshallabh25; Pesikta de-Rav Kahana 13.

46

ELLIOT WOLFSON

had forsakenthe ways of God.86Moreover,Amalek,says the authorof the Zohar, is "the prosecutorof the Holy One, blessed be He, above,"8'i.e., Sitra A.bra.Hence, the theosophicsignificanceof the war with Amalek is equivalentto that of the destructionof the Egyptians:the wipingout of the demonicby the divine.This dynamic,accordingto the Zohar,is to be found in the verse"AndwhenMosesraisedhis handIsraelprevailed,andwhenhe let down his handAmalekprevailed"(Exod. 17:11):"'Whenhe raised,'i.e., when he liftedthe righthandon top of the left, and he prayed[lit. intended] 88 But heretoo, as in the case of the by meansof the spreadingof his hands." splittingof the sea, the subjugationof the demonicleft is achievedby means of the divine right, which in itself contains the divine left. Indeed,in one passage,the Zohar interpretsthe verse concerningthe raisingof the right hand of Moses in light of the verseconcerningGod's righthand shattering the enemy.89 The secondevent precedingthe accountof the Sinaiticrevelationwhich the Zoharmakesspecialnote of is the meetingof Moses with his father-inlaw, Jethro,in the wilderness(Exod. 18:1ff.). The sectionof the Zohar on Jethrobeginswith an exegeticalcommentconcerningAaron'slifting up of the right hand over the left.90The relevancyof this remarkcan be under86. II, 65b. Such an interpretation is, of course, suggested by the juxtaposition of verse 7, "And he called the name of the place Massah and Meribah, because of the faultfinding of the children of Israel, saying, Is the Lord among us or not?" with verse 8, "Then came Amalek and fought with Israel in Rephidim." See Rashi's commentary, Exod. 17:8. 87. Ibid. See I, 29a; II, 65a, 194b-195a; III, 175a, 281b. 88. II, 66a. The lifting of Moses' hands, i.e., the raising up of the right hand over the left, is here interpreted as an act of prayer. See Sefer ha-Bahir 138; II, 57a. Cf. Todros Abulafia, O;ar ha-Kavod, 29b. Afulafia, like the author of the Zohar, interprets this passage as the joining together of the left hand with the right. This, notes Abulafia, is the supreme act of faith. See below n. 111. It is the ultimate task of "homo religiosus" to contain the left within the right. See II, 26b, 32a; III, 39b, 178a. See Menahem Kasher, TorahShelemah, 14:121, n. 106. It especially characterizes the mystical import of prayer; see II, 57a. Cf. Moses de Le6n's "Untitled Commentary on the Sefirot," MS Munich 47, 340a-b. Concerning this work, see Scholem, "Eine unbekannte mystische Schrift des Mose de Leon," Monatsschrift ftar Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 71 (1927): 109-123. In terms of prayer, this is alternatively expressed (based on Ps. 100:2) as the placing of Shekhinah between the right and left as a preparation for the ultimate unification between her and the Holy One; see I, 229b, III, 8a-b, and cf. to Moses de Le6n, Sefer ha-Rimmon, MS Oxford 1607, 14b, 24b. See also the interpretation of Cant. 2:6 in I, 163b; II, 138b, 238b; III, 118b, 119b (cf. Menahem Recanati, Ta'amei ha-Mi;vot [Basel, 1581], 8a), 148b. 89. II, 66a. On the mystical significance of the war with Amalek as the wiping out of the left by the right, see II, 65b, 194b; III, 281b. 90. Ibid., 67a. See Sefer ha-Bahir 124; II, 57a, 225a; III, 92b. Cf. MS Munich 47, 340b; Sefer ha-Rimmon, Illb.

LEFT CONTAINED IN THE RIGHT

47

stood only in light of the symboliccorrespondenceof Aaron, high priestof the Israelites, to the divine right side, the attribute of love, and of Jethro, priest of Midian, to the demonic left. The Zohar explicitly states that the "Other Side," like the side of holiness, has two forces, a king and a priest: "In the 'Other Side,' which is not the side of holiness, there is the secret of the king, and it has been explained that he is called 'the old and foolish king' [Eccles. 4:13]. And beneath him is the priest of On." 9' The Zohar goes on to say: when that king and that priest are subduedand broken,then all the other forces [of the demonic]are subduedand they acknowledgethe Holy One, blessedbe He. Then the Holy One, blessedbe He, alone governsabove and below. ... In the mannerof this verysecretthe Holy One, blessedbe He, acted in the land [below], for He broke the "old and foolish king" who was Pharaoh.WhenMoses came to Pharaohand said, "TheGod of the Hebrews has met with us" [Exod.5:3],he openedup and said, "I know not the Lord" [ibid.2]. ... WhenHe smotehim and his people,he came and acknowledged the Holy One,blessedbe He. Afterwardsthat priestof On, Jethro,who served under him, was broken and subdueduntil he came and acknowledgedthe Holy One, blessedbe He, and said, "Blessedbe the Lordwho savedyou, etc. Now I know that the Lordis great"[ibid. 18:10-11].... Whenthat kingand priest acknowledgedthe Holy One, blessedbe He, and were brokenbefore him, thenthe Holy One,blessedbe He, ascendedin His gloryuponeverything above and below.92And until the Holy One, blessedbe He, ascendedin His glory when those [two] confessedbefore Him, the Torahwas not given. The conversion of Jethro, like the overthrowing of Pharaoh, was a necessary stage in the redemptive process. Only when the subjugation of these two demonic powers was completed could the revelatory process ensue.

The givingof the Torah,accordingto the Zohar,likewisesymbolizesthe containment of the left within the right, but in two senses. The first is the one with which we are already familiar: the unification of the left within the right in the realm of divinity. This is expressed in several ways in the Zohar. There is, first of all, the kabbalistic interpretation of Exodus 19:16, "And it came to pass on the third day," the day in which the revelation took place: "On the third day precisely, for it is mercy ['~1n],"93 i.e., the balance between 91. Ibid., 67b. See Tishby, MhZ, 1:288-289. 92. Cf. II, 184a (cited above in n. 35). 93. II, 81a. So too, according to the Zohar, the third day of creation stands for mercy (Tiferet), which is the balance between besed (the right) and gevurah (the left). See I, 17a. See

48

ELLIOT WOLFSON

on the right and strength (rnim) on the left. Moreover, the Zohar love (To•n) interprets the biblical theme concerning the appearance of lightning and fire

at Sinai in the following manner: It has beentaught:R. Judahsaid:TheTorahwas givenon the sideof strength. R. Josesaid:If so, thenit was on the left side! He said to him:It was restored [-i-rnx]to the right,as it says, "FromHis righthand a fierylaw unto them" [Deut. 33:3],and it is written,"Thy right hand, O Lord, gloriousin power, etc." We find that the left is restored [iynnrt] to the right, and the right to the left.94

The verse describing the Sinaitic revelation, Deuteronomy 33:3, is here compared to the verse describing the miracle at the sea, Exodus 15:6, for both verses, according to the Zohar, instruct us about the mystery of the containment, or restoration, of the left within the right. The redemptive act in the one case, and the revelatory act in the other, are achieved by means of the right hand which contains within itself the left. With respect to revelation, the Zohar repeats this theme by reinterpreting a midrashic motif,95viz., the primordial Torah was written as black fire upon white fire. R. Isaac said:The Torahwas given as black fire upon white fire in orderto contain [x55nO] the right in the left, so that the left wouldbe restored [rlrnnxt]to the right, as it says, "From His right hand a fiery law unto them." . . . R. Abba

said:The tabletswerebeforetheireyes, and the lettersthat wereflyingabout werevisiblein two fires,white fire and blackfire, to show that the rightand left are one.96

also I, 120a, with reference to the "third day" in the story of the sacrifice of Isaac; see below n. 111. The third day was the appropriate one for the event of giving the Torah, for the latter symbolically represents Tiferet, which is the balance between right and left. See below n. 101. 94. Ibid. 95. See Talmud Yerushalmi, Shekalim 6:1, Sotah 8:3; Cant. R. 5:11. Cf. Tanbuma,introduction, where the reading is slightly different. See also Midrash Konen, in Adolph Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrash, 4th ed. (Jerusalem reprint, 1982), 2:23, and Midrash Eser ha-Dibrot, in Jellinek, op. cit., 1:62, where the anthropomorphic element (i.e., the arm of God) is added. Cf. Scholem, "Shi'ur Komah-ha-Demut ha-Mistit shel ha-Elohut," in Pirkei Yesod be-Havanat haKabbalah u-Semaleha, p. 164, n. 18. According to Scholem, one must view these midrashic statements in the context of the anthropomorphism of the Shi'ur Komah tradition. Cf. also Moshe Idel, "Tefisat ha-Torah bi-Sifrut ha-Heikhalot vi-Gilguleha ba-Kabbalah," in Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 1 (1981): 43-45. 96. II, 84a. This midrashic theme was interpreted in various ways by kabbalists of the thirteenth century. In one passage, attributed by Scholem to R. Isaac the Blind, a Provencal

LEFT CONTAINED IN THE RIGHT

49

in the The Torah "comes from strength [the left] and is contained [n'?,DnK1] right." 97 This containment of the left within the right is reflected, according to the Zohar, in the alignment of the people at the moment of revelation: five groups on the right and five on the left.98 It is reflected, moreover, in the very structure of the tablets which Moses received. It has been taught:Five voices [i.e., commandments]were on the right,and five on the left. Those on the left were containedin the right, and from the right

those on the left were revealed.And here everythingwas [containedin] the right, and those [on the left] werecontainedin those [on the right].The one who stood on one side and saw the otherside could readthose letters[on the other side]. For we have learntthat the left was restoredto the right,as it is written,"From His right hand a fiery law unto them."99

Finally,the veryobjectof revelation,the Torah,embodiesthe mysteryof the left beingcontainedin the right.This can be explainedin one of several ways: (1) The writtenTorah correspondssymbolicallyto Tif'eret,which is the balance between the right and the left.'00(2) There are two aspects to the

Torah, the writtenand the oral. The formerrepresentsthe right, and the latterthe left,'0'or, alternatively,Tif'eretand Malkhut.102 Hence,the day of the Sinaitic revelation,the one source for both aspects of Torah, is the weddingday of the masculineand femininepotencies of the divine.'03 (3) kabbalist, the white fire refers symbolically to Tiferet, the written Torah, and the black fire to Malkhut, the oral Torah. See Scholem, On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism, trans. Ralph Manheim (New York, 1978), pp. 48-49. For other references, see Tishby, Perush ha-Aggadot le-Rabbi Azriel, p. 77, n. 7. The midrash was used in an altogether different manner by Nabmanides in the introduction to his commentary on the Torah; see p. 2 of the Chavel edition. Cf. Scholem, On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism, p. 38, and Idel, "Tefisat ha-Torah," p. 45. 97. II, 84a. See I, 48b. 98. II, 82a (based on Deut. 29:9-10). Cf. MS Munich 47, 341a, where de Le6n refersto this passage as "our rabbis, may their memory be blessed, alluded to, etc." The exact date of this work is still unclear, but from this passage it would appear to have been composed after the author had worked on the Zohar. See, however, A. Farber, "On the Sources of Rabbi Moses de Leon's Early Kabbalistic System" [Hebrew], Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 3 (1984): 87-88. 99. II, 84b, 98. See II, 90a. Cf. Moses de Le6n, Sefer ha-Rimmon, MS British Museum 759, 41a. 100. See I, 64a; II, 60a. Cf. Scholem, On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism, p. 49. 101. See III, 153a, 257a. 102. See II, 161b; III, 264a. Cf. Tishby, MhZ, 2:366. 103. See I, 8a.

50

ELLIOT WOLFSON

The Torah comprises 613 commandments, 248 positive and 365 negative. The former derive from the right side of the divine, the masculine and •~t, the latter from the left side, the feminine 1~ntV.104 Insofar as the Torah given at Sinai includes all 613, it symbolizes the balance of positive and negative, right and left. The event of revelation as understood by the Zohar thus represents the complete containment of the left within the right in the divine sphere. Apart from this, however, there is another nuance to this motif in the Zohar, viz., the reintegration of the demonic left into the divine right. The exodus from Egypt was the first step in Israel's spiritual odyssey out of the realm of the unholy; hence, the evil inclination, the left side, symbolized by the leaven, had to be totally removed. At Sinai not only did the left side not have to be removed, it had to be reappropriated. This, according to the Zohar, is the mystical intent of the biblical injunction to bring leavened bread as the first fruits of the Lord on Pentecost. "You shall bring out of your habitationstwo wave loaves [of two tenth measures;they shall be of fine flour and shall be bakedwith leaven]"[Lev. 23:17].This is the breadby whichIsraelgot wise, the supernalWisdomof the Torah,and they enteredits ways. Now we must look carefully.On Passover Israelwent out from the breadwhich is called leaven [ynn],as it is written, "Youshallnot see any leaven"[Exod.13:7],and "Whoevereats thatwhichis leavened"[ibid. 12:19].What is the reason?On accountof the honor of that breadwhich is called unleavened[nzo].Now that Israelmeritedthe highest bread,it was not appropriatefor the leavento be wipedout andnot seenat all. And why was this sacrifice[of the breadof the firstfruits]fromleaven,as it is written,"they shall be of fine flour and shall be bakedwith leaven"?Moreover, on that very day [whenthe Torahwas given] the evil inclinationwas wiped out,'05 for the Torah,which is called freedom,was to be found! This

104. See II, 70b, 91a, 162a-b, 165b, 275a; III, 92b (Ra'aya Meheimna), 264a; ZH 54b. Cf. Tishby, MhZ, 2:432. 105. The Zohar here reflects a statement made by the rabbis to the effect that the pollution (Kx~m)by means of which the serpent inseminated Eve ceased when Israel stood at Mount Sinai; see Shabbat 146a, Yevamot103b, Avodah Zarah 22b. The Zohar connects this idea with another rabbinic notion, viz., the cessation of the evil inclination at the moment of revelation. Specifically, according to one tannaitic source (R. Nehemiah), there was a temporary uprooting of the evil inclination from the hearts of the Israelites when they heard the commandment "Thou shall have no other gods before me" (Exod. 20:3) at the event of revelation; see Cant. R. 1:2. According to the zoharic sources, the evil inclination returned on account of the sin of the golden calf. See I, 36b, 52b, 63b, 70b, 126b, 228a; II, 94a, 168a, 193b, 236b, 242b; III, 97b. The

LEFT CONTAINED IN THE RIGHT

51

may be comparedto a king who had an only son who was sick. One day the son desiredto eat. They said to him:The king'sson shouldeat this medicine, and untilhe eats that no otherfood will be foundin the house.So it was done. Whenhe ate the medicine,he saidto him:Fromnow on you mayeat whatever you desire,andit will not harmyou. Similarly,whenIsraelleft Egypt,theydid not know the essenceor secretof Faith. The Holy One, blessedbe He, said: Israelshalleat medicine,and untiltheyeat the medicineno otherfood shallbe shown to them. Whenthey ate the unleavenedbread,whichwas medicine,in orderto enterand to know the secretof Faith,the Holy One said:Fromnow on leavenshallbe shownto them,andtheycan eat it, for it cannotharmthem. And all the moreso on the day of Shavu'ot,whichis a completemedicine.'06 In this passage the author of the Zohar makes two statements which, prima facie, are contradictory. On the one hand, he says, "it was not appropriate for the leaven [symbolic of the evil inclination] to be wiped out and not seen at all," while on the other hand, relying on rabbinic sources, he asserts that on the very day that the Torah was given "the evil inclination was wiped out." This apparent tension can be resolved only if we understand the two assertions in a dialectical relation: "it was not appropriate for the leaven to be wiped out" because "the evil inclination was wiped out." When Israel left Egypt it was necessary to remove all leaven, for at that time they were comparable to a sick child who could consume only the prescribed medicine, i.e., the unleavened bread, symbolic of the entry into the realm of holiness, the beginning of faith. After they received the higher type of bread, viz., the bread of wisdom embodied in the Torah,'07 this was no longer necessary. On the contrary, the very leaven which was forbidden on Passover was required on Shavu'ot. At the moment of revelation the left side was once again appropriated by Israel, for at that time it presented no danger to the people, its efficacy being undermined by the Torah, the most perfect antidote to the malady of the evil inclination.'08 In the presence of the "complete medicine," the unholy is restored to its source in the holy. final and ultimate destruction of the evil inclination is to occur at the advent of the Messiah; see Sukkah 52a. For other references, see Solomon Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology (New York, 1961), p. 290, n. 3; Ephraim Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1978), pp. 416-417, n. 2. 106. II, 183a-b. See also III, 97a. 107. See II, 40a, 61b (see Matt, Zohar, pp. 113-116, 245-247), 183a. See Tishby, MhZ, 2:391. On the unleavened bread as a symbol for the Shekhinah, the beginning of faith, see above n. 60. 108. This too is based on a midrashic motif. For references, see Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, pp. 273-275.

52

ELLIOT WOLFSON

Conclusion

We have attemptedto tracea commonthemethat runsthroughvarious portionsof the Zohar.This themeservesas the exegeticalaxis upon which the zoharic understandingof exile, redemption,and revelationturns. The historicalmovementof Israel from Egypt to Sinai is, at the same time, a spiritualmovementfrom the dominionof the left to that of the right.The ultimatestageof this process,the revelationof the Torah,is one in whichwe find the containmentof the left within the right. Such a processbegan in Egyptbut reachedcompletiononly at Sinai. The perfectstate is not one in whichevil is entirelyobliterated,109but ratherone in which it is contained withinthe good. Only the sick soul must eliminateall tracesof the left;the the left andtherebyuniteit with healthysoul, by contrast,can reappropriate the right.Indeedthe essenceof divineworshipis to worshipGod with both i.e., to containthe evil inclinationwithinthe good, the left within hearts,"10 the right.' CornellUniversity Ithaca, N.Y.

109. See III, 63a (Pekudim), where it is stressed that evil should not be completely eliminated, for it is as necessary in the world as is the good. The ideal of spiritual perfection in the Zohar is one in which the person achieves holiness through contact with the unholy, and by means of such contact the unholy itself is transformed or contained within the holy. See above nn. 35, 45 and below n. 111. The notion that the evil inclination (i.e., the sexual desire) should not be eradicated, on account of its necessity for the begetting of life in the world, can be found in several rabbinic sources. See, e.g., Yoma 69b; Gen. R. 9:7, pp. 71-72. Cf. also Lev. R. 14:5. 110. See Berakhot 54b. Cf. I, 155b, 178b; III, 80b, 267a; and Sefer ha-Rimmon, 39b. 111. See II, 26b (with reference to Deut. 4:39), and Sefer ha-Rimmon, ad loc. Cf. II, 161b and III, 264a. The wicked, according to the Zohar, cause a blemish (on) above by causing a separation of right and left, i.e., by not containing the left (evil inclination) in the right (good inclination). See II, 26b. This too was the sin of Job: by not giving the realm of the "Other Side" in the its proper due, he did not contain the left within the right; see n. 45. On the nature of ota Zohar as the separation of male and female, see Tishby, MhZ, 2:607; Liebes, "The Messiah," esp. p. 198. The notion of the containment of the left in the right is a pivotal idea upon which much of the theosophical hermeneutics in the Zohar turns. It would be impossible to give all the contexts in which such an idea occurs. Worthy of mention, however, are (1) the zoharic interpretation of the act of creation; see Tishby, MhZ, 1:133, 219-220, 269-270, 381-382; (2) the building of the Tabernacle; see ibid., 2:188-189; (3) the Akedah; see I, 119b, 133b, 230b; II, 257a; cf. Sefer ha-Rimmon, 78b, and Gikatilla, Sha'arei Orah, 1:224-225; (4) the love of God, a, nrni, which contains both sides, besed and din; see I, 1lb-12a; (5) faith itself, insofar as it is ,i union of male and female; see I, 49b, 55b, 160a, 172b; II, 89a, 92a, 161a. the

The End of the Universe in Medieval Jewish Philosophy Author(s): Seymour Feldman Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Spring, 1986), pp. 53-77 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486355 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:16 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

THE END OF THE UNIVERSE IN MEDIEVALJEWISH PHILOSOPHY by SEYMOUR FELDMAN Ve-aharei kikhlot ha-kol ...

And after everythinghas ceased to exist... -Adon 'Olam

Both the Bible and the earliestGreekphilosophersbegin with accounts of the world'sgenesis. It is thus not surprisingthat medievalcosmological thoughtwas preoccupied,perhapsobsessed,with the issue of creation.But what about the end of the world?If the universehad a beginning,does it necessarilyhave an end?Does creationimply destruction?On this topic the Bibleis not so explicitand unambiguous.Greekphilosophy,however,was virtuallyunanimousin claimingthat whateverhas a beginningwill have an end, and that whateverwill have an end had a beginning.If this cosmological principleis construedstrictly,then the world's past and its future are essentially and necessarilylinked together, such that the finitude of one entails the finitudeof the other. This would mean that if the temporalhis53

54

SEYMOUR FELDMAN

tory of the world is finite a parte ante, then by virtueof this cosmological principleit will have a temporalend a partepost. The most vigorous and detailed defense of the strict interpretationof this general principlewas given by Aristotle,who attemptedto proveit in his treatiseOntheHeavens. Henceforth,I shall referto this principleas "Aristotle'stheorem." However,in Platowe find a weakerversionof this principle.Althoughin general all generatedobjects are indeed corruptible,especiallyif they are materialobjects,it is possible,Plato believed,for God to interveneand to preventa body fromdecomposing.And so it was, accordingto Plato, at the creationof the world:the DivineCraftsmancreatedthe heavenlybodiesbut endowedthem with the capacityab extra to endureinfinitelya partepost. Platomakesclearthat this capacityis notinherentlynaturalbut is possessed by the heavenlybodiesdeo volente.Thus,for Plato the worldhas a temporal beginning,but no temporalend; theirincorruptibilityis, however,a divine gift.2 In theirdifferentinterpretationsof the samegeneralcosmologicalprinciple, Plato and Aristotle suggest different theologies. In the Platonic theology the divine power is conceived as a voluntary creative power endowedwith ethicalattributeswhose concernfor its handiworkis so great that it wills, virtuallycontranaturam,to keep the worldgoing forever.For Plato, therefore,divine benevolenceis paramount.To Aristotle,however, the deity is an impersonal,remotemotive force that eternallysustainsthe eternal,incessantmotionsof the heavenlybodies.Aristotle'sdeityis neither benevolentnor malevolent;it willsnothing.Moreover,in the Platonicworld divineomnipotenceis revealedpreciselyin the capacityto createnature;in Aristotlethe divinepoweris manifestedpreciselyin the deity'simmutability and perfection.That the worldwill have no end is for Plato clearproof that God is supranaturam,since otherwisethe world would self-destruct;that the worldcannothavean end is for Aristotleclearproof that no deitycould have createdit. Cosmologyreflects,therefore,theology. The Bible too links cosmology with theology. After all, the universe's beginning,accordingto Genesis,is an act of a God who rejoicesin and is 1. Aristotle, On the Heavens 1. 10-12. 2. Plato, Timaeus 28-34, 37-42. Since Stoic and Epicurean cosmologies play at best a minor role in our discussion, we can ignore them. It is sufficient to note that they too adhere to Aristotle's theorem (Seneca, Natural Questions 3. 28-30; Lucretius, On the Nature of Things 5, 11.226-434).

THE END OF THE UNIVERSE

55

satisfiedwith His creation.It is quite clearab initiothatthe biblicalGod too is endowedwith ethicalattributesand that thesequalitiesare exemplifiedin the very act of creation.But it is not clearhow these attributescan be sustainedif the universewill come to an end. A strictapplicationof Aristotle's theoremwouldimplythat the universewould ceaseto exist. But if thatwere so, how would the world's demise affect biblical theology? Would the universe's"runningdown"and ultimatedestructionhave any impactupon how we shouldconceiveof God?Couldthe deity still be thoughtof as good and omnipotent?As we shall see, some medieval Jewish cosmologists believed that the world's destructionis incompatiblewith the notion of a benevolent and beneficentGod. For these thinkers,as for Plato, God's benevolencewas of primaryimportance.Accordingly,they had recourseto the Platonic cosmological model of a created but everlastinguniverse. Nevertheless,otherJewishthinkersweremore concernedwith the theological principleof divineomnipotence,whichthey interpretedin a verystrong sense. Accordingly,for these theologiansGod's powerto createimpliesHis power to destroy, and conversely.Any restrictionon His power is a theological affront and offense. Thus, these thinkers accepted Aristotle's theoremin its strictsense,althoughthey applyit differentlyfromAristotle's own applicationof it. For, whereasAristotleemploysthe principleto deny creation and destructionaltogether,some medievalsuse it to affirmboth creation and destruction.To Aristotle and also to these theologians,the Platonic, or looser, interpretationof this principle seems absurd, both cosmologicallyand theologically.Eitherthe universeis without beginning and end, eternallycoexistentwith God, who is priornot in time but only in causalityand being;or the worldis freelycreatedby God, who can destroy it ad libitum.That the universecould have a beginningbut no end was for Aristotlea cosmological-logicalblunder;to some medievalsit was religious blasphemy. We see then that by virtueof Aristotle'stheoreman answerto the question of the world'send constitutesan answerto the questionof its alleged beginning.In some respectsit is even easierto arguead originema fine. For if the world had a beginning,it was a long time ago, and no one is around now to tell us how it happened.But if the worldhas an end, it will have one becausethereis some presentfact about it or God that constitutesa sufficient conditionfor its eventualdemise.Oncewe discoverthis condition,we can then not only predictits destructionbut retrodictits beginning.Perhaps such a fact will tell us somethingabout God too, particularlywhetherHe is

56

SEYMOUR FELDMAN

omnipotentand benevolent.Thus, arguingfrom the end of the universeto its beginningis both cosmologicallyand theologicallyeconomical.In this essay I shall examine several medieval cosmologistswho consideredthe questionof the universe'send and who recognizedthe relevanceand importance of Aristotle'stheorem.Some of them construedthis principlestrictly but used it againstAristotleto defenda strong version of the traditional doctrineof creation;for these thinkersGod createdthe worldex nihiloand will reduceit ad nihilum.Others,however,adopt the weakerPlatonicversion of this principleand defendthe thesisof the world'sindestructibility. II

From a strictlychronologicalpoint of view, Philo of Alexandriawas the first Jewishthinkerto providea philosophicalcosmology.Yet in termsof his historical significancefor Jewish religious philosophy, Philo can be ignored. For until the late sixteenthcenturyPhilo was lost to the Jewish world, and hence had no impact upon medievalJewishphilosophy.3My discussionwill, therefore,beginwith SaadiahGaon (d. 942), whoseBookof Beliefs and Opinionsis really the first significanttreatiseof philosophical theology in Judaism. Influenced)by the Muslim school of rationalist theology,the Mu'taziliyaKalhm, Saadiahbelievedthatthe bestapproachto the understandingof God, particularlyHis existenceand attributes,was to prove first the creation of the universe.A createdworld is after all the clearestsign of the existenceof an omnipotentand benevolentCreator.So Saadiahdevotes the first book of his treatiseto the questionof creation, which he discussesin considerabledetail. Yet, as severalmodernscholars have noted, the first of Saadiah'sproofs for creation-"the argumentfrom finitude"-is really an argumentto creation from the destructionof the universe. Accordinglyit will be useful to begin our discussionwith this argument.Saadiah'scosmologyis a good startingpoint for anotherreason. As Wolfson and Davidson have shown, in this particularproof Saadiah makes use of materialtaken from the sixth-centuryGreek-Christianphilosopher John Philoponus,whose influenceupon medieval Muslim-Jewish 3. Philo's views on the world's end are not clear, since the topic is discussed in detail in only one book, whose authenticity some scholars have doubted, De aeternitate mundi. F. H. Colson discusses this matter in the introduction to his translation of this work in the Loeb Classical Library series.

THE END OF THE UNIVERSE

57

philosophy was quite significant.4Throughoutthis essay I shall referto Philoponus on several occasions; thus some discussion of Philoponus' cosmological principles,as well as Saadiah'sapplicationof them, will be relevant.5 Although Philoponuswrote many commentariesupon Aristotle'swritings, he was basicallyan anti-Aristotelian,especiallyin naturalphilosophy and cosmology. This is particularlyevident in his attempt to refute the cosmologicalthesisof the eternityof the world, a doctrinethat had become a dogma of the Aristotelian and Plotinian philosophies. In his several treatisesdevotedto the refutationof this thesis, Philoponusdefendedboth the biblicaldoctrineof creation,which he interpretedas creationex nihilo, and the strict form of Aristotle'stheorem.This is quite evidentin his long treatise De aeternitate mundi contra Proclum. In this work, he uses the

theoremto provecreationfrom destruction.His generalstrategyis to adopt the Platonic principle that all physical entities and systems are, in our terminology,entropic, i.e., inherentlyself-destructingand corruptible.In Philoponus' own words, the universesuffers from parektrope,literally a "turningaway from,"whichis an irreversibleprocesstowarddisorderand disintegration.Platoinsistedthat bodiesare essentiallymutableand as such continually lose energy such that they ultimatelydecompose.6As Philoponus puts it, bodies are always"flowing,"and thus theirinternalenergyis continuouslydissipating.7 4. Saadia Gaon, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions,trans. S. Rosenblatt, Yale Judaica Series (New Haven, 1948), bk. I, chap. 1. H. Wolfson, "The Kalam Arguments for Creation in Saadia, Averroes, Maimonides, and St. Thomas," in Proceedings of the American Academyfor Jewish Research, II, Saadia Anniversary Volume (New York, 1943), pp. 197-245; idem, The Philosophy of the Kalam (Cambridge, Mass., 1976), pp. 373-382; H. Davidson, "John Philoponus as a Source of Medieval Islamic and Jewish Proofs of Creation," Journal of the American Oriental Society 85 (1965): 318-327; idem, "The Principle That a Finite Body Can Contain Only Finite Power," in Studies in Jewish Religious and Intellectual History, ed. S. Stein and R. Loewe (University, Ala., 1979), pp. 75-92. 5. M. Steinschneider, Al-Farabi (St. Petersburg, 1869), pp. 152-176; M. Mahdi, "Al Farabi Against Philoponus," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 26 (1967): 233-260; S. Pines, "An Arabic Summary of a Lost Work of John Philoponus," Israel Oriental Studies 11 (1972): 320-352; R. Sorabji, Time, Creation and the Continuum(Ithaca, N.Y., 1983) (hereafter cited as TCC). 6. Plato, Republic 5. 478e-479e; Timaeus 28a. Plotinus, Enneads 2. 1. 2-3. 7. In their aforementioned studies (n. 4) Wolfson and Davidson utilized material primarily from Philoponus' treatise Contra Aristotelem, as it is preserved in Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics. Additional and more detailed material is found in Philoponus' treatise De aeternitate mundi contra Proclum, ed. H. Rabe (Berlin, 1899), particularly bk. 6. 28, p. 230, 11. 6-22 and bk. 9. 6, pp. 336-337. Cf. Sorabji, TCC, chap. 14.

SEYMOUR FELDMAN

58

UnderlyingSaadiah'sargumentfor creationare these two Philoponian themes:the inherententropy in the universeand the strict form of Aristotle's theorem. Saadiah gives a particularlyAristotelian flavor to the Philoponiannotion of entropy.Aristotle himself arguedthat bodies have finite force because they are finite in size.8 If this is so, then as a body expendsenergyits force diminishes;eventuallythe energylevel of a body should ultimately dissipate and the body decompose. Without stating Aristotle'stheoremexplicitlybut clearly assumingit, Saadiahthen infers that the universeas a whole must have had a beginning.A more exact formulation of the argument would explicitly incorporate Aristotle's theoremas a premise,and then concludefromthe universe'send that it had a beginning.The virtueof this argument,as Philoponusrecognized,is thatit is basedentirelyon Aristotelianphysics.A consistentadherenceto the latter requiresthe affirmationof the creationof the worldas well as of its destruction! Thus,a strictinterpretationof Aristotle'stheoremimpliesthefalsity of Aristotle'sclaim that the universeis eternal.

III

This strict interpretationof Aristotle's theorem and its cosmological consequenceswas not unanimouslyadopted in later Jewish philosophy. Maimonidesand GersonidessharedSaadiah'sbeliefin the world'screation but deniedhis contentionthatit will be destroyed.Accordingly,they had to rejector qualifyAristotle'stheorem.Maimonides'treatmentof this problem is unfortunatelybrief and primarilyexegeticalratherthan philosophical. His discussionof the world'send is more of an addendumto his main concern,the universe'sbeginning.Gersonides,however,was quiteconcernedto prove philosophicallythe incorruptibilityof the universeand to argue in detail against Aristotle'stheorem.Moreover,these two thinkersnot only differedin theirmethodsandemphasesbut also in the strengthof theirbelief in the world'severlastingness.For Maimonides,the universeis, as Plato had maintained,inherentlydestructiblebut lasts foreverby virtueof God's will. I shall call this thesis "weakindestructibility." Gersonides,however,argued that the universe is inherentlyindestructible.This thesis I call "strong

8. Aristotle, On the Heavens 1. 5-7; Physics 8. 10.

THE END OF THE UNIVERSE

59

indestructibility."I shall begin with Maimonides'weaker version of the claim that the universeis everlasting.9 Maimonides maintains first that unlike the belief in creation, the doctrineof the world'sindestructibility is not a dogma,not a "foundationof the Torah."Thus, one shouldnot be surprisedto find no unanimityon this issue. Second,Aristotle'stheoremis trueonly for naturalphenomenawithin the world, or "particulargeneratedthings."But since the issue in question concerns the wholeuniverse,whose beginningwas miraculous,or supernatural,the applicationof this theoremto the questionof the whole world's end is a petitioprincipii.LikePlato, Maimonidesbelievesthat the universeis inherentlydestructiblebut indestructibleby virtue of God's will. Just as God can cause the generatedsouls of the righteousto survivetheirbodies' decay, so He can make the createduniverselast forever.Finally, Maimonides proceedsto find supportfor this thesisin Scripture,citingseveralverses in Ecclesiastesin whichKing Solomonsuggeststhat the universeas a whole is indestructible:"Butthe earthremainsthe sameforever"(Eccles. 1:4);and "whateverGod has broughtto passwill recurevermore" (Eccles.3:14).King David too believedin this doctrine,as we can see from Psalms 104:5and 148:6:"He establishedthe earth on its foundationsso that it shall never totter"; and "He made them [i.e., the heavens]endureforever."In these verses,Maimonidescontends,the key phrasesare le-'olamand 'olamva-'ed, which to him connote the indestructibilityof the universeas a fact dependent upon God's will. Biblicalpassagesthat seem to indicatethe contrary are to be reinterpreted.'0 Althoughthe burdenof Maimonides'argumentfor the world'severlastingnessis exegetical,thereis a suggestionof a philosophicalargumentat the end of chapter28 of part 2 of the Guide.Commentingupon the verse"that

9. It will be useful, as well as both philosophically and philologically accurate, to ke,.p distinct the terms "eternal" (awivos) and "everlasting" (&tOtos).To say that the universe is eternal is to claim that it has neither a beginning nor an end; to say that it is everlasting is to claim only that it has no end. The former is the thesis of Aristotle; the latter is the thesis of Plato, Maimonides, and Gersonides. In medieval philosophical Hebrew "eternal" was usually rendered by kadmon, and "everlasting" by ni;hi. But this practice was not always or consistently adhered to. In his translation of Maimonides' Guide, Samuel ibn Tibbon makes this terminological distinction. Gersonides more frequently uses the compound phrase bilti yifased, i.e., "incorruptible," than ni;hi (Gersonides, The Wars of the Lord [Milhamot Hashem], bk. 6, pt. 1, chaps. 16 and 27). 10. Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed 2:27-29.

60

SEYMOUR FELDMAN

whatsoeverGod does it shallbe forever[le-'olam];nothingcan be addedto it nor anythingtaken away from it" (Eccles.3:14),Maimonidesnotes that the reason why the universeis (at least accordingto King Solomon, the author of Ecclesiastes)everlasting(ni;hi) is that a perfectcreatormakes a perfectproduct,and a perfectproducthas no inherentcause of decay or corruption.Once createdthe worldwill, therefore,continueto existwithout interruptionor major change." This argumentis supportedby another passage in the Guide where Maimonidescriticizes a talmudic sage for suggestingthat God createdand destroyedseveralworldsbeforeHe created this one whichpleasedhim.'2If God is perfect,how could He createsomething that is imperfectand thus needs to be replacedwith anotherthat is more perfect?The principleof perfectionrequiresthat a perfect artisan make a perfectproduct.'3The implicationhere is that in and of itself the universehas no deficiency(besron)that would naturallylead to its ultimate demise. This was an importantpoint for Gersonides,who developedit in destructigreaterdetail. Maimonidesallows, however,for the supranatural bilityof the world;sinceGod createdthe worldad libitum,He canannihilate it ad libitum.Such an act would be, of course,a miracle,just as the creation of the world was. Both creationand annihilationare uniquelydivine acts (havayahreponit,hefsedregoni)that freelybring about or do away with a total system;they are not naturalphenomena.Thus, Aristotle'stheoremis restrictedto instances of natural generationand corruptionthat follow strictlynaturallaw.14 If Maimonides'treatmentof this problemis primarilyexegetical,this is not true for the next majorJewishthinkerwho discussesin detailthe question of the world'sindestructibility.Leviben Gershom(Gersonides)offersa vigorousand thoroughphilosophicalanalysisof this problemand attempts to prove philosophicallythat the universemustbe indestructible."This is

11. The term"major"has to be used hereto allow for miracles,whichare, for Maimonides, only temporarychangesin nature. 12. Guide2:30. The rabbinicpassageis from GenesisRabbah3. 13. Alreadyin Platowe findthe seedsof thisargument,whicharenurturedlaterby Proclus into an even strongerversionof the world'sindestructibility (Plato, Timaeus30a-d, 33a-d, 37d; Proclusin Philoponus,De aeternitate8-9). 14. Guide2:27and 29. ThomasAquinasseemsto havethe samepositionon this matteras Maimonides(Aquinas,SummaTheologiaeI q. 104 a.4). 15. S. Feldman,"PlatonicThemesin Gersonides'Cosmology,"in Salo W.BaronJubilee Volume(1975), vol. 1, pp. 383-405.

THE END OF THE UNIVERSE

61

clearlya strongerclaimthan Maimonides'versionof the thesis.Gersonides' defense of strong indestructibilitycontains both a critique of Aristotle's theoremand a rejectionof Philoponus'argumentfrom finite forces. As a resultof the formerhe is able to say that the universeis both generatedyet incorruptible;as a resultof the latter he is able to avoid the conclusionof Philoponus'argumentfrom entropy. In defendingstrongindestructibilityGersonidespusheseven furtherthe principle of perfectionused by Maimonides.A perfect craftsmanwould have neithera reasonfor not makinga perfectproductab initionor a reason for destroyingwhat he has in fact made. If God could have made a more perfectworld but did not, it would be legitimateto ask, why not? Is He niggardly or jealous? If having made the world God should decide to destroyit, again we are entitledto ask, why?Is He angrywith it? Did He botch the job and now wants to do it over?Clearly,none of these answers will do. God is not stingy, nor does He becomevindictive;moreover,if He does anythingat all, He does it right.So thereis no "sufficientreason"for His wantingeitherto make a less-than-perfectworldab initioor to destroy the one that He in fact did make. Even more than Leibniz,Gersonidesis committedto a very strong form of both the principleof divineperfection and the principleof sufficientreason.A perfectCreatorcannotdestroywhat He makes because He couldhaveno reason for doing it.'6 What about Aristotle'stheorem?Doesn't it entailthe corruptionof that which is generated?If so, since Gersonides defends the creation of the universe,shouldn'the admit at least the possibilityof its destruction?This much even Maimonidesconceded. Gersonidesanswersby rejectingAristotle's theoremnot merelywith respectto its applicabilityto a miraculous act, such as creation or annihilation(as did Maimonides),but also as a generalprincipleof physics. In short, Aristotlemakes the mistakeof conflating the conceptsof contingencyand of corruptibility.An entity is contingentinsofaras it is not eternal;for eternityand necessityare convertible properties,accordingto Aristotle.Now somethingis contingentso long as it is either generatedor corruptible.A contingentbeing can, however,be contingentby satisfyingonly one of these conditions.The worldas a whole is for Gersonidesgenerated;it is, therefore,contingent.Nevertheless,its

16. Gersonides, Wars of the Lord, bk. 6, pt. 1, chap. 16; Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption 1. 7.

62

SEYMOUR FELDMAN

To be corruptiblean contingencydoes not per se imply its corruptibility.17 entity would have to containsome inherentcause of decaythat ultimately leads to its demise. But in our world there are many items that do not possessany suchinternalcausesof corruption;e.g., celestialbodies,a point insistedupon by Aristotlehimself.Thus, althoughthe heavenlybodies are generated,as Gersonidesestablisheselsewhere,they are not corruptible, becausethey werenot createdwith anyinherentcausesof decay.'8Thus,not only is there no sufficientreason a parte Dei for the world's destruction, thereis in additionno essentialcausea partemundifor its own corruption. Gersonides'ontologycomprises,then, two basickindsof entities:(1) the necessaryper se being;(2) the contingentper se being.The formeris eternal, having no temporalorigin and no end; the latter is subjectto duration, eitherdefiniteor indefinite.Thereis only one entitythat belongsto class 1: God. All other things are membersof class 2. Yet within this latter class thereare differences:(2a) someof its membersarecontingentin havingboth a temporalorigin and an end (e.g., Napoleon);(2b) othershave an origin but no end (e.g., the angel Gabriel,Moses). Thingsthat belongto subclass 2a have definiteduration;those in 2b have indefiniteduration.The angels, heavenlybodies,andthusthe worldas a wholebelongto class2b;individual terrestrialsubstancesbelongto 2a, exceptfor some humansouls, whichare capableof immortality.All of the membersof class 2 are then contingent, and thus noneternal;but some of them are incorruptible,and thus everlasting.Plato and Maimonidesdimlysawthis distinctionbutdid not workit out systematicallyand thoroughly. Gersonides'finalpoint is directedagainstPhiloponusand the Kaldm,as well as Aristotle and Proclus.As we have seen, one of Philoponus'more original and incisive argumentsagainst the latter two thinkershad to do with the Aristotelianprinciple,acceptedby Proclus,that a finitebody can have only finiteforce. If it is the case, Philoponusand Saadiahargued,that all bodies have finite force, then they will cease to be activeand will eventually disintegrate.Philoponus and Saadiah were primarilyinterestedin usingdestructibilityto provecreation;so theyappliedAristotle'stheoremto concludethat the universeis generated.Now in later medievalphilosophy 17. Gersonides, Warsof the Lord, bk. 6, pt. 1, chap. 27; Aristotle, On the Heavens 1.12; C. J. Williams, "Aristotle and Corruptibility," Religious Studies 1 (1965): 95-107, 203-215; S. Waterlow, Passage and Possibility (Oxford, 1982). 18. Aristotle, Physics 8. 10; On the Heavens 1. 5-7; Davidson, "The Principle."

THE END OF THE UNIVERSE

63

there were several attemptsto blunt the force of this argument,which is quite persuasivesinceit is based upon Aristotelianprinciples.Averroes,for example, distinguishedbetweentwo aspects of the finite force of celestial body: its intensityand its extensity,or duration.Admittedly,the velocityor level of illuminationof a heavenlybody is finitein magnitude;nevertheless, Averroescontends,this finite degreeof energycan be sustainedfor infinite time if the cause of the body havingthe force keeps the body going. Since the heavenlybodies differcruciallyfrommundanebodies in havingas their causes of motion incorporealSeparateMovers, they are capable of both infinite durationand infinitelyenduringforce, even if the degreesof that force are finite.'9AlthoughGersonidescriticizedAverroes'proposedsolution of Philoponus'objectionfor reasonsthat are not directlyrelevantto our theme, he neverthelessrejectedas well Philoponus'argumentagainst Aristotleand Proclus,even thoughhe was committedto a creationdoctrine. As we shall see, Gersonides'rejectionof Philoponus'argumentundermined severalimportantelementsof Aristotelianphysics. Accordingto Gersonides,the gradualdiminutionandeventualcessation of motion in a moving body results from either or both of the following causes:(1) the relationbetweenthe moverand the moved changesbecause the motion of the moving body uses up its internalheat, or energy;(2) the mover impartsto the moved body a force such that the latter moves in a directioncontraryto its naturalmotion. For example,whena manwalksfor a period of time he eventuallysuffersfatiguebecause(1) the walkingitself uses up his innerthermalenergy,and (2) his naturaldownwardmotion qua body is opposed by his voluntarymotion to walk up a hill or in a straight, level path. Now, considerwhat would happen if we were to drop a stone fromsome height.First,the droppingdoes not impartto the stone a motion contraryto its normaldownwardmovement.Thus,the secondconditionfor loss of kineticenergyis not satisfied.Moreover,the longerthe stone moves the greaterits velocityandimpactwill be. This showsthatthe firstcondition is not satisfiedeither;for insteadof losingenergyas it movesthe stonegains momentum.20 When we apply these principlesto the heavenlybodies, it is even more 19. Davidson, "The Principle"; H. Wolfson, Crescas' Critique of Aristotle (Cambridge, Mass., 1929), pp. 271-273. 20. Gersonides, Wars of the Lord, bk. 5, pt. 3, chap. 6; bk. 6, pt. 1, chap. 14; C. Touati, La Pensee philosophique et theologique de Gersonide (Paris, 1973), pp. 308-315.

64

SEYMOUR FELDMAN

apparentthat they move continuouslyad infinitumby theirownnature.For thereis no changein the initialkineticrelationshipbetweenthem and their movers,even if the latterbe someinternalpoweror form,sincethe heavenly bodies only changewith respectto place, whichis not a changethat affects them essentially.Nor do they have any intrinsicmotion contraryto the motion that they always exhibit. Accordingly,once set in motion by the initial act of creation,they will continue to move without real change ad infinitum.Thus,we haveprovedthe inherentincorruptibilityof the motions of the heavenlybodies, and of the universeas a whole.21

IV Gersonides'vigorous defense of the intrinsic indestructibilityof the universedid not go unchallenged.It was too strongfor the moretraditionalmindedthinkers,for whom even Maimonides'more moderateversionwas also unacceptable.In the earlyfifteenthcenturythis questionwas discussed criticallyby the Spanish-Jewish theologianHasdaiCrescas,who considered the world's destructibilityto be among those beliefs that lack dogmatic statusbut have some degreeof rationalplausibilityand traditionalsupport. By not havingdogmaticstatusa thesis is religiouslyneutral,and a believer in Judaismis entitledeither to maintainor to rejectsuch a belief.Crescas discussesthirteensuch beliefs,the firstof whichis whetherthe universewill be everlasting.BeforeI examinehis argumentation,one preliminaryobservation is in order. Crescas'treatmentof this topic inherits some of the ambivalenceor ambiguityof his discussionof creation.Unlike most of his predecessorsin Jewishphilosophy,Crescaswas not opposedto the ideathat the universeis eternallycreatedby God. His primaryconcernwas to stress God's eternalcreativity,and he allowedfor two differentversionsof God's eternalcreativity:(1) the universecould eternallyemanatefrom God a la Plotinus, Proclus, Al-Farabi, and Ibn Sina; or (2) there could be an indefiniteseries of finitely enduringworlds. The second alternativeis for Crescasthe more traditionalJewishposition, and in behalfof this view he quotesthe rabbinicsayingcriticizedby Maimonides:"RabbiAbbahuinfers 21. Here Gersonides agrees also with Proclus (Philoponus, De aeternitate bk. 1. 3; bk. 9. 6). Leibniz admitted that God could choose to annihilate the universe but just wouldn't (Leibniz, Monadology, pars. 4-6; Letters to Clarke, V, pars. 73-76).

THE END OF THE UNIVERSE

65

that God created and destroyedworlds until He made this one, which pleased Him." Crescasunderstandsthis dictumto be compatiblewith the view that the universe could be destroyedor disintegratedand then be replacedby anotherworld.Crescaswantsto ruleout any theorythat would restrictGod's power, and he believesthat the doctrineof a uniqueuniverse of only finite durationimplies such a limitation.Now, since there are for Crescastwo cosmogoniesthat are both theologicallyand philosophically acceptable,it shouldnot surpriseus that his viewsaboutthe world'send are also "open." 22

Since the question of the universe'send is not a dogma of Judaism, Crescas'methodof expositiondiffersherefrom his usualprocedureof first statingthe "orthodox"theologicalposition based upon Scriptureand then providingthe philosophicaldefenseof it. On the presenttopic, he beginsby citing the philosophicalargumentsfor and againstthe world'severlastingness (ni;ziyyut), citing in addition appropriatescripturaland rabbinic support texts; then he gives a critical analysis of these argumentsand presentshis conclusions.For the sake of brevity,I shall not rehearsethe argumentsor cite the proof-textsbut extractfromthis materialthose points that are particularlyrelevantto the precedingdiscussion. Ever since Proclus, one persistentproblem that the defendersof the world's destructionhad to answerwas, How could somethingthat is evil, i.e., destruction,be attributedto a good God, who producedthe world in the firstplace out of goodness?Not findingany sensein any of the proposed answersto this question,Proclus,Gersonides,and otherdefendersof strong indestructibilityemphaticallydenied that God could destroythe universe, since such an act would be incompatiblewith His nature.Philoponushad repliedto this argumentby claimingthatjust as in creatingthe universeGod acted out of His goodness, so in destroyingit or in allowing it to selfdestruct God acts in accordancewith His goodness. Both creation and destructionare divine voluntaryacts that are differentbut equally appropriatephasesof God's plan, whoseultimatepurposeseludehumancomprehension.23Implicitin Philoponus'replyto Proclusis the view that whatever God wills or does is good. Crescasrepliesto Proclus'objectionin a differentway. He distinguishes 22. Crescas, The Light of the Lord (Or Adonai), bk. 3, principle 1, chap. 5; bk. 4, question 1; S. Feldman, "The Theory of Eternal Creation in Hasdai Crescas and Some of His Predecessors," Viator 11 (1980): 289-320.

66

SEYMOUR FELDMAN

betweentwo kinds of evil: (1) an essentialevil, the doing of whichindicates that the agent is reallybad;(2) an accidentalevil, the occurrenceof which does not imputeany real evil in the agent, who eitherperformsthe act or permitsit to occur.For example,if God werethe directcause,or proximate agent, of an innocent man's death, then God would be a murderer.If, however, Cain for his own reasons murderedAbel, God would not be culpableeven though He endowedCain with the powerof choice whereby Cain murderedAbel and then permittedCain to exercisethis power.Relative to God, Abel's murderwas an accidentalevil, whereaswith respectto Cain it was an essentialevil. Now in the case of the universe'sdestruction, Crescasargues, if it does happen it will not be an essentialevil; for the destructionwould occur by virtue of the "necessityof matter,"or the intrinsictendencytowardcorruptioncharacteristicof all corporealentities. Here Crescasis quite close to Philoponus'argumentfrom entropy. The destructionof the worldwouldthen be only accidentalrelativeto God, even thoughHe "permitted"it by virtueof the factthat He createdit andallowed it to proceedtoward its naturalend. Moreover,if this world were to be replacedby anotheruniversethat is more perfect,God could have a good reason for destroyingthis world. A series of finitely enduringworlds of increasingperfectionwould be for Crescas theologicallyacceptable.So Proclus'and Gersonides'demandfor a "sufficientreason"has then been satisfied.24 The second difficultyinherentin the claimthat the worldis destructible is the fact allegedby Proclusand Gersonidesthat the heavenlybodies are immune from the causes of decay definitiveof terrestrialbodies, i.e., the naturalcontrarietyof earthlymatterwhichinevitablyresultsin change.On this point, Crescasis somewhatambivalent.Initiallyhe says that there is some contrarietyin the heavenlybodies,i.e., the diversedirectionsof movement: some of them move east to west, whereasothersmove west to east, and still othersmove in both directionsat differenttimes. This contrariety, at least with respectto locomotion, implies the possibilityof destruction, 23. Philoponus, De aeternitate, bk. 4. 9, p. 78, 11.6-10, p. 79, 11.4-11; bk. 6. 4, p. 130, 1. 22-p. 131, 1. 10. 24. Crescas does not appear to be committed to the Leibnizian claim that God must create the best possible world. For a contemporary discussion of this problem, see Robert Adams, "Must God Create the Best?" Philosophical Review 81 (1972): 317-332. The argument against the successive divine creation of several worlds of increasing perfection appears in Aristotle's early De Philosophia, fragment 19C. See Sorabji, TCC, p. 281.

THE END OF THE UNIVERSE

67

and whateveris possible will, it would be plausibleto assume, sooner or later eventuate.Thus, the universewill be destroyedby virtue of its own nature. Yet Crescasseems to withdrawfrom this radical conclusion. He blunts the force of this Philoponianargumentin severalways. First, the contrarymovementsof the heavenlybodies are only accidental;they do not affectthe essentialnatureof these bodies.In otherwords,locomotionis the "least" kind of change, and even though a body may manifestcontrary motions, it doesn't follow that these motions imply an essentialchangein the body itself. Second, even if these contrarymovementscould be consideredto be essentialchanges,it is withinGod's infinitepowerto keepthem going ad indefinitum,as Averroeshad claimed,since the law that statesthe ultimatecessationor decompositionof a systemexhibitingcontrarietyis just a law of nature;but God can suspendany such law. Indeed,this holds true even for Aristotle'stheorem,which, as Maimonidesclaimed,is normally applicableonly to naturaloccurrencesof individualgenerationsand corruptions. However,in the case of the worldwe are ex hypothesidealingwith a system that is voluntarilygenerated,and here Aristotle's theorem is not applicable. Finally, Crescas suggests that although the earth may be destroyed,sinceits chemistryimpliesessentialcontrariety,it maybe that the heavensare incorruptibleby virtueof theirdifferentnature.This alternative is perhaps the most in accord with the religious tradition of Judaism, althoughagain Crescasis not dogmaticon this matter.Thus, Crescasconcludes, the "new world"that some of the rabbisspeakof as succeedingthe presentone may be only a new earth, with the heavensabiding.25 V

Crescas'tentativenesson this issue is certainlynot in evidencewhenwe turn to our last participant in the debate, Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1509), who in many respectswritesthe "swan-song"of the SpanishJewish school of philosophy.Abravanelvigorouslyand clearly rejectsthe strong and moderateversionsof the world'sindestructibilitythat we have encounteredin Gersonidesand Maimonides.Moreover,Crescas'ambivalence is removed in favor of an unambiguousand forthrightdefenseof 25. Crescas, Light of the Lord, bk. 6, question 1.

68

SEYMOUR FELDMAN

strongdestructibility,which frequentlyreliesupon Philoponianthemesbut expressesthem with even greaterforce. It may be that Abravanel'sexplicit commitmentto strongdestructibilitywas motivatedby his ferventmessianism, which led him to attempt to predict the actual arrrivalof the longawaited"son of David."I shall, however,ignorethe eschatologicalside of Abravanel'sthinking,notwithstandingits importance,and focus upon his cosmologicalargumentsfor the universe'sultimate"running-down."Like most of his predecessors,Abravanelconsidersthis questionfrom the perspectiveof the universe'sbeginning;indeed,for him creationof the worldis the fundamentaldogma of Judaism,if Judaismhas any specificdogmasat all. Yet, like Saadiah,he also considersthe world's temporalend to be a good argumentfor its temporalbeginning;he thus devotesan entirechapter in his maincosmologicaltreatise,MifalotElohim("TheDeeds of God"), to the question of the universe'sdestructibility.Underlyinghis defense of strong destructibilityis a firm commitmentto Aristotle's theorem. It is, therefore,ironic,he comments,that those who rejectAristotle'scosmological conclusions(e.g., Philoponus,Saadiah, and himself) accept his main cosmologicaltheorem,whereasthose who defendthe universe'severlastingness are forcedto weakenor rejectthis principle.Abravanelthen proceeds to formulatea seriesof argumentson behalfof his thesisof strongdestructibility.26 As we have seen, one of the morecommonargumentsfor the universe's intrinsic destructibilitywas the contrariety exhibited throughout the materialworld, includingthe heavenlydomain.Crescashad doubts about the strength of this argument;Abravanelpretty much sidesteps it and emphasizes another Philoponian theme. In fact, Abravanel rejects the Aristotelianprinciplethat contrarietyis both a necessaryand a sufficient conditionfor corruption.Evenif it werea necessaryand sufficientcondition for naturalcorruption,it is not such a conditionwherevoluntarydestruction is at issue. Since ex hypothesithe world was voluntarilycreated, as Maimonidesand Gersonidesboth admit,it can be voluntarilydestroyedex potentiaDei absoluta.27Second,it is not the case even in naturalprocesses 26. Isaac Abravanel, The Deeds of God [Mifalot Elohim] (Venice, 1592), bk. 8. In my exposition I have not followed the exact sequence of Abravanel's argumentation, but have rearranged his arguments according to the common medieval practice of distinguishing between theological and scientific arguments for creation or destruction. 27. Abravanel, Deeds of God4:2, 8:1, 53d-54a. In late Scholastic philosophy the distinction was made between the ordinary, natural course of things originally ordained by God, potentia

THE END OF THE UNIVERSE

69

that contrarietyitself is the fundamentalcause of corruption.The main causes of physical decay are, for Abravanel,the very corporealityand compositenessof a body. All bodiesare compositesof matterand form, and as such they are susceptibleto decomposition.Even Aristotle recognized this point in his analysisof substantialchange,whereinprime mattersuccessivelytakes on differentforms. Each such takingon of a form is, Abravanel contends, an instanceof corruption,since one form disappearsand anothertakes its place. And this holds truefor the heavenlybodies as well. They too are compositeentities, having both form and matter.That their mattermay differfromterrestrialmatteris not as importantas the fact that they are material,and as suchthey can assumedifferentforms.28Moreover, even if one were to adopt Averroes'doctrinethat the heavenlysubstances are not corporeal,and thus are not compositesof form and matter,it would still be true, Abravanel argues, that they are composite; for each one, accordingto Averroes,consistsof "corporealform"andits "specificform." Now, howeverthis corporealform is to be understood(Averroesconstrued it as a tridimensionality), each heavenlyentityis a compositesubstance,and as such is liable to decomposition;for whateveris put togethercan be torn asunder.So, whetherwe considera celestialsubstanceto be a compositeof form and matteror a compositeof two kindsof form,in eithercase we have an entity that is intrinsicallydecomposableand, as such, destructible.Like Philoponus,Abravanelfollows Platoin insistingupon the essentialcorruptibility of all corporealnature,which in turn is based upon their essential compositeness.And this is true even for the heavenly substances.29It is interestingto note, Abravanelobserves,that Aristotle'sonly argumentfor the simplicityof the heavensis theirallegedincorruptibility.Thisis clearlya petitioprincipii.0 Finally,the circularmotionsof the heavenlybodiesareno Dei ordinata, and His power to suspend this natural order, potentia Dei absoluta (E. Grant, "The Condemnation of 1277, God's Absolute Power and Physical Thought in the Late Middle Ages," Viator 10 [1979]: 211-244). 28. On this point Abravanel sides with Avicenna and Maimonides against Averroes, who follows the Aristotelian interpretation of Themistius, according to which the heavenly bodies are simple substances lacking matter (Wolfson, Crescas' Critique of Aristotle, pp. 103-104, 594-600; Themistius, In de Caelo 14. 13-14 [I owe the reference to Themistius to Richard Sorabji]). 29. Abravanel, Deeds of God 8:1, 54a-b; Plato, Republic 5; Philoponus, De aeternitate bk. 6. 28, p. 230, 11.6-22; bk. 8. 1, p. 302, 1. 25- p. 303, 1. 2; bk. 9. 5, p. 333, 11.7-14. 30. Abravanel, Deeds of God 8: 2, 54b. Galileo made a similar criticism a century later (W. Wallace, Galileo's Early Notebooks: The Physical Questions [Notre Dame, 1977], p. 118, par. 67).

70

SEYMOUR FELDMAN

proof of their chemical simplicity or uniqueness.They move circularly simplybecauseof theirshape.The elementsmove rectilinearlyonly because when not in their properplaces they move directlytoward them. Another argumentfrequentlyadduced from the celestial domain to prove indestructibilitywas the observed immutabilityof the heavenly bodies, a "fact" presumablyattested to by well-confirmedastronomical data.3'Followingthe lead of Philoponus,Abravanelrejectsthis contention. In the firstplace, destructionis not broughtabout only by virtueof gradual decayand dissolution,as the Aristoteliansand Neo-Plotiniansclaim.After all, a sculptorcan easily take a statuehe has made and crushit to smithereens in just one blow. Some cases of destructionare sudden.32Since the creationistbelieves that the generationof the world came about instantaneously,he believesalso that its destructioncan take place instantaneously. Second, even if it were the case that corporealdissolutiontakes place only gradually,who can be surethat suchchangeshavenot occurredor will not occur?Are our observationaldata alwaysperfectand infallible?Indeed, in the case of the heavenlybodiesthis observationalproblemis aggravated by theirdistancesfromus. Moreover,the allegedlack of observedvariation and changein the heavenlydomain may simply be a reflectionof the fact that bodiesin generaldifferin theirsusceptibilityto changeandin the speed and durationof thesechanges.Thus,if it is a factthat Marshas not suffered any perceivablechangeover the last few thousandyears,this does not mean that it will not change;it just meansthat its rate of changeis much slower than that of earthlybodies.33Finally,it could very well be the case that as the worldmovestowardits dissolution,the signsof its imminentdestruction will becomemoreapparent.Nor will these"signsof aging"haveto manifest themselvesuniformly:it couldverywell be thatthe color or thermalproperties of a planet will begin to diminishwhile its velocity remainsconstant. Time will tell.

31. Philoponus, Contra Aristotelem, as quoted by Simplicius in his In de Caelo 142. 7 ff., and in his In de Physica 332. 15 (S. Sambursky, The Physical World of Late Antiquity, pp. 161-163). 32. Abravanel, Deeds of God 8:2, 54c-d. Abravanel cites Al-Ghazzoli's Incoherence of the Philosophers, Second Discussion (Averroes, The Incoherence of the Incoherence, trans. S. van den Bergh [London, 1954], vol. 1, pars. 126 ff.). 33. Philoponus appeals to the greater bulk of the heavenly bodies to explain their slower rate of change (Philoponus, in Simplicius, In libro de caelo 1:3, p. 142, 11.7-25; Sambursky, Physical World, pp. 162-165).

THE END OF THE UNIVERSE

71

Indeed, Abravanelclaims that we can even now see that things are already"runningdown."People do not live as long as they did in biblical days. Indeed,many of the rabbinicsages lived longerthan people now do. Nor is this true only for the humanspecies:other animalstoo lived longer centuriesago than they do now. The reason for this declineis, Abravanel claims, the generalweakeningof the elementsout of which all bodies are composed.In supportof this claimhe cities two drugsthat wereonce quite therapeuticbut are no longer effective,even though the best pharmacists have compoundedthem.The firstexampleis the drugmadefromthepeonia flower, which, Abravanel reports, traditionallyhad been used to treat epilepsy. The second is a drug called theriaca,which the Greeks and Romansusedas an antidotefor snakebite.Assumingthatthesedrugsareno longer as effectiveas they used to be, Abravanelmaintainsthat this is so because the various basic elements out of which these drugs are compoundedhave graduallyweakenedover time. In other words,the progressive decayof the worldas a whole is rootedin the gradualweakeningof the naturalelements.34 I now turn to Abravanel'smetaphysical,or theological,arguments.As we have noted, sincePlatoa reasonwas givenboth by Platonicphilosophers and by religiousthinkersfor the creationof the universe-God's goodness. But if this is so, Proclusand Gersonidesthen asked, what could be God's reasonfor destroyingit? Confidentthat theiropponentscouldnot come up with a "sufficientreason,"indeedany reasonat all, they concludedthat the universemustbe indestructible.As we haveseen, Philoponustriedto answer Proclus' question by giving the same reason for destructibilityas for creation-God's goodness.Nevertheless,there is somethingunsatisfactory about this answer:whatis good about destruction,unless,of course,it is an evil that is being destroyed,which does not seem to be the case with the world as a whole?To say that God is the sourceand criterionof good, so that whateverHe does is ipsofacto good, is to make God into an arbitrary despotwhose will alone decideswhatis good or evil. And againthis did not satisfylater thinkerssuch as Gersonides,whose God is not so arbitraryas Philoponus'. Nor is Crescas'solutionmuchbetter.For, if God destroysthis worldin toto or inpartein orderto makea betterone, why didn'tHe makethe better

34. Abravanel, Deeds of God 8:2, 54d-55a. Maimonides refers to peonia in Guide 3:37.

72

SEYMOUR FELDMAN

one ab initio?Even if it is the case that God did not have to make the best possibleworld ab initio,theredoes not seem to be an adequatereasonwhy He shouldchangeHis mindlater,destroythis world,andthen makea better one. Afterall, the Bibledoes say that afterGod createdthe world, He said, "And it was verygood" (Gen. 1:31).If God is both omnipotentand omnibenevolent,anythingless than the best would be hard to justify. Accordingly, Crescas' doctrine, too, does not satisfy Abravanel.35A sufficient reasonfor the destructionof the universemust be one that genuinelyprovidesan answerto the questionwhyGod will destroyit and at the sametime is consistent with good theology. Abravanelcontends that even if this universeis destroyedand replacedwith anotherof the samedegreeof perfection, therecould still be a purposefor the destruction:to proveconclusively that God is not identicalwith the universe,that any universeis not on the same level as God. Just imaginethe impressionthat the suddendisappearNor would such a ance of Mars would make on atheiestsor pantheists!36 destructionbe an evil attributableto God, as Proclusand Gersonideshad claimed.Since the destructionof any particularuniversehas as its purpose knowledge,it cannot be bad. To be kept in ignoranceof the true natureof God and the universeis a real evil; to be emancipatedfrom this state is a genuine good. Were the world to continue indefinitely, people might wronglysupposethat the universeis eternalor that it is identicalwith God. Indeed, God's goodness is expressedin the creationof anotheruniverse, which, althoughhavingthe same level of perfectionas the presentone, will differ in having, say, eleven planets rotatingaround the sun. This too is instructive.It teaches that everythingin any universeis truly contingent: there are no necessaryfacts about the world. The laws and facts of each physical system are dependentupon God's will and can be suspended temporarilyor annulledaltogetherandbe replacedby a completelydifferent system.37 Nor does the destructionof one universeand the successivecreationof anotherimply any changein God, as Proclusand the Muslimfalasifa had continuallycharged.Eachsuchcosmologicaleventtakesplaceaccordingto a divinelyordainedplan, within which each cosmos has a fixed temporal place. As each universecomes into being or passes out of being, nothing 35. Abravanel, Deeds of God, 56d. Sorabji, TCC, pp. 281-282. 36. Abravanel, Deeds of God, 53d-54a. 37. Ibid., 56d-57a.

THE END OF THE UNIVERSE

73

really"new"takes place, sinceeach such event has been programmedfrom eternity.To be sure, thereis changeinsofaras each cosmos suffersdestruction; God, however, does not change. Indeed, He is not even the direct agent, or cause, of the destruction,since the world, by virtue of its own inherentnature,inevitablyself-destructs.The divine plan determinesonly its duration.Thus, Abravanel,unlikeMaimonidesand Gersonides,is quite happy with the rabbinicdictumthat God successivelybuilds and destroys universes.Such a view is consistentwith both the biblicaldoctrineof divine omnipotence and Aristotle's theorem that whatever is generated is destroyed.38 After replying to the philosophical arguments for indestructibility, Abravanelnow turns to the exegeticalargumentof Maimonides.In those passagescited by the latter to prove indestructibility,the crucialphraseis le-olam or olam va-ed. Abravanel contends that the word olam does not

connote an interminableperiod of time; rather,this word derivesfrom the root elem,whichmeans"youth."Thatis, the universeis "young"insofaras it is created.If it wereeternal,it would be "old,"and a differentwordfor it would be moreappropriate.Abravanel,however,admitsthatthe termolam is used in contextswherea long periodof time is connoted. But such passages, he claims, do not imply that the periodof time is infinite;rather,all they connote is continuousdurationuntil the terminusad quemis reached. Often the Hebrew term va-ed is added, either before or after olam, to reinforcethe idea that such a periodof time has a terminus:i.e., the term va-edmeans"limit."Accordingly,the phraseolamva-eddoes not mean, as Maimonidesbelieved, "unto eternity,"but merely "until the end of the world'sexistence."Indeed,Abravanelconcludes,thereis no word at all in the Hebrewlanguagethat connotes infinite time or duration.39 Actually, Abravanel contends, Scriptureand Tradition support the contraryview that the world will be destroyedand replacedby another. ConsiderIsaiah'sstatement"For behold!I am creatinga new heavenand a newearth:the formerthingsshallnot be remembered,they shallnevercome to mind"(Isa. 65:17).This passageclearlyindicates,Abravanelargues,that God will createa new world afterthe demiseof this presentuniverse.This viewis supportedby the rabbis.In one text theysay:"Theworldremainsfor

38. Ibid., 56b. 39. Ibid., 61c-62c.

74

SEYMOUR FELDMAN

six thousandyears,and one thousandyearsit will be waste."40Followinga well-establishedrabbinichermeneuticaltradition,Abravanelinterpretsthis passageto mean that this world will endurefor six thousandyears, since accordingto rabbinictraditioneach day of God constitutesone thousand years.The "six days of creation"thereforeindicatethat the durationof this world is six thousand years. When it is said, "on the seventh day God finishedHis work, and He restedon the seventhday"(Gen. 2:2), Scripture is tellingus also that the seventhday is the very day of the cessationof the world. The Hebrewword used here, va-yekhal,connotes "destruction"as well as "completion."The term shabatalso signifiesthe "annulmentand cessationof this world,"indicatingthat "the world and its fullnessbelongs to God," such thatjust as He createdit He will destroyit ad libitum,sinceit is completelylike clay in the hand of the potter.41 Abravanel'sfinal argumentbringsus backto the beginningof my essay. In book 9, chapter9, he takesup the Philoponus-Kaldm argumentfor creation from the inherentdestructibilityof the universe.Althoughperhapsthe most difficult chapter in Abravanel'sentire treatise, it gives a valuable summaryof the historyof the problemand of the variousattemptsto solve what appearsto be a basiccontradictionin Aristotle'scosmology:How can a finite body having finite force keep on moving with constant velocity throughoutinfinitetime?Abravaneldescribestwo generalmethodsof replying to Philoponus'argument.On the one hand, there is the approachof Alexanderand Avicenna,who claimthat the inherentlyfinite and corruptible forceof a heavenlybody is sustainedby some externalincorporealcause that moves the body throughoutinfinitetime. On the other hand, thereis the previouslymentioned solution of Averroes, who makes two fundamental distinctions:(1) between the inherentincorruptiblenature of the heavenlybodies and theirinherentcorruptiblemotion;and (2) betweenthe finite intensiveforce of such bodies and their infinite extensiveforce, or duration.On the basisof thesedistinctions,Averroesrepliedto Philoponus' argumentas follows: this argumentwould be pertinentonly if it were claimedthat the existenceof the heavenlybodieswerecontingentperse, not just their motion. But this is, for Averroes,not the case. The only contin40. B.T. Rosh Hashanah 31a; Sanhedrin 97a. 41. Abravanel, Deeds of God, 49a-d; Commentary on Genesis (New York, 1959), pp. 33c-34a. Tanna Debe Eliyyahu, trans. W. Braude and I. Kapstein (Philadelphia, 1981), p. 52. Maimonides, Guide 2:29.

THE END OF THE UNIVERSE

75

gency inherentin the heavenly bodies is their potentialityfor change in place, and this kind of contingencyis "external,"not affectingtheir very nature.In and of themselvesthe planetsand stars have incorruptibleexistence, althoughtheir motions have to be externallysustainedad infinitum. Once the distinctionbetweenthe very natureand existenceof the heavenly bodies and theirmotionsis recognized,as well as the previouslymentioned distinctionbetweentheirintensiveand extensiveforces,we can see that the Second,the heavenlybodies heavenlydomainis essentiallyincorruptible.42 are simplebodies,and as such arenot subjectto corruptionand decay,since they lack the causes of corruptiondue to contrarietyand composition. Accordingly,they exist for infinitetime;althoughtheirmotionsare finitein velocity, these motions persistthroughoutinfinite time becausethe bodies themselveshave infinite duration.43 Although Abravanel is quite respectful of Averroes' solution and believesthat Gersonides'criticismsof it are not successful,he rejectsit. In the first place, since ex hypothesiAverroensia planet is kept moving for infinitetime by an externalcause,this capacityfor motion is infinite,just as the capacityfor movingthe planet,whichis possessedby the motive cause, is infinite. The formerpower is a passivecapacity,whereasthe latter is an activecapacity.In eithercase,we haveinfinitepowers;but Aristotle'sprinciples do not allow infinite powers in bodies, whether they be passive or active.44So Averroeshas not reallyevadedthe force of Philoponus'argument. Second,even if it be concededthat the incorporealmovercould have an infiniteactive power by virtueof whichit "moves"its heavenlysphere, which in turn has only an infinitepassivepowerfor the receptionof movement, it has to be concededthat the spheretoo would have, ex hypothesi Averroensi,an infinite active power which it exertsupon terrestrialbodies. For example, if the sun is kept moving for infinite time, duringwhich it illuminatesthe earth,thenit has an activepowerof illumination.But bodies do not have infiniteactivepowersaccordingto Aristotle!Third,the distinction madeby Averroesbetweenthe finiteintensityof a forceand its infinite durationrequiresmoredefensethan he gives. Aristotlehimselfdid not seem to recognizesuch a distinction.Indeed,Abravanelcontendsthat it is either an ad hoc solution or, worse, a petitio principii. Prima facie it would seem 42. Abravanel, Deeds of God, 76a. 43. Ibid., 77a. 44. Ibid., 76d. Aristotle, On the Heavens 1. 5-7; Physics 8. 10.

76

SEYMOUR FELDMAN

thatif a body has only a finitequantumof energy,sooneror laterthis energy will diminishto the vanishingpoint, and then the body will cease to move. The pictureof a body continuouslylosing energybut regainingit by virtue of continual transfusionsfrom some external source is surely artificial, especiallyif this processis to endureforever.45 Finally, the fundamentaldistinctionthat Averroesmakes betweenthe existenceand essenceof the heavenlybodies and theirmotion is arbitrary. Such a distinctionimpliesthat the planetarymovementsarejust accidental to the planets;indeed, Averroes'use of the term "external"suggeststhat theirmotionshavean adventitiouscharacter.But thisis wrong!It is the very essenceof the heavenlybodies to move.There is, then, no real difference betweenthe existenceand the movementsof the heavenlybodies:if the one is necessaryandeternal,so is the other;if the one is contingentandcorruptisolutionis ble, so is the other. In this respectthe Alexanderian-Avicennian more consistent:it admitsthat both the natureand the movementsof the heavenly bodies are corruptibleper se, although eternal per causam. However, since this solution has its problem, as Averroes himself has shown,46we are betteroff by simplyadmittingthat sooneror later the very existenceof the heavenlybodies will sufferthe samefate as do all bodiesdecomposition and dissolution. Abravanel concludes his discussion by remarkingthat Philoponus'argumentis in his view "virtually"decisive proof for the creationand destructionof the universe.47 Conclusion Our debate has transcribeda full circle. We began with Saadiah,who advocatedthe world's destructibilityon the basis of a Philoponianargument, and we have ended with Abravanel,who, at the culmination of medievalJewishphilosophy,criticizedthe various attemptsto defendthe 45. Abravanel, Deeds of God, 77b. This was one of the criticisms made by Leibniz against Newton. For the latter bodies lose force, which is preserved only by divine intervention (A. Koyr6, From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe [Baltimore, 1968], chaps. 11-12). 46. The Alexanderian-Avicennian solution suffers from the same artificiality noted by Abravanel in his criticism of Averroes' theory. 47. Abravanel, Deeds of God, 77c-78a. As far as I know, Abravanel does not discuss Gersonides' claim that a body, under certain conditions, is inherently capable of indefinite motion, and hence can be indestructible.

THE END OF THE UNIVERSE

77

universe'sindestructibilityand thus reinforcedthe Philoponianprinciple. Eversince Plato therehad been a reluctanceon the part of some "creationists" to allow for the world's end. On either physical or metaphysical grounds these thinkerswanted to make the universea "fair image"of its divine maker, and thus claimedthat the universeis indestructible.Somewhat more consistentlytheir opponentsarguedthat whateverhas a beginning must have an end, and conversely.Thus,usingAristotle,the paradigm proponent of the world's eternity, the "destructionists"accused their opponentsof tryingto eat theircake and have it too. If the universeis truly createdby God, then God has the powerto destroyit: he who makessomethingcan "unmake"it. Moreover,if the universeis a finitephysicalsystem, as all our debaters maintain, then as finite it should "run-down."The universeis, as Philoponushad argued,entropic.Thus, both a parteDei and a parte mundi,the universeis destructible.

RutgersUniversity New Brunswick,N.J.

The Art of Metoposcopy: A Study in Isaac Luria's "Charismatic Knowledge" Author(s): Lawrence Fine Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Spring, 1986), pp. 79-101 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486356 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:16 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

THE ART OF METOPOSCOPY: A STUDY IN ISAAC LURIA'S CHARISMATICKNOWLEDGE by

LAWRENCEFINE Amongstthe most importantroles which Isaac Luria(1534-1572), the preeminentkabbalistof sixteenth-centurySafed, played in the lives of his discipleswas that of physicianof the soul. Beforethey couldpracticerituals which wereintendedto enablethem to bind theirsouls to the divinerealm, and to "repair"that realm in accordancewith the teachingsof Lurianic mythology, his discipleshad first to mend their ownsouls, to cleanse and purifythemof all imperfection.'No individualwhoseown soul had failedto achievea certainlevel of perfectioncould hope to engagesuccessfullyin the

1. The major exposition of Lurianic mythology is by I. Tishby, Torat ha-Ra ve-ha-Kelippah be-Kabbalatha-Ari (Jerusalem, 1960). See also idem, "Gnostic Doctrines in Sixteenth Century Jewish Mysticism," Journal of Jewish Studies 6 (1955); G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York, 1941), lecture 7; idem, Sabbatai Sevi (Princton, 1973), pt. 1. For a general introduction to the religious life of Safed in the sixteenth century, see L. Fine, Safed Spirituality (New York, 1984).

79

80

LAWRENCE FINE

intricateandelaboratecontemplative rituals-suchas the Yibudim2-which Luria devised. A person had to undergo a period during which he cultivated certain spiritual and moral traits and atoned for whatever sins he might have

committed.Luria,in fact, providedhis followerswith highlydetailedrituals of atonementby whichthey wereto mendtheirsouls. Thesepenitentialacts were known as tikkuneiavonot("amendsof sin") whose purpose, in the wordsof IHayyimVital'sson Shmuel,was to "mendhis soul" and "cleanse him from the filth of the diseaseof his sins."3IHayyimVital (1542-1620), Luria's chief disciple, himself introduces the tikkunei avonot with a dis-

cussion of the relationshipbetween one's soul and sin.4 The following passage provides a lucid account of the Lurianictheory of sin and the effectivenessof genuine repentance: Man is createdfrom matterand from form, which consists of soul [nefesh], the divineportionfromabove,as it is spirit[ruah],and super-soul[neshamah], said: "and [God]breathedinto his nostrilsthe breath[nishmat]of life" [Gen. 2:7]. And his body is dark matterfrom the side of the "shell,"luring and preventingman from [achieving]perfectionof his soul [inorder]to cut it [i.e., his soul] off from the Tree of Life .... and so "thereis not a righteousman upon the earth that doeth good and sinnethnot" [Eccles.7:20].It is known that sin is a blemish,stain,and rustin the soul, andthat it is the sicknessof the puresoul. Whenit [is immersed]in filth and stain,it is unableto perceiveand achieve the true perfection,which is [attainmentof] the mysteriesof the Torah.... And the transgressionbecomesa barrierseparatingthe soul from her Creator,preventingher from perceivingand comprehendingholy and pure supernalmatters,as it is said:"Thelaw of the Lordis perfect,restoring the soul" [Ps. 19:8].... When the soul is pure and unblemished,then the supernalholy matters take shapein her, and when she dwellsin rust and stain everythingbecomes bittersweet[i.e.,evil appearsas good]. [Thisis] similarto the sick personwho, when he is ill, abhorsthe good things and loves things which aggravatehis

2. For a detailed study of the Yihzudim,see L. Fine, "The Contemplative Practice of Yihudimin Lurianic Kabbalah," in Jewish Spirituality, ed. A. Green, vol. 2 (Crossroad, forthcoming). 3. The tikkunei avonot are discussed in Sha'ar Ruaz ha-Kodesh of the Shemonah She'arim, pp. 40-64 (see below, n. 4). They are studied in the above-mentioned article. 4. Hayyim Vital was responsible for the most detailed versions of Lurianic teachings, among which the Shemonah She'arim ("Eight Gates") is the most important. All references to the Shemonah She'arim are to the Yehudah Ashlag edition (Tel Aviv, 1962).

THE ART OF METOPOSCOPY

81

illness. The doctor, in orderto restorehis health,gives him spices,including gall, by whichhis naturewill returnto whatit originallywas, andhis healthas before.So, too, the sicksoul, to removethe sicknessfromher,mustreceivethe bitternessof medicineand "return"in [the form of] mortificationand fasts, sackcloth,ashes, and stripes,ritualimmersions,and purificationsfrom filth and the stains of sin. [Thisis] in orderto be able to attain and comprehend supernalmatters,which are the mysteriesof the world.5 Only the weapons of ascetic piety are potent enough to cleanse the soul of the filth that clings to it. Luria himself, proclaims Vital, is the diagnostician and healer of diseased souls! Luria's powers stem from the spirit of prophecy which he possessed, meriting him divine light and esoteric knowledge with which to teach his followers. But Luria only revealed his knowledge to those disciples who were completely pure and worthy. To this end he prescribed for each of his students personalized penitential deeds to meet their specific needs. He would not revealany of the mysteriesof this holy knowledgeto one in whose soul he perceived,with the aid of the Holy Spirit,a blemish-until he gave him penitentialacts to straightenout all he did crookedly.And like the expertdoctorwho prescribesfor each sickpersonthe propermedicineto cure this illness,so too [IsaacLuria],mayhe restin peace,usedto recognizethe sin, tell him wherehe had incurreda blemish,and prescribefor him the penitential act neededfor this transgressionin orderto cleansehis soul, so that he could receivethe divine light, as it is written:"O Jerusalem,wash thy heart from wickedness,that thou mayestbe saved" [Jer.4:14].6 Isaac Luria did what any good physician would do; he carefully diagnosed the specific maladies which his "patient" had and prescribed the appropriate cure. Among the several diagnostic techniques which Luria had

at his disposal, accordingto HayyimVital and others,the most important appears to have been his capacity to discern and interpret the meaning of Hebrew letters visible upon an individual's forehead, a variation on the medieval art known as metoposcopy. Metoposcopy was one of the wide array of divinatory or mantic arts practiced especially in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, along with 5. Sha'ar Ruah ha-Kodesh of the Shemonah She'arim, p. 39 (hereafter cited as SRH). 6. SRH, p. 40.

82

LAWRENCE FINE

similar arts such as chiromancy(palmistry)and physiognomy(form and shape of various other physical features,particularlyfacial features).As with these other "sciences,"metoposcopywas employedfor purposesof judging an individual'scharacterand personality,and in many cases, for predictingone's future.As Jewishsourcesthemselvesattest, a variationof this art was knownat least as earlyas late antiquity,but it flourishedin the Middle Ages and most especiallyin the Renaissance.In the sixteenthand seventeenthcenturiesthe publicationof metoposcopicworks proliferated. Like chiromancy,metoposcopywas primarilyconcernedwith the significance of lines, in this case, on the forehead,and was typicallyassociated with astrologicalnotions.' The purposeof the presentstudyis to examinethe theoryandpracticeof metoposcopy according to Lurianic teachings, and, more broadly, to explorethe waysin which Luria'sdisciplesregardedthis type of knowledge on their master'spart.

In the various lists detailingIsaac Luria'sextraordinaryabilitieswith which our sources provide us, one of the standarditems is his skill at metoposcopy. his attainments, it is impossible for oneto relatethem[even]in Concerning generalterms,no less in detail.However,thesearethe wondrousandtrue withmy owneyes:He knewhowto makea future thingswhichI witnessed soulappearbeforehim,aswellasthesoulof a livingordeceased person,from of them whatever he the as well as later He could sages. among early inquire of theTorah. wishedconcerning of thefutureandsecretmysteries knowledge TheprophetElijah,mayhismemorybe a blessing,wouldalsoappearto him theletterson theforeheadand[was andteachhim.He couldalsorecognize aswellas at [recognizing] thelightsthat adeptat]thescienceof physiognomy, areuponthe skinandbodyof an individual. [Hewasalsoskilledat recog7. For treatments of non-Jewish approaches to metoposcopy, see L. Thorndike, A History of Magic and Experimental Science (New York, 1923-58), especially vols. 6-8; K. Seligman, Magic, Supernaturalismand Religion (New York, 1948), pp. 256-261; S. Alexandrian, Histoire de la philosophie occulte (Paris, 1983), pp. 201-203. Concerning the development of the physiognomic arts in Judaism, see nn. 11-12 below.

THE ART OF METOPOSCOPY

83

nizing]the lights in the hair, the chirpingof birds,and the languageof trees and plants. [He understood]even the speechof inanimatethings,as Scripture says:"For the stone shall cry out of the wall [andthe beamout of the timber shall answerit]" [Hab. 2:11]. [He knew] the languageof the burningcandle and the flaming coal; he was able to see the angels who announceall the proclamations[fromon high], as is well known,and to conversewith them. His knowledgewas expertconcerningall the plantsand the genuineremedies [whichtheyprovided].Therearemanyothersuchthingswhichcannotevenbe related. Those who hear of them will not believe them when told. I have recordedthat which my eyes have seen in all truth.8 The theoretical basis for the recognition of letters upon the forehead ha-par;uf) has to do with a set of kabbalistic beliefs concerning (.hokhmat the relationship between language and creation as a whole. These beliefs go back, in part, to the first systematic attempt at speculative thought in Hebrew, the Sefer Yetirah, probably written sometime between the third and sixth centuries.' According to the opening chapter of this brief and highly enigmatic book, God brought all of creation into existence "by means of thirty-two wondrous paths of wisdom." These thirty-two paths comprise "ten sefirot beli mah," the ten fundamental numbers, and the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The bulk of the book's speculative efforts concern the function and role of these letters in the process of cosmogony. Everything that exists came into being through combinations of the alphabet's letters, particularly by means of two hundred and thirty-one "gates," combinations of the letters into sets of two in which every letter of the alphabet is joined to every other. All existence is invested with these different combinations of letters and is nourished by their power. When, centuries later, medieval kabbalists appropriated the ideas of the Sefer Ye;irah, this linguistically founded world was understood as an 8. SRH, p. 19. Other versions of this list are found in Sefer ha-Gilgulim(Przemysl, 1875), p. 26; Shivhei ha-Ari (Bardejov, 1929), pp. 6-7; Sefer Toledot ha-Ari, ed. M. Benayahu (Jerusalem, 1967), p. 156; Eleh Toledot Yighak, Benayahu, pp. 248-251. 9. For discussion of the Sefer Yegirah,see G. Scholem, Ursprungund Anfdnge der Kabbala (Berlin, 1962), pp. 20-29; idem, "The Name of God and the Linguistic Theory of the Kabbalah," Diogenes 79 (1972): 59-80; idem, Kabbalah (New York, 1974), pp. 23-30. See as well the studies by I. Weinstock and N. Aloni in Temirin, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1972), pp. 9-99. Luria's use of the Sefer Yepirahin this connection is explicitly acknowledged, SRH, pp. 15-16. For broader discussions of the relationship between language and Kabbalah, see G. Scholem, On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism (New York, 1965), pp. 32-86; idem, the Diogenes article mentioned above, as well as its continuation in Diogenes 80 (1972): 164-194.

84

LAWRENCE FINE

expressionof divineself-disclosureor emanation.Accordingto this conception, the Hebrewlettersand theircombinationsare not merelyinstruments by which the Creatorwroughtcreation,but forms assumedby the divine itself. That is, not only can the revelationof deity be describedin termsof the ten sefirot, the most familiar and typical symbolic system of the kabbalists,but it can be imaginedas well as the everunfoldingwordof God which expressesitself in a virtuallyinfinite variety of combinationsand gradations.In this symbolismthe Torahis understoodto comprisea vast networkof "names,"each of which signifiesa particularconcentrationof divine power or energy. As such these "names" possess a plenitude of meaningnot exhaustedby conventionalhuman language. Nowhereis the divine/linguisticconstitutionof all creationmoreevident than in the case of humanbeingsthemselves.Accordingto HIayyimVital, the twenty-twolettersof the alphabetarepresentin eachof the threeaspects of the human soul, in ascending hierarchicalorder, nefesh, ruab, and neshamah.0 Eachis constructed,so to speak,on the basisof the lettersof the Hebrewalphabet.The characterand qualityof each set of lettersare somewhat differentin accordancewith the differentlevels of the soul's tripartite division. The letterspresentin the nefeshare small, those of the ruabare mediumin size, and those of the neshamahare largest of all. These three dimensionsof soul clothe one another, as it were, with the body's skin constitutingthe outercoveringof all. In the case of a wickedindividual,the lights/lettersof the soul remain covered and concealed by the skin. But when a personperfectshimselfby practicingthe commandmentsand studying the Torah,he graduallypurifiesthe variouspartsof soul, thus enabling the power and light of the letterswithineach part to come to the surface. 10. SRH, p. 16. This idea is already found in the Zohar, in the context of its discussion of physiognomic matters. See, for example, Zohar 2, 73a, where we learn that the mystery of the twenty-two letters is engraved within the ruah of an individual, and that these letters can appear on the face. According to the anthropological views of the Kabbalah, the soul is considered to have three aspects. The nefesh is automatically present and active in every individual; the two more elevated levels, however, are latent. These manifest themselves only in the case of persons who are spiritually advanced and who have strived to develop themselves through religious activity. Such activity aids in the cultivation of the higher powers of cognition and results in the fullest maturation of the soul. Later kabbalists-including the Lurianists-added two other levels of soul. These are hayyah and yehidah, and are considered to represent still higher stages of spiritual attainment, present only in the most select figures. These two aspects of soul do not figure in the Lurianic discussion of metoposcopy.

THE ART OF METOPOSCOPY

85

The lettersare unveiledand manifestthemselvesin a way whichis visibleto the skilledeye. The appearanceof the letterson the skin allowsone who can recognizethem and determinetheirmeaningvirtuallyto see the divinepart of the human personality,the soul itself. One "sees" the soul in the sense that the lettersare a relativelymaterialexpressionof that whichis otherwise immaterial.In the case of one who has sufficientlymendedall threegrades of soul, the entirealphabetbelongingto eachgradewill appear,at one time or another, on the body's skin, most especiallyupon the forehead." Accordingto Vital, the foreheaddisclosesthe soul's lettersbest of all, due, in part,to the factthatthe lettersof the alphabetas a wholecorrespond to the sefirahBinah,which, in turn, is symbolizedby the forehead."2The 11. SRH, pp. 15-16. The primary Lurianic account of metoposcopy is found in SRH, pp. 15-22. The earliest Jewish interest in physiognomy, in general, appears to go back to a Qumran document, published as 4Q 186. According to this text certain physiognomic criteria, such as the size and shape of the thighs, toes, fingers, hair, eyes, beard, teeth, height, and quality of voice, can be examined to ascertain an individual's moral and spiritual status. Such criteria, along with a person's zodiacal sign, were used to determine a person's fitness for membership in the "House of Light," that is, the righteous among Israel. Concerning this, see Discoveries in the Judean Desert, vol. 5, Qumran Cave 4, ed. J. M. Allegro (Oxford, 1968), pp. 89-91. Physiognomic considerations play little role in conventional rabbinic materials, but were of great interest to the Merkavah mystics. As in the Qumran text, the Merkavah literature indicates that physiognomic criteria were employed to determine eligibility for admission into the circle of mystics. These criteria have to do with the character of the nose, lips, eyes, eyebrows, eyelashes, and sexual organs, although greatest significance was attached to the lines and letters upon the palm and forehead. These texts already speak, albeit in an unsystematic and exceedingly obscure way, of certain letters which appear on the hand and forehead. The primary text in this connection is Hakkarat Panim le-Rabbi Yishmael,which speaks of twelve letters that are visible on the forehead, although it does not specify which letters these are. This chapter and related materials are analyzed in two articles by G. Scholem, "Hakkarat Panim ve-Sidrei Sirtutin," in Sefer Assaf (Jerusalem, 1953), pp. 459-495 (see particularly, pp. 481-485), and "Ein Fragment zur Physiognomik und Chiromantic aus der Spatantiken judischen Esoteric," in Liber Amicorum: Studies in Honor of Professor Dr. C. J. Bleeker (Leiden, 1969); see also idem, "Chiromancy," in Scholem's Kabbalah (Jerusalem, 1974), pp. 317-319; I. Gruenwald, "Ketaim mi-Sifrut Hakkarat Panim ve-Sidrei Sirtutin," Tarbiz40 (1971): 301-319; .Hadashim and Merkavah Mysticism (Leiden, 1980), pp. 218-224. The most extensive idem, Apocalyptic treatment of physiognomy, chiromancy, and metoposcopy in medieval Jewish literature, prior to the Lurianic texts, is found in the zoharic corpus. Concerning this, see below, n. 12. 12. SRH, pp. 15-16. While the Lurianic notions of metoposcopy described here do not appear to have any direct link to the material found in the Merkavah literature (see above, n. 11), they are unmistakably indebted, at least to some degree, to the fairly extensive discussions in the zoharic corpus. The literature of the Zohar treats physiognomic, chiromantic, and metoposcopic issues in several places, including: (1) Zohar 2, 71a-78a (along with the parallel version in Raza de-Razin); (2) Zohar 2, 272b-276a; (3) Zohar Iadash 35b-37c; and (4) Tikkunei Zohar, tikkun 70. These speculations are based, in part, on exegesis of Exodus 18:21.

86

LAWRENCE FINE

particularletters which appear on a person's forehead depend upon the commandmentswhich that individualperformsproperly.For there is a letter to correspondto each and every precept(althoughwe are informed about only a few of the details of this correspondence).Thus, the person who performsall the commandmentson a regularbasis,and in whom there is no sin, will bearall the lettersupon his forehead.Certainletters,however, will appear more brightlythan at other times under various conditions. Whenone performsparticularmi;vot,the appropriatelettersshineespecially brightlyon that same day. Sometimesa certainword-such as the word bayyim(signalingthat a personcan expectto continuein life)-will appear brieflyand then disappear.One skilledin this art, then, must be carefulto gaze at the right time upon an individual'sforehead.An exceptionis the deed of charity(;edakah),whose lettersremainshiningbrightlyupon one's forehead for an entire week. This is demonstratedby the scripturaltext: "And his righteousness[;idkato]endurethforever"(Ps. 111:3). The levelof soul whichone has achievedis also discernibleon the basis of the size of the letterswhichappear.Thus, if a personhas only perfected the level of nefesh,the letterswill be small,and so on. If an individualmanifestsonly one set of letters,havingattainedonly the levelof nefesh,and more than one of a particularletteris requiredto spellout a wordon his forehead, the letterwill initiallyappearbrightlyin one placein the word,and reappear a second or third time as needed. The lettersof the alphabetalso possessa sefiroticcorrespondence.That it is, is possible to identifydifferentletterswith each of the ten sefirot.By While I plan to analyze these materials elsewhere, it is worth noting here certain substantial differences between the Zohar's discussions and the Lurianic one: (1) Whereas the Zohar treats in some detail the several subjects of physiognomy, chiromancy, and metoposcopy-discussing the significance of the hair, forehead, eyes, face, lips, lines on the hand, and the ears-Luria was almost exclusively concerned with metoposcopy, that is, the forehead. He takes up other matters in the most passing way. (2) The Zohar's analysis of metoposcopy is mostly concerned with the shape of the forehead and with the lines or creases appearing in it, and far less with letters. In Luria's case, on the other hand, there is no discussion of anything but the letters and words which manifest themselves. (3) Whereas the Zohar's discussion incorporates elements of astrological speculation, the Lurianic account has only the briefest passing referenceto this (see SRH, p. 16) and is clearly not genuinely concerned with astrology. (4) The Zohar tends to indicate how physical characteristics, such as the shape of the forehead or eyes, signify certain moral and spiritual traits in general ways. Thus, for example, a person is said to be inclined toward anger, impulsiveness, or joyfulness. In our texts, Luria is able to determine the specific sins or righteous acts which a person has performed.

THE ART OF METOPOSCOPY

87

virtue of this one can ascertainthe sefiroticroot of a person'ssoul, for the appropriateletters will appearmore frequentlythan the others.'3 The recitationof the one hundredberakhot(blessings)requireddaily of every individualalso inducesthe manifestationof letters.14For just as the 613 mi;vot as a whole have their correspondingletters, so too do the berakhotthat one recites,such as in the courseof dailyprayer.The lightsof the letters which appear on the skin as a result of recitingberakhotare each letter;this surroundinglight specialinsofaras thereis lightsurrounding is moreluminescentthanthat of the letteritself.If one sees that the opposite is the case, that the light of the letteris moreintensethan the surrounding light, it signalsthat the blessingwas not performedproperly.Moreover,if one fails to performcertainberakhotaltogether,theircorrespondingletters do not appearat all. If a berakhahis recitedwith a mistake,then the letter will appearbut will be incompleteor imperfectlyformed.And if it is performed correctly, but without appropriatecontemplativeintention, the letter will be present,but will be dark and unillumined. If the appearanceof letterssignifiesvirtuousbehavior,thentheirabsence indicates sinfulness,be it a sin of commissionor omission. One who is responsiblefor some transgressionwill be lacking in the corresponding letters,whichwill therebyfail to displaythemselveson his forehead.Indeed, someone upon whose foreheadno lettersare discerniblecan expectto meet his death withinthirtydays unlesshe performsacts of greatrestitutionand repentance.5 There are other indicationsof the presenceof sinfulness,or that something tragic has befallen the individualinvolved. Sometimesa particular letter will appearbroken in the middle. In the case of the letter bet, for example, this indicatesthat one's son has died. At other times lettersmay appearupsidedown or lying on theirside. Thereis one letter, for example, which, if it appearsabnormally,indicatesthat a man has had intercourse with his wife in an impropermanner.In this connection,Vital relatesan interestingincident.The wife of a certainindividualhad demandedof him that he engagein intercourse,somethingwhichhe didn'twantto do, sinceit 13. SRH, p. 17. 14. Ibid., p. 18. According to B.T. Menabot 43b, R. Yose declares it to be the duty of everyone to recite one hundred blessings daily, whereas Numbers Rabbah 18 indicates that King David instituted the one hundred daily blessings. 15. SRH, p. 16.

88

LAWRENCE FINE

happened to be a weekday rather than Sabbath, the preferredtime for maritallove. LuriainformedVitalthat he had recognizedthe lettergimelon the man'sforehead,but that it appearedupsidedown.Thegimel,Luriatold Vital,symbolizesthe sefirahYesod,the sefirahassociatedwithmaleprocreative vitality,humanand divine.Insofaras the man involveddid not intend to stimulateYesodby havingsex at what he consideredto be an improper time, the gimel appearedin this unusualmanner.Luriaindicatedthat such an act should not be considereda transgression,despite the fact that it occurredon a weekday.Were it a sin the letter would have been turned upsidedown, but wouldnot haveshonebrightlyas it did. In general,whena lettermanifestsitself upsidedown, it signifiesthat the realmof the feminine is involved. For this reason, the letterson the foreheadof a male whose soul-ancestry(gilgul)derivesfrom the feminineside of the divine structure will consistentlyappearupside down.16 If a personexperiencesa nocturnalemission(tumatkeri),says Luria,the evidenceof his impuritywill appearon his foreheadthe followingday. If he seeks to cleansehimselfof this impuritythroughritualimmersionin water, then the evidencewill remainduringthe day but will be only mildlyvisible. However,if he does not undergoritualimmersion,the sin will be discernible until he does so. The transgressionsof a person who, by virtue of other deeds he has carried out, merits the "extra" soul which people can acquire on the Sabbath, will not be visible upon the forehead during the course of the Sabbathitself.This is due to the fact that the powersof evil have no potency on the Sabbath.The very presenceof the additionalSabbathsoul can be determinedby gazing upon the forehead.For as soon as one performsthe ritualimmersionrequiredas preparationfor the Sabbath,the extraSabbath soul manifestsitself, the evidencefor which is found upon his forehead. Interestingly,we learn that scholarsof the Torah experiencea special kind of dispensation.If a personis a greatscholarof Torah,andparticularly if he is a studentof Kabbalah(hokhmatha-emet),his studyhas the effectof coveringover the sins for which he is responsible,providingthat they are minor transgressions.In such instances,one's sins are not visible upon the forehead."If, however,they are significantsins, then they will be discernible, scholarlymerit notwithstanding. 16. Ibid., p. 17. 17. Ibid., p. 22.

THE ART OF METOPOSCOPY

89

In this connection, HIayyimVital indicated that there were limitations to his master's abilities to diagnose the status of the soul on the basis of metoposcopy. At times he had to resort to more direct communication with an individual's soul. He possessedanotherkind of skill; he could call forth the nefesh,ru'ah,or neshamahof an individual,and speakwith it [directly].He wouldinquireof it and ask it questions,and it wouldanswerwhateverit was he desiredto know, even includingmattersof detail.He told me that thereare some thingswhich he is unableto discernwhen he gazes upon the lettersof the forehead,due to theirbeingtoo subtleand concealed.However,whenhe inquiresand searches out a person'ssoul [directly],then he is ableto learnthingswith greataccuracy and clarity.'8 While the forehead was the most common place for the materialization of the soul's letters, they could appear on any part of the body. "Know that in each and every organ of a person's body, there are letters engraved, informing us about that individual's actions. But the primary place is the forehead, as indicated earlier." "9In addition, other parts of the body have special features which are instructive with respect to one's conduct and character, especially the eyes, fingernails, and all types of bodily hair. In the case of hair, for example, color, length, type of hair, and the way that it lies, all are clues to a person's status, although we are provided no details about this.

There are a substantial number of anecdotal reports by Vital and other Safed scholars about Isaac Luria's practice of the art of metoposcopy. Such evidence clearly suggests that Luria actually engaged in this activity, and that it was not merely a matter for theoretical discussion. Moses Galante, for example, writes that he had personally seen sages who had the ability to practice the art of "determining [the letters on] the countenance." 20Similar-

18. Ibid., p. 17. 19. Ibid., p. 20. See nn. 11-12 above. 20. Kohelet Ya'akov (Safed, 1558), p. 57a.

90

LAWRENCE FINE

ly, Elijah de Vidas, author of the influential treatise on kabbalistic piety, Reshit flokhmah, writes: ... our sagestaught:"On seeingthe sagesof Israelone shouldsay, 'Blessedbe He who hathimpartedof His wisdomto themthat fearHim'" [B.T.Berakhot 58a]. In Safed, located in the upper Galilee, there have already appeared sagesfor whomit was appropriateto recitethis blessing.Theywerecapableof practicingthe art of physiognomy[bokhmatha-parguJ]and were able to informa man concerningall that he had done-whether it was good or evil. To be sure, these individualsdid not meritthis wonderfulwisdom(whichis akin to possessingthe Holy Spirit)excepton accountof theirvirtuousdeeds and saintly behavior.21 There can be little doubt that both Galante and de Vidas had in mind Isaac Luria, although it is interesting to note that each of them implies that there may have been others with this skill. Eleazar Azikri preserves a story bearing upon Luria's knowledge of metoposcopy in his Sefer .Haredim.22 and told Azikri reports that Luria once gazed upon the face of a certain sage him that "the transgression of cruelty toward animals is inscribed upon your countenance." The distressed man returned home to discover that his wife had failed to feed their turkeys and had left them to wander in the street. After making sure that his wife took corrective action to care properly for the animals he came again before Luria. Without knowing what had taken place, Luria informed him, upon looking into his face, that the transgression had been expiated. The sage then proceeded to tell Luria what had transpired. Vital reports an incident in which Luria gazed upon the forehead of a certain sage and informed him that in his entire life this man had never recited a certain prayer correctly.23 Elsewhere, we learn in more general terms that Luria "used to recognize, upon the forehead of a man, the virtuous deeds and the sins which he had committed or had contemplated committing. He knew the gravity of the injury brought about by each transgression, where [on high] the harm had its impact, and the nature of the harm. He [also] knew the restitution that 21. Elijah de Vidas, Reshit IHokhmah(Venice, 1579), "The Gate of Love," chap. 6. Concerning de Vidas, his relationship to Luria, and Reshit fIokhmah, see Fine, Safed Spirituality, pp. 83 ff. 22. Sefer Iaredim (Venice, 1601), p. 25a. 23. Peri Ez Hayyim (Jerusalem, 1980), Sha'ar ha-Amidah, chap. 19.

THE ART OF METOPOSCOPY

91

was required[forits repair],in termsof fasts,contemplation,andthe recitation of scripturalverses. He would provideeach and everyindividualwith the means of atonementin accordancewith the sin he had committed."24 Our sourcesalso indicatethat Luriautilizedhis skill for a purposeother than determininga person'smoralstatus,althougheven herethe soul's perfection was at issue. In Sha'ar ha-GilgulimVital writes that every single evening his masterwould gaze upon the face of each of his disciples.He would see a scripturalverse shiningupon the forehead;the visualizedverse was one that pertainedto that particularstudent'ssoul, in accordancewith the Lurianicnotion that every soul possesses interpretationsof Scripture that areuniqueto it. Luriawouldthenpartiallyexplainthe esotericmeaning of the verse, in terms of the significancethat it held for that individual's spiritualcondition.The disciplewas theninstructedto concentrateuponthe explanationhe had been given, and to recitethe versebeforegoing to sleep. He did this so that when his soul ascendedto the upperrealmduringsleep, he might gain full knowledgeof the verse's meaning. In such a way the individual'ssoul wouldincreasein purity,and ascendto still higherlevelsin the divinerealm,whereit wouldenjoythe revelationof additionalmysteries of the Torah.25 ElsewhereVital describesthis activity in a somewhat differentway. Luriawould gaze upon the foreheadof each studentaftersunset,and determine what kindof text his soul would studythat nightwhenit ascendedon high, be it some rabbinicworksuch as the Mishnah,or an esotericone such as the Zohar. Here too he instructedthe discipleto recite this text before falling asleep.26 Vital also preservesseveralanecdotesin whichhe himselfwas involved. On one occasion,he writes,Luriaidentifiedthe lettersalef,bet, andgimelon his forehead.This demonstrated,accordingto Luria,that Vital neededto show compassiontowardhis father.27In a differentversionof this tradition we learn that the letters alef and bet, spellingout the word av ("father"), were writtenin normal fashion, while the gimel was upside down.28

24. This report is found in a somewhat legendary account of Luria's activities, Eleh Toledot Yi;bak, ed. Benayahu in his Sefer Toledot ha-Ari, p. 251. 25. Sha'ar ha-Gilgulim of the Shemonah She'arim, hakdamah 17. 26. Sha'ar ha-Mi;vot, Ve-ethanan, p. 87. 27. SRH, p. 17. 28. Sefer Toledot ha-Ari. Benayahu, p. 190.

92

LAWRENCE FINE

In Sefer ha-fIezyonot,Vital's dream diary, he describes an incident accordingto which Luria is reported,on a Sabbatheve, to have seen on Vital's forehead the words, "Preparea throne for Hezekiah, king of Judah."29This revealedthat he was investedwiththe soul of King Hezekiah as his "extra"Sabbathsoul, says Vital. Sometimeduringthat Sabbathday Vital becameangrywhile in his house, by reasonof which Hezekiah'ssoul departed.The followingweek Vitalrepentedfor havingbeen angry,whereupon, on the next Sabbath eve, Luria recognized the spirits of both Hezekiahand Rabbi Akiva upon Vital's forehead.Again, however,Vital experiencedanger,causingthese spiritsto leave him. After Vital had wept and repentedonce again for the sin of anger,Luriainformedhim that the spiritof BenAzzai had investeditselfin him, despitethe fact that BenAzzai and Vital did not share the same soul-ancestry.Ben Azzai was, however, Akiva's son-in-law. In this story, then, Luriais reportedto have been able to determinethe coming and going of Vital'svisiting souls by gazing on his forehead.It is interestingto observethat in this seriesof incidentsLuriais not said to have determinedthe deeds for which Vital was responsible,but the effectthose deeds had upon his spiritualstate. In anotherentryin his diary,Vitalreportsa storywith a similartheme.30 His teacheris able to explainthe meaningof a dreamthat Vitalhad by reference to the name of Rami bar Hami, which Luriahad seen on Vital'sforehead the eveningbefore.The conclusionLuriareachedwas that Vital was investedwith the soul of this Babylonianamoraicsage. In Sha'arha-Mi;vot Vital preservesyet anotherstory, accordingto which he spoke the nameof Samael(i.e., Satan)while conversingwith someoneat night.The following morningLurialooked at his face and told him that he had violatedthe prohibitionagainstutteringthe namesof othergods. WritesVital, "he strictly warned me that under no circumstances,neither duringthe day nor the night, should I utter Samael'sname."To do otherwisecan have injurious consequences,causingone to fall prey to sin or to be punished."3 The commonfeaturein theseincidentsis IsaacLuria'srolein bringingto ed. A. Z. Aeshcoly (Jerusalem, 1954), p. 165. Concerning Vital's 29. Sefer ha-IHezyonot, soul-ancestry in general, and his relationship to Hezekiah in particular, cf. pp. 143-144, 174, 184, 191, 198. 30. Sefer ha-IHezyonot,p. 173. 31. Sha'ar ha-Mi;vot, Mishpatim, p. 36.

93

THE ART OF METOPOSCOPY

Vital'sattentiona sin he had committed,eitherby explicitlyinforminghim of what he had done wrongor, as in the caseof the Hezekiahstory,by determiningwhetherthe souls withwhichhe had beeninvestedhad desertedhim. These reports,alongwith the ones describedearlier,makeit clearthat Luria did not use this techniquefor purposesof predictingthe future;nowhereare we told that Luriahad propheticknowledgeof what was to come. Rather, he employedthe art of metoposcopyin order to determinethe status of a person's spiritualcondition on the basis of his actions. Whilewe cannot know whetherthe incidentsreportedhere occurredas described,whatthese storiesdo tell us is that Luria'spracticeof this artwas sufficientlycommonplacefor it to be mentionedas a matter of fact. In Vital's case the motivationin narratingthese incidentswas not to impress the readerwith Luria'sskill as much as to informhim about Vitalhimself. The readercould be expectedto be familiarwith the remarkablewisdom and knowledgewhich Isaac Luria exhibited. III

The accounts by Ijayyim Vital and others concerningIsaac Luria's practiceof metoposcopypromptimportantquestionshavingto do with the characterof Luria'sknowledgeand the source of his authority.While the present study cannot treat these complex issues in the detail they deserve, even a general discussion of such questions will enable us to place the phenomenonof metoposcopywithin a broaderLurianiccontext. Vital's discussionof the variousesotericskills Luriapossessed,and the types of knowledgehe exhibited,as seenearlier,32 suggeststhe way in which Luria's followers regarded these abilities. They are, in Vital's words, "wondrousand true things"which"it is impossiblefor one to relate."One has to witness them in order to comprehendtheir extraordinarynature. Their wondrouscharacterhad to do, in significantpart, with the fact that they demonstratedLuria'smasterfulability to communicatewith a wide range of heavenlymessengers.Thus he could speak with the souls of departedsages, from the distantas well as the more recentpast, inquiringof them "knowledgeof the futureand secretmysteriesof the Torah."He could

32. See above, sec. I.

94

LAWRENCE FINE

communicate with the angels on high "who announce all the proclamations ... and converse with them." He was able to comprehend the language of birds, a language which contains mysteries from above. Most significantly, he experienced revelations from a heavenly agent of even greater importance than the rest of these, Elijah the prophet. As Vital reports, "Elijah would constantly reveal himself to him, speaking to him directly, and instruct him in these mysteries."33Luria, then, was considered to have easy and ongoing access to the heavenly realm, and to be uniquely adept at holding direct conversations with a wide assortment of ancient prophets, teachers, and angels. The deep wisdom, knowledge, and skills acquired by these means, moreover, were believed to be largely unavailablethrough conventional methods of attaining knowledge of the Torah, namely, intellectual study. Vital makes this clear in rather explicit terms: The secretsof the Torahand her mysteriesare not revealedto humanbeings by the power of their intellects,but only by means of divine vitalitywhich flows fromon high, throughGod's messengersand angels,or throughElijah the prophet,may his memorybe a blessing.34 Vital amplifies this point in the following words: ... there is no doubt that these matters[i.e., esotericknowledge]cannot be apprehendedby meansof humanintellect,but only throughKabbalah,from one individual[directly]to another,directlyfromElijah,mayhis memorybe a blessing,or directlyfrom those souls which reveal themselvesin each and every generationto those who are qualifiedto receivethem.35 In this context, Vital provides us with Luria's views regarding the history of the transmission of kabbalistic knowledge. Kabbalistic mysteries were 33. Sefer ha-Gilgulim,p. 27. The Lurianic literature is replete with stories and references to Luria's experience of meriting the revelation of Elijah. See, for example, the referencesto Elijah in Sefer Toledot ha-Ari, Benayahu, index to the names of individuals, p. 379. Regarding revelations of Elijah experienced by earlier kabbalists, see G. Scholem, Reshit ha-Kabbalah(Jerusalem, 1948), pp. 66-98. Concerning the multifaceted role of Elijah in Jewish literature, see A. Wiener, The Prophet Elijah in the Development of Judaism (London, 1978). 34. Sefer ha-Gilgulim, p. 25a. 35. Ibid., p. 25b.

THE ART OF METOPOSCOPY

95

taught openly and publicly until the death of Rabbi Simeon bar Yobai (Rashbi),to whom traditionascribesthe authorshipof the Zohar.Quoting the Zohar'sown words on this subject,Vital writesthat ever since Simeon bar Yohai'sdeath "wisdomhas departedfrom this earth"(Zohar 1, 217a). All of those sages who had borne kabbalisticwisdomsince that time have done so in great secrecy,each disclosinghis knowledgeto a single disciple. What is more, even to these select disciples,kabbalisticmasterstaught in generalizationsonly, revealingbut a portion of their knowledge.In such a fragmentedand fragmentaryway kabbalisticwisdomwas passed from one generationto the next until the time of Moses ben Nabman(Nabmanides), the greatSpanishrabbiof the thirteenthcentury.36 Followinga well-known traditionrecordedby MenahemRecanati(ca. 1228-ca. 1290),Vitalinforms us that duringthis time certainsages wereprivilegedto merit direct, personal revelationsfrom Elijahthe prophet,includingAbrahamben David of Posquieres(1120-1191), and the latter'sson, Isaacthe Blind.Isaac,in turn, passed his tradition on to his two disciples, Ezra and Azriel of Gerona. From them kabbalistictradition passed to the final teacher of genuine Kabbalah,Moses ben Nabman.37 What was Isaac Luria'splace in this process of transmission?Luria, accordingto Vital, representsnothing less than the first and only appearance of authentickabbalisticknowledgesinceNabmanides.Even more,his knowledgemay be comparedonly to that of Rabbi Simeonbar Yobai himself. For this knowledgehas "been neitherseen nor heard in all the land since the days of Rabbi Simeon bar Yobai, may he rest in peace, until now."38Despite the aforementionedclaim that true Kabbalah had not manifesteditself since Nahmanides,Vital writes that in every generation God displays his compassion by giving Israel extraordinaryindividuals (yebideisegullah)"upon whom the Holy Spiritrested,and to whom Elijah,

36. Ibid. p. 37b. 37. In this connection, see M. Idel's study of Nabmanides' own view regarding what constitutes genuine and legitimate kabbalistic tradition, "We Have No Kabbalistic Tradition on This," in Rabbi Moses Nahmanides (Ramban): Explorations in His Religious and Literary Virtuosity, ed. I. Twersky (Cambridge, Mass., 1983), pp. 51-73. Concerning the question of divine revelations experienced by the earliest kabbalists of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, see A. J. Heschel, "Al Ruab ha-Kodesh be-Yemei ha-Beinayim," in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume (New York, 1950), pp. 165-207, especially pp. 190-193; I. Twersky, Rabad of Posquibres: A Twelfth Century Talmudist (Cambridge, Mass., 1962), pp. 286-300. 38. Sefer ha-Gilgulim, p. 26a. Cf. Shivhei ha-Ari, p. 6.

96

LAWRENCE FINE

themin the may his memorybe a blessing,revealedhimself,instructing secretsof Kabbalah." In ourgeneration, God hasnot withhelda redeemer fromIsrael,sendingus a saintlyangel,"thegreatrabbi,oursaintlyteacher, ourrabbiandmaster,IsaacLuriaAshkenazi, mayhisnamebe foraneverwith [knowledge lastingblessing,filledlike a pomegranate of] Scripture, Mishnah,Talmud,Pilpul,Midrashim,Ma'asehBereshit,and Ma'aseh Merkavah." 39All who witnessLuria'sknowledgeand skills,and all who familiarize themselveswith his teachingswill recognize"thatthe human mind[byitself]couldnot attainsuchdeepandwondrousmatterswithout thepowerof theHolySpirit,mediated throughElijah,mayhismemorybea 40 blessing." IsaacLuria,then,maybe saidto havebeenregarded by hiscircleas an individual of a charismatic possessing knowledge type,thatis, asa personto whomdirectandexceptional of thesacredhadbeenvouchsafed. knowledge Luria'scharisma,his especiallyclose relationship to the sacred,was evidencednot onlyby his remarkable butevenmoresignificantly, saintliness, whicharetypically by his unusualknowledgeandesotericskills,mysteries of the human beyond grasp ordinary beings.41Masteryof the artof metoposcopy,the knowledgeof which,it was believed,couldonly havecome fromon high,shouldbe understood as oneaspect-albeita mostimportant whichhelpedestablishLuriaas a teacherand one--of a typeof knowledge religiousmentorof uniquestatusin Safed. Froman historicalpointof view,this legitimization by the Lurianic of the charismatic mode of fellowship acquiringreligioustruthis, in my The effort to gain kabbalisticknowledge view, extremelysignificant. throughsuchmeansstands,of course,in markedcontrastto traditional rabbinicmethodsof developingteachingsthroughvarioustypesof textual inquiry.Whiledifferenthermeneutical stylesmaybe broughtto bearupon suchinquiry,the commonfactoris the essentiallyintellectual processof an text for the of or studying existing purpose clarifying,interpreting, 39. Sefer ha-Gilgulim, p. 26a. 40. Ibid., p. 27a. It would be mistaken to conclude from this that Luria did not engage also in conventional textual study, of both exoteric and esoteric texts. Concerning this subject, see, for example, the traditions reported in Sha'ar ha-Mipvot, Parashat Ve-ethanan; SRH, pp. 34-46. Some of the relevant texts are translated in Fine, Safed Spirituality, pp. 68-70. 41. For a discussion of the notion of religious charisma as it is used here, see Charles F. Keyes, "Charisma: From Social Life to Sacred Biography," in Charismaand Sacred Biography, ed. M. Williams, Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Religion ThematicStudies 48, nos. 3 and 4 (1982): 1-22.

THE ART OF METOPOSCOPY

97

furtheringmeaning. For meaning is believed to reside within the texts themselves;one need only apply the appropriatetechniquesin order to ferretout the intentionof the text. This was the case not only for the rabbis of late antiquity;it was true for the medievalphilosophers,biblicalexegetes of various types, as well as most kabbalists. In Luria'scase appealwas not madeto the inherentmeaningof existing texts which could be discoveredthrough rational inquiry, but to some heavenly source. Knowledge,as we have seen, was regardedas deriving directly from on high, rather than from an individual'sown intellectual powerto determineGod's will. Whereasthe talmudicsageswentout of their way to deny the possibilityof furtherprophecy,claiminginstead that the privilegeof understandingthe meaningof Torahwas now a more"earthly" one,42the Lurianistsreassertedthe contentionthat more directchannelsof communicationwere not only possible, but urgentlypreferable. As we have alreadyseen, therewereearlierkabbalistswhom kabbalistic traditionregardedas havinggainedtheirknowledgein this way. But it was not until the fifteenthand sixteenthcenturiesthat we encounterthe proliferationof this type of activityon a large scale. The revelatorymaggidof the TurkishkabbalistJosephTaitaeak,the heavenlydisclosuresexperienced by Moses Cordoveroand Solomon AlkabeZduringtheir walks amidst the gravesitesof Safed,JosephKaro'smaggidicvisitations,andHayyimVital's techniqueof communingwith the soul of a departedtanna, are all vivid examples of the emergenceof a new point of view.43When Isaac Luria

42. See, for example, the often-cited text in the Babylonian Talmud, Bava Meria 59b. On the question of revelation and authority, see G. Scholem, "Religious Authority and Mysticism," in his On the Kabbalahand Its Symbolism, pp. 5-31; idem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism (New York, 1971), pp. 282-303. 43. Concerning the experiences of Joseph Taitaeak, see G. Scholem, "Ha-Maggid shel R. Yosef Taitaeak ve-ha-Giluyim ha-Meyubasim Lo," Sefunot 11 (1977): 69-112. On the revelations accorded Cordovero and AlkabeZ, see R. J. Z. Werblowsky, Joseph Karo, Lawyer and Mystic (Oxford, 1962), pp. 51-55, as well as Y. Liebes, Ha-Mashiah shel ha-Zohar-leDemuto ha-Meshihit shel R. Shimon bar Yohai (Jerusalem, 1982), pp. 107-109. On Karo, see Werblowsky, Joseph Karo, passim. Vital's technique is studied in L. Fine, "Mishnah as a Vehicle for Mystical Inspiration: A Contemplative Technique Taught by Hayyim Vital," Revue des etudesjuives 141 (1982): 183-199. In this connection, see L. Fine, "Maggidic Revelation in the Teachings of Isaac Luria," in Mystics, Philosophers,and Politicians, ed. J. Reinharz and D. Swetschinski (Durham, N.C., 1982), pp. 141-157. See also the study by M. Idel, "Iyyunim be-Shitat Ba'al Sefer ha-Meshiv," Sefunot, n.s. 2, no. 17 (1983): 185-266, in which he discusses this book's influence upon the development of the kind of revelatory techniques mentioned here. See, as well, the survey of such techniques in Werblowsky, Joseph Karo, pp. 38-83.

98

LAWRENCE FINE

arrivedin Safed from Egypt in the year 1570, then, he found himself in cultural surroundingswhich were highly supportiveof men who sought knowledgeof Torahfromon high, and who weresuccessfulin those efforts. Luria was not, however,merely another example of a general tendency. Rather,in Luriawe see a rich and full realizationof this tendency.Luria stood out in largepart becausehe was perceivedas a virtuosoat such activity, as one who was gifted beyond compare.Throughthe strengthof his impressivepersonality,as well as throughthe powerof his teachingsthemselves, Luriawas well positionedto raise the phenomenonof charismatic experienceto a status which it had not known for centuries.44

IV Luria'scapacityto diagnosethe moral statusof his disciplesand others throughthe artof metoposcopyhas also to be understoodwithinthe specific contextof the redemptiveprocessof whichhe and his circlebelievedthemselves to be a part. The projectof redemption,towardwhich Isaac Luria's mythologicalteachingswere directedin their entirety,requiredeach of his disciplesto assumeresponsibilityfor the extremelycomplextask of tikkun. Tikkunrefersto the elaborateactivityof mendingthe cosmicflaws brought about by the intradivineruptureknownas the "breakingof the vessels,"as well as by human sin. At its deepest levels this was to be accomplished through the performanceof intricate contemplativeand theurgic rites, describedin such detail in the Lurianicliterature.But such rites, as mentioned earlier,could be practicedsuccessfullyonly by individualswho were thoroughlyworthy,that is, by those who had alreadyachieveda degreeof personaltikkun. Luria's expertiseat diagnosing sin and offeringprecise penitentialexerciseswithwhichto purifythe soul was perceivedby his circle as an essentialdemonstrationof Luria'sredemptive role. Luriawas indeeda "redeemer,"as Vitaltellsus, insofaras healingthe soul was an indispensable stagein the largertask of messianicredemption,and insofaras he imparted

44. One ought not to underestimate the influence which the personality of Isaac Luria exerted upon later mystical developments, particularly Sabbatianism and IHasidism,in significant part through the hagiographical works on Luria, Shivbei ha-Ari and Toledot ha-Ari. In this connection, see J. Dan, Ha-Sippur ha-Ivri be- Yemeiha-Beinayim (Jerusalem, 1974), chap. 11. This is a subject which deserves further investigation.

THE ART OF METOPOSCOPY

99

techniques of contemplation to those he deemed worthy to play a further and more advanced role in the process. For Isaac Luria and his followers believed that theirs was the final, messianic generation, and that the time was ripe for the increased disclosure of heavenly secrets. ... for this wisdom was concealedsince the days of Rashbi, may he rest in peace,untilnow, as he [i.e., Rashbi]taught:"Permissionis not givento reveal it until the final generation,until the king Messiahcomes."Now is the time, for on accountof our saintlyteacher,our honoredmaster,RabbiIsaacLuria, may his memorybe a blessing, by means of the spirit of prophecywhich appearedin him, our eyes havebegunto be enlightenedwiththe lightof divine wisdom, hidden [until now] from the eyes of all living things.45 The connection between Simeon bar Yobai and Isaac Luria goes even deeper. Luria regarded himself as Simeon bar Yobai redivivus,and believed his closest disciples to be reincarnations of Rashbi's comrades!46While there is rich and diverse evidence attesting to this, one tradition is of particular relevance to our subject. According to this tradition-recorded in several places in slightly different versions47-Luria and his disciples journeyed to the same place where Rashbi and his fellowship had engaged in a dramatic study session, an event known in the Zohar as the Holy Idra ("threshing floor"). According to the Zohar, in the course of this event Rashbi and his disciples revealed recondite mysteries of the Torah.48 Luria is reported to have sat in the exact spot that Rashbi had occupied, and to have placed each of his disciples in the position of one of Simeon bar Yobai's comrades, revealing to each disciple the comrade with whose soul he was bound through the process of metempsychosis. Luria is also reported to have engaged in a ritual known as yihud ("unification") by lying stretched out upon Rashbi's grave, as a result of which Rashbi revealed to Luria "all that 45. SRH, pp. 39-40. 46. This has already been noted and briefly discussed by Y. Liebes in his important study, mentioned in n. 43, Ha-Mashiah shel ha-Zohar, pp. 109-110 and passim. 47. See Shivbei ha-Ari, p. 17; Sefer Toledot ha-Ari, Benayahu, pp. 179-180; Sefer haHlezyonot, p. 153. 48. The section of the Zohar entitled Idra Rabba is in Zohar 3, 287b-296b. For an English translation of these sections, see R. Rosenberg, The Anatomy of God (New York, 1973). The Idra Rabba is studied in the monograph by Liebes mentioned in the preceding note. In general, the Idra Rabba played an exceedingly important role in Isaac Luria's thinking.

100

FINE LAWRENCE

he had learned in the academy on high, just as a man speaks with his friend."49Accordingto one versionof this story,Luriaand his disciplesalso engaged in the study of the Idra itself, in the course of which Luria revealedthe secret meaningof Simeon bar Yolai's Idra teachings.50It is clear fromthis that Isaac Luriaand his circlebelievedthat they were reenacting and furtheringthe redemptivework that had been carriedout by Rashbi and his fellowship. The mythological basis for this tradition lies in an intricate set of Lurianic teachings concerning the transmigrationof souls, particularly those of Luria'sown inner circle.5'For presentpurposesit is sufficientto point out that Luria devised a transmigratorychain which linked Joseph and his brothers,RabbiAkivaand the other"TenMartyrs,"Rashbiand his comrades,and Luria'sfellowship.Eachgrouprepresenteda decisivestagein the process of tikkun.Throughtheir efforts to bring about tikkunin the supernalrealm, the membersof these circlesoccupiedcriticalroles in the redemptiveprocess.52Moreover,each group galvanizedaround a central figurewho stood at the centerof these efforts.This processhad reacheda new and criticalstage with Isaac Luriaand his disciples;for they believed that theiractionswerecapable,at least potentially,of realizingthe redemption once and for all. The Safed kabbalistsappearto have thoughtthat the year 1575would witnessthe beginningof the messianicage. Accordingto the Lurianists,sin and exile had caused the exile of the inner secrets of the Torah; in the messianicage, however,these mysterieswould be revealedonce again.The redemptionof holiness, which lies at the heart of Lurianic mysticism, extendedeven to the redemptionof the Torahitself.Whereasnow only frag49. Shivhei ha-Ari, p. 17. 50. Sefer Toledot ha-Ari, pp. 179-180. 51. The subject of metempsychosis constitutes a major topic in Lurianic teachings, the primary accounts of which are Sha'ar ha-Gilgulim, Sefer ha-Gilgulim, and Sefer ha-ljezyonot, pt. 4. A survey of the history of metempsychosis in kabbalistic literature may be found in G. Scholem, Pirkei Yesod be-Havanat ha-Kabbalah u-Semaleha (Jerusalem, 1976), a German version of which is found in idem, Von der mystischen Gestalt der Gottheit (Zurich, 1962). A thorough study of the place of metempsychosis in Luria's mythology, and its relationship to his fellowship's self-understanding, is still needed. 52. See, for example, the account in Vital's Sefer ha-ljezyonot, pp. 210-229; Sefer haGilgulim(Vilna, 1886), chap. 35. Cf. Liebes, Ha-Mashiah shel ha-Zohar, p. 109, n. 95. Concerning the messianic roles of Luria (and Vital), see D. Tamar, "Ha-Ari ve-ha-Rabu ke-Mashiah ben Yosef," Sefunot 7 (1963): 167-177; Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi, pp. 52-58.

THE ART OF METOPOSCOPY

101

ments of the Torah'sdeep mysteriesare available,in the messianicfuture every Israelite will achieve knowledge of the Torah in its entirety. The specialknowledgemeritedin the unredeemedstateby Luria-and to a lesser degree by his disciplesand others-was regardedas a sign of the coming redemption.But it was far more than a mere signal.For this knowledge,a "knowledgeof the future and secret mysteriesof the Torah,"was also a means throughwhich Isaac Luria could facilitatethe task of tikkun. Indiana University Bloomington,Ind.

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Peter Manchester Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Spring, 1986), pp. 103-104 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486357 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:17 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

BOOK REVIEWS Martha Himmelfarb. Tours of Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in Jewish and

ChristianLiterature.Philadelphia:Universityof PennsylvaniaPress, 1983. 195 pp. with bibliographyand index. This terse but scholarlyand thoroughgenrestudy illustratesan important rule:less can be more. By restrictingherselfto a set of texts that share smallfeatureswith surprisingprecision,MarthaHimmelfarbobtainsresults that are of substancefor much largerquestions.Her topic is the "tour of hell,"a literaryformatmost familiarin Dante, but whichhas a long prehistory, in which a series of visions of the punishmentsof the damned are explainedto a visitor by a guide. But her context is the whole visionary literaturecalled"apocalyptic,"and specificallythe problemsof its originsin early HellenisticJudaism,its cultivationin the apocryphalliteratureof the intertestamentalperiod,and its modes of transmissionin rabbinical,Christian, and Muslim traditions. The authorhas identifiedseventeentexts, preservedin Hebrew,Greek, Latin,Ethiopic,or Coptic,fromroughlythe thirdcenturyB.C.E.throughthe early medievalperiod,which shareone main identifyingmark and a small groupof overlappingfamilyresemblances.The identifyingmarkis strikingly minimal:the presenceof demonstrativepronounsin a dialogue of the form, "Who are these?These are those who ..." This is the fully realized format.But even whenthe questionis absent,and the demonstrativea mere "These . . ." (e.g., "These have committed adultery"), the distinctive genre

shows itself.By this smallgrammaticalgesture,a whole sceneis set:a guide, usually angelic, is accompanyinga tourist visionaryas they come upon a series of groups in hell undergoingvarious punishmentsgraphicallydepicted. Alreadythis test is strongenoughto refuteassertionsof Hellenicor Romaninfluenceon suchearlyexamplesas the Apocalypseof Peterandthe Apocalypse of Paul; in the Aeneid,which comes closer to the genre than earlier descriptions of Hades, the Sibyl uses the demonstrative "here .. ."

which is not found in the traditionunder study. 103

104

BOOK REVIEWS

The family resemblances have to do with the specific punishments associated with particular sins. These allow the author to chart in a preliminary way some separable lines of influence within what she cautiously dubs a tradition, and occasionally to make suggestions about the dating or provenance of previously inscrutable texts. The origin of the tradition, she suggests, is the "Book of the Watchers," chapters 1-36 of I Enoch. If, as she argues, this dates from the third century B.C.E.,its concern "with the sights that the visionary sees in the course of a journey through the cosmos, rather than with collective eschatology" (p. 3), is important to speculation about the early development of the apocalyptic genre. Though a pioneering text study much involved with method and evidence, there is enough fire and smoke and pitch and hanging by the hair and other parts in this book to capture the imagination of a broader theological audience. Such readers might wonder why hell has so much more richly imagined and coherent a tradition than heaven. Peter Manchester State University of New York at Stony Brook Stony Brook, N.Y. Lawrence A. Hoffman. The Canonization of the Synagogue Service. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1979, x. 245 pp. The Canonization of the Synagogue Service is an important contribution to the study of the history of Jewish liturgy. Based upon Hoffman's doctoral dissertation,' this work sheds considerable light on the process of liturgical canonization during the geonic period, and provides the reader with a conceptual framework with which to better understand the positions taken by the geonim in a number of controversies relating to the liturgy. This is a well-written and well-organized book. Hoffman's basic assumptions, his methodological approach, and his thesis are clearly stated. His analysis of the supporting evidence is thorough, and attention is given to cases which do not appear to fit well into his schema. The book is well-

1. Lawrence A. Hoffman, "Liturgical Responses Suppressed by the Geonim in Their Attempt to Fix the Liturgy" (doctoral diss., Hebrew Union College, 1973).

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Kenneth E. Berger Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Spring, 1986), pp. 104-109 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486358 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:17 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

104

BOOK REVIEWS

The family resemblances have to do with the specific punishments associated with particular sins. These allow the author to chart in a preliminary way some separable lines of influence within what she cautiously dubs a tradition, and occasionally to make suggestions about the dating or provenance of previously inscrutable texts. The origin of the tradition, she suggests, is the "Book of the Watchers," chapters 1-36 of I Enoch. If, as she argues, this dates from the third century B.C.E.,its concern "with the sights that the visionary sees in the course of a journey through the cosmos, rather than with collective eschatology" (p. 3), is important to speculation about the early development of the apocalyptic genre. Though a pioneering text study much involved with method and evidence, there is enough fire and smoke and pitch and hanging by the hair and other parts in this book to capture the imagination of a broader theological audience. Such readers might wonder why hell has so much more richly imagined and coherent a tradition than heaven. Peter Manchester State University of New York at Stony Brook Stony Brook, N.Y. Lawrence A. Hoffman. The Canonization of the Synagogue Service. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1979, x. 245 pp. The Canonization of the Synagogue Service is an important contribution to the study of the history of Jewish liturgy. Based upon Hoffman's doctoral dissertation,' this work sheds considerable light on the process of liturgical canonization during the geonic period, and provides the reader with a conceptual framework with which to better understand the positions taken by the geonim in a number of controversies relating to the liturgy. This is a well-written and well-organized book. Hoffman's basic assumptions, his methodological approach, and his thesis are clearly stated. His analysis of the supporting evidence is thorough, and attention is given to cases which do not appear to fit well into his schema. The book is well-

1. Lawrence A. Hoffman, "Liturgical Responses Suppressed by the Geonim in Their Attempt to Fix the Liturgy" (doctoral diss., Hebrew Union College, 1973).

BOOK REVIEWS

105

annotated and indexed, and contains a bibliography and several useful appendices: a chart which clearly illustrates the positions taken by the various geonim in the controversies under consideration; a chronological list of the geonim cited in the study; and a glossary of liturgical rubrics and related terms. Hoffman has carefully analyzed many geonic responsa relating to the liturgy, and his presentation provides one with great insight into the development of specific prayer customs and texts. His real contribution, however, lies in his synthesis of the material at hand and in the development of his thesis that the canonization process during the geonic period can be divided into three distinct periods, and that the history of this process reflects the fortunes and concerns of the gaonate as an institution during this time. According to Hoffman, the first period, extending from the gaonate of Yehudai until that of Amram, was marked by the struggle of the geonim to establish themselves as the authorities on matters of Jewish practice, not only over the Jews of Babylonia, but over those of Palestine and the Western diaspora as well (p. 163). While these efforts were not successful, the geonim did succeed in demarcating certain rules, prayers, and practices which comprised a Babylonian rite (p. 9). Those who followed other practices were condemned in the strongest possible terms. The second period, represented by Saadiah Gaon, was marked by an entirely new approach to liturgical issues.2 The Palestinian-Babylonian rivalry was no longer a central problem in Jewish life. Saadiah had lived for a time in Palestine, and he felt free to accept many Palestinian customs (p. 164). The rulings included in his Siddur and in his responsa dealing with liturgical issues reflect two primary concerns: the Karaite challenge to rabbinic authority, and his desire to demonstrate "the rationality, the logic, and the general propriety of rabbinic liturgy" (p. 9). Yet these two concerns were really one, for Hoffman suggests that Saadiah's concern for the "rationality" of the prayers and his preference for formulations that have a biblical basis were both related to his polemic against the Karaites (pp. 166-167). The third period, represented by Sherira and Hai, differs from the first in 2. For a discussion of Saadiah's approach to the liturgy, see Hoffman, Canonizationof the Synagogue Service, pp. 11-12, and Joseph Heinemann, "Yabaso shel Ray Saadiah Gaon le-Shinui Matbei'a Tefillah," Bar Ilan Yearbook6 (1963): 220-233.

106

BOOK REVIEWS

its extraordinary tolerance of liturgical diversity. Hoffman suggests that the tolerance of these geonim may be attributed to the institutional weakness of the gaonate at that time.3 Sherira and Hai sought to rebuild the prestige of the academy of Pumbedita, and to regain the support and loyalty of the diaspora communities. This could not be accomplished by fiat, or by harsh condemnation of local custom (p. 168). Hoffman does note that there were exceptions to this tolerance of variant practices, and suggests possible explanations for most of them. For the most part, they appear to reflect Hai's struggle against Karaism (p. 169). Hoffman devotes one chapter to "miscellaneous debates and liturgical alternatives," in which he discusses geonic responsa on liturgical issues that do not otherwise meet the criteria for inclusion in the book (pp. 150-159). According to Hoffman, the process of canonization entails the adoption of one particular reading as authoritative, and conversely, the rejection of alternative or variant texts. For this reason, Hoffman utilized only those geonic sources which discuss the use of such variants (p. 150). There are, however, responsa on liturgical issues in which the gaon cites a particular formula but makes no mention of existing variants, or in which the gaon's decision seems to be unrelated to the motivational factors which underlie the decisions analyzed in the preceding chapters of the book. They are held to be irrevelant to Hoffman's basic thesis, and are included only for the sake of completeness, and because he recognized that his judgment of their "neutrality" might be disputed by others (p. 151). This chapter is the weakest one in the book, for of the five cases that were chosen for inclusion, two do not even involve geonic decisions, while a third is not really "neutral." The first "controversy" cited in this chapter concerns the exact wording of the asher yazar blessing in the Birkhot ha-Shahar. There was, in fact, no geonic controversy over the correct wording of this blessing;4 it did not become an issue until the postgeonic period (pp. 151-152). Hoffman's inclusion of it in this study is therefore difficult to understand. The same is true of Hoffman's discussion of alternative versions of the

3. For a discussion of the erosion of geonic authority during this period, see Simba Asaf and Jehoshua Brand, s.v. "Gaon," Encyclopaedia Judaica, 7:318. 4. Hoffman admits that the differences in the readings found in the geonic sources under consideration may merely be the result of scribal errors, later textual emendations, or even differences in spelling the same word. The geonim do not appear to have been aware of the existence of variant readings in these cases (pp. 151-152).

BOOK REVIEWS

107

blessings recited prior to the study of the Torah. One alternative is that which concluded lamdenihukekha. While this blessing is the subject of considerable debate among the rishonim, and seems to have been recited already by the merkavah mystics, it is not mentioned in any of the geonic responsa (p. 153). While this may be an indication of geonic rejection of this formula, it may also be an indication of their unfamiliarity with it. The same may be said of the other examples of Torah blessings that are cited (pp. 155-156). The last example of a "neutral" responsum cited by Hoffman is a responsum concerning the correct wording of the Saturday morning Kiddush (p. 158). He maintains that it is neutral because the authorship and date of the responsum are unknown, as is the identity of the group that used the disputed formula. However, this does not make the responsum a neutral one. It is neutral only in the sense that we lack sufficient data to evaluate it properly. Were this information available to us, the responsum would clearly be relevant to the discussion at hand. The Canonization of the Synagogue Service is an important work which adds much to our understanding of the process of liturgical canonization during the geonic period. In addition to providing the reader with a framework for understanding the issues raised in the geonic responsa relating to liturgical questions, Hoffman provides clear, cogent analyses of many difficult geonic texts. Furthermore, he suggests a number of areas which merit further scholarly investigation.5 Nevertheless, there are a number of weaknesses in Hoffman's analysis which detract somewhat from the otherwise excellent quality of this work. The first problem relates to his basic thesis, that the liturgical responsa of the geonim fall into three periods, each with its own concerns and tendencies. He marshals a great deal of evidence in support of this periodization. It is clear that the early period was characterized by strictness and a polemical approach toward what were regarded as deviant practices, and that the later period was marked by much greater tolerance. His explanation of these trends is reasonable. However, despite his claim that Saadiah was a product of his age (p. 165), it seems to me that Hoffman has not adequately supported his contention that Saadiah represents a distinct period in the history of liturgical canonization during the geonic period. Since there was no 5. For example, after noting the Palestinian penchant for including petitions for salvation in many of the prayers, Hoffman suggests that "just on the basis of the limited evidence of this study, the Palestinian desire to insert petitions for salvation presents itself as a worthy subject for further research" (p. 52).

108

BOOK REVIEWS

evidence presented that Saadiah's criteria were applied by the geonim immediately preceding or following him, perhaps it would have been better to have spoken of two periods, with Saadiah's approach being regarded as idiosyncratic. A more fundamental problem with Hoffman's work relates to the scope of the study, and to the degree to which Hoffman addresses, or fails to address, important questions relative to the process of liturgical canonization. The very title of the book, The Canonizationof the Synagogue Service, is misleading. It leads one to expect that the work will present a thorough study of the whole process of liturgical canonization, when, in fact, the book is limited to the geonic period. But even were the book to be entitled The Canonization of the Synagogue Service During the Geonic Period, a number of questions would remain. For methodological reasons, Hoffman dealt only with geonic texts that shed light on a gaon's attitude toward the use of alternative liturgical formuli (p. 6). Yet there is a great deal of source material, including much of Seder Ray Amram and Siddur Ray Saadiah, that clearly relates to the process of canonization (for these works were attempts to set forth what were felt to be the proper forms of prayer), but that does not relate directly to the question of the use of variants. A more satisfying title (albeit one that may not be as marketable) is that of Hoffman's dissertation: "Liturgical Responses Suppressed by the Geonim in Their Attempt to Fix the Liturgy." Among the goals that Hoffman set for himself in the introduction (p. 6), all were met admirably, with the exception of the last, the determination of the success of the geonic efforts to canonize the liturgy. Hoffman does not even touch upon this problem until the last two pages of the book, where he concludes that "from the evidence of the geonic literature alone, it would seem that no great success was encountered by the geonim. It is fair to say, at least, that where success was attained, it was a result of the will of later communities themselves, not the authoritarian aspect of the gaonate" (p. 170). Yet he also concludes that "the synagogue service was canonized, and in a sense by the geonim, particularly Amram, whose Seder became common currency in Western Europe" (p. 170). In all, his analysis of the failure of geonic efforts during the period of the gaonate, as well as his comments regarding their posthumous success, are very superficial. The analysis which underlies much of the book, i.e., that concern for liturgical canonization was a particularly geonic phenomenon, is open to question, as is his assertion that the liturgy was finally canonized in the post-

109

BOOK REVIEWS

geonic period. Earlier authoritieswere also concernedwith establishing properliturgicalforms and formuli,as is admittedby Hoffman(pp. 3-4). While the geonim were frequentlyconcernedwith largerblocks of material (i.e., the wordingof entireblessingsand series of blessings)than were the tannaimand amoraim(who wereprimarilyconcernedwith the inclusionor omissionof specificwordsand phrases),it remainsto be demonstratedthat the effortsof the geonimdifferedqualitativelyfrom those of theirpredecessors. Neitherthe talmudicauthoritiesnor the geonimsucceededcompletely in theireffortsto suppressthoseformulito whichthey took exception.Posttalmudicauthoritiesdownto our own timehavedemonstrateda concernfor establishingproper liturgicalformulae, and liturgicalcontroversieshave erupted in every era of Jewish history. Perhapscanonizationshould be viewed as a process which was never really completed.Hoffman'sstudy, then, must be seen as a fine study of "liturgicalresponsessuppressedby the geonim in their attempt to fix the liturgy."The definitivework on the process of Jewishliturgicalcanonization,or even the process of liturgical canonizationduringthe geonic period, is yet to be written. Kenneth E. Berger Teaneck,N.J.

Harold Pollins. Economic History of the Jews in England. Littman Library of

JewishCivilization.Rutherford,N.J.: FairleighDickinsonUniversityPress, 1982. 339 pp. Readersin searchof a grandtheoryof Jewisheconomicbehaviorwill be disappointed by Harold Pollins's Economic History of the Jews in England.

Pollins eschewsthe kind of comprehensivetheory-buildingassociatedwith the names of Marx, Sombart, and Weber in favor of a more sober and factually reliable approach. In covering the full sweep of Anglo-Jewish historysince the resettlementof 1656,he sets himselfa moremodest but no less difficulttask:providinga carefuldescriptionof threecenturiesof Jewish economic activity in a society where relevantdata about that activityare difficultto come by, and, when patternsdo displaythemselves,infusingthe descriptivematerialwith unobtrusivemiddle-rangetheoriesappropriateto specific circumstances.

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Todd M. Endelman Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Spring, 1986), pp. 109-113 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486359 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:17 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

109

BOOK REVIEWS

geonic period. Earlier authoritieswere also concernedwith establishing properliturgicalforms and formuli,as is admittedby Hoffman(pp. 3-4). While the geonim were frequentlyconcernedwith largerblocks of material (i.e., the wordingof entireblessingsand series of blessings)than were the tannaimand amoraim(who wereprimarilyconcernedwith the inclusionor omissionof specificwordsand phrases),it remainsto be demonstratedthat the effortsof the geonimdifferedqualitativelyfrom those of theirpredecessors. Neitherthe talmudicauthoritiesnor the geonimsucceededcompletely in theireffortsto suppressthoseformulito whichthey took exception.Posttalmudicauthoritiesdownto our own timehavedemonstrateda concernfor establishingproper liturgicalformulae, and liturgicalcontroversieshave erupted in every era of Jewish history. Perhapscanonizationshould be viewed as a process which was never really completed.Hoffman'sstudy, then, must be seen as a fine study of "liturgicalresponsessuppressedby the geonim in their attempt to fix the liturgy."The definitivework on the process of Jewishliturgicalcanonization,or even the process of liturgical canonizationduringthe geonic period, is yet to be written. Kenneth E. Berger Teaneck,N.J.

Harold Pollins. Economic History of the Jews in England. Littman Library of

JewishCivilization.Rutherford,N.J.: FairleighDickinsonUniversityPress, 1982. 339 pp. Readersin searchof a grandtheoryof Jewisheconomicbehaviorwill be disappointed by Harold Pollins's Economic History of the Jews in England.

Pollins eschewsthe kind of comprehensivetheory-buildingassociatedwith the names of Marx, Sombart, and Weber in favor of a more sober and factually reliable approach. In covering the full sweep of Anglo-Jewish historysince the resettlementof 1656,he sets himselfa moremodest but no less difficulttask:providinga carefuldescriptionof threecenturiesof Jewish economic activity in a society where relevantdata about that activityare difficultto come by, and, when patternsdo displaythemselves,infusingthe descriptivematerialwith unobtrusivemiddle-rangetheoriesappropriateto specific circumstances.

110

BOOKREVIEWS

If thereis a centralthemerunningthroughPollins'swork, it is the relative insignificanceof Jews in shapingeconomiclife in Britain.Unlike their counterpartsin the less-developedregionsof Europe,where native entrepreneurialtalent was weak, EnglishJewsworkedin a society economically in advanceof the rest of the world, at least until the end of the nineteenth century,in which there were few fields ripe for economic penetrationby outsiders.Therewere, of course,areasof economiclife in whichJewswere highlyvisible:the diamondand coraltradeand the preciousmetalstradein the eighteenthcentury,the old-clothestrade in the late Georgianperiod, country peddling in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the mass production of cheap clothing from the 1830s to World War II, urban propertydevelopmentin the postwaryears. However,the prominenceof Jews in these areas can hardly be construed as decisive in determining British economic development.Britain's preeminencein the nineteenth centurywas built on agriculture,coal mining, iron and steel production, engineering,textiles,shipbuilding,and railways.As Pollins points out, "in these industries'formativeyears in the eighteenthcenturythe Jews played no part,"while in the nineteenthcenturyonly a handfulbecameindustrialists by comparisonwiththe muchlargernumberwho achieveddistinctionin more traditionalareas of Jewishenterprise,such as finance,stock brokerage, overseascommerce,and retail trade. Interestingly,most Jewswho enteredthe areasthat werethe backboneof the IndustrialRevolution were not native-bornEnglish Jews but recent arrivalsfromGermanywho settledin the provinces,such as LudwigMond (chemicals),JacobBehrens(textiles),GustaveEdwardWolff(shipbuilding), and BernhardSamuelson(engineering).Pollinsnotes the Germanoriginsof these provincialindustrialistswithout explaining,unfortunately,why they wereattractedto the newindustrieswhileJewswhosefamilieshad arrivedin Englandtwo or threegenerationsearlierwerenot. (Anotherdistinguishing characteristicof these Jewish industrialpioneers was their propensityto abandonJudaismand assimilatecompletelyinto the dominantelites of the communitiesin which they settled,a characteristicperhapslinked to their initial attractionto economicendeavorsoutsidethe usual sphereof Jewish interests.) The failureof Jews to play a criticalrole in Englishindustrialgrowth does not mean, of course, that there was nothing distinctiveabout Jewish economic activity. The occupationalprofile of Anglo-Jewryat any time betweenthe resettlementand World War II was as skewed toward commerce-and particularfields within trade-as that of any other Western

BOOKREVIEWS

111

Jewry.In the case of communitieswhereJewswereexcludedby discrimination from key professionsand occupations,it is not difficultto understand the lopsidedeconomicstructureof those Jewries.But such an explanation, Pollins argues, will not work in the case of England,where new Jewish immigrantswere"emancipateddefacto" and "formallimitationson Jewish life were minimal." Thus, for example, Ashkenazi immigrantsin the Georgianperiod who took up peddlingwere not forced to do so because entryto the artisanalcraftswas regulatedby the Cityof Londoncompanies. In fact, the companies'control was limited to the one square-mileof the City of London; non-Jewishcraftsmenelsewherein the metropoliswere willingto takeon Jewishapprentices;and Jewswho did experiencedifficulty in following a craft in London could set up in the provinces,where the marketfor luxurieswas rapidlyexpanding. Why, then, did these immigrants,and, indeed,most other EnglishJews in the past three centuriesas well, show so little interestin breakingaway from certainwell-trodoccupationalpaths when externalconstraintswere no longer a consideration?In a brief concludingchapter,Pollins offers a numberof suggestionsas to why this should have been so. He stresses,in particular,the occupationalbackgroundof the differentwaves of immigrantsand theirtendencyto pursuethe sametradestheyhad followedprior to their migration.The Jewishtobacco workersof VictorianLondon, for example,carriedon in the same employmentthey had known in Amsterdam. Similarly, the trades of the Eastern European immigrants-petty commerceand smallworkshopmanufacturing-accompaniedthemin their migration to Britain. In addition, the presence of Jewish employersin certainareasof the economymayhaveactedto channelJewishworkersinto thesesameareas.This wouldcertainlyexplainthe absenceof East EndJews in engineeringand dock-working.As Pollinsnotes, "A Jewwould feel more comfortableworkingfor a Jew; even if conditionsof work were poor he would not be exposedto possibletaunts,snubsor outrighthostilitybecause he was Jewish."The willingnessof some Jewishemployersto honor their workers'religioussensibilitiesmay also have acted to concentrateJews in certaintrades,althoughthis point shouldnot be stressedtoo much, Pollins feels, since the Jewish working class "did not have a high reputationfor religiosity." A further determinant of the structure of Anglo-Jewish economic life was the previously mentioned maturity of the English economy,which foreclosedexpansioninto new areasthat in other societies were open to Jewishinitiative. Perhapsthe most attractivefeatureof this work is its veryscope. Pollins

112

BOOKREVIEWS

is not a timid scholar, content to work his own narrowly delimited territory, fearful of synthesis and speculation. His Economic History of the Jews in England, while not intellectually daring, is bold in terms of the great mass of historical evidence it seeks to master. In a few instances, the author was able to draw on previously published studies of specific topics, such as Gedalia Yogev's Diamonds and Coral: Anglo-Dutch Jews and Eighteenth-Century Tradeand Joseph Buckman's Immigrantsand the Class Struggle: The Jewish Immigrantsin Leeds, 1880-1914. But for the most part he has had to rely on less satisfactory printed sources, such as memoirs and biographies of successful entrepreneurs; histories of particular industries, towns, and trades; journalistic surveys of Jewish life and labor; and articles from the Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England. Due to the scope of his project, Pollins, quite understandably, has not utilized unprinted archival materials like business records or personal correspondence. Thus, his account is weaker in evidence and more speculative in some places than others, and should be considered not so much a definitive synthesis as a thoughtful guide to the current state of our knowledge and a stimulus to further research and reflection. To say this, however, is not to minimize its value. By casting his net so widely, Pollins has performed an important service for students of both Anglo-Jewish history and the social history of Western Jewry. Pollins's dependence on secondary sources has also influenced the organization of his survey. The preoccupation of previous researchers with the sweated trades of the immigrant community at the end of the last century and the trade unionism to which they gave birth has led the author to emphasize this episode in Anglo-Jewish economic history without according equally important developments their proper due. The growth of the new community receives a chapter of its own, as do the immigrant trades, Jewish trade unionism, and the working class in the interwar years. On the other hand, the dissolution of the Jewish working class and the movement of their children and grandchildren into lower-middle- and middle-class occupations are dealt with only cursorily. Yet this transformation, which began in the interwar period and intensified after 1945, was as decisive as the arrival of the Eastern European immigrant wave several decades earlier. Unfortunately, this shift in the makeup of the community remains unchronicled, while research into the old East End and its counterparts in the provinces continues space. To this observer, it appears that nostalgia for a world that has been lost-as well as left-wing political sympathies-have

BOOKREVIEWS

113

determinedmuch of the currentresearchagenda in Anglo-Jewishhistory ratherthan other,moredispassionatecriteria.Now that Pollinshas so carefully outlined the full course of Jewish economic history in Englandand therebymade more readilyapparentthe gaps in our knowledge,otherswill perhapsbe encouragedto explore these neglectedtopics. Todd M. Endelman Universityof Michigan Ann Arbor, Mich. Moses Mendelssohn. Jerusalem: or, On Religious Power and Judaism. Trans-

lated by Allan Arkush, Introduction and Commentaryby Alexander Altmann.Hanover,N.H., and London:UniversityPressof New England, for BrandeisUniversityPress, 1983. vii, 254 pp. Moses Mendelssohn's Jerusalem is a work of classic stature for Europeanand modernJewishstudies,and it is offerednow to the Englishreading public in a translationand commentarycommensuratewith its significance.A felicitousharmonybetweentranslatorand commentatorhas been achievedin this volume,the Germantext of the originalhavingfound its preciseand appropriateequivalentin Allan Arkush'stranslation,'while the full dimensionsof Mendelssohn'sthoughtare broughtout in Alexander Altmann'srich commentary.This commentaryand the introductionto the text are themselveseloquent and exemplarymodels of scholarship,a gift offeringby the doyen of Mendelssohnstudies.2 1. Arkush handsomely accomplishes his stated goal of rendering an English translation "more philosophically exact" than those which preceded it (p. vii). Cf., for example, his translations of Freiheit as "liberty" (pp. 34 f.), wohlwollenand wohlthunas "benevolence" and "beneficence" respectively (pp. 41, 45), and vollkommeneRechte as "perfect rights" (p. 45). Without resorting to paraphrase, he manages to turn the German original into an eminently readable English. A rare lapse in Arkush's attention seems to have occurred, however, on page 43, where the statement that Recht und Gerechtigkeit der Befehl Gottes (cf. Moses Mendelssohn's gesammelte Schriften [Leipzig, 1843], 3:267), which follows Mendelssohn's remark "that serving the state is true service of God," is not translated. 2. Among his many magisterial contributions to this field, mention must be made of Altmann's Moses Mendelssohn's Friihschriftenzur Metaphysik (1969) and Moses Mendelssohn: A Biographical Study (1973); as well as of his herculean labors as editor and contributor to the Moses Mendelssohn Gesammelte Schriften Jubilaiumausgabe(1971-). It is in the latter capacity that Altmann has now commented in German upon Jerusalem (vol. 8 [Schriften zum Judentum

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Alfred L. Ivry Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Spring, 1986), pp. 113-116 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486360 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:17 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

BOOKREVIEWS

113

determinedmuch of the currentresearchagenda in Anglo-Jewishhistory ratherthan other,moredispassionatecriteria.Now that Pollinshas so carefully outlined the full course of Jewish economic history in Englandand therebymade more readilyapparentthe gaps in our knowledge,otherswill perhapsbe encouragedto explore these neglectedtopics. Todd M. Endelman Universityof Michigan Ann Arbor, Mich. Moses Mendelssohn. Jerusalem: or, On Religious Power and Judaism. Trans-

lated by Allan Arkush, Introduction and Commentaryby Alexander Altmann.Hanover,N.H., and London:UniversityPressof New England, for BrandeisUniversityPress, 1983. vii, 254 pp. Moses Mendelssohn's Jerusalem is a work of classic stature for Europeanand modernJewishstudies,and it is offerednow to the Englishreading public in a translationand commentarycommensuratewith its significance.A felicitousharmonybetweentranslatorand commentatorhas been achievedin this volume,the Germantext of the originalhavingfound its preciseand appropriateequivalentin Allan Arkush'stranslation,'while the full dimensionsof Mendelssohn'sthoughtare broughtout in Alexander Altmann'srich commentary.This commentaryand the introductionto the text are themselveseloquent and exemplarymodels of scholarship,a gift offeringby the doyen of Mendelssohnstudies.2 1. Arkush handsomely accomplishes his stated goal of rendering an English translation "more philosophically exact" than those which preceded it (p. vii). Cf., for example, his translations of Freiheit as "liberty" (pp. 34 f.), wohlwollenand wohlthunas "benevolence" and "beneficence" respectively (pp. 41, 45), and vollkommeneRechte as "perfect rights" (p. 45). Without resorting to paraphrase, he manages to turn the German original into an eminently readable English. A rare lapse in Arkush's attention seems to have occurred, however, on page 43, where the statement that Recht und Gerechtigkeit der Befehl Gottes (cf. Moses Mendelssohn's gesammelte Schriften [Leipzig, 1843], 3:267), which follows Mendelssohn's remark "that serving the state is true service of God," is not translated. 2. Among his many magisterial contributions to this field, mention must be made of Altmann's Moses Mendelssohn's Friihschriftenzur Metaphysik (1969) and Moses Mendelssohn: A Biographical Study (1973); as well as of his herculean labors as editor and contributor to the Moses Mendelssohn Gesammelte Schriften Jubilaiumausgabe(1971-). It is in the latter capacity that Altmann has now commented in German upon Jerusalem (vol. 8 [Schriften zum Judentum

114

BOOKREVIEWS

As with all valuablegifts, this too has to be earnedto be appreciated fully. It assumesa level of eruditionthat is dauntingand stimulatingat the same time. The readerwho respondsto Altmann'schallengewill often find himselfgoing back linguisticallyto Germanand Latinsources,and returning conceptuallyto many of the philosophicalviews within underlaythe Altmanndemonstratesthata full appreciationof MendelsEnlightenment.3 sohn requiresfamiliaritynot only with the ideas of Hobbes, Locke, and Spinoza,4but also with the thoughtof Wolff,Leibniz,and Grotius.5The key issuesof church-staterelationsthat occupiedphilosophersandjuristsin the seventeenthand eighteenthcenturiesare reflectedin Mendelssohn'swork, and Altmann outlines the varied Deist, Collegialist, and Territorialist stancesto which Mendelssohnwas responding.6Nor is Jerusalemdevoidof Jewishinfluences,Altmannargues,devotinga good portionof his introduction to assertingthe Jewishprovenienceof the work. For Altmann,Jerusalem has affinitieswith rabbinicviews as well as with attitudesexpressedin both medievalJewishphilosophyand Kabbalah.7 This edition of Jerusalemis a challengeto students and teachersof Judaicstudiesin otherways as well. Mendelssohnwas grapplingwith issues that have become currentonce again in Jewish and non-Jewishcircles, namely,the relationof churchand state,andthe politicalnatureof Judaism. These issues are intertwinedfor Mendelssohnwith the religiousnatureof Judaismand with his understandingof the nature of religion in general. Mendelssohn'spolitical philosophy is thus part of his entire, ultimately It is a politicalphilosophywhich is rooted in a religious, Weltanschauung. universalmoralityand rationalitywhichhe found consonantwith the principles of Judaism.While both the religious reform and secular socialist movementsin Judaismof the last two centuriesheld positions on these matters akin politically to Mendelssohn's,the major Jewish political II], Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, 1983), the commentary before us representing, as he tells us on page 29 of the introduction, a "revised and abridged version" of the German work. 3. However rich the rewards which await the reader of these notes, his task has not, I am afraid, been facilitated by the manner in which the notes have been keyed to the text, referring as they do to lines which are not explicitly numbered. 4. Cf. the present translation and commentary, pp. 21 ff., 158 ff., 230. 5. Ibid., pp. 173 ff., 206 ff. 6. Ibid., pp. 16 ff., 173, 186. 7. Ibid., pp. 13-25. For all his sympathy with Mendelssohn, Altmann does not turn a blind eye to the liberties he took in presenting certain traditional Jewish positions. Cf., for example, pp. 16, 20, 184, and 232.

BOOK REVIEWS

115

movementof the last hundredyears, Zionism, sidesteppedthese issues, in the interestof nationalunity.With the achievementof statehood,however, and the renascentvigorof Orthodoxyin Israeland the diaspora,the issue of theocracyhas again arisen,with renewedurgency.We thus find ourselves, two hundredyearsafterJerusalem,ponderingthe samequestionsMendelssohn faced. There is, of course, no ignoringthe two hundredyears which separate Mendelssohnfrom us, a period-particularlythe latterhalf-which would seem to have made a mockery of his belief in the essentiallybenevolent natureof man and the essentiallypositive natureof the state.8Nor can we ignore the scholarshipthat has accumulatedin the past two hundredyears, and the sophisticationit has given us; a sophisticationwhichmakesit difficult to acceptMendelssohn'sinterpretationof Jewishhistory.This is based on a literalacceptanceof biblicalhistory,an interpretationwhich allowed Mendelssohnto distinguishbetween an authentic,original period of the faith, beginningat Sinai, in whichreligiouscoercionis uniquelydefensible, and a laterperiod,beginningwith King Saul(!), in whichit is not.9Mendelssohn's treatmentof the later period,essentiallythat of rabbinicJudaism,is also patently a projectionof his own liberalbeliefs.'l Yet hereanotherchallengeawaitsus, as Altmannoffersan interpretation of Mendelssohnthat forces us to reassessour own sophistication-and his. For Mendelssohnis portrayedas prescribingratherthan describingJewish history. As Altmann says, It is clearthatwhatMendelssohn of theJewish attemptsis a phenomenology in the in the not sense. What he offersis not constructive, religion descriptive, 8. Ibid., pp. 41 ff., 166 ff. I do not mean to imply by this that Mendelssohn'snotion of "benevolence" as intrinsic to man's nature is necessarily repudiated, however battered historically it may be for us. As social beings, perhaps we must continue to affirm it, if on grounds other than Mendelssohn's. However, we do not similarly have to endorse his views concerning

the altruisticnatureof politicalinstitutionsper se, or his idealizationof the state. 9. Ibid.,pp. 90 ff., 127ff. Thoughcrucialfor hisviewof Judaismas a "revealedlegislation," Mendelssohn's attitude to history is actually ambivalent, as Altmann shows, pp. 17 f. Mendelssohn's political philosophy is predicated upon the reality, even desirability, of a depoliticized Judaism, i.e., of the state of affairs which presumably followed the falling away from the original "authentic" period of the faith, that in which the "Mosaic constitution" was the sole law of the land, and God himself the king. 10. Cf., for example, Mendelssohn's analysis of the rabbinic attitude to prescribing punishments for violation of the Halakhah, ibid., p. 130; and see Altmann's comments, p. 232.

116

BOOK REVIEWS

a pictureof Judaismas it had crystallizedhistoricallyand was still largely intactin his periodbut an idealizedimageof the faithas he believedit to have existedin the ancientpast. This imageof the originalJudaismwas meantto serve as a blueprintfor the anticipatedera of civil admission." Seen in this light, we can more readily appreciate Mendelssohn's understanding of Judaism, his view of a politically liberal and universal rational faith, one which yet has its own distinctive character and voluntarily accepted set of laws. This is a Judaism familiar and attractive to many in the West, yet one that calls for a contemporary philosophical defense. Mendelssohn thus poses a challenge to contemporary Jewish philosophers and theologians alike, as well as to political scientists and historians. All these people may take inspiration from his very audacity, from the creative genius which fashioned Judaism in a liberal image. They may also find much to recommend in Mendelssohn's essentially ahistorical and apolitical view of normative Judaism. Taking issue with Lessing and others, Mendelssohn believed that mankind as a whole does not continually progress."2Progress is rather to be found in the personal sphere, each individual making his own way forward or backward in life. This is a view we can more easily endorse, it seems to me, in this age of false messiahs. As scholars there are limits to interpretation which we must acknowledge; as teachers there are visions to which we need to point. One such vision is that offered in Jerusalem, and it is the great achievement of the current translation and commentary that they have brought this vision within our sights. Alfred L. Ivry Brandeis University Waltham, Mass.

Judaism as Corporeal Election. Michael Wyschogrod. The Body of New York: Seabury Press, 1983. 265Faith." pp. This book is about the chosenness of the Jewish people, a topic that has not been so seriously treated since Mordecai Kaplan rejected it decades ago 11. Ibid., introduction, p. 16. 12. Ibid., pp. 95 f.

Review: [untitled] Author(s): David R. Blumenthal Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Spring, 1986), pp. 116-121 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486361 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:17 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

116

BOOK REVIEWS

a pictureof Judaismas it had crystallizedhistoricallyand was still largely intactin his periodbut an idealizedimageof the faithas he believedit to have existedin the ancientpast. This imageof the originalJudaismwas meantto serve as a blueprintfor the anticipatedera of civil admission." Seen in this light, we can more readily appreciate Mendelssohn's understanding of Judaism, his view of a politically liberal and universal rational faith, one which yet has its own distinctive character and voluntarily accepted set of laws. This is a Judaism familiar and attractive to many in the West, yet one that calls for a contemporary philosophical defense. Mendelssohn thus poses a challenge to contemporary Jewish philosophers and theologians alike, as well as to political scientists and historians. All these people may take inspiration from his very audacity, from the creative genius which fashioned Judaism in a liberal image. They may also find much to recommend in Mendelssohn's essentially ahistorical and apolitical view of normative Judaism. Taking issue with Lessing and others, Mendelssohn believed that mankind as a whole does not continually progress."2Progress is rather to be found in the personal sphere, each individual making his own way forward or backward in life. This is a view we can more easily endorse, it seems to me, in this age of false messiahs. As scholars there are limits to interpretation which we must acknowledge; as teachers there are visions to which we need to point. One such vision is that offered in Jerusalem, and it is the great achievement of the current translation and commentary that they have brought this vision within our sights. Alfred L. Ivry Brandeis University Waltham, Mass.

Judaism as Corporeal Election. Michael Wyschogrod. The Body of New York: Seabury Press, 1983. 265Faith." pp. This book is about the chosenness of the Jewish people, a topic that has not been so seriously treated since Mordecai Kaplan rejected it decades ago 11. Ibid., introduction, p. 16. 12. Ibid., pp. 95 f.

BOOKREVIEWS

117

(e.g., TheFutureof the AmericanJew, pt. 2, chap. 13; TheSabbathPrayerbook,introduction).Wyschogrodreturnsagainand againto the basicfact of biblicaland rabbinicJudaismthatthe God of all humankindchosethe Jews, that the universalLordof creationelecteda particularpeople.Furthermore, Wyschogrodmaintainsthat by "election"Judaismdoes not mean ethnic distinctivenesswith its patternsof culture,nor does it meanethicalsensitivity with its civilizingmission among the nations, nor does it mean blindly nationalisticrenewal. Election means the favored love bestowed by the Creatorof all upon the childrenand children'schildrenof Abrahamand Sarahthroughthe line of Isaacand Rebeccah,Jacob,Rachel,and Leah,for eternity.Chosennessis of the body-not the spirit,not of the mind,and not of culture. Readingthis book is thereforedifficult.Many modernJews are embarrassedby the "scandalof particularity."Some on intellectualgrounds,following Kaplan or liberalidealism;some on the groundsthat standingout too much enabledpersecutionof the Jews and even the Holocaust to take place;and somebecausethey thinkthat the Holocaustirrevocablybrokethe promiseof chosenness.Equalityor blending,such readersthink, would be betterthan blatantchosenness.OthermodernJews, swept up in the aftermath of the Holocaustand the Six-DayWar,are gladto hearthe messageof the inalienablebodily chosennessof the Jew. God's promisespersist;the Jewish people lives. Christianstoo have difficultyreadingthis book. LiberalChristianstend toward an egalitarian,pluralistic understandingof religion that would exclude such exclusiveness.More conservativeChristiansrealizethat their own chosennessis rooted in God's election of the Jews. They are, as Paul would have it, gentiles"graftedinto the vine of Israel,"participantsin holy history and in the promiseof redemptionbecausethe Jews are chosen. If God rejectsthe Jews,the root is uprootedandthe promiseis not valid.They welcomeWyschogrod'sinsight,though it poses other theologicalproblems for them. Even more conservativeChristians,who believe that election throughthe spirit(faith) is superiorto electionthroughthe body, will find this book a confirmationof theirfaith.And fundamentalistChristiansof the dispensationalisttype know that God has indeed chosen the Jews, for Christianpurposes.For such readers,the book is true but short-sighted. This book is also about God. Wyschogrodmaintainsthat God chose to manifest Himself in a love which humans could understand.His love is intimate, possessive,exclusive,even jealous. We call Him by an intimate

118

BOOK REVIEWS

Hebrewterm,Hashem(pp. 92 ff.). His choosingof the Jewsis a functionof this anthropopathiclove. With this theologicalinsight,Wyschogrodtakesa stand against the demythologizationof philosophic religion, ontology, deontology,existentialism,and even the more abstractforms of mystical religion. It is not only Wyschogrod'sclearavowalof the bodilychosennessof the Jews and the anthropopathicunderstandingof God that makesthis book a challenge,it is also his learnedness.He has a very fine sensefor the core of biblicaltheologyand for the intricaciesof rabbinicliving, as well as a mastery over the Christianand contemporaryphilosophicsources.This is no sermon;it is a sustaineddefenseof two embarrassingtheses. Chapter1 sets forth the basic metaphorof the book, one which recurs with considerableliterarypower-that light impliesdarkness,and darkness implieslight. This meansthat the light of reasonor consciousnesshas two limits: the fact of its being embodied,i.e., containedwithin the limits of human perceptionand thought, and the fact that reason must come up againstthe holy, whichis itself not a form of reason.Bothlimitsdo not lead to despair but to a sense that, in human existence, light and darkness, consciousness and embodiedness, are inextricably intermingled. This metaphorlays the groundfor the assertionthatGod's choosinga body, the seed of the Jewishpeople, is itself part of the realityof creationas He intendedit. Thus,"delicatessenJudaism"is partof the bodyof Israel,as is the Jewishface, even though these do not seem to meet the criteriaof "light" (pp. 26-27). This chapteralso containsan interpretationof the bindingof Isaac. Chapter2, afteran expositionof the relationshipof Judaismand Christianity to philosophy,returnsto the theme of election underthe rubricof love. God chose the seed of Abrahambecause He loved Abraham.The suggestions contained in rabbinic sources that Abraham's rejection of idolatrywas the reasonfor God's love are only rationalizations.God loves the progenyof Abrahamand Sarah;period.His love is alwaysconcrete,not abstract.Loveis alwaysexclusive;therefore,He is a jealousGod. In a sharp appealto the methodof Karl Barth(pp. 75-81), Wyschogroddemandsthat thesebiblicalindicationsof God'swill be takenseriously.Theologicallytoo, Wyschogrodarguesthat God as Creatoraffirmsall of creation,even, and perhapsespecially,the physicalpart thereof(pp. 66-71). Chapter3 begins with a critiqueof Buber'sThou as too impersonal, given the anthropopathismof the biblicaland rabbinictraditions.It then proceedsto an analysisof Hegel'sslave-masterparadigmin whichlordship

BOOKREVIEWS

119

implies the freedom of the servant.Both explicationsare very well done. Finally,Wyschogrod,in an excellentsection (pp. 114-119), expoundsGod as the groundof meaningand the protectionagainstmeaninglessness.His contrast of the living body with the corpse and of the death of an animal with the breakingof a rock is very instructive. Chapter4 is Wyschogrod'sargumentwith Heideggerand the deontologists. Acknowledgingand interpretingHeidegger'sNazism (pp. 158-160), Wyschogrodoffersa critiqueof the purelyontologicalas numinousbut not personal, as monistic and hence transcendingGod, and as deethicizedor amoral.All areincompatiblewith the God of Judaism.Deonotology,which advocatesa breakingof being by action(pp. 155-160, well done), impliesa monistic ontology and itself leads to a sanctioning of violence. Again Judaism, which understandsall being as created being, cannot agree. Wyschogrod'sfearthatthe chaptermightbe too technicalis unfounded;it is quite clear for the college-educatedreader. Chapter5 first returnsto history as part of the physicalcreationand hencesomethingaffirmedby God. It is in this arenathat God worksout His choosing. Then Wyschogrodturns to the balancebetweenlaw, ethics, and God. The law needs interpretation,but electiontranscendsthe law because God did not choose a teachingbut a people. This leadsWyschogrodto his critique of Orthodoxy, which he calls "the disobedience of orthodox Judaism."They have allowedthe law to become self-sufficient,weakening the sense of responsibilityto the God who elected the people, not just revealedthe law (pp. 184-190, 207, 213). On the matterof the cult of the law, Wyschogrodcould have been clearer,more forceful. Chapter6 containsWyschogrod'sspeculationsabout variousaspectsof contemporaryJewish culture in the light of his determinationthat the corporealcovenant is at the center of Jewish existence.He urges contact with secularIsraelas willy-nillypart of the body of the elect; contact with gentiles as part of the global consciousnessthat characterizescreationand modern life; alertness to the unexpectedspiritualityinherent in certain peoplenot normallyidentifiedas partof the religioushierarchy;the centrality of the State of Israel,includingJudeaand Samaria;the reaffirmationof the unity of all Jewish people as the corpus elected by God, and the diminishingof the tensionsthat lead to divisivenesswithin the people;the stimulationof Jewishart;the renewedcommitmentto the Jewishcommunity, especially to having Jewish children any one of whom might be the Messiah;and the renewalof messianicthinkingand dreaming. There are other fine insights:the definitionof what would constitutea

120

BOOK REVIEWS

breakin Jewishidentity(p. 244);that withoutJewstherewouldbe no Torah (p. 28); etc. This book is thoroughand deep; it deservesattentivereading and even pondering. Wyschogrod,however,has left severalquestionsopenfor furtherdiscussion. First,whatis the relationshipbetweenelectionandrevelation,between the body and the law?To say that electiontranscendsthe law, thatthe interpreterof the law is responsibleto the will of the Lawgiverand not to the law itself, is true. So is the realizationthat withoutthe body thereis no revelation. But does Wyschogrodwant to maintainthat any legislationthat leads to the looseningof the all-encompassingbond of electionis sinful?Does he mean to make that a principleof Halakhahfor use in the modernday?His emphasis on corporeal unity and his derogationof the divisivenessthat characterizesmuchof Orthodoxyseemto supportsucha contention.Buthe has not said it clearlyand has not given specificexamplesof how he would apply this. Secondand correlatedwith the first,Wyschogrodindicatesthat, because Judaismis a religionof inalienablecorporealchosenness,it does not use creedas a principleof exclusion.Judaismtoleratesheresiesof all kinds.But whatis the statusof theseheresies?Do theycontainsometruthvalue,or are they errors?If they are errors,they mislead,and in the arenaof the public life of the Jewishpeople, they must be dealt with severely,as has been the case, and as Orthodoxywould have it even todayif it controlledthe Jewish community.If, however,theseheresieshavesome truthvalue,some sparkof the divinein them,thentheydeserveto be respectedfor whatthey are.Intelligent Jewishpublic policy, then, would requiresupportfor, perhapseven cultivationof, the varietiesof Jewishexistence.Wyschogrodhas appealed for tolerancebut has not dealt with the truth issue and its public policy correlative. Third,the aboveappliesalso to non-Jewishreligions.Whatis theirtruth status,and how does one relateto them?Do gentileChristians,for example, actually share the covenant with us (is this another way of readingthe medievalunderstandingof Christianityas a tool for the spreadof monotheism?),or is Christianitysimply a delusion? Fourth,Wyschogrod'sanalysisof those sectionsof the law whichappear to us as unethicalneeds more developmentin terms of his psychologyof God and his portrayalof the role of the interpreter.It is not a newquestion, but it needs a fresher,fuller treatment. Finally, Wyschogrodhas not writtenof the world and spirit of Jewish

BOOKREVIEWS

121

piety. This is a book of theology, or better,of religiousthought. But how does this relateto the piety of the observanceof the commandments,to the variouskinds of religiousexperiencethat activatethe life of the chosen?To ponderthe completeunpredictabilityof chosennessis one matter,an important one; to live the life of the chosen is another.Wyschogrodcan answer this question;he must only write anotherbook. David R. Blumenthal Emory University Atlanta, Ga. Steven T. Katz. Post Holocaust Dialogues: Critical Studies in Modern Jewish

Thought.New York: New York UniversityPress, 1983. 327 pp.& This book is a collectionof nine essays,five publishedbeforein various journalsand four appearinghere for the firsttime. The essaysare criticalin the sense of surveyingthe work of an authorand subjectingit to evaluative analysis.The authorstreatedare MartinBuber,EliezerBerkovits,Richard Rubenstein,Emil Fackenheim,and Ignaz Maybaum.Most of the authors are discussedmore than once, since one of the articles,"JewishFaithAfter the Holocaust:FourApproaches,"dealswith four writersto whomseparate articlesare also devoted.Only the late essay, "The 'Unique'Intentionality of the Holocaust,"dealswith a problemratherthan an author.The unityof the book is thereforenot a naturalone, since the essays were written for discreetoccasions and deal with a varietyof issues. Thereare threebasictopicsin the book. The firstis a criticalappraisalof Buber'sI-Thouphilosophy,and the second, an evaluationof Buber'streatment of Hasidism. Only the third concerns the Holocaust, raising some of the title. Herethe viewsof Berkovits, questionsabout the appropriateness Rubenstein,Fackenheim,and Maybaumare examinedand found wanting in varyingdegrees,though Berkovits'sposition emergesthe least scathed. Katz'sphilosophicstyleis analyticin the currentphilosophicsenseof the term. Frequently,authorsare criticizedfor lack of clarityand for not specifying what they would accept as counterevidenceto the position they are advocating. The verifiabilitycriterion of meaning is never far from the surface.But it can be askedhow usefulit is to applythis particularyardstick to writers who do not subscribeto it. In any case, a certain degree of dissonance is to be expected when the orientationsof the critic and his

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Michael Wyschogrod Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Spring, 1986), pp. 121-126 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486362 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:17 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

BOOKREVIEWS

121

piety. This is a book of theology, or better,of religiousthought. But how does this relateto the piety of the observanceof the commandments,to the variouskinds of religiousexperiencethat activatethe life of the chosen?To ponderthe completeunpredictabilityof chosennessis one matter,an important one; to live the life of the chosen is another.Wyschogrodcan answer this question;he must only write anotherbook. David R. Blumenthal Emory University Atlanta, Ga. Steven T. Katz. Post Holocaust Dialogues: Critical Studies in Modern Jewish

Thought.New York: New York UniversityPress, 1983. 327 pp.& This book is a collectionof nine essays,five publishedbeforein various journalsand four appearinghere for the firsttime. The essaysare criticalin the sense of surveyingthe work of an authorand subjectingit to evaluative analysis.The authorstreatedare MartinBuber,EliezerBerkovits,Richard Rubenstein,Emil Fackenheim,and Ignaz Maybaum.Most of the authors are discussedmore than once, since one of the articles,"JewishFaithAfter the Holocaust:FourApproaches,"dealswith four writersto whomseparate articlesare also devoted.Only the late essay, "The 'Unique'Intentionality of the Holocaust,"dealswith a problemratherthan an author.The unityof the book is thereforenot a naturalone, since the essays were written for discreetoccasions and deal with a varietyof issues. Thereare threebasictopicsin the book. The firstis a criticalappraisalof Buber'sI-Thouphilosophy,and the second, an evaluationof Buber'streatment of Hasidism. Only the third concerns the Holocaust, raising some of the title. Herethe viewsof Berkovits, questionsabout the appropriateness Rubenstein,Fackenheim,and Maybaumare examinedand found wanting in varyingdegrees,though Berkovits'sposition emergesthe least scathed. Katz'sphilosophicstyleis analyticin the currentphilosophicsenseof the term. Frequently,authorsare criticizedfor lack of clarityand for not specifying what they would accept as counterevidenceto the position they are advocating. The verifiabilitycriterion of meaning is never far from the surface.But it can be askedhow usefulit is to applythis particularyardstick to writers who do not subscribeto it. In any case, a certain degree of dissonance is to be expected when the orientationsof the critic and his

122

BOOK REVIEWS

subject do not coincide. While such dissonanceis not absent from these essays, Katz does not apply his analytic and empiricistcriteria so dogmaticallyas to make himself irrelevant.He works hard at respectingthe frameworkof those he writes about. Katz is very properlyaware that there is too much history of Jewish thought in currentJewish scholarshipand too little Jewish thought. He affirmsthat "the studies in this volume are not essentiallyexpositoryor historical. They are not primarilyinterestedin questions of historical causalityand influenceor meretextualclarification,though this is done as required.Rathertheir pre-eminentconcernis whetherand in what sense, certainwell workedclaimsin the corpusof modernJewishthoughtcan be said to be true"(p. xii). This interestcan only be applauded.Just as there would be no art historiansif therewereno paintersand sculptors,so there would be no scholars of Jewish history if there were no Jewish poets, legalists, and philosophers.And these poets, legalists, and philosophers must produce original works and not just retell what others have done before them. In the light of this commitment,I find it curiousthat Katz comes down so strongly on the anti-Buberside of the Buber-Scholemcontroversyon Hasidism.The detailsof the controversyneed not be repeatedhere. Suffice it to say that two key elementsin the controversyconcernBuber'signoring of the importanceof the kabbalistic,or "theoretical,"writingsof Hasidism and his almosttotal emphasison the tales and his recastingof the talesso as to maximizetheir existential,concrete,and this-worldlytone. Katz documents Buber'seditorialimpacton the tales and concludes"thatthe class of theoreticalmaterialshouldreceivepriority,thoughin a dialecticalmanner, over the legendarysources in trying to arrive at an accurateimage of Hasidism"(p. 73). Were Buberto be read strictly as a historicalscholar, Scholem'sand Katz's criticismmight be on target.But supposeBuberis seen as someone whose goal was to present Hasidismso that it could become a religious reality to his WesternEuropeanreaders.Here, looking backwardin the mannerof the historianis not the only issue but also a looking forward,so that the spiritof Hasidismcan live once again. In a sense, this is a seeking for the truthof Hasidismin just the sensein whichKatz wishesto raisethe questionof truthinsteadof practicingthe craftof history.After all, thereis morethanone way of raisingthe questionof truth.One can askwhetherthis or that view is "true,"as Katz does. Or one can reshape a traditionin accordancewith its inner direction and the demandsof the situation in

BOOK REVIEWS

123

which the interpreterfinds himself.To do so is far more dangerousthan to practice"objective"historicalscholarshipand certainto attractthe derision of the objectivist.The strangepart is that such an accomplishmentmay, in the long run, even be better history.To arriveat the inner truth of some spiritualrealitiesit may be advisableto look away from what they are to what they are trying to be. Particularlywith religious matters,precious metalis often mixedwith dross,andthe eye that can distinguishthe two sees more than one that sees everythingas being of equal value. With respectto the tales versusthe "theoretical"writingsof Hasidism,I cannotavoid a comparisonwith the stateof affairsin Communistcountries. Suppose someone who wished to grasp the essence of the Soviet system, insteadof visitingthe Soviet Union, devotedhimselfto readingthe worksof Marx and Engels. These writings are, indeed, the "theoretical"works behind the Soviet system. But, in fact, they have very little relationshipto the realityof that system.To graspthat reality,readingthe works of Marx and Engelsmay be the worstpossibleroute.And this remainsso, even if we wereto assumethat the Soviet leadership"believes"what they readin the "theoretical"works of Marxism.Sometimesreality has little connection with the "theoretical"writingson which a system is supposedlybased. Could it be that there is some parallelhere to the Hasidic situation? Kabbalahwas the theoreticalliteratureof the movement.It was honored, studied, and believed.But the genius of Hasidismwas not to be found in these theoreticalwritingsbut in the life of the communityand the relationship of the Zaddik to his followers, all of which was capturednot in the theoreticalwritingsbut in the tales that reflectedthe life of the community, or at least how the religiousmemoryof the communityrememberedthat life. If even thesetales had to be somewhatpurified,the purificationmerely broughtout their innertruth,the directionin whichthey pointed,the form in which they could serve the religiousneeds of the Jewish people in the twentiethcentury,in WesternEurope.Such an interpretativeredrawingof the contoursof Hasidismneed not have broughtout the objectivehistorian in Katz, especiallysince he defines his own task philosophicallyand not purelyhistorically.It is true that Buberdoes not make all this clear,that he can be accused of giving the impressionthat he is practicing"objective" history when he is not. Still, even if Bubershould have made more clear what he was and was not doing,it did not take greathermeneuticalsophistication to discover what, in fact, he was doing. The footnote never was Buber'sfavorite literarygenre. With respectto Katz'streatmentof Buber'sbasic I-Thouphilosophy,it

124

BOOKREVIEWS

is his claim that Buberwas a Kantianthat most attractsthe reader'sattention. Katz identifiesBuber'sI-It domainwith Kant'sphenomena.Both the I-It and phenomenaare definedby time and space, causality,objectivity, expressibilityin languageand beingsubjectto the rulesof logic. The I-Thou and the noumenalrealm have in commonthat the just-mentionedcharacteristicsof the I-It/phenomenaldomaindo not apply to them. Kantlocates freedomin the noumenalrealm,to whichone relates,accordingto Kant,by means of "'intuitive' apprehension"(p. 10), which is also the mode of apprehendingthe Thou. HavingdiagnosedBuber'sKantianism,Katz criticizes both Kant and Buber for idealisticsubjectivism.In its place, Katz prescribes"a more soberphilosophical'realism"'whichdoes not assignto the observingsubjecta major constitutiverole in the shapingof reality. How convincingis Katz's claim that Buberwas a Kantian?There are some similaritiesbetweenthe I-It realmand phenomena,and betweenthe I-Thoudomainand noumena,and Katz does an admirablejob in pointing these out. But there are also significantdissimilaritiesabout whichKatz is silent.The dissimilaritiesareprobablymoreimportantthanthe similarities. Kant addresseshimselfto an epistemicproblem:why is it that synthetic a priori knowledgeis possible?Even the ethical realmis seen in epistemic terms:given the fact that we have moralknowledge,what must be the relationship betweenthe human subjectand the sensoryworld that makes a priorimoralknowledgepossible?Buber,on the otherhand,is not an epistemic thinker.The distinctionbetweenthe I-Thouand the I-It relationshipsis a distinction not in the domain of knowledgebut in that of being. The I-Thou relationshipis not a knowing by a subject of a Thou who is an object. It is not a reflectionin one consciousnessof the realityof another consciousness.The I-Thou, when genuine, occurs between the I and the Thou, and the participantsfindthemselvesreleasedfromtheirsubjectivities. It is only when each subjectivitysteps out of itself that genuine meeting occurs; locked into the knowledge of subjects, no meeting is possible. ThoughBuberdoes not use the terminologyof ontology, he is an ontological thinker(thoughnot in Heidegger'ssense)to the extentthat knowledgeas containedin consciousnessis not his concern but the relationalbeing of persons,which is by no means exhaustedin the act of knowing. It is for this reasonthat the very title of Katz'sessay, "MartinBuber's Epistemology,"is problematic.It may be Katz's convictionthat everyone has an epistemologywhich carefulanalysiswill uncover.But everyepiste-

BOOK REVIEWS

125

mology presupposesan ontology,an understandingof the variousmodes of being, particularlythe relationbetweenthe being of consciousnessand of things. If that is so, then our understandingof knowingrestson our understandingof being, which is itself not primarilyan act of knowing but of being. The very chargeof subjectivismmay dependon a particularview of the relationship between the being of things and their "reflection"in consciousnessthat is not congenialto Buber.It is true,of course,thatBuber does not work out the ontology best suited for his view of things.But that does not entitle us to judge him as a purely epistemicthinker. With respectto the Holocaust,Katz agreesthat "Judaismcannotlive if its primaryreason for being is the negationof Hitler'sambitions"(p. 224), and he arguesthat Fackenheim's614thcommandments(Do not give Hitler a posthumousvictory) was not meant to push God out of the center of Judaismand to replace Him with the determinationnot to give Hitler a posthumousvictory. Now Katz is fully aware that, for Fackenheim,the Holocaust has erased the secular-religiousdichotomy among Jews by makingthem all subjectto the 614thcommandment.But how is this possible if God and not the 614th commandmentremains at the center of Judaism?It would seemthat the unityof secularand religiousJewscan only be achievedon a non-God-centeredplatform,such as the 614thcommandment, which might appealto the secularbecauseit is self-justifying,rooted in justified hatredof Hitler ratherthan the love of God. Katz seems most attractedto Berkovits'srelatively"conservativeand traditionalposition"(p. 283) on the Holocaust.He is impressedby Berkovits's claim that the survivalof the Jewishpeople is "the most impressive proof that God is active in history despite his 'hiddenness"'(p. 281). "Jewish history," continues Katz, "defies all theories, usually being the 'exception'that cracks open all generalizationsput forwardin historical laws. This much I feel able to say with philosophicalprobity.To say more than this is to speak in the languageof faithwhicheven if one sharesit, or rather,preciselybecauseone sharesit, one can only witnessto and not argue about. I see no way of convincinganyone that Israel is God's people, or that, as Judah Halevi describedit over a thousandyears ago, Israelis the 'heart'of tnlenations.Thus,whileI, like Berkovits,find Israel'sverysurvival the strongestevidenceboth of its transhistoricalvocation and the existence of Divine Providence,this affirmationonce offeredcannot be demonstrated" (pp. 281-282). The line between"witnessing"to faith and "arguing"

126

BOOKREVIEWS

about it is probablyless sharplydrawnthan Katz thinks.Thereis hardlya page in this book on which one cannot find both, which is what happens when a Jewishphilosopherlike Steven Katz thinks about his faith. Michael Wyschogrod BaruchCollege City Universityof New York

Collected Studies Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Spring, 1986), pp. 127-130 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486363 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:17 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

COLLECTEDSTUDIES Ronald A. Brauner, ed. Jewish Civilization.:Essays and Studies. Judaism and Christianity, vol. 3. Philadelphia: Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, 1985. 342 pp. CONTENTS: Ronald A. Brauner, "Some Sources on Time and Human Control in Rabbinic Literature." Ivan Caine, "Elisha as Antecedent to Jesus." Jack J. Cohen, "Some Jewish Views on Christianity." Ira Eisenstein, "Interfaith Dialogue." David Ellenson, "Jewish Covenant and Christian Trinitarianism: An Analysis of a Responsum on Jewish-Christian Relations in the Modern World." Susan E. Frank, "James Parkes and John Selden's Treatise On Natural Law and the Law of Nations According to the Teachings of the Hebrews." Richard A. Hirsh, "Paul's Use of Scripture in Galatians 4 and Romans 9, and Related Rabbinic Materials." David Klatzker, "Israeli Civil Religion and Jewish-Christian Relations: The Case of the Baptists." Howard Kreisel, "Maimonides on Christianity and Islam." Elmer N. Lear, "Horace M. Kallen, Proto-Reconstructionist." Bernard H. Mehlman and Daniel F. Polish, "The Response to the Christian Exegesis of Psalms in the Teshuvotla-Nozrim of Rabbi David Qimbi." Roy Mittelman, "Agency and Communion According to Bakan and Soloveitchik: Two Perspectives." Alan Mittleman, "Remarks on Paul M. van Buren's Discerning the Way." Daniel Nussbaum, "Social Justice and Social Welfare in Jewish Tradition: A Case Study in Religious Values and Social Policy." David Rabeeya, "Aspects of Moslem Knowledge and Attitudes Towards the Jewish and Christian Communities of Baghdad Based on a Study of Sheikh Galal AlHanafi's Al-Amtal Al-Bagdadtya." Dennis C. Sasso, "Symbolism According to Whitehead and Kaplan." Sidney H. Schwarz, "Christian Pacifism and the Holocaust." Leonard Swidler, "The Pharisees in Recent Catholic Writing." Charles E. Vernoff, "History, Ontology, and Method in the Emerging Jewish-Christian Hermeneutic."

127

128

COLLECTED STUDIES

Richard I. Cohen, ed. Vision and Conflict in the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, and New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985. vii, 310 pp. CONTENTS: Amnon Linder, "Jerusalem as a Focus of Confrontation between Judaism and Christianity." Rachel Simon, "The Struggle over the Christian Holy Places during the Ottoman Period." Alex Carmel, "Russian Activity in Palestine in the Nineteenth Century." Abraham Grossman, "The Ties of the Jews of Ashkenaz to the Land of Israel." Moshe Idel, "Prophetic Kabbala and the Land of Israel." Joseph R. Hacker, "Links between Spanish Jewry and Palestine, 1391-1492." Arie Morgenstern, "Messianic Concepts and Settlement in the Land of Israel." Menachem Friedman, "Messianism and the Disciples of the Vilna Gaon." Jacob Katz, "1840 as a 'Year of Redemption.' " Isaiah Tishby, "Redemption of the Shekhina and Immigration to the Land of Israel." Israel Bartal, "Messianic Expectations and Their Place in History." Arie Morgenstern, "Response." Evyatar Friesel, "British Policy in Palestine: The 'Churchill Memorandum' of 1922." Dalia Ofer, "The Kladovo-Darien Affair-Illegal Immigration to Palestine: Zionist Policy and European Exigencies." Dina Porat, "Palestinian Jewry and the Jewish Agency: Public Response to the Holocaust." Yoav Gelber, "Partners and Adversaries: Jewish Survivors of World War II, the Jewish Agency, and Britain."

Frances Malino and Bernard Wasserstein, eds. The Jews in Modern France. Hanover, N.H., and London: University Press of New England, for Brandeis University Press, 1985. xii, 354 pp. Eugen Weber, "Reflections on the Jews in France." Michel Abitbol, "The Encounter between French Jewry and the Jews of North Africa: Analysis of a Discourse (1830-1914)." Nancy L. Green, "The Contradictions of Acculturation: Immigrant Oratories and Yiddish Union Sections in Paris before World War I." William B. Cohen and Irwin M. .Wall, "French Communism and the Jews." Zeev Sternhell, "The Roots of Popular Anti-Semitism in the Third Republic." Stephen A. Schuker, "Origins of the 'Jewish Problem' in the Later Third Republic." Yerachmiel (Richard) Cohen, "The Jewish Community of France in the Face of VichyGerman Persecution: 1940-44." Patrice Higonnet, "On the Extent of AntiSemitism in Modern France." Pierre Birnbaum, "Anti-Semitism and CONTENTS:

COLLECTED STUDIES

129

Anticapitalismin Modern France."Michael R. Marrus,"Are the French Antisemitic?Evidencein the 1980s."ShmuelTrigano,"FromIndividualto Collectivity:The Rebirthof the 'JewishNation' in France."StanleyHoffmann, "Remarkson Trigano."David S. Landes"TwoCheersfor Emancipation."GeorgesWeill,"FrenchJewishHistoriography:1789-1870."Paula E. Hyman, "FrenchJewish Historiographysince 1870." SeymourSiegeland Elliot Gertel,eds. Godin the Teachingsof Conservative Judaism.EmetVe'emunah:Studiesin ConservativeJewishThought,vol. 3. New York: RabbinicalAssembly, 1985. xi, 278 pp. CONTENTS:Jacob B.

Agus, "The Idea of God." Ben Zion Bokser, "How Shall Modern Man Think About God?" Elliot N. Dorff, "Two Ways to ApproachGod." Elliot B. Gertel, "PerceivingGod's Providence."Robert Gordis, "Evil in God's World."SimonGreenberg,"God and Man." Monford Harris,"On ProvingGod's Existence."WillHerberg,"The'God-Idea' and the Living God." AbrahamJ. Heschel, "The Divine Pathos." Louis Jacobs, "Faith and Trust."Mordecai M. Kaplan, "How Man Comes to Know God." Jacob Kohn, "God as the Whole."IsraelH. Levinthal,"The Developmentof the God-Idea."YochananMuffs, "God and the World:A JewishView."David Novak, "Are PhilosophicalProofsof the Existenceof God TheologicallyMeaningful?"Fritz A. Rothschild, "The Concept of God in Jewish Education." Richard L. Rubenstein, "The Symbols of Judaismand the Death of God."HaroldM. Schulweis,"FromGod to Godliness: Proposalfor a PredicateTheology."SeymourSiegel, "Theological Reflectionson the Destructionof EuropeanJewry."MiltonSteinberg,"The Common Sense of Religious Faith." WilliamFrankel,ed. Surveyof JewishAffairs1983. Rutherford,N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson UniversityPress, 1985. 320 pp. CONTENTS: Glenda Abramson, "Literature Mirrors Israeli Dilemmas."

David Capitanchik,"The PoliticalComplexionof Israelin 1983."Sammy Smooha, "The Upsurge of Ethnicityin Israel."Shalom Rosenberg,"The Religious Situationin Israel."Daniel Dishon, "The Yearafter Lebanonin the Arab World." EmmanuelSivan, "Islamic Fundamentalismand the

130

COLLECTED STUDIES

Arab-Israeli Conflict." Eric Moonman, "European Involvement in the Middle East." Nissan Oren, "Soviet Diplomacy in Middle Eastern Affairs." Bernard Gwertzman, "The Evolution of U.S. Policy in the Middle East." Jacob Neusner, "A Golden Age of Jewish Scholarship and Culture in North America." "Media Treatment of Israel's Peace for Galilee Campaign": Moshe Decter, "The United States." Nelly Gutman, "French Media and the 1982 War in Lebanon: A Partial Survey." Philip Kleinman, "Great Britain." "Anti-Semitism in 1983-Two Evaluations": /EarlRabb, "The Centrality of Israel." Yehuda Bauer, "A Real Threat?" "Fifty Years after the Third Reich": Joseph Joffe, "The Jewish Community in Postwar West Germany." Immanuel Jakobovits, "The Holocaust: Remembering the Future." Isaiah Berlin, "Nahum Goldmann (1895-1982): A Personal Impression." Norman Solomon, "Saul Lieberman (1898-1983): A Revolutionary in Rabbinic Scholarship."

Books Received Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Spring, 1986), pp. 131-134 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486364 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:17 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

BOOKSRECEIVED Ashtor, Eliyahu. The Jews of Moslem Spain, vol. 3. Translated from the Hebrew by Aaron Klein and Jenny Machlowitz Klein. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1984. 310 pp. Avineri, Shlomo. Moses Hess: Prophet of Communismand Zionism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985. xii, 266 pp. Bach, H. I. The GermanJew: A Synthesis of Judaism and Western Civilization, 1730-1930. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. 255 pp. Bat Ye'or [pseud.]. The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam. Trans. from the French by David Maisel, Paul Fenton, and David Littman. Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985. 444 pp. Best, Thomas F., ed. Hearing and Speaking the Word: Selections from the Works of James Muilenburg.Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984. xv, 448 pp. Blum, Jakub, and Vera Rich. The Image of the Jew in Soviet Literature. Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1985. vii, 275 pp. Blumenthal, David, ed. Approaches to Judaism in Medieval Times, vol. 1. Chico, Calif., Scholars Press, 1984. xi, 176 pp. Boadt, Lawrence. Reading the Old Testament:An Introduction. New York: Paulist Press, 1984. 569 pp. Braham, Randolph L. The Hungarian Jewish Catastrophe: A Selected and Annotated Bibliography. 2d ed. rev. & enl. East European Monographs, no. 162. New York: Columbia University Press, 1984, xvi, 501 pp. ed. Jewish Leadership During the Nazi Era: Patterns of Behavior in --, the Free World. Eastern European Monographs, no. 175. New York: Social Science Monographs and Institute for Holocaust Studies of the City University of New York, 1985. xiv, 154 pp. Brown, Raymond E. The Churches the Apostles Left Behind. Ramsey, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1984. 160 pp. -inm T Sidrat Mekorot. Tel pr Capri, Daniel, ed. Tpin ninv-inn •o). ,,41 Aviv: Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies, Tel Aviv University, 1985. 118 pp. 131

132

BOOKSRECEIVED

Chernick, Michael L. Hermeneutical Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic

Literatures.Lod: HabermannInstitutefor LiteraryResearch,1983/84. 175 pp. (in Hebrew) Cohen, Naomi W. Encounter with Emancipation: The German Jews in the

UnitedStates 1830-1914. Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSociety of America, 1985. xiv, 407 pp. Cutter,Charles,and Micha Falk Oppenheim.JewishReferenceSources:A Selective, Annotated Bibliographic Guide. New York: Garland, 1982.

xiii, 180 pp. Endelman, Judith E. The Jewish Community of Indianapolis, 1849 to the

Present.The ModernJewishExperienceSeries.Bloomington:Indiana UniversityPress, 1984. ix, 303 pp. Falk, Harvey. Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus.

New York: Paulist Press, 1985. vii, 175 pp. Fraade, Steven D. Enosh and His Generation:Pre-Israelite Hero and History in Postbiblical Interpretation.Society of Biblical Literature Monograph

Series,no. 30. Chico, Calif. ScholarsPress, 1984. xvi, 301 pp. Gerber, Haim, and Jacob Barnai. The Jews in Izmir in the 19th Century: Ottoman Documentsfrom the Shar'i Court.Jerusalem: Misgav Yerusha-

layim, 1984, xvi, 114 pp. (Hebrew) Goldschmidt-Lehmann, Ruth P. Sir Moses Monteftore: A Bibliography.

Jerusalem:Misgav Yerushalayim,1984. xi, 166, xviii pp. and Hebrewfiction Govrin,Nurit.mnivnnnm ,nwn [Alienation regeneration: in the Diasporaand Eretz-Israelin the late nineteenthand earlytwentieth centuries].SifriyatUniversitahMeshuderet.Tel Aviv: Ministryof Defence, 1985. 148 pp. mm Tiny t'),,w r '))'T Tel Aviv: 1, ed. Tr'a1iTp 7i '"t Tv~ 207 1985. Eked, pp. Greenspahn,FrederickE., EarleHilgert,and BurtonL. Mack, eds. Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel

Sandmel.Chico, Calif.: ScholarsPress, 1984. xvi, 237 pp. Hacohen, David. Time to Tell: An Israeli Life, 1898-1984. Translated from

the Hebrew by MenachemDagut. Cranbury,N.J.: CornwallBooks, 1985. 252 pp.

Hill, Brad Sabin. Icunabula, Hebraica and Judaica: Exhibition. Ottowa:

National Libraryof Canada, 1981. xxii, 192 pp. Hundert,GershonDavid, and GershonC. Bacon. TheJews in Polandand Russia: BibliographicalEssays. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,

1984. 267 pp.

BOOKS RECEIVED

133

Japhet, Sara, and Robert B. Salters, eds. and trans. The Commentaryof R. Samuel ben Meir RASHBAM on Qoheleth. Jerusalem: Magnes Press; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1985. 256 pp. Kabakoff, Jacob, ed. Master of Hope: Selected Writings of Naphtali Herz Imber. Cranbury, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985. 338 pp. Kluback, William. Hermann Cohen: The Challenge of a Religion of Reason. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984. 96 pp. Levenson, Jon D. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1985. xi, 227 pp. Liphshitz, Arye. We Built Jerusalem: Tales of Pioneering Days. Translated from the Hebrew by Misha Louvish. New York: Cornwall Books, 1985. McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. II Samuel: A New Translationwith Introductionand Commentary. The Anchor Bible. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984. xvii, 553 pp. Merkle, John C. The Genesis of Faith: The Depth Theology of Abraham Joshua Heschel. New York: Macmillan, 1985. xix, 292 pp. Mosse, George L. German Jews beyond Judaism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. 98 pp. Neusner, Jacob. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Damages. Pt. 3, Baba Batra, Sanhedrin, Makkot: Translation and Explanation. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity, vol. 35/3. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1984. xxix, 293 pp. . New Humanities and Academic Disciplines: The Case of Jewish Studies. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984. xxvii, 187 pp. Our Sages, God, and Israel: An Anthology of the Talmudof the Land ----. Israel. of Chappaqua, N.Y.: Rossel Books, 1984. xxix, 181 pp. Jehuda. Chaim Weizmann:The Making of a Zionist Leader. New Reinharz, York: Oxford University Press, 1985. x, 566 pp. Schiffman, Lawrence H. Who Was a Jew? Rabbinic and Halakhic Perspectives on the Jewish-Christian Schism. Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1985. xii, 131 pp. Schwartz, Richard H. Judaism and Global Survival. New York: Vantage, 1984. xvi, 179 pp. Schweid, Eliezer. The Land of Israel: National Home or Land of Destiny. Translated from the Hebrew by Deborah Greniman. Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985. 225 pp. Shapira, Anita. Berl: The Biography of a Socialist Zionist, Berl Katznelson 1887-1944. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985. ix, 400 pp.

134

BOOKSRECEIVED

Shapiro,AlexanderM., and BurtonI. Cohen,eds. Studiesin JewishEducation and Judaica in Honor of Lewis Newman. New York: Ktav, 1984, xiii,

219 pp. Sherwin, Byron L. The Golem Legend: Origins and Implications. Lanham,

Md.: UniversityPress of America, 1985. 55 pp. Szonyi, David M. The Holocaust: An Annotated Bibliographyand Resource

Guide.Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1985. xiv, 396 pp. Tucker,Gene M., and Douglas A. Knight, eds. TheHebrewBibleand Its ModernInterpreters. Chico, Calif.:ScholarsPress, 1984.xxvii, 516 pp. Walden,Daniel,ed. The Worldof ChaimPotok.Studiesin AmericanJewish Literature,no. 4. Albany:State Universityof New York Press, 1985. 123 pp. Wilson, Gerald Henry. The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. Society of Biblical

LiteratureDissertationSeries, no. 76. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985. xiv, 278 pp. Wojcik, Jan, and Raymond-JeanFrontain. Poetic Prophecyin Western Literature.Rutherford,N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1984. 222 pp. Zeitlin, Irving M. Ancient Judaism: Biblical Criticismfrom Max Weber to

the Present.Cambridge,England:Polity Press, 1984. xiii, 314 pp.

‫הלכה ואגדה במשנתו של הרב קוק‬ Author(s): ‫אהוד לוז‬ Source: AJS Review, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Spring, 1986), pp. 1-23 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486365 . Accessed: 30/06/2011 18:18 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

nx.x

m'Tlm un

nym

Wint

M!nlwi $wlln

n

n

mwnwC

nx

InS

n02ln?

iw190i

I11n-. n192b

nN

on-mu-n

i

?xn

lin n111v*

iN

tN;x

liw

npn

nm,

Sili

xlin

rwnno

D

kWn 1f03i Dw

DyI- 'a

?

'Wr

Y

I-m"y

.", mynni

l'rnw

Y1

uTrD

tn7

oip-m

09

nowutn,

alik *

r10

m in1nn t 0 20 I.InYY navol ti ]12 nn 1f y1pin 0 21 n'W1r3ND m D~nK ?itvik1'YPDNDnlls~ nt3512 N; .(i"'lrK :TJink) pla 1;11ti

BinT

,

.;ribintvW Dnmbil922100 ;ra19t102,ini'Sn'$ND12'31ND

pin

nlifNm

nx

1innin

MlXr•l

n?E

pn

tr,'vn

:na1un

'n rin1yi3

n

K':a l n'0

;"XnX5w

n"nTC10199 nincin

rm0

Ir'P1

-:'r31r,3'1

In-*

111Y3711-

1

n102

.-olrnnnln

.571'570 18

Inlin

-.rrD 'S'N103'N,,

ti ,pin

nx0

02D

tbl

7ntir

V

nnn!Dnn-

93

'V ,T"Y'Vn ,TI-T3 .: ,A-'lllm12 .D

mon'

5w

5D

,:'3rr:•l

.jr*N931

j2"31

.7

.1

:IT

rln

nx nonm .Y•orn XD .2 ,'3 (MtY1-n MOW) pDAO13= .n :'n3 :T'"Y .pDA•n.n Y3aVmV=n, VWtbnv ',13 .151 'Y T"Vn N

lNti

Ytwn twr97w

i

nm

1

li 1nn

nx

hn

Nbil

nrin?

nr7w'

Dr3nDnnw

,nWtiv-yvni,

monn

S

nxt1

,i1n3ym

unnS

pri1n

?w

n

ximm

-

K)1N NEw 'l1n 1)13%1 5792

-I,'T

-

I 1.1m1in

I

im

ntnw

m-Nix-'nm

nin1vi

?:) -.1#9wy

.in

Nwn

n D'YTD 7112g01900 1#?'2) ,1'111NT901 $Ai?w jfkWj~l~ On1270DDSDl nn mTm1 nxw m ,gIn w10 w19 .1}• DnT 1Iy19••n Iyl 920 In ,mu.nn * i Y -rnm .* n mnm?inil Nw m i"N'inn y11t300 x3DN 1N 1y10 yn unTIn pn n•lpn n"XIIIn jin~m trnnn-mnrninDm ?D nx nxn? innnxin rnxVw IT-) ti03 Nl m om'n '31e12 ni'nn I.ywW rft y ,n11NW .xinmb 1' 1 my1n3n lini 51 11W~;;

-

-

4.n- n

n

D'hll

,Pll

rl•nl

nivifnnll,

012r1

l wmn ;,'SW

n!DI XW

nb11'0

rnun,,

,

n.12D ,*

001n00 NW1i.)w-l

Dtvn

l in

l

n tl n ': 200 J'N

;1"

I3"

ri"'N;li ],=•? , n.)3.lnw ovrn~~7~n1T~t~ Tt n'31nn

InnD

nrvynnn~ ninnu

nI

1

w

M1n

:1N);13900;51W;00n'l ;IbYPn'D';ti ;l'01;100 a0*1990; 539(;13900~ $5ft2 5tW ) in'liv 09200 D'n'Win 1?'k w Trr -It n ni I"'NI .I*Di)p n1n1n0 -

,

?v

310

ninnsm-

18nw=3

,nnn1i":p4

n-1li "

71 'y ,t ))Wn lx971v ,pip =nn

3

?v

"W1y

"W

n 0M-111

1n=3703

?

pTY9y

.3

l971rn ,x,=ion w,3R ,"p~i .106-93

;358-350 ,t"fvn '

1nm .= ,pnI

'-rT 111t1t1TP.4 1Tr~T Infn -lK rTK17l 1311-DT3nl5It1n"1103 r ?V 1 'nT 1'3 •nI"'Wri~ i 5 rimV '3V."1t K1 fT T"j'$K' tTrmin D'VWK13 ?271101? nTrnl1. ?TN .T't)11 nrs - 15 'rf5 f V " :l'1 nl1n1vt t 'i3' Kl' K ifl1Tm-ni Kli j Wpvm pl '-315Inn013 tJ1l p'$K'x

'nDl 61in w 1flb l lnt -rx-15

TY1? 1vD'513 IDIKD-TKK

l' 'wlt 1y3 K10 ,ITVtlp1 '131571

"013=3V

Mtin31=1

truni-7-n t30n15l

-

1mr,

f1K'7

Tn-11r,

-11on

1w

1

1

0UT0y 11-3

pio

11Dx

w

l

vimn

1munr

315-jnr i)2Y'5N' n 13 V nT .n.931D noDn li X5•Ulr rlNTr~2 tlt-3 w0' n ,, 13-ly• :03'11i.,l p1 i ~f'9 1 '9 fln 'i 3~' . 1'fTDll :O1 fnaltlK1'rl ,1 r,'9f1 ,1'rtfl,, 1,'1 y33",'1"'1W•,•,l

N

-.1-ilw

i

'3V3

10

VrX

xv

,fr"Wix1D

5y

,p

-in-)

n

.nn1rnnmi

13 Dn1vt

13-9-m913120

onD9v

T1-95mar

n

x

n131310

,013-9 i

13-.93

aT2Kil

N5

i2l

D)v

-0pWD

.3

1 3y

Nnnt " ni r Gershom Scholem, nTnh mCnrsisniom

S

i

.5 .

Jewish Messianism," in The Messianic Idea in Judaism (New York, 1971), pp.49-77 .5 D3

iritn "Ml

013p

.,*vuxf

3

rTi n'

M01n1"In W-9

0'f-m01rm

.71

'9 1

nx "'W

5v

'no9in

i

;PEDWW1 00=

'01"

,N"n

utm

.-735

Gershom Jewish

Scholem, Messianism,"

"The

Crisis in

The

Messianic

zf n

13

in

Judaism

riv

1KI r8

rT

ni n-9may

(New

WinwD'DO

Ix

j21

.01U.IDl

1080n rn

York,

0r01i

IV-.1

nDn'

01 r0

3"n

,i25ND3

.3X

2won in

Idea

ro3rif"

,"1-71X1

Tradition

5xg

1

5v0

nivo

ri

X51

n1513

,"mm3

D''l3T

of

rnt

Nwinv

n:

l

tn-3'

-1D3

,tMK

n mDn

-InI

I'D

nmnmInn

1I

5W

.n1virl

17n

nimn-

n nr

7-9:w

1971),

.5

53Y

p.

49-77.

I

n2m

Ipi

im DYnlT i1nn

;I"'N~;IIfll'D .nn1'11 'I11 it inti Drbin (1 ;11' 5;m ?D

r~nm

pin9m

-

l'oTlm- fl''fiVnn

inT

i

i fp2n1'T Wnpr

T?Imb 1T '1t1K 7

-.1*.1

m ;m-bt

inw

'v

lfl

;ImNl nb21pai ;r3900~tA$Tib $# '00210' kWy nD' ?wC -$in2 ?n IwNl 0'1 DYNW1 ,;lb~ ?yn 12riN rur1'y nin-wn 1r2h In'. XNui)-trx N*.-1 .M ows n 0 n. ) l i o 7I.nw 191'Y Mo.)2* 0

}'

-)

w

-)

-I1n

D' D*"tO'C1t1Kf31291Y 1m' D'rnfl 1tppr 1m' Irnn fl1 tKN 1f TTil'Xtr.Dnimpn '32 1Kv 1wKn - Drvo-vi K11i "'NKli 'V f't3O' In1x

I1n K' DK 01111612M

,DP01"lO11l

5M 1,11M.;1

0'3SlTnn

,

D

?

nru

il

mmD1u1N

,ns'r-n1

Inln-mmDC

NW 192N n003n~nn~ 1 90 n kWt; i20210 m'T m 0~19V .n'31'20 nlVC~nli 'llC K; I102D'ln3100 D"C1t31N;1 D'$N~'KND kWt 09#0r~ WDlt'b)SPPip nN ;nTW3DM~ ;113n3 D*yx ri-ny irrivri riymn D'1mrN -r pt-n 1ni D-r31'rirwS"n m? ] . ; )Il n , 1f6 D-I1t - TIKn D"K'T'lK 1Kt1 rIiTnWV 0Y fl.lT l K J D"31 l 103'?lK1 ? - T'P"DT31 1212 'f ,71ril1 T"K ,O?Ito ) 1fK DK'$NT VnnS K w1r mrl21'y ') 0 T'7 1"yn :1NK.(CJDf1rKmlV0 0Do t,1'2 jp 1KN lOd1KyD n1ip "

A'2i Kf;lnC

.'U'301 ,;01fVr00 f EN i"'in ?'0

03m1i

lw1N

nn)D

JD

nfwn V

;1 r

,

Xiw

1n0

1-.1-11riN

milyn-

Imn

,Itn

nrlln

a

rirTn

rirvbwn

rin%1-1-T7120

-.

bw

l in

ID

' Dl1W j)1Y i"'KNl 1'1r'1301j'r

IN

9 09;1~1100

SD bi 1Dg3a'f ;"Nln 10"00 ,D'r 31K' 27

ipWionn

?y

n "Irw-1-7.

-flTfifm1

f1'Yfln Tnt1 DY

rmr1r90

rilN N

m

ri n1 o

-12v17

n10

i

i-1NT3m

.nivim.K1

nlnmrinn

5tw

Oit912 n ?-'1T0 Tn i iT Tip2~ D2?N lix1 Wi Pnp fl'C1O1'11t00'1n in1flO'fl0 uvrin nviorniuwnn Il}'SW nw 59'Y fy T'?~Y1 K.* 'i~i n "l, 012n Drinnbn . . I rNxYw nwprin n-lpin nn-npw mmprin T ,itW)K w N iWnl 1 * w -C1 131N WiN1 13t=611 :1m'n ])it mlb rvnrim n1nnin ?w DTND.l ?w wnyWn -)Irwn il 01 ri nmnrin rinnbn .rl yn-.11 IWT 0n n3nn nlyynKn x ? 1 i n tlyn D ;xvm1 ri-iNinn 1?N w-nurn-.1 01 n1m*13 -I.13 ritnT 51'V w

-

-.

)

-.*

1-)?nn

;rwW3

'vymN3

81100 0i1 ,nnT

-

n

11'pn

n1120

tr

m

.?wa0n

ri

n

vCr

kW wnx 00'000

r

-wnn

mnoup-n

minrim..*

.01

.fl flNwKiK' w 1KN ml'r iiIT '11Nfi.inV NK fl23v fllfl Kw1 -tw "w m'1y 'W,wV'TO -w -TT 15)7 Dr K1g .KK Ifn l 13n

't)C

,;l"W1

'1irw

N$N 181037 .Im1n;w 1C'x 5 wX1' xr1 IDW3,,!

-

Nli

-m1rn

3 mn

iwy;

n!D-

-1)'iw in

niwyn

nnnnit v

wupinn nx

n1xniN1

xin nninn

-

i

?no

?Ti$N

)r

17 '1100'in

1Kr r1Ct 1flnV

1

f1ixni'wn V1N 'vT10 5w -1n1

DTNxo

0a1in

.n

In=

5w

T"N

ji-r1u

1i3n1 invKw

11Dxn2

im?b$

nymnC

r9

DA

n17113

?m

6,IDrrl

00"00% '3m11'n 1212 ,i".I13 'Ni }ND 'XDDC101

.

n 18190

:"71-1120 nl 0n21)

(ol-Im1m

Nr2 0

0

09r10

M-

on

09r10

n

.7-l

"

mr

31w

n'W

,Mou9013

n nN

m71nr

.oTm

m1n

;I-.51-m-

K.)1.

o

1511'

I

mwynn

5v

,vwynn

ininn,

,0miI

m31

;)vomlm

nro

'y

'n'C10199

m

pn

pn"

n1i-mmmV m

-')nD-gNx

.-i

mwK

Nli

n1irnn

pin

ma'mNmo

YmN

nix-gynn n

-nimrD

1wim

13M

pl ~n t 35iD-.i -

n

w-wKrnnl Nlnx

.ni

n ma

flPhu

N

wm=

lin

nyn,-;r-)uj?5-n

g

n

DwTi

oxCN DN

nlyun;

5vy min

1-ri

,min

vnnvn

.T1

10 o

1w

D

mPm-mn

9,nivnn-

ini?

m11 Nn

xi-pbw

-r

In

n )5Dn-

wm'N

nrmn

.I

,m13n

9

o

g 0Iinrpv7 "'Kn v f'n'31'YrT n-nnV mmo1 rn-9-1t on-9m YI-7v

170 1r

nomim1o

a11nn

I.nnn!Dnn0

,m-D

'1 1no10'n,YY3NK r Tix? rm 0'm

13 m

-

D

i )lPh

'-Y9

1m21#2

n0 aina11 wmi ' "1nin ;Ib01)S }Nt 001b 7;'1$31NDK; .'737 n'WN123 Sntt3 ;I9 i 0$100" 1N S -T-l n nWbln ;nl SDvnn 5 13' TrD 5v ."?mN'wn 5y9 -y nr? * 01m7 m

nm

mwyNnSoN

v

mnrrN'T

BBC

-Trm1

nrmnn

wwo-jw l

nm

7 mi

DSi-Y

,

wnmn1

5vW

ImED

mt'm3im'N'nlN

lil'R nW ,i1mgom1

', um

N-i

nm

-mm~~U

n

'131N 7ttNt3n1T i731n31t3 nmn'1im

't

5v

;rmm-nn

il~v

D'r$1

,falN0)

,A

inr

n

Dnm ,up-7 'o10' Dn- Dmm1-3Dm o 1210'

yN

.mwNlK

(121

nm

"

D31

Ds'#

2p

nin

Dl' ,p3.91120 Dosn-q

nvft~i

n1

iD

170

1101D91mqw ,

-

?-I'9W -,

y

ti rynnon

MKpXb

pf

ly~y

'.)blinn

)TD

D'D$10 D'11int

T972

.71'yS

1#

i

1

mn

tlr

M

nu

0D

ID73

nW

wopt'l 0,01

.0'

D'91120 ,jujrn? flyi) ;im

.o0y1n

-)m

In

1n13m

r11m

?y

i

D'DPK

kW

nrl

1n0'wo

,nTy13-.

I- fn

kv W'r-m120r01

.;rcipn

yup?

win

In

ippn

m-19'm

TiY5

Tw1O7

m-rv

5v

qnm

'n3113m.n-3*-900

;1r1831

nDin:

inr,

5Dn

n iy

.6

,,n

l

inm mr0

wn

o

ITx

n

p'N3•t T133~'• nxop$N'Ti -

vnnvn

-93x

.7

'- flnxn Karl Man- .mnrymnr m m1'r- '1?m inn ,rsrmviK1 mv1ni1?nm '1 nm aoan flflv heim Ideology and Utopia (New York, 1949), p. 167. fr un1 N01JtV fl'K't1 MYi-'.179*K'nr0?It fl'lv?= nf1ovT nx V' .8 n9 T'39 YW-1V1 "M'nS T -,1951 "n ,171 ri ( m .135-133 . 'Y ,r~mr rn "rtiTt ra 'ln m'n rim ."vrll7 "-lYt tVlt . nt'ir, 9 -Y . gYnn v 7 mnin ) n•,•- 01ft9 nimuS'N1r,~ q-n a, 3,, -?n n'1vin (Tagr Waum1"lDN -3-1 xatnf"inW 1 ni m y n "t1 tn0 i3vN nx mvpnn (Tagtraum) -.6-j;n lT-m-r"v ;lnm ly,9p17mftf"n 1 j*1: On uonx 97v' D1rN-r DCm 1100n nomnS Ipwn "fy.i9j.,1y jlr'9 r17nig Tls:-

-

f

-

01 0102

17

Wh

-

omnw

9(j"T191i

?D

w1w9

inN om

911Dinvi

(no-io w,

W

rinminm

i

w

Win .w-3w-tTn nnin rim

m-nurrim

m

?w

wwDn

i

l

;r-nu10'im 17120%

W'

1"

DT

'aiy' om

o

0*

Inrn2

w'i3xN

?Iv'D

win3;1

ovvnv

lm

1T)lIn?

N-)

1-1 7

'

p

w'-1ni-

m171m

cmini

1-n

-.*'1 'Iim 1N

n-93mvi*k-

ni 01nwnn

mn

Dompnn

mwn

j

.*i$

:1ix)

*0 9

03x

ox)

-)!0

v

nivninmv

in

'

niv

)-1m in N ;'nr" ,mxni3 nl"r1imix)m N)

winimmi

yl

-TDn

;r211 Nll 1iv

)T"nn-.i

in

innomm

mnw

;*

-

m

1

In

DoW 0 12 oxDN1

01 i ('-)1num

])imn

-)TD

coin

;1D

InY"*

nrn1i91y

m

I"'i 9

D'2W10

xi'

1n

.'#"0

-1

ID-Tn

nllint-m K- Nwriff-wim

~l3' nix'S

aplmbl

. *iD

)

1tm170 fCw

niynwnm

n-9noiup-

J)mn ?w

kW w

D*'i n

g2-1-.971

Imp

-Y

q.r1

m

1

x

;1i1on 0

ID

n i i pi f ovq?Dm w)?au p?nnxlD oW Dp Ti'1 n-i Nrivi pn1925n35PWD'55Y 13 1U'"JulD533nNT "P"553;153n-9 0 y1871 n179!"

0m

01wyn

inwino

tr

;Noinn *)?wi1

,o-)?Dm

iYYtKNx

nx

myYY

gt3$9 $)w t ;mrnw'

mDunDio

-1mN m

1-10

rNri 1 Y1

w-)

.

Ipr1im m

.(ow) 13 0

mN

"finiv

1-r

700n

N*

51W n0';l 13313'ilbN;I l1210ItWnl1000DYYS.';1lbN210 3'Y912MSD'91tt3 C"YN ,mnm vlt n1232rmin ?1D2 ,r'iy3 k n1y90 Ion "'N ,;1~102DT~P;r70000~PCDi'ND~Kt ;1NS;I21nl

mynmm o 11y w11i p 10";19'2201 ;IPT'90 NlKSD;nl

nDSDWD

min

ninvirim

*Dulm~

?D o-Tx-.i 1

.n

1

mni ,nNmmx)

Din

?Di xtu'nn

-m*0-)

"mowyNw .DTN

-.*Y3

-

-mr

Tmx?

-mm

mi

orx

ni

pm

?1D

.(-.iy

$mi~n

thiyn??w

*iD3

Dyin

m-Y9-p

orn

21

xin

;Ino

)

n)x.

"711

wrift-n OC.(

.

Kw 1,,n2100 n

ni

n

ox

,wnyw

ri~mi)

w

1,

m

o

n-.I-.I

linnf?

;1wlrim

miD

ni-rnrivi n13n

C'

0~1;1 0'1Win1" 013311

I i wo kW)x-.

rinlui

Nw

oninrwn

I-)xnff

n

13 !D

-nx,

n

rubnn xvi0rrivi

Whznt3-nn!Dnn nx r2nn ninS1i;m -)wmn tx)D~ mwnvn m-mm i ,1200 $2N1 0973 ni' bT3NY fl';1 ]102n~ in

it mnow?

w llffoa)iyiin-1nn

rnwnT;

rniywn

?w

-) T-)

?Ymi

mnn

vimnnxwwpwn x mn

53binn;

i

nimnom

lin

,P 1DWIK) .Oll3~l .912 01w *0m

.n

nx

?y mrlm nx rmum vmmmPT~n~

?w

trionmm

piqo

li=5

,nb1 nnx-.110'

-)x'bi

nmwinn

n"

N5

y

ri-n

ln89

o71

n

51w

.0,17,

nmmw DV

v

y Drv m3NT.10%i-b

-93)

.10n19

ninn? m110

?:1x

,pTi

iovior

iorW'r

1Dv

-my

inytS

.(lo i'n-35' nmwlnnx f irr ;mpm VS.9 'i .1" ,N,1xu ,':ft,"N nh n1,7" ,P1St .i :.n1i n;-p3.mnnnnDn,1n7 w,xn nn n3n ?$v m 170' .215-191 n"n'1,w"n n"W1 nnn r1 limbw ?9 • mC•', m• rTl"ln NwlhKrt 31. 7 iplj2N*x ?w l-n ,t W;128-109 '9 ,(8) 3"W9n9111,nr f,"1ip0w, .n xtrm v•n" ,0l • T'l*ll11n .70-39 'T ,(9) I"f=vn

i

M13VM21= -'3~.n3S=@ nr in n111N x f1n3 ,"131' '31 on• nmnnlx'1131v n=?n", 0uo.v .10 N ' ,$"Evn .ui)p-TbIp n, ' ,"pWf11fN" ,,,,'l ,py .3"7 ,,,lw,,, .11

1

T19, Tfl1 w1m

tDi

531

nx ,mNTm

OI17

I3

.

-.* .

0Dt

commi

,D

lnwn

,

uvw*

nx

- TD

trw

n

nwttw

rivm

n

1

rtibmn

0n1yim0

nx-q?

0m

nrin-l

I'-qw

n -9 -

,'C10'q

fiT

r'T0- ;'niin

)u10N

.1"Iff-in

n

nx

-m;p-qu-Iftrur

m'N ,x? 1n--91'C10 i -mi -w-m 5w3 ji'tK'2711KW.8't000; no-gorin

n

I-gw

39mn

I-w

ox

:w'n9w

.n

.mmnl-9m1

min '.ln"jYY~;, nilinn ' 35nv

InPcNw

-vini110nx

n-'9W

-n'ig

-0o9

1-'9513i

=?

m

.ns

5m

5D

.w7m1n

n;p-q-if'tNT

my-9-

D ,mIYny1 rvr0l) DNj' f'1?12' 5w1 -W15-Trnb n11i

n111mn

nin9wn

9

n-1-97'-

n

ipU$NT

,-m31-95yn

nri

Dn

.nimiow00

.i

n

n-93in-i

?

no-go

.MAN-

nr'lwr

w

3 0w 1oi'

D'priNr'nn

N

r 1T

nri

-minun -

-9

n-T-975in

1n

5mD

min

-m-givin

01mv

nn111W~1V1

fl ,in'i90i '?m1T

xi

mw#

?D

."?-)nlrnx;1

"

:r)Dn

y 93

I.*ID

1nwx

'3 7D 31-m

u10

qiw

In-93

'1

Y!Dwn nrnn

-in*l

D

nomlin3

?x

nr1'99n

Ilin

'S

-9r

-9

P' ?Di1 ;Il1NK'V * 'r ;m1n ?D nix-gyn S?Ynw pin n1y?1NK lYCV "'" 0ninirn' ri TTIK inx m

rini.(n f ,3 ,p"mK) ". . . '1r'? -grn

$1D31!

8

D

TD

Dmin;

t309m0

qw

-911

rf0K; nm1' v1f K mnrKV mo x? ?Di ~ n nmri~nn wn;

DNn ,K

lDKn 'no"T '?nV1 ox

U

7 nyY

-

?w

nrl n

37!

U

n -9*91'TV

nNw

-

.(CT , ,p"mIK)"..... D'2tp ini' -iry nrDmx D 5fn ;*Yrin riviftK

K17j IT1PV1n inlN

-qmn

ltnYY'3

D3

n-lmm

*w

x'

9i

'lX'log

u

0$1i

min

;*$Yn)

bY

nintwr1Db

i

o-9-g1io

-1 ND

-)*-)i

-i x

'-T

.

.

?1D1

niTnni-

N m-Wn

,o1-l-gxi

nq3

nlliNx

.nxi

tNT

n

rom'-u

nwimn-n ntr97

o01np

D

nt1 nnwr

u-mmi

aIni

.

D-TxK5win

TIDmm1N1

j

-97X'

N1C'N;1btt' 19N'3#t nl1'3#0';1t .D*219101ND'W11Wtt }'I' ,'C10 T'N)'C10;1 T'SWt o-w) m -gnw xv'qD '-m -9'tNUD b 12' m -qn01 1 ,m-m1imix x'3 ,-.t15 0I-qx I-9n 11w' r l V .D"l5 9

.12 011miv0 r1 "N K W

31 2 .60 '? 9 'Df nY?,f"V 011.fn?V W-? 0T 1 T-131' -pW-1 1'fls131'r1iTi"WK1 u impi T -mpr11u nv YN2MI 7 011rirm J'K":95-94 'IV ,T"Vl N"KYfl 11 .01in3 irip7 imN

71DX3

NWri

nDi-?nvn

rlwu1

y"Wil

0130

n iuv3nDll~l nVD

WTI

1

ni

-I

$D=

rlwuD

in 1i KN ,nrmnt1nv ?tv Dinn on KX

?w

,aln

n in

012ynyr

rivin

n x08

91-mvi

7-1:v

n11

p-1 nu

ronnmor

i'1 rin 1'K 13'n IN

n-voD-Tw1

nvluvnr ?v "InrD'

*lDiv 1=13

. . . N'iV WTK y

-

m

.113

." f.

01yny

VT' lNlKKn Ki liKVn"lni13n" I? 110'10 tV"1= f1f1DVT'1?"0133D0 ."Vi13oK; fl'Wv13; ff V -'1303 M7T K' i.y1-l YDW v .0(193 ,v) T'Ki D-3 i'rJnIMiTM=ln K1*1 ID0V S13 N m 13ym my n u 01i n n ? Y x w m i h t i f u .010xi000 Up? ,u'l Trnu1 05on K 1 ,xTN:3 I1

.nmblrnl

';

l 0n1Nf I"W1 -i

WYN

*1-9)X8I1

m

PIlK w7

pri1mi

.'o1fnluv

r'f

'f1o

n1n920 y'

Nwr

rS3

'5N'T'Nr

y3

Dt1 inl n

ninvo l mul

31 '7i

317' W.)

03013

T

010 .$Nl@U09 kW nn~~~ ;*12~T10 Mnl'X' inv

n70n0Dn

nim1

ftN

?y

n~~mn

.6-m-ax-mi

2T

?y

)nw

I

wnmqxt

n39m

nyI

-y

nri-ri

v

nIp-gTi

I-9

.InD

nnlybmn

ni-go-q!Dun

mi-p-q*

nlxN

Kn xrnn

I-T-g

-mux?

-inx1

I=

ri-qvqmn

i'C'DU n 01nnl

bign

rAyn

womnrin

1-9mn

n-wrin.S~tD;

lItn

Ininrin

.n~Do1r

m3

m- imN

170 (lT') 'I3#t ( bSW13CD

-9100-9

Im1 3n

'yx

-7in

1713m:

$2N D$31T'3 ;IfNY ;I3900;I$O1'903~1n'D~n'

n'1T1 :n1N1'7ll'11tt;IV "SNli

niynwn-.i

w

17 rm

~pi-

n-'go-qDu

;L5yn

;"K;

m

.

1

mvnnoll

091200 123'N 'C102N$N019200) 012020~ .2219001n 'WSu Dl''C;10JN $3 13"X12 nl1nb00r l'$in 1'2;1lli2 nl'11pm

mNW

1 qn

Nt

1-39

5-1n

,v

'1AN)

.(tni

x-

.(o -

myn-0

nix-n"f?

5D

inliloto ,

(t

roin

vn

1*

.?

nx

91

vnnn

-7m'l

n

n

-)*-)i'

5D

n

nx

nx

m1ff

N nlmin

nx

,nyu

nx iw!Dx Ti

xyin

min

I-qx

;Inx

W1yn

Dmi

-m-T-

- rim

ovin-.*

i

5nizinh

-in-1

5v

imon

.293-292

'MY

,lf"YW

iny

n7Timn

. V 1'1X '1'NKfl nn= ?V 'TT 't1V '1S71,1Ua*V rPD'T

..39 'l ,

:iNn

M'btl,'9MD1

liw$n .2

nitnx l

lizn

min

In

"f-mi-95y.

,Tf x)

.ni-Yw-

Itr

=52)

l1=5 (nD

nx

n

-) n

,.9'3D

.miynn0

inl~qi

n1

oIY

nE

Ix

qi

,w1v

ilN n mr1i

1D

-Imbin D'")n

tu"

19

-1.-Im0V mi

n

nx

0gn

-.1-umn

5m N

-9-y

Min

.D'n

nimN

oTnl

i

o)5t9)i

m

o1niil

ni

10

,5wi

1 S)N

nx

-) n

5D nnvnnn

DT-3 nmnn 10n N 1x'91 mw

ni012100n-in

n-wimn

mi

Di

n

n

"IS~iwpn5t n*.*

w1

,on~t-9D

I-qnv

5v

nIoyr Tim

IDD9 o)in

n1CiN

rninvnn-

.'9D DrNW

DiNrx

nv1y0

5-7n D .I-1q C

135mi1m

",y1im1

n~inil

qn

nwxb

m1w'nn1

1n

"

u

n

-1m1ir1r

, o"i)

.(tr1

-

n-grb" -nn-q*

,Ptw)

,m

D'oN ffl": wN)

W

-93

"NnnnWEf

n1w1r

nimnb

-D

min

."I'-31n

1-'i2m

,-nlN

go

5-mn

,I-qn v"

1 -.*m

'nio

;'193N~;I"S'NI;0811nD'0N D'2Pb$~l~01192 .1003;1

."orutnn

miynmi

.

5x-9-7-9n

-W

.9n.9

vtinV

i-jmp

99 ,-T ,011.n .13 7*2p1

7 37

=112

3

0'

tl*

"MxN

n

Dn1

711P-S9n DrwEnD

w

Tl.n r

'-N'9?r

D..n

-n

n-l I

$D

D'r 91220

m

1 pm-lznl

71-gYl

910)in*

Wnl

fl'C'1

-y

zint3I

Dtvqnb

t1-1h.

DA

ovD

.mpm glin

!2

nT

JD?

;"inln?

im9

of1tm

X- 1

132

m1l 03j91

D .0b

D vq91y

1

p1#

7-9m

zi10o

r1nnwinn?

1w901

mi- NI

nlnlM u"l

f10'

w*j'?

1y)

11- 1

7-2? .*Ut-92

nl' -q3;1 .101001 y?19901 nTlu5 i l ' W W 11in ,In91 ,n'bybm1 .I9Nb ,;1201

1

z19m13m

?120?

Dvq13v

mn19m..Il ?-9-t72v

7'2

NW3xv.

-.

numn-.1

pip

MD-9ltU

..1m.92 n 001

;W3

I-Wl

ni-7n

7-2?

D.wE}l

0211

w

D

it) 713,}n1Nr

9

DN nx

-ITbN-1 ,Iwynl

0003m

no

,'"znn3m1

1*9W1

,

'agn,Dm*C

x

1-q

onPS

,92

'7-

l'm

l

nl-qwDYn

n

l YnD1 g"

Dlx ,11"IN)

tbl9

"UNK1

0'9n

X-NWt 91 3.

I

-,?.n"

?nx

.It y 09b112 13W

1Y

.(ID-MD

N;1W

-Til-n

nxN

"oNmlyn

ziln181

nxl

17- .19

87000

zni

no03D

zi-qn-

7-92

NWl

20

,n

oy?

*112 .(IDn. ,T"n)

1 ;01oC NNl

o91v0

mWi

n.D

07rl-f

,n"fN3)

0*31Ysn0D'9929i21 00C3n 91';1 .Ds"@~ S9N'TNkWy D'$N?'KTWS

D'p19N P ~DiN .(l07117,

.l

f

?XNIvq

Nl-r .9

10 0-1 t3Y;z

D'tiv -

14olN6IhWin

niTnxn

liz

ngw!D3.

D6-31-S

D'o0N

VIM=b

m.93" :rl'3WW

;Nx-b

flinin

if

.(XD0

13n3m

t T-

DP

Dt.wEyn..lw nmy

0

061162

.012

l

v'qD1;

-IWKD

?nTnn99m

In JD419

,11y)

WEmD zqw

atg9n31i

,irroi

i

-pi

D ('3n

D 3wy

,D'-DE

t3-)11n

;Dmu?

"W3.9

I JD

n*Dnob.000"

"ffn)WD'W

zinm

929.n

Mzlim

;131-990 "

-1172ff

DtrN

x1N1WDg

0nz1l1

90

xm

;.*uzi

l n?

nly-pril

-1Yi

TY

?y

=Izni

nx

m13up 1

-Iwx

Irly

lt I

ol

19 ,1q!D

11o

nnbm

$N1WY'b IJ 713'C ;n0?'Yt il N$1"011'" ;lblU ;2ID~rn ';n11~p1 D;I# ,D'912D'D" ox 'D ma11m it $120 Nli mln ,"Vial s.(tb ,1 7"1) '7'@Yn';1 }'tW '121")5 f

9NW1'lXVI

.1nyy?

nx

2. 9n

18lY

-j'rN'S-

nN

?N1v

Y-92un

In9V920

qn

D

.Inl.T 1

0b1Yj

0

1

11N'n

'1Y

,('co9tn't9if'

?wn

i-m

y-I

731-WDI

-9?xlupt3~K;urxrttl

' um ft3ny ,0o0o2m7.1

l

?D

nN

.9unon

-1-1?nn

'9'n-2?

I'EW

nu-n

n

g1n

7'19y1)

l

ag-gunoN'm on1y-gy 1-92

mr t3.

9.9;l"

-.

73

T

Ix

l

}11Wm Ir

2

W91mitN'

XN1C

.Iywn

ninim

?

nil-ngyDn

gy.Tn

1.91m11W

10mPftrWl tInI

'C1f1N;1

-.IT

7-92

bly-.

vqDl

mmul

1

poom

mn,-i932

nly-gimn

Ipnx

.9

D3TN

.W-Tn

NJXD

1Y

t

?w

I"Win

n . on ,1n .? N Y 17Im t 7nt .14 "Spiritual and ',nKn p y nnK.pmp .a,,111 "T"K ,11n Anti-Spiritual Trends in Early Zionism," in History of Jewish Spirituality, ed. Arthur ,l :np 0onwnn6 pli, Green. Wvinnr :•1nn'n,K ,'K11- p1 3* ;nw7 - 1f~ '1,ni.r2 ? ? n x ," nl3 n1TfI3r n1 .15• vm rnnt'l n-tr: ,T ,-,I•v•n ,318 t9D• ,1u'N m-'lT, :,tI ,•,h .nr*nw nrn r9 ??Dn79'3 .15 D'?V M "MK~i ? M380npo =?W3:I nun: n3108 "n n 'C,•,'90f n3l=0m M13t:.nY1130 0wW 01nw0 = 0 31080 n0 por7tru1w nq'5n0r .;rhr18

-' mmw nwnnwV flmy,iVt .,,nilt i ,mWtt mnl'wyn • n*!n, p m1•31"•n m 16.( Ifn) .DLnir ininrimn •w 23•1" ?1u, q D wNn ,P xh $iDt1n imn nx nDxiw nolD lLn ,, -99nn" nD-Tm~ ,wq m ?nnw' , u u n m nwn:,•n.- m m~n pnnIlln t ,m•,•'• n,? •mnv nm I1Nkbl' ) rl.q'n' O L flni ?wN)'C'nl3-ND .($"in) 'n'5b'9W' N 61B1MN1 nY-2* nnnn3 nTn, PD,•"pie,,,'N nnW11"'YW• (D",im, ,r , .n'Ln ;I'Cp

l

rm

mir.13-71 ND 6112671 f ,f ?Nx p1w Darnmiftprnnn .(UYn ,i"flNm) '-iy ,71 ,rnr1i"f 9 1 DO, = 0 0611799 ' 3 S7 nT ni g 01 DTN ,Dft' ,9 l3n 1my-Tin ,quyn-* 1 -

0-9-m-si

~in

1

,fbrboft

Y-i?

Svluwnh

0c1vmn r"fN) "ffoomv .(Ubp ND31n'5N'Y101 nC'1Csh;r'ttn

-It'iN

D' amyn

oyn

r@

1

,nrqn

nC

-.Dwn

w

i

p1n;*5

03

0

9'72-9Pm

DTt3Tin

mCr-gninC

992"h11 'W13NK 7112 D'pi);r;1'NWW~ ;1713 $N1WV' STDDNT1."l0Nl ;lssnm 12 n09010Niln nmil5KND ;N~'ISND 71V 09nY;l ;r3900 0*0 VYim 'r3N1 m NY iw" Nn Din DfT3f,0nx00m ,in ri1i r,Di'viifn n n91 w-1pm

u-9-9n

nin- ir n

nv9931-m

-wx

pln1 -o

Doq

aq??Diww

?Dn

-93up-gri

.PC9Nv

?w u

rit

51wl

?1

?D

Ylypn

721h1700

aw W-9

'WVl

013wn Min

Inl!Dguw

.(D

9

vq#

DNfft Y-9-Tr*

,pil x

-3 ;r m

~iyn trmn 1

-9

w

1 Nv

-limn;

-9D

0mDnnnymumro

ri

n219v

w1i

rmw

nx

mninrnim-

n

N

ixD

mmnn

5mS

)55Dn

nn-in

nOy

nrinn

til7

ri"'N;in

71 ND

in1vti

nx

7ix-.

r"fN)

.(nop mm2

;i

n-nTnxn

DN

Ilr97

wnint

numn

rinwri

nm31n 231Y

:7NnD

300=%"

mDunom1

.p9MN' 3" n fk ?n1iN) Y .r"11Y3t1 E) 3 iS

t1

t*IX

IV-1

."rm3rlrl

lin

;n

-.N'w2n

n

b

1v

n

09112001 $ D'31$9?kW 1219#t SD alini tr1r1 w rDrDinninn121i" 2010;" 71n00 D-NEO9,1]D' ,1315"1! ivi ?x -TinND TnxDniTrin ,"w-9 li Nn m ? x r i ? q rri v w wr i n ffn-i x !Dn agrinn miinwny~ nrnn~mn lin ylpriff ;D mi-mon 17my ? w ?q ni n n .(nD bi~n 1* 3nx-3 ?I-T1l -13-g ?M10 npiv ,ftw) o919 N5 m39nn -iwxD 5w 5D li D'Dw3m i7 -1T -q0 ri-pn nn3m3 .;-imAND " Nx miTnn rNTi .(m3 nro"r11) -93n3 ' i -ri 'n9po ror'9po -9'*91lnnff 5 w 00112 n)u53xn mu1mr nIw iN=135 it nyD'O'm'Di ,fm .(myliTm1 ,nr pfimi) w5D-n

.3

riviri

ri1rmn

3mn1n

x12pn

,inN

,fiN;fi)

,fm

Df-

9n

wny nnuw

aqn

n-93-pirim

lb 71129 l nyt

In

fo-9-i -nu ,"f1 TI

nil

O

,MIT=E wrl

nwr~in

P"100

m'7N2 w'9N10miup33

flK fl ' lXv n n?0t20? n3 n n"KN1 .16 n1ln•1• 'h'--W n, ?x nx n nlT (1y-1(3=01 flT ,m xK a,19Dnn i13nK i i nl13' , -Sr t"'3 'ir• ' n' ix y 3w 11Dn n v'21 0 a'11r. N zsn rl trni-vrri IWj" w-n-m8;rinrn I T v 'f1nimn f 1V1T 1-IJn* . tw W?r 3lrT 3mv in i KrN J17111T"K ' tnx rln 7.13 ' tWri b Iy ' n nv23p 'TfunfOK .'r1ynx Jimn nwiv '

"

"

?y .-T . '2'3-Dn . 1T ;rtunW'W 5$3 iv~D Inlv, pin 3n-in Sn'iln5 5,1' p1 n39n5 DD 1 n ni nvvml Dw~"7.(xD ;"1N) "nl n t)3c ... iD5? ,n ,nn •n•I Dn1 m•

t'ruim

upio-'g

7'i

g1y

7'-2

.(n

ni190m

I-qn

in

p

l1-Im

7-2

nx

riN17-9po

mm

w";11N)

1

I-,IV

t39-1033

?w

jum

in"-93

1'-

-qu7bm

myrol

mA'm

7'-9m

ID13 5n DI3-iq T'N

i S129 ,1i72.

m

ni

-m-93

?rNm

1x

lmnm

t1

,f'rw

I YrWM

pruip-qT-

M 2 .4 'tM1 91U ,'D1 - I, ,*9 .(,' 01• ,N•12)- 'K93'T,1 rl1,' nV 09932 nlN';E MNn v 1203 1T "11 :r311o23trl •',= rirt TNit;, ,'7 D, 1t NW7n10N,'2•,0 .101N ;Ibl . 00151 01'pi);~ 97~Y 11~YDW KS10N.3339017131377137 5

n 1.n 23n moontVbxi131n r71

wS9m ,n.ntnnn

-713-T 5-W minD n nix-gmnnm5 DW3.D09720D~~nS73173 1701i '3' l'Nil;1 21WWWv Y12170 n1305rWin' 3117333171

w13 non n•3i on n -tiy " mn D ninmnn 12-3n Konn7 n 1iK',N' "inrb5 niinmon , ni n ngm 5 1nn135nn*nn1i 0wDn ,ll'tn -Wii m) pr'Tn5 nV15 ('pm p'-T' :1nN

-

Nx

5w

7ninwi 5w

-

x-giw

lwn-in

-womn

my-9-9

-1mN=5

nlnx

mrin

.ninn!n.I-.

n

17In

nx

r 7130

=351

1mr il

1*qxI

li

'i12ti Om1N .oS1i1 n35 n in mn; •nn 5V 791-95Y nnn5•,mrnmynn 21 nx•=n.D9001t l• rrl •.hmunnx D'D=l •D~" ,"IW: ,t'I =7ylgrl "2tl10 rl1" K1, 0'lu, D" ,' 01120 01 DN D'5KN'TND 5KNlbl N3 ,DTND7 1n1Sy70 "711'537 ;ITAND 5l 11$57 i I-9n w-9 N S .(xN nfi") D'trnwino -'qn3-q13- mx oinrs n3 =135 pr nLm q1 ri m35nn

o'-

-Ti

Dnominkvi'C15w

y

Dmi

no0Winvn,

5w

IlNCn

i1yi1y

13307

nx nOwK

ril

N

-n'w 'nB

NKy

-

'wn

ID

lim02

131 31

lDoilD

I1Tit01-13

n1 3

0o

n1$1

-

lr 7r173r

P091rb0l

trP0u0ow

T ,tVltY '# K $ '31Mi '1'?" ,5Wv

1KW i" .

q

.93

0

W1

Y .17

N

0

mntilN"

?S

DTY;Im

rN*

t

TI1i'l? K

.31 "l1l

.'T'qn

qn

93t

5v

v'31m

-Np;J T

a*:Phuw

nl

: t3nu3

mr.179mv-1-

'0000

5w

i

n1ukln

imND

D''irl

m

"Oll3f"

131PIV

5)3n

f 21VT

,

1138r1

nin00

."

nx

'W1

rimorm

row

rm3rlf"

t*Il

;IS InlNSPK T 1n

fmx1

."fIT

'f7

.13

n

1MTY MDJ Ki1m.1=3V i1-K'9 N'3 0r12 1lK09

-T rlwK yVn .113

.11rfl?3 m'73

nmn39

.-'9-95nvnn ".ND'v

-mly

:i1r1y

N

3

-.1m

?Xvln rlwyn? trWDm itimv riy1m 1irl nlrn nlx3rl,9 ,fw ).ly.)tWl ? i1lN 1 'D 01-9 ny-6 Min 1 20 7I'n3V p W-9wm nnhllwl n-D'UDONw gunowlr jrTW P,-NW nuw )3E?y nuVDnn wNrv 711') nio ,fy 5r n15i K rn23 Tln13Wrm3ir3 7312nn-nXTnnl ;nM TmDW.ruvnmrr , Triwmw muol NW'l.(ow) rr1u m00r3g1' m 11 0 l'j21 ;7n31 01pliK m?1 xn 09131 -m ol I"21 n ,ID p'rN-q .i'P"'lp 5u3= D'tiln

n

DIM

P3

.n-r3'n 13 Niw

Ti n

r1'3wrl5y

.71212

ninly

Nmm 3

11vi

N1o

*

13

1w17

nI

,'mf1-im

W

?w

r It

."lnlvtinn7ll mr

n

l

'01m310n ml'mrs.)

lyn

13 V

-=

1

13W.9

-1

wrl- i w

-1nl

n

.vl ob?

nim10n

nx130 N

NY"

n3,nprinmt ?

Tonnaiv0-1121

'-950

W1pir

f lny

V

.flow

.",nf

131 31

?y

-.nirnmf

n Wr

I

nrlw n nx

"nll31'n

7.3125

nnlxD

mr1

IT

niv

-

.3W

-MW

W

fy

-9 r

v

5 ro1

x

l

;I

-.13 "

N1

,"f Tm

in-gI'Y-

03 ,"013Wn

m

tN milVYKl

-Il ,= W

ri'n

7- 9I1--y

?w

'-12

1'9N'3

3M137

3

. ).'7

nKnn . ni- n131n0

0381 Nm

'3

.n K

."0 fnIK

rmrl"

1-9?rn

n-

Tn-.

5y :V1 0

n-

9'Tw

n03-D

nK l'

.18

-' -9

73

rIwV

l -7n TN

T l

5y

-

n-'31m1uip

yn

nmDD

nim

103@?)2 rnttb 0121

10 plr 2~I

NS '2

'D.iN Imp070

X-9T

mi

1nopogi

?w

nimw-m

-.1*.1

7-92?

51 N

jr'Y1

nxw

-rw ?"

w

tr

1i1nx

1-'1n m131rv1

niN

DffYr12

WW

'1 2

-

x?

1-9?-.inn

ri??iD

nwip?;r?~n

l

u"l a

0696Dmil

oh

nr01 in

miNqD-n

?

o3-i'

1In

-3in

?wvivq

0626

n

Yin-nimp

;r-wir

rnin-.TA

-'m101'7310i tn

*v

Immn

ninnwn-mn kWminncminri v31f l ln-r

?w1

-

m1ir

muo1in

I'9

'T)-

.niwimn wvrxiNx

.?w

D

tv~x--rwi

ni$wN''ND

onix

DWiyv

ni-Tnx

utw

li1-g

n m0wurl

rmiN

ri'93iri-

i"'Nin

1

.'1mnyri-'

0D -Ty

30

n

mrin

9n

5D

'sm

taimn-p'91

Y-9-m.1*

ID-gro

?yx

Dwili

.0-9-m-93-n

jvq!D?

9.

-

Y'C1

,

.*x

~~3

ol

mri

nooinn

m*T

.-ixi

mon

* ipT

i

m'T.O3 ?1T n~nI-)wvr i 21m9ri .D'tg-9

7 0012mm

y

n

7-92V

D'3li 7"31

a

lmincinow

niwyvl

:-i-C

bn}S

35

,IT

n1

.

?w rmyn WW1100mmin3

3mn

irv

noDn

v ;1f1nwn qn"q-r t Wo-gnimw

t3-9!D

lN'Y23 D'9713;1"DSS993n1n17" ;IY21N2D'qiVttb 1SN D'$N'T'N .D*W~13ND1

Ilg1

'3 il mr'NwW

?D

ri

'3

-

12

wnnti -Tmiln-

190

l

rT*

nu1n-n

tvwx*

nx

D

min,

li nx

'9 0)

'?

vmnn

nmini-i

nl3100- 'ln-

n

nx

1132-

n"nl l nI3 09130

3Y

Un01i

ilTY'

tr

NT

.ninnn-ol

nl 7

?w

-

-

ilo

n

pa

1'93v

n

-9T-

1

ni

i

"

1pri imy-

-gfpy

.1

.,

-

1

nl3.ln-.IVw

-Im.P

m"9-nn mnYY n1S n3n131 :1 ?1'1D

?w MYD?

0-9YU

-

'CD

-mi-grn

w191p ninu

M-90-1

."n

,oqw-m

n

iN

nrmx?

y3 wYni

0-91DY

-3m12

miw

109 ;n1r0 0 NW r 19,ov7p9Ul.v3niv3in

0 1U

U1-93

U91n90

?w

rnnn-gx

xKSI

I

-nx2n

IT

i

im9y

qlnvb

I-9n

(w

1 1yrn n3n?

r1mvP

C'mmil

.D'y

32 13 n*1'jr InlyMhl Mnl 1mV1'1 r'mw U-9.9n m*91310n .-'y0

nlrv1 InYY ?N

Drnm

n

rrlbD

?D

2*

18#9

.N ,9a .W

rln

v01on

xgiNq'x (I'1Noff 1l32"

=-.ixft ?D

x'vi

DS91300'$N'S1

w' wq11-$n

w .Px-g-T-9mi

.9vi13m-.

mrnuvi

in

mi-.=

.1*?-

f

.1 'I

0 1n N o9vi

I ?w

o'vw n

l ;Imm D31 1 r mr'.-3,93 'wr l?-931-9 Dj'y1uro- n' 0nnl.93W 7.9 'Iv On ft

n-DgplT1-D

nl-N

;n(1n'ri,

Dm-

D

,qNn

.DmrNinND linu

31y

13w

i

-.*rn

n

0vmr100

-Tinx

'

:1i) DtrND

11i

o

.(n111N

ovvx?-.i

ovmi

wEnwi

iw

1?-nn

In'N'N wt) DNy

:1i)

)x01b'

-)w-

f

"71o00

.(2-,1?) ninmmmn

nu1100on,

m

i

nri'f;Tl't 1; Mc')

i

mr'rwi

(wvml

flv-'

mrr'mi

(ri-glrNi

n011;1 ntwnnim

13ogS9

n-1wN

09ly-

ioiw

xNoi-

IlmoDn

:1i)

N'n

wr1n1

?w

x

OyDn

nvlv? lCInuy

nXT

13=

MY

-m-9

1310n1

3 .TD

w1Nw?

nilIn

n3nial ;lir'inWW 01334)XV .384 'Y ,o"DLn ,V'n vri' 2mv ? n=, vwn'1jr i - rr=':Swj 7t,' , nT 9rn ITn 13r 1 t rlv n'o tv D3"rninrll 3lA31,071 ilr ui'ryl n'rq K'nn rl 9I'-.?-m or', nK .rrlxN rm3rl 7.9V jIn'- In.mbN93 n,1rw j"nDNS tinn 0't1r*= .19 Tf" ,(T"'olY'lDolf m "o-3n "f1bw ,bDm) 'P'DK":13-1 V'3 fl1K'T'KWT

,f'N

3D

,01 313

.n

.nrlpy

, :IDInr

r3n0o

.(Y"fli

-ln

.IY-

,enlmzin

.

'31 2)

nxN

"f1 1i

;'9(0t"-)

'p-

'Y

,1111#)

i"

13x'ik

7'.9nM.

n

y0

1N21 DNt

21W ?w

2o.lroD

'3v

IS-gw

1'-9?

(,(MoN 17=1

li0nol

19 0

DT3IlNn

PC3tY

?w90i1

n11iw

-Tnyn3

?w

-

pipln'93

;mND11ni i

Da-m

x

m!DO

nS ,)n1n

i

;m);

1210

1 ,03

,111in

Clin

o1 o

mrm

iy

17n

tD)

.D'3

pinNmv

ni

D*n

93D"

:Owvuwu-3i

)

-gyn

VT

Itn

liwwW ?w

.in

12n3

ovvi

n21

ox

1n13,

;**T

2nx

3 ini

1)

11? ivm . S1wn-KB

"

;?31

yn

,nx

wn0 D

m1713

w

mrv

myC11

-qmS'

?1*31D

nx ni01y0

-313

n

19 y

Datqwm

Nhi nDio1290

DDDN

21

1

.Dnu'p

vir

1w1y

nmm 11nrmn3

3?w

nv x

py.I nilmn.

1Nxr-

,'wr

-91ni

'

nyDw-.* Dm w'

r'm 210 ,-19D1 pi111 J10 u'i'm1u gly D-?v-io Pl ;n nli mpr v

-m$

?w

owiy ww

n"ni r- ,"t ,"11fo

)tinninm

(17lND nr

l

-1 1n 1"V V Y 11 n lfl1 2 p-Y2 nr Waru 11 ,

64 mnm191 121 ' ,(11) 1")rn

,xwtr D13m

DN'Npv

)n-T.i

"ltlinr

i

"n

w-o'2'0313'wi

n

Nx

-mrvii

11nn1'i

:TnxD

j

nwpn

;iT-qxN'TN2 2r1

w

-Tyn

-Tnx

1n

prin m

-r*u-9

?1

,p"nx)

Dipb1

nl

Dt-nnl-i

ry12r'nw 0o1i0

r

Dv

xi

x

.(2.i

2l T

nW -

nf"f)

D103

' im .-) Ti

uNr

I130"N

Pli 019Ni yn1

)-2)

ow

-mrDnn

w139 n-rti tn

1NW

.(mm

n'5N31'Y7;10 1Nm

1vx ?w

nrwi'1vq7310109 w

.#13,

u

x-9mI

I

0p

ny0O

.-mn0wnm1

xnrq? m

nr

Y-i

'1213

?w'IbND

in;*

,qw

-m;13

nsnT-.I

3 m 0

IN'tn

m

.1y

1D'N

vxpm

nx

n121

N-nIin

-Nw'-Tr m

i

mi

oD

5nvqkWw 3DTxum m

in

-

rTnwrm

aNwD

-

-

-

w

.nmxI

.ii1-93

nxqmb

m-n-Imm91Ni. n

mm-n'mND nnnfN 1W .wrni MS'Cli ibin nwyn 0n01 lvw my11n2-

nnV

n-93

(InJD

-Ty

1iNx

nvr

n9n

wn

prm1390

-

3w l

.D'

o-931Din.-im

n"lN)

y10(130

?N 1

W13

0lnu

N'

zqlnm

rin

.(p

min

-.I

x

nnftm

mb

oxipnw

wri

'mm211'D33'nr=

x-9m

1-9TT

x0)N-ip'

'-tvi

,fvmur

nV-l

-9n-9

0

-112)n "3 U'bvi$1

mxur

1

mNS

nn-rimn

t9

.n

n-9

03

iuvmonornn

01mD

1i13oiTm Irm

om;.(0mm;0)

wim'W

qW $ ID13

rn-q-In

ImN K ND1N blN?w

q

,my

oNwD

liw1NVB 5t fw1921

090 'olm

n1niNx'T' Nxtw

731021

?N x-w

09y

n*-qDxm

TlpNy

m

inn2m

,n-m

W

mirm-9-t7 rvo'i

nvww

mniNmPW

o3r

wmftm

l

mwNrxmi

DnDSM .imulno110'

i1o1nin

y

.IX300 N1 .XI!Dgx 1? C'N

In2 JD

oixo'gTrNi

? k 1w100'i

-.1Ni

?w

innomm w"NDmrvi

Nx

imND '31v'im2n '2P

wmD1NVm

x-93lm

:r11ror

19

.*7000)

0iim 313ND

.? 3D m

1imri

)3w

onvvi

ooorm'3

onl

DW)Hl

li

wnw?

min

DN "'uW13NhW n

0nuo-9-

n-9

'n

xW

l3213

u1rm

ny-6 rmn31in

I'

rn"D

ni1TN

mii

N)

-i,-t

-Tn

h1D5-)!mi

;)nnSW

I'T ') •1

K1V' nTtnn ,n'19,'n *n-n'n"

h0w

,n1w

~

1)

.20

T .ow 1'?.•

nx

tami

oimb1 nrmo ";-

-?

"'.(Iln

-67n

.9522.1

-Tinb -

P1"I)

P0

UD3

NP00

xlol

-1n

n"

35W5

;rarnx

m93073100 .(DD

ilyNyD1N)

t

.("Y

Ilmn

,inrox-

hP

wriv

IVt3MY p-i

.mun

-)D

x5

l

mnin-.ih

nn!Dn-.5

nx

t~i

mlin 5v

IWY3

1 5v

rinwI

5v i

;IYDin

ml

-gn-gwn-.i

D 1DNWnly

-7=13

k'D

D xi.W

v

nnwi-.13

9- n

-93!DbS3.

0905

i-n

T93nr

!3

'n P3

.(uy

mnDK

t35lx

tll D2

ni-ri-9-n

x5

p-i

;i5-95w5

;1iwn

t

ID

0x

1

-9n1 17 9Nt3909 13 nlw.(qy"n t3ID-1 .9n131m 3l

nl5

ON~

-iv

5D

3

nl~YnDnI"

-u=

n

x

;

3=5

n-gown

1

".lun5 D

.lW'KW

r1-9'03

tu

;nni-ru

M$

5iD-

inpiqmn

;-95122.

In nx

D.'9.7

19

N

nri

mr-90993 15X

PnI-9

nlrn

xi-.i

-

1# .Iwyn5 7inix-1

t S

m

5v

17vI-

1NE55

5vt

.91U.92

n0?13

5,l 15D3ID

5x

"ninurn

15X

lsl92-mv

YW-1?5 nW

-1nxn101

-'

'CND 3.9Do.iiTN-iw (11qD 101 p-I

nNxi

i

.*i

Y-q1P9 nx 5y -1pY

V

5

.1q

-tu-3

10" n-955wi

j

57 }n1

nlaln

p111rD -

-.iymn

1

nywyDin-

mI

Ph35lIx

-

-inx5

"11

2"Dron)

In n

-9--n9 111513

nrm

min n

1wir

5

.12D

r1myYN ;n-wy 2

N

0 n .rimDON

1T

r-

7-2I nyD

.InYY5

Oln

mrrm5

17D

.I.72X

mv-11-ii

-N

K)

ismw

-

t P-t9

P1n11114n,1

i

M

2 "nly

0DM

w

l3t.

-.1W-97

5xDiw-g Y!Div :runv0

m1

'-wn

ov)m

prrnn)

5xi

n

"lin

5-7i2Y

.310y nu3v79 l") 15imi w10900nn 61MU "In"

273-1 uvww lx

01

Inyu

t3.952l

23ftn. L5

131MY-93

5vtV

5v 175'0

lin"m pSm

5v

53$1Ly

Inlv

par1K)

i l

9n7ID-

35

"7 I n1~23'3 120;l92110n $VB P019 00" ;1010pi '201 ;l13st3 .(US ,2"00)nb~

.w3

ornini

DStryll

5y

YID

1D

inimpr2n

?v

nIn$17

1

,~n~,•,

-93o-i

ynn )-

n3 n2

I-qtv

p-i

ix

Ix

' vn*pi ni

13 .)

5v

;.1nmI

-gii~irmi imD1N 5v01

=159

;iLin

97 3 "KtTK~1 .$"nlnn

j In

5iion

;.r-n

5D

ID

5v1

DVn D 1,Tn'•-•

n

-mvW

n

minNDS

' 3)W3 A1xltb

.3"DWEn

,D'9711'

i

fl.

imrpnn-9-inn-n

Irin

-qy-n

-mi n

5W

il i' rin9y

nixyin

ni-195-1v

,2#188

Ti

1i

i'

"~ ?nmm H'lb~lb

5v

-1mi-gor q

I0nwriin

iTn

vin

trAl1ni rinnn 5v

-inwn

i .21 ', •tK13 , WWr89212100

nl3VMS

nllrm

yn0

$3

np17

onp-Sn

n rpi113

?$1m

wmi-"

r

1nVCSin

-g

-min:

in

.r9'm pnKv nl••3 •"- Krwr •"L-rl nzK$wm mrn7.K .(10"r") "rnylnp1 i D Tn 1 )2tn. tr m.9p-'T "Ty 0mnlV:Dnx ?-)!CWn N ni 10n .(u-p,tw1)'SWEn " " f 1 r ! D D n f n 0#901 ? D X-9-mv l i3 (Dtw) 1 ,f11103 ,X IK 11Yx 19ig r1ow n 1 9 W DDtv nx w1l? Kn ',3 t1 n '3lnn mn' )n-'WTr n ,'rpoDynl' xnn22' n, n?lnW 22.(p,2ow) .nmi "m n 0t* t2 rl 1 rwyl itnn 1NWMV3 n1n1111nWnEn ,I'nn$k nlzrlr !,n-. innnn• 2 DWn '"0 :n1,1 D'rim3 '- rrraw ,mt nth' 00!n - pt0 71win7),rp'l r rrm f1v *-V 193' io1 0'ln1 lvln1vl V n'D (1V'31 ?)1jl 7172Y '5VT1131 It .-l t ) i " n1lt1330 fTfri .:3n-lin nl,?• y,. 'n , ln .(TnP"T"N lbnnm3mn-1rm y 7. * q i v -.12-m 1 i 1 m n 1 7 1 1 1' 0 "fL=' D3? 31 311711 LJ'CN" ,1M73DVpW ff " j 0'31=1 M 1nD NV x (2 , ,I"fi) nln fl ?1L1' 13'2Ir f11Vn Vp 0' n W *I -fx 2 I 3113 nIxD K1t .1709 n"91 *)Xnrf m3rl nXm f

f

f

nrlm-ln

v

112vl

13mW

0131mo=

?Iv)

Irx

7D93 1

x;r8.

;Iny

?

NWl

rln

-.

ngntn

i

11 2 Y12i?1m .(?,-', ,oDW) ,nlrm ,'91 9 D'' "1n I D"'"irln-

;r7w'3 ri NtI ,DI

-nv 11q'rmn

mi Pr'r nrn

v

-r1yn-m -hi ;rm'r ny ,.(vn"'N)i' d 0tr1n1iDft 3 ,mvx) 31w1vr iIim (lp 0 0t91n J7ntn: x117: 3 ; n3 n (nra nKi") 3 innr lpn I0nn 3n:•3n7113 n .3 0 rn -.1 11$70 2YY -o3" mum1 ninn3 xim,

il i

unni,

miol'

?I*Trl

DtIrW

?V"

,'I"fin)

.(-12

D'1 D0612 tvl?

tvijrm

.(n2

,tmv)

Donn

;1953) ,.'911131

nt'-.i

.11nxI

" nnym lnYD :070,= mn nn ,tw) n " xnm11N ~Mn •nn1 nvrnn "W11mivin n'n1-)3: ?yx ?x .(.1n2 (rmhrm? n1n19) i-- 'f-linri' 0 Im~I n rn9mm ri ri-ax-N ?v ninnn mi -.i1itvn Ly nlhn 51 nInlN -) r? 1triv -12D Y113 D-.1 1 m317 71 -1

,1Ix

.~.?.

71

0

DIY

t'rO

t3W

nr0m1nl 1

Ib

0i136.2

ipWv nnurm

NW)-

vl v

."nIn

trnll'n -

"Dormift

imWW '3 31' ,p1r10 1 3T mlp;r"WnrW lik

-i1:

n lyb'3D 5W

n'linn

pgb -.i;r)

D"f

9 11 In rnm 1717 It9 .22 'IMWinY9 TXr iDn v•'Wi-n nmri 0 o n ) 1DDS 10' .(ninn V"N)'O'W2- 013r1n•n M ' nnv2 at02nnwinx n n n.0 1980 "IDy-n3nw:t mn .26-24 'T Y'l ,50-49 ,X3Ifn ,"nmn W"tN 13InI N 0101 n31WN" :'•1=3

11

min

7u10

w-)v

7n

nnL9Ynnr rim

nrin

rN

1,6

ril til

l "D

y-i

.008

nyE

,imo'

,"if n)

:l 2t3o

r'n1'

7S-qn

?r1rq 17

p1r

Dtxq v

-9D

"ffrirrf

,t w)

-9

;tr

V

W

1

x ,ngu1w

n131n1

n

pr'rin

onnn

W1v

nv

no

?ym

n"

,Nn xt

,-"fN)

fm

"11'6,32

-

1 it

rn911i

.(Tup

C2

funn

,i

nri

ynW-

n u

2

1

nrpin

-l'nn

nrn?

-)'-rnn

?n1w

13 Wm

12rln

v

rInnbnr

lwNT

nvn-)-)nl

rmip93nni nN

w

y'C1q

nv1rn=nib3

n

ilDPtI

510o

7-gn

rImwn

ri

0t

nrlri nix.

1

nooi il

-rv W

(top

'rimny t1rini

-9?

-) r

D-9n.

no-qm 0W

n0nv

-gv!D3

"if n)

n

in3z"

rnn2

Dr-r0o

n

i -9

rmi-

n

m

lb

Dl W

ur38ir

.n1710

5v

l'-pinn

?Dr

?v

?vrn

nlnpln 7-qn? n'i-

rnrqn

t

0

tbpWW 'D -

,rirriftr

l?vDl .(ln-nlD ivin

-gm1i

t01n

x1i=

1WN

Y183 D'?!D

'

0mnvq

7rn.

rn1qp

?v

rnIzvrnrn

-

o

fl)n-.i

h*!Dn

D'Wn

81i

t0

1#'1

,ril

rx

nwy1

mr11

nyi -2 ,nillnln nl'D'3DS

D=W11Y

"IT31D3

nono

n-31*9nn

o ,rin

-nz~rnrn

,pw

(ri-93i-i in

lIot3nbK W111f

i

7-1r

'f1r1i'

;il

1,12DII

b

t1up

n*.

111i

In1vin

plpn

1V

r1n-g0

.u1 tv1 Dv)

r1'8

,f2lu1

23,Ki

pit'nt nzkri rinnvin*n

-r10

wrivff"-n

mnvnim?

r iv

xlrrin

r131i

ni01 1nn

ri-rnri

n

T"x)

rftnw1

1')

r

-in -

ni

nn-)x

I rw

n

LO

onwpv DvDBI$

?v

iInin

t.y-.i

pnrn

rimi rramn

nnjy?

070

i

1tv-07370

rnyt

mn

r

n'f

rn

n

in

y

im

lu?

n?n)

onr*i

n i-ron

-nn-)x

ninnb t70

,T"Nf)

.

.(N- W

ruinn

1om

i

D

rimm1 rramn

frrwo*-)!D?

?v

i180

*.9toriv

L?trnr

*-w

;I

93y-

i

Inin

7-9

r

,f"Nf)

,N

tDr

.24(-Tnl

rvq?-qyrn

riny-i

1 iv-n

.(pf

13r1ftr ;r

7p?i

rY

t1n1rr D'3Nnn

rinzvnrn

7-qn?

?-rnr

pnrn

I"Wn?1 nfb1n1-ruDn

21.rv5ltmiup~~uv

l

10

WWV

v

. . .

nro*19'

r3ini

uynnri

n

5W

riv1080

-n1

Inim 7-)n

inDpwin

r

Iniv

n1"n)

,

,Dftv10iuptuvN

99x1n

rn

,

31WD

ItouWln,

-

f

n*Ynor

zvDnr

ni1n-mir

7-n

09?31-qr1l

?v.-n0n i xiPnp

v'ir

rI

ph ?v

1*iz

; -D riNrl ?v

71n11

riftwi

Y00810";f)

I'Nl

-

v

01

ri- nn-.

,ft3

min

i

u

tr1i

ff49 x-i

1

-

own

rInY

7-

(3

-

D'bTip n

riftrinri1fIm;i n

Offnn-in

p-win" yin

pn

n1n1ninnwn?

049= D04342,4V Imil

y1WD-1

7-)t-r

?

(D"offn-in

("rnvnn NW 1n19

oimvnn

rirmwirin

DTy

r1i-r

iv'S

ppv'D r

?mN

"ivn-

yin

InW 7DS

r*

0

)-TS

ninium~lP -

nwm?

7-)n

.090 5539 019~~nl1913nlS11S1Nin~ 10183 nlkWWv~ :'i7trtW *2191S10~l 13StW MTAN 009% 001) 'TD N N KP19 ]LS07000 JI'y10 7L;ll IfK1 n13W; nTnhi~ ;nD~

Tlni

51u

;r02113

limbS

N897

1N

'K

.P'9l

;n'Vl

01

3000

'WN 01.

,"oNf>NT

f3 "r

1 M1'K ? '1,130 r 'DT D13'9r1I ,i 1 ,p"m TrI 1I? iotl= .nIwV13N2K1 t.B01 ir f, wInY llb ,4?Z1' 01- 11bZ- "ri rnivr ?y ;r" Irm ,rnrm" 1"9 D"f=ibm

.lt31'U,

.23

13 If"

.

'-

,3r'r3?ti

-

vrur

.24 .25 mri-lib

i111 n;1N

Tu

t111o"Dxrnt'prlrpm ,r1n90r1 711N.Itmi tv1v -1 ?DW3Wn ,r "in) "n0im1 ton rv -11 .(mP

-

rnp

'ivn ov "mmi

'3 'In nt•mn-'tm nr',-,nlmnn

n9x

v 1n311i7-9 .('TnPT"N) 0l1n "n1W,n }70 np ?N

nIznI

-

Do1vi-m

DtxqhqD1

,

DN" f"

Ip

no,' ,",mnn rilinn '-qm -1ixv

-

7m

mr3nmprn

'"9 031Vil "D' .(TUp"In) nY

,0,9D1nr m "gW1 ?i*t* 1p,91 70n' t3

4'o

,1p27

rn' Dr 2t T1 mnMn'D .r raTn-

n

tm ni'nn vn O.n.v11

?vl ,i '1 1i nn n r' 7n.9D yr 71 nmJWpor3 n' !n3v n12 rn;m n1nv'ir rlr nt' .trrvn,nm-nnw1n nmp1rn 'm n9 .innnr v 2K1o ,rK9nn Dpm miv rin IT 'ltmn? m

Xrnr rInn. nmn123 my nW rnnr)

113D31 49D ' 719

n Km nn nt

r

-1200

?;r

t

i nltivnnmt' "')r

W1

$nm nn

St~v V1n "t'rkn nn lxgn

n"nn "W

nx 7 ro xvn.n-3:innn nanw:1 nrin7-1.9muP mlynn?v -

Ii ?v

71in

?D

1

vi

rif9N

l

1ygTYY?

ny).n--m.1tYI linn r•"tlnv n1wrinn. ~ l- 1 In 1vnf 03n01,n1Inl•n1149i3m nv3r, n. x1l ,f2lly, Ml 121W l"W1 09n3= (Y"flin3102 P0011D) "nili

1'179mly-n 0120

,filiDnio

DN

on

.IY

,f12

,x"fn

my

7'.92

7'913r

71'49

nl07m#

7"f31

.7149x myn

linX

'Xit N1

myll1 m91N

-.31nm3 ni n

2pnt

**Dv1

r7

.1-TW)

l

5Y

n1n 7

0

On

tr0D in

v1

Ttn

nom

pf"31

nx

1)n131'y)1n

t

-ilwDN

YD

.(N2

DSqKN

?.

-12D

7xz

gyr

1

D'31Wr

rif w

?v

v3 niW N

-ni"W9

0n

yoan

D

.9m.9gy

49D

f

-l

W i"l

rlnyy

-

Y-Y91-

min

w

.*2vi

r

y

$N?'X

-rn

710

nw-91

-g

T-x

-.1329-

,nlit

qpni fV1in nx

-.ivn

1

mrlS.9Dmv

D

.9

.il innl

qxr

trt3 1-q0r01 132-linn

v

-I;1-n

mil

)LUf1,'" •10Nu

yliypnl

?.W1rl

y-non

rr1ux?

.Innnlm.

'W

?v

wnnonnnrt

rlndW

Dtw)

12i

19

?Dln

?v

-r

ntw-9

79'r1.1

'T31D.nl

?1m? 03)

xN

tr

tlinn-mn

1

123 DW

;f:

mitLm .9on-9

5Wu7t= 49

b

ID

vW

numm

y

r

'qnyu

mlynn

'1qxl

lwtinrl

nin1317

1-9y orl tnb

'r

nr'

x1m

l 719Y1

n4t

P1-2

n1n.

0q

I

-1i1x1tv

Iz

,wrnyi W10

if"W1gi

T'

?~jy

ininwn

n$3il7

on

02187~1

nu310

r

1m7oNn"n In-)t' r1im

l7onv i

7)3yn

."rinix

Wv

p ?

tbyD r9gN3

D

n

-

1fxn

rivirr

7$N

D

1

t3V

ul

N

.

.

)W1r )-I

3

n

lTi

.

nWEDW3

.

p t'xq0

Y!ivn

TN

t~w

rim

3 n

'#81

xSW

r

.1-TIK1

in-li;1

7I~IY

1J102 f

D trwlin D 1 DtxN01731N

,riNf)

.(n3-j

n0'3

Intvin 3

nl?y

riiynvn-.i

:MTI mNff

im

nwtn'3D

ivwiW

1Y"

D

WStYY19

lnnin

nlv

ni-wrn

rivni~rt~

?w

3$111-

Ply

Dt'r1yl

li n 1un10 i vr ,D"iw r1rino i"w1nof- 1i rnn1in0i z1i3 D"x N Iz ni ff IV49 1 nW 3 Driny D"-qn7 n1ny1 ff-r1 riym11n 7-n-g-pin913 -o=1 vir ?i t3T Iny 5311)11 t13320 'lp7a~7n1l' np0i" nbN3 0918 .DW20;n171110 59 731719;1YDWA ]7"3) V' ,'123 1n1$;l $3 Dy ,t293 1279 ."?090 K10 f'IPlb'31 nll120 '0903 txvqn r in ?v 1* .?Y1v3 -rnyrn ,f7n 7'NWf p1 x1n -1 7n '-q pn131 ,"'21N'Inx n i ? ni x w-9' ni-q!Dgy r11x 1i133 xr9n DtxqvE$ '-9N'wN ,fl'$Nrw ,f3nIV n1irpn'1 .nnvr1

MY=i

100'00Dn

NDx

DN

.('f8

VDDW

,fnn!Dni

1

'9 0)

,f1i1

nlr'L

W1v p in

tyn

1200DN"W1177LW;Wtifnl 31111197 1'N" :7T K1; ,fsnY; 5N f'l~~n n192082 ,nnm1 n3 n 1 i0 ?x D3'NW13 Do nio10m9n -1 i ,ftvY1v ,ftxmnlzKxl ;1Int-nn.)o 7'-.Igny irn i r y r n 9 i r -91-9 T "' T 31 n'llir . ( I t xqLz D y .1 ,DWn) 7'.93 ftr t71 ni WW i'kin Nx ,)Xlvrlrl :n 7In -oxLr1 n-lli-nn ;W nru1nvn ,1278 fiD r l w r l unnnni f r i l r ow "l l u ' l ? v 1 1 n . 7nhDn 5tv n"))nD -1 7173DT KI r':ftitrolvol1 ? il r1 -1 n-93n nflL n19 .npov01q18n 1ni3z ,nl Y120 W r.' 0DNb N ' 3 D n Nl f t -"r1 -y. a I T ;x r3120 trnW u riv 1 t -1j"3f 11' 5K0'~3119 SbD;IIY001WDb K111.13n3'SD097Y3;";IL1 98l 12" 73112210it 73 f-

134,'14 Myl .rIDinl 1V'1

MxT

W4'

-g

Jr1l1n3,"135 N1DW

.(' 1c

149

-ny-.I DW3.).

trn-

.(Dtw

ID7 D 3SCN)

v 1

ni3n

1?1x n*1

13r !

7n1

,0111

in ;1 fi"

0 1

-

'"O

f7

-?I

x

n

.vimi

plnnr Da111i,

713 WI?

SI2r

.(0"

I .'1 p71,"3333 D',p7K" ,11mlm m1 11r rmn im

n13

1

nnvv

,fril inn

31DN9

minnnnil 1 20n

I:f1f 26W13n

lDWXI"

I

71

n49-11=911,0i

1

,"Myll

7W

1ypgv

1 3 zq gyynxz n112001'iyyn $ SD310 .W) 1

Ilm2

m113 Iix

y3n30

fy

7'1

1'

n.91]'K"

9"

13b

nyD3

D1 W

1970' L

Ionltinl,

I

51v ninn!D3

1

n131 in

nl-nn?77 311200

.l ny

7.9N-l }lVl

Nrw?

13173 ,Innn

"ff3100

nr1n

q1x

.1913K;1

t$v

731703 ,Dtw)

-v7 t,139

*ID

nwlp? )31

n--lk

linn91

nx

?y

7nlYnvn lN DbtW'1r

,f?3! 89

1 nl7yn-mWv

,DWt)

"D'04

201

l

D 'rxD-11iDT'oinm rnmmi -'ipm?uml 1 9 26

.29 n1Mn

ilbWim r'0 i DTNu *'92nv przo im-w

13'

i

3

o o

rrl013

nn'vn Him

$1zf

wnrl

url

N

?lv)

*iz

n! u1

rim r

if -w

)x

.-ny3.'i

x

-r

iw

)nyn

DonnrifImin? i"W0W

T193

-IT

-ran

Him

?ym r1)n

7pI

xWn

-ivx2?r w

01ry1b 7n.)3

-)

frrnz2 1lnv

ft3

W.) W-

DB

'100'0

"D2n

)n-

IV=

Ir

i01-1r

n 3

0r1 D

0

I

W

I

"W1

DP

tv1wm?-omri-

-)

29

1-!DD7-) '3

S

f vf

ST! iy-"

D

,%oD

1M

=

nruwwr=

013mi

0

n

WWin

031Dn

10En91

019ynxnv

firin

,12n

7(01z -ra

1x

-.1pyi

-12o

l-rnr30#i

ini1v

?%V1n nyr M

9013

-i

rimn

"W1

i

prinn

1*no

IM2-mv?v

-)Y

ril

n

-

$n ?MN

TOS I-n

9

10ny

W3mm

ritrin7-)yn n

01Wn

3

,z

in

f"Wvn'

ir n 0

lItw.p

)y-i

in

12

,iIny

f7 ,J)Ty

~y?v

9381 3Mn

ST

in

AM02

n

i 01

ri-rn

ND

iviW vii-n? WDD9

.'11Dpin

olnh

riN -vn

Nii 1it

niyynxnmpir

rlNWmr1

-irW

loDn'3

0o179#

W

?

vn

rn

2

iN!D

n

*

v

tm-)

zn

lbW

~

vorm

o1100

rnro r

vWvn

o-?--rxrD' Iz.)o

l'

12?

W0

%NW1=3 -

1Ino

nWninb n

n1vi

n vp1101

-= 83

."l

riwy1 iNT

Syi

r im 10

"~

WWy

"W1

f tNri

ri"W1

n'o1100M'w 01391D ?mvWW WW17

1

rimWn

x'D

nW1

tD

M-lw

Ynni

ri

(0 91,Din*wfnn

31i

.t*Wrllw

$1nr

n

021

rif

-)z

~

~

~

n-uWin n-i

v )nW

Nivi3mm

?y

~~

nyr

rimi

xmin

rn?-n

i ar0 W rii

7-)x

-rn-).i 90

'Mibi~$10]82Ti

*

rr'3 ir

-.0I

,In

)riy-.iWx?

vrn? )nI'rnnn r 1913

?Yx

mrinn

.-W

n zrn

y

(i-n n

?v

-)-il 2)-

0Dri

i w-r

r

i -n

n

1

ri

l vnp

'1w

rinirin

N

nWi"W1

vin

-

M tvo1W 10 71o

z

rirwxn lDW

p i rn1r0 10

.nv

vin-

w

'

) i ino rii wi r1vo

.fTri ly-r-)

tll)x

.zl-Pnro

12-1

Min v1

t"7

i

81Dn

w-n-orm

'111 iViii .27 t .126-125 'T ,1W ,nr: ,pl*1?1i .28 o1n Ifit ?vW m 1?p1ix irrrmrim I f m1K .-1u ,0i119,1fllpljZZ1)0312ru .285-284 y1 t Ifl .288 '9 , V ?V' 9 '9 3"Wni 9 01• lnW13? 1? t1 1 D .29 1 I, ,l 1" :') 1riNxn?vit Unlx 191 vo-"D 1',1,71,11 wi",,irn Y ,iinfi' 9,-1r~ 7( . . . 9 uN n Dnn3 nx XN1=18X ,(n11 1,v..-) mn ,93n 11n0n 10n1i 1n 01?viv

3#03it1 itpi 710 5V111lvJ

t3$

;139

O'CSlK1Y13 ;r'S100~ 77710 '1133311t K110$28 so,nlfli'2 ,91790~;DT'313NW .imirm,

(r1m::?

r'n '1

.131W

xpl

20903 rorix ?m

ff-miInT l mul

ID o

liv

iN

-181

rlwlim010'1n

Jtrlnrilum

lWNz

*i1WN3 n) ?v

t3-rx-.i

DN

111113

p-i

Wvninnr

nmr

-)ix1 n.)Ynu-.i

W

nr

112W, it'

71311'Dm'ti

-

ly-n

?v

n-.i

73

-r

m-ioi

t1--w1

ilz

riunn

3iDo

onin

93n

7

YN

i81r3i

tmprn

1rm

pirim

?v

mynvnil

tr?nS

m0

'6l 1

N13VW

'3

X?!D

)!DIX

7-)

m10

n

nyn1

t

r"Ta

9

phi

7up D

Ivy.).)I

pnv

D rl U!13Dvnrriym?

txi

x

rio0n

.9

yu

.9z

r'

10 'i

--

vi)

-rn

1=11IM7) 71W

06161M

?

x

t02rimm

pixn

xnu

x

18

in

mi

rm711i"

"7-m1irm

'ni'Dilin

J-1

imNi

)3xur~l!Do

-Wim

-mNDx

f

rn

r7i

vm3f1" ff"

90201 ,U129

mDy

:

-'gry

u

6irT

I 3=

8

inrmvrm Coivq

-'9!D

i1 v

rix

.x7?-)3x

-1 yr.

,pinrmrmr

.

-.061

5y

olnrl

Tx

-ry7-

0

r mm0

r1i rr170f"

)nb

m1ynf 3,

7-7r179

"fxin?

,10M)

,n1-113

rivlgririWnrvnrqnzvr 1 t2'-lltr'Viv

?Y

37

?v

?w-rxN

01zvm

170#]w

-

rm

1it

lr~ nSL-rv ;nYI;II

r lyp

06131126,U)

rft3

02-?

lIDX AND

p32

?v

7-nm

.('3

*7

21

rrW)

NWi

.ririi-r---mm01 xrw0-m

J-1-n

x1i

,"ffrrIzvm

n x03 n

,mi

C'11201D

"3 A13l32 ,NV)

MtIN

m ? i"W10?Drl

1

DM

rt

mim

g-!DvivD 02

-93

*1,13-w13NW

.(3

X11V

%W1o

rn

r1unnnr

vW

13 1

-T)n

niYnI2oix

1V

oivi

I

?yn)

m21m

ln

)yln

n D 7.')Yn

tr

$ .1 1-9 .17, 01 I V .30 11qp lTh3 ,1371n3 3oID lmnyD xnn111 n1 , Dni npy *l, .Vli1n jin2 13?33ln ' 1,3, -1.O• 7TK•" ,1VO31" mIn33I.1"38121 (,D"31333 1•r -ny TY,721 w r nx -1*9' w1'N -171 un I-')ni 1yp)D"V ,'t ",n)7nx ny-nx1 mNK" ,•D" n vqiN " ,T nn n"nt1n D 'n* 1 93M 197 X'9 P11V3 TX11-q Ix '.197Y1f0 $N'f .o"nn-l '3 3'*Ur ?w ninni-inm1. 'l.'N• 01 ?nv 133.)2my 7' 1N 'nxnlV ",V 1 il 1,1=K13" :MMnU33 13 7N D3DMII 17 1 '7XN.3 1l ,X b 1133n ?w n "Dlin "D1wDl) 'lqnli '.nn3" Im-gbri ,DWD) -9?31 .('9 13311 wiwt35 ;3 ov .l qD1 Di -quDo-'DD3m2ND .13 .7x1. -gi D.133nDx 31w 0rDo*gN'xT,"-.1 y x1i11 nx avqpS pinmm X ? 'm n.93 1 Y .9m Ny wnnn. * 1 3 n T ' 1 3 X .my ?Xvrx1w 3X Y 1 N Y 7-9 .7 I-Nx a D1h91D -

p

1

.Tnmy

"'IntD

il o

il,

,111WUo.138-121

01;1o v'pY1D

1s1n,13D

,OTxrm1i

1 1 1,

0nl T(N"DWn

0=

0u-1-

,rlY

r-971)7

7l'11VIl"

D?pw 7

tvqVn

31

.3X1 V

031- 1 ,7 0'3

n~luo"D113XII

m3

w-w

1?3w5W

wm

u)

-qD

?m

'3 3n

i

3 3-

312 D17

r13=

m-.339'NW

nx wN

ny00

I17

1171MV-V

193

9810n

"31-1303D1

I Y313

lin m

31

93PIP

'pn7 1ww

i orPr'131

@81n

Ypi

mmimm

v"

orTp9N11x

"

'-li

"n1i1

,fl71-1

Y12 9 .30

Sy

mr

-Inrm

."13

-9D'73-1!

13

i*

nunD 01i

?x N

-N rim971?

rlDWWv

r1iinn1l1i

li r

y7nr1n ft

n'ryi

ri-wrri

ny,73wm ntn1

rninn1

sru00n

rinin

T -ryn0 riny •rlDWWx n33

.

w1 '7 , 13nn

rvbn19; *•

1 11 0 D rnlzWrvmw z ,i-n n n n9WW in ,-nylnIm7 nrn , .'n ninr ri ?v Ly D '3 1 irwn ,iin K Lnnn ,vTm -ny' itSmn nn ) n1D')1 "rw3 mninnylr -)- Ny t u13i ri1n )zri 1'-rrri nz?v nn , DWo rn nz) nn n, .,?ibm 11 0 108001 179 31 3120 nips'1T'519K ;18;1 PMW91 000~ ShY~ 8193107 1100~ ;I'0l trvn? m1 •W ,pn-t 0"v97 •K n.'y n,3Wn-) n0 "xrir 8ln' 7nwn nni'i .(90 8-)-) n" 1 t3w T V 09170 tY 1r3WW 7121in :"fii2 7-9m -12-v 112"n 7'lS 1101103 W1 01l3n01 , 01r w 1,61Vlt 1m6 n1 t0"n ,vn31N nin n3"11 nn11? i nmnD nlb110o 1 ... nl0n1itv- ? nXT,I0m61nm D1nn nlnn33011 13n ?v 7'-nnivnW ,•1W •n n ,ml ?v ?Dr .01nnr t1i

v

Nwrl

rLNWx

n1*Yn7

tu

)t-

ninnwn 513 m 0'77

p13rorn~ f70'11

.7wrn uilin

-inn nm

u Diyrn

rin-)

X9n

nVI-9n

1DO

.1DO,1161VIM,

?x

triun

lit

n

i

rin

7')1)-3

1y -n v-)

,'x f-tq~v W mn13

rir)

5N

$ '1 0?1zn

'o

.n1n,'

01inli

=

.ni wn1

inn)Sr

.(1908)

n11mn

071Y'03

lri3 Tn;uf "

n17umnnrnL)

n

1

D"7)

tni

1 n3wr1i2 "ftfnil nx rrv3=

run

o

x8in1i 1

Y-2i-

.(n32

2

,fx

,p"fm1i)

n

lno0CD

Di

tri3 01.

-)

'viD

,vynn

lt in0n

1127y1

-ID1D 130

nx

nKirynn infinnf"

"ffinrnf"f

innmb)S

1nv

Nx

pi 'nM *S

ni"xN) min

r1in1u3

n-12*

-

.1

niz"vf7 13 13

nti

"fftr1r2 71-wurn

0l

7-nmf73i

rar

mynn

-

,xoln

.)3577r*n

-i'

?9

,fn1n

rt

rinwnwlt3n

-i n1'y

-)bn

uEnm

W.)

n-urnz 1in

,fp

7x=

Dtvyurl?

irlizri

lin

ntiy

.(n ')3n

D-irT

niup2 0f

ri nvn13 -)

in

noluoDlC101

n:1

I fW

0y

?

0 Mpir

,fNx

?z

-.3

,0t713

r-7r-2

Nm

rlzrl

k3y

W.)

wurTm

v1n13irm

ri8Yn9n

nin-

n

ft r

i

vpr~yrn

mn

y

I*V12? 31

D3

,pin

12

In=33

8nl0120n

50

rin

wybn-m-S

y1im 3

yn D

71m

1301

ra

tr1pin ?xn1w

JW7110

1713

nmyr 1'

1?r3nr 13'

n0n)

471M

.munr W

In

3300ny up-0 )?!

7-)n

&f

.

n!DtVn3

nOWn

ln li

D1

?n

1n

)t

n1 7

510 "f.

nn-12pn

-vzrl?

?3Z1

n

-"12D rnz~rrl

w3r0ilv

ntvD

?DW v

-)??zrn

r13

n1n

1 1.)v

?v

101 2

T3W tw0in

;r!D

)

nm i

1=

06,

ilni

ri1173 nvmprn

D'tvmf-N;1xn

-'nDv3ov3m

?x

nutlnnrni )

1 nul

,fnin31Di

ND

nir1pnrnib

.DtVrunn

51W

'D~i'

l

,Nf"mN)

?v

i"Wr rif

7-vr

t$Nr

1-r rl

,2127 =1

.(tY-12-1y

nx

nlinu

.-rny

n-)?mrv)rrm~r

Du'nr* )

Dbl1m

nvuin;

06161101

.

pin

L1nx

nilnnDni

5v

lp;r

mDin mi3n

ipn

2XV111M

,-1u!1Dvw

-21

ri-ri

.'lux

pnrl .") -lmn? -niw1

2-1

vr

niyu

7in1vnn

ny"

r

uo

tW

r

nv120n

13W

y

tri

trnCm

n131

"fNfx

io-)?iv~brn~ D'nixvn

('3-9 .0

DN

S 1V31

NW

-i1n

tD'r 1

pvvni

V!D3

niln? r1nr$

-wrraw

u91Y

,f"rN)

-in-6

?y 01 n?

Inv

-nny-)

-i

trTl31

M11r

n-Tny

Il'lul ul

137r ?zrn

-)!Dh

,fm

'lY-)

.(;1Y)2

1mn1i31

.i:)

-IW

'1-21 .

niinnf"31 ?

,}11wP21

nir1yn. '7

35)2. n "f3f1"v

7in-12p'-i

tDw:3

ri'roiom

uyn'?rniinv

nvp?-

rn p' rw nim Ynrn nri .r n , n,4: uo n1

i

.t •

w

-pi m-nnni1

N

"oi'nt•q

X1D

n

nm

0XV

13

)3!D

,v 11S4=4 l713mMY=

nlYY1971

047"0711N~ 449MYnn 4Yol!

."D'rlni

' ;'Dn

'" 1

749ltV

-n f

K

ny.)

1;

X19 ?

1oonyW

n100"

0x1#

MW

•n ,r

nvvq?

t1ly.

f nvn

(

7In.9

nnt n *1

rn'lu3D

t)1

n1 lnIl48,,n Nn31,:,f)Y

ll3

t

1

12

?v

ni" D n'b m n niV

.W

rlz

f: Y irn- VL(D irn , ,-18n) "

1 NW20 yn.10 11foy

l

Inv j

n ir -.nn n ,rn

n*?y "-'plik7nnu . Inp= nliz• "l ff3np

f rrinirin rv)-nm rn!y

ri

n021

in .lsnm

" 1 -ni min min n: mmn l

7-n

pim"n n

.

1

n'r1o3 ntlWn

ooiy rirm -)= ?tv D rri p rnnt? fl : tx m.•rtw .cpvpim lvn

rni• mn)

;

- rn ) w i nr i m rmn

i irn 1• il•

1f1v1

13.. 1o -

v

rribt? n 32.,,)-ryII•Dn

.*1twnj

?v

r nmi nn r n7')n

" 77p2 o1inrn m$1v ."rn p in 7nn-)x

foDl

"

-

n1

"vrn l

wr

.0ln 'mn

n nn 11=l ,8129 nlwrn nm n-wrl3r lwN

1 .

i~ nn nn ll,•90 '710

(

1nW

Y13

0Dxl=3 nrt13) D'-r)n"• 1nf1fn.rar. n

.9D

7.gWS1

0

1-.

TI

"

7

1

vnD

13M .32 . 1-JI M 13-n I 1' I nnt1 ". V',V l- D', S ;i-"'NK-1 T?1"TKI"IWK 1 x !D3 !DDlwB,0o ?WIlln ,?bi9?NL v3D'WW9n rrn'y ?tI -L9 x"N .-1313 .01 ,ni7D'1-1 112 3 .'ll f"N D,.'3

173 ;1L7DEND; :NW;;IL$NWW .ni'31'SW;Ibmin; LWW '330000r'01K;I 13L);Ibin; 5t

1831DN bLi' 13WNTlWDb nDn-ri WWu ?'luti DB217D 5ypn0 NYWt 'n920 N11pi) ry. t -;Own 1nrn rnlnn n0on)n rin i 1n limnn 5,i minn,n ,n"W'n1

0 1 7 D'31W ,0 30 $, .,?32n19 •?1 , 1,n nDipm it'nn3C1n0n1nnmmTn P' 0iv iW rnCiWn ntn T=v0u~nrin 1 nWDKN nt0v m .mnn nnlvnvPtn v n,' D31•n1I nn nb i -ivW -)mrn~o n ni-inImnnnri nio-)rnfnpo.7 .n• niy ri -12-1

io-)n nn l"nn

P -n,:o,= -1n2 ,n,•vn-12mn np:•, ,nini ruw wi nm nnnlin n"i23rn XmI "r-nnn-x, ?v rii nilni nvr,? (n• n9w1p) MTnamn in-ntn 7nn, nv inr n lnl-'r rnny?-12 12Wnm nL2 n0mnni "ni,n

0 ,n1)1 m'v n" m? n .nimnnW ??nn ,7xz

mnn13 .y N n rn'W m .'3•1 .hinmf Trivv: n W -rT yn .uDi;prn ngn rtWW -1nnri riftwi o n'31i 'fra3r n. n f nt tv13" ,5nD rnin; "rinn nnnbb n )x )iD l p01 Kw nDti•7 (linivin 1pinz ,1u0 wn) iz9n irn? tri-f7t -rn ili nornv'$ z rin1in. ."1 IWW

n?n$1 n,,n rrzrin-:r -

nnh n 2

?y

'tnrwyn n

nult n wri

.1ion in

wrr

"vz 0nni)v

ri

1• n "nti, ' n,1,10n ninSPlKo rnnniin 1

]

W

-

-

n n'y,1n7nimnnnnM 3

D

rnintvvvrrn in

ri-w-in

n1

-ro-)

n

1

n

1K? 59n

t i p= 3it .'n-l't3fonm

n

"

rif

t 01 iv

lnr

Tirinnnnnt~in

mriv

r

.1ni

rawn

nnry;r

1'

# S 9, DW7nmn13# m D'9W11'2 ran n: nIIt *W Wn1mm nD' l n •n K N n ri 00 .n131, t3i nt• nWnn

nimnnn nrim,: mm ni:13 nnn ,s n , n m,?an11n 0018 ENNW1S'081 NWtin~nY72 993Kt nsnTi nllin W i'C2 $~3Y 5N NW~ fl1D'b 43 9D0 .(I"31 7 JW 104139 roWWnWDv= trmnW 0 11NWn3 in :m1fn) po?-n Dn3bN3 XDi

InS

.lntu

Hm81

ri-ron tn~nny nw1m ilCMD

mnnri?

on

v)1*nW

nrin

?nnv

im

nn

riWnimvin

ril-2ni

rn9in

nin123ninx

rftn rinnn InyWW -.2Imill 9

T~nwl2I$3n

nw-l

v

0ruvbnn1

n-7

7-)

i -iy!D

?v

rnrrnn

nyw7r

i

rirrivxivn'~~l~sn

inx AIV 0WW in 0WWW,4

l1inn

in-wr

rinirnn

r1n3

t3N19'l p'3Y;15;"WN710 Y721L91WN,';l1280' 091Y:;lWED~}'29D1WW D~lVI '3~11329 .10SPm 0201Ytj 1013 ,'313$n

un

-ran

vn?

mriv

xKgi01

xit

DtrK'wrNm

in

m10

yi

pInyn2 nnlimbn

vwibn

rmAN

orn

'3u11ni 131

nr*

ronuC101

ni01W13NW

nDx

rn

10i"W1n

DTno1ir

3rn

0 on

7SW n-i-nnn

xlp?

nln-)n

C

tVYrI

rnIn

)T)n)

?v131-)T WW

X

riny

,n20

n

7inu

rl

nninn'SD

robrnrn

7-).

-u1 nmr.1

irw

-)YYnx

$D

2!D

nm

ry89

n1

n-1i

n 'n'WV 17 n13Iri 'IIyTw'lr 1in ' rnlr11r illon "I , ,IN•1 .rw,~l t'Wn pi'n n-inn n nrn r'o wn r'i1'yiy inx-i-0 n i nny n nr nr nvW -. 19 49, 0120,,nnn lntrlnn Im2n nn•l rftWnnin1n 1l',r21nM .01 171i,

198.ft1D'DW 219'W )nv0 7)t'2 -n K90 07'SEn

IW1' VI.

n

plini,

D rn

DtN

oIvwn? 1,n* 110nY-.I

1WN3ivxz

1'rl,z0r

98

bW

nNlv

-1iNz

Y).n

3N;1

x1 r ' xr1 roln0' 2v -)YIt

M -rlfrr ,1 " 7nWwl't nwlr"•'l ,-ln'•In'I .,l0 3 r o ;I3Dn~b 1Ihf3~ rtS0n*1 n ;iv11!D nx nxl n'rNoI i'orn ni I ."v"n w''rzlr , 'rD y•nn non, lp0 8- n9np .'" .D)31V ?v r1on 71 0'?0'11vnlr,),lnl3•' p Dtv9n1B

nlYr ftn• ,n' n3

S

D1n

)

'pit-

?v

01 0o

pbN3

p-I

li .2 n.)3 I

rIrvn

1.)V",DN bn

x1riv

1111 DN~ni,l n N ' nox 1'•" "11l•ninnnI l1,W-133-)r n t ?~wIx N : D'1 IN*' Dlt .IbTrirl" ,"Xv ,:~;•vnrII IvI;I• ,l ,"v mi 1,7211

-

;inin 97 15? pin'3 ,fp noi

n,

ninJ

100v8rl

n1

on , -i•n, ' ,'1Ix won-III n"11170 .) ?D

10' n

7'-v

nrinx

7in

IT

n

41Tffn tv1vrr 1zv9 .t"ifzWE

1

t

12

fjxvM

l

0

yn

.1"DWzE

,'/74

1y

oli

'

M1291stW

.92Y

Dtw

,f1tv00r

I"f w

y pznrol)

IO'n

,fo-fti-,1.9

ntulloo1331N IO

'n

wnD0

nin

i

,il ivrl m 'I

-

l"N "f

'h

n

-";oo

lix

n

f

-1

I7M "

nu3;

x

-i"l1 #

ril

v

n.)

-n

,xiloli il

I

If.f

flo

plu

i

m

21win w

,Dtvvrwi .Xf vn

.(j21j2

i

i

7-ry-.

-rwyu

n-31Y.i9n

,9tvWvr

,n

.N"DWzv

DN)

5r

D-ifW17 ,fzNE tn of2)r1

-In

1ni

tW

.I"zvn 9

iv

niinn!nf

fn90

nrivorn,

-

WW 0v

(nTH

-

-

nwiilp

7')n

1331vo00

)n 'rn iIn'1100mi Ipn 1", -rr)n' rlz )'?1

-w

1 "in

Uf"