Collectanea
	    
	    Collectanea of Kabbalistic works date back at
	    least to the 1280s (1). Anonymous editors excerpted passages
	    from lengthy works apparently for convenience sake. Other known works contain
	    lengthy quotations in their works include the various works of Isaac of Acre,
	    Menahem Recanati, Meir Ibn Gabai and Abraham Ardutiel. Other collectanea
	    were assembled around a set structure such as the prayers or the Torah: Nafatali
	    Herz's Siddur (Thiengen 1560), Menahem Zioni's Commentary to the
	    Torah and portions of the Book Bahir in the first printing of
	    the Zohar (2). The most famous collection of texts to be
	    organized around the Torah is certainly the Zohar, at least certain
	    manuscripts dating from the 16th and 17th centuries and through the two different
	    printings of the Zohar in sixteenth-century Italy. 
	    
	    Some collections of Kabbalistic works display
	    no apparent organizing principle and were in fact personal notebooks such
	    as that of Yohanan Alemano (Ms. Oxford, Neubauer 2234) (3).
	    In Prague 1660 the first thematic collection was published in Yalqut
	    Reuveni which organized the various passages topically in alphabetic
	    listings. This edition would later be expanded into an edition organized
	    around the pericopes of the Torah (Wilhermsdorf 1681), perhaps demonstrating
	    the tendency of Jewish literature and study to return to the formal structure
	    of its canonical works. 
	    
	    Important questions need to be asked about the
	    intended purpose of these collections and their assumed role in the later
	    history of Kabbalistic thought. Were these volumes seen as replacements for
	    the originals or as tools to supplement the original forms of the work? Were
	    they intended for the elite or the vulgus? 
	    
	    In recent years a number of volumes have been
	    edited which join this list of works. One such book is Shulhan Aruch
	    ha-Zohar (16 volumes to date, Jerusalem 1993-1996), which
	    annotates the halakhot of the Tur and Shulhan Aruch
	    with Zoharic texts. The purpose of these volumes is clear. From the traditional
	    standpoint, one can compare the late legal compendiums with the mystical
	    comments of the `Tanaitic' work. Regardless of intent, the volume is a helpful
	    tool for understanding the relationship between Halakha and Kabbalah, at
	    least as demonstrated in these works. 
	    
	    Similar method's have now been applied to Moses
	    Cordovero's works. Shmuel Yudaiqin has edited two volumes of passages from
	    the works of Cordovero. These volumes, which focus on the study of Kabbalah,
	    are thematically organized by chapter and offer no additional commentary
	    (4). In a separate two-volume work entitled Or
	    Le-Yesharim, Yudaiqin provides a commentary to Cordovero's Introduction
	    to Shi'ur Qomah by referring the reader to passages from Cordovero's
	    corpus. Here each passage is very briefly introduced. In a similar four-volume
	    set entitled Shomer ha-Pardes, Yudaiqin provides an equally extensive
	    commentary from Cordovero's corpus to [1] Cordovero's Or Ne'erav (Benei
	    Beraq 1995); [2] Cordovero's Or Yaqar: Commentary to
	    Raya Mehemna 3:9 (Benei Beraq 1995);
	    [3] Yesodei ha-Torah ve-Iqarei ha-Dat of R. Dov Baer Gottlieb (Benei
	    Beraq 1996); [4] Eleazar Azikri's Sefer Haredim (Benei Beraq 1996).
	    As with the above volumes, the source of each passage presented in the commentary
	    is identified in brackets at the end of the citation.
	    
	    Paraphrases and Hebrew
	    Translations
	    
	    The German pietists of the twelfth and thirteenth
	    centuries could not read Arabic. Their heavy use of Saadia Gaon's Emunot
	    ve-De'ot was based on a loose Hebrew paraphrase which reflected their
	    understanding of the text (5). A translation to (part of)
	    the Aramaic text of the Zohar was prepared already in the fourteenth
	    century by R. David ben Yehuda. This Hebrew translation can be seen to be
	    a step toward popularization or at least an attempt to provide access to
	    a greater number of people (6). 
	    
	    In the last few years a number of new editions
	    of classic texts - some with commentaries - have been published which include
	    Hebrew translations inserted into the body of the text in brackets and/or
	    in a smaller font. These include Sefer Idra Rabba (Petah Tiqvah 1996)
	    and Maggid Mesharim (Petah Tiqvah 1990), each edited by Yihiel Barlev.
	    
	    
	    In a five volume work Shalom Batzri culled from
	    the Zohar and Zohar
	    Hadash the narrative units and presented
	    them with a Hebrew translation at the bottom of the page (Ma'asiyot
	    ha-Zohar, 3 volumes, 1992-1993; Ma'asiyot ha-Zohar he-Hadash,
	    Jerusalem 1993). Might this be compared in some way to the Ein Ya'akov
	    (7) ? 
	    
	    More pioneering in opening up Kabbalistic texts
	    to a wider audience is the paraphrase of Nahmanides' Commentary to the
	    Torah. In this five volume set published between 1985 and 1995
	    (8), Pinchas Lieberman provides a running translation in
	    modern Hebrew of the complete text. These two texts are accompanied on the
	    page by a modern commentary which explains terms and their sources. The
	    presentation of all these sources synoptically on the page is intended to
	    train the reader to read Nahmanides' original text (9).
	    The editor states that he has refrained from explaining Nahmanides' Kabbalah
	    in his edition. He then cites Nahmanides' celebrated introduction in which
	    he states that the written text alone [i.e. Nahmanides' Commentary]
	    does not provide the key to understanding his Kabbalah
	    (10). This apparent contradiction is followed by the additional
	    claim, supported by recent scholarship, that Nahmanides Kabbalistic exegesis
	    of scripture (can at times) converge with the simple meaning of the text
	    (11).
	    
	    Diagrams
	    
	    Early texts of Jewish mysticism, including many
	    Hekhalot works as well as magical or astrological texts, detail the hierarchy
	    of angelic and heavenly beings. Many early Kabbalistic texts, particularly
	    the genre of commentaries to the ten sefirot, describe the relationships
	    between these theosophic powers. The most complex systems, however, can be
	    found in Lurianic texts where the various worlds each contain multiple sets
	    of ten sefirot. These texts can at times be so complicated that the reader
	    may be compelled to draw an outline of the heavenly world described in the
	    text. 
	    
	    The earliest diagrams in Jewish mystical text
	    include drawings in European manuscripts of Hekhalot texts which depict aspects
	    of the heavenly world in relation to the esoteric traditions of the Account
	    of Creation and the Account of the Chariot (12). Stick
	    drawings of elements from the world of the Merkavah can be found as well
	    in the works of Eleazar of Worms - including one drawing of a dragon-like
	    figure (13). Eleazar's drawing are imitated and further
	    enhanced in the Kabbalistic reworking of his Commentary to Ezekiel's
	    Chariot composed by Jacob ha-Kohen (14). Jacob ha-Kohen
	    additionally included drawings of the letter Aleph and the angelic symbolism
	    which is overlayed on the Menorah in Jacob Ha-Kohen's Book of Illumination
	    (15). The most widespread drawings outside of the circles
	    of the theosophic Kabbalists are the circles of letter permutations in Abraham
	    Abulafia's Hayye ha-Olam ha-Ba (16). Finally, numerous
	    diagrams of the sefirotic tree (Ilan ha-Sefirot) can be found with
	    varying complexity in many Kabbalistic manuscripts. Diagrams of the sefirotic
	    tree - in fact depicted as a tree - can be found in some of the earliest
	    Kabbalistic manuscripts which have survived, dating to the last two decades
	    of the thirteenth century (17). These many diagrams, including
	    foremost the sefirotic trees have yet to be catalogued in any comprehensive
	    way. Indeed a major desiderata of the study of Jewish mysticism is such a
	    project, one that would reproduce all these diagrams and drawings in a single
	    volume accompanied with a commentary which would place each diagram in its
	    literary and historical context through internal comparisons and through
	    its relationship to the written text which accompanies each
	    (18). 
	    
	    Diagrams of later Kabbalistic literature were
	    printed in such classic works as Gikatilla's Sha'are Orah
	    (19), Moses Cordovero's Pardes Rimmonim
	    (20) and Shabbetai Sheftel Horowitz's Shefa Tal
	    (21), to name but a few (22). With the
	    appearance of Lurianic Kabbalah and Sabbateanism, numerous drawings were
	    prepared, primarily in manuscript form. The most significant diagrams to
	    be published were those of Meir Popper in his Sod Ilan ha-Gadol
	    (23). All of these diagrams have yet to be studied in any
	    serious way. An index or basic catalog does not even exist. Hopefully a history
	    of Jewish magical and Kabbalistic diagrams (including amulets) will be written
	    in the foreseeable future. 
	    
	    Outside of the walls of the university, in the
	    yeshivot and other learning-centers where the works of Lurianic Kabbalah
	    are the main focus of study, new tools have been developed to grapple with
	    the complexities of the graphic element which is embedded in the written
	    text. In a recently published book, Derekh le-Ez Hayyim
	    (24), numerous multi-color diagrams of incredible complexity
	    outline the major patterns of the divine world as described in Ez
	    Hayyim. The anonymous author, who out of modesty hides behind a numerical
	    equivalent of his name, has invested years of learning and planning in this
	    folio-size volume. 
	    
	    Major methodological questions arise when viewing
	    these diagrams. Is the author of this volume uncovering the graphic depiction
	    which the Lurianic Kabbalist envisioned prior to composing his work, or were
	    these images conceived in linguistic terms alone. Did the circle of iniates
	    who first studied these written works prepare their own diagrams (which did
	    not survive) or did they train themselves to mentally organize the images
	    they were reading in the text? (25) Or maybe we are outsiders
	    who are crippled by time or distance from the world of these Kabbalistic
	    authors and are incapable of preserving these images in their literary form?
	    Finally, does this method of study characterize the many learning centers
	    of Kabbalah today or is this one man's attempt to help the inferior student
	    who requires graphic aids.
	    
	    
	    
	    Notes
	    
	    1. See my discussion of Ms.
	    Parma 1390 in R. Asher ben David: His Complete Works and Studies in his
	    Kabbalistic Thought (Including The Commentaries to the Account of Creation
	    by the Kabbalists of Provence and Gerona), Los Angeles 1996, p. 305 [Hebrew];
	    Haviva Pedaya, Picturing and Imaging in the Kabbalistic Exegesis of
	    Nahmanides, Mahnayim 6 (1994), pp. 114-123 [Hebrew]. 
	    
	    2. See the chapter on the first
	    printing of the Zohar in my edition of the Book Bahir, Los
	    Angeles 1994. For further analysis of the reception history of the
	    Bahir and its relationship to the Zohar see Boaz Huss
	    Sefer ha-Bahir, Tarbiz 65 (1996), pp. 333-340 [Hebrew].
	    
	    
	    3. Abrams, The Book Bahir,
	    p. 96. Other important collections include Moses ben
	    Jacob of Kiev, Shushan Sodot, Cracow 1788 ( facs. reprint [Jerusalem]
	    n.d.; retypeset Jerusalem 1995); On this work see Scholem, Kabbalah,
	    Jerusalem 1974, p.70 and Jacob Reifman, About the Author of Shushan
	    Sodot, ha-Karmel 2 (1862), p. 207 [Hebrew]. See also the
	    anthology of Zohar commentaries contained in Abraham ben Mordechai Azulai
	    , Sefer Or ha-Hama, Przemysl 1896-1898, 3 volumes (facs. edition Benei
	    Baraq 1977). On Anthologies of commentaries to the Zohar see, Boaz Huss,
	    `The Anthological Interpretation: The Emergence of Anthologies of Zohar
	    Commentaries in the Seventeenth Century', Prooftexts (forthcoming).
	    See also Nathan of Tcherin, Derekh Hassidim, Lemberg 1873 (facs. edition
	    Jerusalem 1962), which is an anthology of hasidic texts. 
	    
	    4. Sefer Orayta Qame de-Qadosh
	    Baruch Huh..., Benei Beraq 1995; Da Elohei Avikha..., Benei Beraq
	    1995. 
	    
	    5. R. Kiener, The Hebrew
	    Paraphrase of Saadiah Gaon's 'Kitab al-Amanat Wa'l-I'tiqadat',
	    AJS Review 11 (1986), pp. 1-26. 
	    
	    6. For other examples such as
	    the role of al-Naqawa's Menorat ha-Meor, see the introduction, I.
	    Tishby's Wisdom of the Zohar, first printed in Hebrew, Mishnat
	    ha-Zohar, Jerusalem 1949; translated into English: The Wisdom of the
	    Zohar, Oxford 1989. 
	    
	    7. Marjorie Lehman, A
	    Talmudic Anthology of Aggada: Examining the Ein Yaakov, Ph.D.
	    Dissertation, Columbia University, 1993. 
	    
	    8. Perush ha-Ramban `al
	    ha-Torah..., Jerusalem 1985-95. 
	    
	    9. Introduction, p.13. 
	    
	    10. Daniel Abrams, Orality
	    in the Kabbalistic School of Nahmanides: Preserving and Interpreting Esoteric
	    Traditions and Texts, Jewish Studies Quarterly 2 (1995), pp.
	    85-102. 
	    
	    11. E. Wolfson, By Way
	    of Truth: Aspects of Nahmanides' Kabbalistic Hermeneutic, AJS
	    Review 14 (1989), pp. 103-178. 
	    
	    12. N. Sed Une cosmologie
	    juive du haut moyen age la Berayta di Ma'aseh Bereshit, Revue
	    des Etudes Juives 123 (1964), pp. 259-305; part II: Le texte, les
	    manuscrits et les diagrammes, Ibid., 124 (1965), pp. 23-123;
	    Klaus Herrmann, Massekhet Hekhalot: Traktat von den himmlischen Palaesten,
	    Edition, Übersetzung und Kommentar, Tuebingen 1994. 
	    
	    13. Sodei Razaya, ed.
	    S. Weiss, Benei Braq 1986, pp. 136, 186. Most of the drawings could not be
	    inserted in this volume as with the edition of the other section of this
	    compendium, Sodei Razaya, ed. I. Kamelhar, Bilgoraj 1936. The dragon-like
	    figure was printed in a full folio page in Eleazar's Commentary to Sefer
	    Yezira, Przemysl 1883 [facs. Brooklyn 1978], fol. 125 and see also the
	    following pages. 
	    
	    14. Asi Farber-Ginat, Jacob
	    ben Jacob ha-Kohen's Commentary to Ezekiel's Chariot, The Hebrew
	    University, master's thesis, 1978, pp. 24, 30, 38, 62 [Hebrew]. See also
	    the diagrams in Yitzhaq Vannah (Mahariv), Rekeb Elohim, Benei Baraq
	    1992. 
	    
	    15. Abrams, The Book
	    of Illumination of R. Jacob ben Jacob HaKohen: A Synoptic Edition From
	    Various Manuscripts, New York University, 1993, pp. 323-325, 376, 370,
	    401 [Hebrew]. 
	    
	    16. See also the relatively
	    simple diagrams in the works of the fourteenth century Kabbalist, Joseph
	    Hamadan: Jeremy Zwelling, Joseph of Hamadan's Sefer Tashak:
	    Critical Text Edition with Introduction [Hebrew Text], Ph.d. Dissertation,
	    Brandeis University 1975, see esp. pp. 149-162, 167-184. 
	    
	    17. See the Ilan ha-Hokhma
	    in Ms. Paris BN 763, fol. 34b. 
	    
	    18. See for example the discussions
	    of Elliot Wolfson, Negative Theology and Positive Assertion in the
	    Early Kabbalah, Da'at 32-33 (1994), p. vxiii; Crossing
	    Gender Boundaries, Circle in the Square - Studies in the Use of
	    Gender in Kabbalistic Symbolism, Albany 1995, p. 196, n. 6. 
	    
	    19. Chapter 5, see for example
	    Warsaw 1883 edition, fol. 64a. 
	    
	    20. Sha'ar ha-Aziluth;
	    Sha'ar Seder Amidatan; Sha'ar ha-Zinorot. See also the various
	    diagrams reproduced in Bracha Sack, The Kabbalah of Rabbi Moshe
	    Cordovero, Be'er Sheva 1995, pp. 51, 115, 183 [Hebrew]. 
	    
	    21. Hanover 1612, fols. [6]b,
	    [7]a, [8]a, 5a, 8a, 10a, 28a, 49a, 56a, 62a. 
	    
	    22. See further my study
	    Critical and Post-Critical Textual Scholarship of Jewish Mystical
	    Literature: Notes on the History and Development of Modern Editing
	    Techniques, Kabbalah: Journal for the Study of Jewish Mystical
	    Texts 1 (1996), pp. 17-71, esp. p. 52. 
	    
	    23. Sod Ilan ha-Gadol,
	    Warsaw 1864 and 1893. The first edition was not bound, rather the folio pages
	    were pasted together to form a scroll. The second edition (bound) was reprinted
	    in facsimile (Jerusalem n.d.). While this Ilan may be the most important
	    diagram of its type to be printed one of the more striking figures to appear
	    in print is certainly found in Moses ben Menahem Graf's, Vayaqel Moshe,
	    Dessau 1699, (facs. edition Jerusalem 1963), fol. 33b-34a. See also Jacob
	    Spielmann, Tal Orot, Lvov 1876-1883 (Jerusalem 1976); Eliahu David
	    Salíatqi, Yad Eliahu, Mafteah le-Qabbalat ha-Ari Z"al, Jerusalem
	    1987. 
	    
	    24. Derekh le-Ez Hayyim
	    - Tarshim le-Havanat Sefer Ez Hayyim, Jerusalem [1996]. 
	    
	    25. See the discussion of M.
	    Idel in Kabbalah: New Perspectives, New Haven and London 1988, pp.
	    103-111.
	    
	    * I would
	    like to thank Prof. Roland Goetschel for comments which improved this
	    study.
	    
	    (c) Copyright 1997 by Daniel
	    Abrams
	    
	    Back