1. Some aspects of the interrelationships between the three medieval Jewish disciplines of “talmudism,” philosophy, and Kabbalah are explored by Twersky, I., “Talmudists, Philosophers, Kabbalists: The Quest for Spirituality in the Sixteenth Century,” in Jewish Thought in the Sixteenth Century, ed. Cooperman, B. (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1983), pp. 431–457Google Scholar. The classification underlies the fourfold division employed in R. Bahya b. Asher's commentary to the Pentateuch (to which he adds the method of peshat interpretation).

2. On the Maimonidean apprenticeships of R. Moses de Leon and his fellows, see Matt, D., Zohar: The Book of Enlightenment (New York, 1983), pp. 5–6Google Scholar; Scholem, G., Kabbalah (New York, 1974), p. 432Google Scholar, etc. Abraham Abulafia is another example of a mystic who continued to build upon the implications of Maimonides' philosophy; see Idel, M., The Mystical Experience in Abraham Abulafia (Albany, N.Y., 1988), pp. 2–3Google Scholar and index. I cannot think of any figure of significance who took the reverse route; i.e., progressing from Kabbalah to rationalism.

3. This impression is borne out by a perusal of various bibliographies of medieval Judaism and Kabbalah; e.g., Wijnhoven, J. H. A., “Medieval Jewish Mysticism,” in Bibliographical Essays in Medieval Jewish Studies: The Study of Judaism II (New York, 1976), pp. 269–332Google Scholar. It is also shared by Wolfson, E., “Left Contained in the Right: A Study in Zoharic Hermeneutics,” AJS Review 11 (1986): 27–52, esp. p. 27CrossRefGoogle Scholar and n. 2. Wolfson himself presents an instructive attempt at tracing the treatment of various themes through the Zohar. Whatever scholarly attention has been attracted by the literary merits of the Zohar seems to have been confined to the narrative structures, especially the exotic old men and wunderkinder who populate its pages. This has influenced the selections of Tishby, I. and Lechover, F., Mishnat Ha-Zohar (Jerusalem, 1957)Google Scholar; Matt, , ZoharGoogle Scholar, etc. (Matt makes some perceptive observations on the literary methods of the Zohar on pp. 25–32). A significant exception to the above generalizations is Ginzberg, Louis's The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1910–1946)Google Scholar, who cites the Zohar with frequency and erudition as an important link in the chain of medieval aggadic development.

4. Genesis Rabbah 93:7 and 93:12; ed. Theodor-Albeck (Jerusalem, 1965), pp. 1161, 1170Google Scholar. Targum Ps. Jonathan to the verse; TB Megillah 16b and other parallels cited by Albeck, p. 1170; Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 2:13; 5:355; Kasher, M. M., Torah ShelemahGoogle Scholar ad loc.

5. Heinemann, , Darkei Ha-Aggadah (Jerusalem, 1974), pp. 32–34 (and p. 210, n. 88).Google Scholar

6. See the critical apparatus to the Theodor-Albeck edition. The second clause, about Shiloh, is missing in most of the witnesses to the first instance. Albeck deals exhaustively with the textual evidence, noting that several authorities make reference to a singular form in the second part of the verse, which would obviate the need for the question that Rashi deletes. He notes that C. D. Ginsburg's edition of the Masorah (London, 1926) records the singular form in the name of “other versions,” though no one else seems able to locate an actual manuscript with that reading. Cf. the remarks of R. Yedidiah Norzi, in his Minḥat Shai, who also questions the existence of such a reading on the basis of the known Masoretic traditions.

7. See Segal, E. L., “‘The Goat of the Slaughterhouse …’—On the Evolution of a Variant Reading in the Babylonian Talmud,” Tarbiz 49 (1979–1980): 50.Google Scholar

8. See the objection of R. Josiah Pinto (the Rif to ‘Ein Jacob) regarding the dubious coherence of the connection once the question is deleted. Several of the supercommentaries to Rashi on the Pentateuch make their own attempts to justify the talmudic reading by positing finer grammatical distinctions, such as the following: True, the plural is used in both clauses; in one, however, it is normal (in the construct form), while in the other it is unusual (as a possessive). See the commentaries of R. Elijah Mizraḥi and the Gur Arieh. All of this strikes us, of course, as a bit too subtle and elaborate to have been presupposed by the midrashic texts under discussion.

9. Cf. Berakhot 30a, etc.Google Scholar

10. Translations from the Zohar are based on those of H. Sperling and M. Simon (London, 1978), with minor changes.

11. See Matt, , Zohar, pp. 15 ff.Google Scholar

12. Heinemann, , Darkei Ha-Aggadah, pp. 11, 32, etc.Google Scholar

13. The gravity of his behavior would be magnified by the demonic status that typifies Esau in kabbalistic tradition; cf. Matt, , Zohar, p. 274.Google Scholar

14. Referring to the various scriptural connections between necks and the towers of Jerusalem. For a survey of parallel materials, see Ginzberg, , Legends of the Jews 5:309 (n. 264).Google Scholar

15. In the literature of medieval Jewish biblical exegesis, I am aware of only a single commentator to Genesis who addresses the question that the Zohar answers about the connection between necks and temples: namely, R. Baḥya ben Asher, who, in his commentary to Gen. 45:14 (ed. C. Chavel [Jerusalem, 1941], p. 355), adds: “And because the neck is at the top of a man's body, it was employed as an analogy for the Temple, which is situated at the top of the mountain.” Note also his reference to Song of Songs 8:1, and his explanation of why the neck would semantically be treated as a plural. On R. Baḥya's familiarity with parts of the Zohar, see Chavel's introduction, pp. 16–17 and literature cited there; Gottlieb, E., Ha-Qabbalah be-Khitvei R. Baḥya ben Asher (Jerusalem, 1970).Google Scholar

16. For an analysis of parallels and textual information, see Albeck's notes to Genesis Rabbah, p. 927. An interesting variation on this passage is in fact found in the Zohar to Gen. 33:4.

17. Most of the relevant materials and issues are summarized by Jacobson, I., Netiv Binah (Tel-Aviv, 1978), 4:87–94.Google Scholar

18. E.g., the extended pericopes on this precept in Leviticus Rabbah 28 (ed. Margolies, M. [Jerusalem, 1972], p. 648–667)Google Scholar; Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 8 (ed. Mandelbaum, B. [New York, 1962], pp. 135–145Google Scholar; trans. Braude and Kapstein [Philadelphia, 1975], p. 155); TB Rosh ha-Shanah 16a, etc.

19. Leviticus (vol. 2) 97, Cf. Al-Nakawa, 's Menorat ha-Ma'or, ed. Enelow, H. (New York, 1949), 2:273Google Scholar, cited from Midrash Yehi Or. A number of central themes in the Zohar's account of the Exodus and its relationship to the Sinaitic revelation are discussed by Wolfson, , “Left Contained in the Right.”Google Scholar It is interesting to note that the author of the Zohar seems to be referring to the later practice of counting from the end of the period of uncleanness, not from the beginning, as should have been expected in a supposedly tannaitic work.

20. Alluding to the baraita from Sifra Nega′im/Meṣora′ 9:1, cited in the name of Samuel in Ketubbot 72a: “Whence do we know that a menstruant may do her own counting? Because it says: And she shall count for herself seven days [Lev. 15:28]—for herself implies by herself.” Cf. Naḥmanides' commentary to Lev. 23:15, discussed below.

21. The Zohar in the continuation of this passage develops in elaborate detail the symbolism of Shavu'ot as “the night when the bride was to be rejoined to her husband,” a theme which is also found elsewhere (e.g., in the “prologue” to the work, p. 8b). A similar motif is cited in the name of a “midrash” in Sefer Abudraham (“ha-Shalem” [Jerusalem, 1959]), p. 241Google Scholar, (“Laws for Counting the ‘Omer”): “The Midrash offers an additional reason: It is analogous to one who was incarcerated in a prison, who cried out to the king to set him free and give him his daughter. He continued to count until the awaited time. Thus did the Israelites do at the time of the Egyptian Exodus.” While the addition of the new motif of anticipated marriage to the daughter may be a diluted allusion to the Zohar, it does not necessarily presuppose the Zohar's comparison to the niddah, but could follow naturally from the twofold significance of the events: the Exodus itself ( = freedom from incarceration) followed by the Sinaitic revelation ( = marriage covenant).

22. Mekhilta d-Rabbi Ishmael, pisḥa 1:1, and many other instances in talmudic literature. The defilement of Egypt is traced variously to its association with the wicked Ham or, more commonly, to the proliferation of idolatry, sorcery, and other abominations in that land.

23. E.g., Zohar to Genesis, pp. 1:81b, 1:83a; see Matt's remarks, Zohar, p. 220.Google Scholar

24. Cited here from the English translation of Chavel, C.: Ramban: Commentary on the Torah (New York, 1974), vol. 3.Google Scholar

25. Menaḥot 66aGoogle Scholar, cited by Chavel in his note.

26. R. Moses de Leon likely had in mind such rabbinic passages as R. Simeon b. Laqish's comment (Sotah 34b, etc.) to Num. 13:2: “Send thou—at your own will” (Rashi: “I am not commanding you …”).

27. For similar problems in talmudic homiletics, see Bregman, M., “Past and Present in Midrashic Literature,” Hebrew Annual Review 2 (1978): 55–58.Google Scholar

28. The rationality of the exposition is at any rate questionable. According to Maimonides' interpretation, Jews are being commanded to act out of eager anticipation for an event that has, after all, already taken place. This is designed to commemorate a historical occasion when this future-directed longing (at least, with respect to a fixed date) was not part of the feelings of the original participants.

29. Ed. Buber, S. (Jerusalem, 1970), 110a (par. 236).Google Scholar

30. Cf. Canticles Rabbah 2:15 (cited in Arama's ‘Aqedat Yiṣḥaq to Lev. 23:15); Kasher, Torah Shelemah, Emor (Lev. 23:15), n. 103 and sources listed there. Additional medieval citations of similar “midrashim” can be found in Ginzberg, , Legends of the Jews, 6:29 n. 175.Google Scholar

31. E.g., the Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, in an explanation of the precept that is otherwise copied faithfully from Maimonides (#273, Emor, ‘Asin 11; ed. C. Chavel, pp. 358–359), describes in great detail the Israelites’ yearning to receive the Torah as they departed from Egypt. However, when it comes to summarizing the commandment, the author switches to the first person: “For all this demonstrates in us the mighty desire to reach that time … the number of days which we need to arrive at the offering of the two loaves of Pentecost,” etc. For Don Isaac Abravanel as well, while following the basic outlines of Maimonides' explanation in his commentary to Lev. 23, Sinai marks not merely the receiving of the Torah, but the actual transformation of the Israelites into “rational beings capable of understanding.” Cf. the elaborate treatment in Arama's ‘Aqedat Yiṣḥaq, where the author also wavers between historical and symbolic interpretations of the theophany. For example, he explains the fact that the Torah does not explicitly identify Shavu'ot as the day of the giving of the Torah as a consequence of the supertemporal dimension that attaches to the Torah and its revelation.

32. The implication is drawn out in R. Moses Alsheikh's commentary to Leviticus 23: “I believe that it is for this reason that these days were set apart for all generations, to save Israel, to support them in the improvement of their souls and hearts for the sake of Heaven until the advent of the festival of Shavu'ot … which requires preparation and purification in order to sanctify it through these days of cleansing.” He goes on to explain all the specific rituals and offerings as symbolic spiritual preparations. Rabbi Eleazar of Worms in Sefer ha-Rokeaḥ (“ha-Gadol” [Jerusalem, 1960], Hilkhot ha-‘Omer, par. 294, p. 162Google Scholar) equates the fifty days of the counting with the proverbial “fifty gates of wisdom,” as does Recanati in his commentary to the passage. The translation of the revelation into psychological terms is especially prominent in the Hasidic homilies to Leviticus; e.g., Rabbi Elimelech of Lizensk in his No'am Elimelekh (ed. Nigal, G. [Jerusalem, 1978], pp. 345–347)Google Scholar, who interprets the harvesting of the ‘omer as an allegory of the purification of man's thoughts; Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel in his Ohev Yisra'el (Emor); R. Jacob Joseph of Polnoye's Toledot Ya'aqov Yosef, Emor 7, where the author relates the counting of the ‘omer to the preparations which a man must make in the present world for the world-to-come; Rabbi Levi Isaac of Berditchev (Qedushat Levi, “Homily for the Counting of the ‘Omer”).