1. This essay is based in part on my PhD dissertation, in which I focused on these two figures. See Jonatan Benarroch, “Saba ve-Yanuka, ‘Treyn de-inun ḥada’: ’alegoriah, semel u-mitos ba-sifrut ha-zoharit” (PhD diss., Hebrew University, 2011), 357–378. On the Zoharic Yanuka and Saba figures, see also Oron, Michal, “Motiv ha-Yanuka u-mashma‘uto be-sefer ha-Zohar,” Te‘udah 21–22 (2006): 129–164Google Scholar; Yisraeli, Oded, Parshanut ha-sod ve-sod ha-parshanut: megammot midrashiyot ve-hermanoitiyot be-“Saba de-mishpatim” sheba-Zohar (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2005)Google Scholar; Liebes, Yehuda, “Myth vs. Symbol in the Zohar and in Lurianic Kabbalah,” in Essential Papers on Kabbalah, ed. Fine, Lawrence (New York: New York University Press, 1995), 212–42Google Scholar; Jonatan Benarroch, “’Oro shel Yanuka ve-sodo shel Saba: hebetim po'etiyim u-mitopo'etiyim be-‘iẓuv dmut ha-Yanuka be- ḥativat ‘ha-Yanuka de-Balak’ ba-Zohar” (MA thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2007).

2. Following the work of Abrams, I use the term “Zoharic literature,” and not the “book of Zohar.” See Abrams, Daniel, Kabbalistic Manuscripts and Textual Theory: Methodologies of Textual Scholarship and Editorial Practice in the Study of Jewish Mysticism (Jerusalem and Los Angeles: Magnes Press; Cherub Press, 2010), 224–428Google Scholar. However, in my view, although the Zohar is not a “book”—and therefore cannot be read with the assumption that there is complete coherence between different passages—there are nevertheless some poetic qualities that are unique to Zoharic literature at large. In my opinion, the only way to understand the wide range of these qualities is to compare the same ideas and characters as they appear in all the different passages of the diverse Zoharic literature.

3. This work is part of a new approach in Zoharic scholarship that focuses on the literary framework and the unique poetics of Zoharic literature. See Liebes, Yehuda, “Ha-mashiaḥ shel ha-Zohar: lidmuto ha-meshiḥit shel R. Shim‘on bar Yoḥai,” in Ha-ra‘ayon ha-meshiḥi be-Yisra'el, ed. Reem, Shmuel (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1982), 87–236Google Scholar; Liebes, “Zohar ve-’eros,” ’Alpayim 9 (1994): 67–119Google Scholar; Wolfson, Elliot R., Language, Eros, Being: Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and Poetic Imagination (New York: Fordham University Press, 2005), 190–295Google Scholar; Wolfson, Elliot R., “Left Contained in the Right: A Study in Zoharic Hermeneutics,” AJS Review 11 (1986): 27–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Meroz, Ronit, “‘Va-’ani lo hayiti sham?’: kuvlanotav shel Rashbi ‘al pi sippur Zohari lo yadu‘a,” Tarbiẓ 71 (2002): 163–93Google Scholar; Meroz, Ronit, “Der Aufbau des Buches Sohar,” PaRDeS II (2005): 16–36Google Scholar; Meroz, Ronit, “Zoharic Narratives and Their Adaptations,” Hispania Judaica Bulletin 3 (2000): 3–63Google Scholar; Huss, Boaz, “Ḥakham ‘adif mi-navi: Shim‘on bar Yoḥai u-Mosheh Rabbenu ba-Zohar,” Kabbalah 4 (1999): 103–39Google Scholar; Fishbane, Eitan, “Representation and the Boundaries of Realism—Reading the Fantastic in Zoharic Fiction,” Kabbalah 23 (2010): 105–119Google Scholar; Fishbane, Eitan, “The Scent of the Rose: Drama, Fiction, and Narrative Form in the Zohar,” Prooftexts 29, no. 3 (2009): 324–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fishbane, Eitan, “Tears of Disclosure: The Role of Weeping in Zoharic Narrative” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 11, no. 1 (2002): 25–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eitan Fishbane, Mystical Drama and Narrative Form (forthcoming); Haskell, Ellen, “Metaphor, Transformation, and Transcendence: Toward an Understanding of Kabbalistic Imagery in Sefer ha-Zohar,” Prooftexts 28 (2008): 335–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hellner-Eshed, Melila, A River Flows from Eden: The Language of Mystical Experience in the Zohar, trans. Wolski, Nathan (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Yisraeli, Parshanut ha-sod ve-sod ha-parshanut; Valénsi, Lévy, La Poétique du Zohar (Paris: Éditions de L’Éclat, 1996)Google Scholar; Oron, Michal, “Simeni kha-ḥotam ‘al libekha: ‘iyyunim ba-po'etikah shel ba‘al ha-Zohar be-farashat ‘Saba de-mishpatim,’” in Massu'ot, ed. Oron, Michal and Goldreich, Amos (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1994), 1–24Google Scholar; Oron, Michal, “Sippur ha-’otiyyot u-mekorotav: ‘iyyun be-midrash ha-Zohar al ’otiyyot ha-’alef beit,” Meḥkerei Yerushalayim be-maḥshevet Yisra'el 3 (1984): 97–109Google Scholar; Oron, “Motiv ha-Yanuka”; Shifra Asulin, “Komatah shel ha-Shekhinah: mekomo shel ha-parẓuf ha-’elohi hanikbi bein ha-’Idra Rabbah la-’Idra Zutta,” in Samkhut ruḥanit; ma‘avakim ‘al koaḥ tarbuti be-hagut ha-yehudit, eds. Kreisel, Chaim, Huss, Boaz and Erlich, Uri (Be'er Sheva: Ben Gurion University, 2009), 103–182Google Scholar; Naomi Tene, “Darkhei ‘iẓuv ha-sippur be-sefer ha-Zohar” (PhD diss., Bar Ilan University, 1992); Meged, Matti, Ha-’or ha-neḥshakh: ‘arakhim estetiyim be-sefer ha-Zohar (Tel Aviv: Sifriyat Po‘alim, 1980)Google Scholar; Wineman, Aryeh, Mystic Tales from the Zohar (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1997)Google Scholar; Wolski, Nathan, A Journey into the Zohar: an Introduction to the Book of Radiance (Albany: SUNY Press, 2010), 185–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wolski, Nathan, “Mystical Poetics: Narrative, Time and Exegesis in the Zohar,” Prooftexts 26, no.2 (Spring 2008): 101–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wolski, Nathan, “Don Quixote and Sancho Panza Were Walking on the Way: El Caballero Andante and the Book of Radiance (Sefer ha-Zohar),” Shofar 27, no. 2 (2009): 24–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a complete reference list of the research on the literary and poetic aspects of Zoharic literature, see Fishbane, “The Scent of the Rose,” 353–354; Hecker, Joel, “The Face of Shame: The Sight and Site of Rebuke (Zohar 3:45b–47a),” Kabbalah 23 (2010): 29–30Google Scholar, n. 1; Daniel Abrams, Kabbalistic Manuscripts, 409–428, esp. nn. 390–393.

4. See Liebes, “Ha-mashiaḥ shel ha-Zohar”; Meroz, “Zoharic Narratives and Their Adaptations”; Fishbane, “Representation and the Boundaries of Realism”; Oron, “Simeni kha-ḥotam ‘al libekha”; Tene, “Darkhei ‘iẓuv ha-sippur be-sefer ha-Zohar”; Wolski, “Mystical Poetics.”

5. The figure of R. Bun is one of the central figures in ZḤ Ruth, as opposed to the main stratum of Zoharic Literature, in which the central protagonist is Rabbi Shim‘on Bar Yoḥai. See Meroz, “Va-’ani lo hayiti sham?”; Liebes, “Ha-mashiaḥ shel ha-Zohar.”

6. As demonstrated in my previous work, ZḤ Ruth is the first stratum of Zoharic literature, introducing motifs that are developed in subsequent Yanuka and Saba stories. See Benarroch, “Saba ve-Yanuka,” 263–269. For more research on ZḤ Ruth see Daniel Abrams, Midrash ha-ne‘elam hu Zohar Rut, originally published as Tapuḥei zahav in Venice 1566 (Jerusalem: private edition, 1992), 1–13; Gottlieb, Efraim, Meḥkarim be-sifrut ha-kabbalah, ed. Hacker, Joseph (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1976), 540–542Google Scholar; Englander, Lawrence A., The Mystical Study of Ruth: Midrash ha-Ne‘elam of the Zohar to the Book of Ruth, trans. and ed. Basser, Herbert W. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

7. The story appears scattered between the different locations both in the printed editions and in several manuscripts. The printed editions used are: Tapuḥei zahav (Thiengen, 1559); Tapuḥei zahav (Venice 1566); Cordovero, Moses ben Jacob, ’Or yakar 17 (Jerusalem: ’Aḥuzat Yisra'el, 1989), 197–226Google Scholar. However it should be mentioned that the Vilna Ga'on reconstructed the text in a similar manner. See Midrash Ruth he-Ḥadash (Hadrat Kodesh), ed. Eliyahu mi-Vilna (Warsaw 1865), 8a–b. I thank Joel Hecker for referring me to this valuable source; Niẓoẓei Zohar 48a, 78a; Mopsik, n. 118; Matok mi-devash on 48a, 80c cf. ZḤ (Munkacz) 1:79a; 2:30b; Benarroch, “Saba ve-Yanuka,” 357–362. The manuscripts I reviewed are: Vatican (Biblioteca Apostolica) ebr. 207 [V6]; Vatican (Neofiti) 27 [V24]; British Library 27173 [L39]; Russian State Library, Ms. Guenzburg 174/7 [MS3]; Russian State Library, Ms. Guenzburg 290/5[MS4]; Oxford (Bodleian Library) 221 [O17]. I want to thank all the libraries for allowing me to check their manuscripts, and in particular the Scholem library and the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts (both located in the National Library of Israel) for all of their generous help with handling the manuscripts.

8. The first part of the story (ZḤ Ruth, 77b) describes Rabbi Bun, the story's protagonist, arriving at Kfar Sikhnin, the location of Hamnuna Saba and his son's (the Yanuka) domicile, according to the central Zoharic Yanuka story (Zohar III, 86a–192a). See Benarroch, “‘Oro shel Yanuka ve-sodo shel Saba.” Later on (ZḤ Ruth, 77c), Rabbi Bun meets Yanai Sabba. See Benarroch, “Saba ve-Yanuka,” 264.

9. ZḤ Ruth, 77d. In translating the Yanuka story in ZḤ Ruth I have relied mainly on the translation of Joel Hecker (as part of the Zohar: Pritzker Edition), and I thank him for sharing with me his translation, which is in preparation.

10. Another explanation might be that he has just fallen behind, as he catches up afterward and is described as being “wearied from the journey.” See below n. 16.

11. Benarroch, “Saba ve-Yanuka,” 264, 361–362; Benarroch, “‘Oro shel Yanuka ve-sodo shel Saba,” 76–106.

12. The name of Rabbi Nehorai translates literally as “light” (nehora). He is the “Rabbi of Light,” and he can be seen as a prefiguration of Rav Hamnuna Saba—the Yanuka's father. On the figure of R. Nehorai as a prefiguration of Hamnuna Saba, see Benarroch, “Saba ve-Yanuka,” 291–292.

13. ZḤ Ruth, 77d.

14. cf. TZ 21, 47a.

15. ZḤ Ruth, 77d. The translation follows V24, MS4, Tiengen, and Venice, which indicate that one repeats the words “I am YHVH, your God” (אני יי’ אלהיכם, ’ani YHVH ’eloheikhem), V6, O17, L39, MS3, O18, and ’Or yakar all have “YHVH your God, truth” (יי’ אלהיכם אמת, YHVH'Eloheikhem ’emet), in accordance with the emerging normative practice. Texts from fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Spain indicate that the practice there was to repeat “I am YHVH your God” (’ani YHVH ’eloheikhem). See Recanati, as cited in Maharam Alshaqar, Responsa 60; Moses ben Jacob of Kiev, Shoshan sodot, 8b–9a; Simeon ben Ẓemaḥ Duran, Responsa 2:236; NZ n.11; cf. de León, Shekel ha-kodesh,ed. Mopsik, Charles (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 1996), 84–85Google Scholar; Beit Yosef ’oraḥ Ḥayim 61. I thank Joel Hecker for sharing with me his findings on this as part of his research in translating ZḤ Ruth, in the framework of the Zohar: Pritzker Edition, which is in preparation.

16. Tanḥuma Kedoshim 6 records a tradition in the name of Rabbi Mani: “Do not look askance at the recital of Shema, for there are 248 words in it like the sum of limbs in a human body… The Blessed Holy One said: ‘If you are vigilant [שמרת, shamarta] regarding my [248], reciting Shema as prescribed, I shall guard [אשמר, ’eshmor] your [248].’” cf. B. Nedarim 36b.

17. On the Ashkenazi origins of this idea, see Ta-Shma, Israel M., “‘El melekh ne'eman: gilgulo shel minhag (Terumah le-ḥeker ha-Zohar),” Tarbiẓ 39 (1969): 184–194Google Scholar; Ta-Shma, Israel M., “Tikkunim ve-hosafot le-ma'amar‘’El melekh ne'eman,’” Tarbiẓ 40 (1970): 105–6Google Scholar; Wolfson, Elliot R., “Dimmui ’antropomorfi ve-ha-simbolikah shel ha-’otiyyot be-sefer ha-Zohar,” in Sefer ha-Zohar ve-doro (Meḥkerei Yerushalayim be-maḥshevet Yisra'el 8 [1989]), ed. Dan, Joseph (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1989), 161 n. 62Google Scholar.

18. According to Ta-Shma, the main polemic is against the Ramban's prohibition of adding “God, faithful king” (’El melekh ne'eman) before the Shema recitation, in order to prevent any break between the Ve-’ahavta blessing and the Shema. See Ta-Shma, “‘El melekh ne'eman,” 190–192.

19. ZḤ Ruth, 77d–78a.

20. ZḤ Ruth, 78a.

21. Sixteen adjectives of praise immediately follow the Shema recitation, at the beginning of the morning blessing, which follows it. After the first one, “truth,” (’emet), the next fifteen are all joined with the letter vav, “and.” It is not clear how the recitation of these fifteen vavs serves as a substitute for a full 248-word recital of the Shema, but the prayer commentary ascribed to Eleazar of Worms indicates that these fifteen times six—the numerical value of vav—equal ninety, corresponding to the word “just,” צדק ẓedek, in Psalms 17:1; the letter ẓadi(צ) at the beginning of the word has the numerical value of 90. Midrash Tehillim 17:6 explains as follows: “‘Hear YHVH what is just’ (שמעה, shim‘ah)—this signifies the recitation of Shema.” This is, to be sure, much more convoluted than the Zohar's usual style. On the fifteen vavs, see Judah son of Yakar, Peirush ha-tefillot ve-ha-berakhot, 30–32; Peirushei siddur tefillah ha-Rokeaḥ, 298–99; cf. Midrash ha-gadol Terumah 26:8; cf. Beit Yosef ’oraḥ ḥayim 61. I thank Joel Hecker for sharing with me his findings on this as part of his research in translating ZḤ Ruth, in the framework of the Zohar: Pritzker Edition which is in preparation.

22. ZḤ Ruth, 78a. This paragraph (without mention of the figures of the Yanuka and his father), appears in an unprinted fragment of Rabbi Moses de León's Shoshan ‘edut, see Wolfson, “Dimmui ’antropomorfi,” 162–3 n. 66; cf. Ta-Shma, “Tikkunim ve-hosafot le-ma'amar‘ ’El melekh ne'eman,’” 105. For more on Shoshan ‘edut, see: de León, Moses, “Shoshan ‘edut,” ed. Scholem, Gershom, Koveẓ ‘al yad, 8 (1976): 325–70Google Scholar. However, it is not clear if this work was written prior to the Zoharic passage or whether it is actually “quoting” from the Zohar.

23. Cf. Zohar II, 156a.

24. Moses de León, Sefer maskiyyot kesef, ed. Jochanan H. A. Wijnhoven (MA thesis, Brandeis University, 1961), 25–26.

25. de León, Sefer maskiyyot kesef, 16, 26, 29–30.

26. ZḤ ’Aḥarei Mot 48a. The only manuscript I identified for this source is St. Petersburg (Russian National Library) Evr. II A 317/1.

27. Cf. de León, Sefer maskiyyot kesef, 28–29.

28. ZḤ Ruth 77d.

29. On the connection between the Shema mystery and the unique ability of the Yanuka to detect by smell whether a person had recited the Shema or not, see Ḥayim ben Joseph Vital, ’Eẓ ḥayim, sha‘ar keri'at shema, 22.

30. This is the only source in all Zoharic literature where the term: “Saba de-Yanuka” (סבא דינוקא) is used. This term is another example of the strong linkage between the Saba and Yanuka figures. See Benarroch, “Saba ve-Yanuka,” 358–359.

31. ZḤ’Aḥarei Mot 48a.

32. The name Rabbi Reḥumai appears in V6 and MS3.

33. ZḤ Ruth, 80c–d.

34. I believe the correct version of this part of the story is the one that appears in at least two manuscripts (V6 and MS3), describing Rabbi Reḥumai, and not Rabbi Ḥisdai (as appears in the printed edition), as delivering the homily.

35. On the figure of Rabbi Reḥumai as a “Saba” figure, portrayed similarly to Rav Hamnuna, see Benarroch, “Saba ve-Yanuka,” 157, 264–5 n. 47.

36. It should be mentioned that in both of the homilies, the “great king” (in Ecclesiastes 9:14) is interpreted as representing the “evil inclination.”

37. It is also possible to interpret this description as a kiss given by the sages to Rabbi Bun (and not the Yanuka). On the significance of the act of kissing in Zoharic literature, see Hecker, Joel, “Kissing Kabbalists: Hierarchy, Reciprocity And Equality,” in Love—Ideal and Real—in the Jewish Tradition from the Hebrew Bible to Modern Times, eds. Greenspoon, Leonard J., Simkins, Ronald A., and Cahan, Jean A. (Omaha: Creighton University Press, 2008), 171–208Google Scholar.

38. ZḤ Ruth 81a. An additional Zoharic homily on the Shema mysteries, and one of the central sources on these mysteries, is also strongly identified with the Yanuka and with his father—the Saba.

39. This text mistakenly appears in the printed editions as part of the Ra‘aya mehemna stratum. See Liebes, Yehuda, “Porfuritah shel Helenah mi-Troyah ve-kidush ha-Shem,” Da‘at 57–59 (2005): 118–119Google Scholar. On the Pikudin stratum see Gottlieb, Ephraim, “Ma'amar ‘ha-pikudin’ she-ba-Zohar,”’ in Meḥkarim be-sifrut ha-kabbalah, 215–30Google Scholar; Neta Sobol, “Ḥativat ha-pikudin she-ba-Zohar,” (MA thesis, Tel Aviv University, 2001).

40. The original Zoharic homily is attributed to Yeiva Saba as can be found in Recanati on Deuteronomy 6:4. Another original Zoharic quotation of this homily appears in the writings of the apostate Paulus de Heredia. See Liebes, Yehuda, “Christian Influences in the Zohar,” in Studies in the Zohar, trans. Schwartz, Arnold, Nackache, Stephanie, and Peli, Penina (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1993), 139–161, 228–244Google Scholar.

41. Benarroch, “Saba ve-Yanuka,” 8–13, 363 n. 39; Liebes, “Myth vs. Symbol.”

42. Not enough attention has been paid in the research of Zoharic literature to the editorial considerations of the late editors, who chose to add chunks from various Zoharic units (e.g. Midrash ha-Ne‘elam, Pikudin, Matnitin, Sitrei Torah, Ra‘aya mehemna and Tikkunei Zohar, etc.) into the Zoharic pericopes which are the main stratum of the Zoharic literature (usually identified as “Guf ha-Zohar”), as they appear in the printed editions. As is evident from most Zoharic manuscripts, these different Zoharic units do not appear within the original Zoharic pericopes, but rather as separate units.

43. The name “Yeisa” also appears in Zoharic literature mainly as “Yeisa Saba.” See Benarroch, “Saba ve-Yanuka,” 8–13.

44. Zohar III 263a.

45. In midrashic literature the title “Israel the Elder” refers to Israel the Patriarch (Jacob), as opposed to the people Israel. See Bereshit Rabbah 68:11; Zohar 1:233a; 2:4a, 43a (Pikudin), 160b; 3:262b–263a; de León, Shekel ha-kodesh, 42–43 (51). See below n.105. On a similar idea in the writings of de León, see below.

46. The main Zoharic sources that deal with these descriptions of the Godhead are the ’Idra Rabbah (Zohar III, 127b–145a) and the ’Idra Zutta (Zohar III, 287b–296b).

47. Benarroch, “Saba ve-Yanuka,” 305–29; Liebes, “Myth vs. Symbol.”

48. Zohar III (Pikudin) 263a.

49. On the influence of the human limbs on the divine limbs, see ZḤ Ruth, 78c: “anyone who harms one of his limbs below, it is as if he harms the limbs above.” Cf. Wolfson, Elliot R., “Iconic Visualization and the Imaginal Body of God: The Role of Intention in the Rabbinic Conception of Prayer,” Modern Theology 12 (1996): 137–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50. See also de León, Sefer maskiyyot kesef, 28–29.

51. Zohar (Pikudin) III 263a.

52. This work is called Shoshan sodot (Lily of Mysteries), because the number of mysteries discussed in it equals 656, which is the numerical value of the word lily (shoshan) in gematria.

53. The divine anthropos.

54. Moses ben Jacob (of Kiev), Sefer shoshan sodot (Koretz, 1779), 8b–9a: 61. On the role of the body during prayer in the Ashkenazi pietistic traditions, see Marcus, Ivan G., “Prayer Gestures in German Hasidism,” in Mysticism, Magic, and Kabbalah in Ashkenazi Judaism: international symposium held in Frankfurt a.m. 1991, eds. Grözinger, Karl Erich and Dan, Joseph (Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1995), 44–59Google Scholar.

55. Sefer ha-navon, published by Joseph Dan, Kobeẓ ‘al yad, 6:16 (1966): 201–223. Dan argues that this book belongs to the kherub ha-meyuḥad from the Ashkenazi pietist circles. See Dan, Joseph, “Ḥug ha-kherub ha-meyuḥad me-ḥasidut ’Ashkenaz,” Tarbiẓ 35, no. 4 (1965): 349–372Google Scholar; Dan, Iyyunim be-sifrut ḥasidut ’Ashkenaz (Ramat Gan: Masada, 1975), 114–133Google Scholar.

56. Wolfson, “Dimmui ’antropomorfi,” 162 n. 67; Dan, ‘Iyyunim be-sifrut ḥasidut ’Ashkenaz, 118, 127–8, 132–3. On the connection between the 248 limbs and the “image” (ẓelem) of God in the writings of Rabbi Eleazar of Worms, see Wolfson, Elliot, Venturing Beyond: Morality and Law in Kabbalistic Mysticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 46–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the connection between the Torah and the “body” of the divine anthropos, see Wolfson, “Dimmui ’antropomorfi,” 177 n. 129.

57. On “the formation of Adam” (תיקונא דאדם, tikkuna de-Adam) in Zoharic literature, see Liebes, Yehuda, Perakim be-millon sefer ha-Zohar (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1977), 77–8, 288Google Scholar.

58. Wolfson, “Dimmui ’antropomorfi,” 162–3; Ta-Shma, “Tikkunim ve-hosafot le-ma'amar‘ ’El melekh ne'eman,’” 105.

59. See below.

60. On the possible connection between the angel named Heleniu and the figure of Helen of Troy, see Liebes, “Porfuritah shel Helenah,” 118.

61. Cf. ZḤ Lekh Lekha 26a; ZḤ Yitro (Sitrei Torah), 36b–c.

62. On the idea of picking the lilies and transforming them into the divine anthropos, see Liebes, “Porfuritah shel Helenah,” 118–119.

63. Wolfson, Elliot, “Rose of Eros and the Duplicity of the Feminine in Zoharic Kabbalah,” in Botanical Progress, Horticultural Innovation and Cultural Changes, eds. Conan, Michel and Kress, W. J. John (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2007), 51–59Google Scholar; Meroz, “Zoharic Narratives,” (The Rose and its Scent), 38–47; Fishbane, “The Scent of the Rose.”

64. The rose was considered a symbol of mystery from antiquity onwards. For early Christians the rose served as a visual expression of paradise, but also of martyrdom (Cyprian, Ep. 10). However, the most central symbolism of the rose is its identification with the Virgin Mary, which dates back to the fifth century theologian Sedulius Caelius. See Seward, Barbara, The Symbolic Rose (New York: Columbia University Press, 1960), 1–52Google Scholar. Like many Christian symbols found in Zoharic literature, the symbol of the rose presents an example of the complex shared discourse of the two cultures (probably resulting from the shared cultural environment). This discourse is characterized by an ambivalent attitude towards Christianity, combining both a deep revulsion of it and a strong attraction to some Christian ideas and symbols. For a complete list of publications on the Christian influences on Zoharic literature see Abrams, Daniel, “The Virgin Mary as the Moon that Lacks the Sun—a Zoharic Polemic against the Veneration of Mary,” Kabbalah 21 (2010): 9–13, nn. 7–17Google Scholar; 18 n. 26; Abrams, Daniel, “Perakim be-biyografiya ha-ragashit ve-hamenit shel ha-KB’’H: hirhurim ‘al midotav she ha-’el be-mikr'a, be-midrash, u-be-kabbalah,” Kabbalah 6 (2001): 263–286Google Scholar; Baer, Yiẓḥak, “The Historical Context of Ra'aya Meheimna,” Zion 5 (1940): 1–44Google Scholar; Liebes, Yehuda, “Christian Influences on the Zohar,” in Studies in the Zohar, trans. Schwartz, Arnold, Nackache, Stephanie and Peli, Penina (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1993), 139–161, 228–244Google Scholar; Wolfson, Elliot, “Re/membering the Covenant: Memory, Forgetfulness, and the Construction of History in the Zohar,” in Jewish History and Jewish Memory: Essays in Honor of Yosef Ḥayim Yerushalmi, eds. Carlebach, Elisheva, Efron, John M. and Myers, David N. (Hanover and London: University Press of New England, 1998), 214–46Google Scholar; Wolfson, Elliot, Venturing Beyond: Law and Morality in Kabbalistic Mysticism (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 93CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wolfson, Elliot, Along the Path: Studies in Kabbalistic Myth, Symbolism, and Hermeneutics (Albany: SUNY Press, 1995), 63–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65. The word “one” (אחד ’eḥad) has the numerical value of thirteen in gematria. See TZ 71a: 25–26.

66. Zohar III (Pikudin), 233a–b.

67. Zohar I, 1a.

68. TZ 71a: 25–26.

69. Zohar (Pikudin) III 263a.

70. B. Berakhot, 13b; Y. Berakhot 12b.

71. Austin, John L., How To Do Things with Words, eds. Urmson, James O. and Sbisà, Marina (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

72. B. Berakhot 61b.

73. A similar Zoharic example of the lily symbolizing martyrdom can be found in the description of the “ten martyrs” (‘aseret harugei malkhut) as lilies embroidered on the parokhet. See Liebes, “Porfuritah shel Helenah,” 86–88, 101–119.

74. According to the Lurianic mystical tradition, during the recitation of Shema one has to contemplate one's willingness to give his own soul to God through martyrdom, in order to unite the “Mother” and “Father” (the Shekhinah and God). See Meroz, Ronit, “Ḥibburim Lurianiyim kedumim,” in Massu'ot: meḥkarim be-sifrut ha-kabbalah u-ve-maḥshevet Yisra'el mukdashim le-zikhro shel Professor Efrayim Gotlib, eds. ’Oron, Mikhal and Goldraikh, Amos (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1994), 320, 334Google Scholar.

75. See ZḤ (Munkacz), 1:22a; 1:34a; 1:60b; Zohar II, Tosafot, 274a. See also Tishby, Isaiah and Lachower, Yeruḥam Fishel, Mishnat ha-Zohar: gufei ma'amreiha-Zohar mesuddarim le-fi ha-‘inyanim u-meturgamim ‘ivrit (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1971), 170–171Google Scholar; ’Oron, Mikhal, “Kol ha-neshamah tehallel Yah: bituy ’alegori le-tefisat ha-mavet be-sefer ha-Zohar,” Dappim le-meḥkar be-sifrut 4 (1988): 35–38Google Scholar; Benarroch, “‘Oro shel Yanuka ve-sodo shel Saba,” 102–103 n. 810.

76. Cf. Shir Ha-Shirim Rabbah (Vilna, 1875), 6:8–10; Liebes, “Porfuritah shel Helenah,” 118.

77. Metatron is the patron of children who died young and teaches them Torah. See Liebes, Yehuda, “Ha-Zohar ke-sefer halakhah,” Tarbiẓ 64 (1995): 589–590Google Scholar; Benarroch, “Saba ve-yanuka,” 72–73, 341; Bennaroch, “‘Oro shel Yanuka ve-sodo shel Saba,” 39–40.

78. ZḤ ’Aḥarei Mot, 47c–48a. It should be mentioned that in the printed editions of the Zohar this source appears before the ZḤ ’Aḥarei Mot 48a part of the Shema Yanuka story discussed above.

79. ZḤ Bereshit (Midrash ha-ne‘elam) 20a–b.

80. From additional parallels in Zoharic literature it is clear that the angel in charge of “picking the lilies” is Metatron. Zohar I 56b; ZḤ Lekh Lekha (Midrash ha-ne‘elam) 25d–26a; Wolski, Nathan, “Metatron and the Mysteries of the Night in Midrash ha-Ne‘elam—Jacob ha-Kohen's Sefer ha-Orah and the Transformation of a Motif in Early Writings of Moses de León,” Kabbalah 23 (2010): 69–94Google Scholar; Benarroch, “Saba ve-Yanuka,” 263.

81. Benarroch, “‘Oro shel Yanuka ve-sodo shel Saba,” 101–103.

82. Zohar II (Saba de-mishpatim) 96a.

83. Benarroch, “Saba ve-Yanuka,” 33–40, 358.

84. Zohar III (Yanuka de-Balak), 191b–192a.

85. ’Oron, “Motiv ha-Yanuka” 150.

86. Zohar III (Pikudin) 263a–b.

87. Benarroch, “Saba ve-Yanuka,” 357–358. On the connection between the Yanuka and the figure of Christ as Agnus Dei, the sacrificed holy lamb, see Bennaroch, “Saba ve-Yanuka,” 229–230.

88. Zohar III (Pikudin) 263a.

89. Benarroch, “Saba ve-Yanuka,” 297.

90. The Aramaic word that is used here is: קרב (karev), which is similar to the word used for the act of sacrifice.

91. Zohar III (Rav metivta), 164a.

92. Cf. Benarroch, “Saba ve-Yanuka,” 13–14.

93. On the Kabbalistic meanings of circumcision, see Wolfson, Elliot, “Circumcision, Secrecy, and the Veiling of the Veil: Phallomorphic Exposure and Kabbalistic Esotericism,” in The Covenant of Circumcision: New Perspectives on an Ancient Jewish Rite, ed. Mark, Elizabeth Wyner (Hanover and London: Brandeis University Press, 2003), 58–70Google Scholar; Wolfson, Elliot, “Circumcision and the Divine Name: A Study in the Transmission of Esoteric Doctrine,” Jewish Quarterly Review 78 (1987): 77–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

94. Zohar III (Ra‘aya mehemna), 44a. cf. idem, 109a–b.

95. Cf. Va-yikra Rabbah 27:10; Devarim Rabbah 6:1; Mishneh Torah, Yad ha-ḥazakah, 3:8.

96. Zohar I 39a.

97. Zohar III (Pikudin) 263a–b.

98. It should be mentioned that many of these motifs are influenced by the early Shi‘ur komah literature, which portrays God's limbs through references both to the mythic figure of Adam. See Wolfson, “Dimmui ’antropomorfi,” 161–163.

99. Cf. ZḤ Ruth, 83b.

100. Zohar II (Va-yakhel) 216a–b. I have relied in part on the translation of Daniel Matt (as part of the Zohar: Pritzker edition), and I thank him for sharing his translation with me; see Tishby, Isaiah, The Wisdom of the Zohar: An Anthology of Texts, trans. Goldstein, David, vol.1 (London: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1989), 1006 n. 260Google Scholar.

101. See Huss, Boaz, Ke-zohar ha-raki‘a: perakim be-hitkabbelut ha-Zohar u-ve-havnayat ‘erko ha-simli (Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 2007), 78–79 n. 132Google Scholar.

102. Zohar II 133b–134b. Acording to Niẓoẓei Zohar the reference is to the homily of Rashbi in TZ 71a: 25–26. See Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, 1023–1028.

103. Gottlieb, Ephraim, Ha-ketavim ha-‘ivriyyim shel Ba‘al Tikkunei Zohar be-Ra‘aya mehemna, ed. Idel, Moshe (Jerusalem: Ha-’Akademyah ha-le’umit ha-Yisre’elit le-mada‘im, 2003), 137–138Google Scholar.

104. Gottleib, Ha-ketavim ha-‘ivriyyim, 146.

105. De León, Shekel ha-kodesh, 84–85; cf. de León, Sefer maskiyyot kesef, 26.

106. See Wolfson, “Dimmui ’antropomorfi,” 163 n. 70; de León, Moses, The Book of the Pomegranate: Moses de León's Sefer ha-Rimmon, ed. Wolfson, Elliot R. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 18 n. 6, 49 n. 199Google Scholar.

107. Another important source in the writings of de León that focuses on this unique Shema mystery appears in a fragment of his Shoshan ‘edut (as found in several manuscripts). See above n. 23. Both Ta-Shma and Wolfson have shown that de León quotes, almost word for word, the Shema mystery that appears in ZḤ Ruth 77d–78a, in the name of the ancient sages [kadmonim], which refers to the Zohar. See Wolfson, “Dimmui ’antropomorfi,” 163 n. 70; Wolfson, The Book of the Pomegranate, 39 n. 137; Ginat, Asi-Farber, “Le-Mekorot torato ha-kabbalit ha-mukdemet shel Rabbi Mosheh de León,” in Meḥkarim ba-kabbalah, be-filosofyah Yehudit u-ve-sifrut ha-musar ve-he-hagut: mugashim li-Yesha‘ayah Tishbi be-malot lo shivi‘im ve-ḥamesh shanim, eds. Dan, Joseph and Hacker, Joseph (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1986), 77 n. 22Google Scholar.

108. De León, Shekel ha-kodesh, 105–106.

109. See above n. 103. See also de León, Shekel ha-kodesh, 105 n. 765. The correct reference is to Zohar II 216b (and not Zohar III as mistakenly mentioned by Mopsik). Cf. Liebes, Yehuda, “Bikkoret ‘al: Charles Mopsik (mahadir), sefer Shekel ha-kodesh le-Ramdal (bikkoret ‘al mahadurat Mopsik),” Kabbalah 2 (1996): nn. 22–24Google Scholar, Liebes mentions Zohar III 307a as another Zoharic source that hints to the mystery of unity of Rav Hamnuna Saba.

110. De León, Shekel ha-kodesh, 106 n. 766.

111. I thank the anonymous reviewer of this article for pointing out this necessary clarification.

112. Hellner-Eshed, A River Flows from Eden, 166–173.

113. Nelson, Lowry Jr., “The Fictive Reader and Literary Self-Reflexiveness,” in The Disciplines of Criticism: Essays in Literary Theory, Interpretation, and History, eds. Demetz, Peter, Greene, Thomas, and Nelson, Lowry Jr. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), 173–91Google Scholar.

114. For more on the philosophical implications of sacrifice, see Halbertal, Moshe, On Sacrifice (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2012), 7–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

115. Referring to Malkhut/Shekhinah.

116. Referring to Tiferet or Ze‘ir ’Anpin as being illuminated by‘Atika Kadisha.

117. Cf. Rekanati on Va-yikra 10:1.

118. De León, Sefer maskiyyot kesef, 26–27.

119. Cf. Liebes, “Christian Influences on the Zohar,” nn. 24–28.

120. Cf. de León, Shekel ha-kodesh, 42–43.

121. Benarroch, “Saba ve-Yanuka,” 331–335.

122. See Benarroch, “Saba ve-Yanuka,” 41–131; Bennaroch, “‘Oro shel Yanuka ve-sodo shel Saba,” 76–106; Liebes, “Myth vs. Symbol.”