The Kabbalistic Library of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola

Giulio Busi, General Editor

-2-
The Kabbalistic Library of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola
Giulio Busi, General Editor
-2-

T HE B OOK OF B AHIR
F LAVIUS M ITHRIDATES ’ L ATIN T RANSLATION ,
THE H EBREW T EXT , AND AN E NGLISH V ERSION

Edited by Saverio Campanini

with a Foreword by Giulio Busi

Institut für Judaistik Istituto Nazionale

Freie Universität di Studi sul Rinascimento
Berlin Firenze

2005
The Kabbalistic Library of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola
Giulio Busi, General Editor
-2-

T HE B OOK OF B AHIR
F LAVIUS M ITHRIDATES ’ L ATIN T RANSLATION ,
THE H EBREW T EXT , AND AN E NGLISH V ERSION

Edited by Saverio Campanini

with a Foreword by Giulio Busi

Nino Aragno Editore

Torino

2005
Copyright © 2005 by Saverio Campanini
and Giulio Busi
All rights reserved

Published by Nino Aragno Editore

Corso Vittorio Emanuele II, 68
10121 Torino – Italy
info@ninoaragnoeditore.it
www.mithridates.org
 T ABLE OF C ONTENTS

G. B USI , Foreword 7
From Languedoc to Florence.
The Itinerary of an Enigmatic Booklet
1. A Medieval Laboratory
on the Infinity of Thought 9
2. “To Read the Bahir in Order to
Understand Zoroaster.” Pico’s
Hermeneutical Short Cuts 43

S. C A M P A N I N I , Introduction 53
Acknowledgments 55
Fragmenta Libri Bahir
1. Pico’s Forerunners. Early Knowledge
of the Book of Bahir among Christians 57
2. Spring – Early Autumn, 1486.
Mithridates at Work 60
3. Ms. Munich, hebr. 209.
Mithridates’ Antigraphus 63
4. Characteristics of Mithridates’
Translation of the Book of Bahir 77
5. Christianizing Interpolations? 80
6. The Influence of the Book of Bahir
on Pico’s Works 86
7. Scholarly Approaches to Mithridates’
Book of Bahir 99
 6

The Book of Bahir after Pico and Mithridates

th
1. The First Half of the 16 Century 112
2. Later Studies. From Postel’s Translation
to Morin’s Critique 118

Flavius Mithridates’ Latin Translation of the

Book of Bahir, Edited by S. C AMPANINI 123
Textual Conventions in this Edition 125
Incipiunt fragmenta libri Bahir 127

The Book of Bahir as interpreted by Flavius

Mithridates, English Translation from the Latin
by S. C AMPANINI 241
Here begin the Fragments of the Book Bahir 243

Indexes 379

H EBREW S ECTION
‫ מהדור ה מדע ית‬, ‫ספר הב היר‬
‫מאת ס אוור יו קמפנ ינ י‬ 1*
A Troubled Editorial Fate
1. The Book of Bahir in Typography 3*
2. Editing the Hebrew Text used
by Mithridates 6*
3. List of the Differences between the
Present Edition and the Edition
by Daniel Abrams 10*
‫ספר הב היר‬ 15*
F OREWORD

by Giulio Busi
 F ROM L ANGUEDOC TO F LORENCE .
T HE I TINERARY OF AN E NIGMATIC B OOKLET

1. A M EDIEVAL L ABORATORY ON THE I NFINITY OF

T HOUGHT .

Poorly written and full of heretical ideas, the

earliest critical statement about the Bahir is by
no means a flattering one. According to Rabbi
Me’ir ben Wim‘on of Narbonne, the book posed a
real danger to the Jewish faith and had to be ef-
faced among the pious believers at any cost:

This work has now reached us – wrote Me’ir about

1245 – and we find that they attributed it to Rabbi Ne-
hunya ben ha-Qanah. 1 God forbid! Such a work of his
has never existed. This pious man has never stumbled
upon it, and he was not numbered with the transgres-
sors. The style and all the subjects of this book show
that it comes from somebody who did not know the pure

1
The historical Nehunya ben ha-Qanah lived in the second half of first cen-
tury and was apparently a pupil of Yohanan ben Zakkay. According to kab-
balistic traditions, the s a m e v en er ab le r a b bi w as c ons id e re d t o be t he au -
th o r of tw o o t h e r m y s t i c a l w o r k s , th e S ef er h a -Pe li ’a h an d th e S ef er ha -
Qa na h.
 10

language, not to say that in many points it contains

words of heresy and unorthodoxy. 2

Such an acid comment is probably the first

piece of literary criticism applied to a kabbalis-
tic work and reveals to us the bitter resentment
of a traditionalist towards what seems to him to
be a new and shocking doctrine. Rabbi Me’ir has
no doubt: the Bahir is not a testimony of old and

2
This text about the Bahir is included in Milhemet mixwah by Me’ir of Nar-
bonne, preserved in the unique Ms. Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, parmense
2749 (De Rossi 155), fols. 231v-232v (see Hebrew Manuscripts in the Biblio-
teca Palatina in Parma. Catalogue, Edited by B. R I C H L E R , Palaeographical
and codicological descriptions by M. B E I T -A R I É , Jerusalem 2001, p. 401 no.
1393). The manuscript is incomplete: about the identification of its author
see E. R E N A N – [A. N E U B A U E R ], Les rabbins français du commencement du
quatorzième siècle, Paris 1877, pp. 558-562. H. M E R H A V I A , “Concerning the
Date of R. Meir ben R. Simeon’s Milhemet Mizva” [Heb.], Tarbiz 45 (1976),
pp. 296-302, has shown that the work of Me’ir ben Wim‘on is a collection of
materials written over a number of decades: “The first draft of this treatise
th
was commenced during the fourth decade of the 13 century, and perhaps
even earlier, and the final draft was completed in 1270 (or 1271?). The year
1270 is specifically mentioned in Part II of the manuscript.” (Ibidem, Eng-
lish summary on p. V). It is therefore difficult to date the statement about
the Bahir, even if it stands to reason that it belongs to the earlier elements
of Rabbi Me’ir’s work. The passage of Milhemet mixwah quoted here was
published by A. N E U B A U E R , in Israelietische Letterbode 3 (1877), pp. 20-
21; See also I D E M , “The Bahir and the Zohar,” Jewish Quarterly Rewiew 4
(1892), pp. 357-368, especially p. 358; G. S C H O L E M , “Te‘udah hadawah le-
toldot re’wit ha-qabbalah,” Sefer Bialik, Tel Aviv 1934, especially pp. 148-
150, with a further extract of the same work dealing with the kabbalah;
I D E M , Origins of the Kabbalah, New York 1987, pp. 42-43 (where the pas-
sage mentioned here is dated “around 1230-35”); D. A B R A M S , The Book Ba-
hir. An Edition based on the Earliest Manuscripts [Heb. and Eng.], Los An-
geles 1994, pp. 48 and 65.
 11

sacred mysticism but just a fake that tries to dis-

seminate perverted opinions. It belongs to an ar-
ray of similar works, tainted by a doubtful the-
ology:

Furthermore we have heard – continues the upset

rabbi – that also a commentary on Canticles has been
written for them, 3 as well as annotations on the Books of
the Creation and on that of the Hekalot, where heretical
ideas are to be found, together with a commentary on
Ecclesiastes and other books. 4

When this text of Me’ir was published, in the

second half of the 19 t h century, the attitude of
Jewish scholars towards kabbalah was generally
negative. It is therefore not surprising that the
bitter remarks by the traditionalist of Narbonne
were seen as a definitive proof both of the late
origin of the Bahir and of its misleading con-
tents. 5

In fact, matters are more complicated than

this. While it is true that Rabbi Me’ir’s testi-

3
“We have heard that also a commentary on Canticles has been written for
them,” Heb. ‫ וגם שמענו כי כבר חבר אליהם פירוש שיר השירים‬. The
vocalization of ‫ חבר‬is dubious. It could also be read as: “he has also written
(hibber) for them.” See S C H O L E M , Origins, p. 43 note 74; M. V E R M A N , The
Books of Contemplation. Medieval Jewish Mystical Sources, Albany 1992,
pp. 168-169; A B R A M S , The Book Bahir, p. 65.
4
N E U B A U E R , The Bahir, p. 358.
5
Ibidem, p. 357.
 12

mony represents a starting point for every seri-

ous research on the fortune of the Bahir, it does
not solve the problem of its origins and it even
less explains the mystical aims of this master-
piece of the early kabbalah. As to the authorship
of the book, the polemic rabbi could be right in
considering the Bahir as a work of his own age.
In fact, it stands to reason that one or more kab-
balists edited the Bahir between the end of the
12 t h and the beginning of the 13 t h century. The
clear influence of medieval thought that can be
detected behind some concepts present in the
book fits the cultural milieu of southern Europe.
At the same time, though, the work probably in-
cludes a number of pre-kabbalistic elements,
whose origin remain in part obscure to us.
Modern philology has not yet managed to as-
certain a definitive chronological setting for the
Bahir. The most accepted theory is the one pro-
posed by Gershom Scholem, who maintains that
the work contains different strata which go back
to successive phases of Jewish mystical lore. Fol-
lowing his strata hypothesis, Scholem interpreted
and even translated in different ways parts of the
Bahir where the same ideas or words recur, since
he was convinced that they originated in differ-
 13

ent milieus. Although it is evident that the Bahir

6

preserves literary materials from heterogeneous

sources, it seems that the “strata theory” under-
estimates the strong redactional work that gave
to the Bahir an overall kabbalistic structure. In
fact, the different narrative units are often
linked by the use of distinctive words, in such a
way that the reader perceives recurring ideas,
each time with slightly varying details.
What I suppose, and will try here to demon-
strate, is that the redactor purposely used a lim-
7

ited symbolic vocabulary and in some way spread

metaphorical hints through the text, in order to
convey kabbalistic theories in an allusive form.
To my mind, a more precise analysis of the Bahir

6
Scholem worked on the Bahir all his life, starting with his PhD Thesis at
the University of Munich: G. S C H O L E M , Das Buch Bahir. Ein Schriftdenk-
mal aus der Frühzeit der Kabbala, Leipzig 1923; I D E M , Re’wit ha-Qabbalah
(1150-1250), Tel Aviv 1948; I D E M , Re’wit ha-Qabbalah we-Sefer ha-Bahir,
Edited by R. S C H A T Z , Jerusalem 1962; G. S C H O L E M , Ursprung und Anfänge
der Kabbala, Berlin 1962. Scholem’s last annotations were published
posthumously in the English translation of Ursprung und Anfänge: I D E M ,
Origins of the Kabbalah, New York 1987. For a more recent analysis of the
“strata theory” see H. P E D A Y A , “The Provençal Layer of Editorship of the
Book Bahir” [Heb.], Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 9 (1990), pp.
139-164; J. D A N , “Midrash and the Dawn of Kabbalah,” Midrash and Lit-
erature, Edited by G.H. H A R T M A N – S. B U D I C K , New Haven – London 1986,
pp. 67-73 and 474-479; I D E M , “Nachwort” in S C H O L E M , Ursprung und An-
2
fänge der Kabbala, Berlin 2001 , pp. 435-452.
7
With the word “redactor” I refer to the mystic who gave to the Bahir its
final literary shape. Nevertheless it is fairly possible that the redactional
work was undertaken by more than one kabbalist.
 14

can be reached by combining two methodical ap-

proaches. On the one hand, there are some lin-
guistic and rhetorical features that might be
connected to specific historical milieus, on the
other hand the text can be ordered according to
a few broad thematic areas, which reflect the in-
terests and mystical perspectives of the redactor.
From a linguistic point of view, the Bahir is a
blend of Hebrew and Aramaic, even if it is not
clear whether these languages also reflect a real
difference in the provenance of the various parts
of the text. No deep analysis of the linguistic tex-
ture has been made so far. A few scattered re-
marks by Scholem and, more recently, by Meroz
show that the Hebrew parts of the work contain
occasional Arabisms. 8 On the other hand, at the
present stage of the research it seems probable
that the use of the Aramaic derives from a
pseudo-epigraphical strategy of the redactor. 9

8
Cf. S C H O L E M , Origins, p. 56 note 12; R. M E R O Z , “Or bahir hu be-mizrah.
‘Al zemano u-meqomo wel miqxato wel Sefer ha-bahir,” Daat 49 (2002), pp.
137-180, especially p. 176.
9
M E R O Z , “Or Bahir,” passim, h as t ri ed t o c o n n ec t t h e n a m es o f t h e v ow els
use d in th e Bahi r wi th th e Ba b yl o ni an tr ad i ti on , b u t h er ar gu m en ts re -
m ai n hi ghl y s pe cul a ti v e a n d l a ck a c le a r ph il ol o gi c al ba sis . In a n y c ase ,
e ve n if s o m e p a rt o f t he B ah ir we re o f B ab yl o ni a n o ri gi n , i t c an n ot be de -
th th
duc ed fr om t h is, as Me r oz d o es, th at th e kabb al ah or igi nat ed in 9 – 10
ce ntur y M es o potami a. In ord er to d o s o , one sh ould be abl e to de mon-
str a t e t h a t t he m a te ri a l of O rie n t al o rig in ha s c le a r k a b ba lis t ic a cc en t s, a
f ac t t h a t I s er i ou s l y d o u b t .
 15

But even if the scrutiny of the linguistic char-

acteristics of the Bahir is still at its very begin-
ning, some interesting traits can already be
pointed out. In a few passages it is possible to de-
tect a precise link with medieval sources. This is,
for instance, the case of the exegesis of the bibli-
cal expression bohu, which the Bahir interprets
as bo hu, literally “there is [substance] in it.”
We know that this play on words was first men-
tioned by the sephardic philosopher Avraham
bar Hiyya (d. c. 1136), who in his Sefer Hegyon
ha-nefew ha-‘axuvah (The Meditation of the Sad
Soul) proudly affirms that his “explanation of
tohu and bohu is superior to any other explana-
tion by the philosophers.” 10 This link of the Ba-
hir with Avraham bar Hiyya clearly represents a
terminus post quem and shows that at least the
final redaction of the book cannot be older than
mid-12 t h century.
Another hidden quotation enables us to “gain”
some more decades and to come even closer to
the spiritual milieu of southern France. In a very

10
A V R A H A M B A R H I Y Y A , Sefer hegyon ha-nefew, Edited by E. F R E I M A N N ,
Leipzig 1860, fol. 3r; English translation in I D E M , The Meditation of the
Sad Soul, Edited by G. W I G O D E R , London 1969, p. 41. See S C H O L E M , Ori-
gins, pp. 62-63; G. B U S I , Simboli del pensiero ebraico, Torino 1999, p. 457.
On the similarity of Avraham bar Hiyya’s concept of mahawavah and the use
of the word in the Bahir see Scholem, Origins, pp. 126-127.
 16

important passage dealing with the mysticism of

the Merkavah, the redactor of the Bahir states:

Whoever frees his heart from worldly occupations

and contemplates the Ma‘aseh merkavah is received in
front of the Holy one, blessed be He, as if he had
prayed the all day long . 11

This very surprising description of a Mer-

kavah adept, who clears his heart from mundane
affairs, is taken without doubt from the charac-
terization of the Jewish sage given with almost
the same wording by Bahya ibn Paquda (second
half of 11th century) and by Yehudah ha-Lewi (be-
fore 1075–1141). As is well known, these authors
share some common linguistic and thematic fea-
tures, even if the relationship between their
works is not clear yet. While Bahya accepts Sufi
12

terminology with no reserve and uses it to define

11
Bahir 68/46* (throughout this book, the Bahir paragraphs are indicated
with two numbers. The first refers to R. M A R G A L I O T , Sefer ha-bahir ha-
niqra midrawo wel rabbi Nehunya ben ha-Qanah, Jerusalem 1951, while the
second number, marked by an asterisk, follows the division of the text pro-
posed by S C H O L E M , Das Buch Bahir):‫כל המפ נה לבו מעסקי העולם‬
‫ ומסתכל במעשה מרכבה מקובל לפני הקב " ה כאלו התפלל כל היום‬. Mithridates
translates quite freely: “whoever purifies his soul, relinquishes worldly af-
fairs, and loves the works of the theology of the divine chariot, ranks be-
fore God, blessed be He, as if he would pray all day.”
12
See D. L O B E L , Between Mysticism and Philosophy. Sufi language of Reli-
gious Experience in Judah Ha-Levi’s Kuzari, Albany 1992, pp. 168-169.
 17

his way to pietism, ha-Lewi’s attitude is ambiva-

lent as he adapts Sufi expressions to his creative
idea of Judaism and, at the same time, criticizes
asceticism. Ibn Paquda’s Kitâb al-Hidâja ’ilâ fa-
râ’id al-qulûb (Book of Directions to the Duties of
the Heart) and ha-Lewi’s Kitâb al-radd wa-al-dalîl
fî al-dîn al-dhalîl (Book of Refutation and Proof
on the Despised Faith), written originally in Ara-
bic, were translated between 1161 and 1175 by
Yehudah ibn Tibbon in southern France. The 13

translations were later known as Sefer ha-Kuzari

and Sefer hovot ha-levavot. In both works the idea
recurs that the truly pious man should “free him-
self (from worldly occupations),” which corre-
sponds to the definition of the Merkavah mystic ac-
cording to the Bahir. Bahya writes that the pious
Jew should “free his heart from worldly occupa-
tions when he is working for the other world.” 14

13
The translation of Ibn Paquda’s book could have begun as early as in
1161, even if there no certain evidence for this (see M. S T E I N S C H N E I D E R ,
Die hebräischen Übersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmet-
scher, Berlin 1893, pp. 373-375; I D E M , Die arabische Literatur der Juden,
Frankfurt a.M. 1902, p. 133). According to most manuscripts, ha-Lewi’s
book was translated in Lunel in 1165. However some manuscripts date the
translation to 1171 and Natan’el Kaspi says, in his commentary, that it was
completed in 1175 (see S T E I N S C H N E I D E R , Die hebräischen Übersetzungen, p.
403 note 238; S C H O L E M , Origins, p. 221 note 38).
14
Hovot ha-levavot V.2 (Yihud ha-ma‘aseh): ‫לפנות לבו מעסקי העולם‬
‫בעת שהוא עושה לעולם הבא‬ (I quote the Hebrew text according to the edi-
3
tion of A. Z I F R O N I , Tel Aviv 1964 ). Cf. the Arabic original in B A C H J A I B N
J O S E F I B N P A Q U D A , al-Hidâja ’ilâ farâ’id al-qulûb, Herausgegeben von A.S.
 18

Similarly ha-Lewi defines the biblical Elijah as

the model of the holy man of ancient times, able
to “free himself [from worldly occupations] and
to join the company of angels.” It is difficult to 15

ascertain if the redactor of the Bahir had in

mind the passage by Ibn Paquda or the one by 16

ha-Lewi while writing the statement about the

17

Y A H U D A , Leiden 1912, p. 229: ‫اﺧﻠﻼء ﺑﺎﻟﻪ وﻗﻠﺒﻪ ﻣﻦ اﺷﻐﺎل اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ‬
‫; ﻟﻶﺧﺮة‬ English translation in B A H Y A B E N J O S E P H I B N P A K U D A , The Book of
Direction to the Duties of the Heart, Introduction, translation and notes by
M. M A N S O O R , London 1973.
15
Sefer ha-Kuzari III.1: ‫ולהפנות עד שיתיחד לחברת המלאכים‬ (I quote the
3
Hebrew text according to the edition of A. Z I F R O N I , Tel Aviv 1964 ). Cf. the
Arabic original in Y E H U D A H H A -L E W I , Kitâb al-radd wa-al-dalîl fî al-dîn
al-dhalîl (al-Kitâb al-Khazarî), Edited by D.H. B A N E T H , prepared for
publication by H. B E N -S H A M M A I , Jerusalem 1977, p. 90: ‫ליתפרג חתי יתפרד‬
‫; לצחבה אלמלאיכה‬ English translation in Book of Kuzari by Judah Hallevi,
Translated from the Original Arabic Text by H. H I R S C H F E L D , New York
1
1946 (London 1906 ).
16
Other relevant passages in the Sefer hovot ha-levavot are: IV.Haqdamah
(ha-Bittahon):‫שהבוטח באלהים יביאהו בטחונו לפנות את לבו מעניני‬
‫( ; העולם ולייחד לבבו לעניני העבודה‬S C H O L E M , Origins, p. 61 note 21,
already pointed out this passage as quite similar to the definition of the
Merkavah sage in the Bahir, but did not notice the more pertinent text in
Hovot ha-levavot V.2 discussed above); V.5 (Yihud ha-ma‘aseh):‫אתה רוצה‬
‫ ; לפנות את לבך לעולמך הבא‬VIII.3 (Hewbon ha-nefew): ‫לפנות לבו ממחשבות‬
‫ ; העולם‬IX.1 (ha-Periwut): ‫ ; ונגזרים מעסקי העולם‬X.VII (Ahavat ha-Wem):
‫ לפנות לבך ממנו‬.
17
It is worth mentioning that, in the passage from the Sefer ha-Kuzari the
words ‫לבו מעסקי עולם‬ (“his heart from the worldly occupations”) are
missing, while they are attested both in the Sefer hovot ha-levavot and in
the Bahir. On the other hand, the fact that the Sefer ha-Kuzari refers the
detachment from mundane matters to Elijah represents a close thematic
parallel to the Bahir. Elijah, who went up by a whirlwind into heaven (2
Kings 2.11), can be considered a kind of biblical model of the Merkavah
mystics.
 19

Merkavah. Most likely, both texts influenced

18

him and determined his peculiar combination of

medieval thought and more ancient Jewish vi-
sionary mysticism.
If such elements offer valuable hints in order
to ascertain the date of the redaction of the Ba-
hir, a thematic inquiry about metaphors and
allegories contained in the book seems to be the
best way to determine the theoretical approach
of the redactor and his intellectual world.
Albeit the texture of the Bahir is a variegated
one, four main threads can be detected. First of
all, a widespread symbolism of what we could de-
fine as a “celestial agriculture;” second, an ex-
tensive commentary on the Sefer yexirah, which
expands both its linguistic and sefirotic symbol-
ism; third, some passages referring to the mysti-
cal experience of the Merkavah; and, finally, re-

18
For the sake of completeness, it should be mentioned that, in a somewhat
different context, also Avraham ibn ‘Ezra (commentary to Ps. 16.7) and
Moses Maimonides (Moreh nevukim III.51) use the expression ‫ עסקי העולם‬.
In particular, Maimonides writes that “all practices of the worship, such as
… prayer … have only the end of training you … to turn away from wordly
occupations ( ‫העולם‬ ‫) להפנות מעסקי‬.” The possibility that Maimonides was a
source of ispiration for the Bahir remains open, but no clear evidence has
been gathered so far. As already noted by S C H O L E M , Origins, p. 150, the
etymology of the word Satan, given in Bahir 164/110*, is the same offered in
Maimonides’ Moreh nevukim (III.22); see also V E R M A N , The Books of Con-
templation, p. 167 note 5. Should the Moreh nevukim have influenced the
Bahir, the latter can have been written only after 1204, when Wemu’el ibn
Tibbon’s translation of Maimonides’ work into Hebrew was completed.
 20

current advice on contemplation and its goals.

These threads are interwoven into a large tapes-
try of mystical tales that strongly recalls the
midrawic style.
The most striking array of metaphors that
connotes the Bahir deal with the idea of a divine
plantation set in heaven and influencing the
whole structure of the cosmos as well as human
destiny. The general frame of a celestial agricul-
ture is built by different images, each of them
adding some symbolical nuances to the whole. It
is therefore appropriate to follow these images
through the text.
As a crucial symbol of this heavenly agricul-
ture we find “the tree … that is all,” which shows
a puzzling originality. God himself claims his
role of primordial planter, who first sowed an
immense tree and then stretched everything on
it:

I am the Lord that maketh all; that stretcheth forth

the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by
myself. (Is. 44.24). When I planted this tree, in order to
bring delight to the whole world with it, and I stretched
all on it and I called his name “all,” because all depend
 21

on it, all come from it, all need it, all wait for it and from
thence the souls flourish. 19 I was alone when I made it. 20

Till now, it has not been pointed out that the

idea expressed in this passage of the Bahir can

19
“The souls flourish,” Heb. ‫ פורחים נשמות‬. Mithridates translates “et inde
volantes anime sunt”; S C H O L E M , Das Buch Bahir, p. 17, has “und von dort
gehen die Seelen aus” while in his Origins, p. 71 he writes: “it is from it
that all souls fly forth.” ‫פרח‬ signifies both “fly” and “flourish,” but the
meaning of the verb in the Bahir is clear from 119/85*: ‫נשמות הצדיקים‬
‫ על‬, ‫שפורחים מן המעיין דרך הצנור הגדול וע ולה ודבק באילן ועל ידי מה פורח‬
‫ ידי ישראל‬, “the souls of the just, that flourish from the spring through the
large channel. It goes up and clings to the tree. Through what does it blos-
som? Through Israel.” It is evident that a tree cannot “fly” but only “flour-
ish” (as noted already by Scholem, Das Buch Bahir, p. 92: “mit der Bedeu-
tung fliegen kommt man nicht aus.” Quite inconsequently, Scholem trans-
lates the verb in two different ways in the same passage). Accordingly, the
oldest kabbalistic images of the “Tree of Wisdom,” in Ms. Paris, Biblio-
thèque Nationale, hébr. 763, fol. 34v (dated 1284) and in Ms. Parma, Bib-
lioteca Palatina, parmense 2784, fol. 97r (dated 1286) depict a blossoming
plant (cf. G. B U S I , Qabbalah visiva, Torino 2005, pp. 128-130). See also
M O W E H D E L E Ó N , Ha-nefew ha-hakamah, Edited by J.H.A. W I J N H O V E N , PhD
Thesis, Brandeis University, Boston 1964, p. 51, who explains the flourish-
ing souls with the fact that ‫הנשמות הן פרי מעשיו של‬
‫הב " ה וזהו שנאמר במעשה בראשית עץ פרי עושה פרי למינו ואלו הן נשמות‬
‫ שהן פרי של הקב " ה ועל כל פנים כי משרש זה האילן הנשמות פורחות‬, “the
souls are the fruit of the works of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is writ-
ten in the work of the creation: The fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind
(Gen. 1.11). The souls are indeed the fruit of the Holy one, blessed be He,
since they flourish from the root of this tree.” Another biblical source for
the image of the flourishing tree is probably Ps. 92.13: The righteous shall
flourish ( ‫ ) יפרח‬like the palm tree.
20
Bahir 22/14*. In this first part of my foreword, which deals with the ori-
gins and structure of the Bahir, I adopt my own translation of the Hebrew
text. In the second part, which discusses the use Pico made of the book, I
will quote Mithridates’ translation.
 22

be related to an ancient Jewish speculation on

God as a planter and on the cosmos as a tree or
garden. The first origin of this theme is to be
traced in the Bible, where God himself plants the
garden of Eden. Besides this primeval planta-
tion, the Scripture also attests a more general
link between God and all the plants that grow on
earth, especially the most magnificent ones: The
trees of the Lord are full of sap; the cedars of
Lebanon, which he had planted (Ps. 104.16). At
the same time, His beloved plant is Israel, which,
as the prophet writes, God had planted as a no-
ble vine, wholly a right seed (Jer. 2.21).
Jeremiah made extensive use of the plantation
image, but this is also found in other books, as
for instance Exodus, Numbers and Samuel. God
shows his care for Israel, and tends it as a skill-
ful planter in the rich soil of the Holy Land. 21

In just one instance, in the book of Isaiah, the

verb ‫נטע‬, which means “to plant” but also, more
generally “to establish,” “to fix,” is used in the
broader cosmological meaning: That I may plant
the heavens and lay the foundation of the earth
(Is. 51. 16).
While in the so-called Apocrypha and Pseude-
pigrapha and, later, in the rabbinic aggadah, the

21
See Ex. 15.17, Num. 24.6, 2Sam. 7.10, Is. 5.7, Jer. 2.21, 11.16, 12.2,
24.6, 31.28, 32.41 and 42.10.
 23

image of Israel as the plantation of God is widely

attested, the idea of a cosmological meaning of
22

God as a planter has been developed almost

solely by Philo of Alexandria. Probably under 23

the influence of Platonic and Stoic philosophy, 24

Philo proposes a complex theory of the cosmos as

a plant and of God as its supreme planter. In his
treatise De plantatione Philo defines God with
the Greek word futourgo/ j , “planter” and de-
scribes the creation as a plant, which blossoms
with innumerable sprouts:

It is the Lord of all things that is the greatest of

planters [ tw=n futourgw=n me/g istoj ] and most perfect
master of his art. It is this world that is a plant, con-

22
Cf. S. F U J I T A , “The Metaphor of Plant in Jewish Literature of the Inter-
testamental Period,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 7 (1976), pp. 30-45.
Among the aggadic passages see, for instance, Gen. Rabbah LI.1-3; Lev.
Rabbah XXX.12, Cant. Rabbah VI.26. An interesting development in the
Aggadah is the representation of the Torah as a tree (of life) or as a garden:
e.g. in bBerakot 32b ( ‫תורה‬ ‫;) ואין עץ חיים אלא‬ bTa‘anit 7a; b‘Arakin 15b;
Ex. Rabbah XXX.9, to quote only a few instances.
23
A rare aggadic text where the garden metaphor has a vague cosmological
import is Ex. Rabbah II.2 (cf. Num. Rabbah XI.2; Eccl. Rabbah V.13):
“God was here like a king who had an orchard … This King is the King of
kings, and the orchard is the world in which God has placed Israel to keep
the Torah.”
24
About the philosophical background of Philo’s plantation metaphor see U.
F R Ü C H T E L , Die kosmologischen Vorstellungen bei Philo von Alexandrien,
Leiden 1968, pp. 53-68. Already in Respublica X.597d, Plato refers to God
as a “planter” ( f ut o urg o /j ).
 24

taining in itself the particular plants all at once in their

myriads like shoots springing from a single root . 25

It is evident that the central core of Philo’s

metaphor, based on the cosmic sovereignty of
God and on the all-pervasive tree structure, cor-
responds almost exactly to the Bahir, although
the Bahir has an aggadic flavor and a multiplic-
ity of semantic layers, which are missing in
Philo. This similarity between Philo and the
26

25
P H I L O , De plantatione 2, quoted according to the English translation of
F.H. C O L S O N - G.H. W H I T A K E R (Philo, vol. 3, Cambridge, Mass. – London
1930, p. 213). In a different context, Philo also uses the image of a flourish-
ing wisdom: “the wisdom of God is unbounded and puts forth new shoots
/ ata ) after the old ones, so as never to leave off renewing its youth
( b last h m
and reaching its prime (De posteritate Caini 151; Philo, vol. 2, p. 417;
compare note 19 above).
26
As a c l ose p a r all el f or th e tr ee met a ph or , S C H O L E M , Origins, p. 72 note
38, su gg es te d th e G n os tic Si mon M ag us , b ut th e tre e of souls des cr ib e d b y
Si m on d o es n o t r e al l y fi t th e c o mp a ris o n , s inc e it w as t o und er g o a c os mi c
c at as t r op he and t o be bu rn ed b y th e u ni v ers al fi re at t he en d of th e ae on
(H Y P P O L I T U S , Refutatio omnium haeresium 6.9). I ns te a d, th e c o ns tr uc tive
m e ani ng of th e s y m b ol in t he Ba hir ag re es w it h th e de scr ip ti o n of P hil o
an d t ot a ll y o p p os es t h e G n o s t ic n e g at i v e o v e r t o n e s . S c h o l e m a c tu al l y
fai le d to pr od uc e s ou nd ph i lol og ic al e v id en ce of an y h istori c al li nk be -
tw ee n Gn ostic i sm and th e B a h i r , an d th e s upp ose d me di ati o n of C hr is ti a n
sec t ari an move me nts, li ke the B o g o mi ls and th e C a th ar s (S C H O L E M , Ori-
gins, pp. 12-18), r e m ai ns a m er e h yp o t hes is w ai ti ng f or pr o o f , w hi c h
pr ob a bl y wi ll ne v er su rf a c e. The radical difference between the Gnostic
tree metaphor and the one proposed by Philo has been discussed by H.
L E I S E G A N G , Die Gnosis, Leipzig 1924, pp. 67-87; see also P H I L O V O N A L E -
XANDRIA, Die Werke in deutscher Übersetzung, vol. 4, Edited by I. H E I N E -
MANN, Breslau 1923, pp. 148-149. On the symbolism of the cosmic tree in
the Bahir see also E.R. W O L F S O N , “The Tree That Is All: Jewish-Christian
 25

Bahir is quite significant, because it refers to the

idea of a cosmic plantation, which seems to be
otherwise unknown in rabbinical sources.
Even if at the present stage of research a di-
rect link between Philo and the Bahir cannot be
proven, we know that the Alexandrian philoso-
pher was somehow familiar to Judeo-Arabic au-
thors in the Middle East in the 9 t h – 10 t h centu-
ries. Furthermore, a selection of Judeo-
27

Hellenistic materials, also containing passages

taken from (or inspired by) Philo, was surely
available in Southern France from the 11 t h cen-
tury on. In fact, the 11 t h century exegete Moweh
ha-Darwan of Narbonne and his school had at
their disposal large textual units, partly trans-

Roots of a Kabbalistic Symbol in Sefer ha-Bahir,” Journal of Jewish

Thought and Philosophy 3 (1993), pp. 31-76.
27
See S. P O Z N A N S K I , “Philon dans l’ancienne littérature judéo-arabe,” Re-
vue des études juives 50 (1905), pp. 10-31, especially p. 14; B. C H I E S A - W.
L O C K W O O D , Ya‘qûb al-Qirqisanî on Jewish Sects and Christianity, Frank-
furt a.M. 1984, pp. 28-29; B. C H I E S A , Filologia e storia della lingua
ebraica, Brescia 2000, p. 197. For some, mainly fragmentary, considerati-
ons about the relationship between Philo and Medieval Jewish mysticism see
Y. B A E R , “Le-verurah šel torat aharit ha-yamim bi-yme ha-Bayit ha-šeni,”
Zion 23-24 (1958-59), pp. 3-34, 141-65; R. J. Z. W E R B L O W S K I , “Philo and
the Zohar. A note on the Methods of the ‘Scienzia Nuova’ in Jewish Stud-
ies,” Journal of Jewish Studies 10 (1959), pp. 25-44, 113-35; J. F I N K E L ,
“The Alexandrian Tradition and the Midrash ha-Ne‘elam,” The Leo Jung
Jubilee Volume, Edited by M.M. K A S H E R , N. L A M M and L. R O S E N F E L D , New
York 1962, pp. 77-103; E. W O L F S O N , “Traces of Philonic Doctrine in Me-
dieval Jewish Mysticism. A Preliminary Note,” Studia Philonica Annual 8
(1996), pp. 99-106.
 26

lated from Greek by Jews in Byzantine areas,

and transmitted from the Greek-speaking Jewry
of Southern Italy to Languedoc. It is therefore 28

possible that the redactor of the Bahir drew from

this Judeo-Hellenistic heritage in Hebrew or Ara-
maic. 29

The plantation metaphor can also be traced

through the Jewish philosophical literature of
the Middle Ages. The philosopher and poet Ye-
hudah ha-Lewi, already mentioned in connection
with the Bahir, repeatedly uses the image of God
as a planter together with comparisons referring
to agriculture in his Sefer ha-Kuzari. To my
knowledge, no one has studied the origin of these
allegories, which actually play a significant role

28
See A. E P S T E I N , Mi-qadmoniyyot ha-yehudim, Wien 1887 (Jerusalem
2
1957 ); I D E M , “Le livre des Jubilés, Philon et le Midrasch Tadsché,” Revue
des études juives 21 (1890), 80-97; 22 (1891), pp. 1-25; Midraw Be-re’wit
rabbati, Edited by Ch. A L B E C K , Jerusalem 1940, pp. 5 and 17-18; M.
Himmelfarb, “R. Moses the Preacher and the Testaments of the Twelve Pa-
triarchs,” AJS Review 9 (1984), pp. 55-78; Sh. L A D E R M A N N , “Parallel Texts
in a Byzantine Christian Treatise and Sections of Midrash Attributed to
Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan” [Heb.], Tarbiz 70 (2001), pp. 213-226; I. T A -
S H M A , Moweh ha-Darwan we-ha-sifrut ha-hixonit, Jerusalem 2001. On Moweh
ha-Darwan see also note 55 below.
29
At least one section in Aramaic was included in the exegetical collection
entitled Midraw rabbah de-rabbah, attributed by A L B E C K , Be-re’wit rabbati,
p. 2, to Moweh ha-Darwan: see A. N E U B A U E R , The Book of Tobit, Oxford
1878.
 27

in the book. For ha-Lewi, God has planted in

30

the world a mysterious seed, which

refines the elements and transfers them into some-

thing like itself, casting off husks, leaves, etc., purify-
ing the core, and making it apt to bear the divine ele-
ment. And the form of the original seed produced the
tree bearing fruit resembling that from which the seed
had originated. 31

The tree represents here both the Jews scat-

tered among the nations and their Torah, which
through the Diaspora influences the whole world.
The plant has also an eschatological meaning,
since, in the messianic time, all the nations will
be reunited in one single, all-comprehensive tree:

The same is the case of the Torah of Moses. All that

comes after it is truly one of its transformations, though
it may externally repel it. The nations merely serve to
introduce and pave the way for the expected Messiah,
who is the fruit, so that they will all become his fruit.

30
Only one brief comment on this subject is available, It is made by L O B E L ,
Between Mysticism and Philosophy, p. 39.
Sefer ha-Kuzari IV.23: ‫ ותדחה‬, ‫עד שתדק היסודות ותשיבם אל דמות עצמה‬
31

‫ עד אשר יזדכך הלב ויהיה ראוי לחול בו הענין‬, ‫קלפותיה ועליה וז ולת זה‬
. ‫ עושה העץ ההוא פרי כפרי אשר היה זרעו ממנו‬, ‫ וצורת הזרע הראשון‬. ‫האלהי‬
Cf. the Arabic text in Kitâb al-radd wa-’l-dalîl, Ed. B A N E T H -B E N -S H A M M A I ,
pp. 172-173.
 28

Then, if they acknowledge him, the tree will be one once

again.” 32

As a matter of fact, the seed and the plant of

ha-Lewi have a cosmic relevance (all derives ul-
timately from them) and a direct religious im-
port, so that the Torah and the Jewish people
become the sustaining element of history and of
creation as well.
If we now go back to the text of the Bahir and
to its image of the cosmic “tree which is all,” we
find that it can also be seen as the plant of the
Torah and of the community of Israel. The text
actually hints at this symbolic value through a
subtle semantic strategy centered on the words
‫להשתעשע‬, “in order to bring delight.” In fact this
expression is linked to two biblical passages; the
first of them (Is. 5.7) defines Israel as the plant
of God’s delight, while in the second the divine
33

wisdom says I was daily [God’s] delight (Prov.

8.30). Since the divine wisdom is identified in the
rabbinical literature with the Torah, it seems 34

Sefer ha-Kuzari IV.23: ‫ כל אשר בא אחריה ישתנה אליה‬, ‫וכן תורת משה‬
32

‫ ואלה האמות הם הצעה והקדמה‬. ‫ ואם הוא בנראה דוחה אותה‬, ‫באמתת ענינו‬
‫ וישובו כולם פיריו כאשר יודו לו וישוב העץ‬, ‫ אשר הוא הפרי‬, ‫למשיח המחוכה‬
‫ אחד‬. Cf. Kitâb al-radd wa-’l-dalîl, Ed. B A N E T H -B E N -S H A M M A I , p. 173.
33
For the vineyard of the Lord is the house of Israel, and the man of Judah
the plant of his delight.
34
See, for instance, the interpretation of Prov. 8.30 in Cant. Rabbah V.10
(as well as in Tanhuma, Wa-yewev IV, Midraw Miwle VIII, Midraw Tehillim
 29

evident that for the redactor of the Bahir the

plant of delight has the triple function of being
the sustaining pillar of the cosmos, of a ramified
genealogy of Israel, and of the Torah, which nur-
tures the Jewish nation and through it the whole
world.
The comparison between the Bahir and the Se-
fer ha-Kuzari on the theme of heavenly agricul-
ture can be extended to many other passages of
the two books, which deal with the different
phases of the plantation, from the finding of the
necessary water to the proper rooting of the new
sprouts. So, for instance, we read in the Bahir:

The king said: Since I have flowing water, I will plant

a garden and it will delight me and the whole world. 35

And also:
He said: I will dig for water and I will bring forth a
spring so that the tree might live. He dug and brought

90): ‫ר ' חוניא בשם ריש לקיש שני אלפים שנה קדמה התורה לברייתו של עולם‬
‫מה טעם ואהיה אצלו אמון ואהיה שעשועים יום יום ) משלי ח ' ל ' ( ויומו של‬
( ' ‫ הקב " ה אלף שנים שנאמר כי אלף שנים בעיניך כיום אתמול ) תהלים צ ' ד‬,
“Rabbi Hunya said in the name of Rew Laqiw: The Torah preceded the crea-
tion of the world by two thousand years. How do we know? Because it says:
Then I was by him as a nursling; and I was daily (lit. ‘day, day’) his delight
(Prov. 8.30); and the day of the Holy one, blessed be He, is a thousand
years, as it said: For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday
when it is past (Ps. 90.4).” Compare Bahir 55/37*.
35
Bahir 5/4*.
 30

forth a spring flowing with living water and then planted

the tree, which stood and brought fruits and prospered
in its roots, because water nourished it flowing from the
spring. 36

Something similar is to be found also in Yehu-

dah ha-Lewi’s book, where Israel is compared to
a “tree with a sound root that produces perfect
fruit” and God is likened to an
37

agriculturist who finds the root of a good tree in a

desert place and transplants it into properly tilled
ground, where, owing to the nature of the soil, it will
prosper; he grows it there. 38

A further common trait that links the Bahir to

the Sefer ha-Kuzari as well as to Philo is the sig-
nificance of the heart of the tree, which enjoys a
special status and corresponds to the exceptional
role of Israel. In the Bahir, we read that

36
Bahir 23/15*.
37
Sefer ha-Kuzari I.95: ‫ עד שהוציא פרי שלם‬, ‫ האילן אשר שרשו טוב‬. Cf.
Kitâb al-radd wa-’l-dalîl, Ed. B A N E T H -B E N -S H A M M A I , p. 29.
Sefer ha-Kuzari II.14: ‫כאשר ימצא עובד הא דמה אילן שפריו טוב במדבר‬
38

‫ ומגדלו שם‬, ‫ מטבעה שיצליח בה השרש ההוא‬, ‫ ומעתיקו אל האדמה נעבדת‬. Cf.
Kitâb al-radd wa-’l-dalîl, Ed. B A N E T H -B E N -S H A M M A I , p. 49.
 31

Just as the palm has branches all around, and its

heart is in the middle, so Israel took the beauty of this
tree, which is its heart. 39

In an astonishing similar way, Philo writes that

Israel can be well symbolized as the palm tree
which

has its life-giving principle … seated like a heart in

the very center of the branches. 40

Although it is not referred to as a palm, the

correspondence between the heart of the tree and
the election of the prophets and of Israel is also
clearly stated in the Sefer ha-Kuzari. Here the
chosen ones are

the heart, which follows generation after generation

and epoch after epoch, while the multitude of the in-
habitants of this world … are like husks, leaves, mud . 41

39
Bahir 98/67*.
40
Philo, De vita Mosis I. 189.
Sefer ha-Kuzari IV.15: , ‫ונמשכת הסגולה והלב דור אחר דור וזמן אחר זמן‬
41

‫ קלי פות ועלים ושרפים וזולתם‬, ‫ ויצא המון בני אדם זולת הלב ההוא‬. As pointed
out by A. A L T M A N N , Studies in Religius Philosophy and Mysticism, London
1969, p. 177, the source of ha-Lewi’s theory of a heart/husk theory of man-
kind is most probably the Rasâ’il ikhwân al-xafâ’ (Epistles of the Brethren
of Purity): ed. Cairo 1928, vol. 2, pp. 235-236.
 32

Examined in its complex structure, the theme

of the divine agriculture reveals deep semantic
values. Taken as a whole, the continuity and va-
riety of this specifically Jewish speculation
represents a very important heritage, which the
Bahir developed to the greatest extent. The
points of similarity with the theories of God as a
planter championed by Philo are remote in time
but very meaningful, although the link with the
philosopher of Alexandria cannot be supported,
at the present stage of the research, by any as-
certained textual chain. It is easier to suppose
that Yehudah ha-Lewi’s book influenced directly
the redactor of the Bahir, since, between the fi-
nal redaction of this one in Southern France and
the translation of the Kuzari into Hebrew, there
is a demonstrable relation in space and time. As
a matter of fact, the highly positive meaning of
the heavenly agriculture present in the Bahir is
quite close to Yehudah ha-Lewi’s theories cen-
tered on the election of Israel.
Far from being, as supposed by Scholem, a
Gnostic devaluation of the physical world, the
multifunctional metaphoric project of the divine
plantation is focused on the idea of the pivotal
role of Israel and its Torah in the secret har-
mony of the cosmos. The Jewish people and the
Torah are the tree that God planted as a skilled
 33

gardener, in order to delight and eventually re-

deem the whole creation.
The second main topic to be analyzed in the
Bahir is its link to the Sefer yexirah. Both in
connection with the linguistic mysticism and with
the plan of creation, the Bahir obviously has a
very close connection to the ideas expressed in
the Book of Creation; it accepts its alphabetical
cosmology and expands it in a new field. In fact,
one of features of the Bahir that usually escapes
attention is that it can be perceived as a loose
commentary to the Sefer yexirah. 42

As far as the language is concerned, while the

Sefer yexirah dealt with the mystical meaning of
Hebrew consonants but ignored vowels, the re-
dactor of the Bahir filled the gap and offered an
extensive treatment of the vowel signs, seen as
very important elements of the broader scenario
of emanation. It is clear that the Sefer yexirah
was written before the adoption of a Hebrew vo-
calization system (presumably introduced in the
late 7 t h – early 8 t h centuries) and that the Bahir
brings up to date a linguistic speculation, which
appeared incomplete to a medieval reader used

42
The link between Sefer yexirah and Bahir has been discussed by G.
S C H O L E M , s.v. “Bahir, Buch,” Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 3, Berlin 1929,
cols. 969-979, especially col. 973; I D E M , Origins, pp. 65-66. However,
Scholem does not stress the fact that the latter work can often be consid-
ered a true commentary to the former one.
 34

to vowel notation. The points employed in He-

brew in order to mark vowels are thus seen in the
Bahir as soul-like elements, which give life and
motion to the otherwise inanimate consonants:

All [vowel] points of the Torah of Moses are circles

and they have a similar function for the letters as the liv-
ing soul in human body. In fact, it is impossible to live as
long as the soul is not in it, as it is impossible to perceive
a word, big or small, without a soul. Similar to this is the
[vowel] point, without which it is impossible to say a
word, be it big or small. 43

Once more, the closest parallel to this passage

is to be found in the Sefer ha-Kuzari. In fact,
Yehudah ha-Lewi seems to have been the first to
compare vowels to souls and consonants to bod-
ies. Commenting on the secret meaning of the
names of God, he says that:

It is not possible to utter a letter if it is not accompa-

nied by [one of] these [four], that is a by alef and he, u
by waw and i by yod. These letters are therefore like
souls while the others are like bodies. 44

43
Bahir 115/83*.
Sefer ha-Kuzari IV.3: , ‫אין מדברים באות מהאותיות בעוד שלא תמצא אלה‬
44

‫ והמה כרוחות ושאר‬, ‫ והשבר ליוד‬, ‫ והקמוץ לוו‬, ‫ר " ל הפתחא לאלף וההא‬
‫ ; האותיות כגופות‬Cf. Kitâb al-radd wa-’l-dalîl, Ed. B A N E T H -B E N -S H A M M A I ,
 35

In this case too the redactor of the Bahir does

not repeat passively the statement of the Sefer
ha-Kuzari but transforms it according to a kab-
balistic perspective. In order to do so, to the
soul/body pair he adds the circle/square opposi-
tion, based on a visual perception of the Hebrew
script, where the vowels are mainly marked by
dots while the consonants have in many cases a
predominantly square shape. Since the circle is
considered the aptest representation for move-
ment, it fits perfectly with the dynamic nature of
divine emanation. This leads the redactor of the
Bahir to connect symbolically the vowels – iden-
tified as “circles” – with the dynamic principles
of emanation, the sefirot.
One of the major points of interest in the Ba-
hir is actually represented by its use of the sefi-
rotic system as a hermeneutical tool, which can
lead to a real comprehension of the cosmos. The
sefirot here are layers of a mystical ladder but
also knots of aggregation where the energy of the
emanation rests for a while before flowing again.
The redactor of the work attaches great impor-
tance to the order of the sefirot and specifically

pp. 149-150. See D. K A U F M A N N , Geschichte der Attributenlehre in der

jüdischen Religionsphilosophie des Mittelalters von Saadja bis Maimuni,
Gotha 1877, pp. 173-174; S C H O L E M , Das Buch Bahir, pp. 87-88, 168; F.
2
D O R N S E I F F , Das Alphabet in Mystik und Magie, Leipzig 1925 , p. 33 note 2.
 36

discusses their sequence. The connection be- 45

tween the divine grades can be characterized in

various manners, as for instance succession of
letters of the alphabet or parental relationships
in a family or even sexual attraction.
When they first appeared in the Sefer yexirah,
the sefirot were probably intended as acts of di-
vine writing and were devoid of any precise de-
termination. In the Bahir, however, they attest
46

to a much more developed theory and offer a

kind of ethic description of the Godhead. Here
the sefirot have already become what they will
remain throughout the whole history of the kab-
balah, that is nearly psychological attributes of
the mysterious divine soul. Wrath or love, peace
or shining beauty, justice or humility color the
inner life of emanation and its never resting dy-
namics. In order to describe this invisible fight
of supernal moods and inclinations, the Bahir
recurs especially to parables. Thus the book
stages a mundane theater of kings and royal

45
See Bahir 141-146/96*; 153-158/102*-105* the ten sefirot are here called
‫ עשרה מאמרות‬, “ten utterances.” A pre-kabbalistic correspondence between
the ten sefirot (of the Sefer yexirah) and the ten utterances, with which the
world was created, is already stated in Midraw Num. Rabbah XIV.12: ‫עשרה‬
‫ מאמרות שנברא בהם העולם וכנגד עשר ספירות בלימה‬.
46
I have proposed this new interpretation of the word sefirah in my article
“‘Engraved, Hewed, Sealed.’ Sefirot and Divine Writing in the Sefer
Yetzirah,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 20 (2005), pp. 1*-11*; see
also B U S I , Qabbalah visiva, pp. 34-41.
 37

daughters, stupid soldiers and tricky administra-

tors, passionate lovers and radiant brides in or-
der to arouse emotions in the reader and thus to
make him grasp in an analogical way the psy-
chology of the invisible. 47

The third and fourth main themes contained in

the Bahir, that is to say the hints about the vision
of the Merkavah and the sections referring to
meditation, are closely connected to each other.
In fact the redactor of the Bahir seems to have a
quite specific idea of the Merkavah, which he in-
terprets with distinct neoplatonic overtones as a
path to contemplation. While in the corpus of the
Merkavah texts, dating from late Antiquity and
the early Middle Ages, the core of the speculation
is represented by a topography of the heavens, of-
ten described as supernal palaces guarded by
hosts of angels, in the Bahir this lore undergoes
48

47
The feminine symbolism of the Godhead in the Bahir, already stressed by
Scholem (e.g. in Origins, pp. 162-180), has been largely investigated in re-
cent years: see M. W A L L A C H -F A L L E R , “Die jüdische feministische Theologie
auf der Suche nach einem weiblicheren Gottesbild; weibliche Aspekte Gottes
im Buch Bahir,” Aus zweier Zeugen Mund. Festschrift für Pnina Navè Lev-
inson und Nathan Peter Levinson, Herausgegeben von J.H. S C H O E P S , Ger-
lingen 1992, pp. 236-245; P. S C H Ä F E R , “Tochter, Schwester, Braut und
Mutter. Bilder der Weiblichkeit Gottes in der frühen Kabbala,” Saeculum
49 (1998), pp. 259-227; I D E M , Mirror of His Beauty. Feminine Images of
God from the Bible to the Early Kabbalah, Princeton 2002.
48
A general assesment of the major themes of the Merkavah literature is
provided by P. S C H Ä F E R , Der verborgene und offenbare Gott. Hauptthemen
der frühen jüdischen Mystik, Tübingen 1991.
 38

a decisive transformation. We have already

pointed out that, in a crucial definition of the
Merkavah’s mystic as somebody who has to de-
tach himself from the world, the Bahir follows
similar statements by Bahya ibn Paquda and Ye-
hudah ha-Lewi according to Sufi terminology. In 49

other words, in the Bahir the lore of Merkavah

moves from its traditional magical and sapiential
features to a medieval theory of self-seclusion and
search into mind depths.
This does not mean that the old materials of the
Merkavah are completely effaced from the work.
Some fragments of them are indeed quoted, espe-
cially in the section about the three different
heavens, but nevertheless the speculative inter-
50

pretation of the Merkavah prevails. It seems that

even what is traditionally called the “descent in
the Merkavah” was considered by the redactor of
the Bahir as an intermediate stage, after which
the mystic would ascend to the pureness and in-
finity of divine thought:

What is the meaning of the expression “it ascended to

the thought” 51? Why do we not say “it descended”? In fact

49
See notes 14 - 18 above.
50
Bahir 126/88*; cf. S C H O L E M , Das Buch Bahir, p. 95; I D E M , Origins, p.
119.
51
“It ascended to the thought,” Heb. ‫ עלה במחשבה‬.
 39

we say that the one who contemplates the vision of the

Merkavah descends and after ascends and we say this
since we refer properly to him who contemplates the vi-
sion of the divine chariot. Since there is no vision at all
nor limit as far as the thought is concerned, all that does
not have any end and limit has no descent either . 52

Therefore, the task of the mystic is to attain the

innermost chambers of the heavenly palace
through a lonely path of contemplation. Such a
strong belief in the unlimited power of mind is
based on a symbolic parallelism between human
and divine thinking. In fact, according to the re-
dactor of the Bahir, the highest sefirah can be
conceived as mahawavah, the divine thought,
thus implying that the whole cosmos is nothing
else than infinite self contemplation. From the 53

thinking of the godhead all other levels of reality

flow, step by step, until they reach the lowest
stage of mundane affairs. In a similar albeit
symmetrical way the kabbalist thinks himself to
the extreme limits of the cosmos or, as the Bahir
put it, “man thinks and descends to the end of the
world.” 54

52
Bahir 88/60*.
53
Cf. Bahir 16/12*; 70/48*; 79/53*; 87/59*; 88/60*; 138/94*; 154/103*;
160/106*, and 194/134*.
54
Bahir 79/53*. Mithridates translated “man thinks descending to the end
of the world,” (“cogitat homo descendendo finem mundi”).
 40

As already mentioned, the main thematic units

of the Bahir are connected through large narra-
tive interludes, in midrawic style, partly written in
Aramaic. From a linguistic as well as from a the-
matic point of view, the mystical midrawim con-
tained in the Bahir have much in common with
the later aggadah produced in Europe in the 11 t h –
12 t h centuries, notably with the first part of
Midraw Numbers Rabbah, attributed to the school
of Moweh ha-Darwan, active in Southern France in
the first half of the 11 t h century. We also have 55

evidence of a non-kabbalistic version of some of

the Bahir tales, which circulated among the ha-
side Awkenaz during the first half of the 13 t h cen-
tury. Quotations from what seems to be a non-
kabbalistic Book of Bahir are found in works by
two awkenazi authors, Efrayim ben Wimwon and
Moweh ben Eli‘ezer ha-Darwan (who mentions
some of these passages from a work he calls Sod
ha-gadol). 56

55
Cf. H. M A C K , Prolegomena and Example to an Edition of Midrash Bemid-
bar Rabba. Part 1 [Heb.,] PhD Thesis, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem
1991; I D E M , “Midraw Ba-midbar rabbah we-re’wit ha-qabbalah be-Provans,”
Ewel Be’er Weva‘ 4 (1996), pp. 78-94; H. P E D A Y A , Name and Sanctuary in
the Teaching of R. Isaac the Blind [Heb.,] Jerusalem 2001, p. 9. See also
notes 28 and 45 above.
56
Both Efrayim ben Wimwon and Moweh ben Eli‘ezer ha-Darwan are generally
th
believed to have been active in the first half of the 13 century, even if their
exact dates are far from certain. See S C H O L E M , Origins, pp. 103-123;
A B R A M S , The Book Bahir, pp. 27-33 (on p. 33, the correct source of
 41

Therefore we could suppose that the redactor

of the Bahir partly assembled and reshaped vari-
ous pre-existing late midrawim and partly wrote
new midrawic episodes, shaping them according to
personal kabbalistic bent so as to fit them into a
broad sefirotic frame.
In conclusion, our analysis has shown a few
new points for a better understanding of the dat-
ing and the intellectual milieu of the Bahir. First
of all, the similarities between the Bahir and some
Judeo-Hellenistic theories attested to by Philo are
a philological fact that cannot be ignored. Such a 57

link with the Jewish–Greek heritage fits quite well

the geographical background of the book, since
Judeo-Hellenistic materials were available in
Southern France in the 11 t h – 12 t h centuries. This
Philonic perspective in studying the sources of
the Bahir obviously needs further inquiry, but it
seems based on more plausible thematic and geo-
graphical presumptions then the Gnostic theory
advanced by Scholem. In fact, Scholem’s theory
of a Gnostic layer dating from late antiquity has

Efrayim ben Wimwon’s quotation is London, Montefiore Collection, Ms.

Hirschfeld 323, and not “Ms. Mantua 323,” as written by Abrams). Scholem
has already suggested that the tales mentioned by the awkenazi authors were
probably adapted by the redactor of the Bahir.
57
E.R. W O L F S O N , “Hebraic and Hellenistic Conceptions of Wisdom in Sefer
ha-Bahir”, Poetics Today 19 (1998), p. 147-176 is of little use from a phi-
lological point of view, since the author is “not concerned with tracing the
historical origins of the concept[s].”
 42

proven to be misleading, since the connection of

the Bahir with a non-Jewish milieu cannot in any
way be historically determined. 58

Second, it is also clear that the redactor of the

book was deeply influenced by the philosophic lit-
erature available in Hebrew during the second
half of the 12 t h century. Some theoretical ideas,
notably by Avraham bar Hiyya and Yehudah ha-
Lewi, took on a new look in the Bahir even if they
are still discernible in their original neoplatonic,
and one might say, Judeo-Sufi attire.
Third, the midrawic guise that characterizes the
Bahir is marked by recurring words and symbols
that are repeated throughout the text with minor
variations. This fact points to a pervasive edito-
59

rial work, done by one or more Jewish mystics

active in Southern Europe after the 6 t h decade of
the 12 t h century. This redaction gave life to a new
secret lore with a creative mixture of some old
materials probably of ultimate Judeo-Hellenistic
origin, blended with Jewish medieval philosophy
and recent, or new, pseudo-aggadic material.
In any case, our philological troubles do not
detract from the significance of the Bahir: for

58
For a short but very clear criticism of Scholem’s Gnostic hypothesis see
D A N , “Nachwort,” pp. 443-445.
59
Words which recur in the Bahir with a particular symbolic meaning are
for instance ‫ נטע‬, “to plant,” and ‫ל ה ש ת עש ע‬, “ t o b r i n g d e l i g h t. ” See notes 22
and 34 above.
 43

centuries this booklet full of mystical parables

has served as a concise encyclopedia of kabbalis-
tic lore and has attained the status of an impor-
tant source of religious inspiration.

2.“T O R EAD THE B AHIR IN O RDER TO U NDER-

STAND Z OROASTER .” P ICO ’ S H ERMENEUTICAL
S HORT C UTS .

Together with the Zohar, the Bahir is the only

kabbalistic book that Pico quotes by name in his
Conclusiones, printed in December 1486. Almost
60

certainly this is not coincidental but reflects

Pico’s perception of the importance of these
works. The fact that the Bahir and Zohar were
foundations of Jewish mysticism he probably
learned from the Commentary on the Pentateuch
by Menahem of Recanati, to whom these two
books represent a very important source of in-
spiration. We know that the Count of Mirandola
eagerly perused the Commentary of Menahem be-
fore writing his Conclusiones, and it was most 61

60
For the quotation of the title of the Bahir, which Pico calls “liber Bair”,
see p. 87, note 62 below. Pico quotes by name the Zohar (“liber Zoar”) in
th
the 24 kabbalistic thesis according to his opinion.
61
On Pico’s use of the Commentary on the Pentateuch by Menahem of Reca-
nati see Ch. W I R S Z U B S K I , Pico della Mirandola’s Encounter with Jewish
Mysticism, Cambridge (Mass.) - London 1989, pp. 19-65.
 44

likely in this way that he initially discovered the

complex symbolism of the Bahir.
In all probability Mithridates translated the
Bahir, as an independent work, in the Spring of
1486, using an old manuscript that Pico had ac-
62

quired in preparation for his daring project of a

public Roman discussion on philosophy and mys-
ticism. Pico’s interest in the book is not surpris-
ing, since it could offer him a valuable source of
kabbalistic symbolism. Both the neoplatonic fla-
vor of the Bahir and its topography of emanation
were akin to Pico’s hermeneutical approach, and
this thematic affinity explains the fact that the
young Count repeatedly used the work not only
in the kabbalistic conclusions but also in some
non-kabbalistic ones.
A complete analysis of the use made by Pico of
the Bahir has still to be made. Some interesting
pieces of evidence have been collected by
Scholem and Wirszubski, and integrated by
Campanini in his Introduction to the present
volume. I will add a few more remarks here, be-
63

62
I have discussed the possibility that Mithridates started his work as a
translator for Pico as early as 1485 in my article on “The Kabbalistic Li-
brary of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola,” Hebrew to Latin - Latin to He-
brew. The Mirroring of two Cultures in the Age of Humanism, Proceedings
th th
of the Colloquium held at the Warburg Institute, London, October 18 -19 ,
2004 (forthcoming). See also p. 61, note 7 below.
63
See pp. 86-91 below.
 45

cause I believe that further inquiries can bring

to light an influence of the Bahir on Pico that is
broader than expected.
Allusions to the Bahir are to be found espe-
cially in conclusions that deal with the spatial
order of the emanation. Pico seems to have most
appreciated the link posited by the Bahir be-
tween cardinal points, elements of the creation
and moral attributes. In particular, the idea that
north is the source of evil, fire and punishment,
which Pico underscores repeatedly, comes from
the Bahir. The “mystery of the northern part” –
as Pico terms it – was surely a domain in which
64

the kabbalah proved to be superior to other an-

cient traditions and therefore helped Pico in
mapping negative and satanic forces.
In one instance, for example, Pico echoes the
characterization of Satan found in the Bahir and
uses it in an exegesis of the New Testament:

Anyone who knows the north in the kabbalah,

knows why Satan promised Christ the kingdoms of the

64
Conclusiones cabalisticae … secundum opinionem propriam, Conclusio
XLIV: S.A. F A R M E R , Syncretism in the West: Pico’s 900 Theses (1486). The
Evolution of Traditional Religious and Philosophical Systems, Tempe 1998,
pp. 524-525, no. 11>9.
 46

world, if falling he adored him (si cadens eum adoras-

set). 65

The source of this Christological interpreta-

tion by kabbalistic means is to be found in the
Bahir in the following passage, according to
Mithridates’ translation:

God, blessed be He, has one attribute called raha,

and it comes from the northern side of God, blessed be
He, himself, as it is written: From the north raha will
find an opening (Jer. 1.14) et cetera, as if it would say
that every raha, that is every evil coming to the inhabi-
tants of the earth comes from the north … What is the
meaning of the evil demon, called in Hebrew Satan? Sa-
tan means to make somebody err, because he induces
men to deviate (quia declinare facit homines) and the
world to follow him on the evil and guilty path. 66

Wirszubski already mentioned the dependence

of Pico on the Bahir in the relationship between
the north and Satan, but failed to appreciate
67

that also the enigmatic hint about the bending of

Christ as an act of adoration derives from a par-

65
Conclusiones cabalisticae … secundum opinionem propriam, Conclusio
XLVII: F A R M E R , Syncretism, pp. 537-538, no. 11>47.
66
Bahir 162-164/109*–110*. See also, for the relationship between the north
and the judgement of God, Bahir 34/24* and p. 91 below.
67
W I R S Z U B S K I , Pico della Mirandola’s Encounter, p. 188 note 16.
 47

ticular feature of Mithridates’ version. In fact, in

the Latin translation, Satan is defined as the one
who induces man to deviate from the right path,
but declinare, the Latin word for “deviate,” can
also signify “to bend,” to sink down.” a meaning
quite closed to the “cadens” used by Pico, who
quotes here the Gospel of Matthew. Therefore, it 68

stands to reason that Pico took advantage of this

play on words in order to read in a kabbalistic way
the temptation of Jesus by the devil.
At first sight this strategy of Pico based on the
linguistic evidence of the translation might seem to
be a minor detail, but we have to bear in mind that
the secret of the Conclusiones is often concealed in
rapid symbolical associations that spark from lin-
guistic assonances.
As a matter of fact, convinced as he was that “if
a first and not accidental language exists it is clear
… that it is Hebrew,” Pico also used the Bahir as
69

a depository of alphabetic symbolism. Undoubt-

edly he was very selective in his choices and
tried to force the kabbalah into the frame of
a christianizing wisdom. A single example
concerning a Bahir-inspired thought will suffice

68
Matthew 4.8-9; see also Luke 4.5-7.
69
Conclusiones paradoxe… secundum opinionem propriam nova in philoso-
phia dogmata inducentes, Conclusio LXXX (F A R M E R , Syncretism, pp. 396-
397, no. 2>80).
 48

here. In the 33 r d of his kabbalistic conclusions,

Pico writes:

By this word ‫איש‬,[iw] which is written alef, yod and

sin and signifies “man” - which is attributed to God
when He is called a man of war – through the way of the
Cabala we are perfectly admonished as to mystery of the
Trinity. 70

Here the source is a teaching referred to in the

Bahir under the name of Rabbi Amoray:

What is the meaning of the verse: God is a man of war

(Ex. 15.3)? ... By way of example: a king had beautiful
dwellings and he gave a name to each one of them, and
every one was more beautiful than the others. He said: I
will give to my son this dwelling, whose name is alef. And
also this, whose name is yod, and it is better than the
first one. Moreover I will give him this one, which is
good, and whose name is win. What did he do then, he
gathered the three together and made a house out of
them, and one name out of the three names. They said to
him: How long will you conceal your words? He said to
them: My sons, alef is the beginning, yod is the second
after it and win contains the whole world. 71

70
Conclusiones cabalisticae … secundum opinionem propriam, Conclusio
XXXIII (F A R M E R , Syncretism, pp. 534-535, no. 11>33).
71
Bahir 26/18*.
 49

Once more, Pico works with the evidence of-

fered by the Hebrew text and transforms it ac-
cording to his goals. From the Bahir he takes the
biblical quotations as well as its symbolic inter-
pretation of the word iw. In fact, according to the
mystical perspective of the book, the three let-
ters that form the word are seen to correspond to
three first sefirot, linked together in a tight bun-
dle and yet distinct by their qualities: that is
what the rabbi means when he says that iw is “one
name out of three names.” An enthusiastic
reader like Pico could not have expected more
from a kabbalistic text. For him it was clear that
a triune Hebrew name could symbolize only the
triune Godhead of Christian revelation. 72

But not only the linguistic side of the Bahir

fascinates Pico. In a couple of passages the
Count of Mirandola speaks about the metaphor
of the sefirotic tree and distinguishes between a
superior and an inferior part of the plant. Even
if he does not adopt openly the world tree image
of the Bahir, the work of God as a gardener or
planter did not escape his attention. In his com-
mentary to the Canzone of his friend Girolamo

72
W I R S Z U B S K I , Pico della Mirandola’s Encounter, p. 178 note 19, already
mentioned Bahir 27/18* in connection with Pico’s Conclusio XXXIII, but
did not analyze the possible link between the two texts any further. See also
p. 91, note 74 below.
 50

Benivieni he mentions the “gardens of Jove (‘orti

di Giove’)” as the place where “the ideas are
planted … like trees in a garden, [they] repre-
sent the unformed substance [of the angelic
mind]. This is why the ancients called the angelic
mind, adorned with the ideas, paradise.” The 73

direct source of the passage is obviously Plato’s

Symposium, but an indirect influence of the kab-
balistic garden also seems possible. In fact, Pico
deepens the analysis of the passage that Ficino
had offered in his commentary to the Platonic
dialogue, since he links the gardens of Jove to
74

the biblical Paradise and clearly interprets the

75

allegory as a stage of the dynamics of the God-

head. 76

73
G. P I C O , Commentary on a Canzone of Benivieni, Translated by S.
J A Y N E , New York – Berne – Frankfurt a.M. 1984, pp. 108 and 143; see G.
P I C O D E L L A M I R A N D O L A , De hominis dignitate. Heptaplus. De ente et uno, a
cura di E. G A R I N , Firenze 1942, pp. 502-503 and p. 549.
74
See M. F I C I N O , Opera, Basileae 1576, vol. 2, p. 1344: “Iovis hortum, an-
gelicae vitae foecunditatem intelligit.”
75
Neither the parallel trees ideas nor the reference to paradise appear in
Ficino’s commentary to the Symposium. O R I G E N E S , Contra Celsum 4.39 had
written that “the mention [in the writings of Plato] of the garden of Zeus …
appears to bear some resemblance to the paradise of God.” See The Earthly
Paradise. The Garden of Eden from Antiquity to Modernity, Edited by R.
P S A K I , Binghamton 2002.
76
Pico mentions again the “garden of Jove” in his Conclusiones secundum
propriam opinionem … in doctrina Platonis, Conclusio XXI (F A R M E R , Syn-
cretism, pp. 444-445, no. 5>21). Also there the garden symbolizes “the an-
gelic mind (angeli mens).”
 51

This instance, as well as other similar cases in

the Conclusiones, show the great complexity of
Pico’s way of working. In fact, not only the con-
clusions where the kabbalah is openly referred to
but also quite a few passages with no explicit
kabbalistic import might have some connection
with Jewish mysticism.
Pico’s particular method relied on a standing
interaction among different traditions. It was ex-
actly from these hermeneutical short cuts that
the Count of Mirandola took his creative im-
pulse, and there is no doubt that the kabbalah
was very significant in shaping a new, cross-
cultured idea of wisdom.