The Trajectory of Eastern Kabbalah and Its Reverberations in Italy
The Trajectory of Eastern Kabbalah and Its Reverberations in Italy
Abstract and Keywords
This chapter discusses a trajectory of knowledge in Italy which contrasts with what was discussed in the previous chapters. So far, this book has looked at material that arrived in Italy from the West. The main area pertinent to the discussion in this chapter is Crete, where a Jewish community had flourished since the fourteenth century, and which maintained strong relations with Venice, which governed the island. The earliest of the Jews to arrive in Italy from Crete and to play a significant role in Jewish culture there was R. Shemaryah Ikriti. He was a philosophically oriented thinker, active at the court of Robert of Anjou in Naples in the first part of the fourteenth century, and he perhaps had some prophetic and messianic leanings.
1. Jewish Thinkers from the East and Italy
So far we have looked at material that arrived in Italy from the West: Spain, Provence, the rest of France, and different parts of Germany. Great parts of the structure of this esoteric knowledge were indebted to Greek, Hellenistic, and Jewish material that had arrived in those places still earlier from the Near East. However, there was also another trajectory of knowledge to Italy in this period, originating with Jews active in areas to the east. The main area pertinent to our discussion is Crete, where a Jewish community had flourished since the fourteenth century, and which maintained strong relations with Venice, which governed the island.
(p.288) The earliest of the Jews to arrive in Italy from Crete and to play a significant role in Jewish culture there was R. Shemaryah Ikriti. He was a philosophically oriented thinker, active at the court of Robert of Anjou in Naples in the first part of the fourteenth century, and he perhaps had some prophetic and messianic leanings.1 His father, R. Elijah Romanus, a leader of the Candian community in Crete, is described as having gone there from Rome.2 Shemaryah was in contact with the Jewish community in Rome, as we learn from an epistle to it in which he describes his literary activity.3 In the letter he portrays himself as the pen of the cosmic Agent Intellect, cleaving to which he asserts is possible.4 Although he does not describe this experience as a mystical one, it nevertheless implies some form of prophetic stance, in a manner reminiscent of his older contemporary Dante Alighieri—who describes the prophets as scribes of the one dictator, God—and of R. Yehudah Romano.5 Indeed, Dante was well known in the circle of Jewish intellectuals related to R. Shemaryah, R. Yehudah Romano, and Immanuel of Rome.6 However, there can be no doubt that Shemaryah's main contribution was in the domain of Jewish philosophy and not of Kabbalah.
In the 1470s or 1480s Elijah del Medigo, originally from Candia, arrived in northern Italy and translated Averroistic treatises into Latin, was in close contact with Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, and then returned, perhaps intellectually disappointed, to Candia. More important from the point of view of the history of Kabbalah, in Candia around 1470 there arose a controversy on the meaning and role of the kabbalistic concept of transmigration of the soul, and the various documents connected with it survive in manuscripts in the Vatican library.7 The descendant of one of the participants in this controversy, R. Shaul ha-Kohen, a critic of the kabbalistic stand, arrived in Venice and had some discussions with Isaac Abravanel.8
Last but not least, we should take into account a Jew who never came to Italy but whose influence there was perhaps greater than that of all the previously mentioned persons, the mysterious Elisha of Constantinople. According to George Scholarios, a critic of the more famous Gemistos Plethon and hence perhaps not a reliable witness, it is possible that one of Plethon's teachers in Byzantium was a Jew named Elisha, who was acquainted with Averroistic philosophy and medicine and with Zoroastrian thought.9 He was presumably the source of Plethon's conception of Zoroaster as an independent and reliable religious source. According to Scholarios, Elisha, though a Jew, flouted the Mosaic tradition and was burned alive as a heretic.10 If we may believe Scholarios, Elisha made a modest contribution to the subsequent infiltration of pagan theurgy found in the Chaldaean Oracles (a book allegedly authored by Zoroaster) into the Renaissance via Plethon and Ficino.
(p.289) Nevertheless, it is possible that this Elisha was not as much a pagan and a Hellene as Scholarios presented him. There was in existence also a Persian-Arab tradition to the effect that Zoroaster was a pupil of Jeremiah,11 while according to other Jewish sources Zoroaster studied with Abraham.12 Thus, using the name of Zoroaster in Hebrew sources would not automatically invite a multilinear vision of knowledge. Following the view of some scholars, it is plausible that Elisha was part of a school of mystics originating with the twelfth-century Muslim Sufi master Suhrawardi al-Maqtul, called Ishraqi (The Illuminated), an Oriental author, who regarded Zoroaster as an important religious thinker.13 If this proposal is correct, we have another instance of Jewish mediation of an Arabic view to Renaissance Florence.
2. Byzantine Kabbalah: From Abulafia and Recanati to Yohanan Alemanno
The eastward movement of kabbalistic literatures and individuals from Spain did not stop at Italy. Since the late thirteenth century it had also included the Byzantine Empire. In fact, before arriving in Italy for the second time, when he was already a Kabbalist, Abulafia taught in the Peloponnese and had some students there. Although his estimation of these students was far from high, we cannot preclude the possibility that some of them were the first Byzantine Kabbalists. In any case, in 1279 Abulafia wrote in Patras the first of his many prophetic writings, Sefer ha-Yashar, which he brought to Italy, and in Messina he wrote a commentary on it.14 Sefer ha-Yashar is therefore the first kabbalistic work written in Byzantium and also the first one imported to Italy from that region. In my opinion, Abulafia's sojourn in the Peloponnese is related to the continued preeminence in that area of his version of Kabbalah. I suspect, for example, that one of Abulafia's commentaries on the secrets found in the Guide of the Perplexed, Sefer Hayyei ha-Nefesh, was written between 1274 and 1279 in the Byzantine region, since a passage from the book was copied verbatim, albeit without attribution, in an important treatise on Kabbalah, Sefer ha-Peliyʾah, written there.15 In the same work the anonymous Kabbalist copied Abulafia's Sefer Gan Naʿul almost in its entirety, again without mentioning the author or the title.16 In my opinion, several other pages of Sefer ha-Peliyʾah reflect the strong influence of Abulafia's ecstatic Kabbalah and may contain other quotations from lost books belonging to ecstatic Kabbalah.17
Sefer ha-Peliyʾah also contains several quotations from R. Menahem Recanati's Commentary on the Torah, again without attribution.18 Although this book also lifts passages from books written in Spain, and perhaps elsewhere, the Italian contribution to its contents is substantial. In fact, we may describe it as a conflation of Italian and Spanish forms of Kabbalah with kabbalistic material written in the Byzantine Empire in the mid-fourteenth century. Because of the manifest impact (p.290) of both Abulafia's and Recanati's forms of Italian Kabbalah, Aharon (Adolph) Jellinek was inclined to suggest that either the book was written in northern Italy or it was written in Greece sometime around 1450.19 However, as Israel M. Ta-Shma and Michal Kushnir-Oron demonstrated, there are good reasons to situate the author of the book in the Byzantine Empire sometime at the end of the fourteenth century.20
Abulafia's and Recanati's Kabbalah were, however, not the only brands of this lore that arrived in the Byzantine Empire in the fourteenth century. It is now known that a Spanish Kabbalist, R. Shem Tov of Folia, arrived there sometime in the mid-fourteenth century.21 The tenor of his Kabbalah differs from the varieties that we know about in Spain and Italy, especially with regard to the theory of the cosmic cycles, or shemittot. Unlike the most widespread views found in some groups of Spanish Kabbalists, subscribing to a general correspondence between the seven lower sefirot and the seven cosmic cycles,22 Shem Tov articulated a view—found earlier in less developed form—that out of the seven cycles of thousands or seven thousand years, ours is related to the sefirah Gevurah, namely the sefirah of strict judgment, which means that we are in the worst cosmic period.23
A more extreme version of this theory appears in an anonymous treatise titled Sefer ha-Temunah or Sefer ha-Temunot, dealing mainly with the theosophical significance of the shapes of the Hebrew letters, which is part of a broader kabbalistic literature that still awaits scholarly analysis. In these writings the view that the present shemittah (cosmic cycle) is governed by the worst of the divine powers is reinforced by the assertion that the structure of the Torah has been determined by this pernicious power. There is here a strong affinity between an astrological understanding of reality on the one hand, and the nature of the Jewish religion, including the Torah and its commandments, on the other.24 The deterministic picture of the world as stemming from the astrological order influenced the main structure of theosophy in this circle of Kabbalists, and created the conditions for the emergence of kabbalistic antinomianism. Gershom Scholem assumed that the book was written in Gerona either in the 1260s25 or at the end of the thirteenth century.26 Efraim Gottlieb voiced doubts to his students about both the dating and the locale of composition. For reasons that I have elaborated upon elsewhere, I propose to see the mid-fourteenth century as the time and the Byzantine Empire as the place in which both this book and the commentary written on it were composed.27 The most important reason is that the author of Sefer ha-Peliyʾah copied significant chunks from Sefer ha-Temunah, again without attribution, in his other book, Sefer ha-Qanah, a lengthy commentary on the rationales of the commandments.28
These two Byzantine kabbalistic books, composed sometime around the end of the fourteenth century, blend three types of Kabbalah that were almost totally (p.291) unknown in the Iberian peninsula: the anomian Kabbalah of Abulafia and his circle, the nomian Kabbalah of Recanati, and the antinomian Kabbalah from the circle of Sefer ha-Temunah. The religious possibilities immanent in such a synthesis remained part and parcel of the Byzantine, and later the Ottoman, center of Kabbalah, and ultimately contributed to the spiritual physiognomy of Sabbateanism. The chief protagonist of this messianic movement, Sabbatai Tzevi, was, in my opinion, very much a Byzantine Kabbalist even two centuries after the disappearance of the Byzantine Empire.29 In one of the processes of the transformation of Kabbalah when it moved eastward, Spain originated the development of most of the nomian forms of Kabbalah, which had a huge impact everywhere in the Jewish world, and in Italy on Recanati. In another, Italy hosted the origination of the anomian Kabbalah of Abraham Abulafia and his followers, which had an impact on the Byzantine Empire and the land of Israel.30 Finally, the Byzantine Empire hosted the emergence of antinomian Kabbalah, which had a limited impact in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries but made an important contribution to Sabbateanism in the seventeenth century.31 This development had much to do with the weakness of the rabbinic establishments in Italy and Byzantium,32 in comparison to Spain, France, and Ashkenaz. Kabbalists who could not find a place in Spain because of their idiosyncratic views and the centralized structure of Jewish society in the Iberian peninsula were more easily accepted in Italy and even more so in the Byzantine Empire, though there, too, as the resort to anonymity demonstrates, antinomianism constituted a problem in Jewish society even in that region. This seems to be one of the reasons why such diverse Kabbalists as Abraham Abulafia and R. Shem Tov of Folia left Spain and flourished elsewhere.
Why did the anonymous author of Sefer ha-Peliyʾah steal so unabashedly from so many kabbalistic sources? The answer is relatively simple: the book is presented as if it was written by three generations of scholars in late antiquity who had discussions among themselves, but from time to time there are some revelations by the prophet Elijah.33 This pseudepigraphic framework precluded any acknowledgment of the numerous sources that were copied. To my best knowledge, no Kabbalist in Spain ever quoted this book, or Sefer ha-Temunah, or the other books from this school.
Outside Byzantium, to my best knowledge Yohanan Alemanno was the first to quote Sefer ha-Peliyʾah and Sefer ha-Temunah. The arrival of these books in Italy sometime in the mid-fifteenth century influenced not only the Jewish Kabbalist but also two of the most important authors of the second phase of Christian Kabbalah, the cardinal Egidio da Viterbo and Francesco Giorgio Veneto.
The most conspicuous quotation from Sefer ha-Peliyʾah—which Alemanno mistakenly calls Sefer ha-Qanah—is found in his Collectanea, where he adduces one of (p.292) the computations that prognosticate that the messianic redemption will occur in the year 1490.34 Since there is no remark to the effect that the redemption has not yet come, I assume that Alemanno copied this material before 1490. In his own book, ʿEinei ha-ʿEdah, the title Qanah ben Qanah recurs several times.35 In his untitled treatise, the theories of shemittot recur several times, in my opinion under the influence of these Byzantine books.36 What seems to me more interesting beyond those quotations is the fact that Alemanno adopted from Sefer ha-Peliyʿah a vision of history as a continuous confrontation between good and evil, a theory that is presented at the end of his Hei ha-ʿOlamim; but this demands a separate inquiry. Thus Alemanno adopted from the Byzantine Kabbalah a quite pessimistic and deterministic vision of history, which differs dramatically from the various theories found in the Italian and Spanish types of Kabbalah. Given that Alemanno was acquainted also with the views of both R. Yitzhaq Mor Hayyim and R. Yehudah Hayyat, the two Spanish Kabbalists who were his contemporaries and his critics, we may describe Florence in the late fifteenth century as the place where most—though certainly not all—of the main types of existent kabbalistic literature were available. Alemanno integrated these various forms of Kabbalah into his hierarchical schemes describing a schedule for advanced studies, as we shall see in appendix 4. The mediating role of Italy, mentioned above in chapter 12, is more evident in the variety of kabbalistic literatures known in late-fifteenth-century Italy.37
Although in my opinion Alemanno's references to the Byzantine books occurred relatively late in his career, and their impact on his thought is certainly less substantial than that of his Italian predecessors, they reflect once more the special status of Kabbalah in Italy: much material arrived from a variety of sources and was adopted and integrated into much larger structures, without inciting polemics.
This is the most important example of an influence on Kabbalah in Italy from kabbalistic sources written east of the peninsula. It made itself felt relatively late in Alemanno's career, at the very end of the fifteenth century. In the next century the center of kabbalistic creativity moved abruptly and dramatically from the Iberian peninsula to the land of Israel, and to a certain extent to the Ottoman Empire, and starting in the mid-sixteenth century the numerous kabbalistic writings composed there started to arrive in Italy and reshape the configuration of Kabbalah in the Apennine peninsula. Did Alemanno contribute some modest share to the strengthening of this east-to-west trajectory by his presumed trip to Jerusalem? In any case, his much younger acquaintance, R. David ben Yehudah Messer Leon, undoubtedly did so when he moved from northern Italy to the Ottoman Empire, and wrote there some kabbalistic discussions that reached and were debated by a leading Safedian Kabbalist, R. Moshe Cordovero.38
(1) . On his writings see Colette Sirat, “A Letter on the Creation by R. Shemarya b. Elijah Akriti,” Eshel Beer Shevaʿ 1 (1980), pp. 199–227 (Hebrew); and Mauro Zonta, La filosofia antica nel Medioevo ebraico (Paideia, Brescia, 1996), pp. 75, 146.
(2) Sirat, “A Letter on the Creation,” p. 199.
(3) 'Otzar Nehmad, ed. Raphael Kircheim, vol. 2 (1857; reprint, Jerusalem, 1967), pp. 90–94.
(5) . See Joseph B. Sermoneta, “Prophecy in the Writings of R. Yehuda Romano,” in Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature, ed. Isadore Twersky, vol. 2 (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1984), pp. 345–346 n. 11; and the material discussed by Giuseppe Mazzotta, Dante, Poet of the Desert: History and Allegory in the Divine Comedy (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1979), pp. 206–207. For more on prophecy see Concluding Remarks, sec. 1, in this volume.
(6) Joseph B. Sermoneta, “Una transcrizione in caratteri ebraici di alcuni brani filosofici della Divina Commedia,” in Romanica et Occidentalia: Études dédiées à la mémoire de H. Peri, ed. Moshe Lazar (Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 1963), pp. 23–42.
(7) . See Gottlieb, Studies, pp. 379–395; Ravitzky, History and Faith, pp. 115–153; and Idel, “Abraham Abulafia,” pp. 75–76.
(8) Eric Lawee, Isaac Abrabanel's Stance toward Tradition: Defense, Dissent, and Dialogue (SUNY Press, Albany, 2001), pp. 9, 25, 44, 56, 57, 82, 83.
(9) . See C. M. Woodhouse, George Gemistos Plethon, the Last of the Hellenes (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986), pp. 23–28; Raymond Marcel, Marsile Ficin (1433–1499) (Belles Lettres, Paris, 1958), pp. 133–134, 612; Efraim Wust, “Elisha the Greek: A Physician and Philosopher at the Beginning of Ottoman Period,” Peʿamim 41 (1989), pp. 49–57 (Hebrew). François Masai, Plethon et le platonisme de Mistra (Paris, 1956), p. 57, aired the possibility that Elisha was a Kabbalist, while Michel Tardieu, “Plethon lecteur des Oracles,” Metis 2 (1987), p. 144 n. 7, rejected this possibility, implying (see especially p. 141) that he was a Spanish Jewish thinker acquainted with Averroës' thought who arrived in Adrianopole. Though there is indeed no evidence that Elisha was a Kabbalist, an interest in Averroës does not exclude an interest in Kabbalah, as in the case of Abraham Abulafia, who introduced Kabbalah in the Byzantine Empire in the 1270s. Later, in the mid-fourteenth century in Constantinople, a combination of interest in both Kabbalah, including ecstatic Kabbalah, and medieval philosophy is evident in R. Elnathan ben Moshe Qalqish's 'Even Sappir, a huge treatise extant in two manuscripts in Paris, BN 727–728.
(10) . See Woodhouse, George Gemistos Plethon, pp. 24–25; Tardieu, “Plethon lecteur des Oracles,” pp. 144–146.
(11) James Darmesteter, “Textes Pehlvis relatifs au Judaisme,” REJ 19 (1889), p. 56.
(12) . For a possible source of this view see Joseph Bidez and Franz Cumont, Les mages hellénisés: Zoroastre, Ostanès et Hystaspe d'après la tradition grecque (Société d'éditions “Les Belles lettres,” Paris, 1938), 2: 21. On Zoroaster as Abraham's student see ibid., 1: 41 and 2: 48. On the Hebrew sources for such a view see Micah J. bin Gorion, Die Sagen der Juden (Schocken, Berlin, 1935), p. 219. See also chap. 13, sec. 3, of this volume for a discussion of R. Elijah Hayyim of Genazzano.
(13) . See Henry Corbin, Histoire de la philosophie islamique (Gallimard, Paris, 1964), pp. 285–286; Tardieu, “Plethon lecteur des Oracles,” pp. 144–146; Tambrun, “Marsile Ficin,” pp. 20–22; and Shlomo Pines's remark in the discussion following a lecture by François Masai, “Plethon, l'Averroisme et la philosophie religieuse,” in Le Néoplatonisme, ed. P. M. Schuhl and Pierre Hadot (Presses du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, 1971), p. 445; Efrayyim Wust, “Elisha the Greek,” Peʿamim 41 (1990), pp. 49–56 (Hebrew).
(14) . See Idel, “Abraham Abulafia,” p. 13; and idem, “On Prophecy and Magic in Sabbateanism,” Kabbalah 8 (2003), pp. 31–32. For more on Kabbalah in the Byzantine Empire see idem, “Kabbalah in the Byzantine Empire: Preliminary Inquiries,” ibid., 18 (2008), pp. 197–227 (Hebrew).
(15) . See Sefer ha-Peliy'ah, pt. I, fols. 50a–51a, 58d–59a, 59d–60b; Idel, “Abraham Abulafia,” p. 11.
(16) Michal Kushnir-Oron, “The Sefer Ha-Peli'ah and Sefer Ha-Kanah: Their Kabbalistic Principles, Social and Religious Criticism, and Literary Composition” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1980), pp. 76–80
(17) Sefer ha-Peliy'ah, pt. I, fols. 23a–d.
(18) Kushnir-Oron, “The Sefer Ha-Peli'ah and Sefer Ha-Kanah,” pp. 85–102.
(19) . Jellinek, Beth ha-Midrasch, 3: xxxviii–xlv; and idem, Quntres Taryag (1878; reprint, Jerusalem, 1972), p. 129. Efraim Gottlieb also accepted this view about possible locations outside Spain; see Kushnir-Oron, “The Sefer Ha-Peli'ah and Sefer Ha-Kanah,” p. 23 n. 27.
(20) . See Israel M. Ta-Shma, “Where Was the Book ‘Alilot Devarim Composed?,” ‘Alei Sefer 3 (1977), pp. 44–53 (Hebrew); and Kushnir-Oron, “The Sefer Ha-Peli'ah and Sefer Ha-Kanah,” pp. 6–18.
(21) Gottlieb, Studies, pp. 117–121
(22) . See Haviva Pedaya, Nahmanides: Cyclical Time and Holy Text (‘Am ‘Oved, Tel Aviv, 2003) (Hebrew); Moshe Idel, “The Jubilee in Jewish Mysticism,” in Millenarismi nella cultura contemporanea, ed. Enrico Rambaldi (FrancoAngeli, Milan, 2001), pp. 209–232. See also chap. 12 above for the observation by Elijah del Medigo regarding the affinity between this kabbalistic theory and Neoplatonism.
(23) . See Kushnir-Oron, “The Sefer Ha-Peli'ah and Sefer Ha-Kanah,” pp. 294–297. This stand is hinted at in R. David ben Yehudah he-Hasid, and I hope to demonstrate elsewhere the nexus between his thought, as found in an unidentified manuscript, and the Byzantine Kabbalah. See, for the time being, Moshe Idel, “The Meaning of Taʿamei Ha-‘Ofot Ha-Teme'im of R. David ben Yehuda He-Hasid,” in ‘Alei Shefer: Studies in the Literature of Jewish Thought Presented to Rabbi Dr. Alexander Safran, ed. Moshe Hallamish (Bar-Ilan University Press, Ramat Gan, 1990), pp. 11–27 (Hebrew); idem, “Kabbalah, Hieroglyphicity, and Hieroglyphs,” Kabbalah 11 (2004), pp. 24–25; and idem, Ascensions on High, pp. 177–178.
(24) . See Moshe Idel, “On Some Forms of Order in Kabbalah,” Daʿat 50–52 (2003), pp. xlix–liv; Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah, pp. 460–475.
(25) Scholem, Reshit ha-Qabbalah, pp. 176–193
(26) Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah, pp. 460–461 n. 233
(28) Kushnir-Oron, “The Sefer Ha-Peli'ah and Sefer Ha-Kanah,” pp. 18, 114.
(29) . Moshe Idel, “Neglected Treatises by the Author of Sefer Kaf ha-Qetoret,” Peʿamim 53 (1993), p. 78 (Hebrew); idem, “On Prophecy and Magic in Sabbateanism,” p. 11. More recently other scholars have adopted this characterization of Tzevi. See, e.g., Avraham Elqayam, “Sabbatai Sevi's Manuscript of the Zohar,” Kabbalah 3 (1998), pp. 358–361 (Hebrew).
(30) . An issue that does not concern us in the context of the east-to-west trajectory of Kabbalah's arrival in Italy is the impact of R. Nathan Harar's Sefer Shaʿarei Tzedeq, and the influence of R. Yitzhaq of Acre on R. Moshe of Kiev's book Shushan Sodot. R. Moshe was a late-fifteenth-century Kabbalist who continued the Byzantine Kabbalah and preserved some otherwise unknown and important kabbalistic material. See my introduction to Har'ar, Shaʿarei Tzedeq, pp. 37, 169, 174, 180,185, 231, 232, 241, 250. However, Shushan Sodot, which represents a synthesis of the books and tendencies described above, did not influence Italian Kabbalah.
(31) . See Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi, p. 116; Moshe Idel, “Saturn and Sabbatai Tzevi: A New Approach to Sabbateanism,” in Toward the Millennium: Messianic Expectations from the Bible to Waco, ed. Peter Schaefer and Mark Cohen (Brill, Leiden, 1998), pp. 179–180.
(32) Israel M. Ta-Shma, “On the History of Rabbinic Literature in Greece in the Fourteenth Century,” Tarbitz 62 (1993), pp. 101–114
(33) Kushnir-Oron, “The Sefer Ha-Peli'ah and Sefer Ha-Kanah,” pp. 337–343.
(34) . See R. Yohanan Alemanno, Collectanea, Ms. Oxford, Bodleiana 2234, fol. 136a, quoting Sefer ha-Peliy'ah, pt. II, fol. 17a. See also Collectanea, fols. 37a–b, where additional quotations are found under the title Sefer ha-Qanah.
(35) R. Yohanan Alemanno, ‘Einei ha-‘Edah, Ms. Jerusalem, NUL 8° 598, fols. 101b, 102b, 105a.
(36) ‘Einei ha-‘Edah, Ms. Jerusalem, NUL 8° 598, fols. 103b, 104b, 119a, 128a.Sefer ha-Temunah
(38) . Tirosh-Rothschild, Between Worlds, pp. 184–230; and Gottlieb, Studies, pp. 300–302, 402–422, 432–434.