JTS MS 2367, fol. 83b

Notes

1. The opening repeats “that the Torah” from 83a:42. Micah 7:20 supplies “kindness to Abraham”; “Torah” here need not mean only the Pentateuch. Bava Batra 25b connects facing north with wealth and the northern placement of the table, continuing 83a:40–42. The prince of Esau is an opposing supernal power in the commentary; the curtain is retained as its spatial image. Primary text: Bava Batra 25b. Interfolio continuity and primary references. ↩
2. Psalm 89:3, עולם חסד יבנה. The translation preserves the commentator’s reading of עולם as “world” and חסד as both kindness and the attribute Chesed. His objection concerns how a side without desire can produce the lower hypostasis through natural heat. The extra wording שאם שחס׳[?] remains syntactically uncertain. Biblical wording and unresolved syntax. ↩
3. The source reads אינו, “is not,” after “does not deny”; the resulting double negative is retained, although the surrounding defense appears to require an affirmation that Gedulah is mercy. No word is deleted or emended. The abbreviation מה׳ after Gevurah is not expanded with certainty. The main text consequently remains difficult at this point. Image-checked negative and abbreviation. ↩
4. Genesis 22:1. The fire/water question belongs to the commentator’s argument about Abraham and Isaac; its precise inferential force is compressed. The translation does not reverse it or supply an unstated conclusion. Genesis 15:1 supplies “Do not fear, Abram”; “Shield of Abraham” is the conclusion of the Amidah’s opening blessing. Biblical and liturgical references. ↩
5. The added letter he distinguishes אברהם from אברם (Genesis 17:5); the commentary identifies it with Binah above Abraham. ובזה׳ is read as a reference to the Zohar. An exact location for the following Aramaic dictum has not been established; its attribution is the manuscript’s, not an independently verified citation. Name interpretation and unlocated citation. ↩
6. The commentator explicitly calls his preceding argument התנצלות, a defense or justification of the author. The concern is the appearance of contradiction with earlier kabbalists, not simply the explanation of a word. The commentator’s stated purpose. ↩
7. Genesis 25:1 introduces Keturah; Genesis 16:15 supplies Hagar’s bearing a son to Abram. Oxford’s ואם supports the conjectural rendering “if,” but JTS’s uncertain עם[?] is retained in the Hebrew. The image-checked ערף ריחה uses a verb of cutting off; the English preserves it rather than adopting Oxford’s נידף. The association of Keturah with scent exploits the incense language of her name. The word מלך[?] at line 20 remains untranslated except for a provisional lexical gloss; no connecting clause has been invented. Witness differences and difficult readings. ↩
8. קליפה, literally “shell” or “husk,” denotes the opposing power represented here by Hagar/Keturah. The account of giving the powers a share explains the commentator’s interpretation of Abraham’s action. The wording “he ascended in that shell” is retained despite its difficulty; no different verb or preposition is silently supplied. Technical term and unresolved formulation. ↩
9. The words שלם and אף are explained explicitly in the next line as completeness from Abram and wrath from Hagar. The intervening שלף[?] and the precise operation denoted by צירוף[?] remain unresolved; this edition does not claim a verified anagram or numerical equivalence with Ishmael’s name. Limits of the letter interpretation. ↩
10. Genesis 16:12. The repeated “depicted” and “as drawn there” refer explicitly to a visual object. The commentary describes two threads from Chesed to Ishmael, one of which is broken; it links the doubled condition to Abraham’s contribution. No new diagram is reconstructed from this account alone. Diagrammatic language and biblical lemma. ↩
11. פרא (pera, “wild ass”), אפר (efer, “ash”), and פאר (pe’er, “splendor”) contain the same three letters in different orders. The commentary contrasts attachment to the inner tree of splendor with ash. Isaiah 41:2 has כעפר, “like dust,” with ayin, whereas אפר, “ash,” has alef; the prooftext is an association, not an exact repetition of the same spelling. Verified letter permutation and biblical spelling. ↩
12. פשוטו is rendered “single” in the context of the preceding doubled thread and Oxford’s explicit שלשלת פשוטה, “a single chain.” JTS compares Sarah to הכתר, “the crown,” and then writes שר ה: the letters of שרה separated into שר (sar, “prince”) and ה (he). The exact force of this division is not explained here; no numerical operation is asserted. The crown comparison is retained rather than replaced with an expected identification of Sarah with a different sefirah. Diagrammatic contrast and name division. ↩
13. Genesis 18:10 supplies Sarah’s hearing at the tent entrance. Oxford’s מאמר, “saying,” would yield easier syntax, but JTS’s מאחר is retained as “from behind”; the relationship of the following “entrance” to the angel is not clear. The abbreviation ש׳ remains unexpanded. The next line explicitly calls the Shekhinah “this” (זאת) and “Torah,” clarifying the demonstrative in the exposition of prophecy. Consequential witness difference and abbreviation. ↩
14. Genesis 21:10. Pardes literally means “orchard”; here it is the inner sacred realm from which the shell is excluded. The exposition interprets the biblical bondwoman as a supernal shell. Biblical citation and technical image. ↩
15. The uncertain בנו[?] is provisionally “his son,” though its relation to the preceding “her son” and the following ההבל הוא remains difficult. “Vanity” translates הבל, literally “breath,” in an argument about impermanence. The rubricated נצחי (“everlasting”) belongs grammatically to the commentary’s השארות (“endurance/survival”) across the line break; bold type here follows the transcription’s rubric rather than asserting a separate Oxford lemma. No correction from Oxford’s bracketed form is made. Uncertain syntax and rubrication. ↩
16. Genesis 21:20 supplies “archer”; the “stiff-necked people” phrase recalls Exodus 32:9 and related passages. The isolated הב׳ is retained as an unresolved abbreviation rather than expanded into a supplied phrase. The commentary interprets Leviathan through joining, not through a description of the creature. Biblical echoes and unresolved abbreviation. ↩
17. “Abraham had a daughter” recalls Bava Batra 16b and the preceding discussion at 83a:35–39. The phrase functions here within the account of Sarah’s ascent; the commentary does not explicitly identify all its referents. לויה, “accompaniment/joining,” is the commentator’s explanation of לויתן. The abbreviation ש׳ is retained without a certain expansion. Rabbinic allusion and explicit wordplay. ↩
18. Genesis 21:10 provides the inheritance clause. Main_42_L supports עם, “with,” rather than the earlier draft’s שם, “there.” The final lemma’s extent remains uncertain. The sentence continues at 84a:1 with “the will of the Omnipresent”; that continuation is recorded here without inserting it into line 43. Image-supported correction and interfolio continuation. ↩