8/9/2019 3. a New Look JAAR2-1-1

1/24

Genre as Argument in the Sefer Yetsirah:A New Look at its Structure and Meaning

By: Marla Segol

In a controversial article written in 1979, Fritz Staal argues that ritual ismeaningless because it is pure activity without meaning or goal.1

When he says rituals have no meaning he does so in part because hebelieves that they have no signified- they do not refer to any objectexisting in the material world. This may be just one article, writtendecades ago, and effectively rebutted by scholars of religion, but it isan argument that we hear over and over again as teachers andscholars. The argument goes like this: if it is not possible to fix thesemantic meaning of the text, then the text is meaningless. This

argument is similar to the ones made by proponents of the theory thatJesus never existed, and to those made in the films of the NewAtheists, such as Zeitgeist and Religulous. In these, the presenceof polysemy, rendered contradiction, indicates that there is simply nomeaning at all. The texts should be thrown out. Yet sacred texts aretypically polysemous. Some would even say polysemy is a deliberatestrategy that makes them inclusive of the varied communities usingthem, and that it contributes to their longevity as they are more easilyapplied in various times, places and situations. Clearly these texts aremeaningful. Those that hold sacred texts as such see them asauthoritative, as presenting arguments for particular ritual practices,

forms of community organization, and institutional authorities.2

Yet,how are all these things possible outside a literalist interpretation ofsacred text? The larger question is how religious texts argue whentheir polysemous nature is acknowledged. Even better, how does theirpolysemous nature argue?

In an article challenging Staals claims, Hans Penner posits that Thefact that we have not been able to adequately resolve the problem ofthe meaning of myth and ritual by determining their reference shouldalert us that we may well be asking the wrong question. 3 Given themodern developments in linguistics, we can no longer assume that the

meaning of something is its reference. Levi-Strauss writes that inmythology as well as in linguistics, formal analysis immediately raises

1 Staal, Fritz. The Meaninglessness of RitualNumen, Vol. 26, 1979. pp2-222 Lincoln, Holy Terrors, 13 Hans H. Penner. Language, Ritual and Meaning,Numen, Vol. 32, Fasc. 1 (Jul., 1985),

pp. 1-16 (p. 4)

Segol 1

http://www.jstor.org.lucy2.skidmore.edu:2048/action/showPublication?journalCode=numenhttp://www.jstor.org.lucy2.skidmore.edu:2048/action/showPublication?journalCode=numenhttp://www.jstor.org.lucy2.skidmore.edu:2048/action/showPublication?journalCode=numen

8/9/2019 3. a New Look JAAR2-1-1

2/24

the question of meaning.4 For Levi-Strauss, the meaning of myth isnot in its material referents, but in the structures of narrative, whichrefer not to the material world but to the mind. Myth, then, makes anargument about the minds of the people that make and use it.According to this logic wed look at the Hebrew Bible for its cognitive

theory, for its revelations about the function of the human mindencoded in its structure. Yet this entirely ignores the question ofreception. These texts, once again, make arguments compellingpeople to act. So, while it is true that structure is an important sourceof meaning in religious texts, it does not refer only to the human mind,but it also makes an argument meant to be applied.

This paper explores these larger issues in an examination of theliterary structure of the Sefer Yetsirah, a late antique/ medievalcosmogonic work written in Hebrew. It too is geared toward action; itslast lines show the patriarch Abraham applying the instructions

articulated in the text and receiving divine reward for it. The SeferYetsirah is fertile ground for trying to understand how polysemoustexts generate meaning and action because of the difficulty ininterpreting this text. In fact, the difficulty of fixing its semanticmeaning is in some ways its subject, a trope that seems purposefullybuilt into text. Despite this, and possibly even because of it, the texthas been continuously used and interpreted for at least elevencenturies. So clearly it means something. But these questions remainwide open: what does it mean and how can we possibly know? In thisessay I will argue that much of its meaning is generated by itsstructure, its generic form, which provides instructions for significant

action. Its genre has not been correctly identified by contemporaryscholars, and because of this a significant portion of this essay will bedevoted to exploring its genre.

The Sefer Yetsirah, theBook of Creation isa cosmogonic work, narrating the creation ofthe world with the ten sefirot and the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet. As muchas it is a cosmogonic text, it is also a cosmological one, showing relations between the

elements in what it calls the universe, the year, and the soul, referring to the celestial

realms, the planetary realms, and the human being. One of its primary aims is to verbally

map these relationships. It is one of the core texts of kabbalah, and though it is probably

not itself a kabbalistic work,5 it and its commentaries introduce and develop some of the

symbols and theologies6that characterizes the kabbalah of the twelfth and thirteenth

4 He explores this in The Story of Asdiwal Strucutral Anthropology, Vol II (NY 1976)

p 1655 If we define kabbalah as possessing a theosophic, sefirotic cosmology, then the Sefer

Yetsirah is not explicitly kabbalistic.6 Specifically, it introduces the category of sefirot, but some commentaries develop them

according to a theosophic model. In the Sefer Yetsirah they have a different meaning than

Segol 2

8/9/2019 3. a New Look JAAR2-1-1

3/24

centuries. Contemporary scholars have tried to establish the dating of the text,7 its place

of origin8its literary9 and historical influences,10 its use and reception,11 and of course its

semantic content.12 There are a wide range of perspectives on all of these questions,13 but,

unfortunately, there is no scholarly consensus on any of them.14 Assuch it is not possible to establish its milieu, its semantic content, or its reception.

The Sefer Yetsirah is an unadorned book, with few words (from 1300-2737,depending on the version and manuscript)15 written in very simple Hebrew. Yet it is noteasy to understand, and as a result it has generated a wide range of commentaries. MosheCordovero, a famous sixteenth century kabbalist from the Safed school, wrote that The

they do in later kabbalistic sources.7 See A. Peter Haymans Sefer Yesira (Mohr Siebeck 2004) for a comprehensive and

current discussion of the dating of this text. See especially the introductory chapters, pp.

1-39. For an excellent and shorter synthesis of scholarship on the dating and on the

origins of the Sefer Yetsirah, see Wasserstrom, Steven M., Further Thoughts on the

Origins of Sefer Yesirah,Aleph 2(2002), 201221. See also Joseph Dan, chapters 5 and6 ofJewish Mysticism, vol. 1: LATE ANTIQUITY (Northvale Jerusalem: Jason

Aronson Inc.,1998)8 See Wasserstroms work on this topic,Between Muslim and Jew: the Problem of

Symbiosis under Early Islam. Princeton, 1995.9 For linguistic analysis of the Sefer Yetsirah, see especially Dan, Joseph, The Language

of Creation and Its Grammar in Jewish Mysticism, ibid. Dan, Joseph, Sefer Yezirah:

Science and Mysticism, Letter and Name [Hebrew], in hisAl ha-Qedushah (On

Sanctity; Jerusalem, 1997), 234-268. Gruenwald, Ithamar, The Writing, the Written, and

the Ineffable NameMagic, Spirituality, and Mysticism [Hebrew], in M. Oron, A.

Goldreich (eds.),Massuot: Studies in Kabbalistic Literature and Jewish Philosophy, inMemory of Prof. Ephraim Gottlieb (TelAviv, 1994), 75-98. Sed, Nicolas., LEdition

Critique, Le Texte Primitif, La Grammaire et La Metaphysique, Liebes, Yehudah, The

Seven Double Letters, BGD KFRT, On the DoubleREISHand the

Background ofSefer Yezirah [Hebrew], Tarbiz 61 (1992), 237-247..10 Other important contributors include Shlomo Pines, Points of Similarity Between the

Exposition of the Doctrine of the Sefirot in the Sefer Yezira and the Pseudo-Clementine

Homilies: The Implications of the Resemblance Israel Academy of Sciences and

Humanites Proceedings 7 (3) 1989, 63-142. See Stroumsa, Guy G., A Zoroastrian

Origin to the Sefirot?,Irano-Judaica III(1994), 17-33. See also Liebes, Yehudah, Torat

ha-Yezirah shel Sefer Yezirah. [Ars Poetica of Sefer Yetsirah]Jerusalem-Tel Aviv, 2001.

11 See Moshe Idel,Absorbing Perfections: Kabbalah and Interpretation (New HavenLondon: Yale University Press, 2002), especially chapter 1, The World-Absorbing

Text, See also Naomi Janowitz, Icons of Power:Ritual Practices in Late Antiquity. PSU

Press, 200212 While there is a great deal of scholarship on this topic it is often the case that work on

its semantic content takes the form of theologically based commentary, as in the case of

Aryeh Kaplans Sefer Yetzirah.13 With the exception of use and reception, this literary analysis will avoid the above

Segol 3

8/9/2019 3. a New Look JAAR2-1-1

4/24

words of this book are deep, high, and hidden from the stare of those who study it,notwithstanding that many have tried to explain it.16The text is famously unstable

besides, with the first versions of the work appearing in the tenth century. The plural isdeliberate here; the tenth century witnesses no fewer than three different versions of theSefer Yetsirah, including the Short Version, the Long Version, and the Saadya Version,

named after its redactor, Saadya Gaon (d. Baghdad 942). The Short and Long versionsare similarly arranged, but the Long Version elaborates on certain parts of the work.Some argue that the Long Version grew as it gradually incorporated scribal glosses. 17 TheSaadyan version largely differs from the other two in the arrangement of itscompositional elements, and in some of its word choices.18

The commentaries bear out this instability as well; they expressa great variety of mutually exclusive understandings of the work. By thetenth century too there are already at least two separate commentary traditions, both ofwhich argue for the proper use of the Sefer Yetsirah. This first, tenth-century generationof commentaries includes those of Saadya Gaon, Dunash ibn Tamim, and Shabbetai

Donnolo.19

The first two are Babylonian in provenance, and they are overwhelminglyphilosophical, grounded in the intellectual culture of tenth-century Islam.20 These attempt

to situate the cosmology described in the Sefer Yetsirah within that described in scripture.

While there are no earlier textual witnesses or commentaries, these tenth century works

do not appear in a vacuum. Instead they already dispute previous, unnamed interpretive

traditions positing an astral-magical function of the text. On the other hand, ShabbetaiDonnolos tenth century Byzantine commentary, Sefer Hakhmoni emphasizes its astral-

concerns, including dating, place of origin, literary/historical influences, and to an extent,

semantic content.14 Scholars have argued for dates of composition ranging from the first to the ninth

centuries, and on places of origin ranging from Babylonia to Palestine and even India.There are a range of opinions on its genre, with some considering it a work of

philosophy, magic, astrology, mathematics, geometry, and grammar.15 Hayman, 2004, p 216 Pardes Rimonim, Gate 1: Chapter 117 Hayman, 2004, p 6118 The differences between the Saadya Version and the Short and Long Versions appear

to be ideologically motivated. See Ben-Shamai, Haggai, "Saadya's Goal in his

'Commentary on Sefer Yezira'," in Ruth Link Salinger (ed.), A Straight Path: Studies in

Medieval Philosophy and Culture (Washington D.C.: Catholic University Press, 1988),

pp. 1-9, Hayman, and Segol, Magical Letters, Mystical Planets: Magic,

Theosophy, and Astrology in the Sefer Yetsirah and two of its Tenth-century Commentaries, Societas Magica Newsletter, Spring 2009. APeter Hayman shows how Saadya adds biblical quotations in order toreconcile the Sefer Yetsirah with revealed scripture. See p. 86.19 Also included is a lost work by Isaac Israeli. Fragments of this work appear in ibn

Ezras commentary. See R. Jospe, "Early Philosophical Commentaries on the Sefer

Yezira: Some Comments," Revue des tudes juives 149 (1990): 369-41520 Jospe, 1990

Segol 4

8/9/2019 3. a New Look JAAR2-1-1

5/24

magical function. The power of the astral-magical elements is grounded in a theosophical

view of the universe.21 This is the idea that we can gain knowledge about the creator from

the created world because of their connection to one another. In the twelfth and thirteenth

centuries, Jewish thinkers continued to develop theosophical doctrines. The Jewish

magical ouvre continued to grow, and philosophers continued to develop the rationalist

views of their tenth-century Babylonian predecessors. And the Sefer Yetsirah wascontinually interpreted according to all of these outlooks.22 Clearly, divergent

interpretive traditions are part ofSefer Yetsirah from the beginning.

Because of this, the Sefer Yetsirah is slippery. The words are confusing, and the

reception is variable. This raises some important questions about the work: If the SeferYetsirah can generate so many different interpretations, what does it mean, and how dowe know? The text can work this way because it communicates in part by whatit says,i.e. its semantic content, but it also communicates a great deal by how it does, or itsgeneric form. This mode of generating meaning is fairly typical of religious texts. Inmany ways our inability to definitively fix their meanings contributes to their longevity.

Yet, it is a far stretch to move from this position to one arguing that they are in factmeaningless. The Sefer Yetsirah does argue for something, yet it does so in a manner thatcan accommodate varied use and reception. But how? And how do we name thatstrategy?

The field of semiotics can help here. Most would characterize the study of semiotics asconsisting of three branches: semantics, syntactics, and pragmatics. These three branchesname three different modes by which signs generate meaning. Thus far we havediscussed all three in relation to the Sefer Yetsirah; semantic meaning generally refers tothe meaning of signs, especially the relation between signs and the objects to which they

refer.23Applied here, this is the attempt to establish the meanings of particular words and

sentences appearing in the Sefer Yetsirah. Interestingly, the text seems to deliberately foil

this with literary devices such as syntagm, the repeated use of a single term in different

contexts so that it collects meanings and signifies polysemously.24 On the other hand,

syntactics studies relations among signs in a formal structure, such as genre. Because

some of the signs used in the Sefer Yetsirah are syntagmatically rendered polysemous,

the formal structure is more important than it might be otherwise. The third branch of

semiotics is pragmatics, which concerns the relations between signs and their effects on

21 See Elliot Wolfsons "The Theosophy of Shabbetai Donnolo, with Special Emphasis on

the Doctrine of Sefirot in Sefer Hakhmoni," Jewish History 6 (1992): 281-316

22 See especially the commentary of Isaac the Blind, and Mark Brian Sendorsdissertation on this subject.23 For example, Ruth Kempson writesin her book, Semantic Theory, ...our semantic

theory must be able to assign to each word and sentence the meaning or meanings

associated with it in that language. Kempson, Semantics, 1977, Cambridge University

Press, p 224 For example, the opening perek uses the word sefer, the root of sefirot, three times in

list form, reading, He created his world with sefer, sefer, and sefer.

Segol 5

8/9/2019 3. a New Look JAAR2-1-1

6/24

those who use them. The commentary tradition reflects the pragmatics branch of

semiotics. The commentary is quite diverse because of the polysemous semantic patterns

in the text. Because both the semantic and pragmatic meanings of the text are unstable,

and the structure of the work is well articulated, its syntactics (the formal, literary

structure of the work) play a greater role in generating meaning in the Sefer Yetsirah than

they might otherwise.

Genre is a form of syntactics that contains conventionalized instructions for reader

reception. These instructions provide valuable clues for better understanding the use and

the meaning of the work.25In this case specifically, the genre of the Sefer Yetsirah is

itself a message, and a mode of argumentation. Because the work is cosmogonic, and it

focuses on the structure of the universe, the form of the work both articulates and

amplifies that structure.

Some scholars have recently studied the literary structure of the Sefer Yetsirah; Yehuda

Liebes26 has focused on its poetics, while Ronit Meroz27 uses a literary approach to get at

important thematic concerns in the text. Liebes conducts an essentially aesthetic

reading28examining its cosmological poetics, and the creativity of its symbols. His

reading focuses on semantics and aims at establishing their indeterminacy. Ronit Merozs

interpretation is focused on the way that its language shows its connection to wisdom

literature, and indicates the integration of three different accounts of the nature of the

sefirot and of their function. Her study is valuable, especially because it calls attention to

the editing of the text. However she says little about the form itself. This study uses a

literary methodology but it is aimed instead at understanding the genre of the Sefer

Yetsirah.

I propose that there is a discernible pattern in the organization of theSefer Yetsirah, and that this pattern is a ring composition. The ringcomposition is a literary form commonly used in the Hebrew Bible, andin other late antique and early medieval works. It has a chiasticstructure, A-B-C-B-A, which works as follows: first there is anintroductory section, a prologue that presents the theme and context.The story then proceeds toward its crucial center: the turning point andclimax. Once there, the beginning is invoked again and the talereverses direction. The second half of the story echoes the first, as ifthe writer is walking backward through the plot. The ending is a return

25 Understanding of the genre can also shed light on text-historical questions, since insome versions the form is better articulated than in others.26 Liebes, Yehudah, Torat ha-Yezirah shel Sefer Yezirah. [Ars Poetica of Sefer

Yetsirah]Jerusalem-Tel Aviv, 2001,27 Meroz, Ronit. Between Sefer Yezirah and Wisdom Literature: Three Binitarian

Approaches in Sefer Yezirah,Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 6, 18

(Winter 2007), p. 106.28 Wassertstroms phrasing, in his review of the book.

Segol 6

8/9/2019 3. a New Look JAAR2-1-1

7/24

to the beginning.29 So in order to make meaning of the text the readermust visualize its elements in spatial relationship to one another. Thispartially explains its rich diagramming tradition.

How do we know its a ring?

A ring consists of a complete chiastic structure. It is possible toidentify the rings in the Sefer Yetsirah by looking for repeatedwords, phrases, and themes, beginning with the first lines ofeachperekor verse. Each ring begins with aperekthat presentsthe terms to be elaborated in that unit, and it ends with aperekthat repeats some of this introductory material. The firstperekalso contains the phrase that will be repeated in each of theprakim in the ring. I am calling this the tagline. Theperekat thecenter of the ring, equidistant from the first and last, oftenpresents key concepts in that ring, and that is known as the

turn.

An intact ring proceeds as follows: the first line or two of eachring contains the tagline and it introduces the terms that the ringwill develop. For example, the first ring begins with the phraseeser sefirot blimah (ten sefirot without substance) and itrepeats that phrase at the beginning of eachperek. Over thecourse of each ring, these terms are placed in relation to oneanother, and to other elements that are introduced in the courseof the narration, and they are fleshed out and given content. Thisoften takes the form of listing or narration. For example, the

introductory line contains the term sefirot, and in the course of the ring,these sefirot are listed, though unnamed.30 Alternatively, theperekmay narrate the processes by which a particular element cameinto being. The terms are developed in order of their initialpresentation, until the ring arrives at its turn, which addressesthe introduction and adds to it.31 The turn theorizes thematerials presented in list and narrative form in other parts ofthe ring. The ring then reverses direction and it concludes with arepetition of the initial formula and, often, a transition to the nextthematic unit. We know it is a ring when there is a group ofprakim beginning with the same tagline, and it follows this

pattern.

29 Douglas, Mary. Thinking in Circles. Yale University Press. New Haven: 2006. See

chapter 3, pp 31-42.30 Ronit Meroz argues that this is the central problem in the book. It is my view that Sefer

Yezirah presents several different answers to the question of the meaning of these claims

(Meroz, 2007, p. 10631 The turn often theorizes the material presented so far.

Segol 7

8/9/2019 3. a New Look JAAR2-1-1

8/24

The Master Ring Structure:

The Sefer Yetsirah is structured as a large ring made up ofsmaller ones. There are three different sorts of rings in this work.

The first is the master ring, and it comprehends all the others,arranging them in ring form. This is the larger structure of theSefer Yetsirah, a ring made of all the other rings. The second isthe primary, simple ring-unit, identified by the repetition of atagline at the beginning of eachperek. The third sort is asubsidiary ring developing one of theprakim within a primaryring. While the introduction of the subsidiary ring may begin withthe same phrase, the subsequentprakim usually not contain thatphrase. Instead they repeat another phrase internally, in themiddle of eachperekrather than at its beginning. The subsidiaryring is concluded when aperekbegins again with the tagline of

the primary ring.

In all versions, there are eight individual rings arranged in themaster ring structure, a ring whose order is laid out in theintroductoryprakim, or verses.32 The first and last of these eightrings open and close the circle.This structure operates asfollows: the introduction lays out the terms developed in thework,33 the grouping of numbers and letters, and it describestheir role in the divine creation. Primary ring structures form theconstituent parts of the large ring structure and each of thesedevelop the cosmogonic elements described in the first ring,

showing how they are used and what they create. The subsidiaryring structures develop particular aspects of the simple ringstructure. The final primary ring repeats the terms laid out in theintroduction, sums up those elaborated in each ring, theorizesthem, and models their application. This final primary ring closes

32There are a number of different schemes for chapter divisions, whichoften but do not always coincide with the large ring structures.33 Most recently Ronit Meroz has characterized the introduction as an editors preface of

sorts. She writes: It is my view that Sefer Yezirah presents several different answers to

the question of the meaning of these claims [about the nature of the sefirot]: alternativesolutions whose conceptual worlds are close to one another, yet nevertheless differ in

several significant aspects. The opening of the book may therefore be read as presenting a

shared, common claim or, alternatively, as posing the question presented for discussion.

By the nature of things, such a presentation is done by one who knows and is familiar

with the possible solutionsnamely, the editor of the text. Meroz, Between Sefer

Yezirah and Wisdom Literature: Three Binitarian Approaches in Sefer Yezirah, Journal

for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 6, 18(Winter 2007), p. 106.

Segol 8

8/9/2019 3. a New Look JAAR2-1-1

9/24

the master ring.34

In order to show this structure I have provided a summary of thework, a list of rings and their taglines, and a diagram of thestructure of the Sefer Yetsirah. For the list of taglines and for the

diagram I have used only Haymans Ms. A.35

It is a tenth centurymanuscript of the Long Version, in a square hand similar to thatused in the Geniza scrolls. It pays significant attention to listingand to making good transitions between rings. From Haymansedition of this manuscript I have made two sets of diagrams;these are primary ring-diagrams and a diagram of the structureof the whole work. The first set arranges theprakim in each unitin a ring structure. The second shows the relationships betweenthese rings. It shows the structure of the entire work, and itfocuses on connections between the rings and on thedevelopment of material introduced in lines one and two, and on

the connections that are made in ring eight, the final ring. Inshort, these diagrams show the composition of work from thesmallest repeated linguistic units such as taglines and otherrepeated phrases, how they form rings, and how these rings

34Primary rings are often dedicated to exploring one theme orelement. As stated above, theprakim included in a ring share atagline. The next criterion for their inclusion in the ring is thatthey develop the terms contained in the tagline and in its firstperekor two. The introductory material is recapitulated and thentheorized in the center of the ring, and again summarized in the

lastperekin the group. While it would be convenient to simplycountprakim and to identify the middle one as the turn, it is notalways appropriate to do so. This is true because these unitsvary from manuscript to manuscript, and because often theyfulfill more than one function. Some develop more material thanothers, and this material corresponds to more than oneperekopposite, and so semantically, they function as several unitsrather than as one. At the same time, someprakim are short,they lack a tagline, and they function with others to develop oneterm or idea. In that case they are counted together as one unitin the ring. It's important to note here that throughout the work

there are a fewprakim that do not begin with the taglinescommon to all the others in its grouping. This sort of formulationpoints to the possibility that theseprakim are either glosses tothe previousperek, or that one has been divided in the course oftransmission.Just the same, the tagline is key in identifying units within the ring.35 Vatican Library (cat. Assemani) 299(8) fols 66a-71b. Tenth century. Gruenwalds .

Hayman, p 12. For dating see Gruenwald, 1971: 135.

Segol 9

8/9/2019 3. a New Look JAAR2-1-1

10/24

together make a larger ring. For the sake of brevity, only two ofthese appear appended to this article. These are the diagram ofthe first simple primary ring, and the diagram of the master ring.After presenting the list of rings and their taglines, I return to adiscussion of the function of the ring composition, the ways in

which it generates meaning, and how that will help us to betterunderstand the work.

Summary:

The Long version examined here consists of about 63prakim, often arranged in six short

chapters in the manuscript traditions. Here I use the same version on which the diagrams

are based, Haymans Ms. A. Unless designated otherwise, I use his translation as well. It

is important to note that this summary is not a translation and that it implies fixed

meaning where it is often difficult to do so. The summary is interpretive, and without

direct recourse to the text this is unavoidable. Its purpose is to name important terms in

the text, and call attention to interpretive issues.

The introductory prakim, or verses, provide the structure for the ring as a whole,

and as such they merit special attention.The first twoprakim of the firstring introduce the terms to be elaborated in the work. Theyname the cosmological elements used in creation. Perek1introduces the 32 paths which 'God carved out and then used tocreate world.36Perek2 breaks this number down into two groupsof ten sefirot and 22 letters, also used to create. Inperek9,toward the close of the first ring, the group of 22 letters is thenfurther broken down into three constituent sets of three, seven,

and twelve. Each of these groupings is elaborated in its own ring,until all of the terms introduced in the beginning have beendiscussed, theorized, and applied as we are shown how and whatthey create. The work ends by lauding the patriarch Abrahamssuccess at using its instructions to create, just as God does inthis work. The narration of Abrahams efforts echoes the initialdescription of divine creation, it synthesizes material presentedin the rings in the body of the work, closing the ring structure ofthe work as a whole.

Chapter 1(Aleph, prakim 1-16) narrates the divine creation with 32 paths of wisdomwhich are carved out.37Still in perek 1, these are broken down into three groups with

identical names in the unvowelized text: He created his universe with three separim,38

36 Hayman p 59 37 The Hebrew reads Hakak Yah, so it is not clear whether Yah carved them, or whether

they are carved out from Yah.38 While including the Hebrew word in his translation Hayman renders this as groups of

Segol 10

8/9/2019 3. a New Look JAAR2-1-1

11/24

seper, seper, and seper.39 ten sefirot and the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet.40

The letters are then divided into three groups: the three mothers, alef, mem, and shin,

seven doubles or letters whose sound can be hardened with the addition of a dagesh,

and twelve simple letters, whose sound does not change. Next, ten dimensions are listed-

beginning, end, good, evil, above, below, east, west, north, and south. The text then

narrates the creation of the three elements (not four): air, water, and fire. There is noearth element. The text does not define the sefirot; in fact it does the opposite by making

the word signify polyvalently, by numeric analogy it is associated with the ten directions

and almost anything else appearing in groups of ten. At the same time the text asserts

that the sefirot are without substance. This first chapter presents both the geography

and the vocabulary of the text, and with it the first of the main interpretive challenges

because it describes the sefirot in purposefully paradoxical terms to assert both their

existence and their indefinablity.

Chapter 2 (Bet, prakim 941/17-22) describes the twenty-two letters, divided into the

categories of three mothers, seven doubles, and twelve simples, as carved out by the

voice, hewn out of the air, and fixed in the mouth.42 These three processes serve to map

the letters onto the three different realms in which this cosmogony acts. The voice is a

divine one, and so the first applies to the divine realm; the air here refers to the material

world, and the mouth is associated with the human form.43 Following this model each of

the letters is associated with heavenly bodies in the universe, elements of the year and

parts of the human being. The chapter explains the ways in which these letters are

combined in great detail; many medieval versions include permutational charts of the

letters of the Hebrew alphabet. This process is summarized in the text as follows: He

looks and exchanges; he makes all creation and all speech one name. And a sign for the

matter: twenty-two objects in one body.44

Chapter 3 (23-36) describes the role of the three mother letters, alef, mem and shin.

Three mothers,45 alef, mem, shin, a great secret, hidden and ineffable, and sealed with

six seals, and from it goes out fire, water and air, and it is enveloped in the mystery of

male and female.46 The mother letters are associated with previous cosmological

letters p 5939 Hayman, p 5940 There are few conjunctions and prepositions in this text, and this makes it hard to

determine the relation of the nouns to one another, as well as that between verbs and

nouns.

41 Perek 9 is repeated as 17, appearing in both chapters.42 Hayman, Perek 17, Appendix 1, translation of Ms. A43 Hayman p 93 SY 17a Ms. A44Hayman p 109, Of the early manuscripts, this appears in Mss. K and A only, but this

occurs in all the later versions including the GRA. Clearly, it was added to the others in

the later middle ages as a summary.45 Hayman translates these as matrices.46 Hayman, p 94

Segol 11

8/9/2019 3. a New Look JAAR2-1-1

12/24

elements, and with elements newly introduced here. Previously introduced elements

include the three elements, the six directions, three modes of vocalizing, and the

categories of the year, the universe, and the soul. The categories of male and female,

among others, are newly introduced in this chapter. Each rules over one of the elements,

alef over air, mem over water, and shin over fire. Again, the text details the ways in

which these letters were combined, and it lists the items created in this way in the threedifferent realms of the created world- universe, year, and soul.

Chapter 4 (37-44) describes the seven double letters; those that make two sounds, one

soft and the other hard with the addition of a dagesh. Each of these possesses a pair of

opposing human qualities (life: death; peace: evil: seed: desolation, etc.)47 They are

additionally associated with the six directions introduced in chapter 1, and the Holy

Temple set in the middle.48The second to last verse of Chapter 4 includes instructions for

using the letters: The Seven Doubles, how does one permute them? Two stones build

two houses, three build six houses, four build 24 houses, five build 120 houses, six build

720 houses, and seven build 5040 houses. From there on go out and calculate that which

the mouth cannot speak and the ear cannot hear.49 This verse is often diagrammed for

pedagogical purposes.

Chapter 5 (45-55) describes the remaining twelve, simple letters, and it situates them in

relation to the other elements named so far. Each of these is also associated with human

actions such as sight, hearing, smell, speech, taste, coition, action, motion, anger,

laughter, thought, and sleep50 These are called the Arms of the Universe51 and they

provide its geographic boundaries, conceptualized as twelve diagonal lines.52 Each one

of these is also associated with one of the twelve constellations, and one of the months of

the year.53Each of these is used to form one entity in the universe, in the year, and in

soul, consistent with the tripartite creation throughout the work.54 The center of thechapter recapitulates of all the previously named cosmological elements and their names,

while its end situates it in another tripartite matrix of elements ruling over all those

named so far and recapitulated in the center of this chapter. These are the Hook (the Tli)

the Wheel (the diurnal sphere) and the Heart.55

47 Hayman 128 all versions48 Hayman 131 appearing in all versions49 Hayman p 13450 Hayman 146 all versions51 SY 47, Hayman p 134

52 ibid53 This portion is also frequently diagrammed in the form of concentric circle models

mapping months, signs of the horoscope, and human qualities. Similarly, it is also

represented in the form of a twelve-sided space cube.54 For example: he made Bet rule, and bound it to a crown, and combined one with

another and formed with it Saturn in the universe, the Sabbath in the year, and mouth in

mankind. Hayman p. 137, SY 4155 Perek 55, Hayman p. 176

Segol 12

8/9/2019 3. a New Look JAAR2-1-1

13/24

Chapter 6 (5556-64) Prakim 55 and 56 situate and sum up the cosmology elaborated in

the previous chapters, naming all of its elements. It could be argued that perek 56 sums

up the work as a whole, reviewing all the cosmological elements and their relation to one

another. Chapter 6 subjects these elements to the newly introduced astrological figure of

the Tli, a master constellation controlling all the others. The Tli in the Universe is likea king on his throne57 In most versions Chapter 6 concludes with cryptic instructions

for using the Sefer Yetsirah: And when Abraham our father gazed, he looked, saw,

delved, understood, engraved, carved, permuted and depicted, and succeeded, the Lord of

all was revealed to him. And he made him it in his bosom, and kissed him upon his

head.58 Peek 64 is a colophon asserting this is the book of the letters of Abraham our

father, which is called the laws of creation.59There is no limit to the wisdom of all who

look into it.60 This then describes how Abraham used the text and provides instructions

for the reader. Thus we have a speculative, cosmological, cosmogonic work, with its

practical application explicitly modeled by the patriarch.

The six chapter divisions generally coincide with the ring structure, as the whole consists

of six primary rings and two subsidiary ones included within the primary six. Because

they vary, here I have shaped the chapter divisions to fit the ring structure.

List of rings and their taglines:

Lines 1-2 are part of the first ring, but they specifically comprisethe introduction to the text as a whole, presenting all of themajor categories developed in it, including thirty-two paths, tensefirot, twenty-two letters, three mothers, seven doubles, and

twelve simples. These terms are elaborated and theorizedthroughout, until they have all been discussed. The work ends asit applies some new concepts to the material presented, andthen models the application of these concepts.

1. 3-10: primaryRing one develops the category of the ten sefirot. Its tagline is

ten sefirot without substance,

56 Perek 55 plays the role of concluding the fifth chapter and beginning the sixth.

57 Hayman p. 176. Interestingly Hayman translates this as hook, but in the diagrams thefigure is depicted as a snake. In many diagrams the Tli is depicted at the center of the

planterary realm (i.e. the year) as an ourobouros, a snake eating its tail. As such it

echoes both the shape of the cosmos and the structure of the work.58 Perek 61. Hayman p. 193. 64 returns to this theme.59 This assertion links the Sefer Yetsirah to the Hilkot Yetsirah, described in the Talmud.

Sanhedrin 65B mentions a text or tradition calledHilkhot Yetsira60 Hayman p. 197

Segol 13

8/9/2019 3. a New Look JAAR2-1-1

14/24

2: 11-16: subsidiary, included within 1Ring 2 describes a process of development in which one sefirahleads to the next. It identifies the three as the first elements ofthe ten that then give rise to spatiality. Its last line contains thetagline identifying it as part of ring 1, and this is how we know

that the subsidiary ring is concluded. 16 begins with the words:

3: 17-22 primaryThis ring is introduced with materials repeated from ring 1, inperek 9, and this shows that ring three continues to developthemes laid out in 1. Its tagline is esrim vshtayim otiyot yesod,twenty-two foundational letters. It develops the theme ofcreation by combining them.

4: 23-31/36: primary

This ring describes the three mother letters. Its tagline is threemother letters, aleph, mem, shin.

.In addition to their shared tagline, the prakim in this ring endwith another shared line: air holding the balance between them:

5: 31-36 subsidiary, included within 4Ring 5 develops the theme set out in ring 4 by listing the itemscreated with the three letters - it describes what they created,

how they did, and the categories that organize them: theuniverse, the year and the soul. These prakim are highlyformulaic;

This is perek 32, and in prakim 32-5 the formula is repeated withchanges in terminology according the letter described.

6. 37-44: primary

This ring describes the seven double letters. Its tagline is

7. 45-55 primaryThis ring describes the creation by the twelve simple letters.

Its tagline is

Segol 14

8/9/2019 3. a New Look JAAR2-1-1

15/24

8. 5561-64: concluding ring:This links all the rings together, and the end to the beginning. Itdoes not have a tagline; instead, each of its prakim repeattaglines and important phrases from other rings. They do so byfurther developing the terms presented in them and by placing

them in relation to each other and to new terms. Its primaryfunctions are to map and model, so that each of the groups isplaced in contiguity to others, and organized within a largerrubric governed by the tli.62 Then the instructions contained inthe work are modeled by the figure of Abraham who uses themto create and receives a reward for it. There are many keyphrases and formulations repeated from earlier rings.

Analysis

The list of taglines above and the diagrams below show the

relationships between theprakim within each ring and amongring units. They have depicted patterns of repetition of themesand phrases because this is key to illuminating its compositionalstructure. In these it is clear that, like other ring compositions,the Sefer Yetsirah generates meaning by repetition, bypositionality (contiguity or parallel positioning), and by analogy.Specifically, when a phrase is repeated amongprakim it shows arelationship between them, and between the cosmologicalelements eachperekdescribes. In this work contiguity generatesmeaning because terms that are contiguous in the text are alsocontiguous in time and space.

The most significant relationships occur between the first, last andmiddleprakim, between contiguousprakim, and between oppositeones, that is, between the first A and the second A, the first andsecond B, and so on. As we might expect, contiguousprakim continuedeveloping the material in the introduction in the order in which it waslaid out. A subsequent one might also develop material from theprevious, so thatperekB introduces a term or a concept that isexplored in more detail in C. Just as important however are therelations betweenprakim opposite one another in the ring structure.Oppositeprakim, those horizontally across from one another in the ring

structure, are likely to repeat keywords or phrases. It is also likely thatthat the first B will present terms developed in the second B,or that

61 Perek 56 is not present in Ms. A62 While others argue that the Tli functions according to astrological principles, and that

these in turn organize the work, here I am stating only that here, in this ring, it provides

an organizing principle for the material in it and because of the synthesizing function of

this ring, therefore in the work as a whole.

Segol 15

8/9/2019 3. a New Look JAAR2-1-1

16/24

the first will pose a question that is then answered in the second. Forexample, in ring 3,perek19 (in the first C position) asks the question: "How did he

combine them? Perek 21 (second C position) answers that question with a chart,

visually depicting this precisely.In this way the later opposingperekcandevelop earlier material by narration, list-making, or by tacitly or

explicitly answering a question posed by the earlier one. Relatedprakim, then, tend to repeat earlier themes and to develop them.

Parallel positioning of similar phrases among rings also works todraw our attention to themes they share. For example, thephrase 63(a sign for the matter: twenty-two objectsin one body) occurs in both 22 and 48b, and both of these occupythe turn position of their respective rings, rings 3 and 7. Thisencourages the reader to consider the relationship betweenthese two rings, and to wonder if each explores a similarprinciple. And of course, they do, since 48 repeats much of 22,

and ring 7 fleshes out the category of the twelve simple lettersdescribed generally in ring 3. Perek 22 occupies the turn positionof Ring 3, and Ring 3 occupies the turn position for the entirework, and so thisperekappears in one of the three mostimportant positions in the work. The fact that this phrase occursin the turn position of each ring means that it theorizes thematerial presented in the ring, and that the same principleapplies to both rings; its appearance in the turn position of theentire work means that it theorizes the material presented in theentire work, instructing us to read all of it as a sign, anindication of a particular principle at work. The shared position of

these twoprakim not only points to shared themes but it alsoalerts us to the significance of the principles expressed in thetext. This means that position is important, and this method ofgenerating meaning mimes and reinforces the content of thework. This is significant because the ring structure amplifies themeaning of the thematic elements by positioning.

Ring compositions encode expectations that readers participate ininterpreting the text by visualizing its elements in a spatial relation toone another. This is explicit in the text's repetition of key phrases that

encourage this very thing, such as (perek4) "know,ponder, and form.64 Indeed, Hayman translates this phrase as know,ponder, and form [a mental image].65 There are a number of keyphrases too, that can be understood to refer both to the cosmology thework describes and to the work itself. One example occurs inperek6

6364 This is repeated in the opposing perek, number 6, and in 24.65 Hayman, p. 74

Segol 16

8/9/2019 3. a New Look JAAR2-1-1

17/24

, their end is in their beginning and their beginning is in their end; it then repeats the formula, know, ponder and form, from 4. Theserepeated phrases occur early in the text, they are repeated throughout, often in the same

position in each ring, and they work to describe the cosmos and to aid in reading the text.

This reinforces the idea that the text includes instructions- for reading,

thinking, and doing.

The editor of the Sefer Yetsirah probably chose the ring form toemphasize its cosmological mapping function. This is true because inorder to understand the form, the reader must visually arrange it in acircle and mentally map it. The shape the reader is asked to imagine issimilar to the cosmos described in the text. If the diagrams oftenaccompanying the Sefer Yetsirah provide any indication of the shape ofthe cosmos the readers imagined, it consisted of groups of related andconcentric circles. Another important goal of the text is to showcosmological elements in melothesic66 relationship to one another; this

means that conceptually related elements reflect one another. Theprocess of visually mapping the linguistic elements in the text helpsthe reader to experience this relationship. In short, the form ishomologous. It engages various mental faculties in the process ofinterpreting it, and it provides a way of reading the text. It expressescontent a vision of the cosmos, how it was created, and how it works-by modeling it.67

How do rings compositions generate meaning?Genre, memory, and mapping

The ordered visualization of cosmological elements is key to thesignificance of the Sefer Yetsirah. In doing this correctly the readerrecognizes its genre and follows its encoded instructions to rememberin a particular way. In remembering visually the reader participates inthe significant action of reconstructing the Yetsiratic cosmology, and inso doing, creates a mental map of the cosmos. In this way, genrestructures remembering. And when this is done according to theinstructions provided by the ring composition, it effects a visualizedcognitive mapping. This re-membering is a constructive activity and inthis it is a significant action. In this way memory, mapping, and actionare tied together in the use of generic form.

66 For a discussion of melothesia and how it works, see Andrew Scharf, Universe of

Shabbetai Donnolo, Ktav Publishing Company, New York: 1976 p 3667 See Lancaster, Brian. On the Relationship Between Cognitive Models and Spiritual

Maps: Evidence from Hebrew Language Mysticism. Moshe Idel writes that kabbalists

view language as the spiritual underpinning of reality (Idel, 1995, p. 219), and the

Hebrew letters as a mesocosmos that enables operations that can bridge the gap between

the human or the material and the divine (Idel, 1992, p. 43).

Segol 17

8/9/2019 3. a New Look JAAR2-1-1

18/24

This choice of genre serves both conceptual and practical purposes.Assigning genre is necessarily a comparative endeavor, because in so doing the reader is

asked to decide whether the text in question is like or unlike others. In this way generic

comparison is an important way to approach ideological content.68 Conformity is

important too; understanding how it is like other texts also aids in the process ofassigning meaning. For example, the reader might be reminded of other books composed

according to the ring structure, such as the Hebrew Bible. The Sefer Yetsriah contains

very few references to the Hebrew Bible, yet there is a long standing interpretive tradition

that the number ten, which is so important in the structure of the work, refers to the ten

divine utterances by which the divine created the world in the Genesis narratives. In this

way, the Genesis text is recalled by the ordering of the Sefer Yetsirah, and the same may

be true of many other ring-compositions familiar to its readers. In short, the writer

communicates by the way in which he meets generic expectations or alters them, and by

the way the ordering of the text recalls others that are similarly ordered. Practically,the ring composition may work for both writers and readers as a

mnemonic device, 69and conceptually it may have been chosen toreinforce the meaning of the text. Conceptually, the genre acts tocommunicate expectations of the reader and, in part by comparison, toaid in theorizing the way that meaning should be assigned. Practically,it acts to facilitate a particular sort of thought, and with it, thesignificant actions of remembering and reconstructing.

In antique and medieval thought, genre was tied to mnemonics as away of deliberately organizing thought. Mary Carruthers presents someimportant arguments for the mnemonic function of literary style. She proposes that an

"ornament of style" be considered the literary equivalent of such other inventional

features as page layout in books, and arches and columns in buildings--features often also

called decorative or ornamental, and thought now to be neither functional nor essential in

art.70 This is true because Medieval mnemonics is a technique, a tool for thinking and

inventing, now construed as ornament. Because literary form acted as a mnemonic

device, it is truly functional. She argues that ornament acted to arrange information and to

68Frederick Jameson argues that in paying attention to genre, it is possible to see how a

particular text deviates from generic expectation, in order to open up onto the third,

absent term, meaning history, the political, and the semantic raw material of the text.

Jameson distinguishes between semantic reading of genre, which ultimately grounds

itself in expressive materials from structural analysis which through the combinatoire,finds its ground in the texts logic of content. The logic of content is primary to the

analysis here.See Jameson, Frederick. The Political Unconscious: narrative as a socially symbolic act.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981. pp 9 and 14769 Carruthers, Mary. Inventional Mnemonics and the Ornaments of Style: The Case of Etymology

Connotations 2.2 (1992): 103-114N.B See The Craft of Thought: Meditation, Rhetoric, and the Making of

Images, 400-1200. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature, 34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1998. (p. 22)70 Carruthers (1992) p 103

Segol 18

8/9/2019 3. a New Look JAAR2-1-1

19/24

place it in relation to other already known information. She states that for the process of

meaning-making to begin at all, one's memory must be "hooked up" and "hooked in" to

the associational "play" of the mind at work. 71 Stylistic ornaments do precisely this

thing- they facilitate remembering and meaning-making by placing information in

relationship to other information. And by analogy, so does genre.

Genre facilitates memory, but for premoderns memory signifieddifferently than it does now, and this is important to our understandingof the meaning of the Sefer Yetsirah. For premoderns, memory was aprecondition for composition, and a locus for significant action.Ancient and medieval writers on memory recognized, as we now do,the dual aspects of storage and recollection involved in remembering.Their commonest model for human memory likened it to a tablet or aparchment page on which a person writes.72 So here, remembering isnecessary for the act of composition at the same time that memoryacts as its locus. Carruthers writes that Re-collection was essentially a

task of composition, literally bringing together the matters found invarious places where they are stored to be reassembled in a newplace.73 This new structure was itself the new composition. As such,ornaments and generic styles acting as mnemonic devices functionedin two ways; first they allowed the audience to recall the work, tomaster it so that it was possible to reconstruct it in the mind, andsecond, once that was done, the reader might be able to use thematerials learned in this way to generate new compositions. In thisway the art of memory is the art of construction. And genre providesits architectural blueprint.

One of the most important goals of the Sefer Yetsirah is to allow forthis construction. Specifically it is aimed at the creation and theapplication of cosmological models. Many versions of the text showhow they are used as the patriarch Abraham is literally embraced byGod for mastering knowledge of the model presented in the SeferYetsirah, performing letter combinations and creating. According to thework ofBrian Lancaster, a scholar of psychology and mysticism, this text functions in away typical of mystical works. He argues: The impetus to generate models is

fundamental to the mystical endeavor. Lancaster argues that all mystical works generate

models of the cosmos at the same time that they provide instructions for navigating these

models.74 In his examination of Hebrew letter mysticism he argues that the composition

of visual maps is key to this process, citing mandala images, temple plans, medicine

wheels and the kabbalistic tree of life, as intricate, often beautiful, expressions of this

71 ibid, p 10472(Carruthers, 2004, p 2)73(Carruthers, 2004, p1)74 On the Relationship Between Cognitive Models and Spiritual Maps: Evidence from

Hebrew Language Mysticism by Brian L. Lancaster, p 238.

Segol 19

8/9/2019 3. a New Look JAAR2-1-1

20/24

function.75 He believes that probably the majority of mystical writings relateto the challenge of modelling whatever passes for reality in both innerand outer aspects. (p. 232) Thus according to Lancaster, mystical thinkers ingeneral, and kabbalistic thinkers in particular, begin the process of mapping with

language. This map, this visual imagination of the relation between the elements

depicted, is its meaning. Diagrams participate in and extend this sort of meaning-makingactivity. Whether or not the Sefer Yetsirah is a kabbalistic work, it is surely a

cosmological one; its most important purpose is the ordering of created elements as it

depicts them in relation to each other. The ring composition helps to facilitate this, acting

as a locus for memory, mapping, and the significant action of construction by re-

membering. The work ends, once again, by presenting the patriarch Abraham as an

exemplar who uses the work correctly, follows its model to create, and receives a reward

from the divine in the form of an embrace. As such it is a generative model meant to be

applied.

In this way the text generates meaning through homology; the ring structure

does this too, and in this it both organizes and reinforces its semantic content.

This is the case because its form directs the reader to pay attention to the relations

between the linguistic elements that make up the work, just as its words name the

elements placed into relation with one another. In this the work demonstrates in

practice the principles of its own interpretation. The Sefer Yetsirah shows its

readers how to visualize relationships between cosmological elements, it

demonstrates their significance, it shows the reader where to look for the

principles underlying them, and it provides tools for remembering those

relationships, all at the same time. This is driven home as the work ends with an

account of Abraham modeling the principles elaborated in the work. In this way

the ring structure amplifies the modeling function and the meaning of the text.This helps to account for the diversity in its interpretive traditions; its point is not

to fix a narrative of the creation of cosmological elements but to show the

principles by which they are related. It shows the reader how, but not what, to

think.

Why Dont We Already Know its a Ring?

If the Sefer Yetsirah is indeed a ring composition, why dont wealready know it? After all, the Sefer Yetsirah has continuouslygenerated commentary since the tenth century, and perhaps

even earlier. Why should this be a surprise to us now? Ringcompositions are common in biblical literature, on a small andlarge scale. For example, contemporary scholars have identifiedchiastic structures in the Hebrew Bible.76 Already part of the

75 Lancaster, p. 23276 For a good survey of the uses of this approach, see The Literary Guide to the Bible,

edited by Robert Alter and Frank Kermode, Modern Language Studies, 1987. See

Segol 20

8/9/2019 3. a New Look JAAR2-1-1

21/24

tradition for Hebrew composition, these chiastic structuresprovide the guiding element for the ring composition. In herrecent book, Thinking in Circles, Mary Douglas argues that ourunfamiliarity with ring composition has led to contemporarymisinterpretation of ancient texts.77 She illustrates her point by

showing that the Book of Numbers, which generations of readershave considered disorderly and chaotic, is in actuality an orderlyring structure.78 I contend that this is the case with the SeferYetsirah: our unfamiliarity with its structure has clouded ourconception of the work.

This is true because genres encode expectations and they limitthe meaning-potential of a given text'.79 For an audience to makesense of any text it requires certain competencies that aresometimes called 'cultural capital'.80 Generic knowledge is one of these

competencies, and like most of our everyday knowledge, genre knowledge is

typically tacit and gained only through the experience of repeated exposure. 81Alastair Fowler suggests that 'readers learn genres gradually, usually through

Douglas, Thinking in Circles, See also The Redaction of Genesis by Gary A. Rendsburg,

University of Pennsylvania Press. In this book he argues that the editor(s) of Genesis

used chiastic and parallel structures to organize their material. Throughout the analysis,

Rendsburg defines symmetrical units through shared vocabulary and theme. He notes that

catchwords often effect a smooth transition between consecutive units. This is also true of

the Sefer Yetsirah.77 Douglas writes that This book turns out to be another example of what Glenn Most

has called the Pindar Problem for Western Greek Classicists: the misinterpretation ofthe text due to a misunderstanding of its structure. Numbers problem is the same: a poet

highly esteemed in his time is found to be quite impenetrable in modern times. 2006, p.

4378 ibid., Chapter 3, pp 43-5879 O'Sullivan, Tim, John Hartley, Danny Saunders, Martin Montgomery & John Fiske

(1994): Key Concepts in Communication and Cultural Studies. London: Routledge1994

(p. 128)80 Bordieu, Pierre. 'The Forms of Capital' (1986). In: Richardson, J. G. (ed.) Handbook of

Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Greenwood Press, New York, pp.

241-258. This refers to the embodied form of cultural capital, i.e. a skill that cannot be

separated from its bearer.81 Allen, Robert (1989): 'Bursting bubbles: "Soap opera" audiences and the limits of

genre'. In Ellen Seiter, Hans Borchers, Gabriele Kreutzner & Eva-Maria Warth (Eds.):

Remote Control: Television, Audiences and Cultural Power. London: Routledge, pp. 44-

55. See also Freedman, Aviva & Peter Medway (Eds.) (1994a): Genre and the New

Rhetoric. London: Taylor & Francis. Allen writes that A reader must encounter

sufficient examples of a genre in order to recognize the shared features that characterize

it. (p. 52)

Segol 21

8/9/2019 3. a New Look JAAR2-1-1

22/24

unconscious familiarization.'82 Because we do not typically encounter ring

compositions in our daily lives, we do not undergo this process of gradual and

unconscious familiarization, and so we are not likely to recognize a ring

composition, or any other literary genre we do not frequently encounter.

If we are unfamiliar with the genre, we miss the writersinstructions for reading it, we experience it differently than wewould if we shared its authors conception of its form, and,possibly, we misunderstand it. For example, readers familiar witha ring composition will visually imagine the composition in spaceand then relate and compare the parts opposite one another inthe ring, listen for the turn, and then relate it to the first and lastlines. This means that their experience of the work is differentfrom that of those who do not interpret it in this manner.

The Argumentative Function of the Ring:

When contemporary interpreters do not use the informationencoded in its genre, we receive the text differently than wewould otherwise. Often, we esotericize it, obscuring its practical,cosmological function. Similarly, we attempt to reconcile varyingcommentary traditions that do not inherently demandreconciliation. This is evident in medieval and early modernmanuscripts of the Sefer Yetsirah and its commentaries, whichcollected different versions and commentaries to place themtogether in one manuscript without definitively privileging anyone over the others. This is an argument made entirely by

placement; as the texts are placed together they speak together,and this is very much the point of the collection.

While there are many who treat the Sefer Yetsirah as an esoteric text, 83 some

important contemporary scholars do not. Stephen Wasserstrom asserts that it is a

cosmological manual.84 Shlomo Pines calls it a combination of a cosmogony

and a grammar.85I agree with them; it is primarily a cosmogonic, cosmological,

and cosmographic work with practical applications elaborated in the text. While it

82 Fowler, Alastair (1989): 'Genre'. In Erik Barnouw (Ed.):International Encyclopedia of

Communications, Vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 215-7, p. 215.

83 This viewpoint is especially common among those who treat its symbolism as either aprecursor to or equivalent with those appearing in theZohar, which these interpreters

treat unequivocally as an esoteric text. This point of view is expressed by Moshe

Cordovero, the sixteenth century kabbalist quoted at the beginning of the work, as well as

by Aryeh Kaplan, the best-known modern commentator on the work.84 Wasserstrom, 2002, p 21885 Studies in the History of Jewish Thought, eds Warren Harvey and Moshe Idel

(Jerusalem Magnes Press, 1997), p. 4

Segol 22

8/9/2019 3. a New Look JAAR2-1-1

23/24

may serve other purposes depending on the ideological framework applied to it,

these do not preclude its mapping and modeling functions. In fact, in most cases

these other functions are grounded in them. Because its structure is such an

important part of its message, these scholars present some of the most valid

descriptions of the work.

This is significant in two ways; the first is that the ring form isuseful in understanding the function and the meaning of the text.It is itself an argument as the Sefer Yetsirah theorizes relationsbetween different cosmological elements. By this I mean that itspoint is not so much elaborating the relations between particularcosmological elements as it is in modeling the principles bywhich those elements are related. As such, the Sefer Yetsirah is atraining text that shows its readers how to see and apply the principles of

cosmogony and cosmology, and the ring form both models and reinforces these

principles. The form is also significant in that it shows the reader how to think

without necessarily telling her what to think. In so doing it is clear that of thethree ways to generate meaning (semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic) the syntactic

function is prominent here. In this way its literary form is a mode of

argumentation that permits a wide variety of semantic meanings, perhaps even

facilitating their proliferation, resulting in a broad range of sites for pragmatic

meanings as well. What is clear, though, is that this is a model meant for

application. And the great variety of manifestations of its pragmatic meanings

shows that the model was indeed applied widely.

This mode of generating meaning is common in religious texts; often their

semantic meanings are unstable, and their generic forms no longer familiar. Theycan exist in many different variants, with a wide variety of interpretive traditions

attached to them. The instability of their meanings is more or less built in, and this

in turn contributes to their applicability and to their longevity. In this way, the

Sefer Yetsirah is a typical case of religious argumentation; it argues by structure,

by engaging the reader in its visualization, and by positioning, as the mere act of

placement of compositional elements necessitates a consideration of their relation

to one another. Yet, despite the ways in which textual instability contributes to

longevity, to the continued generation of pragmatic meaning, we do want to

understand the meanings of religious texts. An increased concentration on syntax

can help us to understand how they generate meaning.

Segol 23

8/9/2019 3. a New Look JAAR2-1-1

24/24

APPENDICES: Ring 1 and the Master RingIntroductory material: a guide to the diagramsWhile I have done diagrams of each of the rings, I include theseto give the reader a sense of how each ring operates. Each

diagram is numbered, and it consists of text bubbles arranged ina circle. Its heading lists theprakim included in the ring, andtheir shared tagline. Eachperekis assumed to begin with thecommon tagline, and when it does not this is indicated with anasterisk. I have not placed the whole of eachperekin the textbubbles. Instead, they contain repeated phrases and themes. Atthe center of each ring I have placed text boxes explaining therelations between opposingprakim.

Ring 1:Lines 1-2 comprise the introduction to the text as a whole,

presenting all of the major categories developed in it, includingthirty-two paths, ten sefirot, twenty-two letters, three mothers,seven doubles, and twelve simples. These terms are elaboratedand theorized throughout, until they have all been discussed.The work ends as it applies some new concepts to the materialpresented, and then models the application of these concepts.

Diagram of the whole text:

This diagram synthesizes the previous by showing the themes of

each ring in relation to one another. It includes their taglines andit shows the structure of the whole work.

Segol 24