User talk:Apaugasma/sandbox

Missing medieval link in the Jewish tradition
I came here and read your draft, after you pointed to it at the talk page of Shem Hamephorash.

Two initial comments. Shem Hamephorash in simple, direct Hebrew means precisely the Explicit Name, nothing else. It does not mean, in simple, direct Hebrew, the "Distinguished Name" or the "Preeminent Name." This is precisely how Maimonides used the term in the 12th century, and there was no hint of any mystery to the name or to its interpretation of it by Maimonides' time. The mystical interpretations of the name used first by Maimonides come only in the development of the Spanish Kabbalah in the 13th and 14th centuries. I think your draft is currently missing a medieval section that explains the interpretation and use of the expression by Maimonides, and of the possible connections or lack thereof between Maimonides' interpretation and use and Rashi's one, before him. This is just a quick note to make you aware of the fact that this would be the direction my own research would go into when I have the time to pursue it. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 20:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * first of all, thank you for commenting here! Unfortunately, you appear to have it exactly backwards: the term evolved as a reference to the powerful and hidden name of God in the Tannaitic period, then went on to play an important role in late antique Jewish mysticism, thus becoming the center of a tradition of mystical speculation that was ultimately rejected by the rationalist Maimonides in the 12th century. If you want to do research on this (and that would be great), I strongly advise you to start with reading Bacher's relatively short article in the Jewish Encyclopedia. Let me quote you some relevant passages (it's from 1906, so it should be in the public domain):


 * "Ancient tannaitic name of the Tetragrammaton. The exact meaning of the term is somewhat obscure; but since the Tetragrammaton is called also 'Shem ha-Meyuḥad', it may be assumed that 'meyuḥad' is used elsewhere in, the terminology of the tannaitic schools as a synonym for 'meforash,' both words designating something which is distinguished by a characteristic sign from other objects of its kind (see Bacher, 'Die Aelteste Terminologie der Jüdischen Schriftauslegung,' p. 71). In connection with 'shem' (= 'the name [of God]'), both terms mean also 'preeminent.' 'Shem ha-Meforash,' therefore, denotes the name of God which differs from all the other names applied to Him, and is, consequently, the excellent name, the Tetragrammaton."


 * --> Note that Bacher doesn't even mention the meaning "explicit". Among the four sources I cite in my draft, only Stroumsa 2005 has "explicit". Perhaps this is the meaning in Modern Hebrew, while in ancient Hebrew the term was a bit more ambiguous (as Bacher claims, and as seems to be reflected by the fact that scholars tend to call it by its Hebrew name rather than by a translation)?


 * "The Shem ha-Meforash as an object of the esoteric knowledge of scholars appears in the statement of Johanan (Ḳid. 71a): 'Once each week the sages give their pupils the Four-Lettered Name.' [...] The curious anecdote is also told (ib.) that Samuel (a Babylonian amora of the third century) heard a Persian curse his son by using the Tetragrammaton (according to Eccl. R. iii. 11, however, it was a Persian woman who cursed her son). This story assumes that the Gentile had managed to obtain a knowledge of the Shem ha-Meforash, which was used like a magic formula (see Blau, 'Das Altjüdische Zauberwesen.' p. 129). [...] Phinehas b. Jair, one of the last tannaim, asked the question: 'Why are the prayers of Israel not heard?' and answered it, according to Joshua b. Levi, thus: 'Because they know not the mysteries of the Shem ha-Meforash' (Pesiḳ. R. 14.)"


 * --> Esoteric (=secretive), magical, and mysterious aspects are clearly attested from a very early period (Johanan bar Nappaha = 180–279; Joshua ben Levi = first half 3d century).


 * "From the earliest times the Tetragrammaton has been an extremely important element in Jewish mysticism. According to the 'Sefer Ḥanok.' (in Jellinek, 'B. H.' ii. 117), it was Hillel who transmitted the name of God to the generations after Ezra, while Abbahu and Ze'era (3d and 4th cents.) and the 'men of faith' ('anshe emunah') are mentioned as possessing this knowledge after Hillel. [...] The view became current that the high priest uttered on the Day of Atonement the Forty-two Lettered Name (Hai Gaon, l.c.), and it appears from two remarks of Rashi (on Sanh. 60a and on 'Er. 18b) that there was a general belief that the Forty-two Lettered Name was represented by the Shem ha-Meforash. Maimonides opposed this idea with the express statement that Yod He Waw He was the Shem ha-Meforash ('Yad,' Yesode ha-Torah, vi. 2; ib. Tefillah, xiv. 10; idem, 'Moreh,' i. 62)."


 * --> Mystical letter speculations also date from the early medieval period at the latest (the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva, which Jellinek called the "Sefer Ḥanok", was known to 10th-century scholars, and may date back as far as the 4th century; Hai Gaon lived in the 10th century and was clearly using earlier materials), and were opposed by Maimonides.


 * In my draft I follow Bacher and the other sources I cite. They're not very likely to be as wrong as they would be if what you write here above were true, but of course sources sometimes do contradict each other, and it would be very interesting to know if Bacher and the others I cite were contradicted by more prominent sources. Thus, it would be helpful if you could also base your critique on sources, and give me full citations for them, so we can evaluate them together. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 23:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for you comprehensive reply, and all the sources you provide. The final research on Rashi on this issue is still pending, as are the connections or lack thereof between Rashi's view and Maimonides' ones. I just hope your final version will also include a medieval section clarifying Maimonides' views as you explain above. Thank you again, and good luck finishing and publishing this draft. Regards, warshy (¥¥) 17:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)