Subjective Dimensions of Truth

[1] Hiddushei ha-Ritba al Massechet Eruvin (ed. M. Goldstein; Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1974),117-118. This is found in Tosafot Rabbenu Peretz to Eruvin (ed. S. Wiliman; Bnei Brak 1980), p.16 (=ed. Dickman, Jerusalem 1991, p.48). And R. Peretz b. Eliyah of Corbeil (died 1298) notes that this interpretation is found in the Tosafot of his Teacher, R. Yehiel of Paris, who had located it in an unnamed midrash, probably Midrash Tehillim cited below. See Ephraim Kanarfogel, The Intellectual History and Rabbinic Authors of Mediaeval Ashkenaz (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2013), 26-27.

[2] See Moshe Halbertal’s analysis in People of the Book: Canon, Meaning, and Authority, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 63-72, on what he calls “The Constitutive View.”

[3] The number 49 derives from the Song of Songs 2:4, “He brought me to the banquet hall and marked me with His Love” – “and marked” – ve-diglo – has the numerical value of 49, (cf. Y. Sanhedrin 4:2). The number, (see below) is derived from the first part of the same verse, “He brought me to the banqueting house” – literally “the house of Wine”, where wine –yayin –has the numerical value of 70. See Konarfogel, Intellectual History, p. 30 note 104, who refers us to R. Avigdor Katz’s commentary to the Song of Songs (ed. S.A. Wertheimer; Jerusalem 1981), 17, interpreting this half of the verse to mean that the Almighty brought the Children of Israel to receive the Torah at Sinai, which can be interpreted in seventy facets. R. Avigdor also adds that seventy is the gematria (numerical value) of the word sod, as in the verse in Psalms 25:14, “The secret (Sod) of the Lord is with them that fear Him. [and He will show them His covenant]”. See further Ephraim Kanarfogel, “Torah study and truth in Mediaeval Rabbinic Literature”, apud Study and Knowledge in Jewish Thought (ed. Howard Kreisel; Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University of the Negev, 2006), 109-113.

[4] This text is derived from Palestinian Talmud Sanhedrin 4:2, 22a. Cf. b. Eruvin 6b. See further, R. Hayyim Vital, (1542-1620), Shaar ha-Kavanot: Inyanei Tefilin, Derush 6, 11a (ed. Yeshivat-ha-Mekubalim, Jerusalem) n.d. but c. 2005, vol.1, p.199. Cf. b. Shabbat 88b, and b.Sanhedrin 34a, on Jeremiah 23:29, “It is not Thy word like fire? Saith the Lord;] and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces.” On which De-Bei R. Yishmael comments: “Just as the hammer is devided into so many sparks, so each word that was entitled from the mouth of the Holy One blessed be He was divided into seventy tongues.” (See Rashi and Tosafot ad loc.) B. Shabbat has “tongues” – leshonot, while B. Sanhedrin has taamim – explanations, reasons. Cf. Sefer Hassidim, ed. R. Margaliot, Jerusalem 1957, no.985, p.523, “Why was the Torah formulated in brevity and without detail (u-be-stam)? … Because one verse can be explained in many ways (yotzei le-kamah taamim), and if it were expressed explicitly, we would not know [the] other explanations.” See further Sefer Hassidim, ed. S. Gutman, Elad Horovitz, Leipzig 1917, pp.47-48: “God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this…” (Psalms62:11), and it says, “Is not My word like as fire? Saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?” I.e., one divine statement can mean more than one thing. Cf. Mechilta-Be-Shalah, Shirah sect.8, ed. I.A. Horowitz & I.A. Robin, 2nd edition, Jerusalem 1960, p.143. And see the interesting passage in Zohar Yitro, vol.1, 83b, (p.166): that when the word came forth it appeared to be one; but when it was carved into its places, that word appeared in seventy forms (anpin) or variations that came forth from it, and with fifty-less-one crowns on each side… as it is said, “… – then the verse from Jeremiah ibid.