INTRODUCTION

The Discourse of the Dragons [Drush HaTanninim] of Rabbi Yosef ibn Tabul is an explanation of a passage of the Zohar, deep and sealed, in the portion of Bo, in volume two [Shemot], daf 34a–35a, founded upon the verse, “And God created the Great Dragons” [Bereshit 1:21], and upon the verse, “Behold, I am against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the Great Dragon that crouches within his rivers”, this discourse has been preserved in several manuscripts, and in two different versions, which differ from one another both in their content and in their order, and the structure of each one is like a complete and separate system unto itself.

Concerning the relation of the two versions, the hypothesis has been raised, that the long version is a later reworking derived from the short version, however, this hypothesis is null from its very foundation, and as will be seen by every reader, that the long version is original and ancient, perhaps even earlier than the short version, and it is clear, that thus it emerged from the hand of its original author, moreover, that the short version in truth, is not an abridgment of the long version at all, but rather it is a version distinct in its content and in its order, and there are found within it, several approaches in the explanation of the passage, that are lacking from the long version, it is possible, that the long version also originally contained, all those additional approaches found in the short version, and likewise conversely, that the short version also originally contained, all those additional sections found in the long version, for it appears, that both versions have come into our hands, fragmented or incomplete and arranged, as was noted regarding this, by the copyists of the short version, due to the difference in the structure of the discourse between the two versions, it is not impossible, that matters which came in the long version in the first part of the discourse, were found in the short version in its second part, which was omitted and did not come into our possession.

The explanation for these differences between the two versions of the discourse, could have been explained, that one of the two, perhaps the short version, is a “first edition”, and its counterpart is a “later edition”, and both of them emerged from the hand of Rabbi Yosef Tabul himself, however, a careful examination and comparison of the relation of the two discourses proves, in my humble opinion, that the source of the variations is in the students who were writing the discourse from the mouth of Rabbi Yosef Tabul, regarding this fact, one may learn, from the style of presentation of the discourse and its committing to writing, that it was not written from the outset as an ordered and arranged “commentary,” word by word in its proper manner, by the hand of the author himself, and like his commentary on the Idra Rabba, rather it was written by a student who hears from his mouth, as he delivers the “discourse” dealing with the explanation of a passage of the Zohar, and in the course of his reading he interweaves his interpretations and his various approaches, and this is the reason, for what is found, that the expressions of the Zohar cited throughout the entire discourse, are not cited in the exact language of the Zohar itself, but only in their content, as they are interwoven and blended with the words of explanation together, in such a way, that it is almost not recognizable what is from the language of the Zohar and what is from the addition of the explanation, and since from the outset the words were written in this manner, therefore, it is very reasonable to assume, that after the students finished writing from the mouth of their teacher, the content of the discourse which includes approximately ten different approaches in understanding the passage of the Zohar, now when they came to arrange it properly, it was found that each one arranged and ordered the words of his teacher according to the proper order in his own opinion, in such a way, that in a certain explanation one saw that it was appropriate to advance what is later or the opposite and the like, and thus two separate forms of structure for this discourse were received which emerged from the mouth of Rabbi Yosef ibn Tabul, therefore, we saw it fitting and necessary, to print here both versions together, which complement and explain one another.

In the transcription of the short version of the discourse, we based ourselves on the version in the New York manuscript, Beit haMidrash leRabbanim 2155, no. 11253, dafs 77b–80a, which is in the handwriting of Rabbi Avraham Sakhendri, with the addition of corrections and completion of deficiencies from the version of the discourse copied in the fourth part of the book Gala Amikta, manuscript Binyahu Kovetz 4v, no. 72328, dafs 156b–160b, of Rabbi Ephraim Panchiri, these additions will appear within square brackets, in the transcription of the long version, we based ourselves on the single manuscript that has survived from it, and it is the Jerusalem manuscript – the National Library 8°1588.

Aside from the above-mentioned transcriptions, “The Discourse of the Dragons” was also transcribed in its short version, by Rabbi Meir Poppers in Nof Etz Ḥayim, first section, explanation of several passages of the Zohar, at its end, the reason why he refrained from copying it in its proper place on the words of the Zohar, portion Bo, he explained there in these words, “The secret of the Dragon that we found from our teacher Rabbi Yosef Tabul, I copied at the end of the section in a separate booklet, from the name of our teacher of blessed memory, and I did not copy it here, for it appears that these matters are not from the Rabbi of blessed memory, and I will copy for you the language of Rabbi Chaim Vital of blessed memory, two or three passages only that we found, it seems, that its attribution of the discourse to the Ari, in the title of the version that stood before the Rabbi Meir Poppers, “from the name of our teacher of blessed memory”, is not his intention, that thus Rabbi Yosef ben Tabul received it from the Ari himself, in the explanation of this passage, rather, that all the interpretations are founded upon the introductions, that he received from the Ari.

This discourse was also transcribed, similar to the short version, without indication of its author’s name, in a collection of commentaries on Zohar Shemot, in the manuscript Tel Aviv–Nehorai 2, no. 40401, daf 11a, adorned with glosses by Rabbi Ya‘akov Tzemach in his own handwriting, and thus he commented at the beginning of the discourse, “Tzemach: this discourse is not from the Rabbi of blessed memory, and it contains divergent matters, and one should not rely upon it in part, in the edition before us, we saw it fitting, to emphasize the words of the Zohar, which as stated are not cited in their exact wording, but only in their content, as they are interwoven and blended with the words of explanation, until it is difficult to distinguish between them, moreover, we saw it necessary, to mark the beginning of each approach, and to indicate its content briefly, for in both versions, the various approaches, even contradictory ones, were copied in one sequence, without it being written before them, that from here onward a new explanation begins, an additional difficulty present in these explanations, is that it is found in several approaches, that they do not explain the entire passage, but only a specific section from the passage, while for other sections of the passage, no explanation is found according to that approach.

It should be noted, that aside from the two versions mentioned above, there has also come into our possession, an additional version of this discourse, transcribed in Ashkenazic script, in the Oxford manuscript 18803, a careful examination and comparison, of this version with the two initial versions, proves, that it is not original, rather it is a reworking and abridgment of the discourse, and it contains several parts, from the two initial versions, whose combination and joining together, does not emerge well, and in order to give the discourse a complete form, its compiler added to it, two new paragraphs, at its beginning and at its end, which are not from the body of the discourse, and their source is in the writings of Rabbi Chaim Vital.

In conclusion, it is fitting to note that, quite separately, there is found in the manuscripts another discourse bearing the same name, “The Discourse of the Dragons,” which likewise revolves around the explanation of the passage of the Zohar in the portion of Bo, daf 34a–35a. This other work is attributed to Nathan of Gaza, and although it bears the same title and treats the same Zoharic passage, there is no substantive connection or resemblance in content between it and the present discourse of Rabbi Yosef ibn Tabul.

The existence of these two distinct discourses, identical in name and both dealing with the explanation of the same passage, caused confusion among some researchers of the Sabbatean movement. These researchers sought to connect Rabbi Yonatan Eybeschütz with the work of Nathan of Gaza, based on the fact that Rabbi Yonatan Eybeschütz notes in his book Luḥot Edut, Altona 1755, daf 64b: “and see the discourses of the Ari and the Discourse of the Dragons.” They understood this reference as pointing to the aforementioned discourse of Nathan of Gaza. Their conclusion appears to have arisen because they were unaware of the existence of another discourse bearing the identical name, as they themselves wrote: “there is no work in all the literature of Kabbalah called ‘The Discourse of the Dragons’ except the work of Nathan of Gaza.” On that basis, they found in Rabbi Yonatan Eybeschütz’s words a possible indication in support of their view concerning his relationship to Sabbatean writings.

This interpretation has already been answered by those who argued that the intention of Rabbi Yonatan Eybeschütz was only to refer to the passage of the Zohar in the portion of Bo mentioned above. However, the more precise reading appears to be that Rabbi Yonatan Eybeschütz intended to refer specifically to the present “Discourse of the Dragons,” namely the discourse that emerged from the hand of Rabbi Yosef ibn Tabul and explains the aforementioned passage of the Zohar. This is also suggested by the order of his reference: he first cites the discourses of the Ari, and afterward the Discourse of the Dragons, meaning the discourse of Rabbi Yosef ibn Tabul, whose authorship was apparently not known to him, since in most copies the name of Rabbi Yosef Tabul is not mentioned as its author.

Accordingly, the matter accords with the words of one of the sages who responded to the aforementioned claim and wrote: “who can guarantee for us that at some time another Kabbalistic work not Sabbatean bearing this name will not be revealed.” (שֶׁבִּזְמַן מִן הַזְּמַנִּים לֹא יִתְגַּלֶּה סֵפֶר קַבָּלִי אַחֵר בִּלְתִּי שַׁבְּתָאִי בְּשֵׁם זֶה)