a little about letters

Well,

the mother, double and singles thing .. is simply (!) a 3 +7 + 12 fold division, anything that is composed of 3, 7 12 or 22 parts can be corresponded to the appropriate letters. The most obvious one is the paths on the tree and the tarot cards. Although there are stories in Jewish tradition which relate the existence of the Hebrew letters prior to creation .. also the Book Bahir .. goes into quite some detail on the significance of the individual letters. I was/am interested in their significance, but made the mistake of trying to run before I could walk and started all sorts of correspondences .. before trying to appreciate the individual significance of each letter (still don't) .. but I think perhaps the best way to start would be some meditations on the letters themselves.

Of course the letters are much older than the Tree diagram we know (which I believe came into existence in the 'usual' form in only about 13th century c.e.)

Thanks, Sean. I have done some meditations on the letters, and have been trying to understand the Bahir (and the Zohar) for years. The Golden Dawn work, along with the Western Occult tradition that it recapitulates, has been helpful, but not always enlightening. Like you, I have entertained all sorts of phantasms before seeing what was there all the time. Apart from other difficulties, not being Jewish means that everything has to be filtered just to see the underlying thought process - then the process has to be repeated to see the implications for my own philosophy. It is easy to use the coarse mesh of unfettered imagination and wishful thinking rather than the more demanding one of scientific investigation. Just as cassava has to be repeatedly mashed, soaked, and rinsed before it is eaten, so the fruits of the Tree of Life disclose themselves only to dedicated, unprejudiced enquiry.

As you point out, the letters predate the Tree structure - although the history of Qabalah seems more a process of *rediscovery* than anything else. The Bahir provides one of a large number of good examples, in that it contains variant structures for the Tree, as though the author(s) were trying to work out what the Tree should look like. Once they found what they were looking for and told us (we stand on the shoulders of giants!), you can see it everywhere, from daily activities through to the verse structure of Genesis. How did it get in there? The only good explanation *short of* divine intervention or flying saucers (my good friend, the Bishop of Ockham, suggests I should entertain reservations about both) is that the Alephbeth and letter sequence of the Torah were *designed* to contain the information. In support of this hypothesis, at least one serious Hebrew scholar has put forward the notion that Hebrew was a sacred, official, or ceremonial language, like Latin in Christendom, and never (until recent times) a commonly spoken tongue. Once again, comparing it to Latin, like the difference between the complex grammar in the speeches of Cicero and the graffiti - more streamlined, but less precise - that we find in Pompeii.

That said, I wasn't clear about the difficulty I was trying to address with my request. To be more lucid, if 'Double' means (or meant) 'two pronunciations', then 'Simple' means one. But Gimel and Resh have only ever had one pronunciation that I am aware of, and Shin has two, but is one of the Mother letters. And, why 'Mother'? What thought process led to this?

Hi Daleth.. hope this is weird enough for you .. found it in Aryeh Kaplan's (paperback) edition of Sefer Yetzirah (Samuel Weiser Inc. 1993). If you're that much into letters . I would recommend the book to you. There is also things about why they are called Mothers, doubles, singles etc. but it's a bit late to type too much and I've another beer waiting. Sean

Chapter 4:1 Seven Doubles: Bet, Gimel, Dalet, Kaf, Peh, Resh, Tav They direct themselves with two tongues Bet-Bhet, Gimel-Ghimel, Dalet-Dhalet, Kaf-Khaf, Peh-Pheh, Resh-Rhesh, Tav-Thav A mixture of soft and hard strong and week.

[later] . 'The Yemenite Jews also distinguish between the soft and hard Gimel and Dalet. The soft Gimel has the sound of a j, or among others, like a deep gutteral fricative g.'

[later] . 'Highly significant is the fact that the Resh is here considered to be one of the Doubles. Most post-Talmudic grammarians take precisely the opposite view.. not only is there no verbal distcinction between the hard and soft Resh, but modern hebrew grammar does not even recognise such a difference in written form.. The present sound of Resh is a fricative and is therefore most probably the soft sound. the hard Resh was either lost or deliberately concealed after the destruction of the Temple. In earlier times, its use was standard and there is evidence from their transliteration of names that its pronounciation was know to the authors of the Septuagint. By the 10th century, however the double Resh was only used by the members of the small Mazya community in Tiberias . the last city in which the Sanhedrin, the great court, had flourished. ..' END.

(snip)

Many thanks - although now I'm going to have to buy a _third_ version of Sepher Yetzirah...