Page:Ginzburg - The Legends of the Jews - Volume 5.djvu/41

Rh $undefined$  “he summoned”), but Michael (comp. vol. I, p. 386), or rather Metatron; comp. Sefer ha-Heshek, 26, No. 13, and 8a, No. 61.The mystic literature knows also of a heavenly Hazzan; comp. Hagigah 13b and PR 20, 97a, concerning the function of the angel Sandalfon (on the text of PR see Ketab Tamim, 59).See also the account in the mystic literature of the gaonic period (Pirke Hekalot, Wertheimer’s edition, 31; comp. also Baer, Siddur, 120) concerning the angel Israel; comp. Zunz, Synagogale Poesie, 477.This angel is described as belonging to the order of the Hayyot; comp. note 253 on vol. I, 388.Originally the name Hayyot was used to designate the creatures with animal forms mentioned in Ezekiel 1.5, seq., as surrounding God’s throne.These were considered as a distinguished class of angels (Sifra 1.1 and Sifre N., 103; in these passages the life of the angels, or at least of this class, is assumed to be eternal; comp. note 62); subsequently, however, the Hayyot denoted a class of angels.Similarly Hashmal (Ezek 1.4) is taken to be as the name of a class of angels; comp. Hagigah 13a–13b.In this passage of the Talmud (comp. Seder Rabba di-Bereshit 28) the description of God’s throne in Is. 6.1–3 is said to be identical with that of Ezek. 1.5, seq., and the discrepancies are removed.Thus it is said, for instance, that the six wings of the Seraphim in Is, correspond to the four faces of the Hayyot of Ezek., since two of the wings with which they had formerly praised God were taken away from them after the destruction of the temple.PR 33, 155b–156a, reads somewhat differently.The bull image of the Hayyot (Ezek. 1.10), was changed by Ezekiel’s prayer to that of Cherubim, so that God should not be constantly reminded of Israel’s aberration in connection with the golden calf.The feet of the Seraphim (Is. 6.2) were concealed for the same reason because the calves’ feet (Ezek. 1.7) would have constantly served as a reminder of the golden calf; Hagigah 13b; WR 27.3.On the liturgical formulas which the angels employ in their doxology, comp. Hullin 91b—92a; Hagigah 14a; ER 31, 163; Hasidim 400; Seder R. Amram 18a.See also the quotations from medieval authors given in Baer’s Siddur, 120.Comp. also Hagigah 12b; Mahkim 119; Seder Troyes 26 (Moses caught the formula Baruk Shem, etc., from the whispering angels); DR 2.36.In all these legends the tendency is to trace back the origin of the essential parts of the liturgy, as the Shema’, Bareku, and Kedushah, to the angels; comp. also vol. III, pp. 256–257.Not all angels however are perfect; comp. the sources cited at the beginning of this note, according to which countless 