mmMr

THE

JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

ff(

NEW SERIES

EDITED BY

CYRUS ADLER AND

S.

SCHECHTER

V OLUME V
1915-1916

PHILADELPHIA THE DROPSIE COLLEGE FOR HEBREW AND COGNATE LEARNING

LONDON: MACMILLAN & COMPANY,
Ltd.

\U.

PRINTED IN ENGLAND
AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

DS
101

Js
V.

CONTENTS
PAGE

Adler, Cyrus

Editorial
:

Announcement

337

Bentwich, Norman
the

The
.

Rightfulness of the Jews in

.
.

Roman Empire
I.
.

3^5

Casanowicz,
Religion

M.

Recent

works

on

Comparative
185

Daiches, Samuel

An
:

Explanation of Isaiah 27. 8

300

Efros, Israel Isaac

The Problem

Mediaeval Philosophy

......
of Space in Jewish

4^^

Friedlaender, Israel: The Present Position and the

Original
Isaiah
2.

Form

of the Prophecy of Eternal Peace in

4.

1-5 and Micah

:

1-5

....
ff.)
. . .

405

Friedlaender, Israel

Note on 'An Autograph Respon.

sum
Halper,

of B.

Maimonides' {JQR., VI, 225

:

588

A Volume

of the

Book

of Precepts by Hefes
. .

b. Yasliah.

Hebrew

Translation

^7

Halper,

B.

Recent Rabbinical Literature

209
225

Halper, B. Halper,
B.

An Autograph Responsum
Recent Arabic Literature
:

of
.

Maimonides
. .

-433
.

Hirschfeld, Hartwig

Fragments of Sa'adyah's Arabic

Pentateuch Commentary

....
Pygmy-Legends
Halakah.
in

3^0

Hurwitz, Solomon T. H.
Literature

........
:

in

Jewish

339

Lauterbach, Jacob

Z.

Midrash and Mishnah.

A Study
.

in the Early History of the

II-IV

23,

303

Lebendiger, Israel

The Minor

Jewish Law.
:

I-III

459

Mann, Jacob
lo-

Jesus and the Sadducean Priests

Luke
415

25-37

IV

CONTENTS
PAGE
:

Marmorstein, a.

To JQR.,
:

V, 443-52

157

Marx, Alexander
Palaeography
.

Recent Hebrew Bibliography and

. .
.

.163
.

Marx, Alexander
ment

Strack's
:

'

Aboth

'

423

Mingana, Alphonse

.........
Syriac Versions of the
:

Old Testa385

Nacht, Jacob

The Symbolism
Brune's

of the Shoe with special

.
.

reference to Jewish Sources

Reider, Joseph
son's
'

Flavius Josephus
; '

'

Richard-

Library History

Jewish Collection
Sapir, E.
:

'.......
'

New York

Public Library

453
231

Notes on Judeo-German Phonology

:

Segal, M. H.

Studies in the Books of Samuel.

267, 555

THE SYMBOLISM OF THE SHOE WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO JEWISH SOURCES

By Jacob Nacht,
Focsan, Rumania.

Even

the shoe has

its

history, its significance.

Many
practise

a custom in connexion with the shoe which

blindly to this very

we

day becomes of

interest to the student

of the history of civih'zation so soon as

it

we

set out to trace

to

its

beginnings.

Then much

that was unintelligible

becomes clear, and new light is thrown upon many a The following is intended as a modest popular custom.
contribution on the subject of the symbolism of the shoe.

Our

first

source of information concerning the shoe

is

the Bible.

Here the shoe partakes of the character of the

profane, symbolizing the Earthly in contrast with the Holy.

Removing the shoes

signifies putting off

something profane,
'

obligatory upon those

who approach
feet,
',

the Holy.

Put

off

thy shoes from off thy

standest
3.
5).
is

for the place

whereon thou

holy ground
Levites,

is

the

command
it

to

Moses (Exod.

The

whose function

was to carry the

vessels of the Tabernacle, were required to take off their

shoes while performing this holy service.^

The

priests like-

wise had

to be barefooted
;

when performing

their service in

the sanctuary

this regulation has in part

continued to be

observed to this very day on the occasion of the Priestly

1

Num.

r.

sect.

VH

!?NTi'^t:'

ih)]!^

'''h

^U'

1133^'

HM HOn

]ycfi2r\

'^32

Q^JiyD

vn'c^
''h

''i^

b^
^di^

103*^^

bna

,D''^i:d

woib w^hn^
vn.
pi.

D"'DnK'n ^3r3
2

nhyo
sect.

b\i^

''r\u ):iJ2b
V^^^H:^

nn
t6

.D''an"'

Exod.

r.

"'SH''

N^N ^ip^l
I

D'':n2n

VOL.

VI.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Blessing pronounced on festivals.

As

a matter of reverence,
hill in

no one with

his

shoes on should set foot upon the

Jerusalem whereon the temple had stood in bygone days/'

This explains the custom current

in

some

localities until

the late middle ages, that no one was to enter the synagogue

with shoes on.^

Only with bare

feet

should one draw near

to a place dedicated to God.^

The shoe denotes supreme power and

Pantofifel

possession.

'

Den

schwingen

'

is

a well-known proverbial expression

marking

off the shoe as the

symbol of power.
is

And

another

adage, in which likewise the shoe

represented as the
is

embodiment of power, says

tread the thorn.'

'

As
is

long as thy foot

shod

The shoe
to have
all

thus

accorded an importance
:

equalling that of the foot.

'

The

foot signifies domination

Thou madest him

;

dominion over the works of thy

'

hands

thou hast put

things under his feet

(Ps. 8. 6).

Hence the

victor puts his foot

on the vanquished to symbeen won

'
:

bolize the victory which has

Put your

feet

upon the necks of these kings

'

(Josh. lo. 24)

was the order

of Joshua to his victorious warriors in order to indicate that

the
3

enemy had been

Comp. Berakot 54
a
;

defeated for

all

time to come.^
7.

And
12.

Yebamot 6b; RMbM., Bet ha-Bchira

.D^^y:D

hi

n^Dn^ pi n^b^anD pNB'

nivns c^
x>"\^i

('i

^i nion^ai n^j
^jt-ntlTd
'jidii

D'^nj
78

d"j;

n:pn

'^^:^'

"-anin

"o^a

nyar:^

ns

nx HI, D^^nm
6

minn

^jm^: pyi "..Y'n^ n>h:D VkT^

n:"'3*j'nc'

^^.
nipo b,,
yc'in''

Ex.

r.

11,13: "^i3Dn n^"'yn -iidx n-b:

10.

Joshua

24-5

'"J^Vp

h^

"irDX''1

^N"1B'^ 'J'^K

hi

^N*

Nlp^l
'-j'iN

D^a^cn nsii* ^y DD^bn

nx

lo'-c

mp
o

^ns

\fxhr\r\

nDn^cn
innp^i

^N yc'VT DiT^x
-irx
D3"'Tix

-IDS'"!

.Dnnxi^f
n-j'y

f?y

nn^^n nx
ivdxi

id'^l^'^i

n^xn

^D^

nin>

nD3

iprn

innn ksi ixtd

Dmx D'cnb

nnx.

SYMBOLISM OF THE SHOE

NACHT
says
:

just as the foot symbolizes power, so also does its gear, the

shoe.

Of the hero Joab King David

were on
'^

'And put
loins,

the

blood of war upon his girdle that was about his

in his shoes that his feet.'

and

The shoe
it

thus characterizes the successful warrior.

But

also denotes victory in a different battle, the battle for

right

and possession.

purchase becomes legal when the

seller takes

off his shoe

and hands

it

over to the buyer.

This ceremony indicates the transfer of possession to the

new

possessor.

The same

holds true of the redemption of

property by one's kinsman, and also of transactions of

barter
' :

This was the manner

in

former time

in

Israel

concerning redeeming and concerning

confirm
it

changing, for

to

all

things

man plucked
this

off his shoe,

and gave

to his neighbour

and

was a testimony

in Israel.'

With
meant the

the ancient Teutons likewise removing the shoe

transfer of

power and symbolized the dissolution

of property and inheritance.^

According to a haggadic narrative Mordecai established

his right of

dominion over

Haman by

producing a shoe on

which was found a written statement by

effect that
7 I

Haman
Hs*

to the

he had sold himself as a slave to Mordecai.^^

5
:

Kings

2.

i^i'N

H^n^' \2 2i^v
n:

'b

HD'y

"IK'S*

nvv

nns* d:i
^JB'i?

nnnn
-lL^N

nn^

ii^'rzvb)

n^ax^

biiy^'< nix3i* nij'

n^y
also

vbii2
shoes
8

"i^y^ni

vjnjoi ic'n

imijnn

nrDrb^D 'di
:

|n^i.

comp.

Schlesinger, Geschichte des Symbols, p. 235

is

'

The removal

of girdle and

a symbol of conditional and unconditional surrender.'

4.

Ruth

b
a.

rT\h

miDnn

byi

n^isjn bv ^Nir^a d-js^

u'^^
j^^-kT

nsn
also

b^'\u'^2
b.

miynn nxn

iny-i!?

fnji

"il^y:

nm.

Comp.

Kiddushin 60
^

Grimm, Deutsche
Ag. Est,
ed.

Rechtsaliert., p. 156.
:

10

Buber, V, 60: >JS

1^

'3-nD

!?1JD

bv

pH

2r\'2

I^D"
fon

.nnN Dn^

1333

''m3n:B>

'niiTn

^3i"i?3

bu

'n^.v

"J^xn

B 2

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

In a well-known case the shoe
is

removed from a person

dies without issue,

in

order to indicate that he has lost his authority over a

of his family.

member
brothcr,^^

When

man

his wife takes off the shoe

from the foot of her husband's

showing that henceforth he shall have no claim

upon

his sister-in-law's hand.

The man without a shoe

is

the symbol of

him

that

is

incapacitated for marriage, while

off the aspirant to

the shoe, on the other hand, marks

marriage.'^

The shoe means

land.

possession in a larger sense

things, land

offspring,

Moses lacked two

thy shoes

and children who

would walk

in his footsteps,
(in

hence the
;

command
him

to

him

is

Take

off

the plural)

but Joshua, though

said of
:

childless, entered the land,

hence

it is

Take

off

thy shoe

(in

the singular).^^

To

loosen a person's shoe-strings, to carry his shoes

after him, as

the carrying of garments^*

in

general,

is

equivalent to subjugation.
'2T\*2

The master
ns*

gains authority
^^Dib
iib'ort

2\:>v

'\ni

mr muy
riNi

it:vy

yapi
n3i

rh\i:b

rhv^'^)

Nin

12)]}^

pn ns
'\ni

Ninc3i

nvi'-

Nine

nyja
d-J'1s

nxn
'non

ion

n ddd

inn^b

id^'c^

bi:c2 ib-i

ns

)b

N^onoi.
Deut. 25. 9.
b.

" Comp.
'2 13

Comp.

Kiddushin 49 a: N3"'ya N^ ''Nyi^D

Seicl Tob, to Exod.
:

QIT

'JDC.
iTJ'D'l:^

Comp. Midrash,

^itrij

H^f N^

1J2"1

^tb

l^y:

^-j"

-iDx:

y::'in^

i^ax

uhv^ 're

i3''\-n

D^m

]rch i^^yj b'c n^n>

b^ Dnt:iy

n':2h

n^r

vh

bs

}nN^ dj3^

nDTt'

^s^

pc'b
p.

"inmC.
.T^o 0:2:

Sec
N^-j'

further

nnn"'1

nncn Cmr,

ed. Wcrtlielm,
^-j*

50:
-rrsi

^2^

^^y3 h'^ yj'inn

nt:wi i^^y:

n'j'ca

" See

b.

Erubin 37 b

''JND N:!j'31?D

SYMBOLISM OF THE SHOE

NACHT

over his servant as soon as the latter loosens his shoestring.^'^

To

cast the shoe at a person

is

a sign of disrespect.

The strong commit

will I cast out

this act against the

weak.

'

Over

Edom
to say-

my

shoe' (Ps. 60. 10)

^

God

is

made

by the

Psalmist.

Like the glove

in later times,

and the

shoe of the league

among

the peasants/^ so also trans-

mitting the shoe serves as a challenge to fight and as a token

of subjugation.
'

Powerful kings

in ancient

times used to

send their shoes to their inferiors as a sign of subjection.

The shoe had

of humility.'
^^

to be carried on the shoulder as a

mark

In the language of the Bible and the prophets the term

shoe-string or shoe
is

also

employed to express something

petty and of

little

value.

Abraham, who
that

refuses to accept
:
'

the least thing from the

King of Sodom, says

.
.

have

lift

up

my

hand

(to

swear)

will

not take from

I

a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that

will not

take

any thing that

in

is

thine' (Gen. 14. 23).^^*

Samuel

likewise,

defending his honesty as a judge, protests that he had

. .
.

taken neither silver

15
^^
1''

nor shoes.^^
:

Comp.

b.

Kiddushin 22 b

l^yJD )b "I'DH npTnn T^'>2

s.v.

Comp. Nork, Realworierbuch,

'

Schuh.
union shoe, as a symbol of

The peasants employed the

Schlesinger,
/.

tied shoe, the

revolt
^^

',

c, p. 236.
Rec/iisalteif., p. 156.

Grimm, Deutsche
Gen.
14.

18a

23:

^yj

jnC' nyi

DIPIJO

DX.

The

poet Moses Dar'i

(9th cent.) likewise says of the insignificant price of the

pen

byj ^nti'

D'^nV pa
^^

n-nO
:

(Plnsker, nVJIJOip

'<l2)pb,

p.

T'\).

In accordance with
to say

Ben

Sira of the Septuagint 46. 19

tojs

where Samuel
ovk
t'lKrjcpa.

is

made
:

-^pruiaTa koI

inTOO-qixaTWV airo Trdarj^ (xapKu's

On
him

the other hand, the greedy prophet has sandals and entrails presented to
*

Whoever comes
. . .

first

as an interpreter of
entrails
'

my

verses, to

him give
11.

new

sandals

and fill his hand with

(Aristophanes, The Birds,

972-5).

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

To
shoe.
Israel

sell

a person for shoes means to abandon him for

to tread

a mere nothing,

upon him,

as

it

were, with the

When
who

the prophet

Amos

reproves the judges in

sell

the poor for shoes,^" he means to say in

the
for

first

place that they wrest the

at

judgement of the poor

to

a small bribe, but

the

same time he wishes

is

emphasize
'

symbolically that the poor

'.

trodden upon

like the dust of the earth

is

judge receives

the symbol therefor.

The shoe which the corrupt As men tread with

poor.-^
is

the shoe upon the dust of the earth, so they (the unjust
judges) desire to tread

upon the head of the

The shoe
found also
'

as a

symbol of somebody being trodden

among the Rapajutes in the following case The Rapajutes let the criminal ride on a donkey through
^^

the city with a wreath of sandals around his neck.'

In disputes the term shoe designates an insult in the

highest degree.
quarrels

Thus

the

Arab women,
to

in their
:

mutual

and

altercations, call

one another

^Jc ^J^j-^

d-^

'

My shoe

upon thy head 'P

This derogatory excla-

mation characterizes the authority of the one over the

The
Indian teacher, after the distribution of the Samavartana sacrament,
'

receives shoes as an honorarium (Glaser,

Der Indische Student

',

ZDMG..,

LXVI,
20

28).
2.

Amos

D>^yj -|ny3 JV3S1

:

pnV

S1DD3 n"13D bVD''!^Nj;rotr

Comp.

also

Yaikut to

yz""\

and ^"11 'piD

on'j^yn
-rj'

'h

pjov

DK

n^m
sjoa
in

'yy nr\'hrb uhvir:)

mp^
pnV
:

d^dd3
SIDDD

^D3

dhd nnsi nnx

Note
also

fjD

uhv^ inya

p-nXl

nnaiO hvin

the pi3'yut

allusion to this agada

(S3"vb f)D10

mDlK

rhif) nh^i^V^ZV

nimisi'

imjnj uhv^

nj?a

innnD.
C'N-13

"

Ibid., 2.

B:

whl
s. v.

pN

ISy bv

D'SNVJ'n.

" Comp.
"

Nork,

Schuh.

Similarly, Gen. 3. 15:

3py

IJDItTl

HnXI

tT'NT

IDVJ'' -Win.

SYMBOLISM OF THE SHOE

Other,

NACHT

who

is

to

come under her

shoe.

To come

under

the shoe or to lick

subjection,^* while

somebody's shoe exempHfies slavish

handing a shoe to a person should be

construed more in the sense of devotion.

Thus the son

to his

hands the shoes to his

teacher.^^

father,

and similarly the pupil

The custom among the Sarmatae

by drinking from her shoe
is

to toast the to

beloved

likewise

be

construed as an act of homage.^^*

The dependence
pupil

of the son
is

upon the father and of the

upon

his teacher

expressed by the formula that

shoe.^''

the father or teacher strikes the son or pupil with the

Conversely, a

woman who

threatens to strike her husband

with the shoe wants to emphasize her authority and independence.^^ In certain cases the

woman

has a right to hit

"*

Esther

r.

py

nyV^D
""3

/J?

pr\b niniTC'X

N^

TL^^S*
is

""iN*

VO

"3

V^Jai ^JJ30

TT^M "]m^

^^STJ^V
In the

In striking resemblance

the custom

to kiss the slipper of the Pope.

to a passage in Aristophanes
is

same connexion
11.

wish

to call attention

{The Acharntans,

300-1),

where

the

enemy
more

threatened with being cut up into shoe-soles

For

hate thee

still

than Cleon,
25

whom

will cut
i

up
:

into shoe-soles for the Knights.'

p.

Shabbat VI,

(p.

8 a)

pm"" 'l nVIJip C'D^i'D Hin

N^

"12

'{^12^

'^^^

Comp.

also Goethe, Wahlverwandtschafien, p. 258 (ed. Kurz, vol. VI)

ist

'

Ein schoner Fuss

ihren

eine grosse

Gabe der Natur

Noch immer mochte

tiefge-

man

Schuh
aus

kiissen

und die zwar etwas barbarische, aber doch

fiihltc

Ehrenbezeigung der Sarmaten wiederholen, die sich nichts besseres

als

gQnnen,

dem Schuh
Moed
pupil

einer geliebten und verehrten Person

ihre

Gesundheit zu trinken.'
28

Comp.

b,

katon,
: '

p.

25 a:

iT^nJDl
his

n^3S

H''^

n2U.

Similarly, Nork,
is

s. v.

Schuh

Not

until the

end of

term of apprenticeship

the

Brahman

permitted to wear shoes, for these are signs of

also Glaser,
'

independence-'

Comp.

Der Indische Student', ZDMG., LXVI,

him (the teacher) with
tw

25

'

He

(the Indian student) should not approach

his shoes on.'

2''

Aristophanes, Lys. 658

raJSe 7' diprjKTa Trarcifcy

KoOopvai rfiv -/vaQov.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

In a portion of Russia
is it

her husband with a shoe.

is

customary

for a

woman who

insulted

and called indecent

to strike her shoe in the face of her insulter.

As

a sym.bol of

contempt

for

one and esteem

for the

other the terms sandal, shoe-latchet, shoe-sole, and shoe

generally, are

employed by both Arabs and Jews

in certain

turns of speech.
his wife, says
: '

The Arab Bedouin, when

I

separating from
slipper.'
^^

have thrown away

my

The

eastern

Jew
'

often expresses his appreciation in the following

(resp. you, &c.)
;

words

He

is

not worthy to loosen his

in his shoe-soles

shoe-strings

^^

he has more sense

^"
;

than

you

in

your head

he
a

is

as wise as

my

shoe-sole.'

"^^

A woman scorns
the

Rabbi by

telling

him that her

jfj

father's

shoe was worthier than his entire family.^^

Palestine

word shoe or shoemaker serves

'

as a disgrace.

When
it

somebody mentions
you.

shoemaker
:

'

in his conversation
it

is

always with the addition

Far be

(this

handiwork) from
It is

Never

is

the word used in a favourable sense.

'

considered a great dishonour to be dubbed

shoe

'.^^

^
^''

Nork,

5. V.

Schuh.
3,

Comp. besides Luke

i6

tpx^rai Se 6 laxvp6T(p6s

fxov,

ov ovk

elfxl

iKavds \v(Tai tuv iiMvra tujv imo^rnianaiv aiiTOv.

SO

Literally:

N^n

yTiB^ryT-s

"lyT

pN

hy:^

"inyrD

Dsn
also

ny

31

Literally:

jnirryn-S

p*D
:
'

N^ll
vita

yh^ TN
incaltata
'

"ly.

Comp.

the

Rumanian popular expression

resembles the

(a

shod animal), which

Hebrew
n-j'sn

D*1N

miV3

T\'0T\'2

applied to simpletons.

by

'y\

hn rny^ Q^nn^

:)':j"nn

D-j-a

"ncpn

t:pb^ py

"innac'o boo inv y.^n.

33

See Luncz,

>"^ nh,

p.

47=

"n"i?N

bi\s*

D^at'm incnyi

hv:^r:>7^

obiybi .n^by xb IN

lOD pirn

noxi? ^^3r? n^yn

nna

tjt d^d^did

SYMBOLISM OF THE SHOE

'

NACHT

Fine feathers make

;

fine birds
:
'

'

is

a proverb frequently

cited

while

Homer

says

Through handsome garments

^*

one obtains favourable repute among the people.'

Biblical literature, to

In
find

mention but one example, we

a similar attitude in the exhortation: 'Let thy garments

be always white.'

"^

In the Talmud, besides clothes in

general which, according to

Ben

Sira, illustrate the worthiis

ness of man,^ special emphasis

laid

on foot-gear.
'

In

the shoe the value of

man

finds

its

expression.^'

Only he

who

has shoes
sell

is

a man.'

The

slave goes barefoot.

One

should

everything in order to obtain shoes,"^ for he

barefooted
is

who walks

placed in ban by God.^^

is

When
There
which
is

putting on shoes a certain blessing

required.*"

likewise a definite prescription for the

manner

in

to put on or take off the shoes.

In putting on shoes

the right foot has the precedence, while in taking

the
left

them

off

foot

comes

first."^^

Especially important

is

the footfor these

gear of women.
sayings.

Moral motives were responsible

it

While

is

said of the vestments of

women
nx
)bv'

in
i^b

)D!?yh ,n2B'

b^ :m^ nrx oy dddk'

r^'^N^

bv

i'yj

Qt^'n

bv: Dc^n iN-ipna

^^

:i-^n^
vi,

b\i:.
11.

Comp. Homer, Odyssey

'Etc -yap Toi

29-30

tovtojv (pans wOpunrovs ava^aivfi

iaOKrj.
35
36

Eccles.

9.

9: D^J2^ yiiJ. VH' Jiy ^23

a^y (Frankfurt
:

Comp.

r\2\i^

a.

M., 1700) where

<n D"'P^S

it is

cited in the

name
]2

of Midrash

Tanhuma

1J2

~nm DIK
"l^^'^JS

mn

"lOIN

NTD

pi

imD3 mX.
37

See Zunz,
b.

Gottesdienstliche Vortr'dge, p. 104.

"12
njp''l

Comp.
b.

Shabbat 122:
129 a
:

n''^na
Ifl'^a

r\'hv'^'0.

38

Shabbat

uhv^'O

Dinp DIX

"ll^C D^li?^

33

b.

Pesahim 113
Berakot 60
Shabbat 61

b.

* b.
*^

b.

b.

a,

and Derek.

Eres, ch. 10.

lO
general

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

:
'

With her

dress

woman removes

also

her

decorum V^ the Rabbis went even

body.

farther in considering

as a transgression the baring of only certain parts of the

Attention should therefore be paid to the foot-gear

cities.

of women, especially those living in

Thus, while the

man

in the

country was permitted (on the basis of an oath)

to forbid his wife the wearing of shoes for a period of three

months,
hours

this prohibition

was

valid only for

twenty-four

in the case of a city resident.^^

As

a whole the

woman

enjoyed more

liberties

than

man
*^
;

with respect to foot-gear.

Thus the male had the same

shoes for week-days and sabbaths,** for father and child

furthermore, he
is

to

wear a pair of shoes seven

years.*^

Not

so the female,

who was

at liberty to obtain a pair of

shoes for each of the three holidays.*'^

as indicated above, were dictated

These regulations,
motives.

by moral

Hence
:

the song of the royal bard on the feet of Zion's daughters

*

How beautiful are thy feet with shoes

:
'

'

(Cant.

7. i),

provokes
fit

the censure of the Haggadist

Such eulogies are not

even for an ordinary man.'

*^

Nevertheless attention was paid to the aesthetic needs

of

women
*^

with regard to the cover of the foot.

I, r.

Apart from

Herodotus,
p.

17.
:

" "

Ketubbot, VII, 31 b
p-i

x^c> 'ln:^K riN nnni? bv^n b^^"

':

onMa
isi?

nvb nyjD
p.

d'd-i33

bin p^znn

ny ^yjo ^lyjn.
H^^ 'inO
''''^:

Shabbat, VI,

8a: p^njD pin

121

'"n-IIN*

b.

Shabbat 112a: p'Dn pJDI "^nJDT SJIT Hl^nn

.T'^

HIH nbo 21

iTpu' n^n p'sn pjcT ,in\s .Ta.

" "
8

b. Gittin

68 b

^^

1>2V NMC'ls!?

IDSp Him Ninj UMlb

1']}D^

b.

Ketubbot 65
r.

b.

Cant.

7: 1^ Nin

'n:j

ht pc'lja

D^po Dinn

lij-DN.

'

SYMBOLISM OF THE SHOE

the shoes

NACHT
which, be

II

common

to both

men and women,

Talmud

it

remembered, were not without gold ornaments, there was

already at the time of the
a distinct fashion for

feminine shoes.^^

As

in the case of

women, there are

also special prescrip-

tions for the foot-gear of scholars.

While, on the whole,

is

a person wearing shoes that have been patched

the barefooted, this
is

equal to
It is

especially true of the learned.

to walk the
street

unworthy of a scholar
shoes.^

with patched

The
by
the
exterior

scholars

who used
"'bnx^^

to

mourn

for Jerusalem,

known
their

name

DvC'n^

and distinguished through

of a

apparel,

also

wore shoes

black

colour.

As

a token of mourning the shoes as well as the latchet

black.^^

were

Only the worthiest could make use of

this

foot-wear.
shoes,

Unknown

people were forbidden to wear such

to

and when they were found doing so were subject

a rule shoes were black, latchets white.

punishment.^^

As

This was

b.

Shabbat 141b: nSntDH bv^J22

:

n'\yii

NVn i6, on which comp.

C'''

Hirschberg, Heaitd, IV, 51

Q^anTlD D:

V^^

'^t^'^*

D^l'VJDa

ID'^pnm

TID3 Duir vn n-j'sn ^n^D

50 b. 51 B2

d^b'j^.

Ber. 43 b:
J.

p)^2 'N^IJ^Cn D'-^pm

in

HT^

n'^ni?

''N'JJ.

Comp.

Klausner

Haomer,
59
b,

II, 9.

Tosafot Baba

kamma

s. v.

HIH

'DDTI NSHl ''D31S ""JNO^l

nine' '>n
53

bn

niyi^'nni ^y:i:n
*

")J^^-!

n"'jyn.

b.

Baba kamma 59 a-b:

^'n*
?

'

NMIN

"'JNDn

Dn?D HIH

Sn'-yT

nr^^X

NJ^^nxD spi

'^N'DO

"jn xrj^ nd ^'n"!

xnpj ^'n

'an inin3'L:'S

nijj'nm

nvnx.

12

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

In order to escape the persecutions
latchets,^^

the Jewish custom.'"*

of non-Jews/^
it

was permitted to wear also black

'so as not to be recognized as

if

Jews

'.

On

the other hand,

Jew

is

requested 'openly' to wear his shoe-latchets in

accordance with non-Jewish fashion, he must under no

conditions yield to this request.^^

Another phase of the shoe which deserves attention

the interchange of shoes in putting

is

them

on.

Thus the
on holidays
left

doctors of the

Talmud made
on the

it

their practice

to put the right shoe

left foot

and the

shoe on

the right foof^^

Various symbolic
being barefoot.

effects

are attached to the state of

Fugitives and captives go without shoes.

his shoes as

King David removes

Absalom.''^
*^

he

flees before his

son

The prophet
as a
'

Isaiah

is

ordered

by God

to

go

barefoot

symbol of the capture of Egypt and Cush

by

Assyria.

And

the

Lord

said,

Like as

my

servant
for
;

Isaiah hath walked

naked and barefoot three years

a sign and wonder upon

5

Egypt and upon Ethiopia

''H

so

See Tosafot,

I.e.:

niJ3^ myiXnni 'X\nU

^VJOm
:

n"-l -1C1K1.
s.v.

On

the various kinds of shoes, comp. b.

Yoma

78 a-b

DT^' niDDID,

"
vv:n

b.

Taanit 22 a
lyT"^

N:^^-"!?

^'n
''2

V231N ""iNDO rT'DNI

NOyU HC ^'N
to

nxninn

n^t

^yr\

q"dj; ^ra N:p'3:i.

r,,

As
82
:

change of
13^15'

clothes in order to avoid danger, comp. Gen.

sect.

DnS^Uy

noB'n nytra.

Tosafot,

/. c.

my"ii~ini

^yjOH

13'"'n

JT-iyn

'dot

'DDIN*

""JNODI

-line iTH ijDH.

" "
"

b.
b.

Sanhedrin 74
Taanit 12 b
:

b.

N^Ot'n) i6K)^b NJ^OH

'S^'nO

NlUir ^01

lOnO

2 Sam. 15. 30
20. 2
:

C]n>

-J^H XIHI

.13131

rh)V 1)1)

0 isa.

-^bii

b]!^

p!^nn ^^y:1

SYMBOLISM OF THE SHOE

shall the

NACHT
old,

13

king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners,

captives,

and the Ethiopians

barefoot.'
'^^

young and

naked and

The removal

of shoes symbolizes, as already mentioned,

resignation and loss.

At
for

the decease of a near relative,

sisters,

such as parents, children, or brothers and

of shoes
is

the wearing

suspended

seven days.

The same observance

is

holds true with reference to mourning in a wider sense.

Thus on the ninth day

day
in

of

Ab, which

observed as a

fastit is

memory

of the destruction of the Jewish state,

likewise forbidden to wear shoes.

The same

is

also true of

the
for

Day
life.

of Atonement,

when
which

Israel prays for forgiveness,

Every great

disaster

befell

the people was indi-

cated by the removal of shoes.

sages of the

Dearth of rain caused the

Talmud

to take off their shoes as a sign of

universal mourning.^^
for

One

doctor of the

Talmud

is

famed

having obtained the object of his prayer with only one

off,

shoe

when

rain

began to come down.^^

it

The removal
appearing
61

of shoes designating loss and suffering,

off of shoes

becomes evident why the carrying

in

by the dead
For the
nin''

dreams forebodes
:

evil

and

disaster.'"'*

isa. 20.

3-4

:yh^

p|ri"'i

any
m^j

i.Tyc'"'

nny i^n

n^i'sa

"i^n''i

pin'"i

nny
Ibid.:

n':p]^

any:
b.

ma

n^<1

nnvo.
miH''

62 b.
63

Taanit 24

K-|D TIN NJNDD

it

^'bu' Hin

""3

m.

Owing
is

to

a superstition

is

forbidden

among

the Arabs to walk with only one

sandal
the

'

Do

not walk with one sandal in the

in the

manner

of the devil

'

one of

commandments
in
61

Kiidb

akamV l-murgdni {quoted

from a review by

Noldeke
b.

ZDMG., LXIV,
:

444).

Berakot 54 b

i6i:D'\

NiSDDO 12 ^bv^ ii22^

b'P^lH b^

In

Germany

a superstition prevails that a guest must not be presented with

14

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

after death
is

same reason the retention of shoes

considered

by some people

as a favourable symbol.

This custom was

known
It

already at the time of the Talmud,''^ and has been

preserved until this very day

among

the Jews of

Tripoli.'^'^

was familiar also to the ancient Norsemen.''^

Widespread

is

the custom of offering gifts to the bride.

The bridegroom
is

gives presents to the bride.

:

This custom

rooted in antiquity
still

it

probably dates from the time

when woman was

the husband.

considered the personal property of

is

This state

expressed symbolically by the

present which the bride receives from the bridegroom,*'^

and

is

borne out especially by the circumstance that the

still

present consisted mostly and

consists of shoes.

Such
so,

was the use among the ancient Lacedaemonians,'^^ and

as

we

shall see further on,

it

has been preserved

among

other nations until this day.

lically
:

The man
upon
it '.'

is

the ruler in his house.

literally the
;

The shoe proclaims symboThe govern'

ment of the house was assumed

set his foot

moment the man

that of his bride

the slipper furnished the

symbol
shoes
lest

for

In handing the shoe to the bride the

(Fischer,
'

he should depart soon and never return.

298.)

Die Quitte

',

ZDMG., LXVIII,
B

p.

Kilaim

IX, 32 b

p2.T1

pillH '':1B>U^N
I,

np30 HIH
125, n. 2.

|JnV

'")

*?nn ^JNDO.
66

Comp. Krauss, TlD^nn HVilDnp,

Comp. npn-iS' bu ""hDnDa

204: D'^y:n

OninM

in

Hamebaser, Constantinople,

1910, p.

hi

ny nn^ nmp^ nnn

tnrn Dipn 2n:o

my

6''

See Nork,

s.

v.

Schuh.
uiid der Sosialisnius, P- 33
=

Comp. Bebel, Die Fran

Symbolic for the

acquisition of
still

woman

as property is also the present

which the bridegroom

ofTers to the bride in all the civilized countries.'

"^

Comp.

S. Fl.

Marianu, Nunta

la

Rontani (Hymeneal Customs among

'

the Rumanians), Bucharest, 1890, pp. 258-9.

'"

Schlesinger,

p.

331.

SYMBOLISM OF THE SHOE

NACHT

15

bridegroom considers himself as her conqueror.

Mighty-

kings sent their shoes to inferiors as a sign of subjection,'^^

while, according to an old

German

practice, the bride con-

siders herself subject to the

bridegroom the moment she

Accordingly

puts on the shoe which he gave her as a gift J^

the

man

is

the shoe which the

woman

has to wear.

This symbolic designation for the

to the Talmud.

man

is

not

unknown

A woman, according to one passagej^ may

if
it

annul a contracted marriage

is

found out that her

husband occupies a higher rank and station than the one

she believed him in originally.
use for a shoe that
is

She may say

'
:

have no

too large for

my

foot.'

While the transmission of the shoe

allows himself to be dominated

to the wife signalizes

the assumption of the rights of the husband, the

man who

by

his wife
',

is
is,

stigmatized

by the nickname

'

man

of the slipper

that

not the wife

but the husband wears the shoes which should be worn by

her as a token of his power.

As

a Yiddish adage has

it

'

He is the Az dus weib

subjected party.

geht im spodek,

geht der

mann

in pantofel.'

'^*

As

rule, therefore,

the

woman must wear

upon

the slipper
her.
for

or shoe which her husband has bestowed

The
the

shoe must be neither too small nor too large

foot.

As mentioned
is

above, the
: '

woman may
I

say of hur
for a

unevenly contracted marriage

that
'1

have no use

shoe

too large for

/.

my

foot

',"^

while,

on the other hand,

/. c.
;

Grimm,

c, p. 156.

''^

Grimm,

Nork,

s. v.

Schuh.

73 b.

Klddushin 49 a:
i.

N^yn N^
:

''J?-13D

mi

NJNDO.

Comp. hereon

Horace, Epistulae

10.

42

Cui non conveniet sua

res,

ut calceus olim,

Si pede maior erit, subvertet.

''*

Comp. Bernstein,
See above, note

Jildische Volkssprichwditer, p. 88.

''^

75.

l6

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

it

Aschenputtel becomes the bride of the king's son after

is

found out that the golden slipper presented to her by the

prince
choice.
fits

her foot.

The
guck
in

fitting

shoe decides the right

Rucku

di

Rucku

di

guck

Kein Blut

Schuck.
ist

Der Schuck

nicht zu klein,
heim.'^''

Die richtige Braut, die fuhrt er

Among
to

a portion of the Palestinian Jews

it is

customary

make

sure of the fitting of the bride's shoes, and for that

purpose the bridegroom sends the cobbler to his bride's

house.

Simultaneously with this ceremony the day of the

is

wedding

determined

upon.'^^
little

In general, however,
fitting

importance
thing

is
is

attached to the
that the bride,

of the shoe.

The main

and also her

relatives, are

presented with shoes.

That

also the relatives of the bride are presented is

probably due

to that ancient

custom according to which the kin of the

bride should appear in the

same

dress as the bride herself.

Thus among the ancient Greeks the bridemaids had to be Says dressed in exactly the same manner as the bride.
Athene
to Nausicaa

Nausicaa, has thy mother then brought forth

careless housewife?
still

Thy

magnificent robes

Lie

neglected, though thy marriage

day

Is near,

when thou

art to array thyself

'6

Grimm's Mdrchot, Aschenputtel.

Luncz, D"D-in /"n hiS
^3
p- 12
:

"
|DT

|nnn

n^i::'

niinnn *jd^ n-yuc^^

ly^i

\cri

nil

nm'^

"ina

uhv^'o

rh

"iisn^

n^an

n^3^

ynpin n:^nnn.

SYMBOLISM OF THE SHOE

NACHT

17

In seemly garments, and bestow the like

On
It is

those

who

lead thee to the bridal ritej^

a practice

among

the Sephardic Jews that the bride-

groom, before the wedding, bestows shoes upon the bride

and

certain

members

of her familyJ^

The handing
is

over of
related

shoes to the bride immediately before the wedding

by Gregory of
after his

Tours.^^

In Teheran the bridegroom, soon

engagement, sends shoes to the bride, her mother,

and her

sisters.^^

The Russian
preference for a
to bring his

peasants employ the boot as a symbol in

choosing a bride.

As

soon as the son makes known his

girl,

the father, on a Sunday, orders his son

after the other.

two boots, one

In one of

them

he had placed (some time previously) a handful of oats.

'

If the

son brings this one

first, it is
If,

a sign that the alliance

will

be successful and blessed.

however, the son seizes

it

the

empty one
girl

of the prophetic boots, fate wills

his.'
^^

that the

chosen

cannot be
the

Among
78

Rumanians ^^ the bridegroom transmits

25-9
:

Odyssey

vi,

11.

HavaiKoxi, Ti vv a' w5e fxeO-qfiova yeivaro

(i'lxaTa ixV roi Kiirai aK-q^ia

fJ-^Trjp

aiyaXofVTa,

aol Se 7a/xos ax^^ov eariv^

'iva

xph

xi^o. fxtv avrfiv

ei/vvaOai, to, 5e ToTcri napaax^^i' 01 Ke a'

ayuvrai.

" See OniDDn

80

'''nO

by ni/D^^N

in Hashiloah,

XXIV,
"jd^.

267

my

nvb

nnsc'on ^d^ t^h^i inonx^ innn

Comp.
his Vitae

rhw
cited

njinnn
by
S. Fl.

Patrum,

ch.

XX,

Marianu

in his

Nunta

la

Romani, pp. 58-9. *^ Revue des Ecoles de P Alliance

envoie aussitot a sa fiancee, a

Isr.,

for 1901,
et a

p.

166:

'

Le jeune

homme
celle-ci

la

mere

chacune des soeurs de

une paire de souliers

Russische Sitte

'

comp. also M. Grunwald, Mitteihmgen, Sec,

XX

(1906), 132.
' '

*^
^^

in

Wolfgang Menzel's Morgenblatt

p.

for 1838, p. 635.

si

Marianu, Nunta la Romani,

239

'

Mirele cumpera

pereche de

VOL. VI.

l8

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

or, when the latter among the Bulgars upon all the members

shoes to the bride and to her mother,

is

not alive, to her representative

while

the bridegroom has to bestow shoes

of the bride's family.^^

In

many

localities of Italy slippers

are sent instead of shoes.^^

Finally, mention

must be made of the custom current

among

English-speaking nations to throw slippers after

a newly-married couple departing for their honeymoon.

This custom

is

in

vogue even among the highest

circles of

society ,^^ which, however, did not deter an

American mayor

from prohibiting further exercise of the

This prohibition
calls to

practice.^'

mind a similar decree

issued in
it

1690 especially against the Jews of Hesse.

Here, too,

was customary

for the

bridegroom to bestow slippers upon

the bride and her family on the day of the wedding.

The

Hessian diet considered

this

an extravagance not permitted

to the Jews, which should be opposed as extravagance in

dress generally.

The

diet therefore issued

an order that

the gifts should be limited to the bride only, and should

consist only of a pair of shoes

and

slippers.

This custom
the Jews
in

has been preserved up to the present

papuci san crobote pentru
.

among

mama

miresei, car daca

mama

acesteia nu

traeste, apoi pentru cea ce o suplineste.'

8<
'

Volks- und Familienlebcn in Bulgarien

',

Sarajevocr Tagblalt for

Aug.
85 88

15, 1913.

Comp. Marianu,

/. c.

Ncttc Frcie Pressc for July 9, 1913 (No. 17556)

'.

Thus the

familj-

of the

whilom English Consul-General Crave preserves a ball shoe of white silk and with gold embroidery, which the Prussian crown-princess, later Empress Frederick, removed from her foot in order to throw it into the
carriage of her court maid,
'''

who had just been

married

to

Joseph Crave,'

Ibid.

'In Portsmouth, Ohio, the

mayor and

the chief of police issued

an edict, according to which the police arc authorized to arrest every person

who

strikes

newly-wed people on the back, or hurls

rice

upon them, or
'

throws old shoes after them.'

SYMBOLISM OF THE SHOE

NACHT
'.^^

19

Hesse, where the bridegroom, on the wedding day, gives

to the bride a pair of shoes as
'

mJl?3D

The

shoe

is

also the

symbol of courting and

^^

fertility.

Among
while,
biblical

the English-speaking nations

rice

and slippers
fertility,

are thrown after the betrothed couple as a sign of

according to a Jewish-mystic
phrase
'
:

interpretation, the

nates Moses,

Take off thy shoes (in the plural) who was the father of two sons.^
'

desig-

In order to attract man, the

expose their ankles,^^ while Greek

shoe as a means of

women of antiquity used to women employed the embellishment. If a woman was of

tall

small stature she padded the shoe with cork in order to

appear

taller

if,

on the contrary, she was too

she put

on

flat

shoes."^

Clemens Alexandrinus

relates likewise

'that

by means
by

of characters imprinted in the sandals they

'.^^

indicated

footprint a rendezvous to their lovers

The

Haggadah
Isa. 3. 16

also mentions this practice.

In commenting on

Rabbi Jose remarks: 'The picture of a serpent

;

was impressed upon the shoe

88

the Rabbis, however, have

Comp. Munk,

'

Die Judenlandtage

in

Hessen-Cassel

',

Monatsschrift

fur

die
*

Wissenschaft des Jud., XLI, 520.

87.
:

See above, note

Comp. c>nn L2"ip^s s.v. Hjj'D "j^^yj h^ 13 ISDN: i"si D^ti^ n:^'. 91 Comp. Heatid, IV, 'The women 52, n. i; also Herodotus, I, 395 (of the Gidans) wear many leather bands around their ankles, for the
:

90

following reason,

it

is

said

Every time a man knows her she attaches

points out a parallel passage
nist^i
Ti^'"^

a band around her ankle.'

92

Comp. Heatid, IV,

r.

50,

where Hirschberg

in

Lev.

sect.

16:

nnx

nn\ntj'3

.njoayn D''^nm m^iri

n"'Nn3 'nntt'
Titt'

na
pay

,in'':^3
]''\>^'r^\>

n3!?nDi

nnvp

rit:'

nx^nn nn^^

nanx

|nc

nN"'2Di
jt'^-ij

r\^'yh

nriM n-ivp

po nnx

nn\n:i'3i ^ns'

nanx
93

'nnc'

'la

,'iT:''a

n3^nr:i

nnvp.
C 3

Comp. Nork,

s. v.

Schuh.

20
this to tell

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

:

The wanton daughters

of Zion used to place in

the heels of their shoes the stomach of a cock filled with

odoriferous oil

and whenever a host of youths passed by,

oil,

they pressed their foot on the sweet-scented

so that the

odour produced confusion among the youths

of serpents.'
^*

like the

venom

As
the bat
shoes,
wife,

a symbol of love we also find 'the flowered shoe of

'

in

the Chinese folk-song

' :

Bat, bat, with flowered

accompany us
I

the
^^

little

girl

yonder

will

be the

and

the husband.'

The
her as a

bride herself, as a rule, puts on the shoe given to

gift.

Yet

in

the

poem of King Rother the

his lap.^^

suitor

orders one gold and one silver shoe to be forged, and he

dresses the bride's feet which
lie in

In Berry the

bride used to stand barefooted before entering the church

for the

wedding.

The

relatives

endeavoured

in

vain to

have her put her shoe on, since

the bridegroom.^^

this could only

be done by

In general, as already mentioned,^^ the putting on and

removal of the shoes has to proceed according to definite

*

Lam.

r.,

IV:
b\:f

miv
psi

mv

nn\nB'

-iis*

'D1''

'-)

,n:D3j;n

D^i'nni

K^cci

hjnn

nx^ao ^n^"lc

nos

pani n^yjo

bv

ppm
onina

i'K'

DIN imsD

inn jjDysn

nnn

iniN '^m v^y

fertility,

npan

r\r\'r]

NJ3y.
u.
*5

As to the
La

serpent being a symbol of

p. 23.
'

comp. Rubin, Agada

also Koran,

Kabbala, pp. 18-19, ^""^ on the cock,

Comp.

Sura

24.

Revue, March

i,

1913, p. 98:

Chauve-souris, chauve-souris aux

fille

soulicrs fleuris, accompagnez-nous, la petite

je serai le mari.'
"^

que voila sera

la

mariee et

Nork, s.v. Schuh.

*^

Marianu, Nuii/a la

Romam,

pp. 258-9

'

In

Berry miresa statea eu

rudele
si

piciorele goale coud sosea timpul sa

mearga

la biserica si

cercan in

Zador sa o
"*

incalta.

Numai mirele
p. 9.

isbutea.'

Comp. above,

SYMBOLISM OF THE SHOE

prescriptions.

NACHT
feet

21

In this connexion

many

mystic conceptions

grew up concerning the importance of the

and shoes.

Thus

it is

said of

Enoch

that he effected the union of the

upper worlds and knew how to keep the evildoers from

himself through being a shoemaker.^^

We

find further in

a mystic book that the feet need special protection against

the pernicious influences from the outside

(the feet) represent the
'

(D'"J1^n),

since they
is

lower wisdom

'.

This protection

afforded

by the shoes

just as the Tephillin indicate the light

of the face.

On

account of this similarity between Tephillin

shoe
is

and shoes the

'

left

to be fastened

first.^'^"

Civilized people lose easily their religion, but rarely their

',

superstitions
stition

says Karl

Goldmark somewhere. The

superdays,

concerning the shoe has

it

come down

to our

own

and we meet
Says Dr.
'

even

among

the educated classes of society.

J.

Kohler, professor in the University at Berlin

is

My
99

superstition
See B^in D)pb\

prognostic throughout

place
'\n

much

s. v.

'm^N

':2 ni^'o

't

N'i'N*

Hi^fo

i6 Ti:n

^apnJi

nm

nn bnc'
injnn^

pnv na pya ix nmyi

ni^* )yi<^

^na ^Nntf

p^^nn''

D^yc'i

2''2D

njm

tt-

ab 2vy n^yc'

|V3i

Dn"'3-n

100

y-i)i^

;'r

n^'

yfino

'Dip!?

^ya^

n"t<

y'^c*

^y

niD^n
pjD""

^oipb

D''^yjj:n

p^ann nn^i n^nn

i^Notr iitj'ph ni?nn

>3

b^

bwb
nn^^s

D''3ioDn D^jivnn

invn

n1ot^'^

p^n^ p^na

^pi^n^ nTna' nn
,

D'^anvt^ D''nw:vn n^^^n 'nn

DB'oi
.

nsnn
-ns*

n?:3n 'nn on D'-bin 'i

D''^:-i

c^:'3C'

D^jsn

'nnb imi^ynh
D''nr:iK'
on-ki'

nio!?^ 'nn n^r.nb

D"'^yj^n

p^Dna inn n^Jivn

DnB>

|d

]>b:ir\

nx
'3

'nn

pa::'?:::

cbyjnn 'na j^^: n^D

,D"'^y2D

id yiT-D D^jsn

nis*

DnB>

22

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

left

weight upon the right or the

because
I
; '

shoe being put on

first,

imagine that otherwise something uncanny would

while Tilla Burieux, the actress, states in an
is
it

happen

interview that she

very careful not to place her shoes on

signifies
'

the table, because

certain stuttering
left

'.^^

Concerning the laying on of the

belief prevails in

shoe the following

Ansbach

'

If the bride lets the

bridegroom
^^^
'
:

buckle on her

left shoe,

she will rule in the house.'

With

reference to

worn shoes the Chinese say

;

He

who wears

his hat sideways, has a lazy wife

wife.'
^'^^

and he who

has worn shoes on, has a gluttonous

Finally, mention
vailing

must be made of the

superstition pre-

among

a considerable part of the French people,

of the bridal

according to which the preservation

guarantees a happy conjugal
ii 102 ^"^
'

shoe

life.^*-*

Berliner Tageblatt for

May

ii,

1913 (No. 235).

Nork,
J.

s. V.

Schuh.
*

Banzemont,

Enfants Chinois

',

La

Revue, March

i,

1913, p. 102

Si vous portez votre

chapeau sur

le col

vous avez une femme paresseuse, vous avez une

dit-on, si

vous portez un habit crasseux

et des souliers ecules

femme
lo*

qui aime a manger.'

Revue des Deux Mondes, Jan. 191 1,

p.

146

'

Garder

les souliers

avec

lesquels on s'est marie, c'etait s'assurer des chances de faire

boa menage.'

'

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

A STUDY
IN

THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE HALAKAH

College.

By Jacob

Z.

Lauterbach, Hebrew Union

II

We have seen above that the

a class of people
' '

name Soferim
'

'

designates

who occupied themselves with the Book and taught from that Book alone. This name has been
'

applied to the earliest teachers of the Halakah, because

they imparted

all

their teachings in

connexion with the

it

Book of
Midrash.

the Law, either as an exposition of

it,

or as a
of the

commentary on
This,

that

is

to
is

say

in

the form

we have

seen,

asserted

by

tradition

and
is

agreed upon by almost

all

the modern scholars.

There

absolutely no reason for assuming that

any of the teachers

belonging to the group of the Soferim, whether the earlier

or later, departed from this peculiar

method of

teaching.

For the name Soferim was given to the teachers because

of this

method of teaching and continued

in

use only

as long as they adhered exclusively to this method.

As

soon as the teachers ceased to occupy themselves exclusively with the

Book of

the

Law and
also,
'

its

exposition and

began
to

to teach abstract

Halakot

the

name

applied
'

them was no longer Soferim but

(see especially J. Brlill,

Shone Halakot

or

Tannaim

Mebo

ha-MishnaJiy Frankof Rabbi

furt a. M., 1876, II, p. 2).

The haggadic saying

23

24

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

(in

Abahu^*'

Yerushalmi Shekalim V,
cite as

i,

48

c)

which Weiss

and Oppenheim

a proof of their contention that the

in
It

Soferim taught abstract Halakot

not refer to the Soferim at
all.

the Mishnah-form, does

does not say anything

It refers to

about their methods or form of teaching.

Kenites,

the

who

in

Chronicles

2.

S5 are identified with the

In

families of Soferim, the inhabitants of Yabez, the Tir'atim,

the

Shim'atim, and

Sukatim.

all

these

names the
R.

Haggadah seeks
cating

to find attributes for the

Kenites, indi-

some of

their peculiar characteristics.

Abahu
as the

here gives an haggadic interpretation of the

applied to the Kenites in the same fanciful

name Soferim
manner

other names, Tir'atim, Shim'atim, and Sukatim are inter-

preted in Sifre,

Numbers 78 (Friedmann 20
still

a).

Oppenheim advances

another argument to prove

that the Soferim taught abstract Halakot.

the traditional laws designated

as

''3''D0

many of nbn must nCD7

Since
it

have

been transmitted

by the Soferim,
This

follows

(so
traall

Oppenheim) that the Soferim taught independent

ditional

laws

in

Mishnah-form.
that

is

not

at

convincing.

Granted

there

were

such

unwritten

laws handed
these

down from Moses

follow
that

to the Soferim,

and that
it

formed part of their religious teachings,

necessarily

does

not

these

traditional

teachings

2^

The passage

in

p.

Shekalim reads as follows

3'nD

in3S

'"I

^DK

riN
'IJI

y^T" aba DnsiD ijoi^ ni^n n^D yiv '2':^ cidid ninsc'Di nhn2 wi'Ti onm ntrcn lonn'' i6 'n nniSD nmso n-iinn.
Weiss {Dor,
I, p.

66) refers to this saying in the words

iB'y

"l"l3T

1l"N I3'0ni

nniED nmnn nx
'1:1

Dnsionu^ (n^^p:r 'cit) niD^nn >D2n nu^

p.

and Oppenheim {Has/>a/iar,VU,

itsinn*

114) states:

IHDS

"I

nCN

"'O^w'n'31
vntJ'.

i6

'n pja

nniao minn ns

iB'yti' -dI?

onsiD

iniN piip

Both of them erroneously take

this haggadic saying as a characterization

of the methods of the Soferim and as a reason for their name.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

were given
in

LAUTERBACH
They
in the

25
as

the

Mishnah-form.

could

well

have been given as additional laws

together with the scriptural

Midrash-form,

passages with which they

had some
change

sort

oi'

relation,
is

though not based on or derived

from them. 2"^

in

It

therefore absolutely certain that the

the form from Midrash to the period of the Soferim.

Mishnah was not

made during

The
the Just

period of the Soferim

I

came
In

to an end with

Simon
desig-

about 300-270
'

B.C.

Abot

i,

he

is

nated as being
great

of the last survivors of the

',

men

of the
last

Synagogue

which means that he was the

this

of
I,

the Soferim.

During the time of

Simon the Just

who

still

belonged to the Soferim, there could have been

no Mishnah.

We

have, therefore, to look for the origin

of the Mishnah-form in the times after

after

Simon

I,

that

is,

270

B.C.

We

have thus gained at

tej'inimis

least this

much.

We

have fixed the

a quo, the beginning of the

period during which the innovation of the Mishnah-form

could have been made.

We

have now to

find the

terminus

ad

quern, namely, the last possible date for the introduction.

In seeking to determine this latter date, the only proper

way would be
that
2''

to find the oldest authentic

its

Halakah menproof,

tioned in talmudic literature without

is,
If,

scriptural

in

the Mishnah-form.

In determining the date

when
and

for instance, the regulations about the colour of the thongs

the form of the knot of the phylacteries were traditional laws given to Moses

on Sinai, DJ0"Oy'n, as

is

claimed by some of the Rabbis of the Talmud

(Menahot 35

a, b),

these could have been nevertheless taught together with

8.

the passage in Deut. 6.

The teachers could have

them'
is

stated that the

com-

mandment 'and thou

first,

shalt bind

explained by tradition to mean,

Diyiif"!;

to tie

them only with black thongs, DninJi'

;

and second, that

the phylacteries must be square, my31"lD

also that the knot

must be of

a certain shape

and

lastly, that

the letter Shin, ^, must be impressed on

the outside, &c., &c.

26

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

such a Halakah was given, we shall eo ipso have deter-

mined the date when the change

in the

form had alreadyin

been made and the Mishnah-form was already

use.

This seems to be the simplest and only logical method

of procedure. not

Strange as

it

may

seem, this method has

scholars

been

followed

by any of the

who have

attempted to solve our problem.

The
Halakot

first
is

teacher in whose

Jose b. Joezer,^^

name we have independent who died about 165 B. C.^^

The
2,

sayings of
3)

and

are

Simon the Just and Antigonos (Abot i, merely wisdom maxims and not halakic
decisions mentioned without

teachings.

Connected with the name of Jose, however,

we have three halakic

scriptural

any

proof,

VIII,

4).

doubted.

i.e. in Mishnah-form (Mishnah Eduyot The authenticity of these Halakot is not to be They are certainly decisions given by Jose ben

28 Frankel's statement, 1N3 DOK' ^V nS^N D'JIt^'Snn DH 'NOB'I ^^H ''3 Nn^n331 nJw'M m^bn that Hillel and Shammai were the first teachers in whose name Halakot are mentioned in the Mishnah and Baraita {Hodegetica,
,
'

'

p. 38)

is,

to say the least, surprising.

We

find

Halakot from
in the

all

the four

preceding Zuggot.

Thus

Halakah

is

mentioned

name

of

Shemaiah
D''JO)

and Abtalion concerning the quantity of 'drawn water' (D^31Xt^

is

that

sufficient to disqualify the

in

Mikwah (Eduyot

I,

3),

not to mention the

Halakot

regard to the slaughtering of the passover sacrifice on sabbath

is

which
(p. in

Hillel

said to

have received from them and taught

in their

name

Pesahim 33 a and
the

b.

Pesahim 66a).

Simon

b.

Shetah mentions a law

name

of the D''?D3n in regard to the punishment of false witnesses

(Makkotsb).

From Joshua

b.

Perahia

we have

a Halakah in regard to
III, 4),

wheat brought from Alexandria (Tosefta Makshirin

of Jose b. Joezer
2'

and

in the

name

we
in

have the three Halakot (M. Eduyot VIII,

4).

The

date of Jose's death can only be approximated.

still

He

died

when

Alcimus was

power
(i

(see Genesis

r.

LXV,

22).

Probably he was
at the

among
in
\.\\c

the sixty

men whom
I,

the Syrian general Bacchides killed

7.

instigation of

Alcimus

Mac.

i6).

Alcimus died 160 B.C. (see BQchler

'

Jewish Encyclopaedia,

332-3).

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

Joezer.^*^

LAUTERBACH

27

In the form in which they are preserved they

disciples.

have already been taught by his colleagues or

Thus we
^^

find that in the last

b.

days of Jose

b.

Joezer or soon
first

Jose

Joezer's authorship of these Halakot

in

was

questioned by

Dr. Jacob

Levy

Ozar Nehmad,

III, p. 29.

In the course of his discussion,

however, Levy arrives

given by Jose
b.

at the conclusion that these

Halakot were really

first

Joezer of Zeredah,

Following Levy's

suggestion,

Graetz (^Monatsschrift, 1869, pp. 30-31) and after him Biichler {Die Priester

and der
is

Cultus, p. 63)

assume that these three Halakot belong

likewise Jose
b.

to

some

later

teacher whose

name was

Joezer, although such a teacher

for seeking

otherwise not known.

There

is,

however, no necessity
b.

any

other author than the well-known Jose

Joezer of Zeredah

who

is

expressly

mentioned

in

our sources.

The

fancied difficulties of ascribing the decisions

to Jose b. Joezer of
difficulty is said to

Zeredah disappear on close examination.

The main

be the difference in time between the date of Jose and

the date of the Eduyot-coUection.

How

could Jose

b.

Joezer of Zeredah,

who

died before 160

b.

c, have

testified before the teachers in

Jabneh about

100 c.E. on that memorable day

presidency, and
Eduyot-collection

when

Gamaliel

II

was deposed from the

could easily

when

according to a talmudic report (Berakot 27 b) the

?

was arranged

Were

this a real difficulty,

cit.,

it

be removed by assuming with Levy {op.

'in the

p. 36) that the

word

Dlti'lD

name of was
C"'N*

left

out in our Mishnah, and that the text ought to

''DV
'ni

read

mny

nW

DV.^n

T'yn

'

teacher testified in the

name of Jose b. Joezer of Zeredah '. However, no real difficulty exists. The theory that all of the Halakot contained in our Eduyot-collection are
testimonies that

cannot be maintained.

were deposed before the teachers at the assembly at Jabneh, Our Eduyot-collection contains other Halakot than
It

those testified to before the assembly at Jabneh.

that

contains also Halakot

the latter class belong

were not even discussed

at that

assembly.

To

the three Halakot of Jose b. Joezer (see H. Klueger,

Ueber Genesis
It
is

und
not

Composition der Halakoth-Sammlung Ediiyoth, Breslau, 1895).

necessary to assume, as Klueger

(/.

c, p. 84) does, that these decisions

had

been found

in written

form

in the archives.

These Halakot were simply

known to the were known

heart,

teachers just as the other sayings and teachings of the Zuggot

to them.

They had been

transmitted orally and studied by

and

at the

time

when

the Eduyot-collection
it.

these three Halakot were incorporated in

his

was composed or redacted, Compare also Hoffmann in

in

commentary on Mishnah Eduyot, ad he. The other difficulties in these three Halakot will be considered later the course of this essay, when we come to the discussion of the Halakot

themselves.

28
after his

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

death some Halakot were aheady taught without
is,

any

scriptural proof, that

in

the Mishnah-form.

Ac-

cordingly

we have found

the terminus

ad

quern for the

innovation of the Mishnah-form.

We We
of

now

pass to a consideration of the particular point

of time in this period

when the new form was introduced.

for believing
first

have good reasons

Jose are
not
first

that these decisions

only the

mentioned,

but

in

all

likelihood the

ever taught in Mishnah-form.

in

Indeed,
certain

reliable

report
in

the Talmud,

as

well

as

indications

gaonic traditions, points to the last days

of Jose as

the time

when

the

change

in

the form
is

of
in

teaching

was made.

This talmudic report

it

given

Temurah 15 b by Samuel, but

tradition

is

undoubtedly an older
It

which
=^^nn*j^

Samuel merely reported.

ny
n::^D
nv:i''

reads
nihac^s
"-dv

as
i^a

follows:

h^'-\^'h

\rh
I'-n

n?^y*^

vn N^

]^"'Ni

|N30

"irni

hc^dd

nmn

pin!?

iryv

(Pnin"')

"irm nC'M niin pnc^

'AH the teachers who

arose in Israel

from the days of Moses

until the death, or the last days,

of Jose b. Joezer studied the

Torah as Moses

did, but
'.

afterwards they did not study the Torah as Moses did

The

discussion that follows in the

Talmud endeavours
mean

to

explain the meaning

of this report.

Here we learn that

that the teachers

the report was not understood to

until the

lime of Jose's death \vere

in possession of as

many

laws as Moses had.

Nor was

it

understood to say that

they were
disputed

all

of one opinion and had no doubtful or

Halakot.

The

report, so

the discussion ends,

in

can only be understood to say that they taught

31

the

Tlie correction suggested

by Graetz {Monaisichrift,
',

1869, p. 23) to read

'

^DV
is

niD""

ly

'

till

the days of Jose

instead of 'DO

HDU' ly

till

Jose died

',

very plausible.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

same manner
in

LAUTERBACH
)r\b
""T'OJ

29
lin

which Moses taught,

io^d

We
means
is

are not told

what

this

method was and what

it it

to study or teach in the

manner of Moses, but

evident that this

method can only be the Midrash-form.

To

give

all

the Halakot as interpretation of the written

to study or teach like
all

word means

Moses

did.

Assuming,

as the Rabbis did, that

the interpretations given in the

definitions

Midrash are correct explanations and

written

of the

Law,

all

the teachings given in the Midrash-form

in the

were really contained

words of Moses.

And Moses
in

must have taught them

in the

same manner
and

which they
to
full

are taught in the Midrash.

For Moses must have read

laws
interpreted

the

people

the

written

the

meaning of each and explained each passage or each

word of the Torah.

That the phrase

'to study in the

manner
Talmud.
refuted

of

Moses'

is

used to indicate the Midrash-form,

in

can also be seen from another passage

In

the Babylonian

Yebamot 72 b we read that Eleazar b. Pedat an opinion of R. Johanan by quoting a scriptural

it.

passage and giving an interpretation to

thinking that

R. Johanan,

R. Eleazar,

in

his argument,

was making

use of an original interpretation, characterizes his

in these
'

method
pi?

words

r\'-\)2:n

lar:

nty3

t^'-l^1

nc'vc^

niD

ti^ni

see that the son of Pedat

studies in the

manner of

Moses'.
that this

Simon

b.

Lakish, however, informs R. Johanan

original with
in

argument was not

R. Eleazar, but
it

was taken from a Midrash-Baraita

is

Torat Kohanim, as
I,

indeed found in our Sifra (Tazria'

Weiss 58

b).

We
is

see, thus, that to

study or teach
is

in the

Midrash-form, as
'

done

in

our Sifra,
'

characterized as being

in

the manner
15 b,

of Moses

(nK'Da C'lni 2m^).

The

report in

Temurah

30
accordingly,

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

tells

us that until the death or the last days of

is

Jose

all
'

the teachers taught in the Midrash-form, which

in the

called

manner

of

Moses

'.^^

This seems also to have been the tradition

among

the

Geonim, though

for reasons of their

own they

did not care

to express themselves distinctly about this question.

We

32 This report in the Talmud might perhaps be confirmed by the report about the religious persecution in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. Among the many prohibitions against Jewish religious practices devised by the

Syrian ruler for the purpose of estranging the Jews from their religion, which are mentioned by the authors of the Books of Maccabees (i Mace. ch. i, and
2 Mace. ch. 6),
the

we

do not hear of any special prohibition against teaching

in the

Law,

as

was the case

Hadrianic persecutions
pp. 154
ff.).

(b.

Abodah zarah
the contrary,

I7b-i8a, compare Graetz,

Geschichte, IV, 4,

On

we

learn from the saying of Jose b. Joezer,

who
'

lived at that time, that no

such prohibition was enacted.

place for the wise
:

For Jose

said,

Let thy house be a meetingfeet,

sit

amidst the dust of their

and drink their words

with

thirst

'

(Abot

I,

4).

Evidently the wise teachers could meet unmolested

in private places,
is

to

and could impart their religious teachings. Yet there no doubt that the aim and the tendency of the Syrian government were suppress the religious teachings and to make the Jews forget their Law.
hear that the Books of the

We
fire

Law were

rent in pieces and burned with

and that the king's command was that those people with whom the Book of the Law would be found should be put to death (i Mace. i. 56-7
Atiiiquities, XII, 3, 256).

Josephus,

Evidently the persecutors believed

to

that to burn the books of the

Law and

punish any one

who

possessed

them was
that

sufficient to

prevent the study of the Law.

all

This was a very

correct surmise.
is,

Since

teachings were given in the Midrash-form,

as an exposition and explanation of the

Book

of the

Law,

it

followed

that to take

away

the

Books of the
It

Law meant

to efi'ectually prevent

any

religious instruction.
his

was

to

meet

this peculiar situation that

Jose uttered
burnt,

wise saying.
it

Inasmuch as many of the Books of the

Law were

was extremely dangerous to use those that had been secretly saved, Jose advised the people to make every home a place where the wise teachers might meet, and where one might listen to their words of instruction even
and as
without books.

These peculiar conditions may

of the

in

some degree have helped

to

accustom

the teachers to impart religious instruction altogether apart from the Book

Law, namely

in

Mishnah-form.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

have seen above that Sherira,
during which
the

LAUTERBACH
describing the

3I

in

period
use,

Midrash-form
'3::'

was

in

exclusive

employs the term

trnpoi

N"ip''j?D,

but

does not define

how long
this

this 'earlier period of the

second Temple' lasted.

interpretation of
in a
"^

However, we

shall arrive at a

more exact
its

vague term by comparing

usage

responsum

of R.

Zemah Gaon,
:

In this responsum

the following
VHB'

statement occurs D3n n^

11
its
n'-n

^^^ DJiD

enpM

p^'-in

i'SitJ'^

nr^^ ^d
is

sh

'All the traditional law

{n:ii;D

here
in

used

in

broader sense) which they used to teach

pSJ'nn vntJ>, in

the Midrash-form,

the time of the Temple,

was anonymous, and no individual teacher

connected therewith'.
in

is named or The time which Zemah Gaon has

mind and which he designates

as ^ip^l cannot include

the whole period of the second Temple. of individual

Many names
second

teachers living in the time of the

Temple

are preserved to us together with their teachings,

in the

and these names were no doubt already mentioned

collections

of

Halakot that existed

refer to the

in

Temple

times.
b.

R.

Zemah Gaon can only

time before Jose

Joezer, when, indeed,

in

no individual names were mentioned

connexion with the halakic teachings, the latter being

5S

This responsum

is

quoted by Epstein in his Eldad ha-Datii, pp. 7-8, Beth Haniidrash^

II,

and more
discuss
that
it

fully in Jellinek's

pp. 112-13.

We

shall

in detail later

on

in the

course of this essay.

old

Zemah's statement
taught the
finds cor-

Eldad's

Talmud followed the custom of

when they

Halakah wthout mentioning the names of individual teachers,

roboration in the

manner

in

which the halakic teachings as quoted by Eldad

all

were

introduced.

According to Eldad
niin^H
''DD ''DO

the halakic teachings

"ICN*.

were
This

introduced with the phrase

phrase, like the phrases
\y^1~s

Hw'D ^DD yiCnn"'

Tl>'1''

miajH

HE^M ^nni

and niin pniD^

in

nCM,

would well describe the older Midrash-form,

which

all

teachings were given in the

name

of Moses, i.e. as interpretations of the

very words of Moses.

32

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

(ptt'-in

given as interpretations of the Scripture

is,

Vn^), that

in the

Midrash-form.

It is

most probable that Sherira

refers

by

the term

ulpD2

Nlp'^yo

to

the

same period
is,

which Zemah Gaon

time before Jose

designates as

Ulpr:)!,

that

to the

b. Joezer.

We

can therefore reasonably

i.e.

conclude that the

new form
first

of teaching the Halakah,

Mishnah-form, was
of Jose b. Joezer.^*

made

use of in the closing days

We

have, now, to ascertain the reason for the intro-

duction of a

new form

of teaching the Halakah alongside

fixed the time,

of the older form.

Having

inquire into the conditions of that time, to

find in

we must now see if we cannot

them the reason

conditions

for the innovation.

An

examina-

tion

of the

that

obtained during the period

the
in

under

consideration

reveals

fact

that
of

many
the
various

great

changes

had

taken

place

the

life

Judean

community.
tendencies.

We
The
the

notice

the

presence

of

new Even
diver-

people's

outlook

upon

Hfe

and their

regard

for

law

had considerably changed.

among

the teachers and leaders

we

find

new and

gent attitudes towards the

Law

of the fathers on the one

hand and towards the new ideas and tendencies on the

other hand.

All these changes were brought about by

the one radical change in the political condition of the

people, resulting from the passing of Judea from Persian
2*

It

is

perhaps for

this

very reason that the teachers

.

until the

time

of Jose were called nv135i'X

in the

This

is

correctly interpreted by

Samuel

Talmud (Temurah

15 b and Sotah 47 b) to

mean ^2

?D^t^*

CJ''N, viz.

that each

man spoke
The

only the opinion of the whole group and that the group
in

spoke for each man,

as individuals.

the sense that the teachers acted as a body, not the

report that the Eshkolot ceased with

")]]})"

death of

Jose

b.

Joezer, m!?13t'Sn 1^03

]2 ^DV nrislTO,

means therefore
him

that this concerted action of the teachers ceased with Jose, and after

they began to mention Halakot

in

the

name

of individual teachers..

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

to

LAUTERBACH

33

Greek

rule.

This great

political

change caused the

interruption of the activity of the Soferim as an authoritative

body of

teachers.

This interruption of the activity

of the Soferim which was coincident with the death of

Simon, the

last

member

of that body, in the course of time

led to a departure from the

methods

of the Soferim

and

necessitated the introduction of a

new method
the

of teaching

the

Halakot, namely, the Mishnah-form.

this,

In

order to
that

prove

we must

first

review

conditions

prevailed

in

the time of the Soferim and

examine the

methods of the Midrash used by them.

As
the

said

above,

the Soferim taught the people only

Book of

the Law,

minn

nSD, with such interpretations

it.

and explanations as they could give to

getical rules

Their exe-

and Midrash-methods, simple as they were,

sufficient for their purpose,

were nevertheless
give
all

which was to
with
the

the

halakic

teachings

in

connexion

written

Law.
in

There was no reason whatever to make

the

any change

form of

teaching,

and

there

was

absolutely no need to teach anything else besides the

of the

Law and

its

Midrash.

during the period of the

quietly, without

Book The stream of Jewish life, Soferim, moved on smoothly and

Under
the Persian

any great changes.

rule the Jewish people were merely a religious

at the

community,

head of which stood the

religious
in

high-priest,^^

who was

the
pre-

highest
vailed

authority.

The
same

conditions which
last

this

community during the

days of the

Persian rule were almost the

as in the earlier days,

when the community was

^^

first

organized by the exiles

This was the case, at any rate, in the second half of the Persian

period.

See Wellhausen,
ff.,

Israelitische

und

Jiidische Geschicliie, 3rd edition,

pp. 198

and Schiirer,

Geschichte, II, 4, pp.

267

ff.

VOL.

VI.

34

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

returned from Babylon.

who

The Book

of the

Law

ac-

cepted from Ezra by these early founders and organizers with the few simple
interpretations

given to
all

it

by the

Soferim, was therefore sufficient for almost

the needs

of the

community throughout the

some

entire

Persian period. of
life

Of

course,

slight changes in the conditions

in the course of time.

must have developed

These changes

in the inner life of the

community probably brought new

religious customs.

certain

written

The same changes probably required modifications in the interpretation of some of the laws or even the introduction of new laws and new
All these necessary modifications and even the

practices.

few

new laws

the Soferim

could

easily

read

into

the

written

Law by means
itself.

of interpretation, or even of

embody
of the

the same in the

in

Book by means

some
in

slight indications

the text
all

Thus they found

the

Book

Law

the teachings they required.

able to do this because they were

The Soferim were

also the actual scribes

whose business
If

it

was to prepare

copies of the

Book

of the Law.

they desired to teach

a certain law, custom, or practice, because they considered

it

as part of the religious teachings, although

in,

it

could not

be found

or interpreted into, the

it

Book

of the
slight

Law, they
change
in

would cause
the text.^
^'^

to be indicated

by some

For instance, by adding or omitting a

letter,

As we have

received the Torah from the Soferim and only in the

cast
it

textual form in

which they

(not considering

some

slight

changes and

additions that

note 43),

it

may have been made in the period after the Soferim, see below, is impossible now to ascertain the full extent of the changes and
in the original text of the

corrections

made by the Soferim

originally had.

Law.

However,
the

there

is

no doubt that the Soferim did change and correct the text of the Torah

which they

tradition to this effect

was current among

'

Rabbis of the Talmud.

The Rabbis

often refer to such changes as

correc-

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

or

LAUTERBACH

35

by the

peculiar spelling of a

word they could bring about

r. LIX, 7 and Exodus r. XIII, They enumerated many passages

tions of the Soferim', D'''^D1D ppTl (Genesis

i)

or

DHDID Dipn

(Leviticus

r.

XI,

5),

in

the Scriptures

which

in their present

form represent the corrected readings

introduced by the Soferim (Sifre Numbers,

84, Friedmann, p. 22 b,

and

Mekilta, Beshallah, Shirali, VI, Weiss, pp. 46 b-47 a).

In

Tanhuma, Beshallah

15 (on Exod, 15.7)

it

is

expressly stated that

all

these corrections
"'ki'JX

were

made by
Thsxixs

the Soferim, the

;

Men

of the Great Synagogue,

Thr\ir\

CIDID ppTl
'lJ"'^t^x^N

nojD CIDID. Even

ch.

also,
if it

ixip:

^ah

nDJ3

e'^n

i^k q^pids

should be granted that these statements in the

Tanhuma

are of later origin (see R. Azariah de Rossi,

Meor Enayim, Imre Binah,

the Soferim,

XIX),

it

cannot be disputed that the interpretation of the term pp^n

to the corrections

D^IDID as referring
identifiedwith

made by
is

who were

theMen

of the Great Synagogue,

corrections,

correct. This is confirmed

by the

fact that the

same

which

in the

Midrashim are designated

as D''"1D1D 'JlpTl, are designated in theMassorah, Oklah

ed. Frensdorf, p. 113), as 'corrections

We-Oklah (No. 168,

fpTl

made by Ezra' (NITV

|V0

n"^',

who was
conflicts

the

first

of the Soferim.

If this tradition

about the D''"1D1D ^JIpTl

with the later conception of the Rabbis, namely, that the entire

Torah
of

is

from God, and that the one who maintains that there are some

verses in the Torah which

were not spoken by God,

assumes.
it

is

a despiser of the

word

God (Sanhedrin 99 a),

this

does not argue against the correctness of this

(/. c.)

tradition, as

R. Azariah de Rossi

On the contrary,

this conflict

speaks in favour of our tradition.

For

proves that the tradition about the

CIDID
views.

"'JlpTl

was too well-known

in the text but

a fact to be suppressed by later dogmatic

All that the later teachers could do

was

not to deny the fact that

it.

changes were made

merely to avoid too frequent mention of

When

forced to mention the fact they pointed to a few harmless changes

(as in Sifre

and omitted

and

Mekilta") the direct reference to the

Soferim

as the authors of these corrections (compare Weiss, Middot Soferim, to

Mekilta, p. 46 b).

It

was probably on account

of such considerations that

the reference to the Soferim, the

Men

of the Great Synagogue,

was omitted

from the passage

(/. c.)

in

Tanhuma,

in

those old copies which R. Azariah de Rossi

reports to have seen.

The statement

in the

Tanhuma expressly
The omission

ascribing the corrections to the Soferim, the

is

Men

of the Great Synagogue,

accordingly not of later origin, as R. Azariah assumes.

of this reference from certain copies

was due

to a later hand.

Although the corrected passages pointed out by the Rabbis do not deal
with the Law,

we may

safely

assume (notwithstanding Weiss,

/.

c.)

that the

Soferim corrected even the legal portions of the Pentateuch.

of the Ketib

correction

N?

into the

Kere

(Levit. 11. 21) certainly affected the

Law.

36
the desired

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

result.^"

They

did

not

hesitate

to

do

so,

because they did not in any

way change
in

the law as they

understood

it.

The changes and

corrections which they

allowed themselves to

make
it

the text were of such

a nature that they did not affect the meaning of the

passage, but merely gave to

an additional meaning, thus

suggesting the law or custom which they desired to teach.

In this manner they succeeded in grafting upon the written

Law

all

these newly developed laws and customs which

they considered genuinely Jewish.

Even

if

the Soferim

had desired
teach a

to introduce a

new

religious practice or to

new law which could not be represented

as

an

interpretation of the

Law
could

nor indicated in the text, they

to

would not have been compelled

of teaching.

change

their usual

form

They

still

have taught that law or

custom together with the passage of the written

which
it

Law
it

with

had some distant connexion,

offering

as an

additional law or a modification of the practice

in the written

commanded
some

Torah.

Thus, throughout the entire period

of their activity the Soferim who, no doubt, formed

kind of an authoritative organization with the high-priest

as
its

head, remained true to their name, and continued to

teach only the

Book

of the
else.

Law

with

its

interpretation

Midrash

and nothing
like

That the
This change,
according
to

activity of the

Soferim as an authoritative

most of the Kcre and Kctib, originated with the Soferim,

the talmudic tradition (Nedarim 37 b).

The

later teachers,

for obvious reasons,

would not mention the corrections made by the Soferim

it

in the legal parts of the Pentateuch, as

would have

cast unfavourable

reflections on the authority of the

'''

Law and

the validity of the Halakah.

earliest
'

For

illustrations of this

method of the

Midrash to indicate
in the

Halakot

in the text itself,

see the writer's article

ff.

Midrash Halakah'

Jewish Encyclopedia, VIII, pp. 579

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

LAUTERBACH
last

37

body of teachers ceased with the death of their

member,

Simon the
It

Just

(about 270 B.C.) has ah'eady been shown.

rule

was the change from the Persian to the Greek

the
interruption of the activity

that caused

and ended

the period of the Soferim.

The change

in

the government
life

brought about

many

other changes in the conditions of

status of the people.
life

and

in the political

These, in turn,
institutions,

influenced the religious

and the communal

activity

and had

their effect also

upon the

and authority of
life

the teachers.

All these changes in the inner

of the

com-

munity did not come to pass immediately

after the people

came under Greek

a long process,

rule,

for

a people cannot be quickly

It

transformed by mere external influences.

was through

lasting about half a century, that these

changes were gradually effected.

During the lifetime of

had not yet overthrown
Soferim as an

Simon the

Just, the

new
the

influences

the authority and

leadership of the

organized body of teachers.

Simon who enjoyed the high

respect of the people could maintain the old order even

under the changed conditions by the very influence of his

great personality.

Being the high-priest and the respected

still

leader of the people, he

teachers,

preserved the authority of the

and under his leadership they continued some of But with the death of Simon
of things
as
all

their usual activities.

the

influences of the

new order
the

The

activity

of

teachers

made themselves felt. an authoritative body

was under-

ceased.

Even the authority

of the High-priest

mined.

He was no more
its

the highest authority of a religious

community and

chief representative.

Other people

assumed authority over the community.

Laymen

arose

who had

as

much

influence

among

the people and with the

leaders.

government as the High-priest, and they became

38

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The people who had now been
in contact

with Greek

culture for half a century, acquired

familiar with

new

ideas and

became

new views

of

life,

other than those which they

had been taught by

of their fathers.

their teachers in the

name

of the law

The

rich

and

influential classes

accepted

Greek ideas and followed Greek customs.

the people were
fathers, nor

The

leaders of

no longer guided by the laws of the

life

was the

of the people

any longer controlled

solely
in

by

the laws and customs of the fathers as contained

the Torah.
all

The

teachers were no
life,

longer consulted

upon

matters of

as they had been in former days,

when, with the High-priest at the head of the community,

they formed an authoritative body.
interpretation and

Consequently, the
laws
of the

the development of the

fathers did not keep

pace with the rapid changes and

life.

developments

in

the actual conditions of

The changed
questions
for

conditions of the time brought forth

new
the

which no decisions were

fathers,

provided

in

laws
in

of the

and no answers could be found even

the inter-

pretations

and traditions of the Soferim, because such

questions had never before arisen.

These questions were

decided by the ruling authorities

of the

who were

not teachers

Law, and

in

some

cases probably

by the people

themselves.
in

These

decisions,

presumably, were not always

accordance with the principles followed by the teachers

of the Law.
authorities,

The

decisions in
to

new

cases, given

by ruling

and answers

new

questions, fixed

by popular

usage,

became

in the course of a

few decades the established

practices of the people.

This development ensued because

the people could not distinguish between decisions derived

from the

Law by

interpretation,

and decisions given by

based upon any' law or

some

ruling

authority, but

not

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

tradition of the fathers.

LAUTERBACH

39

Neither could the majority of the

people distinguish
that

between generally accepted customs

had been recently introduced, and such as had been

fathers.

handed down by the

To

the people at large

who
by

were not concerned about

historical

and archaeological

questions, both were alike religious customs sanctioned

popular usage.

Thus many new customs and

were no precedents
the slightest indication
the

practices for which there

in the traditions of the fathers

in

and not

Book of

the Law, were

observed by the people and considered by them as a part

of their religious laws

and

practices.

No

attempt was

made

to secure the sanction of the authority of the

Law

for these

new

practices in order to harmonize the laws of

life

the fathers with the

of the times.

(disciples of the Soferim)

were the
this

The few teachers only ones who could

perhaps have brought about

harmonization.
in

By means
Book of

of interpretation they might have found

the

the

Law

some support for the new practices, and they

old, traditional
official

might have grafted the new and perhaps foreign customs

upon the

laws of the fathers.

authority
;

But these

teachers had no

they were altogether

disregarded by the leaders and ignored

by

a large part

of the people.

The
Just,
is

fact

that there

was no

official

activity

of the

teachers, in

the years following the death of Simon the

borne out even by the alleged traditional report

given in

Abot L

The Mishnah,

despite

its

anxiety to

represent a continuous chain of tradition and to maintain

that the activity of the teachers

had never been interrupted,

yet finds

itself

unable to

fill

the gap between

Simon the

40
Just
I

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

and Antigonos."*
It

does not mention the

name

of
is,

even one teacher between the years 270 and 190

B.C., that

between the latest possible date of Simon's death

and the

timeof Antigonos. Evidently tradition did not know of any

teacher during that period.
sible if there
in

This would have been imposofficial activity

had been any

of the teachers

those years.
38

It is

impossible to bridge over the gap in the succession of teachers

It is

as given in the Mishnah,

the successor of
Joses.

evident that Antigonos could not have been

I,

Simon the Just

and the immediate predecessor of the two

I,

Halevi's arguments {Dorot Harishonim,

ch. xii, pp. 198

ff.)

are

not convincing.

The Mishnah speaks

of the
a.

two Joses as contemporaries.

As such they

are also referred to Shabbat 15

We

cannot for the purpose

of upholding the other tradition, namely, that there

chain of teachers, deny this explicit report and

was an uninterrupted make of Jose b. Jonanan

full

a colleague of Antigonos and a

b.

man

older

by a

generation than Jose

I,

Joezer.

If Antigonos
(/. c.)

had been the pupil and successor of Simon the Just

then have a gap between 250

as Halevi

assumes, he could not have been succeeded directly by the

b.

two

Joses.

We would
the

c, the date

when
all

Antigonos the pupil of Simon the Just I must have died, and 180 b.c,
the time

when

two Joses must have begun

their activity.
it is

In spite of

the pilpulistic arguments of Halevi against Frankel,

is

evident that the latter

right in assuming that Antigonos did not directly succeed

If

Simon the Just

{Hodegetica, p. 31).

we

still

desire to consider the report in the

it

Mishnah

as correct,

we must

interpret
I,

to

mean
first

that

Antigonos succeeded Simon

the Just II (see Weiss, Dor.

p.

95) and not the last

(against

member

of the Great

Synagogue who was .Simon the

Haseniau, pp. 52 and 174).
indicate this.

Krochmal, More Nebuche

Indeed, the wording in the Mishnah seems to

For

if

the Mishnah meant to say that Antigonos succeeded

is

that

Simon the Just who

said

mentioned
last

in the

preceding paragraph of the

of the Great Synagogue,
it

Mishnah and designated as the

member

would have

10DD b3^p, as
specific

it

uses in the following passages the phrase

DnD

173^. The

mention of the name in the statement pycti'D bS'p

it

p'li'n evidently

shows

that

was another Simon who

Simon
I

is

here referred to
II.

as the one

who preceded
it

Antigonos.

This can only be Simon the Just

there

At any

rate,

is

certain that after

came
later

a time

when

there

was no

official activity

of the teachers.

Even the
in

tendency to recon-

struct the chain of tradition, such as

we have
name
II

the report in the Mishnah

Abot, could not succeed

in the

in

finding the
I

of a single teacher
(see IV).

who

flourished

period between Simon

and Simon

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

Even
teachers
in

LAUTERBACH

4I

those days, there were without doubt some

preserved
the traditional teachings of the
faithful to

who

Law.

There were some people who remained

the laws and the traditions of the fathers, and

among them
it

some who studied the Law

been taught by the Soferim.

in

the manner in which

had

However, these teachers had

in a private

no

official

authority.

It

was merely

capacity

that they delivered their teachings to those who wished to

follow them.

However, absence of

official

authority not

only did not prevent but even helped the activities of the
teachers to

become
most
in

of great consequence for future develop-

ments.

It

brought about two great results which later

important factors
life.

became the
Halakah and
it

in

developing the
In the
first

shaping the Jewish

place,

brought about the popularization of the study of the

Law
the

and paved the way

for the

rise

of teachers not of
place,
in
it

the priestly families.

text
of

In the second
of

preserved
form,

the

Book

the

Law

a fixed

which resulted
character.

in giving this text a sacred,

unchangeable

In the days of the Soferim,

when the High-priest was

when the teachers under
body vested with authority

the head of the community, and

his leadership

formed an

official

to arrange all religious matters in accordance with the

as they understood
it,

Law

the knowledge of the

the only

Law was

limited to the priests

3*

who were

official teachers.^^

The Soferim, up
if

to the

time of the death of Simon the Just

I,

were
and

mostly,

not exclusively, priests.

also
Schiirer,
Geschichte,

See
IP,

my

Sadditcces

and

Pharisees, p. 6.

Compare

pp. 278-9, 373-4,

and 455,

R. Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach (Berlin, 1906), p. 346. Smend, however, goes too far in assuming that even as late as the beginning of the
second century
correct.
b. c. all

the teachers of the

Law were

priests.

This

is

not

In the middle of the third century B.C., after the death of

Simon

42

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

the one hand, the priests

On

who were

in possession of the

law and tradition of the fathers considered the teaching and

interpreting of the religious law as their priestly prerogative.

They would
become
their

therefore

not impart to the lay people a

thorough knowledge of the

teachers.'*"

Law

so that they too could

in curtailing

This would have resulted

own

special privileges, a sacrifice

which

priests are

not always willing to make.

On

the

other hand,

the

people had no impetus to study the

could rely on the authority of their
all

Law

because they
teachers in
lips

official

matters religious.

They were
mouth

satisfied that 'the

of the priest should keep

knowledge and that they should

',

seek the

Law

at his

and get from him decisions

of
life.

concerning

all

the

questions

But

when the
community

authority of the High-priest as the ruler of the

was gone, and the

priestly teachers also lost their official

authority, the study of the

Law was

no longer the activity

of an exclusive class of official

teachers.

knowledge

the Just

I,

there

were already many

b. c.

lay teachers.

In the beginning of the

second century

they already possessed great influence

and were

members

of the Gcrousia.

The

description of the Soferim as sitting in

is

the senate and knowing the Law, which

given

in

Sirach 38, refers to

both lay- and priest-teachers.

*

The saying Raise many

'

disciples

',

which

is

ascribed by the Mishnah

(Abot

I)

to the
It

Men

of the Great Synagogue, does not argue against this

statement.

can be interpreted to mean either to raise

many

disciples

among
educate

the priests

who

should carry on

the activity of teaching, or to

religious law, but not to
is

many

pupils in a

knowledge of the

make

them authoritative teachers.

However,

it

very probable that the later

teachers ascribed to the early Soferim a motto which they thought the

Soferim should have promulgated.

As

the fact of their being priest-Soferim

was

forgotten, the later teachers ascribed to

them

their

own

democratic

tendencies.

These tendencies were against the monopolization of the

priests,

knowledge by the
the

and

in

favour of spreading the knowledge of

Law among

the people at large.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

of the

LAUTERBACH

43

Law and

the traditions of the fathers

no longer

gave

its

possessor the prerogative of sharing in the ad-

ministration

of the community.
political

At

the

head of the

community now stood

leaders

who arranged

communal
piety,

affairs

according to standards of their own.

The study

of the
it

Law now became

a matter of private
priests.

and as such

was not limited to the

On

the one hand, the priests no longer had any interest in

keeping the knowledge of the

as
it

Law

jealously to themselves,

did not bring them any special privileges.

still

For such

influence as the priests

had was

theirs,

not because

they knew or taught the Law, but because they were the
priests, in

charge of the Temple, and members of the

influential aristocratic families.*^

They

therefore

had no
to the
at

hesitancy in imparting a knowledge of the

lay people.
all

Law

It

must be kept

in

mind that there were

priests

times some true and faithful

to

whom

their

religion

was dearer than personal advantages and family

These
priests

aggrandizement.

were now very eager to

the people.

spread religious knowledge

among

On

the

other hand, the lay people were

now more eager than

Since there was no

formerly to acquire such knowledge.

official

body

of teachers to decide authoritatively all re-

ligious

matters, the pious

his

man who

cared

for

the

Law

had to be

own

religious

authority.

He

therefore

sought to acquire a correct knowledge of the laws and

the traditions of the fathers.

This resulted in the gradual

spread of a knowledge of the

Law among

the
as

pious

laymen, and

in the rise of lay teachers

who had

much
the

knowledge of the

Law

as the priestly teachers themselves.

These new teachers

soon

claimed
50.

for

themselves

" See below, note

44

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

which was formerly the prerogative of

religious authority

the priests.

For about half a century, during the ascendancy of the

power of the
priests

political leaders, these teachers,

laymen, and

had no recognized authority.

sulted as to the regulation of the

They were not concommunal affairs, and

resulting

not called upon to answer questions

from the
contented
the

changed

conditions

of

life.

They

therefore

themselves

with

merely preserving the

Law and
to

traditions that were left to

them from
or

the past, without

trying

to

develop them

further

add

them new

teachings of their own.

Accordingly, they continued to

of the

teach the text of the

tions given to
it

Book

Law

with the interpreta-

by the Soferim and the Halakot, which

the latter indicated in or connected with the text of the

Law.

They

did not forget any of the interpretations or

teachings of the
of the to

Law

in

Thus they preserved the text the exact form in which it was handed down
Soferim.'*'all

them by the Soferim, with

all

of

its peculiarities,

as well

as

the changes and

indications

made

in

it

by the
inserted

Soferim.

indications of
for

They neither changed the new laws therein. And

text nor

after the text was

many

years in a certain form, that became the fixed

In the course of a few decades that
all
its

and permanent form.

permanent form with

sidered
*^

peculiarities

came

to be con-

as

sacred,

so

that no

one afterwards dared to

Oppenheim who assumes
The troublesome
of the
Icft^

must emphasize

this point in opposition to

that in the time of persecution they forgot the teachings of the Soferim

and

for this reason

began to teach independent Halakot.

times might have hindered original activity and the development of the
teachings,

but could not have

If

prevented
all,

the

preservation

older

teachings.

they did study at

they studied what was

to

them

from the Soferim.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

introduce textual changes,
to do,*" for the as

LAUTERBACH

45
used

the Soferim of old

purpose of indicating new laws or new

meanings to old laws.

of

Thus we

see that after the death

Simon the Just

I,

the conditions in the

community and

as a result thereof the activities of the teachers differed

greatly from those that were obtained in the times of the

Soferim.

There prevailed a
life

state

of religious

anarchy,

wherein the practical

of the people was not controlled

by the law of the

authorities, nor

fathers as interpreted

by the

religious

were the

activities of the teachers carried

on

in

an

official

way by an

authoritative

body.

This

chaotic state of affairs lasted for a period of about eighty

years, until another great

change took place which brought

This happened about the

the religious anarchy to an end.

year 190

B.C.,

when an

authoritative Council of priests

and

laymen was again established.

This new Council or San-

hedrin assumed religious authority to teach and interpret

the

Law and

proceeded to regulate the

life

of the

com-

munity according to the

According to a report
Antiochus

religion of the fathers.

in

Josephus {Antiquities, XII,

3, 8),

III manifested a very friendly attitude towards

the people of Judea after that province had

rule.

come under

his

Following his victory over the Egyptian king at the

battle of

Panea (198

B.C.),

he

is

said to have addressed to

in

his general

Ptolemaeus an

epistle

favour of the Jews.

In this
*3

letter,

reproduced by Josephus, the following para-

We

are not considering here the slight changes which according

f.)

to

Geiger {Urschrift, pp. 170

to Pineles
I.

were made

as late as the time of R. Alciba

p.

and according

{Darkah shel Torah,

96) even as late as the time

Possibly, the Pharisaic

of Judah ha-Nasi
teachers,

As

whole the text was

in

fixed.

as the party

grew

influence

and as they became the sole

authorities of the religious law, ventured again to

to indicate their teachings in the text.

make

slight

changes and

46

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

(

graph occurs

142):

'And
the

let

all

of that nation
let

live

according to the laws of their

senate
{yepova-ia)

own country and

and the

the

and

priests

scribes

of

the
poll

Temple and the sacred singers be discharged from money and the crown tax and other taxes also.' We
Jews under Antiochus III were to
according to their

learn from this that the

live

own

laws, and

that

there

was,

besides the priests, another authoritative body, a

senate

or a

Gerousia,

of which

laymen were also

members.
the

Otherwise the

mention

of the senaU and

priests

separately would have no sense.**

It is true that

some

details in

the epistle prove the

It

authorship of Antiochus to be spurious.

not written by Antiochus.
It

was evidently

originated at a

much

later

date and was only incorrectly ascribed to Antiochus

by
(see

some

Hellenistic

writer

whom
the

Josephus followed
seq.).

Biichler,
ever,
if

Die Tobiadcn nnd Oniadeti, pp. 158

the conditions
in

How-

Jewish community under

Antiochus III had been known to be very different from

those described in this epistle, neither Josephus nor his
authority would have accepted the authorship of Antiochus.
^*

Biichler {pp.

cit.,

p.

171) notices this strange feature in the epistle,

is

namely, that the Gerousia

explains
it

mentioned separately from the

priests.

He

by assuming

that the epistle

was
this

originally written

by a man
the author

who

lived outside of Palestine

and who did not know that

in Palestine the

senate

was composed

of priests.

While

may

explain
it

why

of the original epistle could have

made the

mistake,

does not explain

how Josephus who was

certainly

a Palestinian or the Palestinian authority that he

followed could have accepted this epistle as genuine.

One

or the other

would have noticed that it did not represent actual conditions. This difficulty is removed by assuming that Josephus knew that at the time of Antiochus the Great the senate in Judea was formed not exclusively of
the priests but also of laymen.

He, therefore, did not

find
i.

it

strange that

the epistle should mention the senate and the priests,

a body not identical with the priests.

e.

the spnate as

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

LAUTERBACH
and
in

47

Evidently Josephus on his part had no reason to doubt

the genuineness
of this
epistle,

his

opinion

it

could well have originated from Antiochus.

This can only

be explained by assuming that Josephus knew from other

sources that, after Judaea had

come under Syrian

life

rule,

there was a revival of the religious

in

the

community

and a renewal

of the official activity of the teachers.

From

the same source he must have

known

that the people tried

again to

live

according to their laws and that there was at

the head of the

community an

authoritative body, a Senate

or a Gerousia, of which lay teachers also were members.

As

these events took place under the rule of Antiochus,

in his

Josephus linked them

tions under

mind with the

political condi-

the

same king and believed they were the

supposition Josephus was perhaps right.

direct results of Antiochus's friendly attitude towards the

Jews.
It
is

In this

quite probable that the change in the government

in

brought about the change

the internal affairs of the

community.

As

it

weakened the influence of the former

political leaders,

it

made

it

possible for that

new organizato

tion

composed of

priests

and lay members

assume the

leadership of the community.

And when

Josephus found
the

an

epistle, ascribed

to

Antiochus, which permitted

their

Jews to

live

according to

own laws and

actually

spoke of a senate besides the

it

priests,

he could well believe

to

have been written by Antiochus.

In a source older than Josephus we indeed find a report

of the

renewed

religious

activity

by an
B.C.

authoritative
in

assembly composed of priests and lay teachers

the

first

two decades of the second century

'

refer to

the

Fragments

of a Zadokite

Work

',

published by Schechter
I,

{Documents of Jeivish Sectaries^

vol.

Cambridge, 1910).

48

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

it

There

is

stated (Text A, p.

i)

that 390 years after

God

had delivered them

(the Jewish people) into the

hands of
B.C., i.e.
(i.e.

Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon (about 196

390 years

after

586

B.C.),

God made
Israelites.

to

grow a plant
(the

an

assembly) of Priests and

They

that assembly) meditated over their sin

members of and they knew that

back

they had been guilty [of neglecting the religious laws].

They sought
to the

to find the right

way

[to lead the people

Law

of God].*^

Again on page 6 the same

There
it

fact is

stated even

more

clearly.

is

said that

men
**

of understanding from Aaron

(i.e.

God took from among the

'

priests)

and from
in

Israel wise
the
text A,

teachers
lines 5
ff.
,

(i.

e.

non-priestly
:

The passage

p. i,

reads as follows

l^JO nvN:n:3UJ I'l

jB'n^i

nnix

in-ni'

D^ycjTii

dind

\:>b\:^

n":^ jnn

|*pai

"IV1N

ns*

jj'n''^

nyuo i^iw
D>t^'J^*

\'^r]iiJ2)

'?m^''D no^^i Dni?s ^33

D:iya
ir2"'i

nnii?3

vm
"13^5

nn

Dtrs

>n

iyTi

inonK

ddi

(irODi)

"J-nn

wrath, three hundred and ninety years after

the hand of

D3nnnb l-n nmo nrh np^V 'And at the end of the He had delivered them into Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, He remembered them and
Israel

made bud from

rejoice in the

and Aaron a root of a plant

earth.

to inherit

His land and to

good of His

And

they meditated over their sin and

like the blind

they

in the

knew that they were guilty men and they were way twenty years. And God considered their
with a perfect heart, and
in

groping

deeds, for they sought

Him
to

make them walk

It
is

the

He raised for them a teacher of righteousness way of His heart' (Translation, as given by

Schechter).

evident that the author in describing the origin of the

Zadokite sect reviews the conditions that prevailed in Judea prior to

the formation of this sect.
(p. 5)

The period

of 'wrath' or, as the parallel passage

is

has

it,

'the desolation of the land',

the time of the wars between

finally

Syria and Egypt before Antiochus the Great

It

acquired Palestine.

was

after this period

had come

to

an end, about three hundred and ninety

years after God had given the people into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar
(about 196
Aaroti.
'

B.

c, 390 after 586) that God raised up a plant from Israel and
'

Plant

here
6,

is

a designation for an assembly or Sanhcdrin (comp.

Genesis

r.,

LIV,

pinn^D

HT ip^N

b^H

yt3>1,

and Hullin 9a a, nnpiSD NNHI

P"nnJD

^bii

nv: nnjjy).

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

Israelitic teachers)

LAUTERBACH
.
. .

49

and caused them to come together as an

assembly
Torah'.*^

(DVG'^^i).

They dug

the well

that

is

the

This means that the assembled priests and lay

teachers together searched the

in
it

Law
for

of the fathers to find

way

of

prescribing

the religious needs of

their time.

The same

tradition pertaining to the

renewed activity

of the teachers and the existence of a Sanhedrin composed

of priests and lay teachers in the time of Antiochus,

is

also

found underlying a report

this report, the

in the

Mishnah.

According to

head of the Sanhedrin

at that time

was Anti-

gonos of Soko, a lay teacher, and succeeding him were Jose

ben Joezer of Zeredah and Jose ben Johanan of Jerusalem

(Abot
priest,

I,

3-4).

Of the

latter two, Jose

ben Joezer, a pious

is

said to have

been the president and Jose ben

reorganized

We

learn from this

report that in that assembly or the

Sanhedrin, where the nucleus was formed for the two parties, Sadducees

and Pharisees, there also arose a third party or

priests

sect,

composed both of
Priest-

and

Israelites

who

differed from the

two other groups, the

Sadducees and the Israelite-Pharisees.

This third group acknowledged the

rights of the lay people to be like the priests, but

would otherwise not

follow the tendencies of these lay teachers

Pharisaic party.

who

formed the nucleus of the

This third group formed a special sect under a teacher

of righteousness and emigrated to Damascus.

We further learn
tried to find a

from

this report that for about in this

twenty years there was

that they

harmony between the various elements

new assembly and

their fathers.
:

way

of arranging the

life

of the community in accordance

with the
*^

Law

of God, as handed

down

to

them from

The passage on

p. 6, line 2-3,
.

reads as follows
D''D3n

D"'J133

pHKO

Hp'l

D);tSB'^1

D^MH

i5i<~lK'''01

The phrase

^JNIK^'^O")

reminds one of

the term PXltyi ^DDPl

'Lay teachers of

Israelitic descent',

which

later

on

was the designation of the Pharisees, because these

lay teachers in the

reorganized Sanhedrin formed the nucleus of the Pharisaic party.

See

my

Sadducees and Pliartsees, in Studies in Jewish Literature issued in honour of

Dr. K. Kohkr, pp. 116

ff.

The phrase DJ/Otyi means 'he assembled

'

them', like

Dyn

riN SsJi*

VrDtJ'"''!,

Sam.

15. 4.

VOL.

VI.

50

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Johanan, a lay teacher, the vice-president of the Sanhedrin

Hagigah
in

II, 2).

Of

course, these reports in the Mishnah,

the form in which

we have them,

are of a comparatively
historical.*^

late date

and cannot be considered as

artificial

They

form part of that

reconstruction of history, under-

taken by the later teachers

fiction of a

who aimed

to

establish the

continuous chain of tradition and the alleged

uninterrupted leadership of the Pharisaic teachers through*''

It is

very unlikely that Jose

b.

Joezer was president

(N^tJ'J)

of the

Sanhedrin although he belonged

to

an

influential aristocratic family

III,

and

was
Jose

a priest (n3in32"J* TiDn, Hagigah

b.

2).

He

and his colleague

Johanan probably were the leaders of that group of pious lay

teachers in the Sanhedrin, the Hasidim,

Pharisees.

who were

the forerunners of the

in
i

This

may

be concluded from the report

:

Mace.

7.

12-16,

where we read
a

as follows

'

Then

did assemble unto Alcimus and Bacchides

company

of Scribes to require justice.

Now
(i. e.

the Asideans (Hasidim)

non-priests) that sought

were the

first

among

the children of Israel

peace of them.'

These Hasidim

are also designated as

who are here mighty men of Israel

prior to the

identified with the Scribes

(i.

e.

non-priests), even

all

such as were voluntarily devoted unto the

Law
is,

{ibid., 2. 42).

We

learn

from these references

already scribes
descent,

that,

Maccabean uprising, there were

lay-teachers of Israelitic

who were

not priests, that

who were mighty and

They evidently were

influential in the

community, otherwise they

could not have assumed the authority to go to Alcimus to negotiate for

peace.
of the

same group of

lay teachers in that

reorganized Sanhedrin,

who were

the forerunners of the Pharisees.

in that

They

were

distinct

from the other members of the Sanhedrin

they were

merely concerned with the religious liberty and were therefore willing
to recognize

Alcimus
b.

if

they could obtain from him peace and religious

freedom.

Jose

Joezer was

among
In the

this group,

and probably was their

later Pharisaic teachers

leader (see above, note 29).

it

mind of the
leaders

was

this

group of the Hasidim

in the
Its

Sanhedrin which was looked upon

and considered as the Sanhedrin.

leaders of the whole Sanhedrin.

were considered as the

later tradition considers

real

Thus originated the

For

tradition about the

Zuggot as the heads of the Sanhedrin.

those teachers

only

who were

of the Pharisees as legitimate

members

of the

Sanhedrin, and the Sadducees

who

constituted the majority of the

members
and

and were the

usurpers.

actual leaders of the Sanhedrin are regarded as intruders

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

out
be,
all

LAUTERBACH

51

the past history.

Unhistorical as these reports

may
This

they certainly contain some kernel of truth.

truth consisted in the fact,

known

to them, that there

priests

was

some

authoritative assembly

composed of

and lay

teachers,

of which

these

men, Antigonos and the two

This historical report,
fit

Joses,

were prominent members.

teachers
all

the

later

elaborated

to

into

their

scheme.

They
real

ignored

the other members, probably even the

leaders of that
as

Sanhedrin, and
leaders

represented

those

teachers

the

real

of the traditional

who were pious followers law and who were so to speak the
party.

fathers of the Pharisaic

However, whether Anti-

gonos and Jose were really the heads of the Sanhedrin

as tradition represents them, or merely prominent members,

or perhaps merely the leaders of the

that Sanhedrin, the Hasidim, this
at that time
priests

more pious group

is

in

much

sure

there was

an assembly or a Sanhedrin, composed of

official

and lay teachers with

affairs

authority to arrange

the religious

of the people.

The members

of this

Sanhedrin took up the interrupted activity of the former

teachers, the Soferim, and, like them, sought to teach interpret the

and

Law

and

to regulate the life of the people in

accordance with the laws and traditions of the fathers.

But

in their

attempt to harmonize the laws of the fathers

of their

with the
great

life

own

times, they encountered

some
of the

difficulties.

It is true, the teachers

who were now members

the exact form
in

authoritative council or Sanhedrin, were in the possession

of the

Book

of the

Law,

in

which
also
all

it

was
all

transmitted to

them by the Soferim.

They

knew

the interpretation of the Soferim, as well as

tional

the tradithe
latter

teachings

and additional laws which

E 2

52

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

with
or
all

connected
Pentateuch.

based

on

the written

laws of the

But

the laws contained or indicated in

all

the text of the

Book together with

by the Soferim
were not
situation.
in

the traditional

teachings given

connexion with the

Book

of the

Law
all

sufficient to

meet the require-

ments of the new

answers for

These laws did not provide

could not
life

the questions that arose, and

furnish solutions for the

new problems

in

the

of the

people.

For,

all

these

new problems and questions were

life

the result of

new

conditions of

now

prevailing in Judea,

conditions utterly different from those in the times of the

Soferim.
old laws

The problem then became, how

new
rules

to find in the

and decisions

for the

questions and

unprecedented cases that

now

arose.
fact that

This

difficulty

was aggravated by the

during

the seventy or eighty years of religious anarchy,

practices

many new
In

had been gradually adopted by the people.

the course of time, these

religious practices,

came

to be considered as Jewish

and no

distinction

was made between

them and

older religious practices contained in the teachings

of the Soferim and based on the traditions of the fathers.

Again, the outlook of the people had broadened and their

religious concepts

had become somewhat modified during

old law

those years.

Many an

assumed a new and

different

meaning or was given a new application, not by the decree

of an authoritative opinion of the people

body of

teachers, but

by the general

who had outgrown

the older conception

of that law.

Many
Such

questions were decided during those

years by the people themselves or by such rulers and leaders

as they had.
decisions,

though not given by any

religious authority and not derived from the written law,

became, nevertheless, recognized rules and principles,

re-

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

spected

LAUTERBACH

53

by the people

as

much
It

as their other laws written

or indicated in the Book.

was such new decisions and

popular modifications of some laws, as well as the generally

observed new customs and practices, that constituted a

large part of the traditional laws
traditional laws naturally

and

practices.

These

had no

indication in the written

Law and
The

no basis

in the

teachings of the Soferim, because

they developed after the period of the Soferim.

reorganized Sanhedrin (after 190) had to reckon

with these new laws

and

customs,

now considered
to recognize

as

traditional because observed and practised

for a generation or

by the people
them
as

more.
life

They had

part of the religious

of the people.

But

in

order to be
of the
reli-

able to accept and teach

them

officially as part

gious

Law, the members of the Sanhedrin had

to find

some
and

authority for these

either to find for

new laws and customs.

They had
by some

them some

basis in the traditions

teachings of the Soferim, or to find proof for them

new

interpretation of the written

Law.

This, however, was

teachers, although

not an easy task to perform.

The present

members
means of

of an official body, like the Soferim of old, could

not, like these Soferim, indicate

slight

new laws

in

the text

by
in

changes or additional signs, because the

pliability of the text

was gone.

The

text was

now

a fixed form which was considered sacred, and no changes could be

made

in

it.

The simple methods

of interpretation

used by the Soferim were also inadequate for the needs of

the present teachers.
furnish

These simple methods could not

to base the

enough interpretations on which

new

decisions needed for the times.

Throughout the period of

the Soferim the development of the interpretations of the

Law

kept pace with the development of the conditions of

54
life.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

But
for the teachers

of the

reorganized Sanhedrin,

these simple

methods were

insufficient

because their de-

velopment had been arrested

for

about eighty years.

We

have seen above that the development in the conditions of

life

after the Soferim,

in

took place without a corresponding

development

the teachings and interpretations of the

Law.
hedrin

Labouring under such disadvantages the new Sanfound

it

very

difficult

to solve the

problem of
life

harmonizing the
people.

Law

of the fathers with the

of the

Having no reports concerning

trace the activity of the

that time,
its

we cannot
beginnings.

new Sanhedrin from

after 196 B.C.

We know

only that

it

was organized after Judea had

is,

come
were
It

under Syrian

rule, that

Some

years must

have passed before the above-mentioned

fully

difficulties

realized

and plans proposed

until the

for their solution.

was probably not

time of Antiochus Epiphanes

Different soluthat for twenty

that such definite plans were considered."^^

**

From

the report in the Zadokite

Fragment we learn

years there

was harmony among the various elements of that reorganized Sanhedrin and all sought God with a perfect heart and endeavoured to order their lives in accordance with His Law (see above, note 44), This means
that before the year 175 b.c, that
is,

twenty years

after 196 B.C., the date

of the organization of that

new

Sanhedrin, the differences of opinion did

not lead to an outspoken opposition between the different groups within

that Sanhedrin.
It

was only

after the

year 175 b.c, that

is,

under the

reign

of Antiochus Epiphanes, that these differences of opinion

in

became
6.

so marked as to characterize the different groups

distinct from

that

Sanhedrin as
a

one another.

This
:

is

also stated in the

Assumptio Mosis

where we read as follows

'

And when

the time of chastisement draws

nigh and vengeance arises through the kings

who

share in their guilt and

truth.'

punish them, they themselves also shall be divided as to the

refers to the time before the

This

Maccabcan

revolt,

and the king through

whom
are

they will be punished can only refer to Antiochus Epiphanes.

accordingly told that
175 B.C., there
in

We

the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, after, the year

was

a division

among

the

Jews themselves

in

regard to

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

tions

LAUTERBACH

55

were offered by the various members of the Sanhedrin.

in

This difference of opinion

regard to the solution of this

that

problem caused a breach

mately resulted
in

in

Sanhedrin which

ulti-

a division into parties, namely, Pharisees

and Sadducees. was

This breach

in the

unanimity of opinion

effected during the time of Jose

ben Joezer and Jose

this
is

ben Johanan. the successors of Antigonos, and

possibly the historic fact upon which
is

based the tradition

that ascribes the origin of the two parties, Pharisees and

Sadducees to

this particular

timc*^
assembly, whose exclusive

The
privilege

priestly
it

group

in that

had formerly been

to give instruction in religious

in

matters,

and who even now participated prominently

is,

the

the truth, that

as regards their religious laws.

The two groups menparties,

tioned there are those

Pharisees.

who
also

later

on formed the two

Sadducees and

Compare

the

Book

of

Enoch

90. 6,

where these two

first

groups, the nucleus of the two parties, are referred to as appearing

at that time.

This also agrees with the report in 2 Maccabees, that

III,

in the

days of Onias
strictly

before Antiochus Epiphanes, the laws

were kept very

a zealot for the

owing

to the

goodliness of Onias

(3. i)

who was

Law
*''

(4. 2).

The legendary
p.

story in

Abot

d.

R. Nathan (version A, ch. V, version B,

it

ch.

X, Schechter,

26) contains a kernel of truth in that

dates back the

origin of the conflict

between the two

parties to the time of the pupils of

tells

Antigonos.

All that the story really

us

is

that

among

the disciples

or successors of Antigonos there

which divided them

the
first

into

were already great differences of opinion two groups. Only one must keep in mind that

disagreement was not yet a real division.

The complete
distinct parties

separation

of the two groups and their formation into

later

two

took place
p. 8,

on
3.).

in the time of

John Hyrcanus
lO^H

(see

my Sadducees and Pharisees,

Abot
d.
'

note

This seems also to be indicated

"l!i'1''D1
'

in the story of

R. Nathan,

where the statement fnp

b.

they separated

refers to the pupils

of the successors of Antigonos.

This would refer to the time of Joshua

b.

Perahiah, the successor of Jose

Joezer,

who was

the pupil of Antigonos.

This explanation will answer the objections raised by Halevi {JDoroth

Harishonim,

c,

VIII, 169
at the

ff.)

against putting the date of the origin of the

Sadducean party

time of the pupils of Antigonos.

56

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

communal and
religious affairs/"

administration of the

had

a simple solution for the problem in conformity with the

maintenance of their authority.

In their opinion, the main

thing was to observe the laws of the fathers as contained in

the

Book

of the

Law, because the people had pledged

do
so.

themselves,

by

oath, in the time of Ezra, to

If

changed conditions required additional laws and

lations, the priests

new

regu-

and

rulers

were competent to decree

them according
8-13.

to authority given to

them

in

Deut.

17.

They maintained
deem

that the priestly rulers of former

generations had always exercised this authority.

reason they did not
it

For

this

necessary that

all

the

new laws
life

and regulations needed

for the

changed conditions of

should be found indicated in the

Book

of the

Law

or based
priestly

on the teachings of former generations.

Thus the

members of that assembly, the future Sadducees, did not

feel

the need of developing the old

laws, or of forcing

interpretations into the written

Law.

They

declared the

written

Law

with

all

the traditional interpretations of the

Soferim absolutely binding.

However, as

rulers of the

people, they claimed the right to decide

by

virtue of their

own

authority those

new questions

for

which the laws of

the fathers did not provide.

This apparently simple solution offered by the priestly

group
^

in

the Sanhedrin did not find favour with the lay

period,

Even during the

when

the priests did not carry on

any

official

activity as authoritative teachers, they

were

still

not without influence and

authority.

Their families

still

possessed political power, and some of them

were
(,see

influential leaders.

In the

Temple they had an undisputed authority

Schurer, Geschichie, 114, pp. 279-80).

As

priests

and leaders they had

thus become accustomed to exercise authority independently of the

Law.

Their influence
of the

in the last

few decades was not due

to their being teachers

Law

but to the fact that they formed an influential aristocracy and

its

had control over the Temple and

service.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

LAUTERBACH

57

members of
their

that

body.

These lay members who had

never had a share in ruling the people, now, because of

knowledge of the Law, claimed equal authority with

the priests.

They

refused to recognize the authority of

the priests as a class, and,

inasmuch as many of the

priests

had proven
entrust to

unfaithful guardians of the

Law, they would not

life

them the

regulation of the religious

of the

people.

In the opinion of these democratic lay teachers,

priests,

an opinion also shared by some pious

the right to
ff.

decide religious questions given in Deut. 17. 9

priests

to the

was not given

to

them

as a family privilege merely

because they were priests, but because they were teachers

of
the

Law, and only as long

as they

were teachers

of the Law.

The same

right

was equally granted to the

priests.

teachers of the

Law

who were not

of the Law.

Both

priests

and lay teachers had no other authority except that of

speaking
in

the

name

They had merely

the

right of interpreting the

Law and

of deciding questions

according to their understanding of the Law.

absolutely no authority to issue
questions

They had

new laws

or decide religious

according to principles other than those laid

the

down
people

in

Law,

for

the

Law

alone was to be the

authority of the Jewish

people.

The

entire

life

of the

in all its possible situations

should be guided and

as inter-

controlled

by no other authority than the Law

preted by the teachers, whether priest or layman.^^

Acknowledging the
authority,

Law

of the fathers to be the sole

these

lay teachers

now had
the Law.

to

find
life

all

the

decisions

and

rules necessary for the practical

in

of their

time contained or implied

" For
see

They

also

had

to

further details about the attitude of each group towards the

Law

my

Sadducees and Pharisees.

58

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

devise methods for connecting with the

decisions

Law

all

those

new

and customs which were now universally observed

as part of the

by the people, thus making them appear

laws of the fathers.

There were two methods by which they could accomplish this result.

The one was

is

to

expand the Midrash of

the Soferim, that

to develop the

method of

interpretation

used by the Soferim and to invent

new

exegetical rules,

by

means of which they could derive new decisions from the

written

Law, and

find sanction therein for various accepted

practices.

The
'

other

method was
',

to enlarge the definition

of the term

Law

of the Fathers

so as to

mean more than

all
its

merely the written

interpretations.

Book

of the

Law
it

with

possible

In other words,
all

meant a declaration of

the belief that not

the laws of the fathers were handed

down

in the written

words of the Book, but that some

were transmitted
orally, inde-

religious laws of the fathers

pendently of any connexion with the Book, Either method,

to

an extent, meant a departure from the

old, traditional

point of view, a course which the teachers naturally hesitated

to take.

In spite of considerable reluctance, the teachers

gradually were led to

make

use of both of these methods.

At

first

they attempted to expand the Midrash, the form

which they were accustomed to use.

They developed new

methods of interpretation by which they could derive from

the

Law new
some

decisions for current cases and even justify

some of the
for

existing practices and find scriptural support

decisions which had originally been given without

reference to the written

Law.

However, the enlarged use of

suflficient

new and more developed Midrash methods was not

to secure proofs for all necessary decisions

and

find scriptural

authority for

all

existing laws

and accepted

practices.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

There were many

LAUTERBACH
life,

59

practices, generally accepted

for

by the

people as part of their religious

which even the no support

developed Midrash with

its

new

rules could find

or proof in the written Law.

This was especially the case

in

with such decisions and practices as originated

after

the time

the Soferim.

In the opinion of the teachers, the

origin

of these laws
:

and

customs was Jewish.

They

reasoned thus

It is

hardly possible that foreign customs

and non-Jewish laws should have met with such universal

acceptance.

The

total

absence of objection on the part

of the people to such customs vouched for their Jewish origin,

in the

opinion of the teachers.

Accordingly, the teachers

themselves came to believe that such generally recognized

laws and practices must have been old traditional laws and
practices accepted

by the

fathers

and transmitted to

fol-

lowing generations in addition to the written Law.

Such

a belief would naturally free the teachers from the necessity

of finding scriptural proof for

all

the

new

practices.

They

could teach

them

as traditional
is

Halakot not dependent

upon the written Law, that

to say

in

the Mishnah-form.
traditional

However, the theory of an authoritative

law

(which might be taught independently of the Scriptures)

was altogether too new to be unhesitatingly accepted.

Although
it

may
in

be safely assumed that the fathers of the

Pharisaic party did not originally formulate the theory of

an oral law
with which
still

the

same terms and with the same boldness

later Pharisaic teachers,

it

was proclaimed by the

even

in its original

form the theory was too startling

and novel to be unconditionally accepted.

teachers

Even those
so-called

who

later

became the advocates of the

oral law could not at first

become

easily reconciled to the

tradition,

idea that

some laws had been handed down by

6o
side

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

by
side with the written law

and equal

in

authority to

the latter.
'

Accordingly, these teachers applied the term

Traditional

Law

'

only to such practices and rules, whose

religious authority

was unquestioned and whose universal

acceptance went back to the time before the

living men.^-

memory

of

The absence
in itself to

of objection to

any such law or

its

custom pointed

an old Jewish tradition as

source, so that the teachers

were

justified in believing

it

to

be a genuinely traditional law.

But even

in
it

the case of

such generally accepted rules and practices,

was only as

a last resort that the teachers would present

them

inde-

pendently as traditional laws.

They

preferred to resort to

the developed methods of interpretation, which, although

also

new and

also a departure

from the older Midrash,

were yet not so startling as the idea of declaring a new

source of authority for religious laws in addition to the
written Torah.
bility

Wherever there was the remotest

possi-

of doing so, they would seek

in

by means

of

new
thus

hermeneutical rules to find

support
for

the words of the Torah

laws.

these

traditional

They
Only

could

continue to teach them in connexion with the written Law,

that
is

in

the Midrash-form, as of old.

it

in a

veiy few

cases,

when

was absolutely impossible to

establish

by

means of the Midrash any connexion between the

tional practice

tradi-

and the written Law, would they teach the

is

same

as independent traditional Halakah, that

might perhaps be
.iaid

to say, in
upon

^^ It

that the theory

grew and

forced itself
it.

the teachers without any intention on their part to formulate

They

could not ignore certain practices, considered by the people to be religious.

They had

to teach them.

Since they could not trace their origin, they

traditions of the fathers.
It

assumed that they were

was but one

step,

almost an unconscious one, from

this to the declaration,

that the fathers

received their traditional laws together with the written Law.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

the Mishnah-form.'''

LAUTERBACH
first

6l

This, no doubt, was the very

use

made
its

of the Mishnah-form.
in this first introduction

However,

of the new form with

very limited use lay the possibility of a much wider and

application.

more general

Once

it

was conceded

that,

when absolutely
of

necessary, a form of teaching other than

it

the Midrash could be used,

became merely

a question

what

to consider a case of necessity.

This varied with

the individual teacher.

To some

teachers, the

Mishnah-

form appealed even where the Midrash-form was possible,

but not acceptable,
as, for instance,

when the

interpretation

of Scriptures offered in support of the decision was not

approved.
the

For even the developed Midrash methods and

of interpretation were not
all

new rules
all

of them accepted

by

the teachers.
It often

Some

teachers would go further than

rules

the others.
offered

happened that

and interpretations

by one teacher would be

that
it

rejected

by

another.

We

may presume

often happened that one teacher

would try by means of a new interpretation to support

a decision from Scripture, while other teachers, although
rejecting that particular interpretation,
decision, either because

would accept the

of the authority of that teacher

or because

it

was accepted by the majority.

These other

teachers of course could not teach such a decision in the

Midrash-form, because they rejected the particular Midrash

furnished for the decision.

They were compelled

we have

to teach
in

such a decision as an abstract Halakah, that

is,

the

Mishnah-form.

Fortunately,

positive proof that

in the

such instances did occur.

'^

This actually happened

Accordingly the Midrash always remained the main form of teaching

to be used alongside of
it

and the Mishnah only gradually came

notes 8 and 22).

(see above,

62

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

case of the oldest Halakot preserved to us in the Mishnah-

form, namely, the Halakot of Jose ben Joezer.

presently be shown, these
decisions were taught
in

As
by

will

the

teachers as independent Halakot

the

name
in their

of Jose,

because the interpretations given by Jose

support

were not approved by the other teachers.

this

To

prove that

was the

case,

we have

to examine these Halakot in

order to ascertain their exact meaning, also Jose's share

in

them, and the attitude of the other teachers towards

them.

These Halakot are found

and they read as follows
:

in

the Mishnah,

Eduyot Vni,4,

Jose ben Joezer of Zeredah stated regarding the Ayyal

Kamsa [a certain
as clean
liquids
(i.e.

species of locust] that

it is

to be considered

permitted to be eaten), and regarding the

slaughtering place, that

of the

they are to be

considered as clean, and that [only] that which has

into direct contact with a

come

dead body becomes unclean.

And

they [the other teachers] called him 'Jose the Permitter'.

There are a few

difficulties in

these Halakot which

full

we must

point out before

we can

get at their

meaning and

demonstrate their bearing upon our theory.

The
in

first

strange

feature

in

these

Halakot
in

is

their

language.

They
all
is

are given in

Aramaic and not

Hebrew,
given.^*
in the

which
**

other Halakot of the

The Aramaic saying
he was
still in
it

Mishnah are
I,
it

There

no other halakic decision

in the

Mishnah expressed
13)

Aramaic language.
tittered

of Hillel (Abot

was

either

by

Hillel while

Babylon, or because
given in
latter

to the people as a popular saying

was

was addressed Aramaic which was then

Aramaic language.

already the language of the people.

for the other

The

reason would alsp account

two sayings

in

Abot V, 22-3 given

in the

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

Weiss
tries to

LAUTERBACH

63

account for the Aramaic language of these

Halakot by assuming that they were remnants of the

teachings and decisions of the Soferim {Dor,
I, p.

66),

who
iv).

according to his assumption delivered

the Aramaic language
^^

all their

teachings in

(Introduction to Mekilta, p.

Jose, according to Weiss, merely attested to these decisions,

but did not originate them.

rests

This explanation, however,

first

upon

false premises.

In the

place, if the

Aramaic
the

of these Halakot was due to their being decisions of the

Soferim,

we ought
in the

to

find

many more Halakot

in

Mishnah

Aramaic language.

For there are certainly

more teachings

of the Soferim preserved in our Mishnah.

I,

Weiss himself points out {Dor,

p. 65)

many Mishnahs

which, in his opinion, are very old and originated in the

^5 It

is

surprising to find that

Weiss not only

contradicts himself, but

also reasons in a circle.

that

He

himself mentions

many

proofs for assuming

Hebrew was used by

However,
and
just

the majority of the people and by the Soferim.

He

has absolutely no reason for assuming that the Soferim taught in

Aramaic.
pressed
in

because these three decisions of Jose are ex-

Aramaic, and because in his opinion Jose received these decisions

in their

in their form

language from the Soferim, he concludes that

the Soferim must have taught in Aramaic.

that these decisions are from the Soferim

And

as a proof for his opinion

cite the fact that

he can only

they

are expressed in Aramaic, which, in his opinion,

Soferim.

was the language of the Weiss here follows Krochmal who assumes (in More Nebuke
the language of the people in the time of

Hazeniaiij X, pp. 52-3) that

Ezra was Aramaic.

Both Krochmal and Weiss seem to have been misled

in

by the haggadic interpretation of the passage

37
b,

Neh.

8. 8,

given in
to

b.

Nedarim

DlJin nt K'"T1DD, which they understood to refer

an Aramaic

translation.

Following this Haggadah, they assume that as early as the

time of Ezra the Torah had been translated into the Aramaic (see Krochmal,
/.

c, and Weiss, Dor,

p. 58).

I,

p.

54

compare

also Friedmann, Oiikelos

if

and Akylas,

Wien, 1896,

Hence they

argue,

an Aramaic translation

was
But

necessary, then the language of the people must have been AraTnaic.
this is a mistake.

There was no translation of the Torah

in the

time of

Ezra, as the people spoke

written.

Hebrew, the language

in

which the Torah was

64

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

time of the Soferim.

Why

is it

then that this one Soferic

saying transmitted by Jose has been retained in the original

language, the Aramaic, while
Soferim,
all

the other teachings of the

which no doubt are preserved in our Mishnah,

?^^

have been translated into the later Hebrew

Further-

more, the whole premise that the Soferim gave their teachings in

Aramaic, declared by Weiss (Introduction to the

ibid.) to

Mekilta,

be beyond doubt,

is

absolutely

false.

All

indications point to the fact that the Soferim gave their

teachings in Hebrew, the language which the people spoke.

The

exiles

who

returned from Babylon did not bring with

them the Aramaic language.

They spoke Hebrew,

Nehemiah complains

as

is

evident from Neh. 13. 24, where

that

some

of the

children were unable to speak

is

the Jewish

language, that

Hebrew.

It certainly

cannot be assumed

that the Soferim, as teachers of the people,

would

set the

bad example of using any language other than

their own.^^

The Aramaic language came into Palestine at a much later date ^^

^ According
radical
to in

use

among

the people in

(see Schlirer, Geschichte,

Weiss, then,
the

we would have
teaching,

to

account for another

the change in the

change

method of

namelj-,

language, the

medium

of instruction, from the Aramaic to the later

Hebrew,
earlier

and one would have

to fix the time

I,

and
p.

find the reason for the change.

" Weiss

himself says {Dor,

54) that

Nehemiah and the

Soferim endeavoured to keep up the Hebrew, and only some of the people
did not understand
all

Hebrew

perfectly.

But

if so,

why

did the Soferim give

their teachings in
''8

Aramaic?

SchQrer points out that the Aramaic of Palestine could not have been
in

brought along by the returning exiles, as the Aramaic spoken

Palestine

was

Western Aramaic and not the Eastern Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Fricdmann {op. cit., p. 57) assumes that the language of the returning exiles
the

was the Babylonian Aramaic, but that in the course of time this language was changed and influenced by the Aramaic of Palestine. This assumption is without proof. The proofs cited by Friedmann for the use of the Aramaic
language do not prove anything with regard to the time of
the"

Soferim.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

II*,

LAUTERBACH

65

pp. 23-6.

Even

after the

Aramaic language had

become the language of the people, Hebrew remained the

language of the school and the teachers, the D^oan
])\:^b.

For

this reason

we have

all

the Halakot in the tannaitic

literature,
in

such as Mishnah and halakic Midrashim, given

Hebrew.
Aside from
all

these considerations as to the language

altogether

of the Soferim,

it is

wrong

to connect these three

Halakot with the Soferim.

They

are not Halakot of the

to^

Soferim, which Jose merely transmitted and attested

they are decisions which originated with Jose himself and

for

which he offered reasons and scriptural proofs.

And
This

this brings us to the discussion of the second difficulty in

our Mishnah, namely, the introductory term

T]!i^.

term

"i^yn

means

literally to testify, to state as a witness

what one knows or has seen or heard.

understood the term T'Vn
sense,
in
it

Some

scholars have
in

this

Mishnah

this

very

and have declared

to

mean

that Jose merely

testified that these decisions were older traditional laws

and

practices.

As we have
But

seen above, Weiss assumed

that they were decisions of the Soferim for the genuineness of which Jose vouched.
it

is

absolutely incorrect to

take the term

'

'^'']}r\

here in the sense that Jose merely

testified

'

to older traditional laws

and decisions.
the
(/.

As
first

far
halt

The Aramaic became the language of the Jews in Palestine in The proofs adduced by Friedmann of the second century b. c.
refer to a

c, p. 58)

much

later date than the second century b. c.

Saadya Gaon, in

the preface to his Sefer Ha-Iggaron (Harkavy, Zikron la-Rishonint,W, p. 54), states that about three years before the rule of Alexander in Palestine the

Jews began

to

neglect
(i.

Hebrew and adapted

Aramaic).
is

the language of the other

is

nations in the land

e.

While

his date

based upon a wrong-

chronology (see IV), he certainly

that the returning exiles

correct in his statement as to the fact

that
it

spoke

Hebrew and

was only

after

many

years that they began to speak Aramaic.

VOL.

VI.

66
as

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

we know, the method
of procedure followed

by the

teachers of the Halakah

in

in receiving a teacher's testimony

regard to some rule or practice was to consider the

testimony alone.
if

They

either decided according to

it,

or

some reason they would not do so, they stated that Without reflecting upon the testifying teacher, reason.
for

they would seek to invalidate the testimony or to deny

its

bearing upon the case under discussion (compare Eduyot

;

II, 2

VIII, 3

Sanhedrin VII, 2
find

and Tosefta Sanhedrin

IX,

ii).

Nowhere do we

that they hold the testi-

fying teacher responsible for the decision which he reports.^^

59

The

case of Akabiah

b.

Mahalalel (M. Eduyot V, 6)

whom

the other

teachers held responsible for the decisions which he stated before them,

cannot be cited as an instance against this statement.

It is

doubtful, to say

the least, whether the four decisions of Akabiah, although likewise introduced

with the term T'yri, were old traditional Halakot to which he merely
testified.

The controversy between Akabiah and the other teachers is shrouded The later teachers, for reasons best known to themselves, They acknowledged only with did not care to report about it in detail. reluctance that there were disputes among the older teachers about the
in mystery.

traditional laws, that such an

eminent teacher as Akabiah protested against

traditional laws,

what was accepted by others as

and that harsh means

of these facts

were used
reflect

to silence such protests.

The knowledge

would

unfavourably upon the validity of the traditional law.

For this

reason one of the later teachers also denied the fact that Akabiah was put

under ban
difficult to

(Jbid.).

From

the

meagre reports preserved

in

our sources

it

is

obtain a clear account of the nature of the dispute and of

It is,

what

actually took place between Akabiah and the other teachers.

however,

very probable that Akabiah was the author of these four decisions, and that
the term T'Vn
in this

case

is

likewise to be taken in the sense of 'stated',

'declared', and not 'testified'.

to retract

This

is

apparent from the very demand

which the other teachers made.

They could

not have asked him

his opinion.
"|3 "llin

to take back his testimony, but they could ask

him to change

From

the expression used in this

it

demand

to retract, Di^a"!

^y2"^SD

"1JD1K n^^n:;',

is

also evident that

Akabiah was

his

own

authority in these

four decisions, that he

was

the one

who

said these things, and not that he

merely

testified that others said

them.

Again, in his advice to his son to

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

Here,
Xi-lB'
'

LAUTERBACH

67

in the case of Jose,

however, we see that they called Jose

the Permitter
If Jose

',

thus making Jose responsible for the

decisions.

had been merely testifying to the decisions

of former teachers, then those former teachers, the Soferim or whoever

'

they

permitted
'

',

and not Jose.

may have been, were Why, then, call

the

ones
N'^TJ'

who
'

Jose

the

Permitter

This

is

even more strange since we do not hear that the

other teachers gave any argument against his decisions

and, as

we

shall see,

they even accepted them nj?n?

'

as

norm of

practice

'.^

It is therefore evident that these

''DV "i^yn,

Halakot, though introduced with the phrase

were

follow the

majority,

Akabiah uses the words TTINT

'

"'IST

rT'^n? IDIJD

CSIIOn
and

"""IQIS TiriNi'l

it is

better to abandon the opinion of an individual

to hold to the opinion of the

many'

(tbid., 7).

From

these words

it is

also evident that the decisions of

Akabiah were the opinion of an individual

teacher

(i. e.

himself),

and not the opinion of the majority of the teachers

from

whom

Akabiah received them.

We

must therefore assume that the

""Qro

words

'nyic'j'a

"rncy

'jx

o'^nnon

Tiyoji'

""JN

{itui. 7),

which

are put into Akabiah's mouth, are a later addition.

They form an attempt

on the part of a
appear as

later teacher to

minimize the sharpness of the conflict

Its

between Akabiah and

if

his contemporaries.

purpose was to make

it

there had always been perfect

in this case
is

harmony among the

teachers,

and that only

follow.

each had a different tradition which he had to

a very poor attempt, for
It
it

This, however,

does not explain

how
time

there could have been different traditions.

conflict of opinions

only shifts the date of the

to the

from the time of Akabiah and his colleagues

of their teachers and predecessors.

It is

also possible that the

same

later author

who

thus attempted to

exonerate Akabiah added the word

thus representing them as

Tyn,to

introduce Akabiah's decision,

older tradition which

being based upon an

Akabiah had.

Levy erroneously states {Ozar Nehmad, III, pp. 29-30) that Jose's were ignored by the other teachers. From the talmudic discussion Pesahim 16 a (comp. also Maimonides, Yad. Tum'at Oklin, X, 16) and Abodah zarah 37 a b it is evident that the decisions of Jose were accepted
fio

decisions

by the other teachers and made the norm

for practice,

n3,nP.

68

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

by Jose
as a

not older traditional laws transmitted

witness, but Jose's
'

mere

own

teachings.

He was

the one

who
is

permitted

',

and he deserved the name Nn^.

This

further confirmed

by the

discussions of the

the

Talmud who
in

try to explain these decisions.

Amoraim in Rab and

'

Samuel

attempting to give a reason for one decision of

Jose's, use the

word llDp

'

he (Jose) held

',

or

was of the
is

opinion

'.

And when

the reason for another decision

""NDl
'

asked, the phrase

his

''J^D''Op

in

what do they (Jose and

used (Abodah zarah
in

opponent or opponents)
a, b).

differ' is

37

Again, when R. Papa ventured to say

it

regard

to one of the decisions that n^ 'To: Nn3^\n,

was an old

traditional law,
b}.

he was promptly refuted (Pesahim 17

Thus we

see that in the talmudic discussions about these

decisions they are taken as Jose's

own

teachings and not as

older traditional laws.

This correct interpretation removes

all

the difficulties

from our Mishnah.

The term
'

I'^Vi^

is

to be taken here in
in

the sense of 'declared', or

stated'.
is

The Aramaic

which

these decisions are expressed

to be accounted for, not

by

their alleged origin in the early days of the Soferim, but

rather

by the comparatively
It is

late date at

which they

origi-

nated.

probably also due to the peculiar circumstances

their present form.

which gave them

These

decisions, as

we have them,
nor
in the

are not preserved to us in Jose's

in

own

words,

form

which he gave them.

in

Jose gave these

decisions in
in

Hebrew and

Midrash-form.

He

taught them

connexion with the several Scriptural passages on which

he based the decisions.

The

teachers, however,

who

trans-

mitted these decisions, for reasons of their own (to be stated

below), detached these decisions from their scriptural bases

and expressed them

in

the Aramaic language.

That Jose

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

had

LAUTERBACH
is

69

scriptural proofs for his decisions,

evidenced by the
to find

fact that the

Amoraim

in the

Talmud endeavour

these proofs

or reasons.

Evidently the

Amoraim were
who

convinced that some scriptural proofs did underlie these

decisions, although

not mentioned by the teachers

transmitted

them.

By

following

the

Amoraim, whose

analysis of these Halakot probably echoes older tradition,

we
in

will

be able to find the midrashic proofs given by Jose

support of his decisions.

In the case of one decision the midrashic arguments of

Jose and his opponents have fortunately been preserved,

namely,

in the
'

case of the third decision which

is

mp^ni
'.

aNDDD sn^ci

one who touches a corpse becomes unclean

arrive at the correct

We

must

first

meaning of the

decision.

This decision does not mean simply that one who touches
a corpse becomes unclean, for this
Bible in regard to a
in
is

expressly stated in the

19. 11) as well as

human

corpse

(Num.

regard to the carcase of an animal (Lev. 11. 37 and 29)

{ibid., 31).

or a reptile

Furthermore, Jose
in
all

is

called

'

the

Permitter

',

evidently because

three

decisions

he

permits things that were formerly considered forbidden.

He, therefore, could not mean to teach

decision, concerning

us,

in

this

last

what becomes unclean and therefore

at

forbidden.
decision

We

arrive

the

correct
^^

meaning of

this

by emphasizing
p.

the word ND^Da

and interpreting
of Jose to

*^

Frankel {Hodegetica,

32) explains the

decision

mean

that Jose decided that

one

who

has come into direct contact with a corpse

less

becomes unclean but one degree

an

than the corpse

itself,

i.

e.

he becomes

HNOIDn aS and

not an

HNDICn

HDN UX.
'.

Frankel bases his ex',

planation on the expression

3NnDD
'

'

becomes unclean

since

it is

not said

3ND70, which could mean also

is

he makes unclean
T\'02, yj"l3

But

this explanation

wrong.

In the
still

first

place,

if

the

becomes only an nSDIDn 3X

he could

make

others unclean, and thus be a 3NDJ0 and not merely a

70
it

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

to

mean

'

[only] he

who

touches a

dead body

'

(of

human being but one who

or an animal or a reptile) becomes unclean',

touches a thing or person that

has

itself

become unclean
third decision

by contact with a corpse

given in the

(i.e.

3"ipn3 3npn)*

does not become unclean.

is

This interpretation of Jose's

and

is

stated

Talmud (Abodah zarah 37 b) As correct despite the objections raised by Raba. correctly in the Talmud {ibid), the other teachers
Secondly, as Weiss {Dor,
p. loo, note)

before and during the time of Jose were of the opinion that

3SnD0.

I,

pointed out, the reading

3NnDD is not genuine, some 3NDD does not mean 'maizes

decision probably

editions having indeed

3XD0.
by

Moreover,
Jose's

unclean', but simply 'is unclean'.

was

that one can

become unclean
If,

onlj'

direct contact

with a corpse, the emphasis being on NIT'D^.

however, one touches

a thing or another person that had become unclean by contact with a corpse,

he does not become unclean, because he did not come

with the corpse.
^2

in

direct contact

The

later talmudic teachers

seek to harmonize Jose's decision with

the later teachings of the Halakah.

of the term

They
it

therefore modify the

meaning
terra

31pn3

npH,
is

and explain

so as to agree with the later

teachings of the accepted Halakah.

But the original meaning of the

31p''T2 31p''T, which

apparently identical with the phrase

DIS WJ

mXOD
to
it

y3?22 in Sifra,

was

altogether different from the meaning given

in the talmudic discussion.

To harmonize
That

Jose's decision with the

it

later teachings of the

Halakah, one could interpret

to

mean

that only

certain kinds of 3"lp"'13

STp^T are clean.

in

is

to say,

Jose declared

that not everything that has been

contact with a corpse can

make

a person that touches

stone, and wood.

it

unclean.

Jose, then,

meant

to

exclude earth,

His decision accordingly was directed against an older

that

Halakah which declared

one

who

touches wood, stone, or earth that

has become defiled by contact with a corpse, becomes unclean.

old

Such an

Halakah seems

to

be expressed in the

'

Fragments of a Zadokite Work'

15-17). Compare,
in

(Schechter, Documents ofJewish Sectaries,

vol. I, p. 12, lines

however, Ginzberg's ingenious explanation of

schri/t,

this

passage

the Mottats-

1912, pp. 560-61).

It

seems, however, more probable that Jose

declared every kind of 2^p^l3

QlpH

clean,

even a person

who

touches
Jose,

another person
then,
is

who had become

can

defiled

by contact with a corpse.

against the later teachings of the

Halakah that a

DD

KDt2 becomes
64.

an HNDItSn

3N and

make others unclean.

See below, note

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

3"ipn3 3ipn, one

LAUTERBACH

7I

who

touches a person

who has become

derived

unclean by contact with a corpse, also becomes unclean,

NJT'mNlO, according to the Law.
their opinion either

They must have

yy y^a

from a

literal
Stttan 13
is

interpretation of the
b2, as stated

passage in
in the

Num. Talmud (tdid.)

in

19. 22, xon^

or,

what

more

likely,

from the
ix,

passage
literally

Lev.

5. 2,

Nnn

im

^33 yjn

itt'N ti'D:

which

means one who touches any object that

is

unclean.

This apparently includes one

who

touches an object which

has become unclean through contact with a corpse.

This

seems to
theory.

me

to have been the scriptural basis for their

this scriptural

But Jose interpreted

passage

differ-

ently, so that

he could give

his

decision,

permitting a

3"ipn3

3"ip"'n,

and declaring such a one as

find these

clean.
in

Indeed,

we

two opposing views preserved

d.

Sifra, Hobali,

XII, ed. Weiss 22

n-jprn

There we read
-i3T
1533

as follows:
^lii

DnoiN rn

n^JitrNin

^ngd

y:n
y:j

-ic^n

ix

n^333 n^n n^3J3 Vt\ 3>^n Nn> niNota y303

T\)XQ\^r\

ms

nx
i^s*

i^^sn

h^y

3N

pNt:'

131

NX''

HXJDitsn

ni3s DHB' pnnvD

'

no nn3
5. 1),

'Or

if

a person touches any unclean thing

teachers said
:

(Lev.

The former
expression
"

'

One might argue

if

[from the

any unclean thing "] that even

a person has

touched anything that had come into contact with unclean

things, he should also be [considered unclean

and conse-

quently]

subject to the law mentioned in this passage.

us, therefore,

The

scriptural text teaches

"

[by specifically

mentioning]

whether

it

be a carcase of an unclean beast, or

a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping

things " that only these specific objects which are original

causes of uncleanness [can

unclean], but
it

by

their contact

make
is
'

man

excludes anything else which

not an

original cause of uncleanness.'

The term

^is""

one might

72

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

',

argue

points to an actual opinion held

refute.
is

by some

people,

which the Midrash seeks to

D'JlK^Nin Cipr

As

the view of the

here expressed
that only Nn"iD3

identical with the

view of

Jose,^^ viz.

mpn
by

becomes unclean, the

refers

possible opinion

introduced

pis""

to

the

view

actually held

by the teachers before

Jose, or

by those who

disputed with him.

We

can, therefore, ascertain the

new

method used by Jose from the

in the

interpretation given in Sifra

name

of the

CJiti'S'in

D^jpT.

This interpretation says

that the

meaning of the general term XDU

nm

b^l

is

defined

and limited by the following special terms

y\U
like
first

iTn nt:na ni^aja

IN

so as to include only the latter or such as are exactly

them.

Accordingly we have

in this instance for the

ps*

time the application of the rule of N^N ^^3

unci bb2

DIMC' no.

And

if

we

include the passage pnnvD "ba no in

is

the original Midrash, which however

^'

doubtful* Jose or

The

identity of Jose's decision with the one quoted in Sifra in the

is

name
by
S.
*

of the D"'31lJ'N"in D'JpT

also

assumed by Professor

I.

Levy

as quoted

Horowitz
It

in Sifre Zutta, Breslau, 1910, p. 7, note 5.

seems

to

me

that the passage

nXDIDH flUN

iilB'

pnnVO

I^N

HO

is

not of the original Midrash of the D"'31K^Nin D^3pT, but a later addition.
if it

For,

had been a part of the Midrash of the older teachers, then R. Akiba's
it

Midrash which follows

closed with the words

would not have added anything and would have

been entirely superfluous.

The

original
.
,

Midrash of the older teachers

yyy nP333

?"n.

The
to

older teachers inter-

preted this scriptural

passage as a

t3"\Ql

b?3,

mean only what

is

expressly mentioned in the special term U"1D3ti'

nO N/N b?D2 pS. They

If,

excluded even

HNDlDn ni3N.

To
is

this

R. Akiba added another Midrash

according to which only what

however,

we

include the passage

nXDILjil 3N is excluded. nXDICn flUN pU' "Tm^D l!5N ilO

not an

in

the original Midrash of the older teachers,

we must assume
in

that the

term

nNJSIDn

nns

is

used by them

in a

narrow sense

to designate 'the original

sources of uncleanness', and not in the technical sense

usually to
op.
cit.,

which
(see

it is

used

designate

certain

degree of uncleanness

Horowitz,

p. 8).

That the D'':iC'Nin D-^pT excluded

even so-called HNlDIDn 'n"l3N

is

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

the Ciiti'Nnn
D'':pr

LAUTERBACH

73

must have considered the following passage

"i*^'t<

ms* nsoiD

bn

v^''

in

as another bb^

and formulated

the rule unsn pya n^s

ingly included other

p nnx ^N i^bi Dia^ bb, and accordnxniun nuN which are like KJT'D.
37 a with Hullin 66 a
/'"'N

From
first

a comparison of the explanation given to Jose's

decision in

Abodah zarah
also

we
was
rule

learn that

the decision declaring XVCP

as

clean

reached by
^^31
D"iDl

Jose

by means
t2-i2n

of applying

the

ijb to include

pya (see

Rashi Ab.
8).

zarah,

ad

loc,

and Tosfot Yomtob to Eduyot VII,

''3

In regard

to the decision about the N'^nnUD

npt^'D, it is

hard to find

out by what means Jose derived this from the Scriptures,

as

we

are not quite sure as to the exact

meaning of

this

decision.

Even the

later

Talmudic

teachers held different

opinions regarding

its

meaning.

According to Rab, Jose's

not

decision declared these liquids altogether clean and

subject to defilement,

K'lSD

p"i,

while according to Samuel

the decision was merely that these liquids cannot com-

municate to others their defilement, but

in

themselves

may
a).

become

defiled,

nnnx nxoiD nod^d pi

(see

Pesahim 17

Rab's explanation seems, however, to be more plausible

and warranted by the plain sense of the word pT which

means, simply,
C'ttD

pT.

In this case

we may safely assume

by means
ad
loc.

that Jose arrived at

conceded even by Rabed
that he
felt

this

decision also

of the

in his

commentary on

Sifra,

(This

shows

the difficulty of finding a difference between their Midrash and

the Midrash of R. Akiba.)

Rabed, however, assumes that the older teachers

in

decided this only with regard to punishment for entering the sanctuary

such a state of uncleanness,

'^^"IpD

nN''3

^JJ

Dn''!?y pa''"'!!

pNI

Levy, as

quoted by Horowitz, follows Rabed herein.

the older teachers

But
If a

it

is

very unlikely that

made such
If

a distinction.

person was considered

in

unclean he would have been punished for entering the sanctuary

state

his

of uncleanness.

he was not

to

be punished for entering the

sanctuary, that meant he

was not

at all unclean.

74

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

unsi
i'^a

method of using the

HJ2W
'

rule.
is

For
spoken
in

in

Lev. ii. 24,

is

where the defilement of liquids

'^33 nriu'^ Ti:\s npi::'r2 b^). is

of, it

said
11:^
',

Jose saw
is

the words

nriK'''

which

drinkable

'

or

'

which

drunk out of a vessel

a limiting special term, tana, which qualifies and limits the

general term,
N''n3t:o '3
np\:'r2

^31,
'

and excludes from the

is

latter the

np'^n

which
'.

not drinkable

'

or

'

is

not drunk
(in

out of a vessel

In the same

way

Eliezer

Sifra,

Shemini, IX, Weiss 55

a) applies this principle to

exclude

nnD

np!:'o.'^^

Thus we

find that Jose derived all his decisions

from

the Scripture by means of interpretations, and that these

interpretations

were according to new methods.

rejected

These

new methods, however, were

because they were novel.
tion

by

his contemporaries,

The

teachers of the next generahis colleagues, respecting the

and possibly even some of

authority of Jose, accepted his decisions but hesitated to

recognize the validity of the

1^

new

rule of

t3"isn

^^3

which

Jose used.
t

Since they did not accept this method they

could not teach these decisions together with the scriptural

"

It is

possible that in the saying of R. Eliezer, the representative of

the older Halakah,

we

have the same decision which was given by Jose.

Jose, however, directed his decision to a certain kind of iindrinkable liquid,

the N'n3tDD ^3 Hp'J'D, while the older Halakah as represented by R. Eliezer

formulated the same decision in a general way, so as to apply

it

to all

undrinkable

liquids,

m~lD

Pipt^O.

Accordingly, the

statement of

Rab
not
is

(Pesahim 17

a) that Jose held that there

was no

biblical

law which would

"l3Dp,
is

subject liquids to uncleanness,

correct.

minn

|D X'pi^yh

HNDIO pX

Jose excluded only undrinkable liquids from these laws.

It

very unlikely that as early as the time of Jose there was a rabbinical law
declaring liquids subject to uncleanness, {33110
"^^pi^i?^

HTU.

It

should

be noticed that there

is

much confusion about

ascertain the real

the laws of pp'J'JO nXTDID,

decision, the

which made

it

difficult to

meaning of Jose's
it

more

so as the later teachers sought to harmonize

with the later halakic

rulings about liquids.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

proofs given to

LAUTERBACH

75

them by

Jose.

mentioned them as decisions

They therefore merely given by Jose. They would

not even teach them in Hebrew, the language in which

they taught
in

all

their

Halakot connected with the Scripture

in

Midrash-form.

They formulated them

the Aramaic

language, then already popular, just as they would mention

decisions given
refer to

by secular

authorities, or just as they

in

would

popular customs

the language of the people,

rather than in the language of the school.^

For

this reason
''DV

they introduced these Halakot with the formula

Jose
'

Tyn,*^"

declared

',

or

'

stated

',

i.

e.

Jose

is

the authority for

these decisions;
*

and they properly called

'.

him xn*^

'DV,

Jose the Permitter

On

the same principle and in the

same manner, the by Jose ben

teachers dealt with another decision given

Joezer and his colleague Jose ben Johanan of Jerusalem,

viz.

that

glassware

is

subject

to

the laws of Levitical

uncleanness.

An

old tradition reports that the two Joses

decreed that the laws of uncleanness apply to glassware,

n'3l3T
*^

"'^3

b]3

ns'Oiu nr:

(Shabbat 15

a).

There

is

no reason
commentary

In the Midrash form,

text, the

when

the Halakah forms a sort of a

on the Hebrew
itself.

use of the

Hebrew language

especially
in

recommended

In

many

cases the
text,

comment consisted merely

emphasizing the

important words in the

or to a special form.

or in calling attention to a peculiar construction

All these peculiarities of the Midrash would have

made

it

very

difficult to

use another language than Hebrew.

J^'Cv,

In this

manner
It

Hebrew remained
from the

the ''DDPl

the language of the school.

con-

tinued to be used for teaching Halakah even

when

the latter

was

separated
in

Hebrew

text

of the Scriptures and taught

independently

Mishnah-form.
^"

See above, note 30.

There

is

no doubt
It

that the introductory formula

Tyn was

added by a

later teacher.

may be

that in the case of Jose,

as in the case of Akabiah (see above, note 58) the later teacher
this formula

who added

meant

to suggest

by

it

that Jose

had a

tradition

on which he

based his decisions, so that he was not the author or innovator of the same.

76
to

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

doubt the genuineness of
this report in the

Babylonian

Talmud, nor are there any reasons

for ascribing this decree

to other authors as Graetz has done.^^

"*

The
b.

reason for this

Graetz, Geschichte,
b.

III*, p.

707,

is

inclined to ascribe this decree about

glassware to Simon

Shetah and not to Jose

in p.

Joezer.
c,

He

bases his
it

theory solely on the passage

of

Ketubbot, VIII, 11, 32

where

is

said

Simon

b.

Shetah,
is

n''313T

'b'2^

HNOID PpDH

NIHI.

The

correctness
it

of this statement

questioned by the Talmud on the ground that

conflicts

with another reliable report, which ascribes this decree to the two Joses.

The explanation
first

is

then offered that both reports are correct.

The decree was

This talmudic
other

issued by the

two Joses, but was subsequently forgotten or neglected,

b.

and then revived and reintroduced by Simon

explanation

Shetah.

may

be correct.

The hesitancy on

the part of the

teachers, Jose's colleagues, to accept the interpretation on

his decree

which he based

may have

necessitated another formal decree or a confirmatory

b.

act in the days of

Simon

Shetah.

Graetz, however, evidently does not

think so.
to

He
is

discards this explanation of the

Talmud

as a poor attempt
that this

harmonize these two conflicting reports.

However, granted

explanation

merely a harmonization,

we

can reject the explanation but

is

not the objection raised by the Talmud.

ignoring
all

There

no reason whatever

for

the other reports which ascribe the decree to the

this

two Joses
This
is all

and accepting

one which ascribes

it

it

to

Simon

b.

Shetah.

the more incorrect as a mistake.

is

apparent that this one report

is

based on

Simon

b.

Shetah decreed against metal-ware,

I.e.,

71137112

v3

(Shabbat 14b, comp. Graetz,

pp. 706, 708).

In

a report about this

decree of Simon some one probably made the mistake of substituting

n^313T
(p.

V3

for
/.

niDDD v3.
c.)

R. Jonah's saying cited there in the

Talmud

Ketubbot,

is

accordingly another answer to the question raised

It is

there about the two conflicting reports.

introduced for the purpose

of correcting the mistake in the one report, and telling us that Simon

decreed only against metal-ware 7113710

v3

and not against

71''313T

v3.

The decree
Graetz
is

against the latter, then, really

in p.

came from
d,

the

two Joses as
Shabbat 15a.

reported repeatedly

Shabbat

I,

3d,

p.

Pesahim 27

and

b.

wrong
is

in

assuming that the Babylonian Talmud does not

contain correct information about this subject, and that the utterance of an

Amora Zeera
contrary
is

mistaken in the Babylonian Talmud for a Baraita. This report

is

The

true.

an older Baraita.
b^'

In

the Palestinian

Talmud, however,
are
as

this Baraita is

mentioned

the

many such

instances of Baraitot being quoted by

Amora Zeera, as there Amoraim and appearing

if

they were the sayings of the Amoraim (see Frankcl, Mebo ha-Jcnisltahni^

pp. 26 7).

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

decision

LAUTERBACH
by Johanan,
is

77

was

(as

is

correctly given

in the

name
is

of

Simon ben Lakish)

same
as

that glass

made

of sand
vessel,

and
Din

therefore the
{ibid.,

any other earthen

'^3

15 b).

The Talmud,

discussing this explanation of

:
'

Simon ben Lakish,

sand
it

raises the following question

If glass-

ware has been declared

it

like Din "h^

because being

made
then

of
is
?

belongs to the class of earthen vessels,

D"in
"hii

why

not considered by the Halakah as

in all respects

In the discussion that follows, the

difficulties in

Talmud

[ibid.) finds

answering this question.

We are not concerned

it

with the answer given in the Talmud, because

is

merely

an unsuccessful attempt to harmonize the decision of Jose

with later practice.
this question

The

significant thing for us

It indicates that

is

that

was

raised.

the

Amoraim
it

experienced difficulty in understanding the decision, although

From the
discussion in the Babylonian

Talmud about

this report

is

evident that they were well informed about this case.

Objections are raised

against part of this tradition, viz. the report about the decree of ?y
D'^ttyn

HNDID
it

}^1N.

The}'

show

that there

is

another report which ascribes

to

the iM'^ D''J1l25yi p3"\.

The two

reports are, however, harmonized.

But

they could not find any contradictory report about the decree against

The reading

JT'DIST

v3

bVI in the report of the activity of the

codices.
fact that

p31
in
is

nJC D''J'1D5J'T is missing in the older Hamaor to Shabbat, ad he. From the
given in regard to
n''3'l3T

See Zerahiah Halevi

no answer or solution

v3

it is

also evident that the report about the act

of the nr>' n^JIfO'J'T

pnn only mentioned

the decree of

pN

bv HNDID
use of

D''cyn.
Graetz's argument, that this institution presupposes the

common

glassware

among

the people, a practice which could not have been the case

in the time of the

two Joses,

is

rather weak.

Although the great majority

could and did indulge in the

of the people

may

not have lived in luxury in the time of the two Joses,

yet there were at least some rich people

who

luxury of using glassware.

vessels to Judea

It

was

just at the first introduction of these

by some

rich people that the question about their status in

regard to the laws of cleanness came up.

The teachers then declared

that

they were subject to the laws of uncleanness.

78

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

they were aware of the basis upon which Jose founded his
decision.

To

this question raised in the

add the following question which will disclose another

point in the explanation of the decision.
of the two Joses was reached by interpreting the

Talmud we mayweak
If this decision
biblical
is

term Din

^^D

so as to include glassware (because

it

made

of sand) then their decision

was

in reality a biblical law,

as no distinction can be made between vessels of clay and vessels of sand, both being earthen vessels. Why then was
this decision ascribed to the

two Joses and characterized

?

as an arbitrary decree, a

mere mv:

The

following ex-

planation will give the

answer to both questions mentioned

difficulties

above and

will

remove the
in

experienced by the
Jose and

talmudic teachers

understanding

this decision.

his colleague interpreted the biblical

term

D"in ^^3 to

mean
in
all

a vessel

made
it

of

any kind of
""^D

earth, and, consequently, he

included in

n^si^T

which he indeed considered

teachers, however,

respects like Din ^72.

The younger

would

not accept the broad definition given by Jose to the term

D"in
'h:i

so as to include

n''2lDT '^3

also.

For

this reason

they refused to follow Jose in considering glassware like

D"in ^^3 in all respects.

Out of

respect for the two Joses,

some of
a HTU.

their contemporaries or successors accepted the

it

decision, but designated

merely as a rabbinical decree,

n"'3l3r
""pd

They would
Din
^^3.

therefore apply to

only

certain of the laws of uncleanness that pertained to earthen

vessels.

These other teachers would therefore not

as Jose no doubt did.

teach this decision in the Midrash-form together with the

passage Din
teach
it

^^3 ^31,

They would

as an independent Halakah, as a rabbinical law

that has no scriptural basis but rested merely upon the

autiiority of the

two teachers.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

LAUTERBACH
in

79

The motive
entertained

for accepting a teacher's decision without

accepting his proof, nnay be found either

the respect

by the younger teachers

of a tradition

for the

author of the

decision, or in their belief, that the author of the decision

was

in possession

unknown

to them/'^

In

either case they

had no hesitancy

in rejecting the proofs

which they considered unconvincing or too novel. Whatever

their motives,
it is

certain that the

younger contemporaries

of Jose or his successors accepted his decisions and taught

them

in his

name although without

interpretation.

his proofs for

them.

The
his

latter

they rejected, because they did not approve of

new methods of
This
attitude,

despite

its

inconsistency,

was

quite

common among

the teachers of the Halakah.""

practice
is

The most

striking instance of this

to be

found in the

story of Hillel and the

In this

Bene Batyra (Yerush. Pesahim 33 a). account we are told that all the arguments and
advanced by Hillel
in

scriptural proofs

favour of the decision

that the Passover sacrifice should set aside the Sabbath

were rejected by the Bene Batyra, although Hillel had

learned
all

or most

of these proofs and

interpretations

from
last,

his teachers

Shemaiah and Abtalion.

But when, at
itself

he told them that he had received the decision

from Shemaiah and Abtalion, they forthwith accepted the

^3

Compare

the idea expressed in the saying

DT'3

T]D7ri

HJIM

"JS

D-'JIK'Nin

nyn ^y
c).

ID'^JDHI

''"JK'n

nr^yi nin^'J'l, often used to explain

the acts of the teachers

p.

who

instituted

new

laws

(p. Shebiit

Ketubbot 32

It is

possible that such an idea

it

was conceived

33 b and in very

early times, and possibly

was such a view

]^lb

that guided the successors of

Jose
">

in their

acceptance of his decisions.

B*^

Compare the phrase nniBTl

DN1 b2p2 HS^H

DX

(M,

Yebamot

VIII, 3 and M. Keritot III, 9) which clearly

to accept a

shows

that they

were ready

Halakah although rejecting the proof offered for

that Halakah.

8o

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

ny ijdo
:]'']}r2i:^

same,
fvijoasi

ibv

n^ Dvn

b
N3''

jn^ *^nni

x*v

n^n:i?

^a

^y

?]

'nycc 13 "Sy

in*^.

We

need not discuss

is,

the historicity of this report, a point which

least,

to say the

very doubtful.

Whatever we may think of the

its

account,

we may be

sure that

author pictured accurately

the attitude which teachers usually assumed towards the

decisions given in the

name
its

of older teachers.

It is

evident

from

this

account that

author certainly believed that

teachers or authorities like the

Bene Batyra (whoever they

may have
given
in

been) were in the habit of accepting decisions

the

name

of a departed teacher, even in cases

for

where they would refuse to accept the proofs

decisions also given in the
this actually

the

name of that

teacher."^

Whether

took place

in

the case of Hiilel and the Bene

Batyra

is

of minor importance. report that

in

Accordingly, we learn
there were

from

this

the time of Hiilel

certain teachers

who

raised objections to the

new methods
the

which Hiilel had acquired from the great exegetes DTJ'IT Dvn:,

Shemaiah

and

Abtalion.

However,

same

teachers would not hesitate to accept a practical decision

which
"^

Hiilel reported in the

name

of these

two

authorities.

Compare Bassfreund
in this storj' are

{op.

ci't.,

p. 19,

note

3).

All the difficulties

which

he finds

removed by our explanation.

Most

likely Hiilel
all

had learned from Shemaiah and Abtalion not only the decision but also

the interpretations which he offered as arguments in favour of the same.

He

also gave these interpretations in the

name

of his teachers.

The Bene

Batyra, however, refused to accept these interpretations,

objected
to

because they

the

was

their opposition to these

new methods developed by Shemaiah and Abtalion. It new methods of interpretation which kept
remark
fllPify

them from attending the schools of Shemaiah and Abtalion, and not
their negligence, as one might judgo from Hillel's reputed
-WIT] ""^nj
:

0:r

DnL^'r^l^'

i6u 022

nn^nw*.

Their respect for these great

teachers,

however,

led

them

to accept their decision,

even though they

would not accept

their proofs.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

That which happened
in the
in

LAUTERBACH

8r

the time of Hillel also happened

time of Jose ben Joezer.

first

When

he used new methods

of interpretation for the

to follow

time, his colleagues hesitated

him, although they did accept some

of the

decisions which he derived from the Scripture

by means

of these

new methods.
the reason for such an attitude,

We can easily understand

inconsistent as
it

may

appear.

To

accept the proof for

a decision implied approval of the

method by which that

proof was obtained.

application of these

This would open the door to further

new methods,

so that there was no

at.

way

of telling
this

what decisions might be thus arrived

Against

danger the teachers attempted to guard themselves,

far as to decide, in

but they never went so

any

practical

case, against the authority of

an older teacher.

For

this

reason they would often accept the decision but reject the
proofs.

In the above,

we have

digressed for the purpose of

making

clear that difference of opinion concerning methods

of interpretation prompted the teachers to sometimes divorce

a Halakah from the scriptural proof.

We

have also seen

that the three oldest Halakot preserved in Mishnah-form,

namely, the three decisions of Jose, owed their present form

to this very reason.

by

Jose's disciples

They were expressed in Mishnah-form who felt constrained to reject the proofs
'^l'^'

advanced by Jose because of the novelty of his methods of

interpretation.

Accordingly,

it

may be
first

stated with certainty that the

-^A^ /

Mishnah-form was
practices

used to teach those customs and

which originated during the time when there was

of the teachers.
in

no

official activity

Having no

scriptural

basis,

they could not be taught

VI.

connexion with the

VOL.

82
Scripture,

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

i.e.

in

the Midrash-form.

The Mishnah-form
traditional

was further used to

decisions which

teach

those

laws

and

some

teachers attempted to derive from

of

Scripture by

means

new methods

of

interpretation.

While some of

their contemporaries or disciples accepted

the new methods, and therefore taught these decisions in

the Midrash-form, others, and by far the majority, rejecting

the new methods, accepted only the decisions.

convincing proofs for such laws
in

Finding no

the Bible, they taught

i.e. in

them independently
form.

of scriptural proof,

the Mishnahin

These two motives

for teaching

Halakot

the

Mishnah-form are

really one

and the same.

Whether no

midrashic proof could be found for a decision, or whether

the midrashic proof suggested was
the

deemed unconvincing,
was the

motive

for

the

Mishnah-form

same

the

absence of a sound Midrash.

To

this first

motive there soon were added other motives

Certain considerations
its

for the use of the Mishnah-form.

in the course of time

urged the teachers to extend

had,
in

use

ven to such

Halakot as

their

opinion, good

scriptural proofs and could well be taught in connexion

with the

Scripture

in

the

Midrash-form.

These other

motives and considerations arose from the disputes between

the Sadducees and Pharisees.

They became

stronger and

stronger with the ever-widening breach between the two

factions.

As

the

dispute between the

parties

progressed, the

antagonism between them naturally became sharper.

Each

party came to assume a distinctive attitude towards the

Law, and they consistently worked out

of attack and defence.

their respective lines

The

Pharisees

came

to recognize
^V^i:^

the binding character of the traditional law, HD

rnin.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

and demanded that
it

LAUTERBACH

83

be considered of equal authority

with the written Law.

The Sadducees, on
in their denial that

the other hand, the traditional

differences

became more outspoken

law possessed absolute authority.

their effect

These

had

upon the forms used

in

teaching the Halakah.

As we have

seen above, the Midrash was used for the

purpose of grafting new decisions and practices upon the

words of the written law, when the

sidered the sole authority binding

latter

only was con-

upon the people. To

it

give sanction

to

any decision or
it

traditional law,

was

necessary to find for

some

indication in the authoritative

it

Book of

the

Law and

thus to present

as

contained

or implied in the written

raised to the rank of the

Law.

As

soon as Tradition was

thus recognized as an

Law and

independent authority parallel to the written Law, there

was no longer that urgent need of connecting each and

every Halakah with the words of the written

Law

in

the

form of the Midrash.

tradition

halakic

decision based on
teachers,

was now considered by the

and repreone derived

sented

by them,

to be just as authoritative as

from the written Torah by means of an interpretation or

Midrash.

The Halakah

as traditional

law could

now

stand

without the support of a scriptural basis, and could therefore be taught independently in the

Mishnah-form,
all

Not

only was there no more need for teaching

together with the written

the Halakot

Law

in the

Midrash form, but

there were also sufficient reasons for the Pharisaic teachers

to teach

Halakah as

traditional law without even attempting

to connect the

same with the written Law.

For, in so
TiK';

doing, they emphasized their belief in the twin-law nnin

that
is,

the belief that there were two equal sources

of

religious teaching,

one the written Torah and the other

84

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

the unwritten Oral Law, both of which must be studied

alike,

and that one

is

as important as the other.

Of course

they continued to develop the Midrash method for the

purpose of deriving new Halakot from the one source

the written

Law.

The Halakot

thus

derived from the

latter,

Scriptures were taught together with the

in

the

Mid rash-form.
adopted.

In this way, they could well continue to

use the Midrash-form even after the Mishnah-form was

They were apprehensive only

upon
their theory of

of

using

the

Midrash-form exclusively, because such an exclusive use

might

reflect

an authoritative Oral

Law.

The very endeavour

to connect all Halakot with

of the

the written

Law by means
acknowledge
that

Midrash would have

meant

to

there
in

was only one Law,

namely,

the one contained

the Book.

They would

thus have conceded to the Sadducees the disputed point

that the traditional law,

na ^yac rnin, was not of equal

authority

with

the

written

Law,

an^n'ir

min.

By By
the

the parallel use of both

forms,

Midrash and

Mishnah,
alike.

they showed that they treated both sources

teaching in

Mishnah-form even such Halakot as could

the written

be derived from
Midrash-form,

Law and

taught

in

they

showed that they

were

not

very

anxious to find scriptural support for each Halakah.

This

was a strong expression of

their belief in the equal authority

of the two Torot, a belief that

made
in

it

of

little

consequence

whether a Halakah was taught

the Midrash-form, as

derived from the written Law, or in the Mishnah-form, as

a traditional law.

Furthermore, the exclusive use of the Midrash-form

threatened to endanger the authority and the teachings of
the Pharisees.

These apprehensions caused the Pharisaic

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

teachers to

LAUTERBACH
same

85

make more

extensive use of the Mishnah-form

to the Midrash-

and

in

some
For

cases even to prefer the

form.
in the

to give all the halakic teachings of the Pharisees

Midrash-form as based on the Scripture would have

exposed these teachings to the attack of the Sadducees.

As we have

seen above, the hesitancy on the part of

some

teachers to recognize the validity of the

new

interpretations

offered in support of certain decisions led to their teaching

such decisions in Mishnah-form.

gradually found recognition

The new rules and methods among the Pharisaic teachers,

by

who would admit

means
of these

the validity of interpretations derived

new methods.

Thus they were

able to

furnish a Midrash for almost every Halakah.

the Sadducees the objection to these

But among new methods was

If

very strong and they absolutely denied their validity.

the Pharisees arrived at a certain decision by means of

a new interpretation, the Sadducees could always dispute

that decision
It

by

refuting the scriptural proof offered for

it.

was possible

for

them

to argue that the Pharisaic inter-

pretation was unwarranted and that the scriptural passage

did not

mean what

the Pharisees tried to read into

it.

The

Pharisees feared that such arguments against their teachings

raised

by

the Sadducees might have a detrimental effect

upon the young students and draw them away from the
Pharisaic teachings.

The

Pharisees were well aware that

some

of their interpretations were rather forced, and that

their opponents' arguments against these interpretations

were

sound.

Wherever

possible, the Pharisees were, therefore,

anxious to avoid such disputes, or to prevent their pupils

from entering into them.

The

easiest

way

to avoid these

disputes concerning the validity of the scriptural proofs for

the Pharisaic teachings, was to avoid the mention of any

86

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

all,

such doubtful scriptural proofs at

that

is

to say, to use

Mishnah rather than

"
It

Midrash.'^^ After the Pharisaic teachers

it

should be noticed that

was only with the younger students

that

the teachers pursued this pedagogical method of suppressing scriptural

proofs,

when

these

were not

quite perfect, and of teaching the Halakot in

Mishnah-form without any proof whatsoever. They considered it necessary to take this precaution to prevent the young students from being shaken
in their belief in tradition

and from doubting the authority of the traditional

unhesitatingly

law.

To

the

advanced students, however, they would

communicate
had

all

the scriptural proofs or even artificial supports which they

for their teachings.

Hence among

the advanced students the use of the

3).

Midrash-form was prevalent (see above, note

few talmudic sayings may be cited here to prove that it was the tendency among the teachers to withhold from the students while young
the arguments and reasons for the laws and to keep
their opponents.

them from disputes with

Simon

b.

Halafta says: C^UIJ D''JDp D'T'0^n^i^' njJtya

dh^jd!? 'As long 'n onb rh: nniny^ la^yji ibnjn min young hide from them [some] words of the Torah. When they are more mature and advanced reveal to them the secrets of the Torah I'D^iV Vp^b HIBH i? pN (p. Abodah zarah II, 41 d). Simon b. Johai says

min

nm

as the pupils are

'

jnti'D

DIN

''^2 ''izh

Ni'N

min

"""IQl^

'

You

are not permitted to enter into

a deep discussion of the words of the Torah except in the presence of pious

By 'pious and good people' p"lL^3 WMi ^33 and good people' {ibid.). are evidently meant people who follow the Rabbis and accept the teachings of the traditional law. According to the Gemara (ibid.) the two sayings
of

Simon

b.

Halafta and

Simon

b.

Johai go together.

There

is

a subtle

connexion between them.

This connexion consists in the

fact that

both

aim at the same purpose,

the traditional law

viz.

not to give the opponents of the Rabbis and

to attack the traditional

any opportunity

law by refuting
middle of the

the arguments or proofs brought for the

same by the Rabbis.

late as the

We see

from these two sayings that even as

c. e.,

second century

when

the followers of the Sadducean doctrines

in

were
still

no more so strong, neither

their

numbers nor

in influence, the

Rabbis were
tell

anxious to avoid disputes with them, and would therefore not

pupils
all

the

young

arguments and reasons

for the laws, lest the

opponents

might refute them and upset the

saying of Jose
b. Halafta,

beliefs of the

young
lifin

pupils.

Compare the
III, 3,

nni^

D'p)i:ib

DIpD

^N, M. Parah

and see below, note 80.

In the days of the earlier teachers

when

the influence of the Sadducees

and their followers was stronger,

traditional law, to

this

tendency among the teachers of the

into' discussions

keep the young students from entering

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

LAUTERBACH
in

87

agreed upon deriving a certain Halakah from a given passage,

they preferred to teach that Halakah

an independent form

without citing passage or interpretation.

or decision could then be received in

Such a Halakah

good

faith

by the
would

students
rely

who

followed the Pharisees,

The

pupils

on the authority of the teachers believing that they

in possession of valid proofs for their

were

Halakot, although
other hand,

they did

not

mention them.

On

the

the

Sadducees could never successfully refute the Halakot thus

with the Sadducees, must of course have been stronger.
R. Eliezer:
D-irD^n

The saying
]D
D3''Jn

of

n^D^n

'3-ll

p2 DU^K'im

|1^jnn

IWD
pupils

(Beraicot 17 b), probably expresses this tendency to

make the young

study more the traditional law at the feet of the teachers, and keep them

away from studying

tional laws.

the scriptural proofs

and the arguments

for the tradi-

very striking
in

illustration of this

tendency among the earlier

teachers

is

found

the report of a conversation between Ishmael and

R. Joshua

b.

Hananiah.

Ishmael asks R. Joshua

to tell

him the reason

for

a certain rabbinical law.

Joshua, apparently unwilling to state the real

reason, gives him an evasive answer.

This does not satisfy Ishmael, and

Joshua, instead of replying,

he persists in demanding an explanation.

simply ignores the question, drops the subject, and begins to discuss another
subject (M.

Abodah zarah

II, 5).

The Gemara
^N1

(35 a) reports further that

Joshua actually commanded Ishmael

to stop asking questions about this

'

Law.

ID )) TTID::' pY^U Close your lips and be not so anxious to argue The Gemara then gives the following explanation for this rather harsh rejoinder. It was a rule with the teachers in Palestine not to give a reason for a new law until at least one year after They feared that some people, not approving of the reason, it was decreed.
plainly told him, a''B'n^
'.

He

^nan

would disregard and

nJ3

treat lightly the

law

itself

nH

B'J^N N3''N

ND^JH

vipP

TlNI

y'D.

These words are

significant.

There was only

one

class of people

who

might disapprove the reasons of the Rabbis, and

were the followers of Sadducean doctrines. Ishmael must have been a very young student at that time (see Midrash Shir r. I, 2), and R. Joshua
these
did not
that
to

want

to give

him the reason

for this

new

rabbinical law, for fear

some of the opponents of the traditional law might be able to prove young Ishmael that the reason for this law was insufficient. (Compare

Joshua's remark against those

who

question the authority of the traditional

law, to be cited below, note 78,)

88
taught.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Not knowing on what
basis they rested or

what

proofs the Pharisees offered for them, they were unable to

argue concerning them.

Their attacks on these Pharisaic

teachings would then consist of mere negations without the

force of strong argument.

As mere

negations are not con-

vincing, such attacks on the part of the Sadducees could

not greatly

harm the

Pharisaic followers.

The
by
in
still

teachers, all of the Pharisaic party,

were influenced
to teach only

another consideration.

The tendency

Midrash-form, showing
in the written

that all the religious teachings

were lodged

Torah, threatened to take away

their prestige

from the Pharisaic teachers

and to lend support

to the claim of the Sadducees that there was no need of the

^xnc"" ""cnn, i.e. the teachers of

the Pharisaic party.

In the

report about the

conflict

between John Hyrcanus

and

the Pharisees (Kiddushin 66 a)

at
first,

we

are told that the former,

""DDn

hesitated to persecute the 7X"1C"

of the Pharisaic

party because he considered them indispensable as teachers

of the
'

Law.
will
?

He
his

is

said to have asked

r\'bv

Nnn no niin

What

become
But

of the

Torah

'

without the Pharisaic

teachers

Sadducean adviser, who urged the per-

secution of the Pharisees, told

niD^-'i

him

'^-^pz

nmiDi

r]^)'\2

nn

NT
if

nio^i?

n'^)'^r\

b rrin,

that the

Torah would remain,

Also that any one

even

the Pharisees would be

it

killed.''^

could study
'3 It

because the Pharisees were not the only

little

makes very

difference
It

whether

this story is historically true

in all its details or not.

reflects the idea of the

Sadducees that the

Pharisaic teachers could be

dispensed with, and also the insistence of

preservation

the Pharisees

that

they were absolutely necessary for the

for us the fears that the

of the Torah.
tained.

The story mirrors

are concerned

Pharisees enter-

As we

merely with the motives that prompted

the change in the form of their teaching,

the Pharisaic teachers to

this story

make

may be

taken as an unconscious but accurate description of the

consideration

which could have moved them.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

teachers of the

LAUTERBACH

89

Law.

If,

then, all the teachings

and the

Halakot were represented as derived from the Torah by

means of

interpretation, as

is

done

in

the Midrash-form,
justified.

this claim of the

Sadducees would appear

There

would, indeed, be no need of the

party.

^Nisr^ 'nan, of the Pharisaic

Anyone

else
it

could likewise interpret the law correctly

the Halakot that are implied therein,

and derive from

for a

all

thorough understanding of the text of the written

certainly not limited to the Pharisees.
assert their authority

Law was

Thus the

aim of the Pharisees to

and to show

that they were absolutely necessary for the perpetuation of

the religious teachings

made
if

it

desirable for

them

to use

the Mishnah-form.
to their

Even

there had been no objections

if

new methods and even

they had been able to

find scriptural proofs for all their decisions, they nevertheless

thought

it

advisable not to insist upon connecting their

halakic teachings with the written

Law

in

every case.

By

separating the two, they

If there

made themselves

indispensable.

were Halakot not connected with the written Law,

for these teachings to

one must turn

alone

the PSnt'^ 'D3n,

who
not

were

in

possession of them, and

who

could

therefore be supplanted

by

others.

That which was

that there

at first but hesitatingly proposed, viz.

was an

oral law alongside of the written

Law,

was now boldly proclaimed.

The

Pharisaic teachers were

represented as the teachers of tradition

oral law

who

received the

through a chain of teachers

in direct succession

from Moses.

Consequently they were the only reliable

authorities for the religious teachings.

their decisions

They

insisted that

must be accepted as authoritative, with the

understanding that they either derived them from some

passage
in the Scripture

by sound interpretation or based

90

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

reliable tradition.

them upon some

proofs was
given,
it

always presupposed.

The existence of valid Where no proofs were

This tendency

was implied that they were unnecessary, as the

authority of the teachers was beyond doubt.

of the teachers to assert their authority and to maintain

the validity of the traditional law did not have

in

its

motive

any petty

desire for party aggrandizement, but rather in

it.

a genuine zeal for the cause, as they understood

They
of

asserted their authority and the authority of the traditional

law for the purpose of freeing the Torah from the

literal interpretation

fetters

forced

upon

it

by the Sadducees, and

developing the

Law

according to

its spirit.

All these considerations caused the teachers to

make

more and more use

sufficient to

of the Mishnah-form, but were not

make them abandon

still

the Midrash-form.
It

The
also

Midrash-form

had many advantages.

was the older

It

form to which they had long been accustomed.

afforded a great help to the

memory,

as the written

word

can be relied upon to remind one of

all

the Halakot based

upon or connected with

forms.

it.

Consequently they used both

Those Halakot which were based upon a sound

and indisputable interpretation of a scriptural passage they

taught
in

the Midrash-form,

i.e.

in

connexion with the

in the order of

scriptural proofs,

and they arranged them

the scriptural passages.

scriptural proofs

But those Halakot

for

which the
Mishnah-

were in dispute, they taught

in the

form and grouped them according to some principle of

arrangement, such as number-mishnahs or other formulas,
for the

purpose of assisting the memory.

In the course of

time, the

number
in

of the Halakot taught in the Mishnah-

form grew

proportion to the increase and the development

of the halakic teachings.

A great many of the new Halakot,

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

LAUTERBACH

9I

both new decisions and new applications of older laws, were

taught in the Mishnah-form by some teachers, because they
could not find satisfactory scriptural support for them.
will
It

be recollected that the decisions of Jose ben Joezer

in the

were given

Mishnah-form

for the

same

reason.

The

process of development from the Midrash of the

Older Halakah to the Midrash of the Younger Halakah

was marked by constant

struggles,

in

which the older

methods

tried to maintain themselves as long as possible.

(at least until

In each generation

the time of the pupils of

R. Akiba) the teachers were divided as to the acceptance

of these

new methods.

Some

teachers clung to the older

ways and would not

follow the daring applications of

some

new

rules of the

younger teachers.

With the growth and

number

development of the new methods, which only slowly and

gradually
of

won

recognition with

all

the teachers, the

Halakot connected with the Scriptures by means of these

exegetical rules, also grew.
in

new

Such Halakot were then

different

taught by different teachers

teachers

forms.

Those

who approved

of

all

the

new methods consequently

by
these methods as

considered the interpretations reached

sound, and the Halakot proved thereby as well founded in

the Written Law.
to teach these
in the

Accordingly, they would not hesitate

is,

Halakot together with their proofs, that

Midrash-form.

But those teachers who hesitated to

accept the novel methods and the

thereon,

new

interpretations based

but who

still

accepted the Halakot, did so because

they considered them as traditional, or because the same

represented the opinion of the majority.

Having no sound
they were com-

proofs, in their opinion, for these Halakot,

pelled to teach
scriptural proof.

them

in the

Mishnah-form, without any

92

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

We
these

find

many such
a),

cases in the tannaitic literature.

;

Of
(ed.

we

shall

mention only a few

R. Akiba

in Sifra,

Zaiv XI

Weiss 34 d-35

tries to

prove by one of his

'

peculiar methods of interpretation that a

Todah

'-offering

requires half a 'log' of

said to

oil.

But R. Eleazar ben Azariah

him

'

Even

if

you should keep on arguing the

whole day with your rules about including and excluding

qualities of scriptural expressions,
I

will

not listen to you.

half a "log" of
nr:ni<

The
21!?

decision that a

"Todah "-offering requires

'*

oil is

to be accepted as a traditional law.'

N^JN

nnx

1^''3K

^i'n

'^

yic'

^J\s'

\::;^rh

pc'n

Twrh

\r:^^i

i^n Dvn

b
'rs*

':"'DD
"jS?

r\^rh na^n
'

nmn^

pti'.

The emphatic
',

expression

ytDlC'

will

not listen to you

in the

statement of
objected to

Eleazar

b.

Azariah shows that he strongly

Akiba's method of interpretation, and that he considered

such proof, not merely unnecessary, but also unsound.

If

Eleazar was actually in possession of a tradition for this

law,
'^

it

would have been

is

sufficient to

say

"in^*

1^''^

'

There

It

very doubtful whether R. Eleazar

b.

Azariah himself used the

term
'

*J''DO

rifw

T\ypT\ to
',

apply to this law (notwithstanding Bacher,

Jewish Literature published in honour
It
is

Die Satzung vom Sinai

in Studies in
p. 58).

of Dr. K. Kohler, Berlin, 1913,

more

likely that the

words

J'DO
said

TWu?

are a late addition

this rule

and not the words

of R. Eleazar.

R. Eleazar

merely that

was

a traditional or rabbinical law, H^S"!.

'

A later
',

teacher,

who

understood the term riDSl to mean

Sinaitic

Law

added
later

the words

'^''DD

HCw.

There are many such instances where a

teacher enlarges the term

n3?n used by an
,

older teacher, to

TWu? HD/n
term

^yOD, simply because But this this sense.

riDpn which

he, the later teacher, understood the term riDPH in

interpretation, given

by a

later teacher, to the

is

was used by an

older teacher,
in the

not necessarily correct.

Thus, for instance, the term

DDSt used
9)
is

statement of the Mishnah

nJ^n

n^"iyni (M. Orlah

riBIO^
it

III,

interpreted
b.

by R. Johanan
a),

to

mean

'rOD
{ibid.).

nsbn
to

(p.

Orlah 63

b,

Kiddushin 38 b-39

while Samuel

explains

merely

mean simply a law or custom

of the land

HjniO NJIDiTI

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

is

LAUTERBACH
It
is

93

no need of scriptural proof.

evident that this

traditional

Halakah could not be based on an indisputable

lawJ^

R. Akiba, therefore, desired to give

it

it

support
it

by-

proving

from the Scriptures.

He, no doubt, taught

in

the Midrash-form together with the passage from which he

endeavoured to prove

it.

But R. Eleazar

b.

Azariah,

who

did not approve the interpretation of R. Akiba, although

he accepted the Halakah, naturally taught

law, and, of course, in Mishnah-form.

it

as a traditional

Another example
to justify the

is

to be found in the reasoning used niny.

ceremony performed with the willow,

was an old
it

This, no doubt,

traditional custom.

Abba
it

Saul,

however, declared
the plural form
PriJ

to be a biblical law, deriving

from

^3"iy

used in the passage of Lev. 23. 40.

This passage, according to

willows.

Abba

Saul,

speaks

of

two

One

is

to be taken together with the

for the special

Lulab,

and the other separately

the
nany.

ceremony with

Abba
The

Saul, no

doubt, taught this Halakah

in

in the

Midrash-form as an interpretation of the passage

Lev. 33. 40.

other teachers, however, did not accept

this interpretation.

They considered
in

this

ceremony a mere

traditional law, ^J^DD nK>0^ n:bn (Jerush. Shebiit 33 b), and,

of course, taught
''^

it

the Mishnah-form.

It is

absolutely impossible to assume that R. Akiba refused to believe

b.

the statement of R. Eleazar

of this law.

Azariah that he had a tradition

in

support

The contrary

must, therefore, be true.

R. Eleazar rejected

the Midrashic proof given by R. Akiba but accepted the law as a mere

nSPn, i. e. as a rabbinical or traditional law. It may be, however, that this law was really an older traditional law, though not ''3'DO il'^'CP il^bn, and
that

R. Akiba tried
it

to give

it

a scriptural support while R. Eleazar preferred

i^J*^
"*

to teach

as a detached Halakah, i.e. in Midras h-form.

Compare

the

V^

statement in Niddah 73 a in regard to another law^ which R. Akiba derived

from a scriptural passage, while R. Eleazar

it

b.

Azariah preferred to teach

as a

mere Halakah, Nn3^\"I nnty

"ItU^N 'm!? \S1p

NTpy

-31^.

94

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The same was also the case with the ceremony of the water-libation, ccn TiD3, which R. Akiba, by means of
a forced interpretation, tried to represent as a biblical law.

The

other teachers did not accept his interpretation.

it

They
(ibid.),

considered

merely a traditional law,

it

""roo n'CJ^b

nypn

and, of course, taught

in

the Mishnah-form.

In this

manner, the same decisions were sometimes taught by some

teachers in the Midrash-form, while other teachers taught

them

in the

Mishnah

form.'^^

Thus

the

two forms continued

in use

according to the preference of the teachers.

The

parallel usage of these two forms continued long after

Sadduceeism had ceased to be an

life

influential factor in the

of the people, and the Pharisaic teachers had

become
the

the only recognized teachers of the Law.

The Mishnahafter

form was retained by the teachers even

new

methods

of interpretation

had become generally accepted. methods were developed to

declare scriptural

In spite of the fact that these

''

interpretations of the

The very frequency with which the Amoraim Tannaim to be merely artificial
rabbinical

supports,

NDwDDN
exegetische

XtD^y3, for

or

traditional

laws (see Bacher, Die

II,

Terminologie der jitdischen Traditionsliferatur,

it

pp.

13-14),

shows

that

must have been frequent among the Tannaim

to consider

some

inter-

pretations as

mere

artificial

supports and not real proofs.

Otherwise, the
It

Amoraim would not have doubted the was only because they knew
some
tannaitic interpretations

validity of a tannaitic Midrash.

that the

Tannaim themselves had frequently

rejected a Midrash as unacceptable, that the

Amoraim dared
supports.

declare that

were merely

artificial

Perhaps
and NTD^ya

we have

in

the expressions
''T'DJ

NwV^ NHDDDX

Nlpl

pillD
differ-

NfOODN

Xipl rh

Kn3^\-| an attempt at harmonization

on the part of the Amoraim

for the

purpose of explaining away the

The3' mean to
tell

ences of opinion between the older teachers.

us that

the older teachers always agreed as to which laws

were

traditional

and

which were derived from the Scriptures by means of interpretation.

However,
to find

in the case of certain traditional laws,

artificial

some
same

of the teachers sought

for the

an additional

support

for the

mere purpose

of connecting them with the Scriptures

traditional character.

not

because they doubted their

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

LAUTERBACH

95

such an extent that one could interpret any passage to

mean
all

almost anything, and thus provide scriptural proofs for

possible decisions, the teachers, having habituated themselves to the

Mishnah-form adhered
retention
itself

to

it.

An

additional

reason for

its

may be
in

found

in

the fact that the

It

Mishnah-form
lent itself to

had

the meantime improved.

new
it

principles of

arrangement and grouping

which gave

decided advantage for systematic presenta-

tion of the Halakah,

teaching.'^'^

and thus made

it

a desirable form of

The

teachers themselves having in the mean-

time become accustomed to the idea of an oral law equal

in authority to

the written Law,

now

considered

it

unneces-

sary to seek scriptural proof for each and every law.

They
for the

would occasionally even separate Halakot, based upon

sound scriptural proofs, from their Midrash bases
purpose of presenting them more systematically
form.
in

Mishnah-

R. Akiba, the boldest advocate of new Midrash-

methods, was himself the one who helped to retain the

Mishnah-form by improving

it

and

introducing therein

the principle of topical arrangement.

Thus, out of the one form evolved our Mishnah, a

collection
topically.

of

Halakot

in

independent

form

arranged

Out of the other developed our

halakic Mid-

rashim, Mekilta, Sifra, and Sifre, which furnish a running

commentary on the Books of the Law.

''"'

This

may seem

as

if

we

accepted the view of Frankel and Weiss

about the advantages offered by the systematic arrangement of the Mishnah.

But

it

was only

after the

Mishnah had been long

it

in use

and developed

its

system of grouping that

deemed advisable to arrange all the Halakot in Mishnah-form, while Frankel and Weiss assume that these advantages offered by the Mishnah in its later stage only were the cause of
could be
the change from Midrash to Mishnah.
earlier

This, of course,

is

wrong, as the

Mishnah did not

offer these advantages.

(To be continued)

A VOLUME OF THE BOOK OF PRECEPTS

BY HEFES
By
B. B.

YASLIAH
College.

Halper, Dropsie

HEBREW TRANSLATION
I

na

nnt^i n'^ivr^
"i

nsDinb

Djar:^ in nxinni^'n

nn nan oy

nm:t:> in

D^yji DIN yB'^

n^HK' i}iD^> n

nm
i^y

nnNi nnN ^3 bv T'n irN nxinriK'n

^jk'

B'npD ni'y'n ^yi

:

hndd

nby^^ bv y^rh D^oya

ijgd D^y:i
"ii

uod
5

iiCNi
b'h

".nab hndd

n^^n

a-i^n

i:''n

din Na^y

iTy^N n

bbn B'npD udd n^yj

!jy
a^-'n

^ia^ in

hndd ijdd nc^yj ijod o^yji"

Nini

D^yn
f'Tj'n

irNi

a^-in

Nin

hndd D^yn by ndd

join

udd

nijyji

D^yn ^y

uod

n^yji

j'-iB'n

iry^^N

-i

Na^y

nan

c'npo

DD

D^y:i 13DD ni'y:! in

re*"'

uip^ abvn bv a^n pN a^n N^n

nbyn
c^"--^

pjD N'jn"

:nnNi ".uipD D^yn

fiioa

^yi Hwsca

ijy

a'^ni'

D^oya

'rc^

10

DTijn D^y\n^
ninntj'n n^j'^n ijc>

nyn'-i

n^nna nyn^

i?y

n^'-n

a^n

ij''NK'

n^ nan

on"
:

.nNinriK'nn

niNaa noiN mDi^nm ".D^y^i di^ thn

f|N
d'-jd

mnriB'n nhi
HNinriB'n
N'-n

Nntr N^n aa ^y

'sb ninnB'n
ii''n

^n pn
dnp
n\nti'

'sb

"it-ini

TNnB' na pNt> nNinncn N\n

'an '':nNp

n-'bm

nn''

uib'^s n'NnK'

na

k'^u'

nyna

n^^nti'

na pNC'

na

t^'-'C'

15

n ijDi n-'D^yn nni

"jom

""^Dnj

na pnv' n na 'ybz
ni?

n^^nK^ niy^c' nioa)

na

pns''

^jdi

n-'o'-yn

nni V3 ja pyoB' n

ncNi ns
])vt2U

pyct^

piDsn njja

dn nm

^i''Nl

nynan bN nn
piDsai
".ai

'jcn:

na

n n^

hdni

."b
VOL.
VI.

a"a

nm

xn nnna

D"'Nn ^NnB'''

bi ib

97

98

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

nrp
".ii

IX D'^nj n^rxi D'yip nsvci nnp'bi

a'-n

vo^

rx xvn

'3" :2in3r loa pT;n ^si nb'ch

i>2x .pT:n '2ii>cn3

mra

Nvi::n

nnx nan

ix

mo
rx xvn

Dx

nnc nsnn nnix x^acm mynn nx

p'ijntsn

'3"

mtrxr

"im ,-1122 x^atsn ^-inx

nm

x^j

,nnn wj*: njTn nnp'^i

lb
ainan nns van

nx n*paon

d^-j**

niju'

novyo xvn
".is'-j

^a

:i

vip nxvci

ncir unn
a^'n

T-a

myan nx n^rn"

:myi

-pT:a

D''"'Di

i:iod -p^a
-iios
x''aj:
|t3pi

npan npa n^a n^B' d^dc "yna

iixn nx x'arn -iixn

a-*ni

mx -mo
nx

xa

a^'n

nx x*ao

"inxi 0'"^]!^

tnx
5

P'bnn^

piancm

".p-iitss

n^a

nnn
loa

ina!? a**n na^D.n

na^i -inx

ra rh'wb njno

mx" moxc
nan
py

^D^Dii?i''na

dmu* piano irxcn

aaitr

wb^n nx

na-jn

nx xdd

je^ pai

ny pa tto pai

DX1 ".pianoa piano pXK' niK'yi'"

:niyi ".d^k' pr: ok'-o

inn

rrnc> ix ^ni^x njcc' iano

nnx b^ ivnz'

^\'^'b^b^*

ix nnj
c*w'

rxn may
D^ain
-j-n
10

pTjn -en

D^E^ a^n irx

,-ian

nrx n^axi n^yci nox mc'y

i-ni n^h^K'n ix nnan rrn

nrn "iiyrn

n^nins

cann

dx

ijax .inhr ix
ni'tt'i'

max

n:or

pam

jnr n^h^r ix in:

may"

nnoxE' ica
xihe'

,pT3n *on

a^n

"in3 IX

D^nn

im

ix nir:x

yanx ma:

mj may"

riiyi

".iios

msry ru' cn x'n nry^x n xan ox x:n ^xo n^ann i-n" :noxi
,n"Yi5r:

"mos
15

ix x*n

nccnnsi iniena

mya

p^binc' "ci ".D^a-in

i-n rox

^nDi3 -iiyca rr^n

dx mxn^ D'anv ,nan b^

bn iniK'no

iniirn ns-icn nprnn: ix

ir^on

a^n ^nanr^r nicnn

layi?

na

^p'^Jion ia ns"ir

nicnn ^x inicio nay^ na nau naa n\T vh dx

/tnan^c prnr ^nnx nan ix /:ot
^rybti
-S

ijax

;PT:n

nx

ch'c^

nn

nn\n naiE'^
:

noTun naoni

^nanc^jc
p^birin
20

nphn nayn noa

ma
-S

ii>i;'

-jina p'^ncn "

next' loa

,-iioa

CTT D1X "irri'x n

obz' D1X

n'a yvrxa x'n i^xa nnix

D'U'on cix na*py
a-i
-S

pxn

bix nnry ja

pyoc

nox

D^ann ttj

ncx

mry
Dijt"

ox max T3 nan ox pn:

ox

"

".nphiri >sh ban n

x aon

HEFES

B.

YASLIAH

BOOK OF PRECEPTS
2 a

HALPER

99

.np^THB' n-iyan

ims -Mvn-y nyrn nana moix xnao^nm ".pycr ^3

nphn

-i3yn

no3

i^::*

imi p'hcn

"

-lai

nrx

nij3NT

/i2r:a

nnn nn'nra

D'-^^-j'

nm

nyu'3 n'ann -j-n ncwX

men;

S"^ cix "iry^x

oivS

n3'py i nrza n^c^on

->iNn

nnn
ncx

nyr'a

ncs
ij^-j'

a^sb'^ din

mm'-

-i

nsx

pp*^ 2ny3
riwS

n*tri'o

mo

nnn

ny-j'a

ncN Q"^n
r^'j-a in*

pTn
inj

npijin

n-\2]j'y

n-sv^ av^' pnni

hds

msD

n3D3Do nn'n dn bin nvspr [cn

amcs onm
pam
|nr

noa nc^ nn'nr

may

n^n

nr

nn

^j'd

ny i^^as

n^ q^ito n^sy vns' is naijim

n^ini*?? uv

u'na nij3N dnt

-inwS

".noa nios
d'*j'33

n:DB'

m;

\s*

10

-im

IX

,D'ma3

is o'n: is ny^nr
D^tt'^

*b

n'nj'3

lancn

Ds ^ns .D^3
.0^5^*!?

'en

p^^ncn I'n ,nc iffjn^

lamc
?i-i-w-j

Tn

irs pu' in':n^

lam

ps-j'

nan o^nra

nosu'

1C3

,mn3
i?3

sitj:::'

no
bis

'on d: D^ri? a^n

mn

n'a n^rs nsi

D3m mn3C' nn
^b

d^'^td

mm'

o'b

n vm

c^isn

ns p^incn"

15

nia3 n: n'n onyj'

i^-kr

en:

is n'on

iju*

c^n: s^j's nbzr: ps cis

D3n nmoi maa loy

n^jn^

ejiK'Ji ib

tidd n:i
^53

li?

ni33 nay n'-n icy

sinsrai
"^b

ms

':2

-jm

p-j*

nainar no

nb^y^z' n-i'3n

ns p!>no3
:nowS*i

mm'

p3ni *pns 1^'asi I3in3a' no ^3

".1P3 'bi pjiio inrs noi
si?

n^c 133 mm' i"

pwX-j'

".D'n33
20

n^ p'isi

ps n^ p'isnn d'^3 n33

D^:pi D'vy p:3 nn*j'a am'jo:;* -i3n

{is 3n3-j' nvj'o)

mm

is

man

p:yi

D':p ^tr 11 D |3i "

nose* iC3 ,d^3 'on

IS
wxyj'

ci'-j'i?

3'n p'honi
^cn D':as

cn^

nonm

p:3n ':3Si

nopn

n'D^ p'pnnr

nnnv

b'^'

I'sno pi

nmp

b'c^

2b
li^^n

nivon njocn ".nayn ns

pni
;

nani? i^j'as

nnm

is yo3'2 j^'sn ej

.^snj;"

pns3

fn3 n'jnao n'oii^rnn

ns miib nainn ,n^yo^ n3r:c

lOO

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

^n:iD

"3332 mix pm: px mc-a onsi

)nN^
;*ina

msa

cnx

"

tern "ir:xu' iod

,nS:3 n^

pisn n^a nnby dni

.iVkrn

pnnt' dhni Dnsa pnnrr

din

;^)V^^b DTrnn^i piN"i DN^i'ini? T">^ '^aiB'n ps .tasVkrn i>K

Nnsjvji

noN
'.n'3^0
iD*^*^^

^3xn

sab

^'xn

ndwp

up): n:^d

mcxn
d^nt

nn^'n "

nt:Nt' 103

p^pso N^ e'en

ini ^5333 p^3:o

sh

Nin njiirD N^Jiin n^axn

n"i33

1!?

cK N3N-n

n^Dp^ xriN Npi:n

roxn xin x3-i xni
^oxk* x^^xi

nt
""an

Ninn" :noNi
n^i?

n3y3 iniN pm'tr

".'j'sn
^i>;-ini

n31 p^xn "sm xn3y3

an

10

pn onpxn X3n
nini? iiyoc'

'c:

px ^333 inix

p3i3

px

.pixi

nx
''D3

nx usv^n nna^
.bxity>

^pyo'^:'

^y [pixn] pixnn nxi

i:^x nr3

ntj'D^tr

pnx^ pin3 imykTi

i)0T3

pix3 3ivp xinc' icd 3isp

DX1 .ii)nn

pnn ^by3

n''

njii'n "-d^

,mpn

*c':x3C' D^:j2x:n
p^jy

on^rs
15

pixn

vijy

bip

pyotj'

dx ^3x

.inix

d^jd inn nx

^3p^ ])Vd^ fXD

r\)i)'\

^XTJ'' }*nx^ \)VDiy

'XI "

nx x^3n^ pixn

C'p3 nxi .pyo^r n3it:i)

nn^yo

-itranni?

lyx

:noxtt' 1C3

/mx onjo

icy na^!? pycB' fxo dxi

1x1
r\''b

,i^'

n^ytsiB' db'

loy

uarnb

p^ncc'o ^nx x^
inj i

p^3ra
n'pi!?D^

nc>'
n^i)

p-ixb

nn3 xin^
*i3

n^jorx
"ja

ex

x*:m

jn:

nn n'pnn

frno^i'o

p3i

p3i n^^

^1n3 yiyi d^d T-cy^i in'3 Tin3 yn 3^3

pi'nn ^c' in"ix3 d^-^-j
".in"'33

Dix ^nv
D"'C'n

x^t:'

p:D bix 20
in"'3

n^ci

xh

t-h ibbn

.n^yDi?

naTJC nii*n ycrn i^hsn

^^y^ijt'n

nrn p:T3 jnvj'y^ n3"in

px'i:'

nwa

nn-ii-y

nnx ^hn

'y^3in p^nn

3a
.nc'yn x^ nivtD
n::
^n'^'i

nt-y ni^;D
xi^'j-

yen

jnn

.ni?

n^'in3

xh

{jxt^^ )*-ix3 xi?

n:j^

yiu

iv^ dx

.IJD^ n^ltTNnn Hl^fDH

v^y3i .n"j'3
na'tt':i

nx ^ax^
i^a3

iidxi nvj'n
".ii

nx bpob

D'3'n ^xinn y'\sn noi /j"x

^pj

hb^jjc

nbpai

u>h nx nv^ nr ^ai" jainatr loa .htd

i3"^et'N '3X1 Tiv^'

D133" :nr:x-j' loa ^nn*;: n-iina niif'nu'y3i nx'3-ii 5

HEFES

B.

YASLIAH'S BOOK OF PRECEPTS

"i

HALPER
din

lOI

r5is -i\sio

p^]n

mos pnn
i^jin

nDcri imEJ* di:d iiua pnn y>n pnn

^yi fcn
ijy

^yi nn^33 ^y
n^l^D

nb^ PM D^sro
ni'B'

o^m
ijyi

d^b'
nai:^:

pn d^k'o
ijyi

Dm

pw d^b'd nyin nuiyn

byi

n:m
ns

ns"::

p^NB' pni
D^i^PiDB'

Pj-iisi'

p-nB' pn mrrnanrD nnN

nB^yoa

b
"
:

^jpo^

n''y-\)i)

".pn "vn

,m3n

-iiB^n
fjiyi

onxa
-inb'

ic'yr'^

,niaiyn "j^nn pnn pi ^nianiD lo

iit:NB>

nsi

'.niB'a

nv^d

n^m nonn

msryb

ma

^nr i'nB'n

ints

,-inin i^nB'a

pna

noyc mip
jr-Dntr
^iB^y

/niB'npn in nrn niB'n riN D'-^ynn

"iib'

n^D
^3n*

113D

n3D

pi3 noy n^b' ny

nn

"

nost:' id3 ^iidk

i3n:i

p nns

ipnirn:ni

main

"-^yn

imp

nB'yB'

n n:non

lone' B'lpiD v^rnpni

pnn noyB'D"!

^iB'y

nB^ye^

n an

n^b' ny pnn pni p^rn

i6^ ny an pn

15

Dib

nB'y si? n^nr^a i:n3i lunt' B>npin irx iti'npn

maa

i:>n

na?o

an i6^ ny pnn
nan^

pai pnn

ahu ny an pa imrnjni

mam

^^ya

imp

bx

,ianpn^ mosi ".isurD

xij^N n^'nB'D u^nb' ^2^

ary' in ,n>an

mb

ns'y n^

riN IN ty^xn
B'\x N^'-N "b

nx

mam

,^ipb b'db'm itrs:^

,n^jt3pi

pna^ von iN^vn

pN" nnoNC' ma

DunnjNi dddd
jdp

d: "bby nc'Nn 20
j^jn
n-c-Ni

tr^Nn
niB'

nN

b'h rbbn

DunnjNi didciui njupi

^nsj^ nrn niB'n

man^

p3a ^nra niB^yb

bnni

hn

ins!?

dni ".nc'Nn

nN

in

a^m irN pnuvNn niB'" :nr2NB' loa ,in^on^ D^anv pN.,mDni m^i .pnui'Nn
^jao naio n:^ nB'a

jnDVNn niB'"

:niyi

'MmmrB' n^ nr

^a

jb*

nn^o

3b
niDNn
DJ fi^J

"inB'a

nN

^ax^ n^i"

man
d:

pfniji

".noiyca NinB*

nsNiB' DniDNn
nry^N n

nnann nvpoa

pnn pi .ijod m:n^

on" inoNB'

ica .n^aa n^ ",i^aN'

n^" ">aNn n^" ">aN^ n^" ona

i^aNn n^

nwn

niD^N nnNi n^^aN niD\s*

-\:b

nnN i^n^ n^

^n' n^

jb'

Dipo b^
5

nbaa ainan

yoB'oa i? unsB' inna ainan i? uns^B' ny

Dnixa

nra irmani?i ".nbi:

i^Nn n^ N'jnn nTaraa vj^i n^yB-a nB'N

nn'

bo

Nin nios

v^

niB'n i'yai

.omanN

b^aB'a

mxpa

on^anB* n^cnai

102

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

,Dn

-HDi^ ':iv-i

,m:

i^n'j'

ymj n^c'

nitJ'n

byn px ,Dnn 3^n

,n:3

nny^

sin ^n^* .neon nn onn 2^n nyion nic^n ^ync?

nnmni

.ch^i

Tn
cny

lo

nj3

DS

^1t^'n

ns n^cn^

D>D>nvi ni'B' ptj d^c'^ n^n .vi?y n^y^'j'

rn

.iD3n

nx

d^c'o nJjs ,nn>o

Tn

irs*

n::^ pisnj n^

dk ^3n

;nji33

nab ynw

k^b'
'dt

"iiB'n
'vn n'-n

i'yaB'

nnmni .onm
:DniD

n^n^n
.q^jc

0^:21

.iddso
15

DN1 ;*iDs:m nnK'jn

sin in^*
-\ic

d^k'^ 2^n

nnsn

dh ona a-n
n-ioni

t^yirni

.nn^o

irs

pnnn

ns* n::^

piann n^i
,p''riDn

njj

p3

nnm
oi'B'o

nc^jon"

:rxc' idd ,idd30 n^

oni

pjud

D^:^i'

ns
ini:

nyio

ony nnv ps

nny ^iv
d^::'jd

nyi nyio^ on

irs*

cm

y^D d^k'^c ch^D nyio -isnn nx

pT3

i^n nni naian

ti'i^fb^

D^c'o nyiD

^vn D^Ji'o

nm

nbi^f

pw d^c^o nyio y^D

20

CM nn^Dn

10 iiddi
c"*!

nssn

n-'-'n

c"-" :niyi ".idud d^b^d oni

n^-'i'yn

nTo niDD

nrm nin

a'^'^nK'

-laan

tiddi nn^oa

tti^
htdi

niDi nr?D 11122 n:iD3 N^tr

nn

nm nn
-iwa

n^^n
n-i^n

njnn nyio

nn^on
n33
-ivj'

n''''n

njD3 en

nn'ron

-nt:2i

njijn N^:r nyio

".-^s^n

1^ B'^B' ^o

,)}f2f2

r\':iU^r]

ni^&n

->idsi

25

4a
ns
^poi'
in'

D^Tn

^::'*N

n^cni ^-hdb'

xh

moL"^r'

n nnm
''liSn

dib'^:*

^ino

b
CN
':i

njjn 133

nn^

inu'-n dni .d"'cb^

niB' dni "
:

n^n nnv^^

xin d:i .niB'n

dib'^c

^wn

Nin

m:

ainDB' v:3 ,nTj'32 rby riBnnB'

".ji
i>

mcNB' 1C3

,D*Div-i D'O' nB'^B'

DiB'^B'

hono n:n

la in ji

y v
riiN

im
min>
5"

B'CNi
nB'y:

DV

"

niyi

".nr

-\m

nr d^c^ nL-^B*

n^ynB' nyio

ra D^iy^" :noNB' 103

.cciB'n ^223 Di

vbyaa

nyini ".vja^Bi
niB'

D'byin ':23 inn^yn pn n'3 ^3331 D''by3n ^jd3 inn>y^B' ny nyio

ny nyio

niB* nB'yj

px

D'i5y3n ^333

n^

)n n*3 ^jd3 pn'n'3 'jb3

n^

HEFES

B.

YASLIAh'S BOOK OF PRECEPTS

HALPER
D"'Jt:^

I03

nny
DIN nry^^N
11B'"
"i"

jm nvny

i^n

nn

^c'''^:;'.-!

Dr

"-jDni

*:'k:'n

dv

d'-j'^:'

10

:nr:NC' id3 .nu^nc^n

p'rn'^ ""Tn nn'-o

ncc

n^ dn
dji

vbya
".p^o

moB'^
n^''s<

i6i ".nns

mDN'j' 103

nnr

r^yn

m-ct:; 1^

px

nn 123.1
r5is*

niDD nni -is^n nx

d^ij'o nyio

noi

msn

nx

najB'

nriN "

nin

"imn nx

mx33

iidni ".ddi pi

pn
N/''N

pi nn^D

pa''n

nn

Nn

ii

nvn

::'sji'

"iD3

inpn i6 din Ninc'3i din n^3

u^n in

d"'db'

nu

15

".'DB'

nu

priDiD^

pna

p:ni:

bin din

^"3 priDiob

pnD pjnu pN
:i-idn niyi

^y Nin

nxm n3Dn
123 DN

riDV niD n^pin ^3n Njn pi

".111B' nn-'in i?y

n^m dn"

n*trv

mm

nriN pNi laiin nriN inn^vi

1DN DN
vb]} nt:>r

^3'' "

IIDNB' 1D3

^UH

^3 HN

li'l'^rr

iniN

D^nn3D pi n^3

vb]}
^b

1DNJ njD nND

?in

|niJ

Nn^ n:D
n''33 j^n!?

nND dn dni

mo

i^

|nij
n'^c'^

Nn>

mD

20

nbp3i

".pi

nu3 p iiDNn
n-j'iyn

pi

iidni v^y n-cv no

niinni:'

|^n^ idndi

N^N ^DniN

riN D^tr^ayD ijn

Fi''"iDnB'

pn pni-3rn n^
1313 n3n
".D'-Dtr^

Dn3i
cjy

Dnii'yc^
]i3rT'

^ba

ny3Dn

"

iidn'J'

id3 /nyi riN

riN

nysDi

.iniN

dm^ni

1131 nDn3 ny3Dn

udd

im

din

''inD

iids ii3n dn
25

HDD uni DIN

^riD

HDD

1131

nDn3 n^y3Dn "

iiidn:;' id3 .nnon^j'ji

ID 131

IN nnii !:'3ND 1131

nDn3

D'-y^Dn ".n'^'o^b

4b
niDn DD1
"'JDiiin

n^n^n nD'-y^n" niDNt:' id3 ^niDi do in nxv in

",D^Dt^^

inm

HDD uni din

nvc'y^
:

'j-'Id

hds

phajinn

nx'-yi

npB'Dni ^ni3NijDn

niN n3

n:DD dvdb' nDi nDiN nis isn

1D3 ^riNDH
'D

riNDH 1DN31 riNDi

''D3

isN^JD nc'iyn "

)-\j2H'^

niDn3n niN
""d

riN

pi n^3

n"'^c'

".d^d;:'^

iidd

um

din

'anD

udd

ii3n nDn3 ^jd^ jindi

fni:ni 5

nsnc' pi

n''3

n-^ti*"

:iidn*j' id3 ^nt^UN

".D"'DU'^

n3D n3ni DIN

D''y3iN nip^D ni3n^ niDVJB'

fDN

Nan

HDD

l^ll

'J^D

HDS

p-'TH

pi

n''3

niCIS

pi

nu

nici3 Nsit' |DiN NS11" niDNK' 1D3 ,pnni pi

n''3

niB'i3 ndib'

I04
nivtt'

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

meann nrxa nnoD
n^ pvni
i^^ncra
".D^c:^

^rnn a^'m din jno iidd

nc:>s

pnm
lo

men abv na

^yon

no

naiy nnn^
loa .D^nra

prni ;n n^n nvj'nn nc*N ^yea -laiyn

nx nnncn" :noKC^

u nm

nry-in:r

nn m: pian

'.n"'c'^

iido irni ms* 'yiD

5|ai3n

moQ

'J23 linn bc'

mnx
naiK'n

nxnn

in

ncp

.nan nicna

.I'yrh
^h

D^y

.nnsnc' in nntra^i nnDcnc' np^^n

'B^n^ T

ON"

.ncNB' ia

jinyi^ n\ii
^^''no

nan^

^^n^^^

nny nnaon
anan nyais
nona
"jsa

15

mj

yi^Zin jn i^jwi d^dc'

^rna

a'-'-ni

mx
".1^

iids nniN nn^vn

fisiani

nan^

iptJ'

''^y

naisi'm ^p''^^^ 'jsa

nan b^ mop

inan

nov^ c'ln

nn myan

ns* n^ic'n

T'yo i^ni nani?

n^ic'n "
""jna
:

nny

ynvni n>yn^
ix

nmc' irnn n-a m^yan ns

vb2
ina
-\2^:iy
"-o

nostr 10a .npnni jup

a"'"'ni

".n"'ot:>

on^s*

'jno nios ppi 20

macyj

"

"noN'ii'

10a /^'^a^'a nvy^ dc^ ni?nni ,iddn n^i

".ii

D^in ^na

ni'SJtj'

inona

i"'oyn^ i'lj'inon

din ^:no niDS np^D vh)

:noNtr loa ^no^n
n-'p:

".31

mx

"jno 1103 nT-oyn

:nostt> loa

xh
^nr

to
n> bv

ni^sj"
n3-in:i

n^

-loisn N^jn"

t'SJ

mon^

nison
25

':n nrj'o ois* *no::'

moa

n^Viri a^*n Nin

c'sn nx nni nv m^:;*^

5 a

nn

a^'n a^^n n^it*

\xo

ii

poy

':a

anna nnn

"inxi

j-j'

a-n nh:^ N-a^n

".d^oc*
nrx-j*

ni:riai n'i?ya ni:;na

:

nonan

np-rn^'a

^onvnn nana pyot' n noNi

i'-j'

nra Nvvai pi::] i?yaS

c'^ty

pnon ^ya^ nQniB'on nicnai n^^ya

pv:b niB'n
pni::'n

mpo

ba rp"3 oin -iry^N ja pyou' n n\n

onan nyaiN"
a^-'n

nvn pja nrS

nri*

bn
bi

|o

moa

pr':^

n^ pno^

^aa

pnoi?

n^

byi n!;^an ^yi na^^i'j ^yi ns^jj ^yi nn'^iJ ^y

nios ijnni
obt' pT3

|L"n

by nypani

N^
byi D^'t'

nitt'n

pxtr Dipo

pra

'vn D^Jtro

Dm
bc'

abro nyio no^ya

nr^j

po

Db:;'o

bnn

byi |B>n

bv

nn'jt:^

nrxcr nvn paa nrb n^i

i?yi

D^B' pr3 nbc'o lyio nu^ya

bi nran

byi na':;*: byi na^::

-n'33

HEFES
pT3

B.

YASLIAH
bv iN

BOOK OF PRECEPTS
DIN*

HALPER
pr:
""vn

105
obcro nni lo

D^D'o

b^T]

n^no n

nyDt:> ni

nry^N n

bvi hb^j: ^yi

r'^i

nn^:3 byi d^jc^ pr3 d^jc'd

^nn

bvi fB'n ijy

6in

cam nb^
^yi n^^j;':

".pn ^vn
i3^^y

oki:

Dm nbv

p^:

d^c-d nyio

na^w

/yi

n^*m

nmn

p-x i^^n nivcn

'nu'C*

nn^inm
^^n"

.ij^nini n^stnc' D"'pv'7

nn

crntrya

ynuni
Titr

ymn

ny^^tTi

nncya

nv^'23

moNK' n

N^I nrn jora

njy^L-i

^pD3n

"innn nnnan hni niNi in nxi

nn''D

n^an ns nnni k^
:\:>
r\'c>b\if\

15

nn""

p D^bnn

nv v^yn

dji ^po'* i^^'rt

Dn'j'yn

nnb: n^an
iiyi
".ni{j>s3

pnn

onip n3:r
n^::'

D^ymx"
-13

:nnNtJ' i3 ,d^p n\T ^:^n n^anc^ ni^nnxn

>jn i:i
^n

'onnN

pny

n rix Nn3^>n 'nd^ nijnn

nat^'-i

m^D

n^
20

o^N N3^o

n^fTp iT3 ^3K

i^TN*

H^u ^y3T N"i33 Ninn^ H^j: N^^K^ "i"

Dip:

:nns

.T^N N3i' NJain

^2n ^N -iNon

n^

"'3

|\sn

xpn

vsnin'-a

nn xna:
n^'-c'
ni?

^ym

n-i3J "-wn^

nTnyv ^nok

n'-b

ncx

^rn n^oi? Nmc*-!

|b

n^^ ^r'npon n^i

nnn

^3^0

ini?

nih nhi^p in

nnx

ic>yi

^npn ^ryo -im n^yai njjca istjn ^ntlT^

my

ds*

25

5b
nyiD bna ba N^an^ i^npn 3'n
jn3ni
.ant:'''
;\'C'v
"iii'N*

"i3"i:i

iddw oniDNn
'jpr

nnim
n^c'cn

is

ins .icnt ^y nnn^

|n:i

ns*

myn

13ddi .nNt^n^ id
ni^

nmp
lan

bv 12CD

.D^oya

ynjj'

n3nan

"js

^x lonn

n3Tt:n ^y niopni .ni^iyn n3ia

dd' ^n

id^'' nni^ni

.mapn

nnro
5

nx N^^ni .nn^

n^D:i nn^ nD3i .1133 bv

mnvni vnvbi n^n

^wS*

DNi" :3in3K' 1D3

i)

.Dc^ fiic'^i .p'ln iSK*

^x

mnu

Dipn ^N njno^ )*ino

ii

|n3n N-inni

ii

yn

^:pT

13cdi

5i

riNDnn nyii:i
ii

y:i

^''

^jnie:'^

my b
v-i3i
lo

".:i

nan nx

x-i^fim

ii

na^

nt^'y

n^n

i?3

nsi

ii

mn

|oi

5i

fnsn ^3t2i

1D3 .D^uaiK'n bz* n:vi'yn nnsn i^b^ n^^'bi r\2m'n nhn: prnjo
ir

"myn

^:pr"i

"myn

'ry"i "^xiij'^

my"

irsi ^snc'^n

mnvon myn

ba-i^ niv" in^NC^

Io6

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

"131

D^y:r' nicK*^ id3

rn:
p^s

,nb nivo n^ niscn

fo

p^n

"nm

n^y^i" p:yi

".pnnu

ncN

fii;n

ns

-ipvb pn n^n

mn"
n-ir

:noNi

".n^3

mvo

Di^ynn-j^

n^

'r\^n

pims
c^^

ib\v

nn mina

m^y
""in

px nninn nnc' pN
invpo bunh invpo

minn
D^^pi?

niinn

m:

iidn ivi\so

pa'^^n

li'-'N

15

x'vii:n i?3s

mira

nat^

i:'^

niuD
::>

di>

njj3

dv

n"ovi'

by xan

i>3N

ninriD'cn i3N

mira mr may

iius

nunn
5-^

niBni?

*TnM ni::nD

nvpD

^23^
N^\s'

mn"
p3"'"'n

".eii:n

n^i

131 n3n n^yji

p3''n ^b^a

nn

-iiud

pN bin riDni
n^^n* ',^2"^

c' i^tsd p3^^n tb^a

nn

n:'po

w^pb^
i^y

3-ipn

3^n ^y

px

ij3s

min3 3^n
p3^"'n

^'<

D'^^-^b

3npn onn
tJ'"

20

noKi

'.p3^^n 1^-N
^''''

nn

D>r:^c'3C' ^1:2
:

^y n^^n
/'

ps bin niin3 h:D

"^'^

c^'^b

n^cn n^sD K^i

s^ ,jnT3
v^'y:

ni^'o"

noser

11:3

nivo i^nk' hdo |^n3n^

si)

niim ^3"

dsb'

Dn3n nrjy

"nr-j'yn
^'^

ncN"

in3ni

".pn n^3 ni:;^ n^i

n-j'iyn

Pn"

n-iioN-^ 103
n'^'iyn

Xm3

101^ "Jin)

nN

n"i3n^ 3"n nnis

hm
xi'-'x

,n:jL"3
p3"''n

DV3 n3S^D

p:3 Nin nn

".ns*L2n injr^ H'l rii3

unrir

"^31

^y

25

6a
n3"CDni .Dn3 N:fV3i
ni33-ip3 ab i'3x ^n-ir
i>D

ab'^ ^nyi

nD3
d:i nrn

)*Dn

bsni Dm23rT

rn3y n-ytr pip3

pip3 nvn^ nsnv

"ii3V

ijy

N3n ISO pin

ns-'co ;n3

ps ni3"v niJ3np ^31" niDNti' 103 ,nnnN

".ni3V3 ni3'CD -nc' "tcj

".in" "nu'3i ti'iXin ^y

xrasn 6n"

myi

".mi

.-n3y
"n:;'3

nTwi
rwrh

nivo,i
n3'-i:;i

it dd'cd" :ncxc' id3 .icion n"

id3 .hnt nicyij

Dnm-on my" :noKt*

nrnij

Donx myn
"jpr

"l*'kio ni-^j-i

Donx

nsirn ":si

".nr^r "in
:

hpr

n"3 pNi ":" "in

i3cdi .my3c^

"3^3

i"3Ei

n"iTD3 noiy n"n i?n: jn3 "

nos*^' id3 .mro

'sb

no'nu'n nyc'3

nnyiD

".pDM

"

"nb" :nox"j' ic3 /:iDvn n3icn "2^3 uhl"" "ism ".3-iyo

".niiTO L"k"^ pin" :r,ONr 103 ^Dn"ni:no

b^

pino

n:nr:^

pino n:i3i 10

^1

HEFES

B.

YASLIAH'S BOOK OF PRECEPTS

HALPER
ntryi

107

v^N ymn

nnxi .dc'ni nniDsn

fjy

nnmn

nnx njjcn

Non^
n'-n

s^k':

dn

/rN"i
i:n:i

VT* n^Di ,D^Dn nny Tyc'

imp

nx N^nn^

/nstan
idhe'I
15

iyixK3 iio
T'Dpni

pan
i's

np^i .n^iyn riK i3nE ntrs

nsij'^

Dipm

DN

."niD'

i3on nni:m .n^iyn nnro

,D''i'K'n

ninp by

iriNuniD

pan
is
ii

vl?y -1Q31
tbn^ N^t^'J

nnr nbna
3in2tr
nji3i
1123

nbn

ba

nNi

3i

pan
nr

npbi

:i

n^ t^di

ii

vbx ymn

tc^s "

/b h^dji

n'v: sin nT\s" mns-L:' i3

,ibi3

sm
'^

s^::'3

nb^n

".ii

ubn

b
20

nob^ ]V^b 61s sin jbnh .vnbs

niv

bo
s^c'j

nns

nc'yi
^'^

r^ i?T2n

yrba
vi?s

""^

sb\s r33

ijy

psu^

s^-^r^

ji^nb

niosn vnbs no vnbs

ns nsT^
vni^s fjs

ymn

is n^iai
si^i

'Wrha
"
:

^^

ab'a Y2i bv psK'

p mnsn
sin yTtr

iniynv:^'

vbs ynin
sbi

nosl^' loa ;nst:n2

imyn

insun
nnns

".Dnns

)b

nos^ nrs
s^:^'J"

vbs yiin 6ib

ibbn n^T:? 'h

nos

ib>ss p:o

SDH^

:nr2sc' 103 ,pb

Dup

sbi

,"]bro

invnn vbv nnin nrn pipni

sbi s^u':

in-^p

s^nnb

Tn

n^n csi

",i2Vi:^ sini sdh^-iT^

smi

s::n^t^3 25

6b
is-'^n!?

Tiv ^nnnpnc' mip ini^boo innnin

inin''*c'r2

"j3

nnsi

,ib?o

inrna nis

s-B'in

pi

"i3y hd

insi sunc'

n"'i:'D

p^"

tnosji' loa ,13

ins

".n-yc^ s''a
s''nnb

s'-c'JI

ns s^no

h'^k^jd

inbn:o nay is nnsi sunc'

Tn

^ini^!?^

nposK' ins n^ynb nsr^n

sunn ns sun ds bns

5

]3

"insi inin''C'?^D naytr n'-K'D

pa

"

ncsc' ids prnns pnp

ID

s''30 n'C'o jna

SDn

i3 nnsi inbnjo naytj' s'ir:n pi

sun

psn
bv

oyo nns ds

.IJDD n'tJ^lbnn n*l^!:n

ynin la nnsi

".uvnna
ntryi

s^tr^ni

^nsan vba

^nmosn nnnnn nns

nnyn

mr^io sun''

VT

10D1 .nsunb
bv lynvsa

n^'j'aan jd is
in:i

p
bs

nnpj i^anp

ns s^anb Tn
nns .ntrsn
10

nmp

nono psn
n:;'S3

.nbiyn nipoa untrn 13

,iniD^

noin

ns^n noin

idb'^ nni:ni

phyn

n3T

I08

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

n^DJi
]r(2r\

vb]} "1231

.v^y n^upni ^D^oi?c*n

pip a^n
"102

iriNon
ii

vba ynin
ii

"in

5i

jn^^'^
ji

^^^

"^^^'^ ^*^'"'"
21

""^

^'^^

^^^"
ii

^^''rissy

/b
ii

H' ns HDDi

C33 DN1
dj

n3/n ^d hni
'ti-^pn

hotd pan
ni^n

npbi
ii

it nx noDi

D2n n^o^n ^y

nam nm

".:i

nxi

6nn

mo

pan

rp^i
nr-ytr
i\s

15

,|n rra nxiina nenyn bin

n^Jin "
:

pn n-a nsninn n^ ,ivy nsnina

,n^
in*

noser iod

,1300

np^noo

'^n-^pn

nmn

D3n Tr:hn n\n dn ^nan

nnN yTi pn n^i

mn
p
n""'n

n\'T\s3

nios pn n^nn n^in

'ini

th

lovya

p
nhn
^y

pyo^^'^^

ny

pyoc>3

nsmn^

n^o^n in lyoc' nno

nnvj'ya 6ib

6/n
rr-n

n.t h^"- nn^a ^y ncyi

:'Tiyi

Tn>n i^m Noir

nijin

20

nny^ pi

nin"

".iiud pn

nna

i"n inxya

DiTD ^y

m^

n:;'yi

^"'^^^

i^m mina
vc'yi
isj'yB'

nmoNn
pii

niv ^a nnN
^B'ya^

nsryi iB'y k^b>

pm onnnN

nnoy ncyi

p3

7 a
jnani

^^o^ nx nn" )nsn nyo v-ianai ".pn n^an

n^jr^r *J3o

niDS

nr

nn

nvn "nna
D*3-i

nni::'ya"
D'tJ'JN

main

".n'k'j^

dis y^in nyn" :nNC'

im

.nin

'i'-in

nry dni

.in:'pD

n^ ,p-ip n^^y numc'

ib

ne^yon ^3 noi^
v^i'yi

^3 pN ,p-ip

Tn inw

nBnyni:>

nrycn

^jd

ns* n:rj^3

inyi^

cvs*

n3D N^yion N-jn" :nos-j'

im ^pip

N-3n^ nn-n ,inn> d^3

n^

.cno

ma

ab dn

d'.s*

mm"' n a^mo

-i>x t n':L" inis^^nn a^^n D^ain mL"-!^

'^'D ':n

x:o

pmua

D^atr iniN'':;ini ix'vin^

nns ha' i6u

's ^y eis
10

D'jc nvrsD nh nnvpo

n-j'ya

nH

n^a

rrj'ya

nnx nntrya pan i:m

pnih n^ca pTms*
b)y D^ann m::n!?
D^a-in nicni'

imx^yim n:p3 paniai DiD^pa pD3in

iniN'vini

-13-^33
IiT*

n^an

^j-

^jya nni-ya di^ 6^n pa^^n

-i

Ds DIN miH"
61N
pyn-j* n

cain

nvj-i^ imx-'vini

mipa

pmua

ix^ dni paNn d'ju* inis'vini in^vw^

D^rj-

nnN

bia'

ab

*T3S: na^

pniDS

imN'Vini iN'yin^

nnN ha*

n^l" 'a bv ^IN 15

||

HEFES

B.

YASLIAH
nii'Dn

BOOK OF PRECEPTS

HALPER
n^m

I09

nwo" nxm

viaTi ".jmua itryc

d^jc'

ncrytj' n'n>

nna^ya

.DNrn n-'L^nnn mvD^ nimipn nivn tic niNnn ncNJu*

i6

'\m

nm

ny^yi

ndhb' '

.liDD n^sj'K^n

mv2:n

B'SJ

DN1" tmnsc' inD

^1^

n^DJi )r\::^ bv vbv isai .jnan

ba n^a

]2'ipb

,^3Kn ^rD '^^

vjsi? vny' c-'N^

np

njjcni nrn

Dn nfND

VT' ab)

DHD nnNo bsi

^nnit: 'X'm

tidn dhd ins

7b
ix

;n3 |no irx ^y yT

xh

jno nns* ^y n31 fi^m imnsi inc'N vntr is ;^3N

^niDs jorn in

inn prn nnix

i^^wX

ntj'y

nx

yn**

nIji

naxijo ntry
:

imnsi

"int^'s*

ijax fnn nT"'N

yn^ pxi jno nnx nx

nntr
Dt^'^*

vi^b pu>i n^n

"

\'^^i^\:^

ins
ir^y

nt^y niD

nn

jjc'

jnn nrxn yiT" pNi ;nD

nnsn

jjc

nnn

nxi "/i^n

n"'3D n^]3 \nj2

nfNi

yiT" pxi

pD nnxa nas^o

ma

iJinr

^y

\^y'''nt>

nm

"

ncNc
i5in

i3 /i^n nc's

pip

ipso bv^ riNun

pip

riNun

N"'3JD

ibn ^aisn

xa^y ^

/"i^n

Dtrx ipso

nsun

in:ic bvi

3^n

i'C'

naTin .D-y^D

':u2

'ibn db^n n"'3

i3''xi

^3n i6 pao ^3n pdd y^joa

i'::'

N-'nn
)b

bx

iHD irN ynv

1^

into

nns* riN ^3X nni: nc'a

N'^nnc'

nDTim

10

yiiyj' IN

NDHB'

n-inn

pnpn nx

nns

dni "/i^n db'ni

D"'3nv

nxun

nn

^D-i^

n3

p-ipi?

mainc nonnn
ijp^i

nt3''^t^'

nx ins^

ndh i6^
nyn did

nnnpn^
1^

mnx

nonn .T-mn

nr ^'''nco

nar^ni .nyiriky

yni: in

ndhc'

ib

yniJ hd -inNi ^i^n

dcn

N>3?:n"

:noNC

it23

,nmj pnp

nyT' 61N D3ni i^nd i

.1i)!:2:

nm

-nyn

nyn^i nv^

ncy

hjd

Non

n^c' 15

n^y^nSJ^n

ni^Dn
^jn

".na-:^

vm

i!?3^i

-i^d^ 3NnD^-c ny

jnan

N^an^ ca^n

m? maya

nacn

my

dn

no

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

.ns:n^ any n^yri pzt^rD^ idd:i 'inn:i nSy^ na

nixi3 in3Tn 133

".ii

my

^53!?

h^dji

ii

;n3n 1331

31

nyn

^3'yD

dn

20

msno
D^3 ]brh

nxrn

mvon
no

dji

;mn3D3 n3no
]brh "losr.

sinsnc' "ii &>

my b
W3

dst"
,0.13

miosn

my

my

my p

ids:

"

ncNC'

njiirni

".nxiin^ pixn D^3 vr,"^ ty

din

p nmosn my
nn3inn .N'h

sjx

ns-iin^ p'iNn

3in3n

mr m3y3

nns" :Dnn3n nm

nr ijy

mr m3y3

nsTn

8a
DN n'm 61^ n
irsi
ibbn

min3B> nisnn

^jso

nnN3

Ni>'s
ii

"i:*x

ix -i3id
-j^yo

novy

^353

mosi

ir

mvo

3in3n in'*
r\)':it2r]

y:

myn
"

Ntann csii qn

^:^f2

n'ywn
n3
ry

mr m3y
n:3t3
-iq31 5

.nNi2n^ nni::'
5i

3npn^ n3^n mr m3y3

n3:::'3

Ntsnn

nnx
^j'

c'23

dxi" :3in3B' ic3 ^nb rho:) in3n iT^y

".c^n L"33n
"
:

n\T jjitrn
i>3

nrn njc'onB' nn3inni

e'SJ

^y |n3n
hit

isjsi

i>b33

nn\n

mr m3y ^2 Nunn nns

i^yc
x'tr:

cni

nnmi nm
nn

m3y3
nivon

n^3i n-jD

m'-yu' ix n3B'3 n^^jy n^3d n^n^ne'

ny3p3 pn^i n-^y T'onn^ n^i>3n ns^sio 3in3n

13 |-kuo pi

moNj

"13^

nsanb

nnjB'

n3

ry n'bv

ps^3D

n^t'oi

N^tt^j

n^nM
".ir

i.t:;'

10

.HTtrnn
cvj' IN i'23m n333n

n"iX/t2n

.x-na

ns

S'B'h^ njB-'o

n^ psi

2::

l"'s

ds

PM DNi D^B^

Q^U' "

3in3i;'

103 ,333:^

Q^-j*'*j'

'13 -i3onb Nin

mxp
133

,n'ijy3^
".ii
i!?

njpn *3" 1311X3

-!in3

p'sdo -iix3 nxrn ni^rsn

nx

13->X3

yrn

'11X3

io^c'3

.|X3

-i3T i^3rn^

^iv

i:^

pxi /3C'n

ison
jo nc'y
'n-kT

n'*j*Nn3

"3y nsy
nivon
*3B'n

15

p^nn
mt3V3K' 'D

.nrn p^n3 n^yo^ n3T3C' nivon

mry

nnx

nivo

pn-j'

.130^ n*3Cni niltTNnn

".31

.nryn i6 nivD

bh3n 13do
nn'ry

cen Ntann

^3

L"33r' n'jna3 m3T3-j' ,na*xn

N^nn^j

HEFES

B.

YASLIAH's BOOK OF PRECEPTS

i6" rnmDK' id3
,r\:)ib

HALPER
p^
n'<b]}

III

IOB> iT^y n"^'

n'bv

Q'ti'^i

nps^ idsj

rbv

p^

Ci'^^b

"b

inio .innnpnc' onip

dni

n^nh pa'
"lacD

nrn ]2-\pn bv

nmp mn^ rby n^

.innpn^ invc' no

nnpnK'

nns

Nine' *J3D

n:n^ T-c^an 'jm n hndh

'3

61^

i?n

^oa

mu^

ina

nx

b)2'"

8b
pN .T^" :p
na

ptya noNi

".mp^^ ^n^ pSB'

i?^^

lOK'n fjD^si

nup^^ ^3'
|ni:

^jhan ^ynnn p^nn

imxn

d^c'3

".nn^e^ ^y Nin

jnia

nm

n^br

p pn

hSd k^k^ nnnD' m^an

^^

^^nnn -ison

nnpnS

pHiS yni^

"ii\^sr

by

hn^ niDxn ^mii nniiS

n^n^pn

nni^n Sy nijnnp

,Q'pbn ns'^K^^

nip^mn
ono
1)^'^-]^

nam

pxi ni^nnn

n''siion
i'i'iD

ntmpn
pti'K-in

lann nivn mrry n:c5r

iji?D

n^xo

-iB'y

ono

:DV^n

^Jtri?

mpi'm jm ;nrn jon

nixD njctr
n*vv31
i^ijis

jnvtry^
,nc:'y

nm-ipn
:nvi'n

-lana
^at'fj

nivo ync'

^^5^3

^jk^h

p^nn
|nit:'y^

.nc'yn

si'

^JB'ni

mp^ro

jni

jnrn

prn

nam

psi ,r\n

pnn
i?b"i3

jd D^N'nian

lo

.ntryn n^ ni^'o Titr

^^5^3

:)::^ii

n-^y ni:in C'nn

ni^^^y

dhd pc^xin
'B'^^s^'n

,nT3 NVV31 ^niB'Sjn 'snyi ^D"'D33n

ci'B'i

-imn nivo

nns
:

^i^D

p^nn
|ni

HK'y ni^o jno

u^n

^niVD n:oc ^bi3

^jB'ni

nno pB'Nnn

n^pi'n ^jb*^ nipi'nj

nninB' nK'y ni:;^ b'^b'

^^3

;nTn

jdd imcy^ nnin pNB'

c'b'i

.nB'yn

n^j

nivo
15

pjyj^^in

pSnn
Din

*I15<1

.mvD

a'^^b^ ibi

.Dipni iot ^33 jniry^

n^y

ni!:!3

pncj^

nivDn ntry

niitrxnn m^f^n
nhy mpni? manon

pNB' Q^on n3r N^nn^

m^D

"ipnn |o

112
icni Ljnc^

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

p-nns
.vby -^22^
it:'^^

^y

''*''

1cd id -irn

.nyio

^j.-in

^k

.vnnjij nn:>i db'D' id

nnx

.nyio

b^a nns ^vn t^n naron bv n*3D pin

DK"

:3in3B' 103 ,0^03 vviai 13-ip

ji

nx
ji

ivn-ic'

nns
iodi

n3Tn
5i

i^y

1^3

finij^^

20

isnyi

ji

i:n:i ji

ts^rcni

r nx
nns ba

p3n

i:3np n^y

D^3npo"^ ny3 Dtr nvn^

in-^3

ini-j' d'3130 "

ii

" v-i3n

".ii

vy-131 13-ipi

bv ^3'

mis

PD13-J'

nc^JD

ims 3np> "

noNB' io3

.iNDty p3i nr^B'

p3 W3np nx

9a
"
ji

sn D'Ni

ijy

n^ iddi

"

msn

poyi

"."-ix

n)i)'i

iox'B' ny inx

psn nvrx3 xn

nx-iJi" V-I3T n:i3i

".pumt' p3DiDB' Dip3" :noxB' i3 /nhr xb ^nn^cn

c'jy

mpon

3in3n

ij^

lorn

xi?t:^

nt'y nivo

m3y

bv nna3 "1^

;in3

x"ii-3i

",n'i*>v Dni' iB'yi"

",npyo

n^tryi" pJ3 ,n''^y n3iyn

p:3 ,njpni .njpni? t^sxc' nc'yn x^ nix

,jn3 XXV31

ni3y

!?y

.-nssi 5

"p

ny cjd
1^

iTmn

x^ji" ",ji h^bti ni'K'

ai

D^J3n ^y

nxn npn nh"

bv

ncxn dx

nvn: mpr:n

no
D^?2C'

1^

nvij

Dipon*;:'
rr'S

noijo" :ni3 next' 103

nn'-o |iT^y p3^nc'

D'D'j
^,^^-u^

nu m3

n-3 nn^o pn
iB'ay
^r^'ki'

Dn3i
nip!?D

DipDH no ^y niox
".HK^y Dip Dn3

nn

niot^'xi

nixDn D>y3-ix

D^BTi n-iS3ni

n:ryn xb nii'o ^yi n-cy nivo ^y 10

IciD nvT>x3

"

ns'ODn

1^3

dji nr3

n!oxc> id3 ,vt tdhi minn^'

nnx

Vinp

TTj'

p3 VT'

^ntr n-:!:!

3nyo3

v:di 3nyr23 noiDi 3-iyo3 vjqi

pDV3 noiy n3T

n3T

b^

)'!'in

-\2i

n'n

xh
^jy

ir

!jy

ir

vn^ n>JD n-n

xh

nrnn

"33

^y vn> n^jo

hm xh

DK-x

nx^n

I'w

nxun

^y m''3y py

vi^y

minci nwipb on^ p3

nr^^'n

*DV n

n3n
|n3

^ni cn^ pxw' nx^si nn3cn

t'-''^:'

up^ py n^iy ^y

py 15

iicx

c':y

Dn3i

n-iS3D n^iy no ^y n3'py i

ix "b^^an

ni!m
jnsb

byi

nry nivo ^y

msso nhy

no

ijy

miox

inbtr n-j'yn

xb

Tnn

:noinD "un-kri" n^oi

".nti'y

Dip fns c^t*

nryn x^
-IT^

Dn3y31 Dni31

D"J'i3 nTJ'3 ^533 HD'HtT "

ncXC

103 ,t2nr^

DJ1


HEFES
B.

YASLIAHS BOOK OF PRECEPTS

pyji:

HALPER

II3
20

D^NJDDn vn^
^5

ab^ na^m D'^ip >^ip2

i^^dxi D^K^Doni

mn^D

nxTn

mnyn^'

ddjid " n

D''jn3n
i^"'ni

pns
"

''J3

nnpni

"

mm

^3n ".nK^ni
.D-jnsb
".

^533 nijj'i

HLD'^ntj'

^Jix ^njna

niv

nbpo
dn

nnxty loa .onr^ x^

D31

^omi

mym

ntrx nnron jnp ^y

mn

nrc' "

t^d " n^n n:m

mx

:myi

".yn-is ina'

m^no

"nt^"

tnoNt:' iod ^mroi n^^^ itrx

ppn ^y

9b
".T3D niJno
iNivni
D''J3*ini

yn-^N p''D2n

nvrx^

N*n

ipnn 01^

6^n Dina

i3a''p^

Sa"-"

nn'-m B'snn oni ^D"'nn^o onns* D:oy "vnn:^ ims* nnji"

inmi

unui B'Nnn nx

nmn" niDse'

id3 .o^aT-m

mpni

33ni

nrnm o^i'nm

1^

x3

ii

n>30^^ jonb n!?y !?n ^d:

:i

ii

nrnn
1^

nx
X3

hu:
ii

ii

D"'3-ipn

nx

bn:
1^

ii

nanin
:i

".i^ n^^sDii'n

]>piy^

n^^NJOc'n

jsn^
i^a

xn

ms^
i3-iyi

one's D^vyn ^3

"

noNii' id3
^K'l

.jsji

nn

^^yo fin

,m^^

D^vy

B'sn
^c'l

by

^y ^5n nJN
jxxn |D n^iy

n3xn

^jcr

niianon D>^^n i^n3 ^ns*

Oitt/b

fs:

nn

i'K'n

I'm

nnpn^ minnn
i?y

H^JK^H ni^f/bH

".]^^
10

nnrion ti^

dhb^'

"ja

nnx

,d"io

n
nx

px ne'N o^on lai N^nn^ ^1^w

13 nn5<

.3''3D

nsron bv

im

riN n'':n3n

pnx

33

ipnn

.^"'''

^jq^ hjiqv

jNxn |o DX1"
103 ^nnn'D Dn3^<

:3in3tj'

103 .vyisi
p^yi
".Ji

mp

i^fniB'
ii

nns*

fiic'^i
3i

vnn:^ nn:^

"nn:i"

D''yi3m 3-ipni
''izhiy

inN nn^i

tann

5i

^p

1D3 DniN ^bv 13

inN .nxrn nivon

ni^'D3

iniN33 n^yo^ inDxc'

ijy

".Dnmn^!?

Dmn:

i^n

vnnai?"

:noNC' 103 ,n3TDn

ne^

15

.nsTon ^y iniN 3np"' jnsni .njvn

':3

in

cninn
icj^nt

| N''3ni' nixo
pijo""

nnx

n3Ton i-p ^y
jB'nn Dipro

im

nvo''i

nnrion

i^y

n'-Dp^'i

hn

13 nnx
T'D.ic'

^n ncnp nsrcn ^vn inix

yb^'')

.nyi:ni

nNion

bv

^^VT^

DN1" :3in3B' i3 ,n3ron ^y n^up^i

i:no^
",ji

,i^^i3^

^b) vsj3 yDty- 13 ins*

ai

20

3npm" insno
A'OL. VI.

33 inx

yotj'i

ii

6 ns tdhi
n n:vn

psn nnpni

:i

loy^'D |3ip^ nT'iNi nmnsK'

nii'njnK' " p

^j3

in
I

omnn p

114
ntia- N^
Line n:vn

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

3\-ivni5

D.TN10
lo

/^nn-

i-j'N3
nI^i

n:vn

^:a

^as

;3\n^fnb jn-N-iD

^n

sh

njvn

'33

oninn

oninn

p" moNB'

ids ,pnp!?

lo a
':3

'HD'N i3'nx'BTo

in'j's

jmn
n^<

'nD\y nnc'i nrnc' mn^^'n n^nn^

m3-i:n n^: nx -jnn^c "15^x1

,eii:n

p^di" n:i3i ".nNTi-^co p^idq njv

nr

|o

c'xin

nx ^jnan^ invi .insva

^3

.tac'im

njpn

oai

.iiynv

pbiD Nin

sjiyn

nxuna

p^iDC' oc'ai

nnx nn

ix

nnx nnp^bo

nxTn nsxi^on
pp^iD

'-j'p^i

".^nao

n^n ciiyn nhyaK* x^^x ^iiyn n^Jiya

ni^j'p

nvrxs"
'n:>*

:n-ioix

xnaDinm

".t^'npMC'
''jc

nininyr: in"
'j::'

:nDx
nxDn
^^^1

vmyavx
irxi

p3 n^bn ^nc vniynvx

^"i?3d

pn nisj

fni:

n^yn

nany

pisv^ pho

n\ni

vniyavx ^n bv nnxiv nnra

-i-'p

13 nnx

an

ix

nnx

r\nD'<n^^ niy^) naron

^y

nono
IX

nrni

^nao

10

.1J/!2D
i3'nnn;i i:nn3i

n^^^nnn m^^Xsn

^'.nnx

nn

nnx nnp^^o

li^niDnm irnncy^i u-'nan ij-nihy

:

x^an!? i3x D^^vp

nou' nx3i ic'nnn i33C^ "

^pni

ainsc' loa ^nn-cn oipcn

^x

i33xxi
".ji

inpn nni33i

nonn

nc^yts^ psn^

" DSTini^yo " ni^on

y hdb'

onxam
103 15

ncyo nnxi nona T^yo nnx

-inno ainan nn:i'y '<y^2"

moxB'

13 nnx
".3i

.''

'iDi?

Dnix

5i'3n^

nrnn nxi 3^nn

:3in3C'
in^
"ir23

nx

vn''3

x>3n^ ni>;c

|n3n

TDp.m

ii

c'x

nx nix'an vt"

,n3Ton bv si^nn nup^

^^n fn3nc' ^^33 n^3p3i

,n3i3nn nyc'3

pnpn ^y3

n-

nnn
n^

n'lra

Dnv
:

'th^

nvn^ nsnv n3i3nni "."'Hon

x*3?3 i^Sro "
:

nnn it

n'3o ;n3"

mcxr
n^^n n

u:3 20

nDxi ".nniD n^yn

ncx:;' in3 ,i3'03n

n^arn-j^- D"'r3yt:n i?''3c*3 ^d'31v;'

i^c ninnn:;'

^jzb

xnci

i^^id )3nv n
^b^y

ex X3X n3
D^r::^^n:^

ex"

DN ninn
nivy^

'3n '3nD

N3nyD3

)'nxni

*o^

nmei n^ye

n3

x'3r2i i^^io

n3*3n

13 'dv n ex X3piy n3 xen n

HEFES

B.

YASLIAH'S BOOK OF PRECEPTS

HALPER

II5

10 b

liDD

n^SJ^Srn

ni^an

".o^y-i

a^bbt^ -nvy^

n3

nn',Di

n^yo
ijs

niy-i

nD3n 3^nn nxi pn^n nx n^^b^

^''^Ipn D^E^aan

pi jNvn

nnp^

dmvd
ns'

cboan
:i

i?yi

j.T^y na^N n^nni

:

m^bni pnpn ^y

ne^s n^nn

nw
nv^an

pipn
ijy

rb^trn

naro nnpni "

niriDB'

im

,nnrn ^y nnis* T-upn^ .naan

".ii

nnnvni
Tic'

3cyn co^t:' p-ip

t^niK'
it

nx

ion ]n2n

)'\-^i2pn^

ii

nxi

DK1

;]2'"\pr]

na

inntrno n^Dis ^ncryoi tid3 xks* n^i^b^

^:Tii'^

na n^DiQ

inn^i'no

ps p'^^b^

i^nc* ,Tki'yDi

"1132 luntj'

nyn p*cn

p-iK^a n'^bi:^

nic:^5?

pnct;* ic^yoni niaan"

niDNtr loa ^pnpn

Dit:>^

vby vn^ -]DD N^i

".i-T^y

^Jt^'

pnpn ^ya nxi

^y

"/lai

pn^'t?'

co^cn
i^n 10

i^D i6^

'3

fix D"'0^5^n"

:ncNB> id3

,!?ids

wb^an) n'^2:in oy I'lpnb

^3^
;

ux

d^ivo

OJ^D n^^lt^n m^^n

,nmji omji m^iy n^nv .onsni
^D^:im-n 5^r\
\:r\^
,])'-\\yv

pK'i pi
t'

n^D pni
^pnn
I"

Ni'1^31

pd

.cjitDj-n
;

untj'
pt^1

n"'y^n-i

p'-i

U22
1^3
"ish 15

]''

1123

pnn

n''C'''^tj'i

n^D o-jncy
^-ni

t^:'

^'xh

p''
;

DJT'B'yi"
b-iNb
IN*

isinaK'

ma

,p^

103
p^i
ji

pci'i
-ip

p^

pnn

n^D
ii

n'-jnc^y

nub^
^^i?

ji

n n^y^3n idj^
|3

anpon 3npni
nt^yn
^31
ai

nar is nfjy

nc^s
nc^yn

pM

ii

p3n

^y 3npni

:i

y p3

j3

^b'

idj^ p^

ii

nNi .Dm*p^
n^iy xb^x >b

N^JX m3T^:^

nn

b^ nam

dj^x D^3Djni "ji pnn ^vn nojb

d^e^'x^

nnpn

px

n^iy i^ jb^n D^3Da

iij\s*

lyt:^

3npn

^jx ycis;'"

:ij^nim
pjo 20

nx

x''3Di

nx

x''3d

yc:^D nar

Tb)b

6^n

D''D^::'n

nx

nmb

n^xnn D^^rnp x^x

^mcx

x^

nann

ix -n: x^si? 61^

i^-'x

n^n

dk'xi

nxon

nx3n nam nhy nx x^3oi

D''!'n3

nx

x^^*i yroc'c

naim

mn

nx3n nam nhy nx x-an^ D3nyi3

x''3di

ix ix xinK'3

n^bnn

nx3n nam nxt:n nx

xi'^

D''^n3 nx3n

nam
nti'yn

n^iy

nx x^3d yoc'o
rbii?

^bn

^^^ npi

n3r ix

n^

-ip3

oi

rbi^n

n^^na

25

H6

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

II a

pyoi

n2'^:2'\

mn
DL"tSi

N3 wnc'

'^p2n

no bb^n bv

no^^i ^^an

nvio

nrsw'
.11t:!3

nxun ixy cddj

pyto

nm^i -n33 N3n b^ id d^ddj

n^::'

n^r^^n niXDn
^Q'u^p vnc'
IN'

".d^^dj ijyu^

nmii

mn

o^sa

^niDiotr D-'Dia "-^ya

vn minnu' jNvni npan dn

xin

uiS"'^
:

.nr

^^3:;'3

vi'nc nns* nx "nri

^noioc:'

iDnnc 'o "ynB>"

'o

bio^ni ^inc'n "

nosL" iod ,vb"iD

IS'

nnx

nr ^ntJ'n nniji v-ina' ivianjc:'

15103

i^n

".nr])!:

vmDn^o nnxc'
ynt?'"

idt* hddb'jc'

hnty inPN

v^n

niD-iB D)bp'\ :nr

33

13T

nt3o*Lr:t'

moxsi' i3 ^nionn

in didh i>n3
Diofj

nitai^P"

nsan
^is*

6in tiD^nni ".-iion^ nion vi?n

'i'b'iv'^

nims

men

10

".jpnm
:

^y
,n''3n

]V2 ab'^a

pno

i6^ j^'jyn oti n^

ndd 31

noNC' 103

pn3^ n'on n^yvi nn30''B' " x nt'yn n3i: " v-i3T

pxi n^3n pnsi* n3nj nc^y

nj"i3i

HB'iy

nnx

nnx inx inx

ne'yn n3n3"

n3iy n^3n pi3^ D^o'^on c^npon

nox

p^o n^3n pn3^ D^con

'^^t^y3 15

p-ipn

n>r\

ds-

.1^^^

H^'^rin n1^fa^
mxp mj
".ii

DX1"
ny
"

:3in3t' 103 .innnoh i3npn

x^i " 001 ^3x^ in3r

dv3 mix ^3X^ xin dv3

" nox::' JV3

ix n3n3

10X

nx
inix

'a''^pn
i53xij
,']2

nsnj ix -n:
",-ip3

pt'xin Dvn

]l:'03

nnio ,min p-ip3 ioxk' 103

nnxK' "ip33i
'B'^^tr

103 ,xinn npan nnx:;' n^^^3 x^i

'Jtri)

,mno
bx^

^>^3i ino^ni*'^

i>3X3

D*n3r
''i^b

nnx

ovij

^3X3 D^n3r xin

eix
i:\s*

pi

*iix^

^13'"
n^nsr

moxu^
no
d*o*

ao

ii''!'

xn^ D*D^

p^3X3n n^nsr
iixi' ij3X3

innx

n^^^

nnx Qvb pbxjn

oii?

^3X3 xin Dv ny dv ny

b^n vinx
"/c^^c
ei'-Dini?

mm

p-ip

3npDn

,):t2f2
"'P^5-l1

nn^t^yn nivDH
nih^3 nivo
nii'n vi?y
nii5ni

;oc'a

nivo

^'i?

nii^ni

|0K'3

m^i^3 ni?Do ni33-io

loc'a ninie'o

nixo

HEFES

B.

YASLIAH'S BOOK OF PRECEPTS

HALPER
:

117

lib
bp^D
" ji

"f'cn

Drh ni^n ^y

ii

np''

min

^y dn "
nn-'i

2)ny^ idd

^)'cn

nnb

niVD ni^n Djnc^ ,D''mn

o^jn^'y

mB'y
ii

p2nr\ nrh
^p^p-ii

Drh

nii'n

^jy

"

^-ir^i^-^

loa ^n-'JiT^y m^^'y pi n33-iD ni^Di

nivo

mcy
;"ii
'in'ip

ni^iD 'IN niiHB'y n-iB'y '^on

no

n^;D N-'nn f'an "UJa 'f*Dn

.DHD nnx ^30

mcy

mc^y
no

DVPini

ni^nni ".nun'^y

b^D

nns* ijoo
.nTk^'yo

nnpm"

r-ioxjc'

nr^ n^x-im .o'-ynnN "^na^

obi

ini^3N^
NJ1
'""b

-iN^^'jni

nnx pbn ijn^ "nan ^nonn lann

""inn

im^

N-ipc dictd
.v^^ya

nonn p
nns

"idkj
ir

noa yiv

""j^s

^''^

nonn" moNC' im
-i::'yon

^in

mc-yo ins ic'yon

nonn no

nonnn nonn
10

nar ^y anpni di^ rb^n

ma

p-ip n^\x

nb
po

in-

ah" rnoNi ".nnc^yo

oini

non^

a'ir:>:

-'i?

nonn pip
jnwi

i'ao

nnN lioo nnpni

^dij

minn
^e>

pniTn jna^
:i^ 'vn
N'l

wk'

jnai'

yaiN

m^n

o-yaiN*

nmn

jDii-n

mm
pc

".D-^yn^ ^3nj
ib

"iN*k:^ni

n-n- )b c^b'^^n

nx

inj^

p-

n-yuii mini'
i^c^

-vn"

mox^'

i3

p-Jinam

o^c'on unc'

ni:ion ni'^y

miNn

D^Jtrj

"/roo

niro^ naSn ni:b

mj pnc

dv

15

mm
voi'B'

pip

naiii?

moN
i'tt'

.i:^:^:

Hil^Nnn HI^^H

.inta-ntr di^

mnro
:

npan

mnD

ny -ican

n-nini?

innn-

--ij

mm

nar

itt'ai "
bi:^

aimc' i3 ^mnno

i'-i'ai

mix unpn ova ubsn-r

j^i?"
i't^'

ijax

n^J^pn

b^K

;n^-i?n

n:nnNn mn-k^rDn "npn ny uoo

idj ^nivn

idid's n:i3i ".ii

-iidns;'
i?i53J

20

Nin

biN" mcNj:'
DiNn
niDN
riN

nnx mij-^N^

rijDni? )b

p
3n:i>

pmnni?

na

nivn ny rbnn

noN

no!?

p dn

Mn b
".m^ayn
\2-\pb

.li^X:

n^iSrn ni^iDn
in

IX n!?3^ r\b]}2 IN

nvnn
12 a

niuc

in nniy njnc'

nona

N^
103

ns)^''

IN 2"iJ IN

n^T

IN

pnn

in -iuk' in

miy"

:3imc' 103

^nsb''
"/'i'
:

in

mj

^n^ryo

nnN3 nNOiDi

n-j-y

mtra nxoiD

i^ji^D:

"miy"

nbon
pn
"

n pn

noN'C'

"

Il8

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

mar-:::' n^'s 'b

pN ijn

^3t^

ix n* nnc' noxic' ^d^ rbi^ ibbn

hd nnc^ "

nr:NC' idd

"pin"

n:i3i

".inK' is b)b

thn

22tr\

nac'

mm!?

i^jd

i^n

in

n*

3p:c' py /K'

)*nn" nncNB' ids .pnoji

^b c'^c'

djs^c:' npatr

py

on

iNivnty ^^N3 nib^

nr

'D'^'

^d
p:yi

"nb^"

pjyi
i'ya

".pnojc' \s Djsr^ in

mj"
nnin
it

rncxr' icd

^n!?

3-1:

"nn:"
.ij'T

".nb^

ni" rnDNK-- 103 /n:

ir

nth'" n-^owsc

iroj

an: a-inv hn-iji .nnm

"ns!?*"!

".onnn
10

niTj'sn nv^nan is\'c: dsi

^i^jani

plan

dud

nvpD nn

!?ibni

pm ".nn^Dn

pi Dnxn xn^ns n^ji

nb^ xn" mtsxty

ids ,jnix on d^^did ]2ipb

n^r]22 nbi' noxj x^

ht!?

Dnx3 x^jm
nr!?

mno
nx

'sb^ sj^^d
jn''!'

ncnnn XTna x^n

!5i!?3ni

nn

ii?2xn nxi

nia "iioxn

pjD

pi

-ir:xj
di!?

x!?

n^'yc!'

ijnxnw'
^Jcr

no

-n33i

".nic' niTJ^ n^b' na^'- anj 2-13 .ijoipoa

ibbn
15

.ni^cn

HK'C'i

D^K'^c'n

1^02

nnnx

D'-r^y niyi

nxrn nivca

niyr-'i

"

ainac^ loa

;\:)r\ii2

ma nai

nit^'yi'i

^nnnai npin:i nninai naiy^

".ii
ji

.njDtt p!:n xv^i nn:j^3 nci^rai nDyDn^B'

nona "niyo" pjy

ix

ninai

.ic^mi isyDJi DD
,i30Q
"iTj

liT'^jy

iDtrtt'

vvn

ipninc' *d

"nina" djdi

nvpQ mart;'

"nn3"i
j^js

^Vi^^Tk^^o

it: n-i3:c
^"lyo1"

"pin:"i
im

20

D1X *Dv n miiT' i

nrn p:yn

nm

n'-vun

miai

pin:i

mnai

:noxt;'

mxa nx

n^!?B':i

".T':3
nit^'y!'

nnai
niDxi

Pin:i

D^^'nn ninai niyo

-b

1D3 ,Dnnx

D"n

i^yaS

mx^
t))b

nrn

-ima
p:D

m'^vi 1^02
xi5\s*
^^j

nonm

rmoix

xnsDinni

".d3V"ix2

rb^n

Piiyi

n^n m2r]2

px" rnoxt'
D-iDon

12

b
nx

D'iop P31 D'hn: p3 nisiyn nxi n^nn nxi nrinan nxi onxn

nx
inoiii
".:i

3^'n

onain nx oic^n cix mi.T i 3^n

nr

nn map:
n^jroai

p3i

onar pa

;nn xvvai

xmo

)*-ix

d: n!?b:

"Davixai"
^^a
i^?

".-iiud ni3p:n

D pnxi

'jy -i^at' p:;'yn

ab"

".:i Tivti'

\nn

crnon

d^dd:;'"

HEFES
)^r\ i6
JDi^

B.

YASLIAH's BOOK OF PRECEPTS

\"\i6 nvinn

HALPER

19
Jir:))!:))

tbn pjo

pxa

n^''n

"b

pi?"

tnrsNK' 103 pr\b

".ii

b^

hJ2)

mir

pnN

s'-nn

i6"

:nin3'^ i3

pb

Tnroi miT

pnso

p-ip

mnyn

b
p

pnx
D3 xin

njir

pns

^^^^<

>!?

pN" :nnxi ".dhidn d^3 hnd

lij^sNi

10

pnsn

piNi

".nipo

bo

n^ii

pnx Nun xb
k'-'K'

rbi^

n^n p:o

,M'J2

nniN
'm

^3p''

Nirn i^^'s p^nc' -i^L^a nnD-c^ 1^

^^fx nnns::^ p^ni nr n^t: i^

nnn^ dhn
"idinh "

-idd^:^
:

nona

WN

liiK

nay

nh nan^
t-hdi

nt:NK' ina

,3^ nnn

n^npn^B' nnn in^D

D'l::'

ab

".priK dix roam

ip^nc' psniB'

pnx
""Ji^i

^mDom
Nin
psniti-'

D^p^n

''i^b

a!?ai

dh^c dw^ld
a^an

15

nPN"
pi nr

n-iDs::' loa ^n^jba

n^

t6^ n:vn -iDxn

ab nnn

nr

nbn

"i^

xn nan^ idinh a^a Tna

nnxi
n-iti>y

p-nDx

ab

njjac^ a^ai nyc^n ^Dii

^oi: nns* ip^nB*

Dyc^i
^^i?

N'-ani

^nsrn mvr^n tsn

,1^
s*i?i

nti'yt^'

'di

".pnmo a^a
ai^a

pnx pan

-un"

nncNt:' iDa

nnio

^n:iT

TnDi

pnx
njir

inan--

20

nn^ii

".nyans
:

o^j^r ic'

pnnio

nn'^ycf

n^nci

ab

piniD inTinh
N>yin^"

"

nnN-ir loa ,pnp^

^^

nnnia

ai^a

T'nra nin^ii

pnxn

mj
rn'-^y

b^

ynbti
fjiyn

n-'a

iiKaa

noNi
^ab

".p'Tiniji ab) on^JK' dj jb'

n-ia^

n^ntj'

ns* N-ian^ nij

nxa n^^NC nxun niD

25

p^n a^a Tinci pnx pN |na ^did Dinntr pc'npion noi pna

13 a
rb^n
p'-ijy

p^n a^a T-noi pnx xn^ N^tr pi

i:\s ia ijDis

Dif:n pN::> fiiy

.i:}^^
nrn

nV'^SJ^n ^l^f^^

".^lyn ns-

N^n^

-nj bi? bi^

si"'^nn^

lann
n^in

n^'y: dni
f^^bnn

.nnns* nronaa anpn^ njainc'

".:i

nnna n^mi?i
"iroa

-iidn

m3n
:

^ti'

nx

dn

nx

^d^

xh

i:s^^n'

x^"

:ainatj^

/^

p'riB' n3^\nn

inoN::' loa .c'np

nmion

n\nn i6

mionn nx

f^^^jnn

ns pi

a'np

imiDn

n\nn i6 5

I20

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

^^yni

po^o '^ynn i^o^jon"

r^'can

moxtj'

im

,D^on2 did ^ya f\''bm^ ^s ^y

sis

1D3

,\y^'^'r]^

".ty-ivn

nx

m nm^ ain^n nm^ no^ "icn dni nc'sn

n3tj>

''nn^
^i^bn^

inn dxi" ".pn^cna piD

nro^

ns nun^

non dni" :nr:NC

nicna hno in ^nicnn nscn nns nora

n^::'

"nonnn ncna"

pjyi

lo

",nnN3 HNDi HNoa nnx

:

"

ncsc' id3

^n^nsn^j' pai

nnnnB' p3

nnx

n?on33

nDNB' 1DD ,non3

dj

nnxh ,nnn3 nann

D'^cna D^^n
ricna n^
"
]'^:v'\

^l:'y3^

snip nnync' Ditw

rbiN

nonn nxnp nnx

nrona 'h

ncN mcnan
i>33

nonaa ncna
",

pyrsc

n"

/Cjaixn
n^yjlStJ'n
-inx\ii

" B'lp

.T-n^

nonn nisnp

nm

nicnm
Tr pn
15

mVJbn

".nvjo^ :i)U
1L^yr:)

n^uvb cnp nM^ nn^cn

DiprDi?

"

noxir loa
b^N^
"ij^

paijr p3i

cnTini pin

ns'

ni'inn

iidn

liDD

bnab b^)n ab" :3in3tr id3 ,nionnm

nm:ni om^ni npam

-i"'3n

|Nvn nni33i

nniDDH DNi
irNB' ni2i nrn
T'^nc'

't^'trn

naon

nnti'yrsn
.nti^y

dn "ji inyc^n
i-^tj

pra
-13^

Dnisj'y^

]):>:iy

Dmjni

nynnsn -idd3
^onit^'yi'

no

^pK'xin

nDD3

nn-tDis insrn 133

.nr

p33 20

".Dni33n )b'H"
.1312^'

:iyni3-i

nt:N "i^^ riDnm" 13131

inx

si3''C

hm

^^3.1 pK'Nin p^nn ^c 131'in3 d^k':

.pc'Nin ibd3 nr i:in3 133i

)ain

D^N3icn

mmpn

1313 niXD
ini

y3tr ^i'ls

^i^n p7nn

.nixo nic^

i^ha pc'Nin

;D''pi'n

^x6 mp^na

;nrn pra ]n)uvb r\y\n pNK'

^nn nxv3i

13 b

p^nn
nmo pip

*TlXi

..iB'yn

vh

ni^jo

^n::'

i'i'is

^jcni ntj^ nivtD c^on

ii>2rh

3ijnDn

,liXD

nilK'NIH
d^k'^i
p:)^'

n1^fto^
,T^y npvi)

.[It^^xnn

ba nniN N^3i
,nn:)i3^

;njn^ .T^y

mip

nbDi2

oy hjdc'di nn^DD ivcp n^jd iUdd popi jnsn

3npn

'3

c'Sii "

3in3L"

i?d3

;^^ n>;ioi
".31

^3pnD pip ^n3iDn by onix i^opm

':3

nrn
:

pip3 nninsn

men
ptac

cansn pnN
fjpt^'oni
;

ba nN''3m

ji

nmo pip

noNt:' id3 .d^jidsii p

ninDn

D':iD3n :2m "hpii^^ piu'y

HEFES

B.

YASLIAH

BOOK OF PRECEPTS HALPER

121

NDinn

nn:rDi

noiyn

nn^m

D''K'j

nmt:i on:

nmoi D^pvini ni^nm

pyoti^ n

lo

YJ2)pr\)

nvopj D^JHD ^c s'mn

nmn

join

mwp

nmoi
nip

my2^N
;f|33 jp'-an^

ti'bc

am
ba

n:>'"'?Dp

niyti'i

".p^y^

pn-ip nn-t^ni iDvyn

i?Ti:xn

N^

5i3n

yj""

-ik'n

ny .yn^xni

pin jnt' .^lan

inn propi
n!Ts'3
it
i.s

nm^

>^3N ^ rbN"
IT

rnoNt:' id3 ,v^y ^i^dv

n^;^op
IT

n^

i^fop

N^n nnno

n-iT

it

n'-nTiis nc:'nj"'N ''i*opn3

pVDip
ynvs*

"a xiDiT
^:)n

m
IN*

tbx T'ny wN^nt niiB^n^ n^'^n

hij

it

nox
n^nia

'03 N-'jn poipi

n^ ds by niynvs
ib)b
tbiri

K'bc'

nam an 6x
bia"*

^D''

i^Dpn

iVDp2

p-inn ivnp
?5ib

Nibro

ivop ni^d
'K'Nin

DN nam
:n?3N
niyi

ivt'^ns

sn ivp xbo

ibbn

rmyn^'N

poip

".n^oh

nijyobtD
ivoiptj'

vniya^xn pni nc^moni

Tn'' Nin nT^N bios -i^onni

nnnm

n--

dd

20

-lom p-nan

Trnn poipn"
'trt<-i2

.13D^
ni^;D

not^n
nibn

n"1^2:n

".vmynvN
niJn nssroD

i^'Dpc'

Nunb mvp

nma imp mjnon

anpn

"31"

tmnac'

im

,|ob>2

n'^n^D nivo 'pv") in pcJ'a nihba ni^Do

14 a

.mnn

ib

b'''k^

"ii c'l nibii?n

ni^'ro

nibn"

inm

n^n

".ii

n naxD nrao pnp

pip

diIj

thn
--ai

n''p"'pn

nvnni nibn nvnD

n bs* n'-pvii riibn
n!?n

N'^a^

ab^ nsxo

nmo

'i'y

nn

n?ON:

pyroc'

N^nr:)

pNi N'-no Nin

n-'oya
^ti'

nns pip
]2-\p

nibn

nox^i nns pip

r\)bn

idn: n^ N!?m
N^a''

^itp

D>p''pi

nxnoi

nvnc

N'n> D'^p^pi

nibn Nuni? nv"i

D'p''p-ii

n^n ni^y
|nn''^i

xh pop

dni n'j'c^o YD)p)

bhn

pDip xincai
on-'Jtj'D

N'^a''

mvDp:

mmo

i^n"
".:i

:no^{ myi ".in

nns xb^N
n^jnab

ayn

Nsa

6n" moNi

ne'moni mnoni

ni'Dn

nmo

122
nsnoi

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

m^n
h'^hd

mi
n

pvc^' "^i^ "pisn^

foc'n niyu'i
:

f?

yoK'o xp "ndi
|^

pn

iB'y

pm

lo

bv ^D-ipv^in
p-'piP'

nx

n-'nti'ioc^

".xh

vob'd xp x^n^ ppv"i

'':d

^t^'^o pnu'iD n\*r'XD "

)'\^ii^ ico ,^ijy 'xna

D'-pip-in

dhd nnx ba

D^:n3i'

bx3

]^\i'n

ixci

-3

pr^a

b^ ^js ncno 61X pyot:' i

n!*nD

in:ini

foc 3^ x-'io

]''P'p'\

nvnci ni^n

nx3 nmnB^

nmo
15

pp^pnn
^xiu'''

nx

n^'iD rbix pyo:;' i iV'P"i^ 'i^niDi ^\^bnb

6in*

nvno fnu

nn:a

"pv"!

i^yo^'

"^

n\n pi ni^n^ |ni: iro'cn nxK'i

o pM
:b

nciD

rbix pyotj'
"i

-i

ppvi^ nxnni

ni^ni?
lo-irn

n^no

|n"ij

min^ pz^b

joix pyc'k^'

HM

pi D^:nD^ ^dx3

nxB'i -3

poa ppvin nx
^y

^^31
xjna 21

pp>p"i nvnrDi

ni^n nvno x^no hdxo

",x:i^

nm

nn

oixn 20
bu):)

ex

''3

pcD -XD

"

nan

by

pDD

|n:

dxi v^^i^^

P
^a

,)^!2f2

n^^i'^Strn

mv^n
mvD nnnon
by

".w

pas

nvo
DXI "
:

n^^D xuni?

nmD pip minon

nnx .pK^n nhba

3in2B' 103 ^iDC' n^by pvm D^na nnix nbj na

nanon by

nmo

14 b

nano"

:i:^nn-i

nm

nnyp x^^ nnnoc' nnsinni

nniyt^ "b

".ii

nnix nins
n^B'yDi

ai

ip

nnjD" niDxc'

i3 .nna

nnx nins"
d'-j^i

'^n>L^p

nsv

bsip D^jns nnjo bnaoi nyanxb

n\n xb n^^i'D-ina nnao

n^j'^b

nnx bsip
D"'35ri

bx"it:>*

bnao wxi

nya-ixb

D'Jt'b

nnx
5

nn^nD |n3 px

n'-u'D

;n3 nn:Di D'ins

nn3 dix pyotr i nbsao

jna px::* 'jso

obsi nn''nD |na px nv^cp fn2

pxtj* ba^ n^^-op

u^nnc i3

rbix

D^bc'iTa

nimo anpoi

noiy n^n x>3n

"

noxi ".D^nnaa inn^na

ii

|nn""nD ibai

pm

}'-ixn

nnb x^vion oix jbaxb jbu:

pin

i3D"pi

^D^jsn Dnbi

nnbn
bia*

'nt^'o

nimon

:'o

ba D^nniDi ".D^nnaa

D^jsn nnbi nnbn nt'

^ix

n^nab nimon

ba nianb nnjo"

:noxr* loa

10

Dnbn

^nir x^iinbi

nin:on ba nx

nmb

n-ixT

no' nnx bib obn

"

HEFES
n'^uab

B.

YASLIAH'S BOOK OF PRECEPTS

i^"^ innv?^ 'h^ii

HALPER
r\2n\y -ins

123

Dn

no dvd am^n

"jdh dh^i

ntrmo nc^nno^ nnno pn hd

"

nnnm

jij^d

'^3

nti

n^^mnc' n'xnn

".ii

".D^^P

-T'tj'yDi

nsv nnnn

D"'::'nn

n^c^yDi npioy nt^'^-l?D ?5in

p-ip

bi
n^roa

mpn
rbiij

pbnn n^jn ^nn^!?D^ nimon

b nmo
^la''

n^N
"
:

mm

pN

".:i

nn

inmro

20

D^n

ni'o njiyo ni^j

nn:o Nnn

nos'::' ina ,in^ii

n^ .narcn

n''3B'n

N^

"

inmi
bi:

".n^o njiya nmron ^3 psi n^o pyu pnipn

la^y^ j^ihk^ dij^'d ^D^2y

pip

nS^jH -imn

m^nj^' rh^ wjy "n!:n

15 a
n^jDiriDx N^T rT-rDinD n\'d xb

dn

pjoi

n'ono
nl?D

it

ipni nnniB'

DV^nn

ns'

n^c^

" on

i^mp

bv " pjy
nsj'^ti'a

".nm
N'':n"

anpn
ir:^

61^ ni^n
^n'-nnpn

ni?f:n

nac'b

mn'': n!?nn nioipn

mnxK'

nara

biy icj'Nnni

nnasn nx
nmoi

pn^i?D wcf^ \y22n '2: ^yi n"'cnp 5

nnjDi n^j^D ina

n^jna nnjoi nju^ni pipn pn^ia n^i:^

nn"'^?^

:noNB'

i?33

^nnxn ^th

^1^^

^y nvi n^ojn -imn

|niJi

piisi

".5]iyn

n^yi n''2D:

"iDaini

inm n^o
!?tr

v^y

mxn

nx

N''nD n^^iy Nin

ivpnd

pm
vbv

i:n"
jniii

n"ivr:n jj'dh

uiixn

d^::'j

".1^^'^

pi

^n* rbx in^jyci ni^n

j<in

npN" niDNC'

103 ^c'an

non^

D'-xnip

vn n'-Jimpni

".ii

can bi

-is::'

124

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REV^IEW

nmsa anpn^
Nvrn

pn'- n^c' |V3i

"
'2y
:

Dm332 naiD
,^'21

nn

",!?

unpn
15

N^'N ppB'D Dni33 pN^3D pN

JD
s^^Js*

nDN:^
bn

1M

nh iDn
i?2i

ni:r

uno^ .can

n2Kn

]'2''-\p'D

psi D'-a^yn

DTinn

s^*vn

niDN pnpn nana i^^n onann

psi nsB'
ijs

^y^io toyrD

nnynj dni
'b

".D"'ajyn

p^ DTinn

01^ ibbn pjD Dyir:r:n nznr^n n^\s

B'an

px" :nNK'

^03

/nnpn^
"b

n^Dpn N^
im*y Nin
."i:iD^
,^s-ic''
'2^'

-iNti'

^3

01^

^n pjD pnny iDvy sin n^^k

pjD oyiocn naiDn n^'n
""b

n'^^n ^^

px c^m 61^

iJn

pN

20

nO^n m^Dn
imn pnN
"
:

".can

bi

bi^
330

b^n pjD luny

i^nc'
"
:

^y 13

li'ynj::'

^jna

mynn^

pns'

nri?

"idn

mow

no^ DD^^N

anp"-

n^ in

irnm noNi

".D3^^n 3ip''

xi?

in

ninac'

im

15 b
rbi^

ibbn ijyDC'

n^

mniN

uyo::'

c:iy nrov

npn

irni din Nina'

ni^n yac
D'D3jn
pNB' m^iD r\:K>u
':c'ni
i?^i3

i>^i3n ^jc^n

pbm b^ imxa
mi^y nnx
'jc'b

D^tr: ".dd^I'n 3-ip^ n^j

in

nmn

ni^'D

^b"* t'^^cn
jni

p^nn .n^yo^ nawB'

t^vi^ai

pc'snn

:D^p^n
n-j'y

nip^m

:nT2

nicDJn

'a-iyi

;^:^yn

n^

mvD u6n

m^T) jno

'j'^n

^nin

prn
ntt'y

jnitj'yi'

n3in i3'by
t^b::'

niVibn

^bT]

"I^K^

.Dipci

fDT

ba

invkj'yi?

nninty

ni^fo

^b*

^PwO
n\yn nn\n

!iD3 ''^ptr D^'^'ron /-i3c

d^c^-j'

1^

nx^o or ny
x^^d^ "3

nrj*
:

nnc'y

1^

lab^^u

mnun

dni

".ii

in

i^ny

n\ni

:i

nnj

c'\x "

3in3C' id3

/^pn
i<

1D3

^^JpB'

D^B'^B'

^nic

D^B'B'

nb ns^D nv ny

nrj'

on^^y nb
".ii

in^'ob'

dvd

^n3*iy n>n>
:3in3t:'

n\T
D'fB'

13-iy ^n^yci r\:u

d^:;'C'

n\n nni^n a^an dni

nnc'y
,n:i:;

x\n n3p: dxi"

;

pD

DN1 "

3in3C' 1D3

^D^l'pB'

d^b'c n3 n^'xm

bpu
".ii

"wyv nc-cn

nt'on

p^m
po

tron nyi d'c' t'nn ib ix^dl"

dvd in:n

Tiyi

n^yoi nr^
.cid3

nyi B'nn

dni"

:3in3B'

ir:3

p^bp^

nc'^L*'

n3p3

nn^n dni

'bp^

"

HEFES

B.

YASLIAH

BOOK OF PRECEPTS

HALPER

I25

nn^
;

inan i^nna'' ^i3iyn id

^-iii?3

/jy -im^n
"
:

hm

dni

".:i

c'

nn:^'y
r:;Ti

"lyi

mciN

njci'oni
n^kj'ji

".3i

laiyo xin in dni

^xntr'-i
n^^'h

niriDK^

i3 ,n>
p^-iyji

new

^22

nnj

c^n^

p-n^Ji

pmiJi

panyo ^^n
20

paiyj N^ bin panyDi pm^i p-nij Di3m3si niunit: nnayi

p-iT'j

fDpi

noic irin

n''N"ii

nnp:i ^xii idt n^'-n inyj irxc'

B>in

pn mns

nyn

inn pNtr "-jsd

panyc nS

pmu

n^ bin paiyji

*Kni nar n^j^s Tiyj ij^nC'

D31 ".31 N^^

onnm

btr Dyt:n
^'t:'

".iiyj n^ ^ns

m^

nap: dni

ii

narn ^^^y n\n"i"

rnos* nnnn^

nwj:i "^n^xm nnpji

16 a

nnn nN
n^

Tinn^

'^tj^

dib'jd

Nin "i-iy:
.inyi?

s'^

^ns

-n^:
^')

cnn pn nine" on^-im

"ji c^nn
inrr-n "23

Qy^)

^D-t

nns

-ids
.1^

dx

nn: pn n^^nan

po

dsi" n^D-iyn
'^y

N^2 nayn

n^n nny^

c'^c'

Dsicn i^any^

v-i3N nnx -IDS DX1

,iDi:

.mb

nn^ ins

irs* ^^y

n' iny idx dn

^ns*

'DT nn^ n^n ,n33

:

in ,v^'n-i ix ,13^

pcib

p"'trN"in 5

noD inx pDtr

Dii^a

^^jy

n''

'dt "

nDxc' id3 ,DnD nnx

^3
^i?y

>i^n idi:

qvp^

dic>d

IDN
n^ii?n

si?

^^y

^^n nnyi n^ Tiy"

".n^ Niji nitr xin nnni 1^2

mv
jni3

sin

nDB'jnc "im

^bn

nr

ib nny
IN

ini:

^33

Tiyi

^sj'nt

iny
13

,d!?B'

N^I ,Dn3 NVV31 D^Jtr {TDH

^in

p mj

DN1

".lb liy
's^

pD

nins i3nyn"

n-iDwXt:'
"in''

id3 ,"^1:^ ny3 -injn ni:c>

Qnl^'y

n^n

3n

irs 10
jtdh

DHB^y
^3-iy
>^;^

ne'yji

po

nina k^dh

^y

in''

ni^y:1

^vn" niDxti' id3

,nr3

nb^^ ^^y

^3-iy

^vn -idn dni ".Tiyn |dt3 ;ni3

-iDN DN1

;ib iny

obt^b

th

^^y ^^vn
^'vn

iny ion dx

bx
;

";i3iy ^vn
'vn

[nij

*b
""Ot

noxK' 1D3

,")b ""DT

D^K'i'

3^n ""b

"on

idx dx

bx

von

nn^

3^n

"b

nr

lb
.

'Di |ni3

^b

''vn

^m vm

^sn ini:
Q3i

^b

^dt ^vn

ib iny

jnij ^^y ^vn

Tiy"

15

nina isnyn |m3 irx ^jyn

".ib 'dt inu

n^i!?n

notrant:'

n3n

bsn

126

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

VTi
n^n dki .di^d fi^mts ixs
"
:

ID inxi y^Do nins

D'::'r:no

-i>i5yn

dni ^v^jdo

inv

sbi

y^DD ninD

p^-iya

ps

noNC' idd
ini3

.T-^^^y

iiy
y^D

nni>

Tn

n^c'yn

imj I'c'yni y^DD

mns Qib

pN
-i

T-c^yni

fnj nvT^ND

y^D
20

cam nnN
'cripniy '^'n

n^''X |ni3

px dix i^no

D^y^D n vn^n vn y^D

n'''k:^n

.i:&D n^:itrn

ni^^^n

".o^a

ns inu

rbiN

^'Ni "

3in3"j'

1^3 /J'Dn ^^dvi jn^n

lanyn t^-k ns

D^t^^ inis
:i

^xjb c>npon
cj'np^ ^3

^i3>" :nrn pjyn -iixan nj:^ irninii '\3i i'sr B'npon dxi

ip in^3 nx

16 b

mm^

in^3

nx

!?Nr

tynpcn dni

"

nnNi

".-iiidn

hti

n^n

nn

in^3

IJXDD n^SJ^^^^n
nivrD /^^ 'flip

m^^n
n:D

".-c^wn
isnp"*

ns nmi? ^Ny

^X3 DN1 n:^N^

^^^

nx

xb

"itJ'N

hnod ncnn

njtj' b^x ba

DN1 .nny-ii
niona
I'd

nnmu

'a^

nms* inyni fnan

^y

"jsi?

nnis n-oyn^

dni"

:3in3*c' ica /"laiy

".ji ij^nj^

c^n
dni

?i>dv
ji

nnns!? c^npon nsn

31

"nx?2D non3" v-i2i3

:

^w

x jnan -jnyni

hndd

iiDNC' 103 /Tin3 nnpn^

31

iidn::'

did n^yni? n^x nir:n33:;'

rbix

nxoob pane irx

.-ion33

nn

y3

msi nxcn

i-ir:n33

dni

ni.tj'3

isno 3in3n nwscu

13''X

^0^"
10

ins^L" n^cnpit:n ^1033

xb^x i3nc

xn micx nxcc nDn3

xs'

^'b

|3ip 13CD i3np^ ab

icx

61^

o^n 13^ ncD

mo

bv ns*

bi3>
i'y3

noxi ".nnon nx nn-i^ nxoo

:-ino^

xinu' "i3iy

mo

p3nyo

pxi pu-npo

px x'^n

"

o^o-ini D^3-iyi -^npn -i3n3

lynm
mD3
-iip^y

nna

ipyn non3

onnn

-jnyn

:mpn
^!?3i

nrn

pon ponno pxi

i?

xin nrx n^on d^^

ybv nnno

niyo i3pT D*bi

13^^ D^y^lin mvttn

,nr3

".n^^xo nnoi n'3Q3 rhi byi3

n^*j'

n^nn nposji

,-inrj

ix .Dxns

no v^y noB*

inJ ^3

inxooi? "j^ofn dv3 x^3nS

imno dv

xint' 'y'3C'n

dv3 iK'xn'nx n^:^ nixo

HEFES

B.

YASLIAH

BOOK OF PRECEPTS

HALPER

I27

pipi?

in:::'

c-ns

n''Ti

n^
-,^3''

nvj" i^ nns* .Ninn

^xctari:'

dvi

li^^Ni

ns* c'lpi

-njB' jorn ;n

mip nr^n

nayj:' D''o\t) .dc-'n

^-in:
31

nvni
.th::'

ii

v^y mn"

'3i "

mna-^ io3 ^nn

pDSJt:' >sh
ji

nvni'

"niD^ ^31" inai nji3

".ii

"o''

nx

^^^

-i^rni

jnan n^yi

^roK'n

17 a

bvN

n^nt:' is*

pc

.th Nine nya

dnhs
-\^i:n

n?:i ni^in

db' hm::'

Dipm inn

^DK'o riN^fijc iny:?D -laiB'

pm

:jitj'

.thb'

p3 ^ynsa ni
ni^"':3i

Nnn

din*

nm^

DSHD ynD3 non

riN

^yi

v^y n^nn

^d3b>

nm!?
"
:

"

ncN5J> id3

N^n^

DxriD Di:sn ns* N''an^

ynan

myi
"i

".

piJisn iy nB'

".D1JN nr
D^D"'nv "13

DNns
ar^t^ycf

i:'^'

nr

ynan 6in

jriJi"'

^''t^^<^

nm
ic^nt

3:i{:'n

"inx

.Don

nns*

'y^n^^'n

ova "imnu

nvi

nbi"

".ii B'n

Dva

NDnn"- sin" rairiDC' i3

'B'^^::'n

^man

-isnjd 'ya-^n

wi

"'B'^^k'3

v^y nnn^

n^jDi Tn^^'ai

nrn ^^^ nvrxD nutDD

nrhin"

:ij^nu"i iioni
n''3oi
'y''3:j'3

in Dva
iTii^n

vni:3-ip "'3
ntK'
1!?

nn rh: cn) hi vniJ3np

ps nc ps-in n
1^

imnt:

ris'

yniv?3^ nr

?dn

S3^py i 10

".tj^E'

3iyD .TH

DN N^^N

vnimp nx
3it:

N^3n irx inni33n3 nn^n

in n3ii'3 nvn!^
i^t:'

imnu

yni^,*ni

vc^n

/ninij

imno dn onnxD
'rcc' ^y^3K'3 x^-'x

nv3

T3trn or ^n dni
:

pjD

-.-i^B'y ''ytj'n

''b

ps

'y''3B'3

insTn Dvn

imno qv3 "

'^

i-idnc' ij^3

nIj-in

''i?

pn

ijn^:''

61^

rbi?n

i^jd

n^^^3 dv3 n^^n

ps*

i:n^r 61^

6^n
15

nn^jn
".NV'
n!?

ncN

p^n

iDnb"" r5ib

D^n

pjto

mnu nnbn
tid* n^""

nxco

nni5:n

nhj 13 insi

Nun

dsi n-iso 13 inNi nbto i^^r^w nxroD

niNon

nr^

::'''"i

n^i"'j:'

nnro

nnN3 in3b

n"'3 n-i-i3n
N"'3ni "
3''''n

"

ii ji

'J'-ccnt

dv3i

"

DN"'3ni?

vby n3intr in3i3

ft<''3''t:'

"

.nin isd!? N'i3rD3 moi'D'3

Nin^^ nr:!?D "
;

):-\ii2'^

in3n ^N

ny }nN3n ^12^03

ncNC'

im

,iovy3

ws>ib NDHB' inji3

" '^y^in bv

ndh

^t^Nr: "

".nyiD ^'hn

nna

i'N

20

128
irN2
vj'D3
'31

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

DIN -^^pn -iry^N i" mrr^xc idd .no
"i"p

hnodd

>ix"i3

nnr: k^b'
:^^3

ny^'Dn DS' nci

Dnai

xi'm j^n jo lovy

ny^^'j:'

msa

inv55' nr nidh

-iim b? nnsa
jL'^

nnv

psn id

-121?^

hDH {<DD
c^npi"

nnn

Dix

^s'yDtr^

"S

nm b

| icdj

ny^^
"iq31

v^^'x-i

nx

".D^no^ xdd'db' jn

ijy

ndh ib'nd

v!?!?

17b
DVD
nvni?

nanv nr:

^d^

ni'nn

"

nw

^d'

nx

''"b

nnm

Ninn ova

DVD m3D^
D'D\ii"

^'nriDC' D^Di? 1JNVDJ"

niDNtr 1D3

/y'ac:'n

Dvn ^iDi^a ,nn^3nn

d'-d^hi" ".n^irj'
ii

.oiDN-k:^

1DD

/nn

'<d''d

nx^rj niy

dn

"i^q^
D'':nnN

Doic'N-in
li?

na^

T*!:

'jnn "^dn dnb'

D^'j'iB'Nin

piD ^an

nx iniD
riN

k'^b'

'd

i^a-*

D-Jic'sin
5

D'DMi Di^ D^n ^3n

nniD nns non nxD Dvn nddj dv

/nnn^D

)'i2v^ D'-dnt r\nQ) i6 |sjn |d

nvvh -im ^3k dni "ji

i^es-

,Wb n^^^nn
ni>iyi5

ni^X:n

.nu^e'
^''ani'

non nsajB' 1D3

np^>

bx
Shk
10

nna ba D'D\n hn^d dv3

D'DD

nivD
:

n
|ni

"d""

ik^dk' -1^3 bi

inac'

U22

,jns c^tr "lyiD

^Di D'D^cn n3r^ D'-Dn

b'<ti)

rh)vb hd^dh nnjB'

iDC'a n'hihn ni^'D
''Jd!?

nn n^aai

DnnjDi

iDtj'n

D^nitj'D

m^D
nx

'p'-pn

dji
^^

m^n

,ni^'D

^^NH nsi .inhy nxi idndh

idd: hni "inmD
la^i'B'ni

ne'y"'!

oniN nnp' fnani .dh^ddji

''^b

nx nD'y na nnN .niXDn ^o bv nn

D''Di'C'

nar nc'y^
-itrx

inp^) ib'st ^yB'

ID

nyiD i^ns nna ^xn "vr^n n^Ji .onx

npi^i
.Dvoi?::'.-!

n^ca yirn nx pan

-iv:n ^aa
|naf)

nar

nnn

-itJ'N

B'Nn bv 15

n^JB'

nnx

bv DniN
-cnp

|n3i ibe'
^^

nxD

^'^vii

'iw
ei^am

rii>ni

^>Kn

naijnn nrn ny

vnv
"iDa

ija^ naiin

DniN

nyB* nx
piB'i

Dva -inM niin nxr

ji
^>

"

ainat^
ii

,;" -i^nn
Ji

nnc^ nnxi ,nDnnn

i:aip

'ja!?

anpm
ii

n"iVD bo)

^^^

ns anpni
ji

ii

nx^D
nxi 20
b
Ni>

newn
pivp
IK

|nan
IDT

Dnx
n?:^

ti>3ni

jnan

npS

ii

nna nn^n
*d>
"

n^ai

nc'y' i^^xn

B'^B'

"D iDi^

nvn "nw

nx^D Dva" inana

:

".ji

mnta

laipi' D^Jiy

tm

nnxi d>d^ ina nnx

hdnb' loa ^ohy tij

HEFES

B.

YASLIAH'S BOOK OF PRECEPTS

18 a

HALPER
t)b

129

TnoN* t6 nrj
j<un^ D>anv:>'
nn''tj'ni
n'-p'-pini

'c

nab^

Dm

rhn nxoo
ib
t^'-K'

]2'-ip

n^

ni^nni ".innn:^ p-dd

"122

i6'ii

".nti^y

-la^y

msn

jntj'

ni^rani

min ni^n"

:nr:KtJ' ijo pa's? icry |n :nr3Nti> id3 .hay

'i'n^

Dvp na

pci'a D''nVki'on -j-n^

IT

^n^ tro iD v^P'^i"

po^

^y nnxi

ir

^y

nnN

jmai lyaxNn ^nit: nc'iy xin nvT^sa |aa>

oyo

nytj'n

ba

p^mciii'

nox
:

"

^m

bv

jn:i

nr^ nysr ns
^y
^"'^K^o1

r\pb^ "

"."^

3Dnn

riN ^oij na

insi

x'-jn "

nos*^

ijdd ^tj'xn

ntj'nn
"iyt^>

nt^ic
iniJi

nnn nnn
".rnnn

n^t^ nsi d^o^c*

D'-o^a^n nar

i'tj'

nnn ns
ib'n

ni'troi

nn
Jo

^'sn

^y

nw

naro

nnn

Nip on

li?

3Dn

N^i''

dndh

^ki'

103 ,n^i IX b2 ^sh3 yiyj^K' injia

"

^^

"ja^

nai^n jnan

ddn
:

5i^:ni

" 10

ON

"

noN

myi ".Dnin
n^yoi

new

ei^in

-ik-'n

je^

nmm nbo
i^bio

N'-noi i^^io "

noNK>
.t'-h
"i

nmoi
i

1^5^

mnnntr
-i

^o^

nuoi

pnv t
i^tt*

on*

n3n "q

ON nnpiy in Non
"ina

on

''3n

'jno

Nnnyon Nin
ivy^

k'^^^'I'i

D''oirn{j>

""o^

nmoi
:

ni?yo niyn ninii

n3
^>

N'-noi

t^io

wjn

in

'dv
"ivyi?

mron

^^

^js^ "

iionk' 103 ,n-ito nvn

-]b

"
Nin

^jsb "
'"^

".D^yn d^^^u

15

".3in3n

ona-'C' ny

mron

'<'^n

>:h n2B' Qipo

i^D'

b^iu

.HK^yn
nintj'i'i

^^S

ni^D D^S^

.n^yo^ n3rrk:^ nixon B'on

i:-\in3 ci^d'J

c>3^

pni n^ p3 laan >3:yo

dji

im
H^JN

^3n^ ttj^
p^

1^

iidn
p^

pD n3^^X"in
im
103 20
^^o "
:

pn |vnn ^n^
31

p^oyi n3K'i
C'\S*

bi

-i3B'i

p33 ,Dno n::'y3n

31713*^
n3t^'i

m3i>

N^JS^

"'3

ne'N IN
5iDi:

ONI ^Nlt^^
".:i

^33
3

^N 131
^o^

-iD3n
".D^e'3^
^53

D^n^ D'3:y in3i^i

103.1 flN

ii

tp

N"'3n!?

D''{J'3^

Nmi?

D''ni? "

:110NB> 103 |S3n |0

i8 b
}3:n
"'j'o

by

iin''3 bsi:

{a:tf

Dit^o ,ni3i |aj

'xy

nbo p3

^513.1

k'I

iyi K'''i30 iy3">i"

!?

:3in3i:^ 03

^nn

na
:

^^3''

di31 ,Dnbir
".f

i'y

n^
nop

Nono
VI.

>ip^N

nn D13 Naa 31 on

"

irni3i 110N1

3 yi

VOL.

130

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

vi'yi

1
"

D^N

.in^ir^

ab

,12:^ iin'3

]V2U dv^o " p^n jq2o

-ini ".nip^k

mt^N yv
T3131
n^-iya

"bv

bna ryai yD:i n^iya oniDs orxi

d':d: pi'i^m D>^yn"
p^ -iv^n
"i

-in:n ^y

omoK

.=;

innw -ncDDi

moxc'

loa ^nniDN

n^yoi D^3iD3"n n5

ii?pK^D

nne'

ds*i

".niB'Nn pmoNi inJ3i

nnna

njhd

a-i

o^p: jn
'E'yi

ni^an
in-'j

iB'y iryijN
'xd

roN"
c^ron

:nr:x"^ vd3 ;\n'\pbnh D^an^*

nnj

ndnpd^d
nnj^
p^

Nnsivn trom

xns'PDiD ui2n

mn^
nn'kT

31 ?5sn noan

'ij'iy

rr-y^n-i
]'':>n'i

in: D^noi 022:1

mn
p"

noan

lo

nine nT^n n^

]r\2

vr\''^
p--

'hbn niDia
0:2:1

nymx

^jnidk' on*

c'npo!' 0:3:1

rr-ym nnc'

mv
n:b'

ab

n-'yn-i

sn'tr

D^n ^:k^

nxv'::^
^^^cn n^

Di n-'yai^ p:o N'':m dtidi nn^o n^n

n^

in: nisn Nns-ivn

-in:^

no

nit^D:

b
n^'n

Si

^nxa xodo
15

pc' JT-yai tt: n^n^

10::'

n^yni

ni^i
jo::'

'hossv^ yii^foi

pm

i^D3:k' ynivo^
n''i:n

rrym

y-11^
nxjj'i

b
N3"'^

-iNB'i

pm

nnc^n n-y^ain

ns pboiD ppK'on ^3
b^
nxc-'i

ini nati'

nxiinb

n'<y^2-i3 o^^iD^rn

n^yana

]'^p^^r\

xns':i^M
:b '^n

D^:^'^ i^'-axi

nnx^ nn^b 1:00

p^Di:

n^yan

^o xa^Nni

n^in^ p:ni:i o-in

b^

'b'D

n^^d n\n nj^nhi n^o xp n^ jo

6in min^
ii

n^D Np

nIj

NnN:ii?D2
^N2r i

riTm

-ivan

q^d

n^ym

riix

xmc'

n^inb p:ni: D"'o

hod Na^xni
n^j

".pnn ni^oai N^^^'^n nipD ns^nhi n^n Np

ntiwi^dd

19 a
i:nyn3B' diw^d

pnix nvp:

i:n:Ni ^d-'^-is n^wsn D^:^:yn

^:ivi

b^ nnixani

noNi
D*2:yn

.nr^ nn':c'

1203 ^omyc'n noi^

,ni3vpn -11x22 i^nynb

Si

icvy ':d2 p\n

2"n

"

i^"'2C'2

nip^cn nsoin -12121 nrn p:y2

Sn

N2-1 -iDN" ".jrDvy >:d2 p:rn

Si

|vy ^:d2 D'':x-inn

dic'di

Si

I^vy ':d2
npii^

npib :n

pM
iir'N

fQ:D

n\:']}''

^l^'N
:t

So

|vin dvc'd d^dc^

t^^tr npii> :ti

jvin
D^nu'

DiB'oi

dib'di )v-in

mt'o

i^m

HEFES
<:^

B.

YASLIAH'S BOOK OF PRECEPTS

IV

HALPER
:tijji

I31

^3N^B>

yn

1J"'N

D1S* nn^]}

nry^JX

n"

".p^n jdjo nc>y^

niDXB' 103 p3j?n ninnt^ pyian xin

am

,r]f:i''bpn

sin

|^f-\n^

".pn pjxnn

'o'^isni 31T

p^i^nn

nnnn
cyD

^k'

Jin nyun N^:y

"^nD

riix ""dv

n mm'' n

nm

lo

mB>

DNB>

vya

|n^^

m^'D"

:D''33y nnt^'D

-imn nroNi ".^n:y

jnn
e^^i

,1^!:!:
:

n^i^n ni^!:n

".iidx

i^^

Dya

D^n D^nay
i^

ninaa' i3

/nh:^

Nin invi innn: ny3 itrxi nyi^

iJ^s*

ns

rhib
".ii

i"-?:^

iidk
i?3" 15

DHD" .nDNiyiM
p-iD lij^sK

,DV Q'l^b^^ Dins

nn^H

pTc:'

nns irnmi

^'^\^:

-nj

lO"'

mop nnN

-ina

'^nn n^ii: nnx tij '^nn

-i?:x

or

D'-k'^s^'

niTr:
nyi

nn3 ""inn nns dvi nn: 'J^n dv

Qij^^ty

d"'K'^k^

nna oijiyn
'':nn

5^10

in: ''3nn dti^' in: nr

p"ir"ii

nn
D1''

n-^noi

nnx nna

nnN

nytn

-iDK DNi ",r\)v^

pNB'

nnxi
10^

ct^'^K' "in:

nns

nyti>i

nv

n^na nsDD3
-in:

in ^jtsi -lyty

13003 Tinna
'O''

-iddd

Tiot:^
7-1^'

nn" :m:3
""isym ^inn
'k'nt

'ann"

moxtj' 103 ^vn

"in:

nvn^

20

n^aoi

ohy

"in:

nr

nn

d^i

hn3i pnxn

"iDy3i

nyB'3

bi?

"in:
^:t^'n

nrn^ n^n

n^z^n nio^ "iddd3 "ion dni ".di^ n^^ch^b

nns
di""

nnn:
d:

n:iD

nio^ p:o3 -in: 'ann"

p''3i

tnoNC' id3 pii

CB'i't:^

n:oD

?i"'D"in^

D''3n^i ".no o-'^K^nc^

n\n ^E^'yo min'' n rox n:K'n m"' p:3

19 b
DN1 ".iB'Ni bv

13^ x^

"lyn " p:y

ba

"lyc^n

nx Dn3

Dn^tJ'DEi'

D"'i'3n

"in'-

133 px ,nprn3 iddbde^ ix xinn nipon nx

xinc^

fianK' dib'o ^nyt:'

nvpo ^s:

PiDSDB' IX
fin'

nynn

1^31

:n3 p3

n^:t:^

p3

"in: "

nXB' 103 ,Dib

x^ ix

i'xyotr''

i pniD x^

bx

id3di cisin in: s^-n

1^

"inio

D^y

in:

hm

dxi

"nv^n nx
nn^Ji
x''3di
-lyti'

nn^j'o x^ity ^:dd

'\'\])::f

nDnx3
^pni'
D!5"iy

nn:"

:nnxti' 103

,2'''\p^^

pnp ns3
\i>b\y

v^y T'33nc'3

nx

-in:3 nnx"i: dxi

^a
ijy

".nions

nyn3 bp^

'\'\v^

'T'33n

fix

^imnD dv3

ik^xi

^53

nx

ni?:!?

^nv nxoo

ny"iv

132

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

:

mnc'i'o niv b'^b'3 nn^n -idx: "

n^ji5

nowSK'

itsa

,innn3

^o'

in^o n^ pnyc'
p>

nivo DHD D-nK'3 inini n^nni? NCDijoi nb^oi

laytJ'

lo

1^3^

imTtJ^

prn pi ".mvo no ^y N^^D-h nivo nn^jn

nn^Janm"
.ncNa' id
" pjyi
,di^
d^b'^'E'

pw
DX1
;

Dv

D^a'^t:'

N^^N

mniD nya
" n^n\n

IDT i^dt!? .thk'j

nN^o ny
^"i3 "

".]2-\p n^^y

pT^n

n^yc

ty^K iTHB'
ijy

nn^D

" itrxn lytj'

yna

vimi
'jn

.D^iy -inj
nn"-! n^n

x^ 3ixp

1CNT
*3

vn^JK -in '3"

:noN:y io3 ^nnn:n

mp
k^^b>

iTn 15

bv

PIN yVijy

nnnjn

^ni^na rent' ^di ".ny::' 1^ pxc' pai nyc^ 1^

pa

-inisn

nnnj3 nnM3
-iv:

^^1:3

^3"
p""?:

moNC'
T'Tj

103 ,nnnj p^jy

vdo N^^ntr
-inj

nr

nn

n'-isi

nn:
'-^y

hnj niT-n ivj n]

nn
'jnn

nh-x
"-jnn

TTJ nr

nn

yna n^c'b

'jnn ^53^20 '':nn

^d^do

nn
'^y

20

Ton DN1 ".Tr3 irN

rois*

mm

in: 6in

tno

nnsva

nn

^TTjn 'nrnn
^'ira 61N ^b\n nni

2n

irN nxin nr^oi^ lonn nmi? npona

''ira

nnioN
'yn

n^'')y2

oin "ndb'

rr'n "

noNB' loa
p'-ira

^<:pn:D

^ov

nnn:T

p"'i:''3

'^lyj

^dnt

'snt"

".pnnio

20 a

1^

nniD
:

".3i

^^^

nnn

'd'
ib

b^ "

ainat:^

im

.no

DtJ'

tr^cr

Dipon Djan^

nvji'
-mjf'

^na

|n3 "

nose

ids .nnpb

iniB'

nnx

pNE'a niVD

no

mupa

poynn^

nivn

no

invoi

nma
jna

p3^nD vn innunp^

pNDt3"' p'N nn3i

nry^^JN

nn: SDD* DIN DDni nn: xdc> bxi b^n ins ndd"- din

N^3D
'h

i:^NB'

^n:

ndu^

nry^irx

i in^

dn

b)t: ina
i>Ni

ndd^

i)Ni

ncN

insDD ^y pnp
inu'npt;'
)b

n*'3d sincr

nn: ndd>

ihndu ^y pnp
ndu^
".D^iy

ntrnp

pa kdd"
pxc'

i^Ni nyti'

nt^'np 1n^>npk^' nn:

pnnNi Nnip onaip

ni>i*D

hd

Nin nr*N"

:nDNi

niDNn d:

f]Din>

noa

nyai?

niDNn bn)

".ni^'D

no

Nin nt px inx p:iy

HEFES
riDH

B.

YASLIAH

BOOK OF PRECEPTS
;

HALPER

133

\>bn

n* bv dj nd^^i

n^yi D^Jio^-n

d'-k^oh "i^ptJ'^B' ironn nyii>

3p-i

nnn
^nn

n^^

^jyi

^:*j

nvD

^yi

nn

p
fjy^

nv3

ijyi

nnn

ijy

n^jD

Dn'h]}
ijyi

B>^tj>

nn^N ^yi

nn

jo nn^N
!jyi

rhybyn byi nniB^n ^yi

iNtJ'o

^yi jyjn ^yi

dt

:b ^vn

mvy

3p ^xn ^yi wia

ntj^n

15

p
3pT
i^J
5?'''^'

n^jK^n

mvn nsnj
"
:

nrn -inxon nxi ".miyt^a Dvy ^yi lijnx

i-irDsi

Nin nr^N pn-i i^n

" ipin " n^sna

^33

."iK'y

nytj-nn -laon
-lapJK^
1^

n
r^-ij:;

Nin nr n>:3N ^k'

^tr

ns^f-i

^y
-i^

b'^cj'

^tj'

piNi Dny

n
{J'''kJ'

|ns*n iniDDn "I3p3 3p-l

pNtJ'

DD

Nin nfNI 3p"l

f'B'

N^^N 3p-| pN N^iy

CN
:

3p-l 1^

PNB'

Nin nt D^J2N

nsxT ^y

20

pn

Nt3D n^a::'

i^a

i:n "

nNi ".niDvyn pi on^jn pi

nB>2n

Nan

niVDi ".NDD

bn

pian

nytj'ai

pievni
.nrn

-lyc^n

pi

D^iK^n

ny TT3

^53"

:i:^ni3n

nan

NNn

n6 nnainn
rr-a anntj^D

pra nam n^N

jT'a

Tnn
Ni'tj'

itj c'npon

ain

.n^tt!? naTJti^ ni5in tr^t^

^ti'

miNa

d^c'j

".-i>tj

ij^n u^nprsn

25

20 b

HK^j;
N^fiD"

ni^fz:

^StJ' SSiijn

pSnn
nctrn i^nstr
nra njiani
.nniB'yi' 5

lainaK' ia

^m: hn

d^c'!?

nw

nm^n

,1^^^ ni1^J<*in niV^n

".31

^miK' n

nitj'y^ irnrb
b'^b'

D*anvB> nj^jy "n^t^'yi" ni^on

yi

nbaNT n^a
-iiNaa

lyn^K^a

mana

nitJ'yi'

irnr^

c^an pn
:

n^atj*

ncNi

'\']y^v'^

pT n^a^ n-intN

it

nn
'^'h

n^K^yi "

noNB' ia
"16^N^ "
:

c'npni

D^Dini pa-iy i^n i^rba

".npnx
ir

nnj nt
it

nm:

nrn p:yn
it

ts3

n^an pnai

^^'ipn

man
naoa
*^^

^t^'N

nani

nan:

A:iJ2f2
^3^5

r\'':ili^r\

niXlbn

,]'im'\n

nT

uiNa naai
injtj^ cr^N

m^D

lE'sj

ijy

noN idn^
:

nyiaB> y3B'3 in

nnj
ntry^

IN

<^i'

inj in^
njB'

^3

{:'\^

"

3in3B' i3 ,vsd NVi\n

ijy

ba

n^n /n3n
''.31

^n^ 10
ti'n

nnN DV1

n^^n n\n

Ni'B' ^a

n^

"""ii^

riN

ni'K'i'

3^n

nyn n3

134

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

ps nyn na u^si moK' no
yn^

n\i DN1 .vi?y ^n '{i:^

x^ dni .mjc nya

nina vm:K'
ha^ dn d:
"i2D?d

Tn

irN ,nyn na sint^

DV1 njK' n-icy
DIB' '^

*s

^y qx .nns
mjs;'

on
nyn

hjb' niK'y D'Tisrc

ub^ p

n\n

dn

hiti .lo^^
B'''i

man
nns
15

pN"
ncNC'

:nioNi ,mJCJ'
110D

no mB'y^ n^ ^s^

,nyn 13 hmi .n^yoi

jij'Idi

'' :

^mj

ns* nb\i^b 3^n

".ijynx x^i ^mnj^' ^2

:^

n^nan

nns' Dvi n:c^

'D
ps'i
b]}

ppi33
cj'^k'

vm: nnx

dvi njK' 2^

PIN

nrn jorn

mip mt^y
DK'h p-n:
*s

ppnui p^p

vm:

p-n3

|nm: pN
pN
!^N

pB'npn

"

m'b pN pynv pioiNK'

prn nnx^ trnpn
iti'npn

Di:r^

]'Vi'i''

pnciNC

bv

^ix

nrn

20

-nn ^3"
i^Dtnh

vnnm ".cnpn iB'npm

v^N
cinvij

Dm: inm:
,p"ii

pB'ipn ^0 Dicrh

pmj

^o

,Q\-i^N DB'

nnvB'i
nNnc'a
"
:

inn n^^

-njnc' Dnjia "'^^ nnj

DN ^3N ntJ'DN "n:c pjyn

T^D>N'J

Npm /wn

by n*T:n
i?n

n^ dn "wnn ns
n^j

imn

m:

nx yDor^^ ns

noNt' id3 ,vby

-njn px ^nc'SN n>n

ai a

v^N Tonm
pin
'ii-^pb

mj
nn nn

nx

c'l^cni ".m^ irs* in^ dni

m:
nn

nr

nn

ib

D"i33 ^b\s
p''"i:''3

dj^p niip

Djp noiNn
p>rj

"

ncNK' loa ,-nja

i^^n

d^ib'

"nnn:b

ib''N

nnai nv:

Dinb p^ira

sinn

Tin
dsi
5

,m:
"^3*3

riN

mc^yb

an

i^n .nNtn n^D-in ^n ion nrcnn

p''ir3
''"irs

nnn

DIN bbn n^3i piiDN

n3D"'JpD 5|DV
3-1

din

'ndk' n''3 "

ncNU' idd
p^w*3

-rn
rn

D'^iy3 ^^1^3 ""DNT

o\n piniD

Np"in NrQt3 flDV

3-1

Dim

D'-'irS

*^1J^3

NJD^JPD N:n"'JpD
N-'Din N^snn
d:i
lo

".wnrsD Njnn:D njpm:d idv

*3n
nyi3B'"i

3-1 "-rn

nnn:n

D^''ir3

""^irs

cmjo
yDCD

^"'1J''3

"

^^DNB' ids

^p Dnn3n niyuta

N^J^N

DIBHJ

^NUB'

ijNplptT

^NDUC' bN13t' ^DNT

^Nn^C' ^^313^

i6 NP^X'N 01^3 DN ab Nn3^C bxiDC* DN

IN -i3n
ni:;'y "'^3^

i"NpipB'

nyuB'ni ".Dib

dn ab ndn^p
"i3nn
^jn

mb

dn

nm:

npipc*

Nnuf "

nDXf

id3 ^nyucj' *:n3

d^ib'

TDim

inicyi?

HEFES

B.

YASLIAh's BOOK OF PRECEPTS

bv
D''i'n

HALPER
d^jo

I35

"TTiin

nij;n:rni

Dmjni

".n]}^:^^^

i^^n ^'\n

nnim

nm

nitryo y:r:nh p^:rt ns* nvy^ n:i3nnn nync'

:

"

ib'SJ
n^ji

^y -idn -idk^
."imtryb -iniDcr

Nin nr^N "

n^:x*k^'

ic3 ,r^y
N^B'
i^jy

nmoxn onai

nr

n^ ^y ttit

nn

:i^a

nntr dv3 *cnpon

rr-n

mm:' av3 ids

N^t^'i

nianj^i ni^33 i^sxi? yna'J

ha^"

:niyi ",r ninB'i'

-icra

bx^

-iDN^

tbi^

n^n

."iK'y^

van Nvvn

ba
im

v^y

"-jn

Niip n'l^^i) n^)ipm 20

itrsj

-1IDNI
-1DIS*

".niDwsn ns' n^nni?

ti!?!

nniD nnx iidx^

,v^y
-13-1

^y -idn ^y
-iT:i?

"irxi

-1DIN Nin ic'EJ

^y"

rnnsB'
t^'sx

nnat:'

"1^3

nnnx

ysB'jK' i5y inip^ni? n^3n:; ,imt;'y^

*n"c*

bv V^^i dni ".Dnnx bv

21 b
HK'^c'
IB^^i

ah^

n]3)2\:^

v^^: pnr

-i

dn

"

noNE' 103

/nicryi'

n^ ^n^ psK' n3n

jb'^^i

i?y

N^i

,1^

pro

Nin::^

m::'o ^ji^q -i31 ^3n^ n^ej' -n: axi ".-in^N^

mix

ppi'o d^^

^V3,x* oyiD

^j::'

^v3 dj^p"

:noNK' 103 ,^03

-in^n

mj

,1^

b'v^^
t^^ni

aba
1^

,)b

p'm n^n
3^^ yn

mbn

n2i33 xh nDi33

3^b ns^ nsi3

nns

".D^i5V3n
n''^y3 q:i

b3

-i\sD T

nTini

hm

nc^'yo n'b'iin

b3

n^-'N

nnin

nn^

i^

-noN ^Nincr 103

n''33
:

nn^ i6^' "n: nxi

nc'{
roiiS*

rb3m

TND

-i

n3n

.T^^y3 inio n^3n |d

mijn

"

noND* 103 ,vby

n^^y

N^K' -n3 DN1 ".n^33 -iniD n^byn

mijn n^3 b^33

mijn

"

nox::' 103 ,n'3np3i

hnD3i n333
n::'3

dj -iidn -ib'3 ^3n>

n333i n:p3i D'^n3i 1^x13 niDxi

N^c* -nj DN1 ".D^33m
ON*

^ro ^33 niDN "^^^n

D^3-ip
}i3

10

D'n3 nnini ni2iy3 mcxi

pB' 'jsd
"b)!

bin ;i^v

-ic'33

mox

;b)i

^3^ in3B'n3

n^

bs^

-iiDN

irs ,n^^on n3n3

n'\'^i<n nf3

n:;i>3'i

.^i?:**

^3

niDN ",ri)^]f
^b'

no" ion
n^\s*
15

-noN "n^o^u" no
r^^n

"

ion dx ^3X .n
i^>3e:'3B'

n^^03

ntn K'^Nntr dv^o ,-i3n

:

^3

nin b'-nh idn:

nyoni

.n^i^o ^^33

'b-ir^

10 -ni3n "

nostr io3 ,-nn lovy

"^ovh

r\)i'\'\

nihe' -i3n3

n3in ur^nuT2

136

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

ab" vnani ".pm^on

DN nn^on
DVJ'

bn

-iidk dj)id

^r^:'

n^^D an

^c'

n^^on

n^^n -noN px

join ntrsjsB'

nos iy

nma

noyb in^tr nn:i3 "

nm

bn^

inxy> Nbtr

nD

imtJ'y^i

onpn^ inv
,])Z'ii'in

mm
"

nno qni

lor 1^

yap 20

p
-13^

Dj

bby

" n3"t ^n^ n^ " pjyi

-1202 nr

inxn

1321 .-nvyo
-iidni
;

ij'^N

bax ,n3n lovya

siny^ ^d ^y ^in

.m:
n^

nsn^ -nui?
:

msn

N^ Dan n\x'

nn

p^in

mm

nc^y^ ahi:^ iinn ^n^

noNC

toa ,ins^ -ins

22 a
t<b
Dii?

6^n wvy!?
p^n^o

ID''

N^ nnnx^ ido ds

ini:
:

pnm

lovy^
ijn*

:Tiy
"ntj'y"'

noxi

".1^

onnx

^Jas

^mo

ij^n

nih"
^as

niyi

".nan

vso

Nxi'''!

i^aa" vnani ".cd-^t ^^;2n ^n*-

bwD

i^n inai"
acnes'

.iniB'yb ntj'SNi iniroa

m:^

nniiD

dn .nij rwmb

ddjid
5

.D^y na'DH

|ni

.nnaia p^Nci nnaian D^c^an

.HD-iNnj^r

m^
.nti'C':

11t2X3 n^tJ^^StJTl

ni^^n
myj

my:

i6u^

mja

si^B'

iTax n-iaa

.ncnji njr^^s

.n^ya^ nD33B' nt^N

^:^^

nna

IDS*

moN*
,nij

in

m:

n-n:t^

^a .jno njvcN"in

^a^ mxD

D'nnni yoc'

n'-aNi

.myj miya n^as

10

DN
^"1

i^ax

.iDip"'

HK'Sj ^y mDN::'i

nm:c nn dni nm:

icip^

N^ nncNi

nm:

^a .nr lyctr Dva nnis N'jn

naN

yiot'i

5i

i?

mj

inn

nl^'N^" :aina::' ica ,nniN n^as N^in ^a ,n^ n^D*

"n: -nib

myj^ imct'

prni

".ii

rnN n>as N-jn nsi

ii

nn:

nx

DVi njB' niB'y D>nK' Nin

^nbc

pna: xb dn d: invj'y^ na^n N\nc

ps:i>

'ncy nai .djd in nns n^^ra

na^ai ^n^yci
ps*

nns

15

n^ iN^D CN1 'Q'p

;

mn:

nt^oi nny'y
n-l:^y

mtyy D^ncn

njB'n

ba

n^at;'

riN pnai?

n^^nv
id*

,n-n:i ,n3c
oi^t'i

Tia^y

;nTa n^ii
^ni?

dn ,nm: n^3N

Nna

ni'aK' n\n

dn

c^nnn dni .nnyn Dipoa nnint* nnyK' ^nt^'nN^ane'a Npni

HEFES

B.

YASLIAH'S BOOK OF PRECEPTS

.DIP"'

HALPER

137
20

i6

nm:

,ribp

nyi n^y2 nn^n nsi .nm^ mp^

HDOi n:^ mtry

^riK'y

nni .m^ bab

c''

ds

^n-njc'

no

niB'yb

22 b

moNK'

103 ,n>^y nijn -n: nnin ps

nr^:^

.mi]

''d

dc6

nyT'c^
n3B>

moNir
n**

DV1

mt^y
njB>

oTit:'

nn ppnn:
m-j-y

nm^

ins ori

nn"

v-n3 nnx dvi

ii>

D^n:>'

ppini pov nnnj nns

ai'^i

p6

mip mc'y
"-o

c^i^
dk^Iji

^jd

ppnini po''p

vm^ ins

n:u y
b

\''P'^2:

nnnn3 pN ]:^ipn

pmj
^y

"o

n^b ps pynv ncNcr

inN
ti'ipn

^y

fjN

nrn

pN ps noNC'
".K'npn fK^-'npm
pD^-5

"3

5|K

nrn pDrn

jB'npn psi
''d

nm:

om:

liTini pi^npn "o

nv^h p-n^

mc'b pynv

nmj ma
n^^
ahii

dvi njc' 2^
Dn"'i?y

na

" i:>nn-i
ti'^u'

nmtr

pioi -innc> p^3i

" n'
i'3

na'B' ^3

n2iD ^pdd ana pxi

^DD!?

onan nn

ppnini

D^jiano " na^n D^a^nn

nnn^ nny:
npnan
Dt:^^
"-^i

p3 pN

"

inmn

^Niot^ -i^srnc^
'Jc^n

n'^mn
""vnn
jc'

10

niK^y D^ntrn njc^n iB'on

^i^n
'^nni

.mc'y

DTi'k^'n

r\:^n jo
:

^n
^y

,"n:n ^obi

mnj no

nniN

d"'^niij'

pt^Nin 'i'na

D'-jdis

nn^os p:3 .nnnn >:o^d -lann nniN

-i::'QN

D'^pnim nrn

nmn

^y

nms

d''^nib'

nrn nmntj' ]V2 ,nnyi^ ^nc' ninsn ^53^

,nnyn opon

niiinB'

nnyc'

riTn nnyi>' tik' nN-'ant' npi^Ti" :noN'c^ 103

;i*ni n-iK'y Titj'y jnTii^B'B'

nny:3

15

n'My^ no ^33 N^^ n3^n nny*^

,nnyB'
tib'

''n:^

nx^3n nxi '.n-nn3

n"'3NB' "s

nmosn

nivo ^33
nc'EX ds*

nN^3n n^ pny dn ^53^ .nn nsn xb

"
:

^y

]n /nitryi'

"li'tj'o

i'K'o

1^7113-1

noNi
^D^

mc'y

D'rwyn

n:tJ'n i:i'D3

nm:

in^ n>3N^ nnio

n:D n:^'N3
"im
ii3i

lij-'N

^ni3 npirn
''::'yo3i

nmy

njs ^ovi
''K3T

^nn nuN
pN

63n
20

nm:

nDn3i nn^
niNipj

nnN^i;o3

Dniy:n

nny:m
"nc'

".nv^i n3
iN"'3n-.i'

^''3^<^

n'-\:2^

pr3 ^ov

nnoNK' 103 ^nnyn mpo3 nnyc'

B'M

ny ^hi:^' dvo nipirn

nnt<

d:

".nj33 "(SO i3^N

3Kn"

noN

niyi

".mj3 n^ouo

nv n3 npu'Ti"

138

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

mc^y

DTic'n hjcm 'ins

on bn)^^

T'^incr D'K'nnn hb'B'

""d

nnaio
noi

-11N31

.innrn::' ijnyn nniDJK^ n''3in^ P'-sdd nr ^:zh

mosc'

,m^'
ab'tA

nompn

-ivna

n:i

riNTn

nivon iDsni "M^n

.irTj''3

1DX pN "1DN n-iDNi" MiTiia-i njDNi

^l^^3

^nnn ps

v^'C"\" vnani ".nyntj'2

bv "^dn

moN

in idix Nin pi nync' 5

"n^

li'nnni" ".-v^nnn
,n-ins*

dn

N''^*in^"

nosty i03

,B'-inn

nx cn^^id "rfas ns ynv

1^
'a

nn\n mnwncj' at^n dni .ina n-n^LJ' "njn

yni3c' }o:n

bu

pin

1C3

,1^

iniN nani?
x\nc>

n^n mc^nn

.inn

itd*

nnan is nnsi
DNt:>

nun'' nr

nn

''nt^^<

'n''\n

nuD

nosi inn
Nn-'^r

nm:

"

nNcy
na^
is*

,nnN nyty n^ B'nnn dni ".n^

i?3

puno

ny nh ^nnni

5^>

10

lopi "

noxK'

iM

,p

nitj'y^ 1^
'^n

niox .inyno nirn^

i^

nxn: i^ nnxi ,n^ n:rnn

dx::'
ii

n naiD xn^
D''''p'3

]}^w

nam nrm
ix na>

n''Vi

nnnj

nox

^31

nm:
""^x

""^x

no

na'-Ej'O ejx
Tbbr\

ab^ ny

nnu

lopi d-ivo

T-jo

Dip''

tbi^

D''''p''trD

fix

ix D''^ xi?c ny nyc' D^^p

nnnj nx nam
nn:
!?35:'

n^
1D3

n^^-nn

dxi '-'.nan^ \st:n irx

nijcij 1^

nnx

dxc

ninan

15

nityy^ 1^

nnio ,inyn nx

nxn:

nnxi ,inix
naiDi
D'''p

wp

ix nnn: nic^yi'
'yn

nra irxB'

b xnn

xn

yoB^

xn

xin

no nnx nnn

^n''^

nnn

"
:

inoxK'

nn:n .nnx nv^ pr n^ ni-nn dxi

".n'''n

irx nnx nna i^^ax nr nnx

d^''P "'0''J"

xn IXC3
na

nyt:^

nnx^

"3'-^

n^an

"-jxi

nyc^

''^''b

rinoxc' 103 .d^

n^^p

nyrvT "ii lyoc'

ova nnix n^ax x^jn dxi"

1^

njiai
if?

".D^y^ ^yb
njin^* ix

rh 20

nny-kT

Dnip nnnj^.* v^^^ ix

nam dxi
dip"*

nnnjc'

yoc't' di*3

cm:

nnan

"

innxc

im

^nnn:

,Dvn nayc*

nnx

ny cnnni .ovn
n:iT\S3

HB'nniy ny

nncm ni^

^^-^^a

naiD

nnc

'i'''^2

nnn:

Dvn ^a
,

nan^ b^y px nan x^i

n3:;'n

dxc* ic*nn x^b' ny

nao n3L"n oy nm:

HEFES

B.

YASLIAH's BOOK OF PRECEPTS

HALPER

I39

ny 61X

pyc:^

i 12 "iry^N

"ii

min^ nn

'dv

n nrn ^d

am:

nnsn

N^:n
ny!?

nonNm
y^E'i
ii ji

"jin

iniN3 na^n ps
^1^

^)b

m
*s*

vs

pyroK' ^

n
N"'in

ab nnosi

nmj
"

njinc^

in*

v^^'^ dv3
,n^i?y

cnsn nmx

dk

^'i6 n\nn vn qsi

rainac' idd

wip^ ^n^
yiDt:'

cnnn
Dvn

dni
ji

.iroip''

.nonx

N^^

nxm

n^fun^ n^a^m
it

".ji

dn"i

nc^'^x

nnan

nnict^ noja dni

".ntrnx

^'i6

r\>r\n

vn nsi"

nnnm
c'^u'

,nsiK':

n^

nvni ^Qisn^
1D3 .nnniriD

1^

mosc om^n p
,nx''2nji

xini ^nyv 1:1:0 ib

"nj 'T^yi

ns n^

?iD3n riN n^ jn^ ,nr b'-nca nniN K'ni^

nmji"

mm
ab^

njiai

".nnin^n
n^bv

n^j^^

Nvn

am:

iT^y isxjdji

dhd noja" :noK:i>

iDin
N^t:>

abm

\r2p)n

omj

nmji"

r.-iosc' vo3 ,Dpin

abm
-101^

113 "n^i?y 10

imj
x^y' ny

'man 123
:n?:x::'

^jx"

:)b a^^ni:^

nv2 inK^x^

^ya^ inii ".nsin

bnn pi"
pisiD
jn

im .Dnsn-?
x^I^'3

inio^y

nm^n nmox nnmni "rrn^tt'

nn

Tiitj'n^

^DJ^n x^c' iy

mn^K'

nm3
"

n^

joix

inm'i^ DJ^n
D^anc'^b
,^ynni
15

3xn ^.t::^ ^r^in^ onip .nonx

-iDH xiji

nmj

dxi ".isn^ ^13^ px

iniB'-i^

3xn nsn

nmj
mj

pn^sD n^yai n^nx na^-ixon

nan!?

my:

nnxK' loa ;nix na^

nnx
-lao
:i

in3

ax^ moxi ".naio u^x 2xn nan

i^ynnc*

xh
:

^ynn -lan byan

nxn pxi 1:32 lao

nxn naD
ii

i?y3n

n^ na^

"
:i

ncxK'

im

^n-iaac'

yotn

" iDnp:r

nnm^
dx

D^it^^

nnx

-nan

nx

nntry

ni?

h^d^d* in:i3

'hbn nnmn " n^

"

x v^^ dv3
'in

n^ax

yr:B>i "

".nana

n^D*"

" .r\)u D"iix3 d:i ",:i

x^^ni
20

nanvc' p30

mnD

nncyi nabni n^ ^oai n-nJK'

nn "
pm

ni:xc'
".n^

im

,-iai?2 i^nc^ ny^^:^

nam
ii

n-n:
i)

-am
mn:
nyntj*

nxiK'jn
nu'^x

n^D''

^'i

Jbii?

b^n

nn''^D

nax

v'o^i

na

nxi" ininaB' i03 .nonxn pna

103 incrx

mj

nao ^ynna'

"

ii

nox

bi m:

^3 "

mm

n:i3i ".ii na^

i'B'

nan dxi
na^B'
^531

"m:

b" mam

.mpc^ non m^rntr

'ijy

loai .nxt^JB'
u'i>

mip

man nonx
x^::'

Dm:

.fiun

IX

cj'a:

Mjy Dnn

om:

^x Dnon "ii nox nync

25

nt:oa 1^ ypB'n

abm

Dtrpnn x^:n pnno^ D^an

p:3 ,nnx3 nr\':^ ix

I40

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

24 a

^i:y
L''s:

nnn^Tvn c^^c

cnan .nn
nso

xyi^ai

;niN

mtrn
:

i6^) nnsi
noNtJ' idd

-itj'a

^DNn
''i:y

N^t^i

"iry inn b^c'

omj

Nins'

nm^

i^'-si "

^^iijn

is c'sa

-i:rN

D'pnn h^jn
c''^^

ib'b

rb!?n

p3D nrnb

ij''3tr

Dn3T

b'dj

Mry pa
n^<
^"^

B'^t'

irD3 'i:^y

^3

"

nnoiN NnsDinni
-im
^jc:'

".in::'^!?

u'n pn nL^o

mv

nrai' irn tfsa

si'

""irj;

ia psc^

-is*'

cnnx

pni?
-is^

nya pm nrab ira pn

n^

T3K

'2^1

nnx

^s^ oyio

djp nvrsa

onns
'jnc'

pai?
'nx

tyi iq"

onns

pai? n:^3D' ^jdo

isn^ ^d^ ps n"ip3^ n^^t:

'-ah

Tni

DN
^n" N^
i'*:^

nb y^xK

vb^ i^n nx i^ nns ab^ onn nx

i^ jitdn
P'*

i6^

10

Di:r?3

ns" rbix ^n"'^j

jm

nn"i3 bv nDiai

nsn^ in^'
N'i'tJ'

"t^on

."P
c^.^sDH
ns*

mn:

^rr^jibs

mno nnn

^nsn

nm:
^3N^

dni

".nm

^Dxn n^c'
nvo--

nmj dn
]^j2n

pi ;mns* n^'iiD

nns

i'ainu' 'jdd

naion ^vs n^s

n^

amn

dni ,-inNO

nip^ b^n^

nit^'D

/jibs

"lac'-K'

nsnb ha^

i:"'n*

"-^y

nr ':):n

nns mnx nrnoo nns

ni? N-'a^

^^y

it

nrnon

nns

ns"

^DiriK'

niK'D

.nmj dv^ D^anv /iy

njna
^ot:'

n\-Ti

^nnis'

^nNO n^yntr
.'"jy^

n n^n "im

px nvi3^

D:ip"

mcxB' im

nnnion
x'-n

onm
"ti'

ij^x^

nx

IX ^yn dxi ".nx'-Dm

nnDcni op^n niM^

"iij
;'\b

rh)y) nsni? ha- 20

lb yni:

p
^li?

-inxi

/inm incx

"isnb ib
yniJ^J'

Tnn

innn^

yT xb

yT

xbi
ir^a

miu
ynv

nnix yDC' dxi

cvn
'h

nDnij

Sa^ ^nrn ^3^^

:ncxr
Dn-DD

v"]]:}

Dm
oam

isnb

bin''

^nmn
'rx

ynia na

inxi ^inj nrc

tj'^c'

ti'^t'

^:x

-is^

Dn^srD c""^ ynr

-ia>

i^ax

Dma
nrc*

'jx

ynv"
bax
xi^c'

n-n3 DXI ".ID'

^nnx
yi2i*'

rbix

ab

rbix
::'nn

txd
icon

m:

ynv

^j^x

25

nb Tnni y^r^b

,d>0''

onmno

nan fjaxn

HEFES

B.

YASLIAH S BOOK OF PRECEPTS

24 b

HALPER
n^s nr
'jej*

I4I

nma

DK1 ".DnvpD s'h Qnix

.n^

-is''

nan

qs*i "

noxc' ma ^nmj

n^

^
D-'p

nan

nniD

'Jtj'n

pm

d:

^Qno nnx ^3n^ n^

/jc^n
]^i22

Tnm

J^dud

'ro

ijjxn n^jl^
ds*i

.T^y DniN
Diajyij

niDx dn

n: Dip^

dhd

^^^?3
"
:

nmj ns
noxB'

i6) D'-Jsn^ ^yan n^

nan n^njyn pi

D'':snn fo

nmj

idd ,nnN3

ni:]} niyi

noyiD

"Jt:'

njxn

mos

dk

Ijis

nnx -n:

Nintj'

pn

'-nD^s D^''p

D^JNn^ nb

noN D^jxn^ sh

n^njy^ n'2:vb
ni?

iX^i

Q^jsn^ n^ n^nm nnrh ^nk'JI

n^JNn!^

D^ajy^ D^33y^ n^i n^^arh n^yn

nan

^h

D^njyi?

n^^jy^ s'h
D^Jxni?

iDipm Dvpn D^JNn^

^^f-lt^>

wsh n^3jy^ n^n:yb ah) n^^anb rh

nninti>
irti'

d^v

xh

tj'^Ni

".lb nnin invpo

^r^b

nu" :nDN
niDi ,irm>s

niyi

".iDipon nanni 10

.D'-p

"njn

"ism

/ra N^^
Nini

nm^i ^nn
"n:

mj

nani?

n<;-i

DN pnn

,n^i-i

ax

^tnt^x

nanh

nirn^ T"i^^

|3-ipn

mnjK' niio

nnn mnj

inc^x

mijc' nno inn

nmj

inn
15

D^ajyn

mnj

d'^hj^t
nat^^n
-iij

/mjty

p -ino m^ ycc'

D'jxnn jo n-nj in:n n-injsj' -luoa

pnpn n-n3
mnjci^

axi

"."i2''i

nirn^ nr
niJiK>

nn
pnB>

o'-Jsnn

iud

bab
^jn "

]ni trcnc'^sj'

h^nd
}d

o^bi nm: nan^ in^

^^t^'D^
-la^c'

bx
)r\^i6

''bib

mnjtj> nrn
:

imn

^bs'"

:n^ idx^
n-^i:

;i3inn

nic^n
".ijoo

nna

lox

1^x3 xin nn

^ub

nx

\s*jnni

onx

-iDx^

x^ nnc'n

nm:

pTaro" :nxtj'
ttt3
^3>^

im

"^tiu ^man 20
laio nat^a

^bx

^^D

ni?

-1DIX xb^N ^ini n^ -loixtr

bu

^3^!?

".nb

bn^t:^ ti^^i
in^^'x

pnv n ox r^xo bii

bn mj
pac'

nr

m
lotj'

^nty

^b

niyinti^

bnn

na^

jnas:'

D>bn pn hnn
-la*

u^nn-ii

nan
^3^ij

pni^ n

6x" :nKxi ,D3nn

D3n ptrb

o^bn

pai

nniji
25

leiD 6ix

bn Dib
pxi

N^i -iDX x^

-ioxEi>

bni

ba

ptrb loxc^
^a^i?

nao D3n

nao

bn

x^ naa^x
mo^jxi

bx

^d^^

ne* 6ix
".Tnio

nam
pxi

^Diao

b HK^nii

ba

Tne Dan

142

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

25 a

vn nsi

".31

nmai

hjd^n m^i

"

mnac' 102

,n*^y Dip' hc^'Bd bv

hidn

ib'n

:noNB' 103 ^fnnosi |nm:

b
pv

nx

d^p^ |n nia^n ,id33 nnai ,by3 ni^iya

nmj
ip"

IS njD^N dni ".pK^T'sn

iorn -i3yc'

n^i jwit^'jn

nc^nai n3o!?x -nji"

mipi
:

w^ub^ nayt^ nns*^

mj mn:
px

psiK^^n id
5

nirnji n:Dl?x -n:i "

i*iN:r i3 .n-nj nanf> n^ya^

^no^ai dne'J
n-'^jy

nina nxK'iK'
nnx!? nwi

'a

ijy

cjk

dv

d'-b^^c

inN^

ht-tj "-jnn

nnoN nvrsD
i^iDi

hd

n^^ysK'

;mnj n^yn^ mcs*

dni ".lanb

u''^

dv d'c^b'

-isnn ^ntrian: is n^D-ixn: 13 "inx^i ,rhv2 rh nsni ^nrn

nrn

p
cjn

dv

cty^ti'

ins!?

mnj

':nn
ht

moxi

n^

ism byan

nic'-ia N^^^

mn:

"

iionb' id3 ^iDiy inip3

nnnj idid

nn

d\'<

n'^bi^ ^1n2 nu'-ian^B' ix ni'd-ixn:::' 's ^y

nxv"'B'

dv

d^B'^c'

10

nns

nyc'

novy

niB*-!^

b
nns

i^ij^n

nr

nsn^

^i3>

irx Dvn

nt^-ijnji
i^ia''

dv3
u^n
-jb'

n^ vnc'S N^ bna .nnoxi

ii -IS*

nm:

isn!?

^3V

ma

dt

hjd^n^

hm
:

dni ".nsni?

61N irr^N

-i

pD3'' -ity pji

Da"-

pn Dn* mrDiB> "

ncsc'

im

p^d2''

nn naSm
niso

".D^JB'b ab)
n-iB'y *niry

mab
^h^n

ab oix NTpy n
^c^'^tj'n

d^jb'^ n^i

nnx^

6in* ye^in.yc'in* -ia

pi?nn

be miNn

d^b':

15

.nbyob

inaTJB'

nivo ye'n

b!?i3

nn

^<vv:)l

ninn^tt

m^nm

n^s^i

y:ii ^{^;b
.dip^i

n:inn n^S>:^

.lix:/!:

n:i:rxnn niv^n

pr

i?33

num^n

nc'y
'r:

.anyn ny
rh''i'o,r\

ndd nvnb ^nv nisoDn nvnni nionan

DnxroDn ViT
dh-jb^i

niba:n yjjc

20

nnx
ji

.vni3i Nin sou'' jnix xtr: dni

"
:

NB'un
".:i

bi
!?3J

yji3n ba
NiJ'ijni
^\ir\

iNonn n^xbi
ji

ninsu' 102 ,3-iyn ny

ii

onani

nx

iD3 by nbin bsi

nonnn

bb

ii

Dnb:^
v-i3ni
25

iB'K -imn xbi ,Dn3 y:ijn

|o

Nr:t:>B>

dhjis ^ddii^ds on "ii y:i3n

^3"

pbna

y:i3ni

".Dnn

xct^o yjun

px"

m-ijonb'

imi ,Dn33 p:3 ,vby

HEFES

B.

YASLIAH'S BOOK OF PRECEPTS

HALPER
D"'itr

143

.D^:2iN

n^h^ ^y

i^^n ni^3:n

h^

p^nni .hncd

minn

i^D3 ix

nmn

^D^ony vn dn .nna nvv3i

-iiyo

^n-'D^uni 'j-ipni nn-iini

nioxyn nno

i^tr^<-l^

pn

^niniyn pi .ni^^j
i^jy

nninn

nod'' n!?

nna yjiM

^ntj>3

"hz

-nyi

nonan myi inn

c>n"i

^k' -iiyi i"in boj

^^ nc^an

niyi

nnnn

nny
HDH^n
"

dni
:

mK^aa d^nodo
iod

ii?^n

nniym
nny

n-'^Nn nnn:?' iiyi

j^a

b'h^n niyi
niyi

nnyn

nrDNa'

;'\2w

p3i

xi'c'

nod^

msn

.d^xddo dtn

ntanni niyn

riNDD Noa^j psiDVD

iiyi

D''Bi5:ni

D^jipm nn^jni nioxyni

:

^'^xni
n!?

nDipni

Dnsn iiy
^b'

ptj'aa i.T-nniyK' i^ni "

myi

".nij^j
^ix

hndd

^3n pbiN

my

inn ^dj

nnsDn my

nn

^sj'

inn

my

oix lor n

aitj'''

h^ mrnn
nionan
10

l^nK> IN pnytj' j^^i n^^^n nnnty Tiy ^^^B^n niyi nc'^n n^n
irs' niyc^c' nK'a
'Jtj^n

-iiyi

p^nn ".m^n niyo

pn Dninu mny n^ pn
.n^yni ^jirn
niytJ'K'

".n^3jn

^-2

"

nCiSC' 103

;\2 y:'ijn
ni?yrDi

nx ndd' nn
nn^o nina
yji:n
en!?

nnno nina
p^nn
Dn':!

niDxyi nK'3
nn'3
n^j'n

C'tJ'

nns

'a^'^K'n

innn^ nnN" :noNC' id3 ,u

nx ncd^ nn .DV^no
pN

ninsi

nnn

nnso mns

i^-'dn

n1yt^'

Dnnsn"

:niyi

".niovyi 15

rh2':r\

^::i

".fnNDD3 pNDUO pnc'n

ntJ'nyDO ninai n^J^jn

n-'no
in

ann

y:i3n

nx dwodo nrx ^oxoocn onaxno nnx

D'-on Dn'^Dnn^ n5^'DNl^'3 in ^D^nb

in

njo

pf^n

nr\^2 n^n

.D^trn"'

ontrD

"

inoNB' 103 ^mytJ' ynnNi ontj'y lorn n:iK^Nn3 vnc' nioa^ uiK'n nnt:^iD

I'nK'ni

pinm
T\'\-vih

lyijni 3iin

bi^
D"'B'3^

D^c^a^

pNoooi w^rb pNooo non

pNi pn^

ntj'ni

m^n

20

c^i^"-

DN1

pNODD

pxoDo

ynT nn^K'i n^3:ni

vntj' nioD^J

jnnK^ N^n nosi

vniB'
'hhr\

^"^2'^

pnoddi pnb pNooo

pyoti^

nnnfji

panv

pnB'ia in h^'h^^

pn

"

myi ".ny^ nyo ne'isn

ni^jn dn NBnjnK' onJia "5i 3Jd

Nij^in i?3r'

vnmi

".ny^

nyo

pnt^'ia

p3i

nb:n p3^

irn pvin

nm

n\n nI'B' p3

Hnn
:

pN

yhv^ Dnjnm
dji /fvin
ai::'^

Nin nod^ 25

niNODon

ni!?a:ni ".n'^nja

nodo

NSJ'ijnK'

noijo "

noN irnun

nan n\nB'

b^ pa

"

144

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

26 a

T)))^ f^3 /ixroD ''JD^D |na V'ly pni

nnnu

^jo^d

pa

b'-'K'

n^s pai

-13 ^t^

p3i

iiDpni sjipn p33

fn"'33

bv niahnn nionnn

ibijs''

"vsa

ejipn nr

vaa ^y i^in

b"

moNtJ' id3 p^on n^ai mtj'n ^nxi pwon m^ni

"-jini

v-131 ^^331 ".D'-m

3^1 mt^n

psjon

m^m
^tJ-ian

nispn

nx

N^3nb ^^1^

vi3n3i
Njou^
D^ijsn

".^''Dn

nx
i?3

nuh^j iTnn
"
:

^3"
irD3

:noNC'

im

dj i^bj

".Tnn ^533"
y3i:n
i)3

Dn3

yjijn

ncNtr

,D^bi
!?y

mx
ii?Sn

ba tt

" xod^

nn3

nnni n^3 ^b ix n3Nb ^b

vn

ni^jn dxi ".D^b

*^3 ix n''3

p3i
'<b^

din p3
vn
)bbr\

x^x

nd:j irx

np:;Di

bx

in

nnnx hsn^d

nb pXDDn p^x pxDUD on D3^" mcxB'

r\]n

103 ,n^333 y:i:n 10

-131^5 "irjianp ioc'b'

nnix3m

".xb'D3

cb

x^i d''PC'd x^i

D-bix
^isix""

mix D^3nv?o "3-iyn iy xdoi" vn3ni .Dni3nx

nsT^X3

^''3c'3

Divpj i:mNi

xn

"

ncxij' id3 ,Q"'^^bn

n^0Bn Q^'-nn
''i?y3

Dn3in
n"i^3:i

in^iT3

x^ ,trnp3 yr x^iy

n3

13 nvni'

monn ^'03

",^^nn^^

nnnnh

dv niy3

pijinij

ninu
15

nb

nx-ip:n n^nn

nbao

pin ,nixj:DO jrx ^nixDDn

3"IB'^^1

n3nDn nvn ni^33^

:

" Bn3\T |D nils xinc' 'Jqo D^cn 3^530 pin

mnu

D''3c>

b^

"

noxc

103 p'^Ln

nxoi^ni nsni npxxni v^noi

3vm "i33ym n^nn

xDt:
c'3

ontr

,D''"'nn

^^y3 met:'

pnyn ny
".5i
.31

nvn^ niv

,n?:B'3nni

uonm
ao

03^ n^x?:Dn n^x

ii

nisni

npjxm

ji

xnon

Dsi?

nil" ;3in3t:' 103

n^nn p:3

nnnx o^rn

^-3^1 3ty Jion ^3 nx

n^b "piB'"

n^n:r

nnx
bi

no ^33 xroDo

,n-is3 xinE'3 "bbn D''vntrn ^ty

nc'3n "p^n^ P^n

^n^yoi n'c'nyo nnins n^^x

13
c^^i

imr^^ no ^3

nT3 niyt^ni .1^3 xod^c'

nrn

-I1y:^'^

;d

nins

xmc nn bi

".pnc'n jo ncny3" :nr:xt' 103

p-iwn

|ro

::'-iDt'

p3 nr3 i3n3n px ,nb n^33n ^33

xodd

niovyi

D^n^ai

"ic3 35

HEFES

B.

YASLIAH'S BOOK OF PRECEPTS

HALPER

I45

26 b

no

n'si!?"'n

ni?

px^

""nn

-i3N ?ix D^ai^^n n^ pN^' nn''0

nn

no onioa
~\^2 y"^^^
"
:

".niovyi Dn^:i nB>3

innaa

nnx

sis*

nio!fyi

n'^i^:

nina non |o nvao nina i^^as my^B' nrh px

nnnx

noNi
nn^D
5

'MnNDD2 pNODD

pnc^n )o ntj^nyao ninai ni^a^n }d

"
:

".nu^M Non^K' NODn na^ nn

-laon

iniN

msan noN mn nmni

nnsB' naoi i^Nn n^ qt bi nivon

pNJj'
lijN*

mn

^j^o

nx Tarn

pi ,nK>3 in^b
}o

,niDvyn

nmni

.DB'n

nvT dn nm
D^navn
w^z^r]

N^

niovyn

p
Ni?

i6

nnbjo
niyi

"

nj3Na> ina ,pxDDo p^x ,nyOTi

nytj'n |o n^ji

nam np^an
^2N'

",Dni5jj

n^anavn

sh

10

nayD

^n^3

^{1nl^3

Notao not^'jnm Donni ns'u^ni

pB'ia in'nniyB'
payy'

i^j'^ni

"

n:^Dn moj^i^ ids ^n^njn NODna' id3

-i

nnyo
^

xinc^a
-iiy

l^3i

nn^na nxoijn 6ix min-'

tsoinni

nsD^m mam npjNn

DIN niJ

pn^"*

mNH
"

-iiy pin

piinu

muy

na

jna ihnK'
n^xntj'

1^?

nnni5 D^xoon

pm

un

:in nii?nni '-.nniy ]rh

xni n^JN bii?

njDU' 15

N na \nS3x nba
rn

^n obia
TT-ii

^la*-

pe^aa jn^nniy
p'-oan

an pn^ na
n^aj DN

i^Niotr n

m nKimnn

pryn

inrn^ n

bx

.nxDDO

nj^x cvntrn niijajo ne'a\ni ".noc':nn

n^xnni .nxoDo .nmipn nnin!?^ nnrm niyc' yanxi nnt^y Dna'ia

.n'-ni

coa
nrij

nona ni^a: yanx marnc' nya nxrn mvon

,'\V2^

'ja^B'

mvoa

mam

naa
i^ra^

20

Dx pi

nb ]nv^ Dnnxa D^pano nn^

x^ji^i
K'a''

^a

^y

n^*

QV^nn nvpo

dxi

,XDD0

5|-iE^:

x^k' pi^nn
"
:

;)Ziim i6 nnvpoi D^"5^nn n^^pD ianc'3

jo fina'ji B'a^ty

pB>

B>^pi5

])]}J2^

-i

bx

noxt^ loa .nb^n

p^nn x^

i^ax

pxoDD
li^^pb

pxi pn^ pxtDUD

pn px xni xoo nov

Mbm
ox
siib'jb'

^2''^
D^tJ^a^

pyoc'

-i

ox"

:niyi ".jn^ipoa
^aj
i?y

xn jhaa xn

x^k'P xi? xniT n

25

pi D^nn

fintr ixvo ^a^nio

xoo

no>^p n^tri

pne^

VOL.

VI.

146

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

27 a
t6 NTT
"i

DX

jriN"'^ nyK'a niNDtan i'SB' nn^nts

nninon n^^ucn
n'B'p
ne^yj
-1331

133 -isyn i nxijn -inayn

dni ".jnvpcn an jhaa nh

,"iiyi

,-icon iis?3 p3n3K' ^1D3 n^y nstrjn b'l

^c^n

vsn

VVHB' naay"
^1^

mDNK'
i

"i3

/n

vi'^^n

dn nd:2d innn

^nyiin

c^^

p
pjn

yB'in"'

K ninu nDnx3i nod

n5r33 yjun
'js

nonx vvm

nc's 5

yawn

din min'' n ns^dn nb 'anon N3^n 1^3

^y )nBnB> xini
nj33{j'

".^ija *:a

ijy

i^ncnc

Nini ^1^ }3 yt^in^

n ni
"idi!>

ndd icsn
nvi"i

nonNi

DJt^B>

lijN
i>y

nIji

;;|^"iNn

^y n:^'^ n^^nn
-i33y iok'b'

^^3

"y^art bv" v-i3i3i

:

Visn

ibh

^n

Dnc' i33y

n^n

fjN "

hdn'^
".D'3*^

103 .d^os

nn

n3:3 n-i3 nB'T3 niipn

pi nnyn p33 3vn

Nn3tJ> 153
':"'d

p3n i:n" :nNi

nx

N^vini)

10

D^i'-aan

Dr:y "inr^ 3vn"

inj^o^

msni ".m^nn

pn

D^^'sjn pi

nny
Dn::'3

p:3 3v

b^ p^o nmi?
i^y

nxn" :noNB' i3 .smjoi'Dni

yji:n
.vi'yc'

T1KCD D^no
''.N'j-*D3

onn yiwn

D^3nvD "6^ ons

iioN

^3" insni ".N-injoDi

D-nnn dnod
n^j

NODO pc'n pN"

ijaJB'

imui
'b

DJ1

/au
15

vby

n3N^D
^313^1

>^3 in n^3

1:^^
inN^

n^tJ'^S^n
i^i?n

HlV^n
nnx

;D>D3

,N0D nrni?

T"i^' inio
,->no''

D"'xnc'n hjou'd

:3in3c> 103

n3 nnNi

;3-)yn ny

nod

nNC'-'i

ncnac'
D^^3n
j^jyB'

nnx

".ii

py

^^53

i>3o

nod*"

nnos nno v^y

py "b^"
^3 "

^a* hd'n fj3i"

nn3-ii

mrn

"p'k^^i

niyi 1331
^:^N

moxi nxm
,0.13

nivon

DiB>o ",Dn3

n3N^o

13 nii^y

''^3

moNi

D-ironu^c' 20
ic'x " v-i3n

,niyi3p

nno

''^y3

,no3iK>

D^b

in:i3 "

ens nsN^o

nt'y

^i^^3B'3 ic'yiii' -131^

on

n^^iNni

,Dn3N^o mo^y^

nam cnon
:

crNK^

DaiB^K'D HDiyni

neon hnoid

pi'3po ^no^NO yv >^3 "

fjit^^

noxu' 103

nD^B>o HDon DIN min^ n d-'nod

N^::^

N^t' no:

nn

niy3
25

^a

^y

cix

mon

bc>i 3Jp^i

didh^b'o yv

b^ p^on wnn n^b^ n3

ion

33p*i

DiDn^u'o

nbb

pD^^o pB>

nod

D':a30 33^

HEFES

B.

YASLIAH'S BOOK OF PRECEPTS

HALPER

147

37 b
D''j3n

arp

N^B^

'SI

bv n^ niDian

n-'ai

p":^,! n^n n^i^nn

nx

3:p^i

DiDH^E^D nmi'pni n^JDp D^jiJpn po^pD ptr

n^d

D'

ini'c'

nn-i^

onn

'':k'

n^^yy^jD n^i^nan

prom D^hn:n
5|3i

o-Jiipn

HQipn in^B' nmi? nnx "in

n^vuD

d^jind ^c'

n-1331 ns3
nt^y-'c^D 5
i's

nnN

n-T'as

ntryc'D piyni n^^^ ami? nn'-av tic'

mDn'c'o

riN ntry"'i ajp^i

33p''i

^inn hndid p^apD

tid^nsd niy
-ii

DiDn^B'D n"'UiipD v^TN riN nEyy-'B'D 61K min^

vnin^p

no^ni

-13.1

HTiin-'p

ns

nB'j?''ErD

din mini
ajp*-!

ii

a^pii

DiDnic'o
10

mna

na n^c^M inanityD din mini i

"b^ "
:

Dion'-c'D iiy ^b'

".

biion ns'DD ^3pD tid^xd py

DsiD'-tJ'

noN
ijy

niyi

D^nDD nc'DnD

iy D3-iD^

Tny

dni DiDNn

nirc'D ^y:Dni yDp^c^D

DDnc>''C'

DDicj'ic'D s'l^nDipi fi^anic*

ny nidipdx
i^ nic^y^
:

ny

Dt:-ic'i5i

".nuD
"INC':!;'

1^

ntryic'

ny

-ii3t:

n^ny Nine*
ajp^i

nonyn

iiy
15

HD TinnM vnau' n^N^D lOTty ny

:

niDnic^o

.SJ^I^S

moia

bn^ pTi
:

prabn n^n

3d
nisnp
:

pD

:nbb

.i:dd

niu^nn n^DDpn
.jn^

.nipn ni^Tis

pnn .m^n:
.pc^^

tproni .nnyp rQiJiJpn

:

ncnm
tniTsv

.nixh^ tvninip
bv
i^'T-'cyD
:

ncn

^Dnnn .n^vno
:

piyn .ni^Tis
.iiy
i^tj^

DiDxn ^y mjiu'D
."iii'^
:

.-ny jn^c'
DDnc^''

Ni^-iipD

y^-D

x-'i'^D^p

:^!?i3

inx "iDXD iiDNi

.02-13 ri'y

id-'c^^c'd

:D3-i3i?

.Disnn 20
"

p^npD "nD^XD Dvy

TiD^XD tinn
'JB'

'i'a

in^x^D -iDjnc' ny nxDt: 'finp^ px py ^b

^iji

D\sDt3 piiD3

piDinD

"i^n

jnax^D n^^nc'D nxDU

nn

Diij^ni )b

"'.imxbD idj xini ic'nsn ijsnv'c'a nxon

pbpn
.c:"'
c'^c^

1^X1

,Tix pnnD irxc' nDB>

1^X1

^^^

ijcmi

p^ix pnnn Tin

1^ v^:^

dhd nnx
,iin
i"in

.nxDD D^bipD
tyi"!

nyxt:'

nno
Oi'-xc'

c'^i

,nxDu n^ij^pDn dhd

c^"

^n^

25

Qi^apDH

.nxDD n-^apD

c'li

hxdd n^^pDn dhd

c^^

cnb pxc'

148

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

^D^NOCD Drsi nin

nrh

^''^

iIjni

.iin

nrh psB' p3i ^1n

b'^b'

nni)

b^^b^

pn nNotj
*ij3

pi

.Dni? pKB'

pm

iin an^

pn

han

px pb^ B'lpn

pas
n'>b:i

p'ah^

nn'^2 onis nxB'i? ib'sk "Nan D^^ac^a iJDinB'

nnm

nniK

m6^^

D''DB'B'

n3''3Dn

nm

nihijn nunni nna'nB' ni^jnin pja

nai p:D >'^o

Nint:':)

inis dnb'^ ib'skb'

^b onoi

.Qna nvv3i ^d^o

ini^'-anB'

nonni ny^nni
:

nnsm

na^n

ns'^^p pja

/n pnB^^ nipirnn

noxc

103 ,NOD*

pn pr

n^pnnb ha^ i^^n

pj3 ^iini

nnmn
''?3"

nnx nsi .nn^

D^ban ^3
"

cpK'ni ninoani
".ny>3vn
rr-s

nnan
iini

Dmnx

oni' b'^b'

arh pxi

Qninx on^ pN Bnpn

B>pn

".ii

ps'-vnoni

nrsD

nm

n^jpn

mi3i

mNi3i

iinjoi
b>^b>

nsn htb*"
^a

:ncNi

10

n^3 nxD D^y3-ix

ppnno

p^

n^bw nnb

bv

^ix
B'3"'3

nm:D3^N

p31 P^3pt: P3 Q^^DH

nijjy

-INB'I

DniHO

I^^N

nn

Dm3

|nB'

inm
*D
i^y

rbix
f\ii

min^ n t-nd i n3T hndd p^3pD

n3^-iyi
D"'^iB'y

pbpo

irNB*

p^3po

pnxi njup nj^ao -jui p^yn

d>3^d n^tiopi
irsB' D^Nota 15

pbpD Q^bn
vh^a

^53

nsBn

|n3"^

no3

n^''N

bDbD''b

mm*

-i

nmi? n^xo n n3T p3 ps d^ndd

NinB'

pi53pD pxBn pnino

NDU

nciy

i'B'

n3nD

n''i'3

nB'yn "

hdni

".n>3n !?y3 b\y n3"iy

DippnB'

nB'3''

nvbi) annxi na^n -iinD nyo b^ irNB> n3no

sis!?

pnn Dnino

D^arsD

DirpnnE' in nayn

nx nns

nioi'

nipirn

mrpnriB' is nayn

nx

jnn niD^ nipi^^n nippnu' d^iunhi

p^xm
^13^

20

^mmo
p^on
'Ni

n-iiv3

p^o nnnc

nii3o Dnoi ".cxot: D^jrxo

nnriB'

nion"
'a

moNB'
bv
fiN*

103 ,D*^nn

nx v^y

n"*:!!^

|pnnB ijoao in

Dmnu

pbpoi

caippnB'

O'-^nn

nnnc

pnia3 pnino o^i^nn nnriB' p^oaoni

nnci ".yp"ip3 Nin

IX
-iiy

nn

ypnp^ ininDn

b"

noN

niyi

".^i3p

dib^

]r\2

vba nsnc' nrn pin ^d*3 xvoan

"n ijya niyo nB'yjn "b^ 35

HEFES

B.

YASLIAH S BOOK OF PRECEPTS

HALPER

I49

28 b

N^tj'

^y

51N

Nr2D> D^n a^^a

j'lH

Nnpin
:

"m

byn niv HK'VJn

^-inx
"^

^b
v!?n

bx
nan

N^HB' *jai3 D^on

2^30 Dn^

iinu D^2{r
^lin jo

b"
D^b
nn^K'D

ncNB' 103

n^n

nam on
HNOD

ntriyn
i^'^sni

N^^y
Din

nm

B>iTa

miD

f'apDB'

nm

i^-'sni

}^-in2

bn:n jo 5

nc'y:.! ^i^a
^tani?

dhdi ".nsoDi?

man

n^na ijn^n^y^ nabi

noo
"^^JiD

nroiini ci'-jnioi niiiso pja .a-oaxD D"'ni^*nn

nnnnni npn

fliit^'n

inan

ns ptmso

man

nsntr!? snip

d-'D"'

nyac^"

:neNtJ> id3

natrh nnniD n:iav

n"'K'yo
^it:'
n^i)

nn"'2n "js ^ytj> n3K'^i> irr-aD

msn
pN
n^ij^Ji

nx
n^3 10

pN

rr-n
Ji

nac^i? nrsc'

Nnp3 n^i nxip: nn\n

pm

irpn
'3

N^yts ^no

nmx
u''\^

^bni d^jin ^bni

"-bai

^ba
''i'3

N^T P3\T

HNCD p^2pD N^T nO"IN

''1D31

D^:3N

'^31

D^^!?:

nn'<^b pintr *jo

nat^ ]rh

py

nnyp
nc'mi
rnr-'i'

nnoi ",nn
pid31

ibr^r'-b

moNtr
n3n

^3

^m3ncn
:

onn

Ni'V3i ^t"i3i

nnrD n^-yin

i'C'

-JD ^iD3 "

*iiyi

".nninu py 1^33

n^ u''^ n^3Dn " 15

^^jya
i'B'

D^b Dnoi
D-'^npo

".p-inuD
-i3i

3m nddo
-i3n

^jn^^dj

p-i D^na

^nxn i'3pDn

on^

dn

ijnN ;nis"iyn nir^xyn D^y'yjn

^nr n''

".DninD nisiyn niDvyo D^b ni^n" :noNB> i3

n3T
nn''{:^D

bv nn
:

i^''sn

Din

i^"'2n

piN3 ^n:n

|o Dni? n3"'n "

niyi

pnx

""b^b

U)r2^ n3N^ nyB'n djhk^

in n-'Dnct:' "'^3n p:3

D"'^3

Dni ".nod hncd ^3po

n"io:j::'3

Nint:'

20

,DiDnni ^nsvn
^^-l

dn
ijnN

,n3N^nn

ciDt>

nvn^o

ipos-i

DN

.hndd

n"'i'3po

d^n ^dh^ nonni ^nmann

nr n-is^ abiy

""jed

pen "b^m
pio '^3n

ran
-ip3

^id3 |ij3

.hnod bnp^ pb)vb htd

:

inN
pTii

^^3^

b^

Dipf?on "

noND' 103 ^cn^ nonni ^hn3rD b^

pnopi NiDopi
i^ej'

^iDO

NCD HDDp

^iD3

QninD

i^N

nn

HDJoni

Dnm
^id3

^tj>

sinom
^id3

nionni 25

nnnB> nd31 tnn

i^c 5r23r2ni ^jd

nan

iinD N-iccp

150

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

39 a

HTiTDn

nui hyjon

n^ni -ij^n n^ai

idd

i'B'

pjii^^sni

rb^ |nopni nann

DIN

i'^iJ'

pt'DK'o B'OB'Dn ^3 "-DV

nytj'^ N^''x

"i

Dx

i^bsn nr

nnino

i^^n ^'[n

msDD

irxc

^31 NroD

nas^o

nvLj'n n^b'i naNijD

nyd
naxi'D

wS^btsV'ii

pnanni anao p^m ^nian n^m ^inao p^n

nma
n''3i

N''J30^D p-Ti D"'Nt3Q i^\s

nn

niB'insn

n"'ni

D^xnn

N''t:npDi

nnuD min^
a

i u'hbn pTi ivid nxoi Nota n^yoijo

unw

Nincr

|on

hv

1N

niDian n^ii pj>:^n n^a n^xn ^lani

mii'ni

ns

linu nihb' ^jdd

nnn
.nsvn

Man

n^\s' u^nb'

ninu nc'cn hv nc^on

b'^b'

10

nx noann

npn

i'B'

u'\\>%n
>jatt

,[X^ HIE^pn D^S^H

:

^nS
po
:

".ndd D>b
ii?B'

.Dnmn
:r33 .nnao
:

pon ^b

onim
D'-n^JotJ^

i;^^

pinon .p-i

nionm
:najoni

p-ix
^^ni:

:N"ioop
i^ti'

.onn ni
:

nan

:nDap

.nm po
:

py*3-ii

.D'lun

.oian
'jb'

nicxn

.p^n

p^absn .^jy

*"id3

piDp .nd3 po

:nor

^b

aoncm

.0^^103

rp-rij-in .'103

rpTi

3nN

nyn''

:ni3i::
"iB'y

.Dmny

D^bnn 15

.nnijo
.nnB*

tmc'inan
ini'B'

.v^y D^noiDi D-'pnB'CB'

pyo

^i'a

Nin n^anon

tn^xn .iiyo ^icy

:n^d-ipd .my

b^

yi'o

:N*bDV

.Dioijip

ranaD

:X''J13DD

D'bpoT

*]in

Dn^

B'^B'

D^ijDm .n^pnpa

prj^n n^n

.1122

>r

pi^^i^n

.ij33

urh HDnni m^rnB' non ^^33 dhd nnx pxB'

nn^DB'i Dna-iDi

D^i^an

Dn ,nxot3
oni?
b'^b'

nuna

pja ;nNct: D^^apo D3\si

im

20

Dnn

NVT-Di

ini mB'i

nam mypi

n-npi noni h^db'i yaiai

D"'^3pon

Dniann onann
ijy

myB'i .nn^j^o

nx t^th^

thx^b'

r\^b^b ^yhr\
xiHB'

nsD inx
niy^^x

n^y^B'

no xin nina nnvn

pi^n "
:

niyB'n .nxcta
^ni^yoi

J21X

"i

fup

irB'

ncxB' i3

dtbi:

HEFES

B.

YASLIAH'S BOOK OF PRECEPTS

HALPER

15I

29 b

Ds

pi^n

ntj'ijjn"

:ncNi ".hsa mo3i

iiyB'i Nn^B>
ntJ'^B'

ny 6in
riB'^K'

cam

n^aij HNODni ".ninu

m6

dni

nod

^y

n
i'a

{i**

p:3 ,Dn3 N^V3i f\Mn

nns

k^db'^' ^c'yijj'i

ijpnnK n^i^an

^y

DN nstrn ^y
^1n Dni?

nx^DtJ^ n'^i'Dci Nnaia ^k^

pstj*

d'^di

yniai d''D33di N^ji'si xij^ajx 5

nnitj'S

D>bni

".nijiaa

nrncj nhsD dni

mnoi

noiB's

nnx ^b^ nan

pDinro
^tj'

p dn
.onij

n^'n

hndd wb^pD nya D^Dinn:n

Mi
itrtj'n
-n

5|T'

noNi:'
:

im

nonni p2-\2

iDtfpB' in

10

pDinn: b^

nunx "

niy^

".d^nddd oan^ inoD iry^^N

ic3-i3 in ipi^D r\v\)r\i2
ihb'

iriiDn lynpB'
i'B'i

'jao"

nnoNi ".pNDa
^ijyi ^tj'

D^na ^^yn
i'K'

niNOD

D^nn

^bi?

nnnvo

'ja

niNCD pinm

nnns no
ny nmnt:

D^^n nrNiJ' D^^nn ^^yn

nniy dhdi

"/i'3^ Dnrn^tr

nvon

niy i^^ax

ha^" mionb' iod

/b

nn

nie^y!?

inyna n3i nayt:' c^on 15

my

1N^;'

nn3 nax^o
pjyi

n^]}'>

ik'n 61^

o^n

yisB'Dn nainn niyi

"nvn iiy" p-im "nainn niyi"

-ny

".n3i'

pn

nc'yj

i6^ nainn myi

n^fon

-^Divn n^ah^b iD33n

n^

in^3 x^b* niniy

103 ^nn^i n^DJty
|n

nmy

nc'i^cr

shyn ncb'o

'dn

13 n^n n

on" nncNtr
nI^t

nam

p''ay

n^

n^op

n^

n''i'D

nvo Ninaii nam nva

30

naK'no n^nn

l^yn ^b'

niiiy"

:noNi

".p^ay n^i n^op

n^

n^^jm

DmK'

n^jyci

nmaa

r\\i/p^

bv Dmats
njaintj'

nir^B'

nmotr

n'^buD onoi ".inNouD

nniN D^ccB' IN

,n^i?y ant;'^

in

.Dmo hndd

nniN Nocon nnN n^^y

30 a
B'ontrn^ n^ainc^

Dmaa

n\^b^ bv

amaD

ntr^K'o
i5^n:r3

nnma

in ,n*Dii Noaiijo

ijy

nmctr namn

in ,\6

non

mny

na nancDB' ,in^D BnDB> na

152

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

ik ,v^y rh^nan ix ntDn nj?:jc' n^voi

D^atrini:'

cnsD

nc'^i^

i^y

cnsD

ntj>^B>

IN ^nbyDi D^nDu

nyais ^y

D^nst:

nymx

^mir p^ in
ijy

,->nN

nan na \pnb

imoB>

}'3 IN n^yoi

D^nsa

rnjr:in

D"'nsD nt^on imf2B> y^io 5

hb'B'
i'y

NODn

Dn"'^y

2d^

in

2C'"'

is diib' n^yoi

cnsu
n

by

D"'nDt3

n^^

onann
nanir
nnsiB' ^s by
fiN

|o

ma

N^vai

,13 lyjJB' in

i^MNntr in .oniN

"ibi^n

n'''\2in

jo nbyDi

nsD

i'y

nsu npb dni .d'-ncddh

,13

D-'K^ont^o pNt'
nc'bK'

nsoD nins
"

in ^vby nat^b irani ^b'>yb

:

D-nob ncbc' by

dik^ nduo njan

pii^n

noN::' ids ^hnod

cb::*

bap"-

10

HK'Dn niyn nyaiN by nyaiN

:niyi

no DNOob
piK' ntj'ty

by

trbs' nityoi

".n Nonbi D-nob

ntj'bK'io

by r\^\^ ^so nc'on by

nc'yi

n^b^ by

nins pN aat^cb ija

:*iiyi

obao yxip N^jn"

at:'iDb

:myi ".Ninc^ ba noyobi"

",Ninc ba nrnNbi nau

-iiyni

yxpDH
'i^V^^ n

pm
6n nn

pa-iDVD psroni iiyn

'Ncb

pK'n pB>ni

ijan"

15

nsu by nan

ni2d

hdd by

net: |bao
t^^pb
ja

pN

"

niyi

''.iiDn ^aj by n^btonb ^inii b^Nin ^n^ n dik'o

iNc^yc^ -iiy"

T"ianb
lina

myi

".invn

nN

c^ct'cn Nb^N

nouo

nN^:t20B> trbc'

by t^bt^"

myi ".nod

Nintr ba ib^DN

nnioa in nbnn

nnN hnso

yjvien |o rrian

batj'

hndd nun

20

boa npipQ nn^nc in na nainn uno in na nnv pnysi in

".ijab nyjrc' ny Nb'-N

nNon

ni"'N

obiybi nninD neipa in

\^b^ by

B^bt'

na ]^n^ n'-buoa nntjo

n-'oni

"i

hm NaN

-i

on "

niyi

30 b

can nin" :noNi .n'om

NOiibo n^jibsDNb
-iinot' ^D by ejN
^:^bu'

-ia

nabm ".D>Tc'yb
ntrbtr

Nbi n^^jyb xb

Nnn Nbn
na

^N::'yt^'

by

nt^'bc'"

:myi

''.nvan:

oyonic^

nu^bti^

by nc'btr"

:niyi

".hnou n^ani

by

nc'b::'

mns

N^jn" :niyi ".niNOun baa ncd D-non jo

nyibi pn-ion

D^mn nN

ia

njpbi

nmpn nN u

nN

ii p^sb p^-jnnt^ 5

HEFES
pni

B.

YASLIAH S BOOK OF PRECEPTS

rbiN

HALPER
NTpy
?bx

153

pi pn

v^)n> n

-i?y^i?N

nm

NtDn

piD px^y pm pi pn
n nint3 piD pNiy

ab)]} iba -iiHD

piD

^''Nt;'

NDta pi 6i
-i

i53n

nm
N^"'N

nosipn nn^jn xD^y ''hai pnv

n:n nn nn
np-ir

nm

on

ip^m N^ rht22 "-hDn

i^an

nm

hbk'n^

ni^^y n-riyi

nst^N^ ipnr nhiD -i3d nry^x ni n^n

mnN

in^jn in

nna

iNi^nB*

lo

"nn
nN?D'j

61!?

dIti

nnnbn ns nmi?
"iiytj'^

pjDi "

noNty io3

pn nm

mina Dmin
dj nnroi

yw Dn3

NvrojB'a nj''DD 'y^pi

i^NnNntj' in

ni3ib''i

s*cD^ ""iNnn ba "

yi^p

noNC' im ,v^y

lyjjK^ in ,^id

P33 n^yjjn
''.D^i^jJii
'1"'

nddo D-no nNt: nddo

u^nb' ^s ^y ]n
11^*11

na
i'B'

15

HNT DNi

nnsD nnsDoi
lo^bti'm

naatj'

^jk^

D^nti'^

m^so

v^N
DNDtsD

"innK'

Jjy

nodoh

niyj^n

mns

in

nvv31

nnn

minn

"inn^^

lann dndd nn\n dn

/iiN-ii?

D^anv ^hndd bnpo

nm
imn
20

IN Dn'':B'n

hnod nNVDJB^s
NroD"*

pn-^:^ inou"- ^v^n iinnt;>

nn-'n dni

nmn p
HB'yn"
riiDNtr iod

n!?

nbp iriNOD

.nno nnNn

^mion inscDC' nan

1^

nnnc^s iniN ndddh

nnNi njnn

nyaiN iiyn
niyn

jo nnNi pc'n

hk^^k' ptj^n

\J2

d-jb'

nnxi psDn

nnn

nnNi

p nc^nn p^n p

minu pann
pe^n

nnNi

"^-w^

ni^'i'B'

nnNi niyn

nyanN

31 a
".ninta liKD

^pn

nod

ijdo nionn

1^ -in^nty

^3 i>^3n nr N0t3

nnvn nnik' hd^ c-'Inih

cnnN

D''b n3o nt^yi ^noyDnji

hnod: dni

non
^iN-i
"iJ^NB'

p:3 /r nriNOD nvoa nxtrn

-inN

^mipn nsi'oi
.n^Dtr

nn\it^3 T'Ini
niryi

^b n:on

nc^y

dn

i^aN

njoo

nDyonjc'
N^^t:' noi'

non

"

iidnk' ion

^minu /^ nonni yv
nNtj'yc'

pj3 ,dtipd h'-int nriNn

13 non

iNK'yK'

bonni ^Din

non

-iinu

non
non

iNt^yri'
"13

h'^dk^i

h'^db'

nNc^yc'

nnsDoi nnsDo

iN^'yc'

iNK'yK'

i^di pno iNK^yc'

154

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

nnN
n'^b

ndd

^r2^b ^ny^ii^ bs

bbnn

nr

nod noa nsu^yc

noNi
".-iinLJ

D'bn

b"

n3i33i natj'non

nsotan

nij'SJ

13T3

iJ^nian

niNa
D.no

^B'

njwn ".nXk^no TtoNiji nB'yo

td
:

n^ n^tano nrx
N\t

n^y

xi'

nNOt: pni ^3:^'^D3 d^ndd3 D"'^3n b^

,ni?nn3

r]:n

nxm

n:hr\r]

vnc noo DniN

i'D''

"UB'^tra

n^jn

;Dmix3
nnrnv
|o

DnB> jot ba

nniN pi nno

^mnN miv^
.onn

Dnis
dji

n'-ayi

15

Dn1:^'yS DniJiy^ nac'nDni

at^'n^:'

niK'non
'b^

n-nxn
"^iib

nar-no wsh

;D"'i'D

Dnc*

pr b^ /iNoun nx nno p^D' ab

D^^an ^3" pjy

\:^i<^

friNOH 'rb piT.*

.n^ 7]Dip^
:

mns

nno

nvc^yb

onn^o D^b

^ya c^^nnc'a

sin " nnc'non

Dmx

NDD^c' nan ona yjiB'a

nc^y^B'
;

hnod
i^ya

i^jap*

nijyia inar-no

pN

D-iaci?

cmx

jcx n\n D^^an

dn bin

nniy

"

iidnk' 10a

nac^

a^^ne^

onann bv Dib

31 b

ps pay

b^

iriNCUD

narno n-an
b:y

i?ya

i't'

inNDOD
'SD^^yan ib'nti:
iiy n^cc^ v^y ae'HK'

nasj'nci aj3

iriNoao nat'no
fi'rj

i6^

^ao

iriNOuo na^'no pN
i^'ni "

ijcri

my omo niNoo nniy

noNi
5

Nsnn

-iiy

cinan

my

fnan

my ncnn my mon my
"lan

N'-^aop

my

N'u-ipD

pnon my D*n noan myi

noNi
''.no

my

'pp ^t^ aSn

my nonyn my
pmon myi

NOD

DIN

oam dtio

oin -ry^^N i

nona Nvn n^ no on"

:^a i?N ^^ao

nnaiyn niNoun naia

N^

n-iNivat'

Dnma

n^i nniDaac' ana i6^ n-iNivac* ana ab

JjapD N^J

ncnan am hndiu I'^apo px nn nn nmoaaB' nnina u

HEFES

B.

YASLIAH'S BOOK OF PRECEPTS

n^T
b'^:^

HALPER

155

iNtJ'yi

ninu nbi

bm noo

rron2

b^ an N^inm hnod

nam nha
NH ijury
DHo rnsrsD
Dnn
;

lyaptt' ^a

bv ^a n^n^ iscyi nona

b^ kcu noni^

r^iy pNi nntfnoa inscu n^^

n^b h^nt

pniv D^bn b^^ ncd Dnr:D3

xn

n^b'p !> nc'yo ^li^c'a sij^x inN^^a

n^D

n^^japo dj^ni iin

nn^ pxB>
Bnoc'i

D^i'Dn
triroB'

"imai ".hary n^^

n^H
'i'3

15

D'K'criK'OK' i^s

.pim

nnp

nna

D'ti'onB'OB'

py

nnn''

nm^n

dji .onn'^ro n'''"iD3i n'-a^ipi

mo^D
e'ir2*k:'n

n:3 ,nxot2 D^^npo

nrx

pnp

c>io:y
1i?^<l

,isij3

n^crontroD Nin

nnpn

.d'-xcd pirn k'idc D^y'Dcr:n

|i:3

n^NC' ciB'o
^D^cytson |o
D'^u'yjn

pn2

s<vi^3i

,ni3Di

nmjo

,DnnN n^b

Err35i''C'a

pimni

nnmn ns bs^ cm
nn bi
cc::'^ 'Vk^'yn"
JiNi

''B'onB'Dt^' D'-^an nxi

rnxn ns

hie^dk'o 20

NJ2D> nrn jion 10 nihk'

P331 D^iDn pjD

.|na nvv3i ^nijup

nnypi

n^Di^i ,ni3:si

nnyp

p:3

rnxn ns
"'tJ'c^J'o

:nt:NC' ica /nix xction

i^'^ub
'''i^v^

nm u mpca
ai^ipn

Dnxn

niNn ns

pint: nninjNi miici

32 a
ni'Dn b)2' yv 'b^"
bi3''

:n?:Ni ".d^nod

va^nm n^nam
nx

in^c'n

|i:d

IN

I'y

>b

N^i YD ^^3

bo
nx

61!?

rb^n mi:Dni nnin:ni n^ipni

n*^*io ^jn'C

nnn

py '^3

bi^ rb^n "pn^nn nxi nij^un nxi in^trn

"inx i^x
N''^'inh

D^n tayD ninan nnnc'

't'DU'D

i^n

nx
ptr

nn-iij

n\sn nc
p'^

DNi

mxn

nx

tj'na'o xintr

invD

nn py

b^b

nx

pK'OB'D

p^

*pn^m nbiDn nxi |n^cn nx nnix

xincr D^Jon

^jx fjx

mxn nx
ptroK'io
jntj'

tyotJ'D

nx

x''Xioi

Dixn

'^'cc'd

nxi

mxn mxn
13"'xt

mijoni nnin^ni
n^^u?3 nnoi

nijipm

mxn

^ci^c'o

nx

b'cb'd

nmotr
B'/B^ na^i'tynB'
ntyist:'

".mxn nx

pB'ocj'o |rxi

mx

^cj'd:^

nx
10

nnoi .nn x^fvai ^nsc'x^ myb^^n^ D-nsu

:

nB'^B' i'y

D-nsu
i'y

nu^bu'

bv r^^b^ "

ncxB' i3

,xr:3i^o ix n'-on
nn3i't:'n
ni'iyi'

^y niynvx ci^c

niyasx
nsB'xi'

nmrnni

nmnoa

nxoD ninnn mvin

:niyi

n'D-ii nojii;n n^jii'soxi' nxB-yc^ B'i^B' i'y B'i'B'"

".nnxcuo

{
156
NVDJ

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

p DN

aba ;niTVD pi nin^vo

"
:

j^nc'

pn .ninstso Dni '^nninta

pa nnsDH ninDun

'noKB' ids ,vbv 'l^^^N^ in

non

ii?:j

ix yij jnn 15

nn^ixD iN ^^^^ noi ^xdb^ n^a

nnn

niNCi3 pn^ivo p^str pai nn^ivo

p-i jiindd n1n^1^^D p^Nti'^

".nmno
p-i

i^ni i^jn

din
-ii

^N^i>D3

nnina

nan psn: din

pyDB'

"dv "i" :iiDNy> ids ^^n^^d: p-ia na^ni

nnism

^ij;:Dni

nj^m ni?nn dhdi ".DniD ijn vimai

D"'yi3p

nnsD nnsDDa
n-ivni -\"'xn

^n^^jdj

oniya ni:vni nnipni

niariD
-i-ivn

nnnu' 20
^pjnn

n^nn

|d

pn ndd

iDvy

"-JDa

dc' 1^

c'^b^

'b ^3" niDNtr id3

iB'y:tr n13^J^1

mipni n^vni
D^t^^yjn

nnnB> nnisni ^lyjDni njjni

in^i ".vp"^pa

moD

n\T DNi

.in

N^vai .o^nB^Di idvd

nbv^b narjB^ n^bn

CORRECTIONS
Fol. 7 a,
Pol.
1.

IN

ARABIC TEXT OF HEFES

should read

31.

D3nN^

Mnl'N

28

a,

I.

O^ should read p""

TO
I

7QR., VOL. V,

pp. 443-52.

AM

greatly obliged to Dr.

I

Davidson
would

for his scholarly

remarks
in

on /QR., IV, 621-34, and

reply. (i) First of all
it is

like to

add a few words

Abraham Hakohen
I

are

know, there are

list

five

How many known from the Genizah? As far as different Abraham Hakohen. We can give
proper to answer the question.
:

the following

of

them

Abraham Hakohen in Schechter's Saadyana, p. 67, 11. and MS. Brit. Museum Or. 5554, B. No. 20, where we read
A.
B.
1.

ff.,

24

f.

D^^pi

^n i3-in^

\r]^r]

^n"ib>*

^D'-^iN''

im^j'o

pan

nn-iaxi

B.

Abraham ben Amram Hakohen,

see Schechter,

loc. cit.,

p. 64, 12.

C.

Abraham ben Jachin Hakohen,

67, 637,
fjor

Schechter,
in
:

loc. cit., p.

41.

D. Abraham ben Joseph Hakohen

see

MS.

Adler, No, 223;

ZDMG.,
nTjj'^

zx\^JQR., IV, 623

'ii

p^n

Dn-i2X ^l

^Wt\

^nx

K^NT

'no

nhnan pmnjo minnn

[?-)-in]n

E. 18
the

Abraham Hakohen ben

^JN

Isaac.

found the name

in T-S.

J. 14. 5 (the letter is written

by the Gaon Solomon, and bears

r\rh^\ and T-S. 13
J. 19.

signature
is

Tmi^h
|1N3

r\y^^r\

3
J.

(there

signed

npy

DTtT'' K'NT

[T'yjvn no^CJ'); T-S. 13

later

19. 18 is a letter of

condolence by Eliah Hakohen, the

'ai

Gaon

to

myn

nc'
is

p^n nmaN

'-10

p'^ii

inn

p.

Since

Abraham
{j\'y$r\ "IB')

Hakohen

styled in the former letters in the

same way

157

158

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

are fully justified in regarding that

we

Abraham

as a

member
to

of the gaonic family in Palestine.

We
far

have now to turn to the more important

task,

namely

settle the dates of these five

Abraham Hakohen approximately

one
is

as

as possible.

The

first

mentioned in the panegyric

in

published by Schechter, and

a British

Museum

Fragment.
for

now a part of it has turned up The newly-found fragment is

our question, because
personalities
it

in

so far of great importance

to settle the time of the
It
is

enables us

numerous

mentioned therein.
since
!

especially
is

important for

our

question,

Hakohen

regarded as the writer of the poems

learn that the

Abraham From the

new Fragment we
addressed had
is
is

man

to

whom

four sons, Isaac^ Jacob, Sahl,

the poems were and Joseph? There

no doubt

that their father's

name was Abraham.

Hakohen,

His brother

mentioned, however, without his name.' Further, we hear of his

of Ali Hakohen,^ Israel

sister's son,^

Amram Hakohen,

and

finally of

Who
of

are,

Abraham Hakohen. now, these men ? Schechter

our
all

has published a series

Israel,

poems, where the same names (Ben Ali Hakohen,

Abraham and Amram,

If

Kohanim)

recur as in our fragment.

is

we want a

further

proof that

the Brit. Mus. Fragment

a part of the Cambridge Fragment,

acrostic
it
.
.

we have
rblO 1
.

to consider only the

.

y nj?^

^JT"

nh:n

ryi

..

Schechter's has

also.

See Z/HB.,
B.
1.

7,

112.

II

f.

nipi^D iiv:

in^::'''

pon
"-yuji

ppyi
pipy 10^

\)nT in33

nc'"^

tiDVi br\D

d:i

B.

1.

15

QHy^n li-'hnj TnNi nns*

n'-n

B.

1.

18

psv D^pnV^ TJ'N 31Dn \iv

.pan M^ inins

jon i:n23J
Dip"'

ti33

"

B.

1.

21

.iDcnnnn
.HON 'nx

n^nnn br\

jnjn "hv pi?

TO JQR., VOL.

V,

PP.

443-52

MARMORSTEIN
cf.

159

Schechter thought that their contents represent a panegyric of

'

a head of the

Academy
to

of

rT'oriD

'

(p.

63

66, 8-9).
in

Schechter
to

drew attention

the last great Geonini

Sura,

Saadya

and the

last

Gaon Samuel ben Hofni,

at least the

ought to expect

name

Gaon (Schechter, p. 65), or Israel The man was Abraham (see ZfJIB., VII, 112). We venture now to suggest that the hero of the poems was none else than Abraham, the father of Sahalon (on the name jS^riD and ^HD,
see Steinschneider, y<2^., XI, p. 316).
It still

If that were so, then we Dosa the son of Saadya the son of Samuel ben Hofni.

of

remains unsolved,

why

in course of time

Sahalon and not one of the other brothers,

representative of this family.
is

as Isaac or Jacob,

became the main

That we cannot explain now. Sahalon ben Abraham

by the
letters

well

known

he received frequently from Salomo ben Judah

Gaon. T-S.

20. 6 contains the marriage contract

between Sahalon

ben Abraham and Esther, the daughter of Joseph ben Amram,

the judge (DDIKTi), dated Fustat, 1037.

Poznanski mentions him

les

among

the

JNI'T'p *t^JN
1

(see his Esquisse historique siir

Juifs

les

Kairouan,'VdiXSOv\e,

909, p. 44) on account of the Document signed

by him 794 c. e., 345 Doc. (see Hirschfeld, Arabic Portion of Cairo Genizah at Cambridge,Y pp. 3-4, reprinted from the JQR., 1904).
,

Then Sahalon was

Sahalon's father

already, 1034, the

styled

head of a court or community.

is

Haber

in the great Synhedrion (T-S.

and (T-S. 13 J. 13. 28) as already deceased. Before or about 1030 Solomon Gaon wrote many letters to Sahalon
13
J. II. 5)

about the distress and sufferings of the Jews in the Holy Land
(see

my
die

article

'

Die Wirren

unter

dem Fatimiden
1914).

al-Zahir
If our

und

Juden

in Palastina', in Becker's Islam,

suggestion
it,

is right,

and there

is

nothing which

may be

said against

we may

say that this

Abraham

lived before 1030.

We

get

thus a piece of family history and the date of

Abraham Hakohen,

who

lived according to these proofs

between 1000 and 1030.

fact

which clearly

justifies

the

mentioning of his name in

connexion with the published fragments.

further support than

But we have even

would seem

at first sight.

We

need not consider Abraham Hakohen, who lived perhaps

l6o

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

whom we
mentioned under C,

as late as 1200, or the next one,

because his date

is

entirely

unknown.

Yet, a very important

personality seems to

me

to

be Abraham, the son of Joseph Gaon.

ZJDMG., 67, 637). My suggestion Joseph lived about 989 that this Abraham was the son of the afore-mentioned Gaon Joseph
(see

was attacked by Poznanski

any reason.

{ibid.,

68, 122), as far as I see, without

For we see

clearly that Joseph, the second,

I

who

died 1053 was never called Gaon.

correctness of

have many proofs

for the

my
will

view.

First of all

Worman, who went through

he says
the latter has S]DV

the unique and most valuable Collection in the University Library

at

Cambridge,

bear

me

out, for

'30 ^Tw'^"I C'xn r^oW* 'TQ lann in^n as signature.

That means

even

after the

death of Solomon, his son was never styled neither

did he style himself

725).

Rosh Yeshibat Geon Jacob {see/QJ?., XIX,

But one might say that he was not called Gaon by himself,

or by his contemporaries, but that after his death,

when

there was

no more
p. 88),

fear of

Daniel ben Azariah (see Schechter, Saadyana,

styled.
is

he was so

Now

I rely

upon two witnesses

T-S.,

20. 31, dated 1092,

signed as the third

member

of the Court by

Solomon Hakohenben Rabbi Joseph, AbHayeshiba, ys\ (Schechter, It is quite impossible that this Solomon was the p. 81, n. 2).
son of Joseph the
first,

who was even by

(see

the

Geonim

of Babylon

considered as their colleague

more about Solomon ben

Another son of Joseph,
he
think that Fragment

Joseph

in the

American Journal of Semitic Languages and Litera155,

tures, voir

XXII,

and

ibid.,

247).

the second,

nm,

signed Fragment Adler, No. 2557, and

styles his father likewise as n3''B'^n

2K.

I still

Adler

refers to

Joseph the

first.

Therefore we have only to

choose between Abraham Hakohen

remains

we

see

A and D. The question now whether these two are different persons or not. For from MS. Adler that the latter was also experienced in the
It

art of versifying.

was, therefore, according to

my

opinion,

justified, to bring the

poems

in

connexion with these two men,

named Abraham ben Joseph Hakohen.

that our

There can be no doubt

poems

are to be considered with these two names, which

perhaps represent one and the same person.

TO JOR., VOL.
The
last one,

V,

PP.

443-52
Isaac

MARMORSTEIN
recurs in

161

Abraham ben

Hakohen

Fragment

Oxford 2876. 67 as
J. 15. 14,

Abu

Ishak Abraham ben Ishak, and T-S., 13

epistle is preserved

where a poetical

mostly in Aramaic.

734) headed by the composer Zakkai Hanasi ben Jedidiahu Hanassi. The composer was
It is

according to

Worman {/QR., XIX,

perhaps a Karaite.
tial

Abraham must have been

to

a highly influen-

personage and was related, as we saw above, to the gaonic

family.

However, he has nothing

I

do with the

writer of

our

fragments.

may be allowed

to refer here to another point of the

to

history of the Palestinian

sideration.
I

Geonim, which ought

have further con-

came across a fragment dated Damascus 4797, T'V^'m 1037, and signed by Elijah 'n: 'nnJDa "I3nn \r]-2r\, son of Salomo Now if we take ^VT for a eulogy for the f'Vr 3py> |1W nn'^kT'' t:'N-|.

in

deceased, then the

Gaon Solomon ben Judah, who was

is

the

Gaon

Jerusalem about 1046 (see Bacher,y(2i?., XV, 81 and Epstein,

a different one.

Monatsschrift, 47, 341),

Poznanski [REJ.^ 66, 68,

and

ZDMG.,

68, 123)

endeavoured to show that there were two

Geonim with
ported by

the

name Solomon.
Din he
says
*

His references are not sup-

About Solomon Auf Salomo ben Jehuda folgte nicht der Vice-Gaon Josef Hakohen, der vielleicht inzwischen gestorben war, sondern dessen Sohn Salomo, von dem wir iiberfacts,

and

therefore not convincing.

:

ben Joseph

Ab

bet

haupt wenig wissen.'

have to confess that

know nothing

at all

about

this

Solomon Gaon ben Joseph Ab Bet Din, and Poznanski

unfortunately forgot to give us his collected material concerning this

Solomon ben Joseph.

to Epstein

The second Solomon, who was according

was, as Poznanski
is

no

priest,

going to prove, the son

68, 121).

of a Judah and grandson of Berechiah

{ZDMG.,
is

The
and

reference given in RE/., 66, 64, 61, n. 5,

not satisfactory, since

the Oxford Fragment 2729. 5 has nothing else but the name,
he,

Solomon,
I will

is

not even called Gaon, according to the meagre

:

note.

not ask the question

?

Who

knows how many Judah

the date of the quoted

ben Berechiah were there

fragment
is

Despite of

it,

by no means
I

sure.

First of all the time of the

in the

poem

has to be settled.

found further a fragment

most valuable

VOL. VL

1 62

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

MS. 3363.
7,

Collection of Mr. Adler in his

the following passage
iDS-n

wherefrom

copied

Nin

:]i)r\''

r\r:b^ ^o

pi nr Nin *d ^nbti dni

nc'n i^

1D3D

nnnai

nnj3i

?n3^ [Pnwn]

nnn nc'N

have shown on other occasions, the dignity of Solomon ben Judah was fiercely attacked, and we have to await still further

As

which may throw sufificient light on this dark and mostly unknown chapter of the history of the Jews. Finally, I mention only, that we infer from T-S. 13 J. 21. 9 that Solomon's native The Gaon is ill and his secretary country was not Palestine. about a man who came from psJ lyjnx m^io pK. communicates
details

The
4.

letter is written to

Ephraim ben Schemariah.

(2) I cannot accept Dr. Davidson's suggestion that the phrase

32 refers to the Jewish people at large and not to the relation

to
heretics.
?

of the writer

How

is

i.

fif.

and

i.

24 to be
that there

explained otherwise
are in the

There can be no doubt whatever

references in abundance.
as of his ancestors

poems personal

The

writer

spoke of the Maccabaeans

and not of the

Macca-

Maccabaean period
intention, however,
life

If the poet

wanted to

glorify the

baeans as such, he would have spoken of the 25th of Kislev; his

was surely to

tell

us the history of his

own

and
(3)

sufferings.

From my
I

notes and

first
it

copy made in Cambridge ten

years ago,

cannot think

probable that the date does not

belong

at the

head of the

first,

but at the end of the fourth piece.

One would be
copy
is

inclined to agree to Dr. Davidson's suggestion,

it

as I myself considered

several times, yet

my

pagination of the

against

it.

A. Marmorstein.

London.

RECENT HEBREW BIBLIOGRAPHY AND PALAEOGRAPHY

Catalogue of Hebreiv

Museum.
Ethics
;

and Samaritan Manuscripts in the British ByG. Margoliouth. Part III, Sections II-VII
;

Philosophy

Poetry

Philology

Mathematics and
pp. 157-377.

Astronomy; Medicine.

London, 191 2.

The new
the

instalment of Margoliouth's excellent Catalogue will

satisfaction as
its

be received with as great a

thoroughness

predecessors.

With

we

are

accustomed

to

from

the

previous

volumes the learned author brings

scripts of the British

to our

knowledge the manuwhich

Museum
devoted.

in the various branches to

the present volume

filled

is

The
full

division of Kabbalah, which

the

first

section of

volume

III,^ is followed

here by Ethics

(Nos. 865-78), including a very

description of the little-known

in
its

book of the famous Talmudist Menahem Meiri

lations of the

two parts

Philosophy (Nos. 879-923), beginning with the Hebrew trans-

works of the Greco- Arabic school and their Jewish

commentators and abbreviators, Levi ben Gershon and Judah

Messer Leon, as well as some early Arabic Karaitic manuscripts
of considerable interest both in

Hebrew and Arabic

script

among

the Jewish works in this department most of the well-known

mediaeval philosophers are represented.

Poetry (Nos. 924-49), No. 930
cluding as
it

In the fourth division,

is

of historical importance, in-

does the Divan of

of others in which a great

description of the remarkable

Abraham Bedarshi and poems many names occur; Margoliouth's

Codex
is
fills

IV,
^

if

the author's conjecture

right,

No. 924, contains part of Samuel

twelve pages.
the
of"

See JQR.,
of

New

Series,

II,

259,

where among
the

large

private

collections

Hebrew

manuscripts,

great

library

Chief

Rabbi

Dr. M. Gaster has been omitted.

163

164

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Ben Kohelet. Among Philology
(Nos. 950-1000)

ha-Nagid's lost

we

find a part of Abu'l-Faraj

Harun's Mushtamil, and a Genizah

fragment which Margoliouth believes to be an autograph of Moses

ibn Chiquitilla.
again, contain a

Mathematics and Astronomy (Nos. 1001-19),

good many

translations

from the Greco-Arabic

school, just as Medicine (Nos.

1020-41) which concludes the

volume.

For these translations Steinschneider's masterwork on

that subject could be followed by the cataloguer as a safe guide

but Margoliouth's description of

many

of the manuscripts which

list

were known to Steinschneider only through his short

points

in

some
offers

means a

distinct

advance over

his predecessor,

and

material for carrying further his researches.

Thus

in

No. 888

he

for the

first

time acquaints us with a complete translation

of Aristotle's
tifies

De

Animalibus, by Samuel ha-Levi,

whom

he iden-

with

Samuel ha-Levi Abulafia who helped Alfonso

(1252-82) with his astronomical works in Spanish.

however,

We

do

not,

know whether

this

Samuel translated any book into

Hebrew, and therefore Margoliouth's hypothesis lacks confirmation.

Moreover, there was another Samuel ha-Levi, who

at least

a century later translated into

Hebrew a
is

letter

of the

Vezier

Ibn al-Katib of Granada to the Castillian king

(1350-69),
the beginning of which

Dom

Pedro
the

found

in a

MS. of
the

New York
name
book.

Seminary,

This

later

Samuel not unlikely was also

especially

the translator of Aristotle's

book,

since

family

Abulafia does not occur in either

MS.
this

I will

add now a few notes made during the perusal of the

manuscript

No. 867, VI, has been published from

by Grossberg as an appendix to his edition of Maimonides's

niNlDT "IQD, London, 1900, pp. 51-61.

In the

initial

poem

1.

3
!

Grossberg reads non^

for the correct ninl',

and suggests Tr\rh

No. 87 r, VII.
Schach
bet

The

critical editions
p.

of the

poem by

Steinschneider,

den Juden,

195,

and Rosin, Reime und Gedichte Ibn

Esras, pp. 159-62, ought to have been mentioned.

No.

873,

I.

One would
Meiri's

like to

know whether
is

the manuscript

is

identical with

the printed nvr^nn nnJX, Constantinople,

151

1. No.

873, II.

pw

ITJ*

also

found in Cod. Guenzburg 520, III.

HEBREW BIBLIOGRAPHY AND PALAEOGRAPHY

MARX
IV; Hebrew to
fully

165

complete manuscript of both parts of Meiri's work of the year

see

147 1 was used by Rabbinovitz, in his Variae Lectiones,

end of

that volume.

No. 874.

The
D^'Tl

relation of the

the

Judaeo-German version of the

by Steinschneider
the conclusion
that the

nimx
is

was very

discussed

in Serapeiun, 1869, pp.

132-6

he there reached

Hebrew

the original

form of the

popular

treatise,

an opinion he repeated when describing the oldest

known manuscript of the Hebrew, written in 1503, in his catalogue of the Hamburg MSS., 1878 (No. 204). P. 176, col. i. The corruption in the first comment of Levi can be corrected from the quotation in Steinschneider, who reads i:)J''N niDB'n 17N nyT'B'
"m^n
for

"'m^n nsr "h^.

P.

i8o, col.

i.

larger piece of the

introduction of Messer Leon was published by Steinschneider in

MGWJ.,

1893, PP- 313-14-

No.

900.

Steinschneider in the
is

passage quoted by Margoliouth says rightly that 1478

of the copyist, not of the translator;

the date

see also Cat. Hirschfeld,

is

No. 274, where the No.

a

original of

Cod. Oxford 1227

described,

901. Hirschfeld's A'?^j-^r/ includes, besides the Arabic original,

edition of

critical

Ibn Tibbon's

translation based

on several

manuscripts.

Cassel conjectured that Joseph ben Baruch, for

whom Judah
translator,

Cardinal translated the book, and not the

;

latter

emigrated to Palestine

see also Steinschneider, Uebers.,

404.

No. 904,
six

II has been used in Gorfinkle's edition

p. 24),

(New

York, 191 2, cp,

first

and characterized as very good

introduction.

for the

chapters of the
is

No.

906.

The poem
ibid.,
;

nX''

jns

the

first

in Steinschneider's collection quoted, p. 215

note, see the references, ibid., p. 22.

No. 907,
581. P.

p.

213 end,
ibid.,

No. 6r
the

Bacher,
is

MGWJ.,
The
is

1909, p.
in

214,

No. 22

poem

quoted also
226.

Ibn Jahya's

^^^npn bpC'

(end of \Vih

Dnirob).

p.

edition

mentioned by Steinschneider as
225.

printed in 1839

actually that of 1847 mentioned, p.

No. 918,

III.

The

introductory

Literaturblatt des Orie?tts,

poems were published in the 1847, p. 404 sq., with some variants

Steinschneider in the Bodleian Catalogue, p.

authenticity of
,

1573, doubts the

some of them.

No.

918,

IV.

The poems

in

Firkowitz's introduction to Sluzki's edition.

No. 922, about

the


; '

l66
ch^]}
is

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

""^n,

see Loewenthal in Festschrift Feilchenfeld.

No. 925,
und

la,

by Abraham ibn Ezra;

152
;

see
f'DB'n

Rosin, Reime

Gedichte

p.

Ilia,
is

ibid.,

148. In
based on

noiD, No. 925, II, the reading

Dn^^D^

to

be preferred to those of the editions.

is

No,
II.

926.

Lagarde's edition

this manuscript,

Kamika

uses both

note.

No. 926, See No. 930. See Jewish Davidson, Parody Fabbifis frangais, pp. 710-14. Neubauer's description 263, No. 951, II and See now MGJV/., 1913, 314
Nos. 926 and 927
in the notes to his edition.

in

Literature, p. 7 sq.

in

P.

p.

sq.

III,

belong together and form a combination of Sherira's Letter and

the Seder

Tannaim

the passage which disturbs Margoliouth

is

a well-known quotation from the latter source, from which the

greater part of p. 46 of Neubauer's edition
is

taken, while p. 181,

bottom
Wickes,

to the end, mainly belongs to Sherira.

P.

295, note.

who

has compared the two manuscripts, and a third in

that

Parma,

states

they agree

'

almost verbatim et literatim

viii).

{A

Treatise on the Accentuation of the Poetical Books, p.

at the

No. 970. The fourth of the short pieces

script
is

end of the manu-

printed from this text in Ginsburg's Introduction, p. 351.

II.

No. 971,
sparsi,
II,

See the detailed description in Delia Torre, Scritti

pp. 300-333, 116.

in

and comp. Steinschneider,

972, end.

Geschichts-

literatur, p.

No.
MS.

The

fourth part of Dafiera's

work

is
is
1

found

Berlin 114.

No.

976.

The
1899,

introductory
pp. I43-4.

poem

completely published
01 3,
II.
Ji^

in

MGWJ.,

No.

See Steinschneider,
a-

Bibliotheca Mathematica,

1899, PP- 3-4;

treatise of the

manuscript of the

New York
is

Seminary the

son follows the father's work, which

accompanied

with marginal glosses and additions with the heading DIDDin niy
~11S3.

The
is

solar eclipse of the 28th of lyyar,

in this treatise.

5263 (March

24,

1503),

mentioned
is

In the

New York
to the

manuscript

Al-Hadib's work

preceded by an introduction of Abraham ben

also

Hayyim,

pptt'NJ,

who

added corrections

work

in Cairo,

1542, after having previously revised the tables of Yom

Tob

Poel

he promises the same

for the tables of Zacuto.

No.
IDt'

10 15, V.
TlNlpl,

As

the

preface

contains

the

words bxTJ^^ ynn

the manuscript contains the longer version.

No.

iof6, VIII

HEBREW BIBLIOGRAPHY AND PALAEOGRAPHY

The
treatise

MARX
More

167
in

of

Mose

Provinciale

is

printed with the

Sabbioneta, 1553.

No. 1021, lb,

verses of

is

version

of Steinschneider.

No.

1022, II.

The

Moses ben Isaac were published

by Carmoly,

Literatiirblatt des Orietits, XI, p. 304.

p.

No. 1022,

III.

See Steinschneider, Uebersetzungen,

Catalogue Neofiti, No. 29.
the Opera Constantini
;

720,
II,

No. IV, and Sacerdote,

follows the Latin text of

No. 1025,

see Virchow's Archiv,

XXXVII, pp.
hardly the

361-3.
of

No. 1036,
The

II.

Abraham ben Meschullam

is

is

name

the copyist, the epigraph refers to the translator.

division into six chapters
also

No. 1036, IV.

Codex Uri 422,
;

found

in

and a manuscript of our

library, formerly

Halberstam 484

see

HB., IX,
It is to

173-

be hoped that Margoliouth

will

soon be able to present

us with the final volume of his great work, which will contain the

miscellaneous manuscripts, and the indispensable indices which

will

make

the wealth of important information to be found in the

fully accessible.

pages of these volumes

Bibliothek der israelitischenKultusgemeinde Wien. Katalog derSalo

CohCscJieyi Schenkungen.
I.

Von
:

Dr.

Bernhard Wachstein.

Sammlung des Rabbiners Nachum Beer Friedmann-Sadagora. Wien Gilhofer und Ranschburg, 191 1 (pp. xviii+215). II. Biicher aus der Sammlung S. H.
Biicher aus der

Halberstam,

Bielitz.

Ibid.,

1914 (pp. xiii+178).

printed during the last

The

bibliography of
is
still

Hebrew books

180 years

in

a rather primitive condition.

For the works

printed up to 1732 Steinschneider's famous Bodleian Catalogue

(1852-60), with

its

supplement (1894)

is fairly

complete, although

during the
early times

last

decade quite a number of unknown books from

light.

have come to

For the period following 1732,

however, hardly an attempt at completeness has been made.

The
Stein-

comprehensive supplement to Benjacob's

collected

Thesaurus , carefully

by the author's son and revised throughout by

is

schneider,

unfortunately

still

unpublished.

Thus, at present,

the student of

Hebrew
is

literature, in his effort to ascertain all the

data about a book,

compelled to consult the catalogues of

l68

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

public and private libraries, and even those of booksellers which

are frequently not very reliable.
fairly

Only

for very

few printing-places

complete annals have been compiled.

the most neglected
to

Among

and

least

known Hebrew

prints are

undoubtedly

be counted those coming from the printing-presses

of Russia before the suppression by the censorship, and partly

also those of Galicia.

These books
libraries

to a large extent are not

found

in

any of the great

whose catalogues are

accessible,

and

several Russian printing-places are not at all represented in

any catalogue.
single

There are

cities in

which very few or even one

to recent

book have been produced, and bibliographers up

perhaps the

times paid no attention to these printing-presses.

One

of the

reasons contributing to this neglect

is

fact that these

books are mostly of an unpleasing appearance, owing specially

the paper used.

to

In 1886 E. Deinard, then a bookseller

in

in

Odessa, enumerated

one of

his catalogues

(No. 7) thirty-nine different Russian

printing-places, the productions of

which he wished
in

to acquire.

In 1894, on the occasion of an exhibition

St. Petersburg,

Harkavy published a

list

of over

fifty

such printing-places and

not entirely complete.

their earliest production, but

even his

list is

Thus

in the collection of the

Ttr^^

New York
nin"'^D)

Seminary we have two

1812

books {pMpl bv

1"n and

printed at inxar,

and 1817
(Machzor,
in folio
;

respectively,

one

(niyin^J' b'h Jlpn) at Np36''^3 without

date and one in the village

ii,

NpnvNipD near Berdychev

and Judeo-German
of St.

in

1818

with commentary

translation

Vol. I was printed in Berdychev).

Only the Friedland

as
far

library
it

in

the

Asiatic

Museum

Petersburg,

as

is

known, has made a systematic

effort to

bring these books

together.

In this country Judge Sulzberger, realizing the value

of this neglected branch of Hebrew bibliography, has collected a considerable number of these prints which he presented to the Jewish Theological Seminary
frequently
rich
in

1903,

and
is

to

which he has
particularly

added

since, so that

our Library

now

in this

branch.

Bibliographically the largest

number

of

Russian

j;rints

are exhaustively described in M.\Vicner's catalogue,

HEBREW BIBLIOGRAPHY AND PALAEOGRAPHY

riB'D

MARX

169
to

nbnp.

But

this

most valuable book, which promised

reference, unfortunately

become a standard work of

stopped at the end of the
has appeared.

seems to have

letter D, as since

1904 no continuation

The Russian and

this general neglect.

Galician prints do not by any

means deserve

To mention

only the most obvious points,

we may

say that they offer most interesting indications of the state

of culture

among

the Jews of Eastern Europe around 1800, they

their

show the influence and spread of Hasidism, and

period.
It is therefore

niMDH

are

important sources for the history of the Russian Rabbis of that

a matter of great satisfaction that a
is

new

catalogue has appeared that

rich in this respect

and

gives full

bibhographical details not found anywhere else about

many

a rare

Russian

print.

Rabbi Friedmann, the son-in-law of the Rabbi of Sadagora,

was a collector of no mean attainment.

The

curious catalogues

of Desiderata which he sent out occasionally show that he had

fair

bibliographical knowledge,

and was looking out

for

books

of great rarity.

One-fourth of this collection, the books missing

in the library of the

Jewish community of Vienna, were purchased

by Mr. Salo Cohn, and are now described by Dr. Wachstein.

the 923 books of the present catalogue

Of

only about one-third

originated from the East-European presses, but as they are the

least

known

they form the characteristic and important feature

of the

catalogue,

although extremely rare

books

from other

countries are not missing, like No. 867 or

some

of the occasional

publications of prayers, twelve of which occupy the last numbers,

and might serve

to

supplement the bibliography of patriotic

literature in Letterbode

Vand VII and Steinschneider's

Wachstein

Italienische

Literatiir der Juden.

rightly gives full details

about

number

of leaves, authors of nilD3Dn, &c., only where they are

;

not given by other bibliographers

otherwise references to Roest

and Wiener serve

the East of

this purpose.

For the printers and presses of

are given in the introduction,

Europe
offers

full particulars

which thus
typography.

an invaluable addition to the history of Hebrew

describes

Wachstein also

the

characteristics

of

170

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

collection, a large part of
his faithful

Rabbi Friedmann's
to
to

which was presented

the former owner by

Hasidim,

who wished
their

in return

receive his blessings,

and therefore wrote

names and
their pre-

frequently their wishes in the beginnings

sentation
copies,

and ends of
possesses

so

that

this

collection

strange

human interest. The catalogue

titles,

itself is

arranged according to authors.

important points are skilfully extracted from the long

The Hebrew

the information about printing-place, printer, date, &c., are

given in German.

full

index of the

Hebrew

titles

concludes

the valuable volume.

few remarks on

points

of detail

may be added

here

according to the numbers of the catalogue.

extracts

No.
;

20 contains

from

Sambari

see

ZfHB., VIH, 190

curiously

comp. also

Steinschneider, GeschichtsUteratiir, 128.

schneider,
loc.cit.,

No. 48;
is

comp. Stein-

254.

No. 32
in

for the first time

mentioned bibliographically
1894), p. 27
a.

Hasan's T\rhvh m^jyon (Alexandria,

In No.
Latin

120 the Hasidic owner evidently removed

the

German

part, just as

he cut

ofif

the lower margins of Berliner's

Rashi wherever there was found the transcription of the French

glosses
into characters.

This

have
is

been told by

Professor Berliner.

The

title

of No. 914

given more fully in

J/G^??7., 1899, p.569.

The books
415

described in the second volume of the catalogue

are of quite a different character.

They contain a

collection of

volumes selected from the

collector S. J. Halberstam,

library of the

well-known scholar
in unusually
in

and

which was so rich

for the

rare books.

They were bought

Vienna community

1896, while 412 of his manuscripts went to England at the time.

The bulk

of Halberstam's library, consisting of between 5,000

and 6,000 volumes and 140 manuscripts, was presented by

Judge Sulzberger
This collection
is

in

1903 to the Jewish Theological Seminary.

very rich in extremely valuable works, and so

we

naturally find

among

the previously selected 400

many books
copies.

of very
I

great

value,

although

frequently

incomplete
list

found among

Halberstam's

papers

of these

books

HEBREW BIBLIOGRAPHY AND PALAEOGRAPHY

described by the learned owner, to which
I

MARX

I7I

shall refer later

on

by the

letter

H.

The

twenty-eight incunabula of the collection are described

with great detail, so that the statements of the catalogue will be

of great help for further studies regarding these books and for
identification of incomplete copies.

One
is
it is

of these incunabula,
entirely unique.

an edition of Maimonides's Mishne Torah,

author of the catalogue suggests that
the facsimile given on p.
1 1 1

The

a Constantinople print

is

not sharp enough (a defect shared

it

equally by the thirteen other reproductions) to compare

factorily with other
first

satis-

incunabula ascribed to the East, such as the

edition of Bachja
;

on the Pentateuch or the

found in

leaves of the

first

Alfasi

both of these, by the way, have no division of their pages

is

into

two volumes as

this

copy of Maimonides.

I shall

now

give a few observations.

No.

consists of 164

leaves, as Steinschneider rightly states, following Luzzatto,

full

whose
found

description of the rare

state that the
first

book

is

found

in his Epistolario, p. 784.

is

Both

title, fully

copied in the Epistolario,

on the

page, missing in W.'s copy.

is
:

No. 49
:

the reference to

the Monatsschrift
Si/rns, III.

vol,

1898.
:

No. 59
'

see Graeber's

Ozar ha-

No. 80

H. says
Verf.

Mit sehr vielen handschriftlichen

Randbemerkungen des
Censur weggelassenen.'

und Hinzufiigung des von der

81 has 168 leaves;
II,
i,

No.

see Manzoni^

Annali

tipografici dei Soncino,

p.

59

(this

most
;

careful
it

bibliographical
to

work does not seem

to

be known to W.

ought

have been quoted regularly

for

the Soncino prints),

and

C. D. Ginsburg, Introduction,
the

p. 806.

No.
the

88

for the text of

Targum of

this

edition see Teschen,

Psalmen, Wismar, 1896-1907.

is

No. 96:
is

Das Targuni zu den name of the editor

Straalen

Samuel ben Samuel; Abi

to

be omitted. No. 137 was

1871, pp. 85-7;

described by Halberstam in
records

MGWJ.,

an incomplete copy of the second edition of 1856; Neubauer,

comp.

Zeitschrift,

IX, pp. 275-82;

MGWJ., 1870, p. 309 sq. Geiger, Jiid. ZDMG., XXV, 484. No. 148: H.
;

mentions an entirely unknown edition of the

ed. Constantinople.

|"")n niCJ'"!!,

besides

No.

154

is

only the

first

half of the book.

172

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

No. 167

a supplement to No. 270.

;

No. 185
n)ip^
nx''i*^!'

is

printed in Con-

stantinople

the

title

runs

DV n:)DD bv riD'^

Sini lion ;pty

nsD
aiu
.
.

cpDisn nana
31D
"IS'

ait:

nv nia^n by Nnoi ab?^

*i3Dn fiioa Dn:;

^ti n^Do nm

nr^'

'n

crm

xni

p"Db ^STii^b.

Constantinople^ Nissim de Castro.

Between the
Constantinople

preface of R. Jacob b. David and that of the author four leaves

are
missing,

containing the

Haskamah

of the

Rabbinate (Rafael Sabbatai ibn Yakar^ Joshua

''bv,

and Hayyim
b.

Moses ipon
Elijah
]'"^p.

's)

and a preface of the Rabbi of Bagdad^ Rafael

196: H.
says:
'

No.

Mit vielen handschriftlichen

220
:

Randbemerkungen
as

seiner Schiiler.'

No.

the annotator

is,

H. remarks^ the well-known Rabbi Baruch Fraenkel-Teomim

of Leipnik.
in

No. 257
ibid.,
is

is

printed in 15 13; see the lengthy discussion

in

Davidson^

Parody

Jewish Literature^

II,

r,

especially

pp. 127-8, and

pp. 13 1-3, where the authorship of

Kalonymos

and Gersonides
anonymous.
copy of
1

established respectively;
library

Our
the

possesses the

W. treats them as only known complete

Joseph
:

all

the three parodies published by Gerson Soncino in

5 13,

once

property
is

of the well-known historian

Haccohen.

No. 292
II.

only one-half of the book.

No.

314

see
Ill,

Steinschneider, Bibliographisches Handbuch,

p. 8,

and HB.,

56

XV,

appeared

c.

No. 330 Zedner and Roest assume that the book 1560. No. 373 Mit handschriftlichen BemerH.
:
:

'

kungen Ghirondis.'
of

The present volume contains besides the indispensable index Hebrew titles, also added to the first part, and that of
and
printing-places contained in the preface of the former
list

printers

volume, a chronological
prior to 1540,

of the nearly ninety volumes printed

and a

list

of censors which opens with Andreas Scribaius by Sacerdote,

de Scribanis

(a

name read

Deux Index
s.v.
'

expurgatoires, p. 27,
ship'),

and Scribarius by Forges, yiC.,

far

Censor-

and concludes with Zomegnius so

y>.

only

known from
descriptions.
like

one entry (see Topper, Censorship,

of the owners

146).

One
in

misses an index

who

are

always mentioned

the

The

authors of the approbations

one would also

to find
in the

together in an index rather than to have

them incorporated

HEBREW BIBLIOGRAPHY AND PALAEOGRAPHY

alphabet of the authors.
the

MARX
C

173

Altogether the

number

of references in

body of the Catalogue are much too numerous, and unduly

and
price of the yet the

swell the size

book

under the
is

letter

ten books
;

are described,

and
is

number of names

sixty-four

under

the proportion

three to twenty-nine, under

seven to twelve.

In the more compressed print of the indices these naturally most

welcome references would

find a

more

suitable place.

The

few additions and criticisms in no way diminish the great

value of the careful work of Wachstein,

who

has during the

last

few years enriched Jewish science by several important contributions of great interest.
is

It is to

be hoped

that,
will

although nothing

said about

it

in the preface,

Wachstein

soon present us

with catalogues of further parts of the important collection of

Hebrew books under

his charge.

Le Manuscrit he'breu No. 1408 de Par MoiSE Schwab. Paris

PP- 34-

la
:

Bibliotheque

Nationale.

C.

Klincksieck,

1913.

The Bibliotheque Nationale of Paris has acquired a number Hebrew manuscripts since the publication of its Catalogue in 1866. We are much indebted to its genial Conservateur adjoint honorairc; M. Moise Schwab, for several short lists of these
of
acquisitions, published

from time to time

in the

RE/., as well as

for similar descriptions of other

Hebrew

collections in France.

Besides his brief

with very
full

lists,

the learned bibliographer has presented us

descriptions of more important manuscripts,

et

some of

which formed part of the Notices

Bibliotheque Nationale.

Extraits des Mamtscrits de la

In that series an illuminated Passover-

Haggadah and a curious kabbalistic MS. supplementing M.Schwab's useful Vocabulaire de P Ange'lologie and the present description,
an important halakic
varied
interests

collection

have appeared, showing the

scholar.

of

the

venerable

The parchmentGerman
school

manuscript discussed here was written during the thirteenth and

fourteenth centuries, and contains works of the
collected by the copyist for his

own use

or for

some Maecenas.

174

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

first

Unfortunately the

and

last leaves,

which might have given us

some information

in this respect, are missing.

The main
which
is

parts of the

MS.

are halakic.

It

contains a treatise
niD"^l3

of R. Eliezer ben Joel ha-Levi (n"''2N"i) dealing with

n^a^n,

followed by the

explanation of the formula of the

Ketubbah, evidently by the same author and identical with the

text

published by Sulzbach in the Jahrbuch der jiidisch-literaGesellschafi,

treatise

rischen
this

III (1905), pp. 7-25 of the

Hebrew

part;

second

formed part of the author's great code, the

complete edition of which has just been started by Aptowitzer

in a

most admirable manner.

Probably the

first

treatise occurs

there too, as well as that

on Passover found
short texts

later in the

MS.

(see

RE/.,

64,

281).

These

precede a comprehensive

compilation on the laws of mourning,

undoubtedly the well-

known work

of R. Eliezer's pupil, R. Meir of Rothenburg, which

in Livorno, 1819,

was partly published

and

is

incorporated in an

abridged and somewhat changed form in the code of R. Mordecai

ben

Hillel.

The

Paris Library possesses a complete copy in

is

its

MS.

406.

responsum of the same scholar

It further

found elsewhere

in the

MS.

contains part of the

Rokeah by a German
and responsa
words

authority of the beginning of the thirteenth century,

of his teacher, R. Judah the Pious.

represent the arrangement of R.
:^'"'*no
pi::'

The
;

rules of divorce perhaps

n"'Q1333

Tam

at least, the
I.e.

h^

occurring there {REJ.

281) are found under

his signature in a regulation

on divorce

in

Mordecai, Gittin end.

the

list

of the positive and negative

commandments concludes

MS., which also includes explanations of Talmudic passages

according to the French school.

But the copyist did not

subjects.

entirely limit himself to

Talmudic
(Rosin,

We

also

meet a discussion of the calendar which

determines the time of the MS., a

poem by Ibn Ezra

of
his,

Reime und
{ib.

Gedichte, pp. 162-6),

accompanied by a commentary

166), a second unpublished

poem

a polemical work

giving an account of a disputation between a Christian clergyman

and a Jew, a theological

fluences, homilies
for

dissertation

showing kabbalistic

in-

the

holidays,

lexicographical

notes, &c.

175
fully

HEBREW BIBLIOGRAPHY AND PALAEOGRAPHY

In
brief;

MARX
',

MS. 1408

is

most curious

'

Sammelband

deserving the careful description of

in

M. Schwab. The author discusses (i) some of the authorities mentioned the MS. (pp. 2-12) (2) its date (pp. 12-14) (3) foreign words
;

(pp. 14-29), namely, a collection of Latin

and Greek words

ex-

Hebrew equivalents in the beginning of the MS., and shown by M. Schwab to follow the Midrash Tanhuma (pp. 14-26), as well as some Romance and German glosses (pp. 26-9) (4) an enumeration of the other elements of the MS. (pp. 29-33), folplained by
;

lowed by a palaeographical description, which ought to have been

supplemented by a
facsimile,

and a

list

of

some of

the Yerushalmi

quotations in the various texts

(p. 34).

A
P.

few minor additions besides the references incorporated in

the above account

2,
1.

may be

of interest to the reader

in

MS. Paris 187, fols. 55-77, which I examined Konigsberg many years ago, contains part of the Sefer ha-Tadir.
5.

lb.,

note

2,

and

p. 29,

note

i.

De

Rossi's incorrect description

;

of his

MS. 392
that in
lb.,
1.

as n"''ax'l has

been corrected by Zunz

see his

Gesammelte

Schrif/e?i, III, p. 7.

P.

9,

1.

3.

It

might have been

to the

added
N^a"""!.

78 'n

^T[\>

bv nnjc*

is

added

name

of

4.

R. Meir of England occurs more frequently

112,
115), mostly his ninCK' ni37n are quoted.

21,
is

36,

92,

There

no

serious reason to call

this

him

'

of Norwich

'.

T'ND 't niO

undoubtedly in

MS.

refers to

R. Meir of Rothenburg.
his pupils,
lb.,
1.

The

text probably contains additions

by one of

and ought
16.

to

be compared with Cod. 406 and the

(

edition.

Joseph

ben Meir

105)

is

the uncle of R. Meir of Rothenburg (cp.

1.

RE/.,

58, p. 229), just as R. Isaac (p. 10,

4) refers to the

Rabbi
he

of Vienna, Austria.
for a short

P. 10,
;

1.

23.

R. Isaiah da Trani only settled

13, p.

time at Verona

cp.

ZfHB.,

called -inn ^nj.

P. 12,
1.

55

ib., p.

47,

is

P. 11,

1.

27. Cp.

REJ.,

58, p. 236, note 9.

is

17.

As the sentence quoted here

by R. Eliezer ben

Joel (see his

nmna

'DDK'D, p. 24)
13,
1.

it

proves nothing for a hypoTlDi:* in

thetical compiler.

P.

26.

Cp. the quotation from

(ed.

Israeli'sy^i-^^

Olam, IV,

and 18

Goldberg,

II,

5 a,

33

a),

and Joseph ibn Zaddik (Neubauer, Mediaeval Jewish

Chronicles,


THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
:

176
86)

I,

... nrpD^ n'cn mn^!? n"^-i n^tha '3. P. 29,

'
'

1.

3.

N"icp

see e.g. Horayot is the well-known Aramaic word meaning belt P. 30, 1. 6. 3., 1. 6. With Merinus, Ibn Janah is meant. 13 b. Read Samuel ben Hofni Ha-Gaon. P. 32, bottom. Cp. Buber's
;

2.

Midrash

Tehillim, ch. 90, 3, p. 194 a

and note

3,
1.

whence

it

is

evident that the biblical

Ruben

is

meant.

P.

33,

Ben
lb.,

Yom
3-5

Tob
is

is

to

be omitted

it is

undoubtedly the famous commentary

11.

of R. Eleazar ben Judah, the author of the Rokeah.

an explanation

to a passage of the

Talmud (Niddah

67 b).
this

These few notes

in

no way detract from the merits of

exhaustive description of a most important MS., for which

greatly indebted to the learned author.

we

are

Specimina Codicurn Orientalium. Conlegit Eugenius Tisserant.

{^Tabulae in

usum scholarum.
tables

Editae sub cura Johannis

E.

LiETZMANN.)
pp. xlvii

Bonn: A. Marcus and

2.

Weber,

1914.

+ 80;

Hebrew palaeography
science.

is still

a much-neglected branch of Jewish

We

are not yet in a position to determine with any cer-

tainty the age of

their origin.

undated manuscripts, or even the country of

886 Neubauer published as a supplement to his

In most of our catalogues these data are frequently

quite arbitrary.

In

great catalogue of the

of forty facsimiles of thus for the

first

Hebrew manuscripts Hebrew manuscripts

in the

Bodleian a series

with transcription, and

time offered an adequate means for an introduction

into the reading of such manuscripts.

Up to

that time the

number

of facsimiles published was very small, as can be seen from the

bibliography compiled by Steinschneider on that occasion {Ce7itralblatt

fUr

Bibliothekswissenschaft,

1887, p. 155

sq.).

Since

then the number of reproductions of pages from

scripts has

Hebrew manu-

been very greatly increased.

We

have now photo-

graphic editions of important

simile edition of

Talmud

manuscripts, and the fac-

Ben

Sira consists of four different manuscripts.

in

These come from the Genizuh, which

to us dated

a way revolutionized

our notions on the subject of palaeography by making accessible

manuscripts

much

older than the

bulk' of those

HEBREW BIBLIOGRAPHY AND PALAEOGRAPHY

which formed our private and public
Naturally
are

MARX

177

collections

heretofore.

many

of the publications from the Genizah treasures

facsimiles,

accompanied by

and

as a matter

of fact the

majority of facsimiles published in the various periodicals as well

as in books during the last fifteen years have been derived from
this source.

Strack has given a useful bibliography of

1

all

re-

productions up to
tische

906

in

the Realencyklopddie

fur

protestan-

Theologieund Kirche, XVII, pp. 774-5.

careful collection
is

of different types of writing in geographical arrangement

in G. Margoliouth's article
'

found

Manuscript

'

in the

Jewish Encyclo-

pedia, VIII, but naturally owing to lack of space the specimens

given there are

for

far

too brief to

fill

the want

felt in

many

quarters

a good handbook on the subject.

with
full

An

enlarged edition of this

article

pages of facsimiles would be most desirable

safe basis for palaeographical studies could only

be gained by

a systematic publication of a large

number

of facsimiles of dated

manuscripts, and such in which the copyist informs us of the

country of his origin.

studies

With the help of such a work

letters

reliable

on the form of the

and the other

characteristics

of the different countries could be undertaken with confidence.

Such an extensive and expensive publication cannot, however,

be expected
in the near future

under the present conditions of

for the

Jewish scholarship.

Accordingly we must be thankful

is

scattered material which

different places,

being

and even more so

made when

accessible in so

many

a considerable

number

of good reproductions are brought together at a very low price, as

is

the case with Tisserant's book.

The aim

of the

work

is

to put in the

hands of the Orientalist

specimens of manuscripts, mostly from the Vatican (a few come

from the British

Museum and

the Paris Library), which should

serve as a basis for palaeographical exercises.

The

eighty tables

contain reproductions from about 125 manuscripts in Samaritan,

Hebrew,

Syriac,

Palestinian Syriac, Mandaic, Arabic, Ethiopic,

and Coptic
first

characters.

For the Jewish scholar, of course, the

interest,

two groups are of paramount

but he

will find

im-

portant materials for his studies in the others as well.

Thus

VOL. VL

178

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

the book includes translations of biblical books into Syriac (23), Arabic (59 a, 61 b, d), among them (53) an important manuscript
of Saadia's translation of the Pentateuch
in

Arabic characters
(62,

containing the
65,

first

word of each verse

in

Hebrew, Ethiopic

the latter Enoch), Coptic (70), and a polyglot Psalter (80,

Ethiopic, Syriac, Bohairic, Arabic, Armenian), as well as a page

from an unpublished medical work of the famous Jewish physician,

Isaac Israeli (51 a de urinis).

But

will confine

myself in the following remarks to the

is

Hebrew
studies.

part of the

work which

within the province of

my

Here twenty-four manuscripts

are represented, half of

them

in square, the rest in

Rabbinic characters.

For practical

purposes this gives, in

script,

my

opinion, too large a share to the square

difficulty

which

after all

can be read in most cases without

by any one acquainted with the

easily accessible (Kahle's excellent

Hebrew

characters.

Besides,

reproductions of biblical manuscripts are

not

uncommon and
manu-

viorkDie Masoreten des Ostens,

Leipzig, 19 1 3, contains e.g. sixteen plates of old biblical

scripts),

and while they

our

offer less difficulty to the reader, outside

of

biblical

manuscripts
all

Rabbinic

characters

are

very

largely

represented in
dated,
viz.

libraries.

Eleven of the manuscripts are

6 (1294), 7 (1312), 13(1325),

17a

(1358), i2b(i383),

15 a (1385), 14(1398), i5b(r543),

18 a (1482-8), 16 b (1495).
texts

19

(1550).

Two

of

them contain Arabic

b),

in

Hebrew

characters

(12b and 18

one a prayer book, the

other, curiously,

a Koran.

Some

of the texts are of interest for literary criticism.

Thus
this

the specimen of the Josippon (15 b) enables us to determine

that the Vatican manuscript agrees with the

common

version of

popular book, and not with the text of the editio princeps

as Vogelstein

and Rieger {Gcschichte der Juden

in Rot/i,

I,

186,

note) had thought.

ryci'\'Or\

Jacob ben Eleazar's poetical book DTID "IDD

^JIDT, the

Dtra

ninyi nr^^nn

beginning of which

is

given

in 12 b,

has nothing to do with Kabbalah, even though some

other parts of the volume possibly

may

contain kabbalistic
is

texts.

The communication
since
it

of this

specimen

particularly

welcome,

enables us to solve Steinschneider's doubtsr

{ZDAIG.,

HEBREW BIBLIOGRAPHY AND PALAEOGRAPHY

XXVII, 556-7) about
DliD and
the Vatican

MARX

179

manuscript.

Bartolocci's

Oi^2r\ njny are one book, while the manuscript D"'J1n no doubt also contains the nniyn p described by Steinschneider according to another manuscript. Both show exactly the same
style,

and are by the same author, the

to

translator of Kalilah we-

Dimnah, according
manuscript of our

Steinschneider's

hypothesis.

Another
{id.,

little

book

is

found in the Escorial

555).

The

treatise

on the astrolab by Shalom ben Solomon, the beginis

ning of which forms No. 18 a

matical 1901, p. 69).

an unicum {Bibliotheca Matheis

The
it

old manuscript of Sifra (No. 10)

of

a special interest because

adds supralinear vocalization to that

Tannaitic

text,

all

the other manuscripts of which lack vowels.

Besides the fact that

we have here an old

Oriental tradition of

the vocalization of a Neo-hebrew text, supralinear vowels are very

rare outside of biblical texts.

This one was probably the

library.

earliest

manuscript with such vocalization in a European

tunately
it

Unfor-

remained

entirely

unknown. The important

variations

of the manuscript of the Palestinian

in

Talmud
to his

(11) were published

1909 by Ginzberg as an appendix

Yerushalmi Fragments,

PP- 347-72.

In the introduction the author gives a very brief account of the

manuscripts, including the texts of the epigraphs, and transcribes

mostly the

first

lines as a help to the student.

To

this part of the

work

as

far as

the

Hebrew manuscripts
raised.

are concerned serious

his

objection

must be

Tisserant

repeatedly misreads

manuscripts, misinterprets abbreviations in a ridiculous way, and

thus misleads the beginner for
It is greatly to
is

whom

the book has been prepared.

be regretted that again a good and useful book

in

marred by bad blunders

Jewish matters.

It is curious to

observe again and again

how

careful scholars, with a

more

or less

thorough knowledge of biblical Hebrew, believe themselves competent to write on subjects requiring intimate acquaintance with
later

Jewish

literature,

and do not
could

realize that in a field in

which

they are beginners, they are greatly in need of expert advice

which

after

all

they

easily

get

from

Jewish scholars.
is

VoUers's

Catalogue of the Oriental manuscripts in Leipzig

l8o

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

another well-known example of this curious phenomenon, not to

speak of some of the volumes of the new Giessen Mishnah edition.

It is

a pity that in spite of

in

all

the progress Jewish science has

is

made

the last century, one

compelled time and again to

protest against the contributions of incompetent outsiders.

The well-known and

we
are informed
{sir).'
'

often printed Midrash Mishle occurs here

(19 a) as an anonymous commentary on Proverbs.

:

For the

Sifra

textum invenies in edd.

last

libri

Sifra et totius

Mehilta

The
in
I

three words have absolutely

no

sense.

The two books

been printed
'

are independent of one another,

and have never

one volume.

What

the author

means by the

whole

'

Mekilta

do not know.

In transferring dates of the Jewish calendar into those of the

common

era the author

is

quite inconsistent, using indifferently

identification.

the three possible

prefers the year in

methods of
which the

He

sometimes

first

three

months of the Jewish

year

fall

(7: 5092

=
falls

1331;

16 b: 5255

=
;

1494), at

times he

follows the

common

practice of taking the year in which the bulk

of the Jewish year

(14

5159

1399

15 b

5204

1444),

and

at

others he combines both (15 a: 5145

1384/5; 17 a:

5118=

1357/8).

Even where the epigraph contains day and

and make an exact
identification

month of

the Jewish calendar

possible the author never troubles to consult the tables for the

conversion of Jewish dates, and as

it

happens generally

selects the

wrong

year.
I

How

far

Assemani

is

responsible for these miscalis

culations
to

am

unable to ascertain, as his catalogue

inaccessible

me

here.
in the

In one of the manuscripts (14) the scribe finished his

work
read

week of the portion

ntJ'^l,
!

which

in the year

5159 was
the

November
:

30, 1398, not in 1399

The

date reads according

Nin DVn DV
:

to Tisserant
first

D"jp nrc^

nmn ns

IDtJ' V3N*1 '"ID

three words probably read in the manuscript

fell

1^D3

d"'*

'n DV.

Similarly the 15th of Kislew 5055(6)

on December
fell

5,

1294,
20,

not 1295

and the 28th of Kislew 5204(15 b)

on November Adar
I

1443, not 1444.

On

the other hand, the loth of

4,

5255
date
Ixxxv,

(16 b) was Wednesday, February

is

1495, not 1494.

(

The

last
I,

not (luite beyond doubt.

Dc

Rossi

Variae Lcciiones,

HEBREW BIBLIOGRAPHY AND PALAEOGRAPHY

No. 509) assumes that the

MARX

l8l

'n of n"j"i stands for the in this case

thousands,

and the

scribe wrote in
i,

5250;

he finished Monday,

February

1490.

Perhaps the week-day was given in the erasure,

and a

close examination of the manuscript

'2,

may show whether

is

it

read 'l DV or

and thus enable us

to determine

which of the
85,

two dates

is

correct.

For No. 13 the amount of the addition

;

and not

95,

as

stated by an oversight

accordingly the year

would be 1325, not 1335; but it ought to be remarked that Rabbinovicz {Variae Lediones, XI, p. 16) believes the manuscript
to

have been written

in 1280.
far,

The
its

points mentioned so

however, only refer to

details,
far as

which do not materially impair the value of the book as

main aim

is

concerned.

It is

more

serious that the author

shows himself unfamiliar with the most which he does not recognize.
[N3]n
iTw^o

common

abbreviations,
:

In 15 a he makes the copyist say

\>xS^

[nh]^ ^x^n^ [u]-i [nji]D [inip]3

[nn]3

^natr 'V^

['nj-i

[iDipDjn
[nn]:)

[nn]3
[}]3

instead of

[im]D
[n^n]^

["iu]3 [|]n TinE^

W'^w'^

h^

^t^'n[^a]n

[riu]-i

[D^j]:r

[''3]n.

The

formula DJIO
his

lD"lp03

nu^, which he

thinks the scribe wrote after

name,

is

only used in cases of contradiction to the opinion

of a deceased scholar.

In 19 b the

title

of the

book

(E^'~no

DTyjn) influenced Tisserant to offer the following

comical epi-

graph: [^3]n

[i3n]-i

[nby:]n [t^mjon NK'jn nc'pa^ nsDn nr ^nana

nan

^amo

instead of [j]a

oniD

[^a]T [3]nn \\r\\p [nnja

N^jj'jn

[ii-n]D [nn]3.

In transcribing the text from

the dots over the words ^^1\>

No. 14 Tisserant overlooked

~i?^N''tJ>,

which stand

for 'deleatur',
line,

and misread the

D,

the

first letter

of the following

which

is

placed at the end of this line not to leave too

the same cause probably
is

much empty
""l

space

responsible for the

^^),

in the epigraph
for the

of No. 13 (unless the manuscript reads

''3"in

and

after

in the epigraph of
1.

No.

6.

The

insertion of a n in n''^n
"]''C^'y?^

(p. xvii,

28)

is

as superfluous as that of Dy in

^3 'n

"jlb^iT

(p. xviii,

1.

22).

The name
in his list of

of the scribe of No.

7,

according to Freimann
5
;

Spanish copyists {ZfHB., XIV, 106, No.

of ^N-JDpno.

cf.

No. 131),

is

^N-'Jnr) instead

l82
P. xiv

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

:

in transcribing the masoretic notes of the

important
in

MS. No.
and

3 the biblical references which are added

Nos. 5

6 are omitted.

While the misprinted i

it

for

h has been

corrected in the Errata,

ei<^ht

has not been noticed that one of the

passages has been omitted in the manuscript, which only

enumerates seven instances.

The

missing one can be supplied

by comparison with the printed Masora, e.g. ed. Ginsburg, II, The whole passage may be repeated here in a corrected p. 38.
form and with addition of the references.
author misread are underlined.

The

letters

which the

nB'K VK'JNi
I

.(E.X. I.

i) niDB' ni^Ni
.(i

in^ni (Ex.

1. 1

in^ai)

i 2.

Reg.)

2'\^''

nB'N

W31

Sam.

27. 3)

in
2.

TC"')

.(2

Sam.

3)

.(2

Chr. 24. 16) DM^Nn-Dj;^

.(Mi.

2) nnti'
li

n?:m
i.

.(7.

noM
>b2

]'\n>:'2

rh^

im

^21

i?Di

])n2

n*K [i^Jpioa
.(Ex.

(Ex.
6)

5) 2
fiDi*

b^

.{liid. 12.

30) n^^^ ny-iD cp^i

3.

i.

vnx bi

l^on n?2SM
^21
n''p''in''

.(Num.
j?0t:>"'1

36) mro!:'^ nnpsi

.(2

.{Ih'd. 27. 19)

pB'j:n

"l^DH

Sam.

15. 22) tin*

ba (textus mas. nil)

.(Jer. 26.

/^/^.)i-nin^ ^3^D nin^

nm

lyoc^ on^^wS

mnxi

21)

vnua
20

.[omisit scriba (Lev. 15. 17)

in
i.

,3l]

.(17.

ijy

Tk>'N3i

.(Ex.
.

I.

10)

ncannj :n nnT
.(Deut. 8.

.(Ex.

10)

nnT
i.

D^ycn mn-11
wrh\< ^Ni in

n 3 p 13

13) i-ipni
"3^ T'^'^''

.(/^/V/.

12)
29.

mis
16)

pnnian

"31

^^1

:(Pi'ov.

(Is.

55-7)

n3n"-*3

;(Ex.

I.

I2)i:i)"

:[pl]CD [C']s-t 3 TJ'X31

.(Ex.

i.

12 nC'S3l) 4

.(Ez. 37. 18)

T^N noN*

A
PAGE
XV

list

of smaller corrections including a few misprints

this review.

may

conclude

LINE

34

for

Ni>D[-l]nirD
.

[D^]3in31
.
.

[D^]N"33

^31

IDH ncn read

s^c[pn]m3
36

i?3i

-iDn[ilsc'i [s^n i]

Dlpn belongs to ^J31N1^ and ought to follow the

brackets

HEBREW BIBLIOGRAPHY AND PALAEOGRAPHY

PAGE LINE
xvi

MARX

183

II
Ibid,

for
for

*lTK>!'y

read

nTJJ>!:N

vn

in

read V32[l Nin]n

12 16

for r\yS read DJC'l

for D"ixo nnu3^
(v.

[cj'nJaoD

read

\r\r\\yh

[tfnJsjDa

28)

mso
r.^nny

xvii

24
31

for nnny nnani r^a^

nmDni

/^r nvya r^a^ nvxa

32
last
xviii
r
1.

>r
for

-is*vn3s*i
r\r.\nr\

;w^

"iN^naxi

dc*3 n:nyi
1p'>

m?^

ncinn DK'n njnyi

for np-nxi read

HNI

>?- n-iDNi r^^^ nniDNi

12 13

/^^ yikO r^a^ [Njy^fO

/<?//t'/'

irny^lB'

read imyiiB'
r^fl^

25
i^/^.

njDcn
-yo^^

njDon

>r >r
/^''

V2NM [njc'ia

rm^

[nJcj'-iD

28

>/- [pn^]l31
N''VVLi>

rm^

[l^J^^I

29

[xj-llp

r^a^

[Ojlp

33

(Polotsk)
cf.

'vhs inn ?ra^ IJNV^ID (Monte'

Poli-

ziana)?
xix
7

ZfHB., XVII,
^-^o^
n"'n''B'

164.

>?- [?]o [injN /^r

n\"i''t5'

[m]r^ [^jiiJn

9
Ibid,

^-^^^

for [fn]x r^a^ [^Jn]X for

/^r
y/'jnr
.

10
23
25

"'jn"'iB'

^-^a^ *jnr

^i^'m

M"IS*
'"IS

read ^HN
read
"3K

30

T^?* ^ITI

read D\i

cf.

Kennicott, Dissertatio

Gene-

ralise ed.

Bruns, p. 500
? ni^iyb

32

for [mjroyi read for mnB'

. .
,

or ?[nyn]r [^s]oi
. . .

XX

noT
.

r^^^ mxrij^

i^y^r

4
26
27 28

for nynnxn ^-m^ nyn-iNn for innjn

. .

"nnani r^^^ inn:n

^nn:ni

>/- nnio read [^n]n

[n-i]n [i:>m]i [i:ni]o

for psiNnnn

r^-a^ T*<

iN2nn

84
LINE
2

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

PAGE
xxi

for

\Z

pn^ read jn

pir*

for Nipn read NnpjH for DHON r^a^ D3?0N for for
(?)

4
23

[n^]: Nvron /-^a^ [nJjNvnn r^a^ ^Jlpn

28

^JIDD

All the mistakes, including a dozen

more corrected by the

are
excellent.

author in the Errata, occur in eight pages of the introduction

(pp. xiv-xxi).
It

The photographic

reproductions

would be most desirable that the publishers would have these

few pages reprinted.

We would
in

then possess a book which could

every
it

be warmly recommended
materials

respect.

Even now the

made

accessible by

are of considerable value for

Jewish science.

Alexander Marx.
Jewish Theological Seminary
of America.

RECENT WORKS ON COMPARATIVE

RELIGION
Introduction to the History of Religions.

By Crawford Howell
{Hand-

Toy, Professor Emeritus

in

Harvard University.

books of the History of Religions.

Jr.,

Edited by Morris Jastrow, Volume IV.) Boston, New York, Chicago, London: Ginn and Company, pp. xix+639.

Ph.D.

History of Religions.

By George Foot Moore, D.D.,

L.D.,

Professor of the History of Religion in Harvard University.

I.

China, Japan, Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, India, Greece,

Rome.

{The Itiiernational Theological Library.

F.

Edited by

Charles A. Briggs and Steward D.

Salmond.)
pp.

New
Zweite

York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913.

Allgemeine Religionsgeschichte.

xiv+637.

Von Conrad von Orelli.

Auflage in zwei Banden.

rung.

Ersten Bandes erste-dritte Liefe-

Bonn: A. Marcus und E. Webers Verlag, 1911.

pp. 1-288.

Orpheus.

General

History

of

Religions.

By Solomon
Revised by the
Sons.

Reinach.

of Apollo, &c.
author.

From By Florence Simonds.

G.
P.

the French of Solomon Reinach, author

New York:

Putnam's
pp. xiv

London:

William Heinemann, 1909.

Studies in the History of Religions.

+ 439Edited by David

Presented to Crawford Howell

Toy by

Pupils, Colleagues,

and Friends.

Gordon Lyon, George Foot Moore.

Macmillan Company,
The Unity of Religions.
19 12.
pp.
viii

New York

The

+ 373.

Popular Discussion of Ancient and

J.

Modern
and

Beliefs.

Edited by

M.D. J. Gardner Smith, Crowell & Co. pp. viii + 362.

185

Herman Randall, D.D., New York Thomas Y.

:

l86

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

By
F.

Comparative Religion.
Philosophy

B. Jevons, Litt.D., Professor of

in the University of

Durham.

{The Cambridge
:

Manuals of Science and Literature^ University Press New York C.

; :

Cambridge
P.

at the

Putnam's Sons,

1913.

pp. vi

+ 154.
Mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung

Das stellverlretende Htihnopfer.

wiTZ.

des jiidischen Volksglaubens.

Von

Isidor
1914.

Scheftelopp.66.

Giessen

Alfred Topelmann,
the

Some Palestinian
Hill.

Ciclts in

Graeco-Roman Age.

By G.

F.

(From the Proceedings of the British Academy, vol. V.) London: Henry Frowde. pp. 17. With one plate.
is

Professor Toy's work

digest, of the data

in the first place a

'

compendium, or
and
is

and information on the

all

principal customs

ideas that underlie

public religion'.
:

The whole
IV.

material
;

grouped
soul;

in eleven chapters, viz.

I.

Nature of religion

H. The
V.

HI.

Early religious

ceremonies;

Early cults;

Totemism and Taboo; VI. Gods; VII. Myths; VIII. Magic

and divination
;

IX.

The
;

higher theistic development

X. Social

development of religion
religious systems.

XI. Scientific and ethical elements in

its

Each chapter has

subdivisions,

and the
detailed

whole

text

is

broken up into
of contents,

1,173 paragraphs.

analytical table
fifteen

filling

eleven pages, and an index of

for reference,

pages

facilitate the

use of the book

while

a topically and ethnographical ly classified bibliography, covering

thirty-nine pages, direct the student to the vast literature
subject.

on the

There are besides

showing

in the

text

and

foot-notes copious

references to the literature

in the work, at the

on

special topics

which are discussed

same time

that the author has looked

his

into every

nook and cranny where information on

subject

might be hidden.

But the book

tion of the
belief, rite,

is

also a notable contribution to the interpretareligion

phenomena of
and custom.

as they

find

expression

in

They

are set in vital relation to one

life,

another and to other departments of

and the influences

WORKS ON COMPARATIVE RELIGION CASANOWICZ

which have shaped an idea, a
cult,

187

or a ceremony are briefly

checked or counterbalanced.

The

basic elements which in Professor Toy's opinion underlie

genesis,

and condition the

as (i) Universality,

development,

and eventual
termed the

trans-

formation of religious ideas and practices,

not only of what
is

may be summed up
religious

instinct or the religious sense, but also of certain germinal con-

ceptions,

'As basis of the

religious

feeling

we must suppose
something, the

sense

and conception of

an

extrahuman
.

cause of things not otherwise understood.

infinite

The
mind

sense of the
in germinal

may be

said to be present in man's

form

at the

beginning of truly

human

life.'

(9) (the figures refer

to the

paragraphs)
is

'The

central

fact

of the higher

religious

experience

communion and union

all

with the deity,

and the roots

of this conception are found in

that
(16,

the religious ideas and usages

have been formulated and practised in human history'

cp.
3,

n. 1-7,

with regard to natural law;

(630)

on the

sense of obligation).
of the

This observation
'

is

based (2) on the unity

human

race

The diversities

in the

form of ceremonies, in
.
.

the conception of the characters of the Powers

arise
is

from

economic and

cultural differences

the unity of cults

race

a result

of the psychological unity of the of

human
is

the
;

religious
is

needs

men

in all stages of culture are the

same

there

nothing in

the highest religious systems that

lowest'
*

not found in germ in the

or
unitariness

(943, cp.
life is
it

16).

(3)

The

unity

of

life.

Human

always unitary, no one part can be severed from

a serious error, impairing the accuracy of the
it

the other;

is

conception of religion, to regard

life'

as something separate from

(1015).

Hence

the discussion of the facts of religion are

everywhere accompanied by the delineation of the other factors

of
life,

such as the social organization, the climatic and economic

conditions of the period and country, the cultural state of the

believers
religious

and

mutual

interaction
in

pointed

out,

'

In

general

development goes hand

hand with
ethical

social organiza-

tion' (13).

'The

intellectual

and

content of religion
its

varies with the intellectual

and ethical culture of

adherents '(15).

l88
'

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Religion was a part of the general social movement, affected by

other parts of that

all

movement' (1095,
and

cp. 1009, 1148, &c.).

The
general

spirit

which pervades the book may be designated in

of detachment
objectivity,

as

that

free

from

all

partiality, prejudice,

and

bias.

That does not mean

to say that

Professor Toy

sits in

Olympic aloofness above

all religion.

Rather
jost-

does he stand aside viewing the kaleidoscopic panorama of

ling beliefs,

ceremonies and cults from fetichism, animal worship,

spiritual

totemism to

monotheism, as a benign and sympathetic

all

friend, trying to

understand

and appreciate
beings

all

from the view-

point and standpoint of the

human

who cherished them.

some good
evil,

There

is

not a harsh judgement or a contemptuous word in the

whole book.

On

the other hand, attempts at finding

in

and some reason

stition

what seems to us the heart of

with.

super-

and absurdity, are often met

'That idolatry in
is

ancient times was not a wholly bad feature of worship

shown
to the

by the excellence of the great religions in which

Its general function

it

was practised.
real

was to make the deity more

the latter

worshipper, to

make
fix

more sharply conscious of the

divine presence, to

the attention, and so far to further a real

'

communion

'

(1094).

Polytheism has played a great role in the

Representing in general a thoughtspirits, it

religious history of the world.

ful protest against

the earlier shapeless mass of

expressed

more definitely the belief in the intellectual and moral divine

control of
all things.

It flourished at a

time

when

there was

no

general

demand

in

human thought

for co-operation in supernatural

import of the cult of the dead).

out
is

Powers' (965, cp. 107, on dancing; 193 and 379, on the ethical One other feature worth pointing
the modesty, caution,

and

restraint of this Altmeister in

which

he exhibits throughout the book

lations

keeping shy of fanciful specu-

and

in

refraining

from hasty generalizations and from

basis of isolated or obscure facts.

establishing theories

on the

Conclusions
refrain

as,

'

origin

and

significance not clear

. .

'

',

it is

wise to

from offering a universal theory

.',

are of frequent recurn. 5, &c.).

rence (cp., for instance, 199, 220, 518, 569, 649,

The

limits of space will not permit of quoting,

much

less of

WORKS ON COMPARATIVE RELIGION

commenting
on, the

CASANOWICZ

189

numerous problems so masterly handled by

between religion and
ethics,

Professor Toy,
divination, the

such as animal worship, totemism, magic and

relation

&c.,

&c.

We

will

confine ourselves to a few references to the religion of

to

Israel

and

the

characteristic

religious

conceptions of the
in

Semites.
'objective,

As

regards

the

latter

their religion

general was
special

simple,

nonmystical'

(iioo).

The more

distinctive features of Semitic theism (as contrasted with that of

the Indo-Europeans) are

'

paucity of departmental gods

'

and
no

absence of highly specialized gods

divinization of

no

cult of heroes, that

is,

men

the organization of malefic spirits into a sort

;

of

pandemonium
and adds

(especially in Babylonia)

no abstract

deities

the theistic myths lack 'the element of personal adventures of

gods

'
:

',

of the origin of these peculiarities of the

all

Semitic theistic system, as of

such origins,

it

is

impossible to

give any satisfactory explanation' (81 1-8 16).

cult,

Phallicism as a

and totemism among the Semites, Professor Toy considers and development of the
is

as not proven (398-40C, 517).

Professor Toy's view of the

religion of Israel,

rise

which

is

the critical-evolutionistic,

well

known
how-

and need not here be dwelt upon.

ever, elicits a question
'
:

One

statement of

his,

For many centuries he [Yahweh] was

was only

regarded merely as the most powerful of the gods, superior to the

deities of other nations,

and

it

after the
all

beginning of our

era that the

Hebrew thought discarded

with
"

other gods and

made

"Yahweh" synonymous
exile)
'

God "

'

(765),

and again

(after the

was established a monolatry which was practically monothough a theory

of absolute
'

theism,

monotheism was never

(995).

formulated by the pre-Christian Jews

In view of the

numerous

passages in the

Old Testament

as well, as in the Jewish

post-biblical, but pre-Christian, writings {sqq Jewish Encyclopedia,

vol.

VIII, pp. 660

ff.,

vol., p.

680 b and 68 1

a),

and Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible, extra which witness to the solitariety of Yahweh,
for this

one would wish that Professor Toy had given the data
statement and also suggested an explanation
so absolute

why the Jews

attained
era,

monotheism

at the

beginning of the Christian

and

why not

before.

190

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

On

p. 26, n. I,

read

Sam. 28 instead of

27.

Professor Toy, by this ripe fruit of the harvest of his Ufa's

work, has put under obligation

all

that are interested in the great

theme of

religion

to the general reader this

book

offers
;

more

than a mere survey or bird's-eye view of this vast subject

to the

student and investigator, a safe and sound guide and vade-mecum.

In the Preface Professor

Moore

sets himself

a high aim
is

'

In

the presentation of the several religions the endeavour

as far as the sources permit, to

made,

show

their relation to race

life

and

physical environment
their history

and

to national

and

civilization, to trace

and

to discover the causes of progress

and the influences that have affected

and decline them from without (p. v).

'

To

carry out such a

ledge of the

programme requires not only a thorough knowphenomena and manifestations of the religions as
and the various
cultural phases of the several

well as of the history

areas

whose

religions are

under consideration, but also a philoof

these
factors,

sophic grasp

of the

interplay

and eminent
Begin-

constructive ability.

The

reader will not be disappointed.

ning with the geography and history of each country, passing

over to an adequate analysis and criticism of
its

religious literature

and characterization

of the great religious teachers,

where such

have been, and then delineating

in order the religious beliefs

and

doctrines, their expression in cult

sacrifices, festivals, burial,

and

rite,

temples, priesthood,
doctrines, he draws

and eschatological

throughout vivid and

live pictures

of the several religions in their

life.

intimate relation with the other factors of

Professor

Moore does not

institute

elaborate

and detailed

comparisons between the several countries or the various religious

tendencies and institutions, which are outside the plan and scope
of the work.

But with a

few, seemingly casual,

words he succeeds
suffice

in focusing similarities or contrasts. in illustration.

few instances must

In sketching the development of civilization in

'
:

Egypt,

he says

and

in

this

necessity

of co-operative
as

labour under directive authority we

may

see,

under similar

conditions in Babylonia and in the valley of the Yellow River in

China, one great reason

why

these regions were the predestined

WORKS ON COMPARATIVE RELIGION

cradles of civilization
'

CASANOWICZ

I91

(p.

145).

But then, coming to the de-

scription of the geographical situation of Babylonia, he points out

that Babylonia, not being isolated

'

and protected

like Egypt, its

civilization

and
far

religion

were both more influenced from without

and exerted a
of Egypt'
(p.

wider influence in the ancient world than those

f.).

201

So again the

diversity in the area of

Hellenic and Aegean civilization, in contrast to the uniformity of

Egypt and Babylonia, accounts

tion
'

for the

tendency of Greek
',

civiliza-

to variety, idiosyncrasy, originality

and

'

is

reflected in the

Greek

religions' (p. 411

f.).

Professor

Moore

possesses a mastery
in the right

in setting distant
light

and remote events and tendencies

living to us

and make them present and

by

briefly

mentioning
to

a familiar analogy or parallel.

The
the

effort of

Amenophis IV

introduce
Elagabal's the other,
'

monotheism

is

on

one

hand contrasted with

',

capricious preference for one cult above another

to

on

compared with the attempt of Josiah

make monoJosiah's

theism the religion of Judah a reality (pp. 181, 185).

reformation
of Ardashir
is

also put into juxtaposition to the iconoclastic zeal

(p.

378).

The
is

dispute between the Vishnuite sects

faith as a

about the question whether

a free act of
controversy

condition of salvation
its

is

man

or

infused by God, finds

parallel in the

between the Augustinians or Calvinists

and

the

Synergists (p. 337; cp. 306, 310, 401, 404).

By such touches

he shows human

(religious) nature to

be

kin.

The

limits of space forbid

even touching on other features of

treats his subject in

the book.

That Professor Moore

an unbiased
said.
It is

broad and even sympathetic

spirit

need hardly be

evident in his discussion of Confucius, Laotze,

Buddha, Zoroaster
by them.

and the

religious

and

ethical

movements

started

In conclusion, a word about the excellent equipment of work

for reference.

At the head of chapters

are analytical summaries.

is

In the classified bibliography (pp. 603-16) each work

described
;

briefly

the index (pp. 617-37)

is

arranged for comparison of

the
different
religions.

institutions,

observances and ideas in

Tolk

lege!

The work

of the late Professor von Orelli (died in 191 2)

is

192
a

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

counterpart to that of Professor Moore, following the
in the

German

same scheme

arrangement of the material of the several

religions, with the addition, here

and

there, of a paragraph
is

on the
It

anthropological
is,

traits

of the peoples whose religion

in scope,

treated.

however, more comprehensive

and he has attempted,

after the

analogy of philology, to group the religions of mankind

into families, either

affinities

on the

basis of linguistic

and ethnographic

of the peoples that represented them, or of a certain

similarity
basis,

and community of ideas between them.

is

The former
is

which

the surest indication of relationship,

in a strict

sense,

he admits, found only among the Semites and Indo-

Europeans.

He
Finns, lonians

divides then the religions of the world roughly

:

and loosely
(Baby-

into five groups

(i)

The Turanian-Mongolian
;

(China, Mongols,

and Japanese) and

Assyria,

(2)

Hamitic (Egypt)

(3) Semitic

Phoenician

and

Canaanites,

Arameans,

Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, Arabs, Islam, and Manichean

and Mandean)

(4)

Aryan, and (5) which

may be summed up
excluded from a
full

under the head of non-historic religions (African, American and

Pacific Islands).

The

religion of Israel
it

is

discussion,

'

as

it is

impossible to give
'.

in this

work the space

be drawn in

due

to

its

importance

Its
'

course and development (together

with those of Christianity,

its fruit its

and crown

')

will

a few grand lines to mark

position within,

and

characteristic

distinction from, all the other religions (p. 279).

This brings us to the author's standpoint.

history of religions for Christian theology

He

claims the
its treat-

and postulates

ment from the Christian standpoint.

influenced
or

At the same time he

facts

emphasizes that the description of the historical

must not be

shaped by any presuppositions, nor should the

independent value of ideas and beliefs be judged by biblical or

Christian conceptions or views (p. 21).

These

rules

Professor

von

Orelli observed

throughout with unsurpassing

fidelity,
it

one

might

say, tenderness.

His general theory, as

far as

can be

abstracted from the religions treated in the three parts before us,
is

briefly as follows.

The

religions of all the peoples,

and espe-

'

WORKS ON COMPARATIVE RELIGION

cially

CASANOWICZ

193

of those of the Semitic family, started with a lofty and

unitary conception of the deity, a sort of henotheism which was

possibly
(p. 46).
is
'

an inheritance from the primeval age of mankind

So

in

China the Heaven-god,

But as God was not

in Babylonia,

Anu, who

'the general
'

and most

original conception of the deity in ancient

sufficiently
of,

Babylonia
as a

(p. 196).

apprehended

supramundane person, independent

its

and

existing above,

nature and

phenomena, nor with a

live

consciousness of the

contrast between the holiness of

God and

the sinfulness of man,

its

God was
with
religions,

fused and identified with nature and

phenomena

or

spirits

and ghosts

which led to polytheism of the popular

and pantheism of speculation.

first

In the

part of his outline,

'

Israel

and the Semites

von

',

with

which the third part of the work

his stand against

closes. Professor

Orelli takes

modern criticism

in setting

complete monotheism
deriving
it

not monolatry
revelation.

in the period of

Abraham and
book
is

from

The most
religion.

distinctive feature of the

the note of personal

Orelli has given himself in the book.

Being a man of

deep religious convictions and piety, he feels himself on sacred

ground

he looks

for the vestigia Z)(?/ every where

and
all

finds

them

everywhere.
faltering,

And

so also he finds everywhere man's groping,

sometimes blundering, outreaching towards God.

typographical features of the book are not
that could

The

be wished.

The

print

is

too small and too close, probably due

to the laudable

endeavour to economize in cost of publication

great

and so make

this

work accessible
is

to as wide a circle of

readers as possible.
is

There

no

table of contents,

and the

text
It

too
to

little

broken up

in paragraphs with separate headlines.

is

be hoped

that a full

and comprehensive index

for these

at the close

of the work will in

'

some measure make up

drawbacks.
work.

Orpheus

'

is

in a

measure a counterblast to
refers, in justification

Orelli's

In

the preface

M. Reinach

of his method, to

the omission of the history of Christianity in the manuals of

Orelli

and Saussaye
VI.

(p. vi).

To

atone for this omission, as

it

were, he allots to the history of Christianity the larger part of his

VOL.

194-

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

book, 198 pages, while 187 pages are shared between the nine
other religions or groups of religions treated in the book, namely,

of (i) Egypt

(2)

Babylonia and Assyria; (3) of the Phoenicians

and Syrians

(4) the Aryans,

;

Hindus, and Persians

(5)

the

Greeks and Romans

(6) Celts,

Germans, and

Slavs

(7) China,
;

Japan, Mongols, Finns, Africans, Oceanians, and Americans

(8)

Musulmans

we

get of

and Jews. As a consequence some of them a mere meagre sketch, or rather a bare
;

(9)

Hebrews,

Israelites,

skeleton.

Before noticing briefly the subject-matter of the book a word

on the 'method' and tone and

that
'

tenor.

M. Reinach

assures us
'

it is

as

an historian that he proposes to deal with religion

(Preface, p.

vii).

But we

regret to notice that

he sometimes steps

down from
if

the lofty seat of the historian into the pit of flippant,

not frivolous, dilettantism.

With

all
'

due allowance

for Gallic

verve and vivacity, such expressions as

the fecund speech of the

plagiarized from

God
an
of

of scripture
'

'

(p. 33), or,

'

God must have

Hammurabi
historical

(p. 34),

are hardly compatible with the dignity of

that
is

book which deals with a subject

greatest thing in
life.

to the

mass

mankind the

M. Reinach

also sometimes

betrays a lack of the judicious temper of the historian

who calmly
cocksure-

balances alternative possibilities,

which shows

itself in

ness and in dogmatic impatience with others' views, which are

branded as 'stupid',

'puerile', or 'absurd' (pp. 86, 174, 179).

Now

what

is

M. Reinach's
its

attitude towards religion,

'

and what
[the reli-

does he consider as

fundamentals ?

see in

them

gions] the infinitely curious products of man's imagination

and of

man's reason
attention
*
'

in its infancy
vii).

it

is

as such that they claim our

resultant of the products
is,
'.

(Preface, p.

The

sum of scruples which impede the free exercise of our faculties Thus we must assume that in M. Reinach's opinion man has
a
in religion
life.

never sought

a positive good, an

enhancement and

enrichment of

The

scruples find expression in the taboo.

To
'

taboo

is

joined animism, the latter supplies the gods, while to

the former are due the religious laws

principal factors of religions

and

piety.
'.

These are the

There are two

and mythologies

others which, 'though less primitive, have not been less general

' '

WORKS ON COMPARATIVE RELIGION

in their action
',

CASANOWICZ

195

namely, totemism, which

'

results

from the social

',

instinct of primitive

man combined

with the illusion of animism

'.

and magic,

'

the strategy of animism

are

Taboo, animism, totemism,

of

and magic
the doors to

then the four

;

corner-stones

M. Reinach's
this

historical structure
all

they are Solomon's magic keys which unlock

secrets

and

riddles.

Totems have overrun

;

earth everywhere from time immemorial

they have even invaded

the cave of paleolithic

origin of his art (p.

man

in the Pyrenees, while

magic was the

in).

Taboo

has laid

its

'impeding' hand

on our

faculties already in Paradise in the prohibition of the fruit

of the tree of knowledge (pp. 3 and 178); even the superior

animals are burdened with

indulging in cannibalism
It is (p.

'

scruples

',

which restrains them from

f.).

impossible to indicate even by mere dots the

quartet through
all

trail

of

M. Reinach's
of the

the zones of the globe.

But

a few examples taken from the sketch of the history of the religion

Hebrews may

illustrate

course there were totems in plenty

is

M. Reinach's method Of among the Hebrews. Jehovah

'

'.

'

a product of animism
is

'

(p. 7),

and the very idea of Jehovah's

'

covenant with Israel

one that

is

to

be found everywhere

in

connexion with totemism'

(p. 180).
'

Not only Moses, Aaron, and

Balaam were magicians, but

thetic

Jacob resorted to a kind of sympa-

magic to procure the birth of speckled sheep. Gen. 30. 39

'

(p. 182).

The
it

legislation

and morality of the Pentateuch are

;

also impregnated with taboo

it is

interesting to see moral ideas

evolving from

and remaining

in touch with it' (p. 178).

'The

Decalogue

is

a revision of an old code of taboo.'

:

But the Decathy father and

logue contains a positive injunction

'

Honour

mother

.'

This
:

is,
'

as
If

it

were, the reversal

and modification

of an ancient taboo
shalt die
(p. 179,
.

thou strikest thy father and mother, thou

But the taboo thus becomes a law of morality

p.
'

comp.

7).

One might
is

call

M. Reinach's method
it
'

of

interpretation

the reversal and modification, as

were of the

ancient allegorical one, and one

reminded of Goethe's xenion

Im

Auslegen seid frisch und munter Legt Ihr's nicht aus, so legt was unter.

; ;

196

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

M. Reinach
is

at his best

where he

is

freed from the four

incubi

mentioned above.
is

The deUneation

of the history

of

Christianity

masterly.

We

would also

refer

to the excellent

analysis of the

Edda and Scandinavian Saga

Old Testament
is

(pp. 137-42),

and

the characterization of the

it

(pp.

74

iif.).

In general

may be
The

said that

M. Reinach

a master of combining concise-

ness and compression with clarity of thought and lucidity of style.

translator has
is

performed her task exceedingly

well.

The
p. 60,

diction

idiomatic, fluent, in places vivid

and

brilliant.
:

The few
line 5

typographical errors or misprints noticed are

'

from top, read

'

Rama

'

instead of
'

'

Krishna
'

'

p. 81, line
',

from the top, read

p. 185, top,

Sauroctonos

instead of
'

Sauroctonas

and
'.

read

'

Rosh-ha-shanah

instead of

'

Rash-ha-shanah

Besides the analytical table of contents at the beginning of

the book there are summaries at the heads of the chapters and
select bibliographies at their close.

The index

fills

twenty-seven

pages.
'

Studies in the History of Religions,' presented to Professor

the

Toy on

occasion of his seventy-fifth

'

birthday,

comprises

sixteen essays, viz.

English Witchcraft and James the First', by

'
;

George Lyman Kittredge

Buddhist and Christian Parallels

J. Estlin

The Mythological Background', by

and Enchanters
Robinson
Sheldon
Jastrow,
' ;
'

Carpenter; 'Satirists

in

Early

Irish

Literature',
',

by Fred

Norris

Saint Peter

and the Minstrel

the

by Edward Stevens
Soul
',

'

The
;
*

Liver as

Seat
',

of

the

by Morris

Jr.

The

Sikh Religion
',

by Maurice Bloomfield
'

Yahweh

before

Moses
',

by George Aaron Barton

* ;

Der Schluss

des

Buches Hosea
',

by Karl Budde
;

India

by Edward Washburn Hopkins

:

'

The Sacred Rivers of The Two Great Nature

by William
',

Shrines of Israel
'

Bethel and
in

Dan

',

by John Punnett Peters

',

Asianic
'

Influence

Greek Mythology
at

Hayes

Ward

The Theological School

Nisibis

by George Foot

Moore; 'The Translations made from the Original Aramaic

Gospels
',

by Charles Cutler Torrey

* ;

'

Oriental Cults in Spain

',

by Clifford Herschel Moore

The Consecrated Women

* ;

in the

Hammurabi Code

',

by David Gordon Lyon

Figurines of Syro-

WORKS ON COMPARATIVE
Hittite Art
',

RELIGION^

CASANOWICZ
;

I97

by Richard James Horatio Gottheil

and a

Biblio-

graphy of Professor Toy's publications by Harry Wolfson.

The
they are

essays obviously vary in interest

all

and importance; but

by them.
(pp.

scholarly

and informing, and some of them are

substantial contributions to the subjects treated

'English Witchcraft
primarily a defence of

and James the

I against the

First'

1-65)

is

James

charge of having been

a bigoted and rabid witch-hunter.

Professor Kittredge proves on

documentary evidence that

in Scotland the worst period of witch

I,

persecutions did not concur with the reign of James

while in

England the

statute against witchcraft of

little

1604 enacted under

James was but

more severe than

was swept

that of Elizabeth in 1563.

In general, James

off his feet

by a general outbreak

of the mania, and, far from initiating persecutions, he endeavoured

to

stem the tide and to obviate the worst abuses of the procedure

of the courts.

But the essay

is

also

an important contribution to
it

the history of witchcraft and the

manner of dealing with

67-94)
starts

in

England
'

at that period.
'

Buddhist and Christian Parallels

that
'

(pp.

from the
its

propositions

each great historic faith develops

'

own

genius

',

but at the same time

every vigorous stock grows by

',

contact and suggestion from without

which indicates the author's

view that the occurrence of similar stories or mythological and

religious ideas

among

several peoples

mission than to independent invention.

in the papers are
:

the story of the

may rather be due to transThe subjects discussed two women (i. e. the judgeis

ment of Solomon,
to India
;

Kings

3.

i6-28),'the origin of which

credited

to Babylonia are traced the stories of the exposure of

Sargon
is

I,

the part played by the mountain

and of Moses, and the account of the Deluge. So also Meru in Buddhist cosmogony
paral-

derived from the Babylonian mountains of the gods, and the

sevenfold order of the gods in the Buddhist pantheon
leled with the
is

Babylonian seven planets, while the consumption

fire

of the world by

has

its

counterpart in

some passages of the

stories of the birth

Prophets and in

2 Pet. 3. 5-7, 10.

The Gospel

of Jesus are placed beside those of Apollo and Buddha.

'

198
'

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Satirists

and Enchanters

in

Early Irish Literature' (pp. 95-130)

illustrates the importance of poetic malediction

life

and

satire in the

of the ancient Irish.

is

While the combination of the functions

characteristic of early stages of civilization

of poet and magician

and appears

in

many

parts of the world (Greece,

Rome,
seem

Arabia,
to have

Finnland, Iceland, &c.), in old Ireland the

satirists

formed a formidable
whole peoples.
'

institution, inspiring terror in individuals

and

Woe

to the land that

'.

is

satirized

',

and the poets

*

Even commonly got what they asked for bow to them. The author adds that the
supernatural power of poets
Incidentally the paper gives

Christian saints had to

old conception of the

Ireland.

never disappeared from

interesting information

much

on the

early institutions, customs, laws,

and

beliefs of ancient Ireland.

is

'Saint Peter and the Minstrel' (pp. 131-42)

the translation

of a French fabliau which

'

illustrates the materialistic crudity of

life

some mediaeval conceptions of the

It relates

to

come

as well as a
'.

familiarly irreverent tone equally natural

under the circumstances

how
all

St.

Peter played dice with a minstrel in hell and

won away
footnotes

the souls from hell.

The poem must be

of the story.

read to

appreciate the grim and coarse

humour

Copious

accompany the
it

translation

and explain the

rules of the

game

as

was played

in hell.

The
(pp.

thesis of the paper

is

on

'

The

Liver as the Seat of the Soul

life,

143-68)

that preceding the localization of the soul, or

in the brain, the liver

in the heart
this

and subsequently

was accorded
of
this

position.

Professor Jastrow
references

quotes

in

support

view numerous

from classical
2.

literature as well as
7.

from the Old Testament (Lam.

Ps.
7.

11

Prov.

23; Job

16.

13;

30. 13, in which latter

'i''^?).

two

passages he would read

"l?3 instead of

But 'the

definite proof that the location

of the soul was at one time quite generally placed in the liver' he
sees in the use of the liver in divination which prevailed

among
in

many

peoples,

and

especially played a
ritual

prominent part
the
Etruscans.

the

Babylonian-Assyrian

and

among

The
of the

rationale of heptascopy was the belief that the

god assimilated

himself to the sacrifice which he accepted.

The

liVer

WORKS ON COMPARATIVE RELIGION CASANOWICZ

sacrificial

199

animal as the seat of the soul becomes the exact

i.

reflection of the soul,

e., is

therefore, the

mind and thought of

the

god.

Liver divination
",

therefore the earliest form of

"mind
by

reading

and the prognostication of the future follows as a natural

In connexion with the important part played
Babylonian-Assyrian
ritual

corollary.'

liver divination in the

from the

earliest

time

down

to the fall of the

'

Neo-Babylonian Empire Professor

'

Jastrow suggests as
at first offered

at least possible
for the

that animal sacrifices were

merely
the

purpose of obtaining a means of

divination, while

elements of a tribute to the gods and

with the gods mark later advanced

of establishing a

communion
156
f.).

conceptions

(p.

This would rather seem putting the

in order that the

cart before the horse.

For

animal or some part

it it

of

it

should become a potent vehicle of divination,

it,

must be
must be

given to the god to assimilate himself to

that

is,

a tribute to the god.

In the paper on 'The Sikh religion' (pp. 169-86) Professor

Bloomfield maintains, against Macauliffe in his work which bears
the

same

title,

that

on the side of doctrine or philosophy the

'

religion of the Sikhs, or

Disciples

'

',

contains absolutely nothing

new, nothing that

is

not to be found elsewhere, in some place,

in

and

at

some

time

India

'.

Its

God-conception,

which

wavers between monistic pantheism and anthropomorphic theism,

is

found in the Upanishads and elsewhere.

It

took over from

tinctured

Hinduism the doctrines of transmigration and Karma,

with a dash of fatalism borrowed from

Mohammedanism.
cruel

Even
and

the ethical institutions of Sikhism, such as the abolishing of caste

and the discarding of other

superstitions,

galling

and

Hindu

practices

have been proclaimed at one time or other before

first

Nanak, the originator and

1469),

Guru

or Pontiff of Sikhism (born

and would not

suffice to
'

account for the peculiar position

not only as a religious body, but

which the Sikhs hold in India

as a people of singular character

and

individuality'.

Professor

Bloomfield finds the most distinctive feature of Sikhism in the

development of the relation between teacher and

pupil,

which
',

'

in

India has always been pious, sentimental and sacramental

into

200
an

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

ecclesiastico-political force (similar to the
finally led

Papacy or Tibetan

Lamaism), which
a sort of nation.

up

to a sort

of church state

and

By

transforming the spiritual Guruship into

militant leadership the Sikhs were enabled to stem the tide of

Mohammedanism. But Sikhism remained at the core an essenHindu religion and the Sikhs are now reverting to some extent to Hinduism and are worshipping Hindu gods in Hindu
'

tially

',

temples

'.

Professor Barton's assent to the theory of the Kenite origin of

Yahweh, which was suggested

transformation from the prolific

in 1862,
'

and

his derivation
'

and

mother-goddess
'

is

well

known
In the

from his

'

Sketch of Semitic Origins

(chapter

VH).

present paper (pp. 187-204) he defends this theory against the several other hypotheses which have since then sprung up. They
are the Babylonian theory, set in motion especially by Delitzsch's

Babel und Bibel controversy

the

moon-god theory which was

worked out by Nielsen

in

'Die altarabische Mondreligion und

'

die mosaische Ueberlieferung

the volcanic theory of Gunkel

and Eduard Meyer

(see Smithsonian Report,

1912, p. 673

f,);

the storm-god theory or the equation of

Hadad

of Dr. Ward, the borrowing of

originally

where he

Yahweh with Adad or Yahweh from Edom, functioned under the name of Esau, which
Professor Barton comes to
'

was propounded by Professor Haupt.

the conclusion that the
supplies
all

Kenite theory of the origin of Yahweh

necessary
'.

the

conditions

to

account for

all

the

resemblances which have been urged

In 'Der SchlussHoseas' (pp. 205-11) Professor Budde defends,

against Cheyne, Marti, and others, the authenticity of Hos. 14. 2-9, showing that in form

and substance

it

is

fully paralleled in
it
*

the preceding chapters of the book, and that in fact the very programme of Hosea'.
Professor Hopkins's paper (pp, 213-29)
tells

contains

what the exu-

berant

Hindu fancy has thought out about

handed down

the sacred rivers of

India, their origin, qualities, potencies, activities, conversations,

&c., as

in the epic poetry of the

Mahabharata and

Ramayana.

WORKS ON COMPARATIVE RELIGION

CASANOWICZ

201

In 'Nature Shrines' (pp. 231-41) Dr. Peters gives agraphia

description of the sites of Bethel
features,

and Dan and

in

their physical

which the author examined

1902.

Bethel with

its

huge rocks was a centre of stone worship, while Dan with

its

numerous springs was

'

a canonization of the worship of

God

as the life-giving power, expressing himself in the outpouring of

the waters from the deep beneath the earth

',

echoes of which the

author finds in Psalms 42 and 46.

Dr. Ward's paper (pp. 243-53)
i^

^ counterpart

to,

or rather

a continuation

of,

the one

contributed by him in honour of

tries

Professor Briggs.

In both he

to set forth the

influence

of Asia Minor on Greek

religion

and

art

as against that

of

Phoenicia and Egypt^ and that whatever influence came from

Babylonia was transmitted through Hittite and Mitanian mediums.

In other words. Dr. Ward contends for a preponderance of an Aryan influence over the Semitic on Greek mythology and art.
It

would seem rather premature

to claim,

mainly on the basis of

in a treaty

the occurrence of the

names of some Hindu gods

Dr.

between the Hittites and the Mitani (see Smithsonian Report,

1909,
p. 691),

these peoples for the Aryans.

Ward
and

discusses
it

his proposition in a cautious

and

scientific spirit,

illustrates

by

tracing,

on the

basis of representations

on ancient

seals, his
its

special domain, the

Greek ideas of the netherworld with

rulers

and judges, the development of composite centaurs, sphinxes), the stories of Atlas, Ganymede, Perseus, and
figures in art (grifiins,

Medusa, &c.,

to their origins

and the modifying mediums through

which they had passed.

Professor Moore's paper (pp. 255-67) takes us back to the

period of the christological conflicts which gave rise to the theological school at Nisibis,

Mesopotamia,

at the

end of the

fifth

century.

Professor

Moore again
material,

exhibits his skill in selecting

his art of vivid

and grouping of the

and

and

live narra-

tive, setting institutions

and methods
if

of long ago in relation to

modern ones.
tion

We

are introduced to the faculty

whose organizatheir

was as democratic,

not more

so, as that of our present

schools,

and

to the students,

some of whom worked

way

202

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

through school by engaging in work during the three-months'

vacation
;

we

get a

good view of the communal

life

of the school
It
is

with the courses of study of the three-years' curriculum.

interesting

and

instructive reading from beginning to end.

Professor

Torrey's

treatise

(pp.

269-317)

is

the

most
It

important
is

and may be

designated as primus inter pares.

a model

of painstaking, penetrating research, close thinking,

facts

and conscientious balancing of

the assumption,

and arguments.
recent

Against
finds
in

on the

basis
is

of

the

papyri

Egypt, that Biblical Greek

essentially identical with the ver-

nacular (the Koivr/) of the Hellenistic period,

and

that the Gospels

and

their written sources

were originally Greek, he proves, by an

is

elaborate

and detailed

analysis, that there

no such thing as a

homogeneous
is

Biblical or

New

Testament Greek. The conclusion

that the distinct Semitic tinge of the Synoptic Gospels, or of

is

the documentary sources which underlie them,

due

to their

being translations from Semitic originals.

From

Professor C.

H. Moore's paper

(pp.

319-40) we learn
was
in

that in the second

and

third centuries c. e. there

Spain

a considerable vogue of the cults of Isis and Serapis, of Cybele,

Mithra, and other solar divinities.
civilians of

Their devotees were mostly

humble

position.

Professor

Lyon

(pp.

341-60) breaks a lance

After a careful

for the

consecrated

women

of Babylonia.

and

detailed analysis of the

sixteen laws in the

the references to

Code of Hammurabi relating to them, and of them in the contemporary contract literature, he
is

arrives at the conclusion that there

nowhere an indication that

these

women were

officially

connected with immoral practices.

Professor Gottheil (pp. 361-65) describes four bronze figurines

in his possession (illustrated

on two plates), one of which he would

designate as Pan,
Palestine.

who had
is

a grotto at Banias (Panias) in Northern

Unity of Religions
of Religions

the

outcome of a
It

sort of a

Parliament

on a small

scale.

contains twenty-two lectures

delivered

on successive Sunday
class

mornings

during

the winter
in

1909-10 before an adult

on Applied Christianity, held

WORKS ON COMPARATIVE RELIGION

connexion with the
Church,
Bible

CASANOWICZ
one
"
'.

203

School
'

of

Mount Morris
is

Baptist

New York
:

City, that

they

make more

real the truth of

the words

" Religions are

many

Religion
:

The
of

lecturers were for the greater part

members of
'

the faculties

Union Theological Seminary and Columbia

'

subjects discussed in these lectures were

The The Beginnings of

University.
',
'

Religion

',

Confucius and the Chinese

'

',

Brahmanism

Bud-

dhism

',

'

Zoroaster and the Avesta

'

',

The

Religion of Babylonia
'

and Assyria
'

',

Some

Religious Beliefs of the Egyptians

',

The

Religion of the Early Teutons', 'The Religion of Ancient Greece',

The

Religion of the Ancient

Romans

',

'

Judaism
'

Its Principles
',

and

its

Hopes
',

'

',

Mohammed and
',

Islam

',

Christianity
',
'

'

Roman
',

Catholicism
'

'

Greek Orthodox

Catholicity

Protestantism
'

Reform Judaism
',

'The Religious Aspects of Socialism

of Religions
'.
'

',

Science

and Theology
Education
',

'

The Symphony

',

Religion and

and Religion of the Future With the exception of the lectures on Mohammedanism and
' '
'

on the

'

Greek Orthodox Church

',

the

former

of

which

is

a fanatical tirade against

Mohammedanism and Mohammedans,

religions,

and other non-Christian

bitter attacks of the

and the

latter

punctured with

Roman
little

Catholic Church, the tone of the

lectures

is

dignified, irenic,

and sympathetic.

Professor
Sacrifice,

Jevons's

book discusses

in

seven chapters
Life,
is

Magic, Ancestor Worship,

The Future
treatment

Dualism,

Buddhism,

and

Monotheism.

The

apologetic,

bringing out the superiority and uniqueness of Christianity

as

understood by Professor Jevons.

Thus, at the close of the some-

what laboured Introduction,

of thought
in
is

in

which the sequence and connexion

not always easy to discern, we are told that while

religions of ancient Egypt,

Buddhism and the

Persia
is

and

the modern Mohammedanism the gratification of man's desire aim and end, and God secondary and subsidiary, in Christ's teaching the end to be achieved is God's will, not man's. The motive to it is love love of God and of one's neighbour (p. 18). These two commandments (as if Lev. 19. 18 and Deut. 6. 5 had
'

'

not been indited some time before Jesus uttered them) are often

.204

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Thus on the basis rejects the demand of
sic,

pressed into service.

of these two

command-

ments Christianity
other world
(p.

retributive justice in the

84

f.,

see, for instance,

its

Matt. 15. 46).

Monoit

theism attained only in Christianity

perfect form, because

alone
love

developed the
(P-

full

value of personality, the core of which

is

133

f-)-

Professor Jevons's booklet shows that partiality

to equity as
is

is

as inimical

prejudice.
all

Dr. Scheftelowitz has brought together from

all

corners and

quarters a large

number

of data bearing on the folk-lore of the

'

hen.
sense.

The term

'

substitutionary victim

is

used in a rather wide

So, for instance, the drinking of the

warm blood
*

of a hen

by a pregnant

woman

in

South India

(p. 5)

might be considered
expiation
';

as a case of magical medicine rather than of

in

many
the

other cases adduced in the

book the hen

is

simply a

gift to

demons, not a substitute

for the giver.

is

Among

the instances of

averting (apotropaic) magic circles

introduced the story of Honi

Hameaggel, who used to draw a

for rain (Ta'anit

circle

around him when praying

23
it

a).

Why

not take the explanation given in

Talmud,

viz.

that

was intended as a symbolical or dramatic

'
:

expression of his perseverance

I shall

swear by

Thy

great

name

that

not

move from here

It

until

Thou

takest compassion

on Thy

children.'

was so understood by Honi's contemporaries,

this

disapproved of

holy defiance of God.

R. Moses
p. 33.
?
',

b.

who Nahman

lived in Spain, not in France, as stated

on

The concluding

chapter,
itself,

Gibt es im Judentum Ritualmord

little

while interesting in

has

relation to the subject of the book.

Mr. Hill examined some of the evidence as to the existence,

in the Hellenistic

and

Roman

times, of local cults

and mythology

in certain districts of Palestine.

entirely from coins, twenty of

The evidence

is

drawn almost
plates,

which are reproduced on the

which would show interpenetration of Syrian, Phoenician, and

Egyptian strains
surface culture.
in

local cults, overlaid

by Greek and

Roman

Much, however, of the

divinities

interpretation of the coins

and consequently of the

is

supposed to be figured on them be of

interest to nurhismatists.

conjectural.

The

article will also

WORKS ON COMPARATIVE RELIGION

Studies in the Religions of the East.

CASAN OWI CZ
S.

205

By Alfred

Geden, M.A.

D.D.

London: Charles H. Kelly,

the

pp. xi

904.

The

subjects of these studies are

religions of

Egypt,

Babylonia and Assyria, Brahmanism and Hinduism, Buddhism,

Jainism, Confucianism, Taoism, Shintoism, Zoroastrianism and

Mohammedanism.
the proportion and
'

In the selection of the religions, as well as in

method of treatment, the author was guided

faith

by the comparative importance of the

in

human

history,

and

its

influence in the formation

viii).

and

edification of a

moral and

religious life' (p.

Judaism and Christianity are excluded

for the

from a formal discussion

namely, that their
'

same reasons

as in Orelli's work,

direct inclusion

would have expanded one

volume
facts

into

two or more, and

that

in effect

would but have

have most

reiterated
fully

and conclusions
set

recent works

and

effectively
'

forth

'.

An

introductory chapter treats

of the

origins

',

the fundamentals or general conceptions of religion,

such as the belief in the existence of a power or powers outside

of man, the survival after death, &c., with a criticism of the
theories of animism, fetichism, totemism, ancestor worship, &c.,

and

sets forth the scope, object,

and contents of the science of

by

comparative religions, the mental attitude and standpoint which

the student should bring to
it,

and the method and

most part

principles

which he should be guided

in his studies
'

and conclusions.
in form as well as in

The

studies have
'

been

for the

substance

delivered as lectures at the Wesleyan College, Richexhibit the qualities

mond, and they somewhat

this origin.

and

defects of

There

is

in the style

a certain freshness and a

warm

personal note of the face to face address, but also a good deal of
diffuseness with frequent returns

and

reiterations, which, while

with the audience

certain facts

may have
effect of

served to emphasize and impress

to the reader intrusive

and statements, are

and often

produce the contrary

emphasis, namely, a certain vague-

ness and want of precision.

The

religions of

Egypt and Babylonia and Assyria are treated

in a comparatively
respectively).

summary manner

(pp.

55-130 and 131-84

The author assumes

early invasions of the Semites

206

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

In
fact,

into the valley of the Nile.

the

'

early settlers in Egypt,

with

whom

its
'.

history

may be

said definitely to begin, were of

to the

Semitic stock
religious
beliefs

They brought

new home

the loftier

conceptions which

they imposed

upon the primitive

and which
ulti-

and practices of the

less

existing population,

mately blended more or

diversified

completely with them into a

art of writing

much

whole

and a knowledge of the

and of

the use of the hieroglyphic signs, in which history and literature

found expression
invading Semites
of the primitive

'

(p. 64).

The

'

higher belief and cult of the

',

into

which were taken up the elements or types

viz.
'

faith,

nature worship, totemism, and star

worship, was probably of a

predominately solar character'

significant

(p. 71).

But 'the main and most

Semites

contribution

which the

made

to the content of the religious thought

life

and

belief
also,

of Egypt was their doctrine of the

to

come

'

(p. 72).

So

in discussing the eschatology of Babylonia

and Assyria, the author

says

'
:

The resemblance which

dead and a future

these beliefs (with regard to the

life)

state of the

early
life

assumed and Egyptian

appears
incontestable'

doctrine
(p. 159).
life

on the subject of

future

In view of the prominent place held by the idea of the

beyond the grave among the Egyptians and its conception as a replica of the life upon earth, as contrasted with the little space
it

given to

in the religious

thought of the Semites and the view of

the Sheol or Aralu as a shadowy abode of inactivity the resemblance does not appear
'

and decay,

incontestable

'.

The
treated
PP-

religions of India

and Mohammedanism are most

pp.

fully

(Brahmanism and Hinduism,

;

185-431

Buddhism,

432-593

Mohammedanism,

pp. 718-881),

and may be con-

sidered as the best portions of the book.

in all
its
is

But the work exhibits

parts thorough scholarship, familiarity with the literature

in

which

any way related

to the subjects

under discussion, and

Geden's exposi-

independent judgement.

special feature of Dr.

tion are the copious extracts

and excellent analyses of the sacred

literature of the several religions

(Book of the Dead, Vedas,

Tri-

pitakas, Avesta, &c.).

His definitions and explanations of

beliefs,

doctrines,

and

rites are

characterized by clearness, sanity,

and

WORKS ON COMPARATIVE RELIGION

common
rules

CASANOWICZ
is

207

sense.

Most admirable and praiseworthy

which he brings
to the subject.

the broad
the

and generous
which

spirit

in the introductory

chapter he lays
'

Some of down for

the

student of comparative religions are, to

sions,

lay aside all preposses-

and

to bring to bear all the qualities of patience, impartiality,

and
shall

insight in the

endeavour to secure a definite solution which

facts of human
. .
.

be based not on speculation but on the broad

.

experience

'

to

'

eschew above

all

hasty generalisations

'.

And

they are conscientiously adhered to by the author.

literature in the

Aside from numerous references to related

text, there are brief bibliographies at

the close of each chapter,

and tolerably

full

indexes of subjects and references to passages

literatures.

quoted from the religious

The Adapa myth is not an

Epic, as the statement on
p.

episode of the Gilgamesh or

Nimrod

160 seems to convey, but was found

among
read
'

the Tell el-Amarna tablets.

'.

For 'Bossuet',

p. 298, n.

i,

Bousset

The
desired.

typographical features of the book are

all

that could be

I.

M. Casanowicz.

United States National Museum.

RECENT RABBINICAL LITERATURE

Die Mischna, Challa {Teighebe). Text, Ubersetzung und Erklarung. Nebst einem textkritischen Anhang. Von Dr. Karl Albrecht,
Professor in Oldenburg in Gr. Giessen
:

Alfred Topelmann^

1913.

pp. iv

+ 48.
{'

Die Mischna, Baba Qanima

Erste Pforte des Civilrechts)

'

Text,

Ubersetzung und Erklarung.

Nebst einem textkritischen

St.

Anhang. Von Walter Windfuhr, Pastor an

in

Catharinen
pp.
viii

Hamburg. Giessen: Alfred Topelmann, 1913.

+ 96.
These two volumes
is

are two further instalments of the

Mishnah
two

under the editorship of Georg Beer and Oscar Holtzmann. One

pleased to

note a marked improvement upon the

first

volumes by the editors (Berakot by Holtzmann and Pesahim by

Beer).

There

is

no attempt

to

do pioneer work, but an earnest

texts,

endeavour

to give a

comprehensive commentary on the

ample use being made of the labours of predecessors, with due

acknowledgement, whenever necessary.
edition

The

real

aim of

this

becomes quite apparent

it

is

to introduce
it

Christian

theologians to rabbinic literature, and as such

certainly has

some

merit.
is brief,

Prof. Albrecht's introduction to Hallah

is

but the author

with the

careful not to omit anything of importance.

It deals

name and
as well

position of this tractate,

its

date

and composition.

He

agrees with tradition in ascribing the redaction of this tractate,

as the entire

Mishnah, to R. Judah ha-Nasi, since no

is

authority after that scholar

mentioned.

There

are,

however,
history of

a few interpolations which belong to a later age.

giving Hallah
is

The

briefly

sketched out.

The Mosaic
dough

law and the

custom of modern Jews

.

to throw a piece of

into the

oven

are described.

VOL.

VI.

209

2IO

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

text
is,

The

with a few exceptions, carefully vocalized

and

explained.

Jewish commentators, like Maimonides and Bartinoro,

are largely drawn upon.

As

Prof.

Albrecht

is

the

author of
as

a useful grammar of mishnic Hebrew, he

a reliable guide on

may be regarded

many

points,

and

his

explanations of the

constructions are very valuable.

his side

He

certainly has

when he

translates the clause

tveggeschafft
it

nDQ3 13iy

HT

grammar on nn, so muss

Maimonides
it

dies

am Pascha

werden
to

(I, 2 a),

against

and Bartinoro, who explain

Pesahim HI,

mean

that

he who keeps

(one

of the five kinds) transgresses the law of Passover.

refers to
i

Albrecht
It

in support of his interpretation.

is

must,

however, be admitted that the mishnic idiom

other explanation.

in favour of the

The
(p.
6,

punctuation of the

Hebrew words
upon
it,

in the text

and

notes,

despite the care bestowed

notes) does not
(p. 14)

is

not free from errors.

^"1?!?

^IS

mean
,

he added ; read

in Pi'el.

For
form

pprns
is

read

Iv^'^'f

as there can be

no doubt
-.-

that the
full

like biblical ^V?';'

(Gen. 25. 27) where

is

became a
ISi?.

vowel,

px^ nnn
(2. 2

ncy

(2.

2a)

impossible;

read
is

For rf^N^DO

b) read riinNlbp.

Prof. Albrecht

unnecessarily troubled
it

about the form npiD^ (H, 3 a).

eine auffdllige

In the notes he remarks that

.

is

Form

des Partizips fiir Tv>y^

But since the

is

finite

verb ^3^
as
"1j^ is

is

a fa'ula form in the Bible, n?i3^

"13*

quite correct, just

;

a participle, or verbal adjective, of

(p. 32,

(Jer. 22. 25

39. 17).

Instead of "i?3

twice) read ">?| as e.g. in Eccles.

i. 10.

On

the whole Windfuhr's treatment resembles

more

that of
he,

Albrecht rather than that of the general editors, though

too, speaks,
is

in

his

preface, of pioneer work.

His introduction

brief,

and deals with the name of the

tractate

and

its

compo-

sition,

the practical application of the laws treated

of,

and the

authorities

whose decisions and opinions are mentioned.

He

is

certainly right

when he remarks
to deprive the
it

that in spite of the attempt of

all

the

Romans

Jews of

forms of independence,

the latter found

possible to adjudicate cases

among

themselves.

Hence
Jews.

the laws of the Mishnah have a practical value for the

He

also agrees with Jewish scholars that the civil laws of

RECENT RABBINICAL LITERATURE

HALPER
A

211

the Mishnah are the result of an internal development, and have

borrowed
with

little

or nothing from

foreign

codes.

comparison
is

Roman

law gives no cause to assume that the Mishnah

it

indebted to

to a great extent.

For

similarities

do not prove

dependence.

The

text

is

vocalized with grammatical accuracy, and deviations

from traditional pronunciation are prominent, though not always

necessary,

and

in

some

cases unjustifiable.

The

notes, as a rule,

are very useful

and

instructive.

Jewish scholars, even those

wrote in Hebrew, like Israel Lipschiitz, author of

are frequently quoted.

Grammatical

slips,

who ^N'lt^'' mNsn, however, occur, now

a few of them,

and

again,

and
r,

should like to

call attention to
O"*?"!!!,?-

n'onna

(m,
it

p. iS)

ought to be

For the impossible

8,

^i'i^ (p. 2i)

p.

read ^f^^, as in the

preferable
to

text.
^"^'IQ."!!."!.

Instead of n'lnn] (X,

84)

is

read

Another grammatical

mistake

is

r\l2ii

nnc^y (VI, 4e, p. 48) instead of

rules of

moN

nt^'j?.

It is

true that in

most editions

gender are not

strictly

observed,
correct

but a

critical

edition ought to avoid such

slips.

The

vocalization of the post-biblical

word

"i2iy

a fetus can only be

determined by a knowledge of grammar.

nunciation
is
'^l^'iy,

The

traditional proin

and has a good analogy

biblical

*i?1"'

(Judges 13.

8).

Barth in his essay

Das

passive

Qal

Jind seine

Participien explains such forms as the original passive participle

of Kal instead of

''^^ij.

At

all

events no cogent reason can be

brought against tradition in

to vocalize
it

this respect.

To

disregard this and

"i^ij?

(V,

i, p.

36),

is

hardly justifiable, especially as

the form fcCal

is

extremely rare in Semitic languages.

it.

Windfuhr
which
which

should have at least drawn attention to

A
i

similar deviation
f,

from tradition
is

is

the vocalization
^?^'1D.

^<'?iD

(VIII,
l^Iwaa)

p. 60),

usually

pronounced

Now

Syriac

(Passive Participle
or
""IK^D

of Pe'al) would presuppose a

actually occurs,

Hebrew form N1DD

slightly

though in a
it

different

sense (Ketubot

105 a).

Here again
as

is

possible that t^^^D represents the old

Passive Participle, and would therefore be fully justified.

over,

More-

X01D denotes an inherent defect,

i;\V

it

is

akin to terms
white),

denoting colour (comp.

blind and

"^l.n,

or

"ijn

and

P 2

212

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

would therefore have an analogy in Aramaic D31X black. The In explaining vocalization ^*'?^D is accordingly no improvement.
nx*3 (p. 13) the author should have mentioned the fact that in old manuscripts which come from the Orient, the spelling is

and sometimes nvPNa =*1^ nrN3. The expression ^\>^ ^y C^B' (X, 10, p. 86) is translated by Dr. Windfuhr
usually

nvfX3

=n^

T\V'^'2,

drei

zu

drei

\Handbreiten\.
it

In his notes he mentions that

;

Bartinoro explains

as Fingerliingen

but he refers to Baba

kamma
here

V,

5,

where the hand-breadth

is

used as measure.
(nsto),

But

the latter

passage has mc'y with a masculine noun

whereas
of the

we have a feminine numeral.

in

Now
:

the

usage

Mishnah

this

respect

is

consistent

whenever a masculine
;

noun

is

understood,

when

we have to supply riQD a hand-breadth but feminine noun is understood we have to supply y3VK
Dr. Windfuhr
is

a finger's breadth.
pression that
latter to

under the erroneous imfor

ynVN and HDD are about the same,

fitiget^ s length.

he takes the

xsxt.z.w

As

a matter of fact a HDU contains

b).

four
in

myiVN

(see Rashi,

Pesahim 109

This usage
ntrbt^ Dityo
2).

is

evident

the following passage Dmioij

no XCD^ zh^

^y

^^

rwh^ ^y mcoi (Kelim 27,

NctsD

nnn

This ought to be

a warning to modern scholars not to venture too often to disagree

with early Jewish writers upon matters of idiom and usage.
latter are

The

perhaps not

scientific,

but they

know

their subject.

The critical appendixes are very useful, and are well They give the variants from all available sources.

compiled.

Die Mischna Joma {Der

Versohftungsiag).

Text, Ubersetzung

und Erklarung.
Bonn.
Giessen:

Nebst einem textkritischen Anhang.

o. Prof. d.

Von

D. Johannes Meinhold,

Theologie an der Univ.

19 13.
pp. iv + 83.

Alfred TOpelmann,

Die Mischna Middot (von den Massen

setzung und Erklarung.

des Tempels).

Text, Uber-

Nebst einem textkritischen Anhang.

a. o.
:

Von
pp.

D. Oscar

Holtzmann,
Giessen

Prof.

d.

Theologie an
1913.

der Univ. Giessen.

viii
-I-

Alfred Topelmann,

12.

RECENT RABBINICAL LITERATURE

As
tractate

HALPER
and

213

Yoma

deals with the observances of the

it

Day

of

Atonement,

Prof.

Meinhold thought

advisable to devote the

history of that

greater part of his introduction to the sources

fast.

The well-known problems

met

that

occupy the minds of higher

critics

of the Bible are fully discussed, and the results arrived at

with,

are those that are usually

namely, that the

Day

of

Atonement
writer

is

a post-exilic institution, since

it.

is

the only biblical

it

who mentions

Indeed, Prof. Meinhold thinks

possible

that the idea of having a

Day

of

Atonement

in order to purify

the

Temple and
it

the congregation arose after Ezekiel by whose

vision

was suggested. The ceremonies of that day are described

satisfactorily explained,

by Professor Meinhold, though not always

as in

many

instances no plausible reason can be found, owing

to our imperfect knowledge of ancient institutions.

The

writer

shows a thorough grasp of the

difficult

problems, and gives the

questionable whether

most advanced

views.
is
is is

It

is,

however,

such a discussion
of the introduction

relevant to this subject.

The remainder
this tractate,

devoted to the contents of

and a

brief

summary

given of the high priest's procedure.

The

editor should have

had no

difficulty

in

dealing with

the text and in preparing his translation and notes, as he

made

use of the labours of Baneth, Strack, and other writers to

whom
From

he acknowledges

his indebtedness.

Yet

it is

impossible to accord

unqualified praise to this part of Prof. Meinhold's work.

the philological standpoint his notes are insufficient.

as

Such words

nns

(III,

3)

and

pj-^VD
is

(V, 3) were not considered worthy

free

of annotation.

Nor

the translation

from errors which

betray an inadequate knowledge of

Hebrew grammar.
2)

A glaring
n^JK'

instance

is

.TJB>

ns

^VN

)b

N3 (IV,
ziveiteti

which Prof. Meinhold

agree

renders

JVun trat er zu seinem

Farren, making

with

"13

This erroneous translation incidentally shows that the

editor did not follow the high priest's procedure in this respect.

We
and

are told in III, 8 that the high priest

after uttering his confession,

came up

to his bullock,

walked up to the north of the

It is therefore

altar to cast lots

on the two

goats.

necessary for
to his bullock

the

Mishnah

to state that the high priest

came up

214

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

a second time.

curious misprint

is

^3Mn inns
iri^n (Isa.

(III, lo).

do

not suppose that the editor would wish to justify such constructions

by

ij?3

133

(Num.

24. 3)

and
is

''f^

56. 9).
iJ3^^

In the

iextkritischer

Anha?ig the phrase

quoted correctly
all

h^ inDQ.
(VII,

difficult

passage to which the editor, like

is

his predecessors,
b^^VS
i).

fails

to

draw attention

ip^n3 nn^iDI

minn-riN

The word IpTa cannot mean

'

in his bosom, as the high priest

was

standing, apart from the fact that this

would be a disrespectful
to read IpTia

procedure.

The

obvious suggestion
this supposition

is

in his case

(Greek

^t/kt^).

But

seems unlikely on account of

1910, p. 121, I suggested
urn, but
its

the agreement of

all texts.
2,2,:

In

ZAW.,
to
it

to render Prov. 16.

mefit is

The

lot is cast in the

p'ri

judge-

from Jahweh, taking

i-ii*.

be identical in meaning with

from PPC.

Arabic

a box, and deriving

this

The

translation

box or case in

Mishnah would admirably

suit the context.

The
more

suffix

of IpTia

may

refer to "IDD
priest.

which some editions and

manuscripts have, or to the high

likely.

The former
is

alternative

is

The main

part of Holtzmann's introduction

taken up with
tractate

the description of the Second

Temple
is

as given

by the

Middot and by Josephus, and

subject,
^^'hile

a valuable contribution to this

recognizing the fact that this tractate contains

many important and

editor
is

trustworthy data about Herod's Temple, the

inclined to side with Josephus

when

the two accounts

are at variance.

He

rightly observes that

Josephus must have

been familiar with the structure of the Temple where he probably

officiated as priest.
in

Great caution
facts

is

to

be taken

in using

Josephus

connexion with

concerning the Romans.

motives.

In such cases

he was prone to

sacrifice truth to personal

But he had

nothing to gain by giving misleading data concerning the Temple.

Moreover he wrote
details of the

also for people who,

like himself,
it

knew

all

structure of the

Temple, and
falsify

is

impossible to

think that he would have dared to

the facts.

The

tractate

Middot, on the other hand, was redacted about 150

to say, eighty years after the destruction of the
few,
if

c.e., that is

Temple, when
is

any, eye-witnesses

still

survived.

There

not sufficient

RECENT RABBINICAL LITERATURE

ground,
as
b.

HALPER
for

215

Prof.

Holtzmann

points

out,

assuming that
mother's

R. Eliezer

Jacob saw the Temple.

It is true that his

I,

brother officiated as a Levite (comp. Middot

2)

but this does

Saul,

not preclude his having been a contemporary of

Abba

and

of having been born after the destruction of the Temple.

trustworthiness of Josephus in

The

connexion with his account of

Temple was attacked by Hildesheimer and Schiirer, but Holtzmann refutes practically all their arguments. After his
the

explanations most of the discrepancies in Josephus disappear.

The

text of this tractate has often

difficult

been explained, and on the

constructions here.

whole there are hardly any

But, as

in his former publications. Prof.

Holtzmann misunderstood a few

combination of blunders has
:

very easy passages.

curious
in
I,

been committed by him

'hp^i iD3in
It is quite
jtr^

which reads as follows

lOtJ'D P31

Nine' 133

yhv

Qi^tJ' rr^nn

nn

z"'ii \b

idini nniy irNtr.

obvious to any one

who

is

familiar with
is

Hebrew, and

particularly mishnic constructions, that "iDtJ'D

the subject of

IDINl and that

ybv

ti"N is

a direct quotation. But Holtzmann

takes ^''H to be the subject of "imsi, and gives this logical ren-

dering

2(/td

zu jedem Posten, welcher nicht stand, da sprach der

:
'

Mann

des Tempelbergs
so

Friede sei niit dir

'

Bemerkte

er,

dass

er schlief,

schlug er ihn
"13? is

mit

occurring word
this
is

vocalized

The frequently The Kal of by Holtzmann ""^J

seinetn

Stock.

verb does not exist in Hebrew, and for the active the Hiphil

used.

An

editor of a

Hebrew

text
I

may

at least

be expected to

use a lexicon intelligently, and

are to

am

afraid that such mistakes

some extent due

to Prof. Holtzmann's indifference.

number

of other inaccurate vocalizations occur in this text.

iP"]??*^

(II, 2) is impossible.

priori one would expect the verb yiN

ijij^.

to be used in

Kal

like

Arabic

But there are cases where

Pi"el.

the spelling
it

is

yi^X which presupposes a

If

we
if

consider
Pi"el,
is
it

a Kal, we ought to vocalize the word

iyj?:^*^,

and

should be

iVW.

Tm^^ (H,

4) should

be riy^3.

There

also

nothing to gain by substituting Hliy (^Temple-court) for traditional

niiy
(II, 7, &c.), as e is

usually favoured by y

2l6

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Von
D. Emil

Verzeichnis der Personennatnen in der Mischna.

ScHURER,
Leipzig:

weil. ordentl. Professor der Theologie in Gottingen.

J.

Hinrichs, 1913.

pp. iv

+ 23.
pamphlet

Before his death Schiirer expressed his wish that this

should be published.
there
is

As

the editor,

Hugo

Duensing, points out,

It is true that

sufficient justification in this publication.

an index of the important proper names occurring

has been published in

in the

Mishnah
in his

Hebrew by Mr. Braunschweiger

the

book The Teachers of

complete nor
reliable.

Mishnah.

But that index

is

neither

Schiirer,

on the other hand, was a careful

devoted his
life

and painstaking worker.

period, Christi

He

to the

mishnic

and
is

his Geschichte des Jiidischen

Volkes

im

Zeitalter

Jesu

a striking example of erudition and system.

For the

compilation of this index he

disposal,

made

use of

all

manuscripts at his
basis.

and

it

is

therefore put

on a

critical
is

He

took

great

care to

point

out

where there

reason

to

doubt the

authenticity of a passage.
It is to

be hoped that
the

this

index

will

prove to be a stepping-

stone

for

compilation of a complete concordance of the

is

Mishnah which

so

much needed.

Beiirdge zur Geschichte

und Literatur im geondischen

Berlin:

Zeitalter.

Von

Dr.

S.

Eppenstein.

Louis Lamm, 1913.

pp. 218.
It is

one of

fate's little ironies that

the gaonic period which

is

practically

shaped present-day Judaism

liturgy,

so

little

known.

Masorah,

and the

fixing of

Halakah

in general

The may be
such a

regarded as the products of those centuries.

dearth of historical records that the

But there

is

Geonim and

the heads of

other academies are, with the exception of a few cases, no more

than mere names, while there can be no doubt that a number of

scholars

who

influenced Jewish

life

are not even

known by name.

We owe

a great deal to the constructive genius of Graetz, who,

with but scanty material at his disposal, drew a comprehensive

sketch of this important period.

The

discovery of the Genizah

RECENT RABBINICAL LITERATURE

marks a new epoch in

HALPER

21

this field of research.

Views that had

formerly been regarded as certain were found to be untenable, and

it

is

safe to assert that the

light
will

more the Genizah on

that

is

explored, the
period.

more

be

thrown

obscure

The

fragments hitherto
assiduity,

made

accessible have been studied with great

and

profitable results

have been obtained.

band of

scholars in

Europe and America are busily engaged

in elucidating

every passage appertaining to this period, and in

lifting
is

the veil as

much
stein

as possible.

And one

of the ablest workers

Dr. Eppen-

who

has published a

number

of essays on this subject in the

Motiatsschrift.

Five of these essays are reprinted in this volume.

Dr. Eppenstein bases his studies upon the

in

new

material,

and
and

the five essays discusses the most important phases of the

gaonic period.
his descendants.

The

first

essay deals briefly with Bostanai

It is

pointed out by the author that opinions

about Bostanai's marriage with the Persian

woman

are divided.
it,

Some
the

of the early halakists looked favourably

upon

and a

number

of

Geonim

traced their origin

to that

exilarch.

On
in
is

other

hand a fragment published by G.

Margoliouth
This

JQR., XIV, speaks

his family

disparagingly of this marriage.

in

accord with Sherira, who, in his Epistle, emphatically dissociates

from that of Bostanai.

The second
and

essay

is

devoted

to the relation of the

Gaon

to the exilarch

to the constitution
intricate

of the academies.

These two subjects are teeming with

is

problems, and although Dr. Eppenstein

unable to arrive at

new

conclusions, he has treated

them

in all details,

and drawn

an able sketch of the conditions of the academies.

The

centre

of Jewish learning having in that period been shifted to Babylon,

Palestine
historians.

was
It

almost

entirely

neglected

by the majority of
latter

was usually assumed that the

of scholars.

country was

practically devoid

This

view has proved quite

untenable,

and Dr. Eppenstein

till

in his third essay describes the

spiritual activity in Palestine

the beginning of the tenth century.

Sacred poetry, the Masorah, and a number of Midrashim were

products of Palestinian activity during these centuries.
stein rightly observes

Dr. Eppennot

that

although

Halakah was

much

2l8

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Holy Land,
poetic
that country
(p. 24).

cultivated in the

was the home of the

Midrash with
R. Phineas,
at the
I

its

imagery

About the paitan

ha-.Kohen.
in the

should like to remark that in a Genizah fragment

is

Dropsie College there

hymn by Phineas

There are also a few hymns by Phineas Rosh Yeshibah

Bodleian Library (see Neubauer and Cowley, Catalogue^

vol. II).

As Saadya may be considered the most prominent Gaon whose many-sided activities and numerous writings place him
above
all

others
is

who

filled

the ofiice of Gaonate, a considerably

All phases of his
activity

long essay

devoted to him.

are

touched upon by Dr. Eppenstein.

Apart from the complete

treatise

works by that Gaon,

wal-I'tikaddt

like

his

philosophic

al-Amanat

and

his

Arabic translation of the Pentateuch that have

of,

never been lost sight

siderable
his life

there were recently discovered a conflood of light

amount of fragments which shed a

upon

and works.

The most

notable are Harkavy's Studien

und

Mitteilungeii^ vol. V,

and Schechter's Saadyana.

Owing

to the

multiplicity of subjects that Dr. Eppenstein discusses,

he over-

looked a few points to which

attention.
(p.

it

may
it

not be out of place to draw

to
his

While treating of Saadya's Reshut

Azharot

122) the author states that

that eight of

contained twenty-four sections

in

and

them have been preserved

p.

Samuel

b.

Hofni's

commentary {Saadyana,
sections have been
writer

43).

As

matter

of fact

twenty

preserved in a fragment by an
in

unknown

which was published

JQR., VI,
539
ff.)

p.

705.
it

I
is

have proved
not by Hefes

elsewhere {JQR.,
b.

New

Series, IV,

that

Yasliah as surmised by Neubauer, and that there

it

is

no evidence

to connect

with Samuel b. Hofni as was suggested by

I, p.

Marx

in

Ginzberg's Geonica, vol.

179.

That fragment gives the number

of sections as twenty-five.
since an illegible n
less likely.

This seems to be a more reliable reading,

read as T, while the opposite case
is
\t

may be

Since
to

Harkavy published Saadya's Sefer ha-Galut

assume
that
it

was customary

consisted of ten chapters, and

Dr. Eppenstein repeats this statement (p.

is

129

f.).

That

this

an impossible view may be seen from Saadya's calling the

of

chapters f'SiJS instead

3Snx.

Furthermore, he says that

RECENT RABBINICAL LITERATURE

the
first

HALPER
How
this

219

seven chapters are special, while the remaining three

are general

and extend over the

entire book.
It
is,

can be
quite

achieved

passes
the

my

comprehension.

however,

obvious that

book contained

seven chapters, which are

objects, or aims,

actually enumerated.
for writing

But the author had ten

that

book.

Seven objects were explained in the

seven chapters, and the remaining three had no separate chapters,

but were
XII, 703.

made

evident throughout the book.

See Bacher, JQR.,

do not know on what authority Dr. Eppenstein

Kairuwan translated nyB' the
Christian's

asserts that the people of

Even Harkavy's defective text does not admit of such an interpretation. What Saadya says is that the people of Kairuwan composed a book relating that which befel them at the hands of that Christian. Now that we have a more
book
into
(p.

Hebrew

132).

correct copy of that text (see

487

ff.),

we know

that nyt:'

H. Malter, JQR-, New Series, III, was a misreading for mJB'. The last
''"lyJD',

word no doubt represents Hebrew

lyjty

as

Saadya

translates

by
5),

"ii:''!i'

(see the suggestion recorded in

my name, l.c.^ p. 489,

note
is

and probably designates a

Mosul.

certain town, just as IIB'N

restricted to

The
that
is

fifth

essay deals with the narrative of the four captives

given by

Abraham

b.

Daud
it

in

his

n?3pn

IID.

The
and

authenticity of this narrative has long ago been questioned,

an able monograph was written on

by

Israel

Lewy

of Breslau.

Dr. Eppenstein relegates this story to the domain of legend.

He

presents an attractive and interesting sketch of the state of Jewish

culture in

Egypt, Spain, and Italy at that time, and

is

thereby

led to the conclusion that the four supposed captives were scarcely

needed
over,

to disseminate Jewish learning in those countries.

More-

he points out the impossibility that any of the captives hailed

According to
his theory,

from Babylon.

Shemariah cannot be
Hushiel came

regarded as a captive, and he very likely belonged to a family

that

had

for generations

made Egypt

its

home.

on

his

own accord
Italy.

to

Kairuwan, and was probably a native of

b.

Southern
of Spain.

Moses

Hanok might

easily

have been a native

to speculate

As

for the fourth captive there is

no need

220
about his

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

origin, since

even his name was not preserved.

This

theory dispels the beautiful illusion that at the decline of the

Gaonate,
taken
the

Providence caused
so
that

four

Babylonian scholars to be
spread
the

captive,
in

they might

knowledge

of

Talmud
he

the

diaspora.

Dr. Eppenstein

may be

right,

but

has failed to account for the origin of the legend for

b.

which Abraham

does not know the

Daud cannot be made responsible, name of the fourth captive.

since he

Die Abfassungszeit der Baraita der }2 Normeti

der heiligen Schrift.

fiir die

Auslegung

Eine Untersuchung.
israel.

Von Dr. Leo

in

BARDOWicz,Rabbinerder
Berlin:

Kultusgemeinde
pp.

Modling.

M. Poppelauer,

1913.

vi+iio.

Of
books

the

numerous problems

that tax the

mind of the

investigator

of rabbinic literature the one relating to the authorship of certain

is

not the least perplexing.

it is

Tradition in the majority of

usually the result of doctrinal
is

cases cannot be relied upon, as

speculations.

glaring illustration of this point

the Baraita

of the thirty-two principles for the

interpretation

of Scripture

which was ascribed by tradition

to R. Eli'ezer b.

R. Jose ha-Gelih.
this tradition,
It

As no
only

external argument could

be brought against
for

modern
by

scholars saw

no reason

doubting

its validity.

was
that

thorough-going

investigation

of this

Baraita

H. Katzenellenbogen
mentary on
were

as early as 1822 pointed out, in his

com-

this text, that the illustrations following the principles

later additions.

This was easily proved by the

fact that

some of the

illustrations are

taken from amoraic interpretations.

all

But even Katzenellenbogen and

it

other scholars after him took

for

granted that R. Eli'ezer was the author of this Baraita in

its

original form

which contained a mere enumeration of the

thirty-two principles.

By a minute and

careful study, however,

Dr. Bardowicz was enabled to prove this opinion untenable.

He

analyses every principle with great erudition and critical acumen,

and points out

to

that twenty-eight of these principles were

Eli'ezer,

known

Tannaim who preceded R.

while the remaining four are

RECENT RABBINICAL LITERATURE

of

HALPER
in

221

much

later

date.

Many

a reader

will

be surprised to find
the

that

two of these principles were quite unknown even

amoraic period.

These

principles are nine (rn!'p I'll elliptical

expressioji, that is to say,

some words

are missing in the Bible,

and are

to be supplied in the interpretation)

verses).

and eleven

(pi'nJB'

nno

a different markiftg of

The

illustrations

given in the

Baraita for these two principles are

very

interesting

even for

modern
that

biblical exegesis.

But Dr. Bardowicz

quite

rightly observes
in rabbinic

these

verses

are

interpreted

differently

literature.

Furthermore no talmudic or midrashic example can be cited where a biblical verse is interpreted in accordance with

either of these principles.

The

attempts

made by

Katzenellen-

bogen and Einhorn

to reduce

some

interpretations to these two

principles are ably refuted

by Dr. Bardowicz.
this

The circumstance
this

that

Baraita
its

is

nowhere quoted

in

amoraic literature militates against

tannaitic authorship.

To
in his

may be added

the significant fact that R. Sherira,

who

Epistle describes the

methods of interpretation employed by the

this

Tannaim and Amoraim, does not mention

argumentitm ex
Dr.
silentio

Baraita.

This

has peculiar force in this connexion, and

it

Bardowicz employs

very

skilfully.

For Sherira

does

mention a number
as

of these principles,

and had he known them

itself,

one

collection,

he would have referred to the Baraita

as

he does

in the case of the thirteen principles of

R. Ismael.

In consequence of these weighty considerations the conclusion

forces itself

upon us

that R. Eli'ezer could have

been neither the

author nor the redactor of this Baraita in any shape or form.

These negative

results of Dr. Bardowicz's investigation

for

appear to

be well grounded, and are an important gain

of rabbinic literature.

our knowledge

But Dr. Bardowicz

is

not content with mere negative results,

and the second

to

part of his

monograph

is

devoted to the attempt

is.

ascertain

who

the

real author of this Baraita

;

This

is

naturally a very arduous task

originality stand
at is startling

but Dr. Bardowicz's insight

and

him

in

good

stead.

The

conclusion he arrives

and

fascinating at the

same

time.

He

first

proceeds

222

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

and
final

to prove that the collection

redaction of these principles

took place during the gaonic period.

years of that period that the ninth
first

For

it

is

during the later

principles were
is

and eleventh

employed.

Direct and positive evidence for this view

furnished by an obscure passage occurring in the famous com-

mentary by a pupil of Sa'adya on the Books of Chronicles.

In
pjyai

one of

his notes this

commentator remarks
'cval's

'rj,'

177n

Dnm

n2D pw nnyo
na^CNT (ed.

31

a^m-^ mbnvn

-iqd2i

D^mn nnrD3
identification

Kirchheim,

p.

36).

No

satisfactory

has hitherto been suggested of these two books.

After minutely
this

examining the opinions expressed by Kirchheim, who edited

commentary, and by
in

L.

Donath who described the Rostock MS.

I,

Berliner's

Magazin

Dr. Bardowicz
D''03n

is

led to the almost

inevitable conclusion that

by

miD

the commentator

meant

the Baraita of the thirty-two principles.

For

it

is

by a careful
is

study of the contents of this Baraita that the commentator

enabled

to solve

many

difficulties in biblical exegesis.

Incidentally

Dr. Bardowicz throws a good deal of light upon obscure passages

occurring in this commentator's introduction where this Baraita
is

more

explicitly referred to.

We

accordingly have the authority

of a writer of the tenth century that the thirty-two principles are the

product of the gaonic academies,

for the

and

this

satisfactorily

accounts
it

circumstance that R. Sherira does not mention

in

describing the hermeneutic principles

employed by the
Sa'adya not only

Tannaim and Amoraim.

The same commentator

innovations (mcj?
N^B'
|T1X
ci'tt' ,nrDi::^

informs us

that

copied the books of the academies, but also introduced important

n*33 niDN
\t\^^^

pi^n

nnvo ai pNjn
n''33

Dn3T
nyctJ').

Bn''m

^na'^c^n

nsoD

p-nyni

^ao^cn

idn:

hjb'

Dr. Bardowicz

accordingly suggests that the innova-

tions consisted in the ninth

and eleventh

principles.

Apparent
this

support for this assumption

may be found
times.

in the

appendix of

monograph where
no means

it

is

shown
fifty

that vSa'adya

employed each of
list,

these principles about

Now

this

which

is

by

exhaustive, strikingly contrasts with

it is

the

established

fact that, as far as

known

to us,

no exegete before 'Sa'adya

RECENT RABBINICAL LITERATURE

made
use of these principles.

HALPER
is

223

Dr. Bardowicz

also of opinion

that Sa'adya, besides being the originator of these two principles,

supplied

many

illustrations for the

remaining

thirty.

In spite of the clever combinations of which Dr. Bardowicz

made

use,
is

few scholars

will

be

willing to follow

him

as far as that.
lives

Sa'adya
literary

one of the few fortunate Jewish writers whose

are fairly well known,
allusion to this

and

activities

and

it

is

indeed very

strange that

no

work

is

made by

himself or any

other writer.

In his lengthy prefaces to his Arabic translation

of the Bible he had occasion to refer to his discovery of two very

important principles of biblical exegesis.

Sa'adya was by no means

man who

hid his light under a bushel, and was therefore not

prevented by modesty from referring to his

Sa'adya's pupil
D''lD3n

own

works.

Moreover

would

certainly not have omitted to state that the

his master.
It

DHD

was the work of

seems more plausible

to

assume that

this Baraita is

a gaonic composition of which

inaccurate to consider Sa'adya

Sa'adya
the
first

made

extensive use.
is

It is

biblical exegete, as
(ed.

done by Dr. Bardowicz.

Ibn Janah
he made

in his

Kitdb al-Lumd

Derenbourg,

p. 15) says that

use of the works of rational commentators like Sa'adya, Sherira,

Hai, Samuel b. Hofni, Hefes

Rosh

Kalla,

and other commentators

must be those who
applied themselves

and Geonim.

Now

the

Geonim

referred to

lived before Sa'adya, since his successors

to the study of the Bible are explicitly

who

named.

At the end of
hypothesis that the

his

monograph Dr. Bardowicz advances the

on Chronicles

is

nv^Vn "IDD mentioned in the commentary not the Book of Jubilees, but a chronological
sort of

book which was a

supplementary part to the D''ODn nno.

parts,

The

entire

work thus consisted of two

one dealing with

methodology and the other with chronology, and was a kind of

introduction
confirmation. B.
to the

Talmud.

This, however, requires

further

Halper.

Dropsie College.

27^1

i ^

1,

5; J.

7 ^^

AN AUTOGRAPH RESPONSUM OF
MAIMONIDES
By
Despite
treatment.
in a

B.

Halper, Dropsie

College.

the great popularity enjoyed

still

by Maimonides,
awaits scientific

a considerable portion of his works

Some

of his responsa have long been

known

poor Hebrew translation made by Mordecai Tama,^

and although the Arabic original has happily been preserved, only a few of
in that language.^

them have

hitherto been published

These responsa, even

in the faulty

Hebrew

translation,

are of great importance from

many

points of view.

contain valuable material for the study of

historian will find in

They Halakah. The

which
life.

them

a reflection of that period

in the

was one of the most active

development of Jewish

They

are also of

some

interest to the student of Jewishhis

Arabic, as

Maimonides,
is

ungrammatical construction
in that dialect.

notwithstanding,

one of the best writers

For even
which
is

this short

responsum contains a peculiar expression

in the

unknown

works of other

writers.^

It is

therefore to be

hoped that the

entire collection of these

is

responsa, the manuscript of which

1

at present, I believe,

Pe^er ha-Dor (Amsterdam,

1765)

and Kobes Teshubot ha-Ra*nbatn

G. Margoliouth,

(Leipsic, 1859).
2

See Geiger, Melo Hofnayim, pp. 54-80

;

JQR., XI,
MargoJiouth

pp. 534-550

I.

Friedlaender,/^/?.,

New

Series, V, pp. 1-15.

edited twelve responsa,

'

two of which were autographs,

See below, note

VI.

9.

VOL.

225

226

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Simonsen of Copenhagen,*
will

in the possession of Dr.

be

edited as soon as possible.

The autograph responsum herewith published

included in the Pe^er ha-Dor

is

not

and Kobes Teshiihot hait

Rambam, but
found
in

cannot say with certainty whether

It

is

the Arabic collection or not.

is

comes from the

Cairo Genizah, and

now

stored up in the library of the

city.

Jewish community of that

duction of
Schechter,

photographic reproPresident
to

it was sent by Mr. Jack Mosseri to who was kind enough to hand it over

me

for

publication.

For

this act of courtesy I

beg to express

my

most

cordial thanks.
is

The manuscript

undated, and the

name

of the person
is

who

addressed the inquiry to

Maimonides

not given.

Two Two

questions, akin to one another, are asked in this letter.

litigants reside in

different

cities,

and the

plaintiff

desires to have a representative appointed to take his part.

Should

this

request be granted to
?

him according

to the

Jewish law, or not

both reside
in

Then, what

is

the law in the case they

?

one and the same city

in his

Maimonides

trenchant and precise manner replies

that according to the

Talmud

the Rabbis considered such

representative should only
is

a procedure blameworthy.
be appointed when the

plaintiff

prevented from coming

to court through illness, or because he resides in another

city,

or on account of a similar cause.

Otherwise both

litigants

must personally appear

in court.

Incidentally this decision throws light upon a statement

made by Maimonides
he
asserts that a

in his

Code.

In Hilkot Sheluhim
is illegal.

3,

power of attorney

R.

Abraham

Comp. JQR., XII,

p. 134.

RESPONSUM OF MAIMONIDES
b.

HALPER

227

David

in his

Refutations remarks that this prohibition

applies only to the case

when both

litigants reside in

one

and the same town, and are able

court.

to

come

personally to

This responsum proves that Maimonides meant his

decision to be understood in that way.

The manuscript
liarities.

is

here reproduced with

all its

pecu-

It

is

to

be

observed
the

that

Maimonides uses
disregards

diacritical
entirely.

marks,

while

inquirer

them

My

Hebrew

translation follows
allows.

the original as

closely as the

Hebrew idiom

ARABIC TEXT
Recto.

Nam

w[-i]n n-iNDD

m^Dv mp^ ninn hp[n n]

hijn

nD-12^1

i:\n^N ^^^DB'^ i'NnK'>3

mn
pn

.-m'o

inxi^s n^D *n^3

''d

pnd Nnnjn bi
h^
b^3i
ni?

"i3X
5

l npipn ^x^^riDN

^^3V nidhjo

ni^ND^N nxiNi

mnxi nrio

'a

jwd

Ny^n:

[ijjjnx

nmn

N:^nan

n'^

dx

i!?!
a

n!?

ijn

npipn
lo

D^Dt^'^

JD ^133 n-iiu'i i^i

yitj^^N ajion

'

The pronominal
is

suffix is Arabic,
1.

while the word

(1.

is

Hebrew.

The

same
'

the case with n313''1 (recto,

is

2) and ni3tJ^
to

10).
cities.

This

hardly explicit.
1.

The writer wishes

explicit.

say in different

Maimonides (verso,
'

i) is

more

The omission

of JN after

D?D and

similar verbs

is

quite

common

in

Jewish-Arabic, as well as in post-classical texts of general Arabic.

228

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

niD i6 it?Ni ^nnhp^ niio n^sai^JN

yyba

pni

HNcnnn nHh

rii

iai |y

nc'y
^|n^*
'^y

Nn:

'njo

niinn nanxv

D'-mn

'Diy

Dnnnn

|o intj'
n-in
^'ai

no

15

njy

ni''

n^ JiNi^npo^N
Ni?N

nnnni

pai?

NON mni*^

bnv

|n

Verso.

nsnywxijx

i^n nnc'X

no

in

N^D ^"iN'nyN^N
INo:Di's'

yxsmNn ndn
^n ni^sai^^
"ix

-ivn^

nil

NJ^mnN^ y:ND xh

pn

n''2^

,n^^ anal

HEBREW TRANSLATION
Recto,
N'n-ii

Nno mxan

nT-sv nnp'' niin nrsNn no

ina-iTi ^ynba innoc^ ^snc^'a

^njn ann

ntj'o

Dno ini6

B>^i

,Dnprna

D^iti'n

^n-ib>^o d^u^jn >3b>

!?i'N

nana
uatj^

nno nnxni
"

/^nn^s n^ya -n

nno inN bi ,nan

Shebu'ot 31
in?""
is

a.

"

to be construed with

njina.

It

is

fourth conjugation,
its

and

denotes he makes clear, explains.

is

This construction with

pecuhar meaning

nowhere
Iff

else recorded,

jy signifies /or, in behalf of.

Comp. the expres-

sion
II, p.
^^

(_)U

he represented me.

See also Wright, Arabic Grammar,

139 D.

The omission

of the dot over T

is

due

to an oversight.

RESPONSUM OF MAIMONIDES
)b

HALPER
mini? \yp2

229

yjon

riN N^i'VK' ny>-iD i^

yainn
N''i*vi

c'pai

,nnN i^yn nn>

|yt3''B>

nm
dijd^

"i^"'nK^n

i2Si^'')

nB'ia

1^

."nB'n

p ^M

n3B>i

nn

pnn ivn

ns*

10

linn 11DN1
/^''aB'a

''.HNtJ'-ina

snn

nr

n^v

vnijya riN ina^ nnx b>^n^ nih

.D'ljnn 'anyo

u^oan imaK^ yiTK' i3

'2 bv'i

15

/nyn

'd!?

^iidx i^^n niDnpnn

Verso.
i^ya ynnjni nns' T'yi yainn

^nhn yninn

nNnB>3 ix

^nnnx

.niN^nnxn

nrn Ni'vai

fN
iNin""

."ID

N^TiDx
''^^

DIB' pN'kTa

bax

pnn ^^yn

aha

;nNB>nn!?
!?\xin

mpa

.onn nns'^ nyjo pNi

,in JT'a^

.na'D 3n3i

'

NOTES ON JUDEO-GERMAN PHONOLOGY

By
E. Sapir, Ottawa.

A GRATIFYING phase of Germanic study in

is

recent years

the constantly increased attention paid to the modern

dialects.

spoken
rural

That the

dialects

still

spoken by the
have
often

population of Germany, for

in

instance,

preserved archaic features

vocabulary, phonology, morliterary

'

phology, and syntax, where the

is less

Gemeinsprache

conservative,

is

well known.

Thus, attention

may

be called
in
in

in passing to the fact that

still

many
e

of the dialects

Middle and Upper Germany

pronunciation between
e,

observe the distinction

short

open

(<O.H.G. and
e

M.H.G.

as in

geban^ geben) and short close

due to

/-umlaut of a
while, as
is

(as in

O.H.G.
'

bez^uro,

cf,

Gothic batiza)^
'

well

known, the Gemeinsprache

has levelled

the distinction completely.

By

such archaic features the

modern
light

dialects are often

able to throw a great deal of

;

on the history of the language

moreover, they are

generally more easily handled, from the purely linguistic

standpoint, than the literary

monuments

of Old and Middle

High German, in that they are immediately accessible to

study and are not
phonetics,
distorted,

particularly

in

regard to

by orthographic

imperfections.

While the German

confines of
diligently

dialects

now spoken
little

within the

Germany, Austria, and Switzerland are being

has as yet been
231

and profitably studied,

232

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

in

done

the

way

of scientifically examining the various

dialects
Galicia,

spoken by the Jews of Lithuania, Russian Poland, When one southern Russia, and Roumania.^
these

recollects that

Judeo-German or 'Yiddish'
(in

dialects

have, since the beginning of the modern period

the early

part of the sixteenth century), developed in comparative

isolation

from the main body of German dialects and that

they have been subjected to the influence, chiefly lexical,

of
the Slavic vernaculars
(Polish,

Russian,

and

Little

Russian)

on the one hand, and of the sacred

it

Hebrew
are here

tongue on the other,

becomes

clear that

we
of

dealing with a complex

of linguistic conditions that

to

must

prove
1

highly instructive

the student

language.^

Besides Leo Wiener's two articles on Judeo-German in The American

Journal of Philology, XIV, pp. 41-67 and 456-82 (phonologically unreliable because modern literary German, instead of Middle High German, is taken as the point of departure) and L. Sain^an's study (' Essai sur le Judeo-

Allemand
la

et

spdcialement sur

le dialecte

parle en Valachie

')

in

Memoires de

Societe de

Linguisiique de Paris,

XII, pp. 90-138, 176-96 (treats of

jiidisch-deiitsche

Roumanian Judeo-German), we have Jacob Gerzon's Die

besiandes (Frankfurt

Sprache, eine grammatisch-lexikalische Untersuchting ihres deutschen Grund-

am Main,

1902),

treating

mainly of the Lithuanian

Valuable as Gerzon's

Judeo-German of Homel (Government of Mohilev).

work

is,

it

is

much

less satisfactory in its

;

treatment of the phonology (pp.

in particular in the

20-35) than of the morphology and syntax

to point out the

Gerzon has

failed

absence of quantitative differences

vowels of stressed
both of which

syllables

and the development of voiced stops

in final position,

are characteristic features of Judeo-German

when

contrasted with other

High German
here presented
treated
is

dialects.

The

present study, though late to appear,

was
here

completed before access was had to Gerzon's work, so that the material
is

the result of independent investigation.

The

dialect

the form of Lithuanian

Judeo-German spoken
works on

in the

Government

of Kovno.

Further references

to

special points in

Judeo-German

may be
Century

found in L. Wiener's History of Yiddish Literature in the Nineteenth

(New

York,

1899), pp.

12-24 (chapter on 'The Judeo-German

Language').
*

The following taken from

Griitz's Geschichtc der

Juden

(vol. 9, p.

64)


JUDEO-GERMAN PHONOLOGY

SAPIR

233

The

conditions are, in fact, not dissimilar to those that

obtained in the development of the

isolation

English language

from the main body of the vernacular and coninfluence.

siderable foreign

On

the whole, the

student

of Judeo-German will be inclined to see a less extensive

foreign influence
;

in

the

case

of Judeo-German than in

that of English

the basis has remained thoroughly German,

the foreign accretions and influences are, at best, of only

secondary importance.
Before proceeding to the sketchy phonological observations
I

have to

offer,

it

may

not be inappropriate to

call attention,

by way of

illustration, to

some of the more

presents.

interesting

archaic features that

Judeo-German

In vocabulary
obsolete or, at

many Middle High German words now any rate, not in common use in literary
in full

German, have been preserved

vigourby Judeo-German.
eidevi)
;

Such are
in-law'

Mm

'son-in-law'

(<M.H.G.
;

sver 'father-

(<M.H.G.

szueher)

smir

'daughter-in-law'

will serve as historical basis of the above remarks.

to the period 1496-1525.
'

Gratz's statements apply

Aber

nicht bloss

deutscheTalmudkundehaben die
impften sie den eingeborenen

judisch-deutschenFliichtlingenachPolenverpflanzt, sondernauchdie deutsche

Sprache

in ihrer damaligen Beschaffenheit

sie

Juden ein und verdrangten nach und nach aus deren Munde die polnische oder ruthenische Sprache. Wie die spanischen Juden einen Teil der europaischen oder asiatischen Turkei in ein neues Spanien verwandelt haben, so

machten die deutschen Juden Polen, Littauen und die dazu gehOrigen Mehrere Landesteile gewissermassen zu einem neuen Deutschland.
. .

Jahrhunderte hindurch zerfielen daher die Juden

in spanisch

Redende und

deutsch Sprechende, gegen welche die Italiens als eine

wenig zahlende Klasse

verschwand, da auch hier die Juden Spanisch oder Deutsch verstehen

mussten.
. .
.

[Die polnischen Juden] verehrten [die deutsche Sprache] wie

ein Palladium,

wie eine

heilige Erinnerung,

und wenn
Deutsche

sie sich

auch im

Verkehr mit Polen der Landessprache bedienten, im trauten Familienkreise,

im Lehrhause und im Gebete behielten
nachst
sie das

bei.

Sie gait ihnen

dem Hebraischen

als eine heilige

Sprache."

'

234

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

(<M.H.G. siiJir); tor 'dare' (<M.H.G. tar,gitar); z^gr haint 'to-day' (<M.H.G. (<M.H.G. seiger) In phonetics, JudeoJiiiit this night '); and many others.
'clock'
'

German
ai,

has, for instance, not levelled

M.H.G.

and

ei into
;

but has kept them apart as ai and e respectively

e.g.

vais 'white' and ix v^s 'I

weiz, respectively
;

know' (< M.H.G.

modern
'

wiz,

and

ick

contrast

literary
'

German weiss
other

for both).

In the case of

zamd sand an Indo-Germanic

all

m
'

has been preserved that has in practically

dialects

Germanic
sand
'

been assimilated to

cf.

Greek diiaOos

< ^samadhos.

large

number

of archaic features

are found also in the morphology,

in -en of

The

old dative singular

mitten^

weak feminines (M.H.G. der zimgen^ der

but modern
in

German

der Ziinge, der Mitte)

'

is

preserved

stereotyped phrases like in dr mitn drin

it
'.

right in the
'

midst of
preserved
abstract

The M.H.G. feminine noun

modern German only
(e.g.

heit

manner

in

as derivative suffix in

nouns

KiiJmheit,

Menschheit)

survives

in

Judeo-German
'

in adverbial genitives in -r {h)^t (e.g. blindr //

blindly

'

< blinder heit). The preterito-present verb M.H.G.

modern German been
levelled to the great class
still

tone has in

of other verbs, while Judeo-German

has er tig

'

he

is

of

account' (contrast modern

imperative Id
'
'

German

er tangt).

The

old

let

'

survives in phrases like 16

mir {ox 16 mix)

In syntax,

let

me

'

(contrast

modern German

lass micJi).

the

double negative

may

be mentioned as an

archaic

feature,

though something should here be perhaps ascribed

to Slavic influence.
It

would, however, be erroneous to suppose that the

dialects are on the

Judeo-German

whole more archaic than

are not.

modern

literary

German.

They

In morphology

particularly

great

simplification

has

taken place.

The

; '

JUDEO-GERMAN PHONOLOGY

SAPIR

235

preterite has disappeared in favour of the periphrastic perfect

(e.g. er hot

gizdn

cr

saJi).

The

dative and accusative (at

is

least in

Lithuanian Judeo-German, which dialect alone

here considered) have disappeared as such and have been

merged

into an objective case, partly dative

(e.g.

and

partly-

accusative in form

er git inir

er gibt

mir ; er zH

mir

= er sieht micJi).
'

The ending
days

-er

preceded by umlaut
(e.g.

and umlaut alone have greatly spread as plural signs

pletsr 'places'; teg
'

< */<?V^

for

tage).

The umlaut

of the second and third persons singular of strong verbs

has
fait

in

most cases been

er fdllt;
of er Id ft

levelled out {er zit

er

Iditft,

cf.

ix

= er sieht er l^f = ich lanfe).

;
*

number

weak verbs have followed the analogy of

(e.

strong verbs in their participle

as participle of krign

g.

gikrSgn

obtained

by analogy of such verbs

gescJiiittct;

as fardrisn

fardrosn;
det).
all

gisotn

Sngitstindn

angeziin-

The
is

third person reflexive has been generalized for

persons and numbers (e.g. ix zets

mix= ich setze inich)

There are

this

undoubtedly due to Slavic influence.

many

other levellings and analogical developments that

in

have taken place

Several

Judeo-German.
special

interesting
:

developments

that

have
which

taken place are

a gerund of adverbial force

in -dig,

can be formed from any verb by suffixing this syllable

to

the infinitive
'

(e.g.

er

vent

lefndig

'he

cries

while

running

these forms in -ndig are

in -ende,

doubtless based

on

M.H.G.
lebendic
'

participial forms
alive
')
;

perhaps influenced by

a monosyllabic abstract
is

noun which can

be formed from any verb and which

er git

used in phrases like

hnik
'

'

he gives a smell, he smells (momentransfer

taneously)

the

of most

neuter nouns to the

feminine gender (e.g. di

Jioiz

'the house

'<M.H.G. ^^-^r

hiis

; ^

236

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

a similar development has taken place in Lithuanian, in

which old neuters have generally become masculines,

drklas m.
'

e.

g.

plough' as contrasted with Latin ardirnin and

Greek dpoTpov).
In phonology two great revolutions have taken place
in

Judeo-German.

In

the

first

place,

the

quantitative

vocalic differences that are so important in

(contrast sicch with sich, schal with Schall,

modern German
All

Sohn with Sonne

Musse with muss)

mately midway
short vowels
;

are not found in Judeo-German.

accented vowels are of practically uniform length

in quantity

approxiGerman
that

between the German long and

i

the quality of
in

and

tc

is

that of the

long

and

?/,

other words close.

is

Thus, the vowel of

like

Judeo-German

six 'himself
as
far

pronounced
is

of

German

siech,

as

quality

concerned, but with

a shorter quantity (yet not so short as in

German

sich)

correspondingly with Judeo-German

in quality identical with the

n.

Judeo-German
;

is

German

o in voll

there are

two ^-vowels, an open

e (as in

e (as in

German Mensch) and

;

a close
differ

German ^^<^^w,

barring quantity)
a.

a does not

in quality

from the normal German

:

We

might put the

matter thus

there are no long

in

z,

n, o, a, e in

Judeo-German.

This radical difference

phonetic basis between JudeoI

German and modern standard German

explain

am
in

inclined to

by

Slavic influence (the

in

same lack
obtains
i
is

of quantitative

differences

accented vowels

Russian and
in

Polish

thus,

Russian accented
i

medium

quantity

between German

and

i).

The second
and
its

phonetic revolution referred to

is

the rise

of final voiced stops

and

spirants.

In Middle High

German

modern

representatives a voiced (lenis) stop or spirant

(fortis)

becomes

voiceless

when

final

(M.H.G.

tage^, tac

JUDEO-GERMAN PHONOLOGY
modern German
however, a
preserves
*I
its

SAPIR

237

Todes, Tod,

i.e.

tdt).

In Judeo-German,

final

sonant

is

not pronounced as surd, but

;

sonant character

thus, zogn

'

to say

'

ix zog

say'.

do not beh'eve that sonants when

I

final

have

really remained sonant.

prefer to explain the

tac

phenomenon
was
dropped, the

by analogy.

Original

M.H.G.
;

(=

tak) tages iage

levelled to tag tages tage

when

final -e later

could no longer become surd, hence

tog corresponding to
tay9).

German
tagd (or

we have JudeoModern German tak (or tax)

*

Similarly,

veg

road' < M.H.G.

wee by

analogy with w'eges wi'ge (but modern German vex'

or vejds).

vegss
by

That

this explanation

is

correct

is

indicated

such words as op 'away '< M.H.G. abe, where no paradigmatic levelling could take place and where
p, according to regular
final b
;

became

German phonetic law

as

cf.

also avik

*away' (= German

zveg)

adverb with veg 'road' as

noun

(the adverb

was not associated with the noun, hence

In any event, the great frequency

suffered no

levelling).

of final voiced stops and spirants in

feature that
dialects but
is
is

Judeo-German
of

is

entirely foreign to

the main body

German

paralleled within

Germanic by English and

Swedish.
In the following
is

given in brief the development in

Judeo-German of the Middle High German vowels and

consonants, no claim of absolute completeness of treatment

being made.

The main

lines of

change must

suffice.

Vowels.
I.

M.H.G.
a.

a.
it

In closed syllables

remained unchanged: gast<^l.Vi.Qx.

;

gast ; vald<M..Yi.Qi.'walt (ivald-)

ganz 'goose '< M.H.G.

gans ;

hart<M.Yi.G. hart;
arbeit,

as <

M.H.G.

als

; ;

drb3t<

M.H.G.

arebeit

^a/^< M.H.G.

balde

land<

238

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

M.H.G.
lant {land-)
;

/^a/0<

M.H.G.
naht.

hals

garjg< M.H.G.

gatic {gang-);

ax/< M.H.G.

In open syllables

followed by

(originally geminated,
:

O.H.G.

-hh-)

it

also

remained, as in modern

German w/a.T< M.H.G. machen ;

(in

Idxn
b.

<M

HG
.

lacJmi.

In originally open syllables

closed)
it

some

cases

now

secondarily

became lengthened
syllables),

to a (cf.

modern German
a,

d<a

in

open

which, falling in with original

developed to open 0: h6bn<M..Yi.Qt. haben;

jagen ; vogn
'

waggon

'

y^< M.H.G. < M.H.G. wagen ; op< M.H.G. abe

vater.

n6mn < M.H.G. name, namen ; f6tr< M.H.G.

cases of

Many
tage).

o<a
by

in originally closed syllables are readily ex-

plained

paradigmatic
pi.

analogy
first

tog<

tac

(cf.

Original tac fdge,

fdge

developed to tac

tage, tage,
;

then, with consonantic levelling, to tag tage, tage

when
would
which
in

d>o,

this

series

became tag

tSge,

toge

vocalic levelling
-e

gave tog

toge, toge ;

dropping of

final

unaccented

have reduced these forms

to tog tog, tog, to avoid

umlaut as
analogy
;

characteristic

of

noun

plurals

came

by

as final result

we have to-day nom.

tog, dat.-acc.

tog, pi. teg.

Other examples of analogical

stot<M.li.G. stat ;

o<a

in closed

syllables

are:

groz<M.ll.G.
to a

gras.

In certain words a became lengthened before r

in closed syllables
;

even

this

a also resulted in o
;

^(9r<

M.H.G.

gar
'

{cf.

modern German ^ar)

bort<M.li.G. bart ; bSrvds

/^'r.f/
'

barefoot '<

dare '<

M.H.G. M.H.G. tar,

da'z,

barvuoz,; tor,
tarst.

(he) dares, (you)

</<?j<M.H.G.

More difficult to explain are and z'tfj< M.H.G. wa2,; perhaps these
ist (originally sylla-

forms arose in combinations like daz,

bified,

before 'fester
ist

Einsatz' developed

before

ist,

as

daz}st)>dd^
c.

> dos

iz.

Cases oi

e<a

are probably only apparent,

meg (= modern

German mag) is probably not directly developed from M.H.G. mac, but is due to analogy of ist and 3rd person
plural

present

indicative

and

infinitive

megen

(upper
lien
(

German) >Judeo-German

mc'gn (see 4. below),

JUDEO-GERMAN PHONOLOGY
modern German
from M.H.G.
kajiii) is similarly

SAPIR
parallel

239

not directly developed

kati
is

(>Judeo-German
due

form kon, see

b above), but

to analogy of kennen 'to

know'>

Judeo-German kenn.
2.

M.H.G.
a.

a.
0,

This sound regularly became

phonetically different from

which

is

in

no respect
in

^< M.H.G.
'< M.H.G.

or
djie
;

M.H.G. a
^(?<

open

syllables: on

'

v^^ithout

dd; nox<MJii.G. nach ;

hot '(ye) have

y^^;^

M.H.G. 'hair '< M.H.G. hdr ; jor<

M.H.G. >a>; wt?/< M.H.G. 7ndl ; hot 'has', host 'hast', '< M.H.G. hdt, hast, hat; Mo 'blue'< M.H.G. bid; gro gray '< M.H.G. grd ; /^ let < M.H.G. Id; girotn <yi.YiXj. gerdte?i; nont near '< M.H.G. ndhent; wc/;< M.H.G. man, mdhen 'Mohn'. Note that JudeoGerman sometimes preserves as reflex of M.H.G. a where modern German has shortened d \.o a (contrast JudeoGerman nox with modern German nach; host, hot with
!

'

'

'

'

hast, hat).
b.

It is

shortened to a (as in modern German) before xt: giddxt

g'ibrdxt<U..Yi.G. gebrdht.
after
still

< M.H.G. geddht;

c.

In vu where
'

',

a of

M.H.G. wd,
ivo\

being labialized to 6
further labialized to

(cf.

modern German
3.

became

u.

M.H.G.
a.

e.

This sound normally remained as open e: (?r^< M.H.G.

erde; ber 'bear

< M.H.G.
helfen
;

sleht;

'<M.H.G. ber ; velt<M.li.G. werlt slext feld< M.H.G. vUt {veld-) he'lfn < M.H.G.
;
;

zeks kVL.YI.G.
in

s'ehs.

It is to

be particularly noted
as
in

that

open
(

syllables

did not,
e),

most

dialects,
e
i.e.

lengthen to ^
/(?<5<

> Judeo-German
leben (contrast
besenie
lesen
;
'

but remained open

leben,

M.H.G.
be'zni

modern German
Besen
'

lebn)

< M.H.G.
M.H.G.

ne'nin

nemen ;

/(?2<

betn 'to ask for'

< M.H.G (= modern

h.

German 3zV/^)< M.H.G. beten gebn < M.H.G. geben. M.H.G. -ehe- regularly contracted

'bitten

(um

Almosen)';

to e (not, as in

modern

240

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

German, to e>e): tsen 'ten'<M.H.G. zehen ; zen 'to see '< M.H.G. sehen ; sver father-in-law' < M.H.G. sweher.
'

c.

Before r plus consonant,

(cf.

regularly

became broadened
:

to a

English

/arw< Middle

^EngYish. ferni)

barg

'hill,

mountain '< M.H.G.

i7Vi^<

berc (berg-);

/mr/.f< M.H.G. herze

;

fdrtsn 'to break wind '< M.H.G. verzen

vdr/fz
(e.g.

kM.H.G.
grinvarg

werfen
'green

M.H.G.
e

sterben

varg
w'erch,

stuff,

vegetation ')<
'

M.H.G.

rverc

(modern
'

German Werg tow < M.H.G. erde.

d.
(?

').

remains, however, in erd

earth

'

appears as /in biln 'to bark '<

M.H.G.
e
is

belkfi.

This

may

be due
billest,

to i of
billet,

M.H.G.

singular present indicative bilk,

though ordinarily

generalized in JudeohV/i).

German
4.

(cf. helft

= modern
a).

German

M.H.G.
a.

i {i-

umlaut of

In originally closed syllables this

sound

fell in,

as in

modern
:

German, with

d;<
;

M.H.G.
/;/:rr<
'

e.

Examples of ^<^ are

bez,^er ;
?;z,?;/^'

end<

M.H.G.
mensche;

ende
s

M.H.G.
'

vent zix
'

it

depends

< M.H.G. {^=es wendet sicJi) < M.H.G.

epfel (plural of apfel,
'
:

wlnden

e'pl

apple '<

M.H.G.
ist

but

also used as singular ;

cf.

Kluge's remark

in

Schwaben,

der Schweiz

und der Oberpfalz

;

das plurale

form geworden ')

taste, to smell
'

sme'kn 'to smell

'
:

Ji^/ Singular'< M.H.G. sftiecken 'to

" Bedeutung "riechen

(Kluge remarks

die

wahren das Alemannische

Hessische teilweise
b.
').

und

Baierische,

auch

das

M.H.G.
treher

ehe, like ehe,

contracted to
plural

trer
;

'

tear'

< M.H.G.
trehene, of

(singularized
is

of traher

modern German

Thrdne

similarly originally plural,

M.H.G.

M.H.G.
c.
e,

trahen).
to

like

e,

seems

have been broadened to a before r plus

pea < M. H.G. enveiz, (modern German M.H.G. arweiz would probably have
'
'

consonant
Erbse);

in d7-b3s

parallel

resulted in *6rbds rather than drbos (see

i.

b abovcj.

Note

ferd horse < M.H.G. pfdrt

'
'

{pfdrd-).

JUDEO-GERMAN PHONOLOGY
d. e
is

SAPIR
French
e'ie')

24

preserved as
:

(close quality as in

before yg,

t/k

breygti 'to bring

'< M.H.G. brhigen (Middle German

;

dialectic

form of bringen

cf.

also

Old Saxon bnngean <

;

*brangjan); d{?;kn <M.Y\.G. denken

for', cf.

zix be'ykn 'to long

M.H.G.

be/ige

(alongside of bange) 'Angst, Sorge'.

syllables: he'bn 'to
lift

e<e

also appears in

open

'< M.H.G.
'Kette';
enikel,

heben,

he/en;

kei

(plural >^f/')<
;

M.H.G.
yeast

keien

/^f7< M.H.G.
eninkel ; fii7<
5.

zeln

c'/ukl^

'

grandson '< M.H.G.

"^

M.H.G.

edel ; he'vn

'< M.H.G.

heve.

M.H.G. L
a.

This sound, while losing

close jtf<
e ;

its

length, retained

its

quality as
;

sten

'

to

stand
;

'

< M.H.G. sten ;

'

gen < M.H.G. gen

M.H.G.

sne

ve'tdg

pain '<
'

M.H.G.

7vctac 'leiblicher
'

Schmerz,

Leiden, Krankheit

(literally

woe-day
er.

') ;

e'dr

'rather, sooner' (with inorganic -^-)<

final r, e is

M.H.G.
very '<
:

Before
sere.

followed by glide
to

<?

ze'9r

'

M.H.G.
'

b.

It

becomes broadened

open

before r in

jner

more '<

M.H.G.
6.

7ner;

er1i<M.\l.G.

erst.

M.H.G.
a.

CB

(/-umlaut of a).
fell

This sound
(B

in

completely with
swcere
;

e.

Examples of g< M.H.G.

are:

Jwr< M.H.G.
'

e;^r<

M.H.G.
;

wcere (istand
hczte
'

3rd person preterite subjunctive of sui)

'

het< M.H.G.

hatte

gUre'tnms

'

capable person, wohlgeratene Person

gercete
'

(r^/-<
b. ce

M.H.G.

rcet-, cf.

Rat, Uberlegung').

has become

/ in

gix 'quick '<

is

M.H.G.

gceAe {gex,

which

would be normally expected,

7.

also found).

M.H.G. /. a. As in modern German, M.H.G. / has normally remained z/jc< M.H.G. sick; g{fmn< M.-H-G. {ge^finden ; iz < M.H.G. ist; blmd<U.YL.G. blint {blind-) fis<U.li.G.
;

visch.

b.

In bdrnd pear

'

'

< M. H.G.

bir (genitive birn)

like
e,

and kars 'cherry *

to

< M.H.G.
VOL.
VI.

kirse, this

sound seems,
c).

have become

a before r plus consonant (see 3

Is

in these

words

242
due
bira
c.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

to parallel dialectic e (cf.
:

Anglo-Saxon peru

O.H.G.

Lat. cerasutn
'

O.H.G.

kirsa) ?

em

'

him

< M.H.G.

tni{e) is

probably developed from parallel

Middle German
8.

dialectic efn{e).

M.H.G.
a.

r.

As

in

modern German, M.H.G.

'

f regularly

became diph-

thongized to ai : taix 'lake, creek '<

zait

side

'< M.H.G.

site;

M.H.G. dri; vdib M.H.G. min.

b.

'(short)

M.H.G. tich 'pond'; M.H.G. zU ; drai< while '< M.H.G. rciTjy 7tiain<
/.yfl//<

In

^V

'

gives

',

^V/

'

givest

',

i is

shortened from

(M.H.G.

git,gist\ rather than directly derived from

i oi gibet, gibest.

9.

M.H.G.
a.

o.

In closed syllables

remained: ^(?r/< M.H.G. dort ; oks<

vol ivoll-); oto>^<

M.H.G.
morgen
b. It
;

>/< M.H.G. (?r/ < M H G ort.

ohse;
.

M.H.G.
Sonne
<?,

has become u

and h1m7i

'

mfun < von. u of zun Sohn kommen is not derived from

'
'

',

zun

'

',

original

but

goes back to u (see

1 1

a).

In

originally

open

syllables

became lengthened,
eb

as

in

modern German,
long evn
'

to

^,

which then,
(see 10 a)
:

falling in with original

t\

developed to

stove '<

M.H.G. oven:
hezn o
'

/(^<

'ob'< M.H.G. obe M.H.G. oben ; fegl<

hosen.

M.H.G.
where
tically,

voire I ': O

trousers

'< M.H.G.

In words

of close and older 0:

e {0
:

of open syllables varied paradigma0) was levelled out to

M.H.G.
of
0,

hflf (Jioves).
Jiekr
'

in

e (b): hef< why we have ?, instead hunchback '< M.H.G. hocker (perhaps <

It is

not clear

parallel *hoker with

10.
a.

ungeminated k ;

cf.

parallel hoger).

M.H.G.

6.
e,

This sound regularly became

stages oi>di>ei.

probably through transitional

Examples are:
.fr/w"//(^)
;

^w< M.H.G.

grSz,;

hn

'

already '<

M.H.G.

/^irA<

M.H.G. hSch;

bret
lez

<

M.H.G.

br6t; re^ <

U.H.G.

ro/ ;

azf<U.H:G.a/s^;

<

;: ' ;

JUDEO-GERMAN PHONOLOGY

SAPIR
final

243
r glide ?

<M.H.G.
intervenes
11.
a.
:

I6s ;

ear

'

r?<M.H.G. ro. ear < M.H.G. ore.

'

Before

M.H.G.
It

.
:

normally remains as u

uti

'

and '< M.H.G. unde ; ltiib<

'

M.H.G.
law

stube

/suffg<M.ll.G. zunge ; Inur

'

daughter-in-

'< M.H.G. snur ; zun son '< M.H.G. sun (modern German Sohti is specifically Middle German, M.H.G. son) zun sun '< M.H.G. sunfie (modern German Sonne is kumn < M.H.G. kumen specifically Middle German)
' ;

(variant

of komen,

probably extended by analogy from

;

singular of present indicative kume, kumest, kumet)

' '

zumr

b.

summer'< M.H.G. sumer; trukri dry '< M.H.G. trucken; rukii 'to shove '< M.H.G. rucken (parallel to ruckefi) hunt < M.H.G. hufit ihund-). M.H.G. u seems to have become i, probably via m, in u7n
;

zist
c.

'

um

sonst'< M.H.G. umbe

zi

sust.

Before r plus consonant

is

broadened

to

in vortsl

'

root

< M.H.G.
nur,
12.
a.

wurzel

(cf.

Middle German worz

'

for

wurz

'plant, root'),

also before final?' in ^r

only '<

M.H.G.

M.H.G.

it

Diphthongization has taken place, as in modern German, but

to oi (probably through ui,

which seems to be found in

some Judeo-German dialects), not au. tf//< M.H.G. uf; hotz<MM.G. Ms;

Examples are
mils;

wm< M.H.G.
'

moi/ <M.}i.G. mill 'Maul'; kloiz 'Talmudic school'

M.H.G.
hiit
;

klUse

'

abgeschlossene
tiisent

Wohnung
{tilsend-)
,

toiznd<^l.Yi.G.
Glide
9

/^o//< M.H.G. bomKlsl.H.G.

buwen.

appears after oi before

final

zoUr<
'

b.

c.

M.H.G. sHr ; poisr' peasant '< M.H.G. bitr. Before x plus consonant it is shortened to ti in mir duxt it seems to me '< M.H.G. diihte (preterite oidunken, dilnken) cf. d>a before x plus consonant (see 2 b above). has become a in /arzdmn 'to miss, neglect '< M.H.G. M.H.G. versumen. No reason that is apparent can be
ii

given for this singular change.

; ;

244
d.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

M.H.G.
u has apparently

become ai

in

klaibn 'to gather'

'

<M.H.G. kliiben 'pfliicken, stiickweise ablesen, auflesen (> Modern German klauben). This is hard to understand
phonologically.

With

its

strong participle giklibn,

it

looks

remarkably as though developed from M.H.G.

participle ^^-i//^' 'anhangen,

kliben, past

Wurzel fassen und gedeihen',

difficulties

though

there

are

semantic

here.

Perhaps

*kloibn<kluben and klaibn <Miben became confused in

one form.
13.
a.

M.H.G.

u.
fell

Ordinarily u was unrounded and thus

original i : ;;///<
'

in

completely with

M.H.G. mul 'mill'; f(5/< M.H.G. uber ; zin sons '< M.H.G. siine kinig< M.H.G. ku?iic (^kiimg-) unmtgbx< M.H.G. unmugelich; Mntl, diminutive of hunt dog '< M.H.G. hufit {hu7id-)\ h'gn 'lie' (subst.)< M.H.G.
;
'

liigen, lilgene.

b.

It

became
'

velarized to u in

fi'ib

'

fulness

'

< M.H.G.
;

viille ;

kusn
'

to kiss
;

'< M.H.G.
'

kiissen

(perhaps by analogy of htl

vunfzehen
fuftsig
'

kiss

')

/u//sn

fifteen

'

< M.H.G.
(cf.

fifty

'

<yi.Yi.Xj.

fiijifzic {fufjfzig-)

M.H.G.

vunf,

vufnf zs

parallel forms of viinf, viimf).

c.

Before
3
c,

final
c,

r and before rr
b) in
:

it

far< M.H.G.

became broadened to a (cf. viir ; dar thin '< M.H.G.

'

diirre.

14.

M.H.G.

iu.

This sound (pronounced u) represents older diphthongal iu and

U as /-umlaut of
to
?,

il.

In Judeo-German
7,

it

became unrounded

which, falling in with original

became diphthongized

to ai.
tnaiz
'

Examples are: hdizr

mice '< M.H.G. miuse
iuc/i;
;

'

houses '< M.H.G. hiuser

'

nai

new '< M.H.G.

iu7ver
;

7iiuwe ;

aix<M.ll.G.
biuc/iei,

dijr<M.H.G.
/'/?^/i

/wlr/<M.H.G.
/iute.

diminutive of

'Bauch'; /;V<M.H.(}.

15.
a.

M.K.G.o.

As with other umlaut

vowels,
e.

was unrounded

to

e,

thus

falling together with original

Examples of ^< M.H.G.

JUDEO-GERMAN PHONOLOGY

SAPIR
?'^^(r^r>^-)
'

245
'coat';

are: rekl<M.ll.G. rockel, diminutive of

/^/r;/r<

M.H.G.
'

h'(Jr?ier,

plural oi horn

^/^^a7j
to

something

cooked K'^gekochtes (such forms seem

stantivized

be based on sube.g. gekochtes^

-e

neuter past participles in

-ies,
.

influenced by neuter collectives in gee.g. gehor?ie).

b.

with umlaut,

In

el 'oil

'<M.H.G.
M.H.G.
ol,

ol,

die it
e.

seems that M.H.G.

resulted
to

in e instead of

expected

However,
to 9 c.

el

may go back

parallel
16.
a.

ok according

M.H.G.
with

01 {o).
c,

This sound became unrounded to

original
e,

thus falling together

schane
'

; _/?^''/i'<

to take in
.

e: sen<M.H.G. M.H.G. vlatzen (causative of vliezfii); le'zn money ( < to release value ?) < M.H.G Icesen ;
'

whence Judeo-German

'

'

t resin
o

<M H G
.

troisten.
:

b.
c.

It is

broadened

to e before r(cf. 5 b)

/^/r<

M.H.G. Imren.
e

In certain comparatives
of
e

^< M.H.G.

oi

developed to
:

instead
'

without apparent phonetic reason

grazfir ; se'nr<M..Yi.G. schmner
ha'her.

gre'sr

'

larger

<

M.H.G.
M.H.Cj.

A^lrr

'

higher '<

In he'xr open

may be

phonetically

explained as due to shortening of

to b before

x (which
la
>^/a7-

had been introduced

*ha'cher,

into comparative from positive hoch ;

)

instead oi h(ieher,>*h'6cher> he'xr)

2 b,

cf.

(last

sentence),

12 b.

The combined
le'pgr
'

influence of
(in

and

such ^-comparatives as

longer
of a)

'

which

regularly

developed from
establish

e,

z-umlaut

may have

served to

a category of ^-comparatives, which analogically

phonetically justified comparatives *gresr,

displaced the
*s/nr.

The change

thus effected

is

functionally useful,

inasmuch as a

diff'erence of

form

is

established between the

comparative and the inflected positive (nominative masculine singular)

gre'sr
' :

gre'sr
'

man

'

ein grosser

Mann
?

',

but er

I'z

er ist grosser
le'^ir

(modern German schoner corresponds

That
this

to both

and

se'nr).

change of
is

to e

is

not

phonetic, but analogic in character,

further indicated

by

the parallel kle'nr <kleiner (but positive klen<klein).

246
17.
a.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

M.H.G.
no.
//

This diphthong was monophthongized to

and, there being

noquantitative differences in Judeo-German accented vowels,

fell

together with original

?<;

.-

jrx< M.H.G. schuoh

mutr<

M.H.G. muoter; biix<M.li.G.buoch;

zuo
b.

stul <M.Yi.G. stuol

kuK^l.Yi.G.kuo; brudr <M.\i.G. bruoder ; isiKM.Yl.G.

;

///j-<

M.H.G.

vuoz,.
it

In ton 'to do '< M.H.G. iuon

appears as

0.

This

is

probably due to the analogy of the participle^//o<

getdn (the ablaut
i/o-d,

M.H.G.
and

Judeo-German

n-o,

is

isolated

therefore easily levelled out).

18.

M.H.G.

tie.

This diphthong, which serves as /-umlaut of

no,

became unie,

rounded

to ie and, falling together with original to i to

(it is

became
became

monophthongized monophthongized
'M.H.G.
miiede
:

also possible that

tie first

ii

and then unrounded

to /)

grin<
biiecheL

griie fie

ki<M.ll.G.kueje 'cows':
kUele,
ktiel
:

w/^< M.H.G.

/^//<

M.H.G.

bixl<M.Yi.G.

diminutive of buoch.
19.
a.

MH.G.
As
i:
uo,

zV.

when monophthongized,
being monophthongized,
lieht
;

fell
fell

together with

u^

so

ie,

after

together with original

tie/ ; fligft

lixKU.W.G.
(^/^;/<

///<

M.H.G.
/??><

<M.li.G.
:

Jliegen;

M.H.G.

biegeti;

M.H.G.

hier

fir<

b.

M.H.G. vier. It became broadened to e somewhere < M.H.G.

'
'

before r plus consonant in ergots

iergen[t),
ne'rgats
'

nowhere

'

<

c.

M.H.G. M.H.G. ieM.H.G. iemer and ttsi{r) now '< M.H.G. iezejit. ze they '< M.H.G. sie (but zi she '< M.H.G. sie) is perhaps best explained as secondarily lengthened from M.H.G. J^,
)nergen{t).

Contrast /-<
'

in i>nr<

'

'

proclitic

form of

sie.

20.
a.

M.H.G.

ei.

This was not preserved as diphthong

but was monophthongized to
.^

ai,

as in

(probably via

modenx German, hesn< e)

:

; ;

JUDEO-GERMAN PHONOLOGY

SAPIR

247

M.H.G. heiz,en ; 6?w<M.H.G. ein ; <5r^/<M.H.G. breii hem<M.Yi.G. heim (note also Judeo-German adverb ahem 'nach Hause'); ^ egg' < M.H.G. ei ; edvi 'son-in-law'
'

< M.H.G.
M.H.G.
b.
It

eidetn

^/t'< M.H.G.

kleine,
;

klein

memi<
(of.

7/ieifien;
e

/zf7<

M.H.G.
'

heilen

ren<^l.loi.G. rein.
eimer, eimber
'

appears as

in

emr

pail'

< M.H.G.
e

M.H.G.
se'nr in

parallel

form ember),

of kle'nr

smaller

'

is

best

explained as due to analogy (see explanation of

16
c).

gre'sr

and

^r.

M.H.G.

ou.
(of.

This diphthong early became monophthongized to

see 20 a)
to
e

ei>e,
0,

and was

further developed, together with original

:

(probably via oi>oi->ei)

;

^fw< M.H.G.
koufefi
;

bourn

eg<
stoup

M.H.G. ouge

{stoub-); rt'.v<
-2

^f/< M.H.G. M.H.G. rouch.

steb<M.n.G.

2.

M.H.G.

en,

oil.
t'

This diphthong also became Judeo-German

or via di>ei,
'

(perhaps via

d>e
:

cf.
'

M.H.G.
'

vroide as variant of vroude)

fred
;

joy
'

',

Fre'd3
'

Joy

(girl's

name)
:

< M.H.G.
leb
'

vroude, vreitde

he

hay

< M.H.G.

hoiave, hou

lion

'

< M.H.G.

/dime

(parallel to /eice,

which would have developed to

*/eb).

We

thus see that the original rich vocalism of Middle

greatly simplified in
{il

High German has been

e,o>e>e), by
{l<ie and
i

Judeo-German
i,

by unrounding rounded vowels

both give

> u>l>
i,

ne

> ic >i, d>

obliterating quantitative vocalic differences

i ;

u<no and
and
A,

?/

both give n; these

secondary

and u are of course to be carefully kept apart

from

original

M.H.G.

which did not

fall

together

with them because they had already become diphthongized

when

ie

became

and no became

u),

and by monophthongIn

izing of diphthongs

{ei>e>t\ ou>d>oi>ol>ci>c).

particular e

is,

at least in the Lithuanian

dialect, the reflex

:

of no

less

than eight distinct vowels and diphthongs

e (in

248

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

syllables),
e, ei,

open

en

[on),
z,

.',

o,

on,

and

(in

open syllables).
to o (in closed

Similarly, i goes back to

syllables), a,

;V,

zV,

and

iic ;

and a

(in

open

syllables).

Many words
distinct

that in

Middle High German are phonetically

Judeo-German,
fallen together

have, in

owing to the operation of

Thus, dret corre-

the phonetic laws

we have

sketched.

sponds to modern German drei/ and Brot ; sen to schbn

and

scJion

sten to steJien

and Stein ; nox

to nocJi

and

nacJi

egn to

eigeii

and Angen.
^

Unaccented M.H.G.
finality
;

has generally dropped

in

absolute

examples of

this

have incidentally occurred in

the discussion of the accented vowels.

-c
is

Where unaccented
is

preserved (as

'

Murmelvokal

'

-j), it

generally due
'

to a functional, not a phonetic, reason {e.g. giit^ laii

good
-9,

people

'

and a guts toxtr 'a good daughter',

ending,
indicates

in

which

as

adjectival

respectively

plurality

and

feminine gender.
ing tautosyllabic
/,

Unaccented M.H.G.
/,

e unites with follow(syllabic)

w,

;/,

and r to form sonantic

?, n,

and

;'.

In unaccented syllables and

when

after

vowels or when followed by one or more stop or spirant

consonants

M.H.G.

appears as 3

(e.g.

ergJts<yi.Y{.Qx.

urgent;
e

rtz>/'<

M.H.G. imuer^yowx'). Unaccented M.H.G.

in

sometimes disappears

other than
all

final position.

Thus,

regularly in participial -ct after

consonants, including

d and

/,

-dct
;

and

-tct

contracting to

-/ (e.g.

givdrt< M.H.G.

geivartct

gtldt < M.

H .G. gehiktet; girct < M.H.G. geredet)

-et

similarly, -est of

second person singular and

of third

person singular and second person plural present indicative

(and imperative) regularly become
contracting to
-t (e.g.

-st

and

-/,

-det

and
;

-tct

dn vdrtst< M.H.G. dn
ir

7uartest

cr rdt,

gifhtt< M.H.G. cr

redet,gefindct :

hit< M.H.G.

ir liiletet;

second person plural imperative ;'r/< M.H.G.

redct)'.

Such

JUDEO-GERMAN PHONOLOGY
syncopated forms go back
in part to

SAPIR

249

M.H.G.

originals (e.g.

M.H.G. vint
oi getrahtet).

'

finds' alongside of vindet; getraht alongside

Other unaccented vowels than

rather less frequently than in
chiefly in secondarily

9 are also found,

though

modern German. They occur

accented syllables.

Examples of
:

suffixed elements with vowel not dulled to d are

/^///^<

-ik
'

(e.

g.

M.H.G.

ki'mic)

-is< M.H.G. -isch

(e.g.

miis

ugly')

-wj< M.H.G.
ness
',

-nisse (e.g. giretnnis)\ -npg (e.g.

;

incnntjg<
'

M.H.G. meinunge)
grhket
'

-ket< M.H.G. -keit

').

(e.g. giitsket
-liii

good-

greatness
as

Diminutive
accented
-a- (e.g.

appears in
preceding

Judeo-German

secondarily

-le,

M.H.G.

-e-

being developed to
these

kiuda/c-<M.[.G.
loving or

kindeliii ;

diminutives

in

-ale

imply a

caressing attitude, whereas forms in

tive).

-^Z, -/

are simply diminu-

M.H.G.

-Itch regularly

appears as -bx [e.g.fr^bx<

M.H.G.
have no

vroclich).

Full vowels of unaccented syllables which

definite significance as
in

word-forming elements tend

to 3
(e. g.

more frequently than

This

modern German to be dulled

'

drbos 'pea '< M.H.G. er%veh, arweh; drbJt work' < M.H.G.
arbeii).
is

true even in cases

where the unaccented

vowel

is

the stem vowel of the second

member

of a
is

comfelt

pound, provided the analysis of the compound

as obvious (e.g. borvjs
'
'

not
:

barefoot '< M.H.G. barvuo^

'

kimpjt

confinement after childbirth

< M.H.G.
in

kintbettc).

An
it

example of extreme reduction,

'< M.H.G.

which not only an unis

accented diphthong but also the consonant following

lost, is

knobl 'garlic

knobeloiicJi.

M.H.G.

e standing in a syllable

immediately preceding

the accent seems regularly to develop to a: ^-<

be(e.g.

M.H.G.

bakl6gn<yi.W..G. beklageu)

far-<'M.i.G. ver-

(e.g./r^;V;^//<

M.H.G.

verbr'enncn)

<7;--<

M.H.G. //tr

(e.g.


THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
aruntr^ (lyibr, arois, and others)
;

250

ar- in local adverbs

ant-

< AI.H.G. <M.H.G. <M.H.G.

akin
'

en{t)- (e.g.

antkegn<M.Vi.G.

eiigegcn{e)\

antUfn
av^k

entloitfen)\

rt-<M.H.G.

en- in adverbs (e.g.

en-zucc
;
'

'away'; ah^y<^l.W.G.
'

cn-h'cr 'hither';

thither

ah^m
:

towards
'

home

').

Accented

ent-^

however, remains

entfdyn

to

answer '< ]\I.H.G. entwilrten

bt

(parallel to antiuurten).

Unaccented M.H.G.
iiiir
'

also debt inir)

;

veloped to ba

(e.g.

ba
?(/"

bei

mir'< M.H.G.
(e.g.

unaccented IM.H.G.
bench');

became a/

af a bdyk 'on a
to far^ thus
;

M.H.G. unaccented vor developed

with M.H.G. vcr- and

falling together

viir (see 13 c

far<

viir very likely also developed in unaccented position) (e.g.

farbdi vorbei
'

'

far jorn years ago

' '

'

< M.H.G.
'

vor jaren
').

far

tog

'

before daybreak

fartsdittis

long ago

M.H.G.
has
as
a).

cin as article,

which always stands

consonants),
it

in proclitic position,

become a
numeral
'

(before

an (before
to

vowels)
(see

one

',

however,

develops
(e.g.

en

20

M.H.G.
zerrisseri)

zcr-,
;

ze-

appears as tsn-

/j'/^;7j-//<

M.H.G.

this correspondence, however, is

undoubtedly
ziir-,

not purely phonetic in character, as parallel M.H.G.

zuis

found

in

Middle German
in

dialects.

M.H.G. verb
cf parallel

prefix er- appears

Judeo-German

as dr-\

M.H.G.

der-.

M.H.G. ge- appears

as gi- with short

open
;

i (e.g. gimdxK M.H.G. gemacJU:

it

gizunt< M.H.G.

gesiint)

is

barely possible that this gi- goes back to O.H.G.^/-.

Proclitic

man,

in its indefinite sense,

'

becomes reduced to

mil (e.g. inn

ni^7it

man meint
a, o,
:

').

The whole Judeo-German vowel scheme

itself to six full

thus reduces
'

vowels

i.

n,

e,

'

Murmelvokal

(also /)

and two diphthongs

ai, oi.

JUDEO-GERMAN PHONOLOGY

SAPIR

25I

Consonants.

less

The Middle High German consonants have undergone The most imsweeping changes than the vowels.
innovation

portant

has

already

been
final

mentioned

the

generalization of a paradigmatic

stem sonant, the

dialects

otherwise constant interchange

final

in

German

between
in

surd and

medial sonant being thus

obliterated

J udeo- German.

The comparatively few consonant changes

will

that

it

has suffered

be noted under the various con:

sonants.

The

chief points of general application are these

The

stops exist in two strictly differentiated series as surds

;

and sonants

there

is

no amalgamation of the two into one

',

group of
dialects,

'

voiceless

mediae

as in

many Middle German

its

nor has the sonant lost any of

resonant quality

the surds and sonants are as clearly set against each other
as in English.

The

distinction

that obtains

in

modern

German between
the guttural x (as
(thus, to

guttural
;',

(after
/) is

back vowels) and palatal

absent
is

y (after palatal vowels,

in

and

in

Judeo-German

German
slecht

Bacli)

used

in all positions

German

schlecht corresponds

Judeo-German

slext

with

as in

Dutch

and

as in Swiss dialects).

The

pronunciation of r differs in different parts of the

Judeo-

German

area.

While the
influence,

trilled
is

tongue-tip
in

r,

which

may

be due to Slavic

found

Southern Russia,

the uvular r (r grasseye) prevails in the Lithuanian dialect

it

is

pronounced with considerable

trilled,

vigour,

but

is

not

markedly
velar

hence

is

probably better defined as voiced

spirant

(y).

This uvular r and the frequency of

to give
effect.

guttural

serve

Judeo-German a

characteristic

guttural acoustic

In our consideration of the con-

sonants

we begin with

the semivowels.

252
1.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

y.

M.H.G.
a.

It is generally

preserved as
ijuf'g-)
;

(;'

of English young)

jutjg<

1
:

M.H.G.
Jagen.
b.

/////f

Jor<M.\i.G. Jar ; /(%< M.H.G.

Where
kiieje,

it

served as glide consonant in

M.H.G. between
e

pre-

ceding palatal vowel and following unaccented

miieje,

(as in

scsjen)
-e)

it

has

dropped

in

Judeo-German
ktieje.

(together with final

c.

ki 'cows

'< M.H.G.

It

has dropped
it;gl<
\.o

initially

before Judeo-German /
;

M.H.G.

jungeliiti)

id

'

(M.H.G. u) Jew '< M.H.G.yw^^ (parallel

a7i id).

jude).

It is interesting to
:

note that i-<ji- requires a as

preceding article
2.

a id

ein

Jude (not
'

M.H.G.
a.

u>.
:

This sound, where preserved, became dento-labial v

vald<

M.H.G.

ivalt {tvald-);
stvcere
;

/j-w< M.H.G. zwei ; sver 'heavy'

sivach
;

< M.H.G.
M.H.G.
b.
It

lvax<M.^.O.

kve'bi

'to well
;

up, swell (with joy)'

< M.H.G.
/

quelle fi (i.e. ktve/kn)

vort<

wort.

appears as

after

in:

e'ntfdrn

'to

answer '< M.H.G.

aiitwurten.
c.

After /
drbss

and r
'

it

became stopped

to b, as in

modern German

pea '< M.H.G. rtrrc'J:;; farb 'colour' < M.H.G. J'ar?<r.

after

d.

Between vowels (but not

Swabian
to

?/-vowels)

seems, as in

dialects

(cf.

also
'

have become b : leb M.H.G. ewic {ewig-) < (cf. M.H.G. variants ingeber,
;

German /V^e< M.H.G. hiewen), e'big lion '< M.H.G. /?z^f, loinve irjbr 'ginger '< M.H.G. ingewer
:

imber).

e.

It

is

syncopated between ?^-vowel and following vowel

:

boim 'to build '< M.H.G. bCnven

3.

/V< M.H.G.

iuxver.

M.H.G.
a.

/.

Normally

MH.G.
{gold-).
b.
It
'

M.H.G. laiit {land-); la}jg< < M.H.G. llcht ah 'all'< M.H.G. rt//<?^;/rt7< M.H.G. vallen ^^A/< M.H.G. golt
it

remains:

/cz;/^<

lane {lang-)

laixt

has been syncopated before an accented

that,

syllj^ble in also.

az

when '< M.H.G.

als

az>;

'

so

"

< M.H.G.

JUDEO-GERMAN PHONOLOGY
4.

SAPIR
:

253

a.

M.H.G. r. As we have

seen,

it

became uvular

in pronunciation

rit<

M.H.G.
'

rot; r^^'^w<

M.H.G.
-,

regen; rd'a-<

M.H.G.

roiuh; her

bear '<

M.H.G.

ber

oor<VL.Yi.Q. gar ; /^/;-< M.H.G.

hoeren.

b.

In vidtrn 'to torment '< M.H.G.

/narter/i

r has been synco-

pated by dissimilation from r of -em.

In forms of vern<
final

M.H.G.
vest<dii
gical), ir

7verden r
7virsi,

is

syncopated before

-/and
vet
is

-st

dii

er

vet<er

zvirt (e of vest

and

analo-

vef<

ir iverdet.

5.

M.H.G.
a.

71.

This sound normally remains, also in

rt/<
7iieht^

infinitive

ending

-en

M.H.G.
fiihf)-.

niiiwe

;///

'not '<
nase
;

M.H.G.

niet (variant of

^s< M.H.G.
and kauie
'.
\

wax < M.H.G. naz,; ken

< M.H.G.
M.H.G.
b.

kail
'

////J/<

M.H.G.

helfen

zint<

sint

since

In ein as indefinite
vowels,

article
is

71

has

remained only before

a

otherwise
oks
'

it

syncopated:
'

man
a,

'ein

but

an

ein

Ochs

(cf.

English
'

an).

Mann' Wrong
aifwie

division has produced, e.g., nain

nurse'

(M.H.G.
c/' die
:

ei/i^

>an a7n>a
a 7wl).
71

7ia7ii)\

nol 'awl' (M.H.G.

> an ol>
'

has been syncopated also in

;

le'bsdik

alive

'

<

M.H.G. M.H.G.

rebe7idic

f///tS7^t

< M.H.G.

vu7ifzehen,

fi,ftsig<

vUnfzic.

It

is

barely possible that fufisn

o'i finf
'

and
from

fuftsig have

been remodelled, by analogy

*/.t-

five

',

etymologically justified

<

*-fux-

<

*futjx-

<

Indoger-

manic *p7;kw-{d.
Urger77ia7iische
c.

Swabian//^(r/^2J 'fifteen';
p.

seeW,

Streitberg,

Grammatik, 1900,
'near'
11-

in).
dissimilated to /:

In

M.H.G.
o

tiebe7i

has

become

le'bn.

d.

It is assimilated

before/

to

vai77ip7^bx diminutive plural

6.

m in ^i'w/^/'< M.H.G. < M.H.G. win-ber.

kintbetfe

M.H.G.

7n.

This consonant seems to have remained in

'

all

cases

nie'dl

girl'

< M.H.G.

tneidel ; wrt'//<

M.H.G. man

{maiui-); 7nos

254

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

< M.H.G.wa;;;
accented
:

;/>< M.H.G. mi'r:

kumn< '^X.YiS^.kitmen:
noteworthy that un-

//t'W<M.H.G. heim.
-e77i

It is particularly

has not been weakened to -n as in modern

' *

German be'zm switch used in rubbing down in sweat-bath < M.H.G. beseme (cf. German Beseti) /<?i// < M.H.G. vadem (cf, German Fade^i); bedm' loft, attic '< M.H.G. dodem (cf. German Boden). In zamd sand w, as we have
;
'
'

seen,
7.

is

more archaic than n (M.H.G.

satit, sand-).

M.H.G. y

(written n).
k,

This sound, which occurs only before g and

served in
all

has been pre-

cases: ^j?'/^a^^<
;

M.H.G. JU71C ijufig-) irjgl< M.H.G. danken de?/hi<lsi.H.G.

:

M.H.G. gegangen ; ji<yg< M.H.G. jilngelijfi) ddrjkn<

;

denken.

8.

M.H.G. z',/(Urgermanisch/) and -ff-, -f- (Urgermanisch/). a. As in other modern German dialects, these two etymologically distinct

sounds

fell

together in Judeo-German,

except for intervocalic

-v-

(see b): /^//"<

M.H.G.
'

Z'a/^r;

//< M.H.G.
M.H.G.
ve/er

vil
'

//^/'< M.H.G. veder ;

'

fe'tr

uncle
;

'<
;

Vatersbruder
;

far- < M.H.G.

//^/;

ver-

Uofn <

^i.Yi.G. slofeu

///<

M.H.G.

hlf7i<yi.\^..Q. helfen

sarf<^lW.Qj. scharf ; dorf<U.{..G. dorf ; ofn<U.ll.G.

offen; /%f/<
b.

M.H.G.

}wf;

z'^/)^<

M.H.G.

wolf.

Medially before vowels M.H.G.

dento-labial identical with z'<
'

v appears as v (voiced

stove
'

hivn

M.H.G. w, see 2 a): evn '< M.H.G. oveti; taivl 'devil '< M.H.G. tiuvel yeast '< M.H.G. heve ; bSrvds 'barefoot '< M.H.G.
h6br oats goes back to M.H.G. habcr, not haver
' '

barvuoz,.

(see 10
9.

a).

M.H.G.
a.

//(///).

Initially^has become simplified to/.- //////< M.H.G. pfunt

ferd< M.H.G.
'

ffert{ffi:rd-); ix/lr'g'I

was wont

to' (present
;

in form, but imperfect in

meaning)
'

< M.H.G. //^t^'^

Pfannkuchen
'

y^
pro-

pan

'

< M.H.G.
made

pfaiine {fainkuxn

is

bably
b.

over by analogy oi fain<fin).

finally
it

Medially and

lost its spirantal

element and became

<

: :

JUDEO-GERMAN PHONOLOGY

SAPIR

255

/; kop<M.YL.G. kopf ; kl6p7i<M..Yi.O. klopfen ; epl< M.H.G. epfel, apfel ; liiipn 'to shove' {er stiipt thifr'he eggs on ')< M.H.G. s/t/p/en stechend stossen, antreiben'.
'

10.
a.

M.H.G.

^.
/^

Normally
finally

is

preserved (as voiced lenis)

-p'\

it

occurs also
-d-

(< M.H.G.

probably by analogy of medial

b.

breit ; bret M.H.G. brof ; bai, ba<U.H. G. bargKM.H.G. berc {berg-); //(5< M.H.G. lebe?i ; le'bn < M.H.G. neben; hdbr 'oats '< M.H.G. haber {pi \^\i\zh. ^awr> modern German Hafer is variant); tsibl 'onion' < M.H.G. zibolle (variant of zwibolle, zwibet) Itiib < M. H.G. stube ; ^/f^< M.H.G. s/oup {stoiib-). In dvnt evening '< M.H.G. dbe7it, M.H.G. b has become For M.H.G. spirantized to v; also in horn>it, see 18 c. medial bilabial spirant d, from older -b-, in Middle German

bret< M. H.G.

bt;

'

dialects see

V. Michels, Mittelhochdeuisches Elemenfarbuch,

1900, 159.
c.

M.H.G.
to

-7nb- has, as in

modern German, become assimilated

;

-mm- > -711- : kam < M.H.G. kamp {kamb-)

;

2tm

< M.H.G.
{lamb-),

zimbe

lam, diminutive

lemale

<

M.H.G. /amp

diminutive lanbelm.
d. In a

number

of words

M.H.G.

b appears as p.
-/
'

This

is

intelligible

where

final -b

developed to
-b:

and was not

'

levelled out
sip {sib-);

by analogy of medial
.9/

zip
'

sieve

< M.H.G.
;

<

INI.

H.G.

abe,
gi-,

ab {arop
op-

herab
as

'

as verb
:

prefix
'

before
').

participial

appears

0-

bgiton

abgetan
initial
'

Less easily explained are certain examples

/. poiar

of

and medial
'

'peasant '<
'

M.H.G.

bilr

putr

butter

< M.H.G.

buter

gopl

fork

'

< M.H.G. gabel

vai7)ipr-{bx)<

klepn 'to be stuck to '<

M.H.G.

kleben;

M.H.G.

winber.

In estimating these and similar developit

'

ments {t<d, k<g)

must be remembered
'

that Judeo-

German knows no
less

voiceless lenis

stops, but only fully

voiced lenis stops (corresponding to Upper

lenis)

German

voice-

and unaspirated voiceless

fortis
fortis).

stops (corre-

sponding to Upper German voiceless

<;

256
11.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

M.H.G./.
(for

This sound regularly remains: parse'iK^l.Yi.i^. persSn a<'e see 30);

sprunc
{spriitig-).

!///< M.H.G.

spile n

sprung <yiJli.G.

12.
a.

M.H.G.
Initial

s,

-ss-

and

-z,-,

-z,z,-.

and medial

(except before voiceless consonants)

-s

became voiced
sunne
seiger

to z (this includes also final

-s-)
;

when

alter-

nating with medial

'

ziin

< M.H.G.
;

sun
'

'son' and

sun

'

zogn< M.H.G sagen

zr'gr

clock '<

M.H.G.
alse
'

zuxn

< M.H.G.
:

siiochen; az

< M.H.G.
;
X'^z;
'

a/s,

aze'<'^\..Y{..Qj. also

2htzr<y].H.G.

tozser
:

cheese

M.H.G. M.H.G.
'to let

kcese

lfJozn<'M.ll.G. bldseti

bloz
.

'

breath '<

bids {bids-)

'Hauch'; groz kU.U .G gras (gms-).

-:;-

Medial ungeminated

has also developed to

s in

lozn

'< M.H.G.
similarly

ldz,e?i.

Judeo-Gcrman

z in

muz 'must'
-z,-

may be

developed from medial ungeminated

(M.H.G. muoz^:

muez^n

>

?nuz

muzn with generalized

of f/iuez^u) or, perhaps

vocalism of muoz, and medial

less likely,

-z-

from medial

-s-

of preterite muosc (later super-

seded by analogical muosle).

treated like
b.
-z,^-

More

often, however,

-z,-

is

(see b).

Final

-;?,

medial

-z,z,-

and (generally)

---,

and medial

-s-

before

voiceless consonants appear in

Judeo-German, as
'

in

modern

German,

as voiceless s:
vuoz,;

ois

cut '<
2viz,:

M.H.G. ?. fus<
dos<yi.Y{.G. daz,;
;

M.H.G.
bizjen

^'a/i<
;

M.H.G.

^sn<'i^l.Y{.G.ez,z,e7i
;

besrK^l.W.G. bhz^er
heiz,efi ;

baisn<^\.Yi.G.
fiesf ;

li/s7i<^i.Y{.G.
susl ;
'

nesKM.H.G.
//dsl.

um

zist

kM.H.G. umbe
mrsfn
'

liosKM.H.G.

Judeo-German

to

measure

(witli

analogic participle gwiSstn) has

perhaps resulted from confusion of M.H.G. ftiez^n 'messen'

and mestern^dcn Inhalt messen'.

M.H.G.

ist

>

Judeo-

German
its

iz is

due

to loss of -/

and voicing of

because of

frequent use as proclitic

iz

{iz

probably generalized from

antevocalic use, e.g.

c.

;//'<

M.H.G.

is{i) ein
-s-

man).

For some not evident reason medial M.H.G.

Appears as

<;

JUDEO-GERMAN PHONOLOGY
Judeo-German
nisn 'to sneeze
d.
-s-

SAPIR
Ma-<M.H.G.
to

257
keiser

instead of

-z-

in

'<M.H.G. M.H.G. -ss- seems to have modern German sch (it has
fallen together with

niesen.

regularly developed

s,

i.e.

thus not, as in

modern German,

M.H.G.

-^^-,-5-): /^//i^<

M.H.G. kus
kiissen

{kuss-);

/^//i'^

(with vocalism of ^z^j)<

M.H.G.

'to

kiss;' k{sn<M.'il,G. kiissen

'pillow'; pisn 'to urinate'

< pissen.
e.

After r both

and

2,

appear as s: >^a;'^< M.H.G. kirse

;

parsen 'beautiful
erst; h'rs
f.

woman '< M.H.G./^ry^;?

/ii'rz,.

^/-l/<

M.H.G.

< M.H.G.
n,

Before

/,

m,

w,p, and
to s

t initial
:

M.H.G.

developed, as in
sniaisn 'to

modern German,
^

s/ext<M.H.G.

sl'eht ;
'

beat <yiM{..G.smizfi7i
sne
;

'

streichen, schlagen
;

sm<M..H.G.
spcete ;

Iver <M.H.G.
stein.

sware

spet<M.}i.G.

sten<

M.H.G.
T3.

M.H.G.

sch.
is

This sound

regularly preserved as s
schineji
;
le'tl
'

J^j5<

M.H.G.

schepfen;

minn<W.Y{..G.
hair

perruque with evenly parted

scheitel

worn by orthodox Jewish women '< M.H.G.

;///.?<

'crown of the head, parting of the hair';

mischen
14.
;

M.H.G.

idis< yi.Vi.G. judisch.

-tz-.

M.H.G.

and

These

affricatives are

everywhere preserved as
;

ts: /j"^<

M.H.G.

zehen; tson<M.^^.G. zan

/.yw< M.H.G. zwei ; harts

katze.

M.H.G.
15.
a.

lurze; >^a/^<

M.H.G.

M.H.G.

d.
is

Normally d
finally

preserved (as voiced lenis);

it

occurs also

(< M.H.G. -/), probably by analogy of medial -d^.a'X< M.H.G. dach; dar thin '< M.H.G. diirre ; drai< M.H.G. dri ; moid < M.H.G. maget {maged-) bod < M.H.G. bat {bad-); feld < M.H.G. velt {veid-); ferd < M.H.G. pfert {pferd-); 6dr vein '< M.H.G. dder. Examples of nd< M.H.G. nd (including cases of -nt alter'

'

nating with -^-)< O.H.G. nt are

bindn

< M.H.G.

binden

VOL.

VI.

'

258

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

dnfshidn <M.'H..G. a)iziinde7i

1
;

dlind kM.U.G. Mint {blind-)

M.H.G. wundern ; M.H.G. lant {land-) rufid<^l.li.G. runt {rund-); kind <M.Yi.G. kin t {kifid-); end < M.H.G. ende. For examples of ?it < M.H.G. -nt
;

w/;/^/7;<

la7id<

{-nd-) see 15

d below,
:

b.

M.H.G. rd appears as r in vern < werden {s\mi\a.r]y ix ver< M.H.G. ich w'erde, gwor7t< M.H.G. gezvorden; -rst and -ri
of this verb develop to
is
-st, -/,

see 4 b).

This development

not

strictly

normal, but

is

probably due to frequently

to
its

proclitic character of

werden owing

use as auxiliary

verb; contrast /fr^< M.H.G. //^>^-.

this
is

Quite parallel to

/< M.H.G.

Id in

mdnzbil

'

man '< M.H.G. mannes

'

bilde (e. g.

zwei mannes

bilde er

da gesach

da sah

er zwei

Manner',

Der
(-s-

IVartburgkrieg,
p. 65,
1.

herausgegeben von Karl

lost

Simrock, 1858,
its

4 of no 37), in which bilde has

accent

of rnd?izbil due to voiced surroundings of

contrast accented
bild
'

M.H.G.
bilde.

-S-);

picture

'< M.H.G.
(cf.
;

In certain cases
see 10 c):

nd

is
'

assimilated to

?in>n
tinde
'

m<

M.H.G. mb,
'

un
'

and '< M.H.G.

frdnn

in existence, to

be found

< vorhatiden ;

g'ifinn

to find

(simplex //;/ not in use) <

M.H.G. gevinden ;

gistdfin<

M.H.G.
zan.

gesta?iden

tson<M.Yi.G. zant

{zand-), but also

In un we can readily explain

(cf.

n<nd
;

as

due

to lack

of accent
it

r<rd and /<

/c/

above)

\nfrdnn and gistd/in

developed
(in

seems very
-fift,

likely that original -ndfi regularly

to

internasal -d-

becoming completely assimilated

it

such forms as bindn, gibundn O o

'
<->

is

clear

that -7idn o
;

was
note

restored by analogy of forms like ix bind, er bint

that in frdnn,

whose connexion with M.H.G. hant

gistdnn, with
its

{/land-)

was
ix

lost,
ste,

and

infinitive

and present Mv/, and

no disturbance by analogical

levelling could take

place).

As

for ^//y (also gi/iinn, ix gi/in)

tson (also

plural tsenr ;

diminutive

tse'ndl
I

has not original -nd- but

intrusive

-d-,

see 15 c below),

would suggest
to

that

M.H.G.

nd of zand- and vinden (which goes back

zatid,

O.H.G. nd

findan < Urgermanisch

n/>

cf.

Gothic tunpus,

<
;

JUDEO-GERMAN PHONOLOGY

SAPIR

259

finpan) was, at least in some dialects, phonetically distinct

from M.H.G. nd

<

O.H.G.

/?/

(thus,

O.H.G. Jindan

>

> Judeo-German -finn; M.H.G. ^/W(? > Judeo-German Mndn);

w'^(?

M.H.G.

O.H.G. bintan>
in

dfidr<M..Yi.G.

ander<0.}r[.G. under, -nd-

becoming
Between n
zimbaron)
'little

-n-

because of

may have been protected from following -r (cf. M.H.G. winter

winden <'winian).
as diminutive ending

O.H.G. wintar
c.

as contrasted with

as stem ending

and

-/ (-/-)

^develops as glide consonant

:

(cf.
'

Gothic timrjan: O.H.G.

fe'ndl
he'ndl

bendl

'

little

bone

pan', diminutive oi /an

< M.H.G. bei7iel ; < M.H.G. pfanne ;

'

Mittle

cock '< M.H.G. hhiel;

/^/^/

little

hen '< M.H.G. -ndhx

(e.g.

hiienei ;

diminutive plural of nouns in

'

-n- is

bendbx
d.

little

bones,

fruit pits

').

In certain cases, as we have seen in 15

a,

M.H.G.
as

-ni {-nd-)

and

-// {-/d-)

developed to -nd and

-Id,

would be nor-

mally expected for Judeo-German.

of examples, however,
-/ is

In a large number

generalized, replacing -d- also

medially

gizunt

(also, e.g., in

a gizi'mtr 'ein gesunder')<

M.H.G. gesunt igesund-); hunt (also, e.g., diminutive kintl; contrast Mndl as diminutive of hu?i 'hen ')< M.H.G. hunt
{Jiund-)
;

hant

(also,

e. g.,
'

diminutive
')

he'nil

contrast heridl
;

as diminutive of ho?i
(also,
e.g.,

cock

< M.H.G.

hant {hand-)

vint

diminutive

2'/;2//)<
;

< M.H.G. p/unt {pfu/id-)

/a//< M.H.G. viant
bintl)

/raint <
;

M.H.G. wint {wind-) funt M.H.G. vriunt {vriund-)

;
;

{viand-)

bunt

(also, e.g.,

diminutive

< M.H.G. bunt {bund-);

M.H.G.

bvnt< M.H.G.

dbe7it {abend-)
;

gidiilt<

gedulf, gedulde (but also gedidtec)

I

ge/t<

M.H.G.
rule for

ge/t {geld- but also gelt-).

can suggest no definite

<^//<2^<

such differences of treatment as

M.H.G.
are

blint {blind-)<0.'H..G. blint {blint-)

a.ndvint< M.H.G. wint

[wind-)

< O.H.G.

wint

{wint-).

Possibly -nd forms

-fid-

generalized in words where medial

occurs often

(e. g.

blind because supported by inflected blindd

-/ forms

and

blindr),

but

where medial
biittdel

-;/i^-

either occurs infrequently (thus,

M.H.G.

would not be of frequent enough occurrence

S 3

26o

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

to influence binit,

1
buniit)

hence

itself suffers

analogical levelling to

Mntl, which can hardly

be directly traced to O.H.G.

in

or has

become obsolete

Judeo-German
-e,

(thus

M.H.G.

hende had to develop, with loss of

hend, which could not maintain
its

to

Judeo-German

-d against singular hajit,

hence

itself suffers

analogical levelling to hent^ which can

;

hardly be directly traced to O.H.G. henti)

bunt and bindn

appear contradictory, but can be readily explained, as they

would not be

felt

to

be connected closely enough

In z?/r< M.H.G.
2/ri?'(?r<

to

influence each other.

U7itar,

O.H.G.
-r

-nd-

has,

as

in

modern German, again become

(cf.

hardened

to -/-,

probably because of following

similarly /^i'//-<

M.H.G. winter <winiar)',

As
for

M.H.G.
it

hinder.

Judeo-German^^//

as contrasted \\\ih.feld,
ge'it

should

be noted that O.H.G. has correspondingly

e.

hui/eld.

Different from these examples of -nf

-nd-

and

and

-Id-

are certain cases of initial

-// from M.H.G. /< normal M.H.G.

{cL

p<b,

lo d)

/a//i^<

M.H.G.
/tt5'-^/<

diutsch,

iiutsch

(also

fartaitsn 'to translate '<

M.H.G.
;

ditdschcfi, tiutschen

'auf

deutsch sagen, erklaren')

M.H.G.
this

du?ikel, tu/ikel

(M.H.G.

tu7ikel is

normal,
/)
;

hence
'

example belongs
datel
{tetl

rather under

M.H.G.

////

date '<

M.H.G.

may be
M.H.G.

assimilated from

*de'tl;

why

instead of expected

i6.
a.

/.

This sound, aside from cases of M.H.G.

kept in
all

-/; -d-,
;

has been

positions:

/o< M.H.G. tuon

';

tiiml<M.ll.G.
teil ;

tumel
*

'

betaubender Schall, Larm

;

/^/<

M.H.G.

kStr
zint

tomcat '< M.H.G. kater

since

w//-< M.H.G. winter;

'

'< M.H.G.

sitit ;

<^^/<

M.H.G.
'

bette

n'/< M.H.G.

r6t; gh'd it <

M.H.G. gewa/t; nont near '< M.H.G. ndhent

nc'ntr).

(note also Judeo-German comparative

b.
It is

not easy to see

of bort
'

why

-//

has become
bart.

-dl in be'rdl,

diminuoriginal
in -ndl

tive

beard

'< M.H.G.

Perhaps

*beril

was transformed by analogy of diminutives

(see 15 c).

JUDEO-GERMAN PHONOLOGY
Initial

SAPIR

261
to tsv-:

tw-,

as in

modern German, has developed

tsvogti 'to

isviygn<yi^^.Q. twingefi ;

wash one's head'<

;

M.H.G. twahen,
twarc {twarg-)
directly derived
it
'

past

^^dirtici^Xe

getwageti
(this

tsvordxKlA.^.G.

Quarkkase'
from

word may have been

from which

Slavic, e.g. Polish tvarog,

was borrowed by M.H.G.,

in

which case Judeo-German

after

tsv-<tv-<tw- would have taken place

Judeo-German
dialects
;

had become
however,
is

isolated from other

German

this,

rendered very improbable by parallel form

zwarc
d.

in late
-/z'-

M.H.G.).
-p-

Medial

has become

in: ep9s
in

'

something '< M.H.G.

et{e)waz (cf Latin

b<div
save
'

bis,p<iw
It
is

m posiis). How
*hraddjan

explain rdtvjt

'

to

undoubtedly connected

with

M.H.G. and O.H.G.

re/fen

<West Germanic

<

Urgermanisch *hradjan, but cannot be

it.

directly derived
/-suffix

from

Perhaps parallel to *hrad-jan with

7'-suffix>

was

*hrad-wan with

O.H.G.

*{h)ratwati>M..'i..G.

*ratwen, dialectically preserved in Judeo-German as rdtvn.

In that case -tw->-p-

may hold

only in normally un-

accented words.
e.

-St

has become M.H.G. tsf.

'to answer

-s

> -z,

because of lack of accent, in

iz

<

Similarly, -rtn has

enhviirten.

become

-rn in

entfarn

'< M.H.G.

17.

M.H.G. h

(as spirant), ch.

As was noted above, no

between guttural
icli)^

distinction

is

made

in

Judeo-German
This feature

and

palatal x' (as in

modern German

but both are represented by guttural x.

archaic rather than due to levelling.
all

may be
a.

It is

kept in
7iox

positions except before s

/a/a:/<

M.H.G.

lihte ;

M.H.G.
kalh)

< M.H.G. noc/t ; nox < M.H.G. ndch ; zix < kalx < M.H.G. kalch (parallel to normal < O.H.G. kalch; ?narx 'marrow' < M.H.G. march
sic/i ;

(parallel

to

viarK)

gix

'

quick '< M.H.G.

(note analogical

gdch

sux

'shoe'

<

M.H.G.
schuohe)
;

schiioch

plural "six

<

M.H.G.

//^a-<

M.H.G.

hdch

(note

analogical

262

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

comparative
he'xr:

< M.H.G. ha-her);

bilxr

'

more proper

'

<

M.H.G.
l>i7/ig is

h7/ic/i

'gemass, geziemend' (^ of modern

German
oks<

secondary in origin).
as in
;

b.

Before

s,

modern German,
vaksf
-/
'

it

has

become k

yi.Yi.G. ohse
c.

grows

<M.U.G.
in

waksef.
/ insert

Before diminutive
'plaything',

nouns ending

x:

spflxl,

diminutive of ^//7<
'

diminutive of moil

M.H.G. sp7 ; mailxl, mouth '< M.H.G. mtil; ke'lxl 'little

I doubt if this -xl is in any throat, voice '< M.H.G. k'eL way connected with modern German diminutive -che7i.

i8.
a.

M.H.G. h
It is

(as aspirate).
initially
:

preserved
'

Aa'/3<

M.H.G. hah ; -^^< M.H.G.

;

hane
b.

cock

';

/zofKM.U.G.
as in

Mt

ahi7i<M..Yi.G hin.
.

Between vowels,
'to lend

modern German,
/z72^;

it

disappears

laian

'< M.H.G.
-ehe-

no7it

'

near '<

M.H.G.

ndhetit.

For M.H.G.

and

-ehe->-e- see 3

b and 4 b of Vowels.

h has also disappeared

c.

in frdfin 'present '<vor/ianden.

In a few words h
^/eft ;

is

inorganic: hai/n 'to hurry '<

M.H.G.
arbd7i,

hordvn 'to work hard' <arden, areben (Swiss

;

Nassau erwd

see Kluge, Deufsc/ies Ety77ioIogisches Worter-

buch, s.v. Arbeit) with

19.
a.

v<b,

see 10 b.

M.H.G.

^.

Normally
finally
it

g is preserved (as voiced lenis) (< M.H.G. -c), probably by analogy

;

it

occurs also
-g-

of medial

has nowhere undergone spirantization to y (as in

tays) or j (as in
;

modern
zSgn<

German

modern German
^^/ yellow '<
'

veja)

Examples
^i?/;

are: gut<^\.11.G.guot

M.H.G.
;

M.Yi.G.sage/i

jie'gl'naWs' <'i\i.Yi.G. 7iegele

{ka7g-).

w^< M.H.G.
preserved

wee {weg-)
also
after

^ar^< M.H.G. karc

7/:

It is

ziygn
;

<M.W.G.

si7ige7t

(contrast
{Jioig-)

modern
(contrast

German
b.

ziyn)

jtojg
jut/).

< M.H.G.
M.H.G.
-c
:

jiaic

modern CJerman
generalized -k

In certain words with

:

-g-

Judeo-German has

tsvayk 'tongs, pincers

'< M.H.G zwange

(note retention oi

w as

v in Judeo-German); sok 'juice '<

JUDEO-GERMAN PHONOLOGY
M.H.G.
however,
soc, sog- (parallel to
is

SAPIR
sue, si/g-),

263
which,
its

more normal

more

likely

borrowed, as indicated by
i-i?,^

(?-vocalism,

from Russian

'juice' (Germanic loan-word)

than directly derived from

M.H.G. In nouns and adjectives

Judeo-German has
;

ending in M.H.G.

-zV

(-tg-)

regularly

-ik: Aim'k <M.li.G. kufiic {kiitiig-)

h6nik<M.'il.G. honk

{honig-); ie'bsdik 'alive

c.

'< M.H.G.

lebendic {I'ebendig-).

In a few cases Judeo-German has >^< M.H.G.

nating with
-c:

not alter'

bcykn

'

to long for

'< M.H.G. bangen

bange

werden', binge 'Angst, Sorge';

Mkn

'to look

'< M.H.G

gucken (here

gk may have become assimilated to k Compare /< M.H.G. d{\^) and/< M.H.G. b (10 d).
(e. g. es

k^.

d.

In art

art mir nit

'

it

does not concern me,

I don't

care ')^ seems to have been syncopated between r and //

cf,

M.H.G.

arget 'macht besorgt, arg'.

g'isrign,

e.

has developed as hiatus-filler in

sraisn
'

past participle of

to yell

'.

Possibly r

r
20.

r of M.H.G. gesclmrn.
k.
is
'

as dissimilated product of

M.H.G.

This sound
'

everywhere preserved

>5<?r<

M.H.G. korn;
klein{e);

kez

cheese

< M.H.G
kriechen
;

kcese ; klen

< M.H.G.

krixn <

M.H.G.

knedl 'dumpling

hdkn<'b<i.\l.G. hacken ; 0a>^<

'< M.H.G. knodel M.H.G. sac {sack-); av^k

'

'away '< M.H.G. emvec (not levelled out to aveg because

no longer
qic
(i.e.

felt

to

be connected with veg

as

way

').

M.H.G.
joy'<

kw) appears
qiielleji.

kv :

kve'ln

'to bubble with

M.H.G.

Such,

in brief, is the history of the

in

Middle High German

It will

vowels and consonants

Judeo-German.

have been

noticed that the changes in the Judeo-German consonant

system,

when compared with

its

Middle High German

prototype, are not as radical as in the case of the vowels

and that many of the important consonantal developments

264
are

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

common

to

modern German.

As

in

the vowel system,

so also in the consonant system, simplification, though to

a less degree, has taken place (e.g. M.H.G. pf

is

represented

by J? or f, according

to

its

position).

Accent.
In stress accent no changes have taken place, the stem

(normally the

first)

syllable, according to the

well-known
stress.

Germanic law of accent, regularly receiving the

Ub9dik
first
'

In

alive

'< M.H.G. Icbcndic the accent

falls

on the on the

syllable, not, as in
;

modern German

lebendig,
is

second

the lack of stress in the second syllable

probably

responsible for the syncope of the n.

With the Judeothe

German accent
epic of
' '

of this
'

word

cf.

the following from

Kudrun
:

(I, ^^9)

Si sprach

"

so riche nieman

ist

lebendic erkant

".'

Exceptions to the general law of Germanic accent are

exceedingly
rare.

case in point

is

svestrkUid 'cousin'

(literally 'sister's (or brother's) child').

Hebrew loan-words (Hebrew words

or, far less frequently,

are either ultimate

penultimate

in

accent)

accommodate
if

themselves so
in accent,

far

to the

German

rule

that,

ultimate

they throw their stress back to the penultimate

syllable

words of more than two

syllables,

however, can-

not be accented back of the penult.

This sweeping and

simple law of penultimate accentuation of Hebrew words

holds,
it

should be noticed, not merely for such as have

for the present

been incorporated into Judeo-German, but

pronunciation
of

Hebrew
in

in

general.

In

the

case

of

naturalized words a final

vowel (whether followed by a

consonant or not) has,

accordance with the genius of the

JUDEO-GERMAN PHONOLOGY

SAPIR
dull
3.
'

265

German

language, been
xf^zir
'

weakened

to the

Thus

Hebrew

pig
'

'

> Judeo-German xdzr ;

' '

Idson

language'

> losn ; ganna^

In reading

thief

>gdn9f; mispdxa family > mispoxd.

'

Hebrew
;

as such, however, these final vowels are

:

not reduced

the words given above are then pronounced

xdzir, losen, gdnov, mispoxo.

These examples show

inci-

dentally that the

with the

Hebrew d and d developed, Middle High German a and 0, into

together

and

respectively.

As

regards the accentuation of the Slavic (Russian and

is,

Polish) loan-words, the rule

on the whole, to keep the

native accent.
relatively the

It

should be noted that such words hold

position in

same

Judeo-German

that, e.g.,

French words with un-German accent (such as Position^

raffiniert)

hold

in

modern German.
the musical intonation

Besides stress accent, a very important factor in the

pronunciation of Judeo-German
of the sentence.

is

In the normal pronunciation of sentences

there

is

a very considerable variation of musical cadence.

statements,
insistence,

Simple
emphatic

interrogation,

surprise,

indignation,

irony, and many other

differences of cadence
;

moods
it

are

differentiated

by these

would be

possible, indeed, to construct a rather long series of types

of sentence-cadence for the pronunciation of word groups

in

various

emotional keys, some of which would show

falls

excessively violent rises and

of musical expression
gives

in pitch.

This mobility
its

Judeo-German much of

characteristic acoustic effect.

The

rhetorical effectiveness

of

Judeo-German speech

is

increased
(cf.

by

the use of a large

number of modal
inal),

particles

German

doch,ja^ scho7t,wohl,
Slavic,

which are partly Middle High German, partly

in origin.

and partly Hebrew

Altogether, they neatly hit

266
off

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

many nuances

of mental attitude and despair

in

many

cases of adequate translation.

trust that I

have shown that a thorough investigation

of the phonology, morphology, and vocabulary of Judeo-

German
German

will

prove

abundantly

fruitful

to

students

of

dialectology.

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

By M.
H. Segal, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

II

The Composition of the

There
is

Book.^
critics

a general agreement

among

on the

which question of the literary character of the work

are studying in these papers.

we

Some

forty years ago, Julius

Wellhausen

laid

it

down

as a principle that the so-called

'documentary hypothesis' of Pentateuchal criticism must disciples be applied also to our book. His followers and
have obeyed loyally, one
of the Master.

may

almost say piously, the precept

the
'

They have accepted

documentary

hypothesis' as a firmly established truth

in a

and have repeated,

more or

less

extended form, the arguments and proofs

advanced by the Master, without pausing to inquire into unanimity their soundness or adequacy. But in spite of this

and assurance of the

critics,

the present writer thought

it

necessary to undertake a fresh examination with a free

and open mind of the whole question of the Composition

of our book.

After a painstaking inquiry into the subject, the he has arrived at the conclusion that the arguments of

critics

unsound, their proofs inconclusive, and their has general hypothesis unreasonable and improbable. He comfound that the undoubtedly difficult problems of the
are
2

shall

tradition, we For convenience sake, and in accordance with Hebrew speak of the two books of Samuel as one book. throughout these papers

267

268

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

book can be solved by another hypothesis
prove more rational in
itself,

position of our

which he

feels will

and

in

greater accordance with the facts presented

by our book
to discuss the
its
it

than the hypothesis of the

In the following pages

critics.

we propose

first

general character of the hypothesis of the critics and

application to those sections of our
is

book from which

said to derive
it

its

main support.

We

shall then

show
and

that

fails

to solve the problems of these sections,

we

shall

submit an alternative and, to our mind, a more

Finally,

satisfactory solution.

we

shall

undertake a detailed

examination in the light of our own theory of the whole

book, and discuss
the
integrity
in particular

those sections and passages,

of

which has

been

either

questioned

or

altogether denied
1.

by the
the

critics.
'

The

'

documentary hypothesis
call
'

of the

critics,
',

which

we

prefer

to

redactional hypothesis
:

may be
own
or

briefly

summarized as follows
authors,

Our book

is

not the work

of an author, or
in

who

narrated in their

borrowed language the events contained therein.

the work of one or

It is

rather

more redactors who pieced

together excerpts from various documents, differing in age,

in

point of view, and in reliability, and often mutually

overlapping and contradictory. These redactors dealt freely

with their material, altering, omitting, and supplementing

according as
it

suited their purpose or their religious views.

They

often tried,

more or

less skilfully, to hide or gloze

over the inconsistencies between the various excerpts, but

often, again,
2.

they allowed these inconsistencies to remain.

in the case of a

Now, such a hypothesis

it

book which

bears on the face of

a fairly homogeneous character

its justifi-

requires conclusive and irrefutable evidence for

STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF SAMUEL

cation.

SEGAL

269

A work

like the

Books of Samuel, which displays

a certain unity of plan and unity of purpose, must privia

facie be credited also with unity of authorship, unless there

are very strong proofs to the contrary.

that they can produce such proofs.

The

critics assert

They maintain

that

our book contains sections which contradict and overlap

each other, which display divergent and inconsistent points

of view, and cannot, therefore, have emanated from one

and the same author.

It

may, however, be asked

if

one

author could not have written these mutually contradictory

or mutually exclusive passages,

how
in

could one and the

same redactor have combined them

work?

one and the same

these passages

The

redactor evidently regarded

as supplementing or

complementing one another.

How

could he have failed to overlook their inconsistencies and

divergencies
?

He was
This

not incompetent or devoid of the

critical faculty.

is

amply proved by

the great

skill

with which he manipulated his material, so that he has

only been found out during the last forty years, and then

only after the application of an intricate and laborious

process of reasoning
of latter-day

by some

of the

most

brilliant intellects

Germany. Was he then a deliberate impostor

or a dishonest jester?

The

critics

sometimes credit their

redactors with

all

sorts of extravagances, but as a rule

they recognize the redactor's sincerity and bona fides.

fact, therefore, that

The

competent and honest redactors com-

bined these passages must tend to prove that the alleged

inconsistencies of the passages cannot after
serious and striking a character as the
all

be of so
maintain.

critics

But what

is

true of a redactor dealing with a

mass of

excerpts from written documents

may

also be true to an

equal degree of an original writer dealing with a mass of

270

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

derived from different quarters

tradition, oral or written,

and different generations.

We

must remember that our

book

is

not a scientific treatise on logic, or an artistic

It
is

work

of the imagination.

only a history compiled from

oral or written traditions

which must have passed through

before they found their
therefore,

many mouths and many hands

place
in

our

book.

We

have,

no right to
parti-

demand
in

of our book a perfect freedom

irrelevances, or

from any

cular inconsistencies,

even contradictions
it

minor
certain

details.

All

that

we can expect from

material,

is

homogeneity
the
its

of

and

general
in

consistency in
characters of

presentation

of

events

and
offer

the

heroes.

Our book does

us

such
if

a homogeneity and such a general consistency.

it is

And

admitted that the discrepancies displayed by our book

could have been passed unchecked by a compiler of written

excerpts,

why

not admit likewise that they could

have

been passed also by a compiler of oral traditions?

Why

deny to an author the latitude allowed to a redactor?

However,
this
'

argument may be dismissed by the

'

adherents of the

redactional hypothesis

as of too general,

too vague, and subjective a character.

to

We therefore proceed
of the
critics

discuss in detail the composition

two

crucial

sections

of

our

book, on

which the

base their

hypothesis, viz. the story of the election of Saul to the

throne of Israel

(i

Sam.

chs. 8-13)

and the story of the

(i

introduction of David to Saul's court

Sam.

chs. 16-18).

The Election of
3.
I

Saul.
in

The account
chs.

of the election of Saul contained

is

Sam.

8-12

separated by the
viz.
(i)

critics

into

two
12,

independent documents,

chs.

8;

10.

i7-25':a;

STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF SAMUEL

and
(ii)

SEGAL
first

271

chs. 9-10. 16; 11. i-ii, T5.

The

document
J.

we
In

shall call, with

Budde and

others, E,

and the second

Samuel

is

represented as the supreme theocratic ruler

rule

of Israel.
himself,

Having grown too old to

the people

by

he appoints his two sons as judges.

their high office,

The sons

prove to be unworthy of

and the people

come

to

Samuel and demand

Samuel
is is

that he should appoint a king

over them.

displeased with this demand, and

his displeasure

shared by
to

God

Himself.

He

receives

the divine

command

warn the people that the kingship

would prove an oppressive burden upon them.

however,

The

people,

remain obdurate, and

to give

Samuel

is

finally

com-

manded by God
a king
at
(8.

way

to them,

and appoint them

calls
in

1-22

a).

Thereupon Samuel

an assembly

Mizpah, where he rebukes the people

God's

name

for

rejecting

God

as their king, and for

demanding a human

king as their
king over

ruler.

Israel.

He then casts lots, and Saul is elected When Saul is brought into the midst
him
Lord
in

of the assembly, both Samuel and the people acclaim

as the chosen one of the
(10.

ly-^^a).

Samuel then
address

formally resigns
(ch. 12).

his

rule

a solemn

farewell

In
visits

J,

on the other hand, which

is

the older account, Saul

Samuel

to inquire for the lost asses of his father.

The

prophet, however, had already on the previous day

been informed by God of Saul's coming, and had been

commanded
Israel

to

anoint him as king that he might save

from the Philistine oppression.

Saul

is

cordially

received

by the prophet, and

and
is

invited

by him

to partake

of his hospitality,

also immediately informed of the

greatness that awaits him.

is

On

the following morning he

is

secretly anointed

by the prophet, and

given three

272
signs,

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

on the fulfilment of which he
is

bidden to undertake

whatever opportunity affords him, as

him.

God would be

with

The

three signs are duly fulfilled, but on his return

home Saul
(chs.

does not divulge his anointment to his friends

9-10. 17).

About

month

later

messengers from

Jabesh Gilead arrive in Gibeah seeking aid against the

Ammonites.

Saul returns from the

field

behind his oxen,

is

and on hearing the story of the messengers, he

with the
to follow
spirit

seized
Israel

of God, and issues a

summons

to

all

him against the Ammonites.

call
;

mighty host

responds to his
inflicts

he marches against the Ammonites,

defeat,

on them a great
11).

and rescues Jabesh Gilead

to Gilgal,

(10.

27b-ii.

Then the people march

Israel (ii. 15).
are,

and

there appoint
4.
critics,

him king over

These two accounts

complete
in

according to most recent

themselves, and

independent of one

another.*

The

redactor, however,

combined them into one

story

by

cutting

them

into portions, thus:

a),

(8.

1-22

a),

J (9-10. 16),

(10.

17-25

J (10.

27 b

II. II, 15).

and

again

(ch. 12).

These various pieces he joined together

Thus, the
first

by means of

links of his own.

two pieces
8.

are linked together

by the

redactional addition in
first

22

b.

This addition thus serves to sever the

part of

(ch. 8)

from the second

in ch. 9.

(10.

17

ff.),

and

also to prepare

for

The

third

and fourth pieces are linked together

in 10.

by the redactional addition

25b-27a. This addition,

besides severing the second portion of

(10.

17-25

a)

from

^
*

Cf.

LXX

and Driver's note ad he.

Budde, Richtcr xiud Samuel,
first
it

Cf. especially K.

172.

The

older critics

generally hold that the writer of the

(9-10. 16), and deliberately altered

account

knew

the second account

to suit hi? purpose.

So Wellhausen

{Composition d. Hexateuclts^, 241), Kuenen, and Stade.

STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF SAMUEL

the third (ch. 12), also serves to brush

SEGAL

273

away

the incon-

sistency between 10. 17-25 a and the second portion of J

(ch. 11).

For,

if

Saul had already been acclaimed by

it

all

Israel as their king,

as a private

how is individual? The

all

that he appears in 11. 5

redactor replies that although

Israel,

Saul was recognized by

rejected his kingship, and
to retire into private
its
life.

yet

'

the worthless

owing

to this opposition
fiction
its

he had
has as

This redactional

sequel another addition, as fictitious as

antecedent,

in II. 13-13.

Further, the redactor had to find

room
11.

for

Samuel

in the

important events related

in ch.

And

so he inserted in 11. 7 the two words biiKiy

nriN,

and the

whole of

ver.

14,

where he makes Samuel summon the

in

people to Gilgal

order to

'

renezv the
ff.

kingdom

',

i.

e.

to

reconfirm the election of 10. 17

5.

It will

be seen from

this analysis that the redactor

skill

has manipulated his material with astonishing

adroitness.

and

His cleverness

in

cutting
in

up

his

original

documents and piecing them together

his critical acuteness in discovering

new combinations,

an inconsistency and

getting rid of

it,

are really admirable, and are only sur-

passed by the cleverness and subtlety

of

our modern
the

German

critics,

who have shown up

so

skilfully all

redactor's literary artifices.

However, to people of a simple

whole redactional process de-

straightforward mind the

scribed

by

the critics must appear complicated, artificial,

It is

and altogether improbable.

too ingenious to be true.

We
of

have no evidence that the simple and childlike mind

the
ancient

Hebrew was capable

Further, there

of

such
is

subtle,

such highly developed literary criticism, as

this redactional process.
is

involved in
in

nothing

the

style or diction, or in the thought of the passages described

VOL. VI.

274

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

critics

by the
are

as ledactional additions, to distinguish or

in

differentiate

them

any way from

not

their context.

They
suit

declared

spurious

because

there

is

anything

suspicious about them, but only because they

do not

the hypothesis

of

the

critics.

These objections may,

purely subjective.
follows to submit

however, be dismissed by the

critics as
in

We

will, therefore,

endeavour

what

the analysis of the critics to a strictly objective examination.

6.

The

critics

assert

that

our section consists of a

combination of two originally complete and independent

accounts.

But a

little

examination

will

show that these

accounts are neither complete nor independent of each

other.

In
lot.

(8

lo.
is

17-25 a; 12) Saul

is

elected

by the

sacred

There

no mention

in

of an anointment

of Saul by the prophet.

in the

Why,

then, does

Samuel proceed

same document, and immediately

Saul
'

after the election

'

by

lot, to call

the Lord's anointed

in

(12. 3, 5)

Why

does the prophet say

to the critics to the

a passage belonging according

at least to the

same document E, or
sent
;

same stratum
Israel
'

'

The Lord
;

me

to anoint thee king over

?

(15.

i,

17

cf.

also 24. 7
i,

26. 9, &c.)

The

references

are evidently to

10.

i.e.

to the so-called J

document,
try to

thus showing dependence of

on

J.

The

critics

escape from this difficulty

in their

usual fashion,

namely

by

fastening the
assert, a

blame on the redactor.

also contained,

they

statement of Saul's anointment by Samuel,

it

only the redactor omitted

in

in

favour of the statement

(cf.

Budde, RicJitcr und Sanuicl, 172; Stenning in

Dictionary

Hastings'
Plain

of

tJic

Bible,

iv.

385

b,

foot-note).

unbiassed

people

will,

however, prefer to explain

these references in the most obvious and most reasonable

way,

viz. as

based on the statement

in 10. i.

STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF SAMUEL

7.

SEGAL

275

Again,

has no reference whatever to an acquaintuntil

lot

ance between Saul and Samuel

election

after

the former's

by the

lot.

Before the

was

cast neither the

people, nor Samuel, nor Saul had

as to

any

inkling whatever
result of the lot

who was going

its

to be elected.

The

before
cerned.

declaration

was a complete mystery

to

all

con-

What, then, prompted Saul

(10.

to hide himself
It

away
For

from the assembly at Mizpah

22)?

cannot be that

he slipped out after his name had been mentioned.

the text says explicitly that Samuel ordered the people

to stand according to their tribes
tribe of

and clans
',

that after the

Benjamin had been

'

taken

he brought forward

that tribe family

by

family, and then the family of Matri

man by man, when

Saul was 'taken' (10. i9b-2i

cf.

LXX
I.

so Kimhi and Joseph Kaspi, Adiie Kesepk,

i.

ed.

Last,

16).

Saul must have been present during the

latter process, for

else, to

he had no reason, any more than anybody

suspect that he would be the chosen one.

His

slipping
certainly

away

after his

name had been

called out

would

have attracted the greatest possible attention.

rate, his

At any
by
family.
(10. 22,

presence before would have been noticed

his clansmen, or at least

by the members
of the
is

of his

own
snn

The

inquiry
cf.

made

oracle D'^xn D?n

LXX,

Driver's note)

thus rendered absurd

of the incident that
left

and impossible.
is

The only explanation

is

at all

reasonable

that Saul had

cast,

the assembly

before

the lots were

and before the people were and the

tribes according to

arranged according to
clans

tribes,

and

families

and that Saul knew beforehand that

lot,

he would be the chosen one of the

been previously designated
in ID.
I f.

having already
described

for the

high

office, as

276
8.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Further,

according to the analysis of the

critics,

ch. 12 is the direct continuation of 10. 25 a,

and the address

contained therein was the farewell address delivered by the

prophet immediately after the declaration of the

lot.

But
r\:n

how
(12.

could Samuel say at that

2)?

moment ny:?^

"i^nno ^7^

Such words could only have been spoken

after

Saul had
as
is

proved himself a capable leader of the people,

in

related

ch.

11.

Thus
it.

ch. I3

is

acquainted with

ch. II
9.

and dependent upon

Again, according to the analysis of the

critics,

represents Saul as securing the throne

of having been elected thereto

by the mere

fact

by

the

lot.

The

all-powerful

prophet immediately transferred to him the sovereignty

which he had wielded over the people

and the whole

nation meekly submitted to the rule of an inexperienced,

man without murmur or misgiving. Is this Would even a credulous writer have believed such an improbable story ? We know that the people reuntried young
possible
?

mained loyal to Saul to the very end.

marred by any
rising or rebellion,

His reign was never

such as troubled the reign

of the greater and

more

successful ruler

who

followed him.

And
his

so great was the people's attachment to the person

that
after his

of Saul

death they preferred the rule of

weak son

to that of the brave

Is
it

and clever David,

their dis-

old favourite.
affection

not natural to expect that

itself,

some

would have displayed

at least at the outset

of his reign, a disaffection which could only have been

suppressed by some exceptional achievement on the part

of the

young

king,

combined with the overpowering

influ-

ence of the great prophet, his friend and supporter,

rallied

who
In

round him the whole people, and secured their

to the

permanent and unshaken devotion

new

ruler?

STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF SAMUEL

other words, are not
10.

SEGAL

277
ch. 11,

27 and

the

whole of

including vers. 14-15, the logical and indispensable sequel

to 10. 17
ff.?

10. Finally, the critics tell us that the election of

Saul

took

place

in
J.

Mizpah according

to

E, and

in

Gilgal

according to

knows nothing
If
so,
it

of Gilgal in connexion

with Saul's election.

13. 8
ff.

is

strange

that both in
ch. 15

(J

according to the
critics),

critics)

and

in

(E ac-

cording to the
their

Samuel and Saul are taken out of

way and brought to Gilgal for the sentence of rejecThe fact that E, too, places the rejection tion on Saul. Saul at Gilgal shows that E also knew of the connexion of
of Gilgal with Saul's election, as described in 11. 14-15.

Thus, these considerations prove conclusively that

incomplete, and that
11.
it

is

is

dependent on

J.

But neither

is

J complete in

itself.

For according to the analysis of the

of an agitation

critics,

is

ignorant

among

the people for the appointment of the initiative and offered the

a king.

God Himself took

Philistines.

people through His prophet a king

who

w^ould save Israel

to

from the

If so, Saul,

when he came

Samuel

in ch. 9, could, like

anybody

else in Israel,

have had no

knowledge whatever of the prophet's intention with regard

to himself, or of the
in Israel.

whole plan of establishing a monarchy

it,

How
mon
(9.

was

then, that he at once took in the

meaning
'l3"i

of Samuel's

otherwise

cryptic

remark:

72 ''nh

^s'lC'

20 b)?

His answer in the following verse

proves conclusively that he

knew

well that

Samuel was

looking out for a suitable occupant of the throne of Israel.

Again,
visited
(10.

why

did Saul's uncle, on hearing that Saul had

'131

Samuel, ask with such eagerness,

NJ

riTjn

15)?

How

can one explain

this

eagerness in the

278

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

critics'

sayings of a person who, according to the

tion of J,

interpreta-

was but an

obscure village seer

and clairvoyant?

Evidently Saul's uncle had a higher opinion of Samuel's

importance than the

that

critics

and he was aware of the

for a suitable

fact

Samuel was looking out

young man

to

occupy the throne of

12. Further,

Israel, as related in 8. 22.

how

after all

is

one to explain the authori-

tative action of Saul in peremptorily ordering all Israel

to muster together for the battle against the

Ammonites,

and the unanimous response of

all

the people (11. 7)?

5.

Barak, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judges

14

ff-

6-

35; 12.

2-3) had to beg the people, and not quite successfull)-, to

rally

round them

in

order to expel the invader.

But

this

obscure, shy

young

Benjamite simply issues 2, fiat, threatens

all

disobedience with heavy punishment, and

fright,

Israel

take
in-

and meekly obey the orders of an unknown,

experienced young man.

is

The only explanation

Israel, as

possible
indiff.,

that Saul

was then no longer an obscure private

vidual, but the king elect of

described in 10. 17
later,

but that, for reasons which we shall mention

not yet assumed the actual
13. Finally,
if

he had

office of king.

the people

had not been clamouring

it

previously for the appointment of a king,

is

exceedingly

strange that by a sudden impulse and without any previous

deliberation as to the need

and

desirability of a king, or
office,

the fitness of Saul for the kingly

the people, hitherto

so clannish and so jealous for their tribal independence,

should have proceeded

straight

from the

battlefield

of

Jabesh Gilead to the sanctuary of Gilgal, and there and

then without any preparation whatever elected
their king
!

Saul as
that

Even

the writer of J must have

to

known

the

people's

resolve

change

their

old

patriarchal

STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF SAMUEL

constitution into that of a

SEGAL

279

monarchy could not have been

taken so suddenly and instantaneously, particularly as the

people were living under PhiHstine overlordship.

Was

there none circumspect enough in the whole host of Israel

to counsel caution,

and warn the people that

Philistines

their rashness

would incense the

and bring down upon them

?

the oppressors' dire vengeance

that

And

it is

more remarkable

standing alone without the support of so powerful

a personality as the Samuel of E, and without the prestige

lent to his

appointment by the decree of the sacred

lot,

Saul should have met wath no opposition whatever on the

part of any portion of his

own

people, of

whom

so

many
cause,

were lukewarm and even

as
is

faithless to the national

proved by the large numbers who had definitely gone

12).

over to the Philistine side (14.

in J

Thus we

are confronted

with the same difficulty which met us in

(cf.

above,

9), viz,

how

did Saul succeed in securing at the very

outset of his reign, and in holding right to the end, the

unanimous support and attachment of

14.
It is
all

Israel

evident from what

we have

said above that

taking
logical

the facts into consideration the only rational and

account of the appointment and the accession of

Saul
in

is

something similar to the account presented to us

is

our present text, which

somewhat

as follows

The

people had, for one reason or another, decided to organize

themseh^es into a monarchy.

They

applied

to

Samuel,
suitable
fell

the leading personality of the day, to find

them a

occupant of the high

office
first

of king

Samuel's choice

upon Saul,

whom

he

appointed privately, and

lot cast

after-

wards publicly by the sacred

the whole people.

in

the presence of

Some

persons, however, expressed dis-

satisfaction with Samuel's choice, perhaps for

some private

28o

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

had another candidate
in
viev/.

reasons, or because they

Owing

to certain causes, such as the fear of the Phih'stines

and the

disaffection

fomented by
office.

his opponents, Saul did

not immediately assume

When

the appeal for help

came from Jabesh Gilead, he issued on his own authority as king elect, combined with the authority of Samuel,^ an
urgent

summons

for a general military levy, to

in

which the
fashion.

people

responded

remarkably

unanimous

His magnificent victory over the

Ammonites

greatly im-

pressed the people, convinced them of his fitness for the

kingship, and silenced for ever his opponents and detractors.

Then

the people, with Samuel at their head, marched to

Gilgal,

and solemnly

ratified

of their

choice of Saul as king, previously

own free will made by the sacred

the
lot

independently of their consent, after which Samuel delivered

an impressive address to both king and people.

15.

What,

then, has forced the critics to cut

up our
to

section into a
distinct

number

of pieces and to assign

them

two

documents?

The

critics

answer that their analysis

irreconcilable discrep-

has been forced upon them

by the

ancies revealed in the various parts of our section.

We
under

may

summarize the evidence

:

for the critics' analysis

the following three headings

(i)

Origin of

tJie

Monarchy.

In J Israel suffers from

the Philistine oppression, and cries to

In response to this cry

God for deliverance. God commands Samuel to anoint

II. 7

PXIJO'J'

"IHNI.

The

critics,

however, audaciously declare these

no
cf.

two words
that the

to be a redactional ijiterpolation, but for

otlier

reason except

is

two words clash with

their h3'pothesis

above,

4.

This

is

a characteristic example of the 'critical' method.

There

no need to

defend the originality of the words, but

we may

add

that a late interpolator

would certainly have placed Samuel before Saul.

STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF SAMUEL

Saul,

SEGAL

281

who would
is

save

the

people from the Philistines

(10. 16).

In E, on the other hand, the external condition

entirely favourable.

of Israel

The people demand a

as

king, because they want to be like the heathen nations.

Their demand

is

treated

by God and by His prophet

and
is

an act of wanton
luctantly.
(ii)

rebellion,

only acceded to re-

Character of Saimiel and his part in Saul's

is

election.

In J

Samuel

a village seer, a mere clairvoyant

who
and

for

a consideration gives information concerning lost property.

His activity

is

confined to his
is

own

little

district,

his

very existence
miles
for

unknown

to Saul,

who
is

lives

but a few

away from Ramah.

Samuel

employed by God
After this
to the
is

one purpose only, the anointment of Saul.

act he retires from the scene,

and leaves everything

In

workings of the Divine spirit in Saul.

the Judge of Israel,
representative.

Samuel

who

rules over the people as

God's

In this capacity he elects a king for the

reins

people,

and solemnly hands over to him the

of

government.
(iii)

SauTs

position after his election by the

'

lot.

The
came

messengers of Jabesh Gilead are sent out to

of Israel' (11.
to
3),

all

the border

and come
Saul
is

to

Gibeah

just as they

other places.

represented as a private

man

following the ploughing oxen.

He

is

only informed of the

embassy from Jabesh Gilead

after

he has inquired for

This
is
ff.

the cause of the people's weeping.

inconsistent
as the duly

with the position ascribed to him

elected king of Israel.

in 10. 17

The men

of valour
ch.
11.

Saul

in

10.

36 do not appear

in

who accompany 'The sons of

number
that

worthlessness

who by their action prevent him from assuming

are apparently so few in

the kingly

office;

282

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

in

they can be threatened with death

is

11.

12-13; yet

it

presumably on

their account that the election of Saul

'^

requires confirmation.'
16.

Of

these three arguments only the

first

has any

force.

The second and

third are based on a mistaken

interpretation of our text.

The

critics try

to

make out

that

Samuel

is

represented in our book in varying and not

:

quite consistent characters

as a prophet, as a judge of

the type found in the

Book
is

of Judges," and finally as a

error.

mere

village seer.

This
in

an

Samuel

is

represented
viz. that

throughout our book

a great prophet

one character only,

of

who

revived

and

purified

the

religious

sentiments of the people, thereby creating greater cohesion

among

the tribes, and finally welding

it

them together

into

a nation and placing

activities

under the rule of a king.

His

were manifold and varying according to the needs

of the circumstances. Religious 9-10. 16.

But he

is

always the Prophet and

position

Teacher.

The same

he occupies

in

There

is

not a single word in this portion to

show that the name and character of Samuel were unknown

to Saul.

On

the contrary, Samuel

is

introduced in

9.

14

as a well-known personality, requiring no further description

than the mere mention of his name.

The

details given
at the

by the maidens
sanctuary,
all

in ver.

13, his actions

and words

stamp him

as a great personality, occupying

his pcoi)le.

a pre-eminent position
familiar
in

among
nx nb
Biiddc,

Note

also his

and intimate
'C'

relation with the

|TX

Deity as revealed
VTU 'm
(ver. 17).

the expressions

'ni (9.

15),

'
'

Stenning, op.

a'/.,

386a

cf.

o/>.

a'/.,

172

ff.

Ch.

7.

But

as a matter of fact,

Samuel confined

liimscll" to
in

praying

and

sacrificing, and, in contrast to the Slwfctiiii. took

no part

the actual

fighting.

STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF SAMUEL

Further, the

SEGAL
"3

283
12)

maidens' statement

'\''vh

Nl QVn

(ver.

seems to indicate that the prophet was frequently away

from
his

home

for protracted periods.

The
in 7.

reference can

only be to his judicial circuits described

16-17.

The

importance of Samuel
is

in

the eyes of his contemporaries

of Saul with his uncle

also confirmed

by the conversation
'

(10. 14-16).

Saul does not say

',

called

Samuel

but simply

'

We came to a certain seer We came to Samuel as a

',

well-known personality.
eagerly
' :

On

hearing this the uncle asks

Do
?
'

tell

me,

pray thee, what did Samuel say

surely not have
if

unto you

He would

displayed

such

eagerness about the sayings of Samuel

the latter had

in

been merely an obscure village seer unknown

Gibeah.

The

critics

have been misled

in

their

interpretation of
in 9. 6.

Samuel's character by the words of Saul's servant

These words, spoken probably by a

lad,

have been taken

by the
and
his

critics as

a
in

full

and exact description of Samuel

Israel.

position

contemporary

They

really
in

represent nothing

more than the conception of Samuel

the minds of the ignorant lower classes of the people, to

whom

the prophet was most remarkable for his

skill

in

revealing hidden things.

That Saul should wish

to present

the prophet with some

gift (not

a reward) need not cause

any

surprise.

The

presentation of gifts

by

visitors
(i

was the
10. 4,
It

usual

mark of

respect accorded both to kings

(3

Sam.

37, &c.)

and to prophets

Kings

4.

43

5.

15, &c.).

must be admitted that the

so very large in ch. 9
ff.

figure of

Samuel does not loom

book
is

as in other portions of our

but that

is

due

to the fact that the narrator's interest

centred in Saul.
hero,

For the moment the future king

is

the

and

all

others must as

much

as possible recede into

is

the background.

The

narrative in 9-10. 16

not a dry and

284

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

romance written with great

precise history, but an historical

charm and

skill

by a

writer of certain pronounced literary

to

peculiarities.

He

gives greater prominence

Saul,

in

order to bring out his figure into marked

for a

relief.

He

hides
his

time the identity of the

(9. 14).

seer,

and then reveals

name suddenly
that

The name

of the seer's city he

is

withholds altogether,
it

though there

no doubt whatever

was Ramah.'^

17.

As
we

for the third

argument,

it

is

true that in ch. 11

full

Saul does not appear as invested with

But, as

royal powers.

hinted above

( 14),

there were two

good reasons

why

Saul did not form a royal court immediately after his

election

by the

lot

first,

because of the genuine fear that

the Philistine masters of the land would at once proceed

to attack

him before he had had time

;

to raise an

army

of

defence

and

secondly, as
to

the

narrative

indicates,

because he had
election.
'

first

overcome the opposition to his

'

their
tion,

The sons of worthlessness were indeed few, but number was sufficiently strong to foment dissatisfacand eventually to organize a formidable opposition.
is

Further, there

no warrant

for interpreting
'

10.

26 a to
'.

mean
point

that Saul formed a

is

bodyguard of the

men

of valour

Such an interpretation
of view
is

particularly unfortunate from the

of the

critics

themselves,

who hold
For
in

that

ver. 26

i)art

of a redactional addition.
1 1

view of

the appearance of Saul in ch.

as a private

man, the

redactor would be stultifying himself by asserting that Saul

had immediately surrounded himself with a royal bodyguard.

^

The
[^o/>.

fact

is

that

ir^y

i^^'i

means no more than

name of

'

they
is

Budde

cit.,

171} holds that because the

the seer's city

in

not given, therefore according to J

Samuel did not reside

Ramah.

But

can this

critic tell us

where

else

Samuel resided?

STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF SAMUEL

SEGAL

285

accompanied him on

his way'.

Had

the writer meant to

say that they remained with him permanently, he would

have said loy

9, 4.

rn^i,

as in

13. 2, or inn^s*
it

'i^b')

as in Judges

Since, therefore, Saul found

necessary to return

for a

time to private

life, it is

not surprising that the people

of Jabesh Gilead should not have mentioned Saul's

to the

name
felt it

Ammonite

king,

and that they should have

in all parts of Israel.

necessary to implore for help

is it

Nor
we

surprising that Saul should have resumed for a time

in

his

former labours

the

field.

On

the other hand, as

have already noted above

12), the authoritative

self-

assertion of Saul and the remarkable response of the people

(11. 7) can

be satisfactorily explained only by the

fact that

the people
sacred
18.
lot.

knew him

as the king-elect

chosen by the

But with regard to the

its

first

argument, we

are

constrained to admit

soundness

in

general, although
is

we cannot
ch. 8

accept

it

in

detail.

For there

nothing

in

to

show

that Israel

was not

at the time suffering

is

from

Philistine oppression, although this oppression

in

not

mentioned explicitly as an argument

establishment of a monarchy.
7.

favour of the
described
in
is

The

events

5-14 took place

and

in

Samuel's middle age, while ch. 8

placed in his old age.

ch. 7

In the years that intervened between

ch. 8, the Philistines

must no doubt have avenged

their suzerainty

their defeat at Ebenezer,

and re-established

over Israel.
true for a

The statement in 7. 13 can only have been time. The writer of that passage could not have
all

been ignorant of

the great struggle with the Philistines

which lasted the whole reign of Saul and part of David's

reign
also.

He must

have heard,

for

example, of the
Philistines

invasion of Israelitish territory

by

the

which

286

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

resulted in the death of Saul at Gilboa.

And we have
All that

no right to accuse him of deliberate imposition.

we can

say

is

that he

is

guilty of an

undue exaggeration,

of want of precision, and of a certain looseness of expression,

caused no doubt by his enthusiasm for the achievements

of the religious revival led

by Samuel.

Thus, the writer

of ch. 8 does not contradict the references to Philistine

suzerainty contained in
9.

16

10.

he only ignores them.

there was a strong
of

Again, the statement

agitation

in

ch. 8

that

among
is

the

people for the institution

the

monarchy, and that

out for a king,
contrary, as

this agitation forced

Samuel

to look

not contradicted in 9-10. 16.

On
least

the

we have shown above

agitation
;

( 11, 13), this narrative

it it

knows of the
passages
say, as
(9.

and assumes
Further,

in
is

at

two

20-21

10. 15).

not correct to

some

critics do,

that the writer of 9-10. 16 displays

friendliness

towards
;

the
f.
;

monarchy, as opposed to the

12.

hostility of 8

10. 18

The
in

writer

is

only interested

in the person of Saul, but not

the institution which Saul

as an individual
to

represented.

Sympathy with Saul

was

not lacking even in those

who were opposed

him as

king

cf.

15. 35.
it

19.

Nevertheless,

must be admitted that there arc

rest of

important differences
section,

between 9- to. 16 and the

critics

our

though we must not with the

into

magnify these
differences

differences

actual

contiadictions.

The

between the two portions of our section extend to the

vocabulary, the diction, the method of narration and of
the presentation of facts, and to the general
spirit

and

purpose of the two narratives.

ferent points of view

They each

represent dif-

and emphasize

different facts,

though

not actually contradicting or excluding each other.

Hence

STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF SAMUEL

SEGAL

287

we

are

bound

to conclude that they are the

works of two

different writers, of

whom

the author of 9-10. 16 was the

'

earher.

But we must

reject the

redactional hypothesis',

which asserts that the two narratives were pieced together

by a redactor

manner described above (1,3,4). For, as we have shown, the two narratives are not contrain

the

dictory, but supplementary,

and they are also incomplete

by themselves.
in

How,

then, shall

we explain

the presence
?

our section of the work of two different writers

it

pro-

pose to explain

by what we may

term, for want of a

better name, the authorship hypothesis.

By
ch. 8

this I

mean
as
it

that the whole of our section (chs. 8-12)

lies

was written
;

before us

by the author

of our

book

10.

7-27

31

12

is

his

own

original composition, while 9-10. 16 he

borrowed from an older work which dealt with the story from a
different point of view.

That work,

as

we have

indicated above,

must also have given an account of the

popular agitation for the appointment of a king, but our

author did not find that account suitable for his purpose,

and so he gave us
have derived
ch.
1
1

his

own account

of

it.

He may
is

also

from that source, but there

I

nothing
for

very distinctive about that chapter, and

see

no reason
in 11. 8

denying

it

to our author.

The huge numbers

and

the separate mention of Judah favour the view that the

author of the chapter lived a long time after the event

he described.
redactional

The passages marked by the additions (10. 25b-27a; 11. 12-14)

for the

critics

as

are, as

we
;

have shown, essential

development of the story

they are inseparable from their context and indistinguishable

externally from the verses preceding and following them.

We,
them

therefore,

have no hesitation whatever

in

assigning

to our author.

288

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

We

now proceed

to

examine the second

crucial section
'

of our book, and there also

tional hypothesis
' '

we

shall find that the

redac-

breaks
'

down

utterly,

while our

own

authorship hypothesis

offers a reasonable

and satisfactory

solution to the problems presented

by

the composition of

that section.

The Advent of David.

20.

The

story of the introduction of David to Saul,

contained

in chs.

16-17, consists according to the analysis

of the critics

of a

combination by a redactor of two

viz.

independent and irreconcileable accounts,

16.

14-23

and 17-18.
of 14.
.'>2,

5.
is

The

first

account

is

the direct continuation

It tells

and

the older and the historical one.

how

Saul becomes a sufferer from some mental derange-

ment, and

how on

the advice of his courtiers he seeks for

a skilled musician to relieve his suffering.

attendants recommends to
describes as a skilled
warrior, a

One

of his

him a son of

Jesse,

whom

he

musician, a brave and experienced

man

of prudence and of a

handsome appearance.
his armour-bearer.

David

is

then brought to the court and the king soon

grows very fond of him, and makes him

At

the king's request of Jesse, David remains permanently

attached to the king.

The
Israel

.second,

which

is

the younger and the legendary

account, relates

how
ho.st

in

one of the many wars between

and the

Philistines a certain Philistine giant challenges

the

Israelitish

to

produce a champion who would

engage him
dares to

in single

combat, but none of the Israelites

accept the challenge.

sent

Then the shepherd

lad

David

is

by

his father to visit his three elder brothers

who

are serving in the battlefield.

The

lad

hears the

STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF SAMUEL

SEGAL

289

challenge and undertakes to engage the Philistine.

The

king

offers

him

his armour, but the

it.

young

lad does not

know how

to use

Eventually he slays the Philistine

with his sling and some pebbles which he carries in his

shepherd's scrip.
tine's

On

his

triumphant return with the

Philis-

head

in his

hand, the king inquires for his name and

takes

family.

He
who

then

the

lad

into

his

service,

and

Jonathan,

falls in

love with him, secures his friendship

by means of a solemn covenant.

This double account
is

introduced by an apocryphal

story of the secret anointment of David

by Samuel among

his brothers (16. 1-13), a story which, the critics declare,

is

related to ch. 17, but written

21. It will

by a

later hand.''

be

seen that, as in the story of the election

in this

of Saul, so

also

section the alleged redactional

process

is

very complicated.

The

redactor begins his story

with 14. 52.

After giving one single verse, which should

16. 14,

have been followed by

inserts ch. 15, then
16.

he suddenly breaks

off

and

1-13, and only then resumes the

thread of his original account, which began in 14. 52, by

continuing with 16. 14-23.

He

then proceeds to insert

in ch. 17 another independent account of David's coming

to Saul, which

contradicts and refutes the account just

is,

concluded.

This

indeed; a very strange proceeding, but

to the vagaries of the

we have already become accustomed

critics'

redactor,

and need not be unduly surprised

at his

insertions,

however

long, or at his self-contradictions,

how-

ever glaring.

Nevertheless,
that at

we have a
each of

right to

demand

from the

critics

least

the

constituent

documents which they obtain by

this astonishing analysis

are,

Wellhausen,

op.

at.,

247.
all his

His arguments and conclusions

disciples

as

usual, piously repeated

by

and followers.

VOL.

VI.

293

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

of theirs should be self-consistent, logical, and free from

any discrepancies.
case.
22.

But

this, as

we

shall show,

is

not the

The

first

account given
It

in i6.

14-23 begins according

of the rejection

to the critics with 14. 52.

knows nothing

of Saul in ch. 15 or of the anointment of David in 16. 1-13.

It is

the continuation of chs. 13-14 which in their turn are

continuation of the source J in the story of Saul's
3).^*^

the

election (
16.

But can

14.

52 really be the beginning of

us that on account of the

14-23?

That verse

tells

fierceness of the struggle with the Philistines Saul attached

to

himself every brave warrior that he could discover.

is

This, the critics say,

intended to introduce the story of

16. 14-23.

Saul taking up David in

hear nothing
of

But

in 16.

14-23 we
is

the

Philistine

war, and

David

not

brought to Saul as a likely champion against the Philistines,

but only as a musician to soothe the king's troubled
spirit.

The statement
ch. 17,

in

14.

52

suits not

16.

14-23, but rather

his

where David becomes attached to Saul through

heroism against the Philistines.

is

As

a matter of

fact,

there

absolutely no need whatever to wrench 14. 52 violently

its

out of

present context and tack

it

on to some passage
where
it

two chapters below.

for
it

It is quite intelligible

stands,

refers

back to the account of Saul's wars

in 14.

46-8,

and to the mention of Abner, Saul's chief of the

vcr.

host, in

50 b

(ver.

51

is

parenthetic).
16.

14.

52 has certainly no

connexion whatever with

14-23, and the critics will

J's

have to

find another

beginning for
is

account of David's

Coming

to Saul, since 16. 14

too abrupt to be considered

the beginning of the account.

^0 is

Ch.g-io.

16,

27b-ii.

ii, 15.

The

story of Saul's rejection in 13. 8-14

according

to the critics

an interpolation.

We

shall deal

with

this

question

later on.

STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF SAMUEL

Further,

SEGAL

29I

how
to

is

it

that the writer of 16. 14-33, who,

is

according to the
should
fail
?

critics,

ignorant of Saul's rejection,

explain
origin
in

the cause of the king's strange

affliction

The

and cause of such a mysterious and

life

calamitous event

the king's

must surely have been

a subject of deep interest to the historian.

not
tell

Why

does he

us anything about

it ?

23.

The whole

structure of the critics

is

is

based upon the

in

assumption that there

sentation of
ch. 17

a radical difference
chs.

the repreIn

David between
is

17

and

16.

14-23.

David

a young shepherd lad ignorant of the use

is

of weapons of war, while in 16. 14-23 he

a full-grown
is

and experienced warrior.

incorrect.

But

this

assumption
in

altogether
stories.

David bears the same character

16.

both

He

is

expressly described in

19 as being a

young

shepherd.

And

even

if

we

allow the
there
is it

critics to delete the

phrase

JNvn

"it^'X

though

no other reason

for

rejecting the phrase, except that

thesis

contradicts the hypo-

of

the

critics

there

still

remains the fact that

is

in ver. 19 as well as in ver. 22

still

David

described as being

in

a state of tutelage to his father, a state quite un'iT'-si

suitable for a nron^D

^m in:

(ver.

i8).

And

after

he

has spent some time with the king, David

unfit,

is still

considered

presumably by reason of

his youth, to

occupy any

other military position than that of armour-bearer to the

king, a position equivalent to that of the squire of the

mediaeval knight, and usually occupied by youths;

I,

cf.

14.

(vb:i

NC^J nj;:n)

20. 2S>

4
II

3^-

{"^^^ ^"i' "^

proves him

to have

been a youth);
is

18.

15.

It is

true that this

representation
of

not quite consistent with the description

in

David given by the courtier

16.

iS,

a description
critics'

which forms the foundation and starting-point of the

292
analysis.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

But the
salis.

courtier's

description

must be taken

aim grano

It

was evidently that of a friend of David

who was anxious

to create in Saul's

mind a highly favourFor

this

able impression of the

young musician.

purpose
full

he exaggerated David's accomplishments, knowing

that the

well

young hero would

in

a short time justify

in full

the eulogistic description of his friend. ^^

For where did

?

David prove himself a HDH^D

have done
it

C>"'N1

^''n

"lUJ

He

could not

in in

some

private

war of

his

own.

He must
If

have engaged
so,
it is

the national wars carried on by Saul.

strange that in view of 14. 52 Saul or

Abner should

not have heard of him before.

description

But, as stated, the whole

must be regarded
It
i.

as the flattering exaggeration

of a friend.
anachronistic,

is

also possible that

the

description

is

e.

written from the point of view of the

narrator himself.^^

In any case, the description must not

be taken

in a literal sense, since, as

we have shown,
David
in

it

is

inconsistent with the representation of

the rest

of the passage.

Thus the whole

structure of the critics,

interpretation

which
verse,

rests

mainly on the

literal

of this

tumbles to the ground.

24.

Where, then, are we to

find the beginning of the

?

account of David's coming to Saul

There, where
it,

all

simple unbiassed readers have always found

viz. in 16. i.
is

For the departure of the Lord's

" The
tion
;

spirit

from Saul

evidently

ancient Rabbis already interpreted the passage as an exaggerab,

of.

Sanhcdrin 93
T\'\2Xh'0

and Rashi, ad
^Tl
"("1331.

loc.

Some have proposed

to delete

the

words

L"^N1

But one must strongly deprecate the

mutilation for our

text.

Besides,

own convenience of an otherwise honest and intelligible non^O C^NI is obviously parallel to "IND C^Nl, which is
have occasion
our book.
later

certainly genuine.
12

We

shall
in

on to point out many other cases of

anachronisms

STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF SAMUEL

SEGAL

293

the consequence of the rushing of the Lord's spirit upon

the newly anointed David (ver.

ch.

12).^^

The two

parts of

16

(vers.

1-13 and 14-23) are closely connected with

each other, being both of one piece and by one hand.

Only we must assume

that

some time had elapsed between

somewhat older than
very obvious

the anointment of David and his coming to Saul's court,

since in the second part he appears
in

the
35.

first part.

But the

critics

will

object

to

this

theory of the unity of ch.

16.

They

will tell us that the

two parts of
writer,
vers.

ch. 16 cannot

belong to one and the same

is

because vers. 14-23

is

good sober
'

history, while

1-13

nothing but a legend, a mere

Midrash

'.

It

may, however, be asked. What right have the

credit

critics

to

the ancient writer with their

own views
and

of

the

comparative historicity of the two events, or with their own

modern
legend
?

distinction between historical fact

historical

To

the ancient writer the anointment of David

as

by Samuel may have been

insanity of Saul

much

a historical fact as the

and the minstrelsy of David.

But

go

further

and

assert that the story in vers. 1-13,

its details,

however

inaccurate in

may
if

yet rest upon a basis of truth.

There

is

no doubt that the estrangement between Saul and

not the deposition, of the king

Samuel, and the rejection,

by the prophet

are historical facts.

Equally a

fact

is

the

existence of a friendship between David and the prophetical

and priestly party of which Samuel was the head.

When
seeks

David

is

forced to flee from Saul, he

first

of

all

^^

The
I

'

Spirit of the

Lord'

is

conceived as something quantitative which

;

can be removed from one person and placed upon another

17, 25
;

cf.

Num.

11.

Kings 22. 24

2 Kings

2. 9.

294

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

(19. 18
ff.),^^

a refuge with Samuel

(21.2
ff.).

and next with the

priests
in his

Ahimelek might have been quite honest

had not known that David was a

assertion that he

fugitive.

At
had
(22.

the same time, he did not deny that friendly relations

for a long
15).

time existed between David and himself

that not been the case, then even Saul,

Had

tyrant that he had

now become, would

not have dared to

destroy the whole priestly clan on a mere trumpery charge

of treason.

Again,

it

is

a significant fact pointing in the

same

direction, that as soon as

David had formed

prophet
in

his

band

we

find

among
It
is,

his followers a

the person of

Gad

(22. 5).

therefore, quite probable that, at least after

he had become a popular hero and a successful military

leader,

David had been designated by Samuel and

future

his

friends the

king of

Israel.

The

fears

inspired in
rising

Saul's

mind by the ambition and the continually

which resulted from
breach

popularity of David, as compared with his

isolation
(22.
8),

own growing
with

his

Samuel, were thus not altogether without foundation.

view
of.
is

This

strongly confirmed
;

by many passages
3.

in

our book,

23. 17

24. 21

25.

30; II

9-10;
all

5.

2 b,

Of

course,

the critics deny the historicity of

this

these passages.

But

much they must

admit, that already at a very early

period, certainly not later than the beginning of David's

reign, there

was a general

belief that

David had been

appointed by

God

to

be Saul's successor.

On

the basis

of this historical fact the story was built up in a later

generation that

some time

after the

breach between Samuel

the bidding of
still

and Saul at

Gilgal, the prophet at

God
his

anointed David as king of Israel while

"

a boy
in

in

We

shall

show

later that the

critics arc

wrong

regarding that

incident as legendary.

STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF SAMUEL

father's house,

SEGAL

295

and that the cause of Saul's well-known

insanity

was

his desertion
his rival.

by the

Spirit of the Lord,

which

had gone over to

in

We
it

are, therefore, quite justified

16.

assuming that the author of

14-33 reproduced

this

story in 16. 1-13, believing

incident described
26.

to be just as true as the

by him

in 16.

14-23.

The

critics

have another objection to the historicity

of 16. 1-13, viz. the fear of Samuel lest Saul should hear
of his

mission

to

Bethlehem

(ver.

2),

fear

which

ill

becomes the powerful personality of

critics

ch. 15.

But here the

display a lack

of consistency.

They have been

Samuel

reiterating their theory that the representation of

as a great personality,

who

ruled the people and

made
and

and unmade

kings,

is

a later conception.

The
little

earlier

more

correct representation they hold to have been that

of a local and unimportant seer

to

who had

or nothing
(cf.

do with the great national questions of the day

15,

16).

This should agree admirably with the nervous and

2,

timid prophet of 16.

this

and the whole passage should on

critics to

ground have been assigned by the

historical source of J.

the early

and

However,

in reality there is
8,

no
15

inconsistency between the conception of Samuel inchs.

and that

in 16. 2.

The
It

awe-inspiring prophet of ch. 15 was

liable to the

after all himself but

human, and

weaknesses

of other mortals.

would be unnatural to expect him

grand overpowering fearlessness

to maintain at all times the

which he displays

in ch. 15,

when under the

caught
in

influence of

a mighty inspiration.

That Saul would have been capable

if

of laying hands on the prophet

such a treason-

able act as the anointment of David, and that Samuel's

fear

was not unfounded,

is

amply proved by
some time
later.

Saul's sacri-

legious

murder of the

priests

296
27.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

In
their

further

attempts to pick holes

it is

in

our

passage, the critics ask

his fears of Saul as to

how

that

Samuel so
ot his

far forgets

speak openly
the
is

mission to Jesse
is

and

his

sons,

and

why

alleged

sacrifice

never
Jesse

performed.

The answer

that

Samuel had

to

tell

of his mission in order to get him to produce his sons

he had to acquaint Jesse's sons with the object of his

because, according to the story, the sons had to be

visit,

examined

one by one, so as to find out the one who was to be

anointed.

That no express mention

sacrifice

is

made

of the per-

formance of the
sacrifice

should occasion no surprise.

detail of the
tell

The

was only a minor

is

story,

and the

object of the narrator

only to

of the anointment.

He

leaves

it

to the intelligence of his readers and to their

faith in the probity of

Samuel
in

to

assume that the

sacrifice

had been duly performed

the city.

the presence of the elders of

Having now

established the unity of ch. 16,

we must

next inquire into the relation of

28.

this chapter to ch. 17.

Now,

it

would be easy

for us to

overcome the great

difficulty presented

by the

discrepancies between ch. 16

and
with

ch. 17

by adopting
critics,

for ch. 17 the text of

1 7. 1

LXX B,

and,

many

declaring
this

2-3 1

55-1 B. 5 to be a later

interpolation.
all

By

means we should have removed

the contradictions between the two chapters, and

we

should be able to ascribe ch. 17 to the author of ch. 16,

the more so as the two chapters have some points of
contact,
cf.

16. 11

with 17. 34;

16. 12

with 17. 42.

But

this solution,

though easy and

attractive,

would not be an

honest solution.

We
it

have no right to impugn the integrity

it

of a text for the sole reason that

theories,

runs counter to our

or that

contradicts

another text which we

STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF SAMUEL

prefer.

SEGAL

297

Ch. 17 as

it

stands in

MT

is

quite intelligible and

self-consistent.
in their present

The suspected passages fit admirably well context, and we have no right to delete
fit
it

them simply because they do not

conceived notions, or with some other,
related, passage.

in

with our pre-

may

be quite un-

Then, again, we should have to explain

the provenance of these deleted passages,

how they

arose,

and what purpose

their interpolation

was

to serve.

Further,

we

should have to explain

how

a late interpolator dared

;

to invent a story so totally at variance with ch. 16

how

he dared to put into the mouth of Eliab such contemptuous

and reproachful language against David,

These passages,

whom

he knew,

according to 16. 1-13, to be 'the anointed of the Lord'.

therefore,

must be regarded as forming

ch. 17.

an integral part of the original text of

it,

How

comes

then, that the author of

?

LXX B

has not got them in

critics that
critic,

his translation
this

Are we

to

assume with many

Greek translator played the part of the higher

and deliberately omitted these passages because of their

inconsistency with ch. 16?

This can hardly be

so.

Such

a procedure on the part

of the translator would be in

strong opposition to the simple honesty, the naivete, the

faithfulness to their
is

Hebrew

original, which, as

we know,
can
in

the almost invariable characteristic of the authors of the

LXX.

Again, the omissions of

LXX B

in ch. 17

no wise be separated from the omissions of

ch. 18, since the latter chapter
is

LXX B

in

part of the

same section

as ch. 17.

The

omissions in these two chapters must be

treated together, and both must be assigned a

origin

common

and a common
and that

cause.

But since there can be no

is

doubt whatever that the

original one,

LXX B text in ch. 18 the more MT in that chapter arose through

298

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

it

a number of expansions and repetitions,^^

the

follows that

Hebrew

text of

LXX B

lacked also the suspected

passages in ch. 17.

vicious circle?

How,

then, are

we

to escape from this

On

the one hand, the disputed passages in

ch. 17 are necessarily

an integral part of the original text

really read a genuine text

on the other hand,

LXX B

which

did not contain these passages, as proved by their

original shorter text of ch. 18.
29.
it

more

There

is

only one

way

out of the difficulty, and

is

this:

The

author of ch. 16, who, as

we

shall

show

later, is

the principal or the sole author of our book, did

it

not find

convenient or desirable to describe in his

Philistine

own

words David's great exploit against the

champion,

which was the origin of Saul's jealousy of David and of

all
its

consequences.

Adopting the same method

as in
16, cf.

the story of Saul's anointment

19),

by Samuel (9-10.

he preferred to incorporate into his work an extract

viz. ch. 17.

from an older document describing the incident,

It

may
1^ Cf.
cit.,

be that the account of that older document was

Driver's
f.),

note ad

loc.

The only notable exception

is

Budde

(op.

217

who, reversing the process, argues

that because, as he holds,

the author of

LXX B

deliberately omitted the disputed passages in ch. 17.

therefore he must also have deliberately abridged the text of ch. 18. the

But

LXX

text of ch. 18 is obviously of too

smooth and too

logical a character

to be the result of a translator's

tampering and tinkering.

Further, the

omitted passages
their removal
is

in ch.

17 consist mainly of large blocks of verses,

and

comparatively an easy process, though not one of which

the authors of

LXX
is

were capable.

But the omissions in ch. 18 include also

all

some short sentences and phrases, and are scattered

Their deletion
certain,

over the chapter.

it is

therefore a hard and complicated process, which,

the

quite

was beyond

powers of the

nai'vc

authors of the
in

LXX.
ch.
17,

Moreit

over,

while

we

can easily account for the omissions

principle could have guided the
b,

is

difficult

to see
18.

what

Greek expurgators

in ch.

Why

should they have omitted 18. 8

12 b,

29b-3o?

It

is

much more reasonable to assume amplifications in the MT.

that these passages are scribal glosses

and

STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF SAMUEL

already too well

SEGAL

299

known and

too popular to be easily

superseded by a new version.

portions which

But that extract contained

the author's

flagrantly contradicted

own

history in ch. 16.

To overcome

the difficulty, he omitted

from his extract those portions which contained the contradictions,

and which he considered to be contrary to

17.

historical truth, viz.

12-31; 55-H.

5.

later scribe,

however,

who knew

the source used

by our

author, thinking

the text of the author's work

to be a mutilation, inserted

into the author's text the omitted passages.

But noticing

the discrepancy between these passages and ch. 16, the

scribe

added

17.

15 in order to minimize somewhat this

discrepancy.

It is possible that this verse v/as originally

nothing more than a marginal gloss.

As

such we must

undoubtedly consider
of ver. 51.

17. 50,

which

is

partly explanatory

Hence arose the

difference

between the texts of

LXX B
genuine.

and

MT, both of which are in a sense original and LXX B used a copy derived direct from our

author's original, but expurgated text, while

MT

is

de-

scended from a copy which had been

'

'

corrected

'

and
on

restored

'

by the
For

later scribe.

This hypothesis

will

examination be found the most

problem.

satisfactory solution of the

in addition to the

arguments given above,

it is

it

may

further be pointed out that whereas

inconceivable

that an author, or even an editor, could place side

by

side
it is

two documents exhibiting such glaring contradictions,

quite possible that a copyist who had no responsibility

whatever
fully

for either of the

two accounts, and who had not

thought out the subject, knowing that the account

before

him was but a mutilation of the

in

original source,

would have no hesitation

supplying the missing parts,

and, as the contradictions were not of his

own making,

300

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

would only make a half-hearted attempt to harmonize the

two accounts.
30.
it

But the

critics

may

object to this hypothesis because

assumes that

ch. 17 is older

than 16. 14-23, and that

it

was incorporated into the book by such a sober historian as

the author of that passage.
that
ch.

For the

critics

have decreed
Goliath the

17

is

nothing but a legend,

slain

since

Gittite

was not

by David when
Sam.
31. 19.

a youth, but almost

a generation later by Elhanan of Bethlehem, one of David's

heroes, as stated in 2
to explain David's

But

if so,

how

is

one

sudden leap into popularity and the

jealousy of Saul

The

critics

answer that David did

indeed perform some heroic deed, an account of which

stood in the original form of our book, but that that story

was deleted

in favour of the late

Goliath legend.

But the

critics fail to offer

any shred of evidence

it

for such a sup-

position.
left

Had
it

such a story existed,

would surely have

behind

some
it

trace,

however

faint.

Nay, we

may
(cf.

be certain that

would have been preserved

in full side

by
ch.

side with the Goliath story, as a sort of duplicate

24 with

ch. 26, &c.).

On

the other hand, the references

21. 10;
;

to David's exploit in 19. 5;

ch. 17
is

22. 10

prove that
is

not a late legend.

No

the story of ch. 17

in

quite

genuine and old.

What

is

legendary and late

it is

only

the identification of the Philistine

champion with

Goliath.^

The

story did not originally give the champion's name,

it

either because
it

had never been known

in the

in Israel, or

because

had been forgotten

time of the narrator.

There-

fore the narrator almost throughout the chapter speaks only

of

^riB'i'Dn

(twenty-seven times

in all).

So the champion
Chron. 20.

is

'

This identification

is

older than the Chronicler;

cf.

5.

STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF SAMUEL

SEGAL
5.

301
later

described also in 18. 6 and by Jonathan in 19.

hand, however, interpolated in the text, or wrote on the

margin nJD

IDB' JT*^: (ver. 4),

and similarly
n:D
iol:>

in ver.

23 (quite

unnecessarily after ver. 4)

Ti'^'^an

n''^:.

These

phrases bear on their face their spurious character.

Had

the original narrator identified the champion with Goliath,

he would not have given his name

in

a parenthesis.

He

would have

said in ver. 4:

n:o

n^^: loc'i.

He

would not

have repeated that parenthesis

in ver. 23,

but would have

gone on throughout the chapter to speak of the champion

as rvbl or Ti'w'^sn rSy, and not simply as
"n'^'i'sn.

Similarly,

we must

treat

the

name

n'hl

in

31.

10;

22.

10 as an

interpolation.^'^

31.

The study

of this section of our book has thus led

us to conclusions identical with those

we reached

in

our
the

study of the story of the Election of Saul,

viz. that

whole section

is

the

work of one author, who, however,

incorporated into his

older source.

own composition
in

material from an

We

have seen that

'

both these sections

itself

the

redactional
artificial,
;

hypothesis

proves

to

be

of

highly

complicated, and hence very improbable

it
it

character

further, that

fails

to

remove the

real diffi-

culties of the text, that

creates

new

difficulties
it

of

its

own, and that the arguments on which

rests are

based

on a
'

wrong

interpretation of the text.

'

The

failure of the

redactional hypothesis

in these

two

sections,

upon which
fatal to its

its

whole strength
1''

is

said to rest,
find that

must prove

After writing

the

above,

an identical solution of the

difficulty is

proposed by A. R. S. Kennedy
1

in his

commentary on Samuel

in the Century Bible, p.

22.

302

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

validity in other parts of our book.

On

the other hand,

the hypothesis put forward

by the

writer, that

we have

before us the composition not of a patchwork redactor, but

of an author, who, while largely telling his stories in his

own

words, also utilized the work of his predecessors, will

in itself,

be found reasonable
satisfactorily most,
if

and also capable of solving

of the problems presented

not

all,

by the book.

We
thesis
'

shall

now proceed

to apply our

'

authorship hypo-

to the other portions of the book,

and to discuss

in

detail those passages of

which the integrity has been denied

criticism.

or questioned

by modern

[To be continued)

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

A STUDY IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE

HALAKAH
By Jacob
Z.

Lauterbach, Hebrew Union

Ill

College.

In the above we have ascertained the date and the

reason for the introduction of the Mishnah-form, and have
traced
its

gradual adoption by the teachers.

the motives for
its

Now

that
for

we know
its

first

use,

and the causes

to

extensive adoption,

we may be
in the

able

explain the

strange silence of the talmudic-rabbinic sources concerning

this significant

change

form of teaching and

all its

important consequences.

For
points

this
in

purpose we need only to review the main

this

whole

process

and

examine them with

theories of the

reference to their possible effect

later Rabbis.

upon the

We
silent

shall

then be able to judge whether

for ignoring these facts

these later teachers

for

had cause

and

remaining

about them.
first

We

have found that the

in

motive for teaching inde-

pendent Halakot

the Mishnah-form was the fact that

official activity

during a period of time when there was no

of the teachers, certain customs and practices

came

to be

observed by the people.

These customs and

practices

subsequently had to be recognized and taught by the

teachers as
religious

ordinances,
existed.

although

no proof or

scriptural basis for

them

This means that certain

later teachers as part

religious practices, considered

by the

303


THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
traditional
in

304
of the

law, or as

handed down from Moses,

other,

originated

reality

from

perhaps

non-Jewish,

sources, and had no authority other than the authority

of the people

who adopted them.

This, of course, reflects

unfavourably upon the authority of the traditional law

in general.

We

have, furthermore, seen that the teachers

themselves could not agree in regard to the origin of

certain
artificial

laws.

While some teachers endeavoured

to

find
in-

supports for these laws, using even

for

forced

terpretations

the purpose of giving

them

scriptural

endorsement, others preferred to accept them as traditional

laws, presumably of ancient Jewish origin.

This disagree-

ment among the

earlier teachers in

regard to the origin

and authority of certain laws speaks very strongly against

two fundamental theories of the

later

talmudic teachers,

theories that were considered almost as dogmas.

One

is

the belief in an oral law, ns

^yn::^

rnin,

handed down from

Moses together with the written Torah.

derived from the Torah by means of their
tions,

The second
new

is

the belief in the validity of the laws which the wise teachers
interpreta-

CDDn C"nD.

The disagreement noted above shows

in earlier

unmistakably that

times these two theories were

all

disputed and neither was accepted by

the

teachers.

For some teachers hesitated to recognize the authoritative

character of certain laws merely on the ground that they

were

traditional.

Therefore they

felt

constrained to seek

proofs for these laws in the Torah.

there were teachers

On

the other hand,

who

objected to the validity of the

certain laws

new

interpretations

by which
laws.

were proved

from Scriptures.

They pinned

their faith to the traditional

character of these

Thus

these

earlier

differences

between the teachers could be used as a strong argument

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

LAUTERBACH

305

against the authority of their teachings.

actually entertained

This fear was

by the

later teachers.

Again, we have seen, that one of the motives for using

the Mishnah-form was the desire

on

the

part

of the

Pharisaic teachers to assert their authority and indispensability.

This

is

apparantly at variance with another theory

viz.

of the Talmud,

the belief that from Moses until the

Tannaim
whose

there was an uninterrupted succession of teachers

of the law, recognized as the chief religious authorities

direct

and undisputed successors were the Pharisees.

fact that the

However, the
to
assert
their

early Pharisaic teachers

had

authority against the opposition of the

Sadducees, shows that these teachers were new claimants

to authority.

This

fact, as

we have

seen, reveals the true

state of affairs, viz. that the priestly teachers, the Sadducees,

were

originally

the

authoritative

teachers,

whom

the

Pharisees subsequently tried to supplant.

Thus, we see that the

real conditions

which accompanied

the change from Midrash to Mishnah cast

able reflections

many

unfavour-

upon the

theories and views held

by the

later Pharisaic teachers, the

Rabbis of the Talmud.

We

can, therefore, well understand the silence of the

Rabbis

about

this

important change.
if

They
refer

did not care to dwell

reflect

upon

facts which,

misunderstood, would
to

on their
to

theories.

They

hesitated

too

frequently

circumstances from
interpretation,

which some people might, by misas

draw such conclusions

would shake the

foundation of the whole system of the traditional teachings."^*

''^

That the Pharisaic teachers had such apprehensions

b.

is

evident from

the following saying of R. Eleazar

Azariah
If

(or,

according to Rashi,

R.Joshua
n'r23n

b.

Hananiah) inHagigahsb:
''bv2

nytSJ

HO

D^yiCJ
pin

nnCDMI
nam
n-iD

n^n^n i^x ^maios

VI.

pnm pns

nnin

nm

VOL.

306

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

This was not done with the intention of suppressing historic

facts, as

they indeed mentioned these

speak of them to those pupils

things
in

facts. They would who were prepared to see

their

proper

light,

and were not disposed to

it

misinterpret

them.

They deemed

unwise to discuss

these matters before the pupils at large, fearing that there

might be among them some who could be misled by

opponents and thus arrive at erroneous conclusions.
is

This

a course of conduct followed by the teachers in regard

pnoo
i?N

hbn^

psouD
i^n:

i^J^jn

n-nna

ppoiyi

nisiDs

niDiDN

pnrv.^

DIN nos^ Noc^

.|n>t:^3

i^^m p^Dia 'hbn piTiD

tbbn)

pnoiN ibbn
':

pHN nyno
Num.
r.

o^ia iDiij

Nin "ina
also

D^L^'yr^^

XIV,

4).

b2 jnN 'sd We have in

plain

mo^n ?nnya min id^ pox ins* ons pn: nns*

this

yan

(compare

saying both a defence on the part

to

of the Pharisaic teachers for

making the Torah grow and increase so as

contain more than

its

words warrant,

as well as a refutation of the

arguments advanced against them that

their

very disagreement
traditions.

in

many

questions speaks against their having reliable

Against this

accusation the Pharisaic teachers insist that

all

their teachings

the same source, the same leader, D3"1D, Moses gave them in the

come from name

Lest
It

of God.

We
',

see from this that such arguments

were
"IDN^

raised against the

NJOti'
'

Pharisees by their opponents, for the phrase,

DTK

some
refers

might say

is

here not meant altogether

in

a hypothetical sense.

to certain people

who

actually raised the question.

Compare

the saying:

'

heavenly voice was heard declaring that both the words of the School

of Hillel and the words of the School of

Shammai
Hillel
is
'

[despite their disagree-

ments] are the words of the living God, but the practical decision should
be according
to the

words of the School of

(Erubin 13 b).

Compare

also the passage in Gittin 6 b,

where
God.

Elijah

reported to have said that

God

declared both the opposing views of R. Abiathar and R. Jonathaa

to be the

words of the

living

All these utterances

were intended

to serve as a refutation of the attacks

made

against the teachings of the

Rabbis on account of their disagreements.

replies

We

see

from these covert

the

of the

Rabbis that the arguments

of the

Karaites against

Rabbanites (see below, note 85) were not original with the Karaites, but

were

repetitions of older arguments.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

to to
Still

LAUTERBACH

307

Other subjects which they likewise

to the public at large J''

deemed unsafe

communicate

This course was not altogether culpable, seeing that

it

was animated by no
for the

selfish

motive, and that

it

was

pursued

sake of the cause which the Rabbis wished

desirous of having their teachings

to serve.

They were

accepted by the people as authoritative.

refrained from dwelling

They

therefore

upon the

fact that there

was once

a time when some people did not accept these teachings

as authoritative.
struggles
their

Instead of reporting in detail the earlier

Pharisaic
their

of the

teachers for recognition, and

disputes

with

opponents, they

dwelt

more

frequently on the continuous chain of tradition by which

they received their teachings.

teachers and

members

of the

They mentioned only those Sanhedrin who were of the

Pharisaic party,

whom

they considered as having always

been the true religious leaders of the people.

They

quite

overlooked the fact that their opponents, the Sadducees,

were the ruling authorities

in

former times.

Instead of

making

explicit

mention of the origin of the Mishnah-form,

late

which would reveal the

laws, they

date of so

many

traditional

assumed the

fact that the

two Laws, the written

and the

oral,

were both handed down by Moses through

the agency of an uninterrupted chain of true teachers, the

bearers of tradition.
later

The

result

was that to most of the

teachers, especially

the Amoraim, the origin and

development of the Mishnah-form was almost unknown.

" The same was
controversies.
(b.

done with the records of the families which the Rabbis

did not care to teach or discuss in public, fearing to cause unpleasant

Kiddushin 71a).

They would hand them over to their chosen pupils The same was the case with certain ineffable names
to a

of

God which they communicated only

few chosen

pupils, lest the

multitude misunderstand the significance of these names

[ibid.).

308

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

this

The time when

caused
it,

change was made, the motives that

it,

and the circumstances that accompanied

were

almost forgotten.

They were known

only to a very few

of the later teachers.

These, like their predecessors, the

early teachers, did not care to speak about them.

later

The

Tannaim, and even the Amoraim, had the same

reasons for avoiding the mention of these conditions that

led to the adoption of the

Mishnah-form as had the

earlier

Pharisaic teachers for their silence about these facts.

as the earlier Pharisaic teachers, so the later teachers,

Just
i.

e.

the Rabbis, had to contend with more or less opposition.

They had

to

combat those who denied

i.

their authority

and

rejected their teachings,

e.

the traditional law.

After the destruction of the Temple and the dissolution

of the Jewish state, the Sadducees ceased to be a powerful

party and lost their former influence

among

the people.

However,

it

would be a mistake to assume with Biichler

{Der galildische

Am ha-Ares, Wien
They

1906, p. 5) that in the

beginning of the second century

altogether

c. E.

the Sadducees had

if

disappeared.

continued,

not

as

an

influential party, nevertheless as a

group of people holding

binding

peculiar

views

about the Torah, denying the

character of the traditional law and rejecting the authority

of the Rabbis
law.
entire
*o

who were

the advocates of that traditional

their existence

We

have evidence of
period.^''

throughout the
of
the
later

tannaitic
b.

Many

sayings

R. Jose

Halafta declares (M. Niddah IV, a) that the daughters

of the Sadducees arc to be considered as daughters of Israel, except in

the

where we know that they are determined to follow in their observance ways of their forefathers (i.e. the former Sadducees). The reason for this view of R. Jose is found in his other saying where he states the
cases
following:

pn

D^^Sn^ DT DINID Dni ^DH JD inr

nnci D'D3n^

nriNin

vh^

irnji^-j'a

\T\1 UK PN^-)3 nmnc nnx ncND 'We are

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

Tannaim
refer to

LAUTERBACH

309

them, though they do not always desig-

nate them expressly by the

very well informed about them.
teachers
(i.

name Sadducees.

They even

They all show their blood to the wise There was only one [Sadducean] woman in our neighbourhood who would not do so, but she is dead now (Tosefta V,
e.

the Rabbis).

'

Buechler {JQR., 1913, 446) erroneously takes this saying of R.Jose to be merely another version of what the high priest's wife told her husband. Such an interpretation of R. Jose's saying is absolutely
3, b.

Niddah 33b).

unwarranted.

R. Jose describes conditions prevalent in his

own

day.

He

justifies his attitude

towards the Sadducean

women by

the information
in

that,

with few exceptions, they follow the Pharisaic regulations

observing
b.

the laws of menstruation.

i.

This shows that in the time of R. Jose

c. e.,

Halafta,

e.

about the middle of the second century

in

there

still

were Sadducees.

Their wives, however, would,

most cases, be guided by the decisions of

the Rabbis in regard to the observance of the laws about menstruation.

The same R. Jose also says (M. Parah III, 3), nm^ D^pH!^^ DlpD ]T\T\ ^S Do not give the Sadducees an opportunity to rebel (i. e. controvert us in
'

argument)

',

and

this again

shows

that in his time there

were Sadducees

who

still

argued against the teachers.

also referred to,
in the
'

These Sadducees are

by the name Sadducees,
the passage in

though not expressly designated

sayings of other teachers of that time.

Thus
',

Num.

15. 31,
in a

He

hath despised the word of the Lord

is

explained by R. Nathan

Baraita (Sanhedrin 99a) to refer to one

n''y.*'D

who

disregards the Mishnah, r\yZ"OT\ hv

IJ^N'J'

""D

^3, that

is
it

to say,

one who denies the traditional law.

that the expression,
to such people
'

In another Baraita {ibid.)

is

stated

He

hath despised the

word

of the Lord

',

applies even

who would

accept the entire Torah as divine but would take

:

exception to a single detail in the traditional interpretation

?3 "ItDISn

An anonymous
passage, 'But

saying
if

in Sifra,

Behukkotai

II

(Weiss iiib) interprets the

14), to

ye

will not

hearken unto Me' (Lev. 26.

mean,
',

'

If

ye

will not

hearken to the interpretation given by the teachers

N? DX

C'ODn

\^T\'Ch lytDtiTl.

The saying continues and speaks

certainly not

of people

who

despise and hate the teachers although they accept the laws given on Sinai.
All these utterances

were

made without
the Torah

provocation.

There
the

must have been people who

rabbinical laws.

accepted

and

disputed

Another teacher, R. Joseb. Judah,

century, rules that
if

living in the

second half of the second

a Gentile wishes to accept the

Law

with the exception

of even one detail of the rabbinical regulations,

as a proselyte (Tosefta,

we

should not admit him

Demai

II,

Bekorot 30b). This shows that there

3IO

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Throughout

lingered on in the time of the Amoraim.^^

the entire period of the

must have been Jews

Amoraim
possible to

there were certain people

Therefore
it

who
it

rejected the rabbinical laws.

could

occur to a Gentile that

all

was

become a Jew without accepting

in

the rabbinical laws.

This

is

also evident

from the following story told

Jerushalmi, Shebiit IX,

39

a.

certain

man who

disregarded the regulations regarding the sabin

batical

year instructed his wife to be careful

separating the priest's share

from the dough (hallah).

His wife,

to

whom this conduct seemed inconsistent,

His answer was
:

asked him

why

he insisted on the observance of the hallah-law when he

disregarding the law about the sabbatical year.

was The law

of hallah

is biblical,

the regulations about the sabbatical j'ear are rabbinical,

having originated with R. Gamaliel and his colleagues, n*lin ~\21D r\?U

Vym
^1

This shows beyond any doubt that there "PN'^D^ p2")nD n'^yUJi'. were people who observed the Torah strictly but who denied the validity
of the rabbinical teachings.

R. Hanina and Abba Areka (Rab),

half of the third century
c. e.),

Amoraim
(b.

of the

first

generation

(first

describe the Epicures as one

who
of

despises the teachers,

D^D2n n^DPD

nDCH

Sanhedringgb). R. Johanan,
b.

an

Amora

of the second generation, and R. Eleazar

Pedat, an

Amora

the third generation (second half of the third century), characterize the

Epicures as one who says

(in a

tone expressive of contempt), 'That teacher

',

N1DD
P321
I

pN
v^N

1J3NT
(p.

p^,

or as one
d).

who

says,

'Those Rabbis',

IDNT

]7]2

Sanhedrin X, 27

Buechler makes the mistake of reading

iro instead of [HD, and therefore makes the saying refer to 'a priest' who uses that contemptuous expression about the Rabbis {Der Galildische

Am

ha-Ares,

p. 187).
is

This

is

palpably wrong.

The same
of the
fifth

characterization of

the Epicuros
half of the

given by R. Papa, an
:

Amora
'Jn

generation (second

fourth century)

jm
'

"IDNT p3D

(b.

Sanhedrin 100 a).

R, Joseph, an Amora of the third generation, applies the name Epicuros Of what use have the Rabbis been to us ', to a class of people who say,
p2"l
1^

13nN 'ND n?2NT

(first

''3n

p33

{ibid.).

Raba, an Amora of the fourth

generation

half of the fourth century), refers to a certain family of

said,
'

Benjamin the physician who

Of what

use have the Rabbis been to us

{ibid.).

they have never allowed a raven or forbidden a dove'

a saying which seems to express that
biblical

This

is

we

do not need the Rabbis, the

laws being clear enough. These people lived according to the Law,
in the

and as stated

Talmud

{ibid.)

would occasionally consult Raba contowards thcteachings

cerning some ritual question.

Their ridiculing remark about the Rabbis

was

evidently' the expression of their peculiar attitude

of the Rabbis and of their opposition to the latter's authority.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

LAUTERBACH

311

who upheld the views and ideas of the old Sadducees. They were opposed to the authority of the Rabbis, and rejected their teachings. They were no longer called Epicureans Sadducees. They were designated as
'

',

Dnip'DN, or referred to without

any

special

name, merely

as

'

people

who deny

the authority of the Rabbis and

'.

reject the traditional

law

These anti-rabbinic elements

of the talmudic period formed the connecting hnk between

the older Sadducees and the later Karaites.^^

Knowing,

that the Sadducean tendencies continued throughout the

entire

period of the
advocates,

Talmud, and had both open and

readily

secret

we can

understand

why the
all

talmudic teachers hesitated to report indiscriminately

the
details

of the

disputes between the

all

Pharisees and

Sadducees, and also

the differences of opinion and the

disagreement as to methods
selves.

All these, as

led to the

among the Pharisees themwe have seen, were the causes that adoption of the Mishnah-form. The talmudic

teachers were careful not to place weapons in the hands of

their opponents.

Thus the strange

report

fact

is

explained

why no
in

explicit

about

this

matter was preserved

the talmudic

literature.

Only a few occasional remarks which escaped

historic conditions,

the teachers hint at the actual

and

they show us that a knowledge of the

real facts did exist

among some of the teachers. The Geonim, likewise, seem

historic
^2

to

have had a purpose

in

in

avoiding the mention of these significant points

the

development of the Halakah.

in his

When

occasionally

Compare Friedmann

Introduction to the Seder Ehahu Rabba,.

&c.,

Wien

1902, pp. 97-8, and Harkavy,

fi".

Zur Entstehung

des Karaistnus^

in Graetz's Geschichte, V, pp. 472

iI2

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

by
their very

forced to speak about the same, they reveal

reticence as

much
in

as

by

their casual remarks that they

had knowledge of the

facts.

We

pointed out above the

awkward pause

the

letter

of R. Sherira

Gaon.

In

answer to the question of the people of Kairuan regarding the origin of the Mishnah and the Sifra and Sifre, the

Gaon was compelled

Mishnah.

to speak about the

Midrash and the

He

barely touches upon the subject of the Mid-

rash, saying merely that this

was originally the exclusive

form.
viz.

Here he stops abruptly and turns to another subject, the Baraita collections of R. Hiyya and R. Oshaya.
might assume that something
This, however,
is
is

We

missing in the text

It is

of the letter.^^

improbable.
off
in

almost

evident

that

R. Sherira broke

the

middle of a

thought, because he

deemed

it

unwise to say any more

in

about the adoption of the Mishnah-form

Midrash.

addition to the

This reluctance on the part of the Geonim to speak

about
R.

this subject is

more noticeable

in the

responsum of

Zemah Gaon. The people of Kairuan inquired of R. Zemah Gaon regarding the attitude to be taken towards Eldad. Eldad reported that in the Talmud of his own
people the names of individual teachers were not mentioned.

As

in

our Talmud differences of opinion and names of

individual teachers arc mentioned, they found this report

of Eldad very strange. a

Zemah answered

that this was not

reason

for

doubting the character of Eldad and his

teachings, because the

method described by Eldad was

that in the
traditional

indeed the earlier

time of the

mode of leaching. He states Temple, when they taught all the

*'

law

in

the Midrash-form, they did not mention the

Sec above, note
9.

names

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

of individual teachers.^*
sufficient answer,

LAUTERBACH
here.

313

Now,
the

this

would seem to be a

and he should have stopped

But
:

R.
psi

Zemah Gaon adds

pni^

following significant
s^^

words

bn
It is

"inN*

pyor^i

mc^nn p3 n:rca pa
,-i3n

nns minni

-im nnon
is

D'-n^N

ins

-ij:njc-*

^^

cna^ psj 'The Torah

one.

embodied

in

the Mishnah and in the

It is

Talmud.

All draw from one and the same source.

to explain everything, for
it is

not advisable

said
2).'

It is

the glory of
this

God

to conceal a thing (Prov. 25.

Why

mysterious

admonition, and what was the secret he sought to hide?

The account
tion

of the origin of the

Mishnah-form, given

above, will help us to understand the need for the admoni-

and the nature of the

secret.

The Karaites
the
true tradition.

in

the

time of the

Geonim denied

that

teachings of the

Mishnah and Talmud embodied the

They

characterized these teachings as later rabbinic inventions.

In support of their attitude they instanced the numerous

disagreements and frequent disputes of the Rabbis of the

tion

They argued, How could there have been tradiamong the teachers when there was no agreement among them as to their teachings and Halakot.^^
Talmud.

We have

seen above that the history of the development

of the Mishnah-form reflects unfavourably upon the traditional character

of the

Pharisaic teachings.

This was

the reason for the talmudic silence about the origin of the

Mishnah-form.
the

The Geonim were

Neither

silent

on

this point for

same

reason.

Zemah

nor Sherira wanted to

state exactly

how long

the Midrash continued in exclusive

"* *^

See above, note

33.

See, for instance, the arguments used by Sahl ben Mazliah (Piiisker,

Ltkkute Kadmoniyyot, Nispahim, pp. 26, ^5

raised by

'he same arguments are

many

other Karaitic writers.

314
use, for
it

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

would have shown that the Mishnah was of
its

comparatively late origin, and that

adoption was due

mainly to the differences of opinion that arose between the

Pharisaic teachers and the earlier authorities, the Sadducees.

When
U'np'23
'

compelled to refer to the time when Midrash was

in

exclusive use, both

in

Zemah and
'.

Sherira used the vague term

the

Temple times

This, however, as

we have seen,
parties.***

can refer only to the time before the division of the

'^ It is

possible that the use of the term J^'^p03 in this peculiar sense

was suggested to Zemah and Sherira by a passage in Mishnah Berakot IX, 5, where the term is likewise used in referring to a custom that was prevalent
in the

Temple during the time previous

in the

to the division of the parties.

:

passage

Mishnah reads as follows

The CHpOn VHB' mD"13 ^Dmn ^3

D^iyn

nnN

N^JN D^iy
"lyi

pN nnxt a-pnvn
]D

)bpbp^'D

n-nciN

v.t

D^iyn
reading

nhyn

nnOIN

ViT::'

IJ^nn.
the

[The

text in the editions

of the Mishnayot reads

is

QTCn

I'^ppp-'D, but in the Talmud-editions the

is

D'pni'H vp/p^'JO, %vhich

correct reading.

Compare

A. Schwartz, Tosifia Zeraim (Wilsa, 1890),

p. 57,

note 189.]

Here we have

the report of a Pharisaic regulation aimed agamst the Sadducees

rejected

who

the belief in

a
i.

future world.
e.

Here the term tJnpDl, while

designating the place,

'

the Temple, also includes an element of time.

refers to the time prior to this Pharisaic regu-

In the

Temple' evidently
e.

lation,

i.

prior to the division of the parties.

The

Pharisaic regulation

reported in this passage originated in the ver}' early days of the differences

between the Sadducees and Pharisees, and not as Buechler

This

{Priesler tittd

Culius, p. 176) assumes, in the last decade of the existence of the

is

Temple,

evident from the fact that in the same paragraph the Mishnah reports
in

another regulation which no doubt originated

differences

the early days of the

between the

priests

and lay teachers.

This other regulation

greeting his neighbour.

prescribed that a

man

should use the

name

of

God

in

This was either a reaction against the religious persecution under Antiochus

when
p.

it

was forbidden
comp. also

to

mention the name of God ;^comp.

b.

Rosh ha-Shanah

18 b and Meg. Taanit VII), or according to Gciger {Jiidische Zeitschrifl.V,

107

Urschrifl, pp.

264

ff.)

it

was

to

emphasize the claim of

the Pharisees to use the

name of God as
in

the priests did.

Anyhow,

this

second regulation originated

parties.
at the

the very earliest days of the division of the

first

From

this

we may
It is

conclude that the

regulation also originated

same

time.

quite evident that the author of this report in our

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

Sherira,

LAUTERBACH

315

who was merely asked about

the origin of the

Mishnah

and the halakic Midrashim, could easily avoid

state.

mentioning anything he did not desire to

He

limited

himself to answering the questions put before him.

stated that the Midrash was

He
He
also

the earlier form, used ex-

clusively in the earlier days of the second

Temple.

was
told

careful, however, not to define this period.

He

them the history

from stating

of the Mishnah,

He

could well

refrain

why

the Mishnah was introduced as

an additional form to the Midrash, for he was not expressly

asked about
a change in
this point.

His questioners did not ask

why
of

the form of teaching was made, and probably

that

did not

know

the Mishnah-form

was the

result
it

such an important change.

sary to enlighten

Sherira did not find

this point.
in

neces-

them about
himself

R.

Zemah found

a more
to

difficult position.

He

was compelled to

commit himself
in

some

extent.

He
are

was expressly asked why

Eldad's

Talmud no names

mentioned, while in our Talmud

many names

of debating

teachers, representing conflicting opinions, are found.

This

question implied a doubt

in

the minds of the questioners

concerning the authority of our Talmud.

to address himself to this doubt.

R.

Zemah had
admits that

He

first

originally all teachings were given in the Midrash-form.

Since in this form

tions of the
teachers, the

all

teachings are presented as interpreta-

written Torah

and not as opinions of the

therefore

names of the teachers were

not

mentioned.

He
'

also avoids definite dates, using like Sherira

in

the vague term

Temple times

'

to designate the period

of the exclusive

use of the Midrash.

in the

However, he
to

still

Mishnah mentions these two regulations

their simultaneous origin.

same paragraph

denote

3l6

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

might be led to doubt the traditional

fears that the people

character of the Mishnah on account of the disputes

and
in
it.

opposing views of individual teachers that are found

He

therefore admonishes the questioners to entertain

no

doubts about the Mishnah and the Talmud, but to consider

them

as

coming from the same source

as the written

Torah and as being one with the Torah.

of R.
his

This admonition

Zemah Gaon
It
is

is

a warning against the Karaites of

day.

of the
b.

same character

as

the warning

uttered

by Joshua
his

Hananiah (Hagigah 3
time.^^

b) against the

Sadducees of

own

The

result of our inquiry into the cause of the talmudic-

rabbinic silence about our subject

may be summed up

in

the following conclusions.

The

early Pharisaic

teachers

refrained from pointing to the causes for the adoption of

the Mishnah-form, and to

its effects

upon the development

of the Halakah, in order not to strengthen the position of

their

opponents,

the

Sadducees.

The who
in

later

talmudic

teachers similarly avoided discussion of these subjects out

of fear of those of their opponents

followed the old

like

Sadducean doctrines.

The Geonim,

manner,

re-

frained from mentioning these facts, in order not to place

weapons
" At
Zemah

in the

hands of

their opponents, the Karaites.

the end of his rcsponsum (Yellinek, Beth Haniidrash, II, p. its')

repeats his warning not to deviate from the

Talmud and

the teachings

of the Rabbis in the following words: nnS* p^i'Drrj'

nib I^VniH 1331

pnvj'

03^ ^iT^b^v Tio^nni

-ly'N
lC^J?n

dd^ pi^'nn

DM^nnns' noa
^3

ipinnni

^3n

rr\-\T\n

*s

^y 3in3

pv nnnan

nnNo
Dcut.

h^'cv\ po^ lun ^ni

D3^ nCN^ ICN

is

t3SC>?3n bv\

TnV.
in

This repetition of the ad17. 11,

monition and the citation of the passage

the Rabbis

so often used

by

support of the authority of their traditional teachings, further

in

proves that Zemah aimed to allay any disquieting doubts

the people
in

the minds of

regard to the traditional character of the Rabbinical teachings.

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

LAUTERBACH

317

IV
Saadya's Statement Concerning the Beginnings
OF THE MiSHNAH.
In the course of our discussion,

we have proved from a

talmudic report as well as from certain utterances of the

Geonim, that the

took place

first

introduction of the Mishnah-form

b. Joezer.

in the last

days of Jose

There

is

but

one gaonic statement about the beginnings of the Mishnah

which seems to be at variance with
to the statement of
this conclusion. in
I refer

Saadya Gaon
;

his Sefer

Hagaluj

(Schechter, Saadyaiia, p. 5
writer, see

also quoted

by a Karaitic
p. 194).

Harkavy, Sitidieu imd Mitteihingeii, V,

the

This statement of Saadya places

time

for

the

beginnings of the Mishnah soon after prophecy ceased,

in

the

fourtieth

year of the second Temple.

earlier date

This

is

apparently a
Joezer.

much

than the time of Jose

will

b.

A closer examination,
Saadya
is

however,
the

show

that the

period to which

assigns

beginnings of the

Mishnah

actually the
in the

same

as the

one which we have

found given

Talmud and
viz.

indicated

by the Geonim
b. Joezer.

R. Zemah and R. Sherira,

It
is

the time of Jose

merely due to the faulty chronology, followed by

earlier

Saadya, that his date appears to be

than the one

which we fixed on the basis of the evidence derived from

the

Talmud and

the statements of R.

Zemah and R.

Sherira.

We
Talmud.

must

keep

in

mind that Saadya followed the

rabbinic chronology as given in Seder

01am and

in

the

This chronology, however, at

least in so far as

3l8
it

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

second Temple,
is

relates to the earlier period of the

absolutely incorrect.

In order to be able to fix the actual

refers,

time to which Saadya's date

we must

first

point

out the peculiarities of the talmudic- rabbinic chronology

which he followed.

To

account for the errors and the

it

confusion in this chronology,

character.
It is

is

sufficient

to

know

its

an

artificial

chronology, constructed

by

the later teachers for the apparent purpose of establishing

a direct connexion between the true teachers of the Law,

that
is

to say, the Pharisees,

and the prophets, and thus

to prove the authority of the Pharisaic teachers and the

traditional

character of their teachings.

Such a

direct

connexion between the prophets and the Pharisaic teachers

of the traditional law could be established only

by

utterly

ignoring the time during which the priests were the sole
religious teachers

and

leaders,

and consequently contracting

long stretches of time into short periods.

Hence

all

the

inaccuracies in this artificial and faulty chronology.

The Rabbis assume

the Law, as well as
all

that the Pharisaic teachers received

their traditional teachings, directly
their

from the prophets.

In

chronology, therefore, the

prophets are succeeded not by the priestly teachers, the

n'MD, but

by

the

D"'DDn,

the wise lay-teachers.

in

This
|N3

is

expressed by the Rabbis

the statement:
iiS::o

lN3Jr,J

ny

ccan nan yen

in^ nn
;

j^'^xi

:^"^1p^

nna
'oan,

D's^3:n (Seder

Olam Rabba, By D^mn are

or

XXX

comp. also Seder Olam Zutta, VII).

evidently

meant

bi<~\:y^

lay-teachers,

more

exactly, Pharisaic teachers, in contradistinction to

D^jriD.

the priests or Sadducces, the

This

is

confirmed by

the fact that in passages in the Mishnah and the Tosefta

which likewise contain the idea that the wise teachers

directly succeeded the prophets, the

Zuggot are expressly

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

mentioned.

LAUTERBACH
II,

319

Thus

in

Mishnah Peah

and Tosefta
is

Jadayyim

II, 16,

we

read that the Zuggot, that

teachers,

to say,

the earhest Pharisaic

received

traditional
bl'p^if.

laws

directly from the prophets,

n''N''ajn

^bip^ ni3lT0

The same idea also underlies the statement in Mishnah Abot I, according to which the Zuggot received the law from the last members of the Great Synagogue. For,
according to the Rabbis, this Great Synagogue also
cluded the
last
inis

prophets

among

its

members.

There

only one slight difference between the line of succession

as given in

M. Abot and

that given in

M. Peah and Tosefta

is

Jadayyim, namely, that the name of Antigonos

in the

mentioned

former between the Zuggot and the Great Synagogue.

in stating

However,

the authority from

whom

the

first

pair

received the

Law, the Mishnah (Abot

'.

I,

4) uses the

words

DHD IPTp
that the

'

they received from t/iem

pair, the

This clearly shows

first

two

Joses, did not receive the

if

law
the

from Antigonos alone.

For,
:

this
'

were the

case,

Mishnah would have

/ivn
'.

said

IJOD V2^\>
)b2'^p

they received from

The expression

Dn?o

warrants the supposition

the last

that the

two Joses received the

Law from

members

of the Great Synagogue, or perhaps Antigonos was considered

to

have been the younger colleague of Simon.

this

According to
between
the last
all

supposition

there

is

no discrepancy
all

these talmudic reports.

They

assume that

members of the Great Synagogue, among whom

last

were also the

prophets, transmitted the

Law and
e.

the

traditions directly to the

Zuggot or CD^n,

i.

the earliest

Pharisaic teachers.

This transmission of the

Law by

the prophets to the

wise teachers, or the disappearance of the prophets and

the rise of the
D"'C3n,

the Pharisaic

teachers, took place

320

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

in

according to the Rabbis,

the time of Alexander the

Great, shortly after the overthrow of the Persian

Empire
rabbinic

(Seder

01am Rabba and

Zutta,

/.

c).

This

chronology finds no
last

difficulty in

extending the time of the

prophets to the end of the Persian period.

peculiar error,

For by
for,

some

which we are unable

to

account

the Rabbis reduced the entire period of the existence of

the second

Temple under Persian

rule to thirty-four years.

They assume
was
rule
built,

that thirty-four years after the second

Temple

the Persian rule in Judea ceased and the Greek

i.e.,

began (Seder 01am Rabba,

it

and Shabbat, 15a).

Accordingly,

was not found strange that Haggai who

urged the building of the Temple as well as the other

prophets of his time, should have lived to the end of the
Persian period and have handed
traditions

over the
the
Dn::3n,

Law
or

and the
lay-

to

their

successors,

wise

teachers at that time.

How

the Rabbis could identify these

latter, living in

CD^n with the

Zuggot, so that the

the second century B.C.,

could be considered the direct recipients of the

Law

from
B.

the
is

last

prophets at the end of the fourth century

C,

not difficult to explain.

The Rabbis had They

a tradition that

the

High

Priest in the time of

(I)

Alexander the Great was

also

Simon

the Just

(Yoma 69 a).

had a

reliable

report of a high-priest

Simon the Just

(II)

who

lived shortly

before the time of the Zuggot, either a

little

before or

contemporary with Antigonos.

confused with one
Jtist II,

These two Simons they

another.

They

identified

Simon the

who

lived

about 200

B.C., with

one of the
at the

last survivors of the

Simon the Just I, Great Synagogue who lived

end of the fourth or the beginning of the third

15.

century

C.

In this

manner they established

'a

direct

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

LAUTERBACH

32I
last

connexion between the prophets who were among the

members
D''03n,

of the Great

Synagogue and the Zuggot or the

the
fact

the wise lay-teachers,

Pharisaic party.

who were the fathers of They were probably unaware of the

because, as

that they passed over an interval of an entire century, or

it

may be

that they consciously ignored

official

it,

we

have seen, there was no

during that period.

activity of the teachers

According to
or the
first

this faulty chronology, then, the

Zuggot,

pair,

Jose

b.

Joezer and Jose

last

b.

Johanan,

succeeded the prophets, or the

members

of the Great

Synagogue, and commenced their activity as teachers of

the

Law

shortly after the overthrow of the Persian

;

Empire

by Alexander
time,

that

is

to say, not

much
it

later
is

than the

year 34 of the second Temple.

i.

And

actually this

e.

the time of the two Joses, that Saadya fixes for

the beginnings of the Mishnah.

in

The meaning of the passage

Saadya's Sefer Hagahij

is

now
^D^n

clear,

and

its

date fully

agrees with our date for the beginnings of the Mishnah.

The passage
^3

reads as follows

n*:^:'

^\^

r\iT\rh

ixbo

^3

^T1

I'SJ

'^i:^r\T\

nx

i^nin nisin oy
i'J

Dyo3

n^:"^'

m^i-n, ni^a^
ijy

D^ynxn
^^^
^JD

ipTiyn itt'N rhm

iddn^i nasrn Ti^ni'

^ir\r\

nin

x'^'^'^

(Schechter suggests the reading

i?XTki'''i')

\r\h

pinh

r\Xixh

Dip

We
had
first

may,

therefore,

assume with certainty that Saadya

a correct tradition that the teaching of

Mishnah was

begun

in

the time of the

first

pair,

the two Joses.

But, misguided by the erroneous rabbinic chronology which

he followed, he puts the date of

this first pair in the year

40 of the second Temple,

The
VOL.

conditions which; according to Saadya, caused the

VI.

322

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

teachers to begin the composition of Mishnah, also point

to the time of the

two

Joses.

For, as Saadya assumes,

to

what prompted the teachers to seek

people were then scattered

preserve their

teachings in Mishnah-form was the fact that the Jewish

all

over the earth, and the

teachers feared that the study of the

gotten,
nas^n

Law
]^}Dr]n

might be

for-

mnn

b]}

niJ"-!

I'-isn

b^^ ^dj

'd

ns irnin niNin
in

Ti^a^.

These conditions actually prevailed

the

time of the two Joses.

From

the Sibylline Oracle III, ^yi,

we

learn that about the middle of the second century B. c.

all

the Jewish people had already scattered

over the earth,

Schiirer,

and were

to

be found
4).

in

every land (comp.

Geschichte, III*, p.

Indeed, the decree of the two Joses

declaring the lands of the Gentiles unclean (Shabbat 15 a)

may have been

this extensive

issued for the very purpose of stopping

emigration of the people into foreign lands

I,

(see Weiss, Dor^

p. 99).

Again, from the quotation of Saadya's statement

the Karaitic writer,
the teachers,
it

by

would seem that Saadya designated

who
be

first

composed Mishnah, by the name of

Saadya
really applied the
in

nux.

If this

so, if

term nUK

to these teachers,

he could have had

mind only the

earliest Pharisaic teachers, or the

in

Zuggot, who are called

the

Talmud

(p.

however, inclined to

Hagigah 77 d) D^iyn nns. I am, think that Saadya did not use the
Saadya probably
the

term nux

in referring to these teachers.

used the term unin, as

(edition Schechter),
fathers.

we

find

it

in

Hebrew

text
fore-

and which simply means, our

The

Karaitic writer

who

quotes Saadya's stateliHin

ment

translated this

Hebrew word

by the Arabic

Our contention

that Saadya's date refers to the time

MIDRASH AND MISHNAH

LAUTERBACH
it

323

of Jose b. Joezer might be objected to on the ground that

according to Saadya (Schechter, l.c)

took about 500

final

years from the beginnings of the Mishnah to the

completion of our Mishnah.

with the time of Jose

If,

then, Saadya's date coincides

b. Joezer,

the actual time between

the beginnings of the Mishnah and the completion of our

Mishnah

is

scarcely 400 years.

This objection, however,

is

can easily be removed.

to the

Here again the mistake

due

faulty

chronology followed by Saadya.

i.

Having

placed the beginnings of the Mishnah,

first pair, in

e.

the time of the

the year 40 of the second Temple, and assuming

that

our Mishnah

was

completed

150 years

after

the

destruction of the second Temple,

Saadya had

to extend

the period of the Mishnah to 530 years.

to the talmudic chronology, the second

For, according

Temple existed

420

years.

Accordingly the period of time which elapsed

between the year 40 of the second Temple and the year

150 after
its

destruction was 530 years.

This number was

actually given
writer.

by Saadya,

as

quoted

by the Karaitic
^"pn

The

copyist, however,
(see

by mistake wrote

= 5io,
6).

instead of

7''pn = 530

Harkavy,
niNO ^'on

op. cit., p. 195,

n^yJl>,

note

The number 500

p. 5),
(/.

years,

assigned to the

period of the Mishnah in Sefer Hagaluj (edition Schechter,

probably represents a round number, as Schechter

c) correctly remarks.

::

THE RIGHTFULNESS OF THE JEWS ROMAN EMPIRE

Les Juifs dans

IN

THE

P Empire Romain.

Leur

condition j'uridigue,
2 vols.

econo77iiqiie et sociale.

Par Jean Juster.

19 14.
Vol.
I,

Paris

Librairie

Paul Geuthner,
viii+338.

pp. xviii

+ 510;

vol. II, pp.

France for a period during the nineteenth century rivalled Germany as a centre of Jewish science It produced, among
'

'.

other savants of distinction, James and Arsene Darmesteter, ]\Iunk,

and Salvador; and

to our
in the

its

scholars have always

preserved,

down
Jews

own

time, a special interest in the history of the

Graeco-Roman

period.

already distinguished himself in

M. Theodore Reinach, who has this field, is now bringing out an

;

elaborately annotated edition of the works of Josephus

and

in

the work before us

we have a remarkable example

in

of thorough

and indefatigable scholarship

similar

sphere,

which

in

a considerable measure should replace Schiirer's history as the

standard authority upon Jewish institutions in the early centuries
of the Christian era.

Doctor Jean Juster

large

is

a French lawyer
legal,

who has
is

written in two

volumes a study of the

economic, and social conditions

of the Jews in the

Roman

Empire.

His work

striking alike to the

as a piece of Jewish scholarship

and as a contribution
by two admirable

knowledge of
civilization.

Roman
It
is

law and the development of European

qualities

distinguished

(i) a mastery of the

whole

literature bearing

upon the

subject

ancient

and modern, permanent and and a plan

to
his

periodical,

Jewish

and

Gentile; and (2) a very clear and definite point of view, which
give

unity

mass of

material.

He

writes

throughout as the lawyer^ and contrives from that standpoint

325

326

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

from the
allied nation

to trace the evolution of the Jewish people

to the subject nationality,

and from the subject

'

nationality to the
',

persecuted religious community.

preface,

If

we keep

he says in
ignored

his
in

'to

the

solid

ground of

facts

so

often

theoretical schemes

the

investigation

of the legal

conditions

of the Jews
in
detail

is

the most suitable

method of presenting

their history

and bringing out from every point of view what was and compelled the people who desired

peculiar in their situation or were forced to tolerate

Briefly this study leads to

them

to

impose special measures.

conflicts

an understanding of the
life

and

practical solutions

which the

of the Jews outside Palestine

aroused in the pagan and Christian world of antiquity.

is

And

it

just for the purpose

of measuring

those

conflicts

and

their

solutions that the interpretation of the laws gives definite data

on

condition that

we

investigate the actual

life

of the laws, their real

purport, the cause of their

their abrogation,

promulgation, their evolution, and

analyse

and

that

we

them

as factors or results of

social
It

phenomena.'
is,

then, a legal philosophy of

Roman

Jewry which Doctor

Juster seeks to present in these volumes, extracted from the legal

and

historical records of five centuries.

The
;

three chief topics

{d)

of investigation are^ {a) the Jewish privileges

the collective

Jewish
of the

life

in

the
in
-

Diaspora;

and

{c)

the individual condition

in

Jews
life.

private

and public law and

social

and

economic

The

first

three sections are taken

up by a study of the

sources,

beginning with the Jewish historical writings, such as the books

of the Maccabees, and ending with the

Roman Codes and

towns in the

Digest.

This

is

supplemented by a

list

of the

Roman

Empire (extending over

occupy the greater
records
of
the
part),

thirty

pages, of which

the foot-notes

where we have
of a

literary or

monumental
In spite
for

of

the

existence

Jewish community.
the

terrible

vengeance which

Romans took

the
fall

century of Jewish resistance, the Jews remained until the

of the Empire an important section of the population in almost

every province, ^and everywhere the law took account' of their

JEWS

IN

THE ROMAN EMPIRE

They were

BENTWICH

327

special requirements.

a rock of nationality in the sea

of cosmopolitanism.
It is

a fundamental consideration of the Jewish legal position

in the

with

Roman Empire that the Jews had first come into contact Rome as an allied people, and those of them who were
kingdoms were
rights
for

scattered in the Hellenistic

in

the

most part
passed

enjoyment

of equal

civic

when

their

cities

under

Roman

dominion.

as a privileged nation.

They came thus into the Roman ken The Romans, like almost all the pagan

peoples of Europe, were extremely tolerant in religious matters,

holding that each nation was entitled to worship

in
its

its

own gods

own ways

and they were moreover

to

essentially a conserva-

tive

and a legally-minded people,

an even greater extent

the Jewish people as

than the English of to-day.

Hence when
rule,

a whole came later under their

and no longer had the

quality of an allied nation, but were a subject people, they

made

scarcely any attempt to change their legal condition,

and preserved
which they

and
as

fixed

by

special ordinances the privileges with

were already invested.

the pagan
licita

The law

thus secured for them, so long

Empire remained, not merely the condition of

a legalized religious community, but
nationality.

religio,

that
'

of a

privileged

and nearly autonomous

The

rightful-

ness
the
'

'

if

we may coin
in the

the word
is

of the
;

Jewish communities in

Graeco-Roman epoch
'

diametrically contrasted with their

rightlessness

Middle Ages
is

and the connecting

intricate

link

between
disability

these

two extremes

the

system of legal
legislation

and

legal persecution

which marks the Jewish

in

of the early Christian

Emperors and culminates

the laws

of the Gothic and Visigothic rulers of the Western Empire.

'

The

Jews, as Doctor Juster points out, must in every age and

every land either be privileged or persecuted.

of their religious

The

difference

and

social standpoint

from that of

their neigh-

bours requires special treatment.

The Roman

magistrates

who

had

first

to deal with Jewish citizens in Asia

Minor and Greece,

from time

to time issued edicts assuring to the peculiar people the

free exercise

of their religious observances;

and

in the short

328

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

and
it,

reign of Julius Caesar, these various grants were confirmed

consolidated into a kind of

Magna

Charia, as Niese has called

which remained
Jewish
readiness

for centuries the basis of

Jewish

rights.

The
they

to

become Roman
and

citizens,

wherever

enjoyed local civic

rights,

their loyalty to the central

power
favour

which has always characterized them, attracted the

to

Roman

them

in the Diaspora.

Their extraordinary religious sensitive-

ness

which was to the pagans almost incomprehensible

but the more intelligent

and
the

the national exclusiveness rendered Palestine indeed a trouble-

some province

to govern,

among

Emperors respected

their tenacity

and perhaps were anxious not

in spite of the complete-

to arouse their martial prowess.

Hence

ness of the destruction of their religious

and

political centre at
c, E.

Judea, very small inroads were

position

made

after

70

upon
hand,

their

of

juridical

autonomy.

On

the

other

when
It

Christianity

was installed on the throne of the Caesars, the

were immediately and radically curtailed.

Jewish

liberties

was

the policy

of the

Church
the

to

let

the Jews exist as a separate

community.
to

They were

testes veritatis,

and so they were not

must be made

be exterminated

like the pagans.

But

their lot

miserable,

and they must be placed

in a condition of glaring

inferiority to that of true believers, in order that the truth of the

predictions against those

who

refused

to

accept

the Messiah

should be

illustrated.

Their privileges, sanctioned by the pagan

codes, were turned to privilegia odiosa, and the doctors of the

Church vied with one another

in embittering their lives.

attitudes,

Doctor Juster marks the contrast between the two

and

its

reason.

'

The pagan Emperors were

free

from religious
rites,

intolerance because the State religion consisted only of

of

the fulfilment of acts and ceremonies, and

left

the individual

complete
of liberty

liberty

of opinion.
its

In view of the legal principle

which had

roots in the tolerance of the deities

sacrificed for the benefit of the

between themselves, they

Jews

and

their jealous

God

the requirements of the official religion

rites.'

by dispensing them from the accomplishment of the

The

Christian Emperors on the other hand, dissociating religion and

JEWS
nationality,

IN

THE ROMAN EMPIRE

it

BENTWICH
no respect

329
to the

made

a cardinal principle to pay

national customs of the peoples of the

religious customs.

Empire when they were

and
adherents

Outside Christianity, every other religion or

is

even religious doctrine

more or

less criminal,

its

are to be visited with penalties.

as

Such a minimum of tolerance

reasons to
the

was conceded

for theological

Jews was exit

clusively for those born in the faith.

Proselytism, so long as

did not involve circumcision, had been permitted under the pagan

empire and freely practised, but

all

it

was repressed henceforth with

the rigour which a jealous and cruel ecclesiastical hierarchy

could devise.

Jewish exclusiveness, so often

made
very

a reproach

by latter-day theologians, was the forced outcome of a deliberate

Christian
policy.

Doctor Juster writes

learned

and

complete excursus on the place of Jews and Judaism in the

Christian Ritual, in which he traces the debt of the

Church

to the

Synagogue and of the Christian calendar

to the Jewish calendar,

and notes the

bitter irony

by which the Church borrowed from

all

the Jews the violent polemic in the liturgy against

who should

accept Judaism.

After the battle was

won

against Jewish influ-

ence, the polemic was kept in the ritual to maintain the hatred
against the Jews, who, 'reduced

and enfeebled, shut up

in their

ghettoes, kept at a distance from the Christians, powerless

and

defenceless,

had ceased

to

be a danger to the Church

',

but were

none the

less

an object of abomination.

It is instructive to notice

how

long this attitude lasted.

in

As

late as

1542 an Ecclesiastical
:

Synod
Church

Poland passed a resolution

Jews
for the sole

stating

'

Whereas the

tolerates the

purpose of reminding us

of the torments of our Saviour, they must not increase under any
circumstances.'

Passing to the measures which the pagan

Romans

took for the

protection of the Jew-ish cult. Doctor Juster examines in detail

the legal dispensations from the rites of the state religion which

were accorded to the Jews because of their peculiar scruples.

We

are apt

in

our popular Jewish

essentially

histories

to

associate the

Hellenistic

epoch

with

the

attempt

of Antiochus

Epiphanes to compel the Jewish people to worship the pagan

330
deities,

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

and the

Roman

epoch with similar attempts of Caligula

worship upon the Jews.
But,

and Nero

to force their personal

in fact, these outbreaks of tyranny

were shortlived incidents in

a general era of tolerance, which extended over the whole of the

Diaspora as well as Judea.

Doubtless

it

was their martial valour

more than any spontaneous respect of their rulers which won for They were permitted to address the Jews the special treatment.
the Emperor by titles which avoided what they deemed blasphemy they took the oath of allegiance in a particular inoffensive
;

form, they offered sacrifices in the temple of

God, not of Caesar,

and not

to the
for

head of the
their

State, but for his well-being.

ideas^,

Out

of regard

religious

moreover,

the

Jews were

exempted from

military service, because they

;

would not march

in

on the sabbath day

to afford

and they were exempted from taxation

the year of release until the Imperial Treasury was too straitened
the immunity.
that the

Doctor Juster refutes the suggestion

of

Mommsen
Hebrew
it

Jews were debarred by any law from using

If

the

language.

Hebrew died

out at

all

in parts of the

Diaspora,

was the force of assimilation, not the repression of the

which
killed
it.

legislature,

Again, the legislation of the Christian Emperors offers a complete contrast with
Justinian,

pagan tolerance.

The

celebrated 'Novel' of
that,

No. 146, 'About the Hebrews', orders

it,

whenever

the Jews of the locality wish

the Scriptures

may be

read to the

persons assembled in the synagogues in Greek or in the national

language
so that

(i.

e.

Italian), or

any other tongue according to the

locality,

all

present

may

understand, on pain of corporal punish-

ment and
clergy

forfeiture of
shall

goods against the dignitaries of the Jewish

in

who

excommunicate or penalize

any way those

who read

the books in any but the

Hebrew

language.

That was

a propagation of radical reform by Imperial rescript more thorough

than any Rabbi of the

far

West has to-day dared

in

to

dream

of.

Justinian goes on to prohibit the use of the

Mishnah (which no
thus anticipating
Pfeffer-

doubt included the Gemara)

the service,

by a thousand years the anti-Semitic machinations of a

korn
;

while by way of recompense he menaces with

exile those

JEWS

IN

THE ROMAN EMPIRE

is

BENTWICH

33I

Jews who dare deny that there

was a
Jews

a resurrection and last judge-

ment, and that the angels are divine creatures.

capital offence for Christians,
if it

Heresy, which

becomes a

capital offence for

takes the form of denying those parts of the Jewish

belief.

creed which are also parts of the Christian

It

is

an

interesting by-the-way reflection that the Imperial rescript goes

far to

prove the survival to the sixth century of forms of Judaism

directly

which derive

from the old Sadducee

sect,

and are the

prototypes of the Karaite cleavage.

Another aspect of

Roman
to

tolerance in the pagan epoch was

fall

the legitimation of the patriarchate after the

of the Temple,

and the permission given

Jewish communities a tax
annihilation

the patriarch

for

imposing on
office.

all

for the

maintenance of his

The

of the

Jewish State by Titus and Hadrian was

Conquerors, with their positive outlook

complete, but the

Roman

and

their

freedom from theological rancour, having destroyed the

political

power of the

foe,

had no feud against

to give

their

spiritual

independence.
selves a leader,

Since the Jews in any case would take to themit

was deemed better

them one recognized

by the sovereign who would be under a debt to the authorities,

and who instead of fomenting

outbreak.

sedition

would moderate any

The

patriarch, then,

was permitted to exercise very

large functions of national leadership,

and

to wield

the

same

general control over the whole Jewish

community of the Roman

Centralize

Empire

as the Chief

Rabbis of Western Europe sometimes have

'

held over the national congregations.

and

rule

'

through a central delegate

empire.
Justinian
is

was

the liberal policy of the pagan

silent

about the privileges of the Jewish

spiritual functionaries,

but our author has not found any text on

that

which

to support a suggestion

he suppressed them.
exists.

We
But

may

safely

presume, therefore, that no known text

under Christian rule the patriarchate of Palestine soon

pride of place.

lost its

By

the side of the generous recognition of a central religious

authority over the Diaspora, the

Romans

granted each Jewish

community

full

liberty of association

and meeting.

While the

332

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

general policy of the Empire was very jealously to restrict Collegia

which seemed to

conflict with

the requirements of the civic

authorities, the synagogue was remarkably favoured and privileged.

It

was recognized and legalized rather as a national than a

body, nniversitas endowed with legal personality and
gifts

religious

with capacity to receive

says, again refuting

and
'

legacies.

As Doctor
its

Juster

Mommsen,
civil

the complexity of
rather a
city

functions

makes the community resemble

association';
it

than a religious
it

has

and penal jurisdiction:

:

forms part

of the whole Jewish nation

it

is

subordinate to the central

veritably

JcAnsh authority.
imperio, a

The Jews were

an imperium in

semi-autonomous people, even while they possessed

the equal citizen rights with the rest of the population.

They

enjoyed separation without ghettoes, and differentiation without

degradation.

Doctor Juster sees

in the sect of the

'

New Alliance

',

of which

Schechter has discovered a record in the Genizah

fragments, an example of the liberty of association which was

conceded

to the

members

of the Jewish nationality.

Here, too, on the establishment of the Christian Church as

the State religion, legislative repression
theological
intolerance.

came

to the support of

Jews

were

forbidden,

under

severe

penalties, to build

new synagogues, and when

the older houses

of meeting were burnt to the ground by fanatical mobs, redress

was refused.

Just as the

Church desired the Jews

it

to survive

as a separate people, but to survive miserably, so

permitted
existence

Judaism to remain a separate

should be precarious and
its

faith

on condition that

its

progress ruthlessly impeded.

In his second volume the author

treats of the private rights

of the individual Jew, which depended primarily on his status

avitatis.

He

might be peregrinus,
all

i.

e.

a foreigner

and

this

was
the
till

the condition of
full

those

Roman

civitas.

who had not a local citizenship or The latter privilege was exceptional
it

the edict of Caracalla bestowed

on the subjects of the Empire.

limited political rights,

As peregrini, however,

while

endowed with

JEWS

IN

THE ROMAN EMPIRE

own system

BENTWICH
all

333

the Jews had their

or, as
it is
',

of law for

personal matters

called to-day in the East, they

had

their

own

'

personal

statute

which depended on

their national institutions.

By

this

law the questions of marriage, divorce, and guardianship were

ruled,

and the courts which decided on them were Jewish

a
legal
in non-Christian countries

courts.

The Jews enjoyed

system similar to that which the

European Powers have obtained

so-called Capitulations
this

by the

made

with the sovereign.

till

They preserved

advantageous position
into a

the breaking-up of the

Roman
made

Empire

number

of separate and exclusive nations

the personal application of law, which in the vast

Roman Empire

had been

freely accorded,

an anomalous exception that could

It

not be tolerated for long.

the
in

was as inheritors of the ideas of

their

Roman Empire
the

that the Jews incurred

rightlessness

mediaeval State, and

another

ironical

paradox

they
fully

were compelled by the Christian Emperors to adopt the

private law to govern their family relations at the very

Roman
moment

when,

deprived of their political rights, they

subjects.

became

less

Roman
It
is

interesting to consider briefly the rules of private law

to

which appHed

them

in the

heyday of the pagan Empire, and

full

Doctor Juster, though the documents are here not as

other parts
principles,

as in

of his

study, has

by deduction from well-defined

made

the position clear.

Under

the pagan Empire

Jew could follow his national religious law in matters of marriage and divorce at his option, even though he was entitled to the benefit of the ordinary Roman law: after 393 c. e., when
the
his national

customs

in

such

affairs

were declared

illegal,

he was

bound

to

comply with the

civil rules.

In the tolerant period the

Roman

tribunals (as the

Talmud
8).

records) would compel a Jewish

husband

to give the bill of divorce

9.

which a Jewish authority

has directed (Gittin,

On

the other

hand the Christian

Emperors
strictions

introduced against loyal Jews a series of special re-

on the testamentary

capacity, so as to give a baptized

member

of the race a special right of inheritance.

The

civil

jurisdiction of the Jewish tribunals in Palestine

was only

slightly

334

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

fall

impaired by the
their

of the nation in 70 c.

E.

Before that date

competence was exclusive when both

it

parties

were Jews
;

afterwards

was concurrent with that of the pagan courts

less

but

it

was none the

a recognized,
ofificers.

X^^zS.

executed by the State

forum whose sentence was The Theodosian Code took

to the rank

away

this privilege,

and reduced the Jewish courts

of arbitration tribunals, which of the parties.

had competence only by consent

Nevertheless the award of the tribunal retained

the character of a binding decision, which was executed by the

Roman

authorities.

The

position of the Beth-Din in

England

to-day offers a close parallel.

exercised

In the Diaspora the Jewish courts

under

the

early

Empire

an optional

but

regular

jurisdiction over the Jewish communities,

and

their transformation

under

the

influence

of Christian

legislation

into

arbitration

tribunals followed the

same

lines

as

the process in Palestine.

The
not

penal jurisdiction which in the times of national independence

fully exercised

had been

by the Sanhedrin

in Judea,

was likewise
lasted.

completely

swept

away

so

long

as

the

Empire

Doctor Juster, controverting a great body of Jewish and nonJewish authority, maintains that the Jewish court had both the

power

to

pronounce the

capital sentence

and

to

have that sentence

executed.
Philo,

He

relies principally

on the evidence of Josephus and

Jerusalem the only

and thinks the testimony of the Christian Gospels altogether

But
after the fall of
left

vague and inconclusive.

power
was

to pass a capital

sentence

to the Jewish penal court

this

in regard to religious offences,

and

was by way of tolerance

rather than of right.

In the Diaspora the penal jurisdiction of

restricted to cases of religious

the Jewish
offences,

community was always

and was not therefore

affected by the change in

it

the

political stains of Palestine.

Nor was
it

altogether abolished by
Its

the Christian legislation, though

survival
is

was considerably curtailed.

a remarkable testimony to the peculiar character of

the national privileges of the Jews throughout the history of the

Roman Empire
separate
cities,

because no other community, not organized in

enjoyed in any measure the exercise of a right

attached
to

which

is

essentially

sovereignty.

Doctor

Juster

JEWS

IN

THE ROMAN EMPIRE

BENTWICH

335

elaborately analyses the criminality of the Jews in the

Roman

Empire
records.

as evidenced by all the available literary

and monumental
his readers

He
he

regrets that

he cannot actually provide

with criminal statistics relating to the Jews of the period; and

doubtless

would
But

have liked to draw^ comparative results

criminality

between Jewish and Gentile

Jewish crime.
this

and ancient and modern

for

would be a work of imagination,

fit

which

his

volumes have no

place.

In his collection, however,

of every recorded crime committed either by an individual

Jew

or a Jewish community, he has prepared the field of comparative

study for some less cautious follower.

He

is

as thorough in his researches into the Jewish

;

found in the Empire

he

classifies

them

into pure that

names Roman, Greek,

as

Hebrew, and mixed names, and he notes

they were

forced into a position of legal inferiority by the legislation of

the Christian Emperors, so the Jews tended to adopt

more and

more the biblical names which they had hitherto neglected, This provides a novel and abandoned their pagan names.
illustration

of the

principle

that

persecution

strengthens

the

Jewish consciousness.

The

final

section

of

the

book deals with

:

the

economic

condition of Jewry in the

the work only

Roman Empire
Doctor Juster

and

in this part of

we

feel that

is

not exhaustive and

has not said the

too, a large

last

word.

Yet he has brought together here

suggestive material,

amount of most

and never

fails

to point out the contrast between pagan liberality and Christian

jealousy.
filled

Under

the Emperors of the

first

three centuries Jews

high places at the court, and were not excluded from any
;

calling or dignity

under the Christian rule they were shut out

from the army, from the rank of Palatini, from the position of
public professors and from
interesting
to

the

profession of advocacy,

it

is

note that

so

early

they were distinguished

by

their skill in

medicine and law,

generally,

and from
them
to

municipal

office

and

public

functions

save such as

were purely onerous

and provided revenue.

By

a refinement of unfavourable dis-

crimination, Justinian permitted

keep these

offices,

or

336

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

them
to

rather compelled

be appointed and stripped them of the

was the

privileges attached to the rank.

Our author
dominant
Palestine,

also demonstrates clearly that agriculture

calling
till

of the Jews as well

in

the

Diaspora as in
soil

a harsh legislation drove them from the

to the furthest limits of the

to

commerce.

They spread
life

Empire

and beyond

in their quest of liberty,

and formed a kind of Jewish

It

fringe colouring the

frontier Jewries

of every province.

was from these

that the

communities of the Middle Ages in

their origin.

Western Europe derived

to

Doctor Juster does well

that (i) the
till

show by abundant documentary evidence

Jews

had no remarkable trend towards commerce

century,

after the fifth

when they were being

and
(2) that

consistently excluded from all

liberal callings,

when

Christian persecution began,

the age-long harrying and hounding that has not ceased in our
days, they were not noted for the

number

of their rich

men

but

rather for their poverty.

disabilities date

Jewish degradation as well as Jewish

from the union of the Church with the

Roman
and

State.

We may

hope that they may end with the dissolution of

that union in the

Empire which

is

the heir of the tradition

It is

a large part of the dominions of Justinian.

the principal

lesson of Dr. Juster's work that the Jews have suffered from a
false political idea that for fifteen

hundred years has dominated

European thought.

Norman
Cairo.

Bentvvich.

?3

EDITORIAL ANNOUNCEMENT
It
is

my

sad dut}' to announce to the con-

tributors

and readers of the Jewish Quarterly

the death

Review

on November

19,

1915,

of

Solomon Schechter, President

Theological

of the Jewish

Seminary of America. Master of

Arts and Doctor of Letters of the University

of Cambridge, Doctor of Letters
of

Harvard
in

University,

some time Reader

in

Rabbinics

the University of Cambridge, and Professor of

Hebrew

at

University College. London, and an

Editor of this

Review

since J910.

Cyrus Adler.

vol. vl

337

3-?^

PYGA'IY-LEGENDS IN JEWISH LITERATURE

By Solomon
T. H.

Hurwitz, New York.

in

In view of the more recent developments

the anthro-

pological world, the question of the wide distribution of

races of

pygmies or dwarfs (the terms are synonymous)

in

the early periods of the foreground.

human

history has constantly been in

^

Since the able monograph of Ouatrefages

much

further light has been thrown on the subject through

the labours of such scholars as

Paul Schmidt,* and others.'

travellers

Von Luschan,^ MacRitchie,^ Not only is the evidence of

conversed with the
of

who have observed and

of
still

members
'

living races
:

paramount importance,

Cf.

Les

Pygiiit'es (Paris

J.

B. Bailliere et Fils, 1890) and The Pygmies

:

translated
Cf.

by

F. Starr

(London

Macmillan, 1895).

Zeifschr. fiir Ethnologic

(Berlin,

1913, XLVI. 939-45;

Globus,

and

id.,

XXXVII I,
3

716-30,

et

passim.

Cf.

'Zwerge

in

Geschichte und Ueberlieferung

III, 367, et

'

in

LXXXII,

101-3; Journal Roy. Soc. Antiq. IrelanJ,

*

passim.

Cf.

Die Stellung der Pygm'ienvdlkcr in der Entivickeliingsgescliichtc des

:

Menschen (Stuttgart
5

Strecker

&

Schroder, 1910).
cf.

For further literature on the subject,

Picard,

'

Les P3'gmees' {Science

;

socialc,

XXVII, 203

26, 333-52,

and XXVIII, 141-62)

in

Emil Schmidt

in

Globus,
e

LXXXVII,

309-12, 325-29; Guiffrida Ruggeri

Archivin per I'autrop.

il

la etnol.

(Firenze, 1910),

XL, 289-315, and

the

in Soc. iialiana per

progresso

delle
^

scieme (Roma, 1911). Atti IV, 495-519.

Cf.

Burrows, The Land of

Pygmies.

With
;

introduction by H.
'

W.

Stanley
in
'

(New York

T. Y. Crowell
'

&

Co., 1898)

Neuhass,

Die Pygmaen

Deutsch-Neuguinea
in

{Antlirop. Gesellsch. in

Wien, XLVII, 67-9), and

'

Ueber Pygmaen

Nederlandisch-Siid-Neu-Guinea
Seiler,

{Zeitschr. fiir Ethnoin

logie,

XLV,

23-44);

'Von den Zwergstammen

Siidkamerun

'

t^Deittsche Gesellsch. fiir

Anthrop., Ellinol. iind Urgeschichte.

Correspondenz.

339

z 2

340

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

but the skeletal remains of earlier periods of civilization

have afforded much ground to the student of comparative

anatomy
greater

for the belief in the

existence of such races in

various parts of Europe during neolithic timesj

But a

still

amount of evidence

lies

embedded

in

the literary
in the

deposits of former generations which, whether

form

of

myth
if

or legend, folk-lore or fairy-tale, can be proven

correctly interpreted, of great value for the better

to be,

understanding of the subject.

The Greek and Roman

Homer,
nius

writers of antiquity (notably

Herodotus, Aristotle, Ctesias, Pliny,

and Pompo-

Mela) have preserved

many

legends about various

races of African

and Asiatic pygmies, which, when properly

analysed,^ agree with the main facts brought to light

by

contemporary

travellers

who

have,

from time to time,

explored their unfrequented abodes.

Very

little

has been

written on the occasional mention of dwarfs in the literary

records of the two most ancient peoples of antiquity, the

Egyptians and Jews,^ a consideration of whose accounts

blatt,

XXXV,
Cf Dor,

3-6)

and Schlaginliau'en,

'

Pygmaeii

in
I,

Melanesicn' (Air/iivfs
37-42"^.

suisses d\inlli>-opoIogie geiiernle,

'
'

Geneve, 1914,

Tome
'

Les Pygmces ncolithiques en Suisse

i

{Bull. soc. d'aiithrop. de

Lyon, XXII, 170^77)

lithischcn Zeit
'

Mesch,

Neiier

Fund von P\'gmaen aus der neoyiUcrtliuniskttiide,

'

{Anzeigcr fiir

sclnveiscr.

n. s.,

II,

1-3

Thilenius,

'

Prahistorische
'

Pygmaen
in

in

Schlesicn

(G/oiws,
{Ibid.,

LXXXI, 273-4
ci/.,

and Kollmann,
^

Pygmaen
{Revue

Europa und Amerika

cf.

'

325-7\
chapter

For a discussion of their value,

htstoriqtie,
flic

Quatrcfages, op.

Paul Monccaux

1891,

XLVII, 1-64
the aiicioits. fairy-tales,

~^

and Tyson,
.

philological essay coticerning

pygmies of

edited, with an

introduction treating of pygmy-races and

by B. C. A. Windlc

(London
'

D. Nutt, 1894'.
tlie

paper was presented on

subject before the last congress of

anthropologists convened at Geneva, September 191a, by David MacKitchie

in collaboration

with the present writer, a summary of which appeared in

(cf.

the transactions

D. MacRitchic et Salomon T. H. Hurwitz,

'

Lcs Pygmees

PYGMY-LEGENDS

HURWITZ

34I

cannot but be of supreme interest to the student of the

problem.

But apart from

specific

its

general interest the subject has a

it

Jewish

interest, in that

raises the

problem of the

value of the Jewish legend for the student of ethnology,

folk-lore,

and other kindred branches of anthropological

In the following the subject will be treated under
different

science.
its

three

aspects

{a)

the

legend
;

about
[b)

the

Gammadim
Rabbinic

and

pygmy

race

of Kaftorim
;

legends
in

about individuals of dwarfed stature

literature.

{c)

Greek legends

{a)

The GammadIm and KaftorIm.

knew
Ezek.
of the

The

supposition that the Biblical writers

of

existence of a race

pygmies

rests

entirely

upon the
27. 11.
;

traditional interpretation of the

word

D^li?? in

The passage

occurs in the second Tyrian prophecy

Jahn,^*^ regard

and
it

some modern commentators, notably

a somewhat later gloss.

as
'?.f

The passage

reads

^70]

^l"^^

:'i\'p\

i^b

r^'^i^,.

The R.V.
in

renders: 'The

men

of

Arvad

with thine army were upon thy

walls round about,

;

and the

Gammadim were
beauty.'

thy towers
;

they hanged their shields

they have perfected thy
the R.V. to

upon thy walls round about

marginal note

in

Gammadim
as-

renders 'valorous men'.

This rests entirely on the

is
les

sumption that the word

chez
les anciens

to be derived from a secondary

Egyptiens et

pologie et d'archeologie prehisioriques

Hebreux Coiigiis inkritatioiial danthroCompte rendu de la xiv"'" Session,

',
;

Geneve, 191 2,

II,

418-22.

There

is

a brief discussion of the Biblical

cit.,

Gammadim
V, 22-3.
1"

in

the work of Tyson,

op.

pp. 68-70, and in the JE.,

Cf.

Das Buck

Ezechid,

ad

he.

i,

Leipzig

E. Pfeifer, 1905).

'

342

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

'

sense of the Semitic nc:

)t:c4s'

to

be bold', found

in the

Syriac

boldness, temerity', and occasionally in the Arabic

'

s*^

'

to be rigid, inexorable

a supposition which
'

is

highly

improbable.
opinion.

The word has caused much difference of The LXX renders (f>v\aK9 watchmen while
',
'

In both cases the ^^^j watching translators read Dnoc, which may be translated either Symmachus read D'"?^ D?, dXXa as noun or as participle.

the Peshitto has

'.

Kul MijSoL

Theodotion, Kal FofiaSeifx

^^

while the Vulgate

'

adopts the Rabbinic tradition

a translation borne out

and

translates

Pygmaei

'

by Aquila, who renders

prefer to

nvy/xaioi.^^

Modern commentators
word
Phut
as a proper

regard
it is

this

perplexing
in
.

name

(inasmuch as

found

conjunc.

tion with other proper names, as e.g. Persia

.

Lud

...
^^

Arvad), and read either with Lagardc Dni::

lo. 2-3), or

(cf. T^J,

Gen.

with Cornill ono^;!*

(cf. idtd.,

10.

18),

or attempt to identify the masoretic

D''1^3

with the

Egyptian

Kamdu

(or

Gamdu), the Kumidi

of the Tell

Amarna inscriptions, and the modern Kamid-el-Loz.^ The Rabbinic tradition, however, has consistently looked
upon the

Gammadlm

as a race of dwarfs.

Not only does

the rendition of Aquila confirm this position, but the united

evidence of

Targum and Midrash,

older
its

as well as the remarks

of the most esteemed

commentators of the O.T.

Rashi, after expressing
the feet of Jewish doctors cf

bear out this view to

"
the
^2

fullest.
sat
at

It is

well

known

that

Jerome

Law.
Cf. Origcn's Ilexapla
i,ccl.

Field),

nd he.

Origen gives another version

first is,

of Aquila which renders TtrfXtafiivoi, but the

version
^'
'*

no doubt, the autlicntic

Cf. Oiioniai/ica
Cf.
Cf.

Sacra (2nd edition), 367.

Rticli Ezccliiel,

Kraetzschmar, Das

ad

loc.

'5

Ernest Meyer, Ac^'ptiaca,-] 2, and

:

Max

Miiller,

Aiicn mid Li<iof>a,

193,

396 (Leipzig

W.

Engelmann, 1893

'

PYGMY-LEGENDS
the opinion of Rabbi
'

HURWITZ

343

Menahem (bar Helbo), who renders the word divers adds noN mo3 pDJDJi CDi: Qr\'^ piniD Others explain that they are pygmies who are a cubit high
',

'C^^),

in measure.'

The
;

last
it

words give the philological ground

will

for this exegesis

for,

be remembered, that t^^

is

is

'cubit'

(cf.

Judg.

3. 16).^"

The word "T|i3

similarly

accordingly analo-

gous, from the Rabbinic standpoint, to the Greek rrvyfioLos,

'

a foot

tall

'.

Kimhi speaks

D^DD: n'^m^

vn Dnc:i
a

n^nx

n?:j

t\^]:^\>

mn

t^'JS^

'

The Gammadim were

is

pygmy
But

people of small stature.

The word

to be derived from

the expression "of a cubic length"

it

in

Judges

{ibid.).'

was the French exegete, Eliezer of Beaugency, a pupil

of Rabbi

Samuel ben Meir, who

first

correctly identified

this tradition with the

legend concerning the

in

of Kaftorim recorded

the Midrash Rabba.

n^^rsnan ^iidjdd sin

pygmy race He says:

ny Dno:*!
,d*d:j

nmns3
'*

('n

'>d

fh

hk^-iq)

nm

di::

nr^'\2h^ nniNC' Nini |n D^i*n ^^yai '^^3'^n

ono
'
,

\y^

p^ p-iN3i

D''Vnn

rr-n

jn

o-D^i:'

^^^n1D1^
it

bv

i^n

The Gammadim
There are many
it

are

(^7. ^)

pygmy " The Kaftdrim were

people, as
is

explained in Genesis rabba

dwarfs
".

such in Greece, and they are good archers, wherefore

said, "

is

they hanged their

;

sldtiin

upon thy walls

"

(Ezek.

27. 11)

the sldtlni are quivers.'

^^

Poznaiiski points out

1"

that the identification with the

"VCi^ is
'

The primary sense

;

of the Semitic

to curtail, contract, congeal

itself, is,

cf.

Arabic A*a.)

the etymology of 'dwarf, from the root

there-

fore, quite possible

1^

without resorting to

its

derivation from HDJ.

Plinj', in

one account

(A^rt/Mrrt///(s/o''V, I,

18

places the pygmies in

p. 145) claims that

Thrace and Ctesias {Ecloga in Photii Bill. LXXII,

they

were good archers

the Rabbi

{atpoSpa

yap

ttai Toforai).

It

would seem,

therel'ore, that

be seen, are not

18

was acquainted with the Greek legends of pygmies which, unknown in mediaeval Rabbinic literature.
^vjj^ao
'i'^pD

as will

Cf. s. Poznariski,
KB'-\i
:

iTi;"'^N

""ni^

"icy

nni ^Npin^ bv cn-a

(1909-10

D^m-13

man..

344
passage
in

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

nm

n"'"i:'N">3

is

absolutely

correct.

Targum
'

Jonathan
cians
' ;

translates

the word D'1??

W^^^P.

Cappado-

and, as Poznanski has

shown on another occasion

(ZA

IV., XXIV, 305), the

Kaftorim are always termed Cappa-

docians

in

the

geographical identifications of the Tar-

gumim.^^

The

inference that the

Gammadim were
is,

regarded
therefore,

by

the Rabbis as identical with the Kaftorim

entirely legitimate.

The

legend, as recorded in Genesis rabba 37. 5, bears

the stamp of age and has been generally misunderstood

by

the commentators because of the occurrence of several

dna^

Xcyo/xeua.

It

is

comment on Gen.

10. 14,

which

contains the genealogical tree of the nations descended

from the stock of the Egyptians.

nnriDD nsi
DTiC'i'D

D^m^DD nsi D^onns DNI

WC^

in^"'

"ic^n,

'And Pathrusim, and

and Caphtorim.'

Casluhim, out of whom

came the

Philistines,

On

this the

Midrash comments as follows: niD^inD n''Dnn3

D-iDnnD Nina 12 n3n -ni if^x ,d*dipd D^ni^oa

in^rsyjD

vn

D''ni^DDi

-"CDJ:

nmnSD. Although most authorities^^ regard the words

D'"]?32
(of.

"

Rabbi Mcna'iem bar Ilelbo similarly identifies the

first

with the

C^iriES, although he interprets the

word

as 'divers'

Poznanski,

^ns^NpsD mn: nn3b ^avn -ison pipn

421
in

''anii?

ubn in
cf.

nn^ro'i "jnns
to

"I"D~in N'J'll;.
to

For "TinSJ as Cappadocia,

Onkelos

Dcut.

2. 23,

and Jonathan
Targiimim
in

Jcr. 47. 4,

Amos

9. 7.

The

Peshitto
;

agrees with the

these

passages, and

renders

tOO^
to

while the

LXX
to

similarly render Kannadoicin, KannaSoKts.

^
1

Parallel passages
1.

are found

in

the Yalkut
first

Gen.

10. 14,

and

Chron.

12.

Both quotations omit the

is

line of the passage.

The
word

Genesis reference

interesting because of

its

translation

of the

D'DlinS, which ])robably belonged at the beginning of the passage, and which accords with the view expressed in the present article. The passage
reads
:

fnTiit;':

p2:3?^ i^N

vm
no

pD''!^on

pn^oyo vn D^m^D^i c^cnriD

in^mcj
]''2:yD

^Dnu: DTiir^D
'

^inc

inv^

)W

b'y

i^ni

i^n

by

So Levy

A'ciiliebinisclie-i

tiiid clialdaisclies

IVorlerbtuh,

od loc), Koluit

PYGMY-LEGENDS
nit3"'inD

HURWITZ
to Rashi

345

and

D'DlpD as

proper names of unknown Egyptian

tribes, still the

commentary ascribed

and of

late

Theodor

-"^

correctly surmise from the context that these are

descriptive terms

employed to explain the character of the

intermingling races from

whom

Philistines

and Kaftorim

sprung.
DiDinQ^^j
Trei/adTTys-

The word
jg^

mo'^ina (for which the Paris

MS.

reads

gg

Neubauer has already shown,^^ the Greek

';

'pirate

while the word D^DIpS? although hitherto

unexplained, seems to be phonologically identical with the

Greek

-nr\yy's,

another
:

accordingly

means

Kasluhim are
*

name for pygmies.-^ The passage the The Pathrusim are pirates pygmies. Says Rabbi Abba bar Kahana,
;

The Pathrusim and Kasluhim were wont

(Greek
KardXvais),

to hold bazaars

on which occasion one tribe would

steal the

women

of the other tribe.

; "'''

With what
'.

result

Philistines

giants

Kaftorim

dwarfs

An

intelligent

examination of this passage, drawn from

the ancient store-house of Jewish folk-lore,

makes

clear an

attempt on the part of the learned Rabbi

to reconcile

Abba bar Kahana

from a
;

two

conflicting traditions transmitted

remote antiquity concerning the Philistine aborigines

OPKri
']1"iy,

on

ad

loc),

and Wiinsche

{Biblhtlieca Rabbinica

Eine Samnihing

alter Micirnsc/imi,Leipz\g, 1880-85,

22

ad

loc).
f

Cf.

Theodor, Xn-^

n"'"J*"in
dii

Z>~n'D

Berlin, 1908-14),

ad

he.

^^

Cf.

La

Geographie

Talmud

(Paris,

i868\

p.

424.

The form

riim^lD (nearest

to vfipayqs:')
(cf.

may

be a case of vocalic metathesis due to the

Griecliische itiid lateinische Lehnivorter hii

accent on the ultima

Tahtind, Midrasch,
**

Krauss,

tmd

lari^iiiii,

Berlin, 1898,

I,

p. 115).

Lucian, Rhet. Praec.

6,

speaks of -niixm on paintings of the Nile,

described as pygmies.

Philostratus also uses this

word

for

pygmies.
(cf.

The

Greek x
Xaprrjs,
^^

'S

often ti-ansliterated by p in Rabbinic literature

for x^^^^^v, ''^p'^^p for
x'>P"^<J'' '"

D^D"lp for

\''''?'\p

Nedarim 51
6.

a).

Cf. n':'n

^:"jn

d'^ivo t^'n

nniajn nr:n (Gen.

is

4)

and jT'i^Nin

''T

1"3 n21, where the expression D'^IDJ

reckoned among the seven

Biblical

names

for giant-races.

346

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

the one hand, a tradition that the Philistines belonged in

great part to a giant race

a tradition
21.

still

surviving

in

the

Biblical stories of the giant

Goliath, and the children of

the n2i of Gath (2

Sam.

16-22);

and on the other

hand, a tradition concerning a race of pygmies

known

as

Kaftorim, also said to be the progenitors of the Philistines

(cf.

Deut.

2.

23

Jer. 47,

and

Amos

9. 7),

The

recon-

ciliation

assumes that the later Kaftorim and Philistines

earlier,

were the products of two

intermingling

races

of

diverse character (one of pygmies, the other of pirates) out of

whom

sprung the giants and dwarfs known to tradition.

all

But inasmuch as the Genesis account derives

from a

these tribes
is

common Egyptian
;

ancestry, the conclusion

not

at all surprising (as the

for the

Rabbis may have been acquainted

to indicate) with various widely-

Greek words seem

stories

circulated

about

African

pirates

and

Egyptian

pygmies.-"

This

is

perhaps

among

the

earliest

instances of an

attempt to explain several conflicting legends, belonging

in

greater part to the

closely

domain of

folk-lore,

in

manner
methods.

somewhat

resembling modern

scientific

The

question that

now

arises

is,

how

are these curious

traditions of antiquity to be interpreted in the light of our

present knowledge?

The problem

of the

tall,

non-Semitic

autochthons of Palestine has, to a large extent, been solved

by the

late archaeological
tall,

excavations which have brought

in

to light traces of

non-Semitic races

various parts of

Palestine in prehistoric periods of

"''

human
;

culture.-'

There
Animal.

In

the

Greek legends

tlic

pygmies arc most often associated with

(cf.

Ethiopia and the sources of the Nile

V'lII,

note 24

Aristotle, Hist.
1 ;

12; Philostratus,
183
.

De

l^ifa

A/>o/loii.

Tyanaei, VI,

and Herodotus,

Itistor. IV,

"

Cf. Macahstcr, llisluty of ( ivi/izatioii in Palestine

f1.,

^Cambridge, 1912),
1912
,

pp. JO

and

Kiltcl. (rtscliic/itc

(lis

'ulkcs Israel '^Goiha.

I.

32 46.

PYGMY-LEGENDS
is,

HURWITZ

347

therefore,

little

difificulty

in

accounting for the semicited

fabulous Refa'im, 'Anakim,

Zamzummlm, and 'Emim,

it

by the Deuteronomist

(2.

10-23), and

is

not surprising

that similar accounts have been transmitted of the Philistines,

who may

possibly have absorbed the small remnants

of these early aborigines during their invasion.

difficult is

But more

the question involved in the other tradition, which

distinctly claims that the

Kaftorim were a race of dwarfs.

This leads

at

once to the ethnographic problem of the

identity of the Kaftorim.

The Rabbinic
its

conjecture with

regard to Cappadocia, based on the similarity of sound in

the two names, has nothing further in
favour.

Michaelis

-^

very early expressed the opinion that Cyprus was the

original
47. 4)
;
'

isle

of Kaft5r
^^

'

spoken of by the prophet

(Jer.

while Ebers

tried to prove that the coast of the

to.

Nile-Delta was the

site referred

Hitzig" identified

the Philistines with the Pelasgians,

to northern Egypt,
(this
14).

who came from

in

Crete

whence they emigrated to Palestine

Gen.
10.

seems to be borne out by the genealogy

Most modern

authorities,"^

however, are unanimously

in favour of

Crete as the original seat of the Kaftorim.

The
I

fact that the

name

D''n"i3

is

applied to the Philistines

25.

on several occasions Sam.

30.
14),

(cf.

Ezek.

16;

Zeph.

2.

5; and

and the

identification of "nnsa with the

this position

Keftiu of the Egyptian

^*

monuments "^ makes

Cf.

Gesenius-Brown-Driver, Hebreiv Lexiion,

to "111123.
ff.

2^

Cf. Aegypten iind die Biiclicr

Cf. Urgeschichte

Mosis (Leipzig, 1868), pp. 127

er (Leipzig.
p.

^
^^

nnd Mythologie der Philist

Cretan
Piciograplis

i845\ pp. 33

ft.

Cf.

A.

J.

Evans,

(1P95),

ico.

Similarly,
1851),
I,

H. Ewald,
330
ff.
;

Geschichte des Volkes

Israel (a"' Auflage,

Gottingen,

Dillmann, Die Genesis (Leipzig.

1882,

4*"

Auflage), p. 179; and

Giesebrecht,
"^"^

Das Buck Jeremia

(Gottingen, 1894), p. 234.

Cf. Macalister, The Pliilistines {l^ondon,

1913^

ch.

348

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Macalister
''^

almost certain.

concludes that

'

the Philistines

were a people composed of several septs, derived from

Crete and the south-west corner of Asia Minor.
civilization,

Their

probably, was derived from Crete, and though

there was a large Carian element in their composition,''*

they

may

fairly

be said to have been the people who

imported with them to Palestine the memories and traditions

of the great days of Minos
'.

From what
and
its

is

known

of Crete,

its

high degree of culture,

influence on

the ancient world, there can be no

question as to any possible relationship between the Cretan

Kaftorim and the

pygmy

race of the Rabbinic tradition.

As

far as the latter is concerned,

one possible solution of

In

the problem has suggested itself to the present writer.

the late excavations of the

alister''^

site

of ancient

Gezer, Mac-

informs us of the discovery of the remains of a

curious non- Semitic race of troglodytes

lithic

who

lived in neo-

times

{c.

2500

i;.

c), and

who were
it

considerably below

the average stature.

'While

is

true that these

were not

a dwarfed race
33 ^*

in

the true sense of the word,"*^ yet the fact

cf.

o/..

cir, p. 28.

Tlie

ro3al

body-guard, besides being composed of the ^H/SI ^70.?

loc. cit.), is
(cf.

(2

Sam.

8. 18),

Cretans and Philistines (so Macalister,

to

also said,

on several occasions,
2 Kings II.
4. 19).

have contained

"'"1311,

Carians

2 Sam. 20. 23;

identified

The

Carians, together with the Piiilistines

Piilsati

by Macalister with the

sea-pirates

of the

monuments), were small bands of

who

overran Palestine.

This fact rather curiously conf.rms the

opinion of the Rabbis.

" a. Excavation
3''

0/ Gezrr London, 1912), I, 72. Roughly speaking, the average height of males of dwarfed races
in.

is

ft.

;the height of a twelve year old boy), although individuals of

estate have been known to be considerably below 4 ft. in The average height of the troglodytes of Gezer was about Wlien we recall that tail races reach an average 'of 5 ft. 9 in.,

lull

grown
in.

stature.

ft.

the difference in height becomes at once remarkably striking.


HURWITZ
much beyond

PYGMY-LEGENDS

349
six feet in
in question

that only few of the caves were

height

"'^

would seem to indicate that the race

was considerably shorter than the other aboriginal races

known

to

have lived

in the

surrounding parts, who, to say

races of mankind.

the least, belonged to the

It is true

tall
is

Macalister

strongly disinclined to accept

the present theory,^^ partly because of the large gap in

time between the neolithic troglodytes and the

Kaftdrlm,
c.

Cretan

who

are

a comparatively late

importation

1400-1200 B.C.

and partly because

human
race,

of scepticism as to

the value of the Rabbinic tradition about pygmies.

theless,
in

Never-

when we remember

the persistence of old traditions

the folk-lore of the

and when we

recall that

the later Kaftorim settled over the very graves of the former

troglodytes (having, according to Deut.

2.

23, displaced the

far as
still

'Avvim, who are said to have dwelt

in villages as

Gaza, and who arc known, from Joshua

13. 3, to

have
it

survived during the invasion of the Israelites),

is

not

altogether unlikely that stories of the large discrepancies

in the height of several

autochthonous races a

fact

very

striking to the primitive

mind

should

cling to the localities

wherein these indigenous races originally dwelt, long after

their extinction.

MacRitchie has similarly interpreted

fians, fairies,

"'^

the curious legends about

and Picts

in

Scotch

and English
2^

folk-lore,

and

his conclusions

have been lately

pp. 12-13.

Cf. Macalister, History

of Civilization
1914,
to

in Palestine,

3*

In a letter of Sept. 16,

Mr. David MacRitchie, Prof. Mac(rt

alister

says:

'

should be inclined to doubt very strongly

the interpre. .

tation of Gainniadtnt as " pigmies ",

and

{b) their

equation to CaphtoiTm

The Caphtorim
were a
^'

arc

altogether a late

importation,

and cannot,

in

mv

opinion, be equated to the neolithic people found at Gezer.

small, but not a

The

latter

pygmy

people

say 5

ft.

to 5

ft.

in.

or so.'

Cf.

The Testimony 0/ Tradition {London, 1890^;

.

Fians, Fairies,

and

Picts

(London, 1893

35
verified

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

through an accumulation of evidence from various

sources.

For want of more

h"ght
is

on the early history of

Palestine, the present theory

quite sufficient to explain

in

the appearance of giants

and dwarfs

connexion with

Philistine aborigines in the folk-lore of the early

Hebrews.

(b)

Legends about Individuals of Dwarfed

Stature.
individual of dwarfed stature in non-dwarfed races

The
is

reckoned among nature's prodigies.

As

such, he

is

numbered with other abnormalities

special

as a subject for the

is

blessing, nvnan

n:c^'0

inn, 'Blessed
',

He who
usually

varies

the

form

of His

creatures

which

was

pronounced upon beholding a freak of nature (Berakot

88
b).

In order to prevent a possible perpetuation of his

abnormality the dwarf was forbidden to marry a

similarly
"'VaVN

woman
man

abnormal D33
n:*''

.pin |no NV^ NCtr nNlUJ Nt" N^ ni23

sb,
'

pD

x?:c'

no::

SC"'

An
tall

abnormally

tall

should not marry an abnormally

giant
(lit.

woman

lest

they beget

mast-like) progeny
lest

while a dwarf should not

marry a female dwarf

(Bekorot
4,5 b).'

they beget thumb-like offspring

unfit for the
b).

His abnormality makes him

(cf.

performance of priestly duty

JMishnah Bekorot 4J

This prohibition originates,

in

the opinion of
in

some of the

commentators, from the injunction

in

Lev. 21. 20, which

the unfit for the

the words of the A.V. counts

*

among
p:

priesthood,

crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that

hath

blemish
lation
is

in his

eye

'

(li^y3 hb2T\

is pn ix

is).

The

trans-

supported by Ibn Ezra and the Peshitto, although

it

other authorities of importance render

differently."*"
uplyjld

"The LXX

renders

'

blear-eyed '.tit

opinion also

by the

Vulgate, Saadia, and Kaslii.

Targiim Yerushalmi gives both opinions.


PYGMY-LEGENDS

HURWITZ
talc
is

351
as
a

The

following

interesting

used
2. 15.

P^O

'^^

Genesis rabba 6q. ii and Cant, rabba

dwarf,
(fxaKpo-

whose mother curiously named him Macroclafros

eAa^po?),
'

Fleet-footed Giant

',

was refused admission into

the king's service because of deficiency in height.

To

his

mother's earnest plea on his behalf the king very appropriately replied:
in
'

If in

thy eyes he

is

a fleet-footed giant,
'

our eyes he

is

naught but a dwarf of dwarfs

(T:"'y3

Dn

But most curious

is

the humourous description of Pharaoh

to us in

which the Rabbis have transmitted

noN Nin
cp'
Q^^'^N*

Mocd Katon 18a:

nisd
bvj^'ia
-i?:ni

ncr^
^ti'i

''O"'^

n\nL*'

ny-iD

pr:^^^:'

no

n"^pb

pm hidl'vo mn nr^N

pnu'Diai ncx

i3pn

r\^?V,

'Says Abital, the

scribe,

on the authority of Raf:

a cubit [in height],

"The Pharaoh
his beard

of the days of
cubit,

Moses was

was a

and

his

and a

span''^ so that the text

it

membrum virile was a cubit may be fulfilled Hcsctteth

''

up over

the basest of

men

"

(Dan.

4. 17).'

The
S^kTiD

parallel passage in the

Yalkut to Dan.
:

4.

14 (besides
x"n
to
in

omitting the nir from the latter part) adds

sT2p
sd:j,

-I^\s:n3n3 ni

'Others

explain

that

this

refers

Nebuchadnezzar, the dwarf, who was a hand-breadth

size.'

The

description
relates
""^

is

especially interesting in view of

his

what Ctesias
dwarfs.

in

famous account of Indian

middle of India there are

He

says:

'In

the

black
little,

men who
cubit

are called

pygmies.

They

arc very

the tallest of

them being but two

and a half high.
to their knees

cubits,

and most of

them but a
hair,

They have very long

reaching

down

and lower, and a beard

*i

Mr. MacRitchie
in

first

called attention to this curious jiarallel in the

two accounts

an article on

'Egyptian and Jewish

in the

Pyginio-;

'

in

the

Glasgoiv Herald.

This was reprinted

Hcbinv Standard n^ June

8, 1914.


THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
any human
beings.

352
larger than

After their beards arc

grown long they wear no

falls

clothes, but the hair of their

head

behind them much below their hams, and that of their

beards in front comes

down
it

to their feet.

Their
'

mem;

brum

virile is

so long that pp.

reaches to the ankle

It
is

{loc. cit.

and Tyson,

op. cit.,

23-4).''2

quite

likely that

various exaggerated descriptions of dwarfs (of the Ctesias's

type) reached the Rabbis through

sources.

some

hitherto

unknown

The contention

of Kohler {JE., V, 23) that the

Rabbis identified either Pharaoh or Nebuchadnezzar with

the image of a grotesque Egypto-Arabic
idol,

probably

Bes, struck on the coins of the Ptolemies, has, accordingly,

little in its

favour.
is,

The
to

fact

several passages in midrashic literature refer

',

Nebuchadnezzar as 'the dwarf of Babel

states,

who, as the

Yalkut passage explicitly

breadth
in height.

was

said to be but a
is

hand-

The

last

statement

inferred, according
'

to the Rabbinic interpretation, from Dan. 4. 14.

he setteth
4,

up over

it

the basest of
cit.)

men
in

'.

In Genesis rabba 16.

Theodor

[op.

correctly inserts the following passage

(which has been omitted

Midrash, but
is

the regular editions of the

is

found
in

in

manuscripts, and

to be inferred

from the quotation

the

commentary ascribed
DC
^y bii
ir

to Rashi

ad

loc.)

ndj: y'DP

d*^*

^yi

vi^^ns is^st

pc'^D

nnxn

D:^'

*": NDw'iD

{ciirtiis)

XDiip,

'The name of one was Pishon

" Their said

*'

this

is

Babylon, so-called because of what the prophet

horsemen
tlic

shall

spread

themselves

{pasii)

In

view of

coincidence in these two descriptions of dwarfs, the

clever emendation of
translates
:

Kohut

(pn"'D"*D

'V

D/L'TI

Tnj?

in

which

he
tlie

'

Pharaoh was a

cubit, his

grandparent 03pp a cubit, and

',

tallest [of his kin] (Sanskrit

pvamcshta a cubit and a span

loses its value.

']!
;

Cf.

Theodor, op.

cil.,

ad loc;

Kohut,

op.

cit,

NClip

Buber,

Pesikta derab Ka/tana,

na; and Fricdmann,

Pcsikla rabbeli, 31,

4.

PYGMY-LEGENDS
(Hab.
I.

HURWITZ
little

353
dwarf, a hand-

8)" and also because of the

in
size,'

breadth ipuskd)

Similarly, the
:

Levites
m"innt^>

com-

plain (Friedmann, Pesikta rabbeti, 31. 4)

iJ"'n

nrn djjh,
sins,

'

Not enough

that the temple was destroyed for

to strike our harps

our

but

we

are

now compelled
said,** "h T-ayT

before this dwarf, while on another occasion (Buber, Pesikta

derab Kahajia, 112)

b2y^
S'DJJ,
'

it is

no pon

T\2"\>r\

ncx 13
this

Thus

said the

Holy

one, "
!

Behold what

dwarf of Babel hath done to

of this curious tradition
is

me

"

'

Although the
seem

origin

obscure, yet these various ludicrous

to be largely

descriptions of the conqueror of Jerusalem

expressions of contempt indulged in

by the Rabbis.

{c)

Greek Pygmy-Legends

in

Mediaeval Rabbinic

Literature.

The
This
is

references to dwarfs in the Rabbinic literature of the

late

Middle Ages are mostly borrowed from

Greek sources.

evident from the fact that three of these references

ttlOt]^ for

employ the Greek word

pygmies.

the fabulous nation of

identical with irWr^Kos,
late authors,
is

The word
dwarf by

iriOrj^,
'

which
'

is

and has the meaning of ape

defined as
century.
'

in

some

also

Suidas,*^ a lexicographer of the tenth

The

earliest of the three sources to

is

employ

this

word
**

in

connexion with pygmies

the Josippon^ an anony-

Brtill {Jahrbiicher
II,

M., 1876,

210) believes that the

'

fur judische Geschichle und Liteiatur, Frankfurt a. word D33 used in these passages is the

same
is
*3

as

N3N3

dog', but in view of what was herein set forth, this position

untenable.
Cf.

Bernhardy, Suidas' Lexicon graece

etlatine, III, 271, note,

vldri^ l\

irapa Ttatv o ppaxiis dvOpwniaKos.

Bernhard}' considers these words a later

gloss.

VOL.

VI.

A a

354

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

of the middle of the tenth century.*^

mous work

The

other

two sources are largely dependent on this work for some of their information, and may have borrowed the account of the
pygmies from
it.

The Josippon

partly consists of an Alex-

ander romance borrowed from the work of Archpresbyter

Leo's Hisioria Alexandri
proeliis,

magni, regis
emanates,
as

Macedoniae, de
all

which,

in

turn,

Alexandrian

romances do, from the work of Pseudo-Calhsthenes.

The Josippon
to the land of the

tells

the following about Alexander's visit

his

pygmies while on
vnnn
tJ<'i2''i

way
D^m

to India
Tti'ND
^i:r^
'n'-i

^"^

no ^nN

"iinsj''i

j-i^n

b nx

mJoa^N* Tayn
"'aL^n''D

yrh

npi^y ^V\>^

"ly

N'nn insn

oy

nnnrsn

ima-'i
^3N^"i

D''"'n

c'lsn^ ^'\>y^ d''D2j

nc'^c^ Y'C':i^i2
ii.'\T\r\

D"'C'3S'

Dm \w^2 ^^ t;npTT"3 D''N-ipjn in"'^2n om onc-'j;"! nxn Dnro i>rjx m^DM

]\'>

D'*^^'JN

Ninn

n/''^3 dc* J^^i

nipon nn"'3D,

'

When Alexander had

in-

subdued the

entire

country, he
to
India,

passed from Media by

way

of the

desert

accompanied by many
to a very

habitants of those parts.

They came
They

deep valley

where they travelled

able animals and

for five

days and found many remarkalso found a race of

",

fruit.

men
His

known

in

Greek

as " pitheces

and these were dwarfs.

alive,

He
men

attempted to capture them

killed

but they

fled.

one hundred and twenty of them, while they

killed three of his

men.

He

ate the fruits of the place and

a. lo).'

passed the night there (Josippon,

In another Alexander romance, ascribed to Samuel Ibn

"

Cf. Steinschneidcr, yws/i Literature {^London, 1857), p. 77;

II,

Zunz
246
;

in

the Ithurary of Benjamin ofTudcla (ed. A. Aslicr, London, 1841),

and

Budge, History of .ilexander

Callislhcnes

the Great, being the Syriac Version of

p. Ixxxiv.

Pseudo-

(Cambridge, 1889^,

"

Gagnier, Josippon sive losephi ben Goriom's historiae ludaicae (Oxonii,

:

1706), p. 69, rcndcis

'

Pithaci sen simiae

'.

PYGMY-LEGENDS
Tibbon

HURWITZ

355
is

of the twelfth century, the manuscript of which

in the Bodleian,*^

and which also emanates from a translaLeo's Historia, a

similar

tion of Archpresbyter

account

occurs

imai Dnn ^y^rh in

"iDDon

nnn'^i

n''3ns Dnnsi^i
D''L^'i?:^1

ip^jt-s

D\s"ip:n

HNO

v"c^is?3

irT'DH

DHi

D^Jt^

DHD

in-ii^ni,

'He

saw peculiar animals there and found

trees,

trees like
as
'

unto apple-

and saw a race of men known

.
. .

pitheco " whose

necks were long and hands

He

ordered them to be

captured, but they fled after he had killed thirty-two of

their

number, while they killed one hundred of his men

'al

{Kobes

Yad, H,

76).'

Levy adds {ibid.)

of Leon.
It is

that this passage

is

not found in the work

quite evident, from the fact that the

work

of Ibn Tibbon draws at times from the Alexander narrative

in

the Josippon,

that
latter

this

passage was either adapted

or, as
is

directly from the

work,

quite

likely,

was

based

on a translation of the original from which the

Josippon drew.

Another more detailed account of the legend about the

pygmies and
found
their fabulous battle with the cranes
is

to be

in several

Hebrew

versions of the letters of Prester

John, published by Neubauer.^^

*8

Although the pygmies

Cf. Steinschneider, Catal., 2486.

Cf.

"
II,

12-68 n^:

'ym pbn

T"

bv

pp,

and Eisenstein, Ozar Midrashim,

entitled

467-73
:

(New

York, 1915).
b'^
'\d''[>

The

first letter is

nson
:

p'^^-id

^n

jki:

ntD^a

rh^

ntrx ni:N

while the other

is

r\^'c>'rcL

ivd^dj^!?

jni""

'D'^'ns

nbv^c;

ana
from Latin

critical

examination of the linguistic peculiarities of the two translations

that

shows

clearly

they are based on French

D^IDJIpl

translations
:

originals (e. g. the

words

D'pH =

dues et comtes

D"1S''"I3 1^''31N

a 2

356

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

by name
in

are merely mentioned

the various Latin versions

of the

same

letters

published by Zarncke,^" yet there can be

no doubt that the fantastic description of the wonders of

India, of which they, for the

most

part, consist,

was borrowed
were
fre-

from the various Alexander romances, which

quently expanded by introducing well-known tales from

Greek and Roman mythology.

account of the pygmy-legend
nsrn jnsn
^0':^^) ns'^Jip^s
'^

Of the
is

several versions

published by Neubauer the following

:

the most complete

iniN inpc:'

nnx

'C'

nN?n y-\i6 Iiodi

on bin ^^D^bn: dh^didi

n^icc' ix d^x* nyn'^^'D

Dnyj

i?03

D^jni?

an

nnyn nnb pv^'

"-d

c'^

i^bw ni^"j*n n?onsn onaij? nni n'2vsn nnvii

bn

on^^y nsn

bs

.Di-ixn -iny^
a\s*a

nia

Qic'

^3V N^^r nipo3 d^sb'VB'

niDiyro nns* p:y on^^y

nnvin

on-^ai

anvip

on-j's

rhb? n:^
a'-baisi
i^n*

nnbn^
'':c'i

Q-'yirn

vc^x Dy
nri

i^in nr )*-isn

i^d nNnL"3i

Dna ns

.nr:nbDn
Dn^'-n

nnipr^o onix D^inaoi mf'ip cim:)! msiyn

oy
'^n

Dipn
jn"*!?:-!

vo*

^3

p^

Nin D.TJpr

^yt^^

nju^

dtixo

d-'k^jkh i^n

^y ni2''ho DiTitj ny^'i Drf^-in *iy

is

n^ns, 'Near

this land

there

another called Pyconia whose inhabitants are of the

size of small

boys of seven or eight. Their horses, however,

are indeed

are large.

They

good Christians and

till

their

ground quietly, inasmuch as there are none to do them

harm
I'aigle

for

they dwell
py

in a countr}' inaccessible to

human

'gryphiis': INta

N'''b'in

=
:

regal de St.
7'>'>X"l"'D

Jean: psnj = griffon:

""1213

= Godfrey

"T>'>DN*.^

saphir

merveille or miroir, &c.).

For a complete account see the vocabulary of foreign words compiled by the present writer in the work of Eiscnstein, op. cit., II, pp. 596-606.
*"

Cf.

Ahhandhotgeit

d. kdnt'gl.

s khsischcn Gcsellschaft d. JJ^isseiisc/iqfteii,

philolog.-histor. Klasse, VII, 911, et passim.

^'

Epstein (^ilH ini'K, p. 65, Pressburg, 1891) surmises that 'Pygmonia'

the original name,

was

meaning
author

'

Pygmy-land

'.

^^

The anonymous
Hist.

here

attempts to

correct

Aristotle,

who
ital

positively asserts that their horses

01 i'nnot,

were small

(Tivos /iiupdv ixiv, Koi avroii

Animal. VIII, cap.

12),

PYGMY-LEGENDS
being.

HURWITZ
At

357
the

But every year a curse overtakes them.

time when they reap their harvest a certain species of birds

assails

them and consumes

their

fruits.

And when
sets out
cries,

the

king of the country perceives

this,

he

with his

men armed
off

to fight these birds

who, with
is

are driven

from their territory.

is

Such

the battle.

Their length
their beards
is

of Hfe

two hundred

years,

and the hair of

white throughout their life-time their beards coming over their knees and the hair of the

down

women

over their feet

{Kobes'al Yad, IV,

Finally,

12).'

Judah Hadassi has a most

faithful

account of

the battle of the cranes and the pygmies drawn from Greek
sources in his large work "iDnn
in
^:]C^'X.'^

The

story

is

inserted

a catalogue of prodigies (e.g. the cynocephali, centaurs,

&c.)

much

after the

manner

of the Josippon and the other

is

Alexander romances, the use of which

further betrayed

by the

vjords pit/ieccs Sind pithecoii which are found in the

narrative.

Hadassi, however, has

embellished the story

with minute details of the fighting scene drawn from his

own

fertile

imagination

Dni^i'oa Dn-Tii^'-iNa nnvoipDn d-'juic niiiDi d^ddn

""jn

ppTi^D

po

DC'UD
n'^i'zr^

K\r\r^

Dip^::!

^npiiD ^^2.

mu

^3i r\'i'22 insn i'n:

:T'n:j:)'i

d:x^

nnp

DHTiiyaji Dn-nny?:') nn'^-nn!?

.-13131

D-ca
):

ma

b^2 djdiddi
niDiy

nniD:'!

si:3i

n:;iji

nns* '\v2

,n''jryi

onai

"ro nii?n:

Dy Q-onih nnx or Divnpno nisiyn rh^

n':ini

n^tra

nnx

oyDi .ni^ijo

mn

anp

'h'2

:nnr:n^D3

my

ny

rhsi:^

n^n^o nnrojn n^s

"nnyo
,^^n
d:x^*i nnt^'i

"C'jx^

ti'ipiJT'D

"'cjs

rh^ W'cyh

ynm

pn^'i

yoD

^3 Dn?:n^D nv ni ni3 onui

.D^3-iiy

nn: n:nD

nu: non^o
nn^nn
yni:
c^id-i

nv

:iii'-iN

'JiDum

D^:n:)L3JD

nn^roi

D2d Dipai
|j:iidi

cc'DNn
**

n^s*

W'^^v nrn
'

'ynvo

on^
'.

r\w ^x n:w'D
in

nnx

Eupatoria, 1829, 60

Alphabet

The work was begun

Constanti-

nople in A.D. 1148.

358
^bii

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Q'l'iV
"ipa
-iissi

njjipnn^ nr:jn^?on

c^no
onoy

-incn

m^yo

d^j^io

D^Di"ip Dn>!^y D'22iyr:) d^l'-d

n^ns

py ns*

d^D3?:i
n^t^

on^^y msiyn

D.T331 Qn^D;33"i Dn^^n ^:-iDvn niaiyn

ho

n^s nr:n^o

nnx
.
.
.

L*'^Ni

y2-\p

^b

^^i poi

ncim

i' ^p?3i

cynni nnnna n^si

noip

D^kHN

haan inj-sD

inbn

^::''"l:D'J1p

'no

n"in:i

am

nu:,

'A kind
Near
birds,

of "pithecdn" two cubits and a span dwell in their

territories near a large lake,

where fragrant spices abound.

their hills there are to

be found several species of large

winged and powerful.

At

a certain time in the year

all-

these birds gather and fight an

day

battle with these

in various

pygmies.
kinds
of

These "pitheces" array themselves

armor
and

draw up

their

lines
is

like

trained

soldiers.

But before the day of battle

on. they hide

their wealth,

women, and

children.

On
lie

the day fixed

by

those
battle

who know the calendar, they and at dawn the birds descend
They
fly at

prepared to give

covering the light of

heaven.

them and

fight
all

them with

their nails

and beaks while the men use

sorts of warlike impletall

ments to meet them ...

certain

and powerful

individual of the people of Constantinople

in their

was shipwrecked

country

('Esk5l Hakkofer, 60
surmises'''^ that this

"Alphabet

"

).'

Epstein wrongly

was a part of the

for
'

Eldad Hadani

tale

quoted just before this story,

the

man

of Constantinople' can have nothing to do with the

traveller

Eldad Hadani.
>*

op.

a'l., p.

65.

FRAGMENTS OF SA'ADYAH'S ARABIC PENTATEUCH COMMENTARY

By Hartwig Hirschfeld,
In the
earlier
series

Jews' College, London.

periodical
I

of this

published

two fragments of Sa'adyah's commentary on Exodus and

Leviticus, which I

had found
I

in

the Genizah Collection at

Cambridge.^

Latterly

discovered another fragment of

the Genizah fragments

the commentary on

Exodus among

preserved at the British Museum, and

am

pairing with

it

a second fragment on Leviticus belonging to the Bodleian

Library at Oxford.
sizes

As
in

all

these fragments are of different

and written

different

hands, they cannot have

formed parts of the same volume.

notice.

This fact deserves some

Although manuscripts and fragments of Sa'adyah's

arc exceedingly rare.

translation of the Pentateuch are frequent, specimens of his

commentary

We

see,

however, that

at least four copies

must have been

in circulation,

and of each
In explana-

only one small fragment has come

tion of this fact
I

down

to us.

can only repeat a suggestion ventured

viz.

on a former occasion,^

that the copies were deliberately

hidden or destroyed, presumably by Qaraites, since these

commentaries
methods.

teem

with

severe

criticisms

of

Qaraite

Nay, the refutation of Qaraite interpretation

seems to have been one of the chief aims of Sa'adyah's

1

J.Q.R., vol. XVIII, pp. 600 sqq.

Ibid., p. 601.

vol.

XIX,

pp. 136 sqq.

359

360

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

It
is

Commentaries.

probably for a similar reason that

we do

not possess a single complete copy of his polemical

writings,

and several of them are missing.

By

a strange coincidence both our fragments form the

beginning of new sections, each having a special heading

and an introduction.

There

is,

however, a difference
difficulty.

in

these headings which involves culty

is,

some

This
is

diffi:

indeed, small in fragment B, which

headed

Commentary on
begins
correct,

the second half of the third part.

As
all

it

with

Lev.

16

the

term second half

is

but

but fragment

is

headed

Coniinentary on the

second part, the second half of the Tordh.

the second part
is

This implies that

identical with

the second half.

The

fragment begins with the exposition of Exod. 21, which

does not halve the book, and
teuch.
It therefore

much

less

the whole Penta-

seems that Sa'adyah had a division

in

of a different

kind

view, a

division
viz. to

which was also

adopted by Qaraite interpreters,"

distinguish between

the legislative and non-legislative portions of the Pentateuch,

which would yield two parts of nearly equal length.

this

But

in

case

we must assume
its

that he included the

outlines
in

Decalogue

with

broad

legislative

the

narrative chapters.

The

material of both fragments

is

paper.

Fragment

consists o{ fonr leaves, the size of each leaf being 15

x 20 cm.

The square
loop at the

writing

is

very archaic, and might date from

letter p especially
if it

the tenth century.

left

The

shows a

little

top corner, and looks as

were modelled

on old inscriptions.

Our next
author of
'

task

is

to consider

whether Sa'adyah

is

the

the work of which the fragment forms

part, or

Sec Qirqisani Studies, pp. lo sq. 'not yet published).'

SA'ADYAH'S PENTATEUCH
not.

COMMENTARY
it

HIRSCHFELD

361

In the

first

instance

should be stated that the

translation of the passages

his translation as

known

to

commented upon agrees with He also quotes the two us.

passages, Job 38. 37, 38, the rendering of which, with slight variations, again tallies with his authentic translation of
this

book.

As
it

matter of

fact,

it

improves upon the

same, bringing

nearer to the original

by the

selection of

a word similar in sound to the

Hebrew

original.*

This

is

well-known characteristic of Sa'adyanic translation.

verse 38
is

Now
com-

quoted both

in

our fragment and in his

(2.

mentary on the Sepher Ycslrdh

in

1)^ and in both cases

connexion with the earth as one of the four elements.

3.

Similarly the verses Prov.

19-20, which are discussed in

the opening passages of our fragment, are quoted in the

author's

Book of Beliefs^ where he endeavours to show that

is

Wisdom
and

created, and
If

is

discernible in the four elements

their spheres.

we

turn to Sa'adyah's
as follows
:

comments on
'

the verse just quoted

states, as

we read
mean

"

This section

mentioned before, that the Creator created the

I

world with Wisdom,

to say,

He

created

it

well
its

established^ and without flaw.

Likewise did

He make
The
'eres,

foundations as straight as

Wisdom demands.
:

sage

(author) here describes four things

the repose of the earth

upon

its

axis, as laid

down

in
it

the words ydsad

the

revolution of the sphere round

as stated in kdnen shdinain

yim.

Springs gush forth

iiibJiq^u^

which water the earth as said

fhduidth

and

rain

and dew descend from on high

idl.'

according to the wor^s yiraplm

* *
"^

This passage

is

an

pD", Hebr. p3K'\

ed.

Lambert,

p. 43.

ed. Landauer, p. 92.

Version arabe des Provcrbcs, ed. Derenbourg and Lambert,

p. 29.

NDariD,

cp.

our fragment,

p. 365.

362

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

repetition

almost verbatim
fragment.^
It is well

of

similar

one

in

our

known

that Sa'adyah attacked the Philonian

theory of the eternity of the Logos (Wisdom) as well as

that

God employed
This denial
fully
:

it

as a tool for the creation of the

world.

is

alluded to in our fragment and

more

repeated in the author's Book of Beliefs, as

'I

follows

^"

met

people

Prov.

8.

22 to the effect

who interpret that God is an

^^

the

passage

eternal

Word
This

which never ceases creating together with Him.

I

have already refuted on a former occasion

refer
it

against those

who

to spiritual beings.

explained that the word

it

qdndiii

means "he has created me", and made

Wisdom, but
it

clear that

this qualification refers to

does not mean

that
is

He

created the things with the help of a tool which

It
^^

Wisdom.

only means that

He

created

them well

established.'

After

this,

what doubt remains

It

as to Sa'adyah's author-

ship of our Commentary'^

might, however, be asked

why

this

philosophic

discussion

with

its

concomitant

exposition of cosmic and

mathematical theories was recivil

quired as an introduction into the exposition of the

'

p-

365p.

*"

Amanat,
This
is

89

see Guttmann, Die Rdigionphilosophie des Saadia,

p.

106.
'^

cither the passage in our fragment or his

: '

22.

The

hitter runs as follows

i

The Creator

called

comment on Prov. 8. His creation into being

.

with Wisdom,

e. perfectly'

well establislicd (^N?rSn N^DSPID

tiiat

Tiiis
all

makes

clear the prophet's assertion

Wisdom
for
in

necessarily preceded
its

created

beings, since everything

was created

sake.
first

contemporaneously with the creation

ibid.),

the

Wisdom was created moment (see Guttmann,

(ND2n?0).
be
>2

Time itself was then created, viz. as something well established Wisdom is not a thing standing independently, since it cannot detached from existing in aught which God has created.'
since

SJODHD.

SA'ADYAH'S PENTATEUCH
code of the
thoughts
Pentateuch.
this
:

COMMENTARY
The
train

HIRSCHFELD
of
as

363
^^

the author's

was

God

created

the world

a well-

arranged and firmly established whole with the spheres

revolving round the earth in regular
larity
is

circles.

This reguin the

visible not

only

in the

macrocosm, but also

microcosms of plants and

is

living beings, including

all

man, who

endowed with senses and

Man,

the faculties of his soul, of

which not one can be missed without impairing the integrity

of the whole body.
well-established laws.
therefore, cannot exist without

This, then, also applies to the

com-

munity whose

rulers are

bound

to act

on the same principle

injustice

as the Creator, to dispense justice,

and put down

and crime.
the words
:

For
Nozv

this reason the

tJiesc

T5rah heads the code with

are the judgements.

Before entering, however, into the interpretation of the

text, the author

makes

further preliminary remarks.

In

the particle

he

finds a syntactical

connexion between the

preceding Decalogue,
latter,

words

these are

tJie jndgevients

zx\^ the

describing the former as a logical consequence of the

since the Decalogue comprised
all

the six hundred and

thirteen
tion

commandments.

The

first

of these

is

the declarathe Shema*.

of the Unity of

God
i.

as expressed

in

Laws
1.

are of three kinds:

those written in the Torah

;

national laws, though not written

3.

traditional laws,

likewise unwritten.'^*

The fragment ends with

spite of
^^

a grammatical note which, in

its

smallness, shows the author's deep

his

knowledge of

The author here mentions

commentary on Deuteronomy, of which

law
in a

up

till

now no
The

trace has

been discovered.
is,

^*

distinction of the various classes of

more elaborate
Beliefs,

form, dealt with in the third section of the author's

Book of

with

the difference that the national laws with their subdivisions are placed at
the head.

364

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Hebrew language, and
two leaves with 23
page was
is

the intricacies of the

a welcome

addition to the scant relics of his linguistic achievements.

Fragment B
page.

consists of
is

lines

on each

The

writing

in

square characters, but of a later

first
it

type than fragment A.

the
title,

The

left

blank for

which

is

wanting, but

bears a notice to the effect

to a certain

that the

volume had been transferred

refers to a purchase,

Abraham.

Another notice

probably of the same

volume, by Samuel Hallewi, after which the name Sa'adyah

is

given.

Now

this points to

the fact that the fragment belonged

if

to an independent booklet,

not a separate treatise.

The

heading of the fragment

is

of the kind to be found at the

beginning of a new work.

The

introduction contains an

elaborate lans Dei, emphasizing the connexion betueen the

divine government and justice, and then dilates on the three

sources of injustice.

An

absolute proof of Sa'adyah's authorship

is

given in

the translation of the verses

commented upon,
is

especially in

those passages in which the translation

character.^^

of exegetical

Unfortunately there

is

a gap after the

first

leaf,

the

missing pages probably dealing with the interpretation of

the
first

eleven verses of chapter 16.

The fragment ends

with the translation and interpretation of verses 11-15.

Two
first

passages deserve special attention because of the

In the

personal note the author seems to strike in them.

he speaks of three causes of

injustice, viz. lack of dis-

cernment on the part of the judge to weigh circumstances,

or his partiality, or his fear of one of the contending parties.

This reads

like a criticism of the

'''

conduct of the exilarch

'

Note particularly

'

house of God

for

'

God '.

SA'ADYAH'S PENTATEUCH

COMMENTARY

HIRSCHFELD

365

David

b.

Zakkai,
office.

in

consequence of which Sa'adyah was

:

driven from
'

The second is the touching remark whatever happens to us we must accept with gratitude
3. ii.

',

with the allusion to Prov.

a reference to his

This not only sounds like

own sad
is

experiences, but incidentally

points to the period during which this

commentary was
against the

composed.

Noteworthy

also

the

protest

doctrine of the

Mohammedan

sect of the Jabariyya}^'

who
will,

taught that
leaving;

all

man's actions were guided by a higher

free choice.

no room for

A
Brit.

Mus. Or. 5562,

C.

15 x 20 cm.

^"inn

bi<\>

rinin^x

'Jxh^N*

fjvj^N "iNni^x

^n^N

TDsn

FoI. i6 ro.

^N*

\ht^ 'i^N

D''Nn^N inxi^N ^^xids*

'^ui

hn^n

rhba.

insan i^i
cs*-i3n

DN^nN^x ^^^

n5pn6 Nnyms'

ns*

rio'bnfc

Dsby^N

pi'xn^N*

^ys

N*r:nNni)T

pn^s ;s'pnN^Ni dx^hn^n ins nyn

nn " ^ipn ix risnyoi Nro^n Nnn^on nonpD^N* 2r\:b^ wnai

^N*

"i:':)yi

px

iD^ n^ipn 2x-in^x nvjy

^^x
Q'Dt^'

n^'x^y^x ppioa

nvjyi lypaj

nioinn nhpn xo^x ivjyi

po

n^ip3 "ixj

yD:x i^i p^5 n:x xjsny bo layn^ W'pnm nhpi xin^x

x"'u'X

'3^x |x n^ia nn''

c^i risiyDi D^yi nn^nn ri^m

rir^^ip

pi^is ri^x^xs
rijpriD

xn^cyriDx njxi

n:x3

nym n:uni noDn

riD^no xnp^5
.nj5?

mx

t-t xdjxi n^x nvxjy^x xnn

jnj

nxn^i
'*

noDH

T\*^

xnroxanx ^^y
by Haarbruker,

xjapis .niSno
88.

See Shahrastani

transl.

I, p.

366

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

noNpi nmv-i

fn:;N"i^b n:;

xd

'^y

rinis nnnto

xnp^s

h^ba
3

|N i^ni

no

''i'n

^y

pN

n^in
n?"i

b^p

noi^s

"s

.ip^yo^io

yp""

W2D

fi^i^nix n^s yp^

^s^'J'N'^n
''21

5nN* in ninci^K
.nx^xiti y3-i^N

yni i-sac'N^x i^xdi nys/ixi n^h?::^^'

"I^ni

.n^nyx

Ni'\s ins
'n

Nn6"nsi kx2'c\s^s* ybia in

no

rirsno ntdfi Tiirx

Foi.
I

fx rinnrD ^d ;nn Tikx riopj^N jn

jn

vo.

rr^NV Nnn

"^yi

xiD^sn D'nr:^s yj^a

Dpi
y^r:?

Nmyfi

p^""

"is

riTNT xnyDi
Nf:nr2
L5P

wS'ioi'Nn i^airs*

x?:5!-y^N

piD''

d^ nh^
^[rx

p xmya px^N nnnx'L:'^ m "ix no^k

^20:2) mpi'N "a
fx ^ip: n^"ih i^n'hti

NX-N D^ntD^N rinoj "ixn^

fi-'iNDno rina ^3

iD'^no^x

napjirs*

fD

ps*^N3 i^s^x rioNns

Ninl^x

Nonjo inxi

--^N

nor NJ^nra n^s

pi nd'-s
H^n ^n

rnni'^sa p3^

ni'-i^i

JO in n-i^xi i^'nr^ba

n^s

n^d^^n' jn

xm

^Nnnyxa
rina

TE5rQ~Dvnc^~T2D^
pnxv:^!?x nnT- po

-s nnal^x ni'Npi

^xnnyxn

xnnr^nni ipnn^

D^3:ni pviob

isy np-az

nxnsN^Ni

nT:;"iD

^bx n3V3^ Tin

xn^sc

ncd!:'x

axDpxi fioana
pririn

riyaio xn^3

^xacx^x

|x

pnmtD^x pyn bap xd xifxi

xpn^ x^3X n3x D^y^

xh
1^

n"'xnj

x/n

xian"'

rj^x

pi'*

jx

xnnn

n6

riXi'n

xnax

i^xpD

nhm

xini? XD^yks* aii'i nip!?x3

3Ji^

nnc'^x ^bv nxJiixi

rnnxp ^5xn

xnxjyiis

nmnD
|x

n^nn riixnxijx ncxn xo rinnxpbx ddi ^a rixvn^x Dipn

nnBhn

rina

i^a

f^ny "-^y

px^xn Dxnx anb

nai
}>-ix

xin^x i^na xna

^'

D^Q NCD^x

2t2p

nnnh

no* nD^na

p5 nnoini

nasnn ^xnnyxi ^nyai n:Dn3

lypaa

dv:::'

pn

ijxp i^i^i

Tinnn

mcinn inyi3 bap

xini?x
'D

i?'ib)

ppan x^s

px^x

"b xr^^x p^y

D^pn'ii'i

riD^xp -i?:p^x ri^xn fx

bo isyT

'ayn

SA'ADYAH'S PENTATEUCH COMMENTARY

HIRSCHFELD
^ba^
iwSi

367

N031

.nb'n:S

Dh Mnn nh^o

jn^ ibi

x"iud

"is*

Nns^N

l?o

t-'Ninysn n^^n

icj'-

n!?

nxaJ^N

|n*

ni'ni

na 3m?:

FoI. 2 ro.

pj nxxi^x vry ob ^xinyxi?x

|y

xn^smox n5
ic;a^

[xs

pixB
^d

nmon

nixj n^ax t^si dvo ^p^ax

^u

nxpix^x

f-yn

ivxjy iba xt3x

n^piya

p
^''

i?xinyxn xpan xcjx [xli*\s jxT'n^x jxinxi

"iDx n3
luiDi'x
'd

''^x

""dj^x

^xp xo
'iji

i^yi

inx*i:'3

xm

HT'nxn ijiy

nya xsn^x |x^

^jocD^ntjoxi
nyn
x"ij!?xi

c^T D^

xmnx

?inDX |xd nT'iixn

pj''

b^v
jvva

'^"^ba

yDD^x
IXDix^x

"-^p

"3

bnyn^x

^^^ t6j"i
n\xD"i

/i:i

nin^ p5 jxvn^x

'D

"n^rx riip^x

vba

oro^bxi pn!::xi du'd^xi nva^xi

^xnnyxi'X xin ;d
y< x!'

nn5

inn'x'i

^xinyxi hya xbx onn x^ ^3

xin

nx

DXJ^^x jx nx?:)nprD!?x

j^riM niincx"! nsyif

rihxy Dx^nx Dm^a n^n

nnxti*: xro3
ppn''i

jx 33''D

nxnoxn x^x

pK^'-y

Dn-i^x D^nD"" Tin

-i-^\x3
'3

nsvja ^vxidi

"i^v noi? ipTi ^ixi?

^'D^L>nD

an^^x n^xp xmi

hbmvD
I3"ip3

xnjx^

nym n^nm no^n

"n

nx::nxbx tt'dd i^nh ^nn

n^l^x no^n

bxp

"ix
^'?

D^xy^x
nirxc'i

m22
xir^xi

nn'-nc'

ri^nxy
nr^yvb

xifxi nsc-vo y?ru6 p^n

^^yi
.""^

.u^ud
'jy

DXJ "nx nyin x\t x^n 2)d rx jrnxi

pi

n^Ji^N

nan
'1JI

hyx xix

pi^ircv'x

i^d^x

;x

hp^ hvx^x xin

xm
''bv

p-ix n^oy^ GDC'Dn -jbo n^ip po

nmix

-^.x}

xnxi
fx

hyi D3nn
x^D

D^xy^'x

n5n xd:x p^xi^xi ii^d^x i?D

^d n?03n3 xir^x nnSfr-i xjm-c'
:

mxny

pn

xd

xo
!?'''

I3ii rxD ixd:: p^j

ni'iy^
'^1

t:ir:n

ba

i?3n

p^n

fjx

p5

pi

i^nyi
'1:1

xirpi

can 'ba

1^:^'''

yiiro

*3

nb

xd:2^x FoI.

"^y 321X1

pnv3

bn

os'J'"'

xim ixd3 D2C'Db

pi3 aty^

368

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

y-i nvj*y

D'jbD

nnym

pi bo^n

Nonn

is*

choba

ti:^s*

N3{:'ni

nnjsn pro^xEb^Ni ptn:^x iEi xin

pcin^ DHjs*
n?o^y^

"^yi

pn:*

^nat:-'

d'-j^d p\*n

N^

nxpyi bsa

^3

jnoa^ Dn3i< pnbn^'

"^y D^xyi's*
lyT*
ds*ds'
p'-asi

H
N^ ^3

iD^JD

'iJi

nnn^i

"?!

102^* i'xp
|S*2

is njsvi no
'iJi

s'T-hj s*j\s"i ip b'np biip

irT n^i

n^

'ui

Qm^n
ba.

s*^

bi

nb

D^sy^s* i^iT abz

pnbbM

pnii"'

dxj^n

jo

.T3 n?D3nnDS* np indjs*

s*^

n:
fx

l!:'n^

HDDJ in b2
"'ks*

mis*^''

wn s*D3 s'j^p DiIdq^n dh p ny d-'^s ri^nsp^N ^i^y

^'^y^s*
"'d

i^ay n!?

|s'i

ix^n^s*
^^s*

mr^s*

^\s*i

mN*n^s* |x

nmi
"in"i5

i^axy D^ |xi is'bnl?x

nnros* ^ix^ D^s*6kxi "i\s*a^s* ^s

msn^s*

njs*n D'^n^s* nyi

iii?
^'

xin

^^yi

yj^-in

dis* p3>
fin-'

ab bap

s*)d >i5yi

as*n3 in pit^t Dn!?-iy

'

Nnn

n-c'N

12 noip m?D*

msn^*

HM- Ninn qyi p5

nnsifo!?
riipi

DnN2!:'i^ nasvysi Dns*Dn!'

,invi

nmNija

-a

DnsD^n^ ddh
'1:1

pnv moyij
p5

3N13N* 13 ^is*^N n^iD-i nos* *j!?ih

n-OD-*'on nbn)
hp''

ddcd nnS mya

DX3ns*^N
DS'ansi's* nini

dS

n^s*i

s*^is*

i^ip-

.Dn-i^y Nniirin -n^s*

nnmn
n^i
js'

^t^'y

rivp -ni
|s*

.sn^ap njo

-^s*

n?:;ioiro

N*nas^
fiyxoa

n^N

^vs'2

.n-iL-a

Namsy

s*03

ni\*?j

anh

-m
rivp

n-nn n^co
i^T]r]

"3

mc^ao s'M yHFTvnp

niv -nsi -a-D
lb

-ays*

n-mn^s*

DDDN no^^
^i- 3 ro.

nyn -

nn

cjpiD

|y

^sp Son^s*
fs*

xn3 DH-b DSH

JN -axiny^s*

nas^

N^is*

DH-^y sni^n-i-a

ns*D3i

my^s*

nn'j'r^^ IS3 ripasio

-aoni-i?

10

rinnD

ih
-D

.niD-

?s*

N^N sn3N

nnn-cs

xoas* xas* hp^

na^^ no^jy

l^i^i
Vi-iD

n-in^a'K

d^ pao yno -aoni- xnas*

Nnn

nn-^y ^di^s* s*nx^n no^

ph

.axnxi'N ind

- --13T b2

nx Dyb
is

n2D-i nt:'D n3-i

xin nya ^xp xod

" MS. DXnD, which

evidently an error of the copyist.

SA'ADYAH's PENTATEUCH

COMMENTARY

HIRSCHFELD
'^

369

^i'n

''^y

Dn^^y Nnn can n^yj

nv-i^n

nan

nt^'x

INDT^N

ho pnasm pTXD jm

n^jni

ripsxin^s
)n

"N3N nip: .DN3ns'^x

3in3D^N

^c'

f:

fionnn nnni D3n ^3 ^jxyo

"i^yi

bpi

p
i?3

"-D

"in

s'JOD

hvxl p

imsr
nodi
in

NifN nDn^ba
nnsi
'a

oirJi

ninao d^^ n:N

Spyo
ini

in

nn^J

xh N3in30
pbi^^

pa''

n^

Sp:o

no
jo

na

n!?

njd NDHJtt n5N*j

iTip

hp:o^N

^:yN

p:nN^x
<ibti

nnn

^3 jn n^yxi dpd nTp^N*3 in

Mon^n

i5K3i

DNon
'D

\nQ rinn

xnn^xn xnx

DwnN^N
ny''nt^b

n3N* yiitt

n:iiv3D in

rihpyo ri^^b

n:ip ^^JiN^N rivp^N3

nn3js n^n wnnp np nxD

n^ay^x yx'^nax y:

^Npi

mpn
no

"'3

n^3

''s

!jnp nin'^N

p3D

loni'-ija N-iaNnny iniiv

}Ni

nynax xnx nn^

^di

ijin

id:3

dx njn?^ xnn ni^ yasD^x

xn jx3
|xi

nyiD nnaiT aninija nair

x:''J3

xnry
jxi

ni

xnry

n^ n^na

rijir

nxho

n^^x yan

rjinx

dx
ix
foI. 3 vo.

n3>

iini

xnxhoi? p3n xnnxhxi

riair^xa

xnxn

^nain \shiD

naanx nny^x

!?xp |xa

nox^ ncx dx xnry

^^x

nxho

nnnp^fja vc^jni .xnn

nix

d^^
'nn

nxhxi
D3xnf5x

nnx

nx^JiD dd^i pi?Di?x ix

3X3^x
:

^^jx

nnnp^

nonn^j

)x ^:3J'

xi3 Jjix

nnni^x >^x noni^a dd>3

|d

yx^nax DX3nx!?x nnv ^ya 6^ rivp^x nnn ^:xyD

B'^x

130^

^31

njpn

>3

rivp ^ayx

p^:xn3y!?x n^nybx

nnB'

*a

n^3xn nax3 xi' xnyxDaxa

-iL'-'x

TH^ba

|x

hpja
nns'y

n^nxvin
n^nyi^x

n>a Sxi^x
ijix

nun^x

jx3i

nnann

axuxi'x

bv^

nniv nuo onvD pnxn

.p^axnnyijx

^
18

hpa ixan n>3y^x n3n bbv xnaci " MS.

Probably Dn3N.

nipbx3.

VOL.

VI.

B b

370

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

;nND una
b)iihii

^riN^'in

I'^a on
riastj'n

nay nnny
piDs

bii-\'c>'

':2 'b

nun^N rb^^b

nynba

''

^:s*

oni'D

vSD

njDQ ppnsi'N
n^ipi

'^y

.i^ni^N^N"!

yva^N

n''n\*n

3Jv ijipyo
/ip^i

1DQ3 nnyn ih
js*

ya^N T'dn^
yi?2D?2^><

fins
'd

jbwxnv

ynroi's pa^

^onn^

hx

jsn

nay~-ay

^Np
"Ipi

Nroi?s

.x^JNnny
Dni!?x ^NT

^n^ Nnny
nnyn
-j^nx

jn^ fxi N^Jsnay

'JN'n^^'N'

i?

-idd^

-:]

ixin

yai n:Nn
-iriDN*

i^ nos: in
Ny^t^J

nyn

yc^^ n:pn '^ rhv"^

yxT

xi?

pn2ii?N ^^ys riDsna

n^ Dixn^x
;o

Iii5S

noN^ HDDJ

irDirolrx

y>n jx
xnjir:)

fb*

n^si pjD ho
''^i!?x

^3 I6i
i:^
Fol. 4 ro.

DnDD3X "yxn^
in3D:i nn'-nx
",C'nn''1

bap

ix^ rx3
dji

t:

nx nnnn ddx

DniT'cxn

13T

iXi'C

xS

pIDS^X DXCn^ 2N1J

ijj

Dnij

p^

D^S)

"yxn ;x xrDiT'nnx pn\s::

p-ii3nci?x |x n^ fi:

xyn\x n^x: xo nn^ n^pb

:

''!?y

'jy

ij3

hd

onhpi?

n^^^ nnoajx

nrr'C'xn

''d

fon m^: yx3 Dnvyn ;x -jxn^jxi

;x-ir:x

min^x nnp^Dn d^
'C"\^v

ixim
xi?i

iDo-'nx

nx nar^n

12V' o':iy
n^ipi
"l^-i

n^ipi

.im

ixvd

1:^nnn i^xp ibiija

[x

iQ y3nD> xbi p3D

^i^x

y^D nxh?o mi''

n-'sin

nay^^ lox

DV

DV

po p:D

y3D x^vr^x
'D

2:v

xr~njnioi
|x

rih^h IX pin::' "inxn/X r\:D

x:yxo y^3^x npi fxa

'D

njx3
jyo-D

D^ ih

xi'^xi

DDp^x3 ixnpD3 yaxD^x

xi'^x

p
|x

"-co

nx^ra^ -ixniinnx nay^x ^^y 33i^

x'^c xn"'3 jyu^

noxoi
pa--

^''XDi

pxi ^3 ^^y ai^ xrra xsi^x n^ ns^ riynxD^x

nini?

jx

pr^i .n>^y

nbx

pni?x

3nxv^ ixnn^xn inuno''

pcixon^x ypv^ xyD? pnv^x xvpx: nySilai nanD ri^y^x

^^y

nnunoD^x

Dx?:n^xi nxonks* axr^n^x xn^^y

^-j'sni)

wxyv^i?

X3x-inx dSu ni p^x n^

x:;^

ba? xnxi

xjnn::'

xo
jxa

DJn

nmxv

^2

hp3D nb

pny^'i

nj?:n n^ro n5x*

bmn:

SA'ADYAH's PENTATEUCH
"En
r,:2b

COMMENTARY HIRSCHFELD
n:s*

371

pny axn^ ^ba :Nnn^ ah

Nisny ^is^s ^xipx*^

~jbii\

nspDi^K SD1

10

oln ina riNinoi ax^y '3 Nnps:K

nshn
^^wSD

n5iy^ ix nr^r^^ D^^a

no

rino

p6

|s

n;x

x>my
br\K)

.piyn^ws fo

"En ins p:D T^x nya dn\s*^n i?n

rinc |x

nsiix^N' >3 N3

nd2 hpjs
fji'J

.isnpJri'K

sin

ai^T

C3
FoI. 4 vo.

NHN^'P ncT^' n^ r:D

yao^x

^ps p^n scnn pro^x

Dsn^N xnm
3in3?2^x

n^si'p ^^y nai

iva^x jo "in^x n:s3 |ss

-iihsro^vS 'S ^r

p b

^ipyjD^x

n5^
y^w

d^

1^

ibiitha ^^y ^cnri s^-u-x^s

ixa ^ipyo^wS*

x:x2

rinnaksi n-ixin^wX3 niaio bz 'bv a^pba '^ in xc2 xn^^jy

.nn^: jx xjinn
jv<:p
njkrro

ixin

-ntr^x^x
isi

txdi hdit^xi

riaiQ-iVxi

ni^xon^x

ritr:

nnb

ri^xcsbx f'pn n^ bcy^x nnc

;x2 ninro^x 10 x!:xi

's "lixi'X

yiic^x

"s ni'xp rniri^x

'^V^'^

i6)^bb nnxax xnax i^t

p:x-in pjD

n^asr c'B'

nnay

-i'3-j'

n^::*

nn nm;x 'ixon xo
i^nba

jo

^pxn nnriw"

|x

p3^x
xo

.inx n^ noi^D |x

.^ivabx ^^xi h^iiai

f|yir

y3-i2^

pD

npn^ |XD n>3x^x ni:^

^ixd'
riito

xd nonj
'3 in

1X2 x^iD^JX n^cnn> ^yvi'x ^jyx

x!?

nai^x

qxt

Tin xhci^x
ritbs^ji'x

piy

IX 3:1 ^ivj^x in

nbx

i^xo^x

cxn no

nxn xt

1232

dx nhpi

ni)xo

Dxn

noB'

Non^

^xp'

pa^xi nnbi^x jx^ ^xnaxi^x

in: j*nx3 ^c'cni

pno

'bv

nnnoi
sjii

nna
113

X0X1

^xp xoaa lu xoxa

X3' 1233
^2:

321

c?^i

XII

^3

;x ibi^

dx xainn bap xc32

'2

^:

'2:

by

!:xpi

mp

'ono uj

^y p3 ^xn3xi5X

nsnn-j'o

Dxpo n3xnb
n3iry^xi
x:;>

'"J'2:

non: bap

wX03i

n"jnn v^in

nxn2:x^x ns:yci n:n3 nD2^bx H*X2 nixnb

1233 X3"' 1233

x'"j'

Qx x:^
[x

|X

x^x njxn x:3 -n

cb nx

ch'i

nu

|c

n3Q njx'

cnin:

;::

mh^x
B b 2

nxni?

372

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

B
MS.
F0I.81V0.

Bodl. 2862. 28
r^v'i':^

fol.

81 vo.

14 X 19 cm.
nJD:;'a

N^i "iCNDi N-iu ^Dn NJ?:n-i

njy ^pj;i?K na: nnas npn >nDi -intba

fs"n nni^Ni

nhy

nil

pao/K

Nui^N
ns'i'P

n:y riosn^N* nnyaxi d^u^ni iij^n

'a

iT^y NQ5'' ah)

n-N^3:x
jy

"11?'

n^ n^s bny^x D3Nn pn^K

^d

'hv nnsriD
:

nsno
on 02

ibii po: npi nNin no

i^Np

ia jr ni

|13d odu'di pn^*

p^did^x

^i'D^s T"i3 N^no Dan^xi ^Jiy^N

naom

^^syn onan

n^ny Dsipa nnxan

f3i3
"IN*

^3l^

yr

pn fxivn^ jNDnxijNi
rin^'i

ii:-''

ab'wb
n-'^y

''Vi

nijN^a ^3
^i^di
'iji

'pJ noan nonon nfy

dd::'^

"ii:^N

n?"'

vi bnn

nihi '6b L'^n^

isn-Ti

jy

Nox 3N3DS*

':

nnx

jy

n^n

|N313^

ab

d^oIjx

r^M nrnxn
ny3

fiya^ ^3^
ix

a?'*

n31 DXDnx^xa nvn rhp

fyi
!?a

nnxs p^n

b^? xna

tm^x
bp
pel

ini

rij^xa

ba

l^JT

nyn nd^d naixa nnnn |x

|D rijxn fy ix
}y b^ro^D

xnn n^^y^xi xn:i3

n^-j'x-io

DDxn^x
^^y

/:i

nnnx

n^jo pa

DDH^x pno
1^:

n^ac)

-i.-ni?x

^yxn pyn -^x

ini

nam

mxanox
'o-w-i

jo ^o^x "jj^jx i:r:m

^^b

nSon

Tva

njx "bm

D^o-cn -i\n^x

|n

'p5 pinx^xi nxioD^Jx

fixi^
eii5

i^o m^:
.'1:1

iT^y

mDHD^x DDxn^x
noib^

|y
r\b

xroxi

d^dl'tt

nmpn
Fol.

"im

xon n^y np

jxa jxi

njo

nmn

^axn's

82

r-o.

|x x3Dn::'n

nxix

x^"'xi

.onrox^vs^ xr:xnDi

xT3nn
xo yoa

DN

fX3
'PD

tShp

nicj^xi n^xvD^xi Di?x^x fo x:kxr

rir^Dn >H'

Sp3 x^*^ n3na T3-im rinx:

ins

XTn3

SA'ADYAH'S PENTATEUCH

COMMENTARY
ii'Ti

HIRSCHFELD
anix-ioK
'a

373

xSx

|N*3

iN

\:b

Nin

mpo

cnci's^N

'131

DKon ba

'22

''

-1DID pb

Nji?

nxSv^

n:s'

fp^riJi

xnaB'

nonnj
ur'ni

isb

bi

/d

'^y

nm

ncni onsx
'Jni

-"^jxi

i^xpi

iai

x3

^!?Ni

nny-ir ^nprn
''jy>

"mo"'

xi^x i2i xd3 rinn^x n^a

rin^:'jD^

onxip nnc^x!?

onnmx
^^jy

x:x

nmxny in
on!?

D^^ IX nbv:h xv\s*i .Ti:'bx

inon^ oni yiD:Di

'S

n^n n32^x nxn

"jnB

x^intD rnni^^x ^xysx

1^

nnp^b
jxi^

D33

^3

rhvT ^^

'^v n:;npx^ >'i3 jx3

o-'i^yc'^x

nox^x

mxTiixn nix^x
ny:p''

i?"'irDni

nnxi
ni?

nnpn
^y;''

i^na
ps-'i

nb bi i^i

""^y

riony^xi

ri'-c'D^x

n^x

Id:x^x nx*n5x 3X3 jd

n5n^ nii'im
JT'n^
''^b

xn^ya Tin

i^ji

nxan

]2ip

DDX mai

^jx^

nb^x

nnx ^lu moDi

xnyD:""
'vi?

XJDHD XJX3 xjoji^m

"lyn

.pD^nsD xronnnpn yvici

iv^

m:^ xd3i x^^x nn^

n^ipi
'1:1

nnx

biij

-idsx |x

3V3

xnn

vbv nby nc^x Tyc'n nx

i^ip^

pnx anpni
D^i?

i!?-!

^xysx^x nin ny3

^jyD p^i
'1J1

naxi?

nnai npi xnn

nn^j'i

anpm

nxDnn Tyc' nx
n3"ip''i

xin^ riynxn^x
foI. 82

XC3

n^s n^JV^ ni'x npi^x ^d

""

n^ry'

anpni xnn nhp

nax x:2ny

^js^

''n

noy ijx^x
'"v

-i^yc'ijx

"'d

nSp pi .pTo
x'^n

XOXI onp^x
b'^zin'

^2 ^ay^
a^p'-

^JD^

cpn

in

xono

pa^

xn:x

bi hniba x^^

|x

nr x^d

i'lxry

bi^ ^ba n-i>VD nay

nn^N

niu' xnna xnxannc^ "Tikx po^a fv^x jo

xnni isaa^x

'S

rironxDO^x an .-td^x 'mi

nmajn ar ^cy
'a

p
^b'<

i^-'xix^x
y-ipioi?x

^xyax^x
n^ry

ni^x

'mi

an

nyiiro

nnxi

xnn^^y

an

xn^ix bap nix

^xroyx n^x nnn

n*^:

an nnnni .Taxh
n5x"'i

nnni^^x pis ;n nxa

rinttaoi'x

bo

np^i

374

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

ripipno^N :NDVxi^N -iiin id ir^an ^di rhba n^ ra lo

pa -iN3^x

^^jy

"Iliads

li'-i

yir^

on

jn3i

.^jd^n-

^iNi i^n

^in^i

nni" Dn onjn

.is-id
^5wsn

't

n:D ni:^ nc'j^s n^ pai xpnc'

b^l'^ nip^^
|n ini

na ^cyn

fi^D^wS

ncn

n^x

riian^N

niny

..TT pai Xw'J^N *^y njD nvr

rn^N

ma

br^v

km
.nasi
y^cji

DHDnai ^'NiDX

*:3

"VNyo po
'q

mp^x

^s -iDjno^i

DnyD pND^N -ivno^N xa5

-ivnc^N N35
'D
113'

^cy^ -jsi^i

onxDi

]i6

DNJ^N JD insi bi bi
"s

Dn^^k'Nyo

pn
p^

i3;nDN isnxa nsni "ba cipba

inejddn^^ nhii npi

pi:

nanD^K

^^n

;-ii'

.sv^i

.b\siDN ba

tnd

|yi

nba
>*i^

jyi

n:y

by3i niny^Ni

n;^K on

|d nasi

mjy
nn

->2:nDNi n^^s

pn

n^s
^y

p^ nnt:D "^y nvi

."njrn

.NnnnD?^ njN3-iN

Translation

A
Interpretation of the second pari, the sccojid /tal/ oi
the.

Torah.
Israel,

Says the author: Blessed be God, the God of

the

One and

Everlasting,

Who

has created the great

[heavenly] bodies as an everlasting system, since

He devised

them
ment

in steadfast order.
in
its

For

this firm
its

and stable arrangebe

entirety as well as

details

He

praised

for ever.

The above-mentioned
established

firm and well-appointed system

find called in
in

by the Creator we

Holy Writ
These

judgement and omniscience, as

'"*

Prow

3.

19-20.-"

Sec above,
:

p.

361.

In his

commentary on Job. 28 the author says

it

as follows

Wisdom

has no price for which

can be bought, as

is

the case


SA'ADYAH's PENTATEUCH

COMMENTARY

HIRSCHFELD 375
{He has

two passages allude

founded
tJie

to the four elements, viz. earth

earth), fire

{He has established

the heavens),

water [the depths are broken up), air {the clouds drop down
dciv).

This

is

to teach us that

He

created

all this

with
not,

judgement, knowledge, and understanding.

however, mean that these three attributes,

It
viz.

does

wisdom,

knowledge, and understanding, are without beginning, and

were used by

Him
;

as tools,^^
it

by means of which

He

created

the four elements

simply means that

He

created (the

elements) firmly established and well regulated.

this strong

We

call

fabric

wisdom, the firm arrangement under-

standing, and the regularity knowledge, being parallel to

the terms hokhmdh, t^bhundh, ddath.

The
the

first

point
in

in this

strong fabric

is

that

He

created

elements

revolving spheres, as

is

borne out by

observation and mathematical demonstration.

describes this (Job 36.
in
7),

The
is
is

Bible

saying, that the earth

suspended
the most
is

the centre.

The

spherical circumference

perfect figure, being without inequality [of radius], as

the

case with the corners of a quadrilateral figure, or the sides

with other precious things, but Job refers

puts
it

all this to

God, as
is

in v. 23,

and he
to

in the place of the

it

wisdom of
in v. 24.

creation

which

only

known

God.

He He

further compares

with the forces of nature, the working of which only

knows, as expressed

and earth and water, which are the elements unknown

nature and
-'

Here are mentioned heaven and wind to man as to their

as follows:

effect,

&c.

On

Prov. 8.22 sqq. Sa'adyah

it

comments

Reason testifies and

i.

the Bible expresses

that the Creator created the

world with wisdom,

e.

firmly established and perfect.

This confirms the words of the prophet

else,

(Solomon) that wisdom was necessarily created before everything

since everything

was created for its sake, whilst it was created together with the creation in one moment, since time itself was created by means of
it,

i.e.

fiimly established.
it

Although Wisdom

itself is

not an independent

being,

necessarily exists in everything that

God has

created.

376

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

and other
figures.

of a triangle

most
is

perfect,

and regular

figure.
its

The circle The point

is

the purest,
its

in

middle

called the centre, since

is

distance from every point of

the circumference

the same.

For

this reason the distance

is

of the earth from all points of the sphere

the same.
is,

The
in the

sphere of the water being similarly constituted

opinion of the learned, in no
relation of
its

way

different in respect of the

centre to the circumference.

The same

is

the

case with the relation of the surrounding sphere to the

centre,

and we therefore say that the sphere that surrounds

is

the earth

absolutely circular.
is

The same

rule necessarily
in

applies to the air which

between them, standing

equal

relation to both, just as the interstice

between the sphere

is

and the centre

Job
38. 37,
3<S,

is

everywhere equal.
I

This

expressed in

which

translate

Who

arranges the clouds

with wisdom, and

that he plants
If
it

who
on
its

places the poles of the sky

axis,

...

so

and the hubs are firmly

all

fixed.

some monotheist says that

forms are quadrilateral,

infinitely

he does so to avoid [saying] that any part can be

divided, without being aware that this
is

only potentially so.

Scholars

illustrate

this

by the
it

following

example:

If

we

set a stone gyrating, put

it

inside a glass vessel

and
the

make

revolve round

its

centre, the stone

must be
lasts.

in

middle of the vessel as long as the revolution

Thus,

as long as the atmosphere surrounds the earth in equal

distance from

all

sides

it

is

firmly fixed and keeps the

centre as stated

in

Prov.

3. 19.

By

this

means the pole of

describes

heaven

is

immoveably

fixed.

The next passage

it

how on account
of the

of keeping this equilibrium springs of water

are opened upon earth, lest

be wanting.
is

The meaning
that

concluding words of the verse

when the
its

extent of the elevation of the

moon

in

the air surpasses

SA'ADYAH's PENTATEUCH COMMENTARY

circle, it

HIRSCHFELD
it is

377

causes

dew or

rain

if it

be behind,

accompanied

by

rain,

and then decreases.

is

Just as regularity
is

inherent in the great bodies, so

Plants do not

it

with the small ones.

grow except by

a well

proportioned mixture of the four elements.

expresses
this in 3

The

Bible

Sam.

23. 4.

If the

mixture become
i.

disproportionate, no plant can grow, as stated in Joel

20.

Also the bodies of animals are preserved by proportioned

composition from the four elements, as we
experience as well as find
it

know from
Isa.
its

expressed

in

18.

4,

because the gentle wind after the rain regulates

If

effect.

one element were wanting, no animal could

Isa. 25. 5.

live,

as

intimated in

Similar regularity prevails in the

faculties of hearing, seeing, smelling, tasting,

and

feeling,

and the other sixteen

perfect
if

faculties of

man, which can only be

If

the right proportions prevail.

any of them be
these proposi-

missing, weakness and disease ensue.

tions
it

From

follows that

man

cannot

live

except under certain

conditions.
status as

He
see

requires just laws in order to preserve his

it,

we

and scripture hath

it

in Isa. 26. 9.

For

this reason the established order is described

by the terms

wisdom, knoivledge, and understanding, parallel to that

displayed
I

in

the structure of the world and confirmed in

3.

Kings

3.

28;

II

and Jeremiah

22. 16.

On

these grounds the Bible says that

when the human

is

king reigns justly, the state endures, but when he

unjust,

he destroys

it,

as stated in

Prov. 29.

8.

Thus

also

the

Supreme King

established the world with law and justice,

;

as explained before

and

He
to

established

it

with unfailing
i, 2.

wisdom amongst His

Attributing the

servants, as

we

read in Ps. 93.

throne

God,

everywhere alludes

to

government, providence, and

justice, as stated in Ps. 9. 8.

378

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

placed on kings the obligation to strive after justice
fairness, since
it is

He
and

through them that their thrones are

rendered firm, injustice and crime are abhorred and destroyed, as stated in Prov. 16. 12-13.^^

The

Bible rebukes

the unjust and wicked because they act unjustly in matters

of

money and agreements, without

of the

considering that they

destroy the foundations

before,
If

world, as

we remarked
act unjustly

and also

find in Ps. 82. ^-^.

some one

say,

'we see

many

people

who

and wickedly, but neither the whole world, nor even their
city or their persons perish
',

we answer

Suppose we see

a person seized

by deadly

diseases,

he does not omit to ask

not.

any one who may benefit him, yet he perishes

sick person
is

As

the
is

doomed

to die,

though by slow degrees, so

the wicked person

doomed

to perish, though not very soon,

as intimated in Prov. 12.

(Isa. 28.

3.

For

this reason the

prophet

j-6) promises that

God would
like a

aid His people with

four

things,

through which their justice should become

perfect, a loftiness

which

is

crown

^'

for their princes

and a diadem

for their chiefs,

and a (source of) true justice

for those

for their judges,

cities.

and strength

who

spread

it

in
'

the the

His

first

messenger (Moses) therefore says

'

in

chapters of the judgements

'

as follows

Xow

these are the judgements which thou shalt recite

to them.'

''*

Sa'adyali translates these

two verses

as follows

(12)

It is

necessary

that the kings

abhor doing
(13)

evil,
is

because the throne can only be firm

through

justice.

And

it

necessary that they delight in true speech

and love
verses

truthful words.

He comments
it

on these verses

tlius

These two

mean
it

that the Creator built the structure of the

world upon truth

and sealed

with justice, otherwise

is

cannot remain.
;

^ The
text.

original of this passage

corrupt

see the foot-note to the Arabic

SA'ADYAH's PENTATEUCH

COMMENTARY
but not

HIRSCHFELD
these,

379
the}'

The Book says

7iozv these,

because

are included in the preceding

Ten Commandments, which

first

comprise the six hundred and thirteen commandments as

we

generally explain them.

The

of

them

is

that of the

Unification of

God by

reading the Sh^md, as

we

shall

expound

it

in

the book of Deuteronomy.

Moses^ when
4.

speaking about the scene at mount Sinai, alluded (Deut.

14) to the statutes

and judgements, but

to them.

at first he did not

more than
a

recite

them

For, had he

made them

incumbent on them against their consent, a person buying

Hebrew
life,

slave could say

I

only bought him to serve

me

for

and had

known

that he

would serve me but seven

After Moses had

years,

would not have bought him.

recited the

Ten Commandments, and they had accepted

3,

them, as stated in Exod. 34.

with their consent, and
Before

he decided

in

accordance

we do

the

same

at

all

times.

we

begin the interpretation of the text of any

of preface, state three sources of
;

of these laws
:

we must, by way

first,

such written in the Torah

;

sceondly, rational

laws which are not biblical

tJiirdly, traditional

laws not

comprehended

in

any of the previous

classes.
^^

Theoretically
is

speaking, however,
sable
;

we take from them

what

indispen-

and note that each of these regulations, when looked

is

at individuall}',

supplementary to the whole of the Law,

be

it

rational or written

somewhere.

[Here follows the translation of verses 2-6.]

The
following

first
:

question

attaching

to

these

verses

is

the

Why

are the laws concerning the purchase of

Hebrew
Since
the
all
first

slaves placed at the

head

The answer
'

is

this

laws are but explanatory to the Decalogue, and

alludes to the

commandment
^^

house of slaves

',

the

The Ten Commandments.

380

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

law of the Hebrew slaves

given the

first

place.

similar

conception must be given to the verses, Lev. 25. 43-55.

From
two
be as

this the rational

is

law of
It

strict

dealing between

parties
strict

to be

deduced.

emphatically demands to
of a third person as for
first

when dealing on behalf

''ebed ibJiri

oneself.

The words
is

when
^3

heard might
is

mean

that the seller

15. 12.

a Hebrew,^^ but this idea

dispelled

by Deut.

In the words njpn

are united his selling

himself on account of want, or his being sold

the judge for the same reason.

by

[order of]

For

either reason he cannot

If

be sold

for

a longer term

than six years.

is

any one
sell
"^^

imagines that a believing Israelite

not allowed to

himself to his co-religionist (because

Nehemiah
:

said

to

those

who

sold themselves

and

their

dependents

And will

yott even sell your brethren,

and shall
so

they be sold Jtnto you ?

but they

had no

anszver^ as the

end of the verse shows), we

explain to him that those

first,

who do

commit two mistakes

those
;

who

sold themselves to Gentiles did so after our

is

ability

and the second

words

the sale of a dependent as alluded

to in the

ivill you sell your

brother}

Neither of these

matters

is

absolutely laid

down

in

the Torah, consequently

ansiver.
is

they held their peace

(ver. 2}

and found no
h(*

Six years

shall serve

an injunction to the

slave to serve his master seven years without demur, whilst

the term in the scventJi expresses the obligation to complete

seven years from day to day.

If at

the time of purchase

he had allowed two or three months of the calendar year to

pass, he should

do the same

in

the seventh.

Even

if

he had

not entered after the beginning of the year, the slave must
serve
'^''

some part of

the seventh year in order to give

//;/

full

'~i3y *73y can also bo translated

Cli. 5, ver. 8.

shxve of a Hebrew.

"'''

SA'ADYAH'S PENTATEUCH
value, just as a

COMMENTARY

HIRSCHFELD
is

381

merchant must weigh or measure

full}'.

Perhaps for

this reason the

word ny^cn

spelt without the

two yddh,
full

in

order to throw the duty

in respect

upon him of serving

time both

of date and labour.

The words
when

for nothing- are added lest

we imagine

that the owner,

liberating the slave, take his redemption

t/ii'ec

money, and allow

interpretations
;

Jirst^ that the slave requires

no

letter

of freedom

secondly, that he need not repay

for

his

master

any expenses

medical treatment

thirdly,

he need not
for

after the seven years

lost

have passed make up

If the

any time
less

through
the

illness.

time of
(the

illness

was

than

half

seven
if
it

years,

he

slave)

need

not

repay

him, but
this

was more he must repay him.

it is

Though
by

be not traditional law,

a rational, nay even a

all

biblical law.

Rationally speaking

things are judged

quantity; as heat, cold, moisture, dryness, &c.

too,
if

So

here,

the time of his work be the largest, he need not pay

for the

time of inability to work

but

if

the latter was Bible expresses

greater he must
this at

pay compensation.
15. 18),

The

another place (Deut.

permitting the master

to
his
in

buy him

for a ddniq, or one-fourth or one-third less

in six years.

than

wages would come to

If the slave

remain

good health he serves

his

master for twice the amount

If

of his wages, but not more.

he be

ill

all

the time profit-

ing
it.

by

it

even to twice the amount, his master must bear

If the capital, viz. half of the

for

amount, be

large,

he

must compensate the owner

(ver. 3)

any

loss of his capital.

If

^^ came by himself.
for

The word ^ means

are,

his

body and back,

letters, the

which there
3a

with interchange of
passages
:

words ^^

and

"la

in the following
;

Isa. 51.

23, Prov.
.

9. 3, Ps. 129. 3

119. 20,

where naxn
is

is

used for nisn

The meaning

of the

word

body, and

is

382

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

applied to individuality and singleness.

this explanation, as

We
that

only require

we do not imagine
.

he would take

anything else from the house

B.

Interpretation of the second half of the tJiird part, in-

asmuch

as

it

takes into account the conditions laid

down

in the earlier part

Praised be the

God

of Israel, the
clearly

Almighty and exalted

and
to

King, whose justice

injustice

is

manifest,

whom
is

and

sin are
in

denied by the

human mind.
is

There

no

injustice

His decrees, nor

This
is is

hidden from

Him
15,

whatever

He

created.

expressed in Ps, 89.

where His permanence

His
justice,

compared

to the steadfastness of

and
in

is

further emphasized in Ps. 9. 8-9.

injustice or wickedness,
:

How
both

can there be
arise

Him

since

from one of three causes

first, insufficient

appreciation every-

of the value of the circumstances, whilst

thing clearly before
it

He knows
it

arises,

and

verifies

afterwards as

taught
to the

in

Isa. 46. 10

secondly^ the judge's desire to yield

demands of the time which makes him deviate from

the path of justice, whilst

He

is

rich

beyond everything,

does not desire to benefit from the king of lieaven and

earth.

This

is

stated in Deut. 10. 14.

The

////r^

cause

is

the judge's fear of the judged person, although he

is

aware

how he ought
Fol. 82 vo.

to judge.

God

desired to

lift

us up [to the belief] that every pain,

is

accident, or grief, small or great, that happens to us

sent

by Providence,
the plague
(i

lest

we speak
6. 9).

as the Philistines did during

Sam.

The
but

painful affliction of animals

may

be determined by

lot,

how about man,

the noblest

SA'ADYAH'S PENTATEUCH
of living beings
?

COMMENTARY

HIRSCHFELD
we must
for

383

Whatever happens

to us
it is

accept

with gratitude, and be convinced that

our good, as
false

we

find in Prov. 3. 11-13.

We

must not invent

and
7.

absurd talk about Him, and which

13, 15.
It further

He impugns
God does

in

Hos.

teaches us that

not interfere

with man's actions so as to make them involuntary.

if this

For
the

were so
the

He

would confine Himself to put

in

mind of

High

Priest the offering of one of the goats to his free choice,-'

and leave the other

and as

his wish deter-

mined, but this was not satisfactory to Him, and

it

He

settled

by

lots in

order to remove
lot for

it

from man's choice.

The words

because they share

God I translated/*?;' the house of God, the name of sin-offering, and although
The word T"ipm
(ver. 9)
is

the places of their being sacrificed were different, they were

both offered up to God.

does not
in

refer to the slaughter (of the goat),

ver.
i,j,

which

spoken of

but he shall put

it

aside for the proper

moment.
it

Verse 10 means that the goat must be alive as long as

stands before
to
its

God

in

the sanctuary, but this does not apply

it is

arrival at the

mount Azazel, when

dismembered.
explained.

This

is

one of the eighteen miracles which

first

we have

These are the four

Atonement.

acts in the practice of the

Day

of

The

confession of sins over the bullock, then

lot,

the casting of the

its

then removing of each of the goats to

place, then the confession of sins over the second bullock

its

and

slaughter.
in verses

The next group

12-19.

of four actions are

expounded

2''

This being no real free choice.

SYRIAC VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

By Alphonse Mingana, John Rylands
Manchester.
Library,

All
is

scholars

who have perused

the Syriac Version of

it

the Old Testament have arrived

at the conclusion that

a direct translation from the Hebrew, though not always

corresponding exactly with the Massoretic text of our day.

One
but
of

of the most obscure questions which attracts the mind

is

of a Biblical scholar
it

the precise epoch of

its

appearance

is fairly certain that the translation of

many Books
light

first

necessity for daily worship

It
is,

saw the

before

A.D. 200.

indeed, highly improbable that the strong

of Syria part

Christian

community
the

and Mesopotamia, which

extraction,

was

for

major

of Israelite
Psalter

could

remain

till

that

time
this

without

and Pentateuch.

Moreover, since
at

community was
it

sufficiently

numerous

about A.D. 150,

is

very unlikely that the above-

mentioned Books were not already translated even before

the middle of the second century.

Merx^ goes

so far as

to state that Bardesanes of Edessa knew the Pshitta of the

Old Testament.

On

the other hand,

Hebrew having ceased

to

be the

language of the majority of the Israelite nation, the

common

people could with difficulty understand the sacred style

used

in

books read only by the authoritative caste of the

^

Bardesanes von Edessa, Halle, 1863,

p. 19.

VOL.

VL

385

C C

386
Rabbis.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

For
this reason,
it

is

not safe to think that the

did

Jewish community of Osrhoene

not

prove

a very-

powerful factor in the production of this Version.

We
firmly

purposely

use

the

word

Osrhoene

because

we

believe that the Pshitta has been

elaborated in
Its

Western

Mesopotamia, probably
the Edessenian

at Edessa.

wording represents
first

Aramaic language which, from the

half

of the second century, became the sole sacred language in

the Near East, from the Eastern Mediterranean shores as
far as

China, and from Taurus and the Caspian Sea to

parts of the

the Southern

Arabian peninsula, and was

used also

in

many

parts of

Egypt and Abyssinia.

This

Edessenian dialect influenced,

for a long time, several of

the most stubborn Jewish circles of Assyria and Babylonia.

By
in

personal knowledge

am

aware

that, in our

own

days,

many

Israelite centres of great importance, like

Zakho,

50 miles
15 miles
this

NW.
NE.

of Mosul (the ancient Nineveii);, Sheranesh,

of Zakho, and

Dehok, 35 miles N. of Mosul, Mesopotamian Aramaic, mixed sometimes with the

of the

dialect

Targums,

is

spoken and used

In

for

daily

transactions and daily worship.

my

last travels in

the

East

visited four times these Israelite communities,

and

I took,

on the spot, some

linguistic notes that I

hope some

day

to publish.

The Edessenian
of the Christian era.

dialect differed

in

some

points from

the Aramaic used in Palestine and in Syria, at the beginning

The language

of Palestine contained

generally more Hebraic vocables and forms of verbs.

The

nouns of action,

for

instance, of the derived verbs %.:ys/

and

'*!!j>-i3i^.i/

were formed by adding a Zkapha to the

in

second radical, as
all

Arabic

and the suffix-pronouns were

gr.

pronounced at the end of a verb or a noun, ex.

kumi

SYRIAC VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

(arise)
fern,

MINGANA
dialect.

387

for kwti of the

in

Mesopotamian

This
in

Arabo-Hebraic current
particles

Aramaic was even found

for

and

in

substantives,

example,

when the
j^a*/

Mesopotamians pronounced

)a.v)

small and

ivhere,

the Palestinians read Ji*^) and

)^N..(^.

On

orthographic
its

grounds,

the

Palestinian

Aramaic was marked by

preference for the graphic fusion of words.

this

An

instance of

phenomenon

is

found

in

the

particle

which

is

frequently joined with the following word

rejection of
its

by the complete

Nun.
dialect of

The Aramaic
Christianity,

Mesopotamia was

less influenced

by the outside world, and became, through the impulsion

starting
at

of

Edessa,

the

Syriac

commonly

so-called

but the Aramaic of Palestine has partly been

Hellenized, as
Syriac,
it

we

find

it,

in later generations, in Palestinian

and has partly been Arabicized, and we encounter

in

to-day

such a form

in the village of

Ma'lulah near

Damascus,

and has

partly

been

Hebraized, when the

Arameans began
tion
;

to fade

away under a Western dominalost,

the language having

it

for official

business,
its

the

importance that
of a

had

for

centuries before,

character

mixed Arameo-Hebrew became more strongly accentuand

for

ated,

decades
in

it

was almost exactly the multicoloured

dialect used

the Targums.

We
make
it

lay stress upon the above statements in order to

clear that the

Old Testament Pshitta

is

surely a

Mesopotamian production, without any appreciable Hellenic

savour.

This assertion

is

rendered more plausible by the

is

influence of the Targiims which

sometimes

felt

in

strange manner in
noticed

many
in

Books.
the

This influence has been

by

Perles
-

Pentateuch,^

by

Cornill

for

Meletcntaia Peschiltoniana^ Breslau, 1859.

C 3

388

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

by Siegmund
for the

Ezechiel,' and

book of Chronicles.*

We

cannot explain this influence of the

Targums without

the previous help of some Judeo-Christians.

The Targums
circles,

have never had any honour

in

the Eastern Christian

their

and no writer has ever mentioned

therefore,

name.

To

think,

that

some Jewish Rabbis, new converts

to

Christianity,

have taken an active share

in the preparation

of a Version which would tend to spread

nations the

among Eastern

Torah and the Prophets

is,

as stated above,

not

in

contradiction to the course of events.

The
is

Christian

Church of that period was Judaic, and nothing

its

known

of

being linked with Hellenic

circles.

It is

only towards the

end of the second century that a slight change was noticed.

If

we can

credit the legendary book, Doctrine of

first

Addai,

with a certain historical value, this

'

step towards the

Catholicity

'

of the

Aramean Church
thai this

with the Hellenized

place under

parts
Palut.

of Syria,

would have taken

Bishop

We

are informed

bishop went to Antioch,

and received
Metropolis.

his ordination

from Serapion, bishop of this

of this

No
is

other confirmation

important

event

is

known

to exist in an historical book, but,

its

however
in

insufficient

authority,

we may

accept

it,

the

absence of a better proof, as possible, inasmuch as no

serious critic has so far positively contradicted
it.

In spite of the great ascendency of the Jewish colony,

some Talmudic meanings of Hebrew words have not been

given their right linguistic sense
the
;

for instance, Isa. 7. 14,

Hebrew word
^'O'C

nro^y in
is

the sentence m^^i

mn

nD^yn njn

bxiJDy

DNlpi

translated into Syriac

by the word

'
*

Das Buck

des Propheten Eecchiel, Leipzig, 1886, 154-5.

in

Die syrische Uebersetzun^ en den Biichcrn dtr Chionik,

',

'Jahrb.

fiir

prot. Thcologie

1879.

SYRIAC VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

J^^o]^ virgin, to make
quotation (Matt.
i.
it

MINGANA

389

conform to the Evangelical

it

23),

but

is

clear that this Semitic

^\b.

term corresponding with the Arabic

)^:sciA:io^

and the Aramaic

means simply

in its

masculine form a young

in
its

man
word

married or unmarried, and,

feminine form, a young

this

tvoman married or unmarried.

is

Moreover, that

taken sometimes exclusively in the sense of a married

is

tvoman

clear

from the following sentence which does not

'

suffer another interpretation (Prov. 30. 19)

There are four

things that

I know not

and

the zvay of

man with

a married woman'

ncijyn

"13:

*]n*i1.

The

four things are

evidently cases of an action which leaves no obvious record

behind

it,

the serpent on the rock, the ship in the sea, the

bird in the air, and,

is

by consequence, the woman alluded

to

not a virgin.

when the union between the Aramean Church and the Graeco-Roman
the beginning of the fourth century,

At

Christendom was cemented by the Christian attitude of

Constantine, and some years later

by the persecution of
to

Eastern

Christians

which was

believed

have been

occasioned

by

Israelites

who were

at the time in favour

with the Queen Ephra Hormiz,^ an enterprise was unani-

mously undertaken to

revise the

Syriac Version and to

make
the

harmony with the Septuagint which was only Version in use among the utterly Hellenized
it

more

in

population

of the

greater

part

of Syria

and Palestine.

We

have already pointed to the possibility of the

Pshitta

New
a

Testament

having

undergone at

this
;

period
the

similar revision according to the Greek text

way

was opened and the Old Testament

a short interval of time,
^

Version followed, at

its

consort of the
'

New

Testament.

Talnu Ta'auU 24

b.

Expository Times, May, 1915.

390

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

in the

This recension has not been carried out

in all the

same way

sacred Books;

the Psalter" and the prophetical

their important role in the

Books have been, on account of

New

Testament, more accurately collated with the Greek

;

Version

Job and the Proverbs, on which the Targums

;

depend, have scarcely been touched

but in a lesser degree, of Genesis.

the

same may be

said,

The

Pshitta Version, as
is

may

easily be gathered from

what has been written,

of paramount importance for the

criticism of the Massoretic text,

and

its

study cannot be

too highly estimated in our dealings with Biblical questions.

The

following study claims to show, in a very succinct

illustrations, the merits

manner, and with a few

defects of this Version,

and the

and may perhaps be considered,

so far as

we

are aware, not the second one, in Scriptural

investigations

intended to

make more

fully

understood

the words and precepts of the Lord.

II

We

reduce the chief points of comparison of the Syriac

(i)

translation with the original to five:

the case where

the translation
literal
;

is

wrong

(2)

the

case

where
is

it

is

too

(3)

the case where a Rabbinical gloss

;

added to

the original
(5)

(4) the case where

it

it

exhibits another text

the case where

omits a word or two.

first

We
thirteen

will

take as illustrations instances froni the

of
the
in

chapters
little

book of

Genesis

which

have

undergone

change
:

the Septuagint.

Under

the first ease

(i) (r.i). 'In

7

the beginning Elohim created the heaven(s)

The influence of
the

Cr.

F.

Berg,

Sept.

upon

the

Pc^h.

Psalter,

New

York, 1895.

SYRIAC VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

MINGANA
is

39I

and the

earth.'

The Hebrew
'

objective particle HN
',

rendered

here only by the word thus

'
:

essence

so that the sentence runs

the essence of the heaven and the essence of the

earth

'.

(3)

(i.

29)

'And Elohim

said,

Behold
is

have given you

all

every herb producing a seed which

the earth.'
seed which
(3)
is

upon the face of

The words
sown'.

ynr yiT are translated

by 'of the

(2. 8)

'And Yahweh Elohim

is

planted a garden easthere only,

ward.'
fL^*si

The word mpo

19)
all

literally translated,

by

^.io

which means 'from the beginning'.

'These three (were) the sons of Noah and
the

(4)

(9.

of these

earth
is

was overspread.'

The sentence
oj^sl/

)ns*n ^3 nv3J n^NDI

K^>('
'

translated

by

c*^i>^s

^^o
'.

^soo

and from
(13- 9)
*

these they spread over all the earth

^^ '^ot all the earth before
xi'n is

(5)

thy face?

'

The
^}T^

Massoretic interrogative particle

superseded by

and rendered by behold

'

'.

Under
(i)

the second case

(2. 3)
it,

'And Elohim
because

blessed the seventh

it

day and
His work

hallowed

He

rested in

from

all

which Elohim had created and made.'

The
which
Syriac.
(2)

final

words mc'y^ U^rh^ Nin

>Si.N.va.^

tj'N are

rendered by

the sentence:
is

)o*^/ Ji^? 'that

God

created to do',

a pure Hebraism having no

clear

meaning

in

(2. 5)

'

And

there was not a

man

to

till

the ground.'
'

The

word Disn taken here in a general sense of

man

'

is

rendered by the proper

(3)
(2.

name

^/.

22)

'

And

the

rib

which Jahveh Elohim had

taken from the man, builded he into a woman.'

Syriac
construction
of the

The
is

sentence ending in

)IKj]J

392

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

by the use of the

a Hebraism giving no natural sense

Lamed.
Under
(i)
(4.

the third case

20)

'And 'Adah bare

and

labal

he became the
cattle.'
'

father of the dweller in tents,

and (having)

Between and those

the words

i?nN

T\:\>ry\

the Syriac adds k*lu>o

who

possess '.
(4.

(2)

25)

'

And Adam knew

' '

his wife
'

again.'
'.

The

Syriac inserts the word

(3)
life
. .

Eve before
'

his wife
all
'.

(5- 5)
',

The

Syriac has,

And
them

the days of the

in inserting the

words

'

his life

(4)

(12. 3)

'And

I will

bless
I

that bless thee, and

him

that despiseth thee will

curse,

and

in

thee shall

all

families of the earth be blessed.'

The
all

Syriac adds the

word
in

^Hso

after nroiNn so that the

phrase becomes 'and

the families of the

thee and in thy posterity shall

'.

earth be blessed
interpolation

These words may be considered as an

to

by a Christian hand

make the promise

and came and
inserts the

more

applicable to the Christ.

(13. i8)
'

(5)

And Abram moved

'

his tent

dwelt by the terebinths of Mamre.'

relative adjective j-jojio/

The Syriac
'

Amorite

after the

word Mamre.

Under

the fonrtJi case :

(i) (3. 16):

'Unto the woman He

said:
;

I will

greatly

multiply thy sorrow and thy conception

shalt bring forth children,

in

sorrow thou
be to thy
Syriac has
(or against)

and thy desire

shall

husband, and he shall rule over thee.'

The

^-j^U ..nNN~>
thy husband
particle ^n
'.

'^'^Ji.o

'

and thou shalt turn to

translation

The
bv

of the

easy Massoretic
'

by

which means more frequently

letter p into a 3 in the

against

',

and the change of the

which
in

word
'

inpltTi

other places

is

rightly rendered

by

'

desire

would

SYRIAC VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

MINGANA

393

point to a certain change in the sacred text which

to-day.
(2)

we have
and

The
(4. 8)
'

LXX
And

have also

a-iToaTpo(f)-)'i.

Cain said unto Abel

being in the

his brother,

it

happened that
in

at their

field (while

they were

the

field),

Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and

killed him.'

There

is

possibly something missing in the

text, since

we

arc

not told what Cain said unto Abel.

The
'

Pshitta supplies this

by the

insertion of

Jl^-Vnal^^x,

)?tJ

let

us go to the field
(3)
(^- 3)
'

'.

And Jahweh
".'

said

"

My

spirit will
]i
'

not rule
',

in

man

for ever

The

Syriac has
;

;:!a:ikl

will

not dwell

which

suits the

context better

and induces us to suppose

in'' for ]\i\

that the original might have been

(4)
(6. 9)
'

These are the generations of Noah.

in

Noah

was a righteous man and blameless

his generations
'

Noah walked pleased God

',

with

God.'

The Syriac has

and Noah

a sense nearer to the Septuagint evrjpiaTrjaev

8e N(5e

rw 0ew.
(13. 12)

(5)

'Abram dwelt

in

the land of Canaan, and

his tents

Lot dwelt

in the

towns of the Kikkar, and placed

Instead of
ijns''")

as far as Sodom.'
'

the Syriac has lt*o

:,

and inherited

',

with the change of n into n and of n into

letters easily bear.

which the Hebrew

Under
(9.

the fifth case

22)

'And
is

Ham,

the

father

of Canaan,

saw the

nakedness of his father and told his two brothers without.'

The word pn3

utterly missing in Syriac.

The kind

of study which

we have made

for only thirteen

chapters of the book of Genesis, will suffice to give an

adequate idea of the Syriac Version.

safely

The

reader can

draw the conclusion that

all

the books of the Old

39+

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

less

Testament may be more or

with an absolutely identical
useless to give

submitted to this criticism

It

result.

would therefore be
;

our inquiry a wider scope

are

but

we may
in
8. 4.

remark that there

sometimes complete changes

proper names, and sometimes slight ones.

So

the

word 'Ararat',
Parthian

in

Assyrian 'Urartu',
13.

is

rendered by the
So'ar
is

name 'Kardu', and

10 the word

written Sa'an.

Ill

While

for the

New

Testament the Aramean and the

Judeo-Christian
Palestine, used

populations of Mesopotamia, Syria, and

several Versions

made

directly

from the

Greek, they contented

with the Pshitta.
logical

themselves, for the

Old Testament,
the Christothe

At

a very late date,

when

movement strengthened the union between

Western Syrians and

their Hellenic co-religionists reigning

at Constantinople, a purely private enterprise to produce

a text directly from the Greek took place about A.D. 500:
the

work of Philoxenus of Hierapolis, elaborated with the

;

help of the Chorepiscopus Polycarpus

and more than

a hundred years later the Hexapla was translated from

615 to 617 by Paul, Bishop of Telia of Mauzela, which

Western geographers called Constantina. These two versions, though very important
for

the

criticism of the text of the Septuagint, could never possess

the slightest prestige in

the

Churches, and the Pshitta

remained

after, as

it

was

before, the sole official version of

Syriac-speaking communities.

were only known to a few

*

The two Hellenized versions scholars, who through them

lis in

This date has been vindicated by

a study

which

will

soon appear

in the Expositor.

SYRIAC VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

vainly tried on

MINGANA

395

some occasions

to criticize the previous

standard text.

Even

at as late a date as the thirteenth

century the well-known Bar Hebraeus opened a campaign

against the Pshitta in favour of the Hexapla.

A
^

special

chapter

is

devoted
its

in his

Syriac

Grammar
and

entitled
;

'The

Rays

'

to prove
cavils

superiority to the Pshitta

ineffectual,

but such
love

isolated

remained

the

of

ecclesiastical circles for the first version

was so accentuated,

that

MSS.

of the two Hellenized secondary versions have

all

been doomed to scarcity at

Philoxenian
the Hexapla
is

periods, and in our days the

known only by scanty

preserved
in
in

fragments,
in a

and
few

is

an incomplete form

European
East.

libraries,

and

some old monasteries of the

therefore, one,

The Old Testament

Syriac

is,

and as

it

has not undergone any substantial change from the date to

which the oldest manuscripts belong, we can hardly

its

find in

text

any important

variant.

The

quotations also of the

Syrian Fathers,

who undoubtedly

use the Pshitta alone,

with only the addition or omission of a particle or a trifling

word, pointing to the fact that they were quoting from

memory, corroborate
There
S.
are,

the point of a single Version.

in

however,

the possession of Dr.

leaves,

Agnes

Lewis a few palimpsest

which,

by exhibiting

a text somewhat different from the established Version,

afford a

number of

perplexities to critics.

We

mean the

text published by her in No.

XI
its

of the series entitled

Studia Sinaitica.
curious text
is

The

best ^^ay to give an idea of this

to print

some of

phrases side by side

with the standard text of the Pshitta.

**

In

P.

Martin's
I,

CEuvres
p.

grantniattcaks

d'Aboti''/

Farad/

dii

Bar

Hebraeus, 1872, vol.

240.

396

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

LEWISIAN MS.
PSIIITTA.
wvoasl/ Ps. 104. 2

^-sX

p. I 22

He
122

put on.

(same mean-

ing)c;Ii|l<^j,

p.

its

founda-

**.*,

Job

9. 6

(same mean-

tions.
)i^.\i
is

ing).
p.

^i^
p.

124 Sheol

"^a**, w5. lu^^^j-x Job 26. 6

naked.
124 garment.

(same meaning).
**mol ibid, (same meaning),

|>-n\
ia^^kl

Up. 124

Do

not outgo,

^fcol

i)

Job

38. 11
in.

Do not go

increasing
(M*-,)^ p.

124

in his

hand.

o^-v ctaa ibid. 12 in his handful.

JLa- p 120 Hawila.

uaaaiso
p.

j.^^*,

Isa. 60. 6

Sheba.
14.

120 and

he

re-

i.iio

Exod.

25

and

stricted.
.

linked.
will heap.

n an

p.

120 they

.CAiaj Isa. 60.

gather.

they

will

l^y-aU ^oocj
princes)
dition.
Si]

p.

119

(His

)uj^JJ

Isa. 34.

12 (same mean-

will

go to per-

ing).

^
p.

p.

116 from the sign.

jl/

oj3

I.sa.

31. 9

from

before the sign.

)Uo

119 will be wet.

)o>Llo Isa. 34. 7 will be in-

toxicated,
jjiw*/
i>:io

^/

^^o^

p.
all

123
the

U.l?

i^l

"^^.^

Amos

5.

over the surface of

earth.
)Jl p. 122 water.

over
earth.
jj^io-s

the

surface

of the

Ps.

104.

in

the

water.

oMtcL^J^o p. 122

its

columns.

<:^i>

av>s.o Job

9.

its

in-

habitants.
i

^ vi\ p

23 for the rain.

l;-^.5aX

Ps.

134.

(same

meaning).

SYRIAC VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

MINGANA

397

These are only the most striking variants that the

MS.

offers

when compared with

the Pshitta.

For quota-

tions from the

Psalms and from Job we have not included

such variant readings as

may
rate,

be due to too
;

much freedom

on the part of the unknown author

this author,
writer,

but to believe that

who, at any

seems to have been a serious

would have been so eccentric as purposely to change

of the sacred text

many words
literature

when quoting them,

is

most improbable hypothesis.

We
;

cannot find in Syriac

any one so

fanciful

and the question ought

therefore to be approached from a different point of view.

We

have seen that the Syriac Churches of a later

date possessed, besides the Pshitta, the Philoxenian and

the Hexapla versions.

Can then

these few verses printed

versions
?

by Mrs. Lewis be drawn from one of these two

negative answer
is

is

the only one possible, because the

text

evidently a direct translation from the Hebrew,

and no Syriac writer of importance has ever used these

versions. ancient,

Moreover, Mrs. Lewis's

MS.

is

certainly very

and

if

it

may

be assigned to a date later than

it

the time of Philoxenus,

has doubtless preceded by

many

years the epoch of Paul of Telia.

We

are, therefore, face to face

with a text which cannot

the famous

be easily

identified.

History

tells us, too, that

Maraba, Nestorian Patriarch of Seleucia (540-551)^ translated

the

Old Testament from Greek

improbability of the
is

into

Syriac

but

besides

the

historical

information,

our manuscript

of Jacobite origin, and

cannot contain

a version produced

by one

of the

greatest

enemies of

'

See Ebedjesu's Catalogue

in

in

Assemani, Biblioth. Orient.

Ill, x, p.

75

and Amr,

Gismondi's Maris, Amriet Slibae Commentaria, pars

altera, p. 41.

39B

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Can we then suppose
that these short

Monophysitism.

quotations are derived from an early Syriac version

lost,

but used by writers whose works have not

?

now come down

to us

The

question

is

too complicated to be answered

either affirmatively or negatively in a categorical manner.

Mrs. Lewis wishes

me

to

record the fact that these

fragments of the Syriac Old Testament Pshitta occur in

the
under-script

of the

palimpsest described by her in

after

No. XI Shidia Sinaitka,

forty-five leaves of
;

the whole text of the

in Syriac,

Protevangelunn Jacobici.nd the Transitus Mariac

and

some ancient Ourans, containing

of simpl\'
as

variants

all

made

use

writing
;

material

by the tenth-century

scribe of the upper-script

which

is

a homogeneous collection of extracts from early Christian

writers,

Greek and Syriac, rendered into Arabic.

facts are a

These

complete refutation of the wild theory

scholar.

recently advanced
old

by a French

M. Leon,

that the

Quran

leaves are a forgery.

The manuscript was bought

;

for the sake of the Protevangelunn and the Transitus only

and therefore the supposed

forger, viirahilc dictn,

must have

received no remuneration for his almost superhuman pains.

Moreover, these texts from the O. T. Pshitta and the Quran

have waited ten or even eighteen years

decipherment, since

for

their

full

they were

bought by their present

owner

in

1895.

AN EXPLANATION OF ISAIAH
By Samuel
Isaiah 27
8,

37.

Daiciies, Jews' College, London.

dv3 ntrpn inna njn njnnn
nn^c-*a

nxDxon

DHp, has been the despair of translators and commentators

from the time of the Septuagint

till

the latest commentary

in

on Isaiah (by G. B. Gray) published

national Critical Covnnentar}').
verse
of
its
is

1912

(in

The Interthis

The

real

meaning of
full

unknown up

to the present day.

For a

discussion

difficulties I

must

refer to the

commentaries.

For

the various

meanings ascribed to nNDND3 see also the

(especially

Hebrew

dictionaries

the

Oxford - Gesenius-

Hebrew Lexicon,

p 684,

and Eduard Konig, Hebrdisches

und aramdisches Worterbnch zum

p. 397). It is especially the

A Iten

Testament, ^910,
has with-

word

ns*DN'D2 that
is

stood

all

attempts

at

explanation and
(in

the chief crux

just

of the verse.
tioned,
p.

G. B. Gray

the

commentary

men-

456) leaves nxDS'D2 untranslated (see also his

f.).^

notes on p. 457
I

should like to propose here an explanation which,

venture to think, will

make

the whole verse clear.

first.

Let

me

take the
in

first

word (nNDND3)

There

is

Assyrian a word

sasstc,

the meaning of

which has been regarded as unknown

^

(see Meissner, StippleRandglossen

ztir

Arnold B. Ehrlich

in his note

on

this verse (in his

;

hebraischen Bibel, vol. IV, Leipzig, 1912, p. 96

Berlin, 1901, vol. Ill, pp. 55
f.)

see also his Mikrd ki-Pheshuto,

says

'

Hier

ist

der erste Halbvers undeutbar,

und

alle bisher

vorgeschlagenen Emendationen fiihren zu nichts

Annehm-

barem.'

What

he says there about 8 b

is

also entirely unacceptable.

399

400

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

zii

ment

den assyriscJien Worterbiicherii,

p. 73,

and Muss-

Arnolt,
p. 773).

Concise Dictionary of the Assyrian language,

From

an Assyrian divination text,

it

in

which

this

word

also occurs,

is

clear that sassn

is

must be a part of
is

a corn-stalk.
lished in

The

text

contained in K. 2882 and

pub-

A.

Boissier, Choix de tcxtes relatifs

i,

a la divination
ff.

assyro-babylonienne, vol. II, fascicule

pp. 59

The

first

eleven lines of the Obverse speak

of various trees, of their

appearance, and

of the consequences

therefrom.

From

Obverse,

1.

12,

till

Reverse,

1.

14,

the text speaks of what

seem
to

to be parts of the corn-stalk

field.

and of
11.

certain happenings

the

Thus,

for

instance,

12-13, read

(12)

sumnia uini
(13) eklii
'

{sain) is-te-en su-nl-pit

beli-sii

II III sn-bu-id-la-tum

sn-a-tum

inadi-su ngaric sudtu i-har-7'n-ub.

^

When

one day the stalk

has two or three ears of corn,

it
;

the

field, its

owner

will leave

that estate will

become

waste.'

Similar

omens
1.

are given in the following portion

:

of the text.

Now

3 of the Reverse reads thus

mmma
(?)
it

umi
'

{sam) sa-as-su i-te-bieklu sndtn NI. DUB-sii imatti{-ti).

When
clear

one day the sassu

rises,

that

field,

its

produce

will diminish.'
is

Boissier leaves sassjc untranslated.

But

from the preceding and following

lines that sassu

must signify a part of the corn-stalk.

the help of the

Furthermore, with

Talmud and Midrash we can determine the exact meaning of sasst4. In the Talmud and Midrash there

occurs the word NDXD (or NDD, sQ.Q.Arnch conipletuin, vol. VI,
*

Boissier leaves

hdpn untranslated

but

it

must mean 'the

stalk'.

stalk (at

any
it

rate the upper part of the stalk)

is

was probably
it.

called

The hdpu

because
'

contains the ear of corn which

out, to pull out
'

plucked out from

Cf. ialdpu,

to

draw

(sec dictionaries of Delitzsch

t]bti'

and Muss-Arnolt,
pluck out';
cf.

S.V.), also

Hebrew and Aramaic

P|v*.^'n
'

'to
'

draw

out,

to

especially

to pluck the last

v.).

growth

(see Jastrow, Dictionary of the

'

Targtimim, ifc,

s.

ISAIAH 27. 8
p. 91).

DAICHES

40I

In the Babylonian
l^n""

(Job 24. 34 b
It
is

nb2V
this

ti'Ni^l)

Talmud, Sota 5 a, ni^nc* C'Ni is explained by xni^niD'T NDS'D.

is

clear

from

passage that xdsd

^/(9^.,

the top-part of
NnPSVC'T NDND,
ni'nc'

the corn-stalk.

Rashi,
-)y^:

commenting on
fp?
p-\1pt^'

says:
'

v^ND

^siJi

Nini

nhnc'n

b^ ma:
is

the height (the high part) of the ear of corn which

called

the beard of the ear of corn, and that breaks and

falls off

by

itself.

Comp.
s.v.

also

Aruck completiim
(ch. 9, ver. 11),
N^ha'-C' 'DND

loc. cit.

In Kohe-

leth

Rabba,
:

"'nntJ'

we

find the following

n\T^'
'

sentence

piarm^o

p-isi

^y

who

ran on
'.

the tops of the ears of corn and they were not broken

In

Talmud, Hullin 17 b, xdnd occurs alone (without Nn^31K')

in the

meaning of the top

thus see that in
rise

of the ear of corn.^

signifies

We
reach

Talmud and Midrash NDSD

height above

the awns which

from the sides of the ear of corn and

it.
'

considerable

The awns
'

are

especially high in barley, in which the

beard

rising

above

the ear has more than double the height of the ear.

Of

wheat there are two

varieties

one with awns

(called

bearded wheat') and one without awns (called 'beardless

wheat').

The beard
'

of the wheat rising above the ear

is

not so high as that of the barley.

Rashi's description of
'

NDND as

the beard

of

the ear of corn

is

practically

identical with the

modern designation of

that, the highest,

is

part of the stalk.

ear of corn \
I

A simpler designation

'the top of the

have no doubt that the Assyrian sassu

is

identical

with the Talmudic and Midrashic ndnd and also signifies

2

The reading

of the passage in

Echa Rabbati, where

XDND

is

supposed
Ill,

to occur (see Levy, Neuhebr'disches

p. 462,

und

chalddisclies
is

Worterbuch, vol.

and the printed editions of the Midrash)

col. 2,
s. v.

doubtful (see Arttch

completum, vol. VI, p. 31,

Rabbaii, Wilna, 1899,

HD, and

S.

Buber, Midrash Eclia

p. 78,

note 3B1).

VOL.

VI.

D d

402

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Line 3 of the Obverse of the
is

the top of the ear of corn.

Assyrian text quoted above

*

therefore to be translated
rises,

When one day

produce
(?)

the top

of the ear of corn

'.

that

field,

its

will

diminish

The corresponding words

1.

in

the preceding lines (from Obv.,

lines

12)

and

in

the following

must
I

clearly also refer to various parts of the corn-stalk.

Now
word

suggest that in riNDSDa

we have

the

Hebrew
therefore

identical with the

Assyrian

sassii

and the Talmudic

is

and Midrashic NDND.

to be translated
'
:

HNDNDn (rather HNENpa)

the top of
i^C'r'^?)

in

its

ear of corn \
'

nnb^n
stalk \

(or,

better,

translate
in

in

its

shooting

We

have here the word nr^

the meaning of

'sprout, shoot' (comp. Cant. 4. 13, perhaps also Ezek. 31.5;

see the
'

Oxford Hebrew Lexicon,

stalk', just as
it

p. 1019).

nj^ can no doubt

mean a

can

mean

'a branch': something

loc, just

that sprouts, that shoots up.

Kimhi, ad

mentions

the possibility of the connexion of T\rb^2 with yrb\i^ in

Cant.

4.

13,

although he speaks there of 'gardens and

'.

fields of
T\ir\

corn

is

generally translated
loc).
It

'

he removed

'

(see already

Kimhi, ad
T[in
'

may be
'.
'

that

we have
(or
is
'

here the root

to

to

moan,

to growl

To moan
wind
*.

murmur, to

sigh) in (or through, with) his

for
'

probably a phrase
a strong wind

to sweep over with his wind

it is

When

passes,

as

if it

would moan or howl.

We

speak of 'the

howling wind'.

Instead of saying 'the fierce wind moaned',

'

the prophet says

wind'.
In

He

(God) moaned
r\in

in (or

with) his fierce

Job

37. 2
(x^'^

is

used for the growling sound

;

of the thunder

vso

njni)

comp. the Oxford Hebrew

Lexicon,

p.

211.
it

If
is

wc take

nan to

mean
is

'he

moaned, he
after

howled
it

',

then

also clear

why

there

no object

(see

commentaries).

ISAIAH 27. 8

DAICHES
is
is

403

Now,

suggest, the prophet had the following picture

:

before his eyes

a field

full

of corn which

swept by a
destructive
it.

severe east wind. of vegetation and

The

east

wind

in Palestine

may

carry everything before

For

a description of the disastrous effects of the Palestinian east

wind (the

sirocco)

see G. A. Smith, The Historical Geo;

graphy of the Holy Land, pp. 67-9 Driver on Amos 4. 9, and Gray, I.e., p. 458. It is 'withering and burning the
growing corn that no animal
(see Driver,
field
/.

will

touch a blade of

'

it

c).

Ordinarily, the prophet implies, the whole

would have been devastated.

left.

Not

a trace of

its

corn

would have been

Not so

in this case.

Only the tops

of the ears of corn were carried away.

stalks

Only the shooting

were withered.

But (we must supplement) every-

thing was not destroyed.

the root

The
up.

root remained.

And

out of

new corn

will

grow

The

cornfield, of course, represents Israel,

A
it
it.

severe

visitation will

come over
But

Israel.

God

will punish

almost

mercilessly.
Israel's

He

will

not entirely destroy

While
7),

smiters were destroyed root and branch (ver.

Israel will only

be destroyed
this idea

in its branches.

Its root will

remain.

We

have

very often

in

Isaiah (comp.

especially 6. 13)

and

in other prophets.

In ch. 27

we have
is

several agricultural pictures.

At

the

beginning Israel

compared with a vineyard.

]"'V\

In ver. 6

we have
in ver.

^'\^\ nnsi
03n"'

and nnun,
(in ver.

in ver. 11 r^'V'ip C'T,

and

I3

and IDpbn

1%

702':?

may

also

mean

'ear of corn'; see commentaries).

We
8

need not therefore

an agricultural
established,

be surprised
picture.

if

we have

in

ver.

also
is

Once the meaning of nNDNDl

and

consequently also the meaning of r\rv^2, the whole sense

of the verse becomes perfectly clear.

The

suffix n in

both

D d

404

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

refers to

words

the field which the prophet has before his

is

eyes and to which Israel

compared.
is

The

verb nn (n^nnn)

used because the prophet

field
it is

is

aware at the moment of speaking that the and that God contending with

Israel,

Israel punishes
;

(although
ch. 5).

God
I

can also have a dispute with a vineyard

therefore translate this verse as follows
its

comp.

'In the top of

ear of corn, in
it

its

shooting stalk (only)

it,

thou contendest with

(and destroyest

the field)

he

(God) has growled (swept) with his fierce wind (over the
field)

on the day of the east wind.'

larger
will

The

number

of Israel will be swept away.

But

a remnant
salvation

be saved.

Ver. 9 gives the reason for the Vers. 10

of the remnant.
H,

and

11

practically

correspond to ver.
are akin
to

and the pictures of these two verses

in ver. 8
(ni'-^p

the

picture
n^-c:

C'Ta n^ayo

nbi

nms* nn'^NO niNn

are gathered up.
I

nnTj'n).

In vers. 13-13 the remnants

believe

that

the

explanation

proposed

here

for

Isa. 37. 8 is entirely satisfactory

and removes one of the

greatest difficulties of the Biblical text.

THE PRESENT POSITION AND THE ORIGINAL FORM OF THE PROPHECY OF ETERNAL PEACE IN ISAIAH 1-5 AND MICAH 4. 1-5
'

2.

By Israel Friedlaender,

Jewish Theological Seminary

of America.

The

prophecy of Eternal Peace, which

in Isaiah
2.

is

found

in a

double recension

1-5 and Micah

4. 1-5,

has been

the object of a bewildering

conjectures.^

number

of widely differing

As

far as

modern

Biblical scholars are con-

cerned, agreement

among them seems

viz.

to have been reached

only on one point,

that in both passages the prophecy

stands isolated and has no connexion with the context.^

Indeed, one only has carefully to read the verses preceding

and following our prophecy

in

in

order to realize that both

tone and content they

differ

completely from

it.

To

be

sure,

various attempts were made, particularly by the older

commentators, to establish a logical connexion between

the prophecy and
its

context, but

it

is

now recognized

on

all

sides that these attempts are nothing but artificial

makeshifts.^

Realizing the isolated position of our prophecy

texts of Isaiah
^

in

the

and Micah, we are immediately confronted

in

good summary of the various theories will be found

Isaiah, p. 27
f.,

Marti's

Commentary on
Critical
"

and

in J.

M. Powis Smith's International

Commentary on Micah, p. 84. Comp. Gray, International Critical Commentary on Isaiah, I (1912), p. 48. Comp. especially Kuenen, Historisch-kritische Einleitung, II, 36, 38.

406

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

difficulty
:

by a new
the

Which were

the motives that prompted

men who were

responsible for the collection and arrange-

ment

of the prophetic writings, in other words, the compilers

or editors of Isaiah a context which

is

and Micah,

to insert our
it ?

prophecy

in

entirely foreign to
is

As
*

far as the

passage

in

Isaiah

concerned,

Kuenen

is

inclined

to

assume that the present arrangement was due to a

to

desire

show the immense contrast between the

the surrounding verses.

ideal future

depicted in our prophecy and the sordid facts of reality

described
in

This view

is,

in

substance, identical with the

traditional explanation, re-

pudiated by Kuenen himself, except that the former regards

as genuine logical

sequence of prophetic thought what

Kuenen

prefers to consider the result of subsequent editorial

arrangement.

For the

traditional exegesis interprets, in

2.

an

almost identical manner, our prophecy in Isaiah

as an intentional contrast to verse 6
ff.

1-5

Now

the arguments

advanced by Kuenen against

viz.

this conventional explanation,

artificial

the extremely loose and

connexion with the

his

context, apply with

equal force

to

own

conjecture.
sur-

For the discrepancy between our prophecy and the

rounding verses which makes
original connexion between
it

impossible to assume an
also ha\e preside.
is

them should

vented the editor from placing them side by

indeed, in his elaborate

Gray,
frank

commentary on

Isaiah,^

enough to confess that

given elude us'.
In the following
I

'

the reasons for the particular place

venture to offer a conjecture which

seems to

me

to explain the difficulty in a

more

natural
in

and

satisfactory manner,

and

may

be found to apply

other

cases where, in a similar way, the sudden change of tone

*

he. at., p. 38.

he.

eit.

PROPHECY OF ETERNAL PEACE

in

FRIEDLAENDER

407

a prophetic

discourse

appears to suggest other than

logical principles of textual arrangement.

It

has long been observed that many,

if

not most, of

the prophetic writings (comp. Hosea, Joel,

Amos, Micah,

Habakkuk, &c.)

are
in

marked by a 'happy ending' which

obvious contrast to the preceding

frequently stands
verses.
critics to

This observation has led a number of modern

deny the authenticity of these concluding passages.

far

But

it

seems

more natural

to

assume that the men who

collected, or rather selected, the prophetic discourses,

and
in

drew on a much

larger material than the

one preserved

our Bible, abstracted

these

comforting utterances from

a different context, belonging to the same prophet and no

more transmitted

to us,

and placed them deliberately at

the end of their prophetic compilations in order to leave

the reader in a

happy frame of mind.

is

It is

exactly the

same consideration which

rule that in those Biblical

responsible for the

in

Talmud ic
in Isaiah,

books

which the concluding

verse

is

of a threatening or derogatory character

Malachi, Lamentations, and Ecclesiastes

one

of the pre-

ceding verses of a consoling nature be repeated.

Now

it

seems to
for a
'

me

that the

same psychological motive

'

which called

happy ending

also

demanded

'

happy

beginning' for the prophetic collections.

discourses

Most prophetic
the character

this

is

entirely in accord with

of the true prophet

who

is

always more readily inclined

^

to prophesy evil than

good

were
in

violent

arraignments

of the sinfulness of the generation, and predictions of dire

punishment
final

for

such sinfulness.

They were

read, in the

shape which they received

the time of the post-

exilic

community, by
*

a people which had exchanged their

Comp.
I

Kings

22. 8.

408

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

heart of stone for a heart of flesh, and having received, at

the Lord's hand, double for the word of God.

all its sins,

lent a willing ear to

The
own

prophetic denunciations, originally

forefathers,

hurled

against

their

rebellious
case,

were

entirely-

unjustified in their

and could only have the

effect

of discouraging those

who both needed and deserved

Hence the compilers
it

the

encouragement of prophecy.
later generation

of that

found

necessary to place the comforting

utterances of the prophets

selected in

and

such utterances could be

abundance from the writings of every prophet

now
in

lost to us

at the beginning of the prophetic collections

were, to take off the edge of the denuncia-

order, as

it

tions that were to follow.

A
in

striking

example of

this editorial
i
is

tendency

is

found

the book of Hosea.

Chapter

in

the nature of a

biographical introduction, undoubtedly from the pen of the

editor.

Chapter
It

marks the beginning of the prophetic

discourses.

was long ago suggested" that the prophecy

which represents a
fierce arraign-

contained

in this chapter,

ment

of faithless Israel, actually begins with verse 4,

and

that the

preceding three verses which paint

the
future

in

glowing

colours

happiness of that very same Israel,

originally belonged to the

end of the discourse, a sequence

which

is still

reflected in a quotation of the

New Testament.^

The
It

reason for this intentional misplacement seems obvious.

was to counteract the painful impression which the

was bound
to

violent denunciation of the prophet

produce

on the mind of the hearer, or rather reader, of the prophetic

discourse.

A
^

similar motive seems to have actuated the editor or

initial

compiler of the
See Kiienen,

chapters of Jeremiah.
*

Chapter
9. 25-6^.

is

Eiiilciluni;, II, 19.

Romans

' :

PROPHECY OF ETERNAL PEACE

again of an introductory character.

FRIEDLAENDER
The prophetic
is

409

discourses

begin with chapter

2.

Here, too,

it

evident that verse 4

inaugurates the prophecy which

is

a violent attack upon

in verse

Judah.
'

The keynote

is

struck

by the question

What

iniquity have your fathers found in

me

that they are

gone

far

from me, and have walked after vanity^ and have

?'

become

vain

The

first

three verses of the chapter, whose

sublime tenderness strangely contrasts with the intense

bitterness of

what immediately

follows,

have been deliber-

ately placed at the head of the collection for the purpose

of soothing the reader and reconciling

him

to the prophetic

denunciation which might otherwise have a disheartening

effect

on him.
return to the subject of our discussion,
'^

To

it is

generally
is

recognized

that the second chapter of Isaiah, which

separated from the preceding chapter by a superscription

of
its

own, marks the beginning of an older collection of

the prophet's discourses.

violent attack

The

natural beginning of the

upon Judah's
is
'

life
2. 6.

and morals which runs

through chapters 2 and 3

the latter verse indicates
is
("'3

As
';

the

initial

word of
'

because

the translation

but

a makeshift), the opening of this denunciatory prophecy

is

fragmentary, and was, in

all likelihood,

removed from
1-5),

its

original context.

The preceding

verses

(2.

which are

of a diametrically opposite

character,

had originally no
in

connexion whatsoever with

verse
6.

the prophecy introduced

this place, at the

But they were assigned

in

beginning

of the collection,

order to put the reader in a hopeful

fortify

frame of mind, and to

him against the prophetic

attack in the following verses.

^

Comp. Kuenen,

Eiiileiittng,

II, 147.

Duhm,

Coymnenta>'y on

Isaiali,

p. viii, suggests that

chapters 2-4 formed originally a separate collection.

4IO

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW Of

course, the explanation just set forth, even

assuming

its

correctness in the three instances quoted, need not apply

It is possible,

in all cases.

and even highly probable, that

other tendencies and principles, besides the one suggested

above, were operative in the arrangement of the prophetic
writings.

For once
4.

it

docs not seem to apply

is

in

the case

of Micah
it

1-5, where our prophecy

^"

duplicated.

Indeed,

has been conjectured

that in the latter passage the

position of our prophecy

may

be due to a

'

catch-word
in 3. 12 in

arrangement

',

the phrase

'

Mountain of the House'

having suggested the sequence of our own prophecy,

which the 'Mountain of the House of the Lord'

occupies
a
central
place.

(4. i)

The
itself,
it

conjecture

is

plausible,

although,

when taken by
is

presupposes a principle

of arrangement which
considerable
.strength

too

mechanical.

But

it

gains

when

taken

in

conjunction with
it

another more internal motive.

highly probable that
of our prophecy
is,

As

a matter of fact,

is

in

the Micah text, too, the position

to quote Wellhausen's phrase,^^

due to
2
3.
1
'.

a desire 'of putting a plaster on the

wound
in

inflicted

by

On

the other hand,

it

may

be possible that also

in Isaiah

the arrangement has been prompted,

addition to the

motive set forth above, by the same catch-word, since

the
'

House of Jacob'
editorial

is

referred to both in verse 5

(on

which see anon) and tendency of

in

verse

6.

In

any

event,

the

arrangement advocated above ought

reveals

to be borne in

mind whenever a prophetic text

a sudden change of tone which cannot, unless sophistical

arguments be resorted

to.

be explained on logical grounds.

'"
'1

Gray, Isaiah,

I,

48.
Fioplieteii,

Wellhausen, Die klevicn

3rd edition,

p. 143.

PROPHECY OF ETERNAL PEACE

For
this

FRIEDLAENDER
collections.

41I

change of tone

may

represent the

border-line

between two originally independent

In connexion with the above a word

may
(2.

be added

about the relation of the recension of Isaiah

of
'

1-5) to that

Micah

(4.

1-5).

In this place

we

are not concerned with

the question of authorship which, as

may
But

be gauged from

the mass of contradictory theories advanced by modern

scholars,
is

not yet ripe for solution.

is

this

much seems
Micah

certain and

generally agreed upon

that the text of

represents a fuller recension of the prophecy than that of

Isaiah.

Whether Micah
for the

4.

('

But they
;

shall sit every shall

under his vine and under

his fig tree

and none

man make

them

afraid
it
')

mouth
^^

of the

Lord

of hosts hath

spoken
or not
that

is

from the same pen as the

rest of the

prophecy

with Kuenen

it

and Marti

^^ I

emphatically believe

it is

certainly represents a phis,

it

and

it

seems most

natural to assume that

has been either intentionally

lost

dropped
Isaiah.

or,

what

is

more probable, accidentally

in

In other words, the texts in Micah and Isaiah are

original, with the deviations that

two copies of the same

are customary in such copies.

Again, verse 5
in the

in

Micah

('

For

all

people walk every one

name

of his god, and

we

will
')

walk
is
('

in

the

name

of
all

the Lord our

God
let

for ever

and ever

recognized on

sides to correspond to verse 5 in Isaiah

house of Jacob,

come ye, and

us walk in the light of the

Lord

'),

and

while some scholars regard the verse in Micah as an ex-

pansion of the one in Isaiah (Cheyne), others, conversely,

hold that the verse in Isaiah
is

an abbreviation of that

in

Micah
11*

(Marti).^*
II,

But

after

what has been said concerning

" Commentary on
Isaiah, p. 26.
to' \ibid.).

Einleilung,

35.
/oc, cit.

Comp. Gray,

'Micah asserts what Isaiah exhorts

412

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

the relationship of the two texts, their undoubted similarity

of content suggests a more natural solution.

The two verses

;

do

not, as

is

generally supposed, substitute one another

they rather siipplcnicnt one another.

tiiijiation

Micah

4.

is

coii-

of Isaiah

2. 5.

The two

verses represent the

two

halves of a

common

fuller recension
in

which has been frag-

mentarily reproduced

each of the two texts.

is

The passage
following
verses
:

thus reconstructed
Isaiah
2.

made up
apart

of the

1-4 (duplicated,
1-3)
4-

from
2.

the superscription, in Micah

4-

4.

Micah

4.

44- Isaiah

Micah

4. 5.

After the glowing description of the ideal

nations will flow into the mountain of the

fntm'e,

when the

Lord, and, having been taught of His ways, will beat their

swords into plowshares, and when

Israel, too, in

happy
an

contrast to the war-ridden times of the prophet, will enjoy

perfect peace under his vine

and

his fig tree, follows

admonition
to
'

for

the present, calling

upon the Jewish people

glorious

act

in

manner deserving of so
let

a future.

house of Jacob, come ye, and

us walk in the light

'

of the Lord (as all nations will do in the future).'

For

all

people walk
(i.

(at present)

every one

in the

name
ii),

of his god

e. all

the nations are loyal to their gods, although they

are '"no-gods";
(i.e.

compare Jeremiah
;

2.

and we

will

in

how much more should wc 'anahmi is emphatic) walk the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever.'
The
question as to whether the last two verses are from
itself

the same hand as the prophecy

does not

affect the
re-

above argument, which

'

is

merely concerned with the

is

What

is

here [Micah

4.

5] as a firm decision

found in Isaiah
p. 88).
:

2.

5 as an

exhortation' {Iiitcrnalionnl Critical

Coiiiiiicittary

on Micah,

Compare,
2.

on the other hand, Dnhm, Comninttary on

written by a reader

Isaiah, p. 15
4. 5.

Isaiab

was

who was

'

guided

'

by Micah

PROPHECY OF ETERNAL PEACE FRIEDLAENDER

construction of the original form of the text.

413

To

be sure,
that

some of

the

modern commentators have answered

question in a very definite manner.

is

But where the evidence

is

so meagre, certainty, or even probabih'ty,

not to be

expected.

Biblical science, with its bewildering divergence

of opinion, even where the authorship and date of entire

books

is

involved, has

not yet

reached the stage,

if

it

ever will, of being able to indicate, with

more than

self-

complacent arbitrariness, the origin of individual

verses.

JESUS

AND THE SADDUCEAN LUKE 10.

i^-'^i']

PRIESTS:

By Jacob Mann,

Jews' College, London.

The
in the
17.

'

noble

'

priests, the so-called apyjL^p{i<i

jn,

(mentioned Ohalot
to Jesus

Talmud

as D^^nj D^JHD

Ketubboth

13. 1-2,

5,comp. Schuerer, II'*, 376), were greatly opposed

in his trial.

and took a prominent part

given by
all

This
;

is

the account
14. i, 10,
^'3,,

the Synoptics (Mark 11. 18, 38

^^,

15. 10, II,

and so
it is

in

Matthew and

in

Luke).

This

being the case,

remarkable that the priests as a class

in

are very seldom mentioned

Jesus.
It

the sayings attributed to

would appear from the Gospel-narrative that

all

Jesus,

with

his

pronounced opposition
it

against

the

Pharisees, never found

necessary to denounce the priests.

And

yet the ill-repute of the aristocratic priesthood of the

is

period in which Jesus lived and acted

well-known.

This

problem
take

led

several scholars to various conclusions.

To
hand

two

extreme

and

opposite

views,

on

one

Dr. Buchler in his book Die Priester iind der Ctdtus,

deeply impressed
noble
priests

in

his

survey of the activities of the

rapacity and evil
all

by

the reports of their

to

practices,

came

the

conclusion
well

that

the

woes

in

Matthew,

ch. 33, as

as

the other attacks else-

where, were really directed against these 'noble' priests.

Dr. Buchler in his argument goes even so far as to suggest
that originally the text of

Matthew read NnsD

;
'

N^:n3

and
',

was

in

later times

altered to N'lDD s^K'nD

hypocrites

415

4l6
N''23n,

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

being
the proper

term applied
assumption
it

to

those

priests

(pp. 79-88}.

Against

this

has rightly been

pointed out by Epstein {Monatsschrift,

as regards Matthew,

XL,

138-44) that,

ch. 33, the priests did neither sit

on

Moses' throne

(vers,

2-4) nor did they aspire to be called

Rabbi
If

(vers.

7-10),

nor did they give tithes

(ver.

23).

we

force ourselves to explain that they exacted tithes

anise,

from mint,

and cummin, we would not

call

them

hypocrites but rapacious and extortionate.

On
1912,

the other hand, Leszynsky {Die Saddiizder, Berlin,

p.

297)

takes the opposite

view that Jesus

he
refrained

had
from

Sadducean

leanings,

and

therefore

attacking the priests,

who

to a great extent belonged to

the party of the Sadducees.

Both these views are too

Especially Leszynsky's view
all
is

extreme to be convincing.

that Jesus did not attack the priests at

untenable.

What

about the great charge

10.

in

the story of the

this

Good
is
it

Samaritan (Luke
generally

25-37)

But

whole passage
shall
see,

entirely misunderstood.

As we

contains a most scathing attack on both priest and Levite

in

general, in

so

far

as

they shared the views of the

Sadducees on a question of principle concerning the socalled Levitical purity.

10.
25),

Jesus addressed a lawyer

the

(vofiiKos,

and therefore

Gospel-commentators

have

generally taken this lawyer to have been a scribe of the

Pharisees.^
It is

however clear that the indictment could

In order to
likely

not have been directed against the Pharisees.

render the Parable of the

'

Good Samaritan more

Parable of the

Also Hal6vy

in

dealing with the

{^REJ., IV, 1882, 249-55) adheres to the view that His suggestion to substitute in the parable Israelite
'

Good Samaritan the lawyer was a Pharisee.

'

for

'

Samaritan

',

as

being parallel to priest and Levite

issue in this article.

(p.

253), has no bearing on-the point at

JESUS AND SADDUCEAN PRIESTS

to have been taken from actual
life,

MANN

417

we must

reject the

usual explanation that

it

was simply due to heartlessness

and the Levite
robbers.
It

on the part of both the

priest

in giving
is

no

succour to the victim of the

against
state

somewhat

human

nature to pass by a

man
in

lying in a helpless

on the high road without even coming near him. Both

the story must have
did.

the priest and the Levite mentioned

had some reason

to

for acting in the

way they

According

my

opinion, this

was due
left

to the requirements of Levitical

(r]/xi.Oai'fj,

purity.
10. 30),

The

robbers

their victim 'half dead'

fallen into
it

having probably

a swoon.
if

To

a pedes-

trian

coming from a distance

the road.

appeared as

a corpse was

lying in

Both a

priest

and a Levite, when

passing by, would then avoid coming near the supposed

dead body

lest

they become defiled

the former
i),

by reason
keep

of the Biblical prohibition (Lev. 21.

the latter because

to

he had to do service

in

the

Temple and had

great emphasis
it

himself Levitically pure.

Now,
so-called

just

the Pharisees
nii'D

laid

on the

duty of

no,

making

obligatory even on

a high priest to contract Levitical impurity and bury

a dead
care of

body
it.

lying on the highway with

nobody

to take

The Rabbis

ascribed the origin of this duty

of

of

niVD r\D

to Joshua the son

Nun
for

(B.

kamma

80 b
its

bottom, 'Erubin 16 a);

importance.
this

obviously in order to enhance

is

But there

no reason

maintaining that

custom amongst the Pharisees does not go back to

In

comparatively early times.2

Nazir

7.

we

find

Possibly Josephus refers to this duty of niiTD flD

when
in

writing in
legislator
to

Contr. Ap., II, 29, 211, that 'there are other things

which our

ordained for us beforehand, which of necessity we ought to do

all

common
it
;

men, as

to afford fire,
;

and water, and food

to

such as want

to

show

them the roads

nor

to let

any one

lie

unburied'.

VOL. VI.

E e

4l8

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

mentioned
in

theoretical case similar to that

Luke.
find a

'

If

high-priest

and a Nazirite journey together and

the road
'

dead

body

lying in
b,

(niVD

no

ISVDI Tina p^Sno vn),

R. Elieser
scholars as

Hyrkanos disputes with the contemporary

two should bury the dead
both
high-priest

to which of the

person,

in

order to prev^ent that

and

Nazirite should

become

Levitically impure while the

work
were

could be done by one of them.

course that
if

But

it

was a matter of

either a high-priest or a Nazirite alone

to find a corpse lying in the road, he

Levitical impurity

was bound to contract

and perform the

burial.

The

expression

niVD

DD seems

to have been a standard phrase familiar to

everybodyeffect that
*

An anonymous
'

Baraitha defines

it

to

the

as long as there are

no other people to look

1^
ps:^'

after the burial of the corpse

(tnnip

b^),

the duty

is

incumbent on the

first

Jew

that passes by, without any

exception, to perform the burial (Nazir 43 b, Yerushalmi

Nazir ^6

a,

top and parallels).

This demand which the Pharisees made on both priest

and Nazirite to

defile

themselves for such a niVD DO was

clearly against the literal

wording of Lev.

21.

i ff.,

11

fif.,

Num.

6. 7.

The Rabbis
Lev. 21.
i,

tried

hard to deduce m^fO no from

the Bible with the help of their method of hcrmeneutics

(cp. Sifra to

Nazir 47

b,

4H a-b, Zebahim 100a

and

parallels).

As

is

well

known, the laws handed

down

by

tradition were attacked

by the Sadducees on the ground

in

that

many

of

them had no foundation

objections

the Biblical laws.

To meet

these

and to uphold the tradition,

successive generations of scribes and

Rabbis brought

to

perfection a system of hcrmeneutics intended to find in the

Bible some indications of the traditional laws.

It

must be

admitted

that

in

the case

of nivo nr:. the

hepmeneutic

JESUS AND SADDUCEAN PRIESTS

deductions did not bring the Rabbis very

MANN
down
'

419

far.

They merely
the
defile

maintained as granted that when the Bible laid

rule,

for

example, that a high-priest should not

himself at the burial of even his nearest relations,

for his father

neither

nor for his mother

'

(Lev. 21. 11),

it

excluded

nivn

no

Obviously the Sadducees rejected such a deduction.

to the clear wording of the Biblical law.

They would adhere

No

exception was to be
priest then,

Sadducean

made in the when passing

it,

case of m^io no.

a dead body, would

have certainly avoided coming near

and detecting a man

lying unconscious in the road, as in the parable of Luke,

would have passed on

for fear of defilement.

Against such

a practice Jesus directed his attack.

hesitation in

There need be no
have been a

simply taking this

It is

vo[xlk6^ to

Sadducean lawyer.

known

that the Sadduceans had

a 'code of impositions' (xmn:

"iSD,

Megillat Taanit, ch. 10)

and that they were as a

9, I,

rule strict judges (Jos.,

Ant.

XX,
the

199), so that there existed

The above explanation

more
plausible,

of

among them lawyers. Luke 10. 25-37 becomes

when we consider the textual

10.

state of our

passage.
tive.

Luke

1-37 breaks the sequence of the narra-

Jesus was on his

way
in
9.

to Jerusalem,

and there are

stories of the

journey

51

ff.,

57

ff.

In 10. 38 there

follows
stories

another incident of the journey.

there
are
inserted

Within these
seventy

the

account of the
(10.

apostles, their

mission

and

return
(vers.

1-25), and the

parable of the
'

Good Samaritan
It is

25-37) which begins,

stood
up, and

And

behold a certain lawyer

'.

(vofiLKos)
is

tempted him

evident that there

neither any con-

nexion with the preceding nor with the story that follows.

Now
and

vers.
in

25-8 have their parallels both

ff.

in

Mark

12.

28

ff.

Matt. 22. 34

in

their

proper sequence.

The
2

E e

420

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

when
in

occasion was

Jerusalem the Sadducees disputed

i3.
j

with Jesus about the resurrection (Mark

22.

8-28, Matt.

23

ff.,

Luke

20. 27-40.
it

The

Pharisees were pleased with

Jesus, so that

is

rather difficult to understand

:^5

why one
indeed
not
(ver.

of the Pharisees, a lawyer," as Matt. 22.

reports, should
(12. 28)

have stood up and tempted

felt

Jesus.

Mark

the

difficulty,

and therefore makes the scribe

tempting Jesus, but rather being pleased with him

32
ff.).

But Luke

(10. 35)

has also 'tempting him' and

thus agrees with Matthew.

According to
is

my

opinion, the

common

tradition of

Matthew and Luke

in

authentic."*

This

lawyer was a Sadducee, and even

the wording of Matthew,

e^ avTcov vq^ilko^ ireipd^cov avrSi',

could refer to the nearest

noun,
22.

i.e.

rov9 ^aSSvKaiovs (ver. 34).

is

Accordingly, Matt.
10.

35-40

quite parallel to

Luke

25-8

the Sad-

ducees having been refuted, one of their lawyers continues

the issue with Jesus.
tion,
'

Thereupon follows the second ques?

'

Who

is

my

neighbour

and Jesus concludes with

in

the serious indictment against Sadducees contained

the

parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke

reported

10. 29-37), a detail

only by Luke.
in this

That the Pharisees could not

parable has been shown above.'*

have been meant

3
*

Ciireton reads ];^0 a scribe, but omitted by Syrsin.

Comp.

also Resch, Aiisserkanomic/te Parallcliexte ztt den Evaugelicii, III,

u.

p. 120 (in Gebhardt

Harnack, Texte

u. Untersticliitugen, vol. lo, Leipzig,

1893-4).

Luke

10.

25-8,

Mark

12.

28-34, Matt. 22. 34-40 are three variants

the beginning of which

of one and the same pre-canonic

is

Q ( = Quellentext),
a.

preserved best in Luke

^

10.

25

Cf. a similar story in

Qohel. R.,
to

11. i, of a

noble

Roman who was once

where
just

shipwrecked and washed

Eleazar
b.

the Palestinian shore,

a scribe,

Shammua, took

care of him, dressed and fed him, and sent him

away on

his journey.

See further the

of

(pIT'B' t^"'N),

Nahum

stories of Nehcmiah the cave-digger Gimzo (Ycrushalmi Pea ai b) and Abba Tahna the

pious (Qohel. R., ch. 9).

JESUS AND SADDUCEAN PRIESTS

MANN
in

42I

As

for the details of the Parable, the question

whether the
those
state
priest

road from Jerusalem to Jericho was dangerous

times cannot be decided

by Jerome's account of the

detail of the
in

own times. But the passing along that way to Jericho is the local conditions. From Taanit
of things in his
Jericho

accordance with

27 a

we

learn

that

was

largely

inhabited

by

priests

(see

further,

Dr. Buchler, Priestci' unci

Cnltits,

161-81].

That Jericho
19. 4)

and
is

its

neighbourhood had sycamore-trees (Luke

also corroborated

by Pesahim

4. 9,

where we are told

that the people of Jericho used to engraft their sycamoretrees during the

whole eve of the Passover, even

in

in

the

time of the day when

Jerusalem the Passover lambs

were just

sacrificed in the
is

Temple.

There

another saying of Jesus reported

also

by the
the

Synoptics which was perhaps

priests.

directed

against

Jesus'

remark on seeing the poor woman throwing

her

trifle

into the treasury {ya(o(f)v\dKLov,

Mark

12. 41-4,

Luke
priests

21. 1-4)

seems to have been a rejoinder to those

who

despised the insignificant gifts of the poor to

the temple and their scant offerings amounting to a pigeon

or

a meal-offering

(nruD).

There are some interesting

Rabbinic parallels which place the reported sayings of

Jesus
in
its

proper
'

light.
is

Commenting on Lev.
" soul " (trsi)
?

2.

i,

R. Isaac says,
in

Why

the word

mentioned

connexion
?

with

a meal-offering
I
(i.

Who
"'JS^

brings such
it

a sacrifice
as
if

poor man.

e.

God) account
',

to

him

he sacrificed his soul before

2. i,

Me

IB'SJ

y'\\>n i^N3,

Yalkut to Lev.

447
3,

in

the

name

of a

Midrash).
story

Likewise in Lev. R., ch.

concerning a
handful of

we have an anonymous
priest

woman who

once brought as a sacrifice a

flour.

Whereupon the

abused her, saying,

422
'

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

these

Look what

women
in

offer

up

What
The
is

remains there

for

eating and what

for sacrificing?'

following night

this priest

had a vision
offering,

a dream, enjoining
it

him not
if

to

despise such an

because
life.

regarded as

the

woman had

offered

up her

This story might have

been an old Agada and closely resembles the incident

reported in the Synoptic Gospels.

STRACK'S 'ABOTH'
Aiisgewdhlte

Misnatraktate
Veroffentlicht,

nach

Hafidschrifteti

und

alien

Drucken.

iibersetzt

und

mit Beriicksichti-

gung des Neuen Testaments

erlautert.

Herausgegeben von

Hermann
Vdier.

L.

Strack.

Ftrqe Aboth:

Die Spruche der

Mit VokaC. Hinrichs, 1915.

Vierte ganz neubearbeitete Auflage.

bular
pp. 40

und

drei Registern.

Leipzig:

J.

+ 44.
is

critical edition of the Mishna

a desideratum which will

probably not be supplied for a long time.

The
'

'

Gesellschaft zur

Forderung der Wissenschaft des Judentums

has announced for

will

some time a

great edition of the

Mishna which, we hope,

include the whole manuscript material, but

we have not heard

yet

what principles

will

be followed

for the establishment of the text.

Before a series of preliminary investigations has been successfully

carried through dealing with the relations of the

more important
on the
it

manuscripts towards one another, and determining which belong

to the Palestinian

and Babylonian rescension

Talmudic

respectively discussions,

basis of the readings underlying the

will

not be possible to establish sound principles to guide us in this

difficult

undertaking.
the treatises of the Mishna that of Abot, the most
it

Among

popular and best known, has an exceptional position since

was incorporated into the prayer-book

at

an early period, and has

accordingly been transmitted to us, outside the Mishna manuscripts^

in

numerous

rituals of all the

different

countries.

In

these a sixth chapter has been added to the treatise (according

to

Friedmann, Pseudo-Seder Eliahu zuta, Vienna, 1904,

p.

19^

from Maseket Kalla, ed. Coronel, Vienna, 1864, pp. i3b-i4b).

and

in

some

cases considerable additions have been incorporated

later

into this

new chapter

on

thus Taylor in his Appendix

423

424

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

mentions
Brit.

to the Sayings 0/ the Jewish Fathers (Cambridge, 1900)

three

Yemen prayer-books [p. 44, MS. Museum 714 (see Cat. Margoliouth, II,
where the
sixth chapter
p. 1
1

Bodl. 1145,
p.

p. 116,

416, a.nd/QJ?.,
full

XVII,

pp. 700703,
to this

is

published in

according

MS. by Margoliouth),
last

2,

Berlin 89 (Strack's J')] offering

7
;

a string of sentences, beginning with nK^N between VI, 6 and

others again split off the

sentences of chapter

V and, increasing
extra chapter,
p. 7,

them by a few more

additions, form out of

them an

so that their treatise consists of seven chapters [see Taylor,

Brit.
1
1

Museum 694 and

and
1

Paris 636, pp. 42-4, Bodl. 1135, 1137,

39,

142,

p.

62,

Cambridge.

This form Meiri

at the

end

of his commentary mentions as

common].
be undertaken we find
first

If a classification of the manuscripts

that
in

we have no means

of applying to

Abot the

criterion used
viz.

determining texts of other treatises of the Mishna,

whether

they belong to the Palestinian or the Babylonian version.

Palestinian

The Talmud does not contain Abot in its editions and manuscripts, and while the Munich MS. and the first Bomberg edition of the Babli include a text of it, we cannot without
serious
version.

investigation

take this as representing the Babylonian

quotation, like the one in

Yoma

21a, where two of the

wonders which happened

in the sanctuary are omitted

from V,

4,

and expressly quoted

as additional

wonders from a Baraita,

;

justifies

us in becoming very sceptical in that respect

for

MS. Munich
must
it

has one of the two in the text of Abot, the

while

editio

princeps both,

we can

see that in this case the Babylonian recension

have included neither.

Of course
is

this

is

a solitary instance, but

shows that the question

believe.

not so clear as

Strack and others

On

the other

hand the old commentators, who, by the way,

five chapters, yield

mostly limit their works to the original

a rich

harvest for the criticism of the text, and by their references to

the prayer-books of the different countries give us a valuable hint

for the classification.

We

shall have, in the

first

place, to determine

whether we cannot discover a Spanish, a French, a Provencal,

a

Yemen

type,

tS;c.

Probably

in

later times all the differences

STRACK'S

'

ABOTH

'

MARX

425

were more and more obliterated through interchange from one

country to the other, but the oldest manuscripts ought to give us
useful indications in this respect.

How

little

attention has been

paid to this point up to

now may be gathered from

rite

the fact that

Taylor, as a rule, does not indicate the

of the prayer-books

containing the text in his catalogue of the Abot manuscripts.

Besides the help the old commentators afford for classifying the

manuscripts they also add greatly to the

list

of variae lediones.

Readings recorded by authorities of the twelfth to fourteenth

century as going back to old and good copies after
weightier than
all

are

much
to
like
col-

many

a later ritual,

and

it

would be interesting
of
great

examine the

readings

of

the

copies
in

scholars

R. Gershon or R. Ephraim found

lection,
^JNir^'C'

Uceda's very valuable

cmo.
Israeli,

Great value was attributed to copies of the

Mishna from
ben Solomon

Palestine,

and such are quoted,

e.g.

by R. Isaac

Joseph ibn Nachmias, Simon Duran, and

Yom Tob Lipman

It
is

Heller, in their interpretations of Abot, while

the Rashi commentary has a reading

which

it

calls Tiberian.

perhaps not out of place to collect these as a specimen

in a note.^
1

Only

part of

them we meet among

Strack's variants.

R. Isaac ben Solomon, the grandson of the commentator R. Israel

Israeli,

mentions several times an old vocalized Mishna MS.

in his pos"'"ITD

session

which was written

in

Jerusalem (D^p^''nO

D*3w'''

HJti'JO

Nnti'

D^k^'ITa 13n2:5J' D''1p1J01).

The passages

are quoted in S. Sachs's un2,

finished lengthy description of Cod.

Guenzburg
(p.

and

in

Taylors Notes.
of this

The

latter speaks of

two manuscripts
;

147), his manuscript evidently

reading D'^JC for D'X"" manuscript are

:

p.

139

it

actually has '1.

The readings

II,

I,

mXEm
b,

iHC'iy^
1

mNSn.

R. Israel, his descendant relates, found

a reading without
III,

in

an old manuscript reputed to be from Jerusalem.

it was not found in the was added by a later hand Spanish MSS. have it.

the gloss at the end, of which Rashi said

recite
it,

Mishna MSS., although people generally

on the margin.
111,6,

He
for
I

adds that

all

the

pjD

pjDI.

Ibid., Ps. 82.

is

quoted after HB'^K'

Amos

9.

6 after

nCCH
is

as

Maimo-

nides has

it.

Ill, II,

the reading

DTSJDm, confirmed by Rashbam,

found on the

margin of the codex.

426

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

many
of these
text
'

A
'

great

readings

are

incorporated in Taylor's

Notes on the

at the

end of the Appendix.

systematic

examination, however, has not yet been undertaken.

Thus the

Ibid., like
II,

Rashbam

it

does not read

min

before U^yW^

D''E'JJ?D.

4a

is

not repeated before IV, 14.

it

IV, 19,

has only the two Biblical verses without

any addition.

R. Joseph ibn Nachmias, ni3N ''pID K'n''D, ed. Bamberger, Paks, 1907,
quotes his Palestinian Mishna-Codex nrni'tJ'n^
I,

riT'y.^'O

mo

^T\'C\

4,

NDV31

(so in his

name Uceda ad
!).
. .

the edition wrongh'

JINOM,

for

which the editor conjectures HNOI^Q

II,

a,

131V11

*i3ii*i

nt^y::*

hd

"131:1*^5

imn ncy

(the edition

is

again to be corrected according to Uceda).

n,

7,

|m

[like

Aruk

and, according to Duran, Maimonides, French texts

and 'our' Mishna MSS.].

II,

14 omits

yi

(before y>\i?ny
for
\''2b'C)r\,

HD) and "]n^iyD

l^'J'

']h

uVc^'^Z'

III, II,

DiNnn
it

III,

13b,

adds

min^

Responsum
IV. 5b,

of the earl}'
to the

and was known

[This reading occurs in a y^'D nyWJ12. Gaon Jehudai, Rcsponsa, ed. Lyck, 19 b bottom, Aruk (s.v. 3D, Kohut, VI, 14)].
for

IV, 17,

ono ^i3N^ Nnn D^iyn

omitted.

nisn^.
for
'>n

""^n^

bao.

V, 21

is

Simon Duran, Magen Abot, Leipzig, 1855,

vocalized Palestinian Mishua

p.

86

a,

consulted an old

MS. (nnpi30

LlTi^ ""'NO IWtt' HIJC''' n1^::^'Cl),

which read
R.

in

V, 10

Yom Tob

ycn 'hu ^5?ri "J^'J* l^^n l^'J' I^Dl 'h^. Lipman Heller, niD DV mSDin, on I, 5 tells us that he
first,
fifth,

had a Palestinian MS. containing, besides Abot, the

order of the Mishna.
I,

and sixth

Its

readings arc

5.

^n"':^' Tyz^^^r^
it it

^^
131:'

II,

14

omits

inSys

i^ obtr^w'.

IV, 2

omits (pnoj) r.-iinnaD

it

IV, 5 a

omits (pni::) niD-'b.

IV, 10, pDi' nyDfD.

The

Tibcrian Mishna (D^O'l^'D nj-'O;

tiie

mentioned
I

in in

tlie

Rashi com-

mentary omits

Biblical verse at the

2,

end of

(which

the Palestinian

Talmud, Taanit IV,

Tiberian

68a bottom,
is

is

added by the Amora R. Mana).

mentioned
for

Mishna with vowels

also

Nedarim by the

anonymous commentator quoted

(e.g. 9c, 16b, 74d;.

as L"1TD in Shitta Mckubbcset ed.

Zomber

STRACK'S

'

ABOTH

'

MARX
is

427
a very com-

task of preparing a critical edition of our treatise

plicated one,

and

it

naturally cannot be solved incidentally with

Still his

the preparation of a text-book as Strack puts before us.

edition

comes much nearer

offering a critical text than

any of

its

predecessors,

and therefore these considerations of the

larger task

are not out of place in a review of the

little

new

edition of Strack's

book.
the editor, in 1882, for the
first

When
to the

time approached the

task of putting before the student

who

wishes to be introduced

study of Rabbinical literature a corrected text of this

interesting

and important

treatise,

he only published the

revised
in

text of
It
is

the

common
to

prayer-book in a
this
p.

carefully

form.

curious

find

text

recommended

1913 in Charles's
it

Pseudepigrapha,

690, with the statement that

could hardly

be improved

only the authorities for the text and the various

readings are missed by the

new

translator.

Yet that want had

been supplied by the indefatigable editor in the second edition,

1888,

which

is

based on seven

manuscripts

and

the

editio

pruiceps of the Mishna.

In 1901 a third edition appeared, again

improved
book.

in

many

points.

It is

not only that the

;

The present edition is an number of manuscripts

entirely

new
in-

has been

creased by three
of

but they include the famous Mishna manuscripts

De

Rossi and the late Prof. Kaufmann, together with MS.

Cambridge, the most important codices of the Mishna which have

come down
in

to us.

Krauss has shown

in a very valuable study

AfGlV/., 1907, that

Codex

Kaufmann
first

with

MS. Cam-

bridge and the Mishna text in the

edition of the Yerushalmi

form a family by themselves

to the

MS. De Rossi probably belongs

examined the three most
is

same group.
better

Strack having

important and best manuscripts of the Mishna a

able to reach

much

critical

principle

than was possible with the

material at his disposal for his former editions.

He

accepts the

readings of these three capital manuscripts into his text wherever

they agree.

His

text

is
it

accordingly more uniform, presenting

a distinct type, whether

stance
it is

be Palestinian or

not,

and

at every in-

evident

how

carefully

he has reconsidered each reading.

428
If

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is
still

anything

left

to

be desired,

it

is

that the

fifth

edition

should considerably increase the variants under the

first

text.

In the

place

all

the readings of the above-mentioned three

in full.

manu-

scripts

ought to be given

Strack nowhere expresses himself

in

about the principles he follows

not included in the
text.

adding or rejecting the readings

fact I

As a matter of

was disappointed

when

found that of the readings enumerated by Kaufmann,

1897, pp. 43-6, as agreeing with
the corrections of

JlfGJVJ.,

R. Joseph Ashkenas, several are not recorded in Strack's apparatus.

We

miss,

e. g.,

the gloss

mj

^?^^:^*3

in

I,

5,

the authenticity of

which was the subject of much discussion by the early commentators

I,
;

see Schechter, Aboth de

Rabbi Nathan, pp.

j?;

xviii-xx.

16 the manuscript reads nnrrij? with

II, 2

"n:^ for nnni:

for

II,

4 b ^^n

'-\;

II, 7

it

omits n03n and

s. v.

r\p'Vi,

and has pn

nJNl

(as

R, Nathan had; see Aruch

a collation of
years ago,

n, ed. Kohut, III, 29), &c.

Dr. Schechter

From many
D''D3n,

Codex De Rossi which

5 reads

made

and which he kindly put

I,

that this manuscript also in

at my disposal, we learn "i~l?DN mj "inC'Sn (it continues

;

omitting six words

;

by homoioteleuton)

I,

7,
it

it

reads
a,

"I3n ^"ln ^X1

I,

''3"iN3,

&c.

In the second chapter

14, while

omits 4

inserting
it

it

between IV, 13 and

many
full

other texts have

in

both places.

About the

variants of these

most important
information, but

manuscripts one would like to have very

characteristic additions of other
]jassed over entirely as
in J' after
is

manuscripts ought not to be

H'^'N sentences following
j),

done with the

VI, 6

at

the

end of the
113;

gloss recorded, p. 28*, note

according to Taylor

(I.e.

.see

above).

In

I,

3 the
p. 13,

same
reads

manuscript according to M. Cahn, Pirke Aboth,

D'Dt^ DB' NIID.
It

I,

would only increase the

if all

size

of the volume by

a couple of pages

the variants collected in Taylor's Appendix

;

should be incorporated

their
j)ut

number

is

not very considerable,

all

and

their addition

would

before our eyes at a glance

of consulting so

the

accessible material

and save the trouble

many

sources at every step.

Taylor's variants include the readings recorded

by the old

commentators who devote considerable space

to the discussion of

STRACK

'

ABOTH

MARX

429

textual questions, often mentioning the sources of their readings.

The

apparatus would greatly gain by this addition.

Thus, to

select a few

examples

at

random,

it is

interesting that the addition

of the
b.

title

Rabbi
in
II,

to the
8,

names of the
in

pupils of R.

Johanan
to

Zakkai

found only
lT<^'J;c^
"iS

N,

was

objected

by

Duran, that the addition

has in
its

^y nb

bm

at the

end of

II, 15

favour the authority of Maimonides and Meir Abulafui,

19 Rashi, R. Jonah, and Meiri read the addition
iVniDu' ID^D, which also occurs in an

that in IV, VniJiy ?3

incunabulum

of the

Spanish

prayer-book

in

the

library

of the

New York
is

Seminary, that in V, 5 R. Samuel ben Meir and R. Jonah read

i^^iy'tT'D

for

p^N'C',

that

the

reading n'y:p nyniN in VI, 10

"ipinn, I,

supported by Rashi (see Epstein,

92

seq.).

Full references to the parallels in

Abot de Rabbi Nathan, which

are so indispensable for the higher criticism of Abot, as well as for the text, would also be a
edition.

welcome improvement

for the next

Of
book

course

all

these desiderata would enhance the value of the

for the scholar

more than

for the student

it
is, is

and beginner

in Rabbinics.

But Strack's

edition, as

indispensable to

the specialist, and will probably remain so for

some

time, as

it

contains material not accessible anywhere else.

to suggest that in

therefore venture
will

the next edition, which

we hope

appear

in the near future, the editor will enlarge the

scope of his book in

these directions in the interest of the specialist,

and thus

will lay

new claims
which
is

to our indebtedness to him,

literal translation to

Strack has added a too

the fourth edition,

brief statements

accompanied by short notes containing

occurring
in

about the authorities

references to the

the

treatise,

explanations,

New

Testament, &c. giving a great deal of

information in very brief space.

The
the text,

short introduction preceding the text discusses the conits

tents of the treatise,

redaction as well as the material used for

and adds
is

a fairly full bibliography.

Among

the comto

mentaries there

an omission of the

oldest, the

one ascribed

Rashi, and printed from varying manuscripts, Trino (not Turin,

43
as Taylor,
/.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

c, p.
1 1

end, has

it),

1525, under the

name

of David

Kimhi, Mantua, 1560, Salonica, 1565, and, together with the

commentary of R. Jonah, which is not mentioned either, Altona, The great Wihia edition of the Mishna, including Adeni's 1S48.
very important

commentary and a
easier of access

useful collection of quotations

literature, as well as

and

parallels in the
is

Talmudic and Midrashic

variae kctiones,

and more
p. 6*.

to

be recommended

than the Mishna-editions enumerated,

Maimonides's Arabic
text

commentary has been published with the

according to
the
Berlin

of the Mishna
Berlin,

MS.

(Strack's

A) by Baneth,

1905; see also Baneth's corrections of the

in Festschrift Leivy, Breslau,

Hebrew

translation

191

1.

It

is

curious that the ediiio

priiiceps of x\bot,

which appeared separately (with Maimonides's

is

commentary), Soncino, 1484,

In ChdixXe^'s Fseztdepigrapha
the editions of the
so far as I know,

nowhere mentioned
indeed, p. 690
:

in the book.

we read Mishna and of

editio

'Apart from
is,

the whole Talmud, there

no

princeps of

Aboth

'

Before

it

was

included into the Naples Mishna Abot appeared again in the

first

Roman Machzor
the

in the next year,

and then

in
in

some

early

prayer-books like the

German

of

c.

1490 found
in the

the British
ritual

Museum and
MS. L
is

New York

Seminary, and

Spanish

mentioned above.
not copied from the printed text of ni3NT
'-'"'D,

Constantinople,

1578-9; among a dozen readings

x,

in the

first

chapter recorded by Strack only those in notes n,

that edition.

y agree with
finished in

Since, however, that

commentary was
refer to

Lisbon

in

1470, the note in

MS. L may

a manuscript

copy of the

nUNT v^D from which

it

the text was copied.

The
Of

text

in Bacher's edition of

Ibn Aknin's commentary might have been

is

used for the edition, since

based on a manuscript.

the

commentary
Frankfurt
a.

in

Machsor Vitry Berliner has published a

reprint,

M., 1897.

As

to the liturgical use of Abot, instead of

the indiscriminate mention of a few authorities, p. 4*

reference to Zunz, Ritus, pp. 85-6 would be more in place

note, a
;

other-

wise only the oldest author, Sar Shalom

Gaon (middle
ther

of the

ninth century) quoted in Aniram Gaon's Siddur, and

custom

STRACK's

'

ABOTH

'

MARX
number up
notes,

431

of the old Babylonian synagogue {b222\y irn"i ^"2) recorded by

him deserves mention.

Strack's Ausgewdhlte Mihiatraktate six in
,

to now,

can be very warmly recommended.

With

their carefully revised

and vocalized

text,

their

good

glossaries

and

and

their

literal translations,

they are the best means at the present time

for introducing the

beginner to the reading of Neo-Hebrew

texts,

offering, as they do, all the necessary help for a

sound philological

interpretation.

that they

with

the

The price of the modest little volumes is so low can be recommended even to those not very familiar German language used in notes and glossary, since
can they find equally reliable and correctly vocalized
there are serious problems of higher criticism of

nowhere
texts.

else

Of course

the Mishna dealing

with

its

structure

and growth which are

hardly touched by Strack, while other collections of a

much

more pretentious character

these complicated

try to

offer

new

solutions even for

questions.

But since these hypotheses are

based on an inadequate acquaintance with one, or in the best

case a few treatises of the Mishna, they are of no value whatsoever,

and

in

no way compare with those of

Strack,

Strack;,

which

in

the more limited field

they cover are excellent, and

must be

consulted even by the specialist.

who has devoted many

years of patient labour to this branch of learning, fully realizes

the difficulties of the task, and does not think of startling the

reader with unfounded theories and discoveries which lack

basis.

all

His work only gains by

this attitude.

P. S.

Since
:

wrote the above a

new

treatise has
'

been edited
'.

by Strack

Berakoth.

Der Misnatraktat
Leipzig:

Lobsagungen

Mit

Vokabular und drei Registern.

pp. 32

J.

C. Hinrichs, 1915.
dis-

+ 24. The new

treatise,

volume includes some of the prayers

by Dr. Schechter

cussed in the

and, as an appendix, the Palestinian version

first

of the Shemone Esre published

in

the/Q/^.,

X.

The

text of the

Mishna

is

based on only three manuscripts

and three

editions, not including

MS. De Rossi nor

is

the Berlin

Mishna with Maimonides, which

accessible in Weill's edition.

432

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

comparison of Ginzberg's Yerushalmi Fragments would have

Strack
states

been advantageous.
selection

here that

he only gives a

of the variants.
its

In general the volume shows the

same excellence as

predecessors.

Alexander Marx.
Jewish Theological Seminary
of America.

RECENT ARABIC LITERATURE

The Governors and Judges of Egypt of El Kindl. Together with an Appendix derived mostly from Raf El Isr by Ibn Hajar. Edited by Rhuvon Guest. Leyden E. J. Brill, 1912.
:

pp. 72

686.

(E. J.

W. Gibb Memorial

Series.

Vol. XIX).

The Kitdb Al-Ansdb of ""Abd Al-Karvn Ibn Muhammad AlSam'dnl. Reproduced in facsimile from the manuscript in
the British

By D.
pp. 7

S.

Museum Add. 23, 355. With an Introduction. Margoliouth, D.Litt., Laudian Professor of Arabic
Leyden: E.J. Brill, 1912.
Series.

in the University of Oxford.

1206.

(E. J.

W. Gibb Memorial

Vol.

XX.)

The Pearl-Strings.

History of the Resiiliyy Dynasty of Yemen.

By 'Alyyu' Bnu' l-Hasan 'El-Khazrejiyy. The Arabic text. Edited by Shaykh Muhammad 'Asal. Leyden E. J. Brill, 1913. pp. xii + 442. (E. J. W. Gibb Memorial
Series.

Vol. Ill, 4.)

The
is

publication of Arabic texts, which, owing to the rivalry of

Assyriology, was

somewhat neglected

in the

last

few decades,

now being
is

successfully resumed.

The

E.

J. W. Gibb Memorial

fund

being utilized for the purpose of printing various Oriental

manuscripts, and the trustees deserve credit for their judicious

selections.

The

object of this Memorial

is

to

promote researches
have hitherto

into the history, literature, philosophy,

and

religion of the Turks,

Persians,

and Arabs, and the Arabic

this series

texts that

appeared in

cover nearly

all

these branches, though

historical texts are the

most prominent.
or

Al-Kindi,

who may

may not have been

It is

a descendant of

the famous philosopher of that name, was a native of Egypt and

a contemporary of Sa'adya.
extraction, as

possible that he was of Jewish

in pre-Islamic times

Judaism

is

known

to

have
f

VOL.

VI.

433

434

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Kindah from which
this historian derives

prevailed in the tribe of

his appellation.

His

family, however,

seems to have
conquest.

settled in

Egypt
a

a short while after the

Muhammedan

He

was

prolific writer,
is

and

his

book on the Governors and Judges of

the custom
of Arabian historians,

Egypt

of great importance as an historical source for the period

it

with which

deals.

As

is

al-Kindi gives his authorities for every statement he makes, and

s

very accurate in matters of dates.

Mr. Guest has written a very valuable introduction, and has

given a concise sketch of events in Egypt from the seventh to
the eleventh century.
al-Kindi's
life

He

has also outlined the particulars of

which are mainly derived from anonymous notes

in the British

Museum

manuscript upon which the edition

is

based, and he has described the authorities al-Kindi

his book.
If

names

in

we disregard the misprints which

are practically

unavoidable in a work of such magnitude, and which the intelligent

reader will easily be able to correct,
is

we may
is

say that the text

extremely well edited.

Mr. Guest

very painstaking,

and

in his notes,

which are written

corrections.
solve,

in Arabic,

he draws attention to

variants

and

He

also points out difficulties

which

he

is

unable to

and

this inspires

confidence in the editor's

carefulness.

All along the reader feels certain that the text has

been

faithfully
it

reproduced,

except

in

cases

where the editor

deemed
is

necessary to resort to emendations to which attention

called in the notes.

In a very instructive manner Mr. Guest

has carefully compared his text with the works of other writers
dealing with the same subject.
helpful for the
first

Makrizi's al-Hitat proved very

part of the work.

In some instances,
scarcely justifiable.
(^jjk for Iaa

however,

Mr. Guest's
Xh^

corrections
1.

are

The
1.

spelling of

for ^i. (p. 83,

i),

and

(p.

114,

5)

may be

dialectic,

and should therefore

be allowed to remain

in the text.

Arabic has a great number of

such double spellings and pronunciations.

Freytag records
Uj in

As a matter of
is

fact

the sense of ascendit, that

in

to say,

Such cases are quite frequent

Hebrew.

Some
Nor
is

of the iertiae
it

^j. N

became

iertiae

'

in

mishnic

Hebrew.

necessary to

RECENT ARABIC LITERATURE

change
natural
ij^lii (p. 124,
1.

HALPER
latter is

435

9) to ii^l-b,
Icj.

though the

more

when constructed with

The numerous
to

verses that are quoted in this

It
is,

book have

for

the greater part been carefully vocalized.

however, possible

improve a

line

here and

there.

The
wi// be

following are a few

examples
P. 52,
1.

10.

S^'i

should be

'1}

made

to

devour ; the

metre

is

Mutakarib.
1.

P. 63,

9.
2.
1.

Instead of lli read

*.-.

the metre

is

Wafir.

P. 92,

1.

Read
10.

l,sti^i.

the metre
is

is

Kamil.

P. 145,

The metre which

poem on

Hafif demands that we

should vocalize^^ against grammar.

The rhyme
not
sJ
;

of the
is

p. 175,

11.

15-17 should be J,

the metre
1.

Tawil.
;

P. 271,
P. 403,

8.

Vocalize ^VSs-

the metre

is

Tawil.
is

1.

II.

Delete (J^b, as the

is

poem

in the

Mutakarib

metre,

and

that

word

not essential for the sense.

In

his glossary to this

book Mr. Guest explains words and

cannot
a river

expressions which are not recorded in any lexicon, or are rarely

used.

But

his explanation of the phrase y. Jc^j js^- ^y>.

satisfactory.

be regarded as
fish
if

He
\
i.

takes

it

to

mean

'
:

am

and

an intruder

on land

e.

fish

out of water.
it

But even

we

grant that Jij denotes

ati

intruder,

is

too vague to be

used as a parallel to

^^

in

a proverb.

We

should perhaps

change c
It is

to c,

and read Jc. a mountain-goat.

in the political life

hard to say what part the Jews took

at that time.

in

Egypt

The Jews adopted Arabic names, and

Muhammedans
men he
other

bore biblical names, and hence we have to rely on

the author's explicit remarks as to the religion professed by the

mentions.
there

In the vast array of governors, judges, and

is

officials,

not one designated as a Jew.

There

are,

however, a few references to Jews which indicate that there

already existed a considerable Jewish community in Egypt in the
early days of

Muhammedan
deem
it

rule.

As they may be

of interest to

the historian, I into English.

advisable to translate these short passages

F f 2

'

436

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

'Ahmad
b.

Tuliin
(c.

commenced
c. e.),

building the Square in Sha'ban

to plough
f.).

in the year 256

870

and he commanded
'

up

the Jewish and Christian cemeteries

(p.

215,

11.

11

'Ahmad

b.

Tulun's

illness
. .

grew worse, and he commanded

.

the people to pray for him

And

the Jews and Christians

were also present, but they were separated from the Muslims
(p.

231,
It is

11.

II

ff.).

noteworthy that

this

Ahmad, who had committed an

them

act

of sacrilege against the Jews and Christians, wanted

for his recovery.

to pray

'Some Jews
judge who held
'l-'AzIz,

instituted a litigation against

ofifice

Ibn Hujairah

(a

about 716

c. e.)

before

'Omar

b.

'Abd

and claimed

that he

had taken money from them.

"

He

affirmed that he had taken the money, but subsequently returned

it

to them.

'Omar asked him

? "

Do

you have any witnesses that

:

you returned the money

He

replied

"

No

"

He

then said

"You
men

are obliged to pay.

Oh

Ibn Hujairah, and you have pledged

yourself".

Afterwards he stated that he had witnesses, and some

favour'
(p.

testified in his

332,

11.

17

ff.).

This reference
index.

is,

through oversight, not entered

the

in

Mr. Guest's

It is true that
is

Ya

of .s^^j has

no

diacritical points in
is

the text, but this

in

the only possible reading which

in the note.

also found

Raf
'

al-Isr as
b.

quoted

Hair

Nu'aim used

to accept the testimony of Christians

concerning Christians, and that of Jews concerning Jews.

He

would inquire about

(p.

their integrity

from their own co-religionists'

351, 11.8

f.).

1.

There are two more places where Jews are mentioned (p. 424, I, and p. 569, 1. 14), but they only refer to Jews in general.

The

Arabs, like the Jews and almost

all

other nations, have

attached great importance to the study of pedigrees.

value of such studies can scarcely be overrated.
are a

The

historical

In Arabic there
the most

good many works devoted

is

to this subject, but

exhaustive

no doubt al-Sam'ani's Book of Ascriptions {Kitdb

is

al-Ansdb\ that
country,
dvc. to

to say, adjectival forms

indicating the tribe,

which the person belonged. Al-Sam'ani 'flourished

RECENT ARABIC LITERATURE

in the twelfth century,

HALPER

437

and was regarded

as a very learned

man.

Born
his

in

Merw, he

travelled extensively in search of material for

forty-nine.

books which are supposed to number

Such a work

is

naturally not for the

ordinary reader, but

It
it,

a book of reference for the mature scholar.

was therefore
especially as,

unnecessary to transcribe the manuscript and edit

owing to the magnitude of the book, the labour entailed would

have been tremendous. The reproduction
for
in facsimile is sufficient

the

average scholar.

As al-Sam'ani arranged the ansdb

to

alphabetically, there
cases, however, the
is

was no need

compile an index.

In most

commencement

of a Jiisbah in this manuscript

in the

same characters

as the other words,

and the use of the

this difficulty

book would have been very troublesome. To obviate

Mr. A. G.
Ellis,

formerly of the British

Museum and now

of the

India Office Library, marked with a circle on the margin where a

nisbah begins.
Prof.

Margoliouth's

short

introduction

contains

a concise

sketch of al-Sam'ani's

life.

The

salient facts for this sketch are

gathered from the chronicles of Ibn al-Athlr and Dahabl, as well

as from the biographical dictionaries of

Ibn Hallikan and Subki.

Al-Sam'anI in
again,

this

work

refers to himself

and

his friends

now and

and these
is,

data, too,

were made use of by Prof. Margoliouth.

There

however, in this introduction one statement to which

is

exception can be taken, and which

subject.

quite irrelevant to the

In discussing the study of ansdb, Prof. Margoliouth

'

remarks that

its

importance

for the early

Arabs

is

rightly con-

nected with the blood-feud by the author of a curious mediaeval

" squib", fathered on the eminent

Rabbi Saadyah Gaon

'.

This

is

an allusion to the Sefer ha-Galily.

In JQR.^ XIII, Prof. Mar-

goliouth published a paper assailing the authenticity of that book.

He

tried to

demonstrate that

it

was merely a parody on Sa'adya

written by a Karaite.
that book,

Harkavy, who had edited the fragments of

all

ably refuted

of

Prof.

Margoliouth's arguments.

Even

at that

time the

latter

stood alone in his remarkable position.

sceptical

For Steinschneider, who had maintained a

towards that book, changed
his

attitude
existing

mind when the then

438

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Since then

fragments appeared.
view.
in his

new

finds confirmed Harkavy's

Prof. Schechter published a few leaves of the

Hebrew

part

Saadyana.
ny*.i',

One

of Prof. Margoliouth's chief supports was

in the manuscript,
in the

the word

which was not very clear

and
at in the

which he

took to stand for

nnyD.

But

fragment

now

the Dropsie College,

which was published by Prof. Malter

III,

JQR; New
evidence
it

Series,

pp. 487

ff.,

this

word

is

m2:r!?N*,

Babylotiia7i (see p. 789, note 5).

is

In view of this overwhelming

to

high time for Prof Margoliouth

change

his

opinion about the Sefer ha-Galuy.

The

publication

of al-Hazraji's Peai-l-Strings
history.

{al-Ukud

al-

Lulii^iyyali) has a

somewhat romantic

Some
this

thirty years

ago Sir James William Redhouse transcribed

book from a
it

manuscript in the India Office Library, and translated

English.

into

He handed

it

over for safe keeping to the authorities

of the Cambridge University Library in gratitude for the degree

of Litt.D. that was conferred on him.

He

then expressed his

view that he saw no possibility of having the book published.

But the

trustees of the

Gibb Memorial took the book

the

in

hand,

and

in 1906,

1907 they published the English translation in two

volumes, and

now we have

first

half of the Arabic

text.
is

As

is

explained by Prof, Browne in his preface, this edition

transcript,

not based upon Redhouse's manuscript.

'All
b.

but

upon the

original

al-Hasan al-HazrajI was a friend of FiruzabadT, the

at the

famous author of the KdmFis, and died

fifteenth

beginning of the

century.
skill

He
in

possesses a graphic

style,

and displays
tempted to

remarkable
merit,

handling his subject.

This book has great

is

and

fully

deserves publication, although one

say that the edition of Ibn Hatim's 'Ikd, from which al-Hazrajl
freely borrowed, should

have taken precedence.

of

This volume

Yemen from almost legendary times until a. h. 721 (about 1320 c. k.). The story of the bursting When the author reaches the of the dam is given at full length.
contains the
earliest

history

RasuU dynasty he
events,

takes up every year,

and describes the important

in

and gives an account of the learned men who died

RECENT ARABIC LITERATURE

each year.

HALPER
If the

439

He
is

skilfully

characterizes

each man.

man

whose career
of a poet,

briefly

sketched happens to have been some sort

some

of his verses are given.

'Asal's part of the

Sheikh
to

Muhammad

work has so

far

been

supervise the printing of the book.

His few Arabic notes

^deal mostly with the state of the text.

Now

and

again, however,

he has a very learned suggestion.

write, after the

In his preface he promises to

completion of the book, about the usefulness and

historical value of the

PearI- Strings.

Despite the fact that the

book was printed

it

in

Egypt and supervised by an Egyptian Sheikh,

as,

is

not free from misprints,

for instance,
1.

Jj^^.

(p- 9,
b^js".

h 9)
It

instead of Jj^-SIj, and

L^

(p.
1.

128,
7)

18) instead of
j^^i.

seems

to

me

that f^i (p. 107,

ought to be
1.

curious

case of inconsistency
p. 26,
1.

is v_jl^.i\ (p.

27,
p.

7)

which

is

a quotation
11.

from
2,

4,

where

it is

^'3J\.
[jllls

On
and

105 the hemistichs of

are wrongly divided:

^_^flj^,
is

respectively, are to finish

the the
(P-

first

hemistichs.
is

The metre
also

Tawil.

The

sense, as well as

metre, which
383,
1-

Tawil,

demands

the

reading

jUill

i)-

The following 'Abu Jablah

Madinah'
(p. 19,

are the references to Jews in this

b.
1.

volume
the Jews in

'Amr

is

the

one who

killed

13).

'The

jurist

Muhammad
his house,

al-Maribi (died about 1240

c. E.)

was

going one day to

she-mule, and a

and met a man

riding

on a beautiful

number

of youths were with him.

The

jurist

thought

this

man

was a wazir or a judge, or

some other

dignitary.

When

he asked who the rider was, he was informed that he was

a Jewish physician

who

served the Sultan in that capacity.

He
and

then shouted at him, dragged him

down from
of

the mule,

threw him to the ground.

He
:

also took off his shoe

and smote
there-

him

violently with

it,

and said

"

Oh enemy
When

God and enemy

it

of His apostle, you have overstepped your limit, and

fore necessary to humiliate you."

is

the jurist

left

him, the

Jew

rose,

and returned

to the gate of the Sultan asking for help

(read c>-^u^_).
jurist

When the Sultan Nur al-Din was told that the Muhammad al-Maribi was the opponent of the Jew, he sent

'

440

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The
him
jurist said
it

a messenger to him asking about the incident.

to the messenger:

"Greet the Sultan and

tell

that

is

not
it

lawful to allow Jews to ride

on mules with saddles, and

is

not permitted that they should have supremacy over Muslims.

If they

do such things they

lose the protection of Islam."

jurist's reply.

The

messenger returned to the Sultan with the

the Sultan heard that, he said to the
to the jurist that
:

When

Jew " Go with the messenger he may inform you what the ordinance requires
are told."

of you.

You should do whatever you

He

then turned

to the messenger

and said: "Tell the

jurist: the Sultan greets

you and would

like (read, perhaps, ^.^s^) that

you should

tell this

Jew what the ordinance requires of him.

steps his limit

he

forfeits his protection."

The moment he overThe jurist prescribed

departed, and the

certain ordinances

for the Jew.

The

latter

messenger returned

to the Sultan,

and told him what had happened.

:

The

Sultan then said to the

Jew

" Beware you do not deviate

from the prescriptions of the

jurist or

you

will

be

killed,

and
the

no one

will

save

you.

For

this

is

the law of

God and
to his

ordinance of His apostle."

(p. 66,
11.

The Jew then departed

century) in a

house

ff.).

Shams al-Din
denied us
(p. 117,
1.

(thirteenth
as if

poem

says

'
:

Men

all virtues,

we were

Christians or Jews by religion

lo)is

There
I.

a reference to the tribute paid by Jews on

p.

189,

16.

Ad/i U-Mahdsin Ibn Taghri BirdVs Annals.

Edited by William
:

Popper

(vol. Ill, part i,

no.

i).

Berkeley
pp.

at the

University

OF California Press, 1913.

iv+130.

(University of

California publication in Semitic philology.)

Ibn TagrI

Birdl's

method of

writing

is

in

many
is

respects similar

to that of al-Hazraji,

though as an author he
latter.

less

imaginative

and graphic than the

He,

too,

first

gives

general

description of the reign of every ruler,

and then takes up every

year separately, chronicles every important event, and mentions

RECENT ARABIC LITERATURE

the learned

HALPER
Although
rulers,

441

men who

died during that year.

At the end of every

his chief

description he records the state of the Nile,

aim

is

to give

an account of the Egyptian

he does not

confine himself to that country, and described the lives of

men

who lived in other countries. The historical importance

recognized,

of this

book has long ago been

and
it.

as early as

1852 JuynboU and Matthes com-

menced
part
will
I,

to edit

The

publication which went as far as volume II,

was interrupted

for

more than half a century, and Dr. Popper

the
of volume III,

deserve the gratitude of Orientalists for resuming the edition

of this work.

The

fascicle before us
in
it

is

first

and the events narrated

is

cover the period

a. h.

524-566, that

to say,

till

the end of the rule of the Fatimides in Egypt.

As

in

the preceding volume the editor has presented a very careful

text.

His notes are confined

to textual matter.

He

has carefully

collated the few existing

manuscripts^ and has usually chosen again he

suggests

the best readings.

Now and

emendations

which are not based upon manuscript evidence.

be accepted with great caution.
(p. 54,
1.

These can only

is

An

instance to the point

si

13) instead of

s.s--

of the manuscript.

The

former word

denotes stupidity, and hence can scarcely be used as an antithesis

to to
A*lyS^,

which means here

liberality,

isl.

{opulence, wealth)

is,

my mind, by And they left me

they

far superior.

The

line

should be translated

behind amo?tg people of wealth

a visitor in their sleep.

who would

die if

saw
is

the

phantom of

Their niggard-

liness

thus forcibly brought out because of their opulence.

1.

di^a. (p. 32,

5)

should better be emended to

J*-l.

Comp.

below,

1.

8.

The names
a
rule,

of the metres of the verses that are quoted are, as

given accurately.

The

following errors, however, should

be corrected
P. 71,
P. 74,
11.

5, 6. 3, 4.
5, 6.

11.

P. 76,
P. 79,

11.

A A A

sort of

Munsarih, not Basit.

Sari'.

Rajaz, not
sort of
ciJ^lS

Munsarih, not Basit.

;

1.

II.
9.

Read

the metre

is

Ramal.

P. 91,

1.

Kamil, not

Sari'.

442
Ibid.,
11.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

14, 15.
1.

Munsarih, not Basit.

Vocalize ^:>^\, on account of metre.
Hafif, not Basit.
to

P. 107, P. Ill,

21.
6, 7.

11.

There are a few references

Jews

in this fascicle,

and the

following are summaries of the passages in which they occur

'Some

of the officials had a grudge against Hasan, the son of

(a. h.

the Caliph al-Hafiz

524-544), and demanded his execution.

They besieged the Seeing no hope for

them.

Caliph's castle,

and threatened

to

burn

it.

escape, the Caliph was compelled to yield to

He

had two Jewish physicians, one named Abu Mansur

and the other Ibn Firkah.

When Abu Mansur

was asked by the

Caliph to prepare a poison for his son, he excused himself, and

swore by the head of the Caliph and by the Torah that he had no

knowledge of
Caliph's
drink.

this matter.

Ibn Firkah then came

a poison which
his

in,

and on the
to

demand prepared

Hasan was made

His enemies, convinced of

his

death,

were appeased.

But the Caliph wreaked

arrested him,

vengeance on Ibn Firkah.

his property.

He

and confiscated

On Abu

Mansur,

however, he bestowed great favours, and appointed him chief of

the Jews
'

(p. 6,

11.

ff.).

'They dug up a deep foundation

al-Hafiz's rule (a. h. 539),

in the

fifteenth

year of

and found a

large stone

on which were

inscribed two lines in Syriac.

lated
'

A
11.

Jewish Sheikh came and transi ff.).

them
^A'hen

into Arabic' (p. 35,

'Abd al-Mu'min

b. 'All

conquered Morocco

in a. h. 542,

he caused the Jews and Christians to appear before him, and said

"The Imam
any one

al-Mahdl

commanded me
of five

that I should not allow

to profess

any other religion but Islam.

You

declared

that after the period

hundred years somebody would

come
I

to support your creed.

Now

that time has already elapsed.

:

therefore give
;

you

to

choose one of three things

become

Muslims
I shall

settle in the region

where war
of

is

constantly waged; or else

behead you."

Some

them embraced Islam, while others

is

settled in the region

where war

constantly
(a. h.

waged

'

(p. 39,

11.

22

ff.).

In speaking of the rule of al-'Adid

556-566) he mentions

that that dynasty claims to be of noble pedigree, while in reality

it is

of Jewish origin

(p. 90,

11.

3, 5, 8).

RECENT ARABIC LITERATURE

Kitdb al Tawdsin.

HALPER

443

Par Abou al Moghith al Hosavn Ibn Mansour al Hallaj. Texte arabe, public pour la premiere fois par Louis Massignon. Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1913.
pp.

xxiv+ 223.
title

The
As
is

of this book immediately suggests

its

mystic character.

well

known

certain Surahs of the Kur'an begin with letters

satisfactorily explained.

which have hitherto not been

The

letters

td and sin occur at the beginning of Surahs 26, 27, 28.

Hence
is

these letters are

combined

into tdsln,

and the

plural thereof

tawdsin.

Al-Hallaj

in the present

work

offers various mystic

interpretations of these initials.

The mode

of treatment

is

not

dissimilar from that of the Jewish Kabbalists.

This writer who

in

was one of the greatest mystics among the Arabs was born

858

c.E.

His doctrines displeased the various sects of Islam,

arrested on several occasions.
in a prison in

and he was

In the year 922 he Bagdad.

was flogged and beheaded

He

was the

author of numerous works in prose and verse, mostly dealing with

mysticism.

Like most mystics he writes in a rhetorical

style,

and

even his prose has many poetic touches.

The work
of

of

M. Massignon has been more than merely

has

that

an

editor.
it

He

divided the text into paragraphs, and

al-Bakli's Persian translation,
original.

printed

in parallel

columns with
to

which may help one

translation,

understand the Arabic

to

This

by the way, tends

prove that there existed two

different recensions of the

Kitdb al-Tatvdsin.

The
by

editor ably

discusses the authenticity of the text,

and from

citations in other
al-Hallaj, or at

works conclusively proves that

least

this

book

is

one that was ascribed

to

him

as early as in the tenth century.

He
text

also gives a masterly analysis of the entire work.

After the

and

translation he prints extracts of al-Bakli's

commentary.

In order to point out the real importance of the Kitdb al-Tawdsin

M. Massignon summarizes
Hallaj.

the principles of the doctrine of

al-

In this sketch he shows great insight into the mystic

philosophy of the Arabs, and a thorough grasp of the works of

al-Hallaj.

He

then gives copious and extensive notes on the

444
text
itself.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

In these explanatory notes he does not confine himself

to textual matter, but cites passages

from other writers

in order

to establish the exact signification of the text

under consideration,

and

to indicate the influence that al-Hallaj exercised over subsewriters.

quent mystic
here,

There

is

a wealth of material collected

of his subject.
Hallaj,

and once more M. Massignon proves himself to be master In conclusion he prints the last prayer of alwhich was uttered before
his

execution on

March

25,

922.
prayer,

There are four recensions and a Persian

translation of this

and

all

are given in parallel columns followed by a French

is

rendering.
fervour.

This prayer

pervaded by mystic and religious

While reading the Arabic

out the book
I

text

and the passages quoted through-

made some
in

corrections

and emendations, some of

which

found

the table of corrections given in the

name

of Martin Hartmann, Reynold A. Nicholson, and Miguel Asin

Palacios.

In the following

list I

give

some

of

my

corrections to

which attention has not been drawn

P.
xii,
1.

at the

end of the book.

3.

c>i^ should be vocalized oii.

i..>S

P. 9 A,

1.

8.
1.

should be

^^

on account of the rhyme.

in this

P. 10 A,

II.

Sls^r,

which gives no sense

parallel to jy>\^,

connexion,
suggested

should be emended to j's^

which

is

by Nicholson.
P. 11 A,
1.

It

thus rhymes with the other lines.

15. 13.

Read
'i-ijc-,

i"^J\.

P.

3 A,

1.

which makes no sense, should be read

read JUcl which would be

P. 14 A,
parallel to,

1.

12.

Instead of

&-<.^lc\

and would rhyme with

sJliu.

P. 38

A, 1.6.
1.

Read

j.4iU.

P. 42 A,
P.

15.
14.
6.

Vocalize

^, as
}]
is

denotes a calamity.

43

A,

1.

P. 133. P. 180,
Ibid.,
\.

1-

Read Ji3. Read L?J..

Read
^Ic^

1.

II.

17.

Vocalize

j^sJS.

In a few cases the metre

incorrectly given.

RECENT ARABIC LITERATURE

P. 24 A,
1.

HALPER

445

3,

The metre
The metre

is

a sort of Munsarih, not Basit.

The end

of the lines should be l^~.

1.

P. 31 A,

4.

is

not Wafir, as given in the

text,

nor Basit, as corrected by Nicholson, but Munsarih.

P. 133,
^placed after
Ibid.,
1. 1.

8.

The

asterisk dividing the hemistichs should

be

Sl
9.
11.

In the same line vocalize ?A^. The metre demands that we should read^lc.
Haflf,

P. 138,
lines

4-6 are given as

to
2

which

is

incorrect.

The

do not belong
170,
11.

one metre.
require certain corrections
if

P.

I,

they are to

conform

to the metre Basit as given in the text.

11.

P. 181,
^JlJ.b>^^ is

i8ff.

The metre

is

Ramal, not

Basit.

The word
6 a
is

erroneously divided into two.

11.

P. 196,
corrupt.

5,

6.

The metre

is

Sari',

not Basit.

1.

Abu U-Baraknt

ibii

al-Anbari : die grainmatische?i Streitfragen der

Basrer tend

Kiifer.

Herausgegeben, erklart und

:

eingeleitet,
iv

von GoTTHOLD Weil. Leyden

211

E.J. Brill, 1913. pp.

+ 35 + 355Schuleti

Die grammatischen
Weil.
Insaf von
pp. 116.

von Kitfa und Basra.

Von Gotthold
al-

Zugleich Einleitung zu der Ausgabe des Kitab

Ibn al-Anbarl.

Leyden:

E.

J.

Brill,

1913.

language possessing a canonized literature

will

naturally

tend to become grammatically fixed.

For canonical books must

in

be accurately and carefully readj and

many

cases they serve as

models
detail

for

subsequent

literary productions.

In such books every

assumes great importance, and hence attempts are made

to fix the exact spelling

and pronunciation of each word.

rise

In
in

Hebrew
Arabic
it

this

circumstance gave
to the

to

the Masorah, and

was the incentive

grammatical schools that were

established in Basrah
to the Kur'an,

and Kufah.
secular

The Arabs
in

had, in addition
carefully trans-

some

poems which were

mitted,

and the accuracy of which could

many

cases

be

446

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

determined by the metre and rhyme.

Now

and

again, however,

we meet with

conflicting or

ambiguous

traditions

which occasioned

disputes in the various schools.

Just as in

Hebrew we have

conflicting traditions (niS7nnD niTiDc), so the Arabs, too, have

preserved controversies between the two famous schools of Basrah

and Kufah.

And

as the tradition of the

Arabs

is

of comparatively

recent date, the controversies, as well as the reasons assigned for

each opinion, are extant.

Abu
and

'1-Barakat al-Anbarl,

an extremely
to

prolific writer of the

twelfth century,
thirty,

whose books are said

to

amount
result

to

one hundred

was asked

compile a

list

of the points on which the

two schools held

U-Insdfi ft

different views,

and the

was the Kitdbu

MasdHli U-Hildfi haina ''n-Nahiviyyina U-Basriyyina

wd!l-Kiifiyyina ('the
troversies of the

book

that justly decides

between the con').

grammarians of Basrah and Kufah

In this

book

he collected one

hundred and twenty-one questions together

After

with the reasons for the opinions held by each school.

a lengthy discussion the author gives his

of the
questions

own

decision.

In

many
is

and arguments deep grammatical

is

insight

displayed,

and the method employed

not dissimilar from that

of

modern comparative grammarians.

Ibn al-Anbari's decisions,

however, cannot always be followed, as his sympathies unmistakably are with the Basrites.

Of

especial interest
its

is

tlie

discussion
is

why

the

complement oi kdna ('was') and

'sisters'
is

in the

accusative case.

The

Kufites maintain that this

it

the accusative

of condition {hal), while the Basrites say

is

a sort of object

(Arabic

text,

pp. 348-51).

Some

of the disputes appertain to

grammatical usage, whereas others are academic discussions as

to the explanations or derivations of certain forms or constructions.

The

latter

make up

the greater part of the questions, and deal

('

with such topics as the derivation of ism

name '), whether

it is

derived from stmid (the Basrites) or wasatna (the Kufites), and

the formation of sayyid
ox fai'il (the Basrites).
('

a lord

'),

whether

it is

z.fa"il (the Kufites)

Dr. Weil's introduction treats of several interesting themes.

He

gives a survey of the origin

and development of the schools of

RECENT ARABIC LITERATURE

Arabian grammarians.
follows Gustav Fliigel's

HALPER

447

In the historical part of this study he

Die grammatischen

Schiilen der Araber,

and

is

able to
to

make

additions from books that have

Fliigel's

become

known

European scholars since 1862, when

book was

published.

He

further discusses the principles that underlie the

,two schools, and skilfully grapples with the problems connected

with them, though his general conclusions do not appear to

me

to

be convincing.

According to his exposition

the

fundamental

difference between these two schools consists in the fact that the
Basrites
laid

particular stress

on analogy, whereas the Kufites

adhered to tradition as closely as possible.

expression
ficient
is

Thus
is

if

a certain

found

in

an ancient poem,
is

it

considered of suf-

weight by the Kufrtes, and

hence regarded as sanctioned

by usage.

The

Basrites, however, only accept those expressions

which are not contrary to analogy.

Should these

really

be the

principles that prevailed in these schools,

modern grammarians
for

would be inclined to concur with the former,

logical,

language

is

not

but rather psychological, and hence grammar must be

facts,

based upon well-established

its

not upon analogy which in

last analysis

is

nothing more than abstract reasoning.

The
is

line of demarcation,

however, between these two schools

not

as sharply

drawn

as Dr.

Weil supposes.

They both make use

of analogy and tradition, and there hardly seems to be a fixed

system.
Kufites,

Sometimes analogy

is

appealed to in support of the

tradition

and the

Basrites

do not despise
is

when

it

is

on

their side.

Either principle

given as support whenever suitable.

Moreover, members of one and the same school are not always in
agreement.
Kufites,

There are cases when some

versa.

Basrites agree with the

and vice

Had

their respective systems

been

fixed,

this internal

disagreement could hardly have arisen.

Some

of Ibn al-Anbari's questions have been published on

previous occasions by Girgas and Rosen in their Chrest077iathy

(nos. 5, 9, 18,

and

34),

by Koshut

(nos.

2,

3, 4,

69,

and no),

by Buhl
(nos.

(nos. 18, 105, 106, 108, 116),

and by Dr. Weil himself

time that the book
to
is

105,

108).
its

But

this

is

the

first
is

published in

entirety,

and Dr. Weil

be congratulated on

448

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The book
is is

the excellent edition he produced.

indeed well

edited and well annotated.

The

edition

based upon the Leyden

manuscript, though

other

manuscripts have occasionally been

is

made

use

of.

In the notes attention

carefully vocalizing

now and
notes.

again called to

variants.

By

ambiguous words Dr. Weil was

able to dispense with

some explanatory

With great industry Dr. Weil succeeded

poetic quotation occurring in this book to

in tracing

almost every

its

source.

Those who

know how
labours.

scattered the material

is

will certainly

appreciate his

On
1.

the basis of the metre I should like to offer the

:

following remarks

P. go,

22.

Read

eijU-^yVl
is

U.i^jb

cJ^-j.

The metre
is Sari'.

is

Mutakarib.
P. 169,
Ibid.,
1. 1.

The
12.

sense, too,

improved by

this correction.

Vocalize 1x14-;.

The metre
is

15.
1.

VocaHze ila.
jJl^

The metre

Baslt.
is

P. 206,

I.

is

impossible, as the metre

Kamil.

Read
quoted

perhaps j|j.
P. 319,
1.

II.

la Hal

^ cannot be
line.

right,

although
is

it is

again in the following

As

the metre

Tawil we ought to

read perhaps

\.^'^\ ^^a.
1.

The
or
Ij^ij.

verse quoted in note on p. 187,

3 should begin

oXS

of
to

The metre is Wafir. For those who are interested in the grammatical schools among
have the Arabic
text.

the growth

and development
introduction

the Arabs, but do not care

Dr. Weil published his

separately.
is

With the exception of a short

preface, this

pamphlet

identical with the introduction printed at the beginning of the

Kitdb al-Insdf.

R. Briinnoivs Arabische Chresiomathie. Aus Prosaschriftstellern

zweiter Auflage
vollig

in

neu bearbeitet und herausgegeben

Berlin
:

von AuGU-ST Fischer.

1913.
pp.
xiii

Reuther & Reichard,

+ 183+

161.

(Porta Linguarum Orientalium,

Pars xvi.)

RECENT ARABIC LITERATURE

HALPER

449

Enseigneinent de VArabe parle et de VArabe regulier d'aprh la

me'thode directe.

Lectures choisies, contes, fables, anecdotes,

recits sur la vie arabe, les

les

moeurs

et

coutumes des Arabes,

travaux agricoles, etc.

Par

Professeur au Lycee d'Oran.

Abderrahman Mohammed, (2^ edition.) Algiers Adolphe

:

JouRDAN, 1913.
Methode de langue
linguistique

pp. viii+144.

kabyle.

(Cours de deuxieme annee.)

Etude

et

sociologique sur la
suivi

Kabylie du Djurdjura.

Texte zouaoua

d'un glossaire.

Par Boulifa
la
:

S.

A.,

charge du cours pratique de langue kabyle a

Lettres et a I'Ecole

Faculte de

Normale

d'Alger.

Algiers

Adolphe

JouRDAN, 1913.

pp. xxiv

+ 544.
it

Briinnow's Arabic Chestomathy has enjoyed great popularity

among

students and teachers, as

practically covered the

most

important branches of that literature with the exception of poetry,

to which a separate
series.

book was devoted

is

in the

Porta linguarum

This edition
fell

now

exhausted, and the preparation of

a new edition
the
first

to the lot of Prof.

August Fischer.

Although

edition served as a

model

to

some

extent, the selections

incorporated in the present edition are, with the exception of

twenty-nine pages, entirely new.
increased by twenty-two pages.

The bulk

of the texts, too,

is

Prof. Fischer did well in following

the examples of chrestomathies published in the Orient, like the

Majani ai-Adab, and gave

which are written
in

first

a collection of short anecdotes

style.

a very simple

These anecdotes are

This
b.
is

excerpted from Shakir al-Batluni's Tasliyat al-Harvdtir.

followed by the biographies of Ta'abbata Sharran, Keis

Darih,

and 'Urwah
al-Agdnl.

Hizam al-'Udrl, which are taken from the Kitdb Then come excerpts from Ibn Hisham's Biography
b.

of the Prophet ; Tabarl's Annals; Ibn Hallikan's biographies of

Sibaweih, Buhari, Ibn Ishak,
the

Abu

'l-'Ala' al-Ma'arrI,

and Hariri
;

Kur an

Buhari's

works of

Muhammedan

tradition

the

Ajurrumiyyah.

From
VOL.

these selections

it

may be
to

seen that Prof. Fischer has

harder,

proceeded from the easier

VI.

the

and has given the

G g

450

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

good vocabulary by
writers.

learner the opportunity of acquiring a fairly

reading attractive passages

glossary
tions in
is

from the best prose

lines,

The

compiled on the usual

of every

and gives concise explanathat occurs in the

German

word and expression

book.

In the case of rare words and phrases, or those that

difficult to the

may
will,

appear

beginner, reference

is

made

to the passage

where they occur.

English-speaking

students,

however,

perhaps, resent the omission of the English translation of the

glossary,

which was one of the merits of the

first

edition.

In

justification of the publishers, who are responsible for this omission,

it

may be urged

that

English-speaking students

Arabic, as a rule, possess a sufficient knowledge of

able to consult an Arabic-German glossary.

who take up German to be

is

The Arabic
is

type employed throughout the book

that which

customary

in

European

editions.

This can hardly be regarded

as satisfactory, as the learner gets

accustomed

to this character,

and

finds

it

difficult to

read books printed in the Orient.

Syriac

chrestomathies for beginners usually contain specimens of the

various types employed.

Why

should not the Arabic student be

trained to read with ease books printed in Beyrout, Bulak, Algiers,

and other centres of Oriental culture

It is the

want just mentioned that Abderrahman Mohammed's

This book
is

Arabic chrestomathy partially supplies.

in Algiers

printed

type,

and with a
it

little

practice the learner will be

:

enabled to read

fluently.

It

comprises two parts

part one

contains passages written in the dialect of Algiers, while part two

is

in classical, or rather, ordinary Arabic.

differ

Apart from
Part

style,

the

two parts

also

in

their

contents.
life

one comprises

anecdotes and descriptions from the

those residing in Algiers.

of the Arabs, especially

in the

These descriptions are given

form of short sketches which make very interesting reading.

Part

two consists of fables, anecdotes, and narratives which are excerpted

from the books of Lukman, SharishI, Ibn Batutah, and others.

At the end of every sketch there are

explaining rare or vulgar words.

brief notes

in

Arabic

On

the whole the arrangement

of the texts

is

very judiciously done, and although' the

book

is

RECENT ARABIC LITERATURE

primarily intended for schools in Algiers,
it

HALPER

451

can be profitably used

it

by the Western student.

in the dialect

Part one

is

especially useful, because

contains numerous words and grammatical forms that are employed

spoken in Algiers.

Since Hanoteau wrote his Essai de grammaire kabyle in 1858,

the Zouave dialect of the Kabyles (Arabic ^a(5aY/=' tribes') has

been more minutely

possesses no

investigated,

and M. Boulifa has incorporated

the best results in his Me'tJiode de langue kabyk.

written
literature,

As

this

language
beset

the

difficulties

that

the

author were naturally great, but he has successfully overcome

them.

His method

is

analytic,

and

in

this

respect the

book

differs from other scientific grammars which have no practical

aim.

The

texts

which are

in

French

transliteration deal with

the customs and manners of the inhabitants of North Africa,

especially of the Kabyles of Jurjura.
life

Almost

all

phases of their

are described,

and the student becomes acquainted with the

whose language he
is

internal conditions of the people

acquiring.
texts
is

The Kabyle-French

glossary

which accompanies

the

replete with philological matter, as the derivation

and etymology

of every word are given as completely as possible.

One

only

wishes that the transliteration were different from that adopted

by French

scholars, as the superfluity of vowels offends the eye.

The Korati or Alcoran of Mohammed.

and preliminary

discourse.

from Savary's version.

With explanatory notes By George Sale. Also readings With maps and plans. London
:

Frederick Warne and

Mahonia : El Koran.
de
los

Co., [1913].

pp. xvii

+ 516.

Traducido del Arabe, ilustrado con notas

la

y precedido de un estudio de
libros

Mahoma, extractado mas dignos de cr^dito. For M. Savary. Version castellana de A. Hernandez Cata. Paris Garnier Hermanos. [191 3]. pp, xi
vida de

de

los

escritores

orientales

+ 559There
is

no need

to dwell

on the merits of
it is

Sale's

English

translation of the Kur'an.

Although

somewhat

paraphrastic,

ST

452
it

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

it

has great charms, as

that since

imitates the biblical style.

first

It is therefore
it

no wonder

its

appearance in 1734

has been

frequently reprinted.

Even Rodwell and Palmer's

can scarcely supplant
it.

translations,

which are more

edition offers

literal,

The

present

some improvements

in the matter of printing.

But

the greatest disadvantage of Sale's translation, namely, the fact

that verses are not marked, has not yet

been removed.

The

greater bulk

of European

students

and scholars use

Fliigel's

edition of the Kur'an,

and the verses of the

translation should
to refer to

have been marked accordingly.

the original the division of verses

For those who wish

is

almost indispensable.

The
is

orthography, too, should have been modernized.

There

no

reason

why the spelling intitled should be retained. The Castilian translation of the Kur'an is also a

reprint of

a well-known book that has enjoyed great

popularity.

The
life

explanatory notes are concise, and are chiefly based

upon the

works of native commentators.

that precedes the translation
is

The

sketch of

Muhammed's
authors.

a very interesting study, the facts

of which are derived from reliable

Muhammedan

B.

Halper.

Dropsie College.

BRUNE'S 'FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS'

Flavins Josephus und seine Schriften
iti

ihrem

Verhalinis

zum

Jiidentume, ziir griechisch-roniischen Welt

tume.

und

ziim Christen-

Mit

griechischer
I.

Wortkonkordanz

zum

Neuen

Testamente und
Verzeichnis.

Clemensbriefe nebst Sach- und Namen:

Anhang

Inhalt nebst Sachregister zuy<?i'f/^//j,

der

Geschichtsschreiber.
:

Von

B.

Brune,
pp.
vii

Pfarrer

em.

Giitersloh

C.Bertelsmann,
is

1913.

+ 308 + xi.
who, in

Brune's volume
reviewing

in

response to a long-standing suggestion

ff.)

of Schiirer {Theoiogische Literaturzeitung, XII, 417

some general works on the

religious-philosophical views

of Josephus, expressed the need of a detailed study of the origin

and sources of Josephus's

really

writings, a thorough analysis of the

various elements which, though

constitute

represented only in Josephus,

of Janus-faced Hellenistic

the

characteristics
this

Judaism.

In the attainment of

end Niese's

critical text

was

of great value to Briine,

who

traces minutely the affiliations of

the great historian with his predecessors and contemporaries, and

points out the far-reaching influence of the Greek world

upon

him.

This influence was many-sided, manifesting

itself

not only

in the linguistic guise of his writings but also in the

development

of his ideas
fact as a

under the

stress of

a higher Greek training.

The

whole has been known heretofore, but the merit of

Briine lies in the minute elaboration of specific points

careful description of particular traits

and the

and nuances.

as a

The book, besides an introduction describing Josephus both man and a writer, contains four main divisions: (i) Change
;

of expressions in Josephus

(2)
;

Judaism
(4)

in Josephus

(3)

Josephus
In

and the Greek-Roman world

point

Josephus and Christianity.

of language and
it

diction

Josephus resembles Polybius,

though

must be admitted that he also made ample use of

Like these he
is

Xenophon, Thucydides, and Herodotus.

453

454

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Nevertheless, here and there
artificial

master of flexion and syntax.

are also reminded of the

we

cumbrous and
Testament

style

of the

Stoic philosophers, with discordant latinisms in a minor degree.

comparison with the

New

literature

shows many
is

similarities in the

use of

a-n-ai Xeyofieva,

but this coincidence

due

largely to the

same subject-matter and the

it.

limitation of the

vocabulary with regard to

The Judaism

of Josephus
It is

is

hyphenated, based on both belief and reason.

Hellenized
is

Judaism pure and simple.

Like Herodotus Josephus

is

religious

and

yet rationalistic.
is

His religion

quasi-Pharisaic, while his

rationalism

Platonic-Pythagorean, derived from Aristotle, Plato,

and the Stoic school which

duplicity in
duplicity in politics
is

he emulates throughout.

This

theology was a natural concomitant of Josephus's

and the evident

result of his education.

It

a characteristic which always comes to the surface at whatever

angle

we may look on
it

the great historian.

Hence

it

is

that

we

find

also in his attitude towards Christianity, against

which

he conducts a disguised polemic.

Briine's treatment
is

very lucid, furnishing a plethora of detail

in lexical

and

rhetorical matters.
is

Considering the wealth of the

comparisons there

no wonder

that a few mistakes have crept in

here and there, but these are largely printer's errors.

As might

have been expected, the chapter on the Greek-Roman influence

is

more thorough than

list

that

on the Judaic elements.

The book

closes with a

of contents and an index of subjects to the

Geschichtsschreiber, published

author's previous
at

book Josephus, der

2.

Wiesbaden

in 191

RICHARDSON'S 'LIBRARY HISTORY'

Biblical Lib?-aries.
to A. D. 150.

Sketch of Library History from 3400 B.C.

By Ernest Cushing Richardson, Librarian Princeton University of Princeton University. Princeton

:

Press, 1914.

pp.

xvi+252-fpl. 30.

The

question whether libraries existed in antiquity has been

debated with increased vigour since the memorable discovery of

RICHARDSON'S

'

LIBRARY HISTORY

'

REIDER

455

Ashurbanipal's library at Nineveh in 1850.

the whole question revolves about
library,

As might be expected,
meaning of the word
with

the

whether

it

designates any collection, both small and large,

archive)

of books in circulation (and hence synonymous

or refers to a vast collection of works only as that of Ashurbanipal.

The

author oi Biblical Libraries favours the latitudinal construction,

slating at the outset (p. i) that 'there were thousands, or even

tens of thousands, of collections, containing millions of written

books or documents
he terms

in Biblical places in Biblical times',

which

libraries, after giving his

reasons in a lengthy discussion

by way of introduction.
Mr. Richardson
is

not a novice in this branch of archaeology,

having published heretofore essays on Antediluvian Libraries,

Mediaeval Libraries, Some Old Egyptian Libraries, and quite

recently a

volume

entitled

The Beginnifjgs of Libraries, which has

for its subject the history of libraries

up

to

3400

b.c.

The

present

volume contains the

history of libraries from

3400

b.c. to a.d. 150,

and
the

is

divided into periods.

The Babylonian
literary centres
II, called
;

Period deals with

collections

of Tello, Sippara, Nippur,

and Nineveh; the

Edfu, Heliopolis,

Egyptian Period includes the

the famous library of

Rameses

'The Hospital of the

Soul

',

Denderah, and Amarna

the Palestinian Period covers

Boghaz Keuei
the

(Hittite), Lachish,

Taanach near Megiddo, Debir,

;

Nebo, Kiriath Sepher, and others

library
6. i,

the Persian Period describes

in

(NnSD

n^3)

of
;

Ecbatana (Nncns') mentioned

Ezra

and

that of Susa

the Greek Period deals with the

museum
we

library of Alexandria, the library of

Judas Maccabeus

in Jerusalem,

and the Pergamon

library

in

New Testament times

of public Greek
to

find in Palestine the temple library, a

number

libraries,

and Synagogue

libraries

whose books, according

;

Jerome's testimony, were loaned out

find libraries in

in the Apostolic Period

we

Smyrna, Ephesus, Corinth, Rome, &c.

in a fine narrative style, forms interesting

reading.

The book, written The author

not only describes the contents of the

various libraries, as far as they are

cavations, but also their

known

to us

through exfor

various

styles of architecture,

an

456

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Of
great

appreciation of which thirty illustrations are reproduced.

assistance
is

a chapter on bibliography, and also an elaborate

index.

NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY JEWISH

COLLECTION
List of Works relating
to the

History arid Condition of the Jews in

:

various countries.

New York

The New York

Public

Library

(Astor,

Lenox, and Tilden Foundations), 1914.

pp. 278 (reprinted from the Library Bulletin, July-October,

1913)-

The New York

time
lists

Public Library

is

performing a commendable
issuing from time to

service to Jewish scholars

and students by

of works dealing with various phases of Jewish literature.

list

Heretofore a
in
\.\\Q

of Jewish periodicals in the Library was published

Bulletin, VI, 258-64,

and a

list

of Anti-Semitic

and Jewish-

Christian periodicals in VII, 30-1.

The
Schiff,

present

more comprein various

hensive

list,

dedicated

'

to

Jacob H,

whose generosity made

possible this collection', comprises about 4,500

numbers

languages relating to the history and condition of the Jews in

various countries.

The

list

is

arranged according to subjects

Bibliography, General Works, Special Periods, Jews in Various

Countries, Anthropology

and Ethnology,

Social

and Economic
is

Conditions, Jews in their relations to the Gentiles

and

followed

by a general alphabetical index of authors at the end.

The importance of
and are found
in registering
in

this catalogue lies

not so

much

in recording
rarities,

books and large works, most of \vhich lack the claim of

other Jewish collections in this country, but

reprints

many
rare.

and separates which are by nature

under several sub-

ephemeral and
collective

Also the abundance of cross-references to

titles

works and the repetition of

divisions which have a mutual claim to them, deserve praise

and

laudation.

Each number bears the

class
is

signature

for

quick

reference and orientation.

The

printing

distinct, and, aside

THE NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY

froii)

REIDER

457
is

a few minor errors (usually in foreign languages), there

is

nothing to mar the appearance of this book which

bound

to

be a useful reference work

indebted to the compiler of

for bibliographers.
this
list,

All students are

A.

S. Freidus,

who

is

entitled

also to a large share of credit for the upbuilding of this greatly-

nsed collection.

Joseph Reider.
Dropsie College.

BOOKS FOR JEWISH READERS

1^^

THE BIBLE FOR HOME READING.

with

Edited,
the

Comments and
Nehemiah
II
:

Reflections for the

to Jerusalem.

Use of Jewish Parents

Part
I
:

and Children, by C. G. Montefiore.

Visit of
net.

To

Second
4s. 6d.

Extra crown 8vo.

Part

Containing
Prophets,

Selections
the

from

the

Wisdom
with

Literature,

the

and

Psalter,

together

Extracts from the Apocrypha.

Extra crown 8vo.

5s. 6d. net.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS.

Introduction and
a

Edited, with an Commentary, by C. G. Montefiore together with a Series of Additional Notes by I. Abrahams. In 3 Vols. 8vo. Vols. I and II. iBs. net.

TRUTH
MONS.

IN RELIGION
By

AND OTHER SERCrown

Bvo.
3s. 6d. net.

C. G. Montefiore.

OUTLINES OF LIBERAL JUDAISM.

Montefiore.

By

C. G.

Crown

8vo.

2s. 6d. net.

SOME ELEMENTS OF THE RELIGIOUS

TEACHING OF JESUS ACCORDING TO THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS.
2s. 6d.

By

C.

G.

Montefiore.

Crown

Bvo.

net.

THE BOOK OF PSALMS.

Bvo.
IS. net.

Edited, for the use o Jewish Parents and Children, by C. G. Montefiore. Crown

FESTIVAL STUDIES:
Jewish Year.

By

I.

being Thoughts on the Abrahams. Crown Bvo. 2s. 6d.

LONDON: MACMILLAN &

CO., LTD.

^^1

THE MINOR

IN

JEWISH LAW*
Mas?.

By Israel Lebendiger, Holyoke,

CHAPTER
The
Biblical times.

I.

THE MINOR
a matter of
class, is

IN

THE BIBLE
role in

problem of the minor played but a small

As

fact,

a technical term to

denote the minor as a

not found in the Bible.^

life

The

simplicity of early Jewish

did not offer enough

opportunities for the development of a sharp line of demarcation between minor and adult.

Nor was the

organization

* This Essay was written for the Alumni Association Prize offered by The Jewish Theological Seminary of America during the term 1913-14. The topic was suggested by the late President Schechter as a result of

the lectures delivered,

in

the

course of philanthropic lectures, by the

Honourable Julian
of

W. Mack

on 'Juvenile Courts' before the students

3,

The Jewish
I

Theological Seminary on March 26 and April

1913.

am under obligation to the late President Schechter, Dr, Cyrus Adler, Dr. Max Radin, and, above all, to Professor Louis Ginzberg, who freely gave me their kind assistance. 1 Of course we meet in the Bible such terms as w'^, pJI'', ^t3, pb^V.
But these terms stand merely
for physically

immature persons, and do not

stand for a class of individuals whose rights, duties, and responsibilities are
different

from those enjoyed by a grown-up person.

connexion with phases of
Quite in contrast
it

These terms are never

used
of

in the Bible in

life

that enter into the realm

law and responsibility.

literature,
Jt2p

is

the use of the term |t3p in

Talmudic

where

denotes legal and religious prematureness.

relative,
i.

The terms
a relatively

and pnj in the Bible are merely

relatively older

e.

they denote

younger and a
for the

person respectively.

But they
in

do not stand
Talmudic

minor and the mature person as they are used

literature.

The terms
to the

"1J?J

and

myj

stand for

young persons,

and have no reference

minor whatever.

VOL. VL

459

II

460

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

of society in Biblical times conducive to the formation of

a code of laws dealing with the minor.

For

at that period
unit.

the family and not the individual formed the social

The
over

father
it

was the head of the family, and had

full

control

during his lifetime.

Even the

children of a mature

age, as

we

shall see later,

were subject to his power.

The

question of the

amount of

individual freedom to be enjoyed

by
son

the minor, which arises at a time

unit,

when

the individual

forms the social

is

has no room when even the adult

without individual rights and powers.^

We

cannot accordingly expect to

the minor.
Instead,

find
find

special

laws

dealing with

we

laws dealing
the

with the son and the daughter.

social unit,

The family forming

and the

father,

the head of the family, being

it

the important factor in the community,

was necessary
the daughter

to provide specifically for the extension of certain laws

to the son

and the daughter.

it

The son and

seem

to be, as

were, in a state of tutelage, and are very

often classed together with the proselyte, slave, widow,

and orphan."
Nevertheless,

we

find a

few laws

in the Bible, which,

thought not the result of a conscious treatment of the

minor, pertain exclusively to the minor.

Already at

this

early period, the emphasis which Judaism lays upon the

duty of instructing the young, asserted

again does the Bible command,
children
2
'

itself.

Again and

Thou

shalt teach thy

'.*

Sometimes,
ITcb. Arch., 152,
;

the
&c.
11, 14;

instruction

began

on

the

Nowack,
Exod.

21. 31

Deut.

16.

Exod. 20.

10.
is

The necessity
also

of

mentioning the orphan, the widow, and the proselyte

that they do not constitute heads of families,

due

to the fact

and would, therefore, not be

tiie
;

thought of as possessing the religious status of

*

head of the family.

Exod.

13. 8, 14

Deut.

4.

10

6. 7,

20-24

22. 46.

THE MINOR
father's

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER
it

461

own

initiative,^

and, sometimes,

was

to be given

to the children as answers to their questions.^

The

latter

method usually accompanied the performance of

4esire to know.

certain

ceremonies, the significance of which the children might

The

Bible also

imposes on the father the duty of

of thus

circumcising his son, and

uniting

him with

his

God and
killed
in

his race.'^

In

memory

of the first-born that were

Egypt, the Jews were commanded to redeem

sons.

their first-born

That duty was,

therefore, put

on

the fathers.^

No

festivities

seem to have accompanied

either the circumcision or the redemption of the son, but

a festivity of great importance must have taken place when

the child was weaned.''

The
mother.

rearing of the

child usually devolved

families,

upon the

In large and well-to-do

children,^''

a nurse was
for

taken for the

them.^'

and a teacher was hired

The

children in turn were to reciprocate this love

by honouring and

revering their parents.^^ the

Bible lays on the
instruction

The emphasis
children
is

of

well

known.

Even very young

children

were required to be present at the public reading of the

Law
(i)

in the

seventh year.^^

This had a double purpose

of the
children,
(3)

that

of the instruction

and of
life.
is

initiating

them

into Jewish traditional

and ceremonial

This

is

the only instance in the Bible where the minor

specifically

mentioned with regard to the observance of

It

certain ceremony.

seems also that young children

*

^
''

Exod.

13.

Deut.

6. 7.
^ ^'

Exod.

13. 14

Deut.

6.

20-29.
8.

Gen.

21. 4.
4. 4.

Exod.

13. 13.
i, 5.

"

Gen. ar.
^^

^
13

2 Sam.

2 Kings 10.

Exod. 20.

12,

Deut. 31. 12, 13.

H h

462

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

were present at the public reading of the

other important occasions.^^

Law

on many-

The

question of supporting the children does not seem

to have given

much

trouble in Biblical times.

Every child

lived with his father,

and was supported, as a matter of

course, in return for the services he rendered.

The

case

was, however, different with the fatherless.

special

They needed
classed

protection.

The orphan

was,

therefore,

with the Levite, the widow, the poor, and the proselyte,
or the stranger, persons

who

as well as the

minor possessed

no property, and, therefore, needed special protection.

fatherless

The
&c.,

was to share with the Levite, the stranger,

in the tithes of the third year,^^ in the

sheaves that have

been
fruit

forgotten,^''

and

in the single
left.^'^

grapes and the small

it

that have been

The

Bible finds

especially

necessary to warn against vexing the orphan, and against

doing injustice to him.

Since the minor was not recognized as a class
times,
in Biblical

we ought not

to expect to find

in the

Bible the

mention of a definite age to mark the attainment of one's

majority.

Yet there are enough data

to

show that the age

it

of twenty was of great importance, and brought with

responsibilities

new

and

privileges.

In the
political

first

place, its

importance

is

to be seen in the

and

civil life.

service before

twenty. ^^

by Moses included
'*

One could not enter the military The census of the Israelites taken only those who reached the age of
to the Rabbis,
is

See Josh.

13. 35.

According

the term fjU includes

also children

who

cannot understand what

read before them. Nevertheless,

for the future

this practice served

some purpose.
26. 12.

It

prepared the parents

training they were to give to their children

''

(Yen Hag.
19.

i.

Babli, ibid. 3).

Deut.

14.

28-9
;

K!

Deut. 24.

"

Deut. 24. 21.

^'

Exod. 30. 14

38.

26

Num.

i.

3-46; 24.

2, 4.

THE MINOR
twenty.^"

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER

463
rights.

This age also brought certain religious

i

According to

Chron. 23. 24-7, priests and Levites entered second temple, at

in the

into their service, at least during the

the age of twenty.

This regulation was established

time of David, though the Biblical law fixes sometimes

twenty-five and sometimes thirty as the proper age for

the beginning of the temple

service."*^

The

contribution

of half a shekel for the sanctuary

was imposed only on

those
also

who were
is

of the age of twenty.-^

in

The age

of twenty

an important division

the estimation of the

different values of a person in the case of a

vow

to the

sanctuary.^^

Thus we

see that the age of twenty played

an important
call it

role in Biblical times,

and we may properly

the age of maturity or of majority.

for the
is

So much

minor

in

the Bible.

different picture

of the minor

presented to us by post-Biblical literature.

institutions

As

Jewish

life

became more complex, and new

arose that were not

known

in

Biblical times, the

problem

of the minor began to press itself

more and more on the

Jewish mind.

It is

then that the minor began to be dealt

with as a special class,

and that a prominent place was

But law and
dealing with the
presentation
of

given to him in Jewish law and custom.

custom were not always

stable.

The law
give a

minor frequently changed.

To

the treatment the minor received at the hands of Jewish

law and custom as they developed

also to

in later

Jewish

life,

and

point out as far as possible the origin of certain

is

developments,
19 Ibid.
-'I

the purpose of the following chapters.

20

Num.

8.

23

4. 1-4.

Exod.

30. 12-14

28. 26.

22

Lev. 27, 3-8.

464

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

CHAPTER
A.

II.

AGE OF MAJORITY
as the
in

Age of Twenty
have already seen

Age of Majority.

We

the previous chapter that in

Biblical times, the age of

twenty constituted the age of

majority. Professor Ginzberg has called attention to the fol-

lowing instances

in

Talmudic

literature

where the age of

is

twenty plays an important

part.^^

Heavenly punishment
he

not inflicted for sins committed before one reaches the age
of twenty.-^
twenty.^^

No

one can

sell

real

estate

before

is

No

judge under twenty could pronounce senIf

tence of death.^''

one does not show any signs of puberty,

he

is,

according to one opinion, a minor until twenty.^^

Biblical times,

These instances are of course survivals of the

in
is

which the age of twenty was the age

not the place to examine

of majority.

This

why

the age of twenty has

survived just in these points.

Suffice for the present that certain

callings
in
life

we

find

in

Talmudic

literature

depending on the age of twenty.

the data mentioned

This

fact,

together with

above, prove clearly

what we main-

tained before, that at an early period the age of twenty

was the age of majority.

B.

Age of Physical Matureness Age of Majority.

Talmudic
II,

as

the

But while the age of twenty

found
23
"4

as the age of majority

survival, there
Lebensaltcr, p. 157.
"^

is

in

literature LVI,
p.

as a

looms

See

Moiialssclirift,

300
b.

Low, Die

Yer. Bik.

64;

Sanli.

30

B. B. 156

a.

Yer. Sanh. IV, 22 b.

Nid. V, 9
;

"

Ycb. VI, 6
that he

Tosef. Nid.

2.

The Talmudic
is

interpretation

which maintains

becomes of

full

age at twenty only when, in

also the presence of

addition to the absence of signs of puberty, there

signs of emasculation,

is,

as

we

shall see later, erroneous.

THE MINOR
forth at
in

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER
is

465

the

same source an age which we do not meet

literature.

all in

pre-Talmudic

That age
is

the age of

physical or sexual ripeness, which

for the

gradually substituted

age of twenty as the age of majority.^^

Physical ripeness, or the age of puberty, forms the age

of majority also in old

Roman
is

law.^^
it

In the later

Roman
But the

law, the age of puberty brings with

only certain rights

and

duties, but majority

attained at twenty-five.^'^

ancient

Roman

age of puberty corresponds to the Talmudic

Life in ancient

age of puberty.
into

Roman

law

is

divided

two

parts, that

which precedes and that which follows

the age of puberty.

Those who do not

those

attain the

age
the

of puberty are called impuberes and correspond to

Talmudic Ketanim

who do

attain

it

are

called

puberes, and correspond to the Talmudic gedolim.^^

The
in the

old
fact

Roman

law resembles the Talmudic law also

attains

that the female

her age of puberty earlier

is

than the male, and an individual physical examination

necessary for determining the age of puberty.

There are many physical symptoms which indicate

approaching puberty.

But the main

criterion

is

the appear-

ance of hair on certain parts of the body.^^

2^

The
;

usual
Nid.

Terumot,

I,

3; Yebamot 96 b; Nid. V, g; VI,

11, 12

Tosef.

VI,

2, 5, 7.
^^

See Low, Die

Lebensalier, p. 139.

^^
^1
^'-

See Dropsie's translation of Mackeldey's

Roman
it

Laiv, p. 129.

See Savigny, System,

Nid. 47, 48.
to

vol. Ill, pp. 56, 109.

According

to

one opinion,

is

possible for the other

symptoms

begin to develop before any hair begins to grow, and, therefore,

in

they are not counted upon

opinion of the majority
is

determining the age of puberty, while the

impossible for other

that

it is

symptoms

to

appear

before any hair begins to grow, and, therefore, one attains majority with

the appearance of these symptoms.

logical fact that the

Some

scholars note also the physiois

appearance of such symptoms

sometimes accelerated

by

the occupation and surroundings of a person.

Female minors were

466

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

age at which symptoms of puberty appear

the twelfth

year of a female and the thirteenth of a male."^

Symptoms

that appear before the ninth year are disregarded, between

the ninth and the twelfth (and of course the eleventh of

a female, a

fact

not mentioned

in

the

source) are dis-

regarded according to one opinion, while, according to

another, they are an indication of approaching puberty."*
If

one does not show any symptoms

after

thirteen,

he

is

considered a minor until the thirty-sixth year of his

life.^^

After thirty-six, he attains his majority, even though

he has no signs of puberty.

only when the person

These two laws hold good

shows no signs of being

in question

a eunuch.

If

he does, he attains his majority at twenty,

according to Bet Hillel, or at eighteen, according to Bet

Shammai, even though he

examined

lacks the signs of puberty.^'^

by women.

But as women were

only

not

qualified

to

act as

witnesses, their testimony with regard to the appearance of

symptoms

was
ss
^*

therefore

valid

when no
Tosefta VI,
2.

important

issues

were involved

(Nid. 48; Tosef. VI, 3).

Nid. V, 6 Nid. 46 a

Babli 45

2.

Tosefta VI,

The

early

Amoraim

also discuss

whether

the appearance of hair during the thirteenth year should be taken into
account.

Some

scholars put

it

under the same status as the appearance

of hair before the thirteenth, and declare that only the hair that appears

on the

first

day of the fourteenth year

it

is

considered as a symptom, while

b, 46).

others consider

an indication of physical matureness (Nid. 45

of which the

The

old view seems, however, to have been the latter, as can readily be seen

from the Tosefta Nid. VI,

2,

Baraita discus.sed by these

scholars must be an abbreviation.

The

explanation of the same Baraita

is

given by those

who

maintain the other view

hardly satisfactory.
expression

The

Baraita prefers the expression 'N DV1 2"^

to the

nJtJ' S'"*

nJC

3"^ "lyi,

because the

last

day of the thirteenth year ends the period

is

during which the appearance of hair

fourteenth,
it is

doubtful.

From

the

first

day of the

assumed
;

that hair did appear.

;

Yeb. 96 b

Niddah V, 9

Babli 47

b.

'" Ibid.

The laws

of this paragraph are not expressed in the Mishnah,

THE MINOR

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER
If a

467

Before twenty, though he shows signs of emasculation,

a

man

is

still

a minor,
of

if

no hair appears."'

eunuch
that he

shows a growth

hair at twenty,

we assume
of
if

attained his majority at thirteen.^^

to

grow before

thirteen does not

The hair make him

that begins
full

age,

even after he passed thirteen, and, therefore,

hair
is

no other
is

to

be found

after

he passed thirteen, he
in

still

but are maintained by the Amoraim, and are

pretation of the Mishnah.

keeping with their inter-

The

physiological basis of these laws would be

that the absence of signs of puberty at a late age,

that the individual
is

when

there

is

no evidence

a eunuch,

is

due

to a retarded

development, and conIt is

sequently the individual

is still to

be considered a minor.

worth while,

however,
expression
'

to speculate about the correctness of their interpretation.

D''"ID

NIHI

in

Nid. V,

9,

which the Amoraim take

',

to

The mean
is

that he proved himself to be a

eunuch
is

and

to

imply that otherwise he

',

still

a minor,

may

also

mean

'

that he

considered a eunuch
is

and therefore

of

full

age, because the lack of hair

in itself a sign of emasculation.

is

If the

following reading of the Tosefta

correct,

it

supports our view

Nin

'-in

ix^D -ins^

x'^^hb'

D"yx

nnyc

"nc*

x^nn
'2

i6^
-im

mti'
h:ib

':d

inx^ nxun::^ d"Vx ^miyc'

tic' na-'in

i6^

m
2).

ono^

nm

^3^

n''Ji^^''N3

x-'n

nn

^|X3d (Tosef. Nid. vi,

In the passage in Yeb. 80 other

symptoms

of emasculation are given,

it

and, according to the Amoraic explanations,

is

these

symptoms and

not the absence of hair that make us consider one a eunuch. This is, As a matter of fact, the however, not evident from the passage itself.
passage seems to contain two different strata of laws, one beginning with

DHD

inrX, and the other with V3CD

is

jH IPX").

From

this

passage

it

seems

that the absence of two hairs

the determining factor in declaring one

a eunuch.
In speculating on this point,
earlier period,
it

we

should also keep in mind that at an

could never have happened that one should be considered

a minor until his thirty-sixth year.

At the earlier period, when the age of twenty was the age of majority, the physical symptoms did not count.

in that respect,

knowledge of the physiology of those times, if it was different from ours may help us to determine whether the view as obtained

from the reading of the Tosefta or that of the Amoraim is correct. s'? Eben ha-Ezer 155, 12. This, of course, is to be inferred from the time
of twenty fixed in Nid. V, 9.
3S

This

is

so according to Rab., but not according to

Samuel (Yeb. 80a).

468
a minor."^

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

There
is

also a view that the

first

thirty days

of the twentieth year count as a whole year, and, therefore,

the laws that are to be applied
are applied also to the one

when one reaches twenty,

reaches nineteen years

who

and thirty days.*"

C.

The Age of Thirteen and the Bar Mizwah

Institution.

From
see that
it

the data

we have

given in the last section,

we

was the physical symptoms and not a

in the

definite

age that ushered

also pointed
at

age of majority.

But, as

we have

out before, the age of thirteen was the age

which signs of puberty usually appeared.

Hence, when
full

no serious issues w-ere involved, one

was considered of

age at thirteen, without undergoing a physical examination,

on the assumption that signs of puberty have developed.

Thus, the rabbinical scholars speak very often of ths age
of thirteen as being the age of majority, without referring
at all to the signs of puberty,

assuming that one possesses

is

them
b.
is

at this age.*^

This assumption

made by R. Hama

Abba,*^ when he says:

'Until thirteen years, the son

punished for the sins of the father, from now on, each
for his
'

one dies

own

sins.'

This assumption also underlies

the statement,

At

thirteen for the fulfilment of the

com-

mandments V' and the statement

r. 6;^.

of R. Eleazar in Gen.

It is also

because we act on this assumption, that

ages which have to be counted backwards
:

we can determine

from the age of thirteen

<'
2

such ages as when the minor

<

Nid. 48

a.

Nid. 47

b.
;

Abot

5,

21

Nid. V, 6

Tosef.

Yom. Hak.
p.

V, 2

Nid. 48 a.

Midrash Zuta, Rut, ed. Buber,

V, 21.

47

Yalkut Rut 600.

" Abot

THE MINOR
is

IN

JEWISH LAW
life,

LEBENDIGER
his

469
to be

to enter the religious

If

and when

vows begin

valid.

we

did not act on this assumption, these ages

could

never

be determined.

Raba
this

goes

further,

and
it

declares that

we must

act

on

assumption, though

may
cases,

lead to a rabbinical transgression (Niddah 46).

In

however, which

may

involve serious consequences,

Biblical

and lead to transgressions of a

examination
is

law, a physical
full

necessary before

we

consider one of

age

{ibid.).

The acknowledgement
at the

of one's attainment of majority,

age of thirteen, on the assumption that he possesses

the physical symptoms, developed into the Bar

institution.'**

Mizwah
an open

How

early

it

originated
it

is

still

question.
century.*^

Low

maintains that
scholars

dates from the fourteenth

it

Other

trace

back

to

Talmudic

times.

''^

Low

holds

that

the

Bar Mizwah was not only an

innovation, but also a reform of the fourteenth century.

The Bar Mizwah not only meant an introduction of a new festival with new ceremonies, but a substitution for the
Talmudic physical examination
in

determining the attainis,

ment of the age of

majority.'*"

This

however, erroneous.
that

The Bar Mizwah

signs
of puberty

did not

abolish the requirement

present.
It

must be

only implies the

Talmudic assumption mentioned

physically mature at the age
if

before, that

one becomes
is

of thirteen.

Low

mistaken

he thinks that

in

Talmudic times every minor underwent

full

a physical examination before being declared of

^*

age.

Bar Mizwah, given to one who attains his age of majority, Before that is not to be met with earlier than the fourteenth centur_v. See Low, Die Lcbotsalter, 210. period he is called pUTiy 13.

The

title

^^
"J

See Low,

ibid.,

210-217.
s. v.
'

Jewish Encyclopedia,

Bar Mizwah

'.

*^

Low,

210.

470

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

pointed out before, even in Talmudic times, one

As we

attained one's majority at thirteen on the general assumption that he

must have become pubescent

at this age.

On

the other hand, in cases where important issues depend

on the majority of the individual, on

this

i.e.

where the acting

assumption

may

lead to transgression of the law,

as in the

case of Mi'un or of the

Levirate, a physical

examination was
institution

required even
introduced.'*^

after

the

Bar Mizwah

had been

Thus

the Bar

Mizwah
official

does not do away

with the ancient physical examination.

is

What

is

uncertain

whether at an early period

recognition was given to the attainment of majority at the

age of thirteen
was,
it

in the

form of some sort of

festival.

If it

certainly lacked the

If

main features of the

later

Bar

Mizwah.'*^

there was
it

any solemnization

at all of the

Bar Mizwah,

consisted merely of bringing the

'

boy to

the priest and the elders,

prayer, that he

for blessing,

encouragement and

may

be granted a portion of the Law,

'.^"

and
the
'

in

the doing of good works

He

probably also read

Torah, and his father pronounced the benediction,

Blessed be he
'.^1

who

freed

me from

the responsibility of

this child
*^
*'>

Eben ha-Ezer, 155, 12 The right to put on the

;

169, 10.

phylacteries and be called to the Torah

was
i.

enjoyed

in

Talmudic times even before he became thirteen (Tosef. Hag.

;

Meg. 23 a
'''"

Tosef.

Meg. IV,

11).
5,

See Soferim, XVIII,

with the corrections of the Gaon of Wilna.

i,

'''

Midrash Hashkem (see Griinhut's Sefer lia-Likkutii

a'.

The arguments, however, given by Dr. Kohlor in his Mizwah in the Jew. En<y. against LOw are not convincing.
must admit that
at or about thirteen
solid proofs for

article

on Bar

Of course, we
an early date.
rite.

one became of

full

age

at

But there are no

an early date of the Bar Mizwah

The

text in Masscket Sof. is corrupt,

in his Vita 2,
tells

and

is,

therefore, not reliable.

for his learning at

Josephus,

only that he

was known

the age of fourteen, but he tells nothing concerning the

Mizwah

rite.

THE MINOR

IN

JEWISH LAW LEBENDIGER

47I

Later, however, the Bar Mi'zwah rite

definite form,

assumed a more
In some

and developed
is

into a significant institution.

The Bar Mizvvah

communities he
is

called

up to the Torah.^-

called
'

up as Maftir.
Blessed be he
one'.''"

The

father recites

silently the benediction,

the responsibility of this

who freed me from Some families celebrate

Bright boys deliver
character.^''

the Bar Mizvvah also by a banquet.^*

an homily usually of a very pilpulistic

In

some communities the Bar Mizwah

of the Rabbi.

receives the blessing

The moment one becomes Bar Mizwah, he becomes

responsible for his sins, and
is

obliged to observe the Law.

While

in

post-Talmudic times the minor was prohibited

from using the phylacteries, a prominent feature of the

Bar Mizwah was

his

putting on the phylacteries.^*^

In

the seventeenth century the custom originated of having

the minor put on the phylacteries a short time before

Gen.

r.

63 must not necessarily be taken

It

to

speak of the father's benediction

as an institution.

simply
is

tells in

a striking
his son

manner

of the great burden

full

of which the father

relieved

when

becomes of

age.

(The

burden

is

the responsibility that rests on the father for his minor son's sins.
p. 47.)

See Midrash Zuta, Rut,

The words

IIDD''

mSlD

(Magen Abot on Abot V, 21

to

Mezaref,

p.

25)

must not necessarily refer

any benediction.
in

observance of commandments

general.

may refer to the The word pn^H (see Midrash

It

Hashkem
day, as
52
it

in

Griinhut's Se/er lia-Likkuttm) does not necessarily refer to

a certain day.
is

Nor do

the

words

'T flN IS")! "1D^^<1 (ibid.) refer to a definite

evident from the preceding

words

D1^ ?'22 ']12K' "Jlli {ibid.).

This feature became prominent only

when
:

the Talmudic custom of

caUing the minor to the Torah became obsolete

53

see

LOw,

2[i.

This has

its

origin in Gen.

r.

63,
it

which, as was stated before, has nothing

to

to

do with a benediction.
=^

Later

was erroneously taken

37.

be for one.

See

Yam

shel

Shelomoh on B. K. VII,

55 58

Low, 215. See Orah Hayyim

XXXV

Dar. Moshe,

ibid.

472

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

thirteen.^"^

he reached

From now

on, he can be counted

as a member of a quorum.

He was
that at this

entitled to these privileges

on the assumption

age he already had the signs of puberty.'*

still

Otherwise, he would

be a minor.

In case of Halizah

or the Levirate, where the action on this assumption

may

lead

to the transgression of a Biblical law,

is

evidence of

signs of puberty

still

required.^^'

To sum
in

up.

There are enough data

to

in the Bible

and

the

Talmud

show that

at

an early time the age of

twenty was the age of majority.

At

a later time,

it

was

superseded by the age of puberty.

The age

of puberty

was

originally

determined by the

presence of signs of

sexual maturity.

Experience had shown that these signs

exactly the same time,

do not appear

in all individuals at

and, therefore, a year was allowed for the variation.

earlier law, therefore, maintained that

The
full

one became of

age,

if

the signs appeared at any time between the age of

thirteen.
life,

twelve and

The

later

Law, which deviated a

little

from practical
first

limited the terminus

year.

ad quern

to the

day of the fourteenth

is

But one who

reaches this
therefore,

age

assumed

to possess the

symptoms, and,

becomes of full age, a physical examination being necessary

only
in special cases.

The

recognition of the attainment

of majority at this age has developed into the Bar-Mizwah

institution.

" Mag.
^*
'''

Abr.

XXXIV,

4.
;

See Yam shel Shelomoh B. K. 37 See Yam shel Shelomoh, ibid.

Gtidemann,

Orah Hayyim

55, 5. note of Isserles.

*"

For further information about the Bar Mizwah, see Mezaref 41

51
;

Responsa Maharil

Geschiclite des Ersiehttngswescns tind

dcr

Kultiir der Jiiden in Dciitschland, III, Vienna, 1888.

Taylor, Sayings of the

Jewish Fathers, 1897,

p. 97.

THE MINOR
D.

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER

473

Ages for Different Degrees or Stages

OF Maturity.

Besides the principal age of majority discussed in the

previous section, there are different ages the attainment

of which does not

make

the individual of

full

age, but

marks certain degrees of maturity, gives the individual

rights,

and imposes on him duties not possessed by him

before.

The age

of seven

marks a certain degree of maturity.

At

this

age the minor acquires the right of entering upon

transactions concerning moveable property.*"^

The female
The
first

minor
is

has, as

it

were, two ages of majority.

one

the age of puberty {naariit) corresponding to the age

male, and
is is

of maturity of the
twelve.

attained at the age of

At

this age, she

considered mature and enjoys,

therefore, all the rights of

is

an adult female, except that she

still

partially subject to the

power of her

father.^^
is

At

her second age of majority {bagriit) which twelve and a

half,

attained at

she

is

entirely emancipated from the

power of her

father.^^

Then
ripeness.

there are ages that depend on certain physical

developments, which, however, are not indications of mental

female at the age of three, and a male at the

age of nine, attain a certain degree of sexual ripeness, and,

therefore, those laws that obtain with certain sexual relation-

ships are in
i

full

force

when
2

the minors of these respective

Nid.V, 7; Ketubbot 46 a.
three different

Git.
Ibid.

59 a.

^^

The Mishnah

also

gives

physical

symptoms
:

characteristic of a female, corresponding to three different periods

(i) the

period beginning with her birth and ending with the

(2)

first

age of majority;

with the

first

age of majority, and ending with the second age of

majority; and (3) with the second age of majority, and further on.

474

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

in

ages are partners

those relationships.

She

can

be

acquired as a wife by the sexual act.

course with her brings on the wrongdoer

Illegitimate interall

the punishments

due to illegitimate

intercourse

with an adult female.^^

The same

is

true of the male of nine years.

is

The

Levirate

performed by the sexual act

valid.

The punishments
with
a

that relate to illegitimate intercourse are inflicted on those

that
this

commit
age.''''

illegitimate

intercourse

minor of

Certain degrees of maturity are also acquired

by the

attainment of certain degrees of mental ripeness.

When
a minor

a female minor has intelligence enough to take care of her

is

bill

of divorce, she can be divorced. ^*^

When

mentally ripe enough to distinguish between a nut and

is

a splinter, his action of acquisition

valid for himself but

not for others.

The marriage
is

of a female minor at this

to the

age

if

the father

dead

is

valid

extent that
it.

it

requires at least the action of Mi'un to annul

If

he

has sufficient intelligence to return an object given to him.

he can also perform the action of acquisition

for others.'''^
is

An

important age that depends on mental ripeness

the age at which the vows of the minor begin to be valid.

The vows
the

of a female after twelve, and of a male after

thirteen, are valid even

when they do not know

to

whom
year,

vow

is

directed.

But the vows of a female within her

thirteenth

twelfth year, and of a male within his

are valid
'<

only when
4.

they have proven on

''

personal

Nid. V,

Ibid.

V,

5.

8''

Gittin 64 b.

According

to Rashi, she
bill

cannot be divorced before that

of divorce for her.

age, even
to R.

when
bill

her father receives the

According
herself

Tam, she cannot be divorced before

(sec
il>icl.,

that age only

when she

receives the
07
Idic/.

Rashi and Tos.).

THE MINOR

IN

JEWISH LAW
vvhon:i

LEBENDIGER
is

475

examination to know to

the

vow

made.^'*

Accord-

ing to one opinion, the Halizah performed

at the age

by a female

when her vows are

in

binding,

is

vah'd.^^

Quite unsettled

Talmudic times was the age

at

which a female minor could exercise the right of Mi'un.

According to one opinion, she exercises

this

power

until

two

hairs

appear, and, according

is

to
If,

another,

until the

growth of hair

more

marked.'^"

however, she lived

all

sexually with her husband after two hairs appeared,

agree that she loses the right of Mi'un.

arose in the

controversy

academy concerning the daughter of R. Ishmael

before the tribunal weeping, and carrying her

who came

child on her shoulders.

right of Mi'un,

Some wanted

to grant her the

it

But

finally a vote

was taken, and

was

decided that she loses the right with the appearance of

two

hairs.'^^

In the twelfth century R.

since

Jacob

b.

Meir
this

declared that

we

are

not

skilful

enough

in

generation to detect the presence of two hairs, and since

it

is

assumed that with her

first

age of maturity (age of

invalid

twelve) this

sympton appears, her Mi'un should be

after she reaches the twelfth year, even

though we did not

detect,
hairs."^-

on a personal examination, the appearance of two

On

the other hand, certain rights can be acquired only

at a late age.

The power

of buying and selling real estate

can be attained only at the age of twenty.'"

58

Nid. V, 6
Gittin 65

see Tosefta, see

ibid.

ibid.

V,

15, 16, 17.

'"'

69

a,

Nid. VI,

2.

"
^2
^3

Nid. 52, see alsoTosef., ibid.VI,

5, 6.

Nid. 52 b; Eben ha-Ezer 155, 22. That one should have the power of purchasing movable objects
is

at

an

earlier date

quite natural.

his

subsistence

As the Rabbis remarked, this is so because The minor could not get along if his depends on it.
I
i

VOL. VI.

476

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

From

the data in the last section

to

we

see that Jewish

law with regard

age shaped

itself

on

natural

and
fixed
life.

psychological principles.

It did not put

down one
in a

age as the only one that marks a change

It

man's

recognizes a gradual development, gradual degrees of

is

physical and mental ripeness, and as the minor

gradually

attaining these degrees of physical and mental ripeness,

he

is

gradually granted the various rights and powers.

CHAPTER
A.
(i)

III.

DUTIES OF THE FATHER

Support of Minor Children.

7ip to

Support of Minors
title of this

the

Age of Six.

As

the

chapter indicates, there are duties

in Jewish law to be fulfilled towards the

minor children,

incumbent only on the

latter

father, but not

on the mother.

The

was

just as helpless as the minor children themselves,

will

and both of them were dependent on the

of the father.

Nor was

her status changed after the death of her husband,

for while the

minor children

(sons, of course)

became the
father, she

owners of a part or of the entire estate of the

remained just as dependent as she had been before.

being the case, there could be no room
in

This

Jewish law for

any

discussion of the duties of the mother.

in the first chapter,

As was mentioned
in

we do not

find

the Bible a provision imposing on the father the duty

to

support his

minor children.

Such a provision was

transactions of movable objects

conservative, and have

were not valid. But one must be more more experience with regard to buying real estate,
to real estate is

and therefore
age of twenty.

this

power with regard

acquired only at the

THE MINOR
unnecessary.

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER

477

Parents supported their children as a matter

of course.
the
life

This parental function was deeply rooted

in

of the people as a moral duty, so that there

for
it

was

no necessity
In
time,

to be legally sanctioned.

however, conditions changed.

will

Persecution
in

and poverty, as
Jewish
life,

be shown

later,

wrought havoc

so that parents refused to support their children,

as a burden on the shoulders of the
legal

and

cast

them
It

comduty

munity.

was then that the question as to the

of supporting the minor children began to form a subject

of discussion in the rabbinical
trace of such a question
in
is,

academies.

The

earliest

as

we

shall see later, to

be found

connexion with the posthumous duty of supporting the

minor daughter.

But as we have chosen

to

follow the

order from the more usual and immediate to the less usual

and immediate

duties,

instead of an order according to

their chronological origins,

we

shall discuss at present the his

duty of the father to support

the age of six.

minor children under

That the nursing or the suckling of a

provided for by the father
is

child

is

to

be

evident from the Mishnah,

is

which declares that the husband

to give to his wife an

if

additional fee for the suckling of the child,

the alimony

of the wife goes through the hands of another.^'^

enters, however, another element in this matter.

There

Whatever

may
''^

be the law with regard to the duty of the father to

Ket. 69 b.
It
is

true,

however, that

it

may be

asserted that the

Mishnah does not speak of

that he has to
It is
fulfil

this additional fee as the

fulfilment of a legal

duty towards the child, but towards his wife.

The Mishnah does

if

not say

pay the

fee in case
tells

he

is

unwilling to support the child.

the father wants to

probable that the Mishnah

his

us merely that
child, the

moral duty to support the

to

wife

is

legally
for
it.

bound

to the

husband

do the suckling, and

is

to

be recompensed

478

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

support the minor children, the mother, as can readily be

seen, from

what was said

at the beginning of this chapter,

It should, therefore,

was

free

from such duties.

if

be under-

stood that
child,
it

there

is

a duty on the mother to suckle the

does not

mean

that she owes this duty to the child,

but to the husband, this duty being one of

many

other

duties which the wife undertakes to perform towards her

husband

at the time of marriage.'^''

The

suckling of the child being a duty toward

the

husband, the

woman

is

relieved from this duty the

moment

the matrimonial relations between wife and husband cease.

She
is

is

not, therefore, required to suckle the child

If,

when she
to

divorced."^

however, the child

is

old enough

recognize the mother, and refuses to suck from another

woman,
husband

the divorced wife

is

is

forced to suckle

it,

but the

to

pay her

for

it.'''

The power

of the Court to force the divorced

woman
is

to suckle the child likewise implies

no maternal obligations.
forced

The

life

of the child being in danger, the mother

to perform this function as a humanitarian duty.

Even
the
'^

a strange
child
If

woman
it

is

forced to supply

this necessity for

when
the

refuses to suck from

any other woman.

woman
This

brought into marriage two maid-scris

''^

Ket. 59b.

so only according to the school of Hillel, but

according to the school of

to suckle the child.

Shammai

there

is

no duty

at all

on the mother

Dr. Ginzberg explains this difference between the school

of Hillel and the school of

Shammai by the

fact that the

former school

represented the wealthier classes, and had,

therefore,

the

tendency to

lessen the duties of the wife towards her husband, while the later school

represented the poorer classes, and had, therefore, the opposite tendency.
'*

Ket. 59 b; Tosef.,

ibid.

V,

5.

The case

is,

however, as

we

shall

see

later, different
"7

with a widow.

Ibid.

" See Haggahot

Alfasi, Ket.

59 a

Eben ha-Ezcr

82, 5, gloss of Isserles.

THE MINOR
vants, she
is

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER

479

is

relieved from suckling this child, just as she

thereby relieved from other duties which she owes to the

husband, as cooking, washing, &cJ^

The time during which

its

the child learns to recognize

fifty

mother

is,

according to Johanan,

days, and, accordthat

ing to Rab, three months.

Samuel maintains

we

cannot set a definite time for every child, but that each
child
is

given a period according to

is

its intelligence.^"

A widow

supposed to suckle the

child. ^^

The
that

reason
the

for the difference

between the divorced

to suckling the

woman and
is,

widow with regard

child,

since
is

the separation between the former and her husband

usually due to ill-feeling between them, the

woman may

not be willing to perform this duty to her husband after

the divorce has taken place.

The

separation between the

is

widow and her husband, however,

cause, so that the
obligation.

due to a natural

woman

will

be willing to assume that

widow must not marry within twenty-four months

child

after the

was born,

for

in

case

of her

becoming

pregnant, she

may

be rendered unfit to suckle the child,

to

and the second husband may be unwilling

go

to the

expense of having him nourished by any other

food.^^

"
^0

Ket. 59

b. a.

Ket. 60

This

is

according to the tradition given by

to

Rami

the son
is

of Ezekiel.

According

another tradition, the time set by Samuel

(Ket. V, 6) has in the
is

thirty days {ibid.).

The Yer.

name

of Samuel three

days.

It

seems that the reading of the Yer.

the correct one, for there

in the
fifty

would be no more reason for the surprise expressed thirty days period of Samuel than there is at the
R. Johanan.

Talmud

at the

days period of

And

yet the Talmud

is

silent about the

view of R. Johanan.

But there
reading
8'

is
'

more ground
'.

for the surprise at the

view of Samuel, when the

^^ /i,v/.

is

three days
;

Ket. 60

Yeb, 42

a.

480

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

She may not

many

within twenty-four months, even

for the child, because
it

when she procured a wet-nurse

may happen

that the

nurse will change her

If,

mind, and
it

return the child to the mother.

however,

is

certain

that the nurse will not withdraw, the mother

as

may marry

soon as the nurse

is

procured.^''

As

to the duty of the father to support a child during

the age that extends from the expiration of the suckling

period up to a comparatively older age, nothing definite
is

found

in

the Mishnah.

But R. Ulla Rabba declared

though they
',

at the gate of the house of the patriarch that,

said,
'

man need
The

not (legally) support his minor children

yet he must support them (legally)

young,'^*
limit

when they

are very

that separates

those that are very

is

young from those somewhat older

Rabbis to be
six.^'

decided by the

(2)

Support of Mill oi' Children after the Age of Sir.

of the father to support the minor children

The duty

beyond the age of six (according to R. Ulla Rabba, as

interpreted in the Babylonian Talmud),
in the

was

first

discussed

Academy

of Jamnia, where
is

its

head Rabbi Eliezer

announced that there

support his children. ^^
*^ **

no

legal

duty on the father to

Ket. 60

Yeb. 42

a.

Ket. 65 b.
D'':t:p
is

The Yerushalmi
V33 JIN
|T

(Ket. IV, 8) has, however, the following

XiT'lJ'

reading:

DIS

TTS'CV!.

NJT'inrD

N^IV

'1

"ION.

No mention
age.
** Ibid.
is

here

made

of a difference between an older and a 3cainger

is

This point, as

wc

shall see later,

of great importance.
">yi

The words beginning with nC3

at all (see

up

to the

word 'jnpID

certainly an interpolation in the statement of R. Ulla.

it

The Yerushalmi
to the

does not have

**

previous note).

R. Eliezer mentions only the daughter, but he certainly refers

THE MINOR

IN

JEWISH

LAW LEBENDIGER

481

Afterwards, people began to take advantage of this

absence of a legal
cutions, to

restraint.

After the Hadrianic persefathers refused

to

when

conditions

became very bad,

support their children, and caused

them

become
Court
in

a burden

on the community.
it

Therefore,

the

Usha found
ment was
Johanan

necessary to impose, by enactment, a legal

his children.

duty on the father to support

This enact-

not, however, considered authoritative.

Rabbi
the

in a

tone of depreciation says,

',

'

we know

men

who

took part in the decision

implying thereby that they

are not to be relied upon.'^^

But while the Rabbis did not care

a

legally to

force

man to support his children, they make him do so from moral motives.
children
acts.^'^
is

took great pains to

They

declared that

to support

tantamount to doing continuous

charitable

Sometimes, they would denounce those

who
him

declined to

comply with

this

moral duty.

R. Judah

would compare

this

man
'

to a monster,

and would denounce

in public, saying,

monster gave birth to children,

and then he throws them on the community.' ^^ would have

'

Hisda

this

matter announced publicly, and would say,

this

raven
^'^

wants her children,

man does
'

not want

them.'

Rabba would say

said to

to

such a man,

Are you
?
'

satisfied that your children are supported

by charity

^^

Rabbi Johanan
*

man whose name was Ukba,

children
in
'.^^

Wicked Ukba, support thy

also.

son

He makes

his statement

connexion with the support of

is

the daughter, because one

may

think that she

more

entitled

to

support

than the minor son, either because of the

fact that

she possesses this right

is

after the father's death, or because of the fact that there

greater disgrace

for her to live'on charity than for the son (see Ket. 49

a).

"

Yer. Ket. IV,

8.
i

^8

Ket. 50

a.
92

Ket. 49

b.
8.

90 liftd,

Il,{d.

Yer. Ket. IV,

482

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

According
to

Rabbi

Mei'r,

it is

more virtuous
in

to support
this

the male than the female children, because

way

we

enable the former to study the Torah.

is

According to

Rabbi Judah, the support of the daughter

than the support of the sons, because
humiliation
if

more virtuous
is

it

greater

the

former

go about begging.^"
to the

Rabbi

Johanan attributes no virtue whatever

support of

children, either of daughters or of sons.^^

The Talmud

further declares that the scruples

we have
rich,

in legally forcing the

father to support his children are

is

only justified when he

poor.

But when he

is

we

can force him to do

it

as a matter of charity.^^

93

Ket.49a. TheYer.Ket. IV, 8 reads as follows np"'y Q''jan ^JD

:

''^Jn

H^N

Ip'iy

niJnn

'JD

""Wn

rr'SI

Evidently this corresponds to the two different

opinions mentioned in Babli.

that lays

The Yer.

gives another reason for the opinion

more emphasis on the support of daughters, namely, that deprivation may cause them to lead an immoral life. This variation between Babli and
is

Yer.

accounted for by, and also proves, the

fact that the

reasons for the

different opinions

were not given

originally

by the respective authors of

these opinions, but

^*

by

later scholars.
is

Ket. 49 a.

Such an opinion

rather strange.

There
fiT-aN*

is

no doubt that
in

the words

D''J1T''3

pH

I^NI I^N

|n''nN'

"nn

^2N*
is

nn'D inNi?

the statement of R. Johanan, as given by Babli,

not

a later addition, and does

come from R. Johanan.

and

The

original reading
is

was

3''^n "lt2N

fJnV 'T
8,

ni33n riN ]W?.

Yer. IV,
8,
is

This original reading

found in Tosef. Ket. IV,

and

given in these two sources without any modification, in

contrast to a statement

which reads HS* "IDI^ "[nV pNI niJ3n

HK

flT^

Hli'D

CJ^n.
Johanan
while he

This

fact

shows

clearly that the Yer. and the Tosef. understood R.

to refer to the support of the daughter,

is alive.

not after the father's death, but

is

The view

of the Tosef. and of the Yer.

the correct one,

it

for there is

no reason

why
this

R. Johanan should have found

legal

necessary to

state that there is a

posthumous

duly on the father

shall

to

support the

minor daughter, since

of the court.

law, as

we

see later, has been

known

already to be an old tradition, and

was conceived
it

of as being an enactment

The Mishnah speaks of

see Tos.,
ibid.

as a

well-known tradition (see

Ket. 59
'^

l^).

Ket. 49 b

THE MINOR

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER

483

During the absence of the

to a

father, as

when he has gone

distant place, his children are not to be supported

property.^'^
left

from his

The

fact that

he did not advise the

Court before he
is

to use his property for this purpose,

is

to be taken as sign that he

unwilling to support
as interpreted

his children.
in the

According to R.

UUa Rabba,
is

Babylonian Talmud,
six.

this

true only with regard

six

to

children older than

But children under

are

to be maintained from his property.^"

Some

scholars maintain that even

if

children

after six

are to be supported from his property,

the father already

age.'^^

supported them after they reached

that

When,

however, the father has become insane, so that we

not infer from his silence his
children

may

unwillingness to have his

supported

from

his

property,

they are to be

supported even after they reached that

age.^''^

The Academy in Usha enacted that away all his property to his son, he and
to be supported

if

a father gives
still

his wife are

from

this property.^'^"

The

Palestinian

Talmud

declares that the minor children of the donor are

also to be supported from this property.'' ^^

The

Palestinian
is

Talmud

also

raises

the

question

whether there
children.^*^sc

a duty on a

man

to support his grand-

It

seems that the Palestinian Talmud comes

s'

Ket. 48

a.
;

Eb. Haez. 71,

2,

2.

"* 99

Ket. 48 a
Ibid.

see Tos.,

ibid.

Eben

l,a-Ezcr, 71,

gloss of Isserles.

100

Ket_ ^g 5

Yen,

ibid.
is

enactment, while the

^"1

Yen
is

IV, 8. The Babli seems not more favourable towards it.

to

accept

tliis

Yen,

ibid.

The
This

Babli mentions nothing concerning the minor children

in

such a case.

due

to

the fact that the

Talmud Babli does not

fact

agree with this enactment of Usa, and also to the

which

will soon be

mentioned.
^02

Yer. Ket. IV,

8.

The same Pene Moshe makes

the question

^33

484

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

own
gives

to the conclusion that grandchildren differ from one's

children in that respect.

is,

The

reason the

Talmud

however, not quite

clear.^*^^

(3)

The PostJininons Duty of Supportmg the Minor

Daughter.

The

earliest trace

of a conscious response to the ques-

tion of supporting the

minor children

is

to be found in

connexion with the

posthumous duty of the father to

This was also a natural
of the father was, in

support the minor daughter.

result of conditions.

The property

accordance with the Biblical law, inherited by the male

fn

no

D''32 refer to the

is

passage beginning with the words V33^ VD3J ^JTlSn

for
it.

But there

no reason

It

can as well refer to the general duty

of

supporting grandchildren.

The Talmud

Babli does not raise this question either.

This

is

already

the fourth point wherein a difference has been indicated between Babli and

Yerushalmi (see ch.

Ill,

notes 84, 94, and loi).

These four points lead bound

to

the conclusion that the Yer. differs with Babli in the general principle of

supporting the children, and holds that the father

his

is

legally

to support

minor children.
(note

R. Johanan
to

is

quoted

in

the Yen, as has been pT^

shown
This

before

94%

have said expressly ni32n flX

ibid.),

Pimn.

statement,

we

maintained
is alive.

refers
to the

to

the support of the daughter

difference

while the father

According

Yen, R. Ulla makes no

between children under the age of

statement, as the Yer. has
children in general.
it,

six

and children above that age.

ff

His
minor

Q^JDp V33 FlN

DIN

XiT't', refers to
fails

The

fact

that the Babli likewise

to

mention

anything concerning the support of the minors

when
is

the father has given

to the support of

away
the

his property to his son, or to raise the

problem as

grandchildren, proves, and at the same time

explained by, this

difference
103

between Yer. and Babli concerning the support of minor children.

ibid.

Yen,

The statement
to

min

DB^I"" ]T\'hv HlfSp

D^Ja 'J^

is

evidently placed in opposition

another opinion, whicii would put the

grandchildren on the same level with one's

own

children.

But the reason

supposed to be contained
placed on the same level,
the Pene

in the
is

statement, as to

why

ihey should not be

not quite evident.

The explanation given by

Moshe

is

not satisfactory.

THE MINOR
children,

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER
left

485

and the female children were

at the

mercy

of the male children.

Should the male children refuse to

the latter would be rendered entirely
it

support their
helpless.

sisters,

Therefore,
it

was found necessary

at a very early

time to make

a
in

provision
case

of the marriage contract

dies,

(Ketubbah) that

the husband

the

female
they

orphans should be maintained from his estate

get married. ^*

until

This
it is

provision

must not necessarily be

written down, for

in

binding on him, not by the contract

which

it

is

entered, but

by

virtue of

its

being a court
This,

enactment which one tacitly accepts

as

at marriage.^"^ for
it,

we

shall see later,

was a great reform,

sometimes

contrary to the Biblical law, makes the female instead of the male children the real heirs of the father's property.

That
the
fact

this

was a very early enactment can be seen from

does not speak of
it

that the Mishnah

as

an

innovation, but as an old tradition.

The support
his death
is

of one's daughter out of his property after

not the fulfilment of an obligation towards his

children, but towards his wife.

The daughters

derive this

right through the expressed or implied contract given to

the mother.

That

this provision

should be looked upon

as imposing on the father a duty not towards the children,

but towards the wife,

primarily that suffered
helpless

is

due to the

fact that

it

was she

when her daughters were rendered

by the death

of her husband.

Her own
Her
But

condition

was deplorable, and

existence became

she, not less than the daughters,

was

dependent on the good will of the sons.

still

struggle for
a solid basis

severer

by the lack of

for the support of the female orphans.

in

time

many
b.

enactments were made

^0*

for the amelioration of the condition

52
b.

Ket. IV, 12

Gem.,

ibid.

"= Ket. 68

486
of the

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

widow
(see

Ketubbot
fully

4. 12).

But she would

cer-

tainly not

have been

relieved,
for.

had the orphaned

step then

daughters not been provided

The next
Thus

was

to

remove

this disturbing element,

and to give legal

it

protection to the orphaned daughter.

was that
the

the duty to support the daughter was classed

duties of the husband towards his wife.
justified in treating
it

among

We

are,

however,

here, since the female children are the

direct beneficiaries of this duty.

In

harmony with

the conception concerning the support

in

of the daughter outlined

states

the last paragraph, the law

into

that

if

the parents enter

marriage with the

understanding that the father does not take upon himself

this obligation, the

daughter does not possess

this right.

Had

the support of the daughter been the exclusive right

of the children, the mother would never have been able

to deprive

them of

it.

The mother
'

possesses this
in

power
whose
'

only because she herself was primarily the person

favour the enactment of
established.

supporting the daughter

was

The

daughter, however, cannot be deprived

of her right of support

by a

will in

which the father objects

to the use of his property for tliat purpose (Ketubbot 68).

The time during which

to be supported
lasted,

the fatherless female child was

from the inherited property of the males,

according to the terms of the provision, to her

It

marriage.

does not seem that, originally, the female

children lost this right with the attainment of majority,

if

such a thing as becoming of

full

age at the age of twelve

in that

or twelve and a half was

known

period at
all

all.

If

the introduction of such an institution was at

it

necessary,

was so that

it

might serve the female orphan during the

time when she had no other source of income, and that was

THE MINOR

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER
half,

487

before her marriage.

helpless as she

After twelve and a

she was as

was
in

before.

Besides, the Biblical law

knows

no other changes

the

life

of a female except that caused

by

marriage, and, therefore,

we

are justified in assuming

that

the early

law with regard to the support of the

in

orphan daughter was

especially so,

keeping with

this Biblical law,

and

when

it

is

corroborated by the wording of

the provision.
Later, however, scholars declared that the female orphan
loses this right
as soon

as she reaches the

half),

first

age of

majority (the age of twelve and a

is

even though she

right

not

married.^''^

She

also

loses

this

when she

becomes
is

betrothed.^*-'^

According to some
is

scholars, this

so

even though she

under twelve.

According to
betrothed while
is

others, she loses this right only

when she

is

she

is

a na^araJi.

Still,

others maintain that this law

to be applied only

when she became betrothed without

the consent of her brothers, but not when she obtained

their consent.^'^^

The support
ments, and a
of a contract,
is

of the female orphan includes food, gar-

dwelling.^'^^

This provision, being the

result
all

to

comply with the laws regulating

other forms of contractual obligations, and gives, therefore,

the court the power to draw the means of support only

from real estate or immovable property.

The Talmud

mentions the view according to which the female orphan

106

Ket. 53 b, 68 b
Ket. 53 b
;

Tosef., ibid. IV, 17

Yer., ibid. XII.

107

Eben ha-Ezer, 112,3.

But

The reason
is

for the

enactment

concerning the support of the female orphan

helpless, and go around begging.

that she

may

not

become
let

now

the bridegroom will not

her

go around begging, and will support her.

108

Eben ha-Ezer

112, 3.

^^^ Ibid.

112, 6.

488

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Yet

should be supported also from movable property.^^

this

view was not accepted by the majority of scholars,

in

and

spite

of the

fact

that

it

was maintained by so
final

eminent an authority as Raba, the

conclusion

is

that

this support cannot be drawn from movable property.^^^

Yet

this limitation

was not

fully in force.
it,

In practice,

many Rabbis attempted

demanded

to disregard

and were withheld

Practical
life

only by the interference of other Rabbis.

that this limit should be disregarded.

of pity

case

came up before a Rabbi, who out

the orphans possessed no

wanted to have

the expenses of support covered from movable property,

as
real
estate.

But he was

prevented by another Rabbi

who was

afraid that this usage

might become a general

law.^^^

Finally, however, conditions changed,

and the possession

of real estate ceased to form an important feature in the

life

of the people.

As

a result, the law limiting the payits

ments of the Ketubbah and

contents, including the

support of the daughter, to immovables, defeated the very

purpose

for

which the Ketubbah contract was established.

enacted that the payments of the Ketubbah
it

The Geonim
and
all

that goes with

should be defrayed even from

movable property.^ ^^
another
privilege

Thus the orphan daughter secured

tended
to

which

her

protection

and

general welfare.
If the property left

by the

father

is

not sufficient for

1''-= "0 Ket. 50b. "1 Ibid. 50b, 51 a. Ibid. 50b. "' Originally the Gaonic enactment referred to the Ketubbah proper

(the

amount of money the wife

is

to get after the

death of her husband, or

it

at the time

when she
There

is

divorced).
all

But later authorities interpreted

as

having the same force for

other contractual obligations that go with the

Ketubbah.

are,

however, other authorities

;

who

do not accept this

interpretation (see Tos. Ket. 51 a

Ebcn ha-Ezer

112, 7).

THE MINOR

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER

489

the support of both the male and female orphans, then the

whole property should be given away to the females.^ ^^

This
is

already the climax of the reform introduced conof the

cerning the support

instance the females

female orphan, for in

this

become the
^^

practical heirs, contrary

is

to the Biblical law, which declares that inheritance

the

exclusive right of the males.^^^'

This law
consists

is

to

be applied only when the property

of

real

estate.

When

it

consists

of

movable
it

property, the female has no more privileges over

than

the male, for the Gaonic enactment that the female minor

be supported from movable property, gave to the female

a claim only equal
males.
to,

but not greater than that of the

The Court

is

to prevent the males

from selling any

there
is

of the inherited

property, even
all

when

property
of

enough to maintain

the children.^"

The support
their

the daughter takes precedence over the rights the

sons

have with regard to the Ketubbah of

If there are

mother.^^^

both minor and adult females, we do not set

for the

apart an

amount

support of the minors, and then

the daughters.

divide the rest equally

is

among

The

division

to be

made of the whole amount.^^'' The Talmud is not decisive as to whether

b.
still

the rule that

" Ket. 108

^'5

It is

true that, theoretically, the males are

the heirs, and the

females become the possessors of the property only through a contractual

obligation.

This well illustrates the general principle of the development

of Jewish law.

While no law

is

directly abolished,

means

are found by

which these laws are

11^

practicalh' abolished.

Nor was

this
it

reform introduced without a protest.

"*

Admon

raised

his voice against

(Ket. 108 b).

Ibid. 112, 17.

"^ Eben ha-Ezer 112; Ket. 43b. "9 B. B. VIII, 8.

490

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

the daughter
cases:
(i)

to be supported extends to the following

the

minor daughter

who has who

(3)

annulled

by

Mi'un the
or

marriage contracted for her by her brothers

^^^
;

by her mother

(2)

the daughter
^-'^
;

is

the issue

of a rabbinically. prohibited marriage

that

the daughter
^^^
;

was born while the parents were betrothed

born to him

(4)

and

the daughter

as the issue of violating her

mother before marriage.^^"

B.
(i)

Education.
Instruction.

As we

have seen

in

the

first

chapter, there

is

already

in the Bible a provision,

imposing on the father the duty of

instructing his children.

As

a matter of fact, the duty

to teach the

Torah

is

not confined to one's

own

children.

man

is

morally bound to teach the Torah even to his

neighbour's children.

Yet the duty

to

teach one's

own

children takes precedence over the duty of teaching his

'2"

Ket. 53

b.

The doubt

is

due

to the fact that a

marriage invalidated

by Mi'un may

lose the status of a marriage altogether.

The

solution of this problem

may

perhaps depend on whether

we

accept

the attitude of Rabbi Eliezer or Rabbi Joshua with regard to Mi'un (see

Yeb. 108 a
^2'

Ket. 53.

In this case the

mother does not possess the right to the

Ketubbah, and consequently the daughter

may

lose her right to support

which forms

a part of the Ketubbah.

According, however, to the con-

ception that the enactment of supporting the daughter tended to give a

right to the mother, the daughter in this case should not be supported.
certainly the conception of the enactment acquired in time

new
But

new meanings,

and the support of the daughter came

'2
'^2

to be

looked upon as being a right

of the daughter independent of her mother. Ket. 54

Ibid.
a.

In this case also the

mother

whom

the seducer marries

is

deprived of the Ketubbah, and consequently the daughter ma}' lose her
right also.

THE MINOR

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER
his

491

grandchildren, and the duty to teach

grandchildren

takes precedence over the duty of teaching other children.^^*

This
children

Biblical

provision
instruction

reflects

period

when the

received

personally from the father,

purpose.

and no teachers existed

there

for that

Consequently
expense of

was no necessity of providing

for the

the schools.
Later,
arose.^^^

when Jewish

life

became more complex, schools

not paid for the instruction

The

teacher was

proper, for

according to Jewish law one must not take

instruction.^-'^

reward for religious

The reward

that

he

received was merely compensation for the time that he

spent

in

teaching the children, or for the benefit that

care.^^'

accrued to the children from their teacher's

The
force

expense of the school was covered by the parents of

the pupils.^^^
a

Jewish

law decides

that

we may

man

to hire a teacher for his children,

but not for the

is

children of his neighbours.^^^

as far as instruction in Bible

This legal duty

is

enforced

concerned.

But we may

not force a father to hire a teacher to instruct his children

in

advanced

studies, such as

Mishnah, Halakah,

&c.^^*'

In the absence of the father, the Court has a right to

draw from

his

property the expenses for the instruction

of his children.^"^^

The

father has a right to dedicate his

means
son,
if

for his

own

instruction in preference to that of his

the means are not enough to cover the expenses

If the
245, 3.

of instruction for both.

^'^*

son

is

more able than the

Kid. 30 a

Yoreh Deah
to

^^^

According

Krauss

(Tal. Arch., Ill, 199,

;

&c.\

this took place

about

130

B. c.
'2fi

See also B. Batra, 21 a

36, 37 a;

Jer. Ket. VIII, 11.

'"'

Ned.

Lev.

r.

31.

Ibid.
4.

^2*
130

See Krauss,

ibid. vol. Ill, p. 199,

a.

&c.

^29

Yor. Deah 245,

Ned. 36, 37; Kid. 30

" Yoreh

Deah

245, 4, gloss of Isserles.

VOL. VL

K k

492
father,

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

and
will

make more progress

in his

studies than

the latter, then the son's instruction takes precedence over

that of the father.^^^

The Rabbis
importance of
teaching of
ceiving
it

did not
this

fail

to impress the people with the

duty by

many moral

precepts.
is

The

Torah

to one's son, they declare,

Sinai. ^^^

like re-

on Mount
his

Torah

to

son

is

as

The one who one who teaches it to

teaches
all

his

descendants.^^*
(2)

Initiation into the Religions Life.

initiate his

It is the

duty of the father also to

life.

son into
it

the religious
is

We

have already shown before that

the duty of the father to instruct his minor children.

provision for this duty

The

may

not be due so

much

to

instruction being a

means by which we impart knowledge

its

to the young, as to

being

in itself

an important factor

in the religious training of the

young.

As

for the practical

observance of the religious cerefather

is

monies and

institutions, the
is

supposed to recite
first
is

with his son, as soon as he

of Shema*,^^' to

able to speak, the

as soon as he
is

verse

buy him

Lulab

able to

use

it,

to

buy him phylacteries when he

intelligent
in the

enough

to take care of them,^^*^ to have

him

sit

Sukkah,

when he

is

no longer dependent on the mother.^^'

strict

Shammai,
uncovered

however, was more

with the last point.

He

the ceiling, and put shrubbery above the bed, where the

new-born child

lay.^^^

In connexion with this section,

we may

also mention

the duties of the father to have his son circumcised,'^^ and

'" Kid. 29 b
;

Eb. Haez. 255,

I,

2.

"' Kkl. 30
a.
'39

a.

^^*

Ibid.

33

a.

'" Toscf. Hag.

'3'

2;

Siiklcali

42

's*

Ibid.
I
;

i7

jSukkah 28.
ibid. 29.

Ibid.

xosef. Kid.

Gemara,

THE MINOR
to

IN

JEWISH LAW
priest, if

LEBENDIGER
is

493
If

redeem him from the

is

he

the first-born.

the father

himself the first-born, and his means are not

the redemption of himself and his son, the

sufficient for

father

is

to use the

money

for his

own redemption.

Rabbi

Judah
of

differs with this view,

and maintains that the duty

redeeming

his son

takes precedence over the duty of

redeeming himself.^*"
(3)

Secular Education.
is

The duty
for the

of the father to educate his son

not confined
the basis

to religious matters.

The

father

is

to lay

down

minor's future

material

welfare as well.

He

is

supposed to teach him a trade by which he should be able

to subsist.

Rabbi Judah remarks, the one who does not

is

teach his son a trade

art

as one
for

who

teaches his son the

of

highway robbery,

not

being

provided

with

a means of subsistence, the son will be forced to

crime.

live

on

Some Rabbis
the

also

include

education that of teaching his

are
traces in of

among the duties of son how to swim.^*^ There

that

Talmud which show

during the
to
instruct

period

the second temple fathers began

their children in

Greek Studies, an inevitable

result

from

the Greek influences under which the Jews

came (Sotah 49).

When

the war between Aristobulus and Hyrcanus broke

out, the

study of Greek subjects beside the Greek language

was prohibited.
of
its

The

Patriarchal family, however, because

close relationship with the

its

government, was allowed

to continue instructing

children also in the other Greek

studies (Rashi, ibid).

{To be concluded.)
^**'

Bekorot VIII, 6
Tosef.

Gemara,
;

ibid. 49.

141

Kid

I,

11

Babli, ibid., 29 a.

K k

THE PROBLEM OF SPACE IN JEWISH MEDIAEVAL PHILOSOPHY

By Israel Isaac Efros, Lynn,
I

Mass.

trust

that the term

;

'

Jewish Philosophy
I

'

does not

require

any apology

indeed,
I

should

owe the reader

a greater apology were

to attempt to give any.

^

The
Jews

famous or infamous indictment of Renan

are destitute of

that the

any philosophic

talent

is

best refuted

by

expository works which bring to light the depths of Jewish

thought.

The
subject.

refutation

was begun by Solomon Munk,

and

is still

continued by every monograph that has appeared

on the

As

far as

the problem of space

is

conever

cerned, a problem that has baffled

since the days of

human thought

Zeno of Elea,

hope that the subsequent

pages

will serve as a

testimony of Jewish profoundness of

thought and Jewish comprehensiveness of the grave antinomies that

this difficult

problem presents.

The scope
to

of this

work

is

limited, as the title indicates,

i.e.

Mediaeval Jewish Philosophy,

to that epoch
Israeli

in

Jewish thought which was inaugurated by Isaac

of

Kairwan, an older contemporary of Saadya, and culminated

in

Don

Isaac Abrabanel

period of five centuries least

familiar to the general student of philosophy, but which

produced
intellect.

the
I

choicest

fruits

of

the

maturing

Jewish

am

aware of the abundance of ideas relative

are

to

the

problem of space which

>

harboured
I,

in

the

See

his Hisfoire des langues St'mitiques,

i.

495

496

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

literature
;

Talmudic and Midrashic

our problem

but their influence on

is,

the philosophy of the period under discussion

is

as far as
is

concerned, of no great importance, and

therefore omitted.

For a similar reason

shall not deal

here with Philo's views on space,^ or, on the other side,

with the views of Spinoza and others, especially our great

contemporaries

Hermann

Cohen

and

Henri

Bergson.

Nevertheless, should the reader resent the limitations that

the term

'

Mediaeval

'

imposes,

I shall

attempt some day to

resume the discussion and deal with those views that are
here out of place.

Introduction.
I.

On

the surface, the idea of space

intelligible.
It is

is

comparatively

simple and

the idea of extensity of things,

is

the idea of an external world that

all

not a mere pin-point,

the parts of which being coalesced and compressed to

indivisible unity, but stretched
all

form a non-magnitudinal and

out and extended around us,

the parts of which are

lying side by side of one another, and thus capable of being

measured.
'

We
'

perceive this extensity of things and the

of
its

alongsidedness

parts,

by our

visual

and tactual and

muscular senses.
a landscape,

When we move
sense of
its

our eye to circumspect

we have a

range or extensiveness.

When we

lay our

hand over

this desk,

we have a

sense of

a greater area than when we lay our hand over a pin-point.

And when we
a
circle,

furthermore

move our hand

us.

so as to describe

we

feel

a vastness around

And now when we

we
i.

gather our perceptions of extended objects, and employ

the
^

method of generalization and

As
for Philo's
sp'atcrcii
is

abstraction,

arrive at
in

views on space, the reader may

Platonismtis

find

something
Tl.
:

Lcisegang's Die Rmnuthcorie im

cV

(Weida

Tliomas

Hubert, 191

1),

but the account

by no means

satisfactory.

PROBLEM OF SPACE
the

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

497

concept of extensity occupied or not occupied by

concrete objects

the concept of pure space.

to analyse this

Yet when we come

of space

common

conception

we

find

ourselves beset with puzzling problems

and baffling antinomies.

The

notion of space,

said, lies

in the alongsidedncss of parts. in

But those parts themselves

of smaller

order to be perceived must be composed

parts,

and so on

since

the perception of any extended

quantity involves a perception of parts.

tiniest

But what of the

no parts
?

speck, the mininutm scnsibile, in which

;

seem to be present
that
is

how

is

it

possibly perceived

And

if

true, every

body

is

composed of an

infinite

number
really
is

of particles, or, in other words, every finite object around

us,

from the mountain height

to the grain of sand,

is

infinite.

Thus an

ant

moving over a blade of grass

moving over an

infitiite,

and when you have moved over

All of which

from one corner of the room to the other, you have completed an infinite series of points.
is

absurd.
in

Leaving the
division,

question

whether

space
is it

is

infinite

we may ask whether space

when we know

infinite

in extent.

We

conceive a thing

or
it

seem

to

know

it

definitely, while infinity carries with

an

indefinite

and

indeterminate element, which admits of no conception.

definite
it

knowledge of a thing implies the

ability to

compare
infinite

to others

and distinguish

it

from others.

But the

is

incomparable and indistinguishable.

if

Yet, on the other

is
:

hand,

space

is

finite
?

and bounded, the question

is

what

is it
if

bounded

What

beyond

its

boundary ?

By And

what

a thing were to be carried beyond the realm of

it

space; would

shrink into nothingness?

:

One more
material
?

question

Is

space

itself

material

or

im-

It

could not be material, for a thing could not

498

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

occupy another unyielding material thing without violating

the law of impenetrability.
If

immaterial, what

is

it?

What

is

meant by an immaterial something existing

Perhaps
it

in the

external world?

is

not an external reality.

Perhaps

it

is

a mere mental illusion, one of those illusions

is

with which the mind

it
it

wont

to deceive

mankind.
is

But

is

conceivable that the objective reality

has
its

unspatial, that

no magnitude whatsoever, that this vast universe

stars

with

and planets

is

really a

mere geometrical point

located nowhere except in the

If space
is

mind of the mathematician ?

elephant escape

an

illusion,

through the key-hole?

why cannot the To make space

mental does not

make matters more

Such are the

conceivable.

difficulties

which present themselves

in

connexion with the notion of space.

The deeper

the

mind
one

delves into the problem, the greater the tangle.

of the sphinxes in the deserts of thought. of speculation

It is

From

the

dawn

we

find space to be one of the most promi;

nent objects of investigation

Zeno, Plato, and Aristotle

;

bent their great intellects on the solution of space

colossal

systems of science were reared on the notion of space.

the meaning of space has remained a mystery
till

Yet

the present

day. Indeed, the

It

difficulties

seem

to increase with the time.

would be preposterous of course to claim that the

difficulties that

Jews were cognizant of all these

era has introduced.
If

the modern

we

turn to examine the views on

space maintained by the two greatest of Greek thinkers,

who had such an enormous influence on Jewish thought, we will get a notion of the type of problems that we will
have to deal with
it

in

the following chapters.

In addition,
for

will present us the sources

and the starting-point

in this

the

views that arc to be discussed

study.


efros

problem of space

in

jewish philosophy

459

Plato's Conception of Space.

II.

Students of Plato are not

in

agreement as to
in Plato's

his

view on space.
space
is

Some

maintain that

conception

the primaeval matter, the original substrate which

into
all

was fashioned by the Demiurgiis

that
it

perceptible objects,

is

the raw material out of which the great artisan

things.

created
fall

all

In support of this interpretation they

in his Physics,

back upon Aristotle, who

:
'

IV, 4 remarks

as follows

Hence

also

Plato in the Timaens says that

matter and a receptacle are the same thing.

For that

which
thing.'

is

capable of receiving and a receptacle are the same

Thus

Aristotle

makes
than

Plato
his

and

who would
disciple?
all

understand

Plato better

illustrious

identify space with matter, pre-existing

and receiving

created

things.

Hence

also

all

mediaeval

philosophers

unanimously assumed that Plato affirmed the eternity of

matter.

On

the other hand, there are

many

scholars

who

claim that Aristotle misunderstood Plato, and that according to the latter space and matter are not identical, but

two

distinct

and separate beings.^

favour of the former view, the following argu-

Now,

in

ments are generally adduced.

Plato speaking about the

third y^vos, the abiding substrate in the incessant mutation

of phenomena, compares

it

to the gold

that
is

is

moulded

into all sorts of figures, to the

wax
air,

that

impressed by
not

the seal.^

The

elements,

fire,

water, earth, are

four varieties of Being, four different essences, but mere

states or

modes of one sensuous mass.

'

Fire
is

is

that part

of her nature which from time to time

2

inflamed, and
the

For a detailed bibliography of the two views, see Zeller's Plalo and
18, 20,

Older Academy, ch.VII, notes

*

and also

his P/a/oiiisc/ie Studien, 212, 222.

Tim., p. 50.

500

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

water that which

moistened, and that the molten subair

in

stance becomes earth and

so far
in
it

as she receives

the impressions.''^

Evidently Plato had

existence.

mind a sensuous
would be incon-

ground-work of

all

Besides,

ceivable to reduce all

things to an incorporeal essence or

true, characterizes the four

mere space.

Plato,

it is

elements

according to geometrical solids consisting of nothing but

triangular surfaces.'^ Zeller points out this latter Platonic

theory as a decisive proof against the theory of corporeal

primary matter^
solid

But when Plato maintained that 'every

in

must necessarily be contained

planes

',

he did

not
else.

mean

that they are composed of planes and nothing

He

did not

mean

to reduce this solid world to an

empty geometrical

structure, to a

mere house of cards.

solid.

thousand planes do not make an actual

lost the
p.
^o^

But

it

seems that Zeller here

thread of Plato's argument.

Plato

Up

to

the

middle of
classification
all

was discussing the

particularly

three-fold

of

Being, and

the

material substrate of

things, that

indeterminate mass
'

existing before the creation, in which

fire

and water and

earth and air had only certain faint traces of themselves,

and were altogether such as everything might be expected

to be in the absence of

God '.^ And now

I

Plato commences

a description of the process of creation proper, the prqcess

of formation
of the
universe.

mean, putting form to

its

the primordial chaotic matter and unfolding

elements.'
'
'

dormant

And
and

it is

here in the discussion of the formal

6

Tim,

p. 51.

Ibid., p. 54.

Zellcr, Plato
Tint. 51.

the

Older Academy, VII.

* '
7T/XJS
'

tivv 5 oiiv Ti]v 5i('iTa^iv avTUif fJTi\npt]TfOU iicaaraji' Kal yfveatv uT]6fi
v/iii
oi]\ov}',
',

Kuyw by

Tim. 53

b.

Tlic

word

diata-xi^ Jovvctt

t/anslatcd

disposition

which may suggest that Plato

sets out to discuss the essence

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

50I

aspect of the universe that the description of the geometrical

figures comes.

Thus, things were not made

of\iv\\.

according

to plans, surfaces,

and space

is

not the material but the

formal cause of
'

all things.^"

To come back

to our
in

main

discussion, another

argument

might be presented
space.

favour of the materialistic view of

In describing the primordial receptacle, the matter

if

of generation^ he remarks 'that

the model
in

is

to take

every variety of forms, then the matter

is

which the model

formless, and

fashioned

when duly prepared, must be

the forms must

it is

come from without'

that

{Tim., p. 50).
in

Now

conceived

Plato

believed

the primordial

existence

of an absolutely formless mass which was inlike the

formed from without

wax by the

seal.

The modern

man
this

can hardly conceive matter and form being separate

is

because his accumulated experience leads him to

in

be cautious

forming his cognitions, and not to attempt

to leap over the circle of

phenomena.

The

ancients,

on

the other hand, were inexperienced, youthful, rash, and

ready to objectify and hypostasize any idea that presented

itself to their
istic

premature minds.
i.

It is

only the particular-

view of mankind,

e.

the view of

man

as separate

of things, but a more faithful rendering

is

'arrangement', which

fits

better

with the
^

h"ne of

argument.
highly probable that even the Pythagoreans,
all

Indeed
is

it is

who

held that

number
it

the principle of

things, did not hypostasize

it,

did not consider

the essence and substance of things, but rather their formal element.
I,

Aristotle, in his Mctaph.,

2,
:

XIV, 3

asserts that the Pythagoreans conI,

sidered numbers to be things

and

in Metaph.,

6 he remarks that they are

prototypes of things.
I,

Zeller (see his Greek Philosophy to the time of Socmtes,

first

p.

369) lays stress on the

statement, and explains that they are also

prototypes in the sense of law, but

many

other students of ancient philosophy

support the latter statement of Aristotle to the exclusion of the former.

Ritter, Geschichte dcy alten P/iilosophie, IV, ch. 2.

See

502

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

makes Socrates and Plato ancient
;

individuals, that

a truer

view

is

the general and evolutionary one which considers

as ancient,

John Locke and Immanuel Kant

and Socrates

and Plato as youths wantoning with abstractions and mere

ideas.

Plato particularly had that tendency to objectify

logical
realities.

and to hypostasize
easily grasp Plato's

One can

therefore

assumption of the coalescing of two inderealities,

pendent elemental
all things.

form and matter thus producing

But one cannot conceive how Plato would make

as the universal substratum

empty space
time
if

and

at the

same
For

insist that

the form should

it

come from
means

without.

form here means anything,

certain limitations

of magnitude.
spherical and

This body has a cubical form, another

still

another oval.

But magnitude means

is

extension, and to speak of formless space

to speak of
is

an unextended space or of a non-spatial space, which

absurd.^'

And

it

is

equally absurd to insist on having the

for

form come from without,

from space only.^^

by

definition form can

come

So much
of space. a

for the corporealistic

view of Plato's conception

On
it

the other hand, Plato also speaks of space in

all

manner

that entirely excludes

in
'

notions of corporeality.

He

defines
'.

the Tiui. 52 as the

'

'home

for all created

things

By

created things

one naturally understands

;

concrete objects composed of matter and form

^'

and Plato
Form

It is

impossible to evade the argument by reading into Plato Aristotle's

definition of form, \uyos t^s ovaiai.

in the

seal impress on the

The wax and in

analogies that Plato finds to

the transient shapes of the gold,

obviate such an interpretation.

*^

Perhaps a similar objection can be raised against formless matter, but

we

must not forget that the doctrine that extension constitutes the very essence
of material things

was not

3'et

fully realized in

the daj's of Plato.

The

atomists, for example, believed in material atoms

which wercat the same

time invisible.

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS
home.

503

defines space as outside of them, as their

Space
Further-

then, according to

Plato,

must be immaterial.
'

more, he maintains that this third nature

is

eternal,
p.

and

admits not of destruction'

l^id

(p. 52).

Now
is

in

28 he had
by-

down
which

rule

that

'

that which

apprehended
;

intelligence

and reason
is

is

always

in

the same state

but
of

that

conceived

by

opinion,
is

with
in

the

help

sensation,

and without reason,

always
really

a process of

becoming and perishing, and never

words,
things
material
;

is'.

In other
things

are

destructible,
is

and

spiritual are eternal

and since space

according to Plato

eternal,

it

cannot be corporeal.

These are the two views of the Platonic conception

of space, but
it

seems to

me

that either of these two views

attaches itself to one particular passage in the Timaeus,

and does not do

It

full

justice to the

argument

as a whole.

seems to

me

that

the adherent of either view tears

passages out of their context, and hence arrives at such

contradictory results.

Hence

it is

of

paramount importance

to analyse very carefully the whole development of the

argument.

But

first

let

me

point

out a curious and

it is

suspicious contradiction in Plato.

First,

to be noticed

that from p. 49 to p. 52, where he introduced this third

yeuo^, this
'

receptacle, the matter of generation

it

',

and where

he discusses

rather in detail, he does not mention even

its

once the word space or

in p.

equivalent {\copa, tottos), but

52 he introduces again a third yiuos, and there he

refers constantly to space

tacle'.

and no longer to any

'

recep-

Is

it

not curious?

On
'

further

inspection,

the

matter becomes more interesting.

space
as
eternal,

In p. 52 he describes
perceived
'.

indestructible,

without

the
turn

help of sense, by a kind of spurious reason

Now

504

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

and here he never mentions that the recepTrue,
it is

to pp. 49-52,
tacle
is

eternal.

spoken of as

'

always the same

',

but the expression seems to have a rather relative value.

It is
it

always the same while the images and the forms that
brief,

assumes are coming and going, transient,

It is

and

fleeting.

the abiding groundwork of

it is

all

transitory

things.

Yet he does not say that

in itself, absolutely

speaking, eternal and indestructible.

Thus

it

is

strange

that the attribute of eternity, so emphatically stated with

reference to space (p. 52),

is

entirely overlooked in the case

of the receptacle (pp. 49-52).

The second
in

characteristic of space, that

it

is

perceived

without the help of sense, by a kind of spurious reason,

a dreamlike manner,
is

also not clearly stated in the

case of the receptacle.

He
is is

describes

it

as

'

an invisible
(p. 51),

and formless being', and

and he maintains that
of the fleeting images.
it

'most comprehensible'

known through
for

a consideration
is

The meaning then

it

clear.

We
When
in

cannot perceive the receptacle,

I

is

formless.

direct
I

my

gaze at the

tree, I

do not see the thing

itself,
is

see the form

of the tree.

Only

its

externality

revealed to

my

senses.

Sensation then has to do with

se.

the forms of objects, not with the objects per

Hence
which
is

one
is

may

naturally

expect

that

the

receptacle

formless should not be perceptible.

How
to

then

the

thing

known

The answer
object

is

the sensation of the transithe

tory and

fleeting

leads

mind

assume an
latter
is

abiding groundwork, a

receptacle.

Hence

the

known

empirically, and, strictly speaking, adhering to the

Platonic terminology,

we have no knowledge

of space but
is

'right opinion', for every empirical

cognition

a mere
is

opinion.

And

yet, in p. 52, Plato maintains that space

'

PROBLEM OF SPACE
known by

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS
it is

505
not

reason, though a spurious one,

and that

at all an empirical concept.^

Thus the whole matter

receptacle

is

very puzzling.

Is Plato conis

tradicting himself in such close juxtaposition, or

the

one thing and

space

another?

If

we now
in

proceed to a general analysis of Plato's argument

the

Timaeus,

think the puzzle will be solved.

After an invocation of the gods, Timaeus, the natural

philosopher, begins the story of creation.

There are two

natures in the universe, Being and Becoming, the permanent

and the mutable, the eternal and the destructible.

Every-

thing that was created has had a design and realizes a

purpose.

This idea

is

fully amplified

and elaborated

in

some

detail.

But

this represents

only one view of creation,

so at the end of p. 47 he

namely, that of the creator.

And

remarks

*
:

Thus

far

in

what we have been saying, with

small exception, the works of intelligence have been set

forth
;

and now we must place by the side of them the

is

things done from necessity, for the creation

mixed and
If

is

the result of a union of necessity and mind.'

by

the

mind

{vovs) Plato

understands the rational, and the forming

necessity {dvdyKrj) he understands the

element, then

by

irrational or the plastic

element

in creation.

By

dvayKt]

thus

is

meant the motuin non

moveiis, that

which receives
the mould or

the free and spontaneous activity of the

the raw material of creation.

vov's,

Thus
' :

after

Timaeus invokes

the gods anew, he remarks

discussion
requires
all

This new beginning of our

division

fuller

than
is

the

former.'

Notice that

he claims to do here

not to add a nczv

in the

nature of being,
^^

a new genus overlooked

previous
and
the

On

the meaning of the

Spurious reason

'

see Zeller's Plato

Older Academy, VII, note 60.

506

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

For the

discussion, but simply to give a fuller division.

genus of Becoming, before assumed to be simple, since the

situation did not

demand any

further analysis,

is

now

to

be divided into

its

constituents for the purpose of bringing

out the principle of dvajK-q in the universe.

Heraclitus

declared iravra pd, and Plato subscribes to that doctrine.

Yet

it

needs some modification.

True that the shape of

is

the gold moulded by the goldsmith

tory, yet

mutable and

transi-

behind there

is

abiding gold that one can point

his finger to
is

and say

tovto.

Hence a thing
substrate.

of

Becoming

not after

all
is

unique and simple, but behind the fleeting

a

forms there

more abiding

Becoming, then,

can be further classified into the

two incoordinate elements,

the principle of necessity,

form and matter, and the

latter

is

the invisible receptacle and nurse of generation.

But here
itself

(p.

51) an epistemological problem presented

little

before Plato, and he digresses for a

while.

If

we see only forms and phenomena, what right have we to

think of things in themselves, of Ideas
?

And how
have

do we

know
asked

that our mental

representations
?

their corre-

sponding objects
:

in reality

similar question

might be

How
?

do we know the nature of the

is

invisible

raw

material

But here the answer

senses.

simple

empirically, by

means of our

Fleeting images must have their

more abiding
sense?

receptacle.

But by what channel do we

cognize Being, the Ideas that are not perceptible to our

This involves Plato's whole theory of knowledge.

different kinds of cognition

There arc two

mind and true

by
ways
of

opinion, the former seeing things a priori^ without the aid

of the senses, and the latter knowing things a posteriori,

experience.
In correspondence to these two of Being perceived

know-

ledge

we have the realm

by mind, and

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

507

the realm of Becoming, including both forms and matter

apprehended by true opinion, which knows both the image

and the
exhaust

thing.
all

But

this

twofold classification does not

It

human

cognitions.

does not include that

'

dream-like knowledge, that mysterious, inexplicable

spuri-

ous reason

'

which apprehends of a home of

all

created
in

things, eternal

and

indestructible.
it

It

might be omitted

the story of the creation, for

part of Being, nor
is
it

neither plays the creative

the plastic element of Becoming,

but stands alone

in its eternity as the

home

of

all

created

things, nay, as the stage

upon which the whole drama of

cannot be overlooked as an
epistomological
discussion.

creation

is

performed, and the stage never enters into the

plot of the

drama

yet
in

it

object

of

cognition

the

Hence Plato introduces here

a correspondence to our third

mode
is

of apprehension, a
'.

new

genus, 'a third nature, which

space

After a few remarks on the nature of space,

(p. ^;^)

Plato returns
discussed the
chaotic

to the story of creation,

and having
universal

material

essence

of things,
tell

the

mass,

he now proceeds to
in

how Demiurgus
to the formal

produced order and arrangement

the world, and the

discussion of the material cause gives

way

cause in the generation of the universe.

Thus our problem

is

solved.

It

was a misunderstanding

that led people to believe that in the description of the

receptacle and of space Plato referred to one and the

thing.

same

We have shown that on the contrary Plato conceived

to be

them

two

distinct natures

the one partaking in

;

creation, the other containing creation

the one empirically

all

apprehended, and the other independent of

sensations.

And

all

the arguments that the supporters of the materialistic

view of space endeavoured to draw from Plato's discussion

VOL.
VI.

508

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

on

of the receptacle, the matter of generation, are based

a misunderstanding.

What

then are
?

we

to gather from Plato's genuine dis-

cussion of space
are created
eternal,

It is

not material, for

all

material things
28) space
is

and empirically
all

given, while

(p.

and beyond

experience.

We
it

derive the notion

of space not from contact with external reality, as the father

of English empiricism claimed, but

the mind, that
logically, this
all

is

an innate idea of

created things must be in space.

Psycho-

view bears a striking resemblance to the

Kantian conception of space, but metaphysically the two

are diametrically opposed to each other.
to Plato, space
it

Indeed, according

is

not a mere ens rationis, for being eternal

existed ever before the birth of the

human mind.
to
his
illustrious

When we come down from

disciple, Aristotle,

Plato

we

feel

somewhat

relieved.

To

be sure

the matter becomes more profound, the treatment more

analytic,

and we have now before us a procession of brilliant

syllogisms, but the

most profound syllogism may sometimes

be more easily digestible by the human mind than the

smallest figure of speech.

Aristotle's Conception of Space.

III.

That place

^"^ exists is

evident from our most ordi-

nary experiments.
flows out and air

Watch
comes
in.

a vessel through which water

There has been a thorough

change

in the contents

of the vessel, yet something remained

unchanged, the stereometric content, the place, the cubic

inch
or

cubic

foot

which does

not

change whether

it

'^* It is to
'

be noted at the outset that our usual distinction between

place' and 'space' does not exist for Aristotle.

They

arc both identical.

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

509

contains air or water or any other material.

Thus place

evidently exists.
also different

And
fire

it

has not only mere existence, but

determination,

qualitative
;

namely, upward

and downward
(Aristotle's
is

tends upward, and earth

Prantl, IV, ch.
i).

downward
But what
difficulties
it

Acht Biicher Physik,

?

the essence of space

Here a multitude of
all

present themselves.

We
It

know, of course, that

is

characterized by three dimensions.

is

But

in

what category
in

place to be

put?

cannot be matter, for

that

case

we could not have

body

in space

without violating

the law of impenetrability, according to which two bodies

cannot occupy the same place at the same time.

a

For

if

body could absorb another equal body,

it

might go on

with this process of absorption to such an extent that

a drop of water might absorb the whole sea (IV,
8).

Place

then cannot be material, for then

receptacle for

it

could not form the

the other hand,
is it
it

any material
for
it

thing.

On

cannot be incorporeal

has magnitude.

the limits or the superficies of any

original experiment with the vessel,
superficies of water

body ?

Or perhaps Resuming our

these in turn

we

call

space

we find that while the make way for the superficies of air, and make way for some other superficies, what does not change, hence space cannot mean
seen that space
neither matter, nor

superficies.

Thus we have
form,
i.

is

e.

the superficies of matter.

Indeed, matter and

in any given body, while by space we commonly understand an external receptacle. For the same reason we cannot maintain that space is the interval

form are internal

betv/een the superficies of an object

for
it,

an object

may

be taken out of

its

place and restored to

its interval.

but one cannot

remove an object from

Moreover, the identi-

Ll

5IO
ficatloii

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

of space with the interval of a thing will lead us
absurdities.
first

into

many

In the

place,

if

by space we understand the

air passing

interval
vessel,

pervading the water or the

through the

then every particle of the moving body will be surrounded

by a space, and consequently there number of spaces. Secondly, a moving body moves in
space will

will

be an

infinite

space,

but the body

contains in itself a space in the form of an interval.

Hence

move

in space,

which

is

absurd.

Thirdly,

when the

vessel

which contains an interval

moves and occupies another

But
space

interval,
is

we

will

have a fusion

of two intervals or spaces, which

if
is

likewise absurd.

neither matter nor form, nor the interval

of a thing, there remains only one

that
is

more

alternative,

and

the

adjacent boundary of the containing body.

is

Man, we

sa}',

in the

world by virtue of

his

being on

the earth, and on the earth because of the limited area

which closely comprises him.

Thus by space we must

i.

understand nothing else than that which contains,

vessel of

e.

the
in

any given

thing.
is

The

place of the sailor

is

the boat, the boat

river-bed.

in the river,
is

and the

river

is

in

the

But Aristotle

anxious to

make

of space an

ultimate being, and hence maintains that strictly speaking

space

is

not the boat, nor the river, for these are movable,
in

and a movable space would signify a space moving

space, which
It is
all
is

absurd.

True space then

moved.
is

is

immovable.

the extreme limit of the heavenly sphere in which

it

things move, but

is

is

not
in

itself

Consequently
contiguously
All other

only that

essentially

space which

contained in that extreme immovable boundary.

things are only accidentally so

by

virtue of their being

PROBLEM OF SPACE
a part of that which
reason
is

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS
we
it

511
say,

is

essentially in space, just as

strictly

in

man, though

speaking

is

only in

the mind of man.

So

far

we have been

discussing space as filled

by

this

or that object, as irXeou, but there are

in

some who

believe

the existence

of a k^vov, of pure

and empty space

unoccupied by any material being, whether earth, water,

or
air,

a mere void, an absolute vacuum.

belief

And

they support

their

with

the

following

arguments.
for
if

Motion

is

possible only through a

vacuum

a body could
sea, as

move

through and penetrate another body, a

we have

seen before, might be absorbed in a drop of water.

And
any

how

could any absorbent material soak into

itself

liquid without exhibiting

for the intervening voids
?

any voluminous

increase, if not

Aristotle repudiates the exist-

ence of any vacuum. Attacking the argument from motion,

he maintains that motion

sarily through a

is

rendered possible, not neces-

vacuum, but also through an exchange of

Similarly

places with another body.

when an absorbent
body, namely,

body

attracts a liquid,
it

it

may

not be because of inherent

air.

voids, but because

dispels another
is

Furthermore, the

fact

that vacuum, far from helping a

sijie

moving body,

far

from forming the

qua non of motion,

makes indeed the phenomenon of a moving body impossible.

is

Let us

first

analyse the kinds of motion.

There
i.

a motion of
;

fire

upward, or of earth downward,

is

e.

natural motion

and there
e.

a motion of the ball that

has been cast,

i.

violent motion.

Both kinds of motion

are impossible, according to Aristotle, in a void.

The upward tendency

of

fire

is

possible only through

it

the difference in the conditions of the place in which

tends, from the conditions of place to which
it

tends, but

512

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

it is

a void cannot have these differences, inasmuch as

privation of any properties or conditions.

the

Hence

natural

motion

in

vacuum
ball,

is is

an impossibility.
similarly impossible in a void.

Violent motion
the projected

For

according to Aristotle, moves on by

the impulse of the air behind, which being lighter tends

to

move

faster

than the ball

ball in motion.

but

in

a void there

is

no

air to

keep the

Furthermore, the velocity

of the

of any given

body depends on the density

medium
the less
it

and the weight of the body.

All other things being equal,

;

the rarer the medium, the quicker the velocity

the density of a medium, the less the time that

will

take a body to
density of a

move over
is

a given space.

And
will in a
'

since the

vacuum

zero, the time in

which a body
likewise be

undertakes to pass over a given distance

zero
;

that

is

to say, a
is

body

will

move
'

vacuum
is

in

no time, which

absurd.

similar

absurdity

reached

when we
namely,
to
cut

consider the other determinant in a

its

moving body,

its
is

weight. The weight of a body is its power way through a given medium, but inasmuch

as a void

the absence of any medium,

fall

all

bodies, whether
velocity,

light or heavy, would

with
is

the

same

and

according to Aristotle this again

motion, in any of
in a
its

absurd.

Consequently

forms, would be an utter impossibility

vacuum.
the void in which a
in

Or consider
a body
is

body

is

placed.

When
either
is
it

immersed

any

liquid, the

latter will

be compressed or displaced and dispelled.

conceivable

But

in-

how

a void, sheer nothingness, can either be

compressed or dispelled.
absorb into
itself

Evidently then the void

will

the immersed body.

;

Now
real,

every body
will

possesses magnitude

and

if

the void

is

how

one

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

513

magnitude absorb another one without violating the law

of impenetrability.
void does not exist.

Consequently Aristotle concludes a

It should,

however, be remarked that

the argument

is

not altogether sound.

is

The

hypothetical

reality of the void

not consistently maintained in this

part Aristotle argues that the void,

argument.
even
if real,

In the

first

cannot be compressed or dispelled, because

is

materially

it

mere nothingness, yet

if

in

the latter part

he argues that

the void be real

it

would absorb the

;

immersed body and thus

but
if its

violate the law of impenetrability

reality

is

not meant to be material,

we have no

case here of absorption, or

any one body penetrating another.

How
as an

then does Aristotle explain the phenomenon of

is

compression and condensation which

very often adduced

argument

in

favour of the
differences

vacuum theory ?

And

what constitutes the

between a rare and a thick

body ?

Is

it

not that the rare has

many more

intervening
the given

voids which

become

stuffed with matter

when

body
thick

is

undergoing a process of condensation.

No, ac-

cording to Aristotle, the difference between a rare and a

body

is

not that the one consists of segregated tinier

other;
in

particles than the

is

other words, the

difference
is

not quantitative, but purely qualitative.

discrete,
it

Matter

never
;

broken up or
there are two

is

continuous and unique

but

states

of matter, the rare and the thick.

And

these

two

qualitative states are not mutually exclusive,

but each one harbours the potentiality of the other.

condensation and
rarefaction
really
fall

Thus

into

Aristotle's

conception

of motion, inasmuch

as

they are both pro-

cesses of realization of latent potentialities.

Let us now formulate

the problem of space.

briefly Aristotle's
' '

main

thesis in

The term space conveys

to us three

'

514

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

:

distinct ideas

either the

magnitude of any given body,

i.

i.

e.

extension, or the receptacle of a given body,

or

e. its

place,

mere magnitude not

filled

with

matter,

i.e.

a void.

Now empirical space was not He combated the notion of

aTr]jj.a}

at all a

problem
'

for Aristotle.
'

space as the

interval
'

(Sid-

of a given thing, but the existence of the

in question.

interval

he never called

The

Cartesian breach between

mind

and body, which led to the

famous Kantian doctrine

of the subjectivity of space,

of

was yet unknown.

is

The
it is

reality

any concrete magnitude

not called in question.

As

to the notion of place, according to Aristotle,

else

nothing

than the relation of contiguity subsisting between two

It

bodies.

does not represent, then, any entity of

spiritual.
It is

its

own,

whether material or

a relation,

it is

the point

of contact between two concrete objects.

the void, this
since place
is is

Finally, as to

entirely non-existent, for the reason that

simply the relation of proximity subsisting

is

between two things, there

no room

left for

mere extension

outside of any concrete object or void.

finite,

Hence space
it

is

as finite as the material universe of which

is

an

expression of contiguous relationship.

It

should, however, be observed that Aristotle was not

consistent in this notion of place.

essentially stable

He
for

argues that place

is
it

and immovable,

if it

were movable
in place,

would move
is

in place, er^^o, place

would be

which

absurd.

Hence, only the all-containing diurnal sphere

immovable

though revolving around

place
;

its

own

axis

can be
hand,
desk.

designated as essential
accidental place.

otherwise
I

we have only
in

Now

imagine

have a coin
to point

my

and

move

my

hand from point

B on my

To

be sure, the place of

of proximity between

my hand, that is to say, the relation my hand and the point A changes,

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

515

but the relation between the coin and

change.

my

hand does not

I move my own account

You may

imagine also that while

coin undergoes on of place-relation
its
;

hand from
a

to

tlie

simultaneous change

but the two

changes
point

in place-relation are
is

mutually independent, since

It
is

not the place of the coin.

meaningless

therefore to speak of space

is

moving

in space, if

by the

latter

meant merely a

relation of contiguity.

Thus

Aristotle's
is

distinction

between accidental and

Altogether one

essential

place

un-

warranted.

may

speak of an object as

being

in

motion, in the sense that the one and the same

its

object preserving

whole identity changes

its

environment

but

if

by place we understand
it

just this relation of environits

ment
is

cannot

strictly

speaking move, for

is

whole identity

changed, and there

not one relation moving, but there

It
is

are as

many
i.e.

distinct relations as points of motion.

the failure to realize this distinction between

a relation

and

a thing,

between place as relation and place as objective

space, that

makes the whole argument

fallacious.

Thus
as

have presented before the reader two

distinct

views of space, the Platonic and the Aristotelian.

first,

The
we

understand
in

it,

looks at the material universe as

a small island
call

the midst of a vast infinite sea which

space.

The
far

other takes no cognizance of imperceptible

space, but apprehends only corporeal things and their relations.

How

Jewish speculation was influenced by these

will

two views, the subsequent pages

attempt to describe.

5l6

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

CHAPTER
That
extensity

Empirical Space.
I.

is

an indispensable element

in

our

notion of matter was never questioned

by Jewish
is

thinkers.

Yet the complementary idea that unextendedness

pensable element
in

an indis-

our notion of

spirit

was

less fortunate. spirit

The

line of

demarcation between matter and

earlier

was not
Sub-

distinctly

drawn by some

Jewish thinkers.

consciously, however, they felt that an absolute spirit cannot

be conceived
is

in

terms of magnitude.
of
in

Hence, while the soul

sometimes spoken
it is

words that

do not exclude
is

extensity,

always emphasized that the deity

beyond

the category of space.

Gradually the two types of reality

were mutually divorced, and the principle soon acquired

axiomatic certainty that unextendedness
guishing
is

the

distinis

mark

of

spirit,

just

as

extendedness
this

the

distinguishing

mark of matter.

Let us see how

change

came

about.

Beginning with Saadya of Fayum,^* an author of the

earlier part of the tenth century,

we

find that

he accords

to the soul only an intermediate position between matter

and

spirit.

It is

made

of a luminous stuff that

in

is finer

than

matter,
''

though differing only

degree.^^
first

Hence the
systematic pre-

Saadya may be designated as the author of the

sentation of the philosophy of Judaism, though by no

in

means the pioneer

Jewish mediaeval speculation. Mention is to be made of Isaac Israeli of Kairwan, a thinker of note, who died one year before the completion of the

Entunot, but whose philosophical fame

phj'sician.
'^

was

eclipsed

by

his

fame as a

Cf. Iggerot lia-Rambaiii, p. 28, Lcipsic, 1859.

See

Emiiiiot, ed. Kitovcr.

its

have selected

this uncritical edition for

reference because of the Emtutot

is

being the most accessible.

(A scholarly edition See

also Horowitz,

ot

now

being prepared by Dr. Maltcr.)

I,

Die

Psycliologie bet dett jtidischcn Religions-Philosopheii,

28.

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

517

problem of space and

in

spirit

did not present itself to Saadya

connexion with the

soul.

Perhaps his treatment of the

will give

deity,

though belonging to the realm of theology,

us a better occasion to learn what he thought of our problem.

We

find

that

Saadya lays

special

emphasis on the nonsays,^^

spatiality of

God.

By

extensity,

he

we mean two
and secondly
contradiction

things, first the tridimensionality of an object,

divisibility.

An

indivisible

extensity

is

of terms, for by extensity

nuity of parts.
outside and

we mean

a simultaneous conti-

Feel this book, you have a sense of parts

alongside of each other, and you

say

it

is

extended.
is

Thus our notion of the magnitude of an

its

object

composed of the sense of

'

tridimensionality, and that

of the

alongsidedness

'

of parts or divisibility.

But God
divisible,
^^

cannot be said to be either tridimensional or

hence he

is

beyond extension.

In

another

place

he

argues that only the material can be said to occupy space,

which according to
with another body.

his conception

means

to

come

in

contact

When we
is

say that an object moves in

space we mean

that there

always a point of contact,

a //wzV between the earth and the

it,

body which encompasses

namely,

air,

but we cannot perceive

how

the immaterial

can meet a material body.

Hence God

is

not in space.

Saadya,

it is

to

be noticed, alludes here to the Aristotelian

i.e.

conception of space,

as
in

'

the inner limit of the containing

;

body', as we shall see

the argument
is

the sequel

but the basic idea of

limit
'

that inasmuch as

by

'

we understand
a series of

that point where a certain

begins,

body ends and another body

is

and that alongside of that point there

points which do not

mark the beginning

of another

body

in other words, since a limit

1^

conveys to our mind a picture

"
Ibid., p. 99.

Ibid., p. 96.

5l8

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

i.

of a series, of a simultaneous succession of points,

picture
of an
extciided object,

e.

the immaterial

therefore

cannot have any limit^ for the

extension.

spirit lacks

the attribute of
'

Hence, when the prophets speak of

God

in

heaven
not

'

they use metaphorical language, for surely they do

that

mean

God extends

over,

and

is

contained in the

heaven.

But here we meet with a tremendous problem.

How
is

can
the

we speak

of divine

omnipresence
is
'

? ^^

Omnipresence

attribute of a thing which

'

here and there and everywhere,

'
'

and that which has a here and a there has parts outside

and alongside of each

other,

and

is

therefore extended,

and to assume a divine omnipresence ought to be as nonsensical as to maintain a spiritual extensity or

spirituality.

an extended

Saadya, however,

is

not ready to relinquish

this

fundamental

dogma

of religion.

God, he explains,
is

is

present in the universe, as consciousness

in

the body,

"

See Emnnot,

p. 102.

N^C> Ty DlpO ^33 INVr^H ^h'^'^l l^^y T^<^

niDipcn vn i^ni nipo ^3

N-i3"' -ins

mip no
^^-^^v:'

N^:^'

^-^i^o

.^ijcd

\>'''\

nip n^n^

"iN^m

nmn".:' ;v3i

cms Nin
sbn
pi?
D^-.p

n\T n^ vp^n pn

nnnso
Dv^c'jn

N^i nriDn

sh

mna

sh

D~iip is'^cna

D^n

pDSn.
that

By

the expression D1p?D

73

"ID N7,

Saadya does not mean

God

existed spatially before crea.ion, for that

to p. 99,

would be a
"113^ "ID
in

flat

con-

tradiction

where he says Ijrsi

i.e.

Dlp'.^

D2S1

wS^'lT

myi

DIpD^ inN"'13 "113y3 pnyj,

creation.
in

that

God

existed

no space

before

There he also maintains that even

for else there

after creation
in

no space,

would be a change

His being.

God must exist Hence also the

God
in

expression
to

IJOO

P''~\

D"lpO n\1^

S^^ ly DIpD ^33

;

INVISn cannot refer

is

any

spatial existence.
is

Evidently, then, Saadj'a means that while

omnipresent, he

not at the

same time extended

but he does not explain

the apparent contradiction.

An

attempt at explanation he makes

i,

the

commentary on the Book

of Creation, IV,

where he describes the

Comp.
Kolilcr's

deity as

the consciousness of the universe, permeating the texture of the world

by

means of some

rare

and luminous gas.

Grundnss

ciner

sysicmaiischen Theologie des Jiidciiiuyns, p. 73.

PROBLEM OF SPACE
being found
all in all
its

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY
all in

EFROS

519

and

every part

and

just as the

soul maintains

material nature and indivisible integrity

while being diffused

universe.

over the body, so

off

is

God

in

the
is

Cut a limb
;

from a living body, and the soul

not lessened
is

annihilate a half of the universe, and the deity

not impaired.

This explanation, however, can scarcely

It

be designated a solution.

seeks to explain one difficulty

by another

difficulty,

the difficulty of extended divinity by

that of extended consciousness.

Once you separate

in

spirit

from extension, you

gible than

will find

mind

space no more

intelli-

God

in space.

Saadya, however, does not stand

alone

in

the inability to cope with this tremendous problem.

The human mind thinks in terms of the material data of human experience, it has no other data. Hence we are
all

labouring under a difficulty when we attempt not merely

to say spirit but also to conceive spirit, whether

mind or

God.

It

is

just as

if

the
If,

man born
then,

blind

would attempt to

conceive of colour.
dualistic position,

you accept the Cartesian

in

you must end

;

sheer agnosticism of

anything

spiritual

or else, leaving

you must maintain that the

per
se,

God to the theologian, human mind is not an entity

and white

hiding

itself in

some

recesses of our grey

stuffs

for

the very fact that

it

you speak of
that
it

it

as located in

a certain place spatializes

but
is

is

mere quality

of our brain-stuff, just as heat

the quality of a certain

body, meaning by quality a certain state generated by

changes

in

the relative position of the atoms.

is

Similarly
in

consciousness

certain state generated

by changes

the relative position of the neural atoms under the action

of external stimuli.
to
its

Thus

following the Cartesian dualism

logical

conclusion

we

eventually land in material

safe position if

monism.

But that seems to me the only

520

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

desire to entangle ourselves in the
spirit.

we have no
space and

dilemma of
for

But

this is evidently too

I

advanced

a mediaeval thinker, and

in

have permitted myself to digress

order to

solicit

our sympathy for Saadya and those

who

follow
still

him

in their vain

attempt to solve a

difficulty

which

perplexes the

human mind.
was made
the fortune of having his works

An
by Ibn

advance
Gabirol,

in the conception of spirituality

who had

quoted and discussed by the leading

scholasticism and his

men

of mediaeval

name

forgotten. ^^

He

lays

down
of

a positive principle that anything simple and

spiritual does

not occupy space, and does not

fall

into the relation

near and
soul also

far.^''

He

goes beyond Saadya in considering the

so that
it

an absolute S2ihstantia simplex,

is

altogether beyond the category of space.^^

This uncom-

promising position opened before

its

author the wide chasm

objective world
is
it

between mind and body.

essentially

If the

is

so

unlike the

subjective

world, what

that

transforms

my
?

impressions of external stimuli into a mental

representation

And what

is it

that exchanges

my

purely

mental act of volition into muscular activity?

Gabirol

attempts to bridge this chasm between soul and body.

finds in

He

some

sort of vital force {spiritus) a connecting link,

'*

Orient. Lit., 1846,

No. 46, and Munk's Melanges,

p.

152

ff.

^^
'

'Omne

simplex et spirituale locum non occupat.'

Fohs

Vilae, p. 153.

Substantia simplex non habet locum et

omne quod non habet locum

on
p.

essentia
: '

eius aequo distat ab omni.'

stantia spiritualis
et

Ibid., p. 156,

120, he

remarks

Subfinita

non

est terminabilis essentia quia

non

est

quanta nee

quod
';

fuerit terminabilis essentia eius essentia extenditur et est in

all

omni
it

loco
is

but

he wishes to emphasize
It

is,

that of the spirit

all

one cannot say

here and not there.

2'
'

has like relations in

spaces.

Anima

mobilis est perse non in loco,' p. 83.

For the designation of

II, p.

the soul as substantia simple.v see Horovitz's Psychologic,

108, note 65.

PROBLEM OF SPACE
a causal nexus
'
'

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS
it

52I

between the two extreme forms of being. ^^

still

The problem, however,

this causal

remains

what

is

that unites

nexus to either mind and body?

After Gabirol,

we

find

no Jewish philosopher questioning

the non-spatial nature of the soul.

The problem now was

how

to conceive of a non-spatial nature located in a certain

place.

God

is

referred

to

very often both by Biblical

as being in heaven.

writers as well as

by Talmudical sages
by Galen
the

Similarly the soul has been located

heart,

by

Aristotle in the

and

later

in

brains.

has also been ascribed to Plato that every

in himself three souls,

The opinion man harbours

habitation.

each one having

spiritual
is

its

own

But how can a purely

being be

in a certain

place?
that

When we
there walls
is

say that the wine

in the flask,

we mean

a limit where the wine ends and the flask or the

flask
-\'\p^::>

of the
D'"'n

begin.
;

Strictly speaking, then, the

" See
"inS3

in, 3

n?vr:N*n

nnn
:

--hh

^iiJ^

nha^

*LrDJni

DUD

iriN

p21

HM

S'^ Dn''J''3.

Compare
'

the Tracia/us cie^Anima

attributed

by Munk

to Gabirol,

where we read
per se
nisi

Simplex autem non potest

coniungi spisso sine medio quod habet similitudinem

cum

extremis.

Item

anima non apprehendit

sensibilia

mediante spiritu qui

est sub-

stantia sentiens consimilisutrisque extremis et est

media inter corporeitatem

sensibilium et spiritualitatem animae rationalis.'

distinct

from nefesh was very popular

in

mediaeval

The notion of nia/i as Hebrew literature. See

The Book of Defiiiiliotts,
in

Steinschneider in Hakarmet, 1871,

p. 400.

See

also

by Isaac

Israeli,

the physician,
:

published
:^^n
n\T'

by H. Hirschfeld
X'2

Stein-

schneider's Festschrift, p. 138

^jct:':

nnni

pns HO

^N'lD' 1J^^:^'^

DN1
a^c-'j

mv

N*in

nnn

'3

ms^s

tic'd

on^ra plan

^3

nrh

13

p''in?Dl.

Joseph ibn Aknin seems

:

to

have been conscious of these words

D'kiU

of Israeli

when he wrote
vh
c'sjni

miH

rTs^ vh^

H^N

L*.'D:ni

D'J':

nnn
174

timr\

rh^'y

fii:n

^b'^acn

n^irno.

See his Ethks,

p.

{Sepher Mussar, ed. Bacher, Berlin, 1910).

ncp'-c' '\)pD Ti^n )b

Comp.
"3

also Cosan', p.

96

iw'2N \x '-ynu on

nnn dx

innnn np
i^.

::'s:m

anSi

KM

n^^nsn

]vm

rh'nzn c^Nia znSi nu'pnj

522

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

'inness' of a thing implies a certain limit; but a limit

always the end of a series of points that are not limits

other words, the end of a certain magnitude.
the soul are

in

But God and

;

now

conceived to be non-magnitudinal
?

how

can

we

designate them as in a certain place

Surprisingly

enough, the very author of the dualism of consciousness

and extension, Rene Descartes, was guilty of the same

fallacy.

He

located the soul in the pineal gland.

in this idea.

We
God

already saw Saadya finding difficulty

Judah

Halevi explains
dwelling
in

it

as follows

When we

speak of

heaven,

we mean nothing
it

else than that there

the workings of the deity are most clearly and directly

manifested
agencies,
indirectly.

for

below the heavens

works through natural

and thus the divine plan can be discerned only

This explanation,
it

should be noted,

is

based

on the pre-Newtonian

distinction

between

the

natural

sublunary world and the divine superlunary world.

Jewish philosophers differed
'

Later

in
all

explaining the expression of

agree that
it

God

in

heaven

',

but they

is

not to be

taken

literally.""^

similar

explanation Judah

Halevi

offers for designating the soul as

being

in

the heart, because

all

the latter
vessels

is

the most vital organ, the centre of

blood

and

arteries,
is

and here again we do not mean exactly

heart.^"^

that the soul

possibility of

physically situated in the

The

any place-relation between soul and body

was

further reduced

ad

absitrduvi

by a younger contemIn his

little

porary of Halevi, namely, Joseph ibn Zaddik.

work
in

entitled

Microcosm
for

^'^

he argues
is

The

soul cannot be
is

the
*'
2*

body,

anything that

in

another object
p.

See Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology,

28

ct scq.

Sec Cosari,

ed. Zcfrinovvitch,

Warsaw,

1911,

'*

See Microcosm,

cd. Horovitz, pp. 33, 36.

PROBLEM OF SPACE
corporeal.

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY
if it

EFROS
it

523

Moreover,
in
;

were

in the

body

would either
extended
all

be centralized
over the body
soulless

one particular place, or

in

else

but

the
in

first

case the other parts will be

and dead, and

the other case a limb cut off

would be so much of the soul taken away, which contradicts

our conception of the integrity and
soul.

indivisibility of the

But perhaps

it

is

outside of the
:

body ?

^^

Then

we would have

three alternatives

either the soul

is

removed

from the body, or close to the body on one

enveloping the body like a
is

side, or else

veil.

Now

the

first

alternative
in

impossible, for

how would the body

The second
is
it

live

when not
is

contact with the soul.

alternative

impossible,

for then the other side not

lifeless;

touched by the soul would be

equally impossible, for
if it

and the third one

embraces an extended body

must
;

itself

be extended.

It

must have a certain magnitude

a material object.

a pin-point cannot embrace

is

But the soul

pure

spirit,

and altogether

unextended.
soul

Hence any conceivable

is

place-relation between

and body

absurd.
;

And
is

yet

we speak

of a soul

animating the body

relation

consequently there must be some inter-

between them.

How

that relation to be under-

stood

The answer

to this question

Joseph ibn Zaddik

puts in very vague and ambiguous terms.^^

He

speaks of

26 Such a view indeed has been maintained as early as Isaac Israeli of Kairvvan in the above cited passage from The Book of Definitions C'SJiT)
:

u
pn

pnnroi

]*"inD

^)ib

n^pr:^

'Jm Dvy

x^n.

nnv
, .

^):b
S113?

nnapni iixo
?ii:n

npn N^^ n^s

r\2)ip

^iw^

n^iin

N'h

sim

N/1

b'ii)n

pbn
::'SJn

ni-np?:) ^"^ib

nnvi

lo^-y ^):n

nspnjD

nipD bin
>b2^.
'iri)^

tb

DipD
p.

bs

fi^^n

ncipD pxc'

mxac' im

nrxi

Comp.

31: e'Si3

p\yi sin

bs

mcNC' pM'in nitT nynn ^y nbv n^i '^m Pun a.inu mnn cs^ai nMnn. it is
is

strange that the vegetative soul

here altogether omitted, although on

p.

37

VOL.

VI.

M m

524

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

the soul being finer than the mere extremities of the body,

and adhering
to another.

to

it

closer than one part of that

body adheres
effort

But

all this

should be taken as a strong

to describe the spiritual nature of the soul in the

terms of

matter.

And

he warns us not to conceive of the interaction

in

between mind and body as

spiritual interaction.

any way material.

It is

Undoubtedly the reader

spiritual

will

still

be

dissatisfied.

A
that

mode

of interaction will suit the spiritual agent,

but not the material recipient.

Gabirol and Halevi found
applicable here.
force itself
he speaks of
p. is

The

'

causal nexus
is

'

in the vital force

no longer
vital

According to Joseph ibn Zaddik, the

absolute spirit beyond the category of space,-^

the three souls as independent spiritual substances
strictly

all

and on

29 he maintains that,

speaking,

it is

just as

improper

to locate the

vegetative soul in the liver as the vital soul in the heart, for location would

imply

spatiality,
;

and hence corporeality.

This omission
p. 28,

is

not merely

incidental

it

agrees with another passage on

where the reasons why

the

vital soul

cannot unite with the body unless the latter has been already
is
;

penetrated by the vegetative soul,

explained as follows
the
first is fine

Body when

is

dead,

and the

vital

soul

is

the source of

life

and the

latter is thick

and

earthly.

Hence the body can

unite with the soul only

already

filled

with the vegetative soul.'

:

But the question suggests

itself quite

readily

How
And
if

does the vegetative soul unite with the dead and coarse
Ibn Zaddik meant to imply that the vegetative soul can
it is

body

come

in contact

with the body because

near the material order of existence,

all

how
this

is it to

be reconciled with the other statement that

three souls are

spiritual

and non-spatial?
is just to

The

contradiction
it,

is

patent, and
it.

all

we can do

in

connexion

point to

but not to remove

28

Ibn Zaddik does speak of a n'TIH

HH,

a vital force, but in his psychovital soul,

logical

system

it is

only one of the constituent forces of the

and

is

therefore pure spirit.

*T.:'X

Comp. on
''nn

p.

28

riNICJ

NM
na

HTin

L*'23n

p
it

7^1

nrn

Dia

Ni:r:

ntn

nnni

nTiinDrD
is

nntw'

n"'nn

nnn
does
is

D^p"Tiy3.

The term HNIt^J, however,

difficult,

suggesting as

that the n'TlH

nn

is

something independent of the HTl CSJ, which

exto

pressly repudiated immediately by

what

follows.

This

vital force

seems

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

D^O

or any other material accessories.

that needs a connecting link to

It is itself

an extreme

come
'

in

touch with body.

'

We welcome

his elimination of the

causal nexus

theory,

which does not help the

logical difificulties, but

situation at

all,

and

is

fraught with

on the other hand the doctrine of problem

still

direct spiritual interaction leaves the

open on

the side of the material recipient.

However, occasionalism
for

and parallelism, or any other doctrine invented

the
offer

purpose of justifying the dualistic standpoint, does not

a more satisfactory explanation.

The
in the

dualistic position received its dearest formulation

It

Microcosm of Joseph ibn Zaddik.

underwent no

modification or further development in the systems of the

Jewish philosophers that the Middle Ages produced after

him.

We
it is

are ready then to formulate our

is

first

thesis

Absolute
that

spirit

distinguished from
all

absolute matter in
I

altogether beyond

notions of spatiality.

say

'absolute spirit' and 'absolute matter', in order to include

the

first

mediaeval thinkers,

who though they

all

entertained

spatial

notions regarding the soul, which was viewed as

a somewhat material essence, yet removed determinations from

magnitudinal

a truly spiritual essence, e.g. God.

in

And

if

we

consider that they lived

an age which was

quite productive of queer mystic treatises on different ways

of measurement of the deity and

its

various limbs,

we

will

be

in

a position to realize the whole significance of the

doctrine not only for the history of theology, but also for
be a superfluous appendix of Ibn Gabirol, though
p.
in his

to his

psychology, perhaps under the influence

it

own system
"^^i^n

is

altogether meaningless.

Comp.

28: 2^3 "ics "ybinon

p.

mn

nsvc: a^a

nm

n^nn u'sjn, and

on

29:
is

2^3

Tl^^

ma

D^NIC^'J

iTTin

CDJn

mn^^i', where this vital

force

altogether omitted.

M m

526

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

At
first

that of pure philosophic speculation.

there was

only the antithesis of

God and
all

corporeality, with

mind
spirit

occupying the middle ground, but the domain of

gradually appropriated

our psychic powers until the

middle of the eleventh century,

when

strict

dualism became

the standard view-point in Jewish philosophy, a dualism of

mind and body, the

former spaceless.
II.

latter being

extended

in

space and the

In the preceding discussion

is

we have reached the

different
all

conclusion that spatiality

of the corporeal world.

the distinguishing characteristic

if

Indeed,

you examine the

systems
concur
sions.

in

Jewish philosophy you will find that they

in defining

matter as that which has three dimen-

But

this definition raises a

will
all

very important problem,

attention.

to

which we

now

direct our
is

Tridimen-

sionality,

we
it

agree,

the distinctive feature of matter,

?

but does

constitute the very essence of matter

:

Evi-

dently not

we can conceive

of tridimensionality devoid

of any material object.

You may apply

air

the air

pump

to

your jar and thus remove the

almost completely, but

still

you cannot remove the spatiality which

jar in spite of

remains

in the

your

efforts.

Obviously the space does not

if

constitute corporeality.
is

And
is it

we cannot say

that a

body

space, but that a

is

body has

space, the question remains

what

body?

What
?

that hides itself behind a veil of

tridimensionality

Before
ever, let

we

start

our discussion of the Jewish view, how-

us attempt to

examine the problem somewhat

Pragmatically,
it

more
is

closely,

and get

at the real issue.

is

to be noted, the whole question

meaningless.

Reality

consists of groups of sense-impressions

which we
relation

call things,

and with which wc arc constantly

in

and

inter-

PROBLEM OF SPACE
action
;

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS
as
little

527
to

as for things- in-themselves,

we have

do
is

with them as with the Man-in-the-moon.

tasty

When

the food
is

we

are satisfied, but whether the food p^r se

tasty

we never seem to worry. Or, to take a nobler illustration, we rejoice on a bright summer day over a vast green lawn, but we are little concerned with the possibility
or not,
of there being something that
is

neither vast nor green nor

well
is

lawn.

The pragmatist then may very

also

shrug his

shoulders at the quibbling whether extensity

only pheno-

menal or

noumenal.

Yet from the standpoint of the

is

historical investigator,

the development of

who human

anxious to trace the links

in

speculation, even this quibbling

becomes highly

interesting.

The problem
our minds

is

as follows

Every object presents

ways.

itself to

in a variety

of

The apple

is

perceived in

the form of greenness

of colour, roundness of shape, smoothness of touch, and

sweetness of taste.
like colour

Now some

of these forms of perception,

and touch and

in itself

taste, are

undoubtedly subjective.

The

apple

unperceived by the

human mind

is

devoid

of these secondary qualities.

We

all

admire the beauty of

is

the rainbow, but in fact this beautiful array of colours

a creation of our visual apparatus

before us
is

what we

really

have

a mere variety of absolutely colourless vibra-

tions of ether.
Is
it

And now
of

the question
is it

is

What

of space

also a sense-illusion, or

real

In

the

history

general

philosophy we find that

Aristotle
matter.'-^

understood his master to identify space with

Whether
Sio

it

was a true understanding of Plato

ttji/

See Phys., IV, 2

kol YlXaTwv

v\r]v ical rfjv \6jpav

TavTv

iprjuiv

eivai (V

Tw
a.

Tifxaicv

"O^ais tuv runuv Kai t^v xwpav ro aiiTu

aTTffprji'aTc.

See

Tim. 52

Comp. Baeuml<er, Das Problem

ff.

der Materie in dcr griechischen

Philosophie, pp. 177

528

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

I

or a misunderstanding,
introduction.
Aristotle,

have attempted to decide

after all

in

the

But mediaeval thinkers

followed

and were consequently influenced by

this ascribed

Platonic notion.

similar theory was maintained by

who in and matter, made

Descartes,
for a void
is

his zeal to

widen the gulf between mind

extension the essential nature of things,

led to

and was consequently

which

deny the existence of a void,

abstracted spatiality, immaterial extension,

is

from the Cartesian standpoint an absurd contra-

diction,

Wc may

mentally

abstract,

he

argued,

all

characteristics
itself

by means of which the external world makes

to our senses, but

known

we cannot

abstract

the

element of spatiality without destroying our cognition.

We may

conceive of a colourless, tasteless, and odourless

object, but

we cannot conceive

it

non-extended.

Hence
of

extension must be the essences of an object, the primary

quality, unbegotten

by the mind and independent

is

all

perception.

The avalanche
where there Space
is
is

none the

less

big in far off

arctic regions
its

is

no human eye to perceive

'bigness'.

that attribute of things without

which

their existence

utterly impossible.*"^

The same argument

that led Descartes to maintain the

absolute and unconditioned reality of space, induced

to uphold the ideality of space.
If
I

Kant

cannot abstract the

cognition
it

space element without destroying

follow that space
is

my

does not

an external

reality, for that will not

account

for the

impossibility of a mental abstraction of

it

spatiality,

but

does

follow

that

space

is

the mental
for
all

condition
ception.

and the indispensable framework

Just as

per-

when we look through blue

spectacles,

^'>

See Descartes,

Piincipes,

I,

63-4

II,

11.

PROBLEM OF SPACE we

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

529
trees,

see a world of blue, blue suns

and mountains and

so the mind,

when

it

turns

its

gaze on the external world,

puts on spectacles of spatiality and thus beholds a strange

extended

universe.

Consequently things-in-themselves^

independently of our senses, are beyond the category of

space
:

it

is

the mind only that envelops them in a garb

it

of extension ere

admits them into

its

own domain.

Thus we have
in the

three solutions to the problem of space

certain state of progress
First,

and matter, each solution marking a

development of human thought.

we have the
is

pseudo-Platonic theory which maintains that space

undifferentiated material substrate of
all

the

things, the

raw

material

which the architect

moulded

into

the infinite

variety of things, the

impressed his

wax upon which the great Demiurgus Secondly, we have the Cartesian signet.
which space
all
is

solution, according to

not matter, and the

the

very ground-work of

things,

but

primary dis-

tinguishing attribute of corporeality, meaning

by 'primary*
an external

the

only quality which

really

adheres

to

object independently of

human

perception, and

by

'

dis-

tinguishing

'

the only quality without which the existence

is

of corporeality

unimaginable.

Finally,
is

we have the
neither matter

Kantian

solution, according to

which space

nor an unconditional attribute of matter, but a subjective

form of

intuition, a

framework of

sensibility.

Now
problem

what solution did the Jewish thinkers

?

offer to
all

our

It

should be noted that virtually

of them

define matter as that which has three dimensions, some

even

make

tridimensionality itself the definition of matter,

in

yet one must be cautious

careless, definition

drawing from

this,

usually

any conclusion regarding the

reality of

space.

However, some Jewish thinkers were more

explicit

53

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

point.

on that
trates

In his Euuinot ive-Deot'^^ Saadya

illus-

how one
by

can rise from reflection on the empirical

data of consciousness to the highest limit of

standing,
first

human underbody
all

abstracting from any perceived

like

the

transient

qualities

colour,

heat, etc., then

also

abstracting the notions of extensity, and proceeding with

this

method of abstraction

until

the mind steps on the

threshold of pure substantiality

Kant
all

would have said

cognition.
It

the
is

noumenon

which

is

beyond

human

evident then that Saadya considers spatiality as some-

thing external to the essence of substantiality, as something

that can be abstracted without destroying the concept, as

something purely accidental.

Aristotelian, in

This view of space

spatiality
;

is

strictly

which system

is
is

one of the accialso shared

dental categories of substance

and

it

by
of

the Arabian school of thinkers going under the

name

Brothers of Purity .^^

In Jewish circles
it

it

was by no means

the predominant one, yet

found

its

adherents in Saadya,
Aristotelian

as

already

noted,
in

in

the

staunch

Moses

Maimuni, and

number

of other thinkers.

Maimonides

especially maintained

that spatiality does not constitute

substantiality, that a substance consists primarily of matter

and form, both

which
is

of

them indescribable

in

terms of extension
Similarly,

only accidentally attached to them.^^

ibn

Samuel

Tibbon holds that magnitude

is

is

an accident
Indirectly,

only, that substance

^'

conceivable without

it.'^'*

See Emunot,
Dietcrici,

p. 84.

^*

A'aiuranscUaimng,
ist

p.

29

'

Dcr Raiim

ist

eine von den

Eigenschaften der KOrper, cr

ein Accidens, das nur

am KOiper

besteht

und nur an ihm

^'
'*

sich findet.'
76.

Guide,

I,

Scheycr
1

in

Das psycliologischcSystettt

cies Afainioii ides

Frankfjirt a. Main,
in this regard,

1845, p.

10) thinks that Ibn

Tibbon opposes Maimonides

and

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

53I

from a pupil of the famous astronomer of the University

of Padua, Eh'jah del Medigo, the same
of Pisa,^'
vievv."'^

we
the

learn that the latter held

b.

AbrabaneP*^ and R. Jehiel

of

Samuel
also
it

both authors

sixteenth

century,

subscribe to that theory of space, according to which

does not play an essential role

matter.

in

our conception of pure

is

Thus, one view of the reality of space

the

Aristotelian one.
corporeality,

Extension does not enter our notion of one assumed the

is

though no

existence

of

unextended matter.
is

Snow
is

always white, yet whiteness

by no means the essence

of

snow

so matter

is

always
It is

extended, yet extensity

not the essence of matter.

an inseparable accident.

Over against

this

view we have one that

It

is

more akin
voiced very

to the pseudo-Platonic conception.

was

first

emphatically by an older contemporary of Saadya, Isaac

he
cites as

proof the fact that the former defined matter as that which has

three dimensions
(k"E)
\r\

DHI D^pHI

Hcbc

1^

^'^
this

nm

^3

Nlil

a:rjn

m:*!

nn)

."13:1

3nn imX.

But

definition,

far

from bearing

witness to a substanlialistic theory of space, might suggest the opposite, for

it

includes in the make-up of matter something that has tridimensionality

it.

and hence beyond by Ibn Tibbon

in

This latter view

is

indeed explicitly maintained

the tenth chapter cf the same work,

where we read

pi

i-i3:ni

annm

--iiNn ^3 j^c'ijn

ovy^

n-ip?o

sin nic^n "3 pdd pni

Dvyn
DXy^

nnr^N' d^^^d* pNi

'"IpD

lann ovy djvx nvc^t^'ni nncni r.nnNn

nnN "im

N\n

DN N'nn.

But

this

passage was altogether

folio a

.overlooked by Scheyer, and also by Schmiedel,

who

ed him blindly.
It is is

(See h\s Studien

iiber Religionsplii!osophie,'W\en, 1869, p. 277, n. 2.)

it

also

noteworthy that

is

b^'

no means certain that Samuel Ibn Tibbon

the

author of the pamphlet entitled Ritah Hen.

But the other theories are

tiiat
is

no

less probable.

At any

rate

it is

the work, not the authorship,

important in this connexion.

35 ^^

See

\r\zn

hs-j' m^NL",

p. 10.

Ibid., p. 20.

" See Minhai

Kenaoi, ed. Kaufmann (Berlin, 1898),

p. 37.

532

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

statement that
'

Israeli, in his

tridimensionality
Israeli

is

matter,

and matter tridimensionality'.^^

this doctrine, a truism,

seems to have held

an axiom of thought which requires

less

no proof.

Later thinkers were somewhat

confident
at

in this regard.
least
all

Yet the conclusions of some of them

different.

were not substantially

Gabirol considers

existence, both material

and

spiritual, essentially one.

are,
is

The
him,

divine intellect and the

mute rock
;

according to

made up

of the

same matter

it

only the form,

the differentiating principle in the universe, that

made one

mute and the other mental. The genesis of the Universe was then as follows Originally there was the hyle. Then
:

the hyle was divided in two, one part of which assumed

the form of spirituality, and the other corporeality. each great division further divided
divided
itself,

Then

itself,

and again sub-

giving

rise to

the infinite variety of things,

each step

in this great

evolution being a form to that which

is

preceded and matter to that which

take a flower,
this

to follow.

If

we

we may

trace back the different stages that

its

flower stuff underwent on

march from the

stages. ^^

hyle.

Let us consider the few more conspicuous

first
it

Our
call
se.

impression of the flower

is

the red colour, and

we

the quality-form.
is it

But redness has no existence per

What
is

that

is

red?

You

will say, of course, the flower

is

red.

But the flower nature

particles,

present in each one of

is

its

minute

yet each minute particle

is

not red, just as

gilt

each thin leaf of a gilt-edged book

'*
*'

not perceptibly
p. 47.

See Scjer Yesodot,

Cf.

ed. Fried,

Drohobycz, 1900,

Fous

Vitac, p.

204

Et quo magis redierit et exierit a substantia ad figuram et a figura ad

Notice
is

ad quantUateni
fiet ei

et a quantitate

colorcnt, manifestius

esse propter crassitudinem siiam.'

tiie

four stages in the genesis

first

of

all
;

things: (i) substance, by which

(3)

meant the

matter

;'(2)

quan-

tity

shape

(4) colour.

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY
is

EFROS

533

consequently a flower

red only

by means

of extensity,
is

which stands
to form.

in

the same relation to colour as matter

further

Now analyse
is
it

and inquire what

it.

is

extensity,

and what

that sustains

Gabirol's relativism pre-

vents him from halting at extensity, though he identifies

it is

with corporeality

and hence he maintains that extensity

the form which combines with the original undefined

hylic matter.

And
the

even before subjecting

itself to

the

categories of accident, the substance that the Greeks called

[lera^v,^^
i.

e.

first

compound
in the

of matter and form

was

already extended.
is

Thus

Gabirol's view

on our problem

clear,

though expressed

very vague and disputed

is

terms of matter and form.

Extensity

not a

phenomenon
"^^

of corporeality like colour, sound, smell, but that of which

they are phenomena, that

*"

is

to say, corporeality

itself.

Whether

Aristotle

assumed a uieiaxu was one of the

issues in

the

Neumark-Husik controversy, for which see Arcliiv fiir Gescliichie der PhiloIt is curious, however, that sopliie, XXIII, 4, 1910, and XXIV, 3, 1911.
Isaac Abrabanel seems to have foreseen this controversy, and decided the case
in favour of

Husik, see jn3n biNtJ' DvNtJ',

p. 20.

Yet one

is

no heretic

if

he doubts Abrabanel's authority

*i

for Aristotle.
iiialeria coiporalis,
i.

Foils Vitae, p. 229

'

Sed vides quod

et

e. qttautitas

quae sustinet formam coloris

sustinet sicut qualitas,
i.e.

figurae

non

est

forma corpori quod earn

illi.'

color et figura est forma

Ibii Galiiol, p.

Cf. also

Guttmann's
:

Die Philosopltie des Solomon

'

180.

On

p. 293,

Gabirol remarks

Oportet

ut

scias

quod qualitas

etsi

adiacet quantitas, hoc non

est nisi

quantum ad sensum sed

certe quantitas et qualitas simul sunt, ideo

quod

color et figura comitantur corpus universaliter.'

Gabirol does not mean to

imply that the essential nature of extension

that though colour
is

is

a mere sense-illusion
still

but

accident and quantity substance,

both are equally

corpus

necessary for the perfection of matter.

is

The expression comitantur

somewhat misleading, but

of Palquera

its

meaning becomes evident on comparing the

S-in

Hebrew Text

which reads V'MT? nV:^3"^

jTi^D^
all

nnCNM hv
''{\ir\

h'2^
""d.

(24, Q^in Tipo)

ncjn

(i.e. to perfect)

D''n''^-lnr^

jT'janni

Schmiedel
passage
in

{I.e.)

here, again, overlooked

II,

these passages and cites only the

Mekor Hayyini,

(i.e.

a body) NinL" "l'.2Sn

imX

"inJO'C'DI

534
Gabirol,
it

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

true,

posits

in

every corporeal object an

in this respect

unextended hylic element, and

he dissents
itself

from the pseudo-Platonic view which considers space

the hylic element
;

but the hyle as used by Plato denotes

if

a greater reality
greater
or

the smaller than

latter

can at
Jiyle

all

be said to be

the

of Aristotle

and the

mediaeval thinkers, so that the two views are at bottom

one.

For our discussion we may eliminate altogether the

Jiylc

mysterious

which tends to confuse the whole argu:

ment, and thus formulate Gabirol's position as follows

Extendedness
all

is

the essence of a thing or the thinghood

other notions

we have

of an object are unimportant

b.

accident.

The mathematician, Abraham

first

Hiyya, adopted

a similar view, and defined matter as tridimensionality plus

something, the

term being the form of corporeality,

hyle^'^

and the second the indeterminate

The same

attitude

was taken by the author of the

Tridimensionality, he

Microcosm, Joseph Ibn Zaddik.'*"

pDym 3mni

"JlXn, and

tries to find the

cause of the disagreement between

in their different attitudes

Gabirol and Maimonides as to the reaUty of space

on a certain point

in the

problem of matter and form, but he misses the real

also Scheyer's Psychologisches Systctn des Mainto-

problem
nidcs, p.

at issue.

Comp.

no.

"
*^

See

nnabn main,

p. 2.

His meaning

is at first

glance not very clear and consistent.

:

On

p. 7

of

the Microcosm Joseph

Ibn Zaddik says

ir-j'n

Ci? IC'X
Dvy
n-j-y^i

|VJ'S"in

"l?-inn

Nine N^N

mown
inNn

n-ipDO

xh

"idcj

mou':n mii*

nnx
Din31

^at' Nin

; ^naio v^nio

ncin ^ac' nwini dipd n^dd

Thus he thinks

mp21 nn*331 ni^pa ITan si^m ICipO ^b^^2.

is

that 'filling space'

an accident.

Now

turn

to p. 9:
F|i;n

miVn
n*j'yj

VJ'ii'ai

pciyni
li^Nn

nmm
anann

iTiNn nio'n b2?'c "sb

nc^c^n
'^i3:n

33-i'.?2

i^^:n

n^r:c':n
n^iSC'

pmij'ai

nir:::':n

mi:; nn QjpD

D':::'ir:n

D'^r^'j'jn

onprrn ns*r

bp

Dipo vhi2^ invnai

is

x^d

t;'3"in3.

Here he holds

that tridimensionality

the form of matter, while


PROBLEM OF SPACE
asserts, is the

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS
;

535

form and essence of corporeality, which the

in

hyle

assumes

the process of actuahzation

is

yet impeneaccident
is

trabiUty he maintains

a mere accident.
in the

An

an unessential element

conception of a thing, and

Ave can very well conceive of a substance as pure extensity

without thinking of that property by virtue of which

resists

it

any body attempting to take

bodies
are

its

place.
;

In fact,

geometrical
angles

not

impenetrable
space.

a thousand
this

may occupy
It is

the

same

And

author

evidently applies the conception of ideal matter to real

matter.
the geometrician
all

who

deals with the ultimate

essence of things,

other scientists with mere accidents.

slightly divergent view

in his

was maintained by Abraham

Ibn Daud

work

entitled TJie

Exalted Faith.
is

This

author points out that tridimensionality

of matter, but an accident.
accidental categories.
It
is

not the essence

Quantity

is

one of the nine

it

accidental because

is

not

permanent and immutable.

let

From

the

same piece of wax

can mould any

us say ten cubic cm. in volume

you

number
'

of objects with an infinite variety of dimensions.

'

filling

space

is

accident.

Similarly,

on

p. 13,

where he remarks

TID^H

^3

mcc':n mi^' v^abn DipD p^no ovy Nin i^nh Q'y:}Dn

yyiin""

yn-is*^

xnjn

D^po x^n^cai p?^yni

nnim

iiiNn xinc'.
'

When we
'

examine,

however, the meaning of the expression

filling

space

in the first quotation,

we
This

are led to suspect that

is

it

corresponds to the idea of impenetrability.

It is

corroborated by a study of this term as used by other authors.

similar to the expression

DIpD
.W)

lilts'*

'

occupying space
to

'

both correspondvy^ D*pmn::'

.

ing to

the Arabic ^jlx* J

sometimes used

convey the sense of

impenetrability.

Comp.

Crescas, Liglit of God, ^. 14: ~10"in

"ic'n

DC'n
the

DL";

DJDH yjDJ xin nvn nra

itself,

Dipn nnr:''

Compare
*3

also

Microcosm

p.

15

^31

"impD
n*^
is

N^CD

NinC* fjUH pjy

idipd::'
jcr.

yi

Dipo iniN^
author's

y^jni?

ins ^^h pn^

is

ijdd

n^o

The
;

view then
is

clear.

Extensity

the ultimate nature of matter

impenetrability

mere

accident.

536

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

say that though each one of these moulded

You may

objects has different dimensions, yet they all have the

same

amount of voluminousness,
this piece of

i.e.

ten cubic cm.

But melt

wax and you get a different quantity altogether. Hence, when the geometrician comes to represent the ultimate essence of this piece of wax and draws a figure
ten cubic cm. in volume, he
is

wrong, because the quantity

implies

changes, while

our

notion

of substantiality

an
is

immutable and indestructible nature.

not to be found
in

But

if

the latter
it is

the specific

amount of

extensity,

to

be found
is

in the abstract

notion of extensity.^*

When

a gas

condensed into a

liquid,

and that

in turn into a solid,

all

the quantity of extensity varies of course, yet they are

extended
is

in

the

same degree.

And

the essence of matter

liquid

extensity.

But does not the compressed

have

less

of extensity than the free gas?

Yes, but extensity as the

ultimate nature of things

is

not to be viewed quantitatively,

but qualitatively.
just

It is

the quality of matter to be extended

as

it

is

the quality of

man

to live.

And

from this

standpoint a blade of grass and a vast landscape exhibit

the same degree of the quality of spatiality.
indivisible spatiality
It
is

this

which forms the essence of matter,

less confuses
i.e.

and any question of more and

the argument

by introducing a

foreign element,

quantitative spatiality.

This view of Abraham Ibn

Daud was adopted by

the

famous disciple of Maimonides, Joseph Ibn Aknin.^^

*^

And

See Emuiia/t Ramah,

I,

i, 2.

*^ .See

Morilz Levvin, Drei AbliattdluMgcu, pp. 12, 13:

n^vD

DC'jnC'

Nin nn nni: ^'n proy

C'2j

'ij^i'c'ni

nnn

nnsni i-nx Nip^ D^m^rn nnxi

nrsi nins

miv

n2^n3

^nb

njvj's-i 'hvr\2. Ni'?^:n mo'j'in p:i;.

:

(And here one codex has

the following insertion

DTlvC

ilC/C^TI

?"!

PROBLEM OF SPACE
it is

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY EFROS

Isaac Abrabanel
^"^

537

strange that

Don

ascribes this view

Interesting
this pro-

to Ibn Aknin, and gives no credit to Ibn

Daud.

are the

two objections that Abrabanel quotes to

found view

objections that
One

do not evince a
is

full

grasp of

Ibn Baud's theory.

roes,

objection
:

attributed to Aver-

and
;

may

be stated as follows

Extensity means conis

tinuity

and when a continuous object

;

broken up
is

it

loses its former continuity

sient,

hence extensity

itself tran-

and presupposes another immutable essence which

substance.

we might term
loses

But

this

objection evidently

sight

of the
:

distinction

between quantitative and

is

qualitative space

when a body
its

broken up,

its

quantitative

extensity

is

lessened, but

qualitative extensity remains

unchanged.
follows Ibn

Strangely enough, even

Ibn

Aknin, who

Daud

in his

view on space and matter, appathis

rently attempts to
objection,

reconcile
it

view with Averroes's

and explains

thus:*^
it is

True that extensity

;

is

the essence of matter, but inonni nsDinn

Mie'n

only the formal essence

an
n^i
ic'j^d
njoin

for

i^np''

^3

^yiDn
fii^nnn

dcjh nv^vy nrs*

ab jT'nvyn mivni

12b mp''ann N\n mivn ^"n

nn rov

t.^'n n"ip"'mn ^as*

m^cn m>s
"-^

n'^-an njn

nnxn

-iDin3

See p^n
int<

^INK' ni^NC', p. i8

Ml^U DHO UUH n3 HiH

"'3

n\n niDZ')
""JSfoi

Dnpo on
D''m^:i'

D-'pmr^nD'i

nipmn xm
N''"'n^

mr^t^'jn

mivn
kx

nr

T^n

ux vnnN

^:^D31

'-anycn
13

^^N-lt^'^^

^ov

3s*jn

nviT

bv D'^^nn:

nc^K'

)n:v^

i^stn^

Nint:'

nc'jn

mj

nnv3.

"
nsB'"'

/6?y.

ij-'N

nipunni nipmnD nv-^D

Dj?
ink'''

cic':n-j'

"idxji

nr

-iw^nJi

sb nip-'mni rhipn

nc'N Nin

bponi niTsn

i53pD

i52pn nj.n lij^po

nr

^nb

sini i:d -ny^

i)'\''zn

iM'zn bin niTsn

v^yi

nbp

oy

nnN

nr

xaa mp^anm
Averroes
is

2)\:"

npmn

^n^n

im.

It is strange that

not mentioned.

538
since
it is

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

itself

a variable, there must be an external hylic

it.

essence

behind

But there are two

extensity changes,
it

fallacies

in

this

argument.

First,

if

cannot be form

which

is

coeternal with the Jiyle\ secondly, extensity qualiis

tatively considered
at
all.

unchanging, and there

objection,

is

no

difficulty

The second

anonymously quoted,

also

misses the real point.

How

can we conceive of extensity

?

without the notion of dimensions

able, just as life
is

Of course

it is

conceiv-

conceivable as a quality without the

its

notion of the quantity of

is

duration.
is

Space as a quality

simple and indivisible, and this

;

the ultimate nature of

divisible.
It

matter

space as a quantity

is

composed and
and
is

can be augmented and

matter.
It is to

lessened,

a pure accident of

be regretted that this novel and profound view

of space did not find more adherents in Jewish philosophy.

Perhaps

it

was too advanced

for the period.

It

was one of

those sparks of truth flashing before their time, soon for-

gotten

in

the surrounding darkness.

After Aknin, the view

of Gabirol,

Abraham
b.

bar Hiyya and Joseph Ibn Zaddik

was resumed

in its original

vague form.

Moses
Bibago,'"
is

Narboni,"*^

Shem Tob
Nicomcdia,
^-^

Shem

Tob,^'

Abraham

Aaron of

the Karaite,'^^ all

9b

teach that space

the ultimate
-u:n

/6/-rf.,

p.

-i:rs

nvDC'in

nmvn nvT
it

"-3

'imjn ODnn
lie

mD23

N^l

nnn

'n^a

NTI nCN.

is

not clear what

{ibid.,
is

meant by

'indeterminate space' as form of matter, Abrabanel

objects that form
is

19a) rightly

actual,

and everything
in

real

and actual

spatially deter-

minate.

Perhaps Narboni also had

mind the pure and

i^o

qualitative

extensity of Ibn Daud.

^^

Ibid., p. 10 b.

Ibid.
p.

See

his

work
'^a

called

Es Hayyiiii, ed. Dclitzsch, Leipzig, 184 1,

>-2

43

\>nv "^2^

2nn

tiin nih ipn

ipnt:.!

'on nsan^d'

no

nyi^i

PROBLEM OF SPACE
form, the essence

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS
of

539

of corporeality.

As no one

them

added anything

original to the conception, they

may be

dismissed without comment.

The problem

of space and

the ultimate nature of matter did not cease to perplex the

minds of thinkers, and as

find a certain

late as the sixteenth century

we

Rabbi

Saul, a pupil of Elijah

Delmedigo,

still

groping his way, unable to grasp be the material essence of

all

how pure
tangle.

extensity can

things, turns to

Don
:

Isaac

Abrabanel to lead him out of the

Abrabanel

analyses the various views and finally decides

Space
in

is

only an accident of things, an unessential element

conception of matter.

the

ThuSj to sum up, there are two

rival

views in Jewish

philosophy as to the problem of the relation that space

bears to matter, the Aristotelian and the pseudo-Platonic.

Some uphold

the

first

theory and maintain that space

is

not an essential nature, that

we might conceive an unexwhole world of matter,

this view. in
is

tended book or
a pin point.

table, indeed the

Others are shocked by

at
all, it

If there

any matter

must be

spatial.

This

is

how

the mind

conceives of matter as distinguished from

is

spirit.

The one

a res extensa, the other a res cogitans.

Thus while some

far as

of the adherents of the latter view, like Isaac Israeli of

Kairwan and Aaron

i?x;

of

Nicomedia the Karaite, go as

fii:ni

a'^si

pcyi

nmi

inix Nin

pny
i?ai

'^3

irr^

thnh sin
vnM

nucm
i^n

Dnvn
^113

pa n^ron
pDVi

nnvn pn
nns*

D''o:;yn

spij

nbn noaoin n^pmn

Dt^

ann
PDN.

dhb'

D^m
who

'jn

i^n nn^

D''on Tii'n

ri03Dn2 D?13?

Compare an

earlier Karaite of the middle of the

in his

twelfth century, Judah Hadassi,

Eshkol Hakofer, ch. 65, defines

:

matter as that which

'\y\^\>2
5|13

has length, width, depth, and thickness

B'^K^

"13T 73

N-ip""

Nin Uiyi poyi

another

nm

nnS h,
perhaps,

implying that tridimenhardness,

in

sionality needs

yet

element,

order to

constitute matter.

Aaron evidently

disagrees.

VOL. VL

540

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

its

imagining the world, stripped of

accidents, which are

superfluous both logically and ontologically

its

the world

in

essential

and permanent nature, a network of

fine lines

like telegraph wires without the poles, the meshes corre-

sponding to concrete objects;

others do not take such

a thoroughgoing geometrical view of reality, and assume

the existence of

some

hylic nature filling the great

vacuum,

together constituting matter.

This substantialistic view of

is

space

is

further modified

by Ibn Daud, who

all

followed

by

Ibn Aknin.
quantity, for

Space
then
it is

is

the essence of

things, not as

a variable compound, and cannot be

therefore ultimate reality, but the simple

and

indivisible

quality to be extended, which

in

is

present in the same degree

the tiniest grain of sand and in the unmeasurable ocean.

III.

In the preceding discussion the reader was unfact that while the

doubtedly impressed by the

pseudo-

Platonic and the Aristotelian or Cartesian views found their

representatives in Jewish philosophy, one seeks in vain for

any traces of the Kantian doctrine on the subjectivity of

space.

This

may

be a source of disappointment or

gratifi-

cation, but

it is

not strange.

The mediaeval

thinkers were

not yet so

critical

and

distrustful with regard to their senses.

Their theory of knowledge was absolute empiricism.

should

Why
see

we doubt

the existence of a thing which

we may

and

feel in

various ways?

Hence even those who upheld

the view of the accidental nature of space, nevertheless

agreed that
experience

it

is

a characteristic indispensable
material object.
It

at least in

of every

was with them

all

an axiom of unquestionable certainty that

things are extended.

existent

But

this leads

us to another problem which played

in the history of

a very prominent role

thought.

Suppose

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY
it

EFROS
infinitum.

54I

we

take a material object and divide

and subdivide

it,

and carry on

this process of subdivision

ad

Of

course the extensity of the thing will shrink and shrivel,

but

in this process of subdivision are

we

ever going to reach

a piece of matter so infinitely small as to be altogether

unextended

Our

first

thought answers
this

Yes, every process

must have an end.

But

would contradict our previous

magnitude, unless of

conclusion that matter must have course

we assume

that in this infinite process of division

matter together with

probable

space

is

annihilated
it

a
the

very imlaw
of

assumption, because

questions

indestructibility of matter,

which no mediaeval thinker

infinite divisibility
itself for

would

dare.

Briefly, the

problem of

of

space, and hence also of matter, presents

attention.

our

The
it

doctrine of infinite divisibility

is

as

ancient as

Aristotle,

and together with

all

other views of this matter,

in the

held sway over

human minds

Middle Ages.

But

the Mutakallimun, the Arabian theologians whose influence

on mediaeval thought was not

a different view on
this

insignificant

either,

held

matter.

They were

atomists.

Apparently

it

is

strange that a system which was founded

scientists

by Democritus, and developed by modern

no other motive than the removal of an
behind the
theologians
veil

with

intelligence,

working
also

of phenomena, was advocated

by

who sought

to bring the theological element

of nature to the foreground.

scholastics were not inconsistent

But

really those

Arabian

in this regard.

The Greek

and the modern atomists considered the atoms ultimate

realities

unbegotten and indestructible, whereas according

to the Mutakallimun atoms perish, and

at every

new atoms

are born

moment.

Along with the atomism

of space there

N n

542
is

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

There
is

an atomism of time.

a continuous creation as the whole universe.

life

well as a continuous destruction in

An
in

angel of death and an angel of

walk arm

in

arm

the infinite voids of space and time.

There

is

nothing

lasting

two moments is the

favourite

maxim
in

of those

thinkers.

What

then

is

it

that abides

the midst of

the universal and eternal change and decay?

Nothing

else

than the Deity

answer
is

the Mutakallimun triumphantly.

in the theo-

Thus atomism
logical
I

accorded a prominent place

system of the Arabs.

field

mentioned the atomic theory as disputing the

divisibility.

with the Aristotelian notion of infinite

reader

The

may
'

not at

first realize

the dispute between the two

is

theories.
logically,

An
is

explanatory word
'

necessary.

Etymo'

atom

means

indivisible.

But the term

seeks to

indi-

visible

'

ambiguous.

The chemist

know

the

elements that enter in the composition of a certain piece of

matter and the proportion of their reaction, and when he

gets at the unit of reaction, at that tiny being which
is

just

big enough to unite with others and form

universe, he
is

this visible

satisfied.

He

has the atom; and indeed,

chemically,
ever,

it

is

no further reducible.
not only in
its

who

is

interested
also in
is

The physicist, howits mode of reaction

nature, finds
it

upon others but

that 'indivisible'
it

own independent

a misnomer.

Minute as

may

be,
it is

has magnitude and part out of part, consequently

a composite.
indivisibility

Thus we

see that the chemical notion of

does not conform to the physical notion.

Now

the Mutakallimun considered the atom indivisible in

this last physical sense, while the scientists

Greek and the modern

use the chemical notion of indivisibility.

The

Moslem

theologians

think that matter

is

composed of

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS
We
if

543

ultimate particles indivisible and altogether spaceless

themselves, forming space

by
see

by

their combination.

now wherein Arabian atomism opposes

doctrine of infinite divisibility.
will carry
It

the Aristotelian

maintains that

you
will

on your process of division long enough, you

filling

eventually reach an atom indivisible, and

all,

no space at

a mathematical point.

Did Jewish philosophy endorse the atomistic doctrine

of the

the

Kalam ? Our answer is in the negative. Altogether Kalam was not a prevalent doctrine among the Jewish
though
it

thinkers,

found adherents

in Karaitic circles ;^2

but Arabian atomism, as distinguished from the Greek

and modern type, was wholly

rejected.

Ibn Ezra^^ and

;

Judah Hadassi the Karaite ^* accept the atomic theory

yet the latter thinker does not

commit himself on the

In

question whether the atom has magnitude, and the former

states explicitly that

the

atom takes up

space.

fact,

Jewish philosophy

is

unanimous

in opposition to this

type

of atomism, and in favour of the Aristotelian doctrine of

infinite divisibility.

Let us examine some of

its

arguments.

Already Isaac

Israeli of Kairwan,^^ elder

contemporary

of Saadya, devotes considerable space to the atomistic

doctrine
of finite divisibility.

He

refers

to Democritus
Israeli,

whom

he misunderstands.
is

Democritus, according to

maintained that matter

5^

composed of spaceless atoms,

inclined towards the

The

Karaitic thinkers

were generally

Kalam.
5.

name of Mutakallimun. The Rabbanites, however, were usually Aristotelians.

Indeed, they even assumed the

See Cosari, VI,

Comp.

Guide, ed.

Munk,
^'

I,

339, note

i.

See Kerem Hetned, IV,

2.

On

the authenticity of these fragments

see Schreiner, Der

^* ^^

Kalam

in der jiidisclten Literainr, p. 35.

p. 65.

See Eshkol Hakofer,

See his Book of Elements,

ed. Fried ^^Drohobycz, 1900), p. 43.

544
or points.
in

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

But the union of two points can be conceived
:

two ways

either the totality of the one unites with the

totality of the other, or a part of the

one comes
first

in

touch

with that of the other.

Now

the

case

leaves no

separation or distance between the two points, and hence

the result of the synthesis would be a point, and the second
case involves the contradiction of a partial union of atoms that are

by hypothesis

spaceless and devoid of parts.

For

by
no

a spaceless object

we understand something which has

its

opposite sides
its

that point which indicates

beginning

also indicates

end.

Consequently mathematical points

object.^*^

can never produce an extended

The underlying
is

idea of the second part of the syllogism, namely, that any

object that has two sides, has part out of part, and
fore spatial, recurs in the

there"^

works of the second

Israeli

and

of

Aaron of
Saadya

Nicomedia.^*^
also

combats vigorously the

conception

of

mathematical points as the ultimate unities of extension.

An

indivisible atom, finer than

is

any

fine thing conceivable,

almost a spiritual essence,

altogether

unintelligible.^^

But he also

realizes the

tremendous

difficulty
If a

connected

with the theory of infinite divisibility.

divided
particles.

body can be
infinite

ad

injinitiiin,

it

must be composed of
endless, that
is,

Infinite

means

there

is

no end

to the particles in
is

any given

distance, great or small.

There

a difficulty already, namely, that of a given

infinite, for

finite line

being
us,

a line

is

the

sum

of

its

particles.

Let

however, overlook

this

ontological objection and ask

.'-ee

a simpler question.
^^

We
is

constantly
drawn from

before us things
i.

This ingenious argument

Yesod
Olaiit,
I,

Aristotle's Physics, VI,

"
"*

23.
5"

Es Hayyim,

p. 7.

Emioiot, p 63.


PROBLEM OF SPACE
moving, but

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY
?

EFROS

545
line

how

is

motion possible

Imagine a given

AB
A

having

infinite particles,
it is

and a point

moving from

to B.

Now

absolutely immaterial

a"^
whether
an inch,

B
and has
infinite parts.

AB
it is

represents a mile or a yard or a fraction of

infinitely divisible,

And
one

the point

must move over one part

;

after another,
it

after another

and

in

order to land at B,
track,

must have

completed an

infinite
is

and reached the end of an

It

endless series, which

impossible and absurd.

can also

be shown that
tiniest

cannot even

commence

to move, for the

bit of the line is infinitely

itself

divisible,

and

finds

before

an immeasurable abyss in order to reach the

All of which goes to prove that motion
is

very next point.

a mere
is

illusion,

or else the theory of infinite divisibility

false.''^

The
Elea.

reader will have recognized the paradox of Zeno of

The

difficulty is

truly

tremendous to-day no

less

than twenty-five centuries ago.

objection led
divisibility

Saadya

states that this

some thinkers

to reject the theory of infinite

face other difficulties
;

which means to
make up
;

others
of the
is

to

assume that the moving point hastens some part

in

way

order to

for the infinite

which
still

the

view of the Najimites

or slow,
it

and, as Schahrastani remarks, hasty

infinite
;

must go through an
is

^^

others

to

maintain that time

also infinitely divisible, each infini-

tesimal space corresponding to an infinitesimal time, and

altogether

moving over a

finite

space in a

finite

time
with

an explanation which only intertwines one

another.
^o

difficulty

Saadya 's own explanation

,

is

as follows.
I,

The
56.

Ibid

p. 59.

^'

See Schahrastani (Haarbriicker),

546
theory of
is

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

infinite divisibility

claims

by no means

that there

actually unlimited division.

The

fact is that if we

continue

to

break up a given particle long enough,

we

eventually

reach a ininiinuin scnsibilc, and there our process of division

must end.

By means
is

of magnifying glasses and exceed-

ingly fine instruments this

minimum
;

sensibile

becomes a

composite, and
is

further divisible

the limit of division

is

pushed a
there
is

little

further, but a limit there

after

all.

Thus
the

no such thing as
is

infinite divisibility as far as

actual experience

concerned.

All that

is

claimed

is,

that

mind

conceives no

limit to the possibility of dividing

:

a given body,

for this reason

that small as an object

may

appear to our senses, we

may

conceive of a microscope that

magnifies the object a hundred-fold, and

sensibile is
for

when the minimum

it

reached under this lens

we may exchange

another that has the power to magnify the object a

thousandfold, and

number

is

infinite.

Consequently we
;

can mentally divide an object ad

mentally,
in

infinitum

but only

reality

we sooner
a

or later get

an ultimate

empirically irreducible unit, a

possibility of

minima

pars.

Hence the
and cogent.
to dissect

motion which
is

is

phenomenon

of reality.''^

The explanation
Chiefly there
is

by no means

clear
fail

this difficulty.

We may

an

object experimentally into an infinite

if

number

of parts, but

our reason for maintaining the theory of

is

infinite divisiis

bihty
its

valid

and

Saadya claims

that

it

valid within

sphere

there
is

arc in that object an infinite

number of

points which, though empirically

unknown, the moving

until

body must pass over successively

endless scries
reached, which
is

the end of the

absurd.

Thus Zeno's

paradoxical ban on motion on the basis of the assumption

**

See Emunoty

p. 59,

and compare Cosari,

p. 183.

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY
scarcely removed.

EFROS

547

of infinite divisibility

is

Saadya's view

might suggest the existence of two kinds of space^

one
in-

perceptual and real, the other conceptual and ideal; the

former of a discrete nature, the latter continuous and

fitiitely divisible,

so that both our perception and our reason

;

are unerring within their distinct spheres

but

it

is

highly

improbable that Saadya would have taken such a dualistic

standpoint.
Briefly,

then,

Saadya

introduced

Zeno's
it

paradox
himself.

in

Jewish philosophy, but could not explain

left for

This was

a later thinker.
is

strong plea for infinite divisibility

Vitae.

found

in

the

second book of Gabirol's Fons

indivisibility,

Extensity and

he argues, are altogether two different kinds

is

of being, the one

matter and the other spirit; and

it

is

impossible to reduce one kind of being into an essentially

different one.

Hence

the impossibility of matter being

composed of
calls
is

indivisible

and spaceless atoms,

It is

or, as

Gabirol

them, minimae partesP

not denied that there

is

a minitna pars as far as our perception

is

concerned.^*

There

a terminus a quo to

human
all

vision.

We cannot see
But
only
;

very well a magnitude smaller than a

the visual limeji
is

hair's breadth.
It is relative

not one for

men.

a very keen eye

may

see things entirely hidden from the

at all

normal
fi3

sight.

Our perceptual limen does not

:
'

empty

Fons

Vitae, p. 57

Impossible est invenire partem quae non dividitur,

eo quod omnes longitudines corporis sunt divisibles usque in infinitum et

necesse

fuit

omnes

longitudines corporis esse divisibiles usque infinitum ideo

quod impossibile
pars
aut

est aliquid resolvi in

non genus suum

si

enim proposita pars

quantitatis resolveretur in
ilia

partem quae non dividebatur, necesse esset quod

non

esset aut esset substantia simplex.'

ff.

Comp,

Israeli's

Book of

Elements, pp. 43, 47

**
'

Non

est impossibile
in se.'

banc partem esse minimam partium quantum ad

sensum non

Ibid., p. 56.

548

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

minima
paj's.

the ontologi'cal existence of a

If

mathe-

matical points were the ultimate constituents of matter, the

whole world would be no greater than a mathematical

point.*^^

For the whole has no other

which

qualities than those

of

its

parts, the qualities of

may

be magnified quan-

titatively, as ten

burners will have a greater heat capacity

than one, but the synthesis does not create any new qualities.
If,

then, the constituent elements

do not possess the

be extended ?

quality of extension,

how can
is

their aggregate

And

if

the aggregate

not extended either, then

its

we would
its part/'^

have a case of a whole being equal to

the well-known law that the whole
is

part, contrary to

greater than

This latter contention

is

not very convincing.

A part
in a

may
yard

be taken

in the physical-spatial sense like

an inch

of extensity, or in the spiritual-spaceless sense like the will

in consciousness.

Obviously we
life

may

say that volition

is

a part of our conscious

without being forced to say that

our consciousness must be quantitatively greater than our

volition.

As soon

as

we ascend

to the

domain of

spirit

we

must leave the whole category of magnitude behind.

adhering to Gabirol's
unit

Now,

must be of a

own standpoint that an spiritual nature, we are not

its

indivisible

subjected,

with regard to the aggregate of such units, to the physical

law that the whole must be greater than

'5

part.

Gabirol's

Fons

Vitae, p.

52

'

Similiter etiam

si

posuerimus punctum esse partem

corporis et corpus est

videtur
;

compositum ex

suis partibus, hoc est punctis

sit divisibilis

quod

tibi

necesse est ut totalitas corporis non

quoniam partes

eius indivisibiles sunt.'

''''

Ibid., p.

57

'

Si duae partes coniunclac

non fuerint pars

divisibilis,

ipsae duae tunc et pars una erunt aequales erunt ergo

est inconvcniens, similiter etiam

duo aequalia uni quod

usque iu

dicendum de

tertia et quarta parte,

infinitum.

Sed

si

compositum ex omnibus

fuerit pars
:

una non

divisibilis,

hoc
erit

est, si

plures partes sint aequales uni parti

ergo corpus Hotius mundi

aequalc uni suarum partium quae est

indivisibilis.'

PROBLEM OF SPACE
first

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY
if

EFROS

549

contention, however, that

the atoms are conceived to

lack the quahty of extension, they cannot form in their

aggregate any extended matter, for the synthesis does not

give rise to any
'

new

qualities,

is

perfectly valid.

An

equally strong defence for the theory of infinite

divisibility

was made by Maimonides

in his

Guide.

He

clings to the Aristotelian theory that a

moving object must

immovable
any

be

divisible,^'^

that an indivisible object must be

and hence immaterial.

view that there
definite place,
is

He shows

the absurdity of the

fill

an atom which does not

itself

and yet somehow or other keeps an atom of

space occupied.

The

reader of general history of philo-

sophy

will

here recall the

Monads of

Leibniz.

Indeed,

Munk
this

has already called attention to a striking parallel to

view of the Mutakallimun, found in Leibniz's Epistolae

des Bosses, where he remarks
etsi
'
:

ad P.

Substantia

nempe

simplex

non habeat

in se

extensionem habet tamen

positionem, quae est fundamentum extensionis.'

Also one

of the later Jewish thinkers, Joseph Albo, defines the point

"
is

See

Aristotle's Physics, VI, 7.

He

derives

tliis

idea that a movable

object must be divisible from the conception of change of

which locomotion
is

one type.

Maimonides' formulation of the whole doctrine

as follows

^^3
prop.
bility

nm
7).

n^Tt^'
I

-ib'sn

''n*

nih

yyi^n""

i6 p^nn^

vh\i^

(see

GiMc,

ii,

did not connect, however, the idea that motion implies divisilatter

with the similar idea of change, for the reason that the
in

was

very much disputed both

Arabian as well as

in

Jewish

circles.

Some
Personis

forms of change are apparently sudden and involve no

ally, I

divisibility.

think that the theory that a movable object must be divisible,

It

not

dependent on the notion of change.

ch.
I,

can be inferred from the Physics, VI,

where

it is

argued that motion implies a front and a back side of the

that has

moving body, and anything

This, indeed,
p"l^"'nn
is

two extremities

is

extended and
it
:

divisible.
pDti'

the

way

that

Aaron of Nicomedia formulates

T\t:i'''\\>

yyi3nJ2
^.
-j.

!53p>

ni3nai mnNl

"b

C\

St^ Es Hayyim,

550
as

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

beyond the category of space, but having
position.'^*

But how can a thing

a space garb
?

exist in the physical universe, not in

And how does

when

a mathematical point monoit

polize a definite space

is

itself in

no need of

it?

'Such
said
;

things',

Maimonides therefore concludes, 'are only

in

they exist only

words, not

in

thought,

much

less in

reality.' ^^

Another objection to the Mulakallimun's standcould

point

is

how

we

bisect a line

composed of an odd
that, since the

number

of atoms.''
it

One might say

is
;

atom
for

has no magnitude,

really of

no consequence

an

exact spatial division

the Arabian thinkers,

but strangely enough, according to

has a magnitudinal value in conwill

it

junction
will

hence that side which

own

this

middle atom

be more extended than the other.

is

Consequently an
This
last

exact division in this case

impossible.

argu-

ment was

also

advanced by Maimonides' imitator, Aaron

of Nicomedia, the Karaite, in his

work

called

The Tree of
a

Life?^
Finally, the

problem of
in

infinite divisibility received

new treatment

the work entitled The

Wars of God, by

the acute thinker

Levi

b.

Gerson, or Gersonides.

He

reiterates the idea that a

thousand mathematical points

point.''"

could not produce anything more than a

points out that matter has a property
{hitdabbektit),

He

called

continuity

by

virtue of which

it

may

be divided and

subdivided ad
8
I,

itifinittivi,

and the most infinitesimal parts

Isaac Israeli in his Yesod

Dogmas,

p. 124.

Compare, however,

Olam,

ch. 2, p. 3.
*

See Guide,

I,

51.

This view of the Kalam

p. 13,

is

also stated in the Karaitic

work. The Tree of Life,

">

comp. FV.,

65.

Guide,

I,

ch. 73, third premise.

" See
^2

p. 7.

AJil/jamot, Leipzig, 1866, p. 345.

PROBLEM OF SPACE
will still

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

55

be extended and again continuous,'^^ a view that

coincides with the Kantian.

But

his

most

original contriis

bution to the problem of infinite divisibility

his solution

of Zeno's puzzle, thereby changing the whole meaning of

the concept.

We

have seen how Saadya grappled with

it
;

that puzzle and scarcely overcame

we

are

now

to see
it

how

Gersonides, four hundred years

after, finally

solved

a solution well worth serious consideration on the part of

present-day thinkers.
for himself.

Perhaps we had better

let

him

talk

He

has just proved that the very notion of

its

quantity
finitude

in

any of

forms, temporal or spatial, implies

and

limitations,

and he remarks

'^

'

Perhaps some

one

will question the

is

argument just advanced, saying that

infinite,

there

one phase of quantity suggestive of the

fact that
infinitely
is

namely, the
quantity
is

number

is

infinitely

augmentable and
also clear that
for
it

divisible;
infinitely

and

it

is

quantity as such

augmentable,

is

not

impossible that quantity as such should be greater than the

universe.
possibility

True, there
of

is

something that prevents the

than
the
universe,

having matter larger

is

namely, the

fact that there

(i.e.

no space beyond the uni-

verse, as the Philosopher

is

Aristotle) has
.
. .

shown

but

it

not impossible for matter as such.

it

Our answer

is

that
is

is

evident after a

little

thought that this objection

unable to overthrow our premise which

before, namely, that quantity as such
for

we have
is

laid

down
finite,

of necessity

the nature of quantity necessitates finitude, as

already explained.
characteristic

But

the endlessness that

we find

as

of number and

extensity is not endlessness in

quantity, but endlessness in the process of division a?id aug-

mentation.
'3

That

is

to say,

much

as

you divide
** Ibid.,

it,

the

Ibid., p. 333, also p. 346,

pp. 333-4.

552

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

still

capacity will
as

be

left for

further subdivision
still

and much
of further

you augment

it,

the capacity will

be

left

augmentation.
will

Yet divide and augment as you may, you

always have quantitative finitude, for number does not

(i.e. infinite),

have such power as to change into non-number

but
it

does have the power to change into greater numbers.

it

Thus

can never turn into an

infinite,

for

it

has been

The same is true of extensity. And from this explanation it will become clear that extensity has no infinite number of parts whether
already explained that number
.
.

is finite.

potentially or actually, for

if it

had an

infinite

number of

parts potentially or actually, a great absurdity would follow,

namely, that a given

that which
is

finite

extensity would be
infinite

infinite, for

composed of an

number of parts must

be

infinite in extensity, for

any one of these potential parts

has of necessity some quantity, for extensity cannot be

divided into non-extensity
;

and

it is

evident that, however

infinite parts

minute the extensity each one of the

may
.

have, the whole will certainly be infinite in extensity.

Hence what we mean by saying

subdivided, though the
finite.'

that extensity

is

infinitely

divisible is that each part retains the possibility of being

number of

parts always remains

This whole discussion involves Gersonides' great contribution to the notion

will

of the infinite divisibility

which
of the

be discussed

in
is

a later chapter.
clear,

The keynote

argument however
is

namely, that

infinite divisibility

not a state but a process, not an accomplished fact

it is

for

ridiculous to speak of an
possibility

ended endless and

if

series,

but

the

unlimited

of

dividing

subdividing
live

extensity into smaller extensities.

And

one were to
in

thousands of years and were constantly engaged

dividing

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

553
fine

and crumbling a piece of matter, with unimaginably

instruments, he would have at the end of that time an

unthinkably great number of particles of course, but

it

would be a

finite

number

nevertheless.

Prolong the

life

of that miserable man, and the world would be enriched

by

many more particles, but the sum total will be finite The number of grains of sand on the shore of the again.
so
is

sea
It

overwhelming

but

it is

a definite and finite number.

is

absurd and contradictory to speak of an existing

infinite

number.

Infinite divisibility denotes a process, but

is

not a state.

Such

the solution of Gersonides.

It rids

us at once of the haunting ghost of Zeno which continued

to appear as soon as

we had

infinite divisibility

on our

lips.

Gersonides showed us
theory.

how

to

make
line

of

it

an

intelligible

We are now

ready to draw a

under the

first

general

inquiry of our work.

The problems

that so far occupied

our attention are connected with the conception of empirical

space,
i.

e.

with that part of space which has embodied

itself in

concrete tangible matter, and has

become

therefore

an object of experience.

We

have seen how the Jewish

thinkers never doubted the independent objective reality

of space as presented to their senses.
its

They

differed as to

ontological importance in the make-up of things, they

its

took issues as to

accidental or substantial nature, but no

one questioned

its

independent existence. Thus the Kantian

all

view of the subjectivity of space, which puts

at

extensity

the mercy of our

senses,

is

far

removed from the Jewish

seen, even

standpoint.

Some

thinkers,

we have
is

go to the

extreme
of
all

in

maintaining that space

the

sum and substance

all
is

material existence, the substantial groundwork of

things.

Perhaps

this

distinctly

empirical

standpoint

554

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

for the general
its

somewhat responsible
Arabian atomism with

Jewish opposition to

assumption of a real yet spaceless

particle as the basis of the material world.

At any

rate,

Jewish thinkers

all

upheld the indestructibility of extension

is

by means

of division, that space

infinitely divisible

theory the tremendous

difficulties of

which were altogether

that the notion of
state.

removed by Gersonides,
infinite divisibility

who showed

denotes a process rather than a

[To be contimted.)

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

By M. H. Segal, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
II

The Composition of the Book.*

32.

The Book

of Samuel

relates

the story of the

in Israel.

origin

and establishment of the monarchy

in

The

author does not aim, at least

us a history of the
period.

the

first

part, at giving

He

contents himself with

of vivid sketches of the

placing before the reader a

lives

number

and acts of the chief personalities who effected the

life

great transformation in the national

real heroes of the

of Israel.

The

book are only two

Samuel and David.

The

third great personality of the period,

in the

King

Saul, does

not occupy

mind of the

writer a position of such

prominence as the other two.

The

story of his

life

and

works
or the
chs.

is

throughout made
of the
is

subordinate to the story of one

principal
heroes.^*

other

two
16

Thus

in

8-15

Saul

treated
ff.

as
as

mere
mere

appendage appendage

to
to

Samuel,
David.
history

and

in

chs.

There are also other

is

lesser

personalities
in

whose

dealt with in

our book, but only

direct

so far as

they have a more or

principal heroes.

less

connexion with the two

Eli

Such personalities are

and

his sons,

Jonathan, Ishbosheth and Abner, Absalom and Sheba, and

* Cf. above, pp. 267
18
ff.

This statement refers only to the author of our book.

The sources

used by him

may have been

written from quite different points of view.

VOL.

VI.

555

556

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

others.

many

They

serve everywhere but as a

foil

to set

off in greater clearness the fortunes

and achievements of

Samuel and David.

two
the Story of David,

We may
I,

thus divide the book into

I,

principal parts: the Story of Samuel,

1-16. 13; and

16-II, 24.^^
is

It

must, however, be
for our

confessed that this division

adopted purely
in

own

convenience.

There

is

nothing

the book itself to sig-

nalize the conclusion of

one story and the beginning of

another.
trived
his

On

the contrary, the author has purposely conin

narrative

such a fashion that one division

naturally and

glides into the other ceptibly, without

quite

almost imper-

any break whatever between the two.

The Story of Samuel.

The
story of the
life

and work of Samuel

portions
:

is

given

by our author

in three distinct

(i)

Birth and
1-7.
i
;

childhood of the prophet

(2}

Samuel

and

Eli, chs.

The prophet
7.

in

his

manhood

Samuel
his

as

Judge,

ch.

2-17

(3)

The prophet

in

old

age

the

establishment of the Monarchy, chs. 8-16. 13.

I.

Birth and Childhood of Samuel.

I.)

^^. (ch.

The account

of the birth of Samuel and his

is

presentation to the sanctuary in Shiloh, which

ch.
I, is

given in

told

by the author

entirely in

his

own

words.
is

Ver. 3 b has been advanced as evidence that the chapter

a continuation of a longer account in which details were

given about Eli and the sanctuary of Shiloh.

But

vers. 1-2,

which read
'*
I

like

the beginning of a

new

histor}^

do not

Kings chs. 1-2 also belong

;

to the story of the

establishment of the
witrii

Monarch3'
Samuel.

but in this paper

we

are only concerned

the

Book

of

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

support this theory.

SEGAL
is

557

Moreover, the text of 3 b

uncertain.
It is,
is

The reading
more

of the

LXX

is:

'Di

'n VJ2

':m

'bv

Dt^'l.

however, questionable whether the

original.

LXX

reading

the

For,

while
of

it

may be

explained as a
formal

deliberate correction

MT,
it

designed to give a
difficult to

introduction of Eli also,

is

explain

how

MT

could have arisen out of the reading of the

Eli's presence at Shiloh

LXX.

Perhaps

was so well known

to the author's

contemporaries as to require no special mention.

it

Further,

must be noted

that,

owing to
priest
''bv
D'C'l
;

his
cf.

extreme old age, Eli

2.

no longer

officiated

as

i3
ii.

ff.

and

ver.

22.
is

Budde's reading
certainly

'n^ ;n3
;

{RicJiter

Samuel, 196)
Eli

wrong

for

the

sons,

as

well as

himself,
in

require a special introduction

^. 4, II, 17

by name.

Their names

seem from

their order in the sentence to

is

be

a gloss.
epithet

Yet Phineas
of
133,

mentioned

in 4. 19

without the

which proves that he had already been

But, omitting the
in

described before.

names
1.3
b,

in 4. 4, 11, 17,

he

is

only mentioned by name

a fact which

supports the reading of

34. (ch. 2.)
3.

MT or LXX.
Psalm of Hannah
in

The

insertion of the

i-io

may have been made by

the author himself.

1.

In

the

same way the author

II, 3.

inserted the elegies in II,

18-27

and

maintain.

The poem is not so late as the critics 33-4. When we come to investigate its construction
in

and contents
shall

a later instalment of these STUDIES,

last

we

show that the

two

lines

idI'd^ ry

in"'i

are a later liturgical addition.

But such an addition could

only have been made

in

the period of the

Monarchy

002

558

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

itself

hence the poem

must belong to the middle or

However,
in II,
it

early-

period of the Monarchy.

able that, like the

seems more prob-

poems

22

23. 1-7, the

is

Psalm was

placed here

by a

later scribe.

This view

favoured by

the textual variations

immediately before and after the

exhibited

poem

(i.

28 b;

2.

II a)

by

MT

and various

recensions of

LXX,

which tend to prove that the text had

left in

been retouched and

a state of uncertainty through

the insertion of the poem.

But

this

would not have been

the case had the

35.

poem been
on
in
2.

inserted

by the author

himself.

From Samuel's
passes

presentation to the Sanctuary the

11
ff.

author

to

narrate

the

story of

Samuel's childhood.

Here the author had

his early childhood
;

to tell

how

Samuel developed from

into a pious

and trusted servant of God

how he became
his
first

a prophet, and

what was the subject of

prophecy.

He

had

further to describe the events which resulted in the return

of Samuel to

Ramah, and
nation.

in his

becoming the only guide

to narrate the story of

and leader of the

He

had

the destruction of the house of EH, and of the capture and

wanderings of the Ark, which deprived Israel of a religious

centre,

and of

its

former leaders, the

priests.

But the
of his
17,

author did not choose, as

story in his
to

in ch. i, to tell this part

own

words.

He

preferred, as in chs. 9

and

embody

in his narrative portions

of an older document

describing these events.

These borrowed portions are to

;

be found
for

in 2.

12-17; 22-5

27-36

ch. 4.

The arguments

such a view are set forth from a different standpoint

P.

by Dr. H.

Smith

in his

International Critical Conunentary

on Samncl, pp. xix-xx.

silent

about

Samuel.

The passages enumerated They do not ncces;^arily

in

are
pre-

suppose the particulars given

the rest of the narrative.

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

This
latter,

SEGAL

559

on the other hand,

is

Is

dependent on the story

connected with
it

of the house of Eli, and

artificially
1

by

the links in

3,

11 b, 18, 26; 3.

a.

The

Eli portions

of ch. 2

may

easily

be removed from their present context,

into a tolerably connected

and joined together

pendent narrative.

and indeother
in
is

The Samuel
Since,

portions, on the

hand, cannot be separated from their present context

similar

manner.

therefore,

the

Eli

story

indispensable for the development of the story of Samuel's

childhood, and
is

as

such forms an integral part of

verses

it,

it

obvious

that

the

enumerated above are not

merely redactional

links,

but really belong to the author

of the story of Samuel's childhood.

to

Hence we

are led

the conclusion that the author of the Samuel story

into
his

incorporated

narrative

material

from an

older

source describing the fortunes of the house of Eli, and

linked
36.
it

up with

his

own account

of Samuel.
also to chs.

The same arguments apply

them
is

4 and ^-6.
This

In none of
silence
critics

there any mention of Samuel.^*^

not,

about

Samuel does

however, prove, as the

maintain, that the older

It

document knew nothing

of Samuel's greatness.

only proves that owing to his

youthfulness at that time, Samuel did not exercise any

influence on

the events narrated

and

further,

that the

older writer was not specially interested in the story of

Samuel.

Our own

author, on the

other hand, has his

exclusive interest in the story of Samuel, and had chs. 4-6

been

his

own

original composition, he

would no doubt

have contrived by one means or another to connect the

events of these chapters with the
life

of his hero, just as

he did

in chs. 2-3.
-'J

On 4.1a

see Driver's note ad

loc.

560
37.
is

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

According to
this view, the

prophecy
i.

in

2.

27-36
3.^^

older than our author's

own work,

e.

older than ch.

The majority of
its

the

critics,

however, regard this passage

as a post-Deuteronomic production.

They

think that in

original form the prophecy predicted the transference

of the reh'gious leadership from Eli to Samuel, but that

a later editor brought the prophecy into connexion with

the
of

fall

of Ebiathar and the

(i

rise

of

Zadok

in
is,

the days

Solomon

Kings

2.

27).

This theory

however,

far-fetched and altogether improbable.

Had

the prophecy

ever been directly connected with the rise of

Samuel as

religious leader, this connexion would surely have secured

the preservation of the prophecy in

its original

form.

And

how,

it

may be

asked, could
Eli

it

have been predicted that

Samuel would replace

never acted as an
in giving oracles,

and

his sons, seeing that

Samuel

official priest,

never employed the

Ephod

nor did he ever derive any revenues from

the priesthood

The

contention of the critics that the

ver. ;^6

prophecy

is

post-Ueuteronomic because

can only

refer to the centralization of the sacrificial worship in the

Jerusalem Temple effected by Josiah

not at
all

(2

Kings

23. 8

ff.)

is

convincing.

We

have no evidence

for

this

cfratuitous

identification of

the descendants of Ebiathar

with the priests of the Bainoth.

house of Eli described in ver. 36

in the

The condition of the may have existed already

days of Solomon.
rise

Jerusalem and the

rendered
it

The expulsion of Ebiathar from of Solomon's Temple may have

the

difficult

for

members

of the

Ebiathar

family to find a subsistence as priests.

The

great Bainoth

must

all

have had

their

own

hereditary priesthoods, and

as their importance continually declined through the rise

"

Cf. Budde, op.

cit.,

200.

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

of the sanctuary
in

SEGAL

561

the capital, there would have been no

room

in

them

for

new-comers.
priests.

And
it

private BamotJi

had

no need of

official

Thus

may

very well have

his

happened even

in

the days of

Solomon and
came

immediate

successors that descendants of Eli

to Jerusalem to

beg of the Zadokites

in order to secure
'

for

some menial

office in the
".

Temple,

a morsel of bread

This would imply

after the erection of

that the prophecy was written down

Solomon's Temple.
istic

This

is

supported by the anachron"^^

reference to the king in ver.

it is

b /^

(cf.
'^'^-()

42).

On

the other hand,

also possible that vers.

are a later

addition to the prophecy.

38.

There

is,

however, one
in

critic,

C. Steuernagel,

who

goes

much
holds

farther

his

analysis
is

of

our

passage.^^

He

that the

prophecy

of

highly composite

character.
^nniD),

The

first part,

consisting of vers. 31a, 33 a a (to

35 b (without

D''";i'3N),

was originally a prediction of

the slaying of Nob's

part, consisting
after the
first
fall
is

priesthood
is

by

Saul.

The second

of vers. 35-6,

a later addition written

part had wrongly

become associated with

the general

of Eli's house in the deposition of Ebiathar.

This theory
ver.
'^'>^

based upon an alleged discrepancy between

'^6.

a and ver.

In ver.

'^'^

it

is

stated that only

Eli, viz.

one man would be spared of the whole house of

Ebiathar (cf 22. 20
f),

whereas

in ver.

36

it

is

implied that
in

the whole house of Eli would survive, though

a reduced
is

and humiliated condition.

implied
his
in

But the
ver. 32.

latter

idea

also

ver.

31b, and
critic

Hence, to maintain

discrepancy, our
/3

declares ver. 31 b and ver. 3a

!

along with 33 a
22

to be an interpolation
'

Such
*

is

the

Carl Steuernagel,

Die Weissagung

iiber die

Elidcn

in Alttestament-

liche

Siudienfiir R. Kittel (Leipzig, 1913), pp. 204

ff.

562

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

in
:

\
it

manner

which modern criticism deals with the text of

first
it

Scripture

constructs a theory

then

proceeds
;

to search in the text for evidence of the theory

having
',

by a misinterpretation
it

of the text found

its

'

evidence

proceeds to cut out from the text anything that tends

'

to invalidate the
errs,

evidence
all

'.

The
in

fact is that this critic

along with
^^
a.
-['Oi^

moderns,
ab
U''ii'\

his

interpretation

of

ver.

nn^N*
will

does not mean that one

off.

particular

man

not

be cut

This would have

been expressed by nnDN vh nnx

the
that

C'^ni.

The phrase has

;

same meaning here

his

as in

Kings

2.

8,

25

9. 5, viz.

house would not be cut off entirely, but that

will

some one
to
his

always be spared to him

in

order to testify
fanciful
inter-

degradation.-"
^'^

Thus, the

whole

pretation of ver.
it

a as referring to Ebiathar, and with

elaborate thesis,
falls

the

whole of

Steuernagel's
truth
is,

to

the ground.
the prophecy

The
is

as

we have already
Samuel
story,

said, that

older than the

and thus

older also than Samuel's

stated in 3. 12.

prophecy

in ch. 3, as distinctly
is

The

antiquity of our passage

proved,

as Steuernagel himself observes, by the mention of the

carrying of the
the
priest.

Ephod
should,

as one of the chief functions of

Wc

however, omit ver,

31b
It

as
is

an
also

explanatory gloss
absent

derived
B.

from

ver.

32

b.

from

LXX
is

Another gloss to
in ver.

be

omitted

from our text

is

found

22b/i
Its

('i31

"IS^N

nsi),

which
been

also absent from

^^

LXX
arf /oc.

B.-*

purpose

may have

Cf. the

comments

of Qimhi, R. Isaiah,

and Ralbag, the latter

whom says: nnn DiT'^v ^'JiD pD Dnn UTwni nnyi3 iN'T't;' na 733 iniD-' vh naon nxiS xonn ht 'h'h rh^i2)2r] ^rh nn\n nu'S DDibni Dni^Dw' iNi^t' T^nn n^L'*xs cm'-na iniro' ^3n D':dp Dmyn
of

njinan
^'

muya.
d. Diicher Saittuel

N. Peters, Beitr'agt sitr Text- u. Literal kritik

{Freiburg

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

to offer an explanation
inflicted

SEGAL

563

why

such a terrible retribution was

upon

Eli

and

his sons, since the sin

mentioned

in

vers.

15-17 did not appear to have been of so grievous a

character as to deserve such punishment.

,

39. (ch. 3.)

Ch. 3

is,

as

we have
and

said above,

by the
of
the

author himself.

The
1

briefness

vagueness

prophecy

in vers.

1-14 are strong proofs that the author

of this chapter already had before him the prophecy in

2.

37

ff.

The theory
in

of Steuernagel

{loc. cit.)

that Samuel's

prophecy

this

chapter was deliberately mutilated, in

order to amplify the

anonymous prophecy
redactional
'

in
is

3.

27

ff.,

and that

3.

I3

is

'

insertion

extremely

improbable.

No

redactor would have dared to transfer

a prophecy of the great

Samuel

to

some unknown

'

man

of

God

'.

3. 1

b does not

assert that there

was no prophetic

activity at all prior to the revelation to Samuel, but only

that such activity was exceedingly rare.

40. (ch. 4.) Ch.

4 belongs to the Eli document, and was

incorporated by the author from the same source as the

Eli portions in ch.
this source,
a.

Probably chs. 5-7.

also belongs to

forming the continuation, mediate or immediate,

of ch.

4.

We

must agree with the

critics in

describing

6.

15

as an interpolation, similar to the interpolation in II, 13. 34.

2.

Samuel
In
7.

in his

Manhood.
own com-

41. (ch.

7.)

3 the

author resumes his

position with an account of Samuel's activity in his middle

age.

Samuel

is

represented as the reh'gious leader and

argues for the opposite view that the absence
to deliberate omission.

im Breisgau, 1899),
of the clause in

p. 103,
is

LXX

due

But the description

of the Sanctuary of Shilo as TyiJO

PHN
loc.

is

decisive against the genuineness

of the clause

cf.

Driver's note ad

564

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

His activity
is

Judge of the people.

religious

exclusively of a

character.

He

does,

indeed,

secure
his
in
It

great

victory over the Philistines, but only

by

intercession

with God.

The

critics

are

unanimous
vers, 7-14.

denying the
is

historicity of the victory in

true that

ver. 14 cannot be correct of Samuel's time.

On
it

the other
is

hand, as

we have pointed

out above

18),

quite

possible that the Philistines did suffer a defeat at the hands

of the Israelites in a

more or

less

important engagement

during Samuel's manhood, and that, whether as a result of

this defeat or of

some other
Israelites

factors of
left

which we have no
peace for some

knowledge, the

were

in

considerable time.

The statements

in vers.

13-14 may
in
is

have been coloured by the state of things prevailing

the author's

own

time, so that his general description

merely anachronistic, but not quite devoid of historical

truth.
political

The author

certainly

sought

to
it

magnify
is

the
to

achievements of his hero, but

unjust

accuse him of deliberate invention or

falsification.

Well-

hausen's theory {Composition, &-c?, 240) that the story of

the

victory

at

Ebenezer
at the

is

deliberate
in 4. i
It
is

concoction
ff.,

to
in-

redeem the defeat

genious, but
it is

same place

may

be

certainly incorrect.

evident that the

locality

Ebenezer near the low-lying Aphek, wherever that

was

situated,
in the

cannot

be identical with

Ebenezer near

Mizpah

mountains.

There

is

no reason why there

should not have been two sacred stones of the same name.
3.

Samukl

in his

Old Age.

77ie Election

of Saul.
in the first

We

have already discussed at some length

part of this paper the composition of chs. 8-12.

Here

it

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

will suffice to state the conclusion
viz. that

SEGAL

565
there,

which we reached

the whole section emanates from the hand of our

author.
all

Chs. 9-10. 16 he borrowed from an older work

the rest of the section, including the whole of ch. 11,

is

his

own
42.

original composition.
(ch.

12.)

Critics indicate

in

ch. 12

a number of
as

expressions

and

phrases

which

they

characterize

Deuteronomic.
tailed

As
is

the present writer has not

made

a de-

and independent study of the higher

criticism of the

Pentateuch, he
this

not prepared either to accept or to reject

characterization.

His experience of the

critics

in

their treatment of the historical

books of the Bible has

in

not inspired him with confidence

the validity of their

reasoning and in the soundness of their conclusions.

this
in

But

much may be

admitted, that ch. 12

is

somewhat

different

style
is,

from the other portions of our author's work.

however, not conclusive against the genuineness

This

or the integrity of the chapter.

sarily differ in

homily must neces-

style
life

and diction from the description of

of a primitive sanctuary.
in

a battle or of the

Nor need

we be

surprised at finding

this

chapter phrases and

expressions which are

common

to other parts of Scripture.

The

style and phraseology of hortatory religious literature

may

have become conventionalized at an early period, and

in

their occurrence

our chapter need not necessarily be

a sign of a late date.

As

for the

mention of the name of

in ver.

Samuel placed

in

his

own mouth

11,

it

is

only

another example of the author's

habit of slipping into

2.

anachronisms, such as we have met with in

35;

7.

14;

and

16.

18 (cp. above, 37, 4^, 23).

On

the other hand,

ver. 12 does indeed present a difficulty, but this difficulty

becomes

all

the greater

if

we accept

the analysis of the

566
critics.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

For according to
their analysis this chapter be-

longs to E,

who

represents Israel as living in a condition

of the most profound peace as the effect of Samuel's victory

in
7.

10

f.,

and who holds that the demand

for

a king

sprang from no other motive except the desire of being

like

the heathens.

But

in this verse

the writer

tells

us

that the motive of the

inspired
itish

demand

for

a king was the fear

Israel-

by the Ammonite king who had invaded

territory.

The

critics try to
;

get over the difficulty

is

in their

usual fashion
(cf.

ver. 12,

they say,

the invention

of a redactor

Budde,
read
in

op.cit., 187).

But how could any

person

who has
it

ch. 8
?

ff,

invent such a story and

actually insert

the text

No, the statement

;

in this

verse cannot be purely an invention

it

must be based
full

upon some actual

fact.

We

do not possess a

and

detailed history of the period.

For, as has been pointed

out above

32)

our author does not present us with

life

a history, but only with stories and sketches of the

and works of

certain

great personalities.

It is therefore

quite possible that he read in his sources an account of

an Ammonite invasion of

Israel in

Samuel's old age, which

had caused great anxiety

Judges
Israel
10.

to

the people.

According to
oppression
of

7-9,

there was

an

Ammonite
the
(ch.

contemporaneous with
attack

Philistine

oppression.

The

on Jabcsh-gilead

11)

may have

been

only an incident, though the most humiliating one, of

a long campaign.
reconciled
for

The people may perhaps have become

the
Philistine yoke,

a time to

but

the

Ammonite impudence was

patience,

too

much
22
a.

for their sorely-tried for a

and hence the

their battles
\

insistent
cf. 8.

demand

king

who

would fight

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

SEGAL

567

The Rejection of Saul and

cJis.

the

Adventure of Jonathan,

13-15acts of
in chs.

43. (ch.

old age

is

The account of the continued by our author

\'>f^

Samuel
13-15-

in his

As

in

the previous sections, so also here, the author incorporated

into his

work an extract from an older

^^

source,

most prob-

ably the same source from which he derived chs. 9-10. 16.

This extract extends from

led to this conclusion
13. 2-14. 46,
first

13. 2

to

14. 46.

We

are

by the

style

and diction of
from that of

which

is
;

markedly

different

the preceding chapters

and secondly by the account of

This compara-

the rejection of Saul given in 13. 8-14.

tively

tame story could not have been

8-14

told

by one who
15. Its

had
It

written, or even

known, the impressive story of ch,

13.
is

is

evident that

older

than ch.

15.

presence in our book beside the magnificent later account

can only be explained on the supposition that our author

incorporated
source.
it

as part of a

longer extract from an old

true,

He no doubt
As
10. 8

thought that both stories were

rejection

and that the sentence of

Saul twice.
this
in
is

was pronounced on

intended to prepare the reader for

account of the rejection of Saul, we have no hesitation

declaring 13. 2-14,46 to be a part of the

same document

as 9-10. 16.
44.
13. 7

The
a,

critics,

however, have unanimously decreed that

its

b-15

as also

antecedent

in

to. 8, are

an inter7

polation.
is

They

maintain that the proper sequel to 13,

this is not apparent.

ver. 15 b.

But

Ver. 7 a joins just

as well to ver. 7 b as to ver. 15 b.

2^

Ver. 15 a does not,

13. I,

which
;

is

incomplete and absent from

Driver's note.

LXX

B,

is

unquestionably

a later addition

cf.

568

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

indeed, join well to ver. 15 b, but only in

lost a great part of the verse

MT,

which has
If

through Jiomoioteleiiton?^

we

restore the text as in

LXX,

which has no doubt pre-

sei-ved the original,

we

obtain a smooth and intelligible

connexion between the two parts of the verse.

45.

Again, the

critics

argue that

it

is

impossible to

believe that Saul would have abandoned the highlands of

Gibeah to the invading

Philistines,

and gone down East

to

Gilgal for no other purpose than to offer a sacrifice at the

local sanctuary.

But Saul did not abandon the highlands.

in

He

left

behind him a defender

Jonathan with whatever

force he could muster

on the

spot.

And

he did not go to

Gilgal merely to offer a sacrifice, but chiefly to muster the

Israelitish levies

from across the Jordan and the North,

at

which had assembled

This
critics
is

Gilgal

as

their trysting-place.

expressly stated in ver. 4 b, a clause which the

have cither overlooked or misunderstood.^"

The

critics

argue further that the test put to Saul was a senseless

'

one.

War Sanmcl bei

his

Sinnen

'

asks VVellhausen

[op. cit.,

245) with

characteristic

audacity.

The danger
is

of

waiting seven days was so great.

But that

exactly

the reason

why

Saul was put to this particular

test.

The

penetrating eye of Samuel must have at once discovered

the chief failing in Saul's character, viz. his lack of patience,
his rash

and reckless impulsiveness.

Even

our

scanty

records offer us abundant illustration of this failing in the

king's
character.

Note, for instance, his rash oath in

14. 24;-'*

his outburst against

Jonathan

in

20.

30

ff.

his

'-*

Cf. Driver's note.

" The
by some
*'

excision

in ver. 4

b of bi/Jin. or

its

change

into

nnViJn, proposed
>

critics, is

altogether unwarranted.

Cf. particularly the text of

LXX

see Driver's note ad he.

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAxMUEL

SEGAL

569

murder of the

priests, 22. 16.

He was

given an opportunity
in face

by

the prophet to prove his patience and his faith

;

of danger

he

failed,

and was rejected.

criticized

Samuel's judgeof our

is

ment has been severely

by some

modern
the sole

shilly-shally sentimentalists, but history,

which

arbitress in such matters, has fully upheld the justice of

the prophet's sentence.

failings of his character
;

Saul failed largely because of the

his rival

David succeeded largely

because of his virtues, his patience, his perseverance and

self-discipline.

That the danger of waiting seven days was

is

after all not so great as the critics assert,

proved by the

victorious issue of the war, an issue which

would have been

much more
46.

decisive in favour of the Israelites but for the

rashness and impulsiveness of Saul.

But, say the
;

critics,

Saul did

fulfil

the test
?

he

waited seven days

why
left

then was he rejected

The

answer
fulfilled

is

that

the

decision

whether the

test

had been
alone
is

or not must be

to the narrator.

He

capable of forming a judgement on the question.

decision
is

His

that the test had not been fulfilled, and

we

must, therefore^ conclude that the seven days had not been
quite completed

when Saul proceeded

to offer the sacrifice.

Further,

the critics ask,

why

is

there

no trace of

this

ominous meeting with Samuel

the war?

in the

subsequent history of

Neither Saul, nor Jonathan, nor the people

betray in their words or actions any trace of the rejection

of Saul.

But the arginncntum

in this instance.

e silentio is

particularly

unconvincing
at

Jonathan must have been

the time of the occurrence of the incident

away

at

Gibeah, guarding the passes against the Philistines.

The

people possibly did not overhear the conversation between

the Prophet and the King.
Saul's rejection

may have

570

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

been as private as his anointment.'-'

As
his

for

Saul himself,
?

who can tell what thoughts troubled we may trace the hesitation and lack
mental depression caused by the

mind

Perhaps

of initiative which he

displays in the subsequent course of the

campaign

to

some

fateful sentence

passed on

him by Samuel.

His anxiety

for ritual

exactness in the

midst of hard fighting may, perhaps, also have been due

to a desire to secure a reconciliation with

God and His

Prophet.

The author

himself refrains from saying any-

thing on the state of Saul's mind, because he was too good a literary artist to spoil his spirited
intrusions.

narrative

by such
This

Finally, the critics complain that this episode

interrupts the
is

smooth course of the main

true, but

narrative.
is

to

some extent

such interruption

natural to

all

episodes, whether original or not.

47.

We

see

no cogent reason

for

branding the passage

it

as an interpolation, except, perhaps, the fact that

tirely upsets
critics

en-

one of the chief theories upon which the

their

base

analysis

of
is

chs.

8-12,

viz.,

that

in

chs. 9-10. 16, of

is

which

ch. 13

the continuation,

Samuel
Samuel

represented as merely a village seer without national

importance or authority.

For

in

this

passage

appears as the great national prophet and leader, almost

exactly as in ch. 8;
seen above
10. 17
ff.

and

ch. 12.

But we have
is

( 16} that this theory of the critics

i

alto-

gether

without

anyj justification.

We

may,

therefore,

safely assert that the disputed passage forms an original

and integral part of

the

ch, 13.

It is the earlier

account of

well-known

historical

fact
it

of

the

breach

between which

Samuel and

Saul.

In fact,

is

chiefly this passage

" From 15. 30 a it may be inferred tliat the conversatioij between Saul and Samuel recorded there was of a private character.

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

SEGAL

571

has secured the incorporation into our book of the whole

extract in 13. 2-14, 46.
sources,

Our author

himself, unlike his

in Saul.

had

his chief interest in

Samuel and not

There

is

no reason why he should have troubled to supply

us with a detailed account of this war with the Philistines,

and not rather of Saul's other wars with the

Philistines,

or

of Saul's wars with the other nations, enumerated in 14. 47,

or of his struggle against the Gibeonites (II, 21.2) or with

the soothsayers (28.

9),

except that the story of this war

contained the episode

of Samuel.
in ch. 13,

13.

8-14 which revealed the greatness

And

having given the beginning of the story

its

our author incorporated also

sequel in ch. 14,

probably out of respect

for Jonathan, the friend of his hero,

it

David, whose valour and nobility

illustrates.

It

may be
But

argued that

ver.

14

b,

with

its

clear

reference to David,
at that time.

could not have been uttced

by Samuel

even

so,

it

is

no proof against the genuineness of the

are merely a literary anachronism

passage.

The words

of the original writer, who, of the

rise

knowing the subsequent history

of David, had put these words into the prophet's

mouth.
48. In the

same way we maintain that the antecedent to

in 10. 8 is
it

our passage found

genuine and original to the old

document

in

which

is

found, and not an interpolation.

The

verse does not, as the critics allege, break the con10. 7

in

nexion between
the statement

and
7.

10. 9.

Nor does
verses

it

contradict
to

10.

The two

refer

two

different events separated

10. 7 refers to

by a lengthy

interval of time.

the

Ammonite war
10. 8

in ch. 11,

which occurred
lot

within a
(10. 27

month

after Saul's election

by the sacred
Philistine
later,

b LXX), while

refers to the

war

which must have taken place some years

VOL.
VI.

when the
r

572

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

king's son

young

had already reached manhood, and had

It
is

become

a hardy warrior.

true that in our present

text the two

commands

in vers. 7
is

and 8 appear

as

contem-

poraneous

but our text

here fragmentary and probably

abridged by the author of our book,

who must have omitted

8.

a good deal of matter between ver. 7 and ver.

We
10.

find

such an abridgement also between ver. 9 and ver.

Our

author reproduces there only the fulfilment of the third

sign,

because of the explanation

(ver.

it

gives of the well-known

proverb

12

b),

but omits the

first

two

signs,

which are

not material to his story, and have no special interest of

their

own

to our author or his readers.

The

critics further

assert

that 10. 8 implies that

after the lattcr's
(13.

Samuel and Saul did not

until the episode
10.

meet again
at

anointment

Gilgal

8-14),

thus
is

contradicting
in the

17

ff.

and

II. I2ff.

But there
10. 8

no warrant

text for such

that,

a statement.

says nothing

more than

when
to

a certain Philistine war had begun, Saul should go

down

the sanctuary of Gilgal, and there wait seven days for the

prophet's coming to offer sacrifices.

49. (ch. 14.)

rightly defended

The genuineness of 14. 36-45 has been by Buddc {op. cit., 206) and H. P. Smith
Wellhausen
{op. cit.,

{op.cit.,\2oi.) against the scepticism of

246), but

14.47-51 has not been so lucky.

This passage

the critics brand as a late unhistorical panegyric modelled

on, and copied from, that panegyric on David in
II, ch. 8.

But

it is

hard to understand

how

a late writer could venture

to ascribe to Saul, the rejected of the Lord, victories which

really

belonged to David.
in

On

the other hand,

why

should

not Saul have engaged

rated in 14. 47-8?

war against the nations enumetrue that, with the exception of

fn

It is

Ammon

and Amalck, we have no other record

our book

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

of his wars against these nations.
surprise us, since, as

SEGAL

573

But

this

should not

wc have repeatedly

stated above, our

book does not pretend

to give us a history of Saul's reign,

but only a few sketches of his relations with Samuel and David.

There are other important

acts of Saul
(cf.

which are
II,

only incidentally referred to in our book

38. 3

31.1

f.).

We
rule

know

from the story of his pursuit of David that Saul's

extended right into the wilds of the Negeb and south

of the

Dead

Sea.
or

It

is,

therefore, quite possible that at

some time

other

he, like

David

later on,

came

into

conflict with the

Edomites, whose territory bordered on that

region.

Again, his victory over the Ammonites must

collision

have brought him into

the Moabites. of

with their neighbours,

fact,

As

matter of

we

find

the king parents

Moab

offering an

asylum to David and

(22. 3-4),
in

his

from the pursuit of Saul

which act he was

no doubt actuated by the same motives as Akish, king

of the Philistines (27. 2
carried on
ff.),

viz.

enmity of Saul, who had

war with him.

Further, the description of the

II, 2. 9

extent of the rule of Ishbosheth in

(where read

with

Targum

''"i^iin

for

nicwn) proves that Saul's rule

It is, therefore,

reached also the northern tribes of Israel.

quite probable that Saul, like David after him, had to fight

the aggressive

kingdom

of

Zobah and her

allies or vassals,

who were neighbours

of the northern tribes.

Note that

during his residence at Hebron, when he was carrying on

a struggle against the house of Saul,

we

find

David con-

tracting an alliance with one of these northern kings, viz.

Talmai of Geshur, by marrying

(II, 2. 3),

his

daughter

Ma'akah
in

which tends to support the statement

'

14.
',

47

that Saul had been at war with

the kings of

Zobah
P

viz.

Zobah and

its

allies

and

vassals,

including

probably

574
Geshur.''*'

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Finally, of
his

wars

against
in

Amnion and
our

Amalek we
chs.
II, 15.

have

detailed

accounts
14.

book

in

The whole passage

work
in

47-52 may very

well be the original

brief

of our author,

who wrote

this

summary

order to satisfy the curiosity of the

in II, ch. 8
;

reader.
it

Like the similar summaries

20. 23-6,

seems to be intended to mark the conclusion of a definite

It

period in Saul's reign.

does not form, as Wellhausen

to

^^

and

his

disciples

maintain, the conclusion

the whole

history of Saul's reign,

any more than

II, 20.

23-6 forms

the conclusion to the whole history of David's reign.

50. (ch. 15.)

Ch. 15

is

the author's

own account
first

of the

rejection of Saul, as distinguished from the

account,

which he reproduced from an

Vers. 21
a. I a,

earlier writer in 13. 8-14.

i
;

17 b refer back to 10.

while ver. 17 a recalls 9.

In ver, 19 b

we have

a phrase borrowed from 14. 32

17,

(cf.

below, 72).

Ver. 28, like 28.

seems to have been

written,
16.

written

by one who knew, or had

1-13.

Wellhausen and

his followers assert that this chapter could

not have been written by the author of 14. 48. not

?

But why
48 gives

The

point of view

is

indeed different.

14.

us a brief but true

summary
security

of the results of the Amalekite

of the
nation,

campaign
utilizes

for

the

while ch. 15
purpose.
be-

the

same event

for

quite

different

Hence

the difference in the

method of presentation

tween the two accounts.

inconsistent,
^

But the two accounts are not

no reason

and there

is

why

the same author

Some

writers hold that Absalom's mother belonged to the Southern

Geshiir (27. 8; Josh. 13.2}.

But

II,

15.

8 says explicitly that

is

tliis

Gcshur

was

in

Aram.

To

assert that D"IN3 there

vol.

a gloss (S. A. Cook,

is

American
could

Journal 0/ Semitic Languages,

XVI, 160)

quite arbitrary.
?
<

What

have been the object of the insertion of such a gloss

2^

Op.

at.,

244

cf. ibid.

255.

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

could not have written of the same event
places, for

SEGAL
two

575

in

different

two

different

purposes, and
It
is,

hence from two

different points of view.

however, quite possible that

our author made use

in the

composition of this chapter

of older material, which affected both the tone and the

setting of his story.
It
is

further argued

by the

critics

that ch. 15 should have contained

rejection in
13. 8-14.

some

reference to the

But, as

( 43, 47), 13.

8-14

is

not part

we have shown above of the author's own story.

which he incor-

He

found

it

as part of a larger extract

porated from an older source.

appropriate
refer
it
it.

But he did not thereby

fully

as his own, that he should have to

back to

However, we may be quite sure that had

13.

our chapter contained a reference to

8-14, the

critics
'

would have
'

certainly declared the reference to be a

re-

dactional interpolation, as they have done with the reference

in 3. 12 to
2.

27

f,

and with the reference

in 28.

17-18 to

ch. 15.

51.

Some

critics

declare 15. 24-31 to be an interpolation.

'

They

argue that this passage

left

is

wholly superfluous

(!),

and can be

out without disturbing the consistency of

the narrative'

(cf.

H.

P. Smith, op.

cit.,

139).

But by
'

this

sort of reasoning

we may

cut out also vers.

fact,

20-23 as wholly
our passage
is

superfluous', &c.

As

a matter of

in

no way
details,

superfluous.

For

it

gives us a

number of new

such as the confession of Saul, the rending of the

its

cloak and

symbolic interpretation, and the return of

sanctuary, which are of the utmost im-

Samuel

to the

portance to the flow of the narrative and the development

of the design of the narrator.
religious lesson

The

impressiveness of the

which the writer intends to teach would be

if

greatly

weakened

Saul's guilt

had not been brought home

576
to

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

him so completely
as to force

him

to a

humble con-

fession.
('n
''33^,

Further, Samuel slew

ver. 33).

Agag

within the Sanctuary

It is, therefore,

necessary for the writer to

into the Sanctuary,

state expressly that

Samuel had come

in

but this

is

only done

this passage

(vers. 35, 30, 31).

The

inconsistency between ver. 29 and ver. 11 (^nom), out of

which these

critics

no

difficulty.

make so much capital, should occasion Ancient Hebrew writers were not such strict
modern
critics,

logicians as our

and

their conception of the

Deity

often

vacillates
;

between
6.

anthropomorphism and
6
;

transcendentalism

contrast Gen.

Exod.

32. 14

(where

see Ibn Ezra), &c. with

Num.

23. 19.

The Story of David.

David and
52. (ch. 16.)

Said.
his old

The

last

important act of Samuel in

in

age was the anointment of David recorded

16.

1-13.

This narrative serves both to conclude the story of the

public
chief
life

of Samuel, and also to

introduce the second

hero of our book, David son of Jesse.

first

We

have

already discussed at some length in the

part of this

paper the composition of chs. 16-17, but for convenience

sake
there.
is

we

will recapitulate

here the conclusions arrived at

16.

1-13

is

the direct sequel to ch. 15, and 16. 14-23

the continuation of \6. 1-13.

is

The whole

of ch. 16 forms

a unity, and

the original work of the author of our book. incorporated into his work from an older

The same author

champion
portions
in

source the account of David's exploit against the Philistine

ch.
17,

but omitted from that account the

missing

in

LXX

(17.

12-31;

17.

55-iiS. 5),

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

because they contradicted his

SEGAL

577

own account

in ch. 16.
in

These

omissions were, however, inserted later

of

the archetype

MT

from the original old source by a scribe

who

regarded the author's text as a mutilation.

To

this scribe

belongs also 17. 15, which

with ch.
16,

is

intended to reconcile ch. 17

17. 41,

and the additions, consisting of

in

48

b, 50,

which are not found

LXX B,

and, therefore, were pre-

sumably absent

also

from the

original text of our author.

We may
in

also assign to

him some other passages found

e.

MT

but not in

LXX B,

g. 2.

22

b/:/

(cf.

38), 13. i.

These additions
the scribe.
53. (ch. 18.)
is

are probably the original compositions of

The problem

of the composition of ch. 18

state at once that the shorter

more

difficult.

We may

text of

LXX B

is

the original text of our author, while the

MT
as that

is

a later amplified and

expanded recension.
had played the
to

For,

we have remarked above

in foot-note 14,

assuming even
role of

LXX B

or his
critic,

Hebrew
it

original

the higher

is

impossible

explain

on what
18. lo-ii,

grounds he could have omitted such passages as

12 b, 29b-30.

The

easiest

and most satisfactory explana-

tion of the absence

of these passages in
in
it

LXX B
LXX B

is

that

they are later additions

conclude that ch. 18 as
original

MT.
lies

We

may, therefore, safely

is

before us in

the

work
in

of our author, and that the

i"] .

same
and

scribe

who

inserted

MT

12-31, 55-8, also inserted from the

same source
which
refers
is

18. 1-5,

adding 6 a as a
17. 25.

link,

18. 17-19,

back to

We may
29

likewise

assume that

this scribe

also the interpolator of the glossatory amplib,

fications, vers. 8 b, 12 b, 21 b, 26 b,
v^er.

and possibly also

like

30, all of

which would be

his

own composition

17. 41, 50.

It is

more

difficult to

decide the pi'ovcnance

578

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Critics

of 18. lo-ii.

have declared

this

passage to be a
that

duplicate of 19. 9-10.

They maintain
stage
still

an attempt

on David's

life

was

at this

premature, since

Saul's hatred

had not yet reached at

this

moment such a
strict

high degree of intensity as to drive him to commit murder.

But have we a right to demand from Saul such a

'

method

in

madness

'

Who

can account for the sudden

It
life
is

impulses of a deranged mind?

true that in 19.

if

Saul hesitates to take David's

without the consent of

Jonathan and
in

his

servants, but there he

may have
is

been

his

normal state of sanity.

Again, there

no reason

why we
to slay

should not assume that Saul

made two attempts

9-10 was the second
explain
court

David with
it

his spear.

If 19.

attempt,

would

help

the

better to
king's

David's

desperate resolve to leave

the

altogether.

Further, the style and diction of 18. lo-ii are certainly

older than those of 19. 9-10.

Note
9;

in

the
;

first

passage

nn n^vm
CpTI,

against

nn Tim

in 19.

N3:n''l

the more virile

^0^1,

style in 18. 11 as
"IDS"'"!,

compared with

19.

10;

^Cl against

and the

direct oration in

18. 11, all of

first

which

seem

to indicate greater originality for the

passage.

On

the other

hand, the absence of this passage from

be considered decisive against
it

LXX

B must

its

belonging

to the author of our book, though

may
own

very well belong

work.

to a source older than our author's

therefore,

We

must,

declare this passage a later insertion into the

It

work of our author.

may have
viz.

been inserted by the

same
taken

scribe
it

who

inserted vers. 1-5, 17-19, but he cannot have

from the same source,

the original source of

Saul's

ch. 17, since that

chapter does not

know of

madness

and of David's service as

54.
(ch. 19.)

his minstrel.

In ch. 19 the author continues the story of

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

SEGAL
Note the

579
19. i
full

the ever-widening breach between Saul and David.

is

the continuation, as in
JDJV,

LXX B, of
p

8.

29

a.

designation un

or ^ISC

\ny\n\

by our own
in

author,

as distinguished from the simple

is

jriJin''

18. 1-4,

which

not by our author but

in 19. i

is

part of the insertion.

Further,
18.
i,

the statement

b sounds rather tame beside

3-4,

which supports our contention that the two passages are

not

by the same hand.

Some
vcr.

critics

hold that 19. 2-3

is

an interpolation, and that

of ver.
1 ,

is

the direct continuation

for

as Jonathan should

have interceded

David

immediately on hearing his

father's proposal to slay him.

But

it

is

unlikely that Jonathan would

have spoken
still

in

David's favour while his father's mind was

excited

and bent on destroying David.

text, that
father's

The

implication of the

Jonathan waited with

is

his intercession until his

anger had subsided,

difficult to

no doubt correct.

It

is,

however,

understand
field.

to speak to Saul in the

why Jonathan should have To get rid of this difficulty,

op. cit.,

as

some
/3

critics
(DC*
. .

do
.

(cf.

Budde,

221),

by deleting
It is

ver. 3 a

"'JNi)

is

arbitrary

and

violent.

better

to regard ver. 3 as a vague reminiscence of the account in

ch. 20, which, as

we

shall

show

later ( 58)
is

was unknown

to our author.

Perhaps this passage

an abridgement

of a longer story parallel to ch. 20.

^^.

Wellhausen

{op. cit.,

250) and others regard 19. 11-18

as an interpolation, because in ver. 10 b

we

are told that

his

David had escaped, yet

in ver.

he

is still in

own

house.
fled

But surely

D/JO^l

d:

need mean no more than that he

his

from Saul's court to

situated at

own

house, which was probably

some

distance

from the king's residence, as

7 b.

appears from the wording of ver.

in describing his
flight

Note the use

of D3

from the presence of the king to

580
his

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

own house

(ver.

10 b) and of ni3 in describing his flight

(19. 12, 18; 20, i; 21. 11.
;

from Gibeah to another locality

Contrast also, for example, Gen. 39. 13

a

Num.

16.

34 with

Sam. 4.3; 13. 37, Sic.).-~ ^6. The same judgement has been passed by the
19.

critics

on

18-34, which they declare to be a late apocryphal

'

story invented to explain the proverb,

Is

Saul

among

the

prophets

'

(ver.

24

b).

They argue

that the explanation of

the proverb given here contradicts the earlier and more

genuine explanation given

in 10. 12.

But

it is

hard to see

how

this

contradiction

to a late writer,

explanation in

10.

is removed by assigning our passage who no doubt would have known the 12. The difficulty may be overcome by

taking ver. 24 b as a gloss.

of the critics'

But

really the difficulty

is

only
the

own making.

For, as a matter of

fact,

story here

is

not intended to explain

is

the proverb, but,

in as

on the contrary, the proverb

brought

an illustration

and an explanation

of the strange
a.

and

startling conduct
it

of Saul in vers. 23 b, 24

The

writer explains

b\'

reference to the well-known proverb which illustrates Saul's

susceptibility to prophetical inspiration.

that his story

was the

origin of the proverb.

He does not assert Had he meant

in

to say that, he
in

would have expressed himself something

as

the

same way

the earlier writer

further maintain

10.

12

by

b'^'^b

nriM.

The

critics

that

our story

contradicts 15. ^^, according to which

Samuel never saw

involves a very

Saul again after his rejection.

literal

But

this

and strained interpretation of

is

15. 35.

All that the

all

passage means to say

that

Samuel severed

further
rc-

connexion and intercourse with Saul throughout his

32

Wcllhausen
its

{ibicf.

251) noticed this difference of expression,

l)nt failed

to

grasp

significance.

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

maining
life
it

SEGAL

581

does not mean to exclude such a chance

in

meeting as
^'j.

is

described

our story.

Finally, the critics argue that the right course for

in

David

his

flight

from Saul was to go straight to the

to his

South on

his

way

home

in

Judah.

He

could not

have gone northwards from Gibeah to

fun'
{^

Ramah

'just for

mere

sum

Spass\V^e.\\\'\diViscr\, op. cii., 250).

To

this

we

answer that David was too wise and too cautious to have

adopted the plan of the

critics.

Had

he gone straight
all

South, he would have placed his old parents and

his

family in a very dangerous position, without being able to

offer

them any help against

Saul's certain vengeance.

The

fate of the priests of

Nob would no doubt have

finally forced into

befallen

the whole of Jesse's clan, and perhaps the whole of Beth-

lehem.

When David was

open outlawry,
for fear of

he was immediately joined by his whole clan

Saul,

and he took the precaution of removing

his

old

parents out of the reach of Saul's vengeance, and placing

them with

Saul's

enemy
fact
is

the king of

Moab

(22.

i,

3-4,

cf.

above, 49).

The

that at the stage reached

all

by our

story in 19. 18, David had not }et given up

hope of an
and heir

ultimate reconciliation with the king.

Saul's son

was
wife

his devoted friend

;

Saul's

daughter was his loving

he himself was the darling of the army and a favourite

all

with

the people; the prophets and priests were also his

(cf.

friends

25).

He

felt

himself innocent of any offence

against the king.

his people

Why

should he abandon his countr}- and

at the accidental outburst

and turn an outlaw

of an insane

against him

man ?

Therefore he

fled to

Samuel

with a view to finding a shelter with the prophet until the

king's

mind should return

safe at

to sanity.

But finding that he

to flee south-

was not

Ramah, David was obliged

582
wards, and

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

first

he stopped at

Nob
ff.).

to seek shelter there

with his friends the priests (21. 2

The
of

naive innocence

of Ahimelek and the presence at

Nob

Doeg

(cf.

22. 22)

soon, however, convinced David that he could not remain

there
his

much

longer,

and so he departed hastily and resumed

a temporary asylum from Saul's

wanderings

in search of

madness

(21. 11).
its

But he carefully avoided returning to

neighbourhood,
with Saul.
for fear of involving its
little

Bethlehem or
people

in trouble

Further, a

consideration

should have convinced our

a late production.

critics that 19.

18-24 cannot be

The

details of the school of prophets

attached to Samuel's sanctuary just outside

9.

Ramah
frenzy,

(cf.

25

a),

and of the workings of the prophetic

is

show

clearly that our story

stories of the
'

related to 10. ^-6, 10-13,

'

and to the

sons of the prophets

at the sanctuaries of

Bethel, Jericho,
v:^b
Li''2'Cf^
;

and Gilgal
I
f,

(2

Kings

2. 3,

4.

38

ff.

Note

6.

&c.),

and must,

therefore, belong to a

pretty early date.

declare

We may therefore, without any hesitation,

our
is

our passage to be genuine and original to

author.

Thus, the whole ch. 19

found to be a unity and

the work of the author of our book.

58. (ch. 20,)

Ch. 20 seems irreconcileable with

ch. 19.

Jonathan would not have affirmed ignorance of

his father's
ff;

designs against David after the events described in 19. 11

and David would not have sought

for another test of Saul's

mind

after his flight

from Gibeah and the king's repeated

attempts to seize him.

Nor would Saul have expected

after

David to attend the royal table

between them detailed
in ch.
1

the

final

breach

9.
is

We

arc, therefore, forced

to the conclusion that ch. 20

ch.

not by the same author as

of our^book.

19,

i.e.

it

is

not
i

by the author
is

The

continuation of 20.

21. 2, viz. NTT nD-i3 nvjo

nn mTI

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

'ns*

SEGAL
The

583

ba nn:, &c.
into

in

in 21. 2 a

may
i

be an addition after the

i.

insertion

our text of 20,

b-21.

insertion
in

of ch. 20 must have been

chs. 17, 18, since ch.

made

before the
in

insertion

20
is

is

found also

LXX B,

The

text of this chapter

not wholly original.

Vers. 11-17
inserted the
to

are probably an addition by the scribe

who

chapter

into

our

book.
is

For

the
till

answer
ver. 18,

David's

question in ver. 10

not given

which must

originally have followed immediately

is,

on

ver. 10.

There
the

however, no reason to doubt with some

is

critics

genuineness of vers. 4-10, since ver. 6

necessary for ver. 29.

f.

That
no

ver. 5

is

also

repeated in ver. 18
f.

should occasion

difficulty.
its

In ver. 18
entirety the

Jonathan

is

merely recapitufirst

lating in

common

plan, the

part of

which was suggested by David

59.

in ver. 5.

The

critics

have also declared

is

vers.

40-42 to be an

interpolation.

Their reason

that

if

an interview between

the two friends had been possible, then the whole device

of the sign by the arrows was altogether unnecessary.

But,

on the other hand,

of ver. 39, and
is

ver.

40 reads as the natural continuation

ver. 41 as the continuation of ver. 40.

There

no sign whatever of any break at

ver. 39,

nor does that

verse

read like the conclusion of the preceding account.

if

Again,

21. i

be thought the direct continuation of

20.

39

and the conclusion of the account, then the order of the

clauses in 31.
i

should have been reversed

first

the clause

about Jonathan,
(20. 34-9),

who

is

the actor in the preceding verses

is

and then the clause about David, who

ff.).

the

actor in the following verses (21. 2

There

is,

therefore,
It
is

no doubt that
is

vers.

40-42 are an integral part of

ch. 20.

true that the interview after the sign of the arrows

illogical,

quite

yet

it

is,

nevertheless,

characteristically

584

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

psychologically correct.

human and

This interview was,

it

indeed, very dangerous to both of them, yet

did take

place, because the sentiments and emotions of the friends

overruled the dictates of their cold reason.

Jonathan must
in

have found
the

it

hard to return to the town immediately

of his lad.

company

He no

doubt hngered behind

for

a while in the hope of catching, perhaps, a glimpse,

maybe

the last one, of his beloved friend.

David, on his part, when

he saw that the lad had gone, and Jonathan had remained
alone, in the impulse of the

moment

cast all caution to

the winds, and rushed forth from his hiding-place towards

his

friend

and protector

and the emotional Jonathan

yielded to the longing of his heart to embrace his friend

and

offer

him

his last farewell.

it

60.

As

to the source of ch. zo,

may, perhaps, have

been the same document from which our author had bor-

rowed
the

ch. 17

f.

The warmheartedness
devotion
to
his

of

Jonathan and
in this
ff.

generous

friend

displayed

chapter recall Jonathan's sudden outburst of love

rather than the

in 18. i

tame

friendship of 19.
H,

b.

Note

also the
refer to

reference to their covenant in 30.

]

which must seems to

8. 3.

On

the other hand, yc'D3

(less

''

in 20. 3

refer
i

back

to 18. II

probably to

19. 10).

Indeed, 30.

b would

form an

excellent continuation to 18, 11.

( ,53), 18.

But, as

we have

noted above

lo-ii
5,

(or 19,

9-10) cannot belong to

is

the source of chs. 17-18.

since that source

ignorant of
this

David's

activity as
assert

the

king's musician.

However,

much we may
that ch. 20

with a certain degree of assurance,

was

inserted into the

work of our author by

an early scribe, and that the original portions of this chapter

^'

Cf.

Rashi and the other Hebrew commentators ad

cf.

he

The 5

is

the

kaf>/t veiitatis;

Gescnius-Kautzsch, Hcb. Grammar,

ii8.v.

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

(i.

SEGAL
to.

585

e.

vers,

b-io, 18-21.

i) are

derived from an old source

the author

which was either ignored by, or unknown

of our book.
61.
(ch.
21.)

The
i

author's
is

own
in

narrative, which
21. 2

was

interrupted in 20.

a,

resumed

and continued

throughout the chapter.

Budde

{op. cit.,

226) has rightly

defended the genuineness of vers. 8-10.

These verses are

an essential part of the story, for the possession of a sword

was almost as necessary to David as the possession of

bread.

Ver. 8

is

not, as

Wellhausen

{op. cit.,
is

251) asserts,

a rehash of 22.
this

9.

On

the contrary, 22. 9

is

dependent on
an unknown

verse.

Here Doeg

introduced

as

person, his name, origin, and occupation are described, and

also the cause of his presence at

Nob.

In 22.
his

9,

on the

other hand,

Doeg

is

mentioned simply by
't
;

name without
jyi,

any further introduction, such as

IDCI c'N

as
is

one

who

is

already

known

to the reader

only a clause

added

explaining the presence of the chief shepherd in Saul's

court.

nv3
(

in ver.

10, as in 22. 10,

is

a gloss, as stated

above

30).

The account
and

of the visit to
is

Nob

ends

in

ver. 10 rather abruptly,

probably

in

a fragmentary

condition.
62. 31.

11-16 has been condemned by

all critics

as a late

interpolation.

The

strange story

is

ingeniously explained
its

by the

critics as

a late insertion which had

origin in

the desire to explain

away

as unhistorical the well-known

story of David's residence in the Philistine court given in

27. 2
ff.

David's vassalage to the Philistine

enemy of

his

people was considered unworthy of the future great king,

and so

this story

was invented and designed to take the

;

place of chs. 27. 2-28. 2

29-30;

11, i.

In other words,

the story here

is

a pious fraud, which, however, failed in

586
its

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

object, since
it

did not succeed in eliminating from our

just

book and destroying the chapters

enumerated.
if

Now,

we

ask, can

any one

really believe that

redactors had

thought David's vassalage an act of treason, and had really

desired
tions,

to

obliterate
not,

its

memory from
all

future

genera-

they would

with

the resourcefulness and

critics,

adroitness ascribed
better

to

them by the

have found

means

for carrying out their object than the futile

invention and interpolation

of this anecdote here?

its

The

hypothesis has only to be stated in

to be laughed out of court.

plain nakedness

The

fact is that the ancient

in

Hebrews could

not,

any more than the ancient Greeks

a similar case, see anything treasonable or dishonourable in

David's vassalage.
for his

We

find

nowhere any censure on David

Philistines.

connexion with the

And we
it

have no
of

right to ascribe to the ancients our

modern conception

patriotism and

honour.

What,

then,

may
?

be asked,

has forced the

critics to this

strange theory
19.

The same
and run

reason which forced

viz.

them

to declare

18-24 spurious,

that

David had refused

to adopt their plan

straight

from Gibeah to Bethlehem.

in

But, as

we have
( 57),

pointed out

our discussion of the latter passage

David did not go straight home, because he did not wish

to turn himself
rebels.

and

all

his

clan

into

open outlaws and

his

He
(19.

first

sought a refuge with

friends

the

prophets

18-24) and the priests (21. 2-10), and having

failed in this,
until

he resolved to hide himself abroad for a time

it

he should find
earliest

safe to return to his

home

at Gibeah.

The

and the most obvious plan was to conceal

Philistia,

his identity

and go to

where he would be within

This he did,

easy reach both of Gibeah and of Bethlehem.

but to his dismay he found that the Philistines had dis-

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

covered his identity."^
that he

SEGAL

587

To

escape death he had to prove

Israelite

was not the renowned

champion, and so he
Philistine

feigned
court.

madness and was expelled from the

His repeated
failures to find a

temporary asylum
Judea and adopt

forced

him

at last to take to the wilds of

i).

the

life

of an outlaw (22.

The

story must appear quite

plain

and reasonable to those whose minds are not obsessed

notions.

by any preconceived
ver. II a,

The

critics

take offence at
;

which they think superfluous

this clause
is

after 19. 18 a

20. i a.
it

But the statement of

really
Israel

necessary here, for

means
ruled

to say that

David

fled

from the country of

Cf.

by Saul and went abroad.

a.

the similar

statement in Jonah 1.3

in ver. 12 has given the

Again, the expression

pNH pD

critics,

as well as the commentators,

really nothing

a great deal of trouble.

But

it is

more than

an anachronism, such as we have already met with before

in this
^*

book

(cf.

42).
to
.
.

That David sought

in ver. 12
: !

remain incognito
HlS
i^i'H
!

at

Akish's court

is

evident from

the

words

TlT HT N^l.

To

be continued)

VOL.VI.

Qq

NOTE ON 'AN AUTOGRAPH RKSPONSUM OF

MAIMONIDES'
Dr.Halper's
of Maimonides'

{JQR., VI, 225

ff.).

interesting article

on 'An Autograph Responsum

all

will

be welcomed by

students of Maimonides.

The

following remarks

may

indicate the interest with which the

writer has read Dr. Halper's publication.

The

bibliography of Maimonides' resi)onsa and autographs

p. 225, n. 2,

quoted on

may be

considerably amplified.

Four

autograph pages of the Moj-e were published by Hirschfeld in

JQR-t XV, 678 ff. An autograph responsum was published by me \vl MGWJ.,\A\,(32\^. An Arabic letter, bearing in all
likelihood Maimonides' autograph
S.

signature,

was published by
vol.

H. Margulies, of Florence,

in the

same magazine,

XLIV,

ff.

Finally, the

Arabic original of Maimonides' famous anti-Karaite

decree was edited by

me

in the

same Review,

vol.

LIII, 469

ff.

Professor Simonsen, in Copenhagen, referred to by Dr. Halper

(p. 226),
is

now

in

possession not only of the well-known Arabic

manuscript of Maimonides' responsa underlying Tama's translation,

but also of a copy of the Bodleian

MS.

(Catal.

Neubauer,

No. 814) containing a goodly

in Arabic, see

number

of Maimonides' responsa
p. 213.

Simonsen

in

Guttmajin Jiibelschrift,
it

From
I

his remarks, ibidem, p. 217,

appears that he

is

the happy owner

of

still

another collection of Maimonides' responsa.

I

may

add

that

myself possess a photographic reproduction of the

Bodleian MS.
Dr. Halper's
structions as
to a
I
'

characterization
(p.

of Maimonides'

Arabic con-

ungranimatical'

225)

is

erroneous and, applied

man

of Maimonides' standard of culture, extremely unjust.

(in the introduction to
I), in

have on numerous occasions

Der arabische

Sprachgc branch des Maimonides (part

the inlrodyctory gram-

matical sketch to Sclcciiuns from the Arabic Writings of Maimonides,

588

NOTE ON
pp. xiv
ff.,

JOR.,

VI,

225 FF.

FRIEDLAENDER
ff.)

589

in the article

Die arabische Sprache

des Maimonides^ in

Moses ben Mawiott, edited byGuttmann,vol. 1,421

in

demonstrated

detail

that Maimonides' Arabic

is

essentially the language

generally used during that period.

As

for the

responsum
1.

itself, it is

interesting to note the

two

dots above the n (recto,

16).

It is characteristic of

Maimonides'

way

of spelling, and

is

found
I.

in
6),

the other autographs as well.

The

use of
1

after "IN (verso,

supposedly an imitation of the

rabbinic

^''Nin, is

also typical of
It is

Maimonides'

style.

Recto,

1.

14,

add njy

after \"I3D.
left

found

in the photograph,

and has no

doubt been

out by mistake.
nna^^'l

The

explanation of

and

ni"in"'1 (p.

227, n. 5) as

Hebrew
is

words followed by Arabic

acceptable.
refers to the

suffixes (=5~i2*C'l

and saiTl)

un-

The

suffixes are Hebreiv,

titles '31

and the feminine gender

which are feminine.

preceding
is

mp''

min,

The

construction

an imitation of an identical Arabic usage,

in a letter addressed to

an example of which may be found

MaimonideS; published by
of

me

in the Jubilee
title

volume

in

honour

Hermann Cohen
p.

(Judaica) under the

263, n.
7.

Ein

Gratidationsbrief

an Maimonides^

Israel Friedlaender.
Jewish Theological Seminary of America.

END OF VOLUME

VI,

NEW

SERIES.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

A PUBLICATION

DEVOTED TO JEWISH HISTORY, LITERATURE, PHILOLOGY, ARCHAEOLOGY,

AND COGNATE SUBJECTS

and
Series of this Review, edited by Cyrus Adler S. ScHECHTER, is a continuation of the Quarterly published in London from 1888 to 1908. The subscription price is fixed at Three Dollars per annum. Back volumes of the

The New

Series can be furnished to the Subscribers at Two Dollars per volume. Checks or Money Orders should be made payable to the Jewish Quarterly Review. Manuscripts, Books for- Review, Checks, &c., should be addressed to the Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, Broad and York Streets, Philadelphia, Pa., U.S.A.

New

THE

KARAITE HALAKAH AND

ITS RELATION TO SADDUCEAN, SAMARITAN, AND PHILONIAN

HALAKAH By BERNARD REVEL,

Eighty-eight pages.

M.A., Pii.D.
Price $1.00 post paid.

Cloth bound.

A VOLUME OF THE

BOOK OF PRECEPTS
By

HEFES

B.

YASLIAH

edited from an arabic ms. in the library of the dropsie college, translated into hebrew and provided with critical notes and an introduction

By
278 pages.

B.

HALPER,

M.A., Ph.D.
Price $3.00 post paid.

Cloth bound.

For Sale by

THE DROPSIE COLLEGE FOR HEBREW AND COGNATE LEARNING,

Broad and York Streets, Philadelphia, Penna.

BIND

1943

DS 101
J5 V.6

The Jewish quarterly review.

New ser.

PLEASE

DO NOT REMOVE
FROM
THIS

CARDS OR

SLIPS

POCKET

UNIVERSITY

OF TORONTO

LIBRARY

v::>^*a^xr^.-.

..>

,-^n^- ..,

-^np^.^^-

-...-^-i^^^.r